"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 Chris

tianity; as that did, Judaism." p. 23. This is still better. The 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 Mahometanism, 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, 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

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 દ 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." p. 23.-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. now the joke is over, let me tell him, he need not have gone so far for it. Were not Coelus, 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

But

they

they succeeded to) one another? Here again, our sagacious Freethinker was at a falt; 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 diffi"cult, 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 pre"ceding one for that would be to combat all men "in too many respects, and not to proceed on a "sufficient number of principles necessary to be "assented to by those, on whom the first impres "sions of a new Religion are proposed to be made." pp. 23, 24.

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 falsehood; and therefore was never itself in danger of being so accused. They very amicably

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

* See Vol. II. book ii. p. 301. & seq.

only

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 are given by him, some less, some more extensive, we must conclude them to be the parts of ONE ENTIRE DISPENSATION; which, for reasons 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 (p. 22.) 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