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 princi⯑ples of gratitude and obedience; both of them re⯑quiring fundamentally a pure heart, and a well⯑diſpoſed mind. But heart-worſhip is alone not ſufficient: there are over and above required ex⯑ternal 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 imperfec⯑tion [188] of our nature: yet however faint originally, it is capable of being greatly invigorated by culti⯑vation and exerciſe. Private exerciſe is not ſuf⯑ficient. Nature, and conſequently the God of na⯑ture, require public exerciſe or public worſhip: for devotion is infectious, like joy or grief^a; and by mutual communication in a numerous aſ⯑ſembly, 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 [189] head, that lawgivers ought to avoid with caution the enforcing public worſhip by rewards and pu⯑niſhments: human laws cannot reach the heart, in which the eſſence of worſhip conſiſts: they may indeed bring on a liſtleſs habit of wor⯑ſhip, 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 Ton⯑quin, 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 wor⯑ſhip: 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 invin⯑cible objection againſt it, which is, that it is not fitted for the human race: an excellent religi⯑gion it would be for angels; but is far too refin⯑ed, even for ſages and philoſophers.

Proceeding to deviations from the genuine wor⯑ſhip required by our Maker, and groſs deviations there have been, I begin with that ſort of wor⯑ſhip which is influenced by fear, and which for that reaſon is univerſal among ſavages. The A⯑merican [190] ſavages believe, that there are inferior deities without end, moſt of them prone to miſ⯑chief: 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 be⯑lieve 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 incli⯑nation to miſchief. The worſhip of the inhabi⯑tants 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 crea⯑ted the univerſe, and governs it by his Provi⯑dence: but they regard him not; ‘"for,"’ ſay they, ‘"it is needleſs, if not impertinent, to in⯑voke a being, who, good and gracious, is in⯑capable 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 pil⯑grims, 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-moti⯑on, [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 ven⯑geance, and always offended. The people of that religion paſs moſt of their time in torment⯑ing themſelves, to expiate imaginary faults; and they are treated by their prieſts with deſpotiſm and cruelty, that is not paralleled but by the in⯑quiſitors 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 re⯑pentance 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 expia⯑ted by acts of mortification, ſuch as the torturing and macerating the body with painful labour, ex⯑ceſſive abſtinence, continual prayer and contem⯑plation. Their penances, whether for original or voluntary ſin, are carried to extravagance; and they who put an end to their lives by ſuch ſeveri⯑ties, are termed the ſacred victims of repentance, conſumed by the fire of divine love. Such ſui⯑cides [192] are eſteemed peculiarly meritorious in the eye of Heaven; and it is thought, that their ſuf⯑ferings cannot fail to appeaſe the anger of the Deity. That celibacy is a ſtate of purity and perfection, is a prevailing notion in many coun⯑tries: 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 Empe⯑ror 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 fre⯑quently 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 ſeveri⯑ty, 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 ſome⯑thing extraordinary, at ſome new and ſingular act of piety, to diſplay his zeal, and to merit the fa⯑vour 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 ſer⯑vice of the dead was chanted; and he him⯑ſelf joined in the prayers offered up for his requiem, mingling his tears with thoſe of his at⯑tendants. [193] The ceremony cloſed with ſprinkling holy water upon the coffin; and the aſſiſtants re⯑retiring, 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 accu⯑rate, 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 paſ⯑ſion. It is needleſs to loſe time in mentioning in⯑ſtances, 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, conti⯑nually 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 [194] the Lord, and bow myſelf before the high God? ſhall I come before him with burnt⯑offerings, 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 Ari⯑manes, the evil principle, was ever an object of any religious worſhip. The Gaures, who pro⯑feſs the ancient religion of Perſia, addreſs no wor⯑ſhip but to one God, all-good and all-powerful.

Next, of worſhipping the Deity in the charac⯑ter 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 reſem⯑ble men, it is not wonderful, that men endea⯑voured to conciliate their favour, with ſuch offe⯑rings 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 in⯑cenſe to their gods, was practiſed in Mexico and Peru; and at preſent is practiſed in the pe⯑ninſula 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 [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 remem⯑brance of their dependence on him, and to pre⯑ſerve 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 menti⯑oned 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 ſa⯑cred Troy. Never ſtands the altar empty be⯑fore me, oblations poured forth in my pre⯑ſence, ſavour that aſcends the ſkies."’ Speak⯑ing [196] in the fifth book of a warrior, known after⯑ward 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, unbro⯑ken, and wild: her to thee I will offer with prayer, gilding with gold her horns."’ Pre⯑ciſely 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 [197] latter; but they have ſo far advanced before ſe⯑veral other nations, as to offer ſacrifices to the ſupreme Being, without employing either idols or temples.

Philoſophy and ſound ſenſe, in poliſhed nati⯑tions, have purified religious worſhip, by baniſh⯑ing the profeſſion at leaſt of oblations and ſacrifi⯑ces. 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 mo⯑ved 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 de⯑ſireſt 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 con⯑trite 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 [198] ages of philoſophy, warm heart-worſhip, with little ſhew^*.

[199] This is a proper place for the hiſtory of idola⯑try; 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 can⯑not form any diſtinct notion of them. But ſuch impreſſion is too faint for the exerciſe of devo⯑tion. Whether inſpired with love to a good be⯑ing, or with fear of an ill being, ſavages are not at eaſe without ſome ſort of viſible object to ani⯑mate them. A great ſtone ſerved that purpoſe originally; a very low inſtrument indeed of reli⯑gious worſhip; but not altogether whimſical, if it was introduced, which is highly probable, in the following manner. It was an early and a na⯑tural 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 Oſ⯑ſian. ‘"Place me,"’ ſays Calmar, mortally wounded, ‘"at the ſide of a ſtone of remem⯑brance, 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 vota⯑ries, rejoicing as formerly over the ſtones dedi⯑cated to them, held theſe ſtones to be eſſential in every act of religious worſhip performed to [200] their new deities^*. Tradition points out many ſtones in different parts of the world, that were uſed in religious worſhip. A large ſtone worſhip⯑ped by the Peſſenuntians, a people of Phrygia, under the name of Idaea mater, was, upon a ſo⯑lemn embaſſy to that people, brought to Rome; it being contained in the Sybilline books, that un⯑leſs the Romans got poſſeſſion of that goddeſs, they never would prevail over Hannibal. And Pauſanias mentions many ſtones in Greece, dedi⯑cated 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 cir⯑cumſtance in the hiſtory of Greece, conſidering that all the Grecian gods were originally mortals, [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 ſa⯑vages, with reſpect to ſuch ſtones: the moſt na⯑tural 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 con⯑nection of ideas, were led from the ſtone to the deity: and the ſtone tended to fix their wander⯑ing thoughts. It was probably imagined, over and above, that ſome latent virtue communicated to the ſtone, made it holy or ſacred. Even a⯑mong 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 wor⯑ſhip, introduced the figure of a ſerpent as a ſym⯑bol of the deity: two ſticks laid croſs repreſent⯑ed Caſtor and Pollux, Roman divinities: a jave⯑lin 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 vo⯑taries.

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 [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 in⯑ſenſibly to draw from beholders a degree of devo⯑tion to the ſtatues themſelves. Hear Quintilian upon that ſubject. ‘"At quae Polycleto defue⯑runt, 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 re⯑ligioni videtur; adeo majeſtas operis deum aequavit^*."’ Here is laid a foundation for ido⯑latry: let us trace its progreſs. Such ſtatues as are repreſented by Quintilian, ſerve greatly to en⯑ſlame 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 [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 con⯑ceived to be a deity during the fervour of devoti⯑on; 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 prohi⯑bited 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 re⯑kindled by ſtriking fire from flint, or by a burning glaſs.

The progreſs of idolatry will more clearly ap⯑pear, 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 Var⯑ro, 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 [204] in faſhion, they acquired by degrees more and more reſpect. The Greek and Roman writers, talk of divine virtue being communicated to ſta⯑tues; and ſome of the Roman writers talk famili⯑arly, of the numen of a deity reſiding in his ſtatue. Arnobius, in his book againſt the Gentiles, intro⯑duces a Gentile delivering the following opinion. ‘"We do not believe, that the metal which com⯑poſes a ſtatue, whether gold, or ſilver, or braſs, is a god, But we believe, that a ſo⯑lemn dedication brings down the god to inha⯑bit 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 dei⯑ties 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 tute⯑lar 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 tem⯑ple 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 re⯑ſided in the ſtatue. Auguſtus, having twice loſt his fleet by ſtorm, forbade Neptune to be carried in proceſſion along with the other gods; ima⯑gining he had avenged himſelf of Neptune, by neglecting the favourite ſtatue in which his numen reſided.

[205] When ſaints in the Chriſtian church were dei⯑fied, even their images became objects of wor⯑ſhip; from a fond imagination, that ſuch wor⯑ſhip 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 diffe⯑rent from the belief of the Pagan Tartars and Oſtiacs, by and by to be mentioned. In the ele⯑venth 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 pro⯑per object of worſhip; and that Chriſtians ought not to confine their worſhip to the perſons re⯑preſented, 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 re⯑ſemblance 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 re⯑preſent 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 ima⯑ges 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 ima⯑gine 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 ele⯑vated for dwelling conſtantly in a piece of matter: they believe that it reſides in ſome more honou⯑rable [206] place; and that it only viſits the image or idol, when it is called down by prayers and ſup⯑plications. They ſacrifice to this idol, by rub⯑bing its mouth with the fat of fiſh, and by offer⯑ing 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 fi⯑ſhery. If unſucceſsful, he is loaded with re⯑proaches: 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 hu⯑man creatures; and yet the ſame abſurdity pre⯑vailed 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 inviſi⯑ble being can have no reſemblance to one that is [207] viſible, employed hieroglyphical figures for de⯑noting 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 religi⯑on, innocent in itſelf, ſunk the Egyptians to the loweſt degree of idolatry. As hieroglyphical fi⯑gures, compoſed frequently of heterogeneous parts, reſemble not any being human or devine; the vulgar, loſing ſight of the emblematic ſignifi⯑cation, which is not readily underſtood but by poets and philoſophers, took up with the plain fi⯑gures 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 wor⯑ſhip 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 ani⯑mals, though they were forced to devour one an⯑other. The veneration paid to a cow in Hindoſtan aroſe probably from the ſame cauſe, viz. its hav⯑ing been uſed as a ſymbol of the Deity. A ſnake of a particular kind, about a yard long, and about [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 re⯑ſpects, 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 reli⯑gion.

It is amazing how prone the moſt poliſhed na⯑tions 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 diſ⯑ciples, that idols are emblems only of the Deity, intended merely to fix the attention of the po⯑pulace!

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 [209] ſcarce to reſemble human creatures, not to talk of a divinity. But the admirable ſtatues exe⯑cuted 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 de⯑ities 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. Eve⯑ry 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 ridi⯑culous 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 man⯑ner of treating their houſehold-gods, will vouch [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 gild⯑ed, treated with perfumes and burnt-offer⯑ings; 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 ſup⯑poſed 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 high⯑ly 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 ac⯑quired 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 Caſtel⯑branco were ſo enraged at St Antonio, for ſuf⯑fering 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 immi⯑nent danger, during the laſt famine at Naples. [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 peo⯑ple 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 ſta⯑tue 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 val⯑ley 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 apolo⯑gy 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 metempſy⯑choſis, 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 bo⯑dy. The Dalai Lama, however, is the object of profound veneration. The Tartar princes are [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 preci⯑ous 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 ſa⯑cred, 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 ſo⯑journed in the land of Goſhen, were it not pre⯑ſumable from their commerce with the Egypti⯑ans, would however be evident from the hiſtory of Moſes. Notwithſtanding their miraculous deliverance from the Egyptian king, notwith⯑ſtanding 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 [213] thou broughteſt out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themſelves: they have turned aſide quickly out of the way which I com⯑manded them: they have made them a mol⯑ten 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 profuſi⯑on 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 reitera⯑ted relapſes, from their own inviſible God, to the viſible gods of other nations. And in all pro⯑bability, 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 viſi⯑ble: and it was extremely prudent, to ſupply the want of a viſible god, with endleſs ſhews and ce⯑remonies; 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 un⯑derſtanding, that it is vain to think of eradicating ſuperſtition and idolatry. And after all the co⯑venants made with the Jews, after all the chaſ⯑tiſements and all the miracles laviſhed on them, that they were not however reclaimed from the [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 un⯑der Rehoboam, ſon of Solomon^b. Jehu, king of the ten tribes, did not tolerate the wor⯑ſhip of other gods^c; but he continued to wor⯑ſhip the two golden calves fabricated by Jerobo⯑am^d. Down to the days of King Hezekiah, the Jews worſhipped the brazen ſerpent erected by Moſes in the wilderneſs. The Jews ſeem in⯑deed 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 cap⯑tivity in Babylon, ſeveral of them ſubmitted to be burnt alive, rather than to join in idol wor⯑ſhip^e. Captivity cured them radically of ido⯑latry; 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 Ba⯑byloniſh captivity, gives the following account of them. ‘"Their cuſtoms are quite different from thoſe of other nations. Beſide a peculi⯑ar [215] manner of living, they acknowledge none of the common deities: they acknowledge but one, whom they worſhip with great venerati⯑on. 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 per⯑vert the vulgar, they ought not to be admitted into churches: pictures are leſs liable to be miſ⯑apprehended; and the Ethiopians accordingly in⯑dulge pictures, though they prohibit ſtatues, in their churches. The general council of Frank⯑fort permitted the uſe of images in churches; but ſtrictly prohibited any worſhip to be addreſ⯑ſed 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. Up⯑on the ſun depends health, vigour, and cheerful⯑neſs: during his retirement, all is dark and diſ⯑conſolate: when he performs his majeſtic round, to bleſs his ſubjects, and to beſtow fecundity up⯑on every animal and vegetable, can a mere ſa⯑vage 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 [216] awful beauty, and the ſtars hide their faces: thou moveſt alone, for who can be a compa⯑nion of thy courſe? The oaks of the moun⯑tain 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 univer⯑ſal; and prevails in many countries even at pre⯑ſent. 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 im⯑portant 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 Flori⯑da, 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 de⯑votion is exerted in perfumes and ſongs. The Mexicans, while a free people, preſented to the [217] ſun a ſhare of their meat and drink. The inha⯑bitants of Darien believe in the ſun as their god, and in the moon as his wife, paying equal adora⯑tion to each. The people of Borneo worſhip the ſun and moon as real divinities. The Samo⯑ides 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 high⯑er 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 reſem⯑blance between gods and men. The Gaures, who to this day profeſs the ancient religion of Perſia, celebrate divine worſhip before the ſa⯑cred fire, and turn with peculiar veneration to⯑ward 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 ha⯑vock made by the ancient Perſians, upon the ſta⯑tues and temples of The Grecian gods. Such ſublimity of thought was above the reach of other uninſpired nations, excepting only the Hin⯑dows and Chineſe.

I cloſe the hiſtory of idolatry with a brief re⯑capitulation of the outlines. Admitting the ſun and moon to have been the firſt objects of idola⯑try, yet as Polytheiſm was once univerſal, they [218] make only two of the many gods that were eve⯑ry 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 philo⯑ſophers. 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 to⯑ward perfection. It would be incredible that men of ſenſe ſhould ever ſuffer themſelves to be im⯑preſſed 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 worſhip⯑ping 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: per⯑ſons [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 ſubordi⯑nate divinities by prayers and oblations: and they are well rewarded, by being taken under protec⯑tion 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 ap⯑proaching the Almighty, the mind, ſinking down into humility and profound veneration, ſtops ſhort, relying upon ſome friend in heaven to in⯑tercede in its behalf. Temples among the Co⯑chin-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 incomprehen⯑ſibility; and the good men placed by them in heaven, are believed to be their interceſſors at the throne of grace. The prayers of the Chingu⯑leſe 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 him⯑ſelf.

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 in⯑ſtance, [220] the ſtrongeſt of the kind that can be fi⯑gured. Louis XI. of France, ſenſible of the approach of death, ſent for a hermit of Calabria, named Franciſco Martarillo; and throwing him⯑ſelf at the hermit's feet in a flood of tears, en⯑treated him to intercede with God, that his life might be prolonged; as if the voice of a Cala⯑brian friar, ſays Voltaire, could alter the courſe of Providence, by preſerving a weak and per⯑verſe ſoul in a worn-out body.

Having diſcuſſed the perſons that are the ob⯑jects of worſhip, the next ſtep in order is, to take under view the forms and ceremonies em⯑ployed in religious worſhip. Forms are neceſſa⯑ry where-ever a number of perſons join in one operation: they are eſſential in an army, and lit⯑tle leſs eſſential at public worſhip. The uſe of ceremonies is to excite devotion: but to pre⯑ſerve a juſt medium, requires great delicacy of taſte; for though ceremonies are neceſſary at public worſhip to prevent languor, yet ſuperflui⯑ty of ceremonies quenches devotion, by occupy⯑ing the mind too much upon externals. The Ro⯑man-Catholic worſhip is crowded with ceremo⯑nies: 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 ſeceſſi⯑ons 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.

[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 im⯑piety; being perſuaded, that the Alcoran was written in Arabic, by the Angel Gabriel, at the command of God himſelf. The Roman Catho⯑lics 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 fre⯑quently upon the top of Ida; and Strabo obſerves, that the Perſians, who uſed neither images nor altars, ſacrificed to the gods in high places. Ba⯑lak carried Balaam the prophet to the top of Piſ⯑gah, and other mountains, to ſacrifice there, and to curſe Iſrael. The votaries of Baal always worſhipped in high places. Even the ſage Taci⯑tus was infected with that abſurdity. Speaking of certain high mountains where the gods were worſhipped, he expreſſes himſelf thus: Maxime [222] coelo appropinquare, preceſque mortalium a Deo nuſ⯑quam propius audiri ^*.

Ceremonies that tend to unhinge morality, be⯑long 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, ar⯑guing from the groſs conceptions of deity among many nations, that this ſenſe cannot be innate. The objection is not indeed ſtated in the follow⯑ing paſſage, borrowed from a juſtly celebrated author; but as it may be implied, the paſſage ſhall be fairly tranſcribed. ‘"The univerſal pro⯑penſity 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, ab⯑ſurdity, and immorality, are attributed to him^a!"’ A ſatisfactory anſwer to the objecti⯑on implied in this paſſage, will occur, upon re⯑collecting the progreſs of men and nations from infancy to maturity. Our external ſenſes, neceſ⯑ſary for ſelf-preſervation, ſoon arrive at perfec⯑tion: the more refined ſenſes of propriety, of right and wrong, of Deity, of being accountable [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 en⯑lightened nations, what is to be expected from ſa⯑vages who are in the loweſt ſtage of underſtand⯑ing? To a ſavage of New Holland, whoſe ſenſe of deity is extremely obſcure, one may talk with⯑out 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 diſ⯑courſe 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 prece⯑ding tract; and of the former, inſtances ſtill more plentiful in the preſent tract. The ſenſe of deity in dark times has indeed been ſtrangely diſ⯑torted 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 convic⯑tion of one ſupreme Deity who made and go⯑verns the world.

The foregoing objection then, impartially con⯑ſidered, 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 [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, in⯑ſtead of being produced complete in every mem⯑ber, 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 ſcien⯑ces. 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 ſa⯑vage 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 ſa⯑vage in every other reſpect. The genuine fruits of religion, are gratitude to the Author of our be⯑ing, veneration to him as the ſupreme Being, ab⯑ſolute 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 ſyſ⯑tem 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 in⯑ſtruction, and will inſpire true piety, if inſtruc⯑tion 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 ad⯑vance toward maturity with equal ſteps. Where⯑ever 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 tem⯑per than to ſound morals.

[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 do⯑ing juſtice, in loving mercy, and in walking hum⯑bly with him. The laſt is the foundation of re⯑ligious worſhip, diſcuſſed in the foregoing ſection: the two former belong to the preſent head. And if we have gratitude to our Maker and Benefac⯑tor, 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 thy⯑ſelf. 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 [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 af⯑fliction; and to keep himſelf unſpotted from the world^b."’ ‘"Hoſtias et victimas Do⯑mino offeram quas in uſum mei protulit, ut re⯑jiciam 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 victi⯑mam 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 [228] days of Pythagoras, are introduced with the fol⯑lowing preamble. ‘"No man can queſtion the ex⯑iſtence of Deity who obſerves the order and har⯑mony of the univerſe, which cannot be the pro⯑duction 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 Hea⯑ven 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 chap⯑ter 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. At⯑tend to the conſequence: that people, fierce ori⯑ginally, 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 [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 ce⯑remonies performed annually at their tombs, tend to keep them at home, and prevent their wander⯑ing into foreign countries.

Superſtitious rites in ſome religions, are ſuc⯑ceſsfully employed to enforce certain moral du⯑ties. The Romans commonly made their ſolemn covenants in the capitol, before the ſtatue of Ju⯑piter; by which ſolemnity he was underſtood to guarantee the covenant, ready to pour out venge⯑ance upon the tranſgreſſor. The Burates, a people in Grand Tartary, have a cuſtom, which is, to de⯑mand 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 faith⯑ful 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 tem⯑ples; and the ſize of a ſtatue is proportioned to the merit of the perſon repreſented. If that cuſtom be executed with candour, there can⯑not be a nobler incitement to public ſpirit. The Egyptians did not reach the thought of honouring virtue after death; but they diſ⯑honoured 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 incul⯑cating particular moral duties. There are many religious doctrines, doubtful or perhaps erroneous, [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 pa⯑radiſe; that upon the bridge there ſtands an angel, who weighs in a balance the merits of the paſſen⯑gers; 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, gar⯑dens, rivers, and beautiful virgins, whoſe looks are a perpetual feaſt, but who muſt not be en⯑joyed. In the fourth chapter of the Sadder, good works are zealouſly recommended in the following parable. Zeraduſht, or Zoroaſter, being in com⯑pany with God, ſaw a man in hell who wanted his right foot. ‘"Oh my Creator," ſaid Zoro⯑aſter, 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 be⯑lieve, 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 [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 hap⯑pineſs. Of the latter, there are different degrees, for different degrees of virtue; and yet, far from envying the happier lot of others, every inhabi⯑tant 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 ap⯑pear 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 diſſo⯑lution of which, they run the ſame courſe of hap⯑pineſs 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 religi⯑ous 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, [232] indulging and even encouraging groſs immorali⯑ties. 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 hap⯑pineſs 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 mi⯑ſerably 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 con⯑troverſy aroſe, whether Chriſt's body was corrup⯑tible. 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 inter⯑mediate 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, [233] whether Chriſt had any property. The Pope pronounced the negative propoſition to be a peſti⯑lential and blaſphemous doctrine, ſubverſive of Catholic faith. Many councils were held at Con⯑ſtantinople, 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 term⯑ed 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 be⯑lieve every one of them, under the pain of eter⯑nal damnation. An endleſs number of ſuch pro⯑poſitions, 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 eter⯑nal, 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 em⯑braced by the preſent Mahometants, who hold all who deny it to be infidels. There is among men great uniformity of opinion in matters of impor⯑tance. Religious differences are generally about trifles, where liberty ought to be indulged with⯑out [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 era⯑dicate brotherly love, and to convert into bit⯑ter 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 founda⯑tion of one or other moral duty. What, for ex⯑ample, 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. Accor⯑ding to the creed of the ſavages in Canada, the killing and burning enemies are what chiefly en⯑title 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 la⯑bour, and full gratification of every ſenſual ap⯑petite. 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 Wo⯑den, their tutelar deity: can hatred and revenge in this world be more honourably rewarded? The doctrine of tutelar deities is equally produc⯑tive of hatred and revenge: relying on a ſuperi⯑or power who eſpouſes all my quarrels, I put no bounds to my reſentment, and every moral duty in oppoſition is trampled under foot. The [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 ſe⯑cure their perſons againſt violence. But war and bloodſhed are their averſion, becauſe thoſe who ſuffer a violent death go ſtraight to hell. In ma⯑ny 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 proſti⯑tuted 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 there⯑by [236] they became proof againſt all temptation. And Aelian obſerves the ſame of the Lydian la⯑dies. 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 ap⯑peared at public worſhip, without the leaſt co⯑vering. 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 an⯑ger, and avoid heinous crimes through the dread of future puniſhment."’ Again, ‘"Per⯑ſons 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 au⯑thority."’ 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 com⯑mit ſimony, by purchaſing a benefice, if to the unlawful act, he join the innocent purpoſe [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 mo⯑tive be honour, not revenge."’ A famous Je⯑ſuit taught, that a young man may wiſh the death of his father, and even rejoice at his death, pro⯑vided the wiſh proceed, not from hatred, but from fondneſs of his father's eſtate. And ano⯑ther Jeſuit has had the effrontery to maintain, that a monk may lawfully aſſaſſinate a calumnia⯑tor, who threatens to charge his order with ſcan⯑dalous 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 doc⯑trine that prevailed univerſally during the days of ignorance. Compoſitions for crimes were coun⯑tenanced by law in every country^a; and men, prone to indulge their paſſions, flattered them⯑ſelves, 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 Reforma⯑tion, that liberal donations to God, to a ſaint, to the church, would procure pardon even for the groſſeſt ſins. During that period, the build⯑ing 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 com⯑pound for their ſins. There needs nothing but ſuch an opinion, to annihilate every duty, whe⯑ther [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 remark⯑ably 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 godli⯑neſs conſiſts, not in making the Virgin a Coun⯑teſs, 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 ſta⯑ted prices for abſolutions, not excepting the moſt heinous ſins that men are capable to commit. So true is the obſervation of Aeneas Silvius, after⯑ward Pope Paul II. ‘"Nihil eſt quod abſque argento Romana curia det: ipſa manuum im⯑poſitio, et Spiritus Sancti dona, venduntur; nec peccatorum venia niſi nummatis impen⯑ditur^*."’ Of all the immoral atonements for ſin, human ſacrifices are the moſt brutal; devi⯑ating no leſs from the purity of religion, than from the fundamental principles of morality. They wore out of uſe as kindly affections pre⯑vailed; and will never again be reſtored, unleſs we fall back to the ſavage manners of our forefa⯑thers. Compoſition for crimes, once univerſal, is now baniſhed from every enlightened nation. Compoſition for ſins, was once equally univer⯑ſal; and I wiſh it could be ſaid, that there are [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 re⯑pentance and reformation of manners are the on⯑ly 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 mo⯑rality. That error has infected every religion. The Sadder, the Bible of the Gaures, prohibits calumny and detraction, lying, ſtealing, adulte⯑ry, and fornication. It however enervates mo⯑rality and religion, by placing many trifling acts on a level with the moſt important duties. It en⯑joins 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 bra⯑mins have wofully degenerated from their origi⯑nal inſtitutions, thinking at preſent, that religion conſiſts in forms and ceremonies. As ſoon as an infant is born, the word Oum muſt be pronounc⯑ed over it; otherwiſe it will be eternally miſera⯑ble: its tongue muſt be rubbed with conſecrated meal: the third day of the moon, it muſt be car⯑ried 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 [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 trea⯑cherous 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 inexpia⯑ble 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 eſta⯑bliſhed in Flanders and in French-county, the be⯑ginning of the ſeventeenth century.

Liſten to a celebrated writer upon that poiſo⯑nous conceit. ‘"It is certain, that in every reli⯑gion, however ſublime, many of the votaries, perhaps the greateſt number, will ſtill ſeek the divine favour, not by virtue and good mo⯑rals, which alone can be acceptable to a per⯑fect being, but either by frivolous obſervan⯑ces, by intemperate zeal, by rapturous ecſta⯑ſies, or by the belief of myſterious and ab⯑ſurd opinions. When the old Romans were attacked with a peſtilence, they never aſcrib⯑ed 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 nati⯑ons 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 [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 re⯑ſerved for the higher exerciſes of religion. The neglect or tranſgreſſion of mere punctilios, are puniſhed as heinous ſins; while ſins really hei⯑nous 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 lite⯑rally, 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 Jeruſa⯑lem by Pompey, ſays, that if the Jews had not reſted on the ſabbath, Pompey would not have been ſucceſsful. Every Saturday he renewed his bat⯑teries: 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 reſt⯑ed, till he was apprehended, and led to the gal⯑lows. Nor are the Jews to this day cured of that frenzy. In ſome late accountsfrom Conſtantino⯑ple, a fire broke out in a Jew's houſe on Satur⯑day: [242] rather than profane the ſabbath, he ſuffe⯑red 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 wor⯑ſhip? In the year 1670, ſome Arabians, watch⯑ing an opportunity, got into the town of Dieu when the gates were opened in the morning. They might eaſily have been expelled by the ca⯑non of the citadel; but the Portugueſe governor was obliged to look on without firing a gun, be⯑ing threatened with excommunication, if the leaſt miſchief ſhould be done to any of the chur⯑ches. 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 hea⯑ven; the dignity, glory, and love of the bleſſed Virgin; the efficacy of relics; the intolerable fire of purgatory; and the vaſt importance of [243] indulgences. Relying on ſuch pious acts for ob⯑taining remiſſion of ſins, all orders of men ruſh⯑ed 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 Chriſti⯑an who goes frequently to church; who pre⯑ſents 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 re⯑peat the creed and the Lord's prayer. Re⯑deem then your ſouls from deſtruction, while you have the means in your power: offer pre⯑ſents and tithes to churchmen: come more frequently to church: humbly implore the pa⯑tronage 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 [244] of God, reſignation to his will, obedience to his laws, nor of juſtice, benevolence, nor charity."’ Groſs ignorance and wretched ſu⯑perſtition 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 inter⯑red in their burial-place. Religion need not aſſo⯑ciate with morality, if ſuch ſilly practices be ſuf⯑ficient 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 waft⯑ed 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 forego⯑ing; and hence alſo their influence in religion. Forms and ceremonies are uſeful at public worſhip; but they ought not to take place of eſſentials. Peo⯑ple 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 reli⯑ance a violent tendency to relax the obligations of morality. Religious rites that contradict not any paſſion, are keenly embraced, and punctually per⯑formed; and men, flattering themſelves that they have thus been punctual in their duty to God, give vent to their paſſions againſt men. ‘"They [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 ſel⯑dom exerciſes any act of genuine devotion, he thinks of the Deity with eaſe and familiarity: how otherwiſe is it accountable, that the plays, term⯑ed 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 af⯑ford ſome amuſement to the reader. Bartolus, the famous lawyer, in order to ſhew the form of proceeding in a court of juſtice, imagines a pro⯑ceſs 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 whe⯑ther 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 influ⯑ence would be too great; ſecond, That a woman is debarred from being an advocate: and theſe ob⯑jections are ſupported by numberleſs quotations from the Corpus Juris. The Virgin, on her part, quotes texts permitting women to appear for wi⯑dows, orphans, and for perſons in diſtreſs. She is allowed to plead for mankind, as coming under the laſt article. The devil urges preſcription, as [246] having been in poſſeſſion of mankind ever ſince the fall. The Virgin anſwers, That a mala-fide poſſeſſor cannot acquire by preſcription. Preſcrip⯑tion 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 altercati⯑on, 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 mo⯑ther, 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 com⯑monly bitter enemies to each other, if they have any difference. At the ſame time, diſſocial paſ⯑ſions never rage ſo furiouſly, as under the maſk of [247] religion; for in that caſe they are held to be me⯑ritorious, 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 cere⯑monies 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 to⯑ken of their union. Strahlenberg gives an ac⯑count of a Chriſtian ſect in Ruſſia, which differs from the eſtabliſhed Greek church in the follow⯑ing 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 [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 Pro⯑phet;"’ and ſo bitter is their enmity to the Per⯑ſians, 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. Whe⯑ther coffee be or be not prohibited in the Alcoran, has produced much controverſy in the Mahome⯑tan 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 pro⯑hibited in the Alcoran."’ The coffee-houſes in Conſtantinople, were for a long period alternate⯑ly opened and ſhut, according to the taſte of the reigning mufti; till coffee at laſt, ſurmounting all obſtacles, came to be an eſtabliſhed Mahome⯑tan 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 Hin⯑dows 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 [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 Clau⯑de, 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 ex⯑ception, That he committed that irregularity to preſerve his life. How was it poſſible for the monſters to perſuade themſelves, that this ſen⯑tence was agreeable to God, who is goodneſs it⯑ſelf!

No leſs prejudicial to morality, than the rely⯑ing 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 ve⯑nial ſins being taxed at a higher rate than many of the deepeſt dye. For example, the killing father, mother, brother, ſiſter, or wife, is tax⯑ed 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^*.

[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 chil⯑dren; 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 or⯑der 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 reflecti⯑on, ſuch as public ſpirit, filial duty, tempe⯑rance, 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 ſocie⯑ty, and to ourſelves. In all this, a ſuperſti⯑tious 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 [251] any practice recommended to him, which ei⯑ther ſerves to no purpoſe in life, or offers the ſtrongeſt violence to his natural inclinations; that practice he will the more readily em⯑brace, on account of thoſe very circumſtan⯑ces, which ſhould make him abſolutely reject it. It ſeems the more purely religious, that it proceeds from no mixture of any other mo⯑tive 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 him⯑ſelf a ſound whipping, this has a direct refe⯑rence, in his opinion, to the ſervice of God. No other motive could engage him to ſuch au⯑ſterities. By theſe diſtinguiſhed marks of de⯑votion, he has now acquired the divine fa⯑vour; and may expect in recompence, pro⯑tection 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 obedi⯑ence to his will in comforting our fellow-crea⯑tures? But enthuſiaſts are not eaſily perſuaded, that to make ourſelves happy in the exerciſes of piety and benevolence, is the moſt acceptable ſer⯑vice to God that we can perform. In loading re⯑ligion [252] with unneceſſary articles of faith and prac⯑tice, they contradict our Saviour, by making his yoke ſevere, and his burden heavy^*. Law, up⯑on 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 pro⯑per 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 mortifica⯑tion, 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 vota⯑ries?

In the ſame ſpirit of ſupererogation, holidays have been multiplied without end, depriving the working poor of time, that would be more uſe⯑fully 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 poiſo⯑nous effects with reſpect to morality. The mo⯑ral ſenſe has great influence on the induſtrious, who have no time for indulging their irregular ap⯑petites: the idle, on the contrary, are obvious to every temptation. Men likewiſe are apt to aſſume great merit from a rigid obſervance of [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 a⯑mong Chriſtians, opens a wide door to immora⯑lity.

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 inno⯑cent, 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 ſu⯑pererogation. They ſeem to have no bad effect with reſpect to religion, as diſtinguiſhed from morality: the body is indeed cruciated unneceſſa⯑rily; 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 them⯑ſelves 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 pri⯑vate perſons dare not venture upon: ſhall a fa⯑vourite of Heaven be leſs indulged? The Fa⯑quirs 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 [254] church, ſuch as faſting and flagellation, have evidently the ſame bad tendency^*. With re⯑ſpect to faſting in particular, to what good pur⯑poſe it can ſerve, except to gluttons, is not rea⯑dily conceived. Temperance in eating and drink⯑ing is eſſential to health: too much or too little are equally noxious, though their effects are dif⯑ferent. Faſting therefore ought never to be en⯑joined to the temperate as a religious duty, be⯑cauſe it cannot be acceptable to a benevolent Deity. Liſten to a great prophet on that ſub⯑ject. ‘"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 un⯑der 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?"’

[255] The moſt extraordinary penance of all, is ce⯑libacy, conſidered as a religious duty. Many fa⯑thers of the church declare againſt matrimony. St. Jerom in particular ſays, That the end of matrimony is eternal death; that the earth in⯑deed is filled by it, but heaven by virginity. The intemperate zeal of many primitive Chriſti⯑ans led them to abſtain from matrimony, and even from conjugal careſſes, if they had the misfor⯑tune to be married; believing that the carnal ap⯑petite 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 happi⯑neſs 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. Am⯑broſe, in a council at Milan; and Jovinian was baniſhed by the Emperor Honorius. Such ridi⯑culous 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. Garci⯑laſſo 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 af⯑fords the ſtrongeſt inſtance of ſuperſtition tri⯑umphing over common ſenſe; for what can be more inconſiſtent with common ſenſe, not to talk [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 Ro⯑miſh 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 pur⯑poſe. 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 con⯑duct. Men reſtrained from what is neceſſary and proper, are more prone than others to break out into groſs irregularities^*. Marriage is warm⯑ly recommended in the laws of Zoroaſter. Chil⯑dren 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 diſagree⯑able to Ormuſd.

The celibacy of the clergy was countenanced by the Pope; and enforced from a political con⯑ſideration, [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 man⯑ners be liſtened to, when they preach purity to their hearers? There was no medium, but ei⯑ther to reform their own manners, or to give every indulgence to the laity. But the ignorance and ſuperſtition of the latter, rendered the for⯑mer ſecure in their own opinion. The reſtora⯑tion of learning broke the charm. Men begin⯑ning 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 eccleſi⯑aſtical thraldom to this hour. Our reformers, beginning with their paſtors, extended inſenſibly their hatred to the doctrines taught by their paſ⯑tors. 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 impu⯑dent 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 [258] ſtretch to diſengage them from every duty, whe⯑ther of morality or of religion. The barons of Va⯑lentia, dreading a perſecution againſt the induſtri⯑ous 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 offe⯑red."’ 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 invi⯑ting opportunity to renew his pretenſions. A ſo⯑lemn treaty ſtood in his way; but the Pope re⯑moved 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 ſo⯑lemn oath renounced the right of inveſtitures, empowered the cardinals to declare his oath null. Biſhops alſo, imitating their ſuperior, have aſſu⯑med the privilege of diſpenſing with moral du⯑ties. Inſtances are not rare, of curates being au⯑thorized by their biſhop to entertain concubines, paying for each a regular tax of a crown yearly. Nay, in ſome provincial ſynods, they are enjoin⯑ed to keep concubines, in order to prevent ſcan⯑dal. 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.

[259] The power of beſtowing kingdoms, aſſumed by the biſhop of Rome, was an encroachment on the rules of juſtice, no leſs bold. Chriſtian prin⯑ces, 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 per⯑miſſion 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 inter⯑fere in that commerce. Ferdinand and Iſabella of Spain, applied to Pope Alexander VI. to veſt in them the property of America, diſcovered un⯑der their auſpices by Columbus. The Pope ha⯑ving formerly made a grant to the kings of Por⯑tugal, of their diſcoveries in the Eaſt Indies, both grants were held ſacred; and it came to be ſtre⯑nuouſly diſputed, under which of the grants the Molucca iſlands were comprehended. Both grants proceed upon a narrative, of the power beſtow⯑ed 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 man⯑kind, 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 ex⯑cepted, 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 eſta⯑bliſhed 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 [260] under depreſſion; which of courſe ſubjects all mankind to the rigour of perſecution. An in⯑vention more effectual for extirpating the hu⯑man race, is not within the reach of human pow⯑ers: 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 be⯑lief 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 mix⯑ing in the dark after intemperate eating and drink⯑ing. Never did wicked wretches deſerve more exemplary puniſhment; yet liſten to the follow⯑ing decree of the Roman ſenate, breathing the true ſpirit of toleration. ‘"Ne qua Bacchana⯑lia 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 ſacri⯑ficio intereſſent; neu qua pecunia communis, neu quis magiſter ſacrorum, aut ſacerdos eſ⯑ſet^*."’ The Jews however were prone to [261] perſecution; for though they conſidered the Su⯑preme Being as their tutelar deity, yet the malig⯑nity 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 pow⯑er. The Chriſtian religion implies toleration in its very nature and principles; but being corrup⯑ted 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 goſ⯑pel. It was propagated by the orthodox, that Arius expired in a common jakes, and that his entrails burſt out. The ſame is related of Hune⯑ric 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 [262] infants, and drinking their blood, with many other falſehoods of the ſame ſtamp, were invent⯑ed and greedily ſwallowed through the influence of religious hatred. The greater part of perſe⯑cutions have been occaſioned in the ſame man⯑ner; 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 in⯑nocent, 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 con⯑verting people by the ſword, if not more rati⯑onal, 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 [263] pious: he had an implacable averſion to here⯑tics, againſt whom he thought it more proper to employ racks and gibbets, than argument and perſuaſion. Torquemada, that infernal inquiſi⯑tor 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 abſcon⯑ded, 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 be⯑ing rewarded for his filial piety. A woman of Guernſey was brought to the ſtake, without re⯑gard to her big belly; which burſting by the tor⯑ture, 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; be⯑ing reſolved, he ſaid, that nothing ſhould ſur⯑vive 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 [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 Pa⯑gans; and yet we behold them every day among Chriſtians, rendered ſtill more horrid by the moſt atrocious torments that religious hatred can de⯑viſe.

The great motive to ſuch cruelties, is the ſu⯑perſtitious and abſurd notion, that heretics are God's enemies; which makes it thought an ac⯑ceptable ſervice to God, not only to perſecute them by fire and ſword in this world, but to deli⯑ver 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 can⯑not 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 be⯑lieved to be the only true religion, never diſco⯑vers error nor innocence in thoſe who differ, but perverſeneſs and criminal obſtinacy. Two reli⯑gions totally different, like two countries in op⯑poſite 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, [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 cen⯑tury, 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 peo⯑ple his diſciples. There he became their ſpiritu⯑al guide, inſtructing them in certain doctrines, the ſame that were afterward adopted by the Pro⯑teſtants. Their inceſſant labour ſubdued the bar⯑ren ſoil, and prepared it for grain as well as for paſture. The rent which in time they were ena⯑bled to pay for land that afforded none originally, endeared them to their landlords. In 250 years, they multiplied to the number of 18,000, occu⯑pying thirty villages, beſide hamlets, the work of their own hands. Prieſts they had none, nor any diſputes about religion: neither had they occa⯑ſion 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 unrelent⯑ing of all furies. In the year 1540, the parlia⯑ment 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 abjur⯑ing [266] hereſy. The matter lay over five years; when the parliament, irritated at them for perſe⯑vering in their tenets, prevailed on the King to withdraw his pardon. The ſentence was execut⯑ed with great rigour; and the parliament, laying hold of that opportunity, broke through every reſtraint of law, and commenced a violent perſe⯑cution 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 ſurren⯑dered 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 di⯑ſtrict, became once more a deſert.

To conceive this horrid ſcene in all its defor⯑mity, the people perſecuted ought to be compar⯑ed with the clergy their perſecutors; for the civil magiſtrate was the hand only that executed their vengeance: on the one ſide, an induſtrious peo⯑ple, pure in their morals, and no leſs pure in their religion: on the other, proud pampered prieſts, abandoned without ſhame to every wick⯑edneſs, impure in their morals, and ſtill more impure in their religion—the world never furniſh⯑ed ſuch another contraſt. Had the ſcene been reverſed, to make theſe wretches ſuffer perſecu⯑tion 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 ob⯑tain [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 pro⯑fligacy: theſe again produced diſſipation of mo⯑ney, which prompted avarice, and every inven⯑tion for recruiting exhauſted treaſures^*. Even as early as the eighth century, the Chriſtian clergy, tempted by opulence, abandoned them⯑ſelves 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, de⯑ſerve 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 re⯑duced to a number of external ceremonies and forms, which, being declared ſufficient for ſalva⯑tion, abſolved Chriſtians from every moral duty. [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 eſſen⯑tial 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 ve⯑niam, Rex ſumme, tuos perſequentibus famu⯑los: et quod tuae benignitatis eſt proprium, fu⯑gientibus ignoſce tui nominis et religionis cul⯑tum. 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 benevo⯑lence 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 wilder⯑neſs [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 morn⯑ing, 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 anſwer⯑ed and ſaid, Lord, he would not worſhip thee, neither would he call upon thy name; there⯑fore 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 imitat⯑ed; 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 [270] Teſtament, would avail as little againſt the ran⯑corous 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 believ⯑eth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eat⯑eth, deſpiſe him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth. Who art thou that judgeſt another man's ſer⯑vant? to his own maſter he ſtandeth or falleth. One man eſteemeth one day above another: another eſteemeth every day alike. Let eve⯑ry 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 him⯑ſelf 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 Samari⯑tans were of the ſame religion; but ſome trivial differences in the ceremonial part of worſhip, rendered them odious to each other. Our Savi⯑our being refuſed lodging in a village of Samaria, becauſe he was travelling to Jeruſalem, his diſci⯑ples James and John ſaid, ‘"Lord, wilt thou that [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 Eng⯑land, 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 autho⯑rity, which had been aſſumed by their predeceſ⯑ſors of the Romiſh church, on the ridiculous pre⯑text, 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^*.

[272] I would do juſtice to every church, not except⯑ing 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 fa⯑ſhion. 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, de⯑liver 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 pre⯑vent, if poſſible, others from becoming ſuch. In none of the works of God is variety more hap⯑pily blended with uniformity, than in the forma⯑tion 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 re⯑ſpect to their paſſions and principles; but the va⯑rious [273] tones and expreſſions of theſe, form diffe⯑rent characters without end. A face deſtitute of a noſe or of a mouth, is monſtrous: a mind de⯑ſtitute of the moral ſenſe, or of a ſenſe of reli⯑gion, 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 vari⯑ety, 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 hu⯑man 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 furniſh⯑eth no ſubject for thinking nor for reaſoning, would produce languor in divine worſhip, and make us ſink into cold indifference. How fran⯑tic 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 acknow⯑ledge the neceſſary connection of religion with morality. Strict uniformity in other matters, may be compared to a ſpring-day, calm and ſe⯑rene; neither ſo hot as to make us drop a gar⯑ment, [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 illuſtra⯑ted 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 con⯑cerns God only. He hath given to his crea⯑tures 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 religi⯑on? 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 mentio⯑ned, viz. the deſire of putting people in the right road. To reaſon others into our religious principles, is natural; but it is not always pru⯑dent. I wiſh my neighbour to be of my opinion, becauſe I think my opinion right: but is there no [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 pro⯑ſelytes by rewards nor by terror: what other ef⯑fect 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 agree⯑able than effectual; which is, to exempt from taxes for ten years, ſuch of them as profeſs the Chriſtian religion. This practice may be politi⯑cal; but it tends not to advance religion, and is deſtructive of morality. Terror, on the other hand, may be equally effectual, but is not alto⯑gether 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. Ma⯑clean 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 mi⯑niſter. 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 conti⯑nued [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, ap⯑pears 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 men⯑tioned more than once above, that the rude and illiterate, judge by ſight only, and not by reflec⯑tion, which makes them lay weight on the exter⯑nal viſible act, without thinking of intention, becauſe it is not viſible. In truth, the bulk of mankind reſt upon the external profeſſion of reli⯑gion: 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 miſ⯑ſionaries to baptize the infants of ſavages even at the moment of expiring? which they proſecute with much pious ardour. Their zeal merits ap⯑plauſe, but by no means their judgment. Can any rational perſon ſeriouſly believe, that the dip⯑ping a ſavage or an infant in water, will make ei⯑ther of them a Chriſtian, or that the want of this ceremony will precipitate them into hell? The Lithuanians, before their converſion to Chriſtia⯑nity worſhipped ſerpents, every family entertain⯑ing one as a houſehold god. Sigiſmundus, in his commentaries of Muſcovy, reports the fol⯑lowing 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 [277] perſon a Chriſtian more than nominally? At the end of the laſt century when Kempfer was in Ja⯑pan, there remained but about fifty Japan Chri⯑ſtians, who were locked up in priſon for life. Theſe poor people knew no more of the Chriſti⯑an 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 re⯑ligion:—what a happy people would we be!