uberer,
Wundershaeter, Goldmacher und dergl. genannt."

[25] Heeren's Politics of Ancient Greece, ch. iii., p. 65. Bancroft, Amed.,
1824.

[26] Delafield's Antiquities of America, pp. 69-71, et notae.

[27] Sir William Jones, vol. i., p. 92.

[28] Heeren's Politics of Ancient Greece: Am. ed., 1824, p. 64. Also
Bryant's Ancient Mythology, ii., 390.

[29] Encyclopaedia Americana, vol. ix. (1835), p. 118.

[30] Gen. x. 8-12. This is adopting the marginal for the text reading of
the passage, and the reason for it is this: The above is a clear historical
account of those who journeyed to the plains of Shinar, which were only the
descendants of Cush the father of Nimrod; though Asshur is said to have
gone and builded the city of Nineveh, with the others mentioned in the
text--which Asshur was one of the sons of Shem, who perhaps was blended by
marriage, or other connections, with his relations the sons of Ham, unless
it can be shown that there was one of that name in Ham's descendants as
well as Shem's son. It was something particular (if correct) that Moses
should bring in Asshur into his account of Ham's issue, because he was very
strict in giving such relations of Japheth and Shem in their own places.
Would Noah, who was so much disgusted at his son Ham as to curse him,
permit the children of his other sons, whom he blessed, to have any
communication with his children? Bishop Cumberland, in the last century,
took some pains to unravel this, and concluded that the marginal
translation in our bibles is the right one--that in the text being, "Out of
that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh", &c.; that in the margin,
"And he [Nimrod] went out of that land into Assyria"--for Asshur generally
in scripture signifies _the Assyrian_, excepting only in the genealogies:
and in support of this he brings forward many authentic testimonies. (See
Parsons's Remains of Japheth, p. 15: London, 1767.)

[31] Encyclopaedia Americana, title "Mysteries," vol. ix., p. 118.

[32] Deut. xviii. 10.

[33] Livy, iv., c. 22.

[34] 1 Sam. xxviii. 19.

[35] Eccles. xlvi.

[36] Lib. v., c. 92.

[37] Isaiah xxix. 4; also viii. 19.

[38] Alcestis, 1127.

[39] Oedipus, Act iii., 530.

[40] See Rufinius, i., 155.

[41] Phars., vi., 670. This writer proposes hereafter to publish an essay
on the intercourse between the living and the dead, as connected with
natural magic, even to the present day.

[42] Lib. i., El. ii., 45.

[4