Stom  f^e  feifirarj?  of 
 (pxofcBBot  ^(Xmnd  (Jlttffer 
 
 in  (Stemorj?  of 
 
 (presented  6g 
 ^amuef  (giiffet  QBrecfttnrtbge  feong 
 
 to  t^e  feifirarg  of 
 (princefon  tUo(o$ic(X(  ^emtnarg 
 
THE 
 
 General  Prevalence 
 
 O    F      T    H    E  * 
 
 WORSHIP 
 
 O     F 
 
 HUMAN  SPIRITS, 
 
 IN      THE 
 
 ANTIENT  HEATHEN  NATIONS, 
 ASSERTED   and  PROVED. 
 
 By      HUGH      FARMER. 
 
 ^hey  changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into  an  image 
 made  like  to  corruptible  MAN.     Rom.  i.  23. 
 
 Quinimo  non  omnes,  quos  jam  templis  liabetis  vellris, 
 mortalium  fuftuliftis  ex  numero,  et  coelo  fideribufque 
 donallis  ?     Arnobius,  ad<v,  Gentes,  /.  21. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed    by    G  A  L  A  B  I  N   and     BAKER, 
 
 FOR. 
 
 J.   BUCKLAND,   and  G.   ROBINSON,    in  Pater- 
 nofter  Row,  and  T.  CAD  ELL,  in  the  Strand, 
 
 M.DCC.LXXXIIL 
 
(     iii     ) 
 
 THE 
 
 INTRODUCTION, 
 
 IT  may,  at  firft  view,    feem  to  be   a 
 matter  of  no  concern  to  Chriftians, 
 in  the  prefent  age,  what  the  heathen  gods 
 were;  whether  the  objecls  of  nature,   or 
 human fpirits,    or  both;    and,  if  both, 
 whether  they  were  worfhipped  fo  early  as 
 the  days  of  Mofes.     Equally  unintereft- 
 ing  may  it  appear,  whether  idolatry  un- 
 derwent any  change  in  the   long   inter- 
 val between  Mofes  and  the  Meffiah,  Ne- 
 verthelefs,  a  few  refle6lions  may  ferve  to 
 convince  us,  that  a  critical  knowledge  of 
 thefe  fubjefts   may  anfwer  many  valua- 
 ble purpofes. 
 
 A    2  I.  It 
 
(     iv     ) 
 
 I .  It  IS  evidently  neceflary  to  imprefs 
 us  with  a  due  fenfe  of  the  high  Impor- 
 tance of  the  Jewifti  and  Chriftian  difpen- 
 fations.     One  great  defign  of  both  thefe 
 difpenfations  was,  the  cure  of  idolatry. 
 But,  if  we  are  not  fenfible  how  great  an 
 evil  the  ancient  idolatry  was,  how  dif- 
 honourable  to  the   majefty   of  heaven, 
 and  how  injurious  both  to  the  virtue  and 
 happinefs  of  mankind,  we  cannot  poffi- 
 bly  fet  a  juft  value  upon  our  deliverance 
 from  it.     In  order  to  eftimate  this  aright, 
 we   mufl  know  what  the   obje6ls,    and 
 alfo  what  the  rites,  of  heathen  worfhip, 
 were  ^  what  immoral   a6lions  are  afcri- 
 bed  to  the  former  j  what   follies,  pollu- 
 tions, and  cruelties,  conftituted  the  lat- 
 ter.    Examine  the  religion  of  Egypt  and 
 Phenicia,  in  the  days  of  Mofes,  and  you 
 will  be  fenfible  that  even  the  Jewifli  dif- 
 penfation,  inferior  as  it  is  to  the  Chriftian, 
 and  though  principally  defigntd  as  a  pre- 
 paration for  it,  was,  neverthelefs,  in  it- 
 felf,  an  ineftimable  blefTmg,    by  dire6l- 
 ing  all  religious  worftiip  to  the  only  pro- 
 per 
 
(       V       ) 
 
 per  objeft  of  it,  the  one  true  God,  the  om- 
 nipotent Creator  and  righteous  Governor 
 of  the  whole  world ;  and,  by  eftablifliing  a 
 ritual,  that  was  chafte,  infl:ru6live,  and, 
 to  a  people  fo  difpofed  and  circumftanced 
 as  the  Ifraelites  were,  neceffary  to  pre- 
 ferve  them  from  idolatry.  Thofe,  who 
 are  unhappily  prejudiced  againft  divine 
 revelation,  endeavour,  in  order  to  de- 
 preciate it,  to  keep  out  of  fight  the  o- 
 dious  parts  of  the  pagan  religion,  and  are 
 even  lavifh  in  its  praife.  This  makes  it 
 the  more  neceffary,  that  Chriftians,  with 
 an  honeft  difdain  of  all  partiality,  fliould 
 inform  themfelves  what  it  really  was. 
 
 2.  An  accurate  knowledge  of  the  hea- 
 then idolatry  ferves  to  manifeft  the  pe- 
 culiar propriety  of  thofe  extraordinary 
 means,  which  were  employed  to  accom- 
 plifh  our  deliverance  from  it,  and  to  in- 
 troduce and  eftablifh  the  religions  of 
 Mofes^andthe  Meffiah.  If  the  heathen 
 gods  were  no  other  than  the  obje6ls  of 
 nature,  and  fuch  human  fpirits  as  were 
 fuppofed  to  prefide  over  them,  then  the 
 
 A  3  miracles. 
 
(     vi     ) 
 
 itiiracleSj  by  which  the  miffions  of  the  old 
 and  new  Teftament  prophets  were  con- 
 firmed, were  the  moft  proper  that  could 
 be  chofen  -,  becaufe  they  were  famples 
 of  that  abfolute  dominion  over  nature*, 
 which  Jehovah  challenged  as  his  peculiar 
 prerogative  ;  and,  confequently,  a  full 
 confutation  of  all  the  claims  of  fi6titious 
 deities, 
 
 3.  The  miracles  of  the  old  Teftament 
 were  defignednot  merely  for  the  confuta- 
 tion, but  alfo,  in  fome  cafes,  for  the  pu- 
 nifhment,  of  idolatry.  If  this  falfe  wor- 
 Ihip  was,  what  fome  reprefent  it,  merely  a 
 fpeculative  and  innocent  error,  it  will  be 
 difficult  to  vindicate  the  difpleafare  of  God 
 againft  it.  But  we  know  that  it  confift- 
 ed  in  the  practice  of  the  very  worft  crimes ; 
 fuch  as   inceft*,    fodomy-j-,    beftiality§, 
 
 *  This  fubjefl  is  well  illuftrated  by  Dr.  H.  Owen,  iu 
 his  fermons  at  Mr.  Boyle's  le<Slure, 
 
 *  Compare  Levit.  xviii.  and  ch.  xx.  19, 
 f  Patrick  on  i  Kings,  xiv.  24. 
 
 §  In  Egypt,  Strabo,  1.  17,  p.  1154.  Herodot.  1.  2, 
 c.  46.  ^lian.  Animal,  c.  19.  In  Canaan,  Levit. 
 xviii,  24.  •     ' 
 
 and 
 
(     ^li     ) 
 and  every  pofTible  fpecies  of  impurity;  in 
 
 the  murder  alfo  of  innocent  children,  and 
 various  other  cruelties.  Every  ahomina^ 
 tion  to  yehovah  nvhich  he  hateth^y  that  i^, 
 all  thofe  things  which  are  moft  oppofite 
 to  the  rectitude  of  the  divine  nature,  were 
 rites  of  idolatrous  worfhip,  or  what  they 
 did  unto  their  gods.  Such  crimes  as  thefe 
 are  condemned  by  the  light  of  reafon, 
 and  were  punifhed  by  the  civil  magif- 
 ftrate,  except  when  they  were  prefcribed 
 by  religion ;  which  vindicates  the  juftice, 
 and  demonftrates  the  necefTity,  of  thofe 
 fevere  methods,  ufed  to  reftrain  the  idol- 
 atry of  Egypt  and  Canaan. 
 
 4.  Juft  ideas  of  the  antient  idolatry 
 will  enable  us  to  difcover  a  farther  reafon 
 for  the  punifhment  of  it :  I  mean  only 
 when  the  unerring  Judge  of  the  world 
 takes  the  work  into  his  own  hands,  or 
 immediately  and  by  undeniable  miracles 
 commiffions  others  to  aft  as  the  minifters 
 of  his  j  uftice.  As  the  rites  of  idolatry  con- 
 fifted  in  the  indulgence  of  fenfual  and  o- 
 ther  crimhial  pafiions,  fothe  gods  them- 
 
 *   Dcut.   xii.   31. 
 
 A  4  felvcs 
 
(     viii     ) 
 felv€s  were  examples^  of  the  crimes  prac- 
 tifed  in  their  worfliip.     Now,  whenever 
 vicie  comes  to  be  confidered  as  a  divine 
 quality  as  well  as  an  aft  of  devotion,  or, 
 in  other  words,  when  it  is  pra6lifed  both 
 in  honour,  and  in  imitation,  of  the  gods, 
 it  is  hereby  authorifed  and  fanftified ;  and 
 men  muft  fmk  into  the  lowefl  degeneracy* 
 Their   very   under/landings   as  well  as 
 their  hearts  muft  be  fo  depraved,    that 
 no  other  evidence  or  arguments  can  pro- 
 duce a  powerful  and  feeling  convi6lion  of 
 the  purity  of  the  divine  Being,  and  of  his 
 abhorrence  of  idolatry  with  its  attend- 
 ant vices,  but  immediate  and  miraculous 
 difplays  of  hisjuftice  in  its  punifhment. 
 If  the  judgements  of  the  Almighty  upon 
 it,  in  the  days  of  Mofes  and  Jofhua,  did 
 not  reclaim  the  moft  hardened  offenders, 
 they  ferved  as  ufeful  warnings  to  others* 
 
 ^  Concerning  the  {hocking  immoralities  of  the  gods, 
 feebelow^p.  281.  and  Lucian,  v.  i.  p.  326.  ed.  Amflel. 
 Their  vices  arc  fo  well  known,  that  they  need  not  be 
 enumerated  ;  and  many  of  them  were  too  grofs  to  be 
 mentioned.  Calumny  itfelf  could  not  afperfe  the  hea- 
 then gods  more  than  their  own  votaries  have  done.  Their 
 example  was  often  pleaded  in  julliiication  of  the  word 
 
 crimes. 
 
 5.  Idol- 
 
(     ix     ) 
 
 5.  Idolatry,  however,  was  not  the  means 
 of  moral  corruption  equally  in  all  coun-^ 
 tries.  Human  facrifices",  for  example, 
 and,  perhaps,  fome  other  flagitious  rites 
 of  idolatry**,  were  not  fo  common  in 
 Egypt  as  in  Canaan.  And  this  diffe- 
 rence accounts  for  the  different  dealings 
 of  God  with  thofe  nations.  The  im- 
 piety of  Egypt,  a  country  enlightened  by 
 fcience%  even  in  the  days  of  Mofes,  and 
 its  cruel  oppreflion  of  the  Ifraelites,  defer- 
 ved  very  fevere  chaflifement  5  efpecially, 
 after  an  obflinate  refiftance  of  the  moft 
 awakening   and  powerful  means  of  con- 
 
 <^  Notwithflanding  what  Herodotus  (1.  2.  c.  45.)  has 
 offered  to  the  contrary,  the  Egyptians  did  fometimes 
 (though  not  often)  {lain  their  altars  with  human  blood.. 
 See  Eufebius,  1.  4.-  c.  16.  Porphyry  de  Abflinent. 
 1.  2.  §.  55.  Theodoret,  Serm.  vii.  p.  589.  Butthishor- 
 rid  rite  of  idolatry  was  very  frequently  pradlifed  by  the 
 Canaanites,  and  withcircumftances  of  fingular  barbari- 
 ty; as  appears  from  the  hiilory  of  their  defcen dents  at 
 Carthage.  Few  are  Grangers  to  the  account  given  of 
 their  cruel  facrifices  by  Diodorus  Siculus,  Eufebius,  and 
 other  writers.  It  is  abridged  by  Mr.  Bryant,  in  his  Of- 
 fernjations ^  p.  278  etfeq. 
 
 ^  Herodotus  tells  us,  that  the  Egyptians  were  the  firH; 
 who  would  not  allow  the  ufe  of  women  in  their  temples. 
 L..2.  c.  64.  «  Ads  vii.  22. 
 
 vi6>ion. 
 
C   X   ) 
 
 viclion.  But  the  Canaanites,  befides  re- 
 lifting  the  fame,  and  even  additional  e- 
 vidence,  were  funk  into  a  deeper  corrup- 
 tion ;  and  were,  for  this  reafon^,  difpof^ 
 feffed  and  deftroyed.  Many  nations,  and 
 the  Jews  in  particular,  have,  in  the  courfe 
 of  God's  common  providence,  fuffered 
 an  almofl:  total  extirpation.  But  never 
 did  any  people  more  deferve  fuch  an  aw- 
 ful ftroke  of  juftice  than  the  Canaanites. 
 Nor  was  this  more  an  aft  of  juftice  than 
 of  mercy  to  a  people  fo  refolutely  berit 
 upon  their  own  dellruflion. 
 
 6.  A  knowledge  of  the  heathen  deities 
 is  neceflary  to  juftify  the  cenfure  pafTed 
 upon  them  by  the  prophets  of  God,  and 
 to  vindicate  the  proofs  of  their  own  di- 
 vine authority.  In  the  Englifli  tranfla- 
 tion  of  the  bible  ^,  and  in  the  writings  of 
 moft  Chriftians,  the  pagan  deities  are  re- 
 prefented  as  devils ;  and  devils  have  been 
 
 ^  The  cruelty  and  pollutions  of  their  worihip  are  ex» 
 preilly  affigned  as  the  ground  of  their  punifhment.  Levit.- 
 xviii.  24,25.     Deut.  xii.   31. 
 
 g  Levit.  xvii,  7.  Deut.  xxxvii.  17.  2  Chron.  xi.  15. 
 Pr.  cvi.  37.     I  Cor.  x.  20,  21, 
 
 generally 
 
(  xi  ) 
 
 generally  thought  to  have  very  great 
 power  over  the  natural  world,  and  to  be 
 able  to  perform  reaU  or  (which,  in  effeft, 
 is  the  fame  thing)  feemijig^  miracles. 
 Now,  if  the  heathen  gods  have  fuch  ex- 
 tenfive  power,  why  does  the  fcripture  fo 
 often  reproach  them  with  utter  impo- 
 tence? To  fuppofe,  with  a  late  writer  \ 
 that  they  are  faid  to  be  nothing  in  the 
 fcriptures  only  as  gods^  is  to  pervert  the 
 obvious  meaning,  and  even  (unintentio- 
 nally) to  afperfe  the  charafter,  of  the  pro- 
 phets of  God.  The  heathens  afcribed,  to 
 the  objefts  of  their  worfliip,  prophecies 
 and  miracles,  and  the  power  of  doing 
 both  good  and  evil  to  mankind  >  and  on 
 this  ground  afTerted  their  divinity.  On 
 the  other  hand,  the  prophets  of  God  de- 
 -clare  they  had  no  fuch  power,  no  more 
 than  their  fenfelefs  images  >  and  hence  con- 
 cluded that  they  were  not  gods ;  nay,  they 
 even  allow  that,  in  cafe  they  had  the  pow- 
 ers afcribed  to  them  by  their  votaries, 
 they  would  be  entitled  to  the  worfnip  of 
 
 ^  Fell,  Demoniacs,  p.  60,  fee  alfo  p.  57.  Some  pre- 
 tend that  devils  perfonated  the  heathen  gods  :  a  point 
 that  is  examined  in  DilTert.  on  Mir.  p.  240-247. 
 
 mankind. 
 
{     xii     ) 
 
 mankind*  Shew  us  things  for  to  come  here^ 
 after ^  that  we  may  know  that  ye  are  gods ; 
 yea^  do  good  or  do  evil^  that  we  may  be  dif 
 mayed^  or  "  thenfoall  he  ft  ruck  at  once  with 
 admiration  and  terror^ ''  But^  behold^  ye  are 
 lefs  than  nothings  and  your  operation  is  lefs 
 thafi  nought  *.  Let  us  fuppofe  that  the 
 heathen  gods  had  accepted  this  challenge, 
 foretold  future  events,  and  done  both 
 good  and  evil  to  mankind,  or  either; 
 their  votaries  might  have  replied  to  the 
 prophet,  "  Our  gods  have  aftually  ex- 
 ^'  erted,andthereforecertainly poffefs,  the 
 "  povi^ers  and  prerogatives  we  afcribe  to 
 *'  them,  and  vv^hich  you  deny  them.  Moft 
 "  falfely  therefore  do  you  affirm,  that 
 *^  they-f-  and  their  operations  are  nothings 
 "  and  lefs  than  nothing.  They  have  given 
 ^ ^  you  the  very  proofs  you  required  of  their 
 "  being  ^^^y;  and  therefore,  upon  your 
 ^'  own  principles,  you  ought  now  to  ac- 
 "  knowledge  them  under  this  chara6ler« 
 "  To  pretend,  after  the  point  is  deci- 
 *^  ded,    that   all  you  meant  was,   that 
 
 «  If.  xli.  23.  Bp.  Lowthin  loc.  *  V.  24.  Id. 
 
 f  Compare  Jerem.  xxxi.  15.  cited  below,  p.  xxxiii. 
 
 ''  thev 
 
€C 
 <C 
 <C 
 
 cc 
 <c 
 
 {     xili     ) 
 
 they  are  nothing  only  as  gods  ^  is  mere  pre- 
 varication 'y  it  is  flying  from  your  own 
 propofal,  and  rejefting  the  evidence  of 
 their  divinity  you  declared  you  v/ould 
 admit,"     If  the  Scripture  teaches  any 
 thing  with  clearnefs  and  certainty,  it  is  this ; 
 that  the   heathen  gods  are  abfolutely  in- 
 capable of  interpofmg  at  all  in  human  af- 
 fairs''.     And  the  truth  of  this  reprefen- 
 tation  will  be  allowed  by  fuch  as  know 
 that  thofe  gods  were  no   other  than  ei- 
 ther the  objedls  of  nature  or  deified  men; 
 the  former,  being  merely  the  pailive  in- 
 ftruments  of  providence,  and    the  latter 
 having  no  intercourfe  with  this   lower 
 world  ^     If  any  of  the  rivals  of  the  true 
 God  can  perform  or  imitate  real  mira- 
 cles, how  can  we  vindicate  the  ufe  which 
 the  Scripture  makes  of  thefe  w^orks,  as 
 immediate  divine  atteftations  to  the  mif- 
 fion  and  doctrine  of  a  prophet  ? 
 
 7.    A   right  underftandhig    of     the 
 change  idolatry  underwent,  in  the  inter- 
 
 *  SeeDifTert.  on  Mir.  p.  233-239. 
 -  Id.  p.  161,  et  fcc[. 
 
 val 
 
(     xiv     ) 
 
 val  between  Mofes  and  the  Meffiah, 
 ferves  to  fhew  how  perfe6lly  both  their 
 inftitutions  correfponded  to  the  diffe- 
 rence, in  the  religious  Hate  of  the  world, 
 in  their  refpeftive  times. 
 
 Polytheifm  was  originally  founded  in 
 a  falfe  perfuafion  of  the  divinity  of  na^ 
 ture    and  its   conftituent  parts ;    more 
 particularly  of  the  fun,  moon,  and  ftars. 
 This  opinion  was  generally  received  in 
 the  early  ages  of  the  world,  and  had  cer- 
 tainly  taken  faft  hold  of  the  minds  of 
 men  in  the  age  of  Mofes.     At  this  pe- 
 riod, therefore,  it  pleafed  God  to  difplay 
 his  own  fovereign  dominion  over  nature, 
 over  all  the  elements,  and  the  heavenly 
 bodies ;  and  to  make  nature  herfelf,  and 
 all  her  powers,  the  inftruments  of  pu- 
 nifhing  thofe,  who  had  fet  them  up  as 
 gods,    in  oppofition  to  himfelf.    Hereby 
 he  afforded   the  v/orld  the  mod  feafond" 
 lie  as  well  as   flriking    confutation   of 
 the  claims  of  thofe  gods,  and  demon- 
 ftration  of  his  own    charafler,  as  fole 
 monarch  of  the  univerfe.    He  might  have 
 
 delivered 
 
(       XV       ) 
 
 delivered  his  people  from  the  bondage  of 
 Egypt,  and  put  them  into  the  poffeffion 
 of  Canaan,  by  other  methods  -,  but  he 
 chofe  to  do  it  at  fuch  a  time,  and  in  fuch 
 a  manner,  as  would  convey  the  moft  fui- 
 table  and  necefiaryinftruftion.  And  it 
 was  doubtlefs  with  the  view  of  conveying 
 this  inftruclion,  and  manifefting  him- 
 felf  to  mankind  at  this  period  by  the 
 miracles  he  performed  in  Egypt  and  Ca- 
 naan, that  he,  to  whom  all  his  works  are 
 known  from  the  beginning,  placed  the 
 Ifraelites  in  fuch  circumftances,  and  gave 
 them  fuch  promifes,  as  would  naturally 
 call  for  thefe  miracles. 
 
 In  the  long  interval  between  Mofes 
 and  the  Meffiah,  idolatry  feems  to  have 
 undergone  a  confiderable  change  -,  not  in- 
 deed in  it's  outward  form  and  appear- 
 ance, but  In  the  opinion  entertained  of  the 
 gods.  When  a  fpirlt  of  enquiry  began  to 
 prevail  in  the  civilized  nations,  the  divi-* 
 rjity  of  nature  was  called  in  queftion. 
 Even  the  fun,  moon,  and  iiars,  wereconfi- 
 dered,  by  many  of  the  Greek  philofopbers, 
 as  inanimate  fubftances,  long  before  the 
 
 commencement 
 
(     xvi     ) 
 
 commencement  of  the  Chriftian  aera. 
 Cotta,  who  lived  near  it,  diftinguifhes 
 between  the  gods  and  the  objefls  of  na- 
 ture, which  had  been  confounded  toge- 
 her".  And  Plutarch,  who  lived  fomewhat 
 later,  argues  largely  againft  thofe,  who 
 gave  the  names  of  gods  to  things  that  had 
 neither  fenfe  nor  foul".  The  doftrine  of 
 the  divinity  of  nature  had  loft  confiderable 
 ground  in  the  time  of  Chrift  ;  not  merely 
 through  the  improvement  of  fcience,  but 
 alfo  through  the  influence  of  another 
 caufe,  viz.  the  learned  nations  having 
 made  human  fpirits  the  more  immediate 
 objects  of  their  eftablifhed  worfhip  from 
 the  early  ages  of  the  world.  Befides,  ma- 
 ny eminent  philofophers,  and  Plato  in 
 particular,  had  taught  feveral  centuries 
 
 m  Cotta  objefls  againil  the  Eleufinian  and  other  myf- 
 
 teries,  **  that,  being  explained,  and  reduced  to  the  ftan- 
 
 i.  >#^.  *'  dard  of  reafon,  we  were  made  acquainted  rather  with 
 
 ^^Jf  **  the  nature  of  things  than  with //^^^o^i."     Quibus  ex- 
 
 plicatis,  ad  rationemque  revocatis,  rerum  magis  natura 
 
 cognofciturquamdeorum.     Ap,  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  i. 
 
 c.  42. 
 
 «  Plutarch.  If.  &  Ofir,  p.  377. 
 
 before 
 
(     xvii     ) 
 
 before  the  coming  of  Chrift,  that  all  in- 
 tercourfe,  between  the  celeftial  gods  and 
 men  on  earth,  was  carried  on  by  the  me- 
 diation of  demons,  who,  on  that  ac- 
 count, weretobeworfliipped  and  invoked. 
 This  do6lrine  was  in  fuch  high  reputa- 
 tion, when  the  Gofpel  was  firil:  publifhed, 
 that  it  was  generally  received  by  the  de- 
 vout Pagans,  and  even  by  many  learned 
 Jews,  who  afcribed  to  angels  (that  is, 
 to  fuch  human  fpirits  as,  in  their  opinion, 
 became  angels")  the  fame  offices  which 
 the  Heathens  did  to  demons-f*. 
 
 In  thefe  circumftances  there  was  a  pe- 
 culiar propriety  in  ajftording  the  world 
 full  evidence,  that,  as  there  is  but  one 
 God,  one  univerfal  fovereign  of  nature, 
 (as  Mofes  had  amply  demonftrated,)  fo 
 there  is  but  one  Lord^',  even  Jefus 
 Chrift,  who  has  all  power  given  unto 
 him  both  in  heaven  and  on  earthy  to 
 whom  angels,  principalities,  and  pow- 
 ers, fpirits  of  every  rank  and  order,    are 
 
 •  Diilert.  on  Mir.  p.  i8i.     f  ^'hitbyon  ColofT.  il.  i8. 
 
 *  I  Cor.  viii,  4,  5,  6.      i   Tim.  ii.  5. 
 
 b  made 
 
(  xviii  ) 
 made  fubjeft)  and  who  is  the  only  me- 
 diator between  God  and  man,  the  only 
 perfon  appointed  to  convey  divine  blef- 
 lin2:s  to  us,  and  in  whofe  name  alone 
 we  are  to  prefent  our  addrefles  to  God. 
 Chrift  eilablifhed  his  claim  to  be  Lord  of 
 mankind,  without  any  rival,  by  the  ex- 
 ercife  of  a  miraculous  power  over  their 
 bodies  and  minds,  by  rifmg  from  the 
 dead  to  take  poflellion  of  his  univerfal 
 kingdom;  and  by  difpenfmg  divine  gifts 
 to  his  followers.  Hereby  he  difgraced  all 
 the  vain  pretences  of  the  heathen  demons, 
 who  remained  under  the  power  of  death, 
 and  had  never  given  proof  of  their  ha- 
 ving any  dominion  over  the  human  race. 
 
 8.  The  perfecl  correfpondence  of  the 
 different  inftitutions  of  Mofes  and  the 
 Meffiah  to  the  ftate  of  the  world,  at  the 
 refpeftive  times  of  their  being  introduced, 
 may  be  farther  illuftrated  on  another  im- 
 portant article,  that  of  a  future  ftate. 
 
 The  want  of  explicit  information 
 concerning  this  ftate,  in  the  religion  of 
 Mofes,  has  been  often  urged  as  an  objec- 
 tion againft  it  3  to  which  a   knowledge 
 
 of 
 
(      XIX       ) 
 
 of  the  heathen  idolatry  will  enable  us  to 
 return  a  fatisfaftory  anfwer,  though  it 
 has,  I  apprehend,  been  hitherto  over- 
 looked. The  worfhip  of  the  dead  ne- 
 ceflarily  implied  a  belief  of  the  immorta- 
 lity of  the  fouF.  Now  this  fpecies  of 
 idolatry  fprarig  up  in  Egypt  and  Pheni- 
 cia,  before  the  time  of  Mofes,  and  was 
 even  pra6lifed  by  the  Iffaelites  in  the 
 wildernefs,  as  will  be  fhewn  hereafter* 
 Confequently,  the  principle,  upon  which 
 this  pra6lice  was  founded,  muft  have 
 been  received  by  them  in  the  days  of  the 
 Jewifli  legiflator.  In  thefe  circumftan- 
 ces,  could  it  be  necefiary  to  inculcate 
 upon  the  Ifraelites  the  do6lrine  of  the 
 immortality  of  the  foul,  which  they  had 
 already  imbibed  and  greatly  perverted  ? 
 It  was  much  more  becoming  the  wif- 
 dom  of  God,  becaufe  more  for  the  bene- 
 fit of  men,  to  rectify  their  miflakes  con- 
 cernhig  it.     With  this  view,  the  Ifrael- 
 
 r  '*  The  law,  which  ecmmands  thofe  confecrated  from 
 *'  amongft  men  to  be  worftiipped,  fhews  that  the  fouls  of 
 "  all  are  immortal."  Cicero,  cited  iu  the  following 
 fheet-s  together  with  others  who  hold  the  fame  language^ 
 P.    :;o3,  304.. 
 
 b  2  ites 
 
(       XX       ) 
 
 ites  were  inftrufted,  that  death  was  not, 
 in  itfelf,  the  bleffing  they  imagmed,  but 
 was  the  penalty  of  man's  difobedience, 
 and  a  ftanding  monument  of  God's  dif- 
 pleafure  againft  it)  that  it  reduced  to 
 duft  all  of  man  that  was  taken  from  the 
 duft,  that  is,  his  corporeal  frame  5  and, 
 confequently,  that,  inftead  of  advancing 
 him  to  divine  dominion  over  the  world, 
 it  deftroyed  all  his  communication 
 with  it,  which  was  maintained  only  by 
 means  of  his  bodily  organs.  At  the 
 fame  time  the  Ifraelites  were  farther 
 informed,  that  it  was  God's  good 
 pleafure  to  redeem  mankind  from  the 
 power  of  death,  at  a  future  period, 
 by  that  diftlnguifhed  perfonage  whom 
 he  fhould  appoint,  and  who  was  to 
 be,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  the  feed  of  the 
 womajt.  Thus,  while  Mofes  laid  a  foun- 
 dation for  faith  in  God  and  the  hope  of 
 redemption,  and  warned  men  againft 
 expefting  this  ineftimable  bleffing  in 
 a  courfe  of  difobedience,  he  fubverted 
 the  very  foundation  of  the  worfliip  paid 
 to  the  dead. 
 
 In 
 
(     xxi     ) 
 
 In  like  manner,   the   account,  which 
 Mofes  has  given  of  God's  creating  the 
 world  by  his  almighty  fiat,  is   calculated 
 to  deftroy  that  other  fpecies  of  idolatry, 
 the  worfliip  of  the  heavenly  bodies.    The 
 doftrine  of  the  Jewifh  prophet  on  both 
 thefe  points,  befides  it's  general  ufe,  has 
 the  farther  recommendation  of  a  peculiar 
 propriety,  when  confidered  in  its  relation 
 and  fubferviency  to  that  fyftem  of  reli- 
 gion, which  he  was  appointed  to  eilablifli 
 upon  the  ruins  of  all  polytheifm  and  i- 
 dolatry. 
 
 Though  the  immortality  of  the  foul 
 was  the  univerfal  creed  in  the  age  of 
 Mofes,  the  cafe  was  far  otherv/ife  in  the 
 days  of  Chrift.  Many  then  taught,  that 
 the  foul  of  man  perifhes  with  his  body, 
 and,  confequently,  that  there  would  be  no 
 refurreftionof  thedead,  nor  ftate  of  fu- 
 ture retribution.  God,  therefore,  who 
 from  the  beginning  had  determined  to  ac- 
 complifhthe  redemption  of  man  by  Jefus 
 Chrift,  and  by  him  to  put  the  righteous 
 into  the  poffeflion  of  that  kingdom  prepa- 
 
 b  3  red 
 
(     xxii     ) 
 
 red  for  them  before  the  foundation  of  the 
 world,  was  pleafed  to  fend  him  into  the 
 world  at  this  period,  to  publifh  the  doc- 
 trine of  eternal  life,  and  to  affert  his  own 
 divine  commiflion  to  difpenfethis  bleffing. 
 And  what  more  proper  evidence  of  both 
 could  there  be,  than  his  raifmg  others  to 
 life,  and  his  own  refurreftion  and  exalta- 
 tion, as  the  reward  of  his  obedient  and  be- 
 nevolent death  ?  This  was  a  demonftra- 
 tion,  adapted  to  every  capacity,  of  the  poffi- 
 bility  and  certainty  of  ourrefurreftion  and 
 of  aftate  of  future  retribution.  ThQ  method 
 of  our  rederaption  from  death  by  Jefus 
 Chrift  is  no  doubt  the  voluntary  appoint- 
 ment of  God,  and  undifcoverable  by  rea- 
 fon  i  neverthelefs,  fo  far  is  it  from  over-^ 
 turning,  that  it  illuftrates  and  confirms, 
 the  natural  proofs  of  a  future  ftate, 
 drawn  from  the  moral  perfeftions  of  the 
 Peity,  and  at  the  fame  time  removes 
 every  prefumption  againft  it,  arifing  from 
 the  deftruclion  of  our  prefent  corporeal 
 frame.  The  publication  of  this  do6lrine 
 of  hfe  and  immortality  vv^as  never  more 
 necefTary  than  in  the  time  of  Chrift  j  and 
 
 this 
 
(     xxili     ) 
 
 this  was  one  reafon  amongft  many  others 
 for  his  coming  at  that  particular  period. 
 9.  A  knowledge  of  the  ancient   ido- 
 latry is,  in  many  cafes,  highly  neceffary 
 to   explain  the  language    of    antiquity. 
 Opinions  have  a  neceffary  influence  upon 
 language;  and  we  are  very  liable  to  mif- 
 take  the  latter,  while  we  are  ignorant  of 
 the  former.     I  will  illuftrate  this  article, 
 as  I  did  the  laft,  by  examples  relative  to 
 a  future   ftate,    which   is  fo  intimately 
 conne6led  with  the  fubjeft  of  the  fol- 
 lowing fheets. 
 
 It  has  be  en  faid,  that,  according  to  He- 
 rodotus\  the  Egyptians  were  the  firft 
 who  afferted  the  immortality  of  the  foul 
 of  man.  Hence,  fome  have  been  forward 
 to  conclude,  that,  in  more  ancient  times, 
 mankind  believed  that   the  foul  perifhed 
 
 ^  Herodot.  I.  2.    C.   123.      IT^WTot  ^e  y.a.%   rovas    rov  Xoyav 
 cridu,acToq  ^c  y.xrocp^H"Ji>roqt    f$  a'hXo  Qcoov  aiei   yivoixsvov  icoverut' 
 
 Ta'JTETEi^a,  a'jTK  £?  avBp'uiirii  <r(i)[x(x.  yn/o/^EvoK  ea^uvnv'   ty.v  WE^t- 
 Vihycrhf  OB  ocvTYi  yivta-^xi  ev  r^tcp^tAiOJcrt  etectu 
 
 b  4  with 
 
(     xxiv     ) 
 
 with  the  body.  But  the  meaning  of  He- 
 rodotus is  miftaken.  This  hiftorian,  ha- 
 ving pointed  out  a  remarkable  difference 
 between  the  Greeks  and  Egyptians,  in  that 
 the  latter  affigned  to  Ceres  and  Bacchus 
 the  fovereignty  over  the  fhades  below', 
 or  over  the  region  of  the  dead  ;  adds, 
 that  they  alfo  were  the  firft  who  taught 
 this  doftrine  concerning  the  immortality 
 of  the  human  foul,  viz.  that,  upon  the 
 death  of  the  body,  it  pafTed  into  another 
 animal,  till,  after  having  in  thefpace  of 
 three  thoufand  years  animated  every  fpe- 
 cies  of  living  creatures  in  the  air,  upon 
 the  earth,  and  in  the  fea,  it  returns 
 again  into  a  human  body.  He  farther 
 informs  us,  that  feyeral  Grecians  claimed 
 this  do6lrine  as  their  own  invention, 
 According  to  Maximus  Tyrius',  Pytha- 
 goras was  the  firft  who  had  courage  to 
 broach  it  in  Greece,    grounding  it  upon 
 
 2  Diflert.  xxviii.  p.  286  ed.  Davif.  Uv^ocyo^cci;  h  0  !»- 
 t/Ao;  TT^uroq  £v  tok;  E>>A>?crtv  tToX^jt^'Aavj  iiicnv  oTit  avTO  to  jxzv  aui- 
 u,a,  TB^vri^itociy   v?  ob  '^'vyjfi  aiccrrTotaa,  oi"^7?creTa<t  avfln/JJS  Jiat   at- 
 
 the 
 
(       XXV       ) 
 
 the  pre-exiftence  of  the  foul.  From  this 
 account  it  appears,  that  the  do6lrine  of 
 the  fubfiftence  of  feparate  fouls  In  a  fab- 
 terraneous  region  was  received  by  the  E- 
 gyptians  before  that  of  their  tranfmigra- 
 tion ;  and  that  the  latter  was  an  innova- 
 tion, which  was  not  relifhed  by  the 
 Greeks  when  it  was  firft  publiifhed.  In- 
 deed, long  before  the  time  of  theSamian 
 philofopher,  the  Greeks  worfliipped  their 
 heroes,  and  confequently  believed  the  im- 
 mortality of  the  foul.  And,  amongft  the 
 Egyptians,  the  doftrine  of  its  migratiou 
 from  a  human  to  a  brutal  body  muft 
 have  been  later  than  the  worfhip  of  their 
 ancient  kings,  who  were  thought  to  be 
 tranflated  immediately  from  earth  to  hea- 
 ven. But  it  is  impoffible  that  the  opi- 
 nion of  the  everlafting  duration  of  the 
 foul  fhould  only  be  co-eval  with  that  of 
 it's  tranfmigration :  for  the  latter  necelTa- 
 rily  prefuppofes  a  belief  of  the  diftinclion 
 between  foul  and  body,  and  the  perma- 
 nence of  the  former,  after  the  diffolu- 
 tion  of  the  latter.     If  the   foul  perifhed 
 
 with 
 
(     xxvi     ) 
 
 with  the  firft  body,    it  could  not  enter  a 
 fecond'. 
 
 What  I  principally  propofed  under  this 
 head  was,  to  fliew  how  far  a  knowledge 
 of  the  antiquity  of  the  worfhip  of  dead 
 men  may  enable  us  to  fix  the  meaning  of 
 the  word  death  in  the  threatening  denoun- 
 ced againft  Adam".  If  human  fpirits 
 were  worfhipped  (as  it  will  be  fhewn  they 
 
 *  Some  have  pleaded  that  the  belief  of  a  future  Hate 
 took  it's  rife  from  the  funeral  rites  of  the  Egyptians,   de- 
 fcribedby  Diodorus  Siculus*.  It  may  be  granted,  that  the 
 £ftionsofthe  Greeks  concerning  the  ferryman  Charon, 
 the  river  over  which  he  was  to  carry  the  dead,  the  infer- 
 nal judges,  and  Elyfian  fields,  were  borrowed  from  the 
 cuftoms  of  Egypt  at  the  burial  of  their  kings,     But  this 
 was  only  an  illujiration  or  defcription  of  a  future  ftate, 
 and  was  fo  far  from  giving  rife  to,    that  it  manifeftly 
 prefuppofes,  the  belief  of  fome  fuch  ftate  amongft  the 
 Greeks.      Belides,    the  Egyptian  cuftom  of  fitting  in 
 judgement  upon  their  dead  kings  could  not  be  fo  ancient 
 as  that  of  deifying  them  ;  for  it  is  fcarce  to  be  fuppofed, 
 that  they  would  ufe  fuch' freedom  with  the  objefts  of  their 
 worfhip.     Indeed  the  very  reafon  of  burying  their  kings 
 in  pleafant  meadows  was  a  prior  perfuafion  that  after 
 death  the  foul  did  often  inhabit,  at  leafl  for  a  time,  the 
 place  where  the  body  was  depofited. 
 *  Lib.  I.  p.  I02,  103,  107,  ro8.     Ed,  WefT, 
 "  Gen.  ii.  17* 
 
 were) 
 
(     xxvii     ) 
 
 were)  in  the  age  of  Mofes,  particularly 
 in  Egypt  and  Phenicia,  then  the  word 
 death  could  not,  at  that  time,  and  in 
 thofe  countries,  denote  more  than  the 
 deftruclion  of  the  bodily  life:  for,  had  this 
 term  farther  included  in  it  the  infenfi- 
 bility  or  extinction  of  the  foul,  the  dead 
 would  not  have  been  honoured  as  gods. 
 And,  had  Mofes  ufed  it  in  this  exten- 
 live  fenfe,  he  would  (as  he  well  knew) 
 have  been  mifunderftood  by  the  Egyp- 
 tians, who  afferted  the  immortality  of 
 the  four,  and  by  the  Hebrews,  who 
 dwelt  amongft  them,  and  had  adopt- 
 ed their  fyftem  of  religion.  He  did  not, 
 however,  in  order  to  prevent  their  mif- 
 taking  him,  give  notice  of  his  ufing  the 
 word  in  a  new  and  fmgular  fenfe  ;  and, 
 therefore,  he  defigned  to  exprefs  by  it, 
 what  they  did,  the  deftruction  of  the  bo- 
 dy only.     As  this  is  a  point  on  which 
 
 ^"^  It  appears  from  Herodotus  that  this  principle  was 
 holdenin  very  ancient  times  by  the  Egyptians,  but  their 
 worihip  demonftrates  that  they  held  it  before  the  time  of 
 Mofes. 
 
 great 
 
(     xxviii     ) 
 
 great  ftrefs  is  laid  by  different  contend- 
 ing parties,  I  will  take  the  liberty  to  fug- 
 geft  a  few  confiderations,  tending  to 
 confirm  the  foregoing  interpretation  of 
 death* 
 
 It  may  be  obferved,  in  the  firft  place, 
 that,  although  one  great  defign  of  Mofes, 
 in  giving  an  account  of  the  introduction 
 of  death  into  the  world,  was  to  guard  a- 
 gainft  the  worfhip  of  departed  fpirits, 
 and,  though  nothing  could  have  anfwer- 
 ed  this  defign  more  effeftually  than  re- 
 
 prefenting  the  foul  of  Adam  as  a  mere 
 quality^  or  as  the  refult  of  the  peculiar 
 ftrudlure  and  organization  of  his  body  ; 
 yet,  fo  far  is  he  from  fuppofing  this  to  be 
 the  cafe,  that,  according  to  him,  after 
 the  body  of  the  firft  man  was  perfeftly 
 organized  by  the  immediate  hand  of  hea- 
 ven, he  did  not  become  a  living  foul  or 
 perjon^^  till  God  breathed  into  his  nojlrils 
 the  breath  of  life^:    a  principle  diftinft 
 
 "*-  That  nephejh  often  fignlfies  per/on  appears  from  Gen. 
 xvii.  14.  Levit.  IV.  2.  ch.vii.  20.  and  many  other  places. 
 y  Gen.  ii.  7. 
 
 from 
 
(     xxix     ) 
 
 from  the  duft  out  of  which  his  body  was 
 formed,  and,  therefore,  capable  of  fub- 
 fifting  in  a  ftate  of  feparation  from  it. 
 Nor  does  Mofes  ufe  the  fame  language 
 in  relating  the  formation  of  any  other 
 living  creatures  -,  which  is  a  proof  that 
 the  principle  of  life  in  man  is  of  a  fupe- 
 rior  kind  to  that  in  brutes. 
 
 Secondly.  The  ancient  patriarchs  did 
 not  believe  that  the  foul  of  man  pe- 
 riihed  with  his  body.  The  moft  ancient 
 opinion,  concerning  departed  fpirits, 
 that  we  meet  with  in  the  heathen  re- 
 cords, was,  that  they  defcended  into 
 a  fubterraneous  region,  or  a  place  in^ 
 i)ijible  to  human  fight,  called  by  the 
 Hebrews,  Jheol^  and  by  the  Greeks,  hadef'^ 
 and  that,  in  this  place,  perfons  of  the 
 fame  nation,  tribe,  and  family,  and  alfo 
 thofe  who  were  united  in  the  bonds  of 
 friendflilp,  aflbciated,    and  dwelt   toge- 
 
 2  The  Greeks  a  ffigned  to  Pluto,  the  fon  of  Saturn,  the 
 fovereignty  over  the  manfions  of  the  dead  :  which  fup- 
 pofes  a  previous  perfuafion,  in  the  moft  ancient  times,  that 
 fouls  had  their  abode  in  them.  The  regions  of  the 
 dead  arc  fpoken  of  in  Homer  and  the  moft  ancient  hea- 
 then writers. 
 
 ther. 
 
(      XX5t      ) 
 
 ther\  The  facred  writers  entertairled 
 the  fame  opinion,  fuppofed  the  fouls  of 
 the  dead  to  exift  in  Jheol  or  hades!" ^  and 
 that,  in  the  diftribution  of  them,  regard 
 was  had  to  the  former  relation  in  which 
 they  flood  to  one  another".  It  is  in  ma- 
 nifeft  allufion  to  this  opinion,  that  the 
 
 facred 
 
 »  Homer.  OdyfT.  xi.  paffim.  The  ghofls  of  Achilles 
 and  his  friend  Patroclus  were  in'company  together,  ib.  v. 
 466,  467.  Lucian  fpeaks  of  the  dead  as  divided  xarci 
 tu,  i^m  y.oci  (pvXoi.     Necuomanteia,  v.  i.  p,  334. 
 
 ^  The  references  in  Scripture  to  the  abode  of  the  fou!^ 
 of  the  dead  are  exceeding  numerous.  Many  of  them 
 are  taken  notice  of  in  EJaj  on  the  Demoniacs,  p.  211  et 
 fcq.  and  below  in' note  ^.  In  Job,  ch.  xxvi.  5,  it  iS 
 faid  in  the  original.  The  gia-ats  (probably  the  gholls  of 
 thofe  who  perijfhed  in  the  flood)  tre?nble  under  the  nva* 
 ierSy  together  ^with  their  fellonv  inhabitants.  This  verfion, 
 which  was  given  in  the  EJJayy  (ubi  fupra,)  has  lined 
 been  confirmed  by  the  higheft  authority,  fofar^  I  mean^ 
 as  ferves  my  purpofe  in  this  place  : 
 
 The  mighty  dead  tremble  from  beneath  : 
 
 The  nvafcrs,  and  they  that  d-vjsU  therein* 
 
 Bp  Lowth's  Ifaiah,  Prelim.  DilTerf.  p.  xv. 
 
 <=  To  this  diftribution  there  is  a  reference  in  Ezek* 
 
 xxxii.  22.  and  alfo  in  thofe  words  afcribed  to  Samuel,^ 
 
 I  Sam.  xxviii.  19.     Tomorrc-^v  /halt  thou  (Saul)  and  thy 
 
 fans  be  ^vith  me,  that  is,  iw  Jheol,  or  common  receptacle 
 
 of  the   dead.     I  cannot  forbear  obferving  here,   that 
 
 ther^ 
 
(  xxxi  ) 
 facred  writers  defcribe  the  dead  as  being 
 gathered  to  their  people^  and  that  Jacob, 
 under  the  dlftrfeffing  apprehenfion  of  the 
 death  of  Jofeph,  faid,  I  will  go  dow7i  into 
 jheol  unto  i7iy  fon^.  When  Jacob  uttered 
 thefe  words,  he  beheved  that  Jofeph  had 
 been  devoured  by  wild  beafts ;  and  there- 
 fore, by  fheol^  he  could  not  mean  the 
 grave ^  but  the  receptacle  of  the  dead.  As 
 this  language  is  recorded  by  Mofes,  he 
 muft  know   that  the  patriarchs  did  not 
 
 there  was  a  ftriking  refemblance  in  many  particulars 
 between  the  Jheol  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  hades  of  the 
 Greeks.  Under  the  general  term  Jhccl  the  Hebrews 
 included  both  paradife  and  gehenna,  as  the  Greeks  did 
 elyjium  and  tartarus  under  hades.  If  the  Greeks  fuppo- 
 fed  the  manlion  of  the  dead  to  be  fub terraneous,  fo  did 
 the  Hebrews  :  for  what  is  faid,  i  Sam.  xxviii.  14.  of 
 SamuePs  afcending,  that  is,  from  the  earth,  was  certain- 
 ly fpoken  agreeably  to  the  prevailing  opinion  of  thole 
 times.  Amongft  the  Greeks,  fouls,  though  they  exifted 
 in  hades,  were  thought  to  be  ignorant  of  what  palTed 
 in  the  world.  According  to  Homer,  Odyff.  1.  xi.  v. 
 456.  et  feq.  the  phantom  of  Agamemnon  defired  to 
 be  informed  by  Ulylfes  where  his  fon  reigned.  As  to 
 the  Hebrews,  their  notion  of  the  dead  was  the  fame. 
 If.  Ixiii.  16.  In  the  Scriptures  as  well  as  in  other  wri- 
 tings, the  receptacle,  of  the  dead  is  figuratively  defcri- 
 bed  as  a  houfe  with  its  gates  and  keys.  Job  xxxviii.  17. 
 Rev,  xviii.  <*  Gen.  xxxvii.   35. 
 
 conceive 
 
(     xxxli     ) 
 
 conceive  death  to  Import  the  utter  ex* 
 tinftion  of  the  foul,  and  therefore,  would 
 not  affix  this  meaning  to  It  himfelf. 
 Nay, 
 
 Thirdly^  we  know,  with  certainty, 
 that  this  prophet  himfelf  believed  the  fe- 
 parate  fubfiftence  of  the  foul,  and  has 
 even  given  it  a  divine  fanftion  :  for  he 
 reprefents  God,  as  making  this  promife 
 to  Abraham,  Tbou  JJmlt  go  to  thy  fathers 
 in  -peace".  Was  it  poffible  for  him,  then, 
 to  maintain  the  oppofite  opinion  ? 
 
 Fourthly,  none  of  the  facred  writers 
 do  ever  defcribe  death  in  terms  different 
 froo  thofe  ufed  by  perfons,  who  certain- 
 ly acknowledged  the  continuance  of  the 
 foul  after  it.  If  we  read  in  the  Pfalms^, 
 that  the  dead  (rephaim,  the  ghojis)  praife 
 not  Gody  the  fon  of  Sirach^  affirms  the 
 fame  thing,  at  a  time  when  it  is  al- 
 lowed that  the  Jews  did  believe  the  foul 
 to  be  immortal.  In  Scripture,  I  ac- 
 knowledge, death  is  defcribed  by  Jleep  j 
 
 c  Gen.  XV.   15.  *"  Pf.  Ixxxviii.    10. 
 
 g  Ecclefiailicus  xvii.  28, 
 
 but 
 
(     xxxiii     ) 
 
 but  not  to  plead  that  fleep  is  not  a  ftate 
 of  non-^exiftence,  but  of  rejl^  it  is  well 
 known  that  this  foft  image  of  death  was 
 commonly  ufed  to  exprefs  the  thing  it- 
 felf  by  thofe  who  afTerted  the  exiftence  of 
 fouls  in  hades\  Other  terms  by  which 
 the  ftate  of  the  dead  is  defcribed,  fuch  as 
 filence^  oblivion^  darknefs^  and  corruption^  re- 
 fer only  to  the  body,  or  to  the  fuppofed  ftate 
 of  the  foul  while  it  was  in  Jheol^  and  are  not 
 peculiar  to  the  facred  writers,  but  were 
 common  in  all  countries',  where  both  the 
 popular  belief  and  the  eftabliftied  worftiip 
 were  inconfiftent  with  the  notion  of  the 
 foul's  perifhing  with  the  body.  That 
 ftrong  expreffion  of  Rachel  upon  the  death 
 of  her  children,  they  are  not^^  no  more 
 imports  the  non-exiftence  of  their  fouls 
 than  of  the  materials  of  their  bodies ; 
 and  means  no  more  than  that  they  were 
 as  totally  loft  to  her  and  to  this  world 
 as  if  they  had  no  exiftence  at  all.     The 
 
 ^  See  Homer,  Iliad  II.  454. 
 
 '  See  Windet  de  vita  funftorum  flatu,  fe*5l.  2,  p.  11. 
 et  feq. 
 
 ^  Jerem.  xxxi.   15, 
 
 C  foregoing 
 
(     xxxiv     ) 
 
 foregoing  defcriptions  of  death  eafily 
 may,  and  neceffarily  muft,  be  under- 
 ftood  in  a  fenfe  confiftent  with  that  uni- 
 verfal  creed  of  the  ancients,  and  parti- 
 cularly of  the  facred  writers,  that  the 
 foul  remains  after  the  body  is  deftroyed. 
 This  interpretation  will  appear  ftill  more 
 reafonable  and  neceffary,  when  we  con- 
 lider  that  many  of  the  terms,  by  which 
 death  was  defcribed  in  all  countries,  do 
 clearly  imply,  and  are  built  upon,  a  be- 
 lief of  the  diftindion  between  foul  and 
 body,  and  of  their  being  feparated  at 
 death.  As,  according  to  the  Greeks,  to 
 die  was  to  depart\  to  go  away^-,  fo  the 
 writers  of  the  New  Teflament  defcribc 
 death  by  a  departure""^  that  is,  of  the 
 foul  from  the  body  to  another  ftate.  In 
 this  departure,  therefore,  they  muft  have 
 thought  death  to  confift  :  and  confe- 
 quently  the  great  Jewilli  prophet  had 
 the  fame  idea  of  it.    It  muft  be  obferved. 
 
 ^  E|o^o5,  Luke  ix.  31.     €ee  Grotius,  Whitby,  and 
 Wetftein,  on  this  place. 
 
 Fifthly, 
 
 r^ 
 
(       XXXV       ) 
 
 Fifthly,  that  the  foregoing  explica- 
 tion of  death  will  be  greatly  confirmed 
 by  confidering  the  meaning  of  life  as  op- 
 pofed  to  it.  Thofe,  I  apprehend,  whofe 
 departed  fpirits  exifted  in  JJ^eol,  were 
 not  reprefented  as  being  alin^e,  or  as  //- 
 vingy  except  in  refpeft  to  the  purpofe  of 
 God  to  reftore  them  to  life.  But,  when 
 their  fouls  were  removed  from  p^eol  or 
 hades^  and  united  a  fecond  time  to  a  hu- 
 man body,  then  they  were  faid  to  live  a- 
 gain^  being  nov/  reftored  to  a  life  fimi- 
 lar  to  what  they  had  loft.  This  appears 
 from  the  writings  both  of  the  Heathens 
 and  of  the  Jews.  Amongft  the  Celts, 
 fays  Diodorus  Siculus,  the  do6lrine  of 
 Pythagoras  prevails  ;  who  held  that  the 
 fouls  of  men  are  immortal,  that  they 
 pafs  into  other  bodies,  and,  after  a  cer- 
 tain determinate  time,  live  again''. 
 This  refers  to  the  period  fpoken  of  by 
 Herodotus,  after  which  fouls   returned 
 
 eof^pwJTuy  uBavocraq  tivoa  crviJt.^iQYty.e,    y.ui  oi  tray  ej^nrfxenuv  Tra- 
 ?.i»  Qm^f  8»?  STE^OK  au[/.a  Triq   -^vx/-^  E»cr^vo/Aiv>/$.      Diod,  Sic. 
 
 1.  V.  p.  352,  Weff. 
 
 c  a  W 
 
(     xxxvi     ) 
 
 to  human  bodies.  The  grand  Lama  was 
 faidtodie  only  in  appearance;  becaufe 
 he  was  fappofed  to  be  born  in  a  new  hu- 
 man body,  in  the  very  inflant  he  quit- 
 ted the  old  one^ 
 
 It  is  of  more  importance  flill  to  examine 
 the  language  and  fentiments  of  the  "Jews 
 on  this  fiibjeft.  It  is  commonly  allowed 
 that  the  Jews,  from  the  time  of  their  re- 
 turn from  Babylon^,  aflerted  the  feparate 
 exiftence  of  the  foul  after  death.  This 
 was  the  opinion  not  only  of  a  few  emi- 
 nent individuals,  fuch  as  Philo,  but 
 of  thofe  learned  fe£ls  amongft  them,  the 
 Effenes'  and  Pharifees'^  and  of  the  whole 
 
 body 
 
 P  AbovCyp.  X26. 
 
 ^  That  they  airways  held  this  principle  appears  from 
 their  imitation  of  the  heathen  idolatry,  from  their  evoca- 
 tion of  the  dead,  and  from  the  early  references  in  Scrip- 
 ture to  the  receptacle  of  departed  fouls,  and  many 
 other  proofs. 
 
 f  Jofeph.  Bell.  Jud.  I.  2.  c.  8.  §.  1 1.     E^^wrat  wet^  av 
 
 '  They  believed  that  the  foul  was  immortal ;  aSai/arof 
 uT^v  rat?  ^v^enq  'Trir^q  ecvroiq  tivxt ;  and  that  the  fouls  of 
 good  men  had  [^c^runnv  ra  ayabjay)  power  to  rcvi've  or  linje^ 
 
 again  ^ 
 
(     xxxvii     ) 
 body  of  the  people',  almoft  without  ex- 
 ception^  In   the   time   of  our  Saviour. 
 To  this  principle    the   Pharifees    (the 
 moft  numerous   feft   amongft  the  Jews, 
 and  whofe   doftrine  formed  the  popular 
 creed)    added   another,    viz.  the  refur- 
 re£lion  of  the  dead"^.      Thefe  two  prin- 
 ciples were  thought  to  be  clofely  con- 
 nefted.      The   Sadducees    believed    the 
 extinflion  of  the  foul  at  death,  and  did 
 not  admit  the  refurre64:ion :  the  Pharifees, 
 on   the  other  hand,   admitted  the  latter 
 and  denied  the  former.     I  cannot  find  a 
 fingle  example,  before  the  time  of  Chrift, 
 
 again.  Jofeph  Antiq.  1.  i8.  c.  I.  §.  3.  The  fame  hif- 
 torian,  in  his  Bel.  Jud,  I.  2.  c,  8.  §.  14.  confirms  the 
 ;ibove  account  of  them  :  they  believed  that  every  foul 
 VfZS  incorruptible  ;  but  that  the  foul  of  the  good  alone  'went 
 into  another  body  ;  fjurenZu^mv  st?  trs^ov  a-co[j(,o(,  rr,v  ruv  ccycx^ut 
 fAovr,v. 
 
 *  The  people  followed  the  Pharifees. 
 
 "  The  Sadducees  were  the  only  exception.  They 
 taught  that  the  foul  perifhed  v/ith  the  body.  Xaohy.uioK; 
 OS  raj  ■>^yp^ct?  0  Xoy^  crwx^otvi^n  tok;  ca^^cccn-  Jofeph.  An- 
 tiq. 1.  18.  C.  I.  §.  4.  "^t'X'/;?  T£  T*3V  ^ia/iAOi/rjJ'— — avon^ycr*. 
 B.  IX.  1.  2.  c.  8.  §.  14.  Aa.  xxiii. 
 
 ^  See  above,  note  S  and  Afts  xxiii.  8.  The  Jews 
 in  general  agreed  with  the  Pharifees  in  maintaining  a 
 refurredion,     Afts  xxiv.  15. 
 
 c  3  of 
 
(     xxxviii     ) 
 
 of  a  perfon,  who  believed  the  refur- 
 reclion  of  the  dead,  that  did  not  at  the 
 fame  time  allow  the  permanence  of  the 
 foul  after  death.  The  Jews  expreffed 
 the  refurreftion  by  the  terms,  revivif- 
 cence^  living  again ^  that  is,  a  return  to 
 the  fame  kind  of  life  as  their  former  one. 
 This  appears  from  a  pafTage  already 
 cited",  and  may  be  confirmed  by  many 
 others.  T^he  king  of  the  world  jloall  raife 
 lis  up  unto  everlajiing  Ufe^  faid  one  of  the 
 feven  children  fpoken  of  in  the  book  of 
 Maccabees^  3  which  is  equivalent  to  that 
 language  of  their  mother,  God  will  give 
 you  life  and  breath  again^.  She  alfo  ap- 
 plies to  them  thofe  words  of  God,  /  kill^ 
 and  I  make  alive,  Thofe  who  died  for 
 the  law  were  encouraged  to  expe6l  a  re- 
 vivifcence^. 
 
 The  queftion  here  Is,  what  is  meant 
 by  this  revivifcence,  or  return  to 
 life,  by  which   the  refurreflion   is  def^ 
 
 ^  See  above,  note',  y  z  Maccab.  vii,  9, 
 
 ^  lb.  V.  22. 
 
 *  Yicc'XiyUviciBi,,     Jofephus,  dc  Maccab.    p.  iioi^  E. 
 F.  ap.  Whitby  on  Mat.  xxii.  30,  p,  191, 
 
 cribed  ? 
 
(     xxxix     ) 
 
 cribed  ?  Did  the  Jews  hereby  mean  cre- 
 ating anew  the  foul  that  had  been  de- 
 ftroyed?  If  this  be  a  thing  poffible  in  it's 
 nature,  it  could  not  poffibly  be  their 
 meaning;  becaufe  they  did  not  allow 
 that  the  former  foul  perifhed  at  death. 
 Did  they  believe  that  man  had  no  foul, 
 and  therefore  that  his  refurreftion  con- 
 fifted  in  the  re-organization  of  his  for- 
 mer body  or  in  furnifhing  him  with  a 
 new  body,  organized  as  that  was  ?  This 
 is  a  flat  contradiftion  to  their  belief  of 
 the  diftinftion  between  foul  and  body, 
 and  the  feparate  exiftence  of  the  former. 
 What  then  did  they  or  could  they  mean 
 by  the  refurre6lion  to  life,  but  the  refto- 
 ration  of  that  kind  of  life  which  they  had 
 loft,  by  the  reunion  of  their  fouls  to  a 
 human  body,  either  the  very  fame  that 
 they  had  before,  or  one  in  efte£l  the 
 fame  ?  In  virtue  of  this  re-union,  the  dead 
 man  became  a  livtjzg  man,  the  fame  as  he 
 was  before  he  died,  with  the  fame  con- 
 fcioufnefs  and  recoUeftion,  the  principle 
 of  confcioufnefs  having   never  perifhed. 
 
 c  4  Hence 
 
(     xl     ) 
 
 Hence  they  fpeak  of  the  martyrs  as  hz-^ 
 mg  received^  dyi?2g^^  by  Abraham 5  and  re- 
 prefent  the  fouls  of  the  righteous  in  the 
 intermediate   ftate  as  being  in  the  hand  of 
 God,  a72d  having  hopes  ftdl  of  immortality'' ^ 
 or  of  a  refurre6lion  to  eternal  life.     Far- 
 ther to  confirm   the  preceding   account 
 of  a  refurre£lion    and  revivifcence,     I 
 muft  obferve  that   Jofephus,    who  on  all 
 occafions  aflerted  the  feparate  exiftence 
 of  the  foul^    has  himfelf  explained  thefe 
 terms  by  the  return  of  the  foul  of  a  dead 
 perfonto  it's  body.       Elijah,  according 
 to   this    hiftorian,    having  promifed  to 
 reftore  a  dead  child  to  his  mother  alive'' y 
 prayed   to  God  to  fend  back  his  foul  into 
 himy  and  to  grant  him  life\  and  the  child 
 lived  again^* 
 
 ^  Whitby,  ubi  fupra. 
 
 ^  Wifdom,  iii.   i,  4. 
 
 ^  PofTeiTing  demons,  according  to  him,  were  the  fouls 
 of  wicked  men.  Bel.  Jud.  1.  7.  c.  6.  §.3.  He  was  a 
 Pharifee,  and  confequently  had  adopted  the  principle? 
 of  his  feft.     See  above,  note  S  p.  xxxvi. 
 
 (^^.(Tx^^v  ctvrco  rov^iov.     Jofeph,  Antiq.  1»  8.   c.  13.   §.  3* 
 Comp.  J  Kings  xvii.  21.  &  AvtQuiia-sv. 
 
 I  do 
 
(     xli    ) 
 
 I  do  not  appeal  to  the  Jews  as  au- 
 thorities to  determine  points  of  doc- 
 trine, nor  can  I  aiTent  to  all  that  they 
 have  faid  concerning  the  condition  of 
 the  foul  in  the  interval  between  death 
 and  the  refurre6lion.  The  onlyufel 
 would  make  of  them  is  to  fhew,  in  what 
 fenfe  certain  words  were  ufed  in  and 
 near  the  time  of  Chrift,  in  order  to  ex-» 
 plain  the  language  of  Scripture.  If,  in 
 the  time  here  referred  to,  the  terms,  re- 
 furreBion^  reviinfcence^  or  living  again^ 
 as  ufed  both  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  de- 
 noted the  reunion  of  a  foul  to  a  human 
 body;  the  fame  terms,  when  adopted  by 
 Chrift  and  his  apoftles,  muft  have  the 
 fame  meaning.  Every  one  would  un- 
 derftand  them  in  their  common  and 
 ordinary  fignification.  If,  in  the  inter- 
 pretation of  the  language  of  the  fa- 
 cred  writers,  we  are  not  guided  and 
 determined  by  the  ufe  of  the  fame  Ian-- 
 guage  by  their  contemporaries,  fancy 
 alone  muft  be  our  interpreter.  Now, 
 if  wx  know  what  life,  when  it  expref- 
 
 fes 
 
(  xHi  ) 
 fes  the  refurreftion,  is,  we  cannot  but 
 underftand  the  meaning  of  death  it's  op- 
 pofite ;  and,  confequently,  as  the  former 
 li^nifies  the  foul's  return  to  a  human  bo- 
 dy,  the  latter  denotes  it's  feparation. 
 Both  terms  imply  the  continuance  of 
 the  foul  after  death:  a  principle  held 
 univerfally  in  the  moft  ancient  times*", 
 and  which  gives  great  probability  to  the 
 doftrine  of  a  refurreftion:  a  doftrine  of 
 the  higheft  importance  in  the  view  of 
 all  Chriftians,  and  the  grand  objeft  of 
 their  faith  and  hope. 
 
 10. 1  might  proceed  to  fhew,  that,  with- 
 out a  clear  knowledge  of  the  ancient  idola- 
 try we  cannot  vindicate  the  laws  of  Mofes, 
 nor  do  juftice  to  the  chara£ler  of  that  di- 
 vine legiflator.  But  I  cannot  enlarge 
 here  upon  this  fubjeft  without  anticipa- 
 ting what,  I  hope,  will  come  under  fu- 
 ture confideration. 
 
 The  obfervations,  that  have  been  made 
 on  the  great   utility  of  being  well  ac- 
 
 h  It  was  holden,  we  have  feen,  by  Heathens  and  Jews, 
 by  patriarchs  and  prophets,  and  by  the  peoplcj,  parti- 
 cularly in  the  times  of  Mofes  and  the  Meffiah. 
 
 quainted 
 
(     xlUi    ) 
 
 quainted  with  the  objefts  and  rites  of  hea- 
 then v/orfhip,  are  equally  applicable  to  al- 
 moft  all  the  opinions  and  cuftoms'of  anti- 
 quity, to  which  the  Scriptures  continually 
 refer.  What  an  agreeable  ufe  has  Mr. 
 Harmer  made  of  his  extenfive  knowledge 
 of  them,  in  a  work,  as  inftru6live  as  it 
 is  entertaining  !^  For  want  of  this  know- 
 ledge, Chriftians  have  miftaksn  pagan 
 tenets  for  the  genuine  doflrines  of  the 
 Gofpel.  The  language  of  the  Fathers  is 
 unintelligible  by  thofe  who  are  not  well 
 acquainted  with  the  opinions  which  pre- 
 vailed, before  their  times,  in  the  fchools 
 of  the  heathen  philofophers.  And  the 
 expofitors,  who  have  thrown  moft  light 
 upon  the  Scriptures,  are  fuch  as  had  the 
 largeft  acquaintance  with  pagan  anti- 
 quity. 
 
 The  foregoing  refleftions,  however  de^ 
 
 feBive,  are,  never thelefs,  a  fufficient  a- 
 
 pology  for  any  attempt  to  bring  thofe  ac^ 
 
 ^  See  the  learned  Mr.  Parkhurft's  Preface  to  his  He^ 
 brew  Lexicon. 
 
 k  Obfervatjons  on  divers  pafTages  of  Scripture. 
 
 quainted 
 
(     xliv     ) 
 
 quainted  with  the  heathen  religion,  who 
 have  no  leifure  to  fearch  the  records  of 
 antiquity.  My  defign  is  to  lay  before 
 them  fuch  fads  as  fhall  enable  them  to 
 form  a  judgement  for  themfelves  lipon 
 thefubjeft,  without  relying  upon  the  de- 
 cifion  of  others.     I  propofe, 
 
 I.  To  fhew  the  general  prevalence  of 
 the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits  in  the  an- 
 cient heathen  world. 
 
 II.  To  enquire  into  the  grounds  of 
 this  and  every  other  fpecies  of  idolatry,  or 
 into  the  principles  upon  which  the  whole 
 lyftem  of  polytheifm  was  built. 
 
 III.  To  confider  the  high  antiquity  of 
 idolatry,  and  more  efpecially  of  that  fpe- 
 cies of  it,  the  worfhip  of  human  gods. 
 And, 
 
 IV.  To  examine  how  far  the  reprefenta* 
 tion  of  the  pagan  gods,  inScripture,  agrees 
 with  that  made  of  them  in  the  writings  of 
 the  Heathens  -,  or,  how  far  the  two  accounts 
 mutually  ill  uft rate  and  confirm  each  other. 
 
 The  firfl  of  thefe  articles,  alone,  is  the 
 fubjed  of  the  prefent  pubHcation ;  and 
 
 it 
 
(     xlv     ) 
 
 it  is  eftabliflied  upon  evidence  indepen- 
 dent of  the  reft  ;  fo  that  it  may  be  fitly 
 confidered  as  a  diftinft  treatife,  fuch  as 
 might  have  been  publifhed  by  itfelf, 
 though  no  other  were  to  follow.  But 
 the  other  articles  are  in  a  ftate  of  great 
 preparation  for  the  prefs. 
 
 The  fubjeft  of  the  following  fheets 
 was  touched  upon  in  a  former  publica- 
 tion, but  was  then  neceflarily  circumfcri- 
 bed  within  narrow  bounds.  Here  it  is 
 examined  at  large  :  and  a  wider  compafs 
 is  taken  than  any  former  writer,  that  I 
 have  feen,  had  done.  A  very  pardona- 
 ble zeal,  to  fupport  tlie  reputation  of  the 
 antient  nations,  has  of  late  difpofed  fome 
 learned  writers  to  take  pains  to  clear  feve- 
 ralof  them  from  the  reproach  of  worfhip- 
 ing  dead  men.  It  has  been  faid  by  fome, 
 that  this  worfhip  did  not  obtain  amongll: 
 the  antient  Pojians,  Others  have  affirm- 
 ed the  fame  concerning  the  Germans^ 
 before  their  conqueft  by  the  Romans. 
 A  foreigner  of  great  di6linftion,  ya- 
 blojijki^  has  attempted  to  prove  that  dead 
 
 men 
 
(     xlvi     ) 
 
 ftien  were  not  worfhipped  by  the  Egyp-^ 
 tians.  Dr.  Blackwell,  in  his  Letters  on 
 Mythology"^  maintains  that  the  gods  of  the 
 greater  itatiom  were  the  deified  parts  and 
 powers  of  the  univerfe.  And  Mr.  Bryant, 
 fecond  to  none  in  the  knowledge  of  anti- 
 quity, though  he  could  not  but  allow 
 that  ^  the  Heathens  regarded  their  own 
 gods  as  deified  mortals,  yet  contends  that 
 they  were  miftaken"".  To  thefe  modern 
 writers  I  might  oppofe  a  great  number 
 of  other  moderns  noway  inferior  to  them ; 
 but  the  queftion  before  us  muil  be  deter- 
 mined by  evidence. 
 
 There  is  another  writer",  whom  I 
 fhould  never  have  thought  of  in  any  con- 
 nexion with  thofe  already  mentioned, 
 had  he  had  not  tranfcribed  the  objeftions 
 of  Dr.  Blackwell ;  which  he  has  done 
 without  acknowledging  his  obligation. 
 This  gentleman  has  been  pleafed  to  ho- 
 
 *  p.  276,  277,  278,  et  paflim.  He  can  fcarce  be  un- 
 derftood  as  fpeaking  of  the  objefts  of  the  ellablifhed 
 worihip.     See  p.  209. 
 
 •n  Mr.  YiT^2iXi'C^  Mythology,     V.  I.  p.  454,  455. 
 
 *  The  Rev.  J.  Fell,  in  a  treatife  entitled  Demoniacs. 
 
 nour 
 
(     xlvii     ) 
 
 nour  me  with  his  notice,  and  to  oblige 
 me  with  an  uncommon  meafure  of  a* 
 bufe.  With  equal  candour  and  pene- 
 tration he  compliments  me  with  finifter 
 motives  and  difguifed  infidelity^  His 
 cenfures  may  do  me  credit ;  moft  cer- 
 tainly they  difgrace  none  but  himfelf. 
 They  difcover  to  the  world  what  fpirit  he 
 is  of,  and  what  opinion  he  entertained  of 
 his  own  caufe,  which  he  could  not  fup- 
 port  without  the  aid  of  calumny.  There 
 is  another  circumftance  in  his  condu6t 
 v/hich  does  him  no  honour,  and  farther 
 ferves  to  fhew  his  diftrefs  :  I  refer  to  his 
 continually  perverting  my  language  from 
 its  natural  and  obvious  meaning,  and  to 
 his  mifreprefenting  my  fentiments  fo  grofT- 
 ly,  that  I  fhould  have  often  been  at  a  lofs 
 to  know  againft  whom  his  performance 
 was  written,  had  he  not  informed  us. 
 
 Whether  his  mifreprefentations  are  wil- 
 ful or  not,  let  others  form  what  judge- 
 ment they  pleafe  :  it  is  a  matrer  of  no  con- 
 cern to  any  one  but  himfelf:    I  barely 
 
 *  lb,  p,  412,  413, 
 
 ftate 
 
(     xlviii     ) 
 
 Hate  the  fa£l.  The  account  he  has  given, 
 not  only  of  my  fentiments  but  even  of 
 thofe  of  the  moft  refpeftable  writers  of 
 antiquity,  is  fo  very  remote  from  the 
 truth,  that,  to  whatever  caufe  it  is  to  be 
 afcribed,  I  determined  from  the  firft  never 
 to  write  any  thing  merely  in  anfwer  to  him. 
 Such  anfwer  muft  have  entirely  confiftcd 
 in  fhewing  that  he  either  could  not  or 
 would  not  underftand  the  plaineft  lan- 
 guage 5  an  undertaking  w^hich  could  yield 
 neither  pleafure  nor  benefit  to  the  reader, 
 nor  throw  any  new  light  upon  the  con- 
 troverfy.  Neverthelefs,  when  I  had  re- 
 folvedjOn  reafons  which  had  no  relation  to 
 this  gentleman,  to  lay  before  the  public 
 my  view  of  the  heathen  gods,  I  judged  it 
 not  improper  to  point  out  his  errors  up- 
 on this  fubjeft,  in  order  to  furnifli  a 
 specimen  of  his  manner  of  writing,  with- 
 out which  it  would  have  appeared  in- 
 credible that  any  one  could  write  in 
 the  manner  he  has  done.  That  part  of 
 his  performance  here  animadverted  upon 
 was  feleded  from  the  reft,    on  account 
 
 of 
 
■(     xlix     ) 
 
 of  it's  conneflion  with  the  fubjeft  of  the 
 following  fheets,  and  becaufe  it  has  been 
 thought  to  carry  with  it  a  greater  face 
 of  probability  than  any  other.  It  is  cer- 
 tainly liable  to*  fewer  objeftions. 
 
 Controverfies,     when    properly  con- 
 duced, are  of  eminent  ufe  to  mankind. 
 They  arreft  the  attention  more  than  ge- 
 neral reafonings,  and  awaken  a  fpirit  of 
 inquiry,  to  which,    under  God,  we  owe 
 all  our  improvements  in  fcience,    and  e- 
 very  juftidea  we  have  formed  of  religi- 
 on.    By  occafioning  a  more  perfecl  in- 
 veftigation  of  fubjefls,     they  affift  in  the 
 detection   of  error  and  in  the  difcovery 
 of  truth.      They  have  a  natural  tenden- 
 cy to  foften  our  prejudices  againft  thofe 
 who  differ  from  us  in  opinion^  by  fhew- 
 ing  us  how  much  they  can  offer  in  their 
 own  defence.      By   openmg  and  enlar- 
 ging the  mind,  they  ferve  to  cure  that  bi- 
 gotry, which  is  not  peculiar  to  any  one  fe6t 
 or  party,  but  common  to  all  who  have 
 ftrong  paflions  and  prejudices,  and  nar- 
 row views  of  things,  and  who  never  read 
 
 d  any 
 
(  I  ) 
 
 any  thing  that  is  written  againft  their 
 own  favourite  tenets.  On  the  other 
 hand,  when  controverfies  degenerate  in- 
 to perfonal  altercation  and  abufe,  or 
 are  fupported  by  forced*  conftruftions 
 and  grofs  mifreprefentations,  they  are  a 
 difgrace  to  the  parties,  and  of  no  fer- 
 vice  to  the  public. 
 
 Thofe  mifreprefentations,  which  I  have 
 had  fo  much  reafon  to  complain  of  in  o- 
 thers,  I  have  ufed  the  utmofl:  caution  to 
 avoid  myfelf.  And  it  is  no  fmall  pre- 
 fumptionof  my  care  in  this  refpeft,  that, 
 notwithftanding  my  numerous  citations 
 both  from  ancient  and  modern  writers. 
 Dr.  Worthington,  a  gentleman  of  real 
 learning,  whom  I  had  cenfured  for  hi^ 
 mifreprefentations,  (though  he  might  be 
 deemed  quite  accurate  incomparifon  with 
 Mr.  Fell,)  has  not,  if  my  memory  does 
 not  fail  me,  retorted  the  charge,  except 
 in  one  fmgle  inftance,  for  which  there 
 was  no  foundation^ 
 
 In 
 
 P  The  following  is  the  exaft  flate  of  the  cafe.    In  let- 
 crs  to  Dr.   Worthington,  p.  112,  in  a  note^  I  faid. 
 
(  il  ) 
 
 111  all    points  of  Impoitance   I  have 
 either   cited   the   original  words  of  my 
 
 d  2  vouchers. 
 
 Dr.  Mill  is  pojiti've,  they  (the  words  toi/  ea-^viKoroc.  rov  >\z* 
 ysmoif  him  that  had  the  legion y  Mark  v.  15.)  are  an  i?i- 
 terpolation.  Dr.  Worthington  (in  his  Farther  Enquiry, 
 p.  164.)  fays,  "  he  turned  to  the  place  in  Dr.  Mill's 
 "  New  Tellament ;  and,  to  his  great  furprife,  found 
 *'  the  'very  re-verfe  of  what  I  had  reprefented  him  to 
 "  have  maintained."  He  adds,  **  Dr.  Mill,  in  truth, 
 ''  only  tells  you,  that  thefe  words  were  wanting  in  a- 
 *'  bout  five  or  fix  ancient  manufcripts  ;  that  the  Syriac 
 *'  and  Arabic  had  them;  and  that  Grotius  thought  the 
 '^  pafiage  ought  to  be  retained."  Now,  if  Dr.  Mill 
 on  the  place  has  only  told  us  what  others  thought  of  it, 
 without  making  any  mention  of  his  own  opinion  Con- 
 cerning it,  how  could  Dr.  Worthington  afiert  he  had 
 found  the  a;ery  re-verfe  of  what  I  had  affirmed  to  be  true  ? 
 To  make  good  his  afiertion,  he  fhould  have  fhewn,  that 
 Dr.  Mill  was  pofitive  the  pafi^age  v/as  not  an  interpola- 
 tion. But,  I  had  afierted  that  Dr.  Mill  was  pofitive 
 that  it  was,  and  Dr.  V/orthington  charges  the  afl^ertion 
 with  deceit;  and  concludes  v/ith  this  admonition.  Let 
 this  author  never  more  accufe  others  of  mifreprefentationy  p. 
 165.  Had  Dr.  Worthington  looked  into  Dr.  Mill's 
 prolegomena^  where  he  was  more  likely  to  find  his  fenti- 
 ments  of  the  pafiage  in  queftion  than  upon  the  place 
 where  it  was  his  proper  bufinefs  to  fl:ate  the  fentiments 
 of  others  concerning  it,  he  would  have  found  that  Dr. 
 Mill  was,  as  I  had  affirmed ,  poftive  it  'was  an  interpola- 
 tion.   He  fays  it  certainly  was  a  marginal  glofs,  and 
 
 rejedi 
 
(     lii     ) 
 
 vouchers,  or  made  particular  references 
 to  them.  Their  own  words  are  cited  in 
 matters  of  the  firft  moment,  that  hereby 
 the  reader  may  confult  the  vouchers  him- 
 felf,  which  he  may  have  no  other  op- 
 portunity of  doing.  Citations  at  length, 
 from  authors  who  wrote  in  the  learned 
 languages,  and  are  the  chief  fupport  of 
 a  caufe,  are  then  peculiarly  neceffary 
 when  the  argument  depends  upon  the 
 exaft  rendering   of  the  original   words, 
 
 and 
 
 rejeds  the  opinion  of  Grotius,  in  the  following  terms : 
 Mar.  V.  15.  Tov  ta^moTo.  tov  hzyiuvcty  retinendum  cenfet, 
 cum  agnofcant  Syrus  aJrabs*  Varum  abell:  a  Staph.  ^ 
 Cantab.  Colb.  i.  at  codice  Vulgati-,  at  utcunque  jam 
 in  libros  propemodum  omnes  irrapferit,  haud  aliud  cer- 
 TE  initio  erat,  quam  marginale  fcholion,  adfcriptum  e 
 tegione  t»  ocsjM,onfojt*£yo^,  in  quod  quum  incidiffet  mox 
 fcriba,  textufque  partem  efTe  crederet,  repofuit  illud  in 
 inferiori  parte  fantentiae,  loco  non  fuo.  Prolegom.  N* 
 1361.  p.  146.  ad.  Kullar.  1710.  And  in  N'*4ii.  he 
 fays  concerning  the  words  in  queftion,  cofn?nentarius  ejf, 
 fjon  text  us »  Nullum  ejus  velligium  eft  apud  Lucam, 
 Marki  fedatorem.  However,  in  juftice  to  the  deceafed, 
 it  ought  to  be  obferved,  that  it  is  fome  excufe  for  him 
 that  I  had  omitted  to  refer  to  Dr.  Mill's  Prolegomena  ; 
 which  however  he  ought  to  have  examined  before  he 
 affed  his  cenfure. 
 
(    Hu    ) 
 
 and  their  meaning  is  either  doubful  or 
 difputed:  for,  in  this  cafe,  a  ftrongdefire 
 of  fupporting  an  hypothefis  may  infen- 
 fibly  bias  an  honeft  writer,  and  incline 
 him  to  prefer  that  meaning  of  the  words 
 of  his  author,  which,  though  lefs  natu- 
 ral, is  moft  favourable  to  his  views*  I 
 am  fo  far  therefore  from  making  an  a- 
 pology  for  the  long  and  frequent  cita- 
 tions from  the  authorities,  appealed  to 
 on  the  principal  points,  that  I  confider 
 them  as  the  chief  recommendation  of 
 this  work.  In  matters  of  fecondary  mo- 
 ment, though  I  have  not  cited  my  au- 
 thors at  large,  yet  I  have,  as  often  as 
 there  was  occafion,  made  fuch  particu- 
 lar references  to  them  as  will  enable 
 the  reader  to  confult  them  with  eafe  and 
 without  lofs  of  time.  This  method  on 
 controverted  points  is  moft  for  the  be- 
 nefit of  readers^  and  precludes  all  fuf- 
 picion  of  unfair  dealing  on  the  part  of 
 the  writer. 
 
 The   contrary    proceeding  is  unfatif- 
 faftory  to  thofe  accuflomed  to  examine 
 
 general. 
 
C    Hv    ) 
 
 general  references.  It  leaves  room  to 
 doubt  of  the  accuracy  of  a  writer,  how- 
 ever well  affured  we  may  be  of  his  fidelity. 
 And  it  is  the  moft  likely  way  to  efcape  de- 
 teftion,  if  a  writer  can  fo  far  forget  his 
 duty,  and  difregard  his  reputation,  as 
 to  be  willing  to  impofe  upon  the  credu- 
 lity of  his  readers.  This  indeed  is  a 
 cafe  that  feldom  happens,  and  can  ne- 
 ver happen  where  there  is  any  degree  ei- 
 ther of  honour  or  of  prudence. 
 
 How  it  fo  fell  out,  there  is  no  occafi- 
 on  to  inquire,  but  certain  it  is  in  faft, 
 that  a  late  writer,  though  he  fays'.  He 
 hopes  fome  allowance  will  he  made  for  fre* 
 (jiient  and  necejjfary  quotations^  to  make  it  e-^ 
 vident  that  he  does  720t  impute  to  any  author 
 opinions  which  he  never  maintaijied^  is 
 remarkably  defective  in  this  refpeft.  In- 
 deed he  could  not  but  be  fo  in  fome  ca- 
 fes ;  I  mean,  v^hen  his  own  voucher  did 
 not  contain  the  fentiment  afcribedto  him. 
 But  he  fcarce  ever  cites  the  ancients  in 
 their  own  languages,  even  though  the  ar- 
 
 *  Fell's  Demoniacs,  Introdudion,  p.  viii. 
 
 gument 
 
(     Iv     ) 
 
 2;iiment  depends  upon  the  exaflnefs  of 
 the  tranflation.  As  to  his  references, 
 for  the  moft  part  they  are  only  general, 
 and  cannot  be  eafily  found  by  thofe  who 
 have  moft  occafion  to  confult  them, 
 fuch  as  have  only  a  flender  acquaintance 
 with  ancient  writers.  In  fome  inftances, 
 I  acknowledge,  his  references  are  parti- 
 cular and  exact;  but  they  happen  to  be 
 quite  otherwife  when  he  imputes  to  au- 
 thors^ as  we  fhallfee  he  does,  opinions 
 which  they  7iever  maintatJied.  Be  this  the 
 efFe6l  of  accident  or  defign,  it  is  cer- 
 tainly a  reafon  for  reading  Mr.  Fell  with 
 fmgular  caution. 
 
 •^oaac  ^  ;»v>e  ^  .goo  ^  ^ooc.  ^  aeoe  .^ 
 
 COR- 
 
CORRIGENDA. 
 
 Page  125,  note  ^,  line  2,  for  that  rea^/  this, 
 
 140,  line  13,  /or  told  Herodotus  reati  faid. 
 142,  note  «,  /or  150  ;r«<3'  156. 
 152,  line  2,  r^W,  after  whom  he  was  denomi- 
 nated. 
 369,  note*,  line  17,  /or  comical  ^-^^^ conical. 
 402,  note  \  line  i,  /or  inert  r^^z^  inell, 
 476,  line  2,  /or  has  r^^^have, 
 
 D  E  L  E  N  D  A. 
 
 140,  line  15,  ^ek  the  oldell  of  their  gods* 
 
 177,  line  6,  <^ele  and  Egyptians. 
 
 183,  note',  line  6,  </^/^  and  the  Egyptians. 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 56,  at  the  end  of  note  ^,  add  Voflius  de  Idolo* 
 
 lat.  l.I.  c.  35,  p.  134. 
 127,  at  the  end  of  note  /,  add  VoiT.  de  Idolo  . 
 
 lat.  p.  95. 
 224,  at  the  end  of  note  *,  add  ^,  147. 
 396,  note  S  line  2,  a/ter  Cororaodo  add  p.  72, 
 
 THE 
 
'SFg*         "^  -A.  o    o    o    o  A>  ▼^        id^ 
 
 THE 
 
 GENERAL  PREVALENCE 
 
 0  F    T  H  E 
 
 Worfliip  of  HUMAN  Spirits, 
 
 1  N    T  H  E 
 
 ANCIENT  HEATHEN  NATIONS, 
 
 ASSERTEP    AND    PROVED. 
 
 |^^'^^|EFORE  I  offer  any  thing  III 
 <^  B  ^^  proof  of  the  general  worfhip 
 <k^^^>  ^^  human  fpirits  amongft  the 
 f^-t^^^^rii  ancient  Heathens,  it  will  be 
 proper  briefly  to  review  the  account  I 
 had  given  of  their  gods  in  a  former  pub- 
 lication'>  both  that  we  may  be  able  to 
 
 »  DifTertation  on  miracles,  cK.  III.  fedt.  ii.    ' 
 
 B  determine, 
 
t  Ge?ieral  Prevalence  of  the 
 
 determine,  whether  there  be  any  perti- 
 nence or  force  in  the  objeftions  which 
 have  been  urged  agalnft  that  account  -, 
 and  that^  at  the  fame  time,  the  way  may 
 be  prepared  for  what  I  propofe  farther 
 to  advance  on  the  fubje6l  of  the  pagan 
 theology. 
 
 I.  It  was  not  only  admitted,  but  alfo 
 by  a  variety  of  teftimonies  largely  proved, 
 ^'  that  the  Heathens  deified  the  world," 
 together  '^  with  it's  moft  illuftrious  parts 
 *'  and  a6live  principles,  the  elements,  the 
 *'  heavens  and  all  their  hofl:"\  It  was 
 alfo  allowed,  that  thefe  ?iatural  gods 
 ''  were  th^  frji  deities  of  all  theidola- 
 *'  trous  nations"'.  And  therefore  to 
 produce  new  proofs  of  thefe  points, 
 (which  it  is  eafy  to  do,)  though  it  may 
 have  the  appearance  of  oppofing,  is  in 
 reality  to  confirm,  the  dodrine  of  the 
 DiflTertation  on  miracles  concerning  the 
 heathen  gods.  It  did  not  fall  in  with  the 
 defign  of  that  performance,  to  treat  more 
 fully  concerning  the  deification  of  the 
 
 ^  ib.  p.  1,69-172,  c  P.  172, 
 
 obje<51:s 
 
Worfhip  cf  human  Spirits.  5 
 
 objefls  of  nature.  But  more  than  e- 
 iiough*  was  faid  upon  the  fubjedt,  to 
 render  it  impoffible  for  any  man  to 
 doubt,  whether  I  allowed,  that  the  Hea-- 
 thens  afferted  the  divinity  of  nature  and 
 it*s  component  parts. 
 
 II.  It  was  farther  fhewn*^,  that,  be- 
 fides  the  deified  parts  and  powers  of  na- 
 ture, the  Heathens  acknowledged  de-- 
 mons :  a  term,  with  whatever  latitude*  it 
 may  be  fometimes  ufed,  yet,  when  de- 
 mons are  contradiftinguifhed  (as  they 
 were  by  me  on  this  occafion^)  from  the 
 natural  or  celeftial  gods^  always  denotes 
 t\iok  fubaltern  deities^  who  were  fuppofed 
 to  carry  on  ail  intercourfe  between  the 
 celeftial  gods  and  men,  and  to  have  the 
 entire  adminiftration  of  the  government 
 of  this  lower  world  committed  to  them  ; 
 and  who  hereby  became  the  objefts  of 
 immediate  dependence  and  divine  wor- 
 fhip.    In  this  fenfe  the  term  was  large- 
 
 *  See  p.  231.  «i  P.  174. 
 
 *  Letters  to  W^orthington,  p.  29* 
 
 '  Difierr.  on  mir.  p.  169,  174,  175. 
 
 B  2  ly 
 
4  General  Prevalence  of  the 
 
 ly  explained  in  the  Di^^ertation^  Im- 
 mediately after  giving  this  explication, 
 I  proceeded  to  controvert  the  opinion 
 of  thofe,  who  teach,  '^  that  the  de- 
 •'  mons  of  the  Heathens  v^ere  fpirits  of 
 "  a  higher  origin  than  the  human  race*'^ : 
 and  then  inferred,  from  the  reflections 
 which  had  been  offered,  that,  though  the 
 Heathens,  and  particularly  fome  of  the 
 lateft  philofophers,  fancied  there  was  a 
 higher*"  order  of  demons,  yet  that  ''  this 
 higher  order  of  them  is  not  fo  fre- 
 quently fpoken  of  as  is  generally  fup- 
 pofed  y  and  that  the  common  hypo- 
 thelis  is  built  upon  weak  grounds'." 
 I  then  added,  (what  clearly  fhews  how 
 far  I  reje6led  that  hypothefis,) 
 
 I  fhall  now  affign  thofe  reafons 
 which  induce  me  to  think,  that,  by 
 demons,  (fuch,  I  mean,  as  were  the 
 more  immediate  objecis  of  the  ejiablijjjed 
 worfiip  amongft  the  ancient  nations. 
 
 cc 
 
 <c 
 cc 
 
 '  p.  174, 175.  gp.  176. 
 
 *»  p.  183,  note  ^     See  alfo  note 'in  p.  204^  220. 
 'P.  183. 
 
 *^  particularly 
 
<c 
 
 Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits.  ^ 
 
 particularly  the  Egyptians,  Greeks, 
 and  Romans,)  we  are  to  underftand 
 beings  of  an  earthly  origin,  or  fuch 
 departed  human  fouls  as  were  believed 
 *'  to  become  demons"". 
 
 This  is  the  propofition  which  I  under- 
 took to  eftablifh.  Here  it  is  of  great 
 importance  to  obferve, 
 
 I .  That  there  is  nothing  in  this  pro- 
 pofition inconfiftent  with  allowing  (what 
 had  been  before  proved)  that  the  Hea- 
 thens acknowledged  and  worfliipped  ce- 
 leftial  or  natural  gods.  For,  the  only 
 fubjeft  of  the  propofition  is  demons,  con- 
 fidered  as  a  diftincl  order  of  deities  from 
 thofe  ftiled  natural ;  and  therefore  the 
 latter  could  not  be  included  in  it.  Nay, 
 the  very  defcription  of  demons  as  the 
 more  immediate  objects  of  worfhip  does 
 
 ^  p.  l8j^  184.  It  isfcarce  neceiTary  to  obferve^  that 
 the  fame  human  fpirits  that  >vere  called  demons^  when 
 4iflinguilhed  from  elementary  and  fidereal  deities,  as  they 
 are  above ;  yet,  on  other  occafions,  are  frequently  Z2X- 
 Udgods.  And  fometimes  they  are  diftingulfhed  from 
 each  other  by  the  different  denominations  of  gods,  Se- 
 mens, 2iXidi  heroes,  according  to  their  different  ranks, 
 
 B  7  itfelf 
 
6  Getter al  Prevalence  of  the 
 
 itfelf  imply,  that  there  were  ultimate  ob« 
 je6ls  of  it,  who  could  be  no  other  than 
 thofe  celeftial  gods,  whofe  agents  and 
 minifters  ^  the  former  were  fuppofed  to  be. 
 Farther, 
 
 2,  The  preceding  propofition  has  no 
 relation  to  the  gods  held  only  by  the  phi^ 
 lofophers.  The  theiitic  philofophers  not 
 only  aflerted  the  divinity  of  the  parts  and 
 powers  of  nature,  but  explained  phyjical- 
 ly\  what  was  underftood  literally  or  hijlo-^ 
 rically  by  the  people  refpefting  the  gods. 
 It  may  be  allowed,  that  the  philofophers 
 entertained  very  jufl:  notions  of  the  true 
 God ;  and  that  they  defcribed  him  and 
 the  natural  gods  by  the  term  demon ; 
 (which  is  indeed  fometimes  ufed  in  a 
 large  fenfe  as  equivalent  to  a  deity""',)  But 
 all  thefe  gods  are  out  of  the  queftion. 
 The  term  demom  is  ufed  in  the  propofi- 
 tion in  a  reftrained  fenfe,  to  exprefs  the 
 fubaltern  deities,  and  was  fo  explained, 
 Jt  Is  limited  to  fuch  demons  as  were  the 
 
 I  P'iflert,  on  mir,  p.  174,  175. 
 ^  Letters  to  Worthingtoii,  p,  29, 
 
 obje6ls 
 
WorJI:ip  of  human  Spirits.  y 
 
 objefts  of  the  ejiablified  "Worp^ip  ;  or  (as 
 it  is  elfewhere  exprefled)  of  popular  ado- 
 ration^'' and  public  devotion ^"^  to  whom  a- 
 lone  the  facrijices  were  offered^  (while  the 
 cxlejlial  gods  were  worjhipped  only  with  a 
 pure  fnind^  or  with  hymns  <ind  praifesJ") 
 
 3.  The  truth  of  the  foregoing  propo- 
 fition  cannot  be  afFefted  by  the  peculiar 
 doftrine  of  the  philofophers  concerning  de- 
 tnons^  when  they  apply  the  term  to  fpi- 
 rits  who  were  fuppofed  to  hold  a  middle 
 rank  between  the  gods  and  men.  It  was 
 admitted  and  proved  in  the  Diliertation/ 
 thatfome  of  the  philofophers  did  affert  the 
 exiftence  of  demons  of  a  celeftial  origin, 
 or  of  fuch  as  had  never  been  men.  Many 
 more  proofs  of  the  fame  point  might  have 
 been  produced,  had  the  occafion  required 
 them.  Buttheopinion  of  the  philofophers 
 concerning  the  exiftence  of  celeftial  de- 
 mons, even  fuppofing  it  to  be  true,  cannot 
 difprove  the  truth  of  the  propofition  un- 
 der confideration,  unlefs  it  can  be  (hewn, 
 
 *  P.  186.  «  p.  176.  P  Note  ^  above. 
 
 B  4  that 
 
8  General  Prevalence  of  the 
 
 that  thefe  demons  were  the  objefts  of  the 
 national  eftablifhed  worfhip  amongft  the 
 Heathens.  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than 
 that  the  propofition  only  affirms,  that 
 the  demons  defcribed  in  it  were  beings 
 of  an  earthly  origin.  Every  objeftion 
 therefore,  that  is  drawn  from  what  any 
 of  the  ancients  taught  concerning  de- 
 mons that  do  not  anfwer  to  that  de- 
 fcription,  muft  be  foreign  from  the 
 points 
 
 4,  When  the  propofition  fpeaks  of 
 fuch  demons  as  were  the  more  immedi- 
 ate objects  of  the  eftablifhed  worfhip  a- 
 mongft  the  ancient  nations ;  this  can 
 refpe6l  only  thofe  nations  in  which  fome 
 demons  or  fubaltern  deities,  either  celef- 
 tial  or  terreftrial,  were  acknowledged. 
 The  propofition  fuppofes  this  to  be  the 
 cafe  in  feveral  nations,  and  particularly 
 fpecifies  the  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Ro- 
 mans, but  without  excluding  all  other 
 people,    It  is  capable  of  being  extended 
 
 ^  Compare  what  is  faid  concerning  the  philofophers, 
 piffert,  p.  189,  190^ 
 
 to 
 
<c 
 <c 
 
 Worfoip  of  human  Spirits.  9 
 
 to  all  who,    befides   the  natural  gods, 
 worlhipped  demons. 
 
 Neverthelefs,  1  had  a  more  efpecial  re- 
 ference to  the  nations  that  were  in  the 
 moft  civilized  ftate,  and  to  thofe  whofc 
 demons  are  fpoken  of  in  Scripture.  It 
 was  faid  in  exprefs  terms',  *'  that  my 
 "  main  defign  would  be  anfwered,  if  it 
 could  be  Ihewn,  that  the  more  imme- 
 diate objects  of  divine  worjfhip  in  the 
 *  ^  7noJi  polijhed  heathen  nations  were  deified 
 *'  mortals."  And  that  I  had  a  peculiar 
 view  to  the  nations  whofe  demons  are 
 fpoken  of  in  Scripture,  appears  from  the 
 declaration',  that  my  main  defign  was  to 
 explain  andjujiify  the  Scripture  reprefenta^ 
 tion  of  the  heathen  deities  \  from  the  title 
 of  the  fe£lion  in  which  this  fubjeft  is 
 handled,  T'he  Scripture  reprefentation  of 
 the  nature  and  claims  of  the  heathen  gods, 
 confdered^y  from  the  words  that  intro- 
 duce the  feftion,  and  ftate  the  fubjeft  of 
 it,  T'he  gods  of  the  Heathens  taken  notice  of 
 inScripture'-'y  and  from  the  apology '""  made 
 
 rDiiTert.  p.  185.       'Ibid,        «  P.  165.        «P.23i. 
 
 for 
 
i  o  General  Frevalence  of  the 
 
 for  the  long  account  given  of  them,  it's 
 importance  to  a  jujl  defence  of  the  Scripttrre, 
 The  nations,  to  whofe  gods  the  Scriptures 
 refer,  are  thofe  which  bordered  upon 
 Judea,  or  in  which  Chriftian  churches 
 were  planted ;  and  thefe  were  of  all  o- 
 thers  the  moft  improved  In  fcience. 
 
 To  thefe  nations  my  views  were  con- 
 fined, and  from  them  my  proofs  were 
 drawn.  Nor  can  the  propofition  be  ex- 
 tended to  the  nations  ftiled  barbarous^  if 
 they  v/orfhipped  only  the  natural  gods. 
 To  fuch  nations  thefe  gods  were  not  the 
 tilt i mat e^  but  the  foky  objefts  of  worfhip. 
 And  no  one  could  be  fo  abfurd  as  to  fet 
 himfelf  to  prove,  that  thofe,  who  had  no 
 demons  of  any  kind,  worfhipped  one 
 particular  fpecies  of  demons.  It  was  ad- 
 mitted*, that,  in  the  opinion  of  Plato, 
 many  [not  mojl,  as  Mr.  FelP  mifinterprets 
 the  original^)  of  the  Barbarians  in  his 
 
 time 
 
 ^  Id.  p.  173,  note  f.  *  P,  9. 
 
 y  rioXAoi  ruv  i^oL^u^m.  Platon.  Cratyl.  torn.  i.  p.  397, 
 C.  ed.  Serrani,  1578.  This  language  may  import  no 
 more  than  that,  amongfl:  the  barbarous  people  bordering 
 
 upon 
 
WorJInp  ofhujnan  Spirits.  ii 
 
 time  held  only  the  natural  gods.  It 
 could  not  be  my  intention  to  include  fuch 
 Barbarians  in  the  propofition. 
 
 Let  us  now  examine  whether  a  late 
 writer  has  given  a  juft  account  of  this 
 fubjeft.  He  has  twice  referred  to  the 
 preceding  propofition,  and  cited  a  part 
 of  it,  but  with  fuch  alterations  or  omif- 
 fions  as  efteftually  difguife  it's  true 
 meaning.  When  heisoppofing  my  notion 
 of  the  heathen  gods^  he  omits  the  word 
 demons'^  though  thefe  fubaltern  gods 
 were,  as  I  have  fhewn,  the  only  fubje<5ls 
 of  the  propofition.  And,  when  he  is  pro- 
 ving that  the  Heathens  had  demons  of  a 
 different  kind  from  thofe  of  human  ex- 
 tract, (a  point  admitted  by  me^)  he  fup- 
 preffes''  all  the  words  in  the  propofition 
 
 upon  Greece,  there  were  feveral  tribes  which  ftill  wor- 
 fnipped  only  the  elements  and  heavenly  bodies.  This 
 was  not  true  concerning  the  great  nations  in  general ;  (as 
 will  be  ihewn  in  the  fequel;)  to  thefe  therefore  Plato 
 cannot  refer.  His  exprelllon  implies,  that  the  polifhed 
 nations  acknowledged  other  gods  befides  the  natural; 
 ^nd  that  fome  at  leall  of  the  barbarians  did  fo  too. 
 
 *  Fell,  p.  30. 
 
 ^  Fell,  p.  91.  Comp.  Diilcft.  on  mir.  p.  183. 
 
 which 
 
1 2  General  Prevalence  of  the 
 
 which  were  inferted  to  fhew,  that  it  re- 
 fpefted  only  fucb  demons  as  were  the  more 
 immediate  objeBs  of  the  efiablijhed  worflnp  in 
 certain  nations.  To  point  out  the  limi- 
 tation of  the  proportion  to  thefe  demons, 
 the  words  that  exprefs  it  were  printed  in 
 Italics,  as  they  are  above*.  Neverthelefs, 
 his  objeflions  proceed  on  the  falfe  fuppo- 
 fition,  that  the  propofition  was  to  be 
 underflood  univerfally  of  all  demons. 
 
 Befides  mutilating  the  propofition  un- 
 der confideration,  in  a  manner  that  muft 
 miflead  his  readers  in  the  judgement  they 
 formed  of  it,  and  confequently  of  the 
 main  point  in  debate;  the  gentleman 
 has  placed  another  propofition  before 
 them,  and  left  them  to  fuppofe  it  to 
 be  mine  in  it's  moft  unlimited  fignifica- 
 tion.  "  No  opinion,"  he  obferves% 
 **  can  be  more  erroneous  than  this,  'That 
 *'  all  the  pagan  deities  had  once  been  men,'* 
 In  what  part  of  the  Dijfertation^  this,  or 
 any  fuch,  affertion  is  to  be  found,  the 
 gentleman  has  not  informed  his  readers : 
 
 »>  P.  4.  -  Fell,  p.  30. 
 
 an 
 
Worjhip  of  human  spirit s.  13 
 
 an  omiflion  with  which  he  is  often  charge- 
 able. He  might  poffibly  have  in  view  here 
 (as  he  has  elfe where)  the  place**  in  which 
 it  is  affirmed,  that  the  writers  of  the  Old 
 Teftament  "  very  properly  defcribed  the 
 *'  heathen  gods  as  ^(f^^perfons;"and  that 
 they  were  "  nothing  more."*  But  it  is  at 
 the  very  fame  time  obferved,  "  that  the 
 "  writers  of  the  Old  Teftament  knew, 
 "  that  the  Heathens  believed  in  elemen- 
 *'  tary  and  fidereal  deities ;"  and  that  the 
 reafon  why  they  defcribed  their  gods  as 
 dead  perfons  was,  "  becaufe  it  was  to 
 "  fuch  that  the  public  worfliip  was  more 
 "  immediately  direcled."^  Under  this  li- 
 mitation, or  with  refpefl  to  thofe  de- 
 mons whom  I  had  defcribed  as  the  more 
 immediate  objefts  of  public  worfliip,  I 
 muft  be  underftood  as  fpeaking,  when, 
 upon  the  authority  of  the  facred  writers 
 (as  will  be  fliewn  hereafter)  I  reprefented 
 
 ^  DifTert.  p.  197.  *  lb.  note  *". 
 
 ^  I  might  have  added,  that  thefe  gods  did  in  a  great 
 meafure  ingrofs   the  public  devotion,     (See  Diii'ert.  p, 
 
 the 
 
1 4  General  Prevalence  of  wt 
 
 the  heathen  gods  as  nothing  more  than 
 dead  perfons.  What  was  fpoken  pro- 
 fefledly  concerning  one  clafs  or  order  of 
 gods>  as  contradiftinguifhed  from  ano^ 
 thery  could  not,  by  fair  reafoning,  be 
 applied  to  both.  If  any  fuch  general  ex- 
 preffions  as  that  we  have  been  exami- 
 ning, occur  in  any  other  part  of  the 
 Differtation  ;  which  (if  ever)  they  very 
 rarely  do,  and  then  only  incidentally, 
 they  ought  in  all  reafon  to  be  limited  to 
 the  fubjefts  of  the  propofition^  in  which 
 I  was  profefiedly  ftating  the  point  I 
 meant  to  eftabliih ;  efpecially  as  terms 
 expreffive  of  this  limitation  are  almoft 
 always  ufed,  in  order  to  guard  againft: 
 miftakes  ;  and  frequent  explicit  acknow- 
 ledgements are  made  of  the  Heathens  af- 
 ferting  the  divinity  of  the  elements  and 
 heavenly  bodies*.  Could  I  conceive  it 
 poffible,  that  I  fliould  be  charged  (as  I 
 am  in  effeft)  with  affirming,  that  the 
 following  heathen  gods,  the  fun,  moon, 
 and  liars,  and  the  elements  of  fire,  air, 
 earth,  and  water,  were  nothing  more  than 
 
 *  See  DiiTert.  p.  231-233* 
 
 dead 
 
WcrJJnp  of  human  Spirits,  15 
 
 dead  men  ?  No  one  can  faften  fuch  an 
 abfurdity  upon  me,  but  by  explaining 
 the  Diflertation,  as  too  many  do  the 
 Scriptures,  as  if  it  was  compofed  of  dif- 
 tinft  independent  fentences,  that  have 
 no  connexion  with  each  other. 
 
 Farther,  Mr.  Fell  frequently  makes 
 an  addition  to  my  text,  and  inferts 
 into  it  the  word  ^//,  without  any  war- 
 rant y  particularly  in  the  following  paf- 
 fage  :  "  Mr.  Farmer  would  make  us  be- 
 •'  lieve,  that  Herodotus  meant  to  fay, 
 "  that  the  Greeks  looked  upon  all  their 
 "  gods  to  have  been  of  the  human 
 "  race."^  I  muft  add,  that,  when  he^ 
 fpeaks  of  "  the  fyftem  which  reprefents 
 **  all  demons  as  nothing  more  than  the 
 *'  fpirits  of  departed  men"  i  he  manifeftly 
 refers  to  me,  though  my  fyftem  neither 
 makes,  nor  requires,  fuch  a  reprefentation. 
 
 By  the  feveral  methods  here  fpecified, 
 and  others  of  a  fimilar  nature,  the  gen- 
 tleman conveys  into  the   minds  of  his 
 
 e  Fell,  p.  27,  28.  DifTert.  p.  186,  187, 
 **  Fell's  introdu*5lion,  p.  xv. 
 
 readers 
 
1 6  General  Prevale?ice  of  th^ 
 
 readers  a  falfe  impreffion  of  the  main 
 point  I  undertook  to  eftablifh.  This 
 impreffion  is  continually  renewed  and  ri- 
 vetted  by  the  general  ftrain  of  his  rea- 
 foning  J  which  fuppofes  that  I  meant  to 
 prove,  *^  that  all  the  heathen  gods  were 
 *^  human  fpirits'*;  and  not  merely  (as 
 was  the  real  cafe)  *'  that  the  demons  of  a 
 *'  certain  defcription  were  fuch."  There 
 are  but  few  fo  very  dull  of  apprehenfion, 
 as  not  to  perceive  the  difference  between 
 thefe  two  proportions  5  or  to  want  to  be 
 informed,  that  arguments,  which  may 
 overturn  the  former,  cannot  affeft  the 
 latter.  This  mifreprefentation  of  the 
 point  upon  which  the  whole  argument 
 turns  (had  there  been  no  other  inftance 
 of  mifreprefentation  to  produce)  might 
 well  juftify  me  in  faying,  that  I  fhould 
 not  have  known  againft  whom  Mr.  Fell 
 was  writing,  had  he  fuppreffed  my 
 name.  Neverthelefs,  the  gentleman 
 fets  out  (in  a  manner  well  calcula* 
 ted  to  prevent  all  fufpicion  of  unfair 
 dealing)  with  fliewing  of  what  impor- 
 tance 
 
Worjhip  of  human  Spirits.  17 
 
 tance  it  is,  that  thofe  who  differ  i?t  their 
 fentimentSy  when  they  write  one  againjl  an^ 
 other y  Jhould  calmly  and  exactly  Jiate  the 
 particular  articles  concerning  which  they 
 differ}  Why  did  not  the  gentleman  fol- 
 low this  ufeful  and  necefTary  rule  ? 
 
 But  I  will  not  animadvert  upon  his 
 conduft;  only,  injuftice  tomyfelf,  muft 
 obferve,  that  his  mutilating  my  propo- 
 fition  ;  his  fubftituting  another  in  it's 
 room,  without  taking  any  notice  of  it's 
 tieceffary  limitation  ;  and  his  making  ad- 
 ditions to  my  text  -,  thefe  feveral  circum- 
 ftances  are  a  tacit  confeffion,  that  he 
 could  not  fupport  his  account  of  my  fen- 
 timents  by  any  fair  confl:ru6lion  of  my 
 language.  If  his  mifreprefentations  are 
 mere  miftakes,  they  are  (in  fome  fenfe) 
 fortunate  miftakes  for  him  ;  being  ap- 
 parently necefTary  to  give  a  colour  to  his 
 reafonings,  and  to  procure  for  himfelf 
 the  appearance  of  a  viftory  over  his  op- 
 ponent :  for,  had  the  fubjeft  been  truly 
 
 *  Fell's  introduftion,  p.  viii.  ix. 
 
 C  ftated. 
 
j-8  General  Prevalence  of  the 
 
 ftated,  thefe  ends  could  not  have  been 
 anfwered  ;  and  his  readers  would  have 
 fmiled  at  the  fatisfaftion  and  confidence, 
 with  which  he  urges  objeftions  foreign 
 from  the  purpofe, 
 
 Mr.  Fell  ^  begins  with  appealing  to  the 
 ancient  theogonies,  particularly  that  of 
 Hefiod,  in  order  to  prove,  that  the  greatejh 
 -part  of  thofe  deities  to  whom  the  Heathens 
 facrifced  were   by  them  confdered  as  exijl-^ 
 ing  prior  to  the  creation  of  man.     An  argu- 
 ment of  this  fort  from   the  theogonies 
 was  fuggefted  by  the  learned  and  inge- 
 nious author  oi  Letters  concerning  Mytho'^. 
 logyy   univerfally  afcribed  to  Dr.  Black- 
 well, 
 
 ^  ?.  1. 
 
 *  P;  211,  212,  213.  Whoever  is  defirous  of  feeing 
 li^ow  clofely  Mr.  Fell  copies  Dr.  Blackwell,  may  com- 
 pare together  the  following  paffages.  In  p.  212,  the 
 doftor  fays ,  Hejiod'^s  theogony  -—'isfuhjiunUally.  the  fame  <unth 
 Orpheus'' s  holy  'word,'— in  nvhich  he  (Orpheus)  explained 
 points  of  no  lefs  importance  than  the  births  of  the  gods,  the 
 creation  of  the  nvorld,  and  formation  of  man,  Mr.  Felli 
 p.  5,  adopts  his  language ;  (with  only  fuch  an  alteration, 
 of  it  as  fhews  his  defire  of  concealing  his  obligation;) 
 His  (Hefiod's)  theogony  contains  the  fame  plan  nxjith  that 
 Afcribed  to  Orpheus — They  (Hefiod,  Orpheus,  and  others) 
 "  ' ''  all 
 
TForJlnp  of  human  Spi?'tfs.  19 
 
 well,  but  employed  by  him  to  a  more 
 reafonable  purpofe  than  by  Mr.  Fell. 
 The  former,  if  I  underftand  him  a- 
 right,  urges  it  only  to  prove,  that 
 the  Heathens  deified  nature  and  it*s  va- 
 rious parts  and  powers,  and  that  thefe 
 were  their  primary  gods.  Both  thefe 
 propofitions  were  admitted  by  me  ;  and 
 the  former  of  them  is  capable  of  the 
 cleareft  proof  ".  But  the  argument,  as 
 ftated  and  applied  by  Mr.  Fell,  is  not 
 only  founded  upon  a  bold,  not  to  fay 
 falfe,  afTertion " ;    but  has  no  relation  to 
 
 C  2  the 
 
 all  attempt  to  explain  things  of  no  le/s  moment  than  the  ori- 
 ginal of  their  gods  y  the  creation  of  the  ^vorld,  and  the  for" 
 mat  ion  oftnan* 
 
 ^'  See  above,  p»  2. 
 
 "  Mr.  Fell  afferts,  *'  that  the  greateft  part  of  thofe 
 '*  deities,  to  whom  the  Heathens  facrificed,  were  by 
 "  them  confidered  as  exifting  prior  to  the  creation  of 
 *'  man."  The  number  of  the  heathen  gods  was  com- 
 paratively fmall  at  firft  ;  but  they  increafed  afterwards, 
 to  fuch  a  degree,  that  the  v/retched  Atlas  could  fcarce 
 fupport  the  weight  of  fo  many  new  divinities. 
 
 '  Contentaque  lidera  paucis 
 
 Numinibu?  miferum  urgebant  Atlanta  minori 
 
 Pondere.  .  Juvenal.  Sat.  xiii.  v.  47. 
 
 The 
 
20  General  Prevalence  of  the 
 
 the  proper  point  in  difpute.  The  quef- 
 tion  is  not,  whether  the  Heathens  belie- 
 ved in  gods  of  an  earlier  origin  than  the 
 human  race  ;  but,  whether  fuch  demons 
 as  were  the  more  immediate  objefts  of 
 the  eftablifhed  worfhip  in  certain  na- 
 tions were  not  dead  men.  Hefiod  him- 
 felf  (to  whom  Mr.  Fell  appeals)  fliall 
 decide  the  controverfy :  for,  (as  our 
 great  chronologer  obferves,*')  Hefiod% 
 defcribing  the  four  ages  of  the  gods  and 
 demigods  of  Greece^  reprefents  them  to 
 be  four  generations  of  men,  I  add,  that 
 Plato '^  had  long  before  taken  notice,  that 
 all  thofe  who  die  valiantly  in  war  are  of 
 Hefiod' s  golden  generation^    a?jd  become  de- 
 
 The  men  of  the  golden  age,  who  became  demons,  were 
 thirty  thoufand,  Hefiod.  Oper.  et  Dier.  1.  i.  v.  250. 
 But  thefe  were  nothing  in  comparifon  with  the  vail 
 number  of  human  fpirits  which  were  worfliipped  in  dif- 
 ferent parts  of  the  world  :  for  moft  nations  facrificed  at 
 the  tombs  of  their  anceftors,  and  to  their  domeftic  gods* 
 See  Varro,  concerning  the  dii  manes,  ap.  Augufl.  Civ. 
 Dei,  1.  8,  c.  26. 
 
 °  Sir  If.  Newton,  Chron.  p.  162. 
 
 P  Oper.  et  Dier.  1.  i,  y.  108. 
 
 9  De  Rep.  1,  5,  p.  46^.     Diflert.  on  mir.  p.  191. 
 
 mons  i 
 
WorpAp  of  human  Spirits. 
 
 21 
 
 mons ;  and  that  we  ought  for  ever  to  wor-^ 
 jhip  and  adore  their  fepulchres  as  the  feptd^ 
 chres  of  demons. 
 
 But   I  do    not  propofe   to    examine 
 all    the    objedions   of    this   gentleman 
 by    themfelves.      Opportunities   of   a- 
 nimadverting    upon   them    will    occur 
 in   the    execution  of    my  plan,    with- 
 out my  going   out  of  the  way   to  meet 
 them.     My  defign  is  to  fhew  at  large, 
 that  human  fpirits  were  generally  wor- 
 Ihipped  by  the  ancient  Heathens,     The 
 proofs  of  this  point  either  refpeft  parti- 
 cular nations,  or  are  of  a  more  general 
 nature,  and  equally  refped  all  the  moft 
 celebrated  nations  of  antiquity.      It  is 
 with  the  objefts  of  worfliip  in  the  latter 
 that   we  are  beft  acquainted;     and   to 
 them  all  men  more  peculiarly  refer,  when 
 they  fpeak  in  general  of   the   heathen 
 gods.     In  thecourfe  of  cur  argument  it 
 will  be  fhewn,    that,  in  thefe  nations, 
 not  only  were  dead  men  and  women  dei- 
 fied, but  that  fuch  deities  were  confidered 
 
 C  3  as 
 
22  General  Prevalence  of  the 
 
 as  their  greatefi  gods,  and  even  as  the 
 fole  objefls  of  the  eftabUftied  worfhip,  al- 
 moil,  if  not  altogether,  without  excep- 
 tion. I  mean,  that  it  was  to  human 
 gods  that  the  eftablifhed  worfhip  was 
 more  immediately  and  properly  direfted^^ 
 in  all,  or  almoft  all,  cafes  whatfoever. 
 What  reference  it  had  to  the  deified  parts 
 or  powers  of  nature  will  not  come  under 
 confideration  here. 
 
 I  jfihall  begin  with  laying  before  the 
 reader  thofe  proofs  of  the  worfhip  of  hu- 
 man fpirits,  amongfl  the  ancient  Hea- 
 thens, which  refpeft  particular  nations. 
 The  ancient  gentile  nations  may  be  divi- 
 ded into  two  clafTes,  fuch  as  are  ufually 
 accounted  barbarous^  and  fuch  as  were 
 polijhed  by  learning.  And  I  propofe  to 
 prove,  by  heathen  teflimonies,  that  i\\ 
 moji  of  the  former,  and  in  all  the  latter, 
 divine  honours  were  paid  to  the  dead, 
 
 CHAP. 
 
WorJJnp  t>f  human  Spirits,  2y 
 
 CHAP.     L 
 
 '  Provingy  from  the  teftimonies  of  the 
 Heathens y  that  they  paid  religious 
 honours  to  dead  men  in  the  na- 
 tions filed  harbarouSy  or  that 
 were  in  an  uncivilized  fate. 
 
 ^T^  HOUGH  in  treating,  in  a  former 
 publication,  of  fuch  heathen  de- 
 mons as  were  the  objects  of  eftablifhed 
 ^worfhip,  I  had  no  diredl  view  to  the  bar- 
 barous nations  ;  and  though  the  propo- 
 fition  I  then  undertook  to  prove  could 
 have  no  refpeft  to  fuch  of  them  as  did 
 not  acknowledge  any  demons*;  yet  a 
 late  opponent  fancied  he  fhould  refute 
 me,  if  he  could  fhew  that  fome  of  thefe 
 nations  worfliipped  only  the  natural 
 gods.  The  attempt  was  not  very  judi- 
 cious ;  what  his  fuccefs  is,  will  be  feen 
 
 »  Above,  p.  8-1 1. 
 
 C  4  hereafter. 
 
24  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 hereafter.  I  fhall  firfl:  of  all  examine, 
 whether  human  fpirits  were  worfhipped 
 in  the  barbarous  nations  taken  notice  of 
 by  Mr.  Fell ;  and  then  inquire  how  far 
 this  was  the  cafe  with  thofe  which  he  has 
 omitted, 
 
 SECT.     I. 
 
 Shewing,  from  the  fejlimony  of  the  Heathens^ 
 that  moji  even  of  thofe  barbarous  nations^ 
 ivhich  have  been  faid  to  worjhip  only  the 
 natural  gods ^  paid  divine  honours  to  de^ 
 ceafed  men* 
 
 TN  the  eight  barbarous  nations  that 
 follow,  the  Scythians,  the  Maflage- 
 tes,  the  Getes,  the  Goths,  the  Germans, 
 the  Perfians,  the  Arabians,  and  the  in- 
 habitants of  Meroe,  no  deceafed  heroes 
 were  worfhipped ;»  according  to  a  late 
 writer. 
 
 I.  With  refpe6l  to  the  Scythians^  we 
 are  told  by  Herodotus*,  that  the  only 
 
 gods 
 
in  barbarous  Nations'^  25 
 
 gods  whom  they  all  worfliipped,  were 
 principally  Vejlay  called  by  them  Tahiti  j 
 then  Jupiter  and  his  wife  Gee  the  earth, 
 denominating  the  firft  PapceuSy  the  fe- 
 cond  Apia  -y  and  after  thefe  Apollo  and  the 
 celeftial  Venus  (called  in  their  language 
 Oetofyrus  and  Artimpafa)  y  and  Hercules 
 and  Mars,  The  hiftorian  adds,  that  the 
 royal  Scythians  facrifice  alfo  to  Neptune. 
 Mr.  Feir,  copying  after  Dr,  Black- 
 well"^,  confiders  Oetofyrus  and  Artimpafa 
 as  the  names  of  the  fun  and  moon  -,  and 
 explains  Hercules  and  Mars  by  the  powers 
 of  war.  Though  I  feel  the  weight  of  Dr. 
 Blackweirs  authority,  yet  it  cannot,  I 
 apprehend,  be  proved  from  Herodotus, 
 that  the  Scythians  worfhipped  the  parts 
 and  powers  of  nature  exclufively  of  hu- 
 man fpirits,  or  even  that  the  latter  were 
 not  the  immediate  objects  of  their  wor- 
 ship.    Mofl  of  the  Scythian  gods  (if  not 
 
 /xsTflt  JiE  T»Ta?,  A'jtdXKuvci,  re,  xa»  a^avj^v  A^^oS^trrv,  xa»  H^:^- 
 Khioe^i  Ku%  A^sa*  mrnq  fji.tv  9r«»T£?  ot  "Zy.vBut  vivo[ji.iKXi7i'  o(  ^e 
 ^acrt^yjiot  Sxf^at  y.cci  ru  lluaBihuiii  ^yscri.  x.  t.  A.  Herodot. 
 1.  4.   C.  59. 
 
 »  P.  8.  w  ]VIytbol.  p.  274,  275. 
 
 all) 
 
iz6  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 all)  fpecified  by  Herodotus  were  wor- 
 (hipped  by  the  Greeks,  and  by  them  were 
 confidered  as  human  perfonages.  Now, 
 inafmuch  as  Herodotus,  we  may  well 
 fuppofe,  calls  the  gods  of  Scythia  by  the 
 names  of  the  correfpondent  deities  of 
 Greece  5  if  the  latter  were  deified  men 
 and  women,  the  former  muft  be  fo  like-* 
 wife.  This  general  reafon  will  be  con- 
 firmed by  a  diftincl  examination  of  each 
 particular  deity.  The  Scythians  chal-^ 
 lenged  "Jupiter  as  the  progenitor  of  their 
 king^  and  Vejia,  their  principal  deity,  for 
 their  queen'':  a  plain  proof  that  they  con-- 
 fidered  them  as  having  reigned  over  them 
 upon  earth.  Gee  being  the  wife  of  Ju- 
 piter, v/as  certainly  conceived  to  be  of 
 the  fame  nature  with  him  5  and  feems  to 
 anfwer  to  the  Herthum  of  the  Germans, 
 the  Cybele  of  the  Phrygians,  and  the 
 goddefs  Gee  fpoken  of  by  Sanchonia- 
 thon,  who  will  be  feverally  confidered  In 
 
 ^  Indathyrfus,  king  of  Scythia,  fays,  Ago-flrora?  ^e 
 ty.Hi;,  Aiflt  re  lyu)  vo[ji,i(ci}  tok  ei^ov  'ST^oyovoVf  y.cci  It^viv  rr,v  l^y.w 
 Qeuv   ^cx,ai'Kik!X.y ,  fji.iiii8i  ena^,     Herodot.    1,  4.   C.  127. 
 
 the 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  27 
 
 the  fequel^.  It  will  likewife  be  fhewn 
 that  the  celejiial  Venus  of  the  eaftern  na- 
 tions was  a  native  of  earth :  fuch  there- 
 fore muft  have  been  Apollo'^ ^  who  is  joined 
 with  her.  With  both  thefe  the  hiftorian 
 joins  Hercules  and  Mars ;  which  fhews 
 they  could  not  be  gods  of  different  or- 
 ders. That  Mars  at  leaft  was  worftiip- 
 ped  by  the  Scythians  under  a  human 
 character,  appears  from  their  dedicating 
 to  him  images^  as  well  as  altars  and  tem- 
 ples. And  as  to  Neptune^  it  will  not 
 be  difputed  that  he  was  no  other  than  a 
 deified  man.  He  will  be  fpoken  of  in  the 
 fequel.     I  add,  that  Lucian^  who  had 
 
 full 
 
 y  Herthum  in  article  V.  of  this  feflion;  Cybele  in 
 the  fecond  fedion,  under  article  III.  and  Gee  in  the 
 fecond  chapter,  article  Phenicians. 
 
 ^  Though  Apollo,  phyfically  explained,  was  the 
 fjin,  yf t  hillorically  underftood  he  was  a  diftinil  deity, 
 as  is  fhewn  in  Schedius,  De  Diis  German,  p.  94. 
 
 *  Ayci?^fj!.ccrcc  h  x«i  /3<y/xa$  xai  vnBq,  n.  t-  X.  Herodot.  1. 
 A.  c.  59.  See  what  is  faid  below  concerning  the  Mars 
 of  the  Goths  and  other  northern  nations  under  article 
 IV.  and  concerning  Hercules  under  article  V.  in  this 
 fedlicn. 
 
 ►  ScythafeuKofpes,  Oper.  v.  i.  p.  591,  592,  et  feq. 
 
 ed. 
 
28        '  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 full  information  concerning  the  Scythi- 
 ans, exprefsly  teftifies,  that  they  raifed 
 Zamolxis,  their  ancient  legiflator,  and 
 other  illuftrious  men  into  the  rank  of 
 gods. 
 
 IL  *^  The  M^^^to,  their  neigbours," 
 fays  Mr.  Feir,  in  agreement  with  Dr. 
 Blackwell,  ^'  adored  no  gods  but  the 
 *'  fun.''  The  Maffagetes  were  fava- 
 ges  upon  the  borders  of  the  Cafpian  fea% 
 and  there  is  no  more  reference  to  their 
 2:ods  in  the  DifTertation,  than  to  thofe  of 
 the  inhabitants  of  Otaheite.  I  cannot 
 however  help  making  the  following  ob- 
 fervations. 
 
 Herodotus  %  who  is  the  only  author 
 referred  to  by  Dr.  Blackwell,  and  after 
 him  by  Mr.  Fell,  in  proof  of  their  af- 
 fertion,  fpoke  from  report  only.  And 
 it  is  generally  allowed,  that  this  hifto- 
 rian,  however  faithful  he  may  be  in  re- 
 ed. Amftel.  1687.  See  alfo  v.  2.  p.  713.  et  Tertullian, 
 de  Anima,  c.  2. 
 
 «  P.  8,  9.     Compare  Blackwell's  Myth.  p.  275. 
 
 *  Herodot.  lib.  i.  c.  201,  204. 
 
 «  Lib.  I.  c.  216, 
 
 lating 
 
in  barbarous  Natiofis,  29 
 
 latliig  fa£ts  which  came  within  his  own 
 knowledge,  gave  too  eafy  credit  to  what 
 was  reported  to  him  by  others  :  which 
 renders  his  teftimony  doubtful  in  the 
 cafe  before  us.  Befides,  the  Maflagetes 
 might  be  faid  to  worlliip  only  the  fun, 
 in  contradiftin6lion  to  the  other  celeftial 
 luminaries,  and  not  to  mortal  gods.  Or 
 the  hiftorian  might  only  mean,  that  the 
 fun  was  eminently  the  objefl  of  their  de- 
 votion y  in  which  fenfe,  as  we  fliall  fee, 
 fimilar  language  was  ufed  concerning  the 
 Perfians.  It  is  remarkable,  that  we  find 
 the  Maffagetes  fwearing  by  the  fun  un- 
 der the  charafter  of  their  fovereig7i\  It 
 was  an  opinion  propagated  in  the  rude 
 ages  of  the  world,  that  the  fouls  of  emi- 
 nent perfons  became  celeftial  luminaries. 
 And  thefe  Barbarians  might  be  led  to  be- 
 lieve, that  the  fun  was  the  foul  of  the 
 firft  founder  and  fovereign  of  their  nati- 
 on \  or,  at  leaft,  that  it  was  inhabited 
 by  fome  beneficent  patron  who  was  ap- 
 
 1.    I.    C.   212. 
 
 pointed 
 
3  O         WorJJnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 pointed  to  rule  in  it  for  their  peculiar 
 benefit.  That  they  did  not  in  any  view 
 whatever  worfhip  human  fpirits,  will 
 fcarce  appear  credible  to  thofe  who  con- 
 fider,  that  the  Maflagetes  were  a  part 
 of  the  Celtes^  amongft  whom  this  wor- 
 fliip  prevailed.  If  they  were  a  tribe 
 of  Scythians,  as  fome  affirmed^  their 
 patron-deity  was  Zamolxis.  But  thefe 
 circumftances  are  urged  rather  as 
 conje6lures,  than  as  decifive  proofs  ^ 
 and  it  may  be  doubted^  whether  the  peo-^ 
 pie,  of  whom  we  are  fpeaking,  were 
 worfhippers  of  dead  men. 
 
 Hitherto  we  have  feen  Mr.  Fell  copy- 
 ing Dr.  Blackwell  %  but,  under  the  next 
 article,'  he  appears  to  me  under  the  cha- 
 rafter  of  a  writer  truly  original. 
 
 III.  "  The  Getes,"  fays  Mr.  Fell*, 
 '^  efteemed  the  heavens  to  be  the  only 
 *'  deity."  In  fupport  of  this  affertion, 
 he  makes  a  general  reference  to  the  Clio 
 
 8  See  below,  Se6l.  II. 
 
 ^  Herodot.  1.  i.  c.  20l.  > 
 
 »  P.  o. 
 
 ^  of 
 
In  barbarous  Nations*  •  31 
 
 of  Herodotus,  but  without  informing 
 his  readers  in  what  particular  chapter^ 
 or  in  what  page,  of  that  book  he  found 
 it  5  though  this,  furely,  would  have 
 been  as  eafy  as  to  direft  his  readers  to 
 the  very  line^  in  Hefiod  in  which  his  ci- 
 tations from  him  may  be  found. 
 
 I  have  lately  read  over  the  whole  hif-' 
 tory   of  Herodotus ;    and   think  I   can 
 affirm,  with  certainty,  that  there  is  no 
 fuch  pal&ge,  in  any  part  of  this  hifto- 
 rian,  as^  that  which  Mr.  Fell  quotes  as 
 his.     That  there  can  be  no  fuch  paffage 
 in.  him  as  that  in  queftion,  is  capable  of 
 very  clear  proof.     The  Getes  were  a  part 
 of  the  Thracians  \      Now,  the  latter, 
 as  will  be  fhewn  in  the  fequel,  did  cer- 
 tainly worihip  Zamolxis  ;  and  therefore 
 very  probably   the  former  did  fo  too. 
 But,  what  is  more  material,  and  indeed 
 quite  deci(ive,  it  appears  from  Herodo- 
 tus himfelf,  to  whom  Mr.  Fell  appeals, 
 
 *  Fell,  p.  I,  2,  3,  notes  %  ^,  S  ^*  S   ^« 
 ^  Herodoi.  1.  4,  c.  93^ 
 
 that 
 
3-2  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 that  the  Getes  propitiated ""  the  god  Za^ 
 molxis  J  and,  in  time  of  thunder  and 
 lightning,  threatened  this  deity y  believing 
 there  was  no  other  g(^d~but  theirs ". 
 
 Many  other  Greek  writers,  of  the  firft ' 
 reputation,  contradift  Mr.  FelFs  afler- 
 tion,  that  the  Getes  efteemed  the  hea- 
 vens to  be  the  only  deity.  When  Plato 
 introduces  a  Thracian  aflerting  the  di- 
 vinity "  of  their  king  Zamolxis,  he  is 
 fuppofed  to  refer  to  the  Getes,  as  well  as 
 to  the  other  inhabitants  of  Thrace. 
 Strabo%  in  more  places  than  one,  fpeaks 
 of  Zamolxis  the  Pythagorean  as  a  deity, 
 and  one  acknowledged  as  fuch  by  the 
 Getes.     Lucian  "^  makes  mention  of  him 
 
 *"    TotO-l   S'e  i>.tUq  0  ^eOJ   ^OXE£»   £»V«I.        Hcrodot.   1.  4.    C.    94. 
 
 ^  A9rjtX£tf«n  Tw  ^ew,  e^iva.  aXKav  Sfo*  ya^i^oirt^  nvM  si  fcjj 
 rer  aipETt^oy.      Id.  lb. 
 
 **  Za/*o^|»5  7\tyti,  o  r/iA£T£go;  /SacrtXst;?,  Seo?  «vt  rlaton. 
 Charmid.  p.  157,  torn.  2.  ed.  H.  Stephan.  — p.  276, 
 cd.  Ficini* 
 
 P  Za^oX^j?  — *  wa^a  ^t  to»;  Tiroc\q  avoy.et^ero  Sfo?.  L*  7* 
 c.  457.     See  airop.466,  1 106,  ed.  Amftel. 
 
 s  Deor.  Concil.  Oper.  torn.  2.  p.  713.  ed.  AmlleL 
 See  below,  near  the  end  of  the  next  fedionj  where  the 
 Thracians  are  fpoken  of. 
 
 as 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  -^^ 
 
 as  having  rifen  from  the  condition  of  a 
 flave  to  divine  honours.  Diogenes  La- 
 ertius  expreflly  refers  to  the  hiftory  of 
 Herodotus  when  he  fays,  that  Pythago- 
 ras had  a  Have  named  Zamolxis,  to  whom 
 the  Getes facrifice\  And  Jambhchus,  in 
 his  Hfe  of  Pythagoras,  affirms,  that  the 
 Getes  regarded  Zamolxis  as  the  greatefi 
 of  the  gods  \ 
 
 I  do  not  know  that  thefe  teftimonies 
 are  contradifted  by  a  fmgle  perfon,  whe- 
 ther ancient  or  modern,  Mr.  Fell  alone 
 excepted.  But,  notwithftanding  feveral 
 unfavourable  appearances,  and  the  li- 
 berties he  takes  on  other  occcafions^ 
 he  may  be  able  to  clear  himfelf  from 
 all  fufpicion  of  having  had  recourfe 
 to  invention,  in  order  to  fupply  his 
 want  of  teftimonies.  As  that  is  a 
 matter  that  muft  be  left  to  himfelf,  I 
 
 ^via-iv  H^o^oToq.      Diogen.   Laert.   Vit.   Pythagor.  1.   8, 
 fegm.  2. 
 
 *  Msyjro?  Twy  Biuv  tr*  'ra^'  «i^tok.     Jamblich.  C.30. 
 
 *  See  above,  p.  11-17. 
 
 D  fhall 
 
34  WorjJnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fhall  only  obferve,  that,  had  he  had  any 
 knowledge  of  the  fentiments  of  Herodo- 
 tus, and  the  other  Greek  writers,  con- 
 cerning the  gods  of  the  Getes,  prudence, 
 at  lead,  would  have  reftrained  him  from 
 afierting  a  fa6l,  that  was  contradi6led  by 
 all  antiquity,  and  even  by  that  very  hif- 
 torian  to  whom  he  appealed  for  it's  fup- 
 port.  Mr.  Fell,  after  fpeaking  of  the 
 Getes.,  adds, 
 
 IV.  ''  The  fame  obje6ls  of  religious 
 ''  worfnip  pafTed  from  the  ancient  Scy- 
 '^  thians  to  the  Goths'"^, 
 
 With  refpeft  to  thefe  people,  our 
 author  has  given  us  no  authority  but 
 his  own;  the  weight  of  which  we 
 need  not  now  examine.  Had  he  not 
 been  as  entirely  unacquainted  with  the 
 Goths  as  with  the  Getes,  he  would  have 
 known  there  was  as  little  reafon  to  rank 
 the  former,  as  (I  have  fhewn  there  was) 
 the  latter,  amongft  the  nations  which 
 worlhipped  only  the  natural  gods.  A 
 few  extracts  from  Olam  Magnus  ^  (him- 
 
 "  Fell,  p.  9. 
 
 ^  I  refer  to  his  Hirtoria  de  Gentibus  feptentrionali- 
 bus,  publillied  at  Rome,   1555.  ,  felf 
 
///  ifarbarous  Nations,  ^S 
 
 felf  a  Goth,  and  archbifhop  of  Upfal) 
 will  ferve  to  prove,  that  the  inhabitants 
 of  the  northern  countries  in  general, 
 while  they  continued  Heathens,  wor- 
 fhipped  dead  men. 
 
 From  this  writer  we  learn,  that  many 
 of  thefe  nations  burnt  their  kings  and 
 princes,  after  their  death,  that  they 
 might  become  gods,  or  be  ranked  a- 
 mongft  the  gods ''.  He  farther  informs 
 us,  that  the  three  greater  gods  of  the 
 Goths  were  Tbory  Fn'ga,  and  OSen^. 
 The  I  aft  of  thefe,  Odheriy  was  certainly 
 of  human  extraft  3  for  Olaus  fays  of 
 him,  that,  while  living,  he  was  ac^ 
 knowledged  as  a  god  by  all  Europe ^  on 
 account  of  his  fuperiority  in  the  art  of 
 war  5  which,  it  was  thought,  gave  rife 
 to  the  opinion  of  the  Goths,  that  Mars, 
 whom  antiquity  confidered  as  the  god  of 
 
 ^  Reges  ac  principes  fuos  fatis  exutos,  ut  vel  dii  fie- 
 fent,  vel  inter  deos  eveherentur,  combufTerunt.  Lib.  3, 
 C.I,  p.  97. 
 
 y  Vide  c.  3,  de  tribus  diis  majoribus  Gothcrum. 
 
 D  2  war. 
 
36  WorJJjtp  of  human  Sprits 
 
 war,  was  born  amongft  them "",  This 
 god  was  appeafed  by  the  Goths  with  the 
 blood  of  their  captive  enemies  \  As  to 
 T'/jory  the  mcji  mighty y  the  prelident  of  the 
 an*,  where  he  thunders^he  feems  to  an- 
 fv/er  to  the   Roman  Jupiter ''j  and  was 
 
 2  In  page  100,  he  fays,  concerning  Odhen,  Quia  vi- 
 vus  fofa  Europa  divinitatis  titulum,  quod  nulli  in  arte 
 militari  cederet,  afTecutus  fuiflet ;  liinc  evenifie  creditur, 
 ut  Gothi  — — —  Martem,  quern  deum  belli  putavit  anti- 
 quitas,  apud  fe  dicerent  progenitum. 
 
 *  Jornandes  (de  rebus  Goticis,  cap.  5.)  afllrms,  that 
 the  Goths  —  Martem  Temper  afperrima  placavere  cul-* 
 tura.  Nam  vi6lima3  ejus  mortes  fuere  captivorum.  — • 
 This  is  confirmed  by  other  writers. 
 
 ^  Grotius    (in  his   Proleg.   Hill.    Gott.   ef^  Vandal. 
 p.  21.)  fays,  Veteres  Germani  Deum  coeli  non  alio  no-^ 
 mine  quam  Thorn  vocarunt,  quod  eft  tonans  nunc  etiam 
 Danis.     Michaelis  (on  the  Influence  of  opinions  on  lan- 
 guage, p.  19.)  informs  us,  that,  in   fome  of  the  pro- 
 vinces of  Germany,  the   peafants,  when  it   thunders> 
 fay.  The  good  old  man  is  pajjing  along  the  air.     Did  they 
 hot  derive    this  language   from    their  pagan  anceftots, 
 though   they   now  apply  it  to  God  ?     I  take  notice  of 
 thefe   circumftances  in   this   place,  becaufe    the  Goths 
 iX'orfhipped  nearly  the  fame  gods  as  the  Germans. 
 
 ^  Thor,  inquiunt,  praefidet  in  acre ;  qui  tonitrua,  et 
 fulmina,  ventos,  imbrefque,  ferena,  et  fruges,  guber- 
 nat.  — —  Thor  cum  fceptro  Jovem  exprimere  videtur. 
 M.  Adamus  Bremcnfis  de  Sueonibus. 
 
 confidered 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  37 
 
 confidered  as  having  once  been  a  mortal 
 man  :  for  Olaus  fpeaks  of  fome  who 
 were  thought  to  be  the  fons  of  Thor  or 
 Odhen.  The  defcription  given  of  Frigga 
 agrees  with  that  of  Venus ;  but  what 
 reafon  can  be  affigned,  why  a  woman 
 might  not  as  well  be  confidered  as  the 
 goddefs  of  love,  as  a  man  be  regarded  as 
 the  god  of  war  ? 
 
 With  refpeft  to  the  lejfer  deities  of  the 
 Goths  and  all  the  northern  provinces, 
 Methotin,  Froe^  Rojlhicphiis  Finnoniciis^ 
 they  are  reprefented  by  Olaus  as  men 
 who  had  been  eminent  in  their  time,  but 
 afterwards  became  gods,  or  companions 
 of  the  gods*^,  and  were  honoured  with 
 religious  worfhip".  It  is  needlefs  to  ob- 
 ferve,  that  many  others  were  thought 
 worthy  of  divine  honours.  But  I  mull: 
 not  omit  to  take  notice,  that  there  was 
 a  very  magnificent  temple  of  the  northern 
 gods  near  the  river  Sala,    where  Upfal 
 
 **  Eofque   deos,  vel  deorum  complices,  autumantes. 
 Olays,  C.4.  p.  loi. 
 
 *  Id.  ubi  fupra,  ei  c.  7.  p.  106. 
 
 D  3  now 
 
38  ■         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 now  ftands,  famous  even  from  the  time 
 of  Ninus^  Thefe  extracts  from  Olaus 
 (which  are  in  a  great  meafure  confirmed 
 by  the  learned  authors  ^  of  the  Ancient 
 Univerfal  Hiftory)  ferve  to  (hew  what 
 gods  were  really  worfhipped  by  the 
 Goths,  as  well  as  to  dete6l  the  falfehood 
 of  the  account  given  of  them  by  Mr. 
 Fell.  With  the  Goths  the  gentleman 
 joins 
 
 V.  1l\\q  barbarous  Germans^ . 
 
 If  the  barbarous  Germans  had,  as  our 
 author's  language  ^  implies,  the  fame  ob- 
 jefts  of  religious  worfhip  with  the  an^ 
 cient  Scythians  and  Goths,  the  former 
 
 *  Olaus,  c.  6,  p.  104. 
 
 s  *^  The  religion  of  the  Goths  feems  to  have 
 **  been  the  fame  with  that  of  the  ancient  inhabitants  of 
 **  Scandinavia  and  Saxony,"  —  ''  whofe  chief  gods 
 *'  were  the  fun,  the  moon,  the  celebrated  Woden,  his 
 *'  fon  Thor,  (who  prefides  over  the  air,)  his  wife 
 **  Frigga  or  Frasa,  Tuifto,  Theutates,  Hefus,  Thara-. 
 *'  mis,"  &c.  Ancient  Univ.  Hill.  v.  19.  p.  265,  177^ 
 8vo.  ed.  1748. 
 
 ^  "  The  fame  objefts  of  religious  worlhip  pafTed  fron^ 
 *^  the  ancient  Scythians  to  the  Goths  and  barbarous 
 ?f  Ge^maris,"    l^'ell,  p.  9, 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  3  5 
 
 muft  have  been  worfhippers  of  dead  men ; 
 becaufe  we  have  fhewn  that  fuch  v^cre 
 both  the  latter.  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
 if  it  can  be  proved  that  the  Germans  dei- 
 fied their  heroes,  this  will  confirm  what 
 has  been  advanced  concerning  the  gods 
 of  the  Goths  and  Scythians.  Indeed, 
 it  it  can  be  proved,  concerning  any  one 
 of  thefe  three  nations,  that  human  fpi- 
 rits  were  worfliipped  in  it,  the  fame 
 muft  be  true  concerning  the  other  two, 
 provided  they  had  all  the  fame  objects 
 of  religious  worfhip. 
 
 I  allow,  that,  according  to  Caefar,  as 
 he  is  commonly  underftood,  the  Germans 
 owned  no  other  gods  but  the  fun,  Vul- 
 can, and  the  moon'.  But  Casfar,  though 
 well  acquainted  with  the  Gauls,  whom 
 he  fubdued  after  a  ten  vears'  v/ar,  had 
 very  little  knowledge  of  the  Germans ; 
 nor  has  he  mentioned  their  religiou   but 
 
 *  Deorum  numero  eos  folos  ducunt,  quos  cernunt,  et 
 quorum  opibus  aperte  juvantur,  Solem,  et  Vulcanum, 
 etLunam:  reliquoo  ne  fama  quidcm  acccperunt.  Ca^far^ 
 .de  Bell.  Gall.  1.  6,  c.  20. 
 
 D  4  in 
 
40  Worfiip  of  hufnan  Spirits 
 
 in  the  moft  tranfient  manner.  And  he 
 might  imagine,  as  many  others  have 
 done,  that  the  Germans  did  not  worfliip 
 the  fpirits  of  deceafed  men,  becaufe  (as 
 we  learn  from  Tacitus)  they  thought  it 
 unbecoming  the  majefty  of  the  gods  to  be 
 confined  within  temples,  or  reprefented. 
 under  human  forms'".  The  inference, 
 however,  is  not  jufl: :  for,  if  we  believe, 
 upon  the  authority  of  Tacitus,  that  the 
 Germans  had  neither  temples,  nor  ima^ 
 ges  in  human  form  ;  we  muft,  upon  the 
 fame  authority,  believe,  that  they  wor* 
 {hipped  the  fpirits  of  deceafed  men  -,  as 
 will  be  foon  fhewn.  Similar  inftances 
 will  occur  in  the  fequel. 
 
 The  firft  accounts,  given  of  the  reli- 
 gion of  foreign  countries,  are  often  im- 
 perfeft  and  erroneous  3  but  thefe  ac- 
 counts are  generally  corre6led  by  farther 
 enquiries,  and  a  more  improved  ac- 
 quaintance with  the  languages  and  cuf- 
 
 ^  Nee  cohibere  parietibus  deos,  neque  in  ullam  hu- 
 piani  oris  fpeciem  affimulare,  ex  magnitudine  cosleflium 
 arbitrantur,     Tacitus,  de  Mor.  German,  c.  9. 
 
 toms 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  41 
 
 toms  of  the  people.  How  often  were 
 we  told,  that  the  honours,  paid  by  the 
 Chinefe  to  Confucius  and  their  ancef- 
 tors,  were  of  a  civil,  rather  than  of  a  reli- 
 gious,  nature  ?  Neverthelefs  it  appear- 
 ed, after  the  ftriclefl:  examination  into 
 the  matter,  that  the  worfliip  paid  to  the 
 fouls oftheiranceftors is  idolatrous;  and 
 that  the  ceremonies  ufed  in  honour  of  Con- 
 fucius are  the  very  fame  with  thofe  per- 
 formed in  the  worfhip  of  the  celeftial 
 and  terreftrial  fpiritsof  the  Chinefe  \ 
 
 Thus  (I  apprehend)  it  is  in  the  cafe 
 before  us  :  the  defeftive""  and  (perhaps) 
 erroneous  view  of  the  German  gods,  ex- 
 
 '  See  Moflielm's  Ecclefiaftlcal  Hid.  v.  2.  p.  298-300. 
 qto.  and  his  Memoirs  of  the  Chriftian  Church  in 
 China. 
 
 n>  Caefar  has  omitted  Jupiter,  who  neverthelefs  was 
 worfhipped  by  the  Germans,  under  the  German-Celtic 
 denomination  of  Thor,  Thur,  or  Thunder,  See  the  Rev. 
 and  learned  Mr.  Whitaker's  Hift.  of  Manchefter,  v.  2. 
 p.  359.  The  name  was  originally  Thoran,  Thorn',  but 
 the  n  was  omitted  in  the  pronunciation.  Id.  ib.  He 
 was  the  Tharamis,  or  Taranis,  who  will  be  fpoken  of 
 under  the  article,  Gauls,  He  was  certainly  a  Celtic 
 4eity. 
 
 hibited 
 
4  2  Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 hibited  by  Caefar,  is  fupplied  or  corre6l- 
 ed  by  the  fuller  information  of  Tacitus, 
 who  had  thoroughly  ftudied  their  reli- 
 gion, and  has  given  a  very  particular  ac- 
 count of  the  objefts  of  their  worfhip  j 
 both  of  thofe  common  to  feveral  nations 
 of  Germany,  and  thofe  peculiar  to  each 
 of  them.  According  to  this  very  accu- 
 rate writer,  the  Germans  worfhipped  the 
 fouls  of  dead  men,  and  Hercules  in  par- 
 ticular, whom,  when  they  went  to  bat-* 
 tie,  they  extolled  in  their  fongs  above  all 
 other  heroes" ;  and  they  appeafed  him  aiii 
 Mars  with  the  animals  ufually  allowed  for  fa* 
 crifce"".  From  the  manner  in  which 
 Mars  is  joined  with  Hercules,  there  can 
 be  no  ground  to  doubt,  but  that  the  for- 
 mer was  of  no  higher  an  original  than 
 the  latter.  It  is  juft  the  fame  thing  as 
 if  the  hiftorian  had  faid,  though  both 
 had  been  men,  both  were  raifed  to  the 
 
 "  Fuifle  apud  eos  et  Herculem  memorant,  primum- 
 que  omnium  virorum  fortium  ituri  in  praelia  canunt. 
 Tacit,  de  Mor.  Germ.  c.  2. 
 
 °  Herculem  ac  Martem  concefTis  animalibus  placaftt. 
 Id.  c.  9.     Concerning  Hercules,  fee  c.  34.. 
 
 rank 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  43 
 
 rank  of  gods,  and  worfliipped  with  the 
 lame  rites.  And  indeed  who  could  the 
 Mars  of  the  Germans  be,  but  the  fame 
 valiant  hero  and  god  of  war  who  was 
 worfhipped  over  all  Europe^  ? 
 
 Several  of  the  other  German  deities, 
 mentioned  by  Tacitus,  were  alfo  of  hu- 
 man extraft.  Such  were  (to  fay  nothing 
 of  Mercury'')  Tuijio,  a  god  fprung  from 
 the  earthy  (that  is,  the  firfl:  man',  as  they 
 accounted  him,)  and  his  fon,  Maiinus  \ 
 the  perfons  from  whom  they  were  defended^ 
 
 P  Above,  p.  36,  note  *. 
 
 ^  Mercury  will  be  fpoken  of  when  we  come  to  conli- 
 der  the  cafe  of  the  Gauls. 
 
 '  According  to  Tacitus,  (Mor.  Germ.  c.  2.)  the 
 Germans  were  the  original  natives  of  their  country,  and 
 neither  derived  from,  nor  mixed  with,  other  people. 
 •  They  muft  therefore  have  confidered  Tuifto  as  the  firlt 
 man.  Eredlheus,  an  ancient  king  of  Athens,  to  whom 
 a  temple  was  dedicated,  was  alfo  faid  to  be  born  of  the 
 earth,  (Herodor.  1.  8.  c.  55.)  and  many  others.  AI- 
 moll  every  nation  pretended  to  be  of  equal  duration 
 with  the  eartl^  itfelf.  See  Potter's  Antiq.  b.  i.  c.  i. 
 Compare  Dr.  Borlafe's  Antiquities  of  Cornwall,  b.  i. 
 
 ajid 
 
44  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 and  the  founders  of  the  natio7i\  To  thefe 
 we  may  probably  add  Herthunty  that  is, 
 mother-earth,  or  the  goddefs  that  prefi- 
 ded  over  it,  who  was  worfhipped  by  fe- 
 veral  people  of  Germany.  She  is  defcri- 
 bed  as  a  goddefs  who  vifits  countries,  and 
 is  fometimes  drawn  about  in  a  chariot,  and 
 afterwards  wafhed  and  purified,  together 
 with  her  holy  vehicle,  in  a  fecret  lake'. 
 As  to  Ifis,  Caftor  and  Pollux,  Velleda, 
 and  many  more'*,  it  is  impoffible  to 
 doubt  of  their  being  of  human  origin. 
 
 Nor  is  there  any  juft  reafon  to  conclude, 
 that  the  Germans  introduced  a  new  fpe- 
 cies  of  worfhip  in  the  interval  of  time 
 between  Caefar  and  Tacitus.  For  the 
 latter  tells  us,  that  their  deifying  Villeda 
 and  other  women,  in  whom  a  fpirit  of  di- 
 vination was  thought  to  dwell,  was  ar. 
 
 '  Celebrant  Tuiflonem  deum,  terra  editum,  et  filium 
 Mannum,  originem  gentis,  conditorefque.  Tacit. 
 Mor.  Germ.  c.  2.  —  Communis  opinio  et  fama  eft,  ho- 
 mines terra  prognatos,  &c.  Polyhiftor  &  Abydenus,  as 
 cited  by  Schedius  de  Diis  Gerrn.  p.  278. 
 
 »  Id.  c.  40. 
 
 ■  C.  8,  9,  43. 
 
 greeable 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  45 
 
 greeable  to  the  ancient  iifage  of  the  Ger-- 
 mans^ '^  not  founded  upon  flattery,  nor 
 upon  a  notion  that  they  could  make  dei- 
 ties by  performing  certain  rites  of  confe- 
 cration,  (which,  as  he  infinuates,  was 
 the  cafe  among  the  Romans,)  but  upon 
 a  real  belief  that  fuch  women  parti- 
 cipated a  divine  quality". — The  account 
 given  of  the  German  gods  by  Tacitus  is 
 more  authentic  than  Csefar's,  and  has 
 been  fo  deemed  by  learned  men^.  But 
 after  all,  there  is  perhaps  no  contradic- 
 tion between  thefe  illuflrious  writers. 
 Caefar  was  too  well  acquainted  with  the 
 genius  of  paganifm,  to  deny  that  the 
 Germans  worfhipped  the  heroes  of  their 
 
 '^  Vetere  apud  Germanos  more,  quo  plerafque  fasmi- 
 narum  fatidicas,  et  augefcente  fuperftitione  arbitrentiir 
 deas.  Tacit.  Hift.  1.  4.  c.  61.  —  See  what  the  fame 
 author  fays  concerning  Velleda,  de  Mor.  Germ.  c.  8. 
 In  the  fame  place  he  tells  us,  Olim  Aurlniam  et  com- 
 plures  alias  venerati  funt,  non  adulatione,  nee  tanquam 
 facerent  deas. 
 
 *  Ineffe  quinetiam  fandum  aliquid  et  providum  pu- 
 tant.    Id.  ib. 
 
 >'  See  Tacit,  Mor.  Germ.  c.  9.  ed.  Gronov.  torn.  2. 
 p.  602. 
 
 own 
 
46  WorJIdip  of  hu7nan  Spirits 
 
 own  country.  Nor  does  his  language 
 import  fuch  a  denial.  He  is  fpeaking 
 only  of  the  gods  acknowledged  by  the 
 Germans  in  general,  of  fuch  of  their* 
 gods  as  they  held  in  common  with  the 
 Romans  and  other  nations.  For,  after 
 faying  that  the  Gerrnans  owned  no  other 
 gods  but  the  fun,  Vulcan,  and  the 
 moon,  he  adds,  of  the  ref  they  have  ?iof 
 fo  much  as  heard -y  that  is,  the  reft  of  the 
 ^  gods  generally  worfhipped  in  other  coun- 
 tries. On  this  natural  fuppofition,  Cae- 
 far  had  no  view  to  the  gods  peculiar  to 
 the  Germans  in  general,  or  to  any  parti- 
 cular tribes  of  that  people.  But  it  is  on 
 thefe  that  Tacitus  has  enlarged.  If  we 
 put  the  accounts  of  both  thefe  w^riters 
 together,  the  Germans,  like  the  northern 
 nations,  had  gods  both  natural  and 
 mortal '•    Let  us  proceed  to  confider. 
 
 *  See  what  is  fald  above,  p*  38,  note  ?,  con- 
 cerning the  northern  nations.  Had  Cacfar  thought  that 
 the  Germans  worfhipped  only  the  natural  gods,  h€ 
 would  have  ufed  the  word  f  re,  inltead  of  Vulcan. 
 
 VI. 
 
in  barbarous  Natiom,  47 
 
 VI.  The  cafe  of  the  Perfians^  to  which 
 Dr.  BlackwelP  appeals,  and  after  him 
 Mr.  Fell  \ 
 
 The  account  given  of  the  religion  of  the 
 Perfians  by  Herodotus  is  as  follows: 
 /^  They  do  not  erecl  either  ftatues,  or 
 *'  temples,  or  altars;  and  charge  with 
 ''  extreme  folly  thofe  who  do.  What  I 
 ''  take  to  be  their  reafon  is,  that  they  do 
 ^'  not  believe,  like  the  Greeks,  that  the 
 ''  gods  are  of  the  race  of  men^.  They  af- 
 ''  cend  the  fummits  of  the  mountains 
 **  when  they  facrifice  to  Jupiter,  by 
 **  which  name  they  call  the  whole  circum- 
 **  ference  of  heaven.  They  facrifice  alfo 
 "  to  the  fun  and  moon,  and  to  the  earth, 
 *'  and  to  fire,  water,  and  winds  :  and  to 
 ^^  thefe  alone  they  facrifice  from  the  be- 
 *'  ginning.  But  they  have  learnt  from 
 *'  the  Afiyrians  and  Arabians  to  facrifice 
 
 *  Mythol.  p.  272. 
 
 ^  This  meaning  of  the  original  word,  as^^-w^ro^yEaf, 
 will  be  vindicated  in  the  next  chapter,  when  confidering 
 the  gods  of  the  Greeks, 
 
 "  alfo 
 
^8  WorJInp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 "  alfo  to  Urania,  or  Venus,  who  by  the 
 *'  AfTyrians  is  called  Mylitta,  by  the  A-^ 
 "  rabians  Alitta,  and  by  the  Perfians 
 "  Mitra'. 
 
 In  juftice  to  the  great  fagacity  of  Mr. 
 Fell,  I  muft  take  notice,  that  he  is  plea- 
 fed  to  fay%  *'  that  I  carefully  omit  the 
 *'  account  which  Herodotus  has  given 
 "  concerning  the  Perfian  objefts  of  wor- 
 "  fhip,  becaufe  that  is  a  flat  contradic- 
 *'  tion  to  my  repeated  aflertions."  The 
 Perfians  being  a  barbarous^  nation  in  the 
 
 ^  AyaXjxara   jm-ev    v.a\  vr/a?   v.ui  ^cjf^Hq  an  zv  VQfJi,u  'sroJEyjO'.svaf 
 
 «^ot  ^uitenv,  on  »>t  aty^gwwo^yEa;  evojjt.io'av  ra?  Sea?,  zoctxtt^^ 
 01  EXA>jv£s>  uvui.  Ot  oe  vojxi^ecn  An  [xevf  stti  ret  v^riXorccrx 
 Tuv  upsuv  uvct^xtvovrB^t  Bvaiocq  B^htVf  rov  xt;x^ov  •n'ocvroc,  th  ou- 
 cuvn  Aioc  xaAEOvTES*  Sfi?cr»  ^e  ijAiw  re  xa;  «r£^yyV>?j  >icn  7*3  xai 
 9ryg»  xa»  voccn  x.cci  ccvb[J(.oi(T^'  TtfToKTt  /a£>  015  iaHvokti  Bvaai  ccf^r,9i.vt 
 JE9r»/>t£/>ta'jr;)ca£ri  h  aui  rri  Ov^ocn'n  Bveiv,  Trochee  re  Aaav^iuv  {jlo6- 
 Sovles  'i**  A^cc^iuv'  nxXseui  h  Aa■a•v^^o^  rriv  A(p^o^iTY,v,  Mv 
 Tiirla*  A^cc^ioi  ^£,  A?aT]a*  Hs^a-ai  h,  Mtrgav.  Herodot. 
 h  I.  c.  131. 
 
 «  p.  7. 
 
 f  Herodotus  perpetually  ftiles  them  Barbarians  ;  and 
 the  account  he  gives  of  them  fhews  that  they  dcferved 
 the  title,  for  a  better  rcafon  than  their  not  being  Gre- 
 cians. 
 
 age 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  49 
 
 age  of  Herodotus,  and  there  being  no 
 peculiar  reference  to  their  gods  in  Scrip- 
 ture ^  they  could  not  be  included  in  my 
 propofition  ftated  above  ^ ;  efpecially  if  it 
 be  true,  that  they  had  no  demons,  or 
 fubaltern  deities,  of  any  kind;  which 
 they  could  not  have,  if,  as  Mr.  Fell  con- 
 tends, they  worfhipped  only  the  natural 
 gods.  The  account  given  of  the  gods 
 of  Perfia  by  Herodotus  has  not  even  the 
 appearance  of  being  a  contradiftion  to 
 my  aflertions  concerning  thofe  demons, 
 who  were  the  more  immediate  objefts 
 of  public  worfhip  in  other  countries ; 
 and  whom  I  affirmed  to  be  human  fpi- 
 rits  :  and  confequently  I  could  not  be 
 under  any  fuch  temptation,  as  our  author 
 fuppofes,  to  omit  that  account.  The  fa6l 
 is,  that  r  cited  as  much  of  Herodotus  as 
 belonged  to  the  fubjeft  upon  whi.ch  I 
 was  fpeaking ;    and  even  that  very  part 
 
 «  The  doctrine  of  the   two  principles  alluded  to  by 
 Ifaiah  was  not  peculiar  to  the  Perfian  . 
 ^  P.  4. 
 »  DiU.rt,  p.  186,   187. 
 
 E  of 
 
fo  JVorJJnp  of  human  spirits 
 
 of  him  which  aflerts,  that  the  Perjians 
 did  not  believe  that  the  gods  are  of  the  race 
 of  men  ;  which  is  the  only  circumftance 
 on   which   the  pretence  of  a  contradic- 
 tion could  be  founded.     Without  taking 
 at   prefent  any  farther  notice  of  an  au- 
 thor, who  always  lofes  fight  of  the  pro- 
 per  point  in  difpute,  and  who  does  not 
 feem  to  have   attended  to  the  wide  diffe- 
 rence there  is  between  traducing  an  op- 
 ponent and  confuting  him,  I  proceed  to 
 examine  the  Perfian  objedls  of  worfhip, 
 and  the  account  given  of  them  by  Hero- 
 dotus and  other  writers. 
 
 There  is  no  fubjeft  on  which  learned 
 men  are  more  divided  in  their  opinion 
 than  this  ;  and  therefore  I  will  confider 
 it  at  large.  Let  us  diftinftly  inquire, 
 whether  the  ancient  Perfians  were  idola- 
 ters ^  and,  if  they  were,  whether  they 
 worfhipped  any  but  the  natural  gods. 
 
 Firft  let  us  inquire  whether  the  an- 
 cient Perfians  were  idolaters.  If  we  can 
 rely  on  the  authorities  produced  by  Dr. 
 Hyde,  in  his  very  learned  treatife  on  the 
 
 reHgion 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  r  i 
 
 Religion  of  the  ancient  Perlians,  it  was 
 at  firft  derived  from  Abraham,  after- 
 wards reformed  by  Zoroafter,  and  con- 
 iifted  in  the  fole  worfliip  of  the  one  true 
 God.  To  this  reformation  Sir  Ifaac 
 Newton"  refers,  when  he  fays,  ''  The 
 various  reUgions  of  the  feveral  na- 
 tions of  Perfia,  which  confifted  in 
 the  worfhip  of  their  ancient  kings, 
 were  aboUfhed,  and  the  worfhip  of  one 
 God,  at  altars,  without  temples,  fet 
 up  in  all  Perfia,  in  the  reign  of  Da- 
 rius the  fon  of  Hyftafpes,  by  the  in- 
 fluence of  Hyftafpes  and  Zoroafter  ; 
 but  in  a  fhort  time  afterwards  the 
 Perfians  vv^orfhipped  the  fun,  and  the 
 fire,  and  dead  men,  and  images,  as 
 the  Egyptians,  Phenicians,  and  Chal- 
 deans, had  done  before.'*  Now,  ac- 
 cording to  this  hypothefis,  the  Perfians  are 
 to  beconfidered  as  the  worfliippers  of  hu- 
 man fpirits  in  all  the  early  ages  of  the 
 v^^orld,  excepting   the   interval   between 
 
 ^  Shore  Chronicle,  p.  40.     Clirojiol.  p.  352. 
 
 E  2  the 
 
52  TForJlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 the  reformation  of  their  religion  in  the 
 reign  of  Darius,  and  their  fubfequent 
 relapfe  into  idolatry  ^  a  period  too  fhort 
 to  be  taken  into  account.  ^ 
 
 But  it  has  long  been  fufpefted^  by 
 writers  of  the  firft  repuation^  that  the 
 Arabian  and  Perfian  authors,  from 
 whom  Dr.  Hyde  draws  his  proofs,  are 
 too  modern  to  difcover  to  us  the  religion 
 of  the  old  Perfians.  And  a  gentleman 
 well  verfed  in  oriental  learning  "^  has 
 more  lately  afTured  the  world,  *^  that 
 the  genuine  works  of  Zoroafter  are 
 loft;  that  the  pretended  fragments 
 of  them,  which  Dr.  Hyde  has  given 
 *'  us  under  the  title  of  Sadder ^  are  the 
 ''  rhymes  of  a  modern  prieft  who  lived 
 *'  about  three' centuries  ago";  that  no 
 '*  books  now  exift  in  the  ancient  dialeft 
 **  of  Perfia";  that  the  Arabian  conquefts 
 "  proved  a  radical  fubverfion  of  the  Per- 
 
 '  Bafnage's  Hiil:.  of  the  Jews,  b.  iv.  ch.  12.   §.  13. 
 ^  Richardfon,  in  his  Difiertation  on  the  languages, 
 literature,  and  manners,  of  the  eaflerji  nations,  2d  ed. 
 "  P.  12,  25,  26. 
 0  P.  13. 
 
 ''  fian 
 
 <c 
 cc 
 
in  barbarous  Natio7is,  53 
 
 fian  religion^  as  well  as  government ; 
 and  that  the  principal  hiftorians  of  Per- 
 fia,  now  known  in  Europe,  are  all  fub- 
 fequent  to  the  Mohammedan  aera"^  I 
 muft  add,  that  a  gentleman,  whofefmal- 
 lefl  praife  it  is  to  be  the  beft  linguift  of  the 
 age,  and  whofe  ftudies  were  for  fome 
 years  directed  to  the  improvement  of  eaft- 
 ern  literature',  entertains  the  fame  opi- 
 nion of  the  authorities  upon  which  Dr. 
 Hyde  grounds  his  fyftem  as  the  ingenious 
 writer  laft  referred  to. 
 
 As  Dr.  Hyde's  witnefles  are  very  ex- 
 ceptionable, fo  the  fa6ls  they  atteft  are 
 highly  improbable.      The   learned  Dr. 
 
 f  p.  21,  22. 
 
 ^  p.  42. 
 
 '  I  need  not  fay,  that  I  here  refer  to  W.  Jones,  Efq. 
 This  gentleman  did  me  the  honour  to  fend  me  a  letter, 
 which  he  publiil^ed  in  the  French  language,  in  the  year 
 1 77 1,  and  which  is  now  out  of  print ;  wherein  he  ihews 
 that  all  the  works  afcribed  to  Zoroafler  are  fpurious. 
 As  to  the  Sadder^  he  fays,  p.  28,  Tous  les  etudians  de 
 la  literature  orientale  favaient  deja  que  les  miferables 
 poemes  appelles  Saddar  et  Ardii'iraf  Nama  etaient  ecrirs 
 en  langue  Perfanne  moderne,  et  feulement  en  caraderes 
 anciens, 
 
 'El  PrideauXj 
 
^  4  WorJJjtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Prideaux',  though  he  follows  our  au- 
 thor in  feveral  particulars,  yet,  when 
 fpeaking  of  Zoroafter's  prophecies  of 
 Chrift,  fays,  ''  All  this  feems  to  be  ta- 
 *^  ken  out  of  the  legendary  writings  of  the 
 *'  eaftern  Chriftians."  Many  other 
 things  related  by  Dr.  Hyde  feem  to  be 
 extrafted  from  fome  writings  equally  le- 
 gendary. Is  it  probable,  that  Abraham 
 was  fent  by  God  to  the  Perfians,  to  deliver 
 to  them  a  fyftem  of  religion*  ?  Is  it  credi- 
 ble, that  this  religion,  after  it  was  cor- 
 rupted, was  reftored  by  Zoroafter,  and 
 preferved  in  it's  purity,  for  a  fucceffion  of 
 ages,  by  a  barbarous  people  ;  though  a 
 long  feries  of  ftupendous  miracles  could 
 fcarce  prevent  the  fundamental  principle 
 of  it  from  being  loft  among  the  defcen- 
 dents  of  the  pious  patriarch  ? 
 
 There  is  a  farther  objection  againft 
 Dr.  Hyde's  account  of  the  Perfian  reli- 
 gion, viz.  it's  being  contradifted  by  the 
 teftimony  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  wri- 
 
 «  Connexion,  v.  i.  p.  329,  330.  8vo. 
 *  jiiyde,  ch.  2.  p.  2%, 
 
 ters  5 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  ^r 
 
 ters ;  many  of  whom  vifited  Perfia  at  the 
 very  time  when  that  religion  flourifhed, 
 and  who  had  certainly  the  beft  opportu- 
 nities of  information.  This  was  the 
 cafe  as  to  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  in 
 particular.  They  were  withal  inquifi- 
 tive  and  candid,  and  under  no  tempta- 
 tion to  give  a  falfe  account  of  the  Perfian 
 objefts  of  worfhip.  Befides,  as  after  the 
 reign  of  Xerxes  there  was  a  greater  in- 
 tercourfe  between  the  Greeks  and  Per- 
 fians  than  there  had  been  before  ^  they 
 could  not  have  delivered  to  their  coun- 
 trymen a  falfe  account  of  the  Perfian 
 gods  without  being  detected  and  expo- 
 fed.  I  muft  add,  that  their  account 
 of  them  is  much  more  probable  in  it's 
 own  nature,  I  mean  much  more  agreea- 
 ble to  what  we  know  with  certainty  con- 
 cerning the  other  heathen  nations,  and 
 thofe  in  particular  with  which  the  Per- 
 fians  were  connefted,  tlian  that  given  by 
 Dr.  Hyde  upon  the  authority  of  late 
 writers. 
 
 »  Plutarch.  Vir.  Themidocli-,  p.  126, 
 
 E  4  For 
 
56  Whrjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 For  the  feveral  foregoing  reafons,  T 
 cannot  but  give  the  preference  on  this 
 occafion  to  the  teftimony  of  the  former,  ef- 
 pecially  as  it  is  in  a  great  degree  confirmed 
 by  the  latter.  The  Greek  and  Roman  wri- 
 ters tell  us,  that  the  Perlians  worfhipped 
 the  fun"'.  And  is  not  this  in  a  great  mea- 
 fure  admitted  by  thofe  very  authorities 
 which  are  cited  by  Dr<.  Hyde  to  prove  the 
 contrary  ?  It  is  faid"",  indeed,  that  the  wor- 
 fhip  paid  to  the  fun  in  Perfia  was  only  of 
 a  civile  not  of  a  religiciis^  nature.  But  did 
 the  common  people  underftand  theprecife 
 difference  between  thefe  two  kinds  of  wor- 
 fliip  ?  Or  would  they  honour  with  prof- 
 tratlons,  falutations,  and  incenfe\  what 
 in  their  conception  had  no  power  to  in- 
 terpofe   for  their  benefit  ?     The  diftinc- 
 tion  between  civil  and  religious  worfliip 
 is  probably  made   in  this    cafe,    as  we 
 know  it  is  in  others  %  merely  to  avoid 
 
 ^  See  Hyde,  c.  ^. 
 
 "  And  with  libations  ^iid  facrifices,  according  to  the 
 Greeks.    Hyde,  p.  izo.  ed.  1700. 
 
 y  By  the  India;is,  (jjs  will  be  fliewn  near  the  end  of 
 ihe  2die<ftion,)  arid  bv  rhe  Chincie. 
 
 the 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  ^7 
 
 the  odium  oF  idolatry.     The   remains 
 of  the  ancient  Perfians,  in  different  parts 
 of  the  eaft,  are  under  peculiar  tempta- 
 tions to  reprefent  their  worlhip  as  confif- 
 tent  with  the  divine  unity;  becaufe  they 
 live  amongft  the  Mohammedans,   v^ho, 
 though  indulgent  to  all  other  religions, 
 deteft  and  perfecute  idolaters    and    the 
 worfhippers  of  fire^.     I  fee  no  ground  to 
 doubt,  but  that  the  ancient  Perfians  (as 
 v^ell  as  others)  did  v^orfliip  this  element, 
 and  the  fun  as  its  chief  receptacle;  which 
 feems  to  be  intimated  in  the  very  plea 
 fbme  have  made  for  them,  viz.  that  they 
 worfhip  the   fun  only  as  the  habitation 
 of  the  Deity.     This,  however,  is  no  bet- 
 ter an  excufe  than  what  the  ancient  philo- 
 fophers  made  for  that  grofleft  fpecies  of  ir 
 dolatry,  the  paying  religious  honours  to 
 brute   animals.     It  is  evident   that,    m 
 
 ^  Les  Mahometans,  tolerans  pour  toiites  les  autres 
 religions,  font  intolerans  pour  les  idolatres  et  ies  adora- 
 teurs  du  feu  ;  et,  ii  qiiclques  families  de  ces  malheureax: 
 trouverent  le  moien  de  fe  retirer  dans  I'li^de,  ils  ne 
 ,purent  conferver  que  <juelques  traditions  imparfaites  au 
 fujet  de  Icurs  anciennes  loixi     Jones's  Letter,  p^  4.6, 
 
 both 
 
58  Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 both  cafes  alike,  the  worfliip  would  ter- 
 minate in  its  more  immediate  objects. 
 
 Hence  many  Chriiiians  chofe  to  fufFer 
 the  moft  extreme  punifhment  rather  than 
 join  with  the  Perfians  in  their  adoration 
 of  the  fan\     And   if  others,  after  ha- 
 ving embraced  the  Gofpel,  continued  to 
 praftife  fome  of  thofe  rites,  in  honour 
 of  this  celeftial  luminary  ^  to  which  they 
 had  been  long  accuftomed,    this  might 
 proceed  from   their   defire   of  avoiding 
 perfecution,    or  from   the  ftrength  and 
 inveteracy   of  their    former  prejudices. 
 Like  caufes  produced  fimilar  efFefts  up- 
 on  the  firfl:   Chriftian   converts ;  fome 
 of  whom   were   not  eafily  got  off  from 
 their     fuperftitious     reverence     for    i- 
 dols's    and   others   obferved    the     law 
 of  Mofes,  either  to  avoid  the  difpleafure 
 of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  or  from  a  per- 
 
 ^  Saporis  juiTa  Simeon  cum  multis  aliis,  quod  foh'm 
 adorare  recufafient,  ultimo  fupplicio  adfedi.  Sozom, 
 II.  8,  9,   12.     Hyde,  p.  no. 
 
 ^  See  Hyde,  p.  109. 
 
 ^   I  Cor.  viii.  7. 
 
 fuafiou 
 
in  barbarous  Natio?is,  ^a 
 
 fuafion  of  it's  obligation.  Here,  in  Bri- 
 tain, a  learned  antiquary'^  informs  us, 
 that,  after  Chriftianity  took  place,  many 
 continued  to  worfhip  confecrated  ftones, 
 their  former  idols.  Nay,  the  fondnefs 
 for  human  viftims  remained  for  a  confi- 
 derable  time  amongft  fome  who  had  em- 
 braced the  faith  of  Chrift% 
 
 Having  affigned  the  reafons  which  in- 
 duce me  to  think  that  the  ancient  Per- 
 fians  were  idolaters,  I  proceed  to  exa- 
 mine, in  the  fecond  place,  whether  they 
 worjQiipped  only  the  natural  gods.  He- 
 rodotus, in  the  foregoing  extraft^  from 
 him,  has  been  thought  to  affirm  that 
 they  had  no  other  gods  but  thefe.  It 
 may,  however,  be  worth  while  to  in- 
 quire, '  whether,  notwithftanding  what 
 is  advanced  by  this  hiftorian,  the  Per- 
 fians  might  not  worfliip  human  fpirits  al- 
 
 "  Borlafe,  Ant.  of  Cornwall,  p.  162. 
 
 *  Francos,  etfi  Chriftum  jam  colerent,  humanis  ta- 
 men  ad  fuum  asvum  holliis  ufos.  Procopius,  1.  2.  de 
 Bell.  Goth.  Lipfii  not.  in  Tacit,  de  Mor.  Germ.  c.  9. 
 Borlafe,  p.  154.. 
 
 f  P.47. 
 
 'H& 
 
6o  Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 {o  ;  and  whether  there  be  any  evidence 
 that  they  did  worfhip  them.  I  will  en- 
 deavour to  fhew, 
 
 I.  That  the  Perfians  might  worfliip 
 human  fpirits,  notwithftanding  what  is 
 contained  in  the  foregoing  extra6l  from 
 Herodotus.  It  was  not  the  defign  of  this 
 hiftorian  to  give  a  full  account  of  the  re- 
 ligion of  the  Perfians,  but  principally 
 to  point  out  fome  remarkable  particu- 
 lars in  which  it  differed  from  that  of 
 Greece.  When  he  fpeaks  of  their  rites 
 (ffworjhip^i  he  fcarce  touches  on  any  but 
 the  moft  Angular  of  them  :  and  fo  far  is 
 he  from  enumerating  all  their  godsy  that 
 he  has  made  no  mention  of  Arimanius, 
 who  was  certainly  worfhipped  by  Xer- 
 xes \  The  Perfians  therefore  might 
 have  both  many  rites,  and  many  objects, 
 of  worfhip,  which  it  did  not  fall  within 
 the  defign  of  Herodotus  to  mention  in 
 the  comparative  view  which  he  has  here 
 given  of  their  religion. 
 
 t  L.  u  c.  132.. 
 
 ^  Plutarch.  Vit.  Themiaoc.  p.  126.  A. 
 
 He 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  6i 
 
 He  begins  with  taking  notite  of  a  very 
 ftriking  difference  between  the  religions 
 of  the  Perfians  and  the  Greeks ;  the  for- 
 mer, contrary  to  the  principles  and 
 praftice  of  the  latter,  having  no  ftatues, 
 temples,  or  altars,  and  condemning 
 thofe  who  had. 
 
 In  order  to  account  for  this  difference, 
 he  fays,  he  apprehended  the  reafon  of  it  to 
 be,  that  the  Perfians  did  not  believe,  as 
 the  Greeks  did,  that  the  gods  were  of 
 human  defcent.  This  he  mentions  only 
 as  his  own  private  opinion,  and  with 
 fome  degree  of  hefitation ;  knowing,  it 
 may  be  prefumed,  that  the  Germans  '^ 
 and  others  had  neither  temples  nor  fta- 
 tues, though  they  worfliipped  human 
 jpirits.  But  it  is  more  to  our  prefent 
 purpofe  to  obferve,  that  the  gods  of 
 Greece,  here  fpoken  of,  are  not  the  he- 
 roes and  demons  *  of  that  country,  but 
 
 ^  Above,  p.  40. 
 
 »  See  above,  p.  5,  note  ^.  Heroes  and  demons  are 
 fometimes  dirtinguiHied  itorvigods,  even  when  the  latter, 
 no  lefs  than  the  former,  were  fuppofed  to  have  h^^jv 
 men. 
 
 men 
 
62  Worjldip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 men  to  whom  the  title  of  gods  belonged 
 eminently  and  by  way  of  diftinftion  s  to 
 whom  temples,  as  well  as  flatues  and 
 altars,  were  erected,  and  who  were  the 
 objefts  of  the  higheft  worihip.  The 
 gods  of  Perfia,  therefore,  here  con- 
 trafted  with  them,  muft  be  the  princi- 
 pal gods  of  that  country.  Now,  it  was 
 a  diftinftion  that  well  deferved  to  be 
 mentioned,  that  the  chief  objefts  of  wor- 
 fliip  in  one  country  were  not  believed,  as 
 they  were  in  the  other,  to  be  of  the  hu- 
 man race :  but  it  will  not  follow  from 
 hence,  that  the  Perfians  paid  no  religious 
 honours  to  heroes,  to  whom  there  is  no 
 reference  in  this  place. 
 
 The  hiftorian  proceeds  to  inform  us, 
 that  they  facrificed  to  Jupiter  upon  the 
 top  of  mountains ;  and  then  enumerates 
 their  other  natural  gods.  The  Greeks 
 acknowledged  the  fame  natural  gods  as 
 the  Perfians  did  ^  that  is,  the  elements 
 and  heavenly  bodies.  But,  to  thefe  a- 
 loncy  the  hiftorian  adds,  they  (the  Per- 
 fians) facrifice  from   the  begiiiniJig.      In 
 
 this 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  6^ 
 
 this  manner  the  original  words  are  com- 
 monly underftood  ^  and,  if  this  be  their 
 true  fenfe,  they  point  out  a  farther  dif- 
 tinftion  between  the  religion  of  Greece 
 and  Perfia.  Many  of  the  heathen  phi- 
 lofophers  taught,  that  the  deified  parts 
 and  powers  of  nature  were  reprefented 
 under  the  form  of  men  and  women""  5  or 
 that  the  latter  were  fymbols  of  the  for- 
 mer. According  to  this  account,  the  great 
 gods  of  Greece,  to  whom  Herodotus  here 
 refers,  were  both  human  perfonages  and 
 fymbolical  reprefentations  of  the  natural 
 gods.  It  was  under  the  former  view 
 however  that  they  were  confidered  by  the 
 people,  and  were  the  objefts  of  the  pub- 
 lic facrifices\  The  viftims  were  offered 
 immediately,  not  to  heaven  or  the  ^ther, 
 for  example,  but  to  Jupiter;  who, 
 though  often  put  for  heaven  or  the  «- 
 ther,  was  a  diftinft  deity  from  it^  But, 
 in  Perfia,  the  public  facrifices,  according 
 to   our  hiftorian  *,    were  offered  imme- 
 
 ^  See  below,  p.4i2etfeq.  diately 
 
 ^  Afpice  hoc    fublime  candens,  quern  invocant  om- 
 
 nes  Jovem.     Quafi  vero  quilquam   noftrum  iflum,  po- 
 
 tiusquam  Capitolinum,  Jovem  appeilet.  Id.  1.  3.  c.  4. 
 
 *  Though  I  argue  all  along  upon   the  fuppofition  of 
 
 the  truth  of  his  account  of  the  great  gods  of  Perfia; 
 
 yet 
 
64  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 diately  to  Jupiter,  under  the  fingle  idea 
 of  his  being  the  whole  circumference  of 
 heaven.  Now,  though  the  Perfians  fa- 
 crificed  to  the  natural  gods  alone  5  that 
 is,  under  their  own  proper  charafters, 
 or  exclufively  of  all  thofe  human  fym- 
 bols  which  intercepted  the  public  devo- 
 tion of  Greece  5  yet,  befides  thefe  natu- 
 ral gods,  they  might  a 'fo  worfhip  human 
 ipirits  3  juft  as  the  Greeks  had  demons 
 and  heroes,  befides  thofe  great  gods 
 which  were  fuppofed  by  fome  to  be  fym- 
 bols  of  the  natural.  There  were  manyju- 
 piters  3  and  the  Perfians,  befides  him  whom 
 they  called  the  circumference  of  heaven  ^mi^t 
 have,  one  or  more,  others  whom  they 
 worfhipped.  Suppofing  this  to  be  the 
 cafe,  the  hiftorian  would  not  have  ta- 
 ken notice  of  it  here,  becaufe  it  was  a 
 circumftance  that   was  not  peculiar  to 
 
 yet  it  could  fcarce  be  built  upon  any  certain  informa- 
 tion from  the  magiy  who  were  far  from  being  lefs  folici- 
 tous  than  other  pagan  priells  to  conceal  the  nature  and 
 origin  of  the  great  gods.  It  might  be  no  more  than  an 
 inference  unjuftly  drawn  from  the  Perfians  not  worfliip- 
 ping  them  with  ftatiie?  and  temples.  Compare  the  cafe 
 of  the  Germans,  (above,  p.  40.)  who,  like  the  Per- 
 fians, were  a  Celtic  nation.  Probably  the  religion  of 
 both  was  the  fame. 
 
 the 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  6^ 
 
 the  Perfians,  but  common  both  to  them 
 and  the  Greeks. 
 
 But  itdefervesto  be  confidered,  whe- 
 ther the  common  tranflation  of  the  laft- 
 cited  paffage  from  Herodotus  does  truly 
 exprefs  the  fenfe  of  the  original,  which 
 may  very  well  be  rendered,  ''  To  thefe 
 *'  principally'^  Xh^y  facriiice  from  the  be- 
 "  ginning."  Now,  they  might  cer- 
 tainly have  other  gods  befides  thofe  to 
 whom  they  pri?icipally  facrificed.  Some 
 think  that  Herodotus  only  meant  to  fay, 
 that  "  the  Perfians  originally  facrificed 
 
 ™  Taroiffi  [jLtv  h  fiavoici.  The  word  jt^ovo?  is  often  ufed 
 as  equivalent  to  chief  or  principal.  Examples  may  be 
 found  in  Horapollinis  Hieroglyph.  1.  i.  c.  12.  and 
 De  Pauvv's  notes,  p<  295.  Juftin  fays,  1.  i*  c»  10.  So- 
 lem  Perfae  unum  deum  effe  credunt.  But  Freinfhemius 
 (in  his  note  on  Quintus  Curtius,  1.  iii.  c.  3.  p.  75. 
 tom.  I.  ed.  Snakenburg)  conje6lures,  that,  by  unufft 
 deum,  we  are  not  to  underiland  folum  atque  unicu?n,  fed 
 potius  unum  ex  diis.  According  to  Hefychius,  Mithras, 
 or,  as  he  explains  it,  the  fun,  was  0  tt^wtoj  .&sej,  the  fu- 
 preme  god  of  the  Perfians.  Herodotus  is  certainly  the 
 bell  expofitor  of  himfelf:  now,  he  feems  to  ufe  |aa*oj  for 
 chief  or  principal ^  1.  v.  c.  7.  which  will  be  cited  when 
 we  come  to  fpeak  of  the  Thracians* 
 
 cc 
 
 to 
 
66  Worjhip  of  huma?i  Spirits 
 
 ^^  to  thefe  gods  alone/'  According  to 
 every  fair  conftruclion  of  Herodotus, 
 the  Perfians  might  worfhip  human  fpi- 
 rits. 
 
 II.'  I  proceed  to  fhew,  that  they  did 
 worfliip  them.  And,  if  Herodotus  him- 
 felf  has'  furmflied  evidence  of  this  point, 
 it  v^itl  overturn  the  common  explication 
 of  the  foregoing  extraft  from  him. 
 
 I.I  (hall  beghi  v^ith  obferving,  that 
 the  Perfians  deified  their  kings  in  their* 
 mortal  ftate  upon  earth.  We  are  told, 
 by  Herodotus,  that  they  adored""  their 
 king,  and  attempted  to  compel  fome 
 Grecians  to  do  the  fame\  They  put 
 their  kings  upon  the  fame  level  with 
 their  gods.  Artabarius,  the  Perfian, 
 thus  addrefl^es  Themiftocles :  We  have 
 many  excellent  laws,  but  none  compara- 
 ble to  that  which  requires  us  to  worjhip 
 the  king  as  the  image  of  the  God  who  pre-- 
 ferves  all  things^.     And  Cleo  commends 
 
 '^  L.  3.  c.  86. 
 **  L.  7.  c.  136. 
 
 Vit.  Themift.  p.  125.     See  the  next  note. 
 
 the 
 
in  barbarous  Natioyis*  67 
 
 the  cuflom  of  thePerfians  in  deifying  their 
 kings,  as  being  both  pious  and  prudent  ^ 
 To  their  images 'adoration  was  demanded, 
 and  alfo  to  their  favourites ;  for  Morde- 
 cai  afligns  this  reafon  for  refufing  to  pay 
 the  fame  honours  to  Haman  which  o- 
 thers  did,  T^hat  he  would  not  worjhip  any 
 but  God\  The  cuftom  of  deifying  kings 
 was  of  great  antiquity,  and  obtained  in 
 iEthiopia',  Italy",  and  many  other 
 countries,  as  well  as  in  Perfia. 
 
 Now,  if  the  Perfians  paid  religious 
 honours  to  their  kings  in  their  ftate 
 of  mortality  upon  earth,  would  they 
 not  continue  to  pay  thofe   honours  to 
 
 ^  Perfas  quidem  non  pie  folum,  fed  etiam  prudenter, 
 reges  fuos  inter  deos  colere.  Cleo,  ap.  Q^  Curt.  1.  8. 
 c.  5.  p.  595.  ed.  Snak.  Briflbnius,  here  cited,  fays: 
 Quin  in  hanc  ufque  diem  Perfarum  rex  pro  deo  colitur 
 a  fuis,  appellaturque  dominus,  qui  caelum  ac  fulciat 
 fu/iineatque.  Which  illufrrates  the  language  of  Artaba* 
 nus,  in  note  P. 
 
 '  See  Philoilrat.  Vit.  Apollon.  Tyan.  T.  i.  c.  27. 
 p.  35.  ed.  Olear. 
 
 s  Apocrypha,  Efther  xiii.   14* 
 
 *  Strabo,  1.  17.  p.  1177,  A. 
 
 "  At  Rome,  Horat.  1.  2.  ep.  i.  v.  25. 
 
 F  2  them 
 
6S  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 them  after  their  fuppofed  advancement 
 to  celeftial  power  and  dignity  ?  In  other 
 countries  it  was  cuftomary  for  thofe,  who 
 deified  their  kings  while  living,  to  wor- 
 fliip  them  after  their  death.  Why  fliould 
 it  be  thought  that  Perfia,  fo  remarkably 
 diftinguifhed  by  a  veneration  for  her 
 monarchs,  was  an  exception  to  this  ge- 
 neral rule  ? 
 
 2.  There  are  direct  proofs  of  the  Per- 
 fians  having  mortal  gods.  Herodotus^ 
 immediately  after  he  had  enumerated 
 their  natural  divinities,  adds,  But  they  have 
 learnt  from  the  Ajfyj'iam  and  ArabiaJis  to 
 facrifice  alfo  to  Urania^  or  Venus.  By  this 
 goddefs  we  are  not  to  underftand  the 
 moon,  as  fome  have  fuppofed "",  becaufe 
 diftincl  mention  had  been  before  made 
 of  that  planet.  Strabo''  likewife  diftin- 
 guifhes  the  goddefs  Venus  from  the 
 moon.  Nor  did  Herodotus  by  Urania 
 mean  the  planet  Venus;  becaufe  the  for- 
 mer  is  diftinguiflied  from   the  natural 
 
 "^  Letters  concerning  Mythol.  p.  273. 
 *  T%tjM(n  HiKf^DfiV  Koci  AO^ootT'/jv.     P.  1064. 
 
 gods 
 
in  barbarous  Nat i ens,  69 
 
 gods  of  the  Perfians,  and  her  worfliip  is 
 mentioned  as  an  exception  to  their  gene- 
 ral praftice.  Herodotus  probably  refers 
 to  the  prefident  of  the  planet  Venus,  or 
 of  the  moon.  In  this  view,  the  worfliip 
 of  Venus,  as  one  of  their  chief  deities, 
 was  a  juft  exception  to  their  rule  of  fa- 
 crificing  to  the  celeftial  luminaries  apart, 
 or  by  themfelves ;  for  in  this  inflance 
 they  paid  diflinft  worfliip  to  the  prefi- 
 dent of  a  celefl:ial  luminary.  That  the 
 female  deity,  of  whom  we  are  fpeaking, 
 was  worfliipped  by  the  vulgar  under  a 
 human  chara6ler,  I  fee  no  ground  to 
 doubt ^.     Mofl:  probably  flie  was  the  Sy- 
 
 F  3  rian 
 
 y  There  were  four   Veniifes,    according    to  Cicero, 
 (Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  23.)  and  the  philofophers  allego- 
 rized their  hillory  ;   (fee  Apuleius,  Metamorphof.   1.  xi. 
 p.  357,  358.)   as  they  did  that  of  other  heathen  deities. 
 But   the  language  of  Cotta,  when  expofing  thofe  alle- 
 gorical explications,  plainly   fuppofes,  that  the  public 
 opinion  concerning   the  deities,  whofe  hiftory  was  con- 
 verted into  allegory,  was,  that  they  were  deified  mor 
 tals.   —   Dicamus  igitur,  Balbe,  oportet   contra    illos 
 etiam,  quihos  deos,  ex  hominumgenere  in  caelum  tranf- 
 latos,  non  re,  fed  cpinioncy  qRq   dicunt,  quos  augullc 
 
 o  nines 
 
yo         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 rian  Aftarte%  to  whom  the  planet  Ve- 
 nus was  confecrated,  and  of  whom  there 
 will  be  occafion  to  fpeak  hereafter*.  In 
 Armenia,  Venus  was  worfhipped  under 
 the  name  of  Anaitis^^  and  reprefented  by 
 an  image  of  human  form^ ;  which  fhews 
 what  ideas  were  formed  of  her  in  the 
 eaft.     Here,  then,  is  an  inftance  of  the 
 
 omnes  fandleque  veneramur.     Ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor. 
 
 1.  3.  c.  31.     Amongft   other  deities,  the  four  Venufes 
 
 are  fpeciiied,  c.  23.     And  he  concludes  with  obferving, 
 
 that   the   notions  entertained  of  thefe  divinities  arofe 
 
 from  old  ftories  fpread  in  Greece,  which,  for  the  credit 
 
 of  religion,  ought   to   be  difcouraged,  but  which  the 
 
 Stoics  rather  confirmed,  than  refuted,  by  their  manner 
 
 of  explaining  them.  —  Atque  hsec  quidem  ejufmodi  ex 
 
 VQtere    Graecise    fama   coUedla    funt  :     quibus    intelli- 
 
 gis    refiftendum     effe,      ne     perturbentur     religiones. 
 
 Veftri  autem  non  modo  haec  non  refellunt,  verum  etiam 
 
 confirmant,  xnterpretando  quorfum  quidque  pertineat. 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 z  Quarta,  (fcil.  Venus,)  Syria,  Tyroque  concepts, 
 quae  Aftarte  vocatur.    Id.  ib. 
 
 *  Under  the  article,  PhcenicianSy  in  the  2d  ch. 
 
 ^  Strabo  introduces  the  mention  of  this  fad,  by  fay* 
 ing,  ATravra.  ^gi/  ovv  ra  rwv  Yli^auv  u^a  km  Mjjqo*  xa»  A^- 
 jxtvioi  TiTi^YiKacri.   L.  xi.   p,  805. 
 
 c  Clemens  Alexandr.  Cohort,  ad  Gentes,  p.  57.  ed, 
 Potteri,  with  the  notes  of  the  learned  editor. 
 
.  r  in  barbarons  Nations.  j  i 
 
 vvorfliip  of  a  human  perfonage  in  Perfia, 
 who  feems  to  have  been  raifed  to  the 
 fame  rank  with  the  natural  gods. 
 
 Amanus  and  Anandratus  were  de- 
 mons of  Perfia',  of  human  origin  %  who 
 were  v/orfhipped  not  only  in  their  own 
 country,  but  alfo  in  Cappadocia,  where 
 there  were  many  temples  of  the  Pef- 
 fian  gods  ^.  We  are  told  by  Strabo, 
 in  moft  exprefs  terms,  that  the  Per- 
 fians  celebrated  the  exploits  of  their  gods  and 
 tllujlrious  men\  Thefe  teftimonies  are 
 confirmed  by,  and  ferve  to  confirm,  the 
 4efcription  which  Quintus  Curtius  has 
 given  of  the  chariot  of  Darius.     It  was 
 
 ^  To  T>3?  AvatTi^'^,  xat  to  twi»  cvi/.(3oj(J.ojv  Bsuv,  h^ov  iff^'j- 
 ffctino,  Aftava  ;iat  hvav^^urHy  U^ct^kuv  ^^i^ovuv.  Strabo, 
 Lxi.  p.  779-     See  alfo  1.  XV.  p.  1065,  1066. 
 
 e  Alexander  ab  Alexandre,  torn.  2.  p.  446.  aftqr 
 fpeaking  of  Amanus  and  Anandratus,  and  other  hea- 
 then gods,  adds,  —  Qui  omnes  ex  hominibus  poll  fiw 
 nera  divinitate  donati,  diiqup  indigites  poll  confecra- 
 
 tionem  habiti  iunt. 
 
 *   UqTO^o,  h  y.o^i  tuv  Ui^a^y.uv  ^iuv  ii^x.    Strabo,   p.  I065. 
 
 See  p.  1066. 
 
 f  E^ya  ^loiv  T£,  x«»  M^oiv  ruv  a^ifuv,  a>^^i^ovT£$.   Strabo, 
 1.  15.   p.  1066.  J 
 
 ^  F  4  adorned 
 
72  Worjhip  of  human  spirits 
 
 adorned  with  the  Images  of  the  gods 
 in  filver  and  gold ;  and  upon  the  axle- 
 tree  were  two  images  of  gold,  —  the  one 
 reprefenting  Ninus,  the  other  Bell^s^ 
 This  Belus  is  fuppofed  to  be  the  Nim- 
 rod  of  the  Bible,  whom  the  Perfians 
 ranked  amongft  the  gods  3  and,  believing 
 him  to  be  tranflated  into  the  ftars,  cal- 
 led him  Orion  ^.  We  may  proceed  far- 
 ther, and  obferve, 
 
 3 .  That  the  Perfians  worfhipped  the 
 gods  of  other  nations  that  were  of  mortal 
 origin.  According  to  Herodotus,  when 
 Xerxes  arrived  with  his  army  on  the 
 banks  of  the  Scamander,  he  facrificed  a 
 thouf and  oxen  to  the  Ilia?i  Minerva^  and  the 
 
 8  Utrumque  currus  latus  deorum  iimulacra  ex  auro 
 argentoque  exprefla  decorabant :  —  Jugum,  ex  quo 
 eminebant  duo  aurea  fimulacra  cubitalia,  quorum  al- 
 terum  Nini,  alterum  Beli,  gerebat  effigiem.  Q^  Curt. 
 1.  3.  c.  3.  p.  77.  ed.  Snaken.  —  Freinfliemius  obferves. 
 Per  Ninum  AfTyri^e,  per  Belum  Babyloniae,  imperium 
 conjunftum  innuebant  currus  Darii  artifices. 
 
 -— —    Tov  Ne^^w^  yiyccvtoc  rov  7w  Bu(3vXuvitx.v  KrurocvTott 
 
 Ttf  a^uvy,  ovlivcc  ^aP^scrjj/  fi^imx.     Chronicon  Alexandr;- 
 num,  p.  84, 
 
 fnagi 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  73 
 
 magi  poured  out  libations  to  the  heroes^ ^ 
 The  fame  Perfian  monarch  fhewed  a  reli- 
 gious reverence  for  the  temple  of  Atha- 
 mas''.  Xenophon  teftifies,  that  Cyrus 
 implored  the  afliftance  of  the  heroes,  the 
 guardians  of  Media  ^  and  that  he  propi- 
 tiated the  gods  and  guardian  heroes  of 
 Aflyria',  and  other  countries".  Thefe 
 fafts  confirm  the  teftimonies  that  have 
 been  produced  to  fhew,  that  they  ac- 
 knovi^ledged  mortal  gods.  They  likevvife 
 ferve  to  demonftrate,  that,  w^hen  the 
 Perfians  under  Xerxes"  burnt  the  tem- 
 ples and  images  of  the  Grecian  gods  and  he- 
 roes, this  did  not  proceed  from  a  contempt 
 of  thofe  gods  and  heroes,  but  from  their 
 difapprobation  of  temples  and  images.  In 
 
 Toicri  n^ua-i  e^ectvro.   Plerodot.   1.  7.   c.43. 
 
 ^    K«l  TO  TBlJLBVOq  la'S&TQ.     Id.     1.  J.     C.    197* 
 
 «^wa$  AcrcT-t'^iaj  ojxijTo^a?  it;/xE»^£To.    Xenophon,  de  Inftit. 
 Cyri,  1.  3-  c.  3.  §.  11. 
 
 "  Particularly  of  Media.    Id.  1.8.  c.3.   §.  11. 
 
 ^  Herodot.  1.  8.  c.  143. 
 
 confirmation 
 
74  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 confirmation  of  all  that  has  been  offered, 
 we  may  obferve, 
 
 4.  That,  notwithftanding  a  difference 
 in  fome  particulars,  there  was  a  general 
 agreement  between  the  religion  of  the 
 Perfians  and  that  of  the  other  idolatrous 
 nations.  This,  exclufive  of  all  teftimo- 
 ny,  is  very  probable  in  itfelf :  for,  the 
 Perfians  being  the  fame  people  with  the 
 Celtes  °,  there  could  fcarcely  be  an  effen- 
 tial  difference  between  them  with  refpe6t 
 to  the  leading  principles  of  religion. 
 They  are  reprefented  by  Herodotus  ^  as 
 being  prone  to  imitate  the  manners  of  fo- 
 reigners, particularly  the  Greeks  5  and 
 this  difpofition  was  likely  to  extend  it's 
 influence  beyond  the  affairs  of  civil  life, 
 and  to  make  them  conformifts  in  religion. 
 What  is  fo  probable  in  theory  is  confirm- 
 ed by  facts.  The  Perfians,  like  other 
 nations,  worfhipped   the  natural  gods% 
 
 •  See  Pelloutier*s  Hift.  of  the  Celtes,  v.  I.  p.  19- 
 
 P  L.  I.  c.  135. 
 
 1  See  above,  p.  47. 
 
 and 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  75 
 
 and  rivers  in  particular'.  Their  having 
 no  covered  temples,  nor  any  images  of  the 
 gods,  were  cuftoms  that  were  not  pecu- 
 liar to  them,  though  they  diftinguifhed 
 them  from  the  Greeks  j  and  hardly  was 
 any  praftice  more  common  than  to  fa- 
 crificeupon  the  tops  of  mountains. 
 
 In  many  other  refpefts  we  find  a  re- 
 markable refemblance  between  the  theo- 
 logy of  the  Perfians  and  that  of  other 
 nations.  As  the  Greeks,  the  Egyptians, 
 the  Phenicians,  the  Chaldeans,  and  o- 
 ther  ancient  nations,  had  their  theogo- 
 nies,  or  accounts  of  the  generation  of  the 
 
 '  It  has  been  thought  inconfiflent  with   the  care  the 
 Perfians  took  to  preferve  the   purity  of  the  elements-, 
 (fee  Strabo,  p.  1066.)  that,  after   facrificing  white  horfes 
 to  a  river,  they  Ihould  throw  their  carcafes  into  it  :    a 
 circumftance  related  by  Herodotus,  1.  7.  c.  113.    and 
 which  fome  have  ufed  to  difparage  his  teftimony.     But 
 the  carcafes  of  thefe  horfes   were   perhaps  embalmed  : 
 which  fome  think  Herodotus  alTerts,  c.  114.  Befides,  the 
 horfes  were  confecrated  to  a  religious  purpofe.     It  was 
 unlawful   to  throv/  a  carcafe  into  the  fire  ;    but  this  did 
 not  extend  to  facrifices.  Hyde,  p.  94.     Fire  and  water 
 were  the  principal  objects  of  their  worlhip,  according 
 to  Strabo,  1. 15.  p.  1065. 
 
 gods. 
 
y6  Worjldip  ojhtiman  Spirits 
 
 gods,  fo  likewife  had  the  Perfians% 
 Now  the  ancient  theogonies,  and  the 
 Grecian  in  particular,  mix  with  the 
 phyfical  an  hiftorical  relation  of  the  ge- 
 nealogy of  the  gods,  and  record  the 
 births  even  of  thofe  they  ftile  always  exiji- 
 ingy  and  immortar  j  fuppofing  them  to  be 
 generated  from  pre-exiftent  principles. 
 This  ill  agrees  with  the  fuppofition  of  the 
 Perfians  worfhipping  one  or  more  gods, 
 under  the  chara£ler  of  underived  and  e- 
 ternal  beings. 
 
 According  to  Herodotus",  when  Per- 
 feus,  the  fon  of  Jupiter  and  Danae,  was 
 with  Cepheus,  the  fon  of  Belus,  he 
 married  his  daughter,  Andromeda  j  and 
 by  her  had  a  fon,  whom  he  named 
 Perfeus,  from  whom  the  Perfians  took 
 their  name.     Now  is  not  this  agreeable 
 
 »  At  their  facrlfices,  one  of  the  magi,  ftanding  up, 
 j7ra£i^«  Sccyovjav,  theogoniam  accinit.  Herodot.  1.  i. 
 c.  132.  Compare  Diogenes  Laertius,  prooem.  fegm.  9. 
 where  it  is  faid,  upon  the  authority  of  Hecataeus,  that, 
 according  to  the  magi,  the  gods  miere  begotten^ 
 
 *  Hefiod.  Theogon.  v.  106. 
 
 «»  L.7.  C.61. 
 
 to 
 
hi  harhardui  Nations.  77 
 
 to  the  genealogy  of  the  gods  and  heroes 
 in  other  nations  ? 
 
 As  the  Perfians  worfhipped  the  tutela- 
 ry gods  of  other  countries,  fo  they  had 
 fuch  deities  of  their  own^  5  agreeably  to 
 that  principle,  common  to  all  the  idola- 
 trous nations,  that  each  of  them  had  it's 
 peculiar  guardian  deity.  And  the  guar- 
 dian deities  of  kingdoms  were  fuppofed  to 
 
 '^  Xerxes  thus  addrefles  the  Perfians  :    Ny*  h  hx^oci.' 
 
 vufxiv  fKiv^ct^ivoi  Toio-J  Seokt*  to»  lli^at^cx.  yvtv>^t\oy^a,cri.    He- 
 
 rodot.  1.7.  c.  53.  To  one  or  more  of  thefe  tutelary- 
 deities  they  feem  to  have  given  the  name  of  Jupiter  : 
 for,  befides  the  Jupiter  whom  they  conceived  of  as  the 
 *whole  circumference  of  hea^euy  Xenophon  fpeaks  of  ano- 
 ther who  was  a  local  deity,  king  and  patron  of  Perfia. 
 Kvgog  £$t/E  Au  ^ccat-Kii.  De  Inftitut.  Cyri,  I.3.  c.3.  §.ii. 
 A»  war^ww  i^vt.  Id.  ib.  Vide  1.  8.  c.  7.  Probably  for 
 him  it  was  that  a  chariot  was  provided,  upon  occafion 
 of  Xerxes's  expedition  againft  Greece.  Herodot.  1.  7. 
 c.  40.  The  chariot  was  drawn  by  eight  white  horfes  : 
 an  honour  peculiar  to  Jupiter  amongft  the  Romans. 
 By  the  Jupiter,  fpoken  of  by  Xenophon,  fome  fuppofe 
 we  are  to  underiland  Belus.  Xerxes  alfo  feems  to  have 
 been  called  Jupiter  :  for  Themiftocles  told  him,  that  he 
 was  dire6led  by  Jupiter  of  Dodona  to  go  to  a  perfon  of 
 the  fame  name  with  the  god,  oij^mvfjiov  ra  Sea,  which  he 
 affigns  as  the  reafon  of  coming  to  Xerxes ;  though  Plu- 
 tarch might  only  mean,  that  each  was  called  th  great 
 king.     Plutarch.  Vit.  Themiftoclis,  p.  126.  A. 
 
 be 
 
78  WorJJdip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 be  the  fpirits  of  thofe  illuftrious  men  by 
 whom  they  were  founded  or  inlarged.  This 
 is  a  full  proof  of  the  Perfians  worfhipping 
 human  fpirits,  as  the  Greeks  and  other 
 nations  did.  At  the  fame  time  it  ac- 
 counts for  Mardonius's  ufing  the  Grecian 
 rites  of  worjlnp"" . 
 
 As  a  farther  proof  of  the  great  confor- 
 mity between  the  theology  of  Perfia  and 
 that  of  other  idolatrous  nations,  it  may 
 be  obferved,  that  the  Perfians  facrificed 
 to  Thetis  and  the  Nereids  ^  and  that  the 
 reafon  of  their  facrificing  to  the  former 
 was  their  learning  from  the  lonians^  that 
 fhe  was  taken  away  by  Peleus  out  of  this 
 country,  and  that  all  the  coaft  of  Sepias 
 is  dedicated  to  her  and  the  reft  of  the 
 Nereids  ^.  Many  learned  men  have  fup- 
 pofed,  that  Nereus  was  a  prince,  and 
 the  Nereids  princeiies,  who  had  impro- 
 ved navigation  ;  and  confequently  that 
 they  were  human  perfonages  :  which  is 
 much  confirmed  by  the  rapture  of  Thetis, 
 
 ^  E^^rI'^v.o^c^^  i^oj^*  £p^^££TO.    Herodot-    1.  9.   C.  36. 
 
 y  Herodot.  1.  7,  c.  191. 
 
 one 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  y<) 
 
 one  of  the  Nereids.  The  worfhip,  there- 
 fore^  paid  to  thefe  deities  by  the  Per- 
 fians,  is  not  only  a  proof  of  the  great 
 conformity  between  their  theology  and 
 that  of  the  Grecians,  but  is  alfo  a  new 
 inftance,  furnifhed  by  Herodotus  him- 
 felf,  of  the  Perfians  facrificing  to  hu- 
 man fpirits. 
 
 Too  nearly  did  the  Perfians  conform 
 to  the  other  idolatrous  nations  in  the 
 moil  barbarous  a6ls  of  worfhip.  Du- 
 ring a  tempeft  the  magi  offered  up  hu- 
 man vi6t:ims%  as  well  as  endeavoured  to 
 charm  the  winds  by  magical  enchant- 
 ments. We  are  told,  by  Plutarch,  that 
 Ameftris,  the  wife  of  Xerxes,  buried 
 twelve  people  alive  to  Pluto  on  her  own 
 
 ^  Herodot.  1.  7.  c.  191.  I  have  followed  WefTeling's 
 tranflation  of  the  original  words,  ivroiAoc  re  '7roi£vi>rs<;-  The 
 phrafe  does  not  neceiTarily  import  the  fpecies  of  the  fa- 
 crifice  fpoken  of;  but  it  is  applied  to  human  vidims  by- 
 Herodotus,  1.2.  c.  119.  and  is  fa  underllood  here  by 
 H.  Stephens,  tom.  III.  p.  1401.  as  well  as.  by  WeiTe- 
 ling.  See  the  note  of  the  Utter  on  Herodot.  I.  2« 
 .c.  1 19.  Every  one  will  recoBe^  that  line  of  Virgil, 
 ^n.II.  116. 
 
 Sanguine  placafti  vetitos,  et  virgine  csefa. 
 
 account. 
 
So  Worjhip  of  human  spirits 
 
 account\  And  from  Herodotus  we  learn, 
 that  fhe  caufed  fourteen  children  of  the 
 beft  families  in  Perfia  to  be  interred  alive, 
 as  a  gratification  to  the  god  faid  to  be 
 beneath  the  earth  \  The  fame  hiftorian 
 informs  us,  that,  when  the  army  of  Xer- 
 xes came  to  a  place  called  the  Nifie  Ways, 
 the  magi  took  nine  of  thefons  and  daugh- 
 ters of  the  inhabitants,  and  buried  them 
 alive,  as  the  manne?"  of  the  Perfans  is^.  It 
 has  been  fuggefted,  but  without  any 
 good  reafon,  that  Plutarch  and  Herodo- 
 tus have  reproached  them  unjuftly  with 
 offering  human  facrifices.  But  fuch  fa- 
 crifices  were  common  amongft  the  an- 
 cients, and  fixed  no  peculiar  ftigma  on 
 the  Perfians".  As  to  the  cuftom  of  bu- 
 rying 
 
 ^  De  Superfllt.  p.  171,  D.     Af^w^tq  ^e,  v  Ss^^b  ywvi, 
 
 ^uaiKo.  y.a,7u^v^iv  uv^^U'syeq  ^uvrocq  vin^  ccvrvjt;  nrco  Aoij.  In 
 his  Ifis  &  Ofir.  p.  369,  E.  he  fays,  the  Perfians  invo- 
 ked Pluto. 
 
 **  Herod.  1,7.  c.  114.       Comp.  1.  3.  c.  35. 
 
 «  In  confirmation  of  the  authorities  produced  above, 
 to  ihevv  that  the  Perfians  were  chargeable  with  offering 
 }^uman  facrifices,  I  would  obferve,  that,  when  the  Gre- 
 cians 
 
in  barbarous  Natio?is,  8 1 
 
 rying  human  viftims  alive,  it  obtained 
 amongft  the  Romans'.  The  fads,  there- 
 fore, laft  ftated,  like  many  mentioned 
 before,  concerning  the  Perfians,  are  di- 
 reft  proofs,  not  only  of  a  general  cor- 
 refpondence  between  their  religion  and 
 that  of  other  nations,  but  alfo  of  their 
 worfhipping  dead  men  :  for  amongft  this 
 number  Pluto'  muft  be  reckoned. 
 
 The  fame  conclufion  may  be  drawn 
 from  their  necromancy  ^  or  divination 
 by  confulting  the  dead.  This  fuperfti- 
 tion,  which  is  fuppofed  to  have  had  it's 
 
 cians  adopted  the  Worfliip  of  Mithras,  they  ofFered 
 him  human  vidims.  Photius,  in  Vita  Athanafii,  p.  1446, 
 Hyde,  p.  112. 
 
 ^  Liv.  1.  II.  c.  S7' 
 
 *  See  Letters  to  Worthington,  p.  37,  42. 
 
 ^  Quod  genus  divinationis  Varro  a  Perfis  dicit  alla- 
 tum,  quo  et  ipfum  Numam,  et  poUea  Pythagoram  phi- 
 lofophum,  ufum  fuiiTe  commemorant  :  ubi  adhibito 
 fanguine  etiam  inferos  perhibet  fcifcitari ;  et  vext/o/xair- 
 Tuccv  Gra;ce  dicit  vocari :  qus,  five  hydromantia,  five 
 necromantia,  dicatur,  id  ipfum  eft,  ubi  videntur  mor- 
 tui  divinare.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  7.  c.  35.  How  ill 
 does  the  account  given  of  Zoroafter,  by  the  modern 
 writers  cited  by  Dr.  Hyde,  agree  with  this  very  ancient 
 tcftimony  of  the  learned  Varro  ! 
 
 G  rife 
 
82  Worjhtp  of  hiunan  Spirits 
 
 rife  in  Perfia^  was  very  generally  prac- 
 tifed  in  the  heathen  nations  ;  and  it  was 
 a  fpecies  of  idolatry  v/hich  had  for  it's 
 object  the  fpirits  of  departed  men.  Not 
 to  defcend  into  more  particulars,  Aga- 
 thias  quotes  very  ancient  hiftorians,  (Be- 
 rofus  the  Babylonian,  Athenocles,  and 
 Symmachus,)  as  affirming,  that  the  Per- 
 fiansworfhippedofold  Jupiter  and  Saturn, 
 and  all  the  other  celebrated  gods  of  Greece*", 
 but  under  different  names. 
 
 It  is  time  to  clofe  this  article,  which 
 has  been  drawn  out  to  fo  great  a  length, 
 on  account  of  it's  fnigular  importance, 
 and  the  very  different  view  generally 
 given  of  it  by  learned  men.  From 
 all  that  has  been  offered,  it  appears, 
 that,  if  we  clear  the  Perfians  from  the 
 charge  of  idolatry  upon  the  evidence 
 produced  by   Dr.   Hyde,    we  adopt  an 
 
 g  Magic,  according  to  Pliny,  (1.  30,  c.  i.)    was  the 
 invention  of  Zoroafter. 
 
 To  \xiv  yoc^  TTaXuiov,  Aicc  ft  y.oci  K^ovov,  y.cci  tarsq  oi 
 aTTuvruq  Ttf?  7ra§'  EXXv}cri  ^^vXXii(ji,iv8q  etj/awv  ^syj.  Agathias, 
 1.  2.  p.  58.  ed.  Lugd.  Bat.   1594. 
 
 hypothefis 
 
t?i  barbarous  Nations.  8^ 
 
 hypothefis  very  improbable  in  itfclf,  and 
 ill  fupported.  At  the  fame  time  we  con- 
 tradifl:  the  teftimony  of  numerous  unex- 
 ceptionable witnefTes  to  the  fafts  here 
 ftated ;  the  truth  of  which  might  even 
 have  been  prefumed  from  their  own  in- 
 ternal credibility,  confidering  the  difpo- 
 fition  and  fituationof  the  Perfians.  —  It 
 farther  appears,  that  the  difference  be- 
 tween them  and  the  Greeks,  pointed  out 
 by  Herodotus,  is  not  fo  confiderable  as 
 has  been  fuppofed ;  and  very  probably 
 did  not  fubfift  forany  great  length  of  time 
 after  the  age  of  that  hiftorian'.  This 
 difference  was  perfe6lly  confiflent  with  a 
 general  agreement  in  other  refpefts,  and 
 particularly  with  the  deification  of  hu- 
 man fpirits.  Indeed,  the  ancient  Perfians 
 are  one  of  the  laft  nations  which  can  be 
 fufpefled  of  not  worfliipping  the  fpirits 
 
 *  We  learn  from  Strabo,  p.  1065,  that  in  Cappada- 
 cia,  where  there  was  a  great  number  of  the  magi,  there 
 were  alfo  many  temples  of  the  Perfian  gods,  and  zjiatue 
 of  Omanus,  p.  1066,  a  Perfian  demon,  p,  779.  See 
 above,  p-  71.  note  *. 
 
 G  2  of 
 
84  WorJJnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 of  illuftrious  men,  if  it  be  true,  as  is 
 generally  allowed,  that  they  afferted  the 
 exiftence  of  divine  genii,  who  afllimed 
 for  a  time  the  human  nature. 
 
 The  foregoing  obfervations  are  not 
 offered  as  a  vindication  of  any  thing  I 
 had  formerly  advanced  on  the  fubj  eft  of  the 
 heathen  gods,  but  are  the  refult  of  an 
 unbiafTed  inquiry.  Whether  they  arejuft, 
 others  are  more  able  to  determine. 
 
 VII.  Concerning  the  Arabians^  Mr. 
 Fell''  (copying  Dr.  Blackwell^)  fays, 
 that  ''  they  acknowledged  no  other  gods 
 *'  befides  the  fun  and  moon."  In 
 proof  of  this  aflertion  we  are  referred  to 
 Herodotus.  But  the  text  of  this  hiftorian 
 ought  to  have  been  given  the  reader,  and 
 not  merely  the  comment  upon  it.  His 
 words  are"',  T'hey  acknowlege  no  other  gods 
 than  Dionyfus  (or  Bacchus)  and  Urania: 
 
 k  p.  8. 
 
 ^  Mythol.  p.  273. 
 
 AA»;\aT.    Herodot.  1.  3.  c.  8. 
 
 —  ''  they 
 
in  .barbarous  Nations,  S^ 
 
 —  "  they   call  the  former  Urotalt^  and 
 ''  the  latter  ^///^//' 
 
 Had  Mr.  Fell,  inftead  of  tranfcri- 
 bing  a  modern  author,  confulted  Hero- 
 dotus, he  would  have  found  that  this 
 hiftorian  could  not,  by  Bacchus,  under- 
 ftand  the  fun,  becaufe  he  fpeaks  of  it  as 
 no  improbable  conjefture  of  the  Arabi- 
 ans, that  the  cinnamon  grew  in  the 
 countries  in  which  Bacchus  was  educa- 
 ted''. From  other  writers  we  have  cer- 
 tain information,  that  Bacchus  was  an 
 illuftrious  conqueror  °.  Strabo^  in  par- 
 ticular informs  us,  that  Alexander, 
 finding  the  Arabians  had  only  two  gods, 
 (viz.  Jupiter  and  Bacchus,)  thought  he 
 had  a  right  to  be  worfhipped  as  a  thirds 
 
 "  Id.  c.  III.  Plutarch  fpeaks  of  the  ««r/^j  cf  Bac- 
 chus.   Vit.  Camilli,  p.  13 1.  C. 
 
 **  Sir  Ifaac  Newton  (Chronol.  p.  98,  99.)  takes  Se- 
 fac  to  be  the  Bacchus  of  the  Arabians,  and  their  Coe- 
 lus,  or  Uranus,  or  Jupiter  Uranius,  to  be  the  fame 
 king  of  Egypt  with  his  father  Hammon,  according  to 
 Lucan  : 
 
 Quamvis  -/Ethiopum  populis,  Arabumque  beatls 
 Gentibus,  atque  Indis,  unus  fit  Jupiter  Ammon. 
 
 P  Lib.  16.  p.  1076. 
 
 G  3  provided 
 
86  WarJJdlp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 provided  he  conquered,  and  reftored 
 their  former  liberty.  Arrian  **  confirms 
 the  teftimony  of  Strabo;  telling  us, 
 that  the  Arabians  v/orftiipped  only  Ura- 
 nus and  Dionyfus ' ;  and  affigning  the 
 reafon  of  their  worfliipping  the  latter, 
 viz.  the  fame  of  leading  an  army  into  IndicL\ 
 in  which  refpect,  he  adds,  Alexander 
 did  not  think  himfelf  inferior  to  him, 
 and  therefore  pleaded  he  had  an  equal 
 right  to  their  worihip.  As  to  the  Urania 
 or  Alilat  of  the  Arabs,  whom  Herodo- 
 tus joins  with  Bacchus,  fince  the  latter 
 has  been  proved  to  be  a  human  perfo- 
 nage,  we  may  reafonably  conclude  that 
 fuch  alfp  the  former  was.  She  is 
 probably  the  fame  with  the  Alitta  fpo- 
 ken  of  above',  and  confequently  no 
 other  than  the  Syrian  Aftarte  5  of 
 whom    farther  mention  will   be   made 
 
 9  De  Expedit.  Aiexand.  p.  300.  ed.  Gronovii. 
 '  Comp.  p.  85.  note  °. 
 
 '  Kara  ^o^ccv  t'/;j  ej  Vj^h%  rg^TJa-j. 
 %  P.  48,   (i%. 
 
 m 
 
i?i  barbarous  Natioris.  87 
 
 in  the  fequel.  Amongft  the  gods  of 
 this  people,  Tertullian  "^  reckons  Dy- 
 fares  3  Suidas,  Mars,  (which  iigni- 
 fies  the  valiajit^  -J  and  Porphyry  %  Du- 
 matius,  to  whom  they  annually  offered 
 a  human  vi6lim. 
 
 If  you  choofe  to  fet  afide  the  authority 
 of  the  Greeks,  and  to  rely  rather  on  the 
 oriental  writers ;  one  well  acquainted 
 with  them  has  given  us  the  names  of  fome 
 of  their  antediluvian  idols,  or  vv^hat 
 were  faid  to  be  fuch,  which  the  Arabs 
 acknowleged  as  gods,  having  been  men 
 of  great  piety  and  merit  in  their  times*. 
 And,  though  the  idols  were  not  fuppofed 
 to  htfui  Juris,  (or  gods  in  their  own  na- 
 tural right,  but  only  companions  of  God, ) 
 yet  they  offered  facrifices  and  other  obla- 
 tions  to   them   as  well  as  to  God,  who 
 
 *  ApoL  G.  24. 
 
 y  Sir  If.  Newton's  Chronol.  p.  98.     See  above  con 
 cerning  Mars,  p.  27,  35. 
 
 ^  De  AbHinent.  1.  2.   §.  56. 
 
 *  Sale's  Koran,  preliminary  Difc.  p.  19.  qto, 
 
 G  4  was 
 
88  Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 was  often  put  off  with  theleaft  portion^. 
 Somewhat  of  this  kind  we  obferve  in  po- 
 pifh  countries.  The  rofary  afcribed  to 
 the  Virgin  Mary  confifts  of  a  hundred 
 and  fifty  Ave-Marias,  and  only  fifteen 
 Fater-nojlers, 
 
 Should  it  be  here  objected,  that  the 
 only  gods  of  the  Arabs  taken  notice  of  in 
 the  book  of  Job^  are  the  fun  and  moon, 
 and  therefore  that  thefe  were  the  fole  ob- 
 je6ts  of  idolatrous  worfhip  in  the  age  in 
 which  that  book  was  written  ^  I  anfwer, 
 that,  even  fuppofing  this  to  be  the  cafe 
 in  the  land  of  Uz,  where  Job  lived,  it 
 will  not  follow  from  hence  that  it  was 
 the  fame  every  where  elfe.  Nay,  had  this 
 been  the  cafe  univerfally  in  the  age  here 
 fpcken  of,  yet  it  might  be  quite  other- 
 wife  in  fucceeding  ages.  According  to  a 
 late  writer'',  the  defcription  of  idolatry 
 in  the  book  of  Job  is  of  greater  antiquity 
 than  that  given  by  Mofes.  But  the  quef- 
 
 ^  Id.  p.  i6. 
 "  Cli,  31,  26.- 
 ^  FelJ,  p.  36. 
 
 tion 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  89 
 
 tion  agitated  in  the  DifTertation  concer- 
 ned only  the  gods  of  the  Heathens  3  that 
 is,  the  nations  contradiftinguifhed  from 
 the   Ifraelites;  a  diftinflion  that  could 
 not  take  place  before  the  time  of  Mofes, 
 when  the  Ifraelites  were  firft  formed  in- 
 to a  nation.     The  queftion  had  no  rela- 
 tion to  any  times,  or  countries,  but  thofe 
 in  which  fome  demons  were  acknowledged 
 as  a  diftinft   order  of  deities   from  the 
 heavenly  bodies.   But,  after  all,  the  lan- 
 guage of  Job  neither  aflerts,  nor  implies, 
 that  there  were  no  other  objefts  of  ido- 
 latrous worfhip  in  his  age  or  in  his  coun- 
 try befides  the  fun  and  moon.  When  he 
 was  aflerting  his  own  freedom  from  ido- 
 latry, he  naturally  obferved  that  he  was 
 not  chargeable  even  with  the  moft  fpe- 
 cious  and  alluring  kind  of  it ;  that  nei- 
 ther the  fun  when  it  Jhined^  nor  the  moon 
 walking  in  brightnefs^  had  tempted  him  to 
 pay  them   any  religious  honours.      So 
 that  the  occafion  led  him  to  fpecify  the 
 fun  and  moon  rather  than  any  other  ob- 
 jefts   of    idolatrous    worfhip  5     though 
 
 there 
 
po  Worjhip  of  human  spirits 
 
 there  might  be  in  the  land  of  Uz,  even 
 at  the  early  period  when  he  is  fuppofed 
 to  have  lived,  many  fuch,  both  other 
 celeftial  luminaries  and  human  fpirits. 
 And  it  is  with  peculiar  impropriety  that 
 the  language  of  Job  is  urged  to  overturn 
 the  teftimonies  to  the  worfhip  of  dead 
 men  and  women  in  other  countries  and 
 in  later  times. 
 
 VIII.  Mr.  Feir  tells  us,  that  "  the 
 "  inhabitants  of  Meroe  in  ^Ethiopia 
 *'  worfhipped  no  other  gods  than  Jupi- 
 *'  ter  and  Bacchus  ^  that  is,  the  hea- 
 *'  vens  and  the  fun.'*  This  writer  fhould 
 have  faid,  ''  In  this  manner  is  Herodo- 
 *'  tus  explained  by  Dr.  BlackweU"^ 
 What  the  hiftorian  really  fays  is,  that 
 the  inhabitants  of  Meroe  worfhipped  no 
 other  gods  than  Jupiter  and  Bacchus, 
 and  had  an  oracle  of  Jupiter  ^ :  a  plain 
 proof  that  Jupiter  here  denotes  a  human 
 
 «  p.  8. 
 
 '  Mythol.  p.  274. 
 TfUQv  Ato5  KXTsrmt*    Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  29. 
 
 fpirit. 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  91 
 
 fpirit.  In  the  opinion  of  Sir  Ifaac  New- 
 ton \  thefe  two  gods  were  Jupiter  Am- 
 nion and  Ofiris,  according  to  the  lan- 
 guage of  Egypt.  We  are  informed  by 
 Strabo,  that  the  /Ethiopians  had  both  ari 
 immortal^  and  a  mortal^  god  *  5  that  they 
 commonly  deified  their  benefaftors  and 
 perfons  of  royal  birth  "^ ;  that  they  re- 
 garded their  kings  as  the  common  faviours 
 and  prefervers  of  alV  y  and  even  worfhip- 
 ped  them  as  gods  while  living".  The 
 iuhabitants  of  Meroe  in  particular  wor- 
 
 b  Chronol.  p.  213. 
 
 Strabo,  1.  17.  p.  1177,   1178.  ' 
 
 5^  P.  1 178.     Pyi   y  £7ri7roXy    re;    tvi^ytrcc;    v.a.\    j3ac^^^^yuiJ 
 
 y,«t  ^y^axa?.    lb. 
 
 oixy^y?  TO  TrXaov.  P.  1 177. —  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
 teftimony  of  Diodorus  Siculiis,  who  fays,  (1.  3.  p.  177. 
 ed.  WefTering.)  that,  as  foon  as  the  king  was  chofen, 
 the  people  worfliipped  him    as  a  god  :   Ev^v<;  h  acci  v^otr- 
 
 %l'V:i   •.iOii    T»]^a  KCC^CtTFi^  --tOi'. 
 
 {hipped 
 
92  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fhipped  Hercules^  Pan^  and  Ifisy  with  an- 
 other foreign  deity"". 
 
 Here  the  reader  may  paufe  a  moment, 
 and  review  the  ground  he  has  been  tread- 
 ing. The  heathen  gods  were  of  two 
 forts  ;  the  conftituent  parts  and  princi- 
 ples of  the  world,  and  demons.  The 
 Heathens  afferted  the  exiftence  of  de- 
 mons of  a  celeftial  origin  ;  but  the  Dif- 
 fertation  undertook  to  prove,  that  fuch 
 demons,  as  were  the  more  immediate 
 obje6ls  of  the  eftablifhed  worfhip  in  cer- 
 tain nations,  were  natives  of  the  earth. 
 We  have  feen  °  what  induftry  a  late  wri- 
 ter exerted  to  difguife  this  propofition ; 
 let  us  now  confider,  whether  he  attacks 
 it  with  judgement  and  fuccefs,  or  even 
 took  his  aim  aright.  The  propofition 
 was  explained  concerning  the /^///Z?^^  na- 
 tions of  the  world ;    but  the  gentleman 
 
 "  O4  ^  £v  Mt^orti  xai  H^axXsa,  y.cci  Uccvcty  xai  l<T%y,  as" 
 ^ovray,  v^oq  u>^u  rm  ^a^'^a^ixu.  Strabo,  I.  17.  p.  II78. 
 This  foreign  god  could  not  be  either  an  elementary  or 
 fidereal  deity,  any  more  than  Hercules^  or  Pan,  or 
 liis. 
 
 •»  P.  11-17. 
 
 draws 
 
in  barbarous  Nat  torn,  9^ 
 
 draws  his  obje6lIons  from  the  fuppofed 
 cafe  of  Barbarians^  and  the  greateft  fa- 
 vages.  The  proportion  refpefted  only 
 thofe  nations  in  which,  befides  the  na- 
 tural gods,  demons  alfo,  of  one  kind  or 
 other,  were  worfhipped  ;  but  the  gen- 
 tleman undertakes  to  confute  it  by  the 
 cafe  of  thofe  people  who,  according  to 
 his  account  of  them,  had  no  demons  at 
 all.  Had  his  fa6ls  been  true,  they 
 would  have  been  foreign  from  the  point. 
 
 But  the  fa6ls  which  he  alleges  are  not 
 true.  There  is  pofitive  evidence,  that, 
 out  of  the  eight  fore-mentioned  nations, 
 which  he  affirms  acknowledged  only  the 
 natural  gods,  itv^n  ^  worfliipped  human 
 fpirits.  Nay,  fome  of  them  had  no  o- 
 other  deities  but  thefe^  He  not  only 
 adopts  Dr.  BlackwelFs  peculiar  interpre- 
 tations without  acknowledging  his  ob- 
 ligation, but  copies  his  miftakes  \  which 
 is  a  fure  proof  that  he  took  every  thing 
 upon  truft,  and  had  himfelf  no  know- 
 
 *  The  cafe  of  the  MaiBigetes  alone  is  doubtful.  P.  28. 
 P  P.  32. 
 
 ledge 
 
94  WoYjhip  tfhumttn  Spirits 
 
 ledge  of  his  fubjeft.  When  Mr.  Fell  de-- 
 ferts  his  guide,  he  is  far  from  appearing 
 to  greater  advantage  :  for  then,  inftead 
 of  milinterpreting  ancient  authors,  we 
 find  him  boldly  affirming  fafts  that  are 
 falfe,  without  producing  any  teftimony 
 to  fupport  them,  as  in  the  cafe  of  the 
 Goths  y  or  appealing  to  the  teftimony  of 
 writers  who  contradi6t  their  truth,  as 
 in  the  cafe  of  the  Getes.  Such  is  this 
 gentleman's  manner  of  writing  !  It  does 
 equal  credit  to  his  candour,  his  judge- 
 ment, and  his  learning. 
 
 SECT.     II. 
 
 Shewing^  from  the  teftimony  of  the  Heathens y 
 that  many   other   barbarous  nations^  be- 
 Jides  thofe  fpecified  in  the  preceding  fec^ 
 tiony  paid  divine  honours  to  deceafed  men, 
 
 'np  HOUGH,  to  avoid  being  tedious, 
 
 I  fhall  purpofely  omit  many  in- 
 
 fiances  of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits 
 
 in 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  95 
 
 in  fome  of  the  barbarous  nations  paffed 
 over  by  a  late  writer,  yet  the  proofs  of 
 it  in  others,  that  will  be  here  produced, 
 added  to  thofe  recited  in  the  preceding 
 feftion,  will  be  fufficient  to  fhew  how 
 generally  it  prevailed  in  the  continents  of 
 Africa,  Europe,  and  Afia. 
 
 I.  I  fhall  begin  with  the  mention  of 
 feveral  barbarous  nations  in  Africa,  in 
 which  kings  and  heroes  were  ranked  a- 
 mongft  the  gods. 
 
 Under  the  term,  /Ethiopia ,  the  an- 
 cients comprehended  a  large  part  of 
 Middle  Africa,  with  as  much  of  the 
 fouthern  part  of  Africa  as  was  then 
 known.  In  this  extenfive  country,  and 
 particularly  at  Meroe,  the  metropolis  of 
 it,  the  inhabitants  deified  their  princes 
 and  benefaftors  ^  as  was  fliewn  above''. 
 
 There  is  a  paffage  in  Herodotus,  (o- 
 verlooked  by  Dr.  Blackwell,  and  confe- 
 quently  not  noticed  by  Mr.  Fell,  though 
 more  to  his  purpofe  than  any  other,)  in 
 which  this  hiftorian,  when  fpeaking  of 
 
 ^  p.  90,  91,  92. 
 
 lome 
 
n6  Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fome  of  the  Libyan  nomades,  fays,  they 
 facrifice  to  7io   other  gods  than  the  fun  and 
 moon  \     He  adds,  to  thefe  all  the  Libyam 
 facrifice.     It  is  here  taken  notice  of,  as  a 
 very  fingular  circumftance,  that  fome  of 
 the  tribes  of  Libya  worfhipped  the  fun 
 and  moon  alone ;  which  fnews  that  the 
 pra6lice  of  the  other  tribes  was  different. 
 '  According  to  the  fame  author,  the  i/- 
 byafis  always  worfhipped  Neptune",  who 
 was  the  fon  of  Pontus ',  and  is  thought 
 to  have  been  originally  of  Phenicia,  and 
 to  have  fettled  afterwards  upon  the  fea- 
 coafls  of  Libya.     Many  writers  confirm 
 the  opinion  of  his  being  a  human  per- 
 fonage ".     Pfaphon  was  deified  by  the  Li- 
 byans, for  teaching  birds    to  fmg  thefe 
 words,  T^he  great  god  Pfaphon  ^ .     Thofe 
 Libyans,  who  dwelt  about  the  lake  Tri- 
 
 '  Herodot.  I.4.  c.  188. 
 
 '  L.  2.  c.  50. 
 
 *  Sanchoniathon,  ap.  Eufeb.  Przep.  Ev.  1.  I.  p.  3^, 
 
 "  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  5*  p.  386.  ed.  WefTding.     Laftant, 
 Dlv.  Inft.  1.  I.  c.  10. 
 
 '»'  Maxim.  Tyr.  Difiert.  19, 
 
 tonis, 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  97 
 
 tonis,  facrificed  to  Triton  as  well  as  Nep- 
 tune, and  principally  to  Minerva  ^. 
 
 The  Augilites  had  no  other  gods  but 
 the  manes,  according  to  Pomponius 
 Mela  ^^  whofe  teftimony  is  confirmed  by 
 Pliny  *.  The  inhabitants  of  Cyrene  wor- 
 fhipped  their  king  Battus,  the  founder 
 of  their  kingdom '.  In  Africa  Propria y 
 which  lay  between  Cyrenaica  and  Mau- 
 ritania, Mopfus,  king  of  the  Argives, 
 was  admitted  into  the  number  of  the 
 gods  **.     The  Tyrian  Elifla,  the  founder 
 
 ^  Hefodot.  I.  4.  c.  188.  Concerning  Minerva^  fee 
 Eufeb.  Prsp.  Ev.  p.  38. 
 
 y  AugilcC  manes  tantum  decs  putant ;  per  eos  deje- 
 rant ;  eos  ut  oraCula  confulunt ;  precatique  quae  volunt, 
 ubi  tumulis  incubuere,  pro  refponfis  ferunt  fomnia. 
 Pomp.M.  I.  I.  c.  8. 
 
 ^  Augilae  inferos  tantum  colunt.  Pliny,  1.  5.  c.  8. 
 Compare  what  Herodotus  fays  of  the  Nafamones,  I.  4. 
 c.  172.  and  Tertullian,  de  Anima,  c.  57. 
 
 ^  Herodot.  I.  4.  c.  161. 
 
 *>  Quippe  tantum  eos  deos  appellant,  qui,  ex  eodem 
 numero  jufte  ac  prudenter  vitse  curriculo  gubernato,  pro 
 numine  poftea  ab  hominibus  proditi,  fanis  et  caeremo- 
 niis  vulgo  adverruntur :  ut  in  Bceotia  Amphiaraus,  in 
 Africa  Mopfus,  in  i^gypto  Ofiris,  alius  aliubi  gentium, 
 j^i^fculapius  uhique.  Apulcius,  de  Deo  Socrat.  p.  689, 
 690.  torn.  2.  ed.  Delph, 
 
 H  of 
 
98         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 of  Carthage^  was  worfhipped  in  that 
 city,  as  long  as  it  remained  unconquer- 
 ed '.  In  the  fame  city  a  temple  was  e- 
 refted  to  iEfculapius  \  The  Carthagi- 
 nians alfo  facrificed  to  Amilcar  %  Wc 
 are  here  more  direftly  examining  the  tef- 
 timony  of  the  Heathens  themfelves  con- 
 cerning their  own  gods  ;  otherwife  I 
 might  take  notice,  that  Chiiftian  writers 
 inform  us,  that  the  Mauritanians  wor- 
 fhipped their  kings  \ 
 
 The  AtlantianSy  a  people  who  inha- 
 bited the  weftern  parts  of  Africa,  boaft- 
 ed  that  their  country  was  the  birth- 
 place of  the  gods  ^  Their  firft  king, 
 Uranus,    or  Ccelus,    whofe  name  was 
 
 «  Quamdiu  Carthago  invida.  fuit,  pro  dea  culta  efl^, 
 Juflin.  1.  18.  c.  6. 
 
 ^  Strabo,  I.  17,  p.  1189. 
 
 *  Herodot.  1.  7.  c.  167. 
 
 ^  Unicuique  etiam  provmcis  et  civitati  fuus  deus  eft ; 
 ut  Syria?  Aftarte,  ut  Arabiai  Difares,  ut  Noricis  Bele- 
 n\is,  ut  Africae  Cselellis,  ut  Mauritania?  reguli  fui. 
 Tertull.  Apol.  c,  24.  —  Hac  fcilicet  ratione  confecra- 
 verunt  et  Mauri  reges  fuos.    Laftant.  1.  i.  C  15. 
 
 8  Diodor,  Sic.  I.  3.  p.  224. 
 
 given 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  99 
 
 given  to  heaven,  received  divine  honours 
 after  his  death  ^ ;  and  fo  alfo  did  his 
 Wife  Titaea,  and  fhe  was  called  Gee^  or 
 the  earth  ^.  Their  daughter,  Bafilea, 
 married  Hyperion,  her  brother,  and  by 
 him  had  two  children,  Helion  and  Se- 
 lene :  names  that  from  them  were  given 
 to  the  fun  and  moon,  and  under  which 
 they  received  the  honours  of  thofe  ce- 
 leftial  luminaries'.  Bafilea  was  wor- 
 fhipped  under  the  title  of  the  great  mo- 
 tlier  of  the  gods,  on  account  of  the 
 care  Ihe  took  of  the  education  of  her 
 brothers  and  fillers,  the  Titans  5  one  of 
 whom,  Atlas,  was  worfliipped  in  the 
 ftar  that  bears  his  name  ^  and  another, 
 Saturn,  was  the  father  of  the  Jupiter 
 w^ho  was  furnamed  Olympian,  They  al- 
 low, that  there  was  another  Jupiter,  the 
 brotKer  of  Uranus,  and  king  of  Crete  ^. 
 To  the  nations  of  Africa  that  wor- 
 fhipped  human    fpirits,    already   taken 
 
 ^  p.  2i5. 
 «  P.  226. 
 ^  P.  229,  230. 
 
 H  2  notice 
 
100         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 notice  of,  the  Egyptians  might  be  ad- 
 ded :  but  their  cafe  will  more  properly 
 fall  under  confideration  in  the  next 
 chapter. 
 
 11.  As  to  Europe^  it  will  not  be  im- 
 proper to  begin  with  obferving,  that 
 this  continent  was  by  fome  called  Cel- 
 ttca  J  a  name  which  it  derived  from  the 
 Celtes,  the  defcendents  of  the  Cimbri, 
 part  of  whom  came  from  Babylon  into 
 the  weftern  parts  of  the  world.  Under 
 the  term,  Celtes,  were  comprehended 
 all  thofe  nations  which  were  fometimes 
 diilinguirtied  by  the  name  of  Scythians, 
 Celto-Scythians,  Getas,  Gallacians,  Gal- 
 logrecians,  Celtiberians,  Teutones,  Ger- 
 mans, and  Gauls.  They  were  fpread, 
 from  the  fea-fhores  of  Britain  and  Gaul, 
 as  far  eaft  as  the  Palus  Maeotis,  at  the 
 extremity  of  the  Euxine  fea  \  and  from 
 the  fouthernmoft  parts  of  Spain  to  the 
 northern  fea,  which  lies  off  Archangel 
 in    Ruflia'.      And,    if   we   except  the 
 
 fouthern 
 
 ^  See  The  Antiquities  of  Corn^wallf  by  the  very  learned 
 and  judicious   Dr.  Borlafe,  book  i.  ch.  4.  p.  14.  and 
 
 compare 
 
171  barbarous  Natiom.  i  o  i 
 
 fouthern  parts  of  Italy,  Greece,  and  the 
 ifles  of  the  iEgean  fea,  all  Europe  may 
 be  juftly  faid  to  have  been  peopled  by 
 the  ancient  Cimbri,  or  (as  they  were 
 foon  afterwards  called)  Celtse"". 
 
 It  has  been  (hewn  already,  that  dead 
 men  were  worftiipped  by  many  nations 
 of  the  Celtes,  both  in  Alia  and  Europe, 
 and  particularly  by  the  Scythians,  the 
 Getes,  the  Goths,  and  Germans.  Now, 
 it  feems  very  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that 
 the  other  Celtic  nations  worfhipped  the 
 fame  gods,  or  at  leaft  did  not  defert  the 
 general  principle  of  deifying  their  kings 
 and  heroes,  maintained  by  thofe  from 
 whom  they  were  defcended  3  efpecially 
 as  it  is  well  known  that  the  Heathens  in 
 
 compare  Pezron's  Antiquities  of  "Nations,  book  I .  and 
 the  Ancient  Univerfal  Hiftory,  v.  6.  ch.  12.  fedl.  I, 
 8vo.  ed.   1747. 
 
 ^  Pezron  endeavours  to  ftiew,  that  feveral  nations  of 
 Greece  and  Italy  were  dependents  of  the  Titans,  whom 
 he  takes  to  be  the  fame  with  the  Celtae.  Book  i.  But 
 thefc  countries  and  the  iflands  of  the  i£gean  fea  were 
 peopled  from  the  Syrian  continent,  according  to  Dr, 
 Borlafe. 
 
 H  3  general 
 
102         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 general  were  very  tenacious  of  the  reli- 
 gion of  their  anceftors.  Upon  inquiry, 
 it  will  appear,  that  the  religion  of  all 
 thefe  nations  was,  in  that  effential  point 
 which  I  have  been  endeavouring  to  ef« 
 tablifli,  one  and  the  fame. 
 
 Tl^p  Celtes,  under  the  title  of  Iberi- 
 ans and  Celtiberians,  inhabited  the 
 country  now  called  Spaifi ".  The  Acci- 
 tani%  a  people  of  this  country,  wor- 
 fhipped  an  image  of  Mars,  who  could 
 be  no  other  than  the  god  of  the  fame 
 name  amongft  the  Germans  %  and  the 
 Odhen  of  the  Goths  ^  The  Lufitani- 
 ans  alfo  facrificed  to  Mars '.  The  Mer- 
 cury (or  Teutates)  of  the  Iberians  was 
 the  fame  with  him  who  was  worfhipped 
 under  that  name  by  the  Gauls,  who 
 will  be  fpoken  of  in  the  fequel.     A  tem- 
 
 °  Pliny,  I.  3.  c.  I. 
 
 <*  Accitani,  Hifpana  gens,  fimulachrum  Martis,  ra^ 
 diis  ornatun^,  maxima  religione  celebrant,  Neton  yq^ 
 cantes.    Macrob.  Sat.  \.  \.  c.  1^. 
 
 P  Above,  p,  42. 
 
 ^P.  35- 
 
 ^  Strabo,  L  3,  p.  232, 
 
 pie 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  103 
 
 pie  was  ei'e6led  at  Gades,  or  Cadiz,  both 
 to  the  Egyptian  and  Theban  Hercuks, 
 but  no  ftatues  ',  as  we  learn  from  Phi- 
 loftratus  '  and  Silius  Italicus  \  Even 
 their  god  Pluto  was  probably  no  other 
 than  the  fon  of  Chronos  by  Rhea,  fpo- 
 ken  of  by  Sanchoniathon  ^.  It  is  faid, 
 that  Spain  fell  to  the  lot  of  this  prince  % 
 and  that  the  Celtes  are  the  remote  de- 
 fcendents  of  the  Titans  ^. 
 
 Let  us  proceed  to  confider  the  obje6ls 
 of  religious  worfhip  in  Gaid.  The  in- 
 habitants of  this  country  were  Celtes  ^, 
 and  were  called  by  that  name  in  the  time 
 
 *  Tlie  Perfians  and  Germans  alfo  are  faid  to  hare  had 
 no  ftatues  of  the  gods. 
 
 *  Vit.  Apol.  Tyan.  1.  5,  c.  4,  5. 
 
 "  ■  Nulla  effigies,  fimulachraque  nota  deorum, 
 
 Majeflate  locum,  et  facro  implevere  timore. 
 
 Silius  Italicus,  1.  3. 
 
 *  Apud  Eufeb.  Pr^ep.  Ev.  I.  i..c.  10.  p.  38.  D. 
 See  above,  p.  81.  note^. 
 
 *  5ee  Ancient  Univerfal  Hill.  v.  6.  b.  i.  ch.  12. 
 p.  50. 
 
 y  Callimach.  Hymn,  in  Delum,  v.  170.  et  feq.  Cal- 
 limachus  calls  the  Celtes  o->|/tyo»o»  tHjjm^,  the  lat^  pofte- 
 rity  of  the  Titans.     See  Pezron,  b.  ii.  ch.  I. 
 
 2  Plutarch.  Vit.  Camilli,  p.  135.  D» 
 
 H  4  of 
 
104         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 of  Julius  Caefar%  This  affords  reafon- 
 able  ground  to  conclude,  that  they  wor- 
 fhipped  human  fpirits  as  the  other  Cel- 
 tic nations  did.  As  a  farther  proof  of 
 this  point,  we  may  obferve,  that  they 
 alfo  claimed  to  be  defcended  from  the 
 god  Pluto  ^  the  Titan  *"  prince  juft  now 
 Ipoken  of. 
 
 Much  has  been  faid  in  praife  of  the 
 religion  of  the  Druids,  both  in  Gaul 
 and  Britain  j  and  attempts  have  been 
 made  to  clear  them  from  the  imputation 
 not  only  of  human  facrifices,  but  even 
 of  polytheifm  and  idolatry,  till  they 
 were  conquered  by  the  Romans.  But, 
 if  we  can  rely  on  the  mofl  authentic  re- 
 cords of  antiquity,  the  public  religion, 
 which  was  pra6lifed  under  \k\£\x  fan^ion^ ^ 
 
 *  Qui  ipforum  lingua  Celtae,  noftra  Galli,  appellant 
 tur.  Caefar,  de  B.  G.  init.  —  Their  country  was  fome« 
 times  called  Celtogalatia,  or  Celtogallia. 
 
 **  Galli  omnes  ab  Dite  patre  prognatos  prasdicant. 
 Ccufar,  B.  G.  1.6.  c.  17. 
 
 ^  Anc.  Univ.  Hift.  v.  6.  p.  40. 
 
 ^  eSuoit  h  otH  u'izv  A^vt^'wv.  Strabo,  I.  4.  p.  303.  See 
 alfo  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  5.  p.  354.  ed.  WefTeling.  and 
 Ccsfar,  1.  6.  c.  ic. 
 
 was 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  105 
 
 was  not  more  commendable  than  that  of 
 other  nations.  The  Gauls  were  ex- 
 ceedingly addifted  to  magic,  divination*, 
 and  idolatry,  in  their  moft  horrid  forms  : 
 witnefs  their  auguries '  from  the  blood 
 and  entrails  of  the  creatures  they  facri- 
 ficed  to  falfe  gods.  According  both  to 
 Diodorus  Siculus  ^  and  Strabo\  men 
 were  facrificed  for  the  purpofe  of  divi- 
 nation, and  the  omens  were  the  palpi- 
 tation of  their  limbs  after  they  were 
 ftabbed,  and  the  flowing  of  their  blood. 
 This  had  been  their  praftice  from  the 
 jnofl:  remote  antiquity  \  They  appeafed 
 their  gods   with  human  viftims,  burn- 
 
 «  Natio  eft  omnis  Gallorum  admodum  dedita  religi- 
 cnibus.  Caefar,  1.  6.  c.  15.  —  Augurandiiludio  Galli 
 praeter  caeteros  callent.    Juftin.  I.  24.  c.  4. 
 
 '  In  aufpicia  pugns  hollias  ca^dunt,  quarum  extis, 
 &c.    Juftin.  1.  26.  c.  2, 
 
 g  L.5.  p.  354. 
 
 ^  V.I.  p.  303, 
 
 n«Aa»a  TJvi  xat  ifoXv^^ovia  7rc<.^U7r,^r,czi,      Diodor.  Sic. 
 ybi  fupra. 
 
 ing 
 
io6         Worpip  of  human  Spirits    • 
 
 ing  to  death  men  as  well  as  bcafts^. 
 We  may  allow,  that  Cicero,  to  ferve  his 
 client,  put  the  moft  invidious  conftruc- 
 tion  upon  the  condu^  of  the  Gauls ; 
 yet  he  fpeaks  of  their  offering  to  the 
 gods  human  viftims  in  a  manner  that 
 Ihews  the  faft  could  not  be  denied  ^ 
 The  teftimony  of  other  writers  is  liable 
 to  no  exception.  Csefar,  in  particular, 
 had  the  beft  opportunities  of  informa- 
 tion, by  his  long  refidence  in  Gaul ;  and 
 he  has  not  only  affirmed  the  fa6l  in  quef- 
 tion,  but  alfo  explained  the  occafions  "* 
 upon  which   they  offered  human  facri- 
 
 ^  Caefar  (I.  6.  c.  15.)  fays  :  Alii  immani  magnitu^ 
 dine  fimulachra  habcnt,  quorum  contexta  viminibus 
 membra  vivis  hominibus  complent,  quibus  fuccenfis, 
 circumventi  flamma  exanimantur  homines,  —  Strabo, 
 1.4.  p.  303*  affirms,  Bocrxtj^ara  xcn  — —  at^^wTrsj  6?^o• 
 y.uvTtiv. 
 
 ^  Quis  enim  ignorat  eos  ufq'ue  ad  hanc  diem  retinere 
 illam  immanem  ac  barbaram  confuetudinem  hominum 
 immolandorum  ?    Orat.  pro  Fonteio. 
 
 *"  Qui  funt  affedi  gravioribus  morbis,  quique  in  prae- 
 liis  periculifque  verfantur,  aut  pro  vi£limis  homines  im- 
 molant,  aut  fe  immolaturos  vovent.  Csfar,  1.6.  c.  15. 
 Compare  Juftin,  1.  6.  c.  z. 
 
 fices. 
 
in  barbarous  Natiom,  107 
 
 fices.  He  tells  us,  that  Griminals  were 
 the  moft  acceptable  facrifices  5  but  at 
 the  fame  time  he  informs  us,  that, 
 when  thefe  were  wanting,  the  innocent 
 fuppiied  their  place  °  ;  which  is  a  plain 
 proof  that  they  fuffered  not  as  viflims 
 to  the  order  of  fociety,  but  to  the  ven- 
 geance of  the  gods  *'.  To  them  they 
 alfo  facrificed  their  captives  in  war?. 
 In  cafes  of  extraordinary  danger,  they 
 ftrove  to  avert  the  divine  wrath  by  the 
 {laughter  even  of  their  wives  and  chil- 
 dren ^  The  Romans  were  far  from  be- 
 ing free  from  the  charge  of  offering  hu- 
 
 "  Supplicia  eorum,  qui  in  furto,  aut  latrocinio,  aut 
 aliqua  noxa,  fmt  comprehenfi,  gratiora  diis  immortali- 
 bus  effe  arbitrantur.  Sed,  cum  ejus  generis  copia  de- 
 ficit, etiam  ad  innocentium  fupplicia  defcendunt.  Cae- 
 far,  1.  6.  c.  15.  —  Compare  Diodorus  Siculus,  I.  5. 
 p.  355.  ed.  WelTeling. 
 
 °  Quod  pro  vita  hominis,  nifi  vita  hominis  reddatur, 
 non  pofTe  aliter  decrum  immortalium  numen  placari  ar- 
 bitrantur.   Ca^far,  1.6.  0.15. 
 
 TtjAUfi'    Dipdor.  Sic.  1.  5.  p-  355. 
 
 ^  Sperantes  deorum  minas  expiari  casde  fuorum  poiTe, 
 conjuge^  et  libexos  fuos  trucidant.    JuHin.  I.  26.  c.  2. 
 
 man 
 
io8         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 man  facrifices ;  neverthelefs  they  were 
 fhocked  at  the  far  greater  excefs  to 
 which  this  praftice  was  carried  by  the 
 Gauls  " ;  amongft  whom  it  in  fome  mea- 
 fure  remained,  even  after  various  Ro- 
 man edicls  were  paffed  to  reftrain  and 
 abolifh  it '.  This  is  a  plain  proof,  that 
 this  rite  of  worfhip  had  taken  deep  root 
 amongft  the  Gauls  ^  and  that  their  re- 
 ligion was  not  corrupted,  but  reformed, 
 by  the  Romans.  Now,  if  the  Gauls 
 offered  human  facrifices,  we  may  from 
 hence  infer,   that  thofe  gods  were  war- 
 
 ^  Religio  apud  Gallos  dira  immanitatis.  See  the 
 next  note. 
 
 '  The  fuperllition  of  the  Druids,  which  the  Roman 
 citizens  were  forbidden  to  pra<5life  by  Auguflus,  Clau- 
 dius attempted  wholly  to  abolifh.  Druidarum  religi- 
 onem  apud  Gallos  dir^  immanitatis,  et  tantum  civibus 
 fub  Augullo  interdidlum,  penitus  abolevit.  Suetonius, 
 Vit.  Claudii  Csefaris,  c.  25.  See  Pliny,  I.  30.  c.  i. 
 concerning  what  was  done  againft  the  Druids  by  Tibe- 
 rius. Strabo  takes  notice  of  the  Romans  drawing;  oiF 
 the  Gauls  both  from  their  cruel  facrifices  and  divina- 
 tions. Dr.  Borlafe  (Antiquities  of  Cornwall,  p.  154.) 
 has  fhewn,  that  their  fondnefs  for  human  viftims  con- 
 tinued even  after  their  converlion  to  Chriltianity, 
 
 riors 
 
in  barbarous  Natio?is,  109 
 
 riors  and  heroes  5  as  will  be  fhewn  in 
 the  fequel. 
 
 Other  proofs  of  this  point  are  not 
 wanting.  I  fay  nothing  of  their  tern- 
 plesy  mentioned  by  Suetonius  and  Stra- 
 bo  y  though  (whether  they  were  edi- 
 fices, or,  as  fome  fuppofe,  only  Confe- 
 crated  woods  and  groves)  they  were  pro- 
 bably the  fepulchres  of  their  gods.  The 
 Jiafues  and  images  *  of  their  divinities  af- 
 ford more  certain  evidence  that  thofe 
 divinities  had  been  men. 
 
 That  feveral  of  them  were  of  human 
 extract,  we  {hall  fee  no  ground  to  doubt, 
 if  we  proceed  to  a  diftincl  examination 
 of  them.  Such  unqueftionably  was 
 Hercules^  whom  the  Gauls  worfhipped 
 on  account  of  his  being  the  firft  who 
 fur  mounted  the  difficulties  of  paffing  the 
 Alps ",  which   had  been  deemed  infupe- 
 
 rable. 
 
 *  Immani  magnitudine    fimulachra  habent.     C^efar, 
 1.  6.  c.  15. 
 
 "    Gens    afpera,  audax,  bellicofa,    quae    prima   poft 
 Herculem,  gui  ea  res  virtutis  admirationem,  et  immor- 
 
 talitads 
 
tlQ         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 rable.  Their  Apollo^  or  Beknus^  was  the 
 tutelary  god  of  Noricum  "^^  and  born,  it 
 is  probable,  in  Aquileia ""  ^  from  whence 
 his  worfliip  was  brought  into  Gaul. 
 Thefe  inftances  of  the  worfhip  of  human 
 fpirits  cannot  be  difputed.  Nor  do  I  fee 
 any  reafonable  ground  to  doubt  concern- 
 ing thofe  that  follow.  The  Jupiter^  or 
 Tharanisy  of  the  Gauls,  according  to 
 Csefar's  ^  account  of  him,  anfwers  to  the 
 Thor  of  the  Goths,  the  prefident  of  the 
 air,  and  ruler  of  thunder  ^.     To  him  hu* 
 
 talltatis  fldem,  dedit,  Alpium  invidta  juga,  et  frigore 
 intraftabilia  loca,  tranfcendit,  Juftin.  I.  24.  c.  4.  — " 
 Eft  locus  Herculeis  aris  facer,  fays  Petronius  Arbiter, 
 when  fpeaking  of  the  place  from  whence  Hercules 
 crofled  the  Alps. 
 
 *  Above,  p.  98.  note  f. 
 
 *  He  is  Ipoken  of  as  the  iirixi^^^ot;  ^'co<i  of  the  Aqui- 
 leians,  who  called  him  Belis  :  Bi'mv  h  xa^ao-*  tctov,  '  C 
 AcroX^aya  nvcn  e^eAovtsj.  Herodian.  Hill.  1.  8.  c.  7. 
 p.  271.  ed.  Oxon.  1704.  Hence  it  appears,  that  Belis 
 could  not  be  the  fun,  as  fome  affirm.  As  to  Apollo, 
 fee  above,  p.  27.  note  ^. 
 
 y  Jovem  imperlum  coeleflium   tenere.    Caefar.  1.  6, 
 c.  16. 
 
 *  Above,  p.  36.  . 
 
 man 
 
in  barbarous  Nations, 
 
 III 
 
 man  facrifices  *  were  offered.  The  eha- 
 rafter  given  of  Mars^  by  the  fame  illiuf-. 
 trious  writ^r^,  correfponds  to  that  of  the 
 northern  Odhen^  To  this  martial  hero* 
 the  firft  invention  of  armour  is  afcribed^  , 
 and  to  him  captives  in  war  were  facrifi-* 
 ced  *.  He  is  thought  to  be  the  fame  with 
 Hefus,  who  was  appeafed  with  human 
 vi£^iras^  The  god,  whom  both  the 
 Gauls  and  Germans  principally  wor-* 
 Clipped,  was  Mercury  ^  That  the  Her-* 
 mes  or  Mercury  of  Europe  was  the  fame 
 with  the  Thoth  or  Thoyth  of  Egypt, 
 
 ^  Below,  note  ^ 
 
 *  Martem  bella  regere.    Caefar,  1.  6.  c.  i6, 
 ^  Above,  p.  35. 
 
 **  Diodor.  Sic.  \,^,  c.  235. 
 
 *  Casfar,  1.  6.  c.  16, 
 
 *  Et  quib\is  immitis  placatur  fangume  diro 
 T^utates,  horreivix^ue  feris  altaribus  Hefus, 
 Et  Taranis  Scy thicse  non  mitiot  ara  D ianie. 
 
 Lucan;r  L  i.  vi  444. 
 La£lanttiis    fays,   (1.  i.  21.)     Galli  Hefum  atque  TK^tfi 
 taten  humano.cruore  placibant. 
 
 g  Concerning  the  Gauls,  Csefar  (L  6.  c.  16.)  fays; 
 Deum  maxime  Mercurium  colunt.  —  Tacitus  gives  th« 
 fame  account  of  the  Germans :  Deorum  maxime  Mer- 
 curium colunt.    Mor.  Germ,  c*  9. 
 
 appears 
 
112    '     Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 appears  from  the  teftimonies  of  Phila 
 Byblius  ',  Plato  \  Cicero  \  and  Ser-^ 
 vius  ^  He  infl:ru6led  Gaul  and  Egypt 
 in  arts  and  commerce  "".  From  his  be- 
 ing joined  by  the  Germans  with  Mars", 
 it  feems  as  if  he  was  fometimes  worfliip- 
 ped  under  a  military  charafter.  Per- 
 haps they  afcribed  their  viftories  to  Mer- 
 cury when  they  were  gained  by  genius 
 and  ftratagem,  and  to  Mars  when  they 
 prevailed  by  open  valour.     His  military 
 
 ^  Ap.  Eufeb.  Praep*  Ev.  \.\.  c.  9.  p.  31. 
 
 «  In  Phaedro,  p.  274.     In  Philebo,  p.  18.  ed.  Serranl. 
 
 ^  See  note  "^  below. 
 
 '  In  ^n.  iv.  577^ 
 
 ™  Mercurius  dicitur  Argum  interemiiTe,  ob  eamque 
 caufam  in  Egyptum  profugifTe,  atque  ^Egyptiis  leges  et 
 literas  tradidifTe.  Hunc  iEgyptii  Thoth  appellant, 
 Cicero,  de  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  22. —  Hunc  (fcil.  Mer- 
 curium)    omnium  artium    inventorem    ferunt.  ■- 
 
 Hunc  ad  quasflus  pecuniae  mercaturafque  habere  vim 
 maximam  arbitrantur*  Ca^far,  1.  6.  c.  16.  —  Arnobius 
 fpeaks  to  the  fame  purpofe,  I.  4.  p.  170.  —  Tertullian 
 (de  Coron.  mil.  c.  8.)  fays,  Mercurius  literas  enarravit 
 neccflarias,  et  commercii  rebus,  et  noftris  erga  deum 
 iludiis. 
 
 n  Diverfam  aciem  Marti  et  Mercuric  facravere.  Ta- 
 cit. Annal.  1.  13.  c.  57. 
 
 charadler 
 
in  barbarous  Natiofis,  115 
 
 cliara6ler  accounts  for  his  being  appeafed 
 with  human  blood  °.  He  is  fuppofed  to 
 be  the  fame  with  the  cruel  Teutates  % 
 the  Phenician  Taut  or  Thaut.  His  fe^ 
 pulchre  was  fhewn  at  Hermapolis  ^ 
 
 The  forementioned  gods  were  wor- 
 fhipped  by  the  Gauls,  long  before  their 
 conquefl:  by  the  Romans.  After  this 
 period,  it  is  well  known,  they  dedicated 
 temples,  and  raifed  altars,  to  the  Ro- 
 man emperors  3  and  adopted  all  the  gods 
 of  their  conquerors.  Nor  is  there  any 
 reafon  to  fuppofe,  that  this  was  the  ef-* 
 fe6l  of  mere  complaifance  -,  becaufe  it 
 was  agreeable  to  the  principles  of  the 
 heathen  religion.  And  we  have  feen, 
 that  they  adhered  to  thofe  principles,  in 
 oppofition  to  the  Roman  authority,  even 
 in  a  cafe  in  which  they  were  moft  re- 
 pugnant to  the  cleareft  dictates  of  rea- 
 
 *  Tacit.  Mor.  German,  c.  9.  Comp.  Annal.  1.  13, 
 c.  57. 
 
 P  Mentioned  above,  note  ''i 
 
 ^  Clement,  recogn.ap lid  Patres  apoftol.  v.  i.  p.  594. 
 ed.  Clerici.  See  alfo  what  is  faid  concerning  Mercury, 
 chap.  II,  under  the  article,  Phenkians, 
 
 I  fon 
 
114        Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fon  and  humanity :  I  refer  to  the  bloody 
 cuftom  of  offering  to  their  gods  human 
 viftims.  I  cannot  forbear  adding,  that, 
 inafmuch  as  it  is  generally  allowed  that 
 the  Gauls  and  Germans  had  the  fame 
 objefts  of  worfhip,  the  diftincl  accounts 
 given  of  the  gods  of  both  mutually  il- 
 luftrate  and  confirm  each  other. 
 
 Now,  if,  in  Spain,  Portugal,  Gaul, 
 Germany,  and  the  more  northern  na- 
 tions of  Europe,  human  fpirits  were 
 deified,  what  reafon  is  there  to  believe, 
 that  the  other  nations  of  Europe  had 
 not  the  fame  obje6ts  of  worfhip  ?  Many 
 of  them  were  peopled  by  the  Celtes'. 
 This  was  the  cafe  as  to  Britain  in  parti- 
 cular. And  was  the  religion  of  Britain 
 different  from  that  of  Gaul  ?  The  very 
 contrary  is  allowed  to  be  true  j  nor  could 
 it  be  otherwife,  becaufe  both  religions 
 had  their  rife  from  the  ancient  idolatry 
 of  the  Eaft.  The  difcipline  of  the  Dru- 
 ids was  common  both  to  Gaul  and  Bri- 
 
 '  See  above,  p.  loo.  note  '. 
 
 tain. 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  115 
 
 tain  \  The  facrifices  and  arts  of  divi- 
 nation in  both  countries  were  the  fame  : 
 for  the  Britifli  Druids  took  their  omens 
 from  human  viftims,  as  we  have  {ttn 
 the  Gauiifli  did*.  Indeed,  it  would  be 
 eafy  to  produce  diftinft  proofs  of  the 
 cuftom  of  human  facrifices  in  moll  na- 
 tions of  the  world ",  and  of  Europe  in 
 particular ;  which  is  itfelf  evidence  fuf- 
 ficient  of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits 
 in   thofe  nations.      As  to  the  fouthern 
 
 •  Difciplina  (fcil.  Druidum)  in  Britannia  reperta, 
 atque  inde  in  Galliam  tranflata  effe  exiflimatur.  Casfar, 
 i.  6.  c.  12. 
 
 '  Tacitus,  fpeaking  of  the  inhabitants  of  Anglefey, 
 a  Britifti  ifland>  fays  :  Prsefidium  poflhac  impofitum 
 vidlis,  excifique  luci,  faevis  fuperllitionibus  facri  :  nam 
 cruore  captivo  adolere  aras,  et  hominum  fibris  confulere 
 deos,  fas  habebant.  Tacit.  Annal.  1.  14.  c.  20.  — - 
 From  the  foregoing  obfervations  it  appears,  that  Origen 
 (on  Ezek.  iv.)  was  millaken  when  he  faid,  (or  rather^ 
 that  he  is  mifinterpreted  when  he  is  reprefented  as  fay- 
 ing,) that  the  Druids  taught  the  Britons  to  believe 
 there  is  but  one  God.  They  probably  acknowledged, 
 as  the  other  heathen  nations  did,  one  God  who  was  fu- 
 perior  to  the  reft,  or  a  fupreme  deity. 
 
 "  Ifta  toto  mundo  confenfere,  quamquam  difcordi, 
 et  fibi  ignoto.    Pliny,  1.  30.  c.  i. 
 
 I  2  parts 
 
1 1 6         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 parts  of  Italy,  Greece,  and  the  eaftern 
 illands  of  Europe,  if  they  were  not  peo- 
 pled by  the  Celtes,  they  were  by  the  Sy- 
 rians ^ ;  and  they  derived  their  religion 
 from  them  and  the  Egyptians,  whofe 
 gods  will  be  confidered  in  the  next  chap- 
 ter. As  to  the  Macedonians,  the  name 
 of  one  of  their  mortal  deities  is  pre- 
 ferved  by  TertuUian  ^,  in  a  paffage  which 
 will  be  cited  when  I  come  to  fpeak  of 
 Cilicia  in  Afia.  Juftin  fays,  that  the 
 temple  of  Jupiter  (of  whom  enough  has 
 been  faid  already)  was  ^  held  in  high  ve- 
 neration from  the  moft  remote  anti- 
 quity. 
 
 I  cannot  forbear  taking  particular  no- 
 tice of  the  "Thracians^  whom  Herodotus  ^ 
 calls  the  great eji  nation  of  any  amongjl  men^ 
 except  the  Indians,  By  fome  they  are 
 reckoned  amongft  the  Scythians  ^  and  it 
 is   certain   that,    like  them,    they  were 
 
 ^  See  above,  p.  loi.  Jiote*". 
 *  De  Anima,  c.  46. 
 
 y  Yetcrrimai  Macedonum  religionis,      Juftin.  1.  24, 
 c.  2. 
 =  L.;.  C.3. 
 
 worfhippers 
 
in  ba7^barous  Nations,  1 17 
 
 worfliippers  of  Zamolxis.  Proofs  of 
 this  point  were  adduced  above  ^ ;  one  of 
 which  was  the  teflimony  of  a  Thracian 
 in  Plato.  I  will  here  add  a  paffage  from 
 Lucian  ^ :  'The  Thracians  facrijice  to  Za^ 
 molxis^  a  fugitive  from  Samos^  who  came 
 to  refide  amongfl  them.  Befides  their  great 
 legillator,  they  deified  Orpheus,  and  alfo 
 Odryfus,  (the  founder  of  the  nation,  at 
 lead  of  a  part  of  it,)  and  others',  ac- 
 cording to  the  teftimony  of  Tertullian 
 and  Epiphanies.  But,  wavdng  the  au- 
 thority of  Chriftian  writers,  as  not  be- 
 ing immediately  to  our  prefent  purpofe, 
 I  add,  that  the  paflage  in  which  Hero- 
 dotus ^  is  fuppofed  to  fay,  ''  the  Thra- 
 *'  cians  worfliipped  only  Mars,  Bac- 
 "  chus,  and  Diana,"    may  only  import, 
 
 *  p.  32.      Compare  p.  27,   28. 
 ^  Jupiter  Xragced.   torn.  2.  p..  152. 
 ^  Tertullian.  de  Animn,  c.  2.       Photii  Bibliotheca, 
 XLV.       Epiphanius,  1.  i.  p.  8. 
 
 A^TiiMi.      Herodot.  1.  5.  c.  7.       Compare    the   paiTage 
 from  Herodotus,  cited  p.  65.  note  "*. 
 
 I  3  that 
 
1 1 8  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 that  thefe  were  their  principal  gods. 
 They  might  be  the  only  gods  worfliip- 
 ped  by  all  the  different  nations  of 
 Thrace,  or  the  only  gods  they  had  in 
 common  with  other  nations.  He  could 
 not  mean,  that  no  other  gods  but  thefe 
 were  worfhipped  by  any  of  the  people  of 
 Thrace  ;  for  he  knew  that  Zamolxis  was 
 acknowledged  as  a  god  by  the  Getes,  a 
 people  of  this  country " :  and  he  alfo  in- 
 forms us,  that  the  Thracians  of  Abfyn- 
 thus  facrificed  a  Perfian  to  Pleftorus,  a 
 god  of  the  country,  according  to  their 
 cuiiom  ^  Much  lefs  did  Herodotus 
 mean,  that  the  Thracians  acknowledged 
 only  the  natural  gods  ;  for  we  learn 
 from  him,  that  Bacchus  was  educated 
 in  Arabia  ^  He  alfo  informs  us,  that 
 the  Thracians  in  Afia  had,  in  their  coun- 
 try \  an  oracle  of  Mars,  who  was  cer-p 
 
 •  Above,  p.  32. 
 '  Herodot.  1.  9.  c.  118. 
 f  Above,  p.  85.  note  "c 
 *>  L.7.  c.  76. 
 
 talnly 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  119 
 
 tainly  a  Thracian  *.  His  fepulchre  was 
 Ihewn  in  Thrace,  according  to  Clemens 
 Romanus,  who  makes  mention  of  many 
 other  heathen  gods  whofe  fepulchres 
 were  well  known  ^.  Each  nation  of 
 Thrace  feems  to  have  had  it's  own  pe- 
 culiar divinity  ;  and  their  kings  prided 
 themfelves  in  their  relation  to  Hermes  : 
 for  Herodotus  \  to  the  palTage  cited  from 
 him  above,  fubjoins  the  folio v/ing  de- 
 claration :  T'heir  kings,  beftdes  the  national 
 deities y  adore  Hermes  with  greater  devotion 
 than  their  other  godsy  /wear  by  him  alone^ 
 and  claim  to  be  defcended from  him  *".  Ha- 
 ving given  ample  fpecimens  of  the  wor- 
 fhip  of  human  fpirits  in  the  different 
 nations  of  Europe, 
 
 III.  Let  us  proceed  to  AJia. 
 
 That  dead  men  were  deified  in  many 
 parts  of  this  vaft  continent,  particularly 
 
 *  Virgil  calls  Thrace,  Rhefi  Mavortia  tellus.  Georg. 
 IV.  462. 
 
 ^  Clemens,    Recogn.    1.  lo.  c.  24,    torn.  i.  p.  594. 
 ed.  Clerici. 
 •  ^  L.  5.  c.7. 
 
 ^  Concerning  Mercury,  fee  p.  1 1 1 . 
 
 I  4  in 
 
I20         WorJJdip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 in  Arabia,  Perfia,  and  the  boundlefs  re- 
 gions called  Scythia,    has    been   already 
 fhewn.     The  fame  will  be  proved  con- 
 cerning feveral  other  great  nations   of 
 Afia  in  the  next  chapter,  when  the  ob- 
 je£ls  of  worfhip  amongft  the  people  po- 
 liflied  by  learning  come  under  confidera^ 
 tion.     But,   befides  the   nations   which 
 will  be  there  fpoken  of,  and  thofe  al- 
 ready fpecified,  there  were  many  others 
 in  w^iich  human  fpirits  were  worfhip- 
 ped.     It  would  be  endlefs  to  recount  all 
 the  rude  and  barbarous  people  who  ac- 
 knowledged fuch  gods   as  thefe.      The 
 mention  of  fome  of  the  moft  confidera- 
 ble  will  ferve  as  proper  famples  of  the 
 reft. 
 
 In  Sarmatia  Afiatica ",  near  the  Palus 
 Mseotis,  the  hero  Achilles  was  deified. 
 In  Colchis  there  v/as  a  temple  and  grove 
 dedicated  to  Phrixus  \  Medea  was  ef- 
 teemed  a  goddefs  in  the  fame  place,  as 
 
 ^  Strabo,  1.  II.  p.  -56. 
 
 *  Hie  Phrixi  tcmplum  ct  lucus.     Mela,  1.  i.  c.  21. 
 
 Athenagoras 
 
in  barbarous  Nations .       .     121 
 
 Athenagoras  ^  affirms  upon  the  authority 
 of  Alcman  and  Hefiod.  Athenagoras, 
 in  his  learned  apology  for  the  Chriftians, 
 infifts  largely  upon  this  topic,  that  the 
 Heathens,  as  appeared  from  their  own 
 records,  or  from  fa6ls  of  the  great  eft 
 notoriety,  worfhipped  gods  that  had 
 once  been  men  and  women.  He  men- 
 tions by  name  many  fuch,  (which  I  pafs 
 over,)  and  fays,  the  time  would  fail 
 him  to  enumerate  all  the  reft  ^  I  could 
 not  omit  his  teftimony  in  this  place,  be- 
 caufe  it  is  confirmed  by  the  Heathens 
 themfelves,  —  To  return.  Protefilaus 
 ;was  worfhipped  inAbydena'^  Autoly- 
 cus  at  Sinope  in  Paphlagonia,  where  he 
 had  an  oracle ' ;  and  Iphigenia  by  the  in- 
 habitants of  Taurus '  ^  Heclor  and  He- 
 
 P  Legat.  pro  Chriflian.  p.  51,  52.    Oxon.   1706. 
 ^  E9r*A£»4'£«  i^s  >3  >5/:x£^a  to  w^woj  xaraAeyovra.    Athenag, 
 
 '  Sunt  Prot^rilai  ofla  confecrato  delubro,    Mela,  1.  2. 
 f .  2. 
 
 »  Strabo,  1.  12.  p.  822. 
 
 }  ^erodot.  1.  4."  c.  103. 
 
 lena 
 
122         WorJIoip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 lena  at  Ilium  in  Phrygia"  j  Sarpedon"", 
 Cybele,  and  Attis,  at  Troas  *  j  Achilles 
 at  Sigaeum  ^ ;  and>  at  Smyrna,  Homer*. 
 Divine  honours  were  paid  to  Alabandus 
 in  Caria  *  j  to  Pandarus  in  Lycia  ^ ;  to 
 Niobe "  and  Mopfus  ^  in  Cilicia ;  to  Ac- 
 mon  *  in  Cappadocia  s  in  Pontus  to  Pa- 
 troclus  * ;    in  Armenia  to  Tanais  or  A- 
 
 ^  Athenag.  Legat.  p.  50. 
 
 ^'^  Pliny,  1.  13.  c.  13. 
 
 "^  See  the  hiftory  of  Cybele,  in  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  3. 
 c.  30. 
 
 y  Strabo,  I.  13,  p.  891, 
 
 =  Id.  1.  14.  p.  956.  I  omit  moll  of  the  Grecian  co- 
 lonies in  Alia,  becaufe  they  do  not  fall  under  the  de- 
 fcription  of  Barbarians,  and  becaufe  there  can  be  no 
 doubt  about  their  having  the  fame  objedls  of  vvorihip  as 
 Greece  ;  which  will  be  confidered  in  the  next  chapter. 
 
 ^  Cicero,  de  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  15,   19. 
 
 ^  Strabo,  1.  14.  p.  981. 
 
 *  Athenag.  Legat.  p.  52. 
 
 ^  Nam  et  oraculis  hoc  genus  ftipatus  eft  orbis  ;  ut 
 Amphiarai  apud  Oropum,  Amphilochi  apud  Mallum, 
 Sarpedonis  in  Troade,  Trophonii  in  Bceotia,  Mopfi  in 
 Cilicia,  Hermiones  in  Macedonia,  Pafiphaes  in  Laco- 
 nica.     Tertullian.  de  Anima,  c.  46. 
 
 «  Stephan.  Byzant.  in  voc.  Acmon. 
 
 [  Clement.  Recog,  1.  lo.  c.  25. 
 
 naitis  ^ 
 
in  barbarous  Nations,  123 
 
 naitis  ^  j  and  in  Media  to  Hephaeftion  **. 
 The  haughty  monarchs  of  Parthia  were 
 ftiled  the  brothers  of  the  fun  and  moon ^  and 
 were  believed  to  mingle  with  the  ftars  at 
 death*.  As  the  Parthians  were  fubjeft, 
 firft  to  the  Medes,  and  afterwards  to  the 
 Perfians  y  and  there  was  an  intercourfe 
 and  alliance  between  the  two  latter  5  it 
 is  very  reafonable  to  fuppofc,  that  the 
 religion  of  thefe  three  nations  was  very 
 much  the  fame  '^ :  which  confirms  what 
 was  obferved  above,  concerning  the  gods 
 of  Perfia  being  the  fame  with  thofe  of 
 the  furrounding  nations  3  that  is,  both 
 celeftial  and  terreftrial. 
 
 If,  from  Perfia,  we  go  into  the  re- 
 moter regions  of  Afia,  we  fhall  find  that 
 the  cuftom   of  deifying  human  fpirits 
 
 8  Strabo,  1.  ii.  p.  805.  —  See  above,  p.  70. 
 
 ^  Compare  Quint.  Curt.  I.  10.  c.  4.  Juftin.  1.  12. 
 c.  12.  and  Plutarch,  in  Alexandre.  —  The  Medes  wor- 
 fhipped  their  kings  while  living.    Strabo,  1.  xi.  p.  ypT". 
 
 *  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  I.  23.  c.  6.  See  alfo 
 Martial,  Ep.  72. 
 
 ^  Strabo  fays,  (1.  u,  p.  805.)  that  both  the  Medes 
 gnd  Armenians  obferve  the  Perfian  rites  of  worfhip. 
 
 prevailed 
 
124         WorJIdip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 prevailed  there  from  the  earliefl:  ages : 
 for  Ammon  and  Bacchus  were  worfliip- 
 ped  in  India  \  Diodorus  Siculus ""  makes 
 the  Indian  Bacchus  the  moft  ancient  of 
 all  thofe  who  bore  that  name.  He  went 
 from  AfTyria  into  India,  according  to 
 the  account  given  by  fome  of  the  Indians 
 to  ApoUonius  ".  One  reafon  affigned, 
 by  the  Pendets  of  Indoftan,  for  worfhip- 
 ping  brute-animals,  is,  their  being  fup- 
 pofed  to  contain  in  them  the  fouls  of  de- 
 parted heroes  °.  And  a  modern  voyager  ^ 
 to  the  Indies  afTures  us,  that  the  Hea- 
 thens adore  their  god  Ram,  though  the 
 
 *  Concerning  Bacchus  and  Amnion,  fee  above, 
 p.  85.  note  °. 
 
 ^  L.  3.  p.  232.  ed.  Wefieling. 
 
 >  Philoftrat,  Vit.  Apollon.  Tyan,  1.  2.  c.  9.  p.  57. 
 
 o  Bernier's  Memoirs,  torn.  3.  p.  154,   155,   156. 
 
 P  Thevenot,  Voyages  des  Indes,  part.  3.  liv.  i. 
 c.  38.  Quand  un  Chretien  leur  parle  de  leur  dieii  Ram 
 que  les  Gentils  adorent,  ils  ne  foutiennent  point  qu'il 
 eft  Dieu,  et  difent  feulement  que  c'etoit  un  grand  roi, 
 dont  la  faintete  et  le  fecour  qu'il  a  donne  aux  hommes 
 lui  ont  acquis  une  communication  plus  particuliere  avec 
 Dieu  qu'autres  faints,  et  qu'ainfi  ils  lui  portent  beaw- 
 coup  plus  de  refpcdl. 
 
 Brachmans^ 
 
in  barbarous  Nations.  12  v 
 
 Brachmans,  in  their  converfation  with 
 Chriftians,  pretend  that  they  only  ho- 
 nour him  with  fingular  refpeft  as  a 
 great  '^  monarch,  whofe  extraordinary 
 virtues  and  merit  towards  mankind  give 
 him  a  pecuUar  intereft  in  the  favour  of 
 the  Deity.  The  moft  ancient  of  all 
 their  gods  was  Perambramman,  who 
 was  worfhipped  together  with  his  three 
 fons '.  To  many  other  men  they  paid 
 divine  honours  \  and  ufed  Ubations,  fa- 
 crifices,  and  various  other  rites,  to  ex- 
 piate the  manes  of  the  dead  \     Accord- 
 
 'i  That  Is,  I  fuppofe,  with  a  ci'vil  refped  ;  an  excufe 
 like,  that  was  made  for  the  Perfi^ns,  p.  56.  and  for  the 
 Chinefe,  p.  41. 
 
 •■  Parambramman  nefcio  quern  deorum  antiquiffimum 
 colunt,  et  ex  eo  filios  tres.  Peter  MafFeus,  in  his  firll 
 book  Hiftoriarum  Indicarum,  p.  55. 
 
 3  Miiltis  pr?eterea,  non  hominibus  mode,  fed  brutis 
 etiam  animantibus,  ccEleiles  habent  honores,  et  templa 
 Tcdificant.  Id,  ib.  They  paid  extraordinary  devotion 
 to  oxen  ;  — -  quod  hominum  vita  fun6lorum  animos  in 
 cam  maxime  belluam  immigrare  opinantur.    P.  56. 
 
 *  Sacrificiis,  libatlonibus,  CcEterifque  nefariis  ritibus, 
 —  ad  expiandos  mortuorum  manes,  utuntur.  Id.  ib. 
 
 inp" 
 
126         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 ing  to  the  editor  of  the  Ezour  Vedam ", 
 Budda,  the  moft  celebrated  of  the  Sa- 
 manean  doftors,  who  was  born  near  fe- 
 ven  hundred  years  before  Chrift,  was 
 honoured  as  a  god,  and  his  do6lrine  was 
 adopted,  not  only  in  India,  but  alfo  in 
 Japan,  China,  Siam,  and  Tartary.  The 
 Ezour  Vedam  itfelf  is  faid  to  affert  the 
 unity,  but  confiders  all  the  other  gods 
 as  mortals.  Every  one  has  heard  of  the 
 extraordinary  devotion  paid  in  T'ibet  and 
 other  eaftern  nations  to  the  grand  Lama^ 
 whom  they  regard  as  omnifcient  and 
 immortal :  for,  when  he  dies  in  appear- 
 ance, they  imagine  he  only  changes  his 
 abode,  being  born  again  in  another  bo- 
 dy'. 
 
 If,  from  Tibet,  you  proceed  to  China, 
 you  will  find,  in  that  vaft  empire,  gods 
 taken  from  amongft  mankind.     What 
 
 "  L'Ezour  Vedam,  ou  ancien  commentaire  du  Ve- 
 dam, contenant  rexpolition  des  opinions  religieufes  et 
 philofophiques  des  Indians,  par  M.  de  Sainte  Croix. 
 Monthly  Review,  appendix  to  vol.  6i.  p.  500. 
 
 *  See  Bernier*s  Memoirs,  v.  4.  p.  127.  and  Com- 
 plete Syllem  of  Geography,  v.  2.  p.  301,  cd.  1747. 
 
 was 
 
in  barbarous  Nations »  127 
 
 was  only  incidentally  obferved  above  ^, 
 concerning  the  Chinefe,  cannot  be  o- 
 mitted  in  this  place,  to  which  it  pro- 
 perly belongs  ;  viz.  that  they  pay  an 
 idolatrous  worfhip  to  the  fouls  of  their 
 anceftors,  and  honour  Confucius  with 
 the  fame  religious  ceremonies  as  they  do 
 their  celeftial  and  terreftrial  fpirits. 
 
 At  the  very  exti'emity  of  the  Eaft,  in 
 Japan,  there  are  clear  traces  of  the  fame 
 fuperftition.  I  need  not  take  any  parti- 
 cular notice  of  thdr  god  Cambadaxi,  of 
 whom  an  account  is  given  by  Calpar  Vi- 
 lela  ^.  It  is  fufficient  to  obferve,  in  ge- 
 neral, concerning  the  Japanefe,  that 
 they  deified  their  kings  and  men  of  royal 
 birth,  and  thofe  alfo  who  had  diftin- 
 guiflied  themfelves  by  ufeful  inventions 
 or  any  illuftrious  deeds.  Nay,  (what  is 
 very  remarkable,)  the  Japanefe,  at  fuch 
 a  diftance  from  Greece  relate  of  thefe 
 hero-gods   the   like  abfurd,    ridiculous, 
 
 «  p.  41. 
 
 y  In  1.  3.  Epiftolarum  Japonicarum. 
 
 and 
 
128         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 and  immoral,  ftories,  as  the  Greek  pa- 
 cts fabled  concerning  Jupiter,  Saturn, 
 Bacchus,  and  their  other  fiftitious  de- 
 ities *.  This  obfervation  may  be  ap- 
 plied, in  a  good  meafure,  to  the  Brach- 
 mans  of  India  ^. 
 
 I  fhall  not  trouble  the  reader  here 
 with  any  remarks  upon  a  late  writer, 
 whofe  learning  allowed  him  to  affirm  ^ 
 "  that  divine  honours  were  not  paid  to 
 *'  deceafed  heroes  in  the  eaftern  nations  i" 
 though  the  very  contrary  has  been  de- 
 monftrated  by  the  moft  numerous  tefti- 
 monies.  Two  general  remarks  fhall 
 clofe  this  fecVion. 
 
 2  Reges  olim  ipfos,  regumque  fllios,  aut  invento  qiio-^ 
 piam,  infignive  alio  facinore,  falfae  divinitatis  gloriam 
 confequutos.  Horum  de  vita  rebufque  geilis,  uti  de 
 Jove,  Saturno,  Libero,  csterifque  inanibus  diis,  Graeci 
 poetse  abfurda  quaedam,  et  ridenda,  et  turpia,  fabu- 
 lantur.  MaiFei  Hiftor.  Indie.  1.  12.  p.  533.  —  In  the 
 iiland  of  Taprobane,  now  called  Ceylon,  Venus  was 
 worlhipped.    Dionyfii  Periegefis,  v.  592. 
 
 »  Multos  habent  fuarum  fuperftitionum  libros  » 
 
 quae  nonnihil  ad  veteris  Grsecise  fabulas  et  auguralem 
 Hetrurise  difciplinam  videntur  accedere.  Maffei  Hiftor* 
 Indie.  1. 1,  p.  56, 
 
 ^  Fell,  p.  7. 
 
 I.  The 
 
zn  barbarous  Nations,  129 
 
 I.  The  teftimonies,  produced  in  this 
 and  the  foregoing  fectionsj  are  fufficient 
 to  fliew,  that  the  worfliip  of  human 
 fpirits,  in  the  nations  ftiled  bai^baroas^ 
 was  very  general.  The  known  except 
 tions  are  fo  few,  that  they  fcarcely  deferve 
 to  be  mentioned.  Dr.  Blackwell  has 
 furnifhed  us  only  with  one,  if  the  cafe 
 of  the  Maffagetes ""  be  indeed  an  excep- 
 tion. Having  no  finifter  delign  to  anf- 
 wer,  I  did  not  conceal  from  the  reader 
 the  cafe  of  fome  of  the  Libyan  No- 
 mades  ^  (overlooked  by  that  learned 
 writer,)  who  worfhipped  only  the  natu- 
 ral gods.  I  now  add,  that  the  fame  has 
 been  affirmed  concerning  the  AlbaJii^  a 
 people  who  bordered  upon  the  Cafpian 
 fea.  But  I  queftion  v/hether  this  can  be 
 inferred  from  the  account  given  of  them 
 by  Strabo  %  who  only  fays;  'They  worjlnp 
 the  gods  ^  the  fun,    and  yupiter^  and  the 
 
 «  Above,  p.  28.  ^  P.  95,  96. 
 
 ^OJTA'5  oe  7'/;!/ SeVz-vj;*.   Strabo,  1.  II.  p.  768. 
 
 K  moon ; 
 
130         Worfoip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 moon  y  principally  the  latter.  Had  this 
 accurate  writer,  by  Jupiter,  here  meant 
 heaven,  it  would  have  been  more  natu- 
 ral for  him  to  have  ufed  the  Greek  term 
 that  exprefTes  it,  efpecially  in  connexion 
 with  two  other  natural  objects,  the  fun 
 and  moon.  By  Jupiter,  therefore,  he 
 probably  intended  the  prefident  of  the 
 air  :  an  office  which  the  Heathens  af- 
 figned  to  a  human  fpirit.  Befides,  Strabo 
 docs  not  affirm,  that  the  Albanians  w^or- 
 fhipped  no  other  gods  but  thofe  whom 
 he  fpecified.  He  takes  notice,  indeed^ 
 of  their  fliewing  no  refpeft  to  the  dead  ^5 
 but  this  might  be  very  confiftent  with 
 their  worfhipping  fuch  men  as  antiquity 
 had  deified.  I  fhall  only  add,  that  if, 
 in  fome  nations,  the  natural  gods  alone 
 were  acknowledged,  we  have  feen  that 
 there  were  others  in  which  they  had  no 
 gods  but  deified  men  and  women  ^  In 
 mofl  of  the  nations,  of  which  we  are 
 fpeaking,  there  were  both  natural  and 
 mortal  gods. 
 
 ^  Id.  ib.  E  p.  32,  ^-j, 
 
 2.  The 
 
m  barbarous  Nations,  ^  3  ^  - 
 
 2,  The  foregoing  teftimonies  juftify 
 the  limited  explication,  given  above  ^, 
 of  a  pafTage  in  Plato,  in  which  he  fays, 
 **  Mafiy  of  the  Barbarians,  in  his  time, 
 "  held  only  the  natural  gods/'  For 
 moft  of  thefe  teftimonies  refer  to  times 
 prior  to  thofe  of  this  celebrated  philofo- 
 pher.  And  there  will  be  occafion  to 
 fliew,  in  the  fequel,  that  the  worfhip  of 
 human  fpirits  very  generally  prevailed  in 
 the  early  ages  of  the  world* 
 
 *>  p.  10,  note  y.     Compare  Fell,  p.  9, 
 
 iC  z  CHAP. 
 
i^Z         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 CHAP.     11. 
 
 Proving^  from  the  teflimonies  of  the 
 Heathens^  that  they  paid  religmis 
 honours  to  dead  7nen  in  the  7tations 
 folifljed  by  learning. 
 
 AMONGST  the  nations  which  anf- 
 wer  this  defcription,  we  may  reckon 
 the  Chaldeans,  Babylonians,  Syrians, 
 Phenicians,  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Ro- 
 mans. To  thefe  we  muft  add  fuch  Ara- 
 bians as  bordered  upon  Judea  and  E- 
 
 gypt' 
 
 It  is  to  the  gods  of  thefe  nations,  of 
 fuch  of  them  efpecially  as  were  upon  the 
 confines  of  Canaan  \  that  the  Scriptures 
 refer,  when  they  fpeak  of  the  heathen 
 deities.  The  knowledge  of  the  gods  of 
 thefe  nations,  therefore,  muft  be  highly 
 ufeful  to  the  lover  of  facred  literature. 
 
 ■  The  Ifraelites  luent  after  the  Heathen  that  ^were  round 
 about  them,  2  Kings  xvii.  15. 
 
 My 
 
in  poUJhed  Nations.  133 
 
 My  more  immediate  defign  at  prefent 
 h  to  fhew,  that,  in  all  ^  the  fore-men- 
 tioned nations,  divine  honours  were  paid 
 to  dead  men  and  women. 
 
 SECT.     I. 
 
 T  Shall  begin  with  confidering  the  cafe 
 of  the  Phenicians  ;  becaufe  the  ac- 
 count given  us  of  their  gods  will  be  of 
 ufe  to  us  in  explaining  thofe  of  the  other 
 polifhed  nations. 
 
 It  has  been  faid,  with  no  fmall  degree 
 of  confidence,  that  *'  there  can  be  no 
 "  doubt  but  that  the  Greeks  themfelves 
 ''  have  declared,  that  the  Phetiicians  ne- 
 ««  ver  worfhipped  fach  gods  as  had  been 
 "  men'.''  Who  the  Greeks  are,  that 
 have  made  this  declaration,  is  a  fecret 
 the  gentleman  has  locked  up  in  his  own 
 breaft,  or  rather  is  (I  apprehend)  a  great 
 fecret  even  to  himfelf.     As  Sanchonia- 
 
 ^  The  gods  of  the  Arabs  were  confidere4  above,  p.  84. 
 J  Fell,  p.  31. 
 
 K  3  thon 
 
134         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 thon  is   the  author  he  had  laft  men- 
 tioned, he  probably  miftook  him  for  a 
 Greek  writer.      But  the  hiftory  of  San- 
 chonlathon  was  written  in  the  Phenician 
 language,  as  the  learned  well  know ;  and 
 w^as  only  tranflated  into  Greek  by  Philo 
 of  Byblus,     A  part  of  that  tranflation  is 
 preferved  by  Eufebius "".      Philo,  in  his 
 preface  to  it,  has  given  us  the  following 
 extraft "  from  his  author ;  introducing  it 
 with  a  declaration,  that  it  was  previoufly 
 neceffary  to   the  right  underflanding  of 
 his  hiftory  \     I  fhall  lay  it  before  the 
 reader,  not  for  the  fake  of  refuting  the 
 gentleman's  unfupported  affertion,  which 
 thofe   acquainted  with    antiquity   muft 
 know  to  be  falfe  5  but  becaufe  it  will 
 
 ">  Prsp.  Ev.  1.  I. 
 
 "  Whether  the  following  citation  be  Philo's  extrad 
 from  Sanchoniathon,  or  the  account  which  Philo  him- 
 felf  thought  it  necefiary  to  give  in  order  to  the  right 
 underilanding  of  his  author,  is  a  matter  of  no  moment* 
 Jt  may  be  referred  indifferently  either  to  the  one  or  the 
 other. 
 
 »  Eufeb.  Prnep.  Ev.  1.  i.  p.  32.  P. 
 
 throw 
 
in  poUJhed  Nations.  1 3  5 
 
 throw  great  light  upon  the  general  fub- 
 
 je6t. 
 
 Sanchoniathon,    who   is  fuppofed  to 
 
 have  approached  near  to  the  age  of  Mo- 
 fes,  writes  as  follows  ^     ''  "the  moji  an- 
 cient of  the  Barl?aria?7Sy    efpecially  the 
 Phenicians  and  Egyptians,  fro7n  whom 
 other  people  derived  this  mjlom,  accounted 
 thofe  the  GREAT'ESr  GODS\  ivho 
 had  found  out  things  moJi  neceffary  and 
 ifefiil  in  life,  and  had  been  henefa5lors  to 
 mankind.       Thefe    they    worjlnpped    as 
 gods ' ;  and,  applying  their  temples  to  this 
 ufe,  they  conjecrated  to  their  names  pil- 
 lars andjiatues  of  'wood,  which  the  Phe- 
 7iicia7is  held  in  high  -ceneration,  and  in- 
 fituted  the  moft  folemn  fejlivals  in  their 
 ''  honour.     More  efpecially   did  they  gi've 
 ''  the  names  of  their  kings  to  the  mundane 
 ''  elements,  and  to  other  things   to  which 
 *'  they  attributed  divinity.      For  phyfical 
 ''  beings  alone,  fuch  as  the  fun,  moon, 
 ^'  planets,  and  elements,  and  things  of 
 
 p  Id.  p.  32,   33.  ^  esyj  "op?^" /^^V'«'^5- 
 
 K  4  •'  the 
 
 cc 
 
 €C 
 
 CC 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
136         Wcrfjif  of  human  Spirits 
 
 ^'  the  fame  kind,  did  they  acknowledge 
 ^^  to  be  ftriftly  and  properly  gods% 
 "  So  that  fome  of  their  gods  were  MOR- 
 ''  "lALy  andothers  I M MORTAL' r 
 
 That  part  of  this  citation  from  San- 
 choniathon,  or  Philo  Eyblius,  here  print- 
 ed in  Roman  characters ,  was  given  in 
 the  Differtation  on  Miracles";  as  was 
 alfo  fo  much  of  the  other  part  ^^  here 
 diftinguiihed  by  Italics,  as  was  necefiary 
 to  fhew,  that  the  Phenicians  and  other 
 ancient  nations  worfhipped  fuch  men 
 as  had  been  benefaftors  to  the  human 
 race.  Neverthelefs  Mr.  Fell  "5  (incre- 
 dible as  it  may  feem!)  fuppreffing  that 
 part  of  it  which  afTerts  the  deification  of 
 men,  (though  he  quotes  the  words  that 
 
 5  Some  render,  (^v<riy.ii<;  ^  yiXiov  -/.xi  aiXmnv  —— —  ^£i?$ 
 ji^oi/a?  tyivojcTKovy  "  but  the  fun,  moon,  and  planets,  and 
 **  other  things  like  thefc,  they  acknowledged  as  the 
 *'  only  phyjical  or  natural  gcds.'*  But  Eufebius  him- 
 felf,  p.  28.  A,  after  enumerating  the  fame  phyfical 
 gods  of  the  Phenicians,  fays,  that  their  Jirfi  naturalijh 
 Bici<;  y.ovov  Eyifwjxii/,  ackno'wledged  thefe  alone  to  he  gods, 
 
 ^  P.  173.  note  f,    p.  179.  note  K  ^  P.  187. 
 
 ^  p.  30,  31. 
 
 immediately 
 
in  polijhed  Nations,  jny 
 
 immediately  precede  it  ^,)  and  fetting  be- 
 fore his  readers  that  part  only  which  re- 
 lates to  the  natural  gods,  reprefents  the 
 latter  as  fuch  a  contradiction  to  my  af- 
 fertions  refpe6ling  the  more  immediate 
 obje6ls  of  heathen  worihip,  that  he  pro- 
 fefles  to  be  at  a  lofs  what  apology  to  make 
 for  me^  and  defcribes  me  as  a  perfon  with 
 whom  //  is  in  vain  to  reafon.  Can  this 
 writer  make  any  apology  for  his  own 
 ccnduCl  ?  He  falfely  charges  me  with 
 grofs  felf-contradi6lion,  in  a  cafe  in 
 which  there  would  not  have  appeared 
 even  a  fhadow  of  it,  had  he  had  the  ho- 
 nefty  to  lay  before  his  readers  both  the 
 extra6ls  from  Philo  Byblius  ;  which,  ta- 
 ken together,  inflead  of  contradifting, 
 do  in  the  fulleft  manner  eftablifh,  what 
 I  had  aflerted  concerning  the  heathen 
 gods.     I  appeal  to  every  candid  reader. 
 
 Is  it  not  evident,  from  the  foregoing 
 teftimony  of  Sanchoniathon,  that,  in 
 the  opinion  of  the  Phenicians,  particu- 
 
 V  Comp.  DiiTert.  on  Mir.  p.  iS;.     Fell,  p.  31. 
 
 larly 
 
i^S         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 larly  of  their  firft  naturalifts  %  phyfical 
 beings  were  the  only  gods ;   that  is,  in 
 their  own  natural  right  *  ?     And  is  it  not 
 equally  evident,  from  the  fame  teftimony, 
 that  the  Phenicians  worfliipped  human 
 fpirits  as  gods,  even  as  their  greatejl  gods, 
 and   with  the   moft    folemn    devotion  ? 
 To  thefe  their  worfhip  was  more  imme- 
 diately dire6led,  in  their  pubhc  temples  ; 
 and,    from  thefe,  their  natural  gods  re- 
 ceived their  denomination.     So  that  the 
 .  worlhip  of  the  latter  muft  in  a  manner 
 have  been  abforbed  in  that  of  the  former, 
 or  both  were  worfhipped  together.     He 
 alone  who  was  capable  of  appealing  to 
 Herodotus,  to  vouch  for  a  fact  which 
 that  hiftorian  contradifts,  could  be  bold 
 enough  to  tell  the  world,  that  the  tefti- 
 mony of  Sanchoniathon  was  a  contra^ 
 diftion  to  my  affertions,  when  that  tef^ 
 timony  does,  in  the  cleareft  terms,  con- 
 firm my  opinion,  and  confute  his.    Had 
 
 ^  0»  w^wToj  (pvaiKoiy  H.  T.  ^.  Eiifeb.  p.  Ev.  I.  I .  p.  38.  A. 
 *  Compare  what  is  cbferved  above,  from  Mr.  Sale, 
 concerning  the  Arabians,  p.  87. 
 
 he 
 
in  poll f:ed  Nations,  139 
 
 he  not  been  an  entire  ftranger  to  San- 
 chonlathon,  he  muft  have  known  that 
 his  hiftory  was  written  with  the  exprefs 
 defign  of  fliewing,  that,  though  the 
 parts  and  elements  of  the  world  were 
 the  original  gods  of  the  Phenicians  and 
 other  nations,  yet  that  the  public  devo- 
 tion was  direftly  addrefled  to  deified 
 men  and  women  \  And  Eufebius  tefti- 
 fies,  that,  even  to  his  time,  thefe  were 
 the  gods  worihipped  by  all  people^  and  in 
 all  cities  and  countries  *". 
 
 Mr.  Fell  affirms  ',  Tthefe  (the  fun, 
 moon,  and  the  other  natural  gods)  were 
 the  Cahiriy  or  mighty  gods  of  the  eajlern 
 nations.  The  gentleman  here,  as  on 
 other  occafions,  follows  Dr.  Blackwell '. 
 But  the  learned  do6lor's  authority  is  of 
 no  weight,  in  a  cafe  of  this  kind,  againft 
 the  teftimony  of  the  ancients.     The  Ca- 
 
 ^  See  Sanchoniathcn,  apud  Eufeb.  P.  Ev.  1.  i.  paf- 
 iim,  or  Eufebius^s  fhort  account  of  bini,  p,  31.   C. 
 
 Ti  Tcc;  TToXsi^  y.oci  Tea;  ^cc^xi;.     Id.    ID. 
 
 'i  P.  10.  «  Mythol.  p.  277. 
 
 biri. 
 
140         Worjhip  ofhiima?!  Spirits 
 
 biri,  or  potent  gods  of  the  Phenicians, 
 were,  according  to  Sanchoniathon,  eight 
 in  number,  and  no  other  than  men  dei- 
 fied after  death.  From  Sydic  dejcended 
 the  Diofciiriy  or  Cabiri^  or  Coryhantes^  or 
 Samothracian  deities  ^  Thefe^  he  adds, 
 Jirjl  invented  the  building  of  a  fiip.  The 
 Egyptian  priefls  feem  to  have  envied 
 Phenicia  the  honour  of  having  given 
 birth  to  thefe  famous  deities,  (whofe  rites 
 v;ere  fo  facred  and  myfterious,  and  fo 
 generally  obferved,)  and  claimed  them 
 as  their  own.  For  they  told  Herodo- 
 tus ^  that  the  Cabiri  ^  were  the  fons  of 
 Vulcan,  the  oldeft  of  their  gods.  I  will 
 not  enter  into  this  difpute  ^  but  muft 
 obferve,  that,  though  the  Phenician  Ca- 
 birs  arc  allegorized  by  many  ancient  as 
 well  as  modern  writers  \    yet  were  they 
 
 2:a/xo%ay.£j.  Eufeb.  Prsep.  Evan.  1.  i.  p.  36.  A.  See 
 p.  39.  B.C. 
 
 8  L.  3.  c.  37.  ^  See  Hefych.  in  voce. 
 
 *  Letters  on  Mythol.  p.  278.  .  Jablonfki,  Pantheon 
 i^gypt.  torn.  2.  Prolegom.  p.  61.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor. 
 I.  I.  c.  42. 
 
 real 
 
in  polijloed  Nations,  141 
 
 x*eal  human  perfonages,  and  worfliipped 
 as  fuch  by  the  people.  The  fon  of  Tha- 
 bion  is  faid  to  be  the  firft  who  turned 
 their  hiftory  into  allegory  "". 
 
 It  will  be  proper  to  take  notice  of 
 fome  other  Phenician  deities,  who  were 
 certainly  of  human  extraft.  Sanchoni- 
 athon  ^  makes  mention  of  Chryfor^  (faid 
 to  be  the  fame  with  Vulcan,)  as  one 
 who,  for  his  ufeful  inventions,  was,  af- 
 ter his  deceafe,  worfhipped  as  a  god : 
 of  Agrotes^  who,  for  a  like  reafon,  was 
 honoured  with  a  ftatue  and  temple,  and 
 was  eminently  called  the  g?^eateji  of  the 
 gods " :  of  Dagon^  who,  having  difco- 
 vered  bread-corn  and  the  plough,  was 
 called  Jupiter  Aratrius  "  :  of  T'aaiitus^ 
 (called  by  the  Alexandrians  Thoythy  and 
 by  the  Greeks  Hermes,)  the  fon  of  Mifor, 
 and  the  inventor  of  letters  °  :  of  Elioim 
 
 ^  Eufeb.   Prnsp.  Ev.  1.  i.  p.  39. 
 
 ^  Apud  Eufeb.  Prxp.  Ev.  p.  35.  "^  Id.  ib. 
 
 "  Id.  p.  37.  D.  Hence  Dagon  was  called  rtrin*, 
 that  is,  frumenti  prsfes,  as  it  is  explained  by  the  edi- 
 tor of  Eufebius,  p.  36.   C. 
 
 «>  Id.  p.  36.  A. 
 
 pr 
 
14^         PForJJjtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 or  HypJiJiuSy  to  whom,  after  his  deaths 
 his  children  offered  facrifices  and  liba-* 
 lions  ^ :  of  OiiranuSy  from  whom  the  e]e«* 
 ment  over  us,  by  reafon  of  it's  excellent 
 beauty,  is  called  Ouranus  or  heaven  '^  i 
 and  of  GeCy  from  whom  earth  took  it's 
 name '.  Ouranus  had,  by  his  fifter  Gee, 
 ChronoSy  who  founded  Byblus,  and  after 
 his  death  was  confecrated  into  the  pla- 
 net called,  after  his  name,  ChronoSy  or 
 Saturn  \  Many  more  examples  of  the 
 fame  kind  might  be  produced  from  San- 
 choniathon ;  but  I  fliall  take  notice  only 
 of  two,  Aftarte  and  Hercules. 
 
 The  celebrated  Aftajtey  according  to 
 this  author  \  was  the  daughter  of  Ou- 
 ranus. She  is  called  the  greatejl  goddefs  % 
 and  was  the  fame  with  Aphrodite ^  or  Ve^ 
 
 p  lb.  q  p.  36.  B. 
 
 '  Concerning  the  deifiGation  of  Ouranus  and  Gee^ 
 fee  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  3.  p.  224,  225.  ed.  We/feling* 
 and  Ladantius>  de  Falf.  Relig.  1.  i.  p.  52,  53.  Gee 
 feems  to  anfwer  to  Herthum,  fpoken  of  abovCj  p.  44. 
 
 »  Eufeb.   P.  E.  p.  40.  C.  p,  150.  D. 
 
 «  Id.  p.  37. 
 
 "  Sanchon.  ap.  Eufeb.  P.  E.  1.  i.  p.  38*  C. 
 
 nUSy 
 
 *4 
 
hi  poHJI:cd  Nations,  i  a^ 
 
 nus^  according  to  the  Phenicians  ^.  Plato 
 alfo  calls  her  the  ancient  and  celefiial  Ve-- 
 nus-y  and  fpeaks  of  her,  as  Sanchonla- 
 thon  does,  as  the  daughter  of  Uranus  '. 
 In  Cicero  likewife  the  Syrian  Venus  is 
 called  Aflarte  ^.  She  was  worfliipped  by 
 the  Arabians,  Perlians,  AiTyrians,  and 
 Syrians  ;  and  held  in  peculiar  venera- 
 tion at  Tyre,  Sidon,  and  Byblus  ^.  Thi^ 
 female  deity  reigned  in  Phenicia  \  and 
 was  thought  to  be  worfliipped  by  the 
 Sidonians  and  Carthaginians  under  the 
 name  of  Juno  V 
 
 p.  38.  C,  D.  Suidas  fays,  that  AHarte  was  called  Ve- 
 nus by  the  Greeks. 
 
 ^  Plato,  Sympof,  p.  180.  ed.  Serran. 
 
 >■  De  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  23.  Venus  quarta,  Syria 
 Tyroque  concepta,  quas  Aftarte  vocatur.  —  Compare 
 Herodot.  1.  i.  c.  105,  131.  and  what  was  obferved  a- 
 bove  concerning  Urania,  p.  68-71.  —  See  Herodiiin, 
 1.5.  c.  15.  p.  193. 
 
 2  Herodot.  I.  i.  c«  105,  131.  —  Lucian.  de  Dea 
 Syr.  p.  657,   658. 
 
 ^  Phenicia  was  called  t/je  land  of  Venus,  ^fchyl. 
 Supplices,  V.  563. 
 
 ^^  Virgil.  iEn.  I.  446. 
 
 With 
 
144         IVorjJnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 With  regard  to  the  Phenician  Her- 
 cules of  Tyre,  where  he  had  a  temple "" 
 erefted  to  him,  he  was  the  fon  of  De- 
 maroon,  and  was  by  the  Phenicians  cal- 
 led Melcarthus  *.  He  is  thought  by  fome 
 to  be  the  oldeft  of  all  the  great  heroes 
 of  the  name  of  Hercules.  His  temple 
 at  Tyre  was  faid  to  be  as  old  as  the  city''. 
 In  the  fame  city  there  was  a  temple  de- 
 dicated to  Hercules  under  the  title  of 
 T'hajian  \ 
 
 The  reader  muft  have  obferved,  that 
 feveral  of  the  foregoing  proofs  of  the 
 Phenicians  paying  religious  worfhip  to 
 human  fpirits  are  furniflied  by  the  Greek 
 writers  j  though  we  have  been  told% 
 that  the  Greeks  have,  without  doubt ^  de- 
 clared the  contrary.  In  confirmation  of 
 what  has  been  urged,  I  muft  obferve, 
 that  the  cruel  cuftom  of  offering  human 
 facrifices  was  pra6lifed  in  Phenicia  more 
 frequently,    and  with  circumftances  of 
 
 *  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  44. 
 
 *  Eufeb.  P.  E.  p.  38.  A.     He  was  alfo  called  Malic, 
 or  king.     Kefych. 
 
 ^  Id.  ib.  c  Pell,  p.  31. 
 
 greater 
 
in  polijhed  Nations .  145 
 
 gi-eater  barbarity^  than  in  any  other 
 country.  A  colony  of  Phenicians,  fet^ 
 tied  at  Carthage,  when  firft  tranfplant- 
 ed,  facrificed  to  Saturn  (whom  we  have 
 fpoken  of  before)  the  fons  of  their  moft 
 eminent  citizens  5  though,  in  after- 
 times,  the  children  of  the  poor,  bought 
 and  bred  up  for  that  purpofe,  were  fub- 
 ftituted  in  their  room  ^  Two  hundred 
 fons  of  the  nobility,  together  with  three 
 hundred  other  perfons,  have  been  offer- 
 ed up  at  one  time  ^.  The  circumftances 
 attending  thefe  barbarous  rites  are  pre- 
 served by  Diodorus  Siculus  ^  but  are  too 
 fhocking  to  be  recited*  No  v/onder  that 
 a  multitude  of  fuch  facrifices,  equally 
 impious  and  inhuman,  fliould  be  fpoken 
 of  in  Scripture  as  the  ground  of  God's 
 fingular  difpleafure  againft  the  Canaan- 
 ites,  and  of  his  purpofe  to  extirpate 
 them.  But  they  are  taken  notice  of 
 here,  becaufe  they  furnifh  a  proof,  (as 
 will  be  fhewn  hereafter,)  that  the  Chro- 
 
 .    f  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  20.  p.  415.  8  Id.  p.  415,  416.. 
 
 ^  P.  416.  ed,  WtiT. 
 
 L  nus 
 
146         Worjloip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 nus  or  Saturn,  to  whom  they  were  of-* 
 fered,  was  the  fame  deified  monarch  of 
 Phenicia  who  facrificed  his  own  fon*". 
 
 SECT.     IL 
 
 ET  us  proceed  to  inquire,  whether 
 ,  heroes  and  gods  of  earthly  origin 
 were  worfhipped  by  the  Egyptians. 
 
 We  are  now  entering  on  a  fubjeft  of 
 fmgular  importance.  Whether  Egypt 
 derived  it's  religion  from  the  eaftern  na- 
 tions, as  fome '  contend ;  or  whether,  as 
 others  affert^  the  eaftern  nations  deri- 
 ved their  religion  from  Egypt ;  on  either 
 fuppofition,  both  religions  were  formed 
 upon  the   fame  model,  and  there  muft 
 
 *  Eufeb.  P.  E.  p.  38.  *  The  eaftern  writers* 
 
 ^  Lucian  afcribes  to  the  Egyptians  the  iirft  know- 
 ledge of  the  gods,  and  of  their  rites  of  worfhip ;  and 
 fays,  it  was  derived  from  them  to  the  Affyrians.  De 
 Syria  Dea,  p.  656,  657.  tom.  2.  —  Eufebius  affirms, 
 that  the  polytheifm  of  the  nations  had  it's  firft  rife  in 
 Phenicia  and  Egypt,  and  was  from  thence  propagated 
 into  other  countries,  and  Greece  in  particular,  Pr^p, 
 Ev.  1.  I.  p.  30.  CD. 
 
 have 
 
i?i  policed  Nations,  147 
 
 have  been  a  great  refemblance  between 
 them.  As  to  the  weilern  nations,  par-* 
 ticularly  Greece  and  Italy,  it  is  allowed 
 by  all,  that  they  received  their  theology 
 from  Egypt  and  the  eaft.  The  religion, 
 therefore,  of  all  the  nations  poliflied  by 
 learning  muft  have  been  the  fame,  in  all 
 it's  eflential  principles  ;  and  a  knowledge 
 of  the  gods  of  any  one  of  them  will  aflift 
 us  in  forming  our  judgement  concern- 
 ing thofe  of  the  others.  But  Egypt  de- 
 mands our  particular  attention,  as  well 
 on  account  of  her  high  reputation  and 
 extenfive  influence  amongft  the  ancient 
 nations^  as  of  the  full  information  we 
 have  concerning  her  objefts  of  worfhip. 
 The  theology  of  Egypt  is  indeed  the  key 
 to  that  of  all  the  other  countries  here 
 fpoken  of.  Not  to  add,  that  thofe  wri- 
 ters, who  feem  difpofed  to  refolve  the 
 great  gods  of  the  Heathens  into  a  phy- 
 Jical  fyjletriy  derive  their  chief  arguments 
 from  the  accounts  which  are  given  us  of 
 the  Egyptian  divinities.  They  will  by 
 no  means  allow,  that  fach  gods  as  had 
 
 L  2  once 
 
148         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 once  been  men  were  ever  worfhipped  in. 
 Egypt,  whatever  might  be  the  cafe  in 
 other  countries. 
 
 There  are,  however,  many  prefamp- 
 tive  proofs  of  the  contrary.  Thofe  na- 
 tions which  derived  their  theology  from 
 Egypt  (Greece,  in  particular,  which 
 borrowed  from  it  the  very  names  ^  of  their 
 gods)  did  certainly  worfliip  human  fpi- 
 rits.  Is  it  unnatural  to  conclude,  from 
 hence,  that  the  Egyptians  did  the  fame  ? 
 —  They  were  the  firfl  who  ereSled  ima- 
 ges ""  in  honour  of  the  gods  :  and  were 
 not  images  in  human  form  reprefenta- 
 tions  of  human  beings  ?  —  They  are  faid 
 to  be  the  firft  who  held  the  immortality 
 of  the  foul  of  man,  which  they  explained 
 
 '  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  50. 
 
 *"  Id.  1.2.  c.  4.  —  Plato  affirms,  that  the  Egyptians 
 had  fculpture  for  ten  thoufand  years  before  his  time.  De 
 Leg.  1.  2.  p.  656.  ed.  Serrani.  And,  though  Lucian 
 thought  that  their  moll  ancient  temples  were  without 
 images,  yet  he  allows,  that  afterwards  the  AlTyrians, 
 who  derived  their  theology  from  Egypt,  placed  images 
 in  their  temples.    De  Dea  Syr.  p.  657. 
 
 by 
 
in  folijhed  Nations.  1 49 
 
 by  It's  tranfmigration "  :  principles  that 
 either  lay  at  the  foundation  of  it's  fu- 
 ture affociation  with  the  gods,  or  that 
 were  intimately  connected  with  it  °.  — 
 According  to  Diodorus  Siculus,  they 
 worfliipped  their  kings,  while  on  ^  earth, 
 as  real   gods.     Cleopatra   claimed  to  be 
 
 °  Herodot.  I.  2.  c.  123. 
 
 ^  So  clofely  conneded,  in  the  idea  of  many  of  the 
 ancients,  were  the  immortality  of  the  foul,  and  it's  fu- 
 ture deification  or  aflbciation  with  the  gods,  that  Hero- 
 dotus defcribes  the  Getes,  becoming  companions  of  Za- 
 jnolxis,  by  faying,  they  im?nortali%ed :  ABocvari^aa-i  ^e 
 701)  S'e  Tov  rpoiTQv.  L.  4.  c.  94.  Immortality  feems  to  have 
 been  ufed  almcfl  as  fynonymous  to  deification  in  Dio- 
 ilorus  Siculus,  lib.  3.  p.  243.  lin.  4.  ed.  WeiT.  and 
 .alfo  in  p.  24.  lin.  10..  (which  will  be  cited  in  the  fcr 
 quel,)  and  in  many  other  writers.  As  to  the  dodlrine 
 of  tranfmigration,  it  led  them  to  believe,  that  the  fame 
 god  might  be  often  born  ;  as  appears  from  the  claim  of 
 Cleopatra  and  others, 
 
 P   Slq    V^o^    oc?.y,^£iav    Q)itx%  -&t»^.       L.  I.    p.  lOI.  —  The 
 
 fame  thing  is  plainly  intimated  in  the  following  lines  of 
 Virgil,  Georg.  IV.   210. 
 
 Prjeterea  regem  non  iic  -^Egyptus,  et  ingens 
 Lydia,  nee  populi  Parthorum,  aut  Indus  Hydafpes, 
 Obfervant.  ■     ■ 
 
 L  3  Ifis 
 
150         JVorfiip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Ijis  '^  herfelf,  one  of  the  principal  objecls 
 of  their  devotion. 
 
 If  you  alk,  how  is  it  poffible  that  a 
 nation,  wife  and  learned  as  the  Egyp- 
 tians, fhould  worfhip  dead  men  and  wo- 
 men ?    I  anfwer,    that,  inafmuch  as  all 
 allow,  and  cannot  but  allow,  that  they 
 acknov/ledged  gods  whom  they  fed  in  the 
 flail,  nay,  that  grew  in  their  gardens, 
 why  fliould  it  be  thought  incredible  that 
 they  fhould  deify  beings  of  a  more  noble 
 nature  than  brutes  and  vegetables  ?    Be- 
 fides,  it  will  be  proved  hereafter ',  that 
 the  reafon  why  brutes  were  worfhipped 
 was  the  notion  of  their  being  animated 
 by   the  fouls   of  departed   men.      The 
 foregoing  confiderations   may    at    leaft 
 prepare     us     to     receive     the     poiitive 
 proofs,   which  I  fhall  now  produce,   of 
 the   worfhip   of   human   fpirits   in    E-* 
 
 gyp- 
 
 9  Cleopatra  fibi  tantum  adfumferat,  ut  fe  Ifin  vellet 
 yideri*.    Servius,  in  JEn.  VIII.  6^6. 
 
 '  See  alfo  above,  p,  125.  note*. 
 
 I.  Hermes 
 
in  polified  Nat  mis,  151 
 
 I.  Hermes  Trifmegijius^  acknowledged, 
 that  the  gods  of  Egypt  were  dead  men ; 
 that  the  art  of  making  gods  was  invent- 
 ed in  this  country  5  and  that  human 
 fouls  were  worfhipped  as  demons  in  e- 
 very  city.  Amongft  the  human  perfon- 
 ages  confecrated  into  gods,  Trifmegif- 
 tus  fpecifies,  *  iEfculapius,  Ifis,  and  the 
 elder  Hermes,  or  Mercury  ;  three  of  the 
 m.oft  celebrated  divinities  of  Egypt.    The 
 
 '  Hermes  ipfe deos  yEgypti  homines  mortuos 
 
 jciTe  teflatur.      Cum  enim  dixiffet  proavos  fuos  •. in- 
 
 venifTe  artem  qua  efficerent  deos. Terrenis  diis  at- 
 
 <jue  mundanis  facile  eft  irafci ;  utpote  qui  fint  ab  homi- 
 nibus  ex  utraque  natura  fa6ti  atque  com.pofiti.  Ex  utra- 
 que  natura  dicit,  ex  anima  et  corporc  :  ut  pro  anima  fit 
 daemon,  pro  corpore  fimulachrum.  Unde  contigit,  in- 
 quit,  ab  -^gyptiis  haec  fan6la  animalia  nuncupari,  co- 
 lique  per  iingulas  civitates  eorum  animas^  &c.  Au- 
 guft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.8.  c.  26.  p.  513,  514. 
 
 «  Ecce  duos   deos  dicit  homines  fuifTe,  ^fculapium 
 
 et  Mercurium.  Addit,  et  dicit,  Ifin  vero  uxorem 
 
 (Ofiridis),  quam  multa  bona  praeftare  propitiam,  quantis 
 fcimus  obefle  iratam  ?  ]3einde  ut  oftenderet  ex  hoc  ge- 
 nere  efle  deos,  quos  ilia  arte  homines  faciunt  :  unde  dat 
 intelligi  damones  fe  opinari  ex  hominum  mortucrum 
 animis  extitifie.    Id.  p.  513. 
 
 L  4  laft 
 
152         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 laft  he  calls  his  own  grandfather,  after 
 whofe  name  he  was  called  *, 
 
 2.  The  teftimony  of  Sanchoniathon  was 
 produced  above "  5  and  we  have  ktn  him 
 affirming,  that  the  Egyptians,  as  w^ell 
 as  the  Phenicians,  accounted  thofe  the 
 greateji  gods^  who  had  been  eminent  be- 
 nefactors to  mankind. 
 
 3.  My  next  appeal  fhall  be  to  Hero-, 
 dotiis^  who  had  viiited  Egypt,  and  fpared 
 no  pains  to  inform  himfelf  concerning 
 the  religion  of  that  country.  The  very 
 ingenious  Dr.  Blackwell  ^ ^  and  a  fo- 
 reigner ""  of  diftinguifhed  learning,  would 
 willingly  infer,  from  a  paffage  in  this 
 hiftorian,  that  the  Egyptians  paid  no  re- 
 ligious honours  to  heroes^.  They  feem, 
 however,  to  have  miftaken  the  meaning 
 of  their  author,  by  not  attending  to  the 
 connexion  of  the  paffage  in  queftiorn 
 with  the  preceding  context.     Herodotus 
 
 *  Id.   ib.  ♦»  P.  135. 
 
 ^  In  Letters  on  Mythol.  p.  209. 
 
 ?  Jablonfki,  Pantheon ^gypt.  torn,  2.  Prplegom.  p.37< 
 
 ?   J^^A'-fCHfr*  0  uv  Aiyt-TTTioi  y^ '//^&;cr;  »^ej/.     L.  2.    C.  50. 
 
 is 
 
in  poliffoed  NatioJis.  I  ^  j 
 
 is  fpeaking  of  Neptune,  and  fhewing 
 that  the  Greeks  learnt  the  name  of  this 
 god  from  the  Libyans,  not  from  the  E- 
 gyptians ;  who,  as  this  hiftorian  elfe- 
 where  ^  informs  us,  affirmed,  that  they 
 did  not  know  the  name  of  Neptune,  nor 
 ever  received  him  into  the  number  of 
 their  gods.  Concerning  Neptune  alone 
 Herodotus  fpeaks,  when  he  fays,  the 
 Egyptians  did  not  ho7iour  him  at  all^  as 
 Gale  renders  the  original  \  But  it  is 
 very  probable,  that  the  text  is  corrupts 
 ed,  and  that  the  true  reading  makes  no 
 mention  of  heroes,  and  only  imports, 
 that  they  do  72ot  fa crijice'^  to  him  (Nep- 
 tune) J  that  is,  the  Egyptians  did  nei^ 
 ther  acknowledge  his  divinity,  nor  pay 
 him  any  worfhip.  Indeed  the  occafion 
 did  not  lead  Herodotus  to  fpeak  about 
 heroes ;  for  Neptune  was  advanced  by  the 
 Libyans   to   the   higher   rank   of  gods, 
 
 2  L.  2.  c.  43. 
 
 ^  Oy^  Yt^uaiv  hhv,  nullo  honore  profequuntur. 
 **  Some  copies  read,  ov  h,  ^^ua-iv  8oiv,    Variantes  Lec- 
 tioiies  ad  librum  ii.  Herodot.  p.  10,  cura  Galei. 
 
 though 
 
154         V/orfmp  cf  human  Spirits 
 
 though  originally  a  mere  mortal.  Nor 
 was  it  poffible  for  the  hiftorian  to  affirm, 
 that  the  Egyptians  paid  no  religious  ho- 
 nours to  the  fouls  of  dead  men,  with- 
 out groflly  contradifting  himfelf.     For, 
 
 I  fhall  now  proceed  to  prove,  from  the 
 teftimony  of  this  inquifitive  traveller, 
 that  human  fouls  were  worfliipped  in 
 Egypt.  He  affirms,  that,  at  Chemmis  % 
 in  the  province  of  Thebes,  Perfeus,  the 
 fon  of  Danae,  had  a  temple  "^  dedicated 
 to  him,  in  which  his  image  was  placed  j 
 and  that  he  was  faid  by  the  inhabitants 
 frequently  to  appear  rifmg  out  of  the 
 earth  ^  The  priefts  informed  him,  that 
 king  Proteus,  a  native  of  Memphis,  was 
 honoured  with  a  ftately  temple  in  that 
 city  \  In  this  temple  there  was  a  cha- 
 pel dedicated  to  Venus  the  Stranger, 
 whom  he  fuppofed  to  be  Helena,  the 
 daughter  of  Tyndarus  ^     Mars,  who  re- 
 
 ^  Elf  Tctvx-n  Tfi  -TToXi  sr*  TJe^a-eof;  78  Aocvxri^  i^ov.       Herodot. 
 1.  2.    C.  91. 
 
 ^  lb.  e  Id.   c.  112,    118,    119. 
 
 ^  Cap.  112,   113.    Strabo  refers  to  this  Venus,  I.  17. 
 p. 1161. 
 
 turned 
 
in  poll jhed  Nations.  \t^t 
 
 turned  to  his  mother  when  he  attained 
 to  the  age  of  man  ^  was  worfhipped  at 
 Pampremis  ^.  And  Hercules  (of  whom 
 farther  mention  will  be  made)  had  a 
 temple  near  the  Canopian  mouth  of  the 
 river  Nile,  which,  Herodotus  fays,  re- 
 mained to  his  time  \  Thefe  inllances 
 of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits  in  E- 
 gypt,  recorded  by  Herodotus,  were  cer- 
 tainly overlooked  by  thofe  writers  who 
 affirmed,  upon  the  fuppofed  authority 
 of  this  hiftorian,  that  the  Egyptians 
 paid  no  religious  honours  to  any  gods  of 
 earthly  extraft. 
 
 But  we  may  advance  farther,  and  ob- 
 ferve,  that  Herodotus  has  recorded  fe- 
 veral  fa6ls,  which  ferve  to  fhew,  that 
 fome  at  leaft  of  all  the  different  orders 
 of  Egyptian  gods  were  no  other  than 
 men  and  women  deified.  He  makes  La- 
 tona,  who  refided  in  Butus,  one  of  the 
 ^ight  primary   deities  of  Egypt ''.     Ac- 
 
 s  Cap.  64.  ^  Cap.  59,  *  Cap.  113. 
 
 h  e»  BtfTO*  wqM,     L.  2.   C.  156, 
 
 cording 
 
156  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 cording  to  our  author.  Pan  alfo  was 
 reckoned  in  this  number  by  the  Mende- 
 fians  \  and  was  conlidered  by  fome  as  the 
 oldeil  of  the  eight  primary  gods  ".  Now, 
 Pan,  as  we  learn  from  hiftory ",  accom- 
 panied Ofiris  in  his  fuccefsful  expedition 
 to  the  Indies.  We  are  farther  told  by 
 Herodotus,  that  the  Cabiri  were  faid  to 
 be  defcended  from  Vulcan  *  ;  and  that, 
 when  the  Egyptians  added  four  more 
 gods  to  the  eight  juft  now  fpoken  of, 
 Hercules  made  one  of  the  twelve  %  whom 
 the  hiftorian  confiders  as  a  man ;  as  will 
 be  fliewn  in  the  fequel.  He  likewife 
 makes  mention  of  a  third  order  of  gods, 
 to  which  Bacchus  belonged,  as  Hercules 
 did  to  the  fecond,  and  Pan  to  the  iirft  ^. 
 Now,  Bacchus,  we  have  feen,  was  edu-^. 
 cated  in  Arabia  *^, 
 
 But  it  is  objefted,  that,  according  to 
 Herodotus,  the  priefts  of  Egypt  affirm- 
 ed, that,  in  eleven  thoufand  three  hun- 
 
 ^  Cap.  46.  m  Cap.  145. 
 "  Diodor.  Sic.  p.  21.  WefT.  *  Above,  p.  140. 
 
 •  Hcrodot.  1.  2.  c.  43,   145.  P  Cap.  145. 
 
 ^  Above,  p.  85. 
 
 dred 
 
in  polijhed  Nations,  i^y 
 
 dred  and  forty  years,  there  had  been  no 
 god  in  the  form  of  a  man ' :  — -  that,  ac- 
 cording to  the  fame  author ',  the  priefls 
 of  Jupiter  at  Thebes  would  by  no  means 
 allow,  that  a  man  could  be  begotten  by  a 
 gody  or  that  any  one  Piromis  ^  had  been 
 reputed  either  a  god  or  a  hero  :  —  and 
 that  the  Thcban  priefts  farther  affirmed, 
 that  in  the  molt  ancient  times  the  gods 
 had  been  the  fovereigns  of  Egypt y  the  lad 
 of  whom  was  Orus,  the  fon  of  Ofiris\ 
 From  thefe  circumftancs  a  learned  wri- 
 ter ^  concludes,  that  the  Egyptians  were 
 ftrangers  to  the  deification  of  men. 
 
 In  anfwer  to  this  obje6lion,  it  may  be 
 obferved,  ift.  That,  in  reading  Hero- 
 dotus, we  are  carefully  to  diftinguifh 
 between  the  fafls  which  he  affirms,  or 
 appears  to  credit,  and  thofe  which  he 
 profefledly  reports  upon  the  testimony 
 of  others.     He  himfelf  has  often  pointed 
 
 *■  Lib.  2.    c.  142.  3  Cap.  143,   144. 
 
 *  Piromis  anfwers  to  xaAoj  x'aya^oj,  according  to  Hf;- 
 rodotus. 
 ^  Cap.  144,       «'  Jablonfki,  torn.  2.  Prolegom.  p.  37. 
 
 out 
 
158  Worjloip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 out  this   diftin6lion,  particularly  in  thd 
 following  paffage  :    /  a7n  obliged  to  relate 
 what  isfaid,  but  I  am  not  obliged  to  believe 
 €ve?y  thi?ig  without  diJlinSiion  3    and  I  de-- 
 fire  that  this  declaration  may  be  attejided  to 
 through  the  *  courfe  of  my  hijlory.     Now, 
 Herodotus  does  not  affirm  the  truth  of 
 any  one  of  the  particulars  which  form 
 the   obje6lion  we   are  confidering,    but 
 profeffediy  fpeaks  of  them  as  reports  he 
 received  from  the  priefts  ^.     His  autho- 
 rity  therefore  is   improperly   urged   to 
 prove,  that  the  Egyptians  did  not  wor- 
 fhip   mortal  divinities.      He  knew  the 
 contrary  to  be  true  '^^ 
 
 ^  Hercdot.  1.  7.  c.  152. 
 
 y  Herodotus  does  not,  I  allow^  openly  contradi^l 
 thefe  reports ;  nor  was  he  at  liberty  to  do  it,  if  he  was 
 initiated  into  the  myfleries,  as  he  probably  was.  With 
 what  referve  he  fpeaks  of  the  gods,  may  be  feen  by  con- 
 fulting  lib.  2.  c.  3,  45,  65,  71. 
 
 2  See  above,  p.  154,  155,  156,  arid  what  is  faid  con- 
 cerning Hercules  below.  He  feems  to  have  had  no  con- 
 ception that  there  was  any  efTential  difference  between  the 
 Egyptians  and  the  generality  of  mankind  refpedling  the 
 gods,  but  fufpofed  aU  men  thought  alike  ccncernhtg  them  : 
 No/At^wv  Tiatrx^  atf^^wTrs?  jcrov  TTHg*  nvnuv  iinroia^cct.  L.  2. 
 C.3. 
 
 2dly. 
 
in  polijhed  Nations.  r^g 
 
 sdly.  As  to  the  priefts  of  Egypt,  it 
 may  be  prefumed,  that  they,  like  other 
 heathen  priefts,  difcouraged  all  free  in- 
 quiry concerning  the  gods  ^ :  they  might 
 be  inftrufted  not  to  fpeak  openly  of  the 
 earthly  origin  of  Serapis,  Ifis  ^,  and  o- 
 thers  >  and,  as  their  gods  had  been  their 
 kings,  they  might  pretend  that  their 
 kings  were  gods  -,  and  thus  involve  the 
 fubje6l  in  obfcurity.  Neverthelefs,  the 
 priefts  themfelves  could  not  but  acknow- 
 ledge, that  they  had  gods  of  mortal  ori- 
 gin. This  appears  from  the  fafts  re- 
 cited by  Herodotus,  upon  their  autho- 
 rity. 
 
 4.  We  muft  not  pafs  over  the  account 
 given  of  the  gods  of  Egypt  by  Manetho^ 
 becaufe  it  is  fuppofed  to  militate  againft 
 
 *  It  feems  to  have  been  a  maxim  with  the  devout 
 Pagans :  —  SaniSliuTque  ac  reverentius  vifum  de  a£lis 
 deorum  credere  quam  fcire.    Tacit.  Mor.  Germ.  c.  34. 
 
 ^  Quoniam  fere  in  omnibus  templis,  ubi  colebatur 
 Ifis  et  Serapis,  erat  etiam  fimulachrum,  quod  digito 
 labiis  impreflb  admonere  videretur,  ut  filentium  iieret : 
 hoc  fignificarc  idem  Varro  exiftimat,  ut  homines  coi 
 fuiiTe  taceretur.    Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  18.  c.  5. 
 
 that 
 
i6o         Wcrjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 that  which  I  have  attempted  to  fuppart. 
 Manetho  was  chief-prieft  of  Egypt  in 
 the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  and 
 has  given  "  us  a  table  of  the  gods  and 
 demi-gods  who  reigned  there  before  thofe 
 kings  who  were  mere  mortals  ;  of  whom, 
 we  are  told,  Menes  was  the  firfl  ^ :  and 
 from  hence  fome  have  argued,  that  the 
 Egyptians  did  not  deify  mere  mortals* 
 But  the  argument  is  inconclufive  :  For 
 it  would  not  follow,  from  their  having 
 had,  in  the  moft  ancient  times,  gods  for 
 their  kings,  that  they  did  not  afterwards 
 exalt  their  kings  into  gods.  As  to  the 
 fa£l  itfelf,  the  pretended  reign  of  the 
 gods,  it  is  needlefs  to  point  out  the  ab- 
 furdity  of  it,  or  to  difcredit  the  autho- 
 rity by  which  it  is  fupported.  What 
 reduces  it  neareft  to  the  ftandard  of 
 truth,    is,    the  conjefture  of  a  learned 
 
 *=  See  Manetho,  apud  Syncell.  p.  iS".  and  Eufebv 
 Cliron.  Grccc.  p.  7.  Compare  the  Old  Chronicle  cur- 
 rent amongil  the  Egyptians,  an  imperfed  copy  of  which 
 is  preferved  by  Syncellus,  Chronograph,  p.  51,  52. 
 
 ^  Kerodot.  1.  2.  c.  4,  99. 
 
 writer. 
 
/;/  poUjhed  Nations.  1 6  r 
 
 writer  \  that,  by  the  gods^  we  may  un- 
 derfland  fome  of  the  antediluvians ;  and, 
 by  the  demi-gods^  the  anceftors  of  the  E- 
 gyptians  after  the  flood  down  to  the 
 time  of  Menes. 
 
 5.  Whatever  judgement  we  may  form 
 of  the  fragments  of  Manetho,  yet  there 
 can  be  no  objeftion  againfl  the  teflimony 
 of  Diodorus  Siculus  concerning  the  gods 
 of  Egypt.  He  lived  in  an  age  when 
 many  had  courage  to  inquire  into  the 
 grounds  of  the  public  religion,  and  to 
 fpeak  with  freedom  upon  the  fubjecl. 
 From  this  excellent  writer  we  learn,  that 
 the  Egyptians,  befides  the  fun  and  moon, 
 whom  they  called  the  Jirji  and  eternal 
 gods  \  acknowledged  fuch  as  were  taken 
 from  the  earth ;  feveral  of  whom,  he  fays, 
 ^  had  been  kings  of  Egypt  ^  and  bore  the  fame 
 
 *  Jac.  Perizon.  ^gypt.  Origin,  torn.  i.  p.  84. 
 
 '  Tif?  ?'ay  xx'x  Atyvn^Tov  uh^^^uTreg  to  craAai&v  yivo^ivti^, 
 uvu^?\f^ avruq  siq  Tov  xocr/^ov,  x<*»  T>!v  Tuv  o7\uv  (pv7tv  xara- 
 rr^iccytvrcci  xat  ^a.v^a,a-otvra,qy  vnfo'hct^nv  tivxi  ^vo  ^em;  cci^mq  re 
 xat  TZ^uTHq,    Tc>;  TS  r7.»0i  xa»   Trv  ^iA>])'>}y.    DiOtlcr.  Sic.  p,  1 4, 
 
 M  names 
 
1 62         Worfiip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 names  with  the  celejiial  gods  ^  He  parti- 
 cularly fpecifies  the  eight  great  gods  of 
 Egypt  \  SoU  Saturn^  Rhea,  Jupiter,  (cal- 
 led alfo  Ammon  \)  Juno,  Vulcan,  Vejla, 
 and  Mercury  ".  He  adds,  that  Sol,  whofe 
 name  was  the  fame  with  the  fun  in  the 
 firmament,  was  the  firft  king  of  Egypt ; 
 though  fome  thought  the  firft  king  of 
 that  country  to  be  Vulcan,  the  inventor 
 of  fire,  or  of  the  firft  ufe  of  it  in  work- 
 ing metals  \  Saturn  and  Rhea,  accord- 
 ing to  the  fame  author,  reigned  after» 
 wards ;  of  whom  (it  was  generally  faid) 
 were  born  Jupiter  and  Juno,  from  whom 
 fprang  the  five  following  gods,  OJirisy 
 Ifis,  Syphon,  Apollo "',  and  Venus. 
 
 yvTFTov.  ■  Tivcci;    ^jt^iv    oiMi)vv(j.ii<;  vvrct^xuv   tok;  a^uvtoiq. 
 
 Id.  p.  17.     Compare  Eufeb.  Vrxp,  Ev.  p.  45. 
 
 h  Id.  ib. 
 
 »  Herodotus  alfo   (1.2.  c.  42.)   fays,    Aiji-i^hv  Atywrna 
 
 ^  He  was  fecretary  to   Ofiris.    Diodor.  Sic.  lib.  i. 
 p.  19,  20,  24. 
 
 ^  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  5.  p.  390. 
 
 '^  The  fame  as  Orus.    Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  144. 
 
 Ofiris 
 
in  polified  Nattofis,  163 
 
 Ofiris  and  Ifis  were  the  two  princi- 
 pal "  divinities  of  Egypt,  in  the  manner 
 of  whofe  worfliip  all  the  provinces  of 
 that  country  were  agreed  °.  Now,  Dio- 
 dorus  informs  us,  that  Ifis  and  Ofiris 
 (who,  as  we  have  k^n^  were  born  of  the 
 fame  parents-)  were  king  and  queen  of 
 Egypt  3  that  Ofiris  conquered  the  moft 
 diftant  nations  ^ ;  that  he  deified  his  pa- 
 rents %  and  was  himfelf  deified   in   his 
 
 "  Plutarch,  de  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  355.  E.  fays,  that,  as 
 foon  as  Oiiris  was  born,  a  voice  accompanied  him,  and 
 proclaimed  him,  uttccv'tuv  xt-^to?,  lord  of  all  things.  He 
 was  faid  to  be  the  fame  as  Bacchus.  Hcrodot,  1.  2. 
 c.  42,  144.  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  i.  p.  17.  ed.  Weff. 
 Plutarch  makes  Bacchus  a  different  perfon  from  Ofiris, 
 but  fpeaks  of  him  as  one  who  had  been  a  man.  Differt. 
 on  Mir.  p.  182.  As  to  Ifis,  Herodotus,  1.2.  c.  40. 
 tells  us,  that  ^^  is  the  goddefs  they  (the  Egyptians)  ef 
 teem  the  greateji.  She  was  the  fame  with  Ceres,  ac- 
 cording to  the  Egyptians,  (Herodot.  1.2.  c.  59.  Diod. 
 Sic.  1.  I.  p.  17.)  who  fay,  fie  firfi  invented  bread-corn, 
 Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  17,  18.  Weff.  Aug.  Civ.  Dei, 
 1.  8.  c.  27. 
 
 °  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  42. 
 
 P  Lib.  I.  p.  32.   Compare Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  2.  c.  i. 
 
 ^  Diodor.  Sic.  p.  24,  25.  Vide  Augull.  Civ.  Dei, 
 1.  8.  c.  27. 
 
 M  2  turn. 
 
1 64         WorJInp  cf  human  Spirits 
 
 turn,  and  a  third  part  of  the  lands  ap- 
 propriated to  maintain  his  worfhip ' ; 
 and  that  after  his  death  he  received  equal 
 honour  with  that  paid  to  the  celeftial 
 gods '. 
 
 He  very  juftly  explodes  the  fable  con- 
 cerning the  reign  of  gods  and  heroes  in 
 Egypt,  and  fpeaks  of  it  as  countenanced 
 only  by  a  part  of  the  Egyptians  \  And, 
 when  he  is  treating  concerning  feveral  of 
 their  great  gods,  he  fays,  ''  the  priefls 
 had  perfect  information  concerning 
 their  interme7it^  which  they  concealed 
 from  the  public,  becaufe  it  was  con- 
 ^'  fided  to  them  as  a  fecret,  and  it  was 
 dangerous  to  divulge  any  fecret  re- 
 fpefting  the  gods" ". 
 
 6.  Amongft 
 
 '  Diodor.  Sic.  p.  24,  25. 
 
 '  Aicc  TO  |M,£yaSo$  ruv  tvs^yiaiuv  crvyt,7ri(poi/y)[A.£vuv  ^a^eiv  vru^ot 
 ^a<r»  TJjv  ecBuvaa-iocv,  nxi  TViv  icnjv  To»5  a^ocvioiq  Tty.ytv,  k.  t.  A. 
 Diodor.  Sic.  p.  24. 
 
 *  MySoTvo-ytfcri  ycivruv  Tivsj  to  (Atv  v^urov  «§§«»  "Pj?  AiyVTrra 
 Sia$  T£  y.cn  Tiquuqf   x.  T-  A.     Id.    p.  53. 
 
 "  Ta  /xE*  sv  TTE^i  T*3?  rcctpm  ruv  ^Bur  raruv  Jta^w»£»Ta»  ira^ac 
 Tc«9  T^EiroKj   ^»«    TO  v«ij  *£§£»;,   £y  a7ro|§»;To*5  wa^£»A?3^0T»?  T'ji' 
 
 cc 
 <c 
 
 cc 
 <c 
 
in  polijljed  Natio?is .  165 
 
 6.  Amongft  all  the  ancient  writers, 
 who  have  given  us  an  account  of  the  re- 
 ligion of  Egypt,  there,  is  not  one  who 
 had  ftudied  the  fubjeft  with  more  atten- 
 tion, or  who  was  more  zealous  to  give 
 his  readers  a  favourable  impreffion  of  it, 
 than  Plutarch,  His  learned  treatife,  en- 
 titled, Ifts  and  OJiris^  was  written  on  pur- 
 pofe  to  fhew,  that  there  was  nothing 
 abfurd  or  extravagant  in  the  religious 
 rites  of  the  Egyptians  ;  fome  inftru6lion 
 in  hiftory,  morals',  or  philofophy,  being 
 couched  under  them  ^.  Neverthelefs, 
 from  Plutarch  we  learn,  that  the  priejis 
 affirmed y  that  the  bodies  of  their  gods,  ex- 
 cept  fuch  as  were  incorruptible  and  immor- 
 tal^ lay  buried  'with  them  *. 
 
 M  3  As 
 
 woXAtfg,  u<;  ocv  y.aci  xiv^iivuv  iTTix-ctixivuv  TOiq  r'  ccrro^^rroc  ve^t  ruv 
 ^iuv  raxiyy  txi^vvaaa-iv  et?  t«?  o%Atf$.     Id.   p.  32. 
 
 ^  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  353.  E. 
 
 ^  Plutarch,  having  fpoken  of  the  tomb  of  Ojiris,  and 
 alluded  to  fome  other  gods,  adds  :    Ov  jw-ovov  h  mruv  o» 
 
 y.yi%s  a^Bci^roi,   ra  i^iv  (tujjluto,  ttol^  avroi;   KEicr^ai    KXixovrot 
 xcci  B-c^xTnvea-Bat.     De  If.  et  Ofir.    p.  359.  C.      Never- 
 thelefs, 
 
1 56         WorJJjtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 As  to  Ifis  and  OJins  in  particular,  Plu« 
 tarch  gives  us  at  large  the  hiftory  of  their 
 parentage,  their  births,  their  kindred, 
 their  exploits,  their  deaths  ^.  He  alle- 
 gorizes fome  part  of  their  hiftory,  and 
 feems  to  think  there  was  a  hidden  mean- 
 ing in  the  whole  of  it,  agreeably  to  the 
 main  defign  of  his  work,  which  was  to 
 reconcile  the  Egyptian  theology  with  the 
 principles  of  reafon ;  yet  their  hiftory 
 was  underftood  literally  by  the  people ; 
 nor  was  it  lawful  to  divulge  the  philo- 
 fophical  explication  of  it''.  Agreeably 
 to  the  reprefentation  Plutarch  makes  of 
 Ofiris  as  a  man,  he  tells  us,  that  he  was 
 every  where  worjlnpped  under  a  human 
 form  \     With  refpecl  to  Hermes^  Typho?!^ 
 
 thelefs,  Mr,  Fell,  in  the  ftile  of  aperfon  well  acquainted 
 with  Plutarch,  fays,  p.  83.  that  Plutarch  tuas  'very 
 (areful  ne'ver  to  attribute  this  opinion  (viz.  that  the  gods 
 of  Egypt  had  been  men)   to  the  Egyptian  priejfs. 
 
 y  As  to  the  place  of  Ofiris's  burial,  fee  Plutarch  de 
 If.  et  Ofir.  p.  359. 
 
 ^  Id.  ib.  p.  360.  E.  F. 
 
 ^    Ticc^irci^a     av-j^ii/'TTo^Acgipop     Ongi^ijj     ayxy.^ct,     hizwso'tf 
 ?Iutarch..  de  If.  ct  Ofir.  p.  371, 
 
 (the 
 
in  poliJJjcd  Nations.  167 
 
 (the  brother  of  Ofiris,  whom  he  flew\) 
 and  Orus^  as  well  as  Qfiris^  Plutarch  ac- 
 knowledges, that  the  defcriptlon,  given 
 by  the  Egyptians,  of  the  figure  and  co- 
 lour of  their  bodies,  plainly  fuppofed 
 they  had  been  mere  men  \  Concerning 
 Ifis  and  Ofiris,  he  fays^  they  ijoere^  for 
 their  virtue  y  changed  from  good  demo?is  into 
 godsy  as  were  Hercules  and  Bacchus  after- 
 wards y  receiving  the  united  honours  both  of 
 gods  and  demons  ^, 
 
 It  would  be  endlefs  to  produce  ail  the 
 proofs  of  the  worfliip  of  human  fpirits, 
 in  Egypt,  from  heathen  wTiters  who 
 only  occafionally  make  mention  of  the 
 gods  of  that  country.  Flato  fpeaks  of 
 I'heuth,  who  flouriflied  in  the  reign  of 
 "ThamuSy  king  of  Egypt,  as  one  of  the  an- 
 
 ^  Diocior.  Sic.  p.  24. 
 
 *  n?  rn  (pva-ci  yiyoyora;  ca^^uTvaq.  Plutarch.  If.  et  Ofir, 
 p.  359.  E.     Eufeb.  Pra:p.  Ev.  I..  3.  c.91. 
 
 '^  Plutarch,  de  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  361.  Di/Tert.  on  Mir. 
 p.  182.  I  might  add,  that  Venus  Beleflica,  the  flave 
 of  an  Egyptian  monarch,  had  a  temple  erected  to  her 
 at  Alexandria.    Plutarch,  in  Erotico,  p.  753.  E.  F. 
 
 M  4  cient 
 
1 68         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 cient  gods  \  Lucian  reprefents  Alexan- 
 der, after  he  was  dead,  as  hoping  to  be 
 buried  in  Egypt,  that  he  might  become  one 
 of  the  gods  of  that  country  ^  In  Egypt,  fay3 
 Maximus  T^yriiis^  they  lliew  you  at  once 
 the  temple  of  a  god  and  his  tomb  ^.  The 
 Latin  writers  fpeak  the  fame  language. 
 Varro  ^  confidered  Ifis  and  Serapis  as  ha- 
 ving once  belonged  to  the  human  race. 
 Apuleius  ranks  Ofiris  amongft  thofe  men 
 who  were  raifed  to  the  rank  of  gods  \ 
 Lucan  goes  farther,  and  urges  the  mourn- 
 ful or  funeral  rites,  with  which  Ofiris 
 was  honoured  by  the  Egyptians,  as  their 
 teftimony  to   his  having  been  a  mortal 
 
 iKii  %o(.>,cx.iuv  rivec  ^teov,  k.  t.  >i.  Platonis  Phsedrus,  p.  274. 
 c.  ed.  Serrani.  Theuth  is  faid,  in  the  fequel,  to 
 have  invented  arithmetic,  geometry,  aftronomy,  and 
 letters.  See  what  is  faid  above  concerning  Mercury, 
 p. III.  and  p.  141. 
 
 ^  fl?  yivoijAyiv  £«?  rv»  AiyvTrrtav  ^em-      Lucian.     Dialog^, 
 Mort.  p.  291, 
 
 mus  Tyrius,  Differt.  38.  p.  398. 
 ^  Cited  above,  p.  159.  note  ^ 
 *  Above,  p.  97.  note  ^, 
 
 man. 
 
in  polified  Nations.  1 69 
 
 man.      His  argument  proves,    that  he 
 was  publicly  worfhipped  under  that  very 
 
 charafter  ''• 
 
 I  would  here  clofe  the  evidence  of  the 
 worfliip  of  human  fpirits  in  Egypt,  if  it- 
 were  not  neceflary  to  confider  the  cha- 
 rafter  of  the  Egyptian  Hercules ;  which 
 I  did  not  enter  upon  fooner,  becaufe  the 
 proofs  of  his  having  been  a  man  arc 
 furnifhed,  not  by  one  only,  but  by  fe- 
 veral  of  the  foremen tioned  writers.  He- 
 rodotus',     in   order  to   (hew   that  the 
 
 k  Tu  plangens  hominem  teftaris  Ofirin. 
 
 Lucan.  VIII.  833. 
 
 This  paffage,  and   others  to  the   fame   purpofe,  were 
 citedin  theDiffertadonon  Mir.  p.  194.   182.    Lucan's 
 judgement  of  Ofiris   has   alfo  been  confirmed  here  by 
 frelh  tellimonies.     Neverthelefs   Mr.  Fell  is  pleafed  to 
 fay,  p.  24.    **  It  is  not  in  my  power  to  prove,  that  re- 
 ««  ligious  honours  were  ever  paid  to  any  deceafed  maa 
 "  under  the  name  of  Ofiris,"     This  language  implies, 
 that  no  proof  of  this  point  had  been  produced  in  the 
 Diflertation  ;  —  that  no  proof  of  it  could  be  produced; 
 ,—  and  that  Mr.  Fell's  knowledge  of  antiquity  rendered 
 him   a  competent  judge  of  what  could  orcouHnot  be 
 proved  concerning   Ofiris.      I  leave  the  reader  to  form 
 his  own  judgement  concerning  thefe  three  propofitions. 
 »  Lib.  2.  c.  43,  44.  . 
 
 Grecians 
 
170         Worfhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Grecians  borrov/ed  the  name  of  this  god 
 from  the  Egyptians,  and  not  the  Egyp- 
 tians from  the  Grecians,  obferves,  that 
 Hercules  was  one  of  the  ancient  gods  of 
 the  Egyptians  ;  who  faid,  that,  feven- 
 teen  thoufand  years  before  the  reign  of 
 Amafis,  the  number  of  their  gods, 
 which  had  been  eight,  was  increafed  to 
 twelve;  and  that  Hercules  was  one  of 
 thefe.  He  farther  informs  us,  that  there 
 was  a  temple  dedicated  to  Hercules  at 
 Tyre,  which  was  faid  to  have  been  built 
 two  thoufand  three  hundred  years  ;  and 
 that,  in  the  fame  city,  there  was  a  tem- 
 ple erefted  to  Hercules  under  the  name 
 of  T'hqfian  %  and  that  the  fame  god  had  a 
 temple  at  Thafus,  which  was  built  by 
 the  Phenicians  five  generations  before 
 the  public  appearance  of  Hercules  in 
 Greece.  Now,  what  is  the  inference 
 which  Herodotus  draws  from  thefe  pre- 
 mifes  ?  Why,  that  Hercules,  (meaning 
 the  Egyptian)    "was  a  very  ancient  god""  y 
 
 xXea  Eovra.    Lib.  2.  c.  44.     Herodotus   makes    mention 
 ci  zfiatue  of  the  Egyptian  Hercules,  c.  42. 
 
 that 
 
in  poUfied  Nations,  171 
 
 that  is,  In  comparifon  with  the  Grecian. 
 He  defcribes  the  latter  as  the  fon  of 
 Amphitryon  and  Alcmena ;  and  fays, 
 that  both  his  parents  were  of  Egyptian 
 defcent".  Now,  if  he  knew  that  the 
 Grecian  Hercules  was  a  man,  he  cer- 
 tainly believed  the  Egyptian  to  be  fo  too. 
 Why,  othervvife,  did  he  compare  their 
 different  ages  together  ?  Would  he  take 
 pains  to  fhew,  that  a  natural,  that  is, 
 an  eternal  °,  god  was  only  fome  thou- 
 fand  years  older  than  one  who,  compa- 
 ratively fpeaking,  was  but  lately  born  ? 
 Befides,  according  to  Herodotus,  there 
 were  eight  gods  in  Egypt  more  ancient 
 than  Hercules.  Nor  does  the  hiftorian 
 afcribe  to  him  any  pre-eminence  above 
 the  fon  of  Amphitryon,  except  great  fe- 
 niority,  and  the  higher  rank  to  whidi 
 he  was  exalted  in  confequence  of  it. 
 For,    from    his    greater    antiquity,    he 
 
 "  Lib.  2.  c.  43. 
 
 •  The  ancients  called  the  natural  gods,  ai^iy?  xai 
 acpSa^ras.  Diouor.  Siculus,  Fragmenta  ex  lib.  vi.  p. 
 633.  ed.  Weir. 
 
 draws 
 
172         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 draws  this  conclufion  :  therefore  thofe 
 Greeks  a5t  rights  who  build  temples  to  two 
 of  them  ^  a7id  facrifice  to  one  as  an  immor^ 
 tal  god^  under  the  name  of  Olympian^  and 
 honour  the  other  as  a  hero  '*, 
 
 We  have  here^  —  fays  a  late  writer  % 
 two  gods  of  the  fame  name  \  the  one  a  natu^ 
 ral  afid  immortal  deity  y  filed  Olympian ', 
 the  other  an  hero-god^  acknowledged  to  have 
 been  once  a  mortal  man ;  each  having  fe^ 
 parate  temples  and  diflindi  worfipy  agree- 
 able to  the  fiippofed  difference  of  their  na- 
 tures a7id  charaBers.  The  gentleman 
 would  not  have  reafoned  in  this  manner, 
 had  he  been  acquainted  with  the  fenti- 
 ments  of  antiquity  on  thefe  fubjefts,  or 
 had  he  only  confidered  what  was  proved 
 in  the  Differtation  on  Miracles',  and 
 %yill  be  farther  eftablifhed  in  the  fequel ; 
 viz.  that,  according  to  the  Heathens, 
 fome  human  fouls  commenced  firfl:  he- 
 roes, and  then  demons,  and  were  after- 
 wards  exalted  into   gods.      Then  they 
 
 P  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  44.  q  Fell,  p.  13, 
 
 '  P.  182,  183,  214. 
 
 were 
 
in  poHjhed  Nations.  173 
 
 were  received  into  the  flarry  heaven,  or 
 tether ial '  region,  the  feat  of  the  immortal 
 divinities,  fometimes  called  Olympus  \ 
 The  Hercules  w^ho  attained  to  this  ho- 
 nour was,  on  this  account,  very  pro- 
 perly ftiled  Olympian,  to  diftinguifh  him 
 from  the  other,  while  he  had  not  yet  ri- 
 fen  above  the  rank  of  a  hero,  and,  as 
 fuch,  refided  in  the  regions  of  the  air 
 
 »  Varro,  I.  i6.  apud  Auguil.  Civ.  Del,  I.  7.  c.  6. 
 fays :  A  fummo  circuitu  cceH,  ufque  ad  circulum  lunas, 
 aetherese  animas  funt  aftra  et  ftellae  ;  iique  cceleftes  dii 
 non  modo  intelliguntur  effe,  fed  etiam  videntur.  Inter 
 lunae  vero  gyrum,  et  nimboriim  ac  ventorum  cacumina, 
 aerese  funt  animae  :  fed  ex  animo,  non  oculis,  viden- 
 tur ;  et  vocantur  heroes,  et  laresj,  et  genii.  So  Lucan 
 alfo,  1.  ix.  v.  6.  et  feq. 
 
 Quodque  patet  terras  inter,  ccelique  meatus, 
 Semidei  manes  habitant ;  quos  ignea  virtus 
 Innocuos  vita,  patientes  ^theris  imi. 
 Fecit,  et  asternos  animam  conlegit  in  orbes. 
 See  below,  note  ''. 
 
 *  Viam  afFe£lat  Olympo.  Virg.  iv,  562. — Mo^y?  &?vo- 
 /xaa£v  OXvfATnei;.  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  4.  p.  261.  ed.  WefT. 
 Anubis,  who  accompanied  Ofiris  in  his  expedition,  (id. 
 1.  I.  p.  21.)  clothed  in  a  dog's  fkin,  is  reprefented  by 
 Plutarch  as  being  both  terreflrial  and  Olympic.  If.  et 
 Ofir.  p.  56S.  E. 
 
 neareft 
 
174         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 neareft  to  the  ftars.  In  length  of  time, 
 the  Grecian  Hercules  became  a  god,  and 
 was  worHiipped  as  fuch ".  The  Roman 
 writers  expreflly  fpeak  of  Hercules  as 
 having  been  a  man  ^^  and  yet  rank  him 
 amongft  thofe  who  were  received  into 
 the  ftarry  or  aetherial  heaven,  and  ad- 
 mitted into  the  community  of  the  great 
 gods  ".  He  is  reprefented  with  Jupiter, 
 on  fome  old  altars  and  relievos,  with  an 
 infcription  ^  fully  expreffive  of  this  dig- 
 nity. In  like  manner,  the  Egyptian 
 Hercules  was  ranked  with  the  great 
 gods,  though  he  alfo  was  of  human  ex- 
 
 "  Paufanias,  Corinthiac.  1.  2.  c.  lo.  p«  133.  ed. 
 Kuhnii. 
 
 ^  The  Roman  law  was  :  Eos,  qui  cceleftes  Temper 
 habiti,  colunto  ;  et  olios  quos  endo  coelo  merita  collo- 
 caverunt,  Herculem,  &c.  Cicero,  de  Legib.  1.  2.  c.  8» 
 Laws  of  the  12  Tab.  2.  feft.  4. 
 
 ^  Poll  ingentia  fada,  deorum  in  templa  recepti.  He- 
 rat. Ep.  1.2.  ep.  I.  V.  7.  Arces  attigit  igneas.  Lib.  3. 
 ode  3.  V.  17.  Hercules  was  one  of  the  few,  quos  ar- 
 dens  evexit  ad  ,^tbera  virtus,  as  Virgil  fpeaks,  ^n.  VL 
 130.     See  Silius  Italicus,  1.  15.  v.  83. 
 
 y  Diis  wagn'iSy  to  the  great  go^s.  Montfaucon,  v.  I. 
 p.  16,  47. 
 
 traft. 
 
in  polijioed  Nations .  175 
 
 traft.      The  Olympian  Jupiter  himfelf 
 had  been  a  man '. 
 
 It  is  only  neceflary  to  add  farther, 
 that  the  worfhip  of  heroes  was  different 
 from  that  paid  to  fuch  human  fouls  as 
 were  advanced  to  a  more  fublime  degree ' : 
 and  therefore  the  feparate  temples  and 
 diftind:  worfhip  of  the  Olympian,  and 
 of  the  hero,  Hercules,  are  improperly 
 urged  as  proofs  of  their  being  originally 
 of  different  natures  from  one  another. 
 For,  if  the  Hercules  of  Egypt,  though 
 not  fo  old  as  fome  other  gods  of  that 
 country,  was  neverthelefs  much  more 
 ancient  than  the  Hercules  of  Greece, 
 and  advanced  to  the  dignity  of  the  ce- 
 leftial  gods,  Herodotus,  on  the  fuppo- 
 lition  that  both  of  them  had  been  men, 
 would  conclude  that  the  former  ought 
 to  be  worfliipped  as  an  immortal  or  O- 
 lympian  divinity,  and  the  latter  merely 
 
 *  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  3.  p.  229,  230. 
 
 *  See  Paufimias,  p.  133.  DiiTert.  on  Mir.  p.  182, 
 183. —  The  Tubjed  will  come  under  future  conlide- 
 ration. 
 
 with 
 
176         JVcrJhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 with  the  rites  to  which  heroes  were  en- 
 titled before  they  became  gods.  Ac- 
 cording to  Diodorus  Siculus  ^  the  Egyp- 
 tian Hercules  was  not  only  older  than 
 the  Grecian,  but  even  than  any  other ; 
 conquered  a  great  part  of  the  world, 
 and  fet  up  pillars  in  Afric.  He  was  ge- 
 neral of  the  forces  of  Ofiris  %  Plutarch 
 makes  mention  of  him  amongft  thofe 
 who,  after  death,  were  changed  from 
 good  demons  into  gods  ^  But,  though 
 of  human  extraft,  Hercules  was  wor- 
 fhipped  in  Egypt  with  the  moft  facred 
 and  auguft  ceremonies  % 
 
 **  Lib.  3.  p.  243.  ^  Id.  p.  20. 
 
 ^  DifTert.  on  Mir.  p.  182.     See  Diodor.  Sic.  p.  ^. 
 
 ®  Deus  Hercules  religione  quidem  apud  Tyron  co- 
 litur  :  verum  facratiffima  et  auguftiffirr.a  Egypdi  reli- 
 gione venerantur,  ultraque  memoriam  (qus  apud  illos 
 '  retro  longiffima  eft)  ut  carentem  initio  colunt.  Macrob. 
 Saturn.  I.  i.  c.  20.  —  By  Hercules  we  are  to  under- 
 (land  the  fun,  according  to  Macrobius  j  and  this  opi- 
 nion has  been  adopted  by  fome  learned  moderns.  But 
 the  civil  theology  fuppofed  the  truth  of  the  literal  hif- 
 tory,  and  was  indeed  built  upon  it.  Several  gods  bore 
 the  name  of  Hercules,  (Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  L  3.  c.  16.) 
 but  they  were  reprefented  to  the  people,  and  regarded 
 by  them,  as  having  been  men. 
 
 Ifhall 
 
in  poUJhed  Nations ,  1 77 
 
 I  fhall  produce  no  more  heathen  au- 
 thorities in  fupport  of  the  point  I  un- 
 dertook to  eftabUfh.  If  we  rejefl  the 
 foregoing  account  given  of  the  gods 
 of  Egypt  by  the  Roman,  Greek  ^  Phe- 
 nician,  and  Egyptian,  writers,  moft  of 
 whom  fpoke  from  their  own  perfonal 
 knowledge,  it  will  be  difficult  to  fay  on 
 whofe  teftimony  we  can  fafely  rely. 
 
 Nor  is  there  any  reafon  to  affert,  as 
 the  learned  Jablonfki  ^  does,  that  the 
 Greeks,  during  the  reign  of  Alexander's 
 fucceffors  in  Egypt,  corrupted  the  reli- 
 gion of  that  country,  and  that  later  wri- 
 
 ^  The  Greek  writers,  whofe  teftimony  has  been  urged 
 above,  are  Herodotus,  Plato,  Diodorus  Sictilus,  Plutarch, 
 Lucian,  and  Maximus  Tyrius.  Mr.  Fell  muft  have  been 
 unacquainted  with  all  thefe  teftimonies,  (even  with  that 
 of  Diodorus  Siculus,  well  known  to  every  other  writer 
 upon  this  fubjeft,)  when  he  affirmed,  p.  31.  '^  There 
 "  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  Greeks  themfelves  have 
 •*  declared,  that  the  Egyptians  never  worfhippcd  fuch 
 **  gods  as  had  been  men."  But  this  gentleman  is  often 
 fb  unfortunate,  as,  in  proof  of  his  erroneous  afieitions, 
 to  appeal  to  thofe  very  authorities  which  contradift 
 them.     See  above,  p- 30,   136. 
 
 8  Prolegom.  p.  42. 
 
 N  ters 
 
178         WorJJjtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 ters  have  mifreprefented  It.  No  proof 
 of  this  aflertion  has  been  produced.  The 
 Egyptians,  when  under  the  dominion  of 
 the  Ptolemys,  might  adopt  new  gods  ^ ; 
 but  this  was  perfefilly  confiftent  with  the 
 general  principles  of  the  heathen  reli- 
 gion'. There  is  a  perfeft  agreement 
 between  the  accounts  given  of  the  E- 
 gyptian  gods,  by  thofe  writers  who  lived 
 long  before  the  age  of  the  firft  Ptolemy, 
 and  by  thofe  who  lived  after  it.  Their 
 having  two  clafles  of  gods,  one  natural, 
 the  other  mortal,  is  not  more  flrongly 
 afTerted  by  Diodorus  and  Plutarch,  than 
 it  is  by  Hermes  Trifmegiftus  and  San- 
 choniathon.      And   Herodotus,    againft 
 
 ^  Macrobius  thought  this  to  be  the  cafe  with  refpeft 
 to  Saturn  and  Serapis.  Saturnal.  1.  I.  c.  7.  p.  150. 
 ed.  Londini,  1694.  But  his  memory  feems  to  have 
 tailed  him  here.  Serapis  was  worfhipped  in  Egypt  long 
 before  the  time  of  Ptolemy,  who  introduced  his  worfhip 
 amongft  the  Athenians.  See  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  18. 
 c.  5.  and  Paufanias,  Attic,  p.  42.  ed.  Kuhnii.  Sa- 
 turn v/as  a  god  of  great  antiquity  in  Egypt  and  Phe- 
 nicia. 
 
 »  See  what  was  faid  above  concerning  the  Gauls, 
 p.  113. 
 
 whofe 
 
in  polijhed  Nations,  1 79 
 
 ivhofe  teftimony   no  objeflion  is  made, 
 has  recorded  numerous  examples  of  the 
 worfhip  of  human  fpirits  in  Egypt,  upon 
 the   authority  of  the  prieils  themfeives. 
 But  the  objedion   muft  fnik  under  it's 
 own  weight:  for,  what  Greece  w^as  to 
 Rome,    that   Egypt  w^as  to  Greece  3  — 
 the   revered  fource  of  fcience  and  reli- 
 gion.    And  it  is  as  unreafonable  to  fup- 
 pofe,  that  the  Greeks,  during  the  reign 
 of  the  Ptolemys,  changed  the  religion  of 
 Egypt,  as  it  would  be  to  fappofe,  that 
 the  Romans    changed   the    religion   of 
 Greece,  after  their  conqueft  of  that  coun- 
 try, which  was  likely  to  produce  a  con- 
 trary effeft  \    The  Egyptians  obftinately 
 adhered  even  to  thofe  parts  of  their  re- 
 ligion which  gave  moft  offence  to  foreign 
 nations :  I  refer  to  their  worfliip  of  brutes 
 and  vegetables,  which  they  praclifed  in  a 
 much  higher  degree  than  any  other  people. 
 The  foregoing  teftimonies  might  be 
 confirmed  by  arguments  drawn  from  the 
 
 •^  The  Roman  worfhip  became  gradually  more  and 
 more  conformable  to  the  Grecian.  Dionyf,  Hal.  Antiq. 
 Rom.  1.  2.  c.  18,   19,  20. 
 
 N  2  religious 
 
i8o         WorJJdip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 religious  rites  '  of  the  Egyptians,  from 
 their  myfteries,  and  pyramids ;  and  like- 
 wife  from  the  opinion  of  the  Fathers 
 and  other  Chriftian  writers ".  But  thefe 
 arguments  will  come  under  future  con- 
 
 ^  Particularly  from  human  facrifices.  It  muil  how- 
 ever be  acknowledged,  to  the  honour  of  the  Eg/ptians, 
 that  fuch  facrifices  were  not  fo  common  amongft  them 
 as  they  were  in  other  nations.  Herodotus  (1.  2.  c.  45.) 
 thought  it  improbable  that  they  ever  offered  them  :  but 
 his  reafon  is  not  very  conclufive.  Macrobius  (SaturnaL' 
 1.  I.  c.  7.  p.  150.)  fays,  they  did  not  offer  any  bloody 
 facrifice  :  but  herein  he  contradicts  Herodotus,  ubi  fu- 
 pra.  Plutarch  relates,  (De  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  380.)  upon 
 the  authority  of  Manetho,  that  men  were  burnt  alive 
 in  the  city  of  Elithya.  And  Diodorus  Siculus  (1.  i. 
 p.  99.  Weif.)  mentions  a  very  remarkable  circumftance; 
 viz.  that  they  were  facrificed  at  the  tomb  of  Ofiris : 
 which  iliews  to  what  gods  fuch  facrifices  were  offered. 
 Human  facrifices  were  abolifhed  by  Amofis.  Porphyry, 
 de  AbiHnentia,  1.  2.  c.  223.  ed.  Lugdun.  Eufeb.  Pr^p. 
 Ev.  1.  4.  c.  16.  p.  155.  But  they  were  revived  by  Bu- 
 firis,  to  avert  a  national  calamity.  Apollodorus,  Biblio- 
 thec.  1.  2.  p.  1 18,   119; 
 
 ""  See,  in  particular,  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  i.  c.  6. 
 p.  17.  and  1.  3.  c.  3.  Auguft.  de  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  5, 
 26.  and  1.  18.  c.  5.  Suidas  (in  voc.  Sa^am?)  fays,  that 
 Apis  was  king  of  Memphis,  and  obtained,  after  death, 
 divine  honours  for  his  liberality,  in  fupplying  the  citi- 
 zens of  Alexandria  with  corn,  in  time  of  famine. 
 
 fideration. 
 
in  policed  Nations.  1 8 1 
 
 fideration.  If  I  take  notice  of  the  an- 
 cient  Chriftians  in  this  place,  it  is  for 
 the  fake  of  clearing  them  from  the  charge 
 of  forgery  :  for,  as  a  forgery  of  theirs, 
 fome "  confider  the  celebrated  letter  of 
 Alexander  to  his  mother  ;  in  which  he 
 is  faid  to  have  communicated  to  her  the 
 fecret  of  the  myfteries,  intrufted  to  him 
 by  the  high-prieft  of  Egypt,  concerning 
 the  human  origin  of  the  great  gods. 
 But,  fuppofing  the  letter  in  queftion  to 
 be  a  forgery,  there  is  no  more  reafon 
 for  afcribing  it  to  the  Chriftians,  than 
 to  thofe  Heathens  who  openly  afferted 
 that  their  gods  had  once  been  men.  It 
 is  not  certain,  however,  that  it  was  a 
 forgery.  Plutarch  feems  to  refer  to  it 
 when  he  fays,  Alexander  informed  his 
 mother  in  a  letter,  "  that  he  had  received 
 "  fome  fecret  anfwers,  which,  at  his 
 "  return,  he  would  communicate  to  her 
 "  only"."      The  connexion  of  the  place 
 
 *  Jablonfki,  p.  31. 
 
 *•  Plutarch.  Vit.  Alexandri,  p.  688.  F, 
 
 N  7  leads 
 
1 82         WorJJnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 leads  us  to  apply  this  to  the  origin  of 
 the  gods  :  for  Plutarch  had  been  juft  be- 
 fore relating  what  the  high-prieft  faid  to 
 Alexander  concerning  his  divine  defcent. 
 As  to  it's  being  paffed  over  in  filence  by 
 Cicero,  Diodorus  Siculus,  and  fome  o- 
 ther  heathen  writers,  (a  circurnftance  on 
 which  great  ftrefs  is  ^  laid,)  the  reafon  of 
 it  plainly  was,  their  having  more  au- 
 thentic information  concerning  the  great 
 fecret  "^  of  the  myfteries  than  a  private 
 letter,  the  genuinenefs  of  which  might 
 be  fufpefted,  and  the  contents  of  which 
 were  probably  preferved  only  by  tradi- 
 tion, and  therefore  varioufly  reported. 
 The  credit  given  to  it  by  the  Fathers ' 
 muft  be  confidered  as  a  proof  of  their 
 opinion  concerning  the  gods  of  Egypt. 
 
 P  Jablonlki,  Prolegom.  p.  32. 
 
 5  See  Diodor.  Sic.  L  i.  p.  24.  ed.  Wefl*. 
 
 '  Athenag.  Legat.  pro  Chriftian.  p.  24.  Minut. 
 Felix,  Odlav.  c.  21.  Auguft.  Civ.Dei,  1.8.  c.  5.  and 
 1.  12.  c.  10.  Cyprian,  de  Idol.  Vanitat.  p.  12.  ed. 
 Oxon, 
 
 From 
 
in  polijioed  Nations.  i  S3 
 
 From  the  various  teftimonies  '  which 
 have  been  produced,  in  this  and  the  pre- 
 ceding feftion,  it  appears,  that  both  the 
 Phenicians  and  Egyptians,  though  they 
 acknowledged  elementary  and  fidereal  de- 
 ities, and  afferted  more  efpecially  the  di- 
 vinity of  the  fun  and  moon,  did  alfo 
 worfhip  human  fpirits  :  and  that  the  E- 
 gyptians  woriliipped  them  under  the  dif- 
 tinft  characters  of  heroes,  demons,  and 
 gods.  —  It  farther  appears,  that  both 
 the  Phenicians  and  Egyptians  account- 
 ed their  princes  and  eminent  benefactors 
 as  the  greatejl  gods.  The  twelve  great 
 gods  of  Egypt  in  particular,  as  well  as  the 
 Cabirs  of  Phenicia  and  the  eaftern  na- 
 tions, were  dead  men  deified.  —  Laftly, 
 
 «  Mr.  Fell  affirms,  p.  22,  83.  that  "  it  is  univer- 
 
 "   SALLY  KNOWN,  that  the  Egyptians never  paid 
 
 '*  any  religious  honours  to  hero-gods."  The  reader 
 play  from  hence  judge  how  great  a  ftranger  the  gentle- 
 man was  to  the  Roman,  the  Greek,  the  Phenician,  and 
 the  Egyptian,  writers,  and  alfo  to  the  Fathers.  His 
 ignorance  of  antiquity,  both  heathen  and  chriftian, 
 would  not  have  been  noticed,  l)ad  it  not  been  proper 
 that  it  Ihould  be  known  what  credit  is  due  to  his  moil 
 confident  aflertions. 
 
 N  4  the 
 
1 84         JVorJhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 the  foregoing  teftimonies  prove,  that 
 deified  men  were  the  immediate  obje6ls 
 of  the  pubUc  eftablifhed  worfhip  in  E-^ 
 gypt,  as  they  alfo  were  in  Phenicia, 
 
 I  am,  however,  far  from  denying, 
 that,  in  the  hiftory  and  worfhip  of  thefe 
 terreflrial  gods,  there  v^as  an  ultimate 
 reference  to  the  deified  parts  and  powers 
 of  nature.  And  it  is  certain,  that  the 
 civil  or  vulgar  theology  was  explained 
 phyfcally  by  the  learned.  But  with  their 
 explanations  we  have  here  no  concern  ; 
 and  therefore  I  pafs  qver  at  prefent  what 
 occurs  upon  this  fubjeft  in  Plutarch, 
 Porphyry,  Jamblichus,  Macrobius,  and 
 other  heathen  writers, 
 
 SECT.     Ill, 
 
 T  Proceed  to  (hew,  that  the  cuflom  of 
 deifying   human   fpirits   prevailed  a- 
 
 mongft    the   Assyrians,    Chaldeans, 
 
 and  Babylonians. 
 
 Very  little  is  known  of  the  religion  of 
 
 AfTyria,  confidered  as  a  kingdom  diflin6l 
 
 ivom, 
 
in  polijhed  Nations.  185 
 
 from  that  of  Babylon.  Both  kingdoms 
 were  afterwards  united  into  one  mighty 
 empire,  which  was  called  indifferently 
 Aflyrian  and  Babylonian ".  The  Chal- 
 deans in  Babylon,  according  to  Diodo- 
 rus  Siculus,  were  a  colony  of  Egyp-r. 
 tians  ^y  carried  there  by  Belus,  the  fon 
 of  Neptune  and  Libya,  who  granted  the 
 priefts  the  fame  immunities  as  were  en- 
 joyed by  thofe  in  Egypt ''.  This  agrees 
 with  what  Lucian  teftifies  ^,  that  the 
 AfTyrians  derived  their  theology  and  re- 
 ligious rites  from  the  Egyptians,  and  in 
 honour  of  the  gods  erefted  temples,  and 
 placed  in  them  ftatues  and  images  (pror- 
 per  reprefentations  of  fuch  gods  as  had 
 been  men).  Now,  if  the  religion  of 
 Afiyria  and  Babylon  was  derived  from 
 
 "  The  AfTyrians  and  Babylonians  are  the  fame  peo- 
 ple. Herodot.  1.  i.  c.  199,  200.  Babylon  is  reckoned 
 the  principal  city  in  Aflyria.  lb.  c.  178.  Strabo  fays 
 the  fame  thing.  L.  16.  fub  init.  Bifhop  Lowth  on  If. 
 14,25.  Compare  the  Anc.  Univerf.  Hill.  v.  4.  p.  390. 
 .gvo.   1747. 
 
 ^  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  92.  ed.  Weff. 
 
 ^  Id.  ib.  p.  32.  Y  De  Syr.  Dea,  p.  6^7. 
 
 Egypt, 
 
1 86         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Egypt,  the  former  muft  have  been  in  a 
 great  meafure  the  fame  with  that  of  the 
 latter,  which  confifted,  in  part,  in  the 
 worfhip  of  human  fpirits. 
 
 It  is  on  all  hands  allowed,  that  the 
 Chaldean  idolatry,  called  alfo  the  Sabian^ 
 confifted  very  much,  at  leaft  originally, 
 in  the  worfhip  of  the  fun,  moon,  and 
 ftars  ;  which  were  conceived  to  be  feve- 
 rally  animated  by  a  foul,  in  the  fame 
 manner  as  the  human  body  is.  Very 
 probably  they  were  alfo  thought  to  be 
 inhabited  by  the  fpirits  of  illuftrious 
 men  :  for  it  was  an  opinion  generally 
 received,  that  the  fpirits  of  fuch  men, 
 when  feparated  from  their  bodies,  re- 
 turned to  their  native  ikies :  and,  as  va- 
 rious rites  were  ufed  to  draw  down  fouls 
 from  the  ftars  into  confecrated  images 
 and  flirines "",  it  is  much  more  likely  that 
 thofe  rites  fhould  refpeft  the  fouls  that 
 only   iyihabited  the  celeftial  orbs,    than 
 
 «  See  Hettinger's  Hift.  Orient.  1.  i.  c.  7.  p.  296.  et 
 feq.  and  Pococke's  notes  on  Abul-pharai,  Specimen 
 Hift.  Arab.  p.  138.  et  feq. 
 
 fuch 
 
/;;  polijhed  Nations,  1 87 
 
 fach  as  were  united  to  them  and  animated 
 them,  as  the  human  foul  is  united  to, 
 and  animates,  the  body.  Now,  their 
 facred  flirines  were  confulted  as  oracles, 
 and  worfhipped  as  gods  ^. 
 
 The  chief  god  of  the  Babylonians  was 
 BeL  The  queftion  here  is,  who  this 
 god  was.  Bel  (called  by  the  Greeks 
 Beius)  in  the  Chaldee  *  dialedl  anfwers  to 
 the  Hebrew  Baaly  and  to  the  Syriac  '* 
 Beely  and  fignifies  lord.  This  terrn  there- 
 fore might  be  applied  to  the  true  God; 
 but  it  is  commonly  given  in  fcripture  to 
 thofe  fiflitious  deities,  who  were  falfely 
 fuppofed  to  have  dominion  over  man- 
 kind \ 
 
 ^  See  note  ^  in  the  preceding  page. 
 
 ^  Ifaiah  xlvi.  i.  ^  Ez.  iv.  8. 
 
 «  Populus  Dei  fatis  pie  eum  Baalem  fuum  vocabant, 
 priufquam,  ob  vocem  illam  ad  profana  niimina  fre- 
 quenter nimis  tradu6lam,  id  ipfum  Deus  vetaret. 
 $elden,  de  Diis  Syr.  Syntag.  II.  c.  i.  p.  196.  And, 
 in  p.  200,  201.  the  fame  learned  writer  fays  :  Belus 
 enim  primo  fummum  rerum  gubernatorem  denotabat  — 
 graffantc  vero  hominum  errore,  ad  idola  transfereba- 
 tur  j  et  feq. 
 
 But 
 
1 8  8  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 But  was  the  Bel,  who  was  worfhip- 
 ped  at  Babylon,  the  true  God  ?  A  late 
 writer  ^  cites  from  Dr.  Cudworth  ^  a  paf- 
 fage  of  Berofus,  in  which  Bel  is  faid  to 
 have  framed  (or  fet  in  order)  the  worldy 
 and  formed  (or  perfe6ted)  the  fars  and 
 the  fun  ^  It  is  here  afked  ^  Can  aiiy  one 
 imagine y  -  that  he^  who  created  the  hea- 
 
 ven and  the  earthy  received  his  name  from 
 feme  petty  prince  in  the  time  of  Abraham  ? 
 Surely  noty  fays  the  fame  writer.  It  is 
 impoffible  here  to  forbear  obferving,  ift. 
 That  Berofus  ^  was  the  prieft  of  Belus  in 
 the  time  of  Alexander.  Now,  from  the 
 facred  writings  it  appears,  that  for  ma- 
 ny ages  before  his  time  the  Babylonians 
 were  grofs  idolaters  ^  5  and  confequently 
 
 ^  Fell,  p.  23.  «  P.  312. 
 
 '  Tov    OS  Bv^ov,    ov    Ata    fjn^e^ixtuivao'i,  ^ia/tcc^on  rov 
 
 xocr/xov,  ■  aTTorsP^ta'ai  oe  rov  BriXop  aai  ur^ix,   x«i  ijAiov,   y,xf> 
 
 treXnvYiv,   KOii  mq  Trevre  'TrXocwiraq. 
 
 s  Extradls  from  Berofus  were  made  by  Africanus,  A- 
 pollodorus,  Alexander  Polyhiftor,  and  Abydenus.  Of 
 thefe  extrafts,  fragments  have  been  preferred  by  Eufcr 
 bius  and  Syncellus. 
 
 ^  Jofh.  xxiv.  2, 
 
 not 
 
in  poUJhed  Nations*  189 
 
 not  likely  to  worfliip  the  Creator  of  hea- 
 ven and  earth.  2dly.  It  is  certain  they 
 did  not  worfhip  him  under  the  name  of 
 Bel^  becaufe  the  Babylonian  Bel  is  fpo- 
 ken  of  in  Scripture  as  a  falfe  god  '\ 
 3dly.  No  proof  is  produced  to  fhew, 
 that  the  Belus,  fpoken  of  by  Berofus  in 
 the  fore- cited  paflage,  was  worfhipped 
 at  all  by  the  Babylonians.  Laftly.  Had 
 not  the  writer  *  alluded  to  above  been 
 unacquainted  with  the  account  given  by 
 Berofus  of  this  god,  he  would  not  have 
 paffed  him  off  upon  his  readers  as  the 
 Creator  of  heaven  and  earth.  Belus, 
 according  to  Berofus  ^  (the  very  autho- 
 rity appealed  to  by  Mr.  Fell*,)  cut  off 
 his  own  head  \  from  the  blood  of  which, 
 
 *  Bel  ho'weth  do<wn  ;  Nebo  fioopcth  ;  their  idols,  &c. 
 If.  xlvi.  I.  —  Babylon  is  taken  ;  Bel  is  confoutided ;  Me- 
 rodach  is  broken  in  pieces.  Jerem.  1.  2.  — I  ^jill pu7iijh 
 Bel  in  Babylon,  Ch.  li.  44.  —  Would  God's  prophets 
 fay  of  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth.  He  is  bo^ved 
 donAjn,  and  confounded  r,  and  reprefent  God  himfclf  as 
 threatening  to  piinijh  him  ? 
 
 *  Fell,  p.  23. 
 
 ^  Ap.  Eufeb.  Chronicon,  p.  5,    et  Syncelli  Chrono- 
 graph, p.  28. 
 
 when 
 
I9<^         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 when  mixed  with  the  earth  by  the  other 
 gods^  men  were  formed  :  but  they  could 
 not  bear  the  light,  and  therefore  he  or- 
 dered one  of  the  gods  to  cut  off  his 
 head,  which  he  himfelf  had  cut  off  be^ 
 fore,  and  to  mix  the  blood  with  the 
 earth,  and  from  thence  to  form  other 
 men  and  animals.  This  experiment 
 fucceeded  better.  There  is  nothing  in 
 this  account  that  looks  like  creation^ 
 as  that  word  imports  the  bringing 
 into  being  what  had  no  exiftence  be- 
 fore in  any  form.  Nor  indeed  could 
 any  thing  be  more  repugnant  to  the 
 ideas  of  Berofus,  concerning  the  genera-^ 
 tion  of  the  world,  than  the  creation  of  it. 
 Leaft  of  all  was  it  poffible  for  him  to 
 conceive,  that  a  god,  who  had  been  be- 
 headed by  other  gods,  was  the  Creator 
 of  heaven  and  earth. 
 
 Bel  was  a  name  or  title  given  to  fe- 
 veral  princes ;  particularly  to  the  founder 
 of  the  Babylonian  empire.  We  have 
 already  fcen ',  that  a  perfon  of  this  name 
 
 »  p.  185. 
 
 carried 
 
in  polijhed  Nations,  151 
 
 carried  colonies  from  Egypt  into  Baby- 
 lonia. Abydenus  "*,  whofe  hiftory  is 
 extra6led  from  the  ancient  records  of 
 the  Chaldeans,  fays,  "  it  is  reported 
 ''  that  Belus  compaffed  Babylon  with  a 
 *^  wall."  We  are  told  by  Sanchonia- 
 thon",  that  Saturn  had  three  fons  born 
 in  Perasa;  viz.  Saturn^  fo  called  after 
 his  father,  Jupiter  Belus y  and  Apollo* 
 Saturn,  the  father  of  Jupiter  °  Belus, 
 was  a  Phenician  deity  -,  and  this  fon  was 
 perhaps  the  Babylonian  Belus.  It  is 
 certain  that  Belus,  who  built  Babylon, 
 is  fometimes  fpoken  of  as  a  T^yrian ;  par- 
 ticularly by  Dorotheus  Sidonius  ^  cited 
 by   Julius  Firmicus.      But  Paufanias  '^ 
 
 «»  Ap.  Eufeb.  P.  E.  1.  9.  c.  41. 
 "  Ap.  eund.  P.  E.  1.  i.  p.  37.  D.  p.  38.  A, 
 *>  As  to  the  prefixing  the  term  Jupiter  to  Belus,  in- 
 ftances  of  a  fimilar  nature  frequently  occur.  We  read 
 of  Jupiter  Aratrius,  above,  p.  141.  Jupiter  Ammon, 
 p.  85.  More  examples  will  occur  in  the  fequel.  See 
 alfo  Sir  If.  Newton's  Chronology,  p.  150,  152,  162. 
 and  Jac.  Perizon.  i£gypt.  Orig.  torn.  i.  p. 83. 
 
 1   L.4.    C.23.    p.  337. 
 
 fays. 
 
192  Wofifhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fays,  that  he  had  his  name  from  Belus 
 an  Egyptian*  Phenicia  being  fometimes 
 confidered  as  belonging  to  Egypt,  there 
 may  be  no  contradiftion  between  Pau- 
 fanias  and  Dorotheas.  I  do  not  take 
 upon  me  to  determine  abfolutely  who 
 Belus  was ;  nor  do  I  here  inquire,  whe- 
 ther he  be  the  Ni?nrod  or  the  Pul  fpo- 
 ken  of  in  Scripture '.  It  is  fufficient  for 
 our  purpofe,  that  there  was  fuch  a  per- 
 fon,  and  that  he  was  the  founder  of  the 
 Babylonian  empire.  Nebuchadnezzar ' 
 fpeaks  of  himfelf  as  defcended  from 
 him  J  and  he  is  referred  to  by  Virgil  \ 
 not  as  Dido's  father,  but  as  one  of  her 
 
 *■  Jac.  Perizon.  Origin.  Babylon  torn.  2.  p.  152.  et 
 feq.  and  Freinfhemius,  in  his  notes  on  Quintus  Cur- 
 tius,  1.5.  p.  310,  311.  attempt  to  prove,  that  Belus 
 was  the  Nimrod  fpoken  of  Gen.  x.  8.  But  the  authors 
 of  the  Univerfal  Hill.  v.  4.  p.  352.  think  that  Belus 
 was  the  fame  as  Pul,     See  alfo  p.  309.  in  the  note. 
 
 •  O  Te  B»?Aoj  £jM05  <jr^oyoyocf  0;  ti  Bo^aiMioc  6*3X7*5.  Eufeb. 
 P.  Ev.  1.9.  c.  41.  p.  456. 
 
 *  Implevitque  mero  pateram,  quam  l^elus  et  omnes 
 A  Belo  foliti. —  ^n.  I.  y^^* 
 
 remote 
 
in  polijhed  Nations,  193 
 
 remote  anceftors  ".  Servius,  on  the 
 place,  makes  him  the  firft  king  of  Af- 
 fyria. 
 
 Let  us  confider  what  evidence  there  is, 
 that  this  Belus  (whether  he  was  an  E^ 
 gyptian,  a  Phenician,  or  a  Babylonian) 
 was  deified  after  his  death.  If  he  be,  as 
 fome  fuppofe,  the  Nimrod  of  the  Bible  ^^ 
 he  was,  as  we  have  already  fhewn% 
 ranked  amongft  the  gods  by  the  Per- 
 fians,  who  fucceeded  to  his  empire  :  a 
 plain  proof  that  he  was  firft  worfhipped 
 at   Babylon.      Dionyfius  ^  expreflly  in- 
 
 "  This  is  implied  in  the  expreflion,  omnes  a  Beloy  all 
 the  defcendents  of  Belus,  Between  Dido  and  her  own  fa- 
 ther none  intervened. 
 
 ^  This  hypothefis  is  favoured  by  the  language  of 
 Ammianus  Marcellinus,  1.  xxiii.  c.  6.  p.  286.  Baby- 
 ion,  cujus  moenia  bitumine  Semiramis  llruxit  5  arcem 
 enim  antiquijjtmus  rex  condidit  Belus.  — »  ^lian  calls 
 him,  emphatically,  rov  BviXov  rov  ao^uiovy  Belum  ilium 
 antiquum.  Var.  Hift.  I.  13.  c.  3.  And  Orofius,  II.  6, 
 Babyloniam  a  Nimrod  gigante  fundatam  ;  a  Nino  vel 
 Semiramide  reparatam. 
 
 ^  Above,  p.  72. 
 
 y  lAiycc¥  ^^ov  iiaocTo  B^Aw.  Dionyf.  Hi^vnynff,  C.  2^. 
 V.  825.  —  This  temple  of  Belus  was  afterwards  adorned 
 by  Nebuchadu^zzar.  Jofeph.  Antiq.  1.  10.  c.  11.  §.  i. 
 
 O  forms 
 
194         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 forms  us,  that  a  temple  was  erefled  to 
 
 him  by  Semiramis  in  that  city.     From 
 
 the  defcription,  given  of  the  temple  of 
 
 Belus  by  Herodotus  %  it  appears  that  it 
 
 was  built  in  the  form  of  the  Egyptian 
 
 pyramids  %     Now,  as  the  latter  were  fe- 
 
 pulchres  ^  as  well  as  temples,  the  former 
 
 muft  be  confidered  in  this  double  view. 
 
 The  image  of  Jupiter  Belus,  which  was 
 
 placed  on  a  throne,  at  a  table,  in  the 
 
 chapel  which  flood  below,    within  the 
 
 temple,  clearly   fhews   who  was  repre- 
 
 fented  by  it.     And,  though  there  was  a 
 
 temple  in  the  uppermoft  tower,  in  which 
 
 no  image  was  placed,  (from  which  cir- 
 
 cumftance   fome   learned   writers  *"  have 
 
 concluded,    that  "  the   honour  of  the 
 
 *'  temple  of  Belus  was  meant  to  be  di- 
 
 *^  vided  between  him  and  the  true  god,'*) 
 
 yet  in  the  uppermoft  temple  there  was  a 
 
 table,   a  bed,    and  a  woman  chofen  by 
 
 ^  Lib.  I.  c.  i8i. 
 
 ^  Sir  If.  Newton's  Chronology,  p.  327,  32S. 
 
 ^  See  below,  ch.  3, 
 
 ^  Anc.  Univerfal Hill,  vol.4,  p.  352. 
 
 the 
 
in  poUJhed  Nations.  19^ 
 
 the  god  himfelf,  who  was  fuppofed  to 
 come  by  night  and  lie  in  the  bed  \  Could 
 this  god  be  Gonfidered  by  the  Chaldeans 
 as  that  eternal  Spirit  who  created  the 
 viniverfe  ?  Were  not  the  accommoda- 
 tions provided  for  him  more  fuitable  to 
 their  ideas  of  human  nature  ?  Certain 
 it  is  in  fa6l,  that  it  was  to  deified  men 
 that  the  like  provifion  was  made  in  other 
 countries  % 
 
 Were  it  poffible  ftill  to  doubt,  whe- 
 ther the  founder  of  the  AfTyrian  and  Ba- 
 bylonian empire  was  worfhipped  in  the 
 
 ^  Herodot.  1.  i.  c.  182. 
 
 *  In  the  temple  of  the  Triphilian  Jupiter j  who  is  re- 
 pfefented  as  having  been  a  man,  there  was  a  bed  and  a 
 table.     Diodor.  Sic.  1.  5.    p.  368.    ed.  WefT.  —   The 
 keeper  of  the  temple  of  Hercules  provided  for  him  a  bed, 
 a  fupper,  and  the  beautiful  Laurentia.     Plutarch.  Vit. 
 Romuli,   p.  .20.  —  In  Indoftan   the  Heathens   fupply 
 their  idol  Jagannat  with  the  faireft  virgin  they  can  pro- 
 cure. Bernier's  Memoirs,  torn.  3.  p.  112.  Engl.  Tranf- 
 lat.  —  And,  in   the  temple  of  Jupiter^  at  Thebes    in 
 Egypt,  there  was  a  woman  who  was  fuppofed  to  be  vi- 
 fited   by  the  god  at  night,    agreeably    to  the  account 
 given   of  Belus   by   the   Babylonians.     Herodot.  1.  i. 
 c.  181.  Compare  Strabo,  1.  17,  p.  1171. 
 
 O  2  temple 
 
196         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 temple  of  Belus  at  Babylon,  I  might 
 appeal  to  Eiifebius  \  who  tells  us,  that 
 Belus,  the  firfl  knig  of  the  Affyrians, 
 was  deified  after  his  death  :  to  Jerome  % 
 who,  in  more  places  than  one,  fpeaks 
 of  him  as  having  been  confecrated  and 
 ranked  amongft  the  gods  by  his  fon  Ni- 
 nus  :  and  to  LaBantiics  ^^  and  the  au- 
 thors cited  by  him,  who  affirm,  that 
 Belus  was  worfhipped  by  the  Affyrians 
 and  Babylonians  \       I   do  not   affirm, 
 
 that 
 
 ^  Eufeb.  Chronicon,  1.  i.  p.  9.  Thar^  anno  28.  Af- 
 fyriorum  rex  primus  Belus  mortuus  eft,  quern  AiTyrii 
 deum,  et  alii  dicunt  Saturnum. 
 
 g  Idolum  Baal,  five  Bel,  et,  ut  apertius  dicam,  Beli, 
 AfTyriorum  reiigio  eft,  confecrata  a  Nino,  Beli  iilio,  in 
 honorem  patris.  Hieronymus  in  Ezek.  c.  23.  —  Ninus 
 in  tantam  pervenit  gloriam,  ut  patrem  fuum  Belum  re- 
 ferret  in  deum,  qui  Hebraice  dicitur  ^n.  Hunc  Sido- 
 nii  et  Phoenices  appellant  ^i?n.    Id.  in  Ofea,  c.  2. 
 
 ^  Belus,  quern  Babylonii  et  AiTyrii  colunt,  antiquior 
 Trojano  bello  fuifle  invenitur  trecentis  viginti  duobus 
 annis :  Belum  autem  Saturno  aequalem  fuifte,  et  u- 
 trumque  uno  tempore  adolevifte.  Laftant.  Div.  Inftitut. 
 1.  I.  c.  23. 
 
 »  A  gentleman,  who  often  afTumes  the  language  of  a 
 perfon  who  has  a  comprehenfive  view  of  the  fubje«^  on 
 
 which 
 
in  polijhed  Nations,  igj 
 
 that  the  term  Bel  was  never  explained 
 phyfically,  and  applied  to  the  fun,  by 
 learned  men,  as  Ofiris  ^  alfo  fometimes 
 was :  for  the  ancients  gave  the  names  of 
 their  deified  kings  to  the  heavenly  bo- 
 dies \  But  the  temple  of  Babylon  was 
 erected  in  honour  of  a  man  who  founded 
 the  Babylonian  empire,  agreeably  to  the 
 cuftom  of  the  Heathens  in  the  like  cafes. 
 And  this  Belus  was  the  god  whom  the 
 Babylonians  principally  worfhipped "'. 
 
 As  Jupiter  Belus  was  the  chief  god  of 
 the  Babylonians,  fo  their  principal  god- 
 
 which  he  writes,  roundly  affirms,  that  //  //  not  in  my 
 fonxjer  to  pro^e^  that  religious  honours  nvere  ei/er  paid  to  a 
 deceafed  man  under  the  name  of  Bel.  Fell,  p.  24.  Some 
 however  may  doubt,  whether  his  knowledge  of  his  fub- 
 jed  be  altogether  anfwerable  to  the  import  of  his  lan- 
 guage. He  feems  to  have  known  as  little  of  the  Indian 
 Bel  as  of  the  Babylonian.  Cicero,  when  reckoning  up 
 the  feveral  gods  who  bore  the  name  of  Hercules,  fays, 
 Quintus  in  India,  qui  Belus  dicitur.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3, 
 c.  16. 
 
 ^  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  14.  ed.  WeiT. 
 
 ^  See  above,  p.  135,   161,   162. 
 
 "^  Qv  fxccMrcc  Bsuv  riy.ua-i  B«/3yAa;»»o».  Arrian.  Exped. 
 Alex.  1.  3.  p.  127.  ed.  Gronov. 
 
 O  3  dcfs 
 
198         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 defs  was  Venus  or  Mylitta  ".  She  was 
 the  fame  with  the  Perfian  Mitra  %  the 
 Phenician  Aftarte  ^y  and  the  great  Sy-» 
 rian  goddefs  ^ ;  and  therefore  was  cer- 
 tainly worfhipped  under  a  human  cha- 
 rafter.  The  title  of  celefiial  Venus '  was 
 probably  given  her  becaufe  fhe  was  wor- 
 fhipped  in  the  planet  of  that  name,  or 
 in  the  moon.  She  is  fometimes  called 
 "funo ;  under  which  name  fhe  was  a- 
 dored  by  thp  Sidonians  and  Carthagini- 
 ans'.  Some  have  thought,  that  this 
 goddefs  was  the  famed  Semiramis  \  who, 
 having  extended  her  empire  over  a  large 
 part  of  the  Eaft,  was  likely  to  receive 
 divine  honours  from  the  nations  of  Afia, 
 As  to  her  being  worfliipped  under  both 
 
 "  Herodot.  1.  i.  c.  131.  cited  above,  p.  48. 
 o  Above,  p.  68.  P  P.  142. 
 
 ^  See  the  next  fedion. 
 
 Attic,  c.  14.  p.  36. 
 
 »  Hie  tcmplum  Junoni  ingens  Sidonia  Dido 
 
 Condebat.  ■ Virgil.  JEn.  I.  446. 
 
 ^  Anc.  Univerfal  Hift,  vol.  4.  p.  359,  360. 
 
in  polijhed  Nations.  igg 
 
 kxeSy  they  account  for  this  cuxum- 
 fiance  in  the  chara6ler  of  the  queen  of 
 Babylon,  which  was  that  of  a  martial 
 heroine  and  an  "  abandoned  proftitute. 
 Hence  fhe  might  be  confidered  both  as 
 a  god  of  war,  and  the  patronefs  of  plea- 
 fare. 
 
 The  Aflyrians  and  Babylonians  had 
 feveral  other  gods  of  mortal  origin  5 
 particularly  'Thuras  or  Thurras^  who  fuc-- 
 ceeded  Ninus.  He  was  an  eminent  war- 
 rior, and  was  called  Mars^  after  the  pla- 
 net of  that  name,  (and  ^  Baaly)  to  whom 
 the  firft  pillar  was  erected  "",  Adrammelech 
 and  Anammelech  were  Babylonian  deities, 
 to  whom  human  facrifices  were  offered  "^ , 
 The  names  of  fome  of  their  other  idols 
 
 "  Athenagoras,  (Legat.  p.  119.)  calls  Semiramis, 
 ^ayvo?  yvv/\  xai  fjLiai(pouo^,  libidinofa  et  fangiiinaria.  As 
 to  the  former  part  of  iier  charader,  fee  Agathias,  p.  58. 
 pd.  1594. 
 
 "^  nvojxocaccy  ccvrov  Beca.'K.     Suidas,   in  VOC.  ©a^aj. 
 
 ^iQV  'K^offiKWHi  o^'JTdVt  y.cn  iwq  TJj?  wv  KaXico-i  U^^a■^r^  tov  BaaA 
 
 Alexandrinum,  p.  88, 
 y  2  Kings  xvii.  31. 
 
 O  4  are 
 
200         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 are  preferved  -,  but  it  is  needlefs  to  de- 
 fcend  into  more  particulars,  becaufe 
 their  religion  muft  have  been  the  fame 
 with  that  of  the  Egyptians,  Phenicians, 
 and  Syrians,  of  which  a  larger  account 
 is  given  by  ancient  authors.  As  they 
 deified  their  fovereigns  while  living  %  wc 
 might  from  this  circumftance  alone  have 
 inferred,  that  they  worlhipped  them 
 when  dead.  The  teftimonies  that  have 
 been  produced  ferve  to  fhew,  that  dead 
 men  and  women  were  the  more  imme- 
 diate objefts  of  the  public  devotion  at 
 Babylon,  and  were  indeed  honoured  as 
 their  greateft  gods. 
 
 SECT.     IV, 
 
 T  Come  now  to  fhew,  that  human  fpi- 
 '    rits  were  deified  by  the  Syrians. 
 
 At  Hierapolis  flood  the  temple  of  the 
 great  Syrian  goddefs,  who  was  held  in 
 high  veneration  by  the  Egyptians,  In- 
 dians, Ethiopians,    Medes,   Armenians, 
 
 ^  Dan.  iii. 
 
 and 
 
in  poUJhed  Nations,  201 
 
 sand  Babylonians  %  In  this  temple,  as 
 we  learn  from  Lucian  ^  were  placed  the 
 ftatues  of  many  heathen  gods,  fuch  as 
 the  Greeks  called  by  the  names  of  their 
 own  greateft  deities,  Jupiter,  Juno,  Mi- 
 nerva, Venus,  Apollo,  Lucina  or  Di- 
 ana, Mercury,  and  others  :  but  there 
 was  no  ftatue  of  the  fun  or  moon,  be- 
 caufe  they  deemed  it  abfurd  to  make  re- 
 prefentations  of  gods  that  were  fo  con- 
 fpicuous  and  refplendent,  though  very 
 reafonable,  on  the  other  hand,  to  form 
 ftatues  of  fuch  as  were  invifible  %  From 
 this  curious  paflage  it  appears,  that  the 
 gods  of  Syria  were  of  two  forts  :  the 
 one  vifible,  particularly  the  fun  and 
 moon ;  the  other  invifible,  that  is,  hu- 
 man fpirits,  or  fuch  deities  as  corref- 
 ponded  to  the  idea  the  Greeks  had  formed 
 
 *  Lucian,    de  Dea  Syr.    p.  6-j6, 
 ^  P.  675.  et  feq, 
 
 vru[X,7rctv    eya^yeej,    kxi    cr(pBac^  'n-atvn^  o^£fcf<rt'     xo»»  uv  aiTt>?  io- 
 
 i(t»ifgyncs  Toicrt  tv  tu  >jF^t  (^cuvo^iioiffi  J   Lucian,  p.  6j6,  ^jj, 
 
 concerning 
 
T> 
 
 202         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 concerning  thofe  objefts  of  worfhip  that 
 originally  belonged  to  the  human  race, 
 and  were  reprefented  by  ftatues.  It  can- 
 not reafonably  be  pretended,  that  Ju- 
 piter, Juno,  and  the  other  Grecian  dei- 
 ties here  enumerated,  were  natural  gods ; 
 becaufe  the  former  are  diftinguifhed 
 from  the  latter.  Apollo  and  Diana,  for 
 example,  cannot  here  denote  the  fun  and 
 moon ;  for  the  former  had  ftatues  as 
 their  reprefentatives,  but  not  the  latter. 
 And  it  is  very  remarkable,  that,  even  fo 
 late  as  the  age  of  Lucian,  no  ftatues 
 were  erefted  to  the  natural  gods  in  Sy- 
 ria ;  of  which  circumftance  notice  will 
 be  taken  in  the  fequel. 
 
 As  to  the  great  Syrian  goddefs  her- 
 felf,  in  whofe  honour  the  temple  was  e- 
 reeled,  ftie  could  not  be  a  natural  di- 
 vinity 5  as  the  ftatue  placed  between  Ju- 
 piter and  Juno  was  probably  erefted  in 
 her  honour.  She  feems  to  have  been 
 the  fame  with  the  Aftarte  of  the  Pheni- 
 cians,  and  the  celeftial  Venus,  fo  often 
 fpoken  of  above,  and  to  whom  there  v/as 
 
 au 
 
in  polijhed  Nations .  203 
 
 an  ancient  temple  erefted  at  Afcalon, 
 which  is  called  by  Herodotus  ^  a  city  of 
 Syria.  Semiramis  was  worfhipped  in 
 this  country  %  and  is  thought  by  fome 
 to  be  the  Syrian  goddefs  herfelf,  and  the 
 fame  with  the  Derceto  of  Afcalon  ^ 
 
 Hiftory  informs  us,  that  Belus  was 
 worfliipped  in  Syria  ^  as  well  as  at  Ba- 
 bylon. Adad  or  Hadad  was  a  name 
 common  to  all  the  Syrian  kings  ^.  One 
 of  them,  whom  Sanchoniathon  calls  A-- 
 dod^  reigned  in  Phenicia,  and  was  ftiled, 
 king  of  the  gods  *  j  which  is    a  full  proof, 
 
 ^  Lib.  I.  c.  105. 
 
 *  She  made  a  law,  that  the  Syrians  fliould  worfhip 
 her  as  a  goddefs,  in  preference  to  all  the  other  divini- 
 ties.   Lucian,  de  Syr.  Dea,  p.  678. 
 
 ^  Anc.  Univerfal  Hifl.  vol.4.  P-  255?  259.  —  We 
 learn  from  Lucian,  p.  SjG.  that  the  ftatue  between  Ju- 
 piter and  Juno,  with  a  golden  dove  on  it's  head,  was 
 thought  by  fome  to  be  Semiramis. 
 
 |ia,'  Ti/xw/xsvoj.      Xiphilin.  in   Caracalla,    in  Excerpt,   e 
 pione,  1.  78.  p.  884.  ed.  Hanov. 
 
 ^  Probably  becaufe  they  confecrated  all  their  kings 
 Jnto  gods. 
 
 *  Ahoo^t  Bct7i\tvi  ^luv,  Sanchoniathon,  ap.  Eufeb. 
 J>.  Ev.  L  I.  p.  38. 
 
 that. 
 
204         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 that,  though  the  term  Adad  is  explained 
 phyfically  by  Macrobius^  ^  and  applied 
 to  the  fun,  the  chief  natural  god,  yet  it 
 was  underftood  hiftorically  by  the  peo- 
 ple, and  applied  to  their  chief  hero-god. 
 
 Both  Benhadad  and  Hazael  were  wor- 
 fhipped  by  the  Syrians,  and  reprefented 
 to  be  of  far  greater  antiquity  than  they 
 really  were^:  a  very  common  pradlice 
 with  the  Heathens  on  other  occafions. 
 
 The  Syrians,  in  honour  of  a  king  cal- 
 led DamafcuSy  (from  whom  the  city  of 
 Damafcus  derived  it's  name,)  held  fa- 
 cred  the  fepulchre  of  his  wife  Arathes  as 
 a  temple,  and  regarded  her  as  a  goddefs 
 entitled  to  the  moft  facred  worfhip  ". 
 
 What,  therefore,  has  been  before 
 proved  concerning  the  AfTyrians,  Baby^ 
 lonians,  Phenicians,  and  Egyptians,  is 
 alfo  true  of  the  Syrians  3    viz.  that  they 
 
 ^  Satnrnal.  1.  i.  c.  23.  p.  217. 
 
 ^  Jofeph.  Antiq.  I.  9.   c.  4.   §.  6. 
 
 ^  Nomen  urbi  a  Damafco  rege  indltum ;  in  cujus 
 honorem  Syrii  fepulchrum  Arathis  uxoris  ejus  pro  tem- 
 plo  coluere  j  deamque  exinde  fandliffimse  religionis  ha- 
 bent.    Jullin.  1.  36.  c.  2. 
 
 deified 
 
in  poUJljed  Nations,  oq*7 
 
 deified  dead  men  and  women.     The     • 
 produced  above  farther  prove,  that  the. 
 gods  of  mortal  origin  w^ere  the  more  im- 
 mediate and  the  principal  objefts  of  the 
 pubHc  and  national  v^orfhip. 
 
 I  have  now  finifhed  what  I  intended 
 to  offer  concerning  the  objefts  of  public 
 worfhip  in  the  eajiern  nations  ;  and  have 
 fhewn,  that  thefe  nations,  whether  bar- 
 barous or  polifhed,  (efpecially  thofe  of 
 the  mod  diftinguifhed  fame,  fuch  as  A- 
 rabia,  Phenicia,  Syria,  Caria,  Lycia, 
 Cilicia,  Cappadocia,  Pontus,  Sarmatia^ 
 Armenia,  Chaldea,  Babylonia,  Aflyria, 
 Perfia,  Parthia,  Media,  India,  Scythia, 
 China,  Japan,  and  others,)  though  they 
 might  acknowledge  elementary  and  fide- 
 real  deities,  did  never thelefs  worfhip  alfo 
 human  fpirits.  But  fo  entirely  unac- 
 quainted was  a  late  writer  with  the 
 proofs  of  this  point  here  produced,  (to 
 which  others  might  be  added,)  that  he" 
 confidently   affirms,    ^[   divine  honours 
 
 °  fell,  p.  7. 
 
 "  were 
 
2o6         Worpnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 <«  were  not  paid  to  deceafed  heroes  in 
 **  the  eajlern  nations J*^     Left  his  readers 
 fliould  think  there  were  any  exceptions, 
 he  aflerts  **,    that    "  the  eajlern   nations , 
 *'  whether  barbarous  or  poliflied,  paid 
 *'  no  religious  honours  to  deceafed  men.''^ 
 The  gentleman  has   fhewn   himfelf  e- 
 qually  unacquainted  with  the  religious 
 ftate  of  the  ancient  nations  of  Europe 
 and  Africa  :    for,  notwithftanding  what 
 has  been  proved  to  the  contrary,    he  af-* 
 firms,  that  "  the  cuftom  of  the  Greeks, 
 *'  in  paying   religious  honours   to  de- 
 *'  parted  heroes,   was  defpifed  by  all 
 "  the  great  nations  amongft  the  Hea- 
 *'  thens,  the  Romans  excepted^."     It  is 
 unbecoming  in  any  one  to  fpeak  upon  a 
 fubjeft,  of  which  he  is  ignorant,  in  the 
 decilive  language  of  certain  knowledge. 
 In  matters  of  faft  this  is  more  culpable 
 than  in  fpeculative  points  ^  for,  in  the 
 former  cafe,  we  do  not  rely  on  the  judge- 
 ment, but  on  the  veracity,  of  the  fpeaker, 
 prefuming  he   would  not   affirm  with 
 
 •  Fell,  p.  14.  f  P.  29. 
 
 confidence 
 
in  poliJl:ed  Nations,  207 
 
 confidence  what  he  did  not  know  to  be 
 true. 
 
 SECT.     V. 
 
 S/jewing  that  human  Spirits  were  deified  by 
 the  Greeks* 
 
 TT  was  elfewhere '^  proved,  that  the  na- 
 tural gods,  the  fun  and  moon  in  par- 
 ticular, were  adored  by  the  Greeks^  as 
 well  as  by  the  Barbarians.  But  the  pre- 
 fent  queftion  concerns  only  their  other 
 objefts  of  worfhip. 
 
 All,  who  have  any  knowledge  of  the 
 religion  of  the  Greeks,  know,  that  they 
 worfhipped  the  firft  founders  of  ftates 
 and  cities ' ;  thofe  alfo  who  died  in  de- 
 fence of  their  country '5    and  fuch  as 
 
 were 
 
 <  Diflert.  on  Mir,  p.  172.  note  *". 
 
 '  The  Cherfonefians  facrifice  to  Miltiades,  w;  0  »o/x9{, 
 etJttr'j.    Herodot.  1.  6.  c.  38. 
 
 »  Pericles,  fpeaking  of  thofe  who  fell  in  the  battle  at 
 Samos,  fays,  they  ^were  become  immortal  as  the  gods,  aSa- 
 vxmq  eXsyt  yByoisvuiy    y.d^xTn^  TW?  Sefef^.      He  adds,     Jf^'e   a9 
 
 not  fee  the  gods  themfeluei  j    (which  cannot  be  underllood 
 
 of 
 
2o8         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 were  greatly  diftinguifhed  by  their  ta- 
 lents and  exploits  \  Some  of  thefe  il- 
 luftrious  perfons  were  worfhipped  only 
 in  the  particular  ftates  to  which  they 
 belonged ""  5  and  others  by  Greece  in  ge- 
 neral ^.  It  would  be  tedious,  and  it  is 
 unnecefTary,  to  produce  the  various 
 proofs  of  the  deification  of  men  in  this 
 country,  which  occur  continually  in  He- 
 
 of  the  natural  gods ;  fee  above,  p.  201.  note  ^ ;)  hut,  hy 
 thofe  honours  and  good  things  n}jhich  they  recei'vefrom  us,  ive 
 declare  our  belief  of  their  being  immortal.  It  is  jujl  the 
 fame  'with  refpeSi  to  thofe  nvho  die  for  their  country  ;    rxvr 
 
 out  Wa.^'XliV  HOCi  TOfJ  t'TTE^  T5JS  TTCCT^t^Oq   CCTTO^XVUCTiV.     Plutarcll, 
 
 Vit.  Periclis,  p.  156.  D.  E.  —  See  the  pafTage  from 
 Plato,  cited  in  DifTert.  on  Mir.  p.  191.  note  ". 
 
 «  Such  as  the  Theban  Hercules.  Gleades  intercedes 
 tyith  Alexander  to  fpare  the  city  of  Thebes,  ivhich  had 
 not  only  produced  men  but  gods,  and  had  gi'ven  birth  to 
 Heroules.  Juftin.  1.  xi.  c.  4.  —  Concerning  Hercules, 
 and  alfo  concerning  Cafor  and  Pollux,  fee  Ifocrat. 
 Opera,  torn.  2.  p.  17,   18.  ed.  Battie. 
 
 "  At  Sparta  they  facrificed  every  year  to  Lycurgus^ 
 •;;  ^luf,  Plutarchi  Numa,  p.  59.  B.  —  The  Jthcnians 
 tonooredThefeus  w?  y,^uoc.  Plutarchi  Thefeus,  p.  17.  A. 
 
 "^  Jam  vero  in  Grascia  multos  habent  ex  hominibus 
 deos;  Alabandum,  Alabandi;  Tenedi,  Tenem;  Leu- 
 cotheam,  qus  fuit  Ino,  et  ejus  Palaimonem  filiuni, 
 cun^a  Gnecia,    Cicero  de  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  15. 
 
 '  rodotua, 
 
in  polijioed  Natio?is .  209 
 
 i-odotus,  Paufanias,  Plutarch,  and  other 
 Greek  writers.  The  law  ordained,  that 
 the  gods,  the  demons,  and  the  heroes, 
 fhould  be  worfhipped  according  to  their 
 refpe6live  ranks  *. 
 
 The  only  quefiion  that  can  admit  of 
 a  debate  is,  v/hether  the  twelve  great 
 gods  of  Greece,  or,  as  they  are  fome- 
 times  called,  the  gods  of  the  greater  na- 
 ticm  ^,  were  of  human  extradl.     I  fliall 
 
 Aurea  Carmina,  v.  i,  2,  3. 
 See  what  is  faid  concerning  the  immortal  gods  y  p.  207. 
 note  ',  and  what  occurs  in  the  next  feftion  concerning 
 the  ancient  gods  of  heaujen. 
 
 TifjLcc  TO  oocijxoviov  atci  (4,01,   fjiuXirot  at  /txera  t>j?  ttoXew?*     »t&> 
 
 Ilbcrat.  Opera,  torn.  I.  p.  23.  To  ^xty^onovy  i.e.  -rrav  to 
 virt^^awov  rriv  avBouTrmrj*  <pv(Tiv,  five  femidei  illi  fint,  five 
 
 heroes,  inter   deos  relati.    Wolfii  not.  in  loc.  — 
 
 Draco  revived  the  following  law  at  Athens :    Lex  efto 
 antiquifTima,  aeternseque  aufioritatis   in  Attica,    vene- 
 randos  efle  deos  atque  heroas  patrios  et  indigenas.  Sam, 
 Petit.  Comment,  in  Leg.  Attic,  p.  69. 
 y  Da  fnajorum  gentium. 
 
 P  aflign 
 
2 1  o   *      WorJJjip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 affign  thofe  reafons  which  incHne  me  to 
 believe  they  were. 
 
 I.  The  Greeks  derived  their  religion 
 from  Phenicia  and  Egypt  ;  more  efpe- 
 cially  from  the  latter.  Egypt,  accord- 
 ing to  Lucian  %  was  the  country  that 
 iirft  acquired  the  knowledge  of  the  gods. 
 His  teftimony  is  confirmed  by  other 
 writers  \  Herodotus  reprefents  the  E- 
 gyptians  as  the  firji  who  gave  names  to  the 
 twelve  godsy  and  ereBed  altaj^s^  images^ 
 and  temples  ^. 
 
 From  Egypt  and  Phenicia  religion 
 was  eafily  propagated  over  the  weftern 
 world,  partly  by  that  intercourfe  be- 
 tween them  which  commerce  created, 
 but  principally  by  colonies.  Many  of 
 the  firft  princes  of  Greece  were  born  ei- 
 
 ^  Above,  p.  146.  note  ^.■ 
 
 ^  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  I.  22.  c.  16.  p. 268.  fays: 
 Hie  (fcil.  in  .^gypfo)  primum  homines  longe  ante  a- 
 lios  ad  varia  relligionum  incunabula  (ut  dicitur)  per- 
 venerunt. —  Concerning  the  high  antiquity  of  the  hea- 
 then gods,  fuch  as  built  their  cities,  fee  Diodorus  Si- 
 culus,  p.  16.  ed.  Wefl-. 
 
 ^  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.4. 
 
 ther 
 
ijj  poll  fie  d  Nations,  211 
 
 ther  in  Phenicia  or  Egypt,  fuch  as  Cad- 
 mus, Cecrops,  Danaus,  Ereftheus,  and 
 others  ;  and  brought  with  them  the  re* 
 ligion  of  their  own  country,  and  planted 
 it  in  the  refpe£live  places  in  which  they 
 fettled.  The  Athenians  are  thou2:ht  to 
 have  been  a  colony  from  the  Egyptian 
 Sais  ;  and  reprefented  Minerva  by  the 
 fame  armed  image  as  was  done  in  that  city. 
 EreclheuSj  when  made  king  cf  Athens, 
 introduced  there  the  Eleufinlan  myfte- 
 ries,  framed  after  the  cuflom  of  Egypt* 
 So  great  was  the  fame  of  this  country 
 for  learning  and  religion,  that  many 
 eminent  perfons  reforted  to  it  for  in^ 
 ftruftion.  Orpheus,  Mufaeus,  Melam- 
 pus,  and  others,  v/ho  went  there  with 
 this  view,  brought  away  moft  of  it's 
 myfteries  and  facred  ceremonies  -,  fo  that 
 there  was  no  difference  between  the  myf- 
 teries of  Bacchus  and  Ofiris,  or  of  Ce- 
 res and  Ifis,  but  the  names  of  thofe  dei- 
 ties in  whofe  honour  they  were  inftitu- 
 
 P  2  ted. 
 
212         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 ted".  Indeed  the  very  names  of  the 
 twelve  gods  ^  and  of  almoft  all  the  Gre- 
 cian gods  %  were  originally  derived  from 
 Egypt,  according  to  Herodotus.  To 
 the  fame  country,  according  to  this  hif- 
 torian,  the  Greeks  were  endebted  for 
 their  oracles,  facred  feftivals,  and  many 
 religious  rites  ^ 
 
 Had  we  been  only  informed,  in  gene- 
 ral terms,  that  Greece  derived  it's  reli- 
 gion from  Egypt,  we  mult  have  infer- 
 red^ that  the  principal  objefts  of  wor- 
 fhip  in  the  former  country  were  of  the 
 fame  kind  with  thofe  in  the  latter  ;  and 
 confequently  were  of  human  extraft. 
 But,  when  we  are  farther  told,  that  the 
 number  of  the  great  gods  in  both  coun- 
 tries was  twelve,  and  that  the  itames  of 
 
 ■^  Concerning  the  feveral  foregoing  particulars,  fee 
 Diodorus  Siculus,  L  i.  p.  32,  33,  34,  107,  109,  110. 
 ed.  WefT.    Platon.  Crit.  p.  no.    Plutarch.  If.  et  Ofir. 
 
 P-  354- 
 
 f/.ia-ui,  y.ai  EM.rivuq  ttoc^oCt  cri^ewv  araAa/Setv.      Herodot.  1.  2. 
 c.  4. 
 
 "  Id,  c.  50.  {  Cap.  51,  54-58. 
 
 the 
 
in  polijhed  Nations »  2 1 3 
 
 the  gods  of  Greece  were  borrowed  from 
 thofe  of  Egypt,  we  gain  new  proofs  that 
 the  gods  of  both  countries  were  either 
 the  very  fame  ^  or  fimilar  3  that  is,  dei- 
 fied men.  If  the  reprefentation,  made 
 of  the  gods  by  images  in  human  form, 
 pointed  out  their  relation  to  mankind  in 
 Egypt,  the  like  reprefentation  of  them 
 in  Greece,  in  imitation  of  Egypt,  muft 
 anfwer  the  fame  end.  If  oracles  in  one 
 country  were  afcribed  to  human  fpirits, 
 they  muft  be  afcribed  to  fuch  fpiiits  in 
 the  other.  The  rites  of  worJJjip  amongft 
 the  Heathens  always  bore  a  relation  to 
 the  peculiar  character  of  the  gods  in 
 whofe  honour  they  were  inftituted  ;  and 
 therefore  the  fame  rites  could  not  be  per- 
 formed in  Egypt  to  dead  men  and  wo- 
 men, and  in  Greece  to  the  natural  gods^ 
 And  if  the  myjieries  in  one  country  dif- 
 clofed  the  earthly   origin  of  the  gods, 
 
 8  Herodotus  fays,  lai?  h  trh  y-a-roc  rrjv  EAAjji/wf  yT^.uj-crixv, 
 ^r.iAT.rr.^.  Lib.  2.  c.  59.  —  As  Jfis  was  called,  in  the 
 Greek  language,  Deleter,  {o  Orus  was  called  Apollo; 
 Buballis,  Diana,  c.  156.  and  Ofiris,  Bacchus,  c.  144. 
 
 P  3  they 
 
214         JVorJlnp  of  human  spirits 
 
 they  muft  do  fo  in  the  other.  (And  we 
 know  this  to  be  the  cafe  with  regard  to 
 both.) 
 
 What  is  thus  eftablifhed  by  the  plaineft 
 reafonlng  is  confirmed  by  the  clearefl: 
 teftimony.  Eufebius,  fpeaking  of  that 
 moft  corrupt  fpecies  of  idolatry,  which 
 fucceeded  the  v/orfhip  of  the  natural 
 gods,  (by  which  he  means  that  of  dead 
 men,)  reprefents  it  as  fpringing  up  firft 
 in  Phenicia,  and  foon  afterwards  in  E- 
 gypt ;  and  immediately  adds,  that  the 
 myfteries  of  both  countries  were  com- 
 municated to  the  Greeks  by  Cadmus  and 
 Orpheus  \  And  Sanchoniathon  *  fays, 
 that  the  cuftom  of  deifying  kings  and 
 the  benefaftors  of  mankind,  and  of  wor- 
 fhipping  them  as  the  greatejl  godsy  which 
 obtained  amongft  the  Phenicians  and 
 Egyptians  in  the  moft  early  ages  of  the 
 
 <i?ciyiy.iy.ix.  roiq  avmiq  ocyxyny,     Eufeb.  P.  Ev.    p.  17,   l8.  — 
 
 Concerning  Cadmus,  fee  Nonni  Dionyfiaca,  p.  79,  80. 
 \  Cited  above,  p.  13^. 
 
 world. 
 
in  poUfbcd  Naticiis,  215 
 
 world,  was  from  them  derived  to  other 
 nations.  Now,  amongft  thefe  nations, 
 Greece,  as  we  have  feen,  was  certainly 
 included.  Confequently,  the  twelve  gods 
 of  Greece,  like  the  twelve  gods  of  Egypt 
 and  the  Cabirs  of  Phenicia,  were  of  mor- 
 tal origin. 
 
 II.  The  fame  point  may  be  farther 
 proved  by  the  teftimony  of  Herodotus, 
 who  was  certainly  well  acquainted  with 
 the  Grecian  objefls  of  worfliip.  This 
 hiftorian  ^  tells  us,  that  the  reafon  why 
 the  Perfians  did  not  ere£l  temples,  al- 
 tars,'and  iQ:iages,  to  the  gods,  (which 
 the  Greeks  were  knov/n  to  do,)  was,  in 
 his  opinio)!^  their  not  believing^  as  the 
 Greeks  did^  that  the  gods  are  of  the  race  of 
 men.  This  teftimony,  which  was  urged 
 elfewhere^,  is  excepted  againft  by  Dr. 
 Blackwell ",  and  after  him  by  another 
 writer";  but  without  any  juft  ground, 
 
 ^  L.  i.  c.  131.  cited  above,  p.  47. 
 
 »  DifTert.  on  Mir.  p.  i86,   187. 
 
 ">  Mythol.  p.  21  J.  "  Fell,  p.  7,  zy, 
 
 P  4.  The 
 
2i6         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 The  Greek  word  °  in  difpute  ftriclly  im« 
 ports,  either  to  be  fpriing  from  mcn^  or 
 to  have  human  nature.  The  conclufion. 
 meant  to  be  drawn  from  it  is  not  affefted 
 by  the  latter  interpretation  :  for,  to  fay, 
 the  gods  had  human  natures^  is  equiva- 
 lent to  faying,  they  had  been  7nen,  But 
 I  preferred  the  former  interpretation,  for 
 two  reafons  :  one  was,  it's  having  the 
 fanftion  of  the  beft  editors  ^  of  Herodo- 
 tus, and  of  all  other  writers,  except  thofe 
 w^ho  had  an  end  to  ferve  by  rejefting  it  : 
 the  other  reafon  was,  that  this  interpre- 
 tation fuits  well  with  the  known  opi- 
 nion of  the  Greeks  concerning  the  gods  : 
 for  they  did  believe  in  gods  fprung  from 
 men  'y    but  they  did  not  admit,  that  the 
 
 *  Av>^^ui'rto^v'Ac,,  humanam  naturam  habens ;  item,  or- 
 tum  humanum  habens.  Scapula.  —  Dr.  Blackwell  was 
 juftly  cenfured  by  the  author  of  the  Divine  Legation, 
 vol.  I.  p.  97.  in  the  note,  4th  ed.  for  explaining  this 
 word  by  a,v^^u)'7roiJ,o^(poqf  as  if  it  imported  being  made  lih 
 a  man.  But  the  former  word  is  of  a  very  different  im^ 
 port  from  the  latter. 
 
 P  Gale  and  Weffeiing  render  the  word^  ex  hoinlnilus 
 prtQU 
 
 fouls 
 
m  poliJJ:ed  Nations.  217 
 
 fouls  of  thefe  men,  in  their  deified  ftate, 
 did  ftill  partake  of  human  iiature.  On 
 the  contrary,  they  taught  that  this  mu^ 
 table^  pajjibky  mortal^  nature  was  chan- 
 ged into  a  nature,  immutable^  impajjible^ 
 and  immortal'^.  But  I  lay  very  little 
 ftrefs  upon  this  argument,  becaufe  the 
 word  in  queftion  might  be  defigned  to 
 exprefs  the  nature  which  the  gods  had 
 originally.  The  general  meaning  of  He- 
 rodotus is  too  plain  to  be  eafily  mifta- 
 ken.  The  ftatues  of  the  gods  in  human 
 form  were  a  proof  of  their  having  been 
 men '.  Herodotus  therefore  very  natu- 
 rally accounts  for  the  Perfians  differing 
 fo  far  from  the  Greeks,  as  to  have  no 
 facred  ftatues,  by  faying,  they  had  very 
 different  notions  of  the  gods  :  for  the 
 Perfians  did  not  believe,  as  the  Greeks 
 did,  that  the  gods  once  had  hiimaii  na^ 
 tures^  or  iLrre  fpriing  from  inen. 
 
 The  Greeks  indeed  acknowledged  the 
 fame  natural  gods  as  the  Perfians  did ; 
 
 9  DifTert.  on  Mir.  p.  214.  note  ^. 
 
 '  See  Div.  Lcgat.  vol.  i.  p.  97,  98.  in  the  note. 
 
 but 
 
2 1 8         Worjldip  of  human  spirits 
 
 but  there  was  this  difference  between 
 them  :  in  Perfia  they  worfhipped  the  na- 
 tural gods  themfelves,  direftly  and  im- 
 mediately 3  whereas,  in  Greece,  the 
 more  immediate  objefts  of  the  public 
 worffiip  were  deified  human  fpirits,  to 
 whom  the  adminiftration  of  the  govern- 
 ment of  this  lower  world  was  thought  to 
 be  committed.  And,  as  thefe  prefidents 
 over  nature  did,  as  it  were,  intercept 
 and  engrofs  the  public  devotion.  Hero-. 
 dotus  might  juftly  fay,  in  general  terms, 
 that  the  Greeks  believed  their  gods  were  of 
 human  origin.  It  mufl  be  obferved  far- 
 ,  ther,  though  there  was  occafion  to  make 
 the  fame  obfervation  before  ',  that  Hero- 
 dotus is  not  here  fpeaking  of  heroes  or  any 
 of  the  inferior  orders  of  deities,  but  of  the 
 principal  objects  of  Grecian  worfhip,  or 
 of  thofe  to  whom  the  title  of  gods  emi- 
 nently belonged,  who  had  temples,  cha^ 
 pels,  images  and  altars,  erefted  in  their 
 honour"*.     He  muft  therefore  include  \x\ 
 
 '  Above,  p.  6i,  62. 
 
 *  See  Porphyry,  de  Antro  Nymph,  p,  254. 
 
 this 
 
in  polifhed  Nations,  219 
 
 this  number  the  twelve  great  gods  of 
 Greece  ;  and  confequently  he  affirms, 
 that  they  were  dead  men  and  women 
 deified. 
 
 III.  That  the  gods  of  the  greater  na- 
 tions were  deified  mortals,  is  a  point  fully 
 eftabliflied  by  the  Sacred  Hijiory  of  Eiihe- 
 meriis  of  Me[fna,  Notice  was  taken  of 
 this  argument  elfewhere'^  but  I  fhall  here 
 enter  into  it  more  fully. 
 
 Euhemerus  relates,  that,  in  one  of 
 the  many  voyages  he  undertook  by  or- 
 der of  Caffander,  king  of  Macedonia,  he 
 came  to  an  ifland  called  Panchaia,  and 
 there  found,  in  the  temple  of  the  Tri- 
 philian  Jupiter,  an  authentic  regifler  of 
 the  births  and  deaths  of  the  gods.  A- 
 mongft  thefe  gods  he  particularly  fpeci- 
 fies  Uranus ,  his  fons  by  Vefta^  viz.  Pan 
 (or  rather  T^itaii  "j  and  Saturn^    and  his 
 
 daughters, 
 
 *  Differt.  on  Mir.  p.  194. 
 
 "  Laftantius  (Inftitut.  Div.  I.  i.  c.  14.)  has  the  fol- 
 lowing extrafl  from  Euhemerus  himfelf,  according  to 
 Ennius's  tranflation  of  him  :  Exin  Saturnus  uxorem  ducit 
 Oum*     Titan,  qui  major  natu  erat,  pojiulat,  ut  ipfe  reg~ 
 
 naret. 
 
220  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 daughters,  Rhea  and  Ceres  -,  the  children 
 of  Satur?!  ^  and  Rhea^  viz.  fiipiter^  Juno^ 
 and  Neptune ;  and  the  offspring  of  ^u-- 
 piter  by  yuno^  Ceres ^  and  The7nisj  viz. 
 the  CtireteSy  Proferpine^  and  Minerva, 
 The  foregoing  particulars,  and  feveral 
 others  concerning  Euhemerus,  are  men- 
 tioned by  Diodorus  Siculus,  in  a  frag- 
 ment preferved  by  Eufebius  ^  And  the 
 defign  of  the  Sacred  Hijlory  was  to  fhew, 
 that  the  gods  were  to  be  regarded  as  mor- 
 tal men  ^. 
 
 This  hiftory  received  the  fanftion  of 
 the  moft  refpedlable  writers  of  antiquity. 
 It  was  tranflated  into  Latin  and  appro- 
 
 naret.^  Ihi  Fejia,  jnater  eorum^  et  fororesy  Ceres  atque 
 Opisj  fuadent  Saturno,  ut  de  regno  non  concedat  fratri.  — 
 There  being  here  no  mention  o{  Party  it  feems  probable 
 that  the  leading  in  Diodorus  fhould  be  Titan.  See 
 WeiTeling's  Diodorus,  torn.  2.  p.  634. 
 
 w  Saturn  fucceeded  Uranus,  and  Jupiter  fucceeded 
 Saturn. 
 
 ^  Diodor.  Sic.  Fragm.  p.  633,  634.  ed.  WefT.  — . 
 Eufeb.  P.  Ev.  1,  2.  c.  2.  p.  59,  —  Compare  Cicero  de 
 Nat.  Deor.  1.  i.  c.  42. 
 
 9riwv,  7rH(»  Twv  ^Eo^'v  ^\i\%uu  Diodorus,  tom.  2.  p.  634. 
 
 ye4 
 
in  polijhed  Nations.  221 
 
 ved  by  Enniiis "".  Cicero  alfo,  whofe  au- 
 thority is  of  the  greateft  weight,  adopted 
 the  fyftem  of  the  Meflinian  concerning 
 the  heathen  gods ,  as  will  be  fhewn  in 
 the  next  fe6lion.  I  fliall  only  obferve 
 here,  that,  though  he  was  fully  fenfible 
 of  the  abfurdity  of  worfliipping  dead 
 men  %  and  of  the  evil  tendency  of  re- 
 prefenting  the  gods  as  fuch\  he  does 
 not  controvert  the  truth  of  that  repre- 
 fentation.  Diodorus  Siculus '  cites  Eu- 
 hemerus  without  cenfure  ^  and,  by  the 
 extra6ls  he  makes  from  his  hiftory, 
 plainly  difcovers  his  opinion  of  it's  fide- 
 
 ^  Euhemerus,  quern  nofter  et  interpretatus  et  fecii- 
 tus  eft,  przeter  caeteros,  Ennius.  Cicer.  N.  Deor.  1.  i. 
 c.  42. 
 
 *  He  puts  the  following  words  into  the  mouth  of 
 Velleius,  the  Epicurean  :  Quo  quid  abfurdius  quam  — . 
 homines  jam  morte  deletos  reponere  in  deos,  quorum 
 omnis  cultus  effet  futurus  in  lu6lu  ?  N.  Deor.  1.  1, 
 c.  15. 
 
 ^  He  fays,  in  the  perfon  of  Cotta,  an  Academic 
 philofopher  :  Utrum  igitur  hie  (Euhemerus)  confir- 
 maffe  videtur  religionem,  an  penitus  totam  fuftulifT^  ? 
 Id.  ib.  c.  42. 
 
 *  Vide  1.  5.  p.  364,  et  feq.    Fragment,  ubi  fupra. 
 
 lity. 
 
222  Worftdtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 llty.  Eufebius  ^  certainly  entertained 
 the  fame  opinion  of  it  as  Diodorus,  and 
 appeals  to  it  as  a  fufficient  authority  for 
 what  he  advances  with  refpeft  to  the 
 mean  origin  of  the  heathen  gods.  St. 
 Auftin  ""  affirms,  that  Euhemerus  efta- 
 blifhed  his  notion  of  them  as  mere  mor- 
 tals by  careful  refearches  into  ancient 
 hiftory,      Laftantius  \    on  different  oc- 
 
 cafions, 
 
 ^  Praep.  Ev.   I.  2.  c.  2.  p.  59.   et  feq. 
 
 *  Euhemerus,  omnes  tales  deos,  non  fabulofa  garru- 
 litate,  fed  hillorica  diligsntia,  homines  fuiffc  mortalef- 
 que,  confcripfit.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  6.  c.  7.  See  alfo  1.  7, 
 c.  26. 
 
 ^  Antiquus  autor,  Euhemerus,  qui  fuit  ex  civitate 
 Meffene,  res  geftas  Jovis,  et  caeterorum  qui  dii  putan-* 
 tur,  collegit,  hiftcriamque  contexuit  ex  titulis  et  in>* 
 fcriptionibus  facris  quse  in  antiquiffimis  tcmplis  habe- 
 bantur,  maximeque  in  fano  Jovis  Triphylii.  La6tant. 
 Div.  Inftitut.  1.  i.  c.  11.  p.  49,  50.  torn.  i.  ed.  Du- 
 frefnoy.  —  Aperiamus  quee  in  'veris  Uteris  continentur. 
 Hsec  Ennii  verba  funt,  &c.  Hsec  hiftoria  quam  <vera 
 fit,  docet  Sibylla  Erythrsa,  eadem  fere  dicens*  Id.  ib. 
 c.  14.  —  Ad  hilloriam  veniamus,  quas  fimul  et  rerum 
 fide,  et  temporum  nititur  vetullate.  Euhemerus  fuit 
 Meflenius,  antiquiffimus  fcriptor,  qui  de  facris  infcrip* 
 tionibus  veterum  tepiplorum  et  originem  Jovis,  et  res 
 geftas,  omnemque  progcniem,  collegit ;    item  cstero- 
 
 rum 
 
in  polijljed  Nat  torn .  223 
 
 cafions,  aflerts  the  truth  of  his  memoh's, 
 and  fays  they  v/ere  extrafted  from  the 
 monuments  and  facred  infcriptlons  of 
 the  oldeft  temples,  and  efpecially  from 
 thofe  in  the  temple  of  the  Triphylian 
 Jupiter.  And  he  affirms,  that  the  moll 
 ancient  writers  of  Greece,  thofe  whom 
 they  called  theologers^  and  the  Romans, 
 who  copied  from  the  Greeks,  entertained 
 the  fame  opinion  of  the  gods  as  Euhe- 
 merus  ^  According  to  Minucius  Fe- 
 lix*', ''  he  pointed  out  the  places  where 
 *^  the  gods  were  born,  their  countries, 
 "  and  their  fepulchres,  in  the  different 
 *'  provinces  of  the  earth  :"  which  furely 
 mull   afford  every  one  an  opportunity 
 
 rum  deorum  parentes,  patrias,  aftus,  imperia,  obltus, 
 fepulcra  etiam,  perfecutus  eft.  Id.  Epitome  Div.  Inlli- 
 tut.  c.  13.  torn.  2. 
 
 s  Omnes,  qui  coluntur  at  dii,  homines  fuerunt.  *  . 
 Quod  cum  vetuiHffimi  Grsciae  fcriptores,  quos  ilii  $,-»- 
 ?ioy«?  nuncupant,  turn  etiam  Romani,  Grscos  fecuti  et 
 imitati,  docent ;  quorum  prsecipue  Euhemerus,  ac  nof- 
 ter  Ennius.    Id.  de  Ira  Dei,  c.  xi.  p.  152. 
 
 ^  Euhemerus  —  eorum  natales,  patrias,  fepulchra, 
 dinumerat,  et  per  provincias  monllrat.  Min.  Fcl.  Oc- 
 tavius,  c.  xxi. 
 
 of 
 
224         JVorfmp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 of  detefting  his  impoftare,  had  he  been 
 chargeable  with  any.  And  Arnobius  * 
 tells  the  Heathens,  he  could  prove,  that 
 all  thofe  whom  they  called  gods  had 
 been  men,  from  the  writings  either  of 
 Euhemerus,  or  Nicagoras,  or  Pellaeus, 
 or  Theodoras,  or  Hippo  and  Diagoras, 
 or  by  a  thoufand  other  authors,  who 
 had  made  the  moll  critical  and  diligent 
 inquiry  into  this  fubjecl,  and,  with  an 
 ingenuous  freedom  of  mind,  had  brought 
 to  light  things  that  were  concealed  from 
 public  view. 
 
 But  Euhemerus,  it  is  faid,  was  brand- 
 ed as  an  atheift  ;  and  this  circumilance 
 has  been  urged  to  difcredit  the  truth  of 
 his  doftrine  concerning  the  humanity  of 
 the  gods.  In  anfwer  to  this  objeflion, 
 it  may  be  obferved, 
 
 **  Poffumus   quidem  hoc  in   loco  omnes  iftos,  nobis 
 quos   inducitis   atqne  appellatis  decs,    homines    fuiiTe 
 
 monfirare,  vel  Agragantino  Euhemero  replicator 
 
 vel  Nicagoro  Cyprio,  vel  Pcllso  Leonte,  vel  Cyrenenfi 
 Theodoro,  vel  Hippone  ac  Diagora  Meliis,  vel  auftori- 
 bus  aliis  mille,  qui  fcrupulofae  diljgentiae  cura  in  lucem 
 res  abditas  libertate  ingenua  protulerunt. 
 
 1.  No 
 
in  polijhed  Nations.  225 
 
 I .  No  man  was  deemed  an  atheift,  by 
 the  Heathens,  if  he  vvorftiipped  any  gods 
 who  interefted  themfelves  in  the  affairs 
 of  mankind,  though  they  were  only 
 fuch  as  had  been  men.  Such  gods  a- 
 lone  as  thefe  were  worfhipped  by  the 
 Getes  and  Augilites,  who  neverthelefs 
 were  not  cenfured  as  atheifts  ^.  The 
 Panchaians  difcovered  an  extraordinary 
 devotion  to  thofe  divinities,  whofe  births 
 and  deaths  were  regiftered  in  their  moft 
 magnificent  temple'.  So  far  was  the 
 deification  of  men  from  implying  athe- 
 ifm,  that  it  rather  prefuppofed  the  exif- 
 tence  of  the  natural  gods,  with  whom 
 the  deified  men  were  afTociated,  and 
 from  whom  they  derived  their  power 
 and  authority "".     The  priefts,  who  cer- 
 
 ^  Above,  p.  32,  97. 
 
 ^  Euhemerus  reprefents  them  as  Bv<rel3na  ^la^c^ovra^, 
 xa»  ra?  ^sui;  Ti/xwvra^  i/.i'ycc7'.o7r;:B7rerocTociq  S-yc-jcctj,  x.  t.  A. 
 As  to  the  celeflial  gods,  he  fays,  Uranus  was  the  firfl 
 who  honoured  them  with  fucrifices  ;  from  which  cir- 
 cumftance  he  derived  his  name.  Diod.  Sic.  Fraem. 
 p.  633,  634. 
 
 ™  DifTcrt.  on  Mir.  p.  175.  note  \ 
 
 Q^  tainly 
 
226         Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 tainly  did  not  intend  to  promote  athe- 
 ifm,  did  themfelves  reveal  the  human 
 origin  of  the  great  gods  to  thofe  initia- 
 ted into  the  myfteries.  And  thofe  phi- 
 lofophers,  who  were  concerned  to  fup- 
 port  the  public  religion,  maintained  that 
 (even  according  to  the  rules  of  right 
 reafon,  as  will  be  fliewn  hereafter)  vii"- 
 tuous  men  were  advanced  firft  to  the 
 rank  of  heroes,  next  to  that  of  demons, 
 and  afterwards  to  that  of  gods,  having 
 attained  to  a  ftate  of  the  higheft  perfec- 
 tion and  bleffednefs ".  Euhemerus  there- 
 fore was  not  ranked  amongft  the  athe- 
 ifts  merely  for  aflerting,  that  thofe  wor- 
 fliipped  by  the  people  as  gods  had  once 
 been  men. 
 
 2.  What  the  Heathens  lay  to  the 
 charge  of  Euhemerus  is,  his  believing, 
 that  there  were  no  gods^  or  none  who  take 
 
 ^vffw  £t?  Hgccvovj   aXKot.  rccq  a^zTccq  y.an  ra,^  '^^'X'^^   TravrocTroccry/ 
 onc^ccij    y.ccrcc    (pvcriv    xcct    ^kviv   ^notVf    ly.   (jLbv    uv^^uttuv,    £»? 
 
 Sea?  avcc(pc^£a-^ccif   to  nciXXi^ov  rcon  ixxKU^kUTCtTov  t«Ao$  «9roA«- 
 Baa-ccc;.    Plutarchi  Romulus,  p.  36.  A, 
 
 care 
 
in  poUJloed  Nat  torn,  227 
 
 C(X7'e  of  ?nankmd'' .  He  was  accufed  of  real 
 atheifm  ;  but  Theophilus  Antiochenus  ^ 
 feems  to  intimate  that  he  did  not  pubUckly 
 avow  this  principle  at  firft.  And  it  might 
 be  charged  upon  him  only  as  the  appre- 
 hended confequence  of  his  reje6ling  the 
 received  notion  of  the  popular  gods  ; 
 juft  as  Socrates,    for  a  fimilar  reafon, 
 
 **  Whoy  fays  ^lian,  can  forbear  extolling  the  'nxifdom 
 cf  the  Barbarians  ?  for  7ione  of  them  ever  fell  into  atheifm  y 
 or  doubted  njjhether  there  are  any  gods,  or  any  tvho  take 
 care  of  mankind,      ^hey  nenjer  entertained  the  like  fcntiment 
 
 as  Euhe7nerus   but  uni-verfally  ajjerted,  that  there  are 
 
 godsf  and  that  they  take  care  of  its.  Ti?  ha  ay  I'jvrtViat  rnv 
 T(ov  ^cc^Qoc^av  (ro(pK!iV  ;  £»>-£  (/.r.^r.q  ocvruv  £*;  o(.^sorr,rcx,  i^zTTiarit 
 fM'^h  a/x^»i3a?;Aacrt  7r£^»  ^'.uv,  cccoc.  yz  iKriv,  v  ay.  na-i'   y.cA  ccpo,  yz 
 
 0   Ey)5//.£P0$   T'.iybO-t   Oi    tUV  ^U^Qu^UV   ^£0£l^'/!jU.£l'C»,     KUl   SlV-Ui 
 
 .&£8'f,  ycci  v^ovonv  y,iA.uv^  Var.  Hift.  1.  2.  c.  31.  ——  See 
 alfo  Plutarch,  de  Placit.  Philofoph.  1.  i.  c.  7.  p.  880. 
 
 P  *'  After  having  had  the  courage  to  fpeak  many 
 '*  things  concerning  the  gods,"  (that  is,  I  apprehend, 
 toreprefentthem  as  having  been  men,)  "  he  at  laft  went 
 «'  fo  far  as  to  affirm,  that  there  were  no  gods  at  all,  nor. 
 *'  any  fuperintending  providence,  but  that  the  world 
 ^'  was  governed  by  chance."     IloMa  yu^  ws^t  ^tu»  to?^- 
 
 I^YiO-ai;  (p^sy^eoT^uij  ta^XTOv  y.ut  to  E^oAtf  /x*j  i.^on  Sitf;,  «a7»06 
 ra  TTuvTu  avroixxcna'fji.u  d^iojxjicrSai  ^oy?V£Ta».  Theoph.  Ant. 
 ad  Autolycum,  1.  3.  p.  293,  294.  ed.  Wolfii. 
 
 0^2  was 
 
228  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 was  deemed  an  atheift,  though  he  was 
 far  from  deferving  fuch  a  reproach. 
 Whatever  Euhemerus's  real  charac- 
 ter was,  it  is  certain  that  one  reafon  of 
 his  being  thought  an  atheift  was  his 
 fpeaking  of  the  gods  as  men  who  perifh- 
 ed  at  death,  and  confequently  were  not 
 really  deified.  We  are  expreflly  told  by 
 Sextus  Empiricus  ^  that  he  reprefented 
 their  pretended  deification  as  the  mere 
 effeft  of  the  pride  and  policy  of  princes 
 and  great  men,  in  order  to  procure  a 
 higher  veneration  for  their  perfons,  and 
 a  more  ready  fubmiffion  to  their  autho- 
 rity. Now,  if  all  thofe  who  were  wor- 
 fhipped  as  gods  had  been  men,  as  Eu- 
 hemerus  alTerts,  and  thefe  men  were 
 falfely  fuppofed  to  become  gods,  the 
 Heathens  would  regard  him  as  one  who 
 
 ctii^^uTTuv  ^ioif  oi  TTt^iyzvo^'.voi  run  aAAwv  ta^vi  re  y.oci  crvvscra, 
 cJrt  TT^oq  roc.  vii  avTuv  y.eXtvoyAvcc  'jrocvroc^  /?t»v,  c'7rH^x(^o\irt<; 
 ^intovot;  hccvfjucca-iJiii  y.ai  a-£jjLvor'^o(;  rv^nv,  unvXacffotv  vrs^i  uvra^ 
 vnci^^aXKHcja.Tt  Tiva  y.at  ^Eiav  ^vvctit.\Vi  evSec  y.ec\  tok  itO\7\o^<i 
 £ro[/A(7^r,(Tcx,v  Seoi.  Sextus  Empiricus,  adv.  Phyiicos,  1.  9. 
 c,  2.  §.17.  p.  552.  ed.  Fabricii.     Vid.  §.51. 
 
 believed 
 
ifi  poltJJjed  Nations,  229 
 
 believed  there  were  no  gods  at  all.  Plu- 
 tarch, in  a  pafTage  that  will  be  quickly- 
 cited,  grounds  the  charge  of  atheifm 
 againft  him,  not  upon  his  afferting  that 
 the  gods  had  been  men,  but  upon  his 
 maintaining  that  they  were  nothing  more 
 than  men  long  fince  dead.  Nay,  Plutarch, 
 as  we  fhall  fee  ^,  diftinguiflies  the  former 
 of  thefe  propofitions  from  atheifm.  The 
 account  here  given  of  the  Mefli  nian  is  con- 
 firmed by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  ',  who 
 fays,  "  that  Euhemerus,  Nicanor,  Dia- 
 ''  goras.  Hippo,  Theodorus,  and  others, 
 *'  were  called  atheifts,  becaufe  they  had 
 *^  the  fagacity  to  difcern  the  error  of  o- 
 *'  ther  men  concerning  the  gods  ;"  that 
 is,  they  clearly  faw  they  were  not  real 
 divinities. 
 
 Now,  if  Euhemerus  would  not  have 
 been  accufed   of  atheifm  by  the  Hea« 
 
 *  Below,  p.  2i-\. 
 
 Ta?  o^vreoQ*  rm  run  Xqittuv  on^^utruv  rr^v  a.[y.(pi  rnq  Sgy^  rart?? 
 '7f?\»yrjVf  cc^ini;  iTriy.iy.'hT,y.oc<Tiv.  Clem.  Alexandr.  Cohort,  ad 
 Gentes»  torn.  i.  p.  20,  21.  ed.  Potteri. 
 
 Q^  3  thens, 
 
230         Worpip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 thens,  had  he  merely  afferted,  that  the 
 received  gods  had  been  mortal  men, 
 provided  he  had  allowed  their  advance- 
 ment, after  death,  to  a  deified  ftate  : 
 the  objeclion  we  have  been  examining 
 does  not  reach  the  point.  And,  if  one 
 ground,  at  leaft,  of  the  charge  of  athe- 
 ifm  againfl:  him  was  his  denying  the 
 real  deification  of  men,  this  is  a  demon- 
 ftration  that  the  Heathens  acknow-. 
 ledged  this  principle  -,  and  confequently 
 the  objection  under  confideration  efta« 
 blifhes  the  point  it  was  meant  to  over- 
 turn. 
 
 The  only  plaufible  objeflion  againfl: 
 the  hiftory  of  Euhemerus  is  that  urged 
 by  Plutarch  ;  viz.  that  no  one  befides 
 this  hiftorian  had  ever  feen  the  ifland 
 of  Panchaia  %  Plutarch,  as  a  priefl: 
 of  the  gods,  could  not  but  be  dif- 
 pleafed  with  the  Meffinian  for  minute- 
 ly inquiring  into  their  charafter  and  ac- 
 tions, and  for  publifliing  to  the  whole 
 
 »  If.  ct  Ofir.   p.  360.   A.  B, 
 
 world 
 
in  poltJl:ed  Nafiojis,  231 
 
 world  their  earthly  origin  '.  He  was  ftill 
 more  highly  offended  at  his  reprefenting 
 them  as  men  who  were  deftroyed  by 
 death.  He  himfelf  was  an  advocate  for 
 the  real  deification  of  virtuous  fouls ", 
 for  tiie  phyfical  explication  of  the  ab~ 
 furd  ftories  concerning  the  gods  ^^  and 
 for  the  exiftence  of  an  order  of  celeftial 
 demons'";  and,  on  thefe  principles,  he 
 undertook  the  defence  of  the  pagan  re- 
 ligion, at  a  time  when  it  was  warmly 
 attacked,  not  only  by  the  fceptical  phi- 
 lofophers,  but  by  the  Chriftians  in  every 
 
 *  It  was  a  facred  maxim,  with  the  Heathens,  "  that 
 "  it  was  more  their  duty  to  helie-ue  the  deeds  of  the 
 **  gods,  than  to  kno^w  them;"  which  they  obferved  e- 
 ven  with  regard  to  thofe  gods  who  had  been  men.  See 
 above,  p.  159.  note  ^.  Hercules  is  the  god  there  fpo- 
 ken  of.  To  reveal  the  fecret  of  the  myfleries  was  an 
 2B.  of  the  higheft  impiety.  Hence  Plutarch  complains, 
 that  afierting  the  humanity  of  the  gods  was  mo'ving 
 things  nvbich  ought  not  to  be  moved.  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  359.  F, 
 In  order  to  fupport  their  falfe  religion,  the  pagan 
 priefts  found  it  necelTary  to  check  curiofity,  and  pre- 
 vent free  inquiry,  on  the  fubje6t. 
 
 •»  Above,  p.  226.  note  ".  ^  If.  et  Ofir.  paffim. 
 
 *  lb.  p.  360. 
 
 Q_4  part 
 
232         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 part  of  the  world,    on  account  of  it*s 
 confifting  in  the  worfhip  of  dead  men. 
 That  it  did  confift  very  much  in  fuch 
 worfhip,  they  proved  by  many    argu- 
 ments, and  particularly  by  the  teftimony 
 of  Euhemerus.     Can   we  wonder  then 
 that  Plutarch  laboured  to  difparage  it, 
 when  we  confider  that  it  overturned  his 
 favourite  fpeculations,  and  left  his  relir- 
 gion  without  the  iliadow  of  a  fupport  ? 
 But  let  us  examine  the  weight  of  his  ob- 
 jecVion.      Even   if  there   was   no   fuch 
 ifland  as  Panchaia,  the  do6lrine  of  Eu- 
 hemerus might  be  true,  becaufe  it  was 
 fupported  by  other  records  befides  thofe 
 of  the  temple  of  the  Triphylian  Jupiter, 
 which  might  be  appealed  to  only  to  a- 
 void  the  odium  and  danger  of  divulging 
 the  fecret   of  the  myileries.      There  is 
 however  no  fufficient  reafon  to  affirm, 
 that  the  ifland  of  Panchaia  had  no  exif- 
 tence.     It  is  mentioned  by  Pomponius 
 Mela  ^,    defcribed    by    Diodorus    Sicu- 
 
 y  L.  3.  c.  3.  1.  69.    with   the  notes  of  F.  VofTius, 
 
 lus, 
 
in  poIiJI:ed  Nations.  233 
 
 lus  %  and  it's  exiftence,  according  to  Vof- 
 fius,  eftablifhed  beyond  contradi6lion  by 
 the  teftimony  of  Ptolemy  Euergetes^.  The 
 hiftory  of  Euhemerus's  voyage  to  it  met 
 with  credit  from  many  refpeclable  wri- 
 ters, who  lived  much  nearer  to  the  time 
 of  it's  pubHcation  than  Plutarch.  And 
 if,  in  the  remote  age  of  this  philofo- 
 pher,  or  even  in  that  of  Polybius  ^  it 
 was  not  known  that  any  one  had  ever 
 feen  Panchaia  befides  our  voyager,  let  it 
 be  remembered,  that  he  was  more  likely 
 than  any  other  to  difcover  this  ifland,  as 
 he  had  failed  much  farther  to  the  fouth 
 of  the  Arabian  gulph  than  mere  traders 
 had  ever  done,  having  been  fent  out  by 
 
 *  L.  5.  p.  364.  et  feq.    Fragm.  p,  633, 
 
 *  Ut  omnem  prorfus  tolhm  dubitationem,  fubjungam 
 teftimonium  omni  exceptione  majus,  Ptolemaei  nempe 
 Euergetae,  excerptum  ex  momimento  Adulitico,  in 
 quo  recenfentur  gentes  Ethiopicae,  quas  ipfe  praefens 
 fubjugavit.  — This  monument  mentions  the  Panckaites, 
 —  Voffius,  ubi  fupra. 
 
 **  See  Strabo,  1.  2.  p.  163.  and  I.  7.  p.  459,  from 
 whence  it  appears  that  Polybius  did  not  credit  the  ac- 
 count given  of  Panchaia, 
 
 the 
 
234         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 the  king  of  Macedonia,  on  purpofe,  as 
 it  fhould  feem,  to  make  new  difcoveries. 
 
 What  has  Plutarch  done  to  refute  the 
 doftrine  of  Euhemerus  ?  To  my  ap- 
 prehenfion,  what  he  has  admitted  ferves 
 fully  to  eftablifli  it.  He  allows  that 
 the  things  related  of  the  gods  accord 
 with  the  opinion  of  their  having  been 
 men  ^  and  that  thofe  who  hold  this  opi- 
 nion have  thefupport  ofhijlory  ^ ;  though  at 
 the  fame  time  he  acknowledges  it's  ten- 
 dency to  produce  atheifm " ;  or  that  a  be- 
 lief that  the  objefts  of  their  worifhip  had 
 been  men  led  to  a  denial  of  their  being  re- 
 ally gods  '.  What  could  Euhemerus  him- 
 felf  defire  more  than  fuch  a  conceilion 
 from  a  learned  and  able  adverfary  ? 
 
 After  the  foregoing  obfervations,  Plu- 
 tarch immediately  introduces  the  men- 
 
 *^  See  above,  p.  i66. 
 
 *'  Ep^acru/  octvo  ruv  irosii^ivuy  [3qv)^bkx,i;.  Plutarch,  p.  359.  E, 
 *  It  opened  jt^E^aAa^  tw  av^w  Xeu  yJkic-iaouqy  a  great 
 window  or  door  to  atheiftic  people.  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  360, 
 —  This  proves  what  was  before  aflerted,  that  Plutarch 
 diflinguifhes  between  the  humanity  of  the  gods,  and  the 
 ejed  it  might  produce  on  perfons  of  reflei^ion. 
 
 tioa 
 
cc 
 
 <c 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 in  polijked  Nations.  235 
 
 tion  of  our  author,  and  complains, 
 "  that  he  had  fpread  all  manner  of  athe- 
 '*  ifm  throughout  the  world,  and  ftruck 
 at  the  exiftence  of  all  the  received  gods 
 without  diftinftion,  whom  he  defcri- 
 bed  merely  as  ancient  generals,  admi- 
 rals, and  kings  ^"  This  paffage  ferves 
 to  fhew,  that  Euhemerus  gained  many 
 converts  to  his  opinion.  We  are  afked^, 
 Did  the  Heathens  receive  his  do5irine  ?  If 
 7ioty  what  have  we  to  do  in  this  cafe  with  the^ 
 groimdlefs  fiippoftiom  of  an  individual  ? 
 Could  Plutarch  juftly  charge  Euhemerus 
 with  f pre ading  atheifm  throughout  the  world y 
 if  his  doctrine  had  not  been  received 
 throughout  the  world  ?  The  reception 
 of  his  do6lrine  was  the  caufe ;  atheifm 
 was  the  effect  ^  and  both  muft  have  been 
 of  equal  extent.  So  that  the  doftrine  of 
 Euhemerus  concerning  the  origin  of  the 
 
 ^   Tlccs-ccv    aSaoT/yla    nxrcccry.eoccvvc-i    t>JS    oky.Hixiv/iqy    7ii<;   v^i^ 
 
 ^^a,rr,yuvy   y.xi    vxva^')(uvj   y.an  ^ciaXtuvt   uq  otj  waAai  y£yovo~ 
 ruv.    If.  ec  Ofir.  p.  360.  A. 
 
 g  Fell,  p.  81. 
 
 gods, 
 
236         JVorJhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 gods,  which  a  late  writer  treats  as  the 
 groundlefs  fiippofition  of  an  individual, 
 was  allowed  to  be  generally  received,  as 
 well  as  founded  in  uncontroverted  fa6ls, 
 even  by  that  great  man  who  was  moft 
 offended  at  if  s  being  broached.  And  it 
 has  been  proved,  that  this  doftrine  was 
 maintained  and  defended  by  Greek  and 
 Roman,  by  Heathen  and  Chriftian,  wri- 
 ters, and  fupported  by  the  authority  of 
 records  in  the  moft  ancient  temples. 
 
 Now,  if  this  doclrine  of  Euhemerus 
 be  true,  then  even  the  great  gods  of 
 Greece  were  men  and  women,  who 
 were,  without  any  reafon,  fuppofed  to 
 become  gods  after  death. 
 
 This  point  will  be  farther  confirmed 
 by  other  teftimonies  in  the  next  feftion, 
 when  the  Roman  gods  come  under  con- 
 fideration.  And,  were  we  to  defcend  to 
 a  particular  enumeration  of  the  feveral 
 Grecian  deities  of  which  we  are  here 
 fpeaking,  we  fhould  find  diftincl  evi- 
 dence of  the  human  origin  of  each.  But, 
 as  this  would  lead  to  a  repetition  of  many 
 
 things 
 
•    in  polijloed  Nations.  'Xyy 
 
 things  already  noticed,  and  to  an  anti- 
 cipation of  others  which  will  occur  in 
 the  fequel,  I  fliall  only  conlider  the  cafe 
 of  the  Grecian  Jupiter,  the  father  of  gods 
 and  men  ^. 
 
 The  term  Jupiter,  which,  according 
 to  Cicero,  denotes  only  a  helping father\ 
 was  commonly  ufed  to  exprefs  the  fu- 
 preme  pagan  deity.  The  philofophers 
 defcribed,  by  this  term,  their  fupreme 
 natural  divinity;  which,  according  to 
 fome,  was  the  world  or  foul  of  the 
 world  ;  and,  according  to  others,  either 
 the  sether   or  the  fun  \      But  the  pre- 
 
 fent 
 
 "  Ilarr;^  aid^aJv  T£  Sewf  te.     Homer. 
 Pater   divumque   hominumque.     Latin  poets.    Cicero, 
 Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  25. 
 
 »  Juvans  pater.    Id.  ib. 
 
 ^  The  proofs  of  this  point  need  not  be  produced 
 here.  I  ihall  only  obferve,  that,  though  Mr.  Fell  af- 
 firms, p.  22.  **  that  it  is  uni'verfally  k)70-v:n,  that  no 
 **  part  of  nature  was  ever  confidered  by  the  Heathens 
 **  as  their  fupreme  deity  -,  and  that  the  fun,  in  parti- 
 **  cular,  was  not  fo  confidered/*'  p.  15.  yet,  in  exprefs 
 contradiction  to  himfelf,  the  fame  writer  maintains, 
 p.  124.   **  that  their  (the  Heathens)  c/6/^ deities  were 
 
 *'    tkrr 
 
238         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fent  *  queftion  concerns  only  that  Jupi- 
 ter who  was  the  chief  objeft  of  the  efta- 
 blifhed  worfliip  in  the  ancient  nations, 
 and  particularly  in  Greece. 
 
 *'  the  sether^  fun,  moon,  planets,  and  hods  of  hea-=- 
 "  ven;"  nay,  he  pleads  that  fome  nations  adored 
 no  gods  but  the  furt  or  the  heavens,  p.  8,  9.  He  fays, 
 p.  119..  (fee  aifo  p.  5.)  *'  that  the  Creator  of  all  things 
 "  was  acknoniohdged  amongil  them  (the  Heathens)  al- 
 "  moft  every  where."  Could  he  be  acknowledged  by 
 thofe  whofe  r/^/^ deities  were  the  fun  and  moon?  More 
 conformable  to  the  real  fadl  is  the  declaration  of  fcrip- 
 ture.  They  facrificed  not  to  God,  Deut.  xxxii.  17.  When 
 they  kne-jo  (or  had  plain  notices  of)  God,  they  glorified 
 him  not  as  God^  hut  fernjed  the  creature  (ttx^u)  rather 
 than  the  Creator;  that  is,  pajjing  by  the  Creator,  (fee 
 Beza  in  loc.  and  the  Syriac  and  -^thiopic  verfions, 
 and  the  vulgar  Latin,)  or  in  oppojttion  to  him,  (fo  iroc^a. 
 Tov  I'Ojixoi',  A6ls  xviii.  3.  is  contrary  to  la^jo,)  Rom.  i.  21, 
 ■  ■■  But  all  that  occurs  in  this  writer,  about  the  im- 
 
 created  Godiy  p.  6.  the  created  go&s,  p.  15,  16,  17.  the 
 Creator  of  the  univerfe,  and  the  creation,  p.  I,  5.  fo 
 far  as  this  language  refpefts  the  Heathens,  ferves  only 
 to  fhew  he  was  not  fenfible,  that  the  Heathens,  who 
 lived  before  the  coming  of  Chrift,  denied  a  proper  cre^ 
 ation,  and  afferted  the  generation  of  the  gods  and  of  the 
 world.  Now,  '^  TiQ  generation,''^  they  faid,  *'  is  made 
 **  from  what  does  not  exift:"  Oujt  tx  ry  ^r^  ov70(;  «  yevscr*?. 
 Plutarch,  de  Animas  Procreat.  p.  1014.    B. 
 
 1  See  above,  p.  6. 
 
 The 
 
in  polijhed  Natiom.  239 
 
 The  Arcadians  "  difputed  with  the 
 Cretans  the  honour  of  giving  birth  to 
 Jupiter  ;  but  it  is  fufRcient  to  our  pur- 
 pofe  to  obferve,  that  the  contefl  itfelf 
 proved  his  being  regarded  by  both  as  a 
 man.  If  he  was  not  born  in  Crete,  he 
 was  certainly  educated  there  ;  and  was 
 called  DiBcean  from  a  mountain  in  that 
 ifland  called  DiBe^  the  place  of  his  edu- 
 cation ".  He  died,  at  the  age  of  an  hun- 
 dred and  twenty  °,  in  the  ifland  of 
 Crete  ^     Callimachus,  indeed,  will  not 
 
 ™  Callimach.  Hymn,  in  Jov.  v.  6,  7.  Cicerc,  Nat. 
 Deor.  1.  3.  c.  21.  fays,  the  theolog^ers  reckoned  three 
 Jupiters ;  two  born  in  Arcadia  ;  the  third  iii  Crete, 
 who  was  the  fon  of  Saturn.  See  Laciantius,  I.  i.  c.  11, 
 and  Arnobius,  1.  4.  p.  135.  who  aiErm  the  fame  con- 
 cerning the  Cretan  Jupiter, 
 
 "  Virgil.  Georg.  IV.  152.    Servius  on  ^n.  III.  lyi. 
 
 °  Suidas  (voc.  Hr//.Qc)  fays,  Umoct  0  y.ui  Zzv^,  re- 
 ^£UTa,  t,r,(ra<;  /'  aak  v/.utov  s7->h  Compare  Chron.  Alexand, 
 p.  87,  89.  Ennius  (ap.  La(5lant.  i.  1.  c,  11.  p.  52.} 
 fays  of  Jupiter,  -^^tate  pelTum  afta,  in  Creta  yitani 
 commutavit,  et  ad  deqs  abiit. 
 
 P  See  Ladantius,  in  the  preceding  note. 
 
 allow 
 
240         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 allow  that  he  died  ^ ;  yet,  by  reprefetit- 
 ing  him  as  the  offspring  of  Rhea,  by 
 pointing  out  the  place  of  his  nativity  % 
 and  making  his  ftrength  and  exploits 
 the  ground  of  his  becoming  king  of  the 
 gods',  he  plainly  holds  him  forth  under 
 a  human  chara6ler.  His  tomb  was  o- 
 penly  fliewn  in  Crete '  5    and  Diodorus 
 
 Siculus 
 
 1  Callimach.  Hymn,  in  Jov.  v.  9.  See  fome  jiift 
 llridlures  on  Callimachus,  on  account  of  his  denying 
 the  death  of  Jupiter,  in  Athenagoras,  Legat.  pro 
 Chriftian.  p.  121,   122.  ed.  Oxon. 
 
 '  Ev  ^£  <re  ncc^^xa-i-/!  Penj  T£x£.  In  Parrhafia  vero  te  Rhea 
 peperit.  v.  10.     See  v.  15,  16,  17. 
 
 ^   Ov  as  ^Euv  BcrcTYivoc-  itaJK^i,  Bsauv,   i^yot,  oe  yi^^t^Vy 
 
 £lj  T£  /3i)5,    TO  T£  V.Oi^'VO^iy    v.,  T.  "K*       V.  ()(iy   6j, 
 
 Non  te  regem  deorum  fecerunt  fortes,  fed  opera  manu- 
 um,  tuaque  vis  et  robur.  — —  Thefe  were  the  ufual 
 grounds  of  deifying  men. 
 
 *  Lucian.  de  facrihciis,  torn.  i.  p.  367.  ed.  Amftel. 
 1687.  Cicero,  fpeaking  of  the  Jupiter  born  in  Crete, 
 fays,  Cujus  in  ilia  infula  fepulchrum  oftenditur,  Nat. 
 Deor.  1.  3.  c.  21.  Pythagoras  wrote  upon  the  tomb 
 of  the  Cretan  Jupiter  the  following  epigram  : 
 
 Slot  ^ocvuv  jcEtrai  Zav,  ov  Aia  y.iy.X-zi&Kao'ni, 
 
 Za»,  nvhom  men  call  Jupiter y  lies  here  deceafed.  Por- 
 phyr,  Vit.  Pythagor.  p.  187.  ed.  Cantab.  1655.  Ac- 
 cording to  Euhemerus,  the  infcription  upon  Jupiter's 
 
 tomb 
 
in  poUJhed  Nations,  241 
 
 Siculus  *  relates,  that  the  remains  of  it 
 were  to  be  feen  in  his  time.  He  was 
 highly  celebrated  for  his  wifdom  and 
 valour,  and  reigned  over  a  large  part  of 
 the  earth.  Having  reftrained  violence, 
 eftablifhed  laws,  promoted  the  welfare 
 of  fociety,  and  rendered  himfelf  an  emi- 
 nent benefadlor  to  his  fubjefts  and  to 
 mankind,  he  was  judged  worthy  of 
 an  eternal  kingdom,  and  a  feat  in 
 Olympus,  by   the  whole  human  race". 
 
 R  The 
 
 tomb  was,  Zuv  K^ova,  Jupiter  Satuml.  La£lant.  Epi- 
 tome, torn.  2.  c.  13.  p.  10.  ed.  Dufrefnoy.  Suidas 
 fays,  that,  when  he  was  dying,  he  ordered  his  body  to 
 be  buried  in  the  illand  of  Crete  ;    and  that  the  infcrip- 
 
 tion  upon  his  tomb  was,    Ev^a^s  y.men  ^otvuv  UyiKoq  o  Zsvq, 
 
 He  adds,  that  very  many  writers  made  mention  of  his 
 tomb.  Suidas,  voc.  Orjxoj.  —  Apud  infulam  Cretam 
 fepulturse  traditus,  fays  Arnobius,  p.  135. 
 
 *  L.  3.  p.  230.  ed.  WciT. 
 
 "  Euhemerus  Jovem  tradit,  cum  quinqules  orbem 
 circumiviifet,  et  amicis  fuis  atque  cognatis  diftribuijTet 
 imperia,  legefque  hominibus,  multaque  alia  bona  fecif- 
 fet,  immortali  gloria  memoriaque  afFedum  fempiterna, 
 in  Creta  vitam  commutafTe,  atque  ad  deos  abiiffe.  Lac- 
 tant.  Epitome,  c.  13.  torn.  2.  p.  10. — Diodorus  Sicu- 
 lus, 1.5.  p.  387,  388.    after  enumerating  the  bleffings 
 
 of 
 
242         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 The  Cretans,  in  particular,  who  gloried 
 in  having  his  tomb  amongft  them,  ho- 
 noured him  with  m.ore  excellent  rites 
 and  facrifices  than  their  other  deities, 
 regarded  him  as  the  ruler  of  all  things 
 in  heaven  -,.  of  fliowers,  thunder  and 
 lightening,  and  of  the  temperature  of 
 the  air,  on  which  the  fruits  of  the  earth 
 depend ;  and  called  him  Zen^  becaufe  to 
 him  they  owe  their  lives  or  the  means 
 of   fubfiftence  ^^       The    reprefentation 
 
 made 
 
 of  his  reign,  fays  :  Aia  ^e  ra  ^.tyt^oq  rm  evs^yBcriuv,  kou. 
 Tvv  vjn^o^nv  Tviq  ovva^iuq^  <xv^(piiivuq  ocvtcj   iru^a,  itccwuv  (jvy- 
 
 ?.a?  aTravra^-,  x,  r.  A.  Sacra  etiam  prae  caeteris  exquifita 
 ipfi  peragi  inllitutum  ;  et,  poll  migrationem  e  terris  in 
 coelum,  jufta  rnentibus  hominum,  in  quos  beneficia 
 contulerat,  perfuafio  infixa  eft,  quod  omnium  quae  in 
 ccelo  f.unt,  imbrium,  inquam,  et  tonitruum,  fulmi- 
 numque,  et  id  genus  aliorum,  arbiter  (it  et  moderator. 
 Ideoque  Ze;ia  ipfum  vocant,  propterea  quod  vivendi, 
 quod  Zen  Graecis  eft,  audlor  efl'e,  dum  commoda  aeris 
 temperie  frudus  ad  maturitatem  perducit,  exiftimatur. 
 Diod.  Sic.  p.  388.  —  Compare  the  account  which  Dio- 
 dorus  gives  of  the  Jupiter  of  the  Atlantians.      He  was 
 
 called 
 
/;/  poUJI:ed  Nations ,  243 
 
 made  of  the  Grecian  Jupiter  by  Homer, 
 notwithftanding  his  magnificent  defcrip- 
 tions  of  him,  is  perfedly  conformable 
 to  the  account  here  given  of  his  low  ori- 
 gin. If,  according  to  Homer,  Jupiter 
 reigned  over  the  gods,  and  fhook  all 
 heaven  with  his  nod,  yet,  according  to 
 the  fame  poet,  he  wanted  the  affiftance 
 of  Briareus  to  fave  him  from  the  violence 
 of  Neptune,  Juno,  and  Minerva ''.  The 
 paffions  and  vices  afcribed  to  him  fliew 
 that  he  partook  of  the  nature  of  man. 
 In  Plato's  Euthyphro,  where  he  is  ftiled, 
 
 called  Zen,     ^»a  to   ookhv   th    xci7\U(;   1^y,v  ocitiov  yevsa-^cci  Tof^ 
 
 uiuva,  ra  crv/xTravTog  xoo-jixa.  L.  3.  p.  230.  ed.  WefT.  —  As 
 to  Jupiter's  ruling  in  the  air,  it  is  illuftrated  by  the 
 account  oiThor,  given  above,  p.  36.  note  '^. 
 
 *  See  Difiert.  on  Mir.  p.  177.  Plutarch  quotes  the 
 following  lines  from  Homer,  which  well  agree  with 
 what  occurs  in  this  reference.  Speaking  of  Jupiter  and 
 Neptune,  the  poet  fays  : 
 
 Both  of  one  line^   both  of  one  country,  hoaji  ; 
 
 But  royal  fo've's  the  eldeji,  atid  knows  moft, 
 Plutarch.  If.  et  Ofir.  p.  351. 
 
 R  2  the 
 
244         JVorfiip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 the  bejl  and  mojl  juft  ^  of  the  gods^  he  is  at 
 the  fame  time  reprefented  as  holding  his 
 father  in  chains.  In  the  very  rites  of 
 his  worfliip,  there  was  a  manifeft  refe- 
 rence to  the  hiftory  of  his  infant  condi- 
 tion ^.  But  it  is  needlefs  to  multiply 
 proofs  in  fo  plain  a  cafe.  I  mull  not 
 however  omit  to  obferve,  that  the  men- 
 tion made  by  the  Heathens,  of  his  pa- 
 rents and  more  remote  anceftors,  of  his 
 brethren,  defcendents,  and  kindred  %  is 
 a  farther  proof  of  his  belonging  to  the 
 human  race.  And,  if  this  was  the  cafe 
 as  to  Jupiter,  it  muft  be  the  fame  as  to 
 the  other  gods  and  goddeffes   who  were 
 
 y  Apifo;  Koci  ^ixcciorarot;.  Platon.  EutKyphro,  p.  5. 
 torn.  I.  ed.  Serrani. 
 
 ^  Ipfius  Cretici  Jovis  facra,  quid  aliud,  quam  quo- 
 modo  fit,  aut  fubtradus  patri,  aut  nutritus,  oflendunt  ? 
 Capella  ell  Amaltheae  nymphas,  quae  uberibus  fuis  aluit 
 infiiitem.    Ladant.  1.  i.  c.  21.  p.  100. 
 
 ^  Arnobius  thus  addrefies  the  Heathens :  At  vero 
 Jupiter,  ut  'vos  fertis,  et  patrem  habet  et  matrem,  a- 
 vos,  avias,  fratres.  Adv.  Gentes.  p.  19.  —  See  alfo 
 p.  92,  93,  and  what  Laftantius  advances  on  this  fub- 
 jc<?c,  upon  the  authority  of  Euhemerus  and  Ennius, 
 lib.  I.  c.  14.  and  Epitome  Div.  Inftitut.  torn.  2,  c.  13. 
 
 of 
 
in  polijhed  Nations .  245 
 
 of  the   fame   family  with  him,  and  of 
 whom  he  was  chiefs. 
 
 R  3  From 
 
 ^  It  may  not  be  improper  to  obferve,  that,  if  the 
 i'vuel've  gods  of  Greece  had  not  been  known  to  be  of 
 human  defcent,  Demades  could  never  have  th';ug:ht  of 
 adding  Alexander  to  that  number,  and  making  him 
 the  thirteenth.  It  was  becaufe  Alexander  thoug:ht  him- 
 felf  not  inferior  to  Dionyfus,  that  he  pleaded  his  ha- 
 ving an  equal  right  with  him  to  the  worfliip  of  the  A- 
 rabians.  Above,  p.  85,  86,  His  hope  of  becoming 
 one  of  the  gods  of  Egypt  (fee  above,  p.  168.)  mull 
 have  been  founded  upon  the  fame  principle ;  and  the 
 conduiSt  of  Demades  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  any 
 other.  The  Athenians  indeed  were  offended  with  the 
 orator  ;  but  it  was  (ot»  hvnrtjv  avrov  ^n  rov  AXs^ca^cov  cvroc 
 tny^cc-^B  roiq  OXfp,7not$)  becaufe  he  enrolled  Alexander, 
 while  he  was  Hill  a  mere  mortal  man,  amongfl  the  gods 
 who  inhabited  Olympus,  or  heaven.  Though  heaven 
 was  peopled  from  the  earth,  yet  the  Athenians  judged 
 it  impious  to  decree  thofe  honours  to  any  one  while  a 
 man  only,  (for  Alexander  was  now  living,)  v/hich 
 were  peculiar  to  the  oldeft  of  their  gods.  iElian.  Var. 
 Hill.  1.  5.  c.  12.  Comp.  1.  2.  c.  19.  —  The  people  of 
 Cyzicum  were  fomewhat  lefs  fcrupulous  ;  for  they  cal- 
 led Adrian,  the  thirteenth  god,  T^ta-xcnot)ia,rov  Stov.  So- 
 crat.  Hill.  Ecclef.  1.  3.  c.  23.  p.  205.  — ■  What  this 
 hillorian  relates  in  this  place  concerning  Cleomedes, 
 that  the  oracle  required  men  to  honour  him  with  r..cri- 
 fices,  u^  /xijKETi  SK/iTov  EovTOi,  utpote  qui  non  amplius  fit 
 mortalis,  explains  the  motive,  on  which  the  Athenians 
 
 aded. 
 
246         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 From  the  whole  of  what  has  been  of- 
 fered in  this  feftion,  we  may  conclude, 
 that,  amongft  the  Greeks,  however  they 
 might  acknowledge  the  natural  gods,  yet 
 the  dead  men  and  women,  whom  they 
 
 afted,  in  a  manner  confiftent  with  the  fuppofition  of 
 the  twelve  gods  having  been  once  men.  Philip  was  cal- 
 led rpiaytccihy.otto^  Seo?.      Stob.  Serm.  96.    p.  534. 
 
 Mr.  Fell  affirms,  p.  24.  "  that  I  cannot  bring  any  de- 
 "  cifive  evidence  to  fhew,  that  fuch*'  (that  is,  religious) 
 *'  worfhip  was  paid  to  a  human  fpirit  under  the  term 
 "  Jupiter,'*'*  I  do  not  know  how  any  writer  could  fur- 
 nifh  his  readers  with  more  decifi've  e^videncey  to  fhew 
 how  little  knowledge  he  had  of  the  fubjeft,  with  which 
 he  would  feem  to  be  well  acquainted.  Without  ap- 
 pealing to  the  fads  already  flatcd,  I  would  obferve, 
 thatVarro  (ap.  TertuUian.  Apol.  c.  14.)  reckoned  up 
 three  hundred  Jupiters ;  and  that  probably  there  were 
 many  more  ;  it  being  cuHomary  with  the  ancients  to 
 give  this  name  to  thofe  eminent  perfons  who  either  firft 
 founded  a  ftate,  or  contributed  greatly  to  it's  profpe- 
 rity,  and  whom  they  raifed  to  the  rank  of  gods,  and 
 worfhipped  as  fuch.  Thus  Ammon,  Dagon,  Belus, 
 and  ^neas,  were  fevcrally  ftiled  Jupiter,  As  almoll 
 t.vtry  country  had  it's  Jupiter,  fo  fome  countries  had 
 feveral.  The  Lacedemonians  bellowed  upon  their 
 kings  t^wo  priejihoods ;  that  of  the  Lacedemonian,  and 
 that  of  the  cclejiial,  Jupiter.  Herodot.  1. 6.  c.  68. 
 Upon  the  fepulchre  of  Minos  in  Crete  was  this  infcrip- 
 tion,  Ti^  Ajo?,  the  fepulchre  of  Jupiter,  Sir  If.  Newton's 
 Short  Chronicle,  p.  Z2. 
 
 vainly 
 
A 
 
 in  poUJJoed  Natiom,  247 
 
 vainly  deified,  were  the  more  immediate 
 and  principal  objefts  of  their  pubhc  wor- 
 fliip. 
 
 SECT.     VI. 
 
 It  remains  to  he  fiewn^  that  human  fplrits 
 were  worjhipped  by  the  Romans. 
 
 S  the  Romans  deriv^ed  their  religion 
 from  Greece,  Egypt,  and  the  Eaft, 
 we  are  naturally  led  to  expe6l  a  confor- 
 mity between  their  objefls  of  worfhip 
 and  thofe  of  the  nations  here  fpecified ; 
 in  which  it  has  been  already  proved,  that 
 dead  men  and  women  were  deified. 
 
 iEneas,  from  whom  the  Romans 
 claimed  to  be  defcended,  brought  from 
 Troy  into  Italy  }\\s  houfehold gods^^  who 
 were  the  fouls  of  his  departed  anceftors''; 
 
 R  4  and 
 
 ^  Cum  fociis,  natoque,  penatibus,  et  magnis  dis. 
 
 Virg.  JEw.lll.  12. 
 See  alfo  VIII.  679. 
 
 •'  The  Phrygian  pcnates^  in  their  addrefs  to  ^Eneas, 
 after  making  mention  of  Dardanus,  add,  genus  a  quo 
 Principe  nojirum.  Mn.  111.  l^y  168.  See  Servius  in 
 loc.     This  learned  commentator  fays,  Penates  funt  cm- 
 
 nes 
 
248         WorJJnp  of  human  spirits 
 
 and  the  great  gods,  who  probably  were 
 the  Samothracian  deities  ftiled  Cabirs^  or 
 great  and /ow^r/2^/ divinities  *  (natives  of 
 Phenicia,  fpoken  of  above  ^).  We  are 
 farther  informed,  that  the  Trojan  prince 
 eflablifhed  religious  ceremonies  in  ho- 
 nes dii  qui  domi  coluntur.  >£n.  II.  514.  They  are 
 fpoken  of  as  the  guardian  deities  of  Troy,  JEn. 11,  293, 
 More  will  be  faid  concerning  the  penates  in  this  fe£lion. 
 
 *  The  penates  being  czWed  magni ,  JEn,  IX.  258.  and 
 tnagni  diiy    Macrob.  1.  3.  c.  4.    fome  fuppofe  that  the 
 magni  dii  were  the  fame  as  the  penates  :  (Servius,  on 
 iEn.  III.  12.)  but,  in  the  pafTage  cited  above,  note  % 
 they  feem  to  be  diftinguifhed.     The  Phenicians,  who 
 fettled  in  Samothrace,  introduced  there  the  worfhip  of 
 the  Cahirs\  and,  from  Samothrace,  their  myfteries  were 
 probably  carried  into  Phrygia  by  Dardanus :   (fee  Plu- 
 tarch's Camillus,  p.  139.)    and,  as  the  Cahirs  anfwer 
 the  import  of  Virgil's  magni  diiy  they  are  probably  here 
 intended.      Some  think  that,  by  the  magni  d^i,  Virgil 
 means  Jupiter,  Minerva,  and  Mercury.  Servius  on  Mn, 
 VIII.  6jg.  III.  264.      ^neas,  it  was  generally    faid, 
 brought   into  Italy   the  image  of  Pallas  or  Minerva  ; 
 (Plutarch,  ubi  fupra  ;)  who,  according  to  Virgil,  was 
 the  in'ventrefs  of  oil,     Georg.  I.   15. 
 
 '  P.  140.  where  it  might  have  been  obferved,  that, 
 though  Herodotus  mentions,  he  does  not  appear  to  fa- 
 vour, the  opinion  of  thofe  who  thought  the  Cabirs  to 
 
 be  the  fons  of  Vulcan. 
 
 nour 
 
in  polijhed  Nations.  249 
 
 nour  of  his  father's  genius  ^ ;  inftrufted 
 the  people  in  the  facred  rites  due  to  the 
 dead  ^ ;  and  was  himfelf,  after  his  deceafe, 
 worfhipped  under  the  title  of  Jupiter 
 Indiges^.  From  thefe  fafts  it  appears, 
 that,  both  in  the  country  he  had  left, 
 and  amongfl:  his  own  defcendents  in 
 Italy,  gods  of  human  origin  were  wor- 
 fliipped,  and  reprefented  by  facred  ima- 
 ges \ 
 
 8  Ille  patris  genio  folemnla  dona  ferebat : 
 Hinc  populi  ritus  edidicere  pios. 
 
 Ovid.  FaftI,  1.  II.  545. 
 Goncerning  the  worfhip  of  Anchifes,  fee  Virg.   ^n. 
 VII.  133.    and  V.  58,  59.      Compare  Ladant.    1.  i. 
 c.  15.  p.  66j  Sj, 
 
 ^  Situs  eft,  (^neas,)  quemcunque  eum  dicijusfaf- 
 que  eft,  fuper  Numicium  flumen  :  Jo'vem  indigetem  ap- 
 pellant. Liv.  I.  2. 
 
 Illic  fanflus  eris,  quum  te  veneranda  Numici 
 Unda  deiim  coelo  miferit  indigetem. 
 
 Tibull.  rr.  5,  45. 
 Concerning  the  worlhip  of  iEncas,  fee  Dionyf.  Hali- 
 carn.  Antiq.  Rom.  p.  42. 
 
 »  The  penates  which  ^ncas  brought  Into  Italy  are 
 called  lignea  'vel  lapidea  Jtgllla.  Servius  on  ^En.  III.  148. 
 from  Varro.  See  Dionyf.  Halicarn.  Antiq.  Rom.  1.  i. 
 c.  67.  p.  53.  ed.  Oxon. 
 
 The 
 
250         Worjhip  of  hitman  spirits 
 
 The  Romans,  it  is  true,  were  for- 
 bidden by  Numa  to  reprefent  the  gods 
 either  under  a  human  or  brutal  form  ; 
 and  accordingly  had  no  fuch  reprefenta- 
 tions  of  them  for  the  firfl:  hundred  and 
 feventy  years  ^.  This  feems  to  have 
 given  occafion  to  a  late  writer  *  to  affert, 
 ''•  that  the  Grecian  idolatry  was  not  ad- 
 "  mitted  amongft  the  Romans  for  above 
 "  an  hundred  and  feventy  years  after 
 ^'  Romulus."  If,  by  the  Grecian  idola^ 
 try^  the  gentleman  means  the  worfhip 
 of  images,  his  affertion  could  not  anfwer 
 his  defign  of  refuting  what  was  advanced 
 concerning  the  heathen  gods  in  the  Dif- 
 fertation  on  Miracles  :  but,  if  he  thereby 
 means  the  worfhip  of  deified  men,  (which 
 his  argument  plainly  requires,)  he  was 
 certainly  under  a  great  miftake.  Ro- 
 mulus, who  was  killed   in  the   thirty- 
 
 ^  Plutarchi  Numa,  p.  65.  Varro,  ap.  Auguft.  Civ. 
 Dei,  1.  4.  c.  31.  —  Statues  and  images  were  afterwards 
 introduced  at  Rome.  Florus,  I.  5.  Tertullian.  Apol. 
 c.  25. 
 
 *  Fell,  p.  14. 
 
 feventh 
 
in  polijkcd  Nations.  251 
 
 feventh  year  of  Rome,  had  divine  ho- 
 nours decreed  to  him  by  the  people  ; 
 the  fenate  concurring  in  raifing  him  to 
 the  rank  of  a  god,  though  they  abhor- 
 red him  as  a  king  ™.  Nay,  Numa,  his 
 immediate  fucceiTor,  (that  very  Numa 
 who  forbad  the  ufe*  of  images,  and  is 
 thought  by  fome  to  have  accompliflied 
 fome  fuch  reformation,  amongft  the  Ro- 
 mans, as  Zoroafter  is  faid  to  have  done 
 amongft  the  Perfians,)  built  a  temple, 
 appointed  facrifices,  and  added  a  prieft, 
 in  honour  of  Romulus ". 
 
 Amongft  other  laws  refpecling  reli- 
 gion, he  ordained  the  following  :  Let 
 all  honour  the  ancient  gods  of  heaven^  and 
 thofe  lohofe  merits  have  carried  them  thi^ 
 ther  ;  fuch  as  Hercules^  Bacchus ^  JEfcula- 
 
 *"  The  fenators,  who  had  murdered  Romulus,  pcr- 
 fuaded  the  people  that  he  was  tranfiated  to  the  gods  ; 
 and  that,  having  been  an  indulgent  king,  he  would 
 now  be  to  them  a  propitious  deity.    Plutarchi  Romulus, 
 
 P-  34»  35- 
 
 "  Dionyf.  Kal.  vol.  i.  p.  119.  Oxon.  —  Plutarchi 
 Numa,  p.  64.  C.  —  Liv.  I.  20. 
 
 pius^ 
 
252         WorJJnp  of  hujnan  Spirits 
 
 fius^  Caftor^  Pollux y  and  ^lirinus"*.  By 
 the  ancient  gods  of  heaven  ^5  we  are  not  to 
 iinderftand  gods  that  exifted  from  eter- 
 nity %    but  fuch  as  had  been  in  heaven 
 
 from 
 
 *>  Dlvos,  et  eos  qui  ccelefles  femper  habiti,  colunto, 
 et  olios  quos  endo  coelo  merita  vocaverint  ;  Herculem, 
 Liberum,  u^fculapium,  Caftorem,  PoUucem,  Quiri- 
 num.     Cicero,  de  Legibus,  I.  2.  c.  8. 
 
 P  So  Hook  (Roman  Hiilory,  vol.  i,  p.  59.)  tranf- 
 lates  cpslejles  femper  hahiti  ;  whom  I  have  followed,  be- 
 caufe  it  does  not  appear  he  had  any  particular  hypo- 
 thefis  to  fupport  by  this  tranflation. 
 
 1  Arnobius,  adv.  Gentes,  p.  92,  93.  well  obferves : 
 Ipli  dii  immorfaleSf  quorum  modo  aditis  templa,  et  nu- 
 mina  fuppliciter  adoratis,  ficut  vellris  Uteris  atque  opi- 
 nlonibus  traditur,  non  effe,  non  fciri,  ab  temporibus 
 cceperunt  certis,  et  impofitis  nominum  appellationibus 
 nuncupari  ?  Nam,  ii  verum  eft,  ex  Saturno  atque  ejus 
 uxore  Jovem  fuis  cum  fratribus  procreatum  ;  ante  nup- 
 tias  et  partus  Opis  nufquam  fuerat  Jupiter  tam  fupre- 
 mus,  quam  Stygius :    nufquam  fali  dominus,    nufquam 
 
 Juno. Rurfus   vero,   fi   Liber,   Venus,   Diana, 
 
 Mercurius,  Apollo,  Hercules,  Mufae,  Tyndaridai  Caf- 
 tores,  ignipotenfque  Vulcanus,  Jove  patre  funt  pro- 
 diti,  et  genitore  Saturnio  procreati,  antequam  Memo- 
 ria,  quam  Alcmena,  Maia,  Juno,  Latona,  Leda,  Di- 
 one,  tum  et  Semela,  Diefpitri  fa6laj  funt  compreFio- 
 nibus  fcetae,  nufquam  et  hi  gentium,  nee  in  aliqua 
 parte  rerum  fuere  naturae,  fed  ex  conventu  Jovis  infe- 
 minati  et  nati  funt,  et  aliquem  fenfum  fui  habere  cce- 
 perunt. 
 
in  polljhed  Nations.  253 
 
 from  the  beginnings  or  from  the  earliejl 
 ages.  To  thefe,  fix  more  were  added  in 
 later  times,  who  are  univerfally  allowed 
 to  have  been  men,  but  who  were  emi- 
 nently diftinguifhed  from  many  other 
 heroes,  by  being  admitted  into  the  com- 
 munity of  the  celeftiai  or  Olympian 
 gods.  Both  thefe  orders  of  deities  the 
 people  were  required  to  worfliip  by  Nu- 
 ma  ;  which  is  a  demonftration  that,  in 
 his  time,  notwithftanding  his  prohibi- 
 tion of  images,  (which  had  been  before 
 allowed,)  the  Romans  acknowledged 
 mortal  gods.  This  agrees  with  what 
 has  been  obferved  concerning  the  Ger- 
 mans, Perfians,    and  Phenicians  at  Ga- 
 
 perunt.  Et  hi  quoque  a  tempore  efTe  coeperunt  certo, 
 et,  in  numero  numinum,  facrorum  ad  caeremonias  in- 
 vocari.  —  The  natural  gods  were  called  eternal \  (Diod. 
 Sic.  p.  14.)  and  to  thefe  Varro  refers  when  he  fays, 
 Deos  alios  efle,  qui  ab  initio  certi  et  fempiterni  funt. 
 He  adds.  Alios,  qui  immortales  ex  hominibus  fa6li  funt. 
 Servius  on  Virg.  Mn.  VIII.  275.  —  It  is  impofTible  to 
 admit  the  eternity  of  the  ancient  gods  of  hea^ven,  becaufe 
 they  were  tranflated  thither  from  the  earth  ;  as  will  be 
 fhewn  immediately. 
 
 des^ 
 
254  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 des,  who  worfhipped  human  fpirits, 
 though  they  had  no  images. 
 
 The  law  of  Numa,  juft  now  cited, 
 became  a  law  of  the  twelve  tables ',  and 
 remained  in  force  in  all  fucceeding  times. 
 From  hence  it  follows,  that  human  fpi- 
 rits were,  in  every  age,  worfhipped  at 
 Rome,  and  even  were  the  principal  ob- 
 jects of  the  eftablifhed  worfhip  in  that 
 city.  For  the  ancient  gods  of  heaven j 
 fpoken  of  in  the  laws  of  the  twelve  ta- 
 bles, were  no  other  than  the  following 
 twelve  fuperior  gods  of  the  Romans, 
 
 Juno,  Vella,  Minerva,  Ceres,  Diana,  Venus,  Mars, 
 Mercurius,  Jovis,  Neptunus,  Vulcanus,  Apollo ' ; 
 
 and  thefe  were  the  fame  with  the  twelve 
 iuperior  gods  of  the  Greeks,  who  were 
 proved  in  the  laft  fe6lion  to  be  no  other 
 
 *  Laws  of  the  twelve  tables,  tab.  2.  feft,  4. 
 
 »  Thefe  gods  were  often  fimply  called  the  tvjel've 
 goJs.  They  were  termed  celejiial  and  Olympian  j  and, 
 both  in  Greece  and  at  Rome,  were  confidered  as  gods 
 of  the  highefl  rank  and  dignity.  They  were  worfhip- 
 ped in  conjun£lion.  We  read  of  the  altar  of  the  12 
 gods,  Plutarch,  in  Nicia,  p.  531.  F.  and  of  a  fupper 
 called  ^woEKa^soj.   Sueton.  Auguft.  70. 
 
 than 
 
/;;  poUJhed  Nations .  255 
 
 than  deified  men  and  women.  All  the 
 arguments,  ufed  to  eftablifli  the  huma- 
 nity of  the  one,  conclude  equally  with 
 refpeft  to  the  other.  I  fliall  here  pro- 
 duce fome  proofs  of  the  human  origin 
 of  the  twelve  gods  of  the  Romans,  which 
 will  confirm  what  has  been  already  of- 
 fered concerning  thofe  of  the  Greeks. 
 
 Cicero,  the  moft  learned  as   well  as 
 
 eloquent  of  all  the  Romans,    who  had 
 
 paid  particular  attention  to  the  fubjecl 
 
 of  the  heathen  theology,  and  was  him- 
 
 felf  a   prieft  of  high   rank,    contends, 
 
 '  that  the  whole  heaven  was  almoft  en- 
 
 ^  tirely  filled    with   the  human  race  > 
 
 '  that  even  the  fuperior  order  of  gods,. 
 
 ^  or  gods  of  the  greater  nations,  were 
 
 '  originally    natives     of     this     lower 
 
 ^  world,    as    could    be    proved    from 
 
 '  the  writers  of  Greece  ^  that  their  fe- 
 
 ^  pulchres  v/ere  fhewn  openly  in  that 
 
 '  country ;  and  that  the  traditions  con- 
 
 ^  cerning  them  were  preferved  in  the 
 
 *'  myfteries." 
 
256         Worfiip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 "  myfteries*/'  If  thefe  fa6ls  had  not 
 been  too  notorious  to  be  concealed,  Ci- 
 cero would  not  have  appealed  to  them 
 in  this  open  manner  ;  knowing,  as  he 
 did,  the  difcredit  it  brought  upon  the 
 public  religion.  He  himfelf  has  put 
 the  following  language  into  the  mouth 
 ,  of  Cotta  :  "  Are  not  thofe  void  of  all 
 religion,  who  teach,  that  the  brave, 
 illuftrious,  and  potent,  amongft  men, 
 *'  become  gods  after  death ;  and  that 
 thefe  very  perfons  are  at  this  time  the 
 objefts  of  our  prayers  and  folemn 
 worihip"?" 
 
 (C 
 
 cc 
 
 <  Quid  ?  totum  prope  coeliim,  ne  plures  perfequaf, 
 nonne  humano  genere  completum  ell  ?  Si  vero  fcrutari 
 Vetera,  et  ex  his  ea,  quae  fcriptores  Gra^ci.^  prodide- 
 runt,  eruere  coner  ;  ipfi  illi,  majorum  gentium  dii  qui 
 habentur,  hinc  a  nobis  profedi  in  coelum  reperientur. 
 Quasre,  quorum  demonftrantur  fepulchra  in  Graecia : 
 Tcminifcere,  quoniam  es  initiatus,  quze  traduntur  in 
 myfteriis  :  turn  denique,  quam  late  hoc  pateat,  intel- 
 liges.    Tufc.  QurEft.   1.  i.   c.  12. 
 
 »  Quid  ?  qui  aut  fortes,  aut  claros,  aut  potentes  vi- 
 ros,  tradunt  poft  mortem  ad  deos  pervenille,  eofque 
 cfTe  ipfos,  quos  nos  colere,  precari,  venerariqiie  folea- 
 mus,  nonne  expertes  funt  religionum  omnium?  Cicer. 
 Nat.  Deor.   1.  i.  c.  42. 
 
 St. 
 
in  poliJJoed  Nations.  2  5  "^ 
 
 St.  Auftin  "^  confirms  the  teftimony  of 
 Cicero,  when  he  fays :  ^^  You  cannot 
 "  find,  or  can  hardly  find,  in  all  the 
 *'  writings  of  the  Heathens,  any  gods 
 "  but  fuch  as  had  been  men  ;  neverthe- 
 "  lefs  to  all  of  them  they  pay  divine 
 *^  honours,  as  if  they  had  never  be- 
 *'  longed  to  the  human  race."  And, 
 though  Varro  endeavoured  to  apply  what 
 is  related  of  the  twelve  fuperior  gods, 
 and  many  others,  to  the  parts  or  ele- 
 ments of  the  world,  yet  St.  Auftin  fays, 
 they  were  difcovered  to  have  been  men  ''. 
 And,  indeed,  if  the  twelve  fuperior  gods 
 had  not  been  fuch,  how  came  it  to  pafs 
 that  fix  men    viz,  Hercules,  Bacchus, 
 
 *'  Non  attendant,  in  omnibus  Uteris  paganorum,  aut 
 Bon  inveniri,  aut  vix  inveniri  deos,  qui  non  homines 
 fuerint  ;  omnibus  taraen  honores  ftudeant  exhibere  di- 
 vinos,  quafi  nihil  unquam  humanitatis  habuerint. 
 Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,   1.  8.   c.  26. 
 
 *  Ipfi  etiam  majorum  gentium  dii,  quos  Cicero,  in 
 Tufculanis,  tacitis  nominibus  videtur  attingere,  Jupi- 
 ter, Juno,  Saturnus,  Vulcanus,  VeHa,  et  aliiplurimi, 
 quos  Varro  conatur  ad  mundi  partes  five  elementa  tranf- 
 ferre,  homines  fuiiTe  produntur.    Id.  ib.  c.  5. 
 
 S  iEfculapius, 
 
258  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 i^fculapius,  Caftor,  Pollux,  and  Qui- 
 rinus,  were  raifed  to  the  fame  rank  with 
 the  twelve  ?  Cicero  fpeaks  of  Romulusi 
 and  many  others,  as  received  info  heaven-^ 
 juji  as  7iew  citizens  are  enrolled  amongjl  the 
 old  ^  y  and,  confequently,  as  becoming 
 entitled  to  equal  privileges  with  the  an- 
 cient celeftial  gods.  According  to  Pin- 
 dar, Hercules  dwelt  with  Jupiter ""  ^  and 
 both  are  reprefented  together,  on  old  air 
 tars,  with  this  infcriptipn,  7i  the  great 
 gods  *.  And  very  probably  there  was  no 
 greater  difference  ^  between  the  new  and 
 the  old  gods  of  heaven,  than  what  might 
 
 fubfift 
 
 y  Romulum  noflri  habent,  aliofque  complures,  quos* 
 quafi  novos  et  afcripticios  cives  in  coelum  receptos  pu- 
 t'ant.    Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  15, 
 
 Romulus  in  ccelo  cum  diis  agit  asvum. 
 
 Ennius,  ap.  Cicer.  I.  Tufc,  Q^  c.  12, 
 Bacchus  and  Hercules  were  filled  Olympian.  Diodor^ 
 Sic.  1.4.  p.  261. 
 
 icci-ci.    Pindar.  Ifthm.  Od.  IV.  94,  99. 
 
 *  See  above,  p.  J73.  note',  p.  174.  notes  *  and  /. 
 
 ^  The  difference  that  was  made  between  the  old  and 
 jiew  celeflial  gods  was  fonxetimes  to  the  advantage  of 
 
 the 
 
in  policed  Nations,  259 
 
 fubfift   between    the    old    gods    theni- 
 felves. 
 
 Three  of  the  latter  (viz.  Jupiter, 
 Juno,  and  Minerva)  feem  to  have  been 
 more  difllnguifhed  by  the  Romans  *"  than 
 the  other  nine.  They  were  the  penates 
 or  guardian  deities  of  the  Roman  ftate 
 and  people  ^      And  though  Macrobius, 
 
 S  2  .  as 
 
 the  latter.  —  Quid  ?    Apollinem,  Vulcanum,   Mercu-  ' 
 rium,  cajteros,  dcos   efTe  dices  :    de  Hercule,  .^fcula- 
 pio,  Libero,  Caftore,  Pollii<:e,  dubitabis  ?     At  hi  qui- 
 dem    coluntur  seque   atque  illi  ;    apud  quofdam  etiam 
 multo  magis.    Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  I.  3.  c.  18. 
 
 <=  Particularly  by  Cicero,  in  the  clofe  of  his  fpeech 
 againft  Verres  :  Nunc  te,  Jupiter,  Opti?ne,  Maxhne,  te- 
 que,  Juno  regina,  et  Miner-va  !  And  by  Livy,  1.  3, 
 §.  17.  Jupiter,  Optimus,  Maximus,  Juno  regina,  et 
 Minerva,  alii  dii  deasque,  obfidentur.  Concerning  thefe 
 three  deities  Tertullian  is  fuppofed  to  fpeak  :  Ante  has 
 tres  ars;  trinis  diis  parent,  tnagnis,  potentibus,  "valenti* 
 bus,     De  Spedliic.   c.  4. 
 
 ^  Macrobius  ftiles  thefe  three  deities  penates,  Saturn, 
 1.3.  c.  4.  And  Livy,  (1.  3.  §.17.)  after  mentioning 
 Jupiter,  Juno,  and  Minerva,  in  his  account  of  the  Ca- 
 pitol's being  befieged,  adds,  Caftra  fervorum  publicos 
 veftros  penates  tenent.  Jupiter  is  called  by  Cicero 
 cujios  hujus  urlisy  in  Catil.  1.  3.  §.  162.  The  fame  title 
 is.  given  to  Minerva.  Id.  Orat.  proDomo,  57.  And  Juno 
 
 is 
 
26o         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 as  a  philofopher,  explains  the  penates 
 phyfically  \  as  he  alfo  does  the  other  hea-f 
 then  gods;  yet  Serviiisfays,  that  they  were 
 human  foiils^  which^  by  certain  ceremonies^ 
 were  converted  into  gods  ^  As  to  the  of- 
 fice which  the  Romans  affigned  to  Ju- 
 piter, Juno,  and  Minerva,  as  their  guar- 
 dian deities  and  prefervers  of  the  empire, 
 they  affigned  the  fame  to  thofe  emperors 
 whom  they  reprefented  on  the  reverfe  of 
 the  medals  of  thefe  three  deities  ^ 
 
 is  ftiled  confer'vatrix  in  ancient  infcriptions.  Gruter. 
 p.  25.  Thefe  three  deities  were  joined  together  in  the 
 Capitol.  Spence's  Polymetis,  p.  58.  note 53.  —  Livy 
 (1.  III.  17.)  diftinguilhes  the  penates  into  pri^uate  and 
 public, 
 
 «  Penates  e/Te  dixerunt,  per  quos  penitus  fpiramus, 
 per  quos  habemus  corpus,  per  quos  rationem  animi 
 poflidemus.  ElTe  autem  medium  aethera  Jovem,  Juno- 
 nem  vero  imum  aera  cum  terra,  et  Mineri'am  fummum 
 setheris  cacumen.    Macrob.  Saturnal.  I.  3.   c.  4. 
 
 '  According  to  Servius,  {JEw,  III.  168.)  Labeo,  in 
 libris  qui  appeliantur  de  dzis  animalibus,  (quibus  origo 
 animalis  eft,)  ait,  effe  quadafn  facruy  quibus  anima  hu" 
 marne  "vertantur  in  deosy  qui  appeliantur  animalesy  quod 
 de  animis  fiant .  Hi  autem  funt  dii  penates  et  viales.  — 
 See  Auguft.   Civ.  Dei,  1.  9.    c.  !i. 
 
 «  See  Spence'.s  Polymeti  ,   p.  58.  note  53. 
 
 As 
 
in  polijhed  Nations .  261 
 
 As  three  of  the  twelve  gods  were 
 more  honoured  by  the  Romans  than  the 
 other  nine,  fo  one  of  thefe  three  (viz. 
 Jupiter)  had  fome  pre-eminence  af- 
 ligned  him  above  the  other  two.  He 
 was  generally  ftiled,  the  best  and  the 
 GREATEST  ^.  But  Cicero,  who  gives 
 him  both  thefe  titles,  does  neverthelefs 
 rank  him,  as  we  have  {ttVL^  amongfl  the 
 natives  of  this  lower  world.  Befides  the 
 general  proofs,  produced  here  and  in 
 the  preceding  feftion,  to  fhew  that  the 
 whole  band,  of  which  Jupiter  was  chief, 
 were  of  human  defcent,  there  is  diftinft 
 evidence  that  he  himfelf  in  particular 
 was  confidered  in  this  view  by  the  Ro- 
 mans, as  well  as  by  the  Greeks.  At 
 Rome,  as  well  as  in  Greece,  he  was  de- 
 fcribed  as  the  fon  of  Saturn.  In  the 
 very  Capitol  they  placed  the  ftatue  of 
 his  nurfe,  and  gave  him  the  fhield  cal- 
 led cegisy  becaufe   made  of  the  Ikin  of 
 
 **  Jupiter  a  majoribus  ncftris  optimus  maximus  dicitur. 
 Cicero,  de  Nat.  Deor.   1.  2.  c.  25. 
 
 S  3  the 
 
262  WorJInp  of  hwnan  spirits 
 
 the  flie-goat  which  afforded  him  nourifli- 
 ment'.  In  the  Capitol  likewife  they 
 placed  a  cufhion  or  pallet  on  which  he 
 might  repofe  ^  himfelf,  and  provided  for 
 him  a  magnificent  entertainment  \  Thefe 
 circumllances,  repugnant  as  they  are  to 
 every  rational  conception  of  the  Creator 
 
 i  Quid  de  ipfo  Jove  fenfernnt,  qui  ejus  nutricem  in 
 Capitolio  pofuerunt  ?  Quid  illic  facit  fcutum  illud 
 Jovis,  quod  appel-ant  agida?  Auguil,  Civ.  Dei,  1.  6* 
 c.  7.     De  Conf.  Evang.   1.  i.    c.  23, 
 
 ^  In  Jovis  epolo,  num  alibi  quam  in  Capitolio,  pul- 
 vinar  fufcipi  poteft?  Llv.  V.  52.  —  Habent  dii  ledos ; 
 atque,  ut  ftratis  pofTmt  moUioribus  incubare,  pulvi- 
 norum  toliitur  atque  excitatur  impreffio.  Arnob.  adv. 
 Gentes,  p.  238. 
 
 ^  Jovis  epulum  eras  eft.     Jupiter  enim  coenat,    mag 
 nifque  implendus  eft  dapibus,   jamdudum  inedia  gefti- 
 ens,   et  anniverfaria  interjedlione  jejunus.   Id.  ib.  ■ 
 
 Madant  opimas  ac  pingues  hoftias   Deo,  quafi  efuri- 
 enti ;    profundunt  vina,    tanquam  iitienti.    La6l.  Div. 
 Inft.   1.6.    c.  2.      See  alfo  c.  i.  — This  praftice   was 
 founded  upon  an  ancient  opinion,  that  the  ghofts  of  the 
 dead  really  fed   upon    the   proviiion   carried   to   their 
 tombs.     See  Athenaeus,  p.  427.    and  Kennett's  Roman 
 Antiquities,  p.  361.  and  Potter's  Antiq.  vol.2,  p. 251, 
 257.  —  When   their  bodies  were  burned,    it  was  cufto- 
 mary  to  throw  bread  into  the  funeral  pile.     Terence, 
 Eunuch.  III.  2.  38.   Catull.  Carm.  60. 
 
 of 
 
in  polijhed  Nationu  263 
 
 of  the  univerfe,  accorded  with  their  no- 
 tion of  gods  that  had  been  men  5  who, 
 in  the  other  world,  were  fuppofed  to 
 ftand  in  need  of  the  fame  accommoda- 
 tions which  had  been  agreeable  or  ufe- 
 ful  to  them  in  this ;  and  were  accord- 
 ingly fupplied  with  them  by  their  fur- 
 vivors. 
 
 Befides  the  gods  already  fpecified,  the 
 Romans  had  others  of  the  fame  earthly 
 origin.  JanuSy  to  whom  they  always 
 offered  the  firft  facrifices "",  and  whom 
 they  addreffed  firfl:  in  all  their  prayers ", 
 was  an  ancient  king  of  Italy  °,  who  had 
 this  precedence  in  their  w^orfhip,  be- 
 caufe  he  w^as  the  firft  who  built  tem- 
 ples,   and  inftituted  the   ceremonies  of 
 
 ^  Jane,    tibi  primo  thura  merumque   fero.     Ovid. 
 Falli,  I.   171.     See  note  p  below. 
 
 "  Janus  ■  quern  in  cunclis  anteponitis  precibus. 
 
 Arnob.    adv.  Gent.    1.  3.    p.  117.  —  See  alfo  Macrob. 
 Sit.   1.  I.  c,  9.   p.  158. 
 
 *•  Janum  cum  Saturno  regnafle  memoravimus.    Ma- 
 crob. Sat,  I.  I.  c.  9.    init.  —  See  below,   notes,  »,   ^, 
 
 S  4  religion. 
 
264         JVorpip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 religion  ^.  We  are  told  by  Plutarch, 
 that  he  was  faid  to  have  changed  the 
 favage  nature  of  man  into  a  gentle  and 
 focial  difpofition  3  and  that  his  being  re- 
 prefented  with  two  faces  had  a  reference 
 to  thefe  two  different  forms  and  condi- 
 tions of  human  life  \  As  to  the  phyfi- 
 cal  explications  of  this  god,  they  are  va- 
 rious and  contradi6tory  5  for  he  is  faid 
 to  be  the  chaos,  the  world,  the  year,  the 
 fun,  and  many  other  things  \  He  might 
 be  explained  as  a  fymbol  of  whatever 
 the  human  fancy  could  fuggeft :  but  the 
 received  hiftory '  of  him  exhibited  him 
 
 P  Xenon,  primo  Itallcon,  tradit  Janum  in  Italia  pri- 
 mum  dis  templa  fecifie,  et  ritus  inftituifTe  facrorum  ; 
 ideo  eum  in  racrificiis  prasfationcm  meruifle  perpetuam. 
 Macrob.  ubi  fupra. 
 
 9  Plutarchi  Numa,  p.  72.  —  Macrobius  (ubi  fupra) 
 fays :  Quidam  ideo  eum  dici  bifrontem  putant,  quod 
 et  prasterita  fciverit,   et  futura  provident. 
 
 '  Sec  Arnob.  p.  117.  Macrob.  Sat.  I.  I.  c.  9. 
 Ovid.  Fafti,   I.  103. 
 
 *  Arnobius  (p.  117.)  pleads  that  the  phyfical  expli- 
 cations dcHroyed  the  literal  hiftory  of  Janus ;  quern  fa- 
 runt,  Ccelo  at  que  Hecata  procreatutn,  in  Italia  regnajfe  pri- 
 muniy  Janiculi  oppidi  conditorem  :  —  atque  ita  per  voi 
 dei  nomen  eraditur. 
 
 under 
 
in  poUJhed  Nations.  265 
 
 under  the  chara61er  of  a  king,  who  had 
 divine  honours  decreed  to  him  for  his 
 merit  towards  his  fubjecls  \  Even  Sa- 
 turn  (before  whom,  TertuUianobferves, 
 the  Heathens  had  no  god  at  all,  and 
 from  whom  they  began  their  reckoning  of 
 all  their  gods,  not  excepting  thofe  of  the 
 greateft  diftindlion)  is  fpoken  of  in  hif- 
 tory  no  otherwife  than  as  a  man  ".  He 
 arrived  in  Italy  in  the  reign  of  Janus, 
 and  became  a  partner  of  his  kingdom  ^, 
 
 *  Regnante  Jano,  omnium  domos  religione  et  fanfli- 
 tate  fuifTe  munitas  :  idcircoque  ei  divinos  honores  eile 
 decretos.    Macrob.  Sat.  1.  i.   c.  9. 
 
 "  Ante  Saturnum  deus  penes  vos  nemo  efl.  Ab  illo 
 cenfus  totius,  vel  potioris,  vel  notions,  divinitatis. 
 Itaque  quod  de  origine  conlliterit,  id  et  de  pofterltate 
 conveniet.  Saturnum  itaque,  quantum  liters  decent, 
 neque  Diodorus  Graecus,  aut  Thallus,  ncque  Caflius 
 Severus,  aut  Cornelius  Nepos,  neque  ullus  commen-,- 
 tator  hujufmodi  antiquitatum,  aliud  quam  hominem 
 promulgaverunt.  Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  lo.  See  above, 
 p.  252.    note  "i, 
 
 ^  Hie  igitur  Janus,  cum  Saturnum  clafTe  pervetTtum 
 cxcepiiTet  hofpitio,  et,  ab  eo  edoftus  peritiam  ruris, 
 ferum  ilium  et  rudem  ante  fruges  cognitas  vidlum  in 
 melius  redegilTet,  regni  eum  focietate  muiieravit. 
 Macrob.  Sat.  1.  1.   c.  7.  p.  151. 
 
 ^nder 
 
266         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Under  his  equitable  adminiftration,  na 
 one  was  a  flave,  and  all  things  were 
 common :  which  was  the  reafon  why, 
 in  the  Saturnalia,  flaves  fat  down  with 
 their  mailers,  and  all  people  were  on  a 
 level*.  TertuUian,  in  proof  of  Saturn's 
 being  a  man,  urges  the  Romans'  afcri- 
 bing  to  him  the  invention  of  writing, 
 and  coining  money  with  the  king's 
 image  ^.  Others  relate,  what  equally 
 ferves  our  purpofe,  that  Janus,  the  firft 
 money  he  ftamped,  imprefTed  on  one 
 fide  the  image  of  himfelf,  and  on  the 
 other  a  fhip,  in  memory  of  Saturn,  who 
 came  to  Italy  by  fhip  *.  It  was  alfo  in 
 honour  of  Saturn  that  Italy  was  called, 
 
 ^  Rex  Saturnus  tantse  juftiti^  fuiiTe  traditur,  ut  ne- 
 que  fervierit  fub  illo  quifquam,  &c.   Juflin.  I.  43.  c.  i. 
 
 y  Ab  ipfo  primum  tabulae,  et  imagine  fignatu?num- 
 mus,   et  inde  serario  praefidet.    Tertull.  Apol.   c.  10. 
 
 z  Macrob.  Sat.  1.  1.  c.  7.  p.  151.  Ovid.  Fafli,  I, 
 235-240.  —  From  this  circumftance  it  appears,  that 
 Saturn,  though  he  reigned  in  Italy,  was  a  foreigner. 
 Pezron  maintains,  that  he  was  that  Saturn  who  was 
 the  fon  of  Uranus,  the  firfl  king  of  the  Titans,  and 
 who  reigned  over  Europe,  Afia,  and  part  of  Africa*, 
 uititiq.  cf  Nations,   b.  1.   ch.  10. 
 
 Safurnia, 
 
in  polijhed  Nations.  267 
 
 Saturnia  \  Now,  if  the  anceftor  of  the 
 gods  was  a  man,  we  cannot  be  at  a  lofs 
 to  know  what  his  defcendents  v/ere  ^. 
 
 That    rehgious  worfhip,    which  the 
 Romans  and  other  heathen  nations  paid 
 to  dead  men,  was  not  confined  to  fuch 
 eminent  perfons  as  thofe  already  men- 
 tioned ;    but  feems,  in  fome  degree,  to 
 have  been  extended   to  all.      I  fay  no- 
 thing of  the  philofophers  who  taught, 
 that  the  fouls  of  men  were  demons  %     It  is 
 more  material  to  our  prefent  purpofe  to 
 obferve,  that  the  civil  theology,  the  pub- 
 lic inftitutlons  of  religion,  and  the  cur- 
 rent language,  were  founded  upon  the 
 general  belief  of  the  fame  opinion.     The 
 dead  were  denominated  dii  manes  ^  as  ap- 
 pears  from   the  tefldmony   of  the   an- 
 cients ^  and  the  infcription  upon  their 
 
 *  Italia,  regis  nomine,  Saturnia  appellata  eil.  Juftin. 
 ubi  fupra.  —  See  alfo  TertuUian,   Apol.  c.  10. 
 
 ^  See  p.  265.  note  ". 
 
 *  Plotinus,   cited  below,  note  e. 
 
 ^  Varro  dicit,  omnes   ab  his  mortuos  exiftimari  ma- 
 nes deos.   Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.   c.  26. 
 
 fepulchral 
 
268         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fepulchral  monuments  *.  Some  learned 
 men  indeed  have  maintained,  that  the 
 dii  manes  were  certain  gods  who  took 
 care  of  fouls  or  ghofts  ;  but  the  phrafe 
 does  not  import  '^  the  gods  ^ghofts/' 
 but  "  the  gods  ghofts";  and  the  ufe 
 and  application  of  it  in  ancient  writers 
 determine  it  to  this  fenfe  ^      Some  of 
 
 the 
 
 «  The  infcriptlon  was,  D.  M.   or  Dis  Manibus. 
 
 *"  The  following  paflages  in  Virgil  clearly  Ihew  that 
 the  word  manes  is  applied  to  ghofts.    St  ant  manibus  ara, 
 -/En.  III.   63.  —  Mani/que  njscabat  He^oreum  ad  tumu- 
 lum.    303.  -—  NoSlurnos  ciet  manis.    IV.  490,      See  alfo 
 387.  —  Mani/que   Acheronte  remijfos,    V.  99.  —  Magna, 
 manis  ter  'voce  'voca'vi,    VI.  506.  —  In  the  fame  fenfe  is 
 the   word  ufed  by  Juvenal.     Ejje  aliquos  manes y  et  fub- 
 terranea  regna.  Sat.  II.  149.  —  Hence  manes  is  put  for 
 the  place  of  the  dead  :    Manefque  profundi y   Virg.  Geor. 
 I.  243.    and  for  the  remains  of  the  deceafed,    either  his 
 corpfe   or   his    bones  and    alhes :    Nunc  non  e  manibus 
 illis  —  nafcentur  'viola  ?     Perfius,    Sat.  I.    38.     Thofe 
 who  thought  the  foul  perilhed  with  the  body  faid,    we 
 ihou Id  become  r/«?V,    et  manes ,   et  fabula,  Ver.  152.— 
 Horace  fpeaks  the  fame  language  :  FabuU  manes,   L.  I. 
 Ode  IV.  16.  —  Manes  cannot  have  a  different  mean- 
 ing when  the  word  dii  is  joined  with  it.      The  follow- 
 ing paifage  of  Horace  is  a  proof  of  this  point : 
 
 Petamque 
 
in  polijhed  Natiom.  269 
 
 the  philofophers  limited  the  word  rna^ies 
 to  good  ghofts  ^ ;  but  it  feems  to  have 
 been   applied    to    all  ghofts,    both    in 
 
 Petamque  vultus  umbra  curvis  unguibus  :  • 
 Quae  vis  deorum  eft  manium.    Epod.  V.  93. 
 
 Compare  Virg.  ^n.  IV.  385-388.  When  Seneca 
 fays,  (Ep.  86.)  In  ipfa  Scipionis  Africani  'villa  jac ens, 
 heec  tihi  fcribo,  adoratis  manibus  ejusy  does  he  not  mean 
 that  Scipio  himfelf,  or  his  ghoft,  was  the  objeft  of  his 
 worftiip  ?     See  the  next  note. 
 
 8  Manes  animae  dicuntur  melloris  meriti,  qux  in 
 corpore  noftro  genii  dicuntur.  Servius,  on  Virg.  ^n. 
 III.  63.  But  this  learned  commentator  miftakes  ia 
 afcrlbing  this  fentiment  to  Apuleius ;  who,  after  fay- 
 ing that  the  good  ghofts  were  called  lares,  and  the  mif- 
 chievous  ones  lar^vee,  addi^jCuflft-  vero  incertum  eft  quas 
 cuique  eorum  fortitio  evenerit,  utrura  iar  fit,  an  larva  ; 
 nomine  manem  deum  nuncupant.  Scilicet  et  honoris 
 gratia  dei  vocabulum  additum  eft.  Quippe  tantum  eos 
 deos  appellant,  &c.  De  Deo  Socrat.  torn.  2.  p.  689. 
 ed.  Delph.  —  Plotinus  taught,  Animas  hominum  dse- 
 monas  efle,  et  ex  hominibus  fieri  lares,  fi  meriti  boni 
 fint  ;  lemuresy  five  lar^vas,  fi  mali  :  ma/ies  autem  cum 
 incertum  eft  bonorum  eos,  five  malorum,  efte  merito- 
 rum.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  9.  c.  11.  —  Thofe  who 
 confidered  the  manes  as  good  ghofts  made  them  the 
 fame  as  the  lares.  In  lucis  habitant  manes  piorum,  qui 
 Jares  viales  fui:t.    Servius  on  JEn.  IJI.  302. 
 
 common 
 
ty6         Worfiip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 common  life\    and  in  performing  the 
 
 rites   of    religion  '\   It   is   not 
 
 only  from  the  titlesy  given  to  the  de- 
 ceafed,  that  we  may  infer  a  belief  of 
 their  divinity  5  the  fame  conclufion  may 
 be  drav/n  from  the  religious  rites  ^  infti- 
 tuted  in  their  honour,  which  were  per- 
 formed every  day  \  and  more  efpecially 
 on  the  ninth  "  and  on  the  thirtieth ""  day 
 after  their  interment.  They  were  like- 
 wife  appeafed  annually,  for  twelve  days 
 
 ^  In  this  general  fenfe  manes  Is  ufed  by  Ovid,   Fafti, 
 V.  422. 
 
 Inferias  tacitis  manibus  ilia  dabunt. 
 See  above,  note  f.  ^ 
 
 »  Cum  dixit  novies.  Manes  exite  paterni.  Id.  ib.  443. 
 ^   Above,  p.  249.  note  ?. 
 
 ^  In  Plautus's  Aulularia,  Prolegom.    the  lar  fays> 
 Huic  filia  una  eft  ;  ea  mihi  quotidie, 
 Aut  ture,  aut  vino,  aut  aliqui,  femper  fupplicat. 
 
 ,,  "*  The  ferise  denicales  were  obferved  on  tha  ninth 
 day,  and  therefore  called  no'vemdiales.  See  Jacobus 
 Gutherius,  de-jure  Manium,  1.  i.  c.  15.  in  torn.  12. 
 of  Graevius's  Rom.  Anticj.  and  the  authors  cited  in  the 
 next  note. 
 
 "  If  the  reader  wants  proofs  of  what  is  10  well  known,' 
 he  may  confult  Bos's  Antiq.  of  Greece,  ch.  24.  p.  433. 
 and  Potter's  Antiq.  v.  2.   p.  258. 
 
 together^ 
 
hi  folified  Nations,  zj  t 
 
 together,  with  facrifices  and  expiations  % 
 attended  \yith  feafts  and  games  ^  The 
 feafons  appointed  for  thefe  folemnities 
 were  ftiled  holy-days  :  and  from  this  cir- 
 cumHance  Cicero  concludes,  that  the 
 ancients  reckoned  amongft  the  gods 
 thofe  who  were  departed  out  of  the  pre- 
 fent  life^  ,  In  honour  of  perfons  of 
 rank,  their,  friends  mad€  libations  of 
 wine,  and  invoked  their  manes,  while 
 their  funeral-piles  were  burning '.  Chil- 
 dren   confecrated   their  parents ' ;    and 
 
 <»  See  Potter's  Antiq.  v.  2.  p.  258,  260.     Kennett, 
 p.  360. 
 .  P  Potter,   ib.  p.  247,  257.  Kennett,  p.  304,   360. 
 
 9  Nee  vero  tarn  denicales,  quae  a  nece  appellate 
 funt,  quia  refidentur  mortui,  quam  Cceterorum  coelef- 
 tium  qiiieti  dies,  feriee  nominarentur,  nifi  majores  cos, 
 qui  ex  hac  vita  migraflent,  in  deorum  numero  efle  vo- 
 luifTent.  Cicero  de  Legibus,  1.  2.  c.  22. 
 -'  Homer.  Ik'XXXIII.  220.  ^fchyl.  Chsephor. 
 V.  S6,    128. 
 
 »  See  Feftus,  in  verb.  Feralia,  Gather,  de  Jure  Ma- 
 nium,   1.  2.  c.  12.    and  Ovid.  Fafti,   1.  4.  v.  533-570. 
 
 Ell  honor  et  tumulis ;    animas  placate  paternas. 
 "  Parva'petunt  n^^anes. 
 
 Kere  manes  anfvyers  to  animai  paternas, 
 
 fwore 
 
272         Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fwore  by  their  afhes  \  which  were  deemed 
 facred.  Now,  an  oath  is  a  religious 
 a6l ;  and  fuppofes  the  deity,  to  whom  it 
 appeals,  to  be  both  our  witnefs  and  our 
 judge.  The  fore-mentioned  cuftoms 
 were  of  great  antiquity  in  the  heathen 
 world. 
 
 And  it  was  upon  the  principles  of  the 
 ancient  theology  that  the  Roman  people 
 deified  their  emperors".  Temples  and 
 altars  were  erected  to  them  while  living'', 
 
 »  OiTa  tibi  juro  per  matris  et  o/Ta  parentis. 
 
 Propert.  1.  2.  Eleg.  15. 
 Ego  fame  morientem  videbo,  per  cujus  cineres  juratus 
 fum  ?  Seneca  pater,  I.  i.  Controv.  i.  Gather,  ubi 
 fnpra,  p.  1170.  —  Parents  alfo  confecrated  their  chil- 
 dren. See  Cicero's  reafon  for  confecrating  his  daugh- 
 ter, ap.  Ladlant.  1.  i.  c.  15.  or  in  Cicero's  works, 
 torn.  3.  p.  581.  ed.  Olivet.  Genevae.  Ad  opinionem 
 omnium  mortalium  confecrabo. 
 
 "  See  the  form  of  confecration,  in  Kennett,  p.  363. 
 and  more  fully  in  Alexander  ab  Alexandro,  torn.  2. 
 p.  446. 
 
 ^  Prsefenti  tibi  maturos  largimur  honores, 
 Jurandafque  tuum  per  nomen   (al.  numenj  ponimus 
 aras.  —  Horat.  Ep.  II.  i. 
 See  alfo  Virg.   Eel.  I.  6.     Horat.  1.  III.    Ode  III.    10. 
 Ode  V.  2.     Sueton.  Vit.  Augull.  c.  52. 
 
 as 
 
in  poliJJjed  Nations.  273 
 
 as  well  as  after  their  deaths.  The  Romans 
 transferred  the  diftinguifhing  attributes 
 of  their  principal  deities  to  the  ftatues  of 
 their  emperors.  To  put  Jupiter's  fulmen 
 in  the  hand  of  the  llatue  of  Auguftus  was 
 to  acknowledge  him  ruler  of  the  univerfe*. 
 In  a  coin,  in  honour  of  Titus,  'Jupiter y 
 born  in  Crete^^  is  placed  amongft  the 
 ftars''.  The  emperors  and  their  images 
 were  objefts  of  equal  worfhip  with  the 
 ancient  gods  of  heaven  ;  nay,  the  for- 
 mer were  diftinguiflied  by  a  fuperior  re- 
 verence 5  for  it  was  more  fafe  to  fwear 
 falfely  by  the  genius  of  Jupiter  than  of  the 
 king\ 
 
 The  cuftom  of  deifying  great  princes 
 was  no  innovation  of  the  Romans  ^  but 
 
 *  Apelles  had  the  fame  meaning  when  he  drew  Alex- 
 ander's pidure  with  a  thunderbolt  in  his  hand.  Plu- 
 tarch. If.  et  Ofir.  p.  360. 
 
 y  Zevq  K^r,ruyEi>n<;.       ^  Marfham's  Chron.  Can.  p.  248. 
 
 *  Sic  eorum  (principum)  numen  invocant,  ad  imagi- 
 nes fupplicant,  geniiim,  id  eft,  dsmonem  ejus,  implo- 
 rant ;  et  eft  eis  tutius  per  Jovis  genium  pejerare  quam 
 regis.  Minuc.  Fel.  in  Odavio,  c.  29.  See  alfo  Tcr- 
 tullian,  Apol.  c.  27,  32. 
 
 T  was 
 
274         Wcrjhlp  f>f  human  Spirits 
 
 was  an  old  fuperftition,  which  had  ta- 
 ken fuch  deep  root  in  the  minds  of  men, 
 that  even  the  chrillian  emperors  per- 
 mitted themfelves  to  beaddrefled,  as  gods 
 adored  by  the  natiom^  to  whom  the  whole 
 'world  preferred  their  public  and  private 
 'vowSy  and  Jrom  whom  the  mariner  ajked  a 
 cahiy  the  traveller  a  faje  return^  and  the 
 Joldier  viBory".  And  fo  far  were  thefe  im- 
 perial profelytes  from  being  offended 
 with  fuch  impious  flattery,  that  they 
 themfelves   arrogated  the  titles  and  ho- 
 
 ^  Even  Theodolius  '!lie  Great,  fo  celebrated  for  his 
 piety,  was  addreiled  in  the  following  terms :  —  Illud 
 dicam  i^uodintellexiiTe  homincm  et  dixiffe  fas  eft  talem 
 effe  debere  (imperatorem)  c^ui  a  gentibus  adoratur,  cui 
 toto  ofbe  terrarum  privata  velpublica  vota  redduntur,  a 
 quo  petit  navigaturus  ferenum,  peregrinaturus  reditum, 
 pugnatarus  aufpicium.  Fiiefacus  de  Idololatria  Politi- 
 ca,  p.  17.  — —  Symmachus  (1.x.  ep.  21.  quae  ad  The- 
 odoiiam  et  Arcadium  Augyftos)  ufes  the  following  lan- 
 guage :  —  Praecipua  quidem  beneiicia  numinis  veftri  po- 
 pulus  Romanus  expeftat,  divi  imperatores.  Sed  ea 
 qaall  debita  repetit,  qua:  seternitas  veftra  fponte  pro- 
 lEiiiit. 
 
 nours 
 
in  poliJJjed  Nations,  27  < 
 
 nours  of  divinity",  Theodofius,  indeed, 
 admoniflied  his  fubjecls  to  referve  for 
 the  fupreme  God  the  homage  which  ex- 
 ceeded the  rank  and  dignity  of  men** :  a 
 very  neceflary  admonition,  as  the  hea- 
 then emperors  had  made  no  fuch  diflinc- 
 tion,  but  aflumed  the  moft  facred  titles, 
 as  well  as  received  the  moft  folemn  wor- 
 fliip.  Domitian,  when  he  di6lated  the 
 form  of  a  letter  to  be  ufed  by  his  procu- 
 rators, began  it  thus  :  Our  Lord  aiid 
 God  thus  comjnands  iis\     Thefe  titles  are 
 
 ^  Sed  imperatores  Chriftianos  vel  divinitatis  vel  numl- 
 nis  appellationem  fibi  adrogalTe  qiiis  ferat  ?  Noftram 
 divinitatem  dixere  imperatores  Theodofius  et  Valenti-^ 
 nianus,  I.  3.  Cod.  de  Samm.  Trinit.  Nofirum  numen 
 was  ufed  by  Honorius  and  Theodofius,  1.  viii.  &  1.  xi. 
 Cod.  de  Sacrofanftis  Ecclef.  — Theodofius  fuum  numen 
 vocat.  Cod.  Theodof.  1.  xi.  tit.  i.  1.  xxxiii.  —  Et  mira- 
 mur  dum  heec  legimus  in  Novella  Anthemii,  A.  tit.  i. 
 —  Julia  quajdampreces  noftris  fundat  altaribus.  File- 
 facus,  p.  9,   10. 
 
 ^ExcedensGultura  hominum  dignitatem  fupremo  nu- 
 mini  refervetur.  Theodofius,  in  Theodof.  Cod.  L. 
 tit.  iv. 
 
 *  Cum  procuratcrum  fuorum  nomine  formalem  dida- 
 ret  epiilolam,  fic  ca-pit :  Dominus  et  deus  ncjier  Jic  feri 
 juhit.     Sueton.  Vit.  Domitian.  c.  13. 
 
 T  2  the 
 
276         WorJJnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 the  very  fame  with  thofe  by  which  the 
 Gentiles  defcribed  their  fupreme  Jupiter^ 
 
 It  is  needlefs  to  produce  any  farther  e- 
 vidence  of  the  worfhip  of  mortal  gods 
 amongfl:  the  Romans.  It  has  now  been 
 proved  J  by  an  induftion  of  particulars, 
 that  the  fame  worfhip  was  eftablifhed  in 
 all  the  nations  polifhed  by  learning,  and 
 alfo  in  the  far  greater  part  of  thofe  na- 
 tions ufually  ftiled  barbarous.  The  dif- 
 tinft  proofs  of  this  point,  coUefted  from 
 all  quarters  of  the  globej  do  mutually 
 receive  and  refle£l  light  upon  one  ano- 
 ther. 
 
 It  deferves  particular  notice,  that  the 
 teftimonies,  produced  in  the  foregoing 
 fheets,  not  only  eftabUfh  the  faft,  that 
 dead  men  and  women  were  worfhipped 
 in  the  heathen  nations,  but  do  farther 
 prove,  that  many  of  thefe  human  perfo- 
 nages  were  worfhipped  in  all  the  civilized 
 nations  of  the  earth,  if  not  in  many  others, 
 
 ^  Compare  the  language  of  the  Atlantians,    cited 
 above,  p,  24.3,  note  *". 
 
 as 
 
/;/  poltjhed  Nations.  277 
 
 as  their  greateji  gods^  and  with  the  mofl: 
 facred  and  auguft  ceremonies  ^ 
 
 It  is  flill  more  remarkable,  that  feveral 
 of  the  ancient  writers  cited  above,  though 
 they  could  not  be  ignorant  that  the  hea- 
 thens regarded  the  elements  and  heavenly 
 bodies  as  real  divinities,  do  neverthelefs 
 affirm,  that  all^  or  ahnoji  ally  their  gods 
 had  once  belonged  to  the  human  race.^ 
 Thefe  writers  cannot  be  fpeakingof  fome 
 obfcure  tribes  of  Barbarians,  who  are 
 faid  to  worfliip  only  the  lights  of  hea- 
 ven ;  but  manifeftly  refer  to  the  gods 
 of  the  moft  celebrated  nations,  which 
 had  propagated  their  religious  creed  and 
 ceremonies  over  the  largeft  pait  of  the 
 then  known  world.  And  the  language 
 in    queftion    is     to     be   farther    limi- 
 
 5  To  the  teftimonies  already  cited  we  may  ?,<id.  the  fol- 
 lowing :  —  Quos  augufte  omnes  fandleque  venerantur. 
 Cottaap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deer.  1.  3.  c.  21. —  Cum  vero  et 
 mares  et  foeminas  complures  ex  hominibus  in  deorum 
 jiumero  eife  videamus,  et  eorum  in  urbibus  atque  agris 
 augulliffima  delubra  veneremur,  kz,  Cicero  ap.  Laftant. 
 1.  I.  c.  15.  p. 67. 
 
 *^  See  above,  p.  223,  224,  255,  257,  265. 
 
 T  3  ted 
 
278         Worjlnp  of  hujnan  Spirits 
 
 ted  to  the  objefts  of  the  popular  and  ef- 
 tablifhed  worftiip  in  thefe  nations.  Un- 
 der thefe  limitations,  the  propoli- 
 tion  holds  true  in  general,  and  with 
 comparatively  few  exceptions,  that  all 
 the  heathen  gods  had  been  men.  The 
 witnefTes  produced  were  competent  jud- 
 ges of  the  faft  they  atteft  3  and,  even 
 fuppofing  them  to  be  miftaken  in  their 
 opinion,  yet  what  a  late  writer*  affirms 
 cannot  be  true,  that  all  the  world  hiewy 
 that  the  heathen godshad never  been  men.  The 
 Heathens  did  certainly  believe  the  con- 
 trary 5  but  our  author  was  totally  unac- 
 quainted with  their  fentiments  on  this 
 fubjeft. 
 
 Fell,  p.  uo^ 
 
 CHAP. 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       279 
 
 CHAP.     IIL 
 
 Containing  general  proofs  of  the 
 worjhip  of  humait  fpirits  in  the 
 ancient  heathen  world. 
 
 'T"^  H  E  proofs  of  this  fpecies  of  idola- 
 tiy,  adduced  In  the  two  preceding 
 chapters,  chiefly  refpecl  particular  na- 
 tions ;  but  thofe  which  will  be  farther 
 offered  are  of  a  more  general  nature, 
 and  almoft  equally  refpeft  the  far  greater 
 part  of  the  ancient  world.  They  will  be 
 drawn  from  two  fources :  from  the  teH:!- 
 monies  of  the  ancients,  and  from  certain 
 uncontroverted  facts. 
 
 SECT.     I. 
 
 General  proofs  of  the  worjhip  of  human  fpt^ 
 rits  amongst  the  Heathens^  drawn  from 
 the  TESTIMONIES  of  the  ancicnts. 
 
 T  WILL  here  dillin6lly  examine  the  t^ti- 
 
 timonies  of  the  Heathens  themielves, 
 
 T  4  whether 
 
280         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 whether  poets,  philofophers,  or  hifto-* 
 rians  \  and  afterwards  thofe  of  the  chrif- 
 tian  Fathers. 
 
 I.  The  heathen  POETS,  with  what- 
 ever lofty  titles  they  dignify  the  obje6ts 
 of  the  eftabiifhed  worfhip,  do  neverthe- 
 lefs  record  their  births,  parentage,  and 
 kindred ;  reprefent  them  as  {landing  to 
 one  another  in  the  fame  relations,  of  fa- 
 thers and  mothers,  brothers  and  fillers, 
 which  fubfift  among  mankind  ;  afcribe 
 to  them  the  fame  diflinflion  of  fexes,  and 
 the  fame  appetites  and  paffions,  which 
 belong  to  human  nature,  as  well  as  all 
 thofe  vices  which  mofl  difgrace  it.  They 
 attribute  to  them  the  external  forms  of 
 men  and  women ;  defcribe  their  com- 
 plexion, apparel,  and  ornaments  3  and 
 relate  their  wars,  their  wounds,  their 
 chains,  their  ages,  their  lamentations, 
 and  their  deaths.  Thefe  feveral  particu- 
 lars are  fo  well  known,  that  it  cannot  be 
 neceffary  to  fupport  them  by  paffages 
 from  the  poets  5  efpecially  as  they  are 
 fufficiently  warranted   by  the  language 
 
 which 
 
/;;  the  ancient  heathen  World,  281 
 which  Cicero  has  put  into  the  mouths 
 of  Velleius  and  Balbus,  cited  below\ 
 Equally  needlefs  would  it  be  to  fhew, 
 either  that  the  preceding  defcriptions 
 of  the  gods  are  not  applicable  to  the  ele- 
 rnents  and  heavenly  bodies ;  or  that,  on 
 the  other  hand,  they  do  entirely  corref- 
 pond  to  the  nature  and  condition  of  the 
 human   race''.     As   to  Jupiter,    the  fu- 
 
 preme 
 
 ^  Poetae,  —  qui  et  ira  infiammatos,  etlibidine  furen- 
 tes,  induxerunt  deos ;  feceruntque,  ut  eorum  bella, 
 praslia,  pugnas,  vulnera,  videremus ;  odia,  prasterea, 
 difiidia,  difcordias,  ortus,  interitus,  querelas,  lamen- 
 tationes,  efFufas  in  omni  intemperantia  libidines,  adul- 
 teria,  vincula,  cum  humano  genereconcubitus,  morta- 
 lefqueex  immortalibus  procreatos.  De  Nat.  Deor.  1.  i . 
 c.  i6.  —  Formse  nobis  deorum,  et  states,  et  veftitus 
 ornatufque  notifunt:  genera,  praeterea,  conjugia,  cog- 
 nationes,  omniaque  tradu6la  ad  fimilitudinem  imbecilli- 
 tatis  humans.  L.  2.  c.  28.  —  The  argument  from  the 
 human  form  of  the  gods  will  be  confidered  when  wc 
 {peak  of  their  images. 
 
 ^  See  the  preceding  note  ^.  —  As  to  Homer  in  par- 
 ticular, Cicero  (Tufcul.  Difput.  1.  i.  c.  26.)  f::ys,  he 
 afcribed  to  the  gods  the  qualities  peculiar  to  men,  —  hu- 
 mana  ad  deos  transferebat :  which  anfwers  to  Plutarch's 
 t^ocvB^ciJTri^ovTi  rcc  Bbm,  and  to  another  expreflion,  utto  ra/v 
 ^iijv   iTc    uv^^uTTHi   fji,eTOi(pi^iia-t,    when    he    is  defcribing 
 
 thofe 
 
2Sz        Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 prtme  god  of  the  poetical  theology,  he 
 differed  from  others  only  as  a  father 
 from  his  children,  or  as  a  fovereign  from 
 fubjecis  of  the  fame  nature*. 
 
 We 
 
 sBjofe  wlio  taaght,  tfiat  the  gods  liad  been  men.  If.  & 
 Ofir.  p.  36a  A.  p.  359E. 
 
 ^  To  what  has  been  obferved  concerning  Homer^&Jix- 
 piter  inDiffert.  on  Mir.  p.  176, 177,  and  above,  p.  242^ 
 243.  I  miift  add,  that,  though  the  poet  -compliments 
 Jidm  with  the  title  of  ihe  father  of  gods  and  men,  yet, 
 agreeably  to  the  antient  theogonies,  he  calls  Oceanus 
 thsr parent  of  tht  gods  ^  OxEdtvai*  re  ^eajt  y^ncrvvi  itot%.  fjLTjrs^Xi. 
 T?>5v'»«  II.  S4>  V.  201.  See  Dr.  Clarke's  note,  and 
 Virg~  Georg*  iv.  382.  — According  to  He/tod,.  (Theo- 
 gon-  V.  453?  490*)  Jupiter  was  the  youngeft  fon  of 
 Rhea  and  Saturn.  The  fame  poet  reprefents  him  as 
 addrefling  the  gods,  not  as  his  own  offspring,  but  as 
 *^  o#^/7'/«g"  of  earth  and  hea'ven,  K£>eAfre  ^eu,  Tocvf^'i  re 
 %aA  Ov^atta  ayKoca.  rczi>a.  V.443.  —  -^  Fbgil,  Jupiter 
 is,  fublimely  defcribed  as  fummi  regnator  Olympi,  j^n^ 
 viL  558,  as  divum  pater,  and  hominum  divumque 
 aiternapoteftas,  x.  2,  17.  It  is  faid  of  him,  torquet 
 £.dera  mundi,  ix.93  ;  ccelum  ac  terras  numine  torquet^ 
 iv..  296.  Neverthelefs,  according  to  this  poet,  Jupi- 
 ter was  nurfed  upon  mount  Ida  in  Crete,  Creta  Jovis 
 Biagni,  iii.  104.  and  was  the  ion-  of  Bei^cynthia,  or 
 Cybele,  the  mother  of  the  gods  r  Ipfa  deura  fertur  ge- 
 H«trix.  O  genetrix,  quo  fata  vocas,  ix.  82,  'B'^,  93, 
 54»       Alma  parens  Idsea  deam;,    x,  252.        Cybele 
 
 herfelf 
 
in  the  micient  heathen  World,      283 
 
 We  are  told",  indeed,  that  it  hath  been 
 affirmed^  by  very  great  names^  that  JiBion 
 and  LYING  are  infe par  able  from  poetry  : 
 a  pofition,  I  imagine,  which  no  one  can 
 ferioufly  undertake  to  defend.  Never- 
 thelefs,  as  many,  both  of  the  ancient  and 
 modern  advocates  of  the  heathen  reHgion, 
 when  at  a  lofs  to  fapport  it's  credit,  have 
 pretended  that  it  w^as  greatly  corrupted  by 
 the  fiftions  of  the  poets,  I  fhall  offer  a 
 
 herfelf  alfo  was  a  Cretan  :  Hinc  mater  cultrlx  Cybele, 
 iii.  III.  — — —  According  to  Horace ^  that  very  Jupi- 
 ter, qui  mare  et  terras  variilque  mundum  temperat  ho- 
 xis,  was  ortus  Saturno.  Lib.  i.  Ode  12.  v.  15,  50. 
 ■  I  Ihall  only  take  notice  of  one  poet  more,  viz. 
 
 O'uid,  who  joins  Jupiter  and  Auguftus  together  :  Jupi- 
 ter arces  temperat  aetherias ;  terra  fub  Augufto.  Pater 
 eft  et  re£lor  uterque.  Metamorph.  1.  15.  v.  859.  The 
 term  pater  was  not  appropriated  to  Jupiter,  and  often 
 denotes  only  a  ruler.  According  to  Ovid,  (Metamorph. 
 I.  xi.  V.  221.)  Jupiter  was  divinely  warned  againft  in- 
 dulging his  paffion  for  Thetis,  left  he  fhould  have  a  fon 
 greater  than  himfelf,  who  would  dethrone  him  as  he 
 
 had  dethroned  his  father  Saturn. Thus  are  the 
 
 fublimeft  defcriptions  of  the  Jupiter  of  the  popular  and 
 civil  theology  given  us  by  the  poets,  intermingled  with 
 the  plain  charaders  of  his  humanity, 
 ^  Fell,  Introdudion,  p.  xiv. 
 
 few 
 
2^4  Worjhip  of  human  EpirtH 
 
 few  general  obfervations  upon  this  lub- 
 Jeft,  though  with  a  peculiar  view  to  the 
 queftion  now  before  us. 
 
 I.  Poetry  was,  perhaps,  both  the 
 moft  ancient  and  the  moft  admired  fpe- 
 cies  of  compofition.  The  laws  of  the 
 Turdetani,  faid  to  be  the  olded  inhabi- 
 tants of  Spain,  were  written  in  verfe, 
 fix  thoufand  years,  as  they  affirmed,  be- 
 fore the  age  of  Strabo".  The  firft  infti- 
 tutes  of  religion  likewife  were  probably 
 written  in  the  fame  manner.  And  the 
 verfes,  in  both  cafes,  might  be  defigned 
 merely  to  affift  the  memory  in  learning 
 and  retaining  the  rules  eftablifhed  for  the 
 direftion  of  their  political  and  religious 
 conduft,  or  to  recommend  the  fubjefts  by 
 the  charm  s  of  poetry .  To  anfwer  thefe  erids> 
 there  was  no  more  reafon  to  have  re- 
 courfe  to  fiftion  with  refpe6t  to  one  of 
 thefe  fubjefts  than  the  other.  Were  the 
 many  interefting  relations,  concerning 
 the  Roman  gods  and  goddefTes,  contained 
 
 *  Strabo,  1.  3.  p.  204, 
 
 In 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      285 
 
 m  Ovid's  Fajii^  ever  deemed  fufpicious, 
 merely  becaufe  that  moll  learned  and 
 ufeful  of  all  his  works  was  not  written  in 
 profe  ?      ^ 
 
 2.  It  was  not  the  province  of  the  poets, 
 as  fuch^  to  afiign  to  any  man  a  place  in 
 heaven,  and  to  ere£l  temples  and  altars 
 in  his  honour.  Romulus,  for  example, 
 was  not  indebted  for  his  deification  to 
 Virgil,  or  Horace,  or  Ennius,  or  any 
 more  early  poet,  but  to  the  fenate  and 
 people  of  Rome.  Nor  was  the  cafe  diffe- 
 rent as  to  the  other  gods  taken  from  a- 
 mongft  men  :  for  it  was  to  the  legifla- 
 ture,  in  conjunftion  with  the  priefthood", 
 that  they  were  indebted  for  their  fuppo- 
 fed  advancement  to  heaven,  and  for  the 
 worfliip  paid  them  upon  the  earth. 
 
 «  There  were  certain  rltes^  which,  moft  probahJy, 
 were  performed  by  the  priefls,  by  which  human  fouls 
 were  converted  into  gods.  See  Servius,  cited  above, 
 p.  260,  notef.  —  Arnobius,  p  87,  fays,  Etruria  libris 
 in  Acheronticis  pollicetur,  certorum  animalium  fangui- 
 ne  numinibus  certis  dato,  divinas  animas  fieri,  et  ab 
 le^ibus  mortalitatis  educi. 
 
286         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 3.  The  proper  province  of  the  poets, 
 under  their  peculiar  charafler,  was  to  ce- 
 lebrate the  praifes  of  the  gods.  If,  in 
 the  difcharge  of  this  office,  they  embel- 
 liflied  the  fubjeft  with  fome  colouring 
 of  their  own,  and  exceeded  the  truth  \ 
 (on  which  fide  their  temptation  lay  5) 
 what  is  the  mofl:  natural  inference  from 
 hence  ?  Surely  not  that  they  degraded 
 their  gods  into  men,  but  that  they  exalt- 
 ed men  into  gods^. 
 
 4.  Accordingly,  thofe  Heathens,  who 
 were  moft  offended  with  the  poets,  do 
 not  charge  them  with  inventing  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  humanity  of  the  gods.  Dio- 
 dorus  Siculus,  at  the  very  time  that  he 
 reproaches  Homer,  Hefiod,  and  Or- 
 pheus, with  framing  very  monftrous  fa- 
 
 P  Quibus  igitur  credemus,  fi  fidem  laudantibus  non 
 habemus  ?  Laftant.  I.  i.  c.  9.  p.  38.  —  Illi  (fc.  po- 
 ctae)  de  hominibus  loquebantur :  fed  ut  eos  ornarent, 
 quorum  memoriam  laudibus  celebrabant,  deos  efle dixe- 
 runt.  Id.  1.  I.  c.  xi.  p.  46.  See  more  to  the  fame 
 purpofe,  p.  47,  48,  &c.  c.  19.  p.  8i,  82.  &  in  torn.  2. 
 c.  II,  12.  p.  8,  9.  ed.  Dufrefnoy. 
 
 bles 
 
in  the  ancient  henthen  World.      2S7 
 
 bics  concerning  them**,  reprefents  the 
 moft  ancient  theologers  as  afierting  the 
 exiftence  of  gods  that  were  of  earthly  o- 
 rigin^ 
 
 5.  The  reafon  why  Diodorus,  Socra- 
 tes, Plato,  and  others,  reprefent  the  ab- 
 furd  and  immoral  ftories  concerning  the 
 gods  as  mere  inventions  of  the  poets,  is 
 not  any  pofitive  evidence  of  the  faft,  but 
 a  defire  of  preferving  the  credit  of  reli- 
 gion and  the  morals  of  the  people,  which 
 were  in  danger  of  being  deftroyed  by  the 
 profligate  charafters  and  examples  of  the 
 objects  of  their  worfliip*. 
 
 6.  It  is  indeed  abfurd,  at  leaft  when 
 we  are  fpeaking  of  very  ancient  times,  to 
 oppofe  the  theology  of  the  poets  to 
 that  of  the  philofophers,  divines,  ma- 
 giflrates,  and  priefls  :  for  they  all  made 
 one  body  together.     In  Britain  and  Gaul 
 
 Sic.  Fragm.  torn.  2.  p.  633.  ed.  Wefleling. 
 
 '  The  palTage  will  be  cited  below,  under  the  thiri 
 article,  where  the  hiftorians  are  fpoken  of. 
 
 »  See  Augufl  Civ.  Dei,  I.4.  c.  27.  1.6.  c.  5.  Pla- 
 ton.  oper.  p,  429,  430.  cd,  Lugd,  p.  1590. 
 
 they 
 
288         WorJJjip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 they  were  included  in  the  common  deno-^^ 
 mination  of  Druids \  This  jun6lion 
 of  the  bards,  with  thofe  who  framed,  ef- 
 tabliflied,  and  adminiftered,  the  public 
 religion,  is  a  demonftration  that  the 
 theology  of  both  muft:  be  the  fame,  and 
 fupported  by  the  authority  of  the  ftate. 
 Indeed,  in  fuch  high  reputation  were 
 the  ancient  poets,  that  Plutarch  appeals 
 to  their  authority  in  the  fame  manner  as 
 he  does  to  that  of  the  philofophers  * ;  and 
 joins  them  with  the  oldeft  theologers"^. 
 Socrates  %  Plato  ^  and  others  %  fpeak 
 of  them  as  the  divinely  infpired  prophets 
 of  the  gods.  The  fame  idea  of  them  was, 
 it  is  probable,  generally   entertained  in 
 
 *  Strabo  Indeed  diilingulfiies  the  Bards  from  the  Dru- 
 ids, 1.  4.  p.  302,  but  the  former  were  probably  an  or- 
 der of  the  latter.     See  the  writers  upon  the  Druids. 
 
 *  Plutarch.  Amatorius,  p.  770.  A.B. 
 
 "^  Oi  jM-Ev  a(pQ}^a,  iraKdiQi  vsoTvoyot  xat  TrotJjrat.  De  OraC» 
 Defed.  p.  436.  D. 
 
 *  Platon.  Apol.  Socrat.  p.  360.  G. 
 
 y  lo,  p.  145. 
 
 «  Dio  Chryfoflom,  Orat.  36.  p.  447.  Lutetiae,  1604. 
 O*  vfijot  wo»>3Tat  /AaSofTJ?  ik  Muffuv,  x.  t.  A. 
 
 the 
 
in  the  ajicient  heathen  World,      289 
 
 the  early  ages  of  the  world  ;  and  confe- 
 quently  their  writings  would  be  regarded 
 as  the  canonical  fyftem  of  religion.  A 
 fubverfion  of  this  ancient  fyftem,  after  it 
 had  taken  ftrong  hold  of  the  paffions  and 
 prejudices  of  mankind,  the  poets  of  lat- 
 ter ages  were  not  able  to  effeft,  nor  even 
 likely  to  attempt  \ 
 
 7.  As  to  thofe  poets  in  particular, 
 whofe  writings  have  been  preferved  from 
 the  injuries  of  time,  it  is  as  unreafona- 
 ble  to  accufe  them  as  their  predeceffors 
 of  inventing  or  corrupting  the  civil  the- 
 ology. Herodotus  thought  that  Hefiod 
 and  Homer  were  the  perfons  '^\\.ofra7ned 
 
 *  Sed  poetarum,  inquiunt,  figmentafunt  hsec  omnia, 
 et  ad  voluptatem  compofit^  lufiones.  Non  eft  quidem 
 credibile  homines  minus  brutos  et  vetuftatis  remotifli- 
 mae  veftigatores,  aut  non  eas  inferuifTe  fais  carminibus 
 fabulas,  qu^  in  notionibus  hominum  fuperefTent,  atque 
 in  auribus  collocata^ ;  aut  ipfos  fibi  tantum  licentioil 
 voluifTe  juris  adfcifcere,  ut  conlingerent  per  ftultitiam  res 
 eas,  quae  nee  ab  infania  procul  effent  remotae,  ct  quic 
 illis  ab  diis  metiim,  et  periculum  pofTent  ab  hominibus, 
 comparare.  Arnob.  adv.  Gent.  p.  148,  149.  Lugd. 
 Bat.  1651. 
 
 U  a  thcogc72y 
 
290  Worfotp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 a  theogony  for  the  (ufe  of  the)  Greeks^* 
 But  it  will  not  follow  from  hence  that  it 
 was  their  invention.  It  is  much  more 
 probable,  that  they  framed  it  upon  the 
 principles  of  the  theology  of  Egypt  and 
 Phoenicia,  whofe  gods  were  introduced 
 into  Greece  by  Cecrops  and  others,  long 
 before  the  time  of  thefe  poets  ^  For  any 
 thing  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  the 
 theogonies  of  Hefiod  and  Homer  may 
 be  as  faithful  records  of  ancient  tradi- 
 tions as  thofe  of  Sanchoniathon,  or  Be- 
 rofus,  or  any  other  profe  writer.     With 
 
 ^  Oi  r!r<3f>3cravT£?  hioyovitzv  'S.T.Xriffi,  Herodot.  1.2.  C.  53. 
 Did  the  hiftorian  at  this  inftant  forget  that  Orpheus  and 
 Mufeus  were  older  theogonifts  than  Hefiod  and  Homer  ? 
 or  did  he  rejeft  the  works  afcribed  to  them  as  fpurious  ? 
 
 «Epiphanius,  Haeres.  1.  i.  §.7.  See  the  Diiferta- 
 tion  de  vita.  Sec.  Hefiodi,  prefixed  to  Robinfon's  ed. 
 p.  XV.  It  may  be  obferved,  that,  whether  the  public 
 religion  of  Greece  was  formed  upon  the  poems  of  Ho- 
 mer and  Heliod,  or  (which  is  more  probable)  whether 
 their  poems  were  formed  into  a  correfpondence  to  the 
 public  religion,  they  are,  on  either  fuppofition,  to  be 
 confidered  as  2i]xX.\iQnl\cJ}andards  whereby  we  are  to  regu- 
 late our  j  udgement  concejsning  it.  Would  Homer's  hymns 
 have  been  fung  in  the  public  feftivals  of  the  gods,  if 
 Ills  theology  had  not  correfponded  to  that  of  the  Hate  ? 
 
 regard 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      29 1 
 
 regard  to  epic  and  dramatic  poets,  they 
 cannot,  without  great  impropriety,  de- 
 viate from  the  cuftoms  of  the  ages  of 
 which  they  write ;  the  merit  of  their 
 works  confiiling  very  much  in  their  being 
 accurate  reprefentations  of  life  and  man- 
 ners*^. The  propriety  of  the  fpeeches, 
 which  they  frame  for  the  perfons  intro- 
 duced into  their  compofitions,  is  to  be 
 wholly  determined  by  their  agreement 
 with  the  known  charafters  and  princi- 
 ples of  the  fpeakers.  To  make  the  fpeak- 
 ers  contradift  the  commonly-received 
 fentiments  concerning  the  gods  would 
 be  more  than  an  impropriety  or  an  ab- 
 furdity :  it  would  be  deemed  profanenefs, 
 and  fhock  the  prejudices  of  mankind. 
 Whenever  therefore  the  poets,  of  whom 
 we  are  now  fpeaking,  ufe  the  liberty 
 of  embellifliment,  their  very  fictions 
 muft  be  conformable  to  the  received 
 ftandard  of  the  public  religion.  Who, 
 then,  can  doubt  whether  Homer's  fables 
 
 d  DiiTert.onMir.  p.  188,   189. 
 
 U  2  concerning 
 
292         Worplp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 concerning  the  heathen  gods  were  foun- 
 ded m  popular  legends  and  ancient  tra- 
 ditions ?     As  to  Virgil,  he  almoft  every 
 where  difcovers  the   moft  exa6l  know- 
 ledge of  antiquity*,  and  more  efpecially 
 in  defcribing  the  religious  opinions  and 
 xuftoms  of  it.     Nor  are  more  authentic 
 monuments  of  them  any  where  to   be 
 found  than  in  the  writings  of  the  two 
 great  poets  of  Greece  and  Rome, 
 
 8.  Laftly,  the  account,  given  of  the 
 heathen  gods  by  the  poets,  did,  in  fact, 
 conftitute  both  the  popular  and  civil 
 theology,  or  the  religion  received  by  the 
 people  and  eftabliflied  by  the  laws.  We 
 have  already  ittn^  that  there  is  every 
 reafon  to  fuppofe  this  to  have  been  the 
 cafe  \  and  that  reafoning  is  confirmed  by 
 the  teftimony  of  the  moft  credible  wri- 
 ters. 
 
 The  people,  we  are  informed,  were 
 more  difpofed  to  adopt  the  dodlrine  of  the 
 
 *  MultxE  antiquitatis  komlnem  fme  oHentationis  odio 
 peritum.     Aul.  Gellius,  i.  v.  c.  12. 
 
 poets 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      293 
 
 poets  than  any  phyfical  interpretations', 
 and  regarded  their  writings  as  the  rule 
 both  of  their  faith  and  worfhip^  Even 
 the  mod  abfurd  fables,  fuch  as  Coelus's 
 being  caftrated  by  his  children,  Saturn's 
 devouring  his,  and  Jupiter's  imprifoning 
 his  father,  were  underftood  literally,  and 
 received  by  the  people  with  implicit 
 faith,  in  Greece   as  well  as  other  coun- 
 
 tries \ 
 
 U  ^  The 
 
 f  Varro  dicit,  de  genera tionib us  deomm^  magis  ad 
 poetas  quam  ad  phyficos  fuifTepopulosinclinatos.  Ap. 
 Augull.  Civ.  Dei,  I.4.  c.  32.  —  Quod  de  diisimmor- 
 talibus  philofophi  difputant  ferre  non  poiTunt :  qaod 
 vero  poetse  canuntj  et  hiftriones  agunt,  —  libenter  au- 
 diunt.     Auguft.  de  Civ.  Dei,  I.  6.  c.5. 
 
 8  Dio  Chryfoftom,  p.  447,  having  afferted  the  inipi- 
 ration  of  the  moft  ancient  poets^  fays,  tiiat  by  them 
 men  were  perfuaded  to  eredl  altars  to  Jupiter  under  the 
 charafter  of  king.     Ok  9r£»-&0|!A£wi  ot  ai^^^aroi  Ai<^  i2at«-i- 
 
 ^  Dionyfius  Halicarnafienfis,  Antiq.  Rom.  L  2. 
 c.  18,  19,  20.  —  Cicero  has  put  the  following  language 
 into  the  mouth  of  Balbus.  Vetus  ha;c  opinio  Grxiciam 
 opplevit,  fcilicet  exfeftum  Coelum  a  filio  Saturno, 
 vinftum  autem  Saturnum  ipfum  a  filio  Jove.  Balbas 
 ap.  Cicer.  de  Nat.  Deor.   1.  2.  c.  24.      After  fpeakiBg 
 
 of 
 
294         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 The  worfhip  appointed  by  the  laws 
 was  conformable  to  the  poetic  theology, 
 and  founded  upon  it.  The  games  infti- 
 tuted,  and  the  plays  afted,  by  the  au- 
 thority of  the  magiftratc,  in  honour 
 of  the  gods,  and  with  the  exprefs  defign 
 of  rendering  them  propitious,  reprefent- 
 ed  or  imitated  all  thofe  flagitious  a6lions 
 which  were  afcribed  to  them  by  the  po- 
 ets',  and  which  refleft  moft  diflionour 
 on  human  nature.  Nay,  it  was  a  dan- 
 gerous herefy  to  reje6l  the  fabulous  or 
 poetical  theology*".  Socrates  mentions  his 
 rejeftion  of  the  grolTeft  fables  as  the 
 ground  of  the  accufation  againft  him*, 
 which  coil  him  his  life.  Now,  from 
 this  agreement  of  the  popular  and  civil 
 theology  with  the  poetical,  we  may  infer, 
 
 of  the  fables  of  the  poets  at  large,  Balbus  fays,  Haec  et 
 dicuntur  et  creduntur  ftultiffime.    lb.  c.  28. 
 
 *  This  fubjed  is  handled  to  advantage  by  AuiHn,  de 
 Civ.  Dei,  1.  2.  c.  25,  26,  27.  1.  4.  c.  26.  1.  6,  c.  5. 
 and  by  Arnobius,  I.  7.  p.  238.  Seealfol.4.  p.  140^ 
 149,  150. 
 
 ^  Luciani  Philopfeud.  torn.  2.  p.  328. 
 
 *  Platon.  Euthyphro,  torn.  i.  p.  6.  ed,  Serrani. 
 
 that 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       20  c 
 
 that  the  reprefentation,  made  by  the  po- 
 ets of  the  human  origin  of  the  gods,  is  a 
 proof  that  the  objects  of  the  eftabhfiied 
 worfhip  in  the  gentile  nations  had  once 
 been  men. 
 
 The  painters  and  fculptors  convey  to  us 
 the  fame  idea  of  the  heathen  deities  as  the 
 poets :  for  they  reprefent  them  under  hu- 
 man figures,  both  male  and  female.  The 
 image  even  of  the  catamite,  Ganymede, 
 and  the  effigy  of  the  eagle  which  carried 
 him  up  to  heaven,  were  placed  in  the 
 public  temples  under  the  fandion  of 
 the  magiftracy  and  priefthood,  and 
 propofed  to  the  people  as  objefts  of  their 
 adoration  equally  with  Jupiter  himfelf  ^\ 
 Is  there  a  more  abfurd  and  immoral  fable 
 in  the  poets  than  the  rape  of  Ganymede, 
 which  neverthelefs  we  find  made  a  part 
 
 *  Ita  enim  deorum  flmulacra  confingunt,  ut  ex  ipfa 
 diverfitate  fexus  appareat  vera  efTe  quae  dicunt  poet^e. 
 Nam  quod  aliud  argumentum  habet  imago  catamiti,  et 
 effigies  aquilaj,  cum  ante  pedes  Jovis  ponuntur  in  tem- 
 plis,  et  cum  ipfo  pariter  adorantur,  nifi  ut  nefandi  fce- 
 leris  et  ftupri  memoria  maneat  in  asternum  f  Ladtant^ 
 1,  I.  c.  11.  p.  48.  ed.  Dufrefnoy. 
 
 U  4  of 
 
296         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 of  the  public  religion  ?  Moft  unreafona^ 
 ble,  therefore,  is  it  to  treat  this  or  any  o- 
 ther  fable  as  a  fiction  of  the  poets,  mere- 
 ly on  account  of  it*s  abfurdity  and  im- 
 morality. The  gods  of  the  poets  and 
 thofe  of  the  magiftrates  were  the  fame°  j 
 and  therefore,  as  the  former  were  of  hu- 
 man origin,  the  latter  mull  be  fo  likewife, 
 
 II.  The  PHILOSOPHERS  are  to  be 
 confidered  in  two  views  :  as  perfons  who 
 had  opinions  of  their  own  concerning 
 the  gods  J  and  as  perfons  capable  of  tef- 
 tifying  what  the  gods  publicly  worfhip* 
 ped  really  were. 
 
 As  to  their  own  opinions  concerning 
 Deity,  they  were  infinitely  various. 
 Some  would  not  allow  there  were  any 
 gods  at  all ;  others  not  only  aflerted  the 
 exiftence,  but  had  formed  many  juft  and 
 elevated  conceptions,  of  the  divine  beings 
 
 "  Hence  that  obfervatlon  concerning  Zeno,  that  his 
 phyfical  interpretation  of  Hefiod's  theogony  overturned 
 the  ellabliihed  notions  of  the  gods.  Tollit  omnino  pra^ 
 teptas  injttafque  cognitiones  dccrum*  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor. 
 1.  I.  c.  14. 
 
 and 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      297 
 
 and  were  offended  with  the  vicious  qua- 
 lities afcribed  to  the  objefts  of  popular 
 worfhip.  Many  would  neither  allow  the 
 converfionof  human  fouls  into  demons, 
 nor  the  exiftence  of  demons  of  a  higher 
 origin  5  while  feveral  contended  for  both. 
 But  the  religious  creed  of  the  philofo- 
 phers  cannot  be  the  proper  ftandard 
 whereby  to  judge  of  the  civil  theology. 
 The  former  was  for  the  moft  part  utterly 
 fubverfive  of  the  latter.  For  this  reafon 
 it  was  that  the  Differtation"  fpoke  of  the 
 neceffity  of  ufmg  caution  in  reading  the 
 philofophers,  and  declared,  in  terms, 
 **  that  we  had  there  no  concern  with 
 *'  their  fpeculations/'  The  queftion  agi- 
 tated in  that  place  refpe6led  only  the 
 immediate  objects  of  the  eftablilhed  wor- 
 fhip in  the  heathen  nations ;  and  there- 
 fore could  have  no  relation  to  any  gods 
 or  demons  held  only  by  the  philofphers^ 
 Neverthelefs  a  late  writer  has  confounded 
 thefe    very     different    deities    together. 
 
 •  On  Mir.  p.  189,   190.  p  See  above,  p.  4-7. 
 
 Some 
 
^9^         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Some  proofs  having  been  ofFered''  of  the 
 humanity  of  the  Jupiter,  or  fupreme  de- 
 ity, of  the  popular  and  civil  theology,  a 
 known  parricide  and  ufurper  i  the  gen- 
 tleman", after  citing  the  nobleft  defcrip- 
 tion  of  Deity  given  us  by  Socrates  \ 
 adds,  Whether  this  be  a  proof ^  ''  that  the 
 *^  fupreme  Deity  of  the  Pagans  had  once  been 
 •^  a  mortal  man^''  -we  leave  cur  readers  to 
 judge.  If  we  form  our  judgement  of  Mr. 
 Fell  by  this  language,  we  muft  con- 
 clude, that  he  did  not  know  the  diffe- 
 rence between  the  Jupiter,  or  fupreme 
 deity,  of  the  Pagans,  worfhipped  in  their 
 temples^,  and  him  acknowledged  only  by 
 the  philofophers ',  though  the  Heathens 
 have  clearly  diftinguifhed  the  one  from 
 the   other,  as   Seneca  has  done   in  the 
 
 «i  DifTert.  p.  176,   177.  '  Fell,  p.  104. 
 
 »  Mr.  Fell,  p.  104,  very  improperly  refers  to  Xeno-. 
 phon  the  defcription  of  deity  given  by  Socrates,  though 
 the  former  profeiles  merely  to  relate  the  fentiments  of  the 
 latter.     Meraorabil.  1.  i.  c.  4.  §.  2.  1.  4.  c.  3. 
 
 pafTage 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,  299 
 paffage  cited  below'.  By  the  fame  rule 
 of  judging,  our  author  was  even  ignorant 
 that  Socrates  oppofed  (and  fufFered  death 
 for  oppofing)  the  commonly-received  no- 
 tion of  the  gods,  and  of  Jupiter  in  parti- 
 cular, as  one  who  put  his  father  in  chains"; 
 and  that  this  great  innovator  in  religion, 
 was  formally  charged  with  introducing 
 new  gods^,  Mr.  Fell's  objection  proceeds 
 on  the  ftrange  fuppofition,  that  the  the- 
 ology of  Socrates  was  the  fame  with  the 
 popular  and  civil.  Should  any  one  aflert 
 that  the  eftabliflied  do6lrineof  the  church 
 of  England  is  trinitarian^  would  it  be  a  per- 
 tinent objeftion  againft  this  affertion  to 
 allege  that  Newton  and  Clarke  were  uni- 
 tarians  ?  Equally  foreign  from  the  point 
 is  the  method  taken  by  Mr,  Fell  to  dif- 
 credit  the  truth  of  the  account  I  had  gi- 
 
 *  Ne  hoc  quidem  crediderunt,  Jovem,  qualem  in  capi- 
 iolio  et  in  ceteris  cedibiis  colimus,  mittere  manu  fulmina, 
 fed  eundem  quern  nos  Jo'vem  intelligunty  cuftodem  redo- 
 remque  univerfi.  Senec.  Nat.  Qua^ft.  1.  2.  c.  45.  See 
 alfo  Cicero de  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c  4. 
 
 "  Platen.  Euthyphro,  p.  2.  ed.  Serrani. 
 
 ^  Id.  ib.  p,  6. 
 
 ven 
 
joo  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 ven  of  the  gods  of  the  civil  theology, 
 and  of  Jupiter  in  particular,  by  fhewing 
 that  Socrates,  who  was  known  to  diffent 
 from  that  theology,  acknowledged  a  dei- 
 ty that  had  never  been  a  man.  Scarce 
 could  the  gentleman  have  fhot  wider 
 of  the  mark,  had  he  taken  pains  to  mifs 
 it. 
 
 But,  though  the  prefent  queftion  does 
 not  properly  concern  the  gods  and  de- 
 mons of  the  philofophers,  yet  it  may  be 
 fitly  determined  by  their  teftimony  con- 
 cerning the  objects  of  national  worfhip. 
 They  were  certainly  competent  judges, 
 whether  the  heathen  nations  worfhipped 
 fuch  gods  as  had  been  men :  for  they  had 
 the  beft  means  of  information  concern- 
 ing the  religion  of  the  refpeftive  ages 
 and  countries  in  which  they  lived,  and 
 they  had  ftudied  the  fubjeft  with  particu- 
 lar attention. 
 
 Many  pofitive  teftimonies  of  thephilo* 
 fophers  to  the  public  worfhip  of  human 
 fpirits  were  referred  to  in  a  former  publi- 
 cation i 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      30! 
 
 cation* ;  and  feveral  were  cited  at  large  % 
 particularly  that  of  Cicero '^j  which  re- 
 prefents  almoft  all  the  gods,  and  even 
 the  greater  deities,  as  having  been  men. 
 Thefe  teftimonies,  important  and  deci- 
 five  as  they  are,  a  late  writer  has  pafled 
 over  in  perfeft  filence'";  which  is  the 
 more  remarkable,  as,  according  to  the 
 account  which  he  himfelf  has  given  of  the 
 
 '^  DifTert.  p.  191-193,     See  alfo  p.  182,  183, 
 
 y  P.  192. 
 
 *  Nay,  the  gentleman's  language  is  manlfeftly  calcu- 
 iated    (though  it  might  not  be  defigned)  to  miflead  his 
 readers  into  an  opinion,  that  no  fuch  teftimonies  had 
 been  produced.     Speaking  of  thephilofophers,  he  fays, 
 hitrodu5iiottj  p.  xiv.     *'  It  feems  unreafonable    to  ex- 
 *'   CLUDE  the  writings  and  opinions  of  the  mojl  leca-nel 
 **■  and  judicious  from  what  immediately  relates  to  their 
 "■  own  times  and  to  the  fentiments  of  thofe  among^ 
 '^  whom    they    lived.'*      And  though   afterwards,    at 
 fomediftance,  he  adds,  in  general  terms,  that  **  I'mrj 
 **  freely  admitted  their  information y  ivhene'ver  I  thought  it 
 **  ad'vantageous  to  my  o=wn  ctiu/e  ;*'    his   readers  would 
 never  from  hence  infer,  that  I  had  availed  myfelf  of  their 
 information   in    the  particular  cafe,  in  which  his  lan- 
 guage more  than  infmuates  it  had  been  excluded,  and  in 
 which,  he  pretends,  thephilofophers  were  on  his  fide 
 of  the  queilion. 
 
 philofophers, 
 
502         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 philofophers,  they  were  the  moft  proper 
 judges^  of  the  fa£l  which  they  atteft. 
 
 To  the  teftimonies  of  the  philofophers 
 to  the  general  worfhip  of  human  fpirits, 
 formerly  produced,  others  have  been  oc- 
 cafionally  added  in  the  two  preceding 
 chapters^  I  will  not  repeat  them  in  this 
 place,  however  pertinent,  but  only  con- 
 firm them  by  a  few  more  paffages  of  the 
 fame  import. 
 
 Callifthenes,  when  he  was  oppofing 
 the  deification  of  Alexander  while  living, 
 affirms  '*  that  this  favour  was  always 
 "  granted  to  great  men  by  pofterity*"  ". 
 Balbus  alfo  fpeaks  of  it  as  a  general  cuJlo?n 
 to  exalt  to  heaven  fuch  excellent  men  as 
 had  deferved  well  of  the  public  \     And 
 
 the 
 
 *  See  the  preceding  note. 
 ^  See  p.  151,  256,  with  many  other  places. 
 «  Intervallo  opus  eft,  ut  credatur  deus,  femperque  hanc 
 gratiam  magnis  viris  poiteri  reddunt.    Q^  Curtius,  1. 8. 
 
 c.  5. 
 
 •*  Sufcepit  vita  hominum,  confuetudoque  communis, 
 utbeneficiis  excellentis  vires  in  ccelum  fama  acvoluntate 
 toUerent.  Ap,  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  24.  —  It  is 
 fcarce  neceffary  to  obferve,  that,  in  the  language  of  the 
 
 Heathens, 
 
CC 
 
 in  the  dncie72t  heathen  World,  goi 
 the  learned  Pliny  informs  us,  "  that  to 
 requite  fuch  men,  by  ranking  them  a- 
 mongft  the  gods,  was  a  cuftom  of  the 
 highejl  antiquity^ '\  He  adds,  *'  that 
 the  names  of  all  the  other  gods,  and 
 "  of  the  ftars,  are  derived  from  men 
 **  of  diftinguifhed  merit ^". 
 
 Nor  was  this  the  mere  effeft  of  private 
 gratitude,  but  the  appointment  of  the 
 ftate.  T^he  laWy  fays  Cicero,  which  com- 
 mands  ihofe  who  were  confecrated  from  a- 
 viongft  men  to  be  worJJnpped^  fiews  that  the 
 fouls  of  all  men  are  iminortal^  but  that  thofe 
 of  the  brave  and  good  are  divine  ^,     S  eneca, 
 
 in 
 
 Heathens,  to  be  an  inhabitant  of  heaven,  and  to  be  a 
 god,  are  the  fame  thing.  Concerning  Berecynthia,  the 
 mother  of  the  gods,   Virgil  fays, 
 
 L2£ld.^eump3.nu,  centum  complexa  nepotes  ; 
 Omnes  ca^licolas,  omnes  fupera  aha  tenentes. 
 
 ^n.  VI.   7S6. 
 *  Hie  enim  ell  antiquiffimus  refcrendi  bene  merentibus 
 gratiam   mos,  ut  tales  numinibus  adfcribantur.     PUn. 
 1.  2.  c.  7, 
 
 ^  Quippe  et  omnium  aliorum  nominadeorum,  et  qu« 
 fupraretulifiderum,  ex  hominum  nata  funt  meritis. 
 
 s  Quod  autem  ex  hominum  genere  confccratos,  ficut 
 Hexculem  et  cateros,  coli  lex  jubet,  indicat  omnium 
 
 quidem 
 
304         WorJIoip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 in  like  manner,  draws  a  proof  of  the  im* 
 mortality  of  the  foul  from  the  agreement 
 of  maiikind  in  either  fearing  or  worJJjipping 
 the  Jhades  below^.  This  language  of  Sene- 
 ca may  be  explained  and  confirmed  by 
 the  teftimony  of  Apuleius',  when  he  re- 
 prefents  the  ghofts  of  evil  men  as  mif- 
 chievous;  but  thofe  of  the  wife  and  good 
 as  gods  that  were  honoured  with  tem- 
 ples and  religious  ceremonies.  It  is  re- 
 corded of  Pericles,  who  might  be  called 
 a  philofopher  as  well  as  a  ftatefman, 
 that,  in  a  funeral  oration,  (in  which  he 
 was  not  likely  to  contradi6l  the  popular 
 opinion,)  he  reprefented  thofe  who  die 
 in  defence  of  their  country  as  becoming 
 immortal  as  the  gods  were".   Other  tefti- 
 
 quidem  animos  immortales  efTe,  fed  fortium  bonorum- 
 quedivincs.     Cicero  de  Legibus,  1.2.  c.  11. 
 
 ^  Cum  de  animarum  immortaliteloquimur,  non  leve 
 momentum  apud  nos  habet  confenfus  hominum,  aut 
 timentium  inferos  aut  colentium.     Seneca,  ep.  117. 
 
 »  De  deo  Socrat.  p.  689,  ed.  Parif.  cited  in  letters  to 
 Worthington,  p.  38. 
 
 ^  Ap.  Plutarch.  Vit.  Periclis,  p.  156.  D.  A^avartf; 
 thiyz  ysyovivuij  ku^utts^  raj  Bi8^% 
 
 monies 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      305 
 
 monies^  to  the  humanity  of  the  popular 
 gods  might  be  produced. 
 
 But  it  is  fufficient  to  obferve,  in  gene- 
 ral, that  all  the  different  fe6ls  of  the 
 philofophers  eftablifh  this  fa6t.  Would 
 the  epicurean'^  and  academic''  philofophers 
 employ  the  whole  force  of  their  wit  and 
 fatire  againft  the  worfliip  of  dead  men, 
 if  it  had  not  been  pra6lifed  by  their 
 countrymen  and  contemporaries  ?  The 
 Stoics^  though  they  had  recourfe  to  a 
 phyfical  explication  of  the  fables,  allow- 
 ed that  they  were  literally  underftood  by 
 the  peopled  And  their  explications  were 
 condemned  by  the  other  fefts  as  unnatu- 
 ral and  abfurd  in  the  higheft  degree  ;  fo 
 
 ^  Particularly  that  of  Varro ;  which  will  be  cited 
 when  ii\tga7nes  inlHtuted  in  honour  of  the  gods  will  be 
 confidered, 
 
 ">  In  the  perfon  of  Velleius,  ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor. 
 K  I.  c.  15. 
 
 "  In  the  perfon  of  Cotta,  ib.  c.  42. 
 
 «  Bulbus  ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  2^. 
 
 X  as 
 
306         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 as  rather  to  eftablifh  than  deftroy  the  cre- 
 dit of  the  fables  ^ 
 
 The  Platonifts,  and  thofe  who  wiftied 
 to  conceal  from  public  view  the  earthly 
 origin  of  the  gods,*^  though  they  afferted 
 the  exiflence  of  celeflial  demons ;  yet 
 knew  that  thefe  demons  were  not  the  ob- 
 jefts  of  the  eiiablifhed  worfliip'.  And,, 
 ^fter  all  their  vain  attempts ^  by  their 
 fyftem  of  dernonology,  to  fupport  the 
 credit  of  the  public  religion,  they  found 
 it  iieceflary  to  efpoufe  the  principle 
 upon  which  it  was  really  grounded,  the 
 Cpnyerfxon  of  human  fouls  into  gods :  a 
 principk  that  was  alfo  held  by  the  Sto- 
 
 P  Cotta  ap.  Cicer.  N.  D.  1.  3.  c.  23.  cited  above,  p.  70. 
 notey,  Velleius  alfo  cenfures  the  Hoical  explication  of 
 the  fables  as  delirantiiim  fomnia,  non  philofophorum  ju- 
 dicia,  1.  z.  c.  16.  See  alfo  c.  14.  citedabove,  p.  296. 
 Cotta  reproaches  the  Stoics  with  making  thofe  who 
 were  called  ^<7,^i  merely  natural  things.  Eos  enim,  qui 
 di  appellantur,  rerum  naturas  efle,  non  figuras  deo- 
 rum.     L.  3.  c.  24,  comp.  1.  i.  c.42. 
 
 iSce  above,  p.  159,  in  the  notes. 
 
 *  See  above^  p,  234. 
 
tn  the  ancient  heathen  World,      307 
 
 ics',  by  Plutarch',  and  by  the  theiftic" 
 philofophers  in  general.  Nay^  they  un- 
 dertook to  defend  it  as  agreeable  to  right 
 reafon,  and  not  merely  as  a  political  in- 
 ftitution'^  5  and  accordingly  recommend- 
 ed the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits".  The 
 philofophers  laid  a  farther  foundation  for 
 this  worfhip,  by  teaching  that  an  inter- 
 courfe  between  the  celeftial  gods  and 
 men  was  carried  on  by  the  mediation 
 of  demons  of  terreftrial  origin,  who 
 hereby  became  the  more  immediate  ob- 
 jefts  of  divine  worlhip,  as  was  fliewn 
 elfewhere^ 
 
 So   that   the    philofophers,    fome  by 
 their  attacks  upon  the  public  religion, 
 
 •See Cicero de  Nat.  Deor.  I.  2.  c.  24. 
 
 *  See  above,  p.  165-167,  and  p.  234.  DilTert.  on 
 Mir.  p.  182.  See  alfo  his  life  of  Romulus,  near  the 
 end. 
 
 *  As  to  Plato,  feeDifiert.  on  Mir.  p.  191. 
 
 *  See  the  authors  referred  to  in  the  two  preceding  notes. 
 Even  Cotta  thought  it  not  improbable  that  the  fouls  ot  e- 
 minent  men  were  di'vine  and  etsrr.aL  Ap.  Cicer.  Nat. 
 Deor.  1.  3.  c.  5. 
 
 *  Differt.  on  Mir.  p.  175. 
 
 X  2  otiiers 
 
308      .   Worjloip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 others  by  their  defences  of  it,  and  all  by 
 their  conceffions  and  teftimonies,  efta^ 
 blifti  in  the  fuUeft  manner  the  faft  in 
 queftion,  the  general  prevalence  of  the 
 worfliip  of  mortal  gods  amongft  the  an- 
 cient Heathens.  And  their  language,  for 
 the  moil  part,  aflerts  or  implies,  that 
 thefe  gods  were  the  principal  obje6ls 
 of  their  religious  worihip^. 
 
 III.  The  heathen  HISTORIANS, 
 befides  bearing  teftimony  to  the  worihip 
 of  human  fpirits  in  particular  countries, 
 fumifli  general  proofs  of  the  prevalence 
 of  this  worfhip  amongft  the  ancient 
 Heathens. 
 
 Diodorus  Siculus,  in  a  fragment  pre- 
 ferved  by  Eufebius,  informs   us%    that 
 
 thofe 
 
 y  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  i.  c.  42.  1.  3.  c.  21. 
 
 Ta  y.ar  e^avav  afocc'  '7r^0(;  oe  rairoigf  avs/xyj,  y.xi  rag  aXAtff 
 Ts??  T^?  ofioia,^  (pvaiuc,  mroiq  rsTsv^oTeci;,  Teruv  yot^  Exaro* 
 a'ioiov  e^£iv  n:r,v  ytviaiv  y.a,\  Tr,v  ^isciA.oviov,  Ers^sj  ^e  XByaaiy 
 BViysmc  ysvBo-^ui  B^a^f  ^icc  ^t  rcci;  £>$  a.v^^w7r«s  ivt^yicnaq 
 aBumra  Tflv^y^KOTu^  Tiwvjj  y.cci  ^&|>3j,    nov  Hg«?'.Asa,     A^ovv' 
 
 ffov. 
 
i?ithe  ancient  heathen  World.       309 
 
 ihofe  of  the  highejl.  a?ttiquity  delivered  to  pof^ 
 ferity  two  opinions  refpeEling  the  gods. 
 Some,  they  faid,  were  eternal  and  incor^ 
 riiptible,  fiich  as  the  fun,  moon,  and  other 
 fiars  5  the  winds  alfo,  and  things  of  a  fimi^ 
 lar  nature  3  Jione  of  which  have  either  be- 
 gimiing  or  end.  They  alfo  maintained,  that^ 
 befdes  thefe,  there  were  terrejlrial  gods,  who 
 were  worjhipped  for  the  benefits  conferred 
 upon  7nankind,  fuch  as  Hercules,  Bacchus^ 
 and  Arifimis,  and  others. 
 
 This  teftimony  of  Diodoras  is  confir- 
 med by  one  of  the  moft  curious  remains 
 of  antiquity.  I  refer  to  the  treaty  made 
 between  Hannibal  and  the  Carthaginians 
 on  the  one  part,  and  Xenophanes,  the 
 Athenian,  minifter-plenipotentiary  of 
 Philip,  king  of  Macedonia,  in  his  own 
 name  and  that  of  the  Macedonians  and 
 their  aUies,  on  the  other.  The  treaty  ex-r 
 prefTes,  that  it  is  folemnly  entered  into 
 
 ffov,   Ap\TO(.\ovy    y.cn  ryj  aX^yg  rat;  roiHTUt;  o/xoiwj.      Diodor. 
 Sic.  Fragm.  p.  C^S,  torn.  2.  ed.  WefleHng. 
 
 X  3  and 
 
jio  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 and  ratified*  in  the  prefence  of  ^iipiter-^ 
 *JunOy  and  Apollo :  in  the  prefence  of  the  de^ 
 mon  of  the  Carthaginians^  and  Hercules^ 
 and  lolaus  :  in  the  prefence  of  Mars ^  Uri^ 
 ton^  Neptune :  in  the  prefence  of  the  gods, 
 who  accompanied  them  in  the  expedition^  and 
 of  the  fun  ^  and  the  moon^  and  the  earth :  in 
 the  prefence  of  the  rivers y  and  the  meadows^ 
 and  the  waters  :  in  the  prefence  of  all  the 
 gods  who  prefide  over  Carthage :  i?!  the  pre^. 
 fence  of  all  the  gods  who  prefde  over  Macedo^. 
 nia  and  the  reji  of  Greece  s  in  the  prefence 
 of  alt  the  gods  who  prefide  over  the  affairs 
 of  war  y  and  are  witfiejfes  to  the  prefe?it  oath 
 and  engagement ''. 
 
 We 
 
 *  EvavTtov  Atotf,  xat  H^a?,  y.m  A'Xo>^7^(i}vo^*  ivccvnov  ^«t- 
 ^ovo?,  y..  T.  A.  Polyb.  Hill.  1.  7.  p.  699.  torn.  i.  Am- 
 Hel.   1670. 
 
 ''Virgil,  who  is  to  be  confidered  as  an  eminent  anti 
 quarian  as  well  as  post,  has  given  an  account  of  an 
 oath  taken  by  iEneas,  (after  he  had  facrificed  to  the 
 manes,)  which  agrees  in  a  great  meafure  with  the  oath 
 cited  from  Poly bius.  He  fwears  by  the  fun  and  earthj> 
 by  fountains  and  rivers,  as  well  as  by  Juno,  Jupiter,t 
 and  Mars.  ^n.  XII.  173,  176,  181.  Compare  alfo 
 thcGathofLatinus,  v.  195-200.    In  their  folemn  oaths 
 
 they. 
 
in  the  anciejit  heathen  World.       j  1 1 
 
 We  have  here  an  authentic  document 
 iOf  the  rm7  theology  of  the  nations  of  A- 
 fia,  Europe,  and  i\frica ;  more  particu- 
 larly of  the  Carthaginians*^  and  confe- 
 quently  of  the  Phenidans^  from  whom 
 they  were  defcended;  of  the  Macedonians-, 
 of  the  Greeks-^  and,  in  one  word,  of  ail 
 the  parties  to  the  treaty,  together  with 
 their  confederates  and  allies.  And  if  we 
 fuppofe,  what  feems  very  probable,  that 
 the  treaty  was  drav/n  up  after  the  old^ 
 forms,  it  fhews  us  what  gods  had  been 
 acknowledged  in  all  thefe  nations  in 
 very  early  times. 
 
 The  deities  whom  the  treaty  particu- 
 larly fpecifies  are,  firft  of  all,  Jupiter^ 
 yuno^  and  Apollo ;  illuftrious  human 
 perfonages,  who  by  the  general  'confent 
 of  mankind  had  been  advanced  to  divine 
 honours,  and  were  worfhipped  as  gods 
 of  the  higheft  order.  Their  being  placed 
 herein  the  foremoft  rank  is  very  agreeable 
 to  what  we  have  before  proved,  that  fome 
 
 they  fometimes  fwore  by  all  the  gods.     Homer.  II.  III. 
 
 X  4  men 
 
312         Worjhip  of  human  spirits 
 
 men  and  women  were  honoured  as  the 
 greateft  gods.  Thefe  deities  were  com- 
 mon to  all  the  parties  concerned  in  the 
 treaty  ^  The  gods  next  mentioned  are, 
 the  ^tutelary  deity  of  the  Carthaginians, 
 (whofe  name  was  probably  kept  lecret  to 
 prevent  his  evocation,)  and  Hercules, 
 and  his  nephew  and  affiflant,  lolaus^ 
 who  no  doubt  were  held  in  peculiar  vene- 
 ration at  Carthage.  Nothing  need  be 
 faid  to  prove  the  humanity  of  thefe 
 godsi  nor  of  thofe  who  are  fpoken  of 
 -immediately  after  them,  Mars,  T!riton, 
 Neptune"" :    objefls  of  general   worfhip. 
 
 The 
 
 *^  On  the  communes  dii  the  reader  may  confult  the 
 comitientators,  and  particularly  Servius,  on  Virgil, 
 ^neid  VIII.  275.  XII.  118.  That  Hercules  was  one 
 of  them  appears  from  the  pafTage  here  iirlt  referred  to, 
 communem  vocate  deum.  The  penates  of  different 
 countries  were  often  the  fame.  Virgil  (i^n.  III.  15.) 
 fpeaks  of  the  focii  penates  of- Thrace  and  Troy. 
 .  :^The  fon  of  Iphiclus,  one  of  the  Argonauts.  Hy- 
 giniFab.  14.   p.  33. 
 
 *  Neptune  and  Mars  have  been  fpoken  of  before.  As 
 to  Triton  ;  he,  who  was  faid  to  appear  to  Jafon  in  a  hu- 
 man form  near  the  lake  Tritonis,  was  a  prince  in  that 
 
 placCc 
 
in  the  ancient  l^eathen  World.      3x3 
 
 The  treaty  farther  makes  mention  of  the 
 gods  who  accompany  the  expedition^  that  is, 
 whofe  images^  are  carried  with  the  army. 
 Thefe  are  not  particularly  named  ;  but 
 the  defcription  here  given  of  them  marks 
 the  clafs  to  which  they  belonged.  The 
 divinities  next  fpecified  are  thofe  filled 
 natural  by  the  philofophers  :  the  fun^  the 
 mcon^  the  ea7'th,  the  ?^ivers,  the  meadows, 
 a?2dthe  waters.  The  objects  of  nature  are 
 here  diflinguiflied  from  all  the  foregoing 
 deities,  particularly  from  Jupiter,  Juno, 
 Mars,  and  Apollo.  And  therefore,  though 
 the  laft  is  fo  often  faid  to  be  the  fun,  and 
 all  of  them  have  been  reprefented  as  na- 
 
 place.  Bannier'sMythoI.  V.  4.  B.  3.  ch.  3.  p.  50-52. 
 Engl.  Tranflat.  SeeV.  i.  p.  1 17,  but  efpecially  V.  2. 
 p.  511,  512. 
 
 ^  What  gods  were  reprefented  by  images  will  be  fhewn 
 in  the  fequel.  Eufebius  fpeaks  of  the  gods  which  the 
 army  of  Licinius  carried  with  them  as  vm^uv  uluXoc 
 ^ocvovruv  IV  a.-\/v^oK;  ctyu.'Ky.oLcri.  Vit.  Conllantini,  1.  2. 
 c.  16.  p.  544.  Thefe  were  the  camp  gods,  ordiimili- 
 tares,  fpokcn  of  by  Tertullian,  Apol.  c.  10.  p.  11. 
 where  they  are  ranked  amongft  thofe  that  had  been  men. 
 
 tural 
 
3 14         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 tural  gods,  yet  they  belonged  to  a  diffe- 
 rent clafs ;  and  the  phylical  explication 
 of  them  could  not  be  agreeable  to  the 
 civil  theology  of  the  ancient  nations, 
 which  was  th^  real  creed  of  the  vulgar, 
 and  the  religion  profeiTed  by  all  orders 
 of  the  ftate.  As  to  the  natural  obje6ls 
 themfelves  here  enumerated^  it  does  not 
 clearly  appear,  from  this  pafTage,  that 
 the  civil  theology  confidered  them  fo 
 much  as  being  poiTeffed  of  internal  divi^ 
 nity,  as  being  inhabited  by  prefiding 
 deities.*  The  latter  view,  indeed,  was 
 not  inconfiftent  with  the  former;  and 
 the  divine  prejfidents  and  the  things 
 prefided  over  are  often  confounded* 
 Laftly,  the  treaty  makes  general  men- 
 tion, both  of  the  guardian  deities  of  Car-^ 
 tbagCy  Greece  y  and  Mace  don  ^  who  could 
 be  no  other  than  the  princes  and  heroes 
 by  whom  thefe  ftates  and  kingdoms 
 were  founded  j  and  of  the  gods  who  pre-: 
 
 fde 
 
 *  See  below,  p.  31$,  note  ». 
 
in  the  micienf  heathen  World,       3 1  j 
 
 Jide  ever   the    aff^airs   of  war,    of  whom 
 the  principal  was  Mars^ 
 
 1  could  not  avoid  taking  this  notice  of 
 the  oath  of  Hannibal  and  Xenophanes; 
 becaufe  it  throws  light  upon  our  fubje6l^ 
 and  has,  I  think,  been  overlooked  by  all 
 other  writers  upon  it  whom  I  have  hap- 
 pened to  confult.  But  it  is,  I  prefume, 
 needlefs  to  cite  farther  general  tefti- 
 monies  to  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits 
 from  the  hiftorians,  as  many  proofs 
 of  this  point  were  produced  from  them 
 when  we  were  di(lin6lly  fhewing  that 
 fuch  worfliip  prevailed  in  the  feveral  na- 
 tions of  the  world.  I  muft,  however, 
 make  one  farther  remark. 
 
 The  heathen  religion  entered  into  all 
 thofe  public  concerns  which  are  the  pro- 
 vince of  hiftory;  it  was  interwoven  with 
 the  conftitution  of  ftates  and  kingdoms, 
 and  influenced  all  their  councils  and  o- 
 perations.     If  any  law  was  to  be  ena£t- 
 
 8  '  Tuque,  inclyte  Mavors, 
 
 Cunda  tuo  qui  bella,  pater,  Tub  numine  torques. 
 
 Vipg.  ^n.  XII.  179. 
 
 edi 
 
3 1 6       ^  WorJJdip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 ed ;  if  any  war  was  refolved  upon,  or 
 concluded  ;  if  any  city  was  belieged  or 
 taken ;  if  any  fignal  calamity  was  fufFer- 
 ed,  or  blelling  received  -,  the  gods  were 
 confulted,  fupplicated,  and  appeafed, 
 by  various  ceremonies  and  facrifices  y 
 and  their  imagined  interpofition  in  fa- 
 vour of  their  votaries  was  acknowledged 
 by  paying  them  the  honours  vowed  in 
 the  day  of  danger  and  diftrefs.  Hence  it 
 comes  to  pafs  that  the  religion  of  the  an- 
 cient nations  was  fo  much  intermixed 
 with  their  civil  hiftory. 
 
 Now  to  thofe  who  are  acquainted  with 
 antiquity  I  leave  it  to  determine,  whe- 
 ther the  gods,  to  whom  they  decreed  di- 
 vine honours,  ftatues,  temples,  altars, 
 priefts,  facrifices,  feftivals,  and  all  the 
 apparatus  of  divinity,  on  the  foregoing 
 or  other  public  occafions,  were  folely, 
 or  even  ipoft  ufually,  ether^  air^  Jire^ 
 wafer ^  the  earthy  the  fea^  the  fun^  and 
 moon.  Herodotus,  during  his  long  refi- 
 dence  in  Egypt,  was  curious  and  inqui- 
 
 fitive 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      315^ 
 
 fitive  concerning  the  gods  and  religious 
 ceremonies  of  the  Egyptians  ;  yet  where 
 has  he  fpoken  of  the  temples,  priefts, 
 and  rites,  of  the  ftars  and  planets,  a- 
 mongft  that  people^  ? 
 
 We  find,  I  allow,  the  Greeks,  and 
 Romans,  and  others,  addrefling  prayers 
 to  the  fun',  or  fwearing  by  it\  At  Rome 
 a  temple  was  erefted  to  the  fun  and 
 moon' ;  and  the  fame  thing  might  be 
 done  in  other  places.  But  the  idea  of  thefe 
 celeflial  luminaries,  which  the  mytholo- 
 gy (on  which  the  civil  theology  was 
 founded)  conveyed   to  the  people,    was 
 
 ^  Even  the  learned  Jablonlki,  thougli  it  fo  ill  agrees 
 with  his  own  fyftem,  acknowledges,  —  Herodotus,  — 
 de  planetarum  templis,  facerdotibus,  et  facris,  nihil 
 quicquam  tamen  unquam  adfert.  Eftqueetiam,  praecer 
 cun^,  vix  fcriptor  alius,  qui  de  cultu  planetarum  apud 
 jEgyptios  vel  tandllum  nos  doceat.  Tom.  2.  Prolegom. 
 §.  27.  p.lxiii. 
 
 »  See  Dido's  prayer  to  the  fun  and  the  other  gods, 
 Virg.  i£n.  IV.  607. 
 
 >«  Virg.  ^n.  XII.  176.  Homer.  II.  III.  277.  So- 
 phocles, Oedipus  Tyrannus,  v.  674,  675. 
 
 1  Rofinus,  Antiq.  Roman,  p.  122. 
 
 very 
 
3 1 8         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 very  different  from  that  entertaliri^d 
 of  them  by  the  philofophers,  who  eonfi- 
 deredthem  as  natural  divinities'". 
 
 "*  The  theotogers  make  mention  of  feveral  funs.-  On€ 
 was  the  fon  of  Jupiter  ;  another,  the  fon  of  Hyperion; 
 a  third  fprang  from  Vulcan  ;  a  fourth  was  born  of  A- 
 cantho ;  and  a  fifth  was  the  father  of  iEta  and  Circe. 
 Cicer.  de  Nat.  Deor.  L  3.  c.  21.  In  different  nations, 
 the  fun  was  thought  to  be  Eelenus,  Ofiris,  Heliogaba- 
 lus  or  Elagabal.  The  lafl  was  a  Syrian  deity,  of  whom 
 it  is  faid,  that  he  appeared  to  Aurelian  in  a  human 
 fliape,  and  was  married  to  the  goddefs  Urania.  His 
 worlhip  was  firft  introduced  into  Rome  by  his  votary 
 Heliogabalus,  though  a  temple  had  been  eredted  to  Sol 
 inany  ages  before.  See  Dion.  Caff.  Vi  2.  p.  1338^ 
 J  2 39,  1367,  ed.  Reimari.  The  Englifh  reader  may 
 confult  Crevier's  Rom.  Hift.  V.  8.  p.  228,  229.  V.  9; 
 p.  157.  and  Univerfal  Hift.  V.  15.  p.  353.  Now  all 
 thefe  views  of  the  fun  are  very  different  from  thofe  gi- 
 ven of  it  by  the  philofophers,  and^  inflead  of  confuting;^ 
 confirm  our  main  daftrine. 
 
 As  to  the  other  natural  divinities,  the  fields,  for  ex- 
 ample ;  they  were  not  fo  properly  the  immediate  ob- 
 ieds  of  public  worlhip  as  the  gods  and  goddeffes,  who 
 
 were  confidered  as  the  prefidents  and  guardians  of  the 
 
 « 
 
 fields, 
 Dique  deaeque  omnes,  fludium  quibus  arva  tueri. 
 
 Virg.  Georg.  I.  21.- 
 But  this  fubjed  cannot  be  farther  profecuted  in  this 
 place* 
 
 It 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       310 
 
 It  win,  I  apprehend,  be  found  upon 
 examination,  that,  according  to  the  his- 
 torians, the  public  devotion  was  princi-^ 
 pally  direded  towards  gentilitial,  tutela- 
 ry, and  local,  deities,  the  guardians 
 of  particular  nations  and  people,  fucli 
 as  had  been  the  objefts  of  their  former 
 care;  and  to  thofe  greater  gods  wliom 
 we  have  before  proved  to  be  men.  It  is 
 with  an  account  of  their  worfhip  that 
 hiftory  fo  much  abounds.  Hence  ma* 
 ny  of  the  Heathens  aiSirmed,  that  their 
 gods  were  not  gods  by  nature^  but  by  4irt 
 and  certain  laws  %  and  were  different  in 
 different  countries,  according  to  the  ap- 
 pointment of  legiflators.". 
 
 From  the  feveral  foregoing  teflimonles 
 of  the  pagan  poets,  philofophers,  and 
 hiflorians,  we  may  conclude,  that  the 
 more  immediate  objefts  of  the  eftablifhed 
 
 fvan,     fiM^     T»(5-t     V0/X0V5*      x«*     Twra?    ctXXn^  «cPAot(,     oirs 
 gibus,  1.  10.  p.  S89,  E.  ed,  Serrani. 
 
 worfhip. 
 
3 2D         Worjlnp  ofhunVan  Spirits 
 
 worfhip,  in  the  idolatrous  nation^^ 
 were,  for  the  moft  part,  dead  men  and 
 women  ;  unlefs  you  can  iuppofe  that  the 
 Heathens  of  every  clafs  and  order,  and 
 in  every  age,  confpired  to  give  a  falfe  ac-^ 
 count  of  their  own  gods  and  demons. 
 And,  though  the  cuftom  of  appealing  to 
 the  fun  and  moon,  and  other  gods  ftiled 
 natural,  was  on  fome  occafions  ftill  pre- 
 ferved,  yet  the  objects  of  thofe  appeals, 
 according  to  the  civil  theology,  were  not 
 properly  the  elements  and  heavenly  bo- 
 dies themfelves,  as  conceived  of  by  thd 
 theiftic  philofophers,  but  rather  human 
 ipirits,  as  will  be  ihewn  at  large  here- 
 after. 
 
 It  ought  not  however  to  be  concealed, 
 that  a  very  learned  writer  has  attempted 
 to  deftroy  the  force  of  this  argument. 
 He  allov/s,  indeed,  that  the  pagan  gods 
 were  not  only  fappofed  by  chriftian  wri- 
 ters to  have  been  deified  mortals^  "who  were 
 worjhippcd  in  the  countries  where  they  died ; 
 but  that  this  was  the  opinion  of  the  Heathen 
 
 themjehes^ 
 
in  the  ancient  heathe?!  World.       321 
 
 themfelves^  the  very  people  by  whom  thefe  gods 
 were  honoured :  yet  Jlill^  adds  our  author, 
 
 it  is  a  MISTAKE  ^ 
 
 It  is  certainly  no  fmall  prefumption 
 of  the  truth  of  the  account,  given  in  the 
 preceding  flieets,  of  the  opinion  the 
 Heathens  entertained  concerning  their 
 own  gods,  that  it  is,  in  this  explicit 
 manner,  confirmed  by  a  writer  whofe  ex- 
 tenfive  knowledge  of  antiquity  cannot  be 
 difputed  ;  efpecially  as  that  account  mi- 
 litates fo  ftrongly  againfh  his  own  hypo- 
 thefis. 
 
 At  the  fame  time  I  cannot  eafily  per- 
 fuade  myfelf,  that  the  whole  gentile 
 world,  not  excepting  the  moft  enlight- 
 ened nations  of  it,  and  the  moft  illuftri- 
 ous  fages  that  adorned  it,  and  who  had 
 made  the  civil  theology  their  particular 
 ftudy,  lay  under  fuch  a  ftrange  delufionj 
 with  refpeft  to  their  gods,  as  to  believe 
 they  were  deified  mortals,  and  natives 
 of  the  countries  where  they  were  wor- 
 
 •Bryant,  Mythol.  V.  i.  p.  454,  455. 
 
 Y  fhipped. 
 
322         Worfiip  of  himan  Spirits 
 
 fliipped,  if  ill  reality  they  were  not  io. 
 As  far  as  mere  authority  is  concerned, 
 that  of  any  modern  writer,  whatever  his 
 learning  and  abilities  may  be,  can,  in 
 this  cafe,  have  no  weight,  when  fet  a-.. 
 gainft  the  fentiments  of  the  Heathens, 
 who  had  not  merely  fuperior  advantages 
 for  forming  a  right  judgement  on  the 
 point,  but  certain  information  concern- 
 ing it,  and  who  indeed  could  not  be 
 miflaken  in  their  opinion  refpe6ling  the 
 plain  matter  of  faft,  viz.  that  thofe,  to 
 whom  they  paid  divine  honours,  were 
 princes  and  heroes  whom  they  them- 
 felves  had  deified.  Waving,  therefore, 
 on  this  occafion,  Mr.  Bryanfs  authori- 
 ty, let  us  proceed  to  confider  the  force 
 of  his  reafoning. 
 
 It  is  not  credible^  fays  our  author  % 
 however  blind  idolatry  may  have  been,  that 
 people  fjoidd  enjldrine  perfons  as  immortal^ 
 where  they  had  the  plainejl  evidence  of  their 
 mortality,  that  is,  at  their  tombs.     The 
 
 P  lb.  p.  452, 
 
 Gentiles 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  WorlcL       323 
 
 Gentiles  believed,  that  the  foals  of  vir- 
 tuous men,  after  the  diflblution  of  their 
 bodies,  became  immortal  gods  "^  5  and  on 
 this  ground  paid  them  divine  honours. 
 As  to  the  reafon  of  worfliipping  them  in 
 the  places  where  they  were  buried,  it  will 
 be  taken  notice  of  in  the  next  feftion' ; 
 and  will,  I  am  perfuaded,  occur,  on  a 
 moment's  recollection,  to  Mr.  Bryant. 
 
 It  is  farther  urged',  that,  if  divine  ho^ 
 noiirs  were  conferred^  they  were  the  effe5fs 
 of  time.  This  was  not  the  cafe  always'; 
 as  appears  from  the  hiftory  both  of  po- 
 pifh  and  pagan  idolatry  :  and  fa£ls  can- 
 not be  overturned  by  any  fpeculative 
 reafonings.  But  indeed,  at  what  time 
 was  it  more  likely  that  the  fuperftitious 
 part  of  mankind  fhould  pay  divine  ho- 
 
 ^  DiiTert.  on  Mir.  p.  182,  214.  Comp.  Bryant, 
 V.  I.  p.  455. 
 
 '  At  the  end  of  the  i  ft  article. 
 
 '  Bryant,  V.  i.  p.  452. 
 
 <  Eufeb.  Priep.  Ev.  1.  2.  c.  5.  p.  70.  cited  under 
 the  4th  article  of  this  fedion,  p.  344. 
 
 Y  z  nours 
 
3  24         JVorJhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 nours  to  a  hero  than  immediately  after 
 his  death,  when  the  admiration  of  his 
 godlike  endowments,  the  remembrance 
 of  his  recent  benefits,  and  the  glory 
 of  his  illuftrious  exploits,  were  frefh  in 
 their  minds ;  and  while  their  paffionate 
 grief,  for  the  lofs  they  had  fuftained, 
 almoft  unavoidably  tranfported  them  be- 
 yond the  bounds  of  reafon  ?  After  their 
 refpedt  and  affeftion  were  cooled  by  time, 
 it  would  not  be  fo  eafy  to  kindle  their  de- 
 votion. Again, 
 
 The  gentleman  obje6ls%  that  Varro^ 
 according  to  T'ertullian^  makes  the  yupiters 
 in  number  three  hundred^  and  mentions  for^ 
 ty  heroes  of  the  name  of  Hercules.  Our 
 author  alio ws,  that  many  mountains  were 
 called  by  the  name  of  Olympus^ .  But  does 
 this  prove  there  was  no  fuch  moun- 
 tain ?  Is  it  at  all  incredible,  that  diffe- 
 rent men  fliould  be  called  by  the  fame 
 name  ?  Or  can  the  fact  in  queftion  be 
 vouched  by  a  better  authority  than  Var- 
 
 "  V.  I.  p.  457.     Seealfop.  453,  454. 
 ^  F.  239. 
 
 ro? 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World »       325 
 
 ro  ?  His  opinion  is  in  a  great  degree  con- 
 firmed by  other  writers "". 
 
 But  it  is  faid^,  men  are  not  agreed 
 when  Jupiter  lived.  On  a  point  of  fuch 
 high  antiquity  as  the  age  of  the  firft  Ju- 
 piter can  we  wonder  there  fhould  be  a 
 difference  amongft  the  learned  ?  They 
 were  the  more  likely  not  to  agree  on  this 
 point,  as  feveral  perfons  were  called  by 
 the  name  of  Jupiter  who  lived  in  diffe- 
 rent ages.  The  cafe  was  the  fame  in  o- 
 ther  inftances.  Different  heroes  bore  the 
 name  of  Hercules,  for  example,  who 
 were  neither  of  the  fame  age  nor  coun- 
 try :  which  has  introduced  much  confu- 
 fion  into  their  hiftory.  This  confufion 
 has  been  increafed  by  their  afcribing  to 
 
 ^  See  above,  p.  246,  in  the  note.  It  is  fhewn,  in  Cic. 
 deN.D.  1.  3.  c.  16,21,  22,  23,  that  there  were  many 
 gods  who  bore  the  name  of  Hercules,  feveral  J upiters. 
 Suns,  Vulcans,  Mercurys,  i£fculapii,  Apollos,  Dianas, 
 Dionyii,  Venufes,  Minervas,  and  Cupids.  Nor  was  it 
 an  unufual  thing  for  every  king  to  be  called  Jupiter. 
 Reges  omnes  ^taj,  reginas  veroSsa?,  appellari  fuit  foli^ 
 turn.  Tzetzes,  upon  the  authority  of  Ptolemy.  Ap, 
 J^aftant.  1. 1 .  c.  8.  in  the  concluding  note,  ed.  Dufrefnoy, 
 y  P.  457-460. 
 
 y  3  the 
 
326         JVorJlnp  of  human  Spirits. 
 
 the  later  heroes  of  one  country  the  virtues 
 and  exploits  of  the  more  ancient  heroes 
 of  another^.  Mr.  Bryant  himfelf  fays.  It 
 is  to  he  ohfervedy  that^  when  colonies  made 
 any  where  a  fetf lenient  ^  they  ingrafted  their 
 antecedent  hifiory  upon  the  fubfequent  events 
 of  the  place  \*  that  the  Greeks  adopted  all  fo- 
 reign hijlory  y  and  fuppofed  it  to  have  been 
 of  their  own  country  ^ ;  and  that  their  ori^ 
 ginal  hifory  was  foreign  ^  and  ingrafted  up^ 
 071  the  hifory  oj  the  country  where  they  fet- 
 tled\  Thefe  obfervations  not  only  remove 
 the  objeftion  we  are  here  confidering  re-^ 
 fpefting  the  age  in  which  Jupiter  lived, 
 but  another  difficulty  alfo  on  which  great 
 ftrefs  is  laid^'j  viz.  that  the  heroes  of  one 
 
 ^  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  iii.  p.  243.  ed.  WefT.  takes 
 notice  of  three  heroes  vVho  bore  the  n^me  of  Bacchus, 
 and  of  the  fame  number  of  eminent  perfons  who  were 
 called  Hercules,  the  lall  of  whom  was  the  fon  of  Jupir 
 ter  by  Alcmena.  The  hiflorian  adds,  that  the  exploits 
 of  the  two  former  were  folely  afcribed  to  the  laft,  as  if 
 there  had  never  been  more  than  one  Hercules.  Q,q  ivot; 
 H^axXgy?  yiyovotoc;  £v  wavTt  ru  v^ort^ov  aiavi*  See  alfo 
 ].  I.  p.  28.  and  Bryant,  V.  2.  p.  57  &  feq, 
 
 *  Preface,  p.  xii.  xiii.         ^  Mythol.  V.  I,  p.  175. 
 
 cP.  i78„  -P.459- 
 
 country 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,       327 
 
 country  had  not  only  the  fame  names, 
 but  the  fame  relations  and  connexions, 
 with  thofe  of  another. 
 
 The  Heathens,  we  are  farther  told, 
 differed  from  one  another  about  the  place 
 where  Jupiter  was  horuy  and  where  he 
 was  buried  \  This  might  well  be  the 
 cafe,  fuppofing  there  were  feveral  Jupi- 
 ters.  Even  without  having  recourfe  to 
 this  folution,  the  objection  is  inconclu- 
 five.  Did  not  feven  cities  contend  for 
 the  honour  of  giving  birth  to  Homer  ? 
 Will  you  infer  from  thence  that  no  fuch 
 poet  ever  exifted  ?  But  the  tomb  of  Ju- 
 piter, it  is  urged,  was  fuppofed  to  be  in 
 feveral  places  -,  and  the  fame  is  alfo  faid 
 of  the  tombs  of  Ifis  and  Oliris^  When 
 our  learned  author  made  this  objeftion, 
 he  did  not  recoUefi:,  that  it  was  cuftoma- 
 ry  with  the  ancients  to  ere6l  monuments 
 in  honourof  the  dead  which  did  not  con- 
 tain any  of  their  remains.  Thefe  vacant 
 monuments  were   raifed,    not  only  for 
 
 c  p.  459,  460.  *■  p.  461. 
 
 Y  4  tliofe 
 
328         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 thofe  perfons  who  had  not  obtained  2ijuft 
 funeral^,  but  alfo  for  thofe  who  hadfuch 
 a  funeral  in  another  place ;  of  which  we 
 find  frequent  mention  in  Paufanias,  who 
 fpeaks  of  fuch  honorary  tombs  dedicated 
 to  Euripides,  Ariftomenes,  Achilles, 
 Dameon,  Tirefias,  and  others \  At 
 thefe  tombs,  though  the  bodies  of  thq 
 deceafed  were  not  depofited  in  them,  their 
 ghofts  were  invoked,  and  thefe  invoca^ 
 tions  were  thought  to  bring  them  to  the 
 habitations  prepared  for  them'.  Sacrifi- 
 ces alfo  were  offered,  and  libations  pour^ 
 
 ed 
 
 t,  The  ghofts  of  men  unburied  were  thought  to  wan- 
 der in  mifery  for  a  hundred  years,  unlefs  an  empty  fe- 
 pulchre  was  erefted  to  them.  Potter's  Gr.  An.  V.  2. 
 B.  4.  c.  7.  p.  245.     See  Virg.  &x\..  VI.  371. 
 
 h  Potter  ubi  fupra,  &  Guther.  de  Jure  Manium, 
 1. 2.  c.  18.  —  Sa^pe  in  tumulis  fine  corpore  nominalegi, 
 Ovid.  Metamorph.  I.  11,  v.  429. 
 
 »  With  this  view  ^neas  invoked  the  ghoft  of  Dei- 
 phobus : 
 
 Tunc  egomet  tumulum  Rhoeteo  in  litore  inanem 
 Conftitui,  et  magna  manes  ter  voce  vocavi. 
 
 Virg.  Mn.  VI.  505, 
 Ergo  inftauramus  Polydoro  funtis,  et  ingens 
 Adgeritur  tumulo  tellus :  ftant  manibus  arse, 
 Inferimus  tepido  fpumantia  cymbia  lade, 
 
 Sanguiuisi 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,  329 
 edout,  to  their  afhes ''.  It  was  cuftoma- 
 ry  in  the  moft  early  ages  to  raife  fepul- 
 chres  to  perfons  of  eminent  merit,  mere- 
 ly to  preferve  their  memory  and  perpe- 
 tuate their  fame.  Hence  it  came  to  pafs, 
 that  the  fame  perfon  often  had  many  fe- 
 pulchres  erefled  to  him  in  different  pla- 
 ces \     There  might  well  therefore  be  a 
 
 difference 
 
 Sanguinis  et  facri  pateras  :  animamque  fepulchro 
 Condimus,  et  magna  fupremum  voce  ciemus. 
 
 JEw,  riJ.  62. 
 Pelias  recalled  to  his  native  country  the  foul  of  Phryxus, 
 who  died  abroad.  Pindar.  Pythia,  Ode  IV,  v.  284, 
 See  the  next  note. 
 
 ^  Virgil  fays  of  Andromache  : 
 Libabat  cineri  Andromache,  manifque  vocabat 
 Heftoreum  ad  tumulum  :  viridi  quern  cefpiteinanem 
 Et  geminas,  cayffam  lacrimis,  facraverat  aras. 
 
 Virg.  Mn.  III.  305. 
 Concerning  Drufus,  who  was  buried  in  the  Campus 
 Martins,  Suetonius  fpeaks  in  the  following  terms: 
 Caeterum  exercitus  honorarium  ei  tumulum  excitavit  : 
 circa  quem  deinceps  ftato  die  quotannis  decurreret,  et 
 Galliarum  clvitates  publice  facrificarent,  al.  fupplica- 
 rent.  Vit.  Claudii,  c.  i.  Sec  Virg.  Mn.  J  J  I.  62-68, 
 cited  in  part  in  the  preceding  note. 
 
 '  VetuftiiTimi   moris  fuit  in    honorem  amici  ac  bene 
 jneriti  cujufpiam   viri  fepulchrum  illi  Hatuere.     Non 
 
 quo4 
 
330         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 difference  of  opinion  amongft  the  Hea- 
 thens about  the  real  places  where  thofe 
 men  were  buried,  whom  they  fo  highly 
 efteemed  as  to  exalt  into  the  rank  of 
 gods.  At  the  fame  time,  the  very  con- 
 tention, between  different  cities  and 
 countries,  for  the  honour  of  having 
 their  tombs,  fliews  that  all  were  agreed 
 in  this  one  point,  that  their  gods  were 
 men  who  had  died  and  been  buried. 
 
 Some  have  urged  the  abfurdities  of 
 the  fables  concerning  the  heathen 
 gods  with  the  fame  view  as  Mr.  Bryant 
 does  their  inconfijlencies.  But  fhall  we  de-- 
 ny  the  exiftence  of  the  popifh  faints, 
 merely  becaufe  their  hiflory  is  filled  with 
 legendary  ftories  as  void  qf  fenfe  as  they 
 
 quod  conditi  eflent  illlc  ejus  cineres  atque  ofTa :  fed  me- 
 moriae tantum  id  tributum,  illuftrandique  ejus  nominis 
 gratia.  Qua  e  re  contigit  ejufdem  perfa^pe  viri  diverlis 
 in  locis  pluraetiam  fepulchra  inveniri.  Jovian,  lib.  de 
 Mag.  apudPet,  Moreilel.  Pompa  Feralis,  1.  lo.  c.  i. 
 
 The  cullom  of  raifing  vacant  fepulchres  was  very  an-. 
 cient,  as  appears  from  the  mention  of  them  in  Virgil, 
 iEn.  VI.  505.  IX.  214,  215.  Homer  alfo  makes  men^ 
 tionofa  cenotaph,  or  honorary  tomb,  Cdyff.  IV.  584, 
 
 are 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      3'?  i 
 
 are  of  truth  ?  Many  events  that  have  re- 
 ally happened  have,  as  Paufanias"  ob- 
 serves, been  rendered  incredible  by  thofe 
 who  have  raifed  a  fuperftruclure  of  lies 
 upon  them.  Belides,  the  abfurdity  of  the 
 heathen  fables  concerning  their  gods  is 
 the  lefs  to  be  wondered  at,  asfomeof  thofe 
 fables  might  have  a  latent  meaning, 
 and  were  not  to  be  literally  underftood. 
 To  return  to  our  author. 
 
 He  urges  a  farther  objeftion  againfl: 
 the  human  origin  of  the  gods,  drawn 
 from  thechara6terof  theHelladian  and  o- 
 ther  Greek  writers,  who  afTerted  it.  Ac- 
 cording to  him,  the  Greciai^s^  who  received 
 their  religion  from  Egypt  and  the  eaft^  inifcon- 
 jiriied  every  thing  that  was  i?nported^  ajidad^ 
 ded  to  thefe  ahfurdities  largely,  They  adopted 
 deities  to  whofe  pretended  attributes  they  were 
 totally  fir  angers,^  T'he  writers  of  Greece  did 
 not  know  the  purport  of  the  words  which 
 were  found  in  their  ancient  hymns" ,  The 
 great  ejt  part  of  the  Grecian  theology  arofe  from 
 
 "  Paufanias,  Arcad.  p.  601. 
 
 »  V.  \,  p.  306.  «  P.  85.     Seep.  252. 
 
 mifconceptions 
 
332         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 mtf conceptions  and  blunders  j  and  the  Jlories 
 concerning  their  gods  and  heroes  were  found" 
 ed  on  terms  mifnterpreted  and  abufed  ^, 
 They  miftook  the  Hebrew  word  cahen^ 
 which  lignifies  a  priejly  for  the  Greek 
 kuon^  and  mifconftraed  it  a  dog"^ :  they 
 changed  Omphi-El  (which,  according  to 
 our  author,  fignifies  oracle  of  the  fun) 
 into  omphalos y  a  navel ' ;  and,  fo  little  did 
 they  underftand  their  own  language, 
 that,  from  the  word  Toc(pogy  (taphosj  which 
 they  adopted  in  a  limited Jenfe^  (that  is,  as 
 fignifying  a  tomb,)  they  formed  a  notion 
 of  the  gods  havi?2g  beeii  buried  in  every  place 
 where  there  was  a  tumulus  to  their  honour^ ^ 
 T!hey  formed  perfonages  out  of  the  names 
 of  towers  a?id  other  edifices'" ;  and  out  ofeve^ 
 ry  obfolete  term"" :  they  confiantly  mifiook  ti-^ 
 ties  for  names ^  and  from  thefe  titles  multi-^ 
 
 P  p.  453.  See  below,  p.  336,  where  the  reader  wilj 
 find  more  of  Mr.  Bryant's  cenfures  of  the  Grecians. 
 
 ^  See  p.  329-352,  Why  might  not  the  Egyptians 
 worfhip  dogs  as  well  as  other  animals  ?  You  have  nq 
 more  reafon  to  fet  afide  the  teftimony  of  the  antients  in 
 the  one  cafe  than  in  the  other. 
 
 TP.  240.      'P.  453.      tV.  2.  p.  I.      "V.  I.  p.  82, 
 
 plied 
 
tn  the  ancient  heathen  World. 
 
 333 
 
 flied  their  deities  and  heroes^.    Out  of  every 
 title  they  made  a  god  ^  ;  and  mijlook  temples 
 for  deities^. 
 
 Our  author  might  have  made  fhorter 
 work  with  the  Grecians,  and  called  them 
 at  once  perfeft  idiots.  But  it  feems  it  was 
 only  with  refpeft  to  the  fubje6l  of  reli- 
 gion, on  which  their  fentiments  differed 
 from  his,  that  they  difcovered  fuch  a  to- 
 tal want  of  underftanding.  In  all  other 
 refpects^  he  admits,  they  were  the  wifejl  of 
 ell  the  Jons  ofmen"^.  This  commendation 
 renders  his  cenfure  very  improbable. 
 
 The  improbability  of  the  cenfure  will 
 appear  ftill  greater,  if  you  confider  who 
 were  the  firft  founders  of  the  Grecian 
 theology.  They  were  the  natives  or  inha- 
 bitants  of  Syria  or  Egypt's  vvho  came 
 
 V  V.  I.  p.  176. 
 
 »  V.  I.  p.  307. 
 
 "f  V.  I.  p.  175.     Comp.  p.444,  445. 
 
 *  V.  I.  p.  245. 
 
 ^  See  above,  p.  210,  and  Bryant,  V.  i.  p.  182-186. 
 The  Helladians  themfelves,  he  fays,  came  from  Egypt 
 and  Syria;,  p.  150. 
 
 with 
 
334  Worjldip  of  human  SplfiU 
 with  colonies  into  Greece,  fettled  in  that 
 country,  and  there  eftabUfhed  their  own 
 ^reUgion  with  the  affiftance  of  the  priefts 
 who  always  attended  fuch  expeditions.  * 
 They  afterwards  fuperintended  the  reli- 
 gion which  they  planted.  Let  every  rea- 
 der judge  whether,  under  fuch  inftruc- 
 tors,  the  Greeks  could  fall  into  thofe 
 grofs  miftakes  which  are  here  imputed 
 to  them,  but  of  which  no  proof  is  pro- 
 duced. 
 
 Moreover,  if  we  inquire  carefully  in- 
 to the  matter  of  faft,  we  fhall  find,  that 
 the  Greeks  did  not  mifconftrue  every 
 thing  imported  from  Egypt  and  the  eaft  : 
 for  the  general  fyftem  of  religion  in  thefe 
 feveral  countries  was  the  fame%  and 
 their  notions  of  the  gods  were  not  very 
 different.  Nay,  the  gentleman  himfelf  al- 
 low s,  *'  that  all  the  rites  of  the  Hella- 
 "  dians,  as  well  as  their  gods  and  heroes, 
 **  were  imported  from  the  eaft,  and 
 **  chiefly  from  Egypt"* ''.  Their  theology, 
 
 ♦Bryant,  V.  i,p.  281,      ^  See  above,  p.  21 1,212, 
 *  V.  I,  p.  149,   150.     Seeabuve,  p.  331. 
 
 therefore. 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      o  o  r 
 
 therefore,  did  not  arife  from  their  own 
 mifconceptions  and  blujiders. 
 
 Neceffity  alone  could  compel  our  au- 
 thor to  give  fo  unfavourable  an  account 
 of  the  Greek  writers.  If  their  authority- 
 be  admitted,  his  hypothefis  muft  fall 
 to  the  ground.  They,  Mr.  Bryant  al- 
 lows, confidered  their  gods  as  deified 
 mortals ;  but  he  fays  they  were  mijlaken^ 
 and  that  moji  of  the  deifed perfona^es  never 
 exijledy  hut  were  mere  titles  of  the  deity  ^  the 
 fun"".  It  may  perhaps  be  faid,  that  it  was 
 not  necefiity,  but  irrefiftible  evidence,  that 
 compelled  Mr.  Bryant  to  adopt  an  hypo- 
 thefis fo  deftru6tive  of  the  credit  of  all  the 
 Greek  writers,  and  indeed  of  the  whole 
 heathen  world.  Let  us  enquire  whether 
 he  produces  any  fuch  evidence. 
 
 His  hypothefis  refls  principally  upon 
 two  grounds.  One  of  them  is  etymolo- 
 gical  deduftion,  a  foundation  far  too 
 flight  to  fupport  an  edifice  of  any  mag- 
 
 *  V.  1.  p.  452.     See  p.  305-317. 
 
 nitude. 
 
336  WorPoip  of  humaji  Spirits 
 nitude.  But,  two  very  learned  writers^  ha--^ 
 ving  pointed  out  fo  many  miftakes  in 
 Mr.  Bryant's  etymologies,  nothing  far- 
 ther need  be  offered  on  the  fubjeft,  ex- 
 cept it  be  that  the  gentleman  himfelf  has 
 deftroyed  his  own  argument.  He  fays  ^, 
 that  he  has  rendered  ancient  terms  as  they 
 were  exprejfed  by  them^  viz.  the  Grecians, 
 who,  according  to  our  author^,  changed 
 every  foreign  term  to  fomethiiig  fimilar  in 
 their  own  language:  to  fomethingf??iilar  in 
 founds  however  remote  in  meanings  being  led 
 folely  by  the  ear.  On  this  ground  his  ety- 
 mologies are  built  -,  and  yet  he  affirms, 
 that  the  Grecians  could 7iot  articulate  orfpell 
 the  names  of  the  deities  they  adopted^  and  did 
 not  know  how  to  arrange  the  elements  of  which 
 the  words  were  compofed\  If  the  Greeks 
 did  not  underftand  the  language  of  their 
 foreign  inftruftors,  yet  the  latter  certain- 
 ly underftood  the  language  of  the  former, 
 
 ^  See  Bibliotheca  critica,  pars  prima,  p.  53.  printed 
 at  Amfterdam,  1777;  and  Richardfon's  DifTertation  oil 
 the  languages  of  the  eaflern  nations,  p.  104,  &  feq.  & 
 p.  380,  2d  ed, 
 
 g  Preface,  p.  xvi.       '^  V.  i.  p.  176.       *  Id.  p.306.' 
 
 otherwife 
 
/;/  the  ancient  heathen  World,      337 
 other  wife  they  could  not  have  converfed 
 together.     Now,  there  being  a  language 
 common   to  both,  the  Greeks,  w^e  may 
 reafonably  fuppofe,  learned  the  meaning 
 of  the  foreign  terms  they  adopted.    But, 
 according  to  our  author,  they  not  only  mif- 
 underftood,  but  were  unable  to  articulate, 
 the  names  of  the  foreign  gods.  How,  then, 
 could  they  articulate  their  names  when 
 transferred  into  the  Greek  language,  by 
 words  fimilar  in  found?  The  articulation 
 of  words  of  the  fame  founds  if  impra6li- 
 cableinone  language,  muft  be  equally  fo 
 in  every  other.  On  the  gentleman's  prin- 
 ciples, therefore,  there  could  be  no  affini- 
 ty in  found,  any  more  than  in  fenfe,  between 
 the  ancient  terms  and  the  Grecian  mode  of 
 exprefTmg  them ;  and  confequently  no  ar- 
 gument can  be  drawn  from  the  etymology 
 of  ancient  terms  as  expreffed  by  the  Greeks. 
 The    other  ground,    on  which   Mr. 
 Bryant's  hypothefis  is  built,  is  the  wri- 
 tings of  the  Greeks,  thofe  very  Greeks 
 whofe  teflimony  he  had  taken  fo  much 
 pains  to   difparage.     All  cur   knowledge 
 
 Z  of 
 
33^  JVorJIAp  of  human  Spirits 
 of  the  gentile  hiftory^  fays  this  learned  wii-^ 
 ter'',  niuji  come  either  through  the  hands  of  the 
 Grecians^  or  of  the  Romans  who  copied  from 
 them.  But  of  what  ufe  can  it  be  to  our 
 author  to  appeal  to  the  Greeks,  if  they 
 were  fuch  grofs  blunderers  as  he  repre- 
 fents  them  ?  And  could  he  hope,  by 
 their  authority,  to  eftablifh  a  fyftem, 
 which,  by  his  own  confeflion,  was  op-* 
 pofite  to  that  which  they  efpoufed  ? 
 Why,  it  feems,  they  did  not  know  the  pur- 
 port of  their  own  intelligence^ ;  and  he  un- 
 dertakes to  deduce  from  their  own  hijlories 
 7nany  truths  with  which  they  were  totally 
 unacquainted\  That  Mr.  Bryant  has  gi- 
 ven proofs  of  a  fagacity  as  uncommon  as 
 his  erudition,  and  by  the  aid  of  both 
 thrown  new  light  upon  ancient  writers,, 
 and  in  fome  inftances  difcovered  their  re- 
 al meaning  v/hich  had  efcaped  the  ob- 
 fervation  of  others,  it  is  but  juftice  to 
 him  to  acknowledge.  Neverthelefs,  the 
 attempt  to  deduce,  from  authors,  truths 
 with  which  they  themfelves  were  totally 
 
 •^  Preface,  p,  ix.  xvi,  ^-  p.  143,        ^  Preface,  p.  ix, 
 
 unacquainted,. 
 
in  the  ancient  heathe?i  World,  339 
 unacquainted,  and  to  difcover  meanings 
 oppofite  to  thofe  which  they  are  acknow- 
 ledged really  to  have  had,  was  too  hazar- 
 dous an  undertaking,  and  in  which  the 
 imagination  alone  could  properly  engage. 
 After  all,  had  Mr.  Bryant,  upon  any 
 grounds  whatever,  eftabliilied  his  main 
 point  with  refpeft  to  the  heathen  gods, 
 viz.  that  they  were  all  titles  of  the  fun, 
 or  refolvable  into  that  one  deity""  5  he 
 could  not  prove  from  hence,  that  the 
 Heathens  did  not,  in  their  own  concep- 
 tion, worfliip  a  deified  mortal.  He  fays, 
 the  Cuthites,  or  Amonians,  and  the  col- 
 lateral branches  of  the  family,  having 
 raifed  Ham  to  a  divinity,  worJJjtpped  him 
 as  the  fun ",  the  deity  which  the  AmoJiiam 
 adored\  Now  the  Heathens,  in  worfhip- 
 ping  the  fun  under  this  idea  of  it,  may 
 be  confidered  as  worfhipping  a  human 
 fpirit. 
 
 ">  V.  I.  p.  305,  306,  309.     Preface,  p.  xv, 
 "  Preface,  p.  vii.     Ham'was  hyhis pojlerity  ejiceined the 
 fun,  V.I.  p.  244.  &:p.  239,  257.     He  makes  the  ora- 
 cle of  Ham  and  the  fun   to  be  the  fame,  p.  239,  243, 
 248,  2^-8,   259,   273.  ^  lb.  p.  XV. 
 
 Z  2  In 
 
340         Worfmp  of  human  Spirit i ' 
 
 In  juftice  to   our  learned  author,  as 
 well  as  to  our  fubjeft,  1  cannot  conclude 
 without  taking  notice,  that,  though  he 
 argues  againft  the    opinion  which  the 
 Heathens  entertained  of  their  own  gods, 
 as  being  deified  mortals,  yet  he  himfelf 
 maintains,  that  the  worjhip  of  Ham  was  in- 
 troduced by  the  Amonians  in  Phrygia  and  A- 
 fia  Minor^:  that  the  CuthiteSy  wherever  they 
 came^  were  looked  up  to  as  a  fuperior  order 
 of  beings ;  and  hence  were  filed  heroes  and 
 demons^ :  and  that  the  Jiations  of  the  eaft  ac- 
 knowledged originally  but  07ie  deity  ^  the  fun  ; 
 but:,  1^'hen  they  ca7ne  to  give  the  titles  of  O- 
 rusj  Ofirisy  and  Cham^  to  fome  of  the  heads 
 of  their  family  y  they  too  in  time  were  looked 
 tip  to  as  godsy  and  fever  ally  worfhipped  as  the 
 fun\  He  affirms*,  By  thefe  terms,  the  ma- 
 nes and  lares,    are  fgnified  dii  Arkita, 
 who  were  no  other  than  their  Arkite  ancef 
 torsy    the    pe?fo?2s    preferved  in   the   ark. 
 Speaking  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  he 
 
 P  V.  I.  p.  273,  274.  1  Preface,  p.  vii. 
 
 '  V.  f.  p.  306.  «  V.  2.  p.  456, 
 
 fays. 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.       341 
 
 iays*,  "The  whole  of  their  worfiip  was  confix 
 7ie d  to  a  few  deified  men  ^  thefe  lares  y  manes ^ 
 dcemones^  of  whom  we  have  been  treat- 
 ing.  T!hey  were  no  other  than  their  Arkite 
 ancefiorSy  the  Baalim  of  the  Smptures  :  to 
 thefe  they  offered^  and  to  thefe  they  made 
 their  vows.  In  more  general  terms,  he 
 pofitively  afferts,  'The  whole  religion  of  the 
 ancients  confified  in  the  worjhip  of  demons  : 
 and  to  thofe  perfonages  their  theology  continue 
 ally  refers,  They  were^  like  the  manes  a7id 
 lares  of  the  Romans  ^  fiippofed  to  be  the  fouls 
 of  meji  deceafed"^, 
 
 Thefe  conceffions,  at  the  fame  time 
 that  they  difcover  Mr.  Bryant's  candour, 
 feem  to  me  fully  to  confirm  the  opinion 
 of  the  heathen  gods  which  I  have  been 
 attempting  to  eftablilh. 
 
 IV.  Let  us  proceed  to  confider  the  tef- 
 timony  of  the  Chriftian  FATHERS  to 
 the  general  worfhip  of  dead  men  in  the 
 ancient  heathen  nations. 
 
 «  V.  2.  p.  459.  ■  V.  2.  p.  280. 
 
 Z  3  Many 
 
34^         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Many  teftimonies  of  the  Fathers,  to. 
 the  general  worfhip  of  dead  men  amongfl: 
 the  Heathens,  were  produced  in  a  for- 
 mer publication''.  Thefe  learned  writers 
 have  alfo  been  occafionally  appealed  to, 
 in  the  preceding  flieets,  in  order  to  con- 
 firm fome  particular  articles ;  though 
 my  principal  defign  has  hitherto  been  to 
 eftablifli  the  point  in  queftion  by  the  au- 
 thority of  the  Heathens  themfelves. 
 
 It  could  anfwer  no  end  farther  to 
 multiply  citations  from  the  Fathers, 
 merely  to  fhew  that  they  thought  the 
 gods  of  the  Gentiles  were  deified  mor- 
 tals :  for  this,  I  apprehend,  is  univer- 
 fally  admitted  by  learned  men.  Mr. 
 Bryant '',  in  particular,  allows,  "  that 
 this  w^as  the  opinion  of  Clemens,  Eu- 
 febius,  Cyril,  TertuUian,  Athenago- 
 ras,  Epiphanius,  Laftantius,  Arno- 
 bius,  Julius  Firmicus,  and  many  o- 
 thers."  Some  of  thofe  here  omitted  by 
 Mr.  Bryant  were  taken  notice  of  in  the  Dif- 
 
 ■^^  Difiert.  on  Mir.  p.  212.         ^  Mythol.  I.  p.  455. 
 
 fertation 
 
 <c 
 cc 
 <c 
 cc 
 
<c 
 
 cc 
 
 in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      343 
 
 fertationon  Miracles^;  particularly  Cy- 
 prian, Minucius  Felix,  and  St.  Auftin. 
 But  our  learned  author*  affirms,  *'  that 
 the  whole  of  their  argument  turns  up- 
 on this  point,  the  conceffions  of  the 
 "  Gentiles.  The  more  early  writers 
 ''  of  the  church  were  not  making  a  ftri6l 
 chronological  enquiry,  but  were  la- 
 bouring to  convert  the  Heathen. 
 "  They  therefore  argue  with  them  upon 
 "  their  own    principles,     and    confute 
 
 ^'  them  from  their  own  teftimony." 
 
 "  It  matters  not  whether  the  notion," 
 viz.  of  the  Heathens,  who  thought  their 
 gods  had  been  men,  ^'  were  true ;  the 
 ^'  Fathers  fairly  make  ufe  of  it.  They 
 ''  avail  themfelves  of  thefe  conceffions, 
 '•^  and  prove  from  them  the  abfardity 
 ^^  of  the  Gentile  w^orfhip,  and  the  in- 
 *'  confiftency  of  their  opinions." 
 
 Thefe  obfervations,  being  fpecious  in 
 themfelves,  and  fupported  by  fo  great  an 
 authority   as  Mr.  Bryant,  deferve  to  be 
 
 y  P.  212,  213.  *=  Mythol.  I.  p.  455. 
 
 Z  4  maturely 
 
344  Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 maturely  examined.  It  is  natural  to  fup- 
 pofe  that  the  Fathers  would  avail  them- 
 felves  of  the  conceffions  of  the  Heathens 
 on  the  fubjeft  before  us  ;  but  the  whole 
 of  their  argument  does  not,  to  my  ap- 
 prehenfion,  turn  upon  this  point.  They 
 take  upon  themfelves  to  affirm  it  as  a 
 fa6l,  that  the  heathen  gods  had  been 
 men ;  and  they  eftablifh  the  faft  by 
 convincing  evidence. 
 
 I .  They  affirm  the  fa6l  in  the  ftrongeft 
 terms.  Eufebius,  who  was  a  perfeft 
 mafter  of  antiquity,  maintains,  that,  in 
 the  early  ages,  thofe,  who  excelled  o- 
 thers  in  wifdom  and  power,  or  had  emi- 
 nently benefited  mankind,  were  pro- 
 claimed gods,  both  while  living  and  after 
 their  deaths^.  He  declares  he  had  pro- 
 ved, by  unqueftionable  teftimonies,  that 
 the  gods^  worjhipped  by  all  people y  both  in 
 cities  and  villages ^  were  the  ghojls  and  ima-- 
 
 Praep.  Ev.  1.  2.  c.  5.  p.  70.  D. 
 
 ges 
 
i?i  the  ancient  heatheii  World,      34^ 
 
 ges  of  dead  men^.  And  he  afierts,  that 
 Sanchoniathon  in  particular  had  fliewn, 
 that  dead  men  and  women^  covered  with  all 
 manner  of  vices ^  were  advanced  to  the  rank 
 of  gods  ;  and  that  thefe  were  the  very  fame 
 gods  as  thofe  iiniverfally  worjhipped  in  all  ci- 
 ties and  coimtries  in  his  time^.  Arnobius, 
 after  particularly  enumerating  feveral  de- 
 ities who  had  been  men,  pofitively  af- 
 ferts,  *'  that  all  the  gods  they  had  in 
 **  their  temples  were  fuch''\  Renames 
 of  the  gods  whom  you  profefs  to  worjhip^  fays 
 Theophilus  Antiochenus  to  Autolycus, 
 are  the  names  of  dead  men^ ,  Ladtantius,  as 
 
 Id.  ib.  A. 
 
 Mot^rv^si     yi     rUTHq  ayra?   eKsnaq  tivxiy     rsq  naiTi,  y.at 
 
 nock  Ta?  x^^^a?'  Id.  1.  I.  c.  9.  p.  3 I.e.  SeeDemonft. 
 Evang.  1.8.  p.  364.  &  Vit.  Conftantini  pafTim. 
 
 *^  Vos  hominem  nullum  colitis  natum  ?  noii  unum  et 
 alium  ?  non  innumeros  alios  ?  quinimo  non  omves,  quos 
 jam  templis  habetis  veftris,  mortalium  fulluliftis  ex  nu- 
 mere,  et  coelo  fideribufque  donaftis  ?  Adv.  Gentes, 
 p.  21. 
 
 ^  Tot,  fjLiv  ovoixxrae.  uv  (pr,q  (jiQia^on  Beuv  onouecrae,  sft 
 Kix^wv  cLvB^uTTuv.  Theophyl.  ad  Autolyc,  1.  i.  c#  14. 
 p.  36.     Hamburg.  1724. 
 
 we 
 
346         Worjloip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 we  have  feen,  adopted  thefyftem  of  Eu- 
 hemerus,  which  reprefented  all  the  hea- 
 then gods  as  mere  mortals  ^  St.  Auftin 
 likewife  has  given  his  fan6lion  to  that 
 fyftem,  and  affirms  that  it  was  founded 
 upon  hiftorical  evidence^  He  maintains, 
 that  even  the  greater  gods  had  been  men^; 
 and  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find,  in 
 all  the  writings  of  the  Heathens,  any 
 one  god  of  a  different  clafs\  Tertullian' 
 and  Minucius  Felix  affert,  that  all  their 
 godsy  or  the  whole  fwarm  of  heathen  deities ^ 
 were  men^  not  excepting  the  chief  of  all, 
 Jupiter  and  Saturn,  before  whom  they 
 had  no  gods\  There  were  no  kings,  fays 
 
 Laftantius, 
 
 *  Ladant.  Divin.  Inflitut.  1.  i.  c.  14.  cited  above, 
 p.  222.     Seealfoc.  11.  p.  49.  ed.  Dufrefnoy. 
 
 ^  Auguft.  de  Civ.  Dei,  1.  6.  c.  7.  cited  above,  p.  222, 
 
 s  lb.  1.  8.  c.  5.  cited  above,  p.  257. 
 
 **  Id.  ib.  I.  8.  c.  26.  cited  above,  p.  257. 
 
 *  Omnes  iflos  deos  vellros  homines  fuifTe.  Tertullian. 
 Apol.  c.  10.  p.  1 1. 
 
 ^  Saturnum  enim  principem  hujus  generis  et  exami- 
 nis  omnes  fcriptores  vetuftatis,  Grsci  Romanique,  ho- 
 liiinem  prodiderunt.    —  Saturnus  Creta  profugus,  &c. 
 
 Minucias 
 
tn  the  ancient  heathen  World,       347 
 
 Ladlantlus,  before  Saturn  or  Uranus^; 
 and,  royalty  being  the  ground  of  deifi- 
 cation ^  thefe  princes  came  to  be  regard- 
 ed as  the  moft  ancient  divinities. 
 
 2.  At  the  fame  time  that  the  Fathers 
 afTert,  in  general  terms,  the  humanity 
 of  all  the  heathen  gods,  they  eftablifh  it 
 by  arguments  of  great  weight,  fuch  as 
 have  convinced  others  of  the  truth 
 of  their  opinion,  and  which  probably 
 therefore  produced  the  fame  effe6l  upon 
 themfelves.  Many  of  them  have  been 
 touched  upon  in  the  preceding  fheets ; 
 others  will  come  under  examination  in 
 the  next  feftion  :  and  therefore,  to  a- 
 void  repetition,  I  fhall  barely  mention 
 them  in  this  place,  without  enquiring 
 into  their  force.     Nor  fhall  I  attempt  to 
 
 Minucius  Felix,  c.  22.  p.  113,  114.  ed.  Davif.  — 
 Ante  Saturnum  deus  penes  vos  nemo  eft.  Tertullian. 
 Apol.  c.  10.  cited  at  large  above,  p.  265.  —  See  alfo 
 Arnobius,  p.  92,  93.  cited  above,  p.  252. 
 
 '  Ladlant.  1.  i.  c.  15. 
 
 make 
 
345         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 make  diftincl  mention  of  all  their  argu-. 
 ments,  but  only  touch  upon  fome  of  the 
 principal. 
 
 They  appeal  to  ancient  tradition  and 
 all  the  authentic  records  of  pagan  anti- 
 quity"'; to  the  diftinft  teftimonies  of 
 their  poets  and  their  hiftorians " ;  to  the 
 difcovery  of  the  eart}ily  origin  of  the 
 gods  in  the  myfteries  ;  and  to  the  report 
 of  thofe  who  had  divulged  this  fecret  to 
 the  world  ^     ^^  The  genealogies  of  your 
 
 "^  Sienim  forte  vos  fugit,  fortis  eos  humanae,  et  con- 
 ditionis  fuiffe  communis ;  replicate  antiquiffimas  lite- 
 ras,  et  eorum  fcripta  percurrite,  qui  vetuilati  vicini, 
 fine  ullis  aflentationibus  cunda  veritate  in  liquida  pro- 
 diderunt.  Arnobius,  p.  zi.  — Non  attendunt  in  om- 
 nibus Uteris  paganorum,  &c.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8, 
 c.  26.  cited  above,  p.  257. 
 
 "  Quod  fi  quis  dubitet,  res  eorum  gellas,  et  fafta, 
 confideret :  quae  univerfa  turn  poetae,  turn  hiHorici  ve- 
 teres,  prodiderunt.     Laftant.  1.  i.  c.  8.  p.  35. 
 
 P  Particularly  Leo,  the  Egyptian  priell.  Minac. 
 Felix,  p.  121,  122.  Cyprian,  de  Idol.  Vanit.  p.  12. 
 fpd.FelL    Attguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  5,  27. 
 
 ."  gods", 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,        340 
 
 ''  gods^",  faid  the  Fathers  in  their  ad- 
 drefles  to  the  Heathens,  ''  and  their 
 marriages,  their  adulteries,  and  other 
 crimes',  point  out  their  participation 
 of  human  nature.  They  were  kings 
 who  were  indebted  for  their  divinity 
 to  the  adulation  of  their  fubjecls'. 
 Their  fathers  and  mothers,  their 
 country,  their  tribe  and  kindred, 
 their  exploits  and  various  fortunes. 
 
 <c 
 cc 
 cc 
 <c 
 cc 
 <c 
 
 (C 
 (C 
 
 ^  Theophilus  Ant.  ad  Autolyc.  I.  2.  p.  72.  is 
 thus  rendered  by  Wolfius.  Etenim  dum  genealogias 
 corum  percurritis,  pro  hominibus  eos  habetis ;  pauIo 
 poft  vero  deos  appellatis,  et  colitis,  nee  recogitantes, 
 neque  intelligentes,  eos  tales  efie,  quales  natos  legitis. 
 Tatian  (Orat.  ad  Graces,  c.  36.  p.  79.  ed.  Worth) 
 argues  in  the  fame  manner.     r«>£cr»y  a»  Aiy^jre  flswv,    xa* 
 
 '  Tatian.  ubi  fupra,  p.  30,  31.  Tertullian,  after 
 enumerating  the  crimes  imputed  to  the  gods  by  their 
 votaries,  adds.  At  quin  ut  illos  homines  fuilfe  non 
 poiTitis  negare,  etiam  ills  notse  accedunt.  Apol.  c.  11. 
 p.  12. 
 
 s  Quomodo  ergo,  inquiet  aliquis,  dii  credit!  funt  ? 
 Nimirum  quia  reges  maxlmi  ac  potentiffimi  fuerint. 
 Ladlant.  1.  i.  c.  8.  p.  35.  In  c.  15,  he  handles  the 
 fubjeft  more  largely.  Compare  Cyprian  de  Idol.  Va- 
 nitat.  init.  S:  Minucius  Felix,  c.  29.  p.  14.7,  148. 
 
 *'  are 
 
35^         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 '  are  all  on  record'.     It  is  well  known 
 
 '  in  what  cities  they  were  born^    and 
 
 '  where    they    were     buried".       And, 
 
 '  if  farther  proofs  of  their  humanity 
 
 '  are  defired,  we  appeal  to  the  viands'' 
 
 *  with  which  your  gods  are  fupplied,  to 
 
 '  the  images  *  by  which  they  are  repre* 
 
 '  fented,  and  to  the  temples^  in  which 
 
 '  their  remains  are  depofited.     But  the 
 
 '  fact  itfelf,  that  all  thofe  whom  you 
 
 *  See  above,  note  ",  Augufl.  Civ.  D.  1.  8.  c.  27^ 
 and  Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  10.  p.  11.  ed.  RIgalt.  I 
 fhall  fet  down  the  words  of  Arnobius,  p.  21.  Jam 
 profedo  difcetis,  quibus  finguli  patribus,  quibus  ma- 
 tribus,  fuerint  procreati,  qua  in  riati  regione,  qua 
 gente,  quae  fecerint,  egerint,  pertulerint,  aftitarint> 
 quas  in  rebus  obeundis  adverforum  fenferint,  fecun- 
 dantiumque  fortunas* 
 
 "  The  heathen  records  tefliiied  to  his  time,  fays 
 Tertullian,  (Apol.  c.  10.  p.  11.)  et  civitatibus  in  qui- 
 bus nati  funt ;  et  regionibus  in  quibus  aliquid  operati 
 veftigia  reliquerunt,  in  quibus  etiam  fepulti  demon- 
 ftrantur.  See  Recogn.  S.  Clementis,  1.  10.  c.  23,  24. 
 p.  594.  ap.  Patres  Apoft.  V.  i.  ed.  Clerici. 
 
 ^  Sin  autem  fcientes  uteris  eife  geilatos,  et  frugibus 
 cos  viditalTe  terrenis.  Arnob.  p.  21.  See  the  next 
 fe(Slion  under  the  article  of  <worJI?ip» 
 
 *  See  the  next  fedion,  article  V.       y  lb.  article  11. 
 
 *^  now 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,       3  r  i 
 
 now  worfhip  as  gods  had  once  been 
 men,  is  fo  notorious  that  you 
 cannot  deny  it^.  It  is  becaufe  you 
 cannot  deny  that  the  objefts  of  your 
 worfhip  had  been  men,  that  you  af- 
 firm them  to  be  now  advanced  to  the 
 rank  of  gods%  Nor  have  you  any  o- 
 ther  reafon,  for  flying  to  a  phyfical 
 explication  of  the  fables,  than  your 
 being  afhamed  of  the  literal  hiftory*"'. 
 This  is  the  natural  language  of  per- 
 fons  fully  perfuaded  of  the  truth  of  what 
 they  faid.     Under  this  flrong  perfuafion, 
 
 *  Provocamus  a  vobis  ad  confcientiam  veftram.  Ilia 
 nosjudicet,  ilia  nosdamnet,  ripoteritnegareo/^^w^j-iilcs 
 deos  veftros  homines   fuifle.     Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  lo. 
 
 *  Et  quoniam  ficut  illos  homines  faiffe  non  audetis 
 denegare,  ita  pofl  mortem  deos  fa<5los  inflituiftis  afTeve- 
 rare.     Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  ii.  p.  ii, 
 
 ^  Ipfa  quoque  vulgaris  fuperftitio  communis  idolola- 
 triae,  cum  in  fimulacris  de  nominibus  et  fabulis  veterum 
 mortuorum  pudet,  ad  interpretationem  naturalium  re- 
 fugit,  etdedecus  fuum  ingenio  adumbrat.  Tertullian. 
 adv.  Marcion.  1.  i.  p.  371,  372.  ed.  Rigalt.  1675.  — 
 Ut  fcriptorum  tantam  dcfendatis  audaciam,  allegorias 
 res  illas,  et  naturalis  fcientiai  mentimini  efle  doflrinas. 
 Arnobius,  p.  150. 
 
 they 
 
35^         WorJJnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 they  openly  infult  the  public  religioii 
 of  their  country,  and  juftify  their  non- 
 conformity to  it  on  account  of  it*s  pre- 
 fcribing  the  worfhip  of  the  dead.  With 
 great  eloquence  and  ftrength  of  reafon- 
 ing  do  they  expofe  the  abfurdity  of  that 
 worlliip,  and  the  folly  and  arrogance 
 of  pretending,  by  certain  ceremonies,  to 
 convert  mortal  men  into  immortal  gods, 
 and  to  advan  ce  them  to  celeftial  dignity  and 
 power\  Thefe  reproaches,  had  they  not 
 been  well  founded,  would  have  been  re- 
 ceived with  all  the  contempt  they  defer- 
 ved  ;  and  thofe,  who  urged  them  with  fo 
 much  confidence  and  triumph,  would 
 have  appeared  ridiculous  in  the  eyes 
 of  all  the  world.  But  their  reafonings  on 
 this  fubjeft  had  a  very  different  effeft, 
 and  contributed  greatly  to  the  downfal 
 of  pagan  idolatry. 
 
 The  opinion  and  teftimony  of  the  Fa- 
 thers, under  the  foregoing  circumflan- 
 ces,  feem  to   me  to  be  of  great  weight, 
 
 «  SeeLadant.  I.  i.  c.  15.  p.  69,  70.  ed.  Bufrefnoy^ 
 
 They 
 
271  the  a'nciejit  heathen  World,      3^3 
 
 They  were  bred  up  in  the  heathen  reli- 
 gion,   or   lived  in   the   times    when   it 
 flouriflied  ;    and  therefore  were  as  com- 
 petent judges    of    it  as    the   Heathens 
 themfelves  could  be.  After  the  moft  cri- 
 tical examination  of  it,  they  confidently 
 pronounced  the  objefts  of  national  wor- 
 fhip  to  be  human  fpirits.  They  fupport- 
 ed  this  opinion  by  arguments  more  than 
 by  the  authority  or  conceflions  of  the: 
 Heathens.     And,    fb   clear,  and  cogent 
 were  their  reafonings,   that  idolaters  de- 
 ferted  the   worfliip   of  their  falfe  gods, 
 and  adored   only   the  creator  of  heaven 
 and  earth. 
 
 A  late  writer,  who  would  feem  to  be 
 very  jealous  of  the  credit  of  the  Fathers*, 
 
 A  a  knew 
 
 ^  In  the  Efiay  on  the  Demoniacs,  '^^^'ij,  54,  in  the 
 note,  after  citing  from  Jerome,  in  his  own  words,  a 
 paffhge,  which  may  be  thus  tranflated  :  Becau/e  they 
 (the  Fathers)  arefometimes  compelled  to /peak,  not  what 
 1  H  E  Y  THINK,  but  ^L'hat  necejjity  requires ^  they  oppofe 
 ^vhat  the  Gentiles  adnjance  :  I  immediately  added,  When^ 
 ever  they  had  an  cud  to  fcrve,  no  caution  can  be  too  great  in 
 foUon.ving  them.  This  obfervation  is  cenfured  by  Mr. 
 Fell,   (Demoniacs,  p.  156.)  and  feems  to  have  been  the 
 
 principal 
 
354         Worjhtp  of  human  spirits 
 
 knew  very  little  what  pains  he  was  ta- 
 king to  deftroy  it.     He  not  only  oppofes 
 
 their 
 
 principal  ground  on  which  he  afks,  p.  i6o,  *'  Is  not  this 
 *'  fuch  an  attack  upon  the  common  honefly  of  man- 
 *'  kind  ■■  as    naturally  deflroys   the  faith   of  all 
 
 *«  hillory,  while  it  leads  to  w^^/'t^^r/^z/ fcepticifm  ?"  Here 
 it  is  obvious  to  remark,  i .  That  the  charafter  which  is 
 given  the  Fathers  by  Jerome,  who  was  himfelf  one  of 
 them,  is  confirmed  by  the  teflimony  of  feveral  others  ; 
 as  the  reader  may  find  by  confulting  Daille,  or  a  late 
 learned  publication  (p.  83,  &c.)  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hen- 
 ry Taylor,  which  contains  many  valuable  reflexions  on 
 the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  ifl  volume  of  Mr.  Gib- 
 bons's  Hiftory.  2,  The  obfervation  which  Mr.  Fell 
 condemns  is  no  more  than  ajufl  inference  from  that  cha- 
 radler  which  Jerome,  a  very  competent  and  impartial 
 judge,  had  given  the  Fathers.  Neverthelefs  Mr.  Fell 
 treats  it  as  a  groundlefs  calumny  ;  nor  could  it  be  confi- 
 dered  in  any  other  light  by  an  unlearned  reader ;  for 
 our  author  has  cited  the  obfervation  without  taking  any 
 notice  of  Jerome,  the  authority  upon  which  it  was 
 founded.  The  gentleman  afTures  us,  in  his  title-page, 
 that  truth  was  bis  only  objed  ;  otherwife  I  (hould  have 
 thought,  that,  on  this  as  on  almoft  all  other  occafions, 
 obloquy  had  been  no  fmall  part  of  hisdefign.  Can  he 
 point  out  the  place  where  I  have  faid,  what  he  (in  p. 
 156)  exprefsly  reprefents  me  as  faying,  ''  That  no  ilrefs 
 *'  is  to  be  laid  on  their  (the  Fathers)  general  condu£l?'* 
 The  gentleman  often  honours  me  with  fucli  additions. 
 3.  If  the  obfervation  complained  of  dejiroys  the  faith  cf 
 
 all 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      355 
 
 their  opinion^  but  labours  to  overturn 
 their  tejiimony.  They  affirm  it  as  ^fao}^ 
 which  none  could  controvert,  that  the 
 heathen  gods  had  been  men.  Mr.  Fell, 
 on  the  contrary,  maintains%  that  ''all  the 
 
 all  hijiory,  St.  Jerome  alone  (vvhofe  language  fully  war- 
 rants it,  but  whom  our  author  has  kept  out  of  fight) 
 is  the  perfon  on  whom  the  blame  fhould  be  laid.  The 
 conduftof  the  Fathers  is  certainly  liable  to  juftcenfure, 
 whether  the  charadler  they  give  of  themfelves  be  true  or 
 falfe.  If  it  be  true,  who  can  juftify  them?  If  it  be 
 falfe,  (which  it  would  be  abfurd  to  fuppofe,)  you  will  find 
 it  necefTary  in  this  inftance  to  difbelieve  them.  But  this 
 by  no  means  dellroys  the  faith  of  all  hiftory.  The  de- 
 ceptions to  which  we  are  liable  are  a  ground  of  c^2«?/o«i 
 Vioto^ utii'verfal  fcepticifm.  Human  teftimony,  by  which 
 men  determine  concerning  the  lives  and  properties  of  o- 
 thers  in  courts  of  judicature,  is,  under  proper  circumjlan- 
 cesy  a  fure  ground  of  dependence.  The  teftimony  of  the 
 Fathers  in  particular,  on  every  point  of  real  importance 
 to  ChrilHanity,  is,  I  apprehend,  confirmed  byfuchcir- 
 cumftantial  evidence  as  prevents  the  very  polTibility  of 
 deception.  4.  The  reafons  I  afTigned  for  reje£ling  the 
 profeffed  opinion  of  fome  of  the  Fathers,  concerning  the 
 pojfejjing  demons,  (EfTay  on  Demoniacs,  p.  49-56,  and' 
 Introduction,  p,  y,  8.)  do  not  at  all  hold  in  the  cafe  of 
 the  teftimony  they  bear  to  the /iz^?  now  before  us,  the 
 human  origin  of  the  heathen  gods, 
 e  P.  no. 
 
 A  a  2  world 
 
356         WorJJoip  of  human  Spirits 
 world  knew   they  had  never  been  men." 
 If  this  be  true,  the  Fathers  are  chargea- 
 ble, not   with  ignorance  or  error,  but 
 with  wilful  falfehood.     I  do  not  fay  the 
 gentleman  really  defigned  to  advance  fo 
 fevere  a  charge  againft  them.   It  does  not 
 appear,  from  his  writings,  that  he  had 
 any  acquaintance  with  their  fentiments 
 on  the  fubjefl  before  us,  or  that  he  had 
 fo  much  as  read  the  extrafts  from  them 
 in   the  Differtation  which  he  undertook 
 toanfwer.  Atleaft,  he  has  taken  no  no- 
 tice of  thofe    extrafts ;    and  therefore, 
 if  he  did   read   them,  he   did  not  judge 
 them  worthy   of  a   reply.     His  filence 
 muft  be  confidered  as  expreffive  either 
 of  his  ignorance  of  the  Fathers,  or  of  his 
 fovereign  contempt  of  them  ;    unlefs  we 
 refolve  it  into  fome  prudential  confidera- 
 tion. 
 
 I  have  now  diftinclly  examined  the 
 fentiments  of  the  Gentiles  and  of  the 
 early  Chriftians  concerning  the  heathen 
 gods  5  and  have  fliewn  that  they  both  a- 
 gree  in  affirming  their  eartlily  origin.  The 
 
 Fathers, 
 
/;;  the  ancient  heathcii  TVorld.        3^7 
 
 Fathers,  in  particular,  do  often  affert, 
 in  general  terms,  and  without  making 
 any  exceptions,  that  all  the  pagan  deities 
 had  once  been  men.  Neverthelefs,  a  late 
 writer  imagined  \  that  "  no  opinion 
 *^  could  be  more  erroneous  than  this." 
 I  leave  it  to  the  reader  to  judge,  whether 
 the  proportion  here  condemned  be  not, 
 under  a  few  obvious  re£lri6tions,  confir- 
 med by  the  cleareft  and  ftrongeft  tefti- 
 
 monies. But  we  fhall  advance  one 
 
 ftep  farther  under  the  next  feftion, 
 
 SECT.     II. 
 
 General  proofs  of  the  worjhip  of  human  fpi^ 
 rits^  amongst  the  ancient  Heathens^  drawn 
 from  FACTS. 
 
 T7VERY  one  muft  have  obferved, 
 that  the  teftimony  of  competent 
 and  honefl  witneffes,  which  in  itfelf  is  a 
 reafonable  ground  of  dependence,  may 
 be  confirmed  by  fuch  circumftantial  evi- 
 
 f  Mr.  Fell.     See  above,  p.  12, 
 
 A  a  3  dence 
 
r 
 
 358         JForJJdlp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 dence  as  to  remove  every  degree  of  doubt 
 or  fufpicion.  This  obfervation  was  never 
 more  applicable  than  to  the  cafe  before  us. 
 The  teftimonies  to  the  worfhip  of  human 
 fpirits  in  particular  nations,  and  to  it's  ge- 
 neral prevalence,  hitherto  produced,  re- 
 ceive the  ftrongeft  confirmation  fromfafts 
 and  circumftances  which  cannot  be  con- 
 troverted with  any  colour  of  reafon ;  and 
 yet  cannot  be  accounted  for  but  upon 
 the  fuppofition  of  the  truth  of  thofe  tef- 
 timonies. This  argument  was  urged  in  a 
 former  publication^  (though  overlooked 
 by  the  gentleman  who  wrote  againft  it ;) 
 but  it  well  deferves  a  larger  illuftration 
 than  was  confiftent  with  the  occafion  on 
 which  it  was  there  introduced. 
 
 I.  I  (hall  begin  with  taking  notice,  that 
 divine  honours  were  paid  to  the  dead, 
 according  to  their  different  ranks  and 
 charafters  when  living,  at  all  the  SE- 
 PULCHRES of  the  Heathens. 
 
 8  Diflertat.  on  Mir.  p.  193. 
 
 There 
 
///  the  ancient  heathen  World.       355 
 
 There  has  already  been  occafion  to  ob- 
 ferve^,  that  facrifices  and  libations  were 
 offered  in  honour  of  all  the  dead  at  the 
 places  of  their  interment.  Children  were 
 compelled  by  law  to  perform  thefe  rites 
 to  their  parents  ;  and,  where  there  were 
 no  children,  heirs  were  laid  under  the 
 fame  obligation  to  do  it'. 
 
 No  wonder,  then,  that  religious  ho- 
 nours fliould  be  paid  to  perfons  diftin- 
 guifhed  by  their  rank  or  merit.  Alexan- 
 der and  Hephasftion  offered  facrifices  at 
 the  tombs  of  Achilles  and  the  Trojan 
 heroes  upon  the  plains  of  Troy"". 
 
 The  tombs  of  the  ancients  were  fome- 
 times  built  of  ftone,  and  called  Karns^  -, 
 but  were  more  commonly  conical  mounds 
 of  earth,  well  known  here  in  England 
 by  the  name  of  barrows,  which  were  rai- 
 
 ^  Above,  p.  249,   270. 
 
 *  Petit.  Leg.  Attic.  p.6oi. 
 
 ^  Arrian.  Exped.  Alex.  1.  i.  c.  ii.  p.  25.  ed.  Gro- 
 nov.  Q^Curt.  I.  2.  c.  4..  Freinlhem.  Supplem.  torn, 
 I.   p.  27.  ed.  Snakenburg. 
 
 ^  Borlafe,  Antiq.  of  Cornwal,  p.  212. 
 
 A  a  4  fed 
 
360         Worjhip  of  human  spirits 
 
 fed  over  the  dead  body,  or,  in  cafe  of  it's 
 being  burned,  over  the  bones  and  afhes. 
 Thefe  tumuli^  or  fepulchral  mounds, 
 were  fometimes  built  in  the  (liape  of  al- 
 tars'", undoubtedly  that  they  might  be  u- 
 fed  as  fuch,  as  they  alfo  often  were  when 
 not  made  in  this  particular  fhape". 
 
 But,  in  moft  cafes,  altars,  diftinft 
 from  the  facred  mounds,  were  raifed 
 near  them  for  the  purpofe  of  worfhip. 
 The  Trojans  erefted  to  Polydore  not 
 only  a  large  tomb  or  mound  of  earth, 
 but  altars  likewife,  and  facrificed  to  his 
 manes  °.  Andromache  alfo  raifed  a  va- 
 cant tomb,  and  confecrated  two  altars, 
 toHeftor^ 
 
 Amongfl:  perfons  elevated  above  the 
 level  of  the  vulgar  there  v/as  a  great  dif- 
 tinftion  made,  not  only  with  relpeft  to 
 
 ^  The  fepulchre  of  Themiflocles  was  /S^/xoet^i?,  ac- 
 cording to  the  authors  cited  by  Plutarch,  Vit.  1  hemifl. 
 p.  128.  E. 
 
 "  See  Borlafe,  p.  222. 
 
 "  Virg.  ^n,  HI.  62.  cited  above,  p.  328,  in  note  '. 
 
 P  Id.  ib.  V.  303,  cited  above,  p.  329,  in  note  ^. 
 
 the 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,  361 
 the  magnificence  of  their  fepulchres,  but 
 alio  in  regard  to  the  worfliip  that  was 
 paid  them.  Herodotus  relates  of  the  A- 
 mathufians,  that  they  were  admonifhed 
 by  an  oracle,  to  facrijice  annually  to  Onefilus 
 as  to  a  hero  ^  To  Philippus,  of  Crotona, 
 the  Egiliians  ereBedthe  monumerit  of  a  hero 
 upon  his  tomb,  and  propitiated  him  iivithfa- 
 criji.  -i ,  When  heroes  were  exalted  to  the 
 rank  of  gods,  they  were  ftill  more  ho- 
 nourably diftinguifhed.  To  what  has 
 been  already'  faid  upon  thisfubjeft  I  here 
 add,  that  Caftor  and  Pollux  received  e^ 
 qual  honours  with  the  gods  *:  which  implies 
 that  their  honours  were  fuperior  to  thofe 
 paid  to  heroes.  The  taphos^  or  tomb^  of 
 Jupiter,  built  by  the  Magnefians,  who 
 thought  he  was  buried  in  their  country, 
 was  a  ftrufture  worthy  of  admiration' ; 
 and  every  one  knows  he  was  the  fupreme 
 objeft  of  religious  worfliip  amongfl:  the 
 feveral  nations  of  Greece. 
 
 •J   Ovia-iKfb)    hi.   $t£i»,   ui;  *j^wV,    uvx   %xv    «toj.        Herodot. 
 
 1.5.  c.  114. 
 
 '   Ett*   ya,^    ro'j    rat^ov    avtov    lo^uov    i^^va-xuivoi,     Bva-ir,a-t 
 avron  tXacry.oifTo.      Id.    ib.    C.  47.  •    P.  172-176. 
 
 •  T»/xa5  lao^mq  tcr^ov.     Plutarchi  Thefeus,    i6.  A. 
 
 *  Tai^o*  S:a{  <t|«v,     Paufania:  Corinthiaca,  p.  i6i. 
 
 Princes 
 
362         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Princes  and  great  commanders  had 
 their  fepukhres  dignified  by  a  cromlech% 
 which  was  compofed  of  a  large  flat  ftone, 
 in  or  near  a  horizontal  pofition,  fupported 
 by  ere£t  ftones"^.  The  word  denotes  a 
 confecratedftone''  or  table.  The  repsits  pro- 
 vided forthe  dead  (confiftingcommonly  of 
 vegetables,  bread,  and  eggs)  were  called 
 jiUcernia^ox flippers  uponajhne  r£\i^{^^QX\t' 
 tables  were  called  altars^ ^  not  merely  on  ac- 
 count of  their  form,  as  fome  fuppofe,  but 
 alfo  on  account  of  their  ufe  ;  the  fupper 
 placed  upon  them  being  an  offeringto  the 
 dii  manes.  A  learned  writer  allows, 
 that  the  places  round  about  them  were 
 the  fcenes  of  the  parentalia,  or  where  the 
 dead  were  wor(hipped^  Now,  as  this 
 worfhip  confifted,  in  part,  in  the  celebra- 
 tion of  a  feafl,  it  is  natural  to  fuppoft, 
 that  the  cromlech  was  the  table  or  altar 
 on  which  was  laid  that  part  of  it  which 
 was  defigned  for  the  ufe  of  the  departed. 
 
 A 
 
 «  Borlafe,  p.  229.  '^  Id.  p.  225. 
 
 *  niV  C3Tn.     Rowland,  p.  47,  214.    Borlafe,  p.  225. 
 y  Borlafe,  p.  228. 
 
 «  Wormlus,  p.   8.  fpeaking  of  the  cromlech,  fays. 
 Maxima  ex  parte  fepulchro  impofita  efie  folet,  eo  fine. 
 
 ut 
 
171  the  ancient  heathen  World.  363 
 A  very  learned  writer  contends,  that 
 cromlechs  and  barrows  were  not  places 
 where  the  gods  were  buried,  but  only 
 where  they  were  w^orfliipped.  When 
 fpeaking  of  thofe  mounds,  in  Greece, 
 that  were  fenced  round  with  a  border 
 of  ftone-work,  upon  the  top  of  which  a 
 large  ftone  was  placed,  he  fays',  They  were 
 looked  upon  as  receptacles  of  the  dead:  but  were 
 high  altars^  with  their  f acred  ref/.evTj,  which 
 had  been  ereBed  for  divi?ie  worjhip  in  the 
 moji  early  times.  The  racpoi,  (taphoi,)  he 
 affirms^  were  not  tornbsy  but  conical  mounds 
 (^f  earthy  o?i  which ^  in  the  firjl  ages^  offer- 
 ings were  made  by  fire »  He  reprefents  the 
 facred  tupha  of  the  Perfians  as  being  Jet 
 apart  as  puratheia^  for  the  celebration  of  the 
 rites  of  this  element\  The  word  [Tot(poi)  ta- 
 phos  is  fometimes  ufed,  in  a  large  fenfe,  for 
 ^?  hillock',  but  it  was,  fays  Mr.  Bryant,  in- 
 terpreted by  the  Greeks  a  tojnb".  And,  a- 
 dopting  it  in  this  limited  fenfe,  *'  they  for- 
 
 ut  ibidem  in  memoriam  dcfundli  quounnis  facra  pcra- 
 pantur.     See  Borlafc,  p.  227,   229,  230. 
 
 »  Bryant,  Mythol.  v.  i.  p.  466.  "^  V.  456. 
 
 «  ?.  46;.  "P.  453>  45»- 
 
 *'  mcd 
 
364         Worfjip  of  human  Spirits 
 *'  med  a  notion  of  their  gods  having  been 
 '*  buried  in  every  place  where  there  v^^as  a 
 '^  tumulus  to  their  honour" % 
 
 According  to  our  author,  taphos^  taph^ 
 or  tuph^  feems  to  have  been  a  word  current 
 in  many  countries^  Now,  might  it  not 
 denote  a  fepulchral  mound  in  other  na- 
 tions as  well  as  in  Greece  ?  That  it  was 
 milinterpreted  by  the  Greeks,  and  by 
 them  alone,  is  a  point  which  has  not 
 been  proved,  and  ought  not  to  be  taken 
 for  granted.  Befides,  how  improbable  is 
 it,  that  they  fhould  adopt  this  term  into 
 their  own  language  without  learning  the 
 meaning  of  it,  efpecially  as  it  was  in 
 fuch  common  ufe  in  the  nations  around 
 them  ?  Our  author  affirms,  that  the 
 praclice  of  raifmg  the  taphoi,  or  mounds, 
 in  queftion,  was  tranfmitted  from  the 
 Egyptians  into  Greece  ^  ^  and  that  many 
 of  them  were  raifed  in  different  parts 
 of  that  country  by  the  Amonians\  Now 
 if  neither  any  inftruflion  in  the  meaning 
 of  the  term,  nor  even  famples  of  the 
 
 eP.453.     f  p.  449, 450.     gBryant;,p.467.     ^P.45i» 
 
 thins: 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,  365 
 thing  intended  by  it,  could  enable  the 
 Greeks  to  underftand  it,  though  the 
 plaineft  in  all  their  language,  their  ftu- 
 pidity  is  without  a  parallel,  and  difcove- 
 red  itfelf  on  more  fubjeds  than  the 
 names  of  the  foreign  gods'.  After  all, 
 if  the  Greeks  were  miftaken,  in  fuppo- 
 (ing  that  the  gods  had  been  buried  in 
 the  places  where  there  were  tumuli  to 
 their  honour,  they  could  not  have  fallen 
 into  fuch  a  miftake,  if  they  had  not  firft 
 learned,  (from  the  Egyptians,  Arao- 
 nians,  and  others,)  that  the  gods  had 
 been  men. 
 
 If  we  only  confider  the  nature  of 
 the  cromlechs,  we  fhall  foon  be  con- 
 vinced that  they  could  not  ferve  as  al- 
 tars for  facrifical  fires  5  becaufe  no  fire 
 could  be  kindled  upon  them  fufficient  to 
 confume  the  viflim  without  fcorchiug 
 the  officiating  prieft  ;  becaufe  few,  if  a- 
 ny,  of  them,  could  bear  the  intenfenefs 
 of  the  facrifical  fire  5  and  becaufe  the 
 table- Hone  of  fome  of  them  was  fo  very 
 
 *  Sec  above,  p.  331.  &  fcq. 
 
 gibbous. 
 
366         Worjldip  ofhiimaji  Spirits 
 
 gibbous,  that  no  pried  could  ftand  on 
 it,  either  to  tend  the  fire  or  overfee  the 
 confumption  of  the  viftim''.  Their  fize, 
 and  form,  and  quality,  conclude  equal- 
 ly againft  the  notion  of  their  being  de- 
 figned  for  the  celebration  of  the  rites 
 of  fire. 
 
 That  the  conical  mounds  of  raifed 
 earth  v/ere  fepulchres,  and  the  crom- 
 lechs fepulchral  tables  or  altars,  on 
 which  oblations  of  food  were  made  to 
 the  dead,  cannot  well  be  doubted  by 
 thofe  who  refleft,  that  the  barrow  was 
 one  of  the  mod  ancient  and  common 
 methods  of  interring  the  dead  ^  5  that 
 the  cromlechs  are  found  upon"",  and  of- 
 ten furrounded  with,  barrows  5  that  the 
 common  people  called  them  ^r^'u^^o;/^^"; 
 
 that 
 
 ^  In  proof  of  thefe  points,  feeBorlafe,  p.  226,  227. 
 
 >  Borlafe,  p.  228.  ">  Id.  p.  229. 
 
 «  On  the  hill  Ridge,  north  of  Pottifham,  in  Dorfet- 
 ihire,  is  a  cromlech,  which  Hands  upon  a  tumulus,  or 
 barrow,  and  is  called  by  the  common  people  hell-Jlone, 
 that  is,  2l  grat'e-Jicne.  Helle  {igninQS /epulchruw.  It  is 
 derived  from  belan,  to  cover,  or  conceal ;  and  therefore 
 
 properly 
 
i?i  the  ancient  heathen  World,  367 
 that  a  fmall  brook  near  this  kind  of  mo- 
 nument is  called  the  ford  of  the  graves'" '^ 
 that  "  the  area  underneath  the  quoit  is 
 ''  very  near  the  dimenfions  of  the  hu- 
 *'  man  body  and  every  kind  of  farcopha- 
 "  gus  of  the  ancients"^;  and,  laftly, 
 that  underneath  or  near  thefe  monu- 
 ments are  found  vaults,  and  human 
 bones,  and  afhes"^. 
 
 It  may  be  obferved,  farther,  that  cir- 
 cular monuments  alfo,  whether  open  or 
 inclofed,  were  often  fepulchrar^  and 
 that  fome  of  thefe  circles  were  diftin- 
 guifhedby  a  cromlech',  which  certainly 
 was  an  appendage  to  fepulchres.  Such 
 monuments,  according  to  Mr.  Borlafe', 
 are  found  not  only  in  Britain,  and  in  the 
 adjacent  ifles,    but  in  Ireland,  France, 
 
 properly  exprefTes /^fo^r^i/f,  that  common  covering,  or 
 concealment,  of  mankind.  In  the  weft  of  England,  a 
 tiler  is  ftill  called  hellier,  which  is  derived  from  the  fame 
 verb  as  helle.  See  the  Hiftory  and  Antiq.  of  Dorfet^ 
 by  the  Rev.  Mr.  J.  Hutchins,  v.  i.  p.  554. 
 
 °  Borlafe,  p.  228.  P  Eorlafe,  p.  228. 
 
 ^  P.  227,   229.     Scerilfo  p.  193.  '  Id.  p.  209. 
 
 »   P.  193.  t  P.  193,   225. 
 
 Germany, 
 
368  Worjldip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Germany,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  other 
 countries.  And  Mr.  Bryant"  himfelf  has 
 proved,  from  Paufanias  and  Strabo, 
 what  might  be  more  fully  confirmed, 
 that  the  Greeks  had  many  facred  mounds 
 of  earth,  and  monuments,  which  they 
 (who  certainly  were  the  mofl:  competent 
 judges)  regarded  as  the  tombs  of  depar- 
 ted heroes.  It  is  natural  to  fuppofe,  that 
 thofe  conical  mounds  alfo,  which  have 
 been  found  in  Egypt,  in  Perfia,  at  Troas, 
 and  other  places,  and  are  taken  notice 
 of  by  Mr.  Bryant"^,  were  in  like  manner 
 receptacles  of  the  dead,  notv/ithftanding 
 what  has  been  advanced  to  the  contrary*. 
 
 Clemens 
 
 ^    "  V.I.  p.  451,  465,  466. 
 
 '^^  V.  I.  p.  449,  461-464,  466-469. 
 
 *  According  to  Mr. Bryant's  conllruction  oitnph  and/^- 
 phos,  p.  449,  taph-OJirismn^  denote  thehill^  or  high  al- 
 tar, of  Ofiris.  But,  all  that  can  be  hence  inferred  is,  that 
 this  altar,  or  hill,  was  confecrated  to  Ofiris,  or  that  he  was 
 an  objeft  of  religious  worfhip;  which  he  might  be,  and 
 certainly  was,  notwithftanding  his  having  been  a  man. 
 Accordingly,  the  Greeks,  who  derived  all  their  know- 
 ledge of  Ofiris  from  the  Egyptians,  and  without  doubt 
 adopted  their  idea  of  him,  —  the  Greeks  by  taph  Ofiris 
 
 underftood 
 
zn  th^  ancient  beat  he  fi  World,      369 
 
 Clemens  Alexandrinus  informs  us,  that 
 the  places  of  fepulture  which  the  Heathens 
 worjhipped  were  too  numerous  to  be  count ed"". 
 
 underftood  the  burying-place  of  the  god  Ofiris,  (Plu- 
 tarch's If.  &  Ofir.  p.  359.)  as  the  gentleman  himfelf 
 allows,  p.  451,  461. 
 
 He  lays  great  flrefs  upon  the  cafe  of  the  Perfians, 
 whom  he  reprefents,  p.  466,  467,  as  adhering  to  the 
 Jjurer  zabai'fm,  erefting  the  fame  facred  tupha  as  the 
 Grecians,  dedicating  them  to  Anait^  the  great  fountain 
 of  light,  and  founding  a  kind  of  temple,  of  a  comical 
 figure,  in  honour  of  Anait,  Omanus,  and  Anandrates. 
 But  it  has  been  fhewn,  that  the  Perfians  worlhipped 
 dead  men,  (fee  above,  ch.  i.  fe6t.  i.  p.  47.  &  fcq.  and 
 below,  fed.  2.  article  4.  n°i.)  and  that  Anait,  Oma- 
 nus, and  Anandrates,  were  nothing  more  than  the  tu- 
 telary deities  of  Perfia,  (fee  above,  p.  68-72.)  As  to 
 the  Perfians  raifing  a  temple  to  them,  and  efpecially  one 
 that  fo  much  refembled  a  tomb,  it  is  rather  a  proof  than 
 a  refutation  of  their  humanity.  It  feems  indeed  to 
 JKavebeen  a  kind  of  honorary  tomb,  (fee  above,  p.  327 
 &  feq.)  and  was  eredled  to  teflify  their  devotion  to  thefe 
 gods,  to  whom  they  afcribed  their  vidorv  over  the 
 Sacse.  Strabo,  1.  11,  p.  779.  And,  as  our  author 
 admits  that  the  H^Uadians  and  the  Perfians  were  of  the 
 fame  family,  and  had  many  fimilar  rites,  the  tupha  were 
 certainly  raifed  by  both  with  the  fame  view. 
 
 tiMi  i^v  aV   0    wa?  a»    a^Kio-vi    Xf <>*'''?•     Clem.  Alexandr. 
 Cohort,  ad  Gent.  p.  40, 
 
 B  b  From 
 
27%         Worjkip  of  hiimaii  Spirits 
 
 From  the  facts  that  have  been  Hated 
 we  may  infer  the  general  prevalence 
 of  the  worfhip  of  human  fpirits  over  the 
 heathen  world.  All  fepulchres,  even 
 thofe  of  private  perfons,  were  places 
 where  divine  honours  were  paid  to  the 
 manes  of  the  dead.  Thofe  tumuli  and 
 cromlechs,  which  have  been  reprefented 
 merely  as  altars,  were  alfo  the  tombs 
 and  monuments  of  gods,  and  heroes, 
 and  other  great. men.  The  monuments 
 were  probably  of  Celtic  origin,  and  were 
 carried  by  that  numerous  people  into  all 
 their  fettlements  ^.  Both  the  facred 
 mounds  and  monuments  are  found  in  all 
 countries.  Their  ufe  was  in  all  the 
 fame  3  and  was  fo  obvious  that  it  could 
 not  be  miftaken. 
 
 As  to  the  Heathens  worfliipping  dead 
 men  at  the  vejiibideof  the  charnel-hoiifey 
 which  feems  fo  incredible  to  a  learned 
 writer  %  the  reafon  of  it,  which  was 
 promifed  to  be  affigned,  is  exceeding  ob- 
 
 y  Borlafe,  p,  225.  «  Bryant,  v.  i.  p.  452. 
 
 vious. 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,  371 
 vious.  Even  the  philofophers''  maintain- 
 ed, that  the  fouls  of  the  deceafed  prefer- 
 ved  an  afFeftion  for  their  former  bodies, 
 and  hovered  about  them,  or  the  places 
 where  they  were  buried*".  The  fame 
 opinion  formed  a  part  of  the  creed  of  the 
 vulgar,  and  entered  into  the  religion  of 
 
 theftate'. 
 
 B  b  2  Now 
 
 a  See  Macrobius,  in  Som.  Scip.  I.  i.  c.  9.  p.  3^. 
 c.  13.  p;  45.  1.  2.  c.  16.  p.  125.  ed.  Londini,  1694.. 
 Porphyr.  de  Abilinent.  1.  2.  §.  47.  Pato  ap.  Origen. 
 c^  Celf.  p.  97. 
 
 ^  Th-S  wandering  fouls  of  thofe  who  were  unburied 
 returned  to  the  reft  of  the  grave  after  the  rites  of  fe- 
 pulture  were  performed.  Rite  ergo  reddita  legitima 
 fepultura,  redit  anima  ad  quietem  fepulchri.  Servius 
 on  Virg.  J^Ln,  III.  6^. 
 
 c  Ita  plane ;  quemadmodum  valgus  exiftimat,  mor- 
 tuorum  animas  circa  tumulos  et  corporum  fuorum  reli- 
 quias  oberrare.  Laftant.  1.  2.  c.  2.  p,  117.  The 
 common  perfuafion  was,  that  ghofts  were  capable  of 
 feeling  prefTure  from  the  earth  that -covered  their  bo- 
 dies ;  as  appears  from  the  cuftom  of  praying  that  the 
 earth  might  lie  light  or  prefs  heavy  upon  them,  as  the 
 petitioners  were  well  or  ill  affected  towards  the  deceafed. 
 Potter's  Gr»  Antiq.  v.  2.  b.  4.  c.  7.  p.  243.  The 
 general  pradlice  of  confulting,  fupplicating,  and  ap- 
 peafing,  the  gods  at  their  tombs,  plainly  fuppofes  their 
 dwelling  there,  — —  It  may  be  objeded,  that  emi- 
 nent 
 
3  7^         WorJIdip  of  human  Spirit i 
 
 Now  what  could  be  more  natural 
 than  for  the  Heathens,  who  worfhipped 
 human  fouls,  to  do  it  in  the  places  where 
 they  were  thought  to  refide  ?  Nor  did 
 they  feel  the  difficulty  with  which  our 
 author  was  affefted :  for  they  paid  di- 
 vine honours  to  the  carcafres*^,  the 
 bones  %    and  afhes  \    of  men  deceafed, 
 
 nent  men  were  thought  to  return  at  death  to  their  native 
 fey.  The  Heathens  faw  the  difRcuIty,  and  attempted 
 tofolveit,  by  aflerting,  that  mart  was  compounded  of 
 three  (if  not  more)  parts;  body,  mind,  and  foul.  The 
 frjl  was  committed  to  the  grave ;  the  fecond  either 
 afcended  into  heaven  or  defcended  into  the  lower  re- 
 gions ;  the  third  remained  near  the  fepulchre.  Thofe 
 who  divided  man  into  four  parts  remitted  the  manes  to 
 Orcus.  Proofs  of  this  point  may  be  produced  here- 
 after. I  Ihall  only  here  obferve,  that,  when  Hercules 
 was  in  heaven,  (Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  3.  c.  16.)  Ulyf- 
 fes  met  his  ixhufK^y  in  the  fhades  below.    OdyfT.  1.  xi.  6co» 
 
 ^  See  above,  p.  165,  note  ^. 
 
 «  Ofla  tibi  juro  per  matris,  et  offa  parentis. 
 
 Propertius,  1.  II.  eleg.  20.  v.  15. 
 
 f  Virg.  ^n.  III.  303.  cited  above,  p.  329,  note  ^, 
 Cinerihiis  hie  locus  facer  was  an  infcription  on  a  ftone  at 
 Kome.     Guther.  de  Jure  Manium,  1.  2.  c.  19. 
 
 and 
 
in  the  ancient  heathe?i  World,      373 
 
 and  even  to  their  very  coffins  ^  and  fe- 
 pulchres'';  notwithftanding  their  being 
 mofl  unequivocal  proofs  of  the  mortal 
 origin  of  their  gods. 
 
 II.  The  heathen  TEMPLES  were 
 places  of  fepulture,  and  defigned  as  man- 
 fions  for  fuch  gods  as  had  been  men. 
 
 Fond  as  the  dead  were  fuppofed  to  be 
 of  their  tombs  and  the  adjacent  places, 
 the  Heathens  feem  to  have  been  appre- 
 henfive  that  they  might  occafionally 
 wander  from  them,  or  perhaps  totally 
 defert  them,  after  the  diflblution  of  their 
 bodies.  And  therefore,  the  more  effectu- 
 ally to  fecure  their  perpetual  refidence, 
 or  at  leafl  to  render  it  more  agreeable, 
 they  raifed,  over  or  near  their  fepulchres, 
 houfes,  or  palaces,  called  temples^  an- 
 fwerable  to  the  magnificence  of  their 
 former  condition ;  and  fupplied  them 
 with  every  thing  that  could  gratify  their 
 
 5  The  Athenians  received  the  coffin  of  Thefeus  with 
 pompous  proceffions  and  facrifices  :  r:ojA7:xiq  ts  ^xuTrpoci" 
 f^i|ayTo  x«»  $y<7tat;.     Plutarchi  Thefcus,  p.  17, 
 
 ^  DifTert  on  Mir.  p.  191,  note  ". 
 
 B  b  3  defircs. 
 
374         Worjloip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 defires'.  Thefe  temples  were  confidered 
 as  the  proper  habitations^  of  the  gods  to 
 whom  they  were  dedicated :  a  circum- 
 ftance  which  demonftrates  that  they  were 
 not  erecled  to  the  fan,  moon,  ftars,  and 
 elements  ;  for  whofe  reception  and  ac- 
 commodation they  were  no  way  adapt- 
 ed. On  the  other  hand,  they  corref- 
 ponded  entirely  to  the  opinion  entertain- 
 ed of  deified  men,  who  preferved,  as 
 will  be  hereafter  fliewn,  all  their  former 
 difpofitions,  and  whofe  pride,  confequent^ 
 ly,  was  highly   flattered  by  fumptuous 
 
 J  See  under  article  VI. 
 
 ^  The  Heathens   called  their  temples  ra?  vX\vcc<;  non 
 
 Ta    th    ^^cuv     A^id.    Selden.  de    Synedr.    1.  3.    c.  14. 
 
 They  applied  to  them  the  terms  oiy-oi  Sc  ^ojxqi.     Spencer 
 
 de  Leg.  Heb.  Rit.  p.  891.     Templum,    inquit,    hoc 
 
 Martis  eft,  hoc  Junonis,  —  quid  eft  aliud  dicere,  quam 
 
 domus  haec  Martis  eft,    hsec  Junonis  ?  &:c.     Arnobius, 
 
 1.  6.  p.  19!.     Origen reprefents  the  heathen  demons  as 
 
 taking  up  their  refidence  in  temples  and  images,  either 
 
 from  choice  or  through  the  allurement  of  magical  rites  ; 
 
 and  fpeaks  of  the  heathen  temples  as  the  places  where 
 
 were  ^ai/y.oi/t?  t%'p,?>oi.   Origcnx.  Celf.  I.  3.  p.  131.     He 
 
 is   fpeaking  of  deified  men,  whofe  fouls   the  Gentiles 
 
 called  demons.      Aai/xora?    /x.-v  ra^  t4Jt^»  %]/yp^a$  ;taAaj'Tes. 
 
 Clem.  Alexandr.  Strom.  1.  6.  p.  755. 
 
 palaces. 
 
in  the  a?icient  heathen  World,      37^ 
 
 palaces,     and   all   the  attendance,    and 
 ilate,  and  pomp, ;  of  royalty. 
 
 Accordingly  the  early  Chriftians,  and 
 Clemens  Alexandrinus  in  particular,  af- 
 firmed, that  the  buildings,  which  the 
 Heathens  called  by  the  honourable 
 name  of  temples,  were  in  reality  nothing 
 elfe  but  the  fepulchres  of  dead  men  ^ ; 
 and  that  they  placed  their  coffins  in  ma- 
 ny of  their  temples  as  fo  many  ftatues 
 of  their  gods "",  Eufebius "  entertained  the 
 fame  opinion  of  their  temples  as  Cle- 
 mens. Cyril  Valfo,  and  St.  Auftin^,  and 
 Prudentius"^,  and   other   Chriftian   wri- 
 
 ^  New?  y.iv  ev(p-/)iJ'.ai;  oyo//.aC/>//.£vaij,  rxlpe^  ^e  ysvofjczvaqf 
 TBTBTh  Ttf?  rcc^eq  viuq  £'7rtxHx^r/!/.£J'y?.  Cohort,  ad  Gent, 
 p.  39.  ed.  Potteri.-    Seealfo  p.  40,  74. 
 
 "  Avr^•A.cc  oi  ey^TTn^oi  ra  y^oya,  v.ccvcc  raj  i'^^vci.xc,   ev  vo^.Xoiq 
 
 tui^^vaccvTo.     Stromat.  1.6.  p.  755. 
 
 "  Prsep.  Ev.  1.  2.  C.  6.  He^t  ra  vsy.^uv  uvea  ra^a;  rat 
 tLuXUfjitvoc.  ocvruiv  n^a,  tuv  ^luv, 
 
 °  Cyril.  Alexandr.  contra  Julian.  l.g[o.  p.  342,  343. 
 P  Auguil.  de  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  g,  26.  1.  18.  c.  5. 
 ^  Et  tot  templa  deiim  Romae,  cj^uot  in  urbe  fepulchra 
 Heroum,  nunierajje  licet. — 
 
 Prudentius  ad  Symmachum,  1.  i# 
 
 B  b  4  ters, 
 
376         WorJJdip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 ters,  reprefent  the  heathen  temples  as 
 places  of  fepulture.  Arnobius  not  only 
 fpeaks  of  them  In  the  fame  view",  but, 
 in  a  paiTage  produced  above,  tells  the 
 Gentiles,  that  all  the  gods  they  had  in 
 their  temples  had  been  men"". 
 
 The  language  of  the  Heathens  on  the 
 fubjeft  before  us  agrees  with  that  of  the 
 ancient  Chriftians.  Hermes  Trifmegif- 
 tus  is  reprefented  as  forefeeing,  that,  e- 
 ven  in  Egypt,  the  temples  of  the  gods 
 would  be  filled  with  the  tombs  of  the 
 dead'.  And  Sanchoniathon  relates,  that 
 the  Egyptians,  and  other  ancient  nations, 
 transferred,  to  the  deified  benefaftors 
 of  the  human  race,  the  temples  whic{i 
 
 '  Quid  ?  quod  multa  ex  his  templa,  quae  tholis  funt 
 aureis  et  fublimibus  data  vefligiis,  au6lorum  confcrip- 
 tionibus  comprobatur  contegere  cineres  atque  ofTa,  et 
 fundlorum  effe  corporum  fepulturas,    Arnob.  adv.  Gent. 
 
 P-  193- 
 
 «  P.  345- 
 
 *  Hermes  ipfe,  —  quafifutura  praenunciando,  deplo- 
 ransait:  Tunc  terra  ifta  fandiflima  (fc. -^gyptus)  fades 
 delubrorum  atque  templorum,  fepulchrorum  erit  mor- 
 tuorumque  plenifTima.  Ap.  Augull.  Giv.  Dei^  1.  8. 
 c.  26, 
 
 had 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      377 
 
 had  been  erefted  to  the  elements  and 
 planets". 
 
 There  are  many  fafts  on  record 
 which  confirm  the  point  we  have  been 
 endeavouring  to  eftablifh.  Temples  were 
 every  where  raifed  to  the  gods  of  the 
 higher  order,  whom  we  have  already 
 proved  to  be  mere  mortals.  Vulcan, 
 whofe  own  temple  was  at  Memphis,  e- 
 reded  feveral  temples  to  his  wife,  who 
 became  the^<?^  Cyfria  and  the  dea  Syria^. 
 
 The 
 
 **  Eij    TO  p^^EWv  xararavTa?  vct^^  ij.zTcc(7)i£Vct(rxixivoi»      Ap, 
 
 Eufel).  Pra-p.  Ev.  i.  i.  p.  32.  D,  -. This  pafTage 
 
 and  that  in  the  preceding  note  imply,  that  tefliples  had 
 been  erefted  to  other  gods  before  men  were  worfhipped 
 in  them.  But,  as  the  word  temple  was  often  ufed  in  a 
 large  fenfe,  for  a  place  confecrated to  the  godsy  thefe  paf- 
 fages  are  very  reconcileable  with  the  opinion  of  thofc 
 who  think  temples,  properly  fo  called,  were^,  from  the 
 firft,  fepulchral  monuments. 
 
 '^  Newton's  Chronology,  p.  224,  225.  As  the  Hea- 
 thens erefted  many  temples  as  well  as  tombs  to  the  fame 
 god,  and  fuppofed  him  to  be  perfonally  prefentin  each» 
 they  muil  have  afcribed  to  hum^n  fpirits  a  kind  of  ubi- 
 quity ;  in  the  fame  manner  as  the  Romanics  do  in  offer- 
 ing prayers  to  the  fame  faint,  in  the  fame  inftant  of 
 time,  in  every  part  of  the  world.  Such  was  the  doc- 
 trine 
 
37S         Worjhtp  ofhummi  Spirits 
 
 The  Syrians  worfhipped  one  of  their 
 queens,  and  ufed  her  fepulchre  for  a 
 temple''.  At  Colchis  there  was  a  temple 
 and  a  grove  dedicated  to  Phrixus^.  The 
 bones  of  Protefilaus  were  depofited  in  a 
 confecrated  chapeP.  Caftor  and  Pollux: 
 had  temples  erefled  to  them  not  only  at 
 
 trine  of  Jerome;  (adverf.  Vigilantlum,  p.  42.  ed. 
 Parif.  1546.)  Cumdiabolus  et  daemones  toto  vagentur 
 in  orbe,  et  celeritate  nimia  uhique  prafentes  {\w\.,  mar- 
 tyres  poft  efFufionem  fanguinis  fui  area  operientur  in- 
 clufi,  et  inde  exire  non  poterint  ? 
 
 »  Juftin.  1.  36.  c.  2.  cited  above,  p.  204.  The  fe- 
 pulchre is  generally  diftinguifhed  from  the  tsmple  : 
 
 Eft  urbe  egreflis  tumulus,  templumque  vetultum 
 
 Defertae  Cereris.  — -  Virg.  iEn.  II.  713. 
 See  alfov.  742,  and  below,  note  2. 
 
 y  Above,  p.  120. 
 
 2  lb.  p.  121.  Numerous  inftances  of  perfons  of 
 high  rank  being  buried  within  the  precin6;s  of  temples 
 may  be  found  in  Clem.  Alexandr.  Cohort,  ad  Gent.  p. 
 39.  Arnob.  p.  193.  Cyril,  contr.  Julian,  p.  342.  I 
 fhall  only  add,  that  Apries  was  buried  in  the  fepulchre 
 of  his  anceftors,  ereded  in  the  temple  of  Minerva. 
 Herodotus,  1.2.  c.  169.  The  fame  hiftorian  fays  of 
 Amalis,  1.  3.  c.  10.      Era^w    iv    rr.ai    ta^'^ct*  rijcrt  iv  tw 
 
 Sparta, 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      370 
 
 Sparta,  butatAthens%  And  Maximus 
 Tyrius,  fpeakingof  Egypt,  fays,  A  god 
 dies  and  is  buried^  and  you  are  jhewn  in  the 
 Jarne  place  his  tejnple  and  his  tomb^,  Laftly, 
 the  reafon  given  by  Herodotus  for  there 
 being  no  temples  in  Perfia,  viz.  that 
 their  gods  had  not  been  men%  clear- 
 ly fliews,  that  it  w^as  to  fuch  gods  as 
 had  been  men  that  thefe  facred  edifices 
 were  raifed  in  other  countries. 
 
 III.  The  PYRAMIDS  were  fepul- 
 chral  monuments  and  altars. 
 
 The  great  pyramid'  at  Babylon  was 
 well  known  under  the  name  of  the  tem^ 
 fie  of  Belus^  (the  founder  of  the  Babylo- 
 nian empire;)  which  fufficiently  fhews, 
 that  it  was  his  fepulchral  monument, 
 and  erecled  for  his  worlhip.    The  pyra- 
 
 »  Theodcret  (1.8.   Graecanicarum  afFeftionum)  fays, 
 
 ^vy^x^'-oa;     ^iii<;    ey.ocXBcroiy     EAA>;v£?,    —    aai     reixivuv     ex.  sv 
 cuiU'VTcci   ira,^  cciroK;   is^ov    Sea,    y.a.t    ia,(po(;    Ba^.      Maxim. 
 
 Tyr.  DifTert.  38.  p.  398.  ed.  Davif.  Cantab.  1703. 
 «  Herodot.  1.  i.  c.  131,  cited  abpve,  p.  48. 
 ^  See  above,  p.  194. 
 
 mids 
 
380         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 mids  built  by  Porfena,  king  of  Etruria, 
 near  Clufium,  and  by  Caeftius,  at  Rome, 
 were  alfo  the  fepulchres  and  monuments 
 of  the  dead^.  And,  as  thefe  were  imita- 
 tions of  thofe  in  Egypt,  it  is  natural  to 
 fuppofe  that  both  had  the  fame  inten- 
 tion. But,  as  fome  will  not  allow  that 
 the  Egyptian  pyramids,  more  celebrated 
 than  any  other,  were  places  of  fepul- 
 ture,  I  fhall  fubmit  the  following  obfer- 
 vations  to  the  judgement  of  the  reader." 
 It  was  cuftomary  with  the  ancients  to 
 raife  mounds  of  an  immenfe  magnitude 
 •upon  the  graves  of  their  monarchs  and 
 other  perfons  of  great  diftinftion^  The 
 Egyptians  ^  in  particular,  though  not 
 
 very 
 
 e  Greave's  Defcription  of  the  Pyramids,  p.  64, 
 Univ.  Hlft.  V.  I.  p.  430.  8vo,  1747. 
 
 ^  The  mount  raifed  over  Ninus  was  faid  to  be  nine 
 furlongs  in  height  and  ten  in  breadth.  Ctefias  ap, 
 Diodor.  Sic.  1.  2.  p.  120.  ed.  WeiTeling.  The  monu^ 
 ment  of  Hephaeftion  coll  twelve  thoufand  talents. 
 Juftin.  I.  12,  c«  12.  See  Borlafe^s  Antiq.  of  Cornw. 
 p.  218. 
 
 2  Et  regum  cineres  exflrudlo  monte  quiefcant.  Lu- 
 can.  1.  8,  V.  695.  Concerning  the  wonderful  fepul- 
 chres 
 
In  the  ancient  heathen  World,      381 
 
 very  curious  in  building  their  houfes,  as 
 being  but  temporary  habitations,  ex- 
 ceeded all  imaginable  magnificence  in 
 their  fepulchres,  confidering  them  as 
 their  eternal  manjiom^.  They  feem  to 
 have  believed,  that,  as  long  as  the  body 
 laftcd,  fo  long  the  foul  was  prefent  with 
 it.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  to  fuppofe, 
 that  their  attention  would  be  very  much 
 employed  in  preferving  the  former  from 
 corruption,  and  in  accommodating  both 
 with  a  durable  habitation. 
 
 Accordingly,  the  moft  ancient  and 
 credible  hiftorians  reprefent  the  pyramids 
 as  royal  fepulchres.  From  Herodotus 
 we  learn,  that  the  body  of  Cheops'  was 
 depofited  under  the  pyramid  which  he 
 himfelf  had  built";    that  his  fon  and 
 
 chres  of  the  ancient  kings  of  Egypt   fee  Diodor.  Sic. 
 
 1.  2.  p.  56,  57. 
 
 ^  Ta^«5  aV^jtfj  otv.aj  7rgoaayo^£ttf:r»v.      Diodor.  Sic.  I.  I, 
 
 p.  60,   61. 
 
 *  By  Diodorus  he  is  called  Chemnis,  1.  i.  p.  72, 
 k  Herodot.  1.2.  c.  124-127.     In  this  pyramid  there 
 
 ilands  a   tomb   at  this  day.     Univerfal  Hill.  v.  i.  p. 
 
 429,  438. 
 
 daughter 
 
382         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 daughter  did  each  of  them  imitate  their* 
 father  in  building  a  pyramid \  (no  doubt 
 with  the  fame  intention  >)  that  Afychis 
 erefted  a  pyramid  of  brick  for  his  mo- 
 nument'"; and  that  the  labyrinth,  near 
 the  lake  Mceris,  a  ftru6lure  much  more 
 admirable  even  than  the  pyramids,  con- 
 tained the  fepulchres  of  the  kings  who 
 built  it,  and  of  the  holy  crocodiles". 
 Strabo,  fpeaking  of  the  top  of  a  moun- 
 tain near  Memphis,  fays,  that  all  the 
 pyramids  upon  it  were  royal  fepulchres*** 
 And  Diodorus  Siculus  informs  us,  that 
 the  two  pyramids,  built  by  Chemnis 
 and  Cephres,  were  by  them  defigned  for 
 their  own  fepulchres,  though  both  were 
 buried  in  other  places  ^     To  thefe  tefti- 
 
 raonies 
 
 '  Herodot.  ubi  fupra.  ^  Id.  ib.  c.  136. 
 
 "  lb.  c.  149. 
 
 **  Ho^vAat  \Kiv  Tcvpct^y'oi^   sta-ty   t«'^oj  tuv  ^xa-i}.iuy,      Stra-= 
 bo,  1.  17,  p.  ii6i. 
 
 P  Tw?    ^i    CaiJiAetiv    rco))    'liOiruerKZVotcroiVTuv    airot;  iotvroi^ 
 
 Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  73.     But,  though  it   fo  fell   out 
 that  neither  of  thclb  kings  was  buried  in  the  pyramid 
 
 he 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      383 
 
 monies  I  might  add  thofe  of  Lucan% 
 Statius",  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus' 5 
 as  alfo  thofe  of  the  Arabs,  Copts,  and 
 Sabians*  ^  were  they  wa,nted  in  fo  plain  a 
 cafe". 
 
 The 
 
 he  erefled,  neverthelefs  both  the  edifices  j:ni^ht  be  ufed 
 as  altars  for  their  worfhip.  As  the  aflies  of  Germani- 
 cus  were  carried  through  the  cities  of  Italy,  Tacitus- 
 fays,  (Annal.  I.  3.  c.  2.)  Etiam  quorum  diverfa  oppi- 
 da,  tamen  obvii,  et  vi(5limas  atque  aras  diis  manibus 
 ftatuentes,  lacrimis  et  conclamationibus  dolorem  tefla- 
 bantur.  See  what  was  obferved  above  concerning  hono- 
 rary tombs,  p.  327  &  feq. 
 
 ^  Cum  Ptolemseorum  manes,  feriemque  pudendam, 
 Pyramides  claudant,  indignaque  maufolea.     L.  8. 
 V.  698.     Pyramidum  tumulis  evulfus  Amaiis.     Id.  I.  9. 
 V.  155.     Compare    Pliny,    Nat.  Hill.  1.  36.    p.   738. 
 torn.  2.  ed.  Harduin. 
 
 '  Atque  utinam,  Fortuna,  dares  mihi  manibus  aras. 
 Par  templlsopus,  aeriamque  educere  molem, 
 Cyclopum  fcopulos  ultra,  atque  audacia  faxa 
 Pyramidum,  et  magno  tumulum  prajtexere  luco. 
 
 Stat.  Sylv.  V.  3.  47, 
 "  Cohort,  ad  Gent.  p.  44.  ed.  Potteri. 
 ^  Univer.  Hill.  v.  1.  p.  427.     See  p.  445. 
 "  See  Dr.  Pococke's  account   of  the  pyramids,   Oh- 
 fewations  on  Egypt,  v.  i.  p.  40-67.     Dr.  Shaw  (Tra- 
 vels, p.  418,  ifl  ed.)  objeds    againft    the  pyramids  of 
 
 Cephrenes 
 
384         Worjhtp  ofhufTian  Splrilt 
 
 The  pyramids  were  not  only  places 
 of  fepulture,  but  of  religious  worfhip* 
 They  were  commonly  called  the  co- 
 lumns or  altars  of  the  gods"^.  On  the  top 
 there  was  a  platform "",  where  the  facred 
 rites  might  be  celebrated;  and  they  were 
 furrounded  with  buildings,  which  pro- 
 bably were  colleges  for  the  priefls  ^* 
 That  the  pyramids  were  altars  is  a  point 
 which  cannot  be  difputed  \  but  it  is  no 
 juft  inference  from  hence,  that  they  were 
 not  alfo  fepulchres.  For  altars  were  con- 
 ftant  appendages  to  the  fepulchres  of  fuch 
 
 Cephrenes  2Xi^Mycerinushz\n^{Q^\Az\iXZ^y  becaufe  "  tiO 
 **  pafTage  was  left  open  into  them  as  into  the  great  py-* 
 *'  tamid.'*  But  the  entrance  into  the  great  pyramid 
 was  at  firft  Jhut  up,  Pococke,  v.  i.  p.  234,240,  244. 
 The  cafe  was  probably  the  fame  as  to  the  other  two. 
 
 V  See  Kircher,  (Oedipus  iEgyptiacus,  Syntag.  iv, 
 C.12.  p.  309,  310,)  who  cites  feveral  authorities  to 
 prove  that  the  pyramids  were  altars,  befides  that  line 
 of  the  poet,  * 
 
 Votaque  pyramldum  celfas  folvuntur  ad  aras. 
 The  fteps,    by  which  they  afcended  to   the  top,  were 
 called  by   fome  /3w«Ak^£f,    little   altars.     Herodot,  1.  2, 
 c.  125. 
 
 »  Univ.  Hift.  ubi  fupra,  p.  432. 
 
 y  Id.  ib.  p.  440. 
 
in  the  mtcient  heathen  World,       385 
 
 men  as  were  deified,  if  not  of  all  other 
 perfons"".  They  were  fometimes  placed 
 upon  the  monument  %  which  exaftly 
 anfwers  to  the  cafe  before  us.  In  honour 
 of  the  Grecian  heroes,  who  fell  in  the 
 defence  of  their  country  at  Thermopylae, 
 altars  were  ufed  inftead  of  fepulchres  **. 
 Nay,  funeral  piles  were  conftrufled  and 
 deemed  as  altars  ^  From  the  pyramids 
 being  altars,  therefore,  we  may  rather 
 infer  that  they  were  alfo  fepulchres  than 
 the  contrary.  Now,  if  they  were  royal 
 fepulchres,  monuments,  and  altars,  they 
 were  certainly  confecrated  to  the  worfhip 
 
 ^  Hence  we  read  of  the  afa  fepulchri,  Virg,  iEn^ 
 VI.  177.  and  of  the  arae  fepulchrales,  Ovid.  Meta- 
 morph*  VIII.  480.  See  Virg.  ^.n.  V.  47,  48.  III. 
 305.  Altars  were  fometimes  only  a  heap  of  green 
 turf:  Araque  gramineo  viridi  de  cefpite  iiat.  Ovid. 
 Trift.  V.  9.  And  fuch  altars  were,  it  is  probable, 
 raifed  at  all  graves. 
 
 ^  In  eo  monumento  folium  porphyretici  marmoris 
 fuperftante  Lunenfi  ara.     Sueton.  Ner.  c.  50. 
 
 ^  Bfc'.oco;  ^  0  xa^o?.  Diodor.  Sic.  I.  xi.  p.  412.  ed. 
 Wefleling. 
 
 *  Pyra  —  quae  in  modum  ara:  conllrui  lignis  folebat. 
 Servius  in  Virg.  i£n.  VI.   177. 
 
 C  c  of 
 
0  86         WorJInp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 of  the  Egyptian  monarchs.      At  every 
 
 common  fepulchre,    prayers,    facrifices, 
 
 and  libations,  v/ere  offered  to  the  dead 
 
 by  the  ancient  nations :    and,   amongft 
 
 the  Egyptians  in  particular,  as  we  have 
 
 already  feen,  a  temple  and  a  tomb  were 
 
 erefted  to  the  fame  deity.     The   great 
 
 height  of  the  pyramids  well  agrees  with 
 
 the  opinion  of  their,  being  the  fepiilchral 
 
 monuments  and  altars  of  the  Egyptian 
 
 monarchs.  High  columns  and  pyramids, 
 
 over  the  tombs  of  perfons  of  the  greateft 
 
 diftinftion^  correfponded  to  their  former 
 
 ftate   and  dignity,  and  were  defigned  to 
 
 announce   their  exaltation,  after  death, 
 
 to  the  rank  of  the  celeftial  gods. 
 
 Some 
 
 ^  Servius,  on  Virg.  ^n.  XL  489,  fays,  Apud  ma-i 
 jores,  nobiles,  aut  fub  montibus  aids,  aut  in  ipfis  mon- 
 tibus  fepeliabantur ;  unde  natum  eft,  ut,  fuper  cada- 
 vera,  aut  pyramides  aut  ingentes  coUocarentur  colum- 
 nar. See  above,  p.  380,  note  <".  Concerning  an  ara 
 fepulchri  Virgil  fays,  cojIo  educere  certant.  JEn,  VI. 
 178.  Every  one  knows  that  high  altars  were  raifed  to 
 the  celeftial  gods,  amongft  whom  we  are  to  reckon  fuch 
 human  gods  as  were  fuppofed  to  be  advanced  to  heaven, 
 Jovi,  omnibw^ue  cceleftibus,   excelfilfim^,    (fc.  ar^;)  : 
 
 Veftje, 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      387 
 
 Some  writers,  however,  being  defirous 
 of  difcovering,  in  every  facred  building 
 and  rite  of  the  Heathens,  an  allufion  to 
 elementary  and  fidereal  deities,  have 
 fancied,  that  the  pyramids,  refemblmg 
 (as  they  allege)  a  rifing  flame,  which 
 from  a  broad  bafe  gradually  lefTeris  and 
 terminates  in  a  point  %  were  fymbols 
 of  fire  S  and  hence  have  concluded,  that 
 they  were  confecrated  to  the  fun^ 
 
 Veils,  terrae,  marique  humlles,  inmediis  ^dibus  conilw 
 tuerentur.  Vitriiv.  I.  4.  c,  8.  See  Potter's  Gr.  Ant. 
 V.I.  b.  ii.  ch. 2.p.  178,  179.  and  below,  p.  390,  note'^. 
 
 «  Ad  ignis  fpeciem extenuatur  in  conum.  Ammian. 
 Marcellin.  1.  22.  c.  15.  p.  262.  Some  d^rivQ pyramid 
 from  the  Greek  word  pur,  fre.  Others^  who  more 
 properly  look  for  the  etymology  of  it  in  the  Coptic  lan- 
 guage, derive  it  either  from  pouro,  a  king^  and  w//?,  a 
 generation,  (Univerf.  Hift.  ubi  fupra,  p.  425.)  or  froni 
 piromisy  which,  according  to  Herodotus,  (1.2.  c.  143, 
 144.)  denotes,  in  the  language  of  Egypt,  a 'worthy  and 
 hra've  man.     Perizon. -^gypt.  Orig.   torn.  i.  p.  447. 
 
 ^  Porphyr.  ap.  Eufeb.  Prasp.  Ev.  1.  3.  c.7.  p.  98.  D. 
 
 8  Cones  and  obelilks,  it  is  faid,  were  dedicated  to 
 the  fun.  Porphyr.  ubi  fnpra.  Hermatiles  ap.  Ter- 
 tullian.  de  fpeftaculis,  c.  S.  p.  76.  ed.  Rigalt.  16^5* 
 Plin.  Hiih  Nat.  1.  36.  c.  8.  torn.  2.  p.  -ji^^.  ed.  Har- 
 duin* 
 
 C  c  z  But 
 
5  8  8         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 But  we  are  told,  concerning  the  great 
 pyramid,  (what  is  probably  true  of  the 
 reft,)    that  it  does  not  terminate  in  a 
 point,    as  mathematical    pyramids   do, 
 but  in  a  flat,  or  fquare,  confifting  of  e- 
 leven  large  ftones^.      The  reafon,  why 
 they  frequently  made  ufeof  the  pyramidal 
 figure  for  thefe  monuments,    probably 
 was  it's  being  the  moft  permanent  form 
 offtrufture'.  However  this  may  be,  cer- 
 tain it  is  in  faft,  that,  though  obelifks 
 and  pyramidal  pillars  might  be  originally 
 confecrated  to  the  elements  ^  they  were 
 afterwards  erefted  to  fuch  gods   as  had 
 been  men.     Jupiter  Meilichius,    Juno, 
 Apollo,  Bacchus,  Venus,  and  other  de- 
 ities of  human  origin,  were  worfhipped 
 under  the  form   of  obelifks  and  pyra- 
 mids^  The  mere  figure,  therefore,  of  the 
 
 pyramids 
 
 ^  Univ»  Hill.  p.  432.  *  Id.  ib.  p.  430. 
 
 ^  According  to  Sanchonlathon,  (ap.  Eufeb.  Prsep. 
 Ev.  1.  I,  p.  3^.  A.)  Ufous confecrated  two  columns  to 
 the  nvind  2indijire.     See  above,  note  ^ 
 
 ^  Paufanias  in  Corinth,  p.  132,  133.  Maxim.  Tyr. 
 BiiTert.  38.  p.  401.  ed.  Davif.    Clem.  Alexandr.  Stro- 
 
 mat. 
 
In  the  ancient  heathen  World.      389 
 
 pyramids  of  Egypt,  creates  no  fort  of  pre- 
 fumptlon  that  they  were  appropriated  to 
 the  elements.  And,  even  allowing  them 
 to  have  been  intended  as  emblems  of  fire, 
 in  this  view  they  well  agree  with  the 
 idea  the  ancients  entertained  of  the  fouls 
 of  their  deified  men,  as  originally  taken 
 from  the  igneous  element  in  the  heavenly 
 regions,  and  as  being  now  returned  to 
 the  celeftial  luminaries,  which  were  ima- 
 gined to  confift  of  fire™.  But  the  objec- 
 tion we  are  confidering  was  advanced,  by 
 fome  of  the  heathen  philofophers,  mere- 
 ly to  throw  a  veil  over  that  fhocking  ab- 
 furdity,  the  worfliip  of  mortal  gods, 
 of  which  the  pyramids  furnifh  the  moft 
 ftriking  and  lafting  evidence.  Not  only 
 were  pyramids  and  temples,  but, 
 
 IV.  The  OTHER  PLACES  moft  u- 
 fually  confecrated  to  the  gods,  in  very  an- 
 
 mat.  I.  I.  p.  418.  Sclioliaft  on  the  Vefpae  of  Arifto- 
 phanes,  v.  870, 
 
 "  Empedocles  held -Trt^tKx  rn  aT^ocy  (Plutarch.  Placit, 
 Philofoph.  1.  2.  c.  13.)  and  fo  did  the  ancients  in  ge- 
 jicral.     Horace  calls  them  igiteas  arces, 
 
 C  c  3  tient 
 
39^       .  Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 tient  times,  were  places  of  fepulture,  where 
 divine  hounors  were  paid  to  the  dead. 
 
 This  was  the  cafe  more  particularly 
 with  refpefl  to  the  caves^  the  houfes^  the 
 highways^  the  gro'ueSy  and  the  mou7ttai?iSy 
 where  the  gods  were  worfhipped. 
 
 I,  That,  in  the  very  early  ages  of  the 
 world,  the  Heathens  paid  their  worfhip 
 to  the  gods  in  caves  and  caverns^  at  the 
 bottom  of  mountains  and  rocks,  is  a 
 matter  not  fubjeft  to  difpute".  The  quef- 
 tion  here  is.  What  gods  were  worfhip- 
 ped in  thefe  places  ?  To  which  I  anfwer, 
 not  the  gods  ik.y\Qdi  fupernal -,  becaufe  they 
 were  worfhipped  upon  high  altars  % 
 which  were  not  fuited  to  a  cave.  The 
 infernal  gods,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
 
 "  See  Bryant's  Mythol.  v.  i.  p.  217  &  feq.  The 
 caves,  of  which  I  here  fpeak,  are  not  to  be  confounded 
 with  the  hollows  and  fifiures  upon  the  tops  of  moun- 
 tains and  rocks,  though  the  dillinftion  between  them 
 has  not  been  always  attended  to. 
 
 o  Altaria  ab  altitudine  difta  funt :  quod  antiqui  diis 
 fuperis  in  aedificiis  a  terra  exaltatis  facra  faciebant. 
 Pompon.  Feflus.  Schedius  de  diis  German,  p.  503. 
 See  above,  p.  386.  note  ^. 
 
 worfhipped 
 
in  the  ancient  beafhen  World.      391 
 
 worfhipped  without  any  altars,  or  upon 
 very  low  ones  ^  To  thefe  gods,  there- 
 fore, it  is  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  caves 
 were  appropriated*^.  Before  men  had 
 furnifhed  themfelves  with  more  conve- 
 nient habitations,  they  took  fhelter  in 
 caves  and  dens.  Thefe  were  their  dwel- 
 lings while  they  lived,  and  their  graves 
 when  they  died".  And  we  have  {ttxiy 
 that,  wherever  men  were  buried,  there 
 they  were  worfhipped.  Confequently, 
 caves  being  places  of  fepulture,  they 
 could  not  but  be  the  fcenes  where  idola- 
 ters worfhipped  the  dead.  Indeed,  what 
 other  gods  were  likely  to  refide  in  thofe 
 repofitories  of  the  dead  but  fuch  as  lay 
 buried  in  them  ? 
 
 P  Potter's  Gr.  Antiq.  v.  I.  b.  2.  c.  2,  p.  178,   179. 
 
 ^  Atque  ut  aras  fuperis,  ita  antra  erant  diis  inferis 
 deftinata.     Tomafin.  de  Donariis  veterum,  c.  5. 
 
 '  Sepulchra  fueruntolim  veteribus,  quae  etiam  antea 
 domos  prajbuerunt,  fpeluncse.  Petit.  Leg.  Attic,  p. 
 595.  Bos  (Antiq.  of  Greece,  ch.  23.  p.  426.)  ha« 
 fliewn  that  caves  were  fepulchres. 
 
 C  c  4  A 
 
392         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 A  very  learned  writer'  would  perfuade 
 us,  "  that  the  reverence  paid  to  caves 
 "  and  grottos  arofe  from  a  notion,  that 
 '^  they  were  areprefentation  of  the  world'\ 
 And  it  muft  be  acknowledged,  that  this 
 is  the  view  given  us  of  them  by  Porphy- 
 ry^  in  his  treatife  upon  the  grotto  of  the 
 Nereids  defcribed  or  invented  by  Homer". 
 But  Porphyry's  explication  of  this  grotto 
 receives  no  fupport  from  Homer,  and 
 has  been  pronounced,  by  the  moft  im^ 
 partial  and  capable  judges,  a  laboured 
 and  dijiant  allegory^ .  It  was,  at  beft,  a 
 mere  fpeculation  of  the  learned,  remotq 
 from  the  conception  and  creed  of  th^ 
 people  :  and  therefore  does  not  belong 
 to  our  prefent  fubjeft.  We  are  to  pafs  the 
 fame  judgement  on  what  Porphyry  fays, 
 when  he  reprefents  the   Arcadians    as 
 
 «  Bryant,  Mythol.  v.  i.  p.  232. 
 
 *  Ety.oya  ^£go;/To$  a-'JTJjXata  ra  x.oo-fia.     De  Antro  Nymph. 
 p.  25/^..     See  alfo  p.  25'2,  262* 
 
 "  OdyfT.  1.  13.  V.  103. 
 
 "^  Pope's  Homer^y  in  the  note  on  v.  1 24. 
 
 worfhipping 
 
In  the  ancient  heathen  World,  393 
 worfhipping  the  moon  in  caves'".  He  on- 
 ly gives  us  his  own  phyfical  explication 
 of  (what  was  very  different  from  it)  the 
 popular  and  civil  theology.  Nothing  is 
 fo  likely  to  prevent  us  from  forming  jufl: 
 ideas  of  the  eftabliflied  religion  of  the 
 Heathens  as  not  conftantly  diftinguifh- 
 ing  between  that  and  the  gloffes  of  the 
 philofophers  -,  many  of  which  were  in^ 
 vented  merely  to  fupport  it's  reputation, 
 and  were  propagated  with  peculiar  zeal 
 after  Chriftianity  had  raifed  up  new  and 
 powerful  enemies  againft  it. 
 
 It  may  be  farther  objected,  that  Mi^ 
 thras  was  worfhipped  in  a  cave^,  though, 
 according  to  Hefychius%  Strabo%  Sui- 
 das^,  and  other  writers,  this  Perfian  de- 
 ity was  the  fun.  But  Mithras,  even  fup- 
 
 *  Porphyr.  de  Antro  Nymph,  p.  262, 
 
 y  Porphyr.  de  Antro  Nymphar.  p.  262.  Bryant's 
 Mythol.  V.I.  p.  217,  224.  Kircher's  Oedip.  ^gypt. 
 Syntag.  3.  c.  7.  p.  216.     Statins,  Theb.  1.  i.  \,ji<^n 
 
 ^   II)    VOC.    MtS^a?,    0   Y.'Kioq   ttsc^oc   nf^(Tai(j. 
 
 *  TiiMua-i  h  y.ai  jj^iov,  ov  xaAao-t  MiS^ay.  Strabo,  1. 
 ^5.   p.  1064. 
 
 ^  mS^och  ioiA,i^iiffiv  oi  lls£aa.i  nyxt  tqv  in\m»  Suidas  in  voc. 
 
 pofing 
 
394         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 poling  him  to  have  been  a  man,  might 
 be  put  for  the  fun,  as  Apollo  and  Ofiris 
 were,  though  the  former  was  one  of  the 
 twelve  greater  gods,  who  were  all  natives 
 of  the  earth,  and  the  latter  had  been 
 king  of  Egypt.  It  is  not  necelTary  to  in- 
 quire here  on  what  accounts*"  Mithras 
 was  put  for  the  fun,  though  a  human 
 fpirit  s  but  the  idea  of  him  here  given  is 
 fupported  by  the  authority  of  Statius, 
 
 *=  Some  human  fouls  were  faid  to  be  converted  into 
 celeftial  luminaries.  DifTert.  on  Mir.  p.  214.  note  ^ 
 Sometimes  the  prefiding  demon  was  called  by  the  name 
 of  the  celeftial  deity  from  whom  he  derived  his  autho- 
 rity, lb.  p.  175,  note^,  p.  179,  note  ^  Thofe,  who 
 confidered  human  figures  as  fymbols,  fpoke  of  thofe 
 fymbols  as  being  the  gods  they  reprefented.  According 
 to  Julius  Firmicus,  the  Perfians  reprefented  fre  under 
 the  image  of  a  man  and  woman  :  (Et  'viri  et  fcemince 
 Jtmiilachra  ignis  fuhjianti am  deput antes,  p.  II.)  Why 
 then  might  not  they  reprefent  the  fun  under  a  human 
 figure?  Thofe,  who  regarded  Mithras  as  a  fymbol 
 of  the  fun,  would  call  him  by  that  name,  though  Mi- 
 thras himfelf  was  the  immediate  objeft  of  worfliip  to  all, 
 ind  to  the  people  the  fole  objefl. 
 
 who 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,       395 
 
 who  makes  Apollo,  Ofiris,  and  Mithras, 
 to  be  one  and  the  fame  perfon^ 
 
 That  Mithras  was  not  that  aftrono- 
 mical  body  we  call  the  fun  appears  from 
 the  accounts  given  of  him  by  the  an- 
 tients.  The  Perfians,  according  to  Xe- 
 nophon,  paid  their  worfhip  to  the  fun 
 upon  the  fummits  of  mountains^:  but 
 Mithras  was  worfliipped  in  a  cave,  and 
 therefore  as  one  of  the  dii  inferi.  The  fun, 
 confidered  as  a  natural  divinity,  was,  by 
 the  Heathens,  thought  to  be  eternal'. 
 Mithras,  on  the  other  hand,  according  to 
 the  fabulous  theogony  of  the  Perfians,  was 
 born  from  a  rock^  and  from  that  rock  be- 
 gat Diorphus  ^ :  a  plain  proof  of  their  not 
 
 Seute  rofeum  Titanavocari 
 
 Gentis  Achemeniai  ritu,  feu  pr^eftat  Ofirin 
 Frugiferum,  feu  Perfei  fub  rupibus  antri 
 Indignata  fequi  torquentem  cornua  Mitram. 
 
 Statius,  Theb.  I.  717. 
 See  LaiSlantlus,  as  here  cited,  in  V'eenhufen's  edition. 
 «  Xenophon,  1.  viii.  p.  233. 
 ^  Diodorus  Siculus,  cited  above,  p.  308,  note  ^. 
 B  Juftin.   Martyr,    cum   Tryphone   Dialog,  p.  168. 
 Montfauc.  torn.  i.  p.  368.     Borlafe,  p.  145. 
 
 confidering 
 
396  Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 confiderlnghim  as  one  of  the  natural  gods; 
 Myjieries^  were  inftituted  in  honour  of 
 Mithras,  and  human  facrijices'^  were  offered 
 to  him.  Now  both  thefe  circumftances, 
 as  will  be  fhewn  in  the  fequel,  are  proofs 
 of  his  being  regarded  as  a  human  fpirit. 
 Upon  what  ground  could  Tiridates  fay, 
 that  he  would  worjhtp  Nero  equally  with 
 Mithras'",  if  the  latter  had  not  been  a 
 man  as  well  as  the  former  ?  There  was  a 
 king  of  Egypt  of  the  name  of  Mejires^ 
 who  reigned  in  Heliopolis^  or  city  of  the 
 fun\  and  who  is  fuppofed  by  fome  to  be 
 the  fame  with  Mithras.  Servius  makes 
 Mithras  the  fame  as  the  younger  Belus'". 
 
 Both 
 
 b  Mention  is  made  of  his  myfteries  by  Juflin  Martyr 
 in  the  place  referred  to  in  the  preceding  note,  and  many 
 other  writers.     See  Schedius  de  Diis  German,  p.  147, 
 
 note  **. 
 
 »  See  Hyde,  Rel.  vet.  Perf.  p.  1 1 2.  M\.  Lampr.  in 
 Commodo.     Sacra  Mithriaca  homicidio  vero  poUuit. 
 
 k  Eumperinde  ac  Mithram  fe  adoraturum  pronun- 
 ciavit.     Hyde,  c.  4.  p.  112. 
 
 1  Pliny,  Nat.  Hilt.  I.  36.  c.  14.  p.  735.  ed.  Harduin. 
 
 «>  Belus  minor,  qui  et  Mithres.  Servius  on  -^n.  I. 
 646.     The  Perfians  might  receive  his  worlhip  from  the 
 
 AiTyrians, 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,  397 
 Both  thefe  opinions  fuppofe  him  to  have 
 been  a  man". 
 
 I  cannot  conclude  this  head  without 
 obferving,  that,  according  to  Mr.  Bry- 
 ant %  moft  of  the  temples  amongft  the 
 Perfians  were  caverns  in  rocks.  Now, 
 according  to  Hyde^  and  others,  certain  fa- 
 cred  grottos,  hewn  out  of  a  rock,  were 
 tombs.  Le  Bruyn'*  likewife,  and  Theve- 
 not%  confidercd  them  as  places  of  burial. 
 It  is  probable  therefore  that  the  Perfian 
 temples  were  both  temples  and  tombs ; 
 
 AiTyrians,  as  they  did  that  of  Venus  Urania.  Hero- 
 dot.  1.  I.  c.  131. 
 
 ■  It  may  reconcile  fome  to  this  opinion  to  be  inform- 
 ed, that  it  was  holden  by  fo  eminent  a  writer  as  Mo- 
 ftieim.  He  has  fupported  it  by  a  train  of  reafoning  dif- 
 ferent from  that  here  ufed,  to  which  I  refer  the  reader. 
 See  Moiheim's  Latin  tranflation  of  Cudworth,  tom.  I. 
 p.  42 1 ,  in  the  note,  which  is  abridged  by  the  learned 
 Brucker,  Hift.  Critic.  Philofoph.  tom.  I.  p.  169,  170. 
 Mo(heim  confidered  Oromafdes  and  Arimanius  as  being 
 of  human  origin.  According  to  Plutarch, Mithras  was 
 a  mediator,  or  middle  god,  between  them.  If.  &  Ofir. 
 p.  369.  E. 
 
 •  Mythol.  V.I.  p.  222,  223. 
 
 P  Rel.  vet.  Perf.  c.  23.     Bryant,  p.  222^ 
 
 f  Ap.  Bryant,  p.  224,  225, 
 
 and 
 
39^         Worjldip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 and  confequently  the  gods,  worfhipped 
 in  them,  were  departed  heroes.  This 
 very  much  confirms  what  was  advanced 
 above',  concerning  the  obje6ls  of  wor- 
 Ihip  in  Perfia. 
 
 2.  When  men  quitted  dens  and  caves, 
 and,  for  their  better  accommodation, 
 built  hoiifes^  thefe  became  places  of  fe- 
 pulture,  and  confequently  the  fcenes 
 of  the  pareiitalia^  or  of  thofe  divine  ho- 
 nours which  the  fatnily  paid  to  the  ma- 
 nes of  their  anceftors'.  Every  one  knows 
 that  the  fire-hearths  were  facred  to  the 
 houfehold-gods',  the  dii  peiiates^  or  la^ 
 resy  the  founders  and  guardians  of  the 
 family. 
 
 3.  Afterwards  men  were  buried  by 
 the  fides  of  high-ways"^  5  and  then  v^e  read 
 
 of 
 
 *  Ch.  I.  feft.  I.  p.  47,  &  feq. 
 
 '  Apiid  majoresj  omnes  in  fuis  domibus  fepelieban- 
 tur.  Unde  ortum  efl  ut  lares  colerentur  in  domibus. 
 Servius  on  JEw.  VI.  152.     See  him  alfo  on  V.  64. 
 
 t  See  Plutarch.  Vit.  Alexand.  p.  696.  A.  Comp. 
 Vit.  Coriolan.  p.  224.  D. 
 
 o  SeeBos'sAntiq.  of  Greece,  ch.  23.  p.  425.  Pau- 
 fanias  takes  notice  of  the  temples  and-  fepulchres  on  the 
 
 high-ways.. 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      39^ 
 
 of  the  lares  vialesy  who  were  the  ghofts 
 of  good  men  "^5  of  whom  the  traveller 
 afked  a  profperous  journey'',  and  whofe 
 monuments  were  defigned  to  remind  him 
 of  his  own  mortality^.  Thefe  manes 
 were  thought  to  be  highly  pleafed  with 
 the  addreffes  of  the  paffengers,  which 
 was  one  reafon  why  the  dead  were  bu- 
 ried by  the  high-ways  ^. 
 
 4.  Groves  ^.xt  frequently  fpoken  of,  in 
 the  hiftory  of  all  mankind,  as  places 
 of  religious  worfhip.  As  fuch  they  were 
 ufed  by  the  fervants  of  the  true  God% 
 
 high-ways.      I^ura,  raj  o^sq  fiswy  zt^^  n^a,    y.ai  ti^ucov  xat 
 uv^^uv  rot(poi.      Attic.   I.  I.   C.  29.   p.  70. 
 
 w  Manes  piorum,-  qui  lares  viales  funt.     Servius  on 
 ^n.  III.  302. 
 
 *  Invoco  vos,  lares  viales,  ut  me  bene  juvetis. 
 
 Plautus,  Merc.  v.  2. 
 y  Monumentaa  monendo  quae  funt  in  fepulchris.  Et 
 ideo  fecundum  viam,  quo  prsetereuntes  admoneant  et  fe 
 filifle,  et  illos  eilc,  mortales.  Varro  de  Lingua  Latina, 
 1.  V.  Moreftelli  Pompa  feralis,  1.  3.  c.  12.  ap.  Grsv* 
 tom.  12.  p.  1414. 
 
 *  See  Guther  de  Jure  Manium,  1.  2,  c.  13.  GraeVr 
 ib.  p.  1191. 
 
 *  Gen.  13.   18.  ch.  21.  23,. 
 
 perhaps 
 
40O         JVorJJjip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 perhaps  on  account  of  their  folitude  and 
 folemnity,  and  the  proteftion  they  af- 
 forded from  the  fcorching  heat  of  the 
 fun,  which  was  a  great  recommendation 
 of  them  in  hot  climates.  The  Heathens 
 erefted  temples  "^  and  altars,  and  perfor- 
 med the  feveral  rites  of  idolatry,  in 
 thick  woods,  which  (truck  the  worfhip- 
 pers  with  awe,  and  gave  the  priefts  an 
 opportunity  of  carrying  on  their  impof- 
 tures.  The  groves  and  trees  were  confe- 
 crated  to  particular  divinities  %  called  by 
 their  names'*,  and  worfliipped'  as  their 
 
 ^  Groves  themfelves  are  fometlmes  fpoken  of  as  tem- 
 ples, and  were  perhaps  the  moft  antlent  ones. 
 
 ^  Arborum  genera  numinibus  fuis  dicata  perpetuo 
 fervantur.     Pliny,  Nat.  Hill.  1.  12.  c.  I. 
 
 ^  Lucos  ac  nemora  confecrant,  deorumque  nomifli- 
 bus  appellant  fecretum  illud,  quod  fola  reverentia  vi- 
 deat.     Tacit,  de  Mor.  Germ.  c.  9. 
 
 «  Sanchoniathon  Tays,  (ap.  Eufeb.  Pr?i?p.  Ev.  I.  I. 
 c  10.  p.  34,.  B.)  They  confecrated  the  produdiio7is  of  the 
 earth,  called  them  gods,  and  -ojorjhipped  them.  Trees 
 were  addrefled  as  intelligent  beings,  and  in  the  very 
 fame  ftyle  as  the  gods  themfelves  to  whom  they  were 
 confecrated.  HaeC'facrata  quercus,  et  quicquid  deorum;, 
 nudiat  foedus  a  vobis  ruptum.     Liv.  1.  3.  §•  25* 
 
 fymbols 
 
m  the  aHcient  heathen  World.       40 1 
 
 fymbols  and  reprefentatives,  or  as  having 
 their  refpe£tive  gods  belonging  to  them. 
 
 But  the  fingle  queftion  before  us  here 
 is.  Who  the  gods  themfelves  were  whom 
 the  Heathens  worfliipped  in  groves  ? 
 Now  there  is  fcarce  any  point,  in  which 
 the  ancients  are  more  generally  agreed, 
 than  they  are  in  reprefenting  facred 
 groves  as  places  of  fepulture^,  dedicated 
 to  the  worfliip  of  hero-gods.  Servius  af- 
 ferts,  that  the  groves  were  confidered  as 
 the  dwellings  of  the  fouls  of  heroes  ^ 
 Cicero  appeals  to  the  Alban  tombs,  and 
 groves,  and  altars^.  And  many  inftances 
 
 ^  Mortuorum  fepulchra  erant  fubarboribus,  lucifque 
 circumfepta.  La  Cerda,  ad  -^n.  VI.  763,  It  was  a 
 law  amongft  the  antient  Etrufcans,  Si  quis  fepulchrum 
 proprium  non  hahuerit,  in  ncmorofa  fylva  fepeliatur,  E- 
 trufc.  Fragm*  I.  3.  p.  176.  See  Gen.  35.  8.  2  Kings 
 23.   15,   16. 
 
 e  Dicuntur  heroum  anlmae  lucos  tenere.  Scrvius  oa 
 .^n.  I.  445.  Lucum  nunquam  ponit  Virgilius  fine  re- 
 Hgione :  namque  in  ipiis  habitant  manes  piorum.  Id. 
 on  ^n.III.  302. 
 
 ^  Vos,  Albani  tumuli  atqueluci,  vos,  inquam,  im- 
 ploro  atque  obteftor,  vofque,  Albanorum  obrutx  arse. 
 Orat.  pro  Milone,  c.  31. 
 
 D  d  are 
 
402         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 are  on  record  of  the  dedication  of  woods, 
 together  with  priefts  and  altars,  to  the 
 fpirits  of  deified  men  and  women'.  Au- 
 guftus  confecrated  one  of  thefe  places  to 
 the  dii  manes^  in  general. 
 
 Groves  were  confidered  as  the  habita- 
 tions^ of  the  gods,  as  we  are  expreffly  in- 
 formed, and  might  have  inferred  from 
 their  being  the  places  of  their  burial. 
 But  they  neither  were,  not  could  be, 
 confidered  as  the  habitations  of  the  fun, 
 moon,  and  liars,  though  they  were  a- 
 dapted  to  the  ideas  the  Gentiles  had  form- 
 ed of  the  terreftrial  gods.  The  fhade  and 
 coolnefs  of  groves'",  the  uncommon  lof- 
 
 »  To  Anchifes,  Virg.  Mn.  V.  760.  To  Juno,  L 
 445.  To  Hedlor,  III.  302.  To  Egeria,  vvhowasthe 
 wife  of  Numa,  Ovid.Fafti,  III.  262-276.  See  Virg, 
 iEn.  IX.  3,  4.  &VII.   171. 
 
 ^  Boiflard.  Topogr.  torn.  I.  p.  50. 
 
 ^  Numen  inert.  Ovid.Fafti,  III.  295.  Habitat  eieus^ 
 Virg.  iEn.  VIII.  352.  See^n.  VI.  673.  Ovid,  Am. 
 1.3.  el.I.  I.     Lucan,  III.  423  &  feq.     Seneca,  ep.  41. 
 
 "*  Lstiflimus  umbra.     Virg.  Mn.l.  445. 
 
 ^tinefs 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      403 
 
 tinefs  and  beauty  of  the  trees"  that  com- 
 pofed  them,  the  fountains'*  within  them, 
 or  the  rivers^  that  ran  out  of  them, 
 were  intended  and  fappofed  to  render 
 them  an  agreeable  abode  to  the  dead% 
 having  been  the  objects  of  their  delight 
 when  living.  Hence  Virgil  defcribes  de- 
 parted heroes  as  faying', 
 
 Unfettled,  we  remove. 
 
 As  pleafiire  calls,  from  verdant  grove  to  grove ; 
 Stretch'd  on  the  flow'ry  meads,  at  eafe,  we  He, 
 And  hear  the  filver  rills  run  bubbling  by.  Pitt^ 
 
 ^  The  temple  of  Mercury  had  (^£v5'^ea  s^ai/o/AJjy.Ea)  trees 
 that  reached  up  to  hea'vetty  according  to  Herodotus,  1.  2, 
 c.  138.  The  grove  of  Neptune  had  trees  'jravro^ccrroc 
 KaA^.oj  f%J/c?  TE  crti/Aovtov.  Platon.  Critias,  tom.  3.  p, 
 ]  17,  ed.  Serran. 
 
 Ayy\    [xx^.os.     y^ivr^q     >ccjAA»^^o».        Homcr.    Hymjl.    m 
 
 Apoll.     See  Plorat.  Art.  poet.  v.  16. 
 P  See  Paufanias,  Corinth,  p.  198. 
 *}  Nemora  enim  aptabant  fepulchris ;  utinamcenitate 
 animse  forent  poll  vitam.    Servius  on  Virg.  -^n.  V.  760. 
 '  NuUi  certa  domus.     Lucis  habitamus  opacis, 
 Riparumque  toros,  et  prata  recentia  rivis 
 Incolimus.     Mn.  VI.  673. 
 
 D  d  2  c. 
 
404         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 5.  Amongft  the  places  confecrated  to 
 the  heathen  gods  I  muft  not  omit  to 
 mention  the  fummits  of  mountains^ 
 whether  formed  by  nature  or  confl:ru6ted 
 by  art'. 
 
 It  has  been  imagined  by  fome,  that 
 thefe  places  were  appropriated  to  the 
 natural  gods.  But  the  miftake  is  owing 
 to  their  not  diftinguifhing  between  the 
 natural  gods  and  thofe  ftyled  celeJiiaL 
 Under  the  latter  are  comprehended  fuch 
 men  as  were  thought  to  have  afcended 
 into  heaven,  of  whom  Jupiter  was  the 
 chief.  To  him  every  mountain  was  ef- 
 teemed  facred,  according  toMelanthes". 
 
 9  If  the  reader  be  ignorant  of  the  antient  cuftom  of 
 worPaipping  upon  mountains,  he  may  confult  Paufanias, 
 p.  I75>  196^  I97>  892.  Virg.  ^n.  V.  760.  Potter, 
 Gr.  Antiq.  v.  i.  p.  179.  v.  2.  p.  238,  239.  Freytag. 
 de  facris  Gentium  Montibus.  Bryant's  Myth.  v.  i.  p. 
 119?  235>  &  ^eq.  Sched.  de  Diis  Germ.  p.  502.  Le 
 Clerc  and  Patrick  on  Levit.  xxvi.  30. 
 
 *  As  to  artificial  mounts,  fee  above,  p.  380,  notes*", 
 «,  andGibbons's  Hiftory,  v.  3.  p.  83. 
 
 "  De  Sacrificiis.  n«y  ^£  oro:  ra  Atoj  o^oj  onoiAoc'^sroci, 
 Potter,  V.I.  p.  179.     Bryant,  v,  i.  p.  238. 
 
 Kings 
 
271  the  a7tcie?tt  heathen  World,      405 
 
 Kings  and  great  men  were  buried  up- 
 on mountains'',  (though  fometimes  at  the 
 feet  of  them\)  The  places  of  their  burial, 
 in  which  they  were  thought  to  refide,  were 
 certainly  the  fcenes  of  their  worfliip, 
 agreeably  to  the  conftant  cuftom  of  an- 
 tiquity. Accordingly  we  find,  that  facri- 
 fices  were  offered  to  the  dead,  and  their 
 ghofts  confulted,  upon  mountains  ^ 
 The  reafon  afligned  by  the  Gentiles,  for 
 worlliipping  the  gods  on  thefe  elevated 
 fituations,  determines  who  they  were. 
 Hills  and  mountains,  they  faid,  brought 
 men  nearer  to  the  gods,  and  thereby  pro- 
 cured for  them  the  advantage  of  being 
 better  heard^ :  a  reafon  not  at  all  adapted 
 
 D  d  3  to 
 
 V  Deut,  xxxii.    50.     Jofli,  xxlv.  30,   33.     See  th? 
 next  jiote. 
 
 «  — — —  Fuit  ingens  monte  fub  alto 
 
 Regis  Dercenni  terreno  ex  aggere  buftum, 
 
 ^n.XI.  849. 
 
 Apud  majores,  nobiles,  aut  fub  montibus  altis,  aut  in 
 
 ipfis  montibus,  fepeliebantur.     Servius  in  loc, 
 
 y  See  Spencer  de Leg.  Hebr.  p.  382. 
 
 ^  Tuv   ivyo'Muv  ayyp^tv   iTrociuai,     fc.    ot  ^toi,      Lucian. 
 
 i^c  Syr.  Dea,  p.  672.  ed.  Amllel.     This  is  the  reafon 
 
 afligned 
 
40  6         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 to  the  idea  entertained  of  the  natural 
 gods :  not  of  the  air  around  them  ;  nei- 
 ther of  the  earth  nor  fea  beneath  them  ; 
 nor  even  of  the  fun  above  them,  becaufe 
 they  conceived  of  that  glorious  luminary 
 2iS  feeing  and  hearing  all  things^.  But,  as 
 to  the  gods  taken  from  amongfl:  men, 
 whom  they  might  naturally  imagine  to 
 be  incapable  of  hearing  at  a  great  dif- 
 tance,  it  could  not  but  be  judged  necef- 
 fary  to  get  as  near  to  them  as  poffible, 
 for  the  fake  of  being  heard  in  their  reli- 
 gious addrefTes.  It  is  probably  for  the 
 fame  reafon,  that  the  modern  Italians, 
 like  the  idolaters  of  old  times,  choofe  to 
 
 afTigned  for  worfhlpping  the  gods  upon  mountains  by  the 
 Syrians.  That  the  common  opinion  of  the  gods  was 
 the  fame  with  theirs  appears  from  the  following  cenfure 
 of  it :  Non  exorandus  eft  aedituus,  ut  nos  ad  aures  ii- 
 mulachri,  quafi  magis  exaudiri  pollimus,  admittat, 
 Senec.  ep,  41.  p.  453,  ed.  Lipfii.  The  Getes  mull 
 have  thought  their  god  quite  out  of  the  reach  of  hear- 
 ing, even  from  the  higheft  mountain ;  for  they  fent  a 
 jneilenger  to  him  every  year  to  inform  him  of  their 
 wants.     Herodot.  1.  4.  c.  94. 
 
 Horn,  II.  III.  277. 
 
 worfhip 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,  407 
 worfhip  their  faints  upon  high  places  ^.  I 
 fhall  only  add,  that  the  gods  were  fup- 
 pofed  to  be  highly  delighted  with  emi- 
 nences or  mountains^;  and  thefe  fitua- 
 tions  were  rendered  ftill  more  agreeable 
 to  them,  by  temples,  and  groves,  and 
 iprings,  and  whatever  elfe  could  gratify 
 human  ghofts  that  preferved  all  the  dif- 
 pofitions  of  their  former  ftate.  To  fuch 
 ghofts,  therefore,  "the  worfhip  upon 
 high  places  was  directed'*. 
 
 I  have  now  fhewn  to  what  gods  divine 
 honours  were  paid,  at  fepulchres,  in 
 temples,  in  pyramids,  in  caves,  in  hou- 
 
 ^  Sharp's  Letters  from  Italy,  p.  305. 
 *^  The  Grecian  Jupiter  is  thus  defcribed  ; 
 
 AfTo;  ^  iv  xo^v(pY,a-i  KocBi^BTo  Kvh'i  yatav.     Hom.  II.  VIII.  5  I. 
 
 The  pleafure  the  gods  take  in  high  places  is  given  as  the 
 reafon  of  conftrufting  temples  upon  them  in  Japan, 
 Kaemfer,  Hiftory  of  Japan,  v.  2.  b.  5.  c.  3.  p.  417. 
 Bryant,  v.  i.  p.  238. 
 
 «*  I  acknowledge,  that  thofe,  who  thought  the  Per- 
 fians  and  others  worfhipped  only  the  natural  gods,  re- 
 prefent  them  as  performing  that  worfhip  upon  moun- 
 tains :  but,  if  we  callow  the  fa£l,  that  the  Perlians  wor- 
 ihipped  only  the  natural  gods,  they  muft,  in  worfhipping 
 them  upon  mountains,  have  adied  upon  principles  diffe- 
 rent from  thofe  Hated  above.  But  the  fad  itfelf  is  dif- 
 putable, 
 
 D  d  4  Ccs, 
 
4o8         WorJIAp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fes,  by  the  fide  of  high-ways,  in  groves, 
 and  upon  mountains.  Thefe  were  the 
 places  moft  ufually  confecrated  to  the 
 gods  in  ancient  times  ^  and  they  in  a- 
 manner  include  all  the  reft.  And,  as  in 
 all  the  fore-mentioned  places  deified  men 
 and  women  were  worfhipped,  the  prece- 
 ding induftion  of  particulars  abundantly 
 demonllrates  the  general  prevalence  of 
 that  worfhip  over  the  heathen  world. 
 
 V.  The  STATUES  and  IMAGES 
 of  the  gods,  in  human  form,  were  re- 
 prefentations  of  deified  men  and  women. 
 
 In  the  rude  ages  of  antiquity,  uncar* 
 ved  ftones  and  pillars,  boughs  alfo 
 and  flumps  of  trees,  and  other  pie- 
 ces of  wood,  were  confecrated  to  the 
 gods  ^  3  to  thofe  fly  led  natural,  as  fome 
 
 maintain, 
 
 *  Clem.  Alexandr.  Stromat.  1.  i.  p.  418.  Maxim. 
 Tyr.  Diflert.  38.  p.  401.  ed.  Davif.  Herodian.  I.  5. 
 c.  5.  Tacit.  Hift.  1.  2.  c.  3.  Chron.  Alexandr.  p. 
 89.  Schedius  de  Diis  German,  p.  505.  —  Clemens 
 Alexandrinus  (in  Cohort,  ad  Gentes,  p.  40.)  fays,  0» 
 
 ff^v  m  T^i^ut,      Qui  hominuiR   erant  antiquiores  h'gna 
 '  erigebant 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      409 
 
 Tnaintain  \  and  certainly  to  thofe  who 
 had  their  original  from  mortality  ^  Bat 
 thefe  things  were  not  defigned  as  refem- 
 blances,  but  merely  as  figns  and  fym-* 
 
 Crigebant  iniignia,  et  coliimnas  ponebant  ex  lapidihus. 
 Many  particular  examples  of  both  may  be  found  in  the 
 places  here  ref  rred  to. 
 
 ^  Sanchoniathon  referred  to  above,  p.  388,  note 'f, 
 is  fpeaking  of  the  moft  antient  times.  Of  thofe  times 
 Maimonides  alfo  fpeaks,  when  he  fays,  Zabiierexerunt 
 ilellis  imagines.  Mor.  Nevoch.  pars  III.  c.  29.  p. 
 423.  Mede  however  was  of  opinion,  that  both ///Azrj 
 ■2iVi^  images  wtxty  by  original  inftitution,  peculiar  to  de- 
 mons, though,  through  fome  confuilon,  they  were  af- 
 terwards afcribed  to  other  deities.  Works,  p.  632. 
 •The  miftake,  if  it  was  one,  might  be  owing  to  their 
 referring  to  the  liars  themfelves  the  worlhip  paid  to  the 
 demons,  or  deified  human  fpirits,  that  were  fuppofed  to 
 inhabit  them.  No  miftake  will  appear  more  natural, 
 if  you  confider  how  often  a  ftar  and  it's  prefiding  de- 
 mon, or  the  ultimate  and  immediate  objeft  of  woffhip, 
 are  confounded  together. 
 
 fogTccf  ayiiv  y.ur  £to;.  Sanchon.  ap.  Eufeb.  Prasp.  Ev. 
 J.  I.  p.  35.  B.  Thefe  pillars,  orflones,  were  fet  up  at 
 fepulchres.  Homer.  II.  xi.  371.  xvii.  434.  Pindar, 
 Ncm.  Ode  X.  v.  125.  See  alfo  Paufanias  in  Corin- 
 thaic.  c.  2c^.  In  Achaic.  c.  22.  In  Boeot.  c.  24.  Se^ 
 Jikewife  ^orlafe's  Anticj.  of  Cornwall,  p.  186  &:feq. 
 
 bols. 
 
41  o         Worjhip  of  human  Spirit s 
 
 bols,  of  the  gods.  Neverthelefs,  the 
 Greeks,  univerfally,  and  from  the  moft 
 remote  antiquity,  paid  the  fame  divine 
 worfhip  to  thefe  Jigns  as  to  xhtjiatues 
 of  the  gods'". 
 
 When  the  arts  of  fculpture  and  ftatu- 
 ary  were  invented,  a  human  form  was 
 given  to  thefe  fubftitutes  of  the  heathen 
 gods,  that  they  might  bear  a  refem- 
 blance  to  the  objefts  they  reprefented. 
 Thofe  objefts,  therefore,  were  men  and 
 women,  not  the  elements  and  heavenly 
 bodies  ;  the  form  of  the  one  no  way  re- 
 fembling  that  of  the  other*.  There  is  the 
 more  reafon  to  believe,  that  the  images 
 of  the  gods  in  human  form  were  intend- 
 ed to  reprefent  human  perfonages,  as 
 the  cuftom  of  making  thefe  images  had 
 
 ^  Ta  ^£  ert  'recxXonorz^x  nen  ran;  'Trotanv  EXAiocrt,  rifxai 
 ^laiv  avTi  ayaAjxarwf  eip^ov  ac^yoi  ?^t^ot.  1  aulail.  in  A- 
 chaicis,  p,  579.  Concerning  the  worfhip  of  confecra- 
 ted  ftones,  the  reader  may  confult  Bp.  Lowth's  note  on 
 If.  Ivii.  6, 
 
 *  When  they  aimed  at  making  feme  refemblance  of 
 the  fun,  the  Paeonians  reprefented  him  by  a  dife. 
 Maxim.  Tyr.  DifTert.  38.  p.  402. 
 
 it's 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      411 
 
 it*s  rife  in  Egypt''  5  where  dead  men  were 
 vvorfliipped,  firft  '^  in  per/on^  that  is,  in 
 "  thtlr  mummies,  which,  when  loft,  con- 
 **  fumed,  or  deftroyed,  were  worfliipped 
 *^  hy  repr efentat ion,  under  an  image  made 
 *^  with  it's  legs  bound  up,  in  likenefs 
 "  ofthemummies\"  ThePerfians,  who 
 were  fald  to  worlhip  only,  or  principally, 
 elementary  and  fiderial  deities,  had 
 ncfftatues  of  their  gods  at  all ;  and  for 
 this  very  reafon,  becaufe  they  did  not 
 partake  of  human  nature"".  Nay,  fome 
 nations,  whofe  gods  were  dead  men, 
 worfhipped  them  without  ftatues".  And, 
 where  all  the  hero-gods  had  their  ima- 
 ges, yet  there  was  even  there  no  image 
 of  the  fun  or  moon,  becaufe  their  afpects 
 were  confpicuous  to  all*.  It  is  natural 
 to  conclude,  from   thefe  premifes,  that 
 
 ^  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  4. 
 
 '  Warburton's  Div.  Legat.  v.  2.  p.  290.  ed.  1755. 
 "  See  above,  p.  47,  concerning  thePerfians. 
 "  As  the  Germans,  and  the  Romans  during  the  timo 
 «f  Numa.     Above,  p.  40,  250. 
 
 *  See  the  account  given  of  the  Syrians,  p.  201. 
 
 the 
 
412         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 the  reprefentation  of  the  gods  under  hu- 
 man figures  is  a  proof  that  thofe  gods 
 had  once  been  men.  The  Fathers  had 
 very   much  the  fame  view  of  this  fub- 
 
 Balbus"^,  indeed,  fays,  *^  that  from  a 
 ^'  fhyjical  reafon  has  proceeded  a  great 
 *^  multitude  of  gods,  wiio,  being  repre- 
 *'  fentedin  human  form,  have  fupphed 
 "  the  poets  with  fables'*.  Varro  alfo 
 was  of  opinion,  that  the  images  of  the 
 gods  were  originally  intended  to  direct 
 iuch,  as  were  accjuainted  with  the  fecret 
 
 p  Quid  denlque  ipfa  fimulacravolunt,  quas  aut  mor- 
 tuorum  aut  abfentium  monimenta  funt?  et  feq.  Lac- 
 tant.  Div.  Inftitut.  1.  2.  c.  2.  p.  116,  117.  Et  ideo 
 fimulacra  conftituunt,  quae  quia  funt  mortuorum  imagi- 
 mes,  fimilia  mortuis  funt ;  omnienim  fenfu  carent.  Id. 
 ib.  Dum  reges  fuos  colunt  religione,  dum  defun(flos 
 eos  defiderant  in  imaginibus  videre,  &c.  Minuc.  Fel. 
 p.  157,158.  ed,  Varior.  1672.  Concerning  the  fenti-. 
 ments  of  Eufebius  on  thisfubjed,  fee  Div.  Legat.  v.  i, 
 p.  97,  98,  in  the  note. 
 
 ^  Ap.  Cicer.  Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  24.  Aliaquoqueex 
 ratione,  et  quidem  phyfica,  magna  fluxit  multitude  deo- 
 rum  :  qui  induti  fpecie  humana  fabulas  poetis  fuppedi- 
 taverunt. 
 
 do6lrine. 
 
t?i  the  ancient  heathen  World,       4 1  j 
 
 do6lrine,  to  the  contemplation  of  the 
 real  gods,  the  foul  of  the  world,  and  it's 
 conftituent  parts ;  the  mind  which  is  in 
 the  body  of  man  bearing  the  neareft  re- 
 femblance  to  the  immortal  (and  univer- 
 fal)  mind".  And  Maximus  Tyrius 
 largely  defends  the  ufe  of  thefe  images 
 upon  the  fame  ground ;  and  pleads,  that, 
 of  all  others,  they  are  the  moft  proper 
 fymbols  of  the  gods '. 
 
 *  Interpretationes  pKylicas  fie  Varro  commendat,  ufe^ 
 dicat  antiques  fimulachra  deorum,  et  inlignia,  crna- 
 tufque  confinxiiTe  :  quae  cum  oculis  animadvertifTenthf, 
 qui  adifTent  dodlrinae  myfteria,  pofTent  animam  mundi 
 ac  partes  ejus,  id  ell,  decs  veros,  animo  videre :  quo- 
 jum  qui  fimulachra  fpecie  hominis  fecerunt,  hoc  videri 
 fequutos,  quod  mortalium  animus,  qui  eft  in  corpore 
 humano,  fimillimus  eft  immortalis  animi ;  tanquam  fi 
 vafaponerentur  caufa  notandorum  deorum,  et  in  Libe- 
 t\  aede  cenophorum  fifteretur,  quod  fignificaret  vinum, 
 per  id  quod  continet,  id  quod  continetur :  ita  per  fi- 
 mulachrum,  quod  formam  haberethumanam  fignificari 
 animam  rationalem,  quod  eo  velutvafe  natura  ifta  foleat 
 contineri,  cujus  naturae  deum  volunt  effe,  vel  deos. 
 Varro  ap.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  7.  c.  5. 
 
 »  Maxim.  Tyr.  Difiert.  38.  Plotinus  alfo  fpeaks  of 
 ftatues  as  defigned  to  fix  men's  thoughts  on  the  foul  of 
 the  world.     Ennead.  IV.  1.  3.  c.  11.  p.  380. 
 
 This 
 
414         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 This  platonic  philofopher,  and  alfo 
 the  two  Stoics,  Varro  and  Balbus,  were 
 zealous  advocates  for  the  phyfical  expli- 
 cation of  the  fables,  to  which  they  al- 
 ways had  recourfe  when  preffed  with  the 
 difficulties  of  their  literal  meaning.  No 
 wonder,  then,  that  they  fhould  repre- 
 fent  images  in  human  form  as  fymbols 
 or  emblems  of  the  natural  gods.  How 
 far  this  was  the  real  cafe  is  a  matter 
 that  may  come  under  future  confidera- 
 tion.  It  is  fufficient  here  to  obferve, 
 that  the  images,  or  human  figures,  of 
 which  w^e  are  fpeaking,  reprefented  real 
 men  and  women,  fuch  as  were  fuppofed 
 to  be  advanced  "to  the  rank  of  gods  and 
 goddeffes,  and  were  worfhipped  as  fuch  : 
 that  thefe  deities  were  the  immediate  ob- 
 je6ls  of  the  eflablifhed  worihip,  not  the 
 natural  gods,  to  whom  there  could  be  only 
 a  remote  and  ultimate  reference :  that  this 
 reference  was  underftood  only  by  thofe 
 who  were  inftrufted  in  the  myfteries  of 
 the  heathen  religion :  that,  confequently, 
 
 the 
 
i?t  the  ancient  heathen  World,      41  ff 
 
 the  common  people  worfhipped  images, 
 not  as  figns  or  emblems  of  the  deified  ob- 
 jefts  of  nature,  but,  as  what  they  really 
 were,  reprefentations  of  deified  men  and 
 women :  and  that  the  civil  theology  was 
 founded  upon  this  hypothefis,  or  upon 
 the  literal  hiftory  of  thofe  fables  which 
 the  philofophers  converted  into  allegory* 
 In  a  word,  the  very  objeftion  we  are  con- 
 fidering,  inftead  of  overturning,  eltabiifh- 
 es,  both  the  humanity  of  the  direft  obje6ls 
 of  the  eftabliflied  worfhip  amongft  the 
 Heathens,  and  the  proof  of  it  drawn 
 from  the  reprefentation  of  them  under 
 huma;i  figures, 
 
 Thefe  figures,  as  well  as  the  human 
 perfonages  whom  they  reprefented,  were 
 deemed  gods,  and  worfhipped  as  fuch' ; 
 not,  indeed,  on  account  of  the  fenfelefs 
 materials  of  which  they  were  compofed, 
 but,  as  the  Heathens  alleged,  of  their 
 
 *  Quisenim  dubitat  horum  imagines  confecratas  val- 
 gus orare,  et  publice  colerc  ?  Minuc.  Fel.  p.  217,  ed. 
 Var.  Colitur  pro  Jove  forma  Jovis.  Ovid.  Ep.  ex' 
 Ponto,   1.  2.  ep.  viii.  v.  63. 
 
 divine 
 
4i6         tVorJJnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 divine  inhabitants".  The  priefts  pre-^ 
 tended,  by  certain  rites  of  confecration, 
 to  allure  or  compel  demons,  that  is,  the 
 manes  of  the  dead,  to  enter  into,  and  to 
 animate,  their  ftatues,  and  to  detain 
 them  there '^.  And,  though  many  ima- 
 ges and  ftatues  were  erefled  to  the  fame 
 god,  yet  in  each  of  them  he  was  fuppo- 
 fed  to  be  perfonally  prefenf.  Now  this 
 idea  of  facred  images,  as  the  fixed  refi- 
 dence  of  the  gods,  deftroys  the  fuppofi-. 
 tion  of  their  being  immediately  reprefen- 
 tatives  of  the  elements  or  planets ;  and 
 at  the  fame  time  correfponds  to,  and 
 confirms,    the     opinion  entertained   of 
 
 ■  Eos  in  his  colimus,  eofque  veneramur,  quos  dedi* 
 catio  infert  facra,  et  fabrilibiis  efRcit  inhabitare  fimula- 
 cris.  Arnob.  1.  6.  p.  203.  See  Celfus  ap.  Origen. 
 contr.  Celf.  1.  7.  p.  373. 
 
 ^  Sometimes,  to  prevent  his  defertion,  the  liatue  of 
 the  god  was  chained  to  its  pedellal.  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  17. 
 p.  191.  ed.  We&ling. 
 
 ^  In  fimulacris  dii  habitant :  finguline  in  fmgulis  to* 
 tis,  an  partiliter  atque  in  membra  divifi  ?  Nam  neque 
 unus  deus  in  compluribus  potis  ei1:  uno  tempore  inefle  fi- 
 "mulacrisj  neque  rurfus  in  partes  fedione  interveniente 
 divifus. 
 
 theipi 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,  417 
 them  by  the  Heathens,  who  made  them, 
 as  bodieSy  to  be  informed  with  demons, 
 or  the  fpirits  or  departed  men,  as  with 
 fouh^ .  And,  as  the  worfhip  of  images 
 became  almoft  the  univerfal  religion  of 
 the  gentile  world,  this  affords  an  unde- 
 niable proof  of  the  human  origin  of  the 
 heathen  gods,  whofe  bodily  features  thofe 
 images  were  faid  to  reprefent*. 
 
 VI.  The  WORSHIP  of  the  heathen 
 nations  correfponded  to  their  idea  of  hu- 
 man ghofts,  and  was  founded  upon  it. 
 
 All  religious  worfliip  among  the  Gen- 
 tiles, and  indeed  among  all  other  peo- 
 ple, has  ever  been  adapted  to  the  opinion 
 they  formed  of  it's  objeft.  Thofe  Gen- 
 tiles who,  by  the  fole  ufe  of  their  rational 
 faculties,  formed  juft  conceptions  of  the 
 fpirituality  and  purity  of  the  divine  be- 
 ing, thought  that  he  was  beft  honoured 
 by  a  pure  niijid.  Such  of  them  as  regar- 
 ded the  luminaries  of  heaven,  as  benefi- 
 cent and  divine  intelligences  that  gover- 
 ned the  world,  worfhipped  them   with 
 
 y  Mede's  works,  p.  632.       *  Eufebius,  ib.  p.  680. 
 
 E  e  hymjii 
 
4 1 S         WorJInp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 hymns  and praifes^^  in  teftimony  of  their 
 gratitude  ;  or  by  kljjlng  the  handy  and 
 bowing  the  head  ^  to  them,  in  acknow- 
 ledgement of  their  fovereign  dominion. 
 This  feems  to  have  been  the  only  ho- 
 mage they  received  from  mankind  in  the 
 moft  early  ages  of  the  world.  At  leaft, 
 no  other  is  taken  notice  of  in  the  book 
 of  Job,  or  in  the  writings  of  Mofes. 
 When  dead  men  were  deified,  it  became 
 neceffary  to  frame  a  worfhip  adapted  to 
 pleafe  and  gratify  human  ghofts,  or  ra- 
 ther fuch  fpirits  as  they  were  conceived  to 
 be.  And  I  will  here  attempt  to  fliew, 
 that  the  eftablifhed  v/orfliip  of  the  Hea- 
 thens was  built  upon  thefe  conceptions, 
 and  that  this  circumftance  points  out 
 the  human  origin  of  the  more  immediate^ 
 cbje6ls  of  that  worfhip. 
 
 *  Mede's  Works,  p.  6i^, 
 
 *  If  I  beheld  the  fun  i  6r  the  moony '•^  and  my  mouth  hatk 
 hffed  my  hand.  Job  xxxi.  26,  27.  The  Ifraelites  arc 
 forbidden  to  ixwrjhip,  or,  as  the  original  word  imports, 
 to  hend  or  honjo  doi'jn  to,  the  fun,  moon,  and  liars. 
 I>euter.  iv.  19. 
 
 Before 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      419 
 
 Before  we  enter  upon  this  argument, 
 we  muft  ima2;ine  ourfelves  in  the  fame 
 fituation  as  the  ancient  Heathens  were, 
 fill  our  minds  with  the  fame  ideas  they 
 had,  and  recoUefk  more  efpecially  what 
 were  their  notions  of  human  ghofls,  and 
 of  their  future  ftate  of  exiftence.  On 
 the  correfpondence  of  their  worfliip  to 
 thefe  notions  the  force  of  the  argument 
 depends. 
 
 The  obvious  diftinftion  between  the 
 foul  and  body  of  man,  and  the  perma- 
 nence of  the  former  after  the  diffolution 
 of  the  latter,  could  not  but  be  admitted 
 by  all  the  nations  that  worfliipped  the 
 dead.  Happy  would  it  have  been  had 
 they  gone  no  farther,  except  to  aflert  a 
 future  ftate  of  retribution.  But  they 
 gave  an  unbounded  fcope  to  their  imagi- 
 nations. They  not  only  afcribcd  to  fe- 
 parate  fpirits,  as  indeed  they  juftly 
 might,    all   their  former  mental   afFec- 
 
 E  e  2  tions. 
 
420         Worjhip  cf  human  Spirits 
 
 tions^  but  all  the  fenfations^  appe- 
 tites, and  paffions,  of  their  bodily  ilate  \ 
 fuch  as  hunger  and  thirft  ^  and  the  pro- 
 penfities  founded  upon  the  difference 
 of  fexes^  Ghofts  were  thoaght  to  be 
 addifted   to  the  fame  exercifes  and  em- 
 
 **  Of  the  parental  aiFeflion  we  have  an  amiable  ex- 
 ample in  the.  gboll  of  Anchifes.  Virg.  ^n.  VI.  685., 
 Pr'  fs  of  the  hatred  ghofls  bore  to  their  enemies,  both 
 when  living  and  after  their  deaths,  are  produced  by 
 Potter,  B.  4.  c.  8.  p.  261.  I  ihall  add  the  following 
 pc-flage  from  Ovid,  in  Ibidem,  v.  139. 
 
 '  Nee  mors  mihi  finiet  iras, 
 
 Saeva  fed  in  manes  manibus  armadabit: 
 Tunc  quoquecum  fuero  vacuas  dilapfus  in  auras^ 
 Exanimis  manes  oderit  umbra  tuos. 
 
 See  alfo  Horace,  Carm.  V.  5.  Virg.  ^n.  IV.  384. 
 and  the  very  charafteriftic  defcription  of  theghoft  of  A- 
 jax.  Homer,  Odyff.  XI.  542.  and  of  the  other  ghofts 
 in  the  fame  book. 
 
 «  Hence  that  prayer,  taken  notice  of  above,  that  the 
 earth  might  lie  light  or  heavy  on  the  dead. 
 
 <*  This  appears  from  their  being  provided,  as  it  will 
 be  ftiewn  they  were,  with  the  means  of  gratifying  thefe 
 appetites. 
 
 «  Hercules,  though  he  feafted  with  the  Immortal 
 gods,  was  wedded  to  Hebe.  Homer,  II.  XI.  602. 
 Some  have  thought  that  ghofts  could  afTume  a  human 
 body. 
 
 ployments 
 
/;;  the  anciejit  heathen  World.       421 
 
 ployments  as  had  been  their  delight 
 while  men^  And,  though  they  could 
 not  be  felt  and  handled  ^  like  bodies 
 of  flefh  and  blood,  and  were  of  a  larger 
 fize^;  yet  they  had  the  fame  lineaments 
 and  features.  Being  an  original  part 
 of  the  human  frame,  they  were  wounded 
 whenever  the  body  was,  and  retained 
 the  impreffion  of  their  wounds '. 
 
 Their  idea  of  men's  future  ftate  of  ex- 
 iftence  was.  formed  upon  the  model  of  our 
 prefent  condition.  They  lent  money  in 
 this   world  upon   bills    payable   in  the 
 
 '  Pars  in  gramineis  exercent  membra  palaiilris, 
 &c.  Virg.  ^n.  VI.  642. 
 
 ■  Quae  gratia  currum 
 
 Armorumque  fuit  vivis,  quas  cura  nitentis 
 Pafcere  equos,  eadem  fequitur  tellure  repollos, 
 
 Id.  ib.  V.  653, 
 Multo  magis  re£lores  quondam  urbium  receptiin  coelum 
 curam  regendorum  hominum  non  relinquunt.     Macro- 
 bius,  in  Somn.  Scip.   1.  i.  c.  9. 
 8  Homer,  GdyfT.  XI.   205. 
 *•  Et  nunc  magna  mei  fub  terras  ibit  imago. 
 
 Virg.  iEn.  IV.  654. 
 *  Homer,  Odyfl*.  XI.  40.     Virg.  iEn.  VI.  495. 
 
 E  e  3  next. 
 
422         Worfiipof  human  Spints 
 
 next^.  Between  both  worlds  there  was 
 thought  to  be  an  open  intercourfe ;  de- 
 parted fpirits  beftowing  favours  upon 
 their  furvivors,  and  receiving  from  them 
 gifts  and  prefents.  Thefe  gifts  were 
 fometimes  fuppofed  to  be  conveyed  into 
 the  other  world  in  their  own  natural 
 form  :  for  they  put  into  the  mouth  of  a 
 dead  man  apiece  of  money,  to  pay  Qha^ 
 ron  for  his  paflage  over  Styx;  and  a 
 cake,  of  which  honey  was  the  principal 
 ingredient,  to  pacify  the  growling  Cer- 
 berus \  Thofe  things,  whofe  natural 
 outward  form  was  deftroyed,  did  not  al- 
 together perifh,  but  pafTed  into  the  other 
 world.  The  fouls  of  brutes  furvived  the 
 difTolution  of  their  bodies ;  and  even  in- 
 animate fubftances,  after  they  were  cor^- 
 
 ^  This  is  related  of  the  Celts  or  Gauls.  Pecuniae, 
 mutuas,  quae  his  apud  inferos  redderentur,  dare  folitos. 
 Pythagoras  approved  the  cuftom :  for  our  author  adds,^ 
 Diceremftultos,  nifi  idem  braccati  fen fiffent,  quod  pal- 
 liatus  Pythagoras  credidit.  Valerius  Maximus,  lib.  2, 
 ^.  6.  §.  10. 
 
 *  Bos,  Gr.  Antiq.  p.  410. 
 
 fumed 
 
in  the  aJicient  heathen  World,       423 
 
 fumed  by  fire,  ftill,  in  fome  degree,  fub- 
 fifted;  images  flying  off  from  them, 
 which  as  exaftly  refembled  them  as  a 
 ghoftdid  the  Hving  man.  Hence  it  was, 
 that,  upon  the  funeral  piles  of  the  dead, 
 they  were  accuflomed  to  throw  letters, 
 in  order  to  their  being  read  by  their  de- 
 parted friends'".  And  being  able,  as 
 they  imagined,  to  tranfmit  to  the  dead 
 whatever  gifts  they  pleafed,  in  one  form 
 or  other 3  food",  and  raiment**,  and  ar- 
 mour ^  were  either  depofited  in  their 
 graves,  or  confumed  in  the  fame  fire 
 with   their   own  bodies,    together  with 
 
 ***  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  v.  p.'  352.  relates  this  cir- 
 cumftance  of  the  Gauls. 
 
 "  See  below,   under  facrifices. 
 
 *  Solon  (according  to  Plutarch,  vit.  Solon,  p.  90.  C.) 
 made  a  law  to  prevent  the  burying  with  the  dead  more 
 than  three  garments.  This  law  was  afterwards  adopted 
 by  the  Romans,  and  inferted  in  the  12  tables.  Snm- 
 tum  minuito ;  tria,  fi  volet,  ricinia  adhibeto.  The 
 clothes  of  the  dead  were  fometimes  thrown  upon  the  fu- 
 neral pile.      Bos,  p.  422.     Kennett,  Rom.  Antiq.  p. 
 
 357- 
 
 p  The  arms  of  foldiers  were  thrown  upon  their  pyre. 
 B0S4  ch.  22.  p.  422. 
 
 E  e  4  their 
 
424         WorJJ:ip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 their  wives  and  concubines*^,  their  fa- 
 vourite flaves ',  and  brute  animals',  and 
 whatever  elfe  had  been  the  objeft  of  their 
 affeftion  in  life'. 
 
 Accordingly  we  find  the  parrot  of 
 Corinna,  after  his   death,   in  elyfium'^. 
 
 9  This  is  ftill  a  cuflom  in  fome  parts  of  the  eaft,  and 
 it  is  of  great  antiquity.  Evadne  (by  Ovid  called  Iphi- 
 ^s)  threw  herfelf  upon  the  funeral  pile  of  Capaneus, 
 littering  this  prayer  :  Jccipe  me,  Capaneu,  Ovid.  Ars 
 Am.  1.  3.  V.  21.  Statius,  Thebaid,  1.  12.  v.  8oi. 
 Propertius,  I.   15,  21, 
 
 »  Seryi  et  clientes,  quos  ab  iis  dileftos  efle  confta- 
 bat,  juflis  funeribus  confedis,  una  cremabantur.  C^- 
 far,  B.  G.  1.  6.  c.  18,  It  was  the  fame  both  in  Mexi- 
 co and  Peru  ;  on  the  death  of  the  emperors  and  other  e- 
 minent  perfons,  many  of  their  attendants  were  put  to 
 death,  that  they  might  accompany  them  into  the  other 
 world,  and  fupport  their  dignity.  See  Robertfon^s 
 Hift.  of  North  America,  v.  3.  p.  211,  259. 
 
 •  Gsefar,  ubi  fupra.  At  the  funeral  of  Patroclus, 
 four  horfes  and  nine  favourite  dogs  were  thrown  upon 
 thepyre.     Homer,  II.  23,  v.  171. 
 
 *  Moris  fuerat,  ut  cum  his  rebus  hominet  fepelirentur 
 quas  dilexerant  vivi.  Servius  on  ^n.  X.  827.  Sec 
 alfo  Caefar,  1.  6.  c.  18. 
 
 *  Pfittacus  has  inter,  nemorali  fede  receptus, 
 Convertit  volucres  in  fua  verba  pias. 
 
 Ovidj  Amor.  1.  II.  el.  6.  v.  57. 
 
 Orpheusj^ 
 
/;/  the  ancient  heathen  World,      425 
 
 Orpheus,  when  in  the  fame  happy  abode, 
 appears  in  his  facerdotal  robe,  ftriking 
 his  lyre  3  and  the  warriors  were  furnifh- 
 ed  with  their  horfes,  arms,  and  chariots, 
 which  Virgil  calls  inanesy  empty y  airy^  and 
 unfubjiaiitialy  being  fuch  fliades  and  phan- 
 toms of  their  former  chariots  as  theghofts 
 themfelves  were  of  men".  In  a  word, 
 whatever  was  burnt  or  interred  with  the 
 dead,  their  ghofts  were  thought  to  re- 
 ceive and  ufe.  It  is  obfervable,  that, 
 as  the  ghofts  appeared  with  the  wounds 
 made  in  them  before  their  feparation 
 from  the  body,  fo  the  arms,  that  had 
 been  ftained  with  blood  before  thev  were 
 burnt,  appeared  bloody  afterwards"^ ; 
 and,  in  like  manner,  the  money-bills 
 and  letters,  that  had  been  confumed  in 
 the  flames,  were  certainly  thought  to 
 retain  the  impreflion  of  what  had  been 
 written  in  them. 
 
 Such  notions  of  feparate  fpirits   can 
 indeed  for  the  moft  part  be  confidered 
 
 »•  Virg.  i£n.  VI.  645-655.     See  above,  note  p. 
 V  Homer,  Od.  XI.  41. 
 
 only 
 
426  WorJIdip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 only  as  the  childifh  conceptions  of  untu- 
 tored minds,  in  the  infancy  of  the  world, 
 or  in  ages  of  grofs  ignorance.  Never- 
 thelefs,  being  confecrated  to  the  purpo- 
 fes  of  fuperftition,  and  in  length  of  time 
 becoming  venerable  by  their  antiquity, 
 they  maintained  their  credit,  in  more 
 enlightened  ages,  amongfl:  the  multitude, 
 and,  through  policy,  were  patronized 
 even  by  thofe  who  difcerned  their  ablur- 
 dity. 
 
 •  This  general  view,  of  the  notions 
 which  the  heathens  entertained  of  hu- 
 man ipirits,  may  prepare  us  to  receive 
 the  farther  account  that  will  be  given 
 of  them,  and  thereby  of  the  ground 
 of  that  particular  kind  of  worfhip  that 
 was  paid  them.  And,  if  the  fame  wor- 
 fhip was  paid  to  the  gods  as  to  human 
 ipirits,  and  for  the  fame  reafons,  it  will 
 appear  highly  probable,  that  both  were 
 of  the  fame  nature  originally,  though 
 there  was  a  difference  of  ra^nk   between 
 
 them* 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      427 
 
 them.     Let  us  now  examine  fome  of  the 
 principal  rites  of  the  ancient  idolatry, 
 
 I  fhall  begin  with  taking  notice  of  the 
 facrijices  and  libations  which  made  a  con-^ 
 derable  part  of  the  heathen  worfhip.  In 
 order  to  underftand  the  ground  of  thefe 
 rites,  we  muft  confider  in  what  manner 
 the  Gentiles  fliewed  their  refpeft  to  dead 
 men.  They  fupplied  them,  as  was  ob- 
 ferved,  vv^ith  fuch  things  as  had  been 
 agreeable  or  ufeful  in  life ;  threw  upon 
 their  funeral  piles  odours  and  perfumes^ 
 and  animals  %  and  made  libations  of 
 wine"".  The  daily  and  annual  offerings, 
 that  were  afterwards  made  them  at  their 
 graves,  were  fimilar  with  thofe  at  their 
 funerals,  viz.  flelli,  blood,  water,  wine, 
 
 *  Bos,  Gr.  Antiq.  Part  4.  c.  22.  Their  tombs  alfo. 
 were  llrewed  with  flowers.     Id.  p.  432. 
 
 y  Homer,  II.  1.  23.  v.  166.  OdyfT.  I.  24.  v.  66. 
 Virgil,  iEn.  XL  197.  Herodian.  1.  4.  c.  14.  p.  156. 
 Oxon.  1704.  Animals  were  flain  at  funerals  partly  to 
 fupply  the  ghofts  with  blood,  and  in  part  to  atttjnd 
 them  in  the  other  world.     See  page  424,  note  •• 
 
 ?  Bos,  ubi  fupra. 
 
 milk. 
 
428         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 milk,  and  honey*.  In  carrying  them 
 meat  and  drink  for  their  fufVenance  the 
 parent  alia  properly  confifted\  The 
 ghofts  were  thought  to  come  from  their 
 fubterraneous  habitations,  or  from  their 
 graves,  to  partake  of  the  entertainment 
 provided  for  them%  Now^  the  libations 
 and  facrlfices,  w^hich  were  offered  to  the 
 gods,  were  of  the  fame  kind  with  thofe 
 
 ■  Bos,  p.  432,  433.  Potter,  v.  2.  p.  257,  258. 
 Comp.  Kennett,  Rom.  Antiq.  p.  360,  361.  Guther, 
 de  Jure  Man.  1.2.  c.  11.  And  fee  Ovid,  Fafti,  1.  2. 
 V.  535.  and  Plautus,  cited  above,  p.  270.  note  ^ 
 Concerning  the  annual  offerings  of  food  and  raiment, 
 made  by  the  Gauls  to  the  manes  of  the  dead,  of  which 
 they  were  fuppofed  to  ftand  in  need,  fee  Borlafe,  Antiq^% 
 of  Corn.  p.  114. 
 
 ^  Guther  de  Jure  Man.  I.  2,  c.  12. 
 
 «  Potter,  V.  2.  p.  251.  Kennett,  Rom.  Antiq.  p, 
 361.  Ovid  defcribes  the  common  opinion  in  the  fol- 
 lowing lines.     Fafti,  1.2.  v.  565. 
 
 Nunc  animas  tenues,  et  corpora  fun fta  fepulchris, 
 Efrant :  nunc  pofito  pafcitur  umbra  cibo. 
 
 As  to  the  facrifices  and  libations,  Lucian  fays,  (in  his 
 Charon,  five  Contemplantes,  v.  i.  p.  358.)  Verum  illis 
 perfuafum  eft  umbras  ab  inferis  reduces,  circum  nido-^ 
 rem  et  fumum,  quantum  poffunt,  volitando  caenare,  et 
 cx  fovea  mulfum  bibere, 
 
 appointed 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      429 
 
 appointed  for  the  dead*^,  and  both  had 
 the  fame  intention.  The  gods  were  re- 
 galed with  the  odour  of  incenfe,  and  the 
 fruits  of  the  earth ;  they  were  refrefhed 
 and  nouriflied  with  the  fumes  of  drink- 
 offerings,  and  the  fteams  of  flaughtered^ 
 animals  afcending  from  their  altars  % 
 For  the  convenience  of  their  receiving  the 
 grateful  and  beneficial  exhalations  from 
 the  meat  and  drink  offerings,  the  altars 
 were  placed  lower  than  their  ftatues  and 
 
 images. 
 
 *  See  Bos,  Part  i.  c.  6.  or  any  other  writer  upon  tht 
 facrilices  which  the  Heathens  offered  to  their  gods. 
 
 «  That  the  Gentiles  really  thought  their  gods  wer« 
 gratified  and  fed  by  the  odours,  wine,  blood,  and 
 flefti,  which  were  prefented  to  them  either  in  their  own 
 natural  ftate,  or  when  fpiritualized,  as  it  were,  and  re- 
 fined, by  fire,  is  evident  from  the  divine  warning  given 
 the  Ifraelites  againft  conceiving  of  Jehovah  in  the  fame 
 unworthy  manner.  Will  I  eat  the  jiejh  of  bulls y  or  drink 
 the  blood  of  goats  ?  Pf.  1.  1 3.  The  Fathers  often  re- 
 proach the  heathen  gods  with  their  want  of  meat  and 
 drink,  and  with  their  intemperate  ufe  of  both.  See 
 Arnobius,  p.  229,  250,  236,  249.  And  not  only  did 
 the  vulgar  Heathens  fuppofe  their  gods  were  nourifhed 
 by  facrifices  ;  but  the  philofophic  Julian  alfo  feems  to 
 have  adopted  the  fame  grofs  notion,  and  he  afcribes  it 
 
43^         Worpnp  of  hicnian  Spirits 
 
 images^  The  oblations  here  fpokeii 
 of  could  not  be  intended  for  the  ufe 
 of  the  fun,  moon,  and  ftars  \  and  we  are 
 expreflly  told  that  thefe  celeftial  lumina- 
 ries were  nourifhed  by  the  vapours  of  the 
 ocean  or  of  frefh  v/ater^  The  fufte- 
 nance  which  idolaters  provided  for  their 
 gods  was  perfectly  adapted  to  their  idea 
 of  human  ghofts :  which  creates  no 
 fmall  prefumption  that  both  were  confi- 
 dered  as  having  been  partakers  of  the 
 fame  nature. 
 
 Blood  in  particular  was  an  acceptable 
 libation  to  ghofts^  and  more  efpecially 
 
 to  Marcus  Antoninus ^  as  is  allowed  by  his  late  panegy- 
 rift.     See  Gibbon's  Hift.  v.  2.  p.  363. 
 
 ^  Potter,  V.  I.  p.  178,  179. 
 
 s  Cicero,  Nat.  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  15.  L  3.  c.  14. 
 
 ^  Adfirmantur  animse  la6le  et  /anguine  delcclari* 
 Servius  on  iEn. Ill,  v.66y6'j.  That  the  ancient  Hea* 
 thens  thought  ghofls  were  fond  of  blood  fully  appears 
 from  Homer,  OdyiT.  XI.  paffim.  Hence  the  vidims 
 were  flain  at  their  fepulchres.  Serv.  ib.  The  blood 
 was  poured  out  there  upon  the  ground  or  in  trenches* 
 Paufanias,  Phocica,  p.  807.  To  want  this  blood  was 
 elleeraed  a  great  calamity.     Potter,  v.  2.  p.  258,  259. 
 
 to 
 
in  the  anciejit  heathen  World.  43  x 
 to  the  ghofts  of  heroes  '\  There  is  no- 
 thing more  certain  than  this  fa6l,  though 
 it  may  feem  ftrange  to  thofe  who  do  not 
 recollefl  that  the  ancients  drank  blood^  5 
 and  confequently  that,  on  their  princi- 
 ples, ftated  above,  men  muft  retain  their 
 love  of  it  after  death.  It  might  be  pe- 
 culiarly agreeable  to  warriors,  on  ac- 
 count of  the  iingular  ferocity  of  their 
 tempers.  And  it's  being  transferred  into 
 the  worlliip  of  the   gods',  as  every  one 
 
 *  They  brought  to  Polydore's  tomb  fanguinis  facri  p^st^ 
 teras,  ^n.  III.  Sj.  At  the  funeral  of  Pallas  the  blood 
 was  fprinkled  over  the  pile.  Ca^fo  fparfuros  fanguine 
 flammas.     JEn.  XI.  82. 
 
 ^  Quinimo  primis  mundi  aetatibus  fanguis  hominU 
 bui potus  erat,  fi  fidem  promeretur  Avitu3.  Geufius  de 
 Viftimis  humanis.  Pars  2.  p.  404.  That  it  was  z, 
 common  praftice  to  drink  blood,  or  eat  the  flefh  of  ani- 
 mals while  the  life,  that  is,  the  blood,  was  in  it,  is 
 implied  in  the  prohibition  of  it.  Gen.  ix.  4.  Learned 
 men  have  Ihewn,  that  eating  raw  fle/h,  cut  off  while 
 the  creature  was  living,  was  an  ancient  rite  of  idolatry. 
 See  Maimon.  More  Nev.  pars  III.  c.  48.  Selden,  dc 
 JureN.  &  G.  VII.   i. 
 
 '  To  the  celcftial  or  fupemal  gods  the  blood  was  oifer- 
 edupon  altars  (Potter,  v.  i.  b.  2.  ch.  4.  p.  205.  Comp. 
 Virg.  ^n.  VIII.  io6.)  for  the  fame  reafon  that  it  was 
 poured  upon  the  ground  to  the  infernal^  viz.  in  order  t<^ 
 it's  being  near  10  the  deity  who  was  to  partake  of  it. 
 
 knows 
 
43  2         WorJJAp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 knows  it  was,  naturally  leads  us  to  con- 
 fider  thofe  gods  as  deified  heroes,  v/ho 
 ftill,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Heathens, 
 preferved  their  relifh  of  it,  as  they  did 
 of  every  thing  elfe  they  had  loved  before. 
 The  (hedding  of  human  blood,  to  ap- 
 peafe  the  heathen  deities,  is  a  new  proof 
 of  their  terreftrial  origin.  The  brute  a- 
 nimals,  which  the  Gentiles  facrificed  to 
 their  deities,  were  not  always  fuch  as 
 were  agreeable  to  them ;  they  were  often 
 fuch  as  were  odious,  and  whofe  deftruc- 
 tion  gave  them  pleafure"".  It  was  the 
 fame  as  to  men.  Favourite  flaves  fuifer- 
 ed  death  that  they  might  ferve  their  maf- 
 ters  in  another  life.  Conquered  enemies 
 were  killed  with  a  different  view,  to  fa- 
 tiate  the  malice  and  revenge  of  the  ma- 
 nes of  warriors.  The  refinement  of  mo- 
 dern times,  owing  principally  to  the  fpi- 
 rit  of  mildnefs  and  humanity  which  the 
 
 *"  Ut  cum  Cereri  porcam,  Baccho  capram,  ma£la- 
 bant :  quorum  ilia  fegeti,  haec  vitibus,  infefta  eft.  Pot- 
 ter, Comment,  in  Lycophronis  CalTand.  v.  77. 
 
 chriflian 
 
in  the  a7icient  heathen  World.      433 
 
 chriftian  religion  has  difFufed    through 
 the  nations,  makes  it  difficult  for  us  to 
 conceive  how  much  cruelty  entered  into 
 the   compofition  of  heroes   in  the  rude 
 and  barbarous  ages  of  antiquity.     We 
 may,  perhaps,  form  fome  imperfeft  idea 
 of  it  from  the  favages  in  North  Ameri- 
 ca, who  rack  their  invention  in  order  to 
 put  their  captives  in  war  to  a  lingering 
 death  in  the  greateft  poffible  torment  5 
 which  they  fufFer  amidft  the  joy  ful  acclama- 
 tions of  their  enemies.  The  paffions,  which 
 men   difcovered  in  life,  the  ancients,   as 
 we  have  feen,  afcribedto  them  after  death; 
 and  confequently  conceived  of  the  dead 
 as  cruel  and  vindiftive,  as  envying"  the 
 happinefs,  and  delighting  in  the  mifery, 
 of  thofe  who  had  offended  them.  Hence, 
 I  apprehend,  it  is  that  idolaters  prafti- 
 fed  all  manner  of  cruelties  upon  them- 
 
 "  The  human  paflion  of  envy  is  often  afcribed  to  the 
 gods.  Potter,  v.  2.  p.  221.  Nothing  could  more 
 mortify  a  human  ghoft,  when  under  the  influence  of  ma- 
 lice and  refentment,  than  the  profpcrity  of  a  hated  ob- 
 jca. 
 
 F  f  felves 
 
434         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 felves  and  ore  another,  in  the  worfhip 
 of  Diana,  Bellona,  and  other  deities, 
 that,  by  the  fight  of  their  fufFerings, 
 thefe  deities  mightat  length  be  induced  to 
 pity  and  fpare  them.  We  are  exprefliy 
 informed,  that  the  blood,  which  flowed 
 from  thofe  wounds  which  the  Pagans 
 made  in  their  own  flefh,  was  thought  to 
 appeafe  the  gods  ghofts°. 
 
 It  is  with  the  fame  view  that  men  were 
 put  to  death".  The  ghofts  of  fuch  as  were 
 flain  in  war^  or  who  flew  themfelves,  were 
 fuppofed  to  be  ftimulated  by  the  flrongeft 
 revenge  %  and  could  not  be  appeafed  but 
 by  the  deftruclion  of  their  enemies. 
 We  are  certain,  therefore^  that  human 
 
 ®  Varrodicit  mulieres  in  exequiis  et  lii£lu  ideo  folitas 
 era  lacerare,  ut  fanguine  oftenfo  inferis  fatisfaciant : 
 quare  etiam  inlUtutum  eft,  u  t  apud  fepulchra  et  vi(5limce 
 Ciedantur.  Apudveteres,  etiam  homines  interficieban- 
 tur.  Servius  on^n.  III.  6^,  Quid  poteft  efTe  hac  pie- 
 tate  clementius,  quam  mortuls  humanas  vidtimas  immo- 
 lare?     Laftant.  1.  5.  c.  10. 
 
 P  Nothing  pierced  Dido  with  fo  keen  ang.uifh,  im 
 the  article  of  death,  as  the  thought  of  perifhing  unre- 
 venged.     Moriemur  inulta  F     Virg.  iEn^  IV.  659. 
 
 vidims 
 
in  the  ancte?it  heathen  World,       435 
 
 Vi6lims  perfe6lly  corr^fpondcd  .  to  the 
 corrupt  paffions  afcribed  to  the  ghofts 
 of  men. 
 
 Accordingly  we  find,  in  fafb,  that 
 the  manes  of  warriors  and  heroes  were 
 propitiated  with  human  vi£lims  at  their 
 funerals.  Achilles  facrificed  twelve  Tro- 
 jan heroes  at  the  funeral  of  Patroclus, 
 and  then  called  upon  him  to  rejoice,  even 
 in  thegloomyrealmsof  Pluto,  at  their  be- 
 ing burnt  in  the  fame  flames  with  his  own 
 corpfe^.  Polyxena  was  flain  upon  the  tomb 
 of  Achilles  to  appeafe  his  ghofl:,  on  which 
 fubje£l  the  Hecuba  of  Euripides  is  foun- 
 ded. And  iEneas,  notwithflanding  com- 
 paffion  made  fo  diftinguifliing  a  part 
 of  his  character,  referved  feveral  young 
 captives  to  offer  them  as  victims  to  the 
 manes  of   Pallas',    who   was   flain   by 
 
 F  f  2    ,  Turnus. 
 
 Homer.  II.  XXIII.   179. 
 '  — — — — Sulmone  creates 
 
 Quatuor  hie  juvenes  j  totidem,  quos  educat  Ufens, 
 
 Viventis 
 
436         Worjlnp  of  human  Sprits 
 
 Turnus.  He  afterwards  refufed  to  fparc 
 Magus,  who  earneflly  begged  his  life, 
 becaufe,  as  he  alleged,  the  fhade  of  An- 
 chiies  demanded  his  death',  even  though 
 no  prior  enmity  had  fubfifted  between 
 them.  And  the  reafon  which  iEneas 
 affigned  for  killing  Turnus,  a  proftrate 
 fuppliant  for  mercy,  was,  that  the  ghoft 
 of  Pallas,  in  revenge  for  his  own  death, 
 required  the  facrifice  of  his  blood  \ 
 If  fuch  were  fuppofed  to  be  the  temper 
 of  fo  amiable  a  hero  as  Pallas,  there 
 is  reafon  to  conclude,  that  warriors, 
 who  had  been  long  accuftomed  to 
 the  havoc  of  the  human  fpecies, 
 would  be  thought  to  require  a  more  am- 
 
 Viventis  rapit,  inferias  quos  immolet  umbrls, 
 
 Captivoque  rogi  perfundatfanguine  flammas. 
 
 Virg.  JEn.  X.  517. 
 9  Id.  ib.  V.  533. 
 
 t Pallas  te,  hoc  vulnere  Pallas, 
 
 Immolat,  et  pcenam  fcelerato  ex  fanguine  fumit, 
 
 JEn.  XII.  948. 
 The  forementioned  facrifices  are  to  be  confidered  mere- 
 ly as  the  eiFed  of  the  cruel  fuperftition  of  the  times, 
 and  are  no  refieftion  upon  JEnezSy  who  a^ed  from  a 
 pious  care  to  placate  the  dead. 
 
 pie 
 
771  the  ancient  heathen  World.      437 
 
 pie  vengeance,  and  to  take  more  fatisfac- 
 tion  in  the  punifliment  of  offenders,  or 
 even  in  the  fuiferings  of  the  innocent, 
 from  cruelty  of  difpofition  The  com- 
 bats of  the  gladiators  were  properly  fu- 
 neral rites'"  ^  and  the  blood  fpilt  in  them 
 v^as  defigned  to  appeafe  the  manes  of  the 
 dead''.  Thefe  fafts  are  undeniable  proofs 
 that  human  facrifices  were  offered  to  de- 
 ceafed  heroes,  and  were  adapted  to  their 
 prefumed  difpofition. 
 
 The  fame  cruel  rite,  which  was  cele- 
 brated at  the  funeral  of  heroes,  was  per- 
 formed, flatedly  or  occafionally,  in  the 
 worfhip  of  the  gods,  and  upon  the  fame 
 ground,     a   fanguinary   and  revengeful 
 
 "  Plutarch  calls  the  combats  eTrtra^jy?  ctymoe,<;.  Vit. 
 Coriolani,  p.  218.  F.  The  combatants  were  called 
 lufiuarii,  becaufe  they  fought  at  the  bujlum  or  fepul- 
 chre  of  the  dead, 
 
 ^  The  captives  fent  to  the  funeral  of  Junius  Brutus, 
 inllead  of  being  flain  in  the  ufual  manner,  were  order- 
 ed to  fight.  Servius  on  ^n.  III.  6],  This  method 
 of  deftroying  them  had  the  fame  intention  as  the  former, 
 but  was  more  fuitable  than  that  to  the  temper  and  policy 
 of  a  warlike  people,  and  ferved  to  inure  them  to  fcenes 
 of  blood  and  flaughter. 
 
 F  f  3  difpofition. 
 
438         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 difpofition.  It  has  indeed  been  aflerted, 
 that  the  natural  gods  were  the  objefts 
 of  this  worfhip.  Let  us  therefore  fee 
 whether  the  fafts  on  record  do  not  prove 
 that  thedireft  and  immediate  objeftsof  it 
 were  human  fpirits.  Only  I  would  firft 
 of  all  obfer ve,  that  thofe,  who  offered  thefe 
 coftly  vi£lims  to  heroes,  were  not  likely  to 
 withhold  them  from  the  fame  heroes  when 
 they  were  exalted  to  the  rank  of  gods. 
 
 To  whom  were  more  human  facrifices 
 offered,  in  Phenicia,  at  Carthage,  and 
 other  places,  than  to  that  monfler  of  cru- 
 elty, Saturn^  who  not  only  made  war 
 upon  his  father,  and  maimed  him,  but 
 facrificed  his  own  children  to  him''? 
 This  barbarity  to  his  offspring  is  aflign- 
 ed  as  the  reafon  why,  after  his  death 
 and  deification,    he  was  appeafed  with 
 
 ^  Sanchoniathon,  ap.  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  i.  c.  38, 
 40.  1.4.  c.  16,  Porphyr.  de  Abftinent.  1.2.  c.  56. 
 Eufeb.  de  Laudibus  Conftant.  p.  756.  Diodor.  Sic.  I, 
 20.  p.  415.  torn.  2.  ed.  WelTr  Marlham,  Chronicus 
 Canon,  p.  76,  77, 
 
 the 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      439 
 
 the  facrifice  of  children  ^.  The  ancient 
 philofophers  fearched  for  a  phyfical  in- 
 terpretation of  Saturn',  and  a  learned 
 modern*  would  willingly  underftand  by 
 him  the  god  of  light ;  but  it  has  been  al- 
 ready fhewn,  that  hiftory  reprefents  him 
 under  a  human  chara£ler.  His  worfhip 
 was  founded  upon  that  hiftory  as  literal- 
 ly underftood  by  the  people "",  and  was  a- 
 dapted  to  his  bloody  difpofition.  His 
 fon,  Jupiter^  who  alfo  was  worfhipped 
 with   human  blood ''^  is  ftyled  the  only 
 
 y  Nam  Saturnus  filios  fuos  non  expofuit,  fedvoravit. 
 Merito  ei  in  nonnullis  Africje  partibus  a  parentibus  in- 
 fantes immolabantur.  Minuc.  Felix,  p.  291.  ed.  Var. 
 —cap.  30.  p.  151.  ed.  DaVif.  Ciim  propriis  filiis  Sa- 
 turnus non  pepercit,  extraneis  ubique  non  parcendo 
 perfeverabat,  et  feq.  Tertullian.  Apol.  c.  8.  p.  9. 
 ed.  Rigalt.     Bryant,  Obfervations,  p.  279,  280. 
 
 *  Cicero,  Nat,  Deor.  1.  2.  c.  24, 
 
 *  Bryant's  Obferv.  p.  280. 
 
 ^  Tertullian.  Apol.  p.  9.  Minuc.  Felix,  c,  30. 
 and  the  notes  of  Davis,  p.  153.  La6lant.  1.  i.  c.  21. 
 An  infant  was  flain  upon  the  altar  of  Jupiter  Lycasus. 
 Paufanias,  Arcad.  1.2.  p.  600.  Jupiter  Latialis  alfo 
 was  worihipped  with  human  blood.  Lai^ant.  1.  1.  c.  21. 
 
 F  f  4  fon 
 
440         Worjlnp  of  human  Spirit^ 
 
 fon  and  heir  of  his  father  in  cruelty  ^ 
 OJirisy  called  alfo  Bufiris,  was,  like  Ju- 
 piter, a  great  conqueror,  in  an  age  when 
 conqueft  and  cruelty  were  clofely  allied ; 
 and  to  him  flrangers  were  facrificed 
 at  his  tomb*.  Bacchus  was  worfhipped 
 with  the  cruel  rite  of  which  we  are  fpea- 
 king  under  the  title  of  Omeftes,  the  de^ 
 vourer".  Captives  in  war  were  devoted 
 to  death  in  honour  of  Mars\  who,  ac- 
 cording to  Orpheus,  was  always  contami^ 
 nated  with  Jlaughter^  and  always  delighted 
 
 ^  O  Jovem  '  ■ — fclum  patris  filium  de  crudelitate  ! 
 Tertullian.  ubi  fupra. 
 
 ^  ^gyptio  Bufiridi  ritus  fuit  hofpites  immolare. 
 Minuc.  Fel.  c.  30,  Compare  what  Plutarch  fays  con- 
 cerning burning  live  men  in  Egypt.  De  If.  et  Ofir.  p. 
 380.  Men  with  light  or  red  hair  were  facrificed  at  the 
 tomb  of  Of;ris.     Diodor.  Sic.  1.  i.  p.  99. 
 
 «  Plutarch,  Vit.  Themift.  p.  119.  A. 
 
 '  Herodot.  k  4,  c.  62.      Caefar,  Comment.  1.  6.  c,     ' 
 16.     See  alfo  Tomafinus  de  donariis  veterum,  c.  40, 
 aad  Tacitus,  Annal.  1.  13.  c.  ^f. 
 
 wth 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      441 
 
 'with  human  blood '^.  And  Diana^^  who 
 was  voirf  jf  all  the  tendernefs  of  her  fex", 
 whofe  chief  pleafure  confifted  in  the 
 purfuit  and  flaughter  of  brute  animals, 
 and  to  whom  the  fhows  of  wild  beafts, 
 fighting  with  one  another  or  with  men, 
 were  confecrated,  had  her  altars  ftained 
 in  the  fame  manner  as  the  god  of  war. 
 This  goddefs,  as  well  as  Mars  and  Jupi- 
 ter, belonged  to  the  clafs  of  the  twelve 
 greater  divinities  who  were  tranflated 
 from  earth  to  heaven.  To  Juno,  who 
 alfo  was  one  of  that  number,  an  oracle 
 recommended  the  facrifice  of  a  virgin 
 annually,  in  order  to  flop  a  peflilence* 
 which  doubtlefs  it  was  thought  fhe  had 
 fent. 
 
 To  the  foregoing  examples  more  may 
 be  added.     I  mufl  not  omit  to  mention 
 
 ^  — — — — ^ovok;  TmraXayiMyoq  aiHj 
 
 Orpheus,  Oper.  p.  264.  ed.  Gefner. 
 *"  Virg.  ^n.  II.   116.    Servius  in  loc.     Ladant,  1. 1. 
 C.  2.     See  note  %  below;  and  Hyginus,  Fab.  261. 
 I  Plutarch,  Parallel,  p.  314.  CD. 
 
 Hercules^ 
 
44^         Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Hercules^ i  who  having  through  life  made 
 havoc  of  the  human  fpecies,  it  was  pre- 
 fumed  he  would  be  pleafed,  after  death, 
 with  feeing  human  victims  bleeding  or 
 burning  upon  his  altars.  Iphigenia^ 
 could  not  but  refent  her  undergoing  a  vi- 
 olent death  to  propitiate  Diana;  and 
 therefore  might  well  be  fuppofed  to  re- 
 ceive fatisfaftion  from  having  her  own 
 ghoft  atoned  in  the  fame  manner.  The 
 northern  T^hur'^y  or  Thory  (the  fame, 
 probably,  with  Taranis,)  Teutates,  (or 
 Mercury",)  and  Hefus\  (fuppofed  by 
 fome  to  be  Mars  himfelf, )  had  probably 
 deluged  the  earth  with  human  blood  be- 
 fore it  was  offered  to  them  in  facrifice. 
 
 ^  Pliny,  1.  36.  c.  3.     Marfham,  p.  288,  289. 
 
 *  Virg.  iEn.  II.   116.     Herodot.  1.  4.  c.  103. 
 
 "»  To  Thur  fanguinem  maftabant  hominum.  Hif- 
 torise  Normandorum  fcriptores  antiqui.  Paris,  1619. 
 p.  62. 
 
 «  TertuUian.  Apol.  c.  9. 
 
 *>  Et  quibus  immitis  placatur  fanguine  diro 
 
 Theutates,  horrenfque  feris  altaribus  Hefus, 
 
 £t  Taranis  Scythicai  non  mitior  ara  Dianae. 
 
 Lucan.  1.  i.  v.  44. 
 
 .  This 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      443 
 
 This  lift  might  have  been  fwelled  with 
 the  names  of  Mithras'^  and  other  gods; 
 but  I  fliall  only  obferve,  that  the  afto- 
 nifhing  cruelty  of  Froe  and  Rojiafus  is 
 expreffly  affigned  as  the  reafon  of  their 
 being  propitiated  with  human  viftims**. 
 
 From  the  whole  of  what  has  been 
 offered,  with  refpeft  to  thefe  viftims,  it 
 appears,  that  the  ground  of  offering 
 them  was  the  cruel  and  revengeful  difpo- 
 fition  of  the  objefts  of  them ' :  that  they 
 
 correfponded 
 
 P  Mithras  was  worfhipped  in  Egypt  as  well  as  in 
 Perfia;  and  Socrates  relates,  that,  in  the  temple  at  A- 
 lexandria,  in  which  his  myfteries  were  celebrated,  the 
 Gentiles  avS^wTrs?  Kctn^vofy  facrijiced  men,  Hiftor.  Ec- 
 clef.  1.  3.  c.  2.  p,  173.  It  is  to  this  author  that  the 
 referehce  Ihould  have  been  made  above,  p.  396.  note', 
 rather  than  to  iiElius  Lampridius. 
 
 ^  Concerning  Froe,  Olaus  Magnus  fays,  1.  3,  c.  4, 
 p.  loi.  Cui  tandem  in  numerum  deorum  relato,  qui^ 
 deus  fanguinis  haberetur,  furvae  hoftiae  immolabantur. 
 The  fame  writer  gives  the  following  account  of  Rolla* 
 tus :  Cujus  ftupenda  immanitas  humani  fanguinis  facri- 
 ficio  itaplacari  voluit,  ut  fibi  illorum,  quos  cultores  fui 
 opprefTuri  eflent,  animasdedicarent. 
 
 '  This  is  confirmed  by  the  teftimony  of  Sanchonia- 
 then,  who  fays,    that,  in  great  national  calamities,  it 
 
 was 
 
444         TForfjip  of  human  Spirits 
 correfponded  entirely    to   the   fuppofed 
 chara6ler  of  the  ghofts  of  warriors  and 
 
 heroes, 
 
 was  cuflomary  to  facrifice  the  dearefl  children  of  the 
 nobles  to^  nixu^oiq  ^a,iiJ.o^i,  Ap.  Eufeb.  Praep.  Ev.  1.  4. 
 p.  156.  D.  The  ^T^/7  deities  were  diftinguilhed  from 
 the  good  by  a  different  worihip ;  according  to  Labeo, 
 ap.  Auguft.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  2.  c.  2.  Numina  bona 
 anuminibus.malis  //?«  etiam  cuhus  di-verjitate  diftingu- 
 ontnr,  utmalos  deos  propitiari  ca'dibus  et  trillibus  fup- 
 plicationibus  afferat :  bonos  autem  obfequiis  lastis  atque 
 jucundis.  In  the  Diflertation  on  Miracles,,  p.  249.  it 
 was  faid,  what,  I  prefume,  has  been  fully  proved,  **  that 
 '*  the  gods,  v/orfhipped  by  human  facrifices,  were  the 
 *'  great  warriors  who,  in  their  mortal  ftate,  delighted 
 *^  in  the  flaughter  of  the  human  race.'*  To  this  it  has 
 been  objeflcd,  by  Mr.  Fell,  p.  (>6.  that  there  is  not  one 
 injtance  to  he  found  on  record,  of  men  raifedtodinjine  honours, 
 Bj  any  people y  becaufe  of  their  pajl  delight  in  the  Jlaughtev 
 of  thtir  onvn  f pedes  ;  and  TET  this  is  here  (that  is,  m  the 
 Diflertation)  ajjlgned  to  be  the  'very  reafon  ivhy  thofe  gods 
 (the  idols  ofC2in2i2i\\)'werenvorJhippednvith  human  facrifices* 
 It  clearly  appears,  from  this  language,  that  the  gen- 
 tleman did  not  perceive  the  obvious  difference  there  is 
 between  the  reafon  of  raiiing  men  to  divine  honours, 
 that  is,  (as  I  underlland  him,)  of  deifying  them,  and 
 honouring  them  with  fome  kind  of  divine  worihip,  and 
 thereafon  ofworlhipping  them,  when  deified,  with  one 
 fpecies  of  divine  worihip  rather  than  another.  Each 
 god  was  honoured  with  peculiar  ceremonies.  Hence 
 Plutarch  conjectures,  that  Matuta  was  the  fame  with 
 Leucothea,  from  the  faraenefs  of  their  rites.  Vid.  Ca, 
 
 mill, 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      445 
 
 heroes,  and  of  hero-gods :  that  they 
 were  in  fa6l  offered  both  to  heroes  and 
 to  fuch  gods  as  had  been  men,  and,  as 
 
 mill.  p.  131.B.  The  facrifices  that  were  offered  to  diffe- 
 rent gods  were  different,  (as  we  have  jult  now  feen  from 
 Labeo,  and  Eufebius  has  fhewn  at  large,  [Prasp.  Ev«  L 
 4,  c.  9.1  and  indeed  as  every  one  muft  know  who  is  not 
 aperfedl  ftrangerto  the  fubjedl,)  agreeably  to  the  diffe- 
 rence of  their  refpedive  difpofitions.  The  domeilic  and 
 friendly  gods  ghofts  were  gratified  with  wine,  milk, 
 and  frankincenfe,  (Ovid,  Fafli,  L  ii.  533-540.) 
 though  the  indignant  and  revengeful  fpirit  of  a  warriar 
 could  not  be  appeafed  without  human  blood.  Revenge 
 and  cruelty,  however,  were  not  the  reafon  of  his  being 
 raifed  to  divine  honours,  or  of  his  being  accounted  a 
 god  ;  nor  did  my  language  imply  more  than  their  being 
 the  reafon  of  that  peculiar  kind  of  worfhip  which  was 
 paid  him  by  thofe  who  were  previoufly  perfuaded  of  his 
 divinity.  My  reafoning,  in  the  place  referred  to,  was 
 agreeable  to  that  of  the  ancients,  who,  when  doubtful 
 who  any  particular  god  was,  formed  their  judgement 
 of  him  by  the  nature  of  his  worfhip.  ■'  If  the  gen- 
 
 tleman meant  to  fay,  what  alone  could  render  his  ob- 
 jedlion  pertinent,  that  there  is  not  one  inftance  on  re- 
 cord of  men  being  worfhipped  with  human  facrifices  for 
 the  reafon  1  had  affigned,  he  fhould  have  had  a  better 
 acquaintance  with  antiquity  before  he  ventured  on  fuch 
 ».vi  aflertion. 
 
 far 
 
446         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 far  as  we  know,  to  fuch  gods  alone*. 
 So  that,  when  the  only  circumftance, 
 related  of  any  particular  deity,  is,  that 
 he  was  worlhipped  with  human  facrifi- 
 ces,  we  may  reafonably  conclude,  that 
 he  was  originally  of  the  race  of  man. 
 And,    as  thefe   rites   were  univerfally^ 
 
 *  It  has  indeed  been  faid,  by  fome  of  the  ancients, 
 that  human  vidims  were  in  Egypt  oftered  to  the  fun. 
 It  was  very  natural  for  thofe  to  run  into  this  miftakewho 
 explained  the  hillory  of  the  gods  phyfically.  Human 
 vidims,  we  have  feen,  were  offered  to  Ofiris ;  and  Oii- 
 ris,  phyfically  underllood,  was  the  fun.  Some  of  the 
 ancients  would  the  more  readily  fubftitute  the  one  for 
 the  other,  as,  in  their  opinion,  there  was  a  real  corref- 
 pondence  between  the  difpofitions  of  heroes  and  the 
 qualities  of  the  fun.  But  I  queftion  whether  there  were 
 any,  however  fond  they  might  be  of  applying  the  hillo- 
 ry of  the  gods  to  natural  obje£ls,  who  would  not  allow, 
 that  human  facrifices  were  diredly  and  immediately  of- 
 fered only  to  hero-gods. 
 
 *  This  is  affirmed  by  Pliny,  1.  30.  c.  i.  cited  above; 
 and  has  been  proved  to  be  true  by  many  learned  writers, 
 ancient  as  well  as  modern  :  fuch  as  Porphyry,  de  Ab- 
 llinent.  1.2.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Cohort,  ad  Gent. 
 p.  36.  ed.  Potter.  Eufebius,  Praip.  Ev.  1.  4.  c.  16. 
 Geufius,  de  Vidlimis  humanis,  paflim  ;  and  Mr.  Bry- 
 ant, in  his  Obfervauons,  p.  z6j,tX  feq. 
 
 pra(5lifed 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      447 
 
 pra6lifed  in  all  the  heathen  nations,  they 
 afford  a  full  proof  of  the  univerfal  preva- 
 lence of  the  worfliip  of  human  fpirits. 
 Many  of  the  gods  here  enumerated  were 
 the  principal  objefls  of  pagan  devotion  "• 
 There  were  other  "^  rites  of  worfhip, 
 befides  thofe  hitherto   Ipecified,    which 
 
 clearly 
 
 «  When  ^ylef^apus  gave  a  mortal  wound  to  king  Aulef- 
 tes,  he  exclaimed  :  H^ec  magnis  melior  data  'vWima  di^iis, 
 iEn.  XII.  296. 
 
 ■^  The  heathen  religion  was  as  remarkably  diftln- 
 guifhedbyit's  licentioufnefs  and  pollution  as  by  it's  cru- 
 elty, Drunkennefs  was  an  eflential  part  of  the  worfhip 
 of  Bacchus,  and  enjoined  by  law  even  at  Athens.  Pla- 
 to de  Legibus,  1.  i.  p.  570  ed.  Ficini,  &  p.  777  cd. 
 Serrani.  It  generally  accompanied  the  facrifices  and 
 folemnities  of  the  ether  gods,  Prollitution  was  a  reli- 
 gious rite  common  to  all  nations ;  and  not  owing,  in, 
 general,  to  a  profligacy  of  charader,  but  to  a  real  per- 
 fuafion  of  it's  being  an  acceptable  facrifice  to  the  gods. 
 Even  fodomy,  and  beftiality,  and  other  enormities, 
 made  a  part  of  the  pagan  ritual,  in  Phenicla  more  t^^^t- 
 cially.  It  would  draw  out  the  article  oi ivorjhip  to  too 
 great  a  length,  to  produce  the  evidence  of  thefe  fads  in 
 this  place,  and  to  fliew  from  what  principles  they  pro- 
 ceeded, which  may  be  explained  hereafter.  It  is  fufi- 
 cient  to  obferve,  at  prefent,  that  the  vices  here  fpeci- 
 ^ed  are  peculiar  to  the  human  fpecies,  and  were  in  faft 
 
 pradifed 
 
44^         Worfmp  of  human  Spirits 
 clearly  point  out  the  mortal  origin  of  the 
 gods.      I   fhall   take   notice  of    three: 
 mournings y  banquet s^  and  games. 
 
 Mournings,  and  all  the  figns  of  the 
 moft  extravagant  grief,  fuch  as  lamen- 
 table cries  and  bodily  lacerations,  were 
 the  moft  facred  ceremonies  of  pagan 
 worfhip''.     Now  thefe   rites  of  idolatry 
 
 praftifed  in  the  worfliip  of  fuch  gods  as  had  once  belonged 
 to  it.  They  were  pra6tifed  in  imitation,  as  well  as  in  ho- 
 nour, of  the  gods.  The  rude  heroes  of  antiquity,  what- 
 ever fervice  they  might  do  their  country  by  their  prow- 
 cfs>  or  to  mankind  in  general  by  their  ufeful  inventions, 
 laid  no  reftraintupon  their  paflions ;  and,  as  they  were 
 believ«d  to  have  more  of  divinity  in  them  than  other  men , 
 their  vices  wereconfecrated  as  well  as  their  perfons.  Whert 
 they  were  exalted  into  gods,  they  were  thought  to  re- 
 tain the  fame  difpofitions.  The  early  Chriftians  re- 
 proach them  with  every  fpecies  of  impurity ;  and  fo  do 
 the  Heathens  themfelves,  many  of  whom  were  ever  rea- 
 dy to  plead  their  examples  as  an  excufe  for  all  the  vices 
 that  the  bafeft  and  vileft  of  men  could  commit. 
 
 » In  adytis  habent  idolum  Ofiridis  fepultum  :  hoc  an- 
 nuls ludlibus  plangunt,  radunt  capita,  ut  miferum  ca- 
 fum  regis  fui  turpitudine  dehoneftati  defleant  capitis  ; 
 tundunt  peftus,  lacerant  lacertos,  veterum  vulnerum 
 refecant  cicatrices,  ut  annuls  luftibus  in  animis  eorum 
 funeftai  acmiferandae  necis  exitium  renafcatur.  Julius 
 Firmicus,  p.  4,  5.  See  alfo  Spencer,  l.t^,  Hebr.  p. 
 574,  580. 
 
 were 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      44.9 
 
 Were  the  very  fame  with  thofe  pra6Hfed 
 at  funerals.  It  was  cuftomary  with  the 
 Heathens,  at  the  death  of  their  rela- 
 tions, to  make  the  mofl  mournful  la- 
 mentations, to  rend  their  clothes,  to 
 cut,  lance,  and  tear,  their  flefh  ^ 
 Thefe  doleful  cries  and  cruel  lacerations 
 were  carried  to  fuch  excefs  at  Athens,  a 
 city  greatly  addifted  to  fuperftition  and 
 idolatry,  that  it  became  neceflary  to 
 prohibit  them  by  law\  They  are  not  to 
 be  conlTdered  merely  as  expreflions  of 
 grief  for  the  perfonal  lofs  which  furvi- 
 vors  fuftained  by  the  death  of  valuable 
 relations  -,  they  were  principally  defigned 
 for  the  benefit  of  the  dead  themfelves ;  a 
 matter   that   requires  to    be  explained. 
 
 y  See  Eos,  Antiq.  of  Greece,  p*  4.  ch.  21.  Levlt. 
 xix.  28.  xxi.  5.     Deut.  xiv.   l.     Jerem.  xvi.  6.  xlviii. 
 
 37- 
 
 *  Mulieresgenas  neradunto,  neve  lefTum  funeris  er- 
 go habento.  Petit,  Leg.  Attic,  p.  600.  Te  Jhall  not 
 make  any  cuttings  in  ysur  fiejh  for  the  dead.  Levit.  xix. 
 28.  xxi.  5.  Thefe  cuttings  are  here  forbidden  as  rites 
 of  idolatry, 
 
 G  g  The 
 
450         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 The  foul  of  man,  it  was  imagined,  quit- 
 ted the  body  mourning  ifs  unhappy  fat e^^ 
 partly  on  account  of  the  enjoyments  it 
 loft,  and   partly  by  reafon  of   it's  en- 
 trance into    AideSy    or  Hades^     a  moft 
 gloomy  and  uncomfortable  region,    in 
 the  general  opinion  of  the  ancient  Hea- 
 thens\     Befides  forrow  and  regret,  the 
 dead,  at  going  out  of  the  world,  were 
 fuppofed  to  feel  difpleafure  and  refent- 
 ment,  and  in  many  cafes  to  pant  after 
 revenge  %     It  was  to  this  ftate  of  their 
 minds  that  the  mourning  for  them  was 
 adapted.     The  extraordinary  grief  and 
 fympathy  of  their  relations  at  their  fune- 
 rals might  well  be  thought  to  foothe  and 
 confole  them  in  fome  degree  under  their 
 hard    lot  >     and,    together   with    their 
 
 *  Ov  •7roliJ.o¥  yoouffcc*  Homer.  II.  XVI.  ^$7* 
 ^  Homer  reprefents  all  the  ghofts  in  the  fubterra- 
 jieous  caverns  as  Jhrro^Lvfiil ,  trccaruv  a^wjxivctt.  OdyfT, 
 XL  541.  Even  Achilles  faid,  he  had  rather  be  the 
 ineaneft  Have  upon  earth  than  rule  over  all  the  departed. 
 Homer,  OdyfT.  XI.  488. 
 ^  As  was  fliewn  above,  p.  432.  etfeq. 
 
 wounds. 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      451 
 
 wounds,  and  the  blood  that  iflued  from 
 them,  were  believed,  as  we  have  feen*, 
 to  appeafe  their  rage  and  vengeance* 
 The  tranquillity  of  their  minds  being 
 thus  reftored,  there  was  no  evil  or  inju- 
 ry to  be  dreaded  from  them  on  account 
 of  their  having  fufFered  the  lofs  of  their 
 lives.  With  the  negle6l  of  the  ufual 
 figns  and  feafons  of  mourning  they  were 
 iuppofed  to  be  greatly  offended  % 
 
 Now  let  common  fenfe  determine, 
 whether  thefe  funeral  rites  could  be  de- 
 signed to  honour  or  placate  gods  that  are 
 <eternal  and  immortal,  and  can  never 
 tafte  the  bitternefs  of  death  ?  But  we 
 need  not  alk  the  queftion  ;  for  the  Hea- 
 thens themfelves  have  told  us,  that 
 mourning  was  a  fpecies  of  worfhip  fuit- 
 
 '  Above,  p.  434.  note°« 
 
 *  This  is  implied  in  the  following  pafTage  of  Apulei- 
 ns,  Metamorph.  J.  8.  p.  242.  ed.  Delph.  Qus  res 
 cum  meum  pudorem,  turn  etiam  tuum  falutarecommo- 
 diim,  refpicit :  ne  forte  immaturitate  nuptiarnm,  in- 
 dignatione  jufta  manes  acerbos  mariti  ad  exitium  falutis 
 tu*  fufcitemus. 
 
 G  g  2  able 
 
45^         Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 able  to  the  dead^  and  a6lually  paid  to 
 fuch  of  them  as  were  deified.  A  god  dies^ 
 end  is  lamented^.  The  ancient  advocates 
 for  this  part  of  the  pagan  worfliip  difco- 
 vered,  or  pretended  to  difcover,  a  fecret 
 reference  in  it  to  natural  obje6ls^.  But 
 this  fecondary  and  myftical  fenfe,  if  it 
 was  at  all  intended,  was  not  underftood 
 by  the  people,  nor  defigned  to  be  fo ; 
 and^  inftead  of  fub verting,  it  rather  pre- 
 fuppofesj  the  literal  and  primary  mean- 
 ing of  the  rites  in  queftion.  Plutarch, 
 the  great  advocate  for  their  phyfical  inter- 
 pretation, allows  their  being  underftood 
 
 '  Quorum  omnis  cultus  efTet  futurus  in  ludlu.     Cice- 
 xo,  deNat. Deor.  1.  i.  c.  15. 
 
 t  Maxim.  Tyr.   DilTert.   38.    p.  398.      See  Julius 
 Pirmicus,  p.  4,  5. 
 
 Sed  in  funeribus  ec  luftibus,  quje  vere  funt  funera, 
 qua?  fafta  funt  1  defenfores  eorum,  volunt  addere 
 
 phyficam  rationem.  Julius  Firmicus  de  Errore  Prof. 
 Relig.  p.  5.  In  the  fequel  he  explains  this  phyfical 
 reafon,  but  it  does  not  belong  to  this  place.  See  Plu- 
 tarch in  the  places  referred  to  in  the  next  note. 
 
 of 
 
i?t  the  ancient  heathen  World.  4JP3 
 of  the  births  and  deaths  of  the  gods\ 
 Accordingly  we  find  the  Heathens  ^  as 
 well  as  the  early  Chriftians^  urging  them 
 as  a  proof  that  thofe  gods  had  been  mere 
 mortals. 
 
 The  mourning,  in  the  feftivals  of  the 
 gods,  was  fucceeded  by  a  bajiquety  in 
 which  the  gods  themfelves  were  fuppo- 
 fed  to  fhare"".     This   circumftance  alfo 
 
 G  g  3  agrees 
 
 yopifoj-TE?.  Plutarch.  If,  &  Ofir.  p.  379.  B.  See  alfo  a 
 little  higher  in  the  fame  page,  and  comp.  p.  359. 
 
 ^  Tu  plangens  hominem  teftaris  Ofirin.  Lucan, 
 VIII.  833. 
 
 '  Lugete  mortuos  veftros,  et  feq.  Julius  Firmicus, 
 p.  20.     See  p.  4,  5. 
 
 "*  Notwithftanding  their  ne6lar  and  ambrofia,  the 
 gods  retained  their  relilh  of  their  former  earthly  viands. 
 They  all  left  heaven  for  the  fake  of  feafting  with  the  M' 
 thiopians,  Jupiter  himfelf  leading  the  way,  as  we  learn 
 from  Homer.  Indeed  they  were  invited  as  guells  to  all  en  • 
 tertainments,  befides  thofe  made  on  purpofe  for  them, 
 
 ■  ■  Et  divos  ipfumque  vocamus 
 
 In  partem  pr^damque  Jovem.     iEn.  III.  222. 
 
 The  epulonesy  whofe  bufinefs  it  was  to  prepare  the  facred 
 banquets  at  the  folemn  games,  and  to  fet  up  couches  on 
 which  the  gods  lay  at  tables,  were  perfons  of  great  dif- 
 
 tindlioQ. 
 
454         Worjhtp  of  human  spirits 
 
 agrees  with  the  idea  the  ancients  enter- 
 tained of  human  fpirits,  whom  they 
 not  only  ftatedly  fuppiied  with  food,  by 
 daily  facrifices,  but  for  whom  they  alfo 
 provided  annually  a  magnificent  feaft". 
 Befides,  the  banquet,  which  fucceeded 
 the  folemn  mourning  in  the  worfhip 
 of  the  gods,  was  a  funeral  rite :  for  after 
 the  obfequies  there  was  an  entertain- 
 ment, part  of  which  was  confecrated  to 
 the  manes  of  the  deceafed,  and  carried  to 
 their  tombs  % 
 
 Games  were  inftituted  only  in  honour 
 of  the  gods ;  and  they  alfo  were  funeral 
 rites,  which  were  exhibited  to  almofl  all 
 the  dead%    Hence  it  follows,  that  the 
 
 dead 
 
 tIn£lion.  See  Guther  de  Jure  Manium,  I.  2.  c.  10. 
 The  bell  meal  put  the  gods  into  the  beft  humour  to  grant 
 favours,  and  was  c?l\zd.  a  fuppUcation,  Witnefs  the  lec-» 
 tillernium. 
 
 "  See  above,  p,  427,  428. 
 
 *>  Bos,  p.  43 1. 
 
 '  Omitto  quod  Varro  dicit,  omnes  ab  his  mortuos 
 eyirtimari  manes  deos,  et  probat  per  ea  facra,  quae  om- 
 jiibvis  fere  exhibentur  mortuis,  ubi  et  ludos  commemorat 
 
 funebres. 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      455 
 
 dead  in  general  were  confidered  as  gods, 
 and  were  the  fole  objefts  of  this  fpecies 
 ofworftiip. 
 
 If,  exclufive  of  all  teftithony,  we  exa- 
 mine the  games   themfelves,    we    fhall 
 foon  perceive,    that,   whatever   natural 
 inftru6lion  might  be  veiled  under  them, 
 they  were  celebrated  In  honour  of  deified 
 men.     They  were  imitations,  or  fcenl- 
 cal  reprefentatlons,  of  the  aftlons,  the 
 fufferlngs,  and  lawlefs  paflions^  of  the 
 gods,  and  indeed  of  their  whole  hlftory. 
 It  is  of  men   alone    that   thefe  fcenes 
 could  be  juft  reprefentatlons.      It  Is  to 
 their  ghofls  only  that  they  could  be  jud- 
 ged acceptable,    as  memorials  of  their 
 former  condition.       Thefe   exhibitions 
 were  attended  with  all  poffible  magnifi- 
 cence, in  order  to  gratify  their  pride  and 
 vanity. 
 
 funebrez,  tanquam  hoc  fit  maximum  divlnitatis  indi- 
 cium, quod  npn  foleant  ludi  nift  nuniinibus  celebrari. 
 Augurt.  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  26. 
 
 <i  See  Cyprian  On  this  fubjefl.    Ad  Donatum,    p.  5, 
 6.  ed.  Fdf. 
 
 G  g4  If 
 
456  WorJJnp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 If  you  ftill  doubt  whether  the  games 
 referred  to  the  aftions  and  events  of  hu- 
 man beings,  remember  that,  in  the 
 worfhip  of  Matuta,  the  mother^  there 
 was  a  reprefentation  of  whatever  befel 
 Bacchus's  nurfe,  and  whatever  Ino  fuf- 
 fered  from  the  jealoufy  of  Juno":  and 
 that,  amongft  other  ceremonies  in  the 
 worfhip  of  Ariadne,  who  died  in  child- 
 bed, and  to  whom  Thefeus  ordered  di- 
 vine honours,  a  youth  lay  in  bed,  and 
 counterfeited  all  the  pains  of  a  woman 
 in  travail*.  In  the  feaft  of  Adonis,  be- 
 fides  reprefenting  funeral  folemnities  by 
 lamentations  and  mournful  fongs,  they 
 even  expofed  images  refembling  dead 
 men  carried  out  to  their  buriar,  This 
 feftival  was  celebrated  throughout  all 
 Gxttz^  and  Egypt  5  all  the  cities  putting 
 themfelves  in  mourning,  which  was  de- 
 
 »  Plutarch.  Vit.  Camilli,  p.  131.  B. 
 
 •  Plutarchi  Thefeus,  p.  9.  B.  C. 
 
 <  Plutarch.  Vit.  Alcibiad.  p.  200.  C.  p.  532.  B. 
 See  alfo  Spencer,  Leg.  Heb.  p.  575,  580,  581.  Dio- 
 dor.  Sic.  p.  24,  25.  ed  WeiT.  Lucian.  torn.  2.  p. 
 658,  659. 
 
 figned 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.      ^^y 
 
 figned  to  commemorate  the  death  of  A- 
 donisj  and  in  teftimony  of  their  fympa- 
 thy  with  Venus.  Ofiris  alfo  being  flain 
 as  Adonis  was,  the  memory  of  his  death 
 was  preferved  by  expoling  a  fimilar  i- 
 mage**  of  him  in  his  feftival,  as  well  as 
 by  other  rites  of  burial. 
 
 On  the  whole,  though  it  is  not  affir- 
 med, that  the  religious  rites  here  fpe- 
 cified  had  no  manner  of  reference  to 
 the  fyftem  of  nature,  yet  they  cer- 
 tainly correfponded  to  the  idea  the  an- 
 cients had  formed  of  human  ghofts, 
 were  of  the  fame  kind  with  thofe  which 
 were  paid  to  thefe  ghofts,  and  even,  in 
 many  cafes,  were  memorials  and  repre- 
 fentations  of  the  fufFerings  and  death 
 of  the  deities  in  whofe  honour  they  were 
 performed.  This  is  a  plain  proof  that 
 thefe  gods  had  been  men,  and  even  that 
 they  were  worfhipped  under  the  very  idea 
 of  men  that  were  dead. 
 
 "  See  Julius  Firmicus,  p.  4,  5.  cited  above,  p.  44S. 
 note  *. 
 
 In 
 
458         Worjhtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 In  fpeaking  of  the  heathen  worfhip,  I 
 cannot  omit  to  make  mention  of  the 
 myjleries.  In  the  celebration  of  thefe 
 rites  an  explicit  declaration  was  made 
 of  the  mortal  origin  even  of  the  princi- 
 pal obje£ts  of  national  worlhip  among 
 the  Gentiles  ;  as  we  learn  from  the  tefti- 
 monies  both  of  heathen  and  chriftian 
 writers*.  The  very  learned  Jablonjki 
 does  not  controvert  the  fa£l,  viz.  that 
 the  humanity  of  the  gods  was  afferted  in 
 the  myfteries  j  but  he  fuppofes,  that  this 
 was  afferted  by  the  magiftrate,  contrary 
 to  his  own  private  opinion,  for  the  cre- 
 dit of  religion''.  This  conjefture  is  not 
 only  groundlefs,  but  improbable,  being 
 
 ^  Cicero,  Tufcul.  1.  i.  c.  13.  et  de  Nat.  Deor.  I. 
 1.  c.  42.  Diodorus  Siculus,  1.  i.  p.  24.  ed.  Welf. 
 Auguftin.  De  Civ.  Dei,  1.  8.  c.  5.      Cyprian.  De  I- 
 
 dol.  Van.  p.  12. Thefeauthors  have  been  already 
 
 cited.  I  add  the  following  pafTage  from  Julius  Firmi- 
 cus,  p.  13.  Sed  adhuc  fuperfunt  aliae  fuperftitiones, 
 quarum  fecreta  pandenda  funt,  Liberi  et  Liberae,  quas 
 omnia  facris  fenfibus  veftris  fpecialiter  intimanda  funt, 
 ut  et  in  iftis  profanis  religionibus  fciatis  mortes  efle  ho- 
 minum  confecratas. 
 
 «  Jablonlki,  Pantheon  i£gyptiorum,  tom.  2.  Prole- 
 gom.  p.  xxvii. 
 
 inconfiftent 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  459 
 inconfiftent  with  all  that  we  know  of  the 
 conduft  of  magiftrates  and  of  thofe  who 
 wifhed  to  fupport  the  religion  of  the 
 ftate.  The  magiftrate,  whofe  bufinefs 
 it  was  to  proteft  it,  always  afted  in  u- 
 nion  with  the  prieft  s  and  indeed  both 
 offices,  though  diftinfl,  were  very  often 
 united  in  the  fame  perfon,  who  did  not 
 oppofe  in  one  capacity  what  he  taught  in 
 another.  Befides,  thofe  who  moft  con- 
 fulted  the  credit  of  the  public  religion 
 prudently  difcouraged  all  enquiry  concer- 
 ning the  origin  of  the  greater  gods,  and, 
 inftead  of  divulging,  ftrove  to  conceal, 
 their  humanity,  either  by  infmuating  at 
 times  that  they  were  originally  beings  of  a 
 higher  rank  than  mankind,  or  (what  was 
 morecommonlythecafe)  by  applying  their 
 hillory  to  elementary  and  mundane  deities . 
 The  following  appears  to  me  to  be  the 
 true  ftate  of  the  cafe.  The  firft  obje6ls 
 of  idolatrous  worfhip  were  the  elements 
 and  heavenly  bodies.  When  the  wor- 
 (hip  of  deified  men  was  fuperinduced 
 upon  that  of  the  planets  and  elements, 
 
 much 
 
460         WorJJoip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 much  confufion  was  introduced  into  the 
 heathen  theology,  and  the  original  doc- 
 trine concerning  the  gods  was  in  danger 
 of  being  loft.  To  prevent  this,  the 
 myfteries  were  inftituted,  and  the  true 
 grounds  of  the  pagan  worfhip  were  pro- 
 bably explained  to  fuch  as  were  jiidged 
 capable  and  worthy  of  fuch  information. 
 This  could  not  be  done  without  admit- 
 ting that  the  popular  or  national  gods 
 had  been  removed  from  earth  to  heaven^. 
 And  this  conceflion,  which  is  all  that  be- 
 longs to  our  prefent  fubje6l,  is  a  very 
 ftrong  confirmation  of  the  point  I  have 
 been  attempting  to  eftablifli.  It  muft  be 
 ©bferved  farther,  that,  although  the 
 myfteries  were  the  moft  facred  of  all  the 
 heathen  rites,  they  were  inftituted  only  in 
 honour  of  gods  of  mortal  origin,  fuch  as 
 Jupiter,  Ofiris,  Ifis,  Mithras,  Bacchus, 
 Venus,     Ceres,     Proferpine^     Vulcan, 
 
 y  "  In  the  reprefentatlons  of  the  myfteries,**  fays 
 Plutarch,  **  the  true  nature  of  demons  is  held  forth." 
 Sec  Warburtoii's  Div.  Legat.  v»  i.  p.  162.  ed.  1755. 
 
 Caftor 
 
i?ithe  ancient  heathen  World.      461 
 
 Caftor  and  Pollux,  and  others  known  to 
 be  of  human  defcent. 
 
 VII.  The  heathen  divinations  and  ora^ 
 cles  were  thought  to  proceed  from  de- 
 mons or  the  manes  of  the  dead. 
 
 It  has  indeed  been  afTerted,  that  thofc 
 fuppofed  to  be  prophets  were  all  titles 
 ivhich  related  to  one god^  the  fun'^ :  an  af- 
 fertion  which  has  the  appearance  of  be- 
 ing fupported  by  etymological  conjec- 
 tures, but  which  is  contradicted  by  in- 
 difputable  fa6ls.  I  fliall  ftate  the  fubjea 
 in  what  appears  to  me  to  be  it's  true 
 light.  Several  philofphers  did  afcribe  o- 
 racles  in  fome  meafure  to  natural  caufes, 
 and  particularly  to  certain  prophetic  ex- 
 halations from  the  earth,  which  owed 
 their  virtue  to  a  folar  influence*.  But 
 this  was  merely  the  private  opinion  of  a 
 few  learned  men,  to  which  the  people 
 
 *  Br>'ant*s  Mythol.  v.  i.  p.  253.  fee  from  p.  239- 
 282.  and  p.  445.  The  gentleman's  hypothefis  is  irrc- 
 concileable  with  the  facred  writings.     Sec  If.  viii.   19. 
 
 *  This  is  Ihewn  in  Diflert.  on  Mir.  p.  259.  Jiote  p. 
 
 were 
 
462         WorJJAp  of  human  Spiats 
 
 were  ftrangers.  Nay,  thefe  philofo- 
 phers  themfelves  allowed,  that  demons 
 might  be  appointed  to  prefide  over  divi- 
 nations and  oracles  ^ ;  and  that  the  foul 
 itfelf  is  naturally  endued  with  the  fa- 
 culty of  divining*. 
 
 The  common  perfuafion  was,  that 
 departed  fpirits  had  an  oracular  or  pro- 
 phetical quality.  This  clearly  appears 
 from  thofe  divinations  by  the  dead,  and 
 by  ghofts,  called  necromancy  and  necuo^ 
 mancy^^  fo  univerfally  prevalent  in  the 
 heathen  world.  Oracles,  therefore, 
 were  certainly  referred  to  dead  men  j  to 
 fuch  efpecially  as  had,  when  living,  dif- 
 covered  a  fuperior  fagacity,  or  a  greater 
 infight  into  futurity,  than ''others.     Di- 
 
 *  DifTert.  -ubi  fupra,  &  p.  175. 
 
 *  Id.  p.  559.  note  P. 
 
 •*  Plutarch  fpeaks  of  a  fixvcy.acvluoty  an  oracle  of  ghofls^ 
 where  they  were  raifed  up  to  foretel  future  events.  Vit. 
 Cimon.  p.  482.  C.  See  the  account  which  Maximua 
 Tyrius  (Diflert.  26.  p.  265.  ed.  Davif.)  has  given  of  a 
 cave  near  the  lake  Aornon,  where,  by  prayers,  facrifi- 
 ces,  and  libations,  a  prophetic  ghoft  was  railed  up. 
 
 ^  SeePaufanias,  Attica,  p.  83,  84. 
 
 vination 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,       465 
 
 vination  by  the  evocation  of  the  dead 
 was  praftifed  in  the  moft  ancient  time^. 
 In  the  Perfae  of  iEfchylus,  the  ghofl: 
 af  Darius  is  called  up,  and  foretels  his 
 queen  her  deftiny.  According  to  Ho- 
 mer *,  Ulyffes  invoked  the  dead, 
 and  defcended  into  the  infernal  re- 
 gions, that  he  might  learn  his  future 
 fortunes  from  the  prophet  Tirelias^ 
 With  the  fame  view  iEneas  confulted 
 Anchifes.  Saul  alfo  applied  to  a  ventri- 
 loquift  to  call  up  Samuel :  apraftice  that 
 v^as  as  early  as  the  age  of  Molest 
 Now  will  any  one  ajfRrm,  that  Darius, 
 Tirefias,  Anchifes,  and  Samuel,  or  any 
 of  the  dead  whom  ventriloquifts  preten- 
 ded to  confult,  were  titlei  ofthefim  ? 
 
 Two  confiderations  ferve  to  fliew  that 
 all  oracles  were  referred  to  human 
 ghofts  :  the  known  charafters  of  the 
 gods  who  had  oracles,  and  the  places 
 where  they  were  fct  up.  As  to  the  gods 
 themfelves  here  referred  to,    they  were 
 
 •  Odyfr.  Xr.  •  Levit.  xx.  6. 
 
 known 
 
464         Worjldip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 i:nown  to  be  human  perfonages.  Such 
 was  Ammon,  fpoken  of  above,  who 
 had  arr  oracle  both  at  Thebes  in  Egy|>t; 
 and  in  Libya  ^ ;  Apollo  alfo,  whofe  6ra«' 
 cleat  'Delphi  was  fo  much  celebrated, 
 was  one  of  twelve  greater  gods  whofe 
 mortal  origin  was  difclofed  in  the  myfte- 
 ries.  Themis,  a  Pelafgic  deity \  and 
 one  of  the  Titanidae',  had  an  oracle  at 
 mount  ParnafTus^j  Trophonius  near 
 the  city  of  Lebadia^j  Amphiaraus""  in 
 Boeotia,  or  in  Attica" ;  Branchides  in 
 Milefia° ;    the  daughter  of  Macarus  at 
 
 s  See    Diodor.  Sic.     1.  3.    p.   24.1,  242.    ed  Weff. 
 Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  54,  55,  56. 
 ^  Herodot.  1.  2.  c.  50. 
 
 *  Diodor.  Sic.  1.  v.  p.  383.       ApoUodorus  do  Diis, 
 I.  I.  init. 
 
 *  Herodot.  ubi  fupra. 
 
 *  Liv.  XXV.  27.       Maxim.  Tyr.  Diflert.  26^  p.  265.^ 
 cd.  Davif.     Schol.  ad  Ariftoph.  ad  Nub.  50S. 
 
 "  Herodot.  I.  I.  c.  52.     Apuleius,  torn.  2,  p.  689, 
 Paufanias,  p.  84. 
 
 *»  According  to  Bos,  p.  (^-j, 
 
 »  Bos,  p.  98.    Pliny,  v.  29.    Mela,  I.  17*  4* 
 
 Amphiflk 
 
272  the  ancient  heathen  World.      465 
 
 AmphifTa  in  Phocis  "^  ^  Geryon  near  Pa- 
 tavium".  Now  all  thefe  oracular  gods, 
 as  is  evident  at  firft  fight,  were  no  other 
 than  dead  men  and  women  deified*. 
 And  filch  we  muft  pronounce  all  the  o- 
 ther  oracular  divinities  to  have  been,  till 
 fome  clear  examples  to  the  contrary  are 
 produced,  which  has  not  yet  been  done. 
 The  Augilit^s,  who  had  no  other  gods 
 but  the  ghofts  of  men,  confiilted  them 
 as  oracles*. 
 
 The  heathen  oracles  were  fet  up  at 
 fepulchres^  and  in  temples^  which  are  on- 
 ly another  name  for  fepulchral  monu- 
 ments erefted  in  honour  of  the  dead. 
 Their  ghofts,  therefore,  were  certainly 
 the  deities  confulted  in  thefe  places. 
 And,  as  oracles  were  fet  up  in  all  the 
 ancient  nations,  and  were  univerfally*  con- 
 
 ^  Paufanias,  1.  lo.  p.  896, 
 '  Sueton.  Tiber,  c.  14. 
 
 '  See  Apuleius,  ubi  fupra;   and  Maxim.  Tyr,  Dil 
 fert.  26.  p.  265. 
 «  P.  Mela,  cited  above,  p.  97.  note  P. 
 
 4ri   T**?  -^'y?*  T»  T£  xc*  '**''''*  *^  X'^'^*  '^'o'-*'*     Xenopiion, 
 Sympof.-  p.  163.  Oper.  V.  5.  ed.  Wells. 
 
 H  h  fulted. 
 
466       .  WorPotp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fulted,  on  all  occafions  of  importance, 
 both  by  thofe  who  had  the  dire£lIon 
 of  the  public  concerns  and  by  private 
 perfons,  and  were  alfo  accompanied  with 
 facrifices"^,  luftrations,  and  other  religious 
 ceremonies,  they  afford  full  proof  of  the 
 very  extenfive  worfhip  of  human  fpirits 
 in  the  heathen  world. 
 
 If,  notwithftanding  all  the  evidence 
 of  this  point  hitherto  produced,  whether 
 from  teftimony  or  from  facls,  it  fhould 
 ftill  appear  incredible  that  dead  men 
 and  women  fhould  be  generally  worfhip- 
 ped  as  gods,  even  in  nations  celebrated 
 for  their  wifdom  and  learning,  I  might 
 in  fome  meafure  remove  this  prejudice, 
 by  fhewing  upon  what  plaulible  preten- 
 ces that  worfhip  was  founded.  But  the 
 grounds  and  reafons  of  it  are  foreign 
 from  my  prefent  defign.  I  would  only 
 obferve, 
 
 ^  With  human  facrlfices,  according  to  Servius  on 
 Virg.  ^n.  VI.  107.  Quae  fine  hominis  occifione  non 
 liebfint. 
 
 VIII. 
 
in  the  a7ictent  heathen  World,      467 
 
 VIIL -That  the  remains  of  it  at  this 
 day,  amongft  many  profefled  Chriftians, 
 give  credibility  to  the  exiftence  of  it  in 
 former  times  amongft  the  Heathens. 
 It  is  certain  that  the  worfhip  of  the  dead 
 ftill  prevails,  and  has  long  prevailed,  a- 
 mongft  the  former,  in  the  fame  manner 
 it  did  amongft  the  latter. 
 
 Some  of  the  Gentile  converts  carried 
 meat,  bread,  and  wine,  to  the  fepul- 
 chres  of  the  martyrs  %  as  they  had  been 
 accuftomed  to  do  to  the  manes  of  their 
 anceftors  before  their  converfion^. 
 
 As  the  Gentiles  offered  up  prayers  to 
 the  dead  at  their  fepulchres'';  in  like 
 manner,  according  to  Eufebius,  Chrif- 
 tians went  to  the  tombs  of  the  champions 
 of  true   religion,  and  made  their  prayers 
 
 *  See  Auftin,  (1.  8.  c.  27.  de  Civ.  Dei,  &  1.  vi. 
 Confeff.  c.  2.)  Illi  enim  ad  fepulchra  martyrum  epu- 
 las  deferebant,  pultem,  panem,  et  vinum.  Gutherde 
 Jure  Manium,  1.  2.  c.  12. 
 
 y  As  to  the  heathen  cuflom,  fee  Ovid's  Falli,  1.  2. 
 
 V.  533-540- 
 
 *  Adde  preces  pofitis  et  fua  verba  focis.  Id.  ib.  v. 
 542. 
 
 H  h  2  at 
 
468         Worfmp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 at  them^  and  honoured  their  blejfed  fouls^  % 
 believing  them  to  have  power  to  avert  e- 
 vils  from  mankind,  and  to  beftovyr  blef- 
 fmgs  upon  them'':  a  pov^er  which  the 
 Gentiles  afcribed  to  thofe  gods  who  had 
 been  men. 
 
 The  fepulchres  of  faints  and  martyrs 
 have  been  converted  by  Chriftians  into 
 churches,  juft  as  the  heathen  fepulchres 
 were  into  temples.  Altars,  annual  fef- 
 tivals,  and  other  religious  rites,  have 
 been  inftituted  to  dead  men,  as  well  by 
 many  who  live  under  the  GofpeP  as  by 
 the  more  ancient  idolaters,  who  were 
 ftrangers  to  it.  The  worjfhip  of  images 
 is  as  familiar  to  papifts  as  it  ever  was  to 
 the  Gentiles,  and  apologized  for  by  both 
 upon  the  fame  grounds.  By  both  alfo 
 their  gods  are  carried  about  in  (hrines^ 
 
 »  Eufeb.  Prsp.  Ev.  1.  13.  c.  11.  p.  663. 
 
 ^  Mede,  p.  641,  642.  Newton  on  Daniel,  c,  14. 
 p.  215.     Middleton*s  Letters,  prefatory  Difc.   p.  51. 
 
 «  Middleton's  Letters  from  Rome,  prefatory  Dif- 
 courfe,  p.  25.     Newton  on  Dan.  ch.  14. 
 
 and 
 
in  the  ancient'  heathen  World.      469 
 
 ^nd  thought  to  be  prefent  in  every  image 
 and  every  edifice  erefled  to  their  honoui\ 
 The  abfurdity  of  the  papifts  is  more  gla- 
 ring than  that  of  the  Pagans,  becaufe 
 they  believe  that  the  v^hole  bodily  prefence 
 of  Chrift  is  in  ten  thoufand  different  pla- 
 ces in  the  fame  inftant  of  time,  under 
 the  appearance  of  bread  and  wine. 
 
 The  Papifts  dignify  their  faints  with 
 divine  titles,  as  the  pagans  did  their 
 worthies  ^  Both  affign  to  their  deities 
 the  fame  offices,  confidering  them  as  the 
 guardians  of  towns,  cities,  and  coun- 
 tries, as  prefidents  overall  the  obje<5ls 
 of  nature,  and  over  the  various  occupa- 
 tions of  human  life*. 
 
 '  It  the  emperof  Domltian  flyled  himielf  LORD 
 and  GOD,  as  was  obferved  above,  p.  275.  note^;  fb 
 is  the  pope  called  GOD,  the  SUPREME  DEITY  on 
 earth,  and  our  LORD  GOD.  Chandler's  Account  of  a  . 
 Conference  in  Nicolas-lane,  1734.  The  Papifts  fome- 
 times  plead  that  they  only  call  their  faints  iii'vi,  not  dii. 
 But  thefe  are  equivalent  terms.  Servius  on  Virg.  JEn, 
 XIL   159. 
 
 e  See  Middleton's  Letters,    p.    153,    178.     Prefat. 
 Difc.  p.  51. 
 
 H  h  3  If, 
 
470         Worfiip  cf  human  Spirits 
 
 If,  amongft  the  Heathens,  fome  god- 
 deffes  were  thought  to  have  more  power, 
 or  were  in  higher  reputation  in  one  place 
 than  in  another  5  as  Juno  at  Argos^  for 
 example  J  it  is  juft  the  fame  amongft 
 Papifts  with  the  lady  of  Loretto.  The 
 virgin  Mary  holds  the  firft  rank  amongft 
 all  the  popifh  faints,  and  feems  indeed 
 to  be  the  principal  objeft  of  their  devo- 
 tion. To  her  the  ftatelieft  churches  and 
 the  faireft  altars  are  raifed ;  to  her  the 
 moft  frequent  addreffes  are  made,  and 
 the  greateft  number  of  miracles  afcri- 
 bed^.  If  the  Heathens  honoured  a  dei- 
 fied woman  as  the  mother  of  the  gods^  and 
 queen  of  heanjen^ ;  too  many  Chriftians 
 ^pply  thefe  titles  to  Mary,    calling  her 
 
 '  Speiice's  Polymetis,  p.  5^. 
 
 «  Sir  Edward  Sandy's  Survey  of  Religion,  p.  4,  5, 
 
 ^  The  regent  of  the  moon  was  ftyled  queen  of  hea- 
 ven ;  and  the  mother  of  the  gods  was  Rhea,  who  is  faid 
 t(?  have  appeared  to  Themiilocles  in  a  dream.  Plutarch. 
 Vit.Themill.  p.  127.  A. 
 
 the 
 
hi  the  ajicient  heathen  Wo?^ld.      47 1 
 
 the  queen  of  heaven"^  ^  and  the  7nother  of  God. 
 And  fhe  delights  to  be  worfliipped  under 
 different  titles^  juft  as  the  Heathen  dei- 
 ties did'. 
 
 ^''  Deinon-worfhip  was  thought  to  be 
 juftified  amongft  the  Heathens  by  the 
 oftentation  of  oracles,  the  cure  of  difea- 
 fes,  and  other  miracles'".  Herein  they 
 were  imitated  by  Chriftians,  who  pre- 
 tended, that  the  miracles  performed  ia 
 the  times  of  Chrift  and  his  apoftles  were 
 renewed  at  the   fepulchres  of  the  mar- 
 
 '  Lipfius  addreiTes  Mary  in  the  following  terms.  O 
 goddefs  I  thou  art  the  queen  of  hea<vcn,  of  the  fen,  and 
 of  the  earth.  Lipf.  Oper.  p.  1288.  Tenifon  of  Idola- 
 try, p.  290.  Epiphanius  fays  of  Chriftians  in  his  time, 
 They  made  a  goddefs  of  the  'virgin y  and  offered  a  cake  unto 
 her  as  the  queen  of  heaven.      Mcde,   p.  636. 
 
 ^  Chifhul  fays,  (Travels,  p.  135,  6.)  The  virgin  Is 
 not  invoked  u;\der  the  fame  charadler  in  all  places  and 
 ©n  all  occafions,  but  — —  is  fplit  into  fo  many  difUncl 
 obje(fls  of  worfliip  ;  as  the  lady  de  Vi£ioria,  Sec.  She 
 has  numerous  titles,  (comp.  p.  172,  1730  probably 
 according  to  her  diftinfl  offices. 
 
 '  On  the  polyonomy  of  the  heathen  gods,  fee  Selden, 
 Prolegom.  c.  3.  ***♦*»  ^.  Sched.  de  Dlis  German. 
 p.  87,  89,  175.        , 
 
 ^  Mede,' p!  680,  6^1'.     Newton,'* p.  21 1. 
 
 H  h  4  tyrs. 
 
472         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 tyrs".  A  miraculous  power  was  attribu- 
 ted to  their  dead  bodies,  to  their  bones, 
 and  other  reliques% 
 
 It  was  not  without  reafon,  therefore, 
 that  the  gentile  philofophers  long  ago 
 reproached  Chriftians   with  introducing 
 new  gods,  fuch  as  were  taken  from   a- 
 mongft  men^     Nay,  Theodoret  boafts 
 that   God  had  brought  his  dead   (viz.  the 
 martyrs)    into  the  place     (the  temples) 
 of  the  heathen  gods.      For^    injlead  of  the 
 feajls  of  fupiter  and  Bacchus^  are  now  ce^ 
 lebrated  the  fejiivals  of  Peter  and  Paul ^  — 
 and  of  the  holy  martyrs'^.     If  the  Gentiles 
 ferved  the  creature^  pafjing  over  the  crea- 
 tor\  the  papifts,  (I  fpeak  not  of  indivi- 
 duals,) notwithftauding  fome  verbal  ac- 
 
 *»  Mede,  ubi  fupra ;  and  MiddIeton*s  Free  Enquiry, 
 p.  130.  etfeq.  Astopopifh  miracles,  fee  Middleton's 
 Prefatory  Difcourfe  to  his  Letters  from  Rome,  p.  29.  ct 
 feq. 
 
 •  Newton  on  Daniel,  p.  zo%,  et  feq. 
 
 p  Eunapius,  Vit.  Philofoph.  p.  76.  See  Julian  ap, 
 Cyril,  in  Newton,  p.  208. 
 
 9  Theodoret,  1.  8.  ap.  Mede,  p.  642. 
 
 '  Zlfltf*  Te>  )tTt<r«>Ta.  Rom.  i.  21.     Beza  in  loc. 
 
 knowledgements 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World*      473 
 
 knowledgements  of  him,  do  very  much 
 conceal  him  from  public  view,  by  direc- 
 ting the  attention  of  the  people  to  many 
 other  objects  of  religious  woriliip,  by  af- 
 fociating  with  him  the  virgin  Mary  and 
 other  ikints  *,  and  by  making  the  moft 
 difhonourable  reprefentations  of  him  ia 
 the  pictures  with  which  their  facred  edi- 
 fices are  adorned.  The  figure  of  the 
 ever-adorable  and  incomprehenfible  Je- 
 hovah, who  inhabits  eternity  and  fills 
 immenfity,  is  generally  that  of  an  old 
 man ;  and,  in  fome  places,  he  has  upoa 
 him  ^  night' gown  and cap\  In  the  feve- 
 ral  foregoing  particulars,  and  many 
 more  that  might  be  mentioned,  there  is 
 a  ftriklng  refemblance  between  the  idola- 
 try of  Papifts  and  Pagans.  The  for- 
 mer know  that  the  objefls  of  their  wor- 
 fliip  had  been  men,   jufl  as  the  latter 
 
 •  In  the  town  of  Znaim,  in  Moravia,  there  is  an  i- 
 mage  of  the  virgin,  ere^Sled  on  a  fair  pillar,  with  this 
 infcriptlon  :  Laus  Dbo^  Mariaque  'virgini,  fanclifqne  J'u- 
 is^     Chiihul's  Travels,   p.  131. 
 
 *  Id.  ib.  p.  116. 
 
 did. 
 
474         Worjhlp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 did.  Both  perform  their  worfhip  in  the 
 very  fame  places,  on  the  high^ways^  in 
 gro'veSj  on  7nountains'^y  and  at  fepidchres. 
 Let  us  now  briefly  confider,  how  far  the 
 pra6tice  of  the  worfhip  of  dead  men,  in 
 a  large  part  of  the  chriftian  church, 
 proves  the  prior  exiflence  of  it  in  the 
 heathen  world. 
 
 Every  refemblance  between  the  cuf- 
 toms,  whether  civil  or  religious,  of  dif- 
 ferent nations,  does  not,  I  acknowledge, 
 neceffarily  argue  imitation.  A  confide- 
 rable  refemblance  has  been  difcovered 
 between  the  cuftoms  of  different  people 
 who  have  had  no  intercourfe  with  one 
 another;  and,  where  it  is  not  purely  ac- 
 cidental, may  be  accounted  for  by  fome 
 principles  in  human  nature  common  to 
 all.  Let  it  then  be  fuppofed,  what, 
 however,  cannot  be  granted,  that  the 
 conformity  between  popery  and  pagan- 
 ifm,  in  the  feveral  particulars  ftated  a- 
 bove,  and  in  a  hundred  others  that  have 
 
 "  Middleton's  Letters,  p.  184,   185. 
 
 been 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,       475 
 
 been  omitted,  may  be  thus  accounted 
 for  y  it  will  (till  ferve  to  fliew,  that  the 
 fame  fpecies  of  idolatry,  praftifed  in  a 
 great  part  of  the  chriftian  world,  might, 
 and  probably  did,  prevail  in  the  heatheu 
 world.  To  whatever  common  princi- 
 ples you  choofe  to  afcribe  it's  prevalence 
 in  both,  they  were  likely  to  operate  more 
 ftrongly  in  the  latter  than  in  the  for-^ 
 mer:  for  Chriftianity  fo  clearly  and  pa- 
 thetically reprefents  God  as  the  only 
 proper  objeft  of  religious  worfliip,  that 
 it  is  even  hard  to  conceive  how  the  pro-, 
 feflbrs  of  this  religion  (hould  join  any  o- 
 thers  with  him.  At  the  fame  time  it 
 givts  us  fuch  a  view  of  the  ftate  of  thq 
 dead""  as  overturns  the  very  foundation 
 of  all  the  devotion  which  has  been  paid 
 them.  Nay,  it  particularly  warns  us  a- 
 gainft  this  fpecies  of  idolatry,  and  brands 
 it  as  an  apoftacy  from  the  chriftian, 
 faith  \  Thefe  confiderations  are  well  a- 
 dapted  to  preferve  the  profeflbrs  of  the 
 
 "  Diflert.  pn  Mir.  p.  i6i  et  faq.     «  i  ^ini.  iv.   i. 
 
 Gofpel 
 
i^'jb        Worjhip  of  human  Bplrits 
 
 Gofpel  from  all  idolatry,  more  efpecially 
 from  the  worfhip  of  the  dead ;  and  has 
 aftually  produced  this  efFe6l  on  multi- 
 tudes both  in  ancient  and  modern  times, 
 though  not  on  all.  Now  if  reafon,  even 
 when  aided  by  revelation,  could  not 
 check  the  fuppofed  natural  propenfity  to 
 the  worfhip  of  dead  men;  it  cannot  be  i- 
 ♦  magined  that  reafon  alone  could  do  it.  E-^ 
 very  natural  principle  or  bias  will  operate 
 with  the  greateft  force  where  there  are  the 
 feweft  and  the  weakeft  powers  of  refift- 
 ance. 
 
 But  the  conformity  between  paganifm 
 and  popery,  with  refpedt  to  the  worfhip 
 of  the  dead,  holds  in  fo  many  particu- 
 lars, and  fuch  as  have  manifeflly  no 
 foundation  in  any  appearance  of  reafon, 
 or  bias  of  nature,  that  it  cannot  be  ac- 
 counted for  without  fuppofing  that 
 Chriflians  copied  from  the  Heathens. 
 Befides,  we  learn  from  hiflory,  what  we 
 might  have  prefumed  to  be  true  from  a 
 knowledge  of  human  nature,  that  the 
 
 heathen 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World.  ^jj 
 heathen  as  well  as  the  jewifh  converts  to 
 Chriftianity  rstained  ftrong  prejudices  in 
 favour  of  many  of  the  principles  in 
 which  they  had  been  educated.  Of  this 
 there  can  be  no  ftronger  proof  than  a 
 fa6l  taken  notice  of  above^,  the  continu- 
 ance of  the  cuftom  of  offering  human 
 vi6lims  amongft  the  Chriftians  in  Gaul. 
 From  hiftory  we  like  wife  learn,  that 
 many  paftors  of  the  church,  who  were 
 employed  in  bringing  men  over  to  the 
 profeffion  of  the  Gofpel,  though  they 
 themfelves  might  havejuft  conceptions 
 of  it,  condefcended  too  far  to  the  preju- 
 dices of  others.  They  could  not  flop  the 
 current  of  fuperftition,  and  therefore  en- 
 deavoured to  dire6l  it  into  a  new  channel  j 
 and  were  fure  hereby  to  add  to  the 
 wealth  and  grandeur  of  the  church, 
 though  at  the  fame  time  they  robbed  it 
 of  it's  purity  and  true  glory.  The  mif- 
 fionaries   of  Ireland   and  England,  not 
 
 y  P.  108.  note  «.       Procopius  (1.  ii.  de  Bello  Gothic.. 
 CO.)  mcmorat  P>ancobetiam  Chriftum  colentes  adfunm 
 SL'vum  facrincaflt;  homines.     Tomafin.  dc  Bonariis  vete- 
 j-um,  c.  4.0. 
 
 being 
 
478         WorJJnp  of  human  SplMs 
 
 being  able  to  withdraw  the  people  front 
 paying  a  kind  of  adoration  to  ftones  and 
 barrows  ere6led  to  the  dead  %  cutcrofles 
 on  the  former,  and  dedicated  the  latter 
 to  chriftian  faints  ^  and  then  allowed  the 
 fuperftition.  Thefe  criminal  coftipliaii- 
 ces  had  been  unneceflary,  had  not  this 
 fuperftition  taken  faft  hold  of  the  minds 
 of  the  people  before  they  became  ac- 
 quainted with  Chriftianity.  We  may 
 therefore  juftly  conclude,  that  the  wor- 
 fliip  of  dead  men,  in  countries  called 
 chriftian,  is  a  remnant  of  the  pagan  ido- 
 latry^, and  a  demonftration  of  it*s  having 
 exifted  in  general  credit  prior  to  the  co- 
 ming of  Chrift,  and  even  prevailed  more 
 before  this  period  than  it  has  done  fince. 
 Let  us  weigh  the  feveral  fafts  that  have 
 been  ftated  in  this  feftion,  and  fee  what 
 is  the  moft  natural  conclufion  from 
 them.  The  heathen  gods  were  wor- 
 fliipped  at  places  of  fepulture  or  at  ho- 
 
 «  Borlafe's  Antiq.  of  Cprnw.  p.  222,  223. 
 
 *  See  Middleton's  Letters  from  Rome,  p.  225.  '. 
 
 norary 
 
in  the  anaent  heathen  World.      479 
 
 norary  tombs  :  they  were  reprefented  by 
 images  in  human  form  :  the  gifts  pre- 
 fented  to  them  were  adapted  to  the  ap- 
 prehended nature  of  human  fpirits,  and 
 the  ceremonies  with  which  they  were 
 honoured  refpe6led  their  former  mortal 
 condition  ;  and  oracles,  thofe  boafted 
 proofs  of  a  divine  fore-knowledge,  were 
 referred  to  the  manes  of  the  dead.  Thefc 
 fa6ls  clearly  point  to  deceafed  mortals  as 
 the  objefts  of  pagan  worfhip.  We  are 
 even  eye-witnefies  of  the  aflual  exiftence 
 of  a  fimilar  worfhip  in  the  chriftian 
 church,  which,  we  know,  was  introdu- 
 ced there  by  the  converts  from  the  hea- 
 then religion.  And,  though  the  priefts 
 endeavoured  to  conceal  the  mortal  origin 
 of  their  principal  gods,  yet  they  entruf- 
 ted  the  fecret  with  {o  many,  that  it  was 
 at  laft  openly  divulged. 
 
 I  fhall  offer  no  more  proofs  of  the 
 worfhip  of  human  fpirits  in  this  place. 
 Some  farther  illuftrations  of  it  may  oc- 
 cur in  examining  the  grounds  and  rea- 
 
 fons 
 
480         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 fons  of  the  Heathens  deifying  both  the 
 world  and  the  fouls  of  men.  I  fhall 
 now  conclude  with  a  brief  recapitulation 
 of  what  has  been  already  advanced. 
 
 That  gods,  who  had  their  original 
 here  below,  were  worfhipped  in  mofl 
 of  the  heathen  nations  commonly  ftyled 
 barbarous  %  and  in  all  thofe  polifhed  by 
 learning  ^  has  been  proved,  by  an  in- 
 duction of  particulars,  upon  the  tefti- 
 mony  of  the  Pagans  themfelves,  who 
 certainly  beft  knew  what  the  objefts  of 
 their  worfliip  were. 
 
 Befides  the  proofs  of  this  point,  which 
 refpeft  particular  nations,  others  of  a 
 more  general  nature  were  produced, 
 which  equally  refpeft  all  the  learned  na- 
 tions, and  all  others  which  had  adopted 
 their  fyftem  of  theology.  The  proofs 
 were  drawn  from  two  fources  :  from  the 
 diftinft  teftimonies  of  the  heathen  poets, 
 philofophers,  and  hiftorians,  and  of  the 
 
 »  Ch.  I.  fed.  I,  2.  *  Ch.  II. 
 
 chriftian 
 
in  the  a?7cient  heathen  TForhL      48 1 
 
 chriftian  Fathers  *" ;  and  from  certain 
 fafts,  which  cannot  be  controverted,  and 
 yet  cannot  be  accounted  for  but  upon 
 the  fuppofition  of  the  truth  of  thofe  tef- 
 timonies^  The  teftimonies  and  the  fa6ls 
 mutually  IHuftrate  and  confirm  each  o- 
 ther ;  and  both,  efpecially  when  taken 
 together,  fully  demonftrate  the  general 
 prevalence  of  the  worlhip  of  human  fpi- 
 rits  in  the  ancient  heathen  world :  which 
 is  the  point  I  undertook  to  eftablifli. 
 
 But  the  arguments,  which  have  car- 
 ried us  fo  far,  go  farther,  and  prove, 
 not  only  that  human  fpirits  were  gene- 
 rally worfhipped  amongft  the  Heathens, 
 but  that  fuch  fpirits  aloiie^  or  'with  few 
 exceptiojiSy  were,  in  the  nations  with 
 which  we  are  bell  acquainted,  the  dire6l 
 and  immediate  objefts  of  the  eftabliflied 
 vvorfhip  y  which  confided  in  having  fta- 
 tues,  temples,  altars,  priefts,  facriiices, 
 feftivals,  games,  and  numerous  ceremo- 
 nies, dedicated   to   them    by  public    de- 
 
 «  Ch.  III.  Tea.  I.  'i  Ch.  III.  fea.  2. 
 
 I  i  crees. 
 
482         JVorJfjtp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 crees.  In  the  nations  here  alluded  to, 
 idolatry  was  digefted  into  an  artificial 
 fyfiem  ^  which  might  indeed  be  built 
 upon  the  fuppolition  of  there  being  twa 
 forts  of  gods,  the  natural  and  the  human. 
 Neverthelefs,  the  latter,  being  thought 
 to  be  intruded  with  the  government 
 of  the  world,  and  more  efpecially  of 
 human  affairs,  became  the  grand  obje6ts 
 of  mens  hopes,  and  fears,  and  depend- 
 ence, and  engrofled,  as  it  were,  the 
 public  devotion.  If  fome  of  thefe  hero^_ 
 gods  were  confidered,  by  thofe  inftruft- 
 ed  in  the  fecret  doftrine,  as  fymbols 
 of  the  natural^  yet  the  civil  theology 
 prefented  the  former  to  the  people  as  be- 
 ing themfelves  true  and  real  divinities, 
 not  as  fymbols  and  reprefentatives  of  a- 
 ny  other  %  Accordingly  the  Heathens  \ 
 the  early  Chriftians  ^,  and   to  thefe   we 
 
 *  Above,  p.  412-415. 
 
 ^  P.  223,  224,  255,  256,  257,  263-267,  277. 
 
 5  P.  257,  244-347- 
 
 may 
 
in  the  cmcient  heathen  World.  48  3 
 may  add  the  ancient  Jews*",  and  the  fa- 
 cred  writers  themfelves ',  agree  in  repre^ 
 fenting  all  the  gods  of  paganifm  as  de- 
 ceafed  mortals.  This  is  certainly  true, 
 in  general,  with  refpeft  to  the  obje6ls 
 of  national  worfhip.  Some,  who  would 
 not  undertake  to  affirm  there  were  no  ex- 
 ceptions, confefled  that  it  was  difficult 
 to  find  any'';  and  others  thought  that 
 there  were  none'.  It  muft  be  ob^ 
 ferved,  farther,  that  the  argument  from 
 the  fa6ls  before  mentioned,  particu- 
 larly from  the  reprefentation  of  the 
 gods  by  images,  and  the  places  and  rites 
 of  their  worfhip,  extends  as  far  as  the 
 fore-cited  teftimonies,  and  equally  with 
 
 ^  In  their  greek  verilon  of  Pf.  xcv.  5.  we  read, 
 navT£?  01  v£oi  Twy  eSvwy  dajjaovict.  ALL  the  gods  of  the  Hea- 
 then are  demons y  that  is,  men  who  after  their  deaths 
 were  fuppofed  to  become  demons  or  deities.  Demons 
 here  cannot  denote  apoftate  angels  *  becaufe,  in  this 
 fenfeof  the  word,  the  afTertion  is  palpably  falfe. 
 
 «  The  Scripture  repfefents  the  heathen  gods  as  dead 
 nterty  and  confequently  as  nothing  more  than  fuch,  be- 
 caufe it  does  not  allow  their  real  deification  after  their 
 deaths.     Difiert.    on  Mir,  p.  197.     Above,  p.  13. 
 
 ^  Above,  p. 257.  i  Jb.  p.  265,  344-347. 
 
 I  i  2  them 
 
484         WorJIAp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 them  ferve  to  fhew  that  all  the  heathen 
 gods  had  once  been  men  -,  which  is  a  full 
 vindication  of  the  opinion  I  had  expreffed 
 of  them  in  the  fame  terms.*  Neverthe- 
 lefs,  a  late  writer  declares  no  opinion 
 can  be  more  erroneous  than  this,  and  e- 
 ven  that  all  the  world  k?2ew  the  heathen 
 gods  had  never  been  men". 
 
 The  Gentiles  diftinguifhed  the  gods 
 whom  the  laws  commanded  them  to 
 worfliip  into  two  clafTes :  the  gods  of  the 
 higher,  and  the  lower,  order".  The  lat- 
 ter were  by  all  known  and  acknowledged 
 to  be  fuch  as  were  natives  of  the  earth, 
 but  believed  to  be  advanced  to  heaven. 
 As  to  the  former,  the  priefts  difcoura- 
 ged  all  inquiry  into  their  origin  ^  and 
 fometimes  pretended  that  they  were  be- 
 
 *  Above,  p.  12,  13,   14. 
 
 "»  Fell,  p.  30,   1 10. 
 
 "  Dii  7najorumy  et  minorumy  gentium.  The  word  gCH" 
 liiim  is  ufed  here  as  it  is  in  the  following  paflage  of  Ci- 
 cero :  CleantheSy  qui  quaji  ?najoru?n  eji  gentium  Stoicus, 
 Academ.  11.  41.  It  has  always  been  argued  from  in 
 the  preceding  flieets  in  it's  true  fenfe ;  though,  in  p. 
 209,  it  is,  through  mere  inadvertence,  rendered  na- 
 Uons, 
 
 ings 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,      485 
 
 -  ings  of  a  fuperior  fpecies,  a  celeftlal  race, 
 who  had  only  condefcended  to  vlfit  this 
 lower  world,  in  the  form  of  men  and 
 women,  for  a  time.  Neverthelefs,  per- 
 fons  of  underftanding  faw  through  the 
 delufion,  and  proved,  from  the  hiftory 
 of  their  birth  and  burial,  (what  the 
 priefts  themfelves  difclofed,  to  thofe  ini- 
 tiated into  the  greater  myfteries,  under 
 the  feal  of  fecrecy,)  that  even  thefe  gods 
 of  the  firft  clafs  were  of  human  defcent". 
 The  Pleathens  not  only  declare,  in  ge- 
 neral terms,  that  all  their  gods  had  no 
 higher  original,  but  affirm  that  this  was 
 the  cafe  in  particular  with  refpecl  to  their 
 greateji  gods,  and  the  objefts  of  their 
 moftauguft  ceremonies  ^ 
 
 In  examining  the  evidence  of  the  hu- 
 man origin  of  the  national  gods,  I  confi- 
 dered  the  obje6lions  that  have  been  raifed 
 againft  it  by  feveral  writers  as  they  came 
 in  the  way,  and  particularly  thof^  urged 
 
 •  P. 255,  455-4^1. 
 
 *  Abo\'e,  p.  135,  1^3,  257  267,  276,  277,  308. 
 
 I  i  3  by 
 
486         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 by  Dr.  Blackwell  and  Mr.  Bryant.  The 
 former  was  a  learned  and  ingenious,  but 
 not  always  a  correct,  writer.  And  his 
 Letters  on  Mythology  are  rather  a  ftu- 
 died  apology  for  paganifm  than  an  im- 
 partial reprefentation  of  it.  He  was 
 of  opinion,  that  the  gods  of  the  greater 
 nations  (in  which  he  mufl:  include  the 
 learned on^s)  were  the  deified  parts  and 
 powers  of  the  univerfe.  I  have  therefore 
 largely  fhewn  that  the  gods  of  thefe  na- 
 tions were  deified  mortals.  His  objec- 
 tions are  retailed  by  a  late  writer"^  as  his 
 own,  and  have  been  diftinftly  exami- 
 ned'.    With  regard  to  Mr.  Bryant,  It  is 
 
 Jmpofllble 
 
 ?  Mr.  Fell. 
 
 '  In  ch.  I.  feft.  1.  and  other  places,  Mr.  Fell  at- 
 tempted to  refute  that  part  of  the  Differtation  on  Mira- 
 cles which  was  intended  to  prove  the  following  proposi- 
 tion, viz.  *'that  yz^r/' demons,  as  were /^^  7nore  imme- 
 **  diate  ohjeds  of  the  ejiahlijhed  nvorjh.ip  amongfl:  the 
 ^*  ancient  nations,  particularly  the  Egyptians,  Greeks, 
 *'  and  Romans,  were  fuch  departed  human  fpirits  as 
 ^*  were  believed  to  become  demons.'*  Above,  p.  4,  5, 
 This  propofitipn  is  fully  confirmed  by  what  has  been  of- 
 fered 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World,  487 
 impoffible  to  forbear  doing  juftice  to  his 
 abilities,  his  learning,  his  candour,  and 
 
 I  i  4  his 
 
 fered  in  the  preceding  (heets.     Let  us  conflder  whether 
 Mr.  Fell  has  fucceeded  in  his  attempt  to  refate  it. 
 
 I.  Inrtead  of  informing  his  readers,  that  my  dLQ{\<gx\. 
 profefTedly  was  to  prove  the  truth  of  this  propofition, 
 (Diff.  Mir.  p.  183,  231.)  he  has,  on  the  contrary,  maim- 
 ed and  difguifed  it,  fo  as  to  render  it  impoflible  for  any 
 one  to  divine  what  the  DiiTertation  aimed  at  on  this  fub- 
 jedl,  and  to  lead  them  to  think  it's  aim  was  different 
 from  what  it  really  was.     Above,  p.  11-18. 
 
 2.  The  fore-mentioned  proportion  was  fupported  by 
 fa6ts  and  teftimonies.  How  has  the  gentleman  anfwer- 
 ed  thefe  arguments  ?  by  taking  no  notice  at  all  of  the 
 argument  from  fadls,  and  overlooking  the  principal  tef- 
 timonies,  particularly  thofe  of  the  early  Chriilians  and 
 of  the  philofophers,  though  the  latter,  in  his  own  ac- 
 count, were  the  moft  competent  vvitnefTes.  Above,  p. 
 301,  302.  But,  if  he  did  not  overturn  the  proofs  of  the 
 propofition,  nor  even  examine  the  principal  of  them,  yet 
 it  may  be  thought  that  he  was  able  to  urge  fome  plaufible 
 objedlions  againft  it.     This  leads  me  to  obferve, 
 
 3.  That  his  objeclions  are  foreign  from  the  purpofe. 
 The  propofition  refpeded  ^i?/;zo;7j,  as  contra- diftinguifhed 
 from  the  natural  gods.  Above,  p.  5.  Our  author,  in 
 anfwer,  tells  us  that  the  latter  were  worfliipped  ;  wliich 
 they  might  be,  and  yet  the  propofition  be  true.  To 
 rdfuteit,  he  fhould  have  (hewn,  that  fiich  demons  as  it 
 defcribes  were  beings  originally  fuperior  to  the  human 
 race  :    but  he  has  contented  himfeif  with  tranfcribing, 
 
 from 
 
488         WorJIAp  of  human  Spirits 
 
 zeal     to    fupport    Chriftianity.        His 
 knowledge   of   antiquity   rendered   him 
 
 fully 
 
 from  thofe  authors  who  wrote  agamfl  Dr.  Sykes,  pafTa- 
 ges  in  which  the  ancients  fpeak  of  demons  that  do  not 
 come  under  this  defcription.  The  propofition  refpe£ls 
 fuch  demons  as  were  the  ohjeSls  of  the  ejlahlijhed  nvor/hip, 
 which  the  gentleman  hoped  to  refute  by  telling  us,  that 
 the  philofophers  afferted  a  fuperior  order  of  demons, 
 though  the  latter  were  not  the  objecls  of  the  eftabliihed 
 worlhip,  and  though  the  philofophers  themfelves  bear 
 teftimony  to  the  humanity  of  thofe  who  were.*  It  is  jufi: 
 the  fame  when  he  is  treating  the  fubjeft  of  demoniacal 
 pofTeflion.  Inftead  of  fhewing  that  thofe  demons,  to 
 ivhom  poJfeJpo7is  nvere  referred y  were  a  higher  order  of  be- 
 ings than  human  fpirits,  (of  'which  he  has  not  produced 
 cne  fingle  examphy)  he  only  labours  to  prove,  (what  I 
 had  repeatedly  allowed,  though,  from  his  manner  of 
 writing,  his  readers  would  im.agine  the  contrary,)  that 
 fome  did  affert  this  higher  order  of  demons,  to  whom, 
 however,  poffeffions  were  never  referred.  The  gentle- 
 man fucceeds  lAjhere  he  has  no  ad'verfary*  Farther,  the 
 demons  of  the  learned  nations  were  the  only  fubjedl 
 of  the  propofition ;  the  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Ro- 
 mans, being  mentioned  as  the  moll  proper  fpecimens 
 of  the  reft.  Above,  p.  9,  10.  To  this  the  gentleman  op- 
 pofes  the  cafe  of  the  barbarous  nations,  which,  accor 
 ding  to  him,  worfhipped  only  the  natural  gods  ;  and 
 confequently  acknowledged  no  demons  at  all,  in  the  re-* 
 flrained  fenfe  of  th^t  wordin  the  propofition.     lb.  p.  10, 
 
 *  Above,  p.  2oS,  e*  ic^. 
 
in  the  ancient  heathen  World »      489 
 
 fully  fenfible  of  what  he  freely  acknow- 
 ledges, viz.  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
 
 Heathens 
 
 23.    In  a  word,  all  his  obje£llons  are  quite  foreign  from 
 the  purpofe,  or  elfe, 
 
 4.   They  are  not  founded  in  fa6l.     His  language  ma- 
 nifeftly  implies   that  the  philofophers  were  on  his  fide, 
 though  the  contrary  has  been. demonftrated.     Above,  p. 
 300-308.       He   llrongly  iniinuates  that  I  had  exclude  J 
 their   teftimonies,  notwithftanding  I   had  appealed  to, 
 and  produced,  them.     lb.  p.    301.  note  ^.       In  con- 
 tradiction to  all  the  foregoing  teftimonies,  he  maintains 
 that  hero-gods  'tvere  either  reje6led  or  not  knouotiy    e-ven  in 
 the  days  of  Plato ^  by  the  greateji  part  of  the  'world  '^  and,  to 
 give  fome  colour  to  his  affertion,  he  fubftitutes  the  word 
 moji  in  the  room  of  many,  and  thus  corrupts,  as  well  as 
 groilly  miiinterprets,  this  philofopher.     DifTert.  on  Mir. 
 p.  173,  note  ^.     Fell,   p.   9.      Above,  p.   10,  11,  131. 
 In  moft  of  thofe  very  nations,   in  which  he  affirms  di- 
 vine honours   were  not  paid  to  deceafed  heroes,  human 
 fpirits  were  adually  worfhipped.     Above,  ch.  I.  feci.  i. 
 p.  93,  etpaflim.  Se£l.  2.  p.  128.  ch.  II.  fedt.  i  andz.  In 
 fome  as  the  greateji.     lb.    p.   33,   183.     In  others,   as 
 the  o«/y  gods.     lb.  p.  32,  93.     According  to  his  arith- 
 metic,    the  natural  gods   were  the  greateji  part  of  the 
 heathen  deities,  contrary  to  the  cleareft  evidence.     A- 
 bove,  p.  19,  zGj-z-ji.     Jn  order  to  ferve  his  purpofe,  he 
 confounds  the  Belus,  fpoken  of  by  Berofus,  witli   the 
 Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  notwithftandino-  Berofus 
 himfelf  tells  us,  Belus's  head  was  twice  cut  off.     Above, 
 p,    188-190.     He  makes  the  Phenicians  and  Egyptians 
 
490         Worjhip  of  human  Spirits 
 
 Heathens  themfelves,    their  gods  were 
 
 deified 
 
 to  be  worfhippers   only  of  phylical  beings,  by  mutila- 
 ting his  author,   who  declares  in  the  moft  unequivocal 
 terms,  and  in  the  very  place  appealed  to,  that  they  had 
 gods  both  mortal  and  immortal,  and  that  the  former  were 
 accounted   the    greateji  gods,  though    the   latter  were 
 the    only  gods  in  their  own  natural  right.     Fell,  p.  31. 
 Above,  p.  133,  et  feq.     The  gentleman  has  frequent  re- 
 courfe    to    fuch   mutilations.       That    complained    of 
 above,    p.    11,    12.   is    a  juil  fpecimen   of  his   ufual 
 manner  of  quoting  my  writings.    He  appeals  to  Herodo- 
 tus to  prove,  that  **  the  Getes  elleemed  the  heavens  to 
 be  the  only  deity,"  though  this  very  hillorian  (in  agree- 
 ment  with  all   others)    afHrms,    that    they  worshipped 
 Zamolxis.     Nay,  Herodotus  fays,  that  the  Getes  be- 
 tie'ved  there  nxias  no  other  god  but  theirs.     Above,  p.    30- 
 34.     According  to  Mr.  Fell,  **  Plutarch  was  '^ery  care- 
 ful nevtx  to  attribute  this  opinion"    (viz.  That  the  gods 
 of  Egypt  had  been  men)  *'  to  the  Egyptian  priejls  ;"   and 
 yet  this  fame  Plutarch  declares,  t\\.e  priejls  did  affirm, 
 that  the  bodies  of  their  gods,  except  fuch  as  nvere  incorrup- 
 tible and  immortal,  lay  buried  ivith  themy       Above,  p. 
 165,  166.     Thus,  Mr.  Fell,  notwithftanding  his  decla- 
 ration   to    the  contrary,    Introduftion,    p.  viii.     does 
 impute    to  authors  opinions  they  neuer  maintained,  and  even 
 fuch  as  they  clearly  contradidl  or  overturn.     See  above, 
 p.  133,  etfeq.  and  p.  144,  177,  note^.     No  wonder  the 
 gentleman  is  rather  fparing  of  his  citations.     What   he 
 did  not  know  himfelf,  he  imagined  others  were  equally 
 ignorant  of.     He  fpeaks  as  if  no  proof  could  be  produ- 
 ced 
 
271  the  ancient  heathen  World.       49 1 
 
 deified  mortals*.  But  this  concefiion, 
 and  other  conceffions,  together  with  his 
 relying  more  on  etymological  deduftions 
 
 than 
 
 ced  of  the  humanity  of  O/fm,  (above,  p.  169,  note^,)  or 
 of  the  worfhip  of  a  man  under  the  name  oi  Bel,  ib.  p.  196, 
 note*;  and  as  if  there  were  no  decifive  evidence  of  mens 
 paying  religious  worlhip  to  a  human  fpirit  under  the 
 term  Jupiter y  p.  246.  in  a  note  ;  though  proof  of  the 
 humanity  ofOfiriswas  placed  before  him,  fee  above,  p. 
 169,  and  he  fhould  have  known  that  there  was  de- 
 cifive evidence  of  the  humanity  both  of  Bel  and  of 
 Jupiter.  He  confounds  the  Jupiter  of  the  temples  with 
 that  of  the  philofophers.  lb.  p.  298-300.  With  ref- 
 pe£l  to  Jupiter,  fee  alfo  p.  237.  He  fpeaks  of  the  doc- 
 trine of  Euhemerus  as  that  of  an  indi-vidual,  though  it 
 had  fpread  throughout  the  world.  Ib.  p.  235,  236. 
 It  is  not  of  one  or  two  particular  branches  of  his  fubjedl 
 that  he  was  ignorant,  but  of  the  whole  :  witnefs  his  ge- 
 neral declarations  concerning  the  heathen  gods.  Ib.  p. 
 484.  But  it  is  not  juftifiable  to  affirm  any  thing  as  a 
 faft,  while  we  are  ignorant  whether  it  be  true  or  falfe. 
 Much  lefs  is  it  allowable  to  affirm  what  is  clearly  and  cer- 
 tainly falfe,  in  fuch  aflured  language  as  implies  our 
 knowing  it  to  be  certainly  true.  See  ib.  p.  205,  206. 
 Yet  this  is  his  ufual  flyle  of  writing.  He  reprefents  the 
 grofleft  errors  as  certain  and  evident  truths.  *'  There 
 **  can  ht  no  doubt  but  that  the  Greeks  themfelves  have 
 »*  declared,  that  the  Egyptians  never  worfliipped  fuch 
 **  gods  as  had  been  men."     Ib.  p.    177,  note'.     He 
 
 fpcak-^ 
 5  Above,  p.  32Q, 
 
492     Worjljip  of  human  Spirits^  G?r, 
 
 than  on  the  concurring  teftimonies  of  all 
 ages,  feem  to  me  infuperable  difficulties 
 upon  his  fide  of  the  queftion.  On  whofe 
 lide  the  weight  of  evidence  preponderates 
 is  a  matter  that  muft  be  left  to  the  judge- 
 ment of  the  reader. 
 
 fpeaks  of  it  as  a  matter  *'  uni'ver/ally  kno'wn,  that  the 
 *'  Egyptians  never  paid  any  religious  honours  to  hero- 
 "  gods,'*  in  exprefs  contradi6lion  to  the  Greeks  them' 
 felves,  as  well  as  to  the  united  tellimonies  of  other  heathen 
 and  ofchriftian  writers.  lb.  p.  183,  note*.  See  ano- 
 ther example,  p.  237,  note  '^.  He  even  afRrms  that  **  all 
 •*  the  world  kne'w  the  heathen  gods  had  ne'ver  been 
 *'  men."  Fell's  Demon,  p.  no.  — If  the  reader  defires 
 to  fee  what  ungenerous  methods  this  writer  ufes  to  fup- 
 port  his  groundlefs  accufations,  he  may  turn  to  p. 
 353,  note  '',  in  the  preceding  fheets. 
 
 The  foregoing  inllances,  to  which  more  might  be 
 added,  are  fufficient  to  fhevv  what  opinion  we  are 
 to  form  of  Mr.  Fell,  as  a  writer,  even  upon  the 
 fubjed  which  he  has  been  allowed  to  handle  better  than 
 any  other.  And,  as  the  other  writers,  whom  he  hath 
 mifreprefented  or  mifunderftood,  are  not  chargeable 
 with  obfcurity,  I  hope  it  is  not  owing  to  any  fuch  caufe 
 that  he  has  given  a  falfe  or  erroneous  account  of  my  fen- 
 timcnts  on  almoft  every  article  of  importance. 
 
 THE     END. 
 
(     493     ) 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THE  account  given  of  the  heathen  gods  In  the  Dif- 
 fertation  on  Miracles  ftated,  and  cleared  from 
 mifreprefentations,  p.  i. 
 The  defign  of  the  prefent  publication  to  prove  the  gene- 
 ral  pre'valevce  of  the  'worjhip  of  human  fpir its  in  the  an- 
 cient heathen  ivorU,  p.  21.  The  proofs  either  refpeft 
 particular  nations,  or  are  of  a  more  general  nature, 
 and  equally  refpedl  all  the  moft  celebrated  nations  of 
 antiquity,  ibid.  The  ancient  nations  divided  into 
 two  clalTes,  the  barbarous  and  the  learned,  p.  22, 
 
 CHAP.    I. 
 
 Proving,  from  the  tellimonies  of  the  Heathens,  that 
 human  fpirits  were  worlhipped  in  the  nations  ufually 
 accounted  barbarous,  p.  23. 
 
 Sect.  I.  Particularly  in  thofe  which  have  been  fald  tp 
 hold  only  the  natural  gods,  p.  24.  l.  The  Scythi- 
 ans, ibid.  2.  The  MafTagetes,  p.  28.  3.  The 
 Getes,  p.  30.  4.  The  Goths,  p.  34.  5.  The  Ger- 
 mans, p.  38.  6.  The  Perfians,  p.  47.  7.  The  Ara- 
 bians, p.  84.     8.  The  Inhabitants  of  Meroe,  p.  90. 
 
 Sect.  II.  Other  barbarous  nations  worfhipped  human 
 fpirits,  p.  94. —  In  Africa,  the  .^Ethiopians,  p.  95. 
 Some  of  the  Libyan  Nomades,  p.  96.     The  Augi- 
 
 lites. 
 
494  CONTENTS. 
 
 lites,  p.  97.  Carthaginians,  ihid,  Atlantians,  p.  98^ 
 And  others,  p.  97-100.  —  In  Europe,  p.  100. 
 The  Celts,  ibid.  The  Iberians  and  Celtiberians, 
 p.  102.  The  Gauls,  p.  103.  TheThracians,  p.  n6, 
 —  In  Aiia,  p.  119.  The  Inhabitants  of  it's  nor- 
 thern parts,  p.  120.  Of  the  middle  and  fouthern, 
 p.  119-123.  And  of  the  eallern,  p.  123.  The  In- 
 dians, p.  124.  The  Pundits  of  Indoftan,  ibid.  The 
 The  Brachmans,  p.  124,  125.  The  people  of  Tar- 
 tar/, p.  126.  Siam,  ibid,  Tibet,  ibid,  China,  ibid» 
 Japan,  p.  127.  The  worihip  of  dead  men  in  the  na- 
 tions accounted  barbarous  was  \ try  general ^  p.  129, 
 And  almoil  univerfal,  and  fome  of  them  acknow- 
 ledged no  other  gods,  ibid, 
 
 CHAP.    IL 
 
 Proving,  from  the  telHmonies  of  the  Heathens,  that 
 human  fpirits  were  worfliipped  in  the  nations  poliihed 
 by  learning,  p.  132. 
 
 Sect.  I.  The  Phenicians,  p.  133.  Sect.  II.  The  E- 
 gyptians,  p.  146.  Sect. III.  The  AfTyrians,  Chal- 
 deans, and  Babylonians,  p.  184.  Sect.  IV.  The 
 Syrians,  p.  200.  Sect.  V.  The  Greeks,  p.  207* 
 Sect.  VI.  The  Romans,  p.  247.  —  In  the  foremen- 
 tioned  civilized  nations,  all  or  almojl  all  the  objefts 
 of  the  eftabliflicd  worihip  had  once  been  men ;  fuch 
 even  ^^w  great eji  gods  had  been,  p.  276-278. 
 
 CHAP.     III. 
 
 Containing  general  proofs  of  the  worihip  of  human  fpi* 
 
 rits  in  the  ancient  heathen  world,  p.  279.      Theffi 
 
 nfoofs  drawn  from  two  fources,  tejiimonies  ^YiAfaSsg 
 
 ibid-, 
 
 Sect* 
 
CONTENTS.  495 
 
 Sect.  I.  Proofs  from  tejlimonies,  ibid.  I.  The  tefli- 
 jnonies  of  the  heathen  poets,  p.  280.  II.  Philofo- 
 phers,  p.  296.  III.  And  hiftorians,  p.  308.  Mr. 
 Bryant's  objeftions  propofed   and  anfwered,  p.  320. 
 
 IV.  The  teftimonies  of  the  Chrillian  Fathers,  p.  341. 
 
 Sect.  II.  Proofs  iromfaSlsy  p.  357.  I.  The  heathen 
 fepulchres,  p.  358.  II.  Temples,  p.  373.  III.  Py- 
 ramids, p.  379.  IV.  Other  places  of  fepulture  and 
 religious  worfliip,  p.  389.  Caves,  p.  390.  (Mithras 
 worfhipped  in  a  cave,  p.  393.)  Houfes,  p.  398. 
 Highways,  ibid.  Groves,  p.  399.  Mountains,  p.  404. 
 
 V.  The  ftatues  and  images  of  the  gods,    p.  408. 
 
 VI.  The  rites  of  heathen  worfhip,  p.  417.  which 
 were  adapted  to  the  idea  the  Heathens  entertained  of 
 human  ghoils, /^/V.  Sacrifices  and  libations,  p.  427. 
 Blood,  p.  430.  Human  viftims,  ,  p.  432.  Other 
 rites  of  worlhip,  p.  447.  Mournings,  p.  448.  Ban- 
 quets, p.  453.  Games,  p.  454.  Myfteries  or  fecret 
 worfliip,  p.  45  8.  VII.  Divination  and  oracles,  p.  46 1 . 
 VIII.  The  remains  of  the  fame  kind  of  idolatrous 
 worlhip,  in  popilh  countries,  as  that  praftifed  by  the 
 Heathens,  p.  467.  The  arguments  from  fafts,  in 
 proof  of  the  humanity  of  the  gods,  as  extenfive  as 
 thofe  from  tellimony,  p.  483.  Recapitulation,  p. 
 480  to  the  end. 
 
•"r 
 
u 
 
DATE  DUE 
 
 CAVLORO