pported by freedom, had divided
the public teachers of philosophy into a variety of contending sects;
but the ingenious youth, who, from every part, resorted to Athens, and
the other seats of learning in the Roman empire, were alike instructed
in every school to reject and to despise the religion of the multitude.
How, indeed, was it possible that a philosopher should accept, as divine
truths, the idle tales of the poets, and the incoherent traditions of
antiquity; or that he should adore, as gods, those imperfect beings whom
he must have despised, as men? Against such unworthy adversaries, Cicero
condescended to employ the arms of reason and eloquence; but the satire
of Lucian was a much more adequate, as well as more efficacious, weapon.
We may be well assured, that a writer, conversant with the world,
would never have ventured to expose the gods of his country to public
ridicule, had they not already been the objects of secret contempt among
the polished and enlightened orders of society. [7]

[Footnote 6: The admirable work of Cicero de Natura Deorum is the
best clew we have to guide us through the dark and profound abyss. He
represents with candor, and confutes with subtlety, the opinions of the
philosophers.]

[Footnote 7: I do not pretend to assert, that, in this irreligious age,
the natural terrors of superstition, dreams, omens, apparitions, &c.,
had lost their efficacy.]

Notwithstanding the fashionable irreligion which prevailed in the age of
the Antonines, both the interest of the priests and the credulity of the
people were sufficiently respected. In their writings and conversation,
the philosophers of antiquity asserted the independent dignity of
reason; but they resigned their actions to the commands of law and of
custom. Viewing, with a smile of pity and indulgence, the various
errors of the vulgar, they diligently practised the ceremonies of their
fathers, devoutly frequented the temples of the gods; and sometimes
condescending to act a part on the theatre of superstition, they
concealed the sentiments of an atheist under the sacerdotal robes.
Reasoners of such a temper were scarcely inclined to wrangle about their
respective modes of faith, or of worship. It was indifferent to them
what shape the folly of the multitude might choose to assume; and
they approached with the same inward contempt, and the same external
reverence, the altars of the Libyan, the Olympian, or the Capitoline
Jupiter. [8]

[