of Canaan, who reigned at Byblus; and who is said to have built him an house, and to have walled it round for his security. These circumstances are inconsistent. Kronus was originally esteemed the supreme deity; as is manifest from his being called Il and Ilus. It was the same name, as the El of the Hebrews; and, according to St. Jerome, was one of the ten names of God. 5 Phænicibus It, qui Hebræis El, quod est unum de decem nominibus Dei. Damascius in the life of Isidorus, as it occurs in Photius, mentions that Kronus was worshipped by people of those parts under the name of Εl. Φοινικες, και Σύροι τον Κρονον Ηλ, και Βηλ, και Βολάθην επονομαζεσι. Now El was the name of the supreme deity; and was admitted as such originally among all the nations of the east. They, who applied this name to the sun, still looked up to that object of their adoration, as the chief being, and lord of all things. Kronus I have before shewn to have been a transposition from Con-orus," the "prince of light;" which was properly a title of the Deity. El was the same as Elioun, the 'Halos

6

5 Hieron. Epist. 136. ad Marcellum.

Servius in Virg. Æneid. lib. 1. de Belo Phonice: Omnes in istis partibus Solem colunt, qui istorum linguâ Hel dicitur. See Vossius de Idolat. vol. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4.

of the Greeks, who is termed by Sanchoniatho “the most high :” Ελιουν, δ καλεμενος ύψισος. He had no one superior, nor antecedent to himself; as may be proved from the same author: αυχμων δε γενομένων, τας χείρας ορεγειν ες ουρανές προς τον Ήλιον τατον γαρ, φησί, Θεον ενόμιζον μόνον, Ουρανε Κύριον, Βεελcaμny naves Kronus therefore, could not, according to the principles of the very people appealed to, have sacrificed his son to his father: for he was the chief and original deity, and had no one above him, to whom he could make such offering. Ouranus, to whom he is erroneously thought to have exhibited this sacrifice, is the same as El and Elioun ; being another title of the same person. It is a transposition of Ain Aur, or Our, "the fountain "of light;" which the Greeks rendered Our-ain, and thence constituted Ouranus and Ouranie. Ouranus was taken by them for the vast expanse of the heavens; but was originally no other than the orb of day, from whence all light is derived : under which symbol God was worshipped in the first dawning of idolatry; till the reality became obscured by the semblance, and was in the end totally lost under repeated representations: every attribute, and every title being personated. Anobret, by whom Kronus is said to have had a son, and who is introduced as a feminine, is by Bochart supposed to signify one conceived by grace. It may be so: yet I cannot help thinking, that it is the

same as Ouranus; and however it may have been by the Greeks differently constructed, and represented as the name of a woman; yet it is reducible to the same elements as the former; and is from the same radix, though differently modified. I take it to have been originally Ain Ober: and as Melech Ober signifies "the prince of light;" Our Ober, "the lord of light;" I imagine Ain Ober to be "the fountain of light;" framed by a like analogy, and made an emblem of the divine

emanation.

I have been obliged to take these pains, in order to determine, who the deity was, whom the Phenicians are supposed to have copied in this particular and at the same time to show, that nothing could have preceded for them to imitate; but that what they did was a type, and representation of something to come. It is the only instance of any sacrifice in the gentile world, which is said to be mystical; and it is attended with circumstances, which are very extraordinary. Kronus, we find, was the same as El, and Elioun: and he is termed Ύψισος, and Ὑψουράνιος.. He is moreover said to

7 Many instances occur of the word being rendered at different times and by different authors, Aur, Aver, Aber, Ober. Hence Melech Ober of Hesychius, of which I have before treated,

8

have had the Elohim for his coadjutors; upp og 802 Ιλε το Κρον Ελωειμ επεκλήθησαν. He had no father to make any offering to: for he was the father of all, and termed Kugios Ougavs by the confession of the author, by whom the account is given. These sacrifices therefore had no reference to any thing past, as I have before mentioned; but alluded to a great event, to be accomplished afterwards. They were instituted probably in consequence of a prophetic tradition, which, I imagine, had been preserved in the family of Esau, and transmitted through his posterity to the people of Canaan. The account is, to be sure, mixed with much extraneous matter; and has been dressed up, and adapted to the Grecian taste. But let us make some allowance for the colouring; and divest it, as far as we can, of fable; and we may possibly arrive at the truth, which is concealed beneath. The mystical sacrifice of the Phenicians had these requisites, that a prince was to offer it; and his only son was to be the victim and as I have shewn, that this could not relate to any thing prior; let us consider, what is said upon the subject, as future, and attend to the consequence. For if the sacrifice of the Phenicians was a type of another to come; the nature of this last will be known from the representation, by which it was prefigured.

Euseb. Præp. Evang. pag. 37.

10

According to this, El, the supreme deity, whose associates were the Elohim, was in process of time to have a son, aуαяnтov, well beloved, μovoyen, his only begotten: who was to be conceived, as some render it, of grace: but according to my interpretation, of the fountain of light. He was to be called Jeoud, whatever that name may relate to; and to be offered up as a sacrifice to his father, AUτgov, by way of satisfaction, and redemption, Th λυτρον, μwpois dasμoos, to atone for the sins of others, and avert the just vengeance of God; αντι της παντων plogas, to prevent universal corruption, and at the same time, general ruin. And it is farther remarkable; he was to make this grand sacrifice, βασιλικῳ σχηματι κεκοσμημενος, invested with the emblems of royalty. These, surely, are very strong expressions and the whole is an aggregate of circumstances highly significant, which cannot be the result of chance. All, that I have requested to be allowed me in the process of this recital, is this simple supposition, that this mystical sacrifice was a type of something to come: how truly it corresponds to that, which I imagine it alludes to, I submit to the reader's judgment. I think, it must

9 Supposed by some to be the same as Jehid. Gen. 22. v. 1. 10 Δύναι την ψυχην λυτρον αντι πολλων. Unum pro multis dabitur -caput.