David Hume .............................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1

SECT. I. (That Polytheism was the primary Religion of Men)..............................................................2

SECT. II. (Origin of Polytheism). ...........................................................................................................3

SECT. III. (The same subject continued). ...............................................................................................4

SECT. IV. (Deities not considered as creators or formers of the world). ..............................................6

SECT. V. (Various Forms of Polytheism: Allegory, HeroWorship). ...................................................9

SECT. VI. (Origin of Theism from Polytheism)..................................................................................10

SECT. VII. (Confirmation of this Doctrine). ........................................................................................13

SECT. VIII. (Flux and reflux of polytheism and theism). ....................................................................13

SECT. IX. (Comparison of these Religions, with regard to Persecution and Toleration.) ..................14

SECT. X. (With regard to courage or abasement). ...............................................................................16

SECT. XI. (With regard to reason or absurdity). ..................................................................................16

SECT. XII. (With regard to Doubt or Conviction)...............................................................................17

SECT. XIII. (Impious conceptions of the divine nature in popular religions of both kinds)..............22

SECT. XIV. (Bad influence of popular religions on morality). ............................................................24

SECT. XV. (General Corollary)...........................................................................................................26

SECT. IX. (Comparison of these Religions, with regard to Persecution and Toleration.)

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

As every enquiry, which regards religion, is of the 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 question, which is the most important, admits of the most obvious, at least,

the clearest solution. The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can,

after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism

and Religion. But the other question, concerning the origin of religion in human nature, is exposed to some

more difficulty. The belief of invisible, intelligent power has been very generally diffused over the human

race, in all places and in all ages; but it has neither perhaps been so universal as to admit of no exception, nor

has it been, in any degree, uniform in the ideas, which it has suggested. Some nations have been discovered,

who entertained no sentiments of Religion, if travellers and historians may be credited; and no two nations,

and scarce any two men, have ever agreed precisely in the same sentiments. It would appear, therefore, that

this preconception springs not from an original instinct or primary impression of nature, such as gives rise to

selflove, affection between the sexes, love of progeny, gratitude, resentment; since every instinct of this

kind has been found absolutely universal in all nations and ages, and has always a precise determinate object,

which it inflexibly pursues. The first religious principles must be secondary; such as may easily be perverted

by various accidents and causes, and whose operation too, in some cases, may, by an extraordinary

concurrence of circumstances, be altogether prevented. What those principles are, which give rise to the

original belief, and what those accidents and causes are, which direct its operation, is the subject of our

It appears to me, that, if we consider the improvement of human society, from rude beginnings to a state of

greater perfection, polytheism or idolatry was, and necessarily 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 incontestable, that about 1700 years ago all mankind were polytheists. The doubtful and

sceptical principles of a few philosophers, or the theism, and that too not entirely pure, of one or two nations,

form no objection worth regarding. Behold then the clear testimony of history. The farther we mount up into

antiquity, the more do we find mankind plunged into polytheism. No marks, no symptoms of any more

perfect religion. The most ancient records of human race still present us with that system as the popular and

established creed. The north, the south, the east, the west, give their unanimous testimony to the same fact.

As far as writing or history reaches, mankind, in ancient times, appear universally to have been polytheists.

Shall we assert, that, in more ancient times, before the knowledge of letters, or the discovery of any art or

science, men entertained the principles of pure theism? That is, while they were ignorant and barbarous, they

discovered truth: But fell into error, as soon as they acquired learning and politeness.

But in this assertion you not only contradict all appearance of probability, but also our present experience

concerning the principles and opinions of barbarous nations. The savage tribes of AMERICA, AFRICA, and

ASIA are all idolaters. Not a single exception to this rule. Insomuch, that, were a traveller to transport himself

into any unknown region; if he found inhabitants cultivated with arts and science, though even upon that

supposition there are odds against their being theists, yet could he not safely, till farther inquiry, pronounce

any thing on that head: But if he found them ignorant and barbarous, he might beforehand declare them

It seems certain, that, according to the natural progress of human thought, the ignorant multitude must first

entertain some groveling and familiar notion of superior powers, before they stretch their conception to that

perfect Being, who bestowed order on the whole frame of nature. We may as reasonably imagine, that men

inhabited palaces before huts and cottages, or studied geometry before agriculture; as assert that the Deity

appeared to them a pure spirit, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, before he was apprehended to be a

powerful, though limited being, with human passions and appetites, limbs and organs. The mind rises

gradually, from inferior to superior: By abstracting from what is imperfect, it forms an idea of perfection:

And slowly distinguishing the nobler parts of its own frame from the grosser, it learns to transfer only the

former, much elevated and refined, to its divinity. Nothing could disturb this natural progress of thought, but

some obvious and invincible argument, which might immediately lead the mind into the pure principles of

theism, and make it overleap, at one bound, the vast interval which is interposed between the human and the

divine nature. But though I allow, that the order and frame of the universe, when accurately examined,

affords such an argument; yet I can never think, that this consideration could have an influence on mankind,

The causes of such objects, as are quite familiar to us, never strike our attention or curiosity; and however

extraordinary or surprising these objects in themselves, they are passed over, by the raw and ignorant

multitude, without much examination or enquiry. ADAM, rising at once, in paradise, and in the full

perfection of his faculties, would naturally, as represented by MILTON, be astonished at the glorious

appearances of nature, the heavens, the air, the earth, his own organs and members; and would be led to ask,

whence this wonderful scene arose. But a barbarous, necessitous animal (such as a man is on the first origin

of society), pressed by such numerous wants and passions, has no leisure to admire the regular face of nature,

or make enquiries concerning the cause of those objects, to which from his infancy he has been gradually

accustomed. On the contrary, the more regular and uniform, that is, the more perfect nature appears, the more

is he familiarized to it, and the less inclined to scrutinize and examine it. A monstrous birth excites his

curiosity, and is deemed a prodigy. It alarms him from its novelty; and immediately sets him a trembling, and

sacrificing, and praying. But an animal, compleat in all its limbs and organs, is to him an ordinary spectacle,

and produces no religious opinion or affection. Ask him, whence that animal arose; he will tell you, from the

copulation of its parents. And these, whence? From the copulation of theirs. A few removes satisfy his

curiosity, and set the objects at such a distance, that he entirely loses sight of them. Imagine not, that he will

so much as start the question, whence the first animal; much less, whence the whole system or united fabric

of the universe arose. Or, if you start such a question to him, expect not, that he will employ his mind with

any anxiety about a subject, so remote, so uninteresting, and which so much exceeds the bounds of his

But farther, if men were at first led into the belief of one Supreme Being, by reasoning from the frame of

nature, they could never possibly leave that belief, in order to embrace polytheism; but the same principles of

reason, which at first produced and diffused over mankind, so magnificent an opinion, must be able, with

greater facility, to preserve it. The first invention and proof of any doctrine is much more difficult than the

There is a great difference between historical facts and speculative opinions; nor is the knowledge of the one

propagated in the same manner with that of the other. An historical fact, while it passes by oral tradition from

eyewitnesses and contemporaries, is disguised in every successive narration, and may at last retain but very

small, if any, resemblance of the original truth, on which it was founded. The frail memories of men, their

love of exaggeration, their supine carelessness; these principles, if not corrected by books and writing, soon

pervert the account of historical events; where argument or reasoning has little or no place, nor can ever recal

the truth, which has once escaped those narrations. It is thus the fables of HERCULES, THESEUS,

BACCHUS are supposed to have been originally founded in true history, corrupted by tradition. But with

regard to speculative opinions, the case is far otherwise. If these opinions be founded on arguments so clear

and obvious as to carry conviction with the generality of mankind, the same arguments, which at first

diffused the opinions, will still preserve them in their original purity. If the arguments be more abstruse, and

more remote from vulgar apprehension, the opinions will always be confined to a few persons; and as soon as

men leave the contemplation of the arguments, the opinions will immediately be lost and be buried in

oblivion. Whichever side of this dilemma we take, it must appear impossible, that theism could, from

reasoning, have been the primary religion of human race, and have afterwards, by its corruption, given birth

to polytheism and to all the various superstitions of the heathen world. Reason, when obvious, prevents these

corruptions: When abstruse, it keeps the principles entirely from the knowledge of the vulgar, who are alone

If we would, therefore, indulge our curiosity, in enquiring concerning the origin of religion, we must turn our

Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature,

they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order

on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. For

though, to persons of a certain turn of mind, it may not appear altogether absurd, that several independent

beings, endowed with superior wisdom, might conspire in the contrivance and execution of one regular plan;

yet is this a merely arbitrary supposition, which, even if allowed possible, must be confessed neither to be

supported by probability nor necessity. All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is

adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to

acknowledge one author; because the conception of different authors, without any distinction of attributes or

operations, serves only to give perplexity to the imagination, without bestowing any satisfaction on the

understanding. The statue of LAOCOON, as we learn from PLINY, was the work of three artists: But it is

certain, that, were we not told so, we should never have imagined, that a groupe of figures, cut from one

stone, and united in one plan, was not the work and contrivance of one statuary. To ascribe any single effect

to the combination of several causes, is not surely a natural and obvious supposition.

On the other hand, if, leaving the works of nature, we trace the footsteps of invisible power in the various and

contrary events of human life, we are necessarily led into polytheism and to the acknowledgment of several

limited and imperfect deities. Storms and tempests ruin what is nourished by the sun. The sun destroys what

is fostered by the moisture of dews and rains. War may be favourable to a nation, whom the inclemency of

the seasons afflicts with famine. Sickness and pestilence may depopulate a kingdom, amidst the most profuse

plenty. The same nation is not, at the same time, equally successful by sea and by land. And a nation, which

now triumphs over its enemies, may anon submit to their more prosperous arms. In short, the conduct of

events, or what we call the plan of a particular providence, is so full of variety and uncertainty, that, if we

suppose it immediately ordered by any intelligent beings, we must acknowledge a contrariety in their designs

and intentions, a constant combat of opposite powers, and a repentance or change of intention in the same

power, from impotence or levity. Each nation has its tutelar deity. Each element is subjected to its invisible

power or agent. The province of each god is separate from that of another. Nor are the operations of the same

god always certain and invariable. Today he protects: Tomorrow he abandons us. Prayers and sacrifices,

rites and ceremonies, well or ill performed, are the sources of his favour or enmity, and produce all the good

We may conclude, therefore, that, in all nations, which have embraced polytheism, the first ideas of religion

arose not from a contemplation of the works of nature, but from a concern with regard to the events of life,

and from the incessant hopes and fears, which actuate the human mind. Accordingly, we find, that all

idolaters, having separated the provinces of their deities, have recourse to that invisible agent, to whose

authority they are immediately subjected, and whose province it is to superintend that course of actions, in

which they are, at any time, engaged. JUNO is invoked at marriages; LUCINA at births. NEPTUNE receives

the prayers of seamen; and MARS of warriors. The husbandman cultivates his field under the protection of

CERES; and the merchant acknowledges the authority of MERCURY. Each natural event is supposed to be

governed by some intelligent agent; and nothing prosperous or adverse can happen in life, which may not be

It must necessarily, indeed, be allowed, that, in order to carry men's attention beyond the present course of

things, or lead them into any inference concerning invisible intelligent power, they must be actuated by some

passion, which prompts their thought and reflection; some motive, which urges their first enquiry. But what

passion shall we here have recourse to, for explaining an effect of such mighty consequence? Not speculative

curiosity surely, or the pure love of truth. That motive is too refined for such gross apprehensions; and would

lead men into enquiries concerning the frame of nature, a subject too large and comprehensive for their

narrow capacities. No passions, therefore, can be supposed to work upon such barbarians, but the ordinary

affections of human life; the anxious concern for happiness, the dread of future misery, the terror of death, the

thirst of revenge, the appetite for food and other necessaries. Agitated by hopes and fears of this nature,

especially the latter, men scrutinize, with a trembling curiosity, the course of future causes, and examine the

various and contrary events of human life. And in this disordered scene, with eyes still more disordered and

We are placed in this world, as in a great theatre, where the true springs and causes of every event are entirely

concealed from us; nor have we either sufficient wisdom to foresee, or power to prevent those ills, with

which we are continually threatened. We hang in perpetual suspence between life and death, health and

sickness, plenty and want; which are distributed amongst the human species by secret and unknown causes,

whose operation is oft unexpected, and always unaccountable. These (unknown causes), then, become the

constant object of our hope and fear; and while the passions are kept in perpetual alarm by an anxious

expectation of the events, the imagination is equally employed in forming ideas of those powers, on which we

have so entire a dependance. Could men anatomize nature, according to the most probable, at least the most

intelligible philosophy, they would find, that these causes are nothing but the particular fabric and structure of

the minute parts of their own bodies and of external objects; and that, by a regular and constant machinery, all

the events are produced, about which they are so much concerned. But this philosophy exceeds the

comprehension of the ignorant multitude, who can only conceive the (unknown causes) in a general and

confused manner; though their imagination, perpetually employed on the same subject, must labour to form

some particular and distinct idea of them. The more they consider these causes themselves, and the

uncertainty of their operation, the less satisfaction do they meet with in their researches; and, however

unwilling, they must at last have abandoned so arduous an attempt, were it not for a propensity in human

There is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to

every object, those qualities, with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately

conscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not

corrected by experience and reflection, ascribe malice or good will to every thing, that hurts or pleases us.

Hence the frequency and beauty of the (prosopopoeia) in poetry; where trees, mountains and streams are

personified, and the inanimate parts of nature acquire sentiment and passion. And though these poetical

figures and expressions gain not on the belief, they may serve, at least, to prove a certain tendency in the

imagination, without which they could neither be beautiful nor natural. Nor is a rivergod or hamadryad

always taken for a mere poetical or imaginary personage; but may sometimes enter into the real creed of the

ignorant vulgar; while each grove or field is represented as possessed of a particular (genius) or invisible

power, which inhabits and protects it. Nay, philosophers cannot entirely exempt themselves from this natural

frailty; but have oft ascribed to inanimate matter the horror of a (vacuum), sympathies, antipathies, and other

affections of human nature. The absurdity is not less, while we cast our eyes upwards; and transferring, as is

too usual, human passions and infirmities to the deity, represent him as jealous and revengeful, capricious and

partial, and, in short, a wicked and foolish man, in every respect but his superior power and authority. No

wonder, then, that mankind, being placed in such an absolute ignorance of causes, and being at the same time

so anxious concerning their future fortune, should immediately acknowledge a dependence on invisible

powers, possessed of sentiment and intelligence. The (unknown causes), which continually employ their

thought, appearing always in the same aspect, are all apprehended to be of the same kind or species. Nor is it

long before we ascribe to them thought and reason and passion, and sometimes even the limbs and figures of

In proportion as any man's course of life is governed by accident, we always find, that he encreases in

superstition; as may particularly be observed of gamesters and sailors, who, though, of all mankind, the least

capable of serious reflection, abound most in frivolous and superstitious apprehensions. The gods, says

CORIOLANUS in DIONYSIUS,[3] have an influence in every affair; but above all, in war; where the event

is so uncertain. All human life, especially before the institution of order and good government, being subject

to fortuitous accidents; it is natural, that superstition should prevail every where in barbarous ages, and put

men on the most earnest enquiry concerning those invisible powers, who dispose of their happiness or

misery. Ignorant of astronomy and the anatomy of plants and animals, and too little curious to observe the

admirable adjustment of final causes; they remain still unacquainted with a first and supreme creator, and

with that infinitely perfect spirit, who alone, by his almighty will, bestowed order on the whole frame of

nature. Such a magnificent idea is too big for their narrow conceptions, which can neither observe the beauty

of the work, nor comprehend the grandeur of its author. They suppose their deities, however potent and

invisible, to be nothing but a species of human creatures, perhaps raised from among mankind, and retaining

all human passions and appetites, together with corporeal limbs and organs. Such limited beings, though

masters of human fate, being, each of them, incapable of extending his influence every where, must be vastly

multiplied, in order to answer that variety of events, which happen over the whole face of nature. Thus every

place is stored with a crowd of local deities; and thus polytheism has prevailed, and still prevails, among the

Any of the human affections may lead us into the notion of invisible, intelligent power; hope as well as fear,

gratitude as well as affliction: But if we examine our own hearts, or observe what passes around us, we shall

find, that men are much oftener thrown on their knees by the melancholy than by the agreeable passions.

Prosperity is easily received as our due, and few questions are asked concerning its cause or author. It begets

cheerfulness and activity and alacrity and a lively enjoyment of every social and sensual pleasure: And during

this state of mind, men have little leisure or inclination to think of the unknown invisible regions. On the

other hand, every disastrous accident alarms us, and sets us on enquiries concerning the principles whence it

arose: Apprehensions spring up with regard to futurity: And the mind, sunk into diffidence, terror, and

melancholy, has recourse to every method of appeasing those secret intelligent powers, on whom our fortune

No topic is more usual with all popular divines than to display the advantages of affliction, in bringing men to

a due sense of religion; by subduing their confidence and sensuality, which, in times of prosperity, make

them forgetful of a divine providence. Nor is this topic confined merely to modern religions. The ancients

have also employed it. (Fortune has never liberally, without envy), says a GREEK historian,[5] (bestowed an

unmixed happiness on mankind; but with all her gifts has ever conjoined some disastrous circumstance, in

order to chastize men into a reverence for the gods, whom, in a continued course of prosperity, they are apt to

What age or period of life is the most addicted to superstition? The weakest and most timid. What sex? The

same answer must be given. (The leaders and examples of every kind of superstition), says STRABO,[6] (are

the women. These excite the men to devotion and supplications, and the observance of religious days. It is

rare to meet with one that lives apart from the females, and yet is addicted to such practices. And nothing can,

for this reason, be more improbable, than the account given of an order of men among the) GETES, (who

practised celibacy, and were notwithstanding the most religious fanatics). A method of reasoning, which

would lead us to entertain a bad idea of the devotion of monks; did we not know by an experience, not so

common, perhaps, in STRABO'S days, that one may practise celibacy, and profess chastity; and yet maintain

the closest connexions and most entire sympathy with that timorous and pious sex.

The only point of theology, in which we shall find a consent of mankind almost universal, is, that there is

invisible, intelligent power in the world: But whether this power be supreme or subordinate, whether confined

to one being; or distributed among several, what attributes, qualities, connexions, or principles of action

ought to be ascribed to those beings, concerning all these points, there is the widest difference in the popular

systems of theology. Our ancestors in EUROPE, before the revival of letters, believed, as we do at present,

that there was one supreme God, the author of nature, whose power, though in itself uncontroulable, was yet

often exerted by the interposition of his angels and subordinate ministers, who executed his sacred purposes.

But they also believed, that all nature was full of other invisible powers; fairies, goblins, elves, sprights;

beings, stronger and mightier than men, but much inferior to the celestial natures, who surround the throne of

God. Now, suppose, that any one, in those ages, had denied the existence of God and of his angels; would not

his impiety justly have deserved the appellation of atheism, even though he had still allowed, by some odd

capricious reasoning, that the popular stories of elves and fairies were just and wellgrounded? The

difference, on the one hand, between such a person and a genuine theist is infinitely greater than that, on the

other, between him and one that absolutely excludes all invisible intelligent power. And it is a fallacy, merely

from the casual resemblance of names, without any conformity of meaning, to rank such opposite opinions

To any one, who considers justly of the matter, it will appear, that the gods of all polytheists are no better

than the elves or fairies of our ancestors, and merit as little any pious worship or veneration. These pretended

religionists are really a kind of superstitious atheists, and acknowledge no being, that corresponds to our idea

of a deity. No first principle of mind or thought: No supreme government and administration: No divine

The CHINESE, when[7] their prayers are not answered, beat their idols. The deities of the LAPLANDERS

are any large stone which they meet with of an extraordinary shape.[8] The EGYPTIAN mythologists, in

order to account for animal worship, said, that the gods, pursued by the violence of earthborn men, who

were their enemies, had formerly been obliged to disguise themselves under the semblance of beasts.[9] The

CAUNII, a nation in the Lesser ASIA, resolving to admit no strange gods among them, regularly, at certain

seasons, assembled themselves compleatly armed, beat the air with their lances, and proceeded in that manner

to their frontiers; in order, as they said, to expel the foreign deities.[10] (Not even the immortal gods), said

Many ills, says DIONE in HOMER to VENUS wounded by DIOMEDE, many ills, my daughter, have the

gods inflicted on men: And many ills, in return, have men inflicted on the gods.[12] We need but open any

classic author to meet with these gross representations of the deities; and LONGINUS[13] with reason

observes, that such ideas of the divine nature, if literally taken, contain a true atheism.

Some writers[14] have been surprized, that the impieties of ARISTOPHANES should have been tolerated,

nay publicly acted and applauded by the ATHENIANS; a people so superstitious and so jealous of the public

religion, that, at that very time, they put SOCRATES to death for his imagined incredulity. But these writers

do not consider, that the ludicrous, familiar images, under which the gods are represented by that comic poet,

instead of appearing impious, were the genuine lights in which the ancients conceived their divinities. What

conduct can be more criminal or mean, than that of JUPITER in the AMPHITRION? Yet that play, which

represented his gallante exploits, was supposed so agreeable to him, that it was always acted in ROME by

public authority, when the state was threatened with pestilence, famine, or any general calamity.[15] The

ROMANS supposed, that, like all old letchers, he would be highly pleased with the recital of his former feats

of prowess and vigour, and that no topic was so proper, upon which to flatter his vanity.

The LACEDEMONIANS, says XENOPHON,[16] always, during war, put up their petitions very early in the

morning, in order to be beforehand with their enemies, and, by being the first solicitors, preengage the gods

in their favour. We may gather from SENECA,[17] that it was usual, for the votaries in the temples, to make

interest with the beadle or sexton, that they might have a seat near the image of the deity, in order to be the

best heard in their prayers and applications to him. The TYRIANS, when besieged by ALEXANDER, threw

chains on the statue of HERCULES, to prevent that deity from deserting to the enemy.[18] AUGUSTUS,

having twice lost his fleet by storms, forbad NEPTUNE to be carried in procession along with the other gods;

and fancied, that he had sufficiently revenged himself by that expedient.[19] After GERMANICUS'S death,

the people were so enraged at their gods, that they stoned them in their temples; and openly renounced all

To ascribe the origin and fabric of the universe to these imperfect beings never enters into the imagination of

any polytheist or idolater. HESIOD, whose writings, with those of HOMER, contained the canonical system

of the heathens;[21] HESIOD, I say, supposes gods and men to have sprung equally from the unknown

powers of nature.[22] And throughout the whole theogony of that author, PANDORA is the only instance of

creation or a voluntary production; and she too was formed by the gods merely from despight to

PROMETHEUS, who had furnished men with stolen fire from the celestial regions.[23] The ancient

mythologists, indeed, seem throughout to have rather embraced the idea of generation than that of creation or

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 an 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?)[24] 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

DIODORUS SICULUS,[25] 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 passage,[26]

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 subjects as these," adds the historian, "which exceed all human

capacity, it may well happen, that those, who discourse the most, know the least; reaching a specious

appearance of truth in their reasonings, while extremely wide of the real truth and matter of fact."

A strange sentiment in our eyes, to be embraced by a professed and zealous religionist![27] 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.[28]

We are told by SEXTUS EMPIRICUS,[29] that EPICURUS, when a boy, reading with his preceptor these

Next (earth), widestretch'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 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

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).[30] And the Younger PLINY,[31] agreeably to this way of thinking, tells us, that amidst the

darkness, horror, and confusion, which ensued upon the first eruption of VESUVIUS, several concluded, that

all nature was going to wrack, 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 sprights; the creed of these

philosophers may justly be said to exclude a deity, and to leave only angels and fairies.

But it is chiefly our present business to consider the gross polytheism of the vulgar, and to trace all its various

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 hamadryads: Even monkies, dogs, cats, and other animals often become sacred in his eyes, and strike him

with a religious veneration. And thus, however strong men's 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 several 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 merchandise,

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 even 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 AESCULAPIUS 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,

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?[32] That (Harmony) is the daughter

of VENUS is regular; but why by MARS?[33] That (Sleep) is the brother of (Death) is suitable; but why

describe him as enamoured of one of the Graces?[34] And since the ancient mythologists fall into mistakes so

gross and palpable, we have no reason surely to expect such refined and longspun allegories, as some have

LUCRETIUS was plainly seduced by the strong appearance of allegory, which is observable in the pagan

fictions. He first addresses himself to VENUS as to that generating power, which animates, renews, and

beautifies the universe: But is soon betrayed by the mythology into incoherencies, while he prays to that

allegorical personage to appease the furies of her lover MARS; An idea not drawn from allegory, but from

the popular religion, and which LUCRETIUS, as an EPICUREAN, could not consistently admit of.

The deities of the vulgar are so little superior to human creatures, that, where men are affected with strong

sentiments of veneration or gratitude for any hero or public benefactor, nothing can be more natural than to

convert him into a god, and fill the heavens, after this manner, with continual recruits from among mankind.

Most of the divinities of the ancient world are supposed to have once been men, and to have been beholden

for their (apotheosis) to the admiration and affection of the people. The real history of their adventures,

corrupted by tradition, and elevated by the marvellous, become a plentiful source of fable; especially in

passing through the hands of poets, allegorists, and priests, who successively improved upon the wonder and

Painters too and sculptors came in for their share of profit in the sacred mysteries; and furnishing men with

sensible representations of their divinities, whom they cloathed in human figures, gave great encrease to the

public devotion, and determined its object. It was probably for want of these arts in rude and barbarous ages,

that men deified plants, animals, and even brute, unorganized matter; and rather than be without a sensible

object of worship, affixed divinity to such ungainly forms. Could any statuary of SYRIA, in early times, have

formed a just figure of APOLLO, the conic stone, HELIOGABALUS, had never become the object of such

profound adoration, and been received as a representation of the solar deity.[35]

STILPO was banished by the council of AREOPAGUS, for affirming that the MINERVA in the citadel was

no divinity; but the workmanship of PHIDIAS, the sculptor.[36] What degree of reason must we expect in the

religious belief of the vulgar in other nations; when ATHENIANS and AREOPAGITES could entertain such

These then are the general principles of polytheism, founded in human nature, and little or nothing dependent

on caprice and accident. As the (causes), which bestow happiness or misery, are, in general, very little known

and very uncertain, our anxious concern endeavours to attain a determinate idea of them; and finds no better

expedient than to represent them as intelligent voluntary agents, like ourselves; only somewhat superior in

power and wisdom. The limited influence of these agents, and their great proximity to human weakness,

introduce the various distribution and division of their authority; and thereby give rise to allegory. The same

principles naturally deify mortals, superior in power, courage, or understanding, and produce hero worship;

together with fabulous history and mythological tradition, in all its wild and unaccountable forms. And as an

invisible spiritual intelligence is an object too refined for vulgar apprehension, men naturally affix it to some

sensible representation; such as either the more conspicuous parts of nature, or the statues, images, and

Almost all idolaters, of whatever age or country, concur in these general principles and conceptions; and even

the particular characters and provinces, which they assign to their deities, are not extremely different.[37] The

GREEK and ROMAN travellers and conquerors, without much difficulty, found their own deities every

where; and said, This is MERCURY, that VENUS; this MARS, that NEPTUNE; by whatever title the strange

gods might be denominated. The goddess HERTHA of our SAXON ancestors seems to be no other,

according to TACITUS,[38] than the (Mater Tellus) of the ROMANS; and his conjecture was evidently just.

The doctrine of one supreme deity, the author of nature, is very ancient, has spread itself over great and

populous nations, and among them has been embraced by all ranks and conditions of men: But whoever

thinks that it has owed its success to the prevalent force of those invincible reasons, on which it is

undoubtedly founded, would show himself little acquainted with the ignorance and stupidity of the people,

and their incurable prejudices in favour of their particular superstitions. Even at this day, and in EUROPE,

ask any of the vulgar, why he believes in an omnipotent creator of the world; he will never mention the

beauty of final causes, of which he is wholly ignorant: He will not hold out his hand, and bid you contemplate

the suppleness and variety of joints in his fingers, their bending all one way, the counterpoise which they

receive from the thumb, the softness and fleshy parts of the inside of his hand, with all the other

circumstances, which render that member fit for the use, to which it was destined. To these he has been long

accustomed; and he beholds them with listlessness and unconcern. He will tell you of the sudden and

unexpected death of such a one: The fall and bruise of such another: The excessive drought of this season:

The cold and rains of another. These he ascribes to the immediate operation of providence: And such events,

as, with good reasoners, are the chief difficulties in admitting a supreme intelligence, are with him the sole

Many theists, even the most zealous and refined, have denied a (particular) providence, and have asserted,

that the Sovereign mind or first principle of all things, having fixed general laws, by which nature is

governed, gives free and uninterrupted course to these laws, and disturbs not, at every turn, the settled order

of events by particular volitions. From the beautiful connexion, say they, and rigid observance of established

rules, we draw the chief argument for theism; and from the same principles are enabled to answer the

principal objections against it. But so little is this understood by the generality of mankind, that, wherever

they observe any one to ascribe all events to natural causes, and to remove the particular interposition of a

deity, they are apt to suspect him of the grossest infidelity. (A little philosophy), says lord BACON, (makes

men atheists: A great deal reconciles them to religion). For men, being taught, by superstitious prejudices, to

lay the stress on a wrong place; when that fails them, and they discover, by a little reflection, that the course

of nature is regular and uniform, their whole faith totters, and falls to ruin. But being taught, by more

reflection, that this very regularity and uniformity is the strongest proof of design and of a supreme

intelligence, they return to that belief, which they had deserted; and they are now able to establish it on a

Convulsions in nature, disorders, prodigies, miracles, though the most opposite to the plan of a wise

superintendent, impress mankind with the strongest sentiments of religion; the causes of events seeming then

the most unknown and unaccountable. Madness, fury, rage, and an inflamed imagination, though they sink

men nearest to the level of beasts, are, for a like reason, often supposed to be the only dispositions, in which

We may conclude, therefore, upon the whole, that, since the vulgar, in nations, which have embraced the

doctrine of theism, still build it upon irrational and superstitious principles, they are never led into that

opinion by any process of argument, but by a certain train of thinking, more suitable to their genius and

It may readily happen, in an idolatrous nation, that though men admit the existence of several limited deities,

yet is there some one God, whom, in a particular manner, they make the object of their worship and

adoration. They may either suppose, that, in the distribution of power and territory among the gods, their

nation was subjected to the jurisdiction of that particular deity; or reducing heavenly objects to the model of

things below, they may represent one god as the prince or supreme magistrate of the rest, who, though of the

same nature, rules them with an authority, like that which an earthly sovereign exercises over his subjects and

vassals. Whether this god, therefore, be considered as their peculiar patron, or as the general sovereign of

heaven, his votaries will endeavour, by every art, to insinuate themselves into his favour; and supposing him

to be pleased, like themselves, with praise and flattery, there is no eulogy or exaggeration, which will be

spared in their addresses to him. In proportion as men's fears or distresses become more urgent, they still

invent new strains of adulation; and even he who outdoes his predecessor in swelling up the titles of his

divinity, is sure to be outdone by his successor in newer and more pompous epithets of praise. Thus they

proceed; till at last they arrive at infinity itself, beyond which there is no farther progress: And it is well, if, in

striving to get farther, and to represent a magnificent simplicity, they run not into inexplicable mystery, and

destroy the intelligent nature of their deity, on which alone any rational worship or adoration can be founded.

While they confine themselves to the notion of a perfect being, the creator of the world, they coincide, by

chance, with the principles of reason and true philosophy; though they are guided to that notion, not by

reason, of which they are in a great measure incapable, but by the adulation and fears of the most vulgar

We often find, amongst barbarous nations, and even sometimes amongst civilized, that, when every strain of

flattery has been exhausted towards arbitrary princes, when every human quality has been applauded to the

utmost; their servile courtiers represent them, at last, as real divinities, and point them out to the people as

objects of adoration. How much more natural, therefore, is it, that a limited deity, who at first is supposed

only the immediate author of the particular goods and ills in life, should in the end be represented as

Even where this notion of a supreme deity is already established; though it ought naturally to lessen every

other worship, and abase every object of reverence, yet if a nation has entertained the opinion of a

subordinate tutelar divinity, saint, or angel; their addresses to that being gradually rise upon them, and

encroach on the adoration due to their supreme deity. The Virgin (Mary), ere checked by the reformation, had

proceeded, from being merely a good woman, to usurp many attributes of the Almighty: God and St.

Thus the deity, who, from love, converted himself into a bull, in order to carry off EUROPA; and who, from

ambition, dethroned his father, SATURN, became the OPTIMUS MAXIMUS of the heathens. Thus the

deity, whom the vulgar Jews conceived only as the God of (Abraham), (Isaac), and (Jacob), became their

The JACOBINS, who denied the immaculate conception, have ever been very unhappy in their doctrine, even

though political reasons have kept the ROMISH church from condemning it. The CORDELIERS have run

away with all the popularity. But in the fifteenth century, as we learn from BOULAINVILLIERS,[40] an

ITALIAN (Cordelier) maintained, that, during the three days, when CHRIST was interred, the hypostatic

union was dissolved, and that his human nature was not a proper object of adoration, during that period.

Without the art of divination, one might foretel, that so gross and impious a blasphemy would not fail to be

anathematized by the people. It was the occasion of great insults on the part of the JACOBINS; who now got

some recompence for their misfortunes in the war about the immaculate conception.

Rather than relinquish this propensity to adulation, religionists, in all ages, have involved themselves in the

HOMER, in one passage, calls OCEANUS and TETHYS the original parents of all things, conformably to

the established mythology and tradition of the GREEKS: Yet, in other passages, he could not forbear

complimenting JUPITER, the reigning deity, with that magnificent appellation; and accordingly denominates

him the father of gods and men. He forgets, that every temple, every street was full of the ancestors, uncles,

brothers, and sisters of this JUPITER; who was in reality nothing but an upstart parricide and usurper. A like

contradiction is observable in HESIOD; and is so much the less excusable, as his professed intention was to

Were there a religion (and we may suspect Mahometanism of this inconsistence) which sometimes painted

the Deity in the most sublime colours, as the creator of heaven and earth; sometimes degraded him so far to a

level with human creatures as to represent him wrestling with a man, walking in the cool of the evening,

showing his back parts, and descending from heaven to inform himself of what passes on earth;[41] while at

the same time it ascribed to him suitable infirmities, passions, and partialities, of the moral kind: That

religion, after it was extinct, would also be cited as an instance of those contradictions, which arise from the

gross, vulgar, natural conceptions of mankind, opposed to their continual propensity, towards flattery and

exaggeration. Nothing indeed would prove more strongly the divine origin of any religion, than to find (and

happily this is the case with Christianity) that it is free from a contradiction, so incident to human nature.

It appears certain, that, though the original notions of the vulgar represent the Divinity as a limited being, and

consider him only as the particular cause of health or sickness; plenty or want; prosperity or adversity; yet

when more magnificent ideas are urged upon them, they esteem it dangerous to refuse their assent. Will you

say, that your deity is finite and bounded in his perfections; may be overcome by a greater force; is subject to

human passions, pains, and infirmities; has a beginning, and may have an end? This they dare not affirm; but

thinking it safest to comply with the higher encomiums, they endeavour, by an affected ravishment and

devotion, to ingratiate themselves with him. As a confirmation of this, we may observe, that the assent of the

vulgar is, in this case, merely verbal, and that they are incapable of conceiving those sublime qualities, which

they seemingly attribute to the Deity. Their real idea of him, notwithstanding their pompous language, is still

That original intelligence, say the MAGIANS, who is the first principle of all things, discovers himself

(immediately) to the mind and understanding alone; but has placed the sun as his image in the visible

universe; and when that bright luminary diffuses its beams over the earth and the firmament, it is a faint copy

of the glory, which resides in the higher heavens. If you would escape the displeasure of this divine being,

you must be careful never to set your bare foot upon the ground, nor spit into a fire, nor throw any water upon

it, even though it were consuming a whole city.[42] Who can express the perfections of the Almighty? say

the Mahometans. Even the noblest of his works, if compared to him, are but dust and rubbish. How much

more must human conception fall short of his infinite perfections? His smile and favour renders men for ever

happy; and to obtain it for your children, the best method is to cut off from them, while infants, a little bit of

skin, about half the breadth of a farthing. Take two bits of cloth,[43] say the (Roman catholics), about an inch

or an inch and a half square, join them by the corners with two strings or pieces of tape about sixteen inches

long, throw this over your head, and make one of the bits of cloth lie upon your breast, and the other upon

your back, keeping them next your skin: There is not a better secret for recommending yourself to that

The GETES, commonly called immortal, from their steady belief of the soul's immortality, were genuine

theists and unitarians. They affirmed ZAMOLXIS,[44] their deity, to be the only true god; and asserted the

worship of all other nations to be addressed to mere fictions and chimeras. But were their religious principles

any more refined, on account of these magnificent pretensions? Every fifth year they sacrificed a human

victim, whom they sent as a messenger to their deity, in order to inform him of their wants and necessities.

And when it thundered, they were so provoked, that, in order to return the defiance, they let fly arrows at him,

and declined not the combat as unequal. Such at least is the account, which HERODOTUS gives of the

It is remarkable, that the principles of religion have a kind of flux and reflux in the human mind, and that men

have a natural tendency to rise from idolatry to theism, and to sink again from theism into idolatry. The

vulgar, that is, indeed, all mankind, a few excepted, being ignorant and uninstructed, never elevate their

contemplation to the heavens, or penetrate by their disquisitions into the secret structure of vegetable or

animal bodies; so far as to discover a supreme mind or original providence, which bestowed order on every

part of nature. They consider these admirable works in a more confined and selfish view; and finding their

own happiness and misery to depend on the secret influence and unforeseen concurrence of external objects,

they regard; with perpetual attention, the (unknown causes), which govern all these natural events, and

distribute pleasure and pain, good and ill, by their powerful, but silent, operation. The unknown causes are

still appealed to on every emergence; and in this general appearance or confused image, are the perpetual

objects of human hopes and fears, wishes and apprehensions. By degrees, the active imagination of men,

uneasy in this abstract conception of objects, about which it is incessantly employed, begins to render them

more particular, and to clothe them in shapes more suitable to its natural comprehension. It represents them to

be sensible, intelligent beings, like mankind; actuated by love and hatred, and flexible by gifts and entreaties,

by prayers and sacrifices. Hence the origin of religion: And hence the origin of idolatry or polytheism.

But the same anxious concern for happiness, which begets the idea of these invisible, intelligent powers,

allows not mankind to remain long in the first simple conception of them; as powerful, but limited beings;

masters of human fate, but slaves to destiny and the course of nature. Men's exaggerated praises and

compliments still swell their idea upon them; and elevating their deities to the utmost bounds of perfection, at

last beget the attributes of unity and infinity, simplicity and spirituality. Such refined ideas, being somewhat

disproportioned to vulgar comprehension, remain not long in their original purity; but require to be supported

by the notion of inferior mediators or subordinate agents, which interpose between mankind and their

supreme deity. These demigods or middle beings, partaking more of human nature, and being more familiar

to us, become the chief objects of devotion, and gradually recal that idolatry, which had been formerly

banished by the ardent prayers and panegyrics of timorous and indigent mortals. But as these idolatrous

religions fall every day into grosser and more vulgar conceptions, they at last destroy themselves, and, by the

vile representations, which they form of their deities, make the tide turn again towards theism. But so great is

the propensity, in this alternate revolution of human sentiments, to return back to idolatry, that the utmost

precaution is not able effectually to prevent it. And of this, some theists, particularly the JEWS and

MAHOMETANS, have been sensible; as appears by their banishing all the arts of statuary and painting, and

not allowing the representations, even of human figures, to be taken by marble or colours; lest the common

infirmity of mankind should thence produce idolatry. The feeble apprehensions of men cannot be satisfied

with conceiving their deity as a pure spirit and perfect intelligence; and yet their natural terrors keep them

from imputing to him the least shadow of limitation and imperfection. They fluctuate between these opposite

sentiments. The same infirmity still drags them downwards, from an omnipotent and spiritual deity, to a

limited and corporeal one, and from a corporeal and limited deity to a statue or visible representation. The

same endeavour at elevation still pushes them upwards, from the statue or material image to the invisible

power; and from the invisible power to an infinitely perfect deity, the creator and sovereign of the universe.

Polytheism or idolatrous worship, being founded entirely in vulgar traditions, is liable to this great

inconvenience, that any practice or opinion, however barbarous or corrupted, may be authorized by it; and

full scope is given, for knavery to impose on credulity, till morals and humanity be expelled from[46] the

religious systems of mankind. At the same time, idolatry is attended with this evident advantage, that, by

limiting the powers and functions of its deities, it naturally admits the gods of other sects and nations to a

share of divinity, and renders all the various deities, as well as rites, ceremonies, or traditions, compatible

with each other.[47] Theism is opposite both in its advantages and disadvantages. As that system supposes

one sole deity, the perfection of reason and goodness, it should, if justly prosecuted, banish every thing

frivolous, unreasonable, or inhuman from religious worship, and set before men the most illustrious example,

as well as the most commanding motives, of justice and benevolence. These mighty advantages are not

indeed overbalanced (for that is not possible), but somewhat diminished, by inconveniencies, which arise

SECT. IX. (Comparison of these Religions, with regard to Persecution and Toleration.) 14

from the vices and prejudices of mankind. While one sole object of devotion is acknowledged, the worship of

other deities is regarded as absurd and impious. Nay, this unity of object seems naturally to require the unity

of faith and ceremonies, and furnishes designing men with a pretence for representing their adversaries as

profane, and the objects of divine as well as human vengeance. For as each sect is positive that its own faith

and worship are entirely acceptable to the deity, and as no one can conceive, that the same being should be

pleased with different and opposite rites and principles; the several sects fall naturally into animosity, and

mutually discharge on each other that sacred zeal and rancour, the most furious and implacable of all human

The tolerating spirit of idolaters, both in ancient and modern times, is very obvious to any one, who is the

least conversant in the writings of historians or travellers. When the oracle of DELPHI was asked, what rites

or worship was most acceptable to the gods? Those which are legally established in each city, replied the

oracle.[48] Even priests, in those ages, could, it seems, allow salvation to those of a different communion.

The ROMANS commonly adopted the gods of the conquered people; and never disputed the attributes of

those local and national deities, in whose territories they resided. The religious wars and persecutions of the

EGYPTIAN idolaters are indeed an exception to this rule; but are accounted for by ancient authors from

reasons singular and remarkable. Different species of animals were the deities of the different sects among

the EGYPTIANS; and the deities being in continual war, engaged their votaries in the same contention. The

worshippers of dogs could not long remain in peace with the adorers of cats or wolves.[49] But where that

reason took not place, the EGYPTIAN superstition was not so incompatible as is commonly imagined; since

we learn from HERODOTUS,[50] that very large contributions were given by AMASIS towards rebuilding

The intolerance of almost all religions, which have maintained the unity of God, is as remarkable as the

contrary principle of polytheists. The implacable narrow spirit of the JEWS is well known.

MAHOMETANISM set out with still more bloody principles; and even to this day, deals out damnation,

though not fire and faggot, to all other sects. And if, among CHRISTIANS, the ENGLISH and DUTCH have

embraced the principles of toleration, this singularity has proceeded from the steady resolution of the civil

The disciples of ZOROASTER shut the doors of heaven against all but the MAGIANS.[51] Nothing could

more obstruct the progress of the PERSIAN conquests, than the furious zeal of that nation against the temples

and images of the GREEKS. And after the overthrow of that empire we find ALEXANDER, as a polytheist,

immediately reestablishing the worship of the BABYLONIANS, which their former princes, as

monotheists, had carefully abolished.[52] Even the blind and devoted attachment of that conqueror to the

GREEK superstition hindered not but he himself sacrificed according to the BABYLONISH rites and

So sociable is polytheism, that the utmost fierceness and antipathy, which it meets with in an opposite

religion, is scarcely able to disgust it, and keep it at a distance. AUGUSTUS praised extremely the reserve of

his grandson, CAIUS CAESAR, when this latter prince, passing by JERUSALEM, deigned not to sacrifice

according to the JEWISH law. But for what reason did AUGUSTUS so much approve of this conduct? Only,

I may venture to affirm, that few corruptions of idolatry and polytheism are more pernicious to society than

this corruption of theism,[55] when carried to the utmost height. The human sacrifices of the

CARTHAGINIANS, MEXICANS, and many barbarous nations,[56] scarcely exceed the inquisition and

persecutions of ROME and MADRID. For besides, that the effusion of blood may not be so great in the

former case as in the latter; besides this, I say, the human victims, being chosen by lot, or by some exterior

signs, affect not, in so considerable a degree, the rest of the society. Whereas virtue, knowledge, love of

liberty, are the qualities, which call down the fatal vengeance of inquisitors; and when expelled, leave the

SECT. IX. (Comparison of these Religions, with regard to Persecution and Toleration.) 15

society in the most shameful ignorance, corruption, and bondage. The illegal murder of one man by a tyrant is

more pernicious than the death of a thousand by pestilence, famine, or any undistinguishing calamity.

In the temple of DIANA at ARICIA near ROME, whoever murdered the present priest, was legally entitled to

be installed his successor.[57] A very singular institution! For, however barbarous and bloody the common

superstitions often are to the laity, they usually turn to the advantage of the holy order.

From the comparison of theism and idolatry, we may form some other observations, which will also confirm

the vulgar observation, that the corruption of the best things gives rise to the worst.

Where the deity is represented as infinitely superior to mankind, this belief, though altogether just, is apt,

when joined with superstitious terror, to sink the human mind into the lowest submission and abasement, and

to represent the monkish virtues of mortification, penance, humility, and passive suffering, as the only

qualities which are acceptable to him. But where the gods are conceived to be only a little superior to

mankind, and to have been, many of them, advanced from that inferior rank, we are more at our ease in our

addresses to them, and may even, without profaneness, aspire sometimes to a rivalship and emulation of

them. Hence activity, spirit, courage, magnanimity, love of liberty, and all the virtues which aggrandize a

The heroes in paganism correspond exactly to the saints in popery and holy dervises in MAHOMETANISM.

The place of HERCULES, THESEUS, HECTOR, ROMULUS, is now supplied by DOMINIC, FRANCIS,

ANTHONY, and BENEDICT. Instead of the destruction of monsters, the subduing of tyrants, the defence of

our native country; whippings and fastings, cowardice and humility, abject submission and slavish obedience,

One great incitement to the pious ALEXANDER in his warlike expeditions was his rivalship of HERCULES

and BACCHUS, whom he justly pretended to have excelled.[58] BRASIDAS, that generous and noble

SPARTAN, after falling in battle, had heroic honours paid him by the inhabitants of AMPHIPOLIS, whose

defence he had embraced.[59] And in general, all founders of states and colonies among the GREEKS were

raised to this inferior rank of divinity, by those who reaped the benefit of their labours.

This gave rise to the observation of MACHIAVEL, that the doctrines of the CHRISTIAN religion (meaning

the catholic; for he knew no other) which recommend only passive courage and suffering, had subdued the

spirit of mankind, and had fitted them for slavery and subjection. An observation, which would certainly be

just, were there not many other circumstances in human society which controul the genius and character of a

BRASIDAS seized a mouse, and being bit by it, let it go. (There is nothing so contemptible), said he, (but

what may be safe, if it has but courage to defend itself).[60] BELLARMINE patiently and humbly allowed

the fleas and other odious vermin to prey upon him. (We shall have heaven), said he, (to reward us for our

sufferings: But these poor creatures have nothing but the enjoyment of the present life).[61] Such difference

Here is another observation to the same purpose, and a new proof that the corruption of the best things begets

the worst. If we examine, without prejudice, the ancient heathen mythology, as contained in the poets, we

shall not discover in it any such monstrous absurdity, as we may at first be apt to apprehend. Where is the

difficulty in conceiving, that the same powers or principles, whatever they were, which formed this visible

world, men and animals, produced also a species of intelligent creatures, of more refined substance and

greater authority than the rest? That these creatures may be capricious, revengeful, passionate, voluptuous, is

easily conceived; nor is any circumstance more apt, among ourselves, to engender such vices, than the licence

of absolute authority. And in short, the whole mythological system is so natural, that, in the vast variety of

planets and worlds, contained in this universe, it seems more than probable, that, somewhere or other, it is

The chief objection to it with regard to this planet, is, that it is not ascertained by any just reason or authority.

The ancient tradition, insisted on by heathen priests and theologers, is but a weak foundation; and transmitted

also such a number of contradictory reports, supported, all of them, by equal authority, that it became

absolutely impossible to fix a preference amongst them. A few volumes, therefore, must contain all the

polemical writings of pagan priests: And their whole theology must consist more of traditional stories and

But where theism forms the fundamental principle of any popular religion, that tenet is so conformable to

sound reason, that philosophy is apt to incorporate itself with such a system of theology. And if the other

dogmas of that system be contained in a sacred book, such as the Alcoran, or be determined by any visible

authority, like that of the ROMAN pontiff, speculative reasoners naturally carry on their assent, and embrace

a theory, which has been instilled into them by their earliest education, and which also possesses some degree

of consistence and uniformity. But as these appearances are sure, all of them, to prove deceitful, philosophy

will soon find herself very unequally yoked with her new associate; and instead of regulating each principle,

as they advance together, she is at every turn perverted to serve the purposes of superstition. For besides the

unavoidable incoherences, which must be reconciled and adjusted; one may safely affirm, that all popular

theology, especially the scholastic, has a kind of appetite for absurdity and contradiction. If that theology

went not beyond reason and common sense, her doctrines would appear too easy and familiar. Amazement

must of necessity be raised: Mystery affected: Darkness and obscurity sought after: And a foundation of merit

afforded to the devout votaries, who desire an opportunity of subduing their rebellious reason, by the belief of

Ecclesiastical history sufficiently confirms these reflections. When a controversy is started, some people

always pretend with certainty to foretell the issue. Whichever opinion, say they, is most contrary to plain

sense is sure to prevail; even where the general interest of the system requires not that decision. Though the

reproach of heresy may, for some time, be bandied about among the disputants, it always rests at last on the

side of reason. Any one, it is pretended, that has but learning enough of this kind to know the definition of

MONOTHELITE, etc. not to mention PROTESTANT, whose fate is yet uncertain, will be convinced of the

truth of this observation. It is thus a system becomes more absurd in the end, merely from its being

To oppose the torrent of scholastic religion by such feeble maxims as these, that (it is impossible for the same

thing, to be and not to be), that (the whole is greater than a part, that two and three make five); is pretending

to stop the ocean with a bullrush. Will you set up profane reason against sacred mystery? No punishment is

great enough for your impiety. And the same fires, which were kindled for heretics, will serve also for the

We meet every day with people so sceptical with regard to history, that they assert it impossible for any

nation ever to believe such absurd principles as those of GREEK and EGYPTIAN paganism; and at the same

time so dogmatical with regard to religion, that they think the same absurdities are to be found in no other

communion. CAMBYSES entertained like prejudices; and very impiously ridiculed, and even wounded,

APIS, the great god of the EGYPTIANS, who appeared to his profane senses nothing but a large spotted bull.

But HERODOTUS judiciously ascribes this sally of passion to a real madness or disorder of the brain:

Otherwise, says the historian, he never would have openly affronted any established worship. For on that

head, continues he, every nation are best satisfied with their own, and think they have the advantage over

It must be allowed, that the ROMAN Catholics are a very learned sect; and that no one communion, but that

of the church of ENGLAND, can dispute their being the most learned of all the Christian churches: Yet

AVERROES, the famous ARABIAN, who, no doubt, had heard of the EGYPTIAN superstitions, declares,

that, of all religions, the most absurd and nonsensical is that, whose votaries eat, after having created, their

I believe, indeed, that there is no tenet in all paganism, which would give so fair a scope to ridicule as this of

the (real presence): For it is so absurd, that it eludes the force of all argument. There are even some pleasant

stories of that kind, which, though somewhat profane, are commonly told by the Catholics themselves. One

day, a priest, it is said, gave inadvertently, instead of the sacrament, a counter, which had by accident fallen

among the holy wafers. The communicant waited patiently for some time, expecting it would dissolve on his

tongue: But finding that it still remained entire, he took it off. (I wish), cried he to the priest, (you have not

committed some mistake: I wish you have not given me God the Father: He is so hard and tough there is no

A famous general, at that time in the MUSCOVITE service, having come to PARIS for the recovery of his

wounds, brought along with him a young TURK, whom he had taken prisoner. Some of the doctors of the

SORBONNE (who are altogether as positive as the dervises of CONSTANTINOPLE) thinking it a pity, that

the poor TURK should be damned for want of instruction, solicited MUSTAPHA very hard to turn Christian,

and promised him, for his encouragement, plenty of good wine in this world, and paradise in the next. These

allurements were too powerful to be resisted; and therefore, having been well instructed and catechized, he at

last agreed to receive the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper. The priest, however, to make every

thing sure and solid, still continued his instructions; and began the next day with the usual question, (How

many Gods are there? None at all), replies BENEDICT; for that was his new name. (How! None at all)! cries

the priest. (To be sure), said the honest proselyte. (You have told me all along that there is but one God: And

Such are the doctrines of our brethren the Catholics. But to these doctrines we are so accustomed, that we

never wonder at them: Though in a future age, it will probably become difficult to persuade some nations,

that any human, twolegged creature could ever embrace such principles. And it is a thousand to one, but

these nations themselves shall have something full as absurd in their own creed, to which they will give a

I lodged once at PARIS in the same (hotel) with an ambassador from TUNIS, who, having passed some years

at LONDON, was returning home that way. One day I observed his MOORISH excellency diverting himself

under the porch, with surveying the splendid equipages that drove along; when there chanced to pass that way

some (Capucin) friars, who had never seen a TURK; as he, on his part, though accustomed to the

EUROPEAN dresses, had never seen the grotesque figure of a (Capucin): And there is no expressing the

mutual admiration, with which they inspired each other. Had the chaplain of the embassy entered into a

dispute with these FRANCISCANS, their reciprocal surprize had been of the same nature. Thus all mankind

stand staring at one another; and there is no beating it into their heads, that the turban of the AFRICAN is not

just as good or as bad a fashion as the cowl of the EUROPEAN. (He is a very honest man), said the prince of

How can you worship leeks and onions? we shall suppose a SORBONNIST to say to a priest of SAIS. If we

worship them, replies the latter; at least, we do not, at the same time, eat them. But what strange objects of

adoration are cats and monkies? says the learned doctor. They are at least as good as the relics or rotten bones

of martyrs, answers his no less learned antagonist. Are you not mad, insists the Catholic, to cut one another's

throat about the preference of a cabbage or a cucumber? Yes, says the pagan; I allow it, if you will confess,

that those are still madder, who fight about the preference among volumes of sophistry, ten thousand of

Every bystander will easily judge (but unfortunately the by standers are few) that, if nothing were requisite

to establish any popular system, but exposing the absurdities of other systems, every votary of every

superstition could give a sufficient reason for his blind and bigotted attachment to the principles in which he

has been educated. But without so extensive a knowledge, on which to ground this assurance (and perhaps,

better without it), there is not wanting a sufficient stock of religious zeal and faith among mankind.

DIODORUS SICULUS[63] gives a remarkable instance to this purpose, of which he was himself an

eyewitness. While EGYPT lay under the greatest terror of the ROMAN name, a legionary soldier having

inadvertently been guilty of the sacrilegious impiety of killing a cat, the whole people rose upon him with the

utmost fury; and all the efforts of the prince were not able to save him. The senate and people of ROME, I am

persuaded, would not, then, have been so delicate with regard to their national deities. They very frankly, a

little after that time, voted AUGUSTUS a place in the celestial mansions; and would have dethroned every

god in heaven, for his sake, had he seemed to desire it. (Presens divus habebitur) AUGUSTUS, says

HORACE. That is a very important point: And in other nations and other ages, the same circumstance has not

Notwithstanding the sanctity of our holy religion, says TULLY,[65] no crime is more common with us than

sacrilege: But was it ever heard of, that an EGYPTIAN violated the temple of a cat, an ibis, or a crocodile?

There is no torture, an EGYPTIAN would not undergo, says the same author in another place,[66] rather than

injure an ibis, an aspic, a cat, a dog, or a crocodile. Thus it is strictly true, what DRYDEN observes,

Nay, the baser the materials are, of which the divinity is composed, the greater devotion is he likely to excite

in the breasts of his deluded votaries. They exult in their shame, and make a merit with their deity, in braving,

for his sake, all the ridicule and contumely of his enemies. Ten thousand Crusaders inlist themselves under

the holy banners; and even openly triumph in those parts of their religion, which their adversaries regard as

There occurs, I own, a difficulty in the EGYPTIAN system of theology; as indeed, few systems of that kind

are entirely free from difficulties. It is evident, from their method of propagation, that a couple of cats, in fifty

years, would stock a whole kingdom; and if that religious veneration were still paid them, it would, in twenty

more, not only be easier in EGYPT to find a god than a man, which PETRONIUS says was the case in some

parts of ITALY; but the gods must at last entirely starve the men, and leave themselves neither priests nor

votaries remaining. It is probable, therefore, that this wise nation, the most celebrated in antiquity for

prudence and sound policy, foreseeing such dangerous consequences, reserved all their worship for the

fullgrown divinities, and used the freedom to drown the holy spawn or little sucking gods, without any

scruple or remorse. And thus the practice of warping the tenets of religion, in order to serve temporal

interests, is not, by any means, to be regarded as an invention of these later ages.

The learned, philosophical VARRO, discoursing of religion, pretends not to deliver any thing beyond

probabilities and appearances: Such was his good sense and moderation! But the passionate, the zealous

AUGUSTIN, insults the noble ROMAN on his scepticism and reserve, and professes the most thorough

belief and assurance.[67] A heathen poet, however, contemporary with the saint, absurdly esteems the

religious system of the latter so false, that even the credulity of children, he says, could not engage them to

Is it strange, when mistakes are so common, to find every one positive and dogmatical? And that the zeal

often rises in proportion to the error? (Moverunt), says SPARTIAN, (et ea tempestate, Judaei bellum quod

If ever there was a nation or a time, in which the public religion lost all authority over mankind, we might

expect, that infidelity in ROME, during the CICERONIAN age, would openly have erected its throne, and

that CICERO himself, in every speech and action, would have been its most declared abettor. But it appears,

that, whatever sceptical liberties that great man might take, in his writings or in philosophical conversation;

he yet avoided, in the common conduct of life, the imputation of deism and profaneness. Even in his own

family, and to his wife TERENTIA, whom he highly trusted, he was willing to appear a devout religionist;

and there remains a letter, addressed to her, in which he seriously desires her to offer sacrifice to APOLLO

POMPEY'S devotion was much more sincere: In all his conduct, during the civil wars, he paid a great regard

to auguries, dreams, and prophesies.[71] AUGUSTUS was tainted with superstition of every kind. As it is

reported of MILTON, that his poetical genius never flowed with ease and abundance in the spring; so

AUGUSTUS observed, that his own genius for dreaming never was so perfect during that season, nor was so

much to be relied on, as during the rest of the year. That great and able emperor was also extremely uneasy,

when he happened to change his shoes, and put the right foot shoe on the left foot.[72] In short it cannot be

doubted, but the votaries of the established superstition of antiquity were as numerous in every state, as those

of the modern religion are at present. Its influence was as universal; though it was not so great. As many

people gave their assent to it; though that assent was not seemingly so strong, precise, and affirmative.

We may observe, that, notwithstanding the dogmatical, imperious style of all superstition, the conviction of

the religionist, in all ages, is more affected than real, and scarcely ever approaches, in any degree, to that

solid belief and persuasion, which governs us in the common affairs of life. Men dare not avow, even to their

own hearts, the doubts which they entertain on such subjects: They make a merit of implicit faith; and

disguise to themselves their real infidelity, by the strongest asseverations and most positive bigotry. But

nature is too hard for all their endeavours, and suffers not the obscure, glimmering light, afforded in those

shadowy regions, to equal the strong impressions, made by common sense and by experience. The usual

course of men's conduct belies their words, and shows, that their assent in these matters is some

unaccountable operation of the mind between disbelief and conviction, but approaching much nearer to the

Since, therefore, the mind of man appears of so loose and unsteady a texture, that, even at present, when so

many persons find an interest in continually employing on it the chissel and the hammer, yet are they not able

to engrave theological tenets with any lasting impression; how much more must this have been the case in

ancient times, when the retainers to the holy function were so much fewer in comparison? No wonder, that

the appearances were then very inconsistent, and that men, on some occasions, might seem determined

infidels, and enemies to the established religion, without being so in reality; or at least, without knowing their

Another cause, which rendered the ancient religions much looser than the modern, is, that the former were

(traditional) and the latter are (scriptural); and the tradition in the former was complex, contradictory, and, on

many occasions, doubtful; so that it could not possibly be reduced to any standard and canon, or afford any

determinate articles of faith. The stories of the gods were numberless like the popish legends; and though

every one, almost, believed a part of these stories, yet no one could believe or know the whole: While, at the

same time, all must have acknowledged, that no one part stood on a better foundation than the rest. The

traditions of different cities and nations were also, on many occasions, directly opposite; and no reason could

be assigned for preferring one to the other. And as there was an infinite number of stories, with regard to

which tradition was nowise positive; the gradation was insensible, from the most fundamental articles of

faith, to those loose and precarious fictions. The pagan religion, therefore, seemed 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 so absurd 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 dispositions of mind, some practices and opinions, which

To which we may add, that the fables of the pagan religion were, of themselves, light, easy, and familiar;

without devils, or seas of brimstone, or any object that could much terrify the imagination. Who could forbear

smiling, when he thought of the loves of MARS and VENUS, or the amorous frolics of JUPITER and PAN?

In this respect, 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

The inference is by no means just, that, because a system of religion has made no deep impression on the

minds of a people, it must therefore have been positively rejected by all men of common sense, and that

opposite principles, in spite of the prejudices of education, were generally established by argument and

reasoning. I know not, but a contrary inference may be more probable. The less importunate and assuming

any species of superstition appears, the less will it provoke men's spleen and indignation, or engage them into

enquiries concerning its foundation and origin. This in the mean time is obvious, that the empire of all

religious faith over the understanding is wavering and uncertain, subject to every variety of humour, and

dependent on the present incidents, which strike the imagination. The difference is only in the degrees. An

ancient will place a stroke of impiety and one of superstition alternately, throughout a whole discourse;[73] A

modern often thinks in the same way, though he may be more guarded in his expression.

LUCIAN tells us expressly,[74] that whoever believed not the most 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 satire against the national religion, had not that religion been

LIVY[75] acknowledges as frankly, as any divine would at present, the common incredulity of his age; but

then he condemns it as severely. And who can imagine, that a national superstition, which could delude so

The STOICS bestowed many magnificent and even impious epithets on their sage; that he alone was rich,

free, a king, and equal to the immortal gods. They forgot to add, that he was not inferior in prudence and

understanding to an old woman. For surely nothing can be more pitiful than the sentiments, which that sect

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 same

quarter. PANAETIUS was the only STOIC, among the GREEKS, who so much as doubted with regard to

auguries and divinations.[76] MARCUS ANTONINUS[77] tells us, that he himself had received many

admonitions from the gods in his sleep. It is true, EPICTETUS[78] 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 estate; which are circumstances, says he, that nowise concern us.

Thus the STOICS join a philosophical enthusiasm to a religious superstition. The force of their mind, being

PLATO[80] introduces SOCRATES affirming, that the accusation of impiety raised against him was owing

entirely to his rejecting such fables, as those of SATURN'S castrating his father URANUS, and JUPITER'S

dethroning SATURN: Yet in a subsequent dialogue,[81] SOCRATES confesses, that the doctrine of the

mortality of the soul was the received opinion of the people. Is there here any contradiction? Yes, surely: But

the contradiction is not in PLATO; it is in the people, whose religious principles in general are always

composed of the most discordant parts; especially in an age, when superstition sate so easy and light upon

The same CICERO, who affected, in his own family, to appear a devout religionist, 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.[83] SALLUST[84] represents CAESAR as speaking the same language in the open

But that all these freedoms implied not a total and universal infidelity and scepticism amongst the people, is

too apparent to be denied. Though some parts of the national religion hung loose upon the minds of men,

other parts adhered more closely to them: And it was the chief business of the sceptical philosophers to show,

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 system of mythology by leading the orthodox

gradually, from the more momentous stories, which were believed, to the more frivolous, which every one

ridiculed: From the gods to the goddesses; from the goddesses to the nymphs; from the nymphs to the fawns

and satyrs. His master, CARNEADES, had employed the same method of reasoning.[86]

Upon the whole, the greatest and most observable differences between a (traditional, mythological) religion,

and a (systematical, scholastic) one, are two: The former is often more reasonable, as consisting only of a

multitude of stories, which, however groundless, imply no express absurdity and demonstrative contradiction;

and sits also so easy and light on men's mind, that, though it may be as universally received, it happily makes

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

naturally be entertained of invisible, unknown powers, while men lie under dismal apprehensions of any kind,

may easily be conceived. Every image of vengeance, severity, cruelty, and malice must occur, and must

augment the ghastliness and horror, which oppresses the amazed religionist. A panic having once seized the

mind, the active fancy still farther multiplies the objects of terror; while that profound darkness, or, what is

worse, that glimmering light, with which we are environed, represents the spectres of divinity under the most

dreadful appearances imaginable. And no idea of perverse wickedness can be framed, which those terrified

This appears the natural state of religion, when surveyed in one light. But if we consider, on the other hand,

that spirit of praise and eulogy, which necessarily has place in all religions, and which is the consequence of

SECT. XIII. (Impious conceptions of the divine nature in popular religions of both kinds). 22

these very terrors, we must expect a quite contrary system of theology to prevail. Every virtue, every

excellence, must be ascribed to the divinity, and no exaggeration will be deemed sufficient to reach those

perfections, with which he is endowed. Whatever strains of panegyric can be invented, are immediately

embrace, without consulting any arguments or phaenomena: It is esteemed a sufficient confirmation of them,

that they give us more magnificent ideas of the divine objects 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 present the notion of a devilish and malicious deity: Our propensity to adulation

leads us to acknowledge an excellent and divine. And the influence of these opposite principles are various,

In very barbarous and ignorant nations, such as the AFRICANS and INDIANS, nay even the JAPONESE,

who can form no extensive ideas of power and knowledge, worship may be paid to a being, whom they

confess to be wicked and detestable; though they may be cautious, perhaps, of pronouncing this judgment of

him in public, or in his temple, where he may be supposed to hear their reproaches.

Such rude, imperfect ideas of the Divinity adhere long to all idolaters; and it may safely be affirmed, that the

GREEKS themselves never got entirely rid of them. It is remarked by XENOPHON,[87] in praise of

SOCRATES, that this philosopher assented not to the vulgar opinion, which supposed the gods to know some

things, and be ignorant of others: He maintained, that they knew every thing; what was done, said, or even

thought. But as this was a strain of philosophy[88] much above the conception of his countrymen, we need

not be surprised, if very frankly, in their books and conversation, they blamed the deities, whom they

worshipped in their temples. It is observable, that HERODOTUS in particular scruples not, in many passages,

to ascribe (envy) to the gods; a sentiment, of all others, the most suitable to a mean and devilish nature. The

pagan hymns, however, sung in public worship, contained nothing but epithets of praise; even while the

actions ascribed to the gods were the most barbarous and detestable. When TIMOTHEUS, the poet, recited a

hymn to DIANA, in which he enumerated, with the greatest eulogies, all the actions and attributes of that

cruel, capricious goddess: (May your daughter), said one present, (become such as the deity whom you

But as men farther exalt their idea of their divinity; it is their notion of his power and knowledge only, not of

his goodness, which is improved. On the contrary, in proportion to the supposed extent of his science and

authority, their terrors naturally augment; while they believe, that no secrecy can conceal them from his

scrutiny, and that even the inmost recesses of their breast lie open before him. They must then be careful not

to form expressly any sentiment of blame and disapprobation. All must be applause, ravishment, extacy. And

while their gloomy apprehensions make them ascribe to him measures of conduct, which, in human creatures,

would be highly blamed, they must still affect to praise and admire that conduct in the object of their

devotional addresses. Thus it may safely be affirmed, that popular religions are really, in the conception of

their more vulgar votaries, a species of daemonism; and the higher the deity is exalted in power and

knowledge, the lower of course is he depressed in goodness and benevolence; whatever epithets of praise

may be bestowed on him by his amazed adorers. Among idolaters, the words may be false, and belie the

secret opinion: But among more exalted religionists, the opinion itself contracts a kind of falsehood, and

belies the inward sentiment. The heart secretly defects such measures of cruel and implacable vengeance; but

the judgment dares not but pronounce them perfect and adorable. And the additional misery of this inward

struggle aggravates all the other terrors, by which these unhappy victims to superstition are for ever haunted.

LUCIAN[90] observes that a young man, who reads the history of the gods in HOMER or HESIOD, and

finds their factions, wars, injustice, incest, adultery, and other immoralities so highly celebrated, is much

surprised afterwards, when he comes into the world, to observe that punishments are by law inflicted on the

same actions, which he had been taught to ascribe to superior beings. The contradiction is still perhaps

stronger between the representations given us by some later religions and our natural ideas of generosity,

SECT. XIII. (Impious conceptions of the divine nature in popular religions of both kinds). 23

lenity, impartiality, and justice; and in proportion to the multiplied terrors of these religions, the barbarous

conceptions of the divinity are multiplied upon us.[91] Nothing can preserve untainted the genuine principles

of morals in our judgment of human conduct, but the absolute necessity of these principles to the existence of

society. If common conception can indulge princes in a system of ethics, somewhat different from that which

should regulate private persons; how much more those superior beings, whose attributes, views, and nature

are so totally unknown to us? (Sunt superis sua jura).[92] The gods have maxims of justice peculiar to

Here I cannot forbear observing a fact, which may be worth the attention of such as make human nature the

object of their enquiry. It is certain, that, in every religion, however sublime the verbal definition which it

gives of its divinity, many of the votaries, perhaps the greatest number, will still seek the divine favour, not

by virtue and good morals, which alone can be acceptable to a perfect being, but either by frivolous

observances, by intemperate zeal, by rapturous extasies, or by the belief of mysterious and absurd opinions.

The least part of the (Sadder), as well as of the (Pentateuch), consists in precepts of morality; and we may

also be assured, that that part was always the least observed and regarded. When the old ROMANS were

attacked with a pestilence, they never ascribed their sufferings to their vices, or dreamed of repentance and

amendment. They never thought, that they were the general robbers of the world, whose ambition and avarice

made desolate the earth, and reduced opulent nations to want and beggary. They only created a dictator,[93]

in order to drive a nail into a door; and by that means, they thought that they had sufficiently appeased their

In AEGINA, one faction forming a conspiracy, barbarously and treacherously assassinated seven hundred of

their fellow citizens; and carried their fury so far, that, one miserable fugitive having fled to the temple, they

cut off his hands, by which he clung to the gates, and carrying him out of holy ground, immediately murdered

him. (By this impiety), says HERODOTUS,[94] (not by the other many cruel assassinations) (they offended

Nay, if we should suppose, what never happens, that a popular religion were found, in which it was expressly

declared, that nothing but morality could gain the divine favour; if an order of priests were instituted to

inculcate this opinion, in daily sermons, and with all the arts of persuasion; yet so inveterate are the people's

prejudices, that, for want of some other superstition, they would make the very attendance on these sermons

the essentials of religion, rather than place them in virtue and good morals. The sublime prologue of

ZALEUCUS'S laws[95] inspired not the LOCRIANS, so far as we can learn, with any sounder notions of the

This observation, then, holds universally: But still one may be at some loss to account for it. It is sufficient to

observe, that the people, every where, degrade their deities into a similitude with themselves, and consider

them merely as a species of human creatures, somewhat more potent and intelligent. This will not remove the

difficulty. For there is no man so stupid, as that, judging by his natural reason, he would not esteem virtue

and honesty the most valuable qualities, which any person could possess. Why not ascribe the same sentiment

to his deity? Why not make all religion, or the chief part of it, to consist in these attainments?

Nor is it satisfactory to say, that the practice of morality is more difficult than that of superstition; and is

therefore rejected. For, not to mention the excessive pennances of the (Brachmans) and (Talapoins); it is

certain, that the (Rhamadan) of the TURKS, during which the poor wretches, for many days, often in the

hottest months of the year, and in some of the hottest climates of the world, remain without eating or drinking

from the rising to the setting sun; this (Rhamadan), I say, must be more severe than the practice of any moral

duty, even to the most vicious and depraved of mankind. The four lents of the MUSCOVITES, and the

austerities of some (Roman Catholics), appear more disagreeable than meekness and benevolence. In short,

all virtue, when men are reconciled to it by ever so little practice, is agreeable: All superstition is for ever

Perhaps, the following account may be received as a true solution of the difficulty. The duties, which a man

performs as a friend or parent, seem merely owing to his benefactor or children; nor can he be wanting to

these duties, without breaking through all the ties of nature and morality. A strong inclination may prompt

him to the performance: A sentiment of order and moral obligation joins its force to these natural ties: And

the whole man, if truly virtuous, is drawn to his duty, without any effort or endeavour. Even with regard to

the virtues, which are more austere, and more founded on reflection, such as public spirit, filial duty,

temperance, or integrity; the moral obligation, in our apprehension, removes all pretension to religious merit;

and the virtuous conduct is deemed no more than what we owe to society and to ourselves. In all this, a

superstitious man finds nothing, which he has properly performed for the sake of this deity, or which can

peculiarly recommend him to the divine favour and protection. He considers not, that the most genuine

method of serving the divinity is by promoting the happiness of his creatures. He still looks out for some

more immediate service of the supreme Being, in order to allay those terrors, with which he is haunted. And

any practice, recommended to him, which either serves to no purpose in life, or offers the strongest violence

to his natural inclinations; that practice he will the more readily embrace, on account of those very

circumstances, which should make him absolutely reject it. It seems the more purely religious, because it

proceeds from no mixture of any other motive or consideration. And if, for its sake, he sacrifices much of his

ease and quiet, his claim of merit appear still to rise upon him, in proportion to the zeal and devotion which

he discovers. In restoring a loan, or paying a debt, his divinity is nowise beholden to him; because these acts

of justice are what he was bound to perform, and what many would have performed, were there no god in the

universe. But if he fast a day, or give himself a sound whipping; this has a direct reference, in his opinion, to

the service of God. No other motive could engage him to such austerities. By these distinguished marks of

devotion, he has now acquired the divine favour; and may expect, in recompence, protection and safety in

Hence the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, compatible with a superstitious piety and

devotion: Hence, it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any certain inference in favour of a man's morals from

the fervour or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere. Nay, it has

been observed, that enormities of the blackest dye have been rather apt to produce superstitious terrors, and

encrease the religious passion. BOMILCAR, having formed a conspiracy for assassinating at once the whole

senate of CARTHAGE, and invading the liberties of his country, lost the opportunity, from a continual regard

to omens and prophecies. (Those who undertake the most criminal and most dangerous enterprizes are

commonly the most superstitious); as an ancient historian[96] remarks on this occasion. Their devotion and

spiritual faith rise with their fears. CATILINE was not contented with the established deities, and received

rites of the national religion: His anxious terrors made him seek new inventions of this kind;[97] which he

never probably had dreamed of, had he remained a good citizen, and obedient to the laws of his country.

To which we may add, that, after the commission of crimes, there arise remorses and secret horrors, which

give no rest to the mind, but make it have recourse to religious rites and ceremonies, as expiations of its

offences. Whatever weakens or disorders the internal frame promotes the interests of superstition: And

nothing is more destructive to them than a manly, steady virtue, which either preserves us from disastrous,

melancholy accidents, or teaches us to bear them. During such calm sunshine of the mind, these spectres of

false divinity never make their appearance. On the other hand, while we abandon ourselves to the natural

undisciplined suggestions of our timid and anxious hearts, every kind of barbarity is ascribed to the supreme

Being, from the terrors with which we are agitated; and every kind of caprice, from the methods which we

embrace in order to appease him. (Barbarity, caprice); these qualities, however nominally disguised, we may

universally observe, form the ruling character of the deity in popular religions. Even priests, instead of

correcting these depraved ideas of mankind, have often been found ready to foster and encourage them. The

more tremendous the divinity is represented, the more tame and submissive do men become to his ministers:

And the more unaccountable the measures of acceptance required by him, the more necessary does it become

to abandon our natural reason, and yield to their ghostly guidance and direction. Thus it may be allowed, that

the artifices of men aggravate our natural infirmities and follies of this kind, but never originally beget them.

Their root strikes deeper into the mind, and springs from the essential and universal properties of human

Though the stupidity of men, barbarous and uninstructed, be so great, that they may not see a sovereign

author in the more obvious works of nature, to which they are so much familiarized; yet it scarcely seems

possible, that any one of good understanding should reject that idea, when once it is suggested to him. A

purpose, an intention, a design is evident in every thing; and when our comprehension is so far enlarged as to

contemplate the first rise of this visible system, we must adopt, with the strongest conviction, the idea of

some intelligent cause or author. The uniform maxims too, which prevail throughout the whole frame of the

universe, naturally, if not necessarily, lead us to conceive this intelligence as single and undivided, where the

prejudices of education oppose not so reasonable a theory. Even the contrarieties of nature, by discovering

themselves every where, become proofs of some consistent plan, and establish one single purpose or

Good and ill are universally intermingled and confounded; happiness and misery, wisdom and folly, virtue

and vice. Nothing is pure and entirely of a piece. All advantages are attended with disadvantage. An universal

compensation prevails in all conditions of being and existence. And it is not possible for us, by our most

chimerical wishes, to form the idea of a station or situation altogether desirable. The draughts of life,

according to the poet's fiction, are always mixed from the vessels on each hand of JUPITER: Or if any cup be

presented altogether pure, it is drawn only, as the same poet tells us, from the lefthanded vessel.

The more exquisite any good is, of which a small specimen is afforded us, the sharper is the evil, allied to it;

and few exceptions are found to this uniform law of nature. The most sprightly wit borders on madness; the

highest effusions of joy produce the deepest melancholy; the most ravishing pleasures are attended with the

most cruel lassitude and disgust; the most flattering hopes make way for the severest disappointments. And,

in general, no course of life has such safety (for happiness is not to be dreamed of) as the temperate and

moderate, which maintains, as far as possible, a mediocrity, and a kind of insensibility, in every thing.

As the good, the great, the sublime, the ravishing are found eminently in the genuine principles of theism; it

may be expected, from the analogy of nature, that the base, the absurd, the mean, the terrifying will be

The universal propensity to believe in invisible, intelligent power, if not an original instinct, being at least a

general attendant of human nature, may be considered as a kind of mark or stamp, which the divine workman

has set upon his work; and nothing surely can more dignify mankind, than to be thus selected from all other

parts of the creation, and to bear the image or impression of the universal Creator. But consult this image, as

it appears in the popular religions of the world. How is the deity disfigured in our representations of him!

What caprice, absurdity, and immorality are attributed to him! How much is he degraded even below the

character, which we should naturally, in common life, ascribe to a man of sense and virtue!

What a noble privilege is it of human reason to attain the knowledge of the supreme Being; and, from the

visible works of nature, be enabled to infer so sublime a principle as its supreme Creator? But turn the reverse

of the medal. Survey most nations and most ages. Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact,

prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are any thing but sick men's dreams: Or

perhaps will regard them more as the playsome whimsies of monkies in human shape, than the serious,

positive, dogmatical asseverations of a being, who dignifies himself with the name of rational.

Hear the verbal protestations of all men: Nothing so certain as their religious tenets. Examine their lives: You

The greatest and truest zeal gives us no security against hypocrisy: The most open impiety is attended with a

No theological absurdities so glaring that they have not, sometimes, been embraced by men of the greatest

and most cultivated understanding. No religious precepts so rigorous that they have not been adopted by the

(Ignorance is the mother of Devotion): A maxim that is proverbial, and confirmed by general experience.

Look out for a people, entirely destitute of religion: If you find, them at all, be assured, that they are but few

What so pure as some of the morals, included in some theological system? What so corrupt as some of the

The comfortable views, exhibited by the belief or futurity, are ravishing and delightful. But how quickly

vanish on the appearance of its terrors, which keep a more firm and durable possession of the human mind?

The whole is a riddle, an aenigma, an inexplicable mystery. Doubt, uncertainty, suspence of judgment appear

the only result of our most accurate scrutiny, concerning this subject. But such is the frailty of human reason,

and such the irresistible contagion of opinion, that even this deliberate doubt could scarcely be upheld; did we

not enlarge our view, and opposing one species of superstition to another, set them a quarrelling; while we

ourselves, during their fury and contention, happily make our escape, into the calm, though obscure, regions

8. SECT. IV. (Deities not considered as creators or formers of the world)., page = 9

13. SECT. IX. (Comparison of these Religions, with regard to Persecution and Toleration.), page = 17

17. SECT. XIII. (Impious conceptions of the divine nature in popular religions of both kinds)., page = 25