The several principal parts, therefore, of the Isracitish idolatry were these, 1. Worshipping the true God under an image, such as the golden Calves, 1 Kings xii. 28. 2. Worshipping him in Places forbidden, as in Groves, 2 Kings xviii. 22. Is. xxxvi. 7. —3. And by idolatrous Rites, such as cutting themselves with knives, Jer. xli. 5. -4. By profaning the house of God with idolatrous images, Jer. xxxii. 34.-5. By worshipping the true God and Idols together.-6. And lastly, by worshipping idols alone, Jer. ii. 13. Yet by what follows, ver. 35, it appears, that even this was not a total apostasy from God. If the Reader would know what use I intend to make of this account of the Jewish idolatry, to the main Question of my Work, I must crave his patience till we come to the last Volume. If he would know what other use may be made of it, he may consider what hath been said above; and be farther pleased to observe, that it obviates the objection of a sort of men equally unskilled in sacred and profane Antiquity (of whom more by and by), who, from this circumstance of the perpetual defection of the Jews into idolatry, would conclude that the Dispensation of GOD to them could never have been so illustrious as their history hath represented it. The strength of which objection rests on these two suppositions, that their idolatry consisted in renouncing the Law of Moses: And renouncing it, as dissatisfied of its truth. Both which suppositions we have shewn to be false: the neglect of the law, during their most idolatrous practice, being no other than their preferring impure novel Rites (which most strongly engage the attention of a superstitious people) to old ones, whose sanctity has no carnal allurements. As to its original from GOD, they never entertained the least doubt concerning it; or that the GOD of Israel was the Creator of the Universe: They had been better instructed. Thus saith the Lord, the HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL and HIS MAKER*. As much as to say, the tutelary God of Israel is the Creator of the Universe: Indeed, in the period just preceding their Captivity, when the extraordinary providence was gradually withdrawing from them (a matter to be considered hereafter more at large), they began to entertain suspicions of God's farther regard to them, as his chosen people. But that nothing of this ever contributed to their idolatry, is plain from what we have shewn above, of its being a wanton defection in the midst of peace, prosperity, and abundance (the confessed effects of the extraordinary providence of the God of Israel), and of their constantly returning to him in times of difficulty and distress. It is true, that this state of the case, which removes the infidel objection, at the same time discovers a most enormous perversity in that People; who, although convinced of the truth of a Religion forbidding all intercommunity, was for ever running astray after foreign Worship. However, would we but transport ourselves into these times, and remember what hath been said of that great principle of INTERCOMMUNITY OF WORSHIP; and how early and deeply the Jews had imbibed all the essential superstitions of Paganism; we should not only abate of our wonder, but see good cause to make large allowances to this unhappy People. But there is another circumstance in this affair, too remarkable to be passed by in silence. As fond as the Jews were of borrowing their Neighbours' Gods, we • Isaiah xlv. 11. do do not find, by any hints in ancient history, either profane or sacred, that their Neighbours were disposed to borrow theirs. Nay, we are assured, by Holy Writ, that they did not. GOD, by the Prophet Ezekiel, addressing himself to the Jews, speaks on this wise: -And the contrary is in thee from other women in thy WHOREDOMS, WHEREAS NONE FOLLOWETH THEE TO COMMIT WHOREDOMS: and in that thou givest a reward, and no reward is given to thee; therefore thou art contrary*. I have shewn, elsewhere, that, by this, is meant, that no Gentile nation borrowed the Jewish Rites of Worship, to join them to their own. For as to Proselytes, or particular men converted to the service of the true God, we find a prodigious number in the Days of David and Solomon †. So again, in the Prophet Jeremiah, HATH A NATION CHANGED THEIR GODS, WHICH ARE YET NO GODS? But my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit; i.e. Hath any of the nations brought in the God of Israel into the number of their false Gods, as the Israelites have brought in theirs to stand in fellowship with the true? For that the Nations frequently changed their tutelary Gods, or one idol for another, is too notorious to need any proof. This then is remarkable. The two principal reasons of the contrariety, I suppose, were these; 1. It was a thing well known to all the neighbouring Nations, that the God of Israel had an abhorrence of all community or alliance with the Gods of the Gentiles. This unsociable temper would deter those people (who all held him as a tutelary Deity of great power) from ever bringing him into the fellowship of their country Gods. For, after such declarations, they could not suppose his company would prove very Chap, xvi. ver. 34. t 2 Chron. ii. 17. Chap. ii. ver. 11. propitious. propitious. And in truth, they had a single instance of his ill neighbourhood, much to their cost; which brings me to the second reason. 2. The devastation he brought upon the Philistines, while the ARK rested in their quarters. For they having taken it from the Israelites in battle, carried it, as another Palladium*, to Ashdod, and placed it in the temple of their God Dagon; who passed two so bad nights with his new Guest, that on the second morning he was found pared away to his fishy stump†: And this disaster was followed with a desolating pestilence. The people of Ashdod, who hitherto had intended to keep the Ark as one of their Idol-protectors, now declare it should not abide with them, for that the hand of the GOD OF ISRAEL was sore upon them, and upon Dagon their Godt. They sent it therefore to Gath, another of their cities; and these having carried it about in a religious procession, it made the same havoc amongst them §. It was then removed a third time, with an intent to send it to Ekron; but the men of that city, terrified with the two preceding calamities, refused to receive it, saying they had brought the Ark of the God of Israel, to slay them and their people. At length the Philistines by sad experience were brought to understand, that it was the best course to send it back to its owners: which they did with great honour; with gifts and trespassofferings, to appease the offended Divinity ¶. And from this time we hear no more of any attempts amongst the Gentile Nations to join the Jewish Worship to their own. They considered the God of Israel as a tutelary Deity, absolutely UNSOCIABLE; who would have nothing to do with any but his own. * See note [F] at the end of this Book. 1 Ver. 7. § Ver. 9. Ver. 10. + 1 Sam. v. 4, 5. Chap. vi. ver. 3. People, People, or with such Particulars as would worship him alone; and therefore, in this 'respect, different from all: other tutelary Gods; each of which was willing to live in community with all the rest. This, the historian Josephus understood to be their sentiment, when he makes the Midianitish women address the young men of Israel in the following manner: Nor ought you to be blamed for honouring those Gods which belong to the Country where you sojourn*. Besides, our Gods are COMMON TO ALL THE NATIONS, yours to NONE OF THEM T. And thus the matter rested, till occasion requiring that God should vindicate his property in that Coun-" try which he had chosen for his peculiar residence, as a tutelary Deity, He then drove the Pagan inhabitants of Samaria into his worship, just as he had driven the Philistines from it: and, in both cases, hath afforded to his servants the most illustrious proofs of divine wisdom, in his manner of conducting this wonderful economy to its completion. But from this circumstance of the inability of the Law to prevent the Israelites from falling thus frequently into idolatry, a noble Writer has thought fit to ground a charge of imposture against the Law giver. It would therefore look like prevarication to let so fair an opportunity pass by without vindicating the Truth from his misrepresentations; especially when the nature and causes of that idolatry, as here ex See what hath been said above concerning this imaginary. obligation. + Μέμψαιτο δ ̓ ἐδεῖς, εἰ γῆς εἰς ἣν ἀφῖχθε τὰς ἰδίως αὐτῆς Θεὸς προλείποισθε· καὶ ταῦτα. τῶν μὲν ἡμετέρων κοινών όπλων πρὸς ἅπαντας, το δ ̓ ὑμελέςει πρὸς μηδένα τοιάτε τυ[χάνον. Antig. Jud. l. iv. c.6. Sect. 8. Lord Bolingbroke. F plained, |