Page:Anacalypsis vol 1.djvu/119

 and Gerizim, when they destroyed the temples of the idolaters in Egypt and other places, which, in fact, they did wherever they came. It appears probable that the temple on Gerizim was built or restored within a few years of the same time with that at Jerusalem: and for the same reason—because the religion was that of the Persians, with such little difference as distance of country or some peculiar local circumstances in length of time might produce.

In Genesis xiv. 20, we read, that when Abraham returned from the pursuit of the five kings who were smitten by him as far as Hobah and Damascus, he received gifts from Melchizedek, King of Salem, and paid him tithes of all he had taken from his enemies. The situation of this Salem has been much disputed, and concerning it I shall have much to say hereafter: but it was evidently somewhere West of the Jordan, in the country of the Canaanites. Now this king and priest is said to have been a priest of the most high God. And as the Canaanites were then in the land, (Gen. xii. 6,) or were then its inhabitants, it is evident that he could be no other than their priest. There is nothing in the sacred history which militates against this in the slightest degree. It is quite absurd to suppose that there should be priests without a people, and there were no others besides the Canaanites. There is no expression which would induce us to believe that they were idolaters in the time of Abraham. The covenants and treaties of friendship which Abraham entered into with them, raise a strong presumption that they could not then have been so wicked as they are represented to have been in the time of Moses, five hundred years afterward. As the history supplies no evidence that the Canaanites were idolaters in the time of Abraham, the fact of a priest of the true God, and this priest a king, being in the midst of them, almost proves that they were not idolaters. The conduct of Abimelech, (Genesis xx.,) in restoring Sarah to her husband, as soon as he found her to be a married woman, and his reproof of Abraham for his deceit, shew, whatever his religion might be, that his morality was at least as good as that of the father of the faithful. But several circumstances named in the context, prove him of the same religion.

Dr. Shuckford not only agrees with me that Abraham and the Canaanites were of the same religion, and that Melchizedek was their priest, but he also shews that Abimelech and the Philistines were at that time of the same religion. He also gives some reason to suppose that the Egyptians were the same.

The circumstance that the old inhabitants of Palestine (Palli-stan) were of the same religion as the tribe which came with Abraham, will be seen by and by to be of consequence. This can scarcely be accounted for, except we suppose them to have come from the same country from which he came.

Joseph could hardly have married a daughter of the priest Potiphar, if he had been an idolater. And it is curious that he was priest of On or Heliopolis, a place which will be found to be of great importance in the following observations. Shuckford says,

“Melchizedec, the King of Salem, was a priest of the most high God, and he received and entertained Abraham as a true servant and particular favourite of that God, whose priest he himself was; blessed (said he) be Abraham, servant of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth.”

Respecting the rites or ceremonies performed by this priest, few particulars are known. It appears his votaries paid him tithes. Abraham, we have seen, paid him tithes of all the plunder which he took from the five kings whom he had defeated. This contribution is enforced in the religion of the ancient Persians, and also in the religious ordinances of the Jews. It is very singular that the exact tenth should be found in all the three religions to be paid. It might be asked,