GREAT ANTIQUITY OF THE WAR-CHARIOT, AS USED BY THE BRITONS.

At the extremities of the axle-trees of these chariots, they fastened short scythes, which, describing circles with the revolutions made by the wheels, inflicted desperate wounds, and spread terror and devastation wherever they turned. Nothing can be more terrible than such a machine, impelled by spirited horses, completely under the management of a warlike driver, and carrying into the heart of an enemy's ranks, a dauntless hero, who could launch his javelin, discharge his arrows, exercise his spear, run along the beam, leap on the ground, resume his seat, and artfully retire to draw the enemy into an ambuscade, or throw his forces into confusion.

The war-chariots are certainly of very great antiquity. There is scarcely a book in the historical parts of the Old Testament, in which some mention is not made of them. They are attributed to various nations, and some of those which were used by the Canaanitish tribes, are said to have been formed of iron. "And all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley, have chariots of iron, both they who are of Beth-shean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel."-Joshua xvii. 16, 18." And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”—Judges i. 19.

According to Diodorus Siculus, the war-chariots in which the ancient Britons fought, resembled those which were used by the Greeks at the siege of Troy. He observes, that "the Britons lived like the old world, and in fighting used chariots such as the ancient Greeks had at the Trojan war." Herodotus informs us, that Ninus in his army, had no less than 200,000 horses, and 10,000 chariots with scythes; which is precisely the description of those chariots which were used by the ancient Britons. It is plain therefore, from the statement of Herodotus, that the war-chariots with scythes were of very early invention, perhaps soon after the flood, or at least so early as the time when Nimrod began to establish his empire in the world. And it is a singular fact, that while the inhabitants of this island were so expert in the use of this ancient vehicle of war, the neighbouring inhabitants of the continent, and the legions of Cesar, were nearly ignorant that such a car was used by any nation upon earth.

That the Phenicians were not ignorant of these chariots, may be easily inferred from the passages that have been quoted, respecting the nations of Canaan, from whom they sprung. But whether, through their long intercourse with the inhabitants of these western parts, they imparted to them the knowledge of this singular vehicle, or whether the acquaintance of these inhabitants with it, may be considered as a proof of their eastern extraction and early residence, we must be content to leave in obscurity. Mr. Polwhele has adopted the latter opinion, and

SURPRISING DEXTERITY OF THE BRITONS IN THEIR MANAGEMENT OF HORSES.

he urges the knowledge which the Danmonians had of the war-chariot, while the nations of the continent were ignorant of its use, as a circumstance strongly favouring the hypothesis which he has adopted, of an early eastern emigration from Armenia.

Thus far the case is clear, that the ancient Britons, when the Romans came among them, were famous for their dexterity in commanding horses. Cesar himself was astonished to find with what skill they had trained these animals to submit to the harness, and to bear their part in the hazards and fatigues of war. It was, in part, through this discipline, which he had no expectation of finding, that the Roman legions were more than once thrown into great confusion, and threatened with a total overthrow. But whether the skill which the Britons thus displayed, arose from the innate vigour of their understanding, or was taught them by their Phenician and Greek visitors, the want of decisive evidence forbids us to determine.

It is admitted by all, that the ancient Britons possessed a warlike spirit; a degree of courage that was invincible; an unconquerable attachment to their country; and an acquaintance with such arts, and an attachment to such discipline, as nothing but the power of Rome could hope to subdue. To keep alive the ferocious spirit of war, their wrestlings and hurlings were peculiarly adapted. They required much muscular exertion; and unless these exercises were conducted upon different principles from those which have actuated their distant successors, they must have been calculated to cherish a sanguinary disposition, and to promote revenge. Between these sports and party feuds, it is well known that the affinity is great; and Cornwall can produce many instances, in what has been termed the more enlightened periods of its history, of the fatal effects to which they have led. We have little reason to believe that the results were more favourable, when the altars of Druidism reeked with human blood, and the benignant influence of Christianity had not begun to bless the world, and ameliorate the condition of

man.

CHAP. III.

Religion of the Ancient Britons.

SECTION I.

Observations on Idolatry in general.

IDOLATRY is the paying of that worship, homage, or adoration, to some real or imaginary creature, which is due only to the eternal God; and in what forms soever it may be surveyed, its origin must be traced to the depravity of the human heart. Ignorance and weakness may be said to be its more immediate parents. Of this fact, even those who believe mankind to have been made by chance, seem fully sensible, from their admitting that man had a right to form a religion for himself; and that fear and superstition formed the monsters which we abhor. Man," says Lucretius, “under a disturbance of mind proceeding from his fears, forged to himself imaginary deities."

But although ignorance and weakness may be considered as the immediate causes of idolatry, vanity, pride, a love of pleasure, a fondness for sensible objects, an inordinate attachment to the objects of our affections, and the dominion of passion, have had their respective influences in bringing the mental powers into this astonishing captivity. The blessings which we daily enjoy, the favours which we incessantly receive, and the obligations which these lay us under, cannot but impress the mind with a continual sense of that homage and adoration which is due from all, to a superior power, or invisible agent. But in proportion as the knowledge of God is obliterated from the human mind, while a consciousness of dependance remains, it is not difficult for us to conceive, that homage and adoration may be transferred to secondary causes, and in process of time degenerate into the most contemptible excesses.

What the first objects of idolatrous worship were, it is exceedingly difficult to say. Some have thought that the sun, as being the fountain of light, and the cause of fertility, was first selected; that after this the moon was introduced as demanding a part; and that from these it was transferred to the stars, and made to include the host of heaven. Others again have imagined that the primary

VOL. I,

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON IDOLATRY.

objects of idolatrous worship were angels. That at first some respect was shewn to them, from the superior excellency of their nature, and the assistance which it was presumed we received from their superintending care, which afterwards degenerated into a kind of subordinate worship, and finally engrossed the attention of mankind, so as to exclude God from their adoration. From hence they conceived, that the sun and moon being places of their abode, they were addressed in these their respective habitations, until the worship which they originally received, were transferred to these vast masses of inanimate matter.

Vossius, instead of admitting the host of heaven and angelic natures, to have been the primary objects of idolatrous worship, conceives that it took its rise in the admission of a good and evil principle, such as the ancient Persians allowed to exist. He supposes, that men, from observing good and evil abounding in the world, which they found themselves unable to ascribe consistently to God, invented two deities of equal power, to whom they ascribed distinct and hostile offices; and that to these they paid distinct species of homage, worship, and adoration ; that to the worship of these two principles succeeded that of spirits, particularly demons, and afterwards this worship was transferred to the souls of departed heroes, of extraordinary personages, and the common benefactors of mankind.

"That," says Bishop Stillingfleet, when speaking of the Phenician deities and worship, "which seems the clearest in this theology is, the openly owning the origin of idolatry to have been from the consecration of some eminent persons after their death, who have found out some useful things for the world while they were living which the subtler Greeks would not admit of, viz. that the persons they worshipped were once men, which made them turn all into allegories and mystical senses, to blind that idolatry they were guilty of, the better among the ignorant."

“The general cause of idolatry," another writer observes, "is the degenerate state of the soul, exerting itself in the headiness of the will, under the wild conduct of imagination and sense. Of such worshippers, St. Paul observes, That when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination, and their foolish heart was darkened.'-Rom. i. 21. In this estate of moral darkness they mistook and confounded the objects they met with, and honoured the creature instead of God.

"It is difficult, if not impossible, at this distance from persons and things, to tell the causes and occasions of their mistakes. For the love of idols in some, like that of persons in others, was an unaccountable passion. Those who worshipped

Origi. Sacra. p. 32.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON IDOLATRY.

universal nature, as an entire object, or the several parts of it distinctly, were led to such adoration by one more general cause, or by divers which were more special. The more general cause of the worship of material nature, either in its own form, or in the shapes put upon it by art, is the natural inclination of the mind in this body to help itself by sensible objects. The substance of Almighty God is not an object which our mind can comprehend, much less is our acutest sight able to reach it. This principle many owned among the heathens. Such were they mentioned by Porphyry, who, that they might signify the invisibility of God's essence, painted his statues with black. Such were the Egyptians, remembered by Plutarch, who did therefore make the crocodile an emblem of God, because that creature by the help of a pellucid membrane descending from his forehead, was able (as they vulgarly conceited) to see with closed eyes, without being seen. Now, man living in the confines of heaven and earth, his celestial mind being united to a gross body of flesh and blood, his understanding receiveth instruction through the gates of the outward senses. This frame of man rendereth him covetous, in his speculations, of the help of some external visible object. And among the progeny of mankind there are very few heads metaphysical enough for that proverb of the Arabians, "shut up the five windows that the house may be full of light.' It is the same thing with the vulgar, not to appear, and not to be; and they would therefore have a visible deity, and one who might in a more bodily manner be present with them. This reason the brachman gave to M. Bernier, for the erection of the statues of Brahma, and of other deities, that something might be before the eyes of the worshipper, for the fixing of his mind. Of the like temper were the heathens, spoken of by Lactantius in his second book of the Origin of Error; they were jealous, lest all their religion should be a vain beating of the air, if they saw nothing present that they might adore."*

It appears, that in the commencement of idolatrous worship, whatsoever was either beneficial, hurtful, beautiful or majestic, became an object of actual adoration. Cicero observes, that the Egyptians consecrated no beast, from which they did not derive some profit. The natives of the Carribbee Islands ascribed the power of the Spanish firelocks to a demon. According to Acosta, the rainbow was worshipped by the Peruvians for its beauty. And even the Incas themselves admitted the superior power of thunder. The tribes and nations of the earth, thus influenced by the singular phenomena with which they found themselves benefited, annoyed, pleased, or terrified, naturally accommodated their modes of

* Tenison on the Causes and Occasions of Idolatry, pp. 25, 26.