over Heaven, Earth, and Hell; and, in the Orphic hymns or mystic invocations, he is addressed as the giver of life, and the destroyer.2 107. The third eye of this ancient statue was in the forehead; and it seems that the Hindoos have a symbolical figure of the same kind :3 whence we may venture to infer that the Cyclops, concerning whom there are so many inconsistent fables, owed their fictitious being to some such enigmatical compositions. According to the ancient theogony attributed to Hesiod, they were the sons of Heaven and Earth, and brothers of Saturn or Time 4 signifying, according to the Scholiast, the circular or central powers, the principles of the general motion of the universe above noticed. The Cyclops of the Odyssey is a totally different personage: but as he is said to be the son of Neptune or the Sea, it is probable that he equally sprang from some emblematical figure, or allegorical tale. Whether the poet meant him to be a giant of a one-eyed race, or to have lost his other eye by accident, is uncertain; but the former is most probable, or he would have told what the accident was.—In an ancient piece of sculpture, however, found in Sicily, the artist has supposed the latter, as have also some learned moderns." 108. The Egyptians represented Typhon by the Hippopotamos, the most fierce and savage animal known to them; and, upon his back they put a hawk fighting with a serpent, to signify the direction of his power; for the hawk was the emblem of power, as the serpent was of life; whence it was employed as the symbol of Osiris, as well as of Typhon.8 Among the Greeks it was sacred to Apollo;9 but we do not recollect to have seen it on any monuments of their art, though other birds of prey, such as the eagle and cormorant, frequently occur.10 * Ζευς ξόανον, δύο μεν, ᾗ πεφυκεν, εχον οφθαλμους, τρίτον δε επι του μετώπου" τούτον τον Δια Πριαμῳ φασιν είναι το Λαοδάμαντος πατρφον. Pausan. Cor. Co 24. s. 5. 2 Hymn. lxxii. ed. Gesner. 3 Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 248. 4 V. 139, &c. S KUKλWTAS TAS eɣkukλious duvaμeis. Schol. vet. in vers. 139. The two lines 144-5 in the text, containing the etymology of the name, appear to be spurious; the licentious extended form és being incompatible with the language of the old poets. 5 See Houel Voyage en Sicile, pl. cxxxvii., et Damm. Lex. 6 Εν Ερμοπολει δε Τυφωνος αγαλμα δεικνυουσι ἱππον ποταμιον εφ' οὗ βεβηκε ἱεραξ οφει μαχομενος· τῳ μεν ἱππῳ τον Τυφώνα δεικνυντες, τῳ δε ἱερακι δυναμιν και apxny. Plutarch. de Is. et Osir. p. 371. fol. Γραφουσι και ξερακι τον θεον τουτον (Οσιριν) πολλακις. Ibid. 8 Aristoph. Opvie. v. 514. 9 The latter on the coins of Agrigentum, as the symbol of Hercules: the former, as the symbol of Jupiter, is the most common of all devices. The eagle is sometimes represented fighting with a serpent, and sometimes destroying a hare;' which, being the most prolific of all quadrupeds, was probably the emblem of fertility. In these compositions the eagle must have represented the destroying attribute: but, when alone, it probably meant the same as the Ægyptian hawk: whence it was the usual symbol of the supreme God, in whom the Greeks united the three great attributes of creation, preservation, and destruction. The ancient Scandinavians placed it upon the head of their god Thor, as they did the bull upon his breast, to signify the same union of attributes; which we sometimes find in subordinate personifications among the Greeks. On the ancient Phoenician coins above cited, an eagle perches on the sceptre, and the head of a bull projects from the chair of a sitting figure of Jupiter, similar in all respects to that on the coins of the Macedonian kings, supposed to be copied from the statue by Phidias at Olympia, the composition of which appears to be of earlier date. ON THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS, PREVALENCE, AND DECLINE OF IDOLATRY. BY THE REV. G. TOWNSEND. PART VI. [Continued from No. XLVII. - SECTION X.-Origin of Tsabaism. p. 10.] FROM considering the state of mankind in the earlier postdiluvian ages, and the origin and meaning of the emblems universally adopted among them, we are led to the very interesting questions, of the Origin of their Erroneous Religious Opinions. The first question that here demands attention is, whether the worship of the heavenly host, or of the spirits of their ancestors, originally prevailed among mankind. Dr. Hugh Farmer 1 See coins of Chalcis in Eubœa, of Elis, Agrigentum, Croto, &c. 2 See coins of Messena, Rhegium, &c. It was also deemed aphrodisiac and androgynous. See Philostrat. Imag. 3 Ol. Rudbeck. Atlantic. p. ii. c. v. p. 300. and 321. VOL. XXIV. CI. JI. NO. XLVIII. Q published a very learned and celebrated treatise on the general prevalence of the worship of human spirits, in which he endeavours to prove that hero-worship preceded tsabaism, Mr. Faber, with many others, is of the same opinion. After the most impartial, and careful examination of the contending evidence, I cannot but differ from this laborious writer, and agree with Mr. Bryant, and other authorities of no less weight than those who have advocated the opposite side of the question, that the first idolatry was the undue veneration, and subsequent homage, of the heavenly host. This opinion seems confirmed, not only by the testimony of Maimonides and Sanchoniathon, but by the consideration of the very early prevalence of the general knowledge of astronomy after the flood; by the peculiar circumstance, not only that the worship of the heavenly host was punishable by the civil magistrate in the time of Job, as ar idolatrous ceremony, but from the total omission of the notice of any other species of idolatry at that time; by the assumption by Nahor of one of the titles of the Sun; by the universal tradition of the oriental nations on the one hand, and the actual assertion of scripture on the other, that idolatry existed in the family of Abraham; added to the many arguments adduced in support of that traditional notion, that the idolatry of his family was tsabaistical; by the antiquity of the Indian and other oriental zodiacs; by the opinion of a large proportion of the most learned men; by the researches of Mr. Bryant, and the valuable authority of Dr. Hales. From all these, and many other considerations, I am compelled to believe, in opposition to Mr. Faber, that the original idolatry of mankind was the worship of the heavenly host, and that it began and proceeded in the most gradual and insensible manner. Some of the authorities here referred to have supposed that the worship of the heavenly host was antediluvian; if so, it was handed down by tradition through the sons of Ham to the primitive postdiluvians. Though this supposition seems to be confirmed by the antiquity of the zodiacs, (which, if their claims to such an early origin are really well-founded, might have been preserved by the sons of Noah,) it is by no means necessary to be received. Some knowledge of astronomy must have existed before the flood, or the earth could not have been cultivated; and whatever was the extent of that antediluvian astronomy, it must have been known to the early postdiluvians. The evidence, however, is incomplete, and I shall not insist on any point which appears so dubious; I shall merely, as I cannot but think upon the most satisfactory evidence, assume, that the worship of the lieavenly host was the first corruption of the primitive truth; and of that corruption shall proceed to trace the origin. All other false notions of the Pagans we shall find were easily deducible from this original perversion; and each, however gross, is founded on, or apparently connected with, and defended by, its similarity to the peculiar doctrine of uncorrupted patriarchism, from which it will be no less easy to show that they were originally respectively derived. The sole principle upon which our present enquiry is conducted is this, that the Scriptures are true; therefore man never, as our pretended philosophers assert, has been, or could have been, in a savage state. He was never left to the unassisted use of his own reason: he was constantly guided, directed, and controlled by the commands and dictates of continued revelation; imparted according to his wants, and never entirely deserting him. We may utterly reject, therefore, as too absurd and contemptible, all those theories which represent man as ignorant of a Deity, and frequently gazing upon the Sun and Moon, and gradually admiring them more and more for their utility, beauty, and splendor, till he at length began to consider them either as the actual rulers of mankind, or the best visible representations of the Deity. Neither ought we to be contented with that class of reasoners which represents man as gradually forgetting God, and directing his attention to the heavenly host, till they alone became the objects of his adoration. Against these hypotheses, however ingeniously they may be defended, we have evidence to prove that revelation was bestowed on man from the beginning, and that when Tsabaism began to prevail in the time of Job, and of Nahor, the knowledge of the true God was so universal, and the influence of the uncorrupted patriarchal polity so great, that idolatry was punishable by the civil magistrate. Tsabaism, therefore, we may justly conclude, though the supposition is contradictory to the theory of many learned men, originated neither in ignorance nor stupid wonder. It was the offspring neither of poetical admiration, perverted science, nor wilful apostacy, though all these causes contributed to increase the attachment of the primitive idolaters to this favorite error, and to perpetuate its dominion. The origin of Tsabaism must be sought in some more reasonable source. It must have been derived from some imperceptible innovation on the patriarchal faith; adapted to the opinions of the faithful worshippers of the true God; recommended by the appearance of wisdom, by plausible arguments, and an apparent identity with the uncorrupted faith. I argue from the nature of the human mind. Religious opinions are never altered, either violently, suddenly, needlessly, unnaturally, or without some good reason. The first postdiluvians were for a long time unanimous in their worship of the true God; their faith was guarded and preserved by the observances, the ritual, and the arkite ceremonies abovementioned. They had much knowledge among them, and there can be no greater absurdity, than to imagine that men thus circumstanced would suddenly worship the Sun, because they observed his brightness, his beauty, or his majesty. They must have connected these ideas with their own pre-formed religion, and have permitted the new homage to begin, and continue, with the idea that they were pleasing their Maker, and offering greater homage to Him; though they departed in some minute innovations from the practice of their ancestors. I thought it necessary to make these remarks, as I believe that 1 have the misfortune to be entirely unsupported by the various learned authors who have treated upon these subjects, in the opinion I have formed respecting the probable origin of the worship of the Sun. It is briefly this: In the early ages of the world, the Deity was pleased to convince mankind of his continued. superintendance and presence, by the visible appearance of a bright and splendid flame. This manifestation of his actual providence was known by the name of the Shechinah. Before the flood, it is said to have been constantly stationed at the entrance of Paradise, to direct the attention of the antediluvians to the tree of life, and the future beaven, which was typified by the garden their father had lost; it marked also the place where the true worshippers were to offer their sacrifices. Thus Cain went out from the presence of the Lord; that is, he departed from the presence of the Shechinah, from the assembly of the true worshippers; for no man can hide himself from God. After the deluge, the Shechinah, or sudden flame from above, appearing miraculously, suddenly, on important occasions, and so brightly, splendidly, and supernaturally, that it could neither be imitated, nor suspected to be of earthly origin, was the signal of acceptance with the Deity. Thus the sacrifice of Noah was honored by the visible symbol of a present God. In the same manner was dignified the sacrifice of Abraham. By this undoubted token of acceptance the missions of Moses, Gideon, and Elijah were confirmed. The chapter in the book of Kings, in which Elijah is described as appealing to the idolaters, and demonstrating his divine legation, is one of the most beautiful and splendid compositions, if considered only in a literary point of view, ever read. The same glory proved |