796.) 
had fucceeded in polifhing to the keeneft 
ede of refinement both their tafte and 
reafon, fhould have betrayed an unequi- 
vocal predileétion for idolatry. 
Lorp Bacon (whom BuFFON ex- 
tolled as one of the five great Geniuefs of 
Literature) in his Advancement of 
Learning (lib. i. chap: 7.) thus fpesks : 
‘«‘ In the degrees of honour among the 
Heathens, it was the higheft te attain 
veneration and adoration as agod. ‘This, 
indeed, is to the Chriftians as forbidden 
fruit; but we {peak now feparately of 
human teftimony. With the Heathens, 
that which the Grecians call Apothcofis,and 
the Latins Re/atio imter Divos, was the 
fupreme honour which man could attribute 
unto man+; e{pecially when it was given 
not by a formal decree or act of itate (as 
was ufed among the Roman Emperors) 
but freely by the affent of men, and in- 
ward belief. Of which high honour, 
there was a certain degree and middle 
term’; for there were reckoned, above hu- 
man honours, honours heroica! and divine, 
in the diftribution whereof, antiquity 
obferved this order: Founders of States, 
Law-givers, Extirpers of Tyrants, Fa- 
thers of their Country, and other emi- 
nent perfons in civil merit, were honour- 
ed with the title of MWorthies only, or 
half-gods ; fuch as were Thefeus, Minos, 
and the like. Onthe other fide, fuch as 
Were inventors and authors of new arts, 
and fuch as endowed man’s life with new 
commodities and acceflions, were ever 
confecrated among the greater and entire 
gods; which happened to Ceres, Bacchus, 
Mercury, «Apollo, and others ; which, 
indeed, was done jJuftly. and upon found 
judgment. For the merits of the former 
are commonly confined within the circle 
of an age, or anation; and are not un- 
like feafonable and favouring fhowers, 
which, though they be profitable and de- 
firable, yet ferve but for that feafon only 
wherein they fall, and for a latitude of 
ground which they water. Bur the be- 
nefices of the latter, like the influences of 
of the fun and heavenly bodies, are for 
time, permanent, for place, univerfal.— 
Thefe again are common!y mixed with 
ftrife and perturbation; but thefe have 
the true character of dine pretence, 
and come in, auré@ Jeni, without noile or 
agitation.”’ 
If the foregoing be compared with 
another well-known paflage of the fame 
Writer, ftating the paradoxy of the 
Chriftian Creed, and if the ftate of public 
@pinion be confidered at the time when 
#hele featences were penned, it will pro- 
: On Hero Wor fhids 
777% 
bably be inferred, that the philofopher 
of Verulam didnot much differ in efoterie 
opinion from Wieland’s Jupiter. [See 
Varieties of Literature, vol. ii. p. 233.) 
Mitton, from whofe puritanifm a 
fimilar leaning could hardly have been 
expected, feems anxious indecd about the 
qualities of perfons celebrated inthe pub- 
lic temples, but not averfe to the practice 
of there holding up the benefa¢tors of the 
country to national veneration. : 
‘© The people (fays he, in the Icono- 
elafieés) exorbitant and exceflive in al} 
their motions, are prone oft-times not 
toa religious only, but to a civil kind of 
idolatory, in idolizing their kings ; 
though never more miftaken in the objeét 
of their worthip; heretofore being wonz 
to repute fer faints, thofe faithful and 
courageous barons, who loft their lives 
in the field, making glorious war againft 
tyrants, for the commen liberty; as 
Simon de Mountford againft Henry the 
Third, and Thomas Plantagenet againft 
Edward the Second. But now, witha 
befotted and degencrate bafene(s of {pirit, 
except fome few who yet retain in ther 
the old Engiith fortitude and love of free- 
_ dom, and have teftified it by their match-~ 
_lefs deeds ; the reft, imbaftardized from 
the ancient noblenefs of their anceftors, 
are ready to fall flat, and give adoration 
to the image and memory of this man, 
who hath offered at more cunning fetches 
to undermine our liberties, and put ty- 
ranny into an art, than any Britifh king 
before him.”’ 
Catholic chapels have been confecrated 
toSan MarinoandtoWilhelm Vell;to fuclz 
canonzations MIL7on, it feems, would 
not have objected. Inalike f{piric, the 
Chriftian Srotsexc deferibes the inha- 
bitants of his imaginary ifland-common- 
wealth, as celebrating in. their temples 
the memory of Ariftides, Socrates, Numa, 
Cato, and Brutus; of Luther, Doria, 
Guftavus Vafa, and Guftavus Adolphus, 
Hospeks, in the Leviathan (chap. 45} 
has been ar pains to reftrict the meaning 
of the word Idolatory; as if he feared 
left the hoftility declared in the Penta- 
teuch againft reverencing focks and 
ftenes, fhould be interpreted to imply 
the prohibition of more innocent rites.— 
He has alfo laborioufly defined the word 
Worfo'p, which comprehends any exter- 
nal mark of reverence. The worthip of 
the magiftrate is a proper phrafe, and the 
language of our laws ftly terms the minif- 
ters or Juftice worthipful. Was he of 6pini- 
on that adoration ought indeed to be re- 
ferved forthe Supreme Being, but thar 
: a te 


