Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

a title of the god of fire. Of these the Grecians made a perfon, whom they called Pratus, and his daughters, or rather priefteffes, were the Paetides. And as, following the Egyptians, they held a Cow Tacred, they were faid to be turned into Cows. Proteus, in Egypt, was a tower of this fort; that is, a Pharos confecrated to him, who was the fame with Ofiris.

These places were alfo Courts of Juftice, wherein the priefts prefided. From thefe the notion of the Furies was taken (from Ph'ur) who were priests of fire. And for their severity they were made judges or tormentors in hell. Minos was a deity, the fame as Menes, and there was in Crete a temple called Men-Tor, changed by the Greeks into Minotaurus. To this temple the Athenians were obliged to fend annually fome of their prime youths to be facrificed. The temples most infamous for these customs were those built on the feacoafls. Scylla was one of these, and was dreaded on this account, much more than for the rocks.

The ancient Lamia in Italy, were the priests of Ham: they facrificed and devoured children. Such were the Sirens also, who inhabited the coasts of Campania, on three small islands. The priesteffes by their fongs enticed ftrangers to their temples, and then put them to death. All these were defcendants of Ham, chiefly by Cush and Canaan. And all the Cufhites and Canaanites facrificed ftrangers, in honour of their gods. Under the character of Cacus (Ca-Chus, the cavern or temple of Chus) we have a history of the Cacufian priests, who seem to have been devoted to rapine and murder. Cocytus (Co-Cutus, the house of Cuth) was another of these temples, where horrid cruelties were executed; whence the river near it was esteemed a river of hell. Achoron, another infernal river was named from Achor-On, a temple of Achor, the Sun, which flood on its banks.

VOL. VI.

3 U

Of

of CERES,

Of old, her temples were much dreaded. They were courts of juftice. She was a great lawgiver, and priestess of the Sun. She was the fame with Proferpine: nay she is fometimes ranked among the Furies. It is certain, strangers were facrificed at her altar.

At a temple in Bithynia, called Harpi, or Orphi, dwelt the priefts called Harpies. They were perfons of great ftrength and ftature, who likewife facrificed and devoured strangers. Ancient hiftory affords numberless inftances of this cruel practice.

[To be continued.]

An Extract from a Book entitled, FREE THOUGHTS on the BRUTE-CREATION: by John Hilldrop, D. D.

32. THE

[Continued from page 489.]

HE wonderful gradation in the fcale of beings (fo far as our fenfes can discover it) is not only the object of daily experience and admiration, but is also a noble key to open to us the invifible fcenes of Nature and Providence, and to raife, upon the foundation of a just analogy, a rational fuperftructure little inferior to demonftration. As we obferve in all parts of the creation, that the gradual connection of one with another, without any great or difcernible gaps between, that in all the variety of things we fee in the world, they are all fo clofely linked together, that it is not eafy to discover the bounds between them; we have all the reafon imaginable to believe that by fuch gentle steps, and imperceptible degrees, beings afcended in the univerfal fyftem from the lowest to the highest point of perfection.

Where

[ocr errors]

Where is he that can settle the boundaries of the material and fpiritual world? Who can tell where the fenfible and rational begin, and where the infenfible and irrational end? Who can precisely determine the lowest species of animals, and the first and highest degree of inanimate beings? The whole system of natural beings, fo far as we can observe, lessen and augment in the fame proportion, as the quantity does in a regular cone, where though there be a manifeft difference betwixt the bignefs of the diameter at remote diftances, yet at the difference betwixt the upper and under, where they. touch each other, it is hardly difcernible.

33. The difference betwixt man and man is inconceivably great. Were we to compare a Newton, a Locke, or a Boyle, with that fort of human creature commonly diftinguished by the name of honeft fellows, who have very little befides their shape and rifibility (or faculty of laughing,) to distinguish them from brutes, we should be almost tempted to think them of a different fpecies. But were we to compare the understandings, the tempers, the abilities of fome men and fome brutes, we fhall find fo little difference, that it would be hard to say to which we should give the preference. The brute in the flye, the ftable or the kennel, and the brute in the parlour, are often diftinguished to the advantage of the former, as the more harmlefs, the more useful, the more virtuous animals of the two. Nor has the difference in point of understanding been much less confiderable. Now as the Rule of analogy makes it more than probable, that in the ascending part of the scale there are numberlefs ranks of all intelligent beings, excelling us in degrees of perfection, ascending upwards towards the infinite perfection of the Creator, by gentle steps, that are hardly at a difcernible diftance from each other: fo in the descending part, there are doubtless numberless ranks of being endued with lower faculties, lower degrees of life. and perception, till you come down by imperceptible de grees to the vegetables, and inanimate brute-matter.

[blocks in formation]

34. But what the specific differences that diflistinguish these several ranks of being are, is not eafy to conceive. The scale of life, like the continuation of all motion, the undulation of waves, the vibration of founds, and the progreffion of light, are performed by certain infeparable, though diftin&t communications from one part of matter to another, each of them proportionably diminishing, till you come at laft to a ftate of abfolute reft; but what is the precife boundary, betwixt languid motion, and abfolute reft, what created understanding can comprehend? Who can fix the direct point where the laft dying found expires in dead filence? Who can difcern where the laft glimmering ray of light is fwallowed up in total darkness? Who can determine the limits betwixt the ebb and flowing of the tide, or describe the fingle point which is the ending of the one, and beginning of the other? Nor are the boundaries betwixt the human and brute understanding more easily diftinguiffed. Who can determine the loweft degree of human ignorance, and the highest pitch of brutal knowledge? Who can fay where the one ends, and the other begins, or whether there be any other difference betwixt them, but in degree?

[To be continued.]

An Answer to Mr. Madan's Treatife on Polygamy and Marriage: in a Series of Letters to the Rev. J. Wesley: by J. Benfon

9.

[Continued from page 431.]

MR. Madan treats it every where as an abfurd, and even blafphemous pofition, that Polygamy, though allowed under the law of Mofes, is forbidden under the gospel. He afferts over and over again, that Chrift neither did nor could change the law of Mofes, and fpends a whole chapter, containing near a hundred pages, in labouring to prove that Christ is not the author of a new law. Indeed this is a point

he

he dwells much upon in both his volumes; and if he leaves it for awhile, he fails not to return to it again, and feems never tired of repeating the fame things over and over con cerning it. So that if I were to quote all he fays on this head, I might tranfcribe almoft half of what he has written. I thall therefore content myself with producing a few paffages, which will be fufficient to fhew I neither mistake, nor misrepresent him.

10. Mr. Madan firft tells us what he means by the law. P. 69, "By the book of the law I mean the Pentateuch, or five books of Mofes. To this the great Apoftle evidently refers, Gal. iii. 10, when he says, Curfed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Our Lord's forerunner, John the Baptist declared, The law was given by Mofes. There is therefore no law, but that which was given by God to Mofes, nor was any new law enacted after the canon of the Pentateuch was closed by the death of Mofes. The diftinction and difference of moral good and evil were then unalterably fixt, and the nature of both invariably to remain the fame. What God doth, it Shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it; nor any thing taken from it, and God doth it that men fhould fear before him." With regard to this law hè affirms, p. 79, "Chrift, fo far from altering, changing, or deftroying the law delivered from God by Mofes, enters a caveat against such a supposition, Matt. v. 17, 18. Think not that I am come to deftroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to defroy, but to fulfil; for verily I fay unto you, not one jot or one tittle fhall pass away from the law, till all things be fulfilled. This not only stamps unchangeableness upon the law, but on its import, sense, and meaning, as one and the fame throughout; as an invariable rule of life, for the members of God's vifible church upon earth, even to the leaft jot and tittle." P. 73, "God is one, and his will is one therefore this, no more than himself, can know any alteration, dimunition or change. What was law at the

beginning,

« EdellinenJatka »