Those who, in their moral conduct, give no evi dence of their belief in a superior power, or, in other words, who act as if there were no God, are gene rally denominated practical atheists. In this sense, Sophocles, Plato, and other ancient writers, apply the term to those impious persons who neglect the institutions of divine worship, and contemn the obli gations of morality.
It has often been questioned, whether a specula tive or contemplative atheist ever existed ; and it is generally admitted that the instances have been rare, in which men have so completely divested themselves of the original feelings of the mind, as to take refuge in absolute atheism. Cicero says, that there never was a man who constantly and absolutely denied a God. If this assertion be well founded, there can he no atheists, according to the definition of Shaftesbury and others. All must be exempt from the charge, in whose minds the opinion is not coeval with the very dawn of intelligence, and all who, at the close of life, may have been led, either by some undefined terror, or by the importunity of others, to acknow ledge, that their belief was the same with that of other men. Our opinion is, that, in strict propriety of language, the term atheist must comprehend all who arc not theists,—all who do not ascribe the forma tion and government of the world to an intelligent power. In the whole compass of the Pagan history, we find no unequivocal trace of what can, with any _degree of correctness, be named polytheism, or the belief in a plurality of uncreated, self-existent beings, the authors and preservers of the world. The opi nion of Zorastcr and the Magi concerning a good and hn evil principle, commonly called the system of the Manich.eans, is the nearest approach to a scheme of polytheism. But it appears to be universally admit ted, that the Pagan deities were never regarded by their worshippers as the creators or governors of all nature ; and indeed Aristotle proves the impossibi lity of conceiving a number of original self-existent beings. These imaginary divinities were either the animating spirits which impelled the heavenly bodies, or they were the souls of good men and heroes de parted, or the invisible tutelary powers which watch ed over particular regions and individuals, or they were abstract qualities personified, as health, tempe rance, fame, or last of all, they were merely a diver sity of appellations referring to the same object. This last Cudworth calls Polyonomy. The religion of the ancients consisted chiefly (or entirely, as Bry ant says,) in AusettymxTgtgx, the worship of deified mortals, as mediators between heaven and earth ; and, we may add, the invocation of the genii, the lares, or penates, who may be considered in the same light. Some of them believed, that these various divinities were all subordinate to One Supreme. This was a
modification of theism. A great proportion, how ever, of the people could not be viewed as theists. Addicted to idolatry, or rather to dxmonolatry, they rendered homage, and addressed their prayers, to be ings who had no concern in the creation of the world, and whom they believed to have sprung, like them selves, from the air, or the ocean.
Sentiments like these we find in the most ancient poets of Greece. Thus liomer says, nxio,o, S 111/ yew:, , xxa pi:TIC% Tn.914. I lesiod is less distinct ; but he ascribes the same origin to gods and men, '14 .fiyeracri Si., 9)4tos T IOC& TOI. The scholiast explains TO U tiUTS!) Aristophanes says, that Love, the offspring of Nig:it and Chaos, nerated all the gods, as well as other animals. 7rvyrscop o eve Kr •yoto; agamsed), Eel; t•urycztir rilraPrx. Pin dar also says, 'Er icp?eNp, it Nwp We could quote many other expressions from the poets, which even the ingenuity of A ristotle has failed to reconcile with the principles of theism. Longinus, speaking of the gross ideas of the Deity conveyed by Homer, ac knowledges, that they are completely atheistical We are aware, however, that the same writers ap pear elsewhere to recognise a sovereign God, as the father of all inferior divinities, and the ruler of na ture. But as the expressions of the poets are very unsatisfactory, let us inquire how far the opinions of the philosophers were rational and consistent.
If we recur to the earliest times, we are compelled to acknowledge, that the notions of the wise men, as they were called, were at least as chimerical and false as atheism itself: and in the more enlightened periods, we are mortified to find, that though there were a few who ascribed the formation of worlds to a Su preme Mind, there was not one• who honoured him as the original creator of matter itself. The sub stance of which all things are framed, was supposed, by the theists, to be co-eternal with the prime mover, who bestowed on it form, and life, and activity. In vain do we look for the belief in a Being who gave origin to all dependent existences ; and if the crea tion of matter itself is to be considered as an essential attribute of the divinity, we must admit that, it does not seem to have entered into the conceptions of the founders of any of the schools. It is perfectly evi dent, that Anaxagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, the three greatest luminaries of Athens, held the eternity of matter, and applied the incontrovertible axiom, no thing can proceed from nothing, to prove that to the production of the present system, the pre-existence of a material cause was not less necessary, than the pre-existence of an omnipotent energy or mind.