[ 30 ] 



and for tins purpofe they would probably have preferred animals 

 to men, not only as lefs adverfe to the prejudices of their 

 countrymen, but as better adapted to exprefs thofe attributes 

 of which they were meant to be emblems. Such beafts as 

 were peculiarly poffeffed of certain qualities to the exclufion 

 of others would naturally be chofen in preference to man, in 

 whom, though in a lefs ftriking degree, all thofe qualities were 

 •united. Thus the wifdom of the deity would be figured by 

 the fox or the ferpent, his omnipotent might by the lion or 

 tiger, and his beneficence by the cow or the flieep. And 

 indeed we may perceive how inadequate the human figure 

 r/as ultimately found to reprefent the attributes of the divine 

 nature by the neceflity under which the barbarous nations 

 laboured, and flill labour, of making monfters of their human 

 idols ; nay, even in the mofl enlightened times of idolatry, and 

 among the mofl ingenious and polifhed people, it was found 

 neceflliry to aflbciate and connedl animals with the figures of 

 their Gods in order to make out their fymbolical meaning * : 

 And thus we have the eagle of Jupiter, the peacock of Juno, 

 the owl of Minerva, and the wolf of Mars. 



Such are the caufes which may be fuppofed to have been fa- 

 vourable to the precedency of animal worlhip ; while, on the 

 other hand, thofe flavifh ideas, on which the adoration of our 



fellow 



* Since in matters fo profoundly obfcure as thofe of which we flow treat every poffible guefs 

 is allowable, perhaps I may be permitted to hazard a conjeflure that thefe affociated animals 

 might have been the original forms under which the powers of the refpeftive Gods, with whom 

 they are invariably connefted, had been worftiipped previoufly to their having been endued with the 

 human figure. 



