SECT. I.
Religious Worship.

THE obligation we are under to worship God, or to walk humbly with him, is, as observed above, founded on the two great princi­ples of gratitude and obedience; both of them re­quiring fundamentally a pure heart, and a well­disposed mind. But heart-worship is alone not sufficient: there are over and above required ex­ternal signs, testifying to others the sense we have of these duties, and a firm resolution to perform them. That such is the will of God, will appear as follows. The principle of devotion, like most of our other principles, partakes of the imperfec­tion [Page 188] of our nature: yet however faint originally, it is capable of being greatly invigorated by culti­vation and exercise. Private exercise is not suf­ficient. Nature, and consequently the God of na­ture, require public exercise or public worship: for devotion is infectious, like joy or grief ^a; and by mutual communication in a numerous as­sembly, is greatly invigorated. A regular habit of expressing publicly our gratitude and resignation, never fails to purify the mind, tending to wean it from every unlawful pursuit. This is the true motive of public worship; not what is commonly inculcated, viz. That it is required from us, as a testimony to our Maker of our obedience to his laws: God, who knows the heart needs no such testimony ^*. I shall only add upon the general [Page 189] head, that lawgivers ought to avoid with caution the enforcing public worship by rewards and pu­nishments: human laws cannot reach the heart, in which the essence of worship consists: they may indeed bring on a listless habit of wor­ship, by separating the external act from the internal affection, than which there can be nothing more hurtful to true religion. The utmost that can be safely ventured, is to bring public worship under censorian powers, as a matter of police, for preserving good order, and for preventing bad example.

The religion of Confucius, professed by the literati and persons of rank in China and Ton­quin, consists in a deep inward veneration for the God or King of heaven, and in the practice of every moral virtue. They have neither temples, nor priests, nor any settled form of external wor­ship: every one adores the supreme Being in the manner he himself thinks best. This is indeed the most refined system of religion that ever took place among men. There is however an invin­cible objection against it, which is, that it is not fitted for the human race: an excellent religi­gion it would be for angels; but is far too refin­ed, even for sages and philosophers.

Proceeding to deviations from the genuine wor­ship required by our Maker, and gross deviations there have been, I begin with that sort of wor­ship which is influenced by fear, and which for that reason is universal among savages. The A­merican [Page 190] savages believe, that there are inferior deities without end, most of them prone to mis­chief: they neglect the supreme Deity because he is good; and direct their worship to soothe the malevolent inferior deities from doing harm. The inhabitants of the Molucca islands, who be­lieve the existence of malevolent invisible beings subordinate to the supreme benevolent Being, confine their worship to the former, in order to avert their wrath; and one branch of their worship is, to set meat before them, hoping that when the belly is full, there will be less incli­nation to mischief. The worship of the inhabi­tants of Java is much the same. The negroes of Benin worship the devil, as Dapper expresses it, and sacrifice to him both men and beasts. They acknowledge indeed a supreme Being, who crea­ted the universe, and governs it by his Provi­dence: but they regard him not; ‘"for,"’ say they, ‘"it is needless, if not impertinent, to in­voke a being, who, good and gracious, is in­capable of injuring or molesting us."’

The austerities and penances that are practised in almost all religions, spring from the same root. One way to please invisible malignant powers, is to make ourselves as miserable as possible. Hence the horrid penances of the Faquirs in Hindostan, who outdo in mortification whatever is reported of the ancient Christian anchorites. Some of these Faquirs continue for life in one posture: some never lie down: some have always their arms raised above their head: and some mangle their bodies with knives and scourges. The town of Jagrenate in Hindostan is frequented by pil­grims, some of them from the distance of 300 leagues, which they travel, not by walking or riding, but by measuring the road by the length of their bodies; in which method of loco-moti­on, [Page 191] some of them consume years, before they complete their pilgrimage. A religious sect made its way some centuries ago into Japan, termed Bubsdoists, from Bubs, the founder. This sect has prevailed over the ancient sect of the Sintos, chiefly by its austerity and mortifications. The spirit of this sect inspires nothing but excessive fear of the gods, who are painted prone to ven­geance, and always offended. The people of that religion pass most of their time in torment­ing themselves, to expiate imaginary faults; and they are treated by their priests with despotism and cruelty, that is not paralleled but by the in­quisitors of Spain. The manners of the people are fierce, cruel, and unrelenting, such as never fail to be inspired by horrible superstition. The notion of invisible malevolent powers, formerly universal, is not to this hour eradicated, even among Christians; for which I appeal to the fastings and flagellations among Roman-Catholics, held by them to be an essential part of religion. People infected with religious horrors, are never seriously convinced, that an upright heart and sound morality make the essence of religion. The doctrine of the Jansenists, concerning re­pentance and mortification, shows evidently, however they may deceive themselves, that they have an impression of the Deity as a malevolent being. They hold the guilt contracted by Adam's fall to be a heinous sin, which ought to be expia­ted by acts of mortification, such as the torturing and macerating the body with painful labour, ex­cessive abstinence, continual prayer and contem­plation. Their penances, whether for original or voluntary sin, are carried to extravagance; and they who put an end to their lives by such severi­ties, are termed the sacred victims of repentance, consumed by the fire of divine love. Such sui­cides [Page 192] are esteemed peculiarly meritorious in the eye of Heaven; and it is thought, that their suf­ferings cannot fail to appease the anger of the Deity. That celibacy is a state of purity and perfection, is a prevailing notion in many coun­tries: among the Pagans, a married man was forbid to approach the altar, for some days after knowing his wife; and this ridiculous notion of pollution, contributed to introduce celibacy among the Roman-Catholic priests. The Empe­ror Otho, anno 1218, became a signal penitent: but instead of atoning for his sins by repentance and restitution, he laid himself down to be trod under foot by the boys of his kitchen; and fre­quently submitted to the discipline of the whip, inflicted by monks. The Emperor Charles V. toward the end of his days, was sorely depressed in spirit with fear of hell. Monks were his only companions, with whom he spent his time in chanting hymns. As an expiation for his sins, he in private disciplined himself with such severi­ty, that his whip, found after his death, was tinged with his blood. Nor was he satisfied with these acts of mortification: timorous and illiberal solicitude still haunting him, he aimed at some­thing extraordinary, at some new and singular act of piety, to display his zeal, and to merit the fa­vour of Heaven. The act he fixed on was as wild as any that superstition ever suggested to a distempered brain: it was to celebrate his own obsequies. He ordered his tomb to be erected in the chapel of the monastery: his domestics marched there in a funeral procession, holding black tapers: he followed in his shroud: he was laid in his coffin with much solemnity: the ser­vice of the dead was chanted; and he him­self joined in the prayers offered up for his requiem, mingling his tears with those of his at­tendants. [Page 193] The ceremony closed with sprinkling holy water upon the coffin; and the assistants re­retiring, the doors of the chapel were shut. Then Charles rose out of the coffin, and stole privately to his apartment.

The history of ancient sacrifices is not so accu­rate, as in every instance to ascertain upon what principle they were founded, whether upon fear, upon gratitude for favours received, or to solicit future favour. Human sacrifices undoubtedly belong to the present head: for being calculated to deprecate the wrath of a malevolent deity, they could have no other motive but fear; and indeed they are a most direful effect of that pas­sion. It is needless to lose time in mentioning in­stances, which are well known to those who are acquainted with ancient history. A number of them are collected in Historical Law-tracts ^a: and to these I take the liberty of adding, that the Cimbrians, the Germans, the Gauls, particularly the Druids, practised human sacrifices; for which we have the authority of Julius Caesar, Strabo, and other authors. A people upon the Missisippi, named Tensas, worship the sun; and, like the Natches their neighbours, have a temple for that luminary, with a sacred fire in it, conti­nually burning. The temple having been set on fire by thunder, was all in flames, when some French travellers saw them throw children into the fire, one after another, to appease the incensed deity. The Prophet Micah ^b, in a passage partly quoted above, inveighs bitterly against such sacrifices: ‘"Wherewith shall I come before [Page 194] the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt­offerings, with calves of a year old? will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"’

The ancient Persians acknowledged Oromazes and Arimanes as their great deities, authors of good and ill to men. But I find not that Ari­manes, the evil principle, was ever an object of any religious worship. The Gaures, who pro­fess the ancient religion of Persia, address no wor­ship but to one God, all-good and all-powerful.

Next, of worshipping the Deity in the charac­ter of a mercenary being. Under that head come sacrifices and oblations, whether prompted by gratitude for favours received, or by self-interest to procure future favours; which, for the reason mentioned, I shall not attempt to distinguish. As the deities of early times were thought to resem­ble men, it is not wonderful, that men endea­voured to conciliate their favour, with such offe­rings as were the most acceptable to themselves. It is probable, that the first sacrifices of that kind were of sweet-smelling herbs, which in the fire emitted a flavour, that might reach the nostrils of a deity, even at a distance. The burning in­cense to their gods, was practised in Mexico and Peru; and at present is practised in the pe­ninsula of Corea. An opportunity so favourable for making religious zeal a fund of riches to the priesthood, is seldom neglected. There was no difficulty to persuade ignorant people, that the [Page 195] gods could eat as well as smell: what was offered to a deity for food, being carried into the temple was understood to be devoured by him.

With respect to the Jewish sacrifices of burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, sin-offerings, peace-offerings, heave-offerings, and wave-offerings, these were appointed by God himself, in order to keep that stiff-necked people in daily remem­brance of their dependence on him, and to pre­serve them if possible from idolatry. But that untractable race did not adhere to the purity of the institution: they insensibly degenerated into the notion that their God was a mercenary being; and in that character only, was the worship of sacrifices performed to him: the offerings menti­oned were liberally bestowed on him, not singly as a token of their dependence, but chiefly in order to avert his wrath, or to gain his favour ^*.

The religious notions of the Greeks were equally impure: they could not think of any means for conciliating the favour of their gods, more efficacious than gifts. Homer paints his gods as mercenary to an extreme. In the fourth book of the Iliad, Jupiter says, ‘"Of these cities, honoured the most by the soul of Jove, is sa­cred Troy. Never stands the altar empty be­fore me, oblations poured forth in my pre­sence, savour that ascends the skies."’ Speak­ing [Page 196] in the fifth book of a warrior, known after­ward to be Diomedes, ‘"Some god he is, some power against the Trojans enraged for vows unpaid: destructive is the wrath of the gods."’ Diomedes prays to Minerva, ‘"With thine arm ward from me the foe: a year old heifer, O Queen, shall be thine, broad-fronted, unbro­ken, and wild: her to thee I will offer with prayer, gilding with gold her horns."’ Pre­cisely of the same kind, are the offerings made by superstitious Roman Catholics to the Virgin Mary, and to saints. Electra, in the tragedy of that name, supplicates Apollo in the following terms.

The people of Hindostan, as mentioned above, atone for their sins by austere penances; but they have no notion of presenting gifts to the Deity, nor of deprecating his wrath with the blood of animals. On the contrary, they reckon it a sin to slay any living creature; which reduces them to vegetable food. This is going too far; for the Deity could never mean to prohibit animal food, when man's chief dependence originally was upon it. The abstaining, however, from animal food, shows greater humanity in the religion of Hindostan, than of any other known country. The inhabitants of Madagascar are in a stage of religion, common among many nations, which is, the acknowledging one supreme benevolent Deity, and many malevolent inferior deities. Most of their worship is indeed addressed to the [Page 197] latter; but they have so far advanced before se­veral other nations, as to offer sacrifices to the supreme Being, without employing either idols or temples.

Philosophy and sound sense, in polished nati­tions, have purified religious worship, by banish­ing the profession at least of oblations and sacrifi­ces. The Being that made the world, governs it by laws that are inflexible, because they are the best possible; and to imagine that he can be mo­ved by prayers, oblations, or sacrifices, to vary his plan of government, is an impious thought, degrading the Deity to a level with ourselves: ‘"Hear, O my people, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he-goat out of thy fold: for every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows to the Most High. Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me ^a."’ ‘"Thou de­sirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a con­trite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise ^b."’ ‘"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God, more than burnt-of-ferings ^c."’ In dark ages, there is great shew of religion, with little heart worship: in [Page 198] ages of philosophy, warm heart-worship, with little shew ^*.

[Page 199] This is a proper place for the history of idola­try; which, as will anon appear, sprung from religious worship, corrupted by men of shallow understanding and gross conceptions, upon whom things invisible make little impression.

Savages, even of the lowest class, have an impression of invisible powers, though they can­not form any distinct notion of them. But such impression is too faint for the exercise of devo­tion. Whether inspired with love to a good be­ing, or with fear of an ill being, savages are not at ease without some sort of visible object to ani­mate them. A great stone served that purpose originally; a very low instrument indeed of reli­gious worship; but not altogether whimsical, if it was introduced, which is highly probable, in the following manner. It was an early and a na­tural custom among savages, to mark with a great stone, the place where their worthies were interred; of which we have hints every where in ancient history, particularly in the poems of Os­sian. ‘"Place me,"’ says Calmar, mortally wounded, ‘"at the side of a stone of remem­brance, that future times may bear my same, and the mother of Calmar rejoice over the stone of my renown."’ Superstition in later times having deified these worthies, their vota­ries, rejoicing as formerly over the stones dedi­cated to them, held these stones to be essential in every act of religious worship performed to [Page 200] their new deities ^*. Tradition points out many stones in different parts of the world, that were used in religious worship. A large stone worship­ped by the Pessenuntians, a people of Phrygia, under the name of Idaea mater, was, upon a so­lemn embassy to that people, brought to Rome; it being contained in the Sybilline books, that un­less the Romans got possession of that goddess, they never would prevail over Hannibal. And Pausanias mentions many stones in Greece, dedi­cated to different divinities; particularly thirty square stones in Achaia, on which were engraved the names of as many gods. In another place, he mentions a very ancient statue of Venus in the island Delos, which, instead of feet, had only a square stone. This may appear a puzzling cir­cumstance in the history of Greece, considering that all the Grecian gods were originally mortals, [Page 201] whom it was easy to represent by statues: but in that early period, the Greeks knew no more of statuary than the most barbarous nations. It is perhaps not easy to gather the meaning of sa­vages, with respect to such stones: the most na­tural conjecture is, that a great stone, dedicated to the worship of a certain deity, was considered as belonging to him. This notion of property had a double effect: the worshippers, by con­nection of ideas, were led from the stone to the deity: and the stone tended to fix their wander­ing thoughts. It was probably imagined, over and above, that some latent virtue communicated to the stone, made it holy or sacred. Even a­mong enlightened people, a sort of virtue or sanctity is conceived to reside in the place of worship: why not also in a stone dedicated to a deity? The ancient Ethiopians, in their wor­ship, introduced the figure of a serpent as a sym­bol of the deity: two sticks laid cross represent­ed Castor and Pollux, Roman divinities: a jave­lin represented their god Mars; and in Tartary, formerly, the god of war was worshipped under the symbol of an old rusty sabre. The ancient Persians used consecrated fire, as an emblem of the great God. Though the negroes of Congo and Angola have images without number, they are not however idolaters in any proper sense: their belief is, that these images are only organs by which the deities signify their will to their vo­taries.

If the use that was made of stones and of other symbols in religious worship, be fairly represented, it may appear strange, that the ingenious Greeks sunk down into idolatry, at the very time they were making a rapid progress in the fine arts. Their improvements in statuary, one of these arts, was the cause. They began with attempting to [Page 202] carve heads of men and women, representing their deified heroes; which were placed upon the stones dedicated to these divinities. In the progress of the art, statues were executed complete in every member; and at last, statues of the gods were made, expressing such dignity and majesty, as in­sensibly to draw from beholders a degree of devo­tion to the statues themselves. Hear Quintilian upon that subject. ‘"At quae Polycleto defue­runt, Phidiae atque Alcameni dantur. Phidias tamen diis quam hominibus efficiendis melior artifex traditur: in ebore vero, longe citra aemulum, vel si nihil nisi Minervam Athenis aut Olympium in Elide Jovem fecisset, cujus pulchritudo adjecisse aliquid etiam receptae re­ligioni videtur; adeo majestas operis deum aequavit ^*."’ Here is laid a foundation for ido­latry: let us trace its progress. Such statues as are represented by Quintilian, serve greatly to en­slame devotion; and during a warm fit of the religious passion, the representation is lost, and the statue becomes a deity; precisely as where King Lear is represented by Garrick: the actor vanishes; and, behold! the King himself. This is not singular. Anger occasions a metamorphosis still more extraordinary: if I happen to strike my gouty toe against a stone, the violence of the pain [Page 203] converts the stone for a moment into a voluntary agent; and I wreak my resentment on it, as if it really were so. It is true, the image is only con­ceived to be a deity during the fervour of devoti­on; and when that subsides, the image falls back to its original representative state. But frequent instances of that kind, have at last the effect among illiterate people, to convert the image into a sort of permanent deity: what such people see, makes a deep impression; what they see not, little or none at all. There is another thing that concurs with eye-sight, to promote this delusion: devotion, being a vigorous principle in the human breast, will exert itself upon the meanest object, when none more noble is in view.

The ancient Persians held the consecrated fire to be an emblem only of the great God: but such veneration was paid to that emblem, and with so great ceremony was it treated, that the vulgar came at last to worship it as a sort of deity. The priests of the Gaures watch the consecrated fire day and night: they keep it alive with the purest wood, without bark: they touch it not with sword nor knife: they blow it not with bellows, nor with the mouth: even the priest is prohi­bited to approach it, till his mouth be covered with fine linen, lest it be polluted with his breath: if it happen to go out, it must be re­kindled by striking fire from flint, or by a burning glass.

The progress of idolatry will more clearly ap­pear, from attending to the religion of the Greeks and Romans. The Greeks, as mentioned above, made use of stones in divine worship, long before idolatry was introduced: and we learn from Var­ro, that for a hundred and seventy years after Numa, the Romans had no statues nor images in their temples. After statues of the gods came [Page 204] in fashion, they acquired by degrees more and more respect. The Greek and Roman writers, talk of divine virtue being communicated to sta­tues; and some of the Roman writers talk famili­arly, of the numen of a deity residing in his statue. Arnobius, in his book against the Gentiles, intro­duces a Gentile delivering the following opinion. ‘"We do not believe, that the metal which com­poses a statue, whether gold, or silver, or brass, is a god, But we believe, that a so­lemn dedication brings down the god to inha­bit his image; and it is the god only that we worship in that image."’ This explains the Roman ceremony, of inviting to their side the tutelar deities of towns besieged by them, termed evacatio tutelarium deorum: the Romans, cruel as they were, overflowed with superstition; and as they were averse from combating the tutelar dei­ties even of their enemies, they endeavoured to gain these deities by large promises, and assurance of honourable treatment. As they could not hope that a statue would change its place, their notion must have been, that by this ceremony, the tute­lar deity might be prevailed upon to withdraw its numen, and leave the statue a dead lump of matter. When Stilpo was banished by the Areopagus of Athens for affirming, that the statue in the tem­ple of Minerva was not the goddess, but a piece of matter carved by Phidias; he surely was not condemned for saying, that the statue was made by Phidias, a fact universally known: his heresy consisted in denying that the numen of Minerva re­sided in the statue. Augustus, having twice lost his fleet by storm, forbade Neptune to be carried in procession along with the other gods; ima­gining he had avenged himself of Neptune, by neglecting the favourite statue in which his numen resided.

[Page 205] When saints in the Christian church were dei­fied, even their images became objects of wor­ship; from a fond imagination, that such wor­ship draws down into the images, the souls of the saints they represent: which is the same doctrine that Arnobius, in the passage above mentioned, ascribes to the Gentiles; and is not widely diffe­rent from the belief of the Pagan Tartars and Ostiacs, by and by to be mentioned. In the ele­venth century, there was a violent dispute about images in the Greek church; many asserting, that in the images of our Saviour and of the saints, there resides an inherent sanctity, which is a pro­per object of worship; and that Christians ought not to confine their worship to the persons re­presented, but ought also to extend it to their images.

As ignorant and savage nations can form no conception of Deity, but of a being like a man, only superior in power and greatness, images are made of the Deity in several nations conformable to this conception. It is easy to make some re­semblance of a man; but how is power and greatness to be represented? To perform this with propriety, would require a Hogarth. Savages go more bluntly to work: they endeavour to re­present a man with many heads, and with a still greater number of hands. The northern Tartars seem to have no deities but certain statues or ima­ges coarsely formed out of wood, and bearing some distant resemblance to the human figure. To palliate so gross an absurdity, as that a god can be fabricated by the hands of man, they ima­gine this image to be endued with a soul: to say whence that soul came, would puzzle the wisest of them. That soul is conceived to be too ele­vated for dwelling constantly in a piece of matter: they believe that it resides in some more honou­rable [Page 206] place; and that it only visits the image or idol, when it is called down by prayers and sup­plications. They sacrifice to this idol, by rub­bing its mouth with the fat of fish, and by offer­ing it the warm blood of some beast killed in hunting. The last step of the ceremony is, to honour the soul of the idol with a joyful shout, as a sort of convoy to it when it returns home. The Ostiacs have a wooden idol, termed, The Old Man of Oby, who is guardian of their fishery: it hath eyes of glass, and a head with short horns. When the ice dissolves, they crowd to this idol, requesting that he will be propitious to their fi­shery. If unsuccessful, he is loaded with re­proaches: if successful, he is entitled to a share of the capture. They make a feast for him, rubbing his snout with choice fat; and, when the entertainment is over, they accompany the soul of the idol a little way, beating the air with their cudgels. The Ostiacs have another idol, that is fed with milk so abundantly, as to come out on both sides of the spoon, and to fall down upon the vesture; which, however, is never washed, so little is cleanliness thought essential to religion by that people. It is indeed wonderfully absurd, to think, that invisible souls require food like hu­man creatures; and yet the same absurdity pre­vailed in Greece.

The ancient Germans, a sober and sensible people, had no notion of representing their gods by statues, nor of building temples to them. They worshipped in consecrated groves ^a. The Egyptians, from a just conception that an invisi­ble being can have no resemblance to one that is [Page 207] visible, employed hieroglyphical figures for de­noting metaphorically the attributes of their gods; and they employed, not only the figures of birds and beasts, but of vegetables; leeks, for example, and onions. This metaphorical adjunct to religi­on, innocent in itself, sunk the Egyptians to the lowest degree of idolatry. As hieroglyphical fi­gures, composed frequently of heterogeneous parts, resemble not any being human or devine; the vulgar, losing sight of the emblematic signifi­cation, which is not readily understood but by poets and philosophers, took up with the plain fi­gures as real divinities. How otherwise can it be accounted for, that the ox, the ape, the onion, were in Egypt worshipped as deities? But this must be understood of the vulgar only. It is scarce supposable, that the better sort of people could think so grossly; and we have the authority of Plutarch for doubting. In his chapter upon Isis and Osiris, he observes, that the Egyptians worshipped the bull, the cat, and other animals; not as divinities, but as representatives of them, like an image seen in a glass; or, as he expresses it in another part of the same chapter, ‘"just as we see the resemblance of the sun in a drop of water."’ However this be, the Egyptian wor­ship is an illustrious instance of the influence of devotion: how powerful must it be in its purity, when even in a wrong direction, it can force its way against every obstacle of common sense! And such respect was paid to these animals, if we can trust Diodorus Siculus, that in a great famine, the Egyptians ventured not to touch the sacred ani­mals, though they were forced to devour one an­other. The veneration paid to a cow in Hindostan arose probably from the same cause, viz. its hav­ing been used as a symbol of the Deity. A snake of a particular kind, about a yard long, and about [Page 208] the thickness of a man's arm, is worshipped by the Whidans in Guinea. It has a large round head, piercing eyes, a short pointed tongue, and a smooth skin, beautifully speckled. It has a strong antipathy to all the venomous kind; in other re­spects, innocent and tame. To kill them being a capital crime, they travel about unmolested, even into bedchambers. They occasioned, ann. 1697, a ridiculous persecution. A hog, teased by one of them, gnashed it with his tusks till it died. The priests carried their complaint to the king; and no one presuming to appear as counsel for the hogs, orders were issued for slaughtering the whole race. At once were brandished a thousand cutlasses; and the race would have been extirpated, had not the king interposed, representing to the priests, that they ought to rest satisfied with the innocent blood they had spilt. Rancour and cruelty never rage more violently, than under the mask of reli­gion.

It is amazing how prone the most polished na­tions formerly were to idolatry. The Tyrians, besieged by Alexander, chained down Hercules, their tutelar deity, to prevent him from deserting to the enemy; which is said to have been also practised in Sparta. The city of Ambracia being taken by the Romans, and every statue of their gods being carried to Rome; the Ambracians complained bitterly, that not a single divinity was left them to worship. How much more rational are the Hindostan bramins, who teach their dis­ciples, that idols are emblems only of the Deity, intended merely to fix the attention of the po­pulace!

The first statues in Greece and Tuscany, were made with wings, to signify the swift motion of the gods. These statues were so clumsy, as [Page 209] scarce to resemble human creatures, not to talk of a divinity. But the admirable statues exe­cuted in later times, were imagined to resemble most accurately the deities represented by them: whence the vulgar notion, that gods have wings, and that angels have wings.

I proceed to what in the history of idolatry may be reckoned the second part. Statues, we have seen, were at first used as representatives only of the Deity; but came afterward to be metamorphosed into divinities. The absurdity did not stop there. People, not satisfied with the visible deities erected in temples for public worship, became fond to have private de­ities of their own, whom they worshipped as their tutelar deities; and this practice spread so wide, as that among many nations every family had household gods cut in wood or stone. Eve­ry family in Kamskatka has a tutelar deity in the shape of a pillar, with the head of a man, which is supposed to guard the house against malevolent spirits. They give it food daily, and anoint the head with the fat of fish. The Prophet Isaiah ^a put this species of deification in a most ridi­culous light: ‘"He burneth part thereof in the fire: with part thereof he roasteth flesh: of the residue he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down, worshipping, and praying to it, and saith, Deliver me, for thou art my god."’ Multiplication could not fail to sink household-gods into a degree of contempt: expectation of good from them, might produce some cold ceremonial worship; but there could be no real devotion at heart. The Chinese man­ner of treating their household-gods, will vouch [Page 210] for me. When a Chinese does not obtain what he prays for, ‘"Thou spiritual dog,"’ he will say, ‘"I lodge thee well, thou art beaufully gild­ed, treated with perfumes and burnt-offer­ings; and yet thou with-holdest from me the necessaries of life."’ Sometimes they fasten a cord to the idol, and drag it through the dirt. The inhabitants of Ceylon treat their idols in the same manner. Thor, Woden, and Friga, were the great deities of the Scandinavians. They had at the same time inferior deities, who were sup­posed to have been men translated into heaven for their good works. These they treated with very little ceremony, refusing to worship them if they were not propitious; and even punishing them with banishment; but restoring them after a time, in hopes of amendment. Domestic idols are treated by the Ostiacs not more reverently than by the people mentioned. But they have public idols, some particularly of brass, which are high­ly reverenced: the solidity of the metal is in their imagination connected with immortality; and great regard is paid to these idols, for the knowledge and experience they must have ac­quired in an endless course of time.

Saints, or tutelar deities, are sometimes not better treated among Roman Catholics, than among Pagans. ‘"When we were in Portugal,"’ says Captain Brydone, ‘"the people of Castel­branco were so enraged at St Antonio, for suf­fering the Spaniards to plunder their town, contrary, as they affirmed, to his express agreement with them, that they broke many of his statues to pieces; and one that had been more revered than the rest, they took the head off, and in its stead placed one of St Francis. The great St Januarius himself was in immi­nent danger, during the last famine at Naples. [Page 211] They loaded him with abuse and invective; and declared point-blank, that if he did not procure them corn by such a time, he should be no longer their saint."’ The tutelar saint of Cattania, at the foot of Mount Etna, is St Agatha. A torrent of lava burst over the walls, and laid waste great part of that beautiful city. Where was St Agatha at this time? The peo­ple say, that they had given her just provocation; but that she has long ago been reconciled to them, and has promised never to suffer the lava to hurt them again. At the foot of Mount Etna, a sta­tue of a saint is placed as a memorial, for having prevented the lava from running up the mountain of Taurominum, and destroying that town; the saint having conducted the lava down a low val­ley to the sea.

When a traveller once happens to deviate from the right road, there is no end of wandering. Porphyrius reports, that in Anubis, an Egyptian city, a real man was worshipped as a god; which is also asserted by Minucius Foelix, in his apolo­gy for the Christians. A thousand writers have said, that the Tartars believe their high-priest, termed Dalai Lama, to be immortal. But that is a mistake: his death is published through the whole country; and couriers, sent even to Pekin, intimate it to the Emperor of China: his effigy, at the same time, is taken down from the portal of the great church, and that of his successor is put in its stead. The system of the metempsy­chosis, adopted in that country, has occasioned the mistake. They believe, that the holy spirit, which animates a Dalai Lama, passes upon his death into the body of his successor. The spirit therefore is believed to be immortal, not the bo­dy. The Dalai Lama, however, is the object of profound veneration. The Tartar princes are [Page 212] daily sending presents to him, and consulting him as an oracle: they even undertake a pilgrimage in order to worship him in person. In a retired part of the temple, he is shown covered with precious stones, and sitting cross-legged. They prostrate themselves before him at a distance, for they are not permitted to kiss his toe. The priests make traffic even of his excrements, which are greedily purchased at a high price, and are kept in a golden box hanging from the neck, as a charm against every misfortune. Like the cross of Jesus, or the Virgin's milk, we may believe, there never will be wanting plenty of that preci­ous stuff to answer all demands: the priests out of charity will furnish a quota, rather than suffer votaries to depart with their money for want of goods to purchase. The person of the Japan Pope, or Ecclesiastical Emperor, is held so sa­cred, as to make the cutting his beard, or his nails, a deadly sin. But absurd laws are never steadily executed. The beard and the nails are cut in the night-time, when the Pope is supposed to be sleeping; and what is taken away by that operation, is understood to be stolen from him, which is no impeachment upon his Holiness.

That the Jews were idolaters when they so­journed in the land of Goshen, were it not pre­sumable from their commerce with the Egypti­ans, would however be evident from the history of Moses. Notwithstanding their miraculous deliverance from the Egyptian king, notwith­standing the daily miracles wrought among them in the wilderness; so addicted were they to a visible deity, that, during even the momentary absence of Moses conversing with God on the mount, they fabricated a golden calf, and worshipped it as their god. ‘"And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down: for thy people which [Page 213] thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I com­manded them: they have made them a mol­ten calf, have worshipped it, have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt ^a."’ The history of the Jews shows how difficult it is to reclaim from idolatry a brutish people, addicted to superstition, and and fettered by inveterate habit. What profusi­on of blood, to bring that obstinate and perverse people to the true religion! all in vain. The book of Judges, in particular, is full of reitera­ted relapses, from their own invisible God, to the visible gods of other nations. And in all pro­bability, their anxious desire for a visible king, related in the first book of Samuel, arose from their being deprived of a visible god. There was a necessity for prohibiting images ^b; which would have soon been converted into deities visi­ble: and it was extremely prudent, to supply the want of a visible god, with endless shews and ce­remonies; which accordingly became the capital branch of the Jewish worship.

It appears to me from the whole history of the Jews, that a gross people are not susceptible but of a gross religion; and without an enlightened un­derstanding, that it is vain to think of eradicating superstition and idolatry. And after all the co­venants made with the Jews, after all the chas­tisements and all the miracles lavished on them, that they were not however reclaimed from the [Page 214] most groveling idolatry, is evident from the two golden calves fabricated by Jeroboam, saying, ‘"Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt ^a."’ The people also of Judah fell back to idol-worship un­der Rehoboam, son of Solomon ^b. Jehu, king of the ten tribes, did not tolerate the wor­ship of other gods ^c; but he continued to wor­ship the two golden calves fabricated by Jerobo­am ^d. Down to the days of King Hezekiah, the Jews worshipped the brazen serpent erected by Moses in the wilderness. The Jews seem in­deed to have been a very perverse people: the many promises and threatenings announced by their prophets, and the many miracles wrought among them, had no permanent effect to restrain them from idolatry; and yet, during their cap­tivity in Babylon, several of them submitted to be burnt alive, rather than to join in idol wor­ship ^e. Captivity cured them radically of ido­latry; and from that period to this day, they have not been guilty of a single relapse. Xiphilin, in his abridgement of Dion Cassius, relating their war with Pompey, many centuries after the Ba­bylonish captivity, gives the following account of them. ‘"Their customs are quite different from those of other nations. Beside a peculi­ar [Page 215] manner of living, they acknowledge none of the common deities: they acknowledge but one, whom they worship with great venerati­on. There never was an image in Jerusalem; because they believe their God to be invisible and ineffable. They have built him a temple of great size and beauty, remarkable in the following particular, that it is open above, without any roof."’

There lies no solid objection against images among an enlightened people, when used merely to rouse devotion. But as images tend to per­vert the vulgar, they ought not to be admitted into churches: pictures are less liable to be mis­apprehended; and the Ethiopians accordingly in­dulge pictures, though they prohibit statues, in their churches. The general council of Frank­fort permitted the use of images in churches; but strictly prohibited any worship to be addres­sed to them. So prone however to idolatry are the low and illiterate, that the prohibition lost ground both in France and in Germany; and idol-worship became again general.

It is extremely probable, that the sun and moon were early held to be deities, and that they were the first visible objects of worship. It must indeed be acknowledged, that of all the different kinds of idolatry, it is the most excusable. Up­on the sun depends health, vigour, and cheerful­ness: during his retirement, all is dark and dis­consolate: when he performs his majestic round, to bless his subjects, and to bestow fecundity up­on every animal and vegetable, can a mere sa­vage with-hold gratitude and veneration! Hear an old Pagan bard upon that subject. ‘"O thou who rollest above, round as the shield of my fathers! Whence are thy beams, O sun, thy everlasting light? Thou comest forth in thy [Page 216] awful beauty, and the stars hide their faces: thou movest alone, for who can be a compa­nion of thy course? The oaks of the moun­tain fall: the mountains decay with years: the ocean shrinks and grows again: the moon herself is lost in heaven: but thou art for ever the same, rejoicing in the brightness of thy course. When tempests darken the world, when thunder rolls, and lightning flies, thou lookest in thy beauty from the clouds, and laughest at the storm ^a."’ Worship to the sun as a real deity, was in former times univer­sal; and prevails in many countries even at pre­sent. The American savages worship the sun, as sovereign of the universe, known by the name of Ariskoui among the Hurons, and of Agriskoué among the Iroquois. They offer him tobacco, which they term smoking the sun: the chief man in the assembly lights the calumet, and offers it thrice to the rising sun; imploring his protection, and recommending the tribe to his care. The chief proceeds to smoke; and every one smokes in his turn. This ceremony is performed on im­portant occasions only: less matters are reserved for their Manitou. The Missisippi people offer to the sun the first of what they take in hunting; which their commander artfully converts to his own use. The Apalachites, bordering on Flori­da, worship the sun; but sacrifice nothing to him that has life: they hold him to be the parent of life, and think that he can take no pleasure in the destruction of any living creature: their de­votion is exerted in perfumes and songs. The Mexicans, while a free people, presented to the [Page 217] sun a share of their meat and drink. The inha­bitants of Darien believe in the sun as their god, and in the moon as his wife, paying equal adora­tion to each. The people of Borneo worship the sun and moon as real divinities. The Samo­ides worship both, bowing to them morning and evening in the Persian manner.

But if the sun and moon were the first objects of idolatry, knowledge and reflection reformed many from the error of holding these luminaries to be deities. ‘"That original intelligence,"’ say the Magians, ‘"who is the first principle of all things, discovers himself to the mind and understanding only: but he hath placed the sun as his image in the visible universe; and the beams of that bright luminary, are but a faint copy of the glory that shines in the high­er heavens."’ The Persians, as Herodotus reports, had neither temples, nor altars, nor images: for, says that author, they do not think, like the Greeks, that there is any resem­blance between gods and men. The Gaures, who to this day profess the ancient religion of Persia, celebrate divine worship before the sa­cred fire, and turn with peculiar veneration to­ward the rising sun, as the representative of God; but they adore neither the sun, nor the sacred fire. They are professed enemies to every image of the Deity cut with hands: and hence the ha­vock made by the ancient Persians, upon the sta­tues and temples of The Grecian gods. Such sublimity of thought was above the reach of other uninspired nations, excepting only the Hin­dows and Chinese.

I close the history of idolatry with a brief re­capitulation of the outlines. Admitting the sun and moon to have been the first objects of idola­try, yet as Polytheism was once universal, they [Page 218] make only two of the many gods that were eve­ry where worshipped. We have seen, that the sacred fire was employed in the worship of the sun, and that images were employed in the worship of other deities. Images were originally used for the sole purpose of animating devotion: such was their use in Persia and Hindostan; and such was their use in every country among philo­sophers. The Emperor Julian, in an epistle to Theodore concerning the images of the gods says, ‘"We believe not that these images are gods: we only use them in worshipping the gods."’ In the progress toward idolatry, the next step is, to imagine, that a deity loves his image, that he makes it his residence, or at least communicates some virtue to it. The last step is, to imagine the image itself to be a deity; which gained ground imperceptibly as statuary advanced to­ward perfection. It would be incredible that men of sense should ever suffer themselves to be im­pressed with so wild a delusion, were it not the overbearing influence of religious superstition. Credo quia impossible est, is applicable to idolatry as well as to transubstantiation. The worship­ping the sun and moon as deities, is idolatry in the strictest sense. With respect to images, the first step of the progress is not idolatry: the next is mixed idolatry: and the last is rank idolatry.

So much upon idolatry. I proceed to what approaches the nearest to it, which is worship addressed to deified mortals. The ancient gods were exalted so little above men, that it was no hard task for the imagination to place in heaven, men who had made a figure on earth. The Grecian heaven was entirely peopled with such men, as well as that of many other nations. Men are deified every day by the Romish church, under the denomination of saints: per­sons [Page 219] are frequently selected for that honour who scarce deserved a place on earth, and some who never had a place there. The Roman Catholics copy the Pagans, in worshipping these subordi­nate divinities by prayers and oblations: and they are well rewarded, by being taken under protec­tion of these saints in quality of tutelar deities. One branch of the office bestowed on these saints, is to explain the wants of their votaries to the King of heaven, and to supplicate for them. The mediatorial office prevails with respect to earthly potentates, as well as heavenly: being struck with awe and timidity in approaching those exalted above us, we naturally take hold of some intermediate person to solicit for us. In ap­proaching the Almighty, the mind, sinking down into humility and profound veneration, stops short, relying upon some friend in heaven to in­tercede in its behalf. Temples among the Co­chin-Chinese are constructed with a deep and dark niche, which is their sanctum sanctorum. They hold, that no representation, whether by painting or sculpture, can be made of God, who is invisible. The niche denotes his incomprehen­sibility; and the good men placed by them in heaven, are believed to be their intercessors at the throne of grace. The prayers of the Chingu­lese are seldom directed to the supreme being, but to his vicegerents. Intercessors, at the same time, contribute to the ease of their votaries: a Roman Catholic need not assume a very high tone in addressing a tutelar saint chosen by him­self.

False notions of Providence have prompted groveling mortals to put confidence in mediators and intercessors of a still lower class, viz. living mortals, who by idle austerities have acquired a reputation for holiness. Take the following in­stance, [Page 220] the strongest of the kind that can be fi­gured. Louis XI. of France, sensible of the approach of death, sent for a hermit of Calabria, named Francisco Martarillo; and throwing him­self at the hermit's feet in a flood of tears, en­treated him to intercede with God, that his life might be prolonged; as if the voice of a Cala­brian friar, says Voltaire, could alter the course of Providence, by preserving a weak and per­verse soul in a worn-out body.

Having discussed the persons that are the ob­jects of worship, the next step in order is, to take under view the forms and ceremonies em­ployed in religious worship. Forms are necessa­ry where-ever a number of persons join in one operation: they are essential in an army, and lit­tle less essential at public worship. The use of ceremonies is to excite devotion: but to pre­serve a just medium, requires great delicacy of taste; for though ceremonies are necessary at public worship to prevent languor, yet superflui­ty of ceremonies quenches devotion, by occupy­ing the mind too much upon externals. The Ro­man-Catholic worship is crowded with ceremo­nies: it resembles the Italian opera, which is all sound, and no sentiment. The Presbyterian form of worship is too naked: it is proper for philosophers more than for the populace. This is fundamentally the cause of the numerous secessi­ons from the church of Scotland that have made a figure of late: people dislike the established forms, when they find less comfort in public worship than is expected; and without being sensible of the real cause, they chuse pastors for themselves, who supply the want of ceremonies by loud speaking, with much external fervor and devotion.

[Page 221] The frequent ablutions or washings among the Mahometans and others, as acts of devotion, show the influence that the slightest resemblances have on the ignorant. Because purification, in several languages, is a term applicable to the mind as well as to the body, shallow thinkers, misled by the double meaning, imagine that the mind, like the body, is purified by water.

The sect of Ali use the Alcoran translated into the Persian language, which is their native tongue. The sect of Omar esteem this to be a gross im­piety; being persuaded, that the Alcoran was written in Arabic, by the Angel Gabriel, at the command of God himself. The Roman Catho­lics are not then the only people who profess to speak nonsense to God Almighty; or, which is the same, who profess to pray in an unknown tongue.

At meals, the ancients poured out some wine as a libation to the gods: Christians pronounce a short prayer, termed a grace.

The gross notion of Deity entertained by the ancients, is exemplified in their worshipping and sacrificing on high places; in order, as they thought, to be more within sight. Jupiter in Homer praises Hector for sacrificing to him fre­quently upon the top of Ida; and Strabo observes, that the Persians, who used neither images nor altars, sacrificed to the gods in high places. Ba­lak carried Balaam the prophet to the top of Pis­gah, and other mountains, to sacrifice there, and to curse Israel. The votaries of Baal always worshipped in high places. Even the sage Taci­tus was infected with that absurdity. Speaking of certain high mountains where the gods were worshipped, he expresses himself thus: Maxime [Page 222] coelo appropinquare, precesque mortalium a Deo nus­quam propius audiri ^*.

Ceremonies that tend to unhinge morality, be­long more properly to the following section, treating of the connection between religion and morality.

It is now full time to take under consideration an objection to the sense of Deity hinted above, ar­guing from the gross conceptions of deity among many nations, that this sense cannot be innate. The objection is not indeed stated in the follow­ing passage, borrowed from a justly celebrated author; but as it may be implied, the passage shall be fairly transcribed. ‘"The universal pro­pensity to believe invisible intelligent power, being a general attendant on human nature, if not an original instinct, may be considered as a kind of stamp which the Deity has set upon his work; and nothing surely can more dignify mankind, than to be the only earthly being who bears the stamp or image of the universal Creator. But consult this image as it commonly is in popular religions: how is the Deity disfigured! what caprice, ab­surdity, and immorality, are attributed to him ^a!"’ A satisfactory answer to the objecti­on implied in this passage, will occur, upon re­collecting the progress of men and nations from infancy to maturity. Our external senses, neces­sary for self-preservation, soon arrive at perfec­tion: the more refined senses of propriety, of right and wrong, of Deity, of being accountable [Page 223] creatures, and many others of the same kind, are of slower growth: the sense of right and wrong in particular, and the sense of Deity, seldom reach perfection, but by good education and much study. If such be the case among en­lightened nations, what is to be expected from sa­vages who are in the lowest stage of understand­ing? To a savage of New Holland, whose sense of deity is extremely obscure, one may talk with­out end of a being who created the world, and who governs it by wise laws; but in vain; for the savage will be never the wiser. The same savage hath also a glimmering of the moral sense, as all men have; and yet in vain will you dis­course to him of approbation and disapprobation, of merit and demerit: of these terms he has no clear conception. Hence the endless aberrations of rude and barbarous nations, from pure religion as well as from pure morality. Of the latter there are many instances collected in the prece­ding tract; and of the former, instances still more plentiful in the present tract. The sense of deity in dark times has indeed been strangely dis­torted by certain biasses and passions that enslave the rude and illiterate: but these yield gradually to the rational faculty as it ripens, and at last leave religion free to sound philosophy. Then it is that men, listening to the innate sense of deity purified from every bias, acquire a clear convic­tion of one supreme Deity who made and go­verns the world.

The foregoing objection then, impartially con­sidered, weighs not against the sense of deity more than against the moral sense. If it have weight, it resolves into a complaint against Providence for the weakness of the sense of deity in rude and illiterate nations. If such complaint be solidly founded, it pierces extremely deep: why have [Page 224] not all nations, even in their nascent state, the sense of deity, and the moral sense, in purity and perfection? why do they not possess all the arts of life without necessity of culture or experience? why are we born poor and helpless infants, in­stead of being produced complete in every mem­ber, internal and external, as Adam and Eve were? The plan of Providence is far above the reach of our weak criticisms. I shall only observe, that as, with respect to individuals, there is a progress from infancy to maturity; so there is a similar progress in every nation, from its savage state to its maturity in arts and scien­ces. A child that has just conceptions of the Deity and of his attributes, would be a great miracle; and would not such knowledge in a sa­vage be equally so? Nor can I discover what benefit a child or a savage could reap from such knowledge; provided it remained a child or a sa­vage in every other respect. The genuine fruits of religion, are gratitude to the Author of our be­ing, veneration to him as the supreme Being, ab­solute resignation to the established laws of his Providence, and chearful performance of every duty: but a child has not the slightest idea of gratitude nor of veneration, and very little of moral duties; and a savage, with respect to these, is not much superior to a child. The formation and government of the world, as far as we know, are excellent: we have great reason to presume the same with respect to what we do not know; and every good man will rest satisfied with the following reflection, That we should have been men from the hour of our birth, complete in every part, had it been conformable to the sys­tem of unerring Providence.

SECT. II.
Morality considered as a branch of duty to our Maker.

HAVING travelled long on a rough road, not a little fatiguing, the agreeable part lies before us; which is, to treat of morality as a branch of religion. It was that subject which induced me to undertake the history of natural religion; a subject that will afford salutary in­struction, and will inspire true piety, if instruc­tion can produce that effect.

Bayle starts a question, Whether a people may not be happy in society, and be qualified for good government, upon principles of morality singly, without any sense of religion? The question is ingenious, and may give opportunity for subtile reasoning; but it is useless, because the fact supposed cannot happen. The principles of morality and of religion are equally rooted in our nature: they are indeed weak in children and in savages; but they grow up together, and ad­vance toward maturity with equal steps. Where­ever the moral sense is in perfection, a sense of religion cannot be wanting; and if a man who has no sense of religion, live decently in society, he is more indebted for his conduct to good tem­per than to sound morals.

[Page 226] We have the authority of the Prophet Micah, formerly quoted, for holding, that religion, or, in other words, our duty to God, consists in do­ing justice, in loving mercy, and in walking hum­bly with him. The last is the foundation of re­ligious worship, discussed in the foregoing section: the two former belong to the present head. And if we have gratitude to our Maker and Benefac­tor, if we owe implicit obedience to his will as our rightful sovereign, we ought not to separate the worship we owe to him, from justice and benevolence to our fellow-creatures; for to be unjust to them, to be cruel or hard-hearted, is a transgression of his will, no less gross than a total neglect of religious worship. ‘"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy­self. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets ^a."’ ‘"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you. For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye cloathed me: sick, and ye visited me: in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and cloathed thee? When saw we thee sick, or [Page 227] in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer, Verily I say unto you, in as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me ^a."’ ‘"Pure religion and undefiled before God, is this, To visit the fatherless and widow in their af­fliction; and to keep himself unspotted from the world ^b."’ ‘"Hostias et victimas Do­mino offeram quas in usum mei protulit, ut re­jiciam ei suum munus? Ingratum est; cum sit litabilis hostia bonus animus, et pura mens, et sincera conscientia. Igitur qui innocentiam colit, Domino supplicat; qui justitiam, Deo libat; qui fraudibus abstinet, propitiat Deum; qui hominem periculo subripit, optimam victi­mam caedit. Haec nostra sacrificia, haec Dei sacra sunt. Sic apud nos religiosior est ille, qui justior ^{* c}."’ The laws of Zaleucus, lawgiver to the Locrians, who lived before the [Page 228] days of Pythagoras, are introduced with the fol­lowing preamble. ‘"No man can question the ex­istence of Deity who observes the order and har­mony of the universe, which cannot be the pro­duction of chance. Men ought to bridle their passions, and to guard against every vice. God is pleased with no sacrifice but a sincere heart: and differs widely from mortals, whose delight are splendid ceremonies and rich offerings. Let justice therefore be studied; for by that only can a man be acceptable to the Deity. Let those who are tempted to do ill, have always before their eyes the severe judgments of the gods against wicked men. Let them always keep in view the hour of death, that fatal hour which is attended with bitter remorse for transgressing the rules of justice. If a bad disposition incline you to vice, pray to Hea­ven at the foot of the altar, to mend your heart."’

Morality is thus included in religion. Some nations, however, leave not this proposition to reasoning or conviction, but ingross many moral duties in their religious creed. In the 67th chap­ter of the Sadder, a lie is declared to be a great sin, and is discharged even where it tends to bring about good. So much purer is the morality of the ancient Persians than of the present Jusuits. The religion of the people of Pegu, inculcates charity, forbids to kill, to steal, or to injure others. At­tend to the consequence: that people, fierce ori­ginally, have become humane and compassionate. In a sacred book of the ancient Persians, it is written, ‘"If you incline to be a saint, give good education to your children; for their virtuous actions will be imputed to you."’ The people of Japan pay great respect to their parents; it being an article in their creed, That those who fail [Page 229] in duty to their parents, will be punished by the gods. In these two instances, religion tends greatly to connect parents and children in the most intimate tie of cordial affection. The reverence the Chinese have for their ancestors, and the ce­remonies performed annually at their tombs, tend to keep them at home, and prevent their wander­ing into foreign countries.

Superstitious rites in some religions, are suc­cessfully employed to enforce certain moral du­ties. The Romans commonly made their solemn covenants in the capitol, before the statue of Ju­piter; by which solemnity he was understood to guarantee the covenant, ready to pour out venge­ance upon the transgressor. The Burates, a people in Grand Tartary, have a custom, which is, to de­mand an oath upon a mountain, held to be sacred. They are firmly persuaded, that the person who swears a falsehood, will not come down alive. The Essenes, a Jewish sect, bound themselves by a solemn oath, to shun unlawful gain, to be faith­ful to their promises, not to lie, and never to harm any one. In Cochin-China, the souls of those who have been eminent for arts or arms, are worshipped. Their statues are placed in the tem­ples; and the size of a statue is proportioned to the merit of the person represented. If that custom be executed with candour, there can­not be a nobler incitement to public spirit. The Egyptians did not reach the thought of honouring virtue after death; but they dis­honoured vice, by prohibiting it from the Elysian fields.

The salutary influence of religion on morality, is not confined to pure religion, whether by its connection with morality in general, or by incul­cating particular moral duties. There are many religious doctrines, doubtful or perhaps erroneous, [Page 230] that contribute also to enforce morality. Some followers of Confucius ascribe immortality to the souls only of the just; and believe that the souls of the wicked perish with their bodies. In the second chapter of the Sadder, it is written, that a man whose good works are more numerous than his sins, will go to paradise; otherwise that he will be thrust into hell, there to remain for ever. It adds, that a bridge erected over the great abyss where hell is situated, leads from this earth to pa­radise; that upon the bridge there stands an angel, who weighs in a balance the merits of the passen­gers; that the passenger whose good works are found light in the balance, is thrown over the bridge into hell; but that the passenger whose good works preponderate, proceeds in his journey to paradise, where there is a glorious city, gar­dens, rivers, and beautiful virgins, whose looks are a perpetual feast, but who must not be en­joyed. In the fourth chapter of the Sadder, good works are zealously recommended in the following parable. Zeradusht, or Zoroaster, being in com­pany with God, saw a man in hell who wanted his right foot. ‘"Oh my Creator," said Zoro­aster, who is that man who wants the right foot? God answered, He was the king of thirty-three cities, reigned many years, but never did any good, except once, when, seeing a sheep tyed where it could not reach its food, he with his right foot pushed the food to it; upon which account, that foot was saved from hell."’ In Japan, those of the Sinto religion be­lieve, that the souls of good men are translated to a place of happiness, next to the habitation of their gods. But they admit no place of torment; nor have they any notion of a devil, but what animates the fox, a very mischievous animal in that country. What then becomes of the souls [Page 231] of ill men? Being denied entrance into heaven, they wander about to expiate their sins. Those of the Bubsdo religion believe, that in the other world, there is a place of misery as well as of hap­piness. Of the latter, there are different degrees, for different degrees of virtue; and yet, far from envying the happier lot of others, every inhabi­tant is perfectly satisfied with his own. There are also different degrees of misery; for justice requires, that every man be punished according to the nature and number of his sins. Jemma O is the severe judge of the wicked: their vices ap­pear to him in all their horror, by means of a mirror, named the mirror of knowledge. When souls have expiated their sins, after suffering long in the prison of darkness, they are sent back into the world, to animate serpents, toads, and such vile animals as resembled them in their former existence. From these they pass into the bodies of more innocent animals; and at last are again suffered to enter human bodies; after the disso­lution of which, they run the same course of hap­piness or misery as at first. The people of Benin, in Africa, believe a man's shadow to be a real being, that gives testimony after death for or against him; and that he accordingly is made happy or miserable in another world. A religi­ous belief in ancient Greece, that the souls of those who are left above ground without rites, have no access to Elysium, tended to promote humanity; for those who are careful of the dead, will not be altogether indifferent about the living.

Immense are the blessings that men in society reap, from the union of pure religion with sound morality: but however immense, I boldly affirm, that they scarce counterbalance the manifold evils that society has suffered from impure religion, [Page 232] indulging and even encouraging gross immorali­ties. A few of the most glaring instances shall be selected. The first I shall mention is, the holding religion to consist in the belief of points purely speculative, such as have no relation to good works. The natural effect of that doctrine is, to divorce religion from morality, in manifest contradiction to the will of God. What avails it, for example, to the glory of God, or to the hap­piness of mankind, whether the conception of the Virgin Mary was maculate or immaculate? The following few instances, taken out of a large heap, are controversies of that kind, which mi­serably afflicted the Christian church for ages, and engendered the bitterest enmity, raging with destruction and slaughter among brethren of the same religion. In the fifth century, it was the employment of more than one general council, to determine, whether the mother of God, or the mother of Christ, is the proper epithet of the Virgin Mary. In the sixth century, a bitter con­troversy arose, whether Christ's body was corrup­tible. In the seventh century, Christians were divided about the volition of Christ, whether he had one or two Wills, and how his Will operated. In the eighth and ninth centuries, the Greek and Latin churches divided about the Holy Ghost, whether he proceeded from the Father and Son, or only from the Father. In the eleventh century, there arose a warm contest between the Greek and Latin churches, about using unleavened bread in the eucharist. In the fourteenth century, it was controverted between Pope John XXII. and the divines of his time, whether souls in their inter­mediate state see God, or only the human nature of Christ. Franciscans have suffered death in multitudes about the form of their hood. It was disputed between the Dominicans and Franciscans, [Page 233] whether Christ had any property. The Pope pronounced the negative proposition to be a pesti­lential and blasphemous doctrine, subversive of Catholic faith. Many councils were held at Con­stantinople, to determine what sort of light it was that the disciples saw on Mount Tabor: it was solemnly pronounced, to be the eternal light with which God is encircled; and which may be term­ed his energy or operation, but is distinct from his nature and essence. A heap of propositions in the creed of St Athanasius, as far as intelligible, are merely speculative, such as may be adopted or rejected, without the least danger to religion, or to morality; and yet we are commanded to be­lieve every one of them, under the pain of eter­nal damnation. An endless number of such pro­positions, adopted by the Romish church, clearly evince, that Christianity was in that church held to consist entirely in belief, without any regard to good works ^*. Whether the Alcoran was eter­nal, or whether it was created, is a dispute that has occasioned much effusion of Mahometan blood. The Calif Mamoun, with many doctors, held it to have been created; but the greater number insisted, that being the word of God, it must like him be eternal. This opinion is em­braced by the present Mahometants, who hold all who deny it to be infidels. There is among men great uniformity of opinion in matters of impor­tance. Religious differences are generally about trifles, where liberty ought to be indulged with­out [Page 234] reserve ^a; and yet upon these trifles, are founded the bitterest enmities. It ought therefore to be a fundamental law in every church, to abstain from loading its creed with articles that are not essential; for such articles tend to era­dicate brotherly love, and to convert into bit­ter enemies, men who are fundamentally of the same faith.

In the next place shall be mentioned, certain articles of faith that tend to sap the very founda­tion of one or other moral duty. What, for ex­ample, can more effectually promote cruelty, than the creed of the Idaans, a people in the island of Borneo, That every person they put to death must attend them as a slave in the other world? This belief makes them prone to war, and occasions assassinations without end. Accor­ding to the creed of the savages in Canada, the killing and burning enemies are what chiefly en­title them to be happy in another world, and that he who destroys the greatest number, will be the most happy. At the same time, they have no notion of greater happiness there, than plenty of game, great abundance of all things without la­bour, and full gratification of every sensual ap­petite. The Scandinavians had no notion of greater bliss in another world, than to drink beer out of the skull of an enemy, in the hall of Wo­den, their tutelar deity: can hatred and revenge in this world be more honourably rewarded? The doctrine of tutelar deities is equally produc­tive of hatred and revenge: relying on a superi­or power who espouses all my quarrels, I put no bounds to my resentment, and every moral duty in opposition is trampled under foot. The [Page 235] following creed of the inhabitants of the Marian or Ladrone islands, is a great encouragement to cowardice. Heaven, according to that creed, is a region under the earth, filled with cocoa-trees, sugar-canes, and variety of other delicious fruits. Hell is a vast furnace, constantly red hot. Their condition in the other world depends not on good or bad actions, but on the manner of their death. Those who die a natural death, go straight to heaven: they may sin freely, if they can but se­cure their persons against violence. But war and bloodshed are their aversion, because those who suffer a violent death go straight to hell. In ma­ny ancient nations, a goddess was worshipped, whose province it was to promote animal love without regard to matrimony. That goddess was in Greece termed Aphrodité, in Rome Venus, and in Babylon Militta. To her was sacrificed, in some countries, the virginity of young women; which, it was believed, did secure their chastity for ever after. Justin mentions a custom in the island of Cyprus, of sending young women at stated times to the sea-shore; where they prosti­tuted themselves as a tribute to Venus, that they might be chaste the rest of their lives. His words are, ‘"Pro reliqua pudicitiae libamenta Veneri soluturas ^a."’ In other nations, a small number only were prostituted, in order to secure to the remainder, a chaste and regular life. This explains a custom among the Babylonians, which, far from being thought a religious act, is held as a proof of abandoned debauchery. The custom was, That every woman once in her life, should prostitute herself in the temple of the goddess Mylitta. Herodotus reports, that there­by [Page 236] they became proof against all temptation. And Aelian observes the same of the Lydian la­dies. Credat Judaeus Apella. Margaret Poretta, who in the fourteenth century made a figure among the Beguines, preached a doctrine not a little favourable to incontinence. She undertook to demonstrate, ‘"That the soul, when absorbed in the love of God, is free from the restraint of law, and may freely gratify every natural appetite, without contracting guilt;"’ a cordial doctrine for a lady of pleasure. That crazy person, instead of being laughed at, was burnt alive at Paris. In the fifteenth century, a sect termed brethren and sisters of the free spirit, held, That modesty is a mark of inhering corruption; and that those only are perfect, who can behold nakedness without emotion. These fanatics ap­peared at public worship, without the least co­vering. Many tenets professed by the Jesuits, open a door to every immorality. ‘"Persons truly wicked, and void of the love of God, may expect eternal life in heaven; provided only they be impressed with fear of divine an­ger, and avoid heinous crimes through the dread of future punishment."’ Again, ‘"Per­sons may transgress with safety, who have a probable reason for transgressing, such as any plausible argument. A judge, for example, may decide for the least probable side of a question, and even against his own opinion, provided he be supported by any tolerable au­thority."’ Again, ‘"Actions intrinsically evil, and contrary to divine law, may however be innocently performed, by those who can join, even ideally, a good end to the performance. For example, an ecclesiastic may safely com­mit simony, by purchasing a benefice, if to the unlawful act, he join the innocent purpose [Page 237] of procuring to himself a subsistence. A man who runs another through the body for a slight affront, renders the action lawful, if his mo­tive be honour, not revenge."’ A famous Je­suit taught, that a young man may wish the death of his father, and even rejoice at his death, pro­vided the wish proceed, not from hatred, but from fondness of his father's estate. And ano­ther Jesuit has had the effrontery to maintain, that a monk may lawfully assassinate a calumnia­tor, who threatens to charge his order with scan­dalous practices.

A doctrine that strikes at the root of every moral duty, as well as of religion itself, is, That God will accept of a composition for sin; a doc­trine that prevailed universally during the days of ignorance. Compositions for crimes were coun­tenanced by law in every country ^a; and men, prone to indulge their passions, flattered them­selves, that they might compound with God for sinning against him, as with their neighbours for injuring them. Those who have no notion of any motive but interest, naturally think it to be equally powerful with the Deity. An opinion prevailed universally in the Christian church, from the eighth century down to the Reforma­tion, that liberal donations to God, to a saint, to the church, would procure pardon even for the grossest sins. During that period, the build­ing churches and monasteries was in high vogue. This absurd or rather impious doctrine, proved a plentiful harvest of wealth to the clergy; for the great and opulent, who are commonly the boldest sinners, have the greatest ability to com­pound for their sins. There needs nothing but such an opinion, to annihilate every duty, whe­ther [Page 238] moral or religious; for what wicked man will think either of restitution or of reformation, who can purchase a pardon from Heaven with so little trouble? Louis XI. of France was remark­ably superstitious, even in a superstitious age. To ingratiate himself with the Virgin Mary, he surrendered to her the county of Boulogne with great solemnity. Voltaire remarks, that godli­ness consists, not in making the Virgin a Coun­tess, but in abstaining from sin. Composition for sins is a doctrine of the church of Rome, boldly professed without disguise. A book of rates, published by authority of the Pope, contains sta­ted prices for absolutions, not excepting the most heinous sins that men are capable to commit. So true is the observation of Aeneas Silvius, after­ward Pope Paul II. ‘"Nihil est quod absque argento Romana curia det: ipsa manuum im­positio, et Spiritus Sancti dona, venduntur; nec peccatorum venia nisi nummatis impen­ditur ^*."’ Of all the immoral atonements for sin, human sacrifices are the most brutal; devi­ating no less from the purity of religion, than from the fundamental principles of morality. They wore out of use as kindly affections pre­vailed; and will never again be restored, unless we fall back to the savage manners of our forefa­thers. Composition for crimes, once universal, is now banished from every enlightened nation. Composition for sins, was once equally univer­sal; and I wish it could be said, that there are [Page 239] now no remains of that poisonous opinion among Christians: the practice of the church of Rome will not permit it to be said. Were men deeply convinced, as they ought to be, that sincere re­pentance and reformation of manners are the on­ly means for obtaining pardon, they would never dream of making bargains with the Almighty, and of compounding with him for their sins.

In the practice of religion, the laying too great weight on forms, ceremonies, and other external arbitrary acts, has an unhappy tendency on mo­rality. That error has infected every religion. The Sadder, the Bible of the Gaures, prohibits calumny and detraction, lying, stealing, adulte­ry, and fornication. It however enervates mo­rality and religion, by placing many trifling acts on a level with the most important duties. It en­joins the destruction of five kinds of reptiles, frogs, mice, ants, serpents, and flies that sting. It teaches, that to walk barefoot profanes the ground. Great regard for water is enjoined: it must not be used during the night; and when set upon the fire, a third part of the pot must be empty, to prevent boiling over. The bra­mins have wofully degenerated from their origi­nal institutions, thinking at present, that religion consists in forms and ceremonies. As soon as an infant is born, the word Oum must be pronounc­ed over it; otherwise it will be eternally misera­ble: its tongue must be rubbed with consecrated meal: the third day of the moon, it must be car­ried into open air, with its head to the north. The inhabitants of Formosa believe in hell; but it is only for punishing those who fail to go naked in certain seasons, or who wear cotton instead of silk. In the time of Ghenhizcan, it was held in Tartary a mortal sin, to put a knife into the fire, to whip a horse with his bridle, or to break one [Page 240] bone with another; and yet these pious Tartars held treachery, robbery, murder, to be no sins. A faction in Aegina, a Greek commonwealth, treacherously assassinated seven hundred of their fellow-citizens. They cut off the hands of a miserable fugitive, who had laid hold of the altar for protection, in order to murder him without the precincts of the temple. Their trea­cherous assassinations made no impression: but though they refrained from murder in the temple, yet by profaning it with blood, says Herodotus, they offended the gods, and contracted inexpia­ble guilt. Would one believe, that a tribunal was established by Charlemagne more horrible than the inquisition itself? It was established in Westphalia, to punish with death every Saxon who eat meat in lent. The same law was esta­blished in Flanders and in French-county, the be­ginning of the seventeenth century.

Listen to a celebrated writer upon that poiso­nous conceit. ‘"It is certain, that in every reli­gion, however sublime, many of the votaries, perhaps the greatest number, will still seek the divine favour, not by virtue and good mo­rals, which alone can be acceptable to a per­fect being, but either by frivolous observan­ces, by intemperate zeal, by rapturous ecsta­sies, or by the belief of mysterious and ab­surd opinions. When the old Romans were attacked with a pestilence, they never ascrib­ed their sufferings to their vices, or dreamed of repentance and amendment. They never thought that they were the general robbers of the world, whose ambition and avarice made desolate the earth, and reduced opulent nati­ons to want and beggary. They only created a dictator in order to drive a nail into a door; and by that means they thought that they had [Page 241] sufficiently appeased their incensed deity ^a."’ Thus, gradually, the essentials of religion wear out of mind, by the attention given to forms and ceremonies: these intercept and exhaust the whole stock of devotion, which ought to be re­served for the higher exercises of religion. The neglect or transgression of mere punctilios, are punished as heinous sins; while sins really hei­nous are suffered to pass with impunity. The Jews exalted the keeping their sabbath holy, above every other duty; and it was the general belief, that the strict observance of that day was alone sufficient to atone for every sin. The command of resting that day, was taken so lite­rally, that they would not on that day defend themselves even against an assassin. Ptolomy, son of Lagus, entered Jerusalem on the Jewish sabbath, in a hostile manner without resistance. Nor did experience open the eyes of that foolish people. Xiphilin, relating the siege of Jerusa­lem by Pompey, says, that if the Jews had not rested on the sabbath, Pompey would not have been successful. Every Saturday he renewed his bat­teries: and having on that day made a breach, he marched into the town without opposition. One cannot help smiling at an Amsterdam Jew, who had no check of conscience, for breaking open a house, and carrying off money; and yet being stopped in his flight by the sabbath before he got out of the territory, he most piously rest­ed, till he was apprehended, and led to the gal­lows. Nor are the Jews to this day cured of that frenzy. In some late accountsfrom Constantino­ple, a fire broke out in a Jew's house on Satur­day: [Page 242] rather than profane the sabbath, he suffe­red the flames to spread, which occasioned the destruction of five hundred houses ^*. We laugh at the Jews, and we have reason; and yet there are many well-meaning Protestants, who lay the whole of religion upon punctual attendance at public worship. Are the Roman Catholics less superstitious with respect to the place of worship, than the Jews are with respect to the day of wor­ship? In the year 1670, some Arabians, watch­ing an opportunity, got into the town of Dieu when the gates were opened in the morning. They might easily have been expelled by the ca­non of the citadel; but the Portuguese governor was obliged to look on without firing a gun, be­ing threatened with excommunication, if the least mischief should be done to any of the chur­ches. The only doctrines inculcated from the Romish pulpit down to the Reformation, were the authority of holy mother church; the merit of the saints, and their credit in the court of hea­ven; the dignity, glory, and love of the blessed Virgin; the efficacy of relics; the intolerable fire of purgatory; and the vast importance of [Page 243] indulgences. Relying on such pious acts for ob­taining remission of sins, all orders of men rush­ed headlong into vice ^†; nor was there a single attempt to stem the current of immorality; for the traffic of indulgences could not but flourish in proportion to the growth of sin. And thus was religion set in direct opposition to morality. St Eloy, bishop of Noyon in the seventh century, and canonized by the church of Rome, delivers the following doctrine. ‘"He is a good Christi­an who goes frequently to church; who pre­sents his oblations upon the altar; who tastes not the fruit of his own industry till part be consecrated to God; who, when the holy festivals approach, lives chastely even with his own wife for several days; and who can re­peat the creed and the Lord's prayer. Re­deem then your souls from destruction, while you have the means in your power: offer pre­sents and tithes to churchmen: come more frequently to church: humbly implore the pa­tronage of saints. If you observe these things, you may, in the day of judgment, go with confidence to the tribunal of the eternal Judge, and say, Give to us, O Lord, for we have given unto thee."’ A modern author subjoins a proper observation. ‘"We see here a very ample description of a good Christian, in which there is not the least mention of the love [Page 244] of God, resignation to his will, obedience to his laws, nor of justice, benevolence, nor charity."’ Gross ignorance and wretched su­perstition prevailed so much even in the fourteenth century, that people reckoned themselves secure of salvation, if at the day of judgment they could show any connection with monks. Many at the point of death, made it their last request, to be admitted into the mendicant order, or to be inter­red in their burial-place. Religion need not asso­ciate with morality, if such silly practices be suf­ficient for obtaining the favour of God. Is this less absurd than the Hindostan belief, That the water of the Ganges hath a sanctifying virtue; and that those who die on its banks, are not only exempted from future punishment, but are waft­ed straight to paradise?

Forms and ceremonies are visible acts, which make a deep impression on the vulgar. Hence their influence in reasoning and in morality, as we have seen in the two sketches immediately forego­ing; and hence also their influence in religion. Forms and ceremonies are useful at public worship; but they ought not to take place of essentials. Peo­ple however, governed by what they see and hear, are more addicted to external acts of devotion, than to heart-worship, which is not known but by reflection.

It will be no excuse for relying so much on forms and ceremonies, that they are innocent. In themselves they may be innocent; but not so in their consequences. For they have by such reli­ance a violent tendency to relax the obligations of morality. Religious rites that contradict not any passion, are keenly embraced, and punctually per­formed; and men, flattering themselves that they have thus been punctual in their duty to God, give vent to their passions against men. ‘"They [Page 245] pay tithes of mint, and anise, and cummin; but omit the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith ^a."’ Upon such a man religion sits extremely light. As he sel­dom exercises any act of genuine devotion, he thinks of the Deity with ease and familiarity: how otherwise is it accountable, that the plays, term­ed Mysteries, could be relished, where mean and perhaps dissolute persons are brought on the stage, acting Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and even God himself? These divine persons were certainly not more regarded, than the Grecian gods, who frequently made part of the Dramatis personae in Greek plays. Many other facts might be urged, to prove the low ebb of religion in those days: I select one or two, which probably will af­ford some amusement to the reader. Bartolus, the famous lawyer, in order to shew the form of proceeding in a court of justice, imagines a pro­cess between the devil and mankind. The devil cites mankind to appear at the tribunal of Jesus Christ, claiming them as belonging to him by Adam's fall. He swells in rage, demanding whe­ther any one dares appear in their behalf. Against the Virgin Mary, offering herself as their advocate, the devil makes two objections; first, That being the mother of the Judge, her influ­ence would be too great; second, That a woman is debarred from being an advocate: and these ob­jections are supported by numberless quotations from the Corpus Juris. The Virgin, on her part, quotes texts permitting women to appear for wi­dows, orphans, and for persons in distress. She is allowed to plead for mankind, as coming under the last article. The devil urges prescription, as [Page 246] having been in possession of mankind ever since the fall. The Virgin answers, That a mala-fide possessor cannot acquire by prescription. Prescrip­tion being repelled, the parties go to the merits of the cause, which are learnedly discussed with texts from the Pandects. The memoirs of the French academy of Belles Letters ^a have the following story. A monk returning from a house which he durst not visit in day-light, had a river to cross. The boat was overturned by Satan, and the monk was drowned when he was beginning to invocate the Virgin Mary. Two devils having laid hold of his soul, were stopped by two angels. ‘"My Lords,"’ said the devils, ‘"true it is, and not a fable, that God died for his friends; but this monk was an enemy to God, and we are carrying him to hell."’ After much altercati­on, it was proposed by the angels, to refer the dispute to the Virgin Mary. The devils were willing to accept of God for judge, because he would judge according to law. ‘"But from the Virgin Mary,"’ said they, ‘"we expect no justice: she would break to atoms every gate of hell, rather than suffer one to remain there a moment who pays any worship to her image. She may say, that black is white, and that puddled water is pure.—God never contradicts her. The day on which God made his mo­ther, was a fatal day to us."’

People who profess the same religion, and differ only in forms and ceremonies, may justly be compared to neighbouring states, who are com­monly bitter enemies to each other, if they have any difference. At the same time, dissocial pas­sions never rage so furiously, as under the mask of [Page 247] religion; for in that case they are held to be me­ritorious, as exerted in the cause of God. This observation is but too well verified in the disputes among Christians. However low religion was in the dark ages, yet men fought for forms and cere­monies as pro aris et focis. In the Armenian form of baptism, the priest says at the first immersion, In name of the Father; at the second, In name of the Son; at the third, In name of the Holy Ghost. This form is bitterly condemned by the Romish church, which appoints the three persons of the Trinity to be joined in the same expression, in to­ken of their union. Strahlenberg gives an ac­count of a Christian sect in Russia, which differs from the established Greek church in the follow­ing particulars. First, In public worship they repeat Halleluia but twice; and it is a mortal sin to repeat it thrice. Second, In celebrating mass, not five but seven loaves ought to be used. Third, The cross stamped upon a mass-loaf ought to have eight corners. Fourth, In signing with the cross at prayers, the end of the ring-finger must be joined to the end of the thumb, and the two intermediate fingers be held out at full length. How trifling are these differences! and yet for such differences, all who dissent from them are held unclean, and no better than Pagans: they will not eat nor drink with any of the established church; and if a person of that church happen to sit down in a house of theirs, they wash and purify the seat ^*. There are few sects founded [Page 248] upon more triival differences than the Turkish and Persian Mahometans. The epithets given to the Persians by the Turks are, ‘"Forsaken of God, Abominable, Blasphemers of the Holy Pro­phet;"’ and so bitter is their enmity to the Per­sians, that the schools of the seraglio are open to young men of all nations, those of Persia alone excepted. The Persians are held to be such apostates from the true faith, as to be utterly past recovery: they receive no quarter in war, being accounted unworthy of life or slavery. Nor do the Persians yield to the Turks in hatred. Whe­ther coffee be or be not prohibited in the Alcoran, has produced much controversy in the Mahome­tan church, and consequently much persecuting zeal. A mufti, not fond of coffee, declared it, like wine, to have an inebriating quality, and therefore was virtually prohibited by Mahomet. Another mufti, fond of coffee for its exhilarating virtue, declared it lawful; ‘"because,"’ said he, ‘"all things are lawful that are not expressly pro­hibited in the Alcoran."’ The coffee-houses in Constantinople, were for a long period alternate­ly opened and shut, according to the taste of the reigning mufti; till coffee at last, surmounting all obstacles, came to be an established Mahome­tan liquor. Religion thus runs wild, whenever it loses sight of its true ends, that of worshipping God, and that of being just to man. The Hin­dows hate the Mahometans for eating the flesh of cows: the Mahometans hate the Hindows for eating the flesh of swine. The aversion that men of the same religion have at each other for the most [Page 249] trivial differences, converts them frequently into brutal savages. Suppose, for example, that a poor man, reduced to the extremity of hunger, makes a greedy meal of a dead horse, a case so deplorable would wring every heart. And yet, let this be done in Lent, or on a meagre day—Behold! every zealot is instantly metamorphosed into a devil incarnate. In the records of St Clau­de, a small district of Burgundy, is engrossed a sentence against a poor gentleman named Claude Guillon. The words are, ‘"Having considered the process, and taken advice of the doctors of law, we declare the said Claude Guillon duly convicted for having carried away and boiled a piece of a dead horse, and of having eat the same on the 31st March, being Saturday."’ And he was beheaded accordingly 28th July 1629; notwithstanding a defence above all ex­ception, That he committed that irregularity to preserve his life. How was it possible for the monsters to persuade themselves, that this sen­tence was agreeable to God, who is goodness it­self!

No less prejudicial to morality, than the rely­ing too much on forms and ceremonies, is the treating some sins with great severity; neglecting others equally heinous, or perhaps more so. In a book of rates for absolution, mentioned above, no just distinction is made among sins; some ve­nial sins being taxed at a higher rate than many of the deepest dye. For example, the killing father, mother, brother, sister, or wife, is tax­ed at five gross; and the same for incest with a mother or sister. The lying with a woman in the church is taxed at six gross; and at the same time, absolution for usury is taxed at seven gross, and for simony at no less than sixteen gross ^*.

[Page 250] A maxim adopted by many pious persons, has a smiling appearance, but in its consequences is hurtful both to religion and morality; which is, That to testify our veneration for the Deity, and zeal for his service, the performing public and private worship, and the fulfilling moral duties, are not alone sufficient; that over and above we are bound to fast, to do penance, to honour the priesthood, and to punish the enemies of God, i. e. those who differ from us in principles or practice. This maxim, which may be termed the doctrine of supererogation, is finely illustrated by an author mentioned above. ‘"The duties which a man performs as a friend or parent, seem merely owing to his benefactor or chil­dren; nor can he be wanting to these duties without breaking through all the ties of nature and morality. A strong inclination may prompt him to the performance: a sentiment of or­der and moral beauty joins its force to these natural ties: and the whole man is drawn to his duty without any effort or endeavour. Even with regard to the virtues which are more austere, and more founded on reflecti­on, such as public spirit, filial duty, tempe­rance, or integrity: the moral obligation, in our apprehension, removes all pretence to religious merit: and the virtuous conduct is esteemed no more than what we owe to socie­ty, and to ourselves. In all this, a supersti­tious man finds nothing which he has properly performed for the sake of his Deity, or which can peculiarly recommend him to the divine favour and protection. He considers not, that the most genuine method of serving the Divinity is by promoting the happiness of his creatures. He still looks out for some more immediate service of the supreme Being: and [Page 251] any practice recommended to him, which ei­ther serves to no purpose in life, or offers the strongest violence to his natural inclinations; that practice he will the more readily em­brace, on account of those very circumstan­ces, which should make him absolutely reject it. It seems the more purely religious, that it proceeds from no mixture of any other mo­tive or consideration. And if for its sake he sacrifices much of his ease and quiet, his claim of merit appears still to rise upon him, in proportion to the zeal and devotion which he discovers. In restoring a loan, or paying a debt, his divinity is no wise beholden to him; because these acts of justice are what he was bound to perform, and what many would have performed, were there no God in the universe. But if he fast a day, or give him­self a sound whipping, this has a direct refe­rence, in his opinion, to the service of God. No other motive could engage him to such au­sterities. By these distinguished marks of de­votion, he has now acquired the divine fa­vour; and may expect in recompence, pro­tection and safety in this world, and eternal happiness in the next ^a."’ My yoke is easy, saith our Saviour, and my burden is light. So they really are. Every essential of religion is founded on our nature, and to a pure heart is pleasant in the performance: what can be more pleasant, than gratitude to our Maker, and obedi­ence to his will in comforting our fellow-crea­tures? But enthusiasts are not easily persuaded, that to make ourselves happy in the exercises of piety and benevolence, is the most acceptable ser­vice to God that we can perform. In loading re­ligion [Page 252] with unnecessary articles of faith and prac­tice, they contradict our Saviour, by making his yoke severe, and his burden heavy ^*. Law, up­on Christian perfection, enjoins such unnatural austerity of manners, as to be subversive both of religion and morality: loose education is not more so. Our passions, when denied their pro­per exercise, are apt to break their fetters, and to plunge us into every extravagance: like the body, which squeezed in one part, swells the more in another. In the same way of thinking, the pious Jeremy Taylor, treating of mortifica­tion, prescribes it as the indispensable duty of a Christian, to give no indulgence even to the most innocent emotions; because, says he, the most indifferent action becomes sinful, when there is no other motive for the performance but barely its being pleasant. Could a malevolent deity contrive any thing more severe against his vota­ries?

In the same spirit of supererogation, holidays have been multiplied without end, depriving the working poor of time, that would be more use­fully employed in providing bread for themselves and families. Such a number of holidays, beside contradicting Providence, which framed us more for action than contemplation, have several poiso­nous effects with respect to morality. The mo­ral sense has great influence on the industrious, who have no time for indulging their irregular ap­petites: the idle, on the contrary, are obvious to every temptation. Men likewise are apt to assume great merit from a rigid observance of [Page 253] holidays and other ceremonies; and having thus acquired, in their opinion, the favour of God, they rely on his indulgence in other matters which they think too sweet for sinners.

Monastic institutions are an improvement upon holidays: the whole life of a monk is intended to be a holiday, dedicated entirely to the service of God. The idleness of the monastic state a­mong Christians, opens a wide door to immora­lity.

In the third section, penances are handled as a mode of worship, for obtaining pardon of sin. But they are sometimes submitted to by the inno­cent, in order to procure from the Almighty still more favour than innocence alone is intitled to; in which view they are evidently a work of su­pererogation. They seem to have no bad effect with respect to religion, as distinguished from morality: the body is indeed cruciated unnecessa­rily; but if enthusiasts voluntarily submit to bodily distresses, they have themselves only to blame. With respect to morality, their bad tendency is not slight. Those who perform extraordinary acts of devotion, conceive them­selves peculiarly entitled to the favour of God. Proud of his favour, they attach themselves to him alone, and turn indifferent about every other duty. The favourite of a terrestrial potentate, assumes authority; and takes liberties that pri­vate persons dare not venture upon: shall a fa­vourite of Heaven be less indulged? The Fa­quirs in Hindostan submit to dreadful penances; and, holding themselves secure of God's favour, they are altogether indifferent about the duty they owe to their neighbour. So much are they above common decency, as to go about naked, not even concealing what modesty forbids us to expose. The penances enjoined in the Romish [Page 254] church, such as fasting and flagellation, have evidently the same bad tendency ^*. With re­spect to fasting in particular, to what good pur­pose it can serve, except to gluttons, is not rea­dily conceived. Temperance in eating and drink­ing is essential to health: too much or too little are equally noxious, though their effects are dif­ferent. Fasting therefore ought never to be en­joined to the temperate as a religious duty, be­cause it cannot be acceptable to a benevolent Deity. Listen to a great prophet on that sub­ject. ‘"Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness; ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high. Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes un­der him? Wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord? Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out, to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh ^a?"’

[Page 255] The most extraordinary penance of all, is ce­libacy, considered as a religious duty. Many fa­thers of the church declare against matrimony. St. Jerom in particular says, That the end of matrimony is eternal death; that the earth in­deed is filled by it, but heaven by virginity. The intemperate zeal of many primitive Christi­ans led them to abstain from matrimony, and even from conjugal caresses, if they had the misfor­tune to be married; believing that the carnal ap­petite is inconsistent with pure religion. Edward the confessor was sainted, for no better reason than the abstaining from matrimonial duties. Jovinian, in the fourth century, taught, that all who observe the laws of piety and virtue laid down in the gospel, have an equal title to happi­ness in another life: consequently, that those who pass their days in celibacy and mortification, are in no respect more acceptable to God than those who live virtuously in marriage without mortification. He published his opinions in a book, against which Jerom wrote a bitter and abusive treatise, still extant. These opinions were condemned by the church, and by St. Am­brose, in a council at Milan; and Jovinian was banished by the Emperor Honorius. Such ridi­culous self-denial was not confined to Christians. Strabo mentions a sect among the Thracians, who made a vow of perpetual virginity; and were much respected on that account. Garci­lasso mentions virgins in Peru consecrated to the sun: a vestal guilty of frailty was buried alive, her lover hanged, and the inhabitants of the town where she lived put to the sword. Among all the absurd acts of mortification, the present af­fords the strongest instance of superstition tri­umphing over common sense; for what can be more inconsistent with common sense, not to talk [Page 256] of religion, than an endeavour to put an end to the human species? Some glimpses of reason have abated the zeal of enthusiasts for celebacy; but have not totally extirpated it, for celibacy of the clergy remains to this day a law in the Ro­mish church. It cannot however seriously be thought the will of our benevolent God, that his priests should be denied the exercise of natural powers, bestowed on all for a most valuable pur­pose. This impious restraint, which contradicts the great law of Increase and multiply, has opened the door to gross debauchery in the pastors of the Romish church, though ecclesiastics ought of all men to be the most circumspect in their con­duct. Men restrained from what is necessary and proper, are more prone than others to break out into gross irregularities ^*. Marriage is warm­ly recommended in the laws of Zoroaster. Chil­dren are said to be a bridge that conducts men to heaven; and a man who has no children, is held to be under the power of Ahriman. The prayer of a priest who has no children, is held disagree­able to Ormusd.

The celibacy of the clergy was countenanced by the Pope; and enforced from a political con­sideration, [Page 257] That it united the whole clergy into one firm body under his spiritual Majesty. How short-sighted is man? It was justly esteemed at the time to be the corner-stone of Papal power; and yet became the chief cause of its downfall. Celibacy precipitated the Romish clergy into adultery, fornication, cunning, dissimulation, and every secret vice. Will men of such man­ners be listened to, when they preach purity to their hearers? There was no medium, but ei­ther to reform their own manners, or to give every indulgence to the laity. But the ignorance and superstition of the latter, rendered the for­mer secure in their own opinion. The restora­tion of learning broke the charm. Men begin­ning to think for themselves, were provoked at the dissolute lives of their pastors, and raised a loud cry against them, not yet thinking of their doctrines. Reformers were burnt as heretics; and clergymen were held to be emissaries from Satan, to establish his throne upon earth. Knox, that violent reformer, believed seriously, that Cardinal Beaton was a conjured enemy to Christ Jesus. Providence brings good out of ill. Had not the clergy been dissolute, poor Christians might have laboured under ignorance and ecclesi­astical thraldom to this hour. Our reformers, beginning with their pastors, extended insensibly their hatred to the doctrines taught by their pas­tors. Every article of faith was sifted: the chaff was separated from the corn; and a reformation was established upon the scriptures, rejecting every innovation of the Romish church.

There is not mentioned in history a more impu­dent attack upon moral principles, than a privilege assumed by the Bishop of Rome, to disengage men from their oaths and promises: it is not a greater [Page 258] stretch to disengage them from every duty, whe­ther of morality or of religion. The barons of Va­lentia, dreading a persecution against the industri­ous Moors, their tenants, obtained the following clause to be in their king's coronation-oath: ‘"That he should not expel the Moriscos, nor force them to be baptized; that he should never desire to be relieved from the oath by a dispensation from the Pope, nor accept a dispensation if offe­red."’ The Emperor Charles V. took this oath solemnly in presence of his nobles; and yet accepted a dispensation from the Pope, absolving him from the oath, and from the guilt of perjury in breaking it. Augustus King of Poland, in the treaty of Altramstadt, renounced the kingdom of Poland to his competitor Stanislaus. The defeat of the King of Sweden at Poltowa, was an invi­ting opportunity to renew his pretensions. A so­lemn treaty stood in his way; but the Pope re­moved that obstacle, by annulling the treaty, and setting him at liberty. The Pope has been known even to bestow that wonderful privilege upon others. Pope Pascal II. having with a so­lemn oath renounced the right of investitures, empowered the cardinals to declare his oath null. Bishops also, imitating their superior, have assu­med the privilege of dispensing with moral du­ties. Instances are not rare, of curates being au­thorized by their bishop to entertain concubines, paying for each a regular tax of a crown yearly. Nay, in some provincial synods, they are enjoin­ed to keep concubines, in order to prevent scan­dal. Common prostitutes, licensed in the city of Leghorn, have a church peculiar to themselves, and must not enter into any other. They follow their trade with the utmost freedom; except in passion-week, during which they must forbear sinning, under pain of banishment.

[Page 259] The power of bestowing kingdoms, assumed by the bishop of Rome, was an encroachment on the rules of justice, no less bold. Christian prin­ces, not many ages ago, esteemed the Pope's gift to be their best title of property. In the year 1346, the Venetians requested the Pope's per­mission to carry on commerce in Asia, and to purchase there pepper and cinnamon. The Pope not only granted their request, but pronounced anathemas upon any who should dare to inter­fere in that commerce. Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, applied to Pope Alexander VI. to vest in them the property of America, discovered un­der their auspices by Columbus. The Pope ha­ving formerly made a grant to the kings of Por­tugal, of their discoveries in the East Indies, both grants were held sacred; and it came to be stre­nuously disputed, under which of the grants the Molucca islands were comprehended. Both grants proceed upon a narrative, of the power bestow­ed by Almighty God on the Pope as successor to St Peter and vicar of Christ. To imagine, that the Almighty would bestow such powers on the Bishop of Rome, or on any human being, shews gross ignorance of the common rights of man­kind, and of the government of Providence.

The grossest of all deviations, not only from sound morality but from pure religion, and the most extensive in its baneful effects, is a doctrine embraced by established churches, not many ex­cepted, That because heretics are odious in the sight of God, it is the duty of the orthodox to extirpate them root and branch. Observe the consequence: people who differ from the esta­blished church, are held to be obstinate sinners, deserving punishment here as well as hereafter. The religion of every country is changeable; and the religion at present dominant may soon be [Page 260] under depression; which of course subjects all mankind to the rigour of persecution. An in­vention more effectual for extirpating the hu­man race, is not within the reach of human pow­ers: the horror of human sacrifices is as nothing in comparison.

The old Romans, far from having any notion of persecution, adopted the gods of every nation they conquered. A learned writer ^a observes, that as the number of their gods increased with their conquests, it is possible that they might have worshipped all the gods in the world. Their be­lief in tutelar deities produced that effect. Titus Livius mentions a sect of Bacchanals that spread through Italy. They performed their ceremonies during night, men and women mix­ing in the dark after intemperate eating and drink­ing. Never did wicked wretches deserve more exemplary punishment; yet listen to the follow­ing decree of the Roman senate, breathing the true spirit of toleration. ‘"Ne qua Bacchana­lia Romae, neve in Italia essent. Si quis tale sacrum, solenne, et necessarium duceret, nec sine religione et piaculo se id omittere posse; apud praetorem urbanum profiteretur; praetor senatum consuleret. Si ei permissum esset, quum in senatu centum non minus essent; ita id sacrum faceret, dum ne plus quinque sacri­ficio interessent; neu qua pecunia communis, neu quis magister sacrorum, aut sacerdos es­set ^*."’ The Jews however were prone to [Page 261] persecution; for though they considered the Su­preme Being as their tutelar deity, yet the malig­nity of their nature prevailed to make them hold in abhorrence the worship of every other god. Even among themselves, they were abundantly disposed to war; and nothing kept within bounds the Pharisees, the Sadduces, and the Essenes, their three sects, but terror of the Roman pow­er. The Christian religion implies toleration in its very nature and principles; but being corrup­ted by ignorance, interest, and superstition, it became prone to persecution, above all others. Christian sects were enflamed against each other to a degree of brutality; the most opposite to peace and brotherly love, inculcated in the gos­pel. It was propagated by the orthodox, that Arius expired in a common jakes, and that his entrails burst out. The same is related of Hune­ric King of the Vandals, a zealous Arian; with the following addition, that being possessed with the devil, whom he had glutted with the blood of many martyrs, he tore his flesh off with his teeth, and ended his wretched life in the most excruciating, though justly deserved, torments. The falsehoods every where spread during the fourteenth century against the Jews, such as their poisoning the public fountains, killing Christian [Page 262] infants, and drinking their blood, with many other falsehoods of the same stamp, were invent­ed and greedily swallowed through the influence of religious hatred. The greater part of perse­cutions have been occasioned in the same man­ner; for men are not so desperately wicked, as to approve of persecution, unless when blinded by intemperate zeal. The same religious hatred produced the assassination of the Duke of Guise, and of two Henrys, Kings of France; produced the gun-powder plot; and produced the most horrid deed that ever was perpetrated among men, the massacre of St. Bartholomew ^*.

No false principle in religion has shed more in­nocent, or rather virtuous blood, than that of persecuting heretics; i. e. those who differ in any article from the religion established by law. The doctrine of burning heretics, is in effect the professing to burn men highly virtuous; for they must be so in an eminent degree, who submit to be burnt alive, rather than be guilty even of dissimulation. The Mahometan practice of con­verting people by the sword, if not more rati­onal, is at least more manly. Louis IX. of France, one of its best princes, would have been a greater blessing to his people, had he been less [Page 263] pious: he had an implacable aversion to here­tics, against whom he thought it more proper to employ racks and gibbets, than argument and persuasion. Torquemada, that infernal inquisi­tor of Spain, brought into the inquisition, in the space of fourteen years, no fewer than 80,000 persons; of whom 6000 were condemned to the flames, and burnt alive with the greatest pomp and exultation. Of that vast number, there was perhaps not a single person, who was not more pure in religion, as well as in morals, than their outrageous persecutor. Hunter a young man about nineteen years of age, was one of the unhappy victims to the zeal of Queen Mary of England for Popery. Having been inadvertently betrayed by a priest to deny transubstantiation, he abscon­ded, to keep out of harm's way. Bonner, that arch-hangman of Popery, threatened ruin to the father, if he did not deliver up the young man. Hunter, hearing of his father's danger, made his appearance; and was burnt alive, instead of be­ing rewarded for his filial piety. A woman of Guernsey was brought to the stake, without re­gard to her big belly; which bursting by the tor­ture, she was delivered in the midst of the flames. One of the guards snatched the infant from the fire: but the magistrate who attended the execution, ordered it to be thrown back; be­ing resolved, he said, that nothing should sur­vive which sprung from a parent so obstinately heretical. Father Paul (Council of Trent, book 5.) computes, that in the Netherlands alone, from the time that the edict of Charles V. was promulgated against the reformers, fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, buried alive, or burnt, on account of religion. Some Faquirs, crazed with opium and fanaticism, have been known with poisoned daggers to fall upon [Page 264] uncircumcised Europeans, and to put every one to death whom they could master. In the last century, a Faquir at Surate murdered, within the space of a minute, seventeen Dutch sailors with seventeen stabs of a dagger. We think with horror of human sacrifices among the ancient Pa­gans; and yet we behold them every day among Christians, rendered still more horrid by the most atrocious torments that religious hatred can de­vise.

The great motive to such cruelties, is the su­perstitious and absurd notion, that heretics are God's enemies; which makes it thought an ac­ceptable service to God, not only to persecute them by fire and sword in this world, but to deli­ver them over to Satan in the world to come. Another circumstance enflames religious hatred; which is, that neighbours are either intimate friends or bitter enemies. This holds with a slight variation in sects of the same religion: however minute their differences be, they can­not be intimate friends; and therefore are bitter enemies: the nearer they approach to unison, if not entirely concordant, the greater in proportion is their mutual natred. Such hatred, subduing the meek spirit of Christianity, is an additional cause for persecution. Blind zeal for what is be­lieved to be the only true religion, never disco­vers error nor innocence in those who differ, but perverseness and criminal obstinacy. Two reli­gions totally different, like two countries in op­posite parts of the globe, produce no mutual enmity. At the siege of Constantinople by the Turks, ann. 1453, the Emperor, in order to procure assistance from the princes of the Latin church, ordered mass to be celebrated in one of his churches according to the form used in Rome. The people with great indignation protested, [Page 265] that they would rather see the Turks in their churches, than the hat of a cardinal.

The history of the Waldenses, tho' well known, cannot be too often repeated. In the twelfth cen­tury, a merchant of Lyons, named Peter Valdo, dissatisfied with the pomp and ceremonies of the Romish church, ill suited, in his opinion, to the humility of a Christian, retired to a desert in the high country of Provence, with several poor peo­ple his disciples. There he became their spiritu­al guide, instructing them in certain doctrines, the same that were afterward adopted by the Pro­testants. Their incessant labour subdued the bar­ren soil, and prepared it for grain as well as for pasture. The rent which in time they were ena­bled to pay for land that afforded none originally, endeared them to their landlords. In 250 years, they multiplied to the number of 18,000, occu­pying thirty villages, beside hamlets, the work of their own hands. Priests they had none, nor any disputes about religion: neither had they occa­sion for a court of justice, as brotherly love did not suffer them to go to law: they worshipped God in their own plain way, and their innocence was secured by incessant labour. They had long enjoyed the sweets of peace and mutual affection, when the reformers of Germany and Geneva sent ministers among them; which unhappily laid them open to religious hatred, the most unrelent­ing of all furies. In the year 1540, the parlia­ment of Provence condemned nineteen of them to be burnt for heresy, their trees to be rooted up, and their houses to be razed to the ground. The Waldenses, terrified at this sentence, applied in a body to Cardinal Sadolet, bishop of Carpentras; who received them kindly, and obtained from Francis I. of France, a pardon for the persons under sentence of death, on condition of abjur­ing [Page 266] heresy. The matter lay over five years; when the parliament, irritated at them for perse­vering in their tenets, prevailed on the King to withdraw his pardon. The sentence was execut­ed with great rigour; and the parliament, laying hold of that opportunity, broke through every restraint of law, and commenced a violent perse­cution against the whole nation. The soldiers began with massacring old men, women, and children, all having fled who were able to fly; and proceeded to burn their houses, barns, and corn. There remained in the town of Cabriere sixty men and thirty women; who having surren­dered upon promise of life, were butchered each of them without mercy. Some women who had taken refuge in a church, were dragged out, and burnt alive. Twenty-two villages were reduced to ashes; and that populous and flourishing di­strict, became once more a desert.

To conceive this horrid scene in all its defor­mity, the people persecuted ought to be compar­ed with the clergy their persecutors; for the civil magistrate was the hand only that executed their vengeance: on the one side, an industrious peo­ple, pure in their morals, and no less pure in their religion: on the other, proud pampered priests, abandoned without shame to every wick­edness, impure in their morals, and still more impure in their religion—the world never furnish­ed such another contrast. Had the scene been reversed, to make these wretches suffer persecu­tion from the Waldenses—but that people were too upright and too religious for being persecutors. The manners of the Christian clergy in general, before the Reformation, enlivens the contrast. The doctrine promulgated during the dark times of Christianity, That God is a mercenary being; and that every person, however wicked, may ob­tain [Page 267] pardon of his sins by money, made riches flow into the hands of ecclesiastics in a plentiful stream. And riches had the same effect upon the Christian clergy that they have upon all men, which is, to produce pride, sensuality, and pro­fligacy: these again produced dissipation of mo­ney, which prompted avarice, and every inven­tion for recruiting exhausted treasures ^*. Even as early as the eighth century, the Christian clergy, tempted by opulence, abandoned them­selves to pleasure, without moderation; and far exceeded the laity in luxury, gluttony, and lust. When such were the pastors, what must have been the flock! Rejoice, O Scotland, over the poverty and temperance of thy pastors. During that period, the clergy could read, and, like parrots, they could mumble prayers in Latin: in every other respect, they rivalled the laity in ignorance. They were indeed more cunning than the laity; and understood their interest better, if to covet riches at the expence of probity, de­serve that name. Three articles were established that made religion an easy service. First, That faith is the essence of religion, without regard to good works; and hence the necessity of being strictly orthodox, which the church only could determine. Second, Religious worship was re­duced to a number of external ceremonies and forms, which, being declared sufficient for salva­tion, absolved Christians from every moral duty. [Page 268] Remark, that a priest is always the chief person in ceremonial worship. The third article, That God is a mercenary being, is mentioned above, with its necessary consequences. These articles brought about a total neglect, both in clergy and laity, not only of morality, but of every essen­tial religious duty. In fine, there never was a religion that deviated more from just principles, than that professed by Christians during the dark ages. Persecution reached none but the sincerely pious and virtuous. What a glorious tolerating sentiment doth Arnobius ^a throw out, and what profusion of blood would have been prevented, had it been adopted by all Christians! ‘"Da ve­niam, Rex summe, tuos persequentibus famu­los: et quod tuae benignitatis est proprium, fu­gientibus ignosce tui nominis et religionis cul­tum. Non est mirum, si ignoraris: majoris est admirationis, si sciaris ^*."’ The following parable against persecution was communicated to me by Dr. Franklin of Philadelphia, a man who makes a great figure in the learned world: and who would make a still greater figure for benevo­lence and candour, were virtue in this declining age as much regarded as knowledge. ‘"And it came to pass after these things, that Abraham sat in the door of his tent, about the going down of the sun. And behold a man bent with age, coming from the way of the wilder­ness [Page 269] leaning on a staff. And Abraham arose, and met him, and said unto him, Turn in, I pray thee, and wash thy feet, and tarry all night; and thou shalt arise early in the morn­ing, and go on thy way. And the man said, Nay; for I will abide under this tree. But Abraham pressed him greatly: so he turned, and they went into the tent: and Abraham baked unleavened bread, and they did eat. And when Abraham saw that the man blessed not God, he said unto him, Wherefore dost thou not worship the most high God, creator of heaven and earth? And the man answered and said, I do not worship thy God, neither do I call upon his name; for I have made to myself a God, which abideth always in mine house, and provideth me with all things. And Abraham's zeal was kindled against the man, and he arose, and fell upon him, and drove him forth with blows into the wilderness. And God called unto Abraham, saying, Abraham, where is the stranger? And Abraham answer­ed and said, Lord, he would not worship thee, neither would he call upon thy name; there­fore have I driven him out from before my face into the wilderness. And God said, Have I borne with him these hundred ninety and eight years, and nourished him, and clothed him, notwithstanding his rebellion against me; and couldst not thou, who art thyself a sinner, bear with him one night?"’ The historical style of the Old Testament is here finely imitat­ed; and the moral must strike every one who is not sunk in stupidity and superstition. Were it really a chapter of Genesis, one is apt to think, that persecution could never have shown a bare face among Jews or Christians. But alas! that is a vain thought. Such a passage in the Old [Page 270] Testament, would avail as little against the ran­corous passions of men, as the following passages in the New Testament, tho' persecution cannot be condemned in terms more explicit. ‘"Him that is weak in the faith, receive you, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believ­eth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eat­eth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth. Who art thou that judgest another man's ser­vant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let eve­ry man be fully persuaded in his own mind. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, every one to give an account of him­self to God. I know, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean, to him it is unclean. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another ^a."’ Our Saviour himself declared against persecution in the most express terms. The Jews and Samari­tans were of the same religion; but some trivial differences in the ceremonial part of worship, rendered them odious to each other. Our Savi­our being refused lodging in a village of Samaria, because he was travelling to Jerusalem, his disci­ples James and John said, ‘"Lord, wilt thou that [Page 271] we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?"’ But he rebuked them, and said, ‘"The Son of man is not come to destroy means lives, but to save them ^b."’

It gives me real concern, that even the hot fire of persecution, did not altogether purify our Reformed clergy from that satanical spirit. No sooner were the Dissenters settled in New Eng­land, where they fled to avoid persecution, than they set on foot a persecution against the Quakers, no less furious than what they themselves had suffered at home. Nor did the Reformed clergy in Scotland lose sight of that magisterial autho­rity, which had been assumed by their predeces­sors of the Romish church, on the ridiculous pre­text, of being ambassadors to men from Jesus Christ. Upon a representation, ann. 1646, from the commission of the kirk of Scotland, James Bell and Colin Campbell, bailies of Glasgow, were committed to prison by the parliament, merely for having said, that kirk-men meddled too much in civil matters. Could a despotic prince have exerted a more arbitrary act? but the church was all-powerful in those days ^*.

[Page 272] I would do justice to every church, not except­ing that of Rome; and it is doing that church no more but justice to acknowledge, that the spirit of persecution was not more eminent in it, than zeal for making converts. The former is retiring out of the world; and I wish it most profound rest, never again to revive. People begin to be ashamed of it, as of a garment long out of fa­shion. Let the other continue for amusement: it is innocent; and if it do no good, it is not productive of so much harm.

The desire of making converts proceeds from two different causes. In superstitious zealots, it proceeds from an opinion, that all who differ from them are in the road to damnation: for which reason, there is a rage of making converts among Roman Catholics; who, without ceremony, de­liver over to the flames of hell, every person who is not of their communion The other cause is more natural: every man thinks himself in the right, especially in matters of consequence; and for that reason, he is happy to find others of his opinion ^a. With respect to the first cause, I beg attention to the following considerations; not with any hope of converting zealots, but to pre­vent, if possible, others from becoming such. In none of the works of God is variety more hap­pily blended with uniformity, than in the forma­tion of man. Uniformity prevails in the human face with respect to eyes, nose, mouth, and other capital parts: variety prevails in the expressions of these parts, serving to distinguish one person from another, without hazard of error. In like manner, the minds of men are uniform with re­spect to their passions and principles; but the va­rious [Page 273] tones and expressions of these, form diffe­rent characters without end. A face destitute of a nose or of a mouth, is monstrous: a mind de­stitute of the moral sense, or of a sense of reli­gion, is no less so. But variety of expression in different faces, is agreeable: because we relish variety; and a similar variety in the expressions or tones of passion, ought to be equally agreeable. Endless differences in temper, in taste, and in mental faculties, that of reason in particular, produce necessarily variety in sentiment and in opinion. Can God be displeased with such vari­ety, when it is his own work? He requires no uniformity except with respect to an upright mind and clear conscience, which are indispensable. Here at the same time is discovered an illustrious final cause. Different countenances in the hu­man race, not only distinguish one person from another, but promote society, by aiding us to chuse a friend, an associate, a partner for life. Differences in opinion and sentiment, have still more beneficial effects: they rouse the attention, give exercise to the understanding, and sharpen the reasoning faculty. With respect to religion in particular, perfect uniformity, which furnish­eth no subject for thinking nor for reasoning, would produce languor in divine worship, and make us sink into cold indifference. How fran­tic then is the rage of making proselytes? Let every man enjoy his native liberty, of thinking as well as of acting; free to act as he pleases, provided he obey the rules of morality; equally free to think as he pleases, provided he obey the great God as his maker and master, and acknow­ledge the necessary connection of religion with morality. Strict uniformity in other matters, may be compared to a spring-day, calm and se­rene; neither so hot as to make us drop a gar­ment, [Page 274] nor so cold as to require an addition; no wind to ruffle, nor rain to make shelter necessary. We enjoy the sweet scene for a moment: we walk, we sit, we muse;—but soon fall asleep. Agitation is the element of man, and the life of society. Let us not attempt to correct the works of God: the attempt will betray us into absurd errors. This doctrine cannot be better illustra­ted than by a conversation, reported by the Jesuit Tachard, between the king of Siam, and a French ambassador, who, in his master's name, urged that king to embrace the Christian religion. ‘"I am surprised,"’ said his Majesty of Siam, ‘"that the King of France, my good friend, should interest himself so warmly in what con­cerns God only. He hath given to his crea­tures different minds and different inclinations, which naturally lead them two differ in opinion. We admire variety in the material world: why not equally admire it in matters of religi­on? Have we not then reason to believe, that God takes pleasure in all the different forms of worship? Had it been the intention of God to produce uniformity in religion, he would have formed all men with the same mind."’ Bernier introduces some Gentiles of Hindostan defending their religion much in the same manner: ‘"That they did not pretend their law to be universal; that they did not hold ours to be false, as, for aught they knew, it might be a good law for us; and that God probably made many roads to heaven."’

With respect to the other cause above mentio­ned, viz. the desire of putting people in the right road. To reason others into our religious principles, is natural; but it is not always pru­dent. I wish my neighbour to be of my opinion, because I think my opinion right: but is there no [Page 275] danger of undermining his religious principles, without establishing better in their stead? Ought I not to restrain my desire of making converts, when the attempt may possibly reduce them to abandon religion altogether, as a matter of utter uncertainty? If a man of clear understanding has by some unhappy means been led into error, that man may be set right by fair reasoning: but beware of endeavouring to convert people of low parts, who are indebted for their creed to parents, to education, or to example: it is safer to let them rest as they are.

At any rate, let us never attempt to gain pro­selytes by rewards nor by terror: what other ef­fect can such motives produce, but dissimulation and lying, parents of every secret crime? The Empress of Russia uses a method for converting her Pagan subjects of Kamskatka, no less agree­able than effectual; which is, to exempt from taxes for ten years, such of them as profess the Christian religion. This practice may be politi­cal; but it tends not to advance religion, and is destructive of morality. Terror, on the other hand, may be equally effectual, but is not alto­gether so agreeable. The people of Rum, one of the Hebrides, were Papists till the beginning of the present century, when in one day they were all proselyted to the Protestant faith. Ma­clean of Coll, their chieftain, went to the island with a Protestant minister, and ordered all the inhabitants to appear on Sunday at public worship. They came, but refused to hear a Protestant mi­nister. The chieftain reasoned with them: but finding that his reasonings made no impression, he laid hold of the most forward; and having made a deep impression on him with his cane, pushed him into the church. The rest followed like meek lambs; and from that day have conti­nued [Page 276] firm Protestants. The Protestantism of Rum is styled by their Popish neighbours, the faith of the yellow stick.

To apply rewards, terror, or any other means, for making proselytes, except fair reasoning, ap­pears to me a strange perversion. Can God be pleased with such means, or can any rational man justify them? What then should move any one to put them in practice? I should be utterly at a loss to answer the question, but for a fact men­tioned more than once above, that the rude and illiterate, judge by sight only, and not by reflec­tion, which makes them lay weight on the exter­nal visible act, without thinking of intention, because it is not visible. In truth, the bulk of mankind rest upon the external profession of reli­gion: they never dip into the heart, nor consider how that stands affected. What else is it but the external act merely, that moves the Romish mis­sionaries to baptize the infants of savages even at the moment of expiring? which they prosecute with much pious ardour. Their zeal merits ap­plause, but by no means their judgment. Can any rational person seriously believe, that the dip­ping a savage or an infant in water, will make ei­ther of them a Christian, or that the want of this ceremony will precipitate them into hell? The Lithuanians, before their conversion to Christia­nity worshipped serpents, every family entertain­ing one as a household god. Sigismundus, in his commentaries of Muscovy, reports the fol­lowing incident. A converted Christian having persuaded a neighbour to follow his example, and in token of his conversion to kill his serpent, was surprised at his next visit, to find his convert in the deepest melancholy, bitterly lamenting that he had murdered his god, and that the most dreadful calamities would befal him. Was this [Page 277] person a Christian more than nominally? At the end of the last century when Kempfer was in Ja­pan, there remained but about fifty Japan Chri­stians, who were locked up in prison for life. These poor people knew no more of the Christi­an religion, but the names only of our Saviour and of the Virgin Mary; and yet so zealous Christians were they, as rather to die miserably in jail, than to renounce the name of Christ, and be set at liberty.

I cannot with satisfaction conclude this sketch, without congratulating my present countrymen of Britain, upon their knowledge of the intimate connection that true religion has with morality. May the importance of that connection, always at heart, excite us to govern every action of our lives by the united principles of morality and re­ligion:—what a happy people would we be!