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.

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. Thus 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. 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 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 worshippers 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 own. Thus in this indulgence of their prejudices concerning a tutelary 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

* See note [E] at the end of this Book.

t2 Kings xviii. 25. Jer. iv. 2, 3.

P 3

GOD

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 tole"rable history, in their beginning, we shall find them, "for the most part, to be grafted on some old stock,

"

or founded on some preceding revelations, which "they were either to supply, or fulfil, or retrieve from

rr

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 reve"lations, 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 altera"tions and innovations, they being the last dispensa❝tion intended." p. 21.

* See Vol. I. book i.

+ Grounds and Reasons, &c. p. 20. Here

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 he 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

D 4

"Israelites by some pagans, as both their religious "rites were cqually, and at the same time, prohibited

66

by others) to whose religious rites the Israelites seem to have been Conformists during their abode "in Egypt." p. 22. 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 atchievment. The best part is still behind. 'Tis a rarity; a blunder ingrafted on a sophism. He was not content to say that 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 formerly condemned of falsehood, 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 con→ fusion in his ideas: and that this great Reasoner was unable to distinguish between, a Religion's supporting itself on one preceding, which it 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.

2. He shews next, that those false religions which came AFTER the Jewish and the Christian, and are confessed to mimic their peculiarities, pretended to be built on preceding revelations." The mission of "Zoroaster