25.3. 3. Of Temples.
Almost all civilised nations dwell in houses; hence
naturally arose the idea of building a house for God in which they might
adore and seek him, amidst all their hopes and fears.
And, indeed, nothing is more comfortable to mankind than a place in
which they may find the deity peculiarly present, and where they may
assemble together to confess their weakness and tell their griefs.
But this natural idea never occurred to any but such as cultivated
the land; those who have no houses for themselves were never known to
build temples.
This was the cause that made Jenghiz Khan discover such a prodigious
contempt for mosques.
[5]
This prince examined the Mahometans;
[6]
he
approved of all their doctrines, except that of the necessity of going
to Mecca; he could not comprehend why God might not be everywhere
adored. As the Tartars did not dwell in houses, they could have no idea
of temples.
Those people who have no temples have but a small attachment to
their own religion. This is the reason why the Tartars have in all times
given so great a toleration;
[7]
why the barbarous nations, who conquered
the Roman empire did not hesitate a moment to embrace Christianity; why
the savages of America have so little fondness for their own religion;
why, since our missionaries have built churches in Paraguay, the natives
of that country have become so zealous for ours.
As the deity is the refuge of the unhappy, and none are more unhappy
than criminals, men have been naturally led to think temples an asylum
for those wretches. This idea appeared still more natural to the Greeks,
where murderers, chased from their city and the presence of men, seemed
to have no houses but the temples, nor other protectors than the gods.
At first these were only designed for involuntary homicides; but
when the people made them a sanctuary for those who had committed great
crimes they fell into a gross contradiction. If they had offended men,
they had much greater reason to believe they had offended the gods.
These asylums multiplied in Greece. The temples, says Tacitus,
[8]
were filled with insolvent debtors and wicked slaves; the magistrate
found it difficult to exercise his office; the people protected the
crimes of men as the ceremonies of the gods; at length the senate was
obliged to retrench a great number of them.
The laws of Moses were perfectly wise. The man who involuntarily
killed another was innocent; but he was obliged to be taken away from
before the eyes of the relatives of the deceased. Moses therefore
appointed an asylum for such unfortunate people.
[9]
The perpetrators of
great crimes deserved not a place of safety, and they had none:
[10]
the
Jews had only a portable tabernacle, which continually changed its
place; this excluded the idea of a sanctuary. It is true that they had
afterwards a temple; but the criminals who would resort thither from all
parts might disturb the divine service. If persons who had committed
manslaughter had been driven out of the country, as was customary among
the Greeks, they had reason to fear that they would worship strange
gods. All these considerations made them establish cities of safety,
where they might stay till the death of the high-priest.
Footnotes
[5]
Entering the mosque of Bochara, he took the Koran, and threw it
under his horse's feet. — "History of the Tartars," part III, p. 273.
[7]
This disposition of mind has been communicated to the Japanese,
who, as it may be easily proved, derive their origin from the Tartars.
