In the theology of the Greeks are many antient terms, which learned men have tried to analyse, and define. But they seem to have failed here too by proceeding upon those fallacious principles, of which I have above complained. In short, they seldom go deep enough in their inquiries; nor consider the true character of the personage, which they would decypher. It is said of the God Vulcan, that he was the same as Tubalcain, mentioned Genesis. c. 4. v. 22: and it is a notion followed by many writers: and among others by Gale. [497]_First as to the name_ (says this learned man) _Vossius_, de Idolat. l. 1. c. 36, _shews us, that Vulcanus is the same as Tubalcainus, only by a wonted, and easy mutation of B into V, and casting away a syllable_. And he afterwards affects to prove from Diodorus Siculus, that the art and office of Vulcan exactly corresponded to the character of Tubalcain, [498]_who was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron_. Upon the same principles Philo Biblius speaking of Chrusor, a person of great antiquity, who first built a ship, and navigated the seas; who also first taught husbandry, and hunting, supposes him to have been Vulcan; because it is farther said of him, [499]that he first manufactured iron. From this partial resemblance to Vulcan or Hephastus, Bochart is induced to derive his name from כרש אור, Chores Ur, an artificer in [500]fire. These learned men do not consider, that though the name, to which they refer, be antient, and oriental, yet the character, and attributes, are comparatively modern, having been introduced from another quarter. Vulcan the blacksmith, who was the master of the Cyclops, and forged iron in Mount Ætna, was a character familiar to the Greeks, and Romans. But this Deity among the Egyptians, and Babylonians, had nothing similar to this description. They esteemed Vulcan as the chief of the Gods the same as the Sun: and his name is a sacred title, compounded of Baal-Cahen, Belus sanctus, vel Princeps; equivalent to Orus, or Osiris. If the name were of a different original, yet it would be idle to seek for an etymology founded on later conceptions, and deduced from properties not originally inherent in the personage. According to [501]Hermapion he was looked upon as the source of all divinity, and in consequence of it the inscription upon the portal of the temple at Heliopolis was Ἡφαιστῳ τῳ Θεων Πατρι. _To Vulcan the Father of the Gods_. In short, they who first appropriated the name of Vulcan to their Deity, had no notion of his being an artificer in brass or iron: or an artificer in any degree. Hence we must be cautious in forming ideas of the antient theology of nations from the current notions of the Greeks, and Romans; and more especially from the descriptions of their poets. Polytheism, originally vile, and unwarrantable, was rendered ten times more base by coming through their hands. To instance in one particular: among