THE UNITY OF THE SUPREME BEING WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS. Ισις εγω ειμι παντο γεγονός, και ον και θων απε ψε พ. I Isis am all that has me un vei le SOME of the most canting members of the Christian priesthood frequently assure their deluded followers, both in their oral ministrations and written discourses, that the ancient heathens were in a most deplorable condition, as it regards a belief in theological abstractions. They point with affected sorrow to the numerous deities of Greece and Rome, and endeavour to exhibit the superiority of their views, by contrasting them with the idolatries of the ancient Egyptians. In their writings you find them eternally ringing changes on the satires of Juvenal, as if the ebullitions of satirical malignancy were tantamount to historical proof. It may be admitted that in ancient times, the ignorant part of the Egyptian populace were so far sunk in ignorance and superstition, as to worship the crocodile, and fall "prostrate adoring" before their garden vegetables. But an admission of this nature by no means involves the inference, which some of our "Christian evidence manufacturers" generally deduce from it: viz. that the * Vide Plutarch on the inscription on the Temple of Isis. philosophers of Egypt were characterized by similar stupidity. The ancient philosophers had one set of opinions for themselves, and another for the vulgar. They no doubt secretly laughed at the folly of the fanatical multitude, even while resorting to the temples to shield themselves from persecution. What the classic Gibbon says of the religion of the ancient Romans is applicable to that of the Egyptians. "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the" Egyptian "world, were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful." Juvenal thus ridicules the superstitious character of the Egyptian populace :— Quis nescit, Volusi Bithynice qualia demens Dimidio magicæ resonant ubi Memnone chordæ, Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam. All know that Egypt's frantic vows are paid Are by whole cities viewed with pious fear: Where onions are adored, and leeks are gods. Hodgson: Trans. Juv. Dec. Fall Rom. Emp., vol. i., c. ii., p. 35, Ed. Lond. 1789. Satire xv., v. li. These lines are characteristic of the Egyptian superstitions; but it is presuming too much upon human credulity, to assert that the philosophers of antiquity accredited such monstrous absurdities. Partly from choice, and partly from a fear of the popular vengeance, they were induced either to conceal their real sentiments, or deliver them to the people under the mask of allegory." In their writings," observes Gibbon, "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 robe. 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 Lybian, the Olympian, and the Capitoline Jupiter.' There can be little dependence placed on the authority of ancient writers, relative to the opinions which prevailed in Egypt, in remote ages. The Greeks were too fond of exalting the glory of their own nation at the expense of others, whom they denominated barbarous, to give an impartial account of the opinions of Egyptian philosophers. Besides, the destruction of the Alexandrian library, in A.D. 642, by the command of the superstitious Omar, caliph of the Saracens, prevents us from arriving at accurate conclusions concerning the philosophy of Egypt. The difficulty, too, of settling with precision the sense in which the allegorical language of the ancient philosophers should be interpreted, is another appalling circumstance which meets the student in every stage *Dec. Fall Rom. Emp., vol. i., c. ii., p. 37, Ed Lond. 1789. c 2 of an historical inquiry into the theology of ancient times. "It has been often said," says Sir William Drummond, "that fiction is the soul of poetry." It may be asserted with equal truth, that among the ancient oriental nations, fiction was the organ of philosophy. In Asia as well as in Egypt, the learned class was separated from all the rest. The priests were accustomed to speak in the language of mystery; and when they communicated their knowledge to the initated, it was generally by types, enigmas, and allegories." "It may appear singular that the discoveries of science should thus have been shrouded from public view; that the lessons of philosophy should have been expressed in tropes and figures; and that important. truths should have been hidden under the semblance of fabulous narrations. But the institutions, both political and religious, of the ancient nations of the East, required that knowledge should be confined to the few; and whether this system of government were good or bad, it accounts, in great measure, for the obscurity in which the learned enveloped their opinions."* Howitt, in his Popular History of Priestcraft, and Hodgson, in his notes on the fifteenth satire of Juvenal, appended to his inelegant poetical translation of that caustic writer, have given very unfair descriptions of the mythology of Egypt. If these writers had drawn a line of distinction between the priests and the people-if they had shown how the mass were ignorant, and the philosophers in a measure compelled to countenance the dominant superstitions-if they had intended their descriptions to apply to the common people in the fullest sense, and to the philosophers but partiallythen their validity of their statements might be admitted. But attributing all the evils which afflicted Egypt to the priesthood (as is done by Mr. Howitt), is too bad-nay, more, it is downright falsehood. The people in ancient times exercised an influence over the priesthood, as well as that which the priesthood exercised over them. The force of popular *Origines, vol. i., c. iii., p. 15. opinion, the fear of popular vengeance, and the political institutions and arrangements then in existence, would tend to render the priests cautious in the delivery of their sentiments, from whence would result their allegorical language, and the delusion of the multitude. "As the science and knowledge," says Drummond, "of the learned increased, their opinions, with respect to religion and philosophy, differed in proportion from those of the vulgar. In many countries of Asia, the people had become the slaves of the vilest superstitions; while there were at least some among the priests who, in the secret recesses of their colleges, taught the purest doctrines of natural religion, and made various discoveries in science. To have published those doctrines, or those discoveries, would have been to turn against themselves the prejudices which their predecessors" (in some instances)," had taught the ignorant to revere, and would have ranged in hostile array against them those very classes of society which it had always been the object of their profession rather to govern than instruct."* The unity of the Deity is a theological opinion which is considered by the priesthood to be of primary importance in religion. It being admitted among all civilized nations that the acknowledgment of one God is more rational than the acknowledgment of many, the priests (ever crafty) have built on this admission an argument in favour of their system. Because Polytheism was embraced by the vulgar in remote agesbecause the ancient philosophers (using the language of allegory) alluded to the heathen gods and goddesses in their writings, they at once conclude that all the ancients were rank idolaters, and that a divine revelation was absolutely necessary to teach men that there is but one Supreme-" the first, the greatest, the only Lord of all." Now, if it can be shewn from the testimonies of both ancient and modern authors, that the unity of the Deity was held by the ancient philosophers, it follows as a consequence, that so far as this tenet is concerned, a revelation from the Creator to the created Origines, vol. i., c. iii., p. 17. |