the Gospel is nothing but the reasonable morality of Jesus. Morgan[1] supports his religious philosophy by a crude historical theory. He attempts to show how the ’religion of the hierarchy' has been developed from the 'religion of nature.' His doctrine is an exemplification of the current theory, to be found in practically every writer on this subject of the period,[2] of corruption by the intrigues of ambitious priests. The natural religion of the golden age was corrupted by a sort of fetichism which regarded every event as due to a special providence. This condition of affairs was taken advantage of by the early priests, especially Moses and Aaron, and later by Mohammed. Christ taught the pure religion of nature again, as did the Apostle Paul, but the Judaized conceptions of the followers of Peter triumphed.[3]
The problem which Hume sets himself in The Natural History of Religion is to explain the 'origin of religion in human nature.' He first points out that the religious sentiment is so diverse among different peoples that no two nations, scarcely any two individuals, can be said to have agreed precisely. Accordingly, religion cannot be referred to an original instinct of human nature such as self-love, gratitude, and resentment, which are universal and are directed toward definite objects in all nations and ages. The principles of human nature which give rise to the original religious belief and the causes which direct their operation become, therefore, the objects of Hume's investigation.
The first and most ancient religion of mankind was polytheism; for, seventeen hundred years ago, with perhaps one or two insignificant exceptions, all nations were polytheists. That in an earlier and ruder age they held a pure monotheism is contrary to all that history shows us. Moreover, all our present experience with barbarous nations shows them without exception to be polytheistic. The notion of a perfect Being can come into existence only by degrees; men rise to it only from the notion of
- ↑ The Moral Philosopher, 1737-40.
- ↑ Cf. E. Pfleiderer, op. cit., pp. 452 ff.
- ↑ For the general accounts of English Deism from which the above summary is largely drawn see Sir Leslie Stephen, English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. I, chs. iii and iv ; E. Pfleiderer, Empirismus und Skepsis in Dav. Humes Philosophie, pp. 422 ff.; and O. Pfleiderer, The Philosophy of Religion on the Basis of its History, Vol. I, ch. iv.
