DEO REIPDUCE ET AMICIS,
SEMPER FIDELIS
Ville
UZ
Haddonfield
LIBRARY
MPANY
IVO.
7.
sing
ܕܝܪܪܝ:܂
1
Girulito
lel
10
Tappan Presbyterian Association
LIBRARY.
Presented by HON. D. BETHUNE DUFFIELD.
From Library of Rev. Geo. Duffield, D.D.
***

JOHN LELAND D.D.
all sculp!
UNIE
OF
FICH
1
.""FILE
1063).
S
THE
2005
ADVANTAGE AND NECESSITY
OF THE
CHRISTIAN REVELATION,
SH EWN FROM THE
STATE OF RELIGION
IN THE
ANTIENT HEATHEN WORLD:
ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO
THE KNOWLEDGE AND WORSHIP OF THE
ONE TRUE GO:D:
A RULE OF MORAL 'DUTY:
ΑΝ
N "D
A STATE OF FUTURE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS
TO WHICH IS PREFIXE DE
A PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION.
1
IN TWO
TWO VOL U ME S.
BY JOHN LELAND, D. D.
AUTHOR OF THE VIEW OF THE DEISTICAL WRITERS, &c.
VOL.
I.
L O N D ON:
Printed by W. RICHARDSON and S. CLARK;
For R. and J. DODSLĖY in Pall-mall, and T. LONGMAN in Pater nofter-Row,
-M DCC LXIV.
1
TO THE
K I N G
Moſt Gracious SoveREIGN!
T
HE following Treatiſe, which is deſigned to
ſhew the advantages we enjoy by the Goſpel
Revelation, is with great Humility addreſſed to Your
Sacred MAJESTY. To this the author was encou-
raged by the favourable notice Your MAJESTY,
when Prince of Wales, was pleaſed to take of a
book he formerly publiſhed with an intention to ſerve
the Chriſtian cauſe, and which You ſo far honoured
with Your princely approbation, as to ſend a conſi-
derable number of them to America, at Your own
expence. So early a proof of Your MAJESTY's zeal
for Chriſtianity afforded pleaſing proſpects, that when
You ſhould afcend the throne of Your anceſtors, You
would make religion the object of Your royal care,
and
a 2
iv
DEDICATION.
and both patronize it by Your authority, and adorn it
by Your example.
The Divine Providence has now placed Your
Majesty at the head of one of the moſt powerful and
Aouriſhing nations in the world, and put it in Your
power to give illuſtrious proofs of Your concern for
the honour of God, and Your regard to the happineſs
of mankind, by promoting the valuable intereſts of
piety, virtue, and uſeful learning ; which is the moſt
likely way to draw down a bleſſing from heaven
upon
Your Majesty's Perſon and government, and to ad-
vance and ſecure the true glory and proſperity of Your
people.
When a King who has no earthly ſuperior, pre-
ſerves a juſt ſenſe of his own ſubjection to the KING
OF KINGS, and whilſt He receives the homage of
his ſubjects who are his fellow-creatures, is himſelf
careful with an unfeigned devotion to pay his duty to
the GREAT CREATOR AND LORD OF
ALL, to whom He muſt be accountable for his con-
duct; when He maintains a purity and regularity of
manners amidſt the moſt ſpecious allurements of a
tempting
I E DIC Α Τ Ι Ο Ν
V
tempting world ;. this forms a character which derives
a glory to the greateſt monarch, far ſuperior to all the
ſplendors of royal magnificence.
It is a thing which cannot reaſonably be denied,
that RELIGION, rightly underſtood and practiſed,
ſtrengthens the ſacred ties between SOVEREIGNS and
their SUBJECTS. It tends to render Kings juſt and
equal in their adminiſtrations, the Fathers of their
people, and the Guardians of their liberties; and to
render the people loyal and obedient, ready with the
greateſt fidelity and chearfulneſs to yield all due ſub-
jection and allegiance; and at the ſame time it has a
manifeſt tendency to ſpread good order and harmony,
and to promote the practice of thoſe virtues which
have the greateſt influence on public as well as pri-
vate happineſs.
1
That this may be the bleſſing of Your MAJESTY,
and theſe nations:- That wiſdom and righteouſneſs
may be the ſtability of Your throne, and that Your.
Majesty may long reign in the hearts of a happy
and united people:--That the knowledge and practice
of
vi
DE DI CA TI O N.
of true vital Chriſtianity may flouriſh under Your au-
ſpicious government :
And that theſe nations may
continue in the poſſeſſion and due improvement of
their civil and religious privileges, under Princes of
Your Majesty's illuſtrious LINE to the lateſt gene-
rations; is the ardent prayer of all Your MAJESTY’s
faithful ſubjects, and in a particular manner of,
May it pleaſe Your MAJESTY,
Your MAJEST y's
moſt dutiful,
moſt obedient
L-
and moſt devoted
Subject and Strvant,
Dublin, 25th.
Dec. 1763
John Leland.
[ vii ]
PRE FACE.
A
A Adering the percendende inte detities
, Prepation of the
S I am fully perfuaded that the Chriſtian Revelation, con-
fidering the excellency of its doctrines, the purity of its
precepts, and the power of thoſe motives whereby the practice of
them is enforced, and eſpecially its exceeding great and precious
promiſes, and the glorious and ſublime hopes which good men
are thereby raiſed unto, is one of the choiceſt gifts of heaven to
mankind, fo I think no man can be better employed than in en-
deavouring to diſplay its advantages to the world, and defend it
againſt the oppoſition of gainſayers. This is what I have honeſtly
intended in ſeveral books formerly publiſhed on that ſubject * ;
and which, I truſt, have not been altogether without their uſe.
It was however neither my intention nor inclination, conſidering
my years and growing infirmities, to engage any farther in this
kind of ſervice. But ſome perſons ut, to whoſe judgment and
authority I owe great deference, urged me ſome time ago to re-
view the books I had written, and out of them to form a treatiſe
in which the arguments in favour of Revelation might be digeſted
into a regular ſeries, and conſidered both ſeparately and in their
* Againſt Morgan, Tindal, Chriſtianity not founded on Argument, &c. &c.
+ Late Lord Biſhop of London, Dr. Sherlock; Dr. Wilſon, Prebendary of Weſt-
minſter; and others.
joint
1
viii
P R E F A CE.
joint connection and harmony, together with a refutation of the
principal objections. And that to make this the eaſier I might
freely make uſe of my own ſentiments and expreſſions formerly
publiſhed, and tranſcribe them into this new work. Some
pro-
greſs was made in this deſign, but after a while it was laid aſide.
For I could not ſatisfy myſelf to put a work upon the public, which
ſhould be little more than an extract or abridgment of what I had
before publiſhed, though in another form. As this however oc-
cafioned my turning my thoughts again to the controverſy between
the Chriſtians and Deiſts, it gave riſe to the following treatiſe.
I found, upon conſidering this ſubject, that the ableſt of thoſe
who have attempted to maintain the deiſtical cauſe in a
way
of
reaſon and argument (for I do not ſpeak of thoſe who have con-
tented themſelves with ſome ill-placed jeſt and ridicule, and with
repeating ſtale and trifling objections which have been frequently
anſwered and expoſed) have placed their chief ſtrength in aſſerting
the abſolute ſufficiency of natural reaſon, left merely to its own
force, without any higher affiſtance, to anſwer all the purpoſes of
religion and happineſs. They maintain that even the bulk of
mankind need no other or better guide ; and particularly, that
the common reaſon implanted in all men does of itſelf make the
cleareſt diſcoveries of the unity, perfections, and attributes of God,
of his providence and government of the world, of the whole of
moral duty in its juſt extent, and of a future ſtate of retributions:
that theſe which are the main articles in which all religion princi-
pally conſiſts, are naturally known to all mankind; ſo that an ex-
traordinary Revelation from God is perfectly needleſs: and there-
fore we may juſtly conclude, that no ſuch Revelation was ever
given,
2
P R E F A CE,
ix
given, ſince in that caſe it could anſwer no valuable end at all.
This indeed would not follow. For if we ſhould allow that thoſe
main articles of what is uſually called Natural Religion are what
all men are able clearly to diſcern of themſelves, by their own
natural light, without inſtruction, yet fince all that make proper
reflections
upon their own ſtate muſt be conſcious that they have
in many inſtances tranſgreſſed the law of God, and thereby ex-
poſed themſelves to his juſt diſpleaſure, they might ſtill ſtand in
great need of a Divine Revelation, to inſtruct them upon what
terms he is willing to reſtore his offending creatures to his grace
and favour, and how far he will think fit to reward their fincere
though imperfect obedience. In this view a Revelation from God,
declaring the methods of his wiſdom and love for our recovery,
and his gracious purpoſes towards penitent returning finners, and
publiſhing the glad tidings of pardon and falvation upon ſuch
terms as he ſeeth. fit to appoint and require, would be an advan-
tage we cannot be ſufficiently thankful for. But if beſides this,
it can be made to appear, that mankind ſtand in great need of
Divine Revelation to guide and inſtruct them aright even in the
main articles of what is uſually called Natural Religion, the cauſe
of Deifm, as far as it can be formed into a conſiſtent ſyſtem, ex-
clufive of all Revelation, falls to the ground. I am very
I am very ſenſible
that they who take upon them the character of Deiſts, are far from
being agreed in thoſe articles of religion, the clearnefs of which,
when arguing againſt the neceſſity or uſefulneſs of Divine Reve-
lation, they affect mightily to extol: and that there is too much
reaſon to think, that one of the principal ſources of thoſe preju-
dices
many of them have entertained againſt the Chriſtian Reve-
Vol. I.
lation
a
X
P R E F A CE.
lation is its ſetting thoſe principles, and their juſt and natural con-
ſequences, in too clear and ſtrong a light. But ſince, the better
to carry on their attacks againſt revealed Religion, they put on an
appearance of believing both the neceſſity and importance of thoſe
principles, and their being univerſally obvious to all mankind, even
to them that never had the benefit of Divine Revelation ; this led
me to make an enquiry into the ſtate of Religion in the antient
Heathen world, eſpecially in thoſe nations which are accounted
to have been the moſt learned and civilized, and among whom
there were many perſons that made the higheſt pretenſions to
learning and philoſophy. This enquiry coſt me a laborious ſearch.
For though this ſubject has been treated of by others, and I have
endeavoured to profit by their labours, yet I did not think proper
to rely entirely upon them, but, as far as I was able, examined
every thing myſelf; and where, in a few inſtances, I had not an
opportunity of conſulting the originals, but depended upon the
quotations made by others, I have referred the reader to the au-
thors from whom I took them.
1
The reſult of my enquiries is contained in the following work;
in which I firſt propoſe to repreſent the ſtate of religion in the
Gentile world, with reſpect to that which lies at the foundation
of all religion, the knowledge and worſhip of the one true God, in
oppoſition to idolatry and polytheiſm. 2dly, To conſider what
notions they had of moral duty, taken in its juſt extent: a thing
of the higheſt importance to mankind. 3dly, To take a view of
the notions which obtained among them of a future ſtate of re-
wards and puniſhments; which is alſo a point of vaſt conſequence
to
P R E F A C E.
xi
to the cauſe of religion and virtue in the world. Under theſe ſe-
veral heads I do not pretend to argue from ſpeculative hypotheſes
'concerning the ſuppoſed powers of human nature; or to affirm
that it is not poſſible for any man, by the mere force of his own
reaſon, to attain to any rational perſuaſion of theſe things; but I
proceed upon
fact and experience, which will help us to form the
trueſt judgment in this matter, and will thew us what we are to
expect from human reaſon, if left merely to its own unaffifted
force, in the preſent ſtate of mankind. The enquiry is carried on
to the time of our Saviour's coming, and the iſſue of my reſearches,
as far as my own particular judgment and perſuaſion is con-
cerned, has been to produce in me a full conviction of the great
need mankind ſtood in of an extraordinary Divine Revelation,
even with regard to thoſe that are accounted the cleareſt as well
as the moſt important articles of what is uſually called Natural Re-
ligion ; and to inſpire me with the higheſt thankfulneſs to God
for the Goſpel Revelation, which has ſet theſe things in the
inoſt glorious light. This is what I have endeavoured to Thew;
and if what I ſhall offer on thoſe heads can be any way inſtru-
mental to excite the ſame ſentiments and affections in others, and
to heighten their eſteem for the Chriſtian Revelation as contained
in the Holy Scriptures, and to make them more careful to improve
it to the excellent purpoſes for which it was manifeſtly deſigned,
I ſhall not grudge the pains I have taken, but ſhall count myſelf
happier than any worldly advantages could make me.
This work has grown upon my hands much beyond my origi-
nal intention. But when I was once engaged upon this ſubject,
I was
a 2
xii
PRE FACE.
I was not willing to treat it in a ſlight and ſuperficial manner ;
and yet ſeveral things are laid aſide which I had prepared, and
which would have enlarged it ſtill more. The materials of the
firſt part were alone ſufficient to fill a large volume; and there-
fore I deſigned to publiſh it ſeparately. But ſome judicious friends
were of opinion, that it would be better to lay the whole before
the public in one view. This I have ventured to do, voluminous
as it is, and hope the importance of the ſubject, as well as the
great extent of it, will be admitted as an apology. To the whole
is prefixed a Preliminary Diſcourſe on Natural and Revealed Reli-
gion, which I believe will not be thought an improper Intro-
duction to a work of this nature.
In treating of the fubject propoſed, I have ſometimes found
myſelf obliged to differ from perfons for whoſe learning and judg-
ment I have a great regard. And though I am not conſcious to
myſelf of having made any wilful miſrepreſentations of things,
yet it is very probable that in the courſe of ſo long a work I
have committed miſtakes, which will need the indulgence of the
reader.
?
As a book of this kind muſt unavoidably contain a great num-
ber of quotations, I have not thought it neceſſary in every inſtance
to give the words in the original language, though I have fre-
quently done ſo; but have, to the beſt of my ability, always
given a faithful account of their ſenſe. Great care has been taken
to make the references to the quotations particular and exact, that
any man who pleaſes may the more eaſily have it in his power to
examine and compare them.
After
P R E F A CE.
xiii
“After I had brought the following work near to a concluſion,
I met with a book written by the late learned Dr. Archibald
Campbel, profeſſor of divinity and eccleſiaſtical hiſtory in the uni-
verſity of St. Andrews, which I had not ſeen before, intituled,
« The Neceſſity of Revelation : of, an Enquiry into the extent of
“ Human Powers with reſpect to Matters of Religion ; eſpecially
“ thoſe two fundamental articles, the Being of God, and the
* Immortality of the Soul.” Publiſhed in 1739.
As the deſign
of this treatiſe ſeemed in ſome meaſure to coincide with what I
had in view, I read it over with great care, and muſt do him the
juſtice to ſay, that he has treated his ſubject with great learning
and diligence. But the method he makes uſe of is ſo different from
that which I have purſued, that the one does not interfere with
the other ; nor has it occaſioned any alteration in the plan which
I had formed. I have however in ſeveral places added marginal
notes referring to the Doctor's book, either where I thought it
contained a fuller illuſtration of what I have more briefly hinted
at, or where, as ſometimes has been the caſe, I happened to dif-
fer from that learned writer.
Not to detain the reader any longer, the plan of the following
work is briefly this:
That there was an original Revelation communicated to man-
kind in the earlieſt ages, for leading them to the knowledge of
God and Religion, ſome veſtiges of which continued long among
the nations: that in proceſs of time, through the negligence and
corruption of mankind, Religion in it main articles, and particu-
larly in what related to the knowledge and worſhip of the One
true
XIV
P R E FACE.
true God, became in a great meaſure defaced, and overwhelmed
with the groſſeſť ſuperſtitions and idolatries: that this was the
ſtate of things even in the moſt polite and civilized nations, and
all the aids of learning and philoſophy were ineffectual and vain :
that therefore there was great need of a new Divine Revelation
from heaven, to ſet the great principles of religion in the moſt
clear and convincing light, and to enforce them upon mankind
by a Divine authority in a manner ſuited to their vaſt importance
that accordingly it pleaſed God to do this by the Chriſtian Reve-
lation, which was fitted and deſigned to be publiſhed to all man-
kind, and was accompanied with all the evidences of a Divine
original which were proper to procure its reception in the world :
that to prepare the way for this, there had been an extraordinary
Revelation ſeveral ages before, which though immediately pro-
mulgated to a particular people, was in ſeveral reſpects of uſe to
other nations, for checking the progreſs of idolatry and polytheiſm,
and preſerving the knowledge and worſhip of the One true God in
the world, when it ſeemed in danger of being extinguiſhed.
From all which it appears, that God never left himſelf without
witneſs among men: that his diſpenſations towards mankind
have been conducted with great wiſdom, righteouſneſs, and good-
neſs: and that we, who by the favour of God enjoy the benefit
of the laſt and moſt perfect Revelation of the Divine WiH which
was ever made to mankind, are under the higheſt obligations to
receive it with the profoundeſt veneration, with the moſt un-
feigned gratitude and thankful admiration of the Divine Goodneſs,
and to endeavour to make the beſt uſe and improvement of it.
CONTENT S.
CONTENTS
TO THE
FI R S T V O L U M E.
1
An INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE, in Two Sections.
Sect. I. Of Natural Religion.
Sect. II. Of Revealed Religion.
Page 3
Page 15
1
CH A P. I.
AAN, in his original conſtitution and the. deſign of bis Creator,
a religious creature. Not left at his firſt formation to work
out a ſcheme of religion for himſelf. It is reaſonable to fuppoſe,
and confirmed by the moſt antient accounts, that the knowledge of
religion was communicated to the firſt parents of the buman race
by a Revelation from God, and from them derived to their deſcend-
ants. God made farther diſcoveries of his will to Noah, the ſecond
father of mankind. Tradition the chief way of conveying the
knowledge of religion in thoſe early ages.
Page 43
CHA P. II.
The firſt religion of mankind was not idolatry, but the knowledge
and worſhip of the one true God. Some veſtiges of which may be
traced up to the moſt antient times. A tradition of the creation
of the world continued long among the nations. The notion of one
Supreme God was never intirely extinguiſhed in the Pagan world;
but
1
C Ο Ν Τ Ε Ν Τ S.
$
.
but his true worſhip was in a great meafüre loſt and confounded
amidſt a multiplicity of idol deities.
Page 69
CH A P. III.
1
The firſt corruption of religion, and deviation from the knowledge
and worſhip of the one true God, was the worſhip of heaven and
the heavenly bodies. This the moſt antient kind of idolatry. It
began very early, and ſpread very generally among the Heathen
nations.
p. 95
CH A P. IV.
H A P
The worſhip of deified men and beroes another ſpecies of idolatry of
an ancient date, and which obtained very early in the Pagan
world. Moſt of the principal objects of the Heathen worſhip, the
Dii majorum Gentium, had been once dead men. The names and
peculiar attributes originally belonging to the one Supreme God ap-
plied to them, particularly to Jupiter ; to whom at the ſame time
were aſcribed the moſt criminal actions. Jupiter Capitolinus, the
principal obječt of worſhip among the antient Romans, not the one
true God, but the chief of the Pagan divinities. The pretence,
that the Pagan polytheiſm was only the worſhipping one true God
under various names and manifeſtations, examined and shewn to
be inſufficient. The different names and titles of God erected into
different deities.
p. 109
CH A P. V.
Р.
Farther progreſs of the Heathen polytheiſm. The fymbols and images
of the Gods turned into Gods themſelves. The Phyſiology of the
Pagans another ſource of idolatry. They made Gods and Goddeſſes
.
5
of
CO N T E N T S.
of the things of nature, and parts of the univerſe, and of whatſo-
ever was uſeful to mankind. The qualities and affections of the
mind, and accidents of life, and even evil qualities and ac-
cidents were deified, and had divine honours rendered to them.
The moſt refined Pagans agreed, according to Dr. Cudworth, in
crumbling the Deity into ſeveral parts, and multiplying it into
Gods. They ſuppoſed God to be in a manner all things, and
therefore to be worſhipped in every thing. Divine honours were
paid to evil beings acknowledged to be fuch.
The Egyptian
idolatry conſidered.
p. 140
many Gods.
CH A P. VI.
"The Pagan theology diſtributed by Varro into three different kinds :
the poetical or fabulous, the civil, and the philoſophical. The poetical
or fabulous theology conſidered. The pretence, that we ought not to
judge of the Pagan religion by the poetical mythology, examined.
It is ſhewn, that the popular religion and worſhip was in a
great meaſure founded upon that mythology, which ran through
the whole of their religion, and was of great authority with the
people.
P: 157
CH A P. VII.
The civil theology of the Pagans conſidered. That of the antient
Romans has been much commended, yet became in proceſs of time
little leſs abſurd than the poetical, and in many inſtances was cloſela
,
connected and complicated with it. The pernicious conſequences of
this to religion and morals. Some account of the abſurd and im-
moral rites which were antiently practiſed in the moſt civilized
Vol. 1
nations,
CO N T E N T S.
-
nations, and which made a part of their religion ; being either
preſcribed by the laws, or eſtabliſhed by cuſtoms which had the
force of laws. The politicians and civil magiſtrates took no effec-
tual methods to rectify this, but rather countenanced and abetted
the popular ſuperſtition and idolatry:
p. 169
CH A P. VIII.
The Pagan myſteries have been highly extolled, as an expedient pro-
vided by the civil authority, both for leading the people to the
practice of virtue, and for convincing them of the vanity of the
common idolatry and polytheiſm. The tendency of the myſteries to
purify the ſoul, and raiſe men to the perfection of virtue, exa-
mined. At beſt they were only deſigned to promote the practice
of thoſe virtues which were moſt uſeful to fociety, and to deter
men from ſuch vices as were moſt pernicious to it. In proceſs of
time they became greatly corrupted, and had a bad effect on the
morals of the people. The pretence, that the myſteries were intended
to dete&t the error of the vulgar polytheiſm, and to bring men to the
acknowledgment and adoration of the one true God, diſtinctly conſ-
dered: and the proofs brought for it ſhewn to be inſufficient. P: 201
CH A P. IX.
Some farther conſiderations to sew, that the deſign of the myſteries
was not to detext the errors of the Pagan polytheiſm. The legi-
flators and magiſtrates who inſtituted and conducted the myſteries,
were themſelves the chief prometers of the popular polytheiſm from
political views, and therefore it is improbable that they intended
fecretly to fubvert it by the myſteries. Their ſcheme upon ſuch a
2
ſup-
CONTENTS
C
fuppofition abſurd and inconſiſtent. The myſteries were, in fact,
of no advantage for reclaiming the Heathens from their idola-
tries. The primitive Chriſtians not to be blamed for the bad
opinion they had of the Pagan myſteries.
p. 233
CH A P. X.
The philoſophical theology of the antient Pagans conſidered. High
encomiums beſtowed upon the Pagan philoſophy. Yet it was of little
uſe for leading the people into a right knowledge of God and reli-
gion, and for reclaiming them from their idolatry and polytheiſm.
This shewn from ſeveral conſiderations. And firſt, if the philofo-
pbers had been right in their own notions of religion, they could
have but finall influence on the people, for want of a proper au-
thority to enforce their inſtructions.
p. 251
C H A P. XI.
The affected obſcurity of the Pagan philoſophers another cauſe which
rendered them unfit to inſtruct the people in religion. Inſtead of
clearly explaining their ſentiments on the moſt important ſubjects,
they carefully concealed them from the vulgar. To which it may
be added, that ſome of them uſed their utmoſt efforts to deſtroy all
certainty and evidence, and to unſettle men's minds as to the belief
of the fundamental principles of all religion : and even the best
and greateſt of them acknowledged the darkneſs and uncertainty they
were under, eſpecially in divine matters.
CH A P. XII.
The fourth general conſideration. The philoſophers unfit to inſtruet
the people in religion, becauſe they themſelves were for the moſt
part
-
p. 260
C 2
1
Ο Ο Ν Τ Ε Ν Τ S.
part very wrong in their own notions of the Divinity. They
were the great corrupters of the antient tradition relating to the
one true God and the creation of the world. Many of thoſe wbo.
profeſſed to ſearch into the origin of the world, and the formation
of things, endeavoured to account for it without the interpoſition
of a Deity. The opinions of thoſe philoſophers who were of a nobler
kind conſidered. It is sewn, that they were chargeable with great
defects, and no way proper to reclaim the nations from their idola-
try and polytheiſm
p. 273
CHAP: XIII.
Further proofs of the wrong ſentiments of the antient philoſophers
in relation to the Divinity. Plutarch's opinion; and which be
repreſents as having been very general among the antients, con-
cerning two eternal principles, the one good, the other evil. Thoſe
philoſophers who taught that the world was formed and brought
into its preſent order by God, yet held the eternity of matter ;
and few if any of them believed God to be the Creator of the world
in the proper ſenſe. Many of them, eſpecially after the time of
Ariſtotle, maintained the eternity of the world in its preſent form.
It was an eſtabliſhed notion among the moſt celebrated philofo-
phers, and which ſpread generally among the learned Pagans,
that God is the foul of the world, and that the whole animated
Syſtem of the world is God. The pernicious conſequence of this
notion shewn, and the uſe that was made of it for encouraging
and promoting idolatry and polytheiſm.
P: 303
CH A P. XIV.
The greateſt and beſt of the antient Pagan philoſophers generally ex-
preſſed themſelves in the polytheiſtic ſtrain; and, inſtead of leading
tbe
Ć O N T E N T S.
the people to the one true God, they ſpoke of a plurality of gods,
even in their moſt ſerious diſcourſes. They aſcribed thoſe works
to the gods, and directed thoſe duties to be rendered to them, which
properly belong to the Supreme.
P. 328
€ H A P. XV.
Some farther confiderations to shew how little was to be expected
from the philoſophers for recovering the Pagans from their poly-
theiſm and idolatry. They referred the people for inſtruction in
divine matters to the oracles, which were managed by the prieſts.
This shewn particularly concerning Socrates, Plato, and the Stoics.
It was an univerfal maxim among them, That it was the duty of
every wife and good man to conform to the religion of his country.
And not only did they worſhip the gods of their reſpective coun-
tries, according to the eſtabliſhed rites, and exhort others to do
fo, but when they themſelves took upon them the character of legiſla-
tors, and drew up plans of laws and of the beſt forms of govern-
ment, not the worſhip of the one true God, but polytheiſm, was
the religion they propoſed to eſtabliſh.
p. 349
CH A P. XVI.
Farther proofs of the philoſophers countenancing and encouraging the
popular idolatry and polytheiſin. . They employed their learning
and abilities to defend and juſtify it. The worſhip of inferior dei-
ties was recommended by them under pretence that it tended to the
honour of the ſupreme. Some of the most eminent of them endea-
voured to colour over the abfurdeſt part of the Pagan poetic theology
by allegorizing the moſt indecent fables. They even apologized for
the Egyptian animal worſhip, which the generality of the vulgary
Pagans
-CO N T E N T S.
Pagans in other nations ridiculed. Their plea for idolatry and
image-worſhip as neceſary to keep the people from falling into ir-
religion, and, atheiſm. Some of the moſt refined philoſophers were
againſt any external worſhip of the ſupreme God.
p. 364
C H A P. XVII.
- The ſtate of the Heathen world with reſpect to their notions of Divine
Providence. The belief of a Providence ſuperintending human
affairs obtained generally among the vulgar Pagans : but the Pro-
vidence they acknowledged was parcelled out among a multiplicity
of gods and goddeſſes. Their notions of Providence were alſo in
other reſpects very imperfect and confuſed. The doctrine of the phi-
loſophers concerning Providence conſidered. Many of them, and of
the learned and polite Pagans denied a Providence. Of thoſe who
profeſſed to acknowledge it, fome confined it to heaven and heavenly
things. Others ſuppoſed it to extend to the earth and to mankind,
yet ſo as only to exerciſe a general care and ſuperintendency, but
not to extend to individuals. Others ſuppoſed all things, the leaſt
as well as the greateſt, to be under the care of Providence : but
they aſcribed this not to the Supreme God, who they thought was above
concerning himſelf with ftuch things as theſe, and committed the care
of them wholly to inferior deities. The great advantage of Reve-
lation fbewn for inſtructing men in the do&trine of Providence :
and the noble idea given of it in the Holy Scriptures.
!
P: 376
r
..CH A P. XVIII.
General reflections on the foregoing account of the religion of the an-
tient Pagans. The firſt reflection is this: that the repreſentations
made to us in Scripture of the deplorable ſtate of religion among the
Gentiles
E O N T E N T S
Gentiles are literally true, and agreeable to fact, and are con-
firmed by the undoubted monuments of Paganiſm. The attempts of
ſome Icarned men to explain away thoſe repreſentations conſidered,
and ſewn to be vain and inſufficient.
P. 406
CH A. P. XIX.
A ſecond general reflektion. The corruption of religion in the Hea-
then world is no juſt obječtion againſt the wiſdom and goodneſs of
Divine Providence. God did not leave himſelf without witneſs
amongſt them. They had for a long time ſome remains of antient
tradition originally derived from Revelation. Beſides which, they
had the ſtanding evidences of a Deity in his wonderful works. The
Jewiſh Revelation was originally deſigned to give a'check to the
growing idolatry, and had a tendency to spread the knowledge and
worſhip of the one true God among the nations : and it actually had
that effect in many inſtances. If the generality of the Pagans
made no uſe of theſe advantages, but ſtill perſiſted in their idola--
try and polytheiſm, the fault is not to be charged upon God, but
upon themſelves.
p. 433
CH A P. XX,
A third general reflection. Idolatry gathered ſtrength among the
nations, as they grew in learning and politeneſs. Religion in
ſeveral refpets leſs corrupted in the ruder and more illiterate than
in the politer ages. The arts and ſciences made a very great pro-
greſs in the Heathen world: get tirey Bill became more and more
addi&ted to the moſt cbfurd idolat-ies, as well as to the most abomi- -
nable vices; both of which were at the weight at the time of our
Saviour's appearance,
p. 453:
CH A P, .
1
1
C Ο Ν Τ Ε Ν Τ 8.
s.
CH A P. XXI.
A fourth general reflection. Human wiſdom and philoſophy, with
out a higher aſiſtance; inſufficient for recovering mankind from
their idolatry and polytheiſm, and for leading them into the right
knowledge of God and religion, and the worſhip due to him. No
remedy was to be expected in an ordinary way, either from the
philoſophers or from the prieſts, or from the civil magiſtrates.
Nothing leſs than an extraordinary Revelation from God could, as
things were circumſtanced, prove an effeétual remedy. The wiſeft
men in the Heathen world were ſenſible of their own darkneſs and
ignorance in the things of God, and of their need of Divine
Revelation.
P. 464
CH A P. XXII.
The fifth and laſt general reflection. The Chriſtian Revelation ſuited
to the neceſſities of mankind. The glorious change it wrought in
the face of things, and in the ſtate of religion in the world;
yet accompliſhed by the ſeemingly meaneſt inſtruments, in oppoſition
to the greateſt difficulties. It was given in the fitteſt ſeaſon, and
attended with the moſt convincing evidences of a divine original.
How thankful fhould we be for the ſalutary light it brings, and
bow careful to improve it! What an advantage it is to have the
Holy Scriptures in our hands, and the neceſſity there is of keeping
cloſe to the ſacred rule there ſet before us, in order to the preſerving
the Chriſtian Religion in its purity and fimplicity.
p. 476
A N
AN INTRODUCTORY
--
DISCOURSE
CONCERNING
Natural and Revealed Religion.
.
a
R
ELIGION, in its true notion, neceſſarily ſuppoſes
and includes an intercourſe between God and Man:
i. e. on God's part diſcoveries and manifeſtations of him-
ſelf and his perfections, and of his will with regard to the duties
he requireth: and on man's part a capacity and readineſs to receive
and improve thoſe diſcoveries, and to conform to all the ſignifica-
tions of the divine will. For it is an undeniable principle, that
whatſoever plainly appeareth to be the mind and will of God, in
whatever way we come to know it, we are indiſpenſably obliged
to obſerve. And there are two ways by which God may be ſup-
poſed to manifeſt himſelf and his will to mankind, by his Works
and by his Word.
Accordingly Religion has been uſually diſtributed into Natural
and Revealed. Theſe are not two effentially different religions,
inuch leſs contrary or contradictory to one another : for as both
are ſuppoſed to come from God, who is truth itſelf, there muſt
be a harmony between them: nor yet are they entirely the faine,
VOL. I.
B
and
.
2
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE. Sect. I.
I
and only differing in the manner of communication. For tho'
all true Revealed Religion muſt be really conſiſtent with, and
contain nothing contrary to, the clear light of Nature and Reafon,
yer it may diſcover and reveal ſeveral things relating to Truth and
Duty, which that Light, if left to itſelf, could not have diſco-
vered at all, or not with ſufficient clearneſs and certainty. Theſe,
therefore, are not to be ſet in oppoſition: nor is the one of them
deſigned to exclude the other. And, in fact, God manifeſted
himſelf in both theſe ways from the beginning; ſo that it may,
with the greateſt juſtneſs and propriety, be ſaid, that he hath ne-
ver left himſelf without witneſs among men. Happy would it
have been for them, if they had been careful to make a right uſe
and improvement of thoſe diſcoveries!
S E C T.
1
Sect. I.
3
OF NATURAL RELIGION.
1
1
SECT. I.
Of NATURAL RELIGION.
T
HE word Natural Religion has been taken in various ac-
ceptations. Some, by Natural Religion, underſtand every
thing in religion, with regard to truth and duty, which, when
once diſcovered, may be clearly ſhewn to have a real foundation
in the nature and relations of things, and which unprejudiced
reaſon will approve, when fairly propoſed and ſet in a proper
light. And accordingly very fair and goodly ſchemes of Natural
Religion have been drawn up by Chriſtian Philoſophers and Di-
vines, in which they have comprehended a conſiderable part of
what is contained in the Scripture Revelation : e.g. the important
truths and principles relating to the exiſtence, the unity, the
perfections, and attributes of God, his governing providence and
moral adminiſtration, the worſhip that is due to him, the law
that is given to mankind, or the whole of moral duty in its juſt
extent as relating to God, our neighbours, and ourſelves, the re-
wards and puniſhments of a future ſtate, and other articles nearly
connected with theſe, or dependent upon them. And after hav-
ing taken great pains to Thew that all this is perfectly agreeable
to found reaſon, and founded in the nature of things, they have
honoured the whole with the name of Natural Religion. It can-
not be denied, that it is a real and great ſervice to Religion, to
ſhew that the main principles and duties of it are what right rea-
ſon muſt
approve. And no ſmall praiſe is certainly due to thoſe,
who
B 2
4
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE. Sect: I.
who have ſet themſelves to demonſtrate this with great clearneſs
and force of argument.
1
But it does not follow, that becauſe theſe things, when once
clearly diſcovered, may be proved to be agreeable to reaſon, and
to have a real foundation in the nature of things, that therefore
Reafon alone, in the preſent ſtate of mankind, if left to itſelf,
without higher aſſiſtance, would merely, by its own force, have
diſcovered all theſe things with their genuine conſequences, and
have applied them to their proper uſes, for directing men in the
true knowledge and practice of Religion. It is a juft obfervation
of that great man Mr. Locke, That “ a great many things which
“ we have been bred up in the belief of from our cradles (and
« are notions grown familiar, and, as it were, natural to us under
“ the Goſpel) we take for unqueſtionable truths, and eaſily de-
« monſtrable, without conſidering how long we might have been
“ in doubt or ignorance of them, had Revelation been ſilent (a)”.
And he had ſaid before, That “ every one may obſerve a great
many truths, which he receives at firſt from others, and readily
« affirms to be conſonant to reaſon, which he would have found
“ it hard, and perhaps beyond his ſtrength, to have diſcovered
“ himſelf. Native and original truth is not ſo eaſily wrought out
« of the mine, as we who have it ready dug and faſhioned to our
“ hands, are apt to imagine (6)”. To the fame purpoſe the
learned Dr. Clarke obſerves, That “ it is one thing to ſee, that
« theſe rules of life, which are beforehand plainly and particularly
(a) Locke's Reaſonableneſs of Chriſtianity, in his works, vol. II. p. 535. ed. 3.
(6) Ibid. p. 532.
« laid
t
Sect. I.
5
OF NATURAL RELIGION.
“ laid before us, are perfectly agreeable to reaſon, and another
thing to find out thefe rules merely by the light of reaſon, with-
“out their having been firſt any otherwiſe made known (c).”
Accordingly ſome able and ſtrenuous aſſerters of Natural Religion
or the law of nature, though they contend that it is founded in
the nature of things, and agreeable to right reaſon, yet derive the
original promulgation of it from divine Revelation. Puffendorf
obſerves, That “ it is very probable that God taught the firſt men
" the chief heads of natural law, which were afterwards preſerved
“ and ſpread among their deſcendants by means of education and
« cuſtom: yet this does not hinder, but that the knowledge of
" theſe laws may be called natural, inaſmuch as the truth and
certainty of them may be diſcovered in a way of reaſoning, and
« in the uſe of that reaſon which is natural to all inen.” Puffend.
De Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. II. c. iii. ſect. 20. According to this
account, Natural Religion or the law of nature is not ſo called
becauſe it was originally diſcovered by natural Reaſon, but becauſe,
when once made known, it is what the reaſon of mankind, duly
exerciſed, approves, as founded in truth and nature.
Natural Religion, in the ſenſe now explained, is very conſiſtent
with the ſuppoſition of an extraordinary divine Revelation, both
to diſcover and promulgate it at firſt, and to re-eſtabliſh and con-
firm it, when, through the corruption of mankind, the important
principles and duties of it were fallen into fuch darkneſs and ob-
ſcurity, and fo confounded with pernicious errors and obſcure
(c) Dr. Clarke's Diſcourſe on Nat. and Rev. Religion, propoſition vii. P. 313.
edit. 7.
mixtures,
6
Sect. I.
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
1
mixtures, that there needed an extraordinary aſſiſtance to recover
men to the right knowledge and practice of it.
1
There are others who take Natural Religion in a ſenſe which
is abſolutely excluſive of all extraordinary Revelation, and in di-
rect oppoſition to it. By Natural Religion they underſtand that
Religion which men diſcover in the ſole exerciſe of their natural
faculties and powers, without any other or higher aſſiſtance. And
they diſcard all pretences to extraordinary Revelation, as the ef-
fects of enthuſiaſm or impoſture. It is in this ſenſe, that thoſe
who call themſelves Deiſts underſtand Natural Religion, which
they highly extol as the only true Religion, the only diſcovery
of truth and duty which can be ſafely depended upon ; and which
comprehends the whole of what is neceſſary to be known and
done, in order to the obtaining the favour of God, and attaining
true happineſs. But they who take Natural Religion in this ſenſe
are not entirely agreed in their ſcheme.
The ableſt advocates for Natural Religion, as oppoſed to Reve-
lation, aſſert it to be perfectly clear and obvious to the whole hu-
man race, and that it is what all men have a natural knowledge
of. They argue, that ſince Religion equally concerneth all man-
kind, the wiſdom and goodneſs of God require that it ſhould be
actually known to all. That ſince God has given the brutes na-
tural inſtincts, which guide them certainly and infallibly to anſwer
the proper end of their being, much more muſt it be ſuppoſed
that he hath furniſhed all men with infallible means to direct them
to Religion and Happineſs. Thus it is that Lord Herbert fre-
quently argues ; and on this foundation it is that he aſſerts, that
4
God
+
1
Sect. I.
7
OF NATURAL RELIGION.
God hath imprinted on the minds of all men innate ideas of the
main principles of Religion and Morality. And Dr. Tindal fre-
quently repreſents it, as if there was a clear univerſal light ſhin-
ing into the minds of all men, and diſcovering to them the whole
of what is neceſſary for them to know, believe, and practiſe; and
which cannot be made clearer to any man by an external extra-
ordinary Revelation, than it is naturally to all men without it.
This is the principle which lies at the foundation of his celebrated
book, intituled, “ Chriſtianity as old as the Creation,” and which
runs through the whole of that boaſted performance. And it is,
indeed, the only principle on which the ſcheme of thoſe gentle-
men, who pretend that an extraordinary Revelation is abſolutely
needleſs and uſeleſs, can be conſiſtently ſupported. This laſt
mentioned author often talks as if what is called the law, or Reli-
gion of Nature, was a perfect ſcheme of Religion and Morality,
fairly drawn on the mind and heart of every man, in ſuch a man-
ner, that it is not poſſible for any man to miſtake it. And he
carries it ſo far as to affirm, that even the moſt illiterate of the hu-
man race, and who cannot ſo much as read in their mother
tongue, have naturally and neceſſarily a clear and intimate
percep-
tion of the whole of Religion and their duty. And it will be
eaſily owned, that there is no need of an extraordinary Revelation
to teach men what they all naturally and neceſſarily know. Nor,
indeed, upon that ſuppoſition, is there the leaſt need of inſtructions
of any kind, whether by word or writing: and the beſt way would
be (as this gentleman himſelf ſometimes intimates) to leave all
men entirely to themſelves, and to the pure ſimple dictates of na-
ture.
This
way of talking may, perhaps, appear fair and plauſi-
bis
8
Sect. I..
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
ble in ſpeculation. It ſeems to make a beautiful repreſentation of
the dignity of our ſpecies, and of the univerſal goodneſs of God
to the whole human race. But, when brought to the teſt of fact
and experience, it appears to be a viſionary ſcheme, no way an-
fwering to the truth and reality of the caſe in the preſent ſtate of
human nature. And one would be apt to wonder, how ſuch a
repreſentation could be made to paſs upon any man, that has the
leaſt knowledge of the world, or of the hiſtory of mankind. It
ſuppoſes Religion, in its true nature and in its juſt extent, to be
naturally known to all men ; ſo that they cannot miſtake it: and
yet nothing is more certain and undeniable, from the hiſtory of
mankind in all ages, than that they have miſtaken it in its import-
ant principles and obligations: and that, in order to their having
a right ſenſe and diſcernment of thoſe principles and obligations,
they ſtand in great need of particular inſtruction and information.
It is evident in fact, that where no care is taken to inſtruct men,
they have ſcarce any notion of Religion at all, but are ſunk into
the groſſeſt ignorance and barbariſm : and accordingly the wiſeſt
men in all ages have been ſenſible of the great advantage and ne-
ceffity of education and inſtruction. Plutarch, in his treatiſe De
liberis educand. goes ſo far as to affirm, that “ Nature, without
learning or inſtruction, is a blind thing;” ý piv cúois äveu ræbø -
GEWS TUçnó (d). And, in his treatiſe De Auditione, he ſays,
« Vice can have acceſs to the ſoul through many parts of the
body, but Virtue can lay hold of a young man only by his
ears (e),” by which he receives inſtruction. Plato, in his fixth
.
(d) Plutarch Oper. Toine ii. p. 2. B. Edit. Francof. 1620.
(c) Ibid. p. 38. A.
book
Sect. I.
9
OF NATURAL RELIGION.
book of laws, after having ſaid, that man, if, with a good natu-
ral diſpoſition, he happens to have the advantage of right in-
ſtruction and education, becomes a moft divine and gentle ani-
mal, adds, that, if he be not ſufficiently or properly educated,
he is the wildeſt and moſt untractable of all earthly animals,
árgástalov Tood Quer qñ (f). The philoſophers frequently com-
plain of the ignorance and ſtupidity of the generality of mankind :
and this even when they ſpeak of the people of Athens and
Rome, who were undoubtedly the moſt knowing and civilized
among the heathen nations. And they would certainly have
thought it a very ſtrange hypotheſis to ſuppoſe, that every man,
even the meaneſt of the vulgar, is naturally ſo knowing in reli-
gion and morals, as to ſtand in no need of farther inſtruction ei-
ther from God or Man (8).
Senſible of the inconveniencies of this ſcheme, others, by Na-
tural Religion, underſtand not merely that which is naturally and
neceſſarily known to all men, but that which Reaſon, duly exer-
ciſed and improved, is able, by its own natural force, to diſcover,
without the aſſiſtance of extraordinary Revelation. And as to
this, it is a queſtion not eaſy to be reſolved, what is the utmoſt
poſſibility of human reaſon, or how far our natural faculties,
without any higher aſſiſtance, may poſſibly carry us, when raiſed
to the higheſt degree of improvement of which they are naturally
capable. Nor is it a queſtion of much uſe: ſince there are many
(f) Plat. Oper. p. 619. D. Edit. Ficin. Lugd. 1590.
(g) I have elſewhere more largely ſhewn the abſurdity of this ſcheme. Anſwer
to Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, vol. I. eſpecially chap. v. See alſo the View
of the Deiſtical Writers, vol. I. p. 49, et ſeq. Edit, 3.
VOL. I.
С
things,
10
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
Sect. I.
things, which cannot be ſaid to be abfolutely above the reach of
human capacity, which yet very few of the human race would
ever come to know. without particular information. The preſent
queſtion, as far as Natural Religion is concerned in it, is, how far
the bulk of mankind, taking them as they are in the preſent
ſtate of the world, and of human nature, immerſed in fleſh and
ſenſe, with all their appetites and paſſions about them, and amidſt
the many avocations, buſineſſes, and cares in which they are in-
volved, can ordinarily arrive in matters of Religion, by the mere
force of their own natural powers, without any farther affiſtance
or inſtruction: If we ſhould fuppoſe that ſome perſons of ſtrong.
reaſon and extraordinary judgment and fagacity, were capable, by
the mere force of their own reaſon and ſtudious reſearches, to-
make out for themſelves a. ſyſtein of Religion and Morals in all:
its main principles and duties, yet this would not reach the caſe of
the generality of mankind, who have neither capacity, nor leiſure,
por inclination for profound enquiries. Nor, could theſe wiſe men :
pretend to a ſufficient authority, for impoſing their own ſenti-
ments as laws to mankind. Or, if the people ſhould be brought
to pay an implicit regard to their dictates, here would a way be:
opened for what thoſe gentlemen, who ſet up for the Patrons of
Natural Religion in oppoſition to Revelation, ſo much dread, prieſt--
craft, and the impoſitions of deſigning men (%).
But
(b) It may not be amiſs here to produce the acknowledgment of an ingenious.
author, who cannot be ſuſpected of being prejudiced in favour of Revelation, andi
has taken pains to convince the world of the contrary. · They,” faith he, “ who,
"s would judge uprightly of the ſtrength of human reaſon in matters of morality
“ and religion, under the preſent corrupt and degenerate ſtate of mankind, ought.
to take their eſtimate from thoſe parts.of. the world, which never had the benefit
os of:
Sect. I.
It
OF NATURAL RELIGION.
1
But without entering into a nice ſpeculative diſquiſition, con-
cerning the
powers and abilities of human reaſon in matters of
Religion, independent of all Revelation, the fureſt and plaineſt
way of judging is from fact and experience. It is therefore of
great moment, for the deciſion of this point, to enquire what it
is that human reaſon hath actually done this way, when left merely
to its own force, without any extraordinary affiftance (i). And
this
~ of Revelation : and this, perhaps, may make them leſs conceited of themſelves,
" and more thankful to God for the light of the Goſpel." He aſks, “ If the Reli-
gion of nature, under the preſent depravity and corruption of mankind, was writ-
" ten with ſufficient ſtrength and clearneſs upon every man's heart, why might not
a Chineſe or Indian draw up as good a ſyſtem of Natural Religion as a Chriſtian,
" and why have we never met with any ſuch ?" And he adds, “ Let us take Con-
“ fucius, Zoroaſter, Plato, Socrates, or the greateſt moraliſt that ever lived without
“ the light of Revelation, and it will appear, that their beſt ſyſtems of morality
" were intermixed and blended with much ſuperſtition, and ſo many groſs abfurdi-
" ties as quite eluded and defeated the main deſign of them.” The ſame author
obſerves, That " at the time of Chriſt's coming into the world, mankind in general
were in a ſtate of groſs ignorance and darkneſs with reſpect to the true knowledge
" of God, and of themſelves, and of all thoſe moral relations and obligations we
« ſtand in to the ſupreme Being, and to one another.”—That “they were under
great uncertainties concerning a future ſtate, and the concern of divine Providence
“ in the government of the world”-That" our Saviour's doctrines on theſe heads,
“ though they be the true and genuine dictates of nature and reaſon, when he had
“ ſet them in a proper light, yet were ſuch as the people never would have known
“ without ſuch an inſtructor, and ſuch means and opportunities of knowledge.”
And that it doth not follow, that, “ becauſe theſe are natural truths, and moral
“ obligations, therefore there could be no need of Revelation to diſcover them; as
" the books of Euclid and Newton's Principia contain natural truths, and ſuch as
" are neceſſarily founded in the reaſon of things, and yet none but a fool or a mad-
man would ſay, that he could have informed himſelf in theſe matters as well
“ without them.” Dr. Morgan's Moral Philoſopher, vol. I. p. 143, 144, 145.
(i) A very learned writer, who will not allow that any ſingie perſon of the hu-
man race ever, in fact, arrived at the right knowledge of God, merely by the natu-
ral exerciſe of his own rational powers, without foreign inſtruction and aſſiſtance,
yet
C 2
I 2
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
Sect. I.
1
this cannot be judged of from any ſyſtems formed by perſons that
live in ages and countries, which have enjoyed the light of Di-
vine Revelation, and where its diſcoveries, doctrines, and lasya
have been received and entertained; ſince in this caſe it may rea-
ſonably be ſuppoſed, that they have borrowed light from Revela-
tion, though, they are not willing to acknowledge it, or may not
themſelves be ſenſible of it. And therefore ſyſtems drawn up by
our modern admirers of Natural Religion in Chriſtian countries,
cannot be brought in proof of the force of unaſſiſted Reaſon in
matters of Religion. And the ſame may be ſaid of thoſe Pagan
philoſophers who lived after Chriſtianity had made ſome progreſs
in the world.
Nor can the fufficiency of the light of Natural Reaſon, left
merely to itſelf, without the aids of Revelation, be regularly ar-
gued from the ſyſtems of the ancient philoſophers, lawgivers,
and moraliſts, who lived before the Chriſtian Revelation was •
publiſhed ;. except it can be fhewn, that they themſelves derived.
the religious and moral principles which they taught, fölely and
yet does not carry it ſo far as to affirm, that it is not poſſible for any man to do fo.
He obſerves, that “ in examining how far mankind are able, of themſelves, to ex-
“ tend their knowledge of religious matters, we muſt all along mean the bulk of
" mankind, and only regard the common powers of human nature, as they may,
" poſſibly, be employed and exerted by the individuals of our ſpecies in the common
• circumſtances of human life : ſo that although one man, or ſome, few men, in
" this or that age or place of the world, ſhould happen, by ſome lucky juncture,
" from one ſtep to another, to come at length to ſhew themſelves able to diſcover.
“ the Being and perfections of God, the immortality of the foul, and other articles
" of Natural Religion, yet this uncommon event can never be accounted a fair
“ ſtandard, whereby to judge of the common powers and abilities of the bulk of
" mankind.” Campbell's Neceſſity of Revelation, p. 64: He expreſſes himſelf to,
the fame purpoſe, p. 66 and 72.
entirely
1
Sect. I.
1.3
OF NATURAL RELIGION.
entirely from the reſearches and diſquiſitions of their own Reaſon,
and diſclaimed their having had any aſſiſtance, with regard to
thoſe truths and principles, from tradition or divine inſtruction.
And it is no hard matter to fhew by teſtimonies from the moſt
celebrated ancients, that this was not the caſe, nor was it what
they aſſumed to themſelves. It is a thing well known, that the
moſt admired philoſophers of Greece did not pretend to ſet up
merely on their own ſtock, but travelled into Egypt, and differ
ent parts
of the Eaſt, to improve their knowledge by converſation.
with the ſages of thoſe countries; who themſelves profeſſed to
have derived their knowledge, not merely from the diſquiſitions of
their own Reaſon, but from a higher fource, from very antient
traditions, to which for the moſt part they aſſigned a divine ori-
ginal. And indeed, ſuppoſing an original Revelation to have been
communicated to the firſt parents and anceſtors of the human
race, which (I ſhall ſhew) there is great reaſon to believe, the
moſt conſiderable veſtiges of it were to be expected in the Eaſtern
nations, which lay neareſt to the ſeat of the firſt men; and from
which the reſt of the world had their knowledge of Religion and
Letters. To this it may be added, that the moſt celebrated and
fagacious of the ancient philoſophers made pathetical complaints
of human darkneſs and ignorance, and the great difficulties they
met with in ſearching after truth. Many of them were ſenſible
of the great need there was of a divine inſtruction and aſſiſtance,
for enlightening and directing mankind in matters of Religion and
their duty (k). So that no argument can be juſtly drawn from
1
1
(k) This is particularly ſhewn in Dr, Clarke's Diſcourſe of Natural and Revealed
Religion; p. 304, et ſeq. and in Dr. Ellis's “ Knowledge of divine things from
oo Revelation, not from Nature or Reaſon.”
the.
'14
Sect. I.
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
the wiſe men and philoſophers among the ancients, to ſhew that
the knowledge of what is uſually called Natural Religion, in its
juſt extent, is wholly and originally owing to the force of human
Reaſon, excluſive of all Divine Revelation. And perhaps it would
not be eaſy to mention any nations, among whom any true know-
ledge of Religion has been preſerved, concerning which we can
be aſſured, that they never had any benefit from the light of Di-
vine Revelation; and that the principles of religious truth and
duty, which were to be found among them, were originally the
mere product of natural Reaſon, without any higher aſſiſtance.
Several things may be obſerved amongſt them, which ſeem to be
the remains of an antient univerſal tradition, or primæval Reli-
gion, derived from the remoteſt antiquity, and which, probably,
had their original ſource in Divine Revelation, though, in proceſs
of time, it was greatly altered and corrupted. This is only men-
tioned here, but will be more fully conſidered in the Sequel of
this Treatiſe.
.
SECT.
[ 15 ]
SECT. II.
Of R e. V. E A LED RELIGION.
B
Y Revealed Religion is commonly underſtood that know-
ledge of Religion, which was originally communicated
from God to men in a way of extraordinary Revelation, for in-
ſtructing them in important religious truth, and directing and en-
gaging them to the practice of their duty. In a general ſenſe,
all truth, and the manifeſtation of it, may be ſaid to come from
God, even that which we diſcover in the ordinary uſe of thoſe
rational faculties which he hath given us. But when we ſpeak of
Revealed Religion, as diſtinguiſhed from that which is uſually
called Natural, it is to be underſtood of that knowledge of Re-
ligion, which was originally communicated in an extraordinary
and ſupernatural way. And ſuch a Revelation muſt either be by
an immediate infallible inſpiration, or illumination of every parti-
cular perſon, for enlightening and directing him in the know-
ledge and practice of Religion; or by God's making an extra--
ordinary diſcovery of himſelf, and of his will to fome perſon or
perſons, to be by them communicated to others in his name. In
the former caſe it could not be properly called extraordinary Reve-
lation : For if it were an univerſal infallible light, imparted to:
every ſingle perſon in every nation and every age, from the be-
ginning of the world, it would be as common and familiar to.
every one as the common light of Reaſon, and by being uni--
verſal
16
Sect. II.
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
verſal would ceaſe to be extraordinary. That this is poflible to the
Divine Power, cannot be doubted; but it is evident in fact, that
this is not the way which it hath pleaſed the Divine Wiſdom to
take with mankind. For if every man were inſpired with the
knowledge of Religion in a way of immediate infallible Reve-
lation, it could not poſſibly have happened, that the moſt of
mankind, in all ages, have been involved in darkneſs and error,
and have fallen into a groſs ignorance of true Religion, and into
the moſt abſurd ſuperſtitions and idolatries. If, therefore, there
be ſuch a thing as Revealed Religion, if it hath pleaſed God to
make diſcoveries of his will to mankind with regard to religious
truth and duty, in a way of extraordinary Revelation, the moſt
natural way, and that which is beſt accommodated to the preſent
ſtate of mankind, ſeems to be this ; that the Revelation ſhould be
imparted to ſome perſon or perſons, to be by them communicated
to others in his naine (1); at the ſame timne furniſhing them with
ſufficient proofs and credentials, to ſhiew that they were indeed
ſent and inſpired by him; and that the doctrines and laws they
publiſh to the world in his name, were really and originally com-
municated by Revelation from him. For in this method there is
(1) When we ſpeak of the Revelation's being communicated to others, beſides
thoſe who originally and immediately received it from God, this is to be underſtood
of the matter of that Revelation, or the doctrines and laws which are thus re-
vealed. For though the inſpiration itſelf, conſidered as an act of God upon the
mind, is a perſonal thing, and cannot be communicated by the perſon who receives
it to others, yet the doctrines and laws he thus receives from God, may be by him
communicated to others by word and writing, as readily as if he had received them
in the ordinary and natural way. And they to whom they are thus communicated,
are obliged to receive them as of divine authority, in proportion to the proofs and
evidences which are given them, that the perſon that delivered them was indeed
ſent of God, and received them by Revelation from him.
ſufficient
Sect. IJ.
17
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
ſufficient proof given to ſatisfy well diſpoſed minds, and proviſion
is made for inſtructing men, if it be not their own faults, in the
knowledge of Religion, and engaging them to the practice of
the duties it requireth : and at the ſame time, there is room for
the exerciſe of reaſon, for examination and enquiry into the na-
ture of the evidence, and for the trial of men's fincerity and dili-
gence, of their impartial love of truth, and openneſs to receive it.
With regard to Revelation as now explained, ſeveral queſtions
ariſe, which deſerve to be conſidered. The firſt relates to the
poſſibility of it. The ſecond to the uſefulneſs and expediency,
or even neceſſity of it in the preſent ſtate of mankind. The
third relates to the proofs and evidences, whereby it may be
ſhewn, that ſuch a Revelation hath been actually given.
That God can, if he thinks fit, make a Revelation of him-
ſelf, and his will to men in an extraordinary way, different from
the diſcoveries made by men themſelves in the mere natural and
ordinary uſe of their own rational faculties and powers, appears
to me to be ſo evident, that I do not ſee how any man that be-
lieves a God and a Providence, can reaſonably deny it. For if
the
power of God be Almighty, it muſt extend to whatſoever
doth not imply a contradiction, which cannot be pretended in
this caſe. We cannot diſtinctly explain the origin of our ideas,
or the way in which they are excited or impreſſed on the human
mind. But we know that theſe ways are very various. And can
it be ſuppoſed, that the author of our beings hath it not in his
power to communicate ideas to our minds, for inſtructing and in-
forming us in what it nearly concerneth us to know ? Our not
VOL. I.
D
being
!
18
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE. Sect. II.
>
being able clearly to explain the manner in which this is done, is
no juſt objection againſt it. For this we have the acknowledg-
ment of a noble and ingenious writer, who is of a diſtinguiſhed,
rank among the oppoſers of Revelation. He obſerves, that “an
« extraordinary action of God upon the human mind, which the
“word Inſpiration is now uſed to denote, is not inore uncon-
« ceivable than the ordinary action of mind on body, or body on
“ mind.” And that “ it is impertinent to deny the exiſtence of
any phænomenon, merely becauſe we cannot account for it (m)."
And as it cannot reaſonably be denied, thạt God can, if he ſees
fit, communicate hịs will to men in a way of extraordinary Reve-
lation, ſo he can do it in ſuch a manner, as to give thoſe to whom
this Revelation is originally and immediately made, a full and
certain aſſurance of its being a true divine Revelation. This na-
turally follows upon the former. For to ſuppoſe that God can
communicate his will in a way of extraordinary Revelation,
and yet is not able to give a ſufficient aſſurance to the perſon or
perſons to whom he thus reveals his will, that the Revelation
comes from him, is evidently abſurd and contradictory. It is,
in effect, to ſay, that he can reveal his will, but has no way of
making men know that he does fo: which is a moſt unreaſonable
limitation of the divine power and wiſdom (n). He that pretends
to pronounce that this is impoſſible, is bound to ſew where the
impoflibility of it lies. If men, like ourſelves, can communicate
their thoughts by ſpeech or language in ſuch a way as that we may
1
(m) Lord Balingbroke's Works, vol. II. p. 468. Edit. 4to.
(12) See, concerning this, Anſwer to Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, vol. II.
chap. i. p. 3, 4. 2d Edit.
certainly
Sect. II.
19
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
certainly know who it is that ſpeaks to us, it would be a ſtrange
thing to affirm, that God, on ſuppoſition of his communicating
his mind and will to any perſon or perfons in a way of extraordi-
nary Revelation, has no way of cauſing them to know that it is he,
and no other, that makes this diſcovery to them. The ingenious
author of the Moral Philoſopher was ſenſible of this. He ex-
preſsly grants, that “ God may communicate and convey ſpiritual
« and divine truth, either mediately or immediately as he thinks
fit, either by the ſuperior ſtrength and extent of men's own
« natural faculties, or by any more immediate ſupernatural illu-
« mination.” And again, that “ God may reveal or diſcover
« truth to the mind in a way fuperior to what is common and
“ natural.” And he owns, that “immediate Inſpiration or Re-
“ velation from God may communicate a certainty to the man
“ thus immediately inſpired, equal to that which ariſeth from a
" mathematical demonſtration (6).” Though he will not allow,
that the knowledge of ſuch truth can go any farther
authority, or as a matter of divine faith, than to the perſon or per-
fons thus inſpired, or to whom the Revelation is immediately
upon divine
made.
This leads me to another obſervation on this ſubject; and that
is, that God can commiſlion thoſe to whom he has made an ex-
traordinary Revelation of his will, to communicate to others what
they have received from him, and can furnith them with ſuch
credentials of their divine miſſion, as are ſufficient to prove that he
ſent them, and that the doctrines and laws they deliver in his
) Moral Philoſopher, vol. I. p. 82, 83, 84. and vol. II. p. 44, 45.
D 2
name,
,
-
10
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE. Sect. II.
i
name, were indeed received from God. It muſt be acknow-
ledged, that though the perſons to whom the original Revelation
was made, were never ſo ſure that it is a true divine Revelation,
and that they received it from God; their being certain of it is no
aſſurance to others, except they be able to give ſome farther
proofs and evidences, which may be ſufficient to fhew the juſt-
neſs of their pretenſions. It is true, that if they appear from their
whole conduct and character to be excellent perſons, of great
piety, probity and fimplicity, not actuated by worldly ambition,
avarice, or ſenſuality, nor carried away by a diſorderly imagina-
tion and hot-brained enthuſiaſm, but of ſound and ſober minds:
if the Revelation they profeſs to have received from God hath no-
thing in it contrary to the evident dictates of right reaſon, and is
of an excellent tendency, manifeſtly directed to the glory of God,
and to the good of mankind, and to promote the cauſe of truth,
righteouſneſs, and virtue in the world: if the doctrines and laws
they publiſh in the name of God be of ſuch a nature, and have
ſuch a degree of wiſdom, goodneſs, and purity in them, as is
vaſtly ſuperior to what could have been expected in an ordinary
way from the perſons by whom they were publiſhed to the world;
and therefore could not be reaſonably ſuppoſed to be the product
of their own invention : and if there be nothing in the whole that
gives a juſt ſuſpicion of artful impoſture, or a deſign to impoſe
upon mankind; but much to the contrary: Theſe muſt be
owned to be ſtrong preſumptive arguments in their favour. But
ſtill it may be reaſonably expected, that if God commiſſions per-
fons to deliver doctrines and laws to the world in his name, he
will furniſh them with poſitive proofs and evidences ſufficient to
convince
1
I
Sect. II.
21
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
convince reaſonable and well-diſpoſed minds that he ſent them.
That it is poſſible for God to give ſuch proofs and evidences, can-
not, without great abſurdity, be denied. The omnipotent author
of nature, and Lord of the univerſe can undoubtedly, if he
thinks fit, enable ſuch perſons to perform the moſt wonderful
works in his name as a proof that he ſent them; works of ſuch a
nature, and ſo circumſtanced, as manifeſtly to tranſcend all hu-
man power, and bear the evident marks of a divine interpo-
ſition (p). He can alſo endue them with ſupernatural gifts, and
enable them to give expreſs predictions of future contingent
events which no human ſagacity could foreſee; and which yet
ſhall be accompliſhed in the proper ſeaſon. . That God can, in
his inexhauſtible power and wiſdom, by theſe and other methods,
ſignify to the world that he ſent them, and give a divine atteſtation
to the doctrines and laws delivered by them in his name, no man
that has juſt notions of the Deity, can conſiſtently deny. A
writer, who has diſtinguiſhed himſelf in oppoſition to Revelation,
has thought fit to own, that “when men are funk into groſs ig-
(D) Some of the moſt noted oppoſers of Revelation have made conceſſions which
tend to fhew, that miracles, ſuppoſing them to have heen really performed, may
be of ſuch a nature, as to yield a ſufficient proof of the divine miffion of the perſons
by whom, and of the divine authority of doctrines and laws in atteſtation of which
they are wrought. Mr. Collins acknowledges, that “miracles, when done in proof
“ of doctrines and precepts, that are conſiſtent with reaſon, and for the honour of
“ God, and the good of mankind, ought to determine ien to believe and receive
vs them.” Scheme of literal Prophecy conſidered, p. 321, 322. Mr. Woolſton
ſays, “I believe it will be granted on all hands, that the reſtoring a perſon indiſ-
putably dead to life is a ſtupendous miracle, and that two or three ſuch miracles
* well atteſted and credibly reported, are enough to conciliate the belief, that the
"author of them was a divine agent, and inveſted with the power of God."
Sce his 5th Diſcourſe on miracles, p. 3: And Spinoſa is ſaid to have declared,
tluat if he could believe that the reſurrection of Lazarus was really wrought as it is
reated, he would give up his ſyſtem.
" norance
22
Sect. II.
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
“norance and error, and are greatly vitiated in their affections
« and paſſions, then God may (for any reaſon, ſays he, that I
“ can ſee to the contrary) kindly interpoſe by a ſpecial application
“ of his power and providence, and reveal to men fuch uſeful
« truths as otherwiſe they might be ignorant of, or might not
« attend to; and alſo lay before them ſuch rules of life as they
ought to walk by, and likewiſe preſs their obedience with pro-
per motives, and thereby lead them to repentance and refor-
« mation.” This ſeems to be a fair conceffion; but he 'endea-
vours, as far as in him lies, to render it ineffectual by adding,
« But then that it is fo, and when it is ſo, will, in the nature of
“ the thing, be a matter of doubt and diſputation (9).” And
elſewhere he confidently affirms, that “ in what way foever God
“ communicateth knowledge to men, it muſt always be a matter
“ of uncertainty whether the Revelation be divine or not: and
" that we have no rule to judge, or from which we can with cer-
“ tainty diſtinguiſh divine Revelation from deluſion (r). The
plain meaning of which is this, that if we ſhould ſuppoſe, which
is the caſe this author himſelf puts, both that men ſtand in need
of an extraordinary Revelation from God, and that God ſees fit
to interpoſe, by a ſpecial application of his power and providence,
to grant ſuch a Revelation, yet he has it not in his power to ef-
fect this kind deſign, or to make it known to the world that he
really givés ſuch a Revelation, though his goodneſs ſhould incline
him to do ſo, and the circumſtances of mankind ſhould require
(9) Chubb's Poſthumous Works, vol. I. p. 292, 293.
(r) Ibid. vol. II. p. 5.
i.
Sect. II.
23
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
it. This ſeems to me to be, in effect, an entering a Proteſt
againſt the Almighty, and a declaring beforehand, that let him
do what he can to affure us of his having given ſuch a Revelation
of his will, we are reſolved not to believe it.
Another thing which ought to be obſerved upon this ſubject
is, that not only they who live in the age when the Revelation
was firſt publiſhed to the world, may have ſuch proofs of it as
may
be ſufficient to convince them of its divine authority and
original, but that it may be tranſmitted with ſuch evidence to
thoſe that live in ſucceeding ages, as may lay them under an ob-
ligation to receive and ſubmit to it as a Revelation from God.
Suppofing doctrines and laws to have been originally communi-
cated in a way of extraordinary Revelation, all that would be
neceſſary to render that Revelation uſeful to diſtant ages and na-
tions, would be that the doctrines and laws, which are the ſubject
matter of this Revelation, together with an authentick account of
the proofs and evidences by which the divine original and autho-
rity of that Revelation was atteſted and confirmed, ſhould be
faithfully tranſmitted to ſucceeding generations. In this caſe,
thoſe to whom it is thus tranſmitted enjoy the benefit of that Re-
velation, and may be ſaid to haye the light of it, as really, tho'
not ſo immediately, communicated to them, as if they had lived
in the age when it was firſt given. It muſt be acknowledged,
that oral Tradition is not a very ſure conveyance. But it is mani-
feſt, that writings may be tranſmitted with ſuch a degree of evi-
dence, as to leave no room for reaſonable doubt. This is the
4
moft
24
Sect. II.
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
moſt ſimple and natural way of propagating the knowledge of
Revelation to ſucceeding ages. If, therefore, that Revelation had
any original authority, then, on ſuppoſition that thoſe of ſucceed-
ing generations have ſufficient evidence to aſſure them of its hav-
ing been ſafely tranſmitted, it is really of as divine authority to
them, as it was to thoſe to whom it was firſt publiſhed, and they
are obliged to receive and ſubmit to it as ſuch: ſince, on this ſup-
poſition, they have thoſe very doctrines and laws in their hands,
which were originally communicated by Divine Revelation, and
have alſo a ſufficient aſſurance of the truth of thoſe extraordinary
facts and evidences, by which it was originally atteſted and con-
firmed. No man is able to ſhew, that there is any thing abſurd
in this ſuppoſition. And it may be, and has often been, clearly
proved, that what is here ſuppoſed as poſſible, is actually fact,
with regard to the Revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures :
and that we have greater evidence of the ſafe tranſmiſſion of thoſe
ſacred writings, without any general and material corruption and
alteration, than we have concerning other books, the genuine-
neſs of which is univerſally acknowledged.
I know of nothing which can be objected againſt this, but the
uncertainty of moral evidence, and the fallibility of hiſtorical hu-
man teſtimony. It is eaſy to declaim plauſibly on this ſubject;
but allowing all that can be reaſonably alleged to ſhew that it is
often fallacious, and not to be depended upon, it cannot be denied
that this kind of evidence may be, and frequently is, ſo circum-
ſtanced, that the man would ſcarce be thought in his ſenſes that
ſhould ſeriouſly deny or doubt of it. It is by moral evidence,
and
Sect. II.
OF REVEALED RELIGION. 25
$
1
and the teſtimony of fallible men, capable of deceiving and being
deceived, that a man who has never been at Paris or Rome knows
that there are ſuch cities, and yet he can no more reaſonably
doubt of it than if he had ſeen them with his own eyes. It is by
moral evidence that we have all our laws and records, and the
aſſurance of any paſt facts.
any paſt facts. And yet is there any man of ſenſe,
that does not as certainly believe many facts which were done in
former ages, as he believes any event that ħas happened of late
years, and within his own memory? It is manifeſt that the au-
thor of our beings, and the wiſe governor of the world, deſigned
that a great part of our knowledge ſhould come in this way, and
that we ſhould be governed and determined by this kind of evi-
dence and teſtimony in many caſes of great importance. The
neceſſity we are under of doing this ariſeth from the very
frame
of our nature, and the conſtitution of things, and from the cir-
cumſtances in which we are placed in the world, and conſequently
from the will and appointment of God himſelf. Why then
ſhould it be thought abſurd to ſuppoſe, that he ſhould fo order it
that our knowledge of ſome important matters relating to Reli-
gion, ſhould alſo come in this way of conveyance? If God has
been pleaſed, in a former age, to make a Revelation of his will
to mankind, deſigned for the uſe not only of that but of ſucceed-
ing ages ; and if this Revelation, with its doctrines and laws, be
tranſmitted to us in that way of conveyance, which we ourſelves
ſhould count unqueſtionable in other caſes, and with as much evi-
dence as we could reaſonably expect, ſuppoſing a Revelation to
have been really given in paſt ages; and if we have as much
aſſurance of the extraordinary facts whereby it was originally at-
VOL. I.
E
teſted,
/
3
26
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE. Sect. II.
teſted, as we could fairly expect concerning any paſt facts, ſup-
poſing thoſe facts to have been really done; God may juſtly re-
quire us to receive and ſubmit to that Revelation. And he that
receives it upon that evidence acts a wiſe and good part, becom-
ing a reaſonable Being and Moral Agent. To demand that God
ſhould continually ſend new Revelations to aſſure us of his having
formerly given us a well-atteſted Revelation, and ſhould cauſe
the ſame facts to be done over again for our conviction, would
be the moſt unreaſonable thing in the world. At that rate thoſe
extraordinary facts muſt be repeated in every age, in every nation,
and for the ſatisfaction of every ſingle perſon ;- for one hath as
much right to demand it as another ; and by being thus common,
they would ceaſe to be extraordinary: and this very thing would
hinder the effect. Miracles are not to be multiplied without ne- .
ceſſity. Nor can it be reaſonably ſuppoſed, that God will inter-
poſe in an extraordinary way to aſſure us of paſt facts, when the
ordinary is ſufficient, and when they come to us with as great
evidence as the nature of the thing will admit of, and which we
ourſelves ſhould count ſufficient in any other caſe.
What has been offered may be of uſe to remove ſome prejudices
againſt Revelation in general, and to Thew that there is no ab-
ſurdity in ſuppoſing that there may be ſuch a thing as Revealed
Religion.
But although it cannot reaſonably be denied, that God can, if
he pleaſes, make an extraordinary Revelation of his will, accom-
panied with ſufficient evidence to convince thoſe to whom it is
made known of its divine authority, yet it cannot be ſuppoſed
that
Sect. II.
27
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
that he would do this if it were of no real uſe or advantage to
inankind. For it is not reaſonable to believe, that an infinitely
wiſe God would take ſuch an extraordinary method, if there
were no neceſſity for it, and if it would anſwer no valuable end
at all.
The next thing, therefore, to be conſidered, after having
ſhewn that an extraordinary Revelation from God is poſſible, is
the great uſefulneſs and advantage of Divine Revelation, and the
need there is of it in the preſent ſtate of mankind, for ſupporting
and promoting the intereſts of religion and virtue in the world.
And there are ſeveral conſiderations from which it
may
concluded, that a well atteſted Revelation from God would be of
great advantage, and a ſignal inſtance of the divine grace and
goodneſs towards us.
be juſtly
It
may be of great uſe even with regard to thoſe truths and
principles which lie at the foundation of all Religion ; ſuch as the
truths relating to the excellent and unparalleled nature, the per-
fections and attributes of the one ſupreme God. The
The generality
of mankind ſeem not to be well qualified to purſue theſe truths,
and deduce them from clear and certain principles, in an orderly
chain of argumentation. They are ſo taken up with their worldly
concernments, and carried off by a variety of pleaſures and cares,
ſo intangled in ſenſible and material objects, that if left merely to
themſelves, there is little likelihood of their forming right ideas
of things ſpiritual and inviſible. It is generally by education and
inſtruction that theſe principles firſt enter into their minds, and
where
E 2
28
Sect. If
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
where they have not been taught or inſtructed, they know little
or nothing about them. And even as to perſons of philoſophical
minds, who apply themſelves to abſtract enquiries, and profeſſedly.
ſearch into the nature of things, how apt they are, when truſting
merely to the powers of their own reaſon, to form wrong notions
of the Deity, and how ſtrangely bewildered in their enquiries on
this ſubject, the following book will afford many melancholy
proofs. A noble author, who is an avowed patron of Natural
Religion as oppoſed to Revelation, tells us,, that « Theiſts will
“concur in aſcribing all poſſible perfections to the Supreme Be-
« ing :” But then he adds, that “ they will always differ when
they deſcend into any detail, and pretend to be particular about
" themas they have always differed in their notions of thoſe
perfections (s).” I think, therefore, it cannot reaſonably be
denied, that a true Divine Revelation might be of great 'uſe for
giving men a more clear and certain knowledge of that moſt
adorable Being, and his glorious attributes, than they would
otherwiſe have attained to, and for preventing or rectifying thoſe
errors they might be apt to fall into, in matters of ſuch importance,
and which are ſo far above our reach. For who, fo fit to declare
his own nature and perfections, as far as it is proper and needful
for us to know them, as God himſelf? And it is what one would
think every real and well-diſpoſed Theiſt ſhould earneſtly with
for, that God would be graciouſly pleaſed to make ſuch a clear
and expreſs Revelation of himſelf and his perfections, as might
direct men in forming juſt and worthy notions of the Divinity,
(s) Bolingbroke's Works, vol. V. p. 255. 4to.
eſpecially
Seet. II.
29
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
t
eſpecially of what it moſt nearly concerneth us to know, his
moral attributes.
Another matter of great importance, in which a Divine Reve-
lation might be of eminent uſe, relateth to the Providence of.
God. If left merely to our own reaſonings and conjectures, many
doubts might ariſe in our minds, whether that infinitely glorious.
Majeſty, who is exalted above our higheſt conceptions, would
concern himſelf about ſuch inconſiderable beings as we are, or
any of the things relating to us. And as there are many who
are uneaſy at the thoughts of God's exerciſing a continual in-
ſpection over our actions, this would naturally byaſs them to lay
hold on any pretence for rejecting it. But if God ſhould con-
deſcend, by an expreſs Revelation confirmed by ſufficient evi-
dence, to aſſure us of his concern for the individuals of the hu-
man race; that he takes cognizance of their actions, and orders
the events relating to them; this would be the moſt effectual
way
to diſpel their doubts, to ſtrike bad men with a wholeſome fear,
and to inſpire the good and virtuous with a chearful hope, an
entire reſignation, and a ſteady affiance.
That ſome kind of religious worſhip and homage ought to be
rendered to God by his reaſonable creatures, ſeems to be a dictate
of reaſon and nature. But what kind of worſhip will be moſt
acceptable to the Supreme Being, and what Rites are moſt proper
to be made uſe of in his ſervice, unaffiſted Reaſon cannot pretend.
poſitively and with certainty to determine. Even with reſpect to
the offering up prayers to God for the things we ſtand in need of,
which is that part of religious worſhip in which mankind ſeem to
have
5
1
30
Sect. II.
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
have been moſt generally agreed (t), how far this might be pro-
per, or conſiſtent with the veneration we owe to his ſovereign
greatneſs and majeſty, might be matter of doubt and fçruple,
without ſome ſignification of his will concerning it. And ac-
cordingly ſome perſons who have made great pretenſions to wif-
doin, and a regard to the law of nature, have endeavoured to
ſet aſide this part of our duty. But if God ſhould, by an expreſs
Revelation, appoint the rites of his own worſhip, and ſhew men
what kind of ſervice ke doth require, and will accept; if he
ſhould not only allow, but command them to offer up their
prayers and ſupplications to him, and give them directions for
the right performance of this duty, encouraging them to it by
the moſt gracious promiſes ; this would certainly, to all who be-
lieve and receive ſuch a Revelation, be a great ſatisfaction and
advantage.
The doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul, and a Future
State of Retributions, is of mighty importance to mankind; and
the natural and moral arguments to prove it are of no ſmall weight:
but
yet there are ſeveral things to be oppoſed to them, which
weaken the evidence, and may miniſter ground of ſuſpicion and
doubt, if conſidered merely on the foot of natural reaſon. And
accordingly ſome of the moſt eminent antient philoſophers either
denied it, or expreſſed themſelves doubtfully and waveringly con-
cerning it. And tho' the general principle, that God will, at one
time or other, either here or hereafter, reward good men, and
(t) This ſeems to have been part of the primitive religion derived from the firſt
parents of the human race, and which was originally owing to Divine Revelation.
punilla
Sect. II.
31
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
puniſh the wicked, is very agreeable to right reaſon; yet with re-
gard to ſeveral particulars comprehended under this general prin-
ciple, and upon which the right uſe and application of it in a
great
meaſure depends, the unaffiſted light of Reaſon can give us
little information. But if God himſelf ſhould, by a well-atteſted
Revelation, aſſure us, that death ſhall not put an utter end to our
being; that this preſent life is only the firſt ſtage of our exiſtence;
that we ſhall be raiſed again from the dead, and that God will
call all men to an account, and reward or puniſh them in a future
ftate according to their behaviour in this ; and ſhould alſo fignify
to us the nature of thoſe rewards and puniſhments, and the qua--
lifications of the perſons on whom they ſhall be conferred or in-
flicted; this maſt needs be of high advantage, and tend to give
us fatisfaction in a point of conſiderable importance, for encou-
raging men to the practice of virtue, and deterring them from
vice and wickedneſs.
The light of Nature and Reaſon may give us ſome general
ground of hope, that God will ſhew mercy to finners upon their
repentance and amendment: but how far this mercy Thall ex-
tend; whether he will pardon all manner of ſins, even thoſe of
the moſt heinous kind, frequently repeated and long perſiſted in,
barely upon repentance and amendment; and whether his
par-
don in that caſe will be only a mitigation or remiſſion of the
threatened penalty, without a full reſtitution to grace and favour ;
and how far he will reward an obedience attended with failures
and defects ; theſe things might create anxious doubts and per-
plexities to ſerious and thoughtful minds. Eſpecially when it is
5
farther
32
Sect. II.
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
farther conſidered, that reaſon leadeth us to regard God as juſt
as well as merciful, a wiſe and righteous governor, who will
therefore exerciſe his pardoning mercy in ſuch a way as ſeemeth
moſt fit to his rectoral wiſdom, and will beſt anſwer the ends of
moral governinent. And of this ſuch ſhort-lighted creatures as
we are cannot pretend to be competent judges. It muſt, there-
fore, be a mighty advantage, to be aſſured, by expreſs Revelation
from God, what the terms are upon which he will receive his
guilty offending creatures to his grace and favour; that he will
grant them a full pardon of all their iniquities, though they may
have been very great and heinous, upon their true repentance and
reformation ; that he will not only deliver them from the penal-
ties they had incurred by their fins, but will confer upon them
the moſt glorious privileges and benefits; and that he will reward
their dutiful and ſincere obedience, though imperfect and falling
ſhort of what the law in ſtrictneſs requires, with eternal life and
happineſs. This muſt be an unſpeakable ſatisfaction to creatures
conſcious to themſelves of many failures and defects. And it
muſt alſo give them great comfort and encouragement to be aſ-
ſured, by expreſs promiſes from God, that if they uſe their own
earneſt endeavours in the performance of their duty, he will
grant them the gracious aſſiſtances of his Holy Spirit, when from
a ſenſe of their own weakneſs they humbly apply to him for
them. To have theſe things aſcertained to us by a divine autho-
rity and teſtimony, muſt needs have a great tendency to fill the
hearts of good men with a pious confidence and joy, and to ani-
mate them to a perſevering diligence and conſtancy in well doing,
amidſt the many difficulties and temptations to which they are
expoſed in this preſent ſtate.
With
Sect. I.
33
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
With reſpect to Moral Obligations, as comprehending the du-
ties we owe to God, our neighbours, and ourſelves, whatever
certainty we might have of the grounds of thoſe obligations in
general, yet we might be greatly at a loſs, if leſt merely to our
unaſliſted reaſon, as to the particular laws and duties compre-
hended under thoſe general rules. There may be duties which
ſeem to be agreeable to reaſon, and yet cannot be clearly proved
by arguments from the nature of the thing, to be neceſſarily ob-
ligatory. There may be ſuch objections brought againſt them,
and with ſome appearance of reaſon, as may very much weaken
the force and influence of them ; eſpecially if, as is often the
caſe, a ſtrong appetite or apparent worldly intereſt, happens to
be on the other ſide. But a Divine Revelation, determining our
duty in thoſe inſtances, would ſoon decide the point, and give
thoſe laws and duties a weight and force which would over-rule
the contrary pretences. And I may appeal to the common ſenſe
of mankind, whether a clear and poſitive Revelation from God,
declaring what it is that he requireth of us with reſpect to the par-
ticulars of our duty, would not be a vaſt advantage: and whether
in that caſe men would not come far more eaſily and certainly
to the knowledge of their duty, than if they were left to collect
it, every man for himſelf, from the reaſons and fitneſſes of things ;
or from what he might take to be the dictates of his own nature,
and conducive to his own happineſs; as to which, through the
prevalence of appetites and paſſions, men are very apt to paſs
wrong judgments; or from the reaſonings of Philoſophers and
Moraliſts, who are far from agreeing in their ſentiments ; or, if
they did, are not to be abſolutely depended upon, and have no
VOL. I.
F
authority
3
34
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
Sect. II.
authority to make their ſentiments paſs for laws obligatory upon
mankind.
The laſt thing I Thall - here obſerve, with regard to the uſeful-
neſs or neceſſity of Divine Revelation is, that there may be ſe-
veral things, which it may be of great advantage to us to know,
which yet are of ſuch a nature, that we could not pretend at all
to diſcover them merely by the force of our own reaſon; as be-
ing things that do not lie within our reach, or which depend
upon
the free counſels of God. It is evident that in ſuch caſes a
Divine Revelation is the only means of diſcovery: and our cer-
tainty riſes in proportion to the proofs and evidences we have that
it is a Divine Teſtimony.
Theſe ſeveral confiderations are ſufficient to ſhew, that a true
Divine Revelation, ſuppofing God to give it to the world, would
be of great advantage: and that there is great need of it in the
preſent ſtate of mankind. And where ſuch a Revelation is given,
and there is ſufficient proof of its Divine Authority, it ought to
be received with the profoundeſt ſubmiſiion and veneration, and
with the higheſt thankfulneſs. But we are to take this along
with us, that Divine Revelation is not deſigned to ſuperſede the
uſe of our own reaſon, or to render the exerciſe of it needleſs,
but to guide, improve, and perfect it.
Revelation is far from diſcarding or weakening any argument,
that can be juſtly brought from reaſon, in proof of any truths re-
lating to Religion or Morality; but adds to them the atteſtation of
a divine
Sect. II.
35
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
a divine authority or teſtimony, which muſt needs be of
great
weight. This both gives a farther degree of certainty with regard
to thoſe things which are in ſome degree diſcoverable by the light
of reaſon, and furniſheth a ſufficient ground of affent, with re-
ſpect to thoſe things which bare unafliſted reaſon, if left to itſelf,
could not have diſcovered, and which yet it may be of uſe to us
to know.
By the common conſent of mankind, a competent authority is,
in
many caſes, a good and proper medium to aſſure us of the
truth of things. And to believe upon the credit of ſuch an au-
thority and teſtimony is ſo far from being a renouncing our rea-
fon, as ſome have pretended, that on the contrary it is what rea-
ſon and good ſenſe require, and to refuſe it would be to act an
abſurd and unreaſonable part (v). And particularly ſuppoſing an
extraordinary Revelation from God, and that of this we are con-
vinced by ſufficient proof, it is very reaſonable to receive what is
there revealed upon the authority of the Revealer. And indeed
it would be a contradiction to believe it to be a Revelation from
God, and yet refuſe our afſent to it : Since it is a moſt evident
principle, that as God is incapable of deceiving or being deceived,
whatſoever he hath revealed muſt be true.
That God hath made a Revelation of his will to men, hath
been the general ſenſe of mankind in all ages and nations. This
might have been originally owing to a Tradition of ſome extra-
(v) See, concerning this, Anſwer to Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, vol. II.
chap. i. p. 17. et ſeq. edit. 2d.
F 2
ordinary
36
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE. · Sect. II.
A
ordinary Revelation or Revelations really communicated in the
earlieſt times, to the firit anceſtors of the human race; from
whom it was tranſmitted to their deſcendants, though, in pro-
ceſs of time, in a great meaſure corrupted and loſt. Or at leaſt
it ſhews, that men have generally thought that a Revelation from
God to men was both poſſible and probable; and that this was
agreeable to the ideas they had formed of the wiſdom and good-
neſs of God, and of his concern for mankind. It alſo ſhews,
that they were ſenſible of the need they ſtood in of ſuch'extra-
ordinary diſcoveries from God, to inſtruct and direct them in the
knowledge of his will and their duty. It muſt be owned, indeed,
that this notion of an intercourſe between God and men in a way
of extraordinary Revelation has given occaſion to impoſtures and
deluſions : that it has induced men of warm imaginations to take
their own reveries, the workings of their diſtempered brain and
fancies, for Divine Inſpirations; and that artful impoſtors have
taken advantage from it to put their own inventions upon the
people for divine diſcoveries and injunctions; in order to anſwer
the ends of their ambition and avarice, and to erect a tyranny
over the minds and conſciences of men. This has opened a large
field for declamation. But it affords no reaſonable preſumption,
that there never was a true Revelation given from God to men.
All that can be fairly concluded from it is, that the beſt and moſt
excellent things may be perverted and abuſed by the folly and
wickedneſs of men. The ſame way of arguing has been em-
ployed by Atheiſts, to ſhew that mankind had better be without
any Religion at all; and that there is no way of preventing or
curing the miſchiefs of ſuperſtition, but by denying a God and a
Providence.
1
--
Sect. II.
37
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
Providence. And it might as plauſibly be pretended, that all
kinds of civil government and polity ought to be rejected, and
that it would be better for mankind, that there were no civil go-
vernment at all. And yet I believe every conſiderate and impar-
tial perſon will be of opinion, that all the miſchiefs which have
ever ariſen from the abuſe of Religion and civil government, fall
vaſtly ſhort of the evils of atheiſin and univerſal anarchy; which
would bring along with it a diffolution of all order, and of the
ſtrongeſt bands of ſociety; and would produce ſuch a ſcene of
confuſion and licentiouſneſs, that a wiſe and good man would be
apt to prefer non-exiſtence before it (w).
not
(2) Cotta in Cicero has, in like manner, with great eloquence, diſplayed the
miſchiefs of Reaſon, and has endeavoured to fhew, that it would be better for
mankind to be without it; and that if the Gods had intended to do them harm,
they could not have given them a worſe thing. De Nat. Deor. l. 3. cap. xxvi. et
feq. et cap. xxxii. The ſum of what he there offers to thew that Reaſon
the gift of God, is becauſe of the abuſe that has been made of it. And whereas
it might be ſaid, that there are ſome who make a good uſe of their Reaſon, he an-
(wers that theſe are very few; and it cannot be ſuppoſed that God would only con
fult the welfare, or provide for the benefit of a few. If he did it for any, he
would do it for all. “ Si mens voluntaſque divina idcirco conſuluit hominibus,
quod iis eſt largita rationem, iis folis conſuluit, quos bona ratione donavit: quos,
“ videmus, fi modo ulli ſint, eſſe perpaucos. Non pl.icet autein paucis a Diis iin-
“mortalibus eſſe conſultum : Sequitur ergò ut nemini conſultum fit.” ibid.
cap. xxvii. p. 319. It is after the ſame manner that ſome have argued, that if
the benefit of Divine Revelation were given to any, it muſt be given equally to all;
and ſince it is manifeſt it is not given to all, this ſhews it is not given to any.
This certainly would be thought a very abſurd way of talking in any other caſe.
It by no means follows, that becauſe ſome perſons or nations ſeem to be advan-
tageouſly diſtinguiſhed above others by having better means of religioirs or nioral
improvement, therefore they are to deny or flight their own advantages, and not
acknowledge them as the gifts and bleſſings of Divine Prviidence, nor be thankful
to God for them.
Bclides,
38
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE. Se&t. II.
Beſides, it muſt be conſidered, that theſe gentlemen who make
this objection againſt the uſefulneſs of Divine Revelation, do not
believe that there ever was a real Divine Revelation given to inan-
kind. They cannot, therefore, juſtly argue from the miſchiefs
which they mention, and take ſo much pains to exaggerate, that
a real and well-atteſted Revelation would be of no uſe or benefit
to the world! Since, upon their ſuppoſition, the miſchief was
only owing to fallly pretended ones. And I cannot well ſee what
method theſe gentlemen could take to prevent it. If they them-
felves ſhould ſet up for inſtructors of the people, what ſecurity
could we have that in that caſe they would not come in time to
act the Prieſts, and take advantage to impoſe upon the ignorance
and credulity of mankind for anſwering their own political and
intereſted views ? Much of that falſe Religion that is in the world,
has been owing to men, who, in reality, had no Religion at all.
And it may juſtly be affirmed, that a real Divine Revelation, pub-
liſhed for the uſe of mankind, and confirmed by ſufficient evi-
dence, would, if duly attended to, be the beſt and moſt effectual
preſervative againſt the abuſes and miſchiefs ariſing from fallly
pretended ones. This would be the moſt likely means to furniſh
the people with juſt notions of Religion, and to reſcue them
from that ignorance which expoſes them to impoſture and delu-
fion, and tends to render them a prey to artful and deſigning
And it is certain in fact, that in thoſe parts of the world,
where the Chriſtian Revelation, as contained in the Holy Scrip-
tures, is moſt generally received and ſpread among the people,
the great principles of what is uſually called Natural Religion are
moſt generally believed and beſt underſtood : and at the ſame time,
men.
7
the
Sect. II.
39
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
+
the people, by being acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, are the
leaſt liable to be impoſed upon by ſuperſtition and prieſtcraft (x).
It is a thing not to be conteſted, that what abuſes have been or are
found among profeſſed Chriſtians have not been owing to their
adherence to that Revelation, but to their deviations from it.
And the beſt and moſt effectual remedy againſt thoſe abuſes and
corruptions, would be to keep cloſe to the original rule of Faith
and Practice laid down in thoſe ſacred writings.
The confiderations which have been offered are ſufficient to
ſhew the poſſibility of an extraordinary Revelation from God to
men; and alſo that ſuch a Revelation would be of great uſe,
and is very needful in the preſent ſtate of mankind, for leading
them to the knowledge and practice of Religion. And whoſo-
ever duly conſiders this, will be apt to conclude, from the good-
neſs of God and the neceſſities of mankind, that God hath not
left men at all times deſtitute of ſuch a valuable help for main-
taining true Religion in the world, and engaging them to the
practice of piety and virtue. And accordingly it pleaſed God in
his great goodneſs to communicate the knowledge of Religion in
its main fundamental principles to the firſt parents and anceſtors
of the human race, to be by them tranſmitted to their poſterity.
This primitive Religion became greatly corrupted in the ſucceed-
ing ages, eſpecially in what related to the knowledge and worſhip
of the one true God: and the nations were generally fallen into
the moſt groſs idolatry and polytheiſm. God might juſtly have
left mankind without any farther extraordinary diſcoveries of his
will; but he ſaw fit, in his great wiſdom and goodneſs, to grant
(*) This is what I have endeavoured particularly to New: Anſwer to Chriſti-
anity as old as the Creation, vol. I. chap. ix.
a neir
40
Sect. II.
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
a new Revelation, which was particularly deſigned to eſtablish,
by the moſt amazing exertions and diſplays of his divine power
and majeſty, the ſovereign glory and dominion of the only true
ſupreme God, in oppoſition to all idol deities: as alſo to give a
ſyſtem of written laws, enforced by his divine authority, contain-
ing the chief duties of morality in plain and expreſs precepts :
and likewiſe to keep up the faith and hope of that great Saviour of
mankind, who had been promiſed from the beginning, and to
prepare
the
way
for his coming by a ſeries of illuſtrious pro-
phecies. This Revelation, though immediately given to a parti-
cular people, was intended to be of uſe to other nations, and
really was ſo in ſeveral reſpects, for preſerving ſome knowledge of
true Religion in the world, when it ſeemed to be in a great mea-
fure defaced and loſt. This was ſucceeded, at the diſtance of
ſeveral ages, by the moſt compleat and perfect diſpenſation of
Religion that ever the world faw, and which was brought by that
glorious and divine Perſon, whoſe coming had been ſo long pro-
miſed and foretold, and who actually accompliſhed all the great
things which had been ſpoken of him by the ancient prophets.
By means of this Revelation, the knowledge and worſhip of the
one true God came to be reſtored among the nations, which had
been funk in idolatry and polytheiſm for many ages : The beſt
and nobleſt ideas are there given of God, and of the ſpiritual
worſhip to be rendered to him : Precepts of the pureſt morality
are publiſhed to mankind, ſetting the whole of our duty before
us in its juſt extent: The moſt wonderful diſplays are made of
the exceeding riches of the divine grace and mercy towards
periſhing finners of the human race, and the gracious terms and
glorious
<
Sect. II.
41
OF REVEALED RELIGION.
glorious promiſes of the new covenant are placed in the cleareſt
light. The moſt expreſs aſſurances are given us of a future ſtate
of retributions, ſome imperfect notions of which had long conti-
nued among the nations, but at length, through the corruption
of mankind, and the falſe ſubtleties of men pretending to wif-
dom and philoſophy, had been almoſt entirely defaced. The
future puniſhments of the obſtinately wicked and impenitent are
ſtrongly aſſerted, and the fulleſt diſcoveries made of a bleſſed
reſurrection, and of eternal life and felicity for good men, as the
reward of their ſincere though imperfect obedience.
!
Theſe ſeveral diſpenſations yield mutual light and ſupport to one
another. The ſame ſcheme of Religion for ſubſtance is carried
through them all, but is eſpecially compleated in the laſt. This
which comes neareſt to our own times, and was accompanied
with a fulneſs of evidence proportioned to its vaſt importance,
gives an illuſtrious atteſtation to the preceding diſpenſations.
And as each of them have diſtinct evidences of their own, ſo there
is a conjunct evidence ariſing from the harmony of them when
compared together, which exhibiteth a pleaſing view of the divine
wiſdom and goodneſs towards mankind.
It is not my deſign at preſent to enter upon a particular confi-
deration of the proofs that are brought for the divine authority of
the Jewiſh and Chriſtian Revelation ; both of which refer to and
confirm the original Revelation made to mankind from the be-
ginning. This has been done by many learned pens with great
ſtrength of reaſon and argument; and I have, on ſome former
VOL. I.
G
occaſions,
42
INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
Sect. II.
occaſions, contributed my endeavours this way (y). L'ttle has
been oppoſed to the arguments which have been offered on this
ſubject, but ſuſpicions and preſumptions, and often groſs miſre-
preſentations and rude ridicule; or ſuch particular difficulties and
objections as do not affect the main of the evidence. Nor have I
met with any thing that could deſerve the name of a fair and
direct attempt, to invalidate the evidence of the extraordinary and
important facts, by which the divine original and authority of
thoſe Revelations is atteſted and eſtabliſhed. The principal thing
on which the adverſaries of Religion ſeem to rely is the ſuppoſed
ſufficiency of human reaſon, when left merely to its own unaſliſted
force and ſtrength for all the purpoſes of Religion ; from whence
it is inferred, that an extraordinary Revelation is entirely needleſs
and uſeleſs. But how little foundation there is for this pretence,
I propoſe to thew from undeniable fact and experience, in the
enſuing treatiſe.
(y) See the Anſwer to Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, vol. II. eſpecially
the fix firſt chapters. See alſo the Divine Authority of the Old and New Teſta-
ment aſſerted, vol. I. The fame ſubject is alſo treated in ſeveral parts of the View
of the Deiſtical Writers. And an abſtract of the whole may be ſeen in the Sum:
mary of the Evidences for Chriſtianity at the latter end of that work.
1
Τ Η Ε
1
THE
ADVANTAGE AND NECESSITY
OF THE
CHRISTIAN REVELATION,
SHE WN FROM THE
State of Religion in the Heathen World.
PART 1.
Relating to the Knowledge and Worſhip of the one
true God.
CH A P. I.
Man, in his original conſtitution and the deſign of his Creator, a
religious creature. Not left at his firſt formation to work out
a ſcheme of Religion for himſelf. It is reaſonable to fuppoſe,
and confirmed by the moſt antient accounts, that the knowledge of
Religion was communicated to the firſt Parents of the human race
by a Revelation from God: and from them derived to their de-
ſcendants.
G2
44
Man originally deſigned
Part I.
t
ſcendants. God made farther diſcoveries of his will to Noah the
fecond Father of mankind. Tradition the chief way of conveying
the knowledge of Religion in thoſe early ages.
T
-
HAT man is a religious creature, i. l. capable of Re-
ligion, and deſigned for it, is apparent to any one who
makes due reflections upon the frame of the huma
nature (2). By Religion I underſtand the duty which reaſonable
creatures owe to God their Creator and Benefactor, their ſovereign
Lord and chiefeſt Good. It is manifeft, from obſervation and
experience, that men have faculties capable of contemplating the
great Author of their Beings, and Lord of the univerſe, of adoring
his perfections, and of acting from a regard to his authority,
and in obedience to his laws. The inferior animals ſeem to be
well fitted for the various functions and enjoyments of the ſenſi-
tive life : but there is nothing in them, from which we can con-
clude that they are capable of forming any notions of God, or
of the obligations of Religion. If there have been people among
whom ſcarce any traces of Religion can be found, yet ſtill they
have faculties, which, if duly improved, render. them capable of
being inſtructed in it. But who will undertake to inſtruct the
brutes in the knowledge of God, and in the principles and pre-
cepts of Religion and Morality ?
(z) When we ſay man is a religious creature, we do not mean that every man.
is born with an actual knowledge of Religion and its main principles, which is
contrary to evident fact and experience : but with faculties capable of attaining to:
it by reflection and proper inſtruction..
This
Chap. I.
a religious Creature.
45
This ſeems then to be one remarkable proof of the ſuperior
excellency of man above the other creatures in this lower world.
From whence it follows, that he is deſigned proportionably for
a more excellent end, and for a higher happineſs. Since it is
evident in fact, that man is capable of riſing in his thoughts,
when duly inſtructed, above the ſenſible objects which are before
his eyes, to the inviſible author of nature, the ſupreme and abſo-
lutely perfect Being, and of contemplating, loving, adoring,
obeying him ; it may be juſtly concluded, that this was the prin-
pal end for which he was deſigned, as being the worthieſt em-
ployment of his nobleſt powers. And to ſuppoſe this to be a
principal end of his Being, and what he was originally made
and deſigned for, and yet that he is under no obligation to anſwer
that end, is too abſurd and inconſiſtent to be admitted. Man
indeed hath a fleſhly part and animal powers in common with
the inferior creatures, by which he is fitted for reliſhing and en-
joying ſenſible good, but as he hath alſo a mind within him,
which is undoubtedly the nobleſt part of his conſtitution, his
principal end and higheſt happineſs muſt be judged of from the
higheſt and moſt excellent part of his nature : and in which his
proper diſtinction and pre-eminence above the inferior animals
doth principally conſiſt. .
Theſe ſeveral obſervations lead us to conſider man as deſigned
and formed for Religion. If there be a relation between God
and man, diſtinct from the relation men bear to one another :
(and this is as certain as it is that God exiſteth, and that Man is
a dependent creature, and the ſubject of the divine government)
then
Man originally depgned
Part I.
then there muſt be duties ariſing from the relation men bear to
God, diſtinct from the duties they owe to their fellow-creatures.
And if it is the will of God that they ſhould act correſpondently
to the relations they bear to one another, we are led, by the
ſoundeſt maxims of reaſon and good ſenſe, to maintain, that it
is his will that they ſhould act conformably to the relations they
bear to him. To ſuppoſe a rational creature, a moral agent, to
be obliged to have a regard to his fellow-creatures, beings of the
ſame ſpecies with himſelf, and to be under no obligation to have
any regard to his Maker, the God and Father of all, would be
a manifeſt irregularity and deformity in the moral ſyſtem. As
nothing can be more abſurd and contrary to truth and reaſon,
than to deny that there is a God, ſo nothing can be more unbe-
coming a rational creature, than to live as without God in the
world, and to ſhew .no more regard to him than if there was no
ſuch Being
any ho-
Nor is it any valid objection againſt this, that God is infinitely
happy in himſelf, and therefore ſtandeth not in need of .
mage or duty we can render to him, and is not capable of receiv-
ing any benefit from our ſervices. For this would be to make the
very perfection and excellency of his nature, and the greatneſs
of his majeſty and dominion, an argument for neglecting him,
and Thewing no regard to him at all. God's being perfectly
happy in himſelf is no reaſon for his not requiring of his reaſon-
able creatures, ſuch duties as the nature of things, and the rela-
ition between him and them, make it fit for him to require and
for them to perform. And what can be in itſelf more fit and
7
reaſonable,
7
Chap. I.
47
Q 'religious Creature:
reaſonable, and more agreeable to the rules of order, than that
reaſonable beings, who derive their exiſtence and faculties, and
all the bleſſings they enjoy from God, and whom he hath made
capable of contemplating, ſerving, and adoring him, ſhould ren-
der him that religious veneration and ſubmiſſion, that love and
gratitude, that adoration and obedience, which is moſt juſtly due
to their Creator, Preſerver, and Benefactor, the Parent and Lord
of the Univerſe ?
1
1
(0
To what hath been offered concerning Religion in general, it
may not be improper to add the ſuffrage of two noble writers of
great abilities, and who were certainly no friends to ſuperſtition.
The one is the Earl of Shafteſbury, who ſays, so man is not
“ only born to virtue, friendſhip, honeſty, and faith, but to
Religion, piety, and a generous ſurrender of his mind to what
happens from the ſupreme cauſe or order of things, which he
" acknowledges entirely juſt and perfect (a).” The other is the
late Lord Bolingbroke, who acknowledges, that « man is a reli-
gious as well as ſocial creature, made to know and adore his
• Creator, to diſcover and obey his will ----Greater powers of
“ reaſon and means of improvement have been meaſured out to
«. us than to other animals, that we might be able to fulfil the
ſuperior purpoſes of our deſtination, whereof Religion is un-
doubtedly the chief-and that in theſe the elevation and
pre-
- eminence of our ſpecies over the inferior animals conſiſts (?).”
C.C
22.
(2) Characteriſt. vol. III. p. 224. Edit. 5.
(6) Bolingbroke's Works, vol. V. Px 470. See alſo ibid. p. 340. 390, 391.
Edit. 4to.
As
Man originally deſigned
Part I.
As certain therefore as it is that man had an intelligent and
wiſe author of his being (c), fo certainly may we conclude, that
he originally formed and deſigned him for Religion. And if ſo,
it is reaſonable to think, that whenever he formed man he
put
him at his firſt creation into an immediate capacity of anſwering
this end of his being, and entering on a life of Religion. Two
ſuppoſitions may be here made, one of which muſt unavoidably
be admitted. Either it muſt be ſaid, that God at his firſt forma-
tion only gave him faculties and powers whereby he is capable of
Religion, but left him entirely to himſelf to acquire the know-
ledge of Religion and his duty, by the mere force of his own
unaſſiſted reaſon and experience: or, it muſt be ſuppoſed, that
the wiſe author of his being, at his firſt creation, communicated
to himn ſuch a knowledge of Religion, as enabled him imme-
diately to know his Maker, and the duty required of him: in
which caſe it cannot be denied, that the firſt notions and diſco-
veries of Religion came to the parents of the human race by
immediate Revelation from God himſelf.
c
1
The former of theſe ſuppoſitions appears to me very impro-
bable, and not conſiſtent with the beſt ideas we can form of the
wiſdom and goodneſs of God, and the care he muſt be ſuppoſed
to exerciſe towards man at his firſt creation. It is moſt reaſon-
(c) A celebrated writer hath juſtly obſerved, that there cannot be a greater
abſurdity than to ſuppoſe beings, who have reaſon and intelligence, to proceed
from a blind unintelligent cauſe. C'eux qui ont dit qu'une fatalité aveugle a
produit tous les effets que nous voyons dans le monde, ont dit une grande abſur-
ditè. Car quelle plus grande abſurdité qu'une fatalité aveugle, qui auroit pro-
duit des etres intelligens ? L'Eſprit des loix, vol. I. chap. i. in the beginning.
able
2
Chap. I.
49
a religious Creature
able to ſuppoſe, that the firſt men (and the argument will equally
hold, whether we ſuppoſe one or more men to have been origi-
nally created) was formed in an adult ſtate : for to have brought
him into the world in a ſtate of infancy, and left him to himſelf
without any one to take care of him, or any parents to nouriſh
and ſupport him, would have been to expoſe him deſtitute and
helpleſs to certain miſery and death. And if he was firſt formed
in an adult ſtate, it is not reaſonable to think that ſo noble a
creature, endued by his Maker with ſuch excellent faculties, can
pable, if duly inſtructed, of attaining to a high degree of know-
ledge, ſhould be thruſt out into the world, like a huge overgrown
infant, perfect indeed in his bodily form and conſtitution, but
with a mind utterly unfurniſhed; having ſenſible ideas and appe-
tites to fit him for a brutal life, like the inferior animals, but
deſtitute of that knowledge and thoſe ideas, which were neceſiary
to enable him to anſwer the higher purpoſes of his deſtination.
And what made his caſe more particular and different from that
of thoſe who were afterwards born into the world, he had no hu-
man parents, nor inſtructors of his own ſpecies, which is the
ordinary way by which men, in the preſent ſtate, receive the firſt
rudiments of knowledge.
porte
}
If it be ſaid he might foon, by the force of his own reaſon,
and the exerciſe of his intellectual faculties, acquire a ſufficient
knowledge of God, and of his duty, and conſequently of true
Religion, as far as it was neceſſary for him to know it: I anſwer,
that though the main principles of all Religion, eſpecially thoſe
relating to the exiſtence, the unity, the perfections, and providence
VOL. I.
H
of
50
Part I.
Man at his firſt Formation
.
1
of God, when once clearly propoſed to the human mind, with
their proper proofs and evidences, and thoroughly examined and
enquired into, are perfectly agreeable to the moſt improved reaſon
and underſtanding of man, yet it can hardly be ſuppoſed, that
the firſt man or men, if left to themſelves without any inſtruction
or information, would have been able to have formed, in a ſhort
time, a right ſcheme of Religion for themſelves, founded upon
thoſe principles. The arguing the Being, the Unity, and Attri-
butes of God from the works of nature, and the harmony and
order of the Univerſe, by a chain of reaſonings and deductions,
ſeems to be a taſk not very fit for the firſt of men, when rude
and uncultivated. It is an obſervation of the Baron de Mon-
teſquieu, that “the law which imprinted the idea of a Creator,
" and preſcribes our duty to him, is the firſt of natural laws in
dignity and importance, but not in the order of laws-It is
« clear, that in the ſtate of nature, man's firſt ideas would not be
“ of a ſpeculative kind: he would firſt think how to preſerve his
“ own being, before he ſearched into the original of his being.”
I think, this muſt be allowed, ſuppoſing man, at his firſt forma-
tion, to have been left merely to himſelf without inſtruction. It
would probably have been a long time before he raiſed his thoughts
to things ſpiritual and inviſible, and attained to ſuch a knowledge
and contemplation of the works of nature, as to have inferred
from thence the neceſſary exiſtence of the one only true God,
and his infinite perfections. So that to have left him to himſelf,
in the circuinſtances he was then in, to find out all truths moral
and divine, which it concerned him to know, merely by his own
reaſon, without farther inſtruction, would have been to have left
>>.
him.
Chap. I.
51
not left to ſeek his Religion.
him for a long time after his firſt formation without the know-
ledge of God and divine things, without Religion, and conſe-
quently incapable of living up to the higheſt end of his Being.
Suppoſing the firſt man or men to have been mere ſavages, it
might have been ages before they came to a right knowledge of
Religion, or to form juſt ideas concerning it. Or, if man at his
firſt creation be ſuppoſed to have had an excellent underſtanding
and powers of reaſon, yet if his mind at his firſt formation had
been without any ideas but what he gradually acquired, he muſt
have been a long time before he attained to the knowledge of
divine and inviſible things, or could form a language capable of
expreſſing and communicating thoſe ideas (d).
Though I am far from approving the account given by Mr.
Hume of the original of Religion, yet I cannot help thinking
there is a great deal of force in what that ingenious writer ſays,
to ſhew that the firſt men in the earlieſt ages did not come to the
knowledge of the exiſtence and perfections of God by rational
diſquiſitions and deductions from the works of nature. He ob-
ſerves, that “if men had been left to themſelves, and the natural
progreſs of the human mind, they could not at firſt ſtretch
“ their conceptions to that perfect Being, who beſtowed order on
" the whole frame of nature. The mind riſes gradually from
«s the inferior to the ſuperior “As nothing could diſturb the na-
“ tural progreſs of thought, but ſome obvious and invincible ar-
(d) If we ſuppoſe man to have been created at firſt with innate ideas of God
and Religion, this is, in effect, to acknowledge that God revealed thein to hiin,"
and that from him his knowledge of Religion was derived.
gument,
H 2
.
52
Man at his firſt Formation
Part 1...
!
pure
gument, which might immediately lead the mind into the
principles of Theiſm, and make it overleap, at one bound, the
“ vaſt interval which is interpoſed between the human and di-
« vine nature. I allow, continues he, 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 any influence on mankind, when they forined their firſt
“ notions of Religion--A neceſſitous animal, preffed with nu-
“ merous wants and paſſions, has no leiſure to admire the regular
“ face of nature, and to make enquiries into the cauſes of the
« courſe of things (e).”
Particularly with regard to that great principle of true Religion,
the Unity of God, or that there is one only God and Father of
all, this is not ſo eaſily demonſtrable, as neceſſarily to engage
the aſſent of the firſt men, untutored in learning and philoſophy.
That the works of nature, which we behold, owed their original
to wiſdom and contrivance, and to ſome intelligent cauſe or
cauſes, and were not the mere effects of chance, or a blind un-
intelligent nature, may ſeem clear, when duly propoſed, to ai
common found underſtanding : But whether there might not be
more cauſes and authors of the ſeveral parts of the Univerſe than
one, to the mere natural reaſon of men, who have made 'no great
progreſs in metaphyſical enquiries, is not ſo evident. Mr. Hume
indeed urges, that " were men led into the apprehenſions of in=
1
(e) Hume's Differtation on the Natural Hiſtory of Religion, p. 5, 6. yet he
owns, that " when the contemplation is ſo far enlarged, as to contemplate the firſe
“ riſe of this viſible-fyftem, we muſt adopt with the ſtrongeſt conviction the idea
"S of ſome intelligent cauſe or anthor.” ibid. p. 112.
« viſible
Chap. I.
53
not left to ſeek his Religion.
! viſible intelligent power, by a contemplation of the works of
“ nature, they could never poſſibly entertain any conceptions, but
" of one ſimple Being, who beſtowed exiſtence and order on this
«« vaſt machine, and adjuſted all its parts according to one regular
plan, or connected ſyſtem.” But, upon this ſuppoſition, the
perſon who forms this concluſion muſt be able to regard this vaſt
Univerſe as a well-connected fyftem, one ſtupendous machine, all
the
parts
of which are adınirably adjuſted to one another, ſo as
to conſtitute one regular orderly harmonious Whole. And this
is a point which requires much more knowledge, more extenſive
diſquiſitions and views, than generally fall to the ſhare of the
bulk of mankind, or than thoſe have leiſure or capacity to attend
to, who are not accuſtomed to abſtracted 'metaphyſical ſpecula-
tions. If men were left merely to themſelves without any other
guide, they might be apt to imagine a multiplicity of cauſes and
authors; and that the moft conſpicuous parts of the Univerſe,
which they inight ſuppoſe to be diſtinct worlds, had different au-
thors and architects. Lord Bolingbroke obſerves, that “ though
" the firſt men could doubt no more that there is ſome cauſe of
“ the world, than that the world itſelf exiſted, yet in conſequence
" of this great event, and of the ſurprize, ignorance, and inex-
perience of mankind, there muſt have been much doubt and
“ uncertainty concerning the firſt cauſe--The variety of phæ-
«c nomena which ſtruck their fenſes, would lead them to imagine
“ a variety of cauſes (f)."
:
(f) Bolingbroke's Works, vol. III. p. 253. 259, 260. Edit. 4to. And he ex-
preſſes himſelf to the ſame purpoſe, vol. IV. p. 21.
It
v
54
The Will of God revealed
Part I.
7
It is probable, from what has been ſaid, that the firſt men did
not acquire the knowledge of God and Religion by the mere
force of their own reaſon. And ſince it may be juſtiy laid down
as a principle, that man was originally formed and brought into
the world by a wiſe and good as well as powerful Author, it is
congruous to ſuppoſe, that he made diſcoveries of himſelf and of
his will to his yet innocent creature ; and furniſhed him immedi-
ately with ideas of the things which it moſt nearly concerned
him to know; eſpecially of thoſe things, which lie at the foun-
dation of all Religion, and without ſome notion of which he
could not be in a proper capacity to anſwer the chief end of his
Being. Such are the important truths relating to the exiſtence
and attributes of God, the creation of the world, his governing
Providence, his being a rewarder of thoſe that faithfully ſerve
and obey him, and a puniſher of evil doers; which ſuppoſes his
having given a law to mankind for the rule of their obedience.
And indeed this neceſſarily follows from God's having made man
a moral agent, capable of being governed by laws. And as a
law is not obligatory, unleſs promulgated, and made known, it is
reaſonable to believe, that when God firſt placed man in the world,
he made a plain declaration of the duty required of him, and did
not leave him, at his firſt coming into the world, to collect his
duty merely in a way of reaſoning from the nature and fitneſs and
relations of things. This was a work for which, thro' want of
knowledge, obſervation, and experience, he could not be ſuppoſed
to be well qualified, except God ſhould extraordinarily interpoſe
for his inſtruction.
This,
Chap. I.
to our firſt Parents.
55
This, which in ſpeculation is a moſt reaſonable hypotheſis, ap-
pears, from the account given by Moſes, to have been true in
fact. His hiſtory, abſtracting from his authority as an inſpired
writer, of which yet we have ſufficient proof, contains the beſt
and moſt authentick relation of the firſt age of the world which
is
any where to be met with. The account he gives of the ori-
gin of the human race from a firſt pair, one man and one woman,
both of them created by God in an adult ſtate, endued with
knowledge and language, immediately capable of converſing
with their Maker and with one another, is worthy of God, and
honourable to mankind. It is infinitely ſuperior to the mean and
ſenſeleſs accounts of the origination of Mankind given by the an-
cient Egyptians, according to Diodorus, and afterwards by the
Epicureans, and others who called themſelves philoſophers. The
hiſtory. Moſes gives us of the firſt ages of the world before the.
flood is very hort: But it ſufficiently appears from it, that the
firſt
parents
of the human race were brought into the world, not.
in an helpleſs infant ſtate, but in a ſtate of maturity, placed in.
an happy ſituation, and in advantageous circumſtances for pre-
ſerving their purity and innocence: and that to ſupply their want
of obſervation and experience, God was pleaſed, in his great;
goodneſs, to favour them with extraordinary notices and ſignifi-
cations of his will and of their duty. Some few particulars are.
mentioned, which ſhew that God made diſcoveries of himſelf to
gave
them laws. Of this kind was God's
bleſſing and ſanctifying the Sabbath day. This ſuppoſes that he
communicated to our firſt parents the knowledge of the creation :
of the world, of which this was deſigned to be a ſolemn me.
morial :
our firſt
parents and
56
Part I.
The IVill of God revealed
morial : That the heavens and heavenly bodies, the earth and all
things that are therein, and particularly their own bodies and
fouls, as well as all other animals, were the productions of his
power, wiſdom, and goodneſs. A moſt important point of
knowledge this! And which included in it the belief and ac-
knowledgment of the exiſtence, the perfeclions and attributes of
the one true God, the ſupreme and abſolutely perfect Being.
Moſes alſo gives an account of the early inſtitution of marriage,
and law concerning it, which, though repreſented as ſpoken by
Adam, yet, conſidering how ſoon this happened after the creation,
and how little knowledge he could then have attained to by his
own experience, muſt have been divinely revealed to him : eſpe-
cially ſince it contained directions in this matter, which were to
be a rule to future ages. He alſo informs us, that there was a
particular law given to our firſt parents concerning their not eat-
ing the forbidden fruit, which, whatever objections fome have
made againſt it, was very properly ſuited to the condition and
circumſtances in which they were then conſtituted (8). He ac-
quaints
(g) I have elſewhere vindicated the Moſaick account of man's original dignity
and of his fall, againſt the objections advanced by Dr. Tindal and others. Anſwer
to Chriſtianity as old as the Creation, vol. II. chap. xv. And as to the particular
injunction which Moſes tells us was laid upon our firſt parents by way of trial of
their obedience, it is no hard matter to ſhew, that it had nothing in it unbecoming
the ſupreme wiſdoin and goodneſs. For ſince God was pleaſed to conſtitute man
lord of this inferior creation, and had given him fo large a grant, and ſo many
advantages, it was manifeſtly proper that he ſhould require fome particular inſtance
of homage and fealty, to be a memorial to man of his dependence, and an acknow-
ledgment on his part that he was under the dominion of an higher Lord, to whom
he owed the moſt abſolute ſubjection and obedience. And what properer inſtance
of homage could there be in the circumſtances man was then in, than his being
obliged
7
Chap. I.
57
to our firſt Parents.
1
count.
quaints us with the declaration and effects of the divine diſplea-
ſure against them for their diſobedience, and the original promiſe
made to them to keep them from ſinking under deſpondency :
the true meaning and deſign of which was no doubt more diſtinctly
explained to our firſt parents, than is mentioned in that ſhort ac-
By it God gave them to underſtand, that though they
had ſuffered themſelves to be drawn into ſin and diſobedience by
the tempter, he would, in his great goodneſs, provide a glorious
deliverer, who was to proceed from the woman, to break the power
of the enemy that had tempted them, and to reſcue them from
the miſeries and ruins they had brought upon themſelves by their
apoſtaſy. And it may be reaſonably ſuppoſed, that they had
hopes given them, that though they and their poſterity were ſtill
to be ſubject to many evils and to temporal death, as the effects
and puniſhments of fin, yet upon their repentance and ſincere
obedience, they were to be raiſed to a better life. And accord-
obliged, in obedience to the divine command, to abſtain from one or more of the
delicious fruits of Paradiſe? It pleaſed God to inſiſt only upon his abſtaining from
one, at the ſame time that he indulged him in a full liberty as to all the reſt. And
this ſerved both as an act of homage to the ſupreme Lord, from whoſe bountiful
grant he held Paradiſe and all its enjoyments, and was alſo fitted to teach our firſt
parents a noble and uſeful leſſon of abſtinence and ſelf-denial, one of the moſt ne-
ceſſary leſſons in a ſtate of probation; and alſo of unreſerved ſubmiſſion to God's
authority and will, and an implicit reſignation to the ſupreme wiſdom and goodneſs.
It tended to habituate them to keep their fenfitive appetite in a due ſubjection to
the law of reaſon; to take them off from a too cloſe attachment to infcrior ſenſible
good, and to engage them to place their higheſt happineſs in God alone: And
finally, to keep their deſire after knowledge within juſt bounds, ſo as to be content
with knowing what was really proper and uſeful for them to know, and not pre-
fume to pry with an unwarrantable curioſity into things which did not belong to
them, and which God had not thought fit to reveal. See the View of the Deiſti-
cal Writers, vol. II. p. 144, 145. 3d Edit.
VOL. I.
I
ingly
58
The Will of God revealed
Part I.
ingly the hope of pardoning mercy, and the expectation of a fue
ture ſtate, ſeems to have obtained from the beginning; and to
have ſpread generally among mankind in the earlieſt ages, by a
moſt antient tradition, as I ſhall have occaſion to thew afterwards.
And this is beſt accounted for by ſuppoſing it to have been part
of the primitive Religion, derived from the firſt parents of the
human race, who had it by immediate Revelation from God.
himſelf.
1
That there was an intercourſe between God and man in the
firſt
ages,
and that he then communicated to men the diſcoveries.
of his will, farther appears from what is related concerning Cain
and Abel : as alſo from the high encomium given of Enoch that:
he walked with God, and the diſtinguishing reward conferred,
upon
him for his piety, which exhibited, a ſenſible proof of a
future ſtate.
As there is great reaſon to think that God communicated the
knowledge of the fundamental principles of Religion and moral,
obligations to the firſt parents of the human race;, ſo if this were
:
the caſe, it is rational to conclude that they muſt have been led,,
both by a ſenſe of duty and by inclination, to communicate that:
knowledge to their poſterity. For it appears from the original
conſtitution of the human nature, and was probably enforced by
an expreſs divine command, that the Author of our Beings de-
figned, that parents ſhould endeavour to inſtruct their children;
this being the ordinary inlet to the firſt rudiments of knowledge,
eſpecially with reſpect to the main principles of Religion, and the
duties of morality. And the firſt of the human race, who came
immediately
A
Chap. I.
59
to our firft Parents.
"mor
immediately out of the hands of God, muſt have had an autho-
rity this way, which none of thoſe of ſucceeding generations, in
the ordinary courſe of things, could have. The world was juſt
anade, the Creation freſh in memory, and the communications
of God to men frequent and ſenſible. Nor could their children
have the leaſt juſt grounds to ſuſpect the veracity of their infor-
mation, or that they had any intention to impoſe upon them.
They needed none of thoſe credentials, which were afterwards
neceſſary, when there had been falſe pretences to Revelation in
oppoſition to the true. They delivered what they themſelves
knew to be true, and what they had received from God; and it
muſt have come from them with a peculiar weight, and ought to
have been received with great veneration and an entire credit.
And the long lives of the firſt man and his immediate deſcen-
dants (b) gave them a ſingular advantage for preſerving and pro-
pagating thoſe traditions. It is eaſy to conceive, that they might,
without much difficulty, be tranſmitted to Noah the ſecond fa-
ther of mankind. Methuſelah was cotemporary with Adam
about 245 years, and with Noah 600 years. And as Noah him-
ſelf was a man of eminent piety and virtue, and lived 600
years
() Joſephus, ſpeaking of the long lives of men in the firſt ages, as recorded by
Moſes, concludes with faying "I have for witneſſes all thoſe that have written
“ antiquities both among Greeks and Barbarians.” He particularly mentions Ma-
netho and Beroſus, Moſchus, Heſtiæus, Hieronymus the Egyptian, thoſe who com-
poſed the Phænician hiſtory, Hefiod alſo and Hecatæus, and Hellapicus and Aceſi-
laus. And beſides theſe, Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the antients lived a
thouſand years. Joſeph. Archäolog. l. i. cap. 3. Mr. Whiſton, in a note upon
this paſſage in his Engliſh tranſlation of Jofephus obſerves, that he might have
added Varro, who made that enquiry, what the reaſon was that the ancients are
ſuppoſed to have lived a thouſand years.
with
60
Farther Diſcoveries of
Part I
→
with thoſe of the old world, he would, no doubt, be particularly
careful to get a true information of the original principles of Re-
ligion delivered to the firſt parents of mankind. We may,
therefore, reaſonably conclude, that he retained whatſoever there
was of chief importance in the antient primitive Religion. And
it is alſo agreeable to the divine wiſdom and goodneſs, as well as
to the accounts given us by Moſes, to ſuppoſe; that God, who in
ſo extraordinary a manner diſtinguiſhed him, and ſaved him from
the univerſal deluge, made farther diſcoveries of himſelf and of
his will to Noah, to be by him communicated to his deſcendants.
And this may be juſtly regarded as a ſecond promulgation of Re--
ligion in its main principles to the whole human race. The den
luge itſelf, the memory of which could not be ſoon-forgotten (i);
i,
muſt have had a great influence to impreſs men's minds with a
ſenſe of Religion and its obligations. It muſt have ſtrengthened.
their faith in God, who made tảe earth at firſt, and placed man
upon it, and who by this ſtupendous event ſhewed that he had
power, if he pleaſed, to deſtroy it. It gave men a ſenſible
proof, thąt he is the Lord of nature, and hath a ſovereign domi-.
(i) There is no one fact, conſidering its great antiquity, which comes to us
better atteſted than the univerſal deluge. Jofephus quotes Beroſus the Chaldean, ,
Hieronymus the Egyptian, who writ the Phoenician antiquities, Nicolaus of Da-
maſcus, and Mnaſeas : and adds, that a great inany more make mention of the
fame. Jofeph. ubi.fupra. The tradition of it hath ſpread through the world, and
is preſerved in the memory of all nations.: in the continent of America as well as Aſia,
in the Eaſt and Weſt Indies, among the Africans and Europeans. See Burneti Tel-
Juris Theor. facra, 1 i. cap. 3. See alſo teſtimonies to this purpoſecollected by Gro-
tius De Verit. Relig. Chriſt. 1. i. ſect. 16. and by the learned author of Revelation ,
examined with candour, Part I. Diſſert. 13, 14.
And indeed there are many
things in the preſent conſtitution of the earth, which ſhew that ſuch a flcgd there.
hath been, and that the whole earth was covered with it.
nion.
Ch ap. I.
6r.
God's Will made to Noah.
nion over it, and over all the elements; that his Providence con-
cerneth itſelf with men and their actions; that he is a hater of
vice and wickedneſs, and a puniſher of evil doers, and is a lover
and rewarder of righteouſneſs, and delivereth thoſe from the
greateſt evils, that love and ſerve him in fincerity. It cannot be
reaſonably doubted, that Noah, both when he was in the ark,
where he had leiſure and opportunity, and after he came out of
it, took care to inſtruct his children and deſcendants in thoſe heads
of Religion which he himſelf had received ; particularly thoſe
relating to the knowledge and worſhip of the one true God, the
creation of the world, the Providence of God as a rewarder and
puniſher, the laws he hath given to mankind, and a future ſtate :-
fome notions of which were, by tradition, generally ſpread among:
the nations.
(0
(
The ages immediately following the flood cannot be ſuppofed
to have been ages of learning and philoſophy. It is well obſerved :
by a learned writer, that “ the manner of life men led in the
ages nextfollowing the diſperſion, and the preſſing neceflities
" they were under, occaſioned their making a very ſlow progreſs
« in the ſciences (k).” As the wide earth was before them, it
may naturally be ſuppoſed, that many of them would wander
about ſeeking proper habitations ; ſome of whom would remove
to countries far diſtant from their firſt ſettlement, and fall by de-
grees into a rude and ſavage kind of life. They had little leiſure
or inclination for ſublime ſpeculations. The arts and ſciences
known before the flood were generally loſt with the inventers of.
(4) De-l'Origine des loix, des arts, et des ſciences, tom. i. P: 396, 397:
them,
623
Part 1.
The Knowledge of Religion
1
them, and thofe that exerciſed them; yet ſtill ſome remains of
Religion, fome notions of a Deity; of a Providence, of a future
ſtate, and of the moral differences of things were generally pre-
ferved, even in thoſe parts which became wild and favage. It
cannot well be ſuppoſed, that in their circumſtances they attained
to a notion of theſe things in a way of reaſoning and argument.
And therefore it can be attributed to nothing fo probably as the re-
mains of an antient univerfal tradition derived from the firft an.
ceſtors of the human race: and which the heads of families that
proceeded from Noah, and who had received thoſe principles
from him, carried into the ſeveral regions of their diſperſion,
Here it
may be proper to take notice of a remarkable paſſage
of Plato in the beginning of his third book of laws. He ſpeaks
of a deſtruction which happened to men by a flood, and from
which very few eſcaped ; who were ſhepherds, and abode on the
tops of mountains, and became the ſeed of a new generation.
He ſays, that cities, civil polities and governments, together with
the knowledge of arts, having been loft and periſhed in the con-
fuſion, the ſucceeding generations of men were for a long time
ignorant: that they followed the cuſtoms and manners of their
anceſtors, eſpecially in what related to Religion and the Gods;
and that they gradually formed themſelves into focieties, and had
the moſt antient men among them, and the heads of their families,
for their leaders and governors.
I think there are here manifeſt traces of the univerſal deluge.
The account he gives of it cannot well be applied to a particular
inundation,
3
дчер....
conveyed at firſt by Tradition:
63
inundation, confined to Attica; Theffaly, or Greece, as were
thoſe of Deucalion or Ogyges;" though the Greeks after their
inanner blended and confounded them with the traditions they
had received concerning the Noachic deluge. Plato ſpeaks of a
flood which extended to the greateſt part of mankind. And he
ſuppoſes, that thoſe who remained after the deluge ſtill retained
ſomething of the cuſtoms and Religion of their fathers, which
they tranſmitted to their poſterity. He intimates that there were
traditions of this in his time, and introduces the account with this
queſtion, “
« Do the antient traditions ſeem to you to have any truth
" in them?” To which he anſwers in the affirmative. But in
this as well as other inſtances, the primitive traditions were very
much altered and corrupted among the Greeks, and were kept.
more pure and diſtinct in fume other nations : of which the teſti-
monies of Beroſus in his Chaldean antiquities, and of Lucian in
his treatiſe De Dea Syria are remarkable inſtances; whoſe tradi-
tionary accounts concerning the flood are in ſeveral reſpects agree--
able to that which is given by Moſes.
It may reaſonably be ſuppoſed, that in thoſe parts of the world,
which were firſt peopled after the flood, and which were neareſt
the place where the firſt reſtorers of the human race choſe to re-
fide, what remained of arts or knowledge, after the univerſal
ſhipwreck, 'were chiefly to be found. There alſo it might be
expected, that the greateſt veſtiges of the antient Religion might
be traced, as being neareſt the fountain head. And they that
were afterwards ſcattered to diſtant parts, would be apt ſooner to
Japſe into ignorance and barbariſm. The beſt remains of antient
hiſtory
64
Part I..
The Knowledge of Religion
hiſtory agree in this with the Mofaical accounts; that in the
Eaſtern parts of the world, z. e. where Noah and his family firſt
ſettled after the flood, ſocieties and civil polities were firſt formed,
cities built, and arts cultivated. The Eaſt was the ſource of know-
ledge, from whence it was communicated to the Weſtern parts
of
the world. There the moſt precious remains of antient tradition
were to be found. Thither the moſt celebrated Greek philoſo-
phers afterwards travelled in queſt of ſcience, or the knowledge
of things divine and human. And thither the lawgivers had re-
courſe, in order to their being inſtructed in laws and civil polity.
It is a thing well known, that the wiſdom of the Eaſt conſiſted
much in teaching and delivering antient traditions. Diodorus Si-
culus has a remarkable paſſage concerning the different ways
of
philoſophizing among the Chaldeans (and it holdeth equally of
other Eaſtern nations) and the Greeks. He obſerves, that the
former did not give a looſe to their invention as the Greeks did,
but were for adhering to the tenets derived by tradition from their
antient wiſe men.
And indeed this was the oldeſt way of philo-
ſophizing among the Greeks themſelves. The learned Dr. Tho-
mas Burnet has obferved, that the traditionary philoſophy, which
did not depend upon reaſoning and the inveſtigation of cauſes,
the primitive doctrine delivered by tradition from their
fathers, ſeems to have continued among the Greeks, lower than
the times of the Trojan war.
Durâffe mihi videtur ultra Trojana
tempora philofophia traditiva, quæ ratiociniis, et caufarum expli-
catione non nitebatur, fed alterius, generis et originis, doctrinâ
primigeniâ et Targorapadów. Archæol. Philof. 1. i. cap. 6. The
ſame
but upon
Chap. I.
65
conveyed by Tradition.
.
ſame learned author, in the 14th chapter of that book, which
treats De Origine Philoſophiæ Barbaricæ, ſpeaking of the ancient
ſages and philoſophers among the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Phæni-
cians, Æthiopians, Arabians, Indians, ſays, they never ſhewed an
inventive genius, ſo as to make it probable that they owed the
things they taught to the force of their own reaſon. It was not
the manner of the antients to form ſyſtems and theories, and to
demonſtrate their doctrine by cauſes and effects. They delivered
their tenets ſimply, not in a way of argumentation, but as what
ought to be received by the learners or hearers upon the authority
of the wiſe men, without doubting or diſputing. He inſtances in
the doctrine of the formation of the world out of a chaos, and
the conflagration or deſtruction of the world by fire, both which
ſpread generally among the antients, but without afligning any.
reaſons to confirm them (1). He thinks, therefore, that theſe
and
(l) I ſhall afterwards take notice of the tradition about the origin of the earth
from a chaos. As to the conflagration of the world, it was a doctrine of the higheſt
antiquity. It was conſtantly maintained by the Stoicks, but they were not the
authors of it. It was taught before them by Heraclitus, Empedocles, and others.
And it probably came to the Greeks from the Egyptians and Phoenicians. Zeno
himſelf, the father of the Stoicks, was of Phoenician origin. The Egyptians, as
Piato informs us, held ſucceſſive deſtructions of the world by deluges and confia-
grations. Thus they joined the traditions of the firſt deſtruction of the world by
water, and the laſt which ſhall be by fire, together, mixing the traditions, and
fuppofing thoſe deſtructions to return at certain periods. The poets have likewiſe
preſerved the antient tradition of the conflagration of the world, as might be thewni
from Sophocles, Lucretius, Ovid, Lucan, &c. The Brachmans alſo in India have
held from the moſt antient times, and ſtill hold, that the world ſhall be deſtroyed
by fire. See Burnet's Telluris Theor, facr. l. iii. cap. 2. and his Archæol. 1. ii.
Appendix. This tradition, like many others, was altered and corrupted, eſpecially
by thoſe who, like the Stoicks, ſuppoſed periodical confiagrations and renovations
of the world ; and ſome of them carried it ſo far as to maintain, that after fuch
VOL. I.
к
conflagrations,
66
The Knowledge of Religion
Part I.
and other things which were generally received, were probably
owing to an antient tradition derived from Noah : or they might
be a part of the traditions derived to Noah from the Antediluvian
Patriarchs, and which were originally communicated, by divine
Revelation, to the firſt father of mankind.
The latter Greeks, who had an high opinion of their own wiſdom,
were loth to own, that they derived any part of their knowledge
from the Barbarians, as they called all other nations but them-
ſelves. Diogenes Laertius blames thoſe who preſumed to ſay,
that philoſophy had its riſe among the Barbarians, and affirins,
that they ignorantly applied to the Barbarians what the Greeks
themſelves had rightly done and invented. His prejudice in fa-
vour of the Greeks carries him ſo far as to ſay, that from them
not only philofophy but the human race had its original. Laert.
in Proæm. Segm. 3. And yet it is a thing certain, and univerſally
acknowledged, and which appears from his own accounts, that
the moſt celebrated among the antient philoſophers travelled into
the Eaſtern countries, Chaldea, Phænicia, Egypt, Perſia, and ſome
of them as far as India, to converſe with the wiſe men of thoſe
nations for their improvement in knowledge. A long catalogue
is given by Diodorus Siculus of thoſe of them that travelled into
Egypt, who had it from the Egyptian prieſts. Plato, in his Epi-
nomis, acknowledges that the Greeks learned many things from
the Barbarians, though he aſſerts, that they improved what they
conflagrations, the whole ſeries both of perſons and things ſhould be reſtored ex-
actly in the ſame condition it was in before, and the fame actions done over again.
Orig. cont. Cell. 1. v. p. 245.
6
thus
Chap. I.
1
conveyed by Tradition.
67
thus borrowed, and made it better, eſpecially in what related to
the worſhip of the Gods (m). That great philoſopher himſelf
ſpent ſeveral
years in Egypt among the Egyptian prieſts, as Pytha-
goras, of whom he was a great admirer, had done before. And
it has been often obſerved, that there are many things in his
writings which he learned in the Eaſt; and that from thence he
ſeems to have borrowed ſome of his ſublimeſt notions, though he
probably embelliſhed, and added to them by the force of his own
genius. There are ſeveral paſſages in his works, in which he re-
preſents theological truths, as having been derived, not merely
from the reaſonings of philoſophers, but ffom antient and vene-
rable traditions, which were looked upon as of divine original,
though he ſometimes intimates that they were mixed with fables.
Euſebius, and others of the fathers contend, that all the know-
ledge of divine things among the Greeks, came originally from
the Hebrews. But this ſeems to be a carrying it too far. Some
of thoſe things may well be ſuppoſed to have been the remains of
antient tradition, derived not merely from the Hebrews, or the
Moſaic and Prophetical writings, but from the Patriarchal ages ;
ſome veſtiges of which continued for a long time, eſpecially
among the Eaſtern nations.
The ſeveral confiderations which have been mentioned, make
it highly probable, that Religion firſt entered into the world by
Divine Revelation : that it was not merely the reſult of men's
own unaffiſted reaſon, or the effect of learning and philoſophy,
(1) Plat. Oper. p. 703. Edit. Ficin. Lugd. 1590.
K 2
which
>
68
The Knowledge of Religion, &c. Part I.
which had made little progreſs in thoſe early ages : but owed its
original to a Revelation communicated from God to the firſt pa-
rents of the human race. From them it was delivered down by
tradition to their deſcendants: though, in proceſs of time, it be-
came greatly obſcured, and corrupted with impure mixtures.
C H A P.
Chap. II.
69
Idolatry not the firſt Religion of Mankind.
CHAP. II.
P.
The firſt Religion of mankind was not Idolatry, but the knowledge
and worſhip of the one true God. Some veſtiges of which may be
traced up to the moſt antient times. A tradition of the creation
of the world continued long among the nations. The notion of one
Supreme God was never entirely extinguiſhed in the Pagan world ;
but his true worſhip was in a great meaſure loft and confounded
amidſt a multiplicity of Idol Deities."
F.
ROM the account which hath been given in the preced-
ing chapter, it may be fairly concluded, that not Idolatry,
but the worſhip of the one true God, was the firſt Religion of
mankind. But this deſerves to be more diſtinctly conſidered, as
it is what ſome are not willing to allow. Mr. Hume, in his Dif-
ſertation on the Natural Hiſtory of Religion, having endeavoured
to Thew, that the firſt men were not qualified to find out the ex-
iſtence and perfections of God, the ſole Creator of the Univerſe,
by reaſoning from the works of nature, draws this concluſion
from it, that Theiſin was not the firſt Religion of the human
If, ſays he, we conſider the improvements of human
ſociety from rude beginnings, to a ſtate of greater perfection,
“ Polytheiſm and Idolatry was, and neceſſarily muſt have been,
" the firſt and moſt antient Religion of mankind,” p. 4. And
again, he pronounces it “ impoſſible that Theiſm could, from
“ reaſoning, have been the primary Religion of the human
(6
race.
race,
70
Idolatry not the firſt Religion of Mankind. Part I.
.
“ race ibid. p.:9. (n).” But his argument does not prove, that
Theiſm, or the acknowledgment and worſhip of one God, was
not the Religion of the firſt ages ; it only ſhews, that it was not
the mere reſult of their own reaſonings : and therefore if it ob-
tained among them, it muſt have been owing to a Divine Reve-
lation originally communicated to the firſt men.
And this was
the caſe in fact. He ſuppoſes, in the paſſage above quoted from
him, to which others might be added, that it was impoſſible that
men in the firſt ages of the world, ſhould, if left to themſelves in
the circumſtances they were in, have any other Religion than
idolatry; and he aſſerts, that they were left to themſelves ac-
cordingly, and therefore were neceſſarily idolaters. But I can
hardly conceive a greater abſurdity, than to imagine that a wiſe
and good God, the parent of mankind, ſhould place them in
fuch circumſtances at their firſt formation, and for many ages af-
terwards, that they muſt unavoidably either have no Religion at
all, or a falſe one ; ſo that it was abſolutely impoſſible for them
not to be idolaters and polytheiſts. This ſeems to me to caſt the
moſt unworthy reflections on Divine Providence. It is far more
rational to ſuppoſe, that, through the divine goodneſs, the firſt
parents and anceſtors of the human race had a knowledge of
Religion in its main fundamental principles, communicated to
them from God himſelf, at their firſt coming into the world, to
put them into an immediate capacity of knowing and adoring
their Maker. For in this caſe, if they, or their deſcendants af-
terwards, fell into polytheiſm and idolatry, it was their own
(12) Lord Bulingbrcke is of the fame opinion. See his Works, vol. III. p. 256.
fault;
260.
Chap. II.
75
Idolatry not the firf Religion of Mankind.
more
fault ; wholly owing to themſelves; and not chargeable on Divine
Providence ; ſince there was ați original Revelation granted them,
which they had it in their power, and were under the ſtrongeſt
obligations to tranſmit pure to their poſterity (n). But the ſup-
pofing mankind at their firſt formation to have been conſtituted
in ſuch circumſtances, that it was impoffible for them to know
and worſhip the one true God, the Maket and Lord of the
а.
(n) The account which Mr. Hume himſelf gives of the origin of Religion among
mankind is very extraordinary. He acknowledgeth, that “there is a conſent of
“ mankind, almoſt univerſal, in the belief that there is an inviſible intelligent power
“ in the world." But he gives no ſufficient account, how there came to be ſuch
general conſent of mankind in this belief. He never takes the leaſt notice of a
Divine Revelation as having given riſe to it: nor will he allow, that the firſt ideas
of Religion aroſe from the contemplation of the works of nature, for which he
thinks the firſt meri, in the circumſtances they were in, were by no means qualified.
Whence then doth he ſuppoſe the firſt notions of Religion to have proceeded ? It is
“ from men's examining into the various and contrary events of human life,' and in
" this diſorderly ſcene with eyes ſtill more diſordered and aſtoniſhed, they ſee the
“ firſt obſcure traces of Divinity.” Diſſert, on the Nat. Hift. of Religion, p. 13,
14, 15. A goodly account this of the firſt original of the idea of God and Reli-
gion among mankind ! It is true, that when men have once formed a notion of in-
viſible intelligent powers, they might be apt to attribute to ſuch powers, thoſe
evěnts which they could not otherwiſe account for. But the mere conſideration of
the fortuitous accidents, as he calls them, of human life, and which they might be
apt to attribute to chance, could not give them the firſt notion of ſuperior inviſible
power ; nor doth it at all account for this notion's having been almoſt univerſal among
mankind, as he owns it to have been, According to his ſcheme, Elves and Fairies,
to which he compareth the Heathen Deities, muſt have been the firſt Gods of the
human race.
Whereas it appeareth from the beſt accounts of the moſt antient
times, that the worſhip of the one true God, the Creator of heaven and earth, was
the firſt Religion of mankind, and that the firſt idolatry, or deviation from the pri-
mitive Religion, was the worſhip of heaven and the heavenly bodies; to which they
were led by their admiration of them, and by conſidering their ſplendor and influ.
ence on this lower world. Mr. Hume's account of the origin of Religion among
mankind is founded in his own imagination, without any authority or reaſon to
ſupport it.
Univerſe :
77
Idolatry not the firſt Religion of Mankind. Part I.
Univerſe :.e. to fulfil the principal end of their being; and that
Idolatry and Polytheiſm was the neceſſary reſult of the ſtate they
were at fire placed and long continued in; this is laying the
blame of their falſe Religion and Polytheiſm, not upon them-
ſelves, but upon God, and making him the proper author of it.
The hypotheſis, therefore, that Polytheiſm and Idolatry was
not the firſt original Religion of mankind, but only the corrup-
tion of it, is far more agreeable to reaſon, and more conſiſtent
with the beſt notions we can form of the wiſdom and goodneſs of
Divine Providence.
1.
And this, which is moſt agreeable to reaſon, is alſo moſt con-
formable to the beſt accounts which are given us of the antient
ſtate of mankind. Mr. Hume indeed appeals to fact, that " all
«..mankind, a very few excepted, were idolaters from the begin-
ning, and continued ſo till 1700 years ago : and that the farther
da we mount up into antiquity, the more we find mankind
plunged into idolatry: no marks or ſymptoms of a more per-
feel Religion.". But if by idolatry he means, which ſeems to
bé what he intends by it, that mankind, from the beginning of
the world, were abſolutely without any knowledge or notion of
the one ſupreme God, his aſſertion is not true. A notion of a
ſupreme Deity continued for a long time among the idolatrous
Heathens themſelves, and never was entirely extinguiſhed, tho
greatly obſcured and corrupted. And the ſame may be obſerved
concerning many of thoſe whom Mr. Hume calls the ſavage
tribes of America : and indeed idolatry, in its firſt beginning, was
not an utter caſting off the knowledge and worſhip of the one true
God,
*
Chap. II.
73
Idolatry not the firſt Religion of Mankind.
God, but the worſhipping him in a ſuperſtitious manner, and
the joining with him, under various pretences, other objects of
worſhip, to whom at firſt they rendered an inferior degree of reli-
gious reſpect, but at length came to render them that divine
adoration which was only due to the Supreme.
1
The moſt authentic hiſtory of the firſt ages of the world, as
hath been already hinted, is that of Moſes; who is the moſt an-
tient hiſtorian, and the moſt to be depended upon of any now
extant. For as to the extravagant antiquities of the Chaldeans,
the Egyptians, and Chineſe, the fabulouſneſs and abſurdity of
them has been often ſufficiently expoſed, and has been ſo very
lately, by the learned and ingenious Mr. Goguet, in his 3d Differ-
tation at the end of his 3d tome, De l'Origine des Loix, des Arts,
et des Sciences. And from the account given by Moſes it appear-
eth, that the worſhip of the one true God was the religion of
the firſt anceſtors of the human race, and that idolatry and poly-
theiſm came in afterwards. And the farther the nations were re-
moved from the earlieſt ages, the more they degenerated from the
primitive religion ; and the ancient and original traditions became
more and more corrupted.
The nations which made the greateſt figure in the moſt antient
times were the Affyrians and Chaldeans, the Perſians, Phæni-
cians, Arabians, and Egyptians; and there is great reaſon to think,
that among all or moſt of theſe the worſhip of the one true God
was preſerved for ſome ages after the Flood (o). To theſe might
() See Shuckford's Connect. of ſacred and prophane hiſtory, vol. i. p. 282,
&c. 303, et ſeq.
VOL. I.
L
be
74
Idolatry not the firſt Religion of Mankind. Part I.
$
be added the antient Chineſe, according to the accounts given of
them by F. Matthew Riccius and others, and eſpecially by F. Le
Compte, in his memoirs of China. This laſt-mentioned author
affirms, That the people of China preſerved the knowledge and
worſhip of the one true God, the Lord of heaven and earth, and
the purity of religion among them for two thouſand years. And
it muſt be owned, that there are ſome paſſages in the moſt antient
Chineſe books, which, taken in the moſt obvious ſenſe, ſeem to
favour this hypotheſis. But as this is contradicted by the Chineſe
themfelves, who give a different account of the true ſenſe of thoſe
books, as well as by ſome learned Chriſtians well verſed in the
Chineſe language and literature (P), I ſhall not lay any great ſtreſs
(D) The propoſitions in Le Compte's Memoires relating to the antient religion
of the Chineſe, were cenſured by the ſuperiors of the ſeminary of foreign millions
at Paris, and afterwards by the faculty of divinity there, in their deciſions of Oct.
18, 1700. Some of the Jeſuits themſelves have alſo given different accounts of
the antient religion of China ; particularly F. Nicholas Longobardi, who lived
many years in China, and was well acquainted with their books and learning. The
reader may conſult his treatiſe on this ſubject, which takes up the whole fifth book
of F. Navarette's account of the empire of China. See alſo Millar's Hiſtory of the
Propag. of Chriſt. vol. ii. p. 281, 282. edit. 3d. “ As to my own ſentiments in
« this matter, it ſeems to me not improbable, that the Chineſe as well as the
" Perſians, and ſome other eaſtern nations, had ſome knowledge of the one true God
among them in the moſt antient times ; eſpecially as their firſt rulers and law-
givers ſeem to have been among the earlieſt deſcendants of Noah. But there
“ is reaſon to think that their religion ſoon began to be corrupted, and that they
“ early fell into the worſhip of the heaven, the earth, the elements, the moun-
“ tains, rivers, and other parts of nature; to which, at leaſt, conſidered as ani-
“ mated by the ſpirits they ſuppoſed to be intimately united to them and inſe-
as parable from them, they offered facrifices, from a very remote antiquity. This,
“ I think, may be fairly gathered from the acknowledgments of ſome of thoſe
" who are willing to give the inoſt favourable accounts of them. See the
“ Scientia Sincnfis latinè expofita, publiſhed by four Jeſuits, lib. i. p. 51. Paris,
$1 1686."
upon
Chap. II. The Worſhip of the one true God the most antient.
75
upon it.
As to the ancient Perſians, they ſeem to have been
adorers of the one true God in the earlieſt times. Dr. Hyde thinks
they learned this from Noah, and their great progenitors Shem and
Elam: and that though they afterwards fell into Sabiiſm, or the
worſhip of the heavenly bodies, yet they ſtill retained the know-
ledge and worſhip of the Supreme Deity, and that religion in ſeveral
reſpects was leſs corrupted among them than among many other
of the Gentile nations (9). The Chaldeans and Aſſyrians ſeem to
have been among the firſt corrupters of the true antient religion.
It is intimated, Joſh. xxiv. 3. that Terah, Abraham's father, and
even. Abraham himſelf, had been infected with their idolatries.
“ Thus faith the Lord God, Your fathers dwelt on the other ſide of
“ the flood,” i.e. of the river Euphrates, “ in old time: Terah, the
“ father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor, and they” (by
whom we are probably to underſtand Terah, Abraham, and Nachor)
« ſerved other Gods.” It can ſcarce be ſuppoſed, that they were ſo
far corrupted, as intirely to lay aſide the knowledge and adoration
of the one ſupreme God. But they paid alſo an inferior kind of
worſhip to other deities. From which however they were after-
wards reformed: and according to a tradition ſtill current among the
(9) There is a noble paſſage concerning God produced by Euſebius *,
* froin a
book aſcribed to Zoroaſter. If this paſſage be genuine, and that this Zoroaſter
was of ſo great antiquity as ſome ſuppoſe him to have been, he lived early in the
Patriarchal times, and may be ſuppoſed to have preſerved conſiderable remains of
the antient primitive religion, as being not far from the fountain head. Or, if he
was as late as the reign of Darius Hyſtafpes, where Dr. Hyde after the Perſian
and Arabian hiſtorians places him, he derived his notions of God, as well as ſome
other parts of his religion, from the Mofaic and Prophetical writings, as that very
learned writer has ſhewn.
* Eufeb, Præp. Evangel. lib. i. cap. 10. p. 42, A,
L2
caſtern
ma
76
The Worſhip of the one true God
Part I.
-
eaſtern nations, Abraham endeavoured to promote a reformation
among
the Chaldeans. But, if what is ſaid of this matter in the
book of Judith can be depended on, the Chaldeans caſt them
out; ſo that they were obliged to flee into Meſopotamia, where
they ſojourned many days (r). From thence, after Terah's death,
Abraham, by divine commandment, removed into Canaan. But
ſtill ſome of his brother Nachor's family remained in Meſopotamia.
And near two hundred years after this, by the account which is
given us of Laban and his family, it appears, that the knowledge
and worſhip of the one true God was ſtill retained in thoſe parts,
though mixed with ſome ſuperſtitious and idolatrous uſagés. As
to the Phænicians and Canaanites, it muſt be acknowledged, that
they were over-run with idolatry and polytheiſm in the days of
Moſes : but 400 years before, when Abraham ſojourned among
them, no traces of idolatry are to be found in the account given
of them in the Moſaic hiſtory. The contrary rather appeareth
from what is ſaid of Melchiſedek, a king in that country, who
was alſo a prieſt of the moſt High God, and to whom Abraham
himſelf Thewed great reſpect, and gave the tenth part of the
ſpoils he had taken. Abimelech, who was likewiſe a king in
Canaan about the ſame time, ſeems to have had a knowledge of
the true God, and to have been a worſhipper of him. “Nor is
there the leaſt hint of any difference between Abraham and the
inhabitants of thoſe parts on the account of religion, or any dif-
turbance given him on that head. He ſeems rather to have been
regarded among them as a Prophet of the Moſt High, and a
perſon much in the favour of God. The ſame may obſerved
(r) Judith, chap. v. verfi 6, 7, 8.
with
Chap. II.
77
the moſt antient Religion.
mous.
1
with regard to the treatment he met with from Pharaoh and the
Egyptians. It does not appear, that they were as yet infected
with thoſe idolatries, for which they became afterwards . fo fa-
. And it ſeems by what is ſaid of Pharaoh, that he was
not abſolutely a ſtranger to the true religion. And probably it
was not intirely corrupted in the times of Joſeph, as may be
ga-
thered from the particular reſpect he ſhewed to their prieſts, and
from his marrying a prieſt's daughter. And if what we are told
of the antient inhabitants of Thebais is to be depended upon,
they ſeem to have preſerved for a long time the primitive reli- -
ligion, as conſiſting in the worſhip of the one God, the Creator
of the world, whom they worſhipped under the name of Kneph,
when the other parts of Egypt were over-run with idolatry (s).
Of the antient religion of the Arabians, the book of Job, who
lived after the days of Abrahamn, is a noble monument. It
abounds with the ſublimeſt notions of the Divinity, and which
are there repreſented as delivered down from perſons of great
antiquity : though it is alſo there intimated, that the idolatrous
worſhip of the heavenly bodies was then beginning to be in-
troduced in thoſe parts (t).
I would obſerve by the way, that it may be collected from the
Moſaic accounts, that God was pleaſed to manifeſt himſelf on
ſeveral occaſions to particular perſons in thoſe antient times, as
(s) Plut. De Jud. et Ofir. oper. tom. i. p. 259. D. Euſeb. Præp. Evangel.
lib. iii. cap. 11. p. 115.
(t) See the antiquity of the book of Job vindicated, in the Second Diſſertation
At the end of the firſt tome De l’Origine des Loix, des Arts, &c.
appears
-
78
Part 1.
The Worſhip of the one true God
appears not only from the inſtances of Abraham, Iſaac (u), Jacob,
and Joſeph, but of Abimelech, Pharaoh, Laban, and others.
And there are ſeveral paſſages in the antient book of Job, which
Thew that it was no unuſual thing in thoſe days for God to favour
the ſincere adorers of the Deity with extraordinary diſcoveries of
his will, for their direction and guidance, and for preſerving a
ſenſe and knowledge of religion among men (x). And it may
reaſonably be ſuppoſed that it was ſo, not only in thoſe coun-
tries where Job and his friends lived, but among other nations in
thoſe early times, where there were good and pious perſons,
fearers of God and workers of righteouſneſs. And thus pro-
bably it continued, till, by their increaſing idolatries and impie-
ties, the nations rendered themſelves utterly unworthy of thoſe
divine communications, and were in God's juſt judgment left to
walk in their own ways. It was probably ſome traditionary ac-
counts of theſe things which gave reputation to Oracles : though
this, as well as other advantages they had enjoyed, was greatly
abuſed to ſuperſtition.
The learned Dr. Shuckford obſerves, that there continued for
a long time among the nations, uſages which ſhew that there had
been an antient univerſal religion, ſeveral traces of which ap-
peared in the rites and ceremonies which were obſerved in reli-
(u) We are told, that Rebecca went to “ enquire of the Lord” concerning the
children which ſtruggled in her womb: which ſeems to ſhew, that there was at
that time ir Canaan a prophet or prophets diſtinct from Abraham and Iſaac, to
whom perſons might have recourſe to know the will of God. And accordingly the
anſwer ſhe received contained a ſignal prophecy. Gen. xxv. 22, 23.
(x) Job iv. 12--20. Xxxiii. 14, 15, &c.
gious
i
Chap. II.
the moſt antient Religion.
79
1
gious worſhip. Such was the cuſtom of facrifices, expiatory and
precatorý, both the ſacrifices of animals (y), and the oblations of
wine, oil, and the fruits and products of the earth ; altars were
erected, and pillars, ſuch as that ſet up by Jacob, who poured
oil upon .
it, and thereby conſecrated it to God. Theſe and other
things which were in uſe among the patriarchs, obtained alſo among :
the Gentiles, and were probably intended originally to the honour
of the true God, but afterwards transferred to idol deities (z).
To this fome learned perſons have added, that the ſeventh day
ſeems for a long time to have been diſtinguiſhed among the na-
tions, and to have had a peculiar facredneſs aſcribed to it (a).
Mr. Selden indeed has taken great pains to ſhew, that the ſeventh
day mentioned by pagan writers is to be underſtood of the ſeventh
day of the month : and that there is no proof of the religious ob-
ſervance of the ſeventh day of the week among the antient Gen-
tiles. Yet it is plain from that very learned writer's own ac-
counts, that there was a particular regard paid by them to the
number ſeven, and that the numbering days by weeks, conſiſt-
ing of ſeven days, was of great antiquity, eſpecially among the
.
(y) It appears from the inſtances of Cain and Abel, and afterwards of Noah,
the ſecond father of mankind, that facrifices were made uſe of as a rite of religious
worſhip from the firſt ages. And its having ſpread fo univerſally among the na-
tions, can ſcarce be any other way accounted for, than by a moſt antient and general
tradition derived from the firſt of the human race. And good reaſons may be
offered to make it probable, that it was not their own invention, but owed its ori-
ginal to a divine inſtitution.
(z) Shuckford's Connect. of ſacred and prophane hiſtory, vol. i. p. 301, et ſeq.
(a) Euſeb. Præp. Evangel. lib. xiii. cap. 1.2 et 13..
eaſtern
:
So A Tradition of the Creation of the World Part I.
eaſtern nations (0). And I think. a more probable account cannot
be given of it, than that it was originally derived from a tradition
of the hiſtory of the creation, and of a ſeventh day ſet apart, by
divine appointment, in commemoration of it: though, like other
antient traditions, it came in proceſs of time to be neglected, -and
the true original deſign of it loſt and forgotten. It cannot be
denied however, that there remained for inany ages among the
nations, ſome remarkable veſtiges of the hiſtory of the creation.
It was generally believed, both that the world had a beginning,
and that it was inade out of a chaos or diſorderly maſs. This
is agreeable to the account given by Moſes, not that the nations
generally took it from his writings, but from a tradition derived
from the firſt ages (c). For, as, Dr. Burnet obſerves, the remem-
brance of their original was ſtill in a manner freſh in the moſt
ancient times : The higher one goes,” ſays the learned Monſ.
Goguet, “ towards the ages neareſt the creation, the more we
“ find of the viſible traces of this great truth, which the invention
" and temerity of man in vain attempted to deface (d).” And
that ſome notion of this continued for a long time among the
Gentiles might be ſhewn from ſeveral teſtimonies. The learned
Dr. Hyde obſerves concerning the antient Perſians, that from
times immemorial they had ſome knowledge of the hiſtory of the
creation : and to this he attributes their having retained more
(6) Selden De jure nat. et gent. lib. iii. the 17th and following chapters to the
end of that book.
(c) Concerning the antiquity and univerſality of this tradition fee Burnet's Archæ-
ologia, lib. ii. cap. i. and his Telluris Theoria Sacra, lib. i. cap. 4. et lib. ii. cap.
7. See alſo Grot. De Verit Relig. Chriſt. lib. i. ſect. 16.
(d) De l'Origine des Loix, des Arts, &c. tom. ii. p. 451, 452.
of
7
Chap. II. continued long among the nations
81
s
of the knowledge of the true religion than many other nations (e).
Strabo informs us from Megaſthenes, concerning the Indian Brach-
mans, who were remarkable for their adherence to antient tra-
ditions which they had received from their anceſtors, that they
believed the world had a beginning, and ſhall be deſtroyed, and
that God made and governs it'; and that the world was origi-
nally formed out of water. And in this he repreſents them as
agreeing with the Greeks ($). That very antient Greek poet
Linus writ a poem on the coſmogonia or generation of the world,
which he began thus, as Diogenes Laertius informs us,
"Ην ποτέ τοι χρονος έτος εν ώ άμα παντ’ επιφύκει.
“ There was a time when all things roſe at once."
And from him Laertius thinks Anaxagoras took his notion, that
all things were mixed together, and Mind came and put them in
order (8). Thoſe philoſophers who endeavoured to account for
the origin of things merely from material and mechanical cauſes,
without the intervention of an intelligent cauſe and author, and
the poets who turned the coſmogonia, or account of the production
of the world, into a theogonia, or an account of the generation of
the gods, and confounded the one with the other, were the great
depravers of the antient tradition. Yet traces of it ſtill remained
among the people, and even among the poets and mythologiſts
themſelves; a remarkable inſtance of which we have in Ovid,
(e) Hyde Hiſt, vet. Perfar. cap. iii. p. 81.
(f) Strabo, lib. xv. p. 1040. Edit. Amſtel.
(8) Laert. in Procemio, Segm. 4.
VOL. I.
M
who
83
The notion of one fupreime God
Part F..
who formed his Metamorphoſes upon antient traditions, and the
feceived mychology. He begins his work with an account of
the formation of the world out of a 'chaos, and has nyany things
fo agreeable to what Mofes has ſaid of it, that one would be apt
to think, that either he himſelf, or the authors whom he fol-
lowed, had ſeen or heard of the Mofxic account of the creation;
which, as appears from Longinus and others, the Pagans were
noť unácquainted with. But, ſuppoſing this to have been the
caſe, he would not have made uſe of it in fuch a work as the
Metamorphofeś, if it had not been agreeable to the antient re-
ceived traditions. And it is obſervable, that he gives it a Pagan
turn. And though he ſuppoſes one God to have been the great
agent in the formation of the world, yet he at the ſame time ſup-
poſes a plurality of deities, and ſeems to be at a loſs which of
them to aſcribe it to.
Beſides what has been ſaid of the tradition of the creation of
the world, it may be obſerved, that ſome notion of a ſupreme
Deity was generally preſerved among the nations, amidſt all their
ſuperſtitions and idolatries, and was never utterly extinguiſhed in
the Pagan world ; and this is a farther proof of the remains of an
antient univerſal religion which had obtained from the beginning.
There are ſeveral paſſages in Heathen writers which repreſent the
belief and acknowledgment of a Deity as having been derived by
a conſtant tradition from the moſt remote antiquity. The author
of the book De Mundo, among the works of Ariſtotle, calls it
~ a certain antient tradition or doctrine derived to all men from
5
" their
1
i
Chap. II.
never intirely extinguiſhed in the Pagan World.
83
)
« their fathers.” 'Αρκαιος τίς λόγος και πατριος πασιν ανθρώποις (5).
And before him Plato, ſpeaking of God's having the beginning,
the end, and the middle of things, and being always accom-
panied with juſtice to puniſh thoſe that tranſgreſs the divine law,
reprefents this as. what antient tradition, ó zónalos rózos, teſti-
fies (i). And Plutarch, in his treatiſe De Ilid. et Oſir. ſpeaking
of the opinion, that the world is not upheld or carried about by
chance, without underſtanding, or reaſon, or a governor,, repre-
fenteth it as an opinion of the utmoſt antiquity, raunáraios.doEd,
which had not its original from any known author, thu áeznu
αδέσποτον έχασα, and was generally fpread among the Greeks
and Barbarians (k). The moſt antient legiſlators were not the
inventors of it; but finding the notion of a Divinity among the
people, made uſe of it to give a greater authority to their laws
and inſtitutions. It may be traced up, as was before obſerved,
to the firſt parents of the human race, to whom it was commu-
nicated by the wife and benign Author of their beings. And
when once this principle was thus communicated, the ſtanding
evidences of a Deity, open to the View of mankind in all ages in
his wonderful works, muſt have contributed to keep up the idea
of it among the nations. And though it muſt be acknowledged,
that they did not make that uſe of thoſe diſcoveries which they
might and ought to have done, yet the works of God, which
were continually before their eyes, had undoubtedly a tendency
to preſerve ſome impreſſions of a Deity upon their minds, which
(5) De Mundo, cap. vi. Ariſtot. Oper. tom. I. p. 610. Edit. Paris 1629.
(i) Plat. de Leg. lib. IV. Oper. p. 600. G. Edit. Lugd. 1590.
(k) Plut. Oper. tom. II. p. 369. B. Edit. Francof. 1620.
could
M 2
84
The notion of one ſupreme God
Part 1
could never be abſolutely eraſed. I Thall produce a few teſtimo-
nies to this purpoſe among many which might be mentioned.
Zaleucus, the Locrian, in his celebrated proæmium or preface to
his laws, faith, that “ all thoſe who inhabit the city and country
ought firſt.of all to be perfuaded of the exiſtence of the Gods,
eſpecially when they look up to heaven, and, contemplate the
" world, and the orderly and beautiful diſpoſition of things. For
“theſe are not the works of chance or of men. And that they
" ought to worſhip and honour them, as the authors of all the
! real good things which befal us (2).”. " It is eaſy;" faith
Clinias, the Cretan, one of Plato's dialogiſts, in his tenth book of
laws, “ to prove this truth, that there are gods." And when the
Athenian hoſpes aſks, “ How is it proved ?” He anſwers, “. In
" the firſt place, the earth, the ſun, the ſtars, and tá žup marta,
" the whole complexion and conſtitution of things, the well-
is ordered variety of ſeaſons, diſtinguiſhed by years and months,
" Thew.it: as alſo the conſent of both Greeks and Barbarians,
« who all agree that there are Gods (on).” Cicero has many pal-
ſages concerning the proofs of a Deity, as being obvious from the
works of nature. “ Who,” ſays he, “ is ſo blind, that when he
“ looks up to the heavens, does not perceive that there are Gods ?”
Quis eſt tam cæcus, qui cum ſuſpexerit in cælos, non effe Deos
(l) This excellent Fragment has been preſerved to us by Stobæus. Serm. xiii
The reader may ſee it at large quoted and elegantly tranſlated by the learned au-
thor of the Divine Legation of Moſes: who has alſo well vindicated the genuine-
neſs of it againſt the objections of a famous critic. Div. Leg. vol. I. book ii, fecto
3d. p. 112 et ſeq. et 127, 128. 4th edit.
(m) Plato De. Leg. lib. X. Oper. p. 664: Ficio. Edit. Lugd. 1590.
fen
.
Chap. II. never intirely extinguiſhed in the Pagan World.
85
ſentiat (n)? And in his proem or introduction to his laws he
repreſents him as not worthy of the name of a man," whom the
orderly courſes of the ſtars, the viciffitudes of days and nights,
" the diſtributions and temperature of the ſeaſons, and the vari-
ous things produced out of the earth for our uſe and enjoy-
“ ment, do not compel to be grateful ?” Quem verò aſtrorum
ordinis, quem dierum et noctium viciffitudines, quem menſium
temperatio, quemque ea quæ gignuntur nobis ad fruendum, non
gratum effe cogant, hunc hominem omnino numerare qui de-
ceat ()? And elſewhere, having mentioned ſeveral of the works
of nature and providence, he aſks,“ How is it poffible for us,
«. when we behold theſe and numberleſs other things of the
" ſame kind, to entertain a doubt, but that there preſideth over
“ them ſome Maker of ſo great a work, if theſe things had a
beginning, or a moderator and governor, if, as Ariſtotle ſup
poſes, they exiſted from eternity.” Hæc igitur et alia innumera-
bilia cum cernimus, poffumuſne dubitare quin his præfit. aliquis
vel Effector, fi hæc nata ſunt ut Platoni videtur, vel fi ſemper
fuerint, ut Ariſtoteli placet, moderator tanti operis et muneris (p)?
Plutarch, in his treatiſe De Placit. Philof. lib. I. cap. vi. reckons
the obſervation of the heavenly bodies, their influences, the har-
mony of their motions, and the effects which they produce, to
be one of the principal things which had led men into the notion
of a Deity : though it muſt be owned, that he there ſpeaks of
men's acknowledging a number of gods; among which he reckons .
(n) Orat. Harufpic. Refponf. p. 9.
(o) De Legib. lib. II. cap. vii. p. 95, 96. Edit. Davis, 2d.
(0) Tuſcul. Quæft. lib. I. cap. xxviii. p. 68, Edit. Davis, 4to,
the
86
Part I.
The notion of one ſupreme God
1
the heaven, the earth, the ſun, moon, and ſtars (9). I think
it appears with great evidence from the ſeveral paſſages which
have been produced, to which others might be added, that in
the heathen world men were ſenſible of the force of the argu-
ment which is drawn from the beauty and order of the works of
nature, to the exiſtence and perfections of a Deity. But it is to be
obſerved, that though they generally agreed that the formation
of things was not owing to chance ; yet in moſt of the paſſages
here referred to, they do not argue from the works of nature to
one only ſupreme Cauſe, but ſeem rather to infer a plurality of
deities or intelligent cauſes, as the authors of this ſyſtem. And
many paſſages there are of this kind among the antients. It is
alſo obſervable, as I ſhall thew diſtinctly in another place, that
when the Pagan authors, who lived before the times of Chri-
ftianity, urge the conſent of nations againſt the atheiſts in proof
of a Deity, they generally ſpeak of Gods in the plural, and not
of one God only. Yet, notwithſtanding their polytheiſm, and
the many gods they acknowledged and worſhipped, which was a
great and moſt culpable defection from the true primitive religion,
they ſtill retained in fome degree the idea of one ſupreme Divi-
nity. But it muſt be owned, that it ſeemed at length to dwin-
dle into a notion of one God, ſuperior in power and dignity to
the reſt, but not of a different kind from the other divinities they
adored, whom they looked upon to be really and truly gods as
well as he, and ſharers in the fovereign dominion with him.
That this was the general popular notion will appear in the farther
progreſs of this work.
i
1
(q) Plut. Oper. tom. II. p. 880.
It
1
Chap. II.
87
never intirely extinguiſhed in the Pagan World.
1
It is an obſervation of the learned Dr. Cudworth, that though
the poets were the great depravers of the true primitive religion
and theology among the Pagans, yet they kept up the antient
tradition of one fupreme Deity. Amidft the crowds of divinities
they mention, there is ſtill running through all their writings the
notion of One Supreme; of whom they ſpeak in the moſt exalted
terms, and to whom they aſcribe the higheft divine attributes,
and which are really peculiar to the one true God; as that he
is omnipotent, that he ſeeth all things and governeth the whole
world. They often call him the Father Almighty, the Father of
gods and men. They deſcribe him as the Univerſal Monarch.
who ruleth men and the gods too. Several paffages might be
produced to this purpoſe from Homer and others of the Greek
poets, who in this are followed by the Latins. The reader may
particularly conſult Plautus in the prologue to his Rudens, ver. 9.
Virgil, Æneid. lib. x. ver. 2, et 18. Horace, ode xii. lib. i. et
lib. iii. ode iv. Other teſtimonies are produced from the poets by:
that learned writer (r). Yet it cannot be denied, that they con-
founded him whom they repreſented as the ſupreme God, with
that Jupiter of whom they told ſuch indecent ſtories, and
thus corrupted this great principle of all religion. This however
may be gathered from their writings, that the notion of one
Supreme Divinity was ſtill preſerved among them, and never
utterly extinguiſhed amidſt all the confuſions and perverſions of the
Pagan theology.
.
(r) Cudworth’s Intel. Syſtem, chap. iy. ſect. 19. P. 355, et ſeq; 2d editá.
I do
88
Part I.
Tradition of one fupreme God
I do not now enquire into the ſentiments of the antient philoſo-
phers concerning the one ſupreme God. Theſe will be diſtinctly
conſidered in a proper place. I ſhall only obſerve at preſent,
that many of them contributed not a little to corrupt this great
fundamental article of religion ; though ſome of them were of a
nobler character, and ſaid excellent things concerning the Deity,
at the ſame time that they joined in the public polytheiſm and
idolatry.
If from the more polite and civilized parts of the Heathen
world, we proceed to enquire how the caſe ſtood with the na-
tions which are uſually looked upon as illiterate and barbarous,
we ſhall find that many of them had alſo a notion of one Supreme
Divinity; and even ſome of thoſe, from whom one would have
leaſt expected it, ſeem to have preſerved the antient tradition in
this reſpect more clear, than the nations among whom learning
and ſcience flouriſhed.
It was for a long time thought, that the Hottentots, or nations,
which inhabit the countries about the Cape of Good Hope, had
no notion of God at all : but the lateſt and beſt accounts affure
us, that they believe one Supreme Being. F. Tachart tells us,
that in conference with ſome of the moſt intelligent Hottentots,
he found that they believed there is a God who made heaven and
earth, and cauſeth it to thunder and rain, &c. but did not think.
themſelves obliged to worſhip him. This is confirmed by other
writers of credit, particularly by Mr. Kolben, whoſe accounts of
the Hottentots are the moſt exact, and the moſt to be depended
upon.
Chap. II.
89
amongſt the moſt barbarous Nations.
,
ز
upon.
He took particular pains; whilft he was at the Cape of
Good Hope, where he lived ſeveral years, to inform himſelf of
their religion and cuſtoms; and affirms, that they believe a Su-
preme Being, the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things
that are therein, through whoſe omnipotence all things live and
move; and that this Being is endued with unſearchable attributes
and perfections; giving him a name which in their language
fignifieth the God of all.gods. This may ſeem to argue high
ideas of the Divinity. But then it is to be obſerved, that they ſay
of this Supreme God, that he is a good man, doing no harm to
any body, and dwells far above the moon ; and that they pay no
diſtinct worſhip to him, though they do to the moon. They alſo
worſhip an evil being, whom they look upon to be the father of
miſchief, that they may avert his malice (s). Conſidering their
character, it can hardly be ſuppoſed that their notions of a
Supreme Being, as far as they are juſt and right, are the effect
of their own reaſoning, to which in matters of religion they are
obſerved to have an utter averſion; but muſt have
but muſt have proceeded
from the remains of antient tradition, derived to them from their
anceſtors, of whoſe opinions and cuſtoms they are very tenacious.
There are other old traditions among them, ſome remarkable in-
ſtances of which are mentioned by that author.
The ſame obſervation may be made concerning the Negroes
in Guiney. We are told, that they generally acknowledge one
Supreme Almighty Being; but believe he is too far above us to
?
(s) See Kolben's Account of the Cape of Good Hope. Engliſh tranſlation. Vol. I.
chap. viii.
N
take
1
Vol. I,
୨୦
Part I.
Tradition of the Supreme God
take notice of poor mortals: and therefore they pay him no man-
ner of adoration ; neither praying to him, nor giving him thanks
for any thing ; but pray and facrifice to a multitude of other
deities, fome of which are extremely ridiculous (t).
It appears from both antient and modern accounts of India,
that there are ſeveral tribes and nations there, who acknowledge
and worſhip one Supreme Being, as the original and productive
Cauſe of all things : but that this God does not concern himſelf
immediately with things of little moment, but has created other
gods to be his Vicegerents ; and theſe again have their ſubordinate
gods, of whom they ſuppoſe an amazing number, to each of
whom worſhip is due (u).
The people of Ceylon in the Eaſt Indies, as Mr. Knox informs
us, who lived there twenty years, worſhip many gods, and even
evil ſpirits, leſt they ſhould be deſtroyed by them; yet they ac-
knowledge one God to be the Supreme, whom they call by a
name which ſignifies the Creator of heaven and earth; but that
he ſends forth inferior gods, to whom he hath committed the
care of affairs (x). Of theſe there are many images, and they
have
(t) See Salmon's account of Guiney in his Modern Hiſtory, from. Bofman and
other authors.
(2) Narrative of the Daniſh miſſionaries, part 2d, R. 7, et ſeq. And Phillips's
account of the religion, &c. of the people of Malabar.
(x) This notion of God's not concerning himſelf with the affairs of this world,
but committing them wholly to inferior deities, obtained very generally among
the Pagans, and was a principal cauſe of the idolatry which prevailed among
then
Chap. II.
91
amongſt the moſt barbarous Nations.
have prieſts and temples dedicated to them, but none to the
Supreme.
As to the people of America, Acoſta tells us, “ That this is
common to almoſt all the Barbarians, that they acknowledge a
« God ſupreme over all things, and perfectly good :" and he
adds, « That therefore they ought to be carefully taught who is
“ that ſupreme and eternal Author of all things, whom they
ignorantly worſhip.Hoc commune apud omnes penè bar-
«' baros eſt, ut Deum quidem omnium rerum fupremum et
“ fummè bonum fateantur-Igitur et quis ille ſummus idemque
ſempiternus rerum omnium opifex, quem ignoranter colunt,
per omnia doceri debunt (y).” And Lafeteau in his Mæurs des
Sauvages obſerves, that they acknowledge one Supreme Being or
Spirit: though he adds, that they confound him with the ſun,
whom they call the great fpirit, the author and maſter of life (2).
I believe this is true of many of thoſe favages, but ſtill it thews
they had a notion of one Supreme Deity, though they mifapplied
them. For hence it came to paſs, that in proceſs of time their regards and wor-
ſhip were almoſt wholly confined to theſe inferior deities, upon whom they thought
they'immediately depended'; whilft the Supreme God was regarded as little more
than an ideal being, and almoſt intirely neglected.
(y) Joſ. Acoſta De procuranda Indorum falute, lib. v. p. 475, as cited by Cud.
worth. But though they acknowledged the chief God to be very good, many of
them were principally follicitous to worſhip an evil being or beings, for fear of their
doing them miſchief.
(2) So we find ia a paſſage, which I ſhall afterwards cite from Macrobius, that
the civilized Roman and Greek Pagans, in their folemn acts of devotion to the
fun, called him the ſpirit of the world, the power of the world, the light of the
world.
N 2
it
92
Part
The Worſhip of the Supreme God
it to the ſun. Some of the Americans however ſeem to have had
a notion of a Supreme Deity above the ſun. Garcilaſſo de la
Vega fays, that the moſt antient inhabitants of Peru, before the
Incas' came among them, and whom he repreſents as extremely
rude and uncultivated, yet acknowledged one Supreme God,
whom they called Pacha Camack ; and ſaid, that it was He that
gave life to all things, and ſuſtained and preſerved the univerſe ;
but that as he was inviſible, and they did not fee bim, they could
not know him: and therefore to him they ſeldom erected temples;
or offered facrifices; though they ſhowed. their veneration for
him by bowing their head, and lifting up their eyes, when his
ſacred name was inentioned. One temple however was erected
to him, in a valley called the valley of Pacha Camack, which
was ſtanding when the Spaniards firſt came into thoſe parts..
The Inças made them, worſhip the fun from political view&: in
conſequence of which Pacha Çamack became in a great meaſure
neglected. We are told alſo concerning ſome of the inhabitants
of Florida, that they worſhip one God, the creator of all things,
whom they call Okee : their high prieſts offer ſacrifice to him ;,
but they believe heʻmirds not human affairs himſelf
, but commits
the government of them, to other deities, whom they therefore
worſhip, eſpecially the ſun and moon.
Thus it appears,, that there are traces of the belief of one
Supreme Deity among many different nations in the ſeveral parts
of the world, and even among people which are accounted the
moſt barbarous ; and this can hardly be ſuppoſed to be merely
owing to the force of their own reaſoning, deſtitute as they are
of
.
Chap. II.
93
paid to Idol Deities
)
1
of learning and improvement. It is moſt natural to aſcribe it to
: the remains of an antient univerſal religion, which obtained from
the beginning, and was derived from the firſt anceſtors of the
human race. It muſt be owned, that there have been and are
other nations, among whom this great article of the antient reli-
gion appears to have been almoſt intirely loſt, and who acknow-
ledged and worſhipped many gods, without ſeeming to have had
any diſtinct notion of one God that is abſolutely ſupreme above
all the reſt. But not to infilt upon this at preſent, I would ob-
ſerve, that even in thoſe nations which ſtill retained the notion:
of a Supreme Deity, this venerable tradition, tho' highly agree-.
able to reaſon, came at length, through the negligence and cor-
ruption of mankind, to be amazingly perverted and depraved.
It was 'covered and overwhelmed, ſo as to be ſcarce diſcernible-
under a monſtrous load of ſuperſtitions and idolatries. Some na-
tions which acknowledged a Supreme Being rendered him no
worſhip at all; in others his worſhip was ſo mixed and con-
founded with that of idol deities, that ſcarce any traces of it ap-
pear in their worſhip, in their religion, and in their laws. The:
great number of divinities which were introduced from time to:
time, and the worſhip of which was eſtabliſhed by public autho-
rity, turned off their attention and regards from the one true God,
ſo that he was in a great meaſure neglected and overlooked, whilſt
they paid that worſhip to vain idols which was due to him alone.
Mr. Locke therefore had juſt reaſon to ſay, that " in the crowds.
notions and invented rites, the world had almoſt loſt.
fight of the only true God (a).” Lord Bolingbroke makes the
«s of wrong
(a) Locke's Reaſon. of Chriſt. in his works, vol. II. p. 530, 531. Edit. 3d..
faine.
94
The Worſhip of the Supreme God, &c. Part 1.
faine obſervation, that " they loſt fight of him, and ſuffered ima-
ginary beings to intercept the worſhip due to him alone (6).”
Allowing the moſt favourable repreſentations that can poſſibly be
made of the ſtate of the heathen world, conſiſtently with truth
and fact, the darkneſs and confuſion the people were under with
regard to the knowledge and worſhip of the one true God was
groſs and deplorable to an aſtoniſhing degree; ſo that they ſtood
in great need of an extraordinary divine interpoſition to recover
them from it. This is what I ſhall now proceed to ſhew. And
it will be proper to take ſome notice of the principal ſteps by
which this grand defection from the right knowledge and wor-
ſhip of the only true God was brought about, and came to pre-
vail fo generally among the nations. And in carrying on this
enquiry I ſhall have a particular regard to thoſe Pagan nations
which have beon moſt admired for their wiſdom, and among
whom learning and philoſophy ſeemed to make the greateſt
progreſs.
A
(6) Bul. Works, vol. IV, p. 80, et 461. Edit. 4to.
CHAP
[ 95 ]
I
С НА Р.
III.
The firſt corruption of religion, and deviation from the knowledge
and worſhip of the one true God, was the worſhip of heaven and
the heavenly bodies. This the moſt antient kind of idolatry. It
began very early, and ſpread very generally among the heathen
nations.
T
us,
HE moſt antient idolatry, and which was probably the
firſt deviation from the worſhip of the one true God,
feems to have been the worſhip of heaven and the heavenly
bodies, the ſun, moon, and ſtars. Diodorus Siculus acquaints
« That the moſt antient people of Egypt, looking up to the
« world above them, and the Nature of the univerſe, and being
« ftruck with aſtoniſhment and admiration, ſuppoſed the fun
" and moon to be the eternal and firſt or principal Gods.” And
he afterwards adds, that “they ſuppoſed that theſe gods govern.
the whole world (c).” This paſſage is cited by Euſebius, who
alſo obſerves concerning the antient Phænicians, that of mpwto's
Quoixoithe firſt natural philoſophers among them, or the firſt
who profeſſedly applied themſelves to enquire into the nature of
things, “ looked upon the ſun and moon, and other wandering
“ ſtars, and the elements, and the things that were connected
(c) Tες κατ' Αίγυπτου ανθρώπες το παλαιόν γενομένG αναβλέψαντας εις τον κόσμον,
και την των δλων φύσιν, καταπλαγέντας τε και θαυμάσαντας υπολαβείν είναι θεές αίδιες τε και
πρώτες τόν τε ήλιον και την σελήνην τέτες δε τές θεές υφίσανlαι του σύμπαντα κόσμον διοικεί-
Diod. Sicul. lib. I. Eufeb. Præpar. Evangel. lib. I. cap. 9. ab initio.
6 witoa
Der
90
The Worſlip of the heavenly Bodies Part 1.
}
"s with theſe, to be the only gods." Thus, inſtead of being led
by contemplating the wonderful works of God, to adore him the
glorious author, theſe ſearchers into nature worſhipped the works
themſelves as Gods. Truſting to their own wiſdom, they began
to neglect the antient tradition which Moſes lays down as the
foundation of all religion, that in the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth. What has been ſaid of the Egyptians and
Phænicians holds equally concerning the Aſſyrians and Chaldeans,
whom many ſuppoſe to have been the firſt that rendered divine
worſhip to the heavenly bodies. It is not however probable, that
any of theſe nations fell all at once into the groſſeſt kind of this
idolatry.. They began very early to apply themſelves to the ſtudy
of aſtronomy, and to make obſervations on the ſtars, their mo-
tions and influences. Among them judicial aſtrology had its riſe.
By indulging their ſpeculations they came to regard them as living
intelligent beings, a notion which afterwards obtained very gene-
rally among mankind (d). At firſt probably they might conſider
them
(d) The learned Dr. Campbell is very poſitive, that “ beyond all doubt, man,
.C if left to himſelf, without inſtruction, will conceive the heavenly bodies to be
“ all animated; and that by inward life and power they perform all their mo-
.. tions *.” And again, he ſays, “ I cannot help being aſſured, that mankind, left
.“6 wholly to themſelves, having no ſupernatural revelation, will not only appre-
“ hend the heavenly bodies are animals, but will confine their thoughts, their
hopes and fears, to theſe ſuperior beings, upon whom they judge by experience
" they depend; and will have no notion, no conception of an inviſible Being, in-
« finitely greater, who is over all, God bleſſed for ever t." He expreſſes himſelf to
the faine purpoſe in other places, and thinks this is the moſt natural way of
accounting for the original of idolatry. It appears to me very probable, that men
began very early to look upon the ſun, moon, and ſtars to be animated beings;
and that this, with the conſideration of their influences on this lower world, was
what
Campb.ll's Ncceility of Revelation, p. 185, 186,
+ Ibid. p. 211, and p. 393.
Chap. III.
97
the moſt antient Idolatry.
them in a ſubordination to the Supreme, as the moſt glorious
miniſters of the Moſt High, and to whom the adminiſtration of
things was chiefly committed ; to whom therefore they paid a
ſubordinate worſhip. But they came afterwards to regard them
as the principal deities, who had an univerſal dominion, and on
whom mankind had their chief dependence. Thus was intro-
duced a plurality of deities; and the knowledge and worſhip of
the only true God came to be in a great meaſure neglected and
loſt. Or, if they paid a greater worſhip to one God as ſuperior
to the reſt, it was the ſun. This kind of idolatry ſoon ſpread
among
the nations. Maimonides tells us concerning the antient
what principally gave riſe to the firſt and moſt antient idolatry. But I cannot carry
it ſo far as to pronounce with this learned writer, that men, if left to themſelves,
would, beyond all doubt,” conceive the heavenly bodies to be all animated, and
to perform all their motions by an inward life and power ; and that it would be as
natural for them to look upon the ſtars to be living beings, as to believe that the
animals they ſee about them, men, birds, beaſts, &c. are living beings. I ſhould
think that their conſtant unvaried motions, ſo different from the ſpontaneous mo-
tions of animals, would rather lead men to conclude, that they did not move by an
inward life and power of their own. Or, ſuppoſing men to regard them as living
beings, it would not neceſſarily follow, that they could not raiſe their views beyond
them to an inviſible Deity. They might ſtill look upon them to be the creatures
and ſubjects of the Supreme; eſpecially conſidering that, as hath been already
ſhewn, the notion of the Supreme Being, who created heaven and earth, had been
communicated to mankind from the beginning. There have been Chriſtians,
who believed the ſtars to be animated. So did the famous Origen, who believed
them to be endued by God with reaſon and wiſdom, and yet did not think they
ought to be worſhipped, but God only, who made them to be what they are, and
gave them light and underſtanding ----and that the fun, moon, and other ſtars, all
join with juſt men in praiſing God, and his only begotten Son * The ſame inay
be faid of that learned Rabbi Maimonides, who aſſerts, 'that the celeſtial orbs are
intelligent and rational animals, which worſhip, praiſe, and celebrate their Creator
and Lord. And he repreſents other Jewiſh doctors as of the fame opinion t.
* Origen cont. Cell. lib. V. f. 237, 238.
+ Maimon, More Nevoch. part ii. c'p. 5.
Zabians,
VOL. I.
98
The Worſhip of the heavenly Bodies Part I.
Zabians, who, he fays, had filled a great part of the earth, that
they held, that there is no God beſide the ſtars : that they are all
deities ; but that the ſun is the great or chief god : and that the
higheſt notion they formed of God was, that he is the ſpirit or
foul of the celeſtial orbs (e). In like manner Philo-Biblius, the
tranſlator of Sanchoniathon's Phænician History, tells us concern-
ing the antient inhabitants of Phænicia, that “ they accounted this
god, ſpeaking of the ſun, to be the only Lord of heaven-
« Τότον γαρ θεον ενομιζόν μόνον έραν κύριον.” And therefore he
adds, that they called him Baal Samen, which in the Phænician
language has that ſignification (f). The learned Mr. Sale, in
his preliminary diſcourſe to his tranſlation of the Koran, obſerves
from the Arabian writers, that the antient Arabs, from the riſing
and ſetting of the ſtars, by long experience, obſerved what
changes happen in the air, and at fength came to aſcribe divine
power to them. And it appears from a paſſage in the antient
book of Job, that in his time, which was probably before Moſes,
the worſhip of the heavenly bodies was practiſed in thoſe parts
of
Arabia where he lived : though it is likely there were ſtill many
among them, as well as Job himſelf, who regarded it as a great
iniquity to be puniſhed by the judge, and as a denying the God
that is above. Job xxxi. 26, 27, 28. As to the antient Perſians,
though Dr. Hyde will not allow what Herodotus affirms, that
they worſhipped the ſun, moon, and ſtars, and the elements, ali
along from the beginning, yet he acknowledges that they fell
very early into the worſhip of the heavenly bodies, even before
(6) Maimon. More Nevochi. part iii. cap. 29.
6) Apud Eufeb. Præpar. Evangel. lib. I. cap. 10
the
Chap. III.
୨୨
the moſt antient Idolatry.
.
the days of Abraham ; though he affirms, that they were after-
wards reclaimed from it, and that they all along ſtill retained
the knowledge and wor!hip of the one Supreme God. But whe-
ther this account may be depended upon or not, certain it is, that
the idolatrous worſhip of the heavenly bodies had made a con-
fiedrable progreſs in the world before the days of Moſes, as is evi-
dent from his writings. And it is moſt exprefly prohibited in his
law.
With reſpect to the antient Græcians, the teſtimony of Plato in
his Cratylus has been often quoted. « The firſt inhabitants of
“ Greece,” ſays he,“ appear to me, to have eſteemed theſe only
" to be Gods, as many of the Barbarians now do, the ſun, and
moon, and the earth, and ſtars, and heaven (8).” The ſame
thing is ſignified by Ariſtotle, when he faith, that « it hath been
« delivered down to us by the antients and thoſe of old times,
“.both that theſe (viz. the ſtars) are gods, and that the Divi-
nity comprehended whole or univerſal nature (b).” And he
obſerves, that “ all the other things were added afterwards, for
- the better preſuaſion of the multitude, and for public utility,
" to keep up a reverence for the laws : ſuch as, the repreſent-
ing the gods to be of human form, or like to other ani-
mals, and other things of that kind.” When the Greeks
(g) Φαίνονται μοι οι πρώτοι των ανθρωπων των περί την Ελλάδα τέτες μόνες θεές ηγείσθαι,
ώσσερ νύν πολλοί των βαρβάρων, ήλιον, και σελήνην, και γήν, και άρα, και έρανόν. Ρlat. Oper.
Ficin. Edit. Lugdun. p. 263. B.
(5) Παραδέδοται ύπο των αρχαίων και παλαιών, ότι θεοί τε εισιν ουτοι, και περιέχει το
Ježov tùy óany qúoiv. Ariſt, Metaph. lib. xiv. cap. 8. Oper. tom. II. p. 1003. Edit.
Paris 1629.
grew
02
joo
The Worſhip of the heavenly Bodies
Part I.
grew in learning and politeneſs, they were. Itill equally addicted
to the worſhip of the heavenly bodies, as their rude anceſtors.
had been, with this difference, that, as Ariſtotle intimates in the
paffage now referred to, they added other groffer idolatries and
ſuperſtitions to it. It was for affirming the ſtars to be inanimate
bodies, which was looked upon to be á denying their diyinity,
and for ſaying that the ſun is a body of fire, and the moon an
habitable earth, that Anaxagoras was accuſed at Athens for im-
piety; and, as ſome authors tell us, fined five talents, and
baniſhed (4). And though Plutarch ſeems to deny this, yet he
owns in his life of Pericles, that Pericles took care to ſend Anaxa-
goras away from Athens, from an apprehenſion that he would.
be in great danger of being condemned by the Athenians if he
ftaid there. Even the great Socrates himſelf cenſured him, as
guilty of preſumption and arrogance (k): And Plato, in the be-
ginning of his tenth book of laws, charges that opinion as leading:
to atheiſm, and a denial of divine providence: and he himſelf
frequently preſcribes the worſhip of the ſtars, which ſeem to be
the principal divinities he recommends to the people. The other
philoſophers, and eſpecially
, the Stoics, were of the fame ſenti-
ments.. Balbus the ſtoic, in Cicero's ſecond book De Natura Dee
orum, when he argues for a providence, takes particular pains to
prove, that the ſtars are gods, and to be worſhipped as ſuch.
Plutarch gives an authentic teſtimony of the general opinion and
practice of the Pagans in his time, and plainly expreſſes his own.
1
(i) Diog. Laert. in Anaxagora, lib. ii. ſegm. 12, 13, 14.
(k) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. iv. cap. 7. ſegm. 6, 7. p. 351. Edit.. Oxon..
appco:
1749,
Chap. III.
101
fpread generally among the Nations.
approbation of it. In his anſwer to Colotes, the Epicurean, he
Teckons it among the things which are moſt firmly believed, and
which cannot without great abſurdity be denied, “ That there is a
providence, and that the ſun and moon are animated; whom,"
ſays he, “ all men worſhip, and to whom they offer up facri-
- fices and prayers-Oις πάντες άνθρωποι θύεσι, και προσεύχονται
και σεβονται (!).”
زر
To this ſpecies of idolatry may alſo be referred their worſhip-
ping and aſcribing divinity to the whole compaſs of the heaven or
circumambient æther, which many of them eſteemed to be the
chief god; not indeed conſidered merely as inanimate, but as.
animated with a ſoul, of which all the heavenly bodies are par-
takers, Remarkable to this purpoſe is that paſſage of Ennius,
preſerved by Cicero. Aſpice hoc ſublime candens, quem in-
“ vocant omnes Jovem-Behold this reſplendent height of heaven,
« which all men invoke as Jove.” To this may be added a pal-
ſage from Euripides, which Cicero tranſlates thus :
« Vides fublime fuſum, immoderatum æthera,
Qui terram tenero circumjectu amplectitur.
- Hunc ſummum habeto divům, hunc perhibeto Jovem.--
6. Thou ſeeſt the high unmeaſurable expanſe of æther, which
encompaſſeth the earth in its tender embrace. This regard as
es the chief of the gods, celebrate this as Jupiter (m).” The fa-
mous ſtoic Chryfippus argued, as Cicero informs us, that he
(2) Plut. Oper, tom. ii. p. 1123. Edit. Francof. 1620.
(m). De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 2 et 25.
whoin
102
The Worſhip of the heavenir Bodies Part I.
whom -men call Jupiter is the æther. Chryſippus diſputavit
« æthera effe eum quem homines appellant Jovem.” That great
naturaliſt Pliny ſays, “ It is reaſonable to believe, that this world,
" and that which by another name is called heaven, which en-
compaſſeth and governeth all things, is God, eternal, in-
“ menſe, and which was never made, nor ſhall be deſtroyed (n).
“ – Mundum et hoc quod nomine alio cælum appellare libuit,
cujus circumflexu reguntur omnia, numen eſſe credi par eſt,
“ eternum, immenſum, neque genitum, neque interiturum.” ”
But it is to be obſerved, that when they aſcribed Divinity to the
heavens, it is to be underſtood, not excluſively of, but as having
a particular regard to the heavenly bodies, and eſpecially the chief
of them the ſun. To him they aſcribed the attributes peculiar to
the one true God. Thus Ulyſſes in Homer faith of the ſun, that
& he feeth and knoweth all things.--Παντ' έφορα και παντ' έπα-
xées (). The Orphic verſes, which whether compoſed by Or-
pheus himſelf or not, give in many inſtances a juſt repreſentation
of the antient Pagan theology, deſcribe him by the moſt glorious
epithets, as “ having an eternal eye that ſees all things-av-
degrès éqwv clavlov özepa;” and as “ the
eye
of righteouſneſs,
and the light of life-oupa d1x10cuvñs, Swñs pas." Menander de-
clares, that men ought to worſhip him as ngô Tor SEWr—the firſt or
chief of the gods (p). Plotinus and thoſe Pythagoreans who
lived a conſiderable time after Chriſtianity had made ſoine pro-
greſs in the world, and who were very clear in their acknow-
(n) Hiſt. Nat. lib. ii. cap. I.
() Odyſſ. H. verf. 321.
(1) Apud Campbell. Neceſ. Revel. p. 203. 295.
7
ledgments
Chap. III. Spread generally among the Nations. .
103
R
upon us
ledgments of the one Supreme God, and pretended to an extra-
ordinary degree of relinement, yet pleaded for the divinity and
worſhip of the ſun and ſtars, and for offering up prayers to them.
The emperor Julian has a pompous oration in honour of the
ſun, whom he repreſents as the parent of mankind, who gene-
rates our bodies, and ſends down our ſouls, and beſtows
all the good things we enjoy-and concludes with fupplicating to
him for peace and ſafety here, and for joy and happineſs-here-
after (9). Macrobius, who flouriſhed under the emperors Honorius
and Theodofius, and who was himſelf a Pagan (r), takes a great
deal of pains to prove that the ſun was the one univerſal deity,
who was adored under ſeveral names and characters. This plea
he manages with a variety of learning in the perſon of Vettius
Prætextatus, one of great eminency among the Pagans of that
time, whom he repreſents as the preſident of all the ſacred ritės,
and intimately acquainted with their theology; cc facrorum omni-
« um præſul-ſacrorum unicè conſcius.” See the firſt book of his
Saturnalia the 17th and following cl. apters. And he concludes
with obſerving, that the prieſts and i vines were wont to uſe this
prayer in their devotions or holy ceremonies : “ O almighty or
all-governing ſun, the ſpirit of the world, the power of the
“ world, the light of the world
Ηελια παντόκραλορ, κοσμο
πνευμα, κοσμα δύναμις, κοσμε φως.” And he adds a quotation
from ſome verſes aſcribed to Orpheus, in which the ſun is called
(
(9) Orat. 4.
(r) See this clearly proved by Mr, Maſſon, in his Tract on the Naughter of
the children of Bethlehem.
Jupiter
104
The Worſhip of the heavenly Bodies
Part I
Jupiter and Bacchus, the father of ſea and land; and the
genera-
tion of all things is attributed to him (s).
1
1
1
A
The fame Macrobius acquaints us, that the Aſſyrians gave the
name Adad to him whom they worſhipped as the higheſt and
greateſt God: that this name being interpreted ſignifies One, and
that by him they underſtood the fun. Affyrii Deo, quem
“ fummum maximumque venerantur, Adad nomen dederunt :
ejus nominis interpretatio fignificat Unus. Hunc igitur ut po-
4 tentiffimum adorant Deum: fed fubjungunt eidem Deum no-
s mina Adargatin, omnemque poteftatem cunctarum rerum his
• duobus attribuunt, folem terramque intelligentes (t).” It ap-
pears from Philoſtratus, that the Indian Brachmans, who were
extolled by Appollonius as far excelling all the wiſe men upon
earth, made the ſun the chief object of their worſhip, and were
themſelves called the prieſts of the ſun. As to the Chineſe, it is
ſaid to have been the cuſtom from the time of their firſt
emperor
Fohi, for their emperors to ſacrifice to heaven and earth. And
F. Navarette, who lived many years in China, and was well
acquainted with their language, religion, and learning, looks
upon it as a certain thing, that the Chineſe have from a remote
antiquity worſhipped the ſun, moon, and ſtars; and that they
knew nothing more noble than the material heaven which we
behold. He adds, that “ ſo ſay their books, and their learned
3
1
(s) Macrob. Saturnal. lib. i. cap. 23: p. 217. Edit. Lond. 1694.
(t) Ibid.
men
Chap. III. Spread generally among the Nations.
105
(
ز
“ men own it (u).” Tavernier in his account of Tonquin,
which was formerly under the dominion of China, though for
ſome hundreds of years paſt it has had kings of its own, relates,
that they ſacrifice to the ſun, moon, and other planets ; and have
four principal gods, and one goddeſs. We are told, that the
greater part of the inhabitants of the vaſt Eaſtern Tartary wor-
fhip a plurality of deities ; and particularly the ſun, moon, and
the four elements (x). Herodotus affirms concerning all the
Libyans, that they ſacrified only to the ſun and moon : and both
he and Strabo ſay of the Maſſagetæ, that they eſteemed the ſun
to be the only deity, and facrified a horſe to him (y). The ſun
was alſo the principal deity of the Mexicans and Peruvians in
America, to whom they erected temples, and offered facrifices,
and paid their moſt folemn acts of worſhip: and if ſome of them
had a notion of a God higher than the ſun, they looked
to be too far above them, and therefore had little regard to him in
their devotions. I might inſtance alſo in the antient inhabitants
of Terra Firma in America, of New Granada, and Hiſpaniola, the
Canary and Philippine Illands, the Gallans, a people bordering
on Abyſſinia, and ſeveral other African nations; as alſo the an-
tient Gauls, Germans, and other nations in Europe (2).
upon him
(u) See Navarette's Account of China in Churchill's Collection of Travels, &c.
vol, i, p. 74. 84, 85. et ibid. p. 188, 189.
(3) Grimſton's States and Empires, p. 701.
(y) Herod. lib. iv. cap. 188: Strabo Geogr. lib. xi.
(z) The reader may conſult, concerning ſeveral of the nations here mentioned,
Millar's Hift. of the Propag. of Chriſtianity, vol. ii.
Vol. 1.
P
Thus
/
106
Part I.
The Worſhip of the heavenly Bodies
Thus it appears, that this kind of idolatry, which the fcripture
calls the worſhip of the hoſt of heaven, hath ſpread generally
through the Pagan nations in Europe, Aſia, Africa, and America,
not only among the ſavage and illiterate, but the moſt learned
and polite. Human wiſdom and philufophy, inſtead of reclaim-
ing them from it, rather deviſed plauſible colours and pretences
to palliate or juſtify it. And it is owing principally to the light
of the Jewiſh and Chriſtian revelation, that this idolatry is now
baniſhed from ſo many nations among whom it antiently.pre-
vailed. Lord Herbert, who endeavours to repreſent the Pagan
religion in the moſt favourable light, after having; in the fourth
and following chapters of his book De Religione Gentilium,
given an account of the worſhip paid by the Pagans, antient and
modern, to the heavens, the fan, moon, and ſtars, and which he
repreſents to be univerfal, apologizes for it at the end of his ninth
chapter, by ſaying, that they worſhipped the ſtars to the honour
of the Supreme God. « Omnes ftellas, ſed in ſummi Dei ho-
norem, certè. olim fuiffe, et etiamnum effe cultas, conclu-
“ dimus.” This indeed was pretended by ſome of the philoſo-
phers, and particularly by thoſe of them who ſtood up as advo-
cates for Paganifm after Chriftianity had made its appearance in
the world, as if it could tend to the honour of the only true God
to render that religious worſhip and adoration to the works which
he hath made, which is due to him the glorious Author. That
noble writer himſelf, in his 3d chapter, after mentioning the
names of the deity which were in uſe among the Hebrews, and
fhewn that thofe names and titles were alſo uſed among the Gen-
tiles, owns that the Hebrews appropriated thoſe names and titles
+
to
Chap. III.
· Spreaa generally among the Nations.
107
1
1
66
to the one Supreme God ſuperior to the ſun, but that the Gentiles
underſtood by him no other than the ſun itſelf. ". Quamvis ſu-
perius fole numen ſub hiſce nominibus intellexerunt Hebræi
“ folem neque aliud numen intellexerunt Gentiles."
. He inſinu-
ates indeed that the worſhip paid to the fun was ſymbolical, ren-
dered to the ſun as the moſt glorious image and ſymbol of the
Divinity. And I do not deny, but that this might be the notion
which ſome perſons of ſublime ſpeculation entertained of it. But
it does not appear, that the vulgar Pagans, who worſhipped the
fun and ſtars, carried their refinements ſo far. His Lordſhip
himſelf expreſſes a doubt, that the people did not ſufficiently un-
derſtand that ſymbolical worſhip: Symbolicum illum cultum
“ haud ſatis forfan intellexit (a).?? And I think from the ac-
counts that are given us it may be reaſonably concluded, that the
generality of the vulgar Heathens, and many even of their learned
men and philoſophers: themſelves, though they had not entirely
loſt the idea of the one Supreme God, transferred it to the ſun.
To him they attributed the divine titles and attributes : on him
they terminated their worſhip, and in conjunction with him,
though in a kind of ſubordination to him, on the other ſtars, and
and on the earth and elements; all which they ſuppoſed to be
animated. The laſt-mentioned learned and noble author ſup-
poſes them to have worſhipped the ſun « vice ſummi Dei;” and
repreſents them as having acted no leſs abſurdly than thoſe would
do, who, coming to the court of a moſt powerful monarch,
Tould give the honours due only to the king to the firſt courtier
ز
i
(a) Herb. De Relig. Gentil. p. 293. Edit. Amſtel. 8vo. 1700.
P2
they
108
Part I.
The Worſhip of the heavenly Bodies, &c.
they ſaw cloathed in ſplendid apparel. “ Certè qui ſolem vice
« ſummi Dei coluerunt, proinde fecere, ac illi qui ad aulam
po-
“ tentiſſimi principis accedentes, quem primum amictu ſplendido
« indutum cernerent, regium illi cultum deferendum exiſtima-
“ verint (b)."
i
Thus we have conſidered the firſt great deviation from the
knowledge and worſhip of the true God among the heathen
nations. And I ſhall conclude the account of this kind of idola-
try with the elegant repreſentation made of it by the author of
the book of wiſdom. Surely vain are all men by nature, who
" are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that
« are ſeen know him that is : neither by confidering the works
“ did they acknowledge the workmaſter ; but deemed either fire
or wind, or the ſwift air, or the circle of the ſtars, or the vio-
“ lent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which
go-
«c vern the world. With whoſe beauty, if they being delighted
“ took them to be gods, let them know how much better the
« Lord of them is : for the firſt author of beauty hath created
« them. But if they were aſtonifhed at their power and virtue,
« let them underftand by them, how much mightier he is that
“ made them. For by the greatneſs and beauty of the creation, ,
proportionably the Maker of them is ſeen (c).”.
(6) Herb. De Relig. Gentil, p. 293. Edit. Amſtel. 1700.
(C) Wiſd. chap. xiii. 1-5
CHAP
-
[ 109 ]
снА Р.
IV.
The Worſhip of deified Men and Heroes another ſpecies of Idolatry of
an ancient date, and which obtained very early in the Pagan
world. Moſt of the principal objects of the Heathen worſhip, the
Dii majorum Gentium, had been once dead men. The names and
peculiar attributes originally belonging to the one Supreme God ap-
plied to them, particularly to Jupiter ; to whom at the ſame time
were aſcribed the moſt criminal actions. Jupiter Capitolinus, the
principal object of worſhip among the antient Romans, not the one
true God, but the chief of the Pagan divinities. The pretence,
that the Pagan polytheiſm was only the worſhipping one true God
under various names and manifeſtations, examined and sewn to
be inſufficient. The different names and titles of God erected into
different deities.
1
1
a
T
HERE was another fpecies of idolatry, which alſo began
. very early in the world, and very generally prevailed,
which was the worſhip of deified men or heroes. Here a new
ſeene of polytheiſm opens, which produced an amazing mul
tiplicity of Gods, and continually increafed. Philo Biblius, as
cited by Euſebius, obſerves, that “ the moſt antient Barba-
rians, eſpecially the Phænicians and Egyptians, from whom
« other people took this cuſtom, reckoned thoſe among the
greateſt gods, who had been the inventors of things uſeful and
neceſſary to human life, and who had been benefactors to
5
66 the
6C
119
Part I.
The Worſhip of deified Men of great
+
I
1
I
“ the nations.” And that to them they confecrated pillars and
ſtatues, and dedicated facred feſtivals (d). It is probable, that
at firſt theſe things were little more than monuments or me-
morials to their honour, but afterwards became religious rites ;
and from honouring and celebrating their memory, they proceeded
to regard them as deities. Thus, as the author of the book of
Wiſdom expreſſes it, “ in proceſs of time an ungodly cuſtom
“ grown ſtrong was kept as a law, and graven images were
worſhipped by the commandments of kings (e).” It was the
notion of hero deities, which principally introduced the worſhip
of images in human form, to which divine honours were paid.
And what is there ſaid of kings may be applied to moſt of the
antient legiſlators, and the founders and governors of cities and
commonwealths. From political views they encouraged the wor-
ſhip of ſome who had once been men, and took them into the
number of their gods (f). This became part of the religion of
1
1
(d) Euſeb. Præp. Evangel. lib. i. cap. 9. P. 32, 33. Edit. Paris 1628.
(e) Wiſd. ch. xiv. 16.
() Cicero, in the perſon of Balbus the ſtoic, very much approves the cuſtom of
paying divine honours to famous men, and regarding them as gods. De Nat.
Deor. lib. ii. cap. 24. p. 163, 164. Edit. Cantabrig. 1723. And in his 3d book
De Nat. Deor. cap. 19. p. 295. Cotta obſerves, that in moſt cities it was uſual,
in order to encourage men to hazard their lives for the commonwealth, to take
thoſe who had been eminent for their fortitude into the number of their gods : of
which he there gives ſeveral inſtances. Accordingly this is what Cicero himſelf
preſcribes in his ſecond book of laws, where he requires, that thoſe gods ſhould be
worſhipped, whom their merits had called into heaven. De Leg. lib. ii. cap. 8.
And it will appear from a paſſage to be foon quoted from him, that even
thoſe which were accounted the chief of the Pagan deities were ſuch as had been
once men. Such was the effect of modelling religion by the rules of human wiſdom
and policy,' which, in this as well as other inſtances, has greatly corrupted and
depraved it.
the
P. 100.
>
Chap. IV.
Antiquity among the Pagans.
III
A
the ſtate, with which the people readily complied, and which
at length was carried ſo far, as in a great meaſure to baniſh the
knowledge and worſhip of the one true God out of the Nations.
As thoſe that fet up the heaven, the ſun, and ſtars, for gods, did
apply to them the names and attributes of the Supreme Deity, ſo
when the cuſtom of worſhipping deified men took place, their
names and titles, and the rites of their worſhip, came at length
to be confounded with thoſe of the celeſtial deities : and both the
one and the other had thoſe attributes afcribed to them, and that
worſhip paid them, which properly belong to the one God, the
creator of the univerſe. Philo Biblius, in the paffage above re-
ferred to from Eufebius, obſerves it as a thing particularly re-
markable, that they applied the 'names of their kings to the ele-
ments of the univerſe, and to ſeveral of thoſe things which they
efteemed to be gods, and which he calls quoixe's bess, natural gods,
viz. the fun, moon; and ſtars. This cauſed an inextricable con-
fuſion in the heathen worſhip, as Selden has obſerved (8). Thus,
Oſiris among the Egyptians, Bel among the Chaldeans, and the
Baal of the Phænicians, ſignified both a deifred man and the ſun.
Many other names of their gods might be mentioned, which
were the names both of ſtars and heroes : and they were both
honoured with the moſt divine titles and epithets. Several emi-
nient writers have ſhewn, that the names of ſome of the Pagan
deities were corruptions of the Hebrew names of God, as Jove,
(g) Seld. De Diis Syris, Proleg. cap. iii. p. 5.1. Edit. Lipſ. To the ſame
purpoſe Lord Herbert. " Initio heroas in aſtris plerumque, aſtra in heroibus co-
w lentes, adeò ut cognomines ita eſſent, neque fatis judicari poflet num aniles de
« üis contextæ fabulæ ad aftra. myſticé, an ad homines mythicé pertinerent."
De Relig. Gentil. cap. xi.
Evius,
IIZ
Part I.
The Worſhip of deified Men of great
Euius, Sabius, &c. which were originally underſtood of the one
Supreme Deity, but afterwards came to be applied to deified
heroes. Who thoſe heroes were that were firſt worſhipped among
the Pagans as gods, the learned are not agreed. Some celebrated
authors have diſplayed an abundance of learning to Thew, that all
the tables relating to the antient Pagan divinities, and the actions
afcribed to them, were taken from the Scripture accounts of
Noah, the Patriarchs, of Moſes, and the moſt eminent Jewiſh
heroes. This ſeems to be a carrying the matter too far : yet,
I think, they have offered enough to render it probable, that
this was the caſe in ſeveral inſtances, and that there was in the
heathen mythology a mixture of obſcure traditions relating to
ſome of the Patriarchs before and after the flood, and other emi-
nent perſons mentioned in Scripture. Theſe were jumbled toge-
ther with the accounts of the antient Egyptian and Grecian
heroes, and afterwards farther diſguiſed and embelliſhed with
poetical fictions, fo that it is ſcarce poſſible clearly to diſcern and
diſtinguiſh the genuine original traditions, from what was after-
wards added to them. The Abbé Banier, in his mythology of the
antients, has offered a great deal to prove that the fables of an-
tiquity are not merely allegorical, but founded upon facts, and
under the diſguiſe of divers fictitious circumſtances contain the
hiſtory of many real events. He gives a particular detail of the
hiſtory of the antient deities of the Egyptians, Æthiopians, Phe-
nicians, Syrians, Chaldeans, Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans,
Gauls, Germans, and other nations (b). Sir Iſaac Newton, in his
Chronology,
(b) The Abbé Pluche, in his Hiſtoire du Ciel, goes upon a different fcheme. He
endeavours to ſhew, that the Egyptian mythology, religion, and theogony, from
which that of the Greeks and Romans was derived, was wholly owing to an abuſe
$
of
Chap. IV.
113
Antiquity among the Pagans,
.
CC
Chronology, has alſo conſidered this matter, and given a good
account of the antient deities, fo famous in Pagan ſtory, eſpecial-
ly among the Egyptians and Greeks. It may not be improper
here to mention a judicious obſervation of Pauſanias, that « in
every age, many events which happened a long time
ago,
have
“ been rendered incredible by thoſe who have raiſed a ſuper-
“ ſtructure of lies upon things which were originally true.” He
adds, that «
they who heard theſe fabulous relations with plea-
“ ſure, were apt to add to them other fictions, and ſo the truths by
" mixing fallhoods with them were corrupted and deſtroyed (i).”
As the Pagans had among them traditionary accounts of the lives
and actions, both good and bad, of thoſe perſons who had been
deified, theſe being mixed with fables, were wrought into their
theology; which had the moſt pernicious effect upon their reli-
gion and worſhip. Cotta, in Cicero De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 42.
ſpeaking of thoſe who ſaid that famous and powerful men had
after death obtained divine honours, and been admitted into the
number of the gods; and that theſe are the gods whom we are
of the antient hieroglyphical characters, which were originally nothing elſe than
ſigns to advertiſe the Egyptians of the increaſe and decreaſe of the Nile, of the
variations of the ſeaſons, the rules of agriculture, and the different labours of the
huſbandman, and other things of the like nature. That it might be fo in ſeveral
inſtances, and that an abuſe of the hieroglyphical characters probably gave occaſion
to ſome of the antient mythological fables, may be allowed, and had been obſerved
learned men before. But to make this the ſole original of the gods and god-
deſſes of the Egyptians and Greeks, with all their facred rites and ceremonies, is a
ſcheme that cannot be ſupported. His conjectures are very ingenious; but in the
extent to which he has carried them, ſerve only to ſhew, how apt learned men are,
when they have fallen upon a new and favourite hypotheſis, to run into extremes.
(1) Εν τω πάντα αιωνι πολλα μέν πάλαι συμβάντα μηκέτι δε γενόμενα άπισα ειναι σε-
ποιήκασιν οι τοίς αλήθεσιν εποικοδομώντες έψευσμένα. Ρaufanias in Arcadicis.
VOL. I.
Q
wont
114 The principal of the Pagan Divinities Part I.
(C
wont to ſupplicate and adore; adds, that this ſubject was particularly
treated of by Euhemerus, the Meſſenian, whoſe work was tran-
Nated by Ennius into Latin; and that he ſhewed both when they
died and where their fepulchres were to be ſeen. " Ab Euhe-
“ mero autem et mortes et ſepulturæ demonſtrantur deorum (k).”
He indeed there infinuates, that thoſe who talked thus were void
of all religion ;
expertes religionum omnium.” And puts the
queſtion, whether Euhemerus did not, inſtead of confirming re-
ligion, take it away intirely ? “ Utrum igitur hic confirmaſſe
religionem videtur, an penitus totam ſuſtuliſſe?" Yet the ſame
Cotta, in the 3d book De Nat. Deor. cap. xv. et ſeq. inſiſts
largely upon it, that ſome of their gods were once mortals ; and
repreſents thoſe accounts as collected from antient fame or tradi-
tions of the Greeks. ( Ex veteri Græciæ fama collectas.” Ibid.
cap. xxiii. And Cicero, in one of his beſt treatiſes, expreſſes
himſelf very fully to the ſame purpoſe. He ſays, that “ almoſt
" the whole heaven is filled with the human race: that upon
« ſearching into the antient accounts, and what the Greek
writers have delivered from them, it will be found, that even
" thoſe that are accounted the greater deities, dii majorum gen-
“ tium, were taken from among men into heaven: that their
fepulchres were ſhewn in Greece." —And he intimates, that
w theſe things were delivered in the myſteries themſelves, as thoſe
(k) Lactantius gives a particular account of Euhemerus, and acquaints us, that
he gave the hiſtory of their births, marriages, offspring, actions, government,
and death. Divin. Inſtit. lib. i. cap. ii. p. 62. et De Irâ Dei, cap. 2. p. 62.
Edit. Lugd. Bat. 1660,
of that
1
Chap. IV.
I15
had once been Men.
1
" that were initiated knew.(1).” The Dii majorum gentium,
which were alſo called Conſentes, were comprehended by Ennius
in this diſtich,
1
Juno, Veſta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars,
« Mercurius, Jovis, Neptunus, Vulcanus, Apollo.”
Thus, according to Cicero, thoſe which were eſteemed the fupe-
rior deities, and were the principal objects of the Pagan worſhip,
had been once men: and this was taught even in the my-
ſteries (m). By the way I would obſerve, that this is abſolutely
ſubverſive of the ſcheme of thoſe who would make the names of
theſe gods paſs only for different names and manifeſtations of the
one Supreme Divinity: which was the pretence of ſome of the
antient philofophers and apologiſts for Paganiſm, and has been
adopted by ſeveral learned moderns. Plutarch indeed, in his
treatiſe de Iſid. et Ofir. paſſes a very ſevere cenſure upon Eu-
hemerus for giving ſuch accounts of their gods, as made them
(1) « Totum prope coelum, nonne humano genere completum eſt ? Si verò
« fcrutari vetera, et ex his ea quæ Scriptores Græciæ prodiderunt, eruere coner ;
ipfi illi, majorum gentium dii qui habentur, hinc a nobis profecti in cælum re-
“perientur. Quare quorum demonſtrantur ſepulchra in Græcia reminiſcere, quo-
« niam es initiatus, quæ traduntur in myfteriis ; tum denique, quam late hoc
pateat intelliges.” Tuſcul. Diſput. lib. i. cap. 12, 13. p. 30. Edit. Davis,
1738.
(m) Yet to ſhew how inconſiſtent the Heathens were in their theology, when
fome lands in Boeotia were exempted by law from taxes, becauſe they belonged to
the immortal gods, the Roman publicans, or tax-gatherers, were not willing to
allow it, under pretence, that none were to be eſteemed immortal gods, who had
once been men. So Cotta in Cicero inforīns us. “ Noftri quidem publicani, cuin
“ effent agri in Boeotia deorum immortalium excepti lege cenſoria, negabant immor-
“ tales eſſe ullos qui aliquando homines fuiſſent,” De Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 19.
P. 294.
to
Q_2
116
Part 1
The principal of tle Pagan Divinities
to have been originally no more than kings and great men.
He charges this as tending to the utter ſubverſion of all re-
ligion (n). But whatever tendency it might have to expoſe
the Pagan religion, it cannot reaſonably be denied, that ſome
of thoſe which were accounted their principal deities had
been originally of the human race. From this very treatiſe
of Plutarch, in which he cenſures Euhemerus, it appears,
that ſome of the Egyptian prieſts themſelves, ſpeaking of Ofi-
ris, whom they called the great and good, the lord of all,
gave an account of his birth, his actions, and exploits; that he
was king of Egypt, and that he drew the Egyptians from a
favage beaſtly way of living, by teaching them agriculture, and
the uſe of grain, giving them laws, and inſtructing them how to
honour the gods. They mention the years of his reign, the time
and circumſtances of his death, and pretended to thew his fepul-
chre. And I cannot help thinking, that they who reſolved theſe
things into antient hiſtorical traditions, though theſe traditions
were undoubtedly very much obſcured and mixed with fables,
gave a much more reaſonable account of them, than thoſe who
endeavoured to reſolve them wholly into phyfical allegories,
which by the account Plutarch gives of them were very much
forced ; and in the explication of which they were by no means
agreed. And the hypotheſis which he himſelf hath advanced,
attributing thoſe things to good or evil dæmons, which others
aſcribed to their heroes, hath nothing to ſupport it but his own
imagination ().
(n) Plutarch. Oper. tom. ii. p. 360. A. Edit. Francof. 1620.
(0) Ibid.
Callimachus,
Chap. IV.
117
bad once been Men,
Callimachus, in his hymn to Jupiter, charges the Cretans as
liars, for pretending that they had his ſepulchre among them;
whereas he never died, but exiſted always : yet he himſelf affirms
Jupiter to have been born in Arcadia. The learned Dr. Cud-
worth, whom entions this, makes a reflection upon it, which, he
ſays, may paſs for a general obſervations, that “ the Pagan theo-
logy was all along confounded with a certain mixture of phy-
fiology and herology," (i. e. the hiſtory of their great men and
heroes) “6 blended together.” This obſervation, which that ex-
cellent writer frequently repeats, may help us to judge how far
that hypotheſis is to be depended upon, which he takes ſo much
pains to eſtabliſh, that the Jupiter of the Pagans was the one true
Supreme God, and worſhipped as ſuch, not only by the philoſophers
but by the people. He roundly aſſerts, that “ as for the vulgar of
« the Greekich Pagans, whether they apprehended God to be a
“ mind or intellect ſeparate from the world, or elſe to be a ſou!
66 of the world only (p), it cannot be doubted, but by the word
v Zeus
W I think the Doctor here makes a very imperfect enumeration of the various
fenfes in which Jupiter was taken by the people, and even by the learned Pagans
themſelves. Some by Jupiter underſtood the world itſelf; others, the ſoul of the
world. And Macrobius affirms Jupiter to be the ſun. Saturnal. lib. i. cap. 23. He
begins that chapter thus : “ Nec ipſe Jupiter rex deorum folis naturam videtur ex-
" cedere: fed eundem effe Jovem claris docetur indiciis. - Jupiter himſelf, the king
" of the gods, does not ſeem to exceed the nature of the ſun: and that Jupiter is
" the ſame with the ſun appears from clear evidences.” Others ſuppoſed Jupiter
to be the æther, as in the paſſages cited above from Luripides and Ennius. To
whom
may be added, Virgil, who calls the æther Pater Omnipotens. Horace often
uſes the word Jupiter to ſignify the air, as in lib. ili. ode 10. verſ. 7, 8. Epod.
13. verf. 2. but eſpecially lib. i. ode 1. verf. 25. in the notes upon which, in the
Delphin edition, there is a quotation from Varro, that the antient Greeks by Jupiter
underſtood the air, the wind, and clouds. But he ſeems generally to have been
taken
118
Part I.
The Jupiter of the Pagans
1
os
“ Zeus they commonly underſtood the Supreme Deity in one or
« other of thoſe ſenſes, the father and king of gods; he being
« frequently thus ſtiled in their folemn nuncupation of vows-
« O Jupiter father, and O Jupiter king.-ZEű matig, ZEű ava.
And that “ the Latins did, in like manner, by Jupiter and Jovis,
frequently denote the Supreme Deity and Monarch of the uni-
« verſe is a thing unqueſtionable, and which does ſufficiently
appear from thoſe epithets which were given him of Optimus
« and Maximus, the Beſt and Greateſt, and alſo of Omnipotent,
.“ frequently beſtowed upon him by Virgil and others (9)” And
he thinks the very name of Jupiter or Jovis was of an Hebraical
extraction, and derived from the tetragrammaton, which was
pronounced Jovah or Javoh, or leuw or Iów, or the like. And
the abbreviation of this was Jah : and from thence came Jovis
pater, Jove the father, abbreviated into Jupiter (r). I ſhall not
conteſt this etymology of the name Jupiter, which many learned
men have thought probable. But thạt this name, which might
have been originally deſigned to expreſs the Supreme God, was
afterwards generally applied by the Pagans to the principal of
their hero deities, cannot be reaſonably denied. It admits of the
cleareſt proof, that the Jupiter of the poets, whom they often
honoured with the moſt magnificent epithets, as the thunderer,
the omnipotent, the father of gods and men, and whom they
frequently deſcribe as exerciſing a ſovereign univerſal dominion,
taken by the people for the hero deity, the ſon of Saturn, celebrated by the
poets.
(9) Intel. ſyſt. chap. iv. ſect. xiv. p. 259, 260. 2d. Edir.
(1) Ibid. et p. 451.
1s
Chap. IV.
II
the chief of their Hero Deities.
is the ſame Jupiter of whom they make ſuch indecent repre-
ſentations, and of whom the mythologiſts told ſuch monſtrous
fables, many of which were adopted into their religion. Their
afcribing to him ſuch divine titles, and the government of all
things, ſhews, that they had among them a notion of one Su-
preme Divinity, and of the attributes which properly belonged to
him; but it alſo thews, that they confounded the one Supreme
God with the chief of their idol-deities, and aſcribed to the latter
the peculiar characters and worſhip due to the former.
Many paſſages of this kind might be produced from Homer,
who was in great eſteem among the Pagans, both as a poet and
a divine. I ſhall only mention a few out of the firſt book of his
Iliad. He calls him the high thundering Jove, and repreſents
him in the deſcription which is ſo much admired by Longinus
and others for its ſublimity, as caufing all heaven to tremble with
his nod : “ that he is the moſt excellent of all-ronu pégTATOS
"çiv.". And he elſewhere deſcribes him, “ as the father of
gods and men-πατήρ ανδρών τε θεών τε και who reigneth over
« both gods and men--os 7€ JEOTOl xar av patolol ávcocel (s)."
Yet he mentions his being in danger from a combination of the
other gods, Juno, Neptune, and Pallas, who had conſpired to
bind him with fetters; and that Thetis delivered him, and
averted the danger, by calling in Briareus to his aſſiſtance. He
alſo repreſents him as quarreling with Juno, as reproached by
her, and threatning her (t). Hefiod, in his Theogonia, deſcribes
(s) Iliad a. verf. 354. 281. 528, 529, 530. 58ì.
(t). Ibid., verf. 397, et ſeq. 540, et ſeq.
Į
Jupiter
20
Part I.
The Jupiter of the Pagans
Jupiter by the moſt magnificent epithets, as the father of gods
and men, the beginningſ and end of the muſes fongs, the moſt
( excellent of the gods, the wiſe, or counſellor, and the greateſt in
might, by whoſe thunder the earth is ſhaken, who governs mor-
tals and immortals; and he calls him the moſt glorious Jupiter,
the greateſt of all the eternal Gods (u). Yet, he ſays, he was
born of Rhea and Saturn, along with Veſta, Ceres, Juno, Pluto,
Neptune, and was the youngeſt of their fons : that he dethroned
his father Saturn, and expelled him from his empire, verf. 453,
et ſeq. et 490. The Latin poets talk in the ſame ſtrain. Dr.
Cudworth has produced ſome remarkable paſſages from Plautus,
to fhew that the Heathens acknowledged one Supreme God,
whom they called Jupiter, and entertained noble notions con-
cerning him and his government of the world. Yet the ſame
Plautus in his Amphytrio repreſents this very Jupiter as contriving
and perpetrating the moſt criminal adultery: and whilſt he aſ-
cribes to him a conduct ſo falſe and vicious, as ſcarce any but the
worſt of men could be guilty of, calls him that Jupiter whom
all men ought to fear and reverence, “ the king or ruler of the
“ gods-Deûm regnator: who eaſily doeth whatſoever he wills
- facilè quod vult facit.” And he honours him with the title of
Jupiter the Supreme Lord of gods and men-ſummus impera-
s tor divûm atque hominum Jupiter (x). Ovid. calls Jupiter
«« Pater Omnipotens--the Father Almighty,” even when he is
0
(u) Theogon. verf. 47, 48, 49. 457, 458. 481. 506. 548.
(*) Amphytr. Prolog. lin. 23. 45. 139. Act v, ſcen. i. lin. 64.
2
going
Chap. IV.
I 21
not the one true Supreme God.
going to tell of his deflouring Calliſto (y). And when he repre-
ſents him as taking upon him the ſhape of a bull that he might
carry off and commit a rape upon Europa, he gives that magni-
ficent deſcription of him, which the Doctor alſo produces to thew
that by Jupiter the Supreme God was ſignified.
« Ille pater, rectorque Deûm, cui dextra triſulcis
Ignibus armata eſt, qui nutu concutit orbem,
“ Induitur tauri faciem (2).”
Where he calls him the father and ruler of the gods, whoſe right
hand is armed with three-forked thunderbolts, who ſhakes the
world with his nod..
Virgil was a poet of great learning and judgment, and he
has ſeveral paſſages which have been produced to prove, that the
Pagans underſtood by Jupiter the one true Supreme God. He
frequently calls him “the Father Almighty---Pater Omnipotens,
« The Father of gods and king of men-Divûm pater atque ho-
“ minum rex (a).” He introduces Venus as addreſſing him in
that noble manner;
« O qui res hominumque Deûmque
« Æternis regis imperiis, et fulmine terres (6).”
r
(y) Metamorph. lib. ii. verſ. 402.
(z) Ibid. verſ. 850, 851.
(a) Æneid. lib. i. verf. 65. et lib. X. verf. 2.
(6) Ibid. lib. i. verſ. 229, 230.
VOL. I.
R
Of
122
Part I,
The Jupiter of the Poets
Of the fame kind is that other addreſs of Venus to him :
« O Pater, O hominum Divûmque æterna poteſtas (C).”
But let us conſider who that Jupiter is, of whom the poet ſays
theſe great things. It is the fame Jupiter whom he deſcribes as
the father of Venus, and huſband of Juno, and whom he
repre-
fents as at a difficulty, how to act, that he might not diſoblige his.
wife or his daughter, who took oppoſite ſides.. Juno is intro-
duced as boaſting of herſelf, that ſhe was the queen of the gods,
and the fiſter and wife of Jupiter.
« Divûm incedo regina Joviſque:
« Et ſoror et conjunx (d).”
And Jupiter himſelf in a foothing ſpeech he makes to her, calls-
her his fiſter and beloved wife (e). The ſame Jupiter is honoured .
by the poet with the character of Jupiter omnipotens, when he
ſpeaks of the prayer offered to him by Jarbas, king of the Gætu-
lians, who was begotten by him of a Garamantian nymph.
Æneid. iv, verſ. 198. 206. 208.
The laſt poet I ſhall mention is Horace. There is an adıni-
rable paſſage in the 12th ode of his firſt book, which has been.
often quoted :
(e) Æneid. lib. x. verf. 18.
(d) Ibid. lib. i. verf. 46, 47,
(e) Ibid. lib. X. verſ. 607.
« Quid
B
Chap. IV.
123
- not the one true Supreme God.
Quid prius dicam folitis parentis
“ Laudibus, qui res hominum ac Deorum,
« Qui mare et terras, variiſque mundum
Temperat horis ?
Unde nil majus generatur ipſo;
Nec viget quidquam ſimile aut fecundum.
Scarce any thing more ſublime could be ſaid of the one true
Supreme God
God. He
He repreſents him as exerciſing an univerſal do-
minion, governing the affairs of gods and men, the ſea, the land,
and the ſeaſons; than whom nothing is greater ; nor is there any
thing like him, or that can be reckoned ſo much as ſecond to
him. Yet in this very ode he addreſſes him as having ſprung
from Saturn; which ſhews that Jupiter, the ſon of Saturn, was
that Jupiter of whom he had ſaid ſuch glorious things.
Gentis huńánæ pater atque cuſtos
Orte Saturno.
And he celebrates along with him, though in an inferior degree,
Pallas, Liber, Phoebus.
Another paſſage of the ſame kind is in the fourth ode of his
third book, where he faith of Jupiter,
-
Qui terram inertem, qui mare temperat
Ventoſum, et urbes, regnaque triſtia,
Divoſque mortaleſque turmas
Imperio regit unus æquo.
Z 2
Yet
care
1.24
The poetical Jupiter
Part I.
Yet in the verſes immediately ſucceeding this magnificent deſcrip-
tion, he repreſents the Jupiter he is ſpeaking of, as having been
in danger and ſtruck with great terror by the inſurrection of the
Titans;'“ magnum terrorem intulerat Jovi :" But that he was
aſſiſted by Pallas, Vulcan, Juno, and Apollo. See alſo lib. ii.
ode 12. verf. 7, 8, 9. The ſame poet calls Jupiter the ſupreme
or higheſt god, when he ſpeaks of his amours with Latona, by
whom he had Apollo and Diana—“ Latonamque ſupremo dilec-
“ tam penitus Jovi.” Lib. i. ode 21. And he elſewhere hints at
Jupiter's debauching Danae, and raviſhing Ganyinede. Lib. ii.
ode 16. and lib. iv. ode
4.
I have inſiſted the more largely upon this matter, becauſe great
ſtreſs has been laid upon ſeveral of the paſſages which have been
mentioned, to prove, that by the Pagan Jupiter the one true Su-
preme God was underſtood, the fame whom we adore : whereas
the proper concluſion to be drawn from it, is not that the Jupiter
celebrated by the poets was the one true God, but that they af-
cribed to their Jupiter, who was really an idol, the peculiar attri-
butes and ſupreme dominion which belong only to the true God.
And it muſt be obſerved, that the Jupiter of the poets was the
popular Jupiter, the object of vulgar adoration among the Pagans.
There is a paſſage of Dio Chryſoſtomus, orat. 36. cited by Dr.
Cudworth, which is very full to this purpoſe. He ſays,
« All the
poets call the firſt and greateſt God the father, and alſo the
king univerſally of the whole rational kind ; believing or be-
“ ing perſuaded by whom, i. e. by the poets, men erect altars to
Jupiter the king, and ſtick not to call him father in their devo-
tions.-
Chap. IV. not the one true Supreme God.
125
«« tions.-“Oις πειθόμενοι οι άνθρωποι Διος βασιλέως ιδρύονlαι βομές,
και δή και πατέρα αυτόν εκ οκνύσι προσαγορέυειν εν ταις ευχαϊς f).”
Where it is plainly intimated, that it was by the poets that the
people were inſtructed to erect altars, and to make their
prayers
and vows to Jupiter as the Father and King of all. And Dr.
Cudworth himſelf more than once obſerves, That the poets were
the prophets and chief inſtructors of the people. This learned
writer alſo acknowledges, that “ among the Greeks Zeus was ſup-
poſed to have been at firſt the name of a man or a hero, but yet
" was afterwards applied to ſignify the Supreme God.” And he
makes the ſame obſervation concerning the Egyptian Jupiter Ham-
mon; which name he thinks to have been firſt derived from
Ham or Cham, the ſon of Noah ; though he endeavours to prove
that it was uſed among the Egyptians to expreſs the Supreme
Deity. But this only ſhews the truth of what he there obſerves,
" That there might be ſuch a mixture of herology or hiſtory,
« together with theology, amongſt the Egyptians, as there was
« amongſt the Greeks (g).” This muſt needs have produced a
ſtrange confuſion in their theology and worſhip, and which con-
tinued all along during the times of Paganiſm, confounding the
Supreme God-with an idol, and an idol with the Supreme. The
fame excellent writer is of opinion, that the Egyptian Jupiter
Hammon is mentioned, Jer. xlviii. 25. which he tranſlates thus,
“ I will puniſh Amon No ;” as it is in the margin of our bibles,
i. e. as he interprets it, “ Amon the god of No." And he pro-
() Intel. Syſt. chap. iv. ſect. 26. p. 448.
(8) Ibid. ſect. 18. p. 338.
duces
I 26
Part I.
The Capitoline Jupiter
duces as parallel to this, the puniſhments denounced in the
46th chapter of Iſaiah, and in the gift of Jeremiah's Prophecies,
againſt Bel, which, according to Herodotus, was the name of
the Supreme God among the Babylonians (b). But theſe paf-
fages are by no means favourable to the Doctor's hypotheſis, ſince
they plainly ſhew, that thoſe prophets, ſpeaking in the name and
by the inſpiration of God himſelf, looked upon both Jupiter
Hammon the chief god of the Egyptians, and Bel of the Chal-
deans, not to have been the one true God, but idol-deities.
The fame may be ſaid of the Capitoline Jupiter, who was
the higheſt object of the adoration of the Roman people, the
chief god of their religion, and of their laws. I am ſenſible,
that very learned men have been of a different opinion, and par-
ticularly the juſtly celebrated author laſt mentioned, who main-
tains that the Jupiter worſhipped in the Capitol was the one true
Supreme God, whom the Romans worſhipped under that name.
And it muſt be acknowledged, that the moſt divine titles and
attributes were aſcribed to him. He was honoured with the glo-
rious titles of " Optimus et Maximus-the Beſt and Greateſt.”
Cicero, in one of his orations before the Roman people, Pro
Roſcio Amerino, N. 45, ſays of him, “ Jupiter Optimus, Maxi-
- mus, cujus nutu et arbitrio cælum, terra, maria reguntur-By
<< whoſe nod and ſovereign will, the heaven, the earth, and ſeas
«c are governed.” This is a noble deſcription ; but it is no
more than the poets have frequently ſaid of their Jupiter. So alſo
the Cretan Jupiter, whoſe fepulchre was ſhewn in Crete, is called
(b) Intel. Syſt. chap. iv. ſect. 18. p. 339, 340.
2
by
Chap. IV. not the one true Supreme God.
I'27
by Plutarch, “ "Agawv rý zúzios Trávtar The Ruler and Lord of
« all (i)." Seneca calls Jupiter, “ Cuſtodem rectoremque uni-
“ verſi, animum ac ſpiritum, mundani hujus operis dominum et
“ artificem, cui nomen omne convenit-The guardian and ruler
“ of the univerſe, the ſoul and ſpirit, the artificer and Lord of
~ this mundane frame, to whom every name agrees.” He after-
wards ſays of him, he may be rightly called “ Mundus--the
" World," and adds, “ Ipſe eſt totum quod vides, totus fuis
“ partibus inditus, et ſe ſuſtinens vi ſuâ (k).” And in other pal-
ſages he ſpeaks of Jupiter as the world, and the ſoul of the world,
(which, according to the ſtoics, was an intellectual fire or æther
univerſally diffuſed) and as one great whole, of which we all are
the parts and meinbers (1). When he here ſays, so that to him
every Name agrees,” he goes upon the notion adopted by the
ſtoics and ſome other philoſophers, that the ſeveral Pagan deities
were one God under different names : which pretence ſhall be
conſidered preſently. But in all this, it is plain, he repreſents
only his own and the ſtoical opinion ; not what the popular notion
of Jupiter Capitolinus was, about which the enquiry properly lies.
And here the ſame obſervation recurs, which was before made
with regard to the poets. The divine epithets with which the
Roman people honoured the Capitoline Jupiter, ſhew that they
ſtill retained among them ſo much of the antient tradition, as to
have ſome notion of the Supreme Divinity, and of the attributes
parente
(i) Plut. De If. et Ofir. oper. tom. ii. p. 381. D.
(k) Nat. Quæſt. lib. ii. cap. 45.
(1) See a remarkable paſſage to this purpoſe in his 92d Epiſtle.
which
128
The Capitoline Jupiter
Part I.
which belong to him: but it alſo appears, that they ſtrangely
perverted and corrupted it, by applying the proper characters and
attributes of the one true Supreme God to that Jupiter who was
really no more than the chief of their idol deities. For the
Jupiter worſhipped by the people in the Capitol was the ſame
Jupiter who is celebrated by the poets. This is what Cicero lig-
nifies in a paſſage quoted by Dr. Cudworth ; " Jupiter," ſays he,
«c is called by the poets the Father of gods and men, and by our
“ anceſtors the Beſt and Greateſt-Jupiter a poetis dicitur divậm
atque hominum pater, a majoribus autem noftris Optimus
(5 Maximus (m).” And indeed there are ſeveral things which
ſhew that the Capitoline was the ſame with the Poetical Jupiter.
Horace in the ſublime paſſage quoted above, where he ſpeaks in
the moſt exalted terms of the Jupiter whom the Romans wor-
ſhipped, repreſents him as ſprung from Saturn" Orte Saturno.'
Jupiter Capitoline was particularly deſcribed as the thunderer, and
the father of gods and men ; ſo alſo was the Jupiter of the poets.
The poetic Jupiter had Juno for his wife, and Minerva, for his
daughter: fo alſo Jupiter in the Capitol had Minerva and Juno
joined with him. It was to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva that
Tarquinius Priſcus dedicated the Capitol, in conſequence of a vow
which he had made : and the two latter had chapels in the Capi-
tol, the one on the right of Jupiter, the other on the left, and
Jupiter himſelf in the middle. Hence Lactantius obſerves, “ that
" the Jupiter of the Capitol was not uſually worſhipped without
ks the partnerſhip of his wife and daughter- Jupiter fine contu-
(m) De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 25.
« bernio
A
Chap. IV.
129
not the one true Supreme God.
“ bernio conjugis filiæque coli non folet (n).” An inſtance of this
we have in Cicero's Oratio pro Domo fua ad Pontifices. He con-
cludes it with a moſt ſolemn addreſs to Jupiter, whom he there
mentions in conjunction with Juno the queen, and Minerva, and
the other deities which preſided over their city and common-
wealth. Jupiter is placed at the head of them, being looked
upon as in a peculiar manner the guardian of the Roman empire:
but ſtill he was only one in the number of their divinities, though
higher in dignity than the reſt. The Ludi Seculares were the
moſt folemn of all the Roman ſacred games and feſtivals, to be
celebrated once in one hundred and ten years ; and which were
deſigned both to do honour to the deities who were ſuppoſed to
protect the Roman empire, and to implore a bleſſing from them
upon the public. And in theſe feſtivals Jupiter was only one of
the deities which were celebrated and invoked: with him were
joined Juno, Latona, Apollo, and Diana, the Parcæ, Ceres, Pluto,
and Proſerpina.; as Zoſimus, who was a zealous Pagan, informs
us). And this alſo appears from Horace's famous Carmen Secli-
lare, compoſed for that occaſion (0). The truth is, that the Roman
(12) Divin. Inſtit. lib. i. cap. 11. p. 63.
() Zoſim. Hift. lib. ii.
() There was another ſolemn act of devotion, which was fometimes performed
in the moſt antient times of the Roman ſtate, when perſons devoted themſelves to
death for the ſafety of the Commonwealth in times of imminent danger; and in
this alſo Jupiter was conſidered only as in conjunction with other deities. They
devoted themſelves to Janus, Jupiter, Mars, the Dii Manes; praying them to bleſs
and proſper the Roman Republic, and to bring deſtruction upon their enemies.
The form of this devotion may be ſeen in Caſaubon's notes on Suetonius's Caligula,
cap. 14.
Vol. I.
S
Jupiter
!
A
130
The Capitoline Yupiter
Part I.
Jupiter was one of the Dii majorum gentium, or the Di con-
ſentes, ranked among them in the verſes before cited from
Ennius, as alſo by Varro: and it is obſervable that Cicero, in his
ſecond book of laws, when he treats of divine worſhip, takes no
particular notice of Jupiter ; but crowds him in among the other
celeſtial gods, under that general rule. “ Divos, et eos qui coe-
“ leſtes femper habiti, colunto.” De Leg. lib.ii. cap. 8. p. 100.
The learned Dr. Cudworth, who takes notice of what Lactan-
tius ſays about Juno and Minerva's being joined with the Capito-
line Jupiter in the public worſhip, though he is not willing to
allow the inference which Lactantius draws from it, that Jupiter
Capitolinus was not the one true God, yet obſerves on this occa-
fion, that “ it is plain there is here a certain mixture of the
mythical or poetical theology, together with the natural, as
“ almoſt every where elſe there was to make up the civil theo-
logy of the Pagans (9).” He adds indeed, that “ according to
" the more recondite and arcane theology of the Pagans, theſe
" three Capitoline gods, Jupiter, Minerva, and Juno, as well as
(g) Thoſe who were for interpreting this in a way of phyſical allegory, by Jupi-
ter underſtood the æther, by Juno the air, and by Minerva the higher beaven. SO
Macrobius in Somn. Scip. lib. i. cap. 17. ad Saturnal. lib. iii. cap. 4. Servius in
his notes on Æneid. lib. i. verf. 50. where Juno is called the ſiſter and wife of
Jupiter obſerves, that Phyſici, the natural philoſophers, underſtood by Jupiter
the æther, and by Juno the air, called his fiſter and wife, becauſe of the near con-
junction between them. Balbus the ſtoic gives the fame account in Cicero De Nat.
Deorum, lib. ii. cap. 66. St. Auſtin acquaints us, that the ſame thing was ſaid
by the Pagans in his time. De Civit. Dei, lib. iii. cap. 10. p. 74. And this is-
not eaſily reconcilable to the notion of Jupiter Capitolinus's being the one Supreme.
God. That learned Father very well ſhews the confuſion and ſelf-contradiction of
Varro and others on this head. Ibid. lib. vii. C. 16. p. 134, and c. 28. p: 141.
- fome
Chap. IV.
131
not the one true Supreme God.
.
« ſome others, may be underſtood to have been nothing elſe
« but ſeveral names and notions of one Supreme Deity, according.
- to its ſeveral attributes and manifeſtations (r).” Not to exa-
mine this, hypotheſis at preſent, I would obſerve, that the Doctor
calls it “ the recondite and arcane theology of the Pagans ;'
where he plainly intimates, that whatever notions ſome ſpecula-
tive men might entertain of this matter, this theology was not
known among the people. Nor was it intended they ſhould know
it. They regarded them as diſtinct deities, and adored them as
ſuch. The ſame learned writer acknowledges, that “ the fabulous
" theology, both of the Greeks and Romans, did not only gene-
« rate all the other gods, but even Jupiter himſelf alſo their ſupreme
numen, aſſigning him both a father and mother, a grandfather
« and grandmother. And though the Romans did not plainly
adopt this into their civil theology, yet are they taxed by St.
“ Auſtin for ſuffering the ſtatue of Jupiter's nurſe to be kept in
" the Capitol for a religious monument (s).” The Doctor adds,
that “ this was connived at by the politicians, in a way of necef-
fary compliance with the vulgar; it being extremely difficult
« for them to conceive ſuch a living being or animal as was
“ never made, and without a beginning (t).” He ſeems to me
here to give up the cauſe, as far as it relates to the popular Pagan
00
.
(r) Intel, Syſt. chap. iv. fect. 27. p. 450.
(s) St. Auſtin obſerves properly on this occaſion, that by this they gave teſti-
mony to Euhemerus, who, with the diligence of an hiſtorian, ſhewed that the gods
had been mortal men, Nonne adteftati funt Euhemero, qui omnes tales deos, non
fabuloſâ garrulitate ſed hiſtorica diligentiâ, homines fuiffe mortaleſque confcripfit?
De Civit. Dei. lib. v. cap. 7. p. 119. A.
(t) Intel. Syſt. chap; iv. ſect. 32. p. 478.
S 2
notion
132
The Capitoline Jupiter
Part I.
notion of Jupiter Capitolinus. The excuſe he makes for the poli-
ticians and great men of the ſtate, plainly ſhews how little was
to be expected from them for bringing the people to a right ſenſe
of religion and the Deity. Moſes, the Lawgiver of the Jews,
was governed by quite different and far nobler principles. Having
a divine commiſſion, and animated by the ſpirit of God, he was
above the mean intereſted views of human policy, and brought
an illiterate people to juft and ſublime notions of the one true
eternal Divinity. I ſhall conclude what relates to Jupiter Capi-
tolinus, the chief god of the political Roman ſtate, with an obſer-
vation of the very learned writer I have ſo often mentioned on
this occaſion. " The diſtinction of the natural and true theology
«s from the civil and political, as it was acknowledged by all the
« antient Greek philoſophers, but moſt exprelly by Antiſthenes,
Plato, Ariſtotle, and the Stoics, ſo was it owned and much
“ inſiſted upon both by Scævola, that famous Roman pontifex,
« and by Varro, that moſt learned antiquary; they both agreeing,
o that the civil theology then eſtabliſhed by the Roman laws was
only the theology of the vulgar, but not the true (re).”
.'
I now proceed to obſerve further, that in conſequence of the
mixing the hiſtory of their heroes with their theology, the Pagan
mythologiſt often aſcribed very ſcandalous actions to their gods;
and particularly to Jupiter, whom they regarded as the chief of
them. And at the ſame time that they applied to their deities the
moſt divine titles and attributes, they repreſented them with all.
(u) Intel. Syft. chop. iv. ſect. 32. p. 478.
thie
care
Chap. IV.
13'3
not the one true Supreme God.
the paſſions and even vices of frail mortals. The paſſage in
Terence is well known, where a young man encourages himſelf
to a lewd action by the example of Jupiter, whom he there de-
ſcribes, as “ ſhaking the higheſt heavens with the noiſe of his
" thunder-Qui templa cæli fumma funitu concutit (x).” Euri-
pides puts this argument into the mouth of ſeveral of his ſpeakers
in his tragedies (y): Plato obſerves, in his firſt book of laws, ,
that the Cretans, who indulged themſelves in the impure love of
boys, pleaded the example of Jupiter and Ganymede (Z). Many
other paſſages might be produced to the ſame purpoſe from an-
tient authors. And theſe things could not but have a very ill
effect on the morals of the people, and were laid hold' on by
wicked' and licentious perſons, as giving a fanction to their vices
and debaucheries. It is not therefore without reaſon that Arno-
Brius exclaims, « Quis eſt mortalium tam ſtudicis moribus inſti-
" tutus,' quem non ad hujuſmodi furias deorum documenta prori-
« tent?-What mortal is ſo chaſtly educated, whom ſuch ex-
amples of the gods might not incite to the moſt libidinous ex-
o ceffes?” Arnob. adverf. Gent. lib. v. p. 178. edit. var. Lugd.
Bat. The ſcandalous things related of the objects of their wor-
ſhip had a manifeſť tendency to expoſe religion to contempt. It
is not therefore to be wondered at, that they ſometimes ſpoke of
their deities in a very diſreſpectful manner, and even of Jupiter
(x) Térent. Eunuch, Act iii. ſcene 4:
(y) See the paſſages referred to by the learned author of the Divine Legation of
Moſes, vol. i. book ii. ſect. 4. p. 153. Marg, note.
(2) Plat. Oper. p. 589. G. Edit. Lugd.
bim-
134 The primitive Chriſtians would not call God Fripiter. Part I.
himſelf. Thus Cicero, in his Oratio pro Domo ſua ad Ponti-
fices, ſpeaks by way of gibe againſt Clodius, that he might call
himſelf Jupiter, as having his ſiſter for his wife.
Hence it was that the primitive Chriſtians looked upon the
name of Jupiter as ſo contaminated and polluted, that they would
rather endure the greateſt torments than make uſe of it to ſignify
the one true God. There is a remarkable paſſage of Origen to this
purpoſe, in his fifth book againſt Celſus, p. 262. Edit. Cantabrig.
where, ſpeaking of the Chriſtians, he declares, “ that they rather
« choſe to undergo any torments, than to acknowledge Jupiter
" to be God. For,” ſays he, “we do not look upon Jupiter and
«s Sabaoth” [a Hebrew title, figifying the Lord of Hoſts] “ to be
w the fame: nor do we look upon Jupiter to be a Divinity at all;
sc but a certain dæmon, who takes pleaſure in being called by that
" name, and who is not friendly to man, nor to the true God.
" And if the Egyptians produce their Ammon to us, threatening
us with death, we will rather die than call Ammon God.”
And he had expreſſed himſelf to the ſame purpoſe before, ibid.
lib. i. p. 29, where he ſays, the Chriſtians ſuffer death rather than
call God Jupiter : and he mentions it as an inſtance of their piety,
that they would not apply any of thoſe names, which were taken
from the poetical fables, to the Creator of the univerſe; and that
when they ſpoke of God they either indefinitely uſe the word
God, or with an addition, the Creator of all things, the Maķer
of heaven and earth. Lactantius alſo treats it as a great abſurdity
to give the name of Jupiter to the one true God (a).
3
(a) Dirin. Inſtit. lib. i. cap. 4. p. 63. Edit. Lugd. Bat. 1660.
The
-
Chap. IV. The Pagan Deities not different Names of God. 135
The moſt plauſible apology which is made for the Pagan poly-
theiſm is, that the one true God was worſhipped under different
titles and characters : that thoſe which are reckoned diſtinct
deities and objects of worſhip were really no more than different
names or attributes of the one Supreme Deity according to his
various manifeſtations and effects. This was what the ſtoics, and
ſome of the other philoſophers maintained. There is a remark-
able paſſage of Seneca to this purpoſe, De Benefic. lib. iv. cap.
7, 8. the purport of which is to fhew, that God may be rightly
called by any of the names he mentions, viz. Jupiter Optimus :
Maximus, the Thunderer, Jupiter Stator, Liber Pater, Hercules,
Mercury (6), Nature, Fate, and Fortune: for they are all the
names of the fame God, uſing his power in various ways. .
« Omnia ejuſdem Dei nomina ſunt, variè utentis fua poter
“ ſtate. (c).” But we are to take this along with us, that, as has-
been already hinted, Seneca takes God in the ſenſe of the ſtoics,
who held that God is the foul of the world, or the world itſelf,
conſidered as one great animated being, of which all particular
beings, and the things of nature, are the parts and members, or
the powers and virtues : which ſeveral parts and powers of the
univerſe they called by the names of particular popular deities,
and
gave the name of God to the whole. To this they endea-
(6) When Seneca here ſays, “ Hunc et Liberum Patrem, et Herculem, ac Mer-
• curium noſtri putant;" by noſtri he does not mean the Roman people in general,
as if they looked upon Jupiter, Liber Pater, Hercules, and Mercury, to be one
and the ſame god; but the Stoics, of which fect he was, and whom he elſewhere
calls Stoici noſtri. Epiſt. 65.
(c) There is another paſſage of Seneca parallel to this. Nat. Quæſt. lib. ii..
cap. 45.
VOUI
136
Part 1.
The Pagan Divinities
$
vour to accommodate the fables of the poetical mythology con-
cerning Jupiter, and the other gods and goddeſſes ; though many
of their explications were ſo forced and unnatural, that they were
often ridiculed by other Pagans on the account of them. Dr.
Cudworth alſo produces a paſſage from Apuleius to ſhew, that all
the Pagans throughout the world worſhipped one Supreme God
under different names, and by various rights.
« Numen unicum
“ multiformi ſpecie, ritu vario, nomine multijugo, totus venera-
« tur orbis.” But not to infiſt upon it, that by God Apuleius
ſeems there to underſtand univerſal nature, it muſt be obſerved,
that he and ſeveral other Pagans who lived after the introduction
of Chriſtianity, made it their buſineſs to put a fair gloſs upon the
Heathen ſuperſtition and idolatry, and in many inſtances diſguiſed
it. If this plea be extended, as ſome of thoſe apologiſts and re-
finers of Paganiſm pretended, to all the popular Heathen deities
in general, as if they were all no other than ſo many different
names of the one Supreme God, it would follow that they ac-
knowledged and worſhipped no hero deities at all; than which
nothing can be more contrary to truth and fact. Accordingly
theſe pretences of the philoſophers made little impreſſion
upon
the
people, who had always been uſed to worſhip them as ſo many
diſtinct perſonal divinities, and knew very well, that the public
religion regarded them as ſuch. They were acquainted with the
antient traditions concerning them, and the actions aſcribed to
them by the poets and mythologiſts, to which many of their ſacred
rites reſerred, and on which they were founded. Tertullian puts
the caſe very ſtrongly to the Pagans, that they themſelves were
fenfible that their gods had once been men. He appeals to their
own
·Chap. IV. not the one true God under different Names. 1
1
137
own conſciences for the truth of this, and to their moſt antient and
authentic monuments (d). The learned Dr. Cudworth, who ſeems
very fond of the hypotheſis of reſolving the Pagan divinities into
different names of the one Supreme God, yet finds himſelf obliged
to acknowledge, that “ Herology," i. e. the hiſtory and worſhip
of hero deities, “ was inſerted and complicated all along together
« with phyſiology, in the paganic fables of their gods (e). In-
deed theſe things were ſo blended together, that it was ſcarce
poſſible to ſeparate them, or to point out diſtinctly what belonged
to the one, and what to the other : which produced a monſtrous
jumble in their religion and worſhip. And though this excellent
writer concludes his account of the Egyptian theology with de-
claring his opinion, that “ a great part of the Egyptian polytheiſm
" was nothing elſe but the worſhipping the one Supreme God
“ under many different names and notions, as of Hammon, Neith,
Oſiris, Iſis, Serapis, Kneph, &c. ();" yet it appears from the
account he himſelf gives from Plutarch and others, that their
moſt learned prieſts were far from being agreed in their notions of
what was to be underſtood by Oſiris, Iſis, Serapis, &c. Some
held them to be different names of the ſame deity, whom they
/
1
(d) “ Appellamus et provocamus a vobis ad confcientiam veſtram : illa nos ju-
“ dicet, illa nos damnet, fi potuerit negare omnes iſtos Deos veſtros homines
66 fuiffe. Si et ipfa inficias ierit, de ſuis antiquitatum monumentis revincetur, ex
quibus eos didicit teſtimonium perhibentibus ad hodiernum, et civitatibus in
quibus nati ſunt, et regionibus in quibus aliquid operati, operum veſtigia reli-
querunt, in quibus etiam fepulti demonſtrantur." Tertul. Apolog. cap..v. vi.
Oper. p. II. Edit. Paris, 1675.
(e) Intel. ſyſt. chap. iv. ſect, xiv. p. 239.
(f) Ibid. fect. 18. p. 352.
Vol. I.
T
fuppoſed
1
138
Part I.
Different Names worſhipped
ſuppoſed to be the whole animated world, but eſpecially the ſun :
others held them to be different deities, or different powers pre-
liding over the air, moiſture, &c. others gave hiſtorical and tra-
ditionary accounts of them as of perſonis that had formerly lived
and reigned in Egypt. Porphyry makes Serapis to have been an
evil demon (8). And the Doctor himſelf, who takes notice of
this, thinks it cannot be doubted, that it was an evil dæmon
that delivered oracles in the temple of Serapis, and affected to be
worſhipped as the Supreme God (b).
/
I do not deny that ſome of thoſe, which paſſed for different
deities, were probably at firſt only different names of God; but
as idolatry increaſed among the nations, thoſe different names
came in proceſs of time to be erected into different divinities, and
were regarded and worſhipped by the people as ſuch. So that,
inſtead of adoring the one Supreme God under his various names
and attributes, they turned thoſe very names and attributes into
fo
many
diſtinct perſonal names of different gods and god-
deſſes, whom they worſhipped with different and ſometimes
with contrary rites : and thus made them an occaſion of fur-
ther polytheiſm and idolatry.
« The ſeveral names of God,"
faith Dr. Cudworth, “.were vulgarly ſpoken of in Greece, as
** 'ſo many diſtinct deities (2)." "And the fame may be obſerved
concerning the Romans. He elſewhere acknowledgeth, that
« the vulgar probably did not underſtand that myſtery of the
(8) Ap. Euſeb. Præp. Evangel. lib. iv. cap. 23. P. 175.
(6) Ubi fupra, p. 351.
(1) Intel. Syft. p. 260.
«
Pagin
Chap. IV.
as different Deities,
132
« Pagan theology; that many of their gods were nothing but
« ſeveral names and notions of one Supreme Deity in its various
“ manifeſtations and effects (k).” Lord Herbert himſelf, who
hath uſed his utmoſt efforts to palliate the Pagan polytheiſm,
and to thew that they worſhipped the one true God, the ſame
that we Chriſtians adore, under various names and attributes, yet
owns, that what were at firſt only different names, in proceſs of
time, as ſuperſtition increaſed, came to be regarded and wor-
Thipped as different gods (1). The ſame thing is obferved by
Mr. Selden, who ſays, that in the ſacred hymns the gods were
invoked by a variety of names and epithets ; becauſe it was ima-
gined, that this variety of names was pleaſing and honourable to
them: but that afterwards theſe different names were accounted
and worſhipped as different divinities (m). Thus idolatry and
polytheiſm was making continual advances, even as the nations
grew in learning and politeneſs.
(k) Intel. Syft. p. 447.
(1) His Lordſhip takes notice of the name of Zeus o&CC40l0s, which was proba-
bly derived from the Hebrew Sabaoth, and was originally deſigned to ſignify God's
ſupreme univerſal dominion, as he is the Lord of Hoſts. He was worſhipped by
the Athenians; but it does not appear, that under this name they intended to
adore the one Supreme Lord of the univerſe, but regarded him as a particular deity,
and thus turned him into an idol. And accordingly Ariſtophanes inveighs againſt
him as a ſtrange and foreign divinity, which was lately introduced, and ought to
be baniſhed out of Greece. To this Cicero refers, De Leg. lib. ii. cap. 15.
p. 132.
(m) Seld. De Diis Syris, Proleg. cap. iii. p. 55, 56. Edit, Lipf.
T2
СНАР.
140
Part 1
The Symbols and Images of the Gods
.
$
CH A P.
V.
Farther progreſs of the Heathen polytheiſm. The ſymbols and images
of the Gods turned into Gods themſelves. The Phyſiology of the
Pagans another ſource of idolatry. They made Gods and Goddeſſes
of the things of nature, and parts of the univerſe, and of whatſo-
ever was uſeful to mankind. The qualities and affections of the
mind, and accidents of life, and even evil qualities and ac-
cidents were deified, and bad divine honours rendered to them..
The moſt refined Pagans agreed, according to Dr. Cudworth, in
crumbling the Deity into ſeveral parts, and multiplying it into.
many Gods. They Juppoſed God to be in a manner all things, and
therefore to be worſhipped in every thing. Divine honours were
paid to evil beings acknowledged to be ſuch. The Egyptian
idolatry conſidered.
A
S the different names, ſo alſo the different ſymbols invented
and made uſe of to denote the divinity, caine alſo to be
worſhipped as gods : ſuch as fire among the Chaldeans, the cow
and bull among the Egyptians. And it is not improbable, that
the other animal gods worſhipped by the Egyptians, the ſheep,
goat, hawk, ibis, ichneumon, crocodile, cat, dog, &c. were at
firſt deſigned, according to the wiſdom which then obtained, as
ſymbols and hieroglyphical characters of the Supreme Derty, or
ſome of his attributes; or, as the learned author of the Divine
Legation of Moſes ſuppoſes, they were marks of their elementary.
gods
Chap. V.
142
worſhipped as Gods.
gods and heroes (n). But afterwards they worſhipped and deificd
the fymbols themſelves, and thereby fell into the moſt groſs
and ſtupid idolatry, which expofed them to the ridicule of other
Pagans.
í
The ſame may be obſerved concerning the images which were
erected to their deities, and were ſuppoſed to have divine: powers
reſidirig in them. Theſe very images became gods, and were
worſhipped as fuch, and had divine honours rendered to them.
And this added mightily to the multitude of their gods. Plutarch
blames the Græcians. for calling the pictures of the gods, and
their ſtatues of braſs and ſtone, gods : 'whereas they ought only
to have called them the images of the gods ().. How far this
was carried among the Athenians; who were accounted the moſt
knowing as well as the moſt religious people in the Heathen
world, appears from a remarkable ftory, recorded. by:Laertius (-p).
The philoſopher Stilpo of Magara was brought before the vene-
rable tribunal of the Areopagus at Athens, for ſaying, that the
ftatue of Minerva, which was made by Phidias, was not a god;
and though he endeavoured to defend himſelf by alledging that
it was 'not a god but a goddeſs, he was ordered by that court,
who were not ſatisfied with this evaſion; to depart the city (9).
Their
.
(12) Div. Leg. of Moſes, vol. I: part ii. p. 298. 4th Edit.
(0) Plut. De Iſid, et Oſir. oper. tom. ii. p. 379. Edit. Francof.
() Laert, lib.ii. ſegm. 116.
(9) This is not to be underſtood, as if the Heathens looked upon the very
images, in themſelves conſidered, to be gods : for who but a fool, fays Celſus, can
imagine thoſe images to be real gods ? But they believed that the gods were both
reprea
142 The Things of Nature and Parts of the Univerſe deified. Part I.
Their phyſiology, as they managed it, was another fruitful
fource of polytheiſm. The firſt phyfiologers, or they who firſt
bégán 60 philoſophize on the nature of things, being for the moſt
part poets, diſguiſed the ſimple original tradition of the creation of
the world by allegorical deſcriptions of the nature and origin of
things. They turned the things of nature and parts of the uni-
verfe into allegorical perſons, and ſpoke of them as ſo many
dif-
tinct divinities : and at the ſame time they mixed theſe phyſical
fables and allegories with the diſguiſed traditionary accounts of
their dritient heroes. Hence it came to paſs, that, as hath been
obſerved by the learned, and particularly by Dr. Cudworth, their
coſmogonia, or account of the origin or formation of the world,
became alſo a theogonia, or account of the generation of the
gods : in which there was a monſtrous confuſion of gods, dæmons,
and the things of nature perſonified. Such was the theogonia of
Heliod. And thus was the number of their gods and goddeſſes
ftrangely multiplied. Balbus in Cicero, after having taken notice
of the deificd heroes, next mentions the phyſiological fables and
allegories, from which, he ſays, flowed a great multitude of
gods ; which, being clothed with human forms, furniſhed fables
to the poets, and filled human life with all manner of ſuperſti-
tion. « Alia quoque ex ratione, et quidem phyſicâ, magna
« effluxit multitudo deorum, qui induti ſpecie humanâ, fabulas
poetis fuppeditaverunt, humanam autem vitam ſuperſtitione
repreſented by them, and really preſent in them, and that therefore they ought to
be the objects of divine worſhipSee Orig. cont. Cell. lib. vii. and Arnobius,
lib, vi,
** omni
Chap. V.
Divinity aſcribed to Things uſeful in Life.
143
« omni refercerunt (r).” And in this many of the philoſophers
were no leſs to be blamed than the poets. For they alſo deified
the things of nature, and the ſeveral parts of the univerſe, which
ſome of them regarded as the ſymbols, others as real parts and
members, of the divinity.
Upon the ſame princples, divinity came to be aſcribed to what-
ever was uſeful in human life. Velleius in Cicero informs us,
that Perfæus, who had been an auditor and diſciple of Zeno, ſaid,
that both the inventors of things which were of great utility in
life were accounted gods, and even the things themſelves which
were falutary and beneficial were called by the names of the
gods (s). Cotta ſays the ſame thing of Prodicus Chius, and re-
preſents him as thereby taking away all religion (t). Plutarch
alſo paſſes a ſevere cenſure upon thoſe as cauſing abſurd and im-
pious opinions, who give the name of gods to things inſenſible
and inanimate, and which the gods have provided for the uſe of
mankind; as 'when they call wine Bacchus, and fire · Vulcan
which he thinks is as abſurd, as -if-men ſhould take the fails and
ropes for the mafter of the ſhip, or the potions and medicines for
(r) De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 24.-p. 164.- Edit. Davis, 2.
(s) Ibid. lib. i. cap. 15. p. 40.
(t) Ibid. cap. 42. p. 102. This was at length carried ſo far, that there was
ſcarce any thing which was of uſe in human life, but had divine honours aſcribed
to it, the meaneſt things not excepted, ſuch as the ;crepitus, ventris ; becauſe, if
parted with, it tended to the health of the body, and might be hurtful if fup-
preſſed. Seld. De Diis Syris, Proleg. cap. 3. p. 61. Edit. Lipf. Orig. cont. Celf.
lib. y. p. 255
the
144 Divinity aſcribed to Things uſeful in Life. Part I.
the phyſician (u). But Balbus, who is the repreſentative of the
Stoics in Cicero, and who ſeems to ſpeak Cicero's own ſenti-
ments, is of a different opinion. He thịnks it was wiſely ordered,
both by the wiſeſt men among the Greeks and by the antient
Romans, that whatever was of great advantage to human life,
and which they looked upon to be owing to the divine goodneſs
towards mankind, ſhould be called by the name of the gad from
whoin it came, as when we call corn Ceres, and wine Bacchus :
and that whenever there is any great force or virtue in
it is.proper that that very thing ſhould be called god (w). Thus
did theſe wiſe men contrive to find out plauſible pretences in their
great wiſdom, for giving that honour to the works themſelves,
which ſhould have been appropriated to God the glorious author;
and, inſtead of being led by his gifts beſtowed upon them to ren-
der due acknowledgments to him the ſovereign Donor, they turned
thoſe very gifts into deities.
any thing,
Balbus goes on, in the place now referred to, to mention the
temples 'which were erected to mind, faith, virtue, health, con-
cord, honour, victory, Liberty; and that becauſe the force of
theſe things was ſo great, that it could not be governed without
a god, the thing itſelf obtained the name of god.
« Quarum
« omnium rerum quia vis erat tanta, ut fine Deo regi non poffit,
- ipfa res Deorum nomen obtinuit (y).'
(u) De Il. et Ofir. Oper. tom. ii. p. 377. E.
(x) De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 23. p. 161.
(y) Ibid. p. 162.
1
3
And
Chap. V.
and even to Things hurtful and pernicious.
145
And this leads to another obſervation, which ſhews the ſtrong
bent the Heathens had to polytheiſm. The qualities and affec-
tions of rational beings, and even the accidents which relate to
them, were made perſons of, and turned into deities, and as ſuch
had divine worſhip paid them. And this honour was rendered
not only to qualities and accidents that were good and uſeful, but
to thoſe that were bad and hurtful : “ So great was the error,"
faith Cotta in Cicero, “ that even to pernicious things not only
“ was the name of gods attributed, but holy rites were inſti-
" tuted. Tantus error fuit, ut pernicioſis etiam rebus, non modo
« Deorum nomen tribueretur, fed etiam ſacra conſtituerentur.'
And he inſtances in the temple erected at Rome to the fever, and
an altar to evil fortune (2). And he had before obſerved, that
tempeſts were deified and conſecrated by the Roman people (a).
An antient monument of which was dug up in the laſt century at
the Porta Capena (6). Yea even the names of vicious things were
conſecrated; as of luſt and pleaſure. Cupidinis et voluptatis,
" et lubentinæ veneris vocabula confecrata funt, vitiofarum
rerum, neque naturalium (c).” To this St. Auſtin refers De
Civit. Dei. lib.iv. cap. 8. where he mentions the temple of Volupia,
the goddeſs of pleaſure, ſo called from voluptas, pleaſure; and of
Libentina, the goddeſs of luſt, ſo called from libido, luft. Varro
mentions the ſame goddeſſes, and gives the ſame etymology of
their names. And the Athenians, by the advice of Epimenides,
(z) De Nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 25. p. 314.
(a) Ibid. cap. XX. p. 297.
(6) Seld. De Diis Syris, Proleg. cap. iii. p. 59.
(c) De Nat. Deor, lib. ii, cap. 23. p. 162.
VOL. I.
U
who
146
Part I.
Virtuous and vicious Qualities deified.
1
who paffed among them for a great diviner and prophet, ere&ed
a temple to contumely and impudence ; ügis xj dva dela."
Cicero, who takes notice of this in his Second Book of Laws,
сар.
xi. p. 116, 117. paſſes a juſt cenſure upon it, and condemns
the erecting temples and altars to things hurtful and vicious.
But he there approves the erecting temples to virtuous affections
and qualities, as alſo to things that are deſirable, as health,
honour, victory, &c. though in his Third Book De Natura De-
orum, cap. xxiv. he, in the perſon of Cotta, repreſents it as
abſurd to make deities of the qualities that are in us, or of the
events which befal us. And. Pliny ſays, “ Innumeros quidem
[deos] credere, atque etiam ex virtutibus vitiiſque hominum,
« ut pudicitiam, concordiam, mentem, fpem, honorem, cle-
“ mentiam, fidem, aut (ut Democrito placet) duos omninò, pæs.
“ nam et beneficium, majorem.ad focordiam accedit.” Hiſt. Na-
turalis, lib. ii.. cap. 7.
Upon the whole, there was ſcarce any thing in nature, but
what ſome or other of the Heathens worſhipped and made a god.
of (d). Lord Herbert, who does all he can to juſtify. Or excuſe
the Pagan idolatry and polytheiſm, yet concludes the tenth chap-
ter of his book De Religione Gentilium, with obſerving, That the.
Gentiles did not only worſhip the whole world taken together,
but its parts, yea even its particles or ſmaller parts ; thinking it un-
(d) St. Auſin has given a long liſt of Heathen deities, and the offices aſſigned to
thein, tro:n Vairo. De Civit. Dei. lib. iv. cap. 8. And a ftill larger catalogue of
them, ibid. cap. 11. et cap. 16, et cap. 21.
The. reader may alſo ſee a great
number of them mentioned by Arnobius adverſ. Gentes, lib. iv. p. 128, et ſeq.
becoming
Chap. V.' The whole World worſhipped and all its Parts 147
becoming, that ſome of the more eminent parts of him whom
they regarded as God ſhould be worſhipped, and other parts
neglected. And therefore they judged, that it would be a baſe
and impious thing to render worſhip to this or that ſtar or ele-
ment, and reject the others as vile and worthleſs. And in wor-
Shipping the world as conſiſting of thoſe parts, they thought
they worſhipped the Supreme God in the beſt image of the
Divinity (e).
Thus there was an univerſal idolatry introduced and ſupported
under various pretences, and practiſed not only by the vulgar, but
by thoſe that put on the appearance of wiſdom and philoſophy.
I ſhall here ſubjoin ſome obſervations of the very learned Dr. Cud-
worth, relating to this matter; and I the rather chooſe to do this,
both becauſe he is known to have ſearched with great learning
and diligence into the depths of the Pagan theology, and becauſe
he cannot be reaſonably ſuſpected of a deſign to aggravate the
charge againſt them : fince, on the contrary, he appears to have
been ſtrongly inclined to repreſent the ſtate of the Heathen world
in the moſt favourable light.
ز
“' It cannot be denied,” faith that excellent author, " that the
Pagans did in ſome ſenſe or other deify or theologize all the
* parts of the world, or things of nature.” And again, “In their
theologizing of phyſiology, and deifying the things of nature
“ and parts of the world, they did accordingly call every thing
(e) De Relig. Gentil. p. 133, 134. Edit. Amſtel. 8vo. 1700.
U
by
*
148 The Pagans crumbled the one fimple Deity into Parts, Part I.
“ the name of God, and God by the name of every thing (f)."
To the ſame purpoſe he expreſſeth himſelf in ſeveral other places.
And can any thing be more diſhonourable to the Deity, more
unworthy of his Divine Majeſty, or have a worſe effect on reli-
gion, than thus in their worſhip to confound God and the crea-
ture, inſtead of rendering him that fingular honour and adora-
tion which his own infinite perfections and his unparalleled dig-
nity juſtly demand from us?
1
The ſame celebrated writer obſerves, that “the Pagans in ge-
« neral, even the moſt refined of them, agreed in theſe two
" things; firſt, in breaking and crumbling the one ſimple deity,
« and multiplying it into many gods, or parcelling it out into
« feveral particular notions, according to its ſeveral powers and
« virtues ; and then in theologizing the whole world, and deify-
« ing the natures of things, accidents, and inanimate bodies.
They ſuppoſing God to pervade all things, and himſelf to be
“ in a manner all things (8)." And that therefore he might be
worſhipped in every thing. This is one remarkable inſtance,
among many which might be mentioned, of the extravagancies
to which human reaſon is ſubject; and how apt thoſe are who have
the higheſt opinion of their own wiſdom, when left to themſelves,
to draw wrong concluſions from the beſt principles. So the Hea
thens did from the notion of God's univerfal preſence, and his
providence as extending to all his works. With reſpect to what
Dr. Cudworth calls their crumbling the one ſimple deity into
(f) Intel. Syſt. p.507. 515.
(8) Ibid. p. 532, 533•
parts,
Chap. V.
149
and multiplied it into many Gods.
:
lib. ii. cap. 7.
parts, he produces a remarkable paſſage from Pliny, Nat. Hift.
Fragilis et laborioſa mortalitas, in partes i to
digeſſit; infirmitatis fuæ memor, ut in portionibus quiſque co-
« leret, quo maxime indigeret.” Which he tranſlates thus;
« Frail and toilfom mortality has thus broken and crumbled the
deity into parts, mindful of its own infirmity, that ſo every one,
by parcels and pieces, might worſhip that in God which him-
" ſelf ſtands moſt in need of.”
--
To what has been offered concerning the Pagan idolatry,
might be added the worſhip of dæmons or genii, which pre-
vailed mightily in the Heathen world. Theſe were accounted a
middle kind of beings, inferior to the celeſtial gods, but ſuperior
to men. There were ſuppoſed to be vaſt numbers of them, of
different kinds, to all of whom they thought religious worſhip
was due. But not to inſiſt upon this at preſent, I would obſerve,
that it was an uſual thing among the Heathens to worſhip evil
beings, and to render them religious honours, that they might
not hurt them. Plutarch, De Placitis Philoſophorum, having
diſtributed the whole doctrine relating to the worſhip of the gods
into ſeven parts, takes notice in the ſecond and third place, that
they diſtinguiſhed the gods into thoſe that were favourable and
beneficial to mankind, ſuch as Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, Ceres,
and thoſe that were hurtful, ſuch as the Diræ, Furies, and Mars,
whom, as being cruel and violent, they endeavoured to appeaſe
and conciliate by ſacred rites (b). And in his treatiſe De Iſide et
() Plutarch. Oper. tom. ij. p. 880. Edit. Francof. 1620.
Ofiride,
1.50
Evil Beings worſhipped by the Pagans. Part 1.
Ofiride, he cites with approbation the opinion of Xenocrates,
who ſpeaking of unlucky days and feſtivals, which were cele-
brated by ſcourgings, beatings, lamentations, faſtings, ill-boding
words, and obſcene expreſſions, would not allow that they were
pleaſing or agreeable to the gods or good dæmons; but that there
were in the air about us certain great and powerful natutės, of a
croſs and moroſe temper, which take pleaſure in thoſe things, and
having obtained them do no farther miſchief (*). And he ob-
ſerves, that the Egyptians were wont on fome occaſions to wor-
ſhip Typhon, whom they looked upon to be an evil power, with
certain facrifices, in order to appeaſe and conſole him ; .though
there were alſo ſolemnities, in which they reproached and curſed
him (k). And, in his treatiſe De Oraculorum defectu, he makes
mention of certain feſtivals and ſacrifices, in which among the
ſacred rites were reckoned the eating raw fleſh, the tearing of their
fleſh or members, diaowdopol, (for this ſeems to be the meaning
of it by comparing it with Porphyr. De Abſtinentia, lib. ii. fect.
45.) doleful lamentations, obſcene words, furious ravings, &c.
Theſe, he thinks, were inſtituted for pleaſing evil and malignant
dæmons, and averting their wrath (1). The fame judgment he
paſſes upon human facrifices; which, as I ſhall have occaſion to
Thew, were very generally offered in the Pagan world, even to
thoſe that were accounted their principal deities. Porphyry, that
zealous and able advocate for Paganiſm, affirms, that there are
(i) Plut. ubi ſupra, p. 361. B.
(k) Ibid. p. 362. E.
(?) Ibid. p. 417. C. D.
male.
1
Chap. V.
151
Evil beings worſhipped by the Pagans.
malevolent and noxious dæmons who dwell in the ſpaces near
the earth. He repreſents them as the authors of all the calami-
ties which infeſt mankind, and that there is no kind of miſchief
which they are not ready to attempt : that it is their property to
lie; and that they endeavour to turn men off from.right thoughts
of the gods, and to draw their regards to themſelves, having an
ambition to be accounted. gods : and that the chief and moſt
powerful among them covets to be eſteemed the greateſt or the
ſupreme god (m). And he plainly intimates, that men generally
rendered them religious worſhip. He ſays, that cities found it
neceſſary to appeaſe and humour them by prayers and facrifices :
it being in the power of thoſe dæmons to beſtow riches, and ex-
ternal things relating to the body; and he gives it as the opinion
of the Theologues, that it is neceſſary for thoſe who are attached
to theſe external goods, and cannot as yet reſtrain and govern
their appetites, to endeavour to avert the wrath and power of
theſe dæmons, otherwiſe they ſhall never be free from troubles
and vexations (n). He had before repreſented it as a perſuaſion
which generally obtained concerning all the dæmons, whether
good or bad, and whether worſhipped under particular names or
not, that they will grow angry and hurt men, if they are neg-
lected, and have not due honour and worſhip paid them; and, on
the other hand, will do .good to thoſe who endeavour to gratify
them, by offering to them prayers, ſupplications, and ſacrifices.
And he ſays, that the man that is ſtudious of piety does not facri-
(ń) Porphyr. De Abſtin. lib. ii. ſect. 39, 40. 42. p. 83, 84. Edit. Canta-
brig. 1655.
(n) Ibid. fect. 43. p. 86, 87,
fice
2
I
352
Evil beings worſhipped by the Pagans. Part I.
fice any thing which has life, i. e. any animal, to the gods, but
to dæmons and other beings, both to the good and even to the
bad. « Ο ευσεβείας φροντίζων ως θεούς μεν θύεται έμψυχον έδεν
δαίμοσι δε και άλλοις ήτοι αγαθοίς ή και φαυλοις (ο).” Where he
ſuppoſes that a pious man will worſhip and offer ſacrifices to evil
dæmons as well as good beings. The ſame Porphyry, as cited by
Euſebius, looked upon Hecate, a goddeſs had in great veneration
among the Pagans (as appears from Hefiodi Theogonia, verf. 410.
et ſeq. and Potter's Antiquities of Greece, vol. i. p. 351.] to be
an evil dæmon; and that Serapis, the great Egyptian deity, who,
Plutarch tells us, was the common god of all the Egyptians, and
the ſame with Ofiris (p), was the chief or prince of evil dæmons;
and that many of thoſe who delivered oracles were fo (9). Thus
we have the teſtimony of a very eminent Pagan philoſopher, and
who was a bitter enemy to Chriſtianity, to the truth of what
St. Paul declares, that .“ the things which the Gentiles ſacrificed
they facrificed to devils, [to dæmons, and even evil ones]
" and not to God." I Cor. x. 20. And if this was true, even of
the polite and civilized Heathens within the limits of the Roman
empire, we are the leſs to be ſurprized at the accounts which are
given us by authors of good credit, of the worſhip that has
been paid to evil beings in ſome other parts of the world. We
are told concerning the antient Zabians, that they worſhipped
whom they called Sammael, and whom they regarded as an evil
•ܝ
() Porphyr. De Abſtin. ſect. 36, 37, p. 80, 81.
() Plut. De Ifid. et Ofir. Oper. tom. ii. p. 362. B.
(9) Apud Euſeb. Præpar. Evangel. lib. iv. cap. 22, 23. p. 174, 175.
ſpirit,
Chap. V.
The Egyptian Idolatry conſidered.
153
ſpirit; and the prince of the dæmons (r). The Perſians wor-
ſhipped Arimanius, whom they looked upon to be an evil prin-
ciple. The like account is given of the people of Pegu, Decan,
Narſinga, and other places in the Eaſt-Indies. It is ſaid alſo, that
evil ſpirits are worſhipped in Japan, and in the iſlands of Formoſa,
Ceylon, and Madagaſcar. The ſame thing is related of the Hot-
tentots, and other African nations. The like practice obtained
in ſeveral parts of America, particularly among the antient inha-
bitants of Canada, Terra firma, Braſil, and Chili. Moſt of theſe
nations believe a god or gods, and ſome of them one Supreme
God, and that he is good : and yet they worſhip an evil being or
beings, conſidered as ſuch, from a fear of being otherwiſe hurt
and deſtroyed by them. This undoubtedly ſhews, that the Pagan
ideas of a Deity and a Providence were extremely defective and
imperfect: for, if they had right notions of either, they muſt
have been convinced, that to worſhip evil beings is to offer the
greateſt indignity to an infinitely wiſe, powerful, and good God,
as if he were not able to protect his faithful ſervants and wor-
ſhippers againſt their power and malice. But the Chriſtian reve-
lation teacheth us to form nobler notions. Happy thoſe that
know how to value and improve ſo great an advantage (s)!
Some hints were given above of the idolatry of the antient
Egyptians : but it may not be improper here to take a more
(r) Hottinger Hiſt. Oriental. lib. i. cap. 8. and Stanley's Hiſtory of Philof.
P. 1065
(s) The reader may find the inſtances here referred to confirmed by proper au-
thorities in Millar's Hiſtory of the Propagation of Chriſtianity, vol. ii. chap. 7.
Vol. I.
X
diſtinct
1
1
.
154
The Egyptian Idolatry conſidered.
Part I.
diſtinct notice of it. The Egyptians were a nation antiently very
famous for their wiſdom and knowledge. Herodotus declares,
that they “ were eſteemed to be the wiſeſt of mankind—"and that
"! in wiſdom they excelled all other mortals.” Lib. ii.
cap.
16.
et 121. From Egypt, as was before obſerved, Greece originally
derived her ſcience and theology. Diodorus affirms, that moſt of
thoſe among the Greeks, who were honoured for their under-
ſtanding and knowledge, ſeveral of whom he particularly men-
tions, did in antient times refort to Egypt, that they might be
acquainted with the laws and learning of the Egyptians. Yet no
nation became more deeply immerſed in idolatry. They not only
paid divine honours to the Ibis ånd Ichneumon, which were uſe-
ful to them, but to the crocodile, the dog, cat, and many other
animals (t). Some modern writers have affected not to believe
that ſo wiſe a nation could be guilty of an idolatry ſo ſtupid. But
there is ſcarce any thing in all antiquity that comes to us better
atteſted. They were on this account the objects of ridicule to
other Pagan nations. See to this purpoſe Cicero De Nat. Deorum,
lib. i. cap. 16 et 29, et lib. iii. cap. 15. See alſo a paſſage of the
poet Anàxandrides, in Athen. Deipnofoph. lib. vii. According to
(t) They are alſo charged with worſhipping plants, ſuch as onions, garlick, &c.
Hence Juvenal derides them as having their gods growing in their gardens. But
Mr. Goguet, in his book De l'Origine des Loix, des Arts, &c. tom. i. p. 730, 731.
obſerves, that the moſt antient and approved writers, who give any account of the
affairs or cuſtoms of Egypt, ſuch as Herodotus, Plato, Ariſtotle, Diodorus Siculus,
Strabo, make no mention of this ſingular ſuperſtition, which they would not have
omitted, if they had known that the Egyptians practiſed it. He thinks Juvenal is
the firſt that has mentioned it. Lucian alſo has taken notice of it in his Jupiter
Tragoedus. Theſe authors have been followed by others; but conſidering the
fatirical turn for which they are both fo remarkable, he thinks they are not much
to be depended upon.
Diodorus,
Chap. V.
The Egyptian Idolatry confidered.
155
Diodorus, it was hard to make thoſe who had not been witneſſes of
it, to believe the extravagancies the Egyptians were guilty of with
regard to their facred animals (u). And Philo, who lived among
them, charges them with worſhipping dogs, lions, wolves, cro-
codiles, and many other animals, both terreſtrial and aquatick.
And he ſays, that all ſtrangers who came into Egypt were wont
to laugh at them; and the more ſenſible travellers beheld them
with aſtoniſhment and pity (x). Plutarch exprefly ſays, “ that the
greater part of the Egyptians Algurliw si néanos, worſhip-
ping the animals themſelves-duta Côc SegaTTÉVOYTES ;” there-
by not only expoſed their facred ceremonies and worſhip to deri-
fion and contempt, but gave occaſion to horrid conceptions, pro-
ducing in perſons of weak and ſimple minds an extravagance of
ſuperſtition, and precipitating others of more ſubtil and daring
ſpirits into atheiſtical and brutiſh opinions (y). An ingenious
modern author, who is loth to believe what is ſaid of the Egyp-
tian idolatry, ſays, by way of apology for them, that “the Egyp-
" tians did not adore theſe things without aſcribing certain divine
virtues to them, or.conſidering them as fymbols of ſome in-
(1) Diod. Sic. lib. i. cap. 81.
(x) Philo De Decal. oper. p. 755. E.
(y) Plut. De Ilid. et Ofir. oper. tom. ii. p. 379. D. E. But from theſe muſt
be excepted the inhabitants of Thebais ; if what the ſame author informs us of be
true, that when the other Egyptians paid their proportion of the taxes and contri-
butions, appointed by the laws, towards maintaining the ſacred animals, the inha-
bitants of Thebais alone did not pay any thing, as thinking there is no mortal god ;
but worſhip him whom they call Kneph, as being unbegotten or unmade, and im-
mortal. Ibid. p. 359. D.
X 2
viable
,156
The Egyptian Idolatry conſidered.
Part I.
.
“ viſible power. (z)" But if it were ſo, it furniſhes a remarkable
inſtance of the vanity of human wiſdom, if left to itſelf in matters
of religion. For the ſymbols and hieroglyphics, upon which the
wiſe men of Egypt ſo much valued themielves, and in which ſuch
profound wiſdom and ſcience was ſuppoſed to be contained,
proved to be an occaſion of leading the people into the moſt ab-
ſurd and ſenfeleſs idolatry; to which they continued inviolably
attached, notwithſtanding all the ridicule caſt upon them for it
by other nations. Cotta in Cicero obſerves, that they ſhewed a
greater regard to the beaſts which they worſhipped, than other
nations did to their moſt holy temples and images : that there
had been many inſtances of temples ſpoiled and images of the
gods taken away out of the moſt holy places by the Romans : but
it had never been heard of, that a crocodile, an ibis, or a cat,
had been ill treated by the Egyptians. « Firmiores videas apud
« eos opiniones de beſtiis quibuſdam, quam apud nos de fanctif-
« fimis templis et ſimulacris deorum. Etenim fana multa expo-
« liata, et fimulacra deorum de locis fanctiflimis ablata vidimus a
noftris; at verò ne fando quidem auditum eſt, crocodilum, aut
« ibin, aut felem violatum ab Egyptiis.” De Nat. Deor. lib. i.
cap. 29. See alſo Tufcul. Diſput. lib. v. cap. 27.
(2) Chevalier Ramſay's Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, vol. ij.
p. 53.
C H A P.
Chap. VI. Three Kinds of Theology among tbe Pagans.
257
CH A P. VI.
The Pagan theology diſtributed by Varro into three different kinds :
the poetical or fabulous, the civil, and the philoſophical. The poetical
or fabulous theology conſidered. The pretence, that we ought not to
judge of the Pagan religion by the poetical mythology, examined.
It is fewn, that the popular religion and worſhip was in a great
meaſure founded upon that mythology, which ran through the whole
of their religion, and was of great authority with the people.
VA
ARRO, who was accounted the moſt learned of the Ro-
mans, ſpeaks of three different kinds of theology among
them: the mythical or fabulous, the phyſical or natural, and the
civil or popular. The firſt is that of the poets; the ſecond that of
the philoſophers; the third is that which is eſtabliſhed by public
authority and the laws, and which is in uſe among the people (a).
The famous Roman pontiff and lawyer Scævola makes the fame.
diſtinction (b). So alſo does Plutarch (c).
>
It will be proper, in order to form a right judgment of the ſtate
of religion among the Pagans, to take a view of theſe different
kinds of theology.
(a) Apud Auguſtin. De Civit. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 5-
(6) Ibid. lib. iv. cap. 27.
(c) De Placit. Philof. lib. i. cap. 6. Opera. tom. ii. p. 880. A.
As
158
Of the poetical Theology.
Part I.
As to the mythical or fabulous theology, which was that of
the poets, it is condemned in ſtrong terms both by Scævola and
Varro. The former paſſes this juſt cenſure upon it, that it was
nugatory, and that in it many unworthy things were feigned
concerning the gods. And particularly he obſerves, that “
they
« make one god ſteal, another to commit adultery; they repre-
« ſent three goddeſſes contending for the prize of beauty, and
" that two of them in revenge for its being adjudged to Venus
« ſubverted Troy; that Jupiter himſelf was converted into a bull
" or a ſwan, that he might debauch ſome woman he had a fancy
“ for; that a goddeſs married a man; that Saturn devoured his
“ own children ; and, in fine, nothing can be imagined ſo mon-
“ ſtrous or fo vicious, but it may be found in the fables attri-
" buted to the gods, however foreign to their nature.—Sic deos
“ deformant, ut nec bonis hominibus comparentur ; cum alium
« faciunt furari, alium adulterare ; tres inter fe deas certâſle de
præmio pulchritudinis, victas duas a Venere Trojam ever-
“ tiſſe ; Jovem ipſum converti in bovem aut cygnum, ut cum
aliquâ concumbat ; deam homini nubere ; Saturnum liberos
“ devorare : nihil denique poſſe confingi miraculorum atque viti-
orum quod non ibi reperiatur, atque ab deorum naturâ longè
« abfit (d).” Varro paſſes the ſame judgment upon the fabulous
poetical theology which Scævola did. And, after mentioning
ſome of the ſame abſurdities, and others of the like kind, he
concludes with ſaying, that “ all things are attributed to the
« gods, which men, and even the vileſt and worſt of men, could
66
}
(d) Auguſtin, De Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 27. p. 84. E. Ed. Rened.
C
be
Chap. VỊ.
159
The Rites of their Religion founded upon it.
“ be guilty of.Omnia diis attribuuntur, quæ non modo in ho-
" minem, fed etiam quæ in contemtiffimum hominem cadere
poffunt (e).” And long before them Plato had accuſed Heſiod,
as guilty of the greateſt falfhood, and that in a matter of the ut-
moſt importance, when he mentions ſuch wicked things to have
been perpetrated by Cælus, and his ſon Saturn; which, he thinks,
if true, ought not to have been mentioned, eſpecially to incon-
ſiderate and young perſons, but to have been buried in ſilence, or
communicated only to a few. He pronounces theſe fables to be
pernicious, and not fit to be heard in a well-ordered common-
wealth. And afterwards mentioning what Homer ſays of the
quarrel between Jupiter and Juno, and Vulcan's being hurled
down by Jupiter from heaven for taking Juno's part, as alſo what
the ſame poet relates concerning the battles and contentions of the
gods, he declares, that theſe ſtories are not to be admitted, whe-
ther they are pretended to have an hidden allegorical meaning or
See his ſecond book De Republica, at the latter end (f).
Cicero alſo paſſes a ſevere cenſure upon the poetical fables (8).
not.
Conſidering this and other paſſages to the ſame purpoſe, which
occur in ſome of the moſt eminent Pagan writers, it may be
looked upon as an unfair thing to judge of the antient religion of
the Heathens by the writings of the poets and mythologiſts. And
accordingly they, who endeavour to repreſent that religion in the
(e) Auguſtin. De Civ. Dei. lib. vi. cap. 5. p. 116. E.
(f) Plat. Oper. Ficin. p. 429, 430. Edit. Lugd. 1590.
(g) De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 16. et lib. ii. cap. 7.
moſt
160
Of the poetical Mythology.
Chap. VI.
moſt advantageous light, are for entirely diſcarding the poetical
mythology. This is Lord Herbert's ſcheme. He mightily in-
veighs againſt the poets, as having confounded and polluted the
Heathen theology, and left nothing found or pure in their hiſtory
or religion ; and that therefore no regard is to be had to them in
this matter (b).
1
And
yet certain it is, that in examining into the religion of the
antient Gentiles, the poetical mythology, notwithſtanding the
cenſures fo freely beſtowed upon it, muſt neceſſarily be conſidered.
It may juſtly be affirmed, that the writings of the poets tend
to give us the trueſt idea of the Pagan religion, as it obtained even
among the políte and learned nations of Greece and Rome, and
as it was eſtabliſhed by public authority. Whoſoever will care-
fully conſult the account given by Potter, in his excellent antiqui-
ties of Greece, of the numerous facred feſtivals and rites obferved
and celebrated in Greece, and eſpecially at Athens, will find that
they are almoſt all founded upon the fables of the poetical my-
thology (i). The ſame may be ſaid of many of thoſe obſerved by
the antient Romant.
(b) * Licentiâ quippe poeticâ uſi mufarum alumni, ita omnia temerabunt, ut
quid ad alterutras fpectet partes nemo facili invenerit.-Faceſſant igitur, et ab
“ ipſa gentilium theologiâ exulent poetæ ; non folùm quippe veras heroum hif-
"torias, ex fabularum interpolatione fufpectas, ne dicam falſas, etiam mortalium
" creduliffimis reddiderunt : fed et fabulas haſce myſticis involutiſque quibuſdam,
« circa cælum, aſtra, et elementa doctrinis, admiſcentes, nihil integrum, nihil
fanum, vel in hiſtoria, vel in ipfa religione reliquere.” Herb. De Relig. Gentil.
cap. xi. p. 135. Edit. Amſtel. 8vo.
(0) See Potter's Antiquities, vol. i. chap. 20, from p. 326 to p. 407.
5
The
Chap. VI.
161
The Poets the Prophets of the Pagans.
The poets, as Dr. Cudworth obſerves, were the prophets of
the Pagans, and pretended to a kind of divine inſpiration. And
though he treats them as the great depravers of the Pagan theo-
logy, yet he ſays, “they imbued the minds of the vulgar with
“ a certain ſenſe of religion, and the notions of morality (k)”.
And that “ we cannot make a better judgment concerning the
vulgar and generality of the antient Pagans than from the poets
" and mythologiſts, who were the chief inſtructors of them (l)”.
And to this purpoſe he obſerves, that Ariſtotle, in his Politics,
lib. viii. cap. 5. writing of muſic, judgeth of men's opinions con-
cerning the gods by the poets. “ We may learn,” ſays Ariſtotle,
" what opinion men have of the gods from hence, becauſe the
poets never bring in Jupiter ſinging, or playing on an inſtru-
cc ment." Varro tells us, that “ with regard to what relates to
" the generations of the gods, the people were more inclined to
“ the poets than to the natural philoſophers; and that therefore
as their anceſtors, the antient Romans, believed the ſexes and
generations and marriages of the gods (m).” And though Plato,
in the paſſage above referred to in the ſecond book of his Repub-
lic, diſapproves the fables of the poets and mythologiſts, even
if they ſhould be allegorically interpreted, yet ſuch was the au-
thority of thoſe fables and traditions, that in his Timæus, one of
his beſt and lateſt treatiſes, he dares not openly reject them. He
(k) Intel. Syft. P. 355.
(1) Ibid. p. 448.
(m) “ Dicit Varro de generationibus deorum magis ad poetas quàm ad phyſicos
“ fuiſſe populos inclinatos, et ideo et ſexum et generationes deorum, majores ſuos,
“ id eſt veteres credidiſſe Romanos, et eorum conſtituille conjugia.” Ap. Auguſtin.
C. D. lib. iv. cap. 32. p. 88.
VOL. I.
Y
declines
762
Part 1.
The Fables of the poetical Mythology
!
declines treating of the generation of the gods or dæmons, under
pretence that theſe things were too high for him. And then
adds,
“ We are to believe thoſe who before had given an account
“ of theſe things, as being ſprung from the gods, as they them-
« felves declare, and who therefore muft have known their own
progenitors. For,” ſays he, « it is impoſſible not to believe
« the fons of the gods, though they give no neceſſary or pro-
6.5 bable reaſons for what they ſay. But, it becomes us, follow-
ing what the law directs, émouéres tây vómw, to give them cre-
“ dit, as ſpeaking of their own proper affairs.” And then he
goes on to mention ſome of the things delivered in Heſiod's Theo-
gonia. Plato ſeems here to inſinuate the true reaſon why he
did not think fit to reject thoſe traditions. It is becauſe they were
favoured and authorized by the laws.
-
The ſame celebrated philoſopher, in his Ton, in the perſon of
Socrates, gives ſuch an account of the poets, as muſt needs tend
greatly to ſtrengthen their authority with the people. His deſign
there is to ſhew, that poetry, and the interpretation of it, is
not merely the effect of art or induſtry, but owing to a kind of
divine afflatus. " The poet cannot fing," ſays he, " except he
" be full of God, and carried out of himſelf.”. And again,
They do not ſay theſe things by art; but by a divine power.---
« Ο γαρ τεχνη ταύτα λέγεσιν αλλα θεία δυνάμει :” or, as he had
expreſſed it juſt before, Seice poige: that “ God uſes them as
« his miniſters, as he does the deliverers of oracles and divine
prophets, that we hearing them might know, that it is not they
f6
(n) Plat. Oper. Ficin. p. 530: F. G.
2
as them
Chap. VI.
163,
allegorized by the Stoics.
1
" themſelves who ſpeak thoſe excellent things, ſince they have
« not then the uſe of their underſtanding, but that it is God that
• ſpeaks by them; and that the poets are no other than the ini-
terpreters of the gods. Οι δε ποιηταί δέν άλλ' ή ερμενείς εισι
“ Tüv Jewn—whilſt they are thus inſpired, by whatever god they
are poſſeſſed (6)." And Socrates, in his Apology to his Judges,
gives the ſame idea of poetry and the poets. He repreſents them
as acting not by their own wiſdom, but by a certain divine in-
ſtinct or afflatus, like the prophets of God and deliverers of
oracles--- woweg oi JEOLOTELS rejoi xgnorewdoi (p).”
Many paſſages might be quoted from eminent Pagan writers,
expreſſing their approbation of the poets, and their theology. A
paſſage was cited above from Dio Chryſoſtomus, orat. 36. in
which he plainly intimates the great authority which the poets
and their theology had with the people; and that it was to the
Jupiter of the poets that men every where erected altars and paid
their devotions. Max. Tyrius, ſpeaking of Homer's repreſenta-
tions of the deities, fays, that “ the ignorant man hears them as
fables, but the philoſopher as realities :” and he mentions it to
his praiſe, that “ to Homer no part of the world is without a
God, nor deſtitute of a ruler, or without government; but all
“ things are full of divine names, and a divine art (9).” And
Proclus, in Tim. Plat. ſpeaking of the divine Homer, as he calls
() Plat. Oper. p. 145. F. G.
(6) Ibid. p. 360. G.
(9) Max. Tyr. Diſſert. 16. p. 198. Edit. Oxon. 1677.
Y 2
him,
164 The poetical Fables allegorized by the Stoics. Part T.
him, faith, that “ throughout all his poetry he praiſes Jupiter as '
as the higheſt of all Rulers, and the father of gods and men ;
« and attributes all demiurgical notions to him (r)."
os Veftri autem,
The Stoics, who were the moſt rigid fect of Pagan philoſophers,
were not for rejecting the poetical fables; but endeavoured to ex-
plain them in an allegorical way. Zeno, as Velleius in Cicero.
obſerves, in interpreting Heſiod's Theogonia, attributed the names.
of Jupiter, Juno, Veſta, to natural and inanimate things (s). And
Cotta upbraids the Stoics, that inſtead of confuting thoſe fables;..
they confirmed them by their interpretations.
ſays he to Balbus the Stoic, “ non modo hæc non refellunt)
“ vorum etiam cenfirmant, interpretando quorſum quidque per-
« tineat (t). He ridicules them for taking a great deal of pains
to little purpoſe, in endeavouring: to give reaſons for fictitious
fables, as if there was much wiſdom contained in them: as alſo
for their etymological accounts of the names of the gods: and he.
intimates, that the pains they took to explain theſe things ſhewed.
that the accounts they gave were forced, and contrary to the
general opinion. Magnam moleſtiam ſuſcepit et minimè neceſ-
(r) Ap. Cudw. Intel. Syſt. p. 360. One part of the charge advanced againſt the
poets by Dr. Cudworth and others is, “ that they perſonated the ſeveral inanimate
parts of the world, and things of nature, which produced a vaſt number of gods
" and goddeſſes.” But this charge lies equally againſt ſome of the moſt celebrated
philoſophers; for they alſo deified the things of nature, and the parts of the.
world. And this was, by that learned writer's own acknowledgment, the prevail
ing philoſophy.
(s) De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 14. P: 38.
(Ibid. lib. iii. cap. 23: P. 312.
56 ſariam.
3.
Chap. VI. The poetical Fables allegorized by the Stoics.
165
« fáriam primus Zeno; poft Cleanthes, deinde Chryfippus, com-
« mentitiarum fabularum reddere rationem: vocabulorum, cur
« quique ita appellati fint; cauſas explicare. Quod cùm facitis,
4 illud profectò confitemini, longè aliter ſe rem habere, atque
«hominum opinio ſit (u)."
1
.
How muck"the poetical thieology prevailed; and what'a regard: .
was had to the fables of the mythologiſts, among the generality of
the Pagans, and even among the Athenians themſelves, the moſt
learned and teligioús people in Greece, appears from the treat-
ment. Socrates met with for oppoſing thoſe fables, as he himſelf
intimates in Plato's Ruthyphron. He there particularly refers to :
the fabulous traditions concerning Saturn's caſtrating and dethron-
ing his father Cælus, and Jupiter's caſting his father Saturn into
priſon for devouring his ſons, by which Euthyphron endeavoured
to juſtify himſelf for accufing and profecuting his own father.
Socrates, whoſe deſign it is to make him ſenſible of the abſurdity
of the literal ſenſe of thoſe fables, tells him, that this was the
very thing for which he (Socrates] was accuſed, becauſe when he
heard any man ſay ſuch things of the gods, he ſhewed his diſlike
of them (x)
>
After Chriſtianity made its appearance in the world, the Pagans,
when charged with the abſurdities of the mythological fables, were
wont to throw it off, by pretending, that theſe were only poeti-
(u) De Nat. Deor. lib. iji. cap. 24. p. 314.
(x) Plato Oper. .Ficin. p. 49. F. Edit. Lugd. 1990-
cal
1.66
The pernicious Tendency of the
Part I.
cal fictions. But from the obſervations which have been made it
ſuficiently appears, that, in conſidering the Pagan theology, a
particular regard muſt be had to the mythology of the poets,
which was wrought into the popular religion, and lay at the
foundation of moſt of their ſacred rites, and public worſhip. And
yet nothing can give us a more melancholy idea of the ſtate of reli-
gion among the antient Heathens, even in the moſt polite and
civilized nations. The ſyſtem of the poetical theology was full of
the genealogies, the rapes, the adulteries, the contentions of their
gods. Theſe things were acted on the theatres with the applauſe
and approbation of the people. Theſe were the deities, to whom
temples and altars were erected, and ſacrifices offered; to whoſe
ſtatues they paid divine honours, and whom the poets ſung in all
the charms of flowing numbers.
Euſebius has ſome juſt obfervations with regard to the Pagan
mythology, which it may not be amiſs to mention in this place.
The ſubſtance of what he ſays is this. That when the antients
deified their princes and great men, and the inventers of uſeful
things, being filled with admiration, they made them the objects
of their worſhip, and applied the venerable idea they had of God
in their minds, to thoſe their kings and benefactors. They car-
ried their reſpect for them to ſuch a degree of extravagance, as to
celebrate all their actions, even their acts of violence, their lewd-
neſſes, their wars, and contentions ; the memory of which, as of
ſome great exploits, was tranſmitted with applauſe to poſterity,
and entered into the worſhip that was paid to them, being mixed
!
with
Chap. VI. poetical Theology of the Pagans.
167
i
with the ideas of their divinity. But afterwards, ſome of later
times, and who were comparatively of yeſterday, being aſhamed
of theſe things, and pretending to a more fubtil kind of philofo-
phy, endeavoured to turn them into allegory, and interpreted
them as ſignifying phyſical cauſes, and the phænomena of nature,
But he very properly obſerves, that though they uſed their utmoſt
efforts, by forced explications, to put a plauſible colour upon
the
theology of the antients, and the ſtories of their gods, yet none
of them attempted to make the leaſt alteration in the antient reli-
gious rites, which were founded on the literal ſenſe of thofe ſtories;
but were rather for preſerving them, and profeſſed a great venera-
tion for the religion derived to them from their anceſtors, of which
theſe things made a part (y).
To this judgment of Euſebius, concerning the fables of the an-
tient mythology, may be added that of Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus.-
This celebrated critic and hiſtorian, in the firſt book of his Row
man Hiſtory, does not deny that ſome of thoſe fables might poſ--
fibly in ſome caſes be of uſe; yet obſerves, that ſmall was the
benefit which could accrue from them, and this only to thoſe
who could penetrate into their hidden meaning and deſign. But
that few there were who attained to this kind of philofophy: and
the rude and unlearned multitude loved to take thoſe ſtories con-
cerning the gods in the groſſeſt ſenſe, and were thereby in
danger either of contemning the gods, or of giving themſelves:
(y) Præpar.. Evangel. lib. ii. cap. 6.. p. 73, 74. Edit, Paris, 1628,
an
168
The perniciqus Tendency of the poetical Theology, &c. Part I.
an unreſtrained liberty in committing the baſeft and wjekedeft
actions, when they ſaw that the gods themſelves warranted them
by their practice. This paffage of Dionyſius is cited with appro-
bationi by Lord Herbert, De Relig. Gentil. cap. xi. p. 130, et
136. Edit. Amſtel. 8vo.
+
$
C HA P.
Chap. VII. The Civil Theology of the Pagans conſidered,
169
?
$
CHA P. VII:
The civil theology of the Pagans conſidered. That of the antient
Romans has been much commended, yet became in proceſs of time
little leſs abſurd than the poetical, and in many inſtances was cloſely
connected and complicated with it. The pernicious conſequences of
this to religion and morals. Some account of the abſurd and im-
moral rites which were antiently practiſed in the moſt civilized
nations, and which made a part of their religion ; being either
preſcribed by the laws, or eſtabliſhed by cuſtoms which had the
force of laws. The politicans and civil magiſtrates took no effec-
tual methods to rectify this, but rather countenanced and abetted
the popular ſuperſtition and idolatry.
F
ROM the poetical or fabulous let us proceed to the civil
theology of the Pagans, which was the public and au-
thorized religion, eſtabliſhed by the legiſlators and the magiſtrates,
or chief men of the community, the Principes Civitatis, as Varro
calls them. And this is the rather to be conſidered, as it was that
which the philoſophers themſelves, whatever private opinions or
ſpeculations they might entertain, or diſpute of in their ſchools,
univerſally conformed to in their own practice, and alſo exhorted
others to do ſo. It muſt therefore be allowed by all, that from
this we may juſtly take our meaſures of the ſtate of religion in the
Heathen world. Varro deſcribes it to be that which ought to be
known and practiſed by the citizens, and which was adminiſtered
VOL. I.
by
Z
170 That of the antient Romans preferable to the Greeks. Part I.
by the prieſts : and that it particularly determined what gods they
were publicly to worſhip, what ſacred rites they were to obſerve,
and what facrifices to offer. Quod in urbibus cives, maximè
“ facerdotes, noſſe et adminiſtrare debent. In quo eft, quos deos
publicè colere, quæ facra et facrificia facere quemque par
« fit (a)."
A
And in conſidering the civil theology of the Pagans, I ſhall have
a particular regard to that of the Romans. Dionyſius Halicarnaſ-
ſeus praiſes the Roman inſtitutions of religion, eſpecially thoſe
which were appointed at the firſt eſtabliſhment of their, ſtate. He
obſerves, that they made uſe of the beſt of the Græcian Inſtitu-
tions, but did not admit any of thoſe fables of theirs which con-
tained things unworthy of the gods into the public religion.
And that in what related to the ſacred ceremonies and worſhip of
the gods all things were done with a becoming piety and gravity,
in which they far excelled both Greeks and Barbarians (6). The
ordering of the public religion was all along in the hands of the
wiſeſt and greateſt men of the ſtate. Cicero, in his Oratio
pro
domo ſua ad Pontifices, extols the wiſdom of their anceſtors in
appointing, that the ſame perſons who had the chief adminiſtra-
tion in civil affairs, ſhould alſo preſide over the ceremonies of re-
ligion. He ſpeaks of the office of the prieſts with great reſpect;
and tells them, that the honour and ſafety of the Common-
wealth, the public liberty, the houſes and fortunes of the citizens,
(a) Varro ap. Auguſt. C. D. lib. vi. cap. 5. p. 117.
(6) Dion. Halic. Hiſtor. lib. ii.
and
-
Chap. VII. The public Worſhip among the Pagans, &c.
171
and the gods themſelves, were committed to their wiſdom and
care.
And in his Oratio de Haruſpicum Reſponſis, he mentions
it as the peculiar praiſe of the Romans, that they were the moſt
religious of all people, and excelled all nations in piety, and eſpe-
cially in this eminent point of wiſdom, that they clearly perceived
that all things are governed by the providence and divinity of the
immortal gods (c).
Let us therefore enquire how the public religion ſtood with the
antient Romans.
. It is a general obſervation, which affects the whole civil theo-
logy of the Pagans, that of the Romans as well as of other Hea-
then nations, that 'the public worſhip which was inſtituted by
their more celebrated legiſlators, and preſcribed and eſtabliſhed
by the laws of their ſeveral cities and countries, was paid not to
one only God, but to a multiplicity of deities. In the paſſage
now quoted from Cicero, when he ſo highly extols the religion
of the antient Romans, he takes particular notice of this, that they
were perſuaded that all things are governed by the divinity of the
immortal gods. Their religion therefore was properly polytheiſm.
And the providence they acknowledged was the providence not
of one God, but of many gods. Lord Bolingbroke indeed has
(c) Quam volumus licet, patres conſcripti, ipfi nos amemus, tamen nec nu-
mero Hiſpanos, nec robore Gallos, nec calliditate Pænos, nec artibus Græcos, nec
“ denique hoc ipfo hujus gentis et terræ domeſtico nativoque ſenſu, Italos ipſos ac
“« Latinos; ſed pietate ac religione, atque hâc unâ fapientiâ, quod Deorum im-
as mortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perſpeximus, omnes gentes nationeſ-
" que ſuperavimus.” Orat. De Haruſp. Reſponſ. N. 9.
taken
Z 2
172
The public Worſhip among the Pagans
Part I.
1
taken: upon him to affirm, « that the worſhip of this multiplicity
« of gods, did not interfere with the Supreme Being in the minds
« of thoſe who worſhipped them (d)." But I cannot ſee upon
what foundation this can be pretended. The fame author elſe-
where ſpeaking of the crowd of divinities among the Heathens,
declares, that ca they intercepted the worſhip of the Supreme
Being ; and that this monſtrous aſſemblage made the object of
vulgar adoration. (e).” It was to prevent this that all manner of
worſhip of inferior deities was ſo ſtrictly prohibited in the law of
Moſes, and the people were expreſly commanded to have no other
gods' but one; to worſhip the one true God, the creator of the
univerſe, and him only; whereby it was gloriouſly diſtinguiſhed
from all other laws and conſtitutions. This conſtitution was pe-
culiar to the Jews (f); and its being eſtabliſhed among them was
1
4
C
$
(d) Bol. Works, vol. v. p. 305. Edit. 4to.
(e) Ibid. vol. iv. p. 80, and 461.
:(f) Dr. Hyde, in his celebrated book Dę Religione veterum Perſarum, has taken
great pains to thew that the antient Perfians worſhipped the one true God. Some
perſons of great learning and judgment have thought that his authorities were not
fufficient. But if we allow the account he gives to be a juſt one, they were in-
ſtructed in the true antient patriarchal religion by their great progenitors Shem and
Elam, who derived it from Noah and Adam, to whom it originally came by divine
revelation. And, upon their deviating from it, the patriarch Abrahain introduced
a reformation among them ; and when they again lapſed into the fabaitical idolatry,
they were reformed by Zerduſht or Zoroafter, who lived in the reign of Guſhtaſp
Loroaſp, or Darius Hyſtafpes. And this Zerduſht, according to the accounts
given of him by Dr. Hyde from the oriental writers, muſt have learned the prin-
cipal things in his religion from the Jews; having been a diſciple of one of the Jewiſh
prophets, and having incorporated many of the rites preſcribed in the law of Moſes
into his own. This is what the learned Doctor ſets himſelf particularly to ſhew in
his tenth chapter, the title of which runs thus; “ Perfarum religio in multis con-
“ veniat cum Judaicâ, et ab eâ magnâ ex parte deſumpta fuit,”
owing
Chap. VII.
paid to a Multiplicity of Deities.
173
owing not merely to the ſuperior wiſdom of their lawgiver, but to
his having had the advantage of an extraordinary revelation from
God, the authority of which was confirmed by a ſeries of the
moſt illuſtrious divine atteſtations. Whereas among other na-
tions, where the worſhip of many gods was countenanced and
eſtabliſhed by the laws, they loſt and confounded the knowledge
and worſhip of the one true God amidſt a multiplicity of idol
deities, and ſerved and worſhipped the creature more than the
Creator.
-
The learned Dr. Cudworth, though very much inclined to put
the moſt favourable conſtruction upon the Pagan theology, ac-
knowledges, that “ the civil theology of the Pagans, as well as
" the poetical, had not only many phantaſtic gods in it, but an
appearance of a plurality of independent deities; it making
“ ſeveral ſupreme in their ſeveral territories and functions: as one
" to be the chief ruler over the heavens, another over the air,
« another over the ſea, one to be the giver of corn, another of
“ wine, &c.' And he produces a remarkable paſſage from Ari-
ſtotle, in which he argues againſt Zeno thus.. “ Whereas Zeno
“ takes it for granted, that men have an idea in their minds of
“ God, as one the moſt excellent and powerful being of all :
« this doth not ſeem to be according to the law; for there the
gods ſeein to be mutually better one than another, reſpectively
" to ſeveral things. And therefore Zeno took not this account
" of mankind from that which vulgarly ſeemeth (8).” Here
(g) See Ariſtotle's treatiſe De Xenophane, Zenone, et Gorgia Oper. tom. i. p.
1246. Edit. Paris 1629.
Ariſtotle
174
The public Worſhip paid to
Part I.
Ariſtotle intimates, that according to the laws of cities and coun-
tries, that is in the civil or political theology, there ſeems to be
no one abſolutely powerful or all-perfect being, but a plurality of
gods, one of which is ſuppoſed to be more powerful as to one
thing, another as to another.
I do not deny that even the vulgar among the Pagan poly-
theiſts ſeem for the moſt part to have had ſome notion of one
Supreme God. It was before obſerved, that the Jupiter in the
Capitol was regarded by the Romans as the chief god in their re-
ligion, and the ſupreme object of their public worſhip. But it
was ſhewn, that this Jupiter was confounded, in the popular no-
tion, with the chief of the hero deities. They attributed to him
a ſuperiority over the other gods, but ſeem to have regarded him
as one of the fame kind, though of greater eminency than the
reſt. Accordingly they were worſhipped in conjunction with
him: and it was common with the Pagans in general to ſpeak of
God and the gods promiſcuouſly, becauſe they conſidered them
all as making up one ſyſtem, and as joint-ſharers in the govern-
ment of the world ; having each of them their ſeveral territories
and functions, as Dr. Cudworth expreſſes it in the paſſage above
quoted from him. Servius on thoſe words of Virgil, Georgic.
lib. i. verf. 21.
1
" Dique deæque omnes ftudium quibus arva tueri,"
obſerves, that, after a ſpecial invocation, he proceeds to a general
one, leſt any deity ſhould be neglected. And he acquaints us,
that this was agreeable to the conſtant cuſtom of the prieſts, who,
5
according
Chap. VII.
175
a Multiplicity of Deities.
according to an antient rite in all their facred ceremonies and de-
votions, after addreſſing themſelves to the particular deities, to
whom at that time it was neceſſary to offer up prayers and facri-
fices, were wont to invoke all the gods in general.
« Poft fpe-
« cialem invocationem tranſit ad generalitatem, ne quod numen
prætereat, more pontificum, per quos, ritu veteri, in omnibus
facris, poft ſpeciales Deos, quos ad ipſum facrum quod fiebat
“ neceffe erat invocare, generaliter omnia numina invocabantur.”
This general view of the civil and popular theology of the Pa-
gans might be ſufficient to thew the ſad ſtate of religion among
them. But it will ſet this is a ſtronger light if we conſider
more particularly what has been already hinted, that there was a
very cloſe connection between their civil theology and that which
is called the fabulous and poetical. The public religion was, as
Dr. Cudworth acknowledges, “ a ſtrange mixture, made up partly
“ of the phyſical, partly of the poetical theology.” And even with
reſpect to Jupiter Capitolinus, he faith in a paſſage before quoted
from him, that “ it is plain, that here there is a certain mixture of
" the mythical or poetical theology, together with the natural, as
" almoſt every where elſe there was, to make up the civil theo-
“ logy of the Pagans (b).” It is true, that thoſe great men Scæ-
vola and Varro paſſed a ſevere cenſure upon the mythology.of the
poets, as making unworthy repreſentations of the gods; and re-
commend the civil theology, which was eſtabliſhed by the laws,
and adminiſtered by the prieſts, as that which alone the people
ought to follow. And yet it is capable of a clear proof, that in
(5) Intel. Syſt. p. 450.
fact
176
A cloſe Connection between
Part I.
fact no ſmall part of the civil theology was founded upon the
poetical mythology, or traditionary fables of the gods. This is
what St. Auſtin has ſtrongly urged againſt Varro in ſeveral parts
of his great work De Civitate Dei. He very properly obſerves,
that thoſe poetical fables which Varro cenſures as unworthy of
the gods, and as afcribing to them actions which none but the
vileſt of men could be guilty of, were not only permitted to be
acted on the public theatres, and heard with pleaſure by the
people, but that they were regarded as things pleaſing to the gods
themſelves, by which they were propitiated and rendered favour-
able. And accordingly they were taken into the public religion (2).
Games were celebrated, and plays founded upon thoſe. Fables
were appointed to be acted by way of expiation to appeaſe the
gods; as if the exhibiting the repreſentations of their own vicious
exploits were the beſt way of putting them into good humour,
and averting the tokens of their diſpleaſure. Speaking of Jupiter's
adulteries, and of his raviſhing Ganymede, and carrying him off
to be his cupbearer, he quotes that paſſage of Tully. Finge-
« bat hæc Homerus, et humana ad deos transferebat, divina mal-
« lem ad nos”-i. e. “Homer feigned theſe things, and aſcribed
« human actions and qualities to the gods; I had rather he had
« raiſed men to an imitation of the divine (k)." Upon which he
CC
(i) St. Auſin upon this occaſion exclaims, “ O religioſas aures populares, atque'
“ in his etiain Romanas ! Quod de diis immortalibus philoſophi diſputant ferre
“ non poſſunt: Quod verò poetæ canunt, et hiſtriones agunt-non folùm ferunt,
“ fed etiain libenter audiunt. Neque id tantum, fed diis quoque ipſis hæc pla-
cere, et per hæc eos placandos eſſe, decernunt.” De Civ. Dei, lib. vi. chap. v.
P. 117.
(k) Tuſcul. Diſput. lib. i. cap. 26.
aſks,
Chap. VII.
the civil and poetical Pagan Theology.
177
aſks, « Cur ergo ludi ſcenici, ubi hæc dictitantur, cantitantur,
actitantur, eorum honoribus exhibentur? Inter res divinas a
« doctiffimis conſcribuntur ?-Why then are thoſe plays in which
« theſe things are frequently ſaid, ſung, and acted, exhibited to
ss the honour of the gods ? And reckoned among ſacred things
“ even by the moſt learned? Here,” adds he, “ Cicero might
juſtly blame not the fictions of the poets, but the inſtitutions of
“ their anceſtors; who yet might plead for themſelves, that theſe
“ were things which the gods required, who threatened to in-
flict puniſhments if they were neglected, and ſhewed them-
“ ſelves pleaſed and gratified with the obſervation of them.” Of
which he produces an inſtance out of the Roman hiſtory, which
is alſo related by Livy and Valerius Maximus (l). That learned
Father frequently inſiſts upon this as a thing publicly known, and
which could not be denied, that the public games and plays, in
which the flagitious actions of their gods were repreſented, were
on certain occaſions conſidered as acts of religion, encouraged by
their deities, and celebrated as in honour to them (m). Arnobius,
who was very well acquainted with the Pagan rites and uſages,
makes the ſame obſervation, and particularly mentions Plautus's
Amphytrio, as one of the plays which were thus acted (n). The
ſame Arnobius juſtly upbraids the Heathens for aſcribing the moſt
baſe and unworthy actions to him whom they deſcribed as the
Father of gods and men, the chief God, the Thunderer, whó
(1) De Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 26.
(m) Ibid. lib. i. cap. 25, 26, 27.
(n) Arnob. adverf. Gentes, lib. vii. p. 238. Edit. var. Lugd. Bat.
1
Vol. I.
Аа
Ihakes
178
Part I
The clofè Connection between the
ſhakes heaven with his nod, and to whom they attributed the
moſt divine titles. He thinks, that if they had any regard to
piety or decency, the public authority ought to interpoſe, by for-
bidding ſuch repreſentations. Inſtead of which they encouraged
them, and admitted thein into their religion; whereas they would
puniſh any man who ſhould caſt ſuch reflections upon a ſenator
or magiſtrate (0). And it is a pertinent remark of St. Auſtin,
that the Dii ſelecti, which were of the higheſt dignity, and con-
cerning whom Varro wrote a particular treatiſe, had worſe things
faid of them than the gods of an inferior order (P).
To Thew the near connection there was between the civil and
poetical theology, it is obſerved by the fame author, that the
images, forms, habits, and ornaments of their gods, their differ-
ent ſexes and ages, as repreſented in their temples, and the
ſacred feſtivals inſtituted to their honour, had all of them a refer-
ence to the fables of the poets and mythologiſts, and were
founded upon them. And it is therefore with reaſon that he
pro-
nounces; that both the civil and the fabulous theology might
each of them be called civil and each fabulous. The learned Dr.
Cudworth, who fometimes ſeems to think the fathers carried
their charges againſt Paganiſm too far, yet approves this obſerva-
() Arnob. adverf. Gentes, lib. iv. p. 140, 141. 149, 150.
(d) The ſelect gods, of whom Varro treats, were twenty in number, twelve
males, and eight females. Janus, Jupiter, Saturn, Genius, Mercury, Apollo, Mars,
Vulcan, Neptune, the Sun, Orcus, Liber Pater, Tellus, Ceres, Juno, Luna, Mi-
nerva, Venus, Veſta. Ap. Auguſt, De Civ. Dei, lib. vii. cap. 2. p. 125. et cap.
4. p. 127.
tion,
Chap. VII.
the civil and poetical Pagan Theology.
179
tion, and ſays, “ it is truly affirmed by St. Auſtin, concerning
" their mythical or fabulous, and their political or civil theology,
" that both the fabulous theology of the Pagans was in part their
«. civil, and their civil was fabulous (9).-Et civilis et fabulofa,
“ ambæ fabuloſæ ſunt, ambæque civiles. Ambas inveniet fabu-
“ lofas, qui vanitates et obſcænitates ambarum prudenter inſpexe-
« rit: ambas civiles, qui ſcenicos ludos pertinentes ad fabuloſam,
« in deorum civilium feſtivitatibus, et in urbium divinis rebus,
“ adverterit (r). Yea,” he ſays, “ that things may be found in
“ the books which treat of religion, and the ſacred rites, which
grave poets have thought unfit to be the ſubject of their.
« verſes.- Ifta in rerum divinarum libris reperiuntur, quæ graves
poetæ ſuis carminibus indigna duxerunt (s).”
Theſe things muſt needs have had the moſt pernicious conſe-
quences in expoſing religion to contempt. The Heathen theo-
logy had a natural tendency to introduce a ſpirit of irreligion
and profaneneſs. The ſame gods, as St. Auſtin obſerves, were
laughed at in the theatres, and adored in the temples. « Non
“ alii dii ridentur in theatris, quàm qui adorantur in templis ::
« nec aliis ludos exhibetis, quam quibus immolatis (t).”
There are ſome remarkable paſſages produced by the fame ex-
cellent writer out of a book of Seneca's, not now extant, De Su-
(9) Intel. Syſt. p. 477
(r) De Civit. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 8. p. 120.
(s) Ibid. p. 118.
(t) Ibid. p. 117
.
1
A a 2
perſtitione,
1 80
The clofe Connection, &c.
Part I.
:
perſtitione, which is alſo referred to by Tertullian in his Apolo-
getic, cap. 12. in which that great philoſopher and ſtateſmanin -
veighs no lefs againſt the civil theology of the Romans, or the re-
ligion of the ſtate, than Varro had done againſt the fabulous or
poetical. Speaking of the images of the gods, he finds fault with
their giving them the forms and habits of men, wild beaſts, and
fiſhes, and a mixture of ſexes : and ſays, they call thoſe gods,
which, if they had life and breath, and a man ſhould meet
“ them unexpectedly, would paſs for monſters.-Numina vocant,
quæ,
ſi ſpiritu accepto ſubitò occurrerent, monſtra haberentur.”
He expoſes the cruel and laſcivious rites made uſe of in the wor-
fhip of ſeveral of their deities, eſpecially of the mother of the
gods. And yet declares, " that a wiſe man will obſerve all theſe
things, not indeed as açceptable to the gods, but as command-
« ed by the laws.Quæ omnia ſapiens ſervabit, tanquam legibus
“ juſſa, non tanquam diis grata.” And ſpeaking of that ignoble
rabble of gods, as he calls them, which the ſuperſtition of many
ages had heaped together, he faith, “ we will ſo adore them, as
“ to remember that this worſhip is rather matter of cuſtom, than
« founded in nature or truth.-Omnem iſtam ignobilem deorum
“ turbam quam longa fuperftitio congeffit, fic adorabimus, ut
« meminerimus cultum iſtum magis ad morem quam ad rem
“ pertinere (u).” By this it appears, that in compliance with
popular cuſtom and the laws, he was for adoring the rabble of
gods which he deſpiſed; thus leading the people by his own
practice and example to think that he himſelf approved that
worſhip.
(u) Ap. Auguſt. ubi ſupra, lib. vi. chap. 1o. p. 122, 123.
5
But
Chap. VII.
Immoral Rites of Pagan Worſhip.
181
But that we may have a more thorough conviction of the de-
plorable ſtate of religion in the Heathen world, let us take a view
of the abſurd and immoral rites made uſe of in the worſhip of
their gods, and which were either preſcribed by the laws, or were
eſtabliſhed cuſtoms, countenanced by the inagiſtrates, and which
had obtained the force of laws, and may therefore be regarded as
belonging to the public religion of the Pagans.
I ſhall not take notice of thoſe rites of their worſhip which
were merely ridiculous, of which many might be mentioned ;
but only of thoſe which were of a bad and immoral nature and
tendency, and which were either cruel and inhuman, or laſcivi-
ous and impure.
Among thoſe of the former kind was the offering up of human
ſacrifices, which for many ages was very general in the Pagan
world. It were eaſy to heap up many teſtimonies to this pur-
poſe from credible and approved authors. It obtained among the
Phænicians, Syrians, and Arabians, as alſo among the Cartha-
ginians and other people of Afric, and among the Egyptians till
the time of Amaſis. The ſame thing we are told concerning
the Thracians, and the antient Scythians in general, and ſeveral
other nations, many of which are mentioned by Porphyry in the
account he gives of this matter, in his ſecond book De Abſti-
nentia (x). As to the Gauls, Germans, and Britons, that they
were wont to appeaſe their gods with human ſacrifices, Tacitus
(x) Porphyr. Ilegi åroxins, lib. ii. ſect. 27. p. 71, et ibid. fect. 34, 35, 36. p.
93, et ſeq. Edit. Cantabrig. 1655.
and
1 82 Human Sacrifices general among the antient Pagans, Part I.
among them
and Cæſar inform us (y). And Procopius ſays the ſame thing of
the antient Heruli (). And though this cruel rite was never ſo
common among the Greeks and Romans, as among ſome other
nations, yet it continued for a long time to be in uſe
upon .
extraordinary occaſions. Porphyry mentions ſeveral of the
Greek iſlands, in which human ſacrifices were offered at certain
ſeaſons and ſolemnities; as in Chios, Tenedos, Salamis, Rhodes,
and Crete. Among thoſe who ſometimes offered human facri-
fices he alſo takes notice of the Lacedæmonians and Athenians;
and obſerves from Phylarchus, that the Grecians were wont to
ſacrifice men when they went to war (a). Clemens Alexandri-
nus, in his admonition to the Gentiles, Thews, from good autho-
rities, that the ſame cuſtom obtained among the Theffalians,
Meſſenians, Phocæans, and Leſbians. And that Erechtheus,
king of Athens, and the famous Roman general Marius, facrificed
(y) Tacit. Annal. 14. cap. 3. et de Moribus German. p. 542. Edit. Amſtel.
1661. Cæſar de Bel. Gall. lib. vi. cap. 21.
1
(2) Procop. De Bel. Goth. lib. vi. cap. 11. By the accounts antient writers
give us, this cuſtom ſpread through Europe, Aſia, and Africa. The ſame may be
obſerved concerning America, which was not known in their time. Acoſta, an
author of credit, tells us, that the Americans were poffeſſed with the fury of offer-
ing human ſacrifices to an incredible degree. All agree, that this was a common
practice among the Mexicans. Gemelli Carreri, a late ingenious traveller, in his
account of Mexico, inſiſts largely upon this ſubject : and what he faith of the
number of human facrifices that were there offered, eſpecially on ſome extraordinary
occaſions, is aſtoniſhing. Acoſta tells us of numbers of children that were facri-
ficed in Peru, at the coronation of the Incas, and other ſpecial occaſions. Hiſt. Ind.
lib. v. cap. 19. This however is contradicted by Garcilaſſo de la Vega, in his
Royal Commentaries of Peru; who, though he acknowledges that the Mexicans
and other neighbouring nations offered human facrifices, ſays, the Incas would not
ſuffer them in their territories.
(a) Porphyr. ubi fupra.
their
Chap. VII. Human Sacrifices general among the antient Pagans. 183
their own daughters. Plutarch, in his life of Themiſtocles, in-
forms us, that three very beautiful Perſian captives, richly
habited and adorned, were, by the advice of the prophet Euphran-
tides, offered as ſacrifices to Bacchus Omeſtes, or the devourer,
as a vow for victory : and though Themiſtocles was ſtartled at
the inhumanity of it, the people with one voice invoking Bacchus,
and bringing the captives to the altar, compelled him to perform
the ſacrifice. The ſame great hiſtorian and philoſopher, in his
life of Marcellus, tells us, that the Romans in the beginning of a
war with the Gauls, in obedience to ſome oracles contained in the
Sibylline books, buried alive a Greek man and a Greek woman,
and likewiſe a Gauliſh man and a Gauliſh woman, in the Ox-
market, by way of ſacrifice. Livy acquaints us, that they re-
peated this facrifice at the beginning of the ſecond Punick war (6).
And Plutarch adds, that they continued to offer thoſe facrifices in
his time (c). We are told by Florus, that when Rome was taken
by the Gauls, thoſe of the Romans that were advanced in
years,
and had been honoured with the greateſt dignities, gathered toge-
ther into the Forum, and there being devoted by the pontiff,
conſecrated themſelves to the dii manes, the infernal gods.
Majores natu, ampliſſimis uſi honoribus, in Forum coierunt,
ibique devovente pontifice, diis ſe manibus conſecraverunt (d).”
Human facrifices were ſtill offered, as Porphyry informs us, till
the time of the emperor Adrian, who ordered them in moſt
(b) Liv. Hilt. lib. xxii. cap. 57.
(c) Plut, in vita Marcelli, oper. tom. i. p. 299. See alſo his Roman Queſtions,
Queſt. 83.
(d) Luc. Flor. lib. i. cap. 13.
places
184
Human Sacrifices general among the antient Pagans. Part I.
$
places to be aboliſhed. And then), as Euſebius obferves, the
Goſpel had every where diffuſed its ſalutary light. The beſt of
the philoſophers had condemned it before, but had not been able
to extirpate it. And even after this there were ſtill ſome in-
ſtances of it in the Roman empire, as long as the Pagan religion
prevailed. The ſame Porphyry, who lived in the reign of the
emperor Dioclefian, mentions it as a thing well known, that in
his days, in the city of Rome itſelf, a man was wont to be ſacri-
fced at the feaft of Jupiter Latiaris. « 'Αλλ' έτι και νυν τίς αγνοει και
τε την μεγαλην πόλιν τή το Λατιαρία Δίος εορτή σφαζόμενον άνθρω-
nov (e).” Lactantius, who writ a little after Porphyry, ſays the
ſame thing was done in his days. Jupiter etiam nunc fanguine
“ colitur humano (f);" This then may be juſtly regarded as
making a part of the Pagan religion. Even in thoſe places where
it was not ordinarily uſed, yet on extraordinary occaſions it made
a principal part of the folemn facrifices paid to their deities, and
was looked upon as the moſt effectual way of appealing them,
and procuring their favour. Lord Herbert obſerves, “ that their
“ cruel prieſts taught them, that victims of leſs dignity might be
“ ſufficient for inferior deities, but to their higheſt god the ſun,
" theſe as the moſt valuable facrifices were to be offered. Sacri-
« ficandi ritus hic fuit, ut homo in folis honorem mactaretur ;
" licet enim minores victimæ aliis diis offerrentur, ſummo tamen
eorum deo fummam convenire victimam docuerunt atrociffimi
“ facerdotes (8).” But it ought to be mentioned to the honour of
(a) Porphyr. ubi fupra.
(f) Divin. Inſtit. lib. i. cap. 21. p. 113.
(8) Herbert De Relig. Gentil. cap. 4. p. 31. Edit. 8vo. Amſtel.
. . P.
the
Chap. VII. Cruel and bloody Rites uſed in the Pagan Worſhip. 185
the law of Moſes, that at the time when this kind of facrifices
very generally obtained in all the neighbouring nations, they were
exprelly forbidden in that law, and repreſented as abominable in
the fight of God. And wherever Chriſtianity has been eſtabliſh-
ed, thoſe ſacrifices have been aboliſhed.
There were alſo other rites made uſe of among the Pagans,
which were cruel and ſhocking to humanity. Baal's prieſts were
wont to cut and flaſh themſelves with knives and lances. 1 Kings
xviii. 28. The ſame thing was practiſed in the worſhip of Iſis,
according to Herodotus, and of Bellona, as Lampridius informs
us ; to which alſo Lucan refers, Pharſal. lib. i. verf. 56, 57. In
the omophagia, one of the feſtivals of Bacchus, his prieſts uſed
to tear and devour the entrails of goats, raw and reeking, in imi-
tation of their god (h). Many authors take notice of the ſolemni-
ties of Cybele, the mother of the gods, whoſe prieſts not only
emaſculated themſelves, but in their ſacred proceſſions made hide-
ous noiſes and howlings, cutting themſelves till the blood guſhed
out as they went along. Theſe frantic and cruel rites are well
expoſed by Seneca in a paſſage quoted by St. Auſtin, from his
book De Superſtitione, mentioned above (i). Yet the worſhip of
(b) Potter's Antiquities of Greece, vol. i. p. 348 et 407. Arnobius upbraids
the Pagans with this favage rite. “ Bacchanalia prætermittamus immania, quibus
“ nomen omophagiis Græcum eſt, in quibus, furore mentito, et ſequeſtratâ pec-
“ toris fanitate, circumplicatis vos anguibus, atque ut vos plenos dei naminę ac
" majeſtate doceatis, ca prorum reclamantium viſcera cruentatis oribus diffipatis.”
Arnob. adverf. Gent. lib. v. p. 169. Edit. Lugd. Bat. 1651.
(1) De Civ. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 10. p. 123.
VOL. I.
Вь
this
186 Cruel and bloody Rites stſed in the Pagan Worſhip. Part I.
this goddeſs made a part of the public religion at Rome. Her
ſtatue was brought by order of the ſenate, with great pomp,
from
Peflinum in Galatia to Rome, purſuant to the advice of the Sibyl-
line oracles, as Livy informs us' (k), and the Ludi Megalenſes.
were inſtituted to her honour.
1
Among the cruel rites made uſe of in the worſhip of the Pagan
deities may be alſo reckoned the store osigwols, which was ob-
ſerved at Sparta, in honour of Diana Orthia, and was ſo called from
the ſcourging there uſed. They whipped boys with an unrelent-
ing ſeverity upon her altar, whilſt the prieſteſs of Diana ſtood by
to ſee that it was rigorouſly executed. The boys often died
under it, and in that caſe, when they bore it with a manly forti-
tude, they were honoured with a public funeral, and were buried
with garlands on their heads, and, as Lucian, ſays, they had ſta-
tues erected to their honour (?). This cuſtom is ſaid to have had
its riſe in conſequence of an oracle, which ordered that the altar.
of the goddeſs ſhould be ſprinkled with blood. Accordingly they
offered every year in ſacrifice a man choſen for that purpoſe.
This was changed by Lycurgus into the whipping of boys at her.
altar. But when the boys were whipped to death, it was the
moſt cruel way of facrificing them: of which Plutarch, in his.
life of Lycurgus, declares he had ſeen ſeveral inſtances. Dacier,
in his notes on Plutarch's life of Themiſtocles, obſerves, that in
one of the towns of Arcadia they uſed to whip the women, as
.
(1) Liv. Hiſt. lib. xxix. cap. 14.
(1) Potter's Greek Antiq. vol. i. p. 344. Lucian Oper. tom. i. p. 297. Edit.
Amftel
they
Chap. VII. Impure and lafcivious Rites in the Pagan Worſhip. 187
they did the young men or boys, round Diana's altar at Sparta.
And Potter in his Greek Antiquities ſays, that Bacchus had an
altar in Arcadia, upon which a great many young damſels were
beaten to death with rods (m).
And as ſome of the Heathen rites were cruel and inhuman,
others were no leſs remarkable for all manner of licentiouſneſs.
In the feſtivals of Bacchus, which were celebrated all over Greece,
but with a peculiar folemnity at Athens, the ſeat of learning and
politeneſs, perſons of both ſexes ran about in the night as well as
day in ridiculous poſtures, invoking the deity with loud cries and
yellings, and putting on an appearance of fury and madneſs. And
revelling and drunkenneſs was part of the worſhip to which they
were obliged in honour of the god. The victors in their drink.
ing conteſts on this occaſion were rewarded with a crown of
leaves and a veſſel of wine (n). It was a ſaying of Plato, re-
corded by Diogenes Laertius, that to drink to exceſs was not
allowable, except upon the feſtival of that god who is the giver
of wine (0). The licentiouſneſs of theſe and ſome other feſtivals
was ſo well known, that it was the advice of wiſe men to married
women to abſtain from the feaſts of Bacchus and Ceres; and the
mother of the gods. Hence that ſaying of Ariſtippus, mentioned
by Sextus Empiricus, concerning a chafte woman, « that ſhe will
(m) Potter ubi fupra, p. 193.
(n) Ibid. p. 331. 348, 349. 407.
() Diog. Laert. lib. ii. ſegm. 39.
Bb2
66 not
-188
Impure and laſcivious Rites
Part I.
«. not be corrupted even at the Bacchanals;" intimating the great
danger women were in of being vitiated at thoſe feſtivals (p).
This leads me to obferve, that many of their rites were inde
cent and impure. The Lupercalia, one of the moſt antient Ro-
man feſtivals in honour of Pan, were celebrated in an immodeſt
manner, the prieſts running about the ſtreets, naked all but the
middle, and ſtriking all they met, eſpecially the women, with
thongs made of the ſkins of goats which they had facrificed (9).
The Ludi Florales were alſo a part of the public Roman religion,
celebrated by the direction of the Sibylline oracles, in honour of
the goddeſs Flora, and. were appointed by the authority of the
ſtate. The chief part of the ſolemnity was managed by a
company of ſhameleſs ftrumpets, who ran up and down
naked, ſometimes dancing in laſcivious poſtures, ſometimes fight: :
ing, and acting the mimics: which was not diſcountenanced,
but rather encouraged by the graveſt magiſtrates (r). The rites
of the goddeſs Cybele were no leſs infamous for lewdneſs than
for cruelty. And the Kotyttia or Kotytis, a nocturnal feſtival,
in honour of Kotys or Kotytis, the goddeſs of wantonnels,
was obſerved by the Athenians, Corinthians, Chians, Thra-
cians, and others, and celebrated with rites ſuitable to ſuch a gods
deſs, who was thought to be delighted with nothing ſo much as
lewdneſs and debauchery: and the prieſts practiſed all ſorts of
(1) Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib. iii. cap. 24.
(9) See Kennet's Roman Antiquities, p. 64, 65.
(r) Ibid. p. 288, 289,
effeminacy
Chap: VII.
189
in the Worſhip of the Pagan Deities.
effeminacy and meretricious arts (s). The Aphrodiſia, or feſtivals
in honour of Venus, were obſerved with laſcivious ceremonies in
divers parts of Greece. At Corinth theſe feſtivals were celebrated
by harlots, as we learn from Athenæus; who alſo informs us,
that they who ſupplicated the goddeſs, were wont to promiſe to
devote ſome women to her, in order to the obtaining their re-
queſts (t). Strabo, a grave and judicious writer, relates, that
there was a temple of Venus at Corinth ſo rich, that it maintained
above a thouſand harlots, ſacred to her ſervice, iegoderes étaigas,
which were conſecrated both by men and women to that god-
defs (u).. The ſame author, ſpeaking of Comana, a city of Cap-
padocia, faith; that there were many women there, who proſti-
tuted their bodies for hire, moſt of them ſacred, kiça legai,
and that there, as well as at Corinth, becauſe of the multitude of
harlots conſecrated to Venus, there was a great reſort of people to
ſojourn and keep feſtivals in that place (x). The truth is, theſe
impure cuſtoms were ſpread far and wide. Herodotus acquaints
us, that there was a.law. among the Babylonians, that every wa-
man who was a native of that country ſhould once in her life go
to the temple of Venus, to proſtitute herſelf to a ſtranger ; that
there were many women ſitting at the temple for that purpoſe;
and that the money which was given them, and which it was not
(3) Potter's Greek Antiq. ubi ſupra, p. 375; 376.
(6) Ibid. p. 337. Athen. Deipnoſoph. lib. xiii. cap. 6,
() Strabo, lib. viii. p. 581. Edit. Amſtel. 1707.
(2) Ibid. lib. xii. p. 837.
larvful
:
190
Impure Rites in the Worſhip
Part I.
lawful for them to refuſe, was dedicated to ſacred uſes (y). This
cuſtom, as a learned and ingenious author has obſerved, is not to
be charged upon any peculiar wantonneſs of the women of that
country. It was done as an act of religion, and a duty required
of them towards that goddeſs; which, when they had once dif-
charged, nothing, as Herodotus farther informs us, could prevail
with them to reiterate it (z). Strabo alſo mentions this law and
cuſtom, to which, he ſays, they were directed by a certain oracie,
and that the women which came to the temple for that purpoſe,
were wont to come with great pomp, and attended with much
company (a). The ſame much-eſteemed author affures us con-
cerning the Armenians, that they principally worſhipped the god-
deſs Anaïtis, and that the moſt illuſtrious perſons of the nation
dedicated their virgin daughters to her, which after having been
for a long time proſtituted in her ſervice, were given in marriage,
none diſdaining to marry them, but rather thinking it an honour
to do ſo. And he there alſo mentions Herodotus as ſaying the
ſame thing of the Lydian women (6). Other inſtances of the like
kind might be mentioned: as what Lucian tells us of a great
temple of Venus at Byblus in Syria, at which the women proſti-
tuted themſelves for hire on a certain day to ſtrangers only, and
that the gain they got by it was a ſacrifice to Venus (C). See alſo
(y) Herod. lib. i. 8. 199. Edit. Francof. 1608.
(z) De l'Origin des Loix, &c. tom. iii. p. 331, et feq.
(a) Strabo, lib. xvi. p. 1081.
(6) Ibid. lib. xi. p. 805.
(c) Lucian. Oper. vol. ii. p. 658. Edit. Amít. 1687
what
Chap. VII.
IDI
of the Pagan Deities.
what Valerius Maximus reports to the fame purpoſe concerning
the temple of Venus at Sicca in Africa (d). The teſtimonies
which have been produced are not to be fufpected, as they are
taken from celebrated Heathen writers : from whom alſo it
ap-
pears, that the moſt abominable impurities and crimes againſt na-
ture, made, in many places, a part of their religion. Of this
kind is what Strabo relates concerning the filthineſs committed
with the ſacred goats at Mendes in Egypt, where Pan was wore
fhipped : an inſtance of which is mentioned by Herodotus, who
ſays, it was done publicly and openly when he was in Egypt (e).
Nor have we any reaſon to doubt of the truth of what Julius Fir-
micus relates concerning the ſodomy practiſed in his time in ſome
of their temples, particularly thoſe of Juno; which, he ſays, they
were ſo far from being aſhamed of, that they made it the ſubject
of their glorying (f). The learned Dr. Spenſer has ſhewn, that
among the antient Pagan idolaters there were males as well as
females conſecrated to their deities, who proſtituted themſelves
in their temples on the ſacred feſtivals, and were thought by do-
ing fo to yield them acceptable ſervice; and that they were
wont to dedicate the gains of their proſtitution to their gods and
goddeſſes (8.)
>
(d) Val. Max. lib. ii. cap: vi. n. 157
(c) Herod. lib. ii. n. 46. Strabo, lib. xvii. p. 1154.
(f)
«« Videre eſt in ipfis templis, cum publico gemitu miſeranda ludibria, viros
" muliebria pati, et hanc impuri et impudici corporis labem gloriofâ oſtentatione
". detegere. Publicant facinora fua, et contaminati corporis vitium cum maximâ
« delectationis macula confitentur.” De Errore profan. Religion. p.. 10, 11•.
Oxon, 1678.
(8) Spenſer De Leg. Hebr. lib. ii. cap. 22 et 23.
3
Euſebius
!
192
Impure Rites in the Worſhip
Part It
Euſebius obſerves, that the Heathens came at length to that
hcight of wickedneſs and impurity, that, through an exceſs of
luſtful intemperance, they worſhipped with divine honour thoſe
parts of the body which are the inſtruments of exciting and gra.
tifying the moſt impure paſſions (h). The figures of them were
carried about in ſome of their facred proceſſions, to which hymns
were ſung, and religious veneration paid. This was done among
the Egyptians in the Sacra of Iſis and Oſiris, and, as Diodorus
affirms, in the ſolemnities of other nations, particularly among
the
Greeks. For a proof of this I would refer to the account given
by Potter, in his Grecian Antiquities, of the Aphrodiſia or feſtival
of Venus celebrated at Cyprus, of the Dionyſia or feſtival of Bac-
chus at Athens, and of the Theſmophoria or feſtival in honour of
Ceres at Syracuſe (i):
(1) Præpar. Evangel. lib. ii. cap. 6. p. 74.
(i) Potter's Antiquities, vol. i. p. 337. 347, 348. 369. Concerning the ob-
ſcenities in their facred rites and ceremonies, Arnobius, who had been a learned Pa-
gan, treats largely. Adverf. Gent. lib. v. p. 168, 169, et feq. Edit. varior. Lugd.
Bat. 1651. To which may be added what Clem. Alex. relates concerning the ſacred
cheft or coffer of Bacchus, and its impure contents, which were propoſed to vene-
ration. Clem. Alex. Protrept. p. 16. Edit. Potter. See alſo what St. Auſtin ſays
from Varro, “ De turpitudine facrorum quæ Libero celebrantur. In Italiæ compitis
« quædam dicit [Varro] ſacra Liberi celebrata cum tantâ licentiâ turpitudinis, ut
“ in ejus honorem, pudenda virilia colereatur. Nam hoc turpe membrum, per
· Liberi dies feftos cum honore magno ploftellis impoſitum, prius rure in compitis,
“ et uſque in urbem poftea vectabatur. In oppido autem Lavinio uni Libero totus
so menſis tribuebatur, cujus diebus omnes verbis flagitioſiſſimis uterentur, donec
“ illud membrum per forum tranfvectum eſſet, atque in loco fuo quieſcerit. Cui
os membro in honeſto matrem familias honeſtiſfimam palàm coronam neceſſe
so erat imponere.” Apud Auguſtin. De Civ. Dei, lib. vii. cap. 21. p. 136. Edit.
Bened.
It
Chap. VII.
of the Pagan Deities.
193
It has given ine ſome uneaſineſs to go through a detail, which
can ſcarce be mentioned without ſhocking the delicacy of a modeſt
reader. But it may be of uſe to let us ſee what extravagancies and
abominations men are capable of, when they have loſt and perverted
the true knowledge of God, and of his worſhip. Nothing can
give us a more affecting view of the corrupt ſtate of religion in
the Heathen world, even among the moſt civilized nations. The
Pagan idolatry was not a mere ſpeculative abſurdity, but had in
many inſtances a very pernicious influence on the morals of the
people, encouraging all manner of debauchery and licentiouſneſs,
There are ſeveral paſſages in the Old Teſtament in which it is in-
timated, that impurity was an uſual attendant of the Heathen
idolatry. And ſo it alſo was when the Goſpel was firſt publiſhed
to the world. It is a juſt account which St. Peter gives of the
Gentiles in his time, that they 66 walked in laſciviouſneſs, luſts,
« exceſs of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idola-
66 tries : and they thought it “ ſtrange, that the Chriſtians did
“ not run with them into the fame exceſs of riot, ſpeaking evil
« of them.” 1 Pet. iv. 3, 4. And St. Paul, having made a lively
repreſentation of the inexcufable idolatry into which the Gentile
world was generally fallen, obſerves, that as a juſt judgment upon
them, “ God
gave
them up to uncleanneſs, through the luſts of
o their own hearts, to diſhonour their own bodies between them-
« felves.” Rom. i. 24. And elſewhere he faith of them, that :
being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance
" that was in them, becauſe of the blindneſs of their hearts, they
gave themſelves over unto laſciviouſneſs, to commit all unclean-
- neſs with greedineſs.” Eph. iv, 18, 19. This followed from :
Vol. I.
cheir
!
сс
194
The Pagan Idolatry tended to promote
Part I.
their very religion, and the notions they generally entertained of
the gods they worſhipped. The celebrated Mr. De Voltaire is
pleaſed to tell us, that “ the religion of the Pagans conſiſted in
nothing but morality and feſtivals; morality, which is common
# to men of all ages and places ; and feſtivals, which were no
“ more than times of rejoicing, and could not be of prejudice to
" mankind (k).” That the Heathen morality was very defective :
will
appear when I come more particularly to conſider it. Nor
was morality properly a part.of their religion, .as taught by the
prieſts. It is a juſt obſervation of Mr. Locke, that's the people,
“ under pain of diſpleaſing the gods, were to frequent the temples:
every one went to their ſacrifices and ſervices : but the prieſts
" made it not their buſineſs to teach them virtue (?).” As to the
Pagan feſtivals, it ſufficiently appears from the account which
hath been given of them, that they were far from being;
cent as Mr. De Voltaire repreſents them. Both the story
adored, and the rites of their worſhip, had a tendency in my
inſtances to corrupt their morals.
Another ingenious author, who has ſhewn a very ſtrong preju-
dice in favour of the Pagan religion and worſhip, has thought fit
to obſerve, that " if we compare the abominations committed at
" the feaſts of Venus and Bacchus, with the debaucheries which
(k) “ La religion des Payens ne conſiſtoit que dans la morale, et dans les fetes :
“ la morale, qui eſt commune aux hommes de tous les tems et de tous les lieux;
“ et les fetes, qui n'etoient que de rejouiſſances, et ne pourvoient troubler le genre
146 humain." Hiſt, du Siecle de Louis XIV.
(1) Locke's Reaſon. of Chriſt. in his Works, vol. ii. p. 532. 3d Edit.
5 happen
-
1
Ehap. VII.
Debauchery and Licentiouſneſs.
195
happen upon the great feſtivals of the Chriſtian church, we '
« ſhall find that men of all religions are much the ſame. But
“ muſt we look upon theſe abuſes as principles of the primitive
Pagan or Chriſtian religion (m)?” But there is this remarkable
difference between them: that what he calls the abuſes of the
Heathen feſtivals, naturally aroſe from the notions they formed of
their deities, and made a neceſſary part of the worſhip paid to
them. The whores conſecrated to Venus, and the impure rites
practiſed at her feſtivals, and the drunkenneſſes and other vicious
exceffes at the feaſts of Bacchus, were ſuppoſed to be agreeable to
the temper and character of thoſe deities, and to be acceptable
and honourable to them. And as ſuch were countenanced, and
in
many inſtances preſcribed both by their oracles and by their
laws. And indeed what other rites could be imagined. becoming
ſuch a laſcivious goddeſs as Venus, and ſuch a drunken deity as
Bacchus was repreſented to be, .or ſuited to the flagitious actions
afcribed to others of their gods, and even to Jupiter the chief of
them? But none can pretend, that the revellings and debauch-
eries committed at ſome of the Chriſtian feſtivals, make a part of
the worſhip. preſcribed or countenanced by the Chriſtian religion.
Moſt of the Heathen feſtivals and ſolemnities, and the rites,
games, and proceſſions celebrated in honour of their deities, were,
as hath been already hinted;' founded on the poetical or fabulous
theology, and on the traditions of the mythologiſts. And theſe
(m) Chevalier Rámſay's Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, vol. ii
P. 401, 4020
Cc2
rites
+
1:96
The Magiſtrates and Politicians
Part I.
rites and folemnities made a part of the public religion : they
were authorized by the laws, and celebrated, as Potter obſerves,
at a vaſt charge (n). The Athenians were particularly remark-
able for this ; who, as they exceeded other people in the number
of the gods they adored, ſo they had, according to Xenophon in
his account of the Athenian republic, twice as many feſtivals as
any other cities.
It is not to be doubted, that ſome of the beſt and wifeſt
among
the Pagans diſapproved theſe ſcandalous exceſſes. But as they
naturally ſprung up out of their religion, no effectual remedy
could be applied, whilſt the public idolatry and worſhip of the
popular deities continued in force. And this even the philoſo-
phers confirmed, by urging it upon every man as his duty to con-
form to the religion, and to worſhip the gods of his country. As
to the magiſtrates and great men of the ſtate, it does not appear
that they had any deſire or intention, that the people ſhould have
ſuch juſt notions of religion, as might be a proper preſervative
to them againſt thoſe idolatrous ſuperſtitions. Nor did they give
themſelves any concern about them; except in caſes where they
thought the intereſt of the public required them to interpoſe; of
which we have a famous inſtance in the horrid and ſhocking
enormities occaſioned by the introducing the Bacchanalia into
Italy; which were carried ſo far, and produced ſuch unlawful
combinations, as threatened the ſubverſion of the ſtate.' Great
numbers were therefore put to death, by order of the ſenate, for
(n) Potter's Greek Antiq. vol. i. p. 325.
being
Chap. VII.
encouraged the popular Idolatry.
197
being initiated in thoſe myſteries: of which Livy gives a particular
account in the 39th book of his Hiſtory.
The Roman pontiff Scævola before mentioned, whom Cicero
in his firſt book De Oratore calls, juriſperitorum eloquentif-
« ſimus, et eloquentium juriſperitiſſimus,” though he finds great
fault with the poetical theology concerning the gods, yet was in
reality far from defiring that the people ſhould be rightly inſtruct-
ed in the true nature of religion. For among the things which
it was not proper or profitable for the people to know he reckons
the following, viz. that “ Hercules and Æſculapius, Caſtor and
“ Pollux, are not gods : for it is delivered by the learned, that
they were men, and deceaſed according to the common lot of
“ humanity : that the cities have not the true images or repre-
« ſentations of thoſe that are gods: and that a true God has nei-
“ ther ſex nor age, nor diſtinct bodily members.--Non eſſe deos
“ Herculem, Æſculapium, Caftorem, Pollucem: traditur enim
«s a doctis quod homines fuerint, et humanâ conditione defece-
“ rint : eorum qui fint dii non habere civitates vera ſimulacra :
quod verus Deus nec ſexum habeat nec ætatem, nec definita
« corporis membra (6).”
1
Varro was very ſenſible, that their religion and worſhip needed
to be reformed. He ſticks not to declare, that, if he had been
to new model the city, he would have endeavoured to make the
names and worſhip of their gods more conformable to truth and
nature: but that, as it had been of a long ſtanding among the
(6) Apud Auguſtin. De Civit. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 27. p. 84.
2
people,
198
Part 17
The Magiſtrates and Politicians
people, he thought he ought to retain the names and hiſtory of thie
gods as received from the antients, and to treat of them in ſuch a
manner, as ſhould rather engage the common people to worſhip
them with greater veneration, than expoſe them to contempt (b):
And accordingly he ſeems to value himſelf upon it, as having
well merited of his fellow-citizens, in that he not only gave an
account of the gods whom the Romans ought to worſhip, but
what
power and office belonged to each of them, that the people
might not be at a loſs whom to addreſs on any particular occafion.
“ Ita eſſe utilem cognitionem deorum, fi fciatur quam quiſque
« deus vim et facultatem ac poteſtatem cujufque rei habeat : ex
« eo enim poterimus ſcire quem cujuſque rei cauſa deum advocare
“ atque invocare debeamus (9).” The ſame great man ſays,
" It is uſeful to the commonwealth, that men of courage
·and:
« fortitude ſhould think that they were begotten of the gods, al-
though it be falſe; that ſo looking upon themſelves to be of
“ divine extraction, they may with the greater boldneſs and con-
“ fidence attempt and accompliſh the greateſt things.-Utile effe
« civitatibus dicit; ut ſe viri fortes, etiamſi falſum ſit, diis genitos
« eſſe credent, ut eo modo humanus animus velut divinæ ſtirpis
“ fiduciam gerens, res magnas aggrediendas. præſumat audacius,
" et agat vehementius (r)”. And indeed this is agreeable to the
rule he lays down, when ſpeaking of religion and the ſacred rites,
that many things are true which it is of no advantage to the people
() Apud Auguſtin. ubi fupra, cap. 31. p. 87.
(9) Ibid. cap. 22. p. 81.
(s) Ibid. cap. 3. p. 49.
to
Chap. VII. encouraged the popular Idolatry.
199
.
to know, and that even though they be falfe it is expedient that
the people ſhould think otherwiſe. • Multa effe vera quæ non
« inodo vulgo fcire non fit utile, fed etiam tametfi falfa ſunt, ali-
“ ter exiſtimare populum expediat (s).” It can ſcarce be doubted,
but that ſome of the great and learned men among them were
ſenſible of the fallhood' and abſurdity of the public and popular
religion. This ſeems particularly to have been the caſe of that
eminent philoſopher and ſtateſman Cicero, Varro's friend and in-
timate. He makes very free with the Pagan gods, and their wor-
Thip, in ſeveral parts of his works. But though he thought theſe
things might be treated of in the philoſophical diſputations,
he was not for having them brought before the people, leſt it
ſhould tend to the ſubverſion of the public religion. « Non effe
“ illa vulgò diſputanda, ne ſuſceptas publicè religiones diſputatio
"sc talis extinguat.” This paſſage is cited by Lactantius (t), and
was taken, as Davies thinks, from Cicero's third book De Nat.
Deorum, though not now to be found there, as ſeveral
that book are loft.
1
parts of
Such were the maxims by which the wiſeſt and greateſt men
of the Pagan world governed themſelves, which ſhews how little
was to be expected from them for leading the people into the
right knowledge and practice of religion. Indeed their legi-
ſlators and great men were principally concerned in counte-
nancing and eſtabliſhing the public idolatry and polytheiſm, and
i
(s) Apud Auguſtin. ubi ſupra, lib. iv. cap. 31. p. 87.
(t) Divin. Inftit. lib. ii. cap. 3. p. 148. Edit. Lugd. Bat. 1660.
would
200
The Magiſtrates and politicians encouraged Idolatry. Part I.
-would not ſuffer any infringement of the legal appointed rites
and worſhip. They conſidered religion in a political view, and
were not for curing or removing the popular ſuperſtition, but ra-
ther for making uſe of it in ſuch a manner as might beſt anſwer
the ends of the civil power.
сHAP.
[ 201 ]
CH A P. VIIT:
The Pagan myſteries have been highly extolled, as an expedient prou
vided by the civil authority, both for leading the people to the
praftice of virtue, and for convincing them of the varity of the
common idolatry and polytheiſm. The tendency of the myſteries to
purify the ſoul, and raiſe men to the perfection of virtue, exa-
mined. At beſt they were only deſigned to promote the practice
of thoſe virtues which were moſt uſeful to fociety, and to deter
men from ſuch vices as were moſt pernicious to it. In proceſs of
time they became greatly corrupted, and had a bad effect on the
morals of the people. The pretence, that the myſteries were intended
to deteet the error of the vulgar polytheiſm, and to bring men to
the acknowledgment and adoration of the one true God, diſtinctly
conſidered: and the proofs brought for it hewn to be infufficient.
I
I Know of nothing which can be alledged, as deſigned and
appointed by the ſtate, for rectifying the popular notions of
religion, except what was done this way in the celebration of the
facred myſteries. And this indeed was very conſiderable, and
muſt have had a great effect, if the account given of the nature
and deſign of thoſe myſteries by the very learned author of the
Divine Legation of Moſes, the preſent Biſhop of Glouceſter, may
be depended upon. The deſign of them was, as he repreſents it,
both to engage men to a holy and virtuous practice, and to give
Vol. I.
Dd
them
202
Concerning the Pagan Myſteries, Part I.
them juſt notions of religion, and detect the error of the vulgar
polytheiſm. He ſays, that in the myſteries,
66 thoſe that were
« initiated were obliged by ſolemņ engagements to commence a
“ new life of the ſtricteſt purity and virtue: nor was a leſs degree
of purity required of the işitiated for their future conduct (a)."
That “ the myſteries openly proclaimed it, as their chief buſineſs
" to reſtore the ſoul to its orįginal purity:(6).” And that “ they
profeffed to exact nothing difficult of the initiated which they
is would not affiſt him to perform (c).” And having repreſented
it as an inſtitution, " which taught the neceſſity
, of a ftri&t and
« holy life ;' he makes this an argument, that “ it could not
come out of the facerdotal warehouſe; but muſt have been the
“ invention of legiſlator's, to whoſe ſchemes virtue was neceſ-
* fary (d).” And whereas “ the vicious examples of their gods
was one inſuperable obſtacle to a life of purity and holineſs, it
was neceffary to remedy this evil, which they did by ſtriking at
« the root of it. So that ſuch of the initiated as were judged ca-
pable were made acquainted with the whole deluſion. The
myſtagogue taught them, that Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Mars,
" and the whole rabble of licentious deities, were only dead mor-
“ tals, ſubject in life to the ſame paſſions and vices with them-
« ſelves ; but having been on other accounts benefactors to man-
« kind, grateful poſterity had deified them, and with their vir-
CC
(a) Div. Leg. of Moſes, book ii. ſect. iv. p. 145. 4th Edit.
(6) Ibid. p. 142.
(c) Ibid. p. 154.
(d) Ibid. p. 208, 209,
66 tues
Chap. VIII.
Concerning the Pagan Myſteries
.
203
1
“ tues had indiſcretely cánonized their vices. The fabulous gods
being thus routed, the Supreme Cauſe of all things
' naturally
s took their place. Him they were ráught to confider as the
• Creator of the univerſe, who pervaded all thing's bý his virtue,
« and governed all things by his providence (e).” He poſitively
« afferts, that the droponic;' Or ſecret doétrines of the myſteries,
* overthrew the vulgar polythéiſm; ot worſhip of deaá mien (f )."
And again, that the “ clear evidence of antiquitý exprefly informas
us of theſe two particulars, That the errors of polytheiſm were
« detected, and the doctrine of the unity taught and explained in
“ the myſteries (8).” “And having obſerved, that it was the de-
fign of the myſteries to make men as virtuous as they could; he
ſays, that “ this they provided for by diſcovering, to ſuch as were
“ capable of the ſecret, the whole deluſion of polytheiſm ;” and
adds, that “this being ſuppoſed the ſhaking foundations; was to
“ be done with all poſſible circumſpection, and under the moſt
« tremendous feal of ſecrefy. For they taught, the gods them
" felves puniſhed the revealers of the ſecret ; and not them only,
“ but the hearers of it too. Nor did they altogether truſt to that
“ neither the ſtate decreed capital puniſhments againſt the be-
trayers of the myſteries, and inflicted them with mercileſs
ſeverity (b).” And he concludes his account of the myſteries
with obſerving, that “ there were there things about which the
(e) Div. Leg. p. 154, 155.
(f) Ibid.
(8) Ibid. p. 157
() Ibid. p. 180.
D di
“ myſteries
2.04
Concerning the Pagan Myſteries.
Part 1
“ miſteries were principally concerned. 1. The riſe and eſtabliſh-
« ment of civil ſociety. 2. The doctrine of a future ſtate of re-
"wards and puniſhments. 3. The error of polytheiſm, and the
principle of the unity (ë).”
Such is the idea our learned and ingenious author gives of the
nature and deſign of the Pagan myſteries. Theſe, he tells us,
were celebrated in almoſt all nations. He mentions Egypt, Per-
fia, Aſia, Thrace, Greece, particularly Argos, Baotia, Athens,
Crete, Cyprus, Samothrace, Amphyfſa, Lemnos.; likewiſe Britain
and India. He faith, the nature of all theſe myſteries was the
ſame, that they were all derived from the ſame original, and con-
ftituted for the fame ends (k). But that the Eleufinian were the
moſt renowned ;, and in proceſs of time eclipſed, and as it were
ſwallowed up, the reſt. They ſpread through the Roman empire,
and beyond the limits of it.. Tully ſays, that the nations in the
utmoſt borders of the earth, were initiated into them. « Initiantur
gentes orarum ultima."
And Apuleius, that crowds were ini-
tiated, men and women, perſons of all ages, conditions, and dig-
nities (1). So that if theſe myſteries were both. fo. excellently
deſigned and ſucceſsfully employed as, he ſays they were; almoſt all
nations throughout the world, by the contrivance of the legifla-
tors and civil magiſtrates, were provided with, a noble expedient
for raiſing them to the height of purity and virtue, and con-
vincing them of the error of idolatry and polytheiſm.
(i) Div. Leg. p. 286.
(k) Ibid. p. 138. 160,
(?) Ibid. p. 140. 146,
3
It
Chap. VIII.
Concerning the Pagan Myſteries,
205
It were to be wiſhed that ſo beautiful a ſcheme were founded
on ſufficient proofs. For it muſt be acknowledged, that the ac-
count which is here given of the myſteries is highly ingenious and
entertaining, and adorned with a variety of learning. It gives me
uneaſineſs to be obliged to differ from an author eminent for his
abilities and genius, as well as for his extenſive learning, and the
ſtation he bears. But ſince he repreſents the myſteries as the
molt ſacred part of the Pagan religion (m), and as belonging to
the civil theology of the Pagans, which we are now conſidering,
the ſubject I am upon, and the regard I owe to what appears to
me upon the moſt impartial enquiry to be the truth, obliges me
to give reaſons why I cannot think this account of the Pagan my-
ſteries to be a juſt one.
upon it
I need not enter upon a very particular examination of the ten-
dency the myſteries had to engage men to the practice of the
ſtricteſt purity and virtue.. A few obſervations
may
fuffice,
I readily acknowledge that the conductors of the myſteries made
high pretenſions this way. In order to procure a.greater venera-
tion for them, the hierophant, or perſon who preſided in thoſe
myſteries, was obliged to devote himſelf wholly, to the divine ter-
vice, and to live a chaſte and ſingle life. To which purpoſe it
was uſual for him to anoint himſelf with the juice of hemlock,
which, by its extreme coldneſs, is ſaid to extinguiſh in a great
meaſure the natural. heat (n). With the ſame view it was that .
(m) Div. Leg. p. 136.
(x2) Potter's Greek Antiq. vol, i. p. 183: 356.
perſons
206
Part I
Tbe moral Tendency of the
perſons known to be guilty of any atrocious crime were forbidden
to be preſent at the myſteries. Theſe pretences were carried to a
fill greater, height after Chriſtianity made its appearance, and
taught lo pure and fublime a morality. The moſt learned and
zealous advocates for Paganiſm, as Apuleius, Iamblicus, Hiero-
cles, Proclus, and others, cried up the myſteries as the moſt
effectual means for 'purifying the ſoul, and raiſing it to commu-
nion with the gods (O). For this purpoſe many of the latter
Platoniſts and Pythagoreans got themſelves initiated into the ſeveral
myſteries of the gods in different nations, and applied themſelves
to what they called Theurgy; though, as St. Auſtin obſerves,
Porphyry owned, that he had not after all his reſearches met with
any ſatisfactory way of purging the foul (P). But I cannot think
that the legiſlators, in inſtituting the myſteries, concerned them-
ſelves much about reſtoring the ſoul to its original purity, in the
Pythagorean or Platonic ſenſe; what they had in view by our
learned author's own acknowledgment was, to ſecure and pro-
mote the cauſe of virtue, as far as was neceſſary for the ends of
civil ſociety. As to any thing farther than this they were not
ſollicitous. The myſteries ſeem to have been originally deſigned
to tame and civilize the rude and barbarous people, to form and
3
6) Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 144. The ſame learned author obſerves, that “if
we may believe a certain antient, who appears to be well verfed in theſe mat-
ters, the myſteries gained their end, by clearing up all doubts concerning the
“ righteous government of the gods.” He refers to Sopater in Diviſ. Quæſt. See
Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 210. I muſt confeſs, ſuch paſſages as theſe, inſtead of raiſing
in me an higher opinion of the myſteries, make me very much ſuſpect the truth of
the extravagant encomiums beſtowed upon them.
(1) Apud Auguſt. De Civ. Dei, lib. X. cap. 32. p. 204.
poliſh
Chap. VIII.
207
Pagan Myſteries confidered.
1
poliſh their manners, and by ſhews and repreſentations, which were
fitted to ſtrike the imagination, to bring them to a greater awe
and veneration for the laws and religion of their country's which
among the Pagans was always regarded as a neceſſary ingredierit
in a virtuous character. Diodorus informs us, that in the Sici-
lian feaſts of Ceres, which laſted ten days, was repreſented the
antient manner of living before men had learned the uſe and cul-
ture of bread-corn (9). This ſeems to have been deſigned to
make men ſenſible of the value of a civilized life. It
may
be
gathered from what is ſaid by ſeveral of the antients, that the
principal ſubject of the Eleuſinian myſteries was the life of Ceres,
her wanderings after her daughter, and her legiſlation in Sicily
and Africa, where ſhe taught the inhabitants agriculture, and
gave them laws, and thereby reclaimed them from their rude and
uncultivated manners. It is not improbable therefore, that occa-
fion was taken from thence to repreſent in the myſteries the great
benefit of laws, and the happy conſequences of being brought
from the wretchedneſs of a favage life, to humanity, civility,
good manners, and politeneſs (r). And this is what Cicero ſeems
(9) Diod. p. 200. Edit. Steph. as cited Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 240. 2d Edit.
(n) Callimachus, in his hymn to Ceres, verf. 10. celebrates her as having given
laws to cities, and taught men to cut down the ears of corn. Agreeable to this
Arnobius tells us, that the hiſtory of Ceres, and her teaching the people the uſe of
corn, was the principal ſubject of the Eleuſinian myſteries. Adverf. Gent. lib. v. p.
185. Edit. Var. Lugd. Bat. St. Auſtin gives the ſame account from Varro, De Civ.
Dei
, lib. vii. cap. 20. p. 136. And Claudian, in the beginning of his poem De
Raptu Proſerpinæ, where he profeſſes to open the ſecrets of the myſteries, plainly
ſuppoſes the deſign of them to be, to repreſent Proſerpine's being carried off by
Pluto, Ceres's wandering after her daughter, her giving laws to the people where
ſhe went, and teaching them the uſe of corn inſtead of acorns.
to
208
"The moral Tendency of the
Part I.
to have particularly in view in that noted paſſage on which our
author lays a great ſtreſs. “ Nam mihi cum multa divinaque vi-
« dentur Athenæ peperiffe, atque in vitâ hominum attuliffe, tum
.. nihil melius iſtis myſteriis, quibus ex agreſti immanique vitâ,
as exculti ad humanitatem et mitigati fumus: neque folùm cum
sc lætitia vivendi rationem accepimus; ſed etiam cum ſpe meliore
« moriendi.' De Legibus, lib. ii. cap. 14.
Here he highly
praiſes the myſteries, for that by them we were reclaimed from a
rude and ſavage life, and cultivated and ſoftened into humanity :
and that they are rightly called initia, the beginning, becauſe by
them we have known, or became acquainted with the beginnings or
firſt principles of life, (i. e. of a humane and civilized life: for of
this he is evidently ſpeaking] and have been taught not only
how to live pleaſantly, but to die with a better hope. This re-
lates to what was ſo carefully inculcated in the myſteries, that
" thoſe who were initiated not only lived in a ſtate of greater
happineſs and ſecurity than other men, being under the imme-
“ diate care and protection of the goddeſſes, but that after death
so they enjoyed far greater degrees of felicity than others, and
« were honoured with the firſt places in the Elyſian abodes :
« whereas others were forced to lie and wallow in perpetual dirt,
s ſtink, and naſtineſs :(s)"
(s) Potter's Antiq. vol. i. p. 355. This gave occaſion to that (neer of Diogenes
the cynic, when the Athenians urged him to be initiated, becauſe thoſe that were
initiated had higher places in Hades than other men; he anſwered, That it was a
ridiculous thing to ſuppore, that Epaminondas and Ageſilaus ſhould lie in dirt and
filthineſs, whilſt common men of no worth ſhould be placed in the iſlands of the
bleſſed. Diog. Laert. lib. vi. ſegm. 39. Or, as Plutarch tells it, “ Shall Patæcion
" the thief be in a better place after death than Epaminondas, becauſe he was ini-
as tiated ?"
" The
Chap. VIII.
209
Pagan Myſteries conſidered.
The true meaning of that paffage in Cicero, which has been
now mentioned, farther appears by comparing it with a parallel
paffage at the end of his fifth book againſt Verres, cap. 72.
Teque Ceres et Libera, quarum facra, ficut opiniones homi-
num et religiones ferunt, longè maximis atque occultiffimis
« cæremoniis continentur, a quibus initia vitæ atque victûs,
legum, morum, manſuetudinis, humanitatis exempla, homi-
« nibus ac civitatibus data ac difpertita effe dicuntur : quorum
« facra populus Romanus a Græcis accepta et aſcita, tantâ reli-
gione et publicè et privatim tuetur.” Here, after having ob-
ferved, that the ſacra or holy rites of Ceres and Libera were con-
tained in the moſt auguſt and hidden ceremonies, he faith, that
from thence the beginnings of life and of a proper diet, the ex-
amples of laws, manners, mildneſs, humanity, are ſaid to have
been given and imparted to men and cities. I ſhall here inſert a
note of the learned Adrian Turnebus relating to this matter.
« Initia vocantur ab initiis vitæ, inventis a Cerere legibus et fru-
“ gibus, in quarum rerum memoriam fiebant, cum antea ferino
<< ritu homines fibi vitam propagabant.-That the myſteries were
« called initia, the beginnings, becauſe they were inſtituted in me-
mory of Ceres's having given men laws, and taught them the
« uſe of corn, whereby they began properly to live the life of men,
“ whereas before they lived after the manner of wild beaſts (t).”
In the repreſentations made in the myſteries of future re-
wards and puniſhments, matters were ſo contrived, that the vir-
(t) Turneb. Commentar. in Cicer, de Leg. lib.ii. f. 9. P. 338. Edit. Davies.
VOL, I.
Еe
tues
2 I -
The Pagan Myſteries became greatly corrupted, Part I
tues rewarded and vices puniſhed were ſuch as more immediately
affected ſociety; as our learned author has obſerved. And it is:
not improbable that theſe repreſentations and ſhows, where a due
care was taken to guard them againſt the abuſes to which they
were liable, might produce ſome good effects for the advantage
· of ſociety, which is what the legiſlators and civil magiſtrates had
principally in view. And yet ſome eminent Pagans ſeem not to
have entertained very advantageous thoughts of the myſteries with
regard to their moral tendency. If Socrates had looked upon
thém
as having a friendly influence on religion and virtue, he who had its
intereſts ſo much. at heart, would not have declined being initiated ;
eſpecially ſince he knew that by this he expoſed himſelf to the
calumnies of his enemies, and incurred the popular ſuſpicion of
being an irreligious and prophane perſon. It is true, that Socra-
tes is introduced by Plato in his Phædo as giving a favourable in-
terpretation of the deſign and intention of thoſe myſteries : and
indeed the extraordinary veneration they were had in among
the
people at Athens, as well as their being ſtrongly ſupported by the
civil magiſtrates and by the laws, would have made it very unſafe
for him to have ſaid the leaſt thing to their diſparagement. But
his neglecting to be initiated is a much ſtronger proof that he had
not a very good opinion of them, than any thing which can be
produced to the contrary (u).
What-
(a) Socrates, in Plato's Phædo, ſays, concerning thoſe who inſtituted and ap-
pointed the myſteries, that they were no mean or contemptible perſons, š patao.
tites, and that they taught, that's whoſoever went to Flades without being expiated
or initiated would lie in the dirt or filthineſs, but that thoſe who went thither
“ purged and initiated would dwell with the gods.” Plat. Oper. p. 380. F. Edit.
Lugd. 1590. The purification here referred to ſeems to have been the ritual puri-
fication
Chap. VIII. and had a bad Effect on the Morals of the People. 211
:
Whatever we ſuppoſe to have been the original intention of
thoſe myſteries, and allowing all that can be juſtly ſaid in favour of
them, there is, I think, great reaſon to apprehend that upon
the
whole they proved rather detrimental than advantageous to the
cauſe of virtue. Our learned author himſelf acknowledges, " that
« in Greece itſelf the myſteries became abominably abuſed: a
co
proof of which we have in the conduct of their comic writers,
« who frequently lay the ſcene of their ſubject, ſuch as the rape
« of a young girl, and the like, at the celebration of the myſte-
6 ries; as he ſhews from Fabricius." And he obſerves, that “ in
“ Cicero's time the terms myſteries and abomination were almoſt
“ fynonymous (x).” It is true, that the beſt inſtitutions may be
corrupted ; but the fault ſeems here to have been owing to a
fundamental defect in the original conſtitution of them.
"
We
5can aſſign no furer cauſe,” ſaith this eminent writer, “ of the
« horrid abuſes and corruptions of the myſteries, than the ſeaſon
« in which they were repreſented, and the profound ſilence in
« which they were buried. , Night gave opportunity to wicked
« men to attempt evil actions, and the ſecrecy encouragment to
repeat them (y).” He farther obſerves, that “ the myſteries
“ were ſometimes” [he might have ſaid they were frequently]
fication preſcribed in the myſteries: concerning which ſee Potter's Antiq, völ, i.
P. 355. But Socrates, who was for taking advantage of this, intimates, that it
had probably a hidden meaning, and was deſigned to ſignify, that it was neceſſary
that the ſoul ſhould be purified by virtue. · He does not ſay, that this was declared
at the myſteries, but he ſuppoſes it, åsvítleobas, to be obſcurely ſignified by thoſe
ceremonies of purgation.
(x) Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 195.
(y) Ibid. p. 190, 191,
Ee zi
under
212
Part I.
The Pagan Myſteries not deſigned to
« under the patronage of thoſe deities, who were ſuppoſed to
inſpire and preſide over ſenſual paſſions ; ſuch as Bacchus,
« Venus, and Cupid ; for theſe had all their myſteries: and
" where was the wonder, if the initiated ſhould be fomtimes in-
« clined to give a looſe to thoſe vices, in which the patron god
was ſuppoſed to delight? And in this caſe, the hidden doctrine
came too late to put a flop to the diſorder (2).” And he there
alſo mentions what he calls “ that very flagitious part of the
myſterious rites when at worſt, the carrying the KTEIL and
" $ AAA0E in proceſſion (a).” He ſays indeed, that " it was
« introduced but under pretence of their being emblems of the
“ myſtical regeneration, and new life, înto which the initiated
" had engaged themſelves to enter.” But it is no way probable,
that this was the original ground of introducing it, but a pretence
invented for it after it was introduced; for the ſame reaſon that
they endeavoured to find out allegorical meanings and phyſical
explications for ſome other parts of the myſteries. And a moſt
abfurd pretence it was; as if fuch obfcene rites which ſhock com-
mon modeſky were fit emblems of inward purity, and of an en-
trance on a life of the ſtricteſt virtue. Arnobius juftly expoſes the
abſurdity of couching holy myſteries under obſcene repreſenta-
tions, on pretence, that they had a profound and facred. mean-
!
(2) Div. Leg. p. 192.
(a) He ſeems here to intimate, as if this part of the rites was not brought in till
the lateſt and moſt corrupt times of the myſteries. But there is no proof of this.
On the contrary, it ſeems to have been one of the moſt antient rites uſed in the
inysteries of Ifis, from which the Eleuſinian myſteries were derived..
ing
Chap. VII.
283
detext the Error of Polytheiſm.
ing(b). And he applies this particularly to the Eleuſinian myſte-
ries (c). I cannot therefore but think, that whatever was the origi-
nal intention of the myſteries, they were frequently fo conducted as
to have a moſt pernicious influence in countenancing and heighten-
ing that impurity and diffoluteneſs of manners, which became ſo
general in the Pagan world. And to them probably St. Paul re-
fers when he ſaith, “ It is a ſhame even to ſpeak of thoſe things
• which were done by them in ſecret.” Eph. v. 12.
learned author himſelf thinks, this great apoſtle had the myſteries
particularly in view, in what he faith concerning the wiſe men of
the Gentiles, Rom. i. 20, et ſeq. That “ God in puniſhment for
o their turning his truth into a lie, ſuffered their myſteries which
they erected for a ſchool of virtue, to degenerate into an
s odious fink of vice and immorality; giving them up into all un-
cleanneſs and vile affections (d)."
And our
But not to inſiſt longer upon this, what the ſubject we are upon
leads us principally to conſider is, whether and how far thie
myſteries were deſigned to detect the error of polytheiſm, and to
inſtruct the initiated in the knowledge of the one true God. And
as to this our learned author propoſes to thew, that “ the clear
« evidence of antiquity exprefly informs us of theſe two particu-
“ lars; that the errors of polytheiſm were detected, and the
* doctrine of the unity taught and explained in the myſteries.(ej.
(6) See Arnob. adverf. Gentes, his fifth book throughout.
(c) Ibid. and eſpecially p. 173, et ſeq:
(d) Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 196. Marg, note.
(e). Ibid. p. 157
One
in
214
Part 1.
The Pagan Myſteries not depgned to
.
One would expect after ſuch a declaration, that the praofs
from antiquity, with reſpect to both theſe particulars, ſhould be
very clear. Let us therefore briefly conſider the evidence that is
produced.
The firſt thing propoſed to be proved is, That the errors of
polytheiſm were detected in the myſteries : or, as he elſewhere
expreſſes it, that they diſcovered the whole deluſion of polytheiſm
to ſuch as were judged capable of the ſecret. And he explains
himſelf farther by ſaying, That the ázrógenta, or ſecret doctrines of
the myſteries, overthrew the vulgar polytheiſm, the worſhip of
dead men: and that the fabulous gods, the whole rabble of licen-
tious deities were routed there (f). This repreſention of the
deſign of the Pagan myſteries is very honourable to them, if it
can be ſupported with clear evidence; but it appears to me that
not one of the teſtimonies produced for it by the learned author
of the Divine Legation comes up to the point they are intended
to prove. · The firſt is a paſſage quoted from St. Auſtin concern-
ing an Egyptian hierophant, who informed Alexander the Great,
that even the deities of an higher order had once been men (8).
This is followed by two quotations from Cicero, who, according
to our author, tells us, that “ not only the Eleuſinian myſteries,
“ but the Samothracian and the Lemnian, taught the error of
“ polytheiſm (5).” But all that can be gathered from the
(f) The paſſages here referred to are quoted above, p. 202, 2033
(8) Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 157, 158.
(1) Ibid. p. 159, 160,
22
two
Chap. VIII.
215
dete&t the Error of Polytheiſm.
+
two paſſages hiere cited is, not that the error of thé vulgár poly-
theiſm was taught in the myſteries, but only that the dii majorum
gentium, the chief of the gods vulgarly adored, had been taken
from the human race into heaven. But Cicero, who ſays this,
neither gives it as his own opinion, nor repreſents it as the doctrine
of tħe myſteries, that therefore they were not to be regarded as
gods, For to be worſhipped as ſuch. On the contrary, in one of
thoſe paſſages he plainly approves the deification of famous and
excellent mén; and ſo he does on ſeveral other occaſions; in-
ftances of which were produced above, p. 110. And the wor-
fhip of ſuch deities is what he expreſly preſcribes in his book.
of laws. « Ex hominum genere conſecratos coli lex jubet (i).”
Julius Firmicus, in the paſſage produced from him, charges the
Pagans with having confecrated or deified dead men ; but he is
far from fuppofing that the myſteries condemned that practice,
but rather on the contrary that they approved and encouraged
it (k). Theſe are all the teſtimonies brought to prove, that the
myſteries were deſigned to detect the error and deluſion of the
vulgar polytheiſm : for as to the hint, as our author calls it, given
by Plutarch, that the true nature of dæmons was held forth in the :
myſteries, ſince that philofopher does not explain what he means
by it, but ſays a ſacred ſilence is to be obſerved, nothing can be:
concluded from it at all. The whole amount then of the evi-
dence on this head is no more than this, that in the myſteries the
initiated were inſtructed that the popular deities had been once :
men : but no proof is brought, that the ámbinta overthrew the
(i) De Leg. lib. ii. cap. viii. p. 100. et cap. xi. p. 115. Edit. Davis, ·
(k) Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 162.
vulgar
216
The Pagan Myſteries not deſigned to Part I.
..
vulgar polytheiſm, the worſhip of dead men. Nor do I believe
any one paſſage can be produced from all Pagan antiquity to ſhew,
that the deſign of the myſteries was to undeceive the people as to
the vulgar polytheiſm, and to draw them off from the worſhip of
the deities commonly adored. Their having been once men was
very conſiſtent, in the notions which then obtained, with their
divinity. The Cretan, who, as this learned author obſerves from
Diodorus, celebrated the myſteries openly, and publiſhed their
etonta, or ſacred doctrines, i. e. thoſe which in other places
were kept hidden or ſecret, without reſerve, boaſted of having
Jupiter's tomb among them ; but this did not hinder them from
regarding and worſhipping him as the chief of the deities, the
Father of gods and men (1). In like manner the Egyptian prieſts,
as Plutarch informs us, pretended to ſhew the ſepulchre of Oſiris,
yet this was not thought to be an objection againſt their worſhip-
ping him as a god.
Allowing therefore the fact, that in the myſteries ſome account
was given of the hiſtory of their gods, which led the initiated to
conclude, that the popular deities, even the principal of them,
had been originally of the human race, it does not follow, that
therefore the myſteries were deſigned to detect the error and delu-
fion of the vulgar polytheiſm, and to overthrow the worſhip of
their deities. Some of the Pagans were indeed ſenſible, that if it
was once allowed that their gods had been of human extraction,
this might be turned to the diſadvantage of the public religion,
Hence it was, that the Roman pontiff Scævola, in a paſſage cited
(l) Div. Leg. p. 183,
before,
Chap. VIII.
217
dete&t the Error of Polytheiſm.
before, was for having it concealed from the people that even
Hercules, Æſculapius, Caſtor and Pollux, had been once mortal
men, left they ſhould not regard and worſhip them as gods (m).
And Plutarch, in his treatiſe De Ilid. et Ofir. ſpeaking of thoſe
who repreſented ſome of the gods to have been originally famous
men, who had obtained the honour of divinity, ſays, that this is
to attempt to move things which ought not to be ſtirred, and to
bring down thoſe great and venerable names from heaven to
earth, and thereby to overturn and diffolve that religious perſua-
fion, which hath taken poffeffion of the minds of almoſt all men
from their birth : that it is to open a wide door to the atheiſtical
crowd, who are for turning divine things into human, and to give
a 'ſplendid licence to the illufions of Euhemerus the Meſſenian,
whom he there charges as having ſcattered all manner of atheiſin
through the world (1). It may ſeem a little ſurpriſing, that Plu-
tarch ſhould here repreſent that as an impious and atheiſtical doc-
trine, which, according to our learned author, the myſtagogues
taught the initiated in the greater myſteries, and which Cicero
and others made no ſcruple of declaring. But whatever Plutarch
and ſome others might think of it, thoſe that inſtituted and con-
dučied the myſteries ſeem to have been of another mind. If they
taught the initiated, that the gods commonly received had been
once men, it is reaſonable to ſuppoſe, that they took care that the
public religion ſhould not ſuffer by it, by letting them know, that
notwithſtanding this they ought to be regarded as gods, and to
(722) Apud Auguft. De Civit. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 27. p. 84.
(11) Plutarch. Oper. tom. ii. p. 359, 360. Edit. Francof.
VOL. I.
Ff
have
2.18
Pagan Myſteries not deſigned to
Part I
have that divine honour and worſhip rendered to them which an-
tient tradition and the laws required.
1
And indeed this ſeems plainly to follow from the conceſſions
which our learned advocate for the myſteries is ſometimes obliged
to make. He tells us, that one important uſe, to which what he
calls the detection of the national gods, that is, the ſhewing that
they had been men, was deſigned, was “ to excite men to
“ heroic virtue, by ſhewing them what honours the benefactors
" of nations had acquired by the free exerciſe of it).” The
honours here referred to are divine honours, as he himſelf
elſewhere calls them (p). This alſo appears from the paſſage he
quotes from Tully's ſecond book of laws, where it is ordered, that
thoſe ſhould be worſhipped whoſe merit had placed them in
heaven: as alſo from the fragment of Sanchoniathon, which he
ſuppoſes to have been the very hiſtory narrated to the 'Emnia in
the greater myſteries (9). He aſks, “ What ſtronger excitement
“ had heroic minds, than to be taught, as they are in this frag-
ment, that public benefits to their fellow-creatures were re-
“ warded with immortality (r).?” It ſhould have been ſaid, that,
according to that fragment, they were rewarded with divine
(0) Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 155, where he adds, that ". this was the chief rea-
4. fon why princes, ſtateſmen, and leaders of colonies and armies, all aſpired to be
partakers of the greater myſteries."
() Ibid. p. 183:
(9) Ibid. p. 168, 171.
(r) Ibid. p. 173. And he there repreſents theſe things " as eſſential to the in-
65 ſtruction of the myſteries ;” and makes this an argument to prove, that that
hiſtory was compoſed for the uſe of the myſteries.
honours:
7
Chap. VIII.
219
detect the Error of Polytheiſm.
1
cs
honours : for it is there exprelly faid, that after their death they
were worſhipped as gods, and had facrifices offered to them; of
which ſeveral inſtances are given. And he repreſents it as “ the
purpoſe of that fragment to Thew, that the popular deities were
only dead men deified (s).” Now the queſtion is, Whether
the deſign of introducing the hiſtory of their gods, as having been
deified men, was with a view to condemn the worſhipping them,
or to approve of it? It could not be to condemn it, fince by ſhew-
ing the divine honours which were rendered to them for the ſer-
vices they had done the public, they deſigned to excite men to
heroic virtue. If this was one important uſe of the myſteries in-
tended by the legiſlators and magiſtrates, as is plainly aſſerted in
the paſſages now produced, this ſhews they did not intend by the
myſteries to overthrow the worſhip that was rendered to them.
For this would be to counteract and defeat their own deſign. And
indeed this is what our author himſelf ſeems exprefly to grant';
when ſpeaking of what Virgil calls
“ Vana ſuperſtitio, veterumque ignara deorum,”
He faith, that “ the Pagan lawgiver took much care to rectify it
« in the myſteries, not by deſtroying that ſpecies of idolatry, the
“ worſhip of dead men, which was indeed his own invention,
“ but by ſhewing why they paid that worſhip, namely, for be-
“ nefits done by thoſe deified heroes to the whole race of man-
“ kind (t).” Here it is declared, that the Pagan lawgiver did not
intend by the myſteries to deſtroy the worſhip of dead men, but
-
(s) Div. Leg. p; 168, 169.
(t) Ibid. p. 221.
1
Ff 2
}
rather
!
.
220
No Proof that the Doctrine of the Unity Part 1
rather to give a reaſon for it, which tended to juſtify that practice.
And if this were the caſe, I do not ſee how it can be ſaid, that
«s what the monta overthrew was the vulgar polytheiſm, the
« worſhip of dead men (u;.” Where the reader may obſerve,
that the vulgar polytheiſm and the worſhip of dead men are uſed as
ſynonymous terms.
I think theſe obfervations are ſufficient to ſhew, that the teſti-
monies brought to prove that the popular deities were once men,
and were repreſented as ſuch in the myſteries, do not prove that
the myſteries were intended to detect the error and deluſion of
polytheiſm, and to ſubvert the worſhip of thoſe deities. This in-
deed was the inference the Chriſtians drew from it, who argued
from the hiſtory of their gods to diſprove their divinity (x). And
this probably was the principal reaſon, why the myſtagogues were
very careful in their entrance on the celebration of the myſteries,
that no Chriſtian ſhould be preſent at them.
Let us now proceed to examine the proofs which are brought
for the fecond particular, That the doctrine of the unity, or of the
one God, the Creator and Governor of the world, was taught in
the myſteries (y). This is what this celebrated writer, in the paf-
(u) Div. Leg. p. 155.
(3) What Theophilus Antiochenus ſaid to his Heathen friend Autelycus, “ the
names of the gods thou profeſſeſt to worſhip are the names of dead men,
** Τα μεν ονόματα ών φής σέβεσθαι θεών ονόματα έξι νεκρών ανθρώπων,” of which he there
gives many inſtances, was the charge conſtantly urged by the Chriſtians in their
diſputes againſt the Heathens. Theoph. ad Autol. lib. i, p. 75.
6) Div. Leg. ubi ſupra, p. 163, et ſeq.
ſages
Chap. VIII.
was taught in the Myſteries. .
221
,
fages above referred to, exprefly affirms to be clear from the evi-
dence of antiquity. To the ſame purpoſe he elſewhere obſerves,
that “ the Creator of all things was the ſubject of the amuzpntas
«. or ſecret in all the myſteries throughout the Gentile world (2).”
And again, that “ the knowledge of the true God was taught,
though to few, all over the Geritile world, and only in the
“ myſteries (a).” But though I will not pretend to affirm, that
no ſuch doctine was taught there, yet this, I think, may be ſafely
faid, that there is no ſufficient evidence brought to prove it.
The teſtimonies firſt produced are two of Clemens Alexandri-
nus, and one of Chryfippus (6). But all that can be gathered
from them is, that the myſteries treated of divine matters, of the
nature of the gods, and of the univerſe: but they have not one
word to fhew that the doctrine of the unity was taught there.
Nor is the paffage produced from Strabo more expreſs. It is true
that Strabo there faith, that “ the ſecret celebration of the myſte-
“ries preſerves the majeſty due to the divinity, and at the ſame
« time imitates its nature, which hides itſelf from our ſenſes."
But by the divinity he does not ſeem there to underſtand the one
Supreme God, as diſtinguiſhed from inferior deities, but the divi-
nity in whofe name and to whoſe honour the myſteries were cele-
brated ; and he immediately after makes mention of Apollo,
Ceres, and Bacchus, as the deities ſacred among the Greeks,
12
(z) Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 166.
(a) Ibid. p. 168.
.
(6) Ibid. p. 163.
to
como
L.
.
222
No Proof that the Doctrine of the Unity Part I.
to each of whom, according to the prevailing theology, divinity
was aſcribed. And whereas our learned author adds, that Strabo
makes philoſophy “ the object of the myſteries, which,” he thinks,
“ removes all ambiguity,” I cannot find, upon a careful exa-
mination of the paffage as it lies in the original, that Strabo there
repreſents philoſophy as the object about which the myſteries are
converſant. But allowing it to be ſo, ſince he does not explain
what philoſophy it was, it would ſtill leave us in the dark. For
that the philoſophers were far from agreeing in their notions of
the Divinity, fufficiently appears from Cicero's celebrated book,
De naturâ Deorum (c). The paſſage that followeth this is from
Plutarch, who in his treatiſe of Iſis and Oſiris, ſpeaking of the temple
of Iſis, pretends to give the etymology of the name, that it is called
'Igelov, becauſe, thoſe that approach it with prudence and fanctity
ſhall know the td öv.. This is Plutarch's own gloſs upon it; and
that it is not much to be depended upon will appear to any man
that impartially conſiders the nature and deſign of that treatiſe.
" It was directly written to ſupport the national religion, which
“ had taken the alarm. His purpoſe in it is to ſhew, that all its
« multiform worſhip was only an addreſs to the Supreme Being
« under various names and covers." This is the account our
learned author himſelf gives of it, and he has very well expoſed
Plutarch's ſcheme, and the ſhifts he was put upon to ſupport
it (d). And indeed the reading of that book of Plutarch, though
it abounds with variety of learning, is ſufficient to convince any
1
(C) P. 164.
1
(d) Div. Leg. vol. ii. p. 308, 309. Edit, 4th.
thinking
Chap. VIII.
223
i was taught in the Myſteries.
thinking man of the ſtrange confuſion of the Pagan theology,
eſpecially that of the Egyptians, which was moſt admired, and
from which many other nations derived theirs.
The next teſtimony is from Galen : Speaking of the benefit
that would ariſe not only to the phyſician, but to the philoſopher,
who labours to inveſtigate the univerſal nature, from conſidering
the parts of the human body, he ſays, that “ thoſe who initiate
“ themſelves here have nothing like it in the Eleuſinian or Sama-
« thracian myfteries---Βδέν όμοιον έχεσιν Ελευσινίοις τε και Σαμοθρα-
“ xious ozgioisa”: Galeg ſeems here to intimate, that the Divine
Nature was treated of in the myſteries ; but ſays nothing from
whence we can form a judgment, whether they were deſigned to
inſtruct men in the unity, or what kind of doctrine was taught
there ;, only that it was not to be compared to that which was to
be learned from conſidering the human body; which is the ſub-
ject of his excellent book De Uſu Partium.
.
The paſſage which is next produced is from Euſebius. And it
feems a little odd, that becauſe Euſebius makes uſe of ſome terms.
employed in the Pagan myſteries, he fhould be brought in as a
voucher, that the doctrine of the unity was taught in thoſe myſte-
ries. For this very paſſage Thews the contrary. Euſebius exprelly
ſays, that “ for the Hebrew people alone was reſerved the honour
" of being initiated into the knowledge of God the Creator of all
things, and of being inſtructed in the practice of true piety to-
"wards him (e).” And it ſufficiently appears from what he
fe) Diy. Leg. fol. in P: 165.
after-
224
Part I:
No Proof that the Doctrine of the Unity
afterwards ſays of the Pagan myſteries, that he was far from
thinking that the doctrine of the one true God was taught there.
1
But what this learned writer ſeems to lay the principal ſtreſs
upon is the teſtimony of Joſephus, than which, he ſays, nothing
can be more explicit (f). But I muſt confeſs, it does not ap-
pear ſo to me. Joſephus is there vindicating the Jews againſt the
calumnies of Apion, and ſhews the advantages they enjoyed for
the knowledge and practice of religion and piety above other na-
tions. The Gentiles boaſted mightily of their initiations and
myſteries, which were regarded as the moſt facred part of their
religion. Joſephus, who appears throughout all his works to be
very careful not to give offence to the Gentiles, ſays nothing to
the diſparagement of their myſteries, which they would not have
borne; but fuppoſing them to be as holy and divine as they would
have them to be, he obſerves, that they only returned at certain
ſeaſons, and were folemnized for a few days; whereas the Jews,
by the benefit of their facred rites and laws, enjoyed all the
advantages pretended to in thoſe myſteries, through the whole
courſe of their lives. This ſeems to be the genuine ſenſe and
ſcope of this paſſage. But it is obſervable, that Joſephus does not
enter upon the conſideration of the nature and deſign of thoſe
myſteries, or the doctrines that were taught there; though he is
very plain and expreſs in the account he gives of the principles the
Jews were taught in their laws, particularly relating to the one
(f) Præpar. Evangel. lib. i. cap. 9.
in
true
Chap. VIII.
225
was taught in the Myſteries
.
true abſolutely perfect God, the fole Cauſe of all exiſtence (8). I
think therefore this paſſage affords no valid argument to prove,
that the doctrine of the unity was taught in the myſteries. Nor
do I ſee how it can well be ſuppoſed, that a Jewiſh prieſt ſhould
be a competent witneſs to inform us of what was the principal
ſecret of the Pagan myſteries, and which they were bound under
the moſt tremendous ſeal of ſecrefy not to reveal,
Theſe are all the teſtimonies produced by this admired writer
when he profeſſedly undertakes to prove, that the doctrine of the
unity, or of the one true God, in oppoſition to the Pagan poly->
theiſm, was taught in the myſteries. And I think it may be left
to any impartial reader, whether they fufficiently prove this point.
But there is another thing which he urgeth afterwards, which, if
it could be depended upon, would be much more to his purpoſe
than
any
of the teſtimonies he had mentioned : and that is, the
Hymn of Orpheus, mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, in
which the doctrine of the unity is plainly aſſerted, and which he
ondeavours to thew was the very hymn that was fung to the ini-
tiated in the Eleuſinian myſteries, by the hierophant, habited like
the Creator. But it by no means appears, that Clement intended
to ſignify that that ſong made a part of the myſteries. He takes
notice indeed of a poem made by Orpheus on the myſteries, and
which he ſuppoſes to have contained an account of thoſe myſte-
ries, and of the theology of idols. And he alſo mentions the
hymn in queſtion, which he ſuppoſes likewiſe to have been com-
1
(8) Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 176.
VOL. I.
Gg
poſed
226 No Proof that the Doctrine of the Unity Part I.
poſed by Orpheus, and which contained a quite contrary doctrine.
But he does not ſeem to mean, that this hymn was a part of that
poem in which Orpheus gave an account of the myſteries, but
rather to have looked upon it as a diſtinct poem compoſed by
Orpheus afterwards, and in which he ſuppoſes him to have re-
canted the doctrines he had taught in the former. This
appears
to me to be a juft account of Clement's meaning, and muſt be
allowed to be fo, if we would make that learned father confiftent
with himſelf. His manner of introducing it is remarkable.
« The Thracian hierophant,” ſays he, “, and who was at the
" ſame time a poet, Orpheus, the ſon of Deager, after he had
« opened or explained the myſteries and the theology of idols,
e introduces the truth, and makes his recantation ; finging,
though. late, a truly holy ſong (b)." Here Clement ſeems
plainly to oppoſe theſe verſes to the account Orpheus had given of
the myſteries, and makes them to be in effect a palinodia, or re-
cantation of the whole theology of the myſteries, which he calls
the theology of idols. But he repreſents him as late in making
this recantation and ſinging this holy ſong. And I do not well
ſee upon what ground this could be ſaid, if that very long made
a part of the myſteries; and was ſung by the hierophant himſelf,
at the very time of the celebration of thoſe myſteries, and before
the aſſembly was diſmiſſed. For at that rate, the verſes were
fung in the proper ſeaſon in which they ought to be ſung, accord-
Vh) « Ο δε Θράκια Ιεροφάντης και ποιητής άμα, ο τ8 Ouαγρ8 Ορφευς μετά την τών
" ιεροφαντιαν και των ειδώλων την θεολογίαν παλίνωδιαν αληθείας εισάγει, τον Γερον όντως
"Ofe TOTE uus & šv adwy róyov." Clem. Admonitio ad Gent. p. 63, 64. Edit.
Potter.
ing
Chap. VIII.
227
was taught in the Myſteries.
ing to the courſe and order of the myſteries. Our learned author
indeed has tranſlated the latter part of that paſſage differently
from what I have done. « The facreds then truly begin, though
late, and thus he enters upon the matter.” This ſeems to
imply that the hymn referred to properly belonged to the myſte-
ries, and made the moſt folemn and venerable part of them:
But I fee nothing in the original that can anſwer to thoſe words
in his tranſlation, “ the ſacreds then truly begin.” Nor can I
ſuppoſe, that if Clement had believed this hymn, which he him.
felf produces, as containing a clear acknowledgment of the one
true God, to have been a part, and the moſt ſacred part, of the
myſteries, he would have called thoſe myſteries, as he does in
a paſſage to be produced afterwards, “ the myſteries of atheiſts
or fay of thoſe who celebrated and conducted them, that “ they
“ do not acknowledge him, who is truly and really God." To
all which it may be added, that this hymn of Orpheus is very
juſtly ſuſpected, as would have appeared if the whole had been
produced. It is only the firſt part of it which is cited by our
learned author from Clement's admonition to the Gentiles. But
it is given more largely by the fame Clement in his Stromata (i);
and at ſtill greater length by Euſebius (k), who quotes it from
Ariftobulus, a Jewiſh peripatetic philoſopher. And this philoſo-
pher produces it to Thew, that Orpheus and the Greeks took
their doctrine of God the Creator of the univerſe from the books
of Moſes. And indeed ſome of the verſes cited from this
poem
(i) Clem. Strom. v. Oper. p. 723, et ſeq.
(k) Præp. Evangel, lib. xiii. cap. 12.
i
G g 2
indi
ſeem
228
No Proof that the Do&trine of the Unity Part I.
feem plainly to point to Moſes, and deſcribe him as having been
drawn out of the water, and as having received the law from
God in two tables: and others of them relate no leſs plainly to
Abraham, to whom Clement applies them. The learned Dr.
Cudworth, though very willing to catch at any thing in a Pagan
writer that favours the doctrine of the unity, pronounces theſe
verſes to be a manifeſt forgery, and ſo far ſuſpects fome other of
the verſes aſcribed to Orpheus, and produced by the fathers, that
he thinks it not ingenuous to lay a ſtreſs upon them; and there-
fore declares, that he will produce no verſes of Orpheus as an ac-
knowledgment of the one Supreme Being, but ſuch as are atteſted
by Pagan writers (1). And even the authority of theſe is of no
great weight. Many learned perſons, both antient and modern,
have been of opinion, that we have no verſes of Orpheus. remain
ing which can be depended upon as his. As to the hymn's be-
ing ſung by the hierophant, habited like the Creator, this is ad-
vanced without any proof. And as in that caſe it muſt have related
to the moſt ſacred part of the hidden doctrine of the myſteries,
and which, by our author's hypotheſis, was communicated by the
hierophant only to a few of the initiated under the moſt tremen-
dous ſeal of ſecrefy, it is hard to conceive how it ſhould come to
be openly published to the world, ſo that the Jews, and Chriſtians
ſhould know it (m). We are told indeed by. Euſebius, that the
hierophant in the Eleuſinian myſteries put on the habit of the.
---
(l) Intel: Syft. P: 300, 301.
(m) There are among the works aſcribed by Heathen writers to Orpheus, ſome
kymos ſaid to have been ſung at the myſteries; but theſe are hymns to particular
eteities, and do not relate to what is ſuppoſed to be the great ſecret of the myſteries o-
See Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 179.
demic
A
Chap. VIIF. was taught in the Myſteries.
229
demiurgus (n). But ſuppoſing this to be underſtood of the Maker
or. Former of the world, it is no ſufficient proof that the proper
doctrine of the unity was taught in the myſteries. Ovid, whom
the author of the Divine Legation repreſents as having been very
well acquainted with the Pagan theology, and as having exhibited
a beautiful ſyſtem of it in his Metamorphoſes, has given an ac-
count of the creation of the world in his firſt book. He attri-
butes it to God, whom he calls mundi fabricator, and ille opi-
fex rerum, mundi melioris origo-which contains a full expli-
cation of the word Anuiagros. Yet it does not appear, - that he
acknowledged the unity in the ſenſe here pretended. On the
contrary he ſuppoſes a plurality of gods, and that the world was
made by one of them, but which of them to aſcribe it to he could
not tell.
« Quiſquis fuit ille deorum (0)."
I think it appears from what has been offered, that “ there is no
:« clear evidence of antiquity which exprefly informs us, that the
« doctrine of the unity was taught and explained in the myſte-
“ ries;” which is what our author propoſed to thew (Đ}And
(12). Præp. Evangel. lib. iii. cap. 1 2. p. 117.
(0) The Pagan writers fomctimes ſpeak of one Maker of the world, and ſome
times they repreſent the gods as the makers of the world. " O Jupiter, and the
“ gods, the fathers and makers of the earth and fea.-12 Zɛü xal Jeoi Tatéges xai.
“ TOMTO yñs rai lanátins," Max. Tyr. Diſſert. 34. See alſo Phurnur. De Nat.
Deor. p. 3. In an inſcription on an Egyptian obeliſk the ſun is ſtiled “Kiirns tñs
:
ólxguéyrs.--The framer or opificer of the world.” Fuller Miſcel. Sacra, lib. i..
cap. 14. And in the Orphic verſes, cited by Macrobius, he is repreſented as the
father of ſea and land. Saturnal. lib. i. cap. 23.
(D) Div. Leg. ubi ſupra, p. 157.
tam:
3
i
230
Part I.
The Myſteries not fitted to ſpread the
5
I am perſuaded, that if there had been any ſuch evidence, it could
not have eſcaped the fagacity and diligence of this very acute and
learned writer. But ſuppoſing it clearly proved, this could not
have had any great influence on the ſtate of religion in the Pagan
world. As will appear from two conſiderations.
1. There is great reaſon to think that the notion given of the
Deity in the myſteries was not a very right and juſt one. It will
be afterwards ſhewn that the philoſophers were for the moſt part
very wrong in their notions of the Divinity; and it can hardly be
ſuppoſed that the civil magiſtrates and great men of the ſtate
knew more of this matter than the philoſophers. It has been
obſerved, that the Cretans publiſhed the ſecret doctrines of the
myſteries, and conſequently the unity, if this was one of them, to
all that had a deſire to know them. But if the Cretans acknow-
ledged any one god fupreme above the reſt, it was Jupiter, whoſe
tomb they pretended to have among them, and whom they re-
garded and celebrated as the Father of gods and men, “the Ruler
“ and Lord of all.-"Agqwv rỳ xugios TrávtWv,” as Plutarch in his
tract De Ifid. et Ofir. repreſents their ſenſe (9). As to the Egyp-
tians, from whom other nations are ſaid to have derived their
myſteries, their wiſe men were much divided in their opinions
concerning the Deity. Porphyry tells us, that the Egyptians
called the demiurgus, or maker of the world, kneph, whom they
repreſented in an human form (r). But the fame Porphyry, in
his
(9) Plut. Oper. tom. ii. p. 381. D.
(r) Kneph ſeems, by Plutarch's account, to have been the god that was particu-
larly adored by the people of Thebais. Porphyry repreſents him as in a human
form;
Chap. VIII. Krowledge of true Religion in the World.
231
his epiftle to Anebo, an Egyptian prieſt, ſays, that Chilemon and
other learned Egyptians held the fun to be the-demiurgus, to
whom they attributed the formation of all things, and did not ac-
knowledge any incorporeal author of the univerſe. See Euſeb.
Præp. Evangel. lib. iii. cap. xi. p. 115. compared with lib. iii.
cap. 4. p. 92. and cap. 13. p. 119. Plutarch inforins us from
Hecatæus, that the Egyptians regarded the có tráv, or the univerſe,
to be the Firſt or Supreme God. And Apuleius, in his account
of the facred myſteries of Iſis, calls her“ rerum natura parens ;
which our author ſays, “ thews plainly what were the aróponta,
or fecret doctrines of all the myſteries.” And he elſewhere ob-
ferves, “ that the univerſal nature was diſguiſed under divers names,
and called by the Egyptians the queen Ilis.” Div. Leg. ubi
ſupra, p: 203
and
315.
1
.
2. The ſecond confideration is this, That duppoſing them to
have taught juſt notions of God in the myſteries, it was of no
great uſe, becauſe they taught this part of the ſecret doctrine of
the myſteries to a very few. This appears from ſome of the paf-
fages already produced, to which I ſhall add two more which are
very expreſs to this purpoſe. The one is in Div. Leg. vol. i.
p.
166, marg. note, where it is ſaid, that the knowledge of God
was communicated “ to a few ſelect Gentiles in theſe myſteries,
i
form; but in the fragment of Sanchoniathon, preſerved by Euſebius, it is ſaid as
from the ſacred books of Taautus, that he attributed a divine virtue to the fer-
pent, which the Phænicians called a good dæmon, and the Egpytians called him
kneph, whom they repreſented as a ſerpent with a hawk's head. Eufeb. Præp.
Evang.. lib. i. cap. 10. p.41.
s celes
232 The Myſteries not fitted to ſpread the Knowledge, &c. Part I.
« celebrated in ſecret--which not being done in order to give
« him glory, by promoting his public and general worſhip, was
« done in vain." The other is ibid. p. 196, 197, marg. note,
where what St. Paul ſays of the Gentile ſages is applied to the
myſteries, that " when they knew God, they glorified him not
« as God by preaching him up to the people, but carried away
in
“ the vanity of their imagination, by a miſtaken principle of poli-
« tics, that a vulgar knowledge.of him would be injurious to
“ fociety, Chut up his glory in their myſteries, and gave the
" people in exchange for an incorruptible God, an image made like
« to corruptible man and birds,” &c. It is there alſo obſerved, that
what the apoſtle faith, that they worſhipped and ſerved the creature
more than the Creator, “ was ſtrictly true with regard to the
myſteries. The Creator was there acknowledged by a ſmall
« and ſelect number of the participants ; but the general and
« folemn worſhip in theſe celebrations was to their national
« idols.”
C H A P.
[ 233 ]
3
C Η Α Ρ.
IX.
Some farther confiderations to Shew, that the deſign of the myſteries
was not to dete&t the errors of the Pagan polytheiſm. The legi-
Nators and magiſtrates who inſtituted and conducted the myſteries,
were themſelves the chief promoters of the popular polytheiſm from
political views, and therefore it is improbable that they intended
ſecretly ta fubvert it by the myſteries. Their ſcheme upon ſuch a
fuppoſition abſurd and inconſtant. The myſteries were, in fact,
of no advantage for reclaiming the Heathens from their idola-
tries. The primitive Chriſtians not to be blamed for the bad
opinion they had of the Pagan myſteries.
>
T
Ć \HE obſervations which have been made may perhaps be
judged ſufficient to ſhew, that little ſtreſs can be laid upon
the boaſted expedient ſuppoſed to have been contrived by the civil
magiſtrate for detecting the error of polytheiſm, and inſtructing
men in the knowledge of the one true God. But it may be of
uſe to add ſome farther conſiderations on this ſubject.
And here it is proper to take notice of an argument, which the
celebrated author of the Divine Legation ſeems to regard as a
plain proof, that the myſteries were deſigned to detect and over-
throw the error of the vulgar polytheiſm. He obſerves, That
what the legiſlators and civil magiſtrates had principally in view in
inſtituting and conducting the myſteries, was the promoting the
VOL. I.
Hh
practice
234
The Myſteries not defigned to ſubvert Part I.
practice of virtue among the people for the good of the ſociety.
« But there was one inſuperable obſtacle to it, the vicious ex-
amples of their gods. It was therefore neceſſary to remedy
" this evil, which they did by ſtriking at the root of it. The
myſtagogue taught the initiated, that Jupiter, Mercury, Venus,
" Mars, and the whole rabble of licentious deities, were indeed
only dead mortals, ſubject in life to the ſame paſſions and vices
rc with themſelves.---The fabulous gods being thus routed, the
Supreme Cauſe of all things took their place," &c. See' the
paffage quoted at large above, p. 202.
A
I readily agree with this learned writer, that the ill effect of the
vicious examples of the gods could not be effectually prevented,
but by overturning the vulgar polytheiſin, and diſcarding the po-
pular deities. But the antient Heathens were of a different opi-
nion. Some of them made no ſeruple of declaring their diſappro-
bation of the vicious actions aſcribed to their gods in the poetical
fables : and yet it does not appear that they were for rejecting the
deities themſelves, to whom thoſe actions were aſcribed, or turn-
ing the people from the worſhip of them. As, by our author's ac-
knowledgment, they were only the poetical ſtories about the vicious
actions of the gods that, in their opinion, made polytheiſm hurt-
ful to the ſtate, they thought they might ſtill maintain the eſta-
bliſhed deities in the worſhip which was rendered to them accord-
ing to the laws, and yet prevent the ill influence of thoſe fables
upon the people. To this purpoſe it was pretended, that thoſe
ſtories were not to be underſtood in the grofs literal fenſe; and
that they had a hidden meaning contained under them. Of this
7
we
Chap. IX.
the popular Pagan Idolatry.
235
we have a ſpecimen in the phyſical explication given by Varro of
the ſtory of Proſerpine's having been raviſhed by Pluto, which
was one of the things repreſented in the Eleuſinian myſteries (a).
This was undoubtedly a fundamental defect in their ſcheme. For
whilſt the poetical mythology kept its place in the public religion
and worſhip, and the ſtories and antient traditions concerning the
guds were held ſacred among the people, no phyſical or allegori-
cal interpretations, which were for the moſt part'ſtrained, could
prevent the ill influence which the literal and obvious meaning
would naturally have upon them. And for this reaſon among
others it could ſcarce be expected, that the myſteries ſhould have
a good effect in rectifying the religion or morals of the people.
They were by no means intended to aboliſh the public ſyſtem of
polytheiſm, and whilſt that continued in force with which thoſe
fables were ſo cloſely interwoven, all attempts to defeat the bad
effects of them were ineffectual and vain.
That the myſteries were not deſigned to overthrow the vulgar
polytheiſın, may, I think, be fairly argued from this conſidera-
tion, That the legiſlators and civil magiſtrates who firſt inſtituted
the myſteries, and continued to have the chief direction of them,
" had,” as our learned author obſerves, " the chief hand in the
“ riſe of the vulgár polytheiſm, and contrived that polytheiſm for
« the ſake of the ſtate, to keep the people in awe, and under
“ a greater veneration for their laws (6).” And could it be ex-
(a) Apud Auguſt, De Civ. Dei, lib. vii. cap. 20. p. 136. Edit. Bened.
(6) Div. Leg. ubi ſupra, p. 156.
Hh 2
pected
236
The Myſteries not defigned to ſubvert Part I.
pected from ſuch legiſlators and magiſtrates, that they, who, by
his own acknowledgment, regarded not truth but utility (c);
Thould in good earneſt attempt to draw the people off from that
polytheiſm which they themſelves had encouraged and eſtabliſhed
for the welfare of the ſtate, and to keep the people under a greater
veneration for the laws ? After having ſaid, that “ the fabulous
gods were routed in the myſteries, and that the initiated were
“ taught the doctrine of the unity, the Supreme Cauſe of all
things,” he obſerves, that “theſe were the truths, which, Varro
e tells us, it was inexpedient for the people to know, imagining
as the error of the vulgar pólytheiſm to be fo inveterate, that it
c. was not to be expelled without throwing the ſociety into con-
« vulſions (d').”. And any one that duly confiders the maxims by
which the antient legiſlators and great men of the ſtate governed,
themſelves, will not readily believe that they were capable of
forming a ſcheme, the tendency of which was, in their opinion,
to throw the ſociety into convulſions. If it be urged, that this
was the very reaſon of their «
reaſon of their “ diſcovering the deluſion of poly-
« theiſm in the myſteries only to ſuch of the initiated as were
(c) Speaking of the hidden doctrines of the ſchools of philoſophy, and thoſe of
the myſteries of religion, he ſays, “ They could not be the ſame, becauſe their
" ends were very different : the end of philoſophy being only truth, the end of
s religion only utility.” P. 151. And in a marginal note, ibid. it is ſaid con-
cerning the legiſlator and civil magiftrate, that " whilſt he was too little ſollicit.
« ous about truth, he encouraged a polytheiſm deſtructive of fociety, to regulate
so which, he, ſucceſsfully however, employed the myſteries.” With what ſucceſs
theſe myſteries were employed to regulate the vulgar polytheiſm, fufficiently ap-
pears from the obfervations which I have here made, and hall farther make upon
this ſubject.
(?) Div. Leg, ubi fupra, p. 155, 156.
5 judged
Chap. IX.
237
the popular Pagan Idolatry.
6.6
+
judged capable of the ſecret ;” and that “ this being ſuppoſed
“ the ſhaking foundations was to be done with all poſſible
circumſpection, and under the moſt tremendous ſeal of ſe-
creſy (e);” let us ſee whether this will account for the conduct
of the legiſlators and magiſtrates, and render their ſcheme con-
fiftent. Upon this view of it the expedient muſt ſtand thus: The
legiſlators and magiſtrates, being convinced of the error and evil.
tendency of the vulgar polytheiſm, and yet being perſuaded that
it would be dangerous to the ſtate to let this be generally known,
contrived the myſteries, in which the initiated were to be in-
ſtructed, that the deities commonly adored were no gods but only
dead men, and that there is only one true God, the Creator and
governor of the world ; and at the ſame time were to be laid
under the ſtricteſt obligations to keep this to themſelves, and not
to divulge it. The language of the myſtagogue to the initiated
muft therefore be ſuppoſed to have been to this purpoſe. I am
now going to reveal to you a thing which is of the higheſt im-
portance to you to know, becauſe I look upon you to be perſons fit
to be entruſted with the ſecret : and that is, that thoſe which are
commonly eſteemed gods, and the worſhip of which makes up
the public religion of the ſtate, are not gods, nor ought to be
regarded as ſuch: that they are only dead men : that this rabble of
licentious deities, Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and others of
the like fort, ought to be routed and diſcarded ; and that
you:
(e) He goes on to ſhew, that they were taught, that the gods would puniſh the:
revealers of the ſecret, and not only them but the hearers of it too: beſides which
the ſtate decreed capital puniſhments againſt the betrayers of the myſteries. Div..
Leg. ubi fupra, p. 180.
Thould
238
Part I.
The Myſteries not deſigned to ſubvert
ſhould acknowledge and adore the one only God, the Creator
and Governor of the univerſe. But then you are bound by the
moſt facred oaths and engagements to keep what I now tell you
an inviolable ſecret. To reveal it would expofe you to the divine
vengeance, and to the capital puniſhments denounced by the laws
againſt the betrayers of the myſteries ; and it would be of the
moſt pernicious conſequence to ſpread this doctrine among the
people. You muſt ſtill go on to worſhip the popular gods as be-
fore, and muſt never attempt the leaſt alteration in the eſtabliſhed
religion and worſhip.
This appears to me to be a ſtrange inconſiſtent ſcheme. And
it is hard to conceive what the legiflator could propoſe by ſo odd
and unaccountable a management. It was not the virtue of a few
individuals but of the ſociety in general that he muſt be ſup-
poſed to have in view: and how could this end be anſwered by
committing the ſecret, which is ſuppoſed to be of ſuch importance
to 'the morals of the people, only to a few of the initiated, who
were at the ſame time brought under the moſt folemn engage-
ments not to diſcover it? And even as to thoſe few to whom
the ſecret was communicated, to what purpoſe would it be to in-
ſtruct them in doctrines they were not to make uſe of? Or, what
opinion could they have of the honeſty of thoſe that ſhould in-
ſtruct them to deſpiſe thoſe popular deities, whom yet they would
have them publicly adore ? And who ſhould diſcover to them the
deluſion of the vulgar polytheiſm, and the fallhood of the religion
of their country, and
yet urge it upon them as a duty to conform
to it? If the myſteries were founded upon ſuch a plan, it is not
to
Chap. IX:
239
the popular Pagan Idolatry.
to be wondered át, that they had little effect on the minds and
manners of men.
But I cannot bring myſelf to believe, that the legiſlators ever
intended, that there ſhould be any thing in the myſteries which
fhould expoſe the eſtabliſhed religion and worſhip to comtempt.
If Virgil has, according to our author's moſt ingenious conjecture,
made a genuine repreſentation of the myſteries in the 6th book of
his Æneid, “non temnere divos—not to contemn the gods," was
a leffon carefully inculcated there (f). Inſtead of being intended
to prejudice perſons againſt the religion of their country, it is rea-
fonable to believe that they were rather deſigned to ſtrengthen
their attachment to it; and by thews and ſtriking repreſentations,
fitted to work upon the imaginations of the people, to impreſs
them with a greater awe and veneration for their deities. Accord-
ingly it is obſervable, that thoſe who were moſt zealous for the
myſteries, were wont alſo to manifeſt the greateſt zeal for the
Pagan religion ; and they who were enemies to the Pagan poly-
theiſm, as the primitive Chriſtians univerſally were, had a very
bad opinion of the myſteries.
That they were not intended to ſubvert by their fecret doctrines
the vulgar polytheiſm, may be farther argued from this conſidera-
tion, that theſe myſteries were, according to this learned writer,
under the prefidency of various gods, and were celebrated in
- their names, and to their honour.” He names Ifis and Ofiris,
(f) It was one of the laws of Charondas; as Stobæus informs us, " Let the
" contempt of the gods be reckoned among the greateſt crimes.” Stob. ferm. 42.
Mythras,
240
**Part I.
The Myſteries not deſigned to fubvert
.
Mythras, the mother of the gods, Bacchus, Venus, Jupiter, Ceres,
and Proſerpina, Caſtor and Pollux, Vulcan, and many others ($).
And he obſerves, that « each of the Pagan gods had (beſides the
public and open) a ſecret worſhip paid unto him: to which
none were admitted but thofe who had been ſelected by pre-
paratory ceremonies, called initiations. This ſecret worſhip
“ was termed the myſteries. But though every god had, beſides
“ liis open worſhip the ſecret likewiſe, yet this latter did not every
- where attend the former, but only there where he was the
“ patron god, or in principal eſteem (h).” I think it hence fól-
lows, that there was only this difference between the public wor-
ſhip of thoſe gods, and that rendered to them in the myſteries,
that the latter was attended with ſome peculiar circumſtances, and
performed in a more ſolemn manner, not by all promiſcuoully,
but by thoſe who by a particular initiation were prepared for it.
The myſteries therefore were not deſigned to diſcard the worſhip
of thoſe deities, but to add a greater ſolemnity to it. And parti-
cularly they were intended for the honour of the patron deity,
and were celebrated in places where he “ was had in principal
« eſteem.” But how could it be ſaid, that in the myſteries the
ſecret worſhip of thoſe deities was celebrated, if the deſign of the
ſecret doctrine of thoſe myſteries was to ſhew that they were no
gods, and that no worſhip was due to them at all? And indeed
· if the people had the leaſt ſuſpicion that this was the deſign of
the ſecret do&rine taught in the myſteries, far from regarding
them with ſo profound a veneration, they would have had them
(g) Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 138.
(6) Ibid. p. 137
2.
in
Chap. IX.
241
the popular Pagan Idolatry.
t
in abhorrence (i). The Athenians, who expelled Anaxagoras
and put Socrates to death, for thewing, as they ſuppoſed, a dif-
reſpect to the religion and gods of their country, would never
have endured myfteries, in which the initiated were taught the
error of polytheiſm, and whoſe ánópinta overthrew the worſhip
of the gods commonly adored, and even of thoſe to whoſe honour
the myſteries were celebrated. It was for ſeeming in a drunken
frolick to make a mock of the holy myſteries, and for offending
the goddeſſes Ceres and Proſerpina, to whom they were conſe-
crated, that Alcibiades had the judgment of death paſſed upon
him, and which would certainly have been inflicted, if he had
not ſaved himſelf by flight. The rage the people of Athens were
put into by this, and by the breaking the images of Mercury,
which happened at the ſame time, and the numbers that were
put to death on the account of it, ſhew how very zealous they
were for the honour of their gods, and that they thought it an
execrable impiety and prophaneneſs to do any thing which tended
to caſt contempt on the popular deities, on their images and ſacred
rites. A particular account of this may be ſeen in Plutarch's life
of Alcibiades.
(1) Every citizen of Athens was boand by oath to defend and conform to the re-
ligion of his country. This oath was in the name of the gods, and concluded thus.
I ſwear by theſe following deities, the Agrauli, Enyalius, Mars, Jupiter, the earth,
and Diana. See Potter's Greek Antiquities; vol. i. p. 141, 142. And to have
taught them, though in the moſt fecret way, that the gods they had ſworn by
were po gods, would have been looked upon as an attempt to ſubvert the common-
wealth at the foundations, and to diſſolve the ſanction and obligatory force of
thoſe oaths, which were thought to be the most powerful bands of the public
ſafety and ſecurity.
VOLI,
I i
· To
4
44.2
The Myſteries not deſigned to ſubvert Idolatry.
Part T.
To all this
may
','
?
be added an argument from fact and' experience,
which ſeems to me to be of great force, and that is, that though
the myſteries were generally. celebrated in almoſt all the Heathen
națżons, and eſpecially throughout the whole Roman empire, no
effect of them appears in turning any of the people from their
polytheiſm and idolatry
. He talks inqeed, " in a paſſage cited
above, of the fegiffator's having “ ſucceſsfully employed” the
myſteries for regulating the vulgar polytheiſm. “But how is this
proved? Can any inſtances bę produced of perſons that were con-
verted from the public idolatry and polytheiſm by the myſteries ?
Notwithſtanding this boaſted expedient it ſtill kept its ground,
and made a continual progreſs among the Gentiles. The argu-
ment will receive an additional ſtrength and force, if applied to
the cále of the Athenians. Achens was the principal feat of thie
Fleufinian, which were eſteemed the moſt facred and venerable
of all the myſtéries. There they were thougħt to be beſt under-
ſtood, and to be celebrated in their greateſt purity, and in the
molt religious and folemn manner." All the Athénians in gerierål
.
were initiated.' It might therefore have been expected, that if
the deſign of the myſteries had been ſuch as is repréſented, it
would have inſpired ſome of them with a ſecret. contempt of their
deities, and of the common, polytheiſm:: and that this, in time
and by degrees, would have wrought a remarkable change among
them. But the contrary is manifeſt from their whole hiſtory.
They ſeem rather to have been more and more devoted to their
idolatries and ſuperſtitions. Nor had, their polytheiſm ever been:
at a greater height than, at the time of our Saviour's appearing.
beton
بن رہے
!
Tlie:
1
Chap. IX.
.
The Chriſtians ii
Opinion of Pagan Myſteries
243
('
f'iler! ,500 2010
ot;
The laſt thing. I thall obſerve concerning the myſteries, and
which I confeſs has no lmal weight with me, "is, 'that if the de
ſign of them had been ſuch as the right reverend and learned au!
thor of the Divine Legation of Moſes repreſents it, it'is uñicöt-
ceivable that the antient' Chriltian writers ſhould have ſo univer-
fally exclaimed againt them, as he owns they did. It maġ be
reaſonably ſuppoſed, that conſidering the great number of perſons
which were converted from Heatheniſm to Chriſtianity in the firſt
ages of the Chriſtian church, many of whộin were of
of whoin were of conſiderable
parts and learning, there were not a few who had been admitted
both to the lefſer and greater myſteries, and were therefore well
acquainted with the nature and deſign of them. And though,
whilſt they continued Pagans, they might have thought tħem-
ſelves obliged not to reveal the ſecret doctrines which had been
taught in the myſteries, yet upon their embracing, Chriſtianity
they would not have looked upon themſelves to be any longer
under engagements to keep the ſecret. If they knew that in the
myſteries men were brought under the moſt folemn obligations to
a holy and virtuous:life, and not only fo, but that the ſecret doc-
trine taught in the moſt ſacred part of the myſteries was deſigned
to detect the error of polytheiſm, to rout the fabulous deities, and
to turn men from idols to the one true Supreme God, they muſt
have had a good opinion of them, as ſo far at leaſt coinciding
with the deſign of Chriſtianity. Why then did they not infiſt
this in their apologies for the Chriſtian religion, and in their
diſputes with the Heathens argue from their own myſteries againſt
the popular idolatry ? On the contrary, in diſcourſes addreſſed to
the Heathens themſelves, they frequently ſpeak of the myſteries
upon
Ii 2
in
244
The primitive Cbriftians bad & bad Part-1..
in terms of the utmod abhorrence, as impure and, abominable (k),
and as rather tending to confirm the people in their idolatry,
than to draw them off from it. The making ſuch odious repre-
ſentations of the myſteries, fuppofing they knew the deſign of
them to be what this learned writer repreſents it fand if it hadi
been fo ſome of them muſt have known it). would have been:
abſolutely inconſiſtent with common honeſty and ingenuity : non
can I believe that ſuch good and excellent perſons, as many of the
primitive Chriſtians undoubtedly were, could have been capable:
of luch a conduct.
8
+
1
It were eaſy. to produce many teftimonies from thene in relation:
to the myſteries: but it may be ſufficient to mention whát Cle-
mens Alexandrinus ſays upon this ſubject, who was a man of
learning and probity. In his exhortation to the Gentiles he inſiſts:
pretty largely upon the myſteries, and introduces it by declaring;
(k) Severe reflections have been made by ſeveral authors on the antient fathers,
for what they have ſaid againſt the myſteries. And yet that theſe were in many
inſtances extremely corrupted, fufficiently appears from many expreſs teſtimonies of
the Pagan writers themſelves, notwithſtanding the ſtrong bias they had in their
favour. Apuleius, in that work of his which was deſigned to recommend the
Pagan religion and myſteries, repreſents the myfteries of Cybele and the Syrian
goddeſs in an abominable light ; and though he highly extols thoſe of Iſis, other
Pagan writers give a bad account of them. Juvenal makes no ſcruple to call them;
" Ifiacæ facraria lena." Satyr. vi. verf. 488.
65
Our learned author himſelf mentions “ the horrid abuſes and corruptions of the
myſteries,” and owns that they “ degenerated into an odious link of vice and.
" immorality." Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 190 and p. 196. marg. nate. This was
the ſtate they were generally in when the fathers ſpoke of them. And it is not
much to be wondered at, if this created a ſtrong prejudice in their minds againſt
the original deſign of the myſteries, and the perfons who firſt inſtituted thein.
that
Chap. IX.
245
Opinion of the Pagan Myſteries.
1
that he will give a true account of them, and will not be aſhamed
to ſpeak plainly of thoſe things which they are not aſhamed to
worthip. He ſpeaks all along like one that was well acquainted
with thoſe myſteries, who knew what the ſymbols of them were,
and the things which were there repreſented and exhibited. And it
appears from the accounts he gives, that the repreſentations made
in the myfteries were agreeable to the fables of the poets and my-
thologiſts, concerning Jupiter, Ceres, Proförpina, Bacchus, and
other deities: that in the Eleuſinian facra, they celebrated the
rape of Proſerpina,, the lamentations of Ceres, her wanderings in
gueſt of her daughter, her congreſs with Jupiter, and fupplica-
tions to him, with ſeveral other things which were both ridiculous
and obſcene. He calls thoſe who brought thoſe myſteries from
Egypt into Greece “ the fathers of an execrable ſuperſtition ;
« who fovted the feed of wickedneſs and corruption, omégpea
«*. Xaricias sy padogãs, in human life: and ſays, the myſteries were
« full of deluſion and portentous repreſentations, calculated to im-
pole upon the people, απάτης και τερατείας εμπλεα (!).” He
concludes his account of them with ſaying, " theſe are the myſte-
* ries of atheiſtical men. I may rightly call thoſe atheiſts, who
th. are deftitute of the knowledge of him who is truly God, and
te moſt impudently worſhip a. boy difcerped, or torn in pieces by
" the Titans, a woman lamenting, and the parts which modefty
« forbids to name.” And he repeats it again, that they are
ignorant of God, ázvoão Tóv Seay, and do not acknowledge that
God who really is or exiſts (m).
(0) Clem. Alex Cohort, ad Gentes, p. 1.3, 14. Edit..Potter.
(m) Ibid. p. 1.9, 20.
Iliis
246
The primitive Chriſtians had a bad :- Partt.
This whole account of the Heathen myſteries given by Clemens
is tranfcribed: and approved by'Eufebius, who was himſelf a very
able judge. :: And he introduces; it by obſerving, that Clemens
knew thefe myſteries by his own experience (n). The account
which Arnobius, who had been a learned Pagan, gives of the
myſteries, particularly of the Eleuſinian myſteries, celebrated at
Athens, is perfectly agreeable to that of Clemens ().
Our learned and able advocate for the myfteries, to obviate the
prejudice which might ariſe againſt them from the teſtimony of the
antient Chriſtian writers, endeavours to account for the ill:opi-
nion they had of them, by obſerving, that “ they bore a ſecret
grudge to the myſteries for their injurious treatment of Chriſti-
anity at its firſt appearance in the world. The Chriſtians, for
• their contempt of the national deities, were deemed atheiſts, by
" the people;. and were ſo branded by the myſtagogues, and ex-
poſed among the reſt in Tartarus in their ſolemn ſhews and re-
preſentations. This without doubt was what ſharpened the
sc fathers againſt the myſteries, and they were not always tender
« in loading what they did not approve (p).” This is by no
means a proper apology for the antient Chriſtians, if the charge
they brought againſt the myſteries was falſe and calumnious. But
the truth is, the very reaſon our learned author gives of the ſharp-
neſs which the antient Chriſtian writers expreſſed againſt the
myſteries, is a proof that the deſign of them was not really
(n) Præp. Evangel. lib. ii. cap. 3. p. 61, et ſeq.
() Adverſ. Gentes, lib. v. p. 173, et ſeq. Lugd. Bat. 1651.
(0) Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 199. Edit. 4th.
ſuch
Chap. IX.
Opinion of the Pagan Myſteries.
247
fuch as he repreſents it to have been. For it appears from it,
that the myſtagogues and managers of the myſteries did what
they could to uphold the common polytheiſm and idolatry: and
this was the true cauſe of their enmity to Chriſtianity. They
'repreſented the Chriſtians as atheiſts, becauſe they declared againſt
the worſhip of the publicly adored deities. Whereas if the de-
fign of the ſecret doctrine of the greater myſteries had been to
detect the error of the vulgar polytheiſm, and to teach the ini-
tiated that the popular deities were really no.gods, the charge
might have been retorted upon themſelves.
3
The laſt thing this celebrated writer has urged, to take off the
force of the teſtimonies of the antient fathers of the church againſt
the myſteries, and which he calls the ſtrange part of the ſtory, is,
that after all they had faid againſt them “they ſhould ſo ſtudi-
« ouſly and formally transfer the terms, phraſes, rites, ceremonies,
« and diſcipline of theſe odious myſteries into our holy religion.”
To which purpoſe he has a long quotation from Caſaubon's 16th
exercitation againſt the annals of Baronius (9). And he adds,
« Sure then it was ſome more than ordinary veneration the people
« had for theſë myſteries that could incline the fathers of the
church to ſo fatal a counſel.” It will be allowed that the
myſteries were had in great veneration among the Pagans; and
that the fathers knew them to be fo. And for that reaſon, if
they had any notion that the deſign of the myſteries was what he
repreſents it to have been, they would undoubtedly have taken
advantage of that veneration for drawing the people off from the
(9) Div. Leg. ubi.fupra, p. 200.
Wora.
2.48
The primitive Chriſtians had a bad Part 1
worſhip of the popular divinities, to the adoration of the one true)
God, the Creator and Governor of the univerſe. The veneration
the people had for the myſteries affords not the leaſt preſumption,
that the deſign of them was to detect and overthrow the popular
polytheiſm, but rather the contrary. The Chriſtians certainly did
not conſider thein in this light: and yet becauſe of the venera-
tion which was ſo generally paid them, they often applied to their
own uſe the terms made uſe of in thoſe myſteries, the better to
gain upon the Heathens, and to ſhew that Chriſtianity effected
that in reality which the Pagan myfteries vainly pretended to.
I ſhall produce a remarkable paſſage of this kind from Clement
of Alexandria, in the latter end of that very diſcourſe in which
he ſhews he had the worſt opinion imaginable of the myſteries (r).
He there ſpeaks of the Chriftian religion in alluſion to the myſte-
ries of Bacchus, and invites the Heathens to quit the one in order
to embrace the other. He all along employs the terms which
were made uſe of in thoſe rites and myſteries. He talks of cele-
brating " the venerable orgia of the word.” To the hymns
which were ſung at the myſteries, he oppoſes a hymn ſung to
the great King of the univerſe. He ſpeaks of a Chriſtian's being
initiated, and cries out, “ O truly holy myſteries! being initiated
« I am made holy-Ω των αγίων ως αληθώς μυςηρίων! άγιος γί-
vouco použuevos." He ſays, “ 'legopartes de ó zúgíos. - The Lord
« himſelf acts the part of an hierophant,” or interpreter of the
myſteries. And he concludes, “ Theſe are the Bacchanalia of
my myſteries : come then, and be initiated.”
(r) Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad Gentes, p. 92. Edit. Potter.
3
Can
Chap. IX.
Opinion of the Pagan Myſteries,
249
2
Can any man think that Clement makes this alluſion to the
myſteries, becauſe he looked upon them to be really holy and uſe-
ful things ? The contrary plainly appears from this very paſſage, as
well as from what he had ſaid before in the ſame diſcourſe. But
as they were accounted holy, and were had in great veneration
among the Pagans, and as the latter Platoniſts and Pythagoreans
repreſented them as the moſt perfect means of purifying the ſoul,
he takes occaſion to Thew that that venerable ſanctity and purity
was really to be found in the Chriſtian religion, and its ſacred
doctrines and rites, which they falfly attributed to their myſteries.
Yet I agree with this learned writer in the judicious remark he
makes, that the affecting to transfer the terms, phraſes, and cere-
monies of the myſteries into our holy religion had a bad effect.
The ſymbolizing in this and ſeveral other inſtances with the
Pagans in their cuſtoms and ways of expreſſion, from a deſire,
no doubt, of ſoftening their prejudices againſt Chriſtianity, con-
tributed very early to vitiate and deprave that religion which, as
he obſerves, a Pagan writer could not but ſee and acknowledge
was “ abſoluta et fimplex," as it came out of the hands of
its author(s).
It may perhaps be thought that I have inſiſted too largely upon
the nature and deſign of the Pagan myeſtries. But it ſeemed to
me to be neceſſary for ſetting the ſubject I am upon, eſpecially
with regard to the civil theology of the Pagans, in a proper light.
The learned Mr. Des Voeux ſeveral years ago in his life of Julian,
1
(s) Ammian. Marcell. Hiſt, lib. xxi. cap. 16. Div. Leg. ubi fupra, p. 200.
Vol. I.
K k
vol.
250
The primitive Chriſtians had a bad Opinion, &c. Part 1:
vol. ii. p. 287, et ſeq. offered ſome judicious obſervations to
ſhew that the myſteries were not intended to overturn the Pagan
polytheiſm. But his deſign did not lead him to conſider this
matter ſo fully as I have done. I ſhall only add, that in the re-
marks that are here made I have had a ſpecial regard to the fourth
and laſt edition of the Divine Legation, in which there are ſeveral
corrections and improvements made by the right reverend and
learned author, which do not appear in the former editions of
that celebrated work.
CHAP
Chap: X.
251
Concerning the philoſophical Theology.
C HA P. X..
The philoſophical theology of the antient Pagans conſidered. Higi
encomiums beſtowed upon the Pagan philoſophy. Yet it was of little
uſe for leading the people into a right knowledge of God and reli-
giön, and
for reclaiming them from their idolatry and polytheiſmi
This shewn from ſeveral conſiderations. And firſt, if the philofo-
phers had been right in their own notions of religion, they could
have but ſmall influence on the people, for want of a proper aus
thority to enforce their inſtru&tions..
H
AVING conſidered the poetical and fabulous theology of
the Pagans which was taught by the mythologiſts, as alſo
the civil theology which was countenanced and eſtabliſhed by the
public authority, and ſhewn the deplorable ſtate of religion in the
Gentile world with reſpect to both theſe, I ſhall now proceed to
what Varro calls the phyſical or natural, and which, he ſays,
was that of the philoſophers. It is the more neceſſary to conſider
this, becauſe thoſe gentlemen who had denied the neceſſity or
even the expediency of divine revelation, have ſpoken with the
higheſt admiration of the antient Heathen philoſophers. That
they held out a ſufficient light to mankind to guide them into the
right knowledge of religious truth and duty, if they would but
have attended to their inſtructions : that in them we have an evi--
dent proof of what human reaſon can do, when duly exerciſed i
and
Kk 2
1
252
Concerning the philoſophical Theology
Part I.
and improved : and that the world needed no better direction
than what thoſe excellent perſons gave, as appears from their
admirable writings, many of which are come down to us, and
are fitted to convey the nobleſt notions of religion and the Divi-
nity. And it muſt be acknowledged, that if we are to take the
account which the philoſophers themſelves give of the excellency
of their philoſophy, the greateſt matters might be expected from
it for the inſtruction of mankind. The Stoics and others defined
philoſophy to be “ rerum divinarum humanarumque ſcientia
“ the knowledge of things divine and human.” Plato calls it the
gift, Cicero not only ſo, but the invention of the gods (t). This
laſt-mentioned excellent author, ſpeaking of philoſophy in his firſt
book of laws, faith, that “nothing more excellent, more beauti-
« ful, more uſeful, and profitable, was ever given by the immortal
« gods for the benefit of human life.--Nihil a diis immortalibus
“ uberius, nihil fiorentius, nihil præſtabilius hominum vitæ da-
“ tum eſt (u).” Plato in his Timæus carries it farther : for he
ſays not only that " no greater good ever was given, but ever will
“ be given by the favour and bounty of the gods to the human
«s race.” Cicero tranſlates that paſſage of Plato thus : « Quo
« bono nullum optabilius, nullum præſtantius, neque datum eſt
- immortalium deorum conceffu atque munere, neque da-
- bitur (x).”
(t) Tuſcul. Diſput. lib. i. cap. 26. p. 63. Edit. Davis, 410,
(1) De Leg. lib. i. cap. 22. p. 68. Edit. Davis, 2d,
(35) Fragm. de Univerſo. cap. 14.
And
Chap. X.
of the ancient Pagans.
253
And as they were ſenſible of the importance and neceſſity of
knowing and worſhipping the Deity, ſo they repreſented the in-
ſtructing men in this to be one principal buſineſs of philoſophy.
“ It hath inſtructed us,” faith Cicero, “in the firſt place in what
" relates to the worſhip of the gods, and next in juſtice towards
men, which conſiſteth in the offices of human ſociety, and
“ hath alſo formed us to modeſty and true greatneſs of mind.”
He adds, that "it hath diſpelled darkneſs from our minds, that
" we might be enabled to behold all things, things above and
things below, the firſt, middle, and laſt things. Hæc nos pri-
“mùm ad illorum [deorum] cultum, deinde ad jus hominum,
quod fitum eſt in generis humani focietate, tum ad modeſtiam,
magnitudinemque animi erudivit: eademque ab animo tan-
" quàm ab oculis caliginem diſpulit, ut omnia fupera, infera,
prima, ultima, media videremus (y).” It is ſcarce poflible to
carry the encomium higher. If this be ſo, philoſophy muſt cer-
tainly be ſufficient to inſtruct us in every thing that it is proper for
us to know. We need no other nor better guide. To the ſame
purpoſe Seneca faith, that “ it is the proper work of philoſophy to
« find out the truth both in divine and human things.--Hujus opus
“ unum eſt in divinis humaniſque verum invenire (z).” Epictetus
repreſents it as eſſential to true piety to form right opinions con-
cerning the gods, and intimates that this is what philoſophy teacheth
us (a). Plutarch in his tract De liberis cducand. after having
CC
w
CC
(y) Tufcul. Diſput. ubi fupra, p. 64.
(z) Sen. Epiſt. 90.
(a) Epictet. Enchir. cap. 32. Edit. Upton, compared with Dillert. lib. ii. cap.
14. fect. 2.
obſerved,
254
Part I.
The People had little Regard to the Philoſophers.
obſerved, that there is one only art capable of curing the diſeaſes
of the mind, and that this is philoſophy, particularly mentions it
as one of its principal advantages, that by the affiſtance of philo-
ſophy we know how to demean ourſelves towards the gods, our
parents, &c. that is, as he explains it, to worſhip the gods, to
honour our parents, &c.
Let us therefore particularly enquire, whether and how far the
philoſophers, with all the aids of human learning and ſtrength of
genius, were of uſe to inftruét mankind in the right knowledge
of God and religion..
And I think, allowing all that can be reaſonably ſaid in their
favour, it muſt be acknowledged; that in fact they were of little
ſervice for recovering the nations from the groſs ſuperſtitions and
idolatries into which they were fallen, to the true knowledge and
worſhip of the Deity. And ſeveral conſiderations may be offered
to ſhew that this was a work which, as things were circum-
ftanced, they were not fitted to accompliſh
And firſt, it is to be obſerved, that if we ſhould ſuppoſe the
philoſophers to have been never ſo right in their own notions,
they had little influence on the people, for want of a proper au-
thority to enforce their inſtructions. The people for the moſt part
thought themſelves very little concerned in what the philoſophers
taught in their ſchools. They looked upon their philoſophical
diſquiſitions and diſputations to be the exerciſes of wit and genius,
done rather for an oftentation of their parts and learning, than for
any
Chap. X. The People kad little Regard to the Philoſophers,
255
2
any emolument to the public. But eſpecially they paid little at-
tention to them in religious matters relating to the gods and their
worſhip. The philoſophers were not the authorized miniſters of
religion. The people were governed by the religion of the ſtate,
which was adminiſtered by the prieſts, to which the philoſophers
themſelves conformed, and urged the people to conform. It has
been already obſerved from Varro, that as to what related to the
gods, the people were more inclined to follow the poets than the
philoſophers. Nor were the great men of the ſtate, many
of
whom were alſo prieſts, willing that the people ſhould be under
the direction of the philoſophers in matters of religion. That
eminent ſtateſman and pontiff Scævola before-mentioned, ſpeak-
ing of the philofophic theology, or doctrine of the gods, ſaith,
" that it was not proper for cities, becauſe it had ſome things in
« it needleſs and ſuperfluous, and ſome things which it may be
« hurtful to the people to know.-Secundum genus quod eſt
“ traditum a philoſophis] non congruit civitatibus, quod habent
aliqua ſupervacua, aliqua etiam quæ obſît populo noſſe (6).”
And Varro, ſpeaking of what the philoſophers diſputed concern-
ing the gods, was for confining their diſputes and ſpeculations con-
cerning the gods within the walls of the ſchools, and not pro-
ducing them to the public, as being what the people could not
bear. « Quæ faciliùs inter parietes in ſchola, quàm extra in foro
« ferre poflunt aures.” And indeed the diſputes among
ſophers relating to the gods, which he there mentions, were of
ſuch a kind, that the publiſhing them among the people would
the philo-
(b) Apud Auguſt. Dc Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 7. p. 84.
rather
1
256
The People had little Regard to the Philoſophers, Part 1.
.
$
rather have confounded than inſtructed them (c). Beſides there
was ſuch a diſagreement among them in their opinions, that if
the people had been for governing themſelves abſolutely by their
authority, they would have been at a loſs whom to follow: of
which we need no better proof than the account Cicero gives of
thein in his celebrated books De naturâ Deorum. They left
them therefore for the moſt part to diſpute about theſe things in
their ſchools, without troubling themſelves much about their opi-
nions or arguments. And as for the politicians and civil magif-
trates, Cotta, no doubt, ſpoke their fenſe, when he declared, that
« in matters of religion he choſe to follow Ti. Coruncanius,
« P. Scipio, P. Scævola, who were chief pontiffs, not Zeno, or
« Cleanthes, or Chryſippus: and that he ſet a higher value upon
“ what C. Lælius, the augur, ſaid in his noble oration on reli-
gion, than upon the doctrines of any of the principal Stoics.-
“ Cum de religione agitur Ti. Coruncanium, P. Scipionem, et
« P. Scævolam, pontifices maximos, non Zenonem, aut Clean-
" them, aut Chryfippum fequor : habeoque C. Lælium augurem,
eundemque ſapientem, quem potiùs audiam, dicentem de re-
ligione in illâ oratione nobili, quàm quenquam principem.
Stoicorum (d).”
(c) Apud Auguſtin. De Civit. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 5. p. 117. The diſputes he
there refers to are thus expreſſed by him : “ Dii qui ſint, ubi, quod genus, quale,
quonam tempore, an ab æterno. fuerint, an ex igne fint, ut Heraclitus, an ex
numeris, ut Pythagoras, an ex atomis, ut Epicurus."
(d) Concerning this oration of Lælius, and the occaſion of it, which was wholly
deſigned for defending the public antient religion of the Romans, fee Davis's note
on this paffage De Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 2. p. 261.
2
And
.
Chap. X.
nor the Philoſophers to the People.
257
And as the people gave little attention to the opinions of the
philoſophers, ſo the philoſophers deſpiſed the people, as incapable
of receiving and profiting by their inſtructions. Plato obſerves,
that “ thoſe who philoſophize are neceſſarily blamed or reproach-
“ ed by the multitude, as alſo by thoſe who deſire to pleaſe
« them.-Της φιλοσοφώντας αναγκη ψέγεθαι υπ' αυτών (e).” And
again, that “the generality of men were unfavourably affected
« towards philofophy.-Χαλεπώς προς φιλοσοφίαν τός πόλλες δια-
“ xeletal (f).” There is a remarkable paſſage of Cicero to the
ſame purpoſe, in which he ſays, " that philoſophy is content
“ with a few judges : that it deſignedly ſhuns the multitude, and
“ is by them ſuſpected and diſliked: ſo that if any man ſhould
" ſet himſelf to vilify all philoſophy, he might do it with the ap-
probation and applauſe of the people. Eft philoſophia paucis
" contenta judicibus, multitudinem conſultò fugiens, eique ipfi
ſuſpecta et inviſa : ut vel fiquis univerſam velit vituperare, ſe-
- cundo id populo facere poffit (8)."
(C
It
appears then that the people had little to do with the philo-
ſophers, or the philoſophers with the people. Whilſt they could.
not pretend to any divine authority to enforce their dictates, their
moſt plauſible ſpeculations had little weight. Whereas if they
had come in the name and by the authority of God himſelf, and
had been able to produce proper credentials of their Divine miſ-
(2) Plato Repub. lib. vi. oper. p. 473. B. Ficin. Lugd. 1590.
(f) Ibid. p. 475. F.
(8) Tuſcul. Difput. lib. I. cap. i. p. 126. Edit. Davis, 4to. et ibid. lib. v.
cap. ii. p. 344.
VOL. I.
L 1
fion,
258
Part I.
The Philoſophers had ſmall Influence,
fion, this would have engaged and commanded the attention of
the people in a quite different manner, than their philofophical
reaſonings, to which other arguments and reaſonings were oppoſed
by philoſophers of great name. What Lactantius faith of the
precepts of the philoſophers may be equally applied to their doc-
trines. After having obſerved that the philoſophers have many
things like to what we are taught in Scripture, and frequently
come near the truth, he adds, that “ theſe their precepts have no
weight, becauſe they are human, and need a greater authority,
even a divine one. No man therefore believes them, becauſe
“ he that hears them looks upon him that gives thoſe precepts to
“ be a man as well as himſelf--Nihil ponderis habent ifta præ-
cepta quia ſunt humana, et auctoritate majori, id eſt, divinâ
« illa carent. Nemo igitur credit, quia tam ſe hominem putat
« eſſe qui audit, quàm eſt ille qui præcipit (b).” The philoſo-
phers themſelves were ſenſible of this : and therefore as they re-
preſent their philoſophy to be the gift and invention of the gods,
ſo ſometimes they expreſs themſelves as if they had a mind to be
looked upon as inſpired perſons. Plato ſpeaking of thoſe whoſe
minds are poſſeffed with an unfeigned love of philoſophy, repre-
ſents this as proceeding from a kind of divine inſpiration.
τίνος Φειας επιπνοίας (i).” And he declares concerning his own
diſcourſes, that they ſeemed to him to be delivered - not with-
“ out a kind of inſpiration from the gods.-- -x áveu tivos &TIT VOICS
" JEUV (k). He frequently declares, that all wiſdom comes from
(6 'Exc
1
(1) Lact. Divin. Inſtit. lib. iii. cap. 27. p. 330. Edit. var. Lugd. Bat..
(3) Plato Repub. lib. vi. oper. p. 475. E. Edit. Lugd.
(1) Ibid. p. 636. G.
God,
Chap. X. for want of a proper Authority.
259
God, and has many paſſages which tend to Thew the neceſſity of
a divine inſtruction. Celſus is for ſending men to the poets, wiſe
men, and philoſophers, as inſpired by a divine afflatus: and par-
ticularly he mentions Orpheus as a man confeſſedly or without
doubt óvanogenévws, inſpired by a holy ſpirit (1); though, as
Origen obſerves, Orpheus wrote more impious fables concerning
the gods than Homer himſelf. The latter Platoniſts and Pytha-
goreans, after Chriſtianity appeared, pretended to frequent im-
pulſes, revelations, inſpirations, and divine communications, which
proceeded from a conviction that philoſophy, as it fignifies true
wiſdom, or the knowledge of divine things, ought to proceed
from God, in order to its having a proper authority on the minds
of men : but as they were not able to produce folid proofs of
their divine miſſion, their philoſophy and pretences fell together :
whilſt the Chriſtian religion, which in reality had its original from
heaven, though deſtitute of all worldly advantages, yet being at-
tended with the moſt convincing evidences of a divine authority,
effected that which philoſophy could never have accompliſhed, in
ſubverting that ſyſtem of Pagan polytheiſm and idolatry, which
had the preſcription of many ages to plead, and which ſeemed fo
firmly eſtabliſhed, that no merely human wiſdom or power was
able to overturn it.
(l) Origen, cont. Celf. lib. vii. p. 359, et ibid, p. 367.
LI 2
С НА Р.
1
260
The Philoſophers affected Obſcurity, and endeavoured Part I.
С Н А Р.
XI.
The affected obſcurity of the Pagan philoſophers another cauſe which
rendered them unfit to inſtruct the people in religion. Inſtead of
clearly explaining their ſentiments on the moſt important ſubjects,
they carefully concealed them from the vulgar. To which it may
be added, that ſome of them uſed their utmoſt efforts to deſtroy all
certainty and evidence, and to unſettle men's minds as to the belief
of the fundamental principles of all religion : and even the beſt
and greateſt of them acknowledged the darkneſs and uncertainty they
were under, eſpecially in divine matters.
Acerning the able hilosophers open forbe or she more
NOTHER obſervation which is proper to be made con-
cerning the antient philoſophers is, that ſome of the moſt
eminent amongſt them, in diſcourſing of the principles of their
philoſophy, eſpecially when they treated of religion and divine
things, involved their ſentiments in great obſcurity, and were ſo
far from intending them for general uſe, that they carefully con-
cealed them from the people.
The Egyptians, whoſe wiſdom was ſo much admired and cele-
brated among
the antients, were particularly remarkable for this.
They had, beſides their popular theology, another which they kept
ſecret, and only communicated to a few ſelect perſons, whom they
thought fit to be intruſted with it. Clement of Alexandria, who
him-
Chap. XI.
to conceal their Sentiments from the People. 261
(6
6C
himſelf lived in Egypt, obſerves, that ". the Egyptians did not
expoſe their religous myſteries, promiſcuouſly to all; nor did
they communicate the knowledge of divine things to the
people, but to thoſe only who were to ſucceed to the king-
« dom, and to thoſe of the prieſts whom they judged beſt quali-
“ fied for it by their birth and extraction, by their education
« and their learning (m).” Plutarch ſays the ſame thing in his
treatiſe De Ifid. et Ofir. (n) where he alſo obſerves, that they were
wont to place ſphynxes before their temples, to ſignify that their
theology had an ænigmatical meaning in it. And Origen in-
forms us, that not only the Egyptians, but the Perſians, Syrians,
Indians, and other nations, had a ſecret theology diſtinct from the
common, and known only to their wiſe men; whilſt the « idratat
“ ---the vulgar and unlearned,” hearing only certain fables which
they knew not the meaning of, looked no farther than the outward
ſymbols (). As to the Greeks, Orpheus and the eldeſt poets and
+
(m) Clem. Alex. Strom. lib v. p. 670. Edit. Potter.
(12) Plut. Oper. tom. ii. p. 254.
() Orig. cont. Cell. lib. i. p. 11. We are told alſo, that the antient Chineſe
philoſophers, who were the founders of the feet of the learned, had their fyınbols
and hieroglyphics ; and that the books which contain the ſpeculative part of the
Chineſe doctrine are full of thoſe fymbols, and treat of the myſteries, and efficient
cauſes of numbers. It is alſo obſerved concerning the three principal fects of China,
that they have two ſeveral ſorts of doctrines; one private, which they look upon
as true, and is only underſtood by the learned, and profeſſed by them under the
veil of ſymbols and figures; the other vulgar and popular, which by their learned
men is looked upon as falſe in the ſuperficial found of the words. This they make
uſe of for government, and in their civil worſhip, for inclining the people to good,
and deterring them from evil. See F. Longobardi's treatiſe in Navarette's Account
of the empire of China, in Churchill's Collection of Travels, &c. vol. i. p. 174.
piilo-
262 The Philoſophers affeeted Obſcurity, and endeavoured Part I.
1
philoſophers, who derived much of their learning and philoſophy
from Egypt, did alſo, like the Egyptians, wrap up their doctrines
of divine things in fables ; whereby they came in time to be loſt,
or greatly depraved. Pythagoras to fables ſubſtituted numbers
and obſcure ſymbols, which were explained only to his diſciples,
and not to them till after a tedious preparation. Nor was the
meaning of them long preſerved and underſtood even among thoſe
of his own ſect. A remarkable inſtance of which we have in the
different explications given by them of the Tetractys, on which
they, after Pythagoras, laid ſo great a ſtreſs. Concerning which
fee Burnet's Archæolog. lib. i. cap. II. where he gives a long
catalogue of antients and moderns, who were divided about the
meaning of the Tetractys. And certain it is, that a great obſcu-
rity reigned all along in the Pythagoric ſchool. Socrates was the
firſt among the philoſophers, and almoſt the only one, who uſed
a plain and familiar manner of inſtruction. But then he treated
chiefly of things of a moral and civil nature, and meddled
very
little with the ſpeculations of the philoſophers about the gods, and
the nature of things; but declined and diſcouraged ſuch enquiries.
Xenophon in an epiſtle to Æſchines, cited by Euſebius, blames
thoſe who, quitting the plain and ſimple philoſophy of Socrates,
were in love with Egypt, and the tegarádns copíc, the portentous
wiſdom of Pythagoras. This, as Euſebius obſerves, was intended
againſt Plato (P). And indeed the greateſt admirers of that fa-
mous philoſopher muſt own that he is often obſcure, and treats his
ſubject, eſpecially when he is diſcourſing on divine things, in a
manner no way adapted to the capacity of the people. Hence
() Præpar. Evangel. lib. xiv. cap. 12. p. 741,
5
the
Chap. XI.
to conceal their Sentiments from the People. 263
the ridicule caſt upon him by the comic poet Amphys, mentioned
by Laertius. “ The good whatever it is that you expect to get
“ from this, I underſtand leſs than I do Plato's good (9).” And
the reaſon is given by Alcinous, in his account of Plato's philoſo-
phy, chap. 27. " That which is worthy of honour, ſuch as the
Supreme Good, he [Plato] conceived not eaſy to be found,
" and if found not ſafe to be declared (r).” Or, as Plato himſelf
expreffes it, « τον μεν ον ποιητής και πατέρα τάδε τα παντος ευρείν το
έργον, και ευρόνία εις πάντας αδυνατόν λέγειν (5).-It is a difficult
matter to find out the Maker and Parent of the univerſe, and
" when
you
have found him to declare him to all is impoſſible.”
Or, as Cicero gives the ſenſe, “ to declare him to the vulgar is
« unlawful.-Indicare in vulgus nefas.” Ficinus, in his argu-
ment on Plato's ſeventh book of laws, taking notice of Plato's
ſaying, that the things he had ſaid hitherto ſeemed to him to be
like poetry, and not without a kind of inſpiration from the gods,
obſerves upon it, that “ by this he ſignifies, that all his writings
« to that time, that is, to his old age, were in ſome fort divinely
inſpired, and diſpoſed in a poetical figurative manner, and for
" the moſt part to be explained allegorically. And therefore in
“ his epiſtles he ſays, that his true meaning was comprehended
by none, or by a very few, and that with difficulty, by a kind
“ of prophetic ſagacity. In his ſignificat omnia ejus fcripta in
" eam uſque diem, id eſt fenium, eſſe quodammodo divinitùs in-
ſpirata, atque poeticâ figurâ diſpoſita, ut fint allegoricè plurimùm
00
(9) Diog. Laert. lib. iii. fegm. 27.
(x) See Stanley's Hiſtory of Philoſophy. p. 192.
(5) Plat, Oper. p. 636. G. Edit, Lugd.
& ex-
264
The Chriſtian Revelation
Part I.
si exponenda. Ob id, in epiſtolis ait mentem quam vel a nullo,
« vel a quàm pauciffimis, et vix tandem ex quâdam vaticinii ſa-
“ gacitate poffe comprehendi (t)." Ficinus probably had an eye
to a paſſage in Plato's epiſtle to Dion's friends, in which he ſays,
that none of thoſe who thought they knew the things which were
the ſubjects of his meditations rightly underſtood them: nor had
he ever written, nor would write of them, ſo as to explain them
clearly to others : and that if it had ſeemed to him proper to ex-
plain them in word or writing to the vulgar, he could not have
done a more excellent thing in life than to produce to the public
what was uſeful to mankind, and to bring nature into a clear and
open light: but that he thought the attempting to publiſh theſe
things would not be of uſe to men, a very few excepted, who are
able of themſelves to find out and improve the hints which are
given them (u). Theſe things which he did not think fit to ex-
plain, related probably to his ſublimer ſpeculations concerning the
Supreme God, the chiefeſt Good. And I think from the account
Plato himſelf gives of his own writings, we cannot well be ſure at
this diſtance that we hit upon his true meaning, and therefore
ought not lay any great ſtreſs upon what we imagine to be his
notions. Origen, who had a great eſteem for Plato, obſerves,
that
very few profited by his beautiful and accurate diſcourſes, and
that his works were only in the hands of the learned (x). The
latter Platoniſts and Pythagoreans, Plotinus, Iamblichus, Proclus,
and others, affect a myſtical theology: and though there are ex-
(t) Plato Oper. p. 856, 857.
(u) Ibid. p. 719. A. B.
(x) Orig. cont. Celſum, lib. vi. in initio, p. 275.
cellent
Chap. XI.
deſigned for the Benefit of all.
265
cellent things in their writings, they are no way accommodated
to the uſe of the people. Now whatever was the cauſe of this
obſcurity in ſome of the moſt eminent Pagan philoſophers, whe-
ther it was owing to their not having had juſt and clear ideas
themſelves of theſe matters, or to a fear of their being accounted
enemies to the popular religion, or to their being of opinion that
the people were not fitted to receive theſe diſcoveries, but would
make a wrong uſe of them; to which ſoever of theſe cauſes this
obſcurity was owing (and it is not improbable that all theſe cauſes
contributed to it) it thews they were not well qualified to lead the
people into the right knowledge of religion, nor could their in-
ſtructions be of general uſe. But it is the great advantage and
glory of the Chriſtian revelation, that as it was deſigned to promote
the ſalvation of all, ſo it was publiſhed clearly and openly to the
people, that it might be of univerſal benefit, for inſtructing men in
the right knowledge of God and religion. Some learned and in-
genious perſons have indeed endeavoured to apologize for. Plato and
the other philoſophers, who kept their doctrines ſecret from the peo-
ple, by obſerving, that the Divine Author of our religion made the
ſame diſtinction among his hearers, and ſpoke darkly to the people
in parables (y), what he afterwards explained fully to his diſciples,
Mark iv. 34. But it ſhould be conſidered, that the parables there
referred to, particularly relate to the different reception his Goſpel
would meet with among thoſe to whom it ſhould be publiſhed,
the progreſs it would make in the world, and other things of that
kind; which it was not as yet proper openly to declare. He therefore
(y) See Geddes's Eſſay on the Compoſition of the Antients, p. 176, 177.
VOL. I.
M m
explained
2.66
The Chriſtian Revelation
Part I.
ye hear in
explained them privately to his diſciples, with an intention how-
ever that they ſhould publiſh them in the fitteft ſeaſon. And ac-
cordingly at that very time he ſaid to his diſciples, that their
“ candle” was not to be “ put under a buſhel, but in a candle-
“ ſtick,” that it might give light' to all. - For there is nothing
« hid which ſhall not be manifeſted: neither was any thing
ſecret, but that it ſhould come abroad." Mark iv. 21, 22. Or,
as he elſewhere exprefſeth it, “ there is nothing covered that ſhall
not be revealed, and hid that hall not be known, What I tell
you
in darkneſs, that ſpeak ye in light, and what
“ the ear, that ſpeak ye upon the houſe tops.” Matt. X. 26, 27.
Thoſe very parables, with his expoſitions of them, were afterwards
publiſhed to the world. And he commiſſioned his apoſtles to
go into all the world,” and “ preach the Goſpel to every crea-
or, as it is elſewhere expreſſed, “ to diſciple all nations,
« teaching them to obſerve all things whatſoever he had com-
“ manded them (%). What St. Paul faith of himſelf was true of
all the apoſtles, when he tells thoſe among whom he preached,
that he « had not ſhunned to declare unto them all the counſel of
« God (a).” Accordingly the people were every where openly in-
ſtructed in the knowledge of the only true God, his glorious attri-
butes and perfections, the worſhip due to him, the vanity of poly-
theiſm and idolatry, the creation of the world, the methods of
our redemption by Jeſus Chriſt, the gracious terms of the new
covenant, and its exceeding great and precious promiſes, the ex-
tent of the duty required of us in the divine law, the reſurrection
It ture;
(z) Mark xvi. 15. Matt. xxviii. 20.
(a) Acts XX. 27.
1
of
Chap. XI.
deſigned for the Benefit of all.
267
$
of the dead, a future judgment, and the rewards and puniſh-
m'ents of the world to come. Hence it was that, as is frequently
obſerved by the antient Chriſtian writers, many even of the com-
mon fort of Chriſtians, who were ſtrangers to learning and philo-
ſophy, knew more of theſe things, points of the higheſt im-
portance to mankind, than the wiſe men and philoſophers among
the Pagans.
This leads to a third conſideration, which ſhews, that the phi-
loſophers were not well fitted to inſtruct mankind in the right
knowledge of God and religion: and that is, the darkneſs and
uncertainty they were under in matters of the greateſt conſe-
quence: and that it appears from their own acknowledgments,
that they had nothing to offer, eſpecially in relation to divine
things, which could be ſafely depended upon.
It is well known, that ſome of the moſt ſubtil of the antient
philoſophers abſolutely denied all certainty and evidence. In con-
ſequence of this they ſet themſelves, with all the force of their
wit and reaſon, to weaken and ſhake the main principles of all
religion, and even to invalidate the proofs of the exiſtence of
God : though for their own ſafety they profeſſed a great regard
for the public religion, and the legal and popular deities. Such
were the ſeveral kinds of Sceptics, of whom the Pyrrhonians were
the moſt eminent. And not very different from theſe were thoſe
of the New Academy, which was formed by Arceſilas, farther
improved by Carneades, and ſupported with great learning and
eloquence by Cicero. Though the Academics held, that ſome
things
M m 2
268
Part I.
The Sceptics and Academics endeavoured to
things were more probable than others, in which they differed
from the Pyrrhonians, who held that all things are alike doubt-
ful and indifferent, yet they denied that there is any thing
which can be certainly known or underſtood, and that therefore
we ought not to affirm any thing, but always to with-hold our
aſſent (6). Epictetus juſtly expoſes the philoſophy and manner of
reaſoning of the Sceptics and Academics, as not only abſurd and
ridiculous, but of pernicious conſequence to religion and good
(6) A celebrated author, in his Life of Cicero, gives it as his opinion, that there
was a real difference between the New Academy and the Sceptics. That the latter
maintained a perfect neutrality towards all opinions as equally uncertain : But the
Acadeinics admitted a probable in things, though they denied that a certainty was
to be attained to. He cites a paſſage from Cicero De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 5.
where he ſays, “ There are many things probable, which, though not perfectly
comprehended, yet on account of their ſpecious appearance are ſufficient to go-
“ vern the life of a wiſe man.--Multa eſſe probabilia quæ quanquàm non perci-
perentur, tamen quia viſum haberent quendam inſignem et inluſtrem, his fapien-
:"6 tis vita regeretur.” And again in the fourth book of his Academic Queſtions,
cap. 3. he faith, “ We have many probabilities which we readily embrace, but
“ dare not affirm.--Nos probabilia multa habemus, quæ fequi facilè, affirmare vix
poſſumus *”. Yet in the words immediately preceding the former of theſe paf-
fages, Cicero gives it as the opinion of the Academics, that "all truths have ſome
“ falfhoods adjoined to them, ſo very like, that there is no certain mark to deter-
“ mine our judgment or aſſent.-Omnibus veris falſa quædam adjuncta eſte, tantâ
“ fimilitudine, ut in iis nulla inſit certa judicandi et adfentiendi nota:" Which
ſeemns to me to come in effect to the ſceptical principle. The preſent learned
Biſhop of Glouceſter has offered ſeveral reaſons to ſhew, that the Middle and New
Academy were in reality the ſame, and that they both were as real Sceptics, as that
fect which was fo denominated. For though they pretended their end was to find
the probable, they were for keeping the mind in an eternal ſuſpence, and con-
tinued going on, diſputing againſt every thing, without ever finding the probable
to determine their judgments. See Div. Leg. of Moſes, &c. vol. ii. p. 117, 118.
4th Ed.
Middleton's Life of Cicero, vol. ii. p. 599, 6co. Dubl. Edition.
manners;
.
+
Chap. XI. deffroy all Certainty and Evidence.
269
manners ; and repreſents them as the moſt incorrigible of all
men, and the moſt unfit to be reaſoned with (C).
But it may not be improper to obſerve on this occaſion, that
beſides the profeſſed Sceptics, and the Academics, there were
many others of the philoſophers who made loud complaints of the
uncertainty of human knowledge. Seneca in his 88th epiſtle pro-
duces a long catalogue of the antients, who ſaid that nothing was
to be known. And the learned Gataker has collected many teſti-
monies to this purpoſe in his Annotations on Marcus Antoninus,
p. 198. et ſeq. It was a celebrated ſaying of Socrates, “ that he
“ knew this only, that he knew nothing." Cicero obſerves at
the latter end of his firſt book of Academic Queſtions, that the
obſcurity of things had brought Socrates to a confeſſion of his
ignorance, as alſo Democritus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and
almoſt all the antients : « omnes pænè veteres (d).” And in his
ſecond book of Academic Queſtions he faith, that « all know-
“ ledge is obſtructed and encumbered with many difficulties,
" and that there is that obſcurity in the things themſelves, and
" that weakneſs in our own judgments, that it was not without
“ reaſon that the moſt learned men, and thoſe of the greateſt an-
tiquity, deſpaired of being able to find out that which they de-
« fired to know. Omnis cognitio multis eſt obſtructa difficultati-
“ bus, eaque in eſt, et in ipfis rebus obſeuritas, et in judiciis
.
(c) Epict. Diſſert. lib. i. cap. 5. et lib. ii, cap. 20, ſect. 6.
(d) Academ. Queft. lib. i. cap. 12.
« noſtris
270
The greateſt Philoſophers acknowledged their own Part I.
€ noſtris infirmitas, -ut non ſine cauſâ, et doctiſſimi et antiquiffi-
« mi invenire ſe poffe quod cuperent, diffifi fint (e).”
Eſpecially there were many of them that acknowledged their
ignorance in divine matters. Meliſſus the Samian, a diſciple of
Parmenides, who was much honoured and admired by his coun-
trymen, faid, as Laertius informs us, that “ we ought not to
« affert any thing concerning the gods; for we have no know-
ledge of them (f)." . Plato himſelf has many things concern-
ing the imperfection and uncertainty of human knowledge in
divine matters. In his Epinomis, fpeaking of the things relating
to religion and the worſhip of the gods, he ſaith, “ that it is not
poſſible for mortal nature to know any thing certain concern-
« ing ſuch things as theſe.-cmeg én ov suvator ès fréveku.cz Juntñ
« φύσει των τοιέτων
TWD TOLÓTW Trégi (8).” To the fame purpoſe in his fourth
Republic, he faith, “ theſe are things we do not know :” and
therefore he adviſes to have recourſe to the patron god, as the pro-
per inſtructor and guide (). In his famous allegory of the phi-
lofophic cave, he ſuppoſes that at preſent men are as it were
bound down with fetters in a fubterraneous cave, with their backs
to the light, and unable to turn their heads towards it: and that
till theſe fetters are looſed and removed, they are hindered from
diſcerning the truth and ſubſtance of things, and only ſee the
phantoms and ſhadows of them, which they conceive to be the
(e) Academ. Queft. lib. iv. cap. 3.
Laert. lib. ix. ſegm. 24.
(g) Plato Oper. p. 702. E. Edit. Lugd. 1590.
(5) Ibid. p. 448. B, C.
1
things
Chap. XI. Darkneſs and Ignorance, eſpecially in divine Matters. 27!
things themſelves : but cannot raiſe their contemplations to the
Tá ör and só agostov, that which really is, or that which is good
itſelf (i).
Ariſtotle diſapproved and argued ſtrongly againſt thoſe who
pretended that we cannot know or be certain of any thing. He
faid, he could not think, that what they called philoſophy ought
to have that name given it, ſince it took away the very principles
of philoſophizing (k). Yet he makes this remarkable acknow-
ledgment, that “ as the eyes of batts are to the brightneſs of the
day-light fo. alſo is the underſtanding of our ſouls towards
" thoſe things which are by nature the moſt manifeſt of all.-
ώσσερ γαρ και τα των νυκτερίδων όμματα προς το φέγγος έχει το
καθ' ημέραν, έτως και της ημετέρας ψύχης ο μυς προς τα τη φύσει
φανερώτατα (1).”
66 g
The Stoics were of all the philofophers thoſe who made the
higheſt pretenſions to certainty and evidence, and were the con-
ſtant oppoſers of the Academics. They would not allow any
doubtfulneſs of opinion in their wiſe man, but that he had a clear
and certain comprehenſion of things: yet they could not help
ſometimes talking in a different ſtrain. Marcus Antoninus, tho’
a ſtrict Stoic, obſerves, that “ the natures of things are ſo covered
up from us, that to many philoſophers, and thoſe no mean
" ones, all things ſeem uncertain and incomprehenſible.” He
(1) See the 7th book of his Republic, in the beginning.
(k) Ariſt. de Philof. lib. viii. ap. Euſeb. Præp. Evang. lib. xiv. cap. 18. p.763.
(1) Arift. Metaphyſ. lib. ii. cap. I.
adds,
5
272
The Greek Philoſophy tended to unfettle Men's Minds. Part I.
«
adds, that “the Stoics themſelves own it to be very difficult to
« comprehend any thing certainly. All our judgments are fallible.""
So it is in the Glaſgow tranſlation of Antoninus. In the original
it runs thus, πασα η ημετέρα συγκαταθεσις μετάπλωτη;” which
Gataker renders, « omnis aſſenſus noſter eſt labilis et mutabilis.
Every afſent of ours is liable to miſtake and change (m)”. Dio-
dorus Siculus charges the Greek philoſophy in general as leading
men into perpetual doubts. He obſerves, that they were con-
tinually innovating in the moſt conſiderable doctrines, and by per-
petually contradicting one another made their diſciples dubious ;
ſo that their minds, as long as they lived, were in ſuſpence, nei-
ther could they firmly believe any thing (n). It may therefore be
affirmed, that philoſophy, eſpecially as it was managed among
the Greeks, tended rather to unſettle men’s notions in religion,
and to unhinge fome of the main principles conveyed by antient
tradition, than to ſet the people right, and rectify their errors in
the moſt important points of religious faith and practice. This
obſervation ſhews how little the philoſophers were to be depended
upon:
ſince ſome of the greateſt and beſt of them confeſſed on
ſeveral occaſions, that they had not any thing certain to offer for
the inſtruction of mankind, eſpecially in things relating to reli-
gion and the Deity. But ſince at other times they highly extolled
philoſophy as the beſt guide to lead men into the knowledge of
things human and divine, it will be proper diſtinctly to examine
the truth and juſtice of their pretenſions.
1
(m) Marc Anton. lib. v. f. 10.
(n) Stanley's Hiſt, Philoſ. p. 1034. Edit. 2d.
H A P.
i
Chap. XII. Philoſophers unfit to inſtruct the People in Religion. 273
1
CH A P. XII.
Р.
The fourth general confideration. The philoſophers unfit to inſtruct
the people in religion, becauſe they themſelves were for the moſt
part very wrong in their own notions of the Divinity. They
were the great corrupters of the antient tradition relating to the
one true God and the creation of the world. Many of thoſe who
profeſſed to ſearch into the origin of the world, and the formation
of things, endeavoured to account for it without the interpoſition
of a Deity. The opinions of thoſe philoſophers who were of a nobler
kind conſidered. It is mewn, that they were chargeable with great
defects, and no way proper to reclaim the nations from their idola-
try and polytheiſm.
T
!
HE conſiderations which have been already offered tend
to ſhew how little was to be expected from the philofo-
phers, for inſtructing the people in a right knowledge of God and
religion. But this will ſtill more convincingly appear, if we con-
ſider what wrong notions they themſelves entertained of the Deity,
and the confuſion and abſurdity of their opinions, even with re-
ſpect to the moſt important article of all, Religion. Juſtin Martyr
informs us, that when the Pagans were preſſed with the fables of
the poets' concerning the gods, they were wont to allege their
wiſe men and philoſophers, and had recourſe to them as a ſtrong
wall or bulwark; though he obſerves, that their opinions of the
VOL. I.
Nn
philo-
1
2.74 The Philoſophers greatly divided in their Opinions
Part T.
philoſophers were more ridiculous than even the theology of the
poets. And indeed there were many of them to whom this
cenſure might juſtly be applied.
Cicero, than whom no man was better acquainted with the
tenets of the antient philoſophers, or an abler judge of them,
and who was himſelf, as appears from the paſſages above pro-
duced from him, a great admirer of philofophy, hath written a
celebrated treatiſe concerning the nature of the gods. He begins
with obſerving the great importance of the queſtion, and that it
was neceſſary to the right ordering of religion, “ ad moderandam
religionem neceſſaria ;” and then immediately takes notice of
the prodigious diverſity of ſentiments among the moſt learned phi-
loſophers on this ſubject, which, he ſays, were ſo many and vari-
ous, that it was no eaſy matter to enumerate them. And the:
account he gives of them is ſuch, as we, who have had the ad-
vantage of clearer diſcoveries of the Deity by the light of Divine
Revelation, cannot read without concern and aſtoniſhment. Nor
can any thing, in my opinion, exhibit a more melancholy proof
of the weakneſs of human reaſon, when left to it ſelf, and truſt-
ing to its own force in matters of religion. He gives a long liſt
of the moſt celebrated names in the Pagan world, eſpecially among
the Greek philoſophers, men who were moſt admired for the depth
of their learning, or for the fineneſs of their genius (6). I Mall.
( He mentions Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Alcmæon, Crotoniates,
Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Di-
ozenes Apolloniata, Antiſthenes, Xenocrates, Heraclides Ponticus, Strato, Plato,
Xenoplica, Speuſippus, Ariſtotle, Theophraſtus, Zeno, Chryfippus.
ca
nos
A
Chap. XII.
about the Nature of the Gods.
275
not enter into a detail of their ſentiments, for which I refer to the
book itſelf, which is generally known. He does not propoſe to
ſpeak of thoſe who ſaid there were no gods, as Diagoras Melius
and Theodorus Cyrenaicus ; or who doubted whether there were
any, as Protagoras. All thoſe whom he mentions profeſſed to
acknowledge a god or gods of one kind or another ; but as to the
nature of the deity or deities, there was a ſtrange confuſion and
diverſity in their notions. And almoſt all of them were ſuch as
every rational deiſt in our days, who declares himſelf an admirer
of natural religion, will readily pronounce to be abſurd and con-
trary to reaſon.
The antient philoſophers may be diſtributed into two principal
ranks or claſſes. The one is, of thoſe who excluded a Divine
mind or underſtanding from any concern in the formation of the
univerſe. The other is, of thoſe who attributed the frame and
order of things to a moſt wiſe, powerful, and benign Cauſe and
Author
Among the former may be reckoned moſt of thoſe who firſt
applied themſelves to the ſtudy of philoſophy in Greece, and to
ſearch into the nature of things. Ariſtotle exprefly tells us, that
moſt of thoſe who firſt philoſophized « των πρώτων φιλοσοφή-
oi Thaço-ſeeing the ſubſtance of matter to remain
« always the ſame, and that it was altered only in its qualities,
" made matter to be the only principle, or the firſt cauſe of all
things that exiſt (p).” And the ſame opinion he charges upon
σαντων
(D) Ariſt. Metaphyſ. lib. i. cap. 3. Oper. tom. ii. p. 842. Edit. Paris 1629.
thoſe
Nn 2
276 The moſt antient Greek Philoſophers held Part I.
thoſe who firſt theologized, and whom he calls the moſt antient
of all, who made Ocean and Thetis to be the firſt authors or
fathers of the generation of things (9). The tradition, that the
world was formed by God out of a chaos, was of the higheſt an-
tiquity, derived from the firſt ages, and was probably communi-
cated by original revelation to the firſt parents of the human race.
It is not only preſerved in the writings of Moſes, but, as was
hinted before, had ſpread. generally: through the nations. The
Pagan philoſophers and theologues were among the firſt that cor-
rupted and perverted this antient tradition, by. endeavouring to
account for the origination of all things out of a chaos without
any intelligent cauſe. Euſebius cites ſome paffages out of a book
of Plutarch, which he calls his. Stromata, to ſhew the various
opinions of the antient Greek philoſophers, called Phyſici, or na-
tural philoſophers, concerning the origin and compoſition of the
univerſe. He takes notice particularly of Anaximander, Anaxi-
menes, Xenophanes,.. Parmenides, Metrodorus. Chius, Empedo-
cles, Democritus, Epicurus, Diogenes Apolloniata ; and obſerves,
that they who were accounted the moſt eminent of thoſe whom
the Greeks called natural philoſophers, in their diſquiſitions con-
cerning the conſtitution of things, and the coſmogonia or genera-
tion and production of the world, did not ſuppoſe any wiſe author
or architect of the whole; nor did they make the leaſt mention
of God in it (r): The moſt antient philoſophers were very fond .
of enquiring into the origin of the univerſe, and the firſt cauſes
and principles of things ; and truſting to the force of their own .
(9) Ariſt: Metaphyſ. ubi fupra, p. 843.
fr) Euſeb. Præpar. Evangel. lib. i. cap. Sa p. 22, et ſeq.
genius,
come
Chap. XII. Matter to be the firſt Principle of all Things. 277
genius, they attempted, as if they had been ſo many makers of
worlds, to form ſchemes of their own, concerning the formation
of things; and, dropping God out of the account, valued them-
ſelves upon ſhewing how the world might be made without hind.
But as a' juſt judgment upon them, and to the diſgrace of humán
reaſon, they run into hypotheſes ſo abſurd and extravagant, that
we are ready to wonder how they could enter into the head of
any man of ſenſe. How rare a thing it had been among the an-
tient Greek philoſophers to introduce an intelligent mind, in ac-
counting for the origin and order of the univerſe, appears from the
great joy Socrates expreſſed, when he heard that Anaxagoras had
writ a book in which he declared, that an underſtanding mind is
the cauſe of all things, and the author of that beautiful order that
is to be obſerved in them. He ſpeaks of it as a kind of new dif :
covery; which he had not met with in the books of other phili- :
ſophers; though he complains of his diſappointment, when he
found that philoſopher did not apply this notion, as he expected
he would have done, to the accounting for the particular phæno
mena of nature.
Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus have been particularly
taken notice of for their abſurd ſchemes concerning the formation
of the world by a fortuitous concourſe of atoms. But the ſchemes
of
many
others of the antient philoſophers were really no leſs
abſurd, in endeavouring to account for the origin of things with-
out the interpofition and contrivance of an infinite underſtand-
ing mind. And yet they all of them profeſſed to acknowledge a
god
June
278
Atheiſtical Schemes of Philoſophy among the. Part I.
god or gods (s); for the people would not have endured them
if they had abſolutely denied a Deity. Epicurus himſelf aſſerted,
that there are gods; and pretended to argue from the innate ideas
of the gods implanted in the minds of all men (t). And here
by th way we may obſerve the great ignorance of the Athenians,
the moſt learned and polite people of Greece, in matters of
religion. - They ſhewed no public marks of reſentment againſt
the authors and abettors of ſchemes which were really atheiſtical,
and which by excluding God from the creation or government of
the world tended to ſubvert the foundation of all religion, and
yet baniſhed Anaxagoras, and put Socrates to death, both of
whom taught that the world was formed by a wiſe and under-
ſtanding mind, becauſe they ſuſpected them to have no great
regard for the popular deities. And that the atheiſtical ſchemes
advanced by many of the philoſophers had a very bad effect, and
made no ſmall progreſs among the people, appears from what
Plato ſays in the beginning of his tenth book of laws, where he
complains, that there were many, eſpecially of the younger ſort,
who maintained, that “the heavens, the animals, plants, and
« all things were produced, not by underſtanding, nor by any god,
{s) Thoſe of them who made matter the only firſt principle, made a few of
maintaining one firſt cauſe, one eternal and neceſſarily exiſtent principle, which
they called God. But then they ſubdivided this into particular deities. Thus
Anaximander and Anaximenes, who held an infinite matter to be the principle
from which all things floy, and into which all things return, held innumerable
gods and worlds, ſucceſſively riſing and falling *.
(t) See what Velleius the Epicurcan ſays to this purpoſe, ap. Cic. De nat. Deor.
lib. i. cap. 17.
* Cic. De nal. Door. lib. i. cap. 1o.
Plut. De Placit. Phil. lib. i. c. 3.
/
nor
Chap. XII. Greeks and the antient Egyptians.
279
" nor by art or ſkill, but by nature and fortune-quoel is tuxen;"
i. e., by an unintelligent nature and chance : and that “ theſe fort
“ of ſpeeches were ſpread in a manner univerſally among all
men.-Κατεσσαρμένοι οι τοιαυτοι λόγοι εν τοις πάσιν, ως έπος
štteiv, avgattois (u).” This was before the days of Epicurus ;
and it is well known that his numerous ſect, which openly
avowed that doctrine, made a great progreſs both among the
Greeks and Romans.
Diodorus Siculus, giving an account of the ſentiments of the
antients, eſpecially of the antient Egyptians, concerning the origin
of things, takes no notice of the Deity as having any concern in
it (x). Laertius tells us from Manetho and Hecatæus, that the
Egyptians held matter to be the principle of things (y). And
Porphyry in his letter to Anebo, an Egyptian prieſt, as cited by
Euſebius, obſerves, that Chæremon, and others of the learned
Egyptians, acknowledged no other gods than the ſtars, and the
fun, whom they affirmed to be the demiurgus or architect of the
world, and that they applied the ſtories of Ilis and Oſiris, and
other ſacred fables, to the courſe of the ſun, the motions and
aſpects of the ſtars, their riſings and ſettings, to the river Nile, and
other natural and inanimate things, and made no mention of any
living or incorporeal natures or eſſences; and that they made even
thoſe things which are in the power of our own wills to dependi
(u) Plat. de Leg. lib. x. Oper. p. 666. B. Edit. Lugd.
(x) Diod. Sic. lib. i. p. 6, 7. et Euſeb. Præpar. Evangel. lib. i. cap. 7.
(y) Laert. in Procem. ſegm. 10.
On
280 Atheiſtical Schemes of Philoſophy among the Greeks, &c. Part I.
on the motions of the ſtars, binding all things in the inevitable
.chains of neceflity. Euſebius remarks upon this occaſion, that
even in the arcane theology of the Egyptians, no other but the
ſtars of heaven, wandering and fixed, were placed by them in the
number of their gods. And that they did not acknowledge any
incorporeal maker or architect of the univerſe, nor attribute the
forming or ordering of it to any reaſon or wiſdom which effected
it, or to any intelligent natures which do not fall under the ſenſes,
but only to the viſible ſun. And that therefore they made all
things depend upon the neceſſity of fate, and the motions and in-
fluences of the ſtars : which opinion, Euſebius faith, prevailed
among them in his time (x). Dr. Cudworth indeed ſharply
blames Euſebius for paſſing ſo ſevere a cenſure on the Egyptian
theology, and for puſhing his charge againſt the Heathens in this
and other inſtances with too much rigour. But all that the teſti-
monies produced by the learned Doctor prove, is only that this
was not the univerſal doctrine of all the Egyptian wiſe men. But
that many of their learned men and philoſophers were of theſe
ſentiments the paſſage quoted from Porphyry ſufficiently ſhews.
And Euſebius ſeems to aſſert, as from his own knowledge, that it
continued to be a prevailing doctrine among them when he
wrote. Nor is Iamblicus, upon whoſe teſtimony Dr. Cudworth
ſeems chiefly to rely, much to be depended upon in the account
he gives of the Egyptian theology, which, by this learned writer's
own acknowledgınent, he takes pains in ſeveral inſtances to
diſguiſe.
(z) Præper. Evangel. lib. iii. cap. 4. P. 92, 93. et ibid. cap. 13. p. 119. A.
I would
Chap. XII. The Philoſophy of the learned Seet in China atheiſtical. 281
I would obſerve by the way, that the account which the learned
Chineſe give of the origination of things, is no leſs abſurd than that
of thoſe antient Greek and Egyptian philoſophers. They ſay there
muſt of neceſſity be a firſt cauſe or principle of all things : which
they call Li and Tai-kie, the reaſon and ground of all nature.
And that this firſt cauſe is an infinite being, incorruptible, pure,
ſubtil, without bodily ſhape, and without beginning or end. If we
were to judge merely by theſe epithets of the firſt cauſe, we might
be apt to entertain a very favourable opinion of their philoſophy.
But they alſo ſuppoſe this firſt cauſe to be void of life, intelligence,
and liberty (a). They are very particular in their enquiries how
all things are produced out of this univerſal ſubſtance, and what
are the ſeveral changes and converſions through which they paſs :
but they make the production of the univerſe to be entirely na-
tural and accidental, not the effect of an underſtanding mind and
(a) Mr. De Voltaire in his Hiſtoire Univerſelle, as I find him quoted by the
Abbé Gauchet Lettres Critiques, tom. iv. lettre 36, praiſes the Literati of China;
for that, “ leaving the ſuperſtitions as a groſſer food to the people, the magiſtrates
“ and men of letters are nouriſhed by a purer ſubſtance." What the pure religion of
the Chineſe Literati is, who are ſo much cried up by many of thoſe that ſet up for
the patrons of natural religion, may be clearly ſeen in the treatiſe of F. Longo-
bardi here referred to. He gives an account of ſeveral converſations he had with
the moſt learned Mandarins. That they laughed at the Chriſtian account of a living
intelligent Being, who created and governeth all things. And particularly he men-
tions one Li King, an eminent Doctor and Mandarin, who, when the father miſ-
fionaries alerted, that there is one living, immortal, and omnipotent God, who re-
wards every man according to his actions, poſitively denied there was any ſuch God,
or a heaven or hell, as things never heard of in his [the learned] fect. The faine
author declares, that he had converſed with great numbers of their learned men
and Mandarins in ſeveral parts of China, during the many years he reſided there,
and found that they all agreed in theſe notions. Sce the book above quoted, p. 196,
197, 198.
VOL. I.
Oo
will.
282
Concerning the theiſtical Philoſophers. Part 1.
will. The reader may ſee a particular account of all this, con-
firmed from Chineſe books of the greateſt authority among the
learned ſect, in F. Longobardi's treatiſe before referred to, and
which is contained in the fifth book of Navarette's account of the
empire of China; and Navarette himſelf affirms from his own
knowledge, that the learned Chineſe are ſo ſtrongly attached to
theſe notions, that nothing can perſuade them to the contrary.
See Navarette's Account of China in the firſt volume of Churchill's
Collection of Travels, &c. p. 113, and p. 137, et ſeq.
It will be eaſily allowed, that the authors and defenders of the
fchemes of philoſophy which have been mentioned, were no way
proper to inſtruct the people in the right knowledge of God and
religion. But it may be ſaid, there were others of a nobler cha-
racter. Admirable paſſages have been produced from their writ-
ings, ſtill extant, concerning the exiſtence, the perfections, the
attributes and providence of the Deity. They argued from the
illuſtrious characters of wiſdom and deſign, of goodneſs and be-
nignity, which appear in the frame and conſtitution of the world;
that it did not owe its original to an undefigning chance, or a
blind unintelligent nature, but that there is a' moft wiſe and be-
nign and powerful Mind, which formed this univerſal ſyſtem,
and is the Cauſe of the order and harmony which is viſible in it.
Far be it from me to deny theſe philoſophers their juſt praiſes.
They certainly deſerve to be honourably diſtinguiſhed from thoſe
who aſcribed all to chance or mere unintelligent matter. I look
upon ſome of them to have been inſtruments in the hands of Pro-
vidence, for putting a check to the progreſs of atheiſm, and for
pre-
Chap. XII.
283
Of Thales.
preſerving ſome remains of religion, when by the deluſions of a
falſe and vain philoſophy, it was in danger of being extinguiſhed,
among perſons pretending to a knowledge and penetration above
the vulgar. Yet upon the moſt impartial enquiry it will appear,
that the notions of theſe beſt of the philoſophers, with regard to
that great and fundamental article of all religion, the knowledge
and worſhip of the one true God, the Creator and Governor of the
univerſe, were in many inſtances very defective; and mixed with
ſuch dangerous errors, as rendered them not very fit to be the
guides and inſtructors of mankind, and to recover the nations from
the idolatry and polytheiſın into which they were fallen.
I ſhall take notice of the ſentiments of ſome of the moſt cele-
brated among them.
Thales is ſaid to have been the firſt that introduced philoſophy
into Greece : and concerning his ſentimens the learned are not
agreed. Ariſtotle ſeems to reckon him among thoſe philoſophers
who made matter the only principle and cauſe of all things (6).
But according to Cicero, Thales held that all things had their
origin from water, but that God was the mind which out of
water faſhioned all things. Thales Mileſius, qui primus de
“ talibus rebus quæſivit, aquam dixit eſſe initium rerum : deum
“ autem eam mentem quæ ex aquâ cuncta fingeret (c)” In this
he is followed by Minucius Felix and Lactantius. But St. Auſtin, ,
who no doubt was well acquainted with that paſſage of Cicero,
(6) Ariſt. Metaphyf. lib. i. cap. 3.
(s) De nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 10,
OO 2
feenis
1
Part 1
284
of Thales.
ſeems to have paid no great regard to it: for having obſerved that
Thales made water to be the principle of things, out of which
the world and all things in it had their exiſtence; he poſitively
affirms, that this philoſopher did not ſuppoſe a divine mind to
have had any efficiency or ſuperintendency in the formation of the
univerſe. “ Nihil huic operi quod mundo conſiderato tam admi-
" rabile afpicimus, ex divinâ mente præpoſuit (d).” But if Ci-
cero's account of Thales's opinion be adınitted, it ſhews that he
preſerved the primitive tradition, that God framed the earth out
of a chaos, or maſs of fluid matter. Thales might probably have
learned it in the eaſtern parts to which he travelled : and he him-
ſelf is ſaid to have been of Phænician extraction. Minucius Felix
thinks it was too ſublime to be of his own invention, and that it
came originally from a divine revelation or tradition (e). Laer-
tius mentions a ſaying of Thales, which if it inay be depended
upon ſeems to confirm what Cicero fays of him, viz. “ That the
« world is the faireft or moſt beautiful of things, for it is the
“ work of God.--Toinuece gde geå (f).” But Plutarch gives it a
little otherwiſe, and as fome think more accurately, thus ; that
" the world is the moſt beautiful of things, for whatfoever is or-
derly and fitly proportioned is a part of it (8)." But whatever
may
be ſaid of Thales himſelf, none of thoſe who followed him
in the Ionic ſchool, of which he was the founder, till the time of
(d) De Civ. Dei, lib. viii. cap. 2. p. 146. Edit. Bened.
(e) Min. Fel. cap. xix. p. 149, 1.50. Edit. var. Lugd. Bat. 1672.
Laert. lib. i. ſegm. 35.
(8) In convivio feptem fapientum. Oper. tom. ii. p. 153. C.
7
Anaxace
Chap. XII.
:Of Pythagoras.
285
1
Anaxagoras, attributed the formation of the world to an intelli-
gent mind (b).
Pythagoras, who was a little poſterior to Thales, was a philoſo-
pher of great name, and the founder of what is called the Italic
ſchool. He has been reckoned among the aſſerters of one God,
and an incorporeal mind. Lactantius ſays of him, Pythagoras
unum Deum confitetur dicens incorporalem eſſe mentem."
But he affected ſo great an obſcurity, that if he had been never ſo
(b) The learned Dr. Campbell ſeems not be well fatisfied with the account given
of Thales's opinion in the paſſage above quoted from Cicero. He thinks it proba-
ble that Thales aſſigned water as the only principle concerned in the formation of
the world: and ſays, he knows of no philoſopher, that ſingle paſſage of Cicero ex-
cepted, who explains his opinion otherwiſe. He alſo obſerves, that the pasſage in
Cicero is lame and imperfect, and conſequently very perplexed and obſcure. But
in this I cannot agree with that learned author. The words in which Thales's
opinion is repreſented are very clear and expreſs. It is true, that the following
words in which Velleius endeavours to refute that opinion are very perplexed. And
it is generally thought that the place is corrupted. Lambinus has propoſed one
emendation, and Dr. Davies another. This however may be gathered from it,
that Velleius ſuppoſed Thales to have held that mind was ſome way joined with
the water in order to the production and formation of things. If the meaning be,
that Thales held God to be united to the watry maſs as the ſoul of the world, it is
not improbable that this was his opinion. And it is what Plutarch ſeems to intend
when he tells us, that Thales ſaid, "the mind or intelligence of the world is God.”
De Placit. Phil. lib. i. cap.7. And this may help us to account for that noted
ſaying of Thales, that “ all things are full of gods.” For if he held God to be
the ſoul of the world, he might look upon particular ſouls and intelligent beings,
as Pythagoras and the Stoics did afterwards, to be portions of the univerſal
foul; and upon particular parts of the univerſe, as animated with this univerſal
foul, to be gods. And thus was a foundation laid for polytheiſm, and a multi-
plicity of deities. Agreeable to this is the account Stobæus gives us of Thales's
ſentiments, that he held that “the intelligence or mind of the world is God; and
" that the world is animated, and full of dæmons.” Stob. Eclog. Phyſ. lib. i. cap.
2. Edit. Plantin. See alſo to the ſame purpoſe Laert, lib. i. ſegm. 27.
right
286
Of Pythagoras.
Part I.
right in his ſentiments concerning God and divine things, he
could have been of little uſe to the people. Nor indeed was he
to be depended upon as a ſafe guide, if he had expreſſed himſelf
clearly and intelligibly. In a paſſage quoted by Clemens Alex.
he afferts God to be the ſoul of the world, and the uçãois tūv
orwv, the mixture or temperament of the whole (i). It is gene-
rally agreed, that he held God to be a mind univerſally diffuſed,
and pervading all nature. But this mind, though he calls it in-
corporeal, does not ſeem to be a pure ſpirit, in the ſtricteſt and
propereſt ſenſe. For he ſuppoſed the divine ſubſtance to be a fine
and ſubtil æther, which expandeth itſelf through the univerſe,
and is the cauſe of all the order that is in it, and the fountain of
life to all beings. He maintained, according to Laertius, that the
fun, moon, and other ſtars are full of this æthereal ſubſtance, or
heavenly vital heat (ardor cæleſtis, as Cicero calls it), and are
therefore gods (k): That the ſoul is “átóc magna ástéposma ſmall
part
taken from the cæleſtial æther:" And thence he argued
that the ſoul is immortal, becauſe that out of which it is diſcerped
is immortal. τα 'Αθάνατον ειναι αυτήν [ψυχήν] επειδήπερ και το αφ'
« Ô átéotaça a Fávatověçt (.” Cicero repreſents it as an ac-
knowledged thing, that “ Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans never
" made any doubt, that our ſouls are taken out of the univerſal
« divine mind or ſoul.-Pythagoram Pythagoreoſque nunquam
“ dubitâffe quin ex univerſâ mente divina delibatos animos habe-
(i) Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad Gentes, p. 64. Edit. Potter.
(1) Laert. lib. viii. ſegm. 27.
(1) Ibid. ſegm. 28.
renius
Chap. XII.
287
Of Anaxagoras.
“ remus (m).” And he elſewhere introduces Velleius arguing,
that at that rate “ God himſelf is diſcerped and torn, when hu-
“ man fouls are plucked off from his ſubſtance: and when
any
« of them is miſerable (which frequently happens) a part of
“ God is miſerable; which cannot be,” And he aſks,
« How
“ ſhould the human mind be ignorant of any thing, if it were
<* God ? ” “ Pythagoras, qui cenſuit animum. effe per naturam
rerum omnem intentum et commeantem, ex quo animi noftri
“ carperentur, non vidit diſtractione humanorum animorum dif-
cerpi et dilacerari Deum, et cum miſeri animi effent (qucd
pleriſque contingerit) tum Dei partem effe miſeram ; quod
“ fieri non poteſt. Cur autem quicquam ignoraret animus ho-
“ minis, fi effet Deus? (n)” Pythagoras's ſcheme plainly led to
polytheiſın, or a plurality of gods : and he himſelf was a promoter
of it. Iamblicus ſays, Pythagoras was inſtructed concerning the
worſhip of the gods, partly from the Egyptians, partly from the
Eleuſinian and other myſteries (0); which (by the way) ſuppoſes,
that the worſhip of a multiplicity of deities, and the ceremonies
relating to them, were taught in the myſteries ().
The next I ſhall mention is Anaxagoras, concerning whom
Cicero obſerves, that he was the firſt who aſſerted, that “ the re-
(m) Cato Major five De Senect. cap. 21.
(n) De nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. II.
() lambi. Vit. Pythag. ſect. 151, 152.
(3) The learned Dr. Campbell has infifted largely on Pythagoras, and liís ſenti-
ments, and will by no means allow, that he had a juſt notion of God the Creator
of the univerſe. Necefl. of Revel. from p. 236 to p. 264.
gular
288
Part I.
Of Anaxagoras.
gular order and motion of all things was planned out and ac-
compliſhed by the force and reaſon of an infinite mind.
Anaxagoras primus omnium rerum deſcriptionem et motum
« mentis infinitæ vi ac ratione deſignari ac confici voluit (9)."
This ſeems to contradict what Cicero had ſaid of Thales a little
before. For if it had been the doctrine of Thales, as he repreſents
it, that a divine mind was concerned in the formation of all
things, how could it be ſaid, that Anaxagoras, who lived many
years after Thales, was the firſt that taught this ? It muſt there-
fore be allowed, to make Cicero conſiſtent with himſelf, that he
ſuppoſed ſome difference between the opinion of Thales, and that
of Anaxagoras, concerning this matter. The way that Dr. Da-
vies takes to account for it in his note on this paſſage is, that
Thales ſuppoſed God to be the ſoul of the world mixed and united
with matter (and this I have ſhewn was probably his opinion);
whereas Anaxagoras held him to be a pure mind, not united to
matter, but free from all corporeal mixture. And indeed it ap-
pears
from what Cicero makes Velleius ſay, when he endeavours
to confute him, that he ſuppoſed Anaxagoras to hold that God
was a ſimple mind, ſeparate from matter, or any corporeal concre-
tion, and without any thing joined to it or mixed with it. This
Velleius repreſents as abſolutely unintelligible ; it being a thing
which the Epicureans, ſuch as Velleius was, had no notion of.
Aperta ſimplexque mens, nullâ re adjunctâ, quâ ſentire poffit,
fugere intelligentiæ noſtræ vim et notionem videtur." And
Ariſtotle tells us, that Anaxagoras ſuppoſed this mind to be “ the
(9) De nat. Deor. i. cap. 11.
(r) De Anima, lib i. cap. 2.
06
only
Chap. XII.
Of Anaxagoras.
289
CC
* only being that is ſimple, and unmixed, and pure... Móvov tür
" örlow ataše sù apeziñ rý xafapor (r).” Laertius informs us, that
Anaxagoras aſſerted “vân mèv ágaeño xrvácensin that mind is the
beginning or principle of motion.” And Plutarch gives his
opinion thus, that he ſaid, that “ bodies did exiſt from the be-
ginning, but the mind or intellect of God reduced them into
« a comely order, and effected the origination of all things, or
w of the univerſeTā rwv (s).” This was accounted fo
wonderful a diſcovery, that he had the name of Nás, Mind or
Intelleet, given him on the account of it. And yet it does
not appear that in this nobleſt part of his philoſophy he had
any among the philoſophers to follow him except Socrates and
his diſciples. Nor did he himſelf make a right uſe and applica-
tion of this excellent principle, or direct others to do ſo, in order
to the explaining the particular phænomena of nature, but af
cribed them merely to mechanical and material cauſes ; for
which he is juſtly cenſured by Socrates. Ariſtotle has the ſame
obſervation (t). He took no notice of a Divine Agency in the
formation of animals; but endeavoured to account for it in a man-
her not unlike that of Epicurus. He ſuppoſed animals to have
ſprung up out of a humid, warm, and earthy matter, and after-
wards to have generated one another (u).
Socrates
(r) See preceding page, where the note is placed by miſtake.
(s) De Placit. Philof. lib. i. cap. 7. Opera. tom. ii. p. 881. A. Edit. Francof.
(t) Arift. Metaphyſ. lib. i. cap. 4.
(u) Laert. lib. ii. fegm. 9. The learned Dr. Campbell looks upon this to be a
proof that Anaxagoras did not arrive at the notion of an Infinite Mind merely by
an effort of his own reaſon, in enquiring into the cauſe and connexion of things.
VOL. I.
PP
And
290
Part I.
Of Socrates.
Socrates comes next to be conſidered, who was, in ſeveral re-
ſpects, the beſt and moſt excellent of all the philoſophers that lived
before the coming of our Saviour. Xenophon obferves concerning
him, that he did not diſcourſe about the heavens, and how the
world had its origin ; and that he greatly blamed the folly and
arrogance of thoſe, who were wont to fpeculate upon theſe mat-
ters, which he looked upon to be above the comprehenſion of
human reaſon ; and thought that ſuch diſquiſitions were not ac-
ceptable to the gods. And indeed the philoſophers before him,
who had profeſſed to ſearch into the nature and origin of things.
had fallen for the moſt part into ſuch wild and extravagant hypo-
theſes, and which only tended to lead men into atheiſm, that it
is not to be wondered at that Socrates declined and diſcouraged
And it muſt be owned, that this gives one no very favourable opinion of his ability
in arguing from the works of nature to the exiſtence and perfections of the Deity.
Nor can any man prove that he had not the firſt hint of it from antient tradition.
Yet on the other hand it cannot be proved, that it was not poſfible for him to have
attained to it in the exerciſe of his own reaſon. Human reaſon will often diſcover
part of a truth and not the whole, and will argue juſtly and conſequentially in one
inſtance, and very extravagantly in another, relating to the ſame ſubject. Allow-
ing that Anaxagoras was convinced in general, and that his reaſon led him to con-
clude, that a pure and intelligent mind, and not ſtupid matter, was the firſt cauſe
and principle of motion, and of the orderly diſpoſition of things in the univerſe, yet
it
may
well be ſuppoſed, that, like the other philoſophers of thoſe tines, he valued
himſelf upon accounting for the ſeveral particular phænomena of nature by hypo-
theſes of his own; and accordingly endeavoured to ſhew his fagacity by pointing
out to what he judged might be the probable natural cauſes of the formation of ani-
mals. But his attempts that way only furniſhed new proofs of the weakneſs of hu-
man reaſon, when truſting merely to its cwn force in enquiries of this nature. He
feems to have had no notion of the wiſdom of God fo conſpicuous in the human
frame, and which the Royal Pſalmiſt celebrates in that noble and devout ſtrain :
“ I will praiſe thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous arc thy
« works, &c."
ſuch
3
Chap. XII.
291
Of Socrates.
ſuch enquiries (x}. Yet, as was before obſerved, he approved the
main principle of Anaxagoras concerning an Infinite Mind as the
cauſe of the regular order of things in the univerſe: though he
found fault with him for not making a right application of this
excellent principle.
Let us therefore enquire what uſe Socrates himſelf made of it.
And to this purpoſe I ſhall produce ſome paſſages out of Xeno-
phon's memorable things of Socrates. For it is generally agreed
that his account of Socrates's ſentiments is written with greater
clearneſs and fimplicity, and is more to be depended on than that
given us by Plato, who ſeems frequently to put his own ſenti-
ments upon us under his maſter's name.
The converſation of Socrates with Ariftodemus is one of the
moſt valuable things which Pagan antiquity hath left us. Arifto
demus is repreſented as a man who had little regard to religion,
and was even apt to turn it into ridicule. The deſign of Socrates
was to bring him to a right ſenſe of God and of a Providence, and
of the worſhip and honour juſtly due to the Divinity. With this
view he makes ſome excellent reflections on the admirable fabric
of the human body, the fine diſpoſition of its parts, and the uſe-
ful purpoſes to which they are manifeſtly deſigned ; as alſo on the
noble faculties and powers of the human ſoul, in order to Thew
that theſe things were not made or conſtituted by chance, but
with wonderful wiſdom as well as goodneſs. He mentions the
(x) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 1. ſegm. 11, 12, 13. et lib. iv. cap. 7.
fegm. 5, 6.
PP2
under-
292
Part. I.
Of Socrates.
1
underftanding or prudence that is in the univerſe, “ the èv Tarta
ogórnow," and which ordereth all things in the manner that is
moſt agreeable to it (x). He repreſents the eye of God as ſeeing
all things at once, and ſeems to point to one author of the human
frame, who made man from the beginning, “á agxñs trobar
år game an (95).” And yet it cannot but be obſerved with concern,
that through the whole of that dialogue he generally ſpeaks of
the gods in the plural number. He repreſents the gods as the
authors of the human frame, as exerciſing a conftant care over
mankind, and ordering all things for our uſe and benefit, and as
feeing and knowing all things (z). The conclufion of the dialogue
deſerves ſpecial notice. “ If thou makeſt trial,” ſays he, “ of the
gods, by worſhipping them, whether they will give thee counſel
concerning things which are obſcure to men, thou fhalt know
" the Divinity, that it is ſo great and of ſuch a nature, that they"
[i. e. the gods]
« both fee and hear all things, and are every
“ where preſent, and take care of all things at once (a)." Here
he ſeems to ſpeak in high terms of the Divinity, tá genova And
if the words were taken ſeparately, we might be apt to interpret it
of the one true God, and of him only; but it appears from what
goes immediately before and follows after, that he applies this
not to one God only, but to the gods, and ſeems to repreſent the
fac) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 4. ſegm. 17,
(y) Ibid. ſegm. s.
(z) Ibid. fegm. 11, 12, 13, 14.
(a) Fbid. f. 18. Γνώση το θείον, ότι τοσαύτον και τοι&τον έσι αμα πάς τα
έραν, και πάντα ακέειν, και πανταχό παρείναι, και αμα πάντων επιμελείσθαι αυτές. i. e.
deóss of whom he had ſpoken juſt before.
divinity
Chap. XII.
293
Of Socrates.
.
divinity he ſpeaks of, not as peculiar and appropriate to one, but
that there is a plurality of gods who are ſharers of it, and to whom
the glorious divine characters he mentions belong. And accord-
ingly Xenophon concludes the account he gives of the converſation
of Socrates with Ariftodemus with this reflection: That « Socrates
by ſaying ſuch things endeavoured to engage thoſe he con-
“ verſed with, not only to abſtain from things impure, unjuſt,
« and baſe, when they were ſeen of men, but even when they
were in ſolitude, as being perſuaded that none of their actions
s can be concealed from the gods (6).”
..
The ſame obſervation may be made on Socrates's converſation
with Euthydemus, of which alſo Xenophon gives an account (c).
There is one paffage in this dialogue which deſerves to be parti-
cularly conſidered. He adviſos Euthydemus not to wait to ſee
the forms of the gods, but to think it ſufficient to behold their
works, in order to the worſhipping and honouring them, ſince it
is thus that the gods manifeſt themſelves to us. For,” ſays he,
s both the other gods, when they beſtow good things upon us,
“ do it in ſuch a manner as not themſelves to come into open
“ view: and He that frameth and containeth the whole world,
" in which are all good and beautiful things, and who preferveth it
always in a ſound and undecaying ſtate for the benefit of thoſe
" that uſe it-mis ſeen to perform the greateſt things; yet whilſt
“ he orders and governs all this, is himſelf invifible to us (d)."
(6) Xen. Meinorab, Socrat. lib. i. fegm. 19:
(c) Ibid. lib. iv. cap. 3 .
(d) Ibid. f. 13.
He
i
291
Of Socrates,
Part I.
He ſeems here plainly to point to a ſingular being, as diſtinguiſhed
from "oi äraos--the other gods,” and deſcribes him by the ſub-
lime character of « και τον όλον κόσμον συντάτλων τε και συνέχων, ενώ
“ Távta nanas rj ázatá 1ç4.-He that frameth or putteh in order,
" and containeth the whole world, in which are all great and
« beautiful things." Yet he elſewhere in his converſation with
Ariſtodemus uſes nearly the ſame expreſſions concerning the gods;
that cc they have framed or put in order the greateſt and moſt
« beautiful things.-θεων τα μέγιστα και κάλλιστα συνταξάντων (e).”
And he there particularly aſcribes to them the contriving and
forming the human conſtitution (f). And the profeſſed deſign
of the whole diſcourſe with Euthydemus, of which the noble
paffage I have been now conſidering is a part, is to ſhew that the
gods take care of and continually do good to men, and therefore
ought to be worſhipped. Accordingly he all along fets himſelf to
demonſtrate the great care and goodneſs of the gods in providing
both for our neceflity and convenience, and for our pleaſure ; and
alſo in giving us ſenſe, reaſon, ſpeech, and cauſing the heavenly
bodies, the earth, the ſeaſons, and the various kinds of animals,
to miniſter to our uſe and benefit. All theſe things he aſcribes
to the providence of the gods, and mentions them as inſtances
and proofs of their benevolence towards mankind. And he con-
cludes this excellent diſcourſe with obſerving, that “ we ought to
“ honour the gods according to our ability, and confidently to hope
«s for the greateſt bleſſings from them. For no man in his right
3
(e) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 4. f.13.
(f) Ibid. f. 11, 12.
lenſes
1
Chap. XII.
295
Of Plato.
CC
“ fenfes can expect to receive greater things from others than
" from thoſe who have it in their power to do us good in the
greateſt inſtances. Nor can any man hope for this in any other
way but by pleaſing them. And how can he pleaſe them bet-
ter than by obeying them to the utmoſt of his power ? (8)."
Thus it appears, that if this great man had a notion, as it is
pro-
bable he had, of one Divine Being, ſuperior to the other dei-
ties, yet he takes little notice of himn as diſtinguiſhed from the
reſt. He ſtill ſeems to have a plurality of gods in view, whom
he recommends upon all occaſions to the eiteem, the adoration,
and obedience of mankind: from whom flow all good things, on
whoſe favour we continually depend, and whom we are under
indiſpenſable obligations to pleaſe, to worſhip, and obey. And
what has been obſerved concerning Socrates, may be alſo applied
to Xenophon, who was a cloſe follower of that great philoſopher.
!
The celebrated Plato, who was another of Socrates's diſciples,
has ſeveral paſſages which ſeem to contain an expreſs acknow-
ledgment of one Supreme God. He calls him in his Timæus,
« ο ποιητής και ο πατήρ τέδε το παντος--the Maker and Father of
" this univerſe ;” and deſcribes him in ſeveral parts of his works
by a variety of moſt magnificent epithets : átti Tão Sees the
« God who is over all :. της φύσεως κτίσης-the Builder Or
Framer of nature: TNTWV ÄITion-the Cauſe of all things :"
and repreſents him as the Tó ör--the Being,” by way of emi-
nency, or “that which exiſts ;' “ To czczóv--the [chief] good.”
(6
(g) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. iv. cap. 3. f. 17.
1
But
.
296
Of Ariſtotle.
Part 1.
But theſe ſublime ſpeculations he thought it neither proper nor
ſafe to communicate to the people. Nor does he propoſe him to
them as the object of their worſhip. He every where on all oc-
caſions mentions the gods When he undertakes to prove the
exiſtence of a Deity againſt the atheiſts, what he ſets himſelf to
prove is that there are gods : when he argues for a providence, it
is the providence of the gods. And the gods he principally re-
commends to the people as the objects of their worſhip, their
truſt and dependence, are heaven and the heavenly bodies, the
ſun, moon and ſtars, and the gods publicly adored, and eſta-
bliſhed by the laws. This I only mention here, as I ſhall give full
proof of it in another place (b).
1
1
The ſentiments of the famous Ariſtotle concerning the Deity
are not very clear or conſiſtent. He blames thoſe who aſcribed
the original of motion to chance or fortune, or mere matter, and
aſſerts one eternal firſt mover, whom he calls the Supreme God.
He deſcribes him by noble epithets, as eternal, indiviſible, im-
mutable, without all parts and magnitude, without all body, and
not united to matter. But when we examine more narrowly
into his ſentiments, this Supreme God is only the intelligence,
which either as a ſoul animates, or as a ſeparate form ſuperintends,
(1) There ſeems to be a juſt foundation for the charge which Velleius in Cicero
Brings againſt Plato. Having obſerved that Plato ſays, that the Father of the world
cannot be ſo much as named, and that God is without body, he adds,
- Idem et
" in Timæo dicit, et in legibus, et mundum Deum eſſe, et cælum, et aſtra, et ter-
“ ram, et animos, et eos quos majorum inftitutis accepimus : quæ et per ſe ſunt
“ falſa perſpicuè, 'et inter feſe vehementer: repugnantia." De nat. Deor. lib. i.
cap. 12. p. 32.
the
Chap. XII.
297
Of Cicero.
the uppermoſt ſphere of heaven, which revolveth from all eter-
nity in one uniform orbicular motion, of all others the moſt
per-
fect : and from thence communicates motion to all other parts of
the univerſe. But then he holds, that there are ſeveral other
ſpheres, everlaſtingly revolving, which have their diſtinct intelli-
gences animating or ſuperintending them, each of whom are
eternal and immortal beings, and like the Firſt Mover unchange-
able, indiviſible, without bodily parts or magnitude. And there.
fore they are truly and properly gods, as well as he that inhabits
or ſuperintends the higheſt ſphere. And accordingly he declares,
that theſe are the gods which antient tradition teaches; and he
recommends this as the true original theology: and that the other
gods, by which he means the hero deities, were invented after-
wards for the purpoſes of civil government, and to keep the peo-
ple in obedience to the laws (i).
)
+
If we go from the Greeks to the Romans, who derived their
philoſophy from the Greeks, the moſt eminent of them was that
great man Cicero. And the proper place to look for his ſenti-
ments on this ſubject, ſeems to be in his celebrated books De
naturâ Deorum, where he treats profeſſedly concerning this matter.
It is true, that according to the manner of the New Academy he
there diſputes on all fides without coming to a poſitive determina-
tion. But the declaration he makes in the concluſion of the
(i) Ariſt. Metaphyſ. lib. xiv. cap. 8. Oper. tom. ii. p. 1003. Edit. Paris 1629.
See a fuller account of Ariſtotle's ſentiments, confirmed by expreſs references to
ſeveral parts of that philoſopher's works, in Dr. Campbell's Neceſſity of Revelation,
p. 276, et ſeq.
Vol. I.
Qq
whole
!
298
The Pagan Philoſophy not calculated Part I.
whole directs us to what he thought the moſt probable opinion.
And by that declaration it appears, that the ſtoical doctrine con-
cérning God, and which was maintained by Balbus throughout
the ſecond book, was what he moſt approved. He there makes
Balbus argue with great ſtrength and eloquence from the beauty
and order and wiſe contrivance of the works of nature, that they
did not owe their original to chance, or to a fortuitous concourſe
of atoms. But then the reſult of his argument is to prove, that
the world, as animated by an univerſal ſoul, is God: and that this
foul is an intellectual fire or æther, pervading the whole univerſe,
and producing things according to their ſeveral natures (k). And
he argues alſo for the divinity of the ſtars, as animated by the
ſame univerſal ſoul. And this may help us to judge of the true
meaning of ſeveral other paſſages, which have been often quoted
from this juſtly admired author relating to the Deity. Nothing
is more certain than that he generally ſpeaks of a plurality of
gods, and this even when he is arguing for the exiſtence of a
Deity and a Providence againſt the Atheiſts and Epicureans; and
that he was for encouraging and promoting the worſhip of the
popular divinities eſtabliſhed by the laws. But of this I ſhall have
occaſion to treat more diſtinctly afterwards.
From the account which hath been given of the moſt excellent
of the Pagan philoſophers who flouriſhed before our Saviour's
coming it appears, that their ſchemes of philoſophy or theology
were not calculated to recover the nations from that idolatry and
polytheiſm in which they were ſo deeply and generally involved.
(k) The doctrine of the Stoics concerning God will be more particularly con-
fidered in the following chapter.
The
Chap. XII.
299
to remove Idolatry.
The good things they taught were mixed with great errors ; or if
we ſhould ſuppoſe them to have been never ſo right in their own
notions, they wanted a proper authority to enforce their inſtruc-
tions
upon
mankind. Nor can their attainments be juſtly brought
as a proof of the powers of human nature in matters of religion,
when left merely to itſelf and its own unaſſiſted force, except it
can be ſhewn that the notions they taught were merely the pro-
duct of their own enquiries, independently of all foreign inſtruc-
tion and aſſiſtance. But whatever may be ſuppoſed of the polli-
bility of this, yet, as far as we can judge by the accounts anti-
quity has left us, this was not in fact the caſe. I am very
ſenſible that many are unwilling to own, that the Heathens, eſpe-
cially their wiſe men and philoſophers, derived the knowledge
they had of God and of the main principles of natural religion
from
any other ſource than merely the light of their own natural
reafon without any help from revelation or tradition. This is
what the learned Dr. Sykes has ſet himſelf to fhew in his “ Prin-
ciples and Connexion of Natural and Revealed Religion,” and
particularly in the 14th and 15th chapters of that book, which
take up near a third part of the whole. He thinks, that as thoſe
principles are very reafonable in themſelves, men of ſuch great
abilities, as they certainly were, might eaſily diſcover them by
their own reaſonings. But this ſeems to me not to be a very juſt
way of arguing to prove that they actually did fo. Many things
there are which appear to be perfectly agreeable to reaſon when
once diſcovered, which yet men left to themſelves would not have
actually found out by the mere force of their own reaſon, with-
Qq 2
out
300
The Pagan Philoſophy not calculated
Part I.
appears from
out inſtruction and aſſiſtance (1). If we allow the. Heathens .
themſelves to be proper witneſſes in this matter, it
their teſtimony, that they had a principal part of their know-
ledge from tradition and foreign helps. The learned Doctor
himſelf is obliged to make acknowledgments which are not very
confiftent with his ſcheme. He owns that Plato, who:excelled all
the philoſophers before Chriſt's coming in ſublime ſpeculations
concerning the divinity, “ learned from foreigners the grand prin .
« ciples of his philoſophy, and that he himſelf confeſſes it (m).”
He ſays, that “ Clement in his Stromata does certainly prove that :
" the Greek philoſophy was principally derived from what they
"s called the Barbarian (n.).” And that “. Euſebius has truly .
" proved, that the Greeks derived their knowledge from fo-
reigners.” And that this is " proved beyond all poſſible contra-
diction by authorities unqueſtionable (0)." Yea, he goes.fo.far as
to declare, that." it is very plain that the beſt and wiſeft men
among
the Greeks travelled from Greece into Egypt, to get at
« the knowledge of the unity, and the like important truths (0)."
(1) See concerning this the Introductory Diſcourſe, p. 4, 5, and the teſtimonies
there produced. I ſhall here add another great authority from a celebrated antient,
which has been mentioned by the learned author of the Divine Legation of Moſes.
It is taken from Cicero's 3d book De Oratore, cap. 31. “ Nam neque tam eſt
“ acris acies in naturis hominum atque ingeniis, ut res tantas quiſquam niſi mon-
“ Atratas poſſit videre : neque tanta tamen in rebus obſcuritas, ut eas non penitùs
" acri vir ingenio cernat, fi modò adſpexerit.”
(m) Sykes's Principles and Connexion of Nat, and Rev. Religion, p. 430.
(n) Ibid. p. 479.
(6) Ibid. p. 494.
) Ibid. p. 333.
This
Chap. XII.
301.
to remove Idolatry.
. .
This appears to me to be in effect a giving up the main point he
propoſed to prove, which was,' that Ithe Heathens obtained that
knowledge of God and his perfections, and of the great articles
of-natural religion, merely by the exerciſe of their own powers,
and the right uſe they made of their reaſon, without the help of
revelation or tradition:; · For if any of the antient: Heathens may
be fuppofed to have attained to the true knowledge of God and
the main principles of:rnatural religion, ſolely by their own ra-
tional enquiries, the Greeks certainly bid the faireſt for it, who
wereitemarkable for the finenals and penetration of their genius ;
and yet, by his own acknowledgment, they did not attain; to it
by the force of their own reaſoning, but had it by tradition and
inſtruction from others : though they might eaſily find out argu-
ments to ſupport what they had thus received. Our authur ſeems
to be ſenſible that this is unfavourable to his hypotheſis : and
therefore he inſinuates, that the Egyptians, from whoin the
Greeks derived their knowledge, " had learned their notions not
“ from any tradition at all, but had by ſearch found out thoſe
" things of themſelves (9).” But what likelihood is there that the
Egyptians found them out of themſelves, when he owns that the
beſt and greateſt philoſophers of Greece, who were much more
remarkable for cultivating the arts of reaſoning, did not ſo? Nor
indeed was this the Egyptian method of philoſophizing ; they did
not reaſon out the principles of their theology, but profeſſed to
have derived it from antient tradition, which they kept as a ſecret
to themſelves, and carefully concealed from the people ; though
+
(9) Sykes's Principles and Connexion of Nat. and Rev. Religion, p. 496.
they
302
The Pagan Philoſophy, &c.
Part 1
they were far from keeping it pure and uncorrupted. And the
higher we mount towards the firſt ages, the leſs probability there
is that men found out thoſe principles by their own unaffifted reaſon.
Afterwards, in the ages of learning and philoſophy, it might have
been juſtly expected that they would have carried theſe principles
to a high degree of improvement; but notwithſtanding the helps
the philoſophers were furniſhed with, both from antient tradition
and their own rational diſquiſitions, they were not to be depended
upon as proper guides to mankind in religion, as has been already
ſhewn, and will. farther appear from what I proceed to offer on
this ſubject.
CH A P.
Chap. XIII. Plutarch's Opinion of Two Principles.
303
1
:
:
CH A P. XIII.
Further proofs of the wrong ſentiments of the antient philoſophers
in relation to the Divinity. Plutarch's opinion ; and which he
repreſents as having been very general among the antients, con-
cerning two eternal principles, the one good, the other evil, Thofe
philoſophers who taught that the world was formed and brought
into its preſent order by God, yet held the eternity of matter;
and few if any of them believed God to be the Creator of the world
in the proper ſenſe. Many of them, eſpecially after the time of
Ariſtotle, maintained the eternity of the world in its preſent form.
It was an eſtabliſhed notion among the moſt celebrated philofo-
phers, and which ſpread generally among the learned Pagans,
that God is the foul of the world, and that the whole animated
Syſtem of the world is God. The pernicious conſequence of this
notion shewn, and the uſe that was made of it for encouraging
and promoting idolatry and polytheiſm.
T
HE celebrated Plutarch flouriſhed after Chriſtianity had
made ſome progreſs in the world. But no man was bet-
ter acquainted with the opinions of the antient Pagan philoſophers
that lived before him. He acknowledged one perfectly wiſe and
good God, the author of all good, and of the order fo conſpicu-
ous in the univerſe. But not being able to account for the evil
that is in the world under the adminiſtration of a good God, he
aflerted
304
3
Plutarcb's Opinion of Two Principles. i
: Part I.
aſſerted alſo a co-eternal evil, or diſorderly principle : though he
ſuppoſed the former, the good principle, to be the moſt prevalent.
This was an opinion te zealouſly maintained, as appears from
ſeveral paſſages in his writings ; particularly in his Timæan Pſycho-
gonie, hiş Platonic Queſtions, and his treatiſe of Iſis and Oſiris.
And he aſſerts it to have been the general, ſentiment of the moſt
antient and famous nations, and of the wiſeſt and greateſt perſons
among them: fome of them directly aſſerting two gods, others
calling only the good principle God, as Plutarch himſelf does,
and the evil one a Dæmon (a). That philoſopher affirms, that
this notion obtained among the Perſians, and may be traced in
the aſtrology of the Chaldæans, in the myſteries and ſacred rites
of the Egyptians, and among the Greeks themſelves. And he
endeavours to ſhew that the moſt eminent philoſophers were in
the ſame ſentiments, particularly Pythagoras, Empedocles, Hera-
clitus, Anaxagoras, Plato, Ariſtotle, and others. In this how-
ever his prejudices in favour of his own opinion ſeem to have car-
ried him too far. Dr. Cudworth has taken pains to clear theſe
philoſophers from the charge ; and ſays, that for ought we can yet
learn, Plutarch himſelf, Numenius, and Atticus, were the only
Greek philoſophers who in their public writings openly main-
tained that opinion. But it is not probable, that if this had been
the cafe Plutarch, who was ſo well acquainted with the hiſtory
and tenets of the philoſophers, and ſo able a judge of them,
would have aſſerted it to be fo. general as he has done. Dr.
Cudworth himſelf afterwards mentions Apuleius as in the ſame
(a) Plut. De Ilid. et Ofir. Oper. tom. ii. p. 369, 570. Edit. Francof.
5
way
Chap. XIII. The Pagan Philoſophers did not hold God, &c.
30$
way of thinking. And it ſeems to have obtained among many
of the oriental philoſophers.
But not to inſiſt upon this, it deſerves our notice, that few, if any,
of the antient Pagan philoſophers, acknowledged God to be in the
molt proper ſenſe the Creator of the world. By calling him “ Δή-
Mleggos--the Maker of the world,” they did not mean, that he
brought it out of non-exiſtence into being, but only that he built
it out of præ-exiſtent materials, and diſpoſed it into a regular form
and order. Even thoſe philoſophers, who held God to be an in-
corporeal eſſence, yet ſuppoſed two firſt principles of things, really
diſtinct from one another, both exiſting from eternity, an incor-
poreal mind, and paſſive matter. Of this opinion was Anaxa-
goras ; fo alſo was Pythagoras, as Numenius affirms; Archelaus,
Archytas, and other Pythagoreans. Parmenides and Empedocles
afferted, that God could not make any thing, but out of
præ-
exiſtent materials. Laertius expreſly aſſerts, that Plato held two
principles, God and matter ; and that matter is without form and
infinite, but God put it in order (6). Plutarch alſo aſcribes this
opinion to Plato, and to Socrates too, only he adds a third prin-
ciple, viz. ideas. De Placit. Philof. lib. i. cap. 3. Oper. tom. 2.
(6) Laert. lib. iii. fegm. 69. where ſee M. Caſaubon's note upon it; as alſo
Menage's obſervations. Dr. Cudworth endeavours to ſew that Plato held, that
God created matter : but it would not be difficult to anſwer his arguments. Plato
indeed ſuppoſes mind to be prior to body; but by body he does not underſtand
the firſt matter, but that which is formed out of it. The learned Moſheim, in his
Latin tranſlation of the Intellectual Syſtem, has, as I am informed, for I have not
his book by me, a long differtation to prove that Dr. Cudworth is miſtaken, and
that Plato did really bold, that inatter was eternal : and indeed there are many
authorities to prove it.
VOL. I.
RI
p. 878.
306
Part I.
The Pagan Philoſophers did not hold God to be
« The paſ-
ز
p. 838. He himſelf plainly aſſerts the eternity of matter; and ar-
gues, that God could not have formed the world if he had not
had matter to work upon (). Laertius obſerves concerning the
Stoics, that they held there were two principles of the univerſe,
TO ποιών και το πάσχον-- the active and the paffive.”
« five is rude unformed matter ; the active is the reaſon which
“ acleth in it, that is God (d).” This opinion of the Stoics is very
clearly explained by Seneca, in the beginning of his 65th epiſtle.
And Zeno in a paſſage cited by Stobæus fays, that “ the firſt
«. eſſence of all things that exiſt is matter, and this is all of it
“ eternal, and not capable of being either increaſed or dimi-
« nified.--- υσίαν τήν των όντων απάντων, πρώτης ύλην, ταύτην δε
« πάσαν αιδίαν άτε πλείω γιγνομένην έτε ελάτίω (e).” Cicero, as
quoted by Lactantius, ſays, that “ it is not probable that the mat-
“ ter of things, out of which all things were made, was formed by
- Divine Providence; but that it hath, and always had, a force
and nature of its own.” And he goes on to argue, that “ if
« matter was not made by God, neither was earth, air, water,
" and fire made by him (f).” The famous Galen, after having
acknowledged that the opinion of Mofes, who aſcribed the.pra-
duction of all things to God, is far more agreeable to reaſon than
(c) Plut. Pfychogon. Oper. tom. ii. p. 1014. B, C.
(d) Laert. lib. vii. ſegun. 134. See alſo to the fame purpoſe Plutarch De Placît.
Phil. lib. i. cap. 3.
(e) Stob. Eclog. Phyſ. lib. i. cap. 14. p. 29. Edit. Plantin.
(F) Lactant. lib. i. cap. 8. Davies, thinks this was taken by Lactantius from
Cicero's third book De nat. Deorum, fome parts of which are now loft. See the
fragments at the end of the 3d book De nat. Deor. Edit.. Davies. 2d. p. 342, 343.
that
;
-
Chap. XIII. the Creator of the World in a proper Senfe.
307
by the
that of Epicurus, who attributed the whole frame of things to a
fortuitous concurfion of atoms, yet aſſerts the præ-exiſtence of
matter : and that the power of God could not extend itſelf beyond
the capacity of matter which it wrought upon : and that this was
that in which Plato, and thoſe of the Greeks who writ rightly
upon the nature of things, differed from Moſes. I would obſerve
way, that here is a plain proof that the learned Heathens
were ſenſible, that Moſes held that God not only formed the
world out of matter, but created the matter itſelf out of which
the world was made, which the Greek philoſophers denied. See
Galen De Uſu Part. lib. ii. ap. Stilling. Orig. Sacræ, book iii. chap.
2. p. 441. Edit. 3d. The learned Dr. Thomas Burnet, who was
well acquainted with the opinions of the antients, ſays, that the
Ionic, Pythagoric, Platonic, and Stoic ſchools all agreed in aſſert-
ing the eternity of matter : and that the doctrine, that matter was
created out of nothing, ſeems to have been unknown to the phi-
loſophers, and which they had no notion of (8).
It would be carrying it too far to ſay, that they who did not
acknowledge God to have created the world from nothing, were
not really Theiſts, or that they left no place for religion. For
ſuppofing that there is a ſupreme eternal Mind, of perfect wiſdom
and goodneſs, which formed this world out of crude paſſive mat-
ter, and diſpoſed it into that regular and beautiful order in which
we behold it, though he did not originally give exiſtence to that
matter itſelf, yet even on this ſuppoſition, it would be reaſonable
(g) Archäol. lib. i. cap. 12.
Rr2
for
308
The Pagan Philoſophers univerſally held Part 1.
for men to pay their religious adoration and obedience to the great
Orderer and Framer of this vaſt ſyſtem, and who ſtill continueth
to govern it. But though ſuch perſons could not be juſtly charged
with atheiſtical principles, yet I think Dr. Cudworth very proper-
ly calls them “ imperfect Theiſts ;” and obſerves, that they had
not“ a right genuine idea of God.” They abſurdly aſcribed ne-
ceſſary exiſtence, the nobleſt of the divine prerogatives, and which
really comprehendeth all others under it, to ſuch a mean, inert,
imperfect thing, as they themſelves repreſented matter to be.
They limited the divine omnipotence, and could not maintain it
in its juſt extent: fince upon their ſcheme God could neither
create nor annihilate matter, but could only change or vary its
forms. Nor can I ſee how they could conſiſtently ſuppoſe, that
he had a power even of doing this. For if matter exiſted from
everlafting by a neceſſity of nature, it muft be uncauſed and in-
dependent. And on this ſuppoſition it is hard to conceive, how
he fhould have ſuch power over it, as not only to put it in mo-
tion out of its natural ftate of reſt, but to change, faſhion, and
model it according to his own will, as he muſt do in forming
the univerſe (1). Many of thoſe who maintained that hypotheſis,
ſuppoſed,
(b) Thoſe that hold matter to be uncreated, eternal, and neceſſarily exiſfent, did
in effect aſcribe to it the most effential and fundamental attribute of the Deity.
Plato calls God the Tò ôv, as being that which properly is or exiſts, For, as
Cicero obſerves, Plato would not allow any thing which hath a beginning and end-
ing, to have a real being and exiſtence; and aſſerts that that only is or exiſts
which is always ſuch. " Nihil Plato putat eſſe quod oriatur et intereat ; idque
“ folum eſſe quod femper tale fit." Tuſcul. Diſp. lib. i. cap. 24. Plutarch has
fome noble ſpeculations on this ſubject in his tract on the word EI inſcribed on the
teinple of Apollo at Delphi. He lhews that it cannot be ſo properly ſaid of God,
that
+
Chap. XIII.
300
the Eternity of Matter.
ſuppoſed, that matter might in ſeveral reſpects not be duly obſe-
quious to his operations : and that through the ineptitude of the
materials, he might not be able to order things as he would, but
only did the beſt the matter he worked upon would allow him
to do. This is hinted in thoſe queries propoſed by Seneca.
“ Quantum Deus poſſit? Materiam ipfe fibi formet, an datâ
“ utatur? Utrum Deus quicquid vult, officiat, an in multis rebus
« illum tractanda deſtituant, et a magno artifice pravè formentur
“ multa, non quia ceſſat ars, fed quia id in quo exercetur fæpe
inobſequens arti eſt? (i).”-i. e. “ How far the power of God
« extends ? Whether he formed the matter for himſelf, or
• maketh uſe of it when provided for him? Whether God can
“ effect whatſoever he willeth ; or in many things the materials
" he is to work with diſappoint him ? Whereby it comes to paſs,
" that many things are ill framed by the Great Artificer; not that
« his art is deficient, but becauſe that which it is exerciſed upon
“ often proves ſtubborn and untractable to his art ?" Accord-
ingly many of the philoſophers, and particularly the Stoics, re-
ſolved the origin and cauſe of evil into the contumaciouſ-
neſs and perverſity of matter; though, as Plutarch argues againſt
ز
that he was or will be, as that he is ; that this ſignifies that he is the ſame eternal,
independent, immutable being, the only being that has a true and ſtable exiſtence.
How he and other philoſophers could, in conſiſtency with this, hold matter to be
eternal and uncreated, and yet mutable, the ſubject of ſo many changes, is hard to
ſee. : Thoſe philoſophers, though otherwiſe very abſurd, were more conſiſtent
with themſelves, who holding matter to be eternal, maintained that it was immovable
and invariable, and that all the inutations we ſee in it are nothing in reality, but
are appearances only.
(i) Seneca Quæſt. Nat. lib. i. in procemio,
them,
:
310 The Pagan Philoſaphers univerſally held Part I.
them, it is abſurd to imagine that matter, which they ſuppoſed to
be void of all quality, could be the cauſe of evil (k).
Indeed the later Platoniſts and Pythagoreans, who lived after
Chriſtianity had been for ſome time publiſhed to the world; Plo-
tinus, lamblicus, Proclus, and others, held, that matter was not
abſolutely ſelf-exiſtent, but owed its exiſtence to God as the
original cauſe: but even they did not admit a proper creation of
matter. They would not allow that the world had a beginning,
but ſuppoſed it to have proceeded eternally from God by way of
emanation or eradiation, as light from the ſun.
And this leads to another inſtance in which the philoſophers
perverted the antient tradition, and inſtead of improving in divine
knowledge, fell from the original truth derived from the firſt
ages. The Pagans had, as was obſerved before, a traditionary
account that the world had a beginning, and that it was created
by God. This doctrine, as far as it related to the world's having
had a beginning, obtained among the antient Egyptians, as Laer-
tius informs us from Hetatæus and Ariftagoras. In this they
were followed by the moſt antient of the Greek theologues and
philoſophers. But though both the one and the other acknow-
ledged the temporary beginning of the world, as Epicurus did
afterwards, they dropped that part of the antient tradition which
was of principal importance, viz. that the world was made by
God. Anaxagoras agreed with them, that the world had a be-
(k) Plut. Pſychogon. Oper, tom. ii. p. 1014, 1015.
ginning:
1
Chap. XIII.
311
the Eternity of Matter.
ginning: but then he aſcribed the formation of it to an intelligent
mind : yet this, according to him, was only a putting that rude
and diſorderly maſs of matter, which he ſuppoſed to be eternal,
into order, and diſpoſing it into the preſent ſyſtem. The famous
Ariſtotle was not ſatisfied with this, but entirely rejected the an-
tient traditionary accounts of the temporary origin of the world,
and maintaied it to be eternal both as to matter and form. He
.
ſays, all the philoſophers before him aſſerted that the world had
a beginning (1). So they did for the moſt part, but it is not true
of them all. Ocellus Lucanus, the Pythagorean, who lived be-
fore Ariſtotle, argued for the eternity of the world, as appears
from his book of the nature of the univerſe, ſtill extant. Xeno-
phanes is mentioned by Plutarch as of the ſame opinion (m). And
Stobæus imputes this opinion to ſome others of the Greek philo-
ſophers before the time of Ariſtotle. The antieņt Chaldæans, ac-
cording to Diodorus Siculus, held that the world is eternal, and
was neither generated, nor is liable to corruption : though this
cannot be true of all the Chaldæans, if what Biroſus, their own
hiſtorian, faith of them be true, that they ſuppoſed Bel to be the
maker of heaven and earth; which probably was at firſt the name
of the true God, but afterwards became the name of an idol ;
being confounded with the ſun, and with the hero Belus, one
of their firſt kings. Maimonides tells us concerning the antient
Zabians, that they held the eternity of the world.
the Greek philofophers, from the time of Ariſtotle, it became the
And among
(1) Ariſt. De Coelo, lib. i. cap. 10.
(m) De Placit. Philof. lib. ii. cap. 4. Opera, tom. ii. p. 886,
(n) Eclog. Phyſ. lib. i. cap. 24. p. 44. Edit. Plantia.
favourite
312
Many Philoſophers aſſerted the World to be
Part I.
ſavourite opinion. It was maintained not only by the Peripatétics,
but by all the later Platoniſts and Pythagoreans, Plotinus, Apu-
leius, lamblicus, Alcinous, Proclus, who affirmed, as was hinted
before, that the world came from God, as light from the ſun:
They held indeed, that both the ſubſtance and form of matter
depended upon the Deity; that therefore it was not ſelf-exiſtent,
and could no more ſubſiſt without God, nor ſeparately from him,
than light without the ſun: but then it followed alſo, that God
could not be without the world, any more than the ſun can be
without its light : that it is a neceſſary emanation or efflux from
him, and does not depend upon the free determinations of his
own will.
1
It is true that they argued, as Ariſtotle had done before them,
from the eſſential activity and benignity of the Divine Nature, which
muſt have been from eternity in action : and upon
this principle
they maintained, that both the corporeal world, with all things
in it, exiſted from all eternity, and that the ſouls of men and all
other animals were eternal too, without beginning: and that they
were co-æval with God, who was indeed before them in order of
nature, but not of time. But if God be a wife and free
agent,
the particular communications and effects of his power and good-
neſs, muſt depend upon what ſeemeth moſt fit to his infinite
wiſdom, and upon the counſels and free purpoſes of his own
mind and will : and on that ſuppoſition the eternity of the world
could not be rightly argued from the eternity of the Divine power
and goodneſs. Indeed it cannot be conſiſtently maintained, but
upon this principle, that God is a neceſſary agent, and that all
things
.
Chap. XIII.
313
eternal in its preſent Form.
things proceed from him by a neceſſity of nature. For then the
world muſt be eternal, and not only ſo, but muſt neceſſarily
exiſt as well as he. And indeed the doctrine of theſe philoſophers
naturally led to the Spinoſan ſcheme, and terminated in it; the
fundamental principle of which is, that all things proceed from
God by way of neceſſary emanation, not of creation ; or are the
neceſſary modifications of his infinite eſſence : a ſcheme which
confounds God and the creature, and, purſued to its genuine con-
ſequences, is ſubverſive of all religion and morality.
I
The next thing I ſhall mention as a farther proof of the wrong
notions of the Deity which obtained among the Heathen philoſo-
phers, and which hath a near affinity with what hath been now
obſerved, is; that many of the moſt celebrated philoſophers held
the whole animated ſyſtem of the world, and eſpecially the ſoul of
it, to be God. This, according to Plutarch, .was the doctrine of
the antient Egyptians, who tells us from Hecatæus, that they
accounted the firſt God to be the ſame with the “ To Tavor the
" univerſe." «Ο Τον πρωτον θεόν τα πάντα τον αυτον νομίζεσι (ο).”
To this probably refers the famous inſcription on the temple of
Iſis, " I am all that hath been, is, or ſhall be.” It was a noted
maxim, as Dr. Cudworth hath ſhewn, both of the Egyptian and
Orphic ſchools, and maintained by the moſt eminent philoſo-
phers, that God is one and all things. I will not deny what the
learned Doctor afferts, that this might at firſt be intended in a
favourable ſenſe, and might ſignify no more than that the divine
6) Plut. De Iſid. et Ofir. Oper, tom. ii. p. 354. D.
VOL. I.
Sf
effence
:
314
Part I.
That Maxim of the Philoſophers, that
)
1
eſſence is diffuſed through all things, and that God is the cauſe of
all things, and virtually containeth all things in himſelf. It is
thus that he explains that paſſage of Ariſtotle in his Metaphyſics,
where he ſpeaks of fome “ who pronounced concerning the
« whole univerſe as being but one nature.” “That is,” ſaith the
Doctor, " as virtually containing all things.” But this ſeems to
be only his own gloſs upon it. The words in Ariſtotle are more
naturally expreſſive of an opinion like that of Spinoſa, that there
is but one ſubſtance in the univerſe. But whatever might have
been the original intention of that maxim, that God is one and
all things, it was, by the learned Doctor's own acknowledgment,
greatly perverted and abuſed, and gave occaſion to their confound-
ing God and the creature in their worſhip. He obſerves, that it
was the miſtake and abuſe of this one maxim, which was the
chief ground both of the ſeeming and real polytheiſm, not only of
the Greeks and Europeans, but alſo of the Egyptians and other
Pagans; they concluding, that becauſe God was all things, arid
conſequently all things God, that therefore he ought to be wor-
ſhipped in all things, in all the ſeveral parts of the world, and
things of nature (P).
This
1
(+) Agreeable to this is what we are told concerning the Chineſe, that it is a
principle univerſally received among them, and maintained by the three principal
fects of China, eſpecially by thoſe of the learned fect, antient and modern, That all
things are the ſame, one univerſal ſubſtance, only diſtinguiſhed by accidental forms
and qualities. Upon this principle they facrifice to particular beings, as parts of
the univerſal ſubſtance, to heaven, earth, mnountains, rivers, &c. F. Longobardi
gives an inſtance in one of their learned doctors T.V. Puen Su, who faid, he mght
well adore the diſh of cha or tea he then held in his hand, as knowing that tai kie,
[i. e, the univerſal ſubſtance] was in it, after the ſame manner that it is in heaven, and
in all other parts of the world. And F. Navarette in his notes on Longobardi's trea-
tiſe
Chap. XIII. God is one and all Things, conſidered.
315
This learned writer indeed will not allow, that the Egyptians
held the material world, that is, as he explains it, the world con-
fidered as inanimate, to be the firſt and chief God: but it follows
from his own account of them, that they held the whole animated
ſyſtem of the world to be God: or, as he expreſſeth it, “ they
- took the whole ſyſtem of things, God and the world together,
" as one Deity.” He obſerves, that “ the tó tovor univerſe,
" was frequently taken by the Pagan theologers in a comprehen-
( five ſenſe for the Deity with all the extent of its fecundity, or
" God as diſplaying himſelf in the world, or for God and the
« world both together, the latter being looked upon as nothing
" but an efflux or emanation from the former.” He adds, " that
6 the god Pan among the Greeks and Barbarians was underſtood
« in this ſenſe : and that Zeus and Pan, according to Diodorus
“ Siculus, were only two different names of the ſame deity.” And
ſpeaking of thoſe Pagans who acknowledged no higher numen
than the ſoul of the world, he faith, “ that as they ſuppoſed the
« whole corporeal world animated to be alſo the Supreme Deity ;
« from thence it plainly followed, that the ſeveral parts and
« members of the world muſt be parts and members of God (i).
C
This notion ſeems to have been very generally received among
the more learned Pagans. That eminent antiquary Varro, ſpeak-
!
tiſe ſays, that this Chineſe maxim, that all things are one and the ſame, is ſo plain
in their books, and ſo often repeated, that there can be no doubt of it. See Longo-
bardi's treatiſe with the notes upon it in the fifth book of Navarette's account of the
empire of China, in the first volume of Churchill's Collection, &c. p. 181. 184.
185. 191.
(9) Cudworth’s Intel. Syſtem, p. 343, 344. 533.
ing
S [ 2
316 Many held that God is the Soul of the World, or that Part I.
ing of what he eſteemed the natural and true theology, gives it
as his own opinion, that “God is the foul of the world, and that
" this world is itſelf God-Deum fe arbitrari eſſe animam mundi,
“ et hunc ipſum mundum effe Deum (r).” And to this ſenſe he
interprets the celebrated verſes of Valerius Soranus :
Jupiter Omnipotens, regum, rerumque, deûmque
Progenitor, Genitrixque deûm, Deus unus et omnis (s).
(
In theſe verſes Jupiter the Omnipotent is repreſented as the Father
of kings, of things, and of gods, the Mother of the gods, one
God and all gods. This Varro underſtands of the world, or the
univerſe. Agreeable to which is that of Iarchas the bramin to
Apollonius : that “ the world is an animal;
the world is an animal; for it generateth all
things, and is both of a male and female nature, performing
" the part both of father and mother.” The ſame notion runs
through many of the verſes aſcribed to Orpheus. The reader may
ſee many other teſtimonies of the antients concerning the world's
being God, collected by the learned Gataker, in his Annotations
on Marcus Antoninus, p. 145, 146. So much were the Heathens
pofſeffed with this notion, that becauſe the Jews worſhipped no
images, and performed their adorations to the Deity with hands
lifted up to heaven, they concluded, that they took
heaven and the world to be God. Thus Strabo, who is generally
an exact and judicious writer, praiſing Mofes for his religious ſen-
timents of God, faith, he affirmed " this one thing only to be
and eyes
(r) Apud Auguſtin. De Civ. Dei. lib. vii. cap. 9. p. 131.
(s) So it is in the Benedictine edition; in other editions the latter clauſe of the
first line ruos,
Regum rex ipſe Deûmque."
God,
Chap. XIII. the whole animated Syſtem of the World is God. 317
« God, which containeth us all, and the earth and ſea, which
:we call heaven, and the world, and the nature of the whole,
«« εν τέτο μόνον θεόν, τα περιέχον ημάς απανίας, και γήν, και θάλατταν,
ó rörēmev spavòv, xóruov, rý Thy Twvcra púor (t).” Dio-
dorus Siculus, as cited by Photius, expreſſeth himſelf to the ſame
purpoſe (u).
But none were more ſtrenuous aſſerters of this notion than the
Stoics. Arius Didymus, quoted by Eufebius, faith concerning the
Stoics, that “ they call the whole world with all its parts God,
« and that this is one only.-ίλον τον κόσμον συν τους εαυτο μέρεσι
προσαγορευεσι θεόν, τ8τον δε ένα μόνον έιναι (α).” Laertius in his
life of Zeno explains the doctrine of the Stoics thus, that they
maintained, that “ the world is governed by mind and provi-
« dence: and that this mind paſſeth through every part of it, as
" the ſoul doth in us : which yet doth not act in all parts alike,
" but in ſome more, in ſome leſs. And that the whole world
“ being a living and rational animal hath, like our ſouls, its he-
nical or principal part (y).” Though they held the whole
animated world to be God, yet they ſuppoſed that the foul of the
world acted principally in one eminent part of it, which fome-
times they called God, by way of eminency; tho' what this was
they were not agreed. Zeno, as Velleius in Cicero informs us, faid
<C
(t) Strabo, lib. xvi. p. 1014. Edit. Amſtel. 1707.
(u) Ap. Phot. Biblioth. cod. 244.
(x) Præpar. Evangel. lib. xv. cap. 15. p. 817.
(v) Laert. in Zen. lib. vii. ſegm. 138, 139.
that
3r8 Many held that God is the Soist of the World, or that. Part I.
we
that the æther was God (Z). Chryfippus, according to Laertius,
Varied, fometimes making it the wther, ſometimes the heaven.
But. Cleanthes, according to the fame author, held it to be the
for (a). This is alſo what Cicero obſerves in his Academics,
where he concludes, that « by this diſagreement among the wiſe
is
we are compelled to be ignorant who is the Lord over us, fịnce
know not whether we ſerve the fun or the æther.” « Zenoni
« 'et reliquis ferè Stoicis æther videtur fummus deus, mente præ-
“ ditus quâ omnia regantur. Cleanthes Solem dominari et re-
rum potiri putat. Ita cogimur diffenfione fapientum domi-
« num noftrum ignorare, quippe qui neſciamus, ſoli an ætheri fer-
« viamus (6)." Plutarch repreſents the opinion of the Stoics
thus, that “ they define the eſſence of God to be a fiery ſpirit
“ endued with intelligence, or, as he elſewhere calls it, a tech-
" nical fire-fűz tegevrov, having no ſhape or form, but is
changed into whatever it pleaſes, and aſſimilates itſelf to all
“ things—That it pervadeth the whole world, and receiveth
« various denominations from the various changes of the mat-
« ter through which it paſſeth ; and that the world is God,
" and fo are the ſtars, and the earth, but eſpecially the Intellect
«which is in the higheſt æther (c).”
" It
(z) De nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 14.
(a) Laert, ubi fupra.
(6) Academ. lib. ii. cap. 41.
(c) Plut. De Placit. Philof. lib. i. cap. 6. in the beginning, compared with
cap. 7. at the latter end. Oper. tom. ii. p. 879. 882. Origen therefore does not
carry it too far, when he charges the Stoics with holding, that God is corporeal,
and that they do not ſcruple to ſay that he is murable, and capable of all manner of
variations.
Chap. XIH. the whole animated Syſtem of the World is Gad.
319
It cannot þat give one concern, to obſerve Balbus in Cicero,
amidit excellent reaſonings to prove the exiſtence and providence
of the Deity from the beauty and order of the works of nature,
gravely arguing, that the world is an animal, and hath intelli-
gence, that it is happy, reaſonable, and wiſe, and that there-
fore, the world is God. This he frequently repeats and inſiſts
upon (d). And he argues alſo from the divinity of the world to
that of the ſtars: and that they are animals, and have ſenſe and
intelligence. From whence he concludes, that they are to be
reckoned in the number of the gods (e). And he proves from the
admirable order and conſtancy of their courſes and motions, that
they themſelves have reaſon and underſtanding, and that they are
thoved by their own ſenſe and divinity. (f). Thus they aſſerted
the divinity of the world in their diſputes againſt atheiſm, and in
proving the exiſtence of God, they argued upon the ſuppoſition
of his being the ſoul of the world. So that their way
of reaſon-
ing againſt the Atheiſts and Epicureans was ſo managed as to
eſtabliſh their own wrong ſyſtem, and lay a foundation for deify-
ing and worſhipping the ſeveral parts of the univerſe.
variations. Cont. Celf. lib. i. p. 17. And again, he ſays, they were unable to
underſtand the true nature of God, as abſolutely incorruptible, ſimple, uncom-
pounded, and iodiviſible. Ibid. lib. iv. p. 169.
(d) Sapientem eſſe mundum, fimiliter beatum, fimiliter æternum--nec mundo
quicquam melius, ex quo efficitur eſſe mundum Deum." De nat. Deor. lib. ii.
cap. 8. et cap. 13, et ſeq.
(e) “ Hac mundi divinitate perſpectâ, tribuenda eſt fideribus eadem divinitas, ut
“ ea quoque rectiffimè et animantia effe, et ſentire atque intelligere dicantur-
quo
efficitur in Deorum numero aſtra eſſe ducenda.” Ibid. cap. 15.
(f) Sequitur ergò ut ipſa ſuâ fponte, ſuo ſenſu, ac divinitate moveantur."
Ibid. cap. 16, et cap. 21.
In
5
ex
1320 · Many held that God is the Soul of the World, or that Part I.
2. In confequence of this their theology, they held that particular
ſouls were parts of the divinë univerſal ſoul, and viſible and cor-
póreal things parts of his body. Why ſhould you not think,"
"fays Seneca,
" that he has ſome divine thing exiſting in him, who
* is a part of God? This whole in which we are contained is
se both one thing, and is God: we are both his fellows or com-
“ pánions, and his members. -Quid eft autem, cur non exiſtimes
« in eo divini aliquid exiſtere, qui Dei pars eft? Totum hoc
quo
« continemur, et unum eſt et Deus: et ſocii ejus ſumus et mem-
< bra (g).” Marcus Antoninus often deſcribes God under the
character
er
(8) This may perhaps be thought an extravagant flight of Seneca. But the
ſame thing in effect is faid by that excellent philoſopher Epictetus. In anſwer to
that queſtion, “How any one may be convinced, that each of his actions are under
- the inſpection of God ? He infifts principally upon this, that “our ſouls are con-
“ nected and intimately joined to God, being uópia sai ánoow douata gegn members
" and diſtinct portions of his eſſence.” So Miſs Carter in her tranſlation well re-
preſents the ſenſe. “ And muſt he not,” adds Epictetus, “ be ſenſible of every
“ movement of them, as belonging and being connatural to himſelf ?” And he there
afterwards repreſents God as “ having made the ſun a ſmall part of himſelf, if com-
“ pared with the whole.” Epict. Diſſert. lib. i. chap. 14. So alſo in his 2d book,
chap. 8. f. 2. he repeats it, that " man is a diſtinct portion of the Divine Eſſence;
" and repreſents him, as containing a part of God in himſelf.' And adviſes perſons to
• conſider when they are feeding and exerciſing, that it is a God they feed, and a
“ God they exerciſe, and that they continually carry a God about with them." In
like manner Marcus Antoninus, ſpeaking of the dæmon or genius, which Jupiter
hath given to every man to be his leader and conducter, by which he means every
man's rational ſoul, calls it åtoowhoua ĉaulē, which Gataker tranſlates “ particulain
a ſe avulſam-a ſmall part plucked from himſelf.” Anton. lib. v. f. 27. The
note upon this paſſage in the Glaſgow tranſlation of Antoninus’s Meditations is this,
that “ the Stoics conceived the Divine Subſtance to be an infinitely diffuſed and all-
“ pervading æther, the ſeat of all wiſdom, power, and goodneſs; and that our
• ſouls were ſmall particles of this æther ; and that even thoſe of brutes were par-
“ ticles of the fame, more immerſed and intangled in the groſſer elements.”
toninus elſewhere repreſents the foul as &nópoio, an efflux or emanation from the
Governor
An-
1
321
Chap. XIII. the whole animated Syſtem of the World is God.
-
(
character of “ the nature of the whole." See to this purpoſe
lib. v. f. 10. lib. ix. f. 1. and other places. And he addreſſes his
prayer to the world, lib. iv. f. 23. " Whatſoever is agreeable to
“ thee, O comely world, is agreeable to me.Tão poi ouraguó CEL
« ε σοι, ευάρεςον έςι ο κόσμε.” And he adds,“ Every thing is
« acceptable fruit to me, which thy ſeaſons, O nature, bear.
“ From thee are all things, in thee all things ſubſiſt, to thee all
things return.” By the world here, and in other places, he
eſpecially underſtands the foul of the world, which the Stoics
made the principal governing part. St. Auſtin having mentioned
Varro's opinion, that the world is God, adds by way of explica-
tion as from Varro himſelf, that “as a wiſe man, though conſiſt-
ing of body and ſoul, is denominated wiſe from his ſoul, ſo
though the world confifteth of body as well as ſoul, yet it is
“ from the ſoul that it is called God.--Sicut hominem fapientem,
cum ſit ex corpore et animo, tamen ab animo dici fapientem
" ita mundum dici Deum ab animo, cum fit ex animo et
Governor of the world. Lib. ii. f. 4. And he calls every man's mind or rational
ſoul the Divinity within him, and the God within him. Lib. ii. f. 13. lib. iii. f. 5.
et 16. lib. v. f. 10. Seneca frequently uſes the ſame manner of expreſſion. But
this was far from being a doctrine peculiar to the Stoics. It was fewn before that
it was the avowed doctrine of Pythagoras and all the Pythagoreans. Sec above p.
287. And Cicero ſeems to repreſent it as the general opinion of the wiſeſt and
moſt learned men, " A quâ [Naturâ Deorum] ut doctiſſimis fapientiſſimiſque
“ placuit, hauſtos animos et libatos habemus.” De Divinat. lib. i. cap. 49. To
this Horace refers, when he calls the foul “divinæ particulam auræ.” And Virgil
in thoſe noted verſes of his Georgic, lib. iv. verf. 220, et ſeq. and Æneid, lib. vi.
verf. 724, et ſeq. Plato has ſeveral paſſages that ſeem to look this way, as the
learned author of the Divine Legation of Moſes has ſhewn ; but it muſt be alſo
acknowledged that there are other paſſages in his works which have a contrary
appearance.
VOL, I.
Tt
cor-
322
The Notion of the World's being God made uſe of · Part I.
1
« corpore (b).” Lactantius's cenſure upon theſe philoſophers is
certainly very juſt. That “ under the name of nature they com-
prehend things which are entirely different from one another,
« God and the world, the artificer and his workmanſhip; and
ſay that the one can do nothing without the other : as if nature
" were God and the world mixed together ; for ſometimes they
“ ſo confound them, as to make God to be the ſoul of the
“ world, and the world to be the body of God.-Naturæ nomine
diverfiffimas comprehendunt, Deum et mundum ; artificem
" et opus : dicuntque alterum ſine altero nihil poffe: tanquam
“ natura fit Deus mundo permixtus : nam interdum fic con-
« fundunt, ut fit Deus ipfa mens mundi, et mundus fit
corpus
« Dei.”
1
res
&
It were well if the abſurdity of this way of philoſophizing were
the worſt of it. But beſides that it gave occaſion to ſome of thoſe
extravagant flights of the Stoics, ſo unbecoming dependent crea-
tures, as if they had a divinity and ſufficiency in themſeves, which
placed them in ſeveral reſpects on an equality with God; this
notion was made uſe of for ſupporting the Pagan idolatry, and
was therefore of the moſt pernicious conſequence to the intereſts
of religion. For upon this principle, as was hinted before, they
deified the ſeveral parts of the world, and things of nature, and
worſhipped them as gods or parts of God. Cicero in his Acade-
mics gives this repreſentation of the ſentiments of the Stoics :
that they held, that “ this world is wiſe, and hath a mind or
(5) Ap. Auguſt. de Civit. Dei, lib. vii. cap. 6. p. 129, et ibid. cap. 9. p. 131.
« foul,
Chap. XIII. to promote and patronize the Pagan Polytheiſm. 323.
« fouł, whereby it' formed or fabricated both it and itſelf (i)s
« and ordereth, moveth, and governeth all things: and that the
co fün, moon, all the ſtars, the earth and fea are gods ; becauſe a
** certain animal intelligence pervadeth and paffeth through all
things.-Hunc mundum efſe ſapientem, habere mentem, quâ
«s et ſe et ipſum fabricata fit, et omnia moderetur, moveat; regat,
“ erit perſuaſum etiam folem, lunam, ſtellas omnes, terranr, mare,
“ Deos effe : quod quædàm animalis intelligentia per omnia per-
“ meat et tranſeat (k).” In like manner the great and learned
Varro exprefly ſays, that “ the ſoul of the world, and its parts, are
" the true Gods:” and repreſents this as the ſentiment of thoſe who
had the juſteſt notions, and were acquainted with the ſecrets of learn-
ing. “ Dicit Varro antiquos fimulacra Deorum, et inſignia, orna-
“ tuſque finxiſſe ; quæ, cum oculis animadvertiſſent hi qui adeffent
« doctrinæ myfteria, poffent anima:n mundi ac partes ejus, id eſt,
« veros Deos, animo videre (2).” Thus it appears, that the one
God of theſe philoſophers was really an aggregate of deities. The
unity of God they pleaded for was the unity of the world, which
conſiſteth of innumerable parts: and accordingly the great ſtoical
argument to prove that there is one God was, that there is but
one world; but this one Divinity was multiplied into as many
gods as there were parts of the world, all animated by the fame
univerſal ſoul, and all of them parts of the one God. This theo-
(i) This way of talking, as if God made himſelf, though very improper and
abſurd, was uſed not only by the Stoics, but by Plato and others of the philo-
fophers.
(k) Cic. Academ. lib. ii. cap. 37.
(?) Ap. Auguſt. De Civ. Dei, lib. vii. cap. 5. p. 128.
Tt 2
logy
1
324
The Pagans were univerſally
Part I.
logy or philofophy therefore furniſhed a pretext for worſhipping
the ſeveral parts of the world, and the powers and virtues dif-
fuſed through the parts of it, under the name of the popular
divinities (m). And thus, inſtead of curing the popular ſuper-
ſtition and polytheiſm, they confirmed and eſtabliſhed it, and,
as Plutarch charges the Stoics, filled the air, heaven, earth, and
ſea with gods (n).
Even after Chriſtianity had ſpread abroad its falutary light,
ſome of the moſt eminent Pagan philoſophers made uſe of this
very notion to juſtify the Heathen polytheiſm. The celebrated
Plotinus, ſpeaking of the ſoul of the world, faith, that“ by this,”
[i.e. by its foul] " the world is a God: and the ſun is alſo a
" God, becauſe animated, and ſo are the other ſtars.--dice TRUTNY
« ο κόσμος οδε- θεός, έσι δε και ήλιος θεός, ότι έμψυχος, και τα άλλα
äęga ().” Proclus has a long diſpute to prove, that not only
the ſtars are animated, but alſo all the other ſublunary bodies
or elements.
« If the world,” ſays he, « be a happy God, then
« none of the parts of it are godleſs, or devoid of providence.”
And he goes on to Thew, that they partake of the Divinity of the
whole (P).
(m) Thus St. Auſtin ſpeaking of what were called the Dii majorum Gentium,
Jupiter, Juno, Saturn, Neptune, Vulcan, Veſta, and others, obſerves, “ that Varro
" endeavoured to apply them to the elements and parts of the world.Quos Varro
conatur ad mundi partes ſive elementa transferre.” De Civ. Dei, lib. viii. cap. 5.
(n) De Commun. Notit. adverſ. Stoicos, tom. ii. p. 1275.
() Ennead. lib. v. cap. 2. p. 483. E.
() Proclus in Tim. Plat. lib. iv. apud Cudw. Intel. Syft. p. 237.
It
Chap. XIII.
325
in one Reſpect or other World-worſhippers.
CC
It is a juſt obſervation of the learned Dr. Cudworth concerning
the latter Platoniſts and Pythagoreans, that “in their philoſophy
they deſignedly laid a foundation for their polytheiſm and
« creature-worſhip, that is, for their coſmolatry, aſtrolatry, and
“ dæmonolatry.” [Their idolatrous worſhip of the world, of the
ſtars, and of dæmons.] Intel. Syſt. p. 593. And having thewn,
that “ the world was to ſome of them the body, to other the
temple of God; and in either ſenſe to be worſhipped,” he
adds, « Thus we ſee that the Pagans were univerſally coſmolatræ,
or world-worſhippers, in one ſenſe or other ; not that they
worſhipped the world as a dead inanimate thing, but either as
“ the body of God, or as the temple or image of God.” But he
obſerves, that “ neither of them terminated their worſhip in that
" which was ſenſible or viſible only, but in that great mind or
“ foul, which framed and governeth the whole world under-
“ ſtandingly.”. Ibid. p: 538, 539. And he had ſaid before con-
cerning thoſe who held God to be the ſoul of the world, that
“ they worſhipped the ſeveral parts and members of the world,
..
not as being themſelves ſo many gods, but as parts of one
“ God, or as his powers and virtues, as making up one God in
" the whole, which yet might be worſhipped in its ſeveral
parts (9).” Ibid. p. 536, 537. To the fame purpoſe he elſewhere
tells us, that “ theſe perſonated and deified things of nature, were
“ not-themſelves properly and directly worſhipped by the intelli-
1
(g) It is however to be obſerved, that they fo explained this matter, that theſe
ſeveral parts of God were each of them to be regarded and worſhipped as ſo many
particular deities, or diſtinct gods and goddeſſes, as the learned Doctor himſelf fome.
times acknowledges.
genit
9
1
326
Part I
The Pagans were univerfally
* gent Pagans (who acknowledged no inanimate thing for a
. God) ſo as to terminate their worſhip ultimately in them; but
« either relatively only to the Supreme God, or elfe-at moſt in a
way of complication with him, whoſe effects and images they
“ are; that they were not ſo much themfelves worſhipped, as
« God was worſhipped in them.” Ibid. p. 5:15. This is thę
moſt plauſible thing that can poſſibly be ſaid for them, and is the
pretence which has been made uſe of by the ableft and moſt re-
fined apologiſts, for idolatgy in all ages: and yet it is an apology
which, if it had any force, might be extended to vindicate the
paying religious worſhip to every thing in nature,, under pretence
of worſhipping God in it. And whereas it is here ſaid, that at
moſt they only worſhipped the things of nature « in a way of
complication with God, whoſe effects, and images they are,”
what is this but to ſay, that in their workhip they mixed and con-
founded the creature with the Creator? And accordingly they ar-
rived to that pitch of extravagance, as the Doctor owns, “ as to
“ call every thing by the name of God, and God by the name of
every thing.” This excellent writer himſelf, though he ſome
times ſeems willing to apologize for the Pagan idolatry, yet has
paſſed this juſt cenſure upon it. That “ the Pagans did not wor
ſhip God according to his fingular and incommunicable, his
peerleſs and incomprehenſible nature, but mingled creature-
worſhip with the worſhip of the Creator. And that the wor-
ſhipping God in his various gifts and effects under perſonal
" names, is a thing in itſelf abſurd, and may alſo prove a great
« inlet to atheiſm, when the things themſelves come to be called,
“ by thoſe names; as if the good things of nature were the only
5
" deities.
CC
.
Chap. XIII.
in one Respect or other World-worſhippers. 327
" deities. To worſhip the corporeal world as the one Supreme
“ God, and the ſeveral parts of it as members of God, is plainly
" to confound God and the creature, and not to worſhip him as
" the Creator, and according to his ſeparate nature (r)."
.
-
It appears from the obſervations which have been made, how
ſtrangely the philoſophers, even thoſe of them that were moſt
celebrated and admired, were loſt and bewildered in their own
reaſonings, in things of the higheſt importance : and conſequent-
how unfit they were to guide the people in religion, and to re-
cover them from their idolatry and polytheiſm. This furniſhes a
manifeſt and convincing proof of the weakneſs of human reaſon
when left to itſelf in theſe matters, and of the deluſions of ſcience
fallly ſo called. It was therefore upon the juſteſt grounds, that the
apoſtle gave that caution, “ Beware left any man ſpoil you through
" philoſophy and vain deceit."
(r) See the contents prefixed by him to his ivth chapter, fèct. lvii. This was
what this learned writer propoſed particularly to thew, and it is a pity that he did
not accomplish this part of his great work.
CHAP
328
The Philoſophy generally expreſſed
Part I.
CH A P. XIV.
The greateſt and beſt of the antient Pagan philoſophers generally ex-
preſſed themſelves in the polytheiſtic ſtrain; and, inſtead of leading
the people to the one true God, they ſpoke of a plurality of gods,
even in their moſt ſerious diſcourſes. They aſcribed thoſe works
to the gods, and directed thoſe duties to be rendered to them, which
properly belong to the Supreme.
A Pagan philofophes, and which the the
wingproperties
NOTHER thing to be obſerved concerning the antient
Pagan philoſophers, and which ſhews how improper they
were to bring the people to a right knowledge of God and reli-
gion, and to turn them from their ſuperſtition and idolatry, is, that
they generally fell into the common language of polytheiſm, and
talked as much of the gods as any of the people, and this even
in their moſt ſerious diſcourſes. Inſtead of urging the worſhip
of the one true God, and endeavouring to preſerve on the minds
of men a ſenſe of the infinite diſtance between him and all other
beings whatſoever, they recommended to the veneration of the
people a plurality of deities, to whom they gave thoſe peculiar
attributes and honours which were due to him alone. Zaleucus
the Locrian, who may be regarded as having been a wiſe philoſo-
pher as well as lawgiver, in his celebrated proæmium or preface
to his laws, where he argues from the evidences of the divine
powers, wiſdom, and goodneſs, in the orderly diſpoſition of things
in
1
CC
Chap. XIV. themſelves in the philofophic Strain.
329
in the univerſe, does not lead the people to the acknowledgment
of the one true Supreme God, but of a plurality of gods. See the
paffage quoted above, chap. 2d, p. 84. to which I now add,
that he afterwards goes on to urge it upon them as their duty
“ to remember the gods, both that they really exiſt, and that
they inflict judgments upon unrighteous perſons (a).” To the
ſame purpoſe Archytas, a celebrated Pythagorean, in the frag-
ments of his work De'Lege, preſerved by Stobæus, delivers him-
ſelf in this manner, that “the firſt law of the conſtitution Mould
“ be for the ſupport of what relates to the gods, the dæmons, and
“ our parents.” The learned Biſhop of Glouceſter, who takes
notice of this, obſerves, that “ in like manner, if we may
believe
antiquity, all their civil inſtitutes were prefaced ; its conſtant
phraſe being, when ſpeaking of a legiſlator, sieróo MEL TÚv tonia
“ teiæv eno Jeñv ágzóueros (6). He ſet in order the polity, be-
“ ginning from the gods.”
(6
It has been already obſerved concerning that beſt of the antient
philoſophers Socrates, that in thoſe excellent diſcourſes of his with
Ariſtodemus and Euthydemus, in which he treats particularly of
religion and the Deity, he all along ſpeaks of God and the gods
promiſcuouſly, as the authors of the human frame, and of all the
good things we enjoy. And to this probably Velleius in Cicero
refers, when he blames Xenophon for introducing Socrates as
mentioning now one, then many gods.
- Modo unum, tum au-
1
(a) Apud Stob. ferm. 42.
(6) Div. Leg. of Moſes, vol. i. p. 112. Edit. 4th.
Vol. I.
U u
(6 timi
330
The Philoſophers in their moſt ſerious Diſcourſes
Part I.
" tèm plures deos (c).” The ſame Socrates ſpeaking of the un-
written laws, as he calls them, which are obſerved after the ſame
manner in all places, and which he ſuppoſes not to have been
made by men, ſince all men are not of one language, nor could
meet together to conſult about them and enact them, but to have
been given by the gods themſelves to mankind, mentions it in
the firſt place as an univerſal law received among all men, “tás
" JED'S cebely-to worſhip the gods.” As if it were the law of
nature obligatory on all mankind to worſhip not one God only,
but a plurality of deities. Xenophon mentions it to the praiſe
of Socrates, that whereas “ the oi mondo-the generality of men,
ſuppoſed that there are ſome things which the gods know, and
" other things which they do not know, Socrates was of opinion
" that the gods know all things, both the things which are ſaid,
“ and the things which are done, and even the things which are
« deliberated upon in ſecret : and that they are every where pre-
“ fent, and.give ſignifications to men concerning all human af-
"; fairs (d).” A noble ſentence this, if applied to the one true
God: but when applied to a multiplicity of gods, tended to miſ-
lead the people, and to confirm them in their polytheiſm, as if
there was a number of omniſcient, omnipreſent deities. The
fame obſervation may be made concerning a remarkable ſaying
of Thales, mentioned by Laertius : being aſked, Whether a man
in his unjuſt actions can eſcape the notice of the gods? He an-
fwered, No, not in his thoughts (e).
(c) De nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 12.
fil) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. iv. ſ. 19. p. 327. Edit. Sympſon.
(c) Laert. lib. i, ſegm. 36.
Plato
Chap. XIV. encouraged and promoted Polytheiſm.
331
Plato in his arguings for the exiſtence of a Deity againſt the
atheiſts, which he profeſſedly undertakes in his tenth book of
laws, ſpeaks all along of gods in the plural. The point he fets
himſelf to prove in oppoſition to atheiſm, which he repreſents as
at that time much prevailing, is not that there is one God, but
that there are gods. And in the beginning of that book le in-
troduces one of his dialogiſts as faying,
« that it is eaſy to prove
- the exiſtence of the gods : the earth, the ſun, the ſtars, and
- the univerſe, and the well-ordered variety of ſeaſons, ſhew it :
as alſo the conſent both of Greeks and Barbarians, who all
agree that there are gods (f ).” In like manner, when in the
ſame tenth book of laws he argues for a Providence, what he
undertakes to prove is, That the gods take care of mankind and
their affairs, and do not neglect even ſmall matters (8). And in
his Epinomis, or ſequel to his books of laws, he lays it down as
a principle, ως εισί θεοί επιμελήμενοι πάντων σμίκρων και μεγάλων (5).”
That “ the gods exiſt, and take care of all things, both ſmall and
great." And in his whole diſputation on that ſubject it is the
Providence of the gods that he aſſerts, and even of the gods which
are appointed by the laws.
Cicero has many noble paſſages relating to the exiſtence of a
Deity and a Providence. But they tend to lead the people not ſo
much to the acknowledgment of the one Supreme God, as of a
multiplicity of gods., . Some notice was taken of this before in the
(f) Plato Oper. p. 664. E. Edit. Fic. Lugd. 1590.
(g) Ibid. p. 670, 671.
(5) Ibid. p. 700. E.
U 1 2
ſecond
1
332 The Philoſophers in their moſt ſerious Diſcourſes Part
ſecond chapter of this work. To which I now add, that when
he is ſpeaking of the conſent of nations, he ſeems to make it re-
late, as Plato had done before him, not to the belief of one Su-
preme Cauſe and Author of all things, but to a plurality of gods
or divine powers. He obſerves, that “ it is a ſtrong argument to
engage us to believe that there are gods, that there is no nation
« ſo wild and ſavage, no man ſo rude and uncultivated, whoſe
« mind is not embued with the opinion that there are gods.
Many have wrong ſentiments concerning the gods, but all think
“ there is a divine power and nature (i).” He adds, that “ in
every thing the conſent of all nations is to be looked upon as
- the law of nature.-Ut porrò firmiffimum hoc adferri videtur cur
“ deos eſſe credamus, quod nulla gens tam fera, nemo omnium
« tam fit immanis, cujus mentem non imbuerit deorum opinio.
" Multi de diis prava ſentiunt, omnes autèm effe vim et naturam
“ divinam arbitrantur-Omni autem in re confenfio omnium
“ gentium lex naturæ putanda eſt (k).” And again he ſays, that
“ it is as it were engraven on the minds of all men that there are
“ gods. What they are is not agreed, but that they are is denied
by none. Omnibus innatum eſt, et_animo quaſi inſculptum,
“ eſſe deos; quales fint varium eſt; eſſe nemo negat (1).” And
Cotta repreſents it as a thing in which all men agree, except thoſe
that are very impious, and which could never be eraſed out of
(i) But then it is to be obſerved, that though all are here ſuppoſed to believe
that there is a divine nature and power, yet many imagined that this divine nature
and power reſided in a multitude of deities.
(k) Tuſcul. Diſput. lib. i. cap. 13.
(1) De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 4.
2
his
Chap. XIV.
333
encouraged and promoted Polytheiſm.
his mind, that there are gods. Quod inter omnes, nifi ad-
“ modùm impios, convenit, mihi quidem ex aniino exuri non
poteſt, eſſe deos ().” Many other paſſages might be pro-
duced, in which the conſent of nations is urged to ſhew that
there are gods (22). The fame concluſion is drawn from the
pulchritude and order of the univerſe, and other arguments uſu-
ally brought in proof of a Deity. Balbus the Stoic, in Cicero's :
ſecond book De naturâ Deorum, having mentioned ſome of thoſe
arguments, ſays, that “ he that conſiders them will be forced to
confefs, that there are gods.--Hæc et innumerabilia ex eodem
genere qui videat, nonne cogitur profiteri deos eſſe?” He
expreſſes himſelf to the ſame purpoſe in ſeveral other parts of that
book. Thus, as was before obſerved, their very diſputes againſt
atheiſm were ſo managed, as to uphold and maintain the public:
polytheiſm, and were not ſo much directed to prove that there is
one Supreme God, as that there are many gods; all of whom are
to be honoured and adored. When Balbus fets himſelf to fhew
that the world is governed by Divine Providence, which he does
admirably well, what he propoſes to prove is, that it is by the
providence of the gods that the world is adminiſtered and go-
verneu. ". Deorum providentiâ mundum adminiſtrari (6).” And
again, that the world and all its parts were conſtituted in the be-
(n) De nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 3. .
(12) There is a remarkable paſſage of Seneca to the fame purpoſe in the beginning :
of his 117th epiſtle. “ Apud nos veritatis argumentum eſt aliquid omnibus videri:
tanquàm deos eſſe inter alia fic colligimnus, quod omnibus de Diis opinio inſita
6c eſt, nec ulla gcns uſquàm eſt adco extra leges moreſque projecta, ut non aliquos.:
66 deos credat."
(0) De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 29. p. 175. Edit. Davis, 2dais.
ginning;,
334
The Philoſophers in their moſt ſerious Diſcourſes
Part I.
C
ginning, and are at all times adminiſtered and governed by the
providence of the gods. « Dico igitur providentiâ deorum, mun-
so dum et omnes mundi partes, et initio conſtitutas eſſe, et omni
tempore adminiſtrari(p).” To the ſame purpoſe Cicero obſerves,
in his firſt book of laws, that “all nature is governed by the .
power, reaſon, authority, mind, divinity of the immortal
gods.--Deorum immortalium, vi, ratione, poteſtate, mente,
numine naturam omnem regi (9).” And in his ſecond book
of laws he lays it down as a principle, that “ the citizens ſhould
<< in the firſt place be perſuaded, that the gods are the lords and
- orderers of all things, and that whatſoever things are done in the
« world are done and directed by their divine power and authority:
" that they deſerve highly of the whole human race, and dili-
gently inſpect what every man is, what he does, what fecret
« faults he is guilty of, with what diſpoſitions of mind and what
degree of piety he exerciſeth himſelf in the offices of religion ;
" and that they take an account both of good and bad men.
* For,” ſays he, " the minds that have imbibed theſe ſentiments
56 will not deviate far from that way of thinking which is both
profitable and true.-Sit hoc jam in principio perſuaſum civi-
s bus, dominos effe omnium rerum et moderatores deos : ea-
que quæ geruntur eorum geri ditione et numine ; eofdemque
ss optimè de genere hominum mereri, et quales quiſque ſit, quid
agat, quid in ſe admittat, quâ mente, quâ pietate colat reli-
giones, intueri ; piorumque et impiorum habere rationem.
46 His enim rebus imbutæ mentes haud ſanè abhorrebunt ab utili
65
(1) De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 29. p. 177.
(9) De Leg. lib. i. cap. 7, p. 25. Edit. Davis, 4ta,
66 ac
Chap. XIV.
encouraged and promoted Polytheiſm.
335
“.ac verâ fententiâ (r).” To theſe may be added a fine paſſage
of Balbus in Cicero's ſecond book of the Nature of the Gods, which
would have been admirable, if he had applied it to the worſhip
of the one true God. « The beſt worſhip of the gods,” ſaith he,
" and which is at the ſame time the moſt chaſte, holy, and full of
• piety, is that with a pure, upright, incorrupt mind and voice
« we ſhould render them the veneration which is due.--Cultus
“ deorum eſt optimus, idemque caſtiſſimus atque ſanctiſſimus,
« pleniffimuſque pietatis, ut eos purâ, integrâ, incorruptâ et.
" mente et voce veneremur (s).” Such was the language of the
wifeſt and beſt of the antient Pagan philoſophers. They generally
ſpoke not of one God only, but of the gods ; and if they ſome-
times mentioned God in the fingular, as Cicero talks of " aliquis
« effector aut moderator tanti operis,” they aſcribe no more to
him than they do at other times to the gods in the plural; as if
there were many that ſhared with him in the Divinity, and were,
along with him, s domini omnium rerum et moderatores-the
" lords and governors of all things ;” And accordingly it is uſual
with them to ſpeak of God and the gods promiſcuouſly; which
tended to encourage and confirm the people in their idolatry and
polytheiſm. It is true, that after Chriſtianity had diffuſed its
glorious light, the notion of the one Supreme God became more
familiar to the Heathens, and many even of the vulgar were more
ſenſible of the vanity of polytheiſin. The philoſophers alſo aſſerted
the one Supreme Deity more clearly and fully than they had done
before. And yet they ſtill continued to expreſs themſelves in a
.
(De Leg. lib. ii, cap. 7. p. 94, 95.
(s) De nat. Deor. lib. ii. cap. 28. p. 174.
manner
336
Part I.
The Philoſophers in their moſt ſerious Diſcourſes
1
manner which had a tendency to uphold and maintain the com-
mon eſtabliſhed polytheiſm and idolatry, derived to them from
their anceſtors. I ſhall on this occaſion take particular notice of
two very eminent philoſophers, both of whom flouriſhed after
Chriſtianity had made ſome progreſs in the world, Epictetus and
Marcus Antoninus.
I ſhall begin with Epictetus. He often uſes the word God in
the ſingular number, and yet frequently falls into the polytheiſti-
cal manner of expreſſion. - Be aſſured,” ſays he in his Enchi-
ridion (t),
" that the effential property of piety towards the gods
ct is to form right opinions concerning them, as exiſting and go-
verning the univerſe with goodneſs and juſtice. And fix your-
is ſelf in this reſolution to obey them, and willingly to follow
es them in all events, as produced by the moſt perfect under-
ſtanding : for thus you will never find fault with the gods, nor
« accuſe them as neglecting you (u)." Here he makes true piety
to conſiſt in entertaining right notions of the gods, and in obeying
and following them: and he repreſents the gods as governing the
world with the moſt perfect underſtanding, juſtice, and goodneſs.
With this may be compared an admired paffage in his Differta-
tions. " The philoſophers ſay, that we are firſt to learn that
rs there is a god, and that his Providence dire&s the whole; and
* that it is impoſſible to conceal from him not only our actions,
. but even our thoughts and emotions. We are next to learn
(1) Epict. Enchir. cap. 31. Ed. Upton. In the common editions it is cap. 38.
(u) It is with pleaſure I make uſe of Miſs Carter's excellent tranſlation of this and
other paſſages of Epictetus.
( what
Chap. XIV.
encouraged and promoted Polytheiſm.
337
the gods.
CS
« what the gods are, for ſuch as they are found to be, ſuch muſt
« he that would pleaſe and obey them, to the utmoſt of his
? power, endeavour to be. And in all his words and actions
“ behave as an imitator of God (x).” Here the words God and
gods are uſed promiſcuouſly. It is undoubtedly a leſſon of great
importance firſt to know that God is, and next what he is. But
Epictetus expreſſes it thus, that we are firſt to learn that God is,
or that there is a God, and next what the gods are.
He urges it
as a duty, that a man ſhould in all his words and actions behave
as an imitator of God. The ſame thing he ſays with reſpect to
“ Such as the gods are, ſuch muſt he that would
pleaſe and obey them, to the utmoſt of his power, endeavour
“ to be.” He ſpeaks of God's directing the whole by his Provi-
dence : and he had ſaid the ſame thing of the gods in ſtill ſtronger
terms, in the paſſage above quoted from his Enchiridion. He
here likewiſe obſerves, that nothing can be concealed from God :
and he elſewhere makes the ſame ſuppoſition concerning the gods.
« Are not the gods," ſays he, every where at the ſame
"s diſtance? Do not they every where equally ſee what is do-
ing ? (y)" Speaking of the deſires and averſions, he faith,
! yield them up to Jupiter and the other gods : give thy ſelf up
os to theſe : let theſe govern.” The title and deſign of the 13th
chapter of the firſt book of his Diſſertations is to fhew, how every
thing may be performed acceptably to the gods : and he there
talks of the laws of the gods as what' men are obliged to obey.
(x) Diſſert. Book i. chap. 14. f. 2.
(y) Book iv. chap. 4. at the end of that chapter.
Vol. I.
Χ Χ
When
.
338 The Philoſophers in their moſt ſerious Diſcourſes Part I.
When he mentions the celebrated ſaying of Socrates, in one place
he has it thus, « if it pleafes God, fo let it be;" in another, « if
" it pleaſes the gods, ſo let it be (x).” He ſuppoſes reaſon to be
given to men by the gods (a). And ſpeaking of a man's having
ſubdued his ill nature, his reviling and effeminacy, and having
acquired good habits, he adds, " theſe things you have from your-
ſelf and from the gods.” Book iv. chap. 4. f. 6.
I ſhall next produce ſome paſſages from that excellent emperor
and philoſopher Marcus Antoninus. “ If there are no gods,” faith
he, or if they have no regard to human affairs, why ſhould I
" deſire to live in a world without gods, and without Provi-
« dence? But gods undoubtedly there are, and they regard hu-
« man affairs.' What he here afferts as certain and undoubted
is, that there are gods, and the providence he ſpeaks of is the
providence of the gods (b). He gives it as an important advice,
“ In all things invoke the gods. Q átraor JESS ÈTiranë (c).”
Upon which Gataker obſerves, that this is a pious advice, if the
Heathen polytheiſm were ſeparated from it. « Pium monitum,
« fi ethniciſmi Foru.geia refecetur.” And the fame obfervation
may be made on many other paſſages in Antoninus's Meditations, .
(z) Book i. chap. 29. f. 3. compared with the laſt chapter of the Enchiridion.
(a) Book iii. chap. 24. f. 1. This is agreeable to the ſtoical maxim, " Pru-
of dentiam et mentem a diis ad homines perveniſſe.” Cic. De nat. Deor. lib. ila.
cap. 31.
(6) Antoninus's Meditations, book ii. f. 11.
(c) Book vi. f. 23. So Epictetus ſays. ŠvX8 Tois Decīs. Differt. lib. i. cap. 1. .
At:
fi 2.-
Chap. XIV.
339
encouraged and promoted Polytheiſm.
At the end of his firſt book, he expreſſeth his thankfulneſs to the
gods, for the benefit of education, for good friends, tutors, parents,
virtuous difpofitions, for having been preſerved from temptations,
and placed in advantageous circumſtances for improvement.
Theſe things he aſcribes to the goodneſs or beneficence of the
gods, GEWY ŻUTOla. And in the 40th ſection of his ninth book he
directs men to pray to the gods, as having power to enable us to
do our duty. And he there ſpeaks of the gods as giving us their
aſſiſtance, even in things which they have put in our own power.
The whole of what he there ſays is admirable, if applied to the
one true God. And this, with other paſſages of the like kind,
eſpecially his giving thanks in the paſſage juſt now mentioned for
the advantages he had been favoured with, have been produced
as a proof, that “ this emperor plainly depended on God for
ſanctifying influences; and with the deepeſt humility and fim-
“ plicity of heart acknowledges, that he owes to God's preventing
grace in his Providence about him, all thoſe virtuous diſpoſi-
« tions in which he had any delight or complacency (d).” Thus
it is that Chriſtian writers are apt to apply their own ideas of
things, which they borrowed from the Holy Scriptures, to the
writings of the Heathen philoſophers. But Antoninus in the paf-
ſages here referred to makes no mention of the one Supreme God.
The prayers for aſſiſtance, the praiſes and thankſgivings for
benefits received, are rendered not to God, but to the gods.
The gods are made the objects of truſt and dependence, and
the people are led to place that confidence in them which is
CC
(d) See the concluſion of the life of M. Antoninus prefixed to the Glaſgow tranf-
lation of his Meditations, p. 71, 72.
duc
X x 2
340
The Philoſophers in their moſt ſerious Diſcourſes Part 1
due to God alone. And this makes a very remarkable difference
between the precepts and duties of religion as delivered by him,
and thoſe which are preſcribed in the Holy Scriptures (e).
The
(c) It is not improper to obſerve on this occaſion, that it is no unuſual thing for
Chriſtian writers in their quotations from Heathen authors to produce paſſages re-
lating to the gods, as a proof that the Heathens acknowledged the government and
attributes of the Deity in the Chriſtian ſenſe. An eminent Divine, whom I have
had occafion to mention before, has undertaken to ſhew, that by the mere light of
their own unaſliſted reaſon, without any help from Revelation and Tradition, the
Heathens " had a knowledge and firm perſuaſion, that there exiſted one underived,
" eternal, ſupreme, intelligent Being, Creator and Governor of the univerſe,
good, placable, a puniſher of vice, and rewarder of virtue, whom they thought
“ it their duty to worſhip, to pray to him, to praiſe him; and this Being they called
“ God *." He endeavours to prove the feveral parts of this propoſition diſtinctly
by expreſs teſtimonies from the Heathen writers. Moſt of them are the ſame that are
produced by the learned Dr.Cudworth, the moſt remarkable of which are conſidered in
the courſe of this work. If it be allowed that ſome of them fpeak of the one true God
(the knowledge of whom was, as I have ſhewn, communicated from the beginning,
though afterwards amazingly corrupted and depraved); yet ſtill it remains to be
proved, that they derived this merely from the reſearches of their own reaſon, with-
out any affiſtance from revelation or tradition. And this our learned author ſtrong-
ly aſſerts, but has not proved. But, to paſs this by at preſent, what I would now
obſerve is, that in proving the ſeveral parts of the above-mentioned propoſition, he
promiſcuouſly produces paſſages which fpeak of God and of the gods. Thus to
prove that they held that God is omniſcient, he produces paſſages from Socrates
and Plato, in which it is ſaid, that the gods ſee and know all things: as alſo that
they have power to do whatever can be done. To Mew that they believed that
God governs the world by his Providence, he produces paſſages which aſcribe the
government of the world to the gods. He obſerves, that “ Cicero well argues,
“ that if we grant that God is an intelligent being, we muſt grant, that he directs
" and governs all things.” And yet Cicere in that paſſage, as he himſelf quotes it,
ſpeaks not of God in the ſingular number, but of the gods. " Si concedimus in-
· telligentes eſſe deos, concedimus etiam providentes, et rerum quidem maxima-
rum." De nat. Deor. lib. ii. When he comes to prove that part of his propo-
fition, that they believed the one God, the Creator and Governor of the world, to
be good, placable, the puniſher of vice, and the rewarder of virtue, he produces
* Dr. Sykes's Principles and Connexion of Natural and Revealed Religion, chap. xiv, p. 362, et ſeg.
par
I
Chap. XIV.
347
encouraged and promoted Polytheiſm.
The paſſages to be farther produced will ſet this in a ſtill clearer
light. Antoninus obſerves, that « our natural conſtitution and
“ furniture is intended to engage us in kindneſs to all men,
" and in obedience to the gods ()." And in another paſſage to
the ſame purpoſe he repreſents it as our duty, while life con-
tinues, “to worſhip and praiſe or celebrate the gods, gets rébela
sj suonueñv, and to do good to men (8).” And again,
16 love
« mankind,” ſays he, “ and be obedient to the gods (b)."
obey God, and do good to men, is certainly a noble fummary of
our duty. What a pity it is that ſuch fine precepts and ſentiments
Lhould be weakened and debaſed by applying them to a multipli-
paſſages to ſhew, that “thie Heathens believed that the god's are placable ; but
" that however placable the gods were deemed, yet they were looked upon as the
avengers of evil, and the rewarders of good actions.” In like manner when he
is to ſhew, that the Heathens maintained that God is to be worſhipped, he expreſſes
it thus, that “the ſentiments they maintained concerning the gods muſt neceſſarily
ss lead men to pay them a proper worſhip, to prayer, praiſe, thankfulneſs, and ſub-
miſſion to their will; and that effect was produced; and theſe duties were ac-
knowledged to be due.” And accordingly moſt of the paſſages he mentions re-
late to the worſhipping of the gods. And in general it may be obſerved, that
when he propoſes to prove that the Heathens had a knowledge and perſuaſion of
the attributes of the one true God, moſt of the teſtimonies he brings relate not to
the one Supreme God, but to the gods; which hews, that though the idea of one
God was not utterly extinguiſhed among the Pagans, yet it was generally con-
founded with a multiplicity of idol deities, to whom they applied the peculiar attri-
butes and worſhip due to the one Supreme God : and that Jupiter, whom they
vulgarly regarded as the ſupreme, and to whom fome of the paſſages cited by the
Doctor immediately refer, was really no more than the chief of their idol deities.
And even among the philoſophers themſelves, God and the world was frequently:
confounded together, as making up one divinity.
(f) Anton. Med. bcok iii. f. 9.
(g) Ibid. book v. f. 33.
(!) Ibid, book vii. f. 31,.
city
342
The Philoſophers in their mojt ſerious Diſcourſes Part I.
city of gods! For who are theſe gods whom we are bound to
obey ? Or, how far are we to obey them? This is to caſt the
mind into perplexing uncertainties, and to encourage polytheiſin.
.
Antonine urges to meekneſs from the example of the gods.
“ The gods," ſaith he, " exerciſe meekneſs and patience towards
men, and even aid them in the purſuit of ſome things, as of
“ health, wealth, glory. So gracious are they! You may be ſo
“ too (i).” And he elſewhere ſuppoſes “ the gods to bear with
" a wicked world through a long eternity (k).”
He frequently repreſents the gods as the cauſes and orderers of
all things.
“ Does any thing befal me?” ſays he. “ I accept it,
“ as referring it to the gods, the fountain of all things, from
« whom all things are ordered in a fixed ſeries (1).” Gataker,
in his note upon this paffage, produces ſeveral texts of Scripture to
ſhew, that pious men aſcribe all things, whatſoever events befal
them, to God. But there is this difference between the doctrine of
the Scriptures on that head and that of Antonine, that what they
teach us to refer to God as the Supreme Diſpoſer, he referreth to
the gods. In the beginning of his tenth book, ſect 1. he gives
excellent advices about our being ſatisfied with the ſtate we are in,
whatſoever it is, and being pleaſed in every circumſtance: but
(i) Anton. Med. book ix. f. 11. et f. 27.
(k) Ibid. book vii. f. 70.
(1) Ibid. book viii. f. 23. In this and other paſſages here cited I make uſe of
the Glaſgow tranſlation of Antoninus's Meditations, which appears to me to be a
faithful and elegant one.
2
here
1
Chap. XIV.
343
encouraged and promoted Polytheiſin.
here alſo he ſpeaks in the polytheiſtic ſtrain. " Perſuade thy ſelf,'
faith he,
" that thou haſt all things : all is right and well with
" thee, and comes to thee from the gods. And all ſhall be
right and well for thee which they pleaſe to give, and which
cs
they are about to give for the ſafety of the perfect animal.”
Here he ſpeaks of all things as coming to us from the gods; that
all is right which they pleaſe to give or appoint: and repreſents
them as ordering all things for the ſafety of the univerſe, which
he there calls the moſt perfect animal (n), and deſcribes by cha-
racters proper to the Divinity, “ the good, the juſt, the fair, the
parent of all things, the ſupporter, the container, the ſur--
« rounder of all things."
He has ſeveral other paſſages to the ſame purpoſe.
" As to
« what happens,” ſays he, “ in the common courſe of nature,
“ the gods are not to be blamed: they never do wrong willingly
nor unwillingly (n).” And he gives it as the character of a juſt
man, that “he followeth the gods with ſimplicity (0). To thoſe
who aſk,
“ Where have you ſeen the gods ? Or, whence are you
“ aſſured they exiſt, that you thus worſhip them ?” He anſwers,
“ firſt they are viſible, even to the eye.” This probably relates
to the heavenly bodies, which were regarded as gods by the
Stoics. He adds, My own foul I cannot ſee, and yet I reve-
“ rence it : and thus as I experience continually the power of
(11) In like manner he calls the univerſe or the world an animal, book iv. f. 23
et 40.
(n) Book xii. f. 12
(@) Ibid. ſ. 27.
56 the
1
344 The Philoſophicrs in their moſt ſerious Diſcourſes Part I.
es the gods, I know both ſurely that they are, and worſhip
«them (p).” This is well argued, if applied to the one true
God, whoſe power, though he be inviſible to the bodily eye, ex-
tends through every part of the univerſe, and who is continually
preſent to all his creatures. But the applying it to the gods, as if
we were equally ſure of the exiſtence of a plurality of deities, and
of their being every where preſent, fpoils the force of the reaſon-
ing, and the beauty of a noble ſentiment (8).
That
() Anton. Nied. book xii. f. 28.
(9) A late ingenious author who has carried his apologies for the Heathens and
their religion very far, taking notice that the emperor Marcus Antoninus frequently
ſpeaks of gods in the plural, cautions his reader not to be ſurprized at it; for that
" this phraſe was common with the Pagans and the Hebrews *" Where he inti-
mates that it was as common among the Hebrews as among the Pagans to talk of
gods in the plural. A ſtrange inſtance this of the power of prejudice, when engaged
in the ſupport of a favourite hypotheſis. The contrary muſt, I think, be evident
to any one that ever compared the Jewiſh and Pagan writings. As to the Pagans,
a multiplicity of deities every where appears in their hiſtory, poetry, philofophical
and moral writings, and runs through the whole of their religion and laws. But
the great and fundamental principle of the Jewiſh religion, expreſly preſcribed by
their laws, and which appears in all their writings, hiſtorical, poetical, moral, and
devotional, is, that there is one only God, the Creator and Governor of the uni-
verſe, who alone is to be worſhipped and adored. And the many gods of the
Heathens are ſpoken of with contempt and abhorrence. It is true, that one of the
Hebrew names of God, Elohim, ſeems to be of a plural form, and is ſometimes
attributed to the creatures : but beſides that the moſt peculiar name of God,
Jehovah, is always fingular, the word Elohim, when applied to the one true God,
is almoſt conſtantly joined with a verb fingular; and accordingly is in the New
Teſtament always rendered by the word Icès, God: whereas, according to this
gentleman's way of repreſenting it, we might expect to meet with the word Isoi,
gods, as often in the New Teſtainent as in the Pagan writings. The gods indeed are
ſometimes mentioned there, when ſpeaking of the Pagan polytheiſın, but it is with a
view to condemn it. Thus, St Paul faith, “ We know there is none other God but
Cheval, Ramla;'s Principles of Nit, and Rov. Rul. vol. ii. p. 440.
one,
Chap. XIV.
encouraged and promoted Polytheiſin.
345
That celebrated philoſopher Plutarch, who alſo flouriſhed after
the Goſpel was publiſhed to the world, frequently falls into the
ſame manner of expreſſion. I ſhall only mention one paſſage.
It is in his Conſolation to Appollonius. «. We do not come into
« life," ſays he,' “ as if we could preſcribe and make what laws
« concerning it we pleaſe, but muſt obey the things which are
appointed by the gods which govern the univerſe, and muſt ſub-
« mit to the decrees of fate and providence.-TLÓMErol Tois fia-
« τεταγμένοις υπο των τα όλα πρυτανευόντων θεών, και τοίς ειμαρ-
« μένης και προνοίας θέσμους (r).”
:
of rea
Whoſoever impartially conſiders the paſſages which have been
produced from ſome of the moſt eminent Heathen philoſophers,
muft, I think, be obliged to acknowledge, that their way
preſenting things in their moſt ſerious diſcourſes, tended naturally
to take off the attention of the people from the one Supreme God,
and to lead them to a plurality of deities. Many have ſpoke with
admiration of the piety which breathes in the ſtoical precepts.
And any one that reads the account given of them by the learned
Gataker in his præloquium or preliminary diſcourſe to his excel-
lent Latin tranſlation and commentary on the Meditations of An-
toninus, will be apt at firſt view to look upon it as a ſummary of
the principal duties towards God preſcribed in the Holy Scriptures.
1 one.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth
“ (as there be gods many and lords many)" where he ſeems evidently to refer to
the Pagan polytheiſm; “ but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are
“ all things, and we in hiin; and one Lord Jeſus Chriſt, by whom are all things,
" and we by him.” i Cor. viii, 4, 5, 6.
(r) Plut. Oper. tom. ii. p.ur. Edit. Francof. 1620.
VOL. I.
Y y
But
}
346
The Philoſophers in their moſt ſerious Diſcourſes Part I.
1
But there is this eſſential difference between them; that the duties
which the Scriptures require us to exerciſe towards the one true
God, they direct to be paid to the gods, and thereby impair and
corrupt the nobleſt ſentiments, and ſpread confuſion through that
which they themſelves acknowledge to be the moſt important
part of our duty. And indeed they ſeem to have had no ſmall
confugon in their ideas on this ſubject. Some might be apt to
think, that by the gods they underſtood the one God under dif-
ferent names and manifeſtations: which was a notion ſometimes.
made uſe of to put a plauſible colour on the Pagan polytheiſm:.
But any one that carefully conſiders the paſſages which have been
mentioned will find that in moſt of them this pretence cannot be
admitted, and that the gods are plainly ſpoken of as diſtinâ really
exiſtent divine beings. . In a note of the Glaſgow tranſlation on
that paſſage of Antoninus, where he ſays,
" the ſun, is formed
« for a certain office, and ſo are the other gods (s),” it is ob-
ſerved, that « the better fects of the Heathen philoſophers, be-
« fides the one Supreme original Deity, conceived great numbers
“ of ſuperior natures, inveſted with great powers of government,
" in certain parts of the univerſe ----and that the Heathens called
· thoſe ſuperior beings gods, and the Chriſtians called them ana
gels (t).” But nothing is plainer, than that the philoſophers
aſcribe things to the gods, which no way agree to the idea the
Scripture teaches us to form of angels, and which properly belong
to the one true God. In ſeveral of the paſſages above-mentioned,
2
(s) Anton. Medit. book viii, f. 19.
(1) Glaſgow tranſlation of Antoninus, p. 299
the
Chap. XIV.: encouraged and promoted Polytheiſm.
347
the gods are repreſented as the cauſes and governors of the uni.
verſe, ordering and directing all things, extending their powers
and providence to every thing, the ſmalleſt as well as the greateſt,
as every where preſent and knowing all things, not only all men's
actions, but even their moſt ſecret thoughts, as the fountain of all
good things, and the diſpoſers of all events, to whom we owe
the moft abſolute ſubjection, reſignation, and obedience, in whoſe
appointments we muſt always acquiefce, being ſatisfied that they
never can do wrong, and that they adminiſter all things with the
moſt perfect underſtanding, righteouſneſs, and goodneſs: that it is
our duty to worſhip and adore them ; that to them we muſt offer
up our prayers, and moſt devoutly and thankfully aſcribe the praiſe
of every good thing which befalleth us; that we muſt refer all
things to them and to their will, and in them muſt place our con-
fidence and truſt.
The cenſures therefore which the learned Dr. Cudworth paſſeth
upon the poets, may be juſtly applied to the moſt celebrated
philoſophers. “ That they made the theology of the Pagans look
“ ariſtocratically--by their ſpeaking ſo much of the gods in ge-
« neral, and without diſtinction, and attributing the government
« of the whole to them in common, as if it were managed and
« carried on by a common council and republic of gods (u),
(u) Balbus, in Cicero's ſecond book of the Nature of the Gods, afferts, that
" the world is governed by the council of the gods.--Deorum confilio mundum
“ adminiſtrari.” Cap. 29. p. 177. Edit. Davis, 2da. To the ſame purpoſe he re-
preſents the gods as joined together by a kind of civil conſociation, and governing
the world as a common city or republic. “ Inter fe quaſi civili conciliatione et
“ focietate conjunctos, unum mundum ut communem rempublicam atque urbem
aliquam regentes.” Ibid. cap. 31. p. 179.
Y y 2
«
Where-
348 The Philoſophers in their moſt ſerious Diſcourſes, &c. Part I.
« wherein all things were determined by a majority of voices,
i and as if their Jupiter or Supreme God were no more among
“ them than a ſpeaker of the houſe of lords or commons, or the
« chairman of a committee (x).” The ſame learned author ac-
knowledges concerning the Stoics, that “ they often derogate from
« the honour of the Supreme Deity, by attributing ſuch things to
" the gods in common as the donors of them, which plainly be-
à long to the Supreme God (y)."
Thus the philoſophers, by talking of God and the gods promif-
cuouſly, contributed to confound the notions of the people, and
countenanced and confirmed them in their polytheiſm, and in
their veneration for the popular deities.
3
(x) Cudworth's Intel. Syſtem, p. 357.
(y) Ibid. p. 427.
СНАР.
[ 349 ]
C H A P.
xv.
Some farther confiderations to sew how little was to be expected
from the philoſophers for recovering the Pagans from their poly-
theiſm and idolatry. They referred the people for inſtruction in
divine matters to the oracles, which were managed by the prieſts.
This shewn particularly concerning Socrates, Plato, and the Stoics.
It was an univerſal maxim among them, That it was the duty of
every wiſe and good man to conform to the religion of his country.
And not only did they worſhip the gods of their reſpective coun-
tries, according to the eſtabliſhed: rites, and exhort others to do
fo, but when they themſelves took upon them the character of legiſla-
tors, and drew up plans of laws and of the beſt forms of govern-
ment, not the worſhip of the one true God, but polytheiſm, was
the religion they propoſed to eſtabliſh.
IT.
T is a farther inſtance of the philoſophers countenancing the
popular idolatries and ſuperſtitions, that, except the Epicu-
reans and others who denied a providence, they generally en-
couraged divination and the oracles. Socrates himſelf was very
remarkable this way. Xenophon mentions it as a proof of his
piety, that he openly uſed divination ; and ſpeaking of thoſe who
thought that the gods ſignified things to men by birds, omens,
preſages, and ſacrifices, he ſays, that Socrates thought ſo too(a).
I
(?) Xen. Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 1. f. 2, 3.
3
Не
350
The Philofophers referred People
Part I.
He frequently adviſed men to follow the direction of the oracles,
eſpecially in matters of religion (6). And above all he ſhewed a
great veneration for the Delphian oracle. Xenophon obſerves,
that when any perſons enquired of the Pythian oracle what they
Thould do with reſpect to facrifices, and the religion of their an-
ceſtors, or any thing of that nature, the oracle was wont to an-
ſwer them, that they would act piouſly, if they performed theſe
things according to the laws of their reſpective cities; and he in-
forms us, that Socrates, in matters relating to the gods, so argos
This sets, both ſpoke and acted conformably to that direction of
the oracle : that he both did this himſelf, and exhorted others to
do fo: and looked upon thoſe who acted otherwiſe as vain and
ſuperſtitious perſons, regiógys, perſons impertinently buſy, or that
meddled with things which did not belong to them. A remark-
able inſtance of this we have in his excellent converſation with
Euthydemus before referred to. When this young man expreſſed
his concern, that he knew not how to make worthy returns to
the gods for the many benefits received from them, Socrates bids
him not be diſcouraged at this : “ For," ſays he, “thou ſeeſt
" the god at Delphi, when any one aſks him, how he may
do
" that which is acceptable to the gods, anfwers, By worſhipping
1
(6) Socrates adviſed him that would know things above the reach of human wif-
dom to apply himſelf to divination. For that that man would never be deſtitute of
the counſel and direction of the gods, who ſhould know and obſerve by what way
they ſignified things to men. Xen. Memorab. lib. iv. cap. 7. f. 10. This ſhews
the ſenſe he had of the great need men ſtood in of a direction from above in divine
matters, which alſo appears from ſeveral other paſſages. But it is a mortifying
thing to think, that a perſon of his great underſtanding ſhould ſend men for know-
ing the Divine Will, to what was then called divination, and to the oracles of the
gods.
3
" them
Chap. XV. for Inffruction in Religion to the Oracles.
351
* them according to the law of the city--rów różews (c).”
Agreeable to this is the deſcription he gives of piéty, and of a
pious man. After having obſerved, that piety is a moſt excellent
and beautiful thing, he deſcribes the pious man to be one that
that honoureth the gods: but that it is not lawful for any man te
worſhip the gods as he himſelf thinks fit. There are laws accord-
ing to which it is to be done: and he who obſerves thofe laws
may know how the gods ought to be honoured. He concludes
therefore, that he who honoureth the gods according to the laws,
honoureth them as he ought : and he who honoureth the gods as
he ought, is a truly pious man. This is the fubſtance of Socrates's
diſcourſe on this head as recorded by Xenophon (d). Thus we
ſee, it was in Socrates's opinion effential.co true piety to worſhip the
gods, and to worſhip them in the manner and according to the
rites eſtabliſhed by the laws. And among the Attic laws this
was one : « Let it be a law among the Athenians for ever ſacred.
« and inviolable, always to render due homage in public towards
« the gods, and native heroes, according to the uſual cuſtom of
is the country, and with all poſſible ſincerity to offer in private
« firſt fruits with anniverſary cakes (e)." And it was before
fhewn, that every citizen of Athens was obliged to take a ſolemn
oath to conform to the religion of his country.
It is a great miſtake to ſuppoſe, as ſome have done, that Socra-
tes endeavoured. to draw men off from the public religion, or from
(c) Xen, Memorab. lib. iv. cap. 3. f. 16.
(d) Ibid. cap. 6. f. 2, 3, 4.
(e). Potter's Greek Antiq, vol. i. P: 136.
the
352
Part 1
Socrates praetiſed and recommended
-
the worſhip of the popular deities. Dacier, in his introduction to
Socrates's apology, ſays, that “ Socrates attacked the ſuperſtition of
«« the Athenians, and the plurality of their gods, by expoſing
ss the ridiculouſneſs of the fables with which their theology was
“ filled, and by that means endeavoured to bring them to the
“ knowledge of the one true God.” And it is true, that Socrates
diſapproved the literal ſenſe of fome of the poetical fables, which
raiſed a prejudice againſt him in the minds of the Athenians; yet
he ſuppoſed thoſe fables to contain a hidden and myſterious
meaning (f), and that the poets, as well as the diviners and deli-
verers of oracles, were inſpired by a divine afflatus. This appears
from the paſſages produced above, chap. vi. to which I refer the
reader. He never diſſuaded the people from worſhipping the
gods appointed by the laws. The accuſation brought againſt him
by Anytus and Melitus was, that he did not believe thoſe to be
gods which the city believed, and that he introduced other new
gods. But againſt this charge Xenophon zealoully vindicates him,
by obſerving, that he openly ſacrificed to the gods, frequently at
home, and often at the public altars of the city (8). And Socra-
tes himſelf, in his apology to his judges, declares, that he wonders
how Melitus came to know that he did not efteem them to be
gods whom the city regarded as ſuch, fince many had ſeen him
facrificing on the common feſtivals, and at the public altars; and
Melitus himſelf might have ſeen him if he had pleaſed (). He
(f) See the learned Mr. Des Veaux's life of Julian, vol. ii. p. 232.
(g) Xen. Memor. lib. i. cap. i. f. 1. 3.
() Ibid, p. 369. Edit. Sympſon, 2da.
2
appeals
Chap. XV.
the public Polytheiſm.
353
appeals to Apollo's oracle in his own defence, of whom he ſpeaks
with great veneration.
veneration. And in his priſon he compoſed a hymn
to Apollo, which he himſelf mentions in his laſt diſcourſe to his
friends on the day of his death (i).
What hath been obſerved concerning Socrates, holds equally
with reſpect to Plato. In the fourth book of his Republic he refers
to Apollo at Delphi, as having made the moſt excellent con-
ſtitutions in religious matters : and inſtances in thoſe relating to
temples, facrifices, and the other rites obſerved in the worſhip of
the gods, dæmons, and heroes, and whatſoever things are ne-
ceſſary to propitiate them. And then adds, “ theſe things we do
« not know, and in ordering or adminiſtering the city, we will,
“ if we be wiſe, obey no other, nor uſe any other guide or in-
“ ſtructor than the patron god, or the god of our country.” By
which he means the Delphian Apollo, whom he had mentioned
juſt before.
« όδενί άλλω πεισόμεθα έαν ν&ν έχομεν δε χρησάμεθα
“ Biznyntñ áraç ñ tw ratgio [m] (k).” And in his ſixth book
of Laws he ſaith, that “ the laws concerning divine things were
“ to be fought for from Delphi, and that of theſe the prieſts were
" to be the interpreters (1)." In his tenth book of Laws he
blames thoſe men as putting impious notions into the heads of
young perſons, who taught them that they ought not to look
upon thoſe to be gods, whom the law required them to regard as
ſuch. « ως εκ όντων θεών διος ο νομος προςαττει.” And he repre-
(i) Plato's Phædo Oper. p. 376. H. Edit. Fic. Lugd. 1590.
(k) Plato Oper. p. 448. B, C,
(1) Ibid. p. 616. G,
VOL.I.
7
ſents
354
Plato urged tle Worſtip of the Godi Part I
ſents it as the duty and office of a legiſlator to puniſh thoſe who
do not believe the gods to be ſuch as the law declares them to
be (m). He there all along treats thoſe perſons as atheiſts, who
did not acknowledge the gods appointed by law, and takes upon
himſelf the defence of them. In his Epinomis, he ſuppoſes many
of the gods and dæmons to have been made known by dreams,
prophecy, divination, voices heard by perſons in health or in
ſickneſs, or even at the hour of their departure ; and that theſe
things have given riſe to the inſtitution of many religious rites
obſerved both privately and publicly; and he would not have any
of the rites founded upon them to be neglected or altered. He
adds, that a legiſlator who hath the leaſt ſhare of underſtanding
will not make the moſt minute alteration in any of theſe things,
or endeavour to turn his city to a leſs certain way of worſhip;
and that he will not attempt to innovate in any thing relating to
the facrifices preſcribed by the laws of the country (n). This
may help us to judge of the truth of Dacier's affertion in his dif-
courſe on Plato, and which he repeats in his life, that “ Plato
« endeavours to re-eſtabliſh natural religion, by oppoſing Pagan-
“ iſm which was the corruption of it; and that in order to cure
“ men of ſuperſtition and idolatry, which then reigned ſo much
“ in the world, Plato forgets nothing which might induce them
" to render God a rational worſhip ().”
All
(m) Plato Oper. p. 666.
1
(n) Ibid. p. 702. E.
(6) Ficinus, who was both a great admirer of that philofopher and through-
ly verſed in his writings, fays, that “ Plato, in imitation of the more att-
“ tient theologers and all the Platoniſts, received the hiſtory of oracles as true,
66 and
Chap. XV.
355
appointed by the Laws,
All the other philoſophers without exception concurred in the
ſame ſentiments, that every nation ſhould worſhip the gods ac-
cording to the eſtabliſhed laws and cuſtoms, to which alſo every
private perſon ought in his own practice to conform. The firſt
precept in the golden verſes of Pythagoras, which though not
compoſed by himſelf, are allowed to contain a ſummary of the
Pythagoric doctrine, is this : “ That men Thould in the firſt place
« worſhip the immortal gods, as they are appointed by the
« law.
.
« 'Αθανάτες μέν πρώτα θεάς νόμω ως διάκεινται
Τίμαι” "
CC
•
Where it may be obſerved, that there is not the leaſt mention
made of worſhipping the one Supreme God. Cicero expreſſeth
the ſenſe of all the Pagan philoſophers as well as legiſlators, when
he faith, “ Majorum inſtituta tueri facris cæremoniiſque retinendis
" and endeavoured to ſupport it by arguments : that both in his Phædrus and
“ Timæus he ſhews great faith in them. In his Phædrus he counts all human
“ wiſdom to be as nothing in compariſon of that which is obtained from oracles
“ and divine madneſs. And in his Timæus he ſays, that with relation to divine
“ matters a philoſopher ought not to affirm any thing but in as far as it is agree-
" able to and confirmed by the divine oracles." Ficinus adds, that there are many
things in Plato of this kind. " Profectò et ipſe Plato antiquiores theologos imita-
“ tus, et Platonici omnes, oraculoruin hiſtoriam ubique tanquàm veram accipiunt,
rationibuſque confirmant. Mitto quantain his in Phædro adhibeat fidem : quan-
" tam et in Timæo : in Phædro quidem humanam ſapientiam præ illâ quæ ab ora-
"i culis furoribuſque divinis habetur nihili pendens : in Timæo autènn dicens eatenùs
“ a philofopho de rebus divinis affirmandum efle quatenùs divinis oraculis confirme-
“ tur. Mitto quàm plurima apud Platonem fimilia.” Ficin. Argument. in apolo-
gian Socratis. Plat. Oper. p. 797. E, F. Edit. Lugd. 1590.
“ ſapientis
Z z 2
356 All the Philoſophers were for conforming
Part I.
fapientis eſt (p).” That it is the part or duty of a wiſe man to
maintain the inſtitutions of our anceſtors, and to retain the ſacred
rites and ceremonies. Cotta in Cicero's third book De naturâ
Deorum, though he takes great liberties in expoſing ſome of the
fables concerning the gods, yet ſpeaking of the opinions which
they had received from their anceſtors, relating to the immortal
gods and their religious rites and ceremonies, declares that he
always had defended them, and always would ; and that no
inan's diſcourſe, whether learned or unlearned, ſhould ever move
him to forſake the opinion derived from their anceſtors concern-
ing the worſhip of the gods. « Ego verò eas ſemper defendam,
“ ſemperque defendi: nec me ex ea opinione quam a majoribus
accepi, de cultu deorum immortalium, ullius unquam oratio,
« aut docti aut indocti, movebit (2).” The excellent Epictetus
repreſents it as a duty incumbent upon every one to offer up
liba-
tions and facrifices and firſt fruits according to the cuſtoms or
rites of his country, xatá tá zátic (r). Plutarch has ſeveral
paſſages to the ſame purpoſe; and he himſelf was initiated in the
ſacred rites at Delphi, and was a prieſt of Apollo. And to add
no more, that great and good emperor and philoſopher Marcus
Antoninus was remarkably ſtrict in the worſhip of the gods, and
in the obſervation of the ſacred ceremonies. In a time of public
calamity when the plague raged in Italy, and the war broke out
with the Quadi and Marcomanni, he endeavoured to appeaſe the
gods by a great variety of facrifices ; and was no leſs liberal in his
() De Divinat. lib. ii. cap. 72. p. 295. Edit. Davies.
(9) De nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 2. p. 266.
(s) Epict. Enchir. cap. 31. Edit. Upton.
thank -
Chap. XV.
to the Religion of their Country.
357
thankſgivings to them, when he met with victory and ſucceſs.
This occaſioned that jeſt upon him, which Ammianus Marcel-
linus informs us was handed down to his time. « The white
« oxen to Marcus Cæſar, if thou conquereft we periſh (s)."
Not only did the philoſophers urge the people to conform to
the religion already eſtabliſhed by the laws of their reſpective
countries, but when they took upon them the character of legir-
lators, and gave plans of ſuch laws and conſtitutions, as appeared to
them moſt agreeable to reaſon, and to be moſt for the benefit of
mankind, with regard to religion as well as civil matters, they
did not preſcribe to the people the worſhip of the one: true God,
the Creator of the univerſe, or lay this as the baſis of their religi-
ous conſtitutions, as the lawgiver of the Hebrews did; but the
whole ſcheme of the laws and religion they propoſed turned upon
a multiplicity of deities. The moſt celebrated of the philofophical
ſpeculative legiſlators was Plato. But whatever notions he him-
ſelf had of the Supreme Being, the firſt principle and cauſe of all.
things, he did not propoſe him to the people as the object of their
public worſhip, and of the popular adoration and devotions, be-
cauſe what he is, and how he is to be worſhipped, is not to be
deſcribed or declared. He begins his eighth book of Laws with
obſerving, that as to what relates to religion, and to the folemn
feſtivals, what ſacrifices it would be beſt and propereſt for the
city to offer, and to what gods they ſhould be offered, this ought
to be regulated with the advice of the Delphian oracle.. He him-
ſelf there propoſes twelve ſacred feſtivals to be ſolemnized, one in.
(s) Ammian. Marcell.. lib. 25. p. 427. Paris 1681,
each
358
Part I.
The Worſhip of the one true God not preſcribed
t
each month, to the twelve deities from whom the ſeveral tribes ſhould
be denoininated. He ſpeaks alſo of the folemnities of the celeſtial
and terrefriàl gods. He frequently afferts the divinity of the ſtars.
At the latter end of his feventh book of Laws, he calls the ſun
and moon the great gods; and in his Epinomis he ſays, “ one of
<< theſe two things muſt be allowed: either we muſt ſay, and
or that moſt rightly, that the ſtars -are gods, or elſe that they are
« the images, or as it were the ſtatues of the gods, formed and
«« faihioned by the gods themſelves (t).” And foon after he calls
them “ the firſt and greateſt viſible gods, who are moſt to be
honoured, and who with a moſt acute fight behold all things.”
And he pronounces, that “ thoſe ought to be accounted
men, who do not openly declare to the people thoſe gods
.sc
- which are manifeſt to our eyes” (by which he underſtands the
ſtars, ' whom a little before he had called the greateſt viſible gods]
or who ſuffer them to be neglected, and left without ſacrifices,
", and the honours which are due to them.” And therefore he
directs that facrifices fhould be offered, and ſolemn days cele-
brated to their honour (u).
.6
very bad
'66
Steuchus Eugubinus, who was very well acquainted with Plato's
philoſophy, and had a high eſteem for it, obferves, that Plato
.(t) It is to be obſerved that he ſtoes not call them the images of God, as ſome
have repreſented his-fenſe, but the-images of the gods, i.e. of the gods that inhabit
or animate them, and who fabricated them for themſelves. And I think Ficinus's
obſervation a juſt one, that Plato calls the ſouls of the ſtars gods, and their bodies
the images of the gods. Appellat animas ſtellarum deos, eorum verò corpora
“ deorum fimulacra.” Argum. in Epin. See Plat. Oper. Ficin. p. 701. H. et
p. 845. Lugd. 1590.
(u) Ibid. p. 702. F.
6
hath
Chap. XV:
by the philoſophical Lawgivers.
359
hath ſaid nothing about the Supreme Deity in his book of Laws,
as being not to be known or deſcribed either as to name or nature,
nor hath he ſet down any thing about his worſhip : that he
thought it not lawful to publiſh to the vulgar the Parent of the
univerſe. For not underſtanding the things that are fạid of him,
they would be apt to deride them, as being things remote from
popular cuſtom, and from their grofs conceptions: that therefore
treating of laws which ought to be publiſhed to the people, he ſpeaks
nothing of this great unſearchable Divinity, and propoſeth only the
worſhip of heaven to the people, to whom he muſt ſpeak only of
that which they eſteemed certain religion (x). It is probable that
when Eugubinus mentions Plato as propoſing the worſhip of hea-
ven to the people, he not only refers to his frequently recom-
mending the worſhip of the heavenly bodies, but has in view that
paſlage in his Epinomis, where he mentions heaven as the Su-
preme God, the Author of all good things, whom men as well
as all the other gods ſhould worſhip and adore. A man may
call it, ſays he, either the world, or Olympus, or heaven, pro-
vided he conſiders its various operations, that it makes the ſtars
revolve in their ſeveral courſes, and cauſes the differences of times
and ſeaſons, and provides proper aliment for all animals (y). Fi-
cinus, than whom no man was better acquainted with the works
of Plato, and who carried his admiration of him to a degree of
enthuſiaſm, puts the queſtion, Why Plato openly afferts only the
celeſtial gods, viz. the heavenly bodies ? To which he anſwers,
-
(x) Steuch. Eugub. de perenni Philoſophia, lib. 1. cap. 3,
(y) Plat. Oper. ubi fupra, p. 699.
That
360
The Worſhip of the one true God not preſcribed Part I.
That it was * becauſe the contemplation of the higher deities is
altogether foreign to the matter of laws; and by mentioning
se the celeſtial gods, which are moved and employed in their
# ſeveral proper offices, he ſufficiently intimates, that a higher
god is to be fought after, who being himſelf unmoved moves
“ them all, and as their common leader aſſigns each of them
« their reſpective functions. Quoniam fuperiorum contemplatio
« eſt a legum materiâ admodùm aliena, et per cæleſtes deos qui
“ moventur, et propriis mancipantur officiis, ſatis admonet ſupe-
“ riorem effe quærèndum, qui et immotus ipſe moveat omnia et
«« communis dux propria fingulis aſſignat officia (x).” But ſince
Plato meddles with religion in his laws, and ſets himſelf to prove
the exiſtence and providence of the gods againſt the atheiſts ; and
(ſince he thought fit to give directions to the people as to the
gods they were to worſhip ;" he' ought certainly to have clearly
directed them to the acknowledgment and adoration of the one
Supreme God, and to have inſiſted principally upon this as of the
higheſt importance.' And his taking ſo little notice of this, and
yet fo ftongly recommending the worſhip of other deities, eſpe-
cially of the heavenly bodies, and at the ſame time declaring
againſt any alteration of the laws and cuſtoms relating to religion,
and the worſhip of the gods, ſhews that little was to be hoped
for from him for reforming the popular ſuperſtition and idolatry.
He rather eſtabliſhed and confirmed it (a).
In
Plat. Oper
(z) Səe Ficinus's arguments on Plato's tenth book of Laws.
p. 841. F.
(a) Origen ſeems to have had Plato particularly in view when he finds fault with
thoſe who, notwithſtanding their ſublime ſpeculations concerning the ineffable firſt
good,
Chap. XV. K.;-. by the philoſophical Lawgivers.
361
:: In like mariner: Cicero in his excellent treatiſe of laivs, which
contains, according to Dr. Middleton (b), a juſt account of his
ſentiments, and where he appears in the character both of a phi-
kóſopher and lawgiver, gives no law relating to the worſhip of the
-ané Supreme God, but expreſly preſcribes the worſhip of a plu-
rality of deities ; both of thoſe who were always accounted cele-
ſtial; by which he refers to the gods who were called Dii con-
ſentes et ſelecti, and Dii majorum gentium; and of thoſe whoſe
merits had placed them in heaven ; ſuch as Hercules, Liber,
Æſculapius, Caſtor and Pollux, and Quirinus : as alſo of the
houſhold gods : and binds it as a duty upon the people in theſe
things to follow the religion of their anceſtors (c):
>
It ſufficiently appeareth from the obſervations which have been
made, how 'little was to be expected from the greateſt and beſt
philofophets for leading the people into the right knowledge and
worſhip of the one trüe Supreme God, and recovering them from
the idolatry and polytheiſm in which they were involved.
good, joined in the common idolatry__and he applies to them that of St. Paul,
Rom. i. 18. that " when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, but be-
çame vain in their imaginations or reaſonings.” Cont. Cell. lib. 6. p. 276, 277.
Edît. Spenſer. And elſewhere he obſerves concerning thoſe who were puffed up
with the knowledge they had learned from philoſophy, that they frequented the
temples and ſtatues of the gods, and the myſteries, no leſs than the moſt illiterate
of the vulgar, and led others to do ſo: 'and that they were not aſhamed to addreſs
themſelves to inanimate things, as gods or the images of the gods : in which the
moſt ſimple Chriſtian acted better than they. Ibid. lib. vii. p. 362.
(6) Middleton's Life of Cicero, vol. ii. p. 673. Edit. Dublin,
(c) Cic. De Leg. lib. ii. cap. 8. p. 100. Edit. Davis, 2da.
VOL. I.
Ааа
What
F62 The Worship of the Phir true God not preſcribed. Pärt 1.
What has been obferved relates principally to the philoſophers
.
of Greece and Ronxe. But it may not be improper here to add
ſomething concerning the farnous Chinefe philoſopher Confucius.
It appears
from the accounts given us of his life and writings bly
the learned authors of Confitcius Sinarum Philofophus, five Scien
tia Sinenſis latinè expofita, -and who ſeem to be very much preju-
diced in his favour, that he was a great upholder of the aptient
fuperftitions, and would not fuffer the leaft deviation from them.
He blames thoſe who did not worſhip according to the accuſtomed
sites, but were ambitious to ſacrifice to a higher kind of ſpirits
than their condition allowed. For, according to the Chineſe
laws, none but the emperor was to offer ſacrifices with folemn
rites to heaven, and to the earth. The tributary kings and princess.
who were next in dignity to the emperor, were allowed to facri-
fice to the mountains and rivers, or to their fpirits: the inferior
governors to inferior things ; and fo on i every one was to offer
facrifices according to the rank of the offered, and of the ſpirits to
which he ſacrificed. Confucius was for having this order ſtri@ly.
obſerved (d): from whence it is evident, that he ſeems to have
conſidered. religion chiefly in a political view. By heaven the
followers of Confucius of the learned' fect generally underſtand:
the viſible material. heaven, and by the ſpirit of heaven its phyſical
virtue and efficacy void of intelligence. Thus Confucius's nephew.
Cu Su ſeems to have underſtood it, as appears from a paſſage in
the book Chùm Yum (e)i But. let us ſuppoſe, that Confucius
(d) Scient. Sin. lib. iii. part is po 21;. 6t:part 2. P. 3, 4.
(e) Ibid. lib. i. p. 87.
him.
Chap. XV. , by the philoſophical engineri
363
himſelf by heaven and the ſpirit of heaven underſtood the one
Supreme God, the ſacrificing to him ſeems not to be a religion he
deſigned for the people, but to be reſerved for the emperor
him-
ſelf, and forbidden to inferior perſons; who were only allowed
to worſhip thoſe things of nature, and the ſpirits of them, which
were fqprofed to be of inferior dignity. And by the ſpirits of the
things, according to the Chineſe philofophy, are to be underſtood
their operative virtues, which are only the fineſt parts of the
things themſelvesThia. is plainly proved by F. Longobardi,
whom I have before cited. And the learned Jeſuits who pub-
liſhed the Scientia Sinenſis own, that Confucius fuppoſes the
{pirits, to be intimately united to the things of nature, and that
they cannot be ſeparated from them (8).
f) Scient. Sin. lib. ii. p. 5!
(1)
)
A a a a
c H A P.
304 The Philoſophers employed their Learning and Abilities Part 1
!
CH A P. XVI.
Farther, proofs of the philoſophers countenancing and encouraging the
popular. idolatry and polytheiſm. They: employed their learning
and abilities to defend and juftify.it. :-'The worſhip of inferior dei-
ties: was recommended. byi.them under pretence that it tended to the
bonour of the ſupreme... Some of the moft eminent of them endému
voured to colour over the abſurdeſt part of the Pagan poetie theology
by allegorizing the moft indecent fables. They even apologized for
tbe Egyptian. animal worſhip, ubicb. tbe: generality of the vulgar
Pagans in other nations ridiculed. Their plea for idolatry and
image-worſhip as neceſſary to keep the people from falling into ir--
religion and atheiſm.: Some of tke moſt refined philoſophers were
againſt any external worſhip of the Supreme God.
i
SO
O far were the philoſophers from taking proper methods to
recover the people from the common idolatry and poly--
theiſm, that they employed their learning and abilities to uphold:
the popular idolatry, and to find out the moſt plauſible colours for
juſtifying and recommending it.
.
It is an obſervation which has been often made, that after Chri-
ſtianity appeared to bleſs the world with its falutary light, the
philoſophers were the principal ſupporters of declining Paganiſin.
They put on an appearance of extraordinary piety, and profeſſed
to look upon the things of nature with religious eyes, ſo as to be-
hold
Chap. XVI.
to ſupport the Pagan. Idolatry.
365.
hold God in them. They alledged that the whole world is to be
regarded as a facred thing, as being nothing but God himſelf dif-
played in his works: that mens devotions' therefore were not to be
kuddied
up in one general acknowledgment of a fupreme invi-
fible Being, the Maker and Governor of this vaſt univerſe, but
that all the ſeveral powers, and virtues, and manifeſtations of the
Deity in the world; conſidered fingly and apart by themſelves,
fhould be called by ſeveral diſtinct names, and made ſo many di-
ſtinct objects of their veneration: and therefore they ſpoke of the
things of nature, and parts of the world, as fo many diſtinct gods
atid goddeſſes. "Thús it is that the very learned Dr. Cudworth,
who was far from being 'prejudiced' againſt them; repreſents their
ſeħitiments (8). By ſuch pretences as thefế' they endeavoured“to
put a fair gloſs upon the moft ſtupid'idolatry, even when, through
the prevailing light of the Goſpėlj
, many of the vulgar came to be
fënible of the abſurdity of it(k):
1
:
is
i
܂.܂ܐ: . ܝ
None of the Pagan philoſophers were thought to have ſublimer
notions of the Dīvimity," than the Platóhifts and Pythagoreans, thoſe
of them eſpecially who lived" after the Chriſtian "revelation was
publíthed to the world; ýet rione were more ftrenuous afferters of
the worſhip of inferior deities. And indeed the
And indeed the whole ſcheme
and fyfteón of that phitoſopłný ténded to ſupport and encourage it.
They held that the Supreme 'Being'is fofar above us, as not to be
1
(g)' Intel. Sy p. 228.
(5) Julian Orat. iv. cited by Cudworth: Intel. Syſt. p. 514. See alſo the
epiſtle of Maximus Madaurenſis
, a noted Pagan.philoſopher, .to St. Auſtin. . Apud
Auguſtin. Opera, tom. II. epiſt. 16.
approached
3.
366. The Philoſophers. employed, their learning and Abilities; Parti
appspached, even in thought and that, the higheſt class of gade
next; to, daer Supreme are se faç removed from use that there is ng
immediate faininunication between them and mankind: but that
there are valipunbers of intețmediate powers, dwelling in the aisy
regions between the higheſt æther and our earth, by whom.qur
defires and prayers are carried up:40. the gods, and to whom the
management of things here. below is corpmitted; and that to them
religious worhip is to be paid. It is evident that theſe pringiples of
Plato's ſchool were favourable to the Pagan polytheiſm (4). They
even repreſented the worſhipping inferior, deities as an honour,
done to the Supreme; and found fault with thoſe who were frente
paying their adorations to the one Supreme, God, and to him only,
“ The great king of the univerſe," ſayş that eminent philoſopher
Plotinus, “ Thews his greatneſs chiefly by the multitude of gods.
For this is not the part of thoſe who know the power of God
«s to contra& the Divinity into one, so ovçrides sis švn but to ex-
pand or diſplay it as he himſelf hath expanded it; who re-
« maining, what he is, one, maketh many, all of whom depend
apon him, and are by him, and from him (k);" And Onatus
the Pythagoreán, in a paſſage preſerved by Stobæus, aflerts, that
as there is not one only God, but one the greateſt and higheſt,
« God: and that there are many other gods, differing in power,
“ but he reigneth over them all, as furpalling them all in power,
“ reafon, and virtue.” He adds, that.”, thoſe who maintain
66
ss
:.
(i) The Indian Bramins in Malabar have the ſame notions, which they ngake
uſe of to juſtify the worſhip paid by them to a vaſt number of inferior deities. See
Narrative of the Daniſh Miffionaries, part. 2d. p. 7. et ſeq.
(4) Epnçad. II. lib. ix. cap. 9.
" that
4
Chap. XVI:
to fapport the Pagan Molatry.
g67
7
& that there is only one God, are much miſtaken: for they do not
Contider that the greateſt dignity of the divine ſuper-eminence
* 'totifits in Tüling and governing thoſe who are like him, and
e in his being more excellent than others, and fuperior 10
* them(71.". Thus ingenious have men been to deviſe plaufible
preterites for paying divine honours to the Creatures. But how
AUCH: nobler is the fcripture' docttine! which teacheth us, that
there are numberléifs myriads of holy and mighty angels; fubject
to the Supreme, but that we are not to adore them, but to join
with them in adoring their and our fupreme univerſal Lord:
Maximus. Tyrius; in the concluſion of his firſt Differtation, ex-
presterti kitíſelf thus,.“ if you' are too weak to contemplate the
« Father and maker of all things, it is ſufficient for you at pre-
*** fent to behold the works, and to worſhip his progeny [ta'ěx-
goudes the things which proceed from him} which are many
es and of various kinds ;not merely as many as the Bæotian
st. poet mentions ; for there are not only thirty thouſand gods,
of the Coris and friends of God, but their number is not to be
comprehended : and Such is the heaven ate the ſtars, in the
“ æther dæmons (m).” Thus were the objects of worſhip mul-
tijfied by the philoſophers themſelves to an amazing degree (n):
which
t
2
>
(1) Apud-Stob. Ectog. Phyfic. lib. i. cap. 3. p.4. edit. Plant: Onatus ſeems to in-
timate that there were fome in his time who held that there is only one God: where
he either refers to the Jews, or to ſome among the Gentiles who joined with them
in this. But whoever they were, he plainly charges it-as-an error; and in this he
ſpeaks the ſenfe of the moſtiemiadat pbiloſophers.
(m) Max. Tyr. Diſſert: 1. p18. Edit. Oxon. 1677.
(12) The philoſophers not only joined with the popular Pagans in deifying and
Forſhipping ſenſible objects, the things of this viſible world, but the moſt refined of
them,
368 The Philoſophers employed their Learning and Abilities? Part I.
which, -at the ſame time, under preténce of the moſt exalted now
tions of the Supreme Being, they: declined {peaking of him or of
the; worſhip: due to him to the people. They alleged that the
vulgar' were unable to form any conception of an inviſible Deity,
and looked upon that to be nothing which they could not fec: or
perceiveiby their ſenſes so that therefore the worſhipping the things
of naţuge andi-the inferior dejties, 'was the only way to keep the
people from running into atheiſm. On the ſame foundation they
pleaded for and recommended the worlaip of images.. Thus Maxi-
mus Tyrius, jina diſſertation on this very, ſubject, ſays, that “, the
“divine nature ſtands not in need of images or ſtatues ; but that
« the nature, and condition, of man being very weak, and 28
« far, diſtant. from the Divinity as heaven is from the earth,
" framed theſe, ſigns for itſelf, and attributed to them the names
« and titles of the gods ;” and he thinks the legiſlators acted wiſely
in contriving images for the peqple (0); He eſpecialy approves
the making images of the gods in hằman forms; but he alſo juſti-
fies the worfhipping rivers, mountains, and other parts of nature,
as the ſigns and repreſentations of the Divinity.
dei
them, the Platoniſts, added a vaſt number of deities of their own imagining, and
which belonged to the world of ideas, the intelligible and archetypal world, of
which this ſenſible world is only the ſhadow and image, as Plotinus calls it *. It
was their humour to deify the abſtract notions of their own minds, and to make
them divine powers, intelligences,' and fubftantial effences. The latter Platonilts
eſpecially, who affected an extraordinary ſublimity and refinement, carried this to a
ſtrange degree of extravagance. Any man will be convinced of this that conſiders
the account which Proclus gives of theſe myſtic and metaphyſical deities, in the
third and following books of his Theologia Platonica...
(0). Max. Tyr. diſſert. 38. p. 452. Eđit. Oxon. 1677.
>
...
,,
• Ennead. jü. lib. viii, cap. 10.
>
I would
Chap. XVI. to ſupport the Pagan Idolatry..
3692
I would obſerye by the way, that Moſes and the prophets under,
the Old Teſtament, as well as our Saviour and his apoſtles under
the New, acted upon far nobler principles. They did not pre-
tend a neceſſity for leading the people, into wrong nộtions of reli-
gion, and into a worſhip unſuitable to the Divine Majeſty: Ani-
mated by a holy zeal for the glory of God, and affured of his di-
vine aſſiſtance, they taught the people to worſhip: an inviſible
Deity in a pure and. fpiritual manner, without corporeal images
and repreſentations, and were not for dividing their religious ho-
mage between the great Lord of the univerſe, and his creatures
and ſubjects, or parcelling out that worſhip to a multitude of pre-
tended Deities, which was due to him alone,
Another method which the philoſophers took to uphold and
juſtify the Pagan theology was by allegorizing the fables of the
poets and mythologiſts, which lay at the foundation of many of
their facred rites. I had occaſion to take notice of this before,
and obſerved, that the Stoics were particularly remarkable for their
allegorical and phyſiological explications of thoſe fables : though
many of the Pagans themſelves ridiculed the explications they
gave as forced and unnatural. This however was the way
that was almoſt univerſally taken by the philoſophers, after the
Chriſtians ſet themſelves to expoſe the abſurdities of the Pagan
mythology, and the religion founded upon it. Inſtead of abſo-
lutely rejecting thoſe fables, many of which were of an immoral
tendency, and altogether unworthy of the Deity, the philoſophers
repreſented them as full of hidden wiſdom, and thereby confirm-
ed the people in the opinion they had of the divine original and
Vol. I.
Bobb
authority
370 The Philosphers employed their Learning and Abilities Part I.
authority of thoſe fables; which was of the moſt pernicious con-
ſequence. Plotinus himſelf endeavoureth to accommodate the
poetical fables and theogony to his own ſcheme of philoſophy (p).
And all the latter Platoniſts and Pythagoreans interpreted thoſe
fables in a phyſical ſenſe, and applied them to the phænomena of
nature. A remarkable inſtance of which we have in Porphyry's
interpretation of Saturn's emaſculating his father Cælus (9), tho’
this is one of the fables which Plato repreſents as not fit to be to-
lerated in the commonwealth, whatever allegorical ſenſe might be
put upon it.
-
Even the Egyptian idolatry in worſhipping ſeveral kinds of
animals, which was ridiculed for its abſurdity by many of the
common Pagans in other countries, found advocates among the
philoſophers. Celſus obſerves, that the Egyptians looked upon
the brute animals they worſhipped to be a kind of ſymbols of
God, τίνα αυτα θεά σύμβολα, and that in the veneration they paid
to thoſe animals they deſigned to honour the eternal ideas; and
therefore blames the Chriſtians for deriding them (r). And others
of
t
(1) Plotin. Ennead. v. lib. viii. cap. 13. p. 554.
(9) Porphyr. de Mufarum Antro, p. 260, 261, in the Cambridge edition of
Porphyr. de Abſtin.
(r) Origen contra Celf. lib. iii. p. 121. For clearing this, it is proper to ob-
ferve, that the Platoniſts ſpeak of eternal ideas in God as diſtinct Beings, ſubfift-
ing in and with the Supreme God. And Plato himſelf in his Timæus repreſents
them as vontà Swa, intelligible animals, the patterns and prototypes of thoſe that
are ſenſible: and that they are immortal gods. He alſo teaches that thoſe ideas
are the only things derived from the Supreme God, which have a real exiſtence :
and
Chap. XVI.
to ſupport the Pagan Idolatry.
371.
of the philoſophers who pretended to an extraordinary refinement,
endeavoured to perſuade the world, that the Egyptian idolatry
had a great deal of occult wiſdom contained in it. That great
philoſopher Plotinus expreſſes a high eſteem of the wiſdom of the
Egyptian prieſts in repreſenting divine myſteries under the figures
of animals (s). Porphyry, after having given a great encomium
of the piety, the abſtinence, the purity, the continence, the phi-
loſophy of the Egyptian prieſts, and their unwearied diligence in
their ſtudies (t), obſerves, that the divinity dwelleth not only in
men, but in all animals : and that therefore they made the images
of the gods in the figure of all animals, and ſometimes joined the
bodies of wild beaſts and birds to the bodies of men (u): that in
ſome parts of Egypt the lion is worſhipped, in others the wolf:
and in every province they worſhipped the virtues and powers of
the God who is over all, in thoſe animals which were moſt
pro-
per to that province; ſo that each province had its ſeveral gods :
that they worſhipped all animals, and men too, in the village of
Anubis : and that in their excellent wiſdom and intimate com-
and that all things in the world are only the images and repreſentations of thoſe
ideas *
Thus it appears, that their philoſophy led to idolatry, and tended to
furniſh excuſes even for the groffeſt kinds of it: ſince they might worſhip every
thing in nature under pretence of doing honour to the eternal ideas, and divine
originals, of which all things in this world are the repreſentations,
(s) Ennead. lib. viii. cap. 6. p. 547.
(t) De Abſtin. lib. iv. ſect. 6. p. 149. edit. Cantab. 1655.
(2) Ibid. fect. 9. p. 154.
* Suc Campbell's Necefl. Revel. p. 304, 305. Marg, nobe.
Bbb 2
munion
372 Tbe Philoſophers employed their Learning and Abilities Part I.
t
munion with the divinity, they came to know to which of the
deities certain animals were dearer than men (x}. And again he
affirms, that it was through their wiſdom and extraordinary know-
ledge of God and of divine things that they came to the worſhip
of animals : though he acknowledges that it might appear ſtrange
to the unlearned, that wife men who were not carried away by
the prejudices of the vulgar, and who had got above their igno-
rance, made thoſe things the objects of their worſhip, which ſeemed
not to be worthy of honour. Thus it is that Porphyry endea-
vours to juſtify the Egyptian worſhip of animals. But if we may
depend upon the account given by Philoſtratus, the Egyptians
were not able to afſign any reaſons to Apollonius Tyanæus of this
their worſhip. The prieſts and wiſe men of Egypt (as hath been
already obſerved) were very careful to conceal their theology
from the people under hieroglyphics or ſymbolical characters, and
allegorical fables. And at length it came to paſs, that the true
original fymbolical ſenſe, being a ſecret tranſmitted but to few,
was in a great meaſure loft and forgotten among thoſe pretended
wiſe men themſelves. This ſufficiently appears from Plutarch's
book of Iſis and Oſiris, which plainly ſhews, that notwithſtand-
ing the high opinion that philoſopher had entertained of the 'wil-
dom of the Egyptians, there was a great deal of darkneſs and
confuſion in their theology, which was full of monſtrous fables,
taken by the vulgar in the literal ſenſe, and in the interpreta-
tion of which their learned men and prieſts were very much
divided.
(.) De Abſtin. lib. iv. ſect. 9. p. 155. edit. Cantab.
The
Chap. XVI.
373
to fupport the Pagan Idolatry.
>
The faſt thing I would here obſerve with regard to the philo--
ſophers is, that ſome of them who were thought to have the
ſublimeſt notions of the Divinity ſeemed to be againſt all external
worſhip of the Supreme God. It was before ſhewn, that Plato
did not propoſe him to the people as the object of public worſhip,
as being incomprehenſible, and not to be named or expreſſed in
words (y). Apollonius Tyanæus, as appears by a paſſage cited
by Euſebius, from a book of his upon Sacrifices, was of opinion,
that “no ſenſible thing was fit to be offered or dedicated to the God-
« whom
Gy). The account Plato and the Platonifts give of the firſt Principle, who in their
theology is the firſt and higheſt God, is perfectly unintelligible. They ſuppoſe
him to be a ſimple unity, or unity itſelf, fo ſimple, that, as Plotinus ſpeaks, “no-
thing can be predicated of it, not being, nor eſſence; nor life, becauſe it is above
“ “ all theſe things *.” He fets himſelf to ſhew that the firſt principle, which he
after Plato calls tò dyalòv, is not intellect, becauſe intellect implies inultiplicity t.
« When therefore,” ſays he, “ you ſpeak of the dyabòv, or good itſelf, you muſt
“ add nothing to it even in thought.--You ought not to add to it intellect or in-
“ telligence, leſt you ſhould add ſomething alien from it, and ſo of one you will
“ make two, intellect and good. Hoers dúo všv xai ayatov [.." Thus the firſt
principle was not to have any thing predicated of it, nor conſequently any attri.
butes aſcribed to it for fear of deſtroying its unity. Nor would they allow that the
firſt tranſcendental unity, the Tè “Ey or arvadov, which is ſimply and abſolutely one, had
any thing properly to do either in the creation of the world, or the government of
it. Numenius a celebrated Platonic philoſopher, in a pasſage quoted from him by
Eufebius, gives it as Plato's doctrine, that " it was not fitting that the first Prin-
“ ciple ſhould [dplegyew] act as a Demiurgus or maker of the world.' And he :
afierwards mentions it as a thing certain, and which admits of no doubt, that “ the
“ firft God is idle or vacant from all. works: but that the demiurgical God go-
“ verns all things, going through heaven. -TÒ È põrov Dejv açyov elva e prywy {uju-
« πάντων και βασιλέα, τον δημιαργικόν δε θεον ηγεμονεϊν δι' έρανε ιόντα |.” The fune
philoſopher repreſents Plato as upbraiding men for being ignorant of the firſt God:
for that he whom they regarded as the firſt, viz. the Demiurgus, is not really the
firſt, but there is another more antient and more divine §. It is upon this foun-
* Plotin. Ennead. iii. lib. viii. cap. gi
+ Ibid. cap. 7, 8.
Psæp, . Evangel. lib. xi, cap. 18. p. 537. B, C. edit. Paris 1628. ,
| Eufeb.
I l'id. cap. 10,
§ Ibid. p. 539. C.
datioa,
374
The moſt refined Philoſophers againſt Part I.
w whom we call the Firſt,” and whom he afterwards deſcribes to
be the God over all : « there being no ſenſible thing which is not a
“ kind of pollution compared with him : but that he ought to be
worſhipped by the word or reaſon which is inward, not that
«s which proceedeth out of the mouth : and that we muſt aſk
good things from the Beſt of Beings, by that which is beſt and
« moſt excellent in us; and this is intellect; which does not
“ need any organ or inſtrument of ſpeech (Z).” To the ſame
purpoſe Porphyry, who ſeems to have had this very paſſage of
Apollonius in view, declares, that “ as a certain wiſe man hath
<< obſerved, we ought not to offer up or dedicate any ſenſible
« thing to that God who is over all : for there is no material
thing which is not impure to him who is abſtracted from all
" matter : neither is any outward word proper to be offered to
« him which is uttered by the voice, nor even that which is in-
“ ternal, if it be polluted with any paſſion : but we muſt worſhip
« him in ſilence and pure thought (a).” Thus under pretence of
I
dation, that the emperor Julian pretends that the Hebrews did not know the firſt
God, becauſe they ſuppoſed the Maker of the world to be the firſt God, whereas
there is a God before him, and higher than he * This firſt Platonick principle
therefore ſeems to be an abſtract metaphyſical Deity, very different from the true
ſupreme God as deſcribed to us in the Sacred Writings, whoſe underſtanding is
infinite, who is the almighty Maker of heaven and earth, and who governeth all
things by his wiſe and good providence. For none of theſe things could be pro-
perly predicated of the Platonic firſt God, whom they repreſent as eternally un-
active, idle as an Epicurean Deity, having no concern with our world : nor is
he therefore the proper .object of our prayers and invocations, our thankſgivings
and praiſes.
(2) Euſeb. Præp. Evangel. lib. iv. cap. 13. p. 150.
(c) Ibid. cap. II. p. 149.
* Apud Cyril. contra Julian, lib. iv.
2
inward
Chap. XVI. all outward worſhip of the Supreme God. 375
inward religion and pure devotion, the outward expreſſions of it
were to be neglected : and the only true God, who alone deſerves
to be worſhipped, is not to have any outward homage rendered
to him at all. This is certainly, a falſe refinement, and which
tendeth in a great meaſure to baniſh all appearance of religion, as
it ſignifieth the worſhip of the one true ſupreme God, out of the
world. It is however to be obſerved, that though ſome of the
more refined Patoniſts and Pythagoreans declared againſt offering
up any external material oblation or facrifice to him whom they
regarded as the firſt and higheſt God, yet they recommended the
obſervation of the public rites and ceremonies of religion, and the
worſhip of the gods appointed by the laws, of which facrifices and
oblations made a principal part: a plain proof, that the Pagan
public worſhip was not, according to their notion of it, the wor--
ſhip of the one Supreme God, but was wholly offered up to in-
ferior. deities, or to dæmons.
!
CHAP
376
Part I.
The Heathen Notions
Ć HA P.
XVII:
1
The ſtate of the Heathen world with reſpect to their notions of Divine
Providence. The belief of a Providence ſuperintending human
affairs obtained generálly among the vulgar' Pagans : but the Pro-
vidence they acknowledged was parcelled out among a multiplicity
of gods and goddeſſes. Their notions of Providence were alſo in
other reſpects very imperfect and confuſed. The doctrine of the phi-
loſophers concerning Providence conſidered. Many of them, and of
the learned and polite Pagans denied a Providence. Of thoſe who
profeſſed to acknowledge it, fome confined it to heaven and heavenly
things. Others ſuppoſed it to extend to the earth and to mankind,
yet ſo as only to exerciſe a general care and fuperintendency, but
not to extend to individuals. Others ſuppoſed all things, the leaſt
as well as the greateſt, to be under the care of Providence : but
they aſcribed this not to the Supreme God, who they thought was above
concerning himſelf with ſuch things as theſe, and committed the care
of them wholly to inferior deities. The great advantage of Reve-
lation Jhewn for inſtructing men in the doctrine of Providence :
and the noble idea given of it in the Holy Scriptures.
N
EXT to the exiſtence of God, that which is of the greateſt
importance to be known by us is, that he governs the
world by his Providence; and particularly that he takes care of
men and their affairs. Without a belief of Providence there can
be no ſuch thing as religion. This the wiſeſt of the Heathens
were
.
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conſidered.
377
i
were ſenſible of. Cicero in the beginning of his celebrated books
of the nature of the gods, ſpeaking of thoſe philoſophers who
maintained that the gods take no care at all of mankind or their
concernments, obſerves, that “ if their opinion were true, there
" would be no piety, no ſanctity, no religion--that if the gods
“ do not mind what men do, or what events befal them, there
" is no reaſon to pray to them, or worſhip them: and that if reli-
gion and piety be taken away from amongſt men, the greateſt
“ confuſion and diſorder would enſue in human life : and toge-
" ther with piety, mutual fidelity, and the ſocial ties which bind
“. mankind together, and that moſt excellent virtue juſtice, would
« bè baniſhed out of the world.Sunt enim philoſophi et fuerunt,
qui omnino nullam habere cenſeren't rerum humanarum pro-
“ curationem deos. Quorum ſi vera ſententia eſt, quæ poteſt
« eſſe pietas ? quæ fanctitas ? quæ religio?-quibus ſublatis, per-
“ turbatio vitæ fequitur, et magna confufio. Atque haud fcio,
« an pietate adverſùs deos ſublatâ, fides etiam et focietas generis
humani, et una excellentiſſima virtus juſtitia tollatur (a)."
A
If we look back to the moſt antient times, the doctrine of a
Providence ſeems to have been a remarkable part of the univerſal
tradition derived from the firſt ages. Plutarch ſpeaking of the
Deity and a Providence, “ ý ngóvouze zġ to Selov,” calls it “ the pious
« faith derived from their fathers or anceſtors, from which
they ought not to depart.-την ευσεβή και πατριον μή προϊσθαι
(a) De Nat: Deor. lib. i. cap. 2.
Vol. I.
i
Сс с
πίς
3.78
The Heathen Notions
i
Part 1.
" TIÇı (6)." Some notion of this was ſtill preſerved amidſt all
the corruptions of the Pagan world. And to this was principally
owing whatever there was of order, fobriety, and good govern-
ment maintained among men. The ableſt politicans were ſenſible
of this, and therefore encouraged the belief of it among the
people ; and all the antient legiſlators proceeded upon it as a prin-
ciple, as is clearly ſhewn by the learned Biſhop of Glouceſter in
his Divine Legation of Moſes demonſtrated. They who believed
that there were ſuperior inviſible powers, generally believed alſo that
they had a great influence on human affairs, and on the proſper-
ous and adverſe events which befal mankind.
where ſuppoſed in the writings of the poets, who uſually repre-
ſented things according to the popular notions, and were them-
ſelves the inſtructors of the people. Cicero in his Oratio de Ha-
ruſpic. Reſponſ. n. 9. mentions it to the praiſe of the antient Ro-
mans, that they excelled all nations in piety, and eſpecially in
this eminent point of wiſdom, that they clearly perceived that all
things are governed by the providence of the immortal.gods (c).
And in his ſecond book of Laws, cap. 7. he repreſents this doc-
This is every
.ܙ ܚ
/
(6) Plut. Oper. tom. II. p. 402. E. Francof.
(c) It is an obſervation of Lord Bolingbroke, that the belief of a particular Pro.
vidence was a principal cauſe of the proſperity of the Roman commonwealth : and
that though the Roman religion eſtabliſhed by Numa was very abſurd, yet by keep-
ing up an awe of ſuperior power, and the belief of a providence that ordered the
courſe of events, it produced all the marvellous effects which Machiavel, after Poly-
bius, Cicero, and Plutarch, aſcribes to it. Bolingbroke's Works, vol. IV. p.421.
edit. 4to. And when in the latter times of the Roman republic, they began to
throw off all ſenſe of religion, and regard to Divine Providence, their ſtate de-
clined, and they fell from their antient virtue and glory.
trine
-
1
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conſidered.
378
1
trine as both true in itſelf, and of great advantage to the public,
and that therefore care ought to be taken, that the citizens ſhould
in the firſt place have a firm perſuaſion of it fixed in their minds.
I had occaſion to quote both theſe paſſages before, and need not
1
repeat them here.
1
But though the belief of a Divine Providence, as extending to
mankind and their affairs, was generally propagated among the
Pagans, and was no doubt of great advantage, yet as they fell
from the right knowledge of the one true God, and became more
and more immerſed in idolatry and polytheiſm ; ſo their notions
of Providence became wrong and confuſed too, and were debaſed
with many corrupt mixtures. The providence they acknowledged
was the providence of the divinities they adored. It was parcelled
out among a multiplicity of gods and goddeſſes, among whom they
ſuppoſed the adminiſtration of things to be diſtributed, as being
OUVOXOVtes tã Jew_co-rulers with God,” and “i xoivwroi tñs
dexñs--Sharers with him in his empire,” as Maximus Tyrius
expreſſeth it (d). They were regarded as having different pro.
vinces belonging to them; and many of the people, as Dr. Cuda
worth obferves, looked upon them to be ſovereign and inde.
pendent in their ſeveral provinces. To them therefore both
jointly and ſeverally they offered up prayers and ſacrifices, for ob-
taining the good things they ſtood in need of, and for averting the
evils and calamities they feared : whilſt the one true God, the ori-
i
1
(d) Max. Tyr. Diſſert. i. p. 5. et 19. Oxon. 167 5.
:
Ccc 2
gina't
380
Part I.
The Heathen Notions
ginal author of all good, and the ſupreme Diſpoſer of all events,
was overlooked and neglected.
Plato in his Timæus. declares concerning the Pagans in his
time, that ~ all thoſe who had never ſo ſmall a ſhare of fobriety
" or prudence, were wont in the undertaking of any affair, whe-
" ther ſmall or great, always to invoke God.---IVTES 6001 nata
βραχύ σωφροσύνης μετέχεσι επί πάση όρμη και σμίκρε και μεγάλα
πράγματος θεον αεί ως επικαλέσι (e).” A man that comes to
read this, prepoſſeſſed with the notions he has received from Scrip-
ture, will be apt to underſtand it as ſignifying that the ſober Hea-
thens were generally wont in every affair to invoke the one true
God, and addreſs themſelves to him for his aſſiſtance and bleſſing.
And it has been actually quoted by ſome learned men for this
purpoſe. And indeed ſeparately taken it has that appearance.
But if we carefully examine it, we ſhall find that this is not the
intention of that paſſage. It only fignifies that they were wont on
fuch occaſions to invoke a God, as it might properly be rendered,
i. e. ſome God or other, and probably the patron Deity, wátolos
secs, as Plato ſometimes expreffes it, or ſome of the gods appoint-
ed by law (). This appears from what goes before and follows
that
(ë). Plat. Oper. p. 526.. E. Lugd. 1590..
() Though the Pagans generally ſpeak of the gods in the plural, yet:it was
not unuſual with them to mention God in the fingular number. Some of the an-.
tient fathers and apologiſts for Chriſtianity, particularly Tertullian, Minucius Fe..
fix, and Lactantius, take notice of this, and of ſome forms of ſpeech which ob-
tained among the Heathens of that time: ſuch as “ Deus videt, Deus reddet,
Deus inter nos judicabit, fi Deus voluerit." 4 God feeth, God will recom-
penfe,
1
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conſidered.
381
that paſſage. In the words immediately preceding Socrates tells
Timæus, that he ought in the beginning of his diſcourſe to invoke
the gods according to law. To which Timæus anſwers by ob-
ſerving in the paſſage now cited, that it was uſual for all prudent
perſons in the beginning of every work to invoke God, or a God;
" how much more,” ſays he,“ is it neceſſary for us, when we are
« about to diſcourſe of the univerſe, whether it was made, or was
“, without beginning, to invoke the gods and goddeſſes, that we
may ſpeak in a manner agreeable to them, and conſiſtent with
« ourſelves (8).” To the ſame purpoſe Plato obſerves in the be-
beginning of his eighth epiſtle; that it is neceffary in all things
“ we think or ſay to begin from the gods.-átó GEūv xeñ wárta
αρχόμενον αεί λέγειν τε και νοεϊν.” And it is a precept of Socrates
mentioned by Xenophon in his Oeconomics, that " we should
“ endeavour to begin every work with the gods.--elpão bat our
o itois Seoisi degeatci mártos žgos." Varro, as appears from a pal-
ſage I mentioned before, thought he had done a conſiderable fer-
* penfe, God will judge between us, if God will ;” and the like. This třey re-
gard as a kind of natural teſtimony to the unity and perfections of God; or in Ter-
tullian's language, " teftimonium animæ naturaliter Chriſtianæ." But there is no
great ſtreſs to be laid upon this. Dr. Cudwortli himſelf owns, that the Heathens
fometimes uſed the word God indefinitely, and in a general way, when they had
not the Supreme God particularly in view. They alſo ſometimes ſpoke of God in
the fingular, when they only intended to ſignify ſome one of the many deities
they adored. The not altending to this, has ſometiónes-led learned men aſtray in
their quotations, who have judged of the meaning of paſſages in. Pagaa writers by
their own Chriſtian ideas. It may be added, that after the Goſpel had made ſome
progreſs in the world, and the Chriſtians came to have frequent intercourſe with
the Pagans, fuch a manner of expreſſion as hath been mentioned might be more
frequently uſed, even among the vulgar Pagans, than it was before.
() Plat. Oper. P: 526. E. Lugd. 1590.
i
vice
!
382
Part 1.
The Heatben Notions
vice to his countrymen and fellow-citizens, in directing them what
god or goddeſs they were to apply to in each particular caſe and
circumſtance.
I
That the vulgar Pagans, though they believed a Providence, had
wrong
and defective notions of it, appears from a remarkable paf-
fage of Xenophon, in which he obſerves, that Socrates, thought
" that the gods take care of men, not in the manner which o
wórro the many fuppoſe," (where he ſeems to ſpeak of the ge-
nerality of the Athenians themſelves) “ they think, faith, he, that
“ there are fome things which the gods know, and ſome things
“ which they do not know. But Socrates was of opinion that the
gods know all things, and are every where preſent (5).” See
the paſſage quoted above, p. 331.
The Pagans were alſo led into a wrong judgment of Providence
by the notions they generally entertained of fortune, which they
regarded as a blind, capricious, inconſtant deity, and as having a
principal ſway in the events of things in this lower world. This
tended to take them off from that religious dependence upon God,
and ingenuous truſt in him, and that reſignation to his diſpoſing
will, which is an eminent part of true religion and godlineſs.
There is a remarkable paſſage of the Elder Pliny, which it may
not be amiſs to mention here. Through the whole world,”
faith he “ in all places, and at all times, Fortune is univerſally in-
“ voked by all perſons. This alone has the praiſe or blame of
every thing, and is at the ſame time worſhipped and reproach-
(1) Memorab. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 1. ſegm. 19.
s6 ed;
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conſidered.
383
;
ed; eſteemed by the moſt of mankind to be blind, uncertain,
various, and inconftant, a favourer of ſuch as are unworthy:
« to this all events are attributed both proſperous and adverſe
" and in the whole management of human affairs this fills up
« both ſides of the account." - Toto quippe mundo, in locis
« omnibus, omnibuſque horis,,omnium vocibus, Fortuna ſola in-
" vocatur, ſola laudatur, ſola arguitur, et cum conviciis colitur :
volubilis à pleriſque verò et cæca etiam exiſtimata, vaga,
incon-
" ftans, incerta, varia, indignorum fautrix : huic omnia expenſa,
“ huic.omnia feruntur accepta, et in totâ ratione mortalium utram-
que paginam facit (i).” To the ſame purpoſe Salluſt obſerves,
that “ Fortune rules in every thing.”_" Fortuna in omni re do-
« minatur.' And Menander ſays, that “ Fortune is the king or
«s tyrant:of all the gods.“wdVtwv tugarvos.ý rrugniçin twv Jeñv (k).”
Lord Herbert owns, that Fortune was had in great veneration
among the Pagams, and looked upon by ſome of them as a deity.
Both good and bad fortune, “ bona et inala fortuna,” were wor-
ſhipped, and had images and altars. Various temples were erect-
ed to Fortune both among the Greeks and Romans : and parti-
cuļarly there was a famous temple of fortune at Præneſte (2).
Another thing to be obſerved with regard to the vulgar notions
of Providence among the Heathens is, that they commonly con-
fidered it as extending only to the outward commodities of life ;
(i) Plin. Hiſt. Nat. lib. ii. cap. 7.
(6) Apud Stob. Eclog. Phyfic. cap. 19. p. 15. Edit. Plantin.
(1) Herb. de Relig. Gentil. cap. 9. p. 80. et ſeq. 8vo. Amft. 1700.
and
1
re
38+
The Heathen Notions
3
Part I.
and therefore they applied to the gods for riches, health, proſpe-
rity and ſucceſs in their affairs, but not for wiſdom, or virtue, or
moral endowments. There is a famous paſſage to this purpoſe in
Cicero's third book of the Nature of the Gods, which has been
often taken notice of. Cotta is there introduced as ſaying, that
“ all men attributed the external commodities they enjoyed,
" their plenty of corn, wine, oil, and fruits, and every conve-
“ nience and proſperous event of life, to the gods : but no man
ever acknowledged his having received his virtue from God.
« For who,” fays he, “ ever gives thanks to the gods for his
being a good man? But for his being poſſeſſed of riches and
“ honours, and preſerved from dangers, he does. It is on the
« account of theſe things that they give Jupiter the appellation
es of Optimus et Maximus, the Greateſt and the Beſt: not that
- he makes us juſt, temperate, wiſe, but that he gives us health,
ſafety, and affluence." And he adds, that “ this is the judg-
“ ment of all mankind, that the gifts of fortune are to be aſked
“ of God, but that a man is to expect wiſdom only from him-
“ ſelf."-Hæc quidem omnes mortales fic habent; externas
commoditates, vineta, ſegetes, oliveta, ubertatem -frugum et
“ fructuum, omnem denique commoditatem proſperitatemque
« vitæ a diis fe habere: virtutem autèm nemo unquàm acceptam
" deo retulit.--Num quis quòd bonus vir effet gratias diis agit
unquàm ? At quòd dives, quòd honoratus, quòd incolumis;
Jovemque Optimum et Maximum ob eas res appellant : non
quòd nos juſtos, temperatos, fapientes efficiat, ſed quòd falvos,
“ incolumes, opulentos, copiofos. Judicium hoc omnium mor-
“ talium eft, fortunam a deo petendam, a feipfo ſumendam eſſe
7
ſapientiam
<C
(6
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conſidered.
385
ſapientiam (1).” This appears to me to be too univerſally ex-
preſſed. There were, I doubt not, in the Heathen.world perſons
that had a better way of thinking, as might be ſhewn particularly
with regard to Socrates, Plato, Epictetus, Antoninus, and even
ſome of the poets. But if this had not been the notion generally
entertained, both among thoſe of the higher and lower rank, a
man of ſuch learning and eminence as Cotta, and who knew the
world ſo well, would not have been introduced by Cicero as
aſſerting it fo poſitively and in ſuch extenſive terms: And it is
agreeable to what our Saviour faith, when ſpeaking of the com-
modities of this preſent life he declares, that " after all theſe
things do the Gentiles ſeek : " i. e, they ſeek them in the firſt
and chiefeſt place : in oppoſition to which he exhorteth his diſci-
ples, to “ ſeek firſt the kingdom of God and his righteouſneſs.”
Matt. vi. 32, 33.
It
inay be farther obſerved in relation to the notions of provi-
dence which obtained among the Pagans, that not only did they
invoke a great variety of thoſe whom they looked upon as bene-
volent deities for aſſiſtance and direction, and for obtaining the
good things they ſtood in need of; but they were alſo wont, on
ſeveral occaſions, to offer up prayers and facrifices, and to render
religious worſhip, to evil and malignant dæmons, regarded by
themſelves as ſuch, from an apprehenſion that they had a great
ſhare in the adminiſtration of things, and in order to appeaſe and
(1) De Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 36. p. 335, 336. edit. Davis 2da. The Reader
will obſerve here that he ſpeaks of God in the ſingular number, and of gods in the
plural, and makes uſe of one or other of theſe terms indifferently.
VOL. I.
D dd
humour
386
The Heathen Notions
Part 1
1
humour them, and keep them from doing miſchief: for the
proof of this I would refer the reader to what is ſaid above, p. 148,
et ſeq. And this certainly argueth very wrong notions of Divine
Providence, as if God were not able or inclined to protect his
faithful ſervants and true worſhippers againſt the power and malice
of evil beings.
Having conſidered the popular belief of Providence among the
Heathens, let us next conſider that of the philoſophers. Many of
them, inſtead of rectifying the vulgar notions on this head, would
not allow that there is any Providence at all. And in this as well as
feveral other inſtances they erred more than the common people.
The doctrine of the Epicureans is well known, who, though they
pretended to acknowlege that there are gods, abſolutely denied
that they concerned themſelves about men, or any of their actions
or the events relating to them. But this was far from being
peculiar to that fect. Plato, who lived before Epicurus, takes
notice in his tenth book of Laws, of many in his time, who pro-
feſſed to believe the gods, and yet did not believe that they minded
human affairs.
Cicero in the introduction to his firſt book of the Nature of the
Gods, repreſents this as one of the principal things which were
controverted with great eagerneſs among the philoſophers, and
about which they differed mightily in their opinions, Whether
the.gods are wholly idle and unactive, and take no care at all
of the adminiſtration of things; or whether, on the contrary, all
things were by them both made and conſtituted from the beginning,
and
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conhdered.
387
finite ages.
and are ſtill moved and governed by them, and ſhall be fo to in-
Quod verò maxumè rem cauſamque continet;
"s utrum nihil agant dii, nihil moliantur, et ab omni curatione
rs et adminiſtratione rerum vacent: an contra ab his et a principio
c omnia facta et conſtituta fint, et ad infinitum ſemper regantur,
atque moveantur, in primis magna diſſenſio eſt.” And accord-
ingly not only is Velleius the Epicurean there introduced as ridi-
culing the doctrine of Divine Providence ; but Cotta the Acade-
mic employs all the force of his wit and eloquence againſt it, and
fets himſelf to Thew that the gods take no care of men, and the
actions and events relating to them. This opinion ſeems to have
made no ſmall progreſs in the polite world even among the Ro-
mans. That antient poet Ennius declares his belief, that there
are gods, but that they take no notice of human actions, nor give
themſelves any concern about them: and what led him to this
was the obſerving the calamities which befal good men, and the
proſperity of the wicked.
Ego deum genus eſſe ſemper dixi, et dicam cælitum :
« Sed eos non curare opinor, quid agat humanum genus ;
“ Nam ſi curent, bene bonis fit malè malis; quod nunc abeſt(m)."
That great man Tacitus having repreſented it “ as uncertain
« in his judgment, whether human affairs were governed by
• fate and immutable neceſſity, or by chance," obſerves, that in
this matter " the wiſeſt of the antients and their followers were
* of different ſentiments : and that many had this opinion fixed
Ám) Apud Cicero de Divinat. lib. i. cap. 50. et de Nat. Deor. lib. üi. cap. 32.
D d d 2
rt in
388
The Heathen. Notions
Part I.
« in their minds, that neither our beginning nor our end, nor
“ men at all, are minded by the gods. Mihi hæc ac talia au-
dienti, in incerto judicium eft, fato ne res humanæ, ac necef-
« fitate immutabili, an forte volvantur : quippe ſapientiffimos,
" quique eorum ſectam æmulantur diverſos reperies, et multis
66. inſitam opinionem non initia noſtra, non finem, non denique
s homines, diis curæ (n.). And that he himſelf was much in-
clined to that opinion appears from another paſſage, where ſpeak-
ing of the portents and preſages in the reign of Nero, he ſays,
that theſe things happened fo apparently without any interpoſition
or direction from the gods, that Nero continued ſeveral years
after both in his imperial rule, and in the perpetration of the moſt
flagitious crimes.
Pliny, the great naturalift, lived about the ſame time with
Tacitus, and he repreſents' it as ridiculous to imagine, that the
God who is ſupreme takes any care of human affairs : and adds,
That without doubt the Divinity would be polluted with ſuch a
ſad and troubleſome miniſtry or employment. « Irridendum verò
agere curam rerum humanarum illud quicquid eſt ſummum.
« Anne tam triſti et multiplici miniſterio non pollui credamus
« dubitemuſve?” Hiſt. Nat. lib. ii. cap. 7.
Cæcilius, a learned and ingenious Roman lawyer, probably ex-
preſſes the ſenſe of many gentlemen among the Pagans of that
time, when he urges it as an objection againſt the profeſſors of
(12) Tacit. Annal. viii.
Chriſtianity;
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conſidered.
3899
Chriſtianity, that they aſſerted a Providence as extending to the
affairs and actions of men, and even to their moſt ſecret thoughts.
He repreſents it as an abſurd thing in the Chriſtians to believe,
that “ their God, whom they can neither fee nor ſhew, inſpects
diligently into the manners of all men, into their actions, and
“ even their words and hidden thoughts : and that he is every
“ where preſent, troubleſome, and impertinently buſy and curious;
“ ſince he intereſteth himſelf in all things that are done, and
" thruſteth himſelf into all places : whereas he can neither attend
~ to every {articular whilſt he is employed about the whole, nor
« be able to take care of the whole, being buſied about particu-
“ lars.-Chriſtiani quæ monftra, quæ portenta confingunt? Deum.
“ illum ſuum, quem nec oſtendere poffunt nec videre, in omni-
um mores, omnium actus, verba etiàm, et occultas cogita-
~ tiones diligenter inquirere, diſcurrentem fcilicet, atque ubique
“ præſentem, moleſtum illum volunt, inquietum, impudenter
« curiofum : fiquidem inſtet factis omnibus, locis omnibus inter-
ceptus, cum nec fingulis inſervire poſſit per univerſa diſtrictus,
“ nec univerſis ſufficit, in fingulis occupatus (6).” This was the
Epicurean way of talking againſt Providence, as appears from
what Velleius in Cicero ſays on that ſubject (b): and which owes
all its force to their meaſuring the Divinity by themſelves, and
fuppoſing the gods to be liinited, imperfect, and indolent beings.
As to thoſe of the philoſophers who aſſerted a Providence,
Epi&etus repreſents them as of different ſentiments concerning
0
(Min. Fel. p. 95. Edit. var. 1672,
(1) De nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 20.
the
2
390
Part I.
The Heatben Notions
the nature and extent of it. Some of them, he ſays, admitted a
Providence in great and heavenly things, but in nothing upon
earth (9). Others ſuppoſed it to take care of things both in
heaven and earth; but only in general, not with reſpect to indi-
viduals. Others, like Ulyffes in Homer, and Socrates, held that
Providence extendeth to individuals, and that not the leaſt motion
or action can be concealed from God (r). In this Socrates was
followed by Plato, who, in his tenth book of Laws, endeavours
to prove, that mankind, and the things relating to them, not only
great matters, but even the ſmalleſt, are under the care of Divine
Providence; and argues very well upon it. The ſame thing he
.
(9) This is fáid to have been Ariſtotle's opinion. It is true, that in his Nico-
machian Ethics he ſeems to admit the ſuppoſition, that Providence concerns itſelf
about men and their affairs; though he ſpeaks of it doubtfully. If,” ſays he," the
gods exerciſe any care at all about men, as it ſeems.-E Tis éténela Tã &v@gústwo
ÜTo Señv yivetou, we doxel.” Ariſt. Oper. tom. II. p. 140. Paris 1629. But many
of the antients charge him with holding that Providence does not extend to the
things which are below the moon. Chalcidius poſitively aſſerts it in his commentary
on Plato's Timæus, p. 369. at the end of Fabricius's edition of Hippolitus, Ham-
burg. 1716. A very learned writer allerts that this is a calumny that Chalcidius
raiſed of him. But Plutarch, who lived before Chalcidius, plainly ſignifies the
ſame thing. De Placit. Philoſoph. lib. ii. cap. 3. So alſo does Clemens Alexand,
Strom. v. p.700. edit. Potter: and Potter in his notes quotes other teſtimonies to
the fame purpoſe. Stobæus repreſents Ariſtotle as maintaining that heavenly things
are governed by Providence, but not things on earth. Eclog. Phyſic. cap. 25. p.
48. edit. Plant. Atticus the Platoniſt, as quoted by Euſebius, paſſes a ſevere cen-
ſure upon him on this account for ſubſtracting men and their affairs from the care
of Divine Providence. Apud Eufeb. Præparat. Evangel. lib. 15. cap. 5. p. 798. et
feq. and Proclus ſpeaking of thoſe phyſiologers, who, though they acknowledged
the heavenly bodies to partake of mind and Divinity, yet left the ſublunary world to
fioąt up and down without Providence, add, that theſe afterwards Ariſtotle fol-
lowed. See Cudworth's Intel. Syft. p. 237. 2d edit,
(r) Epict. Diſſert, lib. i. cap. 1 2. init,
afferts
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conſidered.
391
1
aſſerts in his Epinomis; concerning which ſee above, p. 338.
But, as was there obſerved, in his whole diſputation on that ſub-
ject he ſpeaks of the Providence of the gods in the plural, and
even of the gods which the laws directed them to worſhip. And
particularly he ſuppoſes, that the dominion and ſuperintendency
of things in this lower world was veſted in the ſtars: whom there-
fore, both in his tenth book of Laws and in his Epinomis, he
ſtrongly recommendeth to the worſhip of the people. And hie
treats the doctrine of thoſe who taught, that the ſun, moon, and
ſtars are not animated, and could not take cognizance of human
affairs, as an inlet to Atheiſm, and a denial of Providence.
It was not merely in a way of accommodation to the popular
manner of expreſſion, that Plato and others ſpoke of the Provi-
dence of the gods. For the ſyſtem of the Platoniſts, and others
of the philoſophers, who ſeemed to entertain the moſt exalted
thoughts of the Divinity, was this : that he whom they regarded
as the firſt and higheſt God did not concern himſelf with man-
kind or their affairs, but committed the adminiſtration and ma-
nagement of them wholly to inferior deities (s). It is not there-
(s) It was obſerved before in the ſecond chapter of this work, p.90, marg, note,
that this notion that the higheſt God of all is above concerning himſelf with the
affairs of men, and hath devolved the care of them upon inferior deities, obtained
among many of thoſe Pagan nations, which retained the idea of one Supreme God.
And that this was a principal ſource of the prevailing polytheiſm, ſince it occa-
fioned their offering up their worſhip, prayers and facrifices to inferior dcities,
on whom they thought they depended for all good things, whilſt the Supreme
God, who, they imagined, did not concern himſelf about them, was neglected.
To correct this error, and aſſert the univerſal and particular Providence of the one
Supreme God, was one great deſign of the Jewiſh revelation, and is farther con-
firmed by the Goſpel of our Saviour.
fore
392
Part 1
The Heather Notions
.60
fore without reaſon that Lord Bolingbroke obſerves, that “ the
Pagans reduced the Monad' or firſt Unity in ſome fort to an ab-
s ſtract or notional being, and baniſhed him almoſt entirely out
6 of the ſyſtem of his works (t).” Lord Herbert ſays concerning
the Pagans in general, that they exempted the higheſt God, as
being moſt happy, from cares.
- Deum ſummum, tanquam
s beatiſſimum, curis eximebant olim Gentiles (u).” And he elſe-
where obſerves, that among thoſe who believed one Supreme God,
many thought that he did not meddle with the things of this
lower world; but that he hath withdrawn himſelf with the ſuper-
celeſtial gods his companions from the view of mortals, as being
of ſo ſublime a nature, that no ſharpneſs of ſight or underſtanding
could reach to them: inſtead of which he hath brought forth into
view thoſe celeſtial deities which we call the Sun, Moon, and
Heaven. Plutarch in his tract de Placit. Philoſoph. argues pretty
largely, that it is unworthy of the majeſty of the Supreme Being,
and inconſiſtent with his happineſs, to buſy himſelf about the af-
fairs of men (x). There is a long and remarkable paſſage of Apu-
leius which it may be proper to take ſome notice of on this occa-
ſion : the purport of it is this, that the Supreme God is ſo far
above us, that he is ſcarce to be approached by the moſt purified
human intellect: and that there is no immediate intercourſe be-
tween us and the firſt claſs of ſubordinate deities viſible or invi-
ſible: but the intercourſe is carried on by intermediate powers
(t) Bolingbroke's Works, Vol. IV. p. 468. edit. 4to.
(u) Relig. Gentil. cap. xi. p. 138.
(x) De Placit. Philof. lib. i. cap. 7. tom. II. p. 881.
calle
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conſidered.
393
called dæmons, who are appointed to take care of every thing here
below, which it is not becoming the majeſty of the celeſtial gods
to meddle with. -" Neque enim pro majeſtate deûm cæleſtium
" fuerit hæc curare (y).” Porphyry alſo ſuppoſes that the higheſt
God of all doth not concern himſelf with terreſtrial and corporeal
things : and that it belongeth to the inferior deities to grant us the
good things neceſſary to this life, of which the firſt fruits are to
be offered to them (2). Yea, as was before obſerved, he ſup-
poſes that evil dæmons had a power of beſtowing riches, and other
things relating to the body, which were uſually accounted good;
and that therefore it is neceſſary for thoſe who would obtain theſe
things, to conciliate their favour by prayers and ſacrifices.
None of the philoſophers were accounted more zealous aſſerters
of Divine Providence as extending its care to mankind, than the
Stoics. A remarkable ſpecimen of this we have in what is largely
urged to this purpoſe by Balbus the repreſentative of the Stoic
ſect, in Cicero's ſecond book of the Nature of the Gods. Yet he,
as Plato had done before him, generally ſpeaks of the gods in the
plural, and the point he undertakes to prove is, that the world is
adminiſtered by the Providence of the gods; and in the courſe of
his argument he lays a particular ſtreſs upon this, that the ſtars are
animated, that they are living rational beings, and that they are
gods. See ſome paſſages quoted to this purpoſe above, p. 319.
which I need not here repeat. In like manner Plutarch in his
(y) Apul. de Dæmone Socratis.
(z) Porphyr. de Abſtin. lib. ii. ſect. 34. et 37. p. 78. et 80. Cantab. 1655.
VOL. I.
Еее
tract
394
Part I.
The Heathen Notions
tract againſt Colotes the Epicurean, reckons it among the things
which are generally believed, and which he thinks are evident,
and cannot reaſonably be controverted, that “ there is a Provi-
«s dence of the gods, and that the ſun and moon are animated,
« whom all men worſhip, and to whom they offer up prayers
“ and ſacrifices (a).” Thus this great philoſopher ſeems to put
the doctrine of a Providence, and that of the ſtars being animated
and to be worſhipped as gods, upon the ſame foundation, as if
they were equally neceſſary to be believed, and there was the ſame
evidence for the one as for the other. And this muſt certainly
have had a bad effect: ſince thoſe who could not think it reaſon
able to believe that the ſtars are living and intelligent beings, and
exerciſe a care over men and their affairs, were in danger of being
led to deny a Providence; the proof of which, according to the
reaſoning of theſe philoſophers, and even of Plato himſelf, depend-
ed upon the ſame principles..
Balbus the Stoic, whom I have juſt now mentioned, after having
faid many excellent things to. Thew the care which Divine Provi-.
dence exerciſeth towards the human race in general, proceeds to
prove, that the welfare of individuals or particular perſons is con-
ſulted and provided for by the immortal gods. Nec verò unie.
« verſo generi hominum folum, fed etiam fingulis a diis immorta-.
“ libus conſuli et provideri ſolet (b).” But it appears from what :
he faith afterwards, that he does not intend by this to ſignify;
(a) Plut. adverf. Colot. Oper. tom. ii. p. 1123.
(b) De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 65. p. 254.
that
زيدا
Chap. XVII.
of Providence conſidered.
395
that the care and interpofition of Divine Providence extendeth to
all individuals, but only to the more worthy and eminent, nor to
all their concernments, but only to thoſe of greater importance.
Having inſtanced in ſeveral of the moſt eminently great and virtu-
ous men among the ancient Romans, he adds, that both Greece and
Rome had produced many extraordinary perſons ; none of whom
became ſuch but by the aſſiſtance of God, or of a God; as that
phraſe “ juvante Deo” might there be rendered. For he had ſpoken
of the immortal gods juſt before : and he obſerves immediately
after, that for this reaſon the poets, and eſpecially
. Homer, aſſigned
to their principal heroes certain gods to be their companions (c).
He adds ſome farther proofs both that the gods take care of cities,
and of particular perſons, i. e. of ſuch extraordinary perſons as
thoſe whom he had mentioned. And accordingly he declares,
that no man ever became great without a divine afflatus or influ-
ence. “ Nemo igitur vir magnus fine aliquo afflatu divino un-
quàm fuit (d).” But yet he thinks, that if a man's corn fields
or vineyards ſhould be hurt by a tempeſt, we ought not to ſup-
poſe, that Providence concerneth itſelf in ſuch things as theſe.
“ For the gods,” faith he,
faith he, “ take care of great matters, and neg-
« lect ſmall ones. Magna dii curant, parva negligunt.” Cotta
(c) De Nat. Deor. lib. i. cap. 66. p. 255.
(d) Ibid. p. 256. Dr. Cudworth produces this paſſage, juvante Deo," as a
proof that Cicero uſes the word God in the fingular emphatically and by way of
eminency, to ſignify the one ſupreme God, the Lord of the univerſe, Intel. Syft.
p.236. But this paſſage, if taken in connexion with the context, does not prove it,
but is an inſtance of what was obſerved before, that the Pagans ſometimes uſed the
word God in the fingular, where it does not appear that they had the one Supreme
God particularly in view. See above p. 380, marg, note.
Eee 2
in
396
Part I.
The Heathen Notions
in his anſwer to Balbus, in the third book of the Nature of the
Gods, takes notice of this doctrine of the Stoics, that the gods
neglected ſmall matters į and which they illuſtrated by this con-
fideration, that kings do not mind little occurrences in their king-
doins. He anſwers, that if they knowingly paſs them by and
neglect them, it is a fault. But that the excuſe of ignorance can-
not be made for a God, nor of want of power neither. He
charges them with inconſiſtency, in pretending that the gods do
not attend to all things, nor take care of the individuals of man-
kind, and yet that men ought to make prayers and vows to the
gods, which ſuppoſes that the divine mind attends to particular
perſons and their affairs ; ſince it is by particular perſons that
prayers and vows are made. “Vota ſuſcipi dicitis oportere : nempe
ſinguli vovent. Audit igitur mens divina etiàm de ſingulis (e).”
This opinion of the Stoics, as repreſented by Balbus, is agreeable
to that of Euripides, which is cited and approved by that great.
philoſopher Plutarch, that « God only concerns himſelf with the
greateſt things, and leaves the ſmaller to fortune (:f).” It does
not appear however, that the opinion expreſſed by Balbus was.
that of all the Stoics. For the famous Stoic Chryfippus is ſaid to
have maintained, that Providence extendeth its care to all things,
the leaſt and moſt inconſiderable not excepted : for which he is.
cenſured by Plutarch. And Epictetus and Antoninus appear to
have been of the ſame ſentiments, but Seneca ſeems not to
be ſatisfied about it. There is a remarkable paſſage in his 95th
epiſtle, in which he repreſents it as neceſſary to know, “ that the
(e) De Nat. Deor. lib. iii. cap. 36. et 39.
(f) Plut. de gerenda Repub. Oper. tom. II. p. 811.
« gods
Chap. XVII.
397
of Providence conſideredo
« gods preſide over the world ; that they order things relating to
« the whole, as what properly belong to them: and that they
"exerciſe a guardianſhip over the human race, and are ſome-
e times curious about individuals.--Scire illos eſſe qui præſident
« mundo : qui univerfa, ut ſua, temperant : qui humani generis
“ tutelam gerunt : interdum curiofi fingulorum.” He ſeems here
to think, that Providence ſeldom concerneth itſelf about indivi-
duals, or particular perſons and things : eſpecially thoſe of ſmaller
conſequence. And if this were the caſe, the far greater part of
mankind.could not be ſure, that they and their concernments are
under the care and inſpection of Divine Providence:: which would
leave little room for a religious fear of God, and for the exerciſe
of a due ſubmiſſion, reſignation, and affiance.
The notions which many of the philoſophers entertained of
Fate, did alſo contribute to encumber and perplex their doctrine
of Divine Providence. It is mentioned as one of Thales's ſayings,
that neceſſity is the ſtrongeſt of all things; for all things are ſub-
ject to it. Parmenides and Democritus held, as Plutarch informas
us, that all things came by neceſſity :. and Democritus underſtood
this of an abſolute material neceſſity. Heraclitus was of opinion
that all things are done by fate, and that fate is the ſame with
neceſſity (8). The Stoics eſpecially talked much of fate. Zeno
taught that all things are ſubject to fate, as we are informed by
Laertius. But the accounts given of fate by Zeno, Chryſip-
pus, and the moſt eminent of the antient Stoics, are very obſcure
(8) Plutarch. de Placit. Phil. lib. i. cap. 25, 26, 27. Oper. tom. II. p. 884,
and
!
398
Part I.
The Heatben Notions
-
(i) Ibid. cap. 26. p. 884:
and confuſed. They held that in the conſtitution of the world
Jupiter himſelf was hampered by natural neceſſity, and the in-
obſequiouſneſs of matter : ſo that he could not always do the
things that he would. To this they aſcribed it that ſome men are
unavoidably of bad and perverſe diſpoſitions, and that good men
are neceſſarily expoſed to eternal evils and calamities. Plutarch
ſays, that neceſſity was, according to the Stoics, a violent and in-
vincible or immovable cauſe; and fate an orderly eſtabliſhed com-
plexion or concatenation of cauſes (b). And yet they endeavoured
ſo to explain it, as to leave ſome room for human liberty. But
it muſt be acknowledged, that the later philoſophers, after Chri-
ftianity had made ſome progreſs in the world, particularly Hiero-
cles and Simplicius, expreſſed themſelves much more clearly and
conliſtently on this ſubject.
The confuſion and uncertainty which the philoſophers were
under farther appears, in that they ſeemed to divide the ordering
of events between God or Providence, Fate and Fortune, Plato him-
ſelf, according to Plutarch, referred ſome things to Providence, fome
things to neceſſity (i). And in his fourth book of Laws, he faith,
that “God, and with God, Fortune and Opportunity, govern all
" the affairs of men (k).” Maximus Tyrius ſuppoſes that all things
which happen to men are either inſpected and ordered by Provi-
dence, or neceſſitated by Fate, or varied by Fortune, or managed
(5) Plutarch. de Placit. Phil. lib. i. cap. 27. p. 885.
(k) Plat. de Leg. lib. iv. p. 50:8. Oper. Lugd. 1590.
by
Chap. XVIT.
of Providence conſidered.
399
by human art and ſkill. He compares Fate to a rigid tyrant,
which neither acknowledgeth a ſuperior, nor can be changed :
that it draws us by force, and we muſt obey : that it is inexorable,
and prayers to it are in vain : and that even Jupiter himſelf has
no way .
of averting it. And accordingly he produces the paſſage
of Homer, where. Jupiter is introduced as complaining, that the
Fates had determined that his dear fon Sarpedon ſhould be ſlain
by Patroclus, and that therefore it was not in his power to ſave.
him. As to Fortune that philoſopher repreſents it as a potentate
that has no underſtanding, dvońtos surcons, not guided by counſel,
judgment, er Providence, but by fury, paſſion, and impetuous
arbitrary will: that it is without reaſon, without foreſight, deaf
and inconftant, driven hither and thither, and not to be managed.
by. any art or ſkill.of a governor (l). And he had obſerved before,
in the ſame diſſertation, that riches, and. what are uſually called
the goods of Fortune, are not given by the gods, but are the mad
gifts of mad Fortune ; and he compares them to the gifts we re-
ceive from perſons that are drunk (m):
It is manifeſt from the account which hath been given, that
there was great confuſion and uncertainty in the notions of the
antient Pagans, both the vulgar and the philoſophers, with regard
to Divine Providence: it muſt therefore be the higheſt ſatisfaction
and advantage to have an expreſs revelation from God to guide.
and inſtruct us in a matter of ſuch vaſt importance. And this is
(2). Max. Tyr. diſſert. 30..p. 360, 362. et. feq. Edit. Oxon. 1677.
(ur.) Ibid. p. 357.
400
Part I.
Revelation of great Uſe to inſtru£t us
our ineſtimable privilege, who have the benefit of the Revelation
contained in the Holy Scriptures. We are there aſſured in the
name of God himſelf, that though he is infinitely above all hu-
man comprehenſion, and though it be a wonderful condeſcenſion
in him to regard the ſervices of the moſt excellent of created be-
ings, yet his providential care extendeth to all the creatures he
hath made, and partịcularly to mankind: and not only to na-
tions and large communities, but to the individuals of the human
race, the meaneſt not excepted : that nothing befalleth us by a
blind unguided chance, or an equally blind fatal neceſſity: that even
thoſe events which ſeem to us to be fortuitous are under the ſuper-
intendency of God's moſt wiſe Providence, and nothing, whether
good or evil, happeneth to us without his direction or permiſſion;
but that this is ſo ordered as to leave room for the exerciſe of hu-
man liberty and moral agency, and for the operation of ſecond
cauſes and inſtruments : that there are orders of glorious beings
ſuperior to man, whom God is pleaſed to make uſe of in the ad-
miniſtrations of his Providence towards the human race, but that
things are not left abſolutely to their direction and diſpoſal : they
are fellow-ſervants with us of the ſame ſupreme univerſal Lord;
nor is any part of that religious homage or adoration to be ren-
dered to them which is due to him alone: that there are evil
ſpirits, of great power as well as malice ; but that they can do no
more than God permits, and are under the ſovereign controul of
his Providence; ſo that good men need not be afraid of them,
whilſt they put their truſt in God, and go on in the way of their
duty: that God is juſt and good in all his diſpenſations, and al-
ways proceeds upon the wiſeſt reaſons, though we may not be
able
•
Chap. XVII. in the Doctrine of Divine Providence.
401
able at preſent to apprehend thoſe reaſons: that to his goodneſs
we owe all the advantages and accommodations of this preſent
life ; and that all the afflictions which befal us are permitted and
ordered by him for wiſe and righteous ends; and that he will
cauſe them to work together for good to them that love and ſerve
him in fincerity. We are there farther aſſured, that God is ever
ready to grant to good men the influences and aids of his Holy
Spirit, to aſſiſt them in the performance of their duty, and to ſup-
port
and comfort them in all their tribulation : and finally, that
he exerciſeth a conſtant inſpection over all men, and knoweth all
their words and actions, and even the moſt ſecret thoughts and
diſpoſitions of their hearts, and that to him they muſt be account-
able for them, and ſhall by him be rewarded or puniſhed accord-
ingly. This is the general idea which the Scripture giveth us of
God's providential adminiſtration, than which nothing can be
more noble, or more uſeful, where it is ſtedfaſtly believed. And
it is of the higheſt advantage to have all this not merely propoſed
to us as the opinions of wiſe men and philoſophers, contradicted
by others of great name, but aſcertained by an expreſs Revelation
from God himſelf. This certainly layeth a ſolid foundation for a
religious awe and veneration of the Divine Majeſty, for yielding a
dutiful obedience to his laws, for an intire ſubmiſſion and reſigna-
tion to his will, and a calm acquieſcence in the orders of his Pro-
vidence, for a thankful ſenſe of his goodneſs in the bleſſings we
enjoy, and a ſteady patience and fortitude of mind under all the
afflictions and adverſities we may meet with in this preſent ſtate,
and for our acting continually as in his fight, and maintaining an
habitual regard to him in our whole courſe.
VOL. I.
F ff
On
402 Of Prayer prattiſed among the Pagans. Part I
On this occaſion it may not be improper to ſay ſomething about
the duty of prayer, the right exerciſe of which hath a manifeft
dependence on the doctrine and belief of Divine Providence.
This hath very generally obtained, wherever there has been an
appearance of religions and it may reaſonably be fuppoſed to have
made a part of the primitive religion derived from the firſt parents
and anceſtors of the human race. Whilſt this religion continued
in a conſiderable degree uncorrupted, prayers, as well as the other
acts of divine worſhip, were directed to the one true God, the
Creator and Governor of the world. But as idolatry made a pro-
grefs, their religious worship, and particularly this part of it, was
addreſſed to a multiplicity of deities. To theſe they offered up
their prayers and fupplications, looking upon them as the dif-
penſers of worldly bleſſings, or the inflicters of evils and calami-
ties : whilſt the ſupreme univerſal Lord was in a great meaſure
neglected, even by thoſe who had ſome notion of the one Su-
preme Deity, becauſe they ſuppoſed him too far above them, to
concern himſelf with their affairs. Hence it came to paſs, that
though prayer was almoſt univerſally in uſe among the Pagan na-
tions, they were wrong in the object of their
prayers,
ly in the matter of them too. They ſeem for the moſt part to
have had no notion of praying to the gods for any thing but goods
of a worldly nature, riches, honours, long life, health, proſperity
and ſucceſs in their undertakings, and other things of a like kind.
Some of their wiſeſt men ſaw the impropriety of this, and at the
ſame time they were ſo ſenſible of their own inability to judge
what to pray for as they ought, that they thought it beſt only to
pray for good things in general, and not to preſume to deſcend to
particular
and general-
Chap. XVI. Of Prayer as practiſed among the Pagans. 403
particular requeſts. This is the deſign of Socrates in the ſecond
Alcibiad ; in which he repreſents to that young nobleman, that it
was not ſafe for him to pray for any thing in particular, left the
thing he prayed for ſhould prove a curſe inſtead of a bleſſing.;
and therefore adviſes him to wait till ſome god ſhould enlighten
him in the knowledge of good and evil. Pythagoraș, as Laer-
tius informs us (n), permited not that any man ſhould pray for
himſelf, becauſe no man knoweth what is good for him. Max.
Tyrius has a whole Diſſertation to prove, that we ought not to
pray at all. And others of the philoſophers were probably of the
fanie opinion (), Some of them indeed, and particularly Epicte-
tus and Antoninus, had juſter notions, both of the obligations of
the duty of prayer, and of what ſhould be the propereſt matter for
our prayers : but as to the objects of prayer, they took no care to
rectify the popular polytheiſtical notions, but rather countenanced
them. But if the philoſophers had been never ſo right, or ſo
unanimous in their opinions and directions as to the duty of
prayer, it muſt have had but ſmall influence on the generality of
t
(12) Laert. lib. viji. ſegm. 9.
(6) Our modern deiſts, who profeſs to govern themſelves by the law of nature,
are divided in their ſentiments about prayer. Some think it to be a duty of natural
religion, others will not allow it to be ſo. Mr. Chubb is of opinion, that there is
an impropriety in praying to God, and intimates his fufpicion that it is diſpleaſing
to the Deity. See his Poſthumous Works, Vol. I. p. 283. et ſeq. Blount in
his notes on Philoſtratus's Life of Apollonius Tyanæus, p. 38. having obſerved
that ſome of the Heathens uſed 10 prayers at all, infinuates in their names ſeveral
objections againſt that duty. Lord Bolingbroke feems ſometimes to make it a duty
of the law of nature, but is for confining it to the heart, and not for making uſe of
outward expreſſions in prayer. The reader may ſee the arguments of Maximus
Tyrius and others againſt the duty of prayer well anſwered in Dr. Benſon's tract on
the End and Deſign of Prayer.
Fff 2
man-
404
The Scriptures give the beſt Directions for Prayer Part I.
mankind, in compariſon of that which ariſeth from the authority
of an expreſs and well-atteſted Revelation from God, injoining it
as our duty to pray to God, and encouraging us to it by gracious
declarations and promiſes. Such a Revelation we have commu-
nicated to us in the Holy Scriptures. We have the ſatisfaction of
being there affured, that though God be highly exalted above all
bleſſing and praife, yet he alloweth and requireth us to offer up our
praiſes and thankſgivings to his Divine Majeſty for the benefits we
receive from him, and our prayers and ſupplications for obtaining
the good things we ſtand in need of, and for averting the evils we
have reaſon to fear; not as if he did not know our wants without
our expreſſing them, but becauſe it is his will that we fhould
maintain a conſtant ſenſe of our abſolute dependence upon God, ,
and exerciſe a dutiful reſignation and affiance, and all thoſe pious
affections which become reaſonable creatures towards the Supreme
Being. We are allowed to come to him as on a throne of Grace,
in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, the great and only Mediator of his
own appointment, with a filial freedom as children to a Father
both able and ready to help us ; to apply to him even for the good
things relating to the body and this prefent world; provided we
afk them, not abſolutely, but in an entire reſignation to his will,
and ſo far only as he feeth them to be really fit and needful for
us : But eſpecially to apply to him for bleſſings of a ſpiritual na-
ture, and for his gracious aſſiſtances to ſupport and animate us in
the performance of our duty. In the Holy Scriptures we have
the moſt excellent patterns of prayer, and the beſt directions for
the right performance of it, and are taught both by precept and
example what to pray for, and how to pray. But at the fame
time
Chap.XVII. The Scriptures give the beſt Directions for Prayer. 105
time great care is taken to inform us, that our prayers will be of
no avail to our acceptance with God, if ſeparated from a holy
and virtuous practice; "that the prayer of the wicked man per-
fiſting in his wickedneſs is an abomination unto the Lord, but the
prayer of the upright is his delight.
CH A P
Form ico...a'.. Ike Scripruxe. Repreſentation of??...?* Part Is
:.
.
vil
?
1
:
+
Cinta
1
متر، ثم
¢
övr : 1971-7500 om is for illi ::;;.;
.
& H A P. XVII.
-?)
...
General reflections on the foregoing account.; of the religion of the ana
tient Pagans. The firſt reflection is this: that the repreſentations
made to us in Scripture of the deplorable ſtate of religion among the
Gentiles are literally true, and agreeable to fact, and are con-
firmed by the undoubted monuments of Paganiſm. The attempts of
fome learned men to explain away thoſe repreſentations conſidered,
and mewn to be vain and inſufficient.
I
SHALL conclude the account that has been given of the
ſtate of religion in the Gentile world with ſome general re-
flections and obſervations.
It plainly appears, that even the moſt learned and civilized Hea-
then nations were ſunk into a deplorable ſtate of darkneſs and
corruption. They were fallen from the knowledge and worſhip
of the one true God into the moſt amazing idolatry and poly-
theiſm. The names, the characters, and attributes of God were
miſapplied to a multiplicity of idol deities. Inſtead of being led
by the works of God to acknowledge and adore him the glorious
author, they for the moſt part worſhipped the works themſelves,
and paid that adoration to them which was due tohim alone.
Temples were every where built, altars erected, prayers and facri-
fices offered to falſe and fictitious deities, to many of whom the
popular theology attributed ſome of the worſt vices and paſſions of
1
frail
Chap. XVIII. the State of the Heathen World.
407
frail mortals. They even worſhipped evil dæmoms, acknowledged
by themfelves to be ſuch; and many of their religious rites, infti-
tuted by the command of their oracles, were ſo cruel, ſo obſcene
and impure, as were only ſuited to evil and vicious beings. Many
of their philoſophers themſelves either maintained tenets which
tended to atheifm, and to fubvert the foundations of all religion ;
or, they endeavoured to deſtroy all certainty and evidence, and to
introduce an univerſal doubt and ſcepticiſm, whereby they left
men no principles to depend upon, even with regard to the belief
of a God and ia Providence. And as to thoſe of the philoſopher's
who entertained juſter and nobler ſentiments of religion, and the
Deity, their ſublime fpeculations, which we are ſo apt to admire,
were mixed with very dangerous errors, and at beſt were of ſmall
advantage to the people, and confined in a great meaſure to their
fchools. To which it muſt be added, that in their own practice
they univerſally fell in with the common idolatry and polytheiſm,
and inſtead of reclaiming the people from it, countenanced it by
their maxims, and deviſed plauſible colours to defend it.
The truth of this account has been ſhewn at large from the
Heathen writers themſelves, and is confirmed by all the remain-
ing monuments of Paganiſm. And this fully juſtifies the
repre-
ſentation that is made to us in the Holy Scriptures of the ſtate of
religion in the Heathen world, eſpecially at the time when the
Chriſtian revelation was firſt publiſhed. St. Paul in the firſt chap-
ter of his epiftle to the Romans deſcribes the Heathens in general,
thoſe eſpecially of the Roman empire, which was then the moſt
learned and civilized part of the world, as having arrived to the
5
moſt
408
Part I.
The Scripture Repreſentation of
moſt monſtrous degree of idolatry and corruption of manners :
that notwithſtanding the diſcoveries made of the divine nature and
perfections in the works of creation, which left them “ without
vs excuſe," they “ did not glorify God as God, but became vain
as in their imaginations, and their fooliſh heart was darkened.
. Profeffing themſelves to be wiſe they became fools: and changed
“ the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to
« corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beaſts, and
“ creeping things.” And that “ they changed the truth of God
< into a lie, and worſhipped and ſerved the creature more than
" the Creator, who is bleſſed for ever :" that as “ they did not
« like to retain God in their knowledge,” ſo he gave “ them
up to a reprobate mind,” ſo that they abandoned themſelves to
the moſt unnatural impurities, and to all kinds of abominable vice
and wickedneſs. See Rom. i. 17. to the end of that chapter. St.
Paul in his other epiſtles ſpeaks in the ſame ſtrain. Thus in his
firſt to the Theſſalonians he faith of the Gentiles, that “ they
« knew mot God," 1 Theff. iv. 5. And he deſcribes their con-
verſion to Chriſtianity thus, that they as turned from idols to
“ ferve the living and true God;" where he ſuppoſes that whilſt
they continued in their Gentile ſtate, they ſerved idols, and did
not ſerve the living and true God, 1 Theff. i. 9. To the Gala-
tians who had been Gentiles, he faith, “ then when
ye
knew not
“ God, ye did ſervice unto them which by nature are no gods.”
Gal. iv. II, And in like manner in his epiſtle to the Epheſians
he bids them remember that they " were in time paſt Gentiles
s in the fleſh:” and that at that time they “ had no hope, and
were without God in the world," Eph. ii. 11, 12. degi év 16
κόσμο και ;
1
Chap. XVIII.
409
the State of the Heathen World.
réorga; not as if they had no notion at all of a Deity, and did not
believe the exiſtence.of God, but it is a ſtrong manner of ex-
preſſion to ſignify that they were without the right knowledge and
worſhip of the only true God, and paid their religious ſervice not
to the true God, but to idol deities. And in the fourth chapter
of that epiſtle, verſe 17. 18. he gives it as the character of the
Gentiles in general, that they had the « underſtanding darkened,"
being alienated “ from the life of God, through the ignorance
" that was in them, becauſe of the blindneſs of their hearts."
The ſame apoſtle tells the Corinthians that “ the things which
" the Gentiles ſacrificed, they ſacrificed to devils, and not to God,"
and, ſays he, “ I would not that ye ſhould have fellowſhip with
" devils." I Cor. x. 20. If the word δαιμονίοις be rendered not
devils, as it is by our tranſlators, but dæmons, as ſome chuſe to ren-
der it, it makes no great difference. It is certain that the word
d'aluórior is generally taken in a bad ſenſe in Scripture (P); and
which
way ſoever we render the word, it is plain that the apoſtle
here oppoſeth the worſhip of theſe dæmons to the worſhip of the
one true God, and ſuppoſeth that it was inconſiſtent with it, and
that the one of theſe could not be ſafely joined with the other. In
the ſeveral paſſages which have been produced, it is evident that
the apoſtle ſpeaks of the Heathens in general. What particular
perſons there might be among them, who kept themſelves free
from the prevailing corruption and idolatry, it is to little purpoſe to
i
(1) The learned Dr. Cudworth obſerves, that in the New Teſtament, according
to the judgment of Origen, Euſebius, and others of the antient fathers, both theſe
words &aivoves and datuónia, are alike taken always in a worſe ſenſe for evil and
impure ſpirits only. Intel. Syſt
. p. 264.
VOL. I.
enquire.
Ggg
410
Part I.
The Scripture Repreſentation of
-.
enquire. But it has been ſhewn that their greateſt and wiſeſt
men fell in with it. When the apoſtle puts the ſuppoſition con-
cerning « the uncircumciſion” or uncircumciſed Gentiles" -keep-
ing the righteouſneſs of the law, or fulfilling the law,” Rom.
ii. 26, 27. this ſeems plainly to be underſtood of ſuch Gentiles as
Cornelius was, who, though uncircumciſed, and not of the com-
monwealth of Iſrael, was a devout adorer of the only true God,
and of him only. And indeed no man that was not fo could be
ſaid to keep the law, or to fulfil it, of which this was a principal
and fundamental article. And it is evidently of ſuch perſons as
Cornelius that St. Peter ſpeaks, when he declares “ of a truth
“ I perceive that God is no reſpecter of perſons : but in every
“ nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteouſneſs, is ac-
cepted with him.” Acts x. 34, 35. And it may be juſtly con-
cluded, that Cornelius learned the knowledge and worſhip of the
one true God by converſing with the Jews. Acts x. 22. And
probably this was the caſe of many other Gentiles at that time.
But nothing can be concluded from this as to the general ſtate of
the Heathen world with regard to religion.
I am ſenſible, that ſome learned perſons, and particularly the
eminent Dr. Cudworth, have endeavoured to bring in St. Paul
himſelf as a voucher, that the Heathens in general, not only the
philoſophers, but the vulgar, knew and worſhipped the one true
God. And this they attempt to prove from that apoſtle's diſ-
courſe to the Athenians. What our tranſlators render, “ I perceive
" that in all things ye are too ſuperſtitious,” the doctor renders
" thus, I perceive that in every thing ye are more than ordinarily
« religious."
Chap. XVIII.
411
the State of the Heathen World.
:
(
“ religious.” And he thinks the word deloidal poveçéges is to be
taken there in a good ſenfe, from St. Paul's ſaying,
ve the God
“ whom you ignorantly worſhip, declare I unto you:” and after-
wards mentioning the God that made the world and all things in it,
the doctor infers two things : Firſt, that by the unknown God
" of the Athenians was meant the only true God, he who made
" the world and all things in it, who in all probability was there-
“ fore ſtiled by them ayraços geos, becauſe he is not only invi-
fible, but incomprehenſible by mortals.” The ſecond thing,
which, he ſays, may be concluded from hence is, that “ the
Athenian Pagans did súcsteiv, religiouſly worſhip the true God,
« the Lord of heaven and earth.” And having taken notice of
the paſſage which St. Paul cites from Aratus concerning Zeus or
Jupiter, that “ we are his offspring,” he ſays, that “ we have
here a plain Scripture acknowledgment, that by the Zeus of
" the Greekiſh Pagans was ſometimes at leaſt meant the true
“ God (9).” It may be obſerved, that this learned writer expreſſes
himſelf here with ſome caution and reſerve: and if he had carried
it no farther than to ſay, that by the word Zeus or Jupiter among
the Pagans was ſometimes meant the true God, and that ſome
perſons among them might make uſe of that name to ſignify the
one Supreme God, I ſhould not have much conteſted it with him.
But the point the doctor ſhould have proved is, that he whom the
generality of the vulgar Pagans worſhipped under the name of
Jupiter was the only true God, and not an idol deity. And it
would be a ſtrange thing if he could produce a Scripture acknow-
:
(9) Intel. Syft. p. 473, 474, 475.
GgS 2
ledgment
412
The Scripture Repreſentation of
Part I.
o It
(
ledgment for this: yet this is what he afterwards attempts.
« is evident; faith he, that by Aratus's Zeus, or Jupiter, was really
" meant the Supreme God, the Maker of the whole world :
" which, confirmed alſo by St. Paul and the Scripture, ought to
si be a matter out of controverſy among us. Neither is it reaſon-
" able to think, that Aratus was ſingular in this ; but that he
ſpoke according to the received theology of the Greeks, and
* that not only amongſt philoſophers and learned men, but even
" the vulgar alſo. And ſince the Latins had the very fame
« notion of Jupiter that the Greeks had of Zeus, it cannot be
denied, but that they commonly by their Jupiter alſo under-
- ſtood the one Supreme God, the Lord of heaven and earth.”
Thus, according to this very learned writer, the received theology
of the Pagans, both amongſt the Philoſophers and the vulgar, was
this, that by the Jupiter they adored they commonly underſtood
the one true Supreme God, the Maker of the world, and Lord
of heaven and earth. And this he aſſerts is ſo evident that it can-
not be denied. I have a great reſpect for this excellent author
but if he had expreſſed himſelf more cautiouſly and modeſtly on
this head, it would have been better. He ſeems here to have
been carried away by his charitable prejudices in favour of the
antient Pagans. And I heartily with there was good reaſon to
believe, that the account he gives of them and their religion is a
juſt and true one. But the contrary may be plainly proved from
the Pagan writers themſelves, and from ſeveral paſſages in his
own learned work. We are not to judge of the Pagan religion,
and the popular received theology, by ſome detached paſſages of
particular writers, but by the general ſcheme of their religious
eſtabliſh-
Chap. XVIII. the State of the Heathen World.
413
eſtabliſhments ; by which it appears, that Jupiter was really no
more than the chief of the Pagan idol deities, of the ſame kind,
though ſomewhat fuperior to the reſt. I think however, that
whatever his own charity might incline him to ſuppoſe, he ſhould
not have put this upon us as confirmed by Scripture authority.
He does not merely ſay, there might be ſome few among the
Pagans who knew and worſhipped the one true Supreme God:
but he makes this to have been the common motion and practice
of the Heathens in general, and that under the name of a Jupiter
they directed their worſhip to the one true God, the ſame whom
we adore. I need not take pains to prove that this is not the idea
given us of the Heathens in the Old Teſtament (r). And as to
the New, though Dr. Cudworth has endeavoured to avail himſelf
of St. Paul's authority, whoſoever carefully examines the paſſages
above produced from this great apoſtle, will be apt to think that
it is ſcarce poſſible to reconcile the account he gives of the general
ſtate of the Heathen world with the Doctor's hypotheſis. Indeed
what this learned man relies upon is not any expreſs Scripture de-
claration, that the Gentiles in general knew and worſhipped the
one true God, and that this was the Jupiter they adored; but in-
ferences of his own from fome particular expreſſions of St. Paul,
interpreted after his own way, in oppoſition to frequent and ex-
preſs declarations of that apoſtle. Thus, according to this learned
" name,
(r) Many paſſages might be mentioned to this purpoſe. But I fall only take no-
tice of one. The " Heathens,” and “ thoſe that know not God and call not on his
are uſed as ſynonymous expreſſions. Jer. x. 25. Pſal. Ixxix. 6. But I
do not ſee how this could be truly applied to them, if the one true God was the
chief object of their devotions, to whom they principally paid their worſhip, and
offered
up
their prayers.
writer,
414
Part I.
The Scripture Repreſentation of
writer, the Athenians are repreſented by St. Paul as “ more than
" ordinarily religious," who devoutly worſhipped the one true
God, the Maker and Lord of heaven and earth. And if this was
true concerning the Athenians, it might be juſtly ſaid of the Hea-
thens in general, ſince it admits of a clear proof, that none of the
Gentiles were more deeply immerſed in the common idolatry and
ſuperſtition than they were. Accordingly the Doctor ſuppoſes the
ſame thing concerning the Heathens in general, that the one true
God was the Zeus or Jupiter they commonly adored, not the
philoſophers only, but the vulgar, both among the Greeks and
Romans ; and he would have us think that St. Paul ſuppoſed
it too.
i
It is ſcarce worth while to conteſt it, whether the words with
which the apoſtle introduces his diſcourſe to the Athenians had
better be tranſlated « ſuperſtitious” or “ religious.” If the word
uſed in the original.be ſometimes taken in a good ſenſe, it cannot
be denied that it is often in the Pagan writers themſelves uſed
to ſignify an exceſſive ſuperſtition. And it may
be looked upon
as an inſtance of St. Paul's prudence, that he choſe a word which
was very proper to ſignify that ſuperſtition to which they were ſo
immoderately addicted, and at the ſame time was capable of a
ſofter ſenſe, that he might not too much irritate them in the be-
ginning of his diſcourſe. But it ſeems to me a ſtrange ſuppoſition
to imagine that t. Paul intended to commend the Athenians as
being “ in every thing more than ordinarily religious,” in the
proper and laudable ſenſe of the word; as if they were in his
opinion to an uncommon degree devout adorers of the only true
God,
Chap. XVIII.
415
the State of the Heather World.
1
God, the Maker of heaven" and earth.
The contrary appears
from the whole ſtrain of his diſcourſe, as well as from what the
ſacred hiſtorian had obſerved juſt before, viz. that while Paul
waited at Athens,“ his ſpirit was ſtirred within him, when he
“ ſaw the city,” xatsidonor—full of idols, or as it is well ren-
dered, so wholly given to idolatry.” Can there be a plainer proof;
that they were not more than ordinarily religious in the good
ſenſe of the word, but grofly and extravagantly idolatrous and
ſuperſtitious ? And this was indeed their true character. Pauſa-
nias obſerves, that they worſhipped the gods more than others,
and exceeded all others in their diligence, “ èis ta teic,” towards
the gods, or in things relating to the gods (s). And Xenophon
in his account of the Athenian republic ſays, they had twice as
many feſtivals as any other cities. And what kind of feſtivals
they were the reader may find by conſulting Potter's Antiquities
of Greece, vol. i. from whence it appears, that they were for the
moſt part founded on the poetical fables of the gods. So addicted
were the Athenians to ſuperſtition, that they were ready to adopt
the gods of other countries, and worſhipped them as well as their
own. Strabo obſerves, that they received many foreign ſacra or
religious rites, “πόλλα των ξενικών ιερων παρεδεξαν,” infomuch
that they were ridiculed for it by their own comic writers (t). If
therefore the apoſtle be ſuppoſed here to tell them, that they were
in every thing more than ordinarily religious, the meaning can
only be, that they were uncommonly diligent in what they took
(s) Paufan. Attic. cap. 17.
(6) Strabo, lib. x. p. 722. Amſtel.
to
416
Part I.
The Scripture Repreſentation of
to be religion : which they might be, and yet be ſtrangers to true
religion, and addicted to a falſe one. And accordingly he begins
his diſcourſe with ſaying, that as he " paſſed by, and beheld their
" devotions, tá obdouata,” which may ſignify either their ſacred
rites, or the objects of their worſhip, he “ found an altar with this
inſcription, To the unknown God :" i.e. to a God whom, by
their own acknowledgment, they did not know. The whole in-
fcription, according to Oecumenius, ran thus. " To the Gods of
« Aſia, Europe, and Libya or Africa, to the unknown and ſtrange
« God:--- FEW dyvaçw sy Čévw.” And it appears from Pauſanias,
that there were ſeveral altars at Athens to unknown gods. The
fame thing is teſtified by Philoſtratus. So ſuperſtitious were they,
that they were afraid of omitting or neglecting to pay their wor-
ſhip to any deity known or unknown (u). I am ſenſible that Dr.
Cudworth gives a different ſenſe to the word “ unknown God,
from what I have here ſuppoſed. He thinks, all that the Athe-
nians meant by it was, that God was “ inviſible” and “incom-
prehenſible.” There might be ſome pretence for this, if they
had confined this title to one God only; but, as hath been al-
ready hinted, they had altars erected to the unknown gods. And
(2) There were not only at Athens, but in many other parts of the Heathen
world, altars erected and ſacrifices offered to unknown deities; that they might
take in all the gods, both thoſe whoſe names they knew, and thoſe whom they
were ignorant of, or concerning whom they were uncertain who they were.
St.
Auftin informs us, that Varro writ a book concerning the “ Dii certi," and another
concerning the “Dii incerti.” De Civ. Dei. lib. vi. cap. 3. et lib. 7. cap. 17. A
learned author has collected many teſtimonies to ſhew that there were altars to the
unknown God or gods among many nations, the Græcians, Arcadians, Lydians,
Celtiberians, Arabians, the people of Marſeilles, &c. See “ The Knowledge of
“ divine Things from Revelation only, not from Reaſon or Natnre,” p. 242. et ſeq.
5
certain
Chap. XVIII.
417
the State of the Heathen World.
7
certain it is, that this was not the ſenſe in which St. Paul took it :
for in that ſenſe he was an unknown God to St. Paul as well as
to the Athenians. He will always be to Chriſtians as well as to
Heathens inviſible and incomprehenſible, not to be ſeen by the
bodily eye, nor fully comprehended by the mind. But St. Paul
plainly ſignifies, that he knew him, though the Athenians did
not, and therefore he came to inſtruct them in the knowledge of
that God whom they did not know before. “ The God whom
you ignorantly worſhip,” or as the words might properly be
rendered, « the God whom being ignorant of, δν αγνούντες, you
worſhip, him declare I unto you (*).” As if he had ſaid, You
have built an altar to a God, who, you confeſs, is unknown to you.
But I know him, and am now ready, if you will attend to me,
to publiſh and declare him to you. The God whom you
know, and whom I come to declare, is the only true God, who
made the world and all things that are therein, and is the only
ſovereign Lord of heaven and earth.
do not
According to Dr. Cudworth's way of repreſenting it, St. Paul,
by citing what Aratus ſays of Jupiter, intended to ſignify to the
Athenians, that the god to whom they erected an altar as to an
unknown deity, was that very Jupiter whom they all acknow-
ledged as the chief of the deities they adored. But certainly they
would never have characterized their Jupiter as an unknown and
(x) The word here is xatayyénna which properly ſignifies to publiſh things to
thoſe that did not know them before. It is the word made uſe of to ſignify the
publiſhing the goſpel to the Jews and Gentiles who before were ignorant of it.
VOL. I.
Hhh
ſtrange
418
Part 1
The Scripture Repreſentation of
ſtrange or foreign god : nor would the apoſtle have repreſented .
him to them. under that notion. It ſeems plain from the whole
of his diſcourſe, that he here ſuppoſeth concerning the Athenians
what he elſewhere faith of the Gentiles. in general, that “ they
« knew not” (the one true)
« God.” The moſt natural interpre-
tation therefore ſeems to be this, that the apoſtle according to his
accuſtomed zeal and prudence takes advantage from their having.
erected an altar to the ſtrange and unknown god, which was
really an effect of their ſuperſtition, to declare to them the one
true God whom they were ignorant of before, and to raiſe their
thoughts and views to the great Creator and Lord of the univerſe;
as the only proper object of their adoration. With the ſame view
he cites a paſſage from one of their own poets Aratus (y); to ſhew.
that
(y) The ſcholiaft upon Aratus ſuppoſes that he ſpeaks of the Z£ùs púoixos, the
Jupiter Phyſicus, or the air. Dr. Cudworth finds fault with this, and I think
very
juſtly, if the air be underſtood merely as an inanimate, thing. But it is not improb-
able that Aratus might mean the æther in the Pythagorean ſenſe, which they held
to be aniinated, and to be the cauſe of the formation and order of things, and to be
univerſally diffuſed, of which they ſuppoſed the ſouls of men to be particles : or,
which coines pretty much to the fame thing, he might mean the ſoul of the world
in the Stoical fenfe. Nor is there any thing in that whole paſſage of Aratus, a part
of which is cited by the apoſtle, but might be ſaid agreeably to the Pythagorean
and Stoical notions. But St. Paul was not concerned to enquire what were Ara-
tus's particular ſentiments concerning the Deity: it was enough for his purpoſe, that
what the poet ſaid was applicable to the one true God, however he intended it :
or, if we ſhould ſuppoſe Aratus himſelf to have intended by Jupiter to ſignify the
one true Supreme God, this would be far from proving that the Jupiter, whom
the Athenians and the Heathens in general adored, was the one true God : though
the apoſtle might juſtly and prudently take advantage from it to lead the Athenians
from their idolatry. There is a remarkable pallage of Sophocles, cited by Juſtin
Martyr, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, and others of the fathers, though it
is not to be found in any of his works now extant. The purport of it is this :
" There is in truth one, there is one God, who formed the heaven, and the ſpa-
6 cious
Chap. XVIII.
419
the State of the Heatben World.
that what the poet. had ſaid of Jupiter properly belonged to that
only true God whom he came to declare to them, and to whom
he taught them to offer up a pure and ſpiritual worſhip. I have
obſerved before, that it was no unuſual thing among the Pagans
to apply to their Jupiter, and the other deities they adored, the
attributes and works, which are proper to the one true Supreme
God. And the apoſtle's deſign in citing this paſſage of the poet,
was not to perſuade the Athenians that the Jupiter whom they
* cious earth, and the blae ſwelling fea, and the boiſterous winds *." And then
he goes on to blame the folly of mortals, who, erring in their hearts, have for a
“conſolation to them in their calamities, ſet up images of the gods, made of
" wood, or ftone, or gold, or ivory, and when they have offered ſacrifices to them,
" and celebrated feſtivals to their honour, think they have acted piouſly.” If we
ſuppoſe theſe verſes to be genuine, and that St. Paul had quoted them in his diſa
courſe to the Athenians, which on that ſuppoſition he might have done, could
it be ſaid, as it is by Dr. Cudworth with reſpect to Aratus, that " it is not rea-
* fonable to think that Sophocles was ſingular in this, but that he ſpake according
to the received theology of the Greeks, and that not only among the philofo-
“phers and learned men, but even the vulgar alſo ?” The contrary is evident :
for what is here faid is manifeſtly oppoſed to the received theology, and to the reli-
gion and worſhip then in uſe among the Athenians and other Greeks, and to which
they were ſtrongly addicted. Whence Sophocles had this knowledge, or how he
came by it, we cannot pretend to determine. There were rays of light ſcattered
here and there among the Pagans, which fometimes broke forth in bright flaſhes.
It may well be ſuppoſed, that he, and ſome others of the Greeks, might have
fome acquaintance with the doctrine of the Jews, whoſe religion had made a pro-
greſs in the Leſſer Aſia, with which Greece was nearly connected. But which way
foever we ſuppoſe him to have come by it, he ſeems to carry it farther, if theſe
verſes may be depended upon, than even Socrates or Plato himſelf; neither of
whom ventured to paſs a cenſure, as Sophocles ſeems here to do, upon the way of
worſhipping the gods by images, ſacrifices, and feſtivals to their honour, but rather
expreſſed their approbation of them.
* Εις ταϊς αληθείαισιν εις έςι θεος
“ος έρανόν τ' έτευχε και γαίαν μακράν
Πόντε τε χαρωπόν διδμα, και ανέμων βίας,
Hhh 2
ordinarily
!
420
The Unity of God not the general
Part
ordinarily worſhipped. was the true God, but that the God he
came to declare to them was the true Supreme God, to whom
alone thoſe characters and epithets really belonged, which were
wrongly applied to the Pagan Jupiter.
It confirms the ſenſe we have given of St. Paul's diſcourſe, that
he here calls the paſt times of Heatheniſm “ the times of their
« ignorance.” Ver. 30. And in ver. 27. he ſpeaks of their
« ſeeking the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find.
w him" Where he ſeems to compare them to perſons groping in
the dark, or to blind men who ſeek their way by feeling with
their hands. So Polybius, as cited by Scapula, uſes the word
Annapéw,” which we properly render to “ feel' after him.”
And Grotius's note upon it is this. « Oftendit hæc phrafis rei,
“ difficultatem. Nam palpare aut cæcorum. eſt, aut noctu in-
« cedentium.
It may help to illuſtrate this, that St. Paul in his ſpeech to
the Lycaonians, who would have worſhipped him and Barnabas
as Jupiter. and Mercurius, exhorts them. « to turn from theſe:
« vanities unto the living God, which made heaven and earth,
« the ſea, and all things that are therein ;” and who had.“ not.
as left himſelf without witnefs, in that he did good, and gave
rain
“ from heaven and fruitful ſeaſons, filling men's hearts with
food and gladneſs.” Act. xiv. 15, 16, 17;. Where he calls the
gods the Heathens worlhipped, particularly Jupiter and Mercury,
“ vanities, and plainly intimates, that they did not worſhip the
true God who created all things by his power, and governeth
Chap. XVIII.
Doctrine of the Pagan World:
421
all things by his Providence. The Jupiter, whoſe prieſt would
have offered ſacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, was undoubtedly
the popular Jupiter of the Pagans. And it is evident, the apoſtle
was far from ſuppoſing, what ſome have pretended, that Ju-
piter and the other Heathen deities were only different names of
the one true God; and that the worſhip which was rendered.
to them was really and intentionally offered to the one Su-
preme Being, the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. It has
been already obſerved, that this apoſtle declares, that “ the things
“ which the Gentiles ſacrificed they ſacrificed to devils or dæ-
« mons, and not to God.” i Cor. x. 20. where he plainly op-
poſes the true God.to the popular Pagan deities, which were the
objects of public worſhip. But how could he ſay this confift-
ently with truth, if the Jupiter to which they principally offered.
up their ſacrifices was really the one true Supreme God; and
Apollo, Bacchus, and the other Pagan divinities, were only fo.
many different appellations given to the Maker and Lord of the
univerſe?
i
The laft thing I fhall obſerve here, as urged by thoſe learned
writers who give the moſt favourable account of the ſtate of re-
ligion in the Pagan world, relates to the paſſages produced from
Heathen authors to ſhew that all nations throughout the world
acknowledged and worſhipped. the one Supreme God, the love-
reign Lord and Governor of the univerſe. That an obſcure no-
tion of one Supreme Being obtained among many of the Heathen
nations, even among thoſe that were accounted the moſt bar--
barous, who had it from antient tradition, has been ſhewn in the
[cconci
422
The Unity of God not the general Part I
perior in
ſecond chapter of this work. But it has alſo been ſhewn that
ſome of them did not render any worſhip to him whom they re-
garded as Supreme, from a notion that he was too far above them,
and that he did not concern himſelf with them or their affairs,
and therefore they paid their worſhip wholly to inferior deities.
Others by the Supreme God underſtood the ſun, or confounded
him with the principal of their hero divinities. And many. there
were who ſuppoſed the dominion and government of things to be
divided among a plurality of gods whom they regarded as ſupreme
in their ſeveral diſtricts : or if any of them was eſteemed to be ſu-
power and dignity to the reſt, yet ſtill he was ſuppoſed
to be of the fame kind and nature with them. It cannot there-
fore be juſtly ſaid, that there has been an univerſal conſent of
mankind in the notion of one Supreme God, though I readily own
fuch a conſent as to the exiſtence of ſome ſuperior inviſible divine
Power or Powers : and that ſcarce any nation can be mentioned
which did not acknowledge ſome deity or other. And ſo far
there is, and has been in all ages, a general conſent of mankind
againſt the atheiſts. Accordingly Plato and Cicero, and others of
the antients before our Saviour's coming, who ſpeak of an univerſal
conſent of mankind concerning the Deity, make the object of that
conſent to be not one Supreme God, but the gods : and the Pre-
vidence they mention as generally believed and acknowledged is
the Providence of the gods. Several paſſages to this purpoſe have
been produced above, which I need not here repeat. But after
Chriſtianity had made fome progreſs in the world, the advocates
for Paganiſm pretended that all mankind acknowledged and adored
the one true Supreme God, and that there was but one univerſal
3
religion
r
L
Chap. XVIII.
Doctrine of the Pagan World.
423
religion among all nations. There is a remarkable paſſage of
Maximus Tyrius to this purpoſe which has been often quoted. I
ſhall give it to the reader in Dr. Cudworth’s tranſlation, which
ſeems to me to be a juſt one. He aſſerts, that " if all men were
required to declare their ſenſe concerning God, one would not
ſay one thing and another another. No; not the Scythian, nor
“ the Greek, nor the Hyperborean.-That in other things we find
« men ſpeaking very diſcordantly from one another; all men as
« it were differing from all concerning honeſt and diſhoneſt, good
s and evil. Nevertheleſs, adds he, in this great war, contention,
“ and diſcord, you may find every where throughout the world
one agreeing law and opinion, that there is one God the King.
« and Father of all, and many gods, the ſons of God, co-reigners
" together w.ith God: theſe things both the Greeks and Barba-
« rians alike affirm, both the inhabitants of the continent and fea-
e coaſt, both the wiſe and unwiſe (z).” Here he evidently puts :
his own Platonic ſyſtem upon us as the univerſal ſyſtem of all :
mankind. But how came he to know that all nations agreed in
this? We have nothing for it but his own word. He repreſents
it as if there was no difference ainong them in their notions of the
Divinity: that if they were required to declare their ſenſe of God,
one would not ſay one thing and another another, but all would
ſay the ſame thing; which is plainly contrary to truth and fact.
:
(2) Max, Tyr. diſſert. i. p. 5, 6. Oxon. 1677. The learned and ingenious
Dr. Sykes, who endeavours to ſhew that the Gentiles by the mere light of nature
had generally a knowledge of the unity and perfections of God, and the other main
principles of natural religion, lays a great ſtreſs on this paffage. See his Principles.
and Connection of natural and revealed religion, p: 364, 365,
For
i
Part 1.
424
The Unity of God not ibe general
1
For if we enquire into the ideas they had of the Divinity, or of
fuperior inviſible powers, we ſhall find there was a vaſt difference
“ Deos eſſe nemo negat,” faith Cicero, “ quales
ſint, varium eſt.” And again, “ Multi de diis prava ſentiunt.”
· The authority therefore of Maximus Tyrius is of no great weight.
among them.
Dr. Cudworth alſo cites a paſſage of Plutarch, de Iſid. et Ofir.
to the ſame purpoſe, which he tranſlates thus.
“ The gods are
« not different in different nations, as if the Barbarians and Greeks,
içe the ſouthern and northern inhabitants of the globe, had all dif-
i ferent gods.
But as the ſun, and the moon, and the heaven,
" and the earth, and the ſea, are common to all, though called
Śc by ſeveral names, in ſeveral countries ; ſo one reaſon ordering
so theſe things, and one Providence diſpenſing all, and the inferior
& ſubſerving miniſters thereof having had ſeveral names and ho-
« nours beſtowed upon them by the laws of ſeveral countries,
“ have been every where worſhipped throughout the whole world;
" and there have been alſo different ſymbols conſecrated to them,
so the better to conduct and lead on mens underſtanding to divine
- things: though this hath not been without danger or hazard
« of caſting men upon one or other of theſe two extremes, either
ſuperſtition or atheiſm (a).” Here again, we have only Plu-
farch’s bare aſſertion, repreſenting his own opinion as that of all
mankind :
(a) Plutarch. Oper. tom. ii. p. 377. F. 378. A. Edit. Francof. The Cheva-
jier Ramſay in his Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, vol. ii. p. 87. quot-
ing this paſſage of Plutarch makes this reflection upon it: that " it is as unjuſt
* and unreaſonable in the Chriſtian prieſts to call the Heathens polytheiſts, as it
** would be in the Pagans to call the Europeans fo, becauſe the French call him
66 Dieu
Chap. XVIII.
Doctrine of the Pagan World.
425
mankind : and in like manner we find him in the ſame treatiſe
repreſenting the doctrine of two eternal principles, the one good,
the other evil, which he himſelf pleads for as the univerſal
doctrine of the wife men of all nations from the moſt antient times.
The paſſage now quoted Itom him, and indeed the whole of that
treatiſe, is manifeſtly deſigned as an apology for the Pagan idolatry
and ſuperſtition, under a pretence that their multiform worſhip,
paid to a multiplicity of deities, was only an addreſs to the one ſu-
preme God under different names and ſymbols. He denies that
there are different gods worſhipped in different countries, and yet
he had obſerved but a little before that the Egyptians ſuppoſed
their gods to be not common to all men, but peculiar to them-
ſelves. And elſewhere he ſays that all agree that there are gods ::
but concerning their number, their order, their eſſence and power,
there is great diffention among them. The philoſophers differ
from the
poets and the legiſlators, and theſe from the philoſophers.
See his Amator. Oper. tom. II. p. 763: C, D. Immediately after
the paſſage above cited from him, he recommends philoſophy as
neceſſary to guide men to a right underſtanding of their facred
rites ; and ſays, they ought to be taken in that ſenſe which is moſt
conſiſtent with reaſon. It is plain from this, that he was reſolved, if
• 'Dieu, the Engliſh God, the Italians Dio, &c." This charge, if it were true,
would equally hold againſt the Scriptures, which certainly repreſent the Hea-
thens as polytheiſts, as againſt the Chriſtian Prieſts. But that there was a great
deal more in the Heathen polytheiſın than this gentleman would make us believe,
may be proved with the cleareſt evidence, and has been fufficiently. Thewn in the
courſe of this work. Nor is any great ſtreſs to be laid upon a few pallages of ſome
of the philoſophers, who endeavoured to put plauſible colours upon the Pagan icon
latry, eſpecially after Chriſtianity had made its public appearance.
VOL. I.
I ii
he
426
Part I.
The Unity of God not the general
he found them not conſiſtent with reaſon, to make them appear
ſo, and to put a ſenſe upon them which ſhould cover their ab-
ſurdity. And indeed he has given ſeveral ſpecimens of this way
of interpretation in thát work, though many of his allegorical ex-
plications are ſtrangely forced and unnatural. He ſuppoſes here
that without the guidance of philoſophy the people would not
rightly underſtand the ſacred rites. But it does not appear that
the people conſulted the philoſophers about their deities, or the
worſhip they rendered to them. They had always been accuſtom-
ed to worſhip thoſe as ſo many different deities, whom fome of
the philoſophers repreſented as only different names of one God,
and they paid little regard to thoſe philofophical interpretations,
which had no effect on the public worſhip. And indeed if they
had hearkened to the philoſophers, it would not have much
mended the matter ; ſince it has been ſhewn that the moſt emi-
nent of them, inſtead of reclaiming the people from their idolatry
and ſuperſtition, rather encouraged them in it, and by deifying the
things of nature, opened a way to the moſt groſs and extenſive ido-
latry. The manner in which Plutarch concludes this paſſage be-
trays a conſciouſneſs, that after all his attempts to give a plauſible
account of the Heathen theology, there was great danger of its
precipitating men either into an extravagant ſuperſtition, or into
atheiſm.
I readily own that at the time when Maximus Tyrius, Plu-
tarch, and Apuleius wrote, who all talk in the ſame ſtrain, the
unity of God was far more generally known and acknowledged
among the Pagan nations than before. But this was not owing to
the
I
Chap. XVIII.
427
Doctrine of the Pagan World.
55
the reaſoning of the philoſophers, but to the light of Chriſtianity,
which then became generally diffuſed; and for which the Jewiſh
revelation had prepared the way. Juſtin Martyr, who lived nearly
about the ſame time with thoſe philofophers I have mentioned, de-
clares that “ there was no part of mankind, whether Greeks or
Barbarians, or by whatſoever name they are called, where praiſes
« and thankſgivings were not offered to the Father and Maker of
" the univerſe, in the name of a crucified Jeſus (6).” Suppofing
the manner of expreſſion to be hyperbolical, yet it fhews that it
was well known that Chriſtianity had then produced great effects,
in ſpreading the knowledge of the true God among the nations,
even among the remote and barbarous.
In the preceding ages of Paganiſm the doctrine of the unity was
a ſecret only committed to a few, who did not publiſh it to the
people. This appears from the teſtimonies produced even by thoſe
learned authors themſelves, who want to make it paſs for the ge-
neral doctrine of the Pagan world. For they either ſuppoſe it to
have been taught in the myſteries which were celebrated in dif-
ferent nations, or to have made a part of the arcane theology of the
Egyptians, Chaldeans, Perſians, &c.
As to the myſteries, if, as the learned author of the Divine Le-
gation of Moſes has endeavoured to prove, the doctrine of the one
Supreme God, the Creator and Governor of the world, was taught
there, it was the peculiar doctrine of the greater myſteries, com-
(6) Dial. cum Tryph. Oper. p. 345. C. Paris 1636.
Iii 2
municated
428
Part I.
The Unity of God not the general
municated under the moſt tremendous ſeal of ſecrecy to ſuch only
of the initiated as were fit to be intruſted with the ſecret, and who
were under the moſt folemn obligations not to reveal it. And
can it with any conſiſtency be ſuppoſed, that this would have been
reſerved for the myſteries as a profound ſecret which it was not
lawful to reveal, if it was a thing which the people in general
were acquainted with before, and which was an article of the com-
mon received religion? But in juſtice to the learned author laſt
referred to it muſt be owned, that he is not chargeable with this
inconſiſtency. He ſays, “ the knowledge of God was commu-
“ nicated to a few ſelect Gentiles in the myſteries celebrated in ſe-
“ cret (c).” That “ «
they ſhut
up the glory of God in their my
“ ſteries, from a falſe notion, that the vulgar knowledge of God
“ would be injurious to fociety:” and he adds, that " in the
open worſhip of Paganiſm, either public or particular, the crea-
“ ture was the ſole object of adoration (d).”,
66
The learned Dr. Sykes, who ſeems very deſirous to make the
doctrine of the unity and perfections of the Deity paſs for the uni-
verſal doctrine of the Pagans, and which they derived not from
revelation or tradition, but from the mere light of nature, yet is
obliged to make acknowledgments which are no way favourable
to his ſcheme. He ſays, that “ the myſteries among the Hea-
" thens were of that kind as to let them right in many parts of
" their theology: but that it was very difficult for them to get
(c) Div. Leg. vol. i. p. 166. 4th. Edit.
(d) Ibid. p. 196.
" admiffion:
Chap. XVIII. Doctrine of the Pagan World.
429
9
i
.
" admiffion to thoſe who could or would ſet them right: and
" that it is very plain, that their beſt and wiſeſt men travelled
“ from Greece into Egypt, to get at the knowledge of the unity
" of God, and the like important truths (e).” And this ſurely
they would not have done, if it had been a doctrine commonly.
known among the people by the mere light of nature. · The fanie
ingenious writer having ſaid, that “ the Egyptians did teach one
"only Supreme Mind, the Maker and Governor of all," obſerves,
that “ this was a part of the ſecret theology of the Egyptians,
" which was imparted only to their kings and prieſts; and that
Pythagoras was at ſo much pains as to be circumciſed, and had
" the king's letters to the prieſts, in order to his getting acquaint-
"' ed with their theology (F).” And he there farther obſerves,
that ca the grand ſecret of the Pythagorean philofophy was alſo
“this, That there is one God, the Supreme Governor of all."
And every one knows how careful Pythagoras and his followers
were to keep the ſecrets of their philoſophy concealed from the
people: nor were they communicated even to their own diſciples,
till after a long and difficult preparation. He alſo ſuppoſes, that
Plato had his notions of God from Egypt (8). And this philofo-
pher, in conformity to the Egyptian maxims, looked upon it to be
a dangerous thing to declare it openly to the people. It is eaſy to
ſee that theſe ſuppoſitions are not very conſiſtent with the hypo-
(c) Connexion of Natural and Revealed Religion, P: 3830 :
(f) Ibid. p. 475.
(8) Ibid. p. 480. 494.
theſis,
,
-
430
Part I.
The Unity of God not the general
theſis, that the knowledge of the one true God, his perfections
and providence, was the common doctrine of the Pagan world.
CC
The eminent Dr. Cudworth frequently obſerves, that “ from
" the antient Egyptian theoloġġ the Greekiſh and European is
« derived." And he has taken a great deal of pains to fhew, that
“ the Egyptians had among them an acknowledgment of one ſu-
preme univerſal numen.” This is the ſubject of the 18th ſec-
tion of the 4th chapter of his Intellectual Syſtem : though I muſt
confeſs, if this be underſtood of the one true God, the proofs that
are brought for it throughout that long ſection, which takes up
near fifty pages, do not ſeem to me to be ſatisfactory. He him-
ſelf aſſerts, and it appears to be ſo from the teſtimonies produced
by him, that “ as well according to the Greeks as the Egyptians,
“ the firſt or ſupreme God, and the ro Trãy or the univerſe, were
“ really the ſame thing (b).” But if it ſhould be granted, that the
Egyptian wiſe men had right notions of the one Supreme God,
the Doctor himſelf repreſents this as a part of their arcane theology,
which was imparted to a very few, and carefully concealed from
the people.
I think enough has been ſaid to Thew, that there is no ſuf-
ficient ground for what this learned writer aſſerts, That according
to the received theology both of the Greeks and Latins, not only
the philoſophers and wiſe men, but even the vulgar Pagans, ac-
knowledged the one ſupreme God, the Lord of heaven and earth,
1
b) Intel. Syft. p. 345.
2
the
Chap. XVI.
437
Doctrine of the Pagan World.
the fame whom we adore, and directed their worſhip to him
under the name of Jupiter. And indeed there are ſeveral paſſages
in his book not very conſiſtent with this ſcheme. He diſtinguiſhes
the vulgar theology of the Pagans, under which he comprehends
both the poetical or nythical, and the civil or political theology,
from the natural and true theology(i). And he ſeems to confine
what he ſays of the worhipping the one true God under different
names and titles to thoſe whom he calls the “ more intelligent
Pagans (k).” Who theſe are he does not diſtinctly inform us,
but probably he intends to diſtinguiſh them from the generality of
the vulgar. And it appears from ſeveral paſſages which have
been produced from him in the courſe of this work, That even
the moſt learned among the Pagans were for the moſt part greatly
deficient and wrong in their notions of the one Supreme God:
that all of them in general were world-worſhippers, and wor-
Thipped the ſeveral parts of this material ſyſtem, which they look-
ed upon to be animated, as parts and members of the Divinity :
that the moſt refined of them agreed in theſe two things, the
breaking and crumbling the one ſimple Deity, and multiplying
it into many gods: and then in theologizing the whole world,
and deifying the natures of things, accidents, and inanimate
bodies (I): that the people by Jupiter, the chief of their deities,
generally underſtood the Jupiter of the poets and mythologiſts :
and that there was a perpetual jumble or mixture of herology, or
(i) Intel. Syſt. p. 477.
(k) Ibid. p. 265.
(1) Ibid. p. 532, 533.
the
-
1
432 The Unity of God not the general Doctrine, &c. Part I
the hiſtory of their hero gods, and phyſiology, along with their
theology : that their public political worſhip had an appearance
of a plurality of diſtinct independent divinities, and that the
people regarded and worſhipped them as ſuch : and that they
were generally ſtrangers to what he calls the recondite theology
of the Pagans, viz. that the one God was worſhipped under dif-
ferent names and manifeſtations. Theſe conceſſions, and ers
of the like kind, which this learned author is frequently obliged
to make, do in reality overthrow the hypotheſis which he takes
ſo much pains to eſtabliſh.
.
С НА Р.
A
[ 433 ]
1
CH A P. XIX.
.
A ſecond general reflection. The corruption of religion in the Hea-
theñ world is no juſt obje&tion againſt the wiſdom and goodneſs of
Divine Providence. God did not leave himſelf without witneſs
amongſt them. They had for a long time fome remains of antient
tradition originally derived from Revelation. Beſides which; they
had the ſtanding evidences of a Deity in his wonderful works. The
Jewiſh Revelation was originally deſigned to give a check to the
growing idolatry, and had a tendency to ſpread the knowledge and
worſhip of the one true God among the nations : and it actually had
that effect in many inſtances. If the generality of the Pagans
made no uſe of theſe advantages, but ſtill perſiſted in their idola-
try and polytheiſm, the fault is not to be charged upon God, but
upon themſelves.
.
,
T
AHE repreſentation which hath been made of the ſtate of
the Heathen world may poſſibly give occafion to the ene-
mies of all religion, to arraign the wiſdom, the righteouſneſs, and
goodneſs of Divine Providence. It
It may ſeem ſcarce reconcilable
to the moral adminiſtration of God, ſuppoſing him to concern
himſelf about mankind, to leave all nations in general to continue
for many ages in ſuch a deplorable ſtate of darkneſs, ſuperſtition,
and idolatry, without affording them any means to guard againſt
it, or recover them from it. And if this were really the cafe, it
might ſeem to furniſh a ſtrong objection againſt Providence : but
VOL. I.
K k k
à thall
434
Part I.
The State of the Heathen World
I ſhall now proceed to thew that this is far from being a juſt and
fair account of this matter.
It hath been already obſerved, that God gave a ſufficient Reve-
lation of himſelf and of his will to the firſt parents and anceſtors
of the human race, before and after the flood, to be by them
tranſmitted to their poſterity : that beſides the general revelations
made to Adam and Noah, and which through them were pro-
mulgated to the whole human race, God was pleaſed from time
to-time in thoſe early ages to make particular diſcoveries of him-
ſelf to particular perſons in different countries, which had a ten-
dency to preſerve the knowledge of the one true God, of his Pro-
vidence, and the worſhip due to him : that conſiderable remains
of the antient primitive religion and traditions continued for ſome
time among the nations, and which they were under the ſtrongeſt
obligations to maintain in their purity': and that the ſtanding
evidences of a Deity in the works of Creation and Providence,
concurred to give an additional weight to thoſe traditions concern-
ing the one true God, the great Creator and Governor of the world.
For though it has been matter of controverſy, whether men that
had not heard of a Deity, could, if left to themſelves without in-
ſtruction, have come to the knowledge of the one true God
merely by the unaffiſted force of their own reaſon ; yet it is ac-
-knowledged by all, that when once the idea of God has been
known and communicated, the confideration of his wonderful
works has a manifeſt tendency, if duly improved, to preſerve that
idea, which is agreeable to the common reaſon of mankind. In this
-
reſpect God. never left himſelf without witneſs in any age or nation
of
:
Chap. XIX. no Objection againſt Divine Providence.
435
of the world. Taking all this together, it cannot be denied, that
enough was done on God's part in his diſpenſations towards the
human race to keep up a ſenſe of the Deity, and the knowledge
and practice of religion in the world. And if he had done no
more in an extraordinary way, but had after this left men wholly
to the light of nature and reaſon, ſtrengthened with thoſe tradi-
tionary helps which were originally owing to Divine Revelation,
none could have reaſonably found fault.
A
1
are not
It was in Chaldea, Canaan, Egypt, and the neighbouring
countries, that the great corruption firſt began; or at leaſt theſe
were the places where it made the moſt conſiderable progreſs,
and from whence it ſeems to have been derived to other nations.
And accordingly it pleaſed God in his wife and good Providence
to take proper methods for putting an early check to the growing
corruption in thoſe parts of the world where it chiefly prevailed.
To this purpoſe he called Abraham, and made extraordinary dif-
coveries of his will to him, who was a perſon of great eminence,
and an illuſtrious example of faith and piety. The fame of his
wiſdom and virtue has ſpread far and wide among the nations, as
appears
from the teſtimonies of Beroſus, Hecatæus, and Nicholaus
Damafcenus, cited by Joſephus, as alſo from what is ſaid of him
by Alexander Polyhiſtor, Eupolemus, Artapanus, and others,
whoſe teſtimonies may be ſeen in Euſebius (n). And his name
is mentioned with honour all over the eaſt to this day. He ſo-
journed in Chaldea, in Egypt, and in Canaan, where alſo lived that
!
(n) Præp. Evangel. lib. ix, cap. 16, 17, 18, 19.
Kkk 2
eminent
A
436
Part I.
Means of Knowledge granted to the Heathens.
eminent perſon Melchiſedek, and others, among whoin the patri-
archal religion was ſtill preſerved.. Abraham appears, by the ac-
count given of him, to have been very careful to inſtruct his
houſhold, which was very numerous, in the true religion. Gen.
xviii. 19. And from him, by Hagar and Keturah, proceeded
many and great nations, among whom the knowledge and wor-
ſhip of the one true God, and religion in its main fundamental
articles, ſeems to have continued for ſome ages. This may
be
gathered from ſeveral paſſages in the book of Job. And the fame
might probably appear concerning ſome other nations, if we were
better acquainted with the antient hiſtory of mankind. But par-
ticularly care was taken to preſerve the true religion in the line
by Iſaac, the heir of Abraham's faith and of the promiſes, from
whom came Eſau and Jacob and their numerous deſcendants.
The advancement of Joſeph in Egypt by an extraordinary Provi-
dence, and the ſettling of Jacob and his family there, which ſoon
grew up into a nation, and among ſome of whom at leaſt the
knowledge of the true God was ſtill in ſome meaſure maintained,
ought to have had a good effect upon
the Egyptians.
It is probable, that there were for a long time particular perſons
among the nations, who were not as yet infected with the com-
mon idolatry. But their authority and influence was of ſmall
weight, and little regarded. It pleaſed God therefore in his
great
wiſdom and goodneſs towards mankind, as a farther preſervative
againſt the ſpreading idolatry, which was in danger of becoming
univerſal, to make diſcoveries of his will not merely to a few par-
ticular perſons, but to a whole nation ſet apart for that purpoſe.
Ву
f
Chap. XIX. The Yewiſh Revelation of Advantage, &c. 437
By an extraordinary divine interpoſition, a conſtitution of a pecu-
culiar kind was eſtabliſhed, the fundamental principle of which
was, the acknowledgment and adoration of the one living and
true God, and of him only. And to give weight to this conſtitu-
tion, which was ſo different from thoſe eſtabliſhed by the legiſlators
in other countries, who made idolatry and polytheiſm the baſis of
their ſeveral polities, its divine authority was confirmed by the
moſt illuſtrious atteſtations, and by a ſeries of wonderful acts,
which exhibited the moſt amazing diſplays of his uncqualled
power and glory. Such was the Moſaic conſtitution; which was
introduced with a glorious triumph over idol deities even in
Egypt the principal feat of idolatry, and was attended with ſuch
circumſtances, as were peculiarly fitted to awaken and engage the
attention of mankind. The people among whom this conſtitution
and polity was erected, were not placed in a remote and obſcure
corner of the earth, but in ſuch a ſituation as was admirably fitted
for diffuſing the knowledge of their religion and laws. They
were 'placed in the center of the then known world, between
Egypt and Arabia on the one hand, and Syria, Chaldea, and Af-
fyria on the other, among whom the firſt great kingdoins were
erected, and from whence knowledge and learning ſeems to have
been derived to the weſtern nations. And they were alſo in the
neighbourhood of Sidon and Tyre, the greateſt emporiums in the
world, from whence ſhips went to all parts, and who planted
colonies in the moſt diftant countries. Nor were the Iſraelites
themſelves a very ſmall and contemptible people. Conſidering
the amazing multiplication of their nation, they bore no very in.
confiderable proportion to the numbers of the reſt of mankind in
thoſe
438
Part I.
The Jewiſh Revelation of
thoſe ages of the world (O). And their peculiar polity, together
with the extraordinary acts of the Divine Providence towards them,
had a natural tendency to put the neighbouring people upon
making an enquiry into their religion and laws, which would be
apt to lead them to the acknowledgment and adoration of the one
true God, and to diſcover to them the folly and unreaſonableneſs
of their own ſuperſtition and idolatry. And that this was really
part of the deſign which the Divine Wiſdom had in view in his
diſpenſations towards the people of Iſrael, appeareth from ſeveral
expreſs paſſages of Scripture (P). Their laws indeed were fo con-
trived as to keep them diſtinct from other people, and it was nea
ceſſary for wiſe ends they ſhould be ſo; but they were ready to
receive among them thoſe of other nations, who were willing to
forſake idolatry, and to worſhip the one true God, the Creator of
the univerſe, and him only. In the moſt flouriſhing times of
their ſtate, particularly in the reigns of David and Solomon, they
had an extenſive dominion and correſpondence. And afterwards
they had frequent intercourſe with Egypt, Syria, Aſſyria, Baby-
lonia, and Perſia. And if we conſider what is related concerning
Hiram king of Tyre, and the Queen of Sheba, as well as the
memorable decrees of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Darius
the Mede, Cyrus, Darius Hyſtaſpes, and Artaxerxes, kings of Per-
ſia, the greateſt monarchs then upon earth, and who publiſhed to
ز
() See concerning this the Poſtſcript to Dr. Waterland's Scripture vindicated,
part 2d. p. 138, 139.
() See particularly Exod. vii. 15. ix. 16. xiv. 4. Numb. xiv. 13, 14. 21.
Deut. iv. 6. 1 Kings viii, 41, 42, 43. Pfal. xxi. 27. lxvii. 2, 3. lxviii. 29,
21; 32,
the
+
Chap. XIX.
4399
Advantage to the Heathen Nations.
the world the veneration they had for the God whom the Iſraelites
adored, as the great Lord of the univerſe ; and if to this be added
the eminent advancement of Daniel, and his three companions,
who were zealous adorers of the Deity, in oppoſition to all idola-
try; and afterwards the great power and authority of Eſther and
Mordecai, and the ſpecial favour ſhewn to the Jews in the reign
of king Ahaſuerus, when we are told, that “ many of the people
“ of the land became Jews :" if we conſider theſe things, it is
very probable, that the fame of their laws, and of the remarkable
interpoſitions of Divine Providence in their favour, whilſt they
continued in the obſervation of thoſe laws, as well as of the
calamities which had befallen them when they fell off from their
law to the worſhip of idol deities, was diffuſed far and wide
among the nations. And this might contribute in more inſtances
than is commonly imagined to keep up the knowledge of the one
true God, the Maker and Lord of the univerſe, and to give ſome
check to the prevailing idolatry.
I am ſenſible that there are many who are very unwilling to ac-
knowledge that the Gentiles, or any of their great and wiſe men,
received any advantage from the Jews with reſpect to the know-
ledge of the one true God (9). And for this purpoſe they repre-
fent
(9) It is a thing well known that many of the primitive fathers of the Chriſtian
church inſiſted upon it, that the Greeks borrowed their learning and knowledge
from the Hebrews. And it cannot be denied, that ſome of thoſe good men car-
ried this too far, and were ready to catch at any thing in the writings of the Greek
philoſophers and poets, which ſeemed to bear even the moſt diſtant reſemblance to
what might be found in the books of Moſes and the prophets. In oppoſition to
this ſome of the moderns have gone into the contrary, extreme. An-ingenious and
learned
440
The Jewiſh Revelation of
Part I.
ſent them as the moſt deſpicable people upon earth, and for whom
all other nations had the utmoſt contempt and averſion. That
the populace hated and deſpiſed them and their religion, and that
many
or
learned writer, whom I have had occaſion to mention before, has taken a great deal
of pains to examine and expoſe the inſtances produced by the Fathers in ſupport of
their hypotheſis * But ſuppoſing thoſe inſtances to have been wrong choſen
(though I do not think that he has proved that they are all fo) it would only ſhew
that they were miſtaken in thoſe particular inſtances, but not that the notion itſelf
is abſurd and falfe. He readily allows, and even aſſerts, that the Greek philoſo-
phers learned many things from the Egyptians and Chaldeans, but will by no
means grant they learned any thing from the Hebrews. Yet he himſelf obſerves, that
“ it is certain Mofes lived long before any of the Greek philoſophers; that the
“ firſt good things any of them have ſaid about God, the creation of the world,
* &c. were ſaid by Moſes, and the prophets, and were ſaid before any of their
philoſophers pretended to advance ſuch notions t.” He adds indeed that “ Egypt
** taught this principle as well as Judea, and ſo did the Magians." But we have
no authentic monuments to aſſure us of the antient theology of the Egyptians and
Magians, as we have concerning that of the Hebrews. Since therefore the Greeks,
by his own ackoowledgment, travelled into the Eaſt “ to get at the knowledge of
" the Unity, and the like important truths of natural religion ,” what reaſon
can be aſſigned why the Jews alone of all the eaſtern nations ſhould be excluded,
when we have much greater certainty that they taught theſe articles long before
the Greek philoſophers flouriſhed, than we have concerning any of the other na-
tions to which they travelled for knowledge? It is generally agreed among the an-
tients that Pythagoras travelled into Egypt; and the ſame writers who inform us
of this, do alſo acquaint us that he went into Phænicia and Babylon, and continued
there ſeveral years; and at Babylon the Jews were at that time well known. And
Porphyry in his Life of Pythagoras, as cited by our learned author himſelf, ex-
prelly fays, that he not only travelled among the Egyptians and Arabians, but alſo
went to the Hebrews and Chaldeans in order to acquire lcarning. The fame may
well be ſuppoſed concerning Plato, who imitated Pythagoras in his travels. The
doctor indeed objects, that there was no tranſlation of the Jewiſh Scriptures into
Greek, ſo early as the days of Pythagoras, or even as the time of Plato : but this
does not hinder, but that they might have opportunities of converſing with ſome
of the Jews in Egypt, Phænicia, or Chaldea. The Egyptian and Chaldean language
of Ibid.
* Dr. Sykes's Principles and Connexion of Natural and Revealed Religion, p. 440, et ſeq.
2.693•
Ibid. p. 3830
was
1
Chap. XIX.
441
Advantage to the Heathen Nations.
many of the philoſophers affected to do ſo too, is very true; but
that this was not univerfally the caſe admits of a clear proof. Any
man will be convinced of this that impartially conſiders the teſti-
monies produced by Eufebius from Heathen authors in the ninth
book of his Evangelical Preparation. Theophraſtus, as cited by
Porphyry, repreſents the Jews as a nation of generation of philo-
ſophers, φιλοσοφοί το γένος όντες,” and who were wont to converfe
with one another concerning the Divinity,“ degi të Jeid," to whom
they offered
up
their
prayers and vows (r). Hecatæus of Abdera,
who was not only a.philoſopher, búť a man well verſed in affairs,
gives an advantageous account of the Jews, as Joſephus has ſhewa
in his firſt book againſt Apion. And Origen ſays, that this Hecatæus
in his Hiſtory of the Jews, which was extant in his time, expreſſes
"
1
was alſo foreign both to Pythagoras and Plato, and yet the doctor fuppoſes, that
they took from them ſeveral of their notions and principles : ſo it might be with
regard to the Jews, among whom the Phænician, Chaldee, or Syriac language
was then in common uſe. In Plato's time there were no doubt many of tlie Jews
that underſtood Greek ; and they had been for a long time ſettled in the Leffer
Aſia, as well as in many parts of the Eaſt. I ſee therefore no abſurdity in ſuppoſing
with Juſtin Martyr, and others of the fathers, though Dr. Sykes blames them for
it, that Plato might borrow ſome of his ſublime notions concerning God from the
the Jews, or at leaſt from thoſe that had them from the Jews ; which might have
been the caſe of ſome of the Egyptians themſelves. For it appears from the expreſs
teſtimony of Scripture, that the Egyptians had a high veneration fór. Moſes. “The
man Moſes was very great in the land of Egypt, in the ſight of Pharaoh's fer-
vants, and in the ſight of the people.” Exod. xi. 3. And conſidering the inter-
courſe that was carried on from time to time between Egypt and Judea, both in
the time of Solomon, and afterwards, it is not improbable that ſome of their wiſe
men might deſire to have acceſs to the Jewiſh law, and to ſome of their writings,
ſo far at leaſt as to learn ſome things from them, of which they made their own uſe,
though they did not think proper to acknowledge it.
(r) Porphyr. de Abſtin. lib. i. Euſeb. Præpar. Evangel. lib. ix. cap. 2..
Vol.I.
LII
his
442
The Jewiſh Revelation of
Part I:
im
his admiration of the wiſdom of that nation (s). Megaſthenes, in
paffage quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, ranks thoſe " that are
" called Jews in Syria” with the “ Brachmans in India,” who
were of the higheſt reputation for wiſdom among the Pagans, and
repreſents them as having taught the ſame things with the Greek
philoſophers (t). By comparing this with what Strabo tells us from
Megaſthenes, it appears that the things here referred to are ſuch
as theſe; thát the world had a beginning and ſhall have an end,
that God made and governs it, and pervades the whole, and that
the earth was made out of a watry maſs (u). And, as it is well
known that the Greek philoſophers travelled into the Eaſt for
knowledge, the Jews may well be reckoned among thoſe from
whom they derived theſe principles. In like manner Numenius,
a famous Pythagorean philoſopher, in his book wspi ragalē, ſpeak-
ing of the sóguata, the doctrines and inſtitutes, in ufe among the
moſt celebrated nations, mentions the Jews along with the Brach-
mans, the Magi, and the Egyptians. And Origen informs us con-
cerning the ſame Numenius, who, he ſays, was a perſon of great
learning, that he reckons the Jews among the nations which be-
lieve God to be incorporeal; and that he was not aſhamed to make
uſe of the words of their prophets, and to interpret their figurative
ways of expreſſion (x). Artapanus wrote a book concerning the
Jews, quoted by Alexander Polyhiſtor, large extracts of which are,
preſerved by Euſebius ; and though his account is mixed with.
(s) Origen contra Cell. lib. i. p. 13. and Spenſer's notes upon it.
(t) Ap. Euſeb. ubi fupra, lib. ix. cap. 6.
(21) Strabo, lib. xv. p. 1040. A. Amſtel,
Origen c(x) ontra Celf. lib. i. p. 13.
2
fables,
Chap. XIX.
443
Advantage to the Heathen Nations.
)
86
1
fables, it ſerves to fhew the high opinion the Heathens themſelves
entertained of Moſes. Among other things he ſays of him, that
he delivered every thing uſeful to mankind; that the Egyptian
prieſts counted him worthy of divine honour, and attributed to .
him the invention of philoſophy, and called him Hermes or Mer-
cury (y). Eupolemus calls him the firſt wiſe man, “ Tóv
oopov (2).” And Strabo in his account of the Jews ſpeaks very
honourably of Moſes as having entertained nobler notions of the
Divinity than the Egyptians, or Libyans, or Greeks. He makes
the cauſe of his forſaking Egypt to be his being diſſatisfied with the
notions and worſhip of the Deity which obtained there: and that
many good men, and who honoured the Deity,“ worno TIM CVTES
" To Señor,” accompanied him. And that thoſe who ſucceeded
him continued for ſome time to be workers of righteouſneſs, and
to be truly pious worhippers of God, « δικαιοπραγέντες και θεοσε-
« Geis wis aanbūs čimes (a).” In like manner Juſtin out of Trogus
Pompeius praiſes the antient Jews for their juſtice joined with re-.
ligion. “ Juſtitia religione perinixta.” 'That great man Varro
plainly ſignifies that he thought the Jews were in the right in
worſhipping one God, and without an image. He gives it indeed
as his opinion, that they worſhipped Jupiter, only they called him
by another name: where by Jupiter he means the higheſt God
in the philoſophical ſenſe, which according to him was the ſoul
of the world. St. Auſtin, who mentions this paſſage of Varro,
+
(y) Apud Eufeb. ubi ſupra, lib. ix. cap. 27.
(z) Ibid. cap. 26.
(a) Strabo, lib. xvi. p. 1104.
L11 2
repreſents
444
The Jewiſh Revelation of
Part I.
repreſents him as not knowing what he ſaid when he ſpoke thus,
but that this however might be concluded from it, that he who
was the moſt learned of the Romans and a man of fo great know-
ledge, hereby gave teſtimony that the God of the prophets, and
whom the Jews worſhipped, was in his opinion the Supreme God.
Ipfe eſt deus quem Varro doctiffimus Romanorum Jovem pu-
“ tat, neſciens quid loquatur. Quod ideo commemorandum pu-
“ tavi, quoniam vir tantæ fcientiæ, nec nullum iſtum deum potuit
« exiſtimare nec: vilem. , Hunc enim euin eſſe credidit quem
« ſummum putavit Deum (a);". Porphyry in his firſt book of
the Philoſophy of Oracles produces an oracle of Apollo, which
ſpeaking of thoſe who knew and taught “ the way of the bleſſed,"
particularly mentions the “ Egyptians, Aſſyrians, or Chaldeans,"
and the “ whole nation of the Hebrows.":/ In another oracle men-
tioned by the ſame author it is ſaid, that the Chaldeans and He-
brews « alone obtained wiſdom, purely worſhipping God the
". eternal or ſelf-originate king, autogével nov aváx7cco" Another
oracle is there alſo quoted in which they are called "as gigi mantau
" 'Efpani, illuſtrious or worthy, to be emulated.” Though little
ſtreſs is to be laid on the. teftimony of Apollo's oracles, it news:
the opinion which had obtained among the Heathens themſelves
of the wiſdom and religion of the Hebrews. For if their fame
had not been far ſpread on this account, the oracle would fcarce
have deſcribed them under that character. To all which
may
be
added the decrees made in their favour by the Romans and other
(a) Auguſtin. de Civ. Dei. lib. xix. cap. 22. p. 428. compared with lib. iii. cap.
9. p. 74. et lib. iv. cap. 31. p. 87.
ſtates,
Chap: XIX. Advantage to the Heathen Nations.
445
ftates, in which honourable mention is made of them, and they are
allowed to obſerve their own laws and cuſtoms without diſturbance.
Many of theſe are produced by Joſephús out of the public records,
in the tenth chapter of the fourteenth book of hïs Jewiſh Anti-
quities. Thėl decree of the city of Halicarnaffus is particularly re-
markable, which is introduced by ſaying,
<< fince we have ever a
great regard to piety towards Cod and holineſs, we have decreed
“ that as nyany men and women of the Jews as are willing ſo to
« do may celebrate their Sabbath, and perform their holy offices
« according to the Jewiſh laws, and may have their Profeuchæ at -
the ſea ſide, according to the cuſtom of their forefathers (6)."
در
Y
(6). It may not be improper here to obſerve, that the peculiar name of God,
which was in the higheſt veneration among the Jews, and whereby the one true
God was moſt properly denoted as the ſelf-exiſtent Being, was not ưnknown to the
Gentiles.: Diodorus Siculus tells us of Mofes the lawgiver of the Jews;, that he de-
clared that the God who is called Idw.delivered his laws to him *, Philo Biblius,
the tranſlator of Sauchóniathon's Phoenician hiſtory, calls himn leuw, where he pre-
tends that Sanchoniathon received his hiſtory from Jerombaal the prieſt of the God
Ievw, who was near the time of Moſes, and lived before the Trojan war.t. Ma-
crobius tells us, that the oracle of the Clarián Apollo, being conſulted which of
the gods it was that was called law,i apſwered, call Him that is the higheſt of the
gods Icw.?. Where he ſpeaks of him as the Supreme Deity, though afterwards
as might be expected from the oracle, he applies it to the fun f. It is alſo pro-
bable that the name Jovis. and Jovis Pater, which was abbreviated into Jupiter,
was derived from Jehovah. and as this name found its way into Italy. in the moſt
antient times, fo might the notion ſignified by it be alſo communicated. And in-
deed ſome remarkable traces of the antieat primitive religion ſeem to have conti-
nued in Italy, in the firſt times of the Roman Itare; though afterwards this venerable :
name, which was originally deſigned to ſignify the one true God, became tranſ-
ferred to the chief of the idol deities, to whom the divine attributes and worſhip'
were alſo aſcribed.
.
† Apud Euleb. Præp. Evangel. lib. 1. cap.20. 21:3ko A; B.; :I Macrob.
* Diod. Sic, Biblioth. lib, i.
Saturnal. lib. i. cap. 18.
:
1.
From:
}
446
The Jewiſh Revelation of
Part I.
From theſe ſeveral teſtimonies, to which others might be added,
it
appears,
that notwithſtanding the popular prejudices againſt the
Jews, there were not a few among the Heathens, that had an
eſteem for them and a good opinion of their laws. And as it was
well known, that they worſhipped one only God, the Maker of
heaven and earth, it is very probable that ſome of thoſe paſſages
which are admired in the Pagan writers, ſuch as that of Sophocles
and Aratus above-mentioned, might have been originally owing
to light derived from the Hebrews.. Many of them, from the
beginning of the Perſian empire, were not only ſcattered abroad
through Perſia, Babylonia, and other parts of the eaſt, but were
feated in the Leffer Aſia. And Providence ordered it ſo that their
numbers continually increaſed, and their diſperſions anſwered a
valuable end. 'Cicero ſpeaks of it as a thing well known, that the
Jews were wont to ſend gold every year from Italy, and all the
Roman provinces, to their temple at Jeruſalem (c). The elder
Agrippa, in a letter written to the emperor Caligula, of which
Philo gives us an account, tells him, that both the continent and
the moſt remarkable iſlands were full of Jewiſh colonies; and that
ſcarce any country of note could be mentioned in which ſome of
them had not their reſidence (d). To the ſame purpoſe Agrippa
the
younger, a ſpeech to the Jews, endeavours to diſſuade them
from entering into a war with the Romans from this conſideration,
that they would thereby expoſe their countrymen to ruin ; for
that there was not a people upon earth which had not ſome por-
in
(c) Oratio pro Flacco. n. 28.
(d) Philo in Legat. ad Caium, Oper. p. 1031, 1032.
he
tion
Chap. XIX.
447
Advantage to the Heathen Nations.
tion of their nation among them (). The ſame thing is ſaid by
Philo; who alſo affirms, that there were not leſs than a million of
Jews in Alexandria, and other parts of Egypt (f). And Strabo, as -
cited by Joſephus, faith, that “ the Jews had already gotten into all
" cities":" that it is not eaſy to find a place in the habitable earth,
which hath not admitted that tribe of men amongſt them : and
that many imitated their manner of living, and made uſe of the
ſame laws. He particularly obſerves, that " a large part of the
city of Alexandria was peculiarly allotted to them: and that they
were allowed to be governed by their own laws (8). Seneca in
his book De Superſtitione, as cited by St. Auſtin, at, the ſame
time that he diſcovers a very ſtrong prejudice againſt the Jews, and
blames their rites, eſpecially their folemnizing the Sabbath, as an
idle ſuperſtition, yet ſignifies, that this and other rites of theirs.
prevailed very much among the nations. “ Cum interim uſque
" eò ſceleratiffimæ gentis conſuetudo convaluit,, ut per omnes ferè
“ terras recepta fit: victi victoribus leges dederunt (h).” And
as the Sabbath was peculiarly ſet apart for commemorating the
creation of the world, and honouring the Maker of the uni,
verſe, if the obſervation of the Jewiſh Sabbath ſpread among the
Gentiles, this ſhews that the knowledge and worſhip of the one
true God was propagated among them. Add to all this, that the
Jewiſh Scriptures having been tranſlated into Greek, the language
1
(c) Joſeph. de Bel. Jud: lib. ii. cap. 16.
(f) Philo in Flac. Opera, p. 971..
(g) Apud Jofeph. Antiq. lib. xiv. cap. 7. ſect. 2.
(). Apud Auguſt. de Civ. Dei, lib. vi. cap. 11; p..124.
then:
448
Part I.
The Jewiſh Revelation of
1
-
then almoſt univerſally underſtood, became very generally diſ-
perfed. It cannot therefore be juſtly ſaid, that the Gentiles were
debarted from all benefit of Revelation ſince beſides the remains
of antient tradition ſtill preſerved amongſt them, and which
were originally owing to Divine Revelation, a conſiderable part
of the Heathen world had opportunities, by means of the Jews
diſperſed among them, of attaining to the knowledge and worſhip
of the one true God, and diſcovering the error and vanity of their
idolatry and polýthèifm. And that many were by this means
brought over from their idolatries we have good reaſon to believe;
both from ſeveral paffages: in Joſephus, and from the numbers of
devout Gentiles in many cities of note; when Chriſtianity was firſt
publiſhed: of which we have an account in the Acts of the
Apoſtles. And if the main body of the Pagans in every nation,
and even their wiſe men and philoſophers; ftill continued obſti-
nately to adhere to the antient popular ſuperſtition and idolatry,
and inſtead of making a proper uſe of the advantages hereby given
them, either deſpiſed the Jews as unworthy of their notice, and
rejected their religion at once without examination and enquiry,
or hated them for having a religion fo oppofíte to their own (i),
the fault is to be charged upon themſelves, who neglected thoſe
means
(i) Cicero in his oration for Ļ. Flaccus calls the Jewiſh religion a “ barbarous
" ſuperſtition," and repreſents it as “ abhorrent from the gravity of the Roman
" name, the ſplendor of their empire, and the inſtitutions of their apiceftors." And
yet if that great man had allowed himſelf to examine it, he would have found that
it taught nobler notions of the Divinity than even their moſt admired philoſophers.
But the views of human policy, the pride of their own wiſdom, the contempt they
had for thoſe whom they accounted and called Barbarians, and their attachment to
the rites and laws of their anceſtors, hindered the greateſt and wiſeſt men of Greece
and
Chap. XIX.
4+2.
Advantage to the Heathen Nations.
means and helps, as they had done before the diſcoveries con-
veyed to them by antient tradition, and the light held forth to
them in the works of Creation and Providence. What farther
ſhews
and Rome from judging iinpartially of a religion which was ſo contrary to the
eſtabliſhed polytheiſm and idolatry. Nothing can be more unfair and diſingenuous
than the repreſentations made by ſome of their celebrated hiſtorians of the original
of the Jewiſh nation, of their religion and laws. There are indeed fomne ſtrictures
of truth in their accounts, but they are mixed with ſo many falfhoods and abſur-
dities, as plainly few how ſtrongly they were prejudiced againſt them, and how
little care they took to get a right information concerning them, which, if they had
been ſo diſpoſed, they might eaſily have procured. Such are the accounts given of
them by Juſtin from Trogus Pompeius, by Diodorus Siculus, and Tacitus. This laſt
mentioned author, who was a man of admirable parts and fagacity, and in other
reſpects an exact and faithful writer, tells us the Jews conſecrated' the image of an
aſs in the ſanctuary of their temple, and made it the object of their worſhip, becauſe,
as he pretends, a herd of alles had led them to a rock where they found large ſprings of
water, when they were ready to periſh for thirſt in the wilderneſs * What renders
him the leſs excuſable in adopting this filly ſtory is, that ſoon after he himſelf is
obliged to own, that " whereas the Egyptians pay divine honours to animals, and
to images made by art, the Jews acknowledge but one God, to be apprehended
only by the mind : they account thoſe prophane who frame images of the gods
out of periſhable materials in the form and likeneſs of men : and hold that that
ſupreme eternal Being is neither liable to change, nor Mall ever die: and therefore
" there are no images in their cities, much leſs in their temples.”—“ Egyptii plera-
.que animalia effigieſque compoſitas venerantur; Judæi mente folâ unumque numen
intelligunt: profanos qui deûm imagines, mortalibus materiis, in ſpeciem homi-
“num effingunt : fummum illud et æternum, neque mutabile, neque interiturum:
“ igitur nulla ſimulacra urbibus ſuis, nedum templiš-funt t.” And accordingly he
afterwards obſerves, that Pompey, the firſt of the Romans that ſubdued the Jews, and
who entered the temple by right of conqueſt, found no-image of the gods there, but
the holy place vacant and empty 1. That great philoſopher and hiſtorian Plutarch,
a man of vaſt reading, and who was curious and diligent in his enquiries, yet in
what relates to the Jews betrays a ſhameful ignorance or the ſtrongeſt prejudices.
He charges them, as Tacitus had done, with worſhipping an afs; and is in a doubt
whether they did not abſtain from ſwine's fleſh out of a peculiar veneration they had
for that animal. The account he pretends to give of their ſacred rites is perfectly
Tacit. Hift. lib. v. cap. 4.
I Ibid. cap. 9.
+ Ibid. cap. 5.
Ni mm
VOL. I.
trifling
450
Corruption of the Heathens chargeable Part I.
Thews the great propriety and uſefulneſs of the peculiar Jewiſh
conſtitution, and the Revelation made to the people of Iſrael, is,
that not only rays of light were from thence ſcattered abroad
among the Pagans, which might have been of great advantage if
duly improved, but that it had a great tendency to prepare the
world for receiving that moſt perfect diſpenſation which was to
ſucceed it, and which was to be of a more general extent, and
more univerſally diffuſed.
It appears from the ſeveral conſiderations which have been of
fered, that a great deal was done in the methods of Divine Provi-
dence, 'for preventing or reclaiming the nations from the idolatry
and polytheiſm in which they came to be generally involved. And
were extant.
trilling and and ridiculous *. And yet if he had pleaſed, he might eaſily have pro-
cured better information. The Jews were diſperſed in great numbers among the
nations. Their ſacred Writings, which had been long tranſlated into Greek, were
in many hands. The books of Joſephus and Philo, both of them fine writers,
He indeed takes upon him to pronounce, that what is ſaid by them-
ſelves concerning theſe things is fabulous. But it is plain he did not conſult the .
Jewiſh writings and records, which would have been the proper and rational way
to get a right information. I think what Origen fays to Celſus is extremely juſt :
" It is proper to ask Celfus," ſays he, " why he who mentions with approbation
" the hiſtories of the Greeks and Barbarians, and gives credit to their antiquities,
" ſhould only doubt of the antiquities of the Jews. If the writers of other nations
“ give a true account of their own affairs, why are the Jewiſh prophets the only
perſons we refuſe to believe + ?" But that the true ſource of Celſus's prejudice
againſt them was their maintaining the unity of God in oppoſition to the common.
polytheiſm, may be gathered from what he himſelf faith of the people of Iſrael;
that “ thoſe goat-herds and ſhepherds, following Mofes as their leader, being im-
poſed upon by his ruſtic frauds, believed there is only one God 1."
* Plut. Sympoſ. lib. iv. quæſt. 5. Oper. tom. II. 70.670, et ſeq.
12, 13 1. Ibid. p. 17, 18.
+ Orig, contra Cell, lib. i. P:
the
/
451
Chap. XIX.
not on God, but on themſelves.
the ſtate of religion among them would have had a quite different
appearance, if they had made that uſe and improvement of the
means that were put into their hands, which it was really in
their power to have done, and had applied themſelves to it with
that care and diligence which a matter of ſuch vaſt importance
required. And therefore St. Paul juſtly pronounces concerning
them, that they “ liked not to retain God in their knowledge,”
and that they “ were without excuſe-ávatopoyntoi" i. e. unable
to make a fufficient apology for themſelves, if called to a ſtrict
account at the bar of God. Yet what allowances it may pleaſe
him in his infinite mercy to make for the circumſtances they
were in, and the ignorance, errors, and prejudices under which
they laboured, we cannot take upon us to determine ;. but muſt
leave it to him, the moſt wiſe and merciful as well as righteous
judge and father of mankind, who will certainly do what is fitteſt
and beft.
i
It is proper on this occaſion to obſerve the great goodneſs of
God, and the patience and forbearance he exerciſed towards a
corrupt and idolatrous world. Though they were ſo far fallen
from the knowledge and worſhip of him the only true God, and
inſtead of glorifying him as God, gave the glory due to him alone
to falſe and fictitious deities, he did not abſolutely abandon them,
nor pour forth thoſe judgments upon them which their iniquities
had deſerved. He continued to do them good in the methods of
his wife and kind Providence, and ſo ordered it, that ſome reinains
of religion were ſtill preſerved among them. The idea of a Deity,
and a governing inviſible power, and of a Providence that takes
cognizance
M m m 2
452
Remains of Religion preſerved among the Heathens. Part I.
cognizance of human actions and affairs, though mixed with
much obſcurity, and attended with many and great errors, was
never utterly extinguiſhed. There ſtill remained ſome ſenſe of
the moral differences of things, and ſome feeble apprehenſions of
a. future ftate of retributions. Theſe things were helpful to lay
fome reſtraints upon vice and wickedneſs, to furniſh fome en-
couragements and ſupports to virtue, to give force to civil laws
and government, and to maintain the face of order in the world.
Such is the force of theſe principles, that where they are even in
the leaſt degree preſerved and ſuffered to operate, they can ſcarce
fail to produce ſome beneficial effects for the good of fociety.
Whereas abſolute atheiſm and the want of all religion faps the
foundation of all order, tends to diffolve the ſtrongeſt bands of
human ſociety, and to open a wide door for univerſal confuſion
and licentiouſneſs. And therefore the reclaiming mankind from
the darkneſs and corruption into which they were generally fallen,
to the right knowledge, obedience, and adoration of the one true
God, the clearing and confirming the main principles of religion,
which were greatly weakened and obſcured, and enforcing them
by a divine authority and power on the minds and conſciences of
men, and the recovering men from the ſtate of guilt and con-
demnation in which they lay involved, to a well-grounded hope
of pardon and ſalvation ; this inuſt be acknowledged to be a de-
ſign worthy of the Divine wiſdom and goodneſs. Such is the
deſign of the Chriſtian Diſpenſation, which was introduced into
the world at a time when it was moſt wanted, and when the
need mankind ſtood in of ſuch an extraordinary interpoſition of
Divine Providence manifeſtly appeared.
CHAP
1
[ 453 )
!
T
CH A P. XX.
::
2
.
7
܂ ܙ
3
A third general reflečtion. Idolatry gathered ſtrength among the
nations, as they grew in leașning and politeneſs. Religion in
ſeveral reſpećts leſs corrupted in the ruder and more. illiterate than
in the politer ages. The arts and ſciences made a very great pra-
greſs in the Heathen world: yet they ſtill became more and more
addi&ted to the moſt abfurd idolatries, as well as to the moſt abomi-
nable vices; both of which were at the height at the time of our
Saviour's appearance.
A
NOTHER important reflection which may help to caſt
farther light on the preſent ſubject is this ; that ſuperſtition
and idolatry, inſtead of being corrected and diminiſhed, rather
increaſed and gathered ſtrength among the Heathen nations as
they grew in learning and politeneſs. Any one that conſiders the
accounts which are given us of the progreſs of arts and ſciences,
how from rude beginnings they were ſtill advancing to greater
perfection, and that as the nations became more knowing and
civilized, theſe were continually improving, will be apt to think
that ſo it muſt have been with religion too. It is natural to ſup-
poſe, that as their knowledge was more extended, and their
underſtandings better cultivated, and exerciſed in the arts of rea-
ſoning, they muſt have more clearly ſeen the abſurdity of ſuper-
ftition and idolatry, and have attained to higher improvements in
religion, and in the knowledge and worſhip of the one true God,
as well as in other branches of ſcience. And yet if we conſult
fact
454
Part 1.
The Pagan Religion leſs corrupted
4
?
fact and experience we ſhall find, that the religion of the Gentiles
in the moſt antient times
: was in 'feveral inſtances more pure and
fimple, leſs incumbered and corrupted with idolatry, than in ſuc-
ceeding ages, when the arts and ſciences had made a conſiderable
progreſs. This ſeems to thew, that the knowledge mten had of
God and Religion in the firſt agės was oriģinālly owing ñot mère-
ly to the efforts of their own reaſon, which was then little culti-
vàted and improved, but to a Divine Reyelation made to the firſt
of the human race, and from them comunicated to their poſte-
rity. It might have been hoped, that this tradition, which, when
.duly propoſed, is agreeable to right reaſon, would have been
ſerved with great care, eſpecially when learning and knowledge
were improved: but it ſoon began to 'degenerate, and became the
more corrupt the farther it was removed from its original. The
true primitive Theiſm, which was the moſt antient religion of
mankind, became foon'adulterated with mixtures of polytheiſm,
ſtill preſerving for the moſt part, amidſt all their corruptions, fome
obſcure idea of one Supreme Divinity, till at length it was almoſt
loft and confounded amidſt a multiplicity of idol deities.
pre-
It has been already ſhewn, that the moſt antient idolatry and
deviation from the worſhip of the one true God, was the workhip
of heaven and the heavenly bodies. But the firſt idolaters, 'as
Euſebius obſerves, did not erect ſtatues or images to thein, but
contented themſelves with fixing their eyes upon the viſible hea-
vens, and worſhipping what they beheld there (k): This is agree-
(6) Præpar. Evangel. lib. i. cap. 6. p. 17. Paris 1628.
able
Chap. XX.
455
in the rude than in the politer Ages.
able to the repreſentation made of it in the antient book of Job,
where it is intimated that thoſe who then worſhipped the heaven-
ly bodies, were wont to do it by lifting up their eyes towards
heaven, and bowing and kiſſing their hands to them when they
appeared in their ſplendor. That holy man, to clear himſelf from
all ſuſpicion of idolatry, which was then making a progreſs in
thoſe parts, in his admirable apology expreſſes himſelf thus : “ If
" I beheld the fun when it fined, or the moon walking in
brightneſs--and my heart hath been ſecretly enticed, or my
« mouth hath kiſſed my hand; this alſo were an iniquity to be
puniſhed by the judge: for I ſhould have denied the God that
" is above.” Job xxxi. 26, 27, 28. And Mofes ſeems to inti-
mate the ſame thing, Deut. iv. 19. 56 Left thou lift up
thine
eyes unto heaven, and when thou ſeeſt the ſun, and the moon,
" and the ſtars, cven all the hoſt of heaven, ſhouldſt be driven to:
" worſhip and ſerve them.” And he diſtinguiſheth this from the
idolatry of image-worſhip, which he had forbidden juſt before.
It is another obſervation of Euſebius concerning the idolaters of
the nioſt antient times, that they made no mention of that multi-
tude of hero-deities which were afterwards worſhipped both among:
the Greeks and Barbarians. There was among them no theogonia,
or fabulous account of the generation of the gods. The numerous,
rabble of gods and heroes, with the monſtrous fictions relating to
them, were of later date, and had their riſe among the Egyptians
and Phænicians, and from them were propagated to the Greeks (1).
It was among the Chaldeans, Phænicians, and Egyptians, that
(1). Eufeb. ubi ſupra, cap. 9. p. 29, 30,
image-
456
The Pagan Religion leſs corrupted Part I.
image-worſhip, as well as that of hero gods or deified men, ſeems
to have firſt obtained. The firſt approach towards image-worſhip
among the nations was, as ſome learned men probably ſuppoſe, their
erecting ſtones and pillars in honour of their deities. This ſeems
to have been an abuſe of a cuſtom that was originally uſed by the
worſhippers of the true God, who were wont to erect large ſtones
as monuments in places where in thoſe antient times there had
been remarkable divine appearances : and there they erected altars
and offered ſacrifices. Of this we have a memorable inſtance in
that good man Jacob. Having at the end of his firſt day's jour-
ney towards Meſopotamia had a divine viſion, in which God was
pleaſed to appear to him in a viſible glory attended with his holy
angels, and repeated thoſe promiſes to him which he had before
made to his pious progenitors Abraham and Iſaac, he took a large
ſtone, and ſet it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it, and
thereby conſecrated it to a religious uſe; and his probably in con-
formity to antient cuſtom. And he called the name of that place
Bethel, “ the houſe of God." Gen. xxviii. 18, 19. At the ſame
time he made a ſolemn vow, that if he returned in ſafety to his
father's houſe, this ſtone which he had ſet up for a pillar ſhould be
God's houſe, that is, the place where he would erect an altar to the
only true God, and offer ſacrifices to him. And this accordingly
he afterwards did by the divine command: but he firſt took care to
purify his family, and put away the ſtrange gods which were among
them; fome of his numerous family having privily introduced
idolatrous uſages. Gen. xxxv. 1-4.
-4. Some learned perſons, par-
ticularly the famous Joſeph Scaliger and Bochart, have ingeniouſly
conjectured, that from the ſtone erected into a pillar by Jacob,
2
and
Chap. XX.
457
in the rude than in.the politer Ages.
1
and his calling the place Bethel, came the word Baitórice uſed
among the Heathens, and eſpecially the Phænicians, to fignify thoſe
rude ſtones which were conſecrated as fymbols of the Divinity,
and in which they thought ſome Divine Power reſided (m). Theſe
were worſhipped by them, as ſtatues and images were afterwards.
And in this as well as other inſtances, the rites and uſages which
were originally deſigned in honour of the one true God, were in
proceſs of time miſapplied to the worſhip of idol deities. In the
Chron. Alexand. p. 89. it is ſaid, that the Aſſyrians were the firſt
who ſet up a pillar to the planet Mars, and worſhipped it as a
god (n). Herodian mentions a pillar or large ſtone erected in
honour of the fun, and called Eligabalus. And Pauſanias in Ar-
cadicis obferves, that in the moſt antient times, univerſally among
the Greeks, inſtead of images rụde ſtones had divine honours
rendered. « αντι αγαλμάτων είχαν αργοί λίθοι τίμας.” There
were ſucceeded by ſtatues and images, which at firſt had little
workmanſhip beſtowed upon them, but as the arts began to flou-
riſh, and the worſhip of hero gods and goddeſſes became more in
faſhion, they were wrought up with great art and beauty. It was
becauſe pillars were ſo much abuſed to idolatrous purpoſes, that
the religious uſe of them, as well as of ſtatües and images, was ex-
preſly forbidden in the law of Mofes. Levit. xxvi. 1. Deut. xvi. 2 2.
The word in the Hebrew in both theſe places is Matzebah, ren-
dered by our tranſlators “ a ſtanding image,” but bị the Septuagint
1
{m) Scaliger Animadverf. in Euſeb. p. 198. Bochart. Canaan, lib. ii. cap. 2.
(n) Shuckford's Connect. of Sacred and Profane Hiſtory, Vol. I. p. 328, 329-
VOL.I.
Nnn
1.1)
458
The Pagan Religion leſs corrupted Part 1
!
“ a pillar,” as it is alſo in the margin of our Bibles; and
thus it is underſtood by the Jews, as Mr. Selden has ſhewn (6).
shan as
Lucian, de Dea Syria, ſays, that the Aſſyrians derived the temples
and ſtatues of the gods from the Egyptians ; but that antiently
the temples of the Egyptians were without ſtatues (p.). It is cer-
tain however that the worſhip of images in the form of men, and
other animals, had obtained in Egypt and the neighbouring coun-
tries (g), before the days of Moſes, as appears from the prohibi-
tion of them in the ſecond commandment, and which is more par-
ticularly expreſſed, Deut. iv. 16, 17, 18. But ſtill there were
ſeveral nations, that did not as yet, nor for a long time after, wor-
ſhip images. Such were the antient Perfians, for which we have
the teſtimonies of Herodotus, Xenophon, and Strabo. Clemens
Alexandrinus informs us, that the firſt image which was ſet up
among them was a ſtatue of Venus, by Artaxerxes, who, as Dr.
Shuckford probably conjectures, was Ochus, in the latter times of
the Perſian empire (r). Bardefanes, as quoted by Euſebius, ſays,
that the Seres, a famous nation in India, had a law among them for-
© De Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. ii. cap. 6..
() Lucian. Opera, tom. ii. p. 657. Amſtel.
(9) According to Diodorus Siculus, the Egyptians began with the worſhip of the
ſun and moon, and thence proceeded to worſhip the elements, the earth, water,
fire, and air ; and at laſt came to worſhip animals and reptiles. Thus idolatry ſtill
grew and increaſed amongſt them. And the abuſe of the hieroglyphical cha-
racters and facred ſymbols, which were in early uſe in Egypt, contributed not a
little to it. Thus under pretence of ſuperior wiſdom, the purity and ſimplicity of
the antient religion became more and more corrupted.
(n) Shuckford ubi fupra, p. 346.
bidding
Chap. XX.
459
in the rude than in the politer Ages.
bidding all worſhip of images. The ſame author obſerves con-
cerning the Indian Brachmans, that according to a tradition de-
rived from their anceſtors, they abſtained from image-worſhip (s).
At what time images were firſt introduced among the Greeks we
have no certain account. But the uſe of them probably came into
Greece from Egypt. The moſt antient Greeks had no temples,
but worſhipped in the open air. It is ſaid that Cecrops, who came
from Egypt, firſt taught them to erect temples, and brought in
the worſhip of hero-gods and images : and in this he was follow-
ed by others of their antient kings and legiſlators; and the num-
ber of their gods and goddeſſes, as well as the rites of their wor-
ſhip, were continually increaſing, and received conſtant additions
from the fables of their poets and mythologiſts. As to Italy, the
beſt writers of their antiquities agree, that the religion of the inha-
bitants in the moſt antient times was different in ſeveral reſpects
from that which prevailed in Greece in the latter ages. And it is
particularly obſerved by Varro concerning the antient Romans, that
they worſhipped the gods without an image for more than one
hundred and ſeventy years.
And he adds, that if this had ſtill
continued, the gods would have been worſhipped more purely.
" Quod fi adhuc manfiffet, caſtiùs dii obferventur ;" of which he
mentions the Jews as an example. Yea, he ſticks not to declare,
that so
they who firſt inſtituted images of the gods for the people,
"s both took away from the cities the reverence of the gods, and
" added to the popular error.” Qui primi fimulacra deorum
1
(s) Euſeb. Præpar. Evangel. lib. vi. cap. 10. P. 274, 275.
Nnn 2
populis
460
Part I
Idolatry continually increaſed
t
populis poſuerunt, eos civitatibus ſuis et metum demfiffe, et
errorem addidiffe (t).” To the ſame purpoſe Plutarch, in his
life of Numa, obſerves, that “he forbad the Romans to reprekent
« God under the form of man or beaft; nor was there any graven
or painted image admitted among them formerly. But for the
ſpace of the firſt one hundred and ſixty years they built temples,
“ bùt made no ftatue or image, as thinking it an impiety to liken
" the moſt excellent things to thoſe that are mean and baſe ; it
being not poſſible to apprehend or approach God, éparli Cesar
“ ge@, but by the underſtanding (u).” But afterwards images
were multiplied among them, as well as among the Greeks, and .
grew more and more in uſe in thoſe ages when learning and the
arts flouriſhed. Their wiſe men and philoſophers pleaded for
images as neceſſary helps to human infirmity; and the people
carried it ſo far as to think that there could be no religion without
images. Hence they looked upon thoſe nations which had no
images as having no religion at all (á). And this was one of their
principal objections againſt the primitive Chriſtians, who were all
zealous enemies to image worſhip, that they had no altars or
images: “ nullas aras, nulla nota fimulacraz." Thus the learned
(t) Apud Auguſtin. de Civ. Dei, lib. iv. cap. 31. p: 87:
(11) Macrobius fpeaking of him whom he calls the higheſt God, affirms that an-.
tiquity formed no inage of him.. “ Nullum ejus fimulacrum finxit antiquitas.” In.
Somn. Scip. lib. i. cap. 2.
fax) Lactantius, ſpeaking of the fondneſs of the Heathens for images, eſpecially
--thoſe that were adorned with gold and jewels, obſerves, nec ullam religionem:
putant, ubi illa non fulſerint,” lib. ii. cap. 6.
2:
and
Chap. XX.
461
among the Nations.
and polite nations fell ſhort of ſome of the people whom they called
barbarous, who in this and ſome other inſtances adhered more
cloſely' to the tradition of the firſt ages, and were ſtrangers to the
refinements of human learning and philoſophy.
I had occaſion to take notice before of the praiſes beſtowed by
Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus upon the religion of the firſt Romans.
It appears from his account that in the moſt antient times of the
Roman ſtate, when the people were eſteemed rude and illiterate,
their religion had more of fimplicity, and leſs abſurdity in it, than
afterwards, when they had commerce with the learned Greeks,
and philoſophy and the ſciences had made a great progreſs among
them. Hence the ſatiriſt, comparing the antient with the latter
times, obſerves, that they had not then ſuch a crowd of gods as
they worſhipped afterwards.
!
« Nec turba deorum
« Talis ut eſt hodie, contentaque fidera paucis
" Numinibus.”
Juven. Sat. xiii. ver. 46, 47. -
They incorporated more of the poetic fabulous theology into the
civil or public religion than they had formerly done. It appears-
from the writings of the learned Varro, who flouriſhed in the lat-
ter times of the Roman republic, not long before the coming of
our Saviour, that in his days their deities and facred ceremonies
were multiplied to an amazing degree. So far is it from being
true that they grew in the knowledge of religion, and in the
pure
462
Part I.
Idolatry continually increaſed
pure worſhip of the true God, as they grew in literature, that on
the contrary they were ſtill more deeply immerſed in idolatry and
polytheiſm. Rome became at length the receptacle of all kinds
of idolatry, even of the Egyptian rites. Thus Lucan,
« Nos in templa tuam Romana recepimus Iſin
“ Semideoſque canes.”
Hence Tertullian upbraids the Romans, that notwithſtanding the
high regard they profeſſed to have for their anceſtors, they had
fallen off from thoſe of their inſtitutions, which had been rightly
ordered. They reſtored the myſteries of Bacchus, which by a
decree of the ſenate had been exterminated out of Rome and all
Italy. The Egyptian deities, particularly Serapis, Iſis; Harpo-
crates, Cynocephalus or Anubis, which had been expelled the
Capitol by the conſuls, and their altars overturned, were again
admitted, and the higheſt honours paid them (y).
Thus it
appears that the illiterate ages, by keeping more cloſely
to the traditions derived to them from the moſt antient times,
were free from fome of thoſe corruptions which were introduced
in the politer ages. Idolatry and polytheiſm continued to gather
ſtrength in the midſt of learning and philoſophy. Not only the
poets and prieſts, but the legiſlators and civil magiſtrates, many
of whom were accounted wife men and philoſophers, had a great
hand in this. Ariſtotle, in a paſſage above quoted from him, after
Wy) Tertul. Apol. cap. 6. Opera, p. 7. B, C. Paris 1672.
having
Chap. xx.
among the Nations,
463
having obſerved, that it had been delivered down from thoſe of
the moſt antient times, both that the ſtars are gods, and that the
Divinity containeth whole or univerſal nature, adds, That all the
other things were fabulouſly introduced for the perſuaſion of the
multitude, and for procuring obedience to the laws, and pro-
moting the public utility : ſuch as the repreſenting the gods to be
of human form, or like to ſome other animals, with other things
of that nature, and which are conſequent upon theſe (z).
(2) Metaphyſ. lib.xiv, cap. 8. Oper. tom. ii. p. 1003. Paris 1629.
CH A P.
بوو
Part I.
No ordinary Means fufficient to recover
CH A P. XXI.
A fourth general-reflection. Human wiſdom and philoſophy, 'with-
out a bigher affiſance, infufficient for recovering mankind from
their idolatry and polytheiſm, and for leading them into the right
knowledge of God and religion, and the worſhip due to him. No
remedy was to be expected in an ordinary way, either from the
philofophérś or from the priefts, or from the civil magiftrates.
Nothing leſs than an extraordinary Revelation from God could, as
things were circumſtanced, prove an effectual remedy. The wiſeſt
men in the Heathen world were ſenſible of their own darkneſs and
ignorance in the things of God, and of their need of Divine
Revelation
T:
HE ſeveral confiderations which have been offered make
it fufficiently evident, how little was to be expected from
human learning and philofophy, for inſtructing mankind in the
right knowledge and worſhip of the only true God, and for re-
covering them from the groſs idolatry and polytheiſm in which
they were generally involved. What the apoſtle hath obſerved
now appears to be undeniably true by fact and experience,
- The
" world by wiſdom knew not God.” 1 Cor. i. 21.
If there had
been no other remedy, we muſt have continued under the Pagan
idolatry and polytheiſm unto this day,
It
Chap. XXI. the Nations from their Idolatry and Polytheiſm. 465
:: It is an eaſy thing to ſpeak in high terms of what the light of
nature and reaſon can lead men to, now that it has been ſo great-
ly refined and aſſiſted by the light communicated from the Chri-
ftian Revelation. Men that have been educated under the Goſpel,
and who have acceſs to the diſcoveries there made, may pur-
ſue and improve thoſe diſcoveries, and then ſecurely boaſt of what
mighty things they can do' by the ſtrength of their own reaſon
and penetration. But the proper way to know the true force of
natural reaſon, and what may be expected from it when left to it-
ſelf in the preſent ſtate of mankind, is to conſider what was done
in matters of religion under the mere guidance of human reaſon,
in thoſe nations and ages in which it was diligently cultivated,
and when polite literature and the liberal arts were in their higheſt
-elevation. It would argue great arrogance in us to ſuppoſe, that
we have a more comprehenſive reach of thought, greater pene-
tration and force of reaſon, than thoſe ſublime genius's, which
have been the admiration of all ſucceeding ages. Since there-
fore they with all their learning and vaſt abilities were at fo great
a loſs in what related to the knowledge and worſhip of the only
true God, in oppoſition to all idolatry and polytheiſm, there is
juſt ground to ſuppoſe, that if we had been left merely to our-
ſelves, and had not the benefit of Divine Revelation, we ſhould
have been ſtill wandering in the mazes of error, even in matters
of the higheſt conſequence.
The
age
when Chriſtianity firſt made its appearance in the
world, was far froin being an age of 'ignorance, if we ſpeak of
human literature, and the improvements of the arts and ſciences.
Vol. I.
OOO
But
1
466
No ordinary Means fufficient to recover
Part 1.
But the nations that were otherwiſe learned and polite were funk
into the moſt deplorable ignorance, darkneſs, and corruption in
matters of religion. Now, the queſtion ariſes, what was proper
to be done to recover them out of this their wretched ftatę, to the
right knowledge of God and of their duty ? In- fpeculation it
might be thought that human learning and philoſophy might
alone be an: able and fufficient guide : there were among the
Heathens men of wonderful abilities, who ſpent their lives in
ftudious enquiries, and made it their buſineſs to ſearch into the
reafon and nature of things; and many of them travelled to the
moft diſtant countries, and to the places then moſt celebrated for
ſcience, in queſt of knowledge: and it might probably be ſup-
poſed, that fuch perſons by their inſtructions might reform the
world, and reclaim them from their groſs ſuperſtitions and idola-
tries, and lead-them into juſt notions of God and Religion. But
was this the caſe in fact ? Did they make any fand againſt the
prevailing corruptions ? Or work any reformation in the popular
ſyſtem of polytheiſm ? Far from it. If any of them had juſt and
good notions, they wanted a divine authority to enforce their
dietates. Their dogmas paffed only for fine ſpeculations, or the
opinions of this or that philoſopher or ſect of philoſophers, with
which the people had little concern, and which therefore had but
ſmall influence. Accordingly we find in fact, that the popular
idolatry and polytheiſm, and the many abſurd and abominable
rites of the Heathen ſuperſtition, ſtill kept their ground. Nor did
the philoſophers ever convert ſo much as a ſingle village from
idolatry. On the contrary, they patronized it by their maxims,
and countenanced it by their practice. It is evident then that
Z
what-
1
Chap. XXI. the Nations from their Idolatry and Polytheiſm. 469
-whatever high opinion fome have entertained of the Heathen
Learning and philoſophy, it was unable to reform a corrupt and
idolatrous world. It had been tried for many ages. 6 Philofo-
phy,”' as Mr. Lacke obferyes, '* ſeems to have ſpent its
ſtrength, and done its utmoſt,” And yet after all was found
ineffectual. This furniſheth a plain and convincing proof that
haman reaſon, if-left merely to itfelf without an higher aſſiſtance,
is not a ſafe and fufficient guiđe in divine matters, and holds out
an obſcure and uncertain light : and that when men come to
treat of theſe things in the fulneſs of their pride and ſelf-ſufficiency,
and with a high conceit of their own wiſdom, they for the moſt
part either throw off all religion, or-ſtrangely corrupt and pervert
its moſt important doctrines and principles. Reaſon may be, and
has been, of great uſe, when under the conduct of Divine Reve-
lation, and making uſe of the light which that affords : but when
îtruſting to its own force it has affected an independency, and en-
deavoured to ſtrike out new paths, it has often made wild work
in religion, and plunged men into atheiſm, ſcepticiſm, and infi-
delity on the one hand, or into idolatry, ſuperſtition, and num-
berleſs varieties of error on the other.
And if it was a vain thing to look for a reformation in religion
from the philoſophers, from whom elſe could it be expected ?
Surely not from the prieſts, who were the great promoters of poly-
theiſm, and all the abſurd.rites of the Pagan ſuperſtition, Could
it be thought, that they would inſtruct the people to abandon' that
idolatry by which they maintained their own reputation and in-
OOO 2
tereſts
468 No ordinary Means fufficient to recover Part I
tereft? Or, would the lawgivers and politicians, and great men
of the ſtate attempt it? If this was the deſign of the myſteries
they inſtituted, it is plain they were of little efficacy to draw the
people off from the common polytheiſm, nof indeed, as they
were managed, could be expected to do ſo. The public laws in
every city and country eſtabliſhed idolatry. Their moſt celebrated
legiſlators interwove the worſhip of idol deities into their civil
conſtitutions, and their ableſt political writers, who wrote about
the beſt forms of government, confirmed it. It might perhaps
be họped, that when a philoſopher came to have the reins of
government in his own hands, which was what Plato propoſed
as the þeſt expedient for regulating the commonwealth, and ad-
miniſtering it in the fitteſt.manner, theſe great abuſes would be
rectified, and a better ſcheme of religion eſtabliſhed. Such was
Marcus Antoninus, a great emperor, and an excellent philoſopher.
But did he introduce a better form of religion, or a purer worſhip
of the Deity? On the contrary, he himſelf obſerved the accu-
ſtomed rites; he adored the popular deities, and even ſeemed
zealous for the eſtabliſhed ſuperſtition. And what other method
could human wiſdom deviſe, to reform and recover mankind
from their idolatry and polytheiſm, to the right knowledge and
worſhip of God, but the doctrines of their wiſe men and philoſo-
phers, the inſtructions of their prieſts, and the authority of the
legiſlators and civil powers? And all theſe were found in fact and
experience to be inſufficient. Muſt the people therefore be left
wholly to themſelves, and their own natural notions? But theſe
were corrupted to an aſtoniſhing degree; fo that Cicero fcrupled
not
Chap. XXI. the Nations from their Idolatry and Polytheiſm. 469
Y
not to ſay, that the light of nature no where appeared (a). And
as to the broken remains of antient tradition concerning a Deity,
a providence, and the world to come, which were originally ow-
ing to Divine Revelation, they became at length in a great mea-
ſure defaced and overwhelmed with innumerable errors and ſuper-
ftitions. And indeed if men of the fineſt genius were at a loſs,
what could be expected from the vulgar? It is evident, that
taking mankind as they are, there was little ground to hope that
they would ever, if left to themſelves, have been able to recover
from their prejudices, and lay aſide thoſe corruptions, thoſe ſuper-
ſtitions and 'idolatries, which had been for many ages received
their anceſtors, and eſtabliſhed by the laws, recommended
and practiſed by their wife men and philoſophers, and which were
at the ſame time calculated to gratify their ſenſual appetites and
inclinations. Notwithſtanding all the aids of learning, the world
still grew more and more corrupted both in principle and practice,
more and more addicted to the moſt abſurd ſuperſtitions and
moſt abominable vices. And never were they both arrived to a
greater height than at the time when our Saviour appeared (6).
After
among
(a) Tuſcul. Diſput. lib. iii. cap. I.
(6) The learned Dr. Sykes, whom I have had frequent occaſion to quote, and
who has ſhewn a high eſteem for the powers of reaſon, and a ſtrong prejudice in
favour of the Pagan philoſophers, plainly aſſerts not only the uſefulneſs but the ne-
cefſity of Divine Revelation, as things were circumſtanced in the Heathen world.
He ſays, that “ by the addition of very much abſurdity and folly, by the groſs
“ idolatries they had every where eſtabliſhed, by the abundance of fables they had
“ mixed with truth; by the apparent falſehoods they had embraced; and thro'
" the great danger that every good man run, who ſhould venture to fhew thein
" the pure truth; there was a neceſity of a reformation, and of calling men back to
« the true rule of action. How to reinove the loads of rubbiſh, which by degrees
Ho had
1
470
No ordinary Means fufficient to recover Part'I.
After Chriſtianity Käd made ſome progreſs, endeavours were
uſed to revive the credit of the Pagan philofophy, and to raiſe it to
à higher degree of reputation than before. Thoſe they called
Eclectics, profeſſed to ſele&t that which was beſt out of every ſect
of philoſophers, and to form their principles into one body. The
Alexandrian ſchool became famous, and it muſt be owned that in
ſeveral things they exceeded thoſe that had gone before them,
and were more explicit in their declarations of the unity of God,
and advanced noble ſpeculations concerning the divine attributes
and Providence : but there is great reaſon to think, that for this
they were very much indebted to the light received from the Chri-
ſtian revelation, though they were too proud to own it.
Euſebius acquaints us that there had been from the firſt age
of
the Chriſtian church a ſchool of ſacred learning erected among the
Chriſtians at Alexandria, which continued to his time, and had
been furniſhed with men eminent for their eloquence, and know-
ledge in divine, things. He particularly mentions the celebrated
Pantænus, as having preſided in that ſchool at the latter end of the
ſecond century, and who had been bred up in the principles of
« had been thrown upon the beauteous fabric of truth, was more than the wiſeſt
o mortal could tell, or dare to undertake ? Every crevice was ſtopped by which
“ light might enter : and this made even Socrates declare, that he thought it
“ beſt to be quiet, and expect, till ſomebody ſhould come, and by a divine teach-
ing, remove the miſt from before mens eyes.” Plat. Alcib. II. et Phæd. 11. See
Sykes's Connection and Principles of Natural and Revealed Religion, p. 431, 432.
And he had ſaid before that “ error muſt for ever have prevailed, had not a me-
“ thod been found out to propagate truth againſt all the powers and authority
" and influence of the men of this world.” Ibid. p. 383.
the
Chap. XXI. the Nations from tkeik. Idolatry and Polytheiſm. 474.
| man, of
the Stoic philofophy (c). Jerome gives the ſame account, and
that he was ſucceeded by Clemens Alexandrinus, who was alſo a
great learning, and extremely well verſed in the Pagan
philoſophy (d). That eminent Alexandrian philoſopher Am-
moniųs Şaçcas, ſo highly extolled by Porphyry and Hierocles,
whom the latter Platoniſts and Pythagoreans regarded as their fa-
ther, and from whom they derived what they called the ſacſed
fucceffion, lived and died a Chriſtian, as both Eufebius and Jerome
affirm, and this hath been the general opinion of the learned. Or,
if we ſhould ſuppoſe with Fabricius that Ammonius Saccas was a
different perſon from the Ammonius referred to by Euſebius and
Jerome, yet ſtill, by Porphyry's own acknowledgment, he had
been educated a Chriſtian under Chriſtian parents. And though
Porphyry pretends, that when he came to years of underſtand-
ing, and “ had acquired a taſte of philofophy, he betook him-
" ſelf to a life agreeable to the laws," i. e. embraced Heatheniſm,
yet it ſeems reaſonable to believe, that as he was acquainted with
Chriſtianity, he ſcattered many ſeeds of ſacred truth in his philofo-
phical lectures, originally derived from the Jewiſh and Chriſtian
Revelations. He had both Chriſtians and Pagans in his ſchool ;
among others the admired philoſopher Plotinus, and the famous
Origen, who, Porphyry tells us, was one of his hearers, and made
a great proficiency in the knowledge of philoſophy under this
maſter. The Pagan philoſophers that proceeded out of this ſchool
blended the notions received from the holy Scriptures with the
(C) Eufeb. Hift. Eccl. lib. v. cap. 30.
(d) De Viris illuſt. cap. 38.
Pagan
472
No ordinary Means ſufficient to recover Part I.
--
Pagan theology and philofophy, and thereby roſe in ſeveral in-
ſtances to higher flights than their predeceſſors ; and yet to thew
how little was to be expected from the Heathen philoſophy in its
utmoſt refinement, they made no attempts to recover the people
from their idolatry and polytheiſm, but rather uſed all their credit
and efforts to uphold declining Paganiſm, and deviſed the moſt
plauſible colours to defend it. With this view they endeavoured
to accommodate their philoſophical ſchemes to the Pagan religion,
and to ſupport the one by the other. He that would form a juit
idea of the new philofophy which they wanted to introduce, may
conſult the learned Fabricius in his Prolegomena to the life of
Proclus by Marinus.
I ſhall conclude what relates to the Pagan philoſophers with
obſerving, that though undoubtedly they had an high opinion of
their own wiſdom, yet the moſt eminent of them were ſenſible
of the darkneſs, the ignorance, and uncertainty they were under,
eſpecially in divine matters, and the great need mankind ſtood in
of a divine revelation and inſtruction, to lead them into a right
knowledge of God and religion (e). Something was offered con-
(e) See the learned Dr. Clarke's Diſcourſe on Natural and Revealed Religion under
the ſeventh propoſition, p. 306. et ſeq. edit. 7th. Lord Bolingbroke in his animad-
verſions on this part of Dr. Clarke's book, owns that Plato inſinuates in many places
the want or neceſſity of a Divine Revelation : but he will not allow that the opinion
of Socrates, Plato, and other philoſophers, is any proof that the want was real.
His exceptions to this have been elſewhere conſidered. View of the Deiſtical Wri-
ters, Vol. II. p. 63. edit. 3d. At preſent I ſhall only obſerve, that by his own
acknowledgment thoſe great philoſophers were themſelves ſenſible of the need of
Divine Revelation in the preſent ſtate of mankind. Bolingbroke's Works, vol. V.
P. 214, 215, 216. 4to.
cerning
-
Chap. XXI. the Nations from Idolatry and Polytheiſm. 473.
cerning this before, p. 259. and p. 270. to which I refer the reader.
I ſhall hère ſubjoin ſome other paſſages to the ſame purpoſe. · Plato
at the latter end of his ſixth Republic obſerves, that “the ſame re-
*s ſpect which the fun in the viſible world has to fight, and the things
"! which are ſeen, the very fame has the to dyatov, that which is
good [i.e. God) in the intellectual world to intellect and things
.....which are underſtood : that as the eyes, when looking at things
« in the night, are almoſt blind, and as if they had no fight at
«s. all-; but when turned to objects which the ſun ſhines upon ſee
«. them clearly, fo it is with regard to the mind. When it ad-
“ heres to the to öv, the;Being which really is or exiſts, it under-
«' ſtands and knows, and appears to have intellect: but when
“ turns to that which is mixed with darkneſs, and which is ge-
«s nerated and corruptible, it is carried about with various opinions,
« and feems as if it had no underſtanding.” Plat. Opera, p.-478,
479. Ficin.:)., birinciliard
co
In the dialogue called Theages, Plato introduces Socrates in-
ftru&ting d youtig'inaint-Theages, whom his father brought to him
to be- taught wiſdom: and in the concluſion of that dialogue he
intimates to him that if his attempt to learn wiſdom were pleaf-
ing to God, he would make a great proficiency in it in a ſhort
time; if otherwiſe, not: and that he ſhould therefore apply to
him by prayers and facrifices. Socrates ſeems there to have had
the Delphian. Apollo, particularly in view, whom he elſewhere i'ca
commends : it appears however, from what he here ſays, how
fenſible he was of the need men ſtood in of a Divine aſſiſtance,
and inſtruction in order to the obtaining true wiſdom. The ſame
VOL. I.
:
:
P PP
ting
474
Part 1
The wiſeft Heathens ſenſible of
thing appears from that noted paſſage in Plato's ſecond Alcibiad,
which is quoted at large by the learned Dr. Clarke (f). The
purport of it is this : Socrates meets Alcibiades. going to the temple
to pray, and takes that occaſion to convince him, that he knew
not what to pray for in a right manner : and that it was not ſafe
for him to pray in the temple, till God ſhould diſpel the darkneſs
of his mind, ſo that he might be in a capacity of diſcerning be-
tween good and evil. And when Alcibiades upon this faid, I
think I muſt defer my ſacrifices to that time, Socrates anſwers,
You have reaſon; it is more ſafe to do ſo, than to run fo great a
hazard. Socrates did not queſtion the propriety or neceffity of
worſhipping the Deity, as he ſhews on ſeveral occaſions; but he
thought that a divine inſtruction and aſſiſtance was neceſſary to
enable men to perform it in a proper manner (8). And there.
fore there is reaſon to conclude, that he would have accounted a
well-atteſted Revelation, in which God ſhould declare his, will
concerning the worſhip to be rendered to him, an ineſtimable
bleſſing. That great philofopher Plutarch begins his tract De Ifid.
et Ofirid. with ſaying, that “ it becomes all perſons that have any
“ underſtanding to aſk all good things of the gods : but that
eſpecially we ſhould pray to obtain from them the knowledge
“ of the gods, as far as men are capable of attaining to it : ſince.
(f) Ubi fupra, p. 307.
(8) I ſhall here quote a paſſage from a very ingenious writer, and who is no way
inclined to ſuperſtition, concerning the neceſſity of revelation for inſtructing men
how to worſhip God in a right manner. - Il faut neceſſairement que Dieu ait or-
“ donne un culte a l'homme.- Quel chaos affreux ne s'enſuivroit il pas,
ſi.cha..
cun avoit une penfèe differente ſur le culte, qu'on doit a la divinitè ! L'eſprit de
“ l'homme ſujet a s'egarer retomberoit bientot dans les erreurs de l'idolatrie."
Lettres Juives, lettre 23.
s neither
Chap. XXI.
1
their Need of a Divine Revelation.
475.
« neither man can receive, nor God beſtow, any thing greater
and more venerable than truth.”. Where, allowing for the
polytheiſtical manner of expreſſion, he plainly ſhews the ſenſe he
had both of the importance of the knowledge of divine things,
and that this knowledge muſt come to us from God. lamblichus,
in his life of Pythagoras, ſpeaking of the principles of divine wor-
ſhip, faith, “ It is manifeſt that thoſe things are to be done which
are pleaſing to God: but what they are it is not eaſy to know,
except a man were taught them by. God himſelf, or by ſome
perſon who had received them from God, or obtained the
knowledge of them by ſome divine means (6).” Indeed all the
latter Platonifts and Pythagoreans, Porphyry, lamblichus, Hiero-
cles; Proclus, &c. though enemies to Chriſtianity, owned the
neceſſity of divine illumination, or a revelation from God, to lead
men into the knowledge of divine truth, and an acceptable way
of worſhipping the Deity. But they did not make a right uſe of
this principle. Inſtead of embracing the Revelation which God
had really given, and which was confirmed by the moſt illuſtri-
ous divine atteſtationos. they fought to be initiated into the myſte-
ries of the gods in ſeveral parts of the world, and applied them-
ſelves to what they called Theurgy, which had in it a mixture
of magical ceremonies, and by which they propoſed to obtain an
intimate intercourſe and communication with the gods. But in a
little time the vanity of their pretenſions became manifeſt to all,
and the world heard of them no more.
(5) Iambl. in Vit. Pythag. cap. 28.
Ppp 2
CHAP
476
Chriſtianity the laſt and moſt perfect Revelation. Part I.
CH A P.
XXII: :
The fifth and laſt general reflection. The Chriſtian Revelation füited.
to the neceſſities of mankind. The glorious change it wrought in
the face of things, and in the ſtate of religion in the world ;
yet accomplified by the ſeemingly meaneſt inſtruments, sin oppoſition
to the greateſt difficulties. It was given in the fitteſt ſeaſon, and
attended with the moſt convincing' evidences of a divine original.
Hoto thankful ſhould we be for the falutary light it brings, and
bow careful to improve it! What an advantage it is to have thes
Holy Scriptures in our hands, and the neceſſity' there is of keeping
cloſe to the ſacred rule there ſet before us, in order to the preſerving
the Chriſtian Religion in its purity and fimplicity.
T
HE ſtate of religion in the Pagan world being in that
deplorable condition which hath been deſcribed, and it
having appeared from experience, after a long trial, that human
wiſdom and reaſon, if left to itſelf, was-inſufficient to recover and
réform mankind; it pleaſed God in his great goodneſs to giant
a Revelation from heaven, which was deſigned to be publiſhed to
the Heathen nations, and confirmed by the moſt convincing evi-
dences of a divine authority. It was by a Revelation from God
that religion in its principali fundamental articles was at firſt com-
municated to the human race; and' wlien they had almoſt uni-
verſally fallen from it, there was need of a new Divine Revela-
tion, all other methods having been found ineffectual. It is true,
that the Revelation contained in the writings of Moſes and the.
Pro
Chap. XXH. Chriſtianity the laſt and moſt perfe&t Revelation. 477
Prophets, was excellently fitted to ſet thoſe to whom it was made
known right, in what related to the knowledge and adoration of.
the one living and true God, the great Creator and Governor of
the univerſe in oppoſition to all idolatry and polytheiſm : and it
has been thewn that in this reſpect it was of great advantage not.
only to the Jews, but to many of the Gentiles among whom they
were diſperſed, and who thereby had an opportunity given them
of being convinced of the impiety and abſurdity of the common
idolatry. But then it muſt be conſidered that the Jewiſh Revela-
tion was immediately promulgated to one particular nation, and
fitted in a ſpecial manner for their uſe; and that nation was by
many peculiar rites and uſages kept diſtinct from all others. This,
though neceſſary at that time and in that ſtate of things, for valu-
able purpoſes (i), yet contributed to render them unpopular, and
to create a prejudice againſt them in other nations. To which it
may be added, that there were ſome things of importance for
men to know, the full diſcovery of which was by the Divine
Wiſdom reſerved for a ſubſequent Revelation, which in its origi-
nal frame and intention was deſigned for univerſal uſe, and to be
publiſhed to all nations.
And indeed the whole Jewiſh economy
was fo contrived as to prepare the way for that more perfect diſ-
penſation which was to ſucceed it. Its rites and ordinances were
(i) Without thoſe peculiar diſtinctive rites, the Jews would probably have been
confounded with other nations, and involved in the common idolatry to which for
a long time they were very prone. But when they were fully eſtabliſlied in the
worſhip of the one true God in oppoſition to all idolatry, and the appointed time
was come for introducing that laſt and moſt perfect diſpenſation of religion, to which
the Jewiſh oeconomy was deſigned to be preparatory, thoſe diſtinctive rites, which
were as a partition wall between Jews.and Gentiles, were to be ſet aſide, that they
might all be one in Chriſt Jeſus.
not:
:
478
1
Chriſtianity the laſt and moſt perfe&t Revelation. Part I.
not only accommodated to the time then preſent, and to that ſtate
of the church, but ſome of them were originally intended to be
preſignificative of good things to come, which were to be accom-
pliſhed in the fitteſt ſeaſon. There had been all along a tradition
preſerved among the people of Iſrael, derived to them from the
earlieſt
ages, concerning a glorious perſon, whoſe coming was to
be of univerſal benefit, and in whom all the families of the earth
were to be bleſſed. This tradition ran through their ſacred wri-
tings, and was the ſubject of many expreſs predictions. Not only
was it declared, that he was to proceed out of their nation, but
the particular tribe, and even the houſe and family from which
he was to ſpring, the place of his nativity, and the time when he
was to make his appearance in the world, were diſtinctly pointed
out. He was alſo deſcribed by many remarkable characters,
fome of them ſeemingly inconſiſtent with each other, which yet
in him were all punctually fulfilled. It was clearly and exprelly
foretold, that through him the Heathen nations ſhould be con-
verted from their idolatry and polytheiſm, and brought to the
acknowledgment and adoration of the one true God; that the
Gentiles ſhould receive his law; that in him ſhould they put their
truſt, and that the idols ſhould be aboliſhed. The predictions
concerning him were delivered by different perſons, at different
times, and in divers manners, through a long ſucceſſion of ages.
Things being thus prepared, at the time which had been marked
out by thoſe prophecies, a Divine Perſon appeared, in whom all theſe
characters were wonderfully united, and which never met together
in
any other. This yielded a peculiar kind of atteſtation to him,
never equalled in any other caſe.
other caſe. Beſides which, his Divine Mif-
fion
2
!
Chap. XXII. Chriſtianity the laſt and moſt perfe&t Revelation. 479
fion was demonſtrated by a ſeries of aſtoniſhing miracles, which
he performed, and enabled his diſciples to perform in his name;
as alſo by his reſurrection from the dead and aſcenſion into hea-
ven, and by the unparalleled effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt in his
extraordinary gifts and powers upon his diſciples, and thoſe that
believed on him, as he himſelf had promiſed and foretold. This
was the glorious and admirable Perſon, by whom it pleaſed God
to make the moſt perfect Revelation of his will to mankind. It
could not poſſibly be ſent by a more illuſtrious meſſenger, or
whoſe divine miſſion was atteſted and confirmed by more con-
vincing evidence. And the Revelation he brought from heaven
was ſuch in every reſpect as the ſtate of the world required. He
exhibited the moſt pure and perfect rule of moral duty in all its
juſt extent, which was then much wanted, and which he en-
forced by the moſt powerful ſanctions, and by a divine authority,
at the ſame time giving the moſt perfect example of univerſal
holineſs and goodneſs in his own ſacred life and practice. He
alſo made the fulleſt diſcoveries of the general judgment, and of
the important retributions of a. future ſtate, the notions of which
were greatly obſcured and defaced through the corruption of man-
kind, and the falſe reaſonings of men pretending to wiſdom and
philoſophy. And whereas the whole world was become guilty
before God, and obnoxious to his juſt wrath on the account of
their apoſtaſy from him, and their many aggravated tranſgreſſions,
he came in the name of God to reveal the counſels of his wiſdom
and love for reconciling finners to himſelf. He gave the fulleſt
aſſurance of the remiſſion of all their fins to the truly penitent,
and that God would in his rich grace and mercy, through the
Redeemer
480
Chriſtianity the laſt and moſt perfe&t Revelation. Part I.
Redeemer whom he had appointed, crown their fincere though
imperfect obedience with a bleſſed reſurrection and eternal life.
And that this grace of God might not be abuſed, the moſt awful
puniſhments were at the ſame time denounced againſt thoſe that
ſhould obſtinately perſiſt in a courſe of preſumptuous fin and dif-
obedience. Theſe were things of the higheſt importance to man-
kind, and proper matter for a Divine Revelation. But that which
iny preſent ſubject leads me eſpecially to conſider is, that the
Chriſtian Revelation was admirably fitted to recover the nations
from that 'ignorance of God, that idolatry and polytheiſm in
which they were fo generally involved, to the right knowledge
and
pure
adoration of the only true God, the great Creator and
Governor of the world. The cleareft difcoveries are there made
of his infinite majeſty and incomparable perfections, of his having
created this vaſt univerſe by the Word of his power, of his govern-
ing Providence as extending to all events, and eſpecially of his
moral excellencies and attributes, his holineſs, goodneſs, juſtice,
and truth. Theſe diſcoveries are of ſuch a nature as have a
manifeſt tendency to lead men to form the moſt juſt and worthy
notions of God, and to inſpire them with holy affections and diſ-
poſitions towards him, a ſuperlative love, a pious and profound
fear and reverence, an unreſerved ſubmiſſion to his authority, and
reſignation to his will, and an ingenuous truſt and affiance in
him.
To make us farther ſenſible of the advantages which the Goſpel-
Revelation brought to mankind, let us conſider that the Heathens
are repreſented in Scripture as having been under the power of
Satan
Chap, XXII. Chriſtianity.the laſt and moſt perfect Revelation. 481
Satan. Notwithſtanding the diſcoveries made to them both by
antient tradition; originally derived from Divine Revelation, and by
the works of Creation and Providence, they had revolted from the
knowledge and worſhip of the one living and true God, and by this
their apoſtaſy from God. had in effect put themſelves under the
power of that apoſtate ſpirit, and the evil angels his aſſociates. In
the former part of this work full proof was given that in the Pagan
world worſhip was paid to evil beings conſidered as ſuch (k).
We
are aſſured by the authority of St. Paul, that the “ things which the
« Gentiles ſacrificed they ſacrificed unto dæmons ;” and the word
is generally taken in a bad ſenſe in the ſacred writings (?). The
ſame thing is ſaid by Pagan authors of the beſt credit. Plutarch
exprefly aſſerts, that many of the rites of worſhip, uſual among
the Heathens, ſeveral of which he mentions, were deſigned to
placate and gratify evil and malignant dæmons. And particularly
he charges thoſe as evil dæmons, to whom human ſacrifices were
thought to be acceptable. And it admits of an eaſy proof, that
there were ſcarce any of the Heathen deities to whom ſuch facri-
ins
(k) See above, chap. v. p. 148, et ſeq.
(1) Origen expreſſes the general ſenſe of the primitive Chriſtians, when he de-
clares, thật " the worſhip of thoſe called gods is the worſhip of dæmons.--For all
« the gods of the nations are demons--θεραπεία δαιμόνων θεραπεία των ονομαζομένων
“ gewv. Távtes yâp oi Deol Tūv powy daluónia." This is taken from Pſalm xcv. 5. ac-
cording to the Septuagint, and all the antient Chriſtian writers apply this paſſage of
the Pſalmiſt to the Heathen deities. Origen goes on to obſerve, that “ the Chri-
“ ſtians fhun the worſhip of dæmons as pernicious and deſtructive, ús öredpov.” And
adds, “ we ſay that all that which is called among the Greeks the worſhip of the
“ gods, and which they ſolemnized by altars, ſtatues, and temples, is the worſhip
« of demons -- δαιμόνων δε θεραπείας είναι φάμεν πάσαν την νομιζομένην, παρ' “Έλλησι σαρά
** βωμούς και αγάλμασι και ναούς θεών θρησκείαν. Contra Celf. lib. vii. p. 378.”
VOL. I.
fices
Qq9
482
Cliriſtianity deſigned to overturn
Part I.
fices were not offered, not excepting Jupiter the chief of them.
Several oracles. might be mentioned, which exprefly demanded hu-
man facrifices. So-alſo did the Sibylline oracles on ſeveral occa-
fions, which the Romans held in the greateſt veneration (m). And
indeed ſuch ſacrifices continued to be offered even in the civilized
nations of Greece and Rome, at leaſt on ſome ſpecial occafions.
till the coming of our Saviour, and for ſome time after (in).
Porphyry, whoſe oppoſition to Chriſtianity; and attachment to
Paganifin is well known, goes. ſo far as-to pronounce Serapis the
chief of the Egyptian deities, and whom the people worſhipped
as the higheſt God, to have been the prince of the evil dæmons (C)..
That learned.philoſopher, as was obſerved before, fays, that evil:
dæmons were very deſirous to have divine worſhip and facrifices
sendered to them, and he not only acknowledges that they were
worſhipped, but endeavours to juſtify that practice, as neceſſary
for averting their wrath, and obtaining from them worldly good:
things. The ſame. Porphyry, as.cited by Eufebius, produces an
oracle of Apollo preſcribing facrifices to be firſt offered to an evil.
dæmon, to prepare the way for being admitted to an immediate
fight of the deity (R). To deftroy this kingdom of Satan erected. .
among the Gentiles,, to aboliſh the worſhip of their idol-deities,
and erect the viſible kingdoin and pure worſhip of the one living;
and true God among men, was one glorious deſign of the Goſpel.
1
(7) Plutarchi Rom: Quæft, Quæfts. 83, Oper. tom. i. p. 284. A. Francof..
(22). See a fuller account of this above, chap. vii.
(6) Apud Euſeb: Præp. Evangel..lib. ix. cap. 23.
6) Ibid. lib. iv. cap. 20.
of.
Chap. XXII. Satan's viſible Kingdom among Men. *83
1
of Jeſus. In this, as well as in other reſpects, it was certainly
true, that, “ for this purpoſe the Son of God was manifeſted that
" he might deſtroy the works of the devil.” 1 John iii. 8. For
this end he commiſſioned his Apoſtles to go “ preach the Goſpel
" to all nations, and to turn them from darkneſs unto light, and
" from the power of Satan unto God.” Acts xxvi. 17, 18. A
mighty deſign this to be executed by ſach ſeemingly mean and
feeble inftruments! But fo it was ordered, that “ the excellency
« of the power might appear to be of God, and not of men."
2 Cor. iv.
7 The uſurped empire and dominion of Satan, found-
ed in idolatry and polytheiſm, ſeemed to be firmly eſtabliſhed in
the Heathen world. It had ſtood for many ages, and had long
preſcription to plead : it had the prejudices of the people on its
fide (9): and was ſtrengthened and upheld by the power and
authority of the magiſtrates, by the arts and ſubtilty of the politi-
cians;
(9) What regard was had to the tradition of their anceſtors, and the religion of
their country, not only among the vulgar Pagans, but among the philoſophers
themſelves, and how prophane and impious à thing it was accounted to call it in
queſtion, or ſo much as to aſk a reafon for it, appears from a remarkable paſſage in
Plutarch's Amatorius. When one of the company, whom he calls Pemptides, de-
fires to be informed on what account Love came to be made a deity, another of the
dialogiſts, who bears a principal part in the converſation, and who ſeems to exprefs
Plutarch's own ſentiments, gravely ſays to him; "you ſeem to me to have attempted
to ſtir things which ought not to be moved with regard to the opinion con-
* cerning the gods, when you demand a reaſon and demonſtration for every thing
+ in particular. For the faith of our forefathers and of our country is ſufficient
“ for us, than which we cannot utter or invent a more evident argument.--For
“ this is a foundation and baſis common to all piety; and if once its firmneſs and
“ eſtabliſhed rule be diſturbed and ſhaken in any one inſtance, it becomes uncertain
* and fufpected in all *." This way of thinking and talking was a bar to all at-
* Plutarch. Oper. tom. II. p. 758. Francof, 16201
Q992
;
tempts
484 The Difficulties Chriſtianity had to encounter with; Part Porn
.
;
cians; the craft and influence of the idolatrous prieſts, and the
learning and eloquence of the philoſophers and wiſe men of this
world. It was interwoven with the civil conftitution, and regarded
as eſſential to the proſperity and happineſs of the ſtate. It was
guarded with all the powers and all the terrors of the world on
the one hand, and all its pomps and allurements on the other
and came recommended by every thing which was apt to flatter
men's vices and their paſſions, their ambition and ſenſuality. And
yet no ſooner were the firſt publiſhers of the Goſpel ſent forth, in
the name and by the ſpirit of a crucified- Jeſus, but Satan's viſible
empire received a ſenſible ſhock. Never was there a more ſudden
and glorious change than Chriſtianity wrought foon after its firſt
appearance in the world. Thouſands were every-where-turned
from idols to ſerve the living and true God; delivered from the
power of darkneſs, and tranſlated into the kingdom of his dear
Son. The old idolatrous worſhip and the long-adored deities fell:
into contempt: the idol temples.foon began to be in a great mea-
ſure forſaken, and the boaſted oracles, whereby the nations had
been ſo long kept under the power, of deluſion, were ſtruck,
dumb (r). Inſtead of the many gods and many lords which were
acknowledged and adored among the Heathens, they were now,
brought
tempts for the reformation of the Pagan" religion. Every endeavour of this kind
was looked upon as a high degree of impiety'and prophanenefs. - A manifeſt proof
what difficulties Chriſtianity at its firſt promulgation had to encounter with, both
from the learned and the vulgar.
(r) That'the oracles were ſilenced about or ſoon after the time of our Saivour's
appearing, may be proved from expreſs teſtimonies, not only of Chriſtian but of
Heathen authors. Lucan, who writ his Pharfalia in the reign of Nero, ſcarce thirty
years
Chap. XXII. and the Change it wrought in the Gentile World. 485
brought in great numbers to acknowledge and adore “ one God
“ the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one
« Lord. Jeſus Chrift, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
Inſtead of the many abſurd and impious rites of the Pagan wor:
ſhip, they were inſtructed to worſhip God, who is an infinite fpirit;
in ſpirit and in truth, in a.pure and ſpiritual manner. Many
there were who in every place lifted up to God pure and holy
hands, and offered up to him; through the great Mediator of his
own appointment, the ſpiritual ſacrifices of prayer and praiſe:
The light of the Goſpel ſpread far and wide with a wonderful
ſwiftneſs even in the firſt age; ſo that St. Paul repreſents it as
having gone into the whole world, Col. i. 6. 23. Rom. x. 18.
And this was what our Saviour himſelf exprelly foretold, at a time
years after our Lord's crucifixion, laments it as one of the greateſt misfortunes of
that age, that the Delphian oracle, which he repreſents as one of the choiceſt gifts.
of the gods, was become ſilent.
« Non ullo fæcula döno
“ Noſtra carent majore. Deûm, quàm Delphica ſedes
" Quod fileat."
Pharſal. lib. v: verf. III,
In like manner Juvenal ſays,
« Delphis oracula ceſſant,
66.. Et genus humanum damnat caligo futuri.”
Satyr. vi. verf. 544
Lucian fays, that when he was at Delphi the oracle gave no anſwers, nor was the
prieſteſs inſpired. See his Phalaris, Oper, tom. i. p. 745. Amſtel. This likewiſe
appears. from Plutarch's treatiſe, Why the Oracles ceafe' to give Anſwers; from
whence alſo it is manifeſt, that the moſt learned Heathens were very much at a lofs
how to give a tolerable account of it. . Porphyry, in a paſſage cited from him by
Euſebius, ſays, “- The city of Rome was' over-run with ſickneſs, Æſculapius and
" the reſt of the gods having withdrawn their converſe with inen: for that ſince
Jeſus began to be worſhipped, no man had received any public help or benefit
66 from the gods *.
* Apud Eiſeb.. Piæp. Evangel. lib. V, cap. I. p. 1794
when
486
The furprizing Propagation of
Part 1
when nothing could be more contrary to all human probability,
Matt. xxiv. 14 Tacitus ſpeaks of a “ huge multitude multi-
- tudo ingens," of Chriſtians at Rome, in a paffage where he dif-
covers the ſtrongeſt prejudice againſt them; and he alſo gives an
account of a great variety of torments and ſufferings, to which,
through the cruelty of Nero, they were expoſed (s). This hap-
pened in a little inore than thirty years after our Lord's paſſion.
And it appears from Pliny's celebrated epiſtle to Trajan, written
about ſeventy years after the ſame great event, how numerous the
Chriſtians were in his time. He ſays, there were many of all
ranks and ages, both men and women, who profeſſed themſelves
Chriſtians : that the contagion of this ſuperſtition had ſpread not
only through the cities, but the towns and country villages : that
the temples had been almoſt left deſolate, the holy rites and cere-
monies had been long neglected, and that very few would buy
the facrifices. He ſhews the ſtrength of his prejudices againſt
Chriſtianity by calling it a wicked and immoderate ſuperſtition ;
and yet gives a noble teſtimony to the innocency of their man-
ners; and makes the ſum of their fault or error to conſiſt in this,
that they were wont to meet on a ſtated day before it was light,
and to ſing hymns to Chriſt as to a God, and to oblige themſelves
by an oath not to commit any wickedneſs, but to abſtain from
theft, robbery, and adultery, to keep faith, and to reſtore any
pledge that was intruſted to them. He alſo bears teſtimony to
their fortitude and conſtancy, which he calls inflexible obſtinacy;
and that it was ſaid, none who were true Chriſtians can be com-
pelled to offer wine or frankincenſe to the gods, or to blaſpheme
1
(s) Tacit. Annal. lib. xiv.
Chriſt
Chap. XXII.
Chriftianity among the Gentiler:
484
+
Chriſt(t). Juſtin Martyr, who lived pretty early in the following
age; fays, in a paſſage cited before, that there was no part of man-
kind, whether Greeks or Barbarians, among whom prayers and
thankſgivings were not offered to the Father and Maker of the
univerſe in the name of a crucified Jeſus.
This wonderful change in the face of things, and in the ſtate:
of religion in the Heathen world, was brought about by the
preaching of the Goſpel, “ God bearing witneſs” to the firſt pub-
liſhers of Chriſtianity “ with ſigns and wonders, and divers mi-
“ racles and gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, according to his own will,”
Heb. ii.- 4. Theſe were the vifible tokens of a divine interpoſition,
and awakened the attention of mankind to behold and adore the
power and majeſty of the only true God. They ſaw all the pre-
tended wonders of their idol deities infinitely outdone. They ſaw
the firſt preachers of the goſpel, though in themſelves weak and
contemptible to all outward appearance, and deſtitute of all world-
ly advantages, endued with ſuch power from on high, that they
not only performed the moſt extraordinary works, manifeſtly
tranſcending the power or ſkill of any man, or of all the men upon:
earth, but evil ſpirits were ſubject to them in the name of Jeſus.
Theſe were facts not done in a corner, but in the open view of
the world, and of enemies ſtrongly prejudiced againſt them. Sa-
tan was as it were. led in triumph by our Saviour, who gave even
his ſervants power over him. In contemplation of this our Lord
expreſſeth himſelf thus, “ I beheld Satan as lightning fall fromy
heaven,” Luke x. 18. He had pretended to have his throne in
1
.
(6) Plin. Epiſt. lib. x. epiſt. 977
Save
beayen,
!
488
The Chriſtian Revelation publiſhed
Part I.
heaven, and to arrogate divine honours. But now he was caſt
down froin his aſſumed divinity, and a viſible church or king-
dom was erected to God in thoſe nations where Satan had erected
a kingdoin of darkneſs before.
Upon the whole, the Chriſtian Revelation was made known to
the world at a time when it was moſt wanted; when the dark-
neſs and corruption of mankind were arrived at the height, and
there were but few traces of the antient primitive religion remain-
ing among the nations. If it had been publiſhed much ſooner,
and before there had been a full trial made of what was to be ex-
pected from human wiſdom and philoſopløy, the great need men
ſtood in of ſuch an extraordinary divine diſpenſation would not
have been fo apparent. “It might have been ſaid, that it was in-
troduced in illiterate and 'uncultivated ages, which was a ſuſpicious
circumſtance. Beſides; it would have been deprived of the great
advantage ariſing from the preparatory Jewiſh æconomy, and
from a ſeries of illuſtrious prophecies continued for many ages,
all pointing to that wonderful perſon who was appointed by the
divine wiſdom and goodneſs to be the great Teacher and Saviour
of mankind. To which it may be added, that the Chriſtian reve-
lation made its firſt appearance at a time when the Roman empire
had brought the greateſt part of the known world under its do-
minion. It was firſt publiſhed among the nations belonging to
that empire, which was then the moſt knowing and civilized part
of the earth, and from whence it might moſt conveniently be pro-
pagated to other nations. Accompanied with the moſt illuſtrious
and convincing proofs and evidences of a divine power, preſence,
!
3
and
Chap. XXII.
to the World in the fitteſt Seaſon.
489
and glory, and carrying in it remarkable internal characters of
truth, goodneſs, and purity, it foon made a ſurprizing progreſs,
notwithſtanding the ſeemingly unſurmountable obſtacles it had to
encounter with (1), till at length the whole ſyſtem of Paganiſm,
which ſeemed ſo ſtrongly eſtabliſhed, and which had prevailed for
ſo many ages, fell before it. This religion hath extended very
far, and if Chriſtians had been duly careful both to preſerve it in
its purity, and to propagate and recommend it by their inſtructions
and example, to which they are bound by the ſtrongeſt obligations,
it would probably before now have been univerſally known and
diffuſed. What farther extraordinary means it may pleaſe God
in his great wiſdom and goodneſs to make uſe of for diffuſing
and eſtabliſhing true religion in the world, we cannot tell. But
ſomething of this kind we are taught to expect by ſeveral paſſages
of Scripture, which ſeem plainly to refer to a future general con-
yerſion of the Jews to the Chriſtian faith, and to the bringing in
the fulneſs of the Gentiles (x). And whenever this ſhall hap-
pen, it will diſcloſe a ſurprizing ſcene, which will fill us with a
pleaſing aſtoniſhment, and tend mightily to illuſtrate the glory of
Divine Providence.
(21) The difficulties and obſtacles Chriſtianity had to ſtruggle with are repreſented
in an elegant and ſtriking manner by Mr. Weft, in his excellent “ Obſervations on
“ the Hiſtory and Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt.”
.
(x) The ingenious author of the Lettres Juives, ſpeaking in the perſon of a Jew,
acknowledges the piety and zeal of the firſt Nazarenes, who ſhed their blood to draw
mankind from idolatry; and that if the unity of God is known throughout the
whole world, it is to them that it is principally owing. « Il faut avouer que c'etoi-
“ ent de grands hommes qui verſerent leur ſang pour retirer les hommes de l'ido-
6 latrie : et ſi l'unitè de Dieu eſt connu dans l'univers entier, c'eſt a eux a qui op
" eſt ſingulierement redevable."
Vol. I.
Rrr
In
1
1
490
The Advantages we enjoy
Part I.
In the mean time let us be thankful to God for the advantages
we enjoy by the Goſpel for religious and moral improvement.
« How great and admirable,” ſaith Euſebius, “ ſhould the Goſpel
ss of our Saviour Jefus Chriſt appear to us, which inſtructs the
« whole race of mankind to worſhip with becoming thoughts and
to devotion the God and Lord of the ſun and moon, the Creator of
" the whole world, and who is himſelf above and beyond the
sc univerſe : to praiſe and celebrate not the elements of bodies,
* but the Diſpenſer of life, of food, and of all good things : and
in no wiſe to worſhip the viſible parts of the world, or any thing
is that is perceivable by the fleſhly fenſe, fince every ſuch thing is
e of a corruptible nature; but to adore that Mind alone, which
* being in itſelf inviſible is preſent in all theſe things, and is the
66 Architect both of the whole univerſe and every part of it, and
« which, fhewing forth the wonderful virtue and greatneſs of its
os Divinity, in all things both in heaven and in earth, governeth
“ the whole world in a manner not to be perceived by our ſenfes,
and by reaſons of wiſdom which no language can expreſs (y)!"
ܘܪ
beton
1
In order to our making a right uſe of the advantages we enjoy
by the Goſpel Revelation, let us fet a high value on the Holy
Scriptures, and adhere to them as the great rule of our faith and
practice. They are acknowledged by all Chriſtians to be of divine
authority. They contain the original Records of our holy religion,
and of the revelation that was brought from heaven, as delivered
in its primitive purity and ſimplicity by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt and
his apoſtles. If we would form a juſt idea of Chriſtianity, free
(y) Euſeb. Præpar. Evangel. lib. iii. cap. 6. p. 96, 97. Paris 1628.
from
Chap. XXII.
49:1
by the Goſpel Revelation.
from all the additions and corruptions, which were afterwards
brought into it, we muſt carefully conſult thoſe divine oracles,
Happy would it have been for the Chriſtian church, if they had all
along kept cloſe to that ſacred rule. They would not then have
fallen into thoſe groſs corruptions in doctrine, worship, and prac-
tice, which have created prejudices in the minds of many againſt
Chriſtianity, and from which infidels have taken occaſion to form
their moſt plauſible objections: though in reality theſe things can-
not be juſtly charged upon the religion of Jeſus as delivered in the
Holy Scriptures. It is however the mighty advantage of a written
Revelation, that by an impartial conſulting it the deviations from
it may be detected, and things may be again reduced to the ori-
ginal ſtandard. By means of the Scriptures, even the vulgar
themſelves may be ſufficiently inſtructed in the moſt important ar-
ticles of religion, and may be provided with a proper remedy,
both againſt the impoſitions of deſigning men, and againſt idolatry
in all its forms, though covered over with the moſt ſpecious pre-
tences. Euſebius juſtly reckons it among the advantages for which
we ought to have a high eſteem for the Goſpel Revelation, that
thereby books and doctrines, which contain rules of conſummate
virtue, and tend to form the manners to true piety, are delivered
to men, women, and children, and are publicly read and ex,
plained for the uſe of all (x).
If we have now the knowledge of the only true God, if not
only men of great learning and deep ſpeculation, but thouſands of
the people in Chriſtian nations have a juſter ņotion of God, of his
(x) Præpar. Evangel. lib. V. cap. I p. 181.
Rrr 2
Providence,
492
The Advantages we enjay by the Goſpel Revelation. Part I
*
Providence, and of the worſhip that is due to him, in oppoſition
to all idolatry and polytheiſm, than even the wiſe men and philo-
· ſophers among the Pagans, to what can this fo properly be aſcrib-
ed, as to the light of Divine. Revelation which ſhineth amongſt
us? How thankful therefore ſhould we be to God, and how de-
firous to Thew. forth his.praiſes and virtues, who hath, in his grace
and mercy, called us out of darkneſs into his marvellous-light!
Surely we ſhould regard the having the Holy Scriptures in our
hands as the greateſt and moſt valuable of all our privileges. And
it highly concerneth us to endeavour to adorn the doctrine of God
our Saviour, by walking in a holy exemplary converſation, be-
coming the Goſpel of Chriſt. And the obligations we are under
to do this will farther appear, if it be conſidered, that we are
thereby not only inſtructed in the right knowledge and worſhip
of the only true God in oppoſition to all idolatry and polytheiſm,
but we have alſo a perfect rule of moral duty ſet before us in all
its juſt extent, and enforced by a divine authority, and by the
moſt powerful and engaging motives; and that we have alſo the
fulleſt diſcoveries there made to us of a future ſtate of retributions,
and the great important realities of an unſeen eternal world. And
that in both theſe reſpects the nations ſtood in great need of an
extraordinary Divine Revelation, eſpecially about the time of our
Saviour's appearing, is what I propofe to fhew in the remaining
part of this work.
The End of PART I,
.:
I N
N D E X
1
TO THE
FI R S T V O L U M E.
The Letter N. refers to the Notes at the Bottom of the Page.
A.
A A
BRAHAM-was at firſt an idolater, and in what ſenſe he was ſo, Page 75.
He afterwards endeavoured, according to the Oriental writers, to promote a:
reformation of religion among the Chaldeans, 76.—was regarded as a prophet
among the Canaanites and Egyptians, ibid. His fame ſpread far and wide, eſpe-
cially among the people of the Eaſt, 435. Nations proceeding from him for a long
time retained fome knowledge of the one true God, 436.
Academics—thoſe of what was called the New Academy held, that ſome things are
more probable than others ; in which they differed from the Pyrrhonians; yet in
reality agreed with them, that there is no certainty to be attained to, and that we
ought always to with-hold our aſſent, 268. They and other Sceptics are repre-
fented by Epictetus as the moſt incorrigible of all men, and unfit to be reaſoned
with, 269.
Alexandria-a celebrated ſchool of philoſophers eſtabliſhed there after Chriſtianity had
made ſome progreſs in the world, 470. There was a mixture of Chriſtians and
Pagans in that ſchool, 471. Several things in the philoſophy taught there were
borrowed from the Sacred Writings, ibid. See Ammonius.
Allegories-- The Stoics and other philoſophers endeavoured to turn the traditionary
fables concerning the gods into phyſical allegories, 164. See alſo 130. 369, 370.
Altar-erected at Athens to the unknown God, 416. Altars of this kind in many
places, ibid. N.
America, People of-generally have a notion, according to Acoſta, of one Supreme
God, who is perfectly good; but many of them confound him with the fun, 91,
They worſhip an evil being or beings, for fear of being hurt by them, ibid. et 153.
Ammonius Saccas-a famous preſident of the Alexandrian ſchool, lived and died a
Chriſtian, according to Euſebius and St. Jerome, 471.-was born and educated
under Chriſtian parents, according to Porphyry, but afterwards embraced Paganiſm:
and
I N D
X,
E
}
and from him were derived the philoſophers of what was called the Sacred Succel-
fon, ibid. He mixed with his philoſophy ſeveral things originally derived from
the Holy Scriptures, ibid.
Anaxagoras---was accuſed at Athens of impiety becauſe he held the ſun, moon, and
ftars to be inanimate bodies, 100--ſeverely cenſured on that account by Socrates
and Plato, ibid. He was the firſt of the Greek philoſophers who clearly aſſerted
Gód to be an infinite mind, abſolutely feparare froin matter, 277, 288. He held
matter to be eternal, but that mind was the cauſe of the regular order of things,
289. 311-yet he himſelf did not make a right uſe and application of this prin-
ciple in accounting for the phænomena of nature, which he aſcribed to material
cauſes; and for this he is blamed by Socrates, 289. His account of the formation
of animals not much different from that of Epicurus, ibid.
Antiquities, extravagant-of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Chineſe, fabulous, and
not to be depended upon, 73.
Antoninus, Marcus—the emperor and philoſopher, holds that the world is God; 321.
—and that the human ſoul is a portion of the Divine Eſſence, ibid. N.-generally
expreſſes himſelf in the polytheiſtic ſtrain ; and repreſents the gods as the authors
and orderers of all things, 336, et feq. He was zealous and diligent in the ob-
fervation of the Pagan rites and ceremonies, 356, 357. 468.
Arabians-Noble notions of the Deity and of Religion among them in the days of
Job, 77. Yet in his time many of them fell into the idolatrous worſhip of the
heavenly bodies, ibid. et 98.
Aratus The paſſage produced from him to ſhew, that the Heathen Jupiter was the
one true Supreme God, conſidered, 418, 419.
Ariſtotle-mentions it as an antient tradition, that the ſtars are gods; and obſerves,
that the repreſenting the gods in the forms of men and other animals, was added
afterwards, for political purpoſes, 99, et 463.-aſferts one eternal firſt Mover,
whom he calls the Supreme God; but that the ſtars are alſo true eternal deities,
296, 297. He taught the eternity of the world both in its matter and form, and
in this was generally followed by the Peripatetics and latter Platoniſts, 311, 312--
denied that Providence extendeth its care to things below the moon, 390. N.
Arnobius repreſents the pernicious effects of the vicious examples of the Heathen
deities, 133~-obſerves, that any man would be puniſhed that ſhould charge a
magiſtrate or ſenator with ſuch actions as were aſcribed to their gods, 178-gives
a long account of the impurities of their worſhip, 192-makes a very unfavour-
able repreſentation of the Eleuſinian myſteries, 246.
Allyrians--gave the name of Adad to the higheſt God, and by him underſtood the
ſun: they alſo worſhipped a goddeſs called Adargatis, i. e. the earth ; and to theſe
two aſcribed the power over all things, 104.
Athenians--condemned Anaxagoras for ſaying, that the ſun is a body of fire, and the
moon an habitable earth, 100-yet they ſhewed no reſentment againſt Epicurus
and other philoſophers who aſcribed the formation of the world to chance, 278.
6
They
I
E. X.
N
D
1
They had a great zeal for the myſteries, 241-were exceſſively addicted to ſuper-
ftition and idolatry, 242. St. Paul ſuppoſes the true God to be unknown to
them, 416, 417, et ſeq.
Atteſtations, extraordinary-given to the Divinity of our Saviour's miſſion, and to
the truth of Chriſtianity, 478, 479.
Auguſtin, St.-offers ſeveral things to thew the cloſe connection there was between
the civil and poetical theology of the Pagans, 176, et ſeq.-obſerves, that the
theatrical plays made a part of the public religion of the Romans, and were ſup-
poſed to be acceptable to the gods, and fit means for appealing them, and avert-
ing their diſpleaſure, 177.
B
Banier, Abbè de-hews, that the fables of the antient mythology were not merely
allegorical, but originally founded upon hiſtorical facts, 112.
Bel-the chief deity of the Babylonians, and Baal of the Phoenicians, were uſed to ſig-
nify both a deified man and the ſun, 111, 112. Puniſhments denounced againſt
Bel by the prophets Iſaiah and Jeremiah, 126. This might probably have been
at firſt uſed as the name of the one Supreme God, but was afterwards transferred
to an idol, 311.
Bolingbroke, Lorddeclares, that man is a religious creature, and that this is his
chief præ-eminence above the brutes, 47-gives it as his opinion,' that the variety
of phænomena would be apt to lead the firſt men not to one firſt cauſe, but to
imagine a variety of cauſes, 53-owns, that the Pagans loft ſight of the one true
God, and ſuffered imaginary beings to intercept the worſhip due to him alone,
94. 172.
C.
Canaanites and Phænicians-It does not appear that they were generally idolaters,
when Abraham firſt came among them ; but they were over-run with idolatry and
polytheiſm in the days of Moſes, 76.
Capitolinus, Jupiter-worſhipped among the antient Romans as the chief deity of their
religion and laws; not the one true God, but the principal of their idol-deities, to
whom they aſcribed the peculiar titles and attributes of the Supreme God, 126, et
feq. et 174~the ſame with the Jupiter of the poets, 128, 129. See Jupiter.
Ceylon, the people of,--acknowledge one God to be ſupreme, but believe he does not
concern himſelf with human affairs ; they have prieſts and temples dedicated to
inferior deities, but none to the Supreme, 90, 91--they worſhip evil beings, 153.
Chaldeans and Aſyrians-were among the firſt corrupters of the moſt antient and
primitive religion, 75. 96-get the knowledge of the one true God was in fome de-
gree preſerved among them, and in Meſopotamia, for a conſiderable time, though
mixed with ſome idolatrous and ſuperſtitious uſages, 76. . According to Beroſus
they
1. X.
N DE E
A
they ſuppoſed Bel to be the maker of heaven and earth ; but Diodorus tells us, they
held the world to be eternal, and that it was neither generated nor liable to cor-
ruption, 311.
Gbaos--the tradition of the world's having been made out of a chaos, of univerſal ex-
tent, and derived from the firſt ages, 65. 80.
Chineſe--probably in the moſt antient times had the knowledge of the one true God,
but foon fell into idolatry, 74. They worſhipped, from a remote antiquity, the
heaven and earth, the ſun, moon, and ſtars, ibid. et 104. Their philoſophers have
a double doctrine, the one private for the uſe of the learned, the other popular for
political purpoſes, 261. N. Thoſe of the learned fedt in China generally atheiſts,
281. N. Their abſurd account of the origin of things, ibid. Held one univerſal
ſubſtance, and that all things are the ſame, 314. N.
Chriſtian Revelation-deſigned to promote the falvation of all, and therefore publiſhed
clearly and openly to the people, 26;—ſuited to the neceſſities of mankind, and
ſuch as their ſtate required, 479--admirably fitted to recover the nations from
their idolatry and polytheiſın to the right knowledge and worſhip of the one true
God, 480. It ſubverted the viſibie kingdom of Satan in the Heathen world, though
ſtrongly eſtabliſhed, 481, et ſeq. Chriſtianity had amazing difficulties to encounter
with at its firſt promulgation, yet through a divine power accompanying it, over-
came them all, 483, 484. The ſpeedy progreſs it made in the firſt age, and the
wonderful change it wrought in the face of religion among the nations, 485, et
feq.
It was publiſhed to the world when it was moſt wanted, and in the propereſt
ſeaſon, 488-fitted and deſigned to be promulgated to all nations, and in due time
fhail be fo, 489.
Chubb, Mr.mallows, that a Revelation is poſſible, and may be uſeful, but pretends
we have no way of knowing whether it be divine, 22.
Cicero-has many paſſages concerning the proofs of a deity from the works of nature,
84, 85--approves the paying divine honours to men that had been famous, and
worſhipping them as gods, 110-aſſerts, that the Dii majorum gentium, thoſe that
were accounted gods of the higher order, were taken from among men, 114, 115
- makes very free with the Pagan deities, but was not for doing this openly before
the people, leſt it ſhould prejudice the public religion, 199. His account of the
anyfteries conſidered, 208, 209. His books de Natura Deorum give an authentic
proof how much the greateſt mep among the Pagans were fallen from the know-
ledge of the one true God, 274. His notion of God ſeems to come neareſt to that
of the Stoics, 298. He will not allow that God created the matter out of which
heaven and earth was made, 306~expreſſes himſelf generally in the polytheiſtic
ſtrain, 330, et ſeq. In arguing for the exiſtence of God and a Providence, he leads
the people to a plurality of deities, 331, 332-in his treatiſe of laws preſcribes the
worſhip, not of one Supreme God, but of a plurality of gods, 361-paſſes an un-
reaſonable cenſure upon the Jewiſh religion, 448. Ņ.
Civil
I
N' D E X.
Civil thcology. See Theology.
Clemens Alexandrinus-- was well acquainted with the Pagan myſteries : the account
he gives of them much to their diſadvantage, 244, 245.
Conflagration of the world-The tradition concerning it was of great antiquity, and
ſpread generally among the nations, 65.
Confucius, the famous Chineſe philoſopher-was a great upholder of the antient fu-
perſtitions, and would not ſuffer the leaſt deviation from them, 362--ſeems to
have conſidered religion chiefly in a political view, ibid. et 363.
Coſmogony—or an account of the formation of the world, diſguiſed and corrupted by
turning it into a theogony, or an account of the generation of the gods. Such is
Heſiod's Theogony, which is a juinble of gods, heroes, and the things of nature
perſonified, 143.
Creation of the world_Many remarkable veſtiges of the hiſtory of the creation con-
tinued for a long time among the nations, 80, et ſeq.
Ludworth Dr.-obſerves that the Pagan theology was all along confounded with a
mixture of phyſiology and herology blended together, 117. 125. 137. His pre-
tence that the Jupiter of the Pagans-was the one true God, worſhipped both by the
philoſophers and the people, examined, 117, et ſeq. ſee alſo 412. He was fond
of the hypotheſis, that the different Pagan divinities were only different nanies and
manifellations of the one true God, 137-gives it as a general obſervation, that the
moſt refined Pagans agreed in two things; in crumbling the one ſimple deity into
parts, and in theologizing the whole world, and deifying the natures of things, acci-
dents, and inanimate bodies, 148-acknowledges that the civil theology of the Pagans
as well as the poetical, had not only many fantaſtic gods in it, but an appearance
of a plurality of independent deities, 173-aſſerts that all the Pagans were in one
reſpect or other coſmolaters, or world-worſhippers, 325. His apology for the Pagan
idolatry ſhewn to be inſufficient; and he himſelf paſſes a juſt cenſure upon it, as con-
founding God and the creature, 326-endeavours to prove from St. Paul's diſ-
courſe to the Athenians, that the generality.even of the vulgar Pagans worſhipped
the true God, the fame whom we adore, 410, et ſeq. He makes ſeveral conceſſions
in his book which are not well conſiſtent with his ſcheme, 431, 432.
D.
S
Dæmons-worſhip of evil dæmons very common in the Pagan world, 144, et ſeq. Ses
alſo 481, 482.
Deluge, univerſal-General tradition concerning it among the nations, 60. N. The
remembrance of it had a tendency to impreſs mens minds with the fear of God, and
a ſenſe of his Providence, 60, 61. The heads of families after the flood carried.
the main principles of religion into the ſeveral regions of their diſperſion, which
were never entirely extinguiſhed, 61, 62. The Eaſtern parts of the world were
VOL. I.
Sif
first
I N D E
E X.
1
firſt peopled and ſettled after the flood: there civil polities were firſt formed, and
the greateſt veſtiges of the antient religion were to be found. From thence know-
ledge was communicated to the Weſtern parts, 63, 64.
Diodorus Siculus--His account of the different way of philoſophizing among the Chal-
dæans and the Greeks, 64-blames the Greek philoſophers for leading men into per..
petual doubts, 272. In the account he gives of the Egyptian theology he takes
no notice of the Deity as having had any concern in the formation of things, 279.
Diogenes, the Cynick-his ſneer at the Pagan myſteries, 208. No
Dionyſius Halicarnaſſeus—His judicious cenſure on the Pagan mythology, 167, 168.
he highly commends the civil theology of the antient Romans, 170.
:
E.
EcleEtics--Pagan philoſophers: ſo called after our Saviour's coming, who profeſſed to:
ſelect that which was beſt out of the ſeveral fects of philoſophers, and to form it into
one body, 470.
Education and Inſtruction--neceſſary to give men juſt notions of natural religion, 8,
9-the great advantage of it ſhewn from Plato and Plutarch, ibid,
Egyptians-It does not appear that they were idolaters in the days of Abraham, nor
was their religion entirely corrupted in the time of Joſeph, 77. The pretence that
a great part of the Egyptian polytheiſm was nothing but the worſhipping the one
true God under different names and notions, examined, 137, 138. Egyptian animal
worſhip conſidered, 140. 153, et ſeq.--it was introduced under preſence of great
wiſdom, 155, 156. See alſo 371, 372. They had a twofold theology, one for
the vulgar, the other communicated to a very few, and carefully concealed from
the people, 260, 261. According to Laertius, they held matter to be the prin-
ciple of things, 279. Many of their prieſts and philoſophers held no other gods
but the ſtars, and ſuppoſed the fun to be the demiurgus ór framer of the world,
and that there was no incorporeal maker of the univerſe, ib. et 280. The rò mãi,
or the univerſe, their firſt and chief God, 31.3. 315. 430. High character given
of the Egyptian prieſts by Porphyry, 371. They differed among themſelves in the
interpretations they gave of the fables relating to their deities, 372. See alſo 137.
The temples of the Egyptians were in the moſt antient times without ſtatues, 458.
their gradual progreſs in idolatry repreſented from Diodorus, ibid. N.
Epictetus--ſpeaks of God and the gods promiſcuouſly, and freqüently expreſſes him-
ſelf in the polytheiſtic ſtrain, 336-makes the human ſoul to be a part or portion
of the divine effence, 320. N.-adviſes every man to worſhip according to the rites
of his country, 357.
Euhemerus, the Meſſenian-gave an hiſtorical account of all the Pagan deities, their
births, lives, and actions, and their deaths, 114, et 131. N. For this he is blamed
by Cicero, who yet acknowledges that their principal gods had once been men, and
intiinates.
I
XE
N
E
D
1
intimates that this was taught in the myſteries, 114, 115. Plutarch's fevere cen-
ſure of Euhemerus examined, 116. et 217.
Evidence, Moral-in ſome caſes of ſuch certainty that it may be abſolutely depended
upon, 24, 25. The knowledge of important matters relating to religion may be
communicated in this way, ibid.
Euſebius---His juſt obfervations on the Pagan mythology, 166, 167. He had a bad
opinion of the Heathen myſteries, 246. A fine paſſage from him concerning the
excellency of the Chriftian revelation, and how thankful we ſhould be to God for
it, 490. See alſo 491.
Examples, vicious—of the Heathen deities, had a tendency to corrupt the morals of
the people, 133. The ill effect of them was not to be obviated by allegorical in-
terpretations, or by any other way than diſcarding the popular deities, and over-
turning the Pagan polytheiſm, 235.
F.
Fables --See Mythology.
Fate, or Neceflity-Many philofophers held that all things are ſubject to it, 397, 398.
Forbidden Fruit-The law concerning it had nothing in it unworthy of the Divine wif-
dom and goodneſs, 56, 57. N.
Fortune-regarded by the Heathens as a capricious deity, and as having a principal
fway in the affairs of this lower world : it was univerſally invoked, and both ho-
noured and reproached, 383. Temples erected to it, ibid. Some philoſophers
were for dividing the adminiſtration of things between Fate or Neceflity, Fortune,
and Providence, 398.
.
G.
Calen--repreſents Moſes as having taught that God made the world, but that he
did not form it out of pre-exiſtent matter : and-aſferts, that this was that in which
he differed from Plato and the moſt excellent of the Greek philoſophers, 307.
Glouceſter, Biſhop of--gives a high idea of the pature and deſign of the Pagan myſte-
ries, 202, 203-ſays, that the Unity of God was taught there ; but that it was
a ſecret intruſted to a very few, 231, 232---and that in the open worſhip of Pa-
ganiſm, either public or particular, the creature was the fole object of adora-
tion, 428.
GOD_The notion of one Supreme God was never entirely extinguiſhed in the Pagan
world 82, et ſeq. It was derived by a conſtant tradition from the moſt remote
antiquity, ibid. The wonderful works of God contributed to keep up the notion
of a Deity among the nations, 83, 84. There was a general conſent of mankind
concerning the exiſtence of a Deity in oppoſition to atheiſm, but not in the acknow.
ledgment of the Unity of God, 86. 422. The poets frequently ſpeak of one
Supreme God, but confound him with that Jupiter who was the chief of their
S[[ 2
idol-
I N N D
X.
E
idol-celtics, 87: 118; et feq. The ſame may be ſaid of the vulgar Pagans; 12776
128. 174. See Jupiter.
GOD.is one and all things--This tlie great maxim of the Egyptian and Orphic ſchools,
313. The abuſe of this maxim was, in Dr. Cudworth's opinion, the chief ground
of the polytheiſin of the Egyptians, Greeks, and other Pagans, 314. They at
length carried it ſo far as to call every thing by the name of God, and God by the
name of every thing, 326. See Heathens.
Coils Thiofe of the higher order, the Dii majorum gentium, had once been men,
114, 115. The Dii ſelecti and conſentes treated of by Varro, 178. Worſe things.
were ſaid of them, and more flagitious actions aſcribed to them, than to the gods.
of a lower order, ibid. Socrates makes the firſt law of nature to be this, that inen
ſhould worſhip the gods, 3:30. The moſt eminent philoſopers, in arguing for the
exiſtence of God againſt the atheiſts, pleaded for a plurality of gods, 331. When
they mention the conſent of nations with reſpect to a Deity, they make it to relate
not to one God only, but to the gods, 332. See alſo 422. Many of the paſſages
produced by Chriſtian writers, to ſhew that the Heathens acknowledged the exiſtence
and attributes of the one trụe God, relate to a plurality of deities, 340. The
gods are repreſented as joint-Sharers in making and governing the world, 342. See
alſo 221. 292. 347. 397. They do not properly anſwer to angels in the Chri-
ſtian ſyſtein, 346.
Coguet, Monſieur-in his treatiſe De l'Origine des Loix, &c. obſerves, that the cir-
cumſtances mankind were in for ſome ages after the flood, occaſioned their making
a Now progreſs in the ſciences, 61. He expoſes the fabulous antiquities of the
antient Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Chineſe, 73-vindicates the antiquity of the
Book of Job, 77–obferves, that the higher one goes towards the ages neareſt the
creation, the more we find of the viſible traces of this great truth, 80.
Goſpel-What a bleſſing it was to the world, and how thankful we ſhould be to God
for it, 490, et feq. See Chriftian Revelation.
Greeks-Their moſt antient philoſophy traditionary, 64. Their moſt celebrated phi-
lofophers and legiſlators travelled into the Eaſt, to obtain the knowledge of religion
and laws ibid. et 300. The moſt antient Greeks held the lieavenly bodies, rre
earth, &c. to be the only gods, 90. The impurities of their worſhip, 188. 192.
Philoſophy, as it was managed among them, tended rather to unſettle men's minds,
tlan to rectify their errors, 2727
Guiney, Negroes of-generally have a notion of one Supreme Almighty Being; but
believe he does not concern himſelf with human affairs, and therefore do not wot-
ſhip him, but a multitude of other deities, 90.
H.
Hammon, Jupiter---The name ſuppoſed by Dr. Cudworth to have been firſt derived
from Ham or Cham the ſon of Noah, and afterwards made uſe of to fignify the
Supreme
>
I N
X.
D E
:
Supreme God, 125~-condemned by the prophet Jeremiah as an idol, ibidore
garded and abhorred as ſuch by the primitive Chriſtians, 134.
Heathens-Tradition of the one Supreme God never utterly extinguiſhed among them,
83; et ſeq. They were ſenſible of the force of the argument for the exiſtence of
God from the works of nature, 85, 86-generally agreed, that the forination of
things was not owing to chance; but many of them aſcribed it to a plurality of
cauſes or authors, ibid. et 221. Thoſe of them that acknowledged one Supreme
God corrupted the doctrine of the Unity, by making him to be of the ſame nature,
though of a higher order than the reft, 86, et 174. It was a general notion ainong
them, that the Supreme God did not concern himſelf with the affairs of this world,
but committed them wholly to inferior deities. And this was a principal cauſe of
their idolatry, 90, 91;
See alſo 391.
Some of them worſhipped many gods,
without any diſtinct notion of one abſolutely ſupreme. Among others the worſhip
of the Supreme God was neglected, or confounded wiih that of a multitude of
idol-deities, 93. 172.
Their firſt deviation from the worſhip of the one true God
was their worſhipping heaven and the heavenly bodies, 95, et ſeq. The next was
the worſhipping of heroes or deified inen, 109, et ſeq. They ſtill retained ſome no-
tion of the Supreme Divinity, and the titles and attributes which belonged to him,
but:applied them to their idol-deities, eſpecially to Jupiter, the chief of them, 118..
126. 128. 341. They turned the names and attributes of God into diſtinct
perſonal divinities, and worſhipped them as ſuch, 138, 139. · The iinages and ſym-
bols of the gods had alſo divine worſhip paid to them, 140, 141. They deified
whatſoever was uſeful in human life, the meaneſt things not excepted, 143. And,
inſtead of giving God the glory of his gifts, turned thoſe very gifts into deities,
144: The accidents, and qualities and affections of the human mind were dei-
fied, 144, 145. The moſt refined of the Heathens agreed in cruinbling the one
ſimple Deity into parts, and multiplying it into many gods and goddeſles, and in
deifying the ſeveral parts of the world, and things of nature, 148, They ſup.
poſed God to be in a manner all things, and that therefore he was to be wor-
ſhipped in every thing, ibid. The worſhip of evil beings was very common amorg
them, 149, et ſeq. Many of the Heathen rites cruel, and contrary to humanity,
181, et ſeq. The licentiouſneſs and impurity of their religion and worſhip
188-192. They had a notion of a divine providence, but parcelled it out
anong a multiplicity of deities, 379. The Scripture repreſentation of the de.
plorable ſtate of the Heathen world ſhewn to be juſt and agreeable to fact, 406, et
feq. Corruption of religion among the Pagans no juſt objection againſt the wiſ-
dom and goodneſs of Divine Providence, 434, et ſeq. The fault is to be charged
only upon themſelves, 450. The great patience and forbearance of. God towards
them, 451. Amidſt all their corruptions there were ſtill fome remains of the
main principles of religion preſerved among them, 452. The Goſpel was deſigned .
to deliver them froin the power of Satan, whoſe viſible kingdom was erected among
tire
I
X.
N.
E
D
the nations, 481, et ſeq. Not only the vulgar Heathens, but the philoſophers,
were ſtrongly addicted to the religion of their anceſtors, and accounted it an im-
pious thing to attempt the leaſt alteration in it, 483, 484. N.
Heaven-acknowledged and worſhipped as the Supreme God, 101, 102. 104.
Heavenly Bodies The notion that they were animated gave occaſion to the wor-
ſhipping them, 96, 97. N. The worſhip of the heavenly bodies was the moſt
antient idolatry, and obtained almoſt univerſally among mankind, the moſt civilized
as well as barbarous nations, 105, 106.
Herbert, Lord-holds, that God hath imprinted on the minds of all men innate ideas
of the Deity, and of the main principles of religioni, 7, 8. His apology for the.
Pagan worſhip of the heavenly bodies conſidered, 106. Several nations, by his
own account, regarded the ſun as the Supreme God, 107. He acknowledges, that
there was a ſtrange confuſion in the Heathen religion, 11, 112. 139. And
that they worſhipped not only the whole world taken together, but even its par-
ticles or ſmaller parts, 146, 147. He is for entirely diſcarding the poetical my-
thology, and having no regard to it at all in enquiring into the religion of the
antient Pagans, 160.
Heroes, or deified men, worſhip of an idolatry of an early date, 109-encouraged by
the antient legiſlators, princes, and ſtates for political purpoſes, 1 10. The peculiar
nanes and attributes of the Supreme God aſcribed to them, ru, 112. The Dii
majorum gentium, the principal objects of the Pagan worſhip, had once been men,
114, 115. The myſteries were not defigned to aboliſh that worſhip, but rather to
countenance and promote it, 216, et feq.
Herology, or the hiſtory of their heroes-blended with phyſiology in the theology
of the Pagans, which occaſioned a monſtrous jumble in their worſhip, 117. 125.
137-and had a pernicious influence on religion and morals, 132, 133.
Hottentots--acknowledge one Supreme Being, the maker of heaven and earth, but
pay him no worſhip, 89. They worſhip an evil being, whom they look upon as
the author of all miſchief, that they may avert his malice, ibid.
Human wiſdom and philoſophy—inſufficient for recovering mankind from their ido-
latry and polytheiſm without an higher aſſiſtance, 464, et ſeq.
Hume, Mr. David-His opinion that the firſt men did not come to the knowledge of
God by reaſoning from the works of nature, 51, 52-aſſerts that idolatry was
the firſt religion of mankind, and that they were for many ages neceſſarily poly-
theiſts and idolaters, 69, 70. His account of the firſt original of the idea of God,
and of religion, examined, 71. N.
Hyde, Dr.-His account of the religion of the antient Perſians referred to, 75. 80.
98, 172.
See Perſians, and Zoroaſter.
Lanblicus
*
I
X
N
E
D.
1
I.
Iamblicus-The account he gives the antient Egyptian theology not to be depend-
ed upon, 280-acknowledges the neceſſity of revelation and divine illumination for
inſtructing men in thoſe things that are moſt pleaſing to God, 475.
Idolatry--not the moſt antient religion of mankind, 71, et ſeq. The firſt and moſt
antient idolatry was not an utter caſting off the knowledge and worſhip of the one
true God, but the worſhipping him in a ſuperſtitious manner, and joining with
him other objects of worſhip, 73. Idolatry began in Chaldea, Egypt, and the
neighbouring countries, 75, et 435. An account of the progreſs of idolatry, and
the ſeveral ſteps by which it advanced, till at length it proceeded to the deifying
and worſhipping every thing in nature, chap. iii. iv. v. See Heathens. Idolatry
not a mere ſpeculative abſurdity, but had a pernicious influence on the morals of
the people, 193. The legiſlators and civil magiſtrates had a great hand in pro-
moting and maintainiog the public idolatry and polytheiſın, 199. The philofo-
phers inſtead of reclaiming the people from their idolatry, encouraged and de-
viſed plauſible pretences to juſtify and defend it, 364, et ſeq. Methods made uſe
of by Divine Providence to check the progreſs of Idolatry, 435, et ſeq. Idolatry
gathered ſtrength among the nations as they grew in learning and politeneſs, 454,
et ſeq.
Jehovah-The peculiar name of the true God among the Hebrews not utterly unknown
to the Gentiles, 445-called by Diodorus lao, by Philo-Biblius from Sanchonia-
thon, leuo ; declared by the Oracle of the Clarian Apollo to be the higheſt of the
gods, ibid. Io-pater and Jovis probably derived from the name Jehovah, ibid.
Jewiſh Conſtitution—The knowledge and worſhip of the one true God, and of hiin
only, the fundamental principle of that eſtabliſhment, whereby it was gloriouſly di-
ſținguiſhed from all other conſtitutions, 172.. See alſo 344, et 4:37. It was iin-
mediately promulgated to one particular people, but was in ſeveral reſpects of uſe
to other nations, 438, et ſeq.--deſigned to prepare the way for a more perfect and
extenſive diſpenſation, which was to ſucceed it, 450. 477, 478.
Jews or Ifraelites--were placed in an advantageous ſituation for diffuſing the know-
ledge of their religion and laws, 437-yet kept diſtinct from other people for wiſe
ends, 438. 477. In the flouriſhing times of their ſtate they had an extenſive do-
minion and correſpondence, and afterwards their captivities and diſperſions contri-
buted to ſpread them abroad among the nations, 438. Decrees of the greateſt
monarchs in their favour, 439. Notwithſtanding the odium and contempt caſt
upon them by the Heathens in general, yet they were had in eſteem by many of
the Pagans for the wiſdom and excellency of their religion and laws, 441, et ſeq.
They were diſperſed in great numbers, about the time of Chriſt's coming, through
a great part of the known world, 446, et ſeq. The Heachens had by their means .
a good opportunity of coining at the knowledge of the one true God in oppoſition.
tom
છે.
I N D E X.
to all idolatry and polytheiſm, 448-and it actually had that effect in many in-
ſtances, ibid. If the heathens in general did not make a right uſe of this advan-
tage, the fault was in themſelves, and owing to their negligence and prejudices,
-449. Falſe repreſentations made of the Jews by Heathen hiſtorians and philoſo-
phers, ibid. N.
Image.worſhip--Images of the gods ſuppoſed to have divine powers reſiding in them,
turned into deities, and ivorſhipped as ſuch, 141. The worſhip of images apologized
for and recoinmended by the philoſophers, 368. It probably firſt began among
the Chaldeans, Phoenicians, and Egyptians, 455.
Some antient nations abſtained
for a long time from the worfhip of images, 458, 459. The Romans had no
images in their temples for 170 years after the building of Rome, 459. Images of
the Deity.diſapproved by Numa and by Varro, ibid. et 460. There was a vaſt
variety of gods, aad images among the Greeks and Romans in the latter times of
their ſtate, when they were remarkable for their politeneſs and philoſophical learn-
ing, 461, 462.
Indians---Many tribes among them acknowledge one Supreme Being, but think he
takes no care of men or their affairs, but commits them to other gods as his vice-
gerents, 90.
Juives Lettres, Author of--acknowledges the neceſſity of Revelation to inſtruct men
how to worſhip God in a right.manner, 474. N.—and that it was owing to the
piety and zeal of the firſt publiſhers of Chriſtianity, that the unity of God is gene-
rally known throughout the world, 489. N.
Julian the Emperor---paid an extraordinary devotion to the ſun, 103. He ſays, we
ought to look upon the whole.creation with religious eyes, ſo as to ſee and wor-
fhip God in every thing, 365-pretends, that the Hebrews did not know the
.firſt. God, but took the Creator of the world for the higheſt God, whereas there is
one higher than he, 374. Ņ.
Jupiter and Jovis-Various fenſes in which this name was uſed among the Pagans,
viz. for the world, the ſoul of the world, the ſun, the æther, the air, and the hero
Jupiter the ſon of Saturn, 117. The name ſuppoſed by Dr. Cudworth to be of He-
braical extraction. It was originally appropriated to the one trye God, and after-
wards applied to the chief of the idol-deities, 119. The Jupiter of the poets was
not the one true God : the moſt divine epithets and attributes were aſcribed to him,
and at the ſame time the moſt criminal actions, 87, 118, 119, et feq. The Jupiter
of the poets was the ſame with the popular Jupiter, the object of vulgar adoration
among the Pagans, 124, 125. 128. He was regarded by them as ſuperior to the
other gods, but of the ſame kind, though of higher eminency than the reſt, 129,
130. See alſo 86 et 174. The primitive Chriſtians would rather endure any, .
torments than acknowledge Jupiter to be the true God, or call the true God by the
name of Jupiter, 1.34. St. Paul did not ſuppoſe Jupiter and the other names of
the Pagan deities to be only different names and notions of the one true God, 421.
3
Dr.
3.
IN DE
X.
1
Dr. Cudworth's attempt to ſew that the generality even of the vulgar Pagáns
worſhipped the true God uider the name of Jupiter, examined, 430, 431. See
Cudworth,
K.
Kneph--The inhabitants of Thebais in Egypt worſhipped the Maker of the world
under that name, 77. 151. He was repreſented, according to Porphyry, in an hu-
man form, 230. According to others in the form of a ſerpent with a hawk's
head, 231, N.
L.
Laws--every where among the Pagan's eſtabliſhed the worſhip not of one God only,
but of many gods, 171.
Learned Seel in China-See Chinefe.
Legiſlators and Civil Magiſtrates-had a principal hand in eſtabliſhing and promoting
idolatry and polytheiſm, 110. 197, 198. 235, 236.
Long lives of the firſt mena great advantage for tranſmitting the knowledge of reli,
gion by tradition, 59. Teſtimonies of the Heathen writers concerning it, ibid. N.
Lufts, unnatural-in ſome places made a part of the Heathen religion, 191.
M.
Macrobius, a Pagan author-takes great pains to prove, that the ſun was the one uni-
verſal Deity, adored under ſeveral names and characters, 103.
Maimonides-believed that the ſtars are intelligent and rational animals, which wor,
thip and praiſe their Creator and Lord, 97. N.
Man—a rational creature, capable of religion and deſigned for it, 44, et ſeq. This
his chief pre-eminence above the brutes, ibid. Not left at his firſt creation merely
to form a ſcheme of religion for himſelf, 50, et ſeq. God made diſcoveries of
himſelf and of his will to man ſoon after he was created, 54. This ſhewn to be
agreeable to reaſon, and confirmed by the accounts given by Moſes, 55, et ſeq.
Matter—The philoſophers generally held it to be uncreated and eternal, 305, et feq.
The abſurdity and ill confequences of this notion ſhewn, 308, et feq. Thoſe that
maintained it called by Dr. Cudworth imperfect theiſts, ibid. The Stoics afcribed
the origin of evil to the perverſity of matter, 309.
Maximus Tyrius, a Platoniſt--acknowledges one Supreme God, but pleads for wor-
ſhipping an innumerable multitude of deities and dæmons, 367_apologizes for
image-worſhip, 368m endeavours to prove, that men ought not to pray at all
,
403. A remarkable paſſage from him concerning the univerſal acknowledgment of
one Supreme God among all nations examined, 413.
Miracles--well atteſted, may be of ſuch a kind as to yield a ſufficient proof of the
divine miſſion of the perſons by whom they are performed, and of the divine au-
thority of the laws and doctrines in atteſtation of which they are wrought, 21.
VOL. I.
TAE
Morgan,
I N E X.
DE
D
Aforgan; Dr.-A remarkable päffage from him concerning the weakneſs of human
reaſon in the preſent ſtate of mankind, and the great benefit of Revelation for in-
ſtructing men in the knowledge of natural religion, 1o, II. He owns, that im-
mediate inſpiration or revelation from God may communicate a certainty to the
man thus immediately inſpired, equal to that which ariſeth from a mathematical de-
monſtration : but will not allow, that the knowledge of ſuch truth can go any
farther as a matter of divine faith, 19.
Mofes=-His account of the origin of the human race, and the primitive ſtate of man,
Worthy of God and honourable to mankind, 55. It appears from it, that God
inade diſcoveries of himſelf to our firſt parents, and gave them laws, ibid. et ſeq.
--that there was an intercourſe. between God and man in the firſt ages, 58--and
that God was alſo pleaſed to manifeſt his will on ſeveral occaſions to particular
perſons in the antient times after the food, 77, 78. His law eminently diſtin-
guiſhed from thoſe of other antient legiſlators, in enjoining the worſhip of one God,
the Creator and Lord of the univerſe, and of him only, 172, 173. Moſes and the
Prophets, as well as Chriſt and his Apoſtles, proceeded upon nobler principles than
the Pagan legiſlators and philoſophers, and did not pretend a neceſſity for leading
the people into wrong notions and practices with regard to religion and divine
worſhip, 369. The wiſdom of Moſes and the excellency of his inſtitutions ad-
mired and celebrated by the Pagans themſelves, 443-
Myſteries, Pagan-have been mightily extolled as an excellent expedient for pro-
moting true religion and good morals among the people, 202, 203-they were
ſpread generally through the nations, 204-their tendency to raiſe men to the
perfection of virtue conſidered, 205 et ſeq.--originally deſigned to civilize the
people, and to encourage thoſe virtues which are more immediately uſeful to
· fociety, 207, 208. They were horridly abuſed and corrupted, and at length, in-
Atead of being a ſchool of virtue, became a fink of vice, 211, 212, 213. The
errors of polytheiſm not detected in the mykeries, 214, et feq: The hiſtory of
the gods was repreſented in the myſteries, not with an intention to condemn the
worſhip of deified men, but to encourage it, 218, 219. The proofs brought to
fhew that the doctrine of the unity was taught in the myſteries, examined, 221,
et feq. There is reaſon to think that the notion of the Deity taught in the myſte-.
ries was not a right and juſt one, 230, 231_or, if it were ſo, it would have.
been of little uſe, as it was communicated to a very few, and under the ſtricteſt:
ſeal of ſecreey, 231, 232. The myſteries were inſufficient to hinder the bad in-
fluence of the vicious examples of their deities, becauſe they ſtill retained the
poetical mythology, 234. The legiſlators and civil magiſtrates, who inſtituted
and conducted the myſteries, were the great promoters of polytheiſm, and there-
fore did not intend to ſubvert it by the myſteries, 235-their ſcheme upon ſuch.
a ſuppoſition would have been ſtrangely abſurd and inconſiſtent, 237, 238. The
myſteries were deſigned to increaſe men's veneration for the eſtabliched religion,
and not to expoſe it to contempt,.239. They were under the preſidency of vari-
QUS
I N DE X.
ous deities, and celebrated to their honour, 2:40if they had been intended
againſt the popular polytheiſm, the people would not have endured them, 241.
The. Athenians, who were the moſt zealous obſervers of the myſteries, were re-
markably addicted to idolatry, and grew more and more ſo, 242. The primitive
Chriſtians had a very bad opinion of the myſteries, 243-vindicated from the
cenſures caſt upon them on that account, 244. 247-yet the names, rites, and
diſcipline of the myſteries were afterwards transferred into our holy religion, which
had a bad effect, 249.
Mythology, Pagan--aſcribed ſcandalous actions to their deities, and eſpecially to Jupiter
the chief of them : which had bad conſequences, 132, 133. 177, 178, 179.
The philoſophers attempted in vain to turn thoſe fables into allegory, 164. See
Poetical theology.
N.
Names--originally appropriated to the true God afterwards attributed to idol-deities,
III, 112. Different names, titles, and attributes of God erected into diſtinct
perſonal divinities, and worſhipped as ſuch, 138, 139.
Natural Religion—its various acceptations, 3, et ſeq. Its being founded in nature,
and agreeable to reaſon, is no proof that therefore reaſon alone, without any higher
aſſiſtance, diſcovered it in its juſt extent, 4-rightly conſidered it is perfectly con-
ſiſtent with the ſuppoſition of an extraordinary divine Revelation, 5--the pretence
that it is naturally and neceſſarily known to all mankind, contrary to fact and ex-
perience, 7, 8. See Reaſon.
Noahấthe knowledge of the primitive religion eaſily tranſmitted from our firſt parents
to Noah the ſecond father of mankind, to whom alſo God made farther diſcoveries
of his will, to be by him communicated to his deſcendants, 59, 60.
0.:
Oracles—The moſt eminent philoſophers ſent the people to the oracles for inſtruction
in divine matters, 350. They were ſilenced ſoon after our Saviour's appearance,
484, 485.
Origen-believed, that the ſtars are animated ; and that they join with juſt men in
praiſing God and his only begotten Son, 97. N. He gives it as his own opinion,
and that of the primitive Chriſtians, that the deities of the Pagan religion and the
objects of the popular worſhip were dæmons, 481. N.
Qrpheus–Verſes afcribed to himn deſcribe the ſun by the moſt glorious divine epithets,
and attribute to him the generation and government of all things, 103, 104. His
hymn relating to the myſteries, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, juſtly ſuſpected,
228. It is uncertain whether any of the verſes that go under his name can be de.
• pended on as his, ibid. He is affirmed by Celſus to have been undoubtedly in-
{pired by a holy ſpirit; but charged by Origen with having written more impious
fables concerning the gods than Homer himſelf, 259.
Tit 2
Grid
I N D E
X.
Orid-His account of the creation of the world derived from antient tradition, and in
feveral reſpects agreeable to that of Moſes, 82. He ſuppoſes the world to have
been made by God; but was at a loſs which of the gods to aſcribe it to, ibid. et:
229.
P...
Pagans See Heathens.
Pardoning mercy--diſcovered to our firſt parents immediately after the fall, and the
notion of it ſtill continued, and was never intirely loſt among mankind, 58.
Pauſanius-His judicious obſervation, that events which really happen were rendered
incredible by the fictions that were ſupperadded to them, 113..
Perſians--according to Dr. Hyde's account, were adorers of the one true God.from.
the moſt antient times, having learned their religion from Shem and Elam, 75.
They had among them from times immemorial the hiſtory of the creation of the
world, 80-fell early into the worſhip of the heavenly bodies, yet ſtill retained
the knowledge and worſhip of the one Supreme God; 98, 99. Their religion
faid by the oriental writers to liave been reformed by Abraham, and afterwards by
Zoroaſter, 172, N. See Zoroafter.
Peru, the moſt antient inhabitants of acknowledged one Supreme God; but feldom,
erected temples or offered ſacrifices to him, 92. The modern Peruvians paid their
chief devotions to the ſun, 105.
Phænicians—the firſt phyſici or natural philoſophers among them looked upon thre
ſun, moon, ſtars, and elements to be the only gods, 95, 96.
Philoſophers, Pagan-did not derive their religious and moral principles ſolely and
entirely from the diſquiſitions of their own reaſon, nor did the beſt of them al-
fume this to themſelves, but aſcribed a great deal to antient tradition, which was
ſuppoſed to be of divine -original, 13. 67. They beſtowed high encomiums on.
philoſophy as the gift of the gods, and defined it to be the knowledge of things di-
vine and human, 252, 253. Notwithſtanding their glorious pretences, they were
not well fitted to lead the people into right notions in matters of religion, or to
reclaim them from their ſuperſtitions and idolatries : this is ſhewn from ſeveral con-
fiderations, 254, et ſeq. They had little influence for want of a proper authority
to inforce their inſtructions, 257, 258. The moſt eminent of them involved their
ſentiments, eſpecially in religious matters, in great obſcurity, and carefully concealed
them from the people, 260, et ſeq. Some of them denied all certainty and evi-
dence, and endeavoured to ſubvert the main principles of all religion, 267, 268,
The moſt celebrated among them were under great darkneſs and uncertainty in
matters of the higheſt conſequence, 269. et feq. The philoſophers were the great
corrupters of the antient tradition concerning the one true God, and the creation
of the world, 276. The ſtrange confuſion and diverſity of ſentiments among
them with regard to the Deity ſhewn from Cicero's book de Natura Deorum, 274,
1
275.
1 N D' X.
275. The antient philoſophers divided into two main ranks. Some of them ex-
dluded a divine mind and intelligence from the formation of the univerſe, 276,
2-77. Others aſcribed it to a moſt wife and powerful mind, 282-yet theſe were
defective in what relates to the knowledge and worſhip of the one true God, and
encouraged polytheiſm, 283, et ſeq. Few, if any of them, acknowledged God
to be in a proper ſenſe the Creator of the world, 305, et ſeq. They held the
eternity of matter, ibid, et 307., and after Ariſtotle, they generally held the eter-
nity of the world both as to matter and form, 311, 312. The later Platoniſts and
Pythagoreans taught that the world proceeded eternally from God in a way of ema-
nation, which naturally led to the Spinoſan ſcheme, 310. 313. Many of the phi-
loſophers taught that God is the foul of the world, or that the whole animated
ſyſtem. of the world is God, 313, et ſeq. This was the doctrine of the antient
Egyptians, 315,-of Varro, 316--of the Bramias; ibid.--and eſpecially of the Stoics,
317, et ſeq. The pernicious conſequences of this notion ſhewn, 322, et feq. It
was uſed to juſtify the Heathen polytheiſm in worſhipping the ſeveral things of na-
ture, and parts of the world, as gods, or parts of God, 322. The Pagan philo-
loſophy was ſo managed' as to lay a foundation for their polytheiſm and idolatry,
324, 325. The greateſt and beſt of the Heathen philoſophers, in their moſt fe-
rious diſcourſes, ſpoke of a plurality of gods, whom they recommended to the
adoration of the people, 328, et ſeq. When they ſet themſelves to prove the
being of a God, and a Providence, they proceeded on the ſuppoſition of a plurality
of gods, 331,. et ſeq. They referred the people for inſtruction in religious mat-
ters to the prieſts and to the oracles, 349. It was, a general maxim among them,
that every man ought to conform to the religion of his country, 355. When they
took upon them the character of legiſlators, polytheiſm, and not the worſhip of the
one true God, was the religion they endeavoured to eftabliſhi, 357, et ſeq. thcy
employed their learning and abilities to defend the worſhip of a plurality of deities,
and pretended this was an honour to the Supreme, 366. Inſtead of diminiſhing
the number of deities; they added a multitude of phantaſtic and metaphyſical deities
to the popular ones, 368, N. They juſtified the worſhip of images, 368. and
undertook to colour over the abſurdeſt part of the Pagan theology, by allegorizing
the moſt indecent fables, 369, 370. They apologized even for the Egyptian ani.
mal worſhip, which many of the other Pagans ridiculed, 370, 371. Some of the
moſt refined philoſophers were againſt all external worſhip of the Supreme God,
374. Their notions of Providence conſidered. See Providence. They made new
efforts, after Chriſtianity appeared, to ſupport the credit of declining Paganiſin,
470. For this purpoſe they made alterations in their philofophy, and borrowed
ſeveral things from the Holy Scriptures, but ſtill endeavoured to uphold the Hea-
then polytheiſm, 471, 472. The best of the philoſophers acknowledged their
asin darkneſs, and were ſenſible of the need they ſtood in of a Divine Revelation
and
.
I-
X
N
E.
D-
and inſtruction, 472, et.feq. Some of them.prétended to extraordinary communi-
-cations with the gods, but they and their pretences fell into contempt, 475. See
alfo, 259..
2
Phyſiology, Pagan-ai fource of polytheiſm, 142. The things of nature, and parts
of the univerſe, were turned into allegorical perſons, and regarded as ſo many di-
ſtinct divinities, ibid.
Plato-obferves, that man, without education and culture, would be the wildelt of
all animals, 9. A remarkable paſſage from him concerning the ſtate of men after
the flood, 62. : He travelled into Egypt and the Eaſtern countries for his improve-
ment, and from thence ſeems to have borrowed ſome of his ſublimeſt notions, 67.
He frequently talks of antient and venerable traditions ſuppoſed to be of divine
original, ibid.--charges the opinion of the ſtars being inanimate bodies as leading
to atheiſm, 100. He frequently preſcribes the worſhip of the ſtars, which ſeem to
be the divinities he principally recommends to the people, ibid. See alſo 358.
Finds fault with the fables of Homer and Heſiod concerning the gods, 159-yet
dafes not entirely reject the fables of the poets and mythologiſts, 161, 162--re-
preſents the poets as divinely inſpired, and that it is God that ſpeaks by them, 162,
163—allows drunkenneſs at the feaſts of Bacchus, but not at other times, 187.
There is great obſcurity in many of his doctrines and notions, and, by his own ac-
count, few are able to penetrate into his real ſentiments, 262, et ſeq. He believed
one Supreme God, but did not think it ſafe or proper to publiſh him to the vul-
gar, 263. See alſo 296. He frequently acknowledges the darkneſs of the human
mind in divine things, 270. He held two principles of things, God and matter,
305. In diſputing againſt the atheiſts, he aſſerts the exiſtence and providence of
the gods, 331. In his books of Laws he does not recommend the worſhip of the
one true God to the people, but of a plurality of deities, 357, et feq. He had an
high opinion of the oracles as the beſt and only guides in matters of religion and
divine worſhip, 353, 355. The firſt and higheſt God, according to him, was not
concerned in the creation, nor is ſo in the government of the world, 373. The
account he gives of the Supreme Unity different from the idea given us of God in
the Holy Scriptures, 3.74. · A paſſage of his examined, in which he repreſents it as
the practice of every good and prudent man to invoke God in every undertaking,
380, 381.
Pliny the Elder-held the world to be God, immenſe, eternal, neither generated,
nor to be deſtroyed, 102-diſapproved the turning human qualities and accidents,
virtues and vices, into deities, 146. He obſerves that mortals crumbled the deity
into parts, and worſhipped that in God which they themſelves ſtood moft in need
of, 149. A remarkable paſſage from him concerning fortune as a deity univerſally
invoked, 383. He thinks it ridiculous to ſuppoſe that the Supreme God takes
any care of human affairs; and affirms that this would undoubtedly be a pollution
to him, 388.
3
Pliny
1
X.
N D. E
Pliny. the younger his teſtimony to the virtue and conſtancy' of the primitive Chri*
ſtians, 406.
Plotinus-and the latter Platoniſts and Pythagoreans, after Chriſtianity appeared, con-
tinued to plead for the divinity and workip of the ſun and ftars, 103. He taught
that the world is a god, and that the fun and other ſtars are gods, as being ani-
mated by a divine foul, 324--and pretended that the worſhipping many gods is an
honour done to the Supreme, 3.66. What he ſays of the Platonic firſt principle.
obſcure and unintelligible, 373. N.
Pluche, Abbè demHis account of the original of the Pagan deities and mythology not
grounded on fufficient evidence, 112, 113.
Plutarch-His ſentiments of the neceflity of education and inftruction, 8, 2-gives
it as the univerſal opinion of the Pagans in ltis time that the ſtars are gods, and
affirms that all men worſhipped them as ſuch, 101---paſſes a ſevere cenſure on
Euhemerus, and thoſe who aſſerted that the gods, vulgarly worſhipped had once
been men : which yet cannot reaſonably be denied, 115, 116. 217 -- blames thoſe
who gave the name of gods to pictares and images, and to things inſenſible and
inanimate, which the gods have provided for the uſe of mankind, 141, 143-ac-
knowledges that many of the rites in uſe among the Pagans were deſigned to pla-
cate and gratify evil dæmons, 150. 481. His book of Iſis and Oſiris deſigned as an
apology for the Pagan polytheiſin, 222. 425, He held two eternal principles, the
one good, the other evil, and affirms, that this was the doctrine of the ancients,
and taught by the moſt celebrated: philofophers, 304. . He aſſerts the eternity of
matter, ' 306mm-puts the doctrine of Providence on the ſame footing with that of
the ſtars being animated, 394-ſeems to hold with Euripides, that God concerns
himſelf only with great matters, and leaves the finaller to fortune, 396. A paſſage
from him concerning the univerſal conſent of nations in acknowledging and wor-
hipping one God under different names, conſidered, 424,. et feq. The ſtrange and
unjuſt repreſentations he makes of the Jews, and their rites, 449, 450—charges
it as 'an impious attempt to make the leaſt alteration in the religion and worſhip
derived from their anceſtors, and eſtabliſhed by the laws, 483, N.
Poets, 'Heathen--kept up the antient tradition of one Supreme God; but corrupted it
by confounding him with their Jupiter, the chief of their idol-deities, of whom they
inade ſuch indecent repreſentations, 87, et ſeq. They were the prophets and
chief inſtructors of the people,. 125. 161 --- Igoked upon even by Socrates and
Plato, as divinely inſpired, 162, 163----blamed by. Dr. Cudworth for
, perſonating
and deifying the inanimate, parts of the world and things of nature, which pro--
duced a vaſt number of gods and goddeſſes, 164. But this is alſo juſtly charge-
able on the philoſophers, ibid. See alſo 324. Both the poets and philoſophers
made the Pagan theology look too ariſtocratically, 347, 348.
Poetical or Fabulous Theology-diſapproved by ſeveral of the wiſer Pagaes, 158, et feq.
-jet it was wrought into the popular religion, and lay at the foundation of moft of
theis
!
1 N D E . X.
their ſacred tites, 160. There was a cloſe connection between the poetical and
civil theology of the Pagans, 175, et ſeq.
Polytheiſm, Pagan–The moſt plauſible apology for it is, that the multitude of their
deities was only the worſhip of the one truc God under different names and mani-
feſtations. This pretence examined, and ſhewn to be inſufficient, 135, et feq.
Dr. Cudworth calls this the recondite theology of the Pagans; and ſays, that pro-
bably the vulgar did not underſtand it, 138, 139, Polytheiſm was the eſtabliſaed
religion and worſhip of all the Pagan nations, 171. Reinarkable difference be-
tween them and the Jews in this reſpect, 172, et 344. See Idolatry.
Porphyry-His account of evil dæmons; 151-juſtifies the worfhip of them, ibid. et
142-ſays, that Serapis, the great Egyptian deity, was the prince of evil dæmons,
ibid.-gives a high encomium of the Egyptian prieſts, and attributes their wor-
ſhipping animals to their extraordinary wiſdom and divine knowledge, 371, 372—
ſeems to be againſt rendering any external worſhip to the Higheſt God of all,
374-complains, that from the time that Jeſus began to be worſhipped, the gods
had withdrawn their converſe from men, 485. N.
Potter, Dr.-His Antiquities of Greece referred to for an account of the Grecian rites
and feſtivals, 160. 186, et ſeq.
Prayer, the duty of-probably a part of the primitive religion derived from the firſt
parents of mankind, 30. 402. The things the Gentiles prayed for were chiefly
the commodities of this world, and not bleſſings of a ſpiritual nature, 383, 384.
The duty of prayer is nearly connected with the belief of a Divine Providence,
402-generally practiſed among the Pagans, but addreſfed to a multiplicity of
deities, ibid. Some of the philoſophers were only for praying for good things in
general, but not for any thing in particular : others were only for mental but not
vocal prayer : others were againſt praying at all, and ſo are ſome of our modern
Deifts, 402, 403. The Scripture gives great encouragement to prayer, and ex-
cellent directions for the right performance of that duty, 404, 405.
Promiſe, original--made to our firſt parents immediately after the fall, a foundation
for their hope, 57, 58.
Prophecies-extraordinary atteſtations given to our Saviour by a ſeries of illuſtrious
prophecies, delivered at ſundry times and in divers manners, for many ages before
his actual manifeſtation in the fleſh, 478.
Providence-The belief of it of vaft importance to the cauſe of virtue in the world,
377. It was part of the primitive religion derived by a moft antient tradition from
the firſt ages, 377. 378. Some notion of it generally obtained among the vulgar
Pagans; but they ſuppoſed Providence to be parcelled out among a multiplicity of
deities, 379. The notions they entertained of Divine Providence were in ſeveral
reſpects wrong and defective, 382, et ſeq. Many of the philoſophers and of the
learned and polite Pagans denied a Providence, 386, et ſeq. Some of thoſe that
ſeemed to own a Divine Providence were for .confining it to heaven and heavenly
things,
1
I 'N DE X;
1
things, 390. Others ſuppoſed it to extend to the earth and mankind, but affered
only a general Providence, not extending to the individuals of the human race, or
if to individuals, only to perfons of ſpecial worth and eminence, and affairs of
great importance, 395. Many celebrated philoſophers thought that the higheſt God
did not take any care of men, or their concernments, as being below his notice,
and that he committed them wholly to inferior deities, 391, 392. The philoſo-
phers very confuſed in their notions with regard to Divine Providence, 398. Some
of them ſuppoſed, that fate or neceſſity governs all things; others divided the
ordering of events between God or Providence, fate and fortune, and human art and
faill, ibid. et 399. Divine Revelation of lignal uſe for inſtructing men to form
juſt and worthy actions of Providence, 3991 Noble idea given of it in the Sacred
Writings, 400, 401.
Publicans, or Rongan knights--not willing that the lands couſecrated in Greece to the
gods dould be exempted from taxes ; under pretence that thoſe ought not to be
reckoned among the immortal gods who had once been imen, 115.
Preffendorf-ſuppoſes the chief beads of natural religion and law to have been origi-
nally communicated by Divine Revelation to the firſt parents of mankind, 5.
Pythagaras-involved his doctrine in great obſcurity under numbers and fymbols,
which were explained only to his diſciples after long preparation, and carefully.con-
cealed from the people, 262. He held human ſouls to be diſcerped portions of the
Divine Elence, 286, 287-ſuppoſed by Dr. Sykes to have learned the doctrine of
the unity from the Egyptian prieſt, but not without great difficulty, 429.
1
R.
Ramſey, Chevalier de—His apology for the Egyptian idolatry, 155. The parallel he
draws between the corruption of the Pagan and Chriſtian feſtivals conſidered, 195
- pretends, that the Hebrews as well asPagans-fpoke of a plurality of gods, 344
--and that the polytheiſin of the Heathens was only nominal, 414, 415. N.
Reaſon-Many things are agreeable to reaſon when made known, which yet it would
not have diſcovered if left to itſelf' without aſſiſtance, 4, 5. It is a difficult quef-
tion, and of little uſe, how far reaſon may poſſibly carry us in religion by its own
unaffifted force, 9. We are not to judge of the ordinary abilities of human reaſon
in matters of religion by the attainments of a few extraordinary perſons, 10. The
fureſt way of judging of what may be expected from human reaſon in the preſent
ſtate of mankind is from fact and experience, eſpecially in thoſe ages and nations
which had not the advantage of Divine Revelation, ibid. Syſtems of natural reli-
gion drawn up in Chriſtian countries cannot properly be brought in proof of the
force of unaſliſted reaſon in matters of religion, 12.
Religion--ſuppoſes an intercourſe between God and man, 1-diſtributed into natural
and revealed': theſe are not contrary to one another, and yet not entirely the ſame ;
VOL. I.
but
I u u
IN D E X.
but there is a perfect harmony between them, I, 2. Man not left at his firſt crea-
tion merely to his own unaffilted reaſon, but had the chief heads of religion com-
municated to him by Divine Revelation, 67. The firſt religion of mankind not
idolatry, but the worſhip of the one true God, 69, et ſeq. Traces of an antient
univerſal religion in the rites and cuſtoms of many nations, 78, 79.
Religion, natural-3, et ſeq. See Natural. .
Religion, revealed-that which was originally communicated to man by Revelation
from God, 15, et feq.
Revelationnot an immediate infallible inſpiration of every particular perſon of the hu-
man race, which is contrary to evident fac and experience; but it is to be underftood
of God's making an extraordinary diſcovery of himſelf, or of his will, to ſome par-
ticular perſon or perſons, to be by them communicated to others in his name, 15,
16. The poflibility of ſuch a Revelation ſhewn, 17, et feq. God can give thoſe
to whom the Revelation is originally and iminediately made, a full and certain
aſſurance of its being a true Divine Revelation, 18, 19. He can alſo commiſſionate
them to communicate it to others, and can furniſh thein with ſufficient credentials
of their divine miſſion, to fhew that what they deliver in his name is a true Reve-
lation from God, 19, 20, et ſeq. This may be tranſmitted to thoſe who live in
ſucceeding ages, with ſuch evidence as to lay them under an obligation to receive
and ſubmit to it as of divine authority, 23, 24. The uſefulneſs and advantage of
divine Revelation, and the great need there is of it in the preſent ſtate of mankind,
ſhewn from ſeveral conſiderations, 27, et ſeq. It has been the general ſenſe of
mankind in all ages and nations, that God hath made revelations of his will, 35,
36. "This notion has been often abuſed by enthuſiaſts and impoſtors; but this is
no juſt argument againſt the poſſibility or expediency of Divine Revelation, 36, 37,
A true Revelation from God, if duly attended to, is the beſt ſecurity againſt the
miſchiefs ariſing from fallly pretended ones, 38, 39. Since Revelation is both por-
fible and uſeful, it is not probable that God left all men at all times without ſuch a
valuable help, 39. A brief fcheme of the order and deſign of the principal revela-
tions which God hath given to mankind, 39, 40. They give mutual life and ſup-
port to one another, ibid. et 41. Nothing leſs than an extraordinary Revelation ·
was ſufficient, as things were circumſtanced, to recover the Pagan nations from
their idolatry and polytheiſm, to the right knowledge and worſhip of the one true
God, 406, et ſeq.
Revelation, Chriſtian. See Chriſtian.
Rites--cruel and impure, of the Heathen worſhip, 181, et ſeq.
Romans, antient, public religion of-highly commended by Dionyfius Halicarnalleus
and Cicero, 170, 171--preſcribed the worſhip of many gods, ibid. et 172. It
was made up partly of the phyſical and partly of the poetical theology, 175.
Scenical games and plays, in which the vicious actions of their gods were repre-
fented, were taken into their public religion, 176, 177. It grew inore corrupt in
1
the
I N DE
X.
the latter times of their ſtate, when learning and philoſophy had made a progreſs
among them, than it had been in the rude and more illiterate ages, 461, 462.
S.
Sacrifice~a rite of religion of the greateſt antiquity, and originally of divine appoint-
inent, 79.
Sacrifices, human-mantiently of general extent among the Pagans, and continued long
even among the moſt civilized nations, 181, et ſeq.
Scripture, Holy-The repreſentation there made of the corrupt and miſerable ſtate of
the Heathen world exactly juſt and agreeable to fact, 407, et ſeq. The Scripture
is the great rule of faith and practice, and contains the original records of our
holy religion, 490, 491. A ſteady adherence to it is the beſt means for preſerving
the Chriſtian religion in its purity, and for reforming it when corrupted, ibid.
The light it affords calls for our higheſt thankfulneſs, 492.
Senica–His account of Jupiter Capitolinus conſidered, 127--pretends, that all the
different Heathen deities were one God with different names and powers, 135.
In his treatiſe of Superſtition he paſſes a ſevere cenſure on the civil theology and
public religion of the Romans, yet ſays, it was what a wiſe man ought to conform
to in obedience to the laws, 180-aſſerts, that the world is God, and that we are
all of us parts and members of the Divinity, 320-ſuppoſes matter to be an ob-
ſtruction to the Deity in his operations, ſo that he could not make things fo well as
he would, 309. He ſeems to think, that Providence feldom concerns itſelf about
individuals, 397. He diſcovers a ſtrong prejudice againſt the Jews; but owns,
that there were many who imitated their religion and rites, 447.
Seventh day-was for a long time diſtinguiſhed among the nations, 79. A particular
regard was had to the number ſeven as facred, ibid. The numbering by weeks
conſiſting of ſeven days was in uſe from the remoteſt antiquity, eſpecially among
the Eaſtern nations, and was probably derived originally from the hiſtory of the
creation, 8o.
Shafteſbury, Earl of-obſerves, that man is born not only to virtue, but to religioa
and piety, 47.
Socrates--declined being initiated in the myſteries, 210-averſe to diſquiſitions into
the phyſical nature and cauſes of things, 262. 290—ſeems to have believed one
Supreme God, yet alınoſt always ſpeaks of the gods in the plural, to whom he
aſcribes the formation of things, and the bleſſings of Providence, and to whom
divine worſhip is to be paid, 292, et ſeq. et 330. He referred the people to the
oracles in matters of religion, and recommended divination, 350—was for every
man's worſhipping the gods according to the laws of his country, 351. It is a
miſtake, that he endeavoured to draw the people off from the public religion, and
the eſtabliſhed polytheiſm, 352, 353.
U u u 2
Sophocles
I. N D. E. X.
1
-
Sophocles-A remarkable paſſage from him concerning the one God, the Maker of
heaven and earth, and againſt the Heathen worſhip of images, 419. N. -
Soul, human-held by many of the philoſophers, eſpecially the Pythagoreans and
Stoics, to be a difcerped part of the Divine Eſſence, 286. 320.
Stilbo, the philoſopher-cenſured by the Areopagus, and ordered to depart the city
of Athens, for ſaying that the ſtatue of Minerva, made by Phidias, was not a god,
141..
Stoics--retained the fables of the poetical mýthology, but gave phyſical and allego-
rical interpretations of them, 164. Many of their explications forced and un-
natural, ibid. They held that the world is God, and that particular ſouls are
parts of the univerſal foul of the world, and viſible corporeal things parts of his
body; 317. 320. They filled the earth, air, and ſea with gods; and the unity
of God which they profeſſed really included a multiplicity of deities, 323, 324.
They were ſtrenuous aſſerters of Divine Providence; but for the moſt part ſuppoſed
it not to extend to individuals, except to fome perſons of eminence and affairs of
importance, 395, 396.
Strabo--His account of the impurities of the Heathen religion, 189, 190, 191.
Sun-worſhipped by the Zabians as the chief God, 98-called by the Phoenicians the
only Lord of heaven, ibid. Peculiar titles and attributes of the one true God
afcribed to it, 102-according to Macrobius, was the one univerſal Deity adored
under ſeveral names and characters, 103-regarded by many of the Egyptians as
the Demiurgus or Maker of the world, 229. 279.
Sykes, Dr.- aſſerts, that the doctrine of the unity and perfections of God was the
univerſal doctrine of the Pagans, and that it was derived to them not from Reve-
lation or Tradition, but from the mere unaſſiſted light of nature and reafon, 299.-
The proofs he brings for this ſhewn to be inſufficient, ibid. et 340, 341. He ſays,
the Greek philoſophers travelled into Égypt to get at the knowledge of the unity,
300. And though he repreſents it as acknowledged by the Heathens în general,
yet it appears from his own account, that this doctrine was known to few, 429.
He will not allow, that the Greeks learned any thing in religion from the Jews or
their Scriptures, though he owns they did from other Eaſtern nations, 430, 440. N.
He grants, that, as things were circumſtanced, a Divine Revelation was neceſſary
to recover the Heathens from their idolatries and corruptions in religion, 469.
Symbolso different of the Deity, turned into gods, and worſhipped as ſuch, 140.
T.
Tacitus-looks upon it as uncertain, whether all things are governed by fate and im.
murable neceſſity, or by chance; and ſays, many were perſuaded that the gods
take no care at all of men, or any of the events relating to them, 388. His falſe
and contradictory accounts of the Jews, 449. His teftimony concerning the mul-
titude
::
1
I:
X,
N
D
1 -
titude of Chriſtians at Rome in the reign of Nero, and the cruel torments to which
they were expoſed, 486:
Tertullianmappeals to the conſciences of the Pagans themſelves, and to their moſt
authentic monuments, that all their gods had once been men, 1-37:- 'N..mrepreſents
the Romans as more corrupt in religion in the latter times of their ſtate, than their
anceſtors had been, 462.
Thales---His notion of God and the origin of things conſidered, 283, .et feq.
Theogony, Pagan. See Coſmogony.
Theology; Pagan--diſtributed by Varro and others into three different kinds, the
poetical or fabulous, the phyſical or philoſophical, and the civil or popular, 157,
Theology, poetical. See Poetical,
Theology, phyſical or philoſophical, 251-in the opintor of Scævola and Varro not very
proper for the people or the ſtate, 255. It was had in no great eſteem by the ma-
giſtrates and politicians, ibid. et 256.
Theology, civil--as eſtabliſhed by the Roman laws, is ſaid:by Şçævola and Varro to
have been the theology of the vulgar, but not the true, 137. The civil theology,
according to Varro's account of it, was that which was taught and adininiſtered by
the prieſts, and appointed by the Itate, 169. It had an appearance of a plurality
of independent deities, 173. It is obſerved by Dr. Cudworth, that there was a
mixture of the mythical or fabulous theology together with the natural, almoſt every
where to make up the civil theology of the Pagans, 175. The cloſe connection
! between the Roman civil theology and the poetical Thewn, ibid. et feq:
Tindal, Dr.--His main principle, that the religion and law. of nature is aaturally and
neceſſarily known to all men even without infruction, contrary to fact and ex-
perience, 7, 8.
Tradition--Peculiar advantages for tranſmitting the knowledge of religion by tradition
in the earlieſt ages, 59. Tradition of religion, laws, and ſciences, originally de-
rived from the Eaſtern parts, where mankind were firſt ſettled after the flood, 63,
64. The wiſdom of the Eaſt conſiſted much in teaching and delivering the entient
traditions ; and this was the original way of philofophizing among the Greeks, them.
ſelves, 64, 65. There were traditions from the firſt ages, and which ſpread generally
among the nations, concerning the creation of the world out of a chaos, and the
diffolution of it by fire, 65. Traditionary ſtories of the antient patriarchs and Jewiſh
heroes mixed with the Pagan mythology, 112.. The moſt eminent Greek philoſo-
phers got much of their knowledge by tradition, 300.
V. U.
Varro, the moſt learned of the Romans-
endeavours to give phyſical and allegorical
explications of Jupiter, Juno, and the other Pagan deities, 130. See alſo 235.
He paſſes a ſevere cenſure op the poetical or fabulous, 158, 159~-ſays the people
5
were
.
I N D E X.
:
1
were inclined to follow the poets rather than the philoſophers, in what related to
the gods, 161-gives a ſtrange account of the impurities and obſcenities uſed at
the feſtivals of Bacchus in ſome parts of Italy, 192. He thought the public reli-
gion wanted to be reformed, yet was for upholding it by the civil authority, and
retaining the names and hiſtory of the gods, as delivered by their anceſtors, 197,
198. The philoſophical theology was in his opinion only fit for diſputations in the
ſchools, but not proper to be taught openly among the people, 2:56. He held that
God is the ſoul of the world, and that the world itſelf is God, 316-and he calls
the ſoul of the world and its parts the true gods, 323. He ſpeaks with refpect
of the Jews as worſhipping God in a right manner, and that they worſhipped the
higheſt God, which he calls Jupitci,, without images, 443, 444: He obſerves,
that the antient Romans for 170 years had no images in their temples, and thinks
religion would do better without them, 459, 460.,
Unity of God -The philoſophers were more explicit in their acknowledgments of the
unity, and ſome other important articles of religion, after the appearance of Chriſtia
anity, than they had been before, 136.422. No ſufficient proof that the doctrine of
the unity was taught in the myſteries, 221. See alſo 427: The Greek philoſo-
phers are 'ſaid to have travelled into Egppt to get at the knowledge of the unity,
300. The preterice that this was the univerſal doctrine of the Pagan world, and
that all nation's worſhipped the one true God under different names and titles,
examined, 422, et ſeq.
Voltaire, Monfi de--repreſents the Pagan religion as conſiſting only of morality and
feſtivals, or times of rejoicing; 1920-praiſes thoſe of the Learned Sect in China for
leaving the groſs ſuperſtitions to the people, and feeding the magiſtrates with a
purer ſubſtance, 281, N. And yet thoſe they call the learned Chineſe are generally
atheiſts, ibid,
See Chineſe.
W.
World-The Egyptians and moſt of the learned Heathens held the whole animated
ſyſtem of the world to be God, 315, et ſeq. 430. The Pagans in general were
in one ſenſe or other world-worſhippers, 325, 326.
Worſhip—The proper manner of worſhipping God beſt known by Divine Revelation,
29, 30. See alſo 474. Some nations that ſeemed to acknowledge one Supreme
God rendered him no worſhip at all, 89, 90. The worſhip of the one true God,
and of him only a fundamental principle of the Jewiſh conſtitution, 172. 437. Some
of the moſt refined philoſophers were againſt any external worſhip of the Higheſt
..
God, 374•
X.
Xenophor-Plato blamed by him for quitting the ſimple philoſophy of Socrates, and
embracing the portentous wiſdom of Pythagoras and the Egyptians, 262.
Zabians
IN D E
X,
Z.
Zabians-held the ſtars to be deities, but the fun to be the chief God, 98-Wor-
ſhipped evil beings, but eſpecially Sammael, the principal of the evil dæmons, 152.
They aſſerted the eternity of the world. 311.
Zaleucus, the Locrian law-giver--A remarkable paſſage from the preface to his laws,
84. 329
Zeus-among the Greeks, was at firſt, according to Dr. Cudworth, the name of a
Hero, and afterwards applied to the Supreme God, 125. See Jupiter.
Zoroaſter-ſuppoſed by many to have lived in the most antient patriarchal times, and
therefore might have been acquainted with the primitive religion derived from
Adam and Noah, 75. N. According to Dr. Hyde, and the Oriental writers, he lived
in the reign of Darius Hyſtaſpes, was a diſciple of one of the Jewiſh prophets, and
incorporated many of the Moſaical rites into his own religion, ibid. et 172. N.
0
END 'of the FIRST VOLUME.
The author's great diſtance occaſioned more errors of the preſs than would otherwiſe
· have appeared; though I muſt do Mell. RICHARDSON and CLARK the juſtice to
acknowledge, that many of them were not owing to any negligence on their part,
but to miſtakes ia tranſcribing the. Manuſcript for the Preſs. Care however is taken
to rectify them in the following account of the Errata.
!
ERRATA to the FIRST VOLUME.
á
, man,
P. 149
p. 225.
Page 6. line'ult
. for obſcurė, read impure. P. 18. Note, l. 1. for vol. ij. ř. vol, ui, P. 49.1. 1. for men,
P. 74. Note, l. ult. for 1686, r. 1687. P.77. Note, l. 1. for Jud. r. Ilid. and for 259, r.
359. P. 83. 1. 1. for åpzelos, , åpxalos. P. 85. l. 7. for ordinis, r. ordines. Ibid. Note, I. 1. for p.
9. P. 0,9. P.95.7. 1. for gevóuevos, r. yevćuevas. P. 101. Note, 1. ult. for 15.1. 25.
P. 104. 1.9.
for deum, r. deam; and for nomina, r, noniine. P. 106. 1. 15. for ninth, r. eighth. P. 108, Nole, le
1. for 293, r. 26. . P. 112. 1. 6. for tables, r, fables. P. 114.1. 14. for collectas, r. collecta. Ib. Note,
1. 3. for cap. ii. r. cap. II. and for cap. 2. p. 62. r. cap. 11. P. 794. P. 125. Note, l. 1. for 26. r. 27
P. 130. Nore, 1. 8. for 66. r. 26. P. 133. 1. 15. for ftudicis, r. pudicis. Ib. Note, l. ult. for 589, 1.
569. P. 134. Note, ho ult. for cap. 4. v. cap. II. P. 136. 1. 7. for rights, r. rites. P. 137. Note, I,
6. for cap. v. vi. r. cap. 10.
1. 2. for iſto, r. iſta. P. 152. Note, 1. 1. after Abftin, r. l. ij. P.
159. Note, l. ult. fur cap. 7. r. cap. 28. P. 160. Note, l. 1. for temerabunt, r. temerabant. Ib. l. ult.
after vol. I. r. lib. 2. P. 162. 1. 23. for o, 7. 8. P. 172. Note, l. ult. for conveniat, r, convenit. P.
178. Note, l. 4. after Luna, r. Diana. P. 192. Note, he is for in honeſto, r, inhoneſto. P. 196. 1. 20.
for credent, r. credant. P. 198. Note, l. ult. for cap. 3. r. lib. iii. P. 203. 1. ult. for there, 're three.
P. 216.1. 7. for Cretan, r. Cretans, P. 224. place the ref. to the note at the end of the ſecond line.
Note, l. ult. for 176, r. 166. P. 233. l. 7. for inconſtant, r. inconfiftent. P. 253. Note, l. 3. for cap.
32.1, cap. 31. P. 255.1. 17. for habent, r. habeat,
Ib. Note, l. ult. for 7. r, 27. P. 256. Nate, l. 1.
for 117. 7. 116.
P. 261. Nite, l. 2. for 254. r. 354.
P. 262. l. ult. for 741. r. 745. P. 263. 1, ult. for
636. G. r. 526. F. P. 264. l. 1. for quam, r. ſuam. Ib. Note, l. 1. for p. 856, 857. r. 836, 837. P.
260. l. vlt. for cap. 12. 7. cap. 13. P. 273. 1. 19. for the, r. this, Ib, l. ult. for their, r. the. P.
285. Note, l. ult. for cap. 2. r. cap. I. P. 236. Note, l, 1. for 64. r. 62. P. 592. l. 5. for man, r, men.
16. 1. 6. for arzoomov, r. évozámos, P. 300. Note, l. 8. for 4.30, r. 480, 481. P. 309. 1. 7. for officiat, r.
efficiat, P.3ii, l. 18. for Biroſus r. Bcroſus, P. 323. 1. 14. for adeffent, r, adiffent. P. 324. Noten
lo 5. for 1275. r. 1075. P. 329. runnirg title, for philoſophic, r. polytheiſtic. P. 334. 1. 14. for qua-
les, r, qualis P. 337. Noie, l. 1. for book i. řbook ii. P. 344. Note, l. ult. for 440. r. 448. P.
356. Note, l. 2. for 266. r, 260. P. 360. Note, l. 1. for arguments, r, argument. P. 365. Note, l. 2.
for 514. r. 515. P. 368. l. 1. for which, r. whilft. P. 380. Note, l. I. for E. r. C. P. 382.1. 13.
for p. 331. r. p. 330. P. 388. l. ult. for viii. r. vi. .
P. 390. Note, l. 20. for add, r, adds. P. 398. 1. 6.
for eternal, r, external. P. 408. 1. 25. for 11. r. 8. P.
.411. 1. 2. after ſenſe, pit a full stop.
t.
9.
P. 438. Note, l. 3. for 15.7. 5. Ib. 1. 2. for Pf. xxi, r. Pr.xxii. P. 470. Note, I.
5.
P. 483. l. ult. 179. r. for 181. P. 486.!. ult. for lib. xiv, r. lib. xv.
dele a.
P.413:
dele li,
B 388542
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
St.CUA HISPONINSULAN AMO WAM
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 02092 4349
uu
Porn.
II
{
SAUNTIA
ARTES
VENITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
TCANOR
MONNARI
VACUMSPIELE
:
::
THE
D) UFFIEL
LIBRARY
Alien
aluminium HIBRI
a HILMIUM HIITTIIN HIHIKILA
ninnonhl.
noun nan Umidimer
TILE GIRT OK
TIE TIPI.1.X PRISIY
TERIA ISSOCIATION
nnnnnntun
inimumnyatchangamiainstititinti...umur
*