preferring one to the other. And as there was an infinite number of
stories, with regard to which tradition was nowise positive; the
gradation was insensible, from the most fundamental articles of
faith, to those loose and precarious fictions. The pagan religion,
therefore, seemed to vanish like a cloud, whenever one approached to
it, and examined it piecemeal. It could never be ascertained by any
fixed dogmas and principles. And though this did not convert the
generality of mankind from so absurd a faith; for when will the
people be reasonable? yet it made them faulter and hesitate more in
maintaining their principles, and was even apt to produce, in
certain dispositions of mind, some practices and opinions, which had
the appearance of determined infidelity.

     To which we may add, that the fables of the pagan religion
were, of themselves, light, easy, and familiar; without devils, or
seas of brimstone, or any object that could much terrify the
imagination. Who could forbear smiling, when he thought of the loves
of M/ARS\ and V/ENUS\, or the amorous frolics of J/UPITER\ and
P/AN\? In this respect, it was a true poetical religion; if it had
not rather too much levity for the graver kinds of poetry. We find
that it has been adopted by modern bards; nor have these talked with
greater freedom and irreverence of the gods, whom they regarded as
fictions, than the ancients did of the real objects of their
devotion.

     The inference is by no means just, that, because a system of
religion has made no deep impression on the minds of a people, it
must therefore have been positively rejected by all men of common
sense, and that opposite principles, in spite of the prejudices of
education, were generally established by argument and reasoning. I
know not, but a contrary inference may be more probable. The less
importunate and assuming any species of superstition appears, the
less will it provoke men's spleen and indignation, or engage them
into enquiries concerning its foundation and origin. This in the
mean time is obvious, that the empire of all religious faith over
the understanding is wavering and uncertain, subject to every
variety of humour, and dependent on the present incidents, which
strike the imagination. The difference is only in the degrees. An
ancient will place a stroke of impiety and one of superstition
alternately, throughout a whole discourse;[73] A modern often thinks
in the same way, though he may be more guarded in his expression.

     L/UCIAN\ tells us expressly,[74] that whoever believed not the
most ridiculous fables of paganism was deemed by the people profane
and impious. To what purpose, indeed, would that agreeable author
have employed the whole force of his wit and satire against the
national religion, had not that religion been generally believed by
his countrymen and contemporaries?

     L/IVY\[75] acknowledges as frankly, as any divine would at
present, the common incredulity of his age; but then he condemns it
as severely. And who can imagine, that a national superstition,
which could delude so ingenious a man, would not also impose on the
generality of the people?

     The S/TOICS\ bestowed many magnificent and even impious
epithets on their sage; that he alone was rich, free, a king, and
equal to the immortal gods. They forgot to add, that he was not
inferior in prudence and understanding to an old woman. For surely
nothing can be more pitiful than the sentiments, which that sect
entertained with regard to religious matters; while they seriously
agree with the common augurs, that, when a raven croaks from the
left, it is a good omen; but a bad one, when a rook makes a noise
from the same quarter. P/ANAETIUS\ was the only S/TOIC\, among the
G/REEKS\, who so much as doubted with regard to auguries and
divinations.[76] M/ARCUS\ A/NTONINUS\[77] tells us, that he himself
had received many admonitions from the gods in his sleep. It is
true, E/PICTETUS\[78] forbids us to regard the language of rooks and
ravens; but it is not, that they do not speak truth: It is only,
because they can foretel nothing but the breaking of our neck or the
forfeiture of our estate; which are circumstances, says he, that
nowise concern us. Thus the S/TOICS\ join a philosophical enthusiasm
to a religious superstition. The force of their mind, being all
turned to the side of morals, unbent itself in that of religion.[79]

     P/LATO\[80] introduces S/OCRATES\ affirming, that the
accusation of impiety raised against him was owing entirely to his
rejecting such fables, as those of S/ATURN'S\ castrating his father
U/RANUS\, and J/UPITER'S\ dethroning S/ATURN\: Yet in a subsequent
dialogue,[81] S/OCRATES\ confesses, that the doctrine of the
mortality of the soul was the received opinion of the people. Is
there here any contradiction? Yes, surely: But the contradiction is
not in P/LATO\; it is in the people, whose religious principles in
general are always composed of the most discordant parts; especially
in an age, when superstition sate so easy and light upon them.[82]

     The same C/ICERO\, who affected, in his own family, to appear a
devout religionist, makes no scruple, in a public court of
judicature, of treating the doctrine of a future state as a
ridiculous fable, to which no body could give any attention.[83]
S/ALLUST\[84] represents C/AESAR\ as speaking the same language in
the open senate.[85]

     But that all these freedoms implied not a total and universal
infidelity and scepticism amongst the people, is too apparent to be
denied. Though some parts of the national religion hung loose upon
the minds of men, other parts adhered more closely to them: And it
was the chief business of the sceptical philosophers to show, that
there was no more foundation for one than for the other. This is the
artifice of C/OTTA\ in the dialogues concerning the <nature of the