Israel and Humanity - The idea of universal religion of the Romans
II.
The idea of universal religion of the Romans.
Israel therefore believes that all moral content of its own law is found next to the Mosaic starts in another law says that for the whole human race. A particular institution strictly ethnic forms, is thus possess not only the theoretical, but the same rules of organization of religion as universal as you can imagine: indeed, it appears to have mission Special conservation and propagation of that religion. This is an absolutely unique phenomenon in history.
Locke claims, it is true that something like that would have existed among the Romans. According to him, there would have been in Rome such a perfect harmony between religion and civil institutions that society does not run the risk of being torn by schisms and remained open to all religions. It was therefore welcome into its bosom the conquered peoples with all their gods and it would have sufficed for this reason that Numa, recognizing the need for a national religion is inseparable from the state, at the same time comprehended the need to reduce the tenets of that State religion in a very few articles of faith rather simple [1] may not be subtle interpretations or negative divergence and a fairly general so that they do might offend the beliefs of any religious and honest person. The creed that religion is summed up in two propositions: That the gods that everything goes well, and to deserve such property, we must honor the gods, especially by keeping innocent, good and just.
In such a religion, which predominates, according to Locke, is the freedom of conscience. Assuming it was as real as he claims, there is no doubt that the Roman ideal does not contain anything other than peaceful coexistence and every policy of different religions and even hostile, however, agree on some general principles, but instead constitute a true religion as Noachism, was in fact an imaginary product of all faiths or, rather, a condition of existence of which neither of them could be pass. In any case, such a conception did not extend beyond the borders and it is not the religious destinies of mankind that there were concerns, but only peace and prosperity of the Empire.
Is it true however, that the Roman religion was open to all religions and it was the home safe for national beliefs all the gods of conquered peoples? There is an appearance of the truth and only the latter part of the Empire, while in each subject, we saw a Roman and hence by a cult of national religions. But in reality this false pretense of universalism is due to other causes than intrinsic character and original of the Roman institution. This, far from being sympathetic to the mixture of worship, opposed with all his strength, as evidenced by the attitude of the true Romans, their resistance and protests against the first attempts of this kind on the part of emperors, especially those who were foreign born. It was only later and against heart that Rome gave hospitality to other religions and this change may be due to the action of Judaism itself is the spread of his doctrines was universalistic result from paganism to contrast this supreme effort of his side a cosmopolitan religion which came from the East. Have not noticed similar trends in the Alexandrian philosophy wants to restore the paganism [2] and is there not abundant evidence that Christianity, the new form of Judaism, awoke in pagan religion the need to balance its influence principles and examples of holy persons able to compete with those offered to the Christian faith and public worship?
The institution of Numa is so little the cause of tolerance Roman Locke himself recognizes that the legislative intent was to establish a national religion is inseparable from the state. So there is something quite different from the Noachism which has precisely nothing ethnicity, Jewish. How could therefore consist this universal religion that Rome, according to Locke, would have known? The broad principles that can be discovered late in the Empire, admitting they were entered as such in the Roman consciousness, did not form, as we have said, a separate religion, but simply a character common to all religions closer politically. On the other hand, it would be anachronistic to attribute this to Numa religious syncretism that the need was established later, and against which arose initially all true Romans appearance essentially cosmopolitan repugnant to the destination exclusively national armies throughout the original religion of Numa and that raised protests clearly show that he had nothing fundamentally Roman.
