VII. The first thing that seems to have weight against this system, is
the great opposition between the authors themselves who are the advocates
for it, with regard to their application of the cases instanced by them;
for in the same fable, in which one fancies he sees traces of one part of
sacred history, another imagines he perceives those of a very different
one. For example, Monsieur Huet conceives, that in the fabulous story of
Hercules, is involved or disguised the history of Joshua; and Nicholas
Butler finds in the same fable, the adventures of Adam. Mons. Huet
fancies, that Moses is described in the fable of Perseus; and Mr. Butler,
in the same fable, discovers the history of Jonas. Is it not clearer than
the sun at noon-day, that the adventures of Joshua and Adam, as likewise
those of Moses and Jonas, which are so different in themselves, can only
by the force of violent and strained allusions, be made in one fable, to
be descriptive of Joshua and Adam, and in another, of Moses, and Jonas?
VIII. But the disagreement in what I am now about to mention, is much
more enormous still. Mons. Huet, who, in the errors of paganism, fancies
he discovers multiplied descriptions of Moses, imagines, he sees this
hero painted to the life in the fable of Prometheus; and in the same
fable, Father Tournemine finds depicted the crime and punishment of
Lucifer. Such a striking contradiction, makes it manifest, that authors
who employ themselves in such undertakings, are not guided by any firm or
permanent lights which are thrown on the objects of their speculations,
but by some false rays, which are furnished by their own imaginations.