Chapter VI: Part 6

Thus the learned _Lud. Vives_ on St. _Augustin C. D._ viii. 9. “The philosophy of the _Egyptians_ is very ancient, but for the most part deriv’d from the _Chaldeans_, especially from _Abraham_, tho’ they, as _Diodorus_ writes, refer it to _Isis_, _Osiris_, _Vulcan_, _Mercury_, and _Hercules_.” Further from _Joseph_’s administration, the _Egyptian_ learning commenc’d, for which they became so celebrated. He not only instructed the priests in religion and philosophy, but settled their colleges and possessions, as we read in _Gen._ xlvii. 22, 26. so that if _Moses_ was learned in the wisdom of the _Egyptians_, he deriv’d it only thro’ them from his own ancestors. Which note may be useful to give us a true notion of this matter, which some learned men exalt too high. And this at the same time shews idolatry commenc’d in _Egypt_, after his time. They consecrated _Joseph_ into the genius or intelligence of their first monarch _Osiris_, _Serapis_, &c. with the bushel on his head. But what I chiefly insist upon at present, is of _Hercules_ making these serpentine temples, which in his history is call’d overcoming serpents and the like. And hence the fable of his squeezing two serpents to death in his cradle; and the _Tyrian_ coins struck to his honour, some whereof I have exhibited.

_The alate Temple of the Druids at Barrow in Lincolnshire, on the
banks of the humber._

_W. Stukeley delin. 25 July 1724_]

I. _A coin in_ Vaillant’s colonies II. p. 148, 218, 340, 351. Of
the city of _Tyre_, an olive-tree with a snake between two
stones, petræ ambrosiæ. An altar; and a conch, meaning
_Tyre_.

II. _A coin_ in Vaillant’s colony coins II. p. 314, _struck at_
Ptolemais _or_ Acon.

A great and rude stone altar without any mouldings or
carvings, between two serpents, a _Caduceus_ which is truly
the _ophio-cyclo-pterygomorph_ on a staff meaning in the
hieroglyphick doctrine, the power of the deity. These
imperial coins of colonies intended to preserve the memory of
their antiquities, and this probably regards the old
serpentine temple in the foundation of their city _Acon_ or
_Ptolemais_.

III. _A coin in_ Vaillant’s colonies II. p. 111, _struck at_
Berytus. _They all regard_ Hercules’s _building serpentine
temples_.]

Of his building our Druid temples in general, of these great stones, the two coins of _Gordian_ in _Stonehenge_ page 50, are a further evidence. The _Ambrosiæ Petræ_ are a work of this sort, when he began or assisted in building the city _Tyre_. And I gather he was a great builder of serpentine temples in particular, such as we have been describing, call’d _Dracontia_. What he did of this sort in _Britain_ I have no foundation for discovering; but in ancient history still left us, there are sufficient traces that shew he did it, in the more eastern parts of the world.

For instance, at _Acon_ or _Ptolemais_ as call’d afterward, a city on the _Phœnician_ shore: it regain’d its first name and now is call’d St. _John_ of _Acres_, from a famous church there. The first city was probably built by our _Hercules_, at least he made one of these temples there, as I gather from the name of the place, coins and reports relating thereto. The _Greeks_ call it Ακη, and according to their custom, give it a _Greek_ original, from ακεισθαι, because says the _Etymologicum magnum_, _Hercules_ was there _heal’d_ of the bite of a serpent. _Stephanus_ of _Byzance_ the same, in the word _Ptolemais_; in the word _Ake_, he says, that _Claudius Julius_ in his vol. I. of the _Phœnician_ history, writes, “that it had its name from _Hercules_, who was order’d by the oracle to go eastward, ’till he came to a river, and found the herb _Colocasia_, which would cure his wound. He came to the river _Belus_, which here runs into the sea, and there found the herb.” _Salmasius_ in his _Plinian_ exercitations, affirms, the herb is _Dracunculus_; it grows in our gardens, called _Dragons_, from its likeness to a snake’s head and tongue; and being spotted like a snake.

All this I can understand no otherwise, than that _Hercules_ made a serpentine temple on the side of this river, where the city _Acon_ was afterward built, and which took its name from this temple, as our _Hakpen_ at _Abury_; for עכן _Acan_ in the _Chaldee_, signifies a serpent, as we observed before. _Josephus_ informs us, by the river _Belus_ was the sepulchre of _Memnon_; which probably was made here in regard to the temple.

When we come into _Greece_, we hear of _Hercules_ overcoming the _Lernean_ snake, which _Heraclides Ponticus_ writes had 50 heads. We may very well understand this of 50 stones, which compos’d the head, as our temple on _Overton-hill_ of 58. _Hephæstion_ II. recites from _Alexander_ the _Myndian_, that this _Hydra_ was turn’d into stone. Thus hints and reports are drop’d, which preserve the real truth invelop’d in fable; as was the _Greek_ method in all matters of antiquity.

This snake was of a very unusual bulk, and lay near a great water, call’d the _Lernean_-lake, by a large plane-tree, and the spring _Anymone_. Further ’tis said, in overcoming this animal (by which they mean the labour he bestow’d in accomplishing the work) he us’d the help of _Iolaus_ the waggoner. Such help must be highly useful to him, to bring the stones. But I observe from the name _Iolaus_ his waggoner and companion, and _Hylas_ another great friend of his, and _Iole_ his mistress, that the ancient druidical festival is couch’d under that name, call’d _Yule_, which I shall speak largely upon in its proper place. In the mean time (we are told) the snake was assisted against him, by a very great crab. This will appear strange, ’till we are directed to its meaning by this consideration. As the serpent means the _Dracontian_ temple, so the crab was a symbol like in figure and meaning to the _globus alatus_ or winged circle, which was the ancient picture of the _anima mundi_, or divine spirit. Thus does mythology, when rightly consider’d, help us in these ancient enquiries. We may say of the work as _Statius_ does of the temple of _Hercules Surrentinus_,

————_Deus obluctantia saxa
Summovit nitens, & magno pectore montem
Repulit._————

There are like vestiges of other _Dracontian_ temples founded by _Hercules_ in _Spain_, _Africa_, and elsewhere.

“_Hercules_,” says bishop _Cumberland_, “was a very learned prince, bred or conversant in the _Phœnician_ universities, whereof _Debir_ was one, _Josh._ xv. 15. 49. call’d for its eminence, _Kirjath-sepher_, the _city of books_; and _Kirjath-sanna_, the _city of learning_.” The bishop thinks he retreated from _Egypt_ about the time of _Abraham_’s death. But, from what chronological evidence I gave before, it must be a good while before it. And I do not doubt but he with pleasure renew’d his acquaintance with his old friend _Abraham_, in the land of _Canaan_.

There seems to be a very pregnant proof of this, in that _Hercules_ had a son call’d _Isaac_, to whom one would imagine _Abraham_ was sponsor at his baptism, or perhaps his son _Isaac_; for baptism was one part of the patriarchal religion. And they had susceptors, sponsors, or what we call _god-fathers_ at the font, as we have. Of this _Isaac_ son of _Hercules_, _Plutarch_ informs us, _de Isid. & Osir._ remembred by the _Phrygians_, for he was planted in _Phrygia_ by his father _Hercules_. Hence it became a common name there, and _Æsacus_ son of king _Priam_ is but the same name, as my learned friend Mr. _Baxter_ thinks, in his _glossar. Antiq. Rom._ If this consideration be joined to what I wrote in _Stonehenge_ about _Phryxus_, or _Apher_, grandson of _Abraham_, having a concern in planting, and even naming of _Britain_, it may afford us another hint about our _Phrygian_ extract, which the old _Britons_ are so fond of. And we can expect no other than these kind of hints, in matters of such extreme antiquity. And further, as he was concern’d in settling colonies in _Spain_, we may attribute to him the claim which the _Gallæci_ there had, to a _Trojan_ descent, of which _Justin_ informs us.

_Stukeley del._

_Prospect of the British Temple at Barrow Lincolnshʳ July 25.
1724._]

This _Apher_ is the _Africus_ mention’d by _Mela_, I. 9. He calls him an _Arabian_ king, who being driven out by the _Assyrians_, went into _Africa_. ’Tis very remarkable, that his name, when interpreted, signifies _Tyn_; as the great _Bochart_ makes the name of _Britain_, come from _Bratanac, the land of tyn_; equivalent to the _greek_ word κασσιτερος, whence _Cassiterides_ in _latin_. This expulsion seems to be hinted at in _Gen._ xiv. 6. in the days of _Abraham_. Now a reader not much acquainted with these kind of inquiries, will be apt to smile at pretending to a similitude between _Apher_ and _Britain_. So in making the _Wiltshire_ word _sarsens_ deriv’d from the same word as the name of the city of _Tyre_; tho’ ’tis an undeniable fact, and easily perceiv’d by the learned.

The evidences of _Hercules_ planting _Britain_, are of the like nature, which I shall very briefly recapitulate. _Apollodorus_ in II. after the story of _Hercules_, _Antæus_ and _Geryon_, two kings in _Afric_ and _Spain_, mentions his conquering _Alebion_ and _Dercynus_ sons of _Neptune_, in the same mythologic strain as the others, because they attempted to drive away his oxen. He makes it to be in _Libya_, others in _Ligya_ or _Liguria_, others in _Gaul_. The variety of places is of no consequence in these very old stories. I regard only the personal names of _Albion_ and _Bergion_, as more commonly call’d, sons of _Neptune_. If this be really so, sons of _Tarshish_, son of _Javan_: for _Tarshish_ was the true _Neptune_ of the heathen; and he was one of the sons to whom the heathen generally attribute the plantation of islands, as well as _Moses_, _Gen._ x. 5. But _Albion_ and _Bergion_ are notoriously most ancient names of _Britain_ and _Ireland_. _Mela_, II. 5. mentions _Hercules_ fighting _Albion_ and _Bergion_. So _Tzetzes in chiliad._ and _Tzetzes_ the interpreter of _Lycophron_.

_Tacitus_ says expressly _Hercules_ was in _Germany_, in that part lying upon the ocean especially. _Ammianus Marcellinus_, in his XV. 9. tells us from _Timagenes_, an ancient historian, “that the _Dorienses_ following the more ancient _Hercules_, inhabited the western countries bordering on the ocean.” By mount _Carmel_ was a city _Dora_ spoken of by _Josephus_, and by _Stephanus_ of _Byzantium_, quoting _Hecatæus_, and many more old authors. See the famous fragment of _Stephanus_. _Claudius Julius_, in his III. of the _Phœnician_ history, writes, “next to _Cæsarea_ is _Dora_, inhabited by _Phœnicians_ on account of the great quantity of the purple fish there found.” Now _Hercules_ being confessedly the inventor of this _Tyrian_ dye, ’tis probable the companions of his, mention’d by _Ammianus_, were of this city.

If _Hercules_ peopled the ocean, coasts of _Gaul_, _Spain_ and _Germany_, we may well imagine he would do the like in _Britain_. _Pliny_’s testimony is express, that _Melcarthus_ (corruptly _Midacritus_) first brought _tyn_ from the _Cassiterid_ islands, which can be no other than _Britain_.

The poets and mythologists, when speaking of the _Titans_, agree they went all into the west, which seems to be meant of _Hercules_ and his people settling in _Britain_. Our _Thule_, or northern island, seems to have been named by our _Hercules_, as a demonstration of his being there, from an island of the same name in the _Persian_ gulph. Of which _Bochart_.

The like is to be inferr’d from such stories as that related by _Parthenius Nicæus_, “that _Hercules_ travelling, after his expedition against _Geryon_, pass’d thro’ the country of the _Celts_, and was entertain’d by _Britannus_. His daughter _Celtine_ fell in love with him, on whom he begat a son call’d _Celtus_; from him afterwards the people of the _Celts_ received their denomination.”

We took notice before, that these shepherds who quitted _Egypt_ under the conduct of our _Hercules_, call’d themselves _Hycsi_, as _Manethon_ informs us in _Josephus & Eusebius in chronol._ The word imports _royal shepherds_, _valiant_, _freemen_, _heroes_. Now we find the remains of this very name in the south-western part of our island, in _Worcestershire_, even to the _Roman_ times, and still further, even to the time of venerable _Bede_. They were called _Huiccii_, to which _Orduices_ and _Vigornienses_ is synonymous. And all three words mean the same thing, as the great _Baxter_ shews in his glossary, _Antiq. Britan. voce Orduices_, _Iceni_, _Huiccii_, &c. And by all accounts our old _Britons_ lov’d that same free, shepherd’s life, which the old _Canaanites_ did about _Abraham_’s time, as describ’d in scripture. Bishop _Cumberland_ is elaborate upon it.

I take the _Irish_, and ancient highland _Scots_, to be the remains of the original _Phœnician_ colony. My learned friend, Dr. _Pocock_, when he was in _Ireland_, observ’d a surprizing conformity between the present _Irish_ and the _Egyptians_, and that in very many instances.

These considerations, added to what I said in _Stonehenge_, are enough to persuade us, that our _Hercules_ had a considerable hand in peopling _Britain_.

_The antient Symbols of the deity._

the deity thus exprest on the imposts at Persepolis.

_thus upon Chinese gates._

_thus in Egyptian monuments._

_on asardonyx in Pignor. mens. Isiaca. P.20._

_isiac table._

_isiac table._

_isiac table._

_isiac table._

_isiac table._

_Reverendissimo Prœsuli Iohanni Archiepiscopo Cantuarensi.
humillime d.d. W. Stukeley._]

CHAP. XIV.

_Part of_ Cadmus _his history, who was a builder of serpentine
temples. He was son of_ Canaan _called_ Agenor. _He was a_ Horite
_or_ Hivite, _call’d_ Kadmonite _in scripture._ Hivite _signifies
a serpent. Mount_ Hermon _denominated from his wife_, Psal.
cxxxiii. 3. _“like as the dew of_ Hermon, _which fell on the hill
of_ Sion.” _Correct it_, Sirijon. _Another correction in the
translation of our bible_, “Canaanite _in the house of the Lord
of hosts,” read_ merchant. _’Tis a prophecy not attended to_,
Zech. xiv. 21. _The ancient_ greek _fables of sowing serpents’
teeth; of_ Cadmus _and his wife being turn’d into serpents, and
the like; are form’d from their building serpentine temples. Not
to be wonder’d at so much, when our country-people have the very
same reports of_ Rouldrich _stones; of the_ Weddings, _another
Druid temple in_ Somersetshire; _of_ Long Meg and her daughters,
_another in_ Cumberland; _and most firmly believe, that they were
men and women turn’d into stones. The mythology of the ancients
not to be despis’d, but its original meaning sought for._

None more famous in _Grecian_ history than _Cadmus_, who brought them the use of those letters that convey’d their history to us, and preserv’d the little knowledge we can chiefly have of profane antiquity. He was son of _Agenor_, by which word the _Greeks_ chose to pronounce the difficult one of _Canaan_. _Alexander Polyhistor_ cites out of _Eupolemus_; “from _Saturn_ (who is _Cham_) came _Belus_ and _Canaan_, and _Canaan_ begat the father of the _Phœnicians_, or _Phœnix_. _Eusebius, pr. ev._ 9 has it too. Again, _Eusebius, pr. ev._ 1. quotes from _Sanchoniathon_, _Cna_, (_Canaan_,) who was styled among the _Phœnicians_ ΧΗΝΑ.” So in _Stephanas_ of _Byzantium_, _Phœnicia_ is called ΧΗΝΑ, and the _Phœnicians_ ΧΗΝΑΙ, which is _Canaanites_. ΧΗΝΑ, _Cna_, is _Agenor_.

_Cadmus_ lived in the time of, or very little after _Hercules_. Tho’ the _Parian_ marble is an invaluable monument, yet ’tis not an infallible one. If the learned _Bentley_ finds it erring about _Stesichorus_, we must not depend on its _æra_ of _Cadmus_, who lived a thousand years before that stone was made. Nor is the authority of _Eusebius_’s chronology in this particular, greater. _Bochart_ holds him older than the builder of _Tyre_; _there_ perhaps he heightens his date a little too much.

To have a proper notion of the history of this great man, bishop _Cumberland_ shews us, that the _Horites_ or _Hivites_, sons of _Canaan_, i. e. the colony or people of _Cadmus_ son of _Agenor_, or _Canaan_, went out of the land of _Canaan_ about the same time that _Misraim_ or _Osiris_, son of _Cham_, went to plant _Egypt_. They went likewise into _Egypt_. They lived quietly there for some time, but war arising between the _Misraimites_ and the pastors, they retir’d back again, probably a little before the expulsion of the pastors. Some went to the north of _Canaan_, about mount _Hermon_ under _Libanus_; some remain’d in the more southern parts, more particularly call’d _Horites_, or _Avim_, or _Hivites_.

In _Gen._ xv. 18. when God made his great covenant with _Abraham_, he tells him, he will give him the land of the _Kenites_, and _Kenizzites_, and _Kadmonites_, and _Hittites_, and _Perizzites_, and _Rephaims_, _Amorites_, &c. By _Kadmonites_ he means the people of _Cadmus_ son of _Canaan_. But afterward, in all those places where these nations are recited, they are called _Hivites_; _Cadmus_ was likewise call’d _Hyas_, _Hivæus_: _Hyas_ or _Cadmus_, one or both, being honorary names, or names of consecration, as was the mode of that time. The same is to be said of _Melchizedec_, _Abimelech_, _Pharaoh_, and many more. About this time there was likewise _Hyas_ a son of _Atlas_.

The name of _Hermon_ is probably deriv’d from his wife _Hermione_, as a compliment to her. And of this mountain is that saying in _Psalm_ cxxxiii. 3. The psalmist draws an elegant comparison of the holy unction of _Aaron_ running from his head to his beard, and so down his garments, “like as the dew of _Hermon_ which falls on the hill of _Sion_.” A difficulty that gave St. _Augustin_ a great deal of trouble; but must needs be an absurd reading, and ought to be corrected _Sirion_ for _Sion_. _Sirion_ is a lower part of the high ground at the bottom of mount _Hermon_, as that lies under the elated crest of _Libanus_. _Psal._ xxix. 6. “_Libanon_ also, and _Sirion_, like a young unicorn.” A mountain not a little remarkable, since we read, _Deut._ iii. 9. “which _Hermon_ the _Sidonians_ call _Sirion_, and the _Amorites_ call it _Shenir_;” _Hermon_ and _Sirion_ being parts of mount _Libanon_.

Since we are upon criticism, the reader will excuse me in mentioning another of like nature, and not foreign to our purpose. These _Horites_, _Hivites_, _Avim_ or _Cadmonites_, as called from _Cadmus_, _Gen._ xv. 19. or _Canaanites_, as called from his father _Canaan_, extending themselves upon the _Phœnician_ shore, became traders or merchants in the most eminent degree of all ancient people in the world, and traded as far as _Britain_; so that the name of _Canaanite_ and _merchant_ became equivalent. _Isaiah_ xxiii. 8. “Who hath taken this counsel against _Tyre_, saith the prophet, the _crowning_ city; whose merchants are princes, whose _traffickers_ are the honourable of the earth.”

Hence we observe, 1. The prophet calls it the _crowning_ city, for they sent a golden crown to _Alexander the great_ as a present.

2. The word _traffickers_, _mercatores_, is _Canaanites_ in the original. And the like in _Jerem._ x. 17. “Gather up thy _wares_ out of the land, O inhabiter of the fortress.” ’Tis _Canahe_ in the original.

3. This naturally leads me to mention a noble prophecy, overlook’d thro’ a too literal translation in our bible, _Zech._ xiv. 21. “Yea, every pot in _Jerusalem_, and in _Judah_, shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein. And in that day there shall be no more the _Canaanite_ in the house of the LORD of hosts.” It ought to be translated _merchant_, as in the vulgate _latin_ and _chaldee_. For ’tis a prophecy concerning the days of the Messiah; and regards that famous act of his life, when he drove the traders out of the temple.

The _Kadmonites_ got the name of _Hivites_, as I apprehend, from their celebrity in building temples of the serpentine form. At first they were consecrated to true religion; but too soon all these, and other patriarchal temples in the land of _Canaan_ were polluted to idolatrous purposes; and probably from them the worship of snakes became famous. Now the word _Avim_, _Hevæus_ in the _Syriac_, signifies a _snake_. And from this custom of the _Phœnicians_ making serpentine temples, the notion might arise of the _Phœnicians_ worshipping serpents, as _Eusebius_ observes, _pr. ev._ I. And from this the _Greeks_ made their fables of _Cadmus_ overcoming a great snake, sowing its teeth, and armed men sprouting up, _&c._

On this account it is, that they who represent this exploit of his, describe it as done by a stone of a very extraordinary bulk, _Ovid. Met._ III. _v._ 59.

————_dextrâque molarem
Sustulit, et magnum magno conamine misit.
Illius impulsu cùm turribus ardua celsis
Mœnia mota forent; serpens sine vulnere mansit._

The bulk of the serpent is equally extravagant,

————_immensos sinuatur in arcus.
————tantoque est corpore, quanto
Si totum species, geminos qui separat arctos.
Ipse modò immensum spiris facientibus orbem
Cingitur, interdum longâ trabe rectior exit._

This is but a poetical description of the circle and the avenues at _Abury_.

You have this same action of the heroes represented in some _Tyrian_ coins: _Cadmus_ is throwing a stone at a serpent. That of _Gordian_ III. in _Vaillant_’s colony coins, vol. II. p. 217. Another of _Gallienus_, p. 350. The author quotes _Nonnus_’s _Dionysiacs_ IV. reciting the history of his breaking a snake’s head with a stone. And he thinks those other _Tyrian_ coins belong to this same history, as that p. 136, where a snake is represented as roll’d about a great stone.

II. _A coin of the city of_ Tyre _in_ Vaillant’s colon. p. 136,
147. _The learned author says a stone and serpent is the symbol
of_ Cadmus. _The truth is, they regard_ Cadmus _founding
serpentine temples._]

It was from the city of _Sareptha_ that _Europa_ was carry’d off; ’tis in the country of _Sidon_; and I apprehend, from the name of it, here was originally a serpentine temple. _Sareptha_ is the serpent _Ptha_. I have an ancient coin of this city, in brass. A palm-tree on one side, a leopard’s face on the other, which refers to the wine here famous: of which the learned _Reland_ in _Palestina_.

_Conon_, in his narration 37, gives us the origin of the _greek_ fable of _Cadmus_’s men, the _Phœnicians_, springing out of the ground armed, for before then helmets and shields were unknown. Hence they were call’d _Spartæ_.

That these armed men sprung out of the ground upon sowing the serpent’s teeth, means our _Hivites_ making a religious procession along the avenue of their serpentine temples on the great festival days, when they sacrific’d. We see a like procession of armed men, carv’d upon the temple of _Persepolis_ in _Le Brun_’s prints. And Ovid calles a _Bœotian_, one of _Cadmus_’s people, _Hyantius_, III. v. 147. _Strabo_ vii. writes, they took that name from their king _Hyas_, which is the same as _Hivite_. _Pliny_ iv. 7. observes the _Bœotians_ were so call’d anciently.

In the next book _Met._ iv. ver. 560. we have an account of _Melicerta_ our _Melcarthus_ and his mother deify’d: and of the _Sidonian_ women their companions, some turn’d into stones, others into birds, for grieving at their fate. This seems to mean their building temples after some of the modes we have been describing, and that which is to follow chap. XVI. near the sepulchres of heroes and founders of states; as was the custom of old: what we observed by _Silbury-hill_ and _Abury_. For these temples were prophylactick, and a sacred protection to the ashes of the defunct. So we read in _Virgil_ by _Anchises_’s tomb, _Æneid_ V.

_Tunc vicina astris Erycino in vertice sedes
Fundatur Veneri Idaliæ; tumuloque sacerdos
Ac lucus latè sacer additur Anchisæo._

Immediately after _Ovid_’s account of _Melicerta_, the poet speaks of _Cadmus_ and his wife turn’d into serpents: which I understand of the like serpentine temple made by their sepulchre. _Suidas_ writes, on _Epaminondas_’s tomb was a shield and a snake carv’d, to shew he was of _Spartan_ race. We may very well imagine the circle and snake, the cognizance of _Cadmus_.

After _Cadmus_’s decease, his people built a city called _Butua_; and near it is a place call’d _Cylices_, where _Cadmus_ and _Hermione_ were turn’d into serpents: and two stone snakes are there set up by the _Phœnicians_, to their honour: _Bochart_ page 502, where many authors are quoted to prove these particulars. He says, the word _Cylices_ in _Phœnician_, means _tumulos_, our barrows. It was a place full of sepulchral _tumuli_, as _Stonehenge_ and _Abury_: cups revers’d, regarding the form of them. _Nonnus in Dionys._ writes, that there are two great stones or rocks there, which clap together with a great noise, whence auguries are taken. _Tzetzes chiliad._ iv. _hist._ 139, mentions the same thing. I take this to be a main ambre, of which I spoke largely in _Stonehenge_. _Herodot._ V. 61. says the _Cadmeians_ being admitted citizens of _Athens_, built temples there, which had nothing common with the _Greek_ temples; particularly they had a temple of _Ceres Achæa_ and mystical rites. _Achæa_, I suppose, means a serpentine temple, from the oriental name.

We read just now, that the _Sidonian_ women, the mourners for _Melcarthus_ and his mother, were turn’d some into stones, others into birds.

_Pars volucres factæ, sumptis Ismenides alis._

I should suppose the internal meaning of this to be, the making an alate temple, of which we are further to speak in chap. xvi.

_Antoninus Liberalis_ in his XXXI. tells a very old story of the first inhabitants of _Italy_ before _Hercules_’s time; a place among the _Messapians_ called the sacred stones: where the nymphs _Epimelides_ had a fane set round with trees, which trees were formerly men. This must be understood as the former.

Thus we see how the ancient _Greeks_ involv’d every thing in fable, but still all fable has some historical foundation, and _that_ we must endeavour to find, by applying things so properly together, as to strike out the latent truth.

The learned Dr. _Bogan_ in his letter prefix’d to _Delphi phœniciss._ from _Æschylus_ and others, Ικετ. ά. shews, that men were often call’d snakes by the ancients, in an allegorical way; and as to the report of _Cadmus_ and his wife, of the _Sidonian_ women and others, turn’d into snakes, or stones, or birds, or trees, in the sense we are explaining them; ’tis no more than what we daily see and hear at this time, in these very Druid temples of our own island, which we are speaking of. The people who live at _Chippin-Norton_ and all the country round our first described temple of _Rowldrich_; affirm most constantly and as surely believe it, that the stones composing this work are a king, his nobles and commons turn’d into stones. They quote an ancient proverb for it, concerning that tall stone, call’d the king stone.

_If_ Long-Compton _thou canst see,
Then king of_ England _shall thou be._

And as Mr. _Roger Gale_ wrote once to me from the place: “’tis the creed of all that country, and whoever dares to contradict it, is looked upon as the most audacious free-thinker.”

The very same report remains, at the Druid temple of _Stanton-Drew_, in _Somersetshire_, which I shall describe in my next volume. This noble monument is vulgarly call’d the _Weddings_; and they say,’tis a company who assisted at a nuptial solemnity, thus petrify’d. In an orchard near the church, is a cove consisting of three stones, like that of the northern circle in _Abury_, or that of _Longstones_: this they call the parson, the bride, and bridegroom. Other circles are said to be the company dancing: and a separate parcel of stones standing a little from the rest, are call’d the fidlers, or the band of musick.

So that vast circle of stones in _Cumberland_ which was a Druid temple, is call’d _long Meg and her daughters_, and verily believed to have been human, turn’d into stones.

Thus we see an exact uniformity between the fables of the antient _Greeks_, and our present people. The former found these kind of patriarchal temples built by their first heroes and planters; admiring the vastness of the works, they affix’d these marvellous stories to them, and retain them as firmly, as our vulgar do the like now. And this is the nature of the ancient mythology; but by finding the end of the clue, we draw it out into useful truths.

These _Cadmonites_, _Avim_, _Hittites_, _Hivites_, _Spartans_, _Lacedemonians_, (who are all one and the same people,) retain’d a distinct remembrance of their relation to the _Jews_, even to the days of the _Maccabees_, as we read 1. _Maccab._ xii. and in _Josephus_ Ant. xii. 5. Undoubtedly they reckoned themselves of kin to _Abraham_, if not descended from him; thus I understand it. _Joshua_ mentions chap. xi. the _Hivites_ in the land of _Mizpeh_ under mount _Hermon_ by _Libanus_. He says further, in the 19th verse, the _Gibeonites_ were a portion of that same people. The _Avim_ or _Horites_ about mount _Seir_ where _Esau_ dwelt, were the same people who were expell’d by the _Caphthorim_, as _Moses_ mentions: on which bishop _Cumberland_ has wrote largely.

We read of the great intercourse there was between _Esau_’s family and these people; for _Esau_ married four of his wives from them, _Gen._ xxvi. 34. xxxvi. 2. no doubt but they married into his family again. Hence it is that _Strabo_ x. writes, that _Cadmus_ had _Arabians_ in his company. And in xvi. that the inhabitants of _Syria_ (he means properly _Phœnicia_) are originally deriv’d from the neighbourhood of the _Persian gulf_.

I doubt not but that there are now upon the face of the earth, many of these serpentine temples remaining in _Europe_, _Asia_ and _Africa_. For instance, _Strabo_ xvi. from _Posidonius_ relates, that in a field call’d _Macra_ by _Damascus_, was a dead serpent, the length of an acre, so thick that two horsemen could not see each other across him, his mouth so large as a horseman might enter into it; each scale was as big as a shield.

We may hence see the origin of idolatry, soon after these heroes we have recited; and it seems to have begun first in _Phœnicia_, which _Eusebius_ always puts before _Egypt_, when speaking of the matter. _Demaroon_ was _Jupiter_ the supreme, _Phut_ they deify’d into his son, _Canaan_ they made the third divine person. But wherever idolatry began, whether in the call of _Asia_, or the west, it flew too soon into other countries, and they made a _Jupiter_, a _Son_, and a _Mercury_ or _Neptune_ who are the same, of their own; ’till with every hero and benefactor to mankind they fill’d the heaven of the heathens.

CHAP. XV.

_A metaphysical disquisition concerning the nature of the deity,
shewing how the Druids, by the strength of reason, might arrive
to the knowledge of a divine emanation or person, from the
supreme first cause, which we call the Son of God; and the
necessity of admitting of such an emanation. All the philosophers
and priests of antiquity had this notion; as we read in_ Plato
_and many more._

I have given the reader an account of three eminent builders of these _Dracontia_, or serpentine temples, in the earliest times after the flood, and in the more eastern parts of the world; as well as described one of those works in our island. There are many more such builders and buildings, which will be easily found out by those that are conversant in ancient learning. This figure of the circle and snake, on which they are founded, had obtained a very venerable regard, in being expressive of the most eminent and illustrious act of the deity, the multiplication of his own nature, as the _Zoroastrians_ and _Platonists_ speak; and in being a symbol of that divine person who was the consequence of it.

We shall not wonder that the Druids had a perception of this great truth, when we consider that it was known, as far as necessary, to all the philosophic and religious sects of antiquity, as shewn at large by several learned writers. My opinion is, that it was communicated to mankind, originally, by God himself. ’Tis the highest point of wisdom which the human mind can arrive at, to understand somewhat of the nature of the deity; and the studious, the pious, and thinking part of the world, would not fail to improve this knowledge by reflexion and ratiocination.

Tho’ my business is to speak more fully of the religion of the Druids in the next volume, yet I judge it very pertinent to the present subject to anticipate that intention, so as to shew how far they might advance toward that knowledge, by the dint of reason; to further the works, wherein they have, in the largest characters that ever were made, consign’d their notions of this sort, remaining to this day, such as we have been describing; and which may induce us to have the same sentiment concerning them as _Pere Marten_ in his _Religion des Gaulois_, tho’ he knew nothing of our antiquities; but thus he writes, “that the Druids worship’d the true God, and that their ideas of religion were truly grand, sublime, magnificent.”

We may therefore very justly affirm of them, that in their serious contemplations in this place, concerning the nature of the deity, which, as _Cæsar_ tells us, was one part of their inquiries, they would thus reason in their own minds.

A contemplative person, viewing and considering the world around him, is ravish’d with the harmony and beauty, the fitnesses of things in it, the uses and connexion of all its parts, and the infinite agreement shining throughout the whole. He must belye all his senses to doubt, that it was compos’d by a being of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, which we call God. But among all the most glorious attributes of divinity, goodness is preeminent. For this beautiful fabric of the world displays thro’ every atom of it, such an amazing scene of the goodness and beneficence of its author; that it appears to such contemplative minds, that his infinite power and wisdom were but as the two hands, employ’d by the _goodness_ of the sovereign architect.

Goodness was the beginning, the middle, the end of the creation. To explain, to prove, or illustrate this topic, would be an affront to the common understanding of mankind. The sum of what we can know of him is, that he is good, essentially good. We are not more assured of the existence of the first being, than that he is good, _the_ good, goodness itself, in eminence. He is God, because he is good; which is the meaning of the word in _english_, and in many other languages. This, in God almighty, is the attribute of attributes, the perfection of his all-perfect nature. He made and maintains those creatures which he multiply’d to an infinite degree, the objects of his care and beneficence; those great characters of supreme love, that render him deservedly adorable.

All possible perfections, both moral and natural, must needs be inherent in this first and supreme being, because from him alone they can flow. This is in one comprehensive word, what we call good. But good unexercis’d, unemploy’d, incommunicate, is no good, and implies a contradiction, when affirmed of the all-good being. Therefore it undeniably follows, there never was a time, never can be, when God was useless, and did not communicate of his goodness.

But there was a time before creation, before this beautiful fabric of the world was made, before even chaos itself, or the production of the rude matter, of which the world was made. And this time must be affirmed, not only as to material creation, but to that of angels and spiritual beings. Reckon we never so many ages, or myriads of ages, for the commencement of creation, yet it certainly began, and there was a time before that beginning. For, by the definition, creation is bringing that into being which was not before. There must have been a time before it.

Here then occurs the difficulty, of filling up that infinite gap before creation. Consider the supreme first being sitting in the center of an universal solitude, environ’d with the abyss of infinite nothing, a chasm of immense vacuity! what words can paint the greatness of the solecism? what mind does not start at the horror of such an absurdity? and especially supposing this state subsisted from infinite ages.

’Tis in vain to pretend, that a being of all perfections can be happy in himself, in the consciousness of those perfections, whilst he does no good to any thing; in the reflexive idea of his possessing all excellency, whilst he exerts no tittle of any one. This is the picture of a being quite dissonant to that of the All-good. And as the Druids would, without difficulty, judge, that there must needs be one, only, self-originated first being, the origin of all things: so they would see the necessity of admitting one or more eternal beings, or emanations from that first being, in a manner quite distinct from creation.

That there ever was one eternal, self-existent, unoriginated being, is the very first and most necessary truth, which the human mind can possibly, by contemplation and ratiocination, obtain. Still by considering the matter intimately, they would find it impossible to conceive, that there should ever be a time, when there was but one being in the universe, which we call the first and self-originated being, possessing in himself all possible perfections, and remaining for endless myriads of ages, torpid, unactive, solitary, useless. This is a notion so abhorrent to reason, so contrary to the nature of goodness, so absolutely absurd, that we may as well imagine this great being altogether absent, and that there was no being at all.

This all the philosophers were sensible of, for good unexercis’d, that always lay dormant, never was put into act, is no goodness; it may as well be supposed absent, and even that there was no God. To imagine that God could be asleep all this while, shocks the mind, therefore it casts about, to remedy this great paradox.

Now it cannot be said of any part of creation, or of the whole, that God always did good to any created being or beings; for these are not, cannot be commensurate in time with his own being. Count backward never so long for the beginning of things, still there was a time prior to this beginning of things; for eternal creation is an equal absurdity with an eternal absence of any being: where no part is necessary, to affirm the whole is a necessarily and self-existing being, is a mere portent of reason.

So we see, in every light, an absolute necessity of admitting a being or beings coeval with the supreme and self-originated being, distinct from any creation, and which must needs flow from the first being, the cause of all existence. For two self-originated beings is as much an absurdity as any of the preceding.

But, as ’tis impossible that the act of creation should be coeval with the first being, what other act of goodness can be? For that being which is essentially good, must ever have been actively and actually so. To answer this great question, we must thus expostulate, as the prophet _Isaiah_ does in the person of God, in his last chapter, when summing up the business of his prophetical office: “Shall I bring to the birth, and not beget, saith _Jehovah_: shall I cause to bring forth, and be myself barren, saith thy God?” He is there speaking of the birth of the son of God in human form; but we may apply it in a more eminent degree, to the son of God in his divine nature; and as the Druids may well be suppos’d to have done. The highest act of goodness which is possible, even for the supreme being, is the production of his like, the act of filiation, the begetting of his son, _Prov._ viii. 22. “The LORD _begat_ me _from eternity_, before his works of old;” (so it ought to be read) _ver._ 30. “then I was by him, as one _brought up_ with him (_amoun_ in the original) and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him.”

This is the internal divine fecundity of the fruitful cause of all things. Creation is external fecundity. The Druids would naturally apply the term generation, to this act of producing this person, or divine emanation from the supreme, which we are oblig’d to admit of: and to affirm him coeval with the supreme. The difficulty of priority in time, between father and son, would easily be remov’d, by considering the difference between divine and human generation, the production of necessary and contingent beings.

If an artist produces an admirable and curious piece of mechanism, he is said to make it; if he produces a person or being altogether like himself, he is rightly said to generate that person; he begets a son, ’tis an act of filiation. So the like we must affirm of the supreme being generating another being, with whom only he could communicate of his goodness from all eternity, and without any beginning; or, in scripture language, _in whom he always had complacency_. This is what _Plato_ means, “by love being ancienter than all the gods; that the kingdom of love is prior to the kingdom of necessity.” And this son must be a self-existent, all-perfect being, equally as the father, self-origination only excepted, which the necessary relation or oeconomy between them forbids. If he is a son, he is like himself; if he is like himself, he is God; if he is God, an eternity of existence is one necessary part of his divine nature and perfection.

If the son be of the same substance and nature as the father, an eternity of being is one part of his nature; therefore no time can be assign’d for this divine geniture, and it must be what we call eternal. Or perhaps we may express it as well by saying, it was before eternity; or that he is coeval with the almighty father. In this same sense _Proclus de patriarch._ uses the word προαιώνιος, _præeternus_. For tho’ ’tis impossible that creation, whether of material or immaterial beings, should be coeval with God; yet, if the son be of the same nature with the father, which must be granted, then ’tis impossible to be otherwise, than that the son of God should be coeval with the father.

If goodness be, as it were, the essence of God, then he can have no happiness but in the exercise of that goodness. We must not say, as many are apt to do, that he was always and infinitely happy, in reflecting upon his own being and infinite perfections, in the idea of himself. This is no exercise of goodness, unless we allow this idea of himself which he produces, to be a being without him, or distinct from himself; and that is granting what we contend for. A true and exact idea of himself is the _logos_ of the ancients, the first-born of the first cause. And this is the meaning of what the eastern and all other philosophers assert, “that it was necessary for unity to make an evolution of itself, and multiply; it was necessary for good to communicate itself. There could be no time before then, for then he would be an imperfect unity, and may as well be termed a cypher, which of itself can never produce any thing.” Agreeable to this doctrine, _Philo in_ II. _de monarchiis_, writes, “the _logos_ is the express image of God, and by whom all the whole world was made.” It would be senseless to think here, he meant only the wisdom of the supreme, the reason, the cunning of God, a quality, not a personality.

What difficulty here is in the thing, arises merely from the weakness of our conceptions, and in being conversant only with ordinary generation. A son of ours is of the same nature as his father. His father was begat in time, therefore the son the like. Not so in divine generation. But as the father is from eternity, so is the son. This only difference there is, or rather distinction; the father is self-existent, and unoriginate; the son is of the father.

Further, we must remove, in this kind of reasoning, all the imperfection of different sexes, as well as time, which is in human generations; and all such gross ideas incompatible with the most pure and perfect divine nature. The whole of this our reasoning further confirms, that the son is necessarily existing. It was necessary for God to be actively good always, and begetting his son was the greatest act of divine goodness, and the first, necessarily. But the word _first_ is absurd, betraying our own imperfection of speech and ideas, when we treat of these matters; for there could be no _first_, where no beginning. And the very names of father and son are but relative and oeconomical; so far useful, that we may be able to entertain some tolerable notion in these things, so far above our understanding.

But tho’ it be infinitely above our understanding, yet we reach so far, as to see the necessity of it. And we can no otherwise cure that immense _vacuum_, that greatest of all absurdities, the indolence and uselesness of the supreme being, before creation. And all this the Druids might, and I may venture to say, did arrive at, by ratiocination. And we can have no difficulty of admitting it, if we do but suppose, there were obscure notions of such being the nature of the deity, handed down from the beginning of the world. Whence in _Chronicon Alexandrinum_, _Malala_, and other authors, we read, for instance, “in those times (the most early) among the _Egyptians_ reigned, of the family of _Misraim_, _Sesosiris_, that is, the branch or offspring of _Osiris_, a man highly venerable for wisdom, who taught, there were three greatest energies or persons in the deity, which were but one.” This man was _Lud_, or _Thoth_, son of _Misraim_ or _Osiris_, and for this reason, when idolatry began, he was consecrated by the name of _Hermes_, meaning one of those divine energies, which we call the Holy Spirit.

This is a short and easy account of that knowledge which the ancients had of the nature of the deity, deduc’d from reason in a contemplative mind, and which certainly was known to all the world from the beginning, and rightly call’d a mystery. For our reason is strong enough to see the necessity of admitting this doctrine, but not to see the manner. The _how_ of an eternal generation is only to be understood by the deity itself.

The Druids would pursue this notion from like reasoning a little further, in this manner. Tho’ from all that has been said, there is a necessity of admitting an eternal generation, yet the person so generated, all-perfect God, does not multiply the deity itself, tho’ he is a person distinct from his father. For addition or subtraction is argument of imperfection, a thing not to be affirmed of the nature of the deity. They would therefore say, that tho’ these two, the father and the son, are different divine personalities, yet they cannot be called two Gods, or two godheads; for this would be discerping the deity or godhead, which is equally absurd and wicked.

That mankind did formerly reason in this wise, is too notorious to need my going about formally to prove it. ’Tis not to be controverted; very many authors have done it substantially. And when there was such a notion in the world, our Druids, who had the highest fame for theological studies, would cultivate it in some such manner as I have deliver’d, by the mere strength of natural reason. Whether they would think in this manner _ex priori_, I cannot say; but that they did so think, we can need no weightier an argument than the operose work of _Abury_ before us; for nought else could induce men to make such a stamp, such a picture of their own notion, as this stupendous production of labour and art.

As our western philosophers made a huge picture of this their idea, in a work of three miles’ extent, and, as it were, shaded by the interposition of divers hills; so the more eastern sages who were not so shy of writing, yet, chose to express it in many obscure and enigmatic ways. _Pythagoras_, for instance, affirmed, the original of all things was from unity and an infinite duality. _Plutarc. de plac. philos._ _Plato_ makes three divine authors of all things, the first or supreme he calls king, the good. Beside him, he names the cause, descended from the former; and between them he names _dux_, the leader, or at other times he calls him the _mind_. Just in the same manner, the _Egyptians_ called them _father_, _mind_, _power_. Therefore _Plato_, in his VIth epistle, writing to _Hermias_ and his friends, to enter into a most solemn oath, directs it to be made before “God the leader or prince of all things, both that are, and that shall be; and before the Lord, the father of that leader or prince; and of the cause: all whom, says he, we shall know manifestly, if we philosophize rightly, as far as the powers of good men will carry us.” And in _Timæus_ he makes MIND to be the son of GOOD, and to be the more immediate architect of the world. And in _Epinomis_ he writes, “the most divine LOGOS or WORD made the world,” the like as _Philo_ wrote; which is expressly a christian verity.

’Tis not to be wonder’d at, that the ancients wrap’d up this doctrine in an abstruse and symbolic way of speaking, of writing, and in hieroglyphic characters and works, as we have seen. It was communicated to them in the same manner; they did not, could not comprehend it any more than we, but they held it as a precious depositum of sacred wisdom.

We may therefore make this deduction from what has been said, that the christian doctrine of distinct personalities in the deity, is so far from being contrary to reason, as some would have it, or above human reason as others, that ’tis evidently deducible therefrom, at least highly agreeable thereto, when seriously propos’d to our reason. And when most undoubtedly the ancients had such a notion, even from the creation, those minds that were of a contemplative turn, would embrace it and cultivate it, as being the most exalted knowledge we are capable of. Of such a turn were our Druids, as all accounts agree.

CHAP. XVI.

_Of the third species of patriarchal temples, form’d in the
resemblance of a circle and wings. A description of one of this
sort on the banks of the_ Humber _in_ Lincolnshire. _A very
remarkable sort of barrows there, like to beds. This figure
of the alate circle, the_ Egyptians _call’d by the name of_
CNEPH; _authors mistake in telling us it was the name of God.
’Tis indeed the symbol of the third divine emanation from the
supreme, call’d the_ anima mundi. CNEPH _is an oriental word,
from_ canaph, _to_ fly, עוף. _The entire symbol, circle, snake
and wings, was call’d_ CNEPHPTHA. Ptha _more particularly meant
the serpent, or symbol of the second divine person. The supreme,
they held to be ineffable, as well as invisible, therefore
symboliz’d him by the circle. The Neptune of the_ Greeks _deriv’d
from_ CNEPH, דניא dunia, _a circle added to_ Cneph, _is_ circulus
alatus. _He was president of the waters, from_ Gen. i. 2. and
the divine spirit moved upon the face of the waters. _Hence
this temple set on the edge of the_ Humber. _Of the_ Egyptian
Canopus. _Another of these alate temples on_ Navestock-common
_in_ Essex. _The word_ ganaph _preserv’d in the name of the
town._ Knave, gnavus _and_ knap, _a teutonic word, all from the_
hebrew. _Mr._ Toland _mentions an alate temple of the Druids in
the_ hebrid _islands, but does not altogether understand it. Of_
Abaris _the hyperborean Druid, a friend of_ Pythagoras’_s. That
the directive virtue of the magnetic needle was known anciently.
The bed barrows on the_ Humber _banks explain’d. A metaphysical
disquisition concerning the Druids’ knowledge of a third
emanation or divine person, from the supreme; a truth agreeable
to reason. This was the_ Mercury _of the ancients, as well as_
Neptune. _The names which the Druids gave to the three divine
persons. Conclusion. They were in effect Christians._

When I wrote my _Itinerary_, I travelled a good deal of the _Hermen-street_ road, and the _Foss_ road, having Mr. _Samuel Buck_ in my company. At that time I engag’d him to take in hand the work, which he has so laudably pursued, and sav’d the remembrance of innumerable antiquities in our island, by that collection of elegant prints which he has publish’d. When we were on the banks of the _Humber_, the name of _Barrow_ invited my curiosity, and it was fully answer’d, by finding that most noble antiquity there of the old Druids, upon the _marsh_, call’d _Humbers castle_.