affigned for preferring one to the other. And as there was an infinite number of ftories, with regard to which tradition was nowife pofitive, the gradation was infenfible, from the moft fundamental articles of faith to those loofe and precarious fictions. The pagan religion, therefore, feemed to vanish like a cloud, whenever one approached to it, and examined it piecemeal. It could never be ascertained by any fixed dogmas and principles. And though this did not convert the generality of mankind from fo abfurd a faith; for when will the people be reasonable? yet it made them faulter and hesitate more in maintaining their principles, and was even apt to produce in certain difpofitions of mind, fome practices and opinions, which had the appearance of determined infidelity. To which we may add, that the fables of the pagan religion were, of themselves, light, eafy, and familiar; without devils, or feas of brimftone, or any object that could much terrify the imagination. Who could forbear fmiling, when he thought of the loves of MARS and VENUS, or the amorous frolics of JUPITER and PAN? In this refpect, it was a true poetical religion, if it had not rather too much levity for the graver kinds of poetry. We find that it has been adopted by modern bards; nor have these talked with greater freedom and irreverence of the gods, whom they regarded as fictions, than the ancients did of the real objects of their devotion. The inference is by no means juft, that, because a fyftem of religion has made no deep impreffion on the minds of a people, it must therefore have been pofitively rejected by all men of common fenfe; and that oppofite principles, in spite of the prejudices of education, were generally established by argument and reafoning. I know not but a contrary inference may be more probable. The lefs importunate and affuming any fpecies of fuperftition appears, the lefs will it provoke mens fpleen and indignation, or en gage gage them into inquiries concerning its foundation and origin. This in the mean time is obvious, that the empire of all religious faith over the undertanding is wavering and uncertain, fubject to every variety of humour, and dependent on the prefent incidents which strike the imagination. The difference is only in the degrees. An ancient will place a stroke of impiety and one of fuperftition alternately, throughout a whole discourse *: A modern often thinks in the fame way, though he may be more guarded in his expreffion. LUCIAN tells us exprefsly †, that whoever believed not the moft ridiculous fables of paganism, was deemed by the people profane and impious. To what purpose, indeed, would that agreeable author have employed the whole force of his wit and fatire against the national religion, had not that religion been generally believed by his countrymen and contemporaries? LIVY acknowledges as frankly as any divine would at prefent, the common incredulity of his age; but then he condemns it as feverely. And who can imagine, that a national fuperftition, which could delude fo ingenious a man, would not alfo impofe on the generality of the people? The STOICS beftowed many magnificent and even impious epithets on their fage; that he alone was rich, free, a king, and equal to the immortal gods. They * Witness this remarkable paffage of TACITUS: "Præter multi"plices rerum humanarum cafus, cœlo terraque prodigia, et ful minum monitus et futurorum præfagia, læta, triftia, ambigua, "manifefta. Nec enim unquam atrocioribus populi Romani cladi"bus, magifque juftis judiciis approbatum eft, non effe curæ Diis "fecuritatem noftram, effe ultionem." Hift. lib. i. AUGUSTUS's quarrel with NEPTUNE is an inftance of the fame kind. Had not the emperor believed NEPTUNE to be a real being, and to have dominion over the fea, where had been the foundation of his anger? And if he believed it, what madness to provoke ftill farther that deity? The fame obfervation may be made upon QUINTILIAN'3 exclamation on account of the death of his children, lib. vi. Præf. + Philofeudes. ‡ Lib. x. cap. 40. They forgot to add, that he was not fuperior in pru. dence and understanding to an old woman. For furely nothing can be more pitiful than the fentiments which that fect entertained with regard to religious matters; while they seriously agree with the common augurs, that, when a raven croaks from the left, it is a good omen; but a bad one when a rook makes a noise from the fame quarter. PANÆTIUS was the only STOIC among the GREEKS, who fo much as doubted with regard to auguries and divinations *. MARCUS ANTONINUS † tells us, that he himself had received many admonitions from the gods in his fleep. It is true, EPICTETUS forbids us to regard the language of rooks and ravens; but it is not that they do not speak truth: it is only because they can foretel nothing but the breaking of our neck or the forfeiture of our eftate; which are circumftances, says he, that nowise concern us. Thus the STOIcs join a philofophical enthufiafm to a religious fuperftition. The force of their mind, being all turned to the fide of morals, unbent itself in that of religion ||. t PLATO S introduces SOCRATES affirming, that the accufation of impiety raised against him was owing entirely to his rejecting fuch fables as thofe of SATURN's caftrating his father URANUS, and JUPITER'S dethroning SATURN; yet in a fubfequent dialogue, SOCRATES Confeffes, that the doctrine of the mortality of the foul was the received opinion of the people. Is there here any contradiction? Yes, furely: but the contradiction is not in PLATO; it is in the people, whofe religious principles in general are always compofed of the most difcordant parts; efpecially in an Cicero de Divin. lib. i. cap. 3 et 7. + Lib. i. § 17. Ench. § 17. age The Stoics, I own, were not quite orthodox in the established religion; but one may fee, from thefe inftances, that they went a great way and the people undoubtedly went every length. Eutyphro. Phædo. age when fuperftition fate so easy and light upon them §. The fame CICERO, who affected, in his own family, to appear a devout religionift, makes no scruple, in a public court of judicature, of treating the doctrine of a future state as a ridiculous fable, to which no body could give any attention *. SALLUST † reprefents CÆSAR as speaking the fame language in the open fenate 1. But that all these freedoms implied not a total and univerfal infidelity and fcepticism amongst the people, is too apparent to be denied. Though fome parts of the national religion hung loose upon the minds of men, other parts adhered more closely to them and it was the chief bufinefs of the fceptical philofophers to fhow, that there 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 reasoning ||. Upon the whole, the greatest and most obfervable differences between a traditional, mythological reli § See NOTE [DDD]. gion, * Pro CLUENTIO, + De bello CATILIN. + CICERO (Tufc. Quæft.) lib. i. cap. 5, 6. and SENECA (Ep. 24.) as alfo JUVENAL (Satyr 2.) maintain, that there is no boy or old woman fo ridiculous as to believe the poets in their accounts of a future ftate. Why then does LUCRETIUS fo highly exalt his master for freeing us from these terrors? Perhaps the generality of mankind were then in the difpofition of CEPHALUS in PLATO (de Rep. lib. i.), who while he was young and healthful could ridicule these ftories; but as foon as he became old and infirm, began to enter tain apprehenfions of their truth. This we may obferve not to be unusual even at present. SEXT. EMPIR. adverf. MATHEM, lib. viii. gion, and a fyftematical, fcholaftic one, are two: The former is often more reasonable, as confifting only of a multitude of stories; which, however groundless, imply no exprefs abfurdity and demonftrative contradiction; and fits alfo fo eafy and light on mens mind, that though it may be as univerfally received, it happily makes no fuch deep impreffion on the af fections and understanding. SECT. XIII. Impious conceptions of the divine nature in popular religions of both kinds THE primary religion of mankind arifes chiefly from an anxious fear of future events; and what i deas will naturally be entertained of invifible, unknown powers, while men lie under dismal appre henfions of any kind, may eafily be conceived. E. very image of vengeance, feverity, cruelty, and malice, muft occur, and muft augment the ghaftliness and horror which oppreffes the amazed religionist. A panic having once feized the mind, the active fancy ftill farther multiplies the objects of terror; while that profound darkness, or, what is worse, that glimmering light with which we are environed, reprefents the spectres of divinity under the most dreadful appearances imaginable. And no idea of perverse wickedness can be framed, which thofe terrified devotees do not readily, without fcruple, apply to their deity. This appears the natural ftate of religion, when furveyed in one light. But if we confider, on the other hand, that spirit of praife 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 excellence, must be afcribed to the divinity, and no exaggeration will be deemed fufficient to reach thofe perfections with which he is endowed. 3 |