till they brought it to what Hyde and Prideaux observe it is at this day, amongst the remainder of the Magian sect in Persia and India, is nothing strange. The wonder is, that these learned men should have swallowed so gross a cheat, on the testimony of later Mahometan Writers; who had so many motives to support it, and so slender abilities to detect it; whose propensity to fabling is so great as even to discredit any truth that rests on their authority; and whose talents in the art of lying are so little proportioned to their inclination to exercise it, that they never fail of defeating their own impositions. This argument, therefore, was in all respects worthy the Author of The Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion.

3. Lastly, he tells us, that "the Siamese and Brachmans both pretend that they have had a succession of incarnate deities amongst them, who at due distances of time have brought new Revelations from heaven; each succeeding one depending on the former; and that religion is to be conveyed on, in that way, for ever." *—He promised to prove a succession of Religions in the ancient world, the later founded and depending on the preceding: And he proves-a succession of incarnate deities, talked of amongst the MODERN pagans of India and Siam; and, from this succession concludes for a succession of DEPENDING RELIGIONS, of which they have no kind of notion. Nor are these extravagancies, which their priests do indeed talk of, any other than late inventions of their priests, to oppose to Mahometan and Christian Missionaries. But a succession of incarnate deities was so arch a ridicule on the mysteries of our holy faith, that it was to be brought in at any rate. But now the joke is over, let me tell him, he need not have gone so far for it. Were not Cœlus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, &c. a succession of incarnate deities? yet were any of the Religions, which had those Gods for their author or object, FOUNDED OF DEPENDENT on (though they succeeded to) one another? Here again, our sagacious Freethinker was at a fault; and, with all his logic, could not distinguish between one Religion's being built upon another, and one Religion's simply succeeding another.

II. He comes next to the NATURE OF THINGS. The reader has seen how short he falls of his reckoning from fact: But let him fairly make up his accounts, and we shall not differ with him about his way of payment; but willingly receive his deficiencies of Fact, in Reason." If we consider" (says he) "the nature of things, we shall find that it must be difficult, if not impossible, to introduce amongst men (who in all civilized countries are bred up in the belief of some revealed religion) a revealed religion wholly new, or such as has no reference to a preceding one: for that would be to combat all men in too many respects, and not to proceed on a sufficient number • Page 23.

of principles necessary to be assented to by those, on whom the first impressions of a new religion are proposed to be made." *

Here his head was full of the theologic ideas of modern times; where one Religion is maintained and propagated on the destruction of all the rest. And that indeed would be combating all men in too many respects, without good evidence in the Religion thus proposed. But had he had the least knowledge of Antiquity, he would have known that the Gentile religions of those times were founded on different principles, and propagated on different practices. Not one of those numerous Religions ever pretended to accuse another of falshood; and therefore was never itself in danger of being so accused. They very amicably owned one another's pretensions; and all that a new Religion claimed, was to be let into partnership with the rest, whose common practice was to trade in shares.† Yet, according to this great Philosopher, it was difficult, if not impossible -it was combating all men in too many respects—It was not proceeding on a sufficient number of principles necessary to be assented to, &c. But he can make Men, as well as Religions, change their natures when he wants them for some glorious mischief. It is his more usual way, and so it is of all his fellows, to make the People (the gross body of mankind) run headlong into Religion, without the least inquiry after evidence. But here we are told it is very difficult, if not impossible, to induce them to think well of a Religion which hath not the most plausible evidence for its support: That the not giving them this, is not proceeding on a sufficient number of principles, but combating all men in too many respects, &c.

And this is all we can get out of him, FROM THE NATURE OF THINGS. But as he has raised a curiosity which he knew not how to gratify, I shall endeavour to supply his ignorance; and from this nature of things, shew the reader, 1. How the Religions of MOSES and JESUS must NECESSARILY SUPPOSE a dependency on some preceding. 2. How the ancient Religions of paganism must NECESSARILY NOT SUPPOSE any such dependency; and 3. How it came to pass, that more modern impostors, risen since the coming of Christianity, imitated the true, rather than the false Religions of ancient times, in this pretence to dependency.

I. The PATRIARCHAL, the JEWISH, and the CHRISTIAN Religions, all professed to come from the only one GOD, the Creator of all things. Now as the whole race of mankind must be the common object of its Creator's care, all his Revelations, even those given only to a part, must needs be thought ultimately directed to the interest of the whole consequently every later Revelation must suppose the TRUTH of the preceding. Again, when several successive Revelations ⚫ Pp. 23, 24.

† See the first volume, book ii. vol. i. p. 361, et seq.

are given by him, some less, some more extensive, we must conclude them to be the parts of ONE ENTIRE DISPENSATION; which, for rcasons best known to infinite Wisdom, are gradually enlarged and opened: consequently every later must not only suppose the TRUTH of every preceding Revelation, but likewise their mutual RELATION and DEPENDENCY. Hence we see, there may be weighty reasons, why God, from the beginning, should have been constantly giving a succession of Dispensations and Revelations ; * as this Author, with a lewd sneer, seems to take a pleasure in observing. If therefore, what we call the true Revelation came from GOD, these Religions must needs be, and profess to be, dependent on one another.

II. Let us see next how the case stood in the ancient Pagan world. Their pretended Revelations were not from the ONE GOD; but all from local tutelary Deities; each of which was supposed to be employed in the care of his own Country or People, and unconcerned in every Other's department. Consequently, between earlier and later Revelations of this kind, there could be no more dependency, than there was opposition: But each stood on its own foundation, single, unrelated, and original.

III. But when, by the propagation of the Gospel, the knowledge of the ONLY ONE GOD was spread abroad over the whole earth, and the absurdities of Polytheism fully understood by the people, an Impostor, who would now obtrude a new Religion on the world, must of necessity pretend to have received it from that only one God. But the probability of his giving a Revelation now, being seen greatly to depend on his having given one before, our Impostor would be forced to own the truth of those preceding Religions, which professed to come from that GOD. And as the credit of the new Religion was best advanced by its being thought a finishing part of an incomplete Dispensation, he would, at the same time, bottom it on the preceding. Besides, as an Impostor must needs want that necessary mark of a divine Mission, the power of Miracles, he could cover the want no otherwise than by a pretended relation to a Religion which had well established itself by Miracles. And thus, in fact, MAHOMET framed the idea of his imposture. He pretended his new Religion was the completion of Christianity, as Christianity was the completion of Judaism; for that the world not being to be won by the mild and gentle invitations of Jesus, was now to be compelled to enter in by Mahomet. And so again, to complete the imitation, this last and greatest Prophet, as his followers believe him to be, is pretended to be foretold in the New Testament, as the Messiah was in the Old. Thus this notable observation, from whence the Author of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion endeavoured to deduce Page 22.

so discrediting a likeness between all false religion, and what we believers hold to be the true, comes, we see, just to nothing.

*

But he has yet another flagrant mark of likeness, in reserve: And thus he goes on, from discovery to discovery.-In building thus upon PROPHECY (says he) as a principle, Jesus and his Apostles had the concurrence of all sects of Religion amongst the Pagans. Is it possible? Yes. For the Pagans universally built their Religion on DIVINATION. As much as to say, the people of Amsterdam, in building their town-house upon piles, had (in the mode of laying a foundation) the concurrence of all the cities in England; who built theirs upon stone, or clay, or gravel. In the Jewish writings there are Prophecies of a future and more perfect Dispensation; which, Jesus claiming to belong to HIS, his Religion was properly built upon PROPHECIES. The Heathens made Gods of their dead benefactors, and then consulted them at their shrines, as Oracles; they inspected the entrails of beasts; they observed the flight of birds; they interpreted dreams and uncommon phænomena; and all these things they called DIVINATION. But what likeness is there between these things and Prophecies, the Prophecies on which Jesus founded his Religion? Just as much as there is between TRUTH and what these men call FREE-THINKING. But he has found a device to bring them related. 'Tis a master-piece; and the Reader shall not be robbed of it. They [the Pagans,] says he, learnt that art [Divination] in schools, or under discipline, as the Jews did prophesying in the schools and colleges of the Prophets; where, the learned Dodwell says, the candidates for prophecy were taught the rules of divination practised by the Pagans, who were skilled therein, and in possession of the art long before them. This idle whimsy of the learned Dodwell concerning the schools of the Prophets has been exposed, as it deserves, already. But for the sake of so extraordinary an argument (an impiety, grafted on its proper stock an absurdity), it deserves to be admitted, though it be but for a moment. The reasoning then stands thus: Divination was an art learnt in the schools; so was one kind of Prophecy, or the Jewish art of Divination: those who learnt this Jewish art of divination were taught the rules of pagan divination: THEREFORE pagan divination and ANOTHER kind of Prophecy, such as foretold the coming of the Messiah, were things of the same kind. Incomparable reasoner! and deservedly placed at the head of modern Free-thinking! But his learning is equal to his sense, and his premisses just as true as his conclusion: The Pagans universally built their Religion on divination. I believe there are few school-boys, who would not laugh at his blunder, and tell him it was just otherwise, "Grounds and Reasons," &c. pp. 27, 28.

Ibid.

† See vol. ii. book iv. sect. 6.

that the Pagans universally built divination on their Religion. All that was ever built on divination was now and then a Shrine or a Temple. To return :

III.

But these prejudices, concerning local tutelary Deities, which made the introduction of a Theocracy so easy, occasioned as easy a defection from the Laws of it.

1. For these tutelary Deities owning one another's pretensions, there was always a friendly intercourse of mutual honours, though not always of mutual worship. For at first, each God was supposed to be so taken up with his own people, as to have little leisure or inclination to attend to the concerns of others.-Now this prejudice was the first source of the Jewish idolatry.

2. But the pretensions of these Gods being thus reciprocally acknowledged and Some, by the fortunate circumstances of their followers, being risen into superior fame, the Rites used in their Worship were eagerly affected. And this was the second source of the Israelites' idolatry; exemplified in the erection of the GOLDEN CALF, and their fondness for all Egyptian superstitions in general.

3. But of these tutelary deities there being two sorts, GENTILITIAL and LOCAL; the one ambulatory, and the other stationed; the latter were fixed to their posts, as a kind of heir-loom, which they who conquered and possessed the country were obliged to maintain in their accustomed honours. And whatever gentilitial Gods a People might bring with them, yet the local God was to have a necessary share in the religious Worship of the new Comers. Nay it was thought impiety, even in foreigners, while they sojourned only in a strange Country, not to sacrifice to the Gods of the place. Thus Sophocles makes Antigone say to her father, that a stranger should both venerate and abhor those things which are venerated and abhorred in the city where he resides.* Celsus gives the reason of so much complaisance.-"Because" (says he) "the several parts of the world were, from the beginning, distributed to several powers, each of which has his peculiar allotment and residence." And those who were loth to leave their paternal Gods when they sought new settlements, at least held themselves obliged to worship them with the Rites, and according to the usages of the Country they came to inha

• Τόλμα, ξεῖνος

Ἐπὶ ξείνης, ὦ τλᾶμον, ὅ, τι

Καὶ πόλις τέτροφεν ἄφιλον

̓Αποστυγεῖν καὶ τὸ φίλον σέβεσθαι. (dip. Colon. act. i.

† ̓Αλλὰ καὶ ὅτι, ὡς εἰκὸς, τὰ μέρη τῆς γῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄλλα ἄλλοις ἐποπταῖς νενεμημένα καὶ κατά τινας ἐπικρατείας διειλημμένα, ταύτῃ καὶ διοικεῖται. καὶ δὴ τὰ παρ' ἑκάστοις ὀρθῶς ἂν πράττοιτο ταύτῃ δρώμενα, ὅπη ἐκείνοις φίλον, παραλύειν δὲ οὐχ ὅσιον εἶναι τὰ ¿ àρxîs KаTÀ Tómovs vevoμioμéva.-ORIGENES Contra Celsum, lib. v. p. 247. See the passage, from Plato, pp. 230, 231.