and accordingly, we may obferve, that this being the fole principle, by which a man could elevate himself above his fellows, it acquired a mighty afcendant over many, and produced great fingularities of maxims and of conduct. At prefent, when philofo phy has loft the allurement of novelty, it has no fuch extenfive influence; but feems to confine itself mostly to fpeculations in the clofet; in the fame manner as the ancient religion was limited to facrifices in the temple. Its place is now fupplied by the modern religion, which infpects our whole conduct, and prefcribes an univerfal rule to our actions, to our words, to our very thoughts and inclinations; a rule fo much the more auftere, as it is guarded by infinite, though diftant, rewards and punishments; and no infraction of it can ever be concealed or disguised.

DIOGENES is the most celebrated model of extravagant philofophy. Let us feek a parallel to him in modern times. We fhall not difgrace any philofophic name by a comparison with the DOMINICS or LOYOLAS, or any cannonized monk or friar. Let us compare him to PASCAL, a man of parts and genius as well as DIOGENES himfelf; and perhaps too, a man of virtue, had he allowed his virtuous inclinations to have exerted and displayed themselves.

The foundation of DIOGENES's conduct was an endeavour to render himself an independent being as much as poffible, and to confine all his wants and defires and pleafures within himself and his own mind: The aim of PASCAL was to keep a perpetual fense of his dependence before his eyes, and never to forget his numberlefs wants and infirmities. The ancient fupported himself by magnanimity, oftentation, pride, and the idea of his own fuperiority above his fellow-creatures. The modern made conftant profeffion of humility and abasement, of the contempt and hatred of himself; and endeavoured to attain these fuppofed virtues, as far as they are attainable. The aufterities of the GREEK were in or

der

der to inure himself to hardships, and prevent his ever fuffering: Thofe of the FRENCHMAN were embraced merely for their own fake, and in order to fuffer as much as poffible. The philofopher indulged himfelf in the moft beaftly pleasures, even in public: The faint refufed himself the most innocent, even in private. The former thought it his duty to love his friends, and to rail at them, and reprove them, and fcold them: The latter endeavoured to be abfolutely indifferent towards his nearest relations, and to love and speak well of his enemies. The great object of DIOGENES's wit was every kind of fuperftition, that is, every kind of religion known in his time. The mortality of the foul was his ftandard principle; and even his fentiments of a divine providence feem to have been licentious. The moft ridiculous fuperftitions directed PASCAL'S faith and practice; and an extreme contempt of this life, in comparison of the future, was the chief foundation of his conduct.

In fuch a remarkable contraft do these two men ftand: Yet both of them have met with general admiration in their different ages, and have been propofed as models of imitation. Where then is the universal standard of morals which you talk of? And what rule fhall we establish for the many different, nay contrary, fentiments of mankind?

An experiment, faid I, which fucceeds in the air, will not always fucceed in a vacuum. When men depart from the maxims of common reason, and affect thefe artificial lives, as you call them, no one can answer for what will please or displease them. They are in a different element from the rest of mankind; and the natural principles of their mind play not with the fame regularity, as if left to themfelves, free from the illufions of religious fuperftition or philofophical enthusiasm.

THE

THE

NATURAL HISTORY

O F

RELIGION.

INTRODUCTION.

S every enquiry which regards religion is of the

A utmost importance, there are two questions in

particular which challenge our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and that concerning its origin in human nature. Happily, the first queftion, which is the most important, admits of the moft obvious, at leaft, the cleareft folution. The whole frame of nature befpeaks an Intelligent Author; and no rational enquirer can, after ferious reflection, fufpend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theifm and Religion. But the other question, concerning the origin of religion in human nature, is expofed to fome more difficulty. The belief of invifible, intelligent power, has been very generally diffused over the human race, in all places and in all ages; but it has neither perhaps been fo univerfal as to admit of no exception, nor has it been, in any degree, uniform in the ideas

which it it has fuggefted. Some nations have been discovered who entertained no fentiments of Religion, if travellers and historians may be credited; and no two nations, and scarce any two men, have ever agreed precifely in the fame fentiments. It would appear, therefore, that this preconception springs not from an original inftinct or primary impreffion of nature, fuch as gives rife to felf-love, affection between the fexes, love of progeny, gratitude, refentment; fince every instinct of this kind has been found abfolutely univerfal in all nations and ages, and has always a precife determinate object which it inflexibly purfues. The first religious principles must be secondary, fuch as may easily be perverted by various accidents and caufes, and whofe operation too, in fome cafes, may, by an extraordinary concurrence of circumftances, be altogether prevented. What those principles are which give rife to the original belief, and what thofe accidents and causes are which direct its operation, is the subject of our present enquiry.

SECT. I. That Polytheism was the primary Religion of Men.

It appears to me, that if we confider the improvement of human fociety from rude beginnings to a state of greater perfection, polytheism or idolatry was, and neceffarily must have been, the first and most ancient religion of mankind. This opinion I shall endeavour to confirm by the following arguments.

It is a matter of fact inconteftible, that about 1700 years ago all mankind were polytheifts. The doubtful and fceptical principles of a few philofophers, or the theifm, and that too not entirely pure, of one or two nations, form no objection worth regarding. Behold then the clear teftimony of hiftory. The farther we mount up into antiquity, the more do we find mankind plunged into polytheifm. No marks, no

symptom,

symptoms of any more perfect religion. The most ancient records of human race ftill prefent us with that fyftem as the popular and established creed. The north, the south, the east, the west, give their unanimous teftimony to the fame fact. What can be oppofed to fo full an evidence?

As far as writing or history reaches, mankind, in ancient times, appear univerfally to have been polytheifts. Shall we affert, that in more ancient times, before the knowledge of letters, or the discovery of any art or science, men entertained the principles of pure theifm? That is, while they were ignorant and barbarous, they discovered truth; but fell into error as foon as they acquired learning and politeness.

But in this affertion you not only contradict all appearance of probability, but also our prefent experience concerning the principles and opinions of barbarous nations. The favage tribes of AMERICA, AFRICA, and ASIA, are all idolaters. Not a fingle exception to this rule: Infomuch, that were a traveller to tranfport himself into any unknown region, if he found inhabitants cultivated with arts and science, though even upon that fuppofition there are odds againft their being theists, yet could he not fafely, till farther inquiry, pronounce any thing on that head: But if he found them ignorant and barbarous, he might before-hand declare them idolaters; and there fcarcely is a poffibility of his being mistaken.

It seems certain, that, according to the natural progrefs of human thought, the ignorant multitude must first entertain fome groveling and familiar notion of fuperior powers, before they ftretch their conception to that perfect Being, who bestowed order on the whole frame of nature. We may as reafonably imagine, that men inhabited palaces before huts and cottages, or studied geometry before agriculture; as affert that the Deity appeared to them a pure fpirit, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, before he was apprehended to be a powerful, though limited

་