OR THE BURNING OF THE DEAD. 89 
place, he ridicules the heathen for their inconsistency, in first 
burning the dead in the most unfeeling manner, and then cele- 
brating the feasts which they denominated Parentalia, by the 
same fires both honouring and insulting them, treating them as 
if they had been gluttons after they had consumed them. “ O 
“ piety !” he exclaims, “ sporting itself in acts of cruelty *.” 
The adversaries of the Christians, indeed, objected to them, 
that they had a weightier reason for opposing cremation. M1- 
nucius Fenix, accordingly, introduces the heathen as saying, 
“ For this reason they execrate the funeral pile, and condemn 
“ sepulture by burning,” as if it precluded the possibility of re- 
surrection. But Mrvuctus replies, “ We do not, as you be- 
“ lieve, fear any injury by this kind of sepulture; but we ad- 
“here to inhumation as the more ancient and the preferable 
“mode +.” 
From the ridiculous reason assigned by Terrutiian, for the 
reluctance which some of the heathen felt to cremation, it ap- 
pears fMat they were actuated by the self-same feeling with 
Christians ; although, according to this ancient writer, they 
transferred their compassion from the body to the soul. But 
some of them, it is evident, viewed the practice as inhuman on 
Vox. VIII. P. I. M a 
* Ego magis ridebo vulgus, tunc quoque quum ipsos defunctos atrocissime 
exurit, quos postmodum gulosissime nutrit, iisdem ignibus et promerens et of- 
fendens. O pietatem de crudelitate ludentem! Id. de Resurrect. c. i. 
+ Inde videlicet et execrantur rogos, et damnant ignium sepulturas, quasi non 
omne corpus, etsi flammis subtrahatur, annis tamen et etatibus in terram resol- 
vatur.—Hoc errore decepti beatam sibi, ut bonis, et perpetem vitam mortuis pol- 
licentur ; czteris, ut injustis, peenam sempiternam. Mun. Feu. Octavius, p. 97, 
98. edit. Lugd. 1672. Nec, ut creditis, ullum damnum sepulture timemus, sed 
veterem, et meliorem consuetudinem humandi frequentamus. Ibid. p. 327, 328. 
