XV. In his first application, he begins by saying, that Herodotus calls Prometheus the husband of Asia, and that others call him the son. Moses was of Asiatic extraction, and all the Israelitish people when they returned from Egypt, came back with him into Asia. (Demonstr. Evang. prop. 4. cap. 8. numb. 7.) I have used the very words of the author in this quotation, that no one should think, I was guilty of the least imposition, in stating this strained and violent application. It is really astonishing, to see a man celebrated in the Republic of Letters, apply so trifling an allusion to so serious a business. Who does not perceive, that according to this mode of reasoning, Prometheus may be made to resemble every man who was born in Asia? and with more propriety than he could be likened to Moses? for he was not born in Asia, but in Africa, and was only of Asiatic descent. Besides this, what Herodotus says of Prometheus, his being the husband of Asia, and others that he was the son, should not be understood to allude to that vast extent of country, which is reputed one of the four quarters of the world, but to the nymph Asia, who the poets feigned to have been the daughter of Thetis and the Ocean, and from whom, it is said, that prodigious tract of land derived its name. XVI. This second application begins thus: In the opinion of some authors, Prometheus was the brother of Deucalion, of whom Apollonius speaking, says, that he was the first who erected temples to the gods. This he thinks applies to Aaron, the brother of Moses, who was the first high priest of the Israelites. But this application is more extraordinary than the other; because, in order to adopt it, the illustrious Huet falls into two gross contradictions. The first is, that a little lower down, for the sake of another application, he supposes Deucalion not to be the brother, but the son of Prometheus; and this coincides with the general opinion; at least I have never seen any other adopted by any author whatever. The second contradiction is, that in the tenth chapter he affirms, and endeavours to prove, that Deucalion and Aaron mean the same person. But how can Deucalion and Aaron be supposed to mean the same person, when the character and description of Aaron, differ so widely from that of Noah? Who could imagine, that so learned a man could fall into such an absurdity? and it would be idle to insist, that the building of temples was peculiarly annexed to the office of high priests, as many more temples have been built by legitimate princes, than by high priests.