a

beafts. Where we must observe, that the shape each God was faid to have affumed, was that of his fymbolic mark in hieroglyphic writing. Indeed Antonius Liberalis differs from Ovid in the particular transformations; and Lucian, from them both; but this rather confirms than weakens our interpretation; fince each God, as we have feen, was denoted by divers hieroglyphics. We muft not fuppofe however, that the whole of their distress, came from the quarter of their enemies. More favourable enquirers would be a little troublefome. And the fame expedient would keep them at a diftance likewife. The Priefts feem to have hinted at this cafe likewife, in the fimilar story they told Herodotus, "that Hercules was very defirous to fee Jupiter, who was by no means con

z Sis, in the caftern languages, fignified a Swallow: under whose form, as this fable fays, Ifis concealed herself: and BuBASTE, which fignifies a cat, was the egyptian name of Diana, who lay hid under that fhape. Hence the learned Bochart fuppofes, in his ufual way, that the original of this fable was only an equivoque of fome greek ftory-teller, whofe countrymen delighted in the marvellous. But 1. The fable was not of greek invention, if we may believe Diodorus and Lucian; the latter of whom, fpeaking of the Egyptian account of it, fays, Taura γὰρ ἀμέλει ἐν τοῖς ἀδύτοις ἀπόκειται γραφένα. πρὶν ἢ πρὸ ἐτῶν μυρίων, de facrificiis. 2. This only places the difficulty a ftep backward, without removing it: For one might afk, How came the Egyptian name of Diana to fignify a cat; or the word Sis or Ins to fignify a Swallow? Can any other good reafon be given but that thefe Goddeffes were expreffed by fuch fymbols in hieroglyphic writing? Agreeably to this, Horapollo tells us [lib. i. cap. 7.] that the bieroglyphic for the foul was a hawk, which in the Egyptian tongue was called Baieth, a word compounded of Bai and Eth, the first of which fignified, in that language, the foul; the other the heart: for according to the Egyptians the heart was the inclosure of the foul. But if this were the cafe, what we have given above feems the more natural original of the story.

a

. Cap. xxviii.

* De Sacrif.

1

fenting to this interview; at laft overcome by the hero's importunity, he eluded his curiofity, by this expedient: he flay'd the carcase of a ram; and investing himself with the fkin feparated with the head from the body, he prefented himself under that appearance to the inquirer." Herodotus himself feems to hint at fomething like the explanation of the fable of Typhon given above, where speaking of Pan foon after, and on the fame occafion, he fays, "The Egyptians reprefent Pan

as the Grecians paint him, with the face and legs "of a goat. Not that they imagine this to be his "real form, which is the fame with that of the "other Gods. But I take no fatisfaction in re❝cording the reason they give for representing "him in this manner"." From these two different ways of relating the circumftance of Jupiter's and Pan's difguifes under a brutal form, it appears that the egyptian priefts had two accounts concerning it, the exoteric and the esoteric. Herodotus, in the ftory of Jupiter, makes no fcruple to record the firft; but the other, which concerns Pan's transformation, he did not care to touch upon.

209 what the Egyptian Theologers continued to deliver down concerning it. Diodorus Siculus, fpeaking of the difficulty in difcovering the true original of Egyptian brute-worship, fays, that the priests had a profound fecret concerning it: A ftrong prefumption that this here delivered, was the fecret; it being the only one which the Priests were much concerned to keep to themselves; as we shall fee when we come to speak of the causes affigned by the Ancients for brute-worship. What the Priests thought fit to intruft to the people concerning this matter, the Sicilian tells us, was this; That the Gods of the early times being few in number, and fo forced to yield to the multitude and injuftice of earth-born men, affumed the forms of divers Animals, and by that means efcaped the cruelty and violence of their enemies; but that, at length, gaining the empire of the world, they confecrated the fpecies of thofe Animals whofe forms they had affumed, in gratitude for that relief which they had received from them in their diftreffes. The moral of the fable lies too open to need an Interpreter: it can hardly, indeed, be any other than that we have here given, But Diodorus aids us in the discovery of that fecret, which he himself appears not to have penetrated, where he says that Melampus, who brought the Myfteries of Proferpine from Egypt into Greece, taught them the ftory of TYPHON, and the whole

• Οἱ μὲν Ἱερεῖς αὐτῶν ἀπό ἐητόν τι δόγμα περὶ τέτων ἔχεσιν, το 1 P. 54.

lib.

δ Φασὶ γὰρ τὰς ἐξ ἀρχῆς γενομένες θεὸς, ὀλίγες όλας καὶ κατισχύος μένος ὑπὸ τὸ πλήθες καὶ τῆς ἀνομίας τῶν γηγενῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁμοιωθῆναι πισὶ τῶν ζώων, καὶ διὰ τὰ τοιέτε τρόπο διαφυγεῖν τὴν ὠμότητα καὶ βίαν αὐτῶν ὕστερον δὲ τῶν κατὰ τὸν κόσμον πάλων κρατήσανίας καὶ τοῖς αἰτίοις τῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς σωτηρίας χάριν ἀποδιδόνας, ἀφιερῶσαι τὰς φύσεις αὐτῶν οἷς ἀρωμοιώθησαν. ib. i. p. 54.

VOL. III,

P

biftory

h

biftory of the difafters and fufferings of the Gods. Now we have fhewn that one part of the office of the Hierophant of the Myfteries was to reveal the true original of Polytheifm: which inftruction could not be conveyed more appofitely, than in the history of Typhon, as here explained. From the whole then, we conclude, that this was indeed the profound fecret, which the Egyptian priests had concerning it. So that the paffage of Diodorus, laft quoted, not only fupports our interpretation of the fable of Typhon, but of the fecret of the Myfteries likewife.

*

conftancy of opinion plainly fhew us: And yet amidst this diverfity, the caufe here affigned hath escaped them; which had otherwife, 'tis probable, put an end to all farther conjecture. But as they chanced to fall into variety of wrong opinions, it will be incumbent on me to examine and confute them. What I can at prefent recollect as any way deferving notice, are the following:

They suppose brute-worship to have arisen,

1. From the benefits men receive of animals.

2. From the doctrine of the metempsychosis.
3. From the use of afterisms.

4. From the notion of GoD's pervading all things.

5. From the use of Animals as Symbols of the divine nature.

6. From the invention of a certain egyptian king for his private ends of policy.

Thefe, I think, are all the opinions of moment. And of thefe, we may obferve in general, that the fourth and fifth are leaft wide of the truth, as making brute-worship fymbolical: But the defect, common.to them all, is that the reafon affigned by each concludes for the univerfality of this worship throughout paganism; whereas it was in fact peculiar to Egypt; and feen and owned to be fo by these very Ancients themselves.