tion or formation; and to have thence accounted for the origin of this universe. OVID, who lived in a learned age, and had been instructed by philosophers in the principles of a divine creation or formation of the world; finding, that such ari idea would not agree with the popular mythology, which he delivers, leaves it, in a manner, loose and detached from his system. Quisquis fuit ille Deorum*? Whichever of the gods it was, says he, that dissipated the chaos, and introduced order into the universe. It could neither be SATURN he knew, nor JUPITER, nor NEPTUNE, nor any of the received deities of paganism. His theological system had taught him nothing upon that head; and he leaves the matter equally undetermined. DIODORUS SICULUS †, beginning his work with an enumeration of the most reasonable opinions concerning the origin of the world, makes no mention of a deity or intelligent mind; though it is evident from his history, that he was much more prone to superstition than to irreligion. And in another passaget, talking of the ICHTHYOPHAGI, a nation in INDIA, he says, that, there being so great difficulty in accounting for their descent, we must conclude them to be aborigines, without any beginning of their generation, propagating their race from all eternity; as some of the physiologers, in treating of the origin of nature, have justly observed. "But in "such objects as these," adds the historian, "which "exceed all human capacity; it may well happen, that "those, who discourse the most, know the least; reach"ing a specious appearance of truth in their reasonings, "while extremely wide of the real truth and matter of "fact." • Metamorph. lib. i. 1 32. Lib. i. ld. ibid. A strange sentiment in our eyes, to be embraced by a professed and zealous religionist*! But it was merely by accident, that the question concerning the origin of the world did ever in ancient times enter into religious systems, or was treated of by theologers. The philosophers alone made profession of delivering systems of this kind; and it was pretty late too before these bethought themselves of having recourse to a mind or supreme intelligence, as the first cause of all. So far was it from being esteemed profane in those days to account for the origin of things without a deity, that THALES, ANAXIMENES; HERACLITUS, and others, who embraced that system of cosmogony, past unquestioned; while ANAXAGORAS, the first undoubted theist among the philosophers, was perhaps the first that ever was accused of atheism†. We are told by SEXTUS EMPIRICUS‡, that EPICURUS, when a boy, reading with his preceptor these verses of HESIOD, Eldest of beings, chaos first arose Next earth, wide-stretch'd, the seat of all: The young scholar first betrayed his inquisitive genius, by asking, And chaos whence? But was told by his preceptor, that he must have recourse to the philosophers for a solution of such questions. And from this hint EPICURUS left philology and all other studies, in order to betake himself to that science, whence alone he expected satisfaction with regard to these sublime subjects. The same author, who can thus account for the origin of the world without a Deity, esteems it impious to explain, from physical causes, the common accidents of life, earthquakes, inundations, and tempests; and devoutly ascribes these to the anger of JUPITER or NEPTUNE. A plain proof, whence he derived his ideas of religion. See lib. xv. p. 364. Ex edit. RHODOMANNI. See NOTE [ZZ.] The common people were never likely to push their researches so far, or derive from reasoning their systems of religion; when philologers and mythologists, we see, scarcely ever discovered so much penetration. And even the philosophers, who discoursed of such topics, readily assented to the grossest theory, and admitted the joint origin of gods and men from night and chaos; from fire, water, air, or whatever they established to be the ruling element, Nor was it only on their first origin, that the gods were supposed dependent on the powers of nature— Throughout the whole period of their existence they were subjected to the dominion of fate or destiny. Think of the force of necessity, says AGRIPPA to the ROMAN people, that force, to which even the gods must submit *. And the Younger PLINY †, agreeable to this way of thinking, tell us, that amidst the darkness, horror, and confusion, which ensued upon the first eruption of VEsuvius, several concluded that all nature was going to wreck, and that gods and men were perishing in one common ruin. It is great complaisance, indeed, if we dignify with the name of religion such an imperfect system of theology, and put it on a level with later systems, which are founded on principles more just and more sublime. For my part, I can scarcely allow the principles even of MARCUS AURELIUS, PLUTARCH, and some other Stoics and Academics, though much more refined than the pagan superstition, to be worthy of the honourable appellation of theism. For if the mythology of the heathens resemble the ancient EUROPEAN system of spiritual beings, excluding God and angels, and leaving only fairies and DIONYS. HALIC, lib. vi. † Epist. lib. vi. sprights; the creed of these philosophers may justly be said to exclude a Deity, and to leave only angels and fairies. SECT. V. Various Forms of Polytheism: Allegory, Hero-Worship. BUT it is chiefly our present business to consider the gross polytheism of the vulgar, and to trace all its various appearances, in the principles of human nature, whence they are derived. Whoever learns by argument, the existence of invisible intelligent power, must reason from the admirable contrivance of natural objects, and must suppose the world to be the workmanship of that Divine Being, the original cause of all things. But the vulgar polytheist, so far from admitting that idea, deifies every part of the universe, and conceives all the conspicuous productions of nature, to be themselves so many real divinities. The sun, moon, and stars, are all gods according to his system: Fountains are inhabited by nymphs, and trees by hamadryades: Even monkies, dogs, cats, and other animals often become sacred in his eyes, and strike him with a religious veneration. And thus, however strong mens propensity to believe invisible, intelligent power in nature, their propensity is equally strong to rest their attention on sensible, visible objects; and in order to reconcile these opposite inclinations, they are led to unite the invisible power with some visible object. The distribution also of distinct provinces to the scveral deities is apt to cause some allegory, both physical and moral, to enter into the vulgar systems of polytheism. The god of war will naturally be represented as furious, cruel, and impetuous: The god of poetry as elegant, polite, and amiable: The god of merchandize, especially in early times, as thievish and deceitful. The allegories, supposed in HOMER and other mythologists, I allow, have often been so strained, that men of sense are apt entirely to reject them, and to consider them as the production merely of the fancy and conceit of critics and commentators. But that allegory really has place in the heathen mythology is undeniable eyen on the least reflection. CUPID the son of VENUS; the MUSES the daughters of memory; PROMETHEUS the wise brother, and EPIMETHEUS the foolish; HYGIEIA, or the goddess of health, descended from ESCULAPIUS, or the god of physic: Who sees not, in these, and in many other instances, the plain traces of allegory? When a god is supposed to preside over any passion, event, or system of actions, it is almost unavoidable to give him a genealogy, attributes, and adventures, suitable to his supposed powers and influence: and to carry on that similitude and comparison, which is naturally so agreeable to the mind of man. Allegories, indeed, entirely perfect, we ought not to expect as the productions of ignorance and superstition; there being no work of genius that requires a nicer hand, or has been more rarely executed with success. That Fear and Terror are the sons of MARS is just; but why by VENUS*? That Harmony is the daughter of VENUS is regular; but why by MARS+? That Sleep is the brother of Death is suitable; but why describe him as enamoured of one of the Gracest? And since the ancient mythologists fall into mistakes so gross and palpable, we have no reason surely to expect such refined and long #HESIOD. Theog. l. 935. Id. ibid. & PLUT. in vita PELOP. ILIAD, XIV. 267. |