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 *.

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

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 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 wrote καλὰ ἀριθμὸν ̓Αγγέλων Θεᾶ, ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF THE ANGELS OF GOD. Which at least is intelligible, as referring to that old notion, original See Jer. x. 16. and li. 19.

† Levit. xxv. 23. Deut. xi. 12. Ps. x. 16. Is. xiv. 25.

Jer. ii. 7. Chap. xvi. ver. 18.
ver. 5. 20. Chap. xxxviii. ver. 16.
* Deut. xxxii. 8, 9.

Ezek. xxxv. 10. Chap. xxxvi.
Wisd, of Sol. xii, 7,

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 T. 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 speak, ing 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

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, $6 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 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