But that all these freedoms implied not a total and univerfal infidelity and fcepticifm amongft the people, is too apparent to be denied. Though fome parts of the national religion hung loofe upon the minds of men, other parts adhered more clofely to them: And it was

the great

e great bufinefs of the fceptical philofophers to show, that there e was no more foundation for one than for the other. This is the artifice of COTTA in the dialogues concerning the nature of the gods. He refutes the whole fyftem of mythology by leading the orthodox, gradually, from the more momentous ftories, which were believed, to the more frivolous, which every one ridiculed: From the gods to the goddeffes; from the goddeffes to the nymphs; from the nymphs to the fawns and fatyrs. His mafter CARNEADES, had employed the fame method of reafoning

Upon the whole, the greatest and most obfervable differences between a traditional, mythological religion, and afyftematical, fcholaftical one, are two: The former is often more reasonable, as confifting only of a multitude of ftories, which, however groundlefs, imply no express abfurdity and demonftrative contradiction, and fits alfo fo eafy and light on men's minds, that though it may be as univerfally received, it makes no fuch deep impreffion on the affections and understanding.

Yi!? ba,?

SECT. XIII. Impious conceptions of the divine nature in most popular religions of both kinds..

T

The primary religion of mankind arifes chiefly from' an anxious fear of future events; and what ideas will

healthful could ridicule these ftories; but as foon as he became old and infirm, began to entertain apprehenfions of their truth. This, we may obferve, not to be unufual even at prefent.

SEXT. EMPIR. adverf. MATHEM, lib. viii.

Hh 4

naturally

naturally be entertained of invisible, unknown powers, while men lie under, difmal apprehenfions of any kind, may eafily be conceived. Every image of vengeance,> feverity, cruelty, and malice must occur and muft aug ment the ghaftliness and horror, which oppreffes the amazed religionift. A panic having once feized the mind, the active fancy ftill farther multiplies the objects of terror; while that profound darkness, or, what is worfe, that glimmering light, with which we are invironed, represents the spectres of divinity under the moft dreadful appearances imaginable. And no idea of per verfe wickednefs can be framed, which thofe devotees do not readily, without fcruple, apply to their terrified deity.

This appears the natural state of religion, when fur veyed in one light. But if we confider, on the other hand, that spirit of praise and eulogy, which neceffarily has place in all religions, and which is the confequence of these very terrors, we must expect a quite contrary fyftem of theology to prevail. Every virtue, every ext cellence, must be afcribed to the divinity, and no exag geration be deemed fufficient to reach thofe perfections, with which he is endowed. Whatever ftrains of panegyric can be invented, are immediately embraced, without confulting any arguments or phænomena. And it is efteemed a fufficient confirmation of them, that they give us more magnificent ideas of the divine object of our worship and adoration.

Here therefore is a kind of contradiction between the different principles of human nature, which enter into religion. Our natural terrors prefent the notion of a devilish and malicious deity: Our propenfity to praise leads us to acknowledge an excellent and divine. And the influence of thefe oppofite principles are various;=áccording to the different fituation of the human under franding:

་ ་་

1

In very barbarous and ignorant nations, fuch as the AFRICANS and INDIANS, nay even the JAPONESE, who can form no extenfive ideas of power and knowledge, worthip may be paid to a being, whom they confefs to be wicked and deteftable, though they may be cautious, perhaps, of pronouncing this judgment of him in public, or in his temple, where he may be fuppofed to hear their reproaches,

* མ་

S

Such rude, imperfect ideas of the Divinity adhere long to-all-idolaters; and it may fafely be affirmed, that the GREEKS themfelves never got entirely rid of them. It is remarked by XENOPHON, in praife of SOCRATES, that that philofopher affented not to the vulgar opinion, which fuppofed the gods to know fome things, and be ignorant of others: He maintained that they knew every thing; what was done, faid, or even thought. But as this was a ftrain of philosophy † much above the conception of his countrymen, we need not be furprized, if very frankly, in their books and converfation, they blamed the deities, whom they worshipped in their temples. It is obfervable, that HERODOTUS in particular fcruples not, in may paffages, to afcribe envy to the gods; a fentiment, of all others, the moft fuitable to a mean and devilish nature. The pagan hymns, however, fung in public worship, contained nothing but epithets of praife, even while the actions afcribed to the gods were the moft barbarous and deteftable. When TIMOTHEUS, the poet, recited a hymn to DIANA, where he enumerated, with the greateft eulogies, all the actions and attributes of that cruel, capricious goddefs: May

It was confidered among the antients, as a very extraordinary, philofophical paradox, that the prefence of the gods was not confined to the hea went, but was extended every where ; as we learn from LUCIAN. Hermofimus five De fectis,

your

your

daughter, faid one prefent, become fuch as the deity whom you celebrate

*

But as men farther exalt their idea of their divinity; it is often their notion of his power and knowledge only, not of his goodness, which is improved. On the contrary, in proportion to the fuppofed extent of his fcience and authority, their terrors naturally augment augment; while they believe, that no fecrecy can conceal them from his fcrutiny, and that even the inmoft receffes of their breast lie open before him. They muft then be careful not to form expressly any fentiment of blame and disapprobation. All must be applaufe, ravishment, extacy. And while their gloomy apprehenfions make them ascribe to him measures of conduct, which, in human creatures, would be highly, blamed, they muft ftill affect to praise and admire that conduct in the object of their devotional addreffes. Thus it may fafely be affirmed, that most popular religions are really, in the conception of their more vulgar votaries, a fpecies of dæmonism; and the higher the deity is exalted in power and knowledge, the lower of courfe is he frequently depreffed in goodness and benevolence; whatever epithets of praise may be bestowed on him by his amazed adorers. Amongft idolaters, the words may be falfe, and belie the secret opinion: But amongst more exalted religionifts, the opinion itself often contracts a kind of falfehood, and belies the inward fentiment. The heart fecretly detefts fuch measures of cruel and implacable vengeance; but the judgment dares not but pronounce them perfect and adorable. And the additional mifery of this inward ftruggle aggravates all the other terrors, by which thefe unhappy victims to fuperftition are for ever haunted.

10

LUCIAN + obferves, that a young man, who reads the hiftory of the gods in HOMER or HESIOD, and finds their factions, wars, injuftice, inceft, adultery, and other im

PLUTARCH. de Superftit.

+ Necyomantia.

moralities

moralities fo highly celebrated, is much furprized afterwards, when he comes into the world, to observe, that punishments are by law inflicted on the fame actions, which he had been taught to ascribe to fuperior beings. The contradiction is ftill perhaps ftronger between the reprefentations given us by fome latter religions and our natural ideas of generofity, lenity, impartiality, and juf

tice

and in proportion to the multiplied terrors of these religions, the barbarous conceptions of the divinity are multiplied upon us. Nothing can preferve untainted. the

BACCHUS, a divine being, is reprefented by the heathen mythology as the inventor of dancing and the theatre. Plays were antiently, even a part 9 of public worship on the most folemn occafions, and often employed in times of peftilence, to appease the offended deities. But they have been zealously profcribed by the godly in latter ages; and the play-house, accorde ing to a learned divine, is the porch of hell.

t

༈་

But in order to fhow more evidently, that it is poffible for a religion to represent the divinity in still a more immoral and unamiable light than the antients, we shall cite a long paffage from an author of taste and imagination, who was furely no enemy to Chriftianity. It is the Chevalier RAMSAY, a writer who had so laudable an, inclination to be orthodox, that his reason never found any difficulty, even in the doctrines which free-thinkers fcruple the moft, the trinity, incarnation, and satisfaction: His humanity alone, of which he seems to have had a great stock, rebelled against the doctrines of eternal reprobation and predestination. He expresses himself thus: What ftrange ideas,' fays he, would an Indian or a Chinese philofopher have of our holy religion, if they judged by the schemes given of it by our modern free-thinkers, free-thinkers, and pharifaical doctors of all fects? According • to the odious and too vulgar, system of these incredulous fcoffers and cre dulous fcriblers, "The God of the Jews is a most cruel, unjust, partial "and fantastical being. He created, about 6000 years ago, a man and; a “woman, and placed them in a fine garden of As1A, of which there are # no remains. This garden was furnished with all forts of trees, fountains, and flowers. He allowed them the use of all the fruits of this beautiful* garden, except of one, that was planted in the mid thereof, and that had “in it a fecret virtue of preserving them in continual health and vigour of "body and mind, of exalting their natural powers and making them wife. The devil entered into the body of a ferpent, and folicited the first woman to eat of this forbidden fruit; the engaged her husband to do the fame.* “To punish this flight curiofity and natural defire of life and knowledge, God