The STOICS 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.
PANAETIUS was the only STOIC， among the GREEKS， who so much as doubted with regard to auguries and divinations.76 MARCUS ANTONINUS77 tells us， that he himself had received many admonitions from the gods in his sleep. It is true， EPICTETUS78 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 STOICS 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.79PLATO80 introduces SOCRATES affirming， that the accusation of impiety raised against him was owing entirely to his rejecting such fables， as those of SATURN'S castrating his father URANUS， and JUPITER'S dethroning SATURN： Yet in a subsequent dialogue，81SOCRATES 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 PLATO； 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.82The same CICERO， 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 SALLUST84 represents CAESAR as speaking the same language in the open senate.85But 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 COTTA in the dialogues concerning the nature of the gods. He refutes the whole system of mythology by leading the orthodox gradually， from the more momentous stories， which were believed， to the more frivolous， which every one ridiculed： From the gods to the goddesses； from the goddesses to the nymphs； from the nymphs to the fawns and satyrs. His master， CARNEADES， had employed the same method of reasoning.86Upon the whole， the greatest and most observable differences between a traditional， mythological religion， and a systematical， scholastic one， are two： The former is often more reasonable， as consisting only of a multitude of stories， which， however groundless， imply no express absurdity and demonstrative contradiction； and sits also so easy and light on men's mind， that， though it may be as universally received， it happily makes no such deep impression on the affections and understanding.
第一章SECT. XIII. Impious conceptions of the divine nature in popular religions of both kinds.
The primary religion of mankind arises chiefly from an anxious fear of future events； and what ideas will naturally be entertained of invisible， unknown powers， while men lie under dismal apprehensions of any kind， may easily be conceived. Every image of vengeance， severity， cruelty， and malice must occur， and must augment the ghastliness and horror， which oppresses the amazed religionist. A panic having once seized the mind， the active fancy still farther multiplies the objects of terror； while that profound darkness， or， what is worse， that glimmering light， with which we are environed， represents the spectres of divinity under the most dreadful appearances imaginable. And no idea of perverse wickedness can be framed， which those terrified devotees do not readily， without scruple， apply to their deity.
