Page:Anacalypsis vol 1.djvu/121

 not built; for it was in the thicket in this place, Mount Moriah, where he found the ram fast by the horns, when he prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. It therefore follows, that the city of the Jebusites must have been built between the time fixed for the sacrifice by Abraham, and the time of David; or rather, perhaps, between the time of Moses and of David; and for this to have been effected, there was a space of about five hundred years. By building an altar here it might be made a holy place, and thus a city might be drawn to it. If there had been a city here in the time of Abraham, the history would have said, that he went to the town to sacrifice, not to the mount. The whole context implies that there was no town.

2. It is very clear that Abraham is represented in the history as a rich and powerful shepherd king, what we should now call an Arab or Tartar chieftain, constantly migrating with his tribe from place to place to seek pasture for his flocks and herds. He probably never remained long in one situation, but dwelt in the mountains in summer, and in the plains in winter. How formidable, and indeed ruinous, wandering tribes of this description have been in later times to the Romans and other civilized nations is well known. And though the distance from Canaan to Persia is considerable, it is not greater than migratory shepherd tribes often pass, and by no means equal to Abraham’s journey which we learn from Genesis that he did take from Haran, in the upper part of Mesopotamia, to Egypt. Terah, the father of Abraham, seems to have been of the same migratory character, for he removed from Ur in Chaldea, to Haran in Mesopotamia—no little distance. (Gen. xi. 31.)

Palestine is now nearly in the same situation in which it was in the time of Abraham. The nomade tribes under the patriarchal government of their Sheiks, ramble about the country, sometimes attacking the towns, sometimes making treaties and confederacies with them.

When I speak of Abraham I mean the tribe which became known by the name of Israelites. Whether there was such a man as Abraham, and whether the tribe did not come from much more eastern countries, will be discussed hereafter.

It appears that Abraham attacked the confederate kings, and drove them before him, (Gen. xiv. 15,) and that the war raged (ver. 6) from near Damascus to Mount Seir: from which it is evident, that it must have been a very great one. When, therefore, it is said that Abraham divided his 318 trained servants against the confederate kings, the literal meaning cannot be intended. Some very learned persons have supposed, that the whole of this account is an astronomical allegory, and every one must confess that this is not destitute of probability. But allowing all that Sir W. Drummond has said to be true, it is still evident from the terms used, such as Damascus, Mount Seir, &c., &c., the names of places must have been used in the allegory (and if the names of places be used, why should not the names of persons?) by way of accommodation: and whether it be all allegory or not, the argument will not be affected, because it is only here undertaken to produce such probable proofs that the worship of Abraham and his family and that of the Persians were the same, as that no unprejudiced person can refuse his assent to them.

Dr. Hyde not being able to account for the great similarity, which could not be denied, between the religion of Moses and of Zoroaster, (without any authority,) supposes, that the latter was a slave or servant in the family of Daniel or of Ezra, at Babylon, during the captivity; and that he was by birth a Jew. This ridiculous fancy is supported by Prideaux; but as it is completely laughed down by Maurice, no more need be said about it, except merely that the similarity, indeed identity, of the two religions being clearly seen by the learned doctor, it was neces-