''mrnff >" 
 
 lK^-^5^- '^~ - * : 
 
 *. ^fft,v 
 
 ^:~^5lt^i^\ 
 
 ^^/UiV\\U\^ 
 
 "r^.^- V>5 
 
 
 
 x:^,^./Lr ^"w s 
 
 -r~^r7v, tfr fit ^- 

 
 Ex Libris 
 C. K. OGDEN 
 
 
 / ^ 
 
 mm 
 
 /MWf/
 
 . 
 
 ^ s. 
 
 
 lit 
 
 N.SSSS
 
 THE 
 
 General Prevalenc 
 
 OF THE 
 
 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 habetis veftris, 
 
 mortalium fuftuliftis ex numero, et coelo fideribufquc 
 
 donaftis? Arnobius, adv. Gentes, p. ^\. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed by G A L A B I N and BAKER, 
 
 FOB. 
 
 J. BUCKLAND, and G. ROBINSON, in Pater- 
 nofter Row, and T. CAD ELL, in the Strand. 
 
 M.DCC.LXXXIII.
 
 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 5 whether the objects 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 Mefliah. Ne,- 
 verthelefs, a few reflections may ferve to 
 convince us, that a critical knowledge of 
 thefe fubje&s may anfwer many vajua^ 
 ble purpofes. 
 
 A % i. It
 
 i . It is evidently necefiary to imprefs 
 us with a due fenfe of the high impor- 
 tance of the Jewifh and Chriftian difperr- 
 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 pofli- 
 bly fet a juft value upon our deliverance 
 from it. In order to eftimate this aright, 
 we mufl know what the objects, and 
 alfo what the rites, of heathen worfhip, 
 were ; what immoral actions are afcri- 
 bed to the former -, 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 Jewifh 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 bletfing, by direct- 
 ing all religious worfhip to the only pro- 
 per
 
 J)er object of it, the one true God, the om- 
 nipotent Creator and righteous Governor 
 of the whole world 3 and, by eflablifhing a 
 ritual, that was chafte, inftru&ive, and, 
 to a people fo difpofed and circumflanced 
 as the Ifraeiites were, neceffary to pre- 
 ferve them from idolatry. Thofe, whd 
 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 lavifti in its praife. This makes it 
 the more neceflkry,.that Chriftians, with 
 an honeft difdam of all partiality, fliould 
 inform themfelves what it really was. 
 " 2. An accurate knowledge of the hea- 
 then idolatry ferves to manifest 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 and the Meffiah. If the heathen 
 gods were no other than the obje6h of 
 nature*" and fuch human fpirits as were 
 fuppofed to prefide over them, then the 
 A 3 miracles,
 
 miracles, 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 fictitious 
 deities. 
 
 3 . The miracles of the old Teftament 
 were defigned not merely for the confuta- 
 tion, but alfo, in fome cafes, for the pn- 
 nifhment, of idolatry. If this falfe wor- 
 (hip was, what fome reprefent it, merely a 
 fpeculative and innocent error, it will be 
 difficult to vindicate the difpleafureof God 
 againft it. But we know that it confift- 
 ed in the practice of the very worft crimes ; 
 luch as inceft*, fodomyf, beftiality, 
 
 Thisfubjeftis well illuftrated by Dr. H. Owen, in 
 his fermons at Mr. Boyle's lefture. 
 
 * 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. ./Elian. Animal, c. 19. Jn Canaan, Levit. 
 xviii. 14. 
 
 and
 
 C vii ) 
 
 and every poflible fpecies of impurity j iri 
 the murder alfo of innocent children, and 
 various other cruelties. Every abomina* 
 tion to Jehovah which he hafetb*, that iSj 
 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 neceffrty, of thofe 
 fevere methods, ufed to reft rain the idol- 
 atry of Egypt and Canaan. 
 
 4. Juft ideas of the antient idolatry 
 will enable us todifcover a farther reafon. 
 for the pumfhment 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 
 commiflions others to act as the minifters 
 of his j uftice. As the rites of idolatry con* 
 iifted in the indulgence of fenfnal and o* 
 ther criminal paffions, fothe gods 
 
 A 4 felves
 
 ( viii ) 
 
 (elves Were examples b of the crimes prac* 
 tifed in their worfhip. Now, whenever 
 yice comes to be confidered as a divine 
 quality as well as an aft of devotion, or, 
 in other words, when it is pradifed both 
 in honour, and in imitation, of the gods, 
 it is hereby authorifed and fanftined j and 
 men muft fink into the loweft degeneracy. 
 Their very underftandings as well as 
 their hearts muft be fo depraved, that 
 no other evidence or arguments can pro- 
 duce a powerful and feeling conviction of 
 the purity of the divine Being, and of his 
 abhorrence of idolatry with its attend- 
 ant vices, but immediate and miraculous 
 difplays of hisjuflice 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. 
 
 b Concerning the fhocking immoralities of the gods, 
 fee below, p. 281. and Lucian, v. i. p. 326. ed. Amitel. 
 Their vices are fo well known, that they need not be 
 enumerated j 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 dojie. Their 
 example was often pleaded in juftification of the worft 
 crimes. 
 
 5. Idol*
 
 ( ix ) 
 
 5 . Idolatry, however, was not the means 
 of moral corruption equally in all coun- 
 Jries. Human facrifices c , for example, 
 and, perhaps, fome other flagitious rites 
 of idolatry d , were not fo common in 
 Egypt as in Canaan. And this diffe 
 rence accounts for the different dealings 
 of God with thofe nations. The iov 
 piety of Egypt, a country enlightened by 
 fcience 6 , even in the days of Mofes, and 
 its cruel oppreflion of the Ifraelites, defer- 
 ved very fevere chaftifement 3 efpecially, 
 after an obflinate refinance of the moil 
 awakening and powerful means of con- 
 
 c Notwithftanding what Herodotus (1. 2. c. 45.) has 
 offered to the contrary, the Egyptians did fometimes 
 (though not often) ftain their altars with human blood., 
 See Eufebius, 1. 4. c. 16. Porphyry de Abftinent. 
 1. 2. .55. Theodoret, Serm. vii. p. 589. Butthishor- 
 rid rite of idolatry was very frequently pra&ifed by the 
 Canaanites, and withcircumftances of fingular barbari- 
 ty ; as appears from the hiilory of their defcendents. at 
 Carthage. Few are ftrangers to the account given of 
 their cruel facrifices by Diodorus Siculus, Eufcbius, and 
 other writers. It is abridged by Mr, Bryant, in his Qk- 
 fervations, p. 278 et feq. 
 
 d Herodotus tells us, that the Egyptians were the r;l 
 who would not allow the ufe of women in their temples. 
 L. 2. c. 64. Afts vii. 22. 
 
 vi6Hon.
 
 Viftiori. But the Canaanites, befides re- 
 Ming the fame, and even additional e- 
 vidence, were funk into a deeper corrup- 
 tion ; and were, for this reafon f , difpo- 
 fefTed and deflroyed. Many nations, and 
 the Jews in particular, have, in the courfe 
 of God's common providence, fuffered 
 an almoft total extirpation. But never 
 did any people more deferve fuch an axv- 
 ful ftroke of juftice than the Canaanites. 
 Nor was this more an aft of juftice thail 
 of mercy to a people fo refolutely bent 
 upon their own definition. 
 
 6. A knowledge of the heathen deities 
 is neceflary to juftify the cenfure pafled 
 upon them by the prophets of God, and 
 to vindicate the proofs of their own di- 
 vine authority. In the Englifh tranfla- 
 tion of the bible s , and in the writings of 
 moft Chriflians, the pagan deities are re- 
 prefented as devils ; and devils have been 
 
 f The cruelty and pollutions of their worfhip are ex- 
 prcifly affigned as the ground of their punilhment. Levit, 
 xviii. 24, 25. Bcut. xii. 31. 
 
 8 Levit. xvii. 7. Deut. xxxvii. 17. 2 Chron. xi. 15. 
 Pf. cyi. 37. t Cor. x. 30, 21. 
 
 generally
 
 generally thought to have very great 
 power over the natural world, and to be 
 able to perform real, or (which, in effect, 
 is the fame thing) feeming, 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 h , 
 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 character, of the pro- 
 phets of God. The heathens afcribed, to 
 the objects of their worfhip, prophecies 
 and miracles, and the power of doing 
 both good and evil to mankind ; and on 
 this ground afferted 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 worfhip of 
 
 h Fell, Demoniacs, p. 60, fee alfo p. 57. Some pre- 
 tend that devils perfonated the heathen gods : a point 
 that is examined in Differt. on Mir. p. 2^0-247. 
 
 mankind.
 
 mankind. Slew us things for to come her e- 
 
 af(er y chat ive may know that ye are gods ; 
 
 yea, do good or do evil, that we may be dif- 
 
 mi.jcd, or " then ft all be ft ruck at once with 
 
 a> "iir^tlon ana 7 terror 1 ." But, behold, ye are 
 
 Icjs than nothing, and your operation is lefs 
 
 tlar nought *. Let us fuppofe that the 
 
 heathen ^ods 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 actually ex- 
 
 " erted, and therefore certainly pofTefs, the 
 
 <e powers and prerogatives we afcribe to 
 
 " them, and which you deny them. Mori 
 
 " falfely therefore do you affirm, that 
 
 " they-)- and their operations are nothing^ 
 
 " and lefs than nothing. They have given 
 
 <e you the very proofs you required of their 
 
 " being gods ; and therefore, upon your 
 
 cc own principles, you ought now to ac- 
 
 " knowledge them under this character. 
 
 " To pretend, after the point is deci- 
 
 " ded, that all you meant was, that 
 
 If. xli. 23. Bp. Lowthin loc. * .24. Id. 
 f Compare Jerem. xxxi. 15. cited below, p. xxxiii. 
 
 " they
 
 ( .xUi 
 
 C 5 they..are nothing 072fy as gods, is merepre- 
 
 ' lf varication ; it is flying from your own 
 c{ propofal,- and rejecting the evidence of 
 " their .divinity you declared you would 
 
 1 <( admit," If the Scripture teaches any 
 tiling with clearnefs and certainty, it is this ; 
 that the heathen gods are abfolutely in- 
 capable of interpofmg at all in human af- 
 fairs V And the truth of this r^prefen- 
 tation will be allowed by fuch as kno\y 
 that thofe gods were no other than ei- 
 
 .ther the objects of .nature or deified men ; 
 
 "the ^former, being merely the paffive in- 
 ilruments of.providence, and the latter 
 having no intercourfe with this lower 
 world 1 . If any of the rivals of the true 
 God can perform or imitate real rnira^ 
 cles, how can we vindicate the ufe which 
 the Scripture makes of thefe works, as 
 immediate divine atteftatiohs to the mif- 
 fion and doctrine of a prophet ? 
 
 7. A right uncjerftanding of the 
 change idolatry underwent, in the inter- 
 
 * See DifTert. on Mir. p. 233-239. 
 J Id. p. 161, et feq.
 
 val ^"between Mofes and the Mefliah, 
 ferves to fhew how perfectly both their 
 institutions 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 constituent 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 j 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 world the moft feafona- 
 ble as well as ftriking confutation of 
 the claims of thofe gods, and demon- 
 ilration of his own character, as fole 
 monarch of the univerfe. He might have 
 
 delivered
 
 delivered his people from the bondage of 
 Egypt, and put them into the poffeflion 
 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 necefTary inftruftion. And it 
 was doubtlefs with the view of conveying 
 this inftru6lion, 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 Mefliah, 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 fpirit of enquiry began to 
 prevail in the civilized nations, the divi- 
 nity of nature was called in queftkm. 
 Even the fun, moon, and ftars, wereconfi- 
 dered, by many of the Greek philofophers, 
 as inanimate fubflances, long before the 
 
 commencement
 
 C xvi ) 
 
 commencement of the Chriftian sera, 
 Cotta, who lived near it, diftinguifhes 
 between the gods and the objects of na- 
 ture, which had been confounded toge^ 
 her. And Plutarch, who lived fomewhat 
 later, argues largely againft thofe, wlip 
 gave the names of gods to things that had 
 neither fenfe nor foul". The doctrine of 
 the divinity of nature had loft coniiderable 
 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. Beiides, ma- 
 ny eminent philofophers, and Plato in 
 particular, had taught feveral centuries 
 
 m Cotta objects againft the Eleufmian and other myf- 
 teries, " that, being explained, and reduced to the itan- 
 ' dardof reafon, we were made acquainted rather with 
 " the nature of things than with *&?<&." Quibus ex- 
 plicatis, ad rationemque revocatis, rerum magis natura 
 cognofciturquamdeorum. Ap. Cicer. Nat. Deor. 1. 1, 
 0.42. 
 
 " Plutarch. If. & Ofir, p. 377* 
 
 before
 
 ( xvil ) 
 
 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, were to be worfhipped andinvoked. 
 This doctrine was in fuch high reputa- 
 tion, when the Gofpel was firft 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-)-. 
 
 In thefe circumflances there was a pe- 
 culiar propriety in affording 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 earth; to 
 whom angels, principalities, and pow- 
 ers, fpirits of every rank and order, are 
 
 Diflert. on Mir. p. 181. f WhitbyonColoff.ii. 18. 
 
 * i Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6. i Tim. ii. 5. 
 
 b made
 
 ( xviii ) 
 
 made fubjeft; and who is the on ly me- 
 diator between God and man, the only 
 perfon appointed to convey divine blef- 
 fings to us, and in whofe name alone 
 we are to prefent our addrefles to God. 
 Chrift eftablifhed his claim to be Lord of 
 mankind, without any rival, by the ex- 
 ercife of a miraculous power over their 
 bodies and minds, by rifing from the 
 dead to take pofleilion of his univerfal 
 kingdom j and by difpenfing 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 perfect correfpondence of the 
 different inititutions of Mofes and the 
 Meffiah to the flate of the world, at the 
 refpective times of their being introduced, 
 may be farther illurtrated on another im- 
 portant article, that of a future Hate. 
 
 The want of explicit information 
 concerning this ftate, in the religion of 
 Mofes, has been often urged as an objec- 
 tion againfl it ; to which a knowledge 
 
 of
 
 of the heathen idolatry will enable us id 
 return a fatisfadlory 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 foul^ Now this fpecies of 
 idolatry fprang up in Egypt and Pheni- 
 cia, before the time of Mofes, and was 
 even pra6lifed by the Ifraelites in the 
 wildernefsj as will be fhewn hereafter* 
 Confequently, the principle, upon which 
 this practice was founded, mufi have 
 been received by them in the days of the 
 Jewifh legiflator. In thefe circumftan- 
 ces, could it be necefTary to inculcate 
 upon the Ifraelites the doctrine 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 miftakes con- 
 cerning it. With this view, the Ifrael- 
 
 P " The law, which commands thofe consecrated from. 
 " amongit men to be worfhipped, ihews that that fouls of 
 " all are immortal." Cicero, cited in the following 
 fheets, together with others who hold the fame language. 
 P. 303,304. 
 
 b 2
 
 ites were inftrufted, that death was not, 
 in itfelf, the blefling they imagined, but 
 was the penalty of man's difobedience, 
 and a (landing monument of God's dif- 
 pleafure againfl it j that it reduced to 
 duft all of man that was taken from the 
 duft, that is, his corporeal frame ; and, 
 confequently, that, inftead of advancing 
 him to divine dominion over the world, 
 it deftroyed all his communication 
 with it, whjch 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 diftinguifhed perfonage whom 
 he fhould appoint, and who was to 
 be, in a peculiar manner, the feed of the 
 'woman. Thus, while Mofes laid a foun- 
 dation for faith in God and the hope of 
 redemption, and warned men againft 
 expecting this ineftimable bleffing in 
 a courfe of difobedience, he fubverted 
 the very foundation of the worfhip 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 worfhip of the heavenly bodies. The 
 do6lrine 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 eftablifn 
 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 other/wife in the 
 days of Chrift. Many then taught, that 
 the foul of man perifhes with his body, 
 and, confequently, that there would be no 
 refurre6rion of the-dead, nor flate 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 commiffion to difpenfethis bleflmg. 
 And what more proper evidence of both 
 could there be, than his raifing others to 
 life, and his own refurretion 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 ourrefurrectionand 
 of aftate of future retribution. Themefhod 
 of our redemption from death by Jefus 
 Chrifl is no doubt the voluntary appoint- 
 ment of God, and undifcoverable by rea- 
 fon ; neverthelefs, fo far is it from over- 
 turning, that it illuftrates and confirms, 
 the natural proofs of a future ftate, 
 drawn from the moral perfe<5lions of the 
 Deity, and at the fame time removes 
 every prefumption againft it, ariiing from 
 the definition of our prefent corporeal 
 frame. The publication of this doctrine, 
 of life and immortality was never more 
 necefTary than in the time of Chrifl; and 
 
 this,
 
 ( xxiii ) 
 
 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 neceflary 
 to explain the language of antiquity. 
 Opinions have a neceflary influence upon 
 language; and we are very liable to mi- 
 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 
 connected with the fubjecl: of the fol- 
 lowing fheets. 
 
 It has be en faid, that, according to He* 
 rodotus q , the Egyptians were the firfr. 
 who afTerted 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 
 
 1 Herodot. 1. 2. C. 123. U^uroi $i xan rovSs rov >,oyo 
 
 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 r , 
 or over the region of the dead ; adds, 
 that they alfo were the firfl who taught 
 this doctrine concerning the immortality 
 of the human foul, viz. that, upon the 
 death of the body, it pafled into another 
 animal, till, after having in the fpace 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 feveral Grecians claimed 
 this doctrine as their own invention. 
 According to Maximus Tyrius', Pytha- 
 goras was the firfl who had courage to 
 broach it in Greece, grounding it upon 
 
 r Tut xa,ru. 
 
 " Diflert. xxviii. p. 286 ed. Davif. IlfSayogaj 3v e T 
 
 TOtJ EAAlJO'H' EToA/X.VJC7)' EI7TEIV OT O.VTO TO [tey ?6J- 
 
 , v> ot ^v%iti ouicnrTa-irst ct%r>p'i7a,i a3ai>;? y.xi a.- 
 
 KKl /Xe EfKSH IT>JV TT^tV r.K'.V til-aa. 
 
 the
 
 ( XXV ) 
 
 the pre-exiftence of the foul. From this 
 account it appears, that the do6lrine of 
 the fubfiftence of feparate fouls in a fub- 
 terraneous region was received by the E- 
 gyptians before that of their tranfmigra- 
 tion j and that the latter was an innova- 
 tion, which was not relifhed by the 
 Greeks when it was firfl publifhed. In- 
 deed, long before the time of theSamian 
 philofopher, the Greeks worfhipped their 
 heroes, andconfequently believed the im- 
 mortality of the foul. And, amongft the 
 Egyptians, the doctrine of its migration 
 from a human to a brutal body mufl 
 have been later than theworfhip 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 necefTa- 
 rily prefuppofes a belief of the diftinclion 
 between foul and body, and the perma 7 
 nence of the former, after the dhTolu- 
 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 fhew how far a knowledge 
 of the antiquity of the worfhip of dead 
 men may enable us to fix the meaning of 
 the word death -m the threatening denoun- 
 ced againft Adam". If human fpirits 
 were worfhipped (as it will be {hewn they 
 
 * Some have pleaded that the belief of a future ftate 
 took it's rife from the funeral rites of the Egyptians, de- 
 fcribed by Diodorus Siculus*. It may be granted, that the 
 fi&ions of the 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 illu.Jira.tion or defcripthn 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. Befides, 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 objects of their 
 worlhip. Indeed the very reafon of burying their kings 
 in pleafant meadows was a prior perfuafion that after 
 death the foul did often inhabit, at leaft for a time, the 
 place where the body was depofited. 
 
 * Lib. i. p. 102, 103, 107, ro8. Ed. Weff. 
 
 " 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 
 deflruction 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- 
 five fenfe, he would (as he well knew) 
 have been mifunderflood by the Egyp- 
 tians, who aflerted the immortality of 
 the foul w , 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 deftruftion of the bo- 
 dy only, As this is a point on which 
 
 v It appears from Herodotus that this principle was 
 holdenin very ancient times by the Egyptians, but their 
 worfhip demonflrates that they held it before the time of 
 JVlofes. 
 
 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 effectually than re- 
 prefenting the foul of Adam as a mere 
 quality ', or as the refult of the peculiar 
 flructure and organization of his body -, 
 yet, fo far is he from fuppofmg this to be 
 the cafe, that, according to him, after 
 the body of the firft man was perfectly 
 organized by the immediate hand of hea- 
 ven, he did not become a living foul or 
 perfon*, till God breathed into his nojlrih 
 the breath of life 7 : a principle diftinct 
 
 x That nephejh often fignifies 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- 
 iifting 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- 
 rifhed 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 /- 
 oifible to human fight, called by the 
 Hebrews, Jheol, and by the Greeks, hades*; 
 and that, in this place, perfons of the 
 fame nation, tribe, and family, and alfo 
 thofe who were united in the bonds of 
 friendfhip, afibciated, and dwelt toge- 
 
 z The Greeks affigned 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 are fpoken of in Homer and the moft ancient hea- 
 then writers. 
 
 ther.
 
 ( XXX ) 
 
 ther*. The facred writers entertained 
 the fame opinion, fuppofed the fouls of 
 the dead to exift in Jheol or hades*, and 
 that, in the distribution of them, regard 
 was had to the former relation in which 
 they flood to one another 6 . It is in ma- 
 nifefl allufion to this opinion, that the 
 
 facred 
 
 Homer. Odyff. xi. paffinl. The ghofls of Achilles 
 and his friend Patroclus were in company together, ib. v. 
 466, 467. Lucian fpeaks of the dead as divided x.ar 
 T fSf>j jti 0sX. Necuomanteia, v. i. p, 334. 
 
 b The references in Scripture to the abode of the fouls 
 of the dead are exceeding numerous. Many of them 
 are taken notice of in EJj'ay on the Demoniacs, p. 21 1 et 
 feq. and below in note c . In Job, ch. xxvi. 5, it is 
 faid in the original, The giants (probably the ghofts of 
 thofe who perilhed in the flood) tremble under the wa- 
 ters, together with their fellow inhabitants. This verlion, 
 which was given in the EJfay, (ubi fupra,) has iince 
 been confirmed by the higheft authority, fofar, I mean, 
 as ferves my purpofe in this place : 
 
 The mighty dead tremble from beneath : 
 
 The waters, and they that dwelt therein* 
 
 Bp Lowth's Ifaiah, Prelim. Differt. p. xv. 
 
 c To this diftribution there is a reference in Ezek. 
 xxxii. 22. and alfo in thofe words afcribed to Samuel, 
 I Sam. xxviii. 19. Tomorrow Jhalt thou (Saul) and thy 
 fons be with me, that .is, in Jhecl, or common receptacle 
 of the dead. I cannot forbear obferving here, that 
 
 there
 
 ( xxxi ) 
 
 facred writers defcribe the dead as being 
 gathered to their people, and that Jacob, 
 under the diftreffing apprehenfion of the 
 death of Jofeph, faid, I will go down into 
 Jheol unto my fon*. When Jacob uttered 
 thefe words, he believed that Jofeph had 
 been devoured by wild beads -, and there- 
 fore, by Jheol, he could not mean the 
 grave, but the receptacle of the dead. As 
 this language is recorded by Mofes, he 
 mufl 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 Jheol the Hebrews 
 included both paradife and gehenna, as the Greeks did 
 elyjium and tartarus under hades. If the Greeks fuppo- 
 fed the manfion of the dead to be fubterraneous, fo did 
 the Hebrews : for what is faid, I Sam. xxviii. 14. of 
 Samuel's afcending, that is, from the earth, was certain- 
 ly fpoken agreeably to the prevailing opinion of thofe 
 times. Amongft the Greeks, fouls, though they exifted 
 in hades, were thought to be ignorant of what paffed 
 in the world. According to Homer, Odyfi". 1. xi. v. 
 456. et feq. the phantom of Agamemnon defired to 
 be informed by Ulyfles where his fon reigned. As to 
 the Hebrews, their notion of the dead was the fame-. 
 If. Ixiii. 1 6. In the Scriptures as well as in other wri- 
 tings, the receptacle of the dead is figuratively defcri- 
 bed as a houfc with its gates and keys. Job xxxviii. 17. 
 Rev. xviii. d Gen. xxxvii. 35. 
 
 conceive
 
 ( xxxii ) 
 
 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 fubfiflence of the foul, and has 
 even given it a divine fanclion : for he 
 reprefents God, as making this promife 
 to Abraham, fflou foalt 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 
 from thofe ufed by perfons, who certain- 
 ly acknowledged the continuance of the 
 foul after it. If we read in the Pfalms f , 
 that the dead (rephaim, the ghofls) pralfe 
 not God> the fon of Sirach 5 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 ; 
 
 * Gen. xv. 15. f Pf. Ixxxviii. 10. 
 
 8 Ecclefiafdcus xvii. 28. 
 
 but
 
 ( xxxiii ) 
 
 but not to plead that fleep is not a ftate 
 of non-exiftence, but of reft, it is well 
 known that this foft image of death was 
 commonly ufed to exprefs the thing it- 
 felf by thofe who afTerted the exiltence of 
 fouls in hades h . Other terms by which 
 the flate of the dead is defcribed, fuch as 
 filence> oblivion^ darknefs y and corruption, re- 
 fer only to the body, or to the fuppofed flate 
 of the foul while it was mjheol, and are not 
 peculiar to the facred writers, but were 
 common in all countries 1 , where both the 
 popular belief and the eftablifhed worihip 
 were inconfiflent with the notion of the 
 foul's perifhing with the body. That 
 ftrongexpreflionof Rachel upon the death 
 of her children, they are nof k t 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 
 
 h See Homer, Iliad II. 454. ' 
 
 1 See Windet dc vita fimftorum ftatu, feft. 2. p. u. 
 et feq. 
 
 k Jerem. xxxi. 15. 
 
 c foregoing
 
 ( xxxiv ) 
 
 foregoing defcriptions of death eafily 
 may, and necefTarily muft, be under- 
 flood 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 necefTary, 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 diftinclion 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 Teftament defcribe 
 death by a departure* ', that is, of the 
 foul from the body to another ftate. In 
 this departure^ therefore, they mufl have 
 thought death to confift : and confe- 
 quently the great Jewilh prophet had 
 the fame idea of it. It muft be obferved, 
 
 n E|o& ? , Lukeix. 31. See Grotius, Whitby, and 
 Wetftein, on this place. 
 
 Fifthly,
 
 ( 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 exifled in Jheol, were 
 not reprefented as being alive, or as //- 
 ut'ng, except in refpect to the purpofe of 
 God to reftore them to life. But, when 
 their fouls were removed from fheol or 
 hades, and united a fecond time to a hu- 
 man body, then they were faid to live a- 
 gain j being now 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 doctrine 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 9 . 
 This refers to the period fpoken of by 
 Herodotus, after which fouls returned 
 
 ~Eviy%vt\ TTCIQ t/To; o Ili/Saya^a TvoySV, crt T? 4:pC*> TU * 
 tuSfUTTuv aSa^ara? tt)<a a-vpJet^xt, x $S ITUV u^apwur no,- 
 ?.!) *! si; STf^ov ffuif.u, TJJ 1 ] / t r pC'i$ ^ff^vo[i,mr,<;f DlOU. SlC. 
 
 I. v. p. 352. Weff. 
 
 C 2 to
 
 ( xxxvi ) 
 
 to human bodies. The grand Lama was 
 faid to die only in appearance ; becaufe 
 he was fuppofed to be born in a new hu- 
 man body, in die very inftant he quit- 
 ted the old one p . 
 
 It is of more importance ftill to examine 
 the language and fentiments of the Jews 
 on this fubjecT:. It is commonly allowed 
 that the Jews, from the time of their re- 
 turn from Babylon q , 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 fefts amongft them, the 
 ElTenes r and Pharifees 8 , and of the whole 
 
 body 
 
 p Above, p. 126. 
 
 ^ That they ahvays 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. 
 
 r Jofeph. Bell. Jud. 1. 2. c. 8. $. II. E^wrai ita.( ctv- 
 
 * They believed that the foul was immortal ; 
 tffyt'f raj r^f^aw; wr? atToic tv ; and that the fouls of 
 good men had (^arw,* T avac^x) power to re-vive or liv? 
 
 again*
 
 ( xxxvii ) 
 
 body of the people 1 , almoft without ex- 
 ception", in the time of our Saviour. 
 To this principle the Pharifees (the 
 moil numerous feel: amongft the Jews, 
 and whofe doctrine formed the popular 
 creed) added another, viz. the refur- 
 reclion of the dead v . 1* hefe two prin- 
 ciples were thought to be clofely con- 
 nected. The Sadducees believed the 
 extinction of the foul at death, and did 
 not admit the refurrection : the Pharifees, 
 on the other hand, admitted the latter 
 and denied the former. I cannot find a 
 fmgle example, before the time of Chrift, 
 
 again. Jofeph Antiq. 1. 18. c. I. .3. The fame hif- 
 t6riarr, in his Bel. }ud. 1. z. c. 8. . 14. confirms the 
 above account of them : they believed that every foul 
 was incorruptible ; but that the foul of the good alone went 
 into another body ; ptTc<amn/ E*? STSJOX crwp* rw ruv ctyufyut 
 porn*. 
 
 * The people followed the Pharifees. 
 
 u The Sadducees were the only exception. They 
 taught that the foul perifhed with the body. Zaosy.ai<? 
 
 Si T? 'jt'PC*? Xoy^ ffvta.$a.t\Zfi Ton; <rup.a,?i, Jofeph. Alt- 
 tiq. 1. r8. C. 1. . 4. Tp%''7? ft TV* <hatu.orw etvet^syi. 
 B. IX. I. 2. c. 8. $. 14. Aft. xxiii. 
 
 w See above, note s , and Afts xxiii. 8. The Jews 
 in general agreed with the Pharifees in maintaining a 
 refurre&ion. 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 exprefled 
 the refurreclion 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 pafiage already 
 cited x , and may be confirmed by many 
 others. T*he king of the 'world Jhall raife 
 us up unto eoerlafling life, faid one of the 
 feven children fpok.cn of in the book of 
 Maccabees 7 ; which is equivalent to that 
 language of their mother, God will give 
 you life and breath again 2 ". She alfo ap- 
 plies to them thofe words of God, / ///, 
 and I make alive. Thofe who died for 
 the law were encouraged to expect a re- 
 vivifcence* . 
 
 The queftion here is, what is meant 
 by this revivifcence, or return to 
 life, by which the refurreftion is de& 
 
 * See above, note*. * 2 Maccab. vii. 9. 
 z Ib. v. 22. 
 
 naXjyJJmna. Jofephus, de Maccab. p. 1101, E. 
 F. ap, Whitby on Mat. x#ij. 30. p. 191. 
 
 cribed ?
 
 ( xxxix ) 
 
 cribed ? Did the Jews hereby mean cre- 
 ating anew the foul that had been de- 
 flroyed? 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 refurrection 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 contradiction to their belief of 
 the diflinction between foul and body, 
 and the feparate exiftence of the former. 
 What then did they or could they mean 
 by the refurrection to life, but the reite- 
 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 effeft the 
 fame ? In virtue of this re-union, the dead 
 man became a living man, the fame as he 
 was before he died, with the fame con- 
 fcioufnefs and recollection, the principle 
 of confcioufnefs having never perifhed. 
 c 4 Hence
 
 Hence they fpeak of the martyrs as be- 
 ing received, dying" ', by Abraham ; and re- 
 prefent the fouls of the righteous in the 
 intermediate ftate as being in the hand of 
 GoJ, and having hopes full df immortality* y 
 or of a refurreftion to eternal life. Far- 
 ther to confirm the preceding account 
 of a refurreclion and revivifcence, I 
 muft obferve that Jofephus, who on all 
 occaiions after ted the feparate exiflence 
 of the foui d , has himfelf explained thefe 
 terms by the return of the foul of a dead 
 perfonto it's body. Elijah, according 
 to this hiflorian, having promifed to 
 reftore a dead child to his mother alive', 
 prayed to God to fend back his foul into 
 him* find to grant him life\ and the child 
 lived again*. 
 
 b Whitby, ubi fupra. 
 
 Wifdom, iii. i, 4. 
 
 A Pofleffing demons, according to him, were the fouls 
 of wicked men. Bel. Jud. I. 7. c. 6. .3. He was a 
 Pharifee, and confequently had adopted the principles 
 of his fedl. See above, note *, p. xxxvi. 
 
 ' E^EITO TE T*i ^'J'^iV SlO~7T/x4/ai TJ-aXkl* TU TfOLMy V.tt.\ TTOt- 
 
 t*<rj(jM a-^ru TO?^. Jofeph. Anti-j. 1. 8. c. 13. . 3. 
 Comp. i Kings xvii. 21. * A(ow. 
 
 I do
 
 I do not appeal to the Jews as au- 
 thorities to determine points of doc- 
 trine, nor can I aflent to all that they 
 have faid concerning the condition of 
 the foul in the interval between death 
 and the refurrection, 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- 
 furretfion, revii)ifcence y 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 {ignification. 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 lan- 
 guage by their contemporaries, fancy 
 alone muft be our interpreter. Now, 
 if we know what life, when it expref- 
 
 fes
 
 fes the refurrection, is, we cannot but 
 underftand the meaning of death it's op- 
 pofite j and, confequently, as the former 
 lignifies the foul's return to a huma-i bo- 
 dy, the latter denotes it's feparation. 
 Both terms imply the continuance of 
 the foul after death: a principle held 
 univerfally in themoft ancient times' 1 , 
 and which gives great probability to the 
 doctrine of a refurrecrion: a doctrine of 
 the higheft importance in the view of 
 all Chriftians, and the grand object of 
 their faith and hope. 
 
 i o.I 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 character of that di- 
 vine legiflator. But I cannot enlarge 
 here upon this fubject 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 \vas holden, we have feen, by Heathens and Jews, 
 by patriarchs and prophets, and by the people, parti- 
 cularly in the times of Mofes and the Mefliah. 
 
 quainted
 
 ( xliii ) 
 
 quainted with the objefts and rites of hea- 
 then worfhip, are equally applicable to al- 
 mofl all the opinions and cuftoms 1 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 inflru6tive as it 
 is entertaining ! k For want of this know- 
 ledge, Chriftians have miftaken pagan 
 tenets for the genuine doclrines 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 reflections, however de- 
 feftivc, are, never thelefs, a fufficient a- 
 pology for any attempt to bring thofe ac- 
 
 1 See the learned Mr. Parkhurft's Preface to his He- 
 brew Lexicon. 
 
 k Obfervations on divers pafiages 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 (hall enable them to 
 form a judgement for themfelves upon 
 the fubjecl:, without relying upon the de- 
 cifion of others. I propofe, 
 
 I. To mew 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 
 fyftem 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, 
 
 I V . To examine how far the reprefenta- 
 tion of the pagan gods, in Scripture, agrees 
 with that made of them in the writings of 
 the Heathens j or, how far the two accounts 
 mutually ill uftrate and confirm each other. 
 
 The firfl of thefe articles, alone, is the 
 fubjecl: of the prefent publication ; and 
 
 it
 
 it is eftablifhed upon evidence indepen- 
 dent of the reft ; fo that it may be fitly 
 confidered as a diiUnft treatife, fuch as 
 might have been published by itfelf, 
 though no other were to follow. But 
 the other articles are in a ftate of great 
 preparation for the prefs. 
 
 The fubjecl of the following flieets 
 was touched upon in a former publica- 
 tion, but was then neceflarily circumlcri- 
 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 the reputation of the 
 antient nations, has of late difpofed fome 
 learned writers to take pains to clear feve- 
 ral of them from the reproach of worfliip- 
 ing dead men. It has been faid by fome, 
 that this worfhip did not obtain amongft 
 the antient Perfians. Others have affirm- 
 ed the fams concerning the Germans, 
 before their conqueft by the Romans. 
 A foreigner of great diclinftion, *Ja- 
 i) has attempted to prove that dead 
 
 men
 
 ( xlvi ) 
 
 men were not worfhipped by the Egyp* 
 ttans. Dr. Blackwell, in his Letters on 
 Mythology , maintains that the gods of the 
 greater nations 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 1 ". To thefe modern 
 writers I might oppofe a great number 
 of other moderns no way inferior to them ; 
 but the queftion before us muft be deter- 
 mined by evidence. 
 
 There is another writer", whom I 
 fhould never have thought of in any con- 
 nection with thofe already mentioned, 
 had he had not tranfcribed the objections 
 of Dr. Blackwell ; which he has done 
 without acknowledging his obligation. 
 This gentleman has been pleafed to ho- 
 
 1 P. 276, 277, 278, et paffim. He can fcarce be un- 
 derftood as fpeaking of the objefts of the eftabliihed 
 worflnp. See p. 209. 
 
 m Mr. Bryant's Mythology. V. I. p. 454, 455-. 
 
 The Rev. J. Fell, in atreatife 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 -, moil 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 conduct 
 which does him no honour, and farther 
 ferves to (hew his diftrefs : I refer to hi? 
 continually perverting my language from 
 its natural and obvious meaning, and to 
 his mifreprefenting my fentiments fo grofT- 
 ly, that I fliould 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- 
 menttheypleafe : it is a matter of no con- 
 cern to any one but himfelf : I barely 
 
 Ib. p. 412, 413. 
 
 flate
 
 ( xlviii ) 
 
 ftate the fact. The account he has given, 
 not only of my fentiments but even of 
 thofe of the moft refpeclable 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 mufl have entirely confifted 
 in (hewing that he either could not or 
 would not underftand the plaineft lan- 
 guage j an undertaking which could yield 
 neither pleafure nor benefit to the reader, 
 nor throw any new light upon the con- 
 troverfy. Neverthelefs, when I had re- 
 folved,on 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 fubjecl:, in order to furniih a 
 fpecimen 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 fele&ed from the reft, on account 
 
 of
 
 "( xlix ) 
 
 of it's connexion with the fubject 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 objections. 
 
 ControveHies, when properly con- 
 ducted, are of eminent ufe to mankind. 
 They arreft the attention more than ge- 
 neral reafonings, and awaken a Ipirit 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 perfect in- 
 vefligation of fubject s, they affift in the 
 detection of error and in the difcovery 
 of truth. They have a natural tenden- 
 cy to foften our prejudices againfl thofe 
 who differ from us in opinion, by fliew- 
 ing us how much they can offer in their 
 own defence. By opening and enlar- 
 ging the mind, they ferve to cure that bi- 
 gotry, which is not peculiar to any one feet 
 or party, but common to all who have 
 ftrong paflions and prejudices, and nar- 
 row views of things, and who never read 
 d any
 
 ( 1 ) 
 
 any thing that is written again ft their 
 own favourite tenets. On the other 
 hand, when controverfies degenerate in- 
 to perfonal altercation and abufe, or 
 are fupported by forced constructions 
 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 utmoft caution to 
 avoid myfelf. And it is no fmall pre- 
 fumptionof my care in this refpect, that, 
 notwithftanding my numerous citations 
 both from ancient and modern writers, 
 Dr. Worthington, a gentleman of real 
 learning, whom I had cenfured for his 
 mifreprefentations, (though he might be 
 deemed quite accurate mcomparifon with 
 Mr. Fell,) has not, if my memory does 
 not fail me, retorted the charge, except 
 in one {ingle inftance, for which there 
 was no foundation 1 ". 
 
 In 
 
 f The following is the exaft ftate of the cafe. In let- 
 ers to Dr, Worthington, p. 112, in a note, I faid,
 
 In all points of importance I have 
 
 either cited the original words of my 
 
 d 2 vouchers, 
 
 Dr. Mill is pojiti-ve, they (the words rot tc^nwrot tov As- 
 yeavix, him that had the legion, Mark v. 15.) are an in- 
 terpolation. Dr. Worthington (in his Farther Enquiry, 
 p. 164.) fays, " he turned to the place in Dr. Mill's 
 " New Teftament ; and, to his great furprife, found 
 " the 'very remerfe 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 
 <c paflage 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 aflert he had 
 found the <very re<verfe of what I had affirmed to be true ? 
 To make good his aflertion, he mould have fhewn, that' 
 Dr. Mill was pofitive the paflage was not an interpola- 
 tion. But, 1 had aflerted that Dr. Mill was pofitive 
 that it was, and Dr. Worthington charges the aflertion 
 with deceit ; and concludes with this admonition, Let 
 this author never more accufe others ofmifreprefentation, p. 
 165. Had Dr. Worthington looked into Dr. Mill's 
 prolegomena, where he was more likely to find his fenti- 
 ments of the paflage in queftion than upon the place 
 where it was his proper bufmefs to ftate the fentiments 
 of others concerning it, he would have found that Dr. 
 Mill was, as I had affirmed, pofitive it <was an interpola- 
 tion. He fays it CERTAINLY was a marginal glofs, anciU 
 
 rejeds
 
 ( ffi ) 
 
 vouchers, or made particular references 
 to them. TKeir own words are cited in 
 matters of the firfl moment, that hereby 
 the reader may confult the vouchers him- 
 feif, 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 necefTary 
 when the argument depends upon the 
 exacl: rendering of the original words, 
 
 and 
 
 jeje&s the opinion of Grotius, in the following terms r 
 Mar. v. 15. Tot ttrxTitorx TM Xtyiuta,, retinendum cenfet, 
 cum agnofcant Syrus et Arabs. Verum abeft a Steph. $ 
 Cantab. Colb. I. et codice Fulgati; et utcunque jam 
 inlibrospropemodumomnesirrepferit, haudaliud CER- 
 TE initio erat, quam marginale fcholion, adfcriptum e 
 regione ra aip>yiop.tw, in quod quum incidiflet mox 
 fcriba, textufque partem efle crederet, repofuit illud in. 
 inferior! parte fententiae, loco non fuo. Prolegom, N* 
 1361. p. 146. ed. Kuiler. 1710. And in N4ii. he 
 fays concerning the words in queftion, comment arius eft t 
 non textus. Nullum ejus veftigium eft apud Lucam, 
 Marki fedlatorem. 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 
 kitted his cenfure.
 
 
 and their meaning is either doubful or 
 difputed: for, in this cafe, a ftrongdefire 
 of fupporting an hypothecs may infen- 
 iibly 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 fu- 
 picion of unfair dealing on the part of 
 the writer. 
 
 The contrary proceeding is unfatif- 
 faclory to thofe accuflomed to examine 
 
 general
 
 general references. It leaves room to 
 doubt of the accuracy of a writer, how- 
 ever well allured we may be of his fidelity. 
 And it is the moft likely way to efcape de- 
 tection, 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 fact, 
 that a late writer, though he fays 3 , He 
 hopes feme allowance will be made for fre- 
 quent and necejjary quotations, to make it e- 
 vident that he does not impute to any author 
 opinions 'which he never maintained > is 
 remarkably defective in this refpecl. In- 
 deed he could not but be fo in fome ca- 
 fes ; I mean, when 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, Introduction, p. viii. 
 
 gument
 
 gument depends upon the exaclnefs 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 {lender acquaintance 
 with ancient writers. In fome inflances, 
 I acknowledge, his references are parti- 
 cular and exact; but they happen to be 
 quite otherwise when he imputes to au- 
 thors, as we fhall fee he does, opinions 
 'which they never maintained. Be this the 
 effect of accident or defign, it is cer- 
 tainly a reafon for reading Mr. Fell with 
 fingular caution. 
 
 COR-
 
 CORRIGENDA. 
 
 Page 125, note 1, line 2, for that read this. 
 
 140, line 13, for told Herodotus read faid. 
 142, note *, for 150 mz</ 156. 
 152, line 2, ra?^, after whom he was denomi- 
 nated. 
 
 369, note*, line 17, for comical read conical. 
 402, note ', line I, for inert raz</ineft. 
 476, line 2, for has raz^have* 
 
 D E L E N D A. 
 
 140, line 15, dele the oldeft of their gods. 
 177, line 6, dele ant! Egyptians. 
 183, note , line 6, <&& and the Egyptians. 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 36, at the end of note c , add Voflius de Idolo. 
 
 lat. I.I. c. 35, p. 134. 
 1 27, at the end of note y, add Voff. de Idolo 
 
 lat. p. 95. 
 
 224, at the end of note , add ^ p. 147. 
 396, nott ! , line 2, after Commodo addy. 72. 
 
 THE
 
 THE 
 
 GENERAL PREVALENCE 
 
 F T H E 
 
 Worfliip of HUMAN SPIRITS, 
 
 1 N T H E 
 
 ANCIENT HEATHEN NATIONS, 
 
 ASSERTED AND PROVED. 
 
 I offer any thing in 
 proof of the general worfhip 
 ^ human fpirits amongfl the 
 ancient Heathens, it will be 
 proper briefly to review the account I 
 had given of their gods in a former pub- 
 lication" 5 both that we may be able to 
 
 8 Difiertation on miracles, ch. III. feft. ii. 
 
 B 
 
 determine,
 
 2 General Prevalence of the 
 
 determine, whether there be any perti- 
 nence or force in the objections which 
 have been urged againft that account -, 
 and that, at the fame time, the way may 
 be prepared for what I propofe farther 
 to advance on the fubjecl: of the pagan 
 theology. 
 
 I. It was not only admitted, but alfo 
 by a variety of teftimonies largely proved, 
 <c that the Heathens deified the world," 
 together <c with it's moft illuflrious parts 
 " and active principles, the elements, the 
 " heavens and all their hoft" b . It was 
 alfo allowed, that thefe natural gods 
 " were the firft deities of all the idola- 
 " trous nations" . And therefore to 
 produce nw proofs of thefe points, 
 (which it is eafy to do,) though it may- 
 have the appearance of oppofmg, is in 
 reality to confirm, the doctrine of the 
 DifTertation 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 
 
 Mb. p. 169-172, c P. 172. 
 
 objects
 
 Worjhip of human Spirits. 3 
 
 objects of nature. But more than e- 
 nough* was faid upon the fubjecl:, to 
 render it impoflible for any man to 
 doubt, whether I allowed, that the Hea- 
 thens afTerted the divinity of nature and 
 it's component parts. 
 
 II. It was farther fhewn d , that, be- 
 fides the deified parts and powers of na- 
 ture, the Heathens acknowledged de- 
 mons : a term, with whatever latitude 6 it 
 may be fometimes ufed, yet, when de- 
 mons are contradirHnguifhed (as they 
 were by me on this occafion f ) from the 
 natural or celeflial gods, always denotes 
 thofe ful Baiter -n deities, who were fuppofed 
 to carry on all 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 objects of 
 immediate dependence and divine wor- 
 fhip. In this fenfe the term was large- 
 
 * Seep. 231. *P. 174, 
 e Letters to Worthington, p. 29. 
 
 * Differt. on mir. p. 169, 174, 175. 
 
 B 2 ' ly
 
 4 General Prevalence of the 
 
 ly explained in the Dinertation*. Im- 
 mediately after giving this explication, 
 I proceeded to controvert the opinion 
 of thofe, who teach, " that the de- 
 <c mons of the Heathens were fpirits of 
 " a higher origin than the human race" 8 : 
 and then inferred, from the reflections 
 which had been offered, that, though the 
 Heathens, and particularly fome of the 
 latefl philofophers, fancied there was a 
 higher 11 order of demons, yet that <c this 
 " higher order of them is not fo fre- 
 " quently fpoken of as is generally fup- 
 " pofedj and that the common hypo- 
 " thefis is built upon weak grounds 1 ." 
 I then added, (what clearly mews how 
 far I rejected that hypothecs,) 
 
 " I mail now affign thofe reafons 
 " which induce me to think, that, by 
 " demons, (fuch, I mean, as were the 
 " more immediate objects of the ejlablifhed 
 <f wojfiip amongft the ancient nations, 
 
 ' P. I74.I75- 8 P. 176. 
 
 h P. 183, note f . See alfo note 1 in p. 204, 220. 
 *P. 183. 
 
 <c particularly
 
 Worjhip of hitman Spirits. 5 
 
 <e particularly the Egyptians, Greeks, 
 " and Romans,) we are to underfland 
 " beings of an earthly origin, or fuch 
 tc departed human fouls as were believed 
 " to become demons" k . 
 
 This is the proportion which I under- 
 took to eftablifh. Here it is of great 
 importance to obferve, 
 
 i . That there is nothing in this pro- 
 pofition inconfiflent with allowing (what 
 had been before proved) that the Hea- 
 thens acknowledged and worfhipped ce- 
 leftial or natural gods. For, the only 
 fubjecl: of the proportion is demons, con- 
 fidered as a diftincl order of deities from 
 thofe ftiled natural - 3 and therefore the 
 latter could not be included in it. Nay, 
 the very defcription of demons as the 
 more immediate objects of worfhip does 
 
 k P. 183, 184. It isfcarce neceflary to obferve, that 
 the fame human fpirits that were called demons, when 
 diftinguimed from elementary and fidereal deities, as they 
 are above; yet, on other occafions, are frequently cal- 
 led gods. And fometimes they are diftinguimed from 
 each other by the different denominations of sods t de- 
 mons t and heroes, according to their different ranks. 
 
 B 7 itfelf
 
 6 General Prevalence of the 
 
 itfelf imply, that there were ultimate ob- 
 jects 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 proportion has no 
 relation to the gods held only by the phi- 
 lofophers. The theiftic philofophers not 
 only afTerted the divinity of the parts and 
 powers of nature, but explained phyjical- 
 fyj what was underftood literally or hijlo- 
 rically by the people refpecling the gods. 
 It may be allowed, that the philofophers 
 entertained very juft 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 demons 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 
 
 J Piflert, on mir. p. 174, 175. 
 Letters to Worthington, p, 29, 
 
 objects
 
 Worfbip of human Spirits. 
 
 objefts of the eflabtified worfiip j or (as 
 it is elfewhefe expreffed) of popular ado- 
 ration" and public devotion* to whom a-^$ : K l 
 /0* /$* facrifces were offered, ('while tbe , , 
 
 ctleftial gods were worjhipped only with a' iffyf' 
 
 pure mind) or with hymns and praifes**) 
 
 3. The truth of the foregoing propo- 
 iition cannot be afFe6led by the peculiar ^ Y/>4-7 
 do6lrine of the philofophers concerning de~*' 
 mons> when they apply the term to fpi- ^ , (tftiUtsT 
 rits who were fuppofed to hold a rniddie^ '.' \ i -. .^ 
 rank between the gods and men. It was 
 admitted and proved in the Diflertation/ 
 thatfome of the philofophers did afTert thfc 
 cxiftence of demons of a celeftial origin, 
 or of fuch as had never been men . Many- 
 more proofs of the fame point might haVt 
 been produced, had the occafion required 
 them . But the opinion of the philofophief s 
 concerning the exiftence of celeftial de- 
 mons, even fuppofmg it to be true, cannot 
 difprove the truth of the propofition un- 
 der confideration, unlefs it can be (hewn, 
 
 * P. 1 86. c P. 176. P Note h 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 proportion 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 
 point q . 
 
 4. When the propofition fpeaks of 
 fuch demons as were the more immedi- 
 ate objects of the eftablifhed worfhip a- 
 mongft the ancient nations j this can 
 refpect only thofe nations in which feme 
 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 
 
 i Cpmpare what is faid concerning the philosophers, 
 Piflert, p. 189, 190, 
 
 to
 
 Worjhip of human Spirits. 9 
 
 to all who, befides the natural gods, 
 worfhipped demons. 
 
 Neverthelefs, 1 had a more efpecial re- 
 ference to the nations that were in the 
 moft civilized ftate, and to thofe whofe 
 demons are fpoken of in Scripture. It 
 was faid in exprefs terms', " that my 
 <c main defign would be anfwered, if it 
 cc could be (hewn, that the more imme- 
 C diate objects of divine worfhip in the 
 <c moft poll/he d 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 s , that my main defign was to 
 explain andjujllfy the Scripture reprefenta- 
 tion of the heathen deities ; from the title 
 of the feclion in which this fubjecl: is 
 handled, The Scripture reprefentation of 
 the nature and claims of the heathen gods, 
 conjidered^j from the words that intro- 
 duce the feftion, and ftate the fubjecl: of 
 it, 'The gods of the Heathens taken notice of 
 in Scripture 1 ; and from the apology" made 
 
 / Piffert. p. 1 8$. Ibid. P. 169. tt P. 231. 
 
 for
 
 I o General Prevalence of the 
 
 for the ioTig account given of them, it's 
 importance to a jufi defence of the Scripture. 
 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 worfhipped only the natural gods. 
 To fuch nations thefe gods were not the 
 ultimate, but the fole y objects 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 1 ', that, in the opinion of Plato, 
 many (notwoft, as Mr. Fell* mifmterprets 
 the original y ) of the Barbarians in his 
 
 time 
 
 w Id. p. 173, note f . * P. 9. 
 
 > IIoX\oi TO,- &otetui. Platon. Cratyl. torn. i. p. 397* 
 C. ed. Serrani, 1578. This language may import no 
 more than that, amongft the barbarous people bordering 
 
 upon
 
 Worjhip of human Spirits. \\ 
 time held only the natural gods. It 
 could not be my intention to include fuch 
 Barbarians in the proportion. 
 
 Let us now examine whether a late 
 writer has given a juft account of this 
 fubjec~t. He has twice referred to the 
 preceding proportion, and cited a part 
 of it, but with fuch alterations or omif- 
 fions as effectually difguife it's true 
 meaning. When he is oppofing my notion 
 of the heathen gods, he omits the word 
 demons f though thefe fubaltern gods 
 were, as I have fhewn, the only fubjects 
 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 a all the words in the propofition 
 
 upon Greece, there were feveral tribes which ftill wor- 
 ftupped only the elements and heavenly bodies. This 
 was not true concerning the great nations in general; (as 
 will be fhewn in the fcquel;) to thefe therefore Plato 
 cannot refer. His expreffion implies, that the polifhed 
 nations acknowledged other gods beiides the natural j 
 and that fome at leaft of the barbarians did fo too. 
 
 * Fell, p. 30. 
 
 8 Fell, p. 91. Comp. Diflert. onmir. p. 183. 
 
 which
 
 12 General Prevalence of the 
 
 which were inferted to fhew, that it re- 
 fpefted onlyfuch demons as were the more 
 immediate objects of the ejlablijhed worfiip in 
 certain nations. To point out the limi- 
 tation of the propofition to thefe demons, 
 the words that exprefs it were printed in 
 Italics, as they are above*. Neverthelefs, 
 his objections proceed on the falfe fuppo- 
 fition, that the propofition was to be 
 underftood univerfally of all demons. 
 
 Befides mutilating the propofition un- 
 der confideration, in a manner that mufl 
 miflead his readers in the judgement they 
 formed of it, and confequently of the 
 main point in debate j 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 , 
 <c 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, afTertion is to be found, the 
 gentleman has not informed his readers : 
 
 " P. 4. c F eU, p. 30. 
 
 i an
 
 Worfiip of human Spirits. 13 
 
 an omiflion with which he is often charge- 
 able. He might poffibly have in view here 
 (as he has elfe where) the place d in which 
 it is affirmed, that the writers of the Old 
 Teftament " very properly defcribed the 
 < heathen gods as dead perfons i" and that 
 they were " nothing more." e Bat it is at 
 the very fame time obferved, " that the 
 " writers of the Old Teftament knew, 
 <f that the Heathens believed in elemen- 
 " tary and (idereal 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 directed. " f Under this li- 
 mitation, or with refpecl to thofe de- 
 mons whom I had defcribed as the more 
 immediate objects of public worfliip, I 
 niuft be underftood as fpeaking, when, 
 upon the authority of the facred writers 
 (as will be fhewn hereafter) I reprefented 
 
 d D inert, p. 197. Ib. note h . 
 
 f I might have added, that thefe gods did in a great 
 meafure ingrofs the public devotion. (See Diflert. p. 
 176.) 
 
 the
 
 1 4 General Prevalence of the 
 
 the heathen gods as nothing more than 
 dead perfons. What was fpoken pro- 
 fefTedly concerning one clafs or order of 
 gods, as contradiftinguifhed from ano- 
 ther, 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 
 DiiTertation j which (if ever) they very 
 rarely do, and then only incidentally, 
 they ought in all reafon to be limited ta 
 the fubjects of the proportion,, in which 
 I was profefledly ftating the point I 
 meant to ertablifh ; efpecially as terms 
 expreflive of this limitation are altnoll 
 always ufed, in order to guard againft 
 nrifrakes ; and frequent explicit acknow- 
 ledgements are made of the Heathens af- 
 ferting the divinity of the elements and 
 heavenly bodies*. Could I conceive it 
 poflible, that I fhoulci be charged (as I 
 am in effecl) with affirming, that the 
 following heathen gods, the fun, moon, 
 and ftars, and the elements of fire, air, 
 earth, and water, were nothing more than 
 
 * See Diflert. p. 231-233. 
 
 dead
 
 Worfiip of human Spirits. 1 5 
 
 dead men ? No one can fallen fuch an 
 abfurdity upon me, but by explaining 
 the Difiertation, as too many do the 
 Scriptures, as if it was compofed of dif- 
 tincl: 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 /z//, without any war- 
 rant ; 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." 8 I muft add, that, when he h 
 fpeaks of " the fyftem which reprefents 
 " all demons as nothing more than the 
 " fpirits of departed men" 5 he manifeftly 
 refers to me, though my fyftem neither 
 makes, nor requires, fuch areprefentation. 
 
 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. Biflert. p. 186, 187. 
 k Fell's introduction, p. xv. 
 
 readers
 
 1 6 General Prevalence of the 
 
 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 ; or to want to be 
 informed, that arguments, which may 
 overturn the former, cannot affecl 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 juflify me in faying, that I fhould 
 not have known againft whom Mr. Fell 
 was writing, had he fupprefled my 
 name. Neverthelefs, the gentleman 
 fets out (in a manner well calcula- 
 ted to prevent all fufpicion of unfair 
 dealing) with fhewing of what impor- 
 tance
 
 Worjhip of human Spirits. ij 
 
 tance it is, that thofe who differ in their 
 fentimentSy when they write one againft an- 
 other, Jhould calmly and EXACTLY ftate 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 
 conduct ; only, injuflice to myfelf, mud 
 obferve, that his mutilating rriy propo- 
 fition j his fubftituting another in it's 
 room, without taking any notice of it's 
 necefTary limitation ; and his making ad- 
 ditions to my text ; thefe feveral circum- 
 ftances are a tacit confeflion, that fye 
 could not fupport his account of my feri- 
 timents by any fair conftruction of my 
 language. If his mifreprefentations are 
 mere miflakes, they are (in fome fenfe) 
 fortunate miftakes for him j being ap- 
 parently necefTary to give a colour to his 
 reafonings, and to procure for himfelf 
 the appearance of a victory over his op- 
 ponent : for, had the fubjeft been truly 
 
 1 Fell's introduction, p. viii. ix. 
 
 C ftated,
 
 1 8 General Prevalence of the 
 
 ftated, thefe ends could not have been 
 anfwered 5 and his readers would have 
 fmiled at the fatisf action and confidence, 
 with which he urges objections foreign 
 from the purpofe. 
 
 Mr. Fell k begins with appealing to the 
 ancient theogonies, particularly that of 
 Hefiod, in order to prove, that the greateji 
 part of thofe deities to whom the Heathens 
 facrificed were by them confidered as exift- 
 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 of Letters concerning Mytho- 
 logy* univerfally afcribed to Dr. Black- 
 well, 
 * P. i. 
 
 1 P. 211, 21 2, 213. Whoever is defirous of feeing 
 how clofely Mr. Fell copies Dr. Blackwell, may com- 
 pare together the following paflages. In p. 212, the 
 doftor fays, He/tod's theogony isfubftantially the fame with 
 Orpheus' 's holy word, in which be (Orpheus) explained 
 points of no left importance than the births of the gods, the 
 creation of the world, and formation of man. Mr. Fell, 
 p. 5, adopts his language j (with only fuch an alteration 
 of it as mews his defire of concealing his obligation;) 
 His (Hefiod's) theogony contains the fame plan with that 
 *fcribedto Orpheus They (Hefiod, Orpheus, and others) 
 
 40
 
 Worjhip of human Spirits. 19 
 
 Well, but employed by him to a more 
 reafonable purpofe than by Mr. Fell. 
 The former, if I underfland 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 
 proportions were admitted by me j and 
 the former of them is capable of the 
 cleared proof m . But the argument, as 
 ftated and applied by Mr. Fell, is not 
 only founded upon a bold, not to fay 
 falfe, afTertion n ; but has no relation to 
 C 2 the 
 
 nil attempt to explain things of no lefs moment than the ori* 
 'ginal of their gods } the creation of the world, and the for- 
 mation of man. 
 
 m See above, p. 2. 
 
 n Mr* Fell afferts, <l 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 wretched Atlas could fcarce 
 fupport the weight of fo many new divinities. 
 ' Contentaque iidera paucis 
 
 Numinibus miferum urgebant Atlanta minori 
 Pondere. Juvenal. Sat. xiii. v. 47. 
 
 The
 
 so 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 j but, whether fuch demons 
 as were the more immediate objects of 
 the eftablifhed worfhip in certain na- 
 tions were not dead men. Hefiod him- 
 felf (to whom Mr. Fell appeals) fhall 
 decide the controverfy : for, (as our 
 great chronologer obferves, ) Hefiod p , 
 defcribing the four ages of the gods and 
 demigods of Greece, reprefents them to 
 be four generations of men. I add, that 
 Plato q had long before taken notice, that 
 all thofe 'who die valiantly in war are of 
 Heflod's golden generation^ and 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 vaft 
 number of human fpirits which were worfhipped 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 t ap. Auguft. Civ. 
 Dei, 1. 8, c. 26. 
 
 Sir If. Newton, Chron. p. 162. 
 v Oper. et Dier. 1. i, v. 108. 
 
 1 De Rep. 1. 5, p. 469. Diflert. on mir. p, 191. 
 
 inons j
 
 Worfhlp of human Spirits. 2 1 
 
 mons ; and that we ought for ever to ivor- 
 fhip and adore their fepulchres as the fepul- 
 chres of demons. 
 
 But I do not propofe to examine 
 all the objections 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- 
 fhipped by the ancient Heathens, The 
 proofs of this point either refpecl: parti- 
 cular nations, or are of a more general 
 nature, and equally refpect all the moft 
 celebrated nations of antiquity. It is 
 with the objects of worfhip 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 the courfe of our 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
 
 2 2 General Prevalence of tie 
 
 as their great eft gods, and even as the 
 file objects of the eftablifhed worfhip, al- 
 moll, if not altogether, without excep- 
 tion. I mean, that it was to human 
 gods that the eftablifhed worfhip was 
 more immediately and properly directed, 
 in all, or almoft all, cafes whatlbever. 
 What reference it had to the deified parts 
 or powers of nature will not come under 
 confideration here. 
 
 I fhall begin with laying before the 
 reader thofe proofs of the worfhip of hu- 
 man fpirits, amongfl the ancient Hea- 
 thens, which refpect 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 teftimonies, that in 
 moft of the former, and in all the latter, 
 divine honours were paid to the dead. 
 
 CHAP,
 
 Worfoip of human Spirits* 23 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Proving, from the teftimonies of the 
 Heathens y that they paid religious 
 honours to dead men in the na- 
 tions Jlikd barbarous^ or that 
 were in an uncivilized ft ate* 
 
 ^TpHOUGH in treating, in a former 
 publication, . of fuch heathen de- 
 mons as were the objects of eftabliflied 
 worfhip, I had no direct view to the bar- 
 barous nations ; and though the propo- 
 fition I then undertook to prove could 
 have no refpect 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 worfhipped only the natural 
 gods. The attempt was not very judi- 
 cious 5 what his fuccefs is, will be feen 
 
 Above, p. 8-1 1. 
 
 C 4 hereafter.
 
 ?4 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 hereafter. I fhall firft of all examine, 
 whether human fpirits were worfhipped 
 in the barbarous nations taken notice of 
 by Mr. Fell j and then inquire how far 
 this was the cafe with thofe which he has 
 omitted f 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 Shewing y from the tejlimony of 'the Heathens ', 
 that moft even of thofe barbarous nations , 
 which have been faid to ivorjhip only the 
 natural gods i paid divine honours to &" 
 ceafed men. 
 
 TN the eight barbarous nations that 
 follow, the Scythians, the MafTage- 
 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 refpecl: to the Scythians, we 
 are told by Herodotus 1 , that the only 
 
 gods 
 
 cu Tr,v t
 
 in barbarous Nations. 25 
 
 gods whom they all worfhipped, were 
 principally Vefta, called by them 'Tahiti ; 
 then Jupiter and his wife Gee the earth, 
 denominating the firft Papceus y the fe- 
 cond Apia -, and after thefe Apollo and the 
 celeftial Venus (called in their language 
 Oetofyrus and Artimpafa)', and Hercules 
 and Mars. The hiftorian adds, that the 
 royal Scythians facrifice alfo to Neptune. 
 Mr. FelP, copying after Dr. Black- 
 well*, confiders Oetofyrus and Artimpafa 
 as the names of the fun and moon j and 
 explains Hercules and Mars by the powers 
 pfivar. Though I feel the weight of Dr. 
 Blackwell's 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- 
 ihip. Moft of the Scythian gods (if not 
 
 TST8?, 
 KO,\ A^ea* 
 ot x&Sai xau tu Uufft^ium Stso-j. x. T. X. Hexodot. 
 
 4- c. 59. 
 
 P. 8. * Mythol. p. 274, 275.
 
 &6 Worfhip of human Spirits 
 
 all) fpecified by Herodotus were wor- 
 fhipped 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 ; if the latter were deified men 
 and women, the former muft be fo like- 
 wife. This general reafon will be con- 
 firmed by a diftmcl examination of each 
 particular deity. The Scythians chal- 
 lenged Jupiter as the progenitor of their 
 king, and Vefta, their principal deity, for 
 their queen 1 : a plain proof that they con- 
 fidered them as having reigned over them 
 upon earth. Gee being the wife of Ju- 
 piter, was certainly conceived to be of 
 the fame nature with him ; 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, 
 
 //.;> Aa TE tyu tou.^u TOK /* -cr^oyofoy, xa* 
 
 Qtut (3*rtf.fnx,v t patVi s\,au. Herodot. I. 4. c. 127. 
 
 the
 
 'in barbarous Nations. 27 
 
 the fequel 7 . It will likewife be fhewn 
 that the celeftial 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 worfhip- 
 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 b , who had 
 
 full 
 
 y Herthum in article V. of this fedlion ; Cybele in 
 the fecond feftion, under article III. and Gee in the 
 fecond chapter, article Pbenidans. 
 
 z Though Apollo, phyfically explained, was the 
 fun, yet hiftorically underftood he was a diftincl deity, 
 as is flvewn in Schedius, De Diis German, p. 94.. 
 
 * AyXf/.aT<* Xe xa* j3/x,a$ xat *;$, K. T- A. Herodot. 1. 
 ^. c. 59. See what is faid below concerning the Mars 
 of the Goths and other northern nations under article 
 JV. and concerning Hercules under article V. in this 
 feftion. 
 
 b ScythafeuHofpes, Qper. v. i. p. 591, 592, et feq. 
 
 ed.
 
 2$ Worjhif 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. 
 
 II. <c TheMaffagtfesi their neigbours," 
 fays Mr. Fell 6 , in agreement with Dr. 
 Blackwell, u adored no gods but the 
 fe fun." The MafTagetes were fava- 
 ges upon the borders of the Cafpian fea d ; 
 and there is no more reference to their 
 gods in the DifTertation, than to thofe of 
 the inhabitants of Otaheite. I cannot 
 however help making the following ob- 
 fervations. 
 
 Herodotus 6 , who is the only author 
 referred to by Dr. Blackwell, and after 
 him by Mr. Fell, in proof of their a 
 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. 
 
 c P. 8, 9. Compare Blackwell's Myth. p. 275. 
 
 * Herodot. lib. i. c. 201, 204. 
 
 e jUb. i, c. 216. 
 
 lating
 
 in barbarous Nations. ig 
 
 lating facts 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 MafTagetes 
 might be faid to worfhip only the fun, 
 in contradiftinction to the other celeftial 
 luminaries, and not to mortal gods. Or 
 the hiftorian might only mean, that the 
 fun was eminently the object of their de- 
 votion j in which fenfe, as we {hall fee, 
 fimilar language was ufed concerning the 
 Perfians. It is remarkable, that we find 
 the MafTagetes fwearing by the fun un- 
 der the character of their fovereign ( . 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- 
 
 f HA*o i*oxjrvJt TO Toy MccpffcttTfut &VVOTM. Herodot. 
 
 pointed
 
 3 O Worfiip 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 e , amongft whom this wor- 
 fhip prevailed* If they were a tribe 1 
 of Scythians, as fome affirmed 11 , their 
 patron-deity was Zamolxis. But thefe 
 circumftances are urged rather as 
 conjectures, than as decifive proofs 3 
 and it may be doubted, whether the peo- 
 ple, of whom we are fpeaking, were 
 worfhippers of dead men. 
 
 Hitherto we have feen Mr. Fell copy- 
 ing Dr. Blackwell j but, under the next 
 article, he appears to me under the cha* 
 rafter of a writer truly original. 
 
 III. " The Getes," fays Mr. Fell 1 , 
 <c efteemed the heavens to be the only 
 " deity." In fupport of this afTertion, 
 he makes a general reference to the Clio 
 
 Seebelo^Sea. H. 
 h Herodot. 1; i. c. 201. 
 'P. 9. 
 
 of
 
 'in barbarous Nations* % I 
 
 of Herodotus, but without informing 
 his readers in what particular chapter, 
 or in what page, of that book he found 
 it; though this, furely, would have 
 been as eafy as to direct his readers to 
 the very line k 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 paflage, in any part of this hifto- 
 rian, as that which Mr. Fell quotes as 
 his. That there can be no fuch paflage 
 in him as that in queflion, 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 worfhip Zamolxis ; and therefore 
 very probably the former did fo too. 
 But, what is more material, and indeed 
 quite decilive, it appears from Herodo- 
 tus himfelf, to whom Mr. Fell appeals, 
 
 k Fell, p. i, 2, 3, notes % b , c , *, e , f . 
 J Herodot. 1. 4, c. 93. 
 
 that
 
 32 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 that the Getes propitiated m the god Za- 
 molxis ; and, in time of thunder and 
 lightning, threatened this deity, believing 
 there was no other god but theirs ". 
 
 Many other Greek writers, of the firft 
 reputation, contradict Mr. Fell's afTer- 
 tion, that the Getes efteemed the hea- 
 vens to be the only deity. When Plato 
 introduces a Thracian averting 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 p , in more places than one, fpeaks 
 of Zamolxis the Pythagorean as a deity* 
 and one acknowledged as fuch by the 
 Getes. Lucian q makes mention of him 
 
 ii>ai. Herodot. 1. 4. C. 94. 
 n AwsiXsao'j ru SEW, ufarot aXAov Stoy VQp.iprrt$ uvau ti ^ 
 
 FOIf (7^STgOK. Id. IB. 
 
 * Zauc/?.;s \eyti, o r/^cETS^oj /3a(7tXtf{, $oj uv. Platon. 
 
 CKarmid. p. 157, torn. 2. ed. H. Stephan. p, 276, 
 ed. Ficini. 
 
 P ZatyioX!*; Traga & TO; TsTatj w*o/xa^sto Seoj. L. 7. 
 c. 457. See alfop.466, 1106, ed. Amftel. 
 
 9 Deor. Concil. Oper. torn. 2. p. 713. ed. AmfleL 
 See below, near the end of the next fedtion, where the 
 Thracians are fpoken of. 
 
 as
 
 hi barbarous Nations. 33 
 
 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 flave named Zamolxis, to whom 
 the Gefes facrifice \ And Jamblichus, in 
 his life of Pythagoras, affirms, that the 
 Getes regarded Zamolxis as the great eft 
 of the gods ' s . 
 
 I do not know that thefe teftimonies 
 are contradicted by a fingle perfon, whe- 
 ther ancient or modern, Mr. Fell alone 
 excepted. But, notwithstanding 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 testimonies. As that is a 
 matter that mufl be left to himfelf, I 
 
 Diogen. Laert. Vit. Pythagor. 1. 8, 
 fegm. 2. 
 
 * Msytro? rut Sfwv tri wag' VTO{. Jamblich. .30. 
 . * See above, p, 11-17. 
 
 D {hall
 
 34 Worfhip 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 leaft, would have reftrained him from 
 afTerting a fa<5l> that was contradicted 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 objects of religious 
 < worfhip parTed from the ancient Scy- 
 " thians to the Goths"*. 
 
 With refpecl: 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, amongfl the nations which 
 worfhipped only the natural gods. A 
 few extracts from Olaus Magnus* (him- 
 
 u Fell, p. 9. 
 
 w I refer to his Hifloria de Gentibus feptentrionali- 
 bus, publifhed at Rome, 1555.
 
 in barbarous Nations. 3 5 
 
 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 x . He farther informs 
 us, that the three greater gods of the 
 Goths were T#0r, Friga y and Odhen 7 . 
 The laft of thefe, Odhen> was certainly 
 of human extract ; 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 ; which, it was thought, gave rife 
 to the opinion of the Goths, that Mars, 
 whom antiquity confidered as the god of 
 
 * Regfes ac principes fuos fatis exutos, ut vel dii fie^ 
 rent, vel inter deos eveherentur, combuflerunt. Lib. 3, 
 c.i, p. 97. 
 
 f Vide c. 3, de tribus diis majoribus Gothorum. 
 
 D 2 war,
 
 5 6 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 war, was born amongft them 2 . This 
 god was appeafed by the Goths with the 
 blood of their captive enemies' 1 . As to 
 7/for, the moft mighty, the prefident of the 
 air, where he thunders", he feems to an- 
 fwer to the Roman Jupiter c j and was 
 
 z In page i oo, he fays, concerning Odhen, Quia vi- 
 vus tot a Europa divihitatis titulum, quod nulli in arte 
 militari cederet, afTecutus fuiffet ; hinc evenifle creditur, 
 ut Gothi Martem, quern deum belli putavit anti- 
 
 quitas, apud fe dicerent progenitum. 
 
 * Jornandes (de rebus Goticis, cap. 5.) affirms, that 
 the Goths Martem Temper afperrima placavere cul- 
 tura. Nam vi&ima; ejus mortes fuere captivorum. 
 This is confirmed by other writers. 
 
 b Grotius (in his Proleg. Hift. Gott. et' Vandal, 
 p. 21.) fays, Veteres Germani Deum cceli 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 peafantsj when it thunders, 
 fay, The good old man is pajffing along the air. Did they 
 not derive this language from their pagan anceftors, 
 though they now apply it to God ? I take notice of 
 thefe circumltances in this place, becaufe the Goths 
 worlhipped nearly the fame gods as the Germans. 
 
 c Thor, inquiunt, praefidet in acre ; qui tonitrua, et 
 fulmina, ventos, imbrefque, ferena, et fruges, guber- 
 nat., Thor cum fceptro Jovem exprimere videtur. 
 
 M. Adamus Bremenfis de Sueonibus. 
 
 confidered
 
 in barbarous Nations. 37 
 
 confidered as having once been a mortal 
 man : for Olans 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 
 gcddefs of love, as a man be regarded as 
 the god of war ? 
 
 With refpeft to the leffer deities of the 
 Goths and all the northern provinces, 
 Methotin y Froe, Rofthicphus Finnonicns y 
 they are reprefented by Glaus as men 
 who had been eminent in their time, but 
 afterwards became gods, or companions 
 of the gods d , 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 
 
 . d Eofque deos, vel deorum complices, autumantes, 
 Olaus, 9.4. p. iqi. 
 * Id. ubi fupra, et c. 7. p. 106. 
 
 P 3 now
 
 38 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 now {lands, famous even from the time 
 of Ninus f . Thefe extracts from Olaus 
 (which are in a great meafure confirmed 
 by the learned authors g of the Ancient 
 Univerfal Hiftory) ferve to {hew what 
 gods were really worfhipped by the 
 Goths, as well as to detect the falfehood 
 of the account given of them by, Mr. 
 Fell. With the Goths the gentleman 
 joins 
 
 V. The barbarous Germans h . 
 
 If the barbarous Germans had, as our 
 author's language h implies, the fame ob- 
 jects of religious worftrip with the an-, 
 cient Scythians and Goths, the former 
 
 s Olaus, c. 6. p. 104. 
 
 * t( The religion of the Goths feejns 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 Fraea, Tuifto, Theutates, Hefus, Thara-. 
 ' mis," &c. Ancient Univ. Hill, v. 19. p, 265, 177, 
 8vo. ed. 1748, 
 
 h " The fame obje&s of religious worfhip pafled from 
 *' the ancient Scythians to the Goths and barbarous 
 f? Germans," Fell, p. 3.
 
 in barbarous Nations. 39 
 
 muft have been worfhippers of dead men ; 
 becatife we have fhewn that fuch were 
 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, 
 if it can be proved, concerning any one 
 of thefe three nations, that human fpi- 
 rits were worfhipped in it, the fame 
 muft be true concerning the other two, 
 provided they had all the fame objefts 
 of religious worfhip. 
 
 I allow, that, according to Caefar, as 
 he is commonly understood, the Germans 
 owned no other gods but the fun, VuU 
 can, and the moon 1 . But Caefar, though 
 well acquainted with the Gauls, whom 
 he fubdued after a ten years' war, had 
 very little knowledge of the Germans ; 
 nor has he mentioned their religion, but 
 
 * Deorum numero eos folos ducunt, quos cernunt, et 
 quorum opibus aperte juvantur, Solem, et Vulcanum, 
 et Lunam : reliquos ne fama quidcm acceperunt, Ca;far> 
 & Bell. Gall. 1. 6, c. 20. 
 
 DA i in
 
 4O Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 in the moft tranfient manner. And he 
 might imagine, as many others hav^ 
 done, that the Germans did not worfhip 
 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 k . The inference, 
 however, isnotjuft: 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- 
 fhipped 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- 
 perfect and erroneous 5 but thefe ac- 
 counts are generally corrected by farther 
 enquiries, and a more improved ac- 
 quaintance with the languages and cuf- 
 
 k Nee cohibere parietibus deos, neque in ullam hu- 
 mani oris fpeciem affimulare, ex magnitudine coeleftiuin 
 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 ftrifteft examination into 
 the matter, that the worfhip paid to the 
 fouls of their anceftors 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 celeflial 
 and terreftrial fpirits of the Chinefe 1 . 
 
 Thus (I apprehend) it is in the cafe 
 before us : the defective m and (perhaps) 
 erroneous view of the German gods,, ex- 
 
 1 See Moiheim's Ecclefiaftical Hift. v. 2. p. 298-300. 
 qto. and his Memoirs of the Chriftian Church in 
 China. 
 
 m Caefar has omitted Jupiter, who neverthelefs was 
 worfhipped by the Germans, under the German-Celtic 
 denomination of Tbor, Thur, or Thunder. See the Rev. 
 ;md learned Mr. Whitaker's Hift. of Manchefter, v. 2. 
 P' 359- The name was originally Thoran, Thorn ; but 
 the 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 
 deity, 
 
 hibited
 
 42 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 hibited by Caefar, is fuppiied or correU 
 ed by the fuller information of Tacitus, 
 who had thoroughly fludied their reli- 
 gion, and has given a very particular ac- 
 count of the objects of their worfhip ; 
 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- 
 tle, they extolled in their fongs above all 
 other heroes" ; and they appealed him and 
 Mars with the animals nfually allowed f or fa- 
 crifice*. 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 
 
 n Fuifle apud eos et Herculem memorant, primum- 
 que omnium virorum fortium ituri in pralia canunt. 
 Tacit, de Mor. Germ. c. 2. 
 
 Herculem ac Martem conceflis animalibus placant. 
 Jd. c. 9. Concerning Hercules, fee c, $4.. 
 
 rank
 
 in barbarous Nations. 43 
 
 rank of gods, and worfhipped with the 
 fame '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 extract. Such were (to fay nothing 
 of Mercury q ) Tni/lo, a god fprung from 
 the earth t (that is, the firil man', as they 
 accounted him,) and his fon, Mannus ; 
 the perfons from whom they were defcended> 
 
 P Above, p. 36, note z . 
 
 i Mercury will be fpoken of when we come to conli- 
 der the cafe of the Gauls. 
 
 r 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 firil 
 man. Ere&heus, an ancient king of Athens, to whom 
 a temple was dedicated, was alfo faid to be born of the 
 earth, (Herodot. 1. 8. c. 55.) and many others. Al- 
 moft every nation pretended to be of equal duration 
 with the earth itfelf. See Potter's Antiq. b. i. c. i. 
 Compare Dr. Borlafe'$ Antiquities of Cornwall, b. i. 
 
 **> . 
 
 end
 
 44 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 and the founders of the nation*. To thefe 
 we may probably add Hertbum, 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 1 . 
 As tolfis, Caftor and Pollux, Velleda, 
 and many more", it is impoflible to 
 doubt of their being of human origin. 
 
 Nor is there anyjuft reafon toconclude, 
 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 a- 
 
 8 Celebrant Tuiftonem 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 Germ. p. 278. 
 
 * Id. c. 40. 
 
 C. 8, 9, 43. 
 
 greeable
 
 in barbarous Nations. 45 
 
 greeable to the ancient ufage 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 infmuates, 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 Caefar's, and has 
 been fo deemed by learned men y . But 
 after all, there is perhaps no contradic- 
 tion between thefe illuftrious writers. 
 Caefar was too well acquainted with the 
 genius of paganifm, to deny that the 
 Germans worfhipped the heroes of their 
 
 w Vetere apud Germanos more, quo plerafque faemi- 
 narum fatidicas, et augefcente fuperftitione arbitrentitr 
 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 Auriniam et com- 
 plures alias venerati funt, non adulatione, nee tanquam 
 facerent deas. 
 
 x Inefle quinetiam fanftum aliquid et providum pu- 
 tant. Id. ib. 
 
 y See Tacit. Mor. Germ, c. 9. ed. Gronov. torn. 2. 
 p. 602. 
 
 own
 
 46 Worfhip of human 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 Germans owned no other 
 gods but the fun, Vulcan, and the 
 moon, he adds, of the reft they have ?iot 
 Jo much as heard-^ that is, the reft of the 
 gods generally worfhipped in other coun-* 
 tries. On this natural fuppofitionj Cas- 
 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 writers 
 together, the Germans, like the northern 
 nations, had gods both natural and 
 mortal*. Let us proceed to confider, 
 
 2 See what is faid abbve, p. 38, note * s con- 
 cerning the northern nations. Had Caefar thought that 
 the Germans worshipped only the natural gods, he 
 would have ufed the word/rf, inftead of Vulcan* 
 
 VI.
 
 'in barbarous Nations. 4^ 
 
 VI. The cafe of the Perfiajis, to which 
 t)r. Blackweir appeals, and after him 
 iMr.FelP. 
 
 The account given of the religion of the 
 Periians by Herodotus is as follows: 
 cc They do not erect either ftatues, or 
 tc temples, or altars 5 and charge with 
 cc extreme folly thofe who do. What I 
 " take to be their reafon is, that they do 
 e< not believe, like the Greeks, that the 
 " gods are of the race qfmen c . They af- 
 " cend the fummits of the mountains 
 <c 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, 
 fc and to fire, water, and winds : and to 
 " thefe alone they facrifice from the be- 
 " ginning. But they have learnt from 
 " the Aflyrians and Arabians to facrifice 
 
 a Mythol. p. 272. 
 
 c This meaning of the original word, et&tuitnqivtecs, 
 will be vindicated in the next chapter, when confidering 
 the gods of the Greeks. 
 
 " alfo
 
 48 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 " alfo to Urania, or Venus, who by the 
 " AfTyrians is called Mylitta, by the A- 
 <c rabians Alitta, and by the Perfians 
 " Mitra d . 
 
 In juftice to the great fagacity of Mr. 
 Fell, I mufl take notice, that he is plea- 
 fed to fay e , " that I carefully omit the 
 <c account which Herodotus has given 
 " concerning the Perfian objects of wor- 
 " fhip, becaufe that is a flat contradic- 
 " tion to my repeated afTertions." The 
 Perfians being a barbarous f nation in the 
 
 ?&M xi TOUT* wo*t; 
 OT ax #fc>7To^t;af evo 
 va. O ^e <tyAacrt An 
 
 agtuv a-vot.fttzu/ovTe<;> &uo - a? Ej^iVj TOC xuxXoi/ Traitroc. T& ov- 
 Aia XAEOTSJ* St/atrt SE )7vfw TE xat traX^m, xai yj xos; 
 x voetTt T.OH a.vt[Aow' Taroicrt //.EC 01: ^am 
 i7i JE xcu TJ Ovgtsttuti S'fEU/, Traga 
 
 xat AgajStwv' xa^ESirt ^E Ayav^cn TW A^go^i77> My 
 Aga^tot SE, ATurla' ng<rt ^E, Mir^ay. Herodot. 
 1. I. .131. 
 
 P. 7- 
 
 f Herodotus perpetually ftiles them Barlarlaqt ; and 
 
 the account he gives of them mews that they deferved 
 the title, for a better reafon 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 
 proportion ftated above h ; 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 contradiction to 
 my afTertions concerning thofe demons, 
 who were the more immediate objects 
 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 fact 
 is, that V cited as much of Herodotus as 
 belonged to the fubject upon which I 
 was fpeaking j and even that very part 
 
 t The doftrine of the two principles alluded to i>y 
 Ifaiah was not peculiar to the Perfians. 
 "P. 4. 
 * Difllrf. p. 186, 187. 
 
 E of
 
 50 Worfhlp of human Spirits 
 
 of him which afferts, that the Perfians 
 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 objects of worfhip, 
 and the account given of them by Hero- 
 dotus and other writers. 
 
 There is no fubject on which learned 
 men are more divided in their opinion 
 than this ; and therefore I will conlider 
 it at large. Let us diftinclly inquire, 
 whether the ancient Perfians were idola*- 
 ters ; and, if they were, whether they 
 worfliipped 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 
 
 religion
 
 in barbarous Nations. 51 
 
 religion of the ancient Periians, it was 
 at firft derived from Abraham, after- 
 wards reformed by Zoroafter, and con- 
 fifted in the fole worfhip of the one true 
 God. To this reformation Sir Ifaac 
 Newton k refers, when he fays, " The 
 " various religions of the feveral na- 
 " tions of Perfia, which confifled in 
 " the worfhip of their ancient kings, 
 <c were abolifhed, and the worfhip of one 
 " God, at altars, without temples, fet 
 " up in all Perfia, in the reign of Da- 
 <c rius the fon of Hyflafpes, by the in- 
 " fluence of Hyflafpes and Zoroafler > 
 <c but in a fhort time afterwards the 
 " Perfians worfliipped the fun, and the 
 " fire, and dead men, and images, as 
 ce the Egyptians, Phenicians, and Chal- 
 " deans, had done before." Now, ac- 
 cording to this hypothecs, the Perfians are 
 to beconfidered as the worfliippers of hu- 
 man fpirits in all the early ages of the 
 world, excepting the interval between 
 
 k Shore Chronicle, p. 40. Clironol. p. 352. 
 
 E 2 the
 
 52 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 the reformation of their religion in the 
 reign of Darius, and their fubfequent 
 relapfe into idolatry j a period too fhort 
 to be taken into account. 
 
 But it has long been fufpecled, by 
 writers of the firfl repuation 1 , that the 
 Arabian and Periian 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 allured the world, <e that 
 " the genuine works of Zoroafter are 
 " loft; that the pretended fragments 
 " of them, which Dr. Hyde has given 
 " us under the title of S adder y are the 
 " rhymes of a modern prieil who lived 
 " about three centuries ago"; that no 
 " books now exift in the ancient dialect 
 <c of Perfia ; that the Arabian conquefts 
 " proved a radical fubverfion of the Per- 
 
 1 Bafnage's Hift. of the Jews, b. iv. ch. 12. $. 13. 
 m Richardfon, in his Difiertation on the languages, 
 literature, and manners, of the eailern nations, 2d d. 
 3 P. 12, 25, 26. 
 "P. 13. 
 
 " fian
 
 in barbarous Nations. 53 
 
 cc fian religion 1 * as well as government ; 
 <c and that the principal hiftorians of Per- 
 " fia, now known in Europe, are all fub- 
 " fequent to the Mohammedan aera" q . I 
 muft add, that a gentleman, whofefmal- 
 left praife it is to be the beft linguift of the 
 age, and whofe fludies were for fome 
 years directed to the improvement of eaft- 
 ern literature 1 ", entertains the fame opi- 
 nion of the authorities upon which Dr. 
 Hyde grounds his fyflem as the ingenious 
 writer laft referred to. 
 
 As Dr. Hyde's witnefTes are very ex- 
 ceptionable, fo the facts they atteft are 
 highly improbable. The learned Dr. 
 
 P P. 21, 22. 
 
 * P. 42- 
 
 r 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 publifhed in the French language, in the year 
 1771, and which is now out of print ; wherein he mews 
 that all the works afcribed to Zoroafter are fpurious. 
 As to the Sadder, he fays, p. 28, Tous les etudians de 
 la literature orientale favaient deja que les miferables 
 poe'mes appelles Saddar et Ai'divirnf Nama etaient ecrits 
 en langue Perfanne moderne, et feulement en carafteres 
 ancicns. 
 
 E 3 Prideaux,
 
 54 Worjklp 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- 
 f ken out of the legendary writings of the 
 " eaftern Chriftians." Many other 
 things related by Dr. Hyde feem to be 
 extracted 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 fucceflion 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 depen- 
 dents of the pious patriarch ? 
 
 There is a farther objection againfl 
 Dr. Hyde's account of the Perfian reli- 
 gion, viz. it's being contradicted by the 
 teftimony of the Greek and Roman wri- 
 
 * Connexion, v. i. p. 329, 330. 8vo. 
 1 Hyde, ch. 2. p. 28. 
 
 ters j
 
 in barbarous Nations. 55 
 
 ters; many of whom vifited Perfia at the 
 very time when that religion flourifhed, 
 and who had certainly the befl 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 
 objects 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 connected, than that given by 
 Dr. Hyde upon the authority of late 
 writers. 
 
 Plutarch. Vit. Themiftoclr, p. 126. 
 
 E 4 For
 
 56 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 For the feveral foregoing reafons, I 
 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 w . 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 w , indeed, that the wor- 
 fhip paid to the fun in Perfia was only of 
 a civil, not of a religious , nature. But did 
 the common people underftand theprecife 
 difference between thefe two kinds of wor- 
 fhip ? Or would they honour with prof- 
 trations, falutations, and incenfe x , what 
 in their conception had no power to in- 
 terpofe for their benefit ? The diflinc- 
 tion between civil and religious worfhip 
 is probably made in this cafe, as we 
 know it is in others 7 , merely to avoid 
 
 v See Hyde, c. 4, 
 
 x And with libations and facriiices, according to the 
 Greeks. Hyde, p. 120. ed. 1700. 
 
 7 By the Indians, (as will be ftewn near the end of 
 the zd fcftion,) and by the Chinefe. 
 
 the
 
 in barbarous Nations. 57 
 
 thje odium of idolatry. The remains 
 of the ancient Perfians, in different parts 
 of the eaft, are under peculiar tempta- 
 tions to reprefent their worfhip as confif- 
 tent with the divine unity ; becaufe they 
 live amongft the Mohammedans, who, 
 though indulgent to all other religions, 
 deteft and perfecute idolaters and the 
 worfhippers of fire 2 . I fee no ground to 
 doubt, but that the ancient Perfians (as 
 well as others) did worfliip this element, 
 and the fun as its chief receptacle; which 
 feems to be intimated in the very plea 
 fome 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 i- 
 dolatry, the paying religious honours to 
 brute animals. It is evident that, in 
 
 z Les Mahometans, tolerans pour toutes les autres 
 religions, font intolerans pour les idolatres et les adora- 
 teurs du feu ; et, fi quclques families de ces malheureux 
 trouverent le moVen de fe retirer dans 1'Inde, ils ne 
 parent conferver que quelques traditions imparfaites au 
 fujet de leurs anciennes loix. Jones's Letter, p, 46. 
 
 both
 
 5 8 Worjkip of human Spirits 
 
 both cafes alike, the worfhip would ter- 
 minate in its more immediate objects. 
 
 Hence many Chriftians chofe to fuffer 
 the moft extreme punifhment rather than 
 join with the Perfians in their adoration 
 of the fun a . And if others, after ha- 
 ving embraced the Gofpel, continued to 
 practife fome of thofe rites, in honour 
 of this celeftial luminary b , to which they 
 had been long accuftomed, this might 
 proceed from their defire of avoiding 
 perfecution, or from the flrength and 
 inveteracy of their former prejudices. 
 Like caufes produced fimilar effects up- 
 on the firft Chriftian converts ; fome 
 of whom were not eafily got off from 
 their fuperftitious reverence for i- 
 dols c ; and others obferved the law 
 of Mofes, either to avoid the difpleafure 
 of the unbelieving Jews, or from a per- 
 
 a Saporis juflu Simeon cum multis aliis, quod folem 
 adorare recufaflent, ultimo fupplicio adfedti. Sozom. 
 II. 8, 9, 12. Hyde, p. 110. 
 
 b See Hyde, p. 109. 
 
 c i Cor. viii. 7. 
 
 fuafion
 
 in barbarous Nations. g 
 
 fuafion of it's obligation. Here, in Bri- 
 tain, a learned antiquary* 1 informs us, 
 that, after Chriftianity took place, many 
 continued to worfhip confecrated jftones, 
 their former idols. Nay, the fondnefs 
 for human victims remained for a confi- 
 derable time amongfl fome who had em- 
 braced the faith of ChrhV. 
 
 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 
 worfhipped only the natural gods. He- 
 rodotus, in the foregoing extracY 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, notwithstanding what 
 is advanced by this hiftorian, the Per- 
 fians might not worfhip human fpirits al- 
 
 d Borlafe, Ant. of Cornwall, p. 162. 
 
 e Francos, etfi Chriftum jam colerent, humanis ta- 
 men ad fuum aevum hoftiis ufos. Procopius, 1. 2. de 
 Bell. Goth. Lipfii not. in Tacit, de Mor. Germ. c. 9. 
 Borlafe, p. 154. 
 
 f P-*7- 
 
 fol
 
 60 Worfhip of human Spirits 
 
 fo ; and whether there be any evidence 
 that they did worfhip them. I will en- 
 deavour to fhew, 
 
 I. That the Perfians might worfhip 
 human fpirits, notwithstanding what is 
 contained in the foregoing extract from 
 Herodotus. It was not the defign of this 
 hiftorian to give a full account of the re- 
 ligion of the Perlians, but principally 
 to point out fome remarkable particu- 
 lars in which it differed from that of 
 Greece. When he fpeaks of their rites 
 ofworfhip*) he fcarce touches on any but 
 the mofl fmgular of them : and fo far is 
 he from enumerating all their gods, that 
 he has made no mention of Arimanius, 
 who was certainly worfhipped by Xer- 
 xes h . 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. 
 
 B L. '. c. 132. 
 
 b Plutarch. Vit. Themifloc. p. 126. A. 
 
 He
 
 in barbarous Nations. 61 
 
 He begins with taking notice of a very 
 Ariking difference between the religions 
 of the Perfians and the Greeks ; the for- 
 mer, contrary to the principles and 
 practice of the latter, having no ftatues, 
 temples, or altars, and condemning 
 thofe who had. 
 
 In order to account for this difference, 
 he fays, be 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 h 
 and others had neither temples nor fla- 
 tues, though they worfhipped human 
 fpirits. 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 
 
 h Above, p. 40. 
 
 * See above, p. 5, note k . Heroes and demons are 
 fometimes diftinguiflied from jWi, even when the latter, 
 no left than the former, were fuppofci to hare been 
 men. 
 
 men
 
 62 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 men to whom the title of gods belonged 
 eminently and by way of diftinftion ; to 
 whom temples, as well as flatues and 
 altars, were erected, and who were the 
 objects of the higheft worfhip. The 
 gods of Perfia, therefore, here con- 
 trafted with them, muft be the princi- 
 pal gods of that country. Now, it was 
 a diftinction that well deferved to be 
 mentioned, that the chief objects of wor- 
 fhip 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 hiflorian proceeds to inform us, 
 that they facrificed to Jupiter upon the 
 top of mountains j 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- 
 lone, the hiflorian adds, they (the Per- 
 fians) facrifice from the beginning. In 
 
 this
 
 in barbarous Nations. 63 
 
 this manner the original words are com- 
 monly underftood -, and, if this be their 
 true fenfe, they point out a farther dif- 
 tin&ion 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* -, 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 objects of the pub- 
 lic facrifices k . The victims were offered 
 immediately, not to heaven or the aether, 
 for example, but to Jupiter; who, 
 though often put for heaven or the ae- 
 ther, was a diftincl: deity from it 1 . But, 
 in Perfia, the public facrifices, according 
 to our hiftorian *, were offered imme- 
 
 * See below, p.4i2etfeq. diately 
 1 Afpice hoc fublime candens, quern invocant om- 
 
 nes Jovem. Quafi vero quifquam noftrum iftum, po- 
 tiusquam Capitolinum, Jovem appellet. 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. Worjbip of human Spirits 
 diately to Jupiter, under the fmgle idfea 
 of his being the whole circumference cf 
 leaven. Now, though the Perfians fa- 
 crificed to the natural gods alone ; that 
 is, under their own proper characters, 
 or exclufively of all thofe human fym- 
 bols which intercepted the public devo- 
 tion of Greece ; yet, befides thefe natu<- 
 ral gods, they might alfo worfhip human 
 fpirits j 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 -, and the Perfians, befides him whom 
 they called the circumference of heaven, might 
 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 magi, who were far from being lefs felici- 
 tous than other pagan priefts to conceal the nature and 
 origin of the great gods. It might be no more than an 
 inference unjuftly drawn from the Perfians not worfhip- 
 ping them with ftatues 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 65 
 
 the Perfians, but common both to them 
 and the Greeks. 
 
 But itdefervesto be confidered, whe- 
 ther the common tranflation of the lafl- 
 cited pafTage from Herodotus does truly 
 exprefs the fenfe of the original, which 
 may very well be rendered, " To thefe 
 " principally* they facrifice from the be- 
 <c ginning/' Now, they might cer- 
 tainly have other gods befides thofe to 
 whom they principally facrificed. Some 
 think that Herodotus only meant to fay, 
 that " the Perfians originally facrificed 
 
 m TSTOK pt h /A8o<n. The word ^ovo? is often ufed 
 as equivalent to chief or principal. Examples may be 
 found in Horapollinis Hieroglyph. 1. i. c. 12. and 
 De Pauw's notes, p. 295. Juftin fays, 1. i. c. 10. So- 
 lem Perfae unum deum efle credunt. But Freinfhemius 
 (in his note on Quintus Curtius, 1. iii. c. 3. p. 75. 
 torn. I. ed. Snakenburg) conjectures, that, by unum 
 deum, we are not to under/land folum atque unicum, fed 
 potius unum ex a'iis. According to Hefychius, Mithras, 
 or, as he explains it, the fun, was o wgwroj $105, the fu- 
 preme god of the Perfians. Herodotus is certainly the 
 beft expofitor of himfelf: now, he feems to ufe /^a?o? for 
 thief or principal, 1. v. c. 7. which will be cited when 
 we come to fpeak of the Thracians. 
 
 F " to
 
 66 Worjhlp of human 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 
 worfhip them. And, if Herodotus him- 
 felf has furnifhed evidence of this point, 
 it will overturn the common explication 
 of the foregoing extract from him. 
 
 i. I fhall begin with 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. Artabanus, the Perlian, 
 thus addrefTes Themiftocles : We have 
 many excellent laws, but none compara- 
 ble to that which requires us to ivorjhip 
 the king as the image of the God 'who pre 
 ferves all things 9 . And Cleo commends 
 
 a L. 3. c. 86. 
 
 L. 7. c. 136. 
 
 P n^ocntfysn' txoa Se, TS T Traura <rw^oTOf. Plut. 
 Vk. Themift. p. 125. See the next note. 
 
 the
 
 in barbarous Nations. 67 
 
 the cuftom of thePerfians in deifying their 
 kings, as being both pious and prudent 1 . 
 To their images r adoration was demanded, 
 and alfo to their favourites ; for Morde- 
 cai afligns this reafon for refufmg to pay 
 the fame honours to Haman which o- 
 thers did, That he 'would not ivorjhip any 
 but God*. The cuftom of deifying kings 
 was of great antiquity, and obtained in 
 ./Ethiopia', 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 
 
 9 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 cesium ac fulciat 
 fujlineatque. Which illuftrates the language of Artaba- 
 nus, in note P. 
 
 r See Philoftrat. Vit. Apollon. Tyan. 1. i. c. 27. 
 p. 35. ed. Olear. 
 
 * Apocrypha, Efther xiii. 14. 
 
 * Strabo, 1. 17. p. 1177, A. 
 
 u At Rome, Herat. 1. z. ep. i, v. 25. 
 
 F 2 them
 
 68 Worjhlp 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- 
 ihip them after their death. Why fhould 
 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 probfs of the Per- 
 fians having mortal gods. Herodotus, 
 immediately after he had enumerated 
 their natural divinities, adds, But they have 
 learnt from the Ajjyriam and Arabians to 
 facrifice alfo to Urania, or Venus. By this 
 goddefs we are not to underftand the 
 moon, as fome have fuppofed w , becaufe 
 diftinc~l mention had been before made 
 of that planet. Strabo x likewife diftin- 
 guifhes the goddefs Venus from the 
 moon. Nor did Herodotus by Urania 
 mean the planet Venus; becaufe the for- 
 mer is diftinguifhed from the natural 
 
 w Letters concerning Mythol. p. 273. 
 >. P. 1064. 
 
 gods
 
 in barbarous Nations. 69 
 
 gods of the Perfians, and her worfhip is 
 mentioned as an exception to their gene- 
 ral practice. Herodotus probably refers 
 to the prefident of the planet Venus, or 
 of the moon. In this view, the worfhip 
 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 diftinct worfhip to the prefi- 
 dent of a celeftial luminary. That the 
 female deity, of whom we are fpeaking, 
 was worfhipped by the vulgar under a 
 human character, I fee no ground to 
 doubt y . Moft probably fhe was the Sy- 
 F 3 rian 
 
 7 There were four Venufes, according to Cicero, 
 (Nat. Deor. 1.3. c. 23.) and the philofophers allego- 
 rized their hiftory ; (fee Apuleius, Metamorphof. 1. xi. 
 p. 357, 358.) as they did that of other heathen deities. 
 But the language of Cotta, when expofmg 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, qui hos deos, ex hominumgenere in ccelum tranf- 
 latos, non re, fed opinions, efle dicunt, quos auguftc 
 
 ornne*
 
 70 W "orjhip of human Spirits 
 
 rian Aftarte 1 , 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 Anaith* y and reprefented by 
 an image of human form j which fhews 
 what ideas were formed of her in the 
 eaft. Here, then, is an inftance of the 
 
 omnes fanfteque veneramur. Ap. Cicer. Nat. Deor, 
 J. 3. c. 21. Amongft other deities, the four Venufes 
 are fpecified, 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 hsc quidem ejufmodi ex 
 vetere Graecias fama collegia funt : quibus intelli- 
 gis refiftendum efle, ne perturbentur religiones. 
 Veftri autem non modo haec non refellunt, verum etiam 
 confirmant, interpretando quorfum quidque pertineat. 
 Ibid. 
 
 z Quarta, (fcil. Venus,) Syria, Tyroque concepta, 
 quae Aftarte vocatur. Id. ib. 
 
 * Under the article, Phoenicians, in the 2d ch. 
 
 b Strabo introduces the mention of this fafl, by fay- 
 ing, Asranra (* out ret TUV Tltgcrvv ^a X.B.I M>s^b xou Ap- 
 ^xfnot T(Ti/4);xa(7. L. XX. p. 80^. 
 
 c Clemens Alexandr. Cohort, ad Gentes, p. 57. ed, 
 Potteri, with the notes of the learned editor, 
 
 worfhip
 
 in barbarous Nations. j i 
 
 worfhip 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 d , of human origin e , who 
 were worfhipped not only in their own 
 country, but alfo in Cappadocia, where 
 there were many temples of the Per- 
 fian gods*. We are told by Strabo, 
 in moft exprefs terms, that the Per- 
 fians celebrated the exploits of their gods and 
 illuftrious men*. Thefe teftimonies are 
 confirmed by, and ferve to confirm, the 
 defcription which Quintus Curtius has 
 given of the chariot of Darius. It was 
 
 To TIJ? AyamJ-, xai TO rut trvpftupuv Sew, it^ey togv- 
 AfJMta x A^av^ara, Tligo-muv Jat/xovw>. Strabo, 
 J. xi. p. 779. See alfo 1. xv. p. 1065, 1066. 
 
 e Alexander ab Alexandro, torn. 2. p. 446. after 
 fpeaking of Amanus and Anandratus, and other hea- 
 then gods, adds> Qui omnes ex hominibus pofl fu- 
 nera divinitate donati, diique indigites poil confecra- 
 tionem habiti funt. 
 
 * HoMa ^ XKI'TUV UtffM iuv uga. Strabo, p. 1065. 
 See p. 1066. 
 
 ' E^ya Btuv rt, nou cttfyur ru a,^ruv, ai/ahhrrft' Strabo, 
 J. 15. p. 1066. 
 
 F 4 adorned
 
 72 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 adorned with the images of the gods 
 in filver and gold j and upon the axle- 
 tree were two images of gold, the one 
 reprefenting Ninus, the other Belus 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 h . We may proceed far- 
 ther, and obferve, 
 
 3 . That the Perfians worshipped 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 facrlficed a 
 thouf and oxen to the III an Minerva* and the 
 
 * Utrumque currus latus deorum fimulacra ex auro 
 argentoque expreffa decorabant : Jugum, ex quo 
 eminebant duo aurea limulacra cubitalia, quorum al- 
 terum Nini, alterum Beli, gerebat effigiem. Q^ Curt. 
 1. 3. c. 3. p. 77. ed. Snaken. Freinfhemius obferves, 
 Per Ninum Aflyrias, per Belum Babylonia?, imperium 
 conjunftum innuebant currus Darii artifices. 
 
 Toy NfjS^wa yiycmu. Toy iw Bufivhunoii/ xTiffxrT 
 or fayairiv o^ Tliga'a.i aTroSewSayTa xa ysvo/^evon tv TCI? fgo; 
 
 T fvtf, ovlmot xaXo-t fi^uvu. Chronicon Alexandria 
 Hum, p. 84,
 
 in barbarous Nations. 73 
 
 magi poured out libations to the heroes 1 . 
 The fame Perfian monarch fhewed a reli- 
 gious reverence for the temple of Atha- 
 mas k . 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 1 , and other countries 01 . Thefe 
 facts confirm the teftimonies that have 
 been produced to {hew, that they ac- 
 knowledged mortal gods. They likewife 
 ferve to demonftrate, that, when 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 
 
 1 Tj ASiivam rrj 
 TOIO-* tjgwo-i ^;ETO. Herodot. 1,7. 0.43. 
 
 k Ken TO rs/xeyo; IO-E^TO. Id. 1. 7. C, 197 
 
 Tnv 
 
 oijToga{ tvpem^tro. Xenophon, de Inftit. 
 
 Cyri, 1.3. c. 3 . . ii. 
 
 Particularly of Media. Id. 1.8. 0.3. . n. 
 Herodot. 1. 8. c. 143. 
 
 confirmation
 
 74 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 confirmation of all that has been offered, 
 we may obferve, 
 
 4. That, notwithstanding 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 prbbable in itfelf : for, the 
 Perfians being the fame people with the 
 Celtes , there could fcarcely be an effen- 
 tial difference between them with refpect 
 to the leading principles of religion. 
 They are reprefented by Herodotus p as 
 being prone to imitate the manners of fo- 
 reigners, particularly the Greeks ; and 
 this difpofition was likely to extend it's 
 influence beyond the affairs of civil life, 
 and to make them conformifls in religion. 
 What is fo probable in theory is confirm- 
 ed by fafts. The Perfians, like other 
 nations, worfhipped the natural gods% 
 
 See Pelloutier's Hift. of the Celtes, v. i. p. 19. 
 L. i. c. 135. 
 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 ; and hardly was 
 any practice more common than to fa- 
 crifice upon the tops of mountains. 
 
 In many other refpects 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 inconfiftent 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 mould throw their carrafes 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 aflerts, c. 114. Befides, the 
 horfes were confecrated to a religious purpofe. It was 
 unlawful to throw a carcafe into the fire ; but this did 
 not extend to facrifices. Hyde, p. 94. Fire and water 
 were the principal objefts of their worihip, according 
 to Strabo, 1. 15. p. 1065. 
 
 gods,
 
 7 6 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 gods, fo likewife had the Perfians'. 
 Now the ancient theogonies, and the 
 Grecian in particular, mix with the 
 phyfical an hiflorical relation of the ge- 
 nealogy of the gods, and record the 
 births even of thofe they ftile always exijl- 
 ing, and immortal* j fuppofing them to be 
 generated from pre-exiflent principles. 
 This ill agrees with the fuppofition of the 
 Perfians worfhipping one or more gods, 
 under the character 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 ; and 
 by her had a fon, whom he named 
 Perfeus, from whom the Perfians took 
 their name. Now is not this agreeable 
 
 At their facrifices, one of the magi, ftanding up, 
 E7n*iJ $icyoa, theogoniam accinit. Herodot. 1. I. 
 c. 132. Compare Diogenes Laertius, procem. fegm. 9. 
 where it is faid, I'pon the authority of Hecataeus, that, 
 according to the magi, the gods were begotten. 
 
 1 Hefiod. Theogcn. v. 106. 
 
 L. 7 . c.6i. 
 
 to
 
 'in barbarous 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* j 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 
 
 w Xerxes thus addrefles the Perfians : Nt/ h hotjScti- 
 U/JLW tTTtvZa.p.WM roicrt .&o<r rot Tlsgo-tXct yw XsXoy^ao-*. He- 
 
 rodot. 1.7. 0.53. 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 
 ivkole circumference of heaven, Xenophon fpeaks of ano- 
 ther who was a local deity, king and patron of Perfia. 
 Kt^os tvt A j3a<XH. De Inftitut. Cyri, 1.3. 0.3. .n. 
 A va-T^uu sOhf. 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 understand Belus. Xerxes alfo feems to have 
 been called Jupiter : for Themiftocles told him, that he 
 was direfted by Jupiter df Dodona to go to a perfon of 
 the fame ri^gie with the god, opuwpot ra Sw, which he 
 affigns as the reafon of coming to Xerxes; though Plu- 
 tarch might only mean, that each was called the great 
 king. Plutarch. Vit. Tiiemiftoclis, p. 126. A. 
 
 be
 
 7 8 Worjhip 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 ufmg the Grecian 
 rites of ivorjhip* . 
 
 As a farther proof of the great confor- 
 mity between the theology of Perlia 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 
 Ihe 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 y . Many learned men have fup- 
 pofed, that Nereus was a prince, an4 
 the Nereids princefles, who had impro- 
 ved navigation 5 and confequently that 
 they were human perfonages : which is 
 much confirmed by the rapture of Thetis^ 
 
 3' 
 
 * EXXwxcicrt i0ia tffitiTO. Herodot. 1. p." C. 36. 
 
 y Herodot. 1. 7. c. 191. 
 
 one
 
 in barbarous Nations. 79 
 
 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 
 moft barbarous a&s of worfhip. Du- 
 ring a tempeft the magi offered up hu- 
 man victims z , 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 
 
 2 Herodot. 1. 7. c. 191. I have followed Wefleling's 
 tranflation of the original words, mopa, re TTOUWSJ. The 
 phrafe does not neceflarily import the fpecies of the fa- 
 crifice fpoken of; but it is applied to human viftims by 
 Herodotus, 1. 2. c. 119. and is fo underftood here by 
 H. Stephens, torn. III. p. 1401. as well as by Wefle- 
 ling. See the note of the latter on Herodot. 1. 2. 
 c. 119. Every one will recoiled that line of Virgil, 
 -ffin.il. 116. 
 
 Sanguine placafti ventos, et virgine caefa. 
 
 account,
 
 80 Worjhlp 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 b . The fame hiftorian 
 informs us, that, when the army of Xer- 
 xes came to a place called the Nine Ways, 
 the magi took nine of the fons and daugh- 
 ters of the inhabitants, and buried them 
 alive, as the manner of the Perfians is*. It 
 has been fuggefted, but without any 
 good reafon, that Plutarch and Herodo- 
 tus have reproached them unjuflly with 
 offering human facrifices. But fuch fa- 
 crifices were common amongft the an- 
 cients, and fixed no peculiar fligma on 
 the Perfians 6 . As to the cuftom of bu- 
 rying 
 
 a De Superftit. p. 171, D. A/wgrgi; &, v ta yvm t 
 ^IwJisxa xotrugvi-ty ay$gftOTU{ ^y>raj vjrt% avrij? T A^ij. In 
 his Ifis & Ofir. p. 369, E. he fays, the Perfians invo- 
 ked Pluto. 
 
 b Herod. 1.7. c. 114. Comp. 1. 3. c. 35. 
 
 c In confirmation of the authorities produced above, 
 to (hew that the Perfians were chargeable with offering 
 human facrinces^ I would obferve, that, when the Gre- 
 cians
 
 tit barbarous Nations. 8 1 
 
 rying human vic~lims alive, it obtained 
 amongft the Romans*. The fa6ls, there- 
 fore, laft flated, like many mentioned 
 before, concerning the Perfians, are di- 
 reel: 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 6 muft be reckoned. 
 
 The fame conclufion may be drawn 
 from their necromancy f , or divination 
 by confulting the dead. This fuperfti- 
 tion, which is fuppofed to have had it's 
 
 cians adopted the Worfhip of Mithras, they offered 
 him human vi&ims. Photius, in Vita Athanafii, p. 1446* 
 Hyde, p. 112. 
 
 < Liv. 1. II. c. 57. 
 
 * See Letters to Worthingtori, p. 37, 42. 
 
 f Quod genus divinationis Varro a Perfis dicit alla- 
 tum, quo et ipfum Numam, et poftea Pythagoram phi- 
 lofophum, ufum fuifle commemorant : ubi adhibito 
 fanguine etiam inferos perhibet fcifcitari ; et rtxwo/*a-- 
 TEiac Grasce dicit vocari : quae, 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 
 teftimony of the learned Varro! 
 
 G rife
 
 82 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 rife in Ferfia g , was very generally prac- 
 tifed in the heathen nations ; and it was 
 a fpecies of idolatry which had for it's 
 objet 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 thePer- 
 fian s worfhipped of old J upiter and S aturn , 
 and all the other celebrated gods of Greece h , 
 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 fmgular 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 
 
 e Magic, according to Pliny, (1. 30, c. I ,) was the 
 invention of Zoroafter. 
 
 h To / y.g TraAaiov, Ata re x.aj K^ovoc, xai TSTH? & 
 
 1. z. p. 58. ed. Lugd. Bat. 1594. 
 
 hypothecs
 
 
 in barbarous Nations. 83 
 
 hypothecs very improbable in itfelf, and 
 ill fupported. At the fame time we con- 
 tradift the teftimony of numerous unex- 
 ceptionable witneffes to the fafts here 
 flated ; the truth of which might even 
 have been prefumed from their own in- 
 ternal credibility, confidering the difpo- 
 fition and fituationof the Perflans. 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 for any great length of time 
 after the age of that hiftorian'. This 
 difference was perfectly confident with a 
 general agreement in other refpects, and 
 particularly with the deification of hu- 
 man fpirits. Indeed, the ancient Perfians 
 are one of the laft nations which can be 
 fufpecled of not worfhipping the fpirits 
 
 1 We learn from Strabo, p. 1065, that in Cappado- 
 cia, where there was a great number of the magi, there 
 were alfo many temples of the Perfian gods, and zftatue 
 of Omanus, p. 1066, a Perfian demon, p. 779. See 
 above, p. 71* note *. 
 
 G 2 Of
 
 84 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 of illuftrious men, if it be true, as is 
 generally allowed, that they afferted the 
 exiflence of divine genii, who aiTumed 
 for a time the human nature. 
 
 The foregoing obfervations are not 
 offered as a vindication of any thing I 
 had formerly advanced on the fubjec~l of the 
 heathen gods, but are the refult of an 
 unbiaffed inquiry. Whether they arejuft, 
 others are more able to determine. 
 
 VIL Concerning the Arabians, Mr. 
 Fell* (copying Dr. Blackwell 1 ) 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 m , They acknoivlege no other gods 
 than Dionyfus (or Bacchus) and Urania: 
 
 k P. 8. 
 
 1 Mythol. p. 273. 
 
 f Toy p 
 
 Herodot. 1. 3. c. 8. 
 
 they
 
 in barbarous Nations. 85 
 
 " they call the former Urotalt, and 
 <c the latter Alilat" 
 
 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 conjecture 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 p 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 third, 
 
 B Id. c. in. Plutarch fpeaks of the nurfes of Bac- 
 chus. Vit. Camilli, p. 131, 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 beatis 
 Gentibus, atque Indis, unus fit Jupiter Ammon. 
 
 P Lib, 16. p. 1076. 
 
 G 3 provided
 
 86 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 provided he conquered, and reftored 
 their former liberty. Arrian q confirms 
 the teftimony of Straboj telling us, 
 that the Arabians wor (hipped only Ura-* 
 nus and Dionyfus r -, and afligning the 
 reafon of their worfhipping the latter, 
 viz. the fame of leading an army into India*\ 
 in which refpect, he adds, Alexander 
 did not think himfelf inferior to him, 
 and therefore pleaded he had an equal 
 right to their worfliip. 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 alfo the former was, She is 
 probably the fame with the Alitta fpo- 
 ken of above 1 , and confequently no 
 other than the Syrian Aftarte -, of 
 whom farther mention will be made 
 
 9 De Expedit. Alexand. p. 300. cd. Gronovii. 
 
 r Comp. p. 85. note . 
 
 * Kara ^o|a TK ff I^f rjarwej. 
 
 P. 48, 68. 
 
 in
 
 in barbarous Nations. 87 
 
 in i the fequel. Amongft the gods of 
 this people, Tertullian * reckons Dy- 
 fares ; Suidas, Mars, (which figni- 
 fies the valiant* -J and Porphyry 1 , Du- 
 matius, to whom they annually offered 
 a human victim. 
 
 If you choofe to fet afide the authority 
 of the Greeks, and to rely rather on the 
 oriental writers j one well acquainted 
 with them has given us the names of fome 
 of their antediluvian idols, or what 
 were faid to be fuch, which the Arabs 
 acknowleged as gods, having been men 
 of great piety and merit in their times 1 . 
 And, though the idols were not fuppofed 
 to be fui 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 
 
 x Apol. c. 24. 
 
 y Sir If. Newton's Chronol. p. 98. See above con 
 cerning Mars, p. 27, 35. 
 
 * De Abftinent. 1. 2. . 56. 
 
 * Sale's Koran, preliminary Difc. p. 19. qto. 
 
 G 4 was
 
 88 Wor/hip of human Spirits 
 
 was often put off with the leaft portion 1 *. 
 Somewhat of this kind we obferve in po- 
 pifti countries. The rofary afcribed to 
 the Virgin Mary confifts of a hundred 
 and fifty Aw-Marias, and only fifteen 
 Pater-nofters. 
 
 Should it be here objected, that the 
 only gods of the Arabs taken notice of in 
 the book of Job c are the fun and moon, 
 and therefore that thefe were the fole ob- 
 jects of idolatrous worfhip in the age in 
 which that book was written j 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 
 fpoken of, yet it might be quite other- 
 wife in fucceeding ages. According to a 
 late writer d , the defcription of idolatry 
 in the book of Job is of greater antiquity 
 than that given by Mofes. But the quef- 
 
 * id. p. 16. 
 
 c Ch. 3 i, 26. 
 d Fell, p. 3 6 ? 
 
 tion
 
 'in barbarous Nations. 89 
 
 tion agitated in the DifTertation concer- 
 ned only the gods of the Heathens ; that 
 is, the nations contradiftinguifhed from 
 the Ifraelites; a diftinction that could 
 not take place before the time of Mofes, 
 when the Ifraelites were firft formed in- 
 to a nation. The queflion had no rela- 
 tion to any times, or countries, but thofe 
 in which fome demons were acknowledged 
 as a diftincl: order of deities from the 
 heavenly bodies. But, after all, the lan- 
 guage of Job neither aflerts, nor implies, 
 that there,, were .no other objects 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 mofl 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- 
 jects of idolatrous worfhip ; though 
 
 there
 
 go Worfhip 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 
 celeftiai 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. Fell 6 tells us, that " the 
 " inhabitants of Meroe in ./Ethiopia 
 " worshipped no other gods than Jupi- 
 c< 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. Blackwell"'. 
 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 8 : a plain 
 proof that Jupiter here denotes a human 
 
 P. s. 
 
 f Mythol. p. 274. 
 * Aia Stuv X.M AIOIWOK p 
 Titoy Ato$ xTrrx.. Herodot. 1. 2. c. 
 
 fpirit.
 
 in barbarous Nations. g i 
 
 {pint. In the opinion of Sir Ifaac New- 
 ton h , thefe two gods were Jupiter Am- 
 mon and Ofiris, according to the lan- 
 guage of Egypt. We are informed by 
 Strabo, that the Ethiopians had both an 
 immortal, and a mortal, god ! 5 that they 
 commonly deified their benefactors and 
 perfons of royal birth k ; that they re- 
 garded their kings as the common favours 
 and prefervers of all 1 -, and even worfhip- 
 ped them as gods while living ". The 
 inhabitants of Meroe in particular wor- 
 
 h Chronol. p. 213. 
 
 Strabo, 1. 17. p. 1177, 1178. 
 k P. 1178. IJj 
 
 1 Kai TUTU* T 
 j. Ib. 
 
 araxXsirs? OT xat 
 OJXB^? TO ffXio. P. 1177- This is confirmed by the 
 teftimony of Diodorus Siculus, who fays, (1.3. p. 177. 
 ed. Weffeling.) that, as foon as the king was chofen, 
 the people worfhipped him as a god : Et$>j & xa ityxr- 
 
 f K6tl Tip* KC&Ct'Ktg ScGC. 
 
 Ihipped
 
 92 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 fhipped Hercules, Pan, and Ifis y 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 afTerted the exiftence of de- 
 mons of a celeftial origin ; but the Dif- 
 fertation undertook to prove, that fuch 
 demons, as were the more immediate 
 objects 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 polijhed na- 
 tions of the world j but the gentleman 
 
 n Oi y it Mf^orj, xa Hgax^sa, v.a.\ Haya., nan lew, o-e- 
 ^orrai, irgoj aAXw <rm Pa.$a.ixu. Strabo, 1. 17. p. 1178. 
 This foreign god could not be either an elementary or 
 fidereal deity, any more than Hercules, or Pan, or 
 Ifis. 
 
 P. 11-17. 
 
 draws
 
 'in barbarous Nations. 93 
 
 draws his objections from the fuppofed 
 cafe of Barbarians, and the greateft fa- 
 vages. The propofition refpefted only 
 thofe nations in which, befides the na- 
 tural gods, demons alfo, of one kind or 
 other, were worfhipped j 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 facts been true, they 
 would have been foreign from the point. 
 
 But the fafts 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, feven * worfhipped human 
 fpirits. Nay, fome of them had no o- 
 other deities but thefe p . He not only 
 adopts Dr. Blackwell's 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 knovv- 
 
 * The cafe of the Maflagetes alone is doubtful. P. 28. 
 p P. 32. 
 
 ledge
 
 94 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 ledge of his fubje6l. When Mr. Fell de- 
 ferts his guide, he is far from appearing 
 to greater advantage : for then, inftead 
 of mifinterpreting 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 3 or appealing to the teftimony of 
 writers who contradift 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, 
 
 that many other barbarous nations, be* 
 
 Jides thofe fpecified in the preceding fee** 
 
 tion, paid divine honours to deceafed men. 
 
 HOUGH, to avoid being tedious, 
 I fhall purpofely omit many in- 
 ftances of the worfhip of human ipirits 
 
 n
 
 in barbarous Nations. <)j 
 
 in fome of the barbarous nations pafled 
 over by a late writer, yet the proofs of 
 it in others, that will be here produced, 
 added to thofe recited in the preceding 
 feclion, will be fufficient to fhew how 
 generally it prevailed in the continents of 
 Africa, Europe, and Afia. 
 
 I. I (hall 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 benefactors -, as was (hewn above 1 . 
 
 There is a pafTage 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 hiflorian, when fpeaking of 
 
 i p. 9 o, 91, 92. 
 
 fome
 
 96 x Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 fome of the Libyan nomades, fays, they 
 facrifice to no other gods than the fun and 
 moon r . He adds, to thefe all the Li by a?: s 
 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 fhews that the 
 practice of the other tribes was different. 
 According to the fame author, the ,/- 
 by am always worfhipped Neptune s , who 
 was the fon of Pontus ', and is thought 
 to have been originally of Phenicia, and 
 to have fettled afterwards upon the fea- 
 coafts of Libya. Many writers confirm 
 the opinion of his being a human per- 
 fonage u . Pfaphon was deified by the Li- 
 byans, for teaching birds to fing thefe 
 words, ffle great god Pfaphon''. Thofe 
 Libyans, who dwelt about the lake Tri- 
 
 Herodot. 1.4. c. 188. 
 
 * L. 2. c. 50. 
 
 1 Sanchoniathon, ap. Eufeb. Prsep. Ev. 1. 1. p. 384 
 Diodor. Sic. 1. 5. p. 386. ed. WeffeKng. Laftanf. 
 Div. Inft. 1. i. c. 10. 
 
 w Maxim. Tyr. Diflert. 19. 
 
 tonis,
 
 in barbarous Nations. gj 
 
 tonis, facrificed to Triton as well as Nep- 
 tune, and principally to Minerva x . 
 
 The Augilites had no other gods but 
 the manes^ according to Pomponius 
 Mela y , whofe teflimony is confirmed by 
 Pliny *. The inhabitants of Cyrene wor- 
 fhipped their king Battus, the founder 
 of their kingdom a . In Africa Proprla> 
 which lay between Cyrenaica and Mau- 
 ritania, Mopfus, king of the Argives, 
 was admitted into the number of the 
 gods ". The Tynan ElifTa, the founder 
 
 * Herodot. 1.4. c. 1 88. Coacerning Minerva, fee 
 Eufeb. Prasp. Ev. p. 38. 
 
 y Augilse manes tantum deos putant j per eos deje- 
 fant ; eos ut oracula confulunt ; precatiqtie qu<e volunt, 
 ubi tumulis incubuere> pro refponfis ferunt fomnia. 
 Pomp. M. Li. c. 8. 
 
 z Augilee inferos tantum colunt. Pliny, I. 5. C. 8. 
 Compare what Herodotus fays of the Nafamones, 1. 4. 
 c. 172. and Tertullian, de Anima, c. 57. 
 
 3 Herodot. 1.4. c. 161. 
 
 b Quippe tantum eos deos appellant, qui, ex eodem 
 numero jufte ac prudenter vitae curriculo gubernato, pro 
 numine poftea ab hominibus proditi, fanis et cseremo- 
 niis vulgo advertuntur : ut in Bceotia Amphiaraus, in 
 Africa Mopfus, in ^Egypto Ofiris, alius aliubi gentium, 
 ./Efculapius ulique. Apuleius, de Deo Socrat. p. 689, 
 690. torn. 2. ed. Delph. 
 
 H of
 
 98 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 of Carthage, was worfhipped in that 
 city, as long as it remained unconquer- 
 ed c . In the fame city a temple was e- 
 refted to ^Efculapius d . Tjje Carthagi- 
 nians alfo facrificed to Amilcar 6 . We 
 are here more directly examining the tef- 
 timony of the Heathens themfelves con- 
 cerning their own gods -, otherwife I 
 might take notice, that Chriflian writers 
 inform us, that the Mauritanians wor- 
 fhipped their kings f . 
 
 The Atlantiansi a people who inha- 
 bited the weftern parts of Africa, boaft- 
 ed that their country was the birth- 
 place of the gods 8 . Their firfl king, 
 Uranus, or Ccelus, whofe name was 
 
 e Quamdiu Carthago invifta fuit, pro dea culta eft, 
 Juftin. 1. 1 8. c.6. 
 
 d Strabo, 1. 17, p. 1189. 
 * Herodot. 1. 7. c. 167. 
 
 f Unicuique etiam provincise et civitati fuus deus eft; 
 ut Syria Aftarte, ut Arabia; Difares, ut Noricis Bele- 
 nus, ut Africa? Czleftis, ut Mauritania reguli fui. 
 Tertull. Apol. 0.24. Hac fcilicet ratione confecra- 
 verunt et Mauri reges fuos, Laftant. 1. i. c. 15. 
 
 t Diodor. Sic. 1. 3. p. 224. 
 
 given
 
 in barbarous Nations \ 99 
 
 given to heaven, received divine honours 
 after his death h -, and fo alfo did his 
 wife Titaea, and fhe was called Gee, or 
 the earth h .* 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 1 . Bafilea was wor- 
 ihipped under the title of the great mo- 
 ther of the gods, on account of the 
 care fhe took of the education of her 
 brothers and lifters, the Titans > one of 
 whom, Atlas, was worshipped in the 
 ftar that bears his name ; and another, 
 Saturn, was the father of the Jupiter 
 who was furnamed Olympian. They al- 
 low, that there was another Jupiter, the 
 brother of Uranus, and king of Crete k . 
 To the nations of Africa that wor- 
 fhipped human fpirits, already taken 
 
 * P. 225. 
 
 * p. 226. 
 
 k p. 229, 230. 
 
 H 2 notice
 
 ioo Worfoip of human Spirits 
 notice of, the Egyptians might be ad- 
 ded : but their cafe will more properly 
 fall under confideration in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 II. As to Europe, it will not be im- 
 proper to begin with obfervingy that 
 this continent was by fome called Cel- 
 tica ; 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 
 diflinguifhed by the name of Scythians, 
 Celto-Scythians, Getae, 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 fouthernmofl parts of Spain to the 
 northern fea, which lies off Archangel 
 in Ruflia 1 . And, if we except the 
 
 fouthern 
 
 1 See The Antiquities of Cornwall, by the very learned 
 and judicious Dr. Borlafe, book i. ch. 4. p. 14- and 
 
 compare
 
 in barbarous Nations. i o i 
 
 fouthern parts of Italy, Greece, and the 
 ifles of the ^Egean fea, all Europe may 
 be juftly faid to have been peopled by 
 the ancient Cimbri, or (as they were 
 foon afterwards called) Celtas m . 
 
 It has been fhewn already, that dead 
 men were worfhipped by many nations 
 of the Celtes, both in Afia 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 leafl did not defert the 
 general principle of deifying their kings 
 and heroes, maintained by thofe from 
 whom they were defcended j efpecially 
 as it is well known that the Heathens in 
 ' 
 
 compare Pezron's Antiquities of Nations, book I. and 
 the Ancient Univrrfal Hiftory, v. 6. ch. 12. feel. x. 
 8vo. ed. 1747. 
 
 m Pezron endeavours to fhew, that feveral nations of 
 Greece and Italy were defcendents of the Titans, whom 
 he taer to be the fame with the Celtas. Book i. But 
 thefe countries and the iflands of the ^Egean fea were 
 peopled from the Syrian continent, according to Dr, 
 Borlafe, 
 
 H 3 general
 
 IO2 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 eflential point 
 which I have been endeavouring to ef- 
 tablifh, one and the fame. 
 
 The Celtes, under the title of Iberi- 
 ans and Celtiberians, inhabited the 
 country now called Spain n . 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 p , and the 
 Odhen of the Goths q . The Lufitani- 
 ans alfo facrificed to Mars r . 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 tern- 
 
 Pliny, 1.3, c.i, 
 
 Accitani, Hifpana gens, fimulachrum Martls, ra- 
 diis ornatum, maxima religione celebrant, Neton vo- 
 cantes, Macrob, Sat. 1. I. c. 19, 
 
 P Above, p. 43, 
 
 * P. 35. 
 
 ' Strabo, 1. 3, p. 33*. 
 
 pic
 
 in barbarous Nations. 103 
 
 pie was creeled at Gades, or Cadiz, both 
 to the Egyptian and Theban Hercules, 
 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 w . It is faid, 
 that Spain fell to the lot of this prince*, 
 and that the Celtes are the remote de- 
 fcendents of the Titans r . 
 
 Let us proceed to confider the objects 
 of religious worfhip in Gaul. The in- 
 habitants of this country were Celtes z , 
 and were called by that name in the time 
 
 * The Perfians and Germans alfo are faid to have had 
 o ftatues of the gods. 
 
 1 Vit. Apol. Tyan. 1. 5, c. 4, 5. 
 u Nulla effigies, fisnulachraque nota deorum, 
 
 Majeftate locum, et facro implevere timore. 
 
 Silius Italicus, 1. 3. 
 
 w Apud Eufeb. Prap. Ev. 1. i. c. 10. p. 38. D. 
 See above, p. 81. note". 
 
 * See Ancient Univerfal Hift. v. 6. b. i. ch. 12. 
 p. 50. 
 
 x Callimach. Hymn, in Delum, v. 170. et feq. Cal- 
 limachus calls the Celtes o^yow Td!>i;, the late pofte- 
 rity of the Titans. See Pezron, b. ii. ch. i. 
 
 * Plutarch, Vit. Camilli, p. 135. D, 
 
 H 4 of
 
 IO4 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 of Julius Caefar a . 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 b , the Titan e prince juft now 
 fpoken of. 
 
 Much has been faid in praife of the 
 religion of the Druids, both in Gaul 
 and Britain ; 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 moil authentic re- 
 cords of antiquity, the public religion, 
 which was praftifed under their fantfion\ 
 
 * Qui ipforum lingua Celtas, noftra Galli, appellan- 
 tnr. Caefar, de B. G. init. Their country was fome- 
 times called Qeltogalatia, or Celtogallia. 
 
 k Galli omnes ab Dite patre prognatos prasdicant, 
 Caefar, B. G. 1.6. c. 17. 
 
 e Anc. Univ. Hift. v. 6. p. 40. 
 
 * E$vo & ct'x nv Aptfrut. Strabo, 1.4. p. 303. See 
 alfo Diodorus Siculus, 1.5. p. 354. ed. Wefleling. and 
 Csfar, 1, 6. c. 15. 
 
 was
 
 in barbarous Nations. 105 
 
 was not more commendable than that of 
 other nations. The Gauls were ex- 
 ceedingly addicted to magic, divination*, 
 and idolatry, in their moft horrid forms : 
 witnefs their auguries f from the blood 
 and entrails of the creatures they facri- 
 ficed to falfe gods. According both to 
 Diodorus Siculus 8 and Strabo h , men 
 were facrificed for the purpofe of divi- 
 nation, and the omens were the palpi- 
 tation of their limbs after they were 
 Slabbed, and the flowing of their blood. 
 This had been their practice from the 
 moft remote antiquity \ They appeafed 
 their gods with human victims, burn- 
 
 * Natio eft omnis Gallorum admodum dedita religi- 
 onibus. Caefar, 1. 6. c. 15. Augurandi ftudio Galli 
 prster casteros callent. Juftin. 1. 24. c. 4. 
 
 * In aufpicia pugnas hofiias caedunt, quarum extis, 
 &c. Juftin. 1. 26. c. 2, 
 
 1,5. p. 354. 
 11 V.i. p. 303. 
 
 * UaAatia TIM x ffoXf^goyiw flra^aTJjglcrtl. Diodor, Sic, 
 
 ubi fupra, 
 
 ing
 
 io6 Wsrfoip of human Spirits 
 
 ing to death men as well as beads k 
 We may allow, that Cicero, to ferve his 
 client, put the moft invidious conftruc- 
 tion upon the conduct of the Gauls ; 
 yet he fpeaks of their offering to the 
 gods human victims in a manner that 
 fhews the fact could not be denied 1 . 
 The teflimony of other writers is liable 
 to no exception. Caefar, in particular, 
 had the beft opportunities of informa- 
 tion, by his long refidence in Gaul j and 
 he has not only affirmed the fact in quef- 
 tion, but alfo explained the occafions * 
 upon which they offered human iacri- 
 
 k Caefar (1. 6. c. 15.) fays : Alii immani magnitu- 
 dine fimulachra habent, quorum contexta viminibus 
 membra vivis hominibus complent, quibus fuccenfis, 
 circumvent! flamma exanimantur homines. Strabo, 
 1.4. p. 33* affirms, Boo-x/*Ta xat ctn^^uim^ w^o- 
 
 KOOT8V. 
 
 1 Quis enim ignorat eos ufque ad hanc diem retinere 
 Illam immanem ac barbaram confuetudinem hominum 
 immolandorum ? Orat. pro Fonteio. 
 
 Qui funt affefti gravioribus morbis, quique in pra- 
 liis periculifque verfantur, aut pro viftimis homines im- 
 molant, aut fe immolaturos vovent. Csefar, L6. 0.15, 
 Compare Juftin, 1. 6. c. 2. 
 
 fices.
 
 in barbarous Nations. 107 
 
 fices. He tells us, that criminals were 
 the moft acceptable facrifices ; but at 
 the fame time he informs us, that, 
 when thefe were wanting, the innocent 
 fupplied their place n ; which is a plain 
 proof that they fuffered not as victims 
 to the order of fociety, but to the ven- 
 geance of the gods . To them they 
 alfo facrificed their captives in war p . 
 In cafes of extraordinary danger, they 
 ftrove to avert the divine wrath by the 
 (laughter even of their wives and chil- 
 dren q . The Romans were far from be- 
 ing free from the charge of offering hu- 
 
 " Supplicia eorum, qui in furto, aut latrocinio, aut 
 aliqua noxa, fint comprehend, gratiora diis immortali- 
 bus effe arbitrantur. Sed, cum ejus generis copia de- 
 ficit, etiam ad innocentium fupplicia defcendunt. Cas- 
 far, 1. 6. c. 15. Compare Diodorus Siculus, 1. 5. 
 p. 355. ed. Wefleling. 
 
 Quod pro vita hominis, mil vita hominis reddatur, 
 non pofle aliter deorum immortalium numen placari ar- 
 bitrantur. Caefar, 1. 6. c. 15. 
 
 P Xgwifra* SE ran; cujflxaXwroK #> itfftoif w^Of T{ TUV SfWC 
 
 </**?. Diodor. Sic. 1. 5. p. 355. 
 
 1 Sperantes deorum minas expiari caede fuorum pofTe, 
 Cpnjuges et liberos fuos trucidant. Juftin. 1. 26. c. 2. 
 
 man
 
 io8 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 man facrifices; neverthelefs they were 
 fhocked at the far greater excefs to 
 which this practice was carried by the 
 Gauls r j amongft whom it in fome mea- 
 fure remained, even after various Ro- 
 man edifts were patted to reftrain and 
 abolifh it s . 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 dir<e immanltatit. See the 
 next note. 
 
 * The fuperftition of the Druids, which the Roman 
 citizens were forbidden to pra&ife by Auguftus, Clau- 
 dius attempted wholly to abolifh. Druidarum religi- 
 onem apud Gallos diras immanitatis, et tantum civibus 
 fub Augufto interdiftum, penitus abolevit. Suetonius, 
 Vit. Claudii Caefaris, c. 25. See Pliny, 1. 30. c. I, 
 concerning what was done againft the Druids by Tibe- 
 rius. Strabo takes notice of the Romans drawing off 
 the Gauls both from their cruel facrifices and divina- 
 tions. Dr. Borlafe (Antiquities of Cornwall, p. 154.) 
 has Ihewn, that their fondnefs for human viftims con- 
 tinued even after their converfton to Chriitianity. 
 
 riors
 
 'in barbarous Nations. 109 
 
 riors and heroes , as will be fhewn in 
 the fequel. 
 
 Other proofs of this point are not 
 wanting. I fay nothing of their tem- 
 ples, mentioned by Suetonius and Stra- 
 bo ; 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 
 Jtatues 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 fhall fee no ground to doubt, 
 if we proceed to a diftincl: examination 
 of them. Such unqueflionably was 
 Hercules, whom the Gauls worfhipped 
 on account of his being the firft who 
 furmounted the difficulties of paffing the 
 Alps ", which had been deemed infupe- 
 
 rable. 
 
 1 Immani magnitudine fimnlachra habent. Cedar, 
 1.6. c. 15. 
 
 Gens afpera, audax, bellicofa, qua? prima poft 
 Herculem, cui ea res virtutis admirationem, et immor- 
 
 talitatis
 
 no Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 rable. Their Apollo, or Belenus, was the 
 tutelary god of Noricum w , and born, it 
 is probable, in Aquileia x 5 from whence 
 his worfhip was brought into Gaul. 
 Thefe inflances of the worfhip of human 
 ipirits cannot be difputed. Nor do I fee 
 any reafonable ground to doubt concern- 
 ing thofe that follow. The Jupiter, or 
 tfharanis, of the Gauls, according to 
 Caefar's y account of him, anfwers to the 
 Thor of the Goths, the prefident of the 
 air, and ruler of thunder z . To him hu- 
 
 talitatis fidem, dedit, Alpium invi&a juga, et frigore 
 intradabilia loca, tranfcendit. Juftin. 1. 24. c. 4. 
 Eft locus Herculeis aris facer, fays Petronius Arbiter, 
 when fpeaking of the place from whence Hercnlee 
 croffed the Alps. 
 
 * Above, p. 98. note { . 
 
 * He is fpoken of as the ETHNIC; Szo; of the Aqui- 
 leians, who called him Belis : BsXiv & xaXac-i rtrov, 
 AwoMwxa aM tS XoT{. Herodian. Hift. 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 z . 
 
 y Jovem imperium cceleftium tenere. Csefar. 1. 6. 
 c. 16. 
 
 z Above, p. 36, 
 
 man
 
 'in barbarous Nations* 1 1 1 
 
 man facrifices a were offered. The cha- 
 racter given of Mars, by the fame illuf- 
 trious writer b , correfponds to that of the 
 northern Odhen e . To this martial hero 
 the firfl 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 
 victims'. The god, whom both the 
 Gauls and Germans principally wor- 
 ihipped, was Mercury 8 . That the Her- 
 mes or Mercury of Europe was the fame 
 with the Thoth or Thoyth of Egypt, 
 
 Below, note f . 
 
 Martem bella regere. Caefar, 1. 6. c. 16. 
 
 Above, p. 35. 
 
 Diodor. Sic. 1. 5. c. 235. 
 
 Catfar, 1.6. c. 16. 
 
 Et quibus immitis placatur fanguine diro 
 
 Teutates, horrenfque feris altaribus Hefus, 
 
 Et Taranis Scythics non mitior ara Diatue. 
 
 Lucan. 1. i. v. 444. 
 
 Laftantius fays, (1. i. 21.) Galli Hefum atque Theu- 
 taten humano cruore placabant. 
 
 * Concerning the Gauls, Cafar (1. 6. c. 16.) fays, 
 Deum maxime Mercurium coluni. Tacitus gives the 
 fame account of the Germans : Deorum maxime Mer- 
 curium colunt. Mor. Germ. c. 9, 
 
 appears
 
 112 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 appears from the teftimonies of Phild 
 Byblius h , Plato *, Cicero k , and Ser- 
 vius '. He inflrufted Gaul and Egypt 
 in arts and commerce m . From his be- 
 ing joined by the Germans with Mars ", 
 it feems as if he was fometimes worfhip- 
 ped under a military character. Per- 
 haps they afcribed their victories to Mer- 
 cury when they were gained by genius 
 and ftratagem, and to Mars when they 
 
 prevailed by open valour. His military 
 
 . 
 
 h Ap. Eufeb. Praep. Ev. 1. i. c. 9. p. 31. 
 
 * In Phasdro, p. 274. In Philebo, p. 18. ed.Serrani. 
 k See note m below. 
 
 1 In ^En. iv. 577. 
 
 Mercurius dicitur Argum interemifie, ob eamque 
 caufam in Egyptum profugifle, atque ^Egyptiis leges et 
 literas tradidifTe. Hunc ^Egyptii Thoth appellant. 
 Cicero, de Nat, Deor. 1.3. c. 22. Hunc (fcil. Mer- 
 curium) omnium artium inventorem ferunt. 
 Hunc ad quaeftus pecuniar mercaturafque habete vim 
 maximam arbitrantur. Casfar, 1. 6. c. 16. Arnobius 
 fpeaks to the fame purpofe, 1. 4. p. 170. *- Tertulliatt 
 (de Coron. mil. c. 8.) fays, Mercurius literas enarravit 
 neceflarias, et commercii rebus, et noftris erga deum 
 ftudiis. 
 
 n Diverfam aciem Marti et Mercuric facravere. Ta- 
 cit. Annal. 1. 13. c. 57. 
 
 character
 
 in barbarous Nations. 113 
 
 character accounts for his being appeafed 
 with human blood . He is fuppofed to 
 be the fame with the cruel Teutates p , 
 the Phenician Taut or Thaut. His fe- 
 pulchre was fliewn at Hermapolis q . 
 
 The forementioned gods were ~wor-> 
 fhipped by the Gauls, long before their 
 conqueft by the Romans. After this 
 period, it is well known, they dedicated 
 temples, and raifed altars, to the Ro- 
 man emperors ; and adopted all the gods 
 of their conquerors. Nor is there any 
 reafon to fuppofe, that this was the ef- 
 fect 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. Gomp. Annal. 1. 13. 
 
 c - 57- 
 
 P Mentioned above, note f < 
 
 4 Clement, recogn. apud Patres apoftol. v. 1. p. 594. 
 ed. Clerici. See alfo what is faid concerning Mercury, 
 chap. II. under the article, Phenicians. 
 
 I fon
 
 H4 Worflxp cf human Spirits 
 
 fon and humanity : I refer to the bloody 
 cuflom of offering to their gods human 
 victims. I cannot forbear adding, that, 
 inafmuch as it is generally allowed that 
 the Gauls and Germans had the fame 
 objects of worfhip, the diflinct 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 objects of worfhip ? Many 
 of them were peopled by the Celtes r . 
 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 Baft. The difcipline of the Dru- 
 ids was common both to Gaul and Bri- 
 
 r &ee above, p. 100. note J . 
 
 tain.
 
 in barbarous Nations. i 1 5 
 
 tain *. The facrifices and arts of divi- 
 nation in both countries were the fame : 
 for the BritUh Druids took their omens 
 from human victims, as we have feen 
 the Gaulifh did*. Indeed, it would be 
 eafy to produce diftinc~l proofs of the 
 cuflom of human facrifices in moil na- 
 tions of the world u , and of Europe in 
 particular j which is itfelf evidence fuf- 
 ficient of the worfhip of human fpirits 
 in thofe nations. As to the fouthern 
 
 Difciplina (fell. Di-uidum) in Britannia reperta^ 
 atque inde in Galliam tranflata effe exiftimatur. Caefar, 
 1.6. c. 12. 
 
 1 Tacitus, fpeaking of the inhabitants of Anglefey, 
 a Britifh ifland, fays : Praefidium poilhac impofitum 
 viftisj exeifique luci, fevis fuperflitionibus facri : nam 
 cruore captivo adolere aras, et hominum fibris ccnfulere 
 decs, fas habebanti Tacit; Annal. 1. 14. c. zo. - 
 From the foregoing obfervations it appears, that Origeo 
 (on Ezek. iv.) was miftaken when he faid, (br rather, 
 that he is mifmterpreted 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 fuprcme deity. 
 
 u Ifta toto mundo confenfere, quamquam difcordi, 
 et fibi ignoto. Pliny, 1. 30. c. i. 
 
 I 2 parts
 
 i j 6 Worfhlp of human Spirits 
 
 parts of Italy, Greece, and the eaftern 
 iilands of Europe, if they were not peo- 
 pled by the Celtes, they were by the Sy- 
 rians w j 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 Tertullian x , in a paflage 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 r held in high ve- 
 neration from the mod remote anti- 
 quity. 
 
 I cannot forbear taking particular no- 
 tice of the T'hracians^ whom Herodotus z 
 calls the great eft nation of any amongjl men, 
 except the Indians. By fome they are 
 reckoned amongft the Scythians j and it 
 is certain that, like them, they were 
 
 w See above, p. 101. note" 1 . 
 
 * De Anima, c. 46. 
 
 y Veterrimae Macedonum religionis. Juftin. 1. 24. 
 
 C. 2. 
 
 z L. 5. c. 3 . 
 
 worlhippers
 
 in barbarous Nations. 1 17 
 
 worfhippers of Zamolxis. Proofs of 
 this point were adduced above a ; one of 
 which was the teflimony of a Thracian 
 in Plato. I will here add a pafTage from 
 Lucian b : The tfhracians facrifice to Za- 
 moIxtSy a fugitive from Samos, ivho came 
 to refide amongjl them. Befides their great 
 legiflator, they deified Orpheus, and alfo 
 Odryfus, (the founder of the nation, at 
 leaft of a part of it,) and others e , ac- 
 cording to the teithnony of Tertullian 
 and Epiphanius. But, waving the au- 
 thority of Chriftian writers, as not be- 
 ing immediately to our prefent purpofe, 
 I add, that the paffage in which Hero- 
 dotus d is fuppofed to fay, " the Thra- 
 " cians worfhipped only Mars, Bac- 
 ':* chus, and Diana,' 1 may only import, 
 
 uiTo-it 
 
 * P. 32. Coqipare j). 27, 28. 
 b Jupiter Tragoed. torn. 2. p. 152. 
 c Tertullian. de Anima, c. 2. Photii Bibliotheca, 
 XLV. Epiphanius, 1. i. p. 8. 
 
 d 0? ^e o-fGotTat /xayaj TBO-^, A^ta, x Awvaov, xeu 
 AgTtpm. Herodot. 1. 5. c. 7. Compare the paffage 
 from Herodotus, cited p. 65. note w . 
 
 I 3 that
 
 1 1 8 Worfhip of human Spirits 
 
 that thefe were their principal gods, 
 They might be the onty gods worfhip- 
 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 e : and he alfo in- 
 forms us, that the Thracians of Abfyn- 
 thus facrificed a Perfian to Pleltorus, a 
 god of the country, according to their 
 cuftom f . Much lefs did Herodotus 
 mean, that the Thracians acknowledged 
 only the natural gods ; for we learn 
 from him, that Bacchus was educated 
 in Arabia 3 . He alfo informs us, that 
 the Thracians in Afia had, in their coun- 
 try h , an oracle of Mars, who was cer- 
 
 * Above, p. 32. 
 
 * Herodot. 1. 9. c. Ii8 f 
 Above, p. 85. note ". 
 L. 7 . 0.76. 
 
 tainly
 
 in barbarous Nations. 119 
 
 tainly a Thracian '. His fepulchre was 
 fhewn in Thrace, according to Clemens 
 Romanus, who makes mention of many 
 other heathen gods whofe fepulchres 
 were well known k . 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 paflage cited from 
 him above, fubjoins the following de- 
 claration : Their kings, befides the national 
 deities, adore Hermes with greater devotion 
 than their other gods, fwear by him alone, 
 and claim to be defcended from him m . Ha- 
 ving given ample fpecimens of the wor- 
 ihip 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 
 
 1 Virgil calls Thrace, Rhefi Mavortia tellus. Georg. 
 IV. 462. 
 
 k Clemens, Recogn. 1. 10. c. 24, torn. i. p. 594. 
 ed. Clerici. 
 
 'L. 5 . c.;. 
 
 m Concerning Mercury, fee p. in. 
 
 14 in
 
 I2O Worjhip 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 
 Ana 'in the next chapter, when the ob- 
 jects of worfhip amongft the people po- 
 lifhed 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 which 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 n , near the Palus 
 Mseotis, the hero Achilles was deified. 
 Jn Colchis there was a temple and grove 
 .dedicated to Phrixus . Medea was ef- 
 teemed a goddefs in the fame place, as 
 
 ? Strabo, 1. n. p. 756. 
 
 Hie Phrixi templum et lucus. Mela, 1. i. p. 21. 
 
 Athenagoras
 
 in barbarous Nations. 121 
 
 Athenagoras p 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 fadls of the greateft 
 notoriety, worfhipped gods that had 
 once been men and women. He men- 
 tions by name rnany fuch, (which I pafs 
 over,) and fays, the time would fail 
 him to enumerate all the reft q . I could 
 not omit his teftimony in this place, be- 
 caufe it is confirmed by the Heathens 
 themfelves. . To return. Protefilaus 
 was worfhipped in Abydena r ; Autoly- 
 cus at Sinope in Paphlagonia, where he 
 had an oracle * 3 and Iphigenia by the in- 
 habitants of Taurus ' j Heftor and He- 
 
 P Legat. pro Chriftian. p. 51, 52. Oxon. 1706. 
 
 q Ear?.e4'E /^* 1 r^-.fa, ro w^So; xaTaXryoxra. Athenag. 
 p. 5 2. 
 
 1 Sunt Protefilai ofla confecrato delubro. Mela, 1. 2. 
 
 C. 2. 
 
 * Strabo, 1. 12. p. 822. 
 
 * Herodot. 1. 4. c, ^03. 
 
 lena
 
 122 Werfoip of human Spirit f 
 
 lena at Ilium in Phrygia u ; Sarpedon*, 
 Cybele, and Attis, at Troas * -, Achilles 
 atSigaeum r i and, at Smyrna, Homer*. 
 Divine honours were paid to Alabandus 
 inCaria*; to Pandarus in Lycia b j to 
 Niobe c and Mopfus d in Cilicia j to Ac- 
 mon * in Cappadocia j in Pontus to Pa- 
 troclus f ; in Armenia to Tanais or A- 
 
 u Athenag. Legat. p. 50. 
 
 * Pliny, 1. 13. c. 13. 
 
 * See the hiftory of Cybele, in Diodor. Sic. 1. 3, 
 e. 30. 
 
 y Strabo, I. 13. p. 891. 
 
 z Id. 1. 14. p. 956. I omit moft of the Grecian co- 
 lonies in Afia, becaufe they do not fall under the de- 
 fcription of Barbarians, and becaufe there can be no 
 doubt about their having the fame objects of worfhip as 
 Greece ; which will be confidered in the next chapter. 
 
 a Cicero, de Nat. Deor. 1. 3. c. 15, 19. 
 
 b Strabo, I. 14. p. 981. 
 
 c Athenag. Legat. p. 52. 
 
 d 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, 10. c, 25. 
 
 naitis ;
 
 in barbarous Nations. 123 
 
 naitis c ; and in Media to Hephaeftion h . 
 The haughty monarchs of Parthia were 
 ftiled the brothers of the fun and moon , and 
 were believed to mingle with the itars at 
 death *. As the Parthians were fubjecl:, 
 firft to the Medes, and afterwards to the 
 Perfians ; and there was an intercourfe 
 and alliance between the two latter ; it 
 is very reafonable to fuppofc, that the 
 religion of thefe three nations was very 
 much the fame k : which confirms what 
 was obferved above, concerning the gods 
 of Perfia being the fame with thofe of 
 the furrounding nations ; 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 
 
 e Strabo, 1. n. p. 805. See above, p. 70. 
 
 h Compare Quint. Curt. I. 10. c. 4. Juftin. 1. 12. 
 c. 12. and Plutarch, in Alexandra. The Medes wor- 
 ftiipped their kings while living. Strabo, 1. xi. p. 797. 
 
 1 Ammianus Marcellinus, 1. 23. c. 6. See alfo 
 Martial, Ep. 72. 
 
 k Strabo fays, (1. ir. p. 805.) that both the Medcs 
 2nd Armenians obferve the Perfian rites of worftiip. 
 
 prevailed
 
 1 24 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 prevailed there from the earlier! ages : 
 for Ammon and Bacchus were worfhip- 
 ped in India l . Diodorus Siculus m makes 
 the Indian Bacchus the moft ancient of 
 all thofe who bore that name. He went 
 from Aflyria into India, according to 
 the account given by fome of the Indians 
 to Apollonius n . 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 p 
 to the Indies allures us, that the Hea- 
 thens adore their god Ram, though the 
 
 1 Concerning Bacchus and Ammon, fee above, 
 p. 85. note . 
 
 m L. 3. p. 232. ed. Wefleling. 
 
 * Philoftrat. Vit. Apollon. Tyan. 1. 2. c. 9. p. 57. 
 
 Bernier's Memoirs, torn. 3. p. 154, 155, 156. 
 
 f Thevenot, Voyages des Indes, part. 3. liv. i. 
 c. 38. Quand un Chretien leur parle de leur dieu 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 beau- 
 coup plus de refpedl. 
 
 Brachmans,
 
 in barbarous Nations. 125 
 
 Brachmans, in their converfation with 
 Chriftians, pretend that they only ho- 
 nour him with fingular refpecl: as a 
 great q monarch, whofe extraordinary 
 virtues and merit towards mankind give 
 him a peculiar intereft in the favour of 
 the Deity. The mofl ancient of all 
 their gods was Perambramman, who 
 was worfhipped together with his three 
 fons r . To many other men they paid 
 divine honours *, and ufed libations, fa- 
 crifices, and various other rites, to ex- 
 piate the manes of the dead *. Accord- 
 
 * That is, I fuppofe, with a civil refpeft : an excufe 
 like that was made for the Perfians, p. 56. and for the 
 Chinefe, p. 41. 
 
 r Parambramman nefcio quern deorum antiquiffimum 
 colunt, et ex eo filios tres. Peter Maffeus, in his firil 
 book Hiftoriarum Indicarum, p. 55. 
 
 9 Multis prasterea, non hominibus modo, fed brutis 
 ctiam animantibus, cceleftes habent honores, et templa 
 aidificant. Id. ib. They paid extraordinary devotion 
 to oxen ; quod hominum vita funftorum animos in 
 cam maxime belluam immigrare opinantur. P. 56. 
 
 * Sacrificiis, libationibus, caeterifque nefariis ritibus, 
 ad expiandos mortuorum manes, utuntur. Id. ib. 
 
 ing
 
 1 2 6 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 ing to the editor of the Ezour Vedam u , 
 Budda, the moft celebrated of the Sa- 
 manean dolors, who was born near fe- 
 ven hundred years before Chrift, was 
 honoured as a god, and his doctrine was 
 adopted, not only in India, but alfo in 
 Japan, China, Siam, and Tartary. The 
 Ezour Vedam itfelf is faid to aflert 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 Pexpofition des opinions religieufes et 
 philofophiques des Indiens, par M. de Sainte Croix. 
 Monthly Review, appendix to vol. 61. p. 500. 
 
 w See Bernier's Memoirs, v. 4. p. 127. and Com- 
 plete Syftem of Geography, v. 2. p. 301. ed. 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 j 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 extremity of the Baft, in 
 Japan, there are clear traces of the fame 
 fuperftition. I need not take any parti- 
 cular notice of their god Cambadaxi, of 
 whom an account is given by Cafpar Vi- 
 lela y . 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 diirin- 
 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. 4 i. 
 
 r In I. 3. Epiftolarum Japonicarum. 
 
 and
 
 128 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 and immoral, flories, as the Greek po- 
 ets fabled concerning Jupiter, Saturn, 
 Bacchus, and their other fictitious de- 
 ities z . This obfervation may be ap- 
 plied, in a good meafure, to the Brach- 
 mans of India a . 
 
 I (hall not trouble the reader here 
 with any remarks upon a late writer, 
 whofe learning allowed him to affirm b , 
 " that divine honours were not paid to 
 <{ deceafed heroes in the eaftern nations ;" 
 though the very contrary has been de- 
 monftrated by the moft numerous tefli- 
 rnonies. Two general remarks fhall 
 clofe this feclion. 
 
 2 Reges olim ipfos, reguttique filios, aut invento quo- 
 plain, infignive alio facinore, falfa; divinitatis gloriam 
 confequutos. Horum de vita rebufque geftis, uti de 
 Jove, Saturno, Libero, c^terifque inanibus diis, Graaci 
 poetse abfurda quaedam, et ridenda, et turpia, fabu- 
 lantur. Maffei Hiftor. Indie. 1. 12. p. 533. In the 
 ifland of Taprobane, now called Ceylon, Venus was 
 worfhipped. Dionyfii Periegefis, v. 592. 
 
 a Multos habent foarum fuperftitionum libros 
 quae nonnihil ad veteris Graeciae fabulas et auguralem 
 Hetruriae difciplinam videntur accedere. MafFei Hiflor, 
 Indie. 1. 1. p. 56. 
 
 " Fell, P . 7. 
 
 i. The
 
 in barbarous Nations. 129 
 
 i. The teftimonies, produced in this 
 and the foregoing feftions, are fufficient 
 to fhew, that the worfhip of human 
 fpirits, in the nations (tiled barbarous, 
 was very general. The known excep- 
 tions are fo few, that they fcarcely deferve 
 to be mentioned. Dr. Blackwell has 
 furnifhed us only with one, if the cafe 
 of the MafTagetes c be indeed an excep- 
 tion. Having no fmifter defign to anf- 
 wer, I did not conceal from the reader 
 the cafe of fome of the Libyan No- 
 mades d , (overlooked by that learned 
 writer,) who worshipped only the natu- 
 ral gods. I now add, that the fame has 
 been affirmed concerning the Albani^ a 
 people who bordered upon the Cafpian 
 fea. But I queftion whether this can be 
 inferred from the account given of them 
 by Strabo c , who only fays : tfhey worjhip 
 the gods $ the fun, ami 'Jupiter^ and the 
 
 c Above, p. 28. d P. 95, 96. 
 
 WS-IX' HAtor, xau Ax, xat EiT^jyjs*' &pi- 
 vi. Strabo, 1. 11. p. 768. 
 
 K moon ;
 
 130 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 moon ; 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 exprefles 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 
 does not affirm, that the Albanians wor- 
 fhipped no other gods but thofe whom 
 he fpecified. He takes notice, indeed, 
 of their (hewing no refpect to the dead f ; 
 but this might be very confiflent with 
 their worfhipping fuch men as antiquity 
 had deified. I (hall 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 2 . In 
 moil of the nations, of which we are 
 fpeaking, there were both natural and 
 mortal gods. 
 
 * Id. ib. s P. 32, 97. 
 
 2. The
 
 in barbarous Nations. 131 
 
 2. The foregoing tefti monies juftify 
 the limited explication, given above 11 , 
 of a pafTage in Plato, in which he fays, 
 u Many of the Barbarians, in his time, 
 " held only the natural gods." For 
 moft of thefe teflimonies refer to times 
 prior to thofe of this celebrated philofo- 
 pher. And there will be occafion to 
 (hew, in the fequel, that the worfhip of 
 human fpirits very generally prevailed in 
 the early ages of the world. 
 
 h P. 10, note/. Compare Fell, p. 9. 
 
 K 2 CHAP,
 
 132 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Proving^ from the teftimonies of the 
 Heathens ^ that they paid religious 
 honours to dead men in the nations 
 policed by learning. 
 
 A MONGST 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- 
 
 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 went after the Heathen that were round 
 about them. 2 Kings xvii. 15. 
 
 My
 
 in polijhed Nations. 133 
 
 My more immediate defign at prefent 
 is to fliew, that, in all k the fore-men- 
 tioned nations, divine honours were paid 
 to dead men and women. 
 
 S. ECT. I. 
 
 
 - * ' ' 
 
 T Shall begin with confidering the cafe 
 of the PHENICIANS j 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 Phenicians ne- 
 " ver worfhipped fuch gods as had been 
 <c men 1 ." 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- 
 
 k The gods of the Arabs were confidered above, p, 84. 
 1 Fell, p. 31. 
 
 K 3 thon
 
 j 3 4 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^ 
 choniathon was written in the Phenician 
 language, as the learned well know ; and 
 was only tranflated into Greek by Philo 
 of Byblus, A part of that tranflation is 
 preferred by Eufebius m . Philo, in his 
 preface to it, has given us the following 
 extract from his author ; introducing it 
 with a declaration, that it was previoufly 
 neceflary to the right underflanding of 
 his hiftory , I fhall lay it before the 
 reader, not for the fake of refuting the 
 gentleman's unfupported afTertion, which 
 thofe acquainted with antiquity muft 
 know to be falfe ; but becaufe it will 
 
 Prsep. Ev. I. i. 
 
 n Whether the following citation be Philo's extraft 
 from. Sanchcniathon, or the account which Philo him- 
 felf thought it neceflary to give in order to the right 
 understanding of his author, is a matter of no moment. 
 It may be referred indifferently either to the one or the 
 other. 
 
 Eufeb. Praep. Ev. 1. i. p. 32. D. 
 
 throw
 
 in polijhed Nations. 135 
 
 throw great light upon the general fub- 
 jeft. 
 
 Sanchoniathon, who is fuppofed to 
 have approached near to the age of Mo- 
 fes, writes as follows p . f The moft an- 
 <c dent of the Barbarians, efpecially the' 
 " Phenicians and Egyptians, from whom 
 " other people derived this cuftom, accounted 
 " thofe the GREATEST GOD S\ who 
 lt had found out things moft neceffary and 
 " ufeful in life, and had been benefactors to 
 (t mankind. Thefe they worjhipped as 
 {t gods r j and, applying their temples to this 
 <c ufe, they confecrated to their names' pil- 
 " lars and ft at ues of 'wood, which the Phe- 
 *' nicians held in high veneration, and in- 
 < ftituted the moft folemn fejiivals in their 
 " honour. More efpecially did they give 
 S( 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. q a ? t 0/ *io /xf/trs?. 
 
 K 4 tf the 

 
 136 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 <c the fame kind, did they acknowledge 
 "to be flrictly and properly gods'. 
 <e So that fome of their gods were MOR- 
 TAL, and others IMMORTAL 1 ." 
 
 That part of this citation from San- 
 choniathon, or Philo Byblius, here print- 
 ed in Roman characters, was given in 
 the Diflertation on Miracles " j as was 
 alfo fo much of the other part w , here 
 diftinguifhed by Italics, as was necefTary 
 to {hew, that the Phenicians and other 
 ancient nations worfhipped fuch men 
 as had been benefactors to the human 
 race. Neverthelefs Mr. Fell % (incre- 
 dible as it may feem!) fupprefling that 
 part of it which afTerts the deification of 
 men, (though he quotes the words that 
 
 * Some render, (pvcrm&s S'l *i\tov v.ct\ aiKvmv &{ 
 ^c ? lyiyuffxov, " but the fun, moon, and planets, and 
 " other things like thefe, they acknowledged as the 
 " only pbyjical or natural gods." But Eufebius him- 
 felf, p. 28. A, after enumerating the fame phyfical 
 gods of the Phenicians, fays, that their firft naturalifts 
 &iu{ IAMOV syivwcrxoy, acknowledged thefe alone to be gods. 
 
 1 I7r uvrtnf Ttf? [Am SUJTS;, TK^ $t aQa-Ycntis, Siaj MCH 
 u P. 173. note f , p. 179. note '. w P. 187. 
 
 * P. 30, 3'' 
 
 immediately
 
 in polijhed Nations. 
 
 immediately precede it y ,) 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 refpecting the more immediate 
 objects of heathen worfhip, that he pro- 
 fefles to be at a lofs what apology fa make 
 for me, and defcribes me as a perfon with 
 whom it is in vain to reafon. Can this 
 writer make any apology for his own 
 conduct ? He falfely charges me with 
 grofs felf- contradiction, 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 
 extracts from Philo Byblius ; which, ta- 
 ken together, inflead of contradicting, 
 do in the fulleft manner eftablifh, what 
 I had afferted 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- 
 
 y Corop. Diflert. on Mir. p. 187. Fell, p. 31. 
 
 larly
 
 138 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 larly of their firfl naturalifts *, phyfical 
 beings were the only gods j that is, in 
 their own natural right a ? And is it not 
 equally evident, from the fame teftimony, 
 that the Phenicians worfhipped human 
 fpirits as gods, even as their greateft gods, 
 and with the mod folemn devotion ? 
 To thefe their worfhip was more imme- 
 diately directed, in their public temples ; 
 and, from thefe, their natural gods re- 
 ceived their denomination. So that the 
 worfhip cf the latter mufl 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 hiflorian contradicts, could be bold 
 enough to tell the world, that the tefti- 
 mony of Sanchoniathon was a contra- 
 diction to my affertions, when that tef- 
 timony does, in the cleareil terms, con- 
 firm my opinion, and confute his. Had 
 
 2 O* ffgwroipwrmot, x. T. X. Eufeb. P. Ev. 1. I. p. 38. A. 
 a Compare what is obferved above, from Mr. Sale, 
 concerning the Arabians, p. 87. 
 
 he
 
 in polified Nations. 139 
 
 he not been an entire flranger to San- 
 choniathon, he muft have known that 
 his hiftory was written with the exprefs 
 defign of fhewing, 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 directly addrefled to deified 
 men and women b . And Eufebius tefti^ 
 fies, that, even to his time, thefe were 
 the gods worfhipped by all people, and in 
 all cities and countries . r b r j . 
 
 Mr. Fell affirms d , ttefe (the fun, 
 moon, and the other natural gods) were 
 the Cabirij or mighty gods of the eajlern. 
 nations. The gentleman here, as on 
 other occafions, follows Dr. Blackwell '. 
 But the learned doctor's authority is of 
 no weight, in a cafe of this kind, againft 
 the teftimony of the ancients. The Ca- 
 
 b See Sanchoniathon, apud Eufeh. P. Ev. 1. i. paf- 
 fim, or Eufebius's Ihort account of him, p. 31. C. 
 
 Id. ib. 
 
 P. 10. * Mythol. p. 277. 
 
 biri,
 
 140 Worflnp of human Spirits 
 
 bin, or potent gods of the Phenicians, 
 were, according to Sanchoniathon, eight 
 in number, and no other than men dei- 
 fied after death. From Sydic defcended 
 the Diofcuri, or Cabiri, or Corybantes, or 
 Samothracian deities f . f fbefe, he adds, 
 jirft invented the building of a Jhip. The 
 Egyptian priefts feem to have envied 
 Phenicia the honour of having given 
 birth to thefe famous deities, (whofe rites 
 were fo facred and myfterious, and fo 
 generally obferved,) and claimed them 
 as their own. For they told Herodo- 
 tus g , that the Cabiri h 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 are allegorized by many ancient as 
 well as modern writers ', yet were they 
 
 f Ex St ra Lvovx, Aioj-xa^ot, n KafSitgci, n Ko^jSarrij, ij 
 
 i^c s -axi ? . Eufeb. Praep. Evan. 1. i. p. 36. A. See 
 p. 39. B. C. 
 
 s L. 3. c. 37. h See Hefych. in voce. 
 
 1 Letters on Mythol. p. 278. Jablonfki, Tantheon 
 u^tgypt. torn. 2. Prolegom. p. 61. Cicer. Nat. Deor. 
 1. i. c. 42. 
 
 real
 
 in policed Nations . 141 
 
 real human perfonages, and worfhipped 
 as fuch by the people. The fon of Tha- 
 bion is faid to be the firft who turned 
 their hiftory into allegory k . 
 
 It will be proper to take notice of 
 fome other Phenician deities, who were 
 certainly of human extract. Sanchoni- 
 athon l makes mention of Cbrvfor, (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 flatue and temple, and 
 was eminently called the great eft of the 
 gods m : of Dagon, who, having difco- 
 vered bread- corn and the plough, was 
 called Jupiter Aratrius " : of I'aaufus, 
 (called by the Alexandrians Thoyth, and 
 by the Greeks Hermes J the fon of Mifor, 
 and the inventor of letters : of Elioun 
 
 k Eufeb. Praep. Ev. 1. I. p. 39. 
 
 1 Apud Eufeb. Prsep. Ev. p. 35. Id. ib, 
 
 n Id. p. 37. D. Hence Dagon was called Zr, 
 that is, frumenti praefes, as it is explained by the edi- 
 tor of Eufebius, p. 36. C. 
 
 Id. p. 36. A. 
 
 or
 
 142 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 or Hypfiftus, to whom, after his death, 
 his children offered facrifices and liba- 
 tions p : of Our anus ^ from whom the ele- 
 ment over us, by reafon of it's excellent 
 beauty, is called Ouranus or heaven q : 
 and of Gee, from whom earth took it's 
 name r . Ouranus had, by his fitter Gee, 
 ChronoSy who founded Byblus, and after 
 his death was confecrated into the pla- 
 net called, after his name, Chronos, or 
 Saturn s . Many more examples of the 
 fame kind might be produced from San^ 
 choniathon ; but I fhall take notice only 
 of two, Aftarte and Hercules. 
 
 The celebrated AJlarte, according to 
 this author *, was the daughter of Ou- 
 ranus. She is called the greateft goddefs % 
 and was the fame with Aphrodite, or Ve- 
 
 p ib. i P. 36. B. 
 
 r Concerning the deification of Ouranus and Gee, 
 fee Diodorus Siculus, 1.3. p. 224, 225. ed. Wefleling. 
 and La&antius, de Falf. Relig. 1. i. p. 52, 53. Gee 
 feems to anfwer to Herthum, fpoken of above, p. 44. 
 
 * Eufeb. P. E. p. 40. C. p. 150. D. 
 Id. p. 37. 
 
 Sanchon. ap. Eufeb. P.E. 1. I. p. 38. C. 
 
 nus,
 
 'in potijhed Nations, 1 43 
 
 nus, according to the Phenicians w . Plato 
 alfo calls her the ancient and celejiial Ve- 
 nus 5 and fpeaks of her, as Sanchonia- 
 thon does, as the daughter of Uranus r . 
 In Cicero likewife the Syrian Venus is 
 called Aflarte Y . She was worfhipped by 
 the Arabians, Perfians, AfTyrians, and 
 Syrians ; and held in peculiar venera- 
 tion at Tyre, Sidon, and Byblus z . This 
 female deity reigned in Phenicia a , and 
 was thought to be worfhipped by the 
 Sidonians and Carthaginians under the 
 name of Juno V 
 
 Id. 
 
 p. 38. C, D. Suidas fays, that Aftarte was called Ve- 
 nus by the Greeks. 
 
 * Plato, Sympof. p. 1 80. ed. Serran. 
 
 y De Nat. Deor. 1. 3. c. 23. Venus quarta, Syria 
 Tyroque concepta, quae Aftarte vocatur. Compare 
 Herodot. 1. i. 0.105, I 3 1> and what was obferved a- 
 bove concerning Urania, p. 68-71. See Herodian, 
 1.5. c. 15. p. 193. 
 
 z Herodot. 1. i. c. 105, 131. Lucian. de Dea 
 Syr. p. 657, 658. 
 
 a Phenicia was called the land of Venus. ^Efchyl. 
 Supplices, v. 563. 
 
 b Virgil. ^En. I. 446, 
 
 With
 
 144 Worjtnp of human Spirits 
 
 With regard to the Phenician Her- 
 cules of Tyre, where he had a temple c 
 erected 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 older! of all the great heroes 
 of the name of Hercules. His temple 
 at Tyre was faid to be as old as the city d . 
 In the fame city there was a temple de- 
 dicated to Hercules under the title of 
 Thafian \ 
 
 The reader muft have obferved, that 
 feveral of the foregoing proofs of the 
 Phenicians paying religious worfhip to 
 human fpirits are furnifhed by the Greek 
 writers ; 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 praclifed in Phenicia more 
 frequently, and with circumftances of 
 
 e Herodot. 1. 2. c. 44. 
 
 * Eufeb. P. E. p. 38. A. He was alfo called Malic, 
 or king. Hefych. 
 
 ' Id. ib. Fell, p. 31. 
 
 greater
 
 in polified Nations . 145 
 
 greater barbarity, than in any other 
 country. A colony of Phenicians, fet- 
 tled at Carthage, when firft tranfplant- 
 ed, facrificed to Saturn (whom we have 
 fpoken of before) the fons of their moft 
 eminent citizens -, though, in after- 
 times, the children of the poor, bought 
 and bred up for that purpofe, were fub- 
 flituted in their room f . Two hundred 
 fons of the nobility, together with three 
 hundred other perfons, have been offer- 
 ed up at one time 8 . The circumftances 
 attending thefe barbarous rites are pre- 
 ferved by Diodorus Siculus h , but are too 
 fhocking to be recited. No wonder that 
 a multitude of fuch facrifices, equally 
 impious and inhuman, {hould 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 (hewn hereafter,) that the Chro- 
 
 f Diodor. Sic. 1. 29. p. 415. 8 Id. p. 415, 416. 
 
 b P. 416. ed. Weff. 
 
 L nus
 
 146 Worfliip 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. II. 
 
 T ET us proceed to inquire, whether 
 heroes and gods of earthly origin 
 were worfhipped by the EGYPTIANS. 
 
 We are now entering on a fubjet v of 
 fingular importance. Whether Egypt 
 derived it's religion from the eaflern na- 
 tions, as fome j contend j or whether, as 
 others a(Iert k , the eaflern 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. 
 
 k Lucian afcribes to the Egyptians the firft know- 
 ledge of the gods, and of their rites of worfhip ; and 
 fays, it was derived from them to the AfTyrians. De 
 Syria Dea, p. 656, 657. torn. 2. Eufebius affirms, 
 that the polytheifin of the nations had it's firft rife in 
 Phenicia and Egypt, and was from thence propagated 
 into other countries, and Greece in particular. Prasp. 
 Ev. 1. i. p. 30. C.D. 
 
 have
 
 in polifhed 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 polifhed by 
 learning muft have been the fame, in all 
 it's eflential principles j and a knowledge 
 of the gods of any one of them will aflifh 
 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 objedls 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 pby- 
 fical jyftem y derive their chief arguments 
 from the accounts which are given us of 
 the Egyptian divinities. They will by 
 no means allow, that fuch gods as had 
 L 2 once
 
 148 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 once been men were ever worfhipped irt 
 Egypt, whatever might be the cafe in 
 other countries. 
 
 There are, however, many prefump- 
 tive proofs of the contrary. Thofe na- 
 tions which derived their theology from 
 Egypt (Greece, in particular, which 
 borrowed from it the very names, l of their 
 gods) did certainly worfhip human fpi- 
 rits. Is it unnatural to conclude, from 
 hence, that the Egyptians did the fame ? 
 They were the firft who creeled ima- 
 ges ra 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 
 
 1 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 moft ancient temples were without 
 images, yet he allows, that afterwards the Aflyrians, 
 who derived their theology from Egypt, placed images 
 in their temples. De Dea Syr. p. 657. 
 
 by
 
 in polijhed Nations. 1 49 
 
 by it's tranfmigration n : 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 
 worfhipped their kings, while on p earth, 
 as real gods. Cleopatra claimed to be 
 
 n Herodot. 1. 2. c. 123. 
 
 So clofely connected, 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- 
 molxis, by faying, they immortalized : A-Sara-n^ac-t & 
 TO & TO* TjOB-oc. L. -4. c. 94. Immortality feems to have 
 been ufed almoft as fynonymous to deification in Dio- 
 dorus Siculus, lib. 3. p. 243. lin. 4. ed. Weff. and 
 alfo in p. 24. lin. 10. (which will be cited in the fe- 
 quel,) and in many other writers. As to the doctrine 
 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 ft? tr^ a*.r,$ua.r 9ra; Szs?. L. I. p. IOI. The 
 fame thing is plainly intimated in the following lines of 
 Virgil, Georg. IV. 210. 
 
 Pneterea regem non fie ^Egyptus, et ingens 
 Lydia, nee populi Parthorum, aut Indus Hydafpes, 
 Obfervant. 
 
 3
 
 150 Worjkip of kuman Spirits 
 
 Ifis q herfelf, one of the principal objects 
 of their devotion. 
 
 If you a(k, how is it poflible 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 
 acknowledged gods whom they fed in the 
 frail, nay, that grew in their gardens, 
 why fhould 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 r , 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 pofitive 
 proofs, which I fhall now produce, of 
 the worfhip of human fpirits in E- 
 
 9 Cleopatra iibi tantum adfumferat, ut fe I/in vellet 
 videri. Servius, in ^En. VIII. 696. 
 
 j. Hermes
 
 in polifted Nations. j \ 
 
 i . Hermes Trifmegiftus h acknowledged, 
 that the gods of Egypt were dead men ; 
 that the art of making gods was invent- 
 ed in this country -, and that human 
 fouls were wormipped as demons in e- 
 very city. Amongft the human perfon- 
 ages confecrated into gods, Trifmegif- 
 tus fpecifies, ' ./Efculapius, Ifis, and the 
 elder Hermes, or Mercury ; three of the 
 moft celebrated divinities of Egypt. The 
 
 5 Hermes ipfe decs ^Egypti homines mortuos 
 
 cfTe teftatiir. Cum enim dixiffet proavos fuos in- 
 
 venifle artem qua efficerent decs. Terrenis diis at- 
 
 que mundanis facile eft irafci ; utpote qui fint ab homi- 
 nibus ex utraque natura fa&i atque compofiti. Ex utra- 
 que natara dicit, ex anima et corpore : ut pro anima fit 
 daemon, pro corpore fimulachrum. Unde contigit, in- 
 quit, ab ^Egyptiis hasc fanfta animalia nuncupari, co- 
 lique per fmgulas civitates eorum animas, &e. Au- 
 guft. Civ. Dei, 1.8. 0.26. p. 513, 514- 
 
 1 Ecce duos deos dicit homines fuiffe, JEfcuIapium 
 
 et Mercurium. Addit, et dicit, Ifm vero uxorem 
 
 (Ofiridis), quam multa bona prsflare propitiam, quantis 
 fcimus obeffe iratam ? Deinde ut oftenderet ex hoc ge- 
 nere efle deos, quos ilia arte homines faciunt : unde dat 
 intelligi d&mones fe opinari ex hominum mortucrum 
 animis extitifle. Id. p. 513. 
 
 L 4 laft
 
 1 52 Worfhip of human Spirits 
 
 laft he calls his own grandfather, after 
 whofe name he was called *.' 
 
 2. The teftimony of Sanchoniathon was 
 produced above u ; and we have feen him 
 affirming, that the Egyptians, * as well 
 as the Phenicians, accounted thofe the 
 great eft gods, who had been eminent be- 
 nefactors to mankind. 
 
 3. My next appeal fhall be to Hero- 
 dotuSy who had vifited Egypt, and fpared 
 no pains to inform himfelf concerning 
 the religion of that country. The very 
 ingenious Dr. Blackweli w , and a fo- 
 reigner * of diflinguifhed learning, would 
 willingly infer, from a paflage in this 
 hiflorian, 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 paflage in queflion 
 with the preceding context. Herodotus 
 
 * Id. ib. n P. 135. 
 
 w In Letters on Mythol. p. 209. 
 
 ? Jablonlki, Pantheon^Egypt. torn. 2. Pjolegom. p. 37. 
 
 y No/xj^acrj $ur A*ytirno a^ yguo-t tj^tv. L. 2. c. CJO. 
 
 is
 
 in polijhed Nations . 153 
 
 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 z 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 honour him at all, as 
 Gale renders the original a . But it is 
 very probable, that the text is corrupt- 
 ed, and that the true reading makes no 
 mention of heroes, and only imports, 
 that they do net facrifce b to him (Nep- 
 tune) 3 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 
 freroes ; for Neptune was advanced by the 
 Libyans to the higher rank of gods, 
 
 * L. 2. 0.43. 
 
 a OtJ' ij<ri &?, nullo honore profequuntur. 
 b Some copies read, ov <$) fyum &v. Variantes Lec- 
 fiones ad librum ii. Herodot. p. 10. cura Galei. 
 
 though
 
 154 Wofjhip of 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 groffly contradicting himfelf. For, 
 
 I lhall now proceed to prove, from the 
 teftimony of this inquifitive traveller, 
 that human fouls were worfhipped in 
 Egypt. He affirms, that, at Chemmis % 
 in the province of Thebes, Perfeus, the 
 fon of Danae, had a temple c dedicated 
 to him, in which his image was placed - 3 
 and that he was faid by the inhabitants 
 frequently to appear rifing out of the 
 earth d . The priefts informed him, that 
 king Proteus, a native of Memphis, was 
 honoured with a ftately temple in that 
 city e . In this temple there was a cha- 
 pel dedicated to Venus the Stranger, 
 whom he fuppofed to be Helena, the 
 daughter of Tyndarus f . Mars, who re^ 
 
 c E return TJJ wo?u $- Tlfga-toi; rs Aa*r? ov. Herodot. 
 1. 2. C. 9!. 
 
 d Ib. e Id. c. 112, 118, 119. 
 
 * Cap. ir z, 113. Strabo refers to this Venus, 1. 17. 
 p. 1161. 
 
 turned
 
 in polijhed Nations. 
 
 turned to his mother when he attained 
 to the age of man E , was worfhipped at 
 Pampremis h . 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 1 . 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 extract. 
 
 But we may advance farther, and ob- 
 ferve, that Herodotus has recorded fe- 
 veral facts, 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 
 fight primary deities of Egypt*. Ac- 
 
 s Cap. 64. h Cap. 59. Cap. 113. 
 
 AVTV twa ?uv WTO Qiuv ray iTfurtiiv ytvoutiiuVf ow.iuau. 
 $i iv Barot TrtTu. L. 2. c. 156. 
 
 cording
 
 156 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 cording to our author, Pan alfo was 
 reckoned in this number by the Mende- 
 fians \ and was confidered by fome as the 
 oldefl of the eight primary gods M . Now, 
 Pan, as we learn from hiftory n , 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 {hewn in the fequel. He like wife 
 makes mention of a third order of gods, 
 to which Bacchus belonged, as Hercules 
 did to the fecond, and Pan to the firfl p . 
 Now, Bacchus, we have feen, was edu- 
 cated in Arabia q . 
 
 But it is obje&ed, that, according to 
 Herodotus, the priefts of Egypt affirm- 
 ed, that, in eleven thoufand three hun- 
 
 1 Cap. 46. ra Cap. 145. 
 
 * Diodor. Sic. p. 21. We/T. * Above, p. 140. 
 
 * Herodot. 1. 2. c. 43, 145. P Cap. 145. 
 
 * Above, p. 85. 
 
 dred
 
 in polified Nations. 157 
 
 dred and forty years, there had been no 
 god in the form of a man T : that, ac- 
 cording to the fame author ', the priefts 
 of Jupiter at Thebes would by no means 
 allow, that a man could be begotten by a 
 god, or that any one Piromis ' had been 
 reputed either a god or a hero : and 
 that the Theban priefts farther affirmed, 
 that in the molt ancient times the gods 
 had been the fovereigns of Egypt, the laft 
 of whom was Orus, the fon of Ofiris ". 
 From thefe circumftancs a learned wri- 
 ter v concludes, that the Egyptians were 
 flrangers to the deification of men. 
 
 In anfwer to this objection, it may be 
 obferved, ift. That, in reading Hero- 
 dotus, we are carefully to diftinguifh 
 between the fads which he affirms, or 
 appears to credit, and thofe which he 
 profefledly reports upon the teflimony 
 of others. He himfelf has often pointed 
 
 r Lib. 2. c. 142. Cap. 143, 144. 
 
 * Piromis anfwers to xa*o; x'ySoj, according to He- 
 rodotus. 
 n Cap. 144. * Jablonfld, torn. 2. Prolsgom. p. 37. 
 
 out
 
 158 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 out this diflinc~lion, particularly in the 
 following pafTage : / am obliged to relate 
 what isfaid, but I am not obliged to believe 
 every thing without dijlinttion $ and I de^ 
 Jire that this declaration may be attended to 
 through the * courfe of my hiftory. Now, 
 Herodotus does not affirm the truth of 
 any one of the particulars which form 
 the objection we are confidering, but 
 profefTedly fpeaks of them as reports he 
 received from the priefts y . 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 z . 
 
 * Herodot. 1. 7. c. 152. 
 
 y Herodotus does not, I allow, opeiily contradict 
 thefe reports ; nor was he at liberty to do it, if he was 
 initiated into the myfteries, as he probably was. With 
 what referve he fpeaks of the gods, may be feen by con- 
 fulting lib. 2. 0.3, 45, 65, 71. 
 
 2 See above, p. 154, 155, 156, and what is faid con- 
 cerning Hercules below. He feems to have had no con- 
 ception that there was any effcntial difference between the 
 Egyptians and the generality of mankind refpeUng the 
 gods, but Juppofed all men thought alike concerning than : 
 on WEJI vnuit J7rir*0 v va. L. 2. 
 
 2dly.
 
 in polijhed Nafions. 1 59 
 
 adly. As to the priefts of Egypt, it 
 may be prefumed, that they, like other 
 heathen priefts, difcouraged all free in- 
 quiry concerning the gods a : they might 
 be inftrucled not to fpeak openly of the 
 earthly origin of Serapis, liis b , and o- 
 thers , and, as their gods had been their 
 kings, they might pretend that their 
 kings were gods j and thus involve the 
 fubjecl: in obfcurity. Neverthelefs, the 
 priefts themfelves could not but acknow- 
 ledge, that they had gods of mortal ori- 
 gin. This appears from the facts re- 
 cited by Herodotus, upon their autho- 
 rity. 
 
 4. We muft not pafs over the account 
 given of the gods of Egypt by Manetbo> 
 becaufe it is fuppofed to militate againft 
 
 a It feems to have been a maxim with the devout 
 Pagans : Sandtiufque ac reverentius vifum de adtis 
 deorum credere quam fcire. Tacit. Mor. Germ. c. 34. 
 
 b Quoniam fere in omnibus templis, ubi cokbatur 
 Ifis et Serapis, crat etiam fimulachrum, quod digito 
 labiis impreflb admonere videretur, ut filentium fieret : 
 hoc fignificare idem Varro exiftimat, ut homines eos 
 fuifl'e taceretur. Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 18. c. 5. 
 
 that
 
 160 V/orjhip of human Spirits 
 
 that which I have attempted to fupport, 
 Manetho was chief-prieft of Egypt in 
 the time of Ptolemy Philadelphia, and 
 lias given c 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 d : 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 mofl ancient times, gods for 
 their kings, that they did not afterwards 
 exalt their kings into gods. As to the 
 facl: 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 nearer! to the flandard of 
 truth, is, the conjecture of a learned 
 
 c See Manetho, apud Syncell. p. 18. and Eufeb. 
 Chron. Grsec. p. 7. Compare the Old Chronicle cur- 
 rent amongft the Egyptians, an imperfect copy of which 
 is preferred by Syncellus, Chronograph, p. 51, jj2. 
 
 * Kerodot. 1. 2. c. 4, 99. 
 
 writer,
 
 in polified Nations. 1 6 1 
 
 writer % that, by the gods y 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 objection againft the teftimony 
 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 fubjeclr. 
 From this excellent writer we learn, that 
 the Egyptians, befides the fun and moon, 
 whom they called the Jirft and eternal 
 gods f , acknowledged fuch as were taken 
 from the earth j feveral of whom, he fays, 
 had been kings of Egypt, and bore the fame 
 
 e Jac. Perizon. ^Egypt. Origin, torn. i. p. 84. 
 
 Ts$ Jsv KXT Atyvirroti a>S^W7rt?j TO waAaioy yitap.ii/af, 
 tot xo<rp.oi/, KM TW TUV ohvv (v;tt xaT&- 
 j, wirohoif3ttii tivtm ^o Bta$ atJia? TE 
 
 T55* fitow. Dicdcr. Sic. p. 14. 
 
 Weff. 
 
 M names
 
 1 62 Worjlnp of human Spirits 
 
 names 'with the celeftial gods B . He parti- 
 cularly fpecifies the eight great gods of 
 Egypt h , Sol, Saturn^ Rhea, Jupiter, (cal- 
 led alfo Ammon \) Juno, Vulcan, Vefla y 
 and Mercury k . He adds, that Sol, whofe 
 name was the fame with the fun in the 
 firmament, was the firfl king of Egypt ; 
 though fome thought the firfl king of 
 that country to be Vulcan, the inventor 
 of fire, or of the firfl 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, Ofiris, 
 Ifis, fyphon, Apollo m , and Venus. 
 
 8 AXXtfj ^'E>C TXTUI firtyimi; ytvxrSau (pew*, wagf-anraii; 
 
 P.EV ^vr/TSj, uv is xou @ot,<ri>.is yiyovtvou XU.TO, T>JV Ai- 
 
 ywrno*. Tmtt<; ptv o^uvv^^ wo.^^v rotj ttgaMoi;. 
 
 Id. p. 17. Compare Eufeb. Prsep. Ev. p. 45. 
 
 h Id. ib. 
 
 1 Herodotus alfo (1. 2. c. 42.) fays, A/^/XBV Aywnot 
 
 y.A=y:ri Toy Ai. 
 
 k He was fecretary to Ofiris. Diodor. Sic. lib. I. 
 p. 19, 20, 24. 
 
 1 Diodor. Sic. 1.5. p. 390. 
 
 m The fame as Orus. Herodot. 1. 2. c. 144. 
 
 Ofiris
 
 in polijhed Nations. 163 
 
 Ofiris and His were the two princi- 
 pal n divinities of Egypt, in the manner 
 of whofe worfhip all the provinces of 
 that country were agreed . Now, Dio- 
 dorus informs us, that Ifis and Ofiris 
 (who, as we have feen, were born of the 
 fame parents) were king and queen of 
 Egypt ; that Ofiris conquered the moft 
 diftant nations p j that he deified his pa- 
 rents q , and was himfelf deified in his 
 
 n Plutarch, de If. et Ofir. p. 355. E. fays, that, as 
 foon as Ofiris was born, a voice accompanied him, and 
 proclaimed him, u.ira.nu- xt^o?, lord of all things. He 
 was faid to be the fame as Bacchus. Herodot. 1. 2. 
 c. 42, 144. Diodorus Siculus, 1. i. p. 17. ed. Weff. 
 Plutarch makes Bacchus a different perfon from Ofiri?, 
 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 Jbe is the goddefs they (the Egyptians) ef- 
 teem the grcatcjl. She was the fame with Ceres, ac- 
 cording to the Egyptians, (Herodot. 1.2. 0.59. Diod. 
 Sic. 1. I. p. 17.) who fay, Jhe firft 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 Auguft. Civ. Dei, 
 J>8. c. 27. 
 
 M 2 , turn,
 
 164 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 turn, and a third part of the lands ap- 
 propriated to maintain his worihip r -, 
 and that after his death he received equal 
 honour with that paid to the celeftial 
 gods s . 
 
 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 prieils 
 " had perfect information concerning 
 " their interment ; , which they concealed 
 c< from the public, becaufe it was con- 
 " fided to them as a fecret, and it was 
 cc dangerous to divulge any fecret re- 
 " fpecling the gods" \ 
 
 6. Amongft 
 
 r Diodor. Sic. p. 24, 25. 
 
 * Aa TO /AayiSo? rut ivtfy-ciuv cvfATrifc^iji.syuv Xa^tix Trxgat 
 ircto'i Tfi* tt&o.ia.ffictv, v.a.\ Tr t c^i To; aio$ tittr,*, x. T. X. 
 
 Diodor. Sic. p. 24. 
 
 1 MvSohoyscri y<x,vru* Ttvf? TO f*i TT^WTO* 
 5eB? Tt xa* r.^uots, x.. T- A. Id. p. 53* 
 u T ^ ay iri^ TJ T^J TW> Star 
 To raj ? 7ro
 
 in polifoed Nations. 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 fludied the fubje<5l 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, I/is and Ofiris, was written on pur- 
 pofe to (hew, that there was nothing 
 abfurd or extravagant in the religious 
 rites of the Egyptians ; fome inftruclion 
 in hiftory, morals, or philofophy, being 
 couched under them w . Neverthelefs, 
 from Plutarch we learn, that the priefts 
 affirmed, that the bodies of their gods, ex- 
 cept fuch as 'were incorruptible and immor- 
 tal, lay buried 'with them x . 
 
 M 3 As 
 
 7Tt TKTUV axfitiM, ftr, |3sAf<r&a T* atoSs? fxpsgEii* if THJ 
 
 s an V.M xie^i<w fny.Hjs.ttuit TOIJ T a?ro^JiTa TTS^I Tt'v 
 $6a) TUTUH {Awvcreio-k* ti? TJ op^Abj. Id. p. 32. 
 
 w If. et Ofir. p. 353. E. 
 
 * Plutarch, having fpoken of the tomb cf OJiris, and 
 alluded to fome other .gods, adds : Ov /^OK ^ TUTUH o> 
 
 De If. et'Ofir. p. 359. C. Never- 
 thelefs,
 
 1 66 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 As to IJjs and OJlris in particular, Plu- 
 tarch gives us at large the hiflory of their 
 parentage, their births, their kindred, 
 their exploits, their deaths y . He alle- 
 gorizes fome part of their hiflory, 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 z . Agreeably 
 to the repreientation Plutarch makes of 
 Ofiris as a man, he tells us, that he was 
 every where worflripped under a human 
 form a . With refpecl: to Hermes, <Typbon> 
 
 thelefs, Mr. Fell, in the ftile of a perfon well acquainted 
 with Plutarch, fays, p. 83. that Plutarch was 'very 
 careful never to attribute this opinion (viz. that the gods 
 of Egypt had been men) to the Egyptian priejts. 
 
 y As to the place of Oijris's burial, fee Plutarch de 
 If. et Qfir. p. 359. 
 
 z Id. ib. p. 360. E. F. 
 
 a ITavrap^a om^^airo^o^ot Otn^n^oy ayafyca Ssmvvticrt, 
 
 Plutarch, de If, et Ofir. p. 371, 
 
 (the
 
 in polijhed Nations. 167 
 
 (the brother of Ofiris, whom he flew b ,) 
 and Orus, as well as Ofirisy Plutarch ac- 
 knowledges, that the defcription, given. 
 by the Egyptians, of the figure and co- 
 lour of their bodies, plainly fuppofed 
 they had been mere men c . Concerning 
 His and Ofiris, he fays, they were, for 
 their 'virtue, changed from good demons into 
 gods, as ivere Hercules and Bacchus after- 
 ivardsy receiving the united honours both of 
 gods and demons d . 
 
 It would be endlefs to produce all the 
 proofs of the worfhip of human fpirits, 
 in Egypt, from heathen writers who 
 only occafionally make mention of the 
 gods of that country. Plato fpeaks of 
 'Theuthy who flourifhed in the reign of 
 y king of Egypt, as one of the an- 
 
 b Diodor. Sic. p. 24. 
 
 c fij rrj (purn ytyovoras >9^(U9rj. Plutarch. If. et Ofir. 
 p. 359. E. Eufeb. Prasp. Ev. 1. 3. c. 91. 
 
 d Plutarch, de If. et Ofir. p. 361. Differt. on Mir. 
 p. 182. I might add, that Venus- Beleftica, the flave 
 of an Egyptian monarch, had a temple ere&ed to her 
 at Alexandria. Plutarch, in Erotico, p. 753. E. F. 
 
 M A. cient
 
 1 68 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 cient gods e . 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 f . In Egypt, fays 
 Maximus fyrius, they fhew you at once 
 the temple of a god and his tomb g . The 
 Latin writers fpeak the fame language. 
 Varro h confidered Ifis and Serapis as ha- 
 ving once belonged to the human race. 
 Apuleius ranks Ofiris amongfl 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 
 
 TIV* SIM, K. r. X. Platonis Phaedrus, 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. m. and p. 141. 
 
 { il? ywpw fj? ruv Ar/vwTwt Seuv. Lucian. Dialog. 
 Mort. p. 291. 
 
 & AsutvuTat Taj' avron; KCOV $, xa Ta^o; Sta. Maxi-. 
 
 mus Tyrius, Diflert. 38. p. 398. 
 h Cited above, p. 159. note b . 
 1 Above, p. 97. note b , 
 
 man.
 
 in polijhed Nations* 169 
 
 man. His argument proves, that he 
 was publicly worfhipped under that very 
 character k . 
 
 I would here clofe the evidence of the 
 worfhip of human fpirits in Egypt, if it 
 were not necefTary to confider the cha- 
 racter of the Egyptian Hercules ; which 
 I did not enter upon fooner, becaufe the 
 proofs of his having been a man are 
 f urnifhed, not by one only, but by fe- 
 veralof the forementioned writers. He- 
 rodotus ', in order to fhew that the 
 
 k Tu plangens hominem teftarb Ofirin. 
 
 Lucan. VIII. 833. 
 
 This paflage, and others to the fame purpofe, were 
 cited in the DifTertation on Mir. p. 194. 182. Lucan's 
 judgement of Ofiris has alfo been confirmed here by 
 frefh teflimonies. Neverthelefs Mr. Fell is pleafed to 
 fay, p. 24. " It is not in my power to prove, that re- 
 " Hgiojis honours were ever paid to any deceafed maji 
 *' 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 or could not be 
 proved concerning Ofiris. I leave the reader to form 
 his own judgement concerning thefe three propofitions. 
 ' Lib, 2. c. 43, 44. 
 
 Grecians
 
 170 Wctrfoip of human Spirits 
 
 Grecians borrowed 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 
 Aniafis, 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 creeled to Hercules under the name 
 of rfhafian ; 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- 
 rnifes ? Why, that Hercules (meaning 
 the Egyptian) was a 'very ancient god m ; 
 
 m To. ptv vvv irogitptvct ^Xoi era,(piut; ncthouov SEOK rov H^a- 
 
 ?, lonct. Lib. 2. 0.44. Herodotus makes mention 
 cf z.ftatue of the Egyptian Hercules, c. 42. 
 
 that
 
 in polijhed 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, otherwife, did he compare their 
 different ages together ? Would he take 
 pains to (hew, 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 which 
 he was exalted in confequence of it. 
 For, from his greater antiquity, he 
 
 n Lib. 2. 0.43. 
 
 The ancients called the natural gods, i^aj xt 
 ap$xfT?. Diodor. Siculus, Fragmenta ex lib. vi. p. 
 633. ed. Weff. 
 
 draws
 
 172 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 draws this conclufion : therefore thofe 
 Greeks a& right, who build temples to two 
 of them i and fa orifice to one as an immor- 
 tal god, under the name of Olympian, and 
 honour the other as a hero p . 
 
 We have here, fays a late writer ', 
 two gods of the fame name j the one a natu- 
 ral and immortal deity, Jliled Olympian ; 
 the other an hero-god, acknowledged to have 
 been once a mortal man ; each having fe- 
 parate temples and diftinffi worfiip, agree- 
 able to the fuppofed difference of their na- 
 tures and characters. The gentleman 
 would not have reafoned in this manner, 
 had he been acquainted with the fenti- 
 ments of antiquity on thefe fubjecls, or 
 had he only confidered what was proved 
 in the Differtation on Miracles r , and 
 will he farther eflablifhed 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. 0.44. s Fell, p. 13. 
 
 ' P. 182, 183, 214. 
 
 were
 
 in polijhed Nations. 173 
 
 were received into the ftarry heaven, or 
 arterial ' region, the feat of the immortal 
 divinities, fometimes called Olympus*. 
 The Hercules who 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 
 
 i . i ' -. 
 
 Varro, 1. 16. apud Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 7. c 6. 
 fays : A fummo circuitu cceli, ufque ad circulum lunar, 
 iethereae anima; funt aftra et ftell^e ; iique cceleftes dii 
 non modo intelliguntur efle, fed etiam videntur. Inter 
 luns vero gyrum, et nimborum ac ventorum cacumina, 
 aereae funt animse : fed eae animo, non oculis, videu- 
 tur ; et vocantur heroes, et lares, 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 atheris imi, 
 Fecit, et sternos animam conlcgit in orbes. 
 See below, note *. 
 
 * Viam affe&at Olympo. Virg. iv. 562. MCMJ? wre- 
 paffw OXti^js,-. Diodor. Sic. 1. 4. p. 261. ed. WefT. 
 Anubis, who accompanied Ofirjs in his expedition, (id. 
 1. i. p. 21.) clothed in a dog's flcin, is reprefented by 
 Plutarch as being both terreilrial and Olympic. If. et 
 Ofir. p. 368. E. 
 
 neareft
 
 174 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 neareil to the ftars. In length of time, 
 the Grecian Hercules became a god, and 
 was worfhipped as fuch u . The Roman 
 writers exprelfly fpeak of Hercules as 
 having been / man w , and yet rank him 
 amongfl thofe who were received into 
 the ftarry or aetherial heaven, and ad- 
 mitted into the community of the great 
 gods x . He is reprefented with Jupiter, 
 on fome old altars and relievos, with an 
 infcription y 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- 
 
 u Paufanias, Corinthiac. 1. 2..c. 10. p. 133. ed, 
 Kuhnii. 
 
 w The Roman law was : Eos, qui coelefles Temper 
 habiti, colunto ; et olios quos endo coelo merita collo- 
 caverunt, Herculem, &c. Cicero, de Legib. 1. 2. c. 8. 
 Laws of the iz Tab. 2. fe&. 4.. 
 
 * Poft ingentia fafta, dcorum in templa recepti. Ho- 
 rat. Ep. l.z. ep. I. .7. Arces attigit igneas. Lib. 3. 
 ode 3. v. 17. Hercules was one of the few, quos ar- 
 deus evexit ad tetlera virtus, as Virgil fpeaks, ^En. VI. 
 130. See Silius Italicus, 1. 15. v. 83. 
 
 y Diis magnis, to the great gods. Montfaucon, v. I. 
 p. 16, 47. 
 
 traft.
 
 in polijhed Nations. 1 7 5 
 
 traft. The Olympian Jupiter himfelf 
 had been a man z . 
 
 It is only neceffary 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 a : 
 and therefore the feparate temples and 
 diftinft 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- 
 fition that both of them had been men, 
 would conclude that the former ought 
 to be worfhipped as an immortal or O- 
 lympian divinity, and the latter merely 
 
 z Diodor. Sic. 1.3. p. 229, 230. 
 
 See Paufanias, p. 133. Diflert. cm Mir. p. 182, 
 183. The fubjeft will come under future confide- 
 ration. 
 
 with
 
 176 Worfhip of 'human Spirits 
 
 with the rites to which heroes were en- 
 titled before they became gods. Ac- 
 cording to Diodorus Siculus b , 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 c . Plutarch 
 makes mention of him amongft thofe 
 who, after death, were changed from 
 good demons into gods d . But, though 
 of human extract, Hercules was wor- 
 fhipped in Egypt with the mofl facred 
 and auguft ceremonies e . 
 
 b Lib. 3. p. 243. c Id. p. 20. 
 
 d Differ!, on Mir. p. 182. See Diodor. Sic. p. 5. 
 
 e Deus Hercules religione quidem apud Tyron co- 
 litur : verum facratiffima et auguftiffin a Egyptii reli- 
 gione venerantur, ultraque memoriam (qua? apud illos 
 retro longiflima eft) ut carentem initio colunt. Macrcb. 
 Saturn. 1. I. c. 20. By Hercules we are to under- 
 ftand the fun, according to Macrobius ; 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. 1.3. c. 16.) 
 but they were reprefented to the people, and regarded 
 by them, as having been men. 
 
 I (hall
 
 'in polijhed Nations. 1 77 
 
 I {hall produce no more heathen au- 
 thorities in fupport of the point I un- 
 dertook to eftablifh. If we reject the 
 foregoing account given of the gods 
 of Egypt by the Roman, Greek f , 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 aflert, as 
 the learned Jablonfki e does, that the 
 Greeks, during the reign of Alexander's 
 fucceflbrs in Egypt, corrupted the reli- 
 gion of that country, and that later wri- 
 
 f The Greek writers, whofe teftimony has been urged 
 above, are Herodotus, Plato, Diodortis'Sicu'lus, Plutarch, 
 Lucian, and Maximus Tyrius. Mr. Fell muft have been 
 unacquainted with all thefe tertimonies, (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 worshipped fuch 
 " gods as had been men." But this gentleman is often 
 fo unfortunate, as, in proof of his erroneous afieitions, 
 to appeal to thofe very authorities which contradict 
 them. See above, p. 30, 136. 
 
 Prolegom. p. 42. 
 
 N ters
 
 178 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 ters have mifreprefented it. No proof 
 of this after tion has been produced. The 
 Egyptians, when under the dominion of 
 the Ptolemys, might adopt new gods h ; 
 but this was perfectly confident with the 
 general principles of the heathen reli- 
 gion 1 . There is a perfect agreement 
 between the accounts given of the E- 
 gyptian gods, by thofe writers who lived 
 long before the age of the firfl Ptolemy, 
 and by thofe who lived after it. Their 
 having two clafles of gods, one natural, 
 the other mortal, is not more flrongly 
 aflerted by Diodorus and Plutarch, than 
 it is by Hermes Trifmegiflus and San- 
 choniathon. And Herodotus, againft 
 
 h 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 
 failed him here. Serapis was worshipped in Egypt long 
 before the time of Ptolemy, who introduced his worlhip 
 amongft the Athenians. See Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 18. 
 0.5. and Paufanias, Attic, p. 42. ed. Kuhnii. Sa- 
 turn was a god of great antiquity in Egypt and Phe- 
 nicia. 
 
 * See what was faid above concerning the Gauls, 
 p. 113. 
 
 whofe
 
 in polijhed Nations. 
 whofe teftimony no objection is made, 
 has recorded numerous examples of the 
 worfhip of human fpirits in Egypt, upon 
 the authority of the prieirs themfelves. 
 But the objection muft fink under it's 
 own weight : for, what Greece was to 
 Rome, that Egypt was to Greece ; 
 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 fuppofe, that 
 the Romans changed the religion of 
 Greece, after their conquefl of that coun- 
 try, which was likely to produce a con- 
 trary effect k . The Egyptians obftinately 
 adhered even to thofe parts of their re- 
 ligion which gave moft offence to foreign 
 nations : I refer to their worfhip of brutes 
 and vegetables, which they practifed in a 
 much higher degree than any other people. 
 The foregoing teftimonies might be 
 confirmed by arguments drawn from the 
 
 k The Roman wt>rfiiip became gradually more and 
 more conformable to the Grecian. Dionyf. Hal. Antiq. 
 Rom. 1. 2. c. 18, 19, 20. 
 
 N 2 religious
 
 180 Worjhip 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 m . But thefe 
 arguments will come under future con- 
 
 1 Particularly from human facrifices. It mull how- 
 ever be acknowledged, to the honour of the Egyptians, 
 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. 
 Li. 07. 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. WefT.) mentions a very remarkable circumftance; 
 viz. that they were facrificed at the tomb of Ofiris : 
 which ihews to what gods fuch facrifices were offered. 
 Human facrifices were abolifhed by Amofis. Porphyry, 
 de Abilinentia, 1. 2. c. 223. ed. Lugdun. Eufeb. Prsep. 
 Ev. 1. 4-. c. i6< p. 155. But they were revived by Bu- 
 firis, to avert a national calamity. Apollodorus, Biblio- 
 thec. 1. 2. p. 1 1 8, 119. 
 
 " See, in particular, Eufeb. Prasp. 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. Ea^aTnj) 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 potijhed 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 n confider the celebrated letter of 
 Alexander to his mother j in which he 
 is faid to have communicated to her the 
 fecret of the myfteries, intruded to him 
 by the high-prieil 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 V The connexion of the place 
 
 Jablonfki, p. 31. 
 
 o Plutarch. Vit. Alexandri, p. 688. F. 
 
 N 3 leads
 
 i8a Worfiip 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 pafled over in filence by 
 Cicero, Diodorus Siculus, and fome o- 
 ther heathen writers, (a circumftance on 
 which great ftrefs is p laid,) the reafon of 
 it plainly was, their having more au- 
 thentic information concerning the great 
 fecret q of the myfteries than a private 
 letter, the genuinenefs of which might 
 be fufpected, and the contents of which 
 were probably preferved only by tradi- 
 tion, and therefore varioufly reported. 
 The credit given to it by the Fathers r 
 muft be confidered as a proof of their 
 opinion concerning the gods of Egypt. 
 
 P Jablonfki, Prolegom. p. 32. 
 
 * See Diodor. Sic. 1. i. p. 24. ed. Weff. 
 
 r Athenag. Legat. pro ChrifHan. p. 24. Minut. 
 Felix, Oftav. c. 21. Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1.8. 0.5. and 
 1. 12. c. io. Cyprian, de Idol. Vanitat. p. 12. ed, 
 Oxon. 
 
 From
 
 in polifoed Nations. \ 8 3 
 
 From the various teftimonies ' which 
 have been produced, in this and the pre- 
 ceding feclion, it appears, that both the 
 Phenicians and Egyptians, though they 
 acknowledged elementary and fidereal de- 
 ities, and aflerted more efpecially the di- 
 vinity of the fun and moon, did alfo 
 worfhip human fpirits : and that the E- 
 gyptians worfhipped them under the dif- 
 tinc"l characters of heroes, demons, and 
 gods. It farther appears, that both 
 the Phenicians and Egyptians account- 
 ed their princes and eminent benefactors 
 as the great eft 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 
 may 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, had it not been proper 
 that it fnould be -known what credit is due to his moft 
 confident affertions. 
 
 N 4 the
 
 1 84 Wqrjhip of human Spirits 
 
 the foregoing teftimonies prove, that 
 deified men were the immediate objecls 
 of the public eftablifhed worfhip in Er- 
 gypt, as they alfo were in Phenicia, 
 
 I am, however, far from denying, 
 that, in the hiltory and worfhip of thefe 
 terreilrial gods, there was an ultimate 
 reference to the deified parts and powers 
 of nature. And it is certain, that the 
 civil or vulgar theology was explained 
 pbyfically by the learned. Put with their 
 explanations we have here no concern j 
 and therefore I pafs over at prefent what 
 occurs upon this fubject in Plutarch, 
 Porphyry, Jamblichus, Macrobius, and 
 other heathen writers. 
 
 SECT. Ill, 
 
 T Proceed to fhew, that the cuftom of 
 
 deifying human fpirits prevailed a- 
 
 mongft {he ASSYRIANS, CHALDEANS, 
 
 BABYLONIANS. 
 
 Very little is known of the religion of 
 confidered as a kingdom diftin<5t 
 
 from
 
 'in polijhed Nations. 1 85 
 
 from that of Babylon. Both kingdoms 
 were afterwards united into one mighty 
 empire, which was called indifferently 
 Aflyrian and Babylonian n . The Chal- 
 deans in Babylon, according to Diodo- 
 rus Siculus, were a colony of Egyp- 
 tians v , 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 x . This agrees 
 with what Lucian teftifies y , that the 
 AfTyrians derived their theology and re- 
 ligious rites from the Egyptians, and in 
 honour of the gods erected temples, and 
 placed in them flatues and images (pro- 
 per reprefentations of fuch gods as had 
 been men). Now, if the religion of 
 Aflyria and Babylon was derived from 
 
 n The Aflyrians and Babylonians are the fame peo- 
 ple. Herodot. 1. i. 0.199, 2O - Babylon is reckoned 
 the principal city in Aflyria. Ib. c. 178. Strabo fays 
 the fame thing. L. 16. fub init. Bifhop Lowth on If. 
 14,25. Compare the Anc. Uiiiverf. Hift. v. 4. p. 390. 
 vo. 1747. 
 
 w Diodor. Sic. 1. i, p. 92. ed. Weff. 
 
 ? Id. ib. p. 32. y De Syr. Dea, p. 657.
 
 1 86 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 Egypt, the former mufl 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 fkies : and, as va- 
 rious rites were ufed to draw down fouls 
 from the ftars into confecrated images 
 and fhrines 2 , it is much more likely that 
 thofe rites fhould refpecl: the fouls that 
 only inhabited the celeftial orbs, than 
 
 z See Hottinger's Hift. Orient. 1. i. 0.7. p. 296. et 
 feq. and Pococke's notes on Abul-pharai, Specimen 
 Hift. Arab. p. 138. et feq, 
 
 fuch
 
 'in polljhed Nation*. i 87 
 
 fuch as were united to them and animated 
 them, as the human foul is united to, 
 and animates, the body. Now, their 
 facred fhrines were confulted as oracles, 
 and worfhipped as gods z . 
 
 The chief god of the Babylonians was 
 Bel. The queftion here is, who this 
 god was. Bel (called by the Greeks 
 Be/us) in the Chaldee * dialecT: anfwers to 
 the Hebrew Baa/, and to the Syriac b 
 Beet, and fignifies lord. This term there- 
 fore might be applied to the true God ; 
 but it is commonly given in fcripture to 
 thofe fictitious deities, who were falfely 
 fuppofed to have dominion over man- 
 kind 6 . 
 
 2 See note z in the preceding page. 
 
 a Ifaiah xlvi. i. b Ez. iv. 8. 
 
 c Populus Dei fatis pie eum Baalem fuum vocabant, 
 priufquam, ob vocem illam ad pjrofana minima fre- 
 quenter nimis traduftam, id ipfum Deus vetaret. 
 Selden, 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 
 graflante vero hominum errore, ad idola transfereba- 
 turj et fe^ 
 
 But
 
 1 8 8 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 But was the Bel, who was worfhip- 
 ped at Babylon, the true God ? A late 
 writer d cites from Dr. Cudworth e a paf- 
 fage of Berofus, in which Bel is faid to 
 have framed (or fet in order) the world, 
 and formed (or perfected) the ftars and 
 the fun f . It is here afked d , Can any one 
 imagine, that he, who created the hea- 
 ven and the earth, received his name from 
 fome petty prince in the time of Abraham ? 
 Surely not, fays the fame writer. It is 
 impoffible here to forbear obferving, ift. 
 That Berofus 8 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 h $ and confequently 
 
 * Fell, p. 23. P. 312. 
 
 f To 
 
 Jcai ra; vitrs 
 
 Extrafts from Berofus were made by Africanus, A- 
 pollodorus, Alexander Polyhiftor, and Abydenus. Of 
 thefe extra&s, fragments have been preferred by Eufe- 
 bius and Syncellus. 
 
 h Jolh. xxiv. 2. 
 
 not
 
 in foHJhed Nations. 189 
 
 not likely to worfhip the Creator of hea- 
 ven and earth. 2dly. It is certain they 
 did not worfhip him under the name of 
 Be/, 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 pafTage, was worshipped 
 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 
 patted 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, 
 
 1 Bet bowetb down ; Nebo ftoopetb ; their idols, Sec. 
 If. xlvi. l Babylon is taken ; Bel is confounded ; Me- 
 rodacb is broken in pieces. Jerem. 1. 2. / will pvnijh 
 Eel in Babylon. Ch. li. 44. Would God's prophets 
 fay of the Creator of heaven and earth, He is bowed 
 down, and confounded ; and reprefent God himfelf as 
 threatening to punijh him ? 
 
 * Fell, p. 23. 
 
 k Ap. Eufeb. Chronicon, p. 5. et Syncelli Chrono- 
 graph, p. 28. 
 
 when
 
 190 Worjhip of bunian Spirits 
 
 when mixed with the earth by the 
 gods, men were formed : but they could 
 not bear the light, and therefore he or- 
 dered one of the gods to cut oiF 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 exigence 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 j particularly to the founder 
 of the Babylonian empire. We have 
 already feen ', that a perfon of this name 
 
 1 P. 185. 
 
 carried
 
 in polijhed Nations, igi 
 
 carried colonies from Egypt into Baby- 
 lonia. Abydenus m , whofe hiflory is 
 extracted from the ancient records of 
 the Chaldeans, fays, <e it is reported 
 " that Belus compafied Babylon with a 
 <c wall." We are told by Sanchonia- 
 thon % that Saturn had three fons born 
 in Peraea; viz. Saturn, fo called after 
 his father, Jupiter Belus, 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 Syrian -, par- 
 ticularly by Dorotheus Sidonius p , cited 
 by Julius Firmicus. But Paufanias * 
 
 m Ap. Eufeb. P. E. 1. 9. 0,41. 
 
 n Ap. eund. P. E. 1. 1. p. 37. D. p. 38. A. 
 
 c As to the prefixing the term Jupiter to Belus, m- 
 fiances of a fimilar nature frequently occur. We read 
 of Jupiter Aratrius, above, p. 141. Jupiter Amrnon, 
 p. 85. More examples will occur in the fequel. See 
 alfo Sir If. Newton's Chronology, p. 150, 152, 162. 
 and Jac. Perizon. ./Egypt. Orig. torn. i. p. 83. 
 
 P A^aiu Ba/3Aw, Tr^is Ey^.oio Tro^y-pm. 
 
 i L. 4 . c. 23. p. 337. 
 
 lays,
 
 192 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 fays, that he had his name from Bel us 
 an Egyptian. Phenicia being fometimes 
 confidered as belonging to Egypt, there 
 may be no contradiction 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 Nimrod or the Pul fpo- 
 ken of in Scripture T . It is fufficient for 
 our purpofe, that there was fuch a per- 
 fon, and that he was the founder of th 
 Babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar 8 
 fpeaks of himfelf as defcended from 
 him 5 and he is referred to by Virgil f , 
 not as Dido's father, but as one of her 
 
 r Jac. Perizon. Origin. Babylon, torn. 2. p. 152. ef 
 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 Hift. v. 4. p. 352. think that Belus 
 was the fame as Pul. See alfo p. 309. in the note. 
 
 8 O Tt Bi?Ao? feo$ TT^oyoj-o?, 5} t Ba<7Xi BrAti?. Eufetr. 
 P. Ev. l.p. 0.41. p. 456. 
 
 1 Implevitque mero pateram, quam Belus et omnes 
 A Bela foliti. ^En. I. 733. 
 
 remote
 
 in polijhed Nations . 193 
 
 remote anceftors n . 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 v , 
 he was, as we have already fhewn x , 
 ranked amongft the gods by the Per- 
 fians, who fucceeded to his empire : a 
 plain proof that he was firil worfhipped 
 at Babylon. Dionyfius y expreffly in- 
 
 u This is implied in the expreflion, omnes a Belo, all 
 the dependents of Belus. Between Dido and her own fa- 
 ther none intervened. 
 
 w This hypothecs is favoured by the language of 
 Ammianus Marcellinus, I. xxiii. c. 6. p. 286. Baby- 
 lon > cujus moenia bitumine Semiramis ftruxit ; arcem 
 enim antiquijjimus rex condidit Belus. ./Elian calls 
 him, emphatically, TO* BajAov TO a^**'"* Belum ilium 
 antiquum. Var. Hift. 1.13. c.^. And Orofius, II. 6. 
 Babyloniam a Nimrod gigante fundatam ; a Nino vei 
 Semiramide reparatam. 
 
 x Above, p. 72. 
 
 y Miyay ^o ncraro B)jXw. Dionyf, ntpnyie. C. 2$. 
 v. 825. This temple of Belus was afterwards adorned 
 by Nebuchadnezzar. Jofeph. Antiq. 1. 10. c. it. . I. 
 
 O forms
 
 Worjhtp of human Spirits 
 
 forms us, that a temple was erefted to 
 him by Semiramis in that city. From 
 the defcription, given of the temple of 
 Belus by Herodotus z , it appears that it 
 was built in the form of the Egyptian 
 pyramids a . Now, as the latter were fe- 
 pulchres b 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 ftood below, within the 
 temple, clearly fhews who was repre- 
 fented by it. And, though there was a 
 temple in the uppermofl tower, in which 
 no image was placed, (from which cir- 
 cumftance fome learned writers c 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 
 
 z Lib. i. c. 181. 
 
 8 Sir If. Newton's Chronology, p. 327, 328. 
 
 b See below, ch. 3. 
 
 e Anc. Univerfal Hift, vol. 4. p. 352, 
 
 the.
 
 'in poll foed Nations* 195 
 
 the god himfelf, who was fuppofed to 
 come by night and lie in the bed d . Could 
 this god be confidered by the Chaldeans 
 as that eternal Spirit who created the 
 tmiverfe ? Were not the accommoda- 
 tions provided for him more fuitable to 
 their ideas of human nature ? Certain 
 it is in fact, that it was to deified men 
 that the like provifion was made in other 
 countries e . 
 
 Were it poflible ftill to doubt, whe- 
 ther the founder of the AfTyrian and Ba- 
 bylonian empire was worfhipped in the 
 
 d Herodot. 1. i. c. 182. 
 
 * In the temple of the Trlphilian Jupiter, who is re- 
 prefented as having been a man, there was a bed and a 
 table. Diodor. Sic. 1. 5. p. 368. ed. Wefi*. 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 Worfhlp of human Spirits 
 
 temple of Belus at Babylon, I might 
 appeal to Eufebius f , who tells us, that 
 Belus, the firft king of the AfTyrians, 
 was deified after his death : to Jerome g , 
 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 Laftantius b , and the au- 
 thors cited by him, who affirm, that 
 Belus was worfhipped by the AfTyrians 
 and Babylonians 1 . I do not affirm, 
 
 that 
 
 * Eufeb, Chronicon, 1. I. p. 9. Tharae anno 28. Af- 
 fyriorum rex primus Belus mortuus eft, quern Aflyrii 
 deurn, et alii dicunt Saturnum. 
 
 s Idolum Baal, five Bel, et, ut apertius dicam, Beli, 
 Aflyriorum religio eft, confecrata a Nino, Beli filio, in 
 honorem patris. Hieronymus in Ezek. c. 23. Ninus 
 in tantam pervenit gloriam, ut patrem fuum Belum re- 
 ferret in deum, qui Hebraice dicitur Va. Hunc Sido- 
 nii et Phcenices appellant ^#1. Id. in Ofea, c. 2. 
 
 h Belus, quern Babylonii et Aflyrii colunt, antiquior 
 Trojano bello fuifle invenitur trecentis viginti duobus 
 annis : Belum autem Saturno aequalem fuifle, et u- 
 trumque uno tempore adolevifle. Laftant. Div. Inftitut. 
 1. i. c. 23. 
 
 * A gentleman, who often affumes the language of a 
 perfon who has a comprehenfive view of the fubjeft on 
 
 which
 
 in polijhed Nations. igj 
 
 that the term Bel was never explained 
 phyfically, and applied to the fun, by 
 learned men, as Ofiris k alfo fometimes 
 was : for the ancients gave the names of 
 their deified kings to the heavenly bo- 
 dies '. But the temple of Babylon was 
 erefled 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 m . 
 
 As Jupiter Belus was the chief god of 
 the Babylonians, fo their principal god- 
 
 which he writes, roundly affirms, that if js not in my 
 power to prove, that religious honours 'were ever paid to a 
 deceafed man under the name of BeL Fell, p. 24. Some 
 however may doubt, whether his knowledge of his fub- 
 jecl 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.i6. 
 
 k Diodor. Sic. 1. i. p. 14. ed. WefT. 
 
 1 See above, p. 135, 161, 162. 
 
 m O jw,aAira &WV T-^uo-i BajSvtawot. Arrian. Exped. 
 Alex. 1. 3. p. 127. ed. Gronov. 
 
 O 3 defs
 
 198 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 defs was Venus or Mylitta n . She was 
 the fame with the Perfian Mitra , the 
 Phenician Aftarte p , and the great Sy- 
 rian goddefs^j and therefore was cer- 
 tainly worfhipped under a human cha- 
 racter. The title of celejlial Venm ' was 
 probably given her becaufe fhe was worr 
 {hipped in the planet of that name, or 
 in the moon, She is fometimes called 
 Juno ; under which name fhe was a- 
 dored by the Sidonians and Carthagini- 
 ans 1 . 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 worfhipped under both 
 
 B Herodot. 1. i. 0.131. cited above, p. 48. 
 Above, p. 68. f P. 142. 
 
 9 See the next fe&ion. 
 
 Tirn crcfitffScii rr,i ofganav 
 Attic, c. 14. p. 36. 
 * Hie templum Junoni ingens Sidonia Dido 
 
 Condebat. Virgil. JEn. I. 446. 
 
 ! Anc. Univerfal Hiil. vol. 4. p. 359, 360. 
 
 fexes,
 
 in polijhed Nations. 
 
 fexes, they account for this circum- 
 ftance in the character of the queen of 
 Babylon, which was that of a martial 
 heroine and an " abandoned proftitute. 
 Hence (he might be confidered both as 
 a god of war, and the patronefs of plea- 
 fure. 
 
 The AfTyrians and Babylonians had 
 feveral other gods of mortal origin ; 
 particularly Thuras or T^hurras^ who fuc- 
 ceeded Ninus. He was an eminent war- 
 rior, and was called Mars, after the pla- 
 net of that name, (and w Baal,) to whom 
 the firft pillar was erefted *, Adrammelech 
 and Anammelecb were Babylonian deities, 
 to whom human facrifices were offered y . 
 The names of fome of their other idols 
 
 u Athenagoras, (Legat. p. 119.) calls Semiramis, 
 
 *ayyo ? yvm x*t /x,a*fvo?, libidinofa et fanguinaria. As 
 to the former part of her charafler, fee Agathias, p. 58. 
 cd. 1594. 
 
 w Slnpnvw UVTOV Baa>.. Suidas, in VOC. agaj. 
 
 T firixt A^sj atsrvirotf irfUf^ j-^Xjjc o Atrcrv^cn, xa u; 
 5=o> Tr^ffiHwuv avTov, xeu tu<; TT ; J tvv x.aXfo-t IlefO-jr* TO BA 
 Sso, o f$- laSttfuntvoptm AgK, W6?.4^,w SEC;. Chronicon 
 Alexandrinum, p, 88. 
 
 X 2 Kings xvii. 31. 
 
 O 4 are
 
 2oo Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 are preferved j 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 z , we 
 might from this circumftance alone have 
 inferred, that they worfhipped them 
 when dead. The teflimonies that have 
 been produced ferve to fhew, that 4ead 
 men and women were the more imme- 
 diate objects of the public devotion at 
 Babylon, and were indeed honoured as 
 their greater! 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, 
 
 f Dan. iii. 
 
 and
 
 in potijhed Nations. 20 1 
 
 and Babylonians *. In this temple, as 
 we learn from Lucian b , 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 c . From 
 this curious pafTage it appears, that the 
 gods of Syria were of two forts : the 
 one vifible, particularly the fun and 
 moon j 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. 676. 
 
 b P. 675. et feq. 
 
 c Maa y<*g *iAia xcw ai^vaur,^ $zati/at y ttmtmUffi* 
 
 Atyasr* TOIO-I /AIP <*Moi<r Stow* 
 a & fft 
 
 f i9/iocrt j Lucian, p. 676, 677. 
 
 concerning
 
 202 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 concerning thofe objects of wormip that 
 originally belonged to the human race, 
 and were reprefented by flatues. It can- 
 not reasonably 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 j for the former had flatues as 
 their reprefentatives, but not the latter. 
 And it is very remarkable, that, even fo 
 late as the age of Lucian, no flatues 
 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, fhe could not be a natural di- 
 vinity 3 as the flatue placed between Ju- 
 piter and Juno was probably creeled in 
 her honour. She feems to have been 
 the fame with the Aflarte of the Pheni- 
 cians, and the celeflial Venus, fo often 
 fpoken of above, and to whom there was 
 
 an
 
 in foUJhed Nations. 303 
 
 an ancient temple erefted at Afcalon, 
 which is called by Herodotus d a city of 
 Syria. Semiramis was worfhipped in 
 this country c , and is thought by fome 
 to be the Syrian goddefs herfelf, and the 
 fame with the Derceto of Afcalon f , / 
 
 Hiftory informs us, that Belus was 
 worfhipped in Syria s , as well as at Ba- 
 bylon. Adad or Hadad was a name 
 common to all the Syrian kings h . One 
 of them, whom Sanchoniathon calls A- 
 dod, reigned in Phenicia, and was ftiled, 
 king of the gods i j which is a full proof, 
 
 d Lib. i. c, 105. 
 
 * She made a law, that the Syrians fhould worlhip 
 her as a goddefs, in preference to all the other divini- 
 ties. Lucian, de Syr. Pea, p. 678. 
 
 f Anc. Univerfal Hilt. vol. 4. p. 255, 259. We 
 learn from Lucian, p. 676. that the ftatue between Ju- 
 piter and Juno, with a golden dove on it's head, was 
 thought by fome to be Semirami^. 
 
 8 O Zei/j, o BrXo? oiio^a^MExoj, * to -n? Awa//-n -njf "v- 
 (iaj Ti/ita;|*oj. Xiphilin. in Caracalla, ia Excerpt, e 
 Dione, 1. 78. p. 884. ed. Hanov. 
 
 h Probably becaufe they confecrated all their kings 
 into gods. 
 
 1 AOW&IJ, ^atnXtos SEW. Sanchoniathon, ap. Eufeb, 
 P.Ev. l.i. p. 38. 
 
 that,
 
 204 Worfbip 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 understood hiftorically by the peo- 
 ple, and applied to their chief hero-god. 
 
 Both Eenbadad and Hazael were wor- 
 Ihipped by the Syrians, and reprefented 
 to be of far greater antiquity than they 
 really were 1 : a very common practice 
 with the Heathens on other occafions. 
 
 The Syrians, in honour of a king cal- 
 led Datnafcus, (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 molt facred worfhip M . 
 
 What, therefore, has been before 
 proved concerning the Aflyrians, Baby- 
 lonians, Phenicians, and Egyptians, is 
 alfo true of the Syrians j viz. that they 
 
 * Saturnal. 1. i. c. 23. p. 217. 
 
 1 Jofeph. Antiq. 1. 9. c. 4. . 6. 
 
 ra Nomen urbi a Damafco rege inditum ; in cujus 
 honorem Syrii fepulchrum Arathis uxoris ejus pro tem- 
 plo coluere ; deamque exiude fanftiffimae religionis ha- 
 bent. Juftin. 1. 36. c. 2. 
 
 deified
 
 in poliJJjed Nations. 205 
 
 deified dead men and women. The facts 
 produced above farther prove, that thefe 
 gods of mortal origin were the more im- 
 mediate and the principal objects of the 
 public and national worfhip. 
 
 I have now finifhed what I intended 
 to offer concerning the objects of public 
 worfhip in the eaftern nations -, and have 
 {hewn, that thefe nations, whether bar- 
 barous or polifhed, (efpecially thofe of 
 the moft diftinguifhed fame, fuch as A- 
 rabia, Phenicia, Syria, Caria, Lycia, 
 Cilicia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Sarmatia, 
 Armenia, Chaldea, Babylonia, AfTyria, 
 Pedia, Parthia, Media, India, Scythia, 
 China, Japan, and others,) though they 
 might acknowledge elementary and fide- 
 real deities, did neverthelefs worfliip 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
 
 206 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 <e were not paid to deceafed heroes in 
 ce the eaflern nations" Left his readers 
 fhould think there were any exceptions, 
 he afTerts , that " the eajlern nations , 
 " whether barbarous or polifhed, paid 
 < no religious honours to deceafed men. v 
 The gentleman has fhewn himfelf e- 
 qually unacquainted with the religious 
 ftate of the ancient nations of Europe 
 and Africa : for, notwithstanding 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 exceptedV It is 
 unbecoming in any one to fpeak upon a 
 fubjeft, of which he is ignorant, in the 
 decifive language of certain knowledge. 
 In matters of fact 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 
 
 F,ell, p. 14. P P. 29. 
 
 confidence
 
 in polled Nations. 
 
 confidence what he did not know to be 
 true. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 Shewing that human Spirits 'were deified by 
 the GREEKS. 
 
 TT was elfewhere q 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 queflion concerns only their other 
 objects of worfhip. 
 
 All, who have any knowledge of the 
 religion of the Greeks, know, that they 
 worfhipped the firft founders of ftat6s 
 and cities r ; thofe alfo who died in de- 
 fence of their country ' 5 and fuch as 
 
 were 
 
 * Differt. on Mir, p. 172. note f . 
 
 * The Cherfonefians facrifice to Miltiades, wj o o^f, 
 exr. Herodot. 1. 6. c. 38. 
 
 * Pericles, fpeaking of thcfe who fell in the battle at 
 Samos, fays, they were become immortal as the gods , $a- 
 aTa; iXfyt ytyoi/evsti, xaSaweg T? SEH?. He adds, We 'do 
 not fee the gods them/elves ; (which cannot be underftood 
 
 of
 
 208 Worjhlp 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 n j and others by Greece in ge- 
 neral w . It would be tedious, and it is 
 unneceflary, 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 ;) but, by 
 thofe honours and good things <wbich they receive from us, we 
 declare our belief of their being immortal. It is juft the 
 fame tuith refpeft to thcfe 'who die for their country ; ta.vt 
 cm vira^im xa Tot; t'wtg rt?f irctr^ $0$ aToSaa<7(v. Plutarch. 
 Vit. Periclis, p. 156. D. E. See the paflage from 
 Plato, cited in Diflert. on Mir. p. 191. note". 
 
 1 Such as the Theban Hercules. Cleades intercedes 
 with Alexander to fpare the city of Thebes, which had 
 not only produced men but gods, and had given birth its 
 Hercules. Juftin. I. xi. c. 4. Concerning Hercules, 
 and alfo concerning Caftor and Pollux, fee Ifbcrat. 
 Opera, torn. 2. p. 17, 18. ed. Battie. 
 
 u At Sparta they facrificed every year to Lycurgus, 
 *>c Stw. Plutarchi Numa, p. 59. B. The Athenians 
 honoured Thefeus ^uae.. Plutarchi Thefeus, p. 17. A. 
 
 w Jam vero in Graecia multos habent ex hominibus 
 deos; Alabandum, Alabandi; Tenedi, Tenem; Leu- 
 cotheam, quae fuit Ino, et ejus Palaemonem filium, 
 t*n8a Gr&cia. Cicero de Nat. Deor. 1.3. c. 15. 
 
 rodotus,.
 
 in poll foe d Nations. 209 
 
 rodotus, Paufanias, Plutarch, and other 
 Greek writers. The law ordained, that 
 the gods, the demons, and the heroes, 
 fhould be worshipped according to their 
 refpeclive ranks x . 
 
 The only queflion that can admit of 
 a debate is, whether the twelve great 
 gods of Greece, or, as they are fome- 
 thnes called, the gods of the greater na- 
 tions y , were of human extract. I fhall 
 
 Ttfj Tf Ktx.T^3otif ffifii 3a^*ov{, tvvo^a, gt^av. 
 
 Aurea Carmina, v. t, 2, 3. 
 
 See what is faid concerning the immortal gods, p. 207. 
 note s , and what occurs in the next fedlion concerning 
 tke ancient gods of heaven. 
 
 Tijixa TO ^atjU.ovo aa pit, pu}.ir& $t prrot. Tfl? wcXswj* vra 
 ya% ^o|si? ct/^ix Tf Tof SEO; 9tm, xasi TOK o/*c; 6/^jW.fvnr. 
 Ifocrat. Opera, torn. l. p. 23. To Jai/M.ooi/, i.e. irctv TO 
 wffgjSi*o* TU* ufyuvm.y <pvo-n>, . five femidei illi fmt, five 
 heroes, - inter deos relati. Wolfii not. in loc. 
 Draco revived the following law at Athens : Lex efto 
 antiquiflima, sternseque au&oritatis in Attica, vene- 
 randos efle deos atque heroas patrios et indigenas. Sam. 
 Petit. Comment, in Leg. Attic, p. 69. 
 
 f l)zi majcntm gentium. 
 
 P aflign
 
 210 Worjkip of human Spirits 
 
 aflign thofe reafons which incline 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 z , was the country that 
 firft acquired the knowledge of the gods. 
 His teilimony is confirmed by other 
 writers *. Herodotus reprefents the E- 
 gyptians as the jirft 'who gave names to the 
 twefoe godsy and ere&ed altars,, images, 
 and temples b . 
 
 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- 
 
 2 Above, p. 146. note k . 
 
 a Ammianus Marcellinus, 1.22. c. 16. p.268. fays: 
 Hie (fcil. in ^Egypto) primum homines longe ante a- 
 lios ad varia felligionum incunabula (ut dicitur) per- 
 venerunt. Concerning the high antiquity of the hea- 
 then gods, fuch as built their cities, fee Diodcrus Si- 
 culus, p. 16. ed. Wefl". 
 
 v Herodot. 1. 2. 0.4. 
 
 ther
 
 /;/ polijhed Nations. 211 
 
 tlier in Phenicia or Egypt, fuch as Cad- 
 mus, Cecrops, Danaus, EreclheiiSj and 
 others ; and brought with them the re- 
 ligion of their own country, and planted 
 it in the refpeclive places in which they 
 fettled. The Athenians are thought to 
 have been a colony from the Egyptian 
 Sais ; and reprefented Minerva by the 
 fame armed image as was done in that city. 
 Ereftheus, when made king of Athens, 
 introduced there the Eleufmian 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^ 
 ftruction. Orpheus, Mufaeus, Melam- 
 pus, and others, who went there with 
 this view, brought away moft of it's 
 myfteries and facred ceremonies j 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.
 
 2 1 2 Worjhlf of human Spirits 
 
 ted c . Indeed the very names of the 
 twelve gods d , and of almoft all the Gre- 
 cian gods e , 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 feflivals, and many 
 religious rites f . 
 
 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 objects 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 names of 
 
 c Concerning the feveral foregoing particulars, fee 
 Diodorus Siculus, 1. i. p. 32, 33, 34, 107, 109, no. 
 ed. Weff. Platon. Crit. p. no. Plutarch. If. et Ofir. 
 P- 354- 
 
 AvuMxot. re SEWV twutvijuotf sXfyov Treuras Atyt>7maj vo- 
 
 Herodot. 1. 2. 
 
 e Id. c. 5 o. f Cap. 51, 54-58. 
 
 the
 
 in polifhed Nations. 213 
 
 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 ; 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 fpiilts in 
 the other. The rites of worfiip 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, 
 
 Herodotus fays, lo-i? & n, xara TV EMwuv yKutr<rav t 
 Lib. 2. c. 59. ,As lils was called, in the 
 Greek language, Demeter, fo Orus was called Apollo; 
 Bubaftis, Diana, c. 156. and Oliris, Bacchus, c. 144. 
 
 P 3 they
 
 214 Worfhip 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 
 reafoning is confirmed by the cleareft 
 teftimony. Eufebius, fpeaking of that 
 moil corrupt fpecies of idolatry, which 
 fucceeded the worfhip of the natural 
 gods, (by which he means that of dead 
 men,) reprefent^ 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 b . And Sanchoniathon i fays, 
 that the cuftom of deifying kings and 
 the benefactors of mankind, and of wor- 
 fhipping them as the greatejl gods^ which 
 obtained amongft the Phenicians and 
 Egyptians in the moft early ages of the 
 
 rot Tay^s, pt,tTotrfi<7*[Ato TO. itct^ A 
 
 x.ou 
 
 tf)emxx* TOJJ atTojj atya.'/iH. Ellfeb. P. Ev. p. 17, 1 8. 
 Concerning Cadmus, fee Nonni Dionyiiaca, p. 79, 80. 
 \ Cited above, p. 135. 
 
 worldj
 
 in pdifhed Nations. 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- 
 talorigin. 
 
 II. The fame point may be farther 
 proved by the teflimony of Herodotus, 
 who was certainly well acquainted with 
 the Grecian obje&s of worfhip. This 
 hiftorian k tells us, that the reafon why 
 the Perfians did not erect temples, al- 
 tars, and images, to the gods, (which 
 the Greeks were known to do,) was, in 
 his opinion, their not believing^ as the 
 Greeks did, that the gods art of the race of 
 men. This teftirnony, which was urged 
 elfewhere" 1 , is excepted againft by Dr. 
 Blackwell ", and after him by another 
 writer ; but without any juft ground, 
 
 k L. i. c. 131. cited above, p. 47. 
 
 * Diflert. on Mir: p. 186, 187. 
 
 ffl Mythol. p. 217. n Fell, p. 7, 27. 
 
 P 4 The
 
 216 Worjkip of human Spirits 
 
 The Greek word in difpute ftriftly im- 
 ports, either to be fprung from men y 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 men. But 
 I preferred the former interpretation, for 
 two reafons : one was, it's having the 
 fanclion of the beft editors p of Herodo- 
 tus, and of all other writers, except thofe 
 who had an end to ferve by rejecting 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 j but they did not admit, that the 
 
 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 ce^^Trc/xo^ipoj, as if it imported being made like 
 a man. But the former word is of a very different im- 
 port from the latter. 
 
 Gale and Wefieling render the word, ex homiaibus 
 crtoit 
 
 fouls
 
 in polijhed Nations. 217 
 
 fouls of thefe men, in their deified flate, 
 did ftill partake of human nature. Ort 
 the contrary, they taught that this mu- 
 table , pajflble, mortal, nature was chan- 
 ged into a nature, immutable, impajfibkj 
 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 r . 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 human na- 
 tures, or were fprung from men. 
 
 The Greeks indeed acknowledged the 
 fame natural gods as the Perfians did ; 
 
 9 Diflert. on Mir. p. 214. note f . 
 
 f See Piv. Legat. vol. i. p. 97, 98. in the note. 
 
 but
 
 2 1 8 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 but there was this difference between 
 them : in Perfia they worfhipped the na- 
 tural gods themfelves, directly and im- 
 mediately j whereas, in Greece, the 
 more immediate objects of the public 
 worship 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 muft be obferved far^ 
 ther, though there was occafion to make 
 the fame obfervation before s , 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, erected in their 
 honour*. He mufl therefore include in 
 
 Above, p. 61, 62, 
 
 * See Porphyry, de Antro Nymph, p. 254. 
 
 this
 
 in polijhed 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 
 eflablifhed by the Sacred Hiftory of Euhe- 
 merus of Meffina. 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 CafTander, king of Macedonia, he 
 came to an ifland called Panchaia, and 
 there found, in the temple of the Tri- 
 philian Jupiter, an authentic regifter 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 Titan V and Saturn , and his 
 
 daughters, 
 
 * Diflert. on Mir. p. 194. 
 
 u Ladantius (Inftitut. Div. 1. i. .14.) has the fol- 
 lowing extraft from Euhemerus himfelf, according to 
 Ennius's tranflation of him : Exin Saturnus uxorem ducit 
 Opem, Titan, qui major natu eraf, poftulat, ut ipfe reg- 
 
 naret.
 
 220 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 daughters, Rhea and Ceres j the children 
 of Saturn w and Rhea, viz. Jupiter, Juno, 
 and Neptune ; and the offspring of Ju- 
 piter by Juno, Ceres, and Themis, viz. 
 the Curetes, Proferpine, and Minerva. 
 The foregoing particulars, and feveral 
 others concerning Euhemerus, are men- 
 tioned by Diodorus Siculus, in a frag- 
 ment preferved by Eufebius x . And the 
 defign of the Sacred Hiftory was to fhew, 
 that the gods were to be regarded as mor^ 
 tal men y . 
 
 This hiftory received the fanclion of 
 the moil refpeclable writers of antiquity. 
 It was tranflated into Latin and appro- 
 
 aaret. Hi Vefta, mater eorum, et furores, Ceres at^ue 
 Opis, fuadent Safurao, ut de regno ncn concedat fratri. 
 There being here no mention of Pan, it feems probable 
 that the reading in Diodorus fhould be Titan. See 
 Weileling's Diodorus, torn. 2. p. 634. 
 
 w Saturn fucceeded Uranus, and Jupiter fucceeded 
 Saturn. 
 
 * Diodor. Sic. Fragm. p. 633, 634. ed. WefT. 
 Eufeb. P. Ey. 1. 2. c. 2. p. 59. Compare Cicero de 
 Nat. Deor. 1. i. c. 42. 
 
 y Tavroe, zxi TO. rarot; z-x^ac.'jrt.iiyix, uq ftp Swruv ctv^^u- 
 vw, vs^ ru Stuv h&Suv, Diodorus, torn. 2. p. 634. 
 
 ved
 
 in polijhed Nations . 221 
 
 ved by Ennius z . Cicero alfo, whofe au- 
 thority is of the greateft weight, adopted 
 the fyftem of the Meffinian concerning 
 the heathen gods ; as will be {hewn in 
 the next feet ion. I fhall only obferve 
 here, that, though he was fully fenfible 
 of the abfurdity of worfhipping dead 
 men % and of the evil tendency of re- 
 prefenting the gods as fuch b , he does 
 not controvert the truth of that repre- 
 fentation. Diodorus Siculus c cites Eu- 
 hemerus without cenfure j and, by the 
 extracts he makes from his hiflory, 
 plainly difcovers his opinion of it's fide- 
 
 z Euhemerus, quern nofter et interpretatus et fecu- 
 tus eft, prster czeteros, Ennius. Cicer. N. Deor. hi. 
 c. 42. 
 
 a He puts the following words into the mouth of 
 Velleius, the Epicurean : Quo quid abfurdius quam 
 homines jam morte deletes reponere in deos, quorum 
 omnis cultus efTet futurus in luftu ? N. Deor, 1. i. 
 c. 15. 
 
 b He fays, in the perfon of Cotta, an Academic 
 philofopher : Utrum igitur hie (Euhemerus) confir- 
 mafTe videtur religionem, an penitus totam fuftulifle ? 
 Id. ib. c. 42. 
 
 e Vide 1. 5. p. 364. et feq. Fragment, ubi fupra. 
 
 lity.
 
 222 Wcrfbip of butnan Spirits 
 
 lity. Eufebius d certainly entertained 
 the fame opinion of it as Diodorus, and 
 appeals to it as a fufficient authority for 
 what he advances with refpecT: to the 
 mean origin of the heathen gods. St. 
 Auftin e affirms, that Euhemerus efta- 
 blifhed his notion of them as mere mor- 
 tals by careful refearches into ancient 
 hiftory. Lactantius f , on different oc- 
 
 cafions, 
 
 d Prsep. Ev. I. 2. c. 2. p. 59. et feq. 
 
 * Euhemerus, omnes tales deos, non fabulofa garru- 
 litate, fed hiftorica diligentia, homines fuifie mortalef- 
 que, confcripfit. Civ. Dei, 1. 6. .7. See alfo 1. 7. 
 c. 26. 
 
 * Antiquus autor, Euhemerus, qui fuit ex civitate 
 Meflene, res geftas Jovis, et cazterorum qui dii putan- 
 tur, collegit, hiftoriamque contexuit ex titulis et in- 
 fcriptionibus facris quse in antiquiflimis templis habe- 
 bantur, maximeque in fano Jovis Triphylii. Laftant, 
 Div. Inftitut. 1. i. c. n. p. 49, 50. torn. i. ed. Du- 
 frefnoy. Aperiamus qits in veris literis continentur* 
 Ha;c Ennii verba funt, &c. Haec hiftoria quam <vera 
 fit, docet Sibylla Erythraea, eadem fere dicens. Id. ib. 
 c. 14. Ad hiftoriam veniamuSj qu fimul et rerum 
 fide, et temporum nitituf vetuftate. Euhemerus fuit 
 MefTenius, antiquiffimus fcriptor, qui de facris infcrip- 
 tionibus veterum templorum et originem Jovis, et res 
 geftas, omnemque progeniem, collegit ; item caetero- 
 
 rum
 
 in polijhed Nations. 223 
 
 cafions, afferts the truth of his memoirs, 
 and fays they were extracted from the 
 monuments and facred infcriptions of 
 the oldeft temples, and efpecially from 
 thofe in the temple of the Triphylian 
 Jupiter. And he affirms, that the moft 
 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 g . According to Minucius Fe- 
 lix h , " he pointed out the places where 
 " the gods were born, their countries > 
 " and their fepulchres, in the different 
 " provinces of the earth :" which furely 
 muft afford every one an opportunity 
 
 rum deorum parentes, patrias, aftus, imperia, obitus, 
 fepulcra etiam, perfecutus eft. Id. Epitome J)iv. Infti- 
 tut. 0.13. torn. 2. 
 
 8 Omnes, qui coluntur ut dii, homines fuerunt. 
 Quod ciim vetufliirimi Grascias fcriptores, quos illi $- 
 ^oya? nuncupant, turn etiam Romani, Grzecos fecuti et 
 imitati, decent; quorum prsecipue Euhemerus, ac nof- 
 ter Ennius. Id. de Ira Dei, c. xi. p. 152. 
 
 h Euhemerus eorum natales, patrias, fepulchra, 
 dinumerat, et per provincias monftrat. Min. Fel. Oc- 
 tavius, CrXxir 
 
 Of
 
 224 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 of dete&ing his impofture, had he beeri 
 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 PellaeuSj 
 or Theodoras, or Hippo and Diagoras, 
 or by a thoufand other authors, who 
 had made the moft critical and diligent 
 inquiry into this fubject, 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 doctrine concerning the humanity of 
 the gods. In anfwer to this objection, 
 it may be obferved, 
 
 1 PofTumus quidem hoc in loco omnes iftos, nobis 
 quos inducitis atque appellatis deos, homines fuifle 
 monftrare, vel Agragantino Euhemero replicator r- 
 vel Nicagoro Cyprio, vel Pellso Leonte, vel Cyrenenfi 
 Theodore, vel Hippone ac Diagora Meliis, vel au&ori- 
 bus aliis mille, qui fcrupulofae diligentise cura in lucem 
 res abditas libertate ingenua protulerunt. 
 
 i. No
 
 in pblijhed Nations. 225 
 
 i. No man was deemed an atheift, by 
 the Heathens, if he worfhipped 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 atheifls *. The* 
 Panchaians difcovered an extraordinary 
 devotion to thofe divinities, whofe births 
 and deaths were regiftered in their mod 
 magnificent temple 1 . 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 aflbciated, and 
 from whom they derived their power 
 and authority m . The priefts, who cer- 
 
 k Above, p. 32, 97. 
 
 1 Euhemerus reprdents them as tvo-tfaiet &psovTa?, 
 xa ra? Seas riput/rcK; jwy7i,o7rgE9rtrT? Ss/'c-jaij, x. T. A. 
 As to the celeftial gods, he fays, Uranus was the firil 
 who honoured them with facrifices ; from which cir- 
 cumftance he derived his name. Diod. Sic. Fragm. 
 p. 633, 634. 
 
 m DifTert. on Mir. p. 175. note '. 
 
 Ci tainly
 
 226 Worfoip of human 
 
 tainly did not intend to promote athe- 
 ifm, did themfelves reveal the human 
 origin of the great gods to thofe initia- 
 ted into the myfleries. 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 fhewn hereafter) vir- 
 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 flate of the higheft perfec- 
 tion and blefTednefs ". Euhemerus there- 
 fore was not ranked amongft the athe- 
 ifts merely for afTerting, that thofe wor- 
 fhipped 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 y or none ivbo take 
 
 n Ovbit a ^ TO, tru^xfa. rut ctyo&ui cnwasrE^Trux irct^oc, 
 QVITHI ? gavo, aX^a raf agtTa? xa ra? 
 
 Plutarchi Romulus, p. 36. A. 
 
 care
 
 in polifoed Nations. 227 
 
 care of mankind . He was accufed of real 
 atheifm ; but Theophilus Antiochenus p 
 feems to intimate that he did notpublickly 
 avow this principle at firft. And it might 
 be charged upon him only as the appre- 
 hended confequence of his rejecting the 
 received notion of the popular gods ; 
 juft as Socrates, for a fimilar reafon, 
 
 Who, fays ./Elian, can forbear extolling the <vuifdom 
 tif the Barbarians ? for none of them ever fell into aiheifm, 
 cr doubted whether there are any gods, or any who take 
 care of mankind. They never entertained the like fentiment 
 as Euhemerus but uni<v erf ally afferted, that there are 
 gods, and that they take care of us, Tt? x. an ETDJUEC-E rr, 
 Tav @ot,((x.cuv cro^iav ; nye ^>jo(f ot-vrtuv ; u^tonrat ffE9T<7 
 E^I Siwv, ot^a, yt ttcrtv, j ax. Etat* xa.1 ago. ye 
 s- Ovtfitf ysf en/otav e^a/Se ToiotVTrtVf 010,9 
 
 o t^UjUEgoy htyiipt ^i TUV fiaf&agun TT^OEJ^WEVOI, xan tivt&i 
 $?, xa 9Tor<mv tipur. Var. Hift. 1. 2. .3!. 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, 
 to reprefent them 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." n^Aa yg my & roX- 
 
 Theoph. Ant. 
 
 ad Autolycura, 1. g. p. 293, 294. ed. Wolfii. 
 
 \vas
 
 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 cxpreffly told by 
 Sextus Empiricus q , that he reprefented 
 their pretended deification as the mere 
 effec~b 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 afTerts, and thefe men were 
 falfely fuppofed to become gods, the 
 Heathens would regard him as one who 
 
 3 Evvpegoi; &, o i7riKAj)9et$ a,5iog, ty^cm, or* re araxTo; 
 avS^uvuv oj, o TregtysyojuExoi ruv a,M.uv HT%VI re xat ervvea-n, 
 cart wfo; ra vrr' etvruv xehevoftttot Tca,yta,t^ @mv, ffira^a.^ovre^ 
 
 frt^ a.VT8<; 
 
 $eo. Sextus Empiricus, adv. Phyficos, 1. 9. 
 c. 2. . 17. p. 552. ed. Fabricii. Vid. . 51. 
 
 believed
 
 'in polljhed Nations. 229 
 
 believed there were no gods at all. Plu- 
 tarch, in a paflage that will be quickly 
 cited, grounds the charge of atheifm 
 againft him, not upon his aflerting that 
 the gods had been men, but upon his 
 maintaining that they were nothing more 
 than men long fmce dead. Nay, Plutarch, 
 as we fhall fee *, diftinguifhes the former 
 of thefe proportions from atheifm . The 
 account here given of the MefTmian is con- 
 firmed by Clemens Alexandrinus r , who 
 fays, " that Euhemerus, Nicanor, Dia- 
 " goras, Hippo, Theodorus, and others, 
 " were called atheifts, becaufe they had 
 11 the fagacity to difcern the error of o- 
 " ther men concerning the gods j" 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. 234. 
 
 ITU TU1 XdTTWV 
 
 . Clem. Alexandr. Cohort, ad 
 Gentes, torn, I. p. 20, 21. ed. Potteri. 
 
 thens,
 
 230 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 thens, had he merely aflerted, that the 
 received gods had been mortal men, 
 provided he had allowed their advance- 
 ment, after death, to a deified flate : 
 the objection 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- 
 flration that the Heathens acknow* 
 ledged this principle ; and confequently 
 the objection under confideration ella- 
 blifhes the point it was meant to over- 
 turn. 
 
 The only plaufible objection againfl 
 the hiflory of Euhemerus is that urged 
 by Plutarch - 3 viz. that no one befides 
 this hiflorian had ever feen the ifland 
 of Panchaia s , Plutarch, as a priefl 
 of the gods, could not but be di 
 pleafed with the Meilinian for minute- 
 ly inquiring into their character and ac- 
 tions, and for publifhing to the whole 
 
 If. etOfir. p. 360. A. B. 
 
 world
 
 in poli fie d Nations. 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 the phyfical explication of the ab- 
 furd flories concerning the gods w , and 
 for the exiftence of an order of celeftial 
 demons x ; 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 Chriflians in every 
 
 * It was a facred maxim, with the Heathens, " that 
 " it was more their duty to believe the deeds of the 
 " gods, than to knovj them ;" which they obferved e- 
 ven with regard to thofe gods who bad been men. See 
 above, p. 159. note :1 . Hercules is the god there fpo- 
 ken of. To reveal the fecret of the myfteries was an 
 aft of the higheft impiety. Hence Plutarch complains, 
 that afferting the humanity of the gods was moving 
 things which ought not to be moved. If. et QCir. p. 359. F 
 In order to fupport their falfe religion, the pagan 
 priefts found it neceflary to check curiolity, and pre- 
 vent free inquiry, on the fubjeft. 
 
 u Above, p. 226. note n . w If. et Ofir. paffim. 
 
 x Ib. p. 360. 
 
 part
 
 232 W&rjhip of human Spirits 
 
 part of the world, on account of it's 
 confiding 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 reli- 
 gion without the fhadow of a fupport ? 
 But let us examine the weight of his obr 
 jeftion. Even if there was no fuch 
 iiland as Panchaia, the doctrine 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 myfteries. There is 
 however no fufficient reafon to affirm, 
 that the ifland of Panchaia had no exif- 
 tence. It is mentioned by Pomponius 
 Mela y , defcribed by Diodorus Sicu- 
 
 ? L. 3. c. 8. 1. 63* with the notes of F. Voffius, 
 f. 8 5 a, 
 
 lus,
 
 in polijked Nations . 233 
 
 lus x , and it's exiftence, according to Vof- 
 fms, eftablifhed beyond contradiction by 
 the teftimony of Ptolemy Euergetes 3 . 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 publication than Plutarch. And 
 if, in the remote age of this philofo- 
 pher, or even in that of Polybius b , 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 
 
 2 L. 5. p. 364. el feq. Fragm. p. 633. 
 
 a Ut omnem prorfus tollam dubitationem, fubjungam 
 teftimonium omni exceptione majus, Ptolemsei nempe 
 Euergetse, excerptum ex mcmuoiento Adulitico, in 
 quo recenfentur gentes Ethiopicae, quas ipfe praefens 
 fubjugavit. This monument mentions the Panchaites. 
 Voffius, ubi fupra. 
 
 b See Strabo, 1.2. p. 163. and 1. ^. p. 459. from 
 whence it appears that Polybius did not credit the ac- 
 f ount given of Panchaia. 
 
 the
 
 234 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 the king of Macedonia, on purpofe, as 
 it fhould feem, to make new difcoveries. 
 
 What has Plutarch done to refute the 
 doctrine of Euhemerus ? To my ap- 
 prehenfion, what he has admitted ferves 
 fully to eftablifh 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 ofhiftory d ; though at 
 the fame time he acknowledges it's ten- 
 dency to produce atheifm ' ; or that a be- 
 lief that the objects of their worfhip had 
 been men led to a denial of their being re- 
 ally gods e . What could Euhemerus him- 
 felf defire more than fuch a conceflion 
 from a learned and able adverfary ? 
 
 After the foregoing obfervations, Plu- 
 tarch immediately introduces the men- 
 
 c See above, p. 166. 
 
 ^ Ep^ac-tv TTO Tav ,-0^AEywv /SoiiS'E.aj. Plutarch, p. 359* ^* 
 e It opened ^eyaAaj TU c&iu Asw xAKno&c?, a great 
 v/mdow or door to atheiftic people. If. et Ofir. p. 360. 
 This proves what was before afTerted, that Plutarch 
 diitinguifhes between the humanity of the gods, and the 
 e/ecl it might produce on perfons of reflection, 
 
 tion
 
 in polijhed Nations. 235 
 
 tion of our author, and complains, 
 " that he had fpread all manner of athe- 
 <c ifm throughout the world, and ftruck 
 " at the exigence of all the received gods 
 " without diftinftion, whom he defcri- 
 " bed merely as ancient generals, admi- 
 " rals, and kings V This paffage ferves 
 to ftiewj that Euhemerus gained many 
 converts to his opinion. We are a(ked e , 
 Did the Heathens receive bit doflrine ? If 
 not, what have ive to do in this cafe with the 
 groundlefs fuppofitions of an individual ? 
 Could Plutarch juftly charge Euhemerus 
 with fpreading atheifm throughout the world, 
 if his doctrine had not been received 
 throughout the world ? The reception 
 of his doctrine was the caufe j atheifm 
 was the effetf , and both mufl have been 
 of equal extent. So that the doctrine of 
 Euhemerus concerning the origin of the 
 
 v. If. et Ofir. p. 360. A. 
 5 fell, p. 81. 
 
 gods,
 
 236 Worfhlp of human Spirits 
 
 gods, which a late writer treats as the 
 groundlcfi fuppojition of an INDIVIDUAL, 
 was allowed to be generally received, as 
 well as founded in uncontroverted facts, 
 even by that great man who was moft 
 offended at it's being breached. And it 
 has been proved, that this doctrine was 
 maintained and defended by Greek and 
 Roman, by Heathen and Chriftian, wri- 
 ters, and fupported by the authority of 
 records in the mod ancient temples. 
 
 Kow, if this doctrine 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 fection, 
 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 polljhed Nations. 237 
 
 things already noticed, and to an anti- 
 cipation of others which will occur in 
 the fequel, I fhall only confider the cafe 
 of the Grecian Jupiter, the father of gods 
 and men h . 
 
 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 j which, according to 
 fome, was the world or foul of the 
 world ; and, according to others, either 
 the aether or the fun k . But the pre- 
 
 fent 
 
 h nar ctt\u TE Staves. Homer. 
 Pater divumque hominumque. Latin poets, Cicero, 
 Nat. Deor. 1. 2. c. 25. 
 
 * Juvans pater. Id. ib. 
 
 k The proofs of this point need not be produced 
 here. I ihall only obferve, that, though Mr. Fell af- 
 firms, p. 22. " that // is uni e u erf ally . known t that no 
 " part of nature was ever considered 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) chief deities were 
 
 " the
 
 238 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 fent ' queftion concerns only that Jupi- 
 ter who was the chief object of the efta- 
 blifhed worfhip in the ancient nations, 
 and particularly in Greece. 
 
 " the aether, fun, moon, planets, and hods of hea- 
 " ven;" nay, he pleads that fome nations adored 
 no gods but the fun or the heavens, p. 8, 9. He fays, 
 p. ng. (fee alfo p. 5.) (( that the Creator of all things 
 " was acknowledged amongfl them (the Heathens) al- 
 " moft every where." Could he be acknowledged by 
 thofe whofe chief 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 knew (or had plain notices of) God, they glorified 
 him not as God, but ferved the creature (irctgec,) rather 
 than the Creator ; that is, paffing ly the Creator, (fee 
 Beza in loc. and the Syriac and ^Ethiopic verfions, 
 and the vulgar Latin,) or in oppofetion to him, (fo v^ 
 Ton vopov, Acls xviii. 3. is contrary to law,) Rom. i. 21. 
 But all that occurs in this writer, about the un- 
 
 created God, p. 6. the created gods, 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 
 fo mew 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, " no generation," they faid, " is made 
 " from what does not exift:" OVK tx. rs \*.-/\ om? v ytvi<ri$. 
 Plutarch, de Anima; Procreat. p. 1014. B. 
 
 1 See above, p. 6. 
 
 The
 
 in polifhed Nations. 239 
 
 The Arcadians m difputed with the 
 Cretans the honour of giving birth to 
 Jupiter j but it is fufficient to our pur- 
 pofe to obferve, that the conteft 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 Ditftean from a mountain in that 
 ifland called Ditfe, the place of his edu- 
 cation ". He died, at the age of an hun- 
 dred and twenty , in the ifland of 
 Crete p . Callimachus, indeed, will not 
 
 Callimach. Hymn, in Jov. v. 6, 7. Cicero, Nat. 
 Deor. 1. 3. c. 21. fays, the theologers reckoned three 
 Jupiters ; two born in Arcadia ; the third in Crete, 
 who was the fon of Saturn. See La&antius, 1. i. c, n. 
 and Arnobius, 1. 4. p. 135. who affirm the fame con- 
 cerning the Cretan Jupiter. 
 
 n Virgil. Georg. IV. 152. Servius on ^En. III. 171. 
 
 Suidas (voc. njjxo?) fays, Huxof, o *a Ziv$, TS~ 
 \ivrei, w<7as K KCU tx.ce,Toi tf). Compare Chron. Alexand. 
 p. 87, 89. Ennius (ap. Laclant. 1. i. c. u. p. 52.) 
 fays of Jupiter, ^Etate peffum acla, in Creta vitam 
 commutavit, et ad deos abiit. 
 
 P See Laftantius, in the preceding note. 
 
 allow
 
 240 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 allow that he died * ; yet, by reprefent- 
 ing him as the offspring of Rhea, by 
 pointing out the place of his nativity r , 
 and making his ftrength and exploits 
 the ground of his becoming king of the 
 gods *, he plainly holds him forth under 
 a human character. His tomb was o- 
 penly fhewn in Crete * ; and Diodorus 
 * Siculus 
 
 9 Callimach. Hymn, in Jov. v. 9. See fome juft 
 ftri&ures on Callimachus, on account of his denying 
 the death of Jupiter, in Athenagoras, Legal, pro 
 Chriftian. p. 121, 122. ed. Oxon. 
 
 * "En & <r Ila^a<rt>) Psm TSXE. In Parrhafia verote Rhea 
 peperit. v. 10. See v. 15, 16, 17. 
 
 * Ou ft Seuv to-trntu KO.\OI i(ret,v, t^ya, 5i %tor, 
 } re /?>j> TO re XXOTOI;, x. T. h, V. 66, 67. 
 
 Non te regem deorum fecerunt fortes, fed opera manu- 
 um, tuaque vis et robur. - Thefe were the ufual 
 grounds of deifying men. 
 
 1 Lucian. de facrificiis, torn. I. p. 367. ed. Amftel. 
 1687. Cicero, fpeaking of the Jupiter born in Crete, 
 fays, Cujus in ilia infula fepulchrum oflenditur. Nat. 
 Deor. 1. 3. c. 21. Pythagoras wrote upon the tomb 
 of the Cretan Jupiter the following epigram : 
 
 l$i Seti/un xiirai Zay, a Ala xtJttocrxatriv. 
 
 Zan, whom men call Jupiter, lies here deceafed. Por- 
 phyr. Vit. Pythagor. p. 187. ed. Cantab. 1655. Ac- 
 cording to Euhemerus, the infcription upon Jupiter's 
 
 tomb
 
 in polijhed 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 benefactor 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, Z K ? oa, Jupiter Saturni. La&ant. Epi- 
 tome, torn. 2. 0.13. p. 10. ed. Dufrefnoy. Suidas 
 fays, that, when he was dying, he ordered his body to 
 be buried in the ifland of Crete ; and that the infcrip- 
 tion upon his tomb was, $& xuras a.tut Unos o Zsw?. 
 He adds, that very many writers made mention of his 
 tomb. Suidas, voc. nw?. Apud infulam Cretam 
 fepulturce traditus, fays Arnobius, p. 135. 
 
 * L. 3. p. 230. ed. Weff.- 
 
 u Euhemerus Jovem tradit, cum quinquies orbem 
 circumiviffet, et amicis fuis atque cognatis diftribuiiTet 
 imperia, legefque hominibus, multaque alia bona fecif- 
 fet, immortali gloria memoriaque affedlum fempiterna, 
 in Creta vitam commutafle, atque ad decs abiifle. Lac- 
 tant. Epitome, c. 13^ torn. 2. p. 10. Diodorus Sicu- 
 lus, 1. 5. p. 387, 388. after enumerating the bleffings 
 
 of
 
 242 Worjkip of human Spirits 
 
 The Cretans, in particular, who gloried 
 in having his tomb amongft them, ho- 
 noured him with more excellent rites 
 and facrifices than their other deities, 
 regarded him as the ruler of all things 
 in heaven j of fhowers, thunder and 
 lightening, and of the temperature of 
 the air, on which the fruits of the earth 
 depend j and called him Zen, becaufe to 
 him they owe their lives or the means 
 of fubfirlence w . The reprefentation 
 
 made 
 
 of his reign, fays : At Si rt /xsysSoj rut tvs^yt<rni>t t KOU 
 rr, virt^x*!* Tr,$ ^vtetj^ieg, tru^anus a,vr!J 'KAga, Trattruv vvy- 
 
 tvru a"vtnXnf wtni> TJ ot,\- 
 Xa? *7ra>T?, x.. T. A. Sacra etiam pras caeteris exquifita 
 ipfi peragi inlHtutum ; et, poft migrationem e terris in 
 ccelum, jufta mentibus hominum, in quos beneficia 
 contulerat, perfuafio infixa eft, quod omnium quae in 
 ccelo fiunt, imbrium, inquam, et tonitruum, fulmi- 
 numque, et id genus aliorum, arbiter fit et moderator. 
 Ideoque Zena ipfum vocant, propterea quod vivendi, 
 quod Zen Graecis eft, autor efl'e, dum commoda aeris 
 temperie fruftus ad maturitatem perducit, exiftimatur. 
 Diod. Sic. p. 388. Compare the account which Dio- 
 durus gives of the Jupiter of the Atlantians. He was 
 
 called
 
 in folijked Nations. .2 4.3 
 
 made of the Grecian Jupiter by Homer, 
 notwithftanding his magnificent defcrip- 
 tions of him, is perfectly 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 affiflance 
 of Briareus to fave him from the violence 
 of Neptune, Juno, and Minerva x . The 
 paffions and vices afcribed to him fhew 
 that he partook of the nature of man. 
 In Plato's Euthyphro, where he is filled, 
 
 called Z,en, Jka TO cWi ra xoXwj y ; atro> yiyer-Sat TOIJ 
 
 iw TS crv/>wraTo? xao-fxs. L. 3. p. 230. ed. WefT. As 
 to Jupiter's ruling in the air, it is illuflrated by the 
 account of Thor, given above, p. 36. note c . 
 
 * See Differ t. 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 : 
 
 Beth of one line, both of one country, boaft ; 
 
 But royal Jove's the eldeft, and knows ms/f. 
 Plutarch. If. et Ofir. p. 351. 
 
 R 2 the
 
 244 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 the beft and moji jufl y of the gods, he is at 
 the fame time reprefented as holding his 
 father in chains. In the very rites of 
 his worfhip, there was a manifefl refe- 
 rence to the hiftory of his infant condi- 
 tion z . But it is needlefs to multiply 
 proofs in fo plain a cafe. I muft 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 A*ro{ xt ^xaioraToj. Platon. Euthyphro, p. 5. 
 torn. i. ed. Serrani. 
 
 z Ipfius Cretici Jovis facra, quid aliud, quam quo- 
 modo fit, aut fubtradlus patri, aut nutritus, oftendunt ? 
 Capella eft Amalthese nymphas, quae uberibus fuis aluit 
 infintem. Laftant. 1. i. c. 21. p. 100. 
 
 a Arnobius thus addrefles the Heathens : At vero 
 Jupiter, ut i/oj 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- 
 jedt, upon the authority of Euhemerus and Ennius, 
 lib. i. c. 14. and Epitome Div. Inftitut. torn. 2. c. 15. 
 
 Of
 
 in polijked Nations. 245 
 
 of the fame family with him, and of 
 whom he was chief b . 
 
 R 3 From 
 
 b It may not be improper to obfcrve, that, if the 
 twelve gods of Greece had not been known to be of 
 human defcent, Demades could never.have thought of 
 adding Alexander to that number, and making him 
 the thirteenth. It was becaufe Alexander thought him- 
 felf not inferior to Dionyfus, that he pleaded his ha- 
 ving an equal right with him to the worfhip of the A- 
 rabians. Above, p. 85, 86. His hope of becoming 
 cne cf the gods of Egypt (fee above, p. 168.) muft 
 have been founded upon the fame principle ; and the 
 condudl of Demades cannot be accounted for on any 
 other. The Athenians indeed were offended with the 
 orator ; but it was (OT Surrey etvrov $y tov AAir^n> o>r 
 tny^s TO{ OAf/xTTi&i?) becaufe he enrolled Alexander, 
 while he was {till a mere mortal man, amongft 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,) which 
 were peculiar to the oldeft of their gods. ^Elian. V?.r. 
 Hift. 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^Krxa,^n>ae,rci> Sso. So- 
 crat. Hift. Ecclef. 1. 3. c. 23. p. 205. What this 
 hiftorian relates in this place concerning Cleomedes, 
 that the oracle required men to honour him with facri- 
 fices, ( jttjxm SMJTO ecvra, utpote qui non amplius fit 
 mortalis, explains the motive, on which the Athenians 
 
 aded,
 
 246 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 From the whole of what has been of- 
 fered in this feclion, we may conclude, 
 that, amongft the Greeks, however they 
 might acknowledge the natural gods, yet 
 the dead men and women, whom they 
 
 ated, in a manner confident with the fuppofition of 
 the twelve gods having been once men. Philip was cal- 
 led Tgicrxat&KaTo? $eo s . 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 decifive evidence, 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 flated, I would obferve, 
 thatVarro (ap. Tertullian. Apol. 0.14.) reckoned up 
 three hundred Jupiters ; and that probably there were 
 many more ; it being cuilomary 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 ^Eneas, were feverally ftiled Jupiter. As almofl 
 every country had it's Jupiter, fo fome countries had 
 feveral. The Lacedaemonians beftowed upon their 
 kings t<u>o priefthoods ; that of the Lacedaemonian, and 
 that of the cehftial, Jupiter. Herodot. 1. 6. c. 68. 
 Upon the fepulchre of Minos in Crete was this infcrip- 
 tion, Ts A<o$, the fepulchre of Jupiter. Sir If. Newton's 
 Short Chronicle, p. 22. 
 
 vainly
 
 in polijhed Nations. 247 
 
 vainly deified, were the more immediate 
 and principal objects of their public wor- 
 fhip. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 // remains to be fiewn, that human fpir its 
 were worfhipped by the ROMANS. 
 
 A S the Romans derived their religion 
 from Greece, Egypt, and the Eaft, 
 we are naturally led to expect a confor- 
 mity between their objects of worfhip 
 and thofe of the nations here fpecified ; 
 in which it has been already proved, that 
 dead men and women were deified. 
 
 /Eneas, from whom the Romans 
 
 claimed to be defcended, brought from 
 
 Troy into Italy his houfehold gods', who 
 
 were the fouls of his departed anceftoiV; 
 
 R 4 and 
 
 e Cum fociis, natoque, penatibus, et magnis dis. 
 
 Virg. jEn.III. 12. 
 See alfo VIII. 679. 
 
 d The Phrygian penates, in their addrefs to ^Cneas, 
 after making mention of Dardanus, add, genus a quo 
 principe noftrum. Mn. III. 148, 168. See Servius in 
 loc. This learned commentator fays, Penates funt om- 
 
 nes
 
 248 Worjkip of human Spirits 
 
 and the great gods, who probably were 
 the Samothracian deities ftiled Cabirs, or 
 great and powerful divinities e (natives of 
 Phenicia, fpoken of above f ). We are 
 farther informed, that the Trojan prince 
 eftablifhed religious ceremonies in ho^ 
 
 nes dii qui domi coluntur. ^En. II. 514. They are 
 fpoken of as the guardian deities of Troy, JEn.II. 293. 
 More will be faid concerning the penates in this fe&ion. 
 e The penates being called magni, JEn. IX. 258. and 
 magni dii, Macrob. 1. 3. c. 4. fome fuppofe that the 
 magni dii were the fame as the penates : (Servius, on 
 JEn. III. 12.) but, in the paflage cited above, note c , 
 they feem to be diflinguifhed. The Phenicians, who 
 fettled in Samothrace, introduced there the worfhip of 
 the Cabirs j and, from Samothrace, their myfteries were 
 probably carried into Phrygia by Dardanus : (fee Plu- 
 tarch's Camillus, p. 139.) and, as the Cabirs anfwer 
 the import of Virgil's magni dii, they are probably here 
 intended. Some think that, by the magni dii, Virgil 
 means Jupiter, Minerva, and Mercury. Servius on JEn. 
 VIII. 679. III. 264. ^Eneas, 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, 
 Chough 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 polljhed Nations. 249 
 
 nour of his father's genius 8 ; inftrufted 
 the people in the facred rites due to the 
 dead g ; and was himfelf, after his deceafe, 
 worfhipped under the title of Jupiter 
 Indiges*. From thefe facts it appears, 
 that, both in the country he had left, 
 and amongft his own defcendents in 
 Italy, gods of human origin were wor- 
 fhipped, and reprefented by facred ima- 
 ges '. 
 
 8 Ille patris genio folemnia dona ferebat : 
 Hinc populi ritus edidicere pios. 
 
 Ovid. Fafti, 1. II. 545. 
 
 Concerning the wormip of Anchifes, fee Virg. JEn. 
 VII. 133. and V. 58, 59. Compare Ladant. 1. i. 
 c. 15. p. 66, 67. 
 
 h Situs eft, (^Eneas,) quemcunque earn dicijusfaf- 
 que eft, fuper Numicium flumen : Jo<vem indigetem ap- 
 pellant. Liv. I. 2. 
 
 Illic fanflus eris, quum te veneranda Numici 
 Unda deum coelo miferit indigetem. 
 
 Tibull. II. 5, 45. 
 
 Concerning the worlhip of ^Eneas, fee Dionyf. Hali- 
 carn. Antiq. Rom. p. 42. 
 
 * The penates which .^Eneas brought into Italy are 
 called lignea vel lapidtafigilla. Servius on^Sn. III. 148. 
 from Varro. See Dionyf. Halicarn. Antiq. Rom. 1. 1. . 
 0.67. p. 53. ed. Oxon. 
 
 The
 
 250 Worfhip of human 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 firft hundred and 
 feventy years k . 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 
 <e an hundred and feventy years after 
 " Romulus." If, by the Grecian idola- 
 try^ the gentleman means the worfhip 
 of images, his aflertion 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- 
 
 k Plutarch! Numa, p. 65. Varro, ap. Auguft. Civ. 
 Dei, 1.4. 0.31. Statues and images were afterwards 
 introduced at Rome. Floras, I. 5. Tertullian. Apol. 
 c. 25. 
 
 ' Fell, p. 14. 
 
 feventh
 
 in polijked Nations. 251 
 
 feventh year of Rome, had divine ho- 
 nours decreed to him by the people ; 
 the fenate concurring in railing him to 
 the rank of a god, though they abhor- 
 red him as a king m . Nay, Numa, his 
 immediate fucceiTor, (that very Numa 
 who forbad the ufe of images, and is 
 thought by fome to have accomplifhed 
 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 whofe merits have carried them thi- 
 ther -, fuch as Hercules, Bacchus , Mfcu/a- 
 
 m The fenators, who had murdered Romulus, per- 
 fuaded the people that he was tranilated to the gods ; 
 and that, having been an indulgent king, he would 
 now be to them a propitious deity. Plutarchi Romulus, 
 
 P- 34> 35- 
 
 n Dionyf. Hal. vol. i. p. 119. Oxon. Plutarchi 
 Numa, p. 64. C. Liv. I. 20. 
 
 pius,
 
 252 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 pitts, Caflor^ Pollux, and Quirinus . By 
 the ancient gods of heaven p , we are not to 
 underftand gods that exifted from eter- 
 nity q , but fuch as had been in heaven 
 
 from 
 
 Divos, et eos qui cceleftes Temper habiti, colunto, 
 et olios quos endo ccelo merita vocaverint ; Herculem, 
 Liberum, ^Efculapium, Caftorem, Pcllucem, Quiri- 
 num. Cicero, de Legibus, 1. 2. c. 8. 
 
 P So Hook (Roman Hiftory, vol. i. p. 59.) tranf- 
 lates cosleftes femper babiti ; 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 : 
 Ipfi dii immortales, quorum modo aditis templa, et nu- 
 mina fuppliciter adoratis, ficut veftris literis atque opi- 
 nionibus traditur, non efle, non fciri, ab temporibus 
 coeperunt certis, et impofitis nominum appellationibus 
 nuncupari ? Nam, fi verum eft, ex Saturno atque ejus 
 uxore Jovem fuis cum fratribus procreatum ; ante nup- 
 tias et partus Opis nufquam fuerat Jupiter tarn fupre- 
 mus, quam Stygius : nufquam fali dominus, nufquam 
 Juno. Rurfus vero, fi Liber, Venus, Diana, 
 Mercurius, Apollo, Hercules, Mufa?, Tyndaridae Caf- 
 tores, ignipotenfque Vulcanus, Jove patre funt pro- 
 diti, et genitore Saturnio procreati, antequam Memo- 
 ria, quam Alcmena, Maia, Juno, Latona, Leda, Di- 
 one, turn et Semela, Diefpitri faftas funt comprefiio- 
 nibus foetae, nufquam et hi gentium, nee in aliqua 
 parte rerum fuere naturae, fed ex v conventu Jovis infe- 
 minati et nati funt, et aliquem fenfum fui habere coe- 
 perunt.
 
 in polijhed Nations. 253 
 
 from the beginning^ or from the earlieft 
 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 celeflial or Olympian 
 gods. Both thefe orders of deities the 
 people were required to worfhip by Nu- 
 ma ; which is a demonstration that, in 
 his time, notwithstanding 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 effe cceperunt certo, 
 et, in numero numinum, facrorum ad cseremonias 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 fafti funt. 
 Servius on Virg. JEn. VIII. 275. It is impoffible to 
 admit the eternity of the ancient gods of heaven, becaufe 
 they were tranflated thither from the earth j as will be 
 fhewn immediately. 
 
 des,
 
 254 Worfbip 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 r , 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, 
 fpoken of in the laws of the twelve ta- 
 bles, were no other than the following 
 twelve fuperior gods of the Romans, 
 
 Juno, Vefla, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars, 
 Mercurius, Jovis, Neptunus, Vulcanus, Apollo 5 ; 
 
 and thefe were the fame with the twelve 
 fuperior gods of the Greeks, who were 
 proved in the lafl fecYion to be no other 
 
 ' Laws of the twelve tables, tab. 2. fet.4. 
 
 * Thefe gods were often fimply called the twelve 
 gods. They -were termed cclcjlial and Olympian ; and, 
 both in Greece and at Rome, were confidered as gods 
 of the higheft rank and dignity. They were worfhip- 
 ped in conjunction. We read of the altar of the 12 
 gods. Plutarch, in Nicia, p. 531. F. and of a fupper 
 Sueton. Auguft. 70. 
 
 than
 
 in poltjked Nations. 255 
 
 than deified men and women. All the 
 arguments, ufed to eftablifh the huma- 
 nity of the one, conclude equally with 
 refpeft to the other. 1 fhall here pro- 
 duce ibme 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 fubjecb 
 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, 
 <c 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 were fhewn openly in that 
 " country ; and that the traditions con- 
 " cerning them were preferved in the 
 
 " myfleries/'
 
 256 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 " myfteries V If thefe fafts 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, 
 <c illuftrious, and potent, amongft men, 
 " become gods after death ; and that 
 " thefe very perfons are at this time the 
 " objects of our prayers and folemn 
 " worrnip"?" 
 
 1 Quid ? totum prope coelum, ne plures perfequar, 
 nonne bumano genere completum eft ? Si vero fcrutari 
 vetera, et ex his ea, qux fcriptorei Grajcice prodide- 
 runt, eruere coner ; ipJi illi, majorum gentium dii qui 
 habentur, hinc a nobis profedli in coelum reperientur. 
 Quaere, quorum demonftrantur fepulchra in Grscia : 
 reminifcere, quoniam es initiatus, qua traduntur in 
 myfteriis : turn denique, quam late hoc pateat, intel- 
 liges. Tufc. Qusft. 1. i. c. 12, 
 
 u Quid ? qui aut fortes, aut claros, aut potentes vi- 
 ros, tradunt poft mortem ad deos pervenifle, eofque 
 efle ipfos, quos nos colere, precari, venerarique folea- 
 mus, nonne expertes funt religionum omnium? Cicer. 
 Nat. Deor. 1. i. c. 42, 
 
 St.
 
 in polifhed Nations. 257 
 
 St. Auftin w confirms the teftimony of 
 Cicero, when he fays : " You cannot 
 " find, or can hardly find, in all the 
 <c writings of the Heathens, any gods 
 " but fuch as had been men 5 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 x . 
 And, indeed, if the twelve fuperior gods 
 had not been fuch, how came it to pafs 
 that fix men viz. Hercules, Bacchus, 
 
 w Non attendunt, in omnibus literis paganorum, aut 
 non 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. 
 
 x Ipfi etiam majorum gentium dii, quos Cicero, in 
 Tufculanis, tacitis nominibus videtur attingere, Jupi- 
 ter, Juno, Saturnus, Vulcanus, Vefta, et aliiplurimi, 
 quos Varro conatur ad mundi partes five elementa tranf- 
 ferre, homines fuifle produntur. Id, ib. c. 5. 
 
 S ^Efculapius,
 
 25 S Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 j^fculapius, Caftor, Pollux, and Qui- 
 rinus, were raifed to the fame rank with 
 the twelve ? Cicero fpeaks of Romulus, 
 and many others, as received into heaven, 
 jufl as new citizens are enrolled amongjl the 
 old 7 -, and, confequently, as becoming 
 entitled to equal privileges with the an- 
 cient celeftial gods. According to Pin- 
 dar, Hercules dwelt with Jupiter z ; and 
 both are reprefented together, on old al- 
 tars, with this infcription, 70 the great 
 gods a . And very probably there was no 
 greater difference b , between the new and 
 the old gods of heaven, than what might 
 
 fubfift 
 
 y Romulum noftri habent, aliofque complures, quos 
 quafi novos et afcripticios cives in ccelum receptos pu 
 tant. Cicero, Nat. Deor. 1. 3. c. 15. 
 
 Romulus in coelo cum diis agit <evum. 
 
 Ennius, ap. Cicer. I. Tufc. Q.. c. 12. 
 Bacchus and Hercules were Itiled Olympian. Diodor. 
 Sic. 1.4. p. 261. 
 
 z T*o; A^x/xwaj, 05 OAf/xTrovJ' ej9a. Nt/ & Trag* Ayo^ 
 aEt. Pindar. Ifthm. Od. IV. 94, 99. 
 
 See above, p. 173. note*, p. 174. notes * and /. 
 
 b The diiFerence that was made between the old and 
 new celefiial gods was fometimes to the advantage of 
 
 the
 
 in polijhed Nations, 2 59 
 
 fubfiil between the old gods them- 
 felves. 
 
 Three of the latter ('viz. Jupiter, 
 Juno, and Minerva) feem to have been 
 more diftinguifhed by the Romans c than 
 the other nine. They were the penates 
 or guardian deities of the Roman (late 
 and people d . And though Macrobius, 
 82 as 
 
 the latter. Quid ? Apollinem, Vulcanum, Mercu- 
 rium, czeteros, deos effe dices: de Hercule, ^fcula- 
 pio, Libero, Caftore, Polluce, dubitabis ? At hi qui- 
 dem coluntur asque atque il!i ; apud quofdam etiam 
 multo magis. Cicero, Nat. Deor. 1.3. c. 18. 
 
 c Particularly by Cicero, in the clofe of his fpeech 
 again ft Verres : Nunc te, Jupiter, Of time, Maxime, te- 
 que, Juno regina, et Minerva ! And by Livy, 1. 3. 
 . 17. Jupiter, Optimus, Maximus, Juno regina, et 
 Minerva, alii dii dexque, obfidentur. Concerning thefe 
 three deities Tertullian is fuppofed to fpeak : Ante has 
 tres arae trinis diis parent, magnis, ^otentilus, <valenti~ 
 Iu3. De Spediac. c. 4. 
 
 d 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 
 cujtos hujus urlis, in Catil. 1. 3. . 162. The fame title 
 is given to Minerva. Id. Orat. proDomo,57. And Juno 
 
 i*
 
 260 Wcrfiip of human Spirits 
 
 as a philofopher, explains the penates 
 phyiically e , as he alfo does the other hea- 
 then gods j yet Servius fays, that they were 
 human fouls y which^ by certain ceremonies, 
 were converted into gods*. As to the of- 
 fice which the Romans afligned to Ju- 
 piter, Juno, and Minerva, as their guar- 
 dian deities and prefervers of the empire, 
 they afligned the fame to thofe emperors 
 whom they reprefented on the reverfe of 
 the medals of thefe three deities g . 
 
 is ftllei coKfervatrzx 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.) diftinguifties the penates into private and 
 public. 
 
 e Penates effe dixerunt, per quos penitus fpiramus, 
 per quos habemus corpus, per quos rationem animi 
 pofTidemus. EfTe autem medium aethera Jovem, Juno- 
 nem vero imum ae'ra cum terra, et Minervam fummum 
 xtheris cacumen. Macrob. Saturnal. 1. 3. c. 4. 
 
 f According to Servius, (JEn. III. 168.) Labeo, in 
 libris qui appellantur de diis animalibus, (quibus origo 
 animalis eft,) ait, effe qutedamfacra, quibus anim<s bu- 
 mante <vertantur in deos, qui appellantur animates, quod 
 dt animi s fi ant. Hi autem funt dii peuates et viales. 
 See Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1.9. c. n. 
 
 B See Spence's Polymetj;, p. tj8. 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- 
 figned him above the other two. He 
 was generally ftiled, the BEST and the 
 GREATEST h . But Cicero, who gives 
 him both thefe titles, does neverthelefs 
 rank him, as we have feen, amongft the 
 natives of this lower world. Befides the 
 general proofs, produced here and in 
 the preceding feftion, to ihew that the 
 whole band, of which Jupiter was chief, 
 were of human defcent, there is diftincT: 
 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 agis, becauie made of the ikin of 
 
 h Jupiter a majoribus noftris optlmus maximum dicitur. 
 Cicero, de Nat. Deor. 1. 2. c. 25. 
 
 S 3' the
 
 262 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 the {he-goat which afforded him nourifh- 
 ment 1 . In the Capitol like wife they 
 placed a cufliion or pallet on which he 
 might repofe k himfelf, and provided for 
 him a magnificent entertainment ! . Thefe 
 circumllances, repugnant as they are to 
 every rational conception of the Creator 
 
 * Quid de ipfo Jove fenferunt, qui ejus nutricem in 
 Capitolio pofuerunt ? Quid illic facit fcutum illud 
 Jovis, quod appellant eegida? Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 6. 
 c. 7. De Conf. Evang. 1. i. c. 23. 
 
 k In Jovis epalo, num alibi quam in Capitolio, pul- 
 vinar fufcipi poteft? Liv. V. 52. Habent dii le&os; 
 atque, ut ftratis poffint mollioribus incubare, pulvi- 
 norum tollitur atque excitatur impreffio. Arnob. adv. 
 Gentes, p. 238. 
 
 1 Jovis epulum eras eft. Jupiter enim coenat, mag - 
 nifque implendus eft dapibus, jamdudum inedia gefti- 
 ens, et anniverfaria interjedione jejunus. Id. ib. . 
 Maftant opimas ac pingues hoftias Deo, quafi efuri- 
 enti ; profundunt vina, tanquam fitienti. Laft. Div". 
 Inft. 1.6. c. 2. See alfo c. i. This pra&ice was 
 founded upon an ancient opinion, that the ghofts of the 
 dead really fed upon the provifion carried to their 
 tombs. See Athenseus, 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 brqad into the funeral pile. Terence, 
 Eunuch. III. 2. 38. Catull. Carm. 60. 
 
 Of
 
 in poltjhed Nations. 263 
 
 of the univerfe, accorded with their no- 
 tion of gods that had been men j who, 
 in the other world, were fuppofed to 
 fland 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. Janus , to whom they always 
 offered the firft facrifices m , and whom 
 they addrefled firft in all their prayers n , 
 was an ancient king of Italy , who had 
 this precedence in their worfhip, be- 
 caufe he was the firft who built tem- 
 ples, and inftituted the ceremonies of 
 
 m Jane, tibi primo thura merumque fero. Ovid. 
 Fafti, I. 171. See note P below. 
 
 B Janus ' quern in cundtis anteponitis precibus. 
 Arnob. adv. Gent. 1. 3. p. 117. See alfo Macrob. 
 Sat. 1. i. .9. p. 158. 
 
 Janum cum Saturno regnaffe memcravimus. Ma- 
 crob. Sat. 1. I, c. 9. init. See below, notes, , w , 
 
 X f *. 
 
 S 4 religion.
 
 264 Worjlnp of buman Spirits 
 
 religion p . We are told by Plutarch, 
 that he was faid to have changed the 
 favage nature of man into a gentle and 
 focial difpofition -, and that his being re- 
 prefented with two faces had a reference 
 to thefe two different forms and condi- 
 tions of human life q . As to the phyfi- 
 cal explications of this god, they are va- 
 rious and contradictory j for he is faid 
 to be the chaos, the world, the year, the 
 fun, and many other things r . He might 
 be explained as a fymbol of whatever 
 the human fancy could fuggeft : but the 
 received hiftory s of him exhibited him 
 
 f Xenon, primo Italicon, tradit Janum in Italia pri- 
 mum dis templa feciffe, et ritus inftituiffe facrorum ; 
 ideo eum in facrificiis praefationem meruiffe perpetuam. 
 Macrob. ubi fupra. 
 
 9 Plutarchi Numa, p. 72. Macrobius (ubi fupra) 
 fays : Quidam ideo eum dici bifrontem putant, quod 
 et prseterita fciverit, et futura provident. 
 
 r See Arnob. p. 117. Macrob. Sat. 1. i. c. 9. 
 . Ovid. Fafti, I. 103. 
 
 * Arnobius (p. 117.) pleads that the phyfical expli- 
 cations deftroyed the literal hiftory of Janus ; quern fe- 
 runt, Caelo atque He cat a procreatum, in Italia regnajje pri- 
 mum, Janiculi oppidi conditorem : atque ita per vos 
 del nomen eraditur. 
 
 under
 
 in potijhed Nations* 265 
 
 under the character of a king, who had 
 divine honours decreed to him for his 
 merit towards his fubjecls '. Even Sa- 
 turn (before whom, Tertullian obferves, 
 the Heathens had no god at all, and 
 from whom they began their reckoning of 
 all their gods, not excepting thofe of the 
 greateft diftmction) is fpoken of in hif- 
 tory no otherwife than as a man u . He 
 arrived in Italy in the reign of Janus, 
 and became a partner of his kingdom w . 
 
 1 Regnante Jano, omnium domos religione et fancti- 
 tate fuifle munitas : idcircoque ei diviaos honores eile 
 decretos. Macrob. Sat. 1. i. c. 9. 
 
 u Ante Saturnum deus penes vos nemo eft. Ab illo 
 cenfus totius, vel potioris, vel notions, divinitatis. 
 Itaque quod de origine conftiterit, id et de pofteritate 
 conveniet. Saturnum itaque, quantum liters: docent, 
 neque Diodorus Graecus, aut Thallus, neqise Caffius 
 Severus, aut Cornelius Nepos, neque ullus commen- 
 tator hujufmodi antiquitatum, aliud quam hominem 
 promulgaverunt. TertuiHan. Apol. c. 10. See above, 
 p. 252. note <?. 
 
 w Hie igitur Janus, cum Saturnum clafTe perveftum 
 excepiffet hofpitio, et, ab eo edoclus peritiam ruris, 
 ferum ilium et rudem ante fruges cognitas viftum in 
 melius redegiffet, regni cum focietate muneravit. 
 Macrob. Sat. 1. i. c. 7. p. 151. 
 
 Under
 
 266 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 Under his equitable adminiftration, no 
 one was a flave, and all things were 
 common : which was the reafon why, 
 in the Saturnalia, (laves fat down with 
 their mailers, and all people were on a 
 level*. Tertullian, 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 y . Others relate, what equally 
 ferves our purpofe, that Janus, the firft 
 money he ftamped, imprefled on one 
 fide the image of himfelf, and on the 
 other a (hip, in memory of Saturn, who 
 came to Italy by (hip z . It was alfo in 
 honour of Saturn that Italy was called 
 
 * Rex Saturnus tantse juftitiz fuifle traditur, ut ne 
 que fervierit fub illo quifquam, &c. Juftin. 1. 43. c. I. 
 
 y Ab ipfo primum tabulae, et imagine fignatus num- 
 mus, et inde asrario przefidet. Tertull. Apol. c. 10. 
 
 * Macrob. Sat. 1. i. c. 7. p. 151. Ovid. Fafti, 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 firft king of the Titans, and 
 who reigned over Europe, Afia, and part of Africa. 
 Antiq. of Nations, b. I. ch. IO. 
 
 Saturma.
 
 in polijhed Nations. 267 
 
 Saturnia a . Now, if the anceflor of the 
 gods was a man, we cannot be at a lofs 
 to know what his defcendents were b . 
 
 That religious 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 c . It is 
 more material to our prefent purpofe to 
 obferve, that the civil theology, the pub- 
 lic inftitutions 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 teftimony of the an- 
 cients *, and the infcription upon their 
 
 * Italia, regis nomine, Saturnia appellata eft. Juflin. 
 ubi fupra. See alfo Tertullian, Apol. c. 10. 
 
 b See p. 265. note u . 
 
 * Plotinus, cited below, note . 
 
 a Varro dicit, omnes ab his mortuos exiftimari ma- 
 nes deos. Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 8. c. 26. 
 
 fepulchral
 
 268 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 fepulchral monuments e . 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 <f the gods of ghofts," 
 but " the gods ghofts" ; and the ufe 
 and application of it in ancient writers 
 determine it to this fenfe f . Some of 
 
 the 
 
 ' The infcription was, D. M. or Dis Manibus. 
 
 f The following paflages in Virgil clearly fhew that 
 the word manes is applied to ghofts. Slant manibus arts. 
 JEn. III. 63. Manifque -vocabat HeSoreum ad tumu- 
 lum, 303. Nofturnos ciet manis. IV. 490. See alfo 
 387. Manifque Acheronte remij/os. V. 99. Magna 
 manis ter *voce 'vocavi. VI. 506. In the fame fenfe is 
 the word ufed by Juvenal. EJ/e aliquos manes, et fub~ 
 terranea regna. Sat. II. 149. Hence manes is put for 
 the place of the dead : Manefque prcfundi, Virg. Geor. 
 I. 243. and for the remains of the deceafed, either his 
 corpfe or his bones and aflies : Nunc non e manibus 
 illis nafeentur viola ? Perfius, Sat. I. 38. Thofe 
 who thought the foul periihed with the body faid, we 
 fhould become cinis, et manes, et fabula. Ver. 152. 
 Horace fpeaks the fame language : Fabula manes. L. I. 
 Ode IV. 1 6. 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 potijlied Nation*. 269 
 
 the philofophers limited the word manes 
 to good ghofts 8 ; but it feems to have 
 been applied to all ghofls, both in 
 
 Petamque vultus umbra curvis unguibus ;.^ r , . ]<. 
 Quae vis deorum eft manium. Epod. V. 93. 
 
 Compare Virg. Mn, IV. 385-388. When Seneca 
 fays, (Ep. 86.) In ipfa Scipionis Africani villa jacens, 
 b<ec tibi fcribo, adoratis manibus ejus, does he not mean 
 that Scipio himfelf, or his ghoft, was the objeft of his 
 worfhip ? See the next note. 
 
 % Manes anima? dicuntur melioris meriti, quas in 
 corpore noftro genii dicuntur. Servius, on Virg. JEn. 
 III. 63. But this learned commentator iniffcikes in 
 afcrlbing this fentiment to Apuleius ; who, after fay- 
 ing that the good ghofts were called /ares, and the mif- 
 chievous ones lar<vee, adds, Cum vero incertum eft quae 
 cuique eorum fortitio evenerit, utrum lar 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. 
 cd. Delph. Plotinus taught, Animas hominum dae- 
 jnonas efTe, et ex hominibus fieri lares, fi meriti boni 
 fint ; lemures, Jive larvas, (i mali : manes autem cum 
 incertum eft bonorum eos, five malorum, efle merito- 
 jrum. Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1.9. c. II. Thofe who 
 confidered the manes as good ghofts made them the 
 fame as the lares. In lucis habitant manes piorum, qui 
 lares viales funt. Servius on ^En. III. 302. 
 
 common
 
 270 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 common life h , and in performing the 
 
 rites of religion '. It is not 
 
 only from the titles^ given to the de- 
 ceafed, that we may infer a belief of 
 their divinity ; the fame conclufion may 
 be drawn from the religious rites * inili- 
 tuted in their honour, which were per- 
 formed every day ', and more efpecially 
 on the ninth * and on the thirtieth n day 
 after their interment. They were like- 
 wife appeafed annually, for twelve days 
 
 h In this general fenfe manes is ufed by Ovid, Fafti, 
 V. 422. 
 
 Inferias tacitis manibus ilia dabunt. 
 See above, note f . 
 
 * Cum dixit uovies, Manes exite paterni. Id. ^.443. 
 k Above, p. 249. note s. 
 
 1 In Plautus's Aulularia, Prolegom. the lar fays, 
 Huic filia una eft ; ea mihi quotidie, 
 Aut ture, aut vino, aut aliqui, femper fupplicat. 
 
 n The ferias denicales were obferved on the ninth 
 day, and therefore called novemdiales. See Jacobus 
 Gutherius, de Jure Manium, 1. i. c. 15. in torn. 12. 
 of Grasvius's Rom. Antiq. and the authors cited in the 
 next note. 
 
 n If the reader wants proofs of what is fo well known, 
 he may confuh Bos's Antiq. of Greece, ch. 24. p. 433. 
 and Potter's Antiq. v. 2. p. 258. 
 
 together,
 
 in poHfoed Nations . 
 
 together, with facrifices and expiations *, 
 attended with feafts and games p . The 
 feafons appointed for thefe folemnities 
 were ililed koly-days : and from this cir- 
 cumftance Cicero concludes, that the 
 ancients reckoned amongfl the gods 
 thofe who were departed out of the pre- 
 fent life*. In honour of perfons of 
 rank, their friends made libations of 
 wine, and invoked their manes, while 
 their funeral-piles were burning r . Chil- 
 dren confecrated their parents '5 and 
 
 See Potter's Antiq. v. 2. p. 258, 260. Kejinett, 
 p. 360. 
 
 f Potter, ib. p. 247, 257. Kennett, p. 304, 360. 
 
 1 Nee vero tarn denicales, quae a nece appellate 
 funt, quia refidentur mortui, quam cjeterorum ccelef- 
 tium quieti dies, ferite nominarentur, nifi majores eos, 
 qui ex hac vita migraflent, in deorum numero effe vo- 
 luifTent. Cicero de Legibus, 1. 2. c. 22. 
 
 ' Homer. II. XXXIII. 220. ^Efchyl. Chjephor. 
 v. 86, 128. 
 
 See Feflus, in verb. Feralta, Guther. de Jure Ma- 
 nium, 1. 2. c. 12. and Ovid. Fafti, I. 4. v. 533-570. 
 
 Eft honor et tumulis ; animas placate paternas. 
 Parva petunt manes. 
 
 Here manes anfwers to animas paternas, 
 
 fwore
 
 272 Worjhip of kuman Spirits 
 
 fwore by their afhes f , which were deemed 
 facred. Now, an oath is a religious 
 acl ' y 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 erect ecT to them while living v , 
 
 .... u> 
 1 Offa tibi juro per matris et ofTa parentis. 
 
 Propert. 1. 2. Eleg. 15. 
 
 Ego fame morientem videbo, per cujus cineres juratus 
 fum ? Seneca pater, 1. i. Controv. i. Guther. ubi 
 fupra, p. 1170. Parents alfo confecrated their chil- 
 dren. See Cicero's reafon for confecrating his daugh- 
 ter, ap. La&ant. 1. i. c. 15. or in Cicero's works, 
 torn. 3. p. 581. ed. Olivet. Genevae. Ad opinionem 
 omnium mortalium confecrabo. 
 
 u See the form of confecration, in Kennett, p. 363. 
 and more fully in Alexander ab Alexandro, torn. 2. 
 p. 446. 
 
 w Praefenti tibi matures largimur honores, 
 Jurandafque tuum per nomen (al. numen) ponimus 
 
 aras. Horat.'Ep. II. i. 
 
 See alfo Virg. Eel. I. 6. Horat. 1. III. Ode III. 10. 
 Ode V. 2. Sueton. Vit. Auguft, c. 52. 
 
 as
 
 m polifoed 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 itatue of Auguftus was 
 to acknowledge him ruler of the univerfe*. 
 In a coin, in honour of Titus, Jupiter, 
 born in Crete J ^ is placed amongft the 
 ftars z . The emperors and their images 
 were objects of equal worfhip with the 
 ancient gods of heaven ; nay, the for- 
 mer were diftinguifhed by a fuperior re- 
 verence ; for it was more fafe to fwear 
 falfely by the genius of Jupiter than of the 
 king*. 
 
 The cuftorri of deifying great princes 
 was no innovation of the Romans $ but 
 
 * Apelles had the fame meaning when he drew Alex- . 
 ander's pifture with a thunderbolt in his hand. Plu- 
 tarch. If. et Ofir. p. 360. 
 
 y Ziv<; Kgurayivus. z Marfham's Chron. Can. p. 248. 
 
 a Sic eorum (principum) numen invocant, ad imagi- 
 nes fupplicant, genium, id eft, daemonem ejus, implo- 
 rant ; et eft eis tutius per Jovis genium pejerare quam 
 regis. Minuc. Pel. in Oftavio, c. 29. See alfo Ter- 
 tullian. Apol. c. 27, 32. 
 
 T was
 
 274 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 was an old fuperftition, which had ta- 
 ken fuch deep root in the minds of men, 
 that even the chriftian emperors per- 
 mitted themfelves to be addrefled, as gods 
 adored by the nations, to whom the 'whole 
 world preferred their public and private 
 wwSy and from 'whom the mariner ajked a 
 calm, the traveller a fafe return^ and the 
 foldier viftorf . Andfo far were thefe im- 
 perial profelytes from being offended 
 with fuch impious flattery, that they 
 themfelves arrogated the titles and ho- 
 
 b Even Theodofius the Great, fo celebrated for his 
 piety, was addrefled in the following terms : Illud 
 dicam quod intellexifle hominem et dixifle fas eft talem 
 effe debere (imperatorem) qui a gentibus adoratur, cui 
 toto orbe terrarum privata velpublica vota redduntur, a 
 quo petit navigaturus ferenum, peregrinaturus reditum, 
 pugnaturus aufpicium. Filefacus de Idololatria Politi- 
 ca, p. 17. -Symmachus (1. x. ep.ai. quaeadThe- 
 odofium et Arcadium Auguftos) ufes the following lan- 
 guage : Praecipua quidem beneficia numinis veftri po- 
 pulus Roxnanus expeftat, divi imperatores. Sed ea 
 quafi debita repetit, qua? asternitas veftra fponte pro- 
 mifit. 
 
 nours
 
 in poUjbed Nations. 275 
 
 nours of divinity . Theodofius, indeed, 
 admonifhed his fubje&s to referve for 
 the fupreme God the homage which ex- 
 ceeded the rank and dignity of men d : a 
 very necefiary admonition, as the hea- 
 then emperors had made no fuch diflinc- 
 tion, .but affumed the moft facred titles, 
 as well as received the moft folemn wor- 
 ftrip. Domitian, when he dictated the 
 form of a letter to be ufed by his procu- 
 rators, began it thus : Our LORD and 
 GOD thus commands us*. Thefe titles are 
 
 c Sed imperatores Chriftianosvel divinitatis vel numi- 
 nis appellationem fibi adrogaffe quis ferat? Noftram 
 divinitatem dixere imperatores Theodofius et Vafend- 
 nianus, 1. 3-. Cod. de Summ. Trinit. Nojlruta numeu 
 was ufed by Honorius and Theodofius, 1. viii. & 1. xi. 
 Cod. deSacrofanftisEcclef. Theodofius fuum nuinen 
 vccat. Cod. Theodcf. 1. xi. tit. i. 1. xxxiii. Et mira- 
 mur duitt hsec legimus in Novella Anthemii, A. tit. I. 
 Julia quasdam preees aoftris fundat altaribus. File- 
 facus, p. 9, 10. 
 
 45 Exeedens ealtora homrnitm dignitatem fupremo nu- 
 mini refervetur. Theodofias, in Theodof. Cod. L. 
 tit. iv. 
 
 Cum procuratorum fuorum nomine formalem dila- 
 ret epiftolam, fie ccrpit : Domixus et deus nojier JIc fcri 
 j*let. Sueton. Vit. Domitian. c. 13. 
 
 T 2 the
 
 276 Worjblf 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 
 amongft the Romans. It has now been 
 proved, by an induction of particulars, 
 that the fame worfhip was eftablimed in 
 all the nations polifhed by learning, and 
 alfo in the far greater part of thofe na- 
 tions ufually fliled barbarous. The dif- 
 tinct proofs of this point, collected from 
 all quarters of the globe, do mutually 
 receive and reflect light upon one ano- 
 ther. 
 
 It deferves particular notice, that the 
 teftimonies, produced in the foregoing 
 fheets, not only eftablifh the fact, 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. 243, note w . 
 
 as
 
 in poltjhed Nations. 277 
 
 as their greateft gods, and with the moil 
 facred and auguft ceremonies 8 . 
 
 It is ftill 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 y or almoft all y their gods 
 had once belonged to the human race.* 
 Thefe writers cannot be fpeakingof fome 
 obfcure tribes of Barbarians, who are 
 faid to worfhip 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 part of the 
 then known world. And the language 
 in queftion is to be farther 
 
 * To the teftLmonies already cited we may add the fol- 
 lowing : Quos augufte omnes fancleque venerantur, 
 Cotta ap. Cicer. Nat. Deor. L j. c. 21. Cumvero ct 
 mares et fceminas complures ex hominibus in deoraiq 
 numero efle videamus, et eorum in urbibus acque agris 
 auguftiffima delubra veneremur, &c. Cicero ap. La&suxt,, 
 1. 1. c. 15. p. 67. 
 
 * See above, p. 223, 224, 255, 257, 265. 
 
 T 3 ted
 
 278 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 ted to the objects of the popular and cfV 
 tablifhed worfliip in thefe nations. Un- 
 der thefe limitations, the propoii- 
 tion holds true in general, and with 
 comparatively few exceptions, that all 
 the heathen gods had been men. The 
 witnefles produced were competent jud- 
 ges of the fa6l they atteft -, and, even 
 fuppofing them to be miflaken in their 
 opinion, yet what a late writer* affirms 
 cannot be true, that all the world knew, 
 that the heathen gods had never been men. The 
 Heathens did certainly believe the con- 
 trary j but our author was totally unac- 
 quainted with their fentiments on this 
 fubjecl. 
 
 Fell, p. no. 
 
 CHAP.
 
 in the ancient heathen World, 279 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Containing GENERAL proofs of the 
 worjhip vf human fpirits in the 
 ancient heathen world. 
 
 '"Tp H E proofs of this fpecies of idola- 
 try, adduced in the two preceding 
 chapters, chiefly refpeft particular na- 
 tions -, but thofe which will be farther 
 offered are of a more general nature, 
 and almofl equally refpeft the far greater 
 part of the ancient world. They will be 
 drawn from two fources : from the tefti- 
 monies of the ancients, and from certain 
 uncontro verted facts. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 General proofs of the worjhip of human fpi- 
 rits amongst the Heathens, drawn from 
 the TESTIMONIES of the ancients. 
 
 T WILL here diftinftly examine the tef- 
 
 timonies of the Heathens themfeives, 
 
 T 4. whether
 
 280 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 whether poets, philofophers, or hifto- 
 rians; and afterwards thofe of thechrif. 
 tian Fathers. 
 
 I. The heathen POETS, with what- 
 ever lofty titles they dignify the objects 
 of the eftablifhed 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 fitters, 
 which fubfift among mankind ; afcribe 
 to them the fame diftinftion of fexes, and 
 the fame appetites and paflions, 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 ; 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 pafTages 
 from the poets -, efpecially as they are 
 fufficiently warranted by the language 
 
 which
 
 in tie ancient heathen World. aSi 
 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- 
 ments and heavenly bodies ; or that, on 
 the other hand, they do entirely corref- 
 pond to the nature and condition of the 
 human race k . As to Jupiter, the fu- 
 
 preme 
 
 1 Poetae, qui et ira inflammatos, etlibidine furen- 
 tes, induxerunt deos ; feceruntque, ut eorum bella, 
 praelia, pugnas, vulnera, videremus ; odia, prasterea, 
 diffidia, difcordias, ortus, interitus, querelas, lamen- 
 tationes, effufas in omni intemperantia libidines, adul- 
 teria, vincula, cum humano genereconcubitus, morta- 
 lefque ex immortalibus procreates. De Nat. Deor. 1. 1. 
 C. 16. Formae nobis deorum, et zetates, et veftitus 
 ornatufque notifunt: genera, praeterea, conjugia, cog- 
 nationes, omniaque tradufta ad fimilitudinem imbecilli- 
 tatis humanas. L. 2. c. 28. The argument from the 
 human form of the gods will be conudered when we 
 fpeak of their images. 
 
 k See the preceding note a . As to Homer in par- 
 ticular, Cicero (Tufcul. Difput. 1. I. 0.26.) fays, he 
 afcribed to the gods the qualities peculiar to men, hu- 
 mana ad deos transferebat : which anfwers to Plutarch's 
 *!av94;9riom T Ssia, and to another expreffion, iro tuv 
 when he is defcribing 
 thofe
 
 282 Wcrjhtp of human Spirits 
 
 preme god of the poetical theology, he 
 differed from others only as a father 
 from his children, or as a fovcreign from 
 fubje&s of the fame nature 1 , 
 
 We 
 
 thofe who tanght, that the gods had been men. 1C & 
 Our. 2.360 A. p. 359 E. 
 
 1 To what has been obferved concerning Homer's Ju- 
 piter inDiffert. on Mir. p. 176, 177. and above, p. 242, 
 245. I muft add, that, though the poet compliments 
 tim with the title of the father of gcds and men t yet, 
 agreeably to the antient theogonies, he calls Oceanus 
 tbt parent of the gods ; fij*re TE Ssat ytnytv, xv p-nrtg/x 
 T*9v. 11.14. v. 201. See Dr. Clarke's note, and 
 Virg. Georg. iv. 382. According to Hefotl, (Theo- 
 gon. v. 453, 490.) Jupiter was the youngeft fort of 
 Rhea and Saturn. The fame poet reprefents him as 
 addreffing the gods, not as his own offspring, but as 
 the offspring of earth and heaven* TdtzKorz (j.iu, Taujj rt 
 xau Ov^aw ctyhoM TEKKX. .443. In Virgil \ Jupiter 
 is fublimely defcribed as fummi regnator Olympi, JEn. 
 xii. 558, as divum pater, and hominum divumque 
 ztemapoteftas, x. 2, 17. It is faid of him, torquet 
 fidera 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 
 magni, iii. 104. and was the fon of Berecynthia, or 
 Cybele, the mother of the gods : Ipfa deum fertur ge- 
 netrix. O genetrix, quo fata vocas, ix. 82, 83, 93, 
 94. Alma parens Idsea dcum, x. 252. Cybele 
 
 herfelf
 
 'In the ancient heathen World. 283 
 
 We are told m , indeed, that it hath been 
 affirmed, by very great names, that fittion 
 and LTING are infepar 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 religion, 
 when at a lofs to fupport it's credit, have 
 pretended that it was greatly corrupted by 
 the fiftions of the poets, I (hall offer a 
 
 herfelf alfo was a Cretan : Hinc mater cultrix Cybele, 
 iii. in.-' According to Horace, that very Jupi- 
 
 ter, qui mare et terras variifque mundum temperat ho- 
 ris, was ortus Saturno. Lib. i. Ode 12. v. 15, 50. 
 I mail only take notice of one poet more, viz. 
 
 Ovid, who joins Jupiter and Auguftus together : Jupi- 
 ter arces temperat aetherias ; terra fub Augufto. Pater 
 eft et rector uterque. Metamorph. 1. 15. v. 859. The 
 term pater was not appropriated to Jupiter, and often 
 denotes only a ruler. According to Ovid, (Metamorph. 
 1, xi. v. 221.) Jupiter was divinely warned againft in- 
 dulging his pafiion for Thetis, left he mould 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 characters of his humanity. 
 ra Fell, Introduction, p. xiv. 
 
 few
 
 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 few general obfervations upon this fub- 
 je6l, 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 oldeft 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 
 direction of their political and religious 
 conduct, or to recommend thefubjecls by 
 the charms of poetry. To an fwerthefe ends, 
 there was no more reafon ta have re- 
 courfe to fiction with refpecl: to one of 
 thefe fubjects than the other. Were the 
 many interesting relations, concerning 
 the Roman gods and goddeffes, contained^ 
 
 * Strabo, 1. 3. p. 204., 
 
 in
 
 In tbe ancient leaf ben World. 2%$ 
 
 In Ovid's Fafti*. ever deemed fufpicious, 
 merely becaufe that moft learned and 
 irfeful of all his works was not written in 
 profe ? 
 
 2. It was not the province of the poets, 
 as fiich, to afiign to any man a place in 
 heaven, and to erect 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 conjunction with the priefthood", 
 that they were indebted for their fuppo- 
 fed advancement to heaven, and for the 
 worfhip paid them upon the earth. 
 
 There were certain rites, which, moft probably, 
 were performed by the priefts, by which human ibuls 
 were converted into gods. See Servius, cited above, 
 p. 260, note f . Arnobius, p 87, fays, Etruria libris 
 in Acheronticis pollicetur, certorum animalium fangui- 
 ne numinibus certis dato, divinas animas fieri, et ab 
 legibus mortalitatis cduci. 
 
 3-
 
 286 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 3. The proper province of the poets, 
 under their peculiar character, was to ce- 
 lebrate the praifes of the gods. If, in 
 the difcharge of this office, they embel- 
 lilhed the fubje6t with fome colouring 
 of their own, and exceeded the truth -, 
 (on which fide their temptation lay;) 
 what is the moft natural inference from 
 hence ? Surely not that they degraded 
 their gods into men, but that they exalt- 
 ed men into gods p . 
 
 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. 1. i. e.g. p. 38. Illi (fc. po- 
 etse) de hominibus loquebantur : fed ut eos ornarent, 
 quorum memoriam laudibus celebrabant, deosefledixe- 
 runt, Id. 1. I. c. xi. p. 46. See more to the fame 
 purpofe, p. 47, 48, &c. c. 19. p. 81, 82. & in torn. 2. 
 c. II, 12. p. 8, 9. ed. Dufrefnoy. 
 
 bles
 
 in tbe ancient heathen World. 
 
 bles concerning them 41 , reprefents the 
 moft ancient theologers as afTerting the 
 exiftence of gods that were of earthly o- 
 rigin r . 
 
 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 fact, 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 characters and examples of the 
 objects of their worfhip*. 
 
 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, nia- 
 giflrates, and priefts : for they all made 
 one body together. In Britain and Gaul 
 
 91-15* ^ eu * """'*>'"' Diodor. 
 Sic. Fragm. torn. 2. p. 633. ed. Wefleling. 
 
 r The paflage will be cited below, under the third 
 article, where the hiftorians are fpoken of. 
 
 * See Auguft Civ. Dei, 1.4. c. 27. 1.6. c. 5. Pla- 
 ton. oper. p. 429, 430. ed.Lugd. p. 1590. 
 
 they
 
 288 Worjhip of human Spirit* 
 
 they were included in the common denb* 
 mination of Druids 1 . This junction 
 of the bards, with thofe who framed, ef- 
 tablifhed, and adminiftered, the public 
 religion, is a demonflration that the 
 theology of both muft be the fame, and 
 fupported by the authority of the flate. 
 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 w . 
 Socrates x , Plato y , and others z , fpeals 
 of them as the divinely infpired prophets 
 of the gods. The fame idea of them was, 
 it is probable, generally entertained in 
 
 * Strabo indeed diftinguifiies 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. 
 
 w Oi fw crtpo^o. 9rAio Sto^oyo xat WOJT. De Orac* 
 Defeft. p. 436. D. 
 
 x Platon. Apol. Socrat. p. 360. G. 
 
 y Io, p. 145. 
 
 2 Dio Chryfoftom, Orat. 36. p. 447. Lutetiz, 1604* 
 0; &toi TTimrxi ia3om; ex Mva-v*, x. T. A. 
 
 the
 
 in tie ancient heathen World. 289 
 the early ages of the world ; and confe- 
 quently their writings would be regarded 
 as the canonical fyflem of religion. A 
 fubveriion of this ancient fyflem, after it 
 had taken ftrong hold of the paflions and 
 prejudices of mankind, the poets of lat- 
 ter ages were not able to effecl:, nor even 
 likely to attempt 3 . 
 
 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 predeceflbrs 
 of inventing or corrupting the civil the- 
 ology. Herodotus thought that Hefiod 
 and Homer were the perfons who framed 
 
 * Sed poetarum, inquiuiit, figmenta funt haec oinnia, 
 et ad voluptatem compofitae lufiones. Non eft quidem 
 credibile homines minus brutos et vetuftatis remotiffi- 
 mse veftigatores, aut non eas inferuifTe fuis carminibus 
 fabulas, qua; in notionibus hominum fupereffent," atque 
 in auribus collocatae ; aut ipfos libi tantum licentiofi 
 voluifle juris adfcifcere, ut confingerent per ftultitiam res 
 eas, quae nee ab infania procul eflent remotae, et <^uae 
 illis ab diis metum, et periculum poflent ab hominibus, 
 comparare. Arnob. adv. Gent. p. 148, 149. Lugd, 
 Bat. 1651. 
 
 U a theogony
 
 290 Worfolp 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 cf the theology of Egypt and 
 Phoenicia, whofe gods were introduced 
 into Greece by Cecrops and others, long 
 before the time of thefe poets e . 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 
 
 b Ot TTono-ctvrts Sioyonuv Etoj(7. Herodot. 1.2. .53. 
 Did the hiflorian at this inltant forget that Orpheus and 
 Mufseus were older theogonifts than Hefiod and Homer ? 
 or did he rejeft the works afcribed to them as fpurious ? 
 
 e Epiphanius, Hseres. 1. i. .7. See the Diflerta- 
 tion de vita, &c. 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 Hefiod, 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 authentic/^W^r^j whereby we are to regu- 
 late our judgement concerning it. Would Homer's hymns 
 have been fung in the public feftivals of the gods, if 
 his theology had not correfponded to that of the ftate ? 
 
 regard
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 291 
 
 regard to epic and dramatic poets, they 
 cannot, without great impropriety, de- 
 viate from the cuftoms of the ages of 
 which they write j the merit of their 
 works confuting very much in their being 
 accurate reprefentations of life and man- 
 ners d . 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 characters and princi- 
 ples of the fpeakers. To make the fpeak- 
 ers contradict 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 embellifhment, their very fictions 
 muft be conformable to the received 
 ftandard of the public religion. Who, 
 then, can doubt whether Homer's fables 
 
 * Diflert. on Mir. p. 1 88, 189. 
 
 U 2 concerning
 
 292 Worjhlf of human Spirits 
 concerning the heathen gods were foun- 
 ded in popular legends and ancient tra- 
 ditions ? As to Virgil, he almoft every 
 where difcovers the moft exact know- 
 ledge of antiquity', and more efpecially 
 in defcribing the religious opinions and 
 cuftoms 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 facl, 
 conftitute both the popular and civil 
 theology, or the religion received by the 
 people and eftablifhed by the laws. We 
 have already feen, that there is every 
 reafon to fuppofe this to have been the 
 cafe -, and that reafoning is confirmed by 
 the teflimony of the moft credible wri- 
 ters. 
 
 The people, we are informed, were 
 more difpofed to adopt the doftrine of the 
 
 e Multas antiquitatis hominem fine oftentationis odio 
 perifum. Aul. Gellius, 1. 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 worlhip 5 . Even 
 the moft abfurd fables, fuch as Coelus's 
 being caflrated by his children, Saturn's 
 devouring his, and Jupiter's imprifoning 
 his father, were underilood literally, and 
 received by the people with implicit 
 faith, in Greece as well as other coun- 
 tries h . 
 
 U 3 The 
 
 f Varro dicit, de generationibus deorum, magis ad 
 poetas quam ad phyficos fuiflepopulos inclinatos. Ap. 
 Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1.4. c. 32. Quod de diisimmor- 
 talibus philofophi difputant ferre non poflunt : quod 
 vero poetae canunt, et hiftriones agunt, libenter au-, 
 diunt. Auguft. de Civ. Dei, 1. 6. 0.5. 
 
 * Dio Chryfoftom, p. 447, having aflerted the infpi- 
 ration of the moft ancient poets, fays, that by them 
 men were perfuaded to ereft altars to Jupiter under the 
 character of king. Q$ weiSo^fw ot uifyuiroi Ao$ 
 
 h Dionyfius Halicarnafienfis, Antiq, Rom. 1. 2. 
 c. 1 8, 19, 20 -- Cicero has put the following language 
 into the mouth of Balbus. Vetus haec opinio Gneciam 
 opplevit, fcilicet exfeAum Coelum a filio Saturno, 
 vinclum autem Saturnum ipfum a filio Jove. Balbus 
 ap. Cicer. de Nat. Deor. 1. 2, c, 24, After fpeaking 
 
 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 acted, by the au- 
 thority of the magiftrate, in honour 
 of the gods, and with the exprefs defign 
 of rendering them propitious, reprefent- 
 ed or imitated all thofe flagitious actions 
 which were afcribed to them by the po- 
 ets 1 , and which reflect moft difhonour 
 on human nature. Nay, it was a dan- 
 gerous herefy to reject the fabulous or 
 poetical theology*. Socrates mentions his 
 rejection of the grofleft fables as the 
 ground of the accufation againft him 1 , 
 which coft 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, Balbusfays, Hasc et 
 dicuntur et creduntur ftultiflime. Ib. c. 28- 
 
 $ This fubjeft is handled to advantage by Auftin, de 
 Civ. Dei, 1. 2. c. 25, 26, 27. 1. 4. c. 26. 1. 6, c. 5. 
 and by Arnobius, 1. 7. p. 238. Seealfol.4. p. 140,, 
 149, 150. 
 
 * Luciani Philopfeud. torn. 2. p. 328. 
 
 ' Platon. Euthyphro, torn. I. p. 6. ed. Serraoi. 
 
 that
 
 'in the ancient heathen World. 295 
 
 that the reprefentation, made by the po- 
 ets of the human origin of the gods, is a 
 proof that the objects of the eftablifhed 
 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 fanclion of 
 the magiftracy and priefthood, and 
 propofed to the people as objects of their 
 adoration equally with Jupiter himfelf m . 
 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 fimulacra confingunt, ut ex ipfa 
 diverfitate fexus appareat vera efle quae dicunt poetz. 
 Nam quod aljud argumentum habet imago catamiti, et 
 effigies aquilae, cum ante pedes Jovis ponuntur in tem- 
 plis, et cum ipfo pariter adorantur, nifi ut nefandi fce- 
 leris et ftupri memoria maneat in sternum ? Laftant. 
 1. I. c. II. p, 48. ed. Dufrefnoy. 
 
 U 4 of
 
 296 Worfotp of human Spirits 
 of the public religion ? Moil 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 11 ; 
 and therefore^ as the former were of hu- 
 man origin, the latter muft be fo likewife, 
 
 II. The PHILOSOPHERS are to be 
 eonfidered in two views : as perfons who 
 had opinions of their own concerning 
 the gods ; 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 afTerted the 
 exiftence, but had formed many juft and 
 elevated conceptions, of the divine being j 
 
 n Hence that obfervation concerning Zeno, that his 
 phyfical interpretation of Hefiod's theogony overturned 
 the eftablifhed notions of the gods. Tollit omnino pr<e- 
 teptas infitafque cognltlones devrum. Cicer. Nat. Deor. 
 1. J. c. 14. 
 
 ancj
 
 '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 ; 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 DifTertation fpoke of the 
 neceflity of ufing 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 refpefted only the 
 immediate objects of the eflablifhed wor- 
 fhip in the heathen nations j and there- 
 fore could have no relation to any gods 
 or demons held only by the philofphers p . 
 Neverthelefs a late writer has confounded 
 thefe very different deities together. 
 
 On Mir. p. 189, 190. f See above, p. 4-7. 
 
 Some
 
 298 Worjhip of human Spirt fs 
 
 Some proofs having been offered q of the 
 humanity of the Jupiter, or fupreme de- 
 ity, of the popular and civil theology, a 
 known parricide and ufurper ; the gen- 
 tleman', after citing the nobleft defcrip- 
 tion of Deity given us by Socrates', 
 adds, Whether this be a proof , " that the 
 "fupretne Deity of the Pagans had once been 
 *' a mortal man" we leave our 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 - 3 though the Heathens 
 have clearly diftinguifhed the one from 
 the other, as Seneca has done in the 
 
 *Difl*ert. 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 profefles merely to relate the fentiments of the 
 latter. Memorabil. 1. i. c. 4. . 2. 1.4. c. 3. 
 
 paffage
 
 in tie ancient heathen World. 299 
 paflage 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 eflablifhed doftrineof the church 
 of England istrtnitarian, would it be a per- 
 tinent objection againft this aflertion to 
 allege that Newton and Clarke were /- 
 tartans ? Equally foreign from the point 
 is the method taken by Mr. Fell to dif- 
 credit the truth of the account I had gi- 
 
 1 Ne hoc quidem crediderunt, Jovem, qualem in capi- 
 tclio et in c<eteris eedibus eolimus, mittere manu fulmina, 
 fed eundem quern nos Jovem intelligunt, cuftodem redlo- 
 remque univerfi. Senec. Nat. Quaeft. 1. 2. c. 45. Sec 
 alfo Cicero de Nat. Deor. 1. 3. c. 4. 
 
 Platon. Euthyphro, p. 2. ed. Serrani. 
 
 * Id. ib. p. 6. 
 
 ven
 
 ,300 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 diflent 
 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 teflimony 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 refpective ages 
 and countries in which they lived, and 
 they had ftudied the fubjecl: with particu* 
 lar attention. 
 
 Many pofitive teftimonies of the philo- 
 fophers to the public worfhip of human 
 fpirits were referred to in a former publi- 
 cation ;
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 301 
 
 cation* -, and feveral were cited at large", 
 particularly that of Cicero 7 , 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 paffed 
 over in perfect iilence z ; which is the 
 more remarkable, as, according to the 
 account which he himfelf has given of the 
 
 * Diflert. p. 191-193. See alfo p. 182, 183. 
 
 y P. 192. 
 
 z Nay, the* gentleman's language is manifeftly calcu- 
 lated (though it might not be defigned) to miflead his 
 readers into an opinion, that no fuch teftimonies had 
 been produced. Speaking of the philofophers, he fays, 
 Introduction, p. xiv. " It feems unreafonable to EX- 
 " CLUDE the writings and opinions of the mcj} learned 
 tf and judicious from what immediately relates to thei* 
 " own times and to the fentiments of thofe amongft 
 " whom they lived." And though afterwards, at 
 fomediftance, he adds, in general terms, that " I very 
 " freely admitted their information, whenever I thought it 
 * 4 advantageous to my onvn caufe ;" 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 insinuates it had been e xduded, and in 
 which, he pretends, the philofophers were on his fide 
 of the (jueftion. 
 
 philofophers,
 
 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 philofophers, they were the moft proper 
 judges " of the fact 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 6 . I will not repeat them in this 
 place, however pertinent, but only con- 
 firm them by a few more paflages of the 
 fame import. 
 
 Callifthenes, when he was oppofmg 
 the deification of Alexander while living, 
 affirms " that this favour was always 
 " granted to great men by poflerity 6 ". 
 Balbus alfo fpeaks of it as a general cujlom 
 to exalt to heaven fuch excellent men as 
 had deferved well of the public d . And 
 
 the 
 
 * See the preceding note. 
 
 k See p. 151, 256, with many other places. 
 
 e Intervallo opus eft, ut credatur deus, femperque hanc 
 gratiam magnis viris pofteri reddunt. Q^ Curtius, 1. 8. 
 c. 5. 
 
 * Sufcepic vita hominum, confuetudoque communis, 
 utbeneficiis excellentis virus in ccelum fama ac voluntate 
 tollerent. Ap. Cicer. Nat. Deor. 1. 2. c. 24. It is 
 fcarce neceflary to obferve, that, in the language of the 
 
 Heathens,
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 303 
 the learned Pliny informs us, " that to 
 " requite fuch men, by ranking them a- 
 " mongfl the gods, was a cuftom of the 
 " higbeft antiquity'". He adds, et that 
 " the names of all the other gods, and 
 " of the ftars, are derived from men 
 " of diftinguifhed merit '. 
 
 Nor was this the mere effect of private 
 gratitude, but the appointment of the 
 ftate. 'The law, fays Cicero, which com- 
 mands thofe who were confecrated from a- 
 mongfl men to be worjhipped> Jbeivs that the 
 fcuhofall men are immortal, but that thofe 
 of the brave and good are divine 8 . Seneca, 
 
 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, 
 
 Lsta<&;partu, centum complexa nepotes ; 
 Omnes ccelicola$, omnes fupera alto, tenentes. 
 
 jn. VI. 786. 
 
 ' Hie enim eft antiquijfimut referendi bene merentibus 
 gratiam mos, ut tales numinibus adfcribantur. Plin. 
 1. 2. c. 7. 
 
 * Quippe et omnium aliorum nominadeorum, et qua: 
 fupraretulifiderum, ex hominum nata funt meritis. 
 
 K Quod autem ex hominum genere confecratos, ficut 
 Herculem et cseteros, coli lex jubet, indicat omnium 
 
 quidem
 
 304 Worjhip cf human Spirits 
 
 in like manner, draws a proof of the im- 
 mortality of the foul from the agreement 
 cf mankind in either fearing or worfoipping 
 thefoades below*. This language of Sene- 
 ca may be explained and confirmed by 
 the teflimony of Apuleius 1 , 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 contradict the popular 
 opinion,) he reprefented thofc who die 
 in defence of their country as becoming 
 immortal as the gods were". Other tefli- 
 
 quidem animos immortales effe, fed fortium bonorum- 
 quedivinos. Cicero de Legibus, 1.2. c. u. 
 
 * Cum de animarum immortaliteloquimur, non leve 
 momentum apud nos habet confenfus hominum, aut 
 timentium inferos aut colentium. Seneca, ep. 1 17. 
 
 1 De deo Socrat. p. 689, ed. Parif. cited in letters to 
 Worthington, p. 38. 
 
 k Ap. Plutarch. Vit. Periclis, p. 156. D. ASaaT 5 
 ftoye ytyomai, x99rs Tt?s Styj. 
 
 monies
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 305 
 
 monies 1 to the humanity of the popular 
 gods might be produced* 
 
 But it is fufficient to obferve, in gene- 
 ral, that all the different feels of the 
 philofophers eftablifh this faft. Would 
 the epicurean* and academic* philofophers 
 employ the whole force of their wit and 
 fatire againft the worfhip of dead men, 
 if it had not been prac"lifed 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 people . And their explications were 
 condemned by the other fects as unnatu- 
 ral and abfurd in the higheft degree j fo 
 
 1 Particularly that of Varro j which will be cited 
 when the games inftituted in honour of the gods will be 
 confidered. 
 
 m In the perfon of Vellcius, ap. Cicer. Nat. Deor. 
 1. I. c. 15. 
 
 " In the perfon of Cotta, ib. c. 4.2. 
 
 Balbus ap. Cicer. Nat. Deor. 1. 2. c. 24. 
 
 X as
 
 3 o 6 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 as rather to eftablifh than deflroy the cre- 
 dit of the fables p . 
 
 The Platonifts, and thofe who wifhed 
 to conceal from public view the earthly 
 origin of the gods, q though they -afferted 
 the exigence of ceieftial demons ; yet 
 knew that thefe demons were not the ob- 
 jects of the eflablifhed worfhip r . And, 
 after all their vain attempts, by their 
 fyftem of demon ology, to fupport the 
 credit of the public religion, they found 
 it neceffary to efpoufe the principle 
 upon which it was really grounded, the 
 converfion of human fouls into gods : a 
 principle that was alfo held by the Sto- 
 
 PCotta ap. Cicer. N.D. 1.3.0.23. cited above, p. 70. 
 note Y. Velleius alfo cenfures the ftoical explication of 
 the fables as delirantium fomnia, non philofophorum ju- 
 dicia, 1. 2. c. 16. See alfo c. 14. citedabove, p. 296. 
 Cotta reproaches the Stoics with making thofe who 
 were called gods merely natural things. Eos enim, qui 
 di appellantur, rerum naturas efie, non figuras deo- 
 rum. L. 3. c. 24. comp. 1. i. 0.42. 
 .iSee above, p. 159, in the notes. 
 
 * See above, p. 234. 
 
 ics,
 
 in the ancient heathen World, 307 
 ics s , by Plutarch 1 , 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- 
 ilitution"; and accordingly recommend- 
 ed the worfhip of human fpirits V 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 terre.fr rial origin, who 
 hereby became the more .immediate ob- 
 jects of divine worfhip, as was fhewn 
 elfewhere*. 
 
 So that the philofophers, fome by 
 their attacks upon the public religion, 
 
 * See Cicero de Nat. Deor. 1. 2. c. 24. 
 
 * See above, p. 165-167, and p. 234. Diflert. on 
 Mir. p. 182. See alfo his life of Romulus, near the 
 end. 
 
 "Asto Plato, fee Divert, on Mir. p. 191. 
 
 w See the authors referred to in the two preceding notes. 
 Even Cotta thought it not improbable that the fouls of e- 
 minent men were divine and eternal. Ap. Cicer. Nat. 
 Deor. 1. 3. c. 5. 
 
 * Differt. on Mir. p. 175. 
 
 X z others
 
 308 U^orjhip of human Spirits 
 
 others by their defences of it, and all By 
 their conceffions and teftimonies, efta^ 
 blifh in the fullefl manner the fact in 
 queftion, the general prevalence of the 
 worfhip of mortal gods amongft: the an- 
 cient Heathens. And their language, for 
 the mod part, after ts or implies, that 
 thefe gods were the principal objects 
 of their religious worfhip r * 
 
 III. The heathen HISTORIANS, 
 befides bearing teftimony to the worfhip 
 of human fpirits in particular countries, 
 furnifh general proofs of the prevalence 
 of this worftiip amongft the ancient 
 Heathens. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, in a fragment pre- 
 ferved by Eufebius, informs us*, that 
 
 tbofc 
 
 T Cicer. Nat. Deor. 1. i. c. 42. 1. 3. c. 21. 
 
 avxTB
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 309 
 
 thofe of the highefl antiquity delivered to fof- 
 terity two opinions refpetJing the gods. 
 Some, they faid, were eternal and incor- 
 ruptible , fuch as the fun, moon, and other 
 Jlars ; the winds alfo, and things of a Jimi- 
 lar nature j none of which have either be- 
 ginning or end. They alfo maintained, thaf, 
 befides thefe, there were terrejlrial gods, who 
 were worjhipped for the benefits conferred 
 upon mankind, fuch as Hercules, Bacchus^ 
 and Arijl&us, and others. 
 
 This teftimony of Diodorus is confir- 
 med by one of the moft curious remain? 
 of antiquity. I refer to the treaty made 
 between Hannibal and the Carthaginians 
 on the qne pa.it, and Xenophanes, the 
 Athenian, minifter-plenipotentiary of 
 Philip, king of Macedonia, in his own 
 name and that of the Macedonians and 
 their allies, on the Qther. Th.e treaty ex- 
 prefTes, that it is folemnly entered into 
 
 xat T? oXXw; raj rotartf? o^ioiwj. Diodor. 
 p. 633, torn. 2. ed. Wefleling. 
 
 X 3
 
 3io Worfhip of human Spirits 
 
 and ratified* in the prefence of Jupiter > 
 Juno, and A^o:lo : in the prefence of the de- 
 won of the. Carthaginians ,. and Hercules* 
 and lolaus : hi the prefence of Mars, 'Tri- 
 ton, Neptune :'. in the preface 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, and the meadows, 
 'and the 'waters : in the prefence of all the 
 gods 'who prefide over Carthage : in the pre- 
 fence of all the gods, who prefide over Macedo- 
 nia, and the reft of Greece : in the prefence 
 of all the gods 'who prefide over the affairs 
 of war, and are witnejjes to the prefent oath 
 and engagement*, 
 
 We 
 
 ftcwf, x. T. A. Polyb. Hift. l.y. p. 699. torn. i. Am- 
 ftel. 1670. 
 
 b Virgil, who is to be confidered as an eminent anti 
 quarkn as well as poet, has given an account of an 
 oath taken by .ffineas, (after he had facrificed to the 
 manes,) which agrees in a great meafure with the oath 
 . cited from Polybius. He fwears by the fan and earth, 
 by fountains and rivers, as well as by Juno, Jupiter, 
 and Mars. ^En. XII. 173, 176, 181. Compare alfo 
 the-oath of Latinus, v. 195-200. In their folemn oaths 
 
 they
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 3 1 1 
 We have here an authentic document 
 of the civil theology of the nations of A- 
 fia, Europe, and Africa - y more particu- 
 larly of the Carthaginians', and confe- 
 quently of the Phenicians, from whom 
 they were defcended ; of the Macedaniam -, 
 of the Greeks j and, in one word, of all 
 the parties to the treaty, together with 
 their confederates and allies. And if we 
 fuppofe, what feems very probable, that 
 the treaty was drawn up. after the old 
 forms, it fhews us what gods had been 
 acknowledged in all thefe nations in 
 
 very early times. 
 
 J J . , 
 
 The deities whom the treaty particu- 
 larly fpecifies are, firft of all, Jupiter, 
 Juno, and Apollo -, illuflrious 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. 
 376, 298. 
 
 X 4 men
 
 3 1 ^ 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 6 . The gods next mentioned are, 
 the tutelary deity of the Carthaginians, 
 (whofe name was probably kept fee ret to 
 prevent his evocation,) and Hercules, 
 and his nephew and afliftant, lolaus*, 
 who no doubt were held in peculiar vene- 
 ration at Carthage. Nothing need be 
 faid to prove the humanity of thefe 
 gods; nor of thofe who are fpoken of 
 immediately after them, Mars, Triton, 
 Neptune 6 : objects of general worfhip. 
 
 The 
 
 c On the eommuttes 4ii the reader may confult the 
 commentators, and particularly Servius, on Virgil, 
 ,/Eneid VIII. 275. XII. 118. That Hercules was one 
 of them appears from the paflage here firft referred to, 
 communem vocate deum. Thq penates of different 
 countries were often the fame. Virgil (JEn. III. 15.) 
 fpeaks of the focii penates of Thrace and Troy. 
 
 - The fon of Iphiclus, one of the Argonaats, Hy- 
 giniFab. 14. p. 33, 
 
 * Neptune and Mars have been fpoken of before. As 
 to Triton ; he, who\yas faid to appear to Jafon in a hu- 
 man form near the lake Tritonis, was a prince in that 
 
 place.
 
 'In the ancient heathen World. 3 13 
 
 The treaty farther makes mention of the 
 gods who accompany the expedition^ that is, 
 whofe images f are carried with the army. 
 Thefe are not particularly named ; but 
 the defcription here given of them marl^s 
 the clafs to which they belonged. The 
 (divinities next fpecified are thofe filled 
 natural by the philofophers : the fan, the 
 moon, the earthy the rivers, the meadows^ 
 and the waters. The objecls of nature are 
 here diftinguifhed from all the foregoing 
 deities, particularly from Jupiter, Juno, 
 Mars, and Apollo. And therefore, though 
 the laft is fp often faid to be the fun, and 
 all of them have been reprefented as na- 
 
 place. Bannier'sMythol. .4. 8.3. ch. 3. p. 50-5*. 
 Engl. Tranflat. See V. I. p. 117, but efpecially V. *. 
 p. 511, 512. 
 
 i What gods were reprefented by images will be fliewn 
 in the fequel. Eufebius fpeaks of the gods which the 
 army of Licinius carried with them as nxfoiy n3WXa 
 5uwTv i f\J/^i5 a>oX/xcr. Vit. Conftantini, 1. 2. 
 c. 16. p. 544. Thefe were the camp gods, or diimili- 
 tares, fpoken of by Tertullian, Apol. c. 10. p. il. 
 wljpre they are ranked amongft thofe that had been men. 
 
 tural
 
 314 Worfhip of human Spirits 
 
 tural gods, yet they belonged to a diffe- 
 rent clafs ; and the phyfical explication 
 of them could not be agreeable to the 
 civil theology of the ancient nations, 
 which was the real creed of the vulgar, 
 t and the religion profefled by all orders 
 of the ftate. As to the natural objects 
 themfelves here enumerated, it does not 
 clearly appear, from this pafTage, that 
 the civil theology confidered them fo 
 much as being pofTefled of internal divi- 
 nity, as being inhabited by prefiding 
 deities.* The latter view, indeed, was 
 not inconfiftent with the former; and 
 the divine prefidents and the things 
 preflded over are often confounded. 
 Laftly, the treaty makes general men- 
 tion, both of the guardian deities of Car- 
 thage, Greece, and Macedon, 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- 
 
 ' J& 
 
 * See below, p. 318, note *.
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 315 
 
 jide over the affairs 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 fubjeft, 
 and has, I think, been overjopked by all 
 other writers upon it whom I have hap- 
 pened' to confult. But it is, I : prefume, 
 needlefs to cite farther general tefti- 
 moaies to the worfhip of human fpirits 
 from the hiflorians ? as many proofs 
 pf this point were produced fr : pm them 
 when we were diflin6lly ihewing that 
 fiich worfliip prevailed in the feveral na- 
 tions of the world. I muu:, however. 
 
 i r i i 
 
 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 enac"l- 
 
 e ^ Tuque, inclyte Mavors, 
 
 Cunda tuo qui bella, pater, fubnumine torques. 
 Virg.^n.XII. 179.
 
 3 1 6 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 cd ; if any war was refblved upon, or 
 concluded ; if any city was befieged or 
 taken ; if any fignal calamity was fuffer- 
 ed, or bleffing received ; the gods were 
 confulted, fupplicated, and appeafed, 
 by various ceremonies and facrifices ; 
 and their imagined interpolation 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, 
 priefls, facrifices, feftivals, and all the 
 apparatus of divinity, on the foregoing 
 or other public occafion.s, wer$ folely, 
 or even mofl ufually, ether, air, jire, 
 'water, the earth, the fea, the fun, and 
 moon. Herodotus, during his long refi- 
 dence in Egypt, was curious and inqui- 
 
 fttive
 
 2ft the ancient heathen World. 
 
 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 11 ? 
 
 We find, I allow, the Greeks, and 
 Romans, and others, addrelfing prayers 
 to the fun'j or fwearing by it k . At Rome 
 a temple was erected to the fun and 
 moon ' j 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 
 
 h Even the learned Jab'lonfki, though it So ill agrees 
 with his own fyftem, acknowledges, Herodotus, 
 de planetarum templis, facerdotibus, et facris, nihil 
 quicquam tamen unquam adfert. Eftqueetiam, prjeter 
 cum, vix fcriptor alius, qui de cultu planetarum apud 
 ^gyptios vel tantillum nos doceat. Tom. 2. Prolegom. 
 . 27. p. Ixiii. 
 
 i See Dido's prayer to the fun and the other gods, 
 Virg. JEn. IV. 607. 
 
 k Virg. ^n. XII. 176. Homer. II. III. 277. So- 
 phocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, v. 674, 675. 
 
 ' Rofinus, Antiq. Roman, p. 122. 
 
 very
 
 3 1 8 ffiorjhip of human Spirits 
 
 very different from that entertained 
 of them by the philofophers, who confi* 
 deredtheni as natural divinities 1 ". 
 
 The theologers make mention of feveral funs* One 
 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 yEta and Circe. 
 Cicer. de Nat. Deor. 1. 3. c. 21. In different nations, 
 the fun was thought to be Belenus, Ofiris, Heliogaba- 
 lusorElagabal. The laft was a Syrian deity, of whom 
 it is faid, that he appeared to Aurelian in a human 
 ihape, and was married to the goddefs Urania. His 
 worihip was full introduced into Rome by his votary 
 Heliogabalus, though a temple had been eredled to Sol 
 many ages before. See Dion. Caff". V. 2. p. 1338, 
 1339, 1367, ed. Reimari. The Englilh 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, inftead of confuting, 
 confirm our main dodtrine. 
 
 As to the other natural divinities, the fields, for ex- 
 ample ; they were not fo properly the immediate ob- 
 jefts of public worfhip as the gods and goddeffes, who 
 were confidered as the prefidents and guardians of the 
 fields. 
 
 Dique deaeque omnes, ftudium quibus arva tueri. 
 
 Virg. Georg. I. zr. 
 
 But this fubjeft cannot be farther profecuted in this 
 place. 
 
 It
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 3 1 9 
 It will, I apprehend, be found upon 
 examination, that, according to the hi- 
 torians, the public devotion was princi- 
 pally directed towards gentilitial, tutela- 
 ry, and local, deities, the guardians 
 of particular nations a"nd people, fuch 
 as had been the objects of their former 
 care ; and to thofe greater gods whom 
 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 affirmed, that their 
 gods were not gods by nature, but by art 
 and certain laws ; and were different in 
 different countries, according to the ap- 
 pointment of legiflators/. 
 
 From the feveral foregoing tefti monies 
 of the pagan poets, philofophers, and 
 hiftorians, we may conclude, that the 
 more immediate .objects of the eftablifhed 
 
 n a<, u fjtscr.u^t, timt <rrgvrov Qxo-iv ot/rct TI^MJ, ov 
 Qvctt, aXAa TW voprn$'' xa rara,- atom; tMot?, ov* 
 ixa$-o* tavrow emi/ufjt.^o^cree.t vo^eStTa^co. rlatO de LiG- 
 
 ^ibus, 1. 10. p. 889. E. ed. Serrani. 
 
 worfhip,
 
 320 tforjhip of human Spirits 
 
 worlhip, in the idolatrous nations^ 
 Were, for the moft part, dead men and 
 women j unlefs you can fuppofe 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 euftom of appealing to 
 the fun and moon, and other gods filled 
 natural, was on fome occafions ftill pre- 
 fervedj 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 the 
 theiflic philofophers, but rather human 
 ipirits, as will be (hewn 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 allows, indeed, that the pagan gods 
 were not only fuppofed by chriftian wri- 
 ters to have been deified mortals ', 'who were 
 'worjhipped in the countries where they died ; 
 but that this was the opinion of the Heathen 
 
 themfehes,
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 321 
 
 themfefaes, the 'very people by whom thefe gods 
 were honoured: yet Jlill> adds our author* 
 
 // is a MISTAKE ; 
 
 It is certainly no fmall prefumption 
 of the truth of the account, given in the 
 preceding meets, 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 againft 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 delufion, 
 with refpec~l 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 Shipped,
 
 322 Worfhlp of human Spirits 
 ihipped, if in reality they were not fo. 
 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 fentirnents 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 
 rniftaken in their opinion refpec~ring the 
 plain matter of fact, viz. that thofe, to 
 whom they paid divine honours, were 
 princes and heroes whom they them- 
 lelves had deified. Waving, therefore, 
 on this occafion, Mr; Bryant's authori- 
 ty, let us proceed to confider the force 
 of his reafoning. 
 
 It is not credible, fays our author p , 
 however blind idolatry may have been, that 
 people fljould enfirine perfons as immortal, 
 where they had the plaineft evidence of their 
 mortality, that is, at their tombs. The 
 
 H4>.p.4 52 . 
 
 Gentiles
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 
 
 Gentiles believed, that the fouls of vir- 
 tuous men, after the difTolution of their 
 bodies, became immortal gods q ; and on 
 this ground paid them divine honours* 
 As to the reafon of worshipping them hi 
 the places where they were buried, it will 
 be taken notice of in the next fection r j 
 and will, I am perfuaded, occur, on at 
 moment's recollection, to Mr. Bryant. 
 
 It! is farther urged 8 , that, if divine bo-> 
 nours were conferred, they were the effetts 
 of time. This was not the cafe always 1 ; 
 as appears from the hiftory both of po- 
 pifh and pagan idolatry : and facts can- 
 not be overturned by any fpeculative 
 reafonings. But indeed, at what time 
 was it more likely that the fuperftitious 
 part of mankind fliould pay divine ho^ 
 
 * Diflert. on Mir. p. 182, 214. Comp. Bryantj 
 V. i. p. 455. 
 
 r At the end of the i ft' article. 
 s Bryant, V. i. p. 452. 
 
 * Eufeb, Praep. Ev, 1. 2. c. 5. p. 70. cited under 
 the 4th article of this fe&ion, p. 344. 
 
 Y 2 nours
 
 3 24 Worfitp 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 paflionate 
 grief, for the lofs they had fuftained, 
 almoft unavoidably tranfported them be- 
 yond the bounds of reafon ? After their 
 refpect and affection were cooled by time, 
 it would not be fo eafy to kindle their de- 
 votion. Again, 
 
 The gentleman objects", that Varro, 
 according to rfertullian, makes the Jupiters 
 x / in number three hundred, and mentions for- 
 ty heroes of the name of Hercules. Our 
 author allows, 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 fhould be called by the fame 
 name ? Or can the fact in queftion be 
 vouched by a better authority than Var- 
 
 " v - P- 457- Seealfop. 453, 454. 
 * P. 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 y , men are not agreed 
 when Jupiter lived. On a point of fuch 
 high antiquity as the age of the firfl 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. 
 de N. D. 1. 3. c. 16, 21, 22, 23, that there were many 
 gods who bore the name of Hercules, feveral Jupiters, 
 Suns, Vulcans, Mercurys, ^Efculapii, Apollos, Diana*, \/ 
 Dionyfi, Venufes, Minervas, and Cupids. Nor was it 
 an unufual thing for every king to be called Jupiter. 
 Reges omnes Jiaj, reginas veroSeaj, appellari fuit foli- 
 tum. Tzetzes, upon the authority of Ptolemy. Ap. 
 J^a&ant. 1. 1 . c. 8. in the concluding note, ed. Dufrefuoy. 
 
 y P. 457-460. 
 
 Y 3 th
 
 326 Worfolp of human Spirits 
 
 the later heroes of one country the virtues 
 and exploits of the more ancient heroes 
 of another 2 . Mr. Bryant himfelffays, It 
 is to be obferved, that, when colonies made 
 any where a fettlement, they ingrafted their 
 Antecedent hijlory upon the fubfequent events 
 of the place*: that the Greeks adopted all fo- 
 reign hijlory j and fuppofed it to have been 
 of their own country* : and that their ori- 
 ginal hiji or y was foreign., and ingrafted up- 
 on the hijlory of the country where they Jet- 
 tied*. Thefe obfervations not only remove 
 the objection we are here confidering re- 
 fpecting the age in which Jupiter lived, 
 but another difficulty alfo on which great 
 ftrefs is laid d , viz. that the heroes of one 
 
 2 Diodorus Siculus, 1. iii. p. 243. ed. WelT. takes 
 notice of three heroes who bore the name of Bacchus, 
 and of the fame number of eminent perfons who were 
 called Hercules, the laft of whom was the fon of Jupi- 
 ter by Alcmena. The hiftorian adds, that the exploits 
 of the two former were folely afcribed to the laft, as if 
 there had never been more than one Hercules, flj w$ 
 H^axAsaj yEyocoTo; iv ira,ri fu TTPOTIPOII ai&m< See alfo 
 1. i. p. 28. and Bryant, V. 2. p. 57 & feq. 
 
 a Preface, p.xii. xiii, b Mythol. V. I, p 175. 
 
 ? P. 178. ^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 born y and where he 
 was buried*. This might well be the 
 cafe, fuppofing there were feveral Jupi- 
 ters. Evdn 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 exifled ? 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 Ofiris f . When 
 our learned author made this objection, 
 he did not recollect, that it was cufloma- 
 ry with the ancients to erect monuments 
 in honour of the dead which did not con- 
 tain any of their remains. Thefe vacant 
 monuments were raifed, not only for 
 
 ' P. 459, 4 6o. ' P. 4 6i. 
 
 Y 4 thofe,
 
 328 Worjhip of human Spirit* 
 thofe perfons who had not obtained 
 funeral g , but alfo for thofe who had fuch 
 a funeral in another place j of which we 
 find frequent mention in Paufanias, who 
 fpeaks of fuch honorary tombs dedicated 
 to Euripides, Ariflomenes, Achilles, 
 Dameon, Tirefias, and others h . At 
 thefe tombs, though the bodies of the 
 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 1 . Sacrifi- 
 ces ajfo were offered, and libations pour- 
 ed 
 
 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. JEn. VI. 371. 
 
 h Potter ubi fupra, & Guther. de Jure Manium, 
 1.2. c. 1 8. Szepe in tumulisfme corpore nominalegi, 
 Ovid. Metamorph. 1. u, v. 429. 
 
 1 With this view ./Eneas invoked the ghoft of Dei- 
 phobus : 
 
 Tune egomet tumulum Rhcetep in litore inanem 
 Conftitui, etmagna manes tervoce vocavi. 
 
 Virg. JEn. VI. 505, 
 
 rgo inftauramufi Polydoro funtes, et ingens 
 Adgeritur tumulo tellus : ftant manibus ane. 
 Jnferiinus tepido fpum^ntia cymbia lafte, 
 
 Stnguini-s
 
 in the ancient heathen WhrU. 329 
 edout, to their afhes k . It was cuftoma^ 
 ry in the moft early ages to raife fepuU 
 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 erefted to him in different pla- 
 ces 1 . There might well therefore be a 
 
 difference 
 
 Sanguiniset facri pateras : animamquefepulchro 
 Condimus, et magna fupremum voce ciemus. 
 
 ^n. III. 62. 
 
 Pelias recalled 'to his native country the foul of Phryxus, 
 who died abroad. Pindar. Pythia, Ode IV. v. 284, 
 gee the next note. 
 k Virgil fays of Andromache : 
 Libabat cineri Andromache, manifque vocahat 
 Heftoreum ad tumulum : viridi quern cefpiteinanem 
 Jit geminas, cauffam lacrimis, facraverat aras. 
 
 Virg. ^En. III. 303. 
 
 Concerning Drufus, who was buried in the Campus 
 Martius, Suetonius fpeaks in the following terms: 
 C'seterum exercitus honorarium ei tumulam excitavit : 
 circa quern deinceps ftato die quotannis decurreret, et; 
 Galliarum civitates publice facrificarent, al. fupplica- 
 rent. Vit. Claudii, c. i. See Virg. ^En. III. 62-68, 
 cited in part in the preceding note. 
 
 1 Vetuftiflimi moris fuit in honorem amici ac bene 
 merit} cujufpiam viri fepulchrum illi ftatuere. Non 
 
 quo4
 
 330 Worjhip 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, fhews 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 inconjiflenctes. But mail we de- 
 ny the exiflence of the popifh faints, 
 merely becaufe their hiftory is filled with 
 legendary llories as void of fenfe as they 
 
 quod conditi efTent illic ejuscineres atque ofTa : fed me, 
 morias tantum id tributum, illuftrandique ejus nominis 
 gratia. Qua e re contigit ejufdem perfxpe viri diverfis 
 in locis pluraetiam fepulchra inveniri. Jovian, lib. dc 
 Mag. apud Pet. Moreftel. Pompa Feralis, 1. 10. c. i. 
 
 The cuftom of raifing vacant fepulchres was very an- 
 cient, as appears from the mention of them in Virgil, 
 JEn. VI. 505. IX. 214, 215. Homer alfo makes men- 
 tion of a cenotaph, or honorary tomb, Odyff. IV. 584, 
 
 are
 
 'in the ancient heathen World. 331 
 are of truth ? Many events that have re- 
 ally happened have, as Paufanias m ob- 
 ferves, been rendered incredible by thofe 
 who have raifed a fuperftruclure of lies 
 upon them. Befides, the abfurdity of the 
 heathen fables concerning their gods is 
 the lefs to be wondered at, as fomeof thofe 
 fables might have a latent meaning, 
 and were not to be literally underftood. 
 To return to our author. 
 
 He urges a farther objection againfl 
 the human origin of the gods, drawn 
 from the character of iheHelladian and o- 
 ther Greek writers, who aflerted it. Ac- 
 cording to him, the Grecians, who received 
 their religion from Egypt and the eaft, mifcon- 
 ftrited every thing that was imported \ and ad- 
 ded to thefe abfurdities largely. They adopted 
 4eities to whofe pretended attributes they were 
 totally grangers* The writers of Greece did 
 not know the purport of the words which 
 were found in their ancient hymns . The 
 greatejlpart of the Grecian theology arofefrom 
 
 01 Paufanias, Arcad. p, 601. 
 * V. i. p. 306. P. 85. Seep. 252. 
 
 mifconceptions
 
 3 3 2 Worfhlp of human Spirits 
 
 mifconceptions and blunders ; and the Jlorie* 
 concerning their gods and heroes 'were found" 
 ed on terms mi/interpreted and abufed*. 
 They miftook the Hebrew word cahen, 
 which fignifies a prieft, for the Greek 
 kuon> and mifconftrued it a dog* : they 
 changed Omphi-El (which, according to 
 our author, fignifies oracle of the fun) 
 into omphalos, a navel r : and, fo little did 
 they underftand their own language, 
 that, from the word ra<po, (taphos,) which 
 they adopted in a limited fenfe, (that is, as 
 fignifying a tomb, ) they formed a notion 
 of the gods having been buried in every place 
 where there was a tumulus to their honour*, 
 ^hey formed perfonages out of the names, 
 of towers and other edifices* j and out of eve- 
 ry obfolete term u : they conjlantly mijlook ti- 
 tles for names ', and from thefe titles multi- 
 
 V P. 453. See below, p. 336, where the reader will 
 nd more of Mr. Bryant's cenfures of the Grecians. 
 
 ^ See p. 329-352. Why might not the Egyptians 
 worlhip dogs as well as other animals ? You have no 
 more reafon to fet afide the teftimony of the antients in 
 the one cafe than in the other. 
 
 r P. 240. P. 453. t y. 2. p. I. V. I. p. 2.
 
 'In tie ancient heathen World. 333 
 
 plied their deities and heroes". Out of every 
 title they made a god * -, and miftobk temples 
 for deities*. 
 
 Our author might have made fhorter 
 work with the Grecians, and called them 
 at once perfeft idiots . B ut it feems it was 
 only with refpect to the fubjecl: of reli- 
 gion, on which their fentiments differed 
 from his, that they difcovered fuch a to- 
 tal want of underftanding. In all other 
 rejpetfs, he admits, they were the wifeft of 
 all thefons of men*. This commendation 
 lenders 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 3 ; .who came 
 
 V. i. p. 176. 
 
 V. i. p. 307. 
 
 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. 
 
 witk
 
 334 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 with colonies into Greece, fettled in that 
 country, and there eftablimed their own 
 religion 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 fact, we (hall find, that 
 the Greeks did not mifconftrue every 
 thing imported from Egypt and the eaft i 
 for the general fyilem of religion in thefe 
 feveral countries was the fame c , and 
 their notions of the gods were not very 
 different. Nay, the gentleman himfelf al- 
 lows, <e 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. c See above, p. 211,212. 
 
 * V. I. p. 149, 150. See above, p. 331. 
 
 therefore,
 
 'in the ancient heathen World. 
 
 therefore, did not arlfe from their own 
 mifconceptiom and blunders. 
 
 Neceflity alone could compel our au- 
 thor to give fo unfavourable an account 
 of the Greek writers. If their authority 
 be. admitted, his hypothecs mufl fall 
 to the ground. They, Mr. Bryant al- 
 lows, confidered their gods as deified 
 mortals -, but he fays they were miftaken> 
 and that moji of the deified perfonages never 
 exifted, but were mere titles of the deity, the 
 fun*. It may perhaps be faid, that it was 
 not neceffity, but irrefiflible evidence, that 
 compelled Mr. Bryant to adopt an hypo- 
 thefis fo deftruclive 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 hypothecs refls principally upon 
 two grounds. One of them is etymolo- 
 gical deduction, a foundation far too 
 flight to fupport an edifice of any mag- 
 
 V. i. p. 452. Seep. 305 -317. 
 
 nitude.
 
 3 36 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 nitudei But, two very learned writers f ha- 
 ving pointed out fo many miflakes 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 8 , 
 that he has rendered ancient terms as they 
 were expreffed by them> viz. the Grecians, 
 who, according to our author 11 , changed 
 every foreign term to fomething fimilar in 
 their own language : to fomeihingjimilar in 
 found, however remote In meaning, bring led 
 fokly by the ear. On this ground his ety- 
 mologies are built j and yet he affirms, 
 that the Grecians could not articulate orfpelt 
 the names of the deities they adopt ed y 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 1 
 foreign inftructors, yet the latter certain- 
 ly underftood the language of the former^ 
 
 * See Bibliotheca critica, parsprima, p. 53. printed, 
 at Amfterdam, 1777; and Richardfon's DilTertation ori 
 the languages of the eaftern nations, p. 104, & feq. & 
 p. 380, zd ed. 
 
 * Preface, p. xvi. h V* i. p^ 176. ' Id. p. 306.- 
 
 otherwife
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 337 
 otherwife they could not have converfed 
 together. Now, there being a language 
 common to both, the Greeks, we 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^ 
 thenames 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 found, if impracti- 
 cable in one language, muil 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 
 expreffmg them -, and confequently no ar- 
 gument can be drawn from the etymology 
 of ancient terms as exprefled by the Greeks. 
 The other ground, on which Mr. 
 Bryant's hypothecs is built, is the wri- 
 tings of the Greeks, thofe very Greeks 
 whofe teftimony he had taken fo much 
 pains to difparage. All our knowledge 
 Z of
 
 338 Worfbip of human Spirits 
 of the gentile hi/lory, fays this learned wri- 
 ter 16 , muft 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 eflablifh a fyftem, 
 which, by his own confeffion, 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 hiftories 
 many truths with which they were totally 
 unacquainted '. That Mr. Bryant has gi- 
 ven proofs of a fagacityas 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 which 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 
 
 k Preface, p. ix.xvi. & p. 143. ' Preface, p. ix. 
 
 unacquainted,
 
 in the ancient heathen 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, eflablifhed his main 
 point with refpect to the heathen gods, 
 viz. that they were all titles of the fun, 
 or refolvable into that one deity 1 "; he 
 could not prove from hence, that the 
 Heathens did not, in their own concep- 
 tion, worfhip a deified mortal. He fays, 
 the Cuthites, or Amonians, and the col- 
 lateral branches of the family, having 
 raifed Ham to a divinity, worfhipped him 
 as the fun n , the deity which the Amoniam 
 adored 9 . Now the Heathens, in worihip- 
 ping the fun under this idea of it, may 
 be confidered as worfhipping a human 
 fpirit. 
 
 m V. I. p. 305, 306, 309. Preface, p. xv. 
 
 n Preface, p. vii. Ham 'was by his pofterity efteemed 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, 258, 259, 273. Ib. p. xv. 
 
 Z 2 In
 
 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 In juftice to our learned author, as 
 well as to our fubject, I 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 theworjhip of Ham was in- 
 troduced by the Amonians in Phrygia and A- 
 fa Minor*: that the Cuthites, wherever they 
 came, were looked up to as a fuperior order 
 of beings -, and hence were filed heroes and 
 demons'* : and that the nations of the eajl ac- 
 knowledged originally but one deity, the fun ; 
 but, when they came to give the titles of O- 
 rus, OJiris, and Cham, to fome of the heads 
 of their family, they too in time were looked 
 up to as gods, and federally worfiippedas the 
 fun\ He affirms', By thefe terms, the ma- 
 nes and lares, are fignijied dii Arkite, 
 who were no other than their Arkite ancef- 
 tors, the perfons preferred in the. ark. 
 Speaking of the Greeks and Romans, he 
 
 P V. i. p. 273, 274. i Preface, p. vii. 
 
 V. i. p. 306. V. 2. p. 456. 
 
 fays,
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 341 
 
 fays', The whole of their worfoip was confi- 
 ned to a few deified men , thefe lares, manes, 
 damorteS) of whom we have been treat- 
 ing. They were no other than their Arkite 
 ancejlors, the Baalim of the Scriptures : to 
 thefe they offered, and to thefe they made 
 their vows. In more general terms, he 
 pofitively aflerts, The whole religion of the 
 ancients conjifted in the worfoip of demons : 
 and to thofe perfonages their theology continu- 
 ally refers* They were, like the manes and 
 lares of the Romans, fuppofed to be the fouls 
 of men deceafed". 
 
 Thefe conceflions, 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 eflablifh. 
 
 IV. Let us proceed to confider the tef- 
 timony of the Chriftian FATHERS to 
 the general wormip of dead men in the 
 ancient heathen nations. 
 
 1 V. 2. p. 459. " V. 2. p. 28O. 
 
 Z 3 Many
 
 342 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 Many testimonies of the Fathers, to 
 the general worfhip of dead men amongft 
 the Heathens, were produced in a for- 
 mer publication*. Thefe learned writers 
 have alfo been occafionally appealed to, 
 in the preceding fheets, in order to con- 
 firm fome particular articles ; though 
 my principal defign has hitherto been to 
 eftablifh 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 x , in particular, allows, " that 
 " this was the opinion of Clemens, Eu- 
 " febius, Cyril, Tertullian, Athenago- 
 " ras, Epiphanius, Laftantius, Arnq- 
 " bius, Julius Firmicus, and many o- 
 " thers." Some of thofe here omitted by 
 Mr. Bryant were taken notice of in the Dif- 
 
 w Diflert. onMir. p. 212, * Mythol.I. p. 455. 
 
 fertation
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 343 
 
 fertation on Miracles y j particularly Cy- 
 prian, Minucius Felix, and St. Auftin. 
 But our learned author* affirms, <e that 
 " the whole of their argument turns up- 
 " on this point, the conceflions of the 
 * f Gentiles. The more early writers 
 " of the church were not making a Uriel: 
 <{ chronological enquiry, but were la- 
 * { bouring to convert the Heathen. 
 f( They therefore argue with them upon 
 <e 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 
 <c Fathers fairly make ufe of it. They 
 ct avail themfelves of thefe conceflions, 
 " and prove from them the abfurdity 
 ft of the Gentile worfhip, and the in- 
 * c confiftency of their opinions." 
 
 Thefe obfervations, being fpecious in 
 themfelves, and fupported by fo great an 
 authority as Mr. Bryant, deferve to be 
 
 r P. 2iz, 213. * Mythol. I, p. 455. 
 
 2 4 maturely
 
 344 Worfoip 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 fubject before us ; *>ut the whole 
 of their argument does not, to my ap- 
 prehenfion, turn upon this point. They 
 take upon themfelves to affirm it as a 
 fact, that the heathen gods had been 
 men ; and they eflablifh the fact by 
 convincing evidence. 
 
 i . They affirm the fact in the ftrongeft 
 terms. Eufebius, who was a perfect 
 matter 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 z . He declares he had pro- 
 ved, by unqueftionable teftimonies, that 
 the gods, worjhipped by all people, both in 
 cities and villages, were the ghojls and ima- 
 
 . 1. 2. 0.5. p. 70. D.
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 345 
 
 ges of dead men*. And he aflerts, that 
 Sanchoniathon in particular had fliewn, 
 that dead men and women, covered with all 
 manner offices, t were advanced to the rank 
 of gods ; and that thefe were the very fame 
 gods as thofe univerfatly worfhipped in all ci- 
 ties and countries in his time*. Arnobius, 
 after particularly enumerating feveral de- 
 ities who had been men, pofitively af- 
 ferts, " that all the gods they had in 
 ct their temples were fuch c ". The names 
 of the gods whom you prof efs to worfiip, fays 
 Theophilus Antiochenus to Autolycus, 
 are the names of dead men*. La6lantius, as 
 
 * NEX^WK EidWXa, xai etto^ut Ttctf.cii KOiroi^ofJiinui si>;oaj. 
 
 Id. ib. A. 
 
 b MctTvc;t ys TKTS? auras txtum; two.*, TJ st/rert x 
 tvv $ESJ ira^a, TOI; irao-i ysvo/xKr^sirK; XU.TX rt ra; 7ro>.n?, 
 x* raj %w?. Id. 1. I. c. 9. p. 31. C. SeeDemonft. 
 Evang. 1. 8. p. 364. & Vit. Conftantini paffim. 
 
 ? Vos hominem nullum colitis natum ? non unum et 
 alium ? non innumeros alios ? quinimo non omnes, quos 
 jam templis habetis veftris, mortalium fultuliftis ex nu- 
 rriero,, et coelo fideribufque donaftis ? Adv. Gentes, 
 p. 21. 
 
 rf Ta fji.iv OO^T ait $1*11; crEteso'Sat Scut OVO/AUTOI sr 
 nxguv av^iuwwy. Theophyl. ad Autolyc. I. i. c. 14. 
 p. 36. Hamburg. 1724. 
 
 we
 
 346 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 we have feen, adopted the fyftem of Eu- 
 hemerus, which reprefented all the hea- 
 then gods as mere mortals 6 . St. Auftin 
 likewife has given his fanftion 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 h . Tertuilian 1 
 and Minucius Felix afTert, that all their 
 gods, or the whole fw arm of heathen deities , 
 were men, not excepting the chief of all, 
 Jupiter and Saturn, before whom they 
 had no gods k . There were no kings, fays 
 
 Lactantius, 
 
 e La&ant. Divin. Inftitut. 1. i. c. 14. tited above, 
 p. 222. Seealfoc. n. p. 49. ed. Dufrefnoy. 
 
 ( Auguft. de Civ. Dei, 1. 6. c. 7. cited above, p. 222. 
 
 f Ib. 1. 8. c. 5. cited above, p. 257. 
 
 h Id. ib. 1. 8. c. 26. cited above, p. 257. 
 
 * Omnesiftos deos veftros homines fuifle. Tertuilian. 
 Apol. c. 10. p. ii. 
 
 k Saturnum enim principem hujus generis et-exami- 
 nis omnes fcriptores vetuftatis, Graeci Romanique, ho- 
 minem prodiderunt. Saturnus Creta profugus, &c. 
 
 Minucius
 
 m the ancient heathen World. 347 
 
 Laftantius, before Saturn or Uranus 1 j 
 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 
 affert, irf 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 effecl upon 
 themfelves, Many of them have been 
 touched upon in the preceding fheets ; 
 others will come under examination in 
 the next feclion : and therefore, to a- 
 void repetition, I (hall 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. 
 ? Latant. 1. i. c. 15. 
 
 make
 
 348 Worfeip 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 m j to the diftincl: teftimonies of 
 their poets and their hiftorians " ; to the 
 difcovery of the earthly origin of the 
 gods in the myfteries $ and to the report 
 of thofe who had divulged this fecret to 
 the world p . " The genealogies of your 
 
 m Sienim forte vos fugit, fortis eos humane, et con- 
 ditionis fuilTe communis ; replicate antiquiffimas lite- 
 ras, et eorum fcripta percurrite, qui vetuftati vicini, 
 fine ullis affentationibus cun&a veritate in liquida pro- 
 diderunt. Arnobius, p. 21. - Non attendant in om- 
 nibus literis paganorum, &c. Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 8, 
 c. 26. cited above, p. 257. 
 
 B Quod fi quis dubitet, res eorum geftas, et fafta, 
 confideret : quas univerfa turn poetas, turn hiftorici ve- 
 teres, prodiderunt. Laclant. 1. i. c. 8. p. 35. 
 
 P Particularly Leo, the Egyptian prieft. Minuc. 
 Felix, p. 121, 122. Cyprian, de Idol. Vanit. p. 12. 
 ed.Fell. Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 8. ..5, 27. 
 
 " gods",
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 
 fc gods q ", faid the Fathers in their ad- 
 drefies 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 
 <c country, their tribe and kindred, 
 C their exploits and various fortunes, 
 
 * Theophilus Ant. ad Autolyc. 1. 2. p. 72. is 
 thus rendered by Wolfius. Etenim dum genealogias 
 eorum percurritis, pro hominibus eos habetis ; paulo 
 poft vero deos appellatis, et colitis, nee recogitantes, 
 neque intelligentes, eos tales efle, quales natos legitis. 
 Tatian (Orat. ad Grascos, c. 36. p. 79. ed. Worth) 
 argues in the fame manner. Tinc-m Aeyvrs Qtuv, xi 
 S>JTS? avTSj aTro^avEicrSE. 
 
 * Tatian. ubi fupra, p. 30, 31. Tertullian, after 
 enumerating the crimes imputed to the gods by their 
 votaries, adds, At quin ut illos homines fuifle non 
 poffitis negare, edam ilhe nota: accedunt. Apol. c. u. 
 p. 12. 
 
 s Quomodo ergo, inquiet aliquis, dii creditifunt? 
 Nimirum quia reges maximi ac potentiffimi fuerint. 
 La&r.nt. 1. i. c. 8. p. 35. In c. 15. he handles the 
 fubjed more largely. Compare Cyprian de Idol. Va- 
 nitat. iuit-. & Minucius Felix, 0.29. p. 147, 148. 
 
 " arc
 
 350 ffiorflxp of human Spirits 
 
 " are all on record'. It is well known 
 < in what cities they were born, and 
 t where they were buried". And, 
 <c if farther proofs of their humanity 
 <e are defired, we appeal to the viands w 
 " with which your gods are fupplied, to 
 " the images" by which they are repre* 
 C fented, and to the temples 7 in which 
 " their remains are depofited. But the 
 <e fact itfelf, that all thofe whom you 
 
 1 See above, note n , Auguft. Civ. D. 1. 8. c. 27* 
 and Tertullian. Apol. c. 10. p. n. ed. Kigali I 
 fhall fet down the words of Arnobius, p. 21. Jam 
 profecto difcetis, quibus fmguli patribus, quibus ma- 
 tribus, fuerint procreati, qua in nati regione, qua 
 gente, quas fecerint, egerint, pertulerint, aftitarint, 
 quas in rebus obeundis adverforum fenferint, fecun- 
 dantiumque fortunas. 
 
 u The heathen records teflified to his time, fays 
 Tertullian, (Apol. c. 10. p. n.) et civitatibus in qui^. 
 bus nati funt ; et regionibus in quibus aliquid operati 
 veftigia reliquerunt, in quibus etiam fepulti denion- 
 ftrantur. See Recogn. S. dementis, 1. 10. c. 23, 24, 
 p. 594. ap. Patres Apoft. V. i. ed. Clerici. 
 
 w Sin autem fcientes uteris effe geftatos, et frugibus 
 eos viftitaffe terrenis. Arnob. p. 21. See the next 
 feftion under the article of <worjbip* 
 
 * See the next fe&ion, article V. ? Ib. artick II. 
 
 ' c HOW
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 35* 
 " now worfhip as gods had once been 
 <c men, is fo notorious - that you 
 " cannot deny it z . It is becaufe you 
 <c cannot deny that the objects of your 
 <f 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 
 <c being afhamed of the literal hiflory b ". 
 This is the natural language of per- 
 fons fully perfuaded of the truth of what 
 they faid. Under this ftrong perfuafion, 
 
 z Provocamus a vobis ad confcientiam veftram. Ilia 
 nosjudicet, ilia nosdamnet, fipoteritnegareoOTw.riltos 
 decs veftros homines finite. Tertullian. Apol. c. 10. 
 p. n. 
 
 * Et quoniam ficut illos homines fuifle non audetis 
 denegare, ita poft mortem deos faftos inftituiftis afleve- 
 rarp. Tertullian. Apol. c. u. p. n. 
 
 b Ipfa quoque vulgaris fuperftitio communis idolola- 
 triae, cum in fimulacris de nominibus et fabulis veterivn 
 mortuorum pudet, ad interpretationem naturalium re- 
 fugit, etdedecus fuum ingenio adumbrat. Tertullian. 
 adv. Marcion. 1. i. p. 371, 372. ed. Rigalt. 1675. 
 Ut fcriptorum tan tarn defend atis audaciara, allegorias 
 res illas, et naturalis fcientix mentimini effe doftrinas. 
 Arnobius, jp. 150. 
 
 they
 
 352 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 they openly infult the public religion 
 of their country, and juftify their non- 
 conformity to it on account of it's pre- 
 fctibing the worfhip of the dead. With 
 great eloquence and flrength of reafon- 
 ing do they expofe the abfurdity of that 
 worfhip, and the folly and arrogance 
 of pretending, by certain ceremonies, to 
 convert mortal men into immortal gods, 
 and to ad van 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 j 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 ori 
 this fubjecl: had a very different effect, 
 and contributed greatly to the downfal 
 of pagan idolatry. 
 
 The opinion and teflimony of the Fa* 
 thers, under the foregoing circumftan-^ 
 ces, feem to me to be of great weight. 
 
 c SeeLa&ant. I. I. c. 15. p, 69, 70. cd. Dufrefnoy. 
 
 They
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 353 
 
 They were bred up in the heathen reli- 
 gion, or lived in the times when it 
 flourifhed ; 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 objects 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, fo clear and cogent 
 were their reafonings, that idolaters de- 
 ferted the worfhip 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 
 
 d In the Eflay on the Demoniacs, p. 53, 54, in the 
 note, after citing from Jerome, in his own words, a 
 paflage, which may be thus tranflated : Becaufe they 
 (the Fathers) arefometimes compelled to fpeak t NOT WHAT 
 THEY THINK, but what necejfity requires, they oppofe 
 <what the Gentiles advance : I immediately added, When- 
 ever they had an end to feri)e t no caution can be too great in 
 following them. This obfervation is cenfured by Mr. 
 Fell, (Demoniacs, p. 156.) and feems to have been the 
 
 principal
 
 354 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 knew very little what pains he was ta- 
 king to deftroy it. He not only oppofes 
 
 their 
 
 principal ground on which heaflts, p. 160, " Is not this 
 " fuch an attack upon the common honefty of man- 
 ' kind < as naturally deftroys the faith of all 
 ' hiilory, while it leads to uni<verfal fcepticifm r" 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 teftimony 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 reflections on 
 the fifteenth chapter of the ift volume of Mr. Gib- 
 bons's Hiftory. 2. The obfervation which Mr. Fell 
 condemns is no more than a juft inference from that cha- 
 racter 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 j for 
 our author has cited the obfervatien without taking any 
 notice of Jerome, the authority upon which it was 
 founded. The gentleman aflures us, in his title-page, 
 that truth was his only objeft ; otherwife I mould have 
 thought, that, on this as on almoft all other occafions, 
 obloquy had been no fmall part of his defign. Can he 
 point out the place where I have faid, what he (in p. 
 156) exprefsly reprefents me as faying, " That no ftrefs 
 " is to be laid on their (the Fathers) general conduct?" 
 The gentleman often honours me with fuch additions. 
 3. If the obfervation complained of dejlroys the faith of
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 35 5 
 
 their opinion, but labours to overturn 
 th&rfc$mony. They affirm it as a faff, 
 which none could controvert, that the 
 heathen gods had been men. Mr. Fell, 
 on the contrary, maintains 6 , that "all the 
 
 all biftory, St. Jerome alorte (whofe 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 
 condu&of the Fathers is certainly liable to juftcenfure, 
 whether the chara&er they give of themfelves be true or 
 falfe. If it be true, who can juftifythem? If it be 
 falfe, (which it would be abfurd to fuppofe.) you will find 
 it neceflary in this inftanceto difbelieve them. But this 
 by no means deftroys the faith of all hiftory. The de- 
 ceptions to which we are liable are a ground of caution, 
 to.Q\.Qfuni<verfalfcepticifm. Human teftimony, by which 
 men determine concerning the lives and properties of o- 
 thers in courts of judicature, is, under proper cirfumjtan- 
 ces, a fure ground of dependence. The teftimony of the 
 Fathers in particular > on every point of real importance 
 to Chriftianity, is, I apprehend, confirmed by fuch cir- 
 cumftantial evidence as prevents the very poflibility of 
 deception. 4. The reafons I afligned for rejecting the 
 profefled opinion of fome of the Fathers, concerning the 
 poffejfing demons, (Eflay on Demoniacs, p. 49-56, and 
 Introduction, p. 7, 8.) do not at all hold in the cafe of 
 the teftimony they bear to the faft now before us, the 
 human origin of the heathen gods. 
 e P. no. 
 
 A a 2 world
 
 356 Worship 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 fb 
 fevere a charge againft them. It does not 
 appear, from his writings, that he had 
 any acquaintance with their fentiments 
 on the fubjec~l before us, or that he had 
 fo much as read the extracts from them 
 in the DhTertation which he undertook 
 to anfwer. At leaft, he has taken no no- 
 tice of thofe extracts ; and therefore, 
 if he did read them, he did not judge 
 them worthy of a reply. His filence 
 mufl 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 difKnctly examined the 
 fentiments of the Gentiles and of the 
 early Chriftians concerning the heathen 
 gods ; and have fhewn that they both a- 
 gree in affirming their earthly origin. The 
 
 Fathers,
 
 //; the ancient heathen World. 3 57 
 
 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 f , that " no opinion 
 <c 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 reflations, confir- 
 med by the cleareft and flrongeft tefti- 
 
 monies. ~But we fhall advance one 
 
 Jftep farther under the next feftion, 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 General proofs of the ivorjhip of human fpi- 
 rifs, amongst the ancient Heathens, drawn 
 from FACTS. 
 
 T^VERY one muft have obferved, 
 that the teflimony of competent 
 and honeft witnefles, 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
 
 358 Worjhlp 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 worihip of human 
 fpirits in particular nations, and to it's ge- 
 neral prevalence, hitherto produced, re- 
 ceivethe ftrongeft confirmation fromfacls 
 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 5 , (though overlooked 
 by the gentleman who wrote againft it j) 
 but it well deferves a larger illuftration 
 than was confident with the occalion on 
 which it was there introduced. 
 
 I. I fhall begin with taking notice, that 
 divine honours were paid to the dead, 
 according to their different ranks and 
 characters when living, at all the SE- 
 PULCHRES of the Heathens. 
 
 * DifTertat. on Mir. p. 193. 
 
 There
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 359 
 
 There has already been occafion to ob- 
 ferve h , 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 1 . 
 
 No wonder, then, that religious ho- 
 nours fhould be paid to perfons diftin- 
 guifhed by their rank or merit. Alexan- 
 der and Hephseftion offered facrifices at 
 the tombs of Achilles and the Trojan 
 heroes upon the plains of Troy k . 
 
 The tombs of the ancients were fome- 
 times built of flone, and called Karns 1 ; 
 but were more commonly conical mounds 
 of earth, well known here in England 
 by the name of barrows, which were rai- 
 
 h Above, p. 249, 270. 
 
 Petit. Leg. Attic, p. 601, 
 
 k Arrian. Exped. Alex. 1. i. c. 11. p. 25. ed. Gro- 
 nov. Q^Curt. 1. 2. c. 4. Freinihera. Supplem. torn. 
 j. p. 27. ed. Snakenburg. 
 
 1 Borhfe, Antiq.of Cornwal, p. 212. 
 
 A a 4 fed
 
 360 Worjhlp 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 fhape of aU 
 tars m , undoubtedly that they might be u- 
 fed as fuch, as they alfo often were when 
 not made in this particular fhape n . 
 
 But, in moft cafes, altars, diftinct 
 from the facred mounds, were raifed 
 near them for the purpofe of worfhip, 
 The Trojans creeled to Polydore not 
 only a large tomb or mound of earth, 
 but altars likewife, and facrificed to his 
 manes . Andromache alfo raifed a va-r 
 cant tomb, and confecrated two altars, 
 toHeftor". 
 
 Amongft perfons elevated above the 
 level of the vulgar there was a great dif- 
 tinction made, not only with refpeft to 
 
 m The fepulchre of Themiftocles was fix punas;, ac- 
 cording to the authors cited by Plutarch, Vit. Themift. 
 p. 128. E. 
 
 11 See Borlafe, p. 222. 
 
 Virg. ^En.lII. 62. cited above, p. 328, in note ?. 
 
 P Id. ib. v. 303, cited above, p. 329, in note "-. 
 
 the
 
 m the ancient heathen World. 361 
 the magnificence of their fepulchres, but 
 alio in regard to the worfhip that was 
 paid them. Herodotus relates of the A- 
 xnathuiians, that they were admonifhed 
 by an oracle, to facrifice annually to Onejilus 
 as to a hero*. To Philippus, of Crotona, 
 the Egiftans ere&edtbe monument of a hero 
 upon his tomb, and propitiated him ivitbfa- 
 crifices*. When heroes were exalted to the 
 rank of gods, they were ftlll more ho- 
 nourably diftinguimed. To what has 
 been already 8 faid upon this fubjecl: 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 flructure worthy of admiration* ; 
 and every one knows he was the fupreme 
 object of religious worfhip amongft the 
 feveral nations of Greece. 
 
 9 Q'.ic-tf.ia 3s $vw, a>s gwV, cttu van fro?. Herodot. 
 1.5. c. 114. 
 
 r Esn yaLg TOV rctipov wtov yiguav dgvo'aiu.itQi, Sv^nm 
 ^rro tXao-xovTo. Id. ib. c. 47. P. 172-176. 
 
 * T^a? <ro$? scr^9. Plutarchi Thefeus, 16. A. 
 
 * Tettyov &ius *|io. Paufaniae Ccrinthiaca, p. 161. 
 
 Princes
 
 562 Worflsip of human Spirits 
 
 Princes and great commarders had 
 their fepulchres dignified by JT cromlech*,. 
 which was compofed of a large flat (tone, 
 in or near a horizontal poiition, fupported 
 by erect flones*. The word denotes a 
 confecratedfione* or table. The repafts pro- 
 vided for the dead (confiftingcommonly of 
 vegetables, bread, and eggs) were caked 
 filicernia jx flippers uponaJtone.Thck tf one- 
 tables were called altars 1 ', 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 offering to the 
 dii manes. A learned writer allows, 
 that the places round about them were 
 the fcenes of theparentalia, or where the 
 dead were wormipped 2 . Now, as this 
 worfhip confuted, in part, in the celebra- 
 tion of a feaft, it is natural to fuppofe, 
 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. w Id. p. 223. 
 
 * mV Cain. Rowland, p. 47, 214. Borlafe, p. 225. 
 r Eorlafe, p. 228. 
 
 1 Wormius, p. 8. fpeaking of the cromlech, fays, 
 Maxima ex parte fepulchro impofita effe folet, eo fine,
 
 in tie 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 worfhipped. When 
 fpeaking of thofe mounds, in Greece, 
 that were fenced round with a border 
 of {lone-work, upon the top of which a 
 large ftone was placed, he fays 3 , They were 
 lookedupcn as receptacles of the dead: but were 
 high altars, with their f acred Tepevy, which 
 had been erected for divine worfiip in the 
 moji early times. The race/, (taphoi,) he 
 affirm s b , were not tombs, but conical mounds 
 of earth, on which, in the firft ages, offer- 
 ings were made byjire. He reprefents the 
 facred tupha of the Perfians as being fet 
 apart as puratheia, for the celebration of the 
 rites of this element". The word (rapo^) ta- 
 phos is fometimes ufed, in a large fenfe, for 
 a hillock; but it was, fays Mr. Bryant, in- 
 terpreted by the Greeks a tomb\ And, a- 
 dopting it in this limited fenfe, " they for- 
 
 ut ibidem in memoriam defun&i quotannis facra pera- 
 gantur. See Borlafe, p. 227, 229, 230. 
 
 a Bryant, Mythol. v. i. p. 466. b P. 456. 
 
 P. 467. "P. 453, 45'- 
 
 " med
 
 364 Worftrip of human Spirits 
 < med a notion of their gods having been 
 " buried in every place where there was a 
 " tumulus to their honour" 6 . 
 
 According to our author, tap&os, taph, 
 or tupb, 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 
 mifinterpreted 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 
 practice of railing the taphoi, or mounds, 
 in queftion, was tranfmitted from the 
 Egyptians into Greece g ; and that many 
 of them were raifed^ in different parts 
 of that country by the Amonians h . Now 
 if neither any inftruc"lion in the meaning 
 of the term, nor even famples of the 
 
 *P.453- f P.449,450. 88173111,0.467. b P-45 1 - 
 
 thing
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 365 
 thing intended by it, could enable the 
 Greeks to underftand it, though the 
 plained in all their language, their ftu- 
 pidity is without a parallel, and difcove- 
 red itfelf on more fubjecls than the 
 names of the foreign gods '. After all, 
 if the Greeks were miftaken, in fuppo- 
 fmg 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 firil 
 learned, (from the Egyptians, Amo- 
 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 ; becaufe no fire 
 could be kindled upon them fufficient to 
 confume the victim without fcorching 
 the officiating prieft ; becaufe few, if a- 
 ny, of them, could bear the intenfenefs 
 of the facrifical fire j and becaufe the 
 table- Hone of fome of them was fo very 
 
 1 See above, p. 331. &feq. 
 
 gibbous,
 
 366 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 gibbous, that no pried could ftand on 
 it, either to tend the fire or overfee the 
 confumption of the vic~Km k . Their fize, 
 and form, and quality, conclude equal- 
 ly againft the notion of their being de- 
 iigned for the celebration of the rites 
 of fire. 
 
 That the conical mounds of raifed 
 earth were 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 reflect, that the barrow was 
 one of the moft ancient and common 
 methods of interring the dead ' ; that 
 the cromlechs are found upon 1 ", and of- 
 ten furrounded with, barrows -, that the 
 common people called them gravefanes* $ 
 
 that 
 
 k In proof of thefe poirfts, feeBorlafe, p. 226, 227. 
 
 1 Borlafe, p. 228. m Id. p. 229. 
 
 On the hill Ridge, north of Pottifham, in Dorfet- 
 fhire, is a cromlech, which ftands upon a tumulus, or 
 barrow, and is called by the common people bell-ftone, 
 that is, a grave-ftone . Helle fignifies fepulchrum. It is 
 derived from kflan, to cover, or conceal j and therefore 
 
 properly
 
 'in the ancient heathen World. 367 
 that a fmall brook near this kind of mo- 
 nument is called the ford of the graves ; 
 that <e the area underneath the quoit is 
 " very near the dimenfions of the hu- 
 <e man body and every kind of farcopha- 
 " gus of the ancients" p ; and, laftly, 
 that underneath or near thefe monu- 
 ments are found vaults, and human 
 bones, and afhes q . 
 
 It may be obferved, farther, that cir- 
 cular monuments alfo, whether open or 
 inclofed, were often fepulchral r $ and 
 that fome of thefe circles were diflin- 
 guifhedby a cromlech 8 , 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 exprefles tbegra*ve, 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 belle. See the Hiftory and Antiq. of Dorfet, 
 by the Rev. Mr. J. Hutchins, v. i. p. 554. 
 
 Borlafe, p. 228. P Borlafe, p. 228. 
 
 * P. 227, 229. Seealfo p. 193. * Id. p. 209. 
 
 . P. 193. ' P. 193, 225. 
 
 Germany,
 
 368 Worjhlp 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 w , were in like manner 
 receptacles of the dead, notwithflanding 
 what has been advanced to the contrary*. 
 
 Clemens 
 
 V.i. p. 45 1, 465, 466. 
 
 w V. i. p. 449, 461-464, 466-469. 
 
 * According to Mr. Bryant's conltruclion oftapb and ta- 
 f/jos, p. 449, taph-OJirif muft denote the hill, or high al- 
 tar, of Oiiris. But, all that can be hence inferred is, that 
 this altar, or hill, was*confecrated to Ofiris, or that he was 
 an object of religious worfhip ; which he might be, and 
 certainly was, notwithflanding his having been a man. 
 Accordingly, the Greeks, who derived all their know- 
 ledge of dins* from the Egyptians, and without doubt 
 adopted their idea of him, the Greeks by tapb Ojiris 
 
 underftood
 
 'in the ancient heathen World. 369 
 Clemens Alexandrinus informs us, that 
 the places of fepulture 'which the Heathens 
 wor/hippedwerc too numerous to be counted*. 
 
 underitood the burying-place of the god Ofiris, (Plu- 
 tarch's If. & Ofir. p. 359.) as the gentleman himfelf 
 allows, p. 451, 4614 
 
 He lays great ftrefs upon the cafe of the Perfians, 
 whom he reprefents, p. 466, 467, as adhering to the 
 purer zaba'ifm, erefting the fame facred tupha as thd 
 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 worfhipped 
 dead men, (fee above, ch. i. fed. i. p. 47. & feq. and 
 below, fedl. 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 
 have been a kind of honorary tomb, (fee above, p. 327 
 & feq.) and was erected to teflify their devotion to thefe 
 gods, to whom they afcribed their victory over the 
 Sacse. Strabo, 1. n, p. 779. And, as our author 
 admits that the Helladians and the Perfians were of the 
 fame family, and had many fimilar rites, the tupha were 
 certainly raifed by both with the fame view. 
 
 ijt*oj ptv o { a* *gxn? ^8os. Clem. Alexandr. 
 Cohort, ad Gent. p. 40. 
 
 B b From
 
 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 From the facts that have been flated 
 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 y . Both the facred 
 mounds and monuments are found in all 
 countries. Their ufe was in all the 
 fame ; and was fo obvious that it could 
 not be miftaken. 
 
 As to the Heathens worfhipping dead 
 men at the geftibule of the cbarnel-houfe 3 
 which feems fo incredible to a learned 
 writer*, the reafon of it, which was 
 promifed to be affigned, is exceeding ob- 
 
 7 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 affection for their former bodies, 
 and hovered about them, or the places 
 where they were buried b . The fame 
 opinion formed a part of the creed of the 
 vulgar, and entered into the religion of 
 the ftate e . 
 
 B b 2 Now 
 
 8 See Macrobius, in Som. Scip. 1. i. c. 9. p. 35. 
 c. 13. p. 45. K 2. c. 16. p. 125. ed. Londini, 1694.. 
 Porphyr. de Abftinent. 1. 2. . 47. Pato ap. Origcn. 
 c. Celf. p. 97. 
 
 b The wandering fouls of thofe who were unbufied 
 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. JEn. III. 68. 
 
 c Ita plane ; quemadmodum vulgus exifcimat, mor- 
 tuorum animas circa tumulos et corporum fuorum reli- 
 quias oberrare. La&ant. 1. 2. c. 2. p. 117, The 
 Common perfuafion was, that ghofts were capable of 
 feeling preffure 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 affe&ed towards the deceafed. 
 Potter's Gr. Antiq. v. 2. b. 4. c. 7. p. 243. The 
 general practice of confulting, fupplicating, and ap- 
 peafing, the gods at their tombs, plainly fuppofes their 
 dwelling there. " It may be objected, that emi- 
 
 nent
 
 372 Worfhip of human Spirits 
 
 Now what could be more natural 
 than for the Heathens, who worlhipped 
 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 affected : for they paid di- 
 vine honours to the carcaffes d , the 
 bones % and afhes f , of men deceafed, 
 
 nent men were thought to return at death to their native 
 fky. The Heathens faw the difficulty, and attempted 
 to folve it, by aflerting, that man was compounded of 
 three (if not more) parts ; body, mind, and foul. The 
 firft was committed to the grave ; the fecund 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 fhall only here obferve, that, when Hercules 
 was in heaven, (Cicer. Nat. Deor. 1. 3. c. 16.) Ulyf- 
 fes met his t\$iahw in the fhades below. Odyff. 1. xi. 600. 
 
 d See above, p. 165, note x . 
 
 x 
 ' OfTa tibi juro per matris, et offaparentis. 
 
 Propertius, 1. II. eleg. 20. v. 15. 
 f Virg. &T\. III. 303. cited above, p. 329, note k . 
 Cineribus hie locus facer was an infcription on a ftone at 
 Rome. Guther. de Jure Manium, 1. 2. c. 19. 
 
 and
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 373 
 
 and even to their very coffins 8 and fe- 
 pulchres h ; notwithstanding their being 
 moft unequivocal proofs of the mortal 
 origin of their gods. 
 
 II. The heathen TEMPLES were 
 places of fepulture, and defigned as man- 
 lions 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 leaft 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 
 
 8 The Athenians received the coffin of Thefeus with 
 pompous proceffions and facrifices ; iropwaui; rt ^ot^ie^a.^ 
 tott-etrro y.a.\. 9t>nas. Plutarchi Thefeus, p. 17, 
 
 & Divert on Mir. p. 191, note ". 
 
 B b 3 defires.
 
 374 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 defires 1 . Thefe temples were confidered 
 as the proper habitations* of the gods to 
 whom they were dedicated : a circum- 
 flance which demonftrates that they were 
 not erected to the fun, moon, ftars, and 
 elements j 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 fhewn, all their former 
 difpofitions, and whofe pride, confequent- 
 ly, was highly flattered by fumptuous 
 
 * See under article VI. 
 
 k The Heathens called their temples T? xXu<; y.xt 
 70. tot &*>. Vid. Selden. de Synedr. 1. 3. c. 14. 
 They applied to them the terms oix.ot & ^o*. Spencer 
 de Leg. Heb. Rit. p. 891. Templum, inquit, hoc 
 Martis eft, hoc Junonis, quid eft aliud dicere, quam 
 domus haec Martis eft, hoec Junonis? &c. Arnobius, 
 1. 6. p. 191. Origen reprefents the heathen demons as 
 taking up their ne/idence 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 3i//,o ? ^s^o. Origen c. Celf. 1. 3. p. 131. He 
 is fpeaking of deified men, whofe fouls the Gentiles 
 called demons. Aon^tova? y.tv raj T&TUV 4' t 'X a ? jtaABrrsj. 
 Clem. Alexandr. Strom. 1. 6. p. 755. 
 
 palaces,
 
 in the ancient heathen World. -375 
 
 palaces, and all the attendance, and 
 Hate, 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 l ; 
 and that they placed their coffins in ma- 
 ny of their temples as fo many flatues 
 of their gods m . Eufebius n entertained the 
 fame opinion of their temples as Cle- 
 mens. Cyril alfo, and St. Auftin p , and 
 Prudentius q , and other Chriftian wri- 
 
 TS7E$-> TKJ Tfa; VEW? 7rx6KX!|w,>a$. Cohort, ad Gent. 
 p. 39. ed. Potteri. See alfo p. 40, 74. 
 
 . Stromat. 1.6. p. 755. 
 . Ev. 1. 2. C. 6. He T 
 
 Cyril. Alexandr. contra Julian. 1. 10. p. 342, 343. 
 P Auguft. deCiv. Dei, 1.8. c. 26. 1. 18. c. 5. 
 
 1 Et tot templa deum Romae, quot in urbe fepulchra 
 Heroum, numerare licet. 
 
 Prudentius ad Symmachum, 1. I. 
 
 B b 4 ters,
 
 376 Worjhip of bum an Spirits 
 
 ters, reprefent the heathen temples as 
 places of fepulture. Arnobius not only 
 fpeaks of them in the fame view r , but, 
 in a paflage produced above, tells the 
 Gentiles, that all the gods they had in 
 their temples bad been men*. 
 
 The language of the Heathens on the 
 fubject before us agrees with that of the 
 ancient Chriftians. Hermes Trifmegii- 
 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 benefactors 
 of the human race, the temples which 
 
 * Quid? quod multa ex his templa, quae tholis funt 
 aureis et fublimibus elata veftigiis, au&orum confcrip- 
 tionibus comprobatur contegere cineres atque ofTa, et 
 funftorum effe corporum fepulturas. Arnob. adv. Gent. 
 P- 193- 
 
 * P- 345- 
 
 t Hermes ipfe, quafifutura praenunciando, deplo- 
 rans ait: Tune terra ifta fanftiffima (fc.^Egyptus) fedes 
 delubrorum atque templorum, fepulchrorum erit mor- 
 tuorumque pleniffima. Ap. Angufl. Civ. Dei, 1. 8. 
 c. 26. 
 
 had
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 377 
 
 had been erected to the elements and 
 planets". 
 
 There are many facts 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- 
 rected feveral temples to his wife, who 
 became the^ Cyfria and the dea Syria*. 
 
 The 
 
 u Et{ TO xgtuv xararai'Ta? >a? /x.ETao - jjt;ao > a//.voi. Ap. 
 
 Eufeb. Prxp. Ev. 1. i. p. 32. D. This paflage 
 
 and that in the preceding note imply, that temples had 
 been ere&ed to other gods before men were wormipped 
 in them. But, as the word temple was often ufed in a 
 large fenfe, for a place confecratedto the gods, thefe paf- 
 fages are very reconcileable with the opinion of thofe 
 who think temples, properly fo called, were, from the 
 firft, fepulchral monuments. 
 
 w Newton's Chronology, p. 224, 225. As theHea-. 
 thens erefted many temples as well as tombs to the fame 
 god, and fuppofed him to be perfonally prefentin each, 
 they mufthave afcribed to human fpirits a kind of ubi- 
 quity ; in the fame manner as the Romanifts do in offer- 
 ing prayers to the fame faint, in the fame inftant of 
 'fime, in every part of the world. Such was the doc- 
 trine
 
 378 Worfltp of human Spirits 
 
 The Syrians worfhipped one of their 
 queens, and ufed her fepulchre for a 
 temple x . At Colchis there was a temple 
 and a grove dedicated to Phrixus y . The 
 bones of Protefilaus were depofited in a 
 confecrated chapel 2 . Caflor and Pollux 
 had temples erected to them not only at 
 
 trine of Jerome; (adverf. Vigilantium, p. 42. ed. 
 Parif. 1546.) Cumdiabolus et dsemones toto vagentur 
 in orbe, et celeritate nimia ubique prafentes fint, mar- 
 tyres poft cffufionem 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 diftinguimed from the temple : 
 
 Eft urbe egreffis tumulus, templumque vetuflum 
 
 Defertae Cereris. Virg. jEn.II. 713. 
 See alfo v. 742, and below, note z . 
 
 y Above, t p. 1 20. 
 
 z Ib. p. 121. Numerous inftances of perfons of 
 high rank being buried within the precinfts of temples 
 may be found in Clem. Alexandr. Cohort, ad Gent. p. 
 39. Arnob. p. 193. Cyril, contr. Julian, p. 342. I 
 lhall only add, that Apries was buried in the fepulchre 
 of his anceftors, erefted in the temple of Minerva. 
 Herodotus, 1. 2. c. 169. The fame hiilorian fays of 
 Amaiis, 1. 3. C. IO. Erapj T;<rt Tafnert T<n tv ?v 
 )eu, raj as/To? oodb/A!<raTG. 
 
 Sparta^
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 379 
 Sparta, but at Athens 3 . And Maximus 
 Tyrius, fpeakingof Egypt, fays, A god 
 dies and is buried, and you arejhewn In the 
 fame place his temple and his tomb*. Laftly, 
 the reafon given by Herodotus for there 
 being no temples in Perfia, viz. that 
 their gods had not been men c a clear- 
 ly fhews, that it was 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- 
 ple of Be/us, (the founder of the Babylo^ 
 nian empire ;) which fufficiently fhews, 
 that it was his fepulchral monument, 
 and erected for his worfhip. The pyra- 
 
 Theodoret (1. 8. Graecanicarum affeftionum) fays, 
 
 x repei/a* sx E 
 y%Kiicrciti. 
 
 SUHVVTOU ita,^ aiirotf ugoi/ Sea, xa ra^oj SEB. Maxim. 
 Tyr. DifTert. 38. p. 398. ed. Davif. Cantab. 1703. 
 
 c Herodot. 1. i. c. 131. cited above, p. 48. 
 . d See above, p. 194. 
 
 mids
 
 380 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 raids built by Porfena, king of Etruria, 
 near Clufium, and by Caeflius, at Rome, 
 were alfo the fepulchres and monuments 
 of the dead e . 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 dirtincl:ion f . The 
 Egyptians 8 , in particular, though not 
 
 very 
 
 Greave's Defcription of the Pyramids, p. 64, 
 Univ. Hift. 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. Weffeling. The monu- 
 ment of Hephasftion coft twelve thoufand talents. 
 Juftin. 1. 12, c. 12. See Borlafe's Antiq. of Cornw. 
 p. 218. 
 
 s Et regum cineres exftru&o 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 manfons*. They feem to 
 have believed, that, as long as the body 
 lafted, 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 hiflorians reprefentthe pyramids 
 as royal fepulchres. From Herodotus 
 we learn, that the body of Cheops l was 
 depofited under the pyramid which he 
 himfelf had built k ; that his fon and 
 
 chres of -the ancient kings of Egypt fee Diodor. Sic. 
 1. 2. p. 56, 57. 
 
 h Tapsj ai'&as oxf ffgoo-ayogivatrw. Diodor. Sic. I. 1. 
 p. 60, 61. 
 
 1 By Diodorus he is called Chemnis, 1. i. p. 72. 
 
 k Herodot. 1.2. c. 124-127. In this pyramid there 
 .(lands a tomb at this day. Univerfal Hift. v. i. p. 
 429, 438. 
 
 daughter
 
 3 82 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 daughter did each of them imitate their 
 father in building a pyramid ! , (no doubt 
 with the fame intention ;) that Afychis 
 erected a pyramid of brick fop his mo- 
 nument m ; and that the labyrinth, near 
 the lake Mceris, a flrucTiure 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, werq by them defigned for 
 their own fepulchres, though both were 
 buried in other places p . To thefe tefti- 
 
 monies 
 
 1 Herodot. ubi fupra. m Id. ib. c. 136. 
 
 h Ib. c. 149. 
 
 IIoXXoM j/.st 'iiv^a.M^t^ E(i7t, T*OJ Ttav @Fk}.eur, StlVi- 
 
 bo, 1. 17, p. 1161. 
 
 P Tut <h fatcnAewv tuv xT 'et&y.evffoiTur O.VTX/; eeivron; 
 
 Diodor. Sic. 1. I. p. 73. But, though it fo fell out 
 that neither of thefe kings was buried in the pyramid 
 
 he
 
 in tie ancient heathen World. 383 
 
 monies I might add thofe of Lucan q , 
 Statius', and Clemens Alexandrinus ' ; 
 as alfo thofe of the Arabs, Copts, and 
 Sabians* -, were they wanted in fo plain a 
 cafe". 
 
 The 
 
 he erected, neverthelefs both the edifices might be ufcd 
 as altars for their worfhip. As the afh.es of Germani- 
 cus were carried through the cities of Italy, Tacitus 
 fays, (Annal. 1. 3. c. 2.) Etiam quorum diverfa oppi- 
 da, tamen obvii, et viftimas atque aras diis manibua 
 ftatuentes, lacrimis et conclamationibus dolorem tefta- 
 bantur, See what was obferved above concerning hono- 
 rary tombs, p. 327 & feq. 
 
 i Cum Ptolemsorum manes, feriemque pudendam, 
 Pyramides claudant, indignaque maufolea. L. 8. 
 v. 698. Pyramidum tumulis evnlfus Amafis. Id. 1. g. 
 v. 155. Compare Pliny, Nat. Hift. 1. 36. p. 738. 
 torn. 2. ed. Harduin. 
 
 Atque utinam, Fortuna, dares mihi manibus aras, 
 Par templis opus, aeriamque educere molem, 
 Cyclopum fcopulos ultra, atque audacia faxa 
 Pyramidum, et magno tumulum praitexere luco. 
 
 Stat. Sylv. v. 3. 47. 
 9 Cohort, ad Gent. p. 44. ed. Potteri. 
 1 Univer. Hift. v. I. p. 427. See p. 445. 
 See Dr. Pococke's account of the pyramids, Ob- 
 fervations on Egypt, v. i. p. 40-67. Dr. Shaw (Tra- 
 vels, p. 418, ift ed.) objedls againft the pyramids of 
 
 Cepbren&s
 
 3 84 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 The pyramids were not only places 
 of fepulture, but of religious worfhip. 
 They were commonly called the co- 
 lumns or altars of the gods w . 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 y . 
 That the pyramids were altars is a point 
 which cannot be difputed j 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 
 
 Cfphrenes and Mycerinut being fepulchres, becaufe " no 
 " paffage was left open into them as into the great py- 
 " ramid." But the entrance into the great pyramid 
 was at f.rft jbut up. Pococke, v. i. p. 234,240, 244. 
 The cafe was probably the fame as to the other two. 
 
 * See Kircher, (Oedipus vEgyptiacus, 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 pyramidum celfas folvuntur ad arasi 
 The fteps, by which they afcended to the top, were 
 called by fome gup&$, little altars. Herodot. 1. 2, 
 c. 125. 
 
 * Univ. Hift. ubi fupra, p. 432. 
 y Id, ib. p. 440. 
 
 men
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 385 
 
 men as were deified, if not of all other 
 perfons z . They were fometimes placed 
 upon the monument % which exactly 
 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 b . 
 Nay, funeral piles were conftrucled 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 
 
 z Hence we read of the ara fepulchri, Virg. JEti. 
 VI. 177. and of the arse fepulchrales, Ovid. Meta- 
 morph; VIII. 480. See Virg. JEn. V. 47, 48. III. 
 305. Altars were fometimes only a heap of green 
 turf: Araque gramineo viridi de cefpite fiat. Ovid. 
 Trift. V. 9. And fuch altars were, it is probable, 
 raifed at all graves. 
 
 a In eo monumento folium porphyretici marmoris 
 fuperftante Lunenfi ara. Sueton. Ner. c. 50. 
 
 5 Bupos ' o ra<po ? . Diodor. Sic. 1. xi. p. 412. eJ. 
 Weffeling. 
 
 c Pyra. qua; in modum ara: conftrui lignis folebat. 
 Servius in Virg. JS,R. VI. 177- 
 
 C c of
 
 386 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 of the Egyptian monarchs. At every 
 common fepulchre, prayers, facrifices, 
 and libations, were 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 
 creeled to the fame deity. The great 
 height of the pyramids well agrees with 
 the opinion of their being the fepulchral 
 monuments and altars of the Egyptian 
 monarchs. High columns and pyramids, 
 over the tombs of perfons of the greateft 
 diftinftion", correfponded to their former 
 flate and dignity, and were defigned to 
 announce their exaltation, after death, 
 to the rank of the celeflial gods. 
 
 Some 
 
 * Servias, on Virg. JEn. XI. 489, fays, Apud ma- 
 jores, nobiles, aut fub montibus altis, aut in ipfis mon- 
 xtibus fepeliabantur ; unde natum eft, ut, fuper cada- 
 vera, aut pyramides aut ingentes collocarentur colum- 
 nse. See above, p. 380, note { . Concerning an ara 
 fepulchri Virgil fays, ccelo educere certant. ^En. 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, omnibufque cceleltibus, excelfiffimar, (fc. arse) : 
 
 Veftjc,
 
 in the ancient heathen "World. 3 87 
 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, refembling 
 (as they allege) a riling flame, which 
 from a broad bafe gradually leflens and 
 terminates in a point % were fymbols 
 of fire f 3 and hence have concluded, that 
 they were confecrated to the fun g . 
 
 Veftae, terrse,. marique humiles, in mediis aedibus conlK- 
 tuerentur. Vitruv. 1. 4. c, 8. See Potter's Gr. Ant. 
 VI. b. ii. ch.2.p.i;?8, 179. and below, p. 390, note . 
 
 e Ad ignis fpeciem extenuatur in conum, Ammian. 
 Marcellin. 1. 2.2. c. 15. p. 262. Some derive pyramid 
 from the Greek word pur, fire. Others, who moro, 
 properly look for the etymology of it in the Coptic lan- 
 guage, derive it either from pourv, a king, and" mijl, a 
 generation, (Univerf. Hift. ubi fupra, p. 425.) or from 
 piromis, which, according to Herodotus, (1. 2. c. 143, 
 144.) denotes> in the language of Egypt, a worthy and 
 Irave man. Perizon. ^Egypt. Orig. torn. i. p. 447* 
 
 f Porphyr. ap. Eufeb. Prcep. Ev. 1.3. c.7- p. 98.0. 
 
 Cones and obelifks, it is faid, were dedicated to 
 the fun. Porphyr. ubi fupra. Hermatiles ap. Ter- 
 tttllian. de fpeftaculis, c. 8. p. 76. ed. Rigalt. 1675. 
 Plin. Hiit. Nat. 1. 36. c. 8. torn, 2. p. 735. ed. Har- 
 duin. 
 
 C c 2 But
 
 3 88 Worfoip 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 h . The reafon, why 
 they frequently made ufeof the pyramidal 
 figure for thefe monuments, probably 
 was it's being the moft permanent form 
 offtructure 1 . However this may be, cer- 
 tain it is in fact, that, though obelilks 
 and pyramidal pillars might be originally 
 confecrated to the elements k , they were 
 afterwards creeled 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 obeliiks and pyra- 
 mids 1 . The mere figure, therefore, of the 
 
 pyramids 
 
 h Univ. Hift. p. 432. * Id. ib, p. 430. 
 
 k According to Sanchoniathon, (ap. Eufeb. Prsp. 
 Ev. 1. i. p. 35. A.) Uibus confecrated two columns to 
 the iwWandyf/v. See above, note f . 
 
 1 Paufanias in Corinth, p. 132, 133. Maxim. Tyr. 
 Diflert, 38. p. 401. ed. Davif. Clem. Alexandr. Stro- 
 
 mat.
 
 In the ancient heathen World. 
 
 pyramids of Egypt, creates no fort of pre- 
 fumption 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 m . But the objec- 
 tion we are confidering was advanced, by 
 fome of the heathen philofophers, mere- 
 ly to throw a veil over that mocking ab- 
 furdity, the worfhip of mortal gods, 
 of which the pyramids furnifh the moft 
 ftriking and lailing evidence. Not only 
 were pyramids and temples, but, 
 
 IV. The OTHER PLACES moflu- 
 fually confecrated to the gods, in very an- 
 
 mat. 1. i. p. 418. Scholiaft on the Vefpz of Arifto- 
 phanes, v. 870. 
 
 m Empedocles held m/giv* ttt ar?, (Plutarch. Placit. 
 Philofoph. 1. 2. c. 13.) and fo did the ancients in ge- 
 neral. Horace calls them igneas arces. 
 
 C c 3 tient
 
 Worjbip of human Spirits 
 
 tient times, were places of fepulture, where 
 divine hounors were paid to the dead. 
 
 This was the cafe more particularly 
 with refpect to the caves, the houfes, the 
 highways, the groves, and the mountains, 
 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 fubject to difpute". The quef- 
 tion here is, What gods were worfhip- 
 ped in thefe places ? To which I anfwer, 
 not the gods ftyledfupernal; 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 fifTures upon the tops of moun- 
 tains and rocks, though the diftindtion between them 
 has not been always attended to. 
 
 Altaria ab altitudine di&a funt : quod antiqui diis 
 fuperis in zedificiis a terra exaltatis facra faciebant. 
 Pompon. Feftus. Schedius de diis German, p. 503. 
 See above, p. 386. note rf . 
 
 worfhipped
 
 'in the ancient heathen World. 391 
 
 worfhipped without any altars, or upon 
 very low ones p . 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 r . And we have feen, 
 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 arae fuperis, ita antra erant diis inferi* 
 deftinata. Tomafm. de Donariis veterum, c. 5. 
 
 * Sepulchra fueruntolim veteribus, quz etiam antea 
 domos przebuerunt, fpeltmca% Petit. Leg. Attic, p. 
 595. Bos (Antiq. of Greece, ch. 23. p. 426.) has 
 &ewn that caves were fepulchres, 
 
 C c 4 A
 
 392 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 A very learned writer* would perfuadc 
 us, " that the reverence paid to caves 
 " and grottos arofe from a notion, that 
 (C they were a reprefentation 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 1 ? 
 But Porphyry's explication of this grotto 
 receives no fupport from Homer, and 
 has been pronounced, by the mofl im^ 
 partial and capable judges, a laboured 
 and dijlant allegory*. It was, at beft, a 
 mere fpeculation of the learned, remote 
 from the conception and creed of the 
 people : and therefore does not belong 
 to our prefent fubjec~l. We are to pafs the 
 fame judgement on what Porphyry fays, 
 when he reprefents the Arcadians as 
 
 Bryant, Mythol. v. I. p. 232. 
 
 * Ei*oa pfonTOf <T7r;Xaty T xotr/xa. De Antro Nymph, 
 P. 254. See alfop. 2^2, 262. 
 11 Odyff. 1. 13. v. 103. 
 w Pope's Homer, in the note on v. 1 24. 
 
 worfhipping
 
 m the ancient heathen World. 393 
 worfhipping the moon in caves'. He on- 
 ly gives us his own phyfical ejfplication 
 of (what was very different from it) the 
 popular and civil theology. Nothing is 
 fo likely to prevent us from forming juft 
 Ideas of the eftablifhed religion of the 
 Heathens as not conftantly diftinguifh- 
 jng between that and the glories of the 
 philofophers ; many of which were in- 
 vented merely to fupport it's reputation, 
 and were propagated with peculiar zeal 
 after Chriflianity had raifed up new and 
 powerful enemies againft it. 
 
 It may be farther objected, that Mi- 
 thras was worfhipped in a cave y , though, 
 according to Hefychius 2 , Strabo", Sui- 
 das b , and other writers, this Perfian de- 
 ity was the fun. But Mithras, even fup- 
 
 * Pbrphyr. d? Antoro Nyfiiph, p. 262, 
 
 y Porphyr. de Antro Nymphar. p. 262. Bryant's 
 Mythol. v.i. p. 217, 224. Kircher's Oedip. /Egypt. 
 Syntag. 3. c. 7. p. 216. Statins, Theb. 1. I. v. 719. 
 
 z In voc. M%*?, o *o? *r*?t flf<7-t{. 
 
 * T^w<ri & x r,Xov, oc xef^aft M^. Strabo, 1. 
 
 ^5. p. 1064. 
 
 eti TO X*o. Suidas in VOC. 
 
 pofing
 
 394 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 pofing him to have been a man, might 
 be put for the fun, as Apollo and Oliris 
 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 necefTary to in- 
 quire here on what accounts' Mithras 
 was put for the fun, though a human 
 fpirit 5 but the idea of him here given is 
 fupported by the authority of Statius, 
 
 c Some human fouls were faid to be converted into 
 celeftial luminaries. Diflert. on Mir. p. 214. note'. 
 Sometimes the presiding demon was called by the name 
 of the celeftial deity from whom he derived his autho- 
 rity. Ib. p. 175, note 1 , p. 179, note f . Thofe, who 
 confidered human figures as fymbols, fpoke of thofe 
 fymbols as being the gods they reprefented. According 
 to Julius Firmicus, the Perfians reprefented fire under 
 the image of a man and woman : (Et niiri et fcemin<e 
 Jimulacbra ignis fubjlantiam deputantes t p. 1 1 . ) 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 worfhip to all, 
 and to the people the fole object. 
 
 who
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 395 
 
 who makes Apollo, Ofiris, and Mithras, 
 to be one and the fame perfon d . 
 
 That Mithras was not that aftrono- 
 jnical 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 worfhipped in a cave, and 
 therefore as one of the dii inferi. The fun, 
 conlidered 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 g : a plain proof of their not 
 
 ... Seu te rofeum Titana vocari 
 
 Gentis Acheraeniae ritu, feu prasftatOfmn 
 Frugiferum, feu Perfei fub rupibus antri 
 Indignata fequi torquentem cornua Mitrara. 
 
 Statius, Theb. I. 717. 
 
 3ee La&antius, as here cited, in Veenhufen's edition. 
 e Xenophon, 1. viii. p. 233. 
 f Diodorus Siculus, cited above, p. 308, note *. 
 * Juftin. Martyr, cum Tryphone Dialog, p. 168. 
 Mcntfauc. torn. I. p. 368. Borlafe, p. 145. 
 
 confidering
 
 396 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 confideringhim as one of the natural gods.' 
 Myfteries* were inftituted in honour of 
 Mithras, and human facrtfict? were offered 
 to him. Now both thefe circumftances, 
 as will be (hewn in the fequel, are proofs 
 of his being regarded as a human fpirit. 
 Upon what ground could Tiridates fay, 
 that he 'would worfhip 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 Me/tres, 
 who reigned in Htliofdb's, 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 m . 
 
 Both 
 
 h Mention is made of his myfteries by Juftin 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. 112. Ml. Lampr. in 
 Commodo. Sacra Mithriaca homicidio vero polluit, 
 
 k Eumperinde ac Mithrara fe adoraturum pronun- 
 ciavit. Hyde, c. 4. p. 112. 
 
 1 Pliny, Nat. Hift. 1.36. c. 14. p. 735. ed. Harduin. 
 
 m Belus minor, qui et Mithres. Servius on ./En. J. 
 646. The Perfians might receive his worlhip from the 
 
 A/Tynans,
 
 in tie 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 p and others, certain fa- 
 cred grottos, hewn out of a rock, were 
 tombs. Le Bruyn q likewife, and Theve- 
 not q , confidered them as places of burial. 
 It is probable therefore that the Periian 
 temples were both temples and tombs ; 
 
 Aflyrians, as they did that of Venus Urania. Hero- 
 dot. 1. i. c. 131. 
 
 II It may reconcile fome to this opinion to be inform- 
 ed, that it was holden by fo eminent a writer as Mo- 
 meim. He has fupported it by a train of reafoning dif- 
 ferent from that here ufed, to which I refer the reader. 
 See Mofheim's Latin tranflation of Cudworth, torn. I. 
 p. 421, in the note, which is abridged by the learned 
 Brucker, Hift. Critic. Philofoph. torn. I. p. 169, 170. 
 Moiheim confidered Oromafdes andArimanius as being 
 of human origin. According to Plutarch, Mithras was 
 a mediator, or middle god, between them. If. & Ofir. 
 
 p. 3 6 9- E - 
 
 Mythol. v.i. p. 222, 223. 
 
 P Rel. vet. Perf. c. 23. Bryant, p. 222. 
 
 % Ap. Bryant, p. 224, 225.
 
 398 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 and confequently the gods, worfhipped 
 in them, were departed heroes. This 
 very much confirms what was advanced 
 above 1 ", concerning the objects of wor- 
 Ihip in Perfia. 
 
 2. When men quitted dens and caves, 
 and, for their better accommodation, 
 built houfeS) thefe became places of fe~ 
 Jmlture, and confequently the fcenes 
 of the parentalia, or of thofe divine ho- 
 nours which the family paid to the ma 
 ties of their anceflors 8 . Every one knows 
 that the fire-hearths were facred to the 
 houfehold-gods*, the dii penates^ or Ia~ 
 res, the founders and guardians of the 
 family. 
 
 3. Afterwards men were buried by 
 the fides of high-ways" ; and then we read 
 
 of 
 
 * Ch. i. fehi. p. 47, &feq. 
 
 * Apud majores, omnes in fuis domibus fepeliebaii* 
 tur. Unde ortum eft ut lares colerentur in domibus. 
 Servius on yn. VI. 152. See him alfo on V. 64. 
 
 t See Plutarch, Vit. Alexand. p. 696. A. Comp 
 Vit. Coriolan. p. 224. D. 
 
 u SeeBos's Antiq. of Greece, ch. 23. p. 425. Pau- 
 ftnias takes notice of the temples and fepulchres on the 
 
 high-ways.
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 
 
 of the lares wales, who were the ghofts 
 of good men w ; of whom the traveller 
 afked a profperous journey*, and whofe 
 monuments were defigned to remind him 
 of his own mortality 7 . Thefe manes 
 were thought to be highly pleafed with 
 the addrefles of the pafTengers, which 
 was one reafon why the dead were bu- 
 ried by the high-ways 2 . 
 
 4. Groves are frequently fpoken of, in 
 the hiftory of all mankind, as places 
 of religious worfhip. As fuch they were 
 uied by the fervants of the true God", 
 
 high- ways. Kara raj O^BJ er* re<a, xai yfvuv xa 
 avJgwv raipoi. Attic. 1. I. C. 29. p. 70. 
 
 w Manes piorum, qui lares viales funt. Servius on 
 ^En. III. 302. 
 
 * Invoco vos, lares viales, ut me bene juvetis* 
 
 Plautus, Merc. v. a. 
 
 y Monumenta a monendo quse funt in fepulchris. Et 
 ideofecundum viam, quo praetereuntes admoneant et fe 
 fuifle, et illos &ffe, mortales. Varro de Lingua Latina, 
 1. v. Moreftelli Pompa feralis, 1. 3. c. 12. ap. Gixv. 
 torn. 12. p. 1414. 
 
 * See Gather de Jure Manium, 1. a. 0.13. Grstv, 
 ib. p. 1191. 
 
 * Gen. 13. 18. ck, 21. 23. 
 
 perhaps
 
 4oo fflorfoip of human Spiritt 
 
 perhaps on account of their folitude and 
 folemnity, and the protection they af- 
 forded from the fcorching heat of the 
 fun, which was a great recommendation 
 of them in hot climates. The Heathens 
 creeled temples 5 and altars, and perfor- 
 med the feveral rites of idolatry, in 
 thick woods, which flruck the wormip- 
 pers with awe, and gave the priefls art 
 opportunity of carrying on their impof- 
 tures. The groves and trees were confe- 
 crated to particular divinities 6 , called by 
 their names' 1 , and worfhipped e as their 
 
 b Groves themfelves are fometimes fpokenof as tdm- 
 ples, and were perhaps the molt antient ones. 
 
 c Arborum genera numinibus fuis dicata perpetual 
 fervantur. Pliny, Nat. Hift. 1. 12* c. 1. 
 
 d Lucos ac nemora confecrant, deorumque nomiriI- 
 bus appellant fecretum illud, quod fola reverentia vi- 
 dent. Tacit, de Mor. Germ. c. $. 
 
 e Sanchoniathon fays, (ap. Eufeb. Praep. Ev. 1. ii 
 C. 1O. p. 34. B.) They confecrated the productions of the 
 earth, tailed them gods, and wor/hipped them. Trees 
 were addreffed as intelligent beings, and in the very 
 fame ftyle as the gods themfelves to whom they were 
 confecrated. Hsec facrata quercus, etquicquiddeorum^ 
 ttudiat fcedus z vobis ruptum. Liv. L 3,. ; 25. 
 
 fymbols
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 40 r 
 fymbols and reprefentatives, or as having 
 their refpec~live gods belonging to them. 
 
 But the fingle queftion before us here 
 is, Who the gods themfelves were whom 
 the Heathens worfhipped 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 f , dedicated 
 to the worfhip of hero-gods. Servius af- 
 ierts, that the groves were confidered as 
 the dwellings of the fouls of heroes 2 . 
 Cicero appeals to the Alban tombs, and 
 groves, and altars' 1 . And many inflances 
 
 f Mortuorum fepulchra erant fubartnribus, lucifque 
 circumfepta. La Cerda, ad ^En. VI. 763. It was a 
 law amongft the antient Etrufcans, Si quis fepulckrunt 
 proprium non ba&uerit, in nemorofa Jylva fepeliatur. E- 
 tru-fc. Fragm. 1.3. p. 176. See Gen. 35. 8* 2 Kings 
 23. 15, 16. 
 
 s Dicuntur heroum animaj lucbs tenere. Servius on 
 ./En. I. 445. Lucum nunquam ponit Virgilius Jine.re- 
 ligione : namque in ipfis habitant manes piorum. Id. 
 on JEn. III. 302. 
 
 h Vos, Albani tumuli atqueluci, vos, inquani, im- 
 ploro atque ohteftor, vofque, Albanorum obrutae arse. 
 Orat. pro Milone, c. 31. 
 
 D d are
 
 402 Worfhlp of human Spirits 
 
 are on record of the dedication of woods, 
 together with priefts and altars, to the 
 fpirits of deified men and women 1 . Au- 
 guftus confecrated one of thefe places to 
 the dii manes* in general. 
 
 Groves were coniidered as the habita- 
 tions 1 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, 
 coniidered as the habitations of the fun," 
 moon, and ftars, 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- 
 
 1 To Anchifes, Virg. JEn. V. 760. To Juno, I. 
 445. To Heftor, III. 302. To Egeria, who was the 
 wife of Nuraa, Ovid.Fafti, III. 262-276. See Virg. 
 -ffin.IX. 3, 4. &VII. 171. 
 
 k Boiffard. Tcpogr. torn. I. p. 50. 
 
 1 Numen inert. Ovid. Fafti, III. 295. Habitat dens* 
 Virg. ^En. VIII. 352. See^En. VI. 673. Ovid, Am. 
 1. 3. el. I. I. Lucan, III. 423 & feq. Seneca, ep. 41. 
 
 m Lastiffimus umbra. Virg. JEn.I. 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 fuppofed 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 pleafure calls, from verdant grove to grove ; 
 Stretch'd on the flow'ry meads, at eafe, we lie, 
 And hear the filver rills run bubbling by. Pitt. 
 
 n The temple of Mercury had (&ogsa ga<y*i}y.a) frees 
 that reached up to heaven, according to Herodotus, 1.2. 
 c. 138. The grove of Neptune had trees <ita,n<S.<xa. 
 HOMO? K\]/OJ T iai/xonwii. Platon. Critias, torn. 3. p. 
 117. ed. Serran. 
 
 K* (Sri/Aon Kwf'ffctre tx a^tm Sij^ijEfT*, 
 
 Ayx<> fiahn xg'i"?j fijAAoy. Homer. Hymn, in 
 Apoll. See Horat. Art. poet. v. 16. 
 P See Paufanias, Corinth, p. 198. 
 3 Nemora enim aptabant fepulchris ; ut in amoenitate 
 animae forent poft vitam. Servius on Virg. ^n. V. 760. 
 r Nulli certa domus. Lucis habitamus opacis, 
 Riparumque'toros, et prata recentia rivis 
 Incolimus. JEn. VI. 673. 
 
 D d 2 c.
 
 404 Worfhlp of human Spirits 
 
 5. Amongft the places confecrated to 
 the heathen gods I muil not omit to 
 mention the fummits of mountains*, 
 whether formed by nature or conftrufted 
 by art 1 . 
 
 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 celeftial. 
 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 to Melanthes . 
 
 If the reader be ignorant of the antient cuftom of 
 worfhipping upon mountains, he may confult Paufanias, 
 P- 1 7S 1 9^> 1 97> 892. Virg. ^En. V. 760. Potter, 
 Gr. Antiq. v. 1. p. 179. v. 2. p. 238, 239. Freytag. 
 de facris Gentium Montibus. Bryant's Myth. v. I. p. 
 119, 235, & feq. Sched. de Diis Germ. p. 502. Le 
 Clerc and Patrick on Levit. xxvi. 30. 
 
 * As to artificial mounts, fee above, p. 380, notes f , 
 *, andGibbons'sHiftory, v. 3. p. 83. 
 
 u De Sacrifices. TLuv & ego; ra A<oj 0^05 oto^a^sru^ 
 Potter, v.i. p. 179. Bryant, v. i. p. 238, 
 
 Kings
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 405 
 Kings and great men were buried up- 
 on mountain s w , (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 worfhip, 
 agreeably to the conftant cuftom of an- 
 tiquity, Accordingly we find, that facri- 
 fices were offered to the dead, and their 
 ghofls confulted, upon mountains 5 ". 
 The reafon affigned by the Gentiles, for 
 worfhipping 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 2 : a reafon not at all adapted 
 D d 3 to 
 
 v Deut. xxxii. 50. Jolh. xxiv. 30, 33. See the 
 next note. 
 
 * - Fuit ingens monte fub alto 
 
 Regis Dercenni terreno ex aggere buftum. 
 
 JEn.XI. 849. 
 
 Apud majores, nobiles, aut fub montibus altis, aut in 
 ipfis montibus, fepeliebantur. Servius inloc, ' 
 y See Spencer deLeg. Hebr. p. 382. 
 
 z Tuv t>oX ay%o$6 wai'iw*, fc. ot $eoi. Lucian. 
 
 de Syj. Dea, p. 672. ed. Amltel. This is the reafon 
 
 affigned
 
 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 5 
 nor even of the fun above them, becaufe 
 they conceived of that glorious luminary 
 as feeing and hearing all things*. But, as 
 to the gods taken from amongft 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 
 
 affigned for worfliipping 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 asdituus, ut nos ad aures fi- 
 mulachri, quafi magis exaudiri poffimus, admittat, 
 Senec. ep. 41. p. 453, ed. Lipui. The Getes muft 
 have thought their god quite out of the reach of hear- 
 ing, even from the higheft mountain ; for they fent a 
 meffenger 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 b . 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 flill more agreeable 
 to them, by temples, and groves, and 
 fprings, and whatever elfe could gratify 
 human ghofts that preferved all the dif- 
 pofitions of their former Hate. To fuch 
 ghofls, therefore, the worfhip upon 
 high places was directed*. 
 
 I have now (hewn to what gods divine 
 honours were paid, at fepulchres, in 
 temples, in pyramids, in caves, in hou- 
 
 b Sharp's Letters from Italy, p. 305. 
 c The Grecian Jupiter is thus defcribed : 
 Atr5 ^ iv xogf^ijc-* xaSc^eTo xv5Vi yctiuv. Hom. II. VIII. C I. 
 
 The pleafure the gods take in high places is given as the 
 reafon of conftru&ing temples upon them in Japan. 
 Kaemfer, Hiftory of Japan, v. 2. b. 5. 0.3. p. 417. 
 Bryant, v. I. p. 238. 
 
 d I acknowledge, that thofe, who thought the Per- 
 iians and others worshipped only the natural gods, re- 
 prejent them as performing that worfhip upon moun- 
 tains : but, if we allow the faft, that the Perfians wor- 
 fhipped only the natural -gods, they muft, in worfhipping 
 them upon mountains, haveafted upon principles diffe- 
 rent from thole Hated above. But the fact itfelf is dif- 
 
 D d 4 fes,
 
 40 8 WorJJoip 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 induction of particulars abundantly 
 demonftrates 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 e j to thofe flyled natural, as fome 
 
 maintain, 
 
 e Clem. Alexandr. Stromat. I. i, p. 418. Maxim. 
 Tyr. Diflert. 38. p. 401. ed. Davif. Herodian. 1. 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, O< 
 wXKmot &'Jha, tcgvcvro irs^tyu.v'i), xai xwaj 
 Q,ui hominum erant antiquiores UgHo. 
 rigebant
 
 'in the ancient heathen World. 409 
 maintain f , and certainly to thofe who 
 had their original from mortality 8 . But 
 thefe things were not defigned as refem- 
 blances, but merely as figns and fynv- 
 
 erigebant infignia, et columnas ponebant ex lapidilus. 
 Many particular examples of both may be found in the 
 places here referred to. 
 
 f Sanchoniathon referred to above, p, 388, note fc , 
 is fpeaking of the moft antient times. Of thofe times 
 Maimonides alfo fpeaks, when he fays, Zabiierexerunt 
 ftellis imagines. Mor. Nevoch. pars III. c. 29. p. 
 423. Mede however was of opinion, that both pillars 
 and images were, by original inftitution, peculiar to de- 
 jnons, though, through fome confufion, they were af- 
 terwards alcribed to other deities. Works, p. 632. 
 The miftake, if it was one, might be owing to their 
 referring to the ftars themfelves the worfhip 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 prrfiding de- 
 jnon, or the ultimate and immediate objeft of worfliip, 
 are confounded together. 
 
 8 TUTU* 
 
 sui XT' ETC;. Sanchon. ap. Eufeb. Praep. Ev. 
 1. i. p. 35. B. Thefe pillars, or {tones, were fet up at 
 fepulchres. Homer. II. xi. 371. xvii. 434. Pindar. 
 Nem. Ode x. v. 125. See alfo Paufanias in Corin- 
 thaic. c. 29. In Achaic. c. 22. In Bceot. c. 24. See 
 Jikewife Borlafe's Antiq. of Cornwall, p. 186 &feq. 
 
 bols a
 
 410 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 bols, of the gods. Neverthelefs, the 
 Greeks, univerfally, and from the moft 
 remote antiquity, paid the fame divine 
 worfhip to thefe Jigm as to \hzjlatues 
 of the gods h . 
 
 When the arts of fculpture and ftatu- 
 ary were invented, a human form was 
 given to thefe fubflitutes of the heathen 
 gods, that they might bear a refem- 
 blance to the obje&s 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 1 . There is the 
 more reafon to believe, that the images 
 of the gods in human form were intend- 
 ed to rcprefent human perfonages, as 
 the cuftom of making thefe images had 
 
 h T & m 
 
 Qiur aTi ayaX/xaTwn EX" a 7" XtSo*. Paufan. in A- 
 chaicis, p. 579. Concerning the worfhip of confecra- 
 ted ftones, the reader may confult Bp. Lowth's note on 
 If. Ivii. 6. 
 
 1 When they aimed at making fome refemblance of 
 the fun, the Pasonians reprefented him by a di&. 
 Maxim. Tyr. DiiTert. 58. p. 4oz. 
 
 it's
 
 In the ancient heathen World. 411 
 
 it's rife in Egypt" ; where dead men were 
 worfhipped, firil <e in perfon, that is, in 
 <e their mummies , which, when loft, con- 
 " fumed, or deftroyed, were worfhipped 
 ft by reprefentation, under an image made 
 < c with it's legs bound up, in likenefs 
 <c of the mummies 1 ." ThePerfians, who 
 were faid to worfhip only, or principally, 
 elementary and iiderial deities, had 
 no ftatues of their gods at all ; and for 
 this very reafon, becaufe they did not 
 partake of human nature" 1 . Nay, fomc 
 jiations, whofe gods were dead men, 
 worfhipped them without ftatues n . And, 
 where all the hero-gods had their ima- 
 ges, yet there was even there no image 
 of the fun or moon, becaufe their afpefts 
 were confpicuous to all . It is natural 
 to conclude, from thefe premifes, that 
 
 k Herodot. 1. 2. c. 4. 
 
 1 Warburton's Div. Legat. v. 2. p. 290. ed. 1755. 
 m See above, p. 47, concerning the Perfians. 
 n As the Germans, and the Romans during the time 
 of Numa. Above, p. 40, 250. 
 
 See the account given of the Syrians, p. 201. 
 
 the
 
 412 Worjhtp 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- 
 ject p . 
 
 Balbus q , indeed, fays, " that from a 
 cc phfaal reafon has proceeded a great 
 " multitude of gods, who, being repre- 
 " fentedin human form, have fupplied 
 " the poets with fables". Varro alfo 
 was of opinion, that the images of the 
 gods were originally intended to direcl: 
 fuch, as were acquainted with the fecret 
 
 P Quid denique 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-* 
 nes, fimilia jnortuis funt ; omnienim fenfu carent. Id, 
 ib. Dum reges fuos colunt religione, dum defundlos 
 cos defiderant in imaginibus videre, &c. Minuc. Pel. 
 p. I57 158. ed. Varior. 1672. Concerning the fenti- 
 ments of Eufebius on this fubjeft, fee Div. Legat. v. j . 
 p. 97, 98, in the note. 
 
 i Ap. Cicer. Nat. Deor. 1. 2. 0.24. Aliaquoqueex 
 j-atione, et quidem phyfica, magnafluxit multitude deo- 
 rum : qui induti fpecie huraana fabulas poetis fuppedi- 
 taverunt. 
 
 doftrine,
 
 'in tie ancient heathen World. .413 
 doctrine, 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 nearefl re- 
 femblance to the immortal (and univer- 
 fal) mind r . And Maximus Tyrius 
 largely defends the ufe of thefe images 
 upon the fame ground ; and pleads, that, 
 of all others, they are the mofl proper 
 fymbols of the gods 8 . 
 
 .../> '..'.'.: J;L 
 
 * Interpretationes phyficas fie Varro commendat, uc 
 dicat antiques fimulachra deorum, et infignia, orna- 
 tufque confinxifle : quae cum oculis animadvertiflent hi, 
 qui adiflent dodtrinas myfteria, poflent animam mundi 
 ac partes ejus, id eft, decs veros, animo videre : quo- 
 rum qui fimulachra fpecie hominis fecerunt, hoc videri 
 fequutos, quod mortalium animus, qui eft in corpore 
 humano, fimillimus eft immortalis animi ; tanquam fi 
 vafa ponerentur caufa notandorum deorum, et in Libe- 
 ri zede 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 nature deum volunt efle, vel deos. 
 Varro ap. Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 7. c. 5. 
 
 Maxim. Tyr. Differ!. 38. Plotinus alfo fpeaks of 
 itatues as defigned to fix men's thoughts on the foul of 
 the world. Ennead. IV. 1.3. c. n. 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 we are fpeaking, reprefented real 
 men and women, fuch as were fuppofed 
 to be advanced to the rank of gods and 
 goddefles, and were worfhipped as fuch : 
 that thefe deities were the immediate ob- 
 jects of the eftablifhed worfhip, not the 
 natural gods, to whom there could be only 
 a remote and ultimate reference : that this 
 reference was underflood only by thofe 
 who were inftructed in the myfteries of 
 the heathen religion : that, confequently, 
 
 the
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 41 r 
 
 the common people worfliipped images, 
 not as figns or emblems of the deified ob- 
 jects 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 objection we are con- 
 fidering, inftead of overturning, eftablifh- 
 es, both the humanity of the direct objects 
 of the eftablifhed worfhip amongft the 
 Heathens, and the proof of it drawn 
 from the reprefentation of them under 
 human figures. 
 
 Thefe figures, as well as the human 
 perfonages whom they reprefented, were 
 deemed gods, and worfhipped as fuch' j 
 not, indeed, on account of the fenfelefs 
 materials of which they were compofed, 
 but, as the Heathens alleged, of their 
 
 1 Quisenim dubitat horum imagines confecratas vul- 
 gusorare, et publice colere ? Minuc. Pel. p. 217. ed. 
 Tar. Colitur pro Jove forma Jovis. Ovid. Ep. ex 
 Ponto, I. 2. ep. viii. v. 62. 
 
 divine
 
 4 1 6 tVorfiip 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 flatues, and to detain 
 them there*. And, though many ima- 
 ges and flatues were creeled to the fame 
 god, yet in each of them he was fuppo- 
 fed to be perfonally prefent*. Now this 
 idea of facred images, as the fixed reft- 
 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 x r eneramur, quos dedi- 
 catio infertfacra, et fabrilibus efficit inhabitare fimula- 
 cris. Arnob. 1.6. p. 203. See Celfus ap. Origen. 
 contr. Celf. 1.7. p. 373. 
 
 w Sometimes, to prevent his defection, the ftatue of 
 the god was chained to its pedeftal. Diodor. Sic. 1. 17* 
 p. 191. ed. Wcffeling. 
 
 * Jnfimulacris dii habitant: finguline in fmgulis to- 
 tis, an partiliter atque in membra divifi ? Nam neque 
 cna$ deus in compluribus potis eft uno tempore ineffe ft- 
 mulacris, neque rurfus in paries fedione intervenient* 
 divifus, 
 
 thenx
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 417 
 them by the Heathens, who made them, 
 as bodie^ to be informed with demons, 
 or the fpirits of departed men, as with 
 fouls*. 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 worfhip among the Gen- 
 tiles, and indeed among all other peo- 
 ple, has ever been adapted to the opinion 
 they formed of it's object. 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 mind. Such of them as regar- 
 ded the luminaries of heaven, as benefi- 
 cent and divine intelligences that gover- 
 ned the world, worfhipped them with 
 
 r Mede's works, p. 632. * Eufebius, ib. p. 680. 
 
 E c tymm
 
 4 1 8 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 hymns andpraifes*, in teftimony of their 
 gratitude j or by klffing the hand, and 
 homing 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 
 necefTary 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 fhew, 
 that the eftablifhed worfhip of the Hea- 
 thens was built upon thefe conceptions, 
 and that this circumftance points out 
 the human origin of the more immediate 
 objects of that worfhip. 
 
 Mede's Works, p. 636. 
 
 * If I beheld the fun, or the moon, and my mouth hath 
 KJ/ed my hand. Job xxxi. 26, 27. The Israelites are 
 forbidden to worjhip, or, as the original word imports, 
 to btnd or bmv down to, the fun, moon, and ftars, 
 Deuter. iv. 19. 
 
 Before
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 419 
 
 Before we enter upon this argument, 
 we mufl imagine ourfelves in the fame 
 fituation as the ancient Heathens were, 
 fill our minds with the fame ideas they 
 had, and recollect more efpecially what 
 were their notions of human ghofts, and 
 of their future flate of exiilence. On 
 the correfpondence of their worfhip to 
 thefe notions the force of the argument 
 depends. 
 
 The obvious diftincrion between the 
 foul and body of man, and the perma- 
 nence of the former after the diflblution 
 of the latter, could not but be admitted 
 by all the nations that worfhipped the 
 dead. Happy would it have been had 
 they gone no farther, except to affert a 
 future flate of retribution. But they 
 gave an unbounded fcope to their imagi- 
 nations. They not only afcribed to fe- 
 parate fpirits, as indeed they juftly 
 might, all their former mental affec- 
 E e 2 tions,
 
 420 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 tions b , but all the fenfations c , appe- 
 tites, and paflions, of their bodily ftate j 
 fuch as hanger and thirfl d s and the pro- 
 penfities founded upon the difference 
 of fexes e . Ghofts were thought to be 
 addicted to the fame exercifes and em- 
 
 b Of the parental affection we have an amiable ex- 
 ample in the ghoft of Anchifes. Virg. ^En. VI. 685. 
 Proofs of the hatred ghofts bore to their enemies, both 
 when living and after their deaths, are produced by 
 Potter, B. 4. c. 8. p. 261. I mall add the following 
 paffage from Ovid, in Ibidem, v. 139. 
 
 Nee mors mihi finiet iras, 
 
 Sasva fed in manes manibus armadabit: 
 Tune quoque cum fuero vacuas dilapfus in auras, 
 Exanimis manes oderit umbra tuos. 
 
 See alfo Horace, Carm. V. 5. Virg. JEn. IV. 384. 
 and the very chara&eriftic defcription of the ghoft of A- 
 jax, Homer, Odyff. XI. 542. and of the other ghofts 
 in the fame book. 
 
 c Hence that prayer, taken notice of above, that the 
 earth might lie light or heavy on the dead. 
 
 d This appears from their being provided, as it will 
 be (hewn they were, with the means of gratifying thefe 
 appetites. 
 
 * Hercules, though he feafted with the immortal 
 gods, was wedded to Hebe. Homer, II. XL 602. 
 Some have thought that ghofts could affume a humaiv 
 body. 
 
 ployments
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 421 
 
 ployments as had been their delight 
 while men f . And, though they could 
 not be felt and handled 8 , like bodies 
 of flefh and blood, and were of a larger 
 fize h ; 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 impreflion of their wounds ! . 
 
 Their idea of men's future ftate of ex- 
 iflence was formed upon the model of our 
 prefent condition. They lent money in, 
 this world upon bills payable in the 
 
 9 Pars in gramineis exercent membra palseftris, 
 &c. Virg. ^En. VI. 642. 
 
 Quas gratia currum 
 
 Armorumque fuit vivis, quae cura nitentis 
 Pafcere equos, eadem fequitur tellure repoftos. 
 
 Id. ib. v. 653. 
 
 Multo magis reftores quondam urbium recepti in coelum 
 curam regendorum hominum non relinquunt. Macro- 
 bius, in Somn. Scip. 1. i. c. 9. 
 * Homer, OdyfT. XI. 205. 
 k Et nunc magnamei fub terras ibit imago. 
 
 Virg. ^En. IV. 654. 
 Homer, Odyff. XI. 40. Virg. ^En. VI. 495- 
 
 E e 3 next.
 
 422 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 next 14 . Between both worlds there was 
 thought to be an open intercourfe j 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 Cha- 
 ron for his paflage over Styx; and a 
 cake, of which honey was the principal 
 ingredient, to pacify the growling Cer- 
 berus 1 . 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 con- 
 
 k This is related of the Celts or Gauls. Pecunias 
 jnutuas, quaehis apud inferos redderentur, dare folitos, 
 Pythagoras approved the cuftom : for our author adds, 
 Dicerem ftultos, nifiidem braccati fenfiffent, quod pal- 
 liatus Pythagoras credidit. Valerius Maximus, lib. 2. 
 C. 6. . 10. 
 
 1 J5os, Gr. Antiq. p. 410, 
 
 fumed
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 423 
 fumed by fire, ftill, in fome degree, fub- 
 fifted; images flying off from them, 
 which as exaftly refembled them as a 
 ghoft did the living man. Hence it was, 
 that, upon the funeral piles of the dead, 
 they were accuftomed 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 otherj food", and raiment , and ar- 
 mour p , were either depofited in their 
 graves, or confumed in the fame fire 
 with their own bodies, together with 
 
 M Diodorus Siculus, 1. v. p. 352. relates this cir- 
 cumftance of the Gauls. -. : 'V ! ' 
 
 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. Sum- 
 turn 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. 
 Bos, ch. 22. p. 422. 
 
 E e 4 their
 
 424 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 their wives and concubines' 1 , their fa- 
 vourite flaves r , and brute animals', and 
 whatever elfe had been the object of their 
 affection in life 1 . 
 
 Accordingly we find the parrot of 
 Corinna, after his death, in elyfium*. 
 
 9 This is ftill a cuftom in fome parts of the eaft, and 
 jt is of great antiquity, Evadne (by Ovid called Iphi- 
 as) threw herfelf upon the funeral pile of Capaneus, 
 uttering this prayer : Recipe me, Capaneu. Ovid. Ars 
 Am. 1. 3. v. 21. Statius, Thebaid. 1. 12. v. 801. 
 Propertius, I. 15, 21. 
 
 * Servi et clientes, quos ab iis dile&os efle confix 
 bat, juftis funeribus confectis, una cremabantur. Cae- 
 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 
 Hilt, of North America, v. 3. p. 211, 259. 
 
 * Caefar, ubi fupra. At the funeral of Patroclus, 
 four horfes and nine favourite dogs were thrown upon 
 the pyre. Homer, II. 23, v. 171. 
 
 1 Moris fuerat, ut cum his rebus homines fepelirentur 
 quas dilexerant vivi. Servius on yEn. X. 827. See 
 alfo Caefar, 1.6. c. 18. 
 
 * Pfittacus has inter, nemorali fede receptus, 
 Convertit volucres in fua verba pias. 
 
 Ovid, Amor. 1. II, el. 6. v. 57. 
 
 Orpheus,
 
 In tie ancient heathen World. 425 
 Orpheus, when in the fame happy abode, 
 appears in his facerdotal robe, flriking 
 his lyre ; and the warriors were furnifh- 
 ed with their horfes, arms, and chariots, 
 which Virgil calls inanes> empty -, atty t and 
 unfubftantialy being fuch fhades 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 ghoils appeared with the wounds 
 made in them before their reparation 
 from the body, fo the arms, that had 
 been ftained with blood before they 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 moil part be confidered 
 
 n Virg. ^En. VI. 645-655. See above, note P. 
 * Homer, Od. XI. 41. 
 
 only
 
 426 Worjlnp 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, amongft the multitude, 
 and, through policy, were patronized 
 even by thofe who difcerned their abiur- 
 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 rank 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 
 facrifices and libations which made a con- 
 derable part of the heathen worfhip. In 
 order to underftand the ground of thefc 
 rites, we muft confider in what manner 
 the Gentiles (hewed their refpecl to dead 
 men. They fupplied them, as was ob- 
 ferved, with fuch things as had been 
 agreeable or ufeful in life ; threw upon 
 their funeral piles odours and perfumes', 
 and animals 7 , and made libations of 
 wine z . The daily and annual offerings, 
 that were afterwards made them at their 
 graves, were fimilar with thofe at their 
 funerals, viz. flefh, blood, water, wine, 
 
 x Bos, Gr. Antiq. Part 4. c. 22. Their tombs alfo 
 were ftrewed with flowers. Id. p. 432. 
 
 y Homer, II. 1. 23. v. 166. Odyff. 1. 24. v. 66. 
 Virgil, ^En. 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 attend 
 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 fuftenance the 
 farentalia properly confided b . The 
 ghofts were thought to come from their 
 fubterraneous habitations, or from their 
 graves, to partake of the entertainment 
 provided for them 6 . Now the libations 
 and facrifices, which 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. n. 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, 
 
 k Guther de Jure Man, 1. 2. c. 12. 
 
 e 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 animae tenues, et corpora funfta fepulchris, 
 
 Errant : 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 poflunt, volitando caenare, et 
 ex fovea mulfum bibere. 
 
 appointed
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 420 
 
 appointed for the dead d , and both had 
 the fame intention. The gods were re- 
 galed with the odour of incenfe, and the 
 fruits of the earth ; they were refreihed 
 and nourifhed with the fumes of drink- 
 offerings , and the fleams of flaughtered 
 animals afcending from their altars 6 . 
 For the convenience of their receiving the 
 grateful and beneficial exhalations from 
 the meat and drink offerings, the altars 
 were placed lower than their flatues and 
 
 images. 
 
 f See Bos, Part i. c. 6. or any other writer upon the 
 facrifices which the Heathens offered to their gods. 
 
 * That the Gentiles really thought their gods were 
 gratified and fed by the odours, wine, blood, and 
 flefli, 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 1 eat the flejh of bulls, or driak 
 the blood of goats ? Pf. 1. 13. 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, 230, 236, 249. And not only did 
 the vulgar Heathens fuppofe their gods were nourilhed 
 by facrifices ; but the philofophic Julian alfo feems to 
 have adopted the fame grofs notion, and he afcribes it 
 
 to
 
 43 o Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 images'. The oblations here fpoken 
 of could not be intended for the life 
 of the fun, moon, andftars; and we are 
 expreffly told that thefe celeftial lumina- 
 ries were nourifhed by the vapours of the 
 ocean or of frefh water 5 . 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 ghofls h , 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. 1. 3. c. 14. 
 
 h Adfirmantur animze ladle et /anguine dele&ari. 
 Servius on JEn. III. v. 66, 67. That the ancient Hea- 
 thens thought ghofts were fond of blood fully appears 
 from Homer," OdyfT. XI. paffim. Hence the victims 
 \vere (lain 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 
 cfteemed a great calamity. Potter, v. z. p. 258, 259. 
 
 to
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 43 1 
 to the ghofts of heroes 1 . There is no- 
 thing more certain than this faft, though 
 it may feem ftrange to thofe who do not 
 recolledl that the ancients drank blood k ; 
 and confequently that, on their princi- 
 ples, ftated above, men muil 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 worfhip of the gods', as every one 
 
 * They brought to Polydore's tomb fanguinis facrl pa- 
 teras. ^En. III. 67. At the funeral of Pallas the blood 
 was fprinkled over the pile. Caefo fparfuros fanguine 
 flammas. JSLn. XI. 82. 
 
 fc Quinimo primis mundi ajtatibus fanguis bomini- 
 bus potus erat, fi fidem promeretur Avitus. Geafius de 
 Viftimis humanis. Pars 2. p. 404. That it was a 
 common pra&ice to drink blood, or eat the flefh of ani- 
 mals while the life, that is, the blood, was in it, ij 
 implied in the prohibition of it. Gen. ix. 4. Learned 
 men have Ihewn, that eating raw fleih, cut off while 
 the creature was living, was an ancient rite of idolatry. 
 See Maimon. More Nev. pars III. 0.48. Selden, de 
 JureN. & G. VII. i. 
 
 1 To the celeftial or fnpernal gods the blood was offer- 
 ed upon altars (Potter, v. I. b. 2. ch. 4. p. 203. Comp. 
 Virg. ^En. VIII. 106.) for the fame reafon that it was 
 poured upon the ground to the infernal, viz. in order to 
 it's being near to the deity who was to partake of it. 
 
 knows
 
 43 2 Wcrflrip of human Spirits 
 
 knows it was, naturally leads us to corl- 
 iider thofe gods as deified heroes, who 
 flill, in the opinion of the Heathens, 
 preferved their relifh of it, as they did 
 of every thing elfe they had loved before. 
 The fhedding of human bloody 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 m . It was the 
 fame as to men. Favourite flaves fuffer- 
 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 
 
 m Ut cum Cereri porcam, Baccho capram, mafta- 
 bant : quorum ilia fegeti, hsc vitibus, infefta eft. Pot- 
 ter, Comment, in Lycophronis Cafland. v. 77. 
 
 chriflian
 
 m the ancient 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 imperfect 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 ; 
 which they fufferamidftthejoyful acclama- 
 tions of their enemies. The paffions, which 
 men difcovered in life, the ancients, as 
 we have feen, afcribedto them after death; 
 and confequently conceded of the dead 
 as cruel and vindictive, as envying" the 
 happinefs, and delighting in the mifery, 
 of thofe who had offended them. Hence, 
 I apprehend, it is that idolaters pra6ti- 
 fed all manner of cruelties upon them- 
 
 B The human paffion 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 profperity of a hated ob- 
 
 jea. 
 
 F f felves
 
 434 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 felves and one another, in the worfhip 
 of Diana, Bellona, and other deities, 
 that, by the fight of their fufferings, 
 thefe deities might at length be induced to 
 pity and fpare them. We are expreffly 
 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 ftrongeft 
 revenge p , and could not be appeafed but 
 by the deftruction of their enemies. 
 We are certain, therefore, that human 
 
 Varrodicit mulieres in. exequiis et ludu ideo folitas 
 ora lacerare, ut fanguine oftenfo inferis fatisfaciant : 
 quare etiam inftitutum eft, ut apud fepulchra et viftimas 
 caedantur. Apudveteres, etiam homines interficieban- 
 tur. Serviuson^n.III. 67. Quid poteft efle hac pie- 
 tate clementius, quam mortuis humanas vidtimas immo- 
 lare? La&ant. 1. 5. c. 10. 
 
 P Nothing pierced Dido with fo keen anguifh, in 
 the article of death, as the thought of perifhing unre- 
 venged. Moriimur inultee ? Virg. JEn. IV. 659. 
 
 victims
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 435 
 victims perfectly correfpondcd to the 
 corrupt paffions afcribed to the ghofts 
 of men. 
 
 Accordingly we find, in fa, that 
 the manes of warriors and heroes were 
 propitiated with human viclims at their 
 funerals. Achilles facrificed twelve Tro- 
 jan heroes at the funeral of Patroclus, 
 and then called upon him to rejoice, even 
 in the gloomy realms of Pluto, at their be- 
 ing burnt in the fame flames with his own 
 corpfe 4 . Polyxena was (lain upon the tomb 
 of Achilles to appeafe his ghoft, on which 
 fubjecT: the Hecuba of Euripides is foun- 
 ded. And jEneas, notwithstanding com- 
 panion made fo diftinguiihing a part 
 of his character, referved feveral young 
 captives to offer them as viclims to the 
 manes of Pallas r , who was (lain by 
 F f 2 Turnus. 
 
 Lalty.a. pit Tgwuv 
 
 Tt? ecpa. cro ir*>ra; irv% icrSifi. 
 
 Homer. II. XXIII. 179. 
 * SulmoTve creates 
 Quatuor hie juvenes j totidem, quos edocat Ufens, 
 
 Viventis
 
 43 6 Worjhip of bum an Spirits 
 
 Turnus. He afterwards refuied to fpare 
 Magus, who earneftly begged his life, 
 becaufe, as he alleged, the fhade of An- 
 chifes demanded his death*, even though 
 no prior enmity had fubfifled between 
 them. And the reafon which ^Eneas 
 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,- 
 wojild be thought to require a more am- 
 
 Viventis rapit, inferias quos immolet umbris, 
 Captivoque rogi perfundat fanguine flammas. 
 
 Virg. ^En. X. 517. 
 
 Id. ib. v. 533. 
 
 * Pallas te, hoc vulnere Pallas, 
 Immolat, et pcenam fcelerato ex fanguine fumit. 
 
 ./En. XII. 948. 
 
 The forementioned facrifices are to be confidered mere- 
 ly as the effect of the cruel fuperftition of the times, 
 and are no reflection upon ./Eneas, who afted from a 
 pious care to placate the dead. 
 
 pie
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 437 
 
 pie vengeance, and to take more fatis fac- 
 tion in the punifhment of offenders, or 
 even in the fufferings of the Innocent, 
 from cruelty of difpofition. The com- 
 bats of the gladiators were properly fu- 
 neral rites u , and the blood fpilt in them 
 was defigned to appeafe the manes of the 
 dead w . Thefe fa6r.s 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, ftatedly or occafionally, in the 
 worfhip of the gods, and upon the fame 
 ground, a fanguinary and revengeful 
 
 u Plutarch calls the combats eflvr<piaj yut<;. Vit. 
 Coriolani, p. 218. F. The combatants were called 
 luftuarii, becaufe they fought at the buftum or fepuU 
 chre of the dead. 
 
 w The captives fent to the funeral of Junius Brutus, 
 inftead of being flain in the ufual manner, were order- 
 ed to fight. Servius on ./En. 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 (laughter. 
 
 F f 3 difpofition.
 
 438 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 difpofition. It has indeed been afTerted, 
 that the natural gods were the objects 
 of this worfhip. Let us therefore fee 
 whether the facts on record do not prove 
 that the direct and immediate objects of it 
 were human fpirits. Only I would firft 
 of all obferve, that thofe, who offered thefe 
 coftly vi6tims 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. j. 0.38, 
 40. 1.4. c. 16. Porphyr. de Abftinent. 1.2. 0.56, 
 Eufeb. de Laudibus Conltant. p. 756. Diodor. Sic. 1. 
 20. p. 415. torn. 2. ed. We/T. Marfham, Chronicus 
 Canon, p. 76, 77. 
 
 the
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 439 
 
 the facrifice of children y . 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 (hewn, that hiftory reprefents him 
 under a human character. His worfhip 
 was founded upon that hiftory as literal- 
 ly underftood by the people 2 , and was a- 
 dapted to his bloody difpofition. His 
 fon, Jupiter, who alfo was worfhipped 
 with human blood b , is flyled the only 
 
 7 Nam Saturnus filios fuos non expofuit, fedvoravit. 
 Merito ei in nonnullis Africae partibus a parendbus in- 
 fantes immolabantur. Minuc. Felix, p. 291. ed. Var. 
 cap. 30. p. 151. ed. Davif. Cum 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. 
 
 2 Cicero, Nat. Deor. 1. 2. c. 24. 
 
 Bryant's Obferv. p. 280. 
 
 b Tertullian. Apol. p. 9. Minuc. Felix, c. 36. 
 and the notes of Davis, p. 153. Laftant. 1. i. c. 21. 
 An infant was flain upon the altar of Jupiter Lycaeus. 
 Paufanias, Arcad. 1.2. p. 600. Jupiter Latialis alfo 
 was worfhipped with human blood. Laftant. 1. I. c. 21. 
 
 F f 4 fon
 
 440 Worfilp of human Spirits 
 
 fon and heir of his father in cruelty . 
 Ofiris, called alfo Bufiris, was, like Ju- 
 piter, a great conqueror, in an age when 
 conqueft and cruelty were clofely allied ; 
 and to him ftrangers were facrificed 
 at his tomb 4 . Bacchus was worfhipped 
 with the cruel rite of which we are fpea- 
 king under the title of Omefles, the de- 
 vour er*. 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 
 
 c O Jovem folum patris filium de crudelitate ! 
 
 Tertuliian. ubi fupra. 
 
 d ^Egyptio Bufiridi ritus fuit hofpites immolare. 
 Minuc. Pel. 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 Ofiris. Diodor. Sic. 1. I. p. 99. 
 
 Plutarch, Vit, Themift. p. 119, A. 
 
 f Hercdot. 1. 4. c. 62. Caefar, Comment. 1. 6. c, 
 16. See alfo Tomafmus de donariis veterum, c. 40. 
 jind Tacitus, Annal. 1. 13. c. 57, 
 
 with
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 441 
 'with human blood g . And Diana*, who 
 was void of all the tendernefs of her fex, 
 whofe chief pleafure confifted in the 
 purfuit and (laughter of brute animals, 
 .and to whom the fhows of wild beafls, 
 fighting with one another or with men, 
 were confecrated, had her altars flamed 
 in the fame manner as the god of wan 
 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 me had 
 fent. 
 
 To the foregoing examples more may 
 be added. I mufl not omit to mention 
 
 At/xan 
 
 Orpheus, Oper. p. 264. ed. Gefner. 
 h Virg. JEn. II. 116. Servius in loc. Laftant. 1. i. 
 2. See note % below; and Hyginus, Fab. 261. 
 Plutarch, Parallel, p. 314. C. D. 
 
 Hercules,
 
 44 2 Worfoip of human Spirits 
 
 Hercules*, who having through life made 
 havoc of the human ipecies, it was pre- 
 fumed he would be pleafed, after death, 
 with feeing human victims bleeding or 
 burning upon his altars. Iff-fgema 1 
 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&#r m , or T^or, (the fame, 
 probably, with Taranis,) Feufafes, (or 
 Mercury",) and Hefus , (fuppofed by 
 fbme 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. yEa.II. 116. Herodot. 1. 4. c. 103. 
 
 m To Thur fanguinem maftabant hominum. Hif- 
 toria? Normandorum fcrip tores antiqui. Paris, 1619. 
 p. 62. 
 
 n Tertullian. Apol. c. 9. 
 
 * Et quibus immitis placaturfangume diro 
 Theutates, horrenfque feris altaribus Hefus, 
 Et Taranis Scythicse non mitior ara Dianae. 
 
 Lucan. I. I. v. 44. 
 
 This
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 443 
 This lift might have been fwelled with 
 the names of Mithras 9 and other gods ; 
 but I fhall only obferve, that the afto- 
 nifhing cruelty of Froe and Roftatus is 
 expreffly affigned as the reafon of their 
 being propitiated with human victims' 1 . 
 
 From the whole of what has been 
 offered, with refpeft to thefe victims, it 
 appears, that the ground of offering 
 them was the cruel and revengeful difpo- 
 fition of the objects of them r : 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 ^uvuf xunSvot, facrificed men. Hiftor. Ec- 
 clef. 1. 3. c. 2. p. 173. It is to this author that the 
 reference ftiould have been made above, p. 396. note ! , 
 rather than to Zilius Lampridius, 
 
 1 Concerning Froe, Olaus Magnus fays, 1. 3, c. 4. 
 p. 101. Cui tandem in numerum deorum relato, quia 
 deus fanguinis haberetur, furvae hoftise immolabantur. 
 The fame writer gives the following account of Rofta- 
 tus : Cujus flupenda immanitas humani fanguinis facri- 
 ncio ita placari voluit, ut fibi iliorum, quos cultore fui 
 opprefTuri eflent, animasdedicarent. 
 
 r This is confirmed by the teftimony of Sanchonia- 
 thon, who fays, that, in great national calamities, it
 
 444 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 correfponded entirely to the fuppofed 
 character of the ghofts of warriors and 
 
 heroes, 
 
 was cuftomary to facrifice the deareft children of the 
 nobles TO? TI/A&/^O*J &z^/.oo-i. Ap. Eufrb. Praep. Ev. 1. 4. 
 p. 156. D. The evil deities were dulinguifhed from 
 die gocd by a diiferent worftrip ; according to I^abeo, 
 ap. Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 2. c. 2. Numiiu b-na 
 a nmninibus malis ijla etiam cultus di-ve/jitate c-.:tingu- 
 untur, utmalos deos propitiaricaedibus ec iriftibus fup- 
 plicationibus aiTerat : bonos autem obfequiis lathis atque 
 jucundis. In the Difiertation on Miracles, p. 249. it 
 was faid, what, I prefume, has been fully proved, " that 
 " the gods, worihipped by human facrifices, were the 
 " great \varriorj who, in their mortal ftate, delighted 
 ' in the {laughter of the human race." To this it has 
 been objected, by Mr. Fell, p. 66. that there is not one 
 injtance to be found on record, of men rarfedtodiiiine honours , 
 If any people, becaufe of their paji delight in the jlaughter 
 of their civn/pecies ; and YET this is here (that is, in the 
 Difiertation) ajffigned to be the 'very reafon e wby thofe gods 
 
 It clearly appears, from this language, that the gen- 
 tleman did not perceive the obvious difference there is 
 between the reafon of raifing men to divine honours, 
 that is, (as I understand him,) of deifying them, and 
 honouring them with fome kind of divine \vorfhip, and 
 the reafon of worshipping them, when deified, with one 
 fpecies of divine worfhip rather than another. Each 
 god was honoured with peculiar ceremonies. Hence 
 Plutarch conjectures, that Matuta was the fame with 
 Leucothea, from the famenefs of their rites. Vid. Ca> 
 
 mill.
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 44,5 
 
 heroes, and of hero-gods: that they 
 were in fact offered both to heroes and 
 to fuch gods as had been men, and, as 
 
 mill. p. 131.3. The facrifices that were offered to diffe- 
 rent gods were different, (as we have juft now feen from 
 Labeo, and Eufebius has (hewn at large, [Prasp. Ev. I. 
 4. 0.9.] and in deed as every one muft know who is not 
 a perfect ftrangerto the fubjeft,) agreeably to the diffe- 
 rence of their refpeftivedifpofitions. The domeftic and 
 friendly gods ghofts were gratified with wine, milk, 
 and frankincenfe, (Ovid, Fafti, 1. ii. 533-54^.) 
 though the indignant and revengeful fpirit of a warrior 
 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 hind 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 hisworfhip. If the gen- 
 tleman meant to fay, what alone could render his ob- 
 jection pertinent, that there is not one inftance on re- 
 cord of men being worfhipped with human facrifices for 
 the reafon 1 had affigned, he mould have had a better 
 acquaintance with antiquity before he ventured on fucH 
 an aflertion. 
 
 far
 
 446 TP or flip of human Spirits 
 
 far as we know, to fuch gods alone 1 . 
 So that, when the only circumftance, 
 related of any particular deity, is, that 
 he was worfhipped with human facrifi- 
 ces, we may reafonably conclude, that 
 he was originally of the race of man. 
 And, as thefe rites were univerfally ' 
 
 8 It has indeed been faid, by fome of the ancients, 
 that human vi&ims were in Egypt offered to the fun. 
 It was very natural for thofe to run into this miftakewho 
 explained the hiftory of the gods phyfically. Human 
 victims, wehavefeen, were offered to Ofiris ; andOfi- 
 is, phyfically underftood, 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 hifto- 
 ry of the gods to natural objefts, who would not allow, 
 that human facrifices were dire&ly and immediately of- 
 fered only to hero-gods. 
 
 1 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- 
 ftinent. 1.2. Clemens Alexandrinus, Cohort, ad Gent. 
 p. 36. ed. Potter. Eufebius, Pra:p. Ev. 1. 4. c. 16. 
 Geufius, de Viftimis humanis, paflim ; and Mr. Bry- 
 ant, in his Obfervations, p. 267.61 feq. 
 
 pratlifed
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 44.7 
 praftifed in all the heathen nations, they 
 afford a full proof of the univerfal preva- 
 lence of the worfhip of human fpirits. 
 Many of the gods here enumerated were 
 the principal objecls of pagan devotion". 
 There were other w rites of worfhip, 
 befides thofe hitherto fpecified, which 
 
 clearly 
 
 When Meffkpits gave a mortal wound to king Anlef- 
 tes, he exclaimed : H#c magnis melier data vi8im* Jivis. 
 JEn. XII. 296. 
 
 w The heathen religion was as remarkably didin- 
 guifhed by it's licentioufnefs and pollution as by it's cru- 
 elty. Drunkennefs was an effential part of the worfhip 
 of Bacchus, and enjoined by law even at Athens. Pla- 
 to de Legibus, 1. i. p. 570 ed. Ficmi, & p. 777 L 
 Serrani. It generally accompanied the facrifices and 
 folemnities of the other gods. ProiHtution was a reli- 
 gious rite common to all nations j aad not owing, ia 
 general, to a profligacy of character, 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 Phenicia more efpe- 
 cially. It would draw out the article of iuorjhip to too 
 great a length, to produce the evidence of thefe fads in 
 this place, and to (hew from what principles they pro- 
 ceeded, which may be explained hereafter. It is fuffi- 
 cient to obferve, at prefent, that the vkes here fpeci- 
 fied are peculiar to the human fpecies, and were in fa
 
 44 5 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 clearly point out the mortal origin of the 
 gods. I fhall take notice of three: 
 mourning^ banquets^ and games. 
 
 Mournings, and all the figns of the 
 mofl extravagant grief, fuch as lamen- 
 table cries and bodily lacerations, were 
 the moft facred ceremonies of pagan 
 worfhip*. Now thefe rites of idolatry 
 
 pra&ifed in the worfhip of fuch gods as had once belonged 
 to it. They were praftifed 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- 
 efs, or to mankind in general by their ufeful inventions, 
 laid no reftraint upon their paffions ; and, as they were 
 believed to have more of divinity in them than other men , 
 theirvices wereconfecrated as well as their perfons. When 
 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. 
 
 x In adytis habent idolum Ofiridis fepultum : hoc an- 
 nuis ludlibus plangunt, radunt capita, ut miferum ca- 
 fum regis fui turpitudine dehoneftati defleant capitis ; 
 tundunt peftus, lacerant lacertos, veterum vulnerum 
 refecant cicatrices, ut annuis luclibus in animis eorum 
 funeltae ac miferandas necis exitium renafcatur. Julius 
 Firmicus, p. 4, 5. See alfo Spencer, Leg. Hebr. p. 
 574, 580. 
 
 were
 
 in tie ancient heathen World. 449 
 
 were the very fame with thofe praclifed 
 at funerals. It was cuflomary with the 
 Heathens, at the death of their rela- 
 tions, to make the moft mournful la- 
 mentations, to rend their clothes, to 
 cut, lance, and tear, their flefh y . 
 Thefe doleful cries and cruel lacerations 
 were carried to fuch excefs at Athens, a 
 city greatly addicted to fuperftition and 
 idolatry, that it became neceflary to 
 prohibit them by law 2 . They are not to 
 be confidered merely as expreffions 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 Bos, Antiq. of Greece, p l 4. ch. 21. Levit. 
 xix. 28. xxi. 5. Deut. xiv. j. Jerem. xvi. 6. xlviii. 
 
 37- 
 
 z Mulieres genas neradunto, neve leflum funeris er- 
 go habento. Petit, Leg. Attic, p. 600. Te Jhall not 
 make any cuttings in your fojb for the dead. Levit. xix. 
 8. xxi. 5. Thefe cuttings are here forbidden as rites 
 of idolatry. 
 
 G g The
 
 450 Worftip of human Spirits 
 
 The foul of man, it was imagined, quit- 
 ted the body mourning it's unhappy fate* y 
 partly on account of the enjoyments it 
 loft, and partly by reafon of it's en- 
 trance into A'ideS) or Hades, a moft 
 gloomy and uncomfortable region, in 
 the general opinion of the ancient Hea- 
 thens 5 . 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 6 . It was to this flate 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 3 and, together with their 
 
 s.. Homer. II. XVI. 857. 
 
 b Homer reprefents all the ghofts in the fubterra- 
 neous caverns as forronvful, irctcctt a^n.'f*ti. OdyfT. 
 XI. 541. Even Achilles faid, he had rather be the 
 meaneft 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. 45 1 
 
 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 negleft of the ufual 
 figns and feafons of mourning they were 
 fuppofed to be greatly offended 6 . 
 
 Now let common fenfe determine, 
 whether thefe funeral rites could be de- 
 figned to honour or placate gods that are 
 eternal and immortal, and can never 
 tafte the bitternefs of death ? But we 
 need not afk the queftion $ for the Hea- 
 thens themfelves have told us, that 
 mourning was a fpecies of wormip fuit- 
 
 * Above, p. 434. note". 
 
 * This is implied in the following pafTage of Apulei- 
 us, Metamorph. 1. 8. p. 242. ed. Delph. Qua; res 
 cum meum pudorem, turn etiam tuum falntarecommo- 
 dum, refpicit : ne forte immaturitate nuptiarum, in- 
 dignatione jufta manes acerbos mariti adexitium falutis 
 tusfufcitemus. 
 
 G g 2 able
 
 452 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 able to the dead f , and actually paid to 
 fuch of them as were deified. A god dies, 
 and is lamented*. The ancient advocates 
 for this part of the pagan worfhip difco- 
 vered, or pretended to difcover, a fecret 
 reference in it to natural objects h . But 
 this fecondary and myftical fenfe, if it 
 was at all intended, was not underftood 
 by the people, nor defigned to be fo ; 
 and, inflead of fub verting, it rather pre- 
 fuppofes, the literal and primary mean- 
 ing of the rites in queftion. Plutarch, 
 the great advocate for their phyfical inter- 
 pretation, allows their being underflood 
 
 f Quorum omnis cultus eflet futurus in luftu. Cice- 
 ro, deNat. Deor. 1. i. c. 15. 
 
 * Maxim. Tyr. Diflert. 38. p. 398. See Julius 
 Firmicus, p. 4, 5. 
 
 Sed in funeribus et luctibus, qua: vere funt funera, 
 quae fadla funt < 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
 
 'in the ancient heathen World. 453 
 of the births and deaths of the gods 1 . 
 Accordingly we find the Heathens k , as 
 well as the early Chriftians 1 , urging them 
 as a proof that thofe gods had been mere 
 mortals. 
 
 The mourning, in the feftivals of the 
 
 gods, was fucceeded by a banquet, in 
 
 which the gods themfelves were fuppo- 
 
 fed to ihare m . This circumftance alfo 
 
 G g 3 agrees 
 
 aAAa ttcu 
 
 o/*fom. Plutarch. If. & Ofir. p_. 379. B. See alfo a 
 little higher in the fame page, and comp. p. 359. 
 
 k Tu plangent hominem teftaris Ofirin. Lucan, 
 VIII. 833. 
 
 1 Lugete nortuos veftros, et feq. Julius Firmicus, 
 p. 20. See p. 4, 5. 
 
 m Notwithftanding ' their neftar and ambrofia, the 
 gods retained their relifh of their former earthly viands. 
 They all left heaven for the fake of feafting with the JE- 
 thiopians, Jupiter himfelf leading the way, as we learn 
 from Homer. Indeed they were invited as guefts to all en 
 tertainm'ents, befides thofe made on purpofe for them, 
 
 Et divos ipfumque vocamus 
 In partem prsedamque Jovem. JEn. III. 222. 
 The epulones, 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- 
 
 tinftion.
 
 454 Worfhip of human Spirits 
 agrees with the idea the ancients enter- 
 tained of human fpirits, whom they 
 not only ftate'dly fupplied 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 p . Hence it follows, that the 
 
 dead 
 
 tin&ion. See Guther de Jure Manium, 1. 2. c. 10. 
 The beft meal put the gods into the beft humour to grant 
 favours, and was called a fupplication. Witnefs the lec- 
 tifternium. 
 
 11 See above, p. 427, 428. 
 
 Bos, p. 431. 
 
 P Omitto quod Varro dicit, omnes ab his mortuos 
 exiftimari manes deos, et probat per ea facra, qua; om- 
 nibus 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 objects of this fpecies 
 ofworfhip. 
 
 If, exclufive of all teftimony, we exa- 
 mine the games themfelves, we fhall 
 foon perceive, that, whatever natural 
 inftruclion might be veiled under them, 
 they were celebrated in honour of deified 
 men. They were imitations, or fceni- 
 cal reprefentations, of the actions, the 
 fufferings, and lawlefs paflions*, of the 
 gods, and indeed of their whole hiftory. 
 It is of men alone that thefe fcenes 
 could be juft reprefentations. 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 poflible magnifi- 
 cence, in order to gratify their pride and 
 vanity. 
 
 funebres, tanquam hoc fit maximum divinitatis indi- 
 cium, qu&d non foleant ludi nifi numinibus celebrari. 
 Auguft. Civ. Dei, 1. 8. c. 26. 
 
 i See Cyprian on this fubjeft, Ad Donatum, p. 5, 
 6. ed. Fell, 
 
 Gg4 If
 
 456 Worfhip of human Spirits 
 
 If you flill doubt whether the games 
 referred to the actions 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 r : 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 8 . 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 burial 1 , This 
 feftival was celebrated throughout all 
 Greece and Egypt -, all the cities putting 
 themfelves .in mourning, which was de- 
 
 T Plutarch. Vit. Camilli, p. 131. B. 
 
 Plutarchi Thefeus, p.p. 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. cd Wefi". Lucian. torn. 2. p. 
 658, 659. 
 
 figned
 
 In the ancient heathen World. 457 
 
 figned to commemorate the death of A- 
 donis, and in teftimony of their fympa- 
 thy with Venus. Ofiris alfo being flain 
 as Adonis was, the memory of his death 
 was preferved by expofing 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 ghofls, 
 were of the fame kind with thofe which 
 were paid to thefe ghofls, 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. 
 
 u See Julius Finnicus, p. 4, 5. cited above, p. 448. 
 note *. 
 
 In
 
 45 8 Worfhip 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 objects of national worfhip among 
 the Gentiles ; as we learn from the tefti- 
 monies both of heathen and chriftian 
 writers*. The very learned Jablonjki 
 does not controvert the fact, viz. that 
 the humanity of the gods was aflerted in 
 the myfleries ; but he fuppofes, that this 
 was aflerted by the magillrate, contrary 
 to his own private opinion, for the cre- 
 dit of religion*. This conjecture is not 
 only groundlefs, but improbable, being 
 
 w Cicero, Tufcul. 1. i. c. 13. et de Nat. Deor. I. 
 I. c. 42. Diodorus Siculus, 1. i. p. 24. ed. WefT. 
 Auguftin. De Civ. Dei, 1. 8. c. 5. Cyprian. De I- 
 
 dol. Van. p. 12. Thefe authors have been already 
 
 cited. I add the following paffage from Julius Firmi- 
 cus, p. 13. Sed adhuc fuperfunt alias fuperftitiones, 
 quarum fecreta pandenda funt, Liberi et Liberse, quas 
 omnia facris fenfibus veftris fpecialiter intimanda funt, 
 ut et in iftis profanis religionibus fciatis mortes effe ho- 
 jninum confecratas. 
 
 x Jablonflci, Pantheon ^gyptiorum, torn. 2. Prole- 
 gom. p. xxvii. 
 
 inconfiflent
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 459 
 inconfiftent with all that we know of the 
 conduct of magiftrates and of thofe who 
 wifhed to fupport the religion of the 
 flate. The magiftrate, whofe bufinefs 
 it was to protect it, always acted in u- 
 nion with the prieft j and indeed both 
 offices, though diftinct, were very often 
 united in the fame perfon, who did not 
 oppofe in one capacity what he taught in 
 another. Belides, thofe who molt con- 
 fulted the credit of the public religion 
 prudently difcouraged all enquiry concer- 
 ning the origin of the greater gods, and, 
 inftead of divulging, {trove to conceal, 
 their humanity, either by infinuating at 
 times that they were originally beings of a 
 higher rank than mankind, or (what was 
 more commonly thecafe) by applying their 
 hillory to elementary and mundane deities . 
 The following appears to me to be the 
 true ftate of the cafe. The firft objects 
 of idolatrous worfhip were the elements 
 and heavenly bodies. When the wor- 
 fhip of deified men was fuperinduced 
 upon that of the planets and elements, 
 
 much
 
 460 Worjhlp 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 judged 
 capable and worthy of fuch information. 
 This could not be done without admit- 
 ting that the popular or national gods 
 Lad been removed from earth to heaven r . 
 And this conceffion, which is all that be- 
 longs to our prefent fubjecl, is a very 
 ftrong confirmation of the point I have 
 been attempting to eftablifh. It mufl be 
 obferved 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, 
 
 T " In the reprefentations of the myfteries," fays 
 Plutarch, " the true nature of demons is held forth." 
 See Warburtou's Div. Legat. v. i. p. 162. ed. 1755. 
 
 Caftor
 
 in the 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 aflerted, that thole 
 fuppofed to be prophets were all titles 
 which related to one god* the fun* : an a- 
 fertion which has the appearance of be- 
 ing fupported by etymological conjec- 
 tures, but which is contradicted by in- 
 difputable fads. I (hall ftate the fubjecl 
 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 
 
 z Bryant's Mythol. v. i. p. 253. fee from p. 239- 
 282. and p. 445. The gentleman's hypothefis is irre- 
 concileable with the facred writings. See If. viii. 19. 
 
 This is fliewn in Divert, on Mir. p. 259. note?. 
 
 were
 
 462 tyorfiip of human Spirits 
 
 were ftrangers. Nay, thefe philofo-* 
 phers themfelves allowed, that demons 
 might be appointed to prelide over divi- 
 nations and oracles b ; 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 c , fo univerfally prevalent in the 
 heathen world. Oracles, therefore, 
 were certainly referred to dead men ; to 
 fuch efpecially as had, when living, dif- 
 covered a fuperior fagacity, or a greater 
 infight into futurity, than d others. Di- 
 
 * Diflert. ubi fupra, & p. 175. 
 
 * Id. p. 259. note?. 
 
 c Plutarch fpeaks of anKvopufltw, an oracle of ghofts, 
 where they were raifed up to foretel future events. Vit* 
 Cimon. p. 482. C. See the account which Maximus 
 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 raifed up. 
 
 * See Paufanias, Attica, p. 83, 84. 
 
 vination
 
 In tie ancient heathen World. 463 
 vination by the evocation of the dead 
 was praclifed in the moft ancient times. 
 In the Perfae of ^Efchylus, the ghoft 
 of Darius is called up, and foretels his 
 queen her deftiny. According to Ho- 
 mer *, Ulyfles invoked the dead, 
 and defcended into the infernal re- 
 gions, that he might learn his future 
 fortunes from the prophet Tirefias. 
 With the fame view ^Eneas confulted 
 Anchifes. Saul alfo applied to a ventri- 
 loquift to call up Samuel : a practice that 
 was as early as the age of Mofes". 
 Now will any one affirm, that Darius, 
 Tirefias, Anchifes, and Samuel, or any 
 of the dead whom ventriloquifts preten- 
 ded to confult, were titles of the fun ? 
 
 Two confiderations ferve to mew that 
 all oracles were referred to human 
 ghofls : the known characters of the 
 gods who had oracles, and the places 
 where they were fet up. As to the gods 
 themfelves here referred to, they were 
 
 OdyfT. XI. Levit. xx. 6. 
 
 known
 
 464. Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 known to be human perfonages. Such 
 was Ammon, fpoken of above, who 
 had an oracle both at Thebes in Egypt, 
 and in Libya 8 ; Apollo alfo, whofe ora- 
 cle at Delphi was fo much celebrated, 
 was one of twelve greater gods whofe 
 mortal origin was difclofed in the myfte- 
 ries. Themis, a Pelafgic deity h , and 
 one of the Titanidae 1 , had an oracle at 
 mount ParnafTus k ; Trophonius near 
 the city of Lebadia'j Amphiaraus" in 
 Bceotia, or in Attica"; Branchides in 
 Milefia"; the daughter of Macarus at 
 
 See Diodor. Sic. 1. 3. p. 241, 242. ed Wefl*. 
 Herodot. 1. 2. c. 54, 55, 56. 
 
 * Herodot. 1. 2. c. 50. 
 
 1 Diodor. Sic. 1. v. p. 383. Apollodorus de Diis, 
 ]. i. init. 
 
 k Herodot. ubi fupra. 
 
 1 Liv. xxv. 27. Maxim. Tyr. Differt. 26. p. 265. 
 cd. Davif. Schol. ad Ariftoph. ad Nub. 508. 
 
 m Herodot. 1. i. c. 52. Apuleius, torn. 2, p. 689. 
 Paufanias, p. 84. 
 
 n According to Bos, p. 97. 
 
 Bos, p. 98. Pliny, v. 29. Mela, I. 17. 4. 
 
 AmphifTa
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 465 
 AmphifTa in Phocis q ; Geryon near Pa- 
 tavium r . Now all thefe oracular gods, 
 as is evident at firft fight, were no other 
 than dead men and women deified 1 . 
 And fuch 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 Augilites, who had no other gods 
 but the ghofts of men, confulted them 
 as oracles'. 
 
 The heathen oracles were fet up at 
 fepukhres, and in temples, which are on-r 
 ly another name for fepulchral monu- 
 ments creeled in honour of the dead. 
 Their ghofts, therefore, were certainly 
 the deities consulted in thefe places. 
 And, as oracles were fet up in all the 
 ancient nations, and were univerfally ' con- 
 
 i Paufanias, 1. 10. 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?. 
 
 Sympof. p. 163. Oper. V. 5. ed. Wells. 
 
 H h iulted,
 
 466 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 fulted, on all occafions of importance, 
 both by thofe who had the direction 
 of the public concerns and by private 
 perfons, and were alfo accompanied with 
 Sacrifices*, luftrations, and other religious 
 ceremonies, they afford full proof of the* 
 very extenfive worfhip of human fpirits 
 in the heathen world. 
 
 If, notwithstanding all the evideh'ce 
 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 (hewing upon what plaufible 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 facrifices, according to Servius on 
 Virg. ^En. VI, 107. Quae fine horainis occifione non 
 
 VIII.
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 467 
 VIII. That the remains of it at this 
 day, amongft many profefled Chriftians, 
 give credibility to the exiflence 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 x , as they bad been 
 accuftomed to do to the manes of their 
 anceftors before their converfion y . 
 
 As the Gentiles offered up prayers to 
 the dead at their fepulchres z ; 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 epiu 
 las deferebant> pultem, panem, ctvinum. Gutherde 
 Jure Manium, 1. 2. c. 12. 
 
 y As to the heathen cuftom, fee Ovid's Fafti, 1. 2. 
 
 v. 533-54- 
 
 * Addc preces pofitis et fua verba focis. Id. ib. v. 
 542, 
 
 H h 2 at
 
 468 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 at them, and honoured their lleffed fouls* ; 
 believing them to have power to avert e- 
 vils from mankind, and to beftow blef- 
 fings upon them b : a power 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 inflituted to dead men, as well by 
 many who live under the Gofpel e as by 
 the more ancient idolaters, who were 
 ftrangers to it. The worfhip 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 fhrines, 
 
 * Eufeb. Prep. Ev. 1. 13. c. n. p. 663. 
 
 b Mede, p. 641, 642. Newton on Daniel, c. 14. 
 p. 215. Middleton's Letters, prefatory Difc. p. 51. 
 
 c Middleton's Letters from Rome, prefatory Dif- 
 eourfe, p. 25. Newton on Dan. ch. 14. 
 
 and
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 469 
 
 and thought to be prefertt in every image 
 and every edifice erected to their honour. 
 The abfurdity of the papifts is more gla- 
 ring than that of the Pagans, becaufe 
 they believe that the whole 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 d . Both affign to their deities 
 the fame offices, confidering them as the 
 guardians of towns, cities, and coun- 
 tries, as prefidents overall the objects 
 of nature, and over the various occupa- 
 tions of human life". 
 
 * If the emperor Domitian ftyled himfelf LORD 
 and GOD, as was obferved above, p. 275. note 6 ; fo 
 is the pope called GOD, the SUPREME DEITY on 
 eartH, &d r diir LORD GOD. Chandler's Account of a 
 Conference in Nicolas-lane, 1734. The Papifts fome- 
 times plead that they only call their faints <#/, not dii. 
 But thefe are equivalent terms. Servius on Virg. ^En. 
 XII. 139- 
 
 See Middleton's Letters, p. 153, 178. Prefat. 
 Difc. p. 51. 
 
 H h 3 If,
 
 470 V " r ' : ^ rf ^uman Spirits 
 
 If, amongft the Heathens, fome god- 
 defTes were thought to have more power, 
 or were in higher reputation in one place 
 than in another; as Juno at Argos f , for 
 example; 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 objecl: of their devo- 
 tion. To her the ftatelieft churches and 
 the faireft altars are raifed ; to her the 
 moft frequent addrefles are made, and 
 the greateft number of miracles afcri- 
 bed 8 . If the Heathens honoured a dei- 
 fied woman as the mother of the gods, and 
 queen of heaven* ; too many Chriftians 
 apply thefe titles to Mary, calling her 
 
 f Spence's Polymetis, p. 56. 
 
 * Sir Edward Sandy's Survey of Religion, p. 4, 5, 
 6. 
 
 h The regent of the moon was ftyled queen of hea-i 
 ven ; and the mother of the gods was Rhea, who is faid 
 to have appeared to Themiftocles in a dream* Plutarch. 
 Vit.Themift. p. 127. A. 
 
 tie
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 47 r 
 the queen of heaven' 1 ., and the mother of God. 
 Andflie' delights to be worfhipped under 
 different titles", juft as the Heathen dei- 
 fies did 1 . 
 
 Demon- worfhip was thought to Be 
 juftified amongft the Heathens by the 
 orientation of oracles, the cure of difea- 
 fes, and other miracles'". Herein they 
 were imitated by Chriftians, who pre- 
 tended, that the mira'clet performed in 
 the times of ChrHl and his apoftles were 
 renewed at the fepulchres of the mar- 
 
 1 Lipfius addrefles Mary in the following terms. O 
 goddefs ! tbou art the queen of heaven, of the fea, and 
 of the earth. Lipf. Oper, p. 1288. Tenifon of Idola- 
 try, p. 290. Epiphanius fays of Chriftians in his time, 
 *Ihey made a goddefs of the --virgin, and ojjertd a cake vnfo 
 her as the queen of heaven. Mede, p. 636. 
 
 k Chiftiul fays, (Travels., r>. 135, 6.) The virgin is 
 not invoked under the fame character in all places and 
 on all occafions, but is fplit into fo many difHn'ft 
 6bjfeftsof worlhip ; as the'fady de Victoria, 'i'C. She 
 has numerous titles, (comp. p. 172, 173.) probably- 
 according to her' diftinft offices. 
 
 *! J C^n the"polybnomy of the heathen gods, fee Selden, 
 Prolegom. c. 3. ****** 5. Sched. de Diis German, 
 p. 87, 89, 175. 
 
 " Mede, p. 680, 681. Newton, p;lif. - 
 
 ^si'4^-i H ht- tyrs.
 
 47 2 Worfolp 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 p . Nay, Theodoret boafts 
 that God had brought his dead (viz. the 
 martyrs) into the place (the temples) 
 of the heathen gods. For, inftead of the 
 feafts of Jupiter and Bacchus, are now ce- 
 lebrated thefejiivals of Peter and Paul, 
 and of the holy martyrs*. If the Gentiles 
 ferved the creature, paffing over the crea- 
 tor r , the papifts, (I fpeak not of indivi- 
 duals,) notwithstanding fome verbal ac- 
 
 n Mede, ubi fupra ; and Middleton's Free Enquiry, 
 p. 130. etfeq. Astopopifli miracles, fee Middleton's 
 Prefatory Difcourfe to his Letters from Rome, p. 29. et 
 feq. 
 
 Newton on Daniel, p. 208. et feq. 
 
 P Eunapius, Vit. Philofoph. p. 76. See Julian ap. 
 Cyril, in Newton, p. 208. 
 
 9 Theodoret, 1. 8. ap. Mede, p, 642. 
 
 Rom. i. 21. Bezain 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 worfhip, by af- 
 fociating with him the virgin Mary and 
 other faints 5 , and by making the moil 
 dimonourable reprefentations of him in 
 the pictures with which their facred edi- 
 fices are adorned. The figure of the 
 ever-adorable and incomprehenlible Je- 
 hovah, who inhabits eternity and fills 
 immenfity, is generally that of an old 
 man ; and, in fome places, he has upon 
 him a night-gown a?id cap*. In the feve- 
 ral foregoing particulars, and many 
 more that might be mentioned, there is 
 a ftriking refemblance between the idola- 
 try of Papifts and Pagans. The for- 
 mer know that the objects of their wor- 
 fhip had been men, juft as the latter 
 
 In the town of Znaim, in Moravia, there is an i- 
 mage of the virgin, erefted on a fair pillar, with this 
 infcription : Laus Deo, Mariteque virgini, fanftifjue/u- 
 it. Chifhul's Travels, p. 131. 
 
 4 Id. ib. p. 116. 
 
 did.
 
 474 Worflnp of human Spirits 
 
 did. Both perform their worfhip in the 
 very fame places, on the high- ways, in 
 groves, on mountains 6 \ and at fepukhres. 
 Let us now briefly confider, how far the 
 practice of the worfhip of dead men, in 
 a large part of the chriftian church, 
 proves the prior exiftence of it in the 
 heathen world. 
 
 Every refemblance between the cuf- 
 toms, whether civil or religious, of dif- 
 ferent nations, does not, I acknowledge, 
 neceflarily 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 Hated 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; it will flill ferve to fhew, that the 
 fame fpecies of idolatry, praftifed iit a 
 great part of the chriftian world, might, 
 and probably did, prevail in the heather* 
 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 fqr- 
 m$r : for Chriflianity fo clearly and pa- 
 thetically reprefents God as the only 
 proper object of religious worfhip, that 
 it is even hard to conceive how the pro- 
 feffors of this religion fhould join any o- 
 thers with him. At the fame time it 
 gives us fuch a view of the ftate of the 
 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 x . Thefe confiderations are well a- 
 dapted to preferve the prcfeflbrs of the 
 
 * Diflert. on Mir. p. |6i ?tfeq, *i Tim. iv. i. 
 
 Gofpel
 
 476 Worjhip of human Spiri 
 
 Gofpel from all idolatry, more efpecially 
 from the worfhip of the dead j and has? 
 a6hially produced this effect 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 worfliip of dead men 5 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 paganifrn 
 and popery, with refpecl to the worfliip 
 of the dead, holds in fo many particu-- 
 lars, and fuch as have manifeftly no 
 foundation in any appearance of reafon, 
 or bias of nature, that it cannot be ac- 
 counted for without fuppofing that 
 Chriftians 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
 
 m the ancient heathen World. 477 
 heathen as well as the jewifh converts to 
 Chriftianity retained flrong prejudices in 
 favour of many of the principles in 
 which they had been educated. Of this 
 there can be no flronger proof than a 
 fact taken notice of above y , the continu- 
 ance of the cuftom of offering human 
 victims amongft the Chriftians in Gaul. 
 From hiflory we likewife learn, that 
 many paftors of the church, who were 
 employed in bringing men over to the 
 profeflion 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 direct it into a new channel; 
 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 Gothi- 
 co.) memorat Francos etiam Chriftum colentes adfuum 
 sevumfacrificafle homines. Toraafm. de Donariisvete- 
 rum, c. 40. 
 
 being
 
 478 Worjhip of human Spirits 
 
 being able to withdraw the people from 
 paying a kind of adoration to {tones and 
 barrows creeled to the dead z , cut crofles 
 on the former, and dedicated the latter 
 to chriftian faints j and then allowed the 
 fuperftition. Thefe criminal complian- 
 ces had been unneceflary, had not this 
 fuperftition taken faft hold of the minds 
 of the people before they became ac- 
 quainted with Chriflianity. We may 
 therefore juftly conclude, that the wor- 
 fhip 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- 
 ining of Chrift, and even prevailed more 
 before this period than it has done fince. 
 Let us weigh the feveral facts that have 
 been ftated in this fection, and fee what 
 is the moft natural conclufion from 
 them. The heathen gods were wor- 
 fhipped at places of fepulture or at ho- 
 
 2 Borlafe's Antiq. of Cornw. p. 222, 223. 
 
 * See Middleton's Letters from Rome, p, 225. f . 
 
 norary
 
 In tie ancient 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 refpe&ed their former mortal 
 condition : and oracles, thofe boafted 
 proofs of a divine fore-knowledge, were 
 referred to the manes of the dead. Thefe 
 facts clearly point to deceafed mortals as 
 the objects of pagan worfhip. We are 
 even eye-witneffes of the actual exiftence 
 of a fimilar worfhip in the chriflian 
 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 fo 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
 
 4$o Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 fbns of the Heathens deifying both the 
 world and the fouls of men. I fhaU 
 now conclude with a brief recapitulation 
 of what has been already advanced. 
 
 That gods, who had their original 
 here below, were worshipped in moftr 
 of the heathen nations commonly ftyled 
 barbarous a , and in all thofe polifhed by 
 learning 1 *, has been proved, by an in- 
 duction of particulars, upon the tefti- 
 mony of the Pagans themfelves, who 
 certainly beft knew what the objects of 
 their worfhip were. 
 
 Befides the proofs of this point, which 
 refpecl particular nations, others of a 
 more general nature were produced, 
 which equally refpecl all the learned na- 
 tions, and all others which had adopted 
 their fyftem of theology. The proofs 
 were drawn from two fources : from the 
 diftinct teftimonies of the heathen poets a 
 philofophers, and hiftorians, and of the 
 
 Ch. I. fe&. 1,2. Ch. II. 
 
 chriftian
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 48 r 
 fchriftian Fathers c ; and from certain 
 facts, which cannot be controverted, and 
 yet Cannot be accounted for but upon 
 the fuppofition of the truth of thofe tef- 
 timonies d . The tefti monies and the facts 
 mutually illuftrate and confirm each o- 
 ther $ and both, efpecially when taken 
 together, fully demonftrate the general 
 prevalence of the worfhip of human fpi- 
 rits in the ancient heathen world : which 
 is the point I undertook to eftablifh. 
 
 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 alone, or with few 
 exceptions, were, in the nations with 
 which we are beft acquainted, the direct 
 and immediate objects of the eftablimed 
 worfhip ; which confided in having fta- 
 tues, temples, altars, priefts, facrifices, 
 feftivals, games, and numerous ceremo- 
 nies, dedicated to them by public de- 
 
 * Ct. III. ftft. i. d Ch. III. feet. 2. 
 
 I i crees.
 
 
 482 Worfiip of human Spirits 
 
 crees. In the nations here alluded to, 
 idolatry was digefted into an artificial 
 fyjlem ; which might indeed be built 
 upon the fuppofition of there being two 
 forts of gods, the natural and the human. 
 Neverthelefs, the latter, being thought 
 to be intrufted with the government 
 of the world, and more efpecially of 
 human affairs, became the grand objects 
 of mens hopes, and fears, and depend- 
 ence, and engrofied, as it were, the 
 public devotion. If fome of thefe hero- 
 gods were confidered, by thofe inflrucT:- 
 ed in the fecret doctrine, 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 c . Accordingly the Heathens f , 
 the early Chriflians 2 , and to thefe we 
 
 Above, p. 412-415. 
 
 f P. 223, 224, 255, 256, 257, 263-267, 277. 
 
 * P. *57> 344-347- 
 
 may
 
 in the ancient heathen JVorld. 483 
 may add the ancient Jews h , and the fa- 
 cred writers themfelves 1 , agree in repre- 
 fenting all the gods of paganifm as de- 
 ceafed mortals. This is certainly true, 
 in general, with refpeft to the objects 
 of national worfhip. Some, who would 
 not undertake to affirm there were no ex- 
 ceptions, confeffed that it was difficult 
 to find any k j and others thought that 
 there were none 1 . It muft be ob- 
 ferved, farther, that the argument from 
 the facts 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 tercimonies, and equally with 
 
 h IR their greek verfion of Pf. xcv. 5. we read, 
 DauTE? c $oi TWX &> &!,'/><>. ALL the gods of the Hea- 
 then are demons, that is, men who after their deaths 
 were fuppofed to become demons or deities. Demons 
 here cannot denote apoftate angels ; becairfe, in this 
 fenfe of the word, the" affertion is palpably falfe. 
 
 * The Scripture reprefents the heathen gods as dead 
 men, and confequently as nothing more than fuch, be- 
 caufe it does not allow their real deification after their 
 deaths. DifTert. on Mir. p. 197. Above, p. 13. 
 
 * Above, p. 257. ' Jb. p. 265, 344^347- 
 
 I i 2 them
 
 484 Worflxp 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 exprefTed 
 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 knew the heathen 
 gods had never been men*. 
 
 The Gentiles diftinguifhed the gods 
 whom the laws commanded them to 
 worfhip 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 
 Jbmetimes pretended that they were be- 
 
 Above, p. 12, 13, 14. 
 
 Fell, p. 30, no. 
 
 Dii majorum, ef minorum, gentium. The word gen- 
 tium is ufed here as it is in the following pafiage of Ci- 
 cero : Cleantbes, qui quafi. majorum ejt gentium Stoicus, 
 Acadera. II. 41. Jthas always been argued from in 
 the preceding fheets in it's true fenfe ; though, in p. 
 209, it is, through mere inadvertence, rendered na- 
 
 tl6/tl. 
 
 ings
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 485 
 
 ings of a fuperior fpecies, a celeftial race, 
 who had only condefcended to vifit 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 Heathen3 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 refpect to their 
 great eft gods., and the objects of their 
 moft augufl ceremonies p . 
 
 In examining the evidence of the hu- 
 man origin of the national gods, I confi- 
 dered the objections that have been raifed 
 againft it by feveral writers as they came 
 in the way, and particularly thofe urged 
 
 P. 2 55 , 458-461. 
 
 1 Above, p. 135, 183, 257 267, 276, 277, 308. 
 
 I i 3 by
 
 486 Worjhlp 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 flu- 
 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 muft include the 
 learned ones) 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 q as his 
 own, and have been diftinctly examU 
 ned r . With regard to Mr. Bryant, it is 
 
 impoflible 
 
 1 Mr, Fell. 
 
 1 In ch. I. feft. i, and other places, Mr. Fell at- 
 tempted to refute that part of the Diflertation on Mira- 
 cles which was intended to prove the following propofi- 
 tion, viz. "that fucb demons, as were the more imnie- 
 ft dlaie oljgeis of the ejlablijked ivorjhip among ft the 
 " ancient nations, particularly the Egyptians, Greeks, 
 ** and Romans, were fuch departed human fpirits as 
 " were believed to become demons." Above, p. 4, 5. 
 ^'his propofidoii is fully confirmed by \vhat has been of- 
 
 fered
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 487 
 
 iriipoffible to forbear doing juftice to his 
 
 abilities, his learning, his candour, and 
 
 I i 4 his 
 
 fered in the preceding fheets. Let us confider whether 
 Mr. Fell has fucceeded in his attempt to refute it. 
 
 I. Inflead of informing his readers, that my defsgn 
 profefledly was to prove the truth of this propofition, 
 (Difi*. Mir. p. 183,231.) he has, on the contrary, maim- 
 ed and difguifed it, fo as to render it impoffible for any 
 one to divine what the Diflertation aimed at on this fub- 
 jeft, and to lead them to think it's aim was different 
 from what it really was. Above, p. 11-18. 
 
 2. The fore-mentioned propofition was fupported by 
 facts and teftimonies. How has the gentleman anfwer- 
 ed thefe arguments ? by taking no notice at all of the 
 argument from facts, and overlooking the principal tef- 
 timonies, particularly thofe of the early Chriltians and 
 of the philofophers, though the latter, in his own ac- 
 count, were the moft competent witneffes. 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 
 objections againft it. This leads me to obferve, 
 
 3. That his objections are foreign from the purpofe. 
 The propofition refpected demons, as contra-diftinguimed 
 from the natural gods. Above, p. 5. Our author, in 
 anfwer, tells us that the latter were worfhipped; which 
 they might be, and yet the propofition be true. To 
 refute it, he mould have fhewn, that fuch demons as it 
 defcribes were beings originally fuperior to the human 
 race ; but he has contented himfelf with tranfcribing, 
 
 from
 
 488 Worjhlp of human Spirits 
 
 zeal to fupport Chriftianity. His 
 knowledge of antiquity rendered him 
 
 fully 
 
 from thofe authors who wrote againft Dr. Sykes, pafia- 
 ges in which the ancients fpeak of demons that do not 
 come under this defcription. The propofition refpefts 
 fuch demons as \verethe objects of the eftablijhed worjhip, 
 which the gentleman hoped to refute by telling us, that 
 the philofophers aflerted a fuperior order of demons, 
 though the latter were not the objefts of the eflabliihed 
 worfhip, and though the philofophers themfelves bear 
 teftimony to the humanity of thofe who were.* It is juft 
 the' fame when he is treating the fubjeft of demoniacal 
 pofTeflion. Inftead of {hewing that thofe demons, to 
 nvhom poffejjions <were referred, were a higher order of be- 
 ings than human fpirits, (of which he has nvt produced 
 ene Jingle example,) he only labours to prove, (svhat I 
 had repeatedly allowed, though, from his manner of 
 writing, his readers would imagine the contrary,) that 
 fome did aflert this higher order of demons, to whom, 
 however, pofleffions were never referred. The gentle- 
 man fucceeds where he has no adverfary. Farther, the 
 demons of the learned nations were the only fubjeft 
 of the propofition ; the Egyptians, Greeks, and Ro. 
 mans, being mentioned as the moil 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- 
 ftrained fenfe of that word in the prapofition. Ib. p. jo, 
 
 2 3t 
 
 * Above, p. 198, et /c.
 
 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 objections are quite foreign frm 
 the purpofe, or elfe, 
 
 4. They are not founded in fat. His language ma- 
 il ifeftly implies that the philofophers were on his fide, 
 though the contrary has been demonftrated. Above, p, 
 300-308. He ftrongly infinuates that I had excluded 
 their teftimonies, notwithftanding I had appealed to, 
 and produced, them. Ib. p, 301. note z . In con- 
 tradi&ion to all the foregoing teftimonies, he maintains 
 that hero-gods were either rejefled or not known, even in 
 the days of Plato, by the greateft part of the world; and, to 
 give fome colour to his afTertion, he fubftitutes the word 
 moft in the room of many, and thus corrupts, as well as 
 groflly mifinterprets, this philofopher. Diflert. on Mir. 
 p. 173, note f . Fell, p. 9. Above, p. 10, ri, 131. 
 In moft of thofe very nations, in which he affirms di- 
 vine honours were not paid to deceafed heroes, human 
 fpirits were actually worlhipped. Above, ch. I. feft. i. 
 p. 93,etpaffim. Sett. 2. p. i28.ch.II. feft. landz. In 
 fome as the greatejl. Ib. p. 33, 183. In others, as 
 the only gods. Ib. p. 32, 93. According to his arith- 
 metic, the natural gods were the greatejl part of the 
 heathen deities, contrary to the cleareft evidence. A- 
 bove, p. 19, 267-272. In order to ferve his purpofe, he 
 confounds the Belus, fpoken of by Berofus, with the 
 Creator of heaven and earth, notwithftanding Berofus 
 himfelf tells us, Belus's head was twice cut off. Above, 
 p. 188-190. He makes the Phenicians and Egyptians 
 
 (ft
 
 490 Worfhip of human Spirits 
 
 Heathens themfelves, their gods were 
 
 deified 
 
 to be worfhippers only of phyfical 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 greateft 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. 1 1, 12. is a juft fpecimen of his ufual 
 manner of quoting my writings. He appeals to Herodo- 
 tus to prove, that " the Getes efteemed the heavens to 
 be the only deity," though this veryhiftorian (in agree- 
 ment with all others) affirms, that they worfhipped 
 Zamolxis. Nay, Herodotus fays, that the Getes le- 
 lie<ued there ivas no other god but theirs. Above, p. 30- 
 34. According to Mr. Fell, " Plutarch was very care- 
 ful never to attribute this opinion" (viz. That the gods 
 of Egypt had been men) " to the Egyptian priefts ;" and 
 yet this fame Plutarch declares, the priefts did affirm, 
 that the bodies of their gods, except fuch as <were incorrup- 
 tible and immortal, lay buried <vcith them" Above, p. 
 165, 166. Thus, Mr. Fell, notwithftanding his decla- 
 ration to the contrary, Introduction, p. viii. does 
 impute to author? opinions they never maintained, and even 
 fuch as they clearly contradict or overturn. See above, 
 p. i33,etfeq. and p. 144, 177, note f . 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
 
 in the ancient heathen World. 491 
 deified mortals'. But this conceffion, 
 and other concefllons, together with his 
 relying more on etymological deductions 
 
 than 
 
 ced of the humanity of Ofo-is, (above, p. 169, note k ,) or 
 of theworfhip of a man under the name of Bel, ib.p. 196, 
 note f ; and as if there were no decifive evidence of mens 
 paying religious worfhip to a human fpirit under the 
 term Jupiter, p. 246. in a note ; though proof of the 
 humanity of Ofiris was placed before him, fee above, p. 
 169, and he mould have known that there was de- 
 pifive evidence of the humanity both of Bel and of 
 Jupiter. He confounds the Jupiter of the temples with, 
 that of the philofophers. Jb. p. 298-500. With ref- 
 pedl to Jupiter, fee alfo p. 237. He fpeaks of the doc- 
 trine of Euhemerus as that of an individual, though it 
 had fpread throughout the world. Tb. p, 235, 236. 
 It is not of one or two particular branches of his fubje& 
 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 
 fact, 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 afTured language as implies out 
 knowing it to be certainly true. See ib. p. 205, 206. 
 Yet this is his ufual ityle of writing. He reprefents the 
 grofTefl errors as certain and evident truths. " There 
 " can be no doubt but that the Greeks themfelves have 
 > c declared, that the Egyptians never worfhipped fuch 
 f c gods as had been men." Ib. p. 177, note'. He 
 
 fpeaks 
 s Above, p, 320,
 
 492 Worjhip of human Spirits, 
 than on the concurring teftimonies of all 
 ages, feem to me infuperable difficulties 
 upon his fide of the queftion. On whofe 
 fide the weight of evidence preponderates 
 is a matter that mufl be left to the judge- 
 ment of the reader. 
 
 fpeaks of it as a matter " univerfally known, that the 
 " Egyptians never paid any religious honours to hero- 
 " gods," in exprefs contradiction to the Creeks them- 
 fel-ves, as well a? to the united teftimonies of other heathen 
 and of chriftian writers. Ib. p. 183, note*. See ano- 
 ther example, p. 37, note k . He even affirms that " all 
 *' the world knew the heathen gods had never 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 d , in the preceding meets. 
 
 The foregoing inftances, to which more might be 
 added, are fufficient to mew what opinion we are 
 to form of Mr. Fell, as a writer, even upon the 
 fubjefl which he has been allowed to handle better than 
 any other. And, as the other writers, whom he hath 
 jnifreprefented or mifunderftood, are not chargeable 
 with obfcurity, I hope it is not owing to any fuch caufp 
 that he has given a falfe or erroneous account of my fen- 
 timents 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. 1. 
 
 The defign of the prefent publication to prove the gent- 
 ral prevalence of the luorjhip of human fpirits in the an- 
 cient heathen world, p. 21. The proofs either refpect 
 particular nations, or are of a more general nature, 
 and equally refpeft all the moft celebrated nations of 
 antiquity, ibid. The ancient nations divided into 
 two clafles, the barbarous and the learned, p. 22. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Proving, from the teftimonies of the Heathens, that 
 human fpirits were worshipped in the nations ufually 
 accounted barbarous, p. 23. 
 
 SECT. I. Particularly in thofe which have been faid to 
 hold only the natural gods, p. 24. i. The Scythi- 
 ans, ibid. 2. The MafTagetes, p. 28. j. 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 worihipped human 
 fpirits, p. 94. In Africa, the ^Ethiopians, p. 95. 
 Some of the Libyan Nomades, p. 96. The Augi- 
 
 Iites>
 
 494 CONTENTS. 
 
 lites, p. 97. Carthaginians, Hid. Atlantians, p. 98. 
 And others, p. 97-100. In Europe, p. 100. 
 The Celts, Hid. The Iberians and Celtiberians, 
 p. 102. The Gauls, p. 103. The Thracians, p. 1 16. 
 In Alia, p. 119. The Inhabitants of it's nor- 
 thern parts, p. 120. Of the middk and fouthern, 
 p. 119-123. And of the eaftern, p. 123. The In- 
 dians, p. 124. The Pundits of Indoftan, ibid. The 
 The Brachmans, p. 124, 125. The people of Tar- 
 tary, p. 126. Siam, ibid. Tibet, ibid. China, ibid. 
 Japan, p. 127. The worfhip of dead men in the na- 
 tions accounted barbarous was very general, p. 129. 
 And almoft univerfal, and forae of them acknow- 
 ledged no other gods, ibid. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 Proving, from the teftimonies of the Heathens, that 
 human fpirits were worfhipped in the nations poliftied 
 by learning, p. 132. 
 
 SECT. I. The Phenicians, p. 133. SECT. II. The E- 
 gyptians, p. 146. SECT. III. The Affyrians, 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 objeds 
 of the eftablilhed worlhip had once been men ; fuch. 
 even their greatejt gods had been, p. 276-278. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 Containing general proofs of the worfhip of human fpi- 
 rits in the ancient heathen world, p. 279. Thefe 
 proofs drawn from two fources, tcjiimonies 
 ikid.
 
 CONTENTS. 495 
 
 SECT. I. Proofs from tejlimonies t ibid. I. The tefti- 
 monies of the heathen poets, p. 280. II. Philofo- 
 phers, p. 296. III. And hiitorians, p. 308. Mr. 
 Bryant's objections propofed and anfwered, p. 320. 
 
 IV. The teftimonies of the Chriftian Fathers, p. 341. 
 
 SECT. II. Proofs from/**?/, p. 357. I. The heathen 
 fepulchres, p. 358. II. Temples, p. 373. III. Py- 
 ramids, p. 379. IV. Other places of fepulture and 
 religious worftrip, p. 389. Caves, p. 590. (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 ghofts, ibid. Sacrifices and libations, p. 427. 
 Blood, p. 430. Human victims, p. 432. Other 
 rites of worfhip, p. 447. Mournings, p. 448. Ban- 
 quets, p. 453. Games, p. 454. Myfteries or fecret 
 worihip, p. 45 8. VII. Divination and oracles, p. 46 1 . 
 VIII. The remains of the fame kind of idolatrous 
 worihip, in popifh countries, as that pra&ifed by the 
 Heathens, p. 467. The arguments from fads, in 
 proof of the humanity of the gods, as extenfive as 
 thofe from teftimony, p. 483-. Recapitulation, p. 
 480 to the end.
 
 ft W 
 
 - 
 
 r f 
 
 / ^ 
 
 
 _ ^^
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL IWWRY FAOUTY 
 
 A 000035307 8 
 
 'S 
 
 ^ 
 

 
 
 ^:^?T.