duces his reasoning, gave a certain plausibility to the nonsense which followed. It is in these words, The end for which the civil constitution was formed, was to prevent their being over-run with idolatry. Now, by civil constitution, a fair reasoner should mean (where the question is concerning the efficacy of a mere civil Government, in contradistinction to the Religious) the civil constitution of the Jews as it was so distinguished. But, in this sense, the end of the civil constitution of the Jews was the same with all other, namely, security to men's temporal liberty and property. It is true, if by their civil constitution, he meant both civil and religious, which here indeed was incorporated, and went under the common name of LAW; then indeed its end was to prevent idolatry; but then this is giving up the point, because that incorporation was the consequence of the Theocratic form of Government, or, to speak more properly, it was the THEOCRACY itself. Thus he comes round again to the place on which he had turned his back; and, before he knows where he is, establishes the very doctrine he would confute. In a word, our Preacher was got out of his depth; and here I shall leave him to sink or swim ; only observing, that this great advocate of religious liberty has done his best (though certainly without design) to support a principle the most plausible of any that Persecutors for opinions can catch hold on, to justify their iniquitous practice; namely, that civil government was ordained for the procuring all the good of all kinds, which it is even accidentally capable of advancing. And to make sure work, he employs that adulterate gloss, which They so artfully put upon their wicked practice; viz. that it is for the support of morality: for who is so purblind that he cannot spy immoralities lurking in all heretical opinions? And thus it is that our Preacher defends civil Government, in punishing opinions: The idolatry of the neighbouring nations (says he) corrupted their internal sense of the difference of good and evil, and banished humanity and decency, and many of the most considerable and important of the social virtues. A reason constantly in the mouths, whatever hath been in the hearts of Persecutors, from St. Austin to St. Dominic.* II. We come, in the next place, to shew, that this THEOCRACY, as it was NECESSARY, so it would have an easy reception; being founded on the flattering notion, at that time universally entertained, of TUTELARY DEITIES, Gentilitial and Local. Thus, to carry on his great purpose, the Almighty very early represented himself to this chosen race, as a Gentilitial Deity, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob† Afterwards, when he preferred Judea to all other countries * See note D, at the end of this book. † See Jer. x. 16, and li. 19. for his personal residence (on this account called HIS LAND),* he came under their idea of a Local Deity: which notion was an established principle in the Gentile world, as we have shewn above, from Plato. It was originally EGYPTIAN; and founded in an opinion that the earth was at first divided by its Creator, amongst a number of inferior and subordinate Divinities. The Septuagint translators appear to have understood the following passage, in the song of Moses, as alluding to this opinion;-When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. For the Lord's portion is his people: Jacob is the lot of his inheritance :† For, instead of, according to the number of the children of Israel (which if they found in the text, they understood no more than later critics) they wrotе xαтà áρilμov ̓Αγγέλων Θεοῦ, ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF THE ANGELS OF GOD. Which at least is intelligible, as referring to that old notion, original to the country where this translation was made. And Justin Martyr tells us, that in the beginning, GOD had committed the government of the world to angels, who, abusing their trust, were degraded from their regency. But whether he learnt it from this translation, or took it from a worse place, I shall not pretend to determine. Thus The Land, thus selected by GoD for his personal residence, he bestows upon his chosen People. Behold (says he) the land of Canaan which I give unto the children of Israel for a possession.§ This too was according to the common notions of those times. Jephthah, who appears to have been half paganized by a bad education, speaks to the King of the Ammonites, Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy GOD giveth thee to possess? So, whomsoever the Lord our GOD shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.|| It was no wonder, therefore, when GOD was thus pleased, for the wise ends of his providence, to be considered, by a prejudiced people, in this character, that all the pagan nations round about should regard the GOD OF ISRAEL no otherwise than as a local tutelary Deity; too apt, by their common prejudices, to see him only under that idea. Thus he is called the GOD of the Land,¶-the GOD of the Hills,** &c. And it is expressly said, that they spoke against the GOD of Jerusalem, as against the Gods of the people of the earth, which were the work of the hands of man.tt By which is meant, that they treated him as a local tutelary Deity, of a confined and bounded power for it was not the old pagan way to speak against one • Lev. xxv. 23; Deut. xi. 12; Psalm x. 16: Isai. xiv. 25; Jer. ii. 7; xvi. 18; Ezek. xxxv. 10; xxxvi. 5, 20; xxxviii. 16; Wisd. of Sol. xii. 7. † Deut. xxxii. 8, 9. Judges xi. 24. T2 Kings xvii. tt 2 Chron. xxxii. 19. ↑ Apologet. i. § Deut. xxxii. 49. another's Gods, in discredit of their Divinity: and this circumscribed dominion was esteemed, by them, no discredit to it: But, by the Jews, the worshipers of the true GOD, it was justly held to be the greatest. Therefore, to call the GOD of Israel the God of the hills, and not of the plain, was speaking against him. For, here again we must observe, that when GOD, agreeably to the whole method of this Dispensation, takes advantage of, or indulges his people in, any habituated notion or custom, he always interweaves some characteristic note of difference, to mark the institution for his Thus in this indulgence of their prejudices concerning a tute own. lary GOD, 1. He first institutes, upon it, a Theocracy; a practice just the reverse of Paganism for there Kings became Gods; whereas here GOD condescended to become King.* : 2. Secondly, he forbids all kind of community or intercourse between the GOD of Israel and the Gods of the Nations, either by joining their worship to his, or so much as owning their Divinity. Thus were the Israelites distinguished from all other people in the most effectual manner; for, as we have often had occasion to observe, there was a general intercommunity amongst the Gods of paganism : They acknowledged one another's pretensions; they borrowed one another's titles; and, at length, entered into a kind of partnership of Worship. All the Pagan nations, we see, owned the God of Israel for a tutelary Deity. But His followers were not permitted to be so complaisant. There was to be no fellowship between GOD and Belial; though a good understanding always subsisted between Belial and Dagon. But, amidst a vast number of characteristic circumstances proving the origin of the MOSAIC RELIGION to have been different from that of every other nation, there is none more illustrious than this, That the Mosaic religion was built upon a former, namely, the PATRIARCHAL: whereas the various Religions of the Pagan world were all unrelated to, and independent of, any other.‡ And yet the famous Author of The grounds and reasons of the Christian Religion hath been hardy enough to employ one whole chapter to prove, that this method of introducing Christianity into the world, by building and grounding it on the Old Testament, is agreeable to the common method of introducing new Revelations, whether real or PRETENDED, or any changes in religion; and also the nature of things.§ "For if" (says he) << we consider the various revolutions and changes in religion, whereof we have any tolerable history, in their beginning, we shall find them, for the most part, to be grafted See note E at the end of this book. 1 See vol. i. book i. † 2 Kings xviii. 25; Jer. iv. 2, 3. "Grounds and Reasons," &c. p. 20. on some old stock, or founded on some preceding revelations, which they were either to supply, or fulfil, or retrieve from corrupt glosses, innovations, and traditions, with which by time they were incumbered and this, which MAY SEEM MATTER OF SURPRISE TO THOSE, WHO DO NOT REFLECT on the changeable nature of all things, hath happened; though the old revelations, far from intending any change, ingraftment, or new dispensation, did for the most part declare they were to last for ever, and did forbid all alterations and innovations, they being the last dispensation intended." * Here are two things asserted: 1. That the building new Religions and new Revelations upon old was agreeable to the common method of the ancient world. 2. That it was agreeable to the nature of things. These are discoveries one would little have expected. I. Let us first examine his FACTS.-But to judge truly of their force, we must remember, that the observation is made to discredit what Believers call true Revelation, by shewing that all false Religions have taken the same method of propagation. 1. His first point is, That this method was agreeable to the common practice of the ancient world. Would not one expect now an instance of some confessedly false Religion, between the time of ABRAHAM and CHRIST, which pretended to be built on some preceding Revelation? Without doubt: If it were only for this, that there is no other way of proving the proposition. Besides, to say the truth, such an instance would be well worth attending to, for its extreme curiosity. But he could not give the reader what was not to be had: and therefore be endeavours to make up this deficiency of fact, by shewing, 1. That the JEWISH Religion, like the CHRISTIAN, pretended to be built on a preceding. "Thus the mission of Moses to the Israelites" (says he) "supposed a former revelation of God (who from the beginning seems to have been constantly giving a succession of dispensations and revelations) to their ancestors; and many of the religious precepts of Moses were borrowed, or had an agreement with the religious rites of the heathens, with whom the Israelites had correspondence, and particularly with the religious rites of the Egyptians, (who upon that account seem confounded with the Israelites by some pagans, as both their religious rites were equally, and at the same time, prohibited by others) to whose religious rites the Israelites seem to have been Conformists during their abode in Egypt."+ Go thy way, for a good Reasoner!-To prove that false revelations had the same pretensions of dependency on a preceding, as the true have had, he shews that all the true.had these pretensions. But this is but half the atchievement. The best part is still behind. 'Tis a rarity; a blunder ingrafted on a sophism. He was not content to say that Page 21. † Page 22. Moses founded his Religion on the Patriarchal : He must needs go on, -And many of the religious precepts of Moses were borrowed, or had an agreement with the religious rites of the Heathens, with whom the Israelites had correspondence, and particularly with the religious Rites of the Egyptians. Now, how it comes to pass that Moses's borrowing from the religious Rites of the Egyptians, whose religion he formally condemned of falshood, should be metamorphosed into an example of one Religion's being founded upon, or receiving its authority from, another, I confess, I cannot comprehend. If he were not at the head of the FREETHINKERS, I should suspect some small confusion in his ideas: and that this great Reasoner was unable to distinguish between, a Religion's supporting itself on one preceding, which is acknowledged to be true and a Religion's complying, for the sake of inveterate prejudices, with some innocent practices of another religion, which it was erected to overthrow, as false. The 2. He shews next, that those false religions which came AFTER the Jewish and the Christian, and are confessed to mimick their peculiarities, pretended to be built on preceding revelations." The mission of Zoroaster to the Persians supposed the religion of the Magians; which had been, for many ages past, the antient national religion of the Medes as well as Persians. The mission of Mahomet supposed Christianity; as that did, Judaism." * This is still better. design of his general observation, That it was the common method for new revelations to be built and grounded on preceding revelations, was to shew that the revelations, which we call true, imitated the false. And he proves it,-by shewing that the false imitated the true. That Mahomet's did so, is agreed on all hands. And those bewildered men who would have us credit the story of a late Zoroaster, do, and must suppose that he borrowed from Judaism. But the truth is, the whole is an idle tale, invented by Persian writers under the early Califs. However, though the Zoroaster of Hyde and Prideaux be a mere phantom, yet the Religion called by his name, was a real thing, and started up in the first ages of Mahometism, with a Bible to support its credit, in imitation of, and to oppose to, the Alcoran. But this neat device unluckily detects the whole imposture: For in the Age of Mahomet, and in the time of the first Commentators on the Alcoran, the Persians were esteemed by them as Idolaters, and without a Bible; (and they had good Opportunity, by their constant commerce thither, to be well informed :) Which is agreeable to every thing that the earlier and the later Greek Writers unanimously deliver of the Persian Religion. But that, on the appearance of Mahometanism, the Persians should do what the Greeks did on the first appearance of Christianity, refine their old idolatrous worship, • Page 23. |
