the name of God to the whole. To this they endeavour to accommodate the fables of the poetical mythology concerning Jupiter, and the other gods and goddesses; though many of their explications were so forced and unnatural, that they were often ridiculed by other Pagans on the account of them. Dr. Cudworth also produces a passage from Apuleius to show that all the Pagans throughout the world worshipped one supreme God under different names, and by various rites. "Numen "unicum multiformi specie, ritu vario, nomine multijugo, "totus veneratur orbis." But not to insist upon it, that by God Apuleius seems there to understand universal nature, it must be observed, that he and several other Pagans who lived after the introduction of Christianity, made it their business to put a fair gloss upon the heathen superstition and idolatry, and in many instances disguised it. If this plea, be extended, as some of those apologists and refiners of Paganism pretended, to all the popular heathen deities in general, as if they were all no other than so many different names of the one supreme God, it would follow that they acknowledged and worshipped no hero deities at all; than which nothing can be more contrary to truth and fact. Accordingly these pretences of the philosophers made little impression upon the people, who had always been used to worship them as so many distinct personal divinities, and knew very well that the public religion regarded them as such. They were acquainted with the ancient traditions concerning them, and the actions ascribed to them by the poets and mythologists, to which many of their sacred rites referred, and on which they were founded. Tertullian puts the case very strongly to the Pagans, that they themselves were sensible that their gods had once been men. He appeals to their own consciences for the truth of this, and to their most ancient and authentic monuments.* The learned Appellamus et provocamus a vobis ad conscientiam vestram: illa nos judicet, "illa nos damnet, si potuerit negare omnes istos Deos vestros homines fuisse. Si et "ipsa inficias ierit, de suis antiquitatum monumentis revincetur, ex quibus eos didi“cit testimonium perhibentibus ad hodiernum, et civitatibus in quibus nati sunt, et 66 66 was Dr. Cudworth, who seems very fond of the bypothesis of resolving the Pagan divinities into different names of the one supreme God, yet finds himself obliged to acknowledge that herology," that is the history and worship of hero deities, "inserted and complicated all along together with physiology, "in the Paganic fables of their gods."* Indeed these things were so blended together, that it was scarce possible to separate them, or to point out distinctly what belonged to the one, and what to the other: which produced a monstrous jumble in their religion and worship. And though this excellent writer concludes his account of the Egyptian theology with declaring his opinion that " a great part of the Egyptian poly"theism was nothing else than the worshipping the one supreme God under many different names and notions, as "of Hammon, Neith, Osiris, Isis, Serapis, Kneph," &c.;+ yet it appears from the account he himself gives from Plutarch and others, that their most learned priests were far from being agreed in their notions of what was to be understood by Osiris, Isis, Serapis, &c. Some held them to be different names of the same deity, whom they supposed to be the whole animated world, but especially the sun: others held them to be different deities, or different powers presiding over the air, moisture, &c.: others gave historical and traditionary accounts of them as of persons that had formerly lived and reigned in Egypt. Porphyry makes Serapis to have been an evil demon. ‡ And the Doctor himself, who takes notice of this, thinks it cannot be doubted that it was an evil demon that delivered oracles in the temple of Serapis, and affected to be worshipped as the supreme God. "regionibus in quibus aliquid operati, operum vestigia reliquerunt, in quibus "etiam sepulti demonstrantur." Tertul. Apolog. cap. 10. Oper. p. 11. Edit. Paris, 1675. * Intel. syst. chap. iv. sect. xiv. p. 239. + Ibid. sect. 18. p. 352. Ap. Euseb. Præp. Evangel. lib. iv. cap. 25. p. 175. Ubi supra, p. 351. I do not deny that some of those, which passed for different deities, were probably at first only different names of God; but as idolatry increased among the nations, those different names came in process of time to be erected into different divinities, and were regarded and worshipped by the people as such. So that, instead of adoring the one supreme God under his various names and attributes, they turned those very names and attributes into so many distinct personal names of different gods and goddesses, whom they worshipped with different and sometimes with contrary rites: and thus made them an occasion of further polytheism and idolatry. "The ❝ several names of God," saith Dr. Cudworth, "were vulgarly "spoken of, in Greece, as so many distinct deities."* And the same may be observed concerning the Romans. He elsewhere acknowledgeth that "the vulgar probably did not “understand that mystery of the Pagan theology; that many "of their gods were nothing but several names and notions of "the one supreme Deity, in its various manifestations and ef"fects." Lord Herbert himself, who hath used his utmost efforts to palliate the Pagan polytheism, and to show that they worshipped the one true God, the same that we Christians adore, under various names and attributes, yet owns, that what were at first only different names, in process of time, as superstition increased, came to be regarded and worshipped as different gods.‡ The same thing is observed by Mr. Selden, who says that, in the sacred hymns, the gods were invoked *Intel. Syst. p. 260. + Ibid. p. 447. His Lordship takes notice of the name of Zivs rallarios, which was probably derived from the Hebrew Sabaoth, and was originally designed to signify God's supreme universal dominion, as he is the Lord of Hosts. He was worshipped by the Athenians; but it does not appear that, under this name, they intended to adore the one supreme Lord of the universe, but regarded him as a particular deity, and thus turned him into an idol. And accordingly Aristophanes inveighs against him as a strange and foreign divinity, which was lately introduced, and ought to be banished out of Greece. To this Cicero refers, De Leg. lib. ii. cap. 15. p. 132. by a variety of names and epithets; because it was imagined that this variety of names was pleasing and honourable to them: but that afterwards these different names were accounted and worshipped as different divinities. Thus idolatry and polytheism was making continual advances, even as the nations grew in learning and politeness. * * Seld. De Diis Syris, Proleg. cap. iii. p. 55, 56. Edit. Lips. CHAP. V. Farther progress of the heathen polytheism. The symbols and images of the gods turned into gods themselves. The physiology of the Pagans another source of idolatry. They made gods and goddesses of the things of nature, and parts of the universe, and of whatsoever was useful to mankind. The qualities and affections of the mind, and accidents of life, and even evil qualities and accidents were deified, and had divine honours rendered to them. The most refined Pagans agreed, according to Dr. Cudworth, in crumbling the Deity into several parts, and multiplying it into many gods. They supposed God to be in a manner alt things, and therefore to be worshipped in every thing. Divine honours were paid to evil beings acknowledged to be such. The Egyptian idolatry considered. As the different names, so also the different symbols invented and made use of to denote the Divinity, came also to be worshipped as gods: such as fire among the Chaldeans, the cow and bull among the Egyptians. And it is not improbable, that the other animal gods worshipped by the Egyptians, the sheep, goat, hawk, ibis, ichneumon, crocodile, cat, dog, &c. were at first designed, according to the wisdom which then obtained, as symbols and hieroglyphical characters of the supreme Deity, or some of his attributes, or, as the learned author of the Divine Legation of Moses supposes, they were marks of their elementary gods and heroes. But afterwards they worshipped and deified the symbols themselves, and thereby fell into the most gross and stupid idolatry, which exposed them to the ridicule of other Pagans. The same may be observed concerning the images which were erected to their deities, and were supposed to have divine powers residing in them. These very images became gods, and were worshipped as such, and had divine honours rendered to them. And this added mightily to the multitude of their gods. Plutarch blames the Grecians for calling the pictures of the gods, and their statues of brass and stone, gods: whereas they ought only to have called them the images of the gods. How far this was carried among the Athenians, who were accounted the most knowing as well as the most religious * Div. Leg. of Moses, vol. I. part. ii. p. 298. 4th edit. |