the Magistrate the right of applying the civil efficacy of religion:-and giving Religion a coactive power for the reformation of manners. And thus much for

ESTABLISHMENTS.

SECT. VI.

THE last instance to be assigned of the Magistrate's care of religion, shall be that universal practice, in the ancient world, of religious TOLERATION; or the permitting the free exercise of all religions, how different soever from the National and Established. For though the very nature and terms of an Established religion implied the Magistrate's peculiar favour and protection; and though in fact, they had their Testlaws for its support, wherever there was diversity of worship; yet it was ancient policy to allow a large and full TOLERATION. And even in the extent of this allowance they seem generally to have had juster notions than certain of our modern Advocates for religious Liberty. They had no conception that any one should be indulged in his presumption of extending it to Religious Rites and practices hurtful to Society, or dishonourable to Humanity. There are many examples in Antiquity of this sage restriction. I shall only mention the universal concurrence in punishing Magical Rites, by which the health and safety of particulars were supposed to be injuriously affected. And Suetonius's burning the sacred grove in Anglesea*,

in

"Præsidium posthac impositum victis, excisique Luci, SEVIS Superstitionibus sacri. Nam cruore captivo adolere aras, et hominum fibris consulere deos fas habebant." Tac. Ann. 1. xiv. c. 39. Superstition amongst the Greeks and Romans

had

in which human sacrifices were offered up by the Druids, was but the beginning of what those modern Advocates, above mentioned, would call a Persecution against the Order itself, whose obstinate perseverance in this infernal practice could not be overcome but by their total extirpation.

Two principal causes induced the ancient Lawgivers to the sage and reasonable conduct of a large and full toleration;

I. They considered that Religion seldom or never makes a real impression on the minds of those who are forced into a profession of it: and yet, that all the service Religion can do to the State, is by working that real impression*. They concluded, therefore, that the profession of Religion should be FREE.

Hence may be understood the strange blindness of those modern Politicians, who expect to benefit the State by forcing men to outward conformity; which only making hypocrites and atheists, destroys the sole means religion hath of serving the State. But here, by a common fate of Politicians, they fell from one blunder into another. For having first, in a tyrannical adherence to their own scheme of Policy, or superstitious fondness for the established System of Worship, infringed upon religious Liberty; and then beginning

to

had its free course. But the save superstitiones, the savage and cruel Rites, injurious and dishonourable to human nature and civil Society, were rigorously forbidden.

In specie autem fictæ simulationis, sicut reliquæ virtutes, ita PIETAS inesse non potest; cum qua simul et sanctitatem et religionem tolli necesse est; quibus sublatis, perturbatio vitæ sequitur et magna confusio, Atque haud scio, an PIETATE adversus deos sublata fides etiam, et societas humani generis, et una excellentissima virtus, justitia tollatur, Cic. De nat. deor. 1. i. c. 2.

to find, that diversity of Sects was hurtful to the State, as it always will be, while the rights of Religion are violated; instead of repairing the mistake, and restoring religious Liberty, which would have stifled this pullulating evil in the seed, by affording it no further nourishment, they took the other course; and endeavoured, by a thorough discipline of Conformity, violently to rend it away; and with it they rooted up and destroyed all that good to Society, which so naturally springs from Religion, when it hath once taken fast hold of the human mind.

II. This was the most legitimate principle they went upon, and had the most lasting effect. They had another, which, though less ingenuous, was of more immediate influence; and this was the keeping up the warmth and vigour of religious impressions, by the introduction and toleration of new Religions and foreign Worship. For they supposed that " piety "and virtue then chiefly influence the mind, while

men are busied in the performance of religious "Rites and Ceremonics*;" as Tully observes, in the words of Pythagoras, the most celebrated of the pagan Lawgivers. Nor does this at all contradict the Roman maxim, as delivered by Posthumius in Livy [see p. 294] For that maxim relates to publie Religion, or the Religion of the State; this concerns private Religion, or the religion of Particulars. Now vulgar Paganism being not only false, but highly absurd, as having its foundation solely in the fancy and the passions; variety of Worships was necessary to suit

Siquidem et illud bene dictum est a Pythagora, doctissimo viro, tum maxime et pietatem et religionem versari in animis, cum rebus divinis operam daremus. De Leg. 1. ii. c. 1 1.

every one's taste and humour. The genius of it disposing its followers to be inconstant, capricious, and fond of novelties; weary of long-worn Ceremonies, and immoderately fond of new. And in effect we see, amongst the same people, notwithstanding the universal notion of tutelary Deities, that, in this age, one God or mode of worship, in that, another mode had the vogue. And every new God, or new ceremony, rekindled the languid fire of Superstition: just as in modern Rome, every last Saint draws the Multitude to his shrine.

For, here it is to be observed, that in the Pagan world, a tolerated Religion did not imply dissention from the established, according to our modern ideas of toleration. Nor indeed could it, according to the general nature and genius of ancient Idolatry. Tolerated Religions there are rather subservient to the established, or supernumeraries of it, than in opposition to it. But then they were far from being on a footing with the established, or partakers of its privileges.

But men going into Antiquity under the impression of modern ideas, must needs form very inaccurate judgements of what they find. So, in this case, because few tolerated Religions are to be met with in Paganism, according to our sense of toleration, which is the allowance of a Religion OPPOSED to the national; and consequently, because no one is watched with that vigilance which ours demand, but all used with more indulgence than a Religion, reprobating the established, can pretend to; on this account, I say, a false opinion hath prevailed, that, in the Pagan world, all kinds of Religion were upon an equal footing, with regard to the State. Hence, we hear a noble Writer

perpetually

perpetually applauding wise Antiquity, for the full and free liberty it granted in matters of Religion, so agreeable to the principles of truth and public utility; and perpetually arraigning the UNSOCIABLE HUMOUR OF CHRISTIANITY for the contrary practice; which, therefore, he would insinuate, was built on contrary principles.

On this account, it will not be improper to consider a little, the genius of Paganism, as it is opposed to, what we call, true Religion: Which will shew us how easily the civil Magistrate brought about that Toleration, which he had such great reasons of State to promote; and at the same time, teach these objectors to know, that the good effect of this general tolerance, as far as the genius of Religion was concerned in its promotion, was owing to the egregious falsehood and absurdity of Paganism: and that, on the other hand, the evil effects of intolerance under the Christian religion, proceeded from its truth and perfection; not the natural consequence, as these men would insinuate, of a false Principle, but the abuse of a true one.

Ancient Paganism was an aggregate of several distinct Religions, derived from so many pretended revelations. Why it abounded in these, proceeded, in pårt, from the great number of Gods of human invention. As these Religions were not laid on the foundation, so neither were they raised on the destruction of one another. They were not laid on the foundation of one another; because, having given to their Gods, as local tutelary Deities †, contrary natures and dispositions, and distinct and separate interests, each God set up, on his own bottom, and held

* See the Characteristics, passim.

See note [GG] at the end of this Book.