Page:Anacalypsis vol 1.djvu/120

 If they were not the same religions, how came they all to fix upon the exact number of ten, and not the number of eight or twelve? There is nothing in the number, that should lead their adherents to it, rather than to any other. The second of the rites of Melchizedek’s religion which is known, is the offering or sacrifice of bread and wine, about which more will be said hereafter.

It is not possible to determine from Genesis where the Salem was of which Melchizedek was priest. (I pay no attention to the partisan Josephus.) Taking advantage of this uncertainty the Christians have settled it to be Jerusalem. But it happens in this case that a Heathen author removes the difficulty. Eupolemus states that Abraham received gifts from Melchizedek in the Holy City of Hargarizim, or of Mount Gerizim. Har, in the ancient language, signifies mount. This proves that there was a place holy to the Lord upon Gerizim, long before Joshua’s time, whatever the Jews may allege to the contrary against the Samaritans.

There is much reason to believe that this Melchizedek was the priest of the Temple of Jove, Jupiter, or Iao, without image, spoken of by the Greeks, to which Pythagoras and Plato are said to have resorted for study; the place where Joshua placed his unhewn stones. The mountain Carmel, probably, extended over a considerable extent of country. Hargerizim was probably looked on as a mount of Carmel, as Mount Blanc is a mount of the Alps.

Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 19) ought to be written מלכי-צדק mlki-zdq, and means literally Kings of Justice; but it is evidently a proper name. The proper translation is, “And Melchizedek, king of peace, brought forth bread and wine, because he (was, understood) priest to the most high God. And he blessed him (or he bestowed his benediction upon him, first addressing a prayer to God) and said, Blessed be Abram, by the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth; (he then addresses Abraham;) and blessed be the most high God who hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand,” &c. I cannot conceive how any person who comes to the consideration of this text with an impartial and candid mind can find any difficulty.

When David and the priests removed the holy place from Gerizim to the city of the Jebusites, they then, perhaps, first called it Jerusalem; and to justify themselves against the charges of the Samaritans, they corrupted the text in Joshua, as some of the most eminent Protestant divines are obliged to allow, substituting Ebal for Gerizim, and Gerizim for Ebal. The whole is a description of the sacrifice of bread and wine, repeated by Jesus Christ a few hours previous to his crucifixion: the same, probably, as was offered by Pythagoras at the shrine of the bloodless Apollo. It was sometimes celebrated with wine, sometimes with water. The English priests, in the time of Edward the Sixth, not knowing what to make of it, ordered it in the rubric to be celebrated with both, mixing them together. It is still continued by the Jews at their pascal feast, and is altogether, when unaccompanied by nonsense not belonging to it, the most beautiful religious ceremony that ever was invented. It is found in the Buddhist rites of Persia before they were corrupted, in the rites of Abraham, of Pythagoras, and, in a future page I shall shew, of the ancient Italians, and of Jesus Ναζωραιος, the Nazarite, of the city of Nazarites, or of Nazareth. Of this city of Nazareth it might be said, that it was nothing, in fact, but a suburb of the sacred city which God had chosen to place his name there. (Deut. xii. 5—14.) It was a convent of Essenian Monks, or Carmelites, for all monks were Carmelites before the fifth century after Christ. If Pythagoras were one of them, in this very place, it is probable that he took the vows, Tria vota substantialia, Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, still taken by the Buddhists in India, and Carmelites in Rome. These constituted the companies of prophets named in 1 Sam. xix. 20, and I see no reason why Jesus may not have been the head of the order, though I admit we have no proof of it; but of this more hereafter.

Melchizedek could not be king of the city of Jerusalem in the time of Abraham, because it was