object of their worship. There is not the least hint, that they looked higher to any superior deity; but in Baal their views terminated, whilst the true God was neglected. By Baal, it is most probable they intended to worship the sun.* Him the ancient Phoenicians acknowledged to be μόνον οὐρανοῦ κύριον, the only lord of heaven.+ And they honoured him with the name of Baal, which properly signifies lord. This writer indeed takes upon him to affirm, that the idolatry of the heathens was all of the same kind; the worship of God by the mediation of subordinate, national, residential, and tutelar deities,' p. 201. As if the heathens still had their views ultimately fixed upon the one living and true God; and only intended to worship the supreme Lord of the universe by the mediation of inferior deities. But whatever notions some of their philosophers and wise men might have of this matter, there is no proof that this was the worship established in their respective states by their legislators, or practised by the people. The Platonists indeed talked of genii or demons, whose office they supposed it to be to carry our prayers to the gods, and to bring from them oracles, and divine gifts to us. See Plutarch. De Isid. et Osirid, and Apuleius de Deo Socrat. But then it is to be observed, that these mediators or intercessors were supposed to intervene, not between men and the one supreme God, but between men and the celestial deities, of whom there were many whom they acknowledged and worshipped; nor did they invest those whom they called celestial deities, with this mediatory office. Plato himself, whatever notions he had of the first principle and cause of all things, yet in his books of laws, which were designed for the people, did not prescribe to them the worship of the one supreme God, because he looked upon him to be incomprehensible; and that what he is, and how he is to be worshipped, is not to be described or declared; nor were the vulgar capable of forming a just notion of him. But he appointed twelve solemn festivals to be observed to the twelve principal gods; and proposed the worship of the heavens and stars, whose divinity he recommended. See his eighth book of laws; and his Epinomy or appendix to his book of laws. Indeed, the vulgar among the heathens did in many places worship many gods' in conjunction; and though they had a notion of one chief god above the rest, he whom they regarded as such was generally only an idol, of the same kind, though of greater eminence than the rest. Hence we find all the gods often joined together, and worshipped in conjunction with Jupiter at the head of them. They usually speak of god and the gods promiscuously, because they considered their deities collectively, as making up one system. They had a temple dedicated to all the gods both at Rome and Athens, and they were all honoured with one common festival called Seoέvia; and they had altars consecrated to all the gods and goddesses, with such

See Calmet's Dissertation on the Phoenician Deities. And Vossius de Idol. lib. 2, cap. 4. 6.

↑ See the Fragments of Sanchoniathon in Euseb. de Prep. Evangel. lib. v.

inscriptions as these, Dis deabusque omnibus,' and 'dibus deabusque omnibus,' and the like. When they invoked any particular deity, it was usual for the priests, afterwards, to add an invocation of all the deities in general, as Servius notes upon that of Virgil,

"Dii deæque omnes studium quibus arva tueri.”

In many nations the sun was the deity whom they principally adored. And Job represents this kind of worship, as a denying the God which is above,' Job xxxi. 28. Among some, universal nature was the one supreme deity, and the several parts of the universe were worshipped as parts of the divinity.t In Greece and

Concerning this see Vossius at large, de Idolatria, lib. 2. cap. 3. ad cap. 18; Macrobius Saturnal. lib. 1., takes a great deal of pains to prove that the sun was the on uni. versal deity, who was adored under several names. This plea he manages with a great deal of wit and learning in the person of Vettius Prætextatus. And he concludes all

with a double citation; the one is of a short invocation, which he tells us the heathen theologists made use of in Sacris,' in their devotions or sacred ceremonies; the form whereof runs thus, “ ἥλιε παντικρατορ κόσμου πνεῦμα, κόσμου δύναμις, κόσμου φῶς. O sun omnipotent, the spirit of the world, the power of the world, the light of the world.' The other is taken out of the verses of Orpheus, in which the sun is called Jupiter, the Father of the sea and land; and the generation of all things is ascribed to him.

By some the heaven or circumambient ether was esteemed Jove or the chief god. Remarkable to this purpose is the verse Cicero cites from Ennius. Aspice hoc sublime candens quem invocant omnes Jovem.' And he cites Euripides to the same purpose, speaking of the ether, Hunc summum perhibeto divum, hunc perhibeto Jovem. Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. 2. And in his fourth book of Academic Questions, he observes concerning several of the Stoics, that they supposed the ether to be the chief God, being endowed with a mind whereby all things are governed; and that Cleanthes, a principal Stoic, and scholar of Zeno, looked upon the sun to be lord of all, and as having the supreme dominion. From whence he infers, according to the manner of the academics, that by this disagreement among the wise we are constrained to be ignorant who is our Lord; for we know not whether to pay our service to the sun or ether. Plato in Cra tylo supposes that the worship of the heaven and stars was the most ancient religion of the Pagans. It seems to me, says he, that the first inhabitants of Greece anciently, as well as many of the barbarians now, esteemed these only to be gods, the sun and moon, and earth, and stars, and heaven. Φαινονται μοι, οἱ πρωτοι τῶν ανθρώπων τῶν περὶ τάν ἐλλήδα, τουτους μονους θεους ἡγεῖσθαι, ὥσπερ νῦν πόλλοι τῶν βαρ βάρων, ἤλιον, και σελήνην, καὶ γὴν, καὶ αστρα, καί οὐρανον. And Aristotle to the same purpose observes, that it hath been delivered to us by those of very ancient times, both that the stars are gods, and that the Divinity containeth the whole of na ture, Arist. Metaph. lib. 11, cap. 8. Maimonides saith concerning the Zabians, whose sect, he tells us, did overrun a great part of the earth, that they all held the eternity of the world; and that the heavens and stars according to them are the Deity. Mor. Nevoch. par. 3, cap. 29.

f Plutarch observes concerning the Egyptians, τον πρωτον θεον τῶ παντι τὸν avròv voμíčovou. That they account the first or chief god to be the same with the TÒ Tav, the world or the universe. And he mentions this as a proof of their piety and just sentiments of the Divinity. See Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. In the theology generally received among the Stoics, the world or the one animated mundane system was God. They considered souls as parts of God, the soul of the world; and visible and corporeal things, is parts of his body. And upon this principle they vindicated and accounted for the Pagan idolatry, and worshipped the several parts of the universe, under the names of the popular deities. But whilst they thus pretended to worship one God under different names and manifestations, they really deified the several parts of the material world, and the several powers and virtues diffused through the whole; and, instead of curing the popular polytheism, only established it; and as Plutarch observes, they filled the air, heaven, earth, and sea with gods. Plut. de communi notit. adversus Stoicos. These sentiments of the Stoics, Cicero represents thus, ' Quoniam hunc mundum esse sapientem, habere mentem, qua et se, et ipsum fabricata sit, & omnia moderetur, moveat, regat, erit persuasum etiam, solem, lunam, stellasque omnes,

Rome, where polytheism, or the worship of many gods, was established, Jupiter had a supremacy over the rest. But this Jupiter, who was regarded as the chief of the gods, the Thunderer, and the father of gods and men, was confounded with that Jupiter whom the poets sung, and of whom the mythologists told and the people believed such strange fables. So that it may be justly said, that the only true God was to them in a great measure an unknown God, whom they neglected and disregarded, whilst their worship was paid to idol deities. So vain were they become in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. It was to prevent this, that all manner of worship of inferior deities was strictly forbidden in the law of Moses, whereby it was gloriously distinguished from other laws and constitutions, and they were expressly commanded to worship the one true God, and him only. While among other nations, where the worship of many gods obtained, and was countenanced by their laws, men soon began to worship them more than the Creator; and lost the knowledge and wor ship of the one living and true God, amidst a multiplicity of idol

deities.

This writer had in his former book asserted, that there was a most bloody war carried on between Israel and Judah, under the pretence of religion, for the space of about 260 years; that Judah was the aggressor in this war; and the prophets had the chief hand in carrying it on. But on the contrary it was shown, that the prophets had no hand in fomenting the war between Israel and Judah, but rather dissuaded and discouraged it; that it does not appear that Judah was the aggressor in this war; and that the war was so far from being continual and uninterrupted, as he is pleased to represent it, that we read of no wars between them for a hundred years together, and afterwards for fourscore years more.* Now what does this writer say to this? It is not his way to acknowledge, that he has been wrong, let it be proved ever so plainly upon him. But in order to throw dust in the eyes of his readers, and to put an appearance of saying something, he enters upon a long dull detail from p. 202 to p. 210, most of which is nothing at all to the point in question, and the few things that might be so are entirely misrepresented. Thus e. g. as to the war between Baasha and Asa, he not only supposes that Judah was the aggressor in this war, though it appears from the history, that Baasha king of Israel begun it, see 2 Chron. xvi. 1; but in a manifest contradiction to the account there given us, will have it, that the prophets put Asa upon making an alliance with Benhadad king of Syria. He expressly asserts, that the prophets of the Lord approved of this alliance, and justified it in Asa, and engaged a foreign idolatrous power to do their work for them, p. 203, whereas the very contrary to this is true. For the prophet

terram, mare, Deos esse, quod quadam animali, intelligentia per omnia permeat, et transeat,' Quest. Accad. lib. 4. Varro, the most learned of the Romans, had the same notion, as appears from August. de Civit. Dei. lib. 7, cap. 6.

See Div. Author. pp. 192, 193.

Hanani came to Asa in the name of God, and reproved him for this alliance, which so enraged the king, that he put the prophet in prison, 2 Chron. xvi. 7-10. So signal a falsification of the history furnisheth a new proof to the reader, who has had several proofs of it before, that this writer, who is pleased to honour himself with the title of Philalethes, the lover of truth, will stick at nothing, how false soever, that he thinks will serve his cause, or tend to expose the prophets or priests. And then he goes on to insinuate, that it was because Asa had entered into this alliance with the idolatrous Syrians, that he is so highly extolled by the historians, and that Jehoshaphat is blamed by them for entering into an alliance with Ahab for the defence of his country. But it is certain that Jehoshaphat had a better character given him by the historians, than Asa himself; though he is blamed for entering into affinity with the house of Ahab, which produced many mischiefs to his posterity. Our author after this, and repeating what he had said before concerning Ahab's four hundred prophets, which has been already considered, hath nothing further to offer to fix the charge of all the commotions and revolutions in the state upon the prophets;' and yet very gravely tells his reader, that any man must see this, who will read the history with his own natural eyesight, and without systematical spectacles,' p. 206.

He had advanced it as a charge against all the prophets that lived before the Assyrian captivity, and afterwards against all the prophets in general, that they declaimed only against idolatry, and scarce ever meddled with the other vices and immoralities of the people. The falsehood of this charge was clearly shown.* He finds himself unable to justify it, and yet is unwilling to retract it. He observes, that Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah, whom I had particularly mentioned, as strongly inveighing against all manner of vice and immorality, were all living and prophesying at the last Assyrian captivity; but it is also certain, that they had been living and prophesying a considerable time before it. And most part of Isaiah's prophecies, and probably all those of Hosea and Micah were delivered before that captivity; and they are all of the same strain, everywhere reproving the people for their vices and sins, and calling them to repentance. As doth also the prophet Amos, who prophesied before the Assyrian captivity, in the reign of Jeroboam, when the Israelites were in great prosperity. Our author is pleased to take no notice of this, though I had mentioned it, but contents himself with calling upon his reader to 'see the justice and candour of this systematical writer;' and if he can persuade his reader, after considering what I offered, that there is any justice or candour in his representation of this matter, I will readily own that he is a very lucky writer.

He falls heavily upon me for representing it as an absurd thing, to suppose that the Jews should learn their religion and aversion to

* See Div. Author.' pp. 194-196.

idolatry from the Persians, the adorers of the sun and of fire. He is astonished that any man that pretends to learning should at this time of day believe this groundless story and abuse of the Persians, a calumny which has been cast upon them by the Greek historians, who knew nothing of the Persians or their religion; and refers me to Dr. Hyde, as having fully confuted this, and proved, beyond all contradiction, that the Medes and Persians, from their very first. records, had never been idolaters. But Dr. Hyde himself owns, as hath been already shown, that they had fallen into Sabaism before the days of Abraham, and after being reformed by him, relapsed into it again; and Zoroaster brought in another reformation among them in the days of Darius Hystaspes. But, after all, the account Dr. Hyde gives of the religion of the ancient Persians is far from being so authentic and unexceptionable as this writer represents it. The authorities he produces are chiefly from modern Persian or Arabian writers, scarce any of them above five or six hundred years old, or from the declarations of the present priests among the Gaures or modern worshippers of fire, or from the liturgies and books now in use among them; which carry in them many marks

of mixtures taken from the Jews, Mahometans, and Christians. And these authorities can scarce be judged, in the opinion of any impartial unprejudiced person, to preponderate those of the ancient Greek and Roman writers, who gave an account of the religion of the Persians in the times in which they lived; and who, considering the correspondence between the Greeks and Persians, before and after the conquest made by Alexander, and afterwards between the Romans and Parthians, could hardly be supposed so ignorant or so misinformed, concerning the Persians and their religion, as the learned doctor supposes. And, though there may be some variation among them, yet it is observable, that they are for the most part very uniform in the accounts they give of the religion of the ancient Persians. Mr. Chapman very justly observes, that by Dr. Hyde's own acknowledgment, we know nothing of the Persian religion while Media and Persia were in subjection to the Assyrian for above a thousand years together; and that after the Medes had shook off the Assyrian yoke, the first lawgiver in religion among them after Zoroaster was Keyomaras; and what system of religion his was, the doctor could inform us from no better an authority than Sharisthani, a modern Arabian. And all that Sharisthani himself knew of it was from modern Persians or Indians; and how much their accounts are to be depended upon, we may conclude from their supposing Keyomaras to be the first man Adam, see Euseb. p. 430. And if what our author himself tells us be true, that the Cuthites or Samaritans, the people whom Assarhaddon had placed about Samaria, were Persians, transplanted thither out of the northern provinces of Persia,* see Lett. to Euseb.

Dr. Hyde himself observes, de Relig. vet. Persar.' cap. i. p. 16, That Esarhaddon transplanted into Samaria the Medes, Shushanites, and Elamites or Persians; and indeed these are expressly mentioned as transplanted thither, Ezra iv. 9; and by comparing