Can this, says Plutarch,(525) be called worshipping the gods? Can we be said to entertain an honourable idea of them, if we suppose that they are pleased with slaughter, thirsty of human blood, and capable of requiring or accepting such offerings? Religion, says this judicious author,(526) is placed between two rocks, that are equally dangerous to man, and injurious to the deity, I mean impiety and superstition. The one, from an affectation of free-thinking, believes nothing; and the other, from a blind weakness, believes all things. Impiety, to rid itself of a terror which galls it, denies the very existence of the gods: whilst superstition, to calm its fears, capriciously forges gods, which it makes not only the friends, but protectors and models, of crimes. Had it not been better, says he further,(527) for the Carthaginians to have had originally a Critias, or a Diagoras, who were open and undisguised atheists, for their lawgivers, than to have established so frantic and wicked a religion? Could the Typhons and the giants, (the avowed enemies of the gods,) had they gained a victory over them, have established more abominable sacrifices? Such were the sentiments which a heathen entertained of this part of the Carthaginian worship. One would indeed scarce believe that mankind were capable of such madness and frenzy. Men do not generally of themselves entertain ideas so destructive of all that nature considers as most sacred, as to sacrifice, to murder, their children with their own hands, and to throw them in cool blood into fiery furnaces! Sentiments so unnatural and barbarous, and yet adopted by whole nations, and even by the most civilized, by the Phœnicians, Carthaginians, Gauls, Scythians, and even the Greeks and Romans, and consecrated by custom during a long series of ages, can have been inspired by him only who was a murderer from the beginning; and who delights in nothing but the humiliation, misery, and perdition of man.