hume, david - the natural history of religion

7/27/2019 Hume, David - The Natural History of Religion

1/46

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF RELIGION

David Hume

1757

5/1/95

Copyright 1995, James Fieser ([email protected]). See end note fordetails on copyright and editing conventions. This is a workingdraft; please report errors.[1]

Editor's Note: Hume's first appeared

in 1757 in a collection of essays titled . Thework may be topically divided into three parts. The first part(sections 1 and 4) argues that polytheism, and not monotheism, wasthe original religion of primitive humans. Monotheism was only alater development. The second part (sections 2-3, 5-8) establishesthe psychological principles which give rise to religious belief.His thesis is that natural instincts such as fear are the true causeof popular religious belief, and not rational argument. The thirdpart of this work (sections 9-15) compares various aspects ofpolytheism with monotheism showing that one is no more superior thanthe other. Both contain points of absurdity. From this he concludesthat we should suspend belief on the entire subject. The was published seven additional times during

Hume's life, each edition incorporating minor variations. Theposthumous 1777 edition is followed here, which includes Hume'sfinal alterations. Hume's bibliographical references to Greek andLatin classics have been expanded and clarified without brackets.Bibliographical references have not been expanded for thoseseventeenth and eighteenth-century works which have no moderneditions. For more detailed introductory comments and annotations tothis text, see , (New York:MacMillan, 1992).

* * * *

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF RELIGION


2/46

INTRODUCTION

As every enquiry, which regards religion, is of the utmostimportance, there are two questions in particular, which challengeour attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, andthat concerning its origin in human nature. Happily, the firstquestion, which is the most important, admits of the most obvious,at least, the clearest solution. The whole frame of nature bespeaksan intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after seriousreflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primaryprinciples of genuine Theism and Religion. But the other question,concerning the origin of religion in human nature, is exposed tosome more difficulty. The belief of invisible, intelligent power hasbeen very generally diffused over the human race, in all places andin all ages; but it has neither perhaps been so universal as toadmit of no exception, nor has it been, in any degree, uniform inthe ideas, which it has suggested. Some nations have beendiscovered, who entertained no sentiments of Religion, if travellersand historians may be credited; and no two nations, and scarce anytwo men, have ever agreed precisely in the same sentiments. It wouldappear, therefore, that this preconception springs not from an

original instinct or primary impression of nature, such as givesrise to self-love, affection between the sexes, love of progeny,gratitude, resentment; since every instinct of this kind has beenfound absolutely universal in all nations and ages, and has always aprecise determinate object, which it inflexibly pursues. The firstreligious principles must be secondary; such as may easily beperverted by various accidents and causes, and whose operation too,in some cases, may, by an extraordinary concurrence ofcircumstances, be altogether prevented. What those principles are,which give rise to the original belief, and what those accidents andcauses are, which direct its operation, is the subject of ourpresent enquiry.

S/ECT\. I. .

It appears to me, that, if we consider the improvement of humansociety, from rude beginnings to a state of greater perfection,polytheism or idolatry was, and necessarily must have been, thefirst and most ancient religion of mankind. This opinion I shallendeavour to confirm by the following arguments.

It is a matter of fact incontestable, that about 1700 years agoall mankind were polytheists. The doubtful and sceptical principlesof 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 upinto antiquity, the more do we find mankind plunged into polytheism.No marks, no symptoms of any more perfect religion. The most ancientrecords of human race still present us with that system as thepopular and established creed. The north, the south, the east, thewest, give their unanimous testimony to the same fact. What can beopposed to so full an evidence?

As far as writing or history reaches, mankind, in ancient


3/46

times, appear universally to have been polytheists. Shall we assert,that, in more ancient times, before the knowledge of letters, or thediscovery of any art or science, men entertained the principles ofpure theism? That is, while they were ignorant and barbarous, theydiscovered truth: But fell into error, as soon as they acquiredlearning and politeness.

But in this assertion you not only contradict all appearance ofprobability, but also our present experience concerning theprinciples and opinions of barbarous nations. The savage tribes ofA/MERICA\, A/FRICA\, and A/SIA\ are all idolaters. Not a singleexception to this rule. Insomuch, that, were a traveller totransport himself into any unknown region; if he found inhabitantscultivated with arts and science, though even upon that suppositionthere are odds against their being theists, yet could he not safely,till farther inquiry, pronounce any thing on that head: But if hefound them ignorant and barbarous, he might beforehand declare themidolaters; and there scarcely is a possibility of his beingmistaken.

It seems certain, that, according to the natural progress ofhuman thought, the ignorant multitude must first entertain somegroveling and familiar notion of superior powers, before theystretch their conception to that perfect Being, who bestowed order

on the whole frame of nature. We may as reasonably imagine, that meninhabited palaces before huts and cottages, or studied geometrybefore agriculture; as assert that the Deity appeared to them a purespirit, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, before he wasapprehended to be a powerful, though limited being, with humanpassions and appetites, limbs and organs. The mind rises gradually,from inferior to superior: By abstracting from what is imperfect, itforms an idea of perfection: And slowly distinguishing the noblerparts of its own frame from the grosser, it learns to transfer onlythe former, much elevated and refined, to its divinity. Nothingcould disturb this natural progress of thought, but some obvious andinvincible argument, which might immediately lead the mind into thepure principles of theism, and make it overleap, at one bound, the

vast interval which is interposed between the human and the divinenature. But though I allow, that the order and frame of theuniverse, when accurately examined, affords such an argument; yet Ican never think, that this consideration could have an influence onmankind, when they formed their first rude notions of religion.

The causes of such objects, as are quite familiar to us, neverstrike our attention or curiosity; and however extraordinary orsurprising these objects in themselves, they are passed over, by theraw and ignorant multitude, without much examination or enquiry.A/DAM\, rising at once, in paradise, and in the full perfection ofhis faculties, would naturally, as represented by M/ILTON\, beastonished 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, necessitousanimal (such as a man is on the first origin of society), pressed bysuch numerous wants and passions, has no leisure to admire theregular face of nature, or make enquiries concerning the cause ofthose objects, to which from his infancy he has been graduallyaccustomed. 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 monstrousbirth excites his curiosity, and is deemed a prodigy. It alarms him


4/46

from its novelty; and immediately sets him a trembling, andsacrificing, and praying. But an animal, compleat in all its limbsand organs, is to him an ordinary spectacle, and produces noreligious 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 hiscuriosity, and set the objects at such a distance, that he entirelyloses sight of them. Imagine not, that he will so much as start thequestion, whence the first animal; much less, whence the wholesystem or united fabric of the universe arose. Or, if you start sucha question to him, expect not, that he will employ his mind with anyanxiety about a subject, so remote, so uninteresting, and which somuch exceeds the bounds of his capacity.

But farther, if men were at first led into the belief of oneSupreme Being, by reasoning from the frame of nature, they couldnever possibly leave that belief, in order to embrace polytheism;but the same principles of reason, which at first produced anddiffused over mankind, so magnificent an opinion, must be able, withgreater facility, to preserve it. The first invention and proof ofany doctrine is much more difficult than the supporting andretaining of it.

There is a great difference between historical facts and

speculative opinions; nor is the knowledge of the one propagated inthe same manner with that of the other. An historical fact, while itpasses by oral tradition from eye-witnesses and contemporaries, isdisguised in every successive narration, and may at last retain butvery small, if any, resemblance of the original truth, on which itwas founded. The frail memories of men, their love of exaggeration,their supine carelessness; these principles, if not corrected bybooks and writing, soon pervert the account of historical events;where argument or reasoning has little or no place, nor can everrecal the truth, which has once escaped those narrations. It is thusthe fables of H/ERCULES\, T/HESEUS\, B/ACCHUS\ are supposed to havebeen originally founded in true history, corrupted by tradition. Butwith regard to speculative opinions, the case is far otherwise. If

these opinions be founded on arguments so clear and obvious as tocarry conviction with the generality of mankind, the same arguments,which at first diffused the opinions, will still preserve them intheir original purity. If the arguments be more abstruse, and moreremote from vulgar apprehension, the opinions will always beconfined to a few persons; and as soon as men leave thecontemplation of the arguments, the opinions will immediately belost and be buried in oblivion. Whichever side of this dilemma wetake, 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 varioussuperstitions of the heathen world. Reason, when obvious, preventsthese corruptions: When abstruse, it keeps the principles entirely

from the knowledge of the vulgar, who are alone liable to corruptany principle or opinion.

S/ECT\. II. .

If we would, therefore, indulge our curiosity, in enquiringconcerning the origin of religion, we must turn our thoughts towardspolytheism, the primitive religion of uninstructed mankind.


5/46

Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligentpower by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could neverpossibly entertain any conception but of one single being, whobestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted allits parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. Forthough, to persons of a certain turn of mind, it may not appearaltogether absurd, that several independent beings, endowed withsuperior wisdom, might conspire in the contrivance and execution ofone regular plan; yet is this a merely arbitrary supposition, which,even if allowed possible, must be confessed neither to be supportedby probability nor necessity. All things in the universe areevidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. Onedesign prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads themind to acknowledge one author; because the conception of differentauthors, without any distinction of attributes or operations, servesonly to give perplexity to the imagination, without bestowing anysatisfaction on the understanding. The statue of L/AOCOON\, as welearn from P/LINY\, was the work of three artists: But it iscertain, that, were we not told so, we should never have imagined,that a groupe of figures, cut from one stone, and united in oneplan, was not the work and contrivance of one statuary. To ascribeany single effect to the combination of several causes, is notsurely a natural and obvious supposition.

On the other hand, if, leaving the works of nature, we tracethe footsteps of invisible power in the various and contrary eventsof human life, we are necessarily led into polytheism and to theacknowledgment of several limited and imperfect deities. Storms andtempests ruin what is nourished by the sun. The sun destroys what isfostered by the moisture of dews and rains. War may be favourable toa nation, whom the inclemency of the seasons afflicts with famine.Sickness and pestilence may depopulate a kingdom, amidst the mostprofuse plenty. The same nation is not, at the same time, equallysuccessful by sea and by land. And a nation, which now triumphs overits enemies, may anon submit to their more prosperous arms. Inshort, 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, wemust acknowledge a contrariety in their designs and intentions, aconstant combat of opposite powers, and a repentance or change ofintention in the same power, from impotence or levity. Each nationhas its tutelar deity. Each element is subjected to its invisiblepower or agent. The province of each god is separate from that ofanother. Nor are the operations of the same god always certain andinvariable. To-day he protects: To-morrow he abandons us. Prayersand sacrifices, rites and ceremonies, well or ill performed, are thesources of his favour or enmity, and produce all the good or illfortune, which are to be found amongst mankind.

We may conclude, therefore, that, in all nations, which haveembraced polytheism, the first ideas of religion arose not from acontemplation of the works of nature, but from a concern with regardto the events of life, and from the incessant hopes and fears, whichactuate the human mind. Accordingly, we find, that all idolaters,having separated the provinces of their deities, have recourse tothat invisible agent, to whose authority they are immediatelysubjected, and whose province it is to superintend that course ofactions, in which they are, at any time, engaged. J/UNO\ is invokedat marriages; L/UCINA\ at births. N/EPTUNE\ receives the prayers of


6/46

seamen; and M/ARS\ of warriors. The husbandman cultivates his fieldunder the protection of C/ERES\; and the merchant acknowledges theauthority of M/ERCURY\. Each natural event is supposed to begoverned by some intelligent agent; and nothing prosperous oradverse can happen in life, which may not be the subject of peculiarprayers or thanksgivings.[2]

It must necessarily, indeed, be allowed, that, in order tocarry men's attention beyond the present course of things, or leadthem into any inference concerning invisible intelligent power, theymust be actuated by some passion, which prompts their thought andreflection; some motive, which urges their first enquiry. But whatpassion shall we here have recourse to, for explaining an effect ofsuch mighty consequence? Not speculative curiosity surely, or thepure love of truth. That motive is too refined for such grossapprehensions; and would lead men into enquiries concerning theframe of nature, a subject too large and comprehensive for theirnarrow capacities. No passions, therefore, can be supposed to workupon such barbarians, but the ordinary affections of human life; theanxious concern for happiness, the dread of future misery, theterror of death, the thirst of revenge, the appetite for food andother 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 stillmore disordered and astonished, they see the first obscure traces ofdivinity.

S/ECT\. III. .

We are placed in this world, as in a great theatre, where thetrue springs and causes of every event are entirely concealed fromus; nor have we either sufficient wisdom to foresee, or power toprevent those ills, with which we are continually threatened. Wehang in perpetual suspence between life and death, health and

sickness, plenty and want; which are distributed amongst the humanspecies by secret and unknown causes, whose operation is oftunexpected, and always unaccountable. These , then,become the constant object of our hope and fear; and while thepassions are kept in perpetual alarm by an anxious expectation ofthe events, the imagination is equally employed in forming ideas ofthose powers, on which we have so entire a dependance. Could menanatomize nature, according to the most probable, at least the mostintelligible philosophy, they would find, that these causes arenothing but the particular fabric and structure of the minute partsof their own bodies and of external objects; and that, by a regularand constant machinery, all the events are produced, about whichthey are so much concerned. But this philosophy exceeds the

comprehension of the ignorant multitude, who can only conceive the in a general and confused manner; though theirimagination, perpetually employed on the same subject, must labourto form some particular and distinct idea of them. The more theyconsider these causes themselves, and the uncertainty of theiroperation, the less satisfaction do they meet with in theirresearches; and, however unwilling, they must at last have abandonedso arduous an attempt, were it not for a propensity in human nature,which leads into a system, that gives them some satisfaction.


7/46

There is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive allbeings like themselves, and to transfer to every object, thosequalities, with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of whichthey are intimately conscious. We find human faces in the moon,armies in the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not correctedby experience and reflection, ascribe malice or good- will to everything, that hurts or pleases us. Hence the frequency and beauty ofthe in poetry; where trees, mountains and streams arepersonified, and the inanimate parts of nature acquire sentiment andpassion. And though these poetical figures and expressions gain noton the belief, they may serve, at least, to prove a certain tendencyin the imagination, without which they could neither be beautifulnor natural. Nor is a river-god or hamadryad always taken for a merepoetical or imaginary personage; but may sometimes enter into thereal creed of the ignorant vulgar; while each grove or field isrepresented as possessed of a particular or invisiblepower, which inhabits and protects it. Nay, philosophers cannotentirely exempt themselves from this natural frailty; but have oftascribed to inanimate matter the horror of a , sympathies,antipathies, and other affections of human nature. The absurdity isnot less, while we cast our eyes upwards; and transferring, as istoo usual, human passions and infirmities to the deity, representhim as jealous and revengeful, capricious and partial, and, inshort, a wicked and foolish man, in every respect but his superior

power and authority. No wonder, then, that mankind, being placed insuch an absolute ignorance of causes, and being at the same time soanxious concerning their future fortune, should immediatelyacknowledge a dependence on invisible powers, possessed of sentimentand intelligence. The , which continually employtheir thought, appearing always in the same aspect, are allapprehended to be of the same kind or species. Nor is it long beforewe ascribe to them thought and reason and passion, and sometimeseven the limbs and figures of men, in order to bring them nearer toa resemblance with ourselves.

In proportion as any man's course of life is governed byaccident, we always find, that he encreases in superstition; as may

particularly be observed of gamesters and sailors, who, though, ofall mankind, the least capable of serious reflection, abound most infrivolous and superstitious apprehensions. The gods, saysC/ORIOLANUS\ in D/IONYSIUS\,[3] have an influence in every affair;but above all, in war; where the event is so uncertain. All humanlife, especially before the institution of order and goodgovernment, being subject to fortuitous accidents; it is natural,that superstition should prevail every where in barbarous ages, andput men on the most earnest enquiry concerning those invisiblepowers, who dispose of their happiness or misery. Ignorant ofastronomy and the anatomy of plants and animals, and too littlecurious to observe the admirable adjustment of final causes; theyremain 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 ideais too big for their narrow conceptions, which can neither observethe beauty of the work, nor comprehend the grandeur of its author.They suppose their deities, however potent and invisible, to benothing but a species of human creatures, perhaps raised from amongmankind, and retaining all human passions and appetites, togetherwith corporeal limbs and organs. Such limited beings, though mastersof human fate, being, each of them, incapable of extending hisinfluence every where, must be vastly multiplied, in order to answer


8/46

that variety of events, which happen over the whole face of nature.Thus every place is stored with a crowd of local deities; and thuspolytheism has prevailed, and still prevails, among the greatestpart of uninstructed mankind.[4]

Any of the human affections may lead us into the notion ofinvisible, intelligent power; hope as well as fear, gratitude aswell as affliction: But if we examine our own hearts, or observewhat passes around us, we shall find, that men are much oftenerthrown on their knees by the melancholy than by the agreeablepassions. Prosperity is easily received as our due, and fewquestions are asked concerning its cause or author. It begetscheerfulness and activity and alacrity and a lively enjoyment ofevery social and sensual pleasure: And during this state of mind,men have little leisure or inclination to think of the unknowninvisible regions. On the other hand, every disastrous accidentalarms us, and sets us on enquiries concerning the principles whenceit arose: Apprehensions spring up with regard to futurity: And themind, sunk into diffidence, terror, and melancholy, has recourse toevery method of appeasing those secret intelligent powers, on whomour fortune is supposed entirely to depend.

No topic is more usual with all popular divines than to displaythe advantages of affliction, in bringing men to a due sense of

religion; by subduing their confidence and sensuality, which, intimes of prosperity, make them forgetful of a divine providence. Noris this topic confined merely to modern religions. The ancients havealso employed it. , saysa G/REEK\ historian,[5] .

What age or period of life is the most addicted tosuperstition? The weakest and most timid. What sex? The same answermust be given. , says S/TRABO\,[6] G/ETES\, . A method of reasoning,which would lead us to entertain a bad idea of the devotion ofmonks; did we not know by an experience, not so common, perhaps, inS/TRABO'S\ days, that one may practise celibacy, and professchastity; and yet maintain the closest connexions and most entiresympathy with that timorous and pious sex.

S/ECT\. IV. .

The only point of theology, in which we shall find a consent ofmankind almost universal, is, that there is invisible, intelligentpower in the world: But whether this power be supreme orsubordinate, whether confined to one being; or distributed among


9/46

several, what attributes, qualities, connexions, or principles ofaction ought to be ascribed to those beings, concerning all thesepoints, there is the widest difference in the popular systems oftheology. Our ancestors in E/UROPE\, before the revival of letters,believed, as we do at present, that there was one supreme God, theauthor of nature, whose power, though in itself uncontroulable, wasyet often exerted by the interposition of his angels and subordinateministers, 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 throneof God. Now, suppose, that any one, in those ages, had denied theexistence of God and of his angels; would not his impiety justlyhave deserved the appellation of atheism, even though he had stillallowed, by some odd capricious reasoning, that the popular storiesof elves and fairies were just and well-grounded? The difference, onthe one hand, between such a person and a genuine theist isinfinitely greater than that, on the other, between him and one thatabsolutely excludes all invisible intelligent power. And it is afallacy, merely from the casual resemblance of names, without anyconformity of meaning, to rank such opposite opinions under the samedenomination.

To any one, who considers justly of the matter, it will appear,

that the gods of all polytheists are no better than the elves orfairies of our ancestors, and merit as little any pious worship orveneration. These pretended religionists are really a kind ofsuperstitious atheists, and acknowledge no being, that correspondsto our idea of a deity. No first principle of mind or thought: Nosupreme government and administration: No divine contrivance orintention in the fabric of the world.

The C/HINESE\, when[7] their prayers are not answered, beattheir idols. The deities of the L/APLANDERS\ are any large stonewhich they meet with of an extraordinary shape.[8] The E/GYPTIAN\mythologists, in order to account for animal worship, said, that thegods, pursued by the violence of earth-born men, who were their

enemies, had formerly been obliged to disguise themselves under thesemblance of beasts.[9] The C/AUNII\, a nation in the Lesser A/SIA\,resolving to admit no strange gods among them, regularly, at certainseasons, assembled themselves compleatly armed, beat the air withtheir lances, and proceeded in that manner to their frontiers; inorder, as they said, to expel the foreign deities.[10] , said some G/ERMAN\ nations to C/AESAR\, S/UEVIS\.[11]

Many ills, says D/IONE\ in H/OMER\ to V/ENUS\ wounded byD/IOMEDE\, many ills, my daughter, have the gods inflicted on men:And many ills, in return, have men inflicted on the gods.[12] Weneed but open any classic author to meet with these gross

representations of the deities; and L/ONGINUS\[13] with reasonobserves, that such ideas of the divine nature, if literally taken,contain a true atheism.

Some writers[14] have been surprized, that the impieties ofA/RISTOPHANES\ should have been tolerated, nay publicly acted andapplauded by the A/THENIANS\; a people so superstitious and sojealous of the public religion, that, at that very time, they putS/OCRATES\ to death for his imagined incredulity. But these writersdo not consider, that the ludicrous, familiar images, under which


10/46

the gods are represented by that comic poet, instead of appearingimpious, were the genuine lights in which the ancients conceivedtheir divinities. What conduct can be more criminal or mean, thanthat of J/UPITER\ in the A/MPHITRION\? Yet that play, whichrepresented his gallante exploits, was supposed so agreeable to him,that it was always acted in ROME by public authority, when the statewas threatened with pestilence, famine, or any general calamity.[15]The R/OMANS\ supposed, that, like all old letchers, he would behighly pleased with the recital of his former feats of prowess andvigour, and that no topic was so proper, upon which to flatter hisvanity.

The L/ACEDEMONIANS\, says X/ENOPHON\,[16] always, during war,put up their petitions very early in the morning, in order to bebeforehand with their enemies, and, by being the first solicitors,pre-engage the gods in their favour. We may gather fromS/ENECA\,[17] that it was usual, for the votaries in the temples, tomake interest with the beadle or sexton, that they might have a seatnear the image of the deity, in order to be the best heard in theirprayers and applications to him. The T/YRIANS\, when besieged byA/LEXANDER\, threw chains on the statue of H/ERCULES\, to preventthat deity from deserting to the enemy.[18] A/UGUSTUS\, having twicelost his fleet by storms, forbad N/EPTUNE\ to be carried inprocession along with the other gods; and fancied, that he had

sufficiently revenged himself by that expedient.[19] AfterG/ERMANICUS'S\ death, the people were so enraged at their gods, thatthey stoned them in their temples; and openly renounced allallegiance to them.[20]

To ascribe the origin and fabric of the universe to theseimperfect beings never enters into the imagination of any polytheistor idolater. H/ESIOD\, whose writings, with those of H/OMER\,contained the canonical system of the heathens;[21] H/ESIOD\, I say,supposes gods and men to have sprung equally from the unknown powersof nature.[22] And throughout the whole theogony of that author,P/ANDORA\ is the only instance of creation or a voluntaryproduction; and she too was formed by the gods merely from despight

to P/ROMETHEUS\, who had furnished men with stolen fire from thecelestial regions.[23] The ancient mythologists, indeed, seemthroughout to have rather embraced the idea of generation than thatof creation or formation; and to have thence accounted for theorigin of this universe.

O/VID\, who lived in a learned age, and had been instructed byphilosophers in the principles of a divine creation or formation ofthe world; finding, that such an idea would not agree with thepopular mythology, which he delivers, leaves it, in a manner, looseand detached from his system. [24]Whichever of the gods it was, says he, that dissipated the chaos,and introduced order into the universe. It could neither be

S/ATURN\, he knew, nor J/UPITER\, nor N/EPTUNE\, nor any of thereceived deities of paganism. His theological system had taught himnothing upon that head; and he leaves the matter equallyundetermined.

D/IODORUS\ S/ICULUS\,[25] beginning his work with anenumeration of the most reasonable opinions concerning the origin ofthe world, makes no mention of a deity or intelligent mind; thoughit is evident from his history, that he was much more prone tosuperstition than to irreligion. And in another passage,[26] talking


11/46

of the I/CHTHYOPHAGI\, a nation in I/NDIA\, he says, that, therebeing so great difficulty in accounting for their descent, we mustconclude them to be , without any beginning of theirgeneration, propagating their race from all eternity; as some of thephysiologers, in treating of the origin of nature, have justlyobserved. "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 speciousappearance of truth in their reasonings, while extremely wide of thereal truth and matter of fact."

A strange sentiment in our eyes, to be embraced by a professedand zealous religionist![27] But it was merely by accident, that thequestion concerning the origin of the world did ever in ancienttimes enter into religious systems, or was treated of by theologers.The philosophers alone made profession of delivering systems of thiskind; and it was pretty late too before these bethought themselvesof having recourse to a mind or supreme intelligence, as the firstcause of all. So far was it from being esteemed profane in thosedays to account for the origin of things without a deity, thatT/HALES\, A/NAXIMENES\, H/ERACLITUS\, and others, who embraced thatsystem of cosmogony, past unquestioned; while A/NAXAGORAS\, thefirst undoubted theist among the philosophers, was perhaps the firstthat ever was accused of atheism.[28]

We are told by S/EXTUS\ E/MPIRICUS\,[29] that E/PICURUS\, whena boy, reading with his preceptor these verses of H/ESIOD\,

Eldest of beings, first arose;

Next , wide-stretch'd, the of all:the young scholar first betrayed his inquisitive genius, by asking, But was told by his preceptor, that he must haverecourse to the philosophers for a solution of such questions. Andfrom this hint E/PICURUS\ left philology and all other studies, inorder to betake himself to that science, whence alone he expectedsatisfaction with regard to these sublime subjects.

The common people were never likely to push their researches sofar, or derive from reasoning their systems of religion; whenphilologers and mythologists, we see, scarcely ever discovered somuch penetration. And even the philosophers, who discoursed of suchtopics, readily assented to the grossest theory, and admitted thejoint origin of gods and men from night and chaos; from fire, water,air, or whatever they established to be the ruling element.

Nor was it only on their first origin, that the gods weresupposed dependent on the powers of nature. Throughout the wholeperiod of their existence they were subjected to the dominion offate or destiny. , says A/GRIPPA\

to the R/OMAN\ people, .[30] And the Younger P/LINY\,[31] agreeably to this way ofthinking, tells us, that amidst the darkness, horror, and confusion,which ensued upon the first eruption of V/ESUVIUS\, severalconcluded, that all nature was going to wrack, and that gods and menwere perishing in one common ruin.

It is great complaisance, indeed, if we dignify with the nameof religion such an imperfect system of theology, and put it on alevel with later systems, which are founded on principles more just


12/46

and more sublime. For my part, I can scarcely allow the principleseven of M/ARCUS\ A/URELIUS\, P/LUTARCH\, and some other and, though much more refined than the pagan superstition,to be worthy of the honourable appellation of theism. For if themythology of the heathens resemble the ancient E/UROPEAN\ system ofspiritual beings, excluding God and angels, and leaving only fairiesand sprights; the creed of these philosophers may justly be said toexclude a deity, and to leave only angels and fairies.

S/ECT\. V. .

But it is chiefly our present business to consider the grosspolytheism of the vulgar, and to trace all its various appearances,in the principles of human nature, whence they are derived.

Whoever learns by argument, the existence of invisibleintelligent power, must reason from the admirable contrivance ofnatural objects, and must suppose the world to be the workmanship ofthat divine being, the original cause of all things. But the vulgarpolytheist, so far from admitting that idea, deifies every part ofthe universe, and conceives all the conspicuous productions ofnature, to be themselves so many real divinities. The sun, moon, and

stars, are all gods according to his system: Fountains are inhabitedby nymphs, and trees by hamadryads: Even monkies, dogs, cats, andother animals often become sacred in his eyes, and strike him with areligious veneration. And thus, however strong men's propensity tobelieve invisible, intelligent power in nature, their propensity isequally strong to rest their attention on sensible, visible objects;and in order to reconcile these opposite inclinations, they are ledto unite the invisible power with some visible object.

The distribution also of distinct provinces to the severaldeities is apt to cause some allegory, both physical and moral, toenter into the vulgar systems of polytheism. The god of war willnaturally 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. Theallegories, supposed in H/OMER\ and other mythologists, I allow,have often been so strained, that men of sense are apt entirely toreject them, and to consider them as the production merely of thefancy and conceit of critics and commentators. But that allegoryreally has place in the heathen mythology is undeniable even on theleast reflection. C/UPID\ the son of V/ENUS\; the Muses thedaughters of Memory; P/ROMETHEUS\, the wise brother, andE/PIMETHEUS\ the foolish; H/YGIEIA\ or the goddess of healthdescended from AE/SCULAPIUS\ or the god of physic: Who sees not, inthese, 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 andinfluence; and to carry on that similitude and comparison, which isnaturally so agreeable to the mind of man.

Allegories, indeed, entirely perfect, we ought not to expect asthe productions of ignorance and superstition; there being no workof genius that requires a nicer hand, or has been more rarelyexecuted with success. That and are the sons ofM/ARS\ is just; but why by V/ENUS\?[32] That is the


13/46

daughter of V/ENUS\ is regular; but why by M/ARS\?[33] That is the brother of is suitable; but why describe him asenamoured of one of the Graces?[34] And since the ancientmythologists fall into mistakes so gross and palpable, we have noreason surely to expect such refined and long-spun allegories, assome have endeavoured to deduce from their fictions.

L/UCRETIUS\ was plainly seduced by the strong appearance ofallegory, which is observable in the pagan fictions. He firstaddresses himself to V/ENUS\ as to that generating power, whichanimates, renews, and beautifies the universe: But is soon betrayedby the mythology into incoherencies, while he prays to thatallegorical personage to appease the furies of her lover M/ARS\; Anidea not drawn from allegory, but from the popular religion, andwhich L/UCRETIUS\, as an E/PICUREAN\, could not consistently admitof.

The deities of the vulgar are so little superior to humancreatures, that, where men are affected with strong sentiments ofveneration or gratitude for any hero or public benefactor, nothingcan be more natural than to convert him into a god, and fill theheavens, after this manner, with continual recruits from amongmankind. Most of the divinities of the ancient world are supposed tohave once been men, and to have been beholden for their

to the admiration and affection of the people. The real history oftheir adventures, corrupted by tradition, and elevated by themarvellous, become a plentiful source of fable; especially inpassing through the hands of poets, allegorists, and priests, whosuccessively improved upon the wonder and astonishment of theignorant multitude.

Painters too and sculptors came in for their share of profit inthe sacred mysteries; and furnishing men with sensiblerepresentations of their divinities, whom they cloathed in humanfigures, gave great encrease to the public devotion, and determinedits object. It was probably for want of these arts in rude andbarbarous ages, that men deified plants, animals, and even brute,

unorganized matter; and rather than be without a sensible object ofworship, affixed divinity to such ungainly forms. Could any statuaryof S/YRIA\, in early times, have formed a just figure of A/POLLO\,the conic stone, H/ELIOGABALUS\, had never become the object of suchprofound adoration, and been received as a representation of thesolar deity.[35]

S/TILPO\ was banished by the council of A/REOPAGUS\, foraffirming that the M/INERVA\ in the citadel was no divinity; but theworkmanship of P/HIDIAS\, the sculptor.[36] What degree of reasonmust we expect in the religious belief of the vulgar in othernations; when A/THENIANS\ and A/REOPAGITES\ could entertain suchgross conceptions?

These then are the general principles of polytheism, founded inhuman nature, and little or nothing dependent on caprice andaccident. As the , which bestow happiness or misery, are, ingeneral, very little known and very uncertain, our anxious concernendeavours to attain a determinate idea of them; and finds no betterexpedient than to represent them as intelligent voluntary agents,like ourselves; only somewhat superior in power and wisdom. Thelimited influence of these agents, and their great proximity tohuman weakness, introduce the various distribution and division of


14/46

their authority; and thereby give rise to allegory. The sameprinciples naturally deify mortals, superior in power, courage, orunderstanding, and produce hero- worship; together with fabuloushistory and mythological tradition, in all its wild andunaccountable forms. And as an invisible spiritual intelligence isan object too refined for vulgar apprehension, men naturally affixit to some sensible representation; such as either the moreconspicuous parts of nature, or the statues, images, and pictures,which a more refined age forms of its divinities.

Almost all idolaters, of whatever age or country, concur inthese general principles and conceptions; and even the particularcharacters and provinces, which they assign to their deities, arenot extremely different.[37] The G/REEK\ and R/OMAN\ travellers andconquerors, without much difficulty, found their own deities everywhere; and said, This is M/ERCURY\, that V/ENUS\; this M/ARS\, thatN/EPTUNE\; by whatever title the strange gods might be denominated.The goddess H/ERTHA\ of our S/AXON\ ancestors seems to be no other,according to T/ACITUS\,[38] than the of the R/OMANS\;and his conjecture was evidently just.

S/ECT\. VI. .

The doctrine of one supreme deity, the author of nature, isvery ancient, has spread itself over great and populous nations, andamong them has been embraced by all ranks and conditions of men: Butwhoever thinks that it has owed its success to the prevalent forceof those invincible reasons, on which it is undoubtedly founded,would show himself little acquainted with the ignorance andstupidity of the people, and their incurable prejudices in favour oftheir particular superstitions. Even at this day, and in E/UROPE\,ask any of the vulgar, why he believes in an omnipotent creator ofthe world; he will never mention the beauty of final causes, ofwhich he is wholly ignorant: He will not hold out his hand, and bidyou contemplate the suppleness and variety of joints in his fingers,

their bending all one way, the counterpoise which they receive fromthe thumb, the softness and fleshy parts of the inside of his hand,with all the other circumstances, which render that member fit forthe use, to which it was destined. To these he has been longaccustomed; and he beholds them with listlessness and unconcern. Hewill tell you of the sudden and unexpected death of such a one: Thefall and bruise of such another: The excessive drought of thisseason: The cold and rains of another. These he ascribes to theimmediate operation of providence: And such events, as, with goodreasoners, are the chief difficulties in admitting a supremeintelligence, are with him the sole arguments for it.

Many theists, even the most zealous and refined, have denied a

providence, and have asserted, that the Sovereign mindor first principle of all things, having fixed general laws, bywhich nature is governed, gives free and uninterrupted course tothese laws, and disturbs not, at every turn, the settled order ofevents by particular volitions. From the beautiful connexion, saythey, and rigid observance of established rules, we draw the chiefargument for theism; and from the same principles are enabled toanswer the principal objections against it. But so little is thisunderstood by the generality of mankind, that, wherever they observeany one to ascribe all events to natural causes, and to remove the


15/46

particular interposition of a deity, they are apt to suspect him ofthe grossest infidelity. , says lord B/ACON\,. Formen, being taught, by superstitious prejudices, to lay the stress ona wrong place; when that fails them, and they discover, by a littlereflection, that the course of nature is regular and uniform, theirwhole faith totters, and falls to ruin. But being taught, by morereflection, that this very regularity and uniformity is thestrongest proof of design and of a supreme intelligence, they returnto that belief, which they had deserted; and they are now able toestablish it on a firmer and more durable foundation.

Convulsions in nature, disorders, prodigies, miracles, thoughthe most opposite to the plan of a wise superintendent, impressmankind with the strongest sentiments of religion; the causes ofevents seeming then the most unknown and unaccountable. Madness,fury, rage, and an inflamed imagination, though they sink mennearest to the level of beasts, are, for a like reason, oftensupposed to be the only dispositions, in which we can have anyimmediate communication with the Deity.

We may conclude, therefore, upon the whole, that, since thevulgar, 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 acertain train of thinking, more suitable to their genius andcapacity.

It may readily happen, in an idolatrous nation, that though menadmit the existence of several limited deities, yet is there someone God, whom, in a particular manner, they make the object of theirworship and adoration. They may either suppose, that, in thedistribution of power and territory among the gods, their nation wassubjected to the jurisdiction of that particular deity; or reducingheavenly objects to the model of things below, they may representone god as the prince or supreme magistrate of the rest, who, thoughof the same nature, rules them with an authority, like that which an

earthly sovereign exercises over his subjects and vassals. Whetherthis god, therefore, be considered as their peculiar patron, or asthe general sovereign of heaven, his votaries will endeavour, byevery art, to insinuate themselves into his favour; and supposinghim to be pleased, like themselves, with praise and flattery, thereis no eulogy or exaggeration, which will be spared in theiraddresses to him. In proportion as men's fears or distresses becomemore urgent, they still invent new strains of adulation; and even hewho outdoes his predecessor in swelling up the titles of hisdivinity, is sure to be outdone by his successor in newer and morepompous epithets of praise. Thus they proceed; till at last theyarrive at infinity itself, beyond which there is no fartherprogress: And it is well, if, in striving to get farther, and to

represent a magnificent simplicity, they run not into inexplicablemystery, and destroy the intelligent nature of their deity, on whichalone any rational worship or adoration can be founded. While theyconfine themselves to the notion of a perfect being, the creator ofthe world, they coincide, by chance, with the principles of reasonand true philosophy; though they are guided to that notion, not byreason, of which they are in a great measure incapable, but by theadulation and fears of the most vulgar superstition.

We often find, amongst barbarous nations, and even sometimes


16/46

amongst civilized, that, when every strain of flattery has beenexhausted towards arbitrary princes, when every human quality hasbeen applauded to the utmost; their servile courtiers representthem, at last, as real divinities, and point them out to the peopleas objects of adoration. How much more natural, therefore, is it,that a limited deity, who at first is supposed only the immediateauthor of the particular goods and ills in life, should in the endbe represented as sovereign maker and modifier of the universe?

Even where this notion of a supreme deity is alreadyestablished; though it ought naturally to lessen every otherworship, and abase every object of reverence, yet if a nation hasentertained the opinion of a subordinate tutelar divinity, saint, orangel; their addresses to that being gradually rise upon them, andencroach on the adoration due to their supreme deity. The Virgin, ere checked by the reformation, had proceeded, from beingmerely a good woman, to usurp many attributes of the Almighty: Godand St. N/ICHOLAS\ go hand in hand, in all the prayers and petitionsof the M/USCOVITES\.

Thus the deity, who, from love, converted himself into a bull,in order to carry off E/UROPA\; and who, from ambition, dethronedhis father, S/ATURN\, became the O/PTIMUS\ M/AXIMUS\ of theheathens. Thus the deity, whom the vulgar Jews conceived only as the

God of , , and , became their andCreator of the world.[39]

The J/ACOBINS\, who denied the immaculate conception, have everbeen very unhappy in their doctrine, even though political reasonshave kept the R/OMISH\ church from condemning it. The C/ORDELIERS\have run away with all the popularity. But in the fifteenth century,as we learn from B/OULAINVILLIERS\,[40] an I/TALIAN\ maintained, that, during the three days, when C/HRIST\ was interred,the hypostatic union was dissolved, and that his human nature wasnot a proper object of adoration, during that period. Without theart of divination, one might foretel, that so gross and impious ablasphemy would not fail to be anathematized by the people. It was

the occasion of great insults on the part of the J/ACOBINS\; who nowgot some recompence for their misfortunes in the war about theimmaculate conception.

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

H/OMER\, in one passage, calls O/CEANUS\ and T/ETHYS\ theoriginal parents of all things, conformably to the establishedmythology and tradition of the G/REEKS\: Yet, in other passages, hecould not forbear complimenting J/UPITER\, the reigning deity, withthat magnificent appellation; and accordingly denominates him the

father of gods and men. He forgets, that every temple, every streetwas full of the ancestors, uncles, brothers, and sisters of thisJ/UPITER\; who was in reality nothing but an upstart parricide andusurper. A like contradiction is observable in H/ESIOD\; and is somuch the less excusable, as his professed intention was to deliver atrue genealogy of the gods.

Were there a religion (and we may suspect Mahometanism of thisinconsistence) which sometimes painted the Deity in the most sublimecolours, as the creator of heaven and earth; sometimes degraded him


17/46

so far to a level with human creatures as to represent him wrestlingwith a man, walking in the cool of the evening, showing his backparts, and descending from heaven to inform himself of what passeson earth;[41] while at the same time it ascribed to him suitableinfirmities, passions, and partialities, of the moral kind: Thatreligion, after it was extinct, would also be cited as an instanceof those contradictions, which arise from the gross, vulgar, naturalconceptions of mankind, opposed to their continual propensity,towards flattery and exaggeration. Nothing indeed would prove morestrongly the divine origin of any religion, than to find (andhappily this is the case with Christianity) that it is free from acontradiction, so incident to human nature.

S/ECT\. VII. .

It appears certain, that, though the original notions of thevulgar represent the Divinity as a limited being, and consider himonly as the particular cause of health or sickness; plenty or want;prosperity or adversity; yet when more magnificent ideas are urgedupon them, they esteem it dangerous to refuse their assent. Will yousay, that your deity is finite and bounded in his perfections; maybe overcome by a greater force; is subject to human passions, pains,

and infirmities; has a beginning, and may have an end? This theydare not affirm; but thinking it safest to comply with the higherencomiums, they endeavour, by an affected ravishment and devotion,to ingratiate themselves with him. As a confirmation of this, we mayobserve, that the assent of the vulgar is, in this case, merelyverbal, and that they are incapable of conceiving those sublimequalities, which they seemingly attribute to the Deity. Their realidea of him, notwithstanding their pompous language, is still aspoor and frivolous as ever.

That original intelligence, say the M/AGIANS\, who is the firstprinciple of all things, discovers himself to the mindand understanding alone; but has placed the sun as his image in the

visible universe; and when that bright luminary diffuses its beamsover the earth and the firmament, it is a faint copy of the glory,which resides in the higher heavens. If you would escape thedispleasure of this divine being, you must be careful never to setyour bare foot upon the ground, nor spit into a fire, nor throw anywater upon it, even though it were consuming a whole city.[42] Whocan express the perfections of the Almighty? say the Mahometans.Even the noblest of his works, if compared to him, are but dust andrubbish. How much more must human conception fall short of hisinfinite perfections? His smile and favour renders men for everhappy; and to obtain it for your children, the best method is to cutoff from them, while infants, a little bit of skin, about half thebreadth of a farthing. Take two bits of cloth,[43] say the , about an inch or an inch and a half square, join them bythe corners with two strings or pieces of tape about sixteen incheslong, throw this over your head, and make one of the bits of clothlie upon your breast, and the other upon your back, keeping themnext your skin: There is not a better secret for recommendingyourself to that infinite Being, who exists from eternity toeternity.

The G/ETES\, commonly called immortal, from their steady beliefof the soul's immortality, were genuine theists and unitarians. They


18/46

affirmed Z/AMOLXIS\,[44] their deity, to be the only true god; andasserted the worship of all other nations to be addressed to merefictions and chimeras. But were their religious principles any morerefined, on account of these magnificent pretensions? Every fifthyear they sacrificed a human victim, whom they sent as a messengerto their deity, in order to inform him of their wants andnecessities. And when it thundered, they were so provoked, that, inorder to return the defiance, they let fly arrows at him, anddeclined not the combat as unequal. Such at least is the account,which H/ERODOTUS\ gives of the theism of the immortal G/ETES\.[45]

S/ECT\. VIII. .

It is remarkable, that the principles of religion have a kindof flux and reflux in the human mind, and that men have a naturaltendency to rise from idolatry to theism, and to sink again fromtheism into idolatry. The vulgar, that is, indeed, all mankind, afew excepted, being ignorant and uninstructed, never elevate theircontemplation to the heavens, or penetrate by their disquisitionsinto the secret structure of vegetable or animal bodies; so far asto discover a supreme mind or original providence, which bestowedorder on every part of nature. They consider these admirable works

in a more confined and selfish view; and finding their own happinessand misery to depend on the secret influence and unforeseenconcurrence of external objects, they regard; with perpetualattention, the , which govern all these naturalevents, and distribute pleasure and pain, good and ill, by theirpowerful, but silent, operation. The unknown causes are stillappealed to on every emergence; and in this general appearance orconfused 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 isincessantly employed, begins to render them more particular, and toclothe them in shapes more suitable to its natural comprehension. Itrepresents 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 hencethe origin of idolatry or polytheism.

But the same anxious concern for happiness, which begets theidea of these invisible, intelligent powers, allows not mankind toremain long in the first simple conception of them; as powerful, butlimited beings; masters of human fate, but slaves to destiny and thecourse of nature. Men's exaggerated praises and compliments stillswell their idea upon them; and elevating their deities to theutmost bounds of perfection, at last beget the attributes of unityand infinity, simplicity and spirituality. Such refined ideas, beingsomewhat disproportioned to vulgar comprehension, remain not long in

their original purity; but require to be supported by the notion ofinferior mediators or subordinate agents, which interpose betweenmankind and their supreme deity. These demi-gods or middle beings,partaking more of human nature, and being more familiar to us,become the chief objects of devotion, and gradually recal thatidolatry, which had been formerly banished by the ardent prayers andpanegyrics of timorous and indigent mortals. But as these idolatrousreligions 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


19/46

theism. But so great is the propensity, in this alternate revolutionof human sentiments, to return back to idolatry, that the utmostprecaution is not able effectually to prevent it. And of this, sometheists, particularly the J/EWS\ and M/AHOMETANS\, have beensensible; as appears by their banishing all the arts of statuary andpainting, and not allowing the representations, even of humanfigures, to be taken by marble or colours; lest the common infirmityof mankind should thence produce idolatry. The feeble apprehensionsof men cannot be satisfied with conceiving their deity as a purespirit and perfect intelligence; and yet their natural terrors keepthem from imputing to him the least shadow of limitation andimperfection. They fluctuate between these opposite sentiments. Thesame infirmity still drags them downwards, from an omnipotent andspiritual deity, to a limited and corporeal one, and from acorporeal and limited deity to a statue or visible representation.The same endeavour at elevation still pushes them upwards, from thestatue or material image to the invisible power; and from theinvisible power to an infinitely perfect deity, the creator andsovereign of the universe.

S/ECT\. IX.

Polytheism or idolatrous worship, being founded entirely invulgar traditions, is liable to this great inconvenience, that anypractice or opinion, however barbarous or corrupted, may beauthorized by it; and full scope is given, for knavery to impose oncredulity, till morals and humanity be expelled from[46] thereligious systems of mankind. At the same time, idolatry is attendedwith this evident advantage, that, by limiting the powers andfunctions of its deities, it naturally admits the gods of othersects 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 itsadvantages and disadvantages. As that system supposes one soledeity, the perfection of reason and goodness, it should, if justlyprosecuted, banish every thing frivolous, unreasonable, or inhumanfrom religious worship, and set before men the most illustriousexample, as well as the most commanding motives, of justice andbenevolence. These mighty advantages are not indeed over-balanced(for that is not possible), but somewhat diminished, byinconveniencies, which arise from the vices and prejudices ofmankind. While one sole object of devotion is acknowledged, theworship 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 forrepresenting their adversaries as profane, and the objects of divineas well as human vengeance. For as each sect is positive that itsown faith and worship are entirely acceptable to the deity, and asno one can conceive, that the same being should be pleased withdifferent and opposite rites and principles; the several sects fallnaturally into animosity, and mutually discharge on each other thatsacred zeal and rancour, the most furious and implacable of allhuman passions.


20/46

The tolerating spirit of idolaters, both in ancient and moderntimes, is very obvious to any one, who is the least conversant inthe writings of historians or travellers. When the oracle ofD/ELPHI\ was asked, what rites or worship was most acceptable to thegods? Those which are legally established in each city, replied theoracle.[48] Even priests, in those ages, could, it seems, allowsalvation to those of a different communion. The R/OMANS\ commonlyadopted the gods of the conquered people; and never disputed theattributes of those local and national deities, in whose territoriesthey resided. The religious wars and persecutions of the E/GYPTIAN\idolaters are indeed an exception to this rule; but are accountedfor by ancient authors from reasons singular and remarkable.Different species of animals were the deities of the different sectsamong the E/GYPTIANS\; and the deities being in continual war,engaged their votaries in the same contention. The worshippers ofdogs could not long remain in peace with the adorers of cats orwolves.[49] But where that reason took not place, the E/GYPTIAN\superstition was not so incompatible as is commonly imagined; sincewe learn from H/ERODOTUS\,[50] that very large contributions weregiven by A/MASIS\ towards rebuilding the temple of D/ELPHI\.

The intolerance of almost all religions, which have maintainedthe unity of God, is as remarkable as the contrary principle ofpolytheists. The implacable narrow spirit of the J/EWS\ is well

known. M/AHOMETANISM\ set out with still more bloody principles; andeven to this day, deals out damnation, though not fire and faggot,to all other sects. And if, among C/HRISTIANS\, the E/NGLISH\ andD/UTCH\ have embraced the principles of toleration, this singularityhas proceeded from the steady resolution of the civil magistrate, inopposition to the continued efforts of priests and bigots.

The disciples of Z/OROASTER\ shut the doors of heaven againstall but the M/AGIANS\.[51] Nothing could more obstruct the progressof the P/ERSIAN\ conquests, than the furious zeal of that nationagainst the temples and images of the G/REEKS\. And after theoverthrow of that empire we find A/LEXANDER\, as a polytheist,immediately re-establishing the worship of the B/ABYLONIANS\, which

their former princes, as monotheists, had carefully abolished.[52]Even the blind and devoted attachment of that conqueror to theG/REEK\ superstition hindered not but he himself sacrificedaccording to the B/ABYLONISH\ rites and ceremonies.[53]

So sociable is polytheism, that the utmost fierceness andantipathy, which it meets with in an opposite religion, is scarcelyable to disgust it, and keep it at a distance. A/UGUSTUS\ praisedextremely the reserve of his grandson, C/AIUS\ C/AESAR\, when thislatter prince, passing by J/ERUSALEM\, deigned not to sacrificeaccording to the J/EWISH\ law. But for what reason did A/UGUSTUS\ somuch approve of this conduct? Only, because that religion was by theP/AGANS\ esteemed ignoble and barbarous.[54]

I may venture to affirm, that few corruptions of idolatry andpolytheism are more pernicious to society than this corruption oftheism,[55] when carried to the utmost height. The human sacrificesof the C/ARTHAGINIANS\, M/EXICANS\, and many barbarous nations,[56]scarcely exceed the inquisition and persecutions of R/OME\ andM/ADRID\. For besides, that the effusion of blood may not be sogreat in the former case as in the latter; besides this, I say, thehuman victims, being chosen by lot, or by some exterior signs,affect not, in so considerable a degree, the rest of the society.


21/46

Whereas virtue, knowledge, love of liberty, are the qualities, whichcall down the fatal vengeance of inquisitors; and when expelled,leave the society in the most shameful ignorance, corruption, andbondage. The illegal murder of one man by a tyrant is morepernicious than the death of a thousand by pestilence, famine, orany undistinguishing calamity.

In the temple of D/IANA\ at A/RICIA\ near R/OME\, whoevermurdered the present priest, was legally entitled to be installedhis successor.[57] A very singular institution! For, howeverbarbarous and bloody the common superstitions often are to thelaity, they usually turn to the advantage of the holy order.

S/ECT\. X. .

From the comparison of theism and idolatry, we may form someother 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 tomankind, this belief, though altogether just, is apt, when joinedwith superstitious terror, to sink the human mind into the lowest

submission and abasement, and to represent the monkish virtues ofmortification, penance, humility, and passive suffering, as the onlyqualities which are acceptable to him. But where the gods areconceived to be only a little superior to mankind, and to have been,many of them, advanced from that inferior rank, we are more at ourease in our addresses to them, and may even, without profaneness,aspire sometimes to a rivalship and emulation of them. Henceactivity, spirit, courage, magnanimity, love of liberty, and all thevirtues which aggrandize a people.

The heroes in paganism correspond exactly to the saints inpopery and holy dervises in M/AHOMETANISM\. The place of H/ERCULES\,T/HESEUS\, H/ECTOR\, R/OMULUS\, is now supplied by D/OMINIC\,

F/RANCIS\, A/NTHONY\, and B/ENEDICT\. Instead of the destruction ofmonsters, the subduing of tyrants, the defence of our nativecountry; whippings and fastings, cowardice and humility, abjectsubmission and slavish obedience, are become the means of obtainingcelestial honours among mankind.

One great incitement to the pious A/LEXANDER\ in his warlikeexpeditions was his rivalship of H/ERCULES\ and B/ACCHUS\, whom hejustly pretended to have excelled.[58] B/RASIDAS\, that generous andnoble S/PARTAN\, after falling in battle, had heroic honours paidhim by the inhabitants of A/MPHIPOLIS\, whose defence he hadembraced.[59] And in general, all founders of states and coloniesamong the G/REEKS\ were raised to this inferior rank of divinity, by

those who reaped the benefit of their labours.

This gave rise to the observation of M/ACHIAVEL\, that thedoctrines of the C/HRISTIAN\ religion (meaning the catholic; for heknew no other) which recommend only passive courage and suffering,had subdued the spirit of mankind, and had fitted them for slaveryand subjection. An observation, which would certainly be just, werethere not many other circumstances in human society which controulthe genius and character of a religion.


22/46

B/RASIDAS\ seized a mouse, and being bit by it, let it go., said he, .[60] B/ELLARMINE\ patientlyand humbly allowed the fleas and other odious vermin to prey uponhim. , said he, .[61] Such difference is there between themaxims of a G/REEK\ hero and a C/ATHOLIC\ saint.

S/ECT\. XI. .

Here is another observation to the same purpose, and a newproof that the corruption of the best things begets the worst. If weexamine, without prejudice, the ancient heathen mythology, ascontained in the poets, we shall not discover in it any suchmonstrous absurdity, as we may at first be apt to apprehend. Whereis the difficulty in conceiving, that the same powers or principles,whatever they were, which formed this visible world, men andanimals, produced also a species of intelligent creatures, of morerefined substance and greater authority than the rest? That thesecreatures may be capricious, revengeful, passionate, voluptuous, iseasily conceived; nor is any circumstance more apt, among ourselves,

to engender such vices, than the licence of absolute authority. Andin short, the whole mythological system is so natural, that, in thevast variety of planets and worlds, contained in this universe, itseems more than probable, that, somewhere or other, it is reallycarried into execution.

The chief objection to it with regard to this planet, is, thatit is not ascertained by any just reason or authority. The ancienttradition, insisted on by heathen priests and theologers, is but aweak foundation; and transmitted also such a number of contradictoryreports, supported, all of them, by equal authority, that it becameabsolutely impossible to fix a preference amongst them. A fewvolumes, therefore, must contain all the polemical writings of pagan

priests: And their whole theology must consist more of traditionalstories and superstitious practices than of philosophical argumentand controversy.

But where theism forms the fundamental principle of any popularreligion, that tenet is so conformable to sound reason, thatphilosophy is apt to incorporate itself with such a system oftheology. And if the other dogmas of that system be contained in asacred book, such as the Alcoran, or be determined by any visibleauthority, like that of the R/OMAN\ pontiff, speculative reasonersnaturally carry on their assent, and embrace a theory, which hasbeen instilled into them by their earliest education, and which alsopossesses some degree of consistence and uniformity. But as these

appearances are sure, all of them, to prove deceitful, philosophywill 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 ofsuperstition. For besides the unavoidable incoherences, which mustbe reconciled and adjusted; one may safely affirm, that all populartheology, especially the scholastic, has a kind of appetite forabsurdity and contradiction. If that theology went not beyond reasonand common sense, her doctrines would appear too easy and familiar.Amazement must of necessity be raised: Mystery affected: Darkness


23/46

and obscurity sought after: And a foundation of merit afforded tothe devout votaries, who desire an opportunity of subduing theirrebellious reason, by the belief of the most unintelligiblesophisms.

Ecclesiastical history sufficiently confirms these reflections.When a controversy is started, some people always pretend withcertainty to foretell the issue. Whichever opinion, say they, ismost contrary to plain sense is sure to prevail; even where thegeneral interest of the system requires not that decision. Thoughthe reproach of heresy may, for some time, be bandied about amongthe disputants, it always rests at last on the side of reason. Anyone, it is pretended, that has but learning enough of this kind toknow the definition of A/RIAN\, P/ELAGIAN\, E/RASTIAN\, S/OCINIAN\,S/ABELLIAN\, E/UTYCHIAN\, N/ESTORIAN\, M/ONOTHELITE\, etc. not tomention P/ROTESTANT\, whose fate is yet uncertain, will be convincedof the truth of this observation. It is thus a system becomes moreabsurd in the end, merely from its being reasonable andphilosophical in the beginning.

To oppose the torrent of scholastic religion by such feeblemaxims as these, that , that ; is pretending to stop the ocean with a bull-rush.

Will you set up profane reason against sacred mystery? No punishmentis great enough for your impiety. And the same fires, which werekindled for heretics, will serve also for the destruction ofphilosophers.

S/ECT\. XII. .

We meet every day with people so sceptical with regard tohistory, that they assert it impossible for any nation ever tobelieve such absurd principles as those of G/REEK\ and E/GYPTIAN\paganism; and at the same time so dogmatical with regard to

religion, that they think the same absurdities are to be found in noother communion. C/AMBYSES\ entertained like prejudices; and veryimpiously ridiculed, and even wounded, APIS, the great god of theE/GYPTIANS\, who appeared to his profane senses nothing but a largespotted bull. But H/ERODOTUS\ judiciously ascribes this sally ofpassion to a real madness or disorder of the brain: Otherwise, saysthe historian, he never would have openly affronted any establishedworship. For on that head, continues he, every nation are bestsatisfied with their own, and think they have the advantage overevery other nation.

It must be allowed, that the R/OMAN\ Catholics are a verylearned sect; and that no one communion, but that of the church of

E/NGLAND\, can dispute their being the most learned of all theChristian churches: Yet A/VERROES\, the famous A/RABIAN\, who, nodoubt, had heard of the E/GYPTIAN\ superstitions, declares, that, ofall religions, the most absurd and nonsensical is that, whosevotaries eat, after having created, their deity.

I believe, indeed, that there is no tenet in all paganism,which would give so fair a scope to ridicule as this of the : For it is so absurd, that it eludes the force of allargument. There are even some pleasant stories of that kind, which,


24/46

though somewhat profane, are commonly told by the Catholicsthemselves. One day, a priest, it is said, gave inadvertently,instead of the sacrament, a counter, which had by accident fallenamong the holy wafers. The communicant waited patiently for sometime, expecting it would dissolve on his tongue: But finding that itstill remained entire, he took it off. , cried he to thepriest, .

A famous general, at that time in the M/USCOVITE\ service,having come to P/ARIS\ for the recovery of his wounds, brought alongwith him a young T/URK\, whom he had taken prisoner. Some of thedoctors of the S/ORBONNE\ (who are altogether as positive as thedervises of C/ONSTANTINOPLE\) thinking it a pity, that the poorT/URK\ should be damned for want of instruction, solicitedM/USTAPHA\ very hard to turn Christian, and promised him, for hisencouragement, plenty of good wine in this world, and paradise inthe next. These allurements were too powerful to be resisted; andtherefore, having been well instructed and catechized, he at lastagreed to receive the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper.The priest, however, to make every thing sure and solid, stillcontinued his instructions; and began the next day with the usualquestion, , replies

B/ENEDICT\; for that was his new name. ! cries thepriest. , said the honest proselyte. .

Such are the doctrines of our brethren the Catholics. But tothese doctrines we are so accustomed, that we never wonder at them:Though in a future age, it will probably become difficult topersuade some nations, that any human, two-legged creature couldever embrace such principles. And it is a thousand to one, but thesenations themselves shall have something full as absurd in their owncreed, to which they will give a most implicit and most religiousassent.

I lodged once at P/ARIS\ in the same with an ambassadorfrom T/UNIS\, who, having passed some years at L/ONDON\, wasreturning home that way. One day I observed his M/OORISH\ excellencydiverting himself under the porch, with surveying the splendidequipages that drove along; when there chanced to pass that way some friars, who had never seen a T/URK\; as he, on his part,though accustomed to the E/UROPEAN\ dresses, had never seen thegrotesque figure of a : And there is no expressing themutual admiration, with which they inspired each other. Had thechaplain of the embassy entered into a dispute with theseF/RANCISCANS\, their reciprocal surprize had been of the samenature. Thus all mankind stand staring at one another; and there isno beating it into their heads, that the turban of the A/FRICAN\ is

not just as good or as bad a fashion as the cowl of the E/UROPEAN\., said the prince of S/ALLEE\, speaking ofde R/UYTER\, .

How can you worship leeks and onions? we shall suppose aS/ORBONNIST\ to say to a priest of S/AIS\. 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 thelearned doctor. They are at least as good as the relics or rottenbones of martyrs, answers his no less learned antagonist. Are you


25/46

not mad, insists the Catholic, to cut one another's throat about thepreference of a cabbage or a cucumber? Yes, says the pagan; I allowit, if you will confess, that those are still madder, who fightabout the preference among volumes of sophistry, ten thousand ofwhich are not equal in value to one cabbage or cucumber.[62]

Every by-stander will easily judge (but unfortunately the by-standers are few) that, if nothing were requisite to establish anypopular system, but exposing the absurdities of other systems, everyvotary of every superstition could give a sufficient reason for hisblind and bigotted attachment to the principles in which he has beeneducated. But without so extensive a knowledge, on which to groundthis assurance (and perhaps, better without it), there is notwanting a sufficient stock of religious zeal and faith amongmankind. D/IODORUS\ S/ICULUS\[63] gives a remarkable instance tothis purpose, of which he was himself an eye-witness. While E/GYPT\lay under the greatest terror of the R/OMAN\ name, a legionarysoldier having inadvertently been guilty of the sacrilegious impietyof killing a cat, the whole people rose upon him with the utmostfury; and all the efforts of the prince were not able to save him.The senate and people of R/OME\, I am persuaded, would not, then,have been so delicate with regard to their national deities. Theyvery frankly, a little after that time, voted A/UGUSTUS\ a place inthe celestial mansions; and would have dethroned every god in

heaven, for his sake, had he seemed to desire it. A/UGUSTUS\, says H/ORACE\. That is a very importantpoint: And in other nations and other ages, the same circumstancehas not been deemed altogether indifferent.[64]

Notwithstanding the sanctity of our holy religion, saysT/ULLY\,[65] no crime is more common with us than sacrilege: But wasit ever heard of, that an E/GYPTIAN\ violated the temple of a cat,an ibis, or a crocodile? There is no torture, an E/GYPTIAN\ wouldnot undergo, says the same author in another place,[66] rather thaninjure an ibis, an aspic, a cat, a dog, or a crocodile. Thus it isstrictly true, what D/RYDEN\ observes,

"Of whatsoe'er descent their godhead be,

"Stock, stone, or other homely pedigree,

"In his defence his servants are as bold,

"As if he had been born of beaten gold."

A/BSALOM\ and A/CHITOPHEL\.

Nay, the baser the materials are, of which the divinity is

composed, the greater devotion is he likely to excite in the breastsof his deluded votaries. They exult in their shame, and make a meritwith their deity, in braving, for his sake, all the ridicule andcontumely of his enemies. Ten thousand Crusaders inlist themselvesunder the holy banners; and even openly triumph in those parts oftheir religion, which their adversaries regard as the mostreproachful.

There occurs, I own, a difficulty in the E/GYPTIAN\ system oftheology; as indeed, few systems of that kind are entirely free from


26/46

difficulties. It is evident, from their method of propagation, thata couple of cats, in fifty years, would stock a whole kingdom; andif that religious veneration were still paid them, it would, intwenty more, not only be easier in E/GYPT\ to find a god than a man,which P/ETRONIUS\ says was the case in some parts of I/TALY\; butthe gods must at last entirely starve the men, and leave themselvesneither priests nor votaries remaining. It is probable, therefore,that this wise nation, the most celebrated in antiquity for prudenceand sound policy, foreseeing such dangerous consequences, reservedall their worship for the full-grown divinities, and used thefreedom to drown the holy spawn or little sucking gods, without anyscruple or remorse. And thus the practice of warping the tenets ofreligion, in order to serve temporal interests, is not, by anymeans, to be regarded as an invention of these later ages.

The learned, philosophical V/ARRO\, discoursing of religion,pretends not to deliver any thing beyond probabilities andappearances: Such was his good sense and moderation! But thepassionate, the zealous A/UGUSTIN\, insults the noble R/OMAN\ on hisscepticism and reserve, and professes the most thorough belief andassurance.[67] A heathen poet, however, contemporary with the saint,absurdly esteems the religious system of the latter so false, thateven the credulity of children, he says, could not engage them tobelieve it.[68]

Is it strange, when mistakes are so common, to find every onepositive and dogmatical? And that the zeal often rises in proportionto the error? , says S/PARTIAN\, .[69]

If ever there was a nation or a time, in which the publicreligion lost all authority over mankind, we might expect, thatinfidelity in ROME, during the C/ICERONIAN\ age, would openly haveerected its throne, and that C/ICERO\ himself, in every speech andaction, would have been its most declared abettor. But it appears,that, whatever sceptical liberties that great man might take, in hiswritings 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 T/ERENTIA\, whom he highlytrusted, he was willing to appear a devout religionist; and thereremains a letter, addressed to her, in which he seriously desiresher to offer sacrifice to A/POLLO\ and AE/SCULAPIUS\, in gratitudefor the recovery of his health.[70]

P/OMPEY'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] A/UGUSTUS\ was tainted with superstition ofevery kind. As it is reported of M/ILTON\, that his poetical geniusnever flowed with ease and abundance in the spring; so A/UGUSTUS\observed, that his own genius for dreaming never was so perfect

during that season, nor was so much to be relied on, as during therest of the year. That great and able emperor was also extremelyuneasy, when he happened to change his shoes, and put the right footshoe on the left foot.[72] In short it cannot be doubted, but thevotaries of the established superstition of antiquity were asnumerous in every state, as those of the modern religion are atpresent. Its influence was as universal; though it was not so great.As many people gave their assent to it; though that assent was notseemingly so strong, precise, and affirmative.


27/46

We may observe, that, notwithstanding the dogmatical, imperiousstyle of all superstition, the conviction of the religionist, in allages, is more affected than real, and scarcely ever approaches, inany degree, to that solid belief and persuasion, which governs us inthe common affairs of life. Men dare not avow, even to their ownhearts, the doubts which they entertain on such subjects: They makea merit of implicit faith; and disguise to themselves their realinfidelity, by the strongest asseverations and most positivebigotry. But nature is too hard for all their endeavours, andsuffers not the obscure, glimmering light, afforded in those shadowyregions, to equal the strong impressions, made by common sense andby experience. The usual course of men's conduct belies their words,and shows, that their assent in these matters is some unaccountableoperation of the mind between disbelief and conviction, butapproaching much nearer to the former than to the latter.

Since, therefore, the mind of man appears of so loose andunsteady a texture, that, even at present, when so many persons findan interest in continually employing on it the chissel and thehammer, yet are they not able to engrave theological tenets with anylasting impression; how much more must this have been the case inancient times, when the retainers to the holy function were so muchfewer in comparison? No wonder, that the appearances were then veryinconsistent, and that men, on some occasions, might seem determined

infidels, and enemies to the established religion, without being soin reality; or at least, without knowing their own minds in thatparticular.

Another cause, which rendered the ancient religions much looserthan the modern, is, that the former were and thelatter are ; and the tradition in the former wascomplex, contradictory, and, on many occasions, doubtful; so that itcould not possibly be reduced to any standard and canon, or affordany determinate articles of faith. The stories of the gods werenumberless like the popish legends; and though every one, almost,believed a part of these stories, yet no one could believe or knowthe whole: While, at the same time, all must have acknowledged, that

no one part stood on a better foundation than the rest. Thetraditions of different cities and nations were also, on manyoccasions, directly opposite; and no reason could be assigned forpreferring one to the other. And as there was an infinite number ofstories, with regard to which tradition was nowise positive; thegradation was insensible, from the most fundamental articles offaith, to those loose and precarious fictions. The pagan religion,therefore, seemed to vanish like a cloud, whenever one approached toit, and examined it piecemeal. It could never be ascertained by anyfixed dogmas and principles. And though this did not convert thegenerality of mankind from so absurd a faith; for when will thepeople be reasonable? yet it made them faulter and hesitate more inmaintaining their principles, and was even apt to produce, in

certain dispositions of mind, some practices and opinions, which hadthe appearance of determined infidelity.

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

hume, david - the natural history of religion

Documents