S/ECT\. IX. <Comparison of these Religions, with regard

                                  

                  to Persecution and Toleration.>

                                  

     Polytheism or idolatrous worship, being founded entirely in
vulgar traditions, is liable to this great inconvenience, that any
practice or opinion, however barbarous or corrupted, may be
authorized by it; and full scope is given, for knavery to impose on
credulity, till morals and humanity be expelled from[46] the
religious systems of mankind. At the same time, idolatry is attended
with this evident advantage, that, by limiting the powers and
functions of its deities, it naturally admits the gods of other
sects and nations to a share of divinity, and renders all the
various deities, as well as rites, ceremonies, or traditions,
compatible with each other.[47] Theism is opposite both in its
advantages and disadvantages. As that system supposes one sole
deity, the perfection of reason and goodness, it should, if justly
prosecuted, banish every thing frivolous, unreasonable, or inhuman
from religious worship, and set before men the most illustrious
example, as well as the most commanding motives, of justice and
benevolence. These mighty advantages are not indeed over-balanced
(for that is not possible), but somewhat diminished, by
inconveniencies, which arise from the vices and prejudices of
mankind. While one sole object of devotion is acknowledged, the
worship of other deities is regarded as absurd and impious. Nay,
this unity of object seems naturally to require the unity of faith
and ceremonies, and furnishes designing men with a pretence for
representing their adversaries as profane, and the objects of divine
as well as human vengeance. For as each sect is positive that its
own faith and worship are entirely acceptable to the deity, and as
no one can conceive, that the same being should be pleased with
different and opposite rites and principles; the several sects fall
naturally into animosity, and mutually discharge on each other that
sacred zeal and rancour, the most furious and implacable of all
human passions.

     The tolerating spirit of idolaters, both in ancient and modern
times, is very obvious to any one, who is the least conversant in
the writings of historians or travellers. When the oracle of
D/ELPHI\ was asked, what rites or worship was most acceptable to the
gods? Those which are legally established in each city, replied the
oracle.[48] Even priests, in those ages, could, it seems, allow
salvation to those of a different communion. The R/OMANS\ commonly
adopted the gods of the conquered people; and never disputed the
attributes of those local and national deities, in whose territories
they resided. The religious wars and persecutions of the E/GYPTIAN\
idolaters are indeed an exception to this rule; but are accounted
for by ancient authors from reasons singular and remarkable.
Different species of animals were the deities of the different sects
among the E/GYPTIANS\; and the deities being in continual war,
engaged their votaries in the same contention. The worshippers of
dogs could not long remain in peace with the adorers of cats or
wolves.[49] But where that reason took not place, the E/GYPTIAN\
superstition was not so incompatible as is commonly imagined; since
we learn from H/ERODOTUS\,[50] that very large contributions were
given by A/MASIS\ towards rebuilding the temple of D/ELPHI\.

     The intolerance of almost all religions, which have maintained
the unity of God, is as remarkable as the contrary principle of
polytheists. The implacable narrow spirit of the J/EWS\ is well
known. M/AHOMETANISM\ set out with still more bloody principles; and
even to this day, deals out damnation, though not fire and faggot,
to all other sects. And if, among C/HRISTIANS\, the E/NGLISH\ and
D/UTCH\ have embraced the principles of toleration, this singularity
has proceeded from the steady resolution of the civil magistrate, in
opposition to the continued efforts of priests and bigots.

     The disciples of Z/OROASTER\ shut the doors of heaven against
all but the M/AGIANS\.[51] Nothing could more obstruct the progress
of the P/ERSIAN\ conquests, than the furious zeal of that nation
against the temples and images of the G/REEKS\. And after the
overthrow of that empire we find A/LEXANDER\, as a polytheist,
immediately re-establishing the worship of the B/ABYLONIANS\, which
their former princes, as monotheists, had carefully abolished.[52]
Even the blind and devoted attachment of that conqueror to the
G/REEK\ superstition hindered not but he himself sacrificed
according to the B/ABYLONISH\ rites and ceremonies.[53]

     So sociable is polytheism, that the utmost fierceness and
antipathy, which it meets with in an opposite religion, is scarcely
able to disgust it, and keep it at a distance. A/UGUSTUS\ praised
extremely the reserve of his grandson, C/AIUS\ C/AESAR\, when this
latter prince, passing by J/ERUSALEM\, deigned not to sacrifice
according to the J/EWISH\ law. But for what reason did A/UGUSTUS\ so
much approve of this conduct? Only, because that religion was by the
P/AGANS\ esteemed ignoble and barbarous.[54]

     I may venture to affirm, that few corruptions of idolatry and
polytheism are more pernicious to society than this corruption of
theism,[55] when carried to the utmost height. The human sacrifices
of the C/ARTHAGINIANS\, M/EXICANS\, and many barbarous nations,[56]
scarcely exceed the inquisition and persecutions of R/OME\ and
M/ADRID\. For besides, that the effusion of blood may not be so
great in the former case as in the latter; besides this, I say, the
human victims, being chosen by lot, or by some exterior signs,
affect not, in so considerable a degree, the rest of the society.