XXX. The illustrious Huet, is not more happy in the other parts of his
undertaking, than in those we have given the examples of; but to go thro’
them all, would be very tedious, as the scope of his plan, comprehends
nearly the whole group of the fabulous gods and heroes, who he pretends,
were all descriptive of, and meant one and the same person, which was
Moses. I have said gods and heroes, because he reserved the goddesses and
the heroines, to be the representatives of Moses’s wife Zephora, and his
sister Maria. A magnificient system this truly, if it can be supported;
but its own magnitude exposes its weakness, and it fares with it as it
does with great buildings, which the bigger they are, if they are built
upon slender foundations, the sooner they fall to the ground.
XXXI. It not being practicable then, to combat the assertions of
Monsieur Huet one by one, and in detail, I shall attack the main body
and substance of his system, which I flatter myself I shall do with such
solid arguments, as will go near to divest it of every appearance of
probability.
XXXII. To this end, I shall begin with supposing, that idolatry commenced
long before Moses was born, and that it was pretty generally extended in
the world, before he could possibly have been the object of it: this is
evident from many parts of holy writ. In the book of Joshua, chapter the
24th, it is expressly affirmed, that Terah the father, and Nachor the
brother of Abraham, were idolaters; and these were antecedent to Moses
more than four generations. The idols of Laban also, which the scripture
takes notice of in the 31st chapter of Genesis, were greatly prior to
Moses; and the idol Moloch, was worshiped by some nations a long time
before the days of Moses, as we learn from the 18th chapter of Leviticus.
XXXIII. Idolatry likewise, while Moses was living, was very frequent
and common. It is evident that it prevailed in Egypt at that period;
because Moses, when he was speaking to Pharaoh, called the true God the
God of the Hebrews; from whence it may be inferred, that Pharaoh and the
Egyptians did not know him for such. He likewise told him, that there
was no God like his God. It is probable that the golden calf which the
Israelites worshiped in the desert, was an imitation of the ox, which,
under the name of Apis, was worshiped by the Egyptians, and from thence,
they most probably derived the superstition.
XXXIV. That idolatry at that time had also extended itself into many
other nations, is an established fact. Moloch was worshiped by the
Ammonites. The Moabites were idolaters; and the women of that region
perverted the Israelites, and drew them to the worship of their false
gods; as appears by the 25th chapter of Numbers; and the 7th chapter of
Deuteronomy, makes mention of seven other idolatrous nations.
XXXV. This is what clearly appears from scripture; and there are
well-founded probabilities, that not only in the nations beforementioned,
but even in all others, (although the scripture, on account of their
history not being connected with that of the Israelites, does not
mention them) idolatry in the days of Moses, was radically established:
first, because the expressions the God of the Hebrews, and the God of
Israel, which so frequently occur in the scripture, indicate, that the
Israelites were the only people, who knew and worshiped the true God:
secondly, because it does not seem likely, that if in those days there
had been any other people who were faithful to their maker, that the
Divine Providence would not have contrived some means, to have had
their memories handed down to us, either by the pen of Moses, or that
of some other canonical writer; and also, some account of such men who
had flourished among them, as were eminent for their virtue; thirdly,
because, if in the nations who bordered on the Israelites, who saw their
worship, and were witnesses of the wonders God wrought in their favour,
the light of the true religion did not shine forth, how is it credible
that it should have prevailed in the distant ones?
XXXVI. Supposing then, that idolatry in the days of Moses, prevailed in
all, or the greatest part of the nations in the world, this supposition
gives great force to my argument against the system of the illustrious
Huet; for it is totally incredible, that all the idolatrous nations,
as if they did it by common consent, should at once forsake their
antient errors, for the purpose of forming another new system of false
religion, the object of which, was the adoration of Moses: the conclusion
then, that all the idols of the Gentiles were designed to represent
Moses, is a false one. I shall adduce in support of this assertion,
the following arguments: this change of worship, if it had ever taken
place, would without doubt, have begun with the nations next adjoining
to the Israelites, because these were the first who must have known of,
or experienced the wonders that were wrought by Moses, and from these
nations, together with the information of the wonders, the new idolatry
must have passed to the distant ones; but I say it is incredible, that
this change should ever have taken place in the neighbouring nations;
because these, together with their knowing of the wonders that were
wrought by Moses, must have also been acquainted with the principles
of the religion of the Hebrews; and must have known likewise, that the
Hebrews did not worship Moses as a deity; but that both Moses and they
worshiped an invisible God, in whose name, and by whose supreme power,
the prodigies were performed; and that, in the execution of them, Moses
acted as a mere instrument: it follows then, that in case these wonders
had made such an impression on their minds as to induce them to change
their religion, they would unquestionably have embraced that professed by
Moses and the Hebrews; and not have adopted for a deity, a man who they
knew was a mere instrument in the hands of the true God.
XXXVII. We will illustrate the force of this argument in the instance of
the Egyptians. They saw the wondrous things that were executed by Moses;
did this incline them to acknowledge him for a deity, and to worship him
as such? Clearly no, for they were told by Moses himself and the rest
of the Hebrews, that these wonders were wrought under the conduct and
authority, and by the order of one great God, whom Moses and all his
followers worshiped, and whom they called the God of all Mankind; and at
times, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were the predecessors
of Moses: in case then, that, excited by these portentous things, they
should have been disposed to change their religion, they would certainly
have embraced that of the Hebrews, and have worshiped the true God; and
not Moses, who was his minister and instrument, and whom they saw, that
even those who considered him as their leader and protector, did not
recognize as a deity.
XXXVIII. Admitting then that it is not probable the nations adjoining to
the Hebrews, should adopt Moses for the object of their worship, it is by
no means likely the distant ones should do it, because the information
leading to produce such an event, must have been communicated from the
first to the last; and of course, if in consequence of the accounts they
received of the wonders that were performed by Moses, and the means by
which he wrought them, they should have been induced to change their
religion, it would not have been to worship Moses, but the God of Moses,
for that is the resolution the intelligence they had received, would have
induced them to take.
XXXIX. To this argument, which in my judgment is invincible, I shall add
another, which seems to me to have equal weight, which is, that in not
one of all the idolatrous nations of the world, has the name of Moses
been preserved, as a person who was worshiped as a deity; it is not
likely then, that any of them ever venerated him as such. This opinion
can’t be controverted, because there is no mention of the religion of
any people whatever, either to be found in books or carved on marble,
in which the name of Moses, with the signification of a deity, is to
be traced or met with. The conclusion to be deduced from hence with
moral certainty, is, that if all the nations at any period of time, had
concurred in worshiping Moses, it is next to an impossibility, that some
one or other of them should not have preserved the remembrance of his
name. How is it credible, that among all the nations of the world, who
consisted of such vast numbers of people, and who were all unanimous in
paying adoration to Moses, as Mons. Huet pretends, his name should be
quite done away, without a single exception of its being preserved in
any of them? Mankind in general, have been observed to be very steady
in preserving the names of their deities; nor can it be otherwise,
because they are always fresh in the memories, and at the tongue’s end
of all the individuals of every nation. Thus we see, that from the days
of Hesiod and Homer, till the extinction of paganism, a space of time,
which, according to the antiquity that is given to Homer by the Arundel
marbles, amounted to twelve centuries, the same identical names of
their false deities continued to be preserved among the Greeks, such as
Jupiter, Juno, Diana, &c. It is then absolutely exceeding the bounds of
all probability, to suppose, that in some one or more of the idolatrous
nations, or even in the greatest part of them, the name of Moses should
not have been preserved, provided he had ever been the divinity they all
adored.
XL. We may conclude then that the system of the illustrious Huet is
totally improbable; and that the connexion and resemblance which he
fancied to have discerned between the errors of gentilism and scripture
truths, existed no where but in his own imagination.
XLI. The last argument we have urged against Monsieur Huet, militates
with equal force against all other authors, who have in different ways
engaged in the same undertaking, as against him; it being certain,
that in none of the fables of paganism, can there be found any of the
scripture proper names; and although some have pretended to meet here and
there one, besides the visible distinction there is between the words, we
may with very little reflection, perceive the signification of them is
quite different: for example, the word Evoe, repeated in the Festivals
of Bacchus, is pretended by Mr. Butler, to have been used in remembrance
of our first mother Eve: but the commentators upon Plautus, Virgil, and
Ovid, consider this word when it occurs in the works of those poets, as
an interjection, which is expressive of nothing more, than the affection
or esteem of him who pronounces it. The Latin and Greek dictionaries
agree in this definition, and give it the following signification: _Bene
sit illi_.
XLII. I confess, that in here and there a fable, we may meet with an
opportune application or allusion to historical truth; but this in no
wise proves, that the history gave rise to the fable. Accident of itself,
is capable of producing these coinciding circumstances. Because something
happens to a man to-day, which he dreamed of the night before, no prudent
person would infer from thence that there was any connection between
the dream and the event. Among the variety of images which the fancy
forms in dreams, it is next to impossible, that a part of them should
not coincide with some realities; and we may say the same of voluntary
fictions. It would be a striking wonder, if among the multitude of
extravagances and errors common to the Gentiles, some one or other of
them should not bear a lively analogy to here and there a revealed truth.
XLIII. It is true, that although this coincidence may be purely casual,
it is possible, that it may also be relative, or have some connexion. I
mean that it is possible, here and there a portion of sacred history,
either as the malice or ignorance of men took away from, or added
circumstances to it, might have degenerated by little and little from
its purity, and might ultimately have been involved or obscured in some
of the heathen fables. It is probable, that in the first book of Ovid’s
Metamorphoses, is contained disguised or disfigured, part of what Moses
wrote in the first chapters of Genesis respecting the creation, the
criminal outrages committed by those the scripture calls Giants, the
universal corruption of mankind, and the deluge. But the supposing, that
here and there a fable may have been derived from holy writ, is not the
same, as deducing from thence the derivation of a general system, which
applies to all the errors of paganism; and even with respect to those
few fables which bear a similitude to the scripture, we should suppose
the derivation as probable, and not as certain, for the reason we have
already hinted, which is, that the likeness of the error to truth may
have been casual.
XLIV. By adopting this conduct, and pursuing this prudent middle way,
we should avoid deriving all the fables from sacred history, and not
incline to the particular system of Senior Branchini, a learned modern
Italian, who attempted deducing them all from profane story. This author
is of opinion, that all the relations of heroes and deities contained in
the antient monuments, which were calculated to transmit to posterity
the memories of such men, as in the early times had particularly
distinguished themselves, and had become eminent by various ways; I say
Senior Branchini conjectures, that these testimonies of the actions of
those men, having fallen into the hands of poets, flatterers, their
passionate admirers, or their own immediate descendants; the first in
consequence of their profession, the second excited by their interest,
the third by their affection, and the last by their vanity, ornamented
them with many fabulous circumstances; and from this complication of lies
and truth, was derived all the theology of paganism.
XLV. There is no doubt, but it has been very common for men to deify one
another, from all, or each of those four motives. The poets did it above
two thousand five hundred years ago, and have not yet got the better of
the bad habit; for there is not a fine woman at this day, whom their pens
don’t elevate to the rank of a goddess. The flatterers made deities of
those, who, on account of their vices, were unworthy to be called men, as
is evident from the apotheosis of the Roman emperors; and the vanity of
descendants, deified their illustrious ancestors, by attributing a divine
origin to the founders of many empires and republics. The Romans, not
content with feigning the god Mars to have been the father of their first
prince Romulus, raised Romulus himself to the rank of a divinity, and
made him their tutelar deity.
XLVI. From the passion of love, was derived the most ancient propensity
to deify mortals; for the book of Ecclesiastes, chap. 14, points this out
as the first principle or source, from whence this species of idolatry
sprang. A father extremely afflicted for the loss of his son, snatched
away in the flower of his youth, to express his great tenderness and
affection for him, causes his statue to be carved; and this tenderness
and affection, being afterwards extended to the utmost limits of human
feeling, disturbs his understanding, and causes him so far to forget
himself, as to make the image the object of his adoration. His authority
and example, extends the superstition to his domestics; from them it is
communicated to all the inhabitants of a town, and from the inhabitants
of that town to those of a whole region. There was seen many ages after
this delirium commenced, an intention of repeating it, from the influence
of the same passion, by one of the greatest men of antiquity. Cicero,
that very Cicero, who at one time was the oracle of the Romans, and
afterwards the admiration of succeeding ages, so far lost himself upon
the death of his most beloved daughter Tullia, as to persist for a long
while, in a determination of erecting altars to her as a deity. He also
transmitted to posterity in his writings, testimonies, of his having once
entertained so extravagant and mad a resolution.
XLVII. This impious and ridiculous folly was carried to the most
shameless length by the emperor Adrian; who built temples, raised altars,
constituted priests, festivals, and sacrifices, to whom? Why, to a boy
of Bythinia named Antonio, the accomplice of his abominable turpitudes,
who as some say was drowned by accident in the Nile, and as others
tell the story, he of his own free will offered up his life in a magic
sacrifice, which was made to prolong that of the emperor, and which
according to the rites and ceremonies appertaining to it, required a
voluntary victim.
XLVIII. But although it may be true, that the human affections of love,
vanity, and interest, assisted by the fictions of the poets, have been
the cause of deifying many men, still the system of Senior Branchini
cannot subsist in its general and extended sense, for the following
reasons. In the first place, because of the total exclusion it makes of
all sacred history, which, as we have already said, some poets might have
adulterated, in the same manner, and by the same means, they adulterated
profane ones. Secondly, because some of the fictions might have been
pure fictions, or mere fables, unmixed or unconnected with any history
whatever. Who can prevent a cunning artful man, that travels into a
remote region, from relating prodigies of some hero of his own country,
who never existed? and who afterwards could be answerable, that the
people of the country where he had spread the lie, should not adopt this
imaginary hero as a divinity? Thirdly, as a great portion of the gentiles
worshiped stars or planets, which they believed were animated, it is
probable, that many of their fictions alluded to no other object but
them. For example, when the adoration of the sun became an established
worship, they might, and it is natural that they should feign, that the
deity who animated it, had done such and such things, which bore no
relation to any man or circumstance whatever, but only to the imaginary
spirit.
XLIX. Lastly, the greatest part of the fables of the Gentiles, may
have had no other origin, than some mystical, moral, political, or
philosophical figure or representation, which their authors calculated
them to illustrate or inculcate. I mean that those who contrived and
fabricated them, had no other intention, than to represent obscurely,
and under the veil of fables, some theological mysteries, or some
philosophical, political, or moral maxims; but that afterwards, the
ignorance of the vulgar, by mistaking their intent and meaning, and by
construing and understanding them in a literal sense, came to form out of
them, a ridiculous theology and religion, which never entered the heads
of those who were the original authors of them. It is well known, the
Egyptians under hieroglyphicks, concealed not only their religion, but
even their history, policy, and philosophy, which were only laid open or
explained to their kings, and priests of the Sun. It is probable that
in imitation of the Egyptians, who in those days were venerated as the
most learned people in the world, many other nations adopted the same
practice; and it is also possible that the Egyptians themselves, might
have derived this custom from some other nation, who at one time might
have been superior to them in wisdom and learning; and it is likewise
possible, that this might have been a common practice in early antiquity.
It is certain, that there are vast numbers of the pagan fables, which are
capable of bearing a much more apt and commodious application to their
physics, their morals, and their policy, than to their history. Read the
treatise of the famous Bacon _de sapientia veterum_, who, by pursuing
this idea, has been very happy in his explanation of not a few of those
fables.
L. Thus we perceive, this is a matter capable of affording innumerable
conjectures; but not a basis, solid enough to build any general system
upon; which is the point we have chiefly endeavoured to demonstrate in
this discourse; and particularly, with respect to the union or connexion
of fable with history; and more especially with sacred history; which
differs as much, and is as widely distant from the errors of paganism, as
the greatest truth is from the greatest lie.