and thereby confounding that Tongue; or when they met with a Thing which had not a Word in that fecond Language, or imagin'd Powers or Actions which did not exist, or were not perform'd, for which there could be no Words in a Language fram'd from Things, Powers and Actions, they would fall to coining of Words: And as 'tis vifible now, that when they coin'd a Word for a Thing for which there was no Word in their corrupted Languages they did not form a Root, and give the Thing an expreflive Name as the Hebrew had, but gave it fome Name, which had no Relation to any Root in their Language. "Tis plain the Greeks, and more efpecially the Latins had, when they form'd their refpective Languages, loft the Knowledge of those Powers, because, if they had understood them they would, as those who spoke the Hebrew did, have us'd Words expreffive of them, and fuch as were us'd for other Agents and Actions in their refpective Languages, and not have given most of them Nick-names, which have no Relation to any Word in their refpective Languages, nor to thofe in any other that we know of, nor to any visible Action or Power whence the Idea could be taken. By this they confounded the

Attributes,

;

Atrtibutes, and apply'd to the Power of, and invoked one for that which belong'd to another, and fo loft the Knowledge of them all. If it be fuggefted that these Names might be each of a Root, and expreffive in fome other Languages, and that they were only borrow'd for their God's and the Root of each, or any one of them, was not admitted into the Tongue or Language: It would feem as hard to fuggeft this, as to take the Cafe as I have stated it, to borrow a Word for the Name of a God, which they did not understand; and if they did fo, that not one Author should tell us what one of them meant, or where, or from what Language they borrow'd

it.

When they were in this State, their Language confounded, and they ignorant of the Things, if they had given expreffive Names, other than King, Lord, or fuch general Name to Things, Powers or Actions, which did not exift, or were not poffefs'd of the Attribute, but only in Imagination, thofe Words would have mifled and confounded the Worshipper or Reader, and have left them in the Dark, as much or more than arbitrary Words did. Thence, when the fame Author in thefe modern Languages hiftorically gives

you

you Defcriptions of a Power or an Agent and alfo its Name, or an Epithet, or, &c. if the Word fo ufed be defcriptive, 'tis Odds but that it is oppofite to, or wide of the Defcription; In arbitrary Names or Words which have no Root, though the Word cannot contradict the Discription, 'tis Odds but that any two Defcriptions thwart one another, and the arbitrary Word will not help you to rectify that which is falfe. If you make a Collection, it cannot be called a Concordance of the Emblems, Epithets or Actions, Prayers to, Praises, or, &c. of any one of the Heathen Gods, one fays one Thing, another another; fo one deftroys the Authority of another, and there will remain nothing: So that in the first Language, if you learn the Words where the Things are underftood, the Words exprefs the Things, Powers, Actions, &c. they are used for: In the others, when you have learn'd the Words, you must enquire of those who never understood what any Thing was, to know what Things, Powers, Actions, &c. they ftand for.

The Greek and Latin Poets could not have writ their Accounts of the Gods in the Hebrew Tongue, if they had underfood it perfectly; it was not capable of

being applied to Fables; for if a proper Word had been used for every Agent that would have exprefs'd what the Agent was; and afterwards if they had afcribed any Actions to it, which it was incapable of performing, the one Part of the Sentence would have given the Lie to the other. The Description of their Gods in the Hebrew is perfect and true, though they imagin'd that the Courfe of Things were determin'd by the Circulation of the Heavens, and fo made Obfervations for those Things which were discoverable, and perhaps for fomething more: They could not go far from the Truth, till they had changed the Names; and as 'twas done together, 'tis hard to determine whether the Confufion in their Language by Writing, &c. or their Defire to imagine, had the greater Hand in giving thefe arbitrary fenfeless Names to thefe Powers, their Gods. For even with the Language they had, if they had understood what Power each of their Gods had, they might have fixed a Word in a Root for each of them, defcriptive of the Species of Power or Action they intended to comprehend under that Attribute; but then they could have attributed nothing else to it; and if they had had a Mind to have given another

Attribute

Attribute to that Power, it either must have been secondary, and comprehended in the firft, or elfe it would fhew a Contradiction, give the Writer the Lie, fo as you could neither form a God in the Hebrew Tongue without a Foundation of Truth, that is, without expreffing his Effence, Subftance, Power, or Actions by his Name; fo you could not affix a Name of Power or Action to any Thing but to fuch Effence, Subftance or Things, as were poffefs'd of it. And tho' the Heathens, who fpoke Hebrew, thought they ought to apply divine Service to the Heavens for the Powers in them, and were mistaken in that, the Words are properly apply'd to the Powers, properly, and fo were proper Names of Condition, of Action, of Office, and truely, and fo a Language of Truth and the fingle Word, the Name, gave a better Description of the Thing than all the Poets, &c. with all their Numbers of Words in other Languages, could do much more, are they preferable to the Jingle of infignificant Words, compos'd of Imaginations and Falfhoods.

;

The Antients, indeed, before Writing, as fimple Animals or Brute Creatures, had each Species, as 'tis term'd, their Instinct, and peculiar Manner of acting, or haldiVOL. IV. ftinct

H