his worship: that he thought it not lawful to publish to the vulgar the Parent of the universe. For not understanding the things that are said of him, they would be apt to deride them, as being things remote from popular custom, and from their gross conceptions: that therefore treating of laws which ought to be published to the people, he speaks nothing of this great unsearchable Divinity, and proposeth only the worship of heaven to the people, to whom he must speak only of that which they esteemed certain religion.* It is probable that when Eugubinus mentions Plato as proposing the worship of heaven to the people, he not only refers to his frequently recommending the worship of the heavenly bodies, but has in view that passage in his Epinomis, where he mentions heaven as the supreme God, the author of all good things, whom men as well as all the other gods should worship and adore. A man may call it, says he, either the world, or Olympus, or heaven, provided he considers its various operations, that it makes the stars revolve in their several courses, and causes the differences of times and seasons, and provides proper aliment for all animals.+ Ficinus, than whom no man was better acquainted with the works of Plato, and who carried his admiration of him to a degree of enthusiasm, puts the question, Why Plato openly asserts only the celestial gods, viz. the heavenly bodies? To which he answers, That it was "because the contemplation of the higher deities is altogether "foreign to the matter of laws; and by mentioning the ce"lestial gods, which are moved and employed in their "several proper offices, he sufficiently intimates, that a high"er god is to be sought after, who being himself unmoved “moves them all, and as their common leader assigns each of

them their respective functions.-Quoniam superiorum con"templatio est a legum materiâ admodùm aliena, et per cœ"lestes deos qui moventur, et propriis mancipantur officiis, "satis admonet superiorem esse quærendum, qui et immotus

* Steuch. Eugub. de perenni Philosophia, lib. v. cap. 3.

+ Plat. Oper. ubi supra, p. 699.

❝ ipse moveat omnia et communis dux propria singulis assig"nat officia."* But since Plato meddles with religion in his laws, and sets himself to prove the existence and providence of the gods against the atheists; and since he thought fit to give directions to the people as to the gods they were to worship; he ought certainly to have clearly directed them to the acknowledgment and adoration of the one supreme God, and to have insisted principally upon this as of the highest importance. And his taking so little notice of this, and yet so strongly recommending the worship of other deities, especially of the heavenly bodies, and at the same time declaring against any alteration of the laws and customs relating to religion, and the worship of the gods, shows that little was to be hoped for from him for reforming the popular superstition and idolatry. He rather established and confirmed it.+

In like manner Cicero in his excellent treatise of laws, which contains, according to Dr. Middleton,‡ a just account of his sentiments, and where he appears in the character both of a philosopher and lawgiver, givés no law relating to the worship of the one supreme God, but expressly prescribes the worship of a plurality of deities; both of those who were always accounted celestial; by which he refers to the gods who were called Dii consentes et selecti, and Dii majorum gentium; and of those whose merits had placed them in hea

* See Ficinus' argument on Plato's tenth book of Laws. Plat. Oper. p. 841. F. † Origen seems to have had Plato particularly in view when he finds fault with those who, notwithstanding their sublime speculations concerning the ineffable first Good, joined in the common idolatry; and he applies to them that of St. Paul, Rom. i. 21. that "when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, "but became vain in their imaginations or reasonings." Cont. Cels. lib. vi. p. 276, 277. edit. Spenser. And elsewhere he observes, concerning those who were puffed up with the knowledge they had learned from philosophy, that they frequented the temples and statues of the gods, and the mysteries, no less than the most illiterate of the vulgar, and led others to do so: and that they were not ashamed to address themselves to inanimate things as gods, or the images of the gods: in which the most simple Christian acted better than they. Ibid. lib. vii. p. 362.

Middleton's Life of Cicero, vol. II. p. 623. edit. Dublin.

ven; such as Hercules, Liber, Esculapius, Castor and Pol lux, and Quirinus: as also of the household gods: and binds it as a duty upon the people in these things to follow the religion of their ancestors.*

It sufficiently appeareth from the observations which have been made, how little was to be expected from the greatest and best philosophers for leading the people into the right knowledge and worship of the one true supreme God, and recovering them from the idolatry and polytheism in which they were involved.

What has been observed relates principally to the philosophers of Greece and Rome. But it may not be improper here to add something concerning the famous Chinese philosopher Confucius. It appears from the accounts given us of his life and writings by the learned authors of Confucius. Sinarum Philosophus, sive Scientia Sinensis Latinè Exposita, and who seems to be very much prejudiced in his favour, that he was a great upholder of the ancient superstitions, and would not suffer the least deviation from them. He blames those who did not worship according to the accustomed rites, but were ambitious to sacrifice to a higher kind of spirits than their condition allowed. For, according to the Chinese laws, none but the emperor was to offer sacrifices, with solemn rites, to heaven, and to the earth. The tributary kings and princes, who were next in dignity to the emperor, were allowed to sacrifice to the mountains and rivers, or to their spirits: the inferior governors to inferior things; and so on: every one was to offer sacrifices according to the rank of the offerer, and of the spirits to which he sacrificed. Confucius was for having this order strictly observed:† from whence it is evident, that he seems to have considered religion chiefly in a political view. By heaven the followers of Confucius, of the learned sect, generally understand the visible material heaven,

* Cic. de Leg. lib. ii. cap. 8. p. 100. Edit. Davis. 2do. Scient. Sin. lib. iii. part 1. p. 21. et part 2. p. 5, 4.

and by the spirit of heaven, its physical virtue and efficacy, void of intelligence. Thus Confucius' nephew, Cu Su, seems to have understood it, as appears from a passage in the book Chùm Yum. But let us suppose, that Confucius himself by heaven and the spirit of heaven understood the one supreme God, the sacrificing to him seems not to be a religion he designed for the people, but to be reserved for the emperor himself, and forbidden to inferior persons; who were only allowed to worship those things of nature, and the spirits of them, which were supposed to be of inferior dignity. And by the spirits of the things, according to the Chinese philosophy, are to be understood their operative virtues, which are only the finest parts of the things themselves. This is plainly proved by F. Longobardi, whom I have before cited. And the learned Jesuits who published the Scientia Sinensis, own, that Confucius supposes the spirits to be intimately united to the things of nature, and that they cannot be separated from them.+

* Scient. Sin. lib. ii. p. 87.

+ Ibid. p. 51.

CHAP. XVI.

Farther proofs of the philosophers, countenancing and encouraging the popular idolatry and polytheism. They employed their learning and abilities to defend and justify it. The worship of inferior deities was recommended by them under pretence that it tended to the honour of the Supreme. Some of the most eminent endeavoured to colour over the absurdest part of the Pagan poetic theology by allegorizing the most indecent fables. They even apologized for the Egyptian animal worship, which the generality of the vulgar Pagans in other nations ridiculed. Their plea for idolatry and image worship as necessary to keep the people from falling into irreligion and atheism. Some of the most refined philosophers were against any external worship of the supreme God.

So far were the philosophers from taking proper methods to recover the people from the common idolatry and polytheism, that they employed their learning and abilities to uphold the popular idolatry, and to find out the most plausible colours for justifying and recommending it.

It is an observation which has been often made, that after Christianity appeared to bless the world with its salutary light, the philosophers were the principal supporters of declining Paganism. They put on an appearance of extraordinary piety, and professed to look upon the things of nature with religious eyes, so as to behold God in them. They alleged that the whole world is to be regarded as a sacred thing, as being nothing but God himself displayed in his works: that men's devotions, therefore, were not to be huddled up in one general acknowledgment of a supreme invisible Being, the Maker and Governor of this vast universe, but that all the several powers, and virtues, and manifestations of the Deity in the world, considered singly and apart by themselves, should be called by several distinct names, and made so many distinct objects of their veneration: and therefore they spoke of the things of nature, and parts of the world, as so many distinct gods and goddesses. Thus it is that the very learned Dr. Cudworth, who was far from being prejudiced against them, re