none but such uncivilized barbarians as the Jews, if they had related to any of the common concerns of life, and where the reasoning faculty of the human mind could be brought into fair action; but in matters connected with religion this has never been done, and never will be done: reason has nothing to do with the religion of the generality of mankind.
To this the priests will reply, The circumstances which mark identity in the religions of the Jews and Gentiles we do not deny; the Heathens copied almost all their superstitions from Moses and the Prophets; and probably to multitudes of believers this will be very satisfactory: this satisfaction may naturally be expected to be enjoyed by such persons; reason does not operate with them. To them it is of no consequence, that those heathenish superstitions which are alleged to have been copied from Moses, were in existence hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years before Moses was born or thought of.
That many parts of the books of the Jews are allegorical, cannot be for a moment doubted, and, as was said before, no doubt the true knowledge of these allegories constituted their first Cabala, and the learning of their priests. But as they are evidently made up of loose, unconnected accounts, very often different accounts of the same history or allegory, it is not possible that any complete and regular system should be made out of them. For instance, Genesis contains two histories of the creation; Deuteronomy a history of the promulgation of the law by Moses, different from that given in Exodus, which was evidently written by a different author from that of Genesis. This view of the Jewish writings does not militate against parts of them being the produce of the profound wisdom of the oriental philosophers, which was probably the case, as maintained by M. Dupuis. A person may readily believe that the first book of Genesis was written by an ancient philosopher, whose descendants may have taught Pythagoras (perhaps on Carmel) the demonstration, that the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the square of the two sides of a right-angled triangle. From these circumstances it has followed, that in every part of these writings we meet with a strange mixture of oriental learning, and, to outward appearance, nonsensical and degrading puerilities and superstitions, which in all ages have perplexed the understandings of those persons who have endeavoured to use them on these subjects. No reasoning being could believe them literally, no ingenuity could make out of them, taken collectively, a consistent allegory.
But as far as concerns the generality or industrious class of the Jews and modern Christians, they are taken literally. In this sense they were and are yet received. Whether the later Jewish collectors of them into one code understood the allegorical meaning of any of them, remains doubtful; probably they might in part. But it is equally, if not more, probable, that they would care very little whether they understood them or not, so long as they assisted them in establishing their temple, their tithes, and their order. Perhaps after these objects were secured, they would amuse themselves in their leisure hours, like our own priests and bishops, in endeavouring by explanations to make order out of disorder, sense out of nonsense. Hence arose their modern Cabala. And as they were generally men of the meanest capacities, though perhaps men understanding several languages, the modern Cabala is just what might be expected.
The modern and Romish religion being partly founded upon that of the Jews, which was founded upon writings thus connected together, it is not surprising that, like its parent, it should be difficult or impossible to make out a complete system, to fit into or account for every part of it.
2. M. Dupuis, in the first chapter of his third volume, has made many curious observations on the book of Genesis, tending to prove that it was an allegory descriptive of the mythology of the oriental nations in the neighbourhood of Palestine. That it was allegorical was held by the most learned of the ancient fathers of the church, such as Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, as it had been by the most learned of the Jews, such as Philo, Josephus, &c., so that its allegorical nature may perhaps be safely assumed, notwithstanding the nonsense of modern devotees.
O
