eme magistrate, who, by the progress of knowledge and
flattery, was gradually invested with the sublime perfections of an
Eternal Parent, and an Omnipotent Monarch. Such was the mild spirit of
antiquity, that the nations were less attentive to the difference, than
to the resemblance, of their religious worship. The Greek, the Roman,
and the Barbarian, as they met before their respective altars, easily
persuaded themselves, that under various names, and with various
ceremonies, they adored the same deities. The elegant mythology of Homer
gave a beautiful, and almost a regular form, to the polytheism of the
ancient world.

The philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from the nature of man,
rather than from that of God. They meditated, however, on the Divine
Nature, as a very curious and important speculation; and in the
profound inquiry, they displayed the strength and weakness of the human
understanding. Of the four most celebrated schools, the Stoics and the
Platonists endeavored to reconcile the jaring interests of reason and
piety. They have left us the most sublime proofs of the existence and
perfections of the first cause; but, as it was impossible for them to
conceive the creation of matter, the workman in the Stoic philosophy was
not sufficiently distinguished from the work; whilst, on the contrary,
the spiritual God of Plato and his disciples resembled an idea, rather
than a substance. The opinions of the Academics and Epicureans were of a
less religious cast; but whilst the modest science of the former induced
them to doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny,
the providence of a Supreme Ruler. The spirit of inquiry, prompted by
emulation, and supported 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