little in common with the rest*. They were not raised on the destruction of one another; because, as hath been observed, the several Religions of Paganism did not consist in matters of belief, and dogmatic theology, in which, where there is a contrariety, Religions destroy one another; but in matters of practice, in Rites and Ceremonies; and in these, a contrariety did no harm: For having given their Gods different natures and interests, where was the wonder if they clashed in their commanded Rites; or if their worshippers should think this no mark of their false pretensions ?

These were horrible defects in the very essence of Pagan theology and yet from these would necessarily arise an universal toleration: for each Religion admitting the other's pretensions, there must needs be a perfect harmony and INTERCOMMUNITY amongst them. Julian makes this the distinguishing character of the pagan Religion. For the imperial Sophist, writing to the people of Alexandria, and upbraiding them for having forsaken the religion of their country, in order to aggravate the charge, insinuates them to be guilty of ingratitude, as having forgotten those happy times when all Egypt worshipped the Gods IN COMΜΟΝ, καὶ ἐκ εἰσέρχεται μνήμῃ τῆς παλαιᾶς ὑμᾶς ἐκείνης εὐδαιμονίας, ἡνίκα ἦν ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ μὲν πρὸς Θεὸς Αἰγύπτῳ τῇ πάσῃ, πολλῶν δὲ ἀπελαύομεν ἀγαθῶν. And, in his book against the Christian Religion, he says, there were but two commands in the Decalogue, that wère peculiar to the Jews, and which the Pagans would not own to be reasonable, namely, the observation of the Sabbath, and the having no other Gods but the

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

Creator

Creator of all things. Hoovv isi (says he) após τῶν Θεῶν ἔξω τῆς Οὐ προσκυνήσεις Θεοῖς ἑτέροις, καὶ τῆς Μνήσθητι τῶν σαββάτων, ὃ μὴ τὰς ἄλλας οἴ[αι χρῆναι quλátleiv évloλás *. The first Cause of all things, we see, was acknowledged by the Gentile Sages: what stuck with them was the not worshipping other Gods IN COMMON.For according to the genius of Paganism, as here explained, no room was left for any other disputes, but whose God was most powerful; except where, by accident, it became a question, between two nations inhabiting the same country, who was truly the TUTELAR Deity of the place. As once we are told happened in Egypt, and broke out into a religious war:

Inde furor vulgo, quod numina vicinorum

Odit uterque locus, cum SOLOS CREDIT HABENDOS Esse deos, quos ipse colit †.

Here the question was not, which of the two worshipped a Phantom, and which a God, but whose God was the tutelar God of the place. Yet to insult the tutelar Gods of the place was a thing so rare, and deemed so prodigious, that Herodotus thinks it a clear proof of Cambyses's incurable madness that he outraged the Religion of Egypt, by stabbing their God Apis and turning their monkey Deities into ridicule. Notwithstanding a late noble writer, from this account of Juvenal, would persuade us §, that intolerance was of the very nature and genius of the Egyptian theo

Ap. S. Cyril. cont. Julian. 1. v.

Juvenal, Sat. xv.

* Καμβύσης δὲ, ὡς λέγεσι Αιγύπλιοι, διὰ τῦτο τὸ ἀδίκημα αὐτίκα ἐμάνη, ἐὼν ἐδὲ πρότερον φρενήρης. Thalia, c. 3o. in initio.

§ Characteristics, vol. iii. Miscel. 2.

logy,

66

gy, from whence all Paganism arose. The common heathen religion (says he) was supported chiefly from that sort of enthusiasm, which is raised from the external objects of grandeur, majesty, and what we call august. On the other hand, the Egyptian OR SYRIAN religions, which lay most in mystery and concealed rights, having less dependance on the Magistrate, and less of that decorum of art, poiteness, and magnificence, ran into a more pusillanimous, frivolous, and mean kind of superstition; the observance of days, the forbearance of meats, and the contention about traditions, seniority, of aws, and priority of godships.

"Summus utrimque

Inde furor vulgo *," &c.

ll might he say, he suspected" that it would be rged against him, that he talked at random and ithout book." For the very contrary of every

g

he here says, is the truth. And his supposing Egyptian and Syrian religions had less dependence the Magistrate than the Roman; and that the ptian, and Syrian (as he is pleased to call the ish) were the same, or of a like genius, is such an ance of his knowledge or ingenuity, as is not easily e equalled. However, since the noble writer hath le such use of the Satirist's relation, as to insinuate the Ombites and Tentyrites acted in the common t and genius of the Egyptian theology, and became model of intolerance to the Jewish and Christian d, it may not be amiss to explain the true original hese religious squabbles, as Antiquity itself hath

Vol. III. p. 41.

+ P. 82.

OL. II.

X

told

told the story: whereby it will appear, they had their birth from a very particular and occasional fetch of civil policy, with Lal no dependence on the general Superstition of the Fagan world.

The instance st nds almost single in Antiquity. This would incline one to think that it arose from no common principle: and if we enquire into the nature of the Egyptian theology, it will appear impossible to come from that. For the common notion of local and tutelary deities, which prevents all intolerance, was originally, and peculiarly, Egyptian, as will be seen hereafter. It may then be asked how this mischief came about? I believe a passage in Diodorus Siculus, as quoted by Eusebius, will inform us. A certain king of Egypt, finding some cities in his dominions apt to plot and cabal against him, contrived to introduce the distinct worship of a different animal into each city; as knowing that a reverence for their own, and a neglect of all others, would soon proceed to an EXCLUSION; and so bring on such a mutual aversion, as would never suffer them to unite in one common design. Thus, was there at first as little of a religious war on the principles of intolerance in this affair of the Ombites and Tentyrites, as in a drunken squabble between two trading Companies in the Church of Rome about their patron saints. But Diodorus deserves to be heard in his own words: who, when he had delivered the fabulous accounts of the original of brute-worship, subjoins that which he supposed to be the true. "But some give another original of the "worship of brute animals: for the several cities. "being formerly prone to rebellion, and to enter into "conspiracies against Monarchical government, one

" of their Kings contrived to introduce into each city

"the worship of a different animal: so that while

66

every one reverenced the Deity which itself held

“ sacred, and despised what another had consecrated ; they could hardly be brought to join cordially toge"ther in one common design, to the disturbance of "the Government *. **""

But to return: such then was the root and foundation of this SOCIABILITY of Religion in the ancient world, so much envied by modern Pagans. The effect of their absurdities, as Religions; and of their imperfections, as Societies. Yet had universal custom made this principle of INTERCOMMUNITY, so essential to Paganism, that when their Philosophers and men of

* Αἰτίας δὲ καὶ ἄλλας φασί τινες τῆς τῶν ἀλόγων ζώων τιμῆς· τῇ γὰρ πλήθος τὸ παλαιὸν ἀφισαμένε τῶν βασιλέων, καὶ συμφρονῶν εἰς τὸ μηκέτι βασιλεύεσθαι, ἐπινοῆσαί τινα διάφορα σεβάσματα αὐτοῖς τῶν ζώων παρασχεῖν, ὅπως ἑκάςων τὸ μὲν παρ' αὐτοῖς τιμῶμενον σεβομένων τῶ δὲ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀφιερωμένο καταφρονάνων, μηδέποτε ὁμονοῆσαι δύνωνται πάλες οἱ κατ' Αἴγυπλον. Euseb. Præp. Evang. p. 32. ed. Rob. Steph. Plutarch gives us an account of another of these squabbles (if indeed it was not the same with Juvenal's) which happened much about the same time, between the Oxyrynchita and the Cynopolitæ; and confirms what is here said of the original of this mutual hatred "Αλλοι δὲ τῶνδε τῶν δεινῶν τινα καὶ πανέργων βασιλέων ἱςορᾶσι, τὰς Αἰγυπλίες καλαμαθόνα τῇ μὲν φύσει κέφεις καὶ πρὸς μεταβολὴν καὶ νεωτερισμὸν ἐξυῤῥόπως ὅνας, ἄμαχον δὲ καὶ δυσκάθεκτον ὑπὸ πλήθες δύναμιν ἐν τῷ σωφρονεῖν καὶ κοινοπραγεῖν ἔχονίας, ἀΐδιον αὐτοῖς ἐν καλασπορᾷ δείξανία δεισιδαιμονίαν διαφορᾶς ἀπαύτε πρόφασιν· τῶν γὰς θηρίων ἃ προσέταξεν ἄλλοις ἄλλα τιμᾶν καὶ σέβεσθαι δυσμενῶς καὶ πολεμικῶς ἀλλήλοις προσφερο μένων, καὶ τροφὴν ἑτέραν ἑτέρως προσίεσθαι πεφυκότας, ἀμύνοντας, ἀεὶ τοῖς -οἰκείοις ἕκασοι καὶ χαλεπῶς ἀδικόμενοι φέροντες, ἐλάνθανον τὴν τῶν θηρίων ἔχθραις συνελκόμενοι και συνεκπολεμέμενοι πρὸς ἀλλήχες μόνοι γὰρ ἔτι νῦν Αἰγυπτίων Λυκοπολῖται πρόβαλον ἐσθίεσιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ λύκο, ὃν θεὸν νομίζεσιν· οἱ δὲ Οξυςυχῖται καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς τῶν Κυνοπολιτῶν τὸν ὀξύρυγχου ἰχθὺν ἐσθιόνων, κύνας συλλαβόνες καὶ θύσαντες, ὡς ἱερεῖον κατέφαγον· ἐκ δὲ τότε καλαςάνιες εἰς πόλεμον, ἀλλήλες τὴν διέθηκαν κακῶς, καὶ ὕσερον ὑπὸ Ρωμαίων κολαζόμενοι διελέθησαν. Περὶ ΙΣ. και ΟΣ. 676, 677, Steph. ed.

:

X 2

learning,