fpondence is confirmed and illuftrated by the representations given of a future state in the Old and New Teftament. The learned Author examines the opinions of the Pagan writers on this fubject, purpofely, with a view to fhew, how far a knowledge of the antiquity of the worship of dead men may enable us to fix the meaning of the word DEATH, in the threatening denounced against Adam. If human fpirits (fays he) were worshipped in the age of Mofes, particularly in Egypt and Pho nicia, then the word death could not at that time, and in those countries, denote more than the deftruction of bodily life; for, had this term farther included in it the infenfibility or extinction of the foul, the dead would not have been honoured as Gods. And had Mofes ufed it in this extenfive fenfe, he would (as he well knew) have been misunderstood by the Egyptians, who afferted the immortality of the foul; and by the Hebrews, who dwelt among them, and had adopted their fyftem of religion. He did not, however, in order to prevent their mistaking him, give notice of his ufing the word in a new and fingular sense; and therefore he defigned to exprefs by it what they did, the deftruction of the body." The Author gives feveral reafons, which well deferve the moft attentive confideration, to confirm this interpretation of the word death in the writings of Mofes; and particularly obferves, that he cannot find a fingle example before the time of Chrift, of a person who believed the refurrection of the dead, that did not at the fame time allow the permanence of the foul after death. These introductory remarks were defigned by the Author to juftify his attempt to bring forward to the Reader a general view of Pagan worship, from thofe records of antiquity, which few have the leifure or the ability to confult in their original ftate. The fubject was flightly touched on in his former publication on the Demoniacs of the Gospel; but the defign of that learned and curious work was of too circumfcribed a nature to admit of fuch an ample difcuffion of it as was neceffary to give the reader a thorough insight into it, by unfolding the several parts of which it confifts, and examining its diftinct principles, as well as its leading and general object. The Author confines himself in the prefent work to one inquiry; viz. The prevalence of the worship of human spirits in the antient heathen world. He profecutes it with an attention that discovers his diligence; and his obfervations and reflections throughout are equal proofs of his learning and judgment. The first chapter is defigned to prove, from the testimonies of the heathens themfelves, that they paid religious honours to dead men in the nations ftyled barbarous; or that were in an uncivilized state. In the firft fection, Mr. Farmer combats the objections of his moft formidable (and, according to his own 3 idea, idea, moft uncandid and difingenuous) antagonist, Mr. Fell*, in his remarks on the treatise on the Demoniacs. Mr. Fell denied that the Scythians, the Maffagetes, the Getes, the Goths, the Germans, the Perfians, the Arabians, and the inhabitants of Meroe, paid any worship to deceased heroes. In most of Mr. Fell's remarks Mr. Farnier fees either plagiarism or misreprefentation; and when he detects either, he is not very fsparing in his cenfures. Perhaps not fo' fparing as he ought to have been. But, feeling the lash (which was fometimes laid on with an unrelenting hand), he thought he was not bound to ftand on ceremony; and fo returned Mr. Fell's reflections with an asperity which candour may condemn, but which Mr. Fell cannot with any shew of modesty complain of. There is, fays our Author, pofitive evidence, that out of the eight fore-mentioned nations, which he [Mr. Fell] affirms acknowledged only the natural Gods, feven worshipped human fpirits. (The cafe of the Maffagetes alone is doubtful.) Nay, fome of them had no other deities but thefe. He not only adopts Dr. Blackwell's peculiar interpretation, without acknowledging his obligation, but copies his mistakes, which is a fure proof that he took every thing upon truft, and had himself no knowledge of his fubject. When Mr. Fell deferts his guide, he is far from appearing to greater advantage; for then, inftead of mifreprefenting antient writers, we find him boldly afferting facts that are falfe, without producing any teftimony to fupport them, as in the cafe of the Goths; or appealing to the teftimony of authors who contradict 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 judgment, and his learning!' The fecond fection purfues the inquiry, and is defigned to prove, that other barbarous nations, befides thofe already mentioned, paid divine honours to deceased men. The barbarous nations of Africa, viz. the Ethiopians-the Augilites-the Atlantians-and the Egyptians (who are particularly confidered in a subsequent chapter) may be claffed in this fpecies of idolaters. As may also thofe of antient Europe-diftinguished by the names of Scythians-Celto-Scythians, Getæ, Gallacians, Gallogrecians, Celtiberians, Teutones, Germans, and Gauls: and of Afia, viz. in Sarmatia Afiatica, near the Palus Mæotisin Colchis-in Abydena-at Sinope in Paphlagonia- in Phrygia, &c. &c. &c. and at the very extremity of the Eaft, in Japan, there are clear traces of the fame fuperftition. The second chapter carries the inquiry ftill farther; and the authorities it produces are defigned to prove, from the testimonies of the Heathens, that they paid religious honours to dead men in the very nations polished by learning. Among the na *For our account of Mr. Fell's performance, fee Rev. Vol. LXII. March, 1780.. O 2 tions tions which answer this defcription, the Author enumerates (in order to confirm and illuftrate his propofition) the Chaldeans, Babylonians, Syrians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. To these he adds fuch Arabians as bordered on Judea and Egypt. It is to the Gods of thefe nations (of fuch of them especially as bordered on Canaan) that the Scriptures refer when they speak of the Heathen deities. Our Author therefore juftly infers, that the knowledge of the Gods of thefe nations muft be highly useful to the lovers of facred literature. In this section, the Author enters into a very ample difcuffion of the great fubject of this work, with a defign to prove, that in all the forementioned nations, divine honours were paid to dead men and women. As the proofs for this fpecies of idolatry, adduced in the two preceding chapters, chiefly refpect particular nations, the Author, in the 3d chapter, offers reafons of a more general nature to confirm his pofition-reafons, as he obferves, which almost equally respect the far greater part of the antient world. These he claffes under two heads, viz. 1. Those which are drawn from the teftimonies of the ancients; and 2. Those which are illuftrated and confirmed by certain uncontroverted facts. The teftimonies are drawn from the heathen poets-the philofophers -the hiftorians-and the Chriftian Fathers: the proofs from facts are founded on monuments and inftitutions which were defigned to perpetuate the heroes who became the objects of Pagan worship; fuch as the Heathen fepulchres-temples-pyramids -caves, &c. &c. &c. ftatues, images, facrifices, libations, mournings, games, myfteries, &c. &c. &c. To give the Reader a general view of the arguments employed in this learned and ingenious work, we need only tranfcribe his own recapitulation of its leading principles and ultimate defign, That Gods, who had their original here below, were worhipped in most of the heathen nations, commonly ftyled barbarous, and in all thofe polished by learning, has been proved by an induction of particulars upon the teftimony of the Pagans themfelves, who certainly best knew what the objects of their worship were. Besides the proofs of this point, which refpe&t particular nations, others of a more general nature were produced, which equally respect all the learned nations, and all others which had adopted their fyftem of theology. The proofs were drawn from two fources; from the diftin&t teftimonies of the Heathen poets, philofophers, and hiftorians, and of the Chriftian Fathers; and from certain facts, which cannot be controverted, and yet cannot be accounted for but upon the fuppofition of the truth of those teftimonies +. The teftimonies and the * Ch. III. fe&t. 1. Ch. III fet, 2. facts facts mutually illuftrate and confirm each other; and both, especially when taken together, fully demonftrate the general prevalence of the worship of human fpirits in the ancient heathen world: which is the point I undertook to establish. In But the arguments, which have carried us fo far, go farther, and prove, not only that human fpirits were generally worshipped amongst 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 established worship; which confifted in having ftatues, temples, altars, priefts, facrifices, feftivals, games, and numerous ceremonies, dedicated to them by public decrees. the nations here alluded to, idolatry was digefted into an artificial Syftem; which might indeed be built upon the fuppofition of there being two forts of Gods, the natural and the human. Nevertheless, the latter, being thought to be intrufted with the government of the world, and more especially of human affairs, became the grand objects of men's hopes, and fears, and dependence, and engroffed, as it were, the public devotion. If fome of these Hero-Gods were confidered, by those instructed in the fecret doctrine, as fymbols of the natural, yet the civil theology prefented the former to the people as being themselves true and real divinities, not as fymbols and reprefentatives of any other. Accordingly the Heathens, the early Chriftians, and to these we may add the ancient Jews, and the facred writers themselves †, agree in representing all the Gods of Paganism as deceafed mortals. This is certainly true, in general, with refpect to the objects of national worship. Some, who would not undertake to affirm there were no exceptions, confeffed that it was difficult to find any; and others thought that there were none. must be obferved, farther, that the argument from the facts before mentioned, particularly from the reprefentation of the Gods by images, and the places and rites of their worship, extends as far as the fore-cited teftimonies, and equally with them ferve to fhew that all the Heathen Gods had once been men; which is a full vindication of the opinion I had expreffed of them in the fame terms. Nevertheless, a late writer [Mr. Fell] declares, no opinion can be more erroneous than this, and even that all the world knew the Heathen Gods had never been men. It • The Gentiles diftinguished the Gods whom the laws commanded them to worship into two claffes: the Gods of the higher, and the lower, order . The latter 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 priests difcouraged all inquiry into * In their Greek verfion of Pf. xcv. 5. we read, ПaνTES OF DEOL TWY εSvæv Saijovia. ALL the Gods of the Heathen are demons, that is, men who after their deaths were fuppofed to become demons or deities. Demons here cannot denote apoftate angels; becaufe, in this fenfe of the word, the affertion is palpably falfe. The Scripture represents the Heathen Gods as dead men, and confequently as nothing more than fuch, because it does not allow their real deification after their deaths. Differt. on Mir. p. 197. Dii majorum, et minorum, gentium. The word gentium is ufed here as it is in the following paffage of Cicero: Cleanthes, qui quafi majorum eft gentium Stoicus. Academ. II. 41. It has always been argued from in the preceding fheets in its true fenfe; though, in p. 209, it is, through mere inadvertence, rendered nations, 0 3 their their origin; and 'fometimes pretended that they were beings 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. Nevertheless, perfons of understanding faw through the delufion, and proved, from the hiftory of their birth and burial (what the priests themselves disclosed, to thofe initiated into the greater myfteries, under the feal of fecrecy), that even thefe Gods of the firft clafs were of human defcent. The Heathens not only declare, in general terms, that all their Gods had no higher original, but affirm that this was the cafe in particular with respect to their greatest Gods, and the objects of their most august ceremonies. In examining the evidence of the human origin of the national Gods, I confidered the objections that have been raised against it by feveral writers as they came in the way, and particularly those urged 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 ftudied apology for Paganism, than an impartial reprefentation of it. He was of opinion, that the Gods of the greater nations (in which he must include the learned ones) were the deified parts and powers of the univerfe. I have therefore largely fhewn, that the Gods of thefe nations were deified mortals. His objections are retailed by a late writer* as his own, and have been diftinctly examined. With regard to Mr. Bryant, it is impoffible to forbear doing juftice to his abilities, his learning, his candour, and his zeal to fupport Chriftianity. His knowledge of antiquity rendered him fully fenfible of what he freely acknowledges, viz. that, in the opinion of the Heathens them felves, their Gods were deified" mortals. But this conceffion, and other conceffions, together with his relying more on etymological deductions than on the concurring teftimonies of all ages, feem to me infuperable difficulties upon his fide of the question. On whofe fide the weight of evidence preponderates, is a matter that must be left to the judgment of the reader.' Throughout this work the Author difcovers an indefatigable attention to what the ancients have advanced on the various fubjects treated in it. He hath felected his authorities with great judgment, and arranged them with perfpicuity, order, and precifion. Although the inquiries here fet on foot will, in general, be relifhed only by the learned, yet there are points here and there difcuffed by this ingenious writer which will afford entertainment to readers of lefs erudition; but the limits of our Review will not permit us to give any thing more than the above fhort abridgment of the leading contents of this truly respectable and learned work. * Mr. Fell. ART. II. The American Wanderer through various Parts of Europe. In a Series of Letters to a Lady, interiperfed with a Variety of interefting Anecdotes. By a Virginian. 8vo. 6s. Boards. Robfon. 1783. THIS HIS lively writer is fometimes very happy in his flighter and more fortuitous touches; but when he runs into mi nute |