A Treatise of the Laws of Nature. Richard Cumberland
who chang’d their own idolatrous Notions and Practices for those of the Chaldeans, should have so much Credit with the Chaldeans, as to introduce new History and Antiquities among them; and that it seems more probable, that the Jews, who became compleat Converts to the Notion of one God, receiv’d among the Chaldeans, and were, in many Respects, form’d and disciplin’d by them, should receive their History and Antiquities from the Chaldeans.”12 Thus far the Author of the Grounds, &c. Let us now examine upon what Authority he has advanc’d this Assertion. “That the Chaldeans were, from remote Antiquity, Worshippers of one God only,” he advances upon the Authorities of Hyde, in his Account of the Religion of the antient Persians; of Prideaux, in his Connexion, Vol. 1. of Lord, in his Account of the Religion of the Persees; of Pocock, in his Specimen of the History of the Arabians, P. 148.13
Now all these Authors speak there only of the Religion of the Persians, but not a Syllable of the Religion of the Chaldeans, or Babylonians, concerning which is the present Question.
That those different Nations did not profess the same Religion, we shall see presently, the Persians being Magians, and the Chaldeans, or Babylonians, Sabians. But, if the Babylonians, to whom the Jews were Captives, had been of the same Religion with the Persians of that Time, I do not see how it would prove the Babylonians, Worshippers of one God only, at that Time; for the Persians were then Magians, and Ditheists; Zoroastres not having reform’d Magianism ’till after the Babylonian Captivity, as above.
Therefore it does not appear, that even the Persians believ’d in one first Cause, and supreme Governor of the World, ’till after the Babylonian Captivity; asserting two first and independent Principles, the one Good, and the other Evil, as above, ’till Zoroastres reform’d Magianism, and establish’d one first and good Principle, which, according to Dr. Prideaux, and Sir Isaac Newton was not ’till the Days of Darius Hystaspes, about 492 Years before Christ.14 Now Cyrus put an End to the 70 Years Captivity of the Jews, in, or about, the Year before Christ 536, that is, 44 Years before the first Appearance of Zoroastres at the Persian Court.
Now it does not appear, that the Babylonians were ever of the Magian Sect; but that, from the earliest Times we have any Account of them, they were Polytheists, and Idolaters; and, more particularly, during the Time of the Jewish Captivity under them; how then could the Jews imbibe their Notion of the Unity of God, and aversion to Idolatry, from those who were themselves Polytheists, and Idolaters?
The Chaldeans, from among whom God call’d Abraham, were an Idolatrous Nation. Joshua (24. 2) thus accosteth the Children of Israel, “Your Fathers dwelt on the other Side of the Flood (i.e. of the River Euphrates) in old Time, even Terah, the Father of Abraham, and the Father of Nahor, and they serv’d other Gods.” The Canaanites, among whom the Patriarchs sojourn’d, ’till their Descent into Egypt, were all of them Idolatrous Nations, as were the Egyptians, to whom they were so long in Bondage. Rachel Stole the Gods of her Father Laban the Syrian. And, as for the Babylonians particularly, it is so far from being true, that the Jews ow’d their Belief of the Unity of God, and Detestation of Images, to them; that we have undoubted Proof, of their being an Idolatrous Nation at that Time. When the ten Tribes were carried away Captive by the King of Assyria, he planted Samaria with Colonies from his other Dominions. We are told (2 Kings 17. 28.) that these Colonies did not “Fear the Lord,” that is, the one God; but that, when they settled in Samaria, they set up and worshipp’d their own Idols. “The Men of Babylon made Succoth-Benoth, the Men of Cuth made Nergal, &c. 2 Kings 17.30.” which Images, we are told v. 41. that their Fathers before them had worshipp’d. We find likewise Sennacherib, King of Assyria, “Worshipping in the House of Nisroch, his God, 2 Kings 19. 37.” We are likewise told by Ezra, (1. 7.) That “Cyrus the King brought forth the Vessels of the House of the Lord, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the House of his Gods.” Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, set up a Golden Image, in the Plain of Dura, to be worshipp’d by all his Subjects, under Pain of Death, for refusing to comply with which, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, were cast into the Fiery Furnace, Dan. Chap. 3. which, I think, is a pretty plain Proof, that the Jews did not learn their Aversion to Idolatry from the Babylonians, their Masters. Belshazzar, the Son of Nebuchadnezzar, and his Princes, in a remarkable Feast, “Drank Wine, and prais’d the Gods of Gold, and of Silver, of Brass, of Iron, of Wood, and of Stone,” Dan. 5. 4. Upon which Occasion, Daniel delivers himself thus to Belshazzar, (23.) “Thou hast prais’d the Gods of Silver, and Gold, of Brass, Iron, Wood, and Stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know; and the God in whose Hand thy Breath is, and whose are all thy Ways, hast thou not glorify’d.” Great Marks of the Babylonians attachment to the Belief of the Unity of God, and Aversion to Idolatry! The Occasion also of Daniel’s being thrown into the Lyons Den, is another Proof of the like Kind. “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and all the graven Images of her Gods he hath broken unto the Ground.” Is. 21.9. “Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth, their Idols were upon the Beasts, and upon the Cattle,” saith Isaiah (46. 1.) speaking of the Idols of Babylon. “Babylon is taken, Bell is confounded, Merodach is broken in Pieces, her Idols are confounded, her Images are broken in Pieces.” Jer. 50. 2. “A Sword is upon the Chaldeans, saith the Lord, and upon the Inhabitants of Babylon, and upon her Princes, and upon her Wise-Men:—A Drought is upon her Waters, and they shall be dry’d up; for it is the Land of graven Images, and they are mad upon their Idols.” Jer. 50. 35–38. “I will do Judgment upon the graven Images of Babylon.” Jer. 51. 47. 52.
Thus, therefore, I think it evident, “That the Author of the Grounds, &c. has not given a probable Account, how the Jews came out of the Babylonian Captivity, more firm Believers of the Unity of God, and more averse to Idolatry, than they were, when they went into Captivity; Dr. Prideaux, in his Connexion, seems to me, to have given a much more probable Solution of that Affair.15
As for what the Author of the Grounds, &c. affirms, (from Berosus in Josephus, against Apion, Book 1.) That “the religious Books of the Chaldeans give a Relation of Matters FROM THE CREATION, to the Time of Abraham, so little different from that contain’d in the Pentateuch, that one of the Accounts must, in all probability, be borrowed from the other.”16 Josephus is here quoted, for what he does not say, who expresses himself only thus. “Berosus, after the Manner of the most antient Historians, treats of the DELUGE, and the Destruction of Mankind, just as Moses reports it; and of the ARK also; and how the first Father of our Race was preserv’d in it a-float upon the Mountains of Armenia. He runs thro’ the Genealogy likewise of the Sons of Noah, their Names, and their Ages; and so carries on the Train, from Noah himself to Nabulassar.” Now an Account from the Creation, and from the Deluge, are two very different Things; nor do I see any Reason, which makes it probable, that Moses borrow’d his Account of the Origin of Things from the Chaldeans, as this Author would insinuate; Moses having had no intercourse, that we know of, with the Chaldeans; nor the Jewish Nation, indeed, ’till after the Building of Solomon’s Temple, to which, both their Civil and Religious Establishments, and, consequently, their Accounts of Things, were long prior. The Chaldean Account, from the Flood downward, agreeing with the Mosaick, is, indeed, a very good Proof of the Truth of the Chaldean Accounts of those Affairs; but no Proof at all, that Moses, who had no intercourse with the Chaldeans, borrow’d his Accounts of the Creation and downwards, from them. Besides, Josephus affirms, “That most antient Historians agreed with the Mosaick Account of the Deluge”; which is no more a Proof, that Moses borrow’d his Account from the