{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35623/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35623","id":"gutenberg_35623","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35623","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: French Literature","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME III\n\nBy\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\n\n\n\nEDITION DE LA PACIFICATION\n\nTHE WORKS OF VOLTAIRE\n\nA CONTEMPORARY VERSION\n\n\n  With Notes by Tobias Smollett, Revised and Modernized\n     New Translations by William F. Fleming, and an\n           Introduction by Oliver H.G. Leigh\n\n\nA CRITIQUE AND BIOGRAPHY\n\nBY\n\nTHE RT. HON. JOHN MORLEY\n\nFORTY-THREE VOLUMES\n\n\n\n  One hundred and sixty-eight designs, comprising reproductions\n      of rare old engravings, steel plates, photogravures,\n                    and curious facsimiles\n\nVOLUME VII\n\nE.R. DuMONT\n\nPARIS--LONDON--NEW YORK--CHICAGO\n\n\n\n     _The WORKS of VOLTAIRE_\n\n     _\"Between two servants of Humanity, who appeared eighteen hundred\n     years apart, there is a mysterious relation. * * * * Let us say it\n     with a sentiment of profound respect: JESUS WEPT: VOLTAIRE SMILED.\n     Of that divine tear and of that human smile is composed the\n     sweetness of the present civilization.\"_\n\n     _VICTOR HUGO._\n\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES--VOL. III\n\n\nVOLTAIRE'S RECEPTION OF MADAME D'\u00c9PINAY AT LES D\u00c9LICES _Frontispiece_\n\nTHE DEATH OF COLIGNY\n\nCATHERINE II. OF RUSSIA\n\nTHE ALMONER AND THE ANABAPTIST\n\n\n[Illustration: Voltaire receives Mme. d'\u00c9pinay at Les D\u00e9lices.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nIN TEN VOLUMES\n\nVOL. III\n\nCANNIBALS--COUNCILS\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCANNIBALS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWe have spoken of love. It is hard to pass from people _kissing_ to\npeople _eating_ one another. It is, however, but too true that there\nhave been cannibals. We have found them in America; they are, perhaps,\nstill to be found; and the Cyclops were not the only individuals in\nantiquity who sometimes fed on human flesh. Juvenal relates that among\nthe Egyptians--that wise people, so renowned for their laws--those pious\nworshippers of crocodiles and onions--the Tentyrites ate one of their\nenemies who had fallen into their hands. He does not tell this tale on\nhearsay; the crime was committed almost before his eyes; he was then in\nEgypt, and not far from Tentyra. On this occasion he quotes the Gascons\nand the Saguntines, who formerly fed on the flesh of their countrymen.\n\nIn 1725 four savages were brought from the Mississippi to Fontainebleau,\nwith whom I had the honor of conversing. There was among them a lady of\nthe country, whom I asked if she had eaten men; she answered, with great\nsimplicity that she had. I appeared somewhat scandalized; on which she\nexcused herself by saying that it was better to eat one's dead enemy\nthan to leave him to be devoured by wild beasts, and that the conquerors\ndeserved to have the preference. We kill our neighbors in battles, or\nskirmishes; and, for the meanest consideration, provide meals for the\ncrows and the worms. There is the horror; there is the crime. What\nmatters it, when a man is dead, whether he is eaten by a soldier, or by\na dog and a crow?\n\nWe have more respect for the dead than for the living. It would be\nbetter to respect both the one and the other. The nations called\npolished have done right in not putting their vanquished enemies on the\nspit; for if we were allowed to eat our neighbors, we should soon eat\nour countrymen, which would be rather unfortunate for the social\nvirtues. But polished nations have not always been so; they were all for\na long time savage; and, in the infinite number of revolutions which\nthis globe has undergone, mankind have been sometimes numerous and\nsometimes scarce. It has been with human beings as it now is with\nelephants, lions, or tigers, the race of which has very much decreased.\nIn times when a country was but thinly inhabited by men, they had few\narts; they were hunters. The custom of eating what they had killed\neasily led them to treat their enemies like their stags and their boars.\nIt was superstition that caused human victims to be immolated; it was\nnecessity that caused them to be eaten.\n\nWhich is the greater crime--to assemble piously together to plunge a\nknife into the heart of a girl adorned with fillets, or to eat a\nworthless man who has been killed in our own defence?\n\nYet we have many more instances of girls and boys sacrificed than of\ngirls and boys eaten. Almost every nation of which we know anything has\nsacrificed boys and girls. The Jews immolated them. This was called _the\nAnathema_; it was a real sacrifice; and in Leviticus it is ordained that\nthe living souls which shall be devoted shall not be spared; but it is\nnot in any manner prescribed that they shall be eaten; this is only\nthreatened. Moses tells the Jews that unless they observe his ceremonies\nthey shall not only have the itch, but the mothers shall eat their\nchildren. It is true that in the time of Ezekiel the Jews must have been\naccustomed to eat human flesh; for, in his thirty-ninth chapter, he\nforetells to them that God will cause them to eat, not only the horses\nof their enemies, but moreover the horsemen and the rest of the\nwarriors. And, indeed, why should not the Jews have been cannibals? It\nwas the only thing wanting to make the people of God the most abominable\npeople upon earth.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIn the essay on the \"Manners and Spirit of Nations\" we read the\nfollowing singular passage: \"Herrera assures us that the Mexicans ate\nthe human victims whom they immolated. Most of the first travellers and\nmissionaries say that the Brazilians, the Caribbees, the Iroquois, the\nHurons, and some other tribes, ate their captives taken in war; and\nthey do not consider this as the practice of some individuals alone, but\nas a national usage. So many writers, ancient and modern, have spoken of\ncannibals, that it is difficult to deny their existence. A hunting\npeople, like the Brazilians or the Canadians, not always having a\ncertain subsistence, may sometimes become cannibals. Famine and revenge\naccustomed them to this kind of food; and while in the most civilized\nages we see the people of Paris devouring the bleeding remains of\nMarshal d'Ancre, and the people of The Hague eating the heart of the\ngrand pensionary, De Witt, we ought not to be surprised that a momentary\noutrage among us has been continual among savages.\n\n\"The most ancient books we have leave no room to doubt that hunger has\ndriven men to this excess. The prophet Ezekiel, according to some\ncommentators, promises to the Hebrews from God that if they defend\nthemselves well against the king of Persia, they shall eat of 'the flesh\nof horses and of mighty men.'\n\n\"Marco Polo says that in his time in a part of Tartary the magicians or\npriests--it was the same thing--had the privilege of eating the flesh of\ncriminals condemned to death. All this is shocking to the feelings; but\nthe picture of humanity must often have the same effect.\n\n\"How can it have been that nations constantly separated from one another\nhave united in so horrible a custom? Must we believe that it is not so\nabsolutely opposed to human nature as it appears to be? It is certain\nthat it has been rare, but it is equally certain that it has existed. It\nis not known that the Tartars and the Jews often ate their fellow\ncreatures. During the sieges of Sancerre and Paris, in our religious\nwars, hunger and despair compelled mothers to feed on the flesh of their\nchildren. The charitable Las Casas, bishop of Chiapa, says that this\nhorror was committed in America, only by some nations among whom he had\nnot travelled. Dampierre assures us that he never met with cannibals;\nand at this day there are not, perhaps, any tribes which retain this\nhorrible custom.\"\n\nAmericus Vespucius says in one of his letters that the Brazilians were\nmuch astonished when he made them understand that for a long time the\nEuropeans had not eaten their prisoners of war.\n\nAccording to Juvenal's fifteenth satire, the Gascons and the Spaniards\nhad been guilty of this barbarity. He himself witnessed a similar\nabomination in Egypt during the consulate of Junius. A quarrel happening\nbetween the inhabitants of Tentyra and those of Ombi, they fought; and\nan Ombian having fallen into the hands of the Tentyrians, they had him\ncooked, and ate him, all but the bare bones. But he does not say that\nthis was the usual custom; on the contrary, he speaks of it as an act of\nmore than ordinary fury.\n\nThe Jesuit Charlevoix, whom I knew very well, and who was a man of\ngreat veracity, gives us clearly to understand in his \"History of\nCanada,\" in which country he resided thirty years, that all the nations\nof northern America were cannibals; since he remarks, as a thing very\nextraordinary, that in 1711 the Acadians did not eat men.\n\nThe Jesuit Brebeuf relates that in 1640 the first Iroquois that was\nconverted, having unfortunately got drunk with brandy, was taken by the\nHurons, then at war with the Iroquois. The prisoner, baptized by Father\nBrebeuf by the name of Joseph, was condemned to death. He was put to a\nthousand tortures, which he endured, singing all the while, according to\nthe custom of his country. They finished by cutting off a foot, a hand,\nand lastly his head; after which the Hurons put all the members into a\ncauldron, each one partook of them, and a piece was offered to Father\nBrebeuf.\n\nCharlevoix speaks in another place of twenty-two Hurons eaten by the\nIroquois. It cannot, then, be doubted, that in more countries than one,\nhuman nature has reached this last pitch of horror; and this execrable\ncustom must be of the highest antiquity; for we see in the Holy\nScriptures that the Jews were threatened with eating their children if\nthey did not obey their laws. The Jews are told not only that they shall\nhave the itch, and that their wives shall give themselves up to others,\nbut also that they shall eat their sons and daughters in anguish and\ndevastation; that they shall contend with one another for the eating of\ntheir children; and that the husband will not give to his wife a morsel\nof her son, because, he will say, he has hardly enough for himself.\n\nSome very bold critics do indeed assert that the Book of Deuteronomy was\nnot composed until after the siege of Samaria by Benhadad, during which,\nit is said in the Second Book of Kings, that mothers ate their children.\nBut these critics, in considering Deuteronomy as a book written after\nthe siege of Samaria, do but verify this terrible occurrence. Others\nassert that it could not happen as it is related in the Second Book of\nKings. It is there said: \"And as the king of Israel was passing by upon\nthe wall [of Samaria], there cried a woman unto him, saying, 'Help, my\nlord, O king.' And he said, 'If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall\nI help thee? out of the barn floor? or out of the wine-press?' And the\nking said unto her, 'What aileth thee?' And she answered, 'This woman\nsaid unto me, give thy son, that we may eat him to-day, and we shall eat\nmy son to-morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him; and I said unto\nher on the next day, 'Give thy son, that we may eat him,' and she hath\nhid her son.'\"\n\nThese censors assert that it is not likely that while King Benhadad was\nbesieging Samaria, King Joram passed quietly by the wall, or upon the\nwall, to settle differences between Samaritan women. It is still less\nlikely that one child should not have satisfied two women for two days.\nThere must have been enough to feed them for four days at least. But\nlet these critics reason as they may, we must believe that fathers and\nmothers ate their children during the siege of Samaria, since it is\nexpressly foretold in Deuteronomy. The same thing happened at the siege\nof Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; and this, too, was foretold by Ezekiel.\n\nJeremiah exclaims, in his \"Lamentations\": \"Shall the women eat their\nfruit, and children of a span long?\" And in another place: \"The hands of\nthe pitiful women have sodden their own children.\" Here may be added the\nwords of Baruch: \"Man has eaten the flesh of his son and of his\ndaughter.\"\n\nThis horror is repeated so often that it cannot but be true. Lastly, we\nknow the story related in Josephus, of the woman who fed on the flesh of\nher son when Titus was besieging Jerusalem. The book attributed to\nEnoch, cited by St. Jude, says that the giants born from the commerce of\nthe angels with the daughters of men were the first cannibals.\n\nIn the eighth homily attributed to St. Clement, St. Peter, who is made\nto speak in it, says that these same giants quenched their thirst with\nhuman blood and ate the flesh of their fellow creatures. Hence resulted,\nadds the author, maladies until then unknown; monsters of all kinds\nsprung up on the earth; and then it was that God resolved to drown all\nhuman kind. All this shows us how universal was the reigning opinion of\nthe existence of cannibals.\n\nWhat St. Peter is made to say in St. Clement's homily has a palpable\naffinity with the story of Lycaon, one of the oldest of Greek fables,\nand which we find in the first book of Ovid's \"Metamorphoses.\"\n\nThe \"Relations of the Indies and China,\" written in the eighth century\nby two Arabs, and translated by the Abb\u00e9 Renaudot, is not a book to\nwhich implicit credit should be attached; far from it; but we must not\nreject all these two travellers say, especially when their testimony is\ncorroborated by that of other authors who have merited some belief. They\ntell us that there are in the Indian Sea islands peopled with blacks who\nate men; they call these islands Ramni.\n\nMarco Polo, who had not read the works of these two Arabs, says the same\nthing four hundred years after them. Archbishop Navarette, who was\nafterwards a voyager in the same seas, confirms this account: \"_Los\nEuropeos que cogen, es constante que vivos se los van comiendo_.\"\n\nTexeira asserts that the people of Java ate human flesh, which\nabominable custom they had not left off more than two hundred years\nbefore his time. He adds that they did not learn milder manners until\nthey embraced Mahometanism.\n\nThe same thing has been said of the people of Pegu, of the Kaffirs, and\nof several other African nations. Marco Polo, whom we have just now\ncited, says that in some Tartar hordes, when a criminal had been\ncondemned to death they made a meal of him: _\"Hanno costoro un bestiale\ne orribile costume, che quando alcuno e guidicato a morte, lo tolgono,\ne cuocono, e mangian' selo.\"_\n\nWhat is more extraordinary and incredible is that the two Arabs\nattributed to the Chinese what Marco Polo says of some of the Tartars:\nthat, \"in general, the Chinese eat all who have been killed.\" This\nabomination is so repugnant to Chinese manners, that it cannot be\nbelieved. Father Parennin has refuted it by saying that it is unworthy\nof refutation.\n\nIt must, however, be observed that the eighth century, the time when\nthese Arabs wrote their travels, was one of those most disastrous to the\nChinese. Two hundred thousand Tartars passed the great wall, plundered\nPekin, and everywhere spread the most horrible desolation. It is very\nlikely that there was then a great famine, for China was as populous as\nit is now; and some poor creatures among the lowest of the people might\neat dead bodies. What interest could these Arabians have in inventing so\ndisgusting a fable? Perhaps they, like most other travellers, took a\nparticular instance for a national custom.\n\nNot to go so far for examples, we have one in our own country, in the\nvery province in which I write; it is attested by our conqueror, our\nmaster, Julius C\u00e6sar. He was besieging Alexia, in the Auxois. The\nbesieged being resolved to defend themselves to the last extremity, and\nwanting provisions, a great council was assembled, in which one of the\nchiefs, named Critognatus, proposed that the children should be eaten\none after another to sustain the strength of the combatants. His\nproposal was carried by a majority of voices. Nor is this all;\nCritognatus in his harangue tells them that their ancestors had had\nrecourse to the same kind of sustenance in the war with the Cimbri and\nTeutones.\n\nWe will conclude with the testimony of Montaigne. Speaking of what was\ntold him by the companions of Villegagnon, returned from Brazil, and of\nwhat he had seen in France, he certifies that the Brazilians ate their\nenemies killed in war, but mark what follows: \"Is it more barbarous to\neat a man when dead than to have him roasted by a slow fire, or torn to\npieces by dogs and swine, as is yet fresh in our memories--and that not\nbetween ancient enemies, but among neighbors and fellow-citizens--and,\nwhich is worse, on pretence of piety and religion?\" What a question for\na philosopher like Montaigne! Then, if Anacreon and Tibullus had been\nIroquois, they would have eaten men! Alas! alas!\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nWell; two Englishmen have sailed round the world. They have discovered\nthat New Holland is an island larger than Europe, and that men still eat\none another there, as in New Zealand. Whence come this race? supposing\nthat they exist. Are they descended from the ancient Egyptians, from the\nancient people of Ethiopia, from the Africans, from the Indians--or from\nthe vultures, or the wolves? What a contrast between Marcus Aurelius, or\nEpictetus, and the cannibals of New Zealand! Yet they have the same\norgans, they are alike human beings. We have already treated on this\nproperty of the human race; it may not be amiss to add another\nparagraph.\n\nThe following are St. Jerome's own words in one of his letters: _\"Quid\nloquar de c\u00e6teris nationibus, quum ipse adolescentulus in Gallia viderim\nScotos, gentem Britannicam, humanis vesci carnibus, et quum per silvas\nporcorum greges pecudumque reperiant, tamen pastorum nates et f\u00e6minarum\npapillas solere abscindere et has solas ciborum delicias\narbitrari?\"_--What shall I say of other nations; when I myself, when\nyoung, have seen Scotchmen in Gaul, who, though they might have fed on\nswine and other animals of the forest, chose rather to cut off the\nposteriors of the youths and the breasts of the young women, and\nconsidered them as the most delicious food.\"\n\nPelloutier, who sought for everything that might do honor to the Celts,\ntook the pains to contradict Jerome, and to maintain that his credulity\nhad been imposed on. But Jerome speaks very gravely, and of what he\n_saw_. We may, with deference, dispute with a father of the church about\nwhat he has heard; but to doubt of what he has _seen_ is going very far.\nAfter all, the safest way is to doubt of everything, even of what we\nhave seen ourselves.\n\nOne word more on cannibalism. In a book which has had considerable\nsuccess among the well-disposed we find the following, or words to the\nsame effect: \"In Cromwell's time a woman who kept a tallow chandler's\nshop in Dublin sold excellent candles, made of the fat of Englishmen.\nAfter some time one of her customers complained that the candles were\nnot so good. 'Sir,' said the woman, 'it is because we are short of\nEnglishmen.'\"\n\nI ask which were the most guilty--those who assassinated the English, or\nthe poor woman who made candles of their fat? And further, I ask which\nwas the greatest crime--to have Englishmen cooked for dinner, or to use\ntheir tallow to give light at supper? It appears to me that the great\nevil is the being killed; it matters little to us whether, after death,\nwe are roasted on the spit or are made into candles. Indeed, no\nwell-disposed man can be unwilling to be useful when he is dead.\n\n\n\n\nCASTING (IN METAL).\n\n\nThere is not an ancient fable, not an old absurdity which some simpleton\nwill not revive, and that in a magisterial tone, if it be but authorized\nby some classical or theological writer.\n\nLycophron (if I remember rightly) relates that a horde of robbers who\nhad been justly condemned in Ethiopia by King Actisanes to lose their\nears and noses, fled to the cataracts of the Nile and from thence\npenetrated into the Sandy Desert, where they at length built the temple\nof Jupiter Ammon.\n\nLycophron, and after him Theopompus, tells us that these banditti,\nreduced to extreme want, having neither shoes, nor clothes, nor\nutensils, nor bread, bethought themselves of raising a statue of gold\nto an Egyptian god. This statue was ordered one evening and made in the\ncourse of the night. A member of the university much attached to\nLycophron and the Ethiopian robbers asserts that nothing was more common\nin the venerable ages of antiquity than to cast a statue of gold in one\nnight, and afterwards throw it into a fire to reduce it to an impalpable\npowder, in order to be swallowed by a whole people.\n\nBut where did these poor devils, without breeches, find so much gold?\n\"What, sir!\" says the man of learning, \"do you forget that they had\nstolen enough to buy all Africa and that their daughters' earrings alone\nwere worth nine millions five hundred thousand livres of our currency?\"\n\nBe it so. But for casting a statue a little preparation is necessary. M.\nLe Moine employed nearly two years in casting that of Louis XV. \"Oh! but\nthis Jupiter Ammon was at most but three feet high. Go to any pewterer;\nwill he not make you half a dozen plates in a day?\"\n\nSir, a statue of Jupiter is harder to make than pewter plates, and I\neven doubt whether your thieves had wherewith to make plates so quickly,\nclever as they might be at pilfering. It is not very likely that they\nhad the necessary apparatus; they had more need to provide themselves\nwith meal. I respect Lycophron much, but this profound Greek and his yet\nmore profound commentators know so little of the arts--they are so\nlearned in all that is useless, and so ignorant in all that concerns\nthe necessaries and conveniences of life, professions, trades, and daily\noccupations that we will take this opportunity of informing them how a\nmetal figure is cast. This is an operation which they will find neither\nin Lycophron, nor in Manetho, nor even in St. Thomas's dream.\n\nI omit many other preparations which the encyclop\u00e6dists, especially M.\nDiderot, have explained much better than I could do, in the work which\nmust immortalize their glory as well as all the arts. But to form a\nclear idea of the process of this art the artist must be seen at work.\nNo one can ever learn in a book to weave stockings, nor to polish\ndiamonds, nor to work tapestry. Arts and trades are learned only by\nexample and practice.\n\n\n\n\nCATO.\n\nON SUICIDE, AND THE ABBE ST. CYRAN's BOOK LEGITIMATING SUICIDE.\n\n\nThe ingenious La Motte says of Cato, in one of his philosophical rather\nthan poetical odes:\n\n     _Caton, d'une \u00e2me plus \u00e9gale,_\n     _Sous l'heureux vainqueur de Pharsale,_\n     _E\u00fbt souffert que Rome pli\u00e2t;_\n     _Mais, incapable de se rendre,_\n     _Il n'eut pas la force d'attendre_\n     _Un pardon qui l'humili\u00e2t._\n\n     Stern Cato, with more equal soul,\n     Had bowed to C\u00e6sar's wide control--\n     With Rome had to the conqueror bowed--\n     But that his spirit, rough and proud,\n     Had not the courage to await\n     A pardoned foe's too humbling fate.\n\nIt was, I believe, because Cato's soul was always equal, and retained\nto the last its love for his country and her laws that he chose rather\nto perish with her than to crouch to the tyrant. He died as he had\nlived. Incapable of surrendering! And to whom? To the enemy of Rome--to\nthe man who had forcibly robbed the public treasury in order to make war\nupon his fellow-citizens and enslave them by means of their own money. A\npardoned foe! It seems as if La Motte-Houdart were speaking of some\nrevolted subject who might have obtained his majesty's pardon by letters\nin chancery.\n\nIt seems rather absurd to say that Cato slew himself through weakness.\nNone but a strong mind can thus surmount the most powerful instinct of\nnature. This strength is sometimes that of frenzy, but a frantic man is\nnot weak.\n\nSuicide is forbidden amongst us by the canon law. But the decretals,\nwhich form the jurisprudence of a part of Europe, were unknown to Cato,\nto Brutus, to Cassius, to the sublime Arria, to the Emperor Otho, to\nMark Antony, and the rest of the heroes of true Rome, who preferred a\nvoluntary death to a life which they believed to be ignominious.\n\nWe, too, kill ourselves, but it is when we have lost our money, or in\nthe very rare excess of foolish passion for an unworthy object. I have\nknown women kill themselves for the most stupid men imaginable. And\nsometimes we kill ourselves when we are in bad health, which action is a\nreal weakness.\n\nDisgust with our own existence, weariness of ourselves is a malady\nwhich is likewise a cause of suicide. The remedy is a little exercise,\nmusic, hunting, the play, or an agreeable woman. The man who, in a fit\nof melancholy, kills himself to-day, would have wished to live had he\nwaited a week.\n\nI was almost an eye-witness of a suicide which deserves the attention of\nall cultivators of physical science. A man of a serious profession, of\nmature age, of regular conduct, without passions, and above indigence,\nkilled himself on Oct. 17, 1769, and left to the town council of the\nplace where he was born, a written apology for his voluntary death,\nwhich it was thought proper not to publish lest it should encourage men\nto quit a life of which so much ill is said. Thus far there is nothing\nextraordinary; such instances are almost every day to be met with. The\nastonishing part of the story is this:\n\nHis brother and his father had each killed himself at the same age. What\nsecret disposition of organs, what sympathy, what concurrence of\nphysical laws, occasions a father and his two sons to perish by their\nown hands, and by the same kind of death, precisely when they have\nattained such a year? Is it a disease which unfolds itself successively\nin the different members of a family--as we often see fathers and\nchildren die of smallpox, consumption, or any other complaint? Three or\nfour generations have become deaf or blind, gouty or scorbutic, at a\npredetermined period.\n\nPhysical organization, of which moral is the offspring, transmits the\nsame character from father to son through a succession of ages. The\nAppii were always haughty and inflexible, the Catos always severe. The\nwhole line of the Guises were bold, rash, factious; compounded of the\nmost insolent pride, and the most seductive politeness. From Francis de\nGuise to him who alone and in silence went and put himself at the head\nof the people of Naples, they were all, in figure, in courage, and in\nturn of mind, above ordinary men. I have seen whole length portraits of\nFrancis de Guise, of the Balafr\u00e9, and of his son: they are all six feet\nhigh, with the same features, the same courage and boldness in the\nforehead, the eye, and the attitude.\n\nThis continuity, this series of beings alike is still more observable in\nanimals, and if as much care were taken to perpetuate fine races of men\nas some nations still take to prevent the mixing of the breeds of their\nhorses and hounds the genealogy would be written in the countenance and\ndisplayed in the manners. There have been races of crooked and of\nsix-fingered people, as we see red-haired, thick-lipped, long-nosed, and\nflat-nosed races.\n\nBut that nature should so dispose the organs of a whole race that at a\ncertain age each individual of that family will have a passion for\nself-destruction--this is a problem which all the sagacity of the most\nattentive anatomists cannot resolve. The effect is certainly all\nphysical, but it belongs to occult physics. Indeed, what principle is\nnot occult?\n\nWe are not informed, nor is it likely that in, the time of C\u00e6sar and the\nemperors the inhabitants of Great Britain killed themselves as\ndeliberately as they now do, when they have the vapors which they\ndenominate the spleen.\n\nOn the other hand, the Romans, who never had the spleen, did not\nhesitate to put themselves to death. They reasoned, they were\nphilosophers, and the people of the island of Britain were not so. Now,\nEnglish citizens are philosophers and Roman citizens are nothing. The\nEnglishman quits this life proudly and disdainfully when the whim takes\nhim, but the Roman must have an _indulgentia in articulo mortis_; he can\nneither live nor die.\n\nSir William Temple says that a man should depart when he has no longer\nany pleasure in remaining. So died Atticus. Young women who hang and\ndrown themselves for love should then listen to the voice of hope, for\nchanges are as frequent in love as in other affairs.\n\nAn almost infallible means of saving yourself from the desire of\nself-destruction is always to have something to do. Creech, the\ncommentator on Lucretius, marked upon his manuscripts: \"N.B. Must hang\nmyself when I have finished.\" He kept his word with himself that he\nmight have the pleasure of ending like his author. If he had undertaken\na commentary upon Ovid he would have lived longer.\n\nWhy have we fewer suicides in the country than in the towns? Because in\nthe fields only the body suffers; in the town it is the mind. The\nlaborer has not time to be melancholy; none kill themselves but the\nidle--they who, in the eyes of the multitude, are so happy.\n\nI shall here relate some suicides that have happened in my own time,\nseveral of which have already been published in other works. The dead\nmay be made useful to the living:\n\n_A Brief Account of Some Singular Suicides._\n\nPhilip Mordaunt, cousin-german to the celebrated earl of\nPeterborough--so well known in all the European courts, and who boasted\nof having seen more postillions and kings than any other man--was a\nyoung man of twenty-seven, handsome, well made, rich, of noble blood,\nwith the highest pretensions, and, which was more than all, adored by\nhis mistress, yet Mordaunt was seized with a disgust for life. He paid\nhis debts, wrote to his friends, and even made some verses on the\noccasion. He dispatched himself with a pistol without having given any\nother reason than that his soul was tired of his body and that when we\nare dissatisfied with our abode we ought to quit it. It seemed that he\nwished to die because he was disgusted with his good fortune.\n\nIn 1726 Richard Smith exhibited a strange spectacle to the world from a\nvery different cause. Richard Smith was disgusted with real misfortune.\nHe had been rich, and he was poor; he had been in health, and he was\ninfirm; he had a wife with whom he had naught but his misery to share;\ntheir only remaining property was a child in the cradle. Richard Smith\nand Bridget Smith, with common consent, having embraced each other\ntenderly and given their infant the last kiss began with killing the\npoor child, after which they hanged themselves to the posts of their\nbed.\n\nI do not know any other act of cold-blooded horror so striking as this.\nBut the letter which these unfortunate persons wrote to their cousin,\nMr. Brindley, before their death, is as singular as their death itself.\n\"We believe,\" say they, \"that God will forgive us.... We quit this life\nbecause we are miserable--without resource, and we have done our only\nson the service of killing him, lest he should become as unfortunate as\nourselves....\" It must be observed that these people, after killing\ntheir son through parental tenderness, wrote to recommend their dog and\ncat to the care of a friend. It seems they thought it easier to make a\ncat and dog happy in this life than a child, and they would not be a\nburden to their friends.\n\nLord Scarborough quitted this life in 1727, with the same coolness as he\nhad quitted his office of Master of the Horse. He was reproached, in the\nHouse of Peers, with taking the king's part because he had a good place\nat court. \"My lords,\" said he, \"to prove to you that my opinion is\nindependent of my place, I resign it this moment.\" He afterwards found\nhimself in a perplexing dilemma between a mistress whom he loved, but\nto whom he had promised nothing, and a woman whom he esteemed, and to\nwhom he had promised marriage. He killed himself to escape from his\nembarrassment.\n\nThese tragical stories which swarm in the English newspapers, have made\nthe rest of Europe think that, in England, men kill themselves more\nwillingly than elsewhere. However, I know not but there are as many\nmadmen or heroes to be found in Paris as in London. Perhaps, if our\nnewspapers kept an exact list of all who had been so infatuated as to\nseek their own destruction, and so lamentably courageous as to effect\nit, we should, in this particular, have the misfortune to rival the\nEnglish. But our journals are more discreet. In such of them as are\nacknowledged by the government private occurrences are never exposed to\npublic slander.\n\nAll I can venture to say with assurance is that there is no reason to\napprehend that this rage for self-murder will ever become an epidemical\ndisorder. Against this, nature has too well provided. Hope and fear are\nthe powerful agents which she often employs to stay the hand of the\nunhappy individual about to strike at his own breast. Cardinal Dubois\nwas once heard to say to himself: \"Kill thyself! Coward, thou darest\nnot!\"\n\nIt is said that there have been countries in which a council was\nestablished to grant the citizens permission to kill themselves when\nthey had good and sufficient reasons. I answer either that it was not\nso or that those magistrates had not much to do.\n\nIt might, indeed, astonish us, and does, I think, merit a serious\nexamination, that almost all the ancient Roman heroes killed themselves\nwhen they had lost a battle in the civil wars. But I do not find,\nneither in the time of the League, nor in that of the Frond, nor in the\ntroubles of Italy, nor in those of England, that any chief thought\nproper to die by his own hand. These chiefs, it is true, were\nChristians, and there is a great difference between the principles of a\nChristian warrior and those of a Pagan hero. But why were these men whom\nChristianity restrained when they would have put themselves to death,\nrestrained by nothing when they chose to poison, assassinate, and bring\ntheir conquered enemies to the scaffold? Does not the Christian religion\nforbid these murders much more than self-murder, of which the New\nTestament makes no mention?\n\nThe apostles of suicide tell us that it is quite allowable to quit one's\nhouse when one is tired of it. Agreed, but most men would prefer\nsleeping in a mean house to lying in the open air.\n\nI once received a circular letter from an Englishman, in which he\noffered a prize to any one who should most satisfactorily prove that\nthere are occasions on which a man might kill himself. I made no answer:\nI had nothing to prove to him. He had only to examine whether he liked\nbetter to die than to live.\n\nAnother Englishman came to me at Paris in 1724; he was ill, and promised\nme that he would kill himself if he was not cured by July 20. He\naccordingly gave me his epitaph in these words: \"_Valet curia!_\"\n\"Farewell care!\" and gave me twenty-five louis to get a small monument\nerected to him at the end of the Faubourg St. Martin. I returned him his\nmoney on July 20, and kept his epitaph.\n\nIn my own time the last prince of the house of Courtenai, when very old,\nand the last branch of Lorraine-Harcourt, when very young, destroyed\nthemselves almost without its being heard of. These occurrences cause a\nterrible uproar the first day, but when the property of the deceased has\nbeen divided they are no longer talked of.\n\nThe following most remarkable of all suicides has just occurred at\nLyons, in June, 1770: A young man well known, who was handsome, well\nmade, clever, and amiable, fell in love with a young woman whom her\nparents would not give to him. So far we have nothing more than the\nopening scene of a comedy, the astonishing tragedy is to follow.\n\nThe lover broke a blood-vessel and the surgeons informed him there was\nno remedy. His mistress engaged to meet him, with two pistols and two\ndaggers in order that, if the pistols missed the daggers might the next\nmoment pierce their hearts. They embraced each other for the last time:\nrose-colored ribbons were tied to the triggers of the pistols; the lover\nholding the ribbon of his mistress's pistol, while she held the ribbon\nof his. Both fired at a signal given, and both fell at the same instant.\n\nOf this fact the whole city of Lyons is witness. P\u00e6tus and Arria, you\nset the example, but you were condemned by a tyrant, while love alone\nimmolated these two victims.\n\n_Laws Against Suicide._\n\nHas any law, civil or religious, ever forbidden a man to kill himself,\non pain of being hanged after death, or on pain of being damned? It is\ntrue that Virgil has said:\n\n     _Proximo, deinde tenent m\u00e6sti loca, qui sibi lethum_\n     _Insontes peperere manu, lucemque perosi_\n     _Projecere animas. Quam vellent \u00e6there in alto_\n     _Nunc et pauperiem et duros perferre labores!_\n     _Fata obstant, tristique palus inamabilis unda_\n     _Alligat, et novies Styx interfusa coercet._\n                    --\u00c6NEIS, lib. vi. v. 434 et seq.\n\n     The next in place, and punishment, are they\n     Who prodigally throw their souls away--\n     Fools, who repining at their wretched state,\n     And loathing anxious life, suborn their fate;\n     With late repentance now they would retrieve\n     The bodies they forsook, and wish to live;\n     Their pains and poverty desire to bear,\n     To view the light of heaven and breathe the vital air;--\n     But fate forbids, the Stygian floods oppose,\n     And, with nine circling streams, the captive souls inclose.\n                                   --DRYDEN.\n\nSuch was the religion of some of the pagans, yet, notwithstanding the\nweariness which awaited them in the next world it was an honor to quit\nthis by killing themselves--so contradictory are the ways of men. And\namong us is not duelling unfortunately still honorable, though forbidden\nby reason, by religion, and by every law? If Cato and C\u00e6sar, Antony and\nAugustus, were not duellists it was not that they were less brave than\nour Frenchmen. If the duke of Montmorency, Marshal de Marillac, de Thou,\nCinq-Mars, and so many others, chose rather to be dragged to execution\nin a wagon, like highwaymen, than to kill themselves like Cato and\nBrutus, it was not that they had less courage than those Romans, nor\nless of what is called _honor_. The true reason is that at Paris\nself-murder in such cases was not then the fashion; but it was the\nfashion at Rome.\n\nThe women of the Malabar coast throw themselves, living, on the funeral\npiles of their husbands. Have they, then, more courage than Cornelia?\nNo; but in that country it is the custom for the wives to burn\nthemselves.\n\nIn Japan it is the custom for a man of honor, when he has been insulted\nby another man of honor, to rip open his belly in the presence of his\nenemy and say to him: \"Do you likewise if thou hast the heart.\" The\naggressor is dishonored for ever if he does not immediately plunge a\ngreat knife into his belly.\n\nThe only religion in which suicide is forbidden by a clear and positive\nlaw is Mahometanism. In the fourth sura it is said: \"Do not kill\nyourself, for God is merciful unto you, and whosoever killeth himself\nthrough malice and wickedness shall assuredly be burned in hell fire.\"\n\nThis is a literal translation. The text, like many other texts, appears\nto want common sense. What is meant by \"Do not kill yourself for God is\nmerciful\"? Perhaps we are to understand--Do not sink under your\nmisfortunes, which God may alleviate: do not be so foolish as to kill\nyourself to-day since you may be happy to-morrow.\n\n\"And whosoever killeth himself through malice and wickedness.\" This is\nyet more difficult to explain. Perhaps, in all antiquity, this never\nhappened to any one but the Phr\u00e6dra of Euripides, who hanged herself on\npurpose to make Theseus believe that she had been forcibly violated by\nHippolytus. In our own times a man shot himself in the head, after\narranging all things to make another man suspected of the act.\n\nIn the play of George Dandin, his jade of a wife threatens him with\nkilling herself to have him hanged. Such cases are rare. If Mahomet\nforesaw them he may be said to have seen a great way. The famous\nDuverger de Haurane, abbot of St. Cyran, regarded as the founder of Port\nRoyal, wrote, about the year 1608, a treatise on \"Suicide,\" which has\nbecome one of the scarcest books in Europe.\n\n\"The Decalogue,\" says he, \"forbids us to kill. In this precept\nself-murder seems no less to be comprised than murder of our neighbor.\nBut if there are cases in which it is allowable to kill our neighbor\nthere likewise are cases in which it is allowable to kill ourselves.\n\n\"We must not make an attempt upon our lives until we have consulted\nreason. The public authority, which holds the place of God, may dispose\nof our lives. The reason of man may likewise hold the place of the\nreason of God: it is a ray of the eternal light.\"\n\nSt. Cyran extends this argument, which may be considered as a mere\nsophism, to great length, but when he comes to the explanation and the\ndetails it is more difficult to answer him. He says: \"A man may kill\nhimself for the good of his prince, for that of his country, or for that\nof his relations.\"\n\nWe do not, indeed, see how Codrus or Curtius could be condemned. No\nsovereign would dare to punish the family of a man who had devoted\nhimself to death for him; nay, there is not one who would dare neglect\nto recompense it. St. Thomas, before St. Cyran, had said the same thing.\nBut we need neither St. Thomas, nor Cardinal Bonaventura, nor Duverger\nde Haurane to tell us that a man who dies for his country is deserving\nof praise.\n\nThe abbot of St. Cyran concludes that it is allowable to do for\nourselves what it is noble to do for others. All that is advanced by\nPlutarch, by Seneca, by Montaigne, and by fifty other philosophers, in\nfavor of suicide is sufficiently known; it is a hackneyed topic--a\nwornout commonplace. I seek not to apologize for an act which the laws\ncondemn, but neither the Old Testament, nor the New has ever forbidden\nman to depart this life when it has become insupportable to him. No\nRoman law condemned self-murder; on the contrary, the following was the\nlaw of the Emperor Antoine, which was never revoked:\n\n\"If your father or your brother not being accused of any crime kill\nhimself, either to escape from grief, or through weariness of life, or\nthrough despair, or through mental derangement, his will shall be valid,\nor, if he die intestate his heirs shall succeed.\"\n\nNotwithstanding this humane law of our masters we still drag on a sledge\nand drive a stake through the body of a man who has died a voluntary\ndeath; we do all we can to make his memory infamous; we dishonor his\nfamily as far as we are able; we punish the son for having lost his\nfather, and the widow for being deprived of her husband.\n\nWe even confiscate the property of the deceased, which is robbing the\nliving of the patrimony which of right belongs to them. This custom is\nderived from our canon law, which deprives of Christian burial such as\ndie a voluntary death. Hence it is concluded that we cannot inherit from\na man who is judged to have no inheritance in heaven. The canon law,\nunder the head \"_De P\u0153nitentia_,\" assures us that Judas committed a\ngreater crime in strangling himself than in selling our Lord Jesus\nChrist.\n\n\n\n\nCELTS.\n\n\nAmong those who have had the leisure, the means, and the courage to seek\nfor the origin of nations, there have been some who have found that of\nour Celts, or at least would make us believe that they had met with it.\nThis illusion being the only recompense of their immense travail, we\nshould not envy them its possession.\n\nIf we wish to know anything about the Huns--who, indeed, are scarcely\nworth knowing anything about, for they have rendered no service to\nmankind--we find some slight notices of those barbarians among the\nChinese--that most ancient of all nations, after the Indians. From them\nwe learn that, in certain ages, the Huns went like famishing wolves and\nravaged countries which, even at this day are regarded as places of\nexile and of horror. This is a very melancholy, a very miserable sort of\nknowledge. It is, doubtless, much better to cultivate a useful art at\nParis, Lyons, or Bordeaux, than seriously to study the history of the\nHuns and the bears. Nevertheless we are aided in these researches by\nsome of the Chinese archives.\n\nBut for the Celts there are no archives. We know no more of their\nantiquities than we do of those of the Samoyeds or the Australasians.\n\nWe have learned nothing about our ancestors except from the few words\nwhich their conqueror, Julius C\u00e6sar, condescended to say of them. He\nbegins his \"Commentaries\" by dividing the Gauls into the Belgians,\nAquitanians, and Celts.\n\nWhence some of the daring among the erudite have concluded that the\nCelts were the Scythians, and they have made these Scythio-Celts\ninclude all Europe. But why not include the whole earth? Why stop short\nin so fine a career?\n\nWe have also been duly told that Noah's son, Japhet, came out of the\nArk, and went with all speed to people all those vast regions with\nCelts, whom he governed marvellously well. But authors of greater\nmodesty refer the origin of our Celts to the tower of Babel--to the\nconfusion of tongues--to Gomer, of whom no one ever heard until the very\nrecent period when some wise men of the West read the name of Gomer in a\nbad translation of the Septuagint.\n\nBochart, in his \"Sacred Chronology\"--what a chronology!--takes quite a\ndifferent turn. Of these innumerable hordes of Celts he makes an\nEgyptian colony, skilfully and easily led by Hercules from the fertile\nbanks of the Nile into the forests and morasses of Germany, whither, no\ndoubt, these colonists carried the arts and the language of Egypt and\nthe mysteries of Isis, no trace of which has ever been found among them.\n\nI think they are still more to be congratulated on their discoveries,\nwho say that the Celts of the mountains of Dauphiny were called\nCottians, from their King Cottius; that the B\u00e9richons were named from\ntheir King Betrich; the Welsh, or Gaulish, from their King Wallus, and\nthe Belgians from Balgem, which means quarrelsome.\n\nA still finer origin is that of the Celto-Pannonians, from the Latin\nword _pannus_, cloth, for, we are told they dressed themselves in old\npieces of cloth badly sewn together, much resembling a harlequin's\njacket. But the best origin of all is, undeniably, the tower of Babel.\n\n\n\n\nCEREMONIES--TITLES--PRECEDENCE.\n\n\nAll these things, which would be useless and impertinent in a state of\npure nature, are, in our corrupt and ridiculous state, of great service.\nOf all nations, the Chinese are those who have carried the use of\nceremonies to the greatest length; they certainly serve to calm as well\nas to weary the mind. The Chinese porters and carters are obliged,\nwhenever they occasion the least hindrance in the streets, to fall on\ntheir knees and ask one another's pardon according to the prescribed\nformula. This prevents ill language, blows and murders. They have time\nto grow cool and are then willing to assist one another.\n\nThe more free a people are, the fewer ceremonies, the fewer ostentatious\ntitles, the fewer demonstrations of annihilation in the presence of a\nsuperior, they possess. To Scipio men said \"Scipio\"; to C\u00e6sar, \"C\u00e6sar\";\nbut in after times they said to the emperors, \"your majesty,\" \"your\ndivinity.\"\n\nThe titles of St. Peter and St. Paul were \"Peter\" and \"Paul.\" Their\nsuccessors gave one another the title of \"your holiness,\" which is not\nto be found in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in the writings of the\ndisciples.\n\nWe read in the history of Germany that the dauphin of France, afterwards\nCharles V., went to the Emperor Charles IV. at Metz and was presented\nafter Cardinal de P\u00e9rigord.\n\nThere has since been a time when chancellors went before cardinals;\nafter which cardinals again took precedence of chancellors.\n\nIn France the peers preceded the princes of the blood, going in the\norder of their creation, until the consecration of Henry III.\n\nThe dignity of peer was, until that time, so exalted that at the\nceremony of the consecration of Elizabeth, wife to Charles IX., in 1572,\ndescribed by Simon Bouquet, _\u00e9chevin_ of Paris, it is said that the\nqueen's _dames_ and _demoiselles_ having handed to the _dame d'honneur_\nthe bread, wine and wax, with the silver, for the offering to be\npresented to the queen by the said _dame d'honneur_, the said _dame\nd'honneur_, being a duchess, commanded the _dames_ to go and carry the\noffering to the princesses themselves, etc. This _dame d'honneur_ was\nthe wife of the constable Montmorency.\n\nThe armchair, the chair with a back, the stool, the right hand and the\nleft were for several ages important political matters. I believe that\nwe owe the ancient etiquette concerning armchairs to the circumstance\nthat our barbarians of ancestors had at most but one in a house, and\neven this was used only by the sick. In some provinces of Germany and\nEngland an armchair is still called a sick-chair.\n\nLong after the times of Attila and Dagobert, when luxury found its way\ninto our courts and the great men of the earth had two or three\narmchairs in their donjons, it was a noble distinction to sit upon one\nof these thrones; and a castellain would place among his titles how he\nhad gone half a league from home to pay his court to a count, and how he\nhad been received in an easy-chair.\n\nWe see in the Memoirs of Mademoiselle that that august princess passed\none-fourth of her life amid the mortal agonies of disputes for the\nback-chair. Were you to sit in a certain apartment, in a chair, or on a\nstool, or not to sit at all? Here was enough to involve a whole court in\nintrigue. Manners are now more easy; ladies may use couches and sofas\nwithout occasioning any disturbance in society.\n\nWhen Cardinal de Richelieu was treating with the English ambassadors for\nthe marriage of Henriette of France with Charles I., the affair was on\nthe point of being broken off on account of a demand made by the\nambassadors of two or three steps more towards a door; but the cardinal\nremoved the difficulty by taking to his bed. History has carefully\nhanded clown this precious circumstance. I believe that, if it had been\nproposed to Scipio to get between the sheets to receive the visit of\nHannibal, he would have thought the ceremony something like a joke.\n\nFor a whole century the order of carriages and taking the wall were\ntestimonials of greatness and the source of pretensions, disputes, and\nconflicts. To procure the passing of one carriage before another was\nlooked upon as a signal victory. The ambassadors went along the streets\nas if they were contending for the prize in the circus; and when a\nSpanish minister had succeeded in making a Portuguese coachman pull up,\nhe sent a courier to Madrid to apprise the king, his master, of this\ngreat advantage.\n\nOur histories regale us with fifty pugilistic combats for precedence--as\nthat of the parliament with the bishops' clerks at the funeral of Henry\nIV., the _chambre des comptes_ with the parliament in the cathedral when\nLouis XIII. gave France to the Virgin, the duke of Epernon with the\nkeeper of the seals, Du Vair, in the church of St. Germain. The\npresidents of the _enqu\u00eates_ buffeted Savare, the _doyen_ of the\n_conseillers de grand' chambre_, to make him quit his place of honor (so\nmuch is honor the soul of monarchical governments!), and four archers\nwere obliged to lay hold of the President Barillon, who was beating the\npoor _doyen_ without mercy. We find no contests like these in the\nAreopagus, nor in the Roman senate.\n\nIn proportion to the barbarism of countries or the weakness of courts,\nwe find ceremony in vogue. True power and true politeness are above\nvanity. We may venture to believe that the custom will at last be given\nup which some ambassadors still retain, of ruining themselves in order\nto go along the streets in procession with a few hired carriages, fresh\npainted and gilded, and preceded by a few footmen. This is called\n\"making their entry\"; and it is a fine joke to make your entry into a\ntown seven or eight months before you arrive.\n\nThis important affair of punctilio, which constitutes the greatness of\nthe modern Romans--this science of the number of steps that should be\nmade in showing in a _monsignor_, in drawing or half drawing a curtain,\nin walking in a room to the right or to the left--this great art, which\nneither Fabius nor Cato could ever imagine, is beginning to sink; and\nthe train-bearers to the cardinals complain that everything indicates a\ndecline.\n\nA French colonel, being at Brussels a year after the taking of that\nplace by Marshal de Saxe, and having nothing to do, resolved to go to\nthe town assembly. \"It is held at a princess',\" said one to him. \"Be it\nso,\" answered the other, \"what matters it to me?\" \"But only princes go\nthere; are you a prince?\" \"Pshaw!\" said the colonel, \"they are a very\ngood sort of princes; I had a dozen of them in my anteroom last year,\nwhen we had taken the town, and they were very polite.\"\n\nIn turning over the leaves of \"Horace\" I observe this line in an epistle\nto M\u00e6cenas, \"_Te, dulcis amice revisam_.\"--\"I will come and see you, my\ngood friend.\" This M\u00e6cenas was the second person in the Roman Empire;\nthat is, a man of greater power and influence than the greatest monarch\nof modern Europe.\n\nLooking into the works of Corneille, I observed that in a letter to the\ngreat Scuderi, governor of Notre Dame de la Garde, etc., he uses this\nexpression in reference to Cardinal Richelieu: \"Monsieur the cardinal,\nyour master and mine.\" It is, perhaps, the first time that such language\nhas been applied to a minister, since there have been ministers, kings\nand flatterers in the world. The same Peter Corneille, the author of\n\"Cinna,\" humbly dedicates that work to the Sieur de Montauron, the\nking's treasurer, whom in direct terms he compares to Augustus. I regret\nthat he did not give Montauron the title of monseigneur or my lord.\n\nAn anecdote is related of an old officer, but little conversant with the\nprecedents and formulas of vanity, who wrote to the Marquis Louvois as\nplain monsieur, but receiving no answer, next addressed him under the\ntitle of monseigneur, still, however, without effect, the unlucky\nmonsieur continuing to rankle in the minister's heart. He finally\ndirected his letter \"to my God, my God Louvois\"; commencing it by the\nwords, \"my God, my Creator.\" Does not all this sufficiently prove that\nthe Romans were magnanimous and modest, and that we are frivolous and\nvain?\n\n\"How d'ye do, my dear friend?\" said a duke and peer to a gentleman. \"At\nyour service, my dear friend,\" replied he; and from that instant his\n\"dear friend\" became his implacable enemy. A grandee of Portugal was\nonce conversing with a Spanish hidalgo and addressing him every moment\nin the terms, \"your excellency.\" The Castilian as frequently replied,\n\"your courtesy\" (_vuestra merced_), a title bestowed on those who have\nnone by right. The irritated Portuguese in return retorted \"your\ncourtesy\" on the Spaniard, who then called the Portuguese \"your\nexcellency.\" The Portuguese, at length wearied out, demanded, \"How is it\nthat you always call me your courtesy, when I call you your excellency,\nand your excellency when I call you your courtesy?\" \"The reason is,\"\nsays the Castilian with a bow, \"that all titles are equal to me,\nprovided that there is nothing equal between you and me.\"\n\nThe vanity of titles was not introduced into our northern climes of\nEurope till the Romans had become acquainted with Asiatic magnificence.\nThe greater part of the sovereigns of Asia were, and still are, cousins\ngerman of the sun and the moon; their subjects dare not make any\npretension to such high affinity; and many a provincial governor, who\nstyles himself \"nutmeg of consolation\" and \"rose of delight\" would be\nempaled alive if he were to claim the slightest relationship to the sun\nand moon.\n\nConstantine was, I think, the first Roman emperor who overwhelmed\nChristian humility in a page of pompous titles. It is true that before\nhis time the emperors bore the title of god, but the term implied\nnothing similar to what we understand by it. Divus Augustus, Divus\nTrajanus, meant St. Augustus, St. Trajan. It was thought only\nconformable to the dignity of the Roman Empire that the soul of its\nchief should, after his death, ascend to heaven; and it frequently even\nhappened that the title of saint, of god, was granted to the emperor by\na sort of anticipated inheritance. Nearly for the same reason the first\npatriarchs of the Christian church were all called \"your holiness.\" They\nwere thus named to remind them of what in fact they ought to be.\n\nMen sometimes take upon themselves very humble titles, provided they can\nobtain from others very honorable ones. Many an abb\u00e9 who calls himself\nbrother exacts from his monks the title of monseigneur. The pope styles\nhimself \"servant of the servants of God.\" An honest priest of Holstein\nonce addressed a letter \"to Pius IV., servant of the servants of God.\"\nHe afterwards went to Rome to urge his suit, and the inquisition put him\nin prison to teach him how to address letters.\n\nFormerly the emperor alone had the title of majesty. Other sovereigns\nwere called your highness, your serenity, your grace. Louis XI. was the\nfirst in France who was generally called majesty, a title certainly not\nless suitable to the dignity of a powerful hereditary kingdom than to an\nelective principality. But long after him the term highness was applied\nto kings of France; and some letters to Henry III. are still extant in\nwhich he is addressed by that title. The states of Orleans objected to\nQueen Catherine de Medici being called majesty. But this last\ndenomination gradually prevailed. The name is indifferent; it is the\npower alone that is not so.\n\nThe German chancery, ever unchangeable in its stately formalities, has\npretended down to our own times that no kings have a right to a higher\ntitle than serenity. At the celebrated treaty of Westphalia, in which\nFrance and Sweden dictated the law to the holy Roman Empire, the\nemperor's plenipotentiaries continually presented Latin memorials, in\nwhich \"his most sacred imperial majesty\" negotiated with the \"most\nserene kings of France and Sweden\"; while, on the other hand, the French\nand Swedes fail not to declare that their \"sacred majesties of France\nand Sweden\" had many subjects of complaint against the \"most serene\nemperor.\" Since that period, however, the great sovereigns have, in\nregard to rank, been considered as equals, and he alone who beats his\nneighbor is adjudged to have the pre-eminence.\n\nPhilip II. was the first majesty in Spain, for the serenity of Charles\nV. was converted into majesty only on account of the empire. The\nchildren of Philip II. were the first highnesses; and afterwards they\nwere royal highnesses. The duke of Orleans, brother of Louis XIII., did\nnot take up the title of royal highness till 1631; then the prince of\nCond\u00e9 claimed that the most serene highness, which the Dukes de Vend\u00f4me\ndid not venture to assume. The duke of Savoy, at that time royal\nhighness, afterwards substituted majesty. The grand duke of Florence\ndid the same, excepting as to majesty; and finally the czar, who was\nknown in Europe only as the grand duke, declared himself emperor, and\nwas recognized as such.\n\nFormerly there were only two marquises in Germany, two in France and two\nin Italy. The marquis of Brandenburg has become a king, and a great\nking. But at present our Italian and French marquises are of a somewhat\ndifferent species.\n\nIf an Italian citizen has the honor of giving a dinner to the legate of\nhis province, and the legate, when drinking, says to him, \"Monsieur le\nmarquis, to your good health,\" he suddenly becomes a marquis, he and his\nheirs after him, forever. If the inhabitant of any province of France,\nwhose whole estate consists of a quarter part of a little decayed\ncastle-ward, goes to Paris, makes something of a fortune, or carries the\nair of having made one, he is styled in the deeds and legal instruments\nin which he is concerned \"high and mighty seigneur, marquis and count,\"\nand his son will be denominated by his notary \"very high and very mighty\nseigneur,\" and as this frivolous ambition is in no way injurious to\ngovernment or civil society, it is permitted to take its course. Some\nFrench lords boast of employing German barons in their stables; some\nGerman lords say they have French marquises in their kitchens; it is not\na long time since a foreigner at Naples made his coachman a duke. Custom\nin these cases has more power than royal authority. If you are but\nlittle known at Paris, you may there be a count or a marquis as long as\nyou please; if you are connected with the law of finance, though the\nking should confer on you a real marquisate, you will not, therefore, be\nmonsieur le marquis. The celebrated Samuel Bernard was, in truth, more a\ncount than five hundred such as we often see not possessing four acres\nof land. The king had converted his estate of Coubert into a fine\ncounty; yet if on any occasion he had ordered himself to be announced as\nCount Bernard, etc., he would have excited bursts of laughter. In\nEngland it is different; if the king confers the title of earl or baron\non a merchant, all classes address him with the designation suitable to\nit without the slightest hesitation. By persons of the highest birth, by\nthe king himself, he is called my lord. It is the same in Italy; there\nis a register kept there of monsignori. The pope himself addresses them\nunder that title; his physician is monsignor, and no one objects.\n\nIn France the title of monseigneur or my lord is a very serious\nbusiness. Before the time of Cardinal Richelieu a bishop was only \"a\nmost reverend father in God.\"\n\nBefore the year 1635 bishops did not only not assume the title of\nmonseigneur themselves, but they did not even give it to cardinals.\nThese two customs were introduced by a bishop of Chartres, who, in full\ncanonicals of lawn and purple, went to call Cardinal Richelieu\nmonseigneur, on which occasion Louis XIII. observed that \"Chartrain\nwould not mind saluting the cardinal _au derri\u00e8re_.\"\n\nIt is only since that period that bishops have mutually applied to each\nother the title of monseigneur.\n\nThe public made no objection to this application of it; but, as it was a\nnew title, not conferred on bishops by kings, they continued to be\ncalled sieurs in edicts, declarations, ordinances and all official\ndocuments; and when the council wrote to a bishop they gave him no\nhigher title than monsieur.\n\nThe dukes and peers have encountered more difficulty in acquiring\npossession of the title of monseigneur. The _grande noblesse_, and what\nis called the grand robe, decidedly refuse them that distinction. The\nhighest gratification of human pride consists in a man's receiving\ntitles of honor from those who conceive themselves his equals; but to\nattain this is exceedingly difficult; pride always finds pride to\ncontend with.\n\nWhen the dukes insisted on receiving the title of monseigneur from the\nclass of gentlemen, the presidents of the parliaments required the same\nfrom advocates and proctors. A certain president actually refused to be\nbled because his surgeon asked: \"In which arm will you be bled,\nmonsieur?\" An old counsellor treated this matter somewhat more gayly. A\npleader was saying to him, \"Monseigneur, monsieur, your secretary\"....\nHe stopped him short: \"You have uttered three blunders,\" says he, \"in\nas many words. I am not monseigneur; my secretary is not monsieur; he is\nmy clerk.\"\n\nTo put an end to this grand conflict of vanity it will eventually be\nfound necessary to give the title of monseigneur to every individual in\nthe nation; as women, who were formerly content with mademoiselle, are\nnow to be called madame. In Spain, when a mendicant meets a brother\nbeggar, he thus accosts him: \"Has your courtesy taken chocolate?\" This\npoliteness of language elevates the mind and keeps up the dignity of the\nspecies. C\u00e6sar and Pompey were called in the senate C\u00e6sar and Pompey.\nBut these men knew nothing of life. They ended their letters with\n_vale_--adieu. We, who possess more exalted notions, were sixty years\nago \"affectionate servants\"; then \"very humble and very obedient\"; and\nnow we \"have the honor to be\" so. I really grieve for posterity, which\nwill find it extremely difficult to add to these very beautiful\nformulas. The Duke d'\u00c9pernon, the first of Gascons in pride, though far\nfrom being the first of statesmen, wrote on his deathbed to Cardinal\nRichelieu and ended his letter with: \"Your very humble and very\nobedient.\" Recollecting, however, that the cardinal had used only the\nphrase \"very affectionate,\" he despatched an express to bring back the\nletter (for it had been actually sent off), began it anew, signed \"very\naffectionate,\" and died in the bed of honor.\n\nWe have made many of these observations elsewhere. It is well, however,\nto repeat them, were it only to correct some pompous peacocks, who would\nstrut away their lives in contemptibly displaying their plumes and their\npride.\n\n\n\n\nCERTAIN--CERTAINTY.\n\n\nI am certain; I have friends; my fortune is secure; my relations will\nnever abandon me; I shall have justice done me; my work is good, it will\nbe well received; what is owing to me will be paid; my friend will be\nfaithful, he has sworn it; the minister will advance me--he has, by the\nway, promised it--all these are words which a man who has lived a short\ntime in the world erases from his dictionary.\n\nWhen the judges condemned L'Anglade, Le Brun, Calas, Sirven, Martin,\nMontbailli, and so many others, since acknowledged to have been\ninnocent, they were certain, or they ought to have been certain, that\nall these unhappy men were guilty; yet they were deceived. There are two\nways of being deceived; by false judgment and self-blindness--that of\nerring like a man of genius, and that of deciding like a fool.\n\nThe judges deceived themselves like men of genius in the affair of\nL'Anglade; they were blinded by dazzling appearances and did not\nsufficiently examine the probabilities on the other side. Their wisdom\nmade them believe it certain that L'Anglade had committed a theft, which\nhe certainly had not committed; and on this miserable _uncertain_\ncertainty of the human mind, a gentleman was put to the ordinary and\nextraordinary question; subsequent thrown, without succor, into a\ndungeon and condemned to the galleys, where he died. His wife was shut\nup in another dungeon, with her daughter, aged seven years, who\nafterwards married a counsellor of the same parliament which had\ncondemned her father to the galleys and her mother to banishment.\n\nIt is clear that the judges would not have pronounced this sentence had\nthey been really certain. However, even at the time this sentence was\npassed several persons knew that the theft had been committed by a\npriest named Gagnat, associated with a highwayman, and the innocence of\nL'Anglade was not recognized till after his death.\n\nThey were in the same manner certain when, by a sentence in the first\ninstance, they condemned to the wheel the innocent Le Brun, who, by an\narr\u00eat pronounced on his appeal, was broken on the rack, and died under\nthe torture.\n\nThe examples of Calas and Sirven are well known, that of Martin is less\nso. He was an honest agriculturist near Bar in Lorraine. A villain stole\nhis dress and in this dress murdered a traveller whom he knew to have\nmoney and whose route he had watched. Martin was accused, his dress was\na witness against him; the judges regarded this evidence as a certainty.\nNot the past conduct of the prisoner, a numerous family whom he had\nbrought up virtuously, neither the little money found on him, nor the\nextreme probability of his innocence--nothing could save him. The\nsubaltern judge made a merit of his rigor. He condemned the innocent\nvictim to be broken on the wheel, and, by an unhappy fatality the\nsentence was executed to the full extent. The senior Martin is broken\nalive, calling God to witness his innocence to his last breath; his\nfamily is dispersed, his little property is confiscated, and scarcely\nare his broken members exposed on the great road when the assassin who\nhad committed the murder and theft is put in prison for another crime,\nand confesses on the rack, to which he is condemned in his turn, that he\nonly was guilty of the crime for which Martin had suffered torture and\ndeath.\n\nMontbailli, who slept with his wife, was accused with having, in concert\nwith her, killed his mother, who had evidently died of apoplexy. The\ncouncil of Arras condemned Montbailli to expire on the rack, and his\nwife to be burnt. Their innocence was discovered, but not until\nMontbailli had been tortured. Let us cease advertence to these\nmelancholy adventures, which make us groan at the human condition; but\nlet us continue to lament the pretended certainty of judges, when they\npass such sentences.\n\nThere is no certainty, except when it is physically or morally\nimpossible that the thing can be otherwise. What! is a strict\ndemonstration necessary to enable us to assert that the surface of a\nsphere is equal to four times the area of its great circle; and is not\none required to warrant taking away the life of a citizen by a\ndisgraceful punishment?\n\nIf such is the misfortune of humanity that judges must be contented with\nextreme probabilities, they should at least consult the age, the rank,\nthe conduct of the accused--the interest which he could have in\ncommitting the crime, and the interest of his enemies to destroy him.\nEvery judge should say to himself: Will not posterity, will not entire\nEurope condemn my sentence? Shall I sleep tranquilly with my hands\ntainted with innocent blood? Let us pass from this horrible picture to\nother examples of a certainty which leads directly to error.\n\nWhy art thou loaded with chains, fanatical and unhappy Santon? Why hast\nthou added a large iron ring on thy miserable scourge? It is because I\nam certain of being one day placed in the first heaven, by the side of\nour great prophet. Alas, my friend, come with me to the neighborhood of\nMount Athos and thou wilt see three thousand mendicants who are as\ncertain that thou wilt go to the gulf which is under the narrow bridge,\nas that they will all go to the first heaven!\n\nStop, miserable Malabar widow, believe not the fool who persuades you\nthat you shall be reunited to your husband in all the delights of\nanother world, if you burn yourself on his funeral pile! No, I persist\nin burning myself because I am certain of living in felicity with my\nhusband; my brahmin told me so.\n\nLet us attend to less frightful certainties, and which have a little\nmore appearance of truth. What is the age of your friend Christopher?\nTwenty-eight years. I have seen his marriage contract, and his baptismal\nregister; I knew him in his infancy; he is twenty-eight--I am certain of\nit.\n\nScarcely have I heard the answer of this man, so sure of what he said,\nand of twenty others who confirmed the same thing, when I learn that for\nsecret reasons, and by a singular circumstance the baptismal register of\nChristopher has been antedated. Those to whom I had spoken as yet know\nnothing of it, yet they have still the same certainty of that which is\nnot.\n\nIf you had asked the whole earth before the time of Copernicus: has the\nsun risen? has it set to-day? all men would have answered: We are quite\ncertain of it. They were certain and they were in error.\n\nWitchcraft, divinations, and possessions were for a long time the most\ncertain things in the world in the eyes of society. What an innumerable\ncrowd of people who have seen all these fine things and who have been\ncertain of them! At present this certainty is a little shaken.\n\nA young man who is beginning to study geometry comes to me; he is only\nat the definition of triangles. Are you not certain, said I to him, that\nthe three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles? He\nanswered that not only was he not certain of it, but that he had not the\nslightest idea of the proposition. I demonstrated it to him. He then\nbecame very certain of it, and will remain so all his life. This is a\ncertainty very different from the others; they were only probabilities\nand these probabilities, when examined, have turned out errors, but\nmathematical certainty is immutable and eternal.\n\nI exist, I think, I feel grief--is all that as certain as a geometrical\ntruth? Yes, skeptical as I am, I avow it. Why? It is that these truths\nare proved by the same principle that it is impossible for a thing to\nexist and not exist at the same time. I cannot at the same time feel and\nnot feel. A triangle cannot at the same time contain a hundred and\neighty degrees, which are the sum of two right angles, and not contain\nthem. The physical certainty of my existence, of my identity, is of the\nsame value as mathematical certainty, although it is of a different\nkind.\n\nIt is not the same with the certainty founded on appearances, or on the\nunanimous testimony of mankind.\n\nBut how, you will say to me, are you not certain that Pekin exists? Have\nyou not merchandise from Pekin? People of different countries and\ndifferent opinions have vehemently written against one another while\npreaching the truth at Pekin; then are you not assured of the existence\nof this town? I answer that it is extremely probable that there may be a\ncity of Pekin but I would not wager my life that such a town exists, and\nI would at any time wager my life that the three angles of a triangle\nare equal to two right angles.\n\nIn the \"_Dictionnaire Encyclop\u00e9dique_\" a very pleasant thing appears. It\nis there maintained that a man ought to be as certain that Marshal Saxe\nrose from the dead, if all Paris tells him so, as he is sure that\nMarshal Saxe gained the battle of Fontenoy, upon the same testimony.\nPray observe the beauty of this reasoning: as I believe all Paris when\nit tells me a thing morally possible, I ought to believe all Paris when\nit tells me a thing morally and physically impossible. Apparently the\nauthor of this article has a disposition to be risible; as to ourselves\nwho have only undertaken this little dictionary to ask a few questions,\nwe are very far from possessing this very extensive certainty.\n\n\n\n\nCHAIN OF CREATED BEINGS.\n\n\nThe gradation of beings rising from the lowest to the Great Supreme--the\nscale of infinity--is an idea that fills us with admiration, but when\nsteadily regarded this phantom disappears, as apparitions were wont to\nvanish at the crowing of the cock.\n\nThe imagination is pleased with the imperceptible transition from brute\nmatter to organized matter, from plants to zoophytes, from zoophytes to\nanimals, from animals to men, from men to genii, from these genii, clad\nin a light a\u00ebrial body, to immaterial substances of a thousand different\norders, rising from beauty to perfection, up to God Himself. This\nhierarchy is very pleasing to young men who look upon it as upon the\npope and cardinals, followed by the archbishops and bishops, after whom\nare the vicars, curates and priests, the deacons and subdeacons, then\ncome the monks, and the capuchins bring up the rear.\n\nBut there is, perhaps, a somewhat greater distance between God and His\nmost perfect creatures than between the holy father and the dean of the\nsacred college. The dean may become pope, but can the most perfect genii\ncreated by the Supreme Being become God? Is there not infinity between\nthem?\n\nNor does this chain, this pretended gradation, any more exist in\nvegetables and animals; the proof is that some species of plants and\nanimals have been entirely destroyed. We have no murex. The Jews were\nforbidden to eat griffin and ixion, these two species, whatever Bochart\nmay say, have probably disappeared from the earth. Where, then, is the\nchain?\n\nSupposing that we had not lost some species, it is evident that they may\nbe destroyed. Lions and rhinoceroses are becoming very scarce, and if\nthe rest of the nations had imitated the English, there would not now\nhave been a wolf left. It is probable that there have been races of men\nwho are no longer to be found. Why should they not have existed as well\nas the whites, the blacks, the Kaffirs, to whom nature has given an\napron of their own skin, hanging from the belly to the middle of the\nthigh; the Samoyeds, whose women have nipples of a beautiful jet.\n\nIs there not a manifest void between the ape and man? Is it not easy to\nimagine a two-legged animal without feathers having intelligence without\nour shape or the use of speech--one which we could tame, which would\nanswer our signs, and serve us? And again, between this species and man,\ncannot we imagine others?\n\nBeyond man, divine Plato, you place in heaven a string of celestial\nsubstances, in some of which we believe because the faith so teaches us.\nBut what reason had you to believe in them? It does not appear that you\nhad spoken with the genius of Socrates, and though Heres, good man, rose\nagain on purpose to tell you the secrets of the other world, he told you\nnothing of these substances. In the sensible universe the pretended\nchain is no less interrupted.\n\nWhat gradation, I pray you, is there among the planets? The moon is\nforty times smaller than our globe. Travelling from the moon through\nspace, you find Venus, about as large as the earth. From thence you go\nto Mercury, which revolves in an ellipsis very different from the\ncircular orbit of Venus; it is twenty-seven times smaller than the\nearth, the sun is a million times larger, and Mars is five times\nsmaller. The latter goes his round in two years, his neighbor Jupiter in\ntwelve, and Saturn in thirty; yet Saturn, the most distant of all, is\nnot so large as Jupiter. Where is the pretended gradation?\n\nAnd then, how, in so many empty spaces, do you extend a chain\nconnecting the whole? There can certainly be no other than that which\nNewton discovered--that which makes all the globes of the planetary\nworld gravitate one towards another in the immense void.\n\nOh, much admired Plato! I fear that you have told us nothing but fables,\nthat you have spoken to us only as a sophist! Oh, Plato! you have done\nmore mischief than you are aware of. How so? you will ask. I will not\ntell you.\n\n\n\n\nCHAIN OR GENERATION OF EVENTS.\n\n\nThe present, we say, is pregnant with the future; events are linked one\nwith another by an invincible fatality. This is the fate which, in\nHomer, is superior to Jupiter himself. The master of gods and men\nexpressly declares that he cannot prevent his son Sarpedon from dying at\nthe time appointed. Sarpedon was born at the moment when it was\nnecessary that he should be born, and could not be born at any other; he\ncould not die elsewhere than before Troy; he could not be buried\nelsewhere than in Lycia; his body must, in the appointed time, produce\nvegetables, which must change into the substance of some of the Lycians;\nhis heirs must establish a new order of things in his states; that new\norder must influence neighboring kingdoms; thence must result a new\narrangement in war and in peace with the neighbors of Lycia. So that,\nfrom link to link, the destiny of the whole earth depended on the\nelopement of Helen, which had a necessary connection with the marriage\nof Hecuba, which, ascending to higher events, was connected with the\norigin of things.\n\nHad any one of these occurrences been ordered otherwise, the result\nwould have been a different universe. Now, it was not possible for the\nactual universe not to exist; therefore it was not possible for Jupiter,\nJove as he was, to save the life of his son. We are told that this\ndoctrine of necessity and fatality has been invented in our own times by\nLeibnitz, under the name of sufficing reason. It is, however, of great\nantiquity. It is no recent discovery that there is no effect without a\ncause and that often the smallest cause produces the greatest effects.\n\nLord Bolingbroke acknowledges that he was indebted to the petty quarrels\nbetween the duchess of Marlborough and Mrs. Masham for an opportunity of\nconcluding the private treaty between Queen Anne and Louis XIV. This\ntreaty led to the peace of Utrecht; the peace of Utrecht secured the\nthrone of Spain to Philip V.; Philip took Naples and Sicily from the\nhouse of Austria. Thus the Spanish prince, who is now king of Naples,\nevidently owes his kingdom to Mrs. Masham; he would not have had it, nor\neven have been born, if the duchess of Marlborough had been more\ncomplaisant towards the queen of England; his existence at Naples\ndepended on one folly more or less at the court of London.\n\nExamine the situations of every people upon earth; they are in like\nmanner founded on a train of occurrences seemingly without connection,\nbut all connected. In this immense machine all is wheel, pulley, cord,\nor spring. It is the same in physical order. A wind blowing from the\nsouthern seas and the remotest parts of Africa brings with it a portion\nof the African atmosphere, which, falling in showers in the valleys of\nthe Alps, fertilizes our lands; on the other hand our north wind carries\nour vapors among the negroes; we do good to Guinea, and Guinea to us.\nThe chain extends from one end of the universe to the other.\n\nBut the truth of this principle seems to me to be strangely abused; for\nit is thence concluded that there is no atom, however small, the\nmovement of which has not influenced the actual arrangement of the whole\nworld; that the most trivial accident, whether among men or animals, is\nan essential link in the great chain of destiny.\n\nLet us understand one another. Every effect evidently has its cause,\nascending from cause to cause, into the abyss of eternity; but every\ncause has not its effect, going down to the end of ages. I grant that\nall events are produced one by another; if the past was pregnant with\nthe present, the present is pregnant with the future; everything is\nbegotten, but everything does not beget. It is a genealogical tree;\nevery house, we know, ascends to Adam, but many of the family have died\nwithout issue.\n\nThe events of this world form a genealogical tree. It is indisputable\nthat the inhabitants of Spain and Gaul are descended from Gomer, and the\nRussians from his younger brother Magog, for in how many great books is\nthis genealogy to be found! It cannot then be denied that the grand\nTurk, who is also descended from Magog, is obliged to him for the good\nbeating given him in 1769 by the Empress Catherine II. This occurrence\nis evidently linked with other great events; but whether Magog spat to\nthe right or to the left near Mount Caucasus--made two or three circles\nin a well--or whether he lay on his right side or his left, I do not see\nthat it could have much influence on present affairs.\n\nIt must be remembered, because it is proved by Newton, that nature is\nnot a plenum, and that motion is not communicated by collision until it\nhas made the tour of the universe. Throw a body of a certain density\ninto water, you easily calculate that at the end of such a time the\nmovement of this body, and that which it has given to the water, will\ncease; the motion will be lost and rest will be restored. So the motion\nproduced by Magog in spitting into a well cannot have influenced what is\nnow passing in Moldavia and Wallachia. Present events, then, are not the\noffspring of all past events, they have their direct lines, but with a\nthousand small collateral fines they have nothing to do. Once more be it\nobserved that every being has a parent but every one has not an\noffspring.\n\n\n\n\nCHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE GLOBE.\n\n\nWhen we have seen with our own eyes a mountain advancing into a\nplain--that is, an immense rock detached from that mountain, and\ncovering the fields, an entire castle buried in the earth, or a\nswallowed-up river bursting from below, indubitable marks of an immense\nmass of water having once inundated a country now inhabited, and so many\ntraces of other revolutions, we are even more disposed to believe in the\ngreat changes that have altered the face of the world than a Parisian\nlady who knows that the square in which her house stands was formerly a\ncultivated field, but a lady of Naples who has seen the ruins of\nHerculaneum underground is still less enthralled by the prejudice which\nleads us to believe that everything has always been as it now is.\n\nWas there a great burning of the world in the time of Phaethon? Nothing\nis more likely, but this catastrophe was no more caused by the ambition\nof Phaethon or the anger of Jupiter the Thunderer than at Lisbon, in\n1755, the Divine vengeance was drawn down, the subterraneous fires\nkindled, and half the city destroyed by the fires so often lighted there\nby the inquisition--besides, we know that Mequinez, Tetuan and\nconsiderable hordes of Arabs have been treated even worse than Lisbon,\nthough they had no inquisition. The island of St. Domingo, entirely\ndevastated not long ago, had no more displeased the Great Being than\nthe island of Corsica; all is subject to eternal physical laws.\n\nSulphur, bitumen, nitre, and iron, enclosed within the bowels of the\nearth have overturned many a city, opened many a gulf, and we are\nconstantly liable to these accidents attached to the way in which this\nglobe is put together, just as, in many countries during winter, we are\nexposed to the attacks of famishing wolves and tigers. If fire, which\nHeraclitus believed to be the principle of all, has altered the face of\na part of the earth, Thales's first principle, water, has operated as\ngreat changes.\n\nOne-half of America is still inundated by the ancient overflowings of\nthe Maranon, Rio de la Plata, the St. Lawrence, the Mississippi, and all\nthe rivers perpetually swelled by the eternal snows of the highest\nmountains in the world, stretching from one end of that continent to the\nother. These accumulated floods have almost everywhere produced vast\nmarshes. The neighboring lands have become uninhabitable, and the earth,\nwhich the hands of man should have made fruitful, has produced only\npestilence.\n\nThe same thing happened in China and in Egypt: a multitude of ages were\nnecessary to dig canals and dry the lands. Add to these lengthened\ndisasters the irruptions of the sea, the lands it has invaded and\ndeserted, the islands it has detached from the continent and you will\nfind that from east to west, from Japan to Mount Atlas, it has\ndevastated more than eighty thousand square leagues.\n\nThe swallowing up of the island Atlantis from the ocean may, with as\nmuch reason, be considered historical, as fabulous. The shallowness of\nthe Atlantic as far as the Canaries might be taken as a proof of this\ngreat event and the Canaries themselves for fragments of the island\nAtlantis.\n\nPlato tells us in his \"_Tim\u00e6us_,\" that the Egyptian priests, among whom\nhe had travelled, had in their possession ancient registers which\ncertified that island's going under water. Plato says that this\ncatastrophe happened nine thousand years before his time. No one will\nbelieve this chronology on Plato's word only, but neither can any one\nadduce against it any physical proof, nor even a historical testimony\nfrom any profane writer.\n\nPliny, in his third book, says that from time immemorial the people of\nthe southern coasts of Spain believed that the sea had forced a passage\nbetween Calpe and Abila: _\"Indigen\u00e6 columnas Herculis vocant, creduntque\nper fossas exclusa antea admisisse maria, et rerum natur\u00e6 mutasse\nfaciem.\"_\n\nAn attentive traveller may convince himself by his own eyes that the\nCyclades and the Sporades were once part of the continent of Greece, and\nespecially that Sicily was once joined to Apulia. The two volcanos of\nEtna and Vesuvius having the same basis in the sea, the little gulf of\nCharybdis, the only deep part of that sea, the perfect resemblance of\nthe two soils are incontrovertible testimonies. The floods of Deucalion\nand Ogyges are well known, and the fables founded upon this truth are\nstill more the talk of all the West.\n\nThe ancients have mentioned several deluges in Asia. The one spoken of\nby Berosus happened (as he tells us) in Chald\u00e6a, about four thousand\nthree, or four hundred years before the Christian era, and Asia was as\nmuch inundated with fables about this deluge as it was by the\noverflowings of the Tigris and Euphrates, and all the rivers that fall\ninto the Euxine.\n\nIt is true that such overflowings cannot cover the country with more\nthan a few feet of water, but the consequent sterility, the washing away\nof houses, and the destruction of cattle are losses which it requires\nnearly a century to repair. We know how much they have cost Holland,\nmore than the half of which has been lost since the year 1050. She is\nstill obliged to maintain a daily conflict with the ever-threatening\nocean. She has never employed so many soldiers in resisting her enemies\nas she employs laborers in continually defending her against the\nassaults of a sea always ready to swallow her.\n\nThe road from Egypt to Ph\u0153nicia, along the borders of Lake Serbo, was\nonce quite practicable, but it has long ceased to be so; it is now\nnothing but a quicksand, moistened by stagnant water. In short, a great\nportion of the earth would be no other than a vast poisonous marsh\ninhabited by monsters, but for the assiduous labor of the human race.\n\nWe shall not here speak of the universal deluge of Noah. Let it suffice\nto read the Holy Scriptures with submission. Noah's flood was an\nincomprehensible miracle supernaturally worked by the justice and\ngoodness of an ineffable Providence whose will it was to destroy the\nwhole guilty human race and form a new and innocent race. If the new\nrace was more wicked than the former, and became more criminal from age\nto age, from reformation to reformation, this is but another effect of\nthe same Providence, of which it is impossible for us to fathom the\ndepths, the inconceivable mysteries transmitted to the nations of the\nWest for many ages, in the Latin translation of the Septuagint. We shall\nnever enter these awful sanctuaries; our questions will be limited to\nsimple nature.\n\n\n\n\nCHARACTER.\n\n[From the Greek word signifying _Impression_, _Engraving_.--It is what\nnature has engraved in us.]\n\n\nCan we change our character? Yes, if we change our body. A man born\nturbulent, violent, and inflexible, may, through falling in his old age\ninto an apoplexy, become like a silly, weak, timid, puling child. His\nbody is no longer the same, but so long as his nerves, his blood, and\nhis marrow remain in the same state his disposition will not change any\nmore than the instinct of a wolf or a polecat. The English author of\n\"The Dispensary,\" a poem much superior to the Italian \"_Capitoli_\" and\nperhaps even to Boileau's \"_Lutrin_\", has, as it seems to me, well\nobserved.\n\n     How matter, by the varied shape of pores,\n     Or idiots frames, or solemn senators.\n\nThe character is formed of our ideas and our feelings. Now it is quite\nclear that we neither give ourselves feelings nor ideas, therefore our\ncharacter cannot depend on ourselves. If it did so depend, every one\nwould be perfect. We cannot give ourselves tastes, nor talents, why,\nthen, should we give ourselves qualities? When we do not reflect we\nthink we are masters of all: when we reflect we find that we are masters\nof nothing.\n\nIf you would absolutely change a man's character purge him with diluents\ntill he is dead. Charles XII., in his illness on the way to Bender, was\nno longer the same man; he was as tractable as a child. If I have a wry\nnose and cat's eyes I can hide them behind a mask, and can I do more\nwith the character that nature has given me?\n\nA man born violent and passionate presents himself before Francis I.,\nking of France, to complain of a trespass. The countenance of the\nprince, the respectful behavior of the courtiers, the very place he is\nin make a powerful impression upon this man. He mechanically casts down\nhis eyes, his rude voice is softened, he presents his petition with\nhumility, you would think him as mild as (at that moment at least) the\ncourtiers appear to be, among whom he is often disconcerted, but if\nFrancis I. knows anything of physiognomy, he will easily discover in his\neye, though downcast, glistening with a sullen fire, in the extended\nmuscles of his face, in his fast-closed lips, that this man is not so\nmild as he is forced to appear. The same man follows him to Pavia, is\ntaken prisoner along with him and thrown into the same dungeon at\nMadrid. The majesty of Francis I. no longer awes him as before, he\nbecomes familiar with the object of his reverence. One day, pulling on\nthe king's boots, and happening to pull them on ill, the king, soured by\nmisfortune, grows angry, on which our man of courtesy wishes his majesty\nat the devil and throws his boots out the window.\n\nSixtus V. was by nature petulant, obstinate, haughty, impetuous,\nvindictive, arrogant. This character, however, seems to have been\nsoftened by the trials of his novitiate. But see him beginning to\nacquire some influence in his order; he flies into a passion against a\nguardian and knocks him down. Behold him an inquisitor at Venice, he\nexercises his office with insolence. Behold him cardinal; he is\npossessed _della rabbia papale_; this rage triumphs over his natural\npropensities; he buries his person and his character in obscurity and\ncounterfeits humility and infirmity. He is elected pope, and the spring\nwhich policy had held back now acts with all the force of its\nlong-restrained elasticity; he is the proudest and most despotic of\nsovereigns.\n\n     _Naturam expellas furea, tamen usque recurret._\n     Howe'er expelled, nature will still return.\n\nReligion and morality curb the strength of the disposition, but they\ncannot destroy it. The drunkard in a cloister, reduced to a quarter of a\npint of cider each meal will never more get drunk, but he will always be\nfond of wine.\n\nAge weakens the character; it is as an old tree producing only a few\ndegenerate fruits, but always of the same nature, which is covered with\nknots and moss and becomes worm-eaten, but is ever the same, whether oak\nor pear tree. If we could change our character we could give ourselves\none and become the master of nature. Can we give ourselves anything? do\nnot we receive everything? To strive to animate the indolent man with\npersevering activity, to freeze with apathy the boiling blood of the\nimpetuous, to inspire a taste for poetry into him who has neither taste\nnor ear were as futile as to attempt to give sight to one born blind. We\nperfect, we ameliorate, we conceal what nature has placed in us, but we\nplace nothing there ourselves.\n\nAn agriculturist is told: \"You have too many fish in this pond; they\nwill not thrive, here are too many cattle in your meadows; they will\nwant grass and grow lean.\" After this exhortation the pikes come and eat\none-half this man's carps, the wolves one-half of his sheep, and the\nrest fatten. And will you applaud his economy? This countryman is\nyourself; one of your passions devours the rest and you think you have\ngained a triumph. Do we not almost all resemble the old general of\nninety, who, having found some young officers behaving in a rather\ndisorderly manner with some young women, said to them in anger:\n\"Gentlemen, is this the example that I set you?\"\n\n\n\n\nCHARITY.\n\nCHARITABLE AND BENEFICENT INSTITUTIONS, ALMS-HOUSES, HOSPITALS, ETC.\n\n\nCicero frequently speaks of universal charity, _charitas humani\ngeneris_; but it does not appear that the policy or the beneficence of\nthe Romans ever induced them to establish charitable institutions, in\nwhich the indigent and the sick might be relieved at the expense of the\npublic. There was a receptacle for strangers at the port of Ostia,\ncalled Xenodokium, St. Jerome renders this justice to the Romans.\nAlmshouses seem to have been unknown in ancient Rome. A more noble usage\nprevailed--that of supplying the people with corn. There were in Rome\nthree hundred and twenty-seven public granaries. This constant\nliberality precluded any need of alms-houses. They were strangers to\nnecessity.\n\nNeither was there any occasion among the Romans for founding charities.\nNone exposed their own children. Those of slaves were taken care of by\ntheir masters. Childbirth was not deemed disgraceful to the daughters of\ncitizens. The poorest families, maintained by the republic and\nafterwards by the emperors, saw the subsistence of their children\nsecured.\n\nThe expression, \"charitable establishment,\" _maison de charit\u00e9_, implies\na state of indigence among modern nations which the form of our\ngovernments has not been able to preclude.\n\nThe word \"hospital,\" which recalls that of hospitality, reminds us of a\nvirtue in high estimation among the Greeks, now no longer existing; but\nit also expresses a virtue far superior. There is a mighty difference\nbetween lodging, maintaining, and providing in sickness for all\nafflicted applicants whatever, and entertaining in your own house two or\nthree travellers by whom you might claim a right to be entertained in\nreturn. Hospitality, after all, was but an exchange. Hospitals are\nmonuments of beneficence.\n\nIt is true that the Greeks were acquainted with charitable institutions\nunder the name of _Xenodokia_, for strangers, _Nosocomeia_, for the\nsick, and _Ptokia_, for the indigent. In Diogenes Laertius, concerning\nBion, we find this passage: \"He suffered much from the indigence of\nthose who were charged with the care of the sick.\"\n\nHospitality among friends was called _Idioxenia_, and among strangers\n_Proxenia_. Hence, the person who received and entertained strangers in\nhis house, in the name of the whole city, was called _Proxenos_. But\nthis institution appears to have been exceedingly rare. At the present\nday there is scarcely a city in Europe without its hospitals. The Turks\nhave them even for beasts, which seems to be carrying charity rather too\nfar, it would be better to forget the beasts and think more about men.\n\nThis prodigious multitude of charitable establishments clearly proves a\ntruth deserving of all our attention--that man is not so depraved as he\nis stated to be, and that, notwithstanding all his absurd opinions,\nnotwithstanding all the horrors of war which transform him into a\nferocious beast, we have reason to consider him as a creature naturally\nwell disposed and kind, and who, like other animals, becomes vicious\nonly in proportion as he is stung by provocation.\n\nThe misfortune is that he is provoked too often.\n\nModern Rome has almost as many charitable institutions as ancient Rome\nhad triumphal arches and other monuments of conquest. The most\nconsiderable of them all is a bank which lends money at two per cent.\nupon pledge, and sells the property if the borrower does not redeem it\nby an appointed time. This establishment is called the _Archiospedale_,\nor chief hospital. It is said always to contain within its walls nearly\ntwo thousand sick, which would be about the fiftieth part of the\npopulation of Rome for this one house alone, without including the\nchildren brought up, and the pilgrims lodged there. Where are the\ncomputations which do not require abatement?\n\nHas it not been actually published at Rome that the hospital of the\nTrinity had lodged and maintained for three days four hundred and forty\nthousand five hundred male and twenty-five thousand female pilgrims at\nthe jubilee in 1600? Has not Misson himself told us that the hospital of\nthe Annunciation at Naples possesses a rental of two millions in our\nmoney? (About four hundred thousand dollars.)\n\nHowever, to return, perhaps a charitable establishment for pilgrims who\nare generally mere vagabonds, is rather an encouragement to idleness\nthan an act of humanity. It is, however, a decisive evidence of humanity\nthat Rome contains fifty charitable establishments including all\ndescriptions. These beneficent institutions are quite as useful and\nrespectable as the riches of some monasteries and chapels are useless\nand ridiculous.\n\nTo dispense food, clothing, medicine, and aid of every kind, to our\nbrethren, is truly meritorious, but what need can a saint have of gold\nand diamonds? What benefit results to mankind from \"our Lady of Loretto\"\npossessing more gorgeous treasures than the Turkish sultan? Loretto is a\nhouse of vanity, and not of charity. London, reckoning its charity\nschools, has as many beneficent establishments as Rome.\n\nThe most beautiful monument of beneficence ever erected is the H\u00f4tel des\nInvalides, founded by Louis XIV.\n\nOf all hospitals, that in which the greatest number of indigent sick are\ndaily received is the H\u00f4tel Dieu of Paris. It frequently contains four\nor five thousand inmates at a time. It is at once the receptacle of all\nthe dreadful ills to which mankind are subject and the temple of true\nvirtue, which consists in relieving them.\n\nIt is impossible to avoid frequently drawing a contrast between a f\u00eate\nat Versailles or an opera at Paris, in which all the pleasures and all\nthe splendors of life are combined with the most exquisite art, and a\nH\u00f4tel Dieu, where all that is painful, all that is loathsome, and even\ndeath itself are accumulated in one mass of horror. Such is the\ncomposition of great cities! By an admirable policy pleasures and luxury\nare rendered subservient to misery and pain. The theatres of Paris pay\non an average the yearly sum of a hundred thousand crowns to the\nhospital. It often happens in these charitable institutions that the\ninconveniences counterbalance the advantages. One proof of the abuses\nattached to them is that patients dread the very idea of being removed\nto them.\n\nThe H\u00f4tel Dieu, for example, was formerly well situated, in the middle\nof the city, near the bishop's palace. The situation now is very bad,\nfor the city has become overgrown; four or five patients are crowded\ninto every bed, the victim of scurvy communicates it to his neighbor and\nin return receives from him smallpox, and a pestilential atmosphere\nspreads incurable disease and death, not only through the building\ndestined to restore men to healthful life but through a great part of\nthe city which surrounds it.\n\nM. de Chamousset, one of the most valuable and active of citizens, has\ncomputed, from accurate authorities, that in the H\u00f4tel Dieu, a fourth\npart of the patients die, an eighth in the hospital of Charity, a ninth\nin the London hospitals, and a thirtieth in those of Versailles. In the\ngreat and celebrated hospital of Lyons, which has long been one of the\nbest conducted in Europe, the average mortality has been found to be\nonly one-fifteenth. It has been often proposed to divide the H\u00f4tel Dieu\nof Paris into smaller establishments better situated, more airy, and\nsalubrious, but money has been wanting to carry the plan into execution.\n\n     _Curtae nescio quid semper abest rei._\n\nMoney is always to be found when men are to be sent to the frontiers to\nbe destroyed, but when the object is to preserve them it is no longer\nso. Yet the H\u00f4tel Dieu of Paris has a revenue amounting to more than a\nmillion (forty thousand pounds), and every day increasing, and the\nParisians have rivalled each other in their endowments of it.\n\nWe cannot help remarking in this place that Germain Brice, in his\n\"Description of Paris,\" speaking of some legacies bequeathed by the\nfirst president, Bellievre, to the hall of the H\u00f4tel Dieu, named St.\nCharles, says: \"Every one ought to read the beautiful inscription,\nengraved in letters of gold on a grand marble tablet, and composed by\nOliver Patru, one of the choicest spirits of his time, some of whose\npleadings are extant and in very high esteem.\n\n\"Whoever thou art that enterest this sacred place thou wilt almost\neverywhere behold traces of the charity of the great Pomponne. The gold\nand silver tapestry and the exquisite furniture which formerly adorned\nhis apartments are now, by a happy metamorphosis, made to minister to\nthe necessities of the sick. That divine man, who was the ornament and\ndelight of his age, even in his conflict with death, considered how he\nmight relieve the afflicted. The blood of Bellievre was manifested in\nevery action of his life. The glory of his embassies is full well\nknown,\" etc.\n\nThe useful Chamousset did better than Germain Brice, or than Oliver\nPatru, \"one of the choicest spirits of his time.\" He offered to\nundertake at his own expense, backed by a responsible company, the\nfollowing contract:\n\nThe administrators of the H\u00f4tel Dieu estimated the cost of every\npatient, whether killed or cured, at fifty livres. M. Chamousset and the\ncompany offered to undertake the business, on receiving fifty livres on\nrecovery only. The deaths were to be thrown out of the account, of which\nthe expenses were to be borne by himself.\n\nThe proposal was so very advantageous that it was not accepted. It was\nfeared that he would not be able to accomplish it. Every abuse attempted\nto be reformed is the patrimony of those who have more influence than\nthe reformers.\n\nA circumstance no less singular is that the H\u00f4tel Dieu alone has the\nprivilege of selling meat in Lent, for its own advantage and it loses\nmoney thereby. M. Chamousset proposed to enter into a contract by which\nthe establishment would gain; his offer was rejected and the butcher,\nwho was thought to have suggested it to him, was dismissed.\n\n     _Ainsi chez les humains, par un abus fatal,_\n     _Le bien le plus parfait est la source du mal._\n\n     Thus serious ill, if tainted by abuse,\n     The noblest works of man will oft produce.\n\n\n\n\nCHARLES IX.\n\n\nCharles IX., king of France, was, we are told, a good poet. It is quite\ncertain that while he lived his verses were admired. Brant\u00f4me does not,\nindeed, tell us that this king was the best poet in Europe, but he\nassures us that \"he made very genteel quatrains impromptu, without\nthinking (for he had seen several of them), and when it was wet or\ngloomy weather, or very hot, he would send for the poets into his\ncabinet and pass his time there with them.\"\n\nHad he always passed his time thus, and, above all, had he made good\nverses, we should not have had a St. Bartholomew, he would not have\nfired with a carbine through his window upon his own subjects, as if\nthey had been a covey of partridges. Is it not impossible for a good\npoet to be a barbarian? I am persuaded it is.\n\nThese lines, addressed in his name to Ronsard, have been attributed to\nhim:\n\n     _La lyre, qui ravit par de si doux accords,_\n     _Te soumets les esprits dont je n'ai que les corps;_\n     _Le ma\u00eetre elle t'en rend, et te fait introduire_\n     _O\u00f9 le plus fier tyran ne peut avoir d'empire._\n\n     The lyre's delightful softly swelling lay\n     Subdues the mind, I but the body sway;\n     Make thee its master, thy sweet art can bind\n     What haughty tyrants cannot rule--the mind.\n\nThese lines are good. But are they his? Are they not his preceptor's?\nHere are some of his royal imaginings, which are somewhat different:\n\n     _Il faut suivre ton roi qui t'aime par sur tous_\n     _Pour les vers qui de toi coulent braves et doux;_\n     _Et crois, si tu ne viens me trouver \u00e0 Pontoise,_\n     _Qu'entre nous adviendra une tr\u00e8s-grande noise._\n\n     Know, thou must follow close thy king, who oft\n     Hath heard, and loves thee for, thy verse so soft;\n     Unless thou come and meet me at Pontoise,\n     Believe me, I shall make no little noise.\n\nThese are worthy the author of the massacre of St. Bartholomew. C\u00e6sar's\nlines on Terence are written with rather more spirit and taste; they\nbreathe Roman urbanity. In those of Francis I. and Charles IX. we find\nthe barbarism of the Celts. Would to God that Charles IX. had written\nmore verses, even though bad ones! For constant application to the fine\narts softens the manners and dispels ferocity:\n\n     _Emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros._\n\nBesides, the French languages scarcely began to take any form until long\nafter Charles IX. See such of Francis I.'s letters as have been\npreserved: \"_Tout est perdu hors l'honneur_\"--\"All is lost save\nhonor\"--was worthy of a chevalier. But the following is neither in the\nstyle of Cicero nor in that of C\u00e6sar:\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\"_Tout a fleure ynsi que je me volois mettre o lit est arriv\u00e9 Laval qui\nm'a aport\u00e9 la sertenet\u00e9 du l\u00e9vement du siege.\"_\n\n\"All was going so well that, when I was going to bed Laval arrived, and\nbrought me the certainty of the siege being raised.\"\n\nWe have letters from the hand of Louis XIII., which are no better\nwritten. It is not required of a king to write letters like Pliny, or\nverses like Virgil; but no one can be excused from expressing himself\nwith propriety in his own tongue. Every prince that writes like a lady's\nmaid has been ill educated.\n\n\n\n\nCHINA.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWe have frequently observed elsewhere, how rash and injudicious it is to\ncontrovert with any nation, such as the Chinese, its authentic\npretensions. There is no house in Europe, the antiquity of which is so\nwell proved as that of the Empire of China. Let us figure to ourselves a\nlearned Maronite of Mount Athos questioning the nobility of the\nMorozini, the Tiepolo, and other ancient houses of Venice; of the\nprinces of Germany, of the Montmorencys, the Chatillons, or the\nTalleyrands, of France, under the pretence that they are not mentioned\nin St. Thomas, or St. Bonaventure. We must impeach either his sense or\nhis sincerity.\n\nMany of the learned of our northern climes have felt confounded at the\nantiquity claimed by the Chinese. The question, however, is not one of\nlearning. Leaving all the Chinese literati, all the mandarins, all the\nemperors, to acknowledge Fo-hi as one of the first who gave laws to\nChina, about two thousand five hundred years before our vulgar era;\nadmit that there must be people before there are kings. Allow that a\nlong period of time is necessary before a numerous people, having\ndiscovered the necessary arts of life, unite in the choice of a common\ngovernor. But if you do not make these admissions, it is not of the\nslightest consequence. Whether you agree with us or not, we shall always\nbelieve that two and two make four.\n\nIn a western province, formerly called Celtica, the love of singularity\nand paradox has been carried so far as to induce some to assert that the\nChinese were only an Egyptian, or rather perhaps a Ph\u0153nician colony.\nIt was attempted to prove, in the same way as a thousand other things\nhave been proved, that a king of Egypt, called Menes by the Greeks, was\nthe Chinese King Yu; and that Atoes was Ki, by the change of certain\nletters. In addition to which, the following is a specimen of the\nreasoning applied to the subject:\n\nThe Egyptians sometimes lighted torches at night. The Chinese light\nlanterns: the Chinese are, therefore, evidently a colony from Egypt. The\nJesuit Parennin who had, at the time, resided five and twenty years in\nChina, and was master both of its language and its sciences, has\nrejected all these fancies with a happy mixture of elegance and\nsarcasm. All the missionaries, and all the Chinese, on receiving the\nintelligence that a country in the extremity of the west was developing\na new formation of the Chinese Empire, treated it with a contemptuous\nridicule. Father Parennin replied with somewhat more seriousness: \"Your\nEgyptians,\" said he, \"when going to people China, must evidently have\npassed through India.\" Was India at that time peopled or not? If it was,\nwould it permit a foreign army to pass through it? If it was not, would\nnot the Egyptians have stopped in India? Would they have continued their\njourney through barren deserts, and over almost impracticable mountains,\ntill they reached China, in order to form colonies there, when they\nmight so easily have established them on the fertile banks of the Indus\nor the Ganges?\n\nThe compilers of a universal history, printed in England, have also\nshown a disposition to divest the Chinese of their antiquity, because\nthe Jesuits were the first who made the world acquainted with China.\nThis is unquestionably a very satisfactory reason for saying to a whole\nnation--\"You are liars.\"\n\nIt appears to me a very important reflection, which may be made on the\ntestimony given by Confucius, to the antiquity of his nation; and which\nis, that Confucius had no interest in falsehood: he did not pretend to\nbe a prophet; he claimed no inspiration: he taught no new religion; he\nused no delusions; flattered not the emperor under whom he lived: he\ndid not even mention him. In short, he is the only founder of\ninstitutions among mankind who was not followed by a train of women. I\nknew a philosopher who had no other portrait than that of Confucius in\nhis study. At the bottom of it were written the following lines:\n\n     Without assumption he explored the mind,\n     Unveiled the light of reason to mankind;\n     Spoke as a sage, and never as a seer,\n     Yet, strange to say, his country held him dear.\n\nI have read his books with attention; I have made extracts from them; I\nhave found in them nothing but the purest morality, without the\nslightest tinge of charlatanism. He lived six hundred years before our\nvulgar era. His works were commented on by the most learned men of the\nnation. If he had falsified, if he had introduced a false chronology, if\nhe had written of emperors who never existed, would not some one have\nbeen found, in a learned nation, who would have reformed his chronology?\nOne Chinese only has chosen to contradict him, and he met with universal\nexecration.\n\nWere it worth our while, we might here compare the great wall of China\nwith the monuments of other nations, which have never even approached\nit; and remark, that, in comparison with this extensive work, the\npyramids of Egypt are only puerile and useless masses. We might dwell on\nthe thirty-two eclipses calculated in the ancient chronology of China,\ntwenty-eight of which have been verified by the mathematicians of\nEurope. We might show, that the respect entertained by the Chinese for\ntheir ancestors is an evidence that such ancestors have existed; and\nrepeat the observation, so often made, that this reverential respect has\nin so small degree impeded, among this people, the progress of natural\nphilosophy, geometry, and astronomy.\n\nIt is sufficiently known, that they are, at the present day, what we all\nwere three hundred years ago, very ignorant reasoners. The most learned\nChinese is like one of the learned of Europe in the fifteenth century,\nin possession of his Aristotle. But it is possible to be a very bad\nnatural philosopher, and at the same time an excellent moralist. It is,\nin fact, in morality, in political economy, in agriculture, in the\nnecessary arts of life, that the Chinese have made such advances towards\nperfection. All the rest they have been taught by us: in these we might\nwell submit to become their disciples.\n\n_Of the Expulsion of the Missionaries from China._\n\nHumanly speaking, independently of the service which the Jesuits might\nconfer on the Christian religion, are they not to be regarded as an\nill-fated class of men, in having travelled from so remote a distance to\nintroduce trouble and discord into one of the most extended and\nbest-governed kingdoms of the world? And does not their conduct involve\na dreadful abuse of the liberality and indulgence shown by the\nOrientals, more particularly after the torrents of blood shed, through\ntheir means, in the empire of Japan? A scene of horror, to prevent the\nconsequence of which the government believed it absolutely indispensable\nto shut their ports against all foreigners.\n\nThe Jesuits had obtained permission of the emperor of China, Cam-hi, to\nteach the Catholic religion. They made use of it, to instil into the\nsmall portion of the people under their direction, that it was incumbent\non them to serve no other master than him who was the viceregent of God\non earth, and who dwelt in Italy on the banks of a small river called\nthe Tiber; that every other religious opinion, every other worship, was\nan abomination in the sight of God, and whoever did not believe the\nJesuits would be punished by Him to all eternity; that their emperor and\nbenefactor, Cam-hi, who could not even pronounce the name of Christ, as\nthe Chinese language possesses not the letter \"r,\" would suffer eternal\ndamnation; that the Emperor Yontchin would experience, without mercy,\nthe same fate; that all the ancestors, both of Chinese and Tartars,\nwould incur a similar penalty; that their descendants would undergo it\nalso, as well as the rest of the world; and that the reverend fathers,\nthe Jesuits, felt a sincere and paternal commiseration for the damnation\nof so many souls.\n\nThey, at length, succeeded in making converts of three princes of the\nTartar race. In the meantime, the Emperor Cam-hi died, towards the close\nof the year 1722. He bequeathed the empire to his fourth son, who has\nbeen so celebrated through the whole world for the justice and the\nwisdom of his government, for the affection entertained for him by his\nsubjects, and for the expulsion of the Jesuits.\n\nThey began by baptizing the three princes, and many persons of their\nhousehold. These neophytes had the misfortune to displease the emperor\non some points which merely respected military duty. About this very\nperiod the indignation of the whole empire against the missionaries\nbroke out into a flame. All the governors of provinces, all the Colaos,\npresented memorials against them. The accusations against them were\nurged so far that the three princes, who had become disciples of the\nJesuits, were put into irons.\n\nIt is clear that they were not treated with this severity simply for\nhaving been baptized, since the Jesuits themselves acknowledge in their\nletters, that _they_ experienced no violence, and that they were even\nadmitted to an audience of the emperor, who honored them with some\npresents. It is evident, therefore, that the Emperor Yonchin was no\npersecutor; and, if the princes were confined in a prison on the borders\nof Tartary, while those who had converted them were treated so\nliberally, it is a decided proof that they were state prisoners, and not\nmartyrs.\n\nThe emperor, soon after this, yielded to the supplications of all his\npeople. They petitioned that the Jesuits might be sent away, as their\nabolition has been since prayed for in France and other countries. All\nthe tribunals of China urged their being immediately sent to Macao,\nwhich is considered as a place without the limits of the empire, and the\npossession of which has always been left to the Portuguese, with a\nChinese garrison.\n\nYonchin had the humanity to consult the tribunals and governors, whether\nany danger could result from conveying all the Jesuits to the province\nof Canton. While awaiting the reply, he ordered three of them to be\nintroduced to his presence, and addressed them in the following words,\nwhich Father Parennin, with great ingenuousness, records: \"Your\nEuropeans, in the province of Fo-Kien, intended to abolish our laws, and\ndisturbed our people. The tribunals have denounced them before me. It is\nmy positive duty to provide against such disorders: the good of the\nempire requires it.... What would you say were I to send over to your\ncountry a company of bonzes and lamas to preach their law? How would you\nreceive them?... If you deceived my father, hope not also to deceive\nme.... You wish to make the Chinese Christians: your law, I well know,\nrequires this of you. But in case you should succeed, what should we\nbecome? the subjects of your kings. Christians believe none but you: in\na time of confusion they would listen to no voice but yours. I know\nthat, at present, there is nothing to fear; but on the arrival of a\nthousand, or perhaps ten thousand vessels, great disturbances might\nensue.\n\n\"China, on the north, joins the kingdom of Russia, which is by no means\ncontemptible; to the south it has the Europeans, and their kingdoms,\nwhich are still more considerable; and to the west, the princes of\nTartary, with whom we have been at war eight years.... Laurence Lange,\ncompanion of Prince Ismailoff, ambassador from the czar, requested that\nthe Russians might have permission to establish factories in each of the\nprovinces. The permission was confined to Pekin, and within the limits\nof Calcas. In like manner I permit you to remain here and at Canton as\nlong as you avoid giving any cause of complaint. Should you give any, I\nwill not suffer you to remain either here or at Canton.\"\n\nIn the other provinces their houses and churches were levelled to the\nground. At length the clamor against them redoubled. The charges most\nstrenuously insisted upon against them were, that they weakened the\nrespect of children for their parents, by not paying the honors due to\nancestors; that they indecently brought together young men and women in\nretired places, which they called churches; that they made girls kneel\nbefore them, and enclosed them with their legs, and conversed with them,\nwhile in this posture, in undertones. To Chinese delicacy, nothing\nappeared more revolting than this. Their emperor, Yonchin, even\ncondescended to inform the Jesuits of this fact; after which he sent\naway the greater part of the missionaries to Macao, but with all that\npolite attention which perhaps the Chinese alone are capable of\ndisplaying.\n\nSome Jesuits, possessed of mathematical science, were retained at\nPekin; and among others, that same Parennin whom we have mentioned; and\nwho, being a perfect master both of the Chinese and of the Tartar\nlanguage, had been frequently employed as an interpreter. Many of the\nJesuits concealed themselves in the distant provinces; others even in\nCanton itself; and the affair was connived at.\n\nAt length, after the death of the Emperor Yonchin, his son and\nsuccessor, Kien-Lung, completed the satisfaction of the nation by\ncompelling all the missionaries who were in concealment throughout his\nempire to remove to Macao: a solemn edict prevented them from ever\nreturning. If any appear, they are civilly requested to carry their\ntalents somewhere else. There is nothing of severity, nothing of\npersecution. I have been told that, in 1760, a Jesuit having gone from\nRome to Canton, and been informed against by a Dutch factor, the Colao\ngovernor of Canton had him sent away, presenting him at the same time\nwith a piece of silk, some provisions, and money.\n\n_Of the pretended Atheism of China._\n\nThe charge of Atheism, alleged by our theologians of the west, against\nthe Chinese government at the other end of the world, has been\nfrequently examined, and is, it must be admitted, the meanest excess of\nour follies and pedantic inconsistencies. It was sometimes pretended, in\none of our learned faculties, that the Chinese tribunals or parliaments\nwere idolatrous; sometimes that they acknowledged no divinity whatever:\nand these reasoners occasionally pushed their logic so far as to\nmaintain that the Chinese were, at the same time, atheists and\nidolaters.\n\nIn the month of October, 1700, the Sorbonne declared every proposition\nwhich maintained that the emperor and the Colaos believed in God to be\nheretical. Bulky volumes were composed in order to demonstrate,\nconformably to the system of theological demonstration, that the Chinese\nadored nothing but the material heaven.\n\n     _Nil praeter nubes et coeli numen adorant._\n     They worship clouds and firmament alone.\n\nBut if they did adore the material heaven, that was their God. They\nresembled the Persians, who are said to have adored the sun: they\nresembled the ancient Arabians, who adored the stars: they were neither\nworshippers of idols nor atheists. But a learned doctor, when it is an\nobject to denounce from his tripod any proposition as heretical or\nobnoxious, does not distinguish with much clearness.\n\nThose contemptible creatures who, in 1700, created such a disturbance\nabout the material heaven of the Chinese, did not know that, in 1689,\nthe Chinese, having made peace with the Russians at Nicptchou, which\ndivides the two empires, erected, in September of the same year, a\nmarble monument, on which the following memorable words were engraved in\nthe Chinese and Latin languages:\n\n\"Should any ever determine to rekindle the flames of war, we pray the\nsovereign reign of all things, who knows the heart, to punish their\nperfidy,\" etc.\n\nA very small portion of modern history is sufficient to put an end to\nthese ridiculous disputes: but those who believe that the duty of man\nconsists in writing commentaries on St. Thomas, or Scotus, cannot\ncondescend to inform themselves of what is going on among the great\nempires of the world.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nWe travel to China to obtain clay for porcelain, as if we had none\nourselves; stuffs, as if we were destitute of stuffs; and a small herb\nto be infused in water, as if we had no simples in our own countries. In\nreturn for these benefits, we are desirous of converting the Chinese. It\nis a very commendable zeal; but we must avoid controverting their\nantiquity, and also calling them idolaters. Should we think it well of a\ncapuchin, if, after having been hospitably entertained at the ch\u00e2teau of\nthe Montmorencys, he endeavored to persuade them that they were new\nnobility, like the king's secretaries; or accused them of idolatry,\nbecause he found two or three statues of constables, for whom they\ncherished the most profound respect?\n\nThe celebrated Wolf, professor of mathematics in the university of\nHalle, once delivered an excellent discourse in praise of the Chinese\nphilosophy. He praised that ancient species of the human race,\ndiffering, as it does, in respect to the beard, the eyes, the nose, the\nears, and even the reasoning powers themselves; he praised the Chinese,\nI say, for their adoration of a supreme God, and their love of virtue.\nHe did that justice to the emperors of China, to the tribunals, and to\nthe literati. The justice done to the bonzes was of a different kind.\n\nIt is necessary to observe, that this Professor Wolf had attracted\naround him a thousand pupils of all nations. In the same university\nthere was also a professor of theology, who attracted no one. This man,\nmaddened at the thought of freezing to death in his own deserted hall,\nformed the design, which undoubtedly was only right and reasonable, of\ndestroying the mathematical professor. He scrupled not, according to the\npractice of persons like himself, to accuse him of not believing in God.\n\nSome European writers, who had never been in China, had pretended that\nthe government of Pekin was atheistical. Wolf had praised the\nphilosophers of Pekin; therefore Wolf was an atheist. Envy and hatred\nseldom construct the best syllogisms. This argument of Lange, supported\nby a party and by a protector, was considered conclusive by the\nsovereign of the country, who despatched a formal dilemma to the\nmathematician. This dilemma gave him the option of quitting Halle in\ntwenty-four hours, or of being hanged; and as Wolf was a very accurate\nreasoner, he did not fail to quit. His withdrawing deprived the king of\ntwo or three hundred thousand crowns a year, which were brought into\nthe kingdom in consequence of the wealth of this philosopher's\ndisciples.\n\nThis case should convince sovereigns that they should not be over ready\nto listen to calumny, and sacrifice a great man to the madness of a\nfool. But let us return to China.\n\nWhy should we concern ourselves, we who live at the extremity of the\nwest--why should we dispute with abuse and fury, whether there were\nfourteen princes or not before Fo-hi, emperor of China, and whether the\nsaid Fo-hi lived three thousand, or two thousand nine hundred years\nbefore our vulgar era? I should like to see two Irishmen quarrelling at\nDublin, about who was the owner, in the twelfth century, of the estate I\nam now in possession of. Is it not clear, that they should refer to me,\nwho possess the documents and titles relating to it? To my mind, the\ncase is the same with respect to the first emperors of China, and the\ntribunals of that country are the proper resort upon the subject.\n\nDispute as long as you please about the fourteen princes who reigned\nbefore Fo-hi, your very interesting dispute cannot possibly fail to\nprove that China was at that period populous, and that laws were in\nforce there. I now ask you, whether a people's being collected together,\nunder laws and kings, involves not the idea of very considerable\nantiquity? Reflect how long a time is requisite, before by a singular\nconcurrence of circumstances, the iron is discovered in the mine,\nbefore it is applied to purposes of agriculture, before the invention of\nthe shuttle, and all the arts of life.\n\nSome who multiply mankind by a dash of the pen, have produced very\ncurious calculations. The Jesuit Petau, by a very singular computation,\ngives the world, two hundred and twenty-five years after the deluge, one\nhundred times as many inhabitants as can be easily conceived to exist on\nit at present. The Cumberlands and Whistons have formed calculations\nequally ridiculous; had these worthies only consulted the registers of\nour colonies in America, they would have been perfectly astonished, and\nwould have perceived not only how slowly mankind increase in number, but\nthat frequently instead of increasing they actually diminish.\n\nLet us then, who are merely of yesterday, descendants of the Celts, who\nhave only just finished clearing the forests of our savage territories,\nsuffer the Chinese and Indians to enjoy in peace their fine climate and\ntheir antiquity. Let us, especially, cease calling the emperor of China,\nand the souba of the Deccan, idolaters. There is no necessity for being\na zealot in estimating Chinese merit. The constitution of their empire\nis the only one entirely established upon paternal authority; the only\none in which the governor of a province is punished, if, on quitting his\nstation, he does not receive the acclamations of the people; the only\none which has instituted rewards for virtue, while, everywhere else, the\nsole object of the laws is the punishment of crime; the only one which\nhas caused its laws to be adopted by its conquerors, while we are still\nsubject to the customs of the Burgundians, the Franks, and the Goths, by\nwhom we were conquered. Yet, we must confess, that the common people,\nguided by the bonzes, are equally knavish with our own; that everything\nis sold enormously dear to foreigners, as among ourselves; that, with\nrespect to the sciences, the Chinese are just where we were two hundred\nyears ago; that, like us, they labor under a thousand ridiculous\nprejudices; and that they believe in talismans and judicial astrology,\nas we long did ourselves.\n\nWe must admit also, that they were astonished at our thermometer, at our\nmethod of freezing fluids by means of saltpetre, and at all the\nexperiments of Torricelli and Otto von Guericke; as we were also, on\nseeing for the first time those curious processes. We add, that their\nphysicians do not cure mortal diseases any more than our own; and that\nminor diseases, both here and in China, are cured by nature alone. All\nthis, however, does not interfere with the fact, that the Chinese, for\nfour thousand years, when we were unable even to read, knew everything\nessentially useful of which we boast at the present day.\n\nI must again repeat, the religion of their learned is admirable, and\nfree from superstitions, from absurd legends, from dogmas insulting both\nto reason and nature, to which the bonzes give a thousand different\nmeanings, because they really often have none. The most simple worship\nhas appeared to them the best, for a series of forty centuries. They\nare, what we conceive Seth, Enoch, and Noah to have been; they are\ncontented to adore one God in communion with the sages of the world,\nwhile Europe is divided between Thomas and Bonaventure, between Calvin\nand Luther, between Jansenius and Molina.\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY.\n\n_Establishment of Christianity, in its Civil and Political\nState.--Section I._\n\n\nGod forbid that we should dare to mix the sacred with the profane! We\nseek not to fathom the depths of the ways of Providence. We are men, and\nwe address men only.\n\nWhen Antony, and after him Augustus, had given Jud\u00e6a to the Arabian,\nHerod--their creature and their tributary--that prince, a stranger among\nthe Jews, became the most powerful of all kings. He had ports on the\nMediterranean--Ptolemais and Ascalon; he built towns; he erected a\ntemple to Apollo at Rhodes, and one to Augustus in C\u00e6sarea; he rebuilt\nthat of Jerusalem from the foundation, and converted it into a strong\ncitadel. Under his rule, Palestine enjoyed profound peace. In short,\nbarbarous as he was to his family, and tyrannical towards his people,\nwhose substance he consumed in the execution of his projects, he was\nlooked upon as a Messiah. He worshipped only C\u00e6sar, and he was also\nworshipped by the Herodians.\n\nThe sect of the Jews had long been spread in Europe and Asia; but its\ntenets were entirely unknown. No one knew anything of the Jewish books,\nalthough we are told that some of them had already been translated into\nGreek, in Alexandria. The Jews were known only as the Armenians are now\nknown to the Turks and Persians, as brokers and traders. Further, a Turk\nnever takes the trouble to inquire, whether an Armenian is a Eutychian,\na Jacobite, one of St. John's Christians, or an Arian. The theism of\nChina, and the much to be respected books of Confucius, were still less\nknown to the nations of the west, than the Jewish rites.\n\nThe Arabians, who furnished the Romans with the precious commodities of\nIndia, had no more idea of the theology of the Brahmins than our sailors\nwho go to Pondicherry or Madras. The Indian women had from time\nimmemorial enjoyed the privilege of burning themselves on the bodies of\ntheir husbands; yet these astonishing sacrifices, which are still\npractised, were as unknown to the Jews as the customs of America. Their\nbooks, which speak of Gog and Magog, never mention India.\n\nThe ancient religion of Zoroaster was celebrated; but not therefore the\nmore understood in the Roman Empire. It was only known, in general, that\nthe magi admitted a resurrection, a hell, and a paradise; which doctrine\nmust at that time have made its way to the Jews bordering on Chald\u00e6a;\nsince, in Herod's time, Palestine was divided between the Pharisees,\nwho began to believe the dogma of the resurrection, and the Sadducees,\nwho regarded it only with contempt.\n\nAlexandria, the most commercial city in the whole world, was peopled\nwith Egyptians, who worshipped Serapis, and consecrated cats; with\nGreeks, who philosophized; with Romans, who ruled; and with Jews, who\namassed wealth. All these people were eagerly engaged in money-getting,\nimmersed in pleasure, infuriate with fanaticism, making and unmaking\nreligious sects, especially during the external tranquillity which they\nenjoyed when Augustus had shut the temple of Janus.\n\nThe Jews were divided into three principal factions. Of these, the\nSamaritans called themselves the most ancient, because Samaria (then\nSebaste) had subsisted, while Jerusalem, with its temple, was destroyed\nunder the Babylonian kings. But these Samaritans were a mixture of the\npeople of Persia with those of Palestine.\n\nThe second, and most powerful faction, was that of the Hierosolymites.\nThese Jews, properly so called, detested the Samaritans, and were\ndetested by them. Their interests were all opposite. They wished that no\nsacrifices should be offered but in the temple of Jerusalem. Such a\nrestriction would have brought a deal of money into their city; and, for\nthis very reason, the Samaritans would sacrifice nowhere but at home. A\nsmall people, in a small town, may have but one temple; but when a\npeople have extended themselves over a country seventy leagues long, by\ntwenty-three wide, as the Jews had done--when their territory is almost\nas large and populous as Languedoc or Normandy, it would be absurd to\nhave but one church. What would the good people of Montpellier say, if\nthey could attend mass nowhere but at Toulouse?\n\nThe third faction were the Hellenic Jews, consisting chiefly of such as\nwere engaged in trade or handicraft in Egypt and Greece. These had the\nsame interests with the Samaritans. Onias, the son of a high priest,\nwishing to be a high priest like his father, obtained permission from\nPtolemy Philometor, king of Egypt, and in particular from the king's\nwife, Cleopatra, to build a Jewish temple near Bubastis. He assured\nQueen Cleopatra that Isaiah had foretold that the Lord should one day\nhave a temple on that spot; and Cleopatra, to whom he made a handsome\npresent, sent him word that, since Isaiah had said it, it must be. This\ntemple was called the Onion; and if Onias was not a great sacrificer, he\ncommanded a troop of militia. It was built one hundred and sixty years\nbefore the Christian era. The Jews of Jerusalem always held this Onion\nin abhorrence, as they did the translation called the Septuagint. They\neven instituted an expiatory feast for these two pretended sacrileges.\nThe rabbis of the Onion, mingling with the Greeks, became more learned\n(in their way) than the rabbis of Jerusalem and Samaria; and the three\nfactions began to dispute on controversial questions, which necessarily\nmake men subtle, false, and unsocial.\n\nThe Egyptian Jews, in order to equal the austerity of the Essenes, and\nthe Judates of Palestine, established, some time before the birth of\nChristianity, the sect of the Therapeut\u00e6, who, like them, devoted\nthemselves to a sort of monastic life, and to mortifications. These\ndifferent societies were imitations of the old Egyptian, Persian,\nThracian, and Greek mysteries, which had filled the earth, from the\nEuphrates and the Nile to the Tiber. At first, such as were initiated\ninto these fraternities were few in number, and were looked upon as\nprivileged men; but in the time of Augustus, their number was very\nconsiderable; so that nothing but religion was talked of, from Syria to\nMount Atlas and the German Ocean.\n\nAmidst all these sects and worships, the school of Plato had established\nitself, not in Greece alone, but also in Rome, and especially in Egypt.\nPlato had been considered as having drawn his doctrine from the\nEgyptians, who thought that, in turning Plato's ideas to account, his\nword, and the sort of trinity discoverable in some of his works, they\nwere but claiming their own.\n\nThis philosophic spirit, spread at that time over all the known\ncountries of the west, seems to have emitted, in the neighborhood of\nPalestine, at least a few sparks of the spirit of reasoning. It is\ncertain that, in Herod's time, there were disputes on the attributes of\nthe divinity, on the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of\nthe body. The Jews relate, that Queen Cleopatra asked them whether we\nwere to rise again dressed or naked?\n\nThe Jews, then, were reasoners in their way. The exaggerating Josephus\nwas, for a soldier, very learned. Such being the case with a military\nman, there must have been many a learned man in civil life. His\ncontemporary, Philo, would have had reputation, even among the Greeks.\nSt. Paul's master, Gamaliel, was a great controversialist. The authors\nof the \"_Mishna_\" were polymathists.\n\nThe Jewish populace discoursed on religion. As, at the present day, in\nSwitzerland, at Geneva, in Germany, in England, and especially in the\nC\u00e9vennes, we find even the meanest of the inhabitants dealing in\ncontroversy. Nay, more; men from the dregs of the people have founded\nsects: as Fox, in England; M\u00fcnzer, in Germany; and the first reformers\nin France. Indeed, Mahomet himself, setting apart his great courage, was\nnothing more than a camel-driver.\n\nAdd to these preliminaries that, in Herod's time, it was imagined, as is\nelsewhere remarked, that the world was soon to be at an end. In those\ndays, prepared by divine providence, it pleased the eternal Father to\nsend His Son upon earth--an adorable and incomprehensible mystery, which\nwe presume not to approach.\n\nWe only say, that if Jesus preached a pure morality; if He announced the\nkingdom of heaven as the reward of the just; if He had disciples\nattached to His person and His virtues; if those very virtues drew upon\nHim the persecutions of the priests; if, through calumny, He was put to\na shameful death; His doctrine, constantly preached by His disciples,\nwould necessarily have a great effect in the world. Once more let me\nrepeat it--I speak only after the manner of this world, setting the\nmultitude of miracles and prophecies entirely aside. I maintain it, that\nChristianity was more likely to proceed by His death, than if He had not\nbeen persecuted. You are astonished that His disciples made other\ndisciples. I should have been much more astonished, if they had not\nbrought over a great many to their party. Seventy individuals, convinced\nof the innocence of their leader, the purity of His manners, and the\nbarbarity of His judges, must influence many a feeling heart.\n\nSt. Paul, alone, became (for whatever reason) the enemy of his master\nGamaliel, must have had it in his power to bring Jesus a thousand\nadherents, even supposing Jesus to have been only a worthy and oppressed\nman. Paul was learned, eloquent, vehement, indefatigable, skilled in the\nGreek tongue, and seconded by zealots much more interested than himself\nin defending their Master's reputation. St. Luke was an Alexandrian\nGreek, and a man of letters, for he was a physician.\n\nThe first chapter of John displays a Platonic sublimity, which must have\nbeen gratifying to the Platonists of Alexandria. And indeed there was\neven formed in that city a school founded by Luke, or by Mark (either\nthe evangelist or some other), and perpetuated by Athenagoras, Pant\u00e6nus,\nOrigen, and Clement--all learned and eloquent. This school once\nestablished, it was impossible for Christianity not to make rapid\nprogress.\n\nGreece, Syria, and Egypt, were the scenes of those celebrated ancient\nmysteries, which enchanted the minds of the people. The Christians, too,\nhad their mysteries, in which men would eagerly seek to be initiated;\nand if at first only through curiosity, this curiosity soon became\npersuasion. The idea of the approaching end of all things was especially\ncalculated to induce the new disciples to despise the transitory goods\nof this life, which were so soon to perish with them. The example of the\nTherapeut\u00e6 was an incitement to a solitary and mortified life. All these\nthings, then, powerfully concurred in the establishment of the Christian\nreligion.\n\nThe different flocks of this great rising society could not, it is true,\nagree among themselves. Fifty-four societies had fifty-four different\ngospels; all secret, like their mysteries; all unknown to the Gentiles,\nwho never saw our four canonical gospels until the end of two hundred\nand fifty years. These various flocks, though divided, acknowledged the\nsame pastor. Ebionites, opposed to St. Paul; Nazarenes, disciples of\nHymeneos, Alexandres, and Hermogenes; Carpocratians, Basilidians,\nValentinians, Marcionites, Sabellians, Gnostics, Montanists--a hundred\nsects, rising one against another, and casting mutual reproaches, were\nnevertheless all united in Jesus; all called upon Jesus; all made Jesus\nthe great object of their thoughts, and reward of their travails.\n\nThe Roman Empire, in which all these societies were formed, at first\npaid no attention to them. They were known at Rome only by the general\nname of Jews, about whom the government gave itself no concern. The Jews\nhad, by their money, acquired the right of trading. In the reign of\nTiberius four thousand of them were driven out of Rome; in that of Nero\nthe people charged them and the new demi-Christian Jews with the burning\nof Rome.\n\nThey were again expelled in the reign of Claudius, but their money\nalways procured them re-admission; they were quiet and despised. The\nChristians of Rome were not so numerous as those of Greece, Alexandria\nand Syria. The Romans in the earlier ages had neither fathers of the\nchurch nor heresiarchs. The farther they were from the birthplace of\nChristianity, the fewer doctors and writers were to be found among them.\nThe church was Greek; so much so, that every mystery, every rite, every\ntenet, was expressed in the Greek tongue.\n\nAll Christians, whether Greek, Syrian, Roman, or Egyptian, were\nconsidered as half Jewish. This was another reason for concealing their\nbooks from the Gentiles, that they might remain united and\nimpenetrable. Their secret was more inviolably kept than that of the\nmysteries of Isis or of Ceres; they were a republic apart--a state\nwithin the state. They had no temples, no altars, no sacrifice, no\npublic ceremony. They elected their secret superiors by a majority of\nvoices. These superiors, under the title of ancients, priests, bishops,\nor deacons, managed the common purse, took care of the sick and pacified\nquarrels. Among them it was a shame and a crime to plead before the\ntribunals or to enlist in the armed force; and for a hundred years there\nwas not a single Christian in the armies of the empire.\n\nThus, retired in the midst of the world and unknown even when they\nappeared, they escaped the tyranny of the proconsuls and pr\u00e6tors and\nwere free amid the public slavery. It is not known who wrote the famous\nbook entitled \"_\u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af_\" (the Apostolical Constitutions),\nas it is unknown who were the authors of the fifty rejected gospels, of\nthe Acts of St. Peter, of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and of\nso many other writings of the first Christians; but it is likely that\nthe \"Constitutions\" are of the second century. Though falsely attributed\nto the apostles, they are very valuable. They show us what were the\nduties of a bishop chosen by the Christians, how they were to reverence\nhim, and what tribute they were to pay him. The bishop could have but\none wife, who was to take good care of his household: \"_\u039c\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f76\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1_.\"\n\nRich Christians were exhorted to adopt the children of poor ones.\nCollections were made for the widows and orphans; but the money of\nsinners was rejected; and, nominally, an innkeeper was not permitted to\ngive his mite. It is said that they were regarded as cheats; for which\nreason very few tavern-keepers were Christians. This also prevented the\nChristians from frequenting the taverns; thus completing their\nseparation from the society of the Gentiles.\n\nThe dignity of deaconess being attainable by the women, they were the\nmore attached to the Christian fraternity. They were consecrated; the\nbishop anointing them on the forehead, as of old the Jewish kings were\nanointed. By how many indissoluble ties were the Christians bound\ntogether!\n\nThe persecutions, which were never more than transitory, did but serve\nto redouble their zeal and inflame their fervor; so that, under\nDiocletian, one-third of the empire was Christian. Such were a few of\nthe human causes that contributed to the progress of Christianity. If to\nthese we add the divine causes, which are to the former as infinity to\nunity, there is only one thing which can surprise us; that a religion so\ntrue did not at once extend itself over the two hemispheres, not\nexcepting the most savage islet.\n\nGod Himself came down from heaven and died to redeem mankind and\nextirpate sin forever from the face of the earth; and yet he left the\ngreater part of mankind a prey to error, to crime, and to the devil.\nThis, to our weak intellects, appears a fatal contradiction. But it is\nnot for us to question Providence; our duty is to humble ourselves in\nthe dust before it.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nSeveral learned men have testified their surprise at not finding in the\nhistorian, Flavius Josephus, any mention of Jesus Christ; for all men of\ntrue learning are now agreed that the short passage relative to him in\nthat history has been interpolated. The father of Flavius Josephus must,\nhowever, have been witness to all the miracles of Jesus. Josephus was of\nthe sacerdotal race and akin to Herod's wife, Mariamne. He gives us long\ndetails of all that prince's actions, yet says not a word of the life or\ndeath of Jesus; nor does this historian, who disguises none of Herod's\ncruelties, say one word of the general massacre of the infants ordered\nby him on hearing that there was born a king of the Jews. The Greek\ncalendar estimates the number of children murdered on this occasion at\nfourteen thousand. This is, of all actions of all tyrants, the most\nhorrible. There is no example of it in the history of the whole world.\n\nYet the best writer the Jews have ever had, the only one esteemed by the\nGreeks and Romans, makes no mention of an event so singular and so\nfrightful, he says nothing of the appearance of a new star in the east\nafter the birth of our Saviour--a brilliant phenomenon, which could not\nescape the knowledge of a historian so enlightened as Josephus. He is\nalso silent respecting the darkness which, on our Saviour's death,\ncovered the whole earth for three hours at midday--the great number of\ngraves that opened at that moment, and the multitude of the just that\nrose again.\n\nThe learned are constantly evincing their surprise that no Roman\nhistorian speaks of these prodigies, happening in the empire of\nTiberius, under the eyes of a Roman governor and a Roman garrison, who\nmust have sent to the emperor and the senate a detailed account of the\nmost miraculous event that mankind had ever heard of. Rome itself must\nhave been plunged for three hours in impenetrable darkness; such a\nprodigy would have had a place in the annals of Rome, and in those of\nevery nation. But it was not God's will that these divine things should\nbe written down by their profane hands.\n\nThe same persons also find some difficulties in the gospel history. They\nremark that, in Matthew, Jesus Christ tells the scribes and pharisees\nthat all the innocent blood that has been shed upon earth, from that of\nAbel the Just down to that of Zachary, son of Barac, whom they slew\nbetween the temple and the altar, shall be upon their heads.\n\nThere is not (say they) in the Hebrew history any Zachary slain in the\ntemple before the coming of the Messiah, nor in His time, but in the\nhistory of the siege of Jerusalem, by Josephus, there is a Zachary, son\nof Barac, slain by the faction of the Zelotes. This is in the\nnineteenth chapter of the fourth book. Hence they suspect that the\ngospel according to St. Matthew was written after the taking of\nJerusalem by Titus. But every doubt, every objection of this kind,\nvanishes when it is considered how great a difference there must be\nbetween books divinely inspired and the books of men. It was God's\npleasure to envelop alike in awful obscurity His birth, His life, and\nHis death. His ways are in all things different from ours.\n\nThe learned have also been much tormented by the difference between the\ntwo genealogies of Jesus Christ. St. Matthew makes Joseph the son of\nJacob, Jacob of Matthan, Matthan of Eleazar. St. Luke, on the contrary,\nsays that Joseph was the son of Heli, Heli of Matthat, Matthat of Levi,\nLevi of Melchi, etc. They will not reconcile the fifty-six progenitors\nup to Abraham, given to Jesus by Luke, with the forty-two other\nforefathers up to the same Abraham, given him by Matthew; and they are\nquite staggered by Matthew's giving only forty-one generations, while he\nspeaks of forty-two. They start other difficulties about Jesus being the\nson, not of Joseph, but of Mary. They moreover raise some doubts\nrespecting our Saviour's miracles, quoting St. Augustine. St. Hilary,\nand others, who have given to the accounts of these miracles a mystic or\nallegorical sense; as, for example, to the fig tree cursed and blasted\nfor not having borne figs when it was not the fig season; the devils\nsent into the bodies of swine in a country where no swine were kept; the\nwater changed into wine at the end of a feast, when the guests were\nalready too much heated. But all these learned critics are confounded by\nthe faith, which is but the purer for their cavils. The sole design of\nthis article is to follow the historical thread and give a precise idea\nof the facts about which there is no dispute.\n\nFirst, then, Jesus was born under the Mosaic law; He was circumcised\naccording to that law; He fulfilled all its precepts; He kept all its\nfeasts; He did not reveal the mystery of His incarnation; He never told\nthe Jews He was born of a virgin; He received John's blessing in the\nwaters of the Jordan, a ceremony to which various of the Jews submitted;\nbut He never baptized any one; He never spoke of the seven sacraments;\nHe instituted no ecclesiastical hierarchy during His life. He concealed\nfrom His contemporaries that He was the Son of God, begotten from all\neternity, consubstantial with His Father; and that the Holy Ghost\nproceeded from the Father and the Son. He did not say that His person\nwas composed of two natures and two wills. He left these mysteries to be\nannounced to men in the course of time by those who were to be\nenlightened by the Holy Ghost. So long as He lived, He departed in\nnothing from the law of His fathers. In the eyes of men He was no more\nthan a just man, pleasing to God, persecuted by the envious and\ncondemned to death by prejudiced magistrates. He left His holy church,\nestablished by Him, to do all the rest.\n\nLet us consider the state of religion in the Roman Empire at that\nperiod. Mysteries and expiations were in credit almost throughout the\nearth. The emperors, the great, and the philosophers, had, it is true,\nno faith in these mysteries; but the people, who, in religious matters,\ngive the law to the great, imposed on them the necessity of conforming\nin appearance to their worship. To succeed in chaining the multitude you\nmust seem to wear the same fetters. Cicero himself was initiated in the\nEleusinian mysteries. The knowledge of only one God was the principal\ntenet inculcated in these mysteries and magnificent festivals. It is\nundeniable that the prayers and hymns handed down to us as belonging to\nthese mysteries are the most pious and most admirable of the relics of\npaganism. The Christians, who likewise adored only one God, had thereby\ngreater facility in converting some of the Gentiles. Some of the\nphilosophers of Plato's sect became Christians; hence in the three first\ncenturies the fathers of the church were all Platonists.\n\nThe inconsiderate zeal of some of them in no way detracts from the\nfundamental truths. St. Justin, one of the primitive fathers, has been\nreproached with having said, in his commentary on Isaiah, that the\nsaints should enjoy, during a reign of a thousand years on earth, every\nsensual pleasure. He has been charged with criminality in saying, in\nhis \"Apology for Christianity,\" that God, having made the earth, left it\nin the care of the angels, who, having fallen in love with the women,\nbegot children, which are the devils.\n\nLactantius, with other fathers, has been condemned for having supposed\noracles of the sibyls. He asserted that the sibyl Erythrea made four\nGreek lines, which rendered literally are:\n\n     With five loaves and two fishes\n     He shall feed five thousand men in the desert;\n     And, gathering up the fragments that remain,\n     With them he shall fill twelve baskets.\n\nThe primitive Christians have been reproached with inventing some\nacrostic verses on the name Jesus Christ and attributing them to an\nancient sibyl. They have also been reproached with forging letters from\nJesus Christ to the king of Edessa, dated at a time when there was no\nking in Edessa; with having forged letters of Mary, letters of Seneca to\nPaul, false gospels, false miracles, and a thousand other impostures.\n\nWe have, moreover, the history or gospel of the nativity and marriage of\nthe Virgin Mary; wherein we are told that she was brought to the temple\nat three years old and walked up the stairs by herself. It is related\nthat a dove came down from heaven to give notice that it was Joseph who\nwas to espouse Mary. We have the protogospel of James, brother of Jesus\nby Joseph's first wife. It is there said that when Joseph complained of\nMary's having become pregnant in his absence, the priests made each of\nthem drink the water of jealousy, and both were declared innocent.\n\nWe have the gospel of the Infancy, attributed to St. Thomas. According\nto this gospel, Jesus, at five years of age, amused himself, like other\nchildren of the same age, with moulding clay, and making it, among other\nthings, into the form of little birds. He was reproved for this, on\nwhich he gave life to the birds, and they flew away. Another time, a\nlittle boy having beaten him, was struck dead on the spot. We have also\nanother gospel of the Infancy in Arabic, which is much more serious.\n\nWe have a gospel of Nicodemus. This one seems more worthy of attention,\nfor we find in it the names of those who accused Jesus before Pilate.\nThey were the principal men of the synagogue--Ananias, Caiaphas, Sommas,\nDamat, Gamaliel, Judah, Nephthalim. In this history there are some\nthings that are easy to reconcile with the received gospels, and others\nwhich are not elsewhere to be found. We here find that the woman cured\nof a flux was called Veronica. We also find all that Jesus did in hell\nwhen He descended thither. Then we have the two letters supposed to have\nbeen written by Pilate to Tiberius concerning the execution of Jesus;\nbut their bad Latin plainly shows that they are spurious. To such a\nlength was this false zeal carried that various letters were circulated\nattributed to Jesus Christ. The letter is still preserved which he is\nsaid to have written to Abgarus, king of Edessa; but, as already\nremarked, there had at that time ceased to be a king of Edessa.\n\nFifty gospels were fabricated and were afterwards declared apocryphal.\nSt. Luke himself tells us that many persons had composed gospels. It has\nbeen believed that there was one called the Eternal Gospel, concerning\nwhich it is said in the Apocalypse, chap, xiv., \"And I saw another angel\nfly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel.\".... In the\nthirteenth century the Cordeliers, abusing these words, composed an\n\"eternal gospel,\" by which the reign of the Holy Ghost was to be\nsubstituted for that of Jesus Christ. But never in the early ages of the\nchurch did any book appear with this title. Letters of the Virgin were\nlikewise invented, written to Ignatius the martyr, to the people of\nMessina, and others.\n\nAbdias, who immediately succeeded the apostles, wrote their history,\nwith which he mixed up such absurd fables that in time these histories\nbecame wholly discredited, although they had at first a great\nreputation. To Abdias we are indebted for the account of the contest\nbetween St. Peter and Simon the magician. There was at Rome, in reality,\na very skilful mechanic named Simon, who not only made things fly across\nthe stage, as we still see done, but moreover revived in his own person\nthe prodigy attributed to D\u00e6dalus. He made himself wings; he flew; and,\nlike Icarus, he fell. So say Pliny and Suetonius.\n\nAbdias, who was in Asia and wrote in Hebrew, tells us that Peter and\nSimon met at Rome in the reign of Nero. A young man, nearly related to\nthe emperor, died, and the whole court begged that Simon would raise him\nto life. St. Peter presented himself to perform the same operation.\nSimon employed all the powers of his art, and he seemed to have\nsucceeded, for the dead man moved his head. \"This is not enough,\" cries\nPeter; \"the dead man must speak; let Simon leave the bedside and we\nshall see whether the young man is alive.\" Simon went aside and the\ndeceased no longer stirred, but Peter brought him to life with a single\nword.\n\nSimon went and complained to the emperor that a miserable Galilean had\ntaken upon himself to work greater wonders than he. Simon was confronted\nwith Peter and they made a trial of skill. \"Tell me,\" said Simon to\nPeter, \"what I am thinking of?\" \"If,\" returned Peter, \"the emperor will\ngive me a barley loaf, thou shalt find whether or not I know what thou\nhast in thy heart.\" A loaf was given him; Simon immediately caused two\nlarge dogs to appear and they wanted to devour it. Peter threw them the\nloaf, and while they were eating it he said: \"Well, did I not know thy\nthoughts? thou wouldst have had thy dogs devour me.\"\n\nAfter this first sitting it was proposed that Simon and Peter should\nmake a flying-match, and try which could raise himself highest in the\nair. Simon tried first; Peter made the sign of the cross and down came\nSimon and broke his legs. This story was imitated from that which we\nfind in the \"_Sepher toldos Jeschut_,\" where it is said that Jesus\nHimself flew, and that Judas, who would have done the same, fell\nheadlong. Nero, vexed that Peter had broken his favorite, Simon's, legs,\nhad him crucified with his head downwards. Hence the notion of St.\nPeter's residence at Rome, the manner of his execution and his\nsepulchre.\n\nThe same Abdias established the belief that St. Thomas went and preached\nChristianity in India to King Gondafer, and that he went thither as an\narchitect. The number of books of this sort, written in the early ages\nof Christianity, is prodigious.\n\nSt. Jerome, and even St. Augustine, tell us that the letters of Seneca\nand St. Paul are quite authentic. In the first of these letters Seneca\nhopes his brother Paul is well: \"_Bene te valere, frater, cupio_.\" Paul\ndoes not write quite so good Latin as Seneca: \"I received your letters\nyesterday,\" says he, \"with joy.\"--\"_Litteras tuas hilaris\naccepi_\".--\"And I would have answered them immediately had I had the\npresence of the young man whom I would have sent with them.\"--\"_Si\npr\u00e6sentiam juvenis habuissem_.\" Unfortunately these letters, in which\none would look for instruction, are nothing more than compliments.\n\nAll these falsehoods, forged by ill-informed and mistakenly-zealous\nChristians, were in no degree prejudicial to the truth of Christianity;\nthey obstructed not its progress; on the contrary, they show us that the\nChristian society was daily increasing and that each member was desirous\nof hastening its growth.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles do not tell us that the apostles agreed on a\nsymbol. Indeed, if they had put together the symbol (the creed, as we\nnow call it), St. Luke could not in his history have omitted this\nessential basis of the Christian religion. The substance of the creed is\nscattered through the gospels; but the articles were not collected until\nlong after.\n\nIn short, our creed is, indisputably, the belief of the apostles; but it\nwas not written by them. Rufinus, a priest of Aquileia, is the first who\nmentions it; and a homily attributed to St. Augustine is the first\nrecord of the supposed way in which this creed was made; Peter saying,\nwhen they were assembled, \"I believe in God the Father Almighty\"--Andrew,\n\"and in Jesus Christ\"--James, \"who was conceived by the Holy Ghost\"; and\nso of the rest.\n\nThis formula was called in Greek _symbolos_; and in Latin _collatio_.\nOnly it must be observed that the Greek version has it: \"I believe in\nGod the Father, maker of heaven and earth.\" In the Latin, _maker_,\n_former_, is rendered by \"_creatorem_\". But afterwards, in translating\nthe symbol of the First Council of Nice, it was rendered by\n\"_factorem_\".\n\nConstantine assembled at Nice, opposite Constantinople, the first\necumenical council, over which Ozius presided. The great question\ntouching the divinity of Jesus Christ, which so much agitated the\nchurch, was there decided. One party held the opinion of Origen, who\nsays in his sixth chapter against Celsus, \"We offer our prayers to God\nthrough Christ, who holds the middle place between natures created and\nuncreated; who leads us to the grace of His Father and presents our\nprayers to the great God in quality of our high priest.\" These\ndisputants also rest upon many passages of St. Paul, some of which they\nquote. They depend particularly upon these words of Jesus Christ: \"My\nFather is greater than I\"; and they regard Jesus as the first-born of\nthe creation; as a pure emanation of the Supreme Being, but not\nprecisely as God.\n\nThe other side, who were orthodox, produced passages more conformable to\nthe eternal divinity of Jesus; as, for example, the following: \"My\nFather and I are one\"; words which their opponents interpret as\nsignifying: \"My Father and I have the same object, the same intention; I\nhave no other will than that of My Father.\" Alexander, bishop of\nAlexandria, and after him Athanasius, were at the head of the orthodox;\nand Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, with seventeen other bishops, the\npriest Arius, and many more priests, led the party opposed to them. The\nquarrel was at first exceedingly bitter, as St. Alexander treated his\nopponents as so many anti-christs.\n\nAt last, after much disputation, the Holy Ghost decided in the council,\nby the mouths of two hundred and ninety-nine bishops, against eighteen,\nas follows: \"Jesus is the only Son of God; begotten of the Father; light\nof light; very God of very God; of one substance with the Father. We\nbelieve also in the Holy Ghost,\" etc. Such was the decision of the\ncouncil; and we perceive by this fact how the bishops carried it over\nthe simple priests. Two thousand persons of the latter class were of the\nopinion of Arius, according to the account of two patriarchs of\nAlexandria, who have written the annals of Alexandria in Arabic. Arius\nwas exiled by Constantine, as was Athanasius soon after, when Arius was\nrecalled to Constantinople. Upon this event St. Macarius prayed so\nvehemently to God to terminate the life of Arius before he could enter\nthe cathedral, that God heard his prayer--Arius dying on his way to\nchurch in 330. The Emperor Constantine ended his life in 337. He placed\nhis will in the hands of an Arian priest and died in the arms of the\nArian leader, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, not receiving baptism until\non his deathbed, and leaving a triumphant, but divided church. The\npartisans of Athanasius and of Eusebius carried on a cruel war; and what\nis called Arianism was for a long time established in all the provinces\nof the empire.\n\nJulian the philosopher, surnamed the apostate, wished to stifle their\ndivisions, but could not succeed. The second general council was held at\nConstantinople in 1381. It was there laid down that the Council of Nice\nhad not decided quite correctly in regard to the Holy Ghost; and it\nadded to the Nicene creed that \"the Holy Ghost was the giver of life and\nproceeded from the Father, and with the Father and Son is to be\nworshipped and glorified.\" It was not until towards the ninth century\nthat the Latin church decreed that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the\nFather and the Son.\n\nIn the year 431, the third council-general, held at Ephesus, decided\nthat Jesus had \"two natures and one person.\" Nestorius, bishop of\nConstantinople, who maintained that the Virgin Mary should be entitled\nMother of Christ, was called _Judas_ by the council; and the \"two\nnatures\" were again confirmed by the council of Chalcedon.\n\nI pass lightly over the following centuries, which are sufficiently\nknown. Unhappily, all these disputes led to wars, and the church was\nuniformly obliged to combat. God, in order to exercise the patience of\nthe faithful, also allowed the Greek and Latin churches to separate in\nthe ninth century. He likewise permitted in the east no less than\ntwenty-nine horrible schisms with the see of Rome.\n\nIf there be about six hundred millions of men upon earth, as certain\nlearned persons pretend, the holy Roman Catholic church possesses\nscarcely sixteen millions of them--about a twenty-sixth part of the\ninhabitants of the known world.\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTMAS.\n\n\nEvery one knows that this is the feast of the nativity of Jesus. The\nmost ancient feast kept in the church, after those of Easter and\nPentecost, was that of the baptism of Jesus. There were only these three\nfeasts, until St. Chrysostom delivered his homily on Pentecost. We here\nmake no account of the feasts of the martyrs, which were of a very\ninferior order. That of the baptism of Jesus was named the Epiphany, an\nimitation of the Greeks, who gave that name to the feasts which they\nheld to commemorate the appearance or manifestation of the gods upon\nearth--since it was not until after his baptism that Jesus began to\npreach the gospel.\n\nWe know not whether, about the end of the fourth century, this feast was\nsolemnized in the Isle of Cyprus on the 6th of November; but St.\nEpiphanius maintained that Jesus was born on that day. St. Clement of\nAlexandria tells us that the Basilidians held this feast on the 15th of\nthe month _tybi_, while others held it on the 15th of the same month;\nthat is, it was kept by some on the 10th of January, and by others on\nthe 6th; the latter opinion is the one now adopted. As for the nativity,\nas neither the day nor the month nor the year of it was known, it was\nnot celebrated.\n\nAccording to the remarks which we find appended to the works of the same\nfather, they who have been the most curious in their researches\nconcerning the day on which Jesus was born, some said that it was on\nthe 25th of the Egyptian month _pachon_, answering to the 20th of May;\nothers that it was the 24th or 25th of _pharmuthi_, corresponding to the\n19th and 20th of April. The learned M. de Beausobre says that these\nlatter were the days of St. Valentine. Be this as it may, Egypt and the\nEast kept the feast of the birth of Jesus on the 6th of January, the\nsame day as that of His baptism; without it being known (at least with\ncertainty) when, or for what reason, this custom commenced.\n\nThe opinion and practice of the western nations were quite different\nfrom those of the east. The centuriators of Magdeburg repeat a passage\nin Theophilus of C\u00e6sarea, which makes the churches of Gaul say: \"Since\nthe birth of Christ is celebrated on the 25th of December, on whatever\nday of the week it may fall, so also should the resurrection of Jesus be\ncelebrated on the 25th of March, whatever day of the week it may be, the\nLord having risen again on that day.\"\n\nIf this be true, it must be acknowledged that the bishops of Gaul were\nvery prudent and very reasonable. Being persuaded, as all the ancients\nwere, that Jesus had been crucified on the 23d of March, and had risen\nagain on the 25th, they commemorated His death on the 23d and His\nresurrection on the 25th, without paying any regard to the observance of\nthe full moon, which was originally a Jewish ceremony, and without\nconfining themselves to the Sunday. Had the church imitated them, she\nwould have avoided the long and scandalous disputes which nearly\nseparated the East from the West, and were not terminated until the\nFirst Council of Nice.\n\nSome of the learned conjecture that the Romans chose the winter solstice\nfor holding the birth of Jesus, because the sun then begins again to\napproach our hemisphere. In Julius C\u00e6sar's time the civil and political\nsolstice was fixed for the 25th of December. This at Rome was a festival\nin celebration of the returning sun. Pliny tells us that it was called\n_bruma_; and, like Servius, places it on the 8th of the calends of\nJanuary. This association might have some connection with the choice of\nthe day, but it was not the origin of it. A passage in Josephus\n(evidently forged), three or four errors of the ancients, and a very\nmystical explanation of a saying of St. John the Baptist, determined\nthis choice, as Joseph Scaliger is about to inform us.\n\nIt pleased the ancients (says that learned critic) to suppose--first,\nthat Zacharias was sovereign sacrificer when Jesus was born. But nothing\nis more untrue; it is no longer believed by any one, at least among\nthose of any information.\n\nSecondly--the ancients supposed that Zacharias was in the holy of\nholies, offering incense, when the angel appeared to him and announced\nthe birth of a son.\n\nThirdly--as the sovereign sacrificer entered the temple but once a year,\non the day of expiation, which was the 10th of the Jewish month\n_rifri_, partly answering to the month of September, the ancients\nsupposed that it was the 27th; and that _afterwards_, on the 23d or\n24th, Zacharias having returned home after the feast, Elizabeth, his\nwife, conceived John the Baptist; when the feast of the conception of\nthat saint was fixed for those days. As women ordinarily go with child\nfor two hundred and seventy or two hundred and seventy-four days, it\nfollowed that the nativity of John was fixed for the 24th of June. Such\nwas the origin of St. John's day, and of Christmas day, which was\nregulated by it.\n\nFourthly--it was supposed that there were six entire months between the\nconception of John the Baptist and that of Jesus; although the angel\nsimply tells Mary that Elizabeth was then in the sixth month of her\npregnancy; consequently the conception of Jesus was fixed for the 25th\nof March; and from these various suppositions it was concluded that\nJesus must have been born on the 25th of December, precisely nine months\nafter his conception.\n\nThere are many wonderful things in these arrangements. It is not one of\nthe least worthy of admiration, that the four cardinal points of the\nyear--the equinoxes and the solstices, as they were then fixed--were\nmarked by the conceptions and births of John the Baptist and Jesus. But\nit is yet more marvellous and worthy of remark, that the solstice when\nJesus was born is that at which the days begin to increase; while that\non which John the Baptist came into the world was the period at which\nthey begin to shorten. The holy forerunner had intimated this in a very\nmystical manner, when speaking of Jesus, in these words: \"He must grow,\nand I must become less.\"\n\nPrudentius alludes to this in a hymn on the nativity of our Lord. Yet\nSt. Leo says that in his time there were persons in Rome who said the\nfeast was venerable, not so much on account of the birth of Jesus as of\nthe return, and, as they expressed it, the new birth of the sun. St.\nEpiphanius assures us it was fully established that Jesus was born on\nthe 6th of January; but St. Clement of Alexandria, much more ancient and\nmore learned than he, fixes the birth on the 18th of November, of the\ntwenty-eighth year of Augustus. This is deduced, according to the Jesuit\nPetau's remark on St. Epiphanius, from these words of St. Clement: \"The\nwhole time from the birth of Jesus Christ to the death of Commodus was a\nhundred and ninety-four years, one month and thirteen days.\" Now\nCommodus died, according to Petau, on the last of December, in the year\n192 of our era; therefore, according to St. Clement, Jesus was born one\nmonth and thirteen days before the last of December; consequently, on\nthe 18th of November, in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of\nAugustus. Concerning which it must be observed that St. Clement dates\nthe reign of Augustus only from the death of Antony and the capture of\nAlexandria, because it was not until then that Augustus was left the\nsole master of the empire. Thus we are no more assured of the year of\nthis birth than we are of the month or the day. Though St. Luke\ndeclares, \"that He had perfect understanding of all things from the very\nfirst,\" he clearly shows that he did not know the exact age of Jesus\nwhen He says that, when baptized, He \"began to be about thirty years\nold.\" Indeed, this evangelist makes Jesus born in the year of the\nnumbering which, according to him, was made by Cyrenus or Cyrenius,\ngovernor of Syria; while, according to Tertullian, it was made by\nSentius Saturninus. But Saturninus had quitted the province in the last\nyear of Herod, and, as Tacitus informs us, was succeeded by Quintilius\nVarus; and Publius Sulpicius Quirinus or Quirinius, of whom it would\nseem St. Luke means to speak, did not succeed Quintilius Varus until\nabout ten years after Herod's death, when Archelaus, king of Jud\u00e6a, was\nbanished by Augustus, as Josephus tells us in his \"Jewish Antiquities.\"\n\nIt is true that Tertullian, and St. Justin before him, referred the\npagans and the heretics of their time to the public archives containing\nthe registers of this pretended numbering; but Tertullian likewise\nreferred to the public archives for the account of the darkness at\nnoonday at the time of the passion of Jesus, as will be seen in the\narticle on \"Eclipse\"; where we have remarked the want of exactness in\nthese two fathers, and in similar authorities, in our observations on a\nstatue which St. Justin--who assures us that he saw it at Rome--says\nwas dedicated to Simon the magician, but which was in reality dedicated\nto a god of the ancient Sabines.\n\nThese uncertainties, however, will excite no astonishment when it is\nrecollected that Jesus was unknown to His disciples until He had\nreceived baptism from John. It is expressly, \"beginning with the baptism\nof Jesus,\" that Peter will have the successor of Judas testify\nconcerning Jesus; and, according to the same Acts, Peter thereby\nunderstands the whole time that Jesus had lived with them.\n\n\n\n\nCHRONOLOGY.\n\n\nThe world has long disputed about ancient chronology; but has there ever\nbeen any? Every considerable people must necessarily possess and\npreserve authentic, well-attested registers. But how few people were\nacquainted with the art of writing? and, among the small number of men\nwho cultivated this very rare art, are any to be found who took the\ntrouble to mark two dates with exactness?\n\nWe have, indeed, in very recent times the astronomical observations of\nthe Chinese and the Chald\u00e6ans. They only go back about two thousand\nyears, more or less, beyond our era. But when the early annals of a\nnation confine themselves simply to communicating the information that\nthere was an eclipse in the reign of a certain prince, we learn,\ncertainly, that such a prince existed, but not what he performed.\n\nMoreover, the Chinese reckon the year in which an emperor dies as still\nconstituting a part of his reign, until the end of it; even though he\nshould die the first day of the year, his successor dates the year\nfollowing his death with the name of his predecessor. It is not possible\nto show more respect for ancestors; nor is it possible to compute time\nin a manner more injudicious in comparison with modern nations.\n\nWe may add that the Chinese do not commence their sexagenary cycle, into\nwhich they have introduced arrangement, till the reign of the Emperor\nIao, two thousand three hundred and fifty-seven years before our vulgar\nera. Profound obscurity hangs over the whole period of time which\nprecedes that epoch.\n\nMen are generally contented with an approximation--with the \"pretty\nnearly\" in every case. For example, before the invention of watches,\npeople could learn the time of day or night only approximately. In\nbuilding, the stones were pretty nearly hewn to a certain shape, the\ntimber pretty nearly squared, and the limbs of the statue pretty nearly\nchipped to a proper finish; a man was only pretty nearly acquainted with\nhis nearest neighbors; and, notwithstanding the perfection we have\nourselves attained, such is the state of things at present throughout\nthe greater part of the world.\n\nLet us not then be astonished that there is nowhere to be found a\ncorrect ancient chronology.\n\nThat which we have of the Chinese is of considerable value, when\ncompared with the chronological labors of other nations. We have none of\nthe Indians, nor of the Persians, and scarcely any of the ancient\nEgyptians. All our systems formed on the history of these people are as\ncontradictory as our systems of metaphysics.\n\nThe Greek Olympiads do not commence till seven hundred and twenty-eight\nyears before our era of reckoning. Until we arrive at them, we perceive\nonly a few torches to lighten the darkness, such as the era of\nNabonassar, the war between Laced\u00e6mon and Messene; even those epochs\nthemselves are subjects of dispute.\n\nLivy took care not to state in what year Romulus began his pretended\nreign. The Romans, who well knew the uncertainty of that epoch, would\nhave ridiculed him had he undertaken to decide it. It is proved that the\nduration of two hundred and forty years ascribed to the seven first\nkings of Rome is a very false calculation. The first four centuries of\nRome are absolutely destitute of chronology.\n\nIf four centuries of the most memorable empire the world ever saw\ncomprise only an undigested mass of events, mixed up with fables, and\nalmost without a date, what must be the case with small nations, shut up\nin an obscure corner of the earth, that have never made any figure in\nthe world, notwithstanding all their attempts to compensate, by prodigy\nand imposture, for their deficiency in real power and cultivation?\n\n_Of the Vanity of Systems, Particularly in Chronology._\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 Condillac performed a most important service to the human mind\nwhen he displayed the false points of all systems. If we may ever hope\nthat we shall one day find the road to truth, it can only be after we\nhave detected all those which lead to error. It is at least a\nconsolation to be at rest, to be no longer seeking, when we perceive\nthat so many philosophers have sought in vain.\n\nChronology is a collection of bladders of wind. All who thought to pass\nover it as solid ground have been immersed. We have, at the present\ntime, twenty-four systems, not one of which is true.\n\nThe Babylonians said, \"We reckon four hundred and seventy-three thousand\nyears of astronomical observations.\" A Parisian, addressing him, says,\n\"Your account is correct; your years consisted each of a solar day; they\namount to twelve hundred and ninety-seven of ours, from the time of\nAtlas, the great astronomer, king of Africa, till the arrival of\nAlexander at Babylon.\"\n\nBut, whatever our Parisian may say, no people in the world have ever\nconfounded a day with a year; and the people of Babylon still less than\nany other. This Parisian stranger should have contented himself with\nmerely observing to the Chald\u00e6ans: \"You are exaggerators, and our\nancestors were ignorant. Nations are exposed to too many revolutions to\npermit their keeping a series of four thousand seven hundred and\nthirty-six centuries of astronomical calculations. And, with respect to\nAtlas, king of the Moors, no one knows at what time he lived. Pythagoras\nmight pretend to have been a cock, just as reasonably as you may boast\nof such a series of observations.\"\n\nThe great point of ridicule in all fantastic chronologies is the\narrangement of all the great events of a man's life in precise order of\ntime, without ascertaining that the man himself ever existed. Lenglet\nrepeats after others, in his chronological compilation of universal\nhistory, that precisely in the time of Abraham, and six years after the\ndeath of Sarah, who was little known to the Greeks, Jupiter, at the age\nof sixty-two, began to reign in Thessaly; that his reign lasted sixty\nyears; that he married his sister Juno; that he was obliged to cede the\nmaritime coasts to his brother Neptune; and that the Titans made war\nagainst him. But was there ever a Jupiter? It never occurred to him that\nwith this question he should have begun.\n\n\n\n\nCHURCH.\n\n_Summary of the History of the Christian Church._\n\n\nWe shall not extend our views into the depths of theology. God preserve\nus from such presumption. Humble faith alone is enough for us. We never\nassume any other part than that of mere historians.\n\nIn the years that immediately followed Jesus Christ, who was at once God\nand man, there existed among the Hebrews nine religious schools or\nsocieties--Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenians, Judahites, Therapeut\u00e6,\nRechabites, Herodians, the disciples of John, and the disciples of\nJesus, named the \"brethren,\" the \"Galileans,\" the \"believers,\" who did\nnot assume the name of Christians till about the sixteenth year of our\nera, at Antioch; being directed to its adoption by God himself, in ways\nunknown to men. The Pharisees believed in the metempsychosis. The\nSadducees denied the immortality of the soul, and the existence of\nspirits, yet believed in the Pentateuch.\n\nPliny, the naturalist--relying, evidently, on the authority of Flavius\nJosephus--calls the Essenians \"_gens \u00e6terna in qua nemo nascitur_\"--\"a\nperpetual family, in which no one is ever born\"--because the Essenians\nvery rarely married. The description has been since applied to our\nmonks.\n\nIt is difficult to decide whether the Essenians or the Judahites are\nspoken of by Josephus in the following passage: \"They despise the evils\nof the world; their constancy enables them to triumph over torments; in\nan honorable cause, they prefer death to life. They have undergone fire\nand sword, and submitted to having their very bones crushed, rather\nthan utter a syllable against their legislator, or eat forbidden food.\"\n\nIt would seem, from the words of Josephus, that the foregoing portrait\napplies to the Judahites, and not to the Essenians. \"Judas was the\nauthor of a new sect, completely different from the other three;\" that\nis, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenians. \"They are,\" he goes\non, \"Jews by nation; they live in harmony with one another, and consider\npleasure to be a vice.\" The natural meaning of this language would\ninduce us to think that he is speaking of the Judahites.\n\nHowever that may be, these Judahites were known before the disciples of\nChrist began to possess consideration and consequence in the world. Some\nweak people have supposed them to be heretics, who adored Judas\nIscariot.\n\nThe Therapeut\u00e6 were a society different from the Essenians and the\nJudahites. They resembled the Gymnosophists and Brahmins of India. \"They\npossess,\" says Philo, \"a principle of divine love which excites in them\nan enthusiasm like that of the Bacchantes and the Corybantes, and which\nforms them to that state of contemplation to which they aspire. This\nsect originated in Alexandria, which was entirely filled with Jews, and\nprevailed greatly throughout Egypt.\" The Rechabites still continued as a\nsect. They vowed never to drink wine; and it is, possibly, from their\nexample that Mahomet forbade that liquor to his followers.\n\nThe Herodians regarded Herod, the first of that name, as a Messiah, a\nmessenger from God, who had rebuilt the temple. It is clear that the\nJews at Rome celebrated a festival in honor of him, in the reign of\nNero, as appears from the lines of Persius: \"_Herodis venere dies_,\"\netc. (Sat. v. 180.)\n\n     \"King Herod's feast, when each Juda\u00e6an vile,\n      Trims up his lamp with tallow or with oil.\"\n\nThe disciples of John the Baptist had spread themselves a little in\nEgypt, but principally in Syria, Arabia, and towards the Persian gulf.\nThey are recognized, at the present day, under the name of the\nChristians of St. John. There were some also in Asia Minor. It is\nmentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (chap, xix.) that Paul met with\nmany of them at Ephesus. \"Have you received,\" he asked them, \"the holy\nspirit?\" They answered him. \"We have not heard even that there is a holy\nspirit.\" \"What baptism, then,\" says he, \"have you received?\" They\nanswered him, \"The baptism of John.\"\n\nIn the meantime the true Christians, as is well known, were laying the\nfoundation of the only true religion.' He who contributed most to\nstrengthen this rising society, was Paul, who had himself persecuted it\nwith the greatest violence. He was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, and was\neducated under one of the most celebrated professors among the\nPharisees--Gamaliel, a disciple of Hillel. The Jews pretend that he\nquarrelled with Gamaliel, who refused to let him have his daughter in\nmarriage. Some traces of this anecdote are to be found in the sequel to\nthe \"Acts of St. Thekla.\" These acts relate that he had a large\nforehead, a bald head, united eye-brows, an aquiline nose, a short and\nclumsy figure, and crooked legs. Lucian, in his dialogue\n\"_Philopatres_,\" seems to give a very similar portrait of him. It has\nbeen doubted whether he was a Roman citizen, for at that time the title\nwas not given to any Jew; they had been expelled from Rome by Tiberius;\nand Tarsus did not become a Roman colony till nearly a hundred years\nafterwards, under Caracalla; as Cellarius remarks in his \"Geography\"\n(book iii.), and Grotius in his \"Commentary on the Acts,\" to whom alone\nwe need refer.\n\nGod, who came down upon earth to be an example in it of humanity and\npoverty, gave to his church the most feeble infancy, and conducted it in\na state of humiliation similar to that in which he had himself chosen to\nbe born. All the first believers were obscure persons. They labored with\ntheir hands. The apostle St. Paul himself acknowledges that he gained\nhis livelihood by making tents. St. Peter raised from the dead Dorcas, a\nsempstress, who made clothes for the \"brethren.\" The assembly of\nbelievers met at Joppa, at the house of a tanner called Simon, as\nappears from the ninth chapter of the \"Acts of the Apostles.\"\n\nThe believers spread themselves secretly in Greece: and some of them\nwent from Greece to Rome, among the Jews, who were permitted by the\nRomans to have a synagogue. They did not, at first, separate themselves\nfrom the Jews. They practised circumcision; and, as we have elsewhere\nremarked, the first fifteen obscure bishops of Jerusalem were all\ncircumcised, or at least were all of the Jewish nation.\n\nWhen the apostle Paul took with him Timothy, who was the son of a\nheathen father, he circumcised him himself, in the small city of Lystra.\nBut Titus, his other disciple, could not be induced to submit to\ncircumcision. The brethren, or the disciples of Jesus, continued united\nwith the Jews until the time when St. Paul experienced a persecution at\nJerusalem, on account of his having introduced strangers into the\ntemple. He was accused by the Jews of endeavoring to destroy the law of\nMoses by that of Jesus Christ. It was with a view to his clearing\nhimself from this accusation that the apostle St. James proposed to the\napostle Paul that he should shave his head, and go and purify himself in\nthe temple, with four Jews, who had made a vow of being shaved. \"Take\nthem with you,\" says James to him (Acts of the Apostles xxi.), \"purify\nyourself with them, and let the whole world know that what has been\nreported concerning you is false, and that you continue to obey the law\nof Moses.\" Thus, then, Paul, who had been at first the most summary\npersecutor of the holy society established by Jesus--Paul, who\nafterwards endeavored to govern that rising society--Paul the\nChristian, Judaizes, \"that the world may know that he is calumniated\nwhen he is charged with no longer following the law of Moses.\"\n\nSt. Paul was equally charged with impiety and heresy, and the\npersecution against him lasted a long time; but it is perfectly clear,\nfrom the nature of the charges, that he had travelled to Jerusalem in\norder to fulfil the rites of Judaism.\n\nHe addressed to Faustus these words: \"I have never offended against the\nJewish law, nor against the temple.\" (Acts xxv.) The apostles announced\nJesus Christ as a just man wickedly persecuted, a prophet of God, a son\nof God, sent to the Jews for the reformation of manners.\n\n\"Circumcision,\" says the apostle Paul, \"is good, if you observe the law;\nbut if you violate the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. If\nany uncircumcised person keep the law, he will be as if circumcised. The\ntrue Jew is one that is so inwardly.\"\n\nWhen this apostle speaks of Jesus Christ in his epistles, he does not\nreveal the ineffable mystery of his consubstantiality with God. \"We are\ndelivered by him,\" says he, \"from the wrath of God. The gift of God hath\nbeen shed upon us by the grace bestowed on one man, who is Jesus\nChrist.... Death reigned through the sin of one man; the just shall\nreign in life by one man, who is Jesus Christ.\" (Romans v.)\n\nAnd, in the eighth chapter: \"We are heirs of God, and joint-heirs of\nChrist;\" and in the sixteenth chapter: \"To God, who is the only wise, be\nhonor and glory through Jesus Christ... You are Jesus Christ's, and\nJesus Christ is God's.\" (1 Cor. chap. iii.)\n\nAnd, in 1 Cor. xv. 27: \"Everything is made subject to him, undoubtedly,\nexcepting God, who made all things subject to him.\"\n\nSome difficulty has been found in explaining the following part of the\nEpistle of the Philippians: \"Do nothing through vain glory. Let each\nhumbly think others better than himself. Be of the same mind with Jesus\nChrist, _who, being in the likeness of God, assumed not to equal himself\nto God_.\" This passage appears exceedingly well investigated and\nelucidated in a letter, still extant, of the churches of Vienna and\nLyons, written in the year 117, and which is a valuable monument of\nantiquity. In this letter the modesty of some believers is praised.\n\"They did not wish,\" says the letter, \"to assume the lofty title of\nmartyrs, in consequence of certain tribulations; after the example of\nJesus Christ, who, being in the likeness of God, did not assume the\nquality of being equal to God.\" Origen, also, in his commentary on John,\nsays: \"The greatness of Jesus shines out more splendidly in consequence\nof his self-humiliation than if he had assumed equality with God.\" In\nfact, the opposite interpretation would be a solecism. What sense would\nthere be in this exhortation: \"Think others superior to yourselves;\nimitate Jesus, who did not think it an _assumption_ to be equal to God?\"\nIt would be an obvious contradiction; it would be putting an example of\nfull pretension for an example of modesty; it would be an offence\nagainst logic.\n\nThus did the wisdom of the apostles establish the rising church. That\nwisdom did not change its character in consequence of the dispute which\ntook place between the apostles Peter, James, and John, on one side, and\nPaul on the other. This contest occurred at Antioch. The apostle\nPeter--formerly Cephas, or Simon Bar Jona--ate with the converted\nGentiles, and among them did not observe the ceremonies of the law and\nthe distinction of meats. He and Barnabas, and the other disciples, ate\nindifferently of pork, of animals which had been strangled, or which had\ncloven feet, or which did not chew the cud; but many Jewish Christians\nhaving arrived, St. Peter joined with them in abstinence from forbidden\nmeats, and in the ceremonies of the Mosaic law.\n\nThis conduct appeared very prudent; he wished to avoid giving offence to\nthe Jewish Christians, his companions; but St. Paul attacked him on the\nsubject with considerable severity. \"I withstood him,\" says he, \"to his\nface, because he was blamable.\" (Gal. chap. ii.)\n\nThis quarrel appears most extraordinary on the part of St. Paul. Having\nbeen at first a persecutor, he might have been expected to have acted\nwith moderation; especially as he had gone to Jerusalem to sacrifice in\nthe temple, had circumcised his disciple Timothy, and strictly complied\nwith the Jewish rites, for which very compliance he now reproached\nCephas. St. Jerome imagines that this quarrel between Paul and Cephas\nwas a pretended one. He says, in his first homily (vol. iii.) that they\nacted like two advocates, who had worked themselves up to an appearance\nof great zeal and exasperation against each other, to gain credit with\ntheir respective clients. He says that Peter--Cephas--being appointed to\npreach to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles, they assumed the\nappearance of quarrelling--Paul to gain the Gentiles, and Peter to gain\nthe Jews. But St. Augustine is by no means of the same opinion. \"I\ngrieve,\" says he, in his epistle to Jerome, \"that so great a man should\nbe the patron of a lie.\"--(_patronum mendacii_).\n\nThis dispute between St. Jerome and St. Augustine ought not to diminish\nour veneration for them, and still less for St. Paul and St. Peter. As\nto what remains, if Peter was destined for the Jews, who were, after\ntheir conversion, likely to Judaize, and Paul for strangers, it appears\nprobable that Peter never went to Rome. The Acts of the Apostles makes\nno mention of Peter's journey to Italy.\n\nHowever that may be, it was about the sixtieth year of our era that\nChristians began to separate from the Jewish communion; and it was this\nwhich drew upon them so many quarrels and persecutions from the various\nsynagogues of Rome, Greece, Egypt, and Asia. They were accused of\nimpiety and atheism by their Jewish brethren, who excommunicated them in\ntheir synagogues three times every Sabbath-day. But in the midst of\ntheir persecutions God always supported them.\n\nBy degrees many churches were formed, and the separation between Jews\nand Christians was complete before the close of the first century. This\nseparation was unknown to the Roman government. Neither the senate nor\nthe emperors of Rome interested themselves in those quarrels of a small\nflock of mankind, which God had hitherto guided in obscurity, and which\nhe exalted by insensible gradations.\n\nChristianity became established in Greece and at Alexandria. The\nChristians had there to contend with a new set of Jews, who, in\nconsequence of intercourse with the Greeks, had become philosophers.\nThis was the sect of _gnosis_, or gnostics. Among them were some of the\nnew converts to Christianity. All these sects, at that time, enjoyed\ncomplete liberty to dogmatize, discourse, and write, whenever the Jewish\ncourtiers, settled at Rome and Alexandria, did not bring any charge\nagainst them before the magistrates. But, under Domitian, Christianity\nbegan to give some umbrage to the government.\n\nThe zeal of some Christians, which was not according to knowledge, did\nnot prevent the Church from making that progress which God destined from\nthe beginning. The Christians, at first, celebrated their mysteries in\nsequestered houses, and in caves, and during the night. Hence, according\nto Minucius Felix, the title given them of _lucifugaces._ Philo calls\nthem Gess\u00e9ens. The names most frequently applied to them by the\nheathens, during the first four centuries, were \"Galileans\" and\n\"Nazarenes\"; but that of \"Christians\" has prevailed above all others.\nNeither the hierarchy, nor the services of the church, were established\nall at once; the apostolic times were different from those which\nfollowed.\n\nThe mass now celebrated at matins was the supper performed in the\nevening; these usages changed in proportion as the church strengthened.\nA more numerous society required more regulations, and the prudence of\nthe pastors accommodated itself to times and places. St. Jerome and\nEusebius relate that when the churches received a regular form, five\ndifferent orders might be soon perceived to exist in them--superintendents,\n_episcopoi_, whence originate the bishops; elders of the society,\n_presbyteroi_, priests, _diaconoi_, servants or deacons; _pistoi_,\nbelievers, the initiated--that is, the baptized, who participated in the\nsuppers of the agape, or love-feasts; the _catechumens_, who were\nawaiting baptism; and the _energumens_, who awaited their being\nexorcised of demons. In these five orders, no one had garments different\nfrom the others, no one was bound to celibacy; witness Tertullian's\nbook, dedicated to his wife; and witness also the example of the\napostles. No paintings or sculptures were to be found in their\nassemblies during the first two centuries; no altars; and, most\ncertainly, no tapers, incense, and lustral water. The Christians\ncarefully concealed their books from the Gentiles; they intrusted them\nonly to the initiated. Even the catechumens were not permitted to recite\nthe Lord's prayer.\n\n_Of the Power of Expelling Devils, Given to the Church._\n\nThat which most distinguished the Christians, and which has continued\nnearly to our own times, was the power of expelling devils with the sign\nof the cross. Origen, in his treaties against Celsus, declares--at No.\n133--that Antinous, who had been defied by the emperor Adrian, performed\nmiracles in Egypt by the power of charms and magic; but he says that the\ndevils came out of the bodies of the possessed on the mere utterance of\nthe name of Jesus.\n\nTertullian goes farther; and from the recesses of Africa, where he\nresided, he says, in his \"Apology\"--chap. xxiii.--\"If your gods do not\nconfess themselves to be devils in the presence of a true Christian, we\ngive you full liberty to shed that Christian's blood.\" Can any\ndemonstration be possibly clearer?\n\nIn fact, Jesus Christ sent out his apostles to expel demons. The Jews,\nlikewise, in his time, had the power of expelling them; for, when Jesus\nhad delivered some possessed persons, and sent the devils into the\nbodies of a very numerous herd of swine, and had performed many other\nsimilar cures, the Pharisees said: \"He expels devils through the power\nof Beelzebub.\" Jesus replied: \"By whom do your sons expel them?\" It is\nincontestable that the Jews boasted of this power. They had exorcists\nand exorcisms. They invoked the name of God, of Jacob, and of Abraham.\nThey put consecrated herbs into the nostrils of the demoniacs. Josephus\nrelates a part of these ceremonies. This power over devils, which the\nJews have lost, was transferred to the Christians, who seem likewise to\nhave lost it in their turn.\n\nThe power of expelling demons comprehended that of destroying the\noperations of magic; for magic has been always prevalent in every\nnation. All the fathers of the Church bear testimony to magic. St.\nJustin, in his \"Apology\"--book iii.--acknowledges that the souls of the\ndead are frequently evoked, and thence draws an argument in favor of the\nimmortality of the soul. Lactantius, in the seventh book of his \"Divine\nInstitutions,\" says that \"if any one ventured to deny the existence of\nsouls after death, the magician would convince him of it by making them\nappear.\" Iren\u00e6us, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian the bishop,\nall affirm the same. It is true that, at present, all is changed, and\nthat there are now no more magicians than there are demoniacs. But God\nhas the sovereign power of admonishing mankind by prodigies at some\nparticular seasons, and of discontinuing those prodigies at others.\n\n_Of the Martyrs of the Church._\n\nWhen Christians became somewhat numerous, and many arrayed themselves\nagainst the worship established in the Roman Empire, the magistrates\nbegan to exercise severity against them, and the people more\nparticularly persecuted them. The Jews, who possessed particular\nprivileges, and who confined themselves to their synagogues, were not\npersecuted. They were permitted the free exercise of their religion, as\nis the case at Rome at the present day. All the different kinds of\nworship scattered over the empire were tolerated, although the senate\ndid not adopt them. But the Christians, declaring themselves enemies to\nevery other worship than their own, and more especially so to that of\nthe empire, were often exposed to these cruel trials.\n\nOne of the first and most distinguished martyrs was Ignatius, bishop of\nAntioch, who was condemned by the Emperor Trajan himself, at that time\nin Asia, and sent to Rome by his orders, to be exposed to wild beasts,\nat a time when other Christians were not persecuted at Rome. It is not\nknown precisely what charges were alleged against him before that\nemperor, otherwise so renowned for his clemency. St. Ignatius must,\nnecessarily, have had violent enemies. Whatever were the particulars of\nthe case, the history of his martyrdom relates that the name of Jesus\nChrist was found engraved on his heart in letters of gold; and from this\ncircumstance it was that Christians, in some places, assumed the name of\nTheophorus, which Ignatius had given himself.\n\nA letter of his has been preserved in which he entreats the bishops and\nChristians to make no opposition to his martyrdom, whether at the time\nthey might be strong enough to effect his deliverance, or whether any\namong them might have influence enough to obtain his pardon. Another\nremarkable circumstance is that when he was brought to Rome the\nChristians of that capital went to visit him; which would prove clearly\nthat the individual was punished and not the sect.\n\nThe persecutions were not continued. Origen, in his third book against\nCelsus, says: \"The Christians who have suffered death on account of\ntheir religion may easily be numbered, for there were only a few of\nthem, and merely at intervals.\"\n\nGod was so mindful of his Church that, notwithstanding its enemies, he\nso ordered circumstances that it held five councils in the first\ncentury, sixteen in the second, and thirty in the third; that is,\nincluding both secret and tolerated ones. Those assemblies were\nsometimes forbidden, when the weak prudence of the magistrates feared\nthat they might become tumultuous. But few genuine documents of the\nproceedings before the proconsuls and pr\u00e6tors who condemned the\nChristians to death have been delivered down to us. Such would be the\nonly authorities which would enable us to ascertain the charges brought\nagainst them, and the punishments they suffered.\n\nWe have a fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria, in which he gives the\nfollowing extract of a register, or of records, of a proconsul of Egypt,\nunder the Emperor Valerian: \"Dionysius, Faustus Maximus, Marcellus, and\nCh\u00e6remon, having been admitted to the audience, the prefect \u00c6milianus\nthus addressed them: 'You are sufficiently informed through the\nconferences which I have had with you, and all that I have written to\nyou, of the good-will which our princes have entertained towards you. I\nwish thus to repeat it to you once again. They make the continuance of\nyour safety to depend upon yourselves, and place your destiny in your\nown hands. They require of you only one thing, which reason demands of\nevery reasonable person--namely, that you adore the gods who protect\ntheir empire, and abandon that different worship, so contrary to sense\nand nature.'\"\n\nDionysius replied, \"All have not the same gods; and all adore those whom\nthey think to be the true ones.\" The prefect \u00c6milianus replied: \"I see\nclearly that you ungratefully abuse the goodness which the emperors have\nshown you. This being the case, you shall no longer remain in this city;\nand I now order you to be conveyed to Cephro, in the heart of Libya.\nAgreeably to the command I have received from your emperor, that shall\nbe the place of your banishment. As to what remains, think not to hold\nyour assemblies there, nor to offer up your prayers in what you call\ncemeteries. This is positively forbidden. I will permit it to none.\"\n\nNothing bears a stronger impress of truth than this document. We see\nfrom it that there were times when assemblies were prohibited. Thus the\nCalvinists were forbidden to assemble in France. Sometimes ministers or\npreachers, who held assemblies in violation of the laws, have suffered\neven by the altar and the rack; and since 1745 six have been executed on\nthe gallows. Thus, in England and Ireland, Roman Catholics are forbidden\nto hold assemblies; and, on certain occasions, the delinquents have\nsuffered death.\n\nNotwithstanding these prohibitions declared by the Roman laws, God\ninspired many of the emperors with indulgence towards the Christians.\nEven Diocletian, whom the ignorant consider as a persecutor--Diocletian,\nthe first year of whose reign is still regarded as constituting the\ncommencement of the era of martyrdom, was, for more than eighteen years,\nthe declared protector of Christianity, and many Christians held\noffices of high consequence about his person. He even married a\nChristian; and, in Nicomedia, the place of his residence, he permitted a\nsplendid church to be erected opposite his palace.\n\nThe C\u00e6sar Galerius having unfortunately taken up a prejudice against the\nChristians, of whom he thought he had reason to complain, influenced\nDiocletian to destroy the cathedral of Nicomedia. One of the Christians,\nwith more zeal than prudence, tore the edict of the emperor to pieces;\nand hence arose that famous persecution, in the course of which more\nthan two hundred persons were executed in the Roman Empire, without\nreckoning those whom the rage of the common people, always fanatical and\nalways cruel, destroyed without even the form of law.\n\nSo great has been the number of actual martyrs that we should be careful\nhow we shake the truth of the history of those genuine confessors of our\nholy religion by a dangerous mixture of fables and of false martyrs.\n\nThe Benedictine Prior (Dom) Ruinart, for example, a man otherwise as\nwell informed as he was respectable and devout, should have selected his\ngenuine records, his \"_actes sinceres_,\" with more discretion. It is not\nsufficient that a manuscript, whether taken from the abbey of St. Benoit\non the Loire, or from a convent of Celestines at Paris, corresponds with\na manuscript of the Feuillans, to show that the record is authentic;\nthe record should possess a suitable antiquity; should have been\nevidently written by contemporaries; and, moreover, should bear all the\ncharacters of truth.\n\nHe might have dispensed with relating the adventure of young Romanus,\nwhich occurred in 303. This young Romanus had obtained the pardon of\nDiocletian, at Antioch. However, Ruinart states that the judge\nAsclepiades condemned him to be burnt. The Jews who were present at the\nspectacle, derided the young saint and reproached the Christians, that\ntheir God, who had delivered Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of the\nfurnace, left _them_ to be burned; that immediately, although the\nweather had been as calm as possible, a tremendous storm arose and\nextinguished the flames; that the judge then ordered young Romanus's\ntongue to be cut out; that the principal surgeon of the emperor, being\npresent, eagerly acted the part of executioner, and cut off the tongue\nat the root; that instantly the young man, who, before had an impediment\nin his speech, spoke with perfect freedom; that the emperor was\nastonished that any one could speak so well without a tongue; and that\nthe surgeon, to repeat the experiment, directly cut out the tongue of\nsome bystander, who died on the spot.\n\nEusebius, from whom the Benedictine Ruinart drew his narrative, should\nhave so far respected the real miracles performed in the Old and New\nTestament--which no one can ever doubt--as not to have associated with\nthem relations so suspicious, and so calculated to give offence to weak\nminds. This last persecution did not extend through the empire. There\nwas at that time some Christianity in England, which soon eclipsed, to\nreappear afterwards under the Saxon kings. The southern districts of\nGaul and Spain abounded with Christians. The C\u00e6sar Constantius Chlorus\nafforded them great protection in all his provinces. He had a concubine\nwho was a Christian, and who was the mother of Constantine, known under\nthe name of St. Helena; for no marriage was ever proved to have taken\nplace between them; he even divorced her in the year 292, when he\nmarried the daughter of Maximilian Hercules; but she had preserved great\nascendency over his mind, and had inspired him with a great attachment\nto our holy religion.\n\n_Of the Establishment of the Church Under Constantine._\n\nThus did divine Providence prepare the triumph of its church by ways\napparently conformable to human causes and events. Constantius Chlorus\ndied in 306, at York, in England, at a time when the children he had by\nthe daughter of a C\u00e6sar were of tender age, and incapable of making\npretensions to the empire. Constantine boldly got himself elected at\nYork, by five or six thousand soldiers, the greater part of whom were\nFrench and English. There was no probability that this election,\neffected without the consent of Rome, of the senate and the armies,\ncould stand; but God gave him the victory over Maxentius, who had been\nelected at Rome, and delivered him at last from all his colleagues. It\nis not to be dissembled that he at first rendered himself unworthy of\nthe favors of heaven, by murdering all his relations, and at length even\nhis own wife and son.\n\nWe may be permitted to doubt what Zosimus relates on this subject. He\nstates that Constantine, under the tortures of remorse from the\nperpetration of so many crimes, inquired of the pontiffs of the empire,\nwhether it were possible for him to obtain any expiation, and that they\ninformed him that they knew of none. It is perfectly true that none was\nfound for Nero, and that he did not venture to assist at the sacred\nmysteries in Greece. However, the Taurobolia were still observed, and it\nis difficult to believe that an emperor, supremely powerful, could not\nobtain a priest who would willingly indulge him in expiatory sacrifices.\nPerhaps, indeed, it is less easy to believe that Constantine, occupied\nas he was with war, politic enterprises, and ambition, and surrounded by\nflatterers, had time for remorse at all. Zosimus adds that an Egyptian\npriest, who had access to his gate, promised him the expiation of all\nhis crimes in the Christian religion. It has been suspected that this\npriest was Ozius, bishop of Cordova.\n\nHowever this might be, God reserved Constantine for the purpose of\nenlightening his mind, and to make him the protector of the Church. This\nprince built the city of Constantinople, which became the centre of the\nempire and of the Christian religion. The Church then assumed a form of\nsplendor. And we may hope that, being purified by his baptism, and\npenitent at his death, he may have found mercy, although he died an\nArian. It would be not a little severe, were all the partisans of both\nthe bishops of the name of Eusebius to incur damnation.\n\nIn the year 314, before Constantine resided in his new city, those who\nhad persecuted the Christians were punished by them for their cruelties.\nThe Christians threw Maxentius's wife into the Orontes; they cut the\nthroats of all his relations, and they massacred, in Egypt and\nPalestine, those magistrates who had most strenuously declared against\nChristianity. The widow and daughter of Diocletian, having concealed\nthemselves at Thessalonica, were recognized, and their bodies thrown\ninto the sea. It would certainly have been desirable that the Christians\nshould have followed less eagerly the cry of vengeance; but it was the\nwill of God, who punishes according to justice, that, as soon as the\nChristians were able to act without restraint, their hands should be\ndyed in the blood of their persecutors.\n\nConstantine summoned to meet at Nice, opposite Constantinople, the first\necumenical council, of which Ozius was president. Here was decided the\ngrand question that agitated the Church, relating to the divinity of\nJesus Christ. It is well known how the Church, having contended for\nthree hundred years against the rights of the Roman Empire, at length\ncontended against itself, and was always militant and triumphant.\n\nIn the course of time almost the whole of the Greek church and the whole\nAfrican church became slaves under the Arabs, and afterwards under the\nTurks, who erected the Mahometan religion on the ruins of the Christian.\nThe Roman church subsisted; but always reeking with blood, through more\nthan six centuries of discord between the western empire and the\npriesthood. Even these quarrels rendered her very powerful. The bishops\nand abbots in Germany all became princes; and the popes gradually\nacquired absolute dominion in Rome, and throughout a considerable\nterritory. Thus has God proved his church, by humiliations, by\nafflictions, by crimes, and by splendor.\n\nThis Latin church, in the sixteenth century, lost half of Germany,\nDenmark, Sweden, England, Scotland, Ireland, and the greater part of\nSwitzerland and Holland. She gained more territory in America by the\nconquests of the Spaniards than she lost in Europe; but, with more\nterritory, she has fewer subjects.\n\nDivine Providence seemed to call upon Japan, Siam, India, and China to\nplace themselves under obedience to the pope, in order to recompense\nhim for Asia Minor, Syria, Greece, Egypt, Africa, Russia, and the other\nlost states which we mentioned. St. Francis Xavier, who carried the holy\ngospel to the East Indies and Japan, when the Portuguese went thither\nupon mercantile adventure, performed a great number of miracles, all\nattested by the R.R.P.P. Jesuits. Some state that he resuscitated nine\ndead persons. But R.P. Ribadeneira, in his \"Flower of the Saints,\"\nlimits himself to asserting that he resuscitated only four. That is\nsufficient. Providence was desirous that, in less than a hundred years,\nthere should have been thousands of Catholics in the islands of Japan.\nBut the devil sowed his tares among the good grain. The Jesuits,\naccording to what is generally believed, entered into a conspiracy,\nfollowed by a civil war, in which all the Christians were exterminated\nin 1638. The nation then closed its ports against all foreigners except\nthe Dutch, who were considered merchants and not Christians, and were\nfirst compelled to trample on the cross in order to gain leave to sell\ntheir wares in the prison in which they are shut up, when they land at\nNagasaki.\n\nThe Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion has become proscribed in\nChina in our own time, but with circumstances of less cruelty. The\nR.R.P.P. Jesuits had not, indeed, resuscitated the dead at the court of\nPekin; they were contented with teaching astronomy, casting cannon, and\nbeing mandarins. Their unfortunate disputes with the Dominicans and\nothers gave such offence to the great Emperor Yonchin that that prince,\nwho was justice and goodness personified, was blind enough to refuse\npermission any longer to teach our holy religion, in respect to which\nour missionaries so little agreed. He expelled them, but with a kindness\ntruly paternal, supplying them with means of subsistence, and conveyance\nto the confines of his empire.\n\nAll Asia, all Africa, the half of Europe, all that belongs to the\nEnglish and Dutch in America, all the unconquered American tribes, all\nthe southern climes, which constitute a fifth portion of the globe,\nremain the prey of the demon, in order to fulfil those sacred words,\n\"many are called, but few are chosen.\"--Matt. xx., 16.\n\n_Of the Signification of the Word \"Church.\" Picture of the Primitive\nChurch. Its Degeneracy. Examination into those Societies which have\nAttempted to Re-establish the Primitive Church, and Particularly into\nthat of the Primitives called Quakers._\n\nThe term \"church\" among the Greeks signified the assembly of the people.\nWhen the Hebrew books were translated into Greek, \"synagogue\" was\nrendered by \"church\", and the same term was employed to express the\n\"Jewish society,\" the \"political congregation,\" the \"Jewish assembly,\"\nthe \"Jewish people.\" Thus it is said in the Book of Numbers, \"Why hast\nthou conducted the church into the wilderness;\" and in Deuteronomy, \"The\neunuch, the Moabite, and the Ammonite, shall not enter the church; the\nIdum\u00e6ans and the Egyptians shall not enter the church, even to the third\ngeneration.\"\n\nJesus Christ says, in St. Matthew, \"If thy brother have sinned against\nthee [have offended thee] rebuke him, between yourselves. Take with you\none or two witnesses, that, from the mouth of two or three witnesses,\neverything may be made clear; and, if he hear not them, complain to the\nassembly of the people, to the church; and, if he hear not the church,\nlet him be to thee as a heathen or a publican. Verily, I say unto you,\nso shall it come to pass, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be\nbound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed\nin heaven\"--an illusion to the keys of doors which close and unclose the\nlatch.\n\nThe case is here, that of two men, one of whom has offended the other,\nand persists. He could not be made to appear in the assembly, in the\nChristian church, as there was none; the person against whom his\ncompanion complained could not be judged by a bishop and priests who\nwere not in existence; besides which, it is to be observed, that neither\nJewish priests nor Christian priests ever became judges in quarrels\nbetween private persons. It was a matter of police. Bishops did not\nbecome judges till about the time of Valentinian III.\n\nThe commentators have therefore concluded that the sacred writer of\nthis gospel makes our Lord speak in this passage by anticipation--that\nit is an allegory, a prediction of what would take place when the\nChristian church should be formed and established.\n\nSelden makes an important remark on this passage, that, among the Jews,\npublicans or collectors of the royal moneys were not excommunicated. The\npopulace might detest them, but as they were indispensable officers,\nappointed by the prince, the idea had never occurred to any one of\nseparating them from the assembly. The Jews were at that time under the\nadministration of the proconsul of Syria, whose jurisdiction extended to\nthe confines of Galilee, and to the island of Cyprus, where he had\ndeputies. It would have been highly imprudent in any to show publicly\ntheir abomination of the legal officers of the proconsul. Injustice,\neven, would have been added to imprudence, for the Roman\nknights--equestrians--who farmed the public domain and collected C\u00e6sar's\nmoney, were authorized by the laws.\n\nSt. Augustine, in his eighty-first sermon, may perhaps suggest\nreflections for comprehending this passage. He is speaking of those who\nretain their hatred, who are slow to pardon.\n\n_\"Cepisti habere fratrem tuum tanquam publicanum. Ligas ilium in terra;\nsed ut juste alliges vide; nam injusta vincula dirsumpit justitia. Cum\nautem correxeris et concordaveris cum fratre tuo solvisti eum in\nterra.\"_ You began to regard your brother as a publican; that is, to\nbind him on the earth. But be cautious that you bind him justly, for\njustice breaks unjust bonds. But when you have corrected, and afterwards\nagreed with your brother, you have loosed him on earth.\n\nFrom St. Augustine's interpretation, it seems that the person offended\nshut up the offender in prison; and that it is to be understood that, if\nthe offender is put in bonds on earth, he is also in heavenly bonds; but\nthat if the offended person is inexorable, he becomes bound himself. In\nSt. Augustine's explanation there is nothing whatever relating to the\nChurch. The whole matter relates to pardoning or not pardoning an\ninjury. St. Augustine is not speaking here of the sacerdotal power of\nremitting sins in the name of God. That is a right recognized in other\nplaces; a right derived from the sacrament of confession. St. Augustine,\nprofound as he is in types and allegories, does not consider this famous\npassage as alluding to the absolution given or refused by the ministers\nof the Roman Catholic Church, in the sacrament of penance.\n\n_Of the \"Church\" in Christian Societies._\n\nIn the greater part of Christian states we perceive no more than four\nchurches--the Greek, the Roman, the Lutheran, and the reformed or\nCalvinistic. It is thus in Germany. The Primitives or Quakers, the\nAnabaptists, the Socinians, the Memnonists, the Pietists, the\nMoravians, the Jews, and others, do not form a church. The Jewish\nreligion has preserved the designation of synagogue. The Christian sects\nwhich are tolerated have only private assemblies, \"conventicles.\" It is\nthe same in London. We do not find the Catholic Church in Sweden, nor in\nDenmark, nor in the north of Germany, nor in Holland, nor in three\nquarters of Switzerland, nor in the three kingdoms of Great Britain.\n\n_Of the Primitive Church, and of Those Who Have Endeavored to\nRe-establish It._\n\nThe Jews, as well as all the different people of Syria, were divided\ninto many different congregations, as we have already seen. All were\naimed at a mystical perfection. A ray of purer light shone upon the\ndisciples of St. John, who still subsist near Mosul. At last, the Son of\nGod, announced by St. John, appeared on earth, whose disciples were\nalways on a perfect equality. Jesus had expressly enjoined them, \"There\nshall not be any of you either first or last.... I came to serve, not to\nbe served. He who strives to be master over others shall be their\nservant.\"\n\nOne proof of equality is that the Christians at first took no other\ndesignation than that of \"brethren.\" They assembled in expectation of\nthe spirit. They prophesied when they were inspired. St. Paul, in his\nfirst letter to the Corinthians, says to them, \"If, in your assembly,\nany one of you have the gift of a psalm, a doctrine, a revelation, a\nlanguage, an interpretation, let all be done for edification. If any\nspeak languages, as two or three may do in succession, let there be an\ninterpreter.\n\n\"Let two or three prophets speak, and the others judge; and if anything\nbe revealed to another while one is speaking, let the latter be silent;\nfor you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all exhort;\nthe spirit of prophecy is subject to the prophets; for the Lord is a God\nof peace.... Thus, then, my brethren, be all of you desirous of\nprophesying, and hinder not the speaking of languages.\"\n\nI have translated literally, both out of reverence for the text, and to\navoid any disputes about words. St. Paul, in the same epistle, admits\nthat women may prophesy; although, in the fourteenth chapter, he forbids\ntheir speaking in the assemblies. \"Every woman,\" says he, \"praying or\nprophesying without having a veil over her head, dishonoreth her head,\nfor it is the same as if she were shaven.\"\n\nIt is clear, from all these passages and from many others, that the\nfirst Christians were all equal, not merely as brethren in Jesus Christ,\nbut as having equal gifts. The spirit was communicated to them equally.\nThey equally spoke different languages; they had equally the gift of\nprophesying, without distinction of rank, age, or sex.\n\nThe apostles who instructed the neophytes possessed over them,\nunquestionably, that natural pre-eminence which the preceptor has over\nthe pupil; but of jurisdiction, of temporal authority, of what the world\ncalls \"honors,\" of distinction in dress, of emblems of superiority,\nassuredly neither they, nor those who succeeded them, had any. They\npossessed another, and a very different superiority, that of persuasion.\n\nThe brethren put their money into one common stock. Seven persons were\nchosen by themselves out of their own body, to take charge of the\ntables, and to provide for the common wants. They chose, in Jerusalem\nitself, those whom we call Stephen, Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon,\nParmenas, and Nicholas. It is remarkable that, among seven persons\nchosen by a Jewish community, six were Greeks.\n\nAfter the time of the apostles we find no example of any Christian who\npossessed any other power over other Christians than that of\ninstructing, exhorting, expelling demons from the bodies of\n\"energumens,\" and performing miracles. All is spiritual; nothing savors\nof worldly pomp. It was only in the third century that the spirit of\npride, vanity, and interest, began to be manifested among the believers\non every side.\n\nThe agap\u00e6 had now become splendid festivals, and attracted reproach for\nthe luxury and profusion which attended them. Tertullian acknowledges\nit.\n\n\"Yes,\" says he, \"we make splendid and plentiful entertainments, but was\nnot the same done at the mysteries of Athens and of Egypt? Whatever\nlearning we display, it is useful and pious, as the poor benefit by it.\"\n_Quantiscumque sumptibus constet, lucrum est pietatis, si quidem inopes\nrefrigerio isto juvamus._\n\nAbout this very period, certain societies of Christians, who pronounced\nthemselves more perfect than the rest, the Montanists, for example, who\nboasted of so many prophecies and so austere a morality; who regarded\nsecond nuptials as absolute adulteries, and flight from persecution as\napostasy; who had exhibited in public holy convulsions and ecstasies,\nand pretended to speak with God face to face, were convicted, it was\nsaid, of mixing the blood of an infant, a year old, with the bread of\nthe eucharist. They brought upon the true Christians this dreadful\nreproach, which exposed them to persecutions.\n\nTheir method of proceeding, according to St. Augustine, was this: they\npricked the whole body of the infant with pins and, kneading up flour\nwith the blood, made bread of it. If any one died by eating it, they\nhonored him as a martyr.\n\nManners were so corrupted that the holy fathers were incessantly\ncomplaining of it. Hear what St. Cyprian says, in his book concerning\ntombs: \"Every priest,\" says he, \"seeks for wealth and honor with\ninsatiable avidity. Bishops are without religion; women without modesty;\nknavery is general; profane swearing and perjury abound; animosities\ndivide Christians asunder; bishops abandon their pupils to attend the\nexchange, and obtain opulence by merchandise; in short, we please\nourselves alone, and excite the disgust of all the rest of the world.\"\n\nBefore the occurrence of these scandals, the priest Novatian had been\nthe cause of a very dreadful one to the people of Rome. He was the first\nanti-pope. The bishopric of Rome, although secret, and liable to\npersecution, was an object of ambition and avarice, on account of the\nliberal contributions of the Christians, and the authority attached to\nthat high situation.\n\nWe will not here describe again what is contained in so many authentic\ndocuments, and what we every day hear from the mouths of persons\ncorrectly informed--the prodigious number of schisms and wars; the six\nhundred years of fierce hostility between the empire and the priesthood;\nthe wealth of nations, flowing through a thousand channels, sometimes\ninto Rome, sometimes into Avignon, when the popes, for two and seventy\nyears together, fixed their residence in that place; the blood rushing\nin streams throughout Europe, either for the interest of a tiara utterly\nunknown to Jesus Christ, or on account of unintelligible questions which\nHe never mentioned. Our religion is not less sacred or less divine for\nhaving been so defiled by guilt and steeped in carnage.\n\nWhen the frenzy of domination, that dreadful passion of the human heart,\nhad reached its greatest excess; when the monk Hildebrand, elected\nbishop of Rome against the laws, wrested that capital from the emperors,\nand forbade all the bishops of the west from bearing the name of pope,\nin order to appropriate it to himself alone; when the bishops of\nGermany, following his example, made themselves sovereigns, which all\nthose of France and England also attempted; from those dreadful times\ndown even to our own, certain Christian societies have arisen which,\nunder a hundred different names, have endeavored to re-establish the\nprimitive equality in Christendom.\n\nBut what had been practicable in a small society, concealed from the\nworld, was no longer so in extensive kingdoms. The church militant and\ntriumphant could no longer be the church humble and unknown. The bishops\nand the large, rich, and powerful monastic communities, uniting under\nthe standards of the new pontificate of Rome, fought at that time _pro\naris et focis_, for their hearths and altars. Crusades, armies, sieges,\nbattles, rapine, tortures, assassinations by the hand of the\nexecutioner, assassinations by the hands of priests of both the\ncontending parties, poisonings, devastations by fire and sword--all were\nemployed to support and to pull down the new ecclesiastical\nadministration; and the cradle of the primitive church was so hidden as\nto be scarcely discoverable under the blood and bones of the slain.\n\n_Of the Primitives called Quakers._\n\nThe religious and civil wars of Great Britain having desolated England,\nScotland, and Ireland, in the unfortunate reign of Charles I., William\nPenn, son of a vice-admiral, resolved to go and establish what he called\nthe primitive Church on the shores of North America, in a climate which\nappeared to him to be mild and congenial to his own manners. His sect\nwent under the denomination of \"Quakers,\" a ludicrous designation, but\nwhich they merited, by the trembling of the body which they affected\nwhen preaching, and by a nasal pronunciation, such as peculiarly\ndistinguished one species of monks in the Roman Church, the Capuchins.\nBut men may both snuffle and shake, and yet be meek, frugal, modest,\njust, and charitable. No one denies that this society of Primitives\ndisplayed an example of all those virtues.\n\nPenn saw that the English bishops and the Presbyterians had been the\ncause of a dreadful war on account of a surplice, lawn sleeves, and a\nliturgy. He would have neither liturgy, lawn, nor surplice. The apostles\nhad none of them. Jesus Christ had baptized none. The associates of Penn\ndeclined baptism.\n\nThe first believers were equal; these new comers aimed at being so, as\nfar as possible. The first disciples received the spirit, and spoke in\nthe assembly; they had no altars, no temples, no ornaments, no tapers,\nincense, or ceremonies. Penn and his followers flattered themselves\nthat they received the spirit, and they renounced all pomp and ceremony.\nCharity was in high esteem with the disciples of the Saviour; those of\nPenn formed a common purse for assisting the poor. Thus these imitators\nof the Essenians and first Christians, although in error with respect to\ndoctrines and ceremonies, were an astonishing model of order and morals\nto every other society of Christians.\n\nAt length this singular man went, with five hundred of his followers, to\nform an establishment in what was at that time the most savage district\nof America. Queen Christina of Sweden had been desirous of founding a\ncolony there, which, however, had not prospered. The Primitives of Penn\nwere more successful.\n\nIt was on the banks of the Delaware, near the fortieth degree of\nlatitude. This country belonged to the king of England only because\nthere were no others who claimed it, and because the people whom we call\nsavages, and who might have cultivated it, had always remained far\ndistant in the recesses of the forests. If England had possessed this\ncountry merely by right of conquest, Penn and his Primitives would have\nheld such an asylum in horror. They looked upon the pretended right of\nconquest only as a violation of the right of nature, and as absolute\nrobbery.\n\nKing Charles II. made Penn sovereign of all this wild country by a\ncharter granted March 4, 1681. In the following year Penn promulgated\nhis code of laws. The first was complete civil liberty, in consequence\nof which every colonist possessing five acres of land became a member of\nthe legislature. The next was an absolute prohibition against advocates\nand attorneys ever taking fees. The third was the admission of all\nreligions, and even the permission to every inhabitant to worship God in\nhis own house, without ever taking part in public worship.\n\nThis is the law last mentioned, in the terms of its enactment: \"Liberty\nof conscience being a right which all men have received from nature with\ntheir very being, and which all peaceable persons ought to maintain, it\nis positively established that no person shall be compelled to join in\nany public exercise of religion.\n\n\"But every one is expressly allowed full power to engage freely in the\npublic or private exercise of his religion, without incurring thereby\nany trouble or impediment, under any pretext; provided that he\nacknowledge his belief in one only eternal God Almighty, the creator,\npreserver, and governor of the universe, and that he fulfil all the\nduties of civil society which he is bound to perform to his fellow\ncitizens.\"\n\nThis law is even more indulgent, more humane, than that which was given\nto the people of Carolina by Locke, the Plato of England, so superior to\nthe Plato of Greece. Locke permitted no public religions except such as\nshould be approved by seven fathers of families. This is a different\nsort of wisdom from Penn's.\n\nBut that which reflects immortal honor on both legislators, and which\nshould operate as an eternal example to mankind, is, that this liberty\nof conscience has not occasioned the least disturbance. It might, on the\ncontrary, be said that God had showered down the most distinguished\nblessings on the colony of Pennsylvania. It consisted, in 1682, of five\nhundred persons, and in less than a century its population had increased\nto nearly three hundred thousand. One half of the colonists are of the\nprimitive religion; twenty different religions comprise the other half.\nThere are twelve fine chapels in Philadelphia, and in other places every\nhouse is a chapel. This city has deserved its name: \"Brotherly Love.\"\nSeven other cities, and innumerable small towns, flourish under this law\nof concord. Three hundred vessels leave the port in the course of every\nyear.\n\nThis state, which seems to deserve perpetual duration, was very nearly\ndestroyed in the fatal war of 1755, when the French, with their savage\nallies on one side, and the English, with theirs, on the other, began\nwith disputing about some frozen districts of Nova Scotia. The\nPrimitives, faithful to their pacific system of Christianity, declined\nto take up arms. The savages killed some of their colonists on the\nfrontier; the Primitives made no reprisals. They even refused, for a\nlong time, to pay the troops. They addressed the English general in\nthese words: \"Men are like pieces of clay, which are broken to pieces\none against another. Why should we aid in breaking one another to\npieces?\"\n\nAt last, in the general assembly of the legislature of Pennsylvania, the\nother religions prevailed; troops were raised; the Primitives\ncontributed money, but declined being armed. They obtained their object,\nwhich was peace with their neighbors. These pretended savages said to\nthem, \"Send us a descendant of the great Penn, who never deceived us;\nwith him we will treat.\" A grandson of that great man was deputed, and\npeace was concluded. Many of the Primitives had negro slaves to\ncultivate their estates. But they blushed at having, in this instance,\nimitated other Christians. They gave liberty to their slaves in 1769.\n\nAt present all the other colonists imitate them in liberty of\nconscience, and although there are among them Presbyterians and persons\nof the high church party, no one is molested about his creed. It is this\nwhich has rendered the English power in America equal to that of Spain,\nwith all its mines of gold and silver. If any method could be devised to\nenervate the English colonies it would be to establish in them the\nInquisition.\n\nThe example of the Primitives, called \"Quakers,\" has given rise in\nPennsylvania to a new society, in a district which it calls Euphrates.\nThis is the sect of Dunkers or Dumpers, a sect much more secluded from\nthe world than Penn's; a sort of religious hospitallers, all clothed\nuniformly. Married persons are not permitted to reside in the city of\nEuphrates: they reside in the country, which they cultivate. The public\ntreasury supplies all their wants in times of scarcity. This society\nadministers baptism only to adults. It rejects the doctrine of original\nsin as impious, and that of the eternity of punishment as barbarous. The\npurity of their lives permits them not to imagine that God will torment\nHis creatures cruelly or eternally. Gone astray in a corner of the new\nworld, far from the great flock of the Catholic Church, they are, up to\nthe present hour, notwithstanding this unfortunate error, the most just\nand most inimitable of men.\n\n_Quarrel between the Greek and Latin Churches in Asia and Europe._\n\nIt has been a matter of lamentation to all good men for nearly fourteen\ncenturies that the Greek and Latin Churches have always been rivals, and\nthat the robe of Jesus Christ, which was without a seam, has been\ncontinually rent asunder. This opposition is perfectly natural. Rome and\nConstantinople hate each other. When masters cherish a mutual aversion,\ntheir dependents entertain no mutual regard. The two communions have\ndisputed on the superiority of language, the antiquity of sees, on\nlearning, eloquence, and power.\n\nIt is certain that, for a long time, the Greeks possessed all the\nadvantage. They boasted that they had been the masters of the Latins,\nand that they had taught them everything. The Gospels were written in\nGreek. There was not a doctrine, a rite, a mystery, a usage, which was\nnot Greek; from the word \"baptism\" to the word \"eucharist\" all was\nGreek. No fathers of the Church were known except among the Greeks till\nSt. Jerome, and even he was not a Roman, but a Dalmatian. St. Augustine,\nwho flourished soon after St. Jerome, was an African. The seven great\necumenical councils were held in Greek cities: the bishops of Rome were\nnever present at them, because they were acquainted only with their own\nLatin language, which was already exceedingly corrupted.\n\nThe hostility between Rome and Constantinople broke out in 452, at the\nCouncil of Chalcedon, which had been assembled to decide whether Jesus\nChrist had possessed two natures and one person, or two persons with one\nnature. It was there decided that the Church of Constantinople was in\nevery respect equal to that of Rome, as to honors, and the patriarch of\nthe one equal in every respect to the patriarch of the other. The pope,\nSt. Leo, admitted the two natures, but neither he nor his successors\nadmitted the equality. It may be observed that, in this dispute about\nrank and pre-eminence, both parties were in direct opposition to the\ninjunction of Jesus Christ, recorded in the Gospel: \"There shall not be\namong you first or last.\" Saints are saints, but pride will insinuate\nitself everywhere. The same disposition which made a mason's son, who\nhad been raised to a bishopric, foam with rage because he was not\naddressed by the title of \"my lord,\" has set the whole Christian world\nin flames.\n\nThe Romans were always less addicted to disputation, less subtle, than\nthe Greeks, but they were much more politic. The bishops of the east,\nwhile they argued, yet remained subjects: the bishop of Rome, without\narguments, contrived eventually to establish his power on the ruins of\nthe western empire. And what Virgil said of the Scipios and C\u00e6sars might\nbe said of the popes:\n\n_\"Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam\"_--\u00c6neid, i. 286.\n\nThis mutual hatred led, at length, to actual division, in the time of\nPhotius, papa or overseer of the Byzantine Church, and Nicholas I., papa\nor overseer of the Roman Church. As, unfortunately, an ecclesiastical\nquarrel scarcely ever occurs without something ludicrous being attached\nto it, it happened, in this instance, that the contest began between two\npatriarchs, both of whom were eunuchs: Ignatius and Photius, who\ndisputed the chair of Constantinople, were both emasculated. This\nmutilation depriving them of the power of becoming natural fathers, they\ncould become fathers only of the Church. It is observed that persons of\nthis unfortunate description are meddling, malignant, and plotting.\nIgnatius and Photius kept the whole Greek court in a state of\nturbulence.\n\nThe Latin, Nicholas I., having taken the part of Ignatius, Photius\ndeclared him a heretic, on account of his admitting the doctrine that\nthe breath of God, or the Holy Spirit, proceeded from the Father and the\nSon, contrary to the unanimous decision of the whole Church, which had\ndecided that it proceeded from the Father only.\n\nBesides this heretical doctrine respecting the procession, Nicholas ate,\nand permitted to be eaten, eggs and cheese in Lent. In fine, as the very\nclimax of unbelief, the Roman papa had his beard shaved, which, to the\nGreek papas, was nothing less than downright apostasy; as Moses, the\npatriarchs, and Jesus Christ were always, by the Greek and Latin\npainters, pictured with beards.\n\nWhen, in 879, the patriarch Photius was restored to his seat by the\neighth ecumenical council--consisting of four hundred bishops, three\nhundred of whom had condemned him in the preceding council--he was\nacknowledged by Pope John as his brother. Two legates, despatched by him\nto this council, joined the Greek Church, and declared that whoever\nasserted the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son was a\nJudas. But the practice of shaving the chin and eating eggs in Lent\nbeing persisted in, the two churches always remained divided.\n\nThe schism was completed in 1053 and 1054, when Michael Cerularius,\npatriarch of Constantinople, publicly condemned the bishop of Rome, Leo\nIX., and all the Latins, adding to all the reproaches against them by\nPhotius that, contrary to the practice of the apostles, they dared to\nmake use of unleavened bread in the eucharist; that they wickedly ate\nblood puddings, and twisted the necks, instead of cutting off the heads,\nof pigeons intended for the table. All the Latin churches in the Greek\nempire were shut up, and all intercourse with those who ate blood\npuddings was forbidden.\n\nPope Leo IX. entered into serious negotiation on this matter with the\nEmperor Constantine Monomachus, and obtained some mitigations. It was\nprecisely at this period that those celebrated Norman gentlemen, the\nsons of Tancred de Hauteville, despising at once the pope and the Greek\nemperor, plundered everything they could in Apulia and Calabria, and ate\nblood puddings with the utmost hardihood. The Greek emperor favored the\npope as much as he was able; but nothing could reconcile the Greeks with\nthe Latins. The Greeks regarded their adversaries as barbarians, who did\nnot know a single word of Greek. The irruption of the Crusaders, under\npretence of delivering the Holy Land, but in reality to gain possession\nof Constantinople, completed the hatred entertained against the Romans.\n\nBut the power of the Latin Church increased every day, and the Greeks\nwere at length gradually vanquished by the Turks. The popes, long\nsince, became powerful and wealthy sovereigns; the whole Greek Church\nbecame slaves from the time of Mahomet II., except Russia, which was\nthen a barbarous country, and in which the Church was of no account.\n\nWhoever is but slightly informed of the state of affair in the Levant\nknows that the sultan confers the patriarchate of the Greeks by a cross\nand a ring, without any apprehension of being excommunicated, as some of\nthe German emperors were by the popes, for this same ceremony.\n\nIt is certainly true that the church of Stamboul has preserved, in\nappearance, the liberty of choosing its archbishop; but never, in fact,\nchooses any other than the person pointed out by the Ottoman court. This\npreferment costs, at present, about eighty thousand francs, which the\nperson chosen contrives to get refunded from the Greeks. If any canon of\ninfluence and wealth comes forward, and offers the grand vizier a large\nsum, the titular possessor is deprived, and the place given to the last\nbidder; precisely as the see of Rome was disposed of, in the tenth\ncentury, by Marozia and Theodora. If the titular patriarch resists, he\nreceives fifty blows on the soles of his feet, and is banished.\nSometimes he is beheaded, as was the case with Lucas Cyrille, in 1638.\n\nThe Grand Turk disposes of all the other bishoprics, in the same manner,\nfor money; and the price charged for every bishopric under Mahomet II.\nis always stated in the patent; but the additional sum paid is not\nmentioned in it. It is not exactly known what a Greek priest gives for\nhis bishopric.\n\nThese patents are rather diverting documents: \"I grant to N----, a\nChristian priest, this order, for the perfection of his felicity. I\ncommand him to reside in the city herein named, as bishop of the infidel\nChristians, according to their ancient usage, and their vain and\nextravagant ceremonies, willing and ordaining that all Christians of\nthat district shall acknowledge him, and that no monk or priest shall\nmarry without his permission.\" That is to say, without paying for the\nsame.\n\nThe slavery of this Church is equal to its ignorance. But the Greeks\nhave only what they deserve. They were wholly absorbed in disputes about\nthe light on Mount Tabor, and the umbilical cord, at the very time of\nthe taking of Constantinople.\n\nWhile recording these melancholy truths we entertain the hope that the\nEmpress Catherine II. will give the Greeks their liberty. Would she\ncould restore to them that courage and that intellect which they\npossessed in the days of Miltiades and Themistocles; and that Mount\nAthos supplied good soldiers and fewer monks.\n\n_Of the Present Greek Church._\n\nThe Greek Church has scarcely deserved the toleration which the\nMussulmans granted it. The following observations are from Mr. Porter,\nthe English ambassador in Turkey:\n\n\"I am inclined to draw a veil over, those scandalous disputes between\nthe Greeks and Romans, on the subject of Bethlehem and the holy land, as\nthey denominate it. The unjust and odious proceedings which these have\noccasioned between them are a disgrace to the Christian name. In the\nmidst of these debates the ambassador appointed to protect the Romish\ncommunion becomes, with all high dignity, an object of sincere\ncompassion.\n\n\"In every country where the Roman Catholic prevails, immense sums are\nlevied in order to support against the Greek's equivocal pretensions to\nthe precarious possession of a corner of the world reputed holy; and to\npreserve in the hands of the monks of the Latin communion the remains of\nan old stable at Bethlehem, where a chapel has been erected, and where\non the doubtful authority of oral tradition, it is pretended that Christ\nwas born; as also a tomb, which may be, and most probably may not be,\nwhat is called his sepulchre; for the precise situation of these two\nplaces is as little ascertained as that which contains the ashes of\nC\u00e6sar.\"\n\nWhat renders the Greeks yet more contemptible in the eyes of the Turks\nis the miracle which they perform every year at Easter. The poor bishop\nof Jerusalem is inclosed in a small cave, which is passed off for the\ntomb of our Lord Jesus Christ, with packets of small wax tapers; he\nstrikes fire, lights one of these little tapers, and comes out of his\ncave exclaiming: \"The fire is come down from heaven, and the holy taper\nis lighted.\" All the Greeks immediately buy up these tapers, and the\nmoney is divided between the Turkish commander and the bishop. The\ndeplorable state of this Church, under the dominion of the Turk, may be\njudged from this single trait.\n\nThe Greek Church in Russia has of late assumed a much more respectable\nconsistency, since the Empress Catherine II. has delivered it from its\nsecular cares; she has taken from it four hundred thousand slaves, which\nit possessed. It is now paid out of the imperial treasury, entirely\ndependent on the government, and restricted by wise laws; it can effect\nnothing but good, and is every day becoming more learned and useful. It\npossesses a preacher of the name of Plato, who has composed sermons\nwhich the Plato of antiquity would not have disdained.\n\n\n\n\nCHURCH OF ENGLAND.\n\n\nEngland is the country of sects; \"_mult\u00e6 sunt mansiones in domo patris\nmei:_\" an Englishman, like a free man, goes to heaven which way he\npleases. However, although every one can serve God in his own way, the\nnational religion--that in which fortunes are made--is the Episcopal,\ncalled the Church of England, or emphatically, \"The Church.\" No one can\nhave employment of any consequence, either in England or Ireland,\nwithout being members of the establishment. This reasoning, which is\nhighly demonstrative, has converted so many nonconformists that at\npresent there is not a twentieth part of the nation out of the bosom of\nthe dominant church.\n\n[Illustration: Empress Catherine.]\n\nThe English clergy have retained many Catholic ceremonies, and above all\nthat of receiving tithes, with a very scrupulous attention. They also\npossess the pious ambition of ruling the people, for what village rector\nwould not be a pope if he could?\n\nWith regard to manners, the English clergy are more decorous than those\nof France, chiefly because the ecclesiastics are brought up in the\nuniversities of Oxford and Cambridge, far from the corruption of the\nmetropolis. They are not called to the dignities of the Church until\nvery late, and at an age when men, having no other passion than avarice,\ntheir ambition is less aspiring. Employments are, in England, the\nrecompense of long service in the church, as well as in the army. You do\nnot _there_ see young men become bishops or colonels on leaving college;\nand, moreover, almost all the priests are married. The pedantry and\nawkwardness of manners, acquired in the universities, and the little\ncommerce they have with women, generally oblige a bishop to be contented\nwith the one which belongs to him. The clergy go sometimes to the\ntavern, because custom permits it, and if they get \"_Bacchi plenum_\" it\nis in the college style, gravely and with due decorum.\n\nThat indefinable character which is neither ecclesiastical nor secular,\nwhich we call abb\u00e9, is unknown in England. The ecclesiastics there are\ngenerally respected, and for the greater part pedants. When the latter\nlearn that in France young men distinguished by their debaucheries, and\nraised to the prelacy by the intrigues of women, publicly make love; vie\nwith each other in the composition of love songs; give luxurious suppers\nevery day, from which they arise to implore the light of the Holy\nSpirit, and boldly call themselves the apostles' successors--they thank\nGod they are Protestants. But what then? They arc vile heretics, and fit\nonly for burning, as master Francis Rabelais says, \"with all the\ndevils.\" Hence I drop the subject.\n\n\n\n\nCHURCH PROPERTY.\n\n\nThe Gospel forbids those who would attain perfection to amass treasures,\nand to preserve their temporal goods: \"Lay not up for yourselves\ntreasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where\nthieves break through and steal.\" \"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell\nthat thou hast, and give to the poor.\" \"And every one that hath forsaken\nhouses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or\nchildren, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred-fold,\nand shall inherit everlasting life.\"\n\nThe apostles and their first successors would not receive estates; they\nonly accepted the value, and, after having provided what was necessary\nfor their subsistence, they distributed the rest among the poor.\nSapphira and Ananias did not give their goods to St. Peter, but they\nsold them and brought him the price: _\"Vende qu\u00e6 habes et da\npauperibus.\"_\n\nThe Church already possessed considerable property at the close of the\nthird century, since Diocletian and Maximian had pronounced the\nconfiscation of it, in 302.\n\nAs soon as Constantine was upon the throne he permitted the churches to\nbe endowed like the temples of the ancient religion, and from that time\nthe Church acquired rich estates. St. Jerome complains of it in one of\nhis letters to Eustochium: \"When you see them,\" says he, \"accost the\nrich widows whom they meet with a soft and sanctified air, you would\nthink that their hands were only extended to give them their blessing;\nbut it is, on the contrary, to receive the price of their hypocrisy.\"\n\nThe holy priests received without claiming. Valentinian I. thought it\nright to forbid the ecclesiastics from receiving anything from widows\nand women, by will or otherwise. This law, which is found in the\nTheodosian code, was revoked by Marcian and Justinian.\n\nJustinian, to favor the ecclesiastics, forbade the judges, by his new\ncode xviii. chap. ii., to annul the wills made in favor of the Church,\neven when executed without the formalities prescribed by the laws.\n\nAnastasius had enacted, in 471, that church property should be held by a\nprescription, or title, of forty years' duration. Justinian inserted\nthis law in his code; but this prince, who was continually changing his\njurisprudence, subsequently extended this proscription to a century.\nImmediately several ecclesiastics, unworthy of their profession, forged\nfalse titles, and drew out of the dust old testaments, void by the\nancient laws, but valid according to the new. Citizens were deprived of\ntheir patrimonies by fraud; and possessions, which until then were\nconsidered inviolable, were usurped by the Church. In short, the abuse\nwas so crying that Justinian himself was obliged to re-establish the\ndispositions of the law of Anastasius, by his novel cxxxi. chap. vi.\n\nThe possessions of the Church during the first five centuries of our era\nwere regulated by deacons, who distributed them to the clergy and to the\npoor. This community ceased at the end of the fifth century, and Church\nproperty was divided into four parts--one being given to the bishops,\nanother to the clergy, a third to the place of worship, and the fourth\nto the poor. Soon after this division the bishops alone took charge of\nthe whole four portions, and this is the reason why the inferior clergy\nare generally very poor.\n\n_Monks possessing Slaves._\n\nWhat is still more melancholy, the Benedictines, Bernardines, and even\nthe Chartreux are permitted to have mortmains and slaves. Under their\ndomination in several provinces of France and Germany are still\nrecognized: personal slavery, slavery of property, and slavery of person\nand property. Slavery of the person consists in the incapacity of a\nman's disposing of his property in favor of his children, if they have\nnot always lived with their father in the same house, and at the same\ntable, in which case all belongs to the monks. The fortune of an\ninhabitant of Mount Jura, put into the hands of a notary, becomes, even\nin Paris, the prey of those who have originally embraced evangelical\npoverty at Mount Jura. The son asks alms at the door of the house which\nhis father has built; and the monks, far from giving them, even arrogate\nto themselves the right of not paying his father's creditors, and of\nregarding as void all the mortgages on the house of which they take\npossession. In vain the widow throws herself at their feet to obtain a\npart of her dowry. This dowry, these debts, this paternal property, all\nbelong, by divine right, to the monks. The creditors, the widow, and the\nchildren are all left to die in beggary.\n\nReal slavery is that which is effected by residence. Whoever occupies a\nhouse within the domain of these monks, and lives in it a year and a\nday, becomes their serf for life. It has sometimes happened that a\nFrench merchant, and father of a family, led by his business into this\nbarbarous country, has taken a house for a year. Dying afterwards in his\nown country, in another province of France, his widow and children have\nbeen quite astonished to see officers, armed with writs, come and take\naway their furniture, sell it in the name of St. Claude, and drive away\na whole family from the house of their father.\n\nMixed slavery is that which, being composed of the two, is, of all that\nrapacity has ever invented, the most execrable, and beyond the\nconception even of freebooters. There are, then, Christian people\ngroaning in a triple slavery under monks who have taken the vow of\nhumility and poverty. You will ask how governments suffer these fatal\ncontradictions? It is because the monks are rich and the vassals are\npoor. It is because the monks, to preserve their Hunnish rights, make\npresents to their commissaries and to the mistresses of those who might\ninterpose their authority to put down their oppression. The strong\nalways crush the weak; but why must monks be the stronger?\n\n\n\n\nCICERO.\n\n\nIt is at a time when, in France, the fine arts are in a state of\ndecline; in an age of paradox, and amidst the degradation and\npersecution of literature and philosophy, that an attempt is made to\ntarnish the name of Cicero. And who is the man who thus endeavors to\nthrow disgrace upon his memory? It is one who lends his services in\ndefence of persons accused like himself; it is an advocate, who has\nstudied eloquence under that great master; it is a citizen who appears\nto be, like Cicero, animated by devotion to the public good.\n\nIn a book entitled \"Navigable Canals,\" a book abounding in grand and\npatriotic rather than practical views, we feel no small astonishment at\nfinding the following philippic against Cicero, who was never concerned\nin digging canals:\n\n\"The most glorious trait in the history of Cicero is the destruction of\nCatiline's conspiracy, which, regarded in its true light, produced\nlittle sensation at Rome, except in consequence of his affecting to give\nit importance. The danger existed much more in his discourses than in\nthe affair itself. It was an enterprise of debauchees which it was easy\nto disconcert. Neither the principal nor the accomplices had taken the\nslightest measure to insure the success of their guilty attempt. There\nwas nothing astonishing in this singular matter but the blustering which\nattended all the proceedings of the consul, and the facility with which\nhe was permitted to sacrifice to his self-love so many scions of\nillustrious families.\n\n\"Besides, the life of Cicero abounds in traits of meanness. His\neloquence was as venal as his soul was pusillanimous. If his tongue was\nnot guided by interest it was guided by fear or hope. The desire of\nobtaining partisans led him to the tribune, to defend, without a blush,\nmen more dishonorable, and incalculably more dangerous, than Catiline.\nHis clients were nearly all miscreants, and, by a singular exercise of\ndivine justice, he at last met death from the hands of one of those\nwretches whom his skill had extricated from the fangs of human justice.\"\n\nWe answer that, \"regarded in its true light,\" the conspiracy of Catiline\nexcited at Rome somewhat more than a \"slight sensation.\" It plunged her\ninto the greatest disturbance and danger. It was terminated only by a\nbattle so bloody that there is no example of equal carnage, and scarcely\nany of equal valor. All the soldiers of Catiline, after having killed\nhalf of the army of Petrius, were killed, to the last man. Catiline\nperished, covered with wounds, upon a heap of the slain; and all were\nfound with their countenances sternly glaring upon the enemy. This was\nnot an enterprise so wonderfully easy as to be disconcerted. C\u00e6sar\nencouraged it; C\u00e6sar learned from it to conspire on a future day more\nsuccessfully against his country.\n\n\"Cicero defended, without a blush, men more dishonorable, and\nincalculably more dangerous than Catiline!\" Was this when he defended in\nthe tribune Sicily against Verres, and the Roman republic against\nAntony? Was it when he exhorted the clemency of C\u00e6sar in favor of\nLigarius and King Deiotarus? or when he obtained the right of\ncitizenship for the poet Archias? or when, in his exquisite oration for\nthe Manilian law, he obtained every Roman suffrage on behalf of the\ngreat Pompey?\n\nHe pleaded for Milo, the murderer of Clodius; but Clodius had deserved\nthe tragical end he met with by his outrages. Clodius had been involved\nin the conspiracy of Catiline; Clodius was his mortal enemy. He had\nirritated Rome against him, and had punished him for having saved Rome.\nMilo was his friend.\n\nWhat! is it in our time that any one ventures to assert that God\npunished Cicero for having defended a military tribune called Popilius\nLena, and that divine vengeance made this same Popilius Lena the\ninstrument of his assassination? No one knows whether Popilius Lena was\nguilty of the crime of which he was acquitted, after Cicero's defence of\nhim upon his trial; but all know that the monster was guilty of the most\nhorrible ingratitude, the most infamous avarice, and the most detestable\ncruelty to obtain the money of three wretches like himself. It was\nreserved for our times to hold up the assassination of Cicero as an act\nof divine justice. The triumvirs would not have dared to do it. Every\nage, before the present, has detested and deplored the manner of his\ndeath.\n\nCicero is reproached with too frequently boasting that he had saved\nRome, and with being too fond of glory. But his enemies endeavored to\nstain his glory. A tyrannical faction condemned him to exile, and razed\nhis house, because he had preserved every house in Rome from the flames\nwhich Catiline had prepared for them. Men are permitted and even bound\nto boast of their services, when they meet with forgetfulness or\ningratitude, and more particularly when they are converted into crimes.\n\nScipio is still admired for having answered his accusers in these words:\n\"This is the anniversary of the day on which I vanquished Hannibal; let\nus go and return thanks to the gods.\" The whole assembly followed him to\nthe Capitol, and our hearts follow him thither also, as we read the\npassage in history; though, after all, it would have been better to have\ndelivered in his accounts than to extricate himself from the attack by a\n_bon mot_.\n\nCicero, in the same manner, excited the admiration of the Roman people\nwhen, on the day in which his consulship expired, being obliged to take\nthe customary oaths, and preparing to address the people as was usual,\nhe was hindered by the tribune Matellus, who was desirous of insulting\nhim. Cicero had begun with these words: \"I swear,\"--the tribune\ninterrupted him, and declared that he would not suffer him to make a\nspeech. A great murmuring was heard. Cicero paused a moment, and\nelevating his full and melodious voice, he exclaimed, as a short\nsubstitute for his intended speech, \"I swear that I have saved the\ncountry.\" The assembly cried out with delight and enthusiasm, \"We swear\nthat he has spoken the truth.\" That moment was the most brilliant of\nhis life. This is the true way of loving glory. I do not know where I\nhave read these unknown verses:\n\n     _Romains, j'aime la gloire, et ne veux point m'en taire_\n     _Des travaux des humains c'est le digne salaire,_\n     _Ce n'est qu'en vous qu'il la faut acheter;_\n     _Qui n'ose la vouloir, n'ose la m\u00e9riter._\n\n     Romans, I own that glory I regard\n     Of human toil the only just reward;\n     Placed in your hands the immortal guerdon lies,\n     And he will ne'er deserve who slights the prize.\n\nCan we despise Cicero if we consider his conduct in his government of\nCilicia, which was then one of the most important provinces of the Roman\nEmpire, in consequence of its contiguity to Syria and the Parthian\nEmpire. Laodicea, one of the most beautiful cities of the East, was the\ncapital of it. This province was then as flourishing as it is at the\npresent day degraded under the government of the Turks, who never had a\nCicero.\n\nHe begins by protecting Ariobarzanes, king of Cappadocia, and he refuses\nthe presents which that king desires to make him. The Parthians come and\nattack Antioch in a state of perfect peace. Cicero hastily marches\ntowards it, comes up with the Parthians by forced marches at Mount\nTaurus, routs them, pursues them in their retreat, and Arsaces, their\ngeneral, is slain, with a part of his army.\n\nThence he rushes on Pendenissum, the capital of a country in alliance\nwith the Parthians, and takes it, and the province is reduced to\nsubmission. He instantly directs his forces against the tribes of\npeople called Tiburanians, and defeats them, and his troops confer on\nhim the title of Imperator, which he preserved all his life. He would\nhave obtained the honors of a triumph at Rome if he had not been opposed\nby Cato, who induced the senate merely to decree public rejoicings and\nthanks to the gods, when, in fact, they were due to Cicero.\n\nIf we picture to ourselves the equity and disinterestedness of Cicero in\nhis government; his activity, his affability--two virtues so rarely\ncompatible; the benefits which he accumulated upon the people over whom\nhe was an absolute sovereign; it will be extremely difficult to withhold\nfrom such a man our esteem.\n\nIf we reflect that this is the same man who first introduced philosophy\ninto Rome; that his \"Tusculan Questions,\" and his book \"On the Nature of\nthe Gods,\" are the two noblest works that ever were written by mere\nhuman wisdom, and that his treatise, \"_De Officiis_,\" is the most useful\none that we possess in morals; we shall find it still more difficult to\ndespise Cicero. We pity those who do not read him; we pity still more\nthose who refuse to do him justice.\n\nTo the French detractor we may well oppose the lines of the Spanish\nMartial, in his epigram against Antony (book v., epig. 69, v. 7):\n\n     _Quid prosunt sacr\u00e6 pretiosa silentia linguae?_\n     _Incipient omnes pro Cicerone loqui._\n\n     Why still his tongue with vengeance weak,\n     For Cicero all the world will speak!\n\nSee, likewise, what is said by Juvenal (sat. iv., v. 244):\n\n     _Roma patrem patriae Ciceronem libera dixit._\n     Freed Rome, him father of his country called.\n\n\n\n\nCIRCUMCISION.\n\n\nWhen Herodotus narrates what he was told by the barbarians among whom he\ntravelled, he narrates fooleries, after the manner of the greater part\nof travellers. Thus, it is not to be supposed that he expects to be\nbelieved in his recital of the adventure of Gyges and Candaules; of\nArion, carried on the back of a dolphin; of the oracle which was\nconsulted on what Cr\u0153sus was at the time doing, that he was then\ngoing to dress a tortoise in a stew-pan; of Darius' horse, which, being\nthe first out of a certain number to neigh, in fact proclaimed his\nmaster a king; and of a hundred other fables, fit to amuse children, and\nto be compiled by rhetoricians. But when he speaks of what he has seen,\nof the customs of people he has examined, of their antiquities which he\nhas consulted, he then addresses himself to men.\n\n\"It appears,\" says he, in his book \"_Euterpe_,\" \"that the inhabitants of\nColchis sprang from Egypt. I judge so from my own observations rather\nthan from hearsay; for I found that, at Colchis, the ancient Egyptians\nwere more frequently recalled to my mind than the ancient customs of\nColchis were when I was in Egypt.\n\n\"These inhabitants of the shores of the Euxine Sea stated themselves to\nbe a colony founded by Sesostris. As for myself, I should think this\nprobable, not merely because they are dark and woolly-haired, but\nbecause the inhabitants of Colchis, Egypt, and Ethiopia are the only\npeople in the world who, from time immemorial, have practised\ncircumcision; for the Ph\u0153nicians, and the people of Palestine,\nconfess that they adopted the practice from the Egyptians. The Syrians,\nwho at present inhabit the banks of Thermodon, acknowledge that it is,\ncomparatively, but recently that they have conformed to it. It is\nprincipally from this usage that they are considered of Egyptian origin.\n\n\"With respect to Ethiopia and Egypt, as this ceremony is of great\nantiquity in both nations, I cannot by any means ascertain which has\nderived it from the other. It is, however, probable that the Ethiopians\nreceived it from the Egyptians; while, on the contrary, the\nPh\u0153nicians have abolished the practice of circumcising new-born\nchildren since the enlargement of their commerce with the Greeks.\"\n\nFrom this passage of Herodotus it is evident that many people had\nadopted circumcision from Egypt, but no nation ever pretended to have\nreceived it from the Jews. To whom, then, can we attribute the origin of\nthis custom; to a nation from whom five or six others acknowledge they\ntook it, or to another nation, much less powerful, less commercial, less\nwarlike, hid away in a corner of Arabia Petr\u00e6a, and which never\ncommunicated any one of its usages to any other people?\n\nThe Jews admit that they were, many ages since, received in Egypt out of\ncharity. Is it not probable that the lesser people imitated a usage of\nthe superior one, and that the Jews adopted some customs from their\nmasters?\n\nClement of Alexandria relates that Pythagoras, when travelling among the\nEgyptians, was obliged to be circumcised in order to be admitted to\ntheir mysteries. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to be\ncircumcised to be a priest in Egypt. Those priests existed when Joseph\narrived in Egypt. The government was of great antiquity, and the ancient\nceremonies of the country were observed with the most scrupulous\nexactness.\n\nThe Jews acknowledge that they remained in Egypt two hundred and five\nyears. They say that, during that period, they did not become\ncircumcised. It is clear, then, that for two hundred and five years the\nEgyptians did not receive circumcision from the Jews. Would they have\nadopted it from them after the Jews had stolen the vessels which they\nhad lent them, and, according to their own account, fled with their\nplunder into the wilderness? Will a master adopt the principal symbol of\nthe religion of a robbing and runaway slave? It is not in human nature.\n\nIt is stated in the Book of Joshua that the Jews were circumcised in the\nwilderness. \"I have delivered you from what constituted your reproach\namong the Egyptians.\" But what could this reproach be, to a people\nliving between Ph\u0153nicians, Arabians, and Egyptians, but something\nwhich rendered them contemptible to these three nations? How effectually\nis that reproach removed by abstracting a small portion of the prepuce?\nMust not this be considered the natural meaning of the passage?\n\nThe Book of Genesis relates that Abraham had been circumcised before.\nBut Abraham travelled in Egypt, which had been long a flourishing\nkingdom, governed by a powerful king. There is nothing to prevent the\nsupposition that circumcision was, in this very ancient kingdom, an\nestablished usage. Moreover, the circumcision of Abraham led to no\ncontinuation; his posterity was not circumcised till the time of Joshua.\n\nBut, before the time of Joshua, the Jews, by their own acknowledgment,\nadopted many of the customs of the Egyptians. They imitated them in many\nsacrifices, in many ceremonies; as, for example, in the fasts observed\non the eves of the feasts of Isis; in ablutions; in the custom of\nshaving the heads of the priests; in the incense, the branched\ncandle-stick, the sacrifice of the red-haired cow, the purification with\nhyssop, the abstinence from swine's flesh, the dread of using the\nkitchen utensils of foreigners; everything testifies that the little\npeople of Hebrews, notwithstanding its aversion to the great Egyptian\nnation, had retained a vast number of the usages of its former masters.\nThe goat Azazel, which was despatched into the wilderness laden with the\nsins of the people, was a visible imitation of an Egyptian practice. The\nrabbis are agreed, even, that the word Azazel is not Hebrew. Nothing,\ntherefore, could exist to have prevented the Hebrews from imitating the\nEgyptians in circumcision, as the Arabs, their neighbors, did.\n\nIt is by no means extraordinary that God, who sanctified baptism, a\npractice so ancient among the Asiatics, should also have sanctified\ncircumcision, not less ancient among the Africans. We have already\nremarked that he has a sovereign right to attach his favors to any\nsymbol that he chooses.\n\nAs to what remains since the time when, under Joshua, the Jewish people\nbecame circumcised, it has retained that usage down to the present day.\nThe Arabs, also, have faithfully adhered to it; but the Egyptians, who,\nin the earlier ages, circumcised both their males and females, in the\ncourse of time abandoned the practice entirely as to the latter, and at\nlast applied it solely to priests, astrologers, and prophets. This we\nlearn from Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. In fact, it is not clear\nthat the Ptolemies ever received circumcision.\n\nThe Latin authors who treat the Jews with such profound contempt as to\napply to them in derision the expressions, \"_curtus Apella_\", \"_credat\nJud\u00e6us Apella_,\" \"_curti Jud\u00e6i_\" never apply such epithets to the\nEgyptians. The whole population of Egypt is at present circumcised, but\nfor another reason than that which operated formerly; namely, because\nMahometanism adopted the ancient circumcision of Arabia. It is this\nArabian circumcision which has extended to the Ethiopians, among whom\nmales and females are both still circumcised.\n\nWe must acknowledge that this ceremony appears at first a very strange\none; but we should remember that, from the earliest times, the oriental\npriests consecrated themselves to their deities by peculiar marks. An\nivy leaf was indented with a graver on the priests of Bacchus. Lucian\ntells us that those devoted to the goddess Isis impressed characters\nupon their wrist and neck. The priests of Cybele made themselves\neunuchs.\n\nIt is highly probable that the Egyptians, who revered the instrument of\nhuman production, and bore its image in pomp in their processions,\nconceived the idea of offering to Isis and Osiris through whom\neverything on earth was produced, a small portion of that organ with\nwhich these deities had connected the perpetuation of the human species.\nAncient oriental manners are so prodigiously different from our own that\nscarcely anything will appear extraordinary to a man of even but little\nreading. A Parisian is excessively surprised when he is told that the\nHottentots deprive their male children of one of the evidences of\nvirility. The Hottentots are perhaps surprised that the Parisians\npreserve both.\n\n\n\n\nCLERK--CLERGY.\n\n\nThere may be something perhaps still remaining for remark under this\nhead, even after Du Cange's \"Dictionary\" and the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia.\" We may\nobserve, for instance, that so wonderful was the respect paid to\nlearning, about the eleventh and twelfth centuries, that a custom was\nintroduced and followed in France, in Germany, and in England, of\nremitting the punishment of the halter to every condemned criminal who\nwas able to read. So necessary to the state was every man who possessed\nsuch an extent of knowledge. William the Bastard, the conqueror of\nEngland, carried thither this custom. It was called _benefit of\nclergy_--\"_beneficum clericorum aut clergicorum._\"\n\nWe have remarked, in more places than one, that old usages, lost in\nother countries, are found again in England, as in the island of\nSamothrace were discovered the ancient mysteries of Orpheus. To this day\nthe benefit of clergy subsists among the English, in all its vigor, for\nmanslaughter, and for any theft not exceeding a certain amount of value,\nand being the first offence. The prisoner who is able to read demands\nhis \"benefit of clergy,\" which cannot be refused him. The judge refers\nto the chaplain of the prison, who presents a book to the prisoner, upon\nwhich the judge puts the question to the chaplain, \"_Legit?_\" \"Does he\nread?\" The chaplain replies: \"_Legit ut clericus._\" \"He reads like a\nclergyman.\" After this the punishment of the prisoner is restricted to\nthe application of a hot branding iron to the palm of his hand.\n\n_Of the Celibacy of the Clergy._\n\nIt is asked whether, in the first ages of the Church, marriage was\npermitted to the clergy, and when it was forbidden? It is unquestionable\nthat the clergy of the Jewish religion, far from being bound to\ncelibacy, were, on the contrary, urged to marriage, not merely by the\nexample of their patriarchs, but by the disgrace attached to not leaving\nposterity.\n\nIn the times, however, that preceded the first calamities which befell\nthe Jews, certain sects of rigorists arose--Essenians, Judaites,\nTherapeut\u00e6, Herodians; in some of which--the Essenians and Therapeut\u00e6,\nfor examples--the most devout of the sect abstained from marriage. This\ncontinence was an imitation of the chastity of the vestals, instituted\nby Numa Pompilius; of the daughter of Pythagoras, who founded a convent;\nof the priests of Diana; of the Pythia of Delphos; and, in more remote\nantiquity, of the priestesses of Apollo, and even of the priestesses of\nBacchus. The priests of Cybele not only bound themselves by vows of\nchastity, but, to preclude the violation of their vows, became eunuchs.\nPlutarch, in the eighth question of his \"Table-talk,\" informs us that,\nin Egypt, there are colleges of priests which renounce marriage.\n\nThe first Christians, although professing to lead a life as pure as that\nof the Essenians and Therapeut\u00e6, did not consider celibacy as a virtue.\nWe have seen that nearly all the apostles and disciples were married.\nSt. Paul writes to Titus: \"Choose for a priest him who is the husband of\none wife, having believing children, and not under accusation of\ndissoluteness.\" He says the same to Timothy: \"Let the superintendent be\nthe husband of one wife.\" He seems to think so highly of marriage that,\nin the same epistle to Timothy, he says: \"The wife, notwithstanding her\nprevarication, shall be saved in child-bearing.\"\n\nThe proceedings of the Council of Nice, on the subject of married\npriests, deserve great attention. Some bishops, according to the\nrelations of Sozomen and Socrates, proposed a law commanding bishops and\npriests thenceforward to abstain from their wives; but St. Paphnucius\nthe Martyr, bishop of Thebes, in Egypt, strenuously opposed it;\nobserving, \"that marriage was chastity\"; and the council adopted his\nopinion. Suidas, Gelasius, Cesicenus, Cassiodorus, and Nicephorus\nCallistus, record precisely the same thing. The council merely forbade\nthe clergy from living with agapet\u00e6, or female associates besides their\nown wives, except their mothers, sisters, aunts, and others whose age\nwould preclude suspicion.\n\nAfter that time, the celibacy of the clergy was recommended, without\nbeing commanded. St. Jerome, a devout recluse, was, of all the fathers,\nhighest in his eulogiums of the celibacy of priests; yet he resolutely,\nsupports the cause of Carterius, a Spanish bishop, who had been married\ntwice. \"Were I,\" says he, \"to enumerate all the bishops who have entered\ninto second nuptials, I should name as many as were present at the\nCouncil of Rimini\"--_\"Tantus numerus congregabitur ut Riminensis synodus\nsuperetur.\"_\n\nThe examples of clergymen married, and living with their wives, are\ninnumerable. Sydonius, bishop of Clermont, in Auvergne, in the fifth\ncentury, married Papianilla, daughter of the Emperor Avitus, and the\nhouse of Polignac claims descent from this marriage. Simplicius, bishop\nof Bourges, had two children by his wife Palladia. St. Gregory of\nNazianzen was the son of another Gregory, bishop of Nazianzen, and of\nNonna, by whom that bishop had three children--Cesarius, Gorgonia, and\nthe saint.\n\nIn the Roman decretals, under the canon Osius, we find a very long list\nof bishops who were the sons of priests. Pope Osius himself was the son\nof a sub-deacon Stephen; and Pope Boniface I., son of the priest\nJocondo. Pope Felix III. was the son of Felix, a priest, and was himself\none of the grandfathers of Gregory the Great. The priest Projectus was\nthe father of John II.; and Gordian, the father of Agapet. Pope\nSylvester was the son of Pope Hormisdas. Theodore I. was born of a\nmarriage of Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem; a circumstance which\nshould produce the reconciliation of the two Churches.\n\nAt length, after several councils had been held without effect on the\nsubject of the celibacy, which ought always to accompany the priesthood,\nPope Gregory excommunicated all married priests; either to add\nrespectability to the Church, by the greater rigor of its discipline, or\nto attach more closely to the court of Rome the bishops and priests of\nother countries, who would thus have no other family than the Church.\nThis law was not established without great opposition.\n\nIt is a very remarkable circumstance that the Council of Basel, having\ndeposed, at least nominally, Pope Eugenius IV., and elected Amadeus of\nSavoy, many bishops having objected against that prince that he had been\nmarried, \u00c6neas Sylvius, who was afterwards pope, under the name of Pius\nII., supported the election of Amadeus in these words: \"_Non solum qui\nuxorem habuit, sed uxorem habens, potest assumere_\"--\"Not only may he be\nmade a pope who _has been_ married, but also he who _is_ so.\"\n\nThis Pius II. was consistent. Peruse his letters to his mistress, in the\ncollection of his works. He was convinced, that to defraud nature of her\nrights was absolute insanity, and that it was the duty of man not to\ndestroy, but to control her.\n\nHowever this may be, since the Council of Trent there has no longer been\nany dispute about the celibacy of the Roman Catholic clergy; there have\nbeen only desires. All Protestant communions are, on this point, in\nopposition to Rome.\n\nIn the Greek Church, which at present extends from the frontiers of\nChina to Cape Matapan, the priests may marry once. Customs everywhere\nvary; discipline changes conformably to time and place. We here only\nrecord facts; we enter into no controversy.\n\n_Of Clerks of the Closet, Since Denominated Secretaries of State and\nMinisters._\n\nClerks of the closet, clerks of the king, more recently denominated\nsecretaries of state, in France and England, were originally the \"king's\nnotaries.\" They were afterwards called \"secretaries of orders\"\n--_secr\u00e9taires des commandemens_. This we are informed of by the\nlearned and laborious Pasquier. His authority is unquestionable, as he\nhad under his inspection the registers of the chamber of accounts,\nwhich, in our own times, have been destroyed by fire.\n\nAt the unfortunate peace of Cateau-Cambr\u00e9sis, a clerk of Philip II.,\nhaving taken the title of secretary of state, de l'Aubespine, who was\nsecretary of orders to the king of France, and his notary, took that\ntitle likewise, that the honors of both might be equal, whatever might\nbe the case with their emoluments.\n\nIn England, before the reign of Henry VIII., there was only one\nsecretary of the king, who stood while he presented memorials and\npetitions to the council. Henry VIII. appointed two, and conferred on\nthem the same titles and prerogatives as in Spain. The great nobles did\nnot, at that period, accept these situations; but, in time, they have\nbecome of so much consequence that peers of the realm and commanders of\narmies are now invested with them. Thus everything changes. There is at\npresent no relic in France of the government of Hugh Capet, nor in\nEngland of the administration of William the Bastard.\n\n\n\n\nCLIMATE.\n\n\nIt is certain that the sun and atmosphere mark their empire on all the\nproductions of nature, from man to mushrooms. In the grand age of Louis\nXIV., the ingenious Fontenelle remarked:\n\n\"One might imagine that the torrid and two frigid zones are not well\nsuited to the sciences. Down to the present day they have not travelled\nbeyond Egypt and Mauritania, on the one side, nor on the other beyond\nSweden. Perhaps it is not owing to mere chance that they are retained\nwithin Mount Atlas and the Baltic Sea. We know not whether these may not\nbe the limits appointed to them by nature, or whether we may ever hope\nto see great authors among Laplanders or negroes.\"\n\nChardin, one of those travellers who reason and investigate, goes still\nfurther than Fontenelle, when speaking of Persia. \"The temperature of\nwarm climates,\" says he, \"enervates the mind as well as the body, and\ndissipates that fire which the imagination requires for invention. In\nsuch climates men are incapable of the long studies and intense\napplication which are necessary to the production of first-rate works in\nthe liberal and mechanic arts,\" etc.\n\nChardin did not consider that Sadi and Lokman were Persians. He did not\nrecollect that Archimedes belonged to Sicily, where the heat is greater\nthan in three-fourths of Persia. He forgot that Pythagoras formerly\ntaught geometry to the Brahmins. The Abb\u00e9 Dubos supported and developed,\nas well as he was able, the opinion of Chardin.\n\nOne hundred and fifty years before them, Bodin made it the foundation of\nhis system in his \"Republic,\" and in his \"Method of History\"; he asserts\nthat the influence of climate is the principle both of the government\nand the religion of nations. Diodorus of Sicily was of the same opinion\nlong before Bodin.\n\nThe author of the \"Spirit of Laws,\" without quoting any authority,\ncarried this idea farther than Chardin and Bodin. A certain part of the\nnation believed him to have first suggested it, and imputed it to him as\na crime. This was quite in character with that part of the nation\nalluded to. There are everywhere men who possess more zeal than\nunderstanding.\n\nWe might ask those who maintain that climate does everything, why the\nEmperor Julian, in his \"_Misopogon_\" says that what pleased him in the\nParisians was the gravity of their characters and the severity of their\nmanners; and why these Parisians, without the slightest change of\nclimate, are now like playful children, at whom the government punishes\nand smiles at the same moment, and who themselves, the moment after,\nalso smile and sing lampoons upon their masters.\n\nWhy are the Egyptians, who are described as having been still more grave\nthan the Parisians, at present the most lazy, frivolous, and cowardly of\npeople, after having, as we are told, conquered the whole world for\ntheir pleasure, under a king called Sesostris? Why are there no longer\nAnacreons, Aristotles, or Zeuxises at Athens? Whence comes it that Rome,\ninstead of its Ciceros, Catos, and Livys, has merely citizens who dare\nnot speak their minds, and a brutalized populace, whose supreme\nhappiness consists in having oil cheap, and in gazing at processions?\n\nCicero, in his letters, is occasionally very jocular on the English. He\ndesires his brother Quintus, C\u00e6sar's lieutenant, to inform him whether\nhe has found any great philosophers among them, in his expedition to\nBritain. He little suspected that that country would one day produce\nmathematicians whom he could not understand. Yet the climate has not at\nall changed, and the sky of London is as cloudy now as it was then.\n\nEverything changes, both in bodies and minds, by time. Perhaps the\nAmericans will in some future period cross the sea to instruct Europeans\nin the arts. Climate has some influence, government a hundred times\nmore; religion and government combined more still.\n\n_Influence of Climate._\n\nClimate influences religion in respect to ceremonies and usages. A\nlegislator could have experienced no difficulty in inducing the Indians\nto bathe in the Ganges at certain appearances of the moon; it is a high\ngratification to them. Had any one proposed a like bath to the people\nwho inhabit the banks of the Dwina, near Archangel, he would have been\nstoned. Forbid pork to an Arab, who after eating this species of animal\nfood (the most miserable and disgusting in his own country) would be\naffected by leprosy, he will obey you with joy; prohibit it to a\nWestphalian, and he will be tempted to knock you down. Abstinence from\nwine is a good precept of religion in Arabia, where orange, citron, and\nlemon waters are necessary to health. Mahomet would not have forbidden\nwine in Switzerland, especially before going to battle.\n\nThere are usages merely fanciful. Why did the priests of Egypt devise\ncircumcision? It was not for the sake of health. Cambyses, who treated\nas they deserved both them and their bull Apis, the courtiers of\nCambyses, and his soldiers, enjoyed perfectly good health without such\nmutilation. Climate has no peculiar influence over this particular\nportion of the person of a priest. The offering in question was made to\nIsis, probably on the same principle as the firstlings of the fruits of\nthe earth were everywhere offered. It was typical of an offering of the\nfirst fruits of life.\n\nReligions have always turned on two pivots--forms of ceremonies, and\nfaith. Forms and ceremonies depend much on climate; faith not at all. A\ndoctrine will be received with equal facility under the equator or near\nthe pole. It will be afterwards equally rejected at Batavia and the\nOrcades, while it will be maintained, _unguibus et rostro_--with tooth\nand nail--at Salamanca. This depends not on sun and atmosphere, but\nsolely upon opinion, that fickle empress of the world.\n\nCertain libations of wine will be naturally enjoined in a country\nabounding in vineyards; and it would never occur to the mind of any\nlegislator to institute sacred mysteries, which could not be celebrated\nwithout wine, in such a country as Norway.\n\nIt will be expressly commanded to burn incense in the court of a temple\nwhere beasts are killed in honor of the Divinity, and for the priests'\nsupper. This slaughter-house, called a temple, would be a place of\nabominable infection, if it were not continually purified; and without\nthe use of aromatics, the religion of the ancients would have\nintroduced the plague. The interior of the temple was even festooned\nwith flowers to sweeten the air.\n\nThe cow will not be sacrificed in the burning territory of the Indian\npeninsula, because it supplies the necessary article of milk, and is\nvery rare in arid and barren districts, and because its flesh, being dry\nand tough, and yielding but little nourishment, would afford the\nBrahmins but miserable cheer. On the contrary, the cow will be\nconsidered sacred, in consequence of its rareness and utility.\n\nThe temple of Jupiter Ammon, where the heat is excessive, will be\nentered only with bare feet. To perform his devotions at Copenhagen, a\nman requires his feet to be warm and well covered.\n\nIt is not thus with doctrine. Polytheism has been believed in all\nclimates; and it is equally easy for a Crim Tartar and an inhabitant of\nMecca to acknowledge one only incommunicable God, neither begotten nor\nbegetting. It is by doctrine, more than by rites, that a religion\nextends from one climate to another. The doctrine of the unity of God\npassed rapidly from Medina to Mount Caucasus. Climate, then, yields to\nopinion.\n\nThe Arabs said to the Turks: \"We practiced the ceremony of circumcision\nin Arabia without very well knowing why. It was an ancient usage of the\npriests of Egypt to offer to Oshiret, or Osiris, a small portion of what\nthey considered most valuable. We had adopted this custom three\nthousand years before we became Mahometans. You will become circumcised\nlike us; you will bind yourself to sleep with one of your wives every\nFriday, and to give two and a half per cent. of your income annually to\nthe poor. We drink nothing but water and sherbet; all intoxicating\nliquors are forbidden us. In Arabia they are pernicious. You will\nembrace the same regimen, although you should be passionately fond of\nwine; and even although, on the banks of the Phasis and Araxes, it\nshould often be necessary for you. In short, if you wish to go to\nheaven, and to obtain good places there, you will take the road through\nMecca.\"\n\nThe inhabitants north of the Caucasus subject themselves to these laws,\nand adopt, in the fullest extent, a religion which was never framed for\nthem.\n\nIn Egypt the emblematical worship of animals succeeded to the doctrines\nof Thaut. The gods of the Romans afterwards shared Egypt with the dogs,\nthe cats, and the crocodiles. To the Roman religion succeeded\nChristianity; that was completely banished by Mahometanism, which will\nperhaps be superseded by some new religion.\n\nIn all these changes climate has effected nothing; government has done\neverything. We are here considering only second causes, without raising\nour unhallowed eyes to that Providence which directs them. The Christian\nreligion, which received its birth in Syria, and grew up towards its\nfulness of stature in Alexandria, inhabits now those countries where\nTeutat and Irminsul, Freya and Odin, were formerly adored.\n\nThere are some nations whose religion is not the result either of\nclimate or of government. What cause detached the north of Germany,\nDenmark, three parts of Switzerland, Holland, England, Scotland, and\nIreland, from the Romish communion? Poverty. Indulgences, and\ndeliverance from purgatory for the souls of those whose bodies were at\nthat time in possession of very little money, were sold too dear. The\nprelates and monks absorbed the whole revenue of a province. People\nadopted a cheaper religion. In short, after numerous civil wars, it was\nconcluded that the pope's religion was a good one for nobles, and the\nreformed one for citizens. Time will show whether the religion of the\nGreeks or of the Turks will prevail on the coasts of the Euxine and\n\u00c6gean seas.\n\n\n\n\nCOHERENCE--COHESION--ADHESION.\n\n\nThe power by which the parts of bodies are kept together. It is a\nphenomenon the most common, but the least understood. Newton derides the\nhooked atoms, by means of which it has been attempted to explain\ncoherence; for it still remained to be known why they are hooked, and\nwhy they cohere. He treats with no greater respect those who have\nexplained cohesion by rest. \"It is,\" says he, \"an occult quality.\"\n\nHe has recourse to an attraction. But is not this attraction, which may\nindeed exist, but is by no means capable of demonstration, itself an\noccult quality? The grand attraction of the heavenly bodies is\ndemonstrated and calculated. That of adhering bodies is incalculable.\nBut how can we admit a force that is immeasurable to be of the same\nnature as one that can be measured?\n\nNevertheless, it is demonstrated that the force of attraction acts upon\nall the planets and all heavy bodies in proportion to their solidity;\nbut it acts on all the particles of matter; it is, therefore, very\nprobable that, while it exists in every part in reference to the whole,\nit exists also in every part in reference to cohesion; coherence,\ntherefore, may be the effect of attraction.\n\nThis opinion appears admissible till a better one can be found, and that\nbetter is not easily to be met with.\n\n\n\n\nCOMMERCE.\n\n\nSince the fall of Carthage, no people had been powerful in commerce and\narms at the same time, until Venice set the example. The Portuguese\nhaving passed the Cape of Good Hope, were, for some time, great lords on\nthe coast of India, and even formidable in Europe. The United Provinces\nhave only been warriors in spite of themselves, and it was not as united\nbetween themselves, but as united with England that they assisted to\nhold the balance of Europe at the commencement of the eighteenth\ncentury.\n\nCarthage, Venice, and Amsterdam have been powerful; but they have acted\nlike those people among us, who, having amassed money by trade, buy\nlordly estates. Neither Carthage, Venice, Holland, nor any people, have\ncommenced by being warriors, and even conquerors, to finish by being\nmerchants. The English only answer this description; they had fought a\nlong time before they knew how to reckon. They did not know, when they\ngained the battles of Agincourt, Cr\u00e9cy, and Poitiers, that they were\nable to deal largely in corn, and make broadcloth, which would be of\nmuch more value to them than such victories. The knowledge of these arts\nalone has augmented, enriched, and strengthened the nation. It is only\nbecause the English have become merchants that London exceeds Paris in\nextent and number of citizens; that they can spread two hundred ships of\nwar over the seas, and keep royal allies in pay.\n\nWhen Louis XIV. made Italy tremble, and his armies, already masters of\nSavoy and Piedmont, were ready to take Turin, Prince Eugene was obliged\nto march to the skirts of Germany, to the succor of the duke of Savoy.\nHaving no money, without which he could neither take nor defend towns,\nhe had recourse to the English merchants. In half an hour they advanced\nhim the sum of five millions of livres, with which he delivered Turin,\nbeat the French, and wrote this little billet to those who had lent it\nhim: \"Gentlemen, I have received your money, and I flatter myself that I\nhave employed it to your satisfaction.\" All this excites just pride in\nan English merchant, and makes him venture to compare himself, and not\nwithout reason, to a Roman citizen. Thus the younger sons of a peer of\nthe realm disdain not to be merchants. Lord Townsend, minister of state,\nhad a brother who was contented with being a merchant in the city. At\nthe time that Lord Orford governed England, his younger brother was a\nfactor at Aleppo, whence he would not return, and where he died. This\ncustom--which, however, begins to decline--appeared monstrous to the\npetty German princes. They could not conceive how the son of a peer of\nEngland was only a rich and powerful trader, while in Germany they are\nall princes. We have seen nearly thirty highnesses of the same name,\nhaving nothing for their fortunes but old armories and aristocratical\nhauteur. In France, anybody may be a marquis that likes; and whoever\narrives at Paris from a remote province, with money to spend, and a name\nending in _ac_ or _ille_, may say: \"A man like me!\" \"A man of my\nquality!\" and sovereignly despise a merchant; while the merchant so\noften hears his profession spoken of with disdain that he is weak enough\nto blush at it. Which is the more useful to a state--a well-powdered\nlord, who knows precisely at what hour the king rises and retires, and\nwho gives himself airs of greatness, while playing the part of a slave\nin the antechamber of a minister; or a merchant who enriches his\ncountry, sends orders from his office to Surat and Aleppo, and\ncontributes to the happiness of the world?\n\n\n\n\nCOMMON SENSE.\n\n\nThere is sometimes in vulgar expressions an image of what passes in the\nheart of all men. \"_Sensus communis_\" signified among the Romans not\nonly common sense, but also humanity and sensibility. As we are not\nequal to the Romans, this word with us conveys not half what it did with\nthem. It signifies only good sense--plain, straightforward\nreasoning--the first notion of ordinary things--a medium between dulness\nand intellect. To say, \"that man has not common sense,\" is a gross\ninsult; while the expression, \"that man has common sense,\" is an affront\nalso; it would imply that he was not quite stupid, but that he wanted\nintellect. But what is the meaning of common sense, if it be not sense?\nMen, when they invented this term, supposed that nothing entered the\nmind except by the senses; otherwise would they have used the word\n\"sense\" to signify the result of the common faculty of reason?\n\nIt is said, sometimes, that common sense is very rare. What does this\nexpression mean? That, in many men, dawning reason is arrested in its\nprogress by some prejudices; that a man who judges reasonably on one\naffair will deceive himself grossly in another. The Arab, who, besides\nbeing a good calculator, was a learned chemist and an exact astronomer,\nnevertheless believed that Mahomet put half of the moon into his sleeve.\n\nHow is it that he was so much above common sense in the three sciences\nabove mentioned, and beneath it when he proceeded to the subject of half\nthe moon? It is because, in the first case, he had seen with his own\neyes, and perfected his own intelligence; and, in the second, he had\nused the eyes of others, by shutting his own, and perverting the common\nsense within him.\n\nHow could this strange perversion of mind operate? How could the ideas\nwhich had so regular and firm a footing in his brain, on many subjects,\nhalt on another a thousand times more palpable and easy to comprehend?\nThis man had always the same principles of intelligence in him; he must\nhave therefore possessed a vitiated organ, as it sometimes happens that\nthe most delicate epicure has a depraved taste in regard to a particular\nkind of nourishment.\n\nHow did the organ of this Arab, who saw half of the moon in Mahomet's\nsleeve, become disordered--By fear. It had been told him that if he did\nnot believe in this sleeve his soul, immediately after his death, in\npassing over the narrow bridge, would fall forever into the abyss. He\nwas told much worse--if ever you doubt this sleeve, one dervish will\ntreat you with ignominy; another will prove you mad, because, having all\npossible motives for credibility, you will not submit your superb reason\nto evidence; a third will refer you to the little divan of a small\nprovince, and you will be legally impaled.\n\nAll this produces a panic in the good Arab, his wife, sister, and all\nhis little family. They possess good sense in all the rest, but on this\narticle their imagination is diseased like that of Pascal, who\ncontinually saw a precipice near his couch. But did our Arab really\nbelieve in the sleeve of Mahomet? No; he endeavored to believe it; he\nsaid, \"It is impossible, but true--I believe that which I do not\ncredit.\" He formed a chaos of ideas in his head in regard to this\nsleeve, which he feared to disentangle, and he gave up his common sense.\n\n\n\n\nCONFESSION.\n\n\nRepentance for one's faults is the only thing that can repair the loss\nof innocence; and to appear to repent of them, we must begin by\nacknowledging them. Confession, therefore, is almost as ancient as civil\nsociety. Confession was practised in all the mysteries of Egypt, Greece,\nand Samothrace. We are told, in the life of Marcus Aurelius, that when\nhe deigned to participate in the Eleusinian mysteries, he confessed\nhimself to the hierophant, though no man had less need of confession\nthan himself.\n\nThis might be a very salutary ceremony; it might also become very\ndetrimental; for such is the case with all human institutions. We know\nthe answer of the Spartan whom a hierophant would have persuaded to\nconfess himself: \"To whom should I acknowledge my faults? to God, or to\nthee?\" \"To God,\" said the priest. \"Retire, then, O man.\"\n\nIt is hard to determine at what time this practice was established among\nthe Jews, who borrowed a great many of their rites from their neighbors.\nThe Mishna, which is the collection of the Jewish laws, says that often,\nin confessing, they placed their hand upon a calf belonging to the\npriest; and this was called \"the confession of calves.\"\n\nIt is said, in the same Mishna, that every culprit under sentence of\ndeath, went and confessed himself before witnesses, in some retired\nspot, a short time before his execution. If he felt himself guilty he\nsaid, \"May my death atone for all my sins!\" If innocent, he said, \"May\nmy death atone for all my sins, excepting that of which I am now\naccused.\"\n\nOn the day of the feast which was called by the Jews _the solemn\natonement_, the devout among them confessed to one another, specifying\ntheir sins. The confessor repeated three times thirteen words of the\nseventy-seventh Psalm, at the same time giving the confessed thirty-nine\nstripes, which the latter returned, and they went away quits. It is said\nthat this ceremony is still in use.\n\nSt. John's reputation for sanctity brought crowds to confess to him, as\nthey came to be baptized by him with the baptism of justice; but we are\nnot informed that St. John gave his penitents thirty-nine stripes.\nConfession was not then a sacrament; for this there are several reasons.\nThe first is, that the word \"sacrament\" was at that time unknown, which\nreason is of itself sufficient. The Christians took their confession\nfrom the Jewish rites, and not from the mysteries of Isis and Ceres. The\nJews confessed to their associates, and the Christians did also. It\nafterwards appeared more convenient that this should be the privilege of\nthe priests. No rite, no ceremony, can be established but in process of\ntime. It was hardly possible that some trace should not remain of the\nancient usage of the laity of confessing to one another.\n\nIn Constantine's reign, it was at first the practice publicly to confess\npublic offences. In the fifth century, after the schism of Novatus and\nNovatian, penitentiaries were instituted for the absolution of such as\nhad fallen into idolatry. This confession to penitentiary priests was\nabolished under the Emperor Theodosius. A woman having accused herself\naloud, to the penitentiary of Constantinople, of lying with the deacon,\ncaused so much scandal and disturbance throughout the city that\nNectarius permitted all the faithful to approach the holy table without\nconfession, and to communicate in obedience to their consciences alone.\nHence these words of St. John Chrysostom, who succeeded Nectarius:\n\"Confess yourselves continually to God; I do not bring you forward on a\nstage to discover your faults to your fellow-servants; show your wounds\nto God, and ask of Him their cure; acknowledge your sins to Him who will\nnot reproach you before men; it were vain to strive to hide them from\nHim who knows all things,\" etc.\n\nIt is said that the practice of auricular confession did not begin in\nthe west until about the seventh century, when it was instituted by the\nabbots, who required their monks to come and acknowledge their offences\nto them twice a year. These abbots it was who invented the formula: \"I\nabsolve thee to the utmost of my power and thy need.\" It would surely\nhave been more respectful towards the Supreme Being, as well as more\njust, to say: \"May He forgive both thy faults and mine!\"\n\nThe good which confession has done is that it has sometimes procured\nrestitution from petty thieves. The ill is, that, in the internal\ntroubles of states, it has sometimes forced the penitents to be\nconscientiously rebellious and blood-thirsty. The Guelph priests refused\nabsolution to the Ghibellines, and the Ghibellines to the Guelphs.\n\nThe counsellor of state, L\u00e9net, relates, in his \"Memoirs,\" that all he\ncould do in Burgundy to make the people rise in favor of the Prince\nCond\u00e9, detained at Vincennes by Cardinal Mazarin, was \"to let loose the\npriests in the confessionals\"--speaking of them as bloodhounds, who were\nto fan the flame of civil war in the privacy of the confessional.\n\nAt the siege of Barcelona, the monks refused absolution to all who\nremained faithful to Philip V. In the last revolution of Genoa, it was\nintimated to all consciences that there was no salvation for whosoever\nshould not take up arms against the Austrians. This salutary remedy has,\nin every age, been converted into a poison. Whether a Sforza, a Medici,\na Prince of Orange, or a King of France was to be assassinated, the\nparricide always prepared himself by the sacrament of confession. Louis\nXI., and the Marchioness de Brinvilliers always confessed as soon as\nthey had committed any great crime; and they confessed often, as\ngluttons take medicines to increase their appetite.\n\n_The Disclosure of Confessions._\n\nJaurigini and Balthazar G\u00e9rard, the assassins of William I., Prince of\nOrange, the dominican Jacques Cl\u00e9ment, Jean Ch\u00e2tel, the Feuillant\nRavaillac, and all the other parricides of that day, confessed\nthemselves before committing their crimes. Fanaticism, in those\ndeplorable ages, had arrived at such a pitch that confession was but an\nadditional pledge for the consummation of villainy. It became sacred for\nthis reason--that confession is a sacrament.\n\nStrada himself says: _\"Jaurigni non ante facinus aggredi sustinuit, quam\nexpiatam noxis animam apud Dominicanum sacerdotem c\u0153lesti pane\nfirmaverit\"._ \"Jaurigini did not venture upon this act until he had\npurged his soul by confession at the feet of a Dominican, and fortified\nit by the celestial bread.\"\n\nWe find, in the interrogatory of Ravaillac, that the wretched man,\nquitting the Feuillans, and wishing to be received among the Jesuits,\napplied to the Jesuit d'Aubigny and, after speaking of several\napparitions that he had seen, showed him a knife, on the blade of which\nwas engraved a heart and a cross, and said, \"This heart indicates that\nthe king's heart must be brought to make war on the Huguenots.\"\n\nPerhaps, if this d'Aubigny had been zealous and prudent enough to have\ninformed the king of these words, and given him a faithful picture of\nthe man who had uttered them, the best of kings would not have been\nassassinated.\n\nOn August 20, 1610, three months after the death of Henry IV., whose\nwounds yet bleed in the heart of every Frenchman, the Advocate-General\nSirvin, still of illustrious memory, required that the Jesuits should be\nmade to sign the four following rules:\n\n1. That the council is above the pope. 2. That the pope cannot deprive\nthe king of any of his rights by excommunication. 3. That ecclesiastics,\nlike other persons, are entirely subject to the king. 4. That a priest\nwho is made acquainted, by confession, with a conspiracy against the\nking and the state, must disclose it to the magistrates.\n\nOn the 22nd, the parliament passed a decree, by which it forbade the\nJesuits to instruct youth before they had signed these four articles;\nbut the court of Rome was then so powerful, and that of France so\nfeeble, that this decree was of no effect. A fact worthy of attention\nis, that this same court of Rome, which did not choose that confession\nshould be disclosed when the lives of sovereigns were endangered,\nobliged its confessors to denounce to the inquisitors those whom their\nfemale penitents accused in confession of having seduced and abused\nthem. Paul IV., Pius IV., Clement VIII., and Gregory XV., ordered these\ndisclosures to be made.\n\nThis was a very embarrassing snare for confessors and female penitents;\nit was making the sacrament a register of informations, and even of\nsacrileges. For, by the ancient canons, and especially by the Lateran\nCouncil under Innocent III., every priest that disclosed a confession,\nof whatever nature, was to be interdicted and condemned to perpetual\nimprisonment.\n\nBut this is not the worst; here are four popes, of the sixteenth and\nseventeenth centuries, ordering the disclosure of a sin of impurity, but\nnot permitting that of a parricide. A woman, in the sacrament, declares,\nor pretends, before a carmelite, that a cordelier has seduced her; and\nthe carmelite must denounce the cordelier. A fanatical assassin,\nthinking that he serves God by killing his prince, comes and consults a\nconfessor on this case of conscience; and the confessor commits a\nsacrilege if he saves his sovereign's life.\n\nThis absurd and horrible contradiction is one unfortunate consequence of\nthe constant opposition existing for so many centuries between the civil\nand ecclesiastical laws. The citizen finds himself, on fifty occasions,\nplaced without alternative between sacrilege and high treason; the rules\nof good and evil being not yet drawn from beneath the chaos under which\nthey have so long been buried. The Jesuit Coton's reply to Henry IV.\nwill endure longer than his order. \"Would you reveal the confession of a\nman who had resolved to assassinate me?\" \"No; but I would throw myself\nbetween him and you.\"\n\nFather Coton's maxim has not always been followed. In some countries\nthere are state mysteries unknown to the public, of which revealed\nconfessions form no inconsiderable part. By means of suborned confessors\nthe secrets of prisoners are learned. Some confessors, to reconcile\ntheir conscience with their interest, make use of a singular artifice.\nThey give an account, not precisely of what the prisoner has told them,\nbut of what he has not told them. If, for example, they are employed to\nfind out whether an accused person has for his accomplice a Frenchman or\nan Italian, they say to the man who employs them, \"the prisoner has\nsworn to me that no Italian was informed of his designs;\" whence it is\nconcluded that the suspected Frenchman is guilty.\n\nBodin thus expresses himself, in his book, \"_De la R\u00e9publique_\": \"Nor\nmust it be concealed, if the culprit is discovered to have conspired\nagainst the life of the sovereign, or even to have willed it only; as in\nthe case of a gentleman of Normandy, who confessed to a monk that he had\na mind to kill Francis I. The monk apprised the king, who sent the\ngentleman to the court of parliament, where he was condemned to death,\nas I learned from M. Canage, an advocate in parliament.\"\n\nThe writer of this article was himself almost witness to a disclosure\nstill more important and singular. It is known how the Jesuit Daubenton\nbetrayed Philip V., king of Spain, to whom he was confessor. He thought,\nfrom a very mistaken policy, that he should report the secrets of his\npenitent to the duke of Orleans, regent of the kingdom, and had the\nimprudence to write to him what he should not, even verbally,\ncommunicate to any one. The duke of Orleans sent his letter to the king\nof Spain. The Jesuit was discarded, and died a short time after. This is\nan authenticated fact.\n\nIt is still a grave and perplexing question, in what cases confessions\nshould be disclosed. For, if we decide that it should be in cases of\nhuman high treason, this treason may be made to include any direct\noffence against majesty, even the smuggling of salt or muslins. Much\nmore should high treasons against the Divine Majesty be disclosed; and\nthese may be extended to the smallest faults, as having missed evening\nservice.\n\nIt would, then, be very important to come to a perfect understanding\nabout what confessions should be disclosed, and what should be kept\nsecret. Yet would such a decision be very dangerous; for how many things\nare there which must not be investigated!\n\nPontas, who, in three folio volumes, decides on all the possible cases\nof conscience in France, and is unknown to the rest of the world, says\nthat on no occasion should confession be disclosed. The parliaments have\ndecided the contrary. Which are we to believe? Pontas, or the guardians\nof the laws of the realm, who watch over the lives of princes and the\nsafety of the state?\n\n_Whether Laymen and Women Have Been Confessors?_\n\nAs, in the old law, the laity confessed to one another; so, in the new\nlaw, they long had the same privilege by custom. In proof of this, let\nit suffice to cite the celebrated Joinville, who expressly says that\n\"the constable of Cyprus confessed himself to him, and he gave him\nabsolution, according to the right which he had so to do.\" St. Thomas,\nin his dream, expresses himself thus: _\"Confessio ex defectu sacerdotis\nlaico facta, sacramentalis est quodam modo.\"_ \"Confession made to a\nlayman, in default of a priest, is in some sort sacramental.\"\n\nWe find in the life of St. Burgundosarius, and in the rule of an unknown\nsaint, that the nuns confessed their very grossest sins to their abbess.\nThe rule of St. Donatus ordains that the nuns shall discover their\nfaults to their superior three times a day. The capitulars of our kings\nsay that abbesses must be forbidden the exercise of the right which they\nhave arrogated against the custom of the holy church, of giving\nbenediction and imposing hands, which seems to signify the pronouncing\nof absolution, and supposes the confession of sins. Marcus, patriarch of\nAlexandria, asks Balzamon, a celebrated canonist of his time, whether\npermission should be granted to abbesses to hear confessions, to which\nBalzamon answers in the negative. We have, in the canon law, a decree of\nPope Innocent III., enjoining the bishops of Valencia and Burgos, in\nSpain, to prevent certain abbesses from blessing their nuns, from\nconfessing, and from public preaching: \"Although,\" says he, \"the blessed\nVirgin Mary was superior to all the apostles in dignity and in merit,\nyet it is not to her, but to the apostles, that the Lord has confided\nthe keys of the kingdom of heaven.\"\n\nSo ancient was this right, that we find it established in the rules of\nSt. Basil. He permits abbesses to confess their nuns, conjointly with a\npriest. Father Mart\u00e8ne, in his \"Rights of the Church,\" says that, for a\nlong time, abbesses confessed their nuns; but, adds he, they were so\n_curious_, that it was found necessary to deprive them of this\nprivilege.\n\nThe ex-Jesuit Nonnotte should confess himself and do penance; not for\nhaving been one of the most ignorant of daubers on paper, for that is no\ncrime; not for having given the name of _errors_ to truths which he did\nnot understand; but for having, with the most insolent stupidity,\ncalumniated the author of this article, and called his brother _raca_ (a\nfool), while he denied these facts and many others, about which he knew\nnot one word. He has put himself in danger of hell fire; let us hope\nthat he will ask pardon of God for his enormous folly. We desire not the\ndeath of a sinner, but that he turn from his wickedness and live.\n\nIt has long been debated why men, very famous in this part of the world\nwhere confession is in use, have died without this sacrament. Such are\nLeo X., P\u00e9lisson, and Cardinal Dubois. The cardinal had his perineum\nopened by La Peyronie's bistoury; but he might have confessed and\ncommunicated before the operation. P\u00e9lisson, who was a Protestant until\nhe was forty years old, became a convert that he might be made master of\nrequests and have benefices. As for Pope Leo X., when surprised by\ndeath, he was so much occupied with temporal concerns, that he had no\ntime to think of spiritual ones.\n\n_Confession Tickets._\n\nIn Protestant countries confession is made to God; in Catholic ones, to\nman. The Protestants say you can hide nothing from God, whereas man\nknows only what you choose to tell him. As we shall never meddle with\ncontroversy, we shall not enter here into this old dispute. Our literary\nsociety is composed of Catholics and Protestants, united by the love of\nletters; we must not suffer ecclesiastical quarrels to sow dissension\namong us. We will content ourselves with once more repeating the fine\nanswer of the Greek already mentioned, to the priest who would have had\nhim confess in the mysteries of Ceres: \"Is it to God, or to thee, that I\nam to address myself?\" \"To God.\" \"Depart then, O man.\"\n\nIn Italy, and in all the countries of obedience, every one, without\ndistinction, must confess and communicate. If you have a stock of\nenormous sins on hand, you have also grand penitentiaries to absolve\nyou. If your confession is worth nothing, so much the worse for you. At\na very reasonable rate, you get a printed receipt, which admits you to\ncommunion; and all the receipts are thrown into a pix; such is the rule.\n\nThese bearers' tickets were unknown at Paris until about the year 1750,\nwhen an archbishop of Paris bethought himself of introducing a sort of\nspiritual bank, to extirpate Jansenism and insure the triumph of the\nbull _Unigenitus_. It was his pleasure that extreme unction and the\nviaticum should be refused to every sick person who did not produce a\nticket of confession, signed by a constitutionary priest.\n\nThis was refusing the sacrament to nine-tenths of Paris. In vain was he\ntold: \"Think what you are doing; either these sacraments are necessary,\nto escape damnation, or salvation may be obtained without them by faith,\nhope, charity, good works, and the merits of our Saviour. If salvation\nbe attainable without this viaticum, your tickets are useless; if the\nsacraments be absolutely necessary, you damn all whom you deprive of\nthem; you consign to eternal fire seven hundred thousand souls,\nsupposing you live long enough to bury them; this is violent; calm\nyourself, and let each one die as well as he can.\"\n\nIn this dilemma he gave no answer, but persisted. It is horrible to\nconvert religion, which should be man's consolation, into his torment.\nThe parliament, in whose hands is the high police, finding that society\nwas disturbed, opposed--according to custom--decrees to mandaments. But\necclesiastical discipline would not yield to legal authority. The\nmagistracy was under the necessity of using force, and to send archers\nto obtain for the Parisians confession, communion, and interment.\n\nBy this excess of absurdity, men's minds were soured and cabals were\nformed at court, as if there had been a farmer-general to be appointed,\nor a minister to be disgraced. In the discussion of a question there are\nalways incidents mixed up that have no radical connection with it; and\nin this case so much so, that all the members of the parliament were\nexiled, as was also the archbishop in his turn.\n\nThese confession tickets would, in the times preceding, have caused a\ncivil war, but happily, in our days, they produced only civil cavils.\nThe spirit of philosophy, which is no other than reason, has become,\nwith all honest men, the only antidote against these epidemic disorders.\n\n\n\n\nCONFISCATION.\n\n\nIt is well observed, in the \"_Dictionnaire Encyclop\u00e9dique_,\" in the\narticle \"Confiscation,\" that the _fisc_, whether public, or royal, or\nseignorial, or imperial, or disloyal, was a small basket of reeds or\nosiers, in which was put the little money that was received or could be\nextorted. We now use bags; the royal _fisc_ is the royal _bag_.\n\nIn several countries of Europe it is a received maxim, that whosoever\nconfiscates the body, confiscates the goods also. This usage is\nestablished in those countries in particular where custom holds the\nplace of law; and in all cases, an entire family is punished for the\nfault of one man only.\n\nTo confiscate the body, is not to put a man's body into his sovereign\nlord's basket. This phrase, in the barbarous language of the bar, means\nto get possession of the body of a citizen, in order either to take away\nhis life, or to condemn him to banishment for life. If he is put to\ndeath, or escapes death by flight, his goods are seized. Thus it is not\nenough to put a man to death for his offences; his children, too, must\nbe deprived of the means of living.\n\nIn more countries than one, the rigor of custom confiscates the property\nof a man who has voluntarily released himself from the miseries of this\nlife, and his children are reduced to beggary because their father is\ndead. In some Roman Catholic provinces, the head of a family is\ncondemned to the galleys for life, by an arbitrary sentence, for having\nharbored a preacher in his house, or for having heard one of his sermons\nin some cavern or desert place, and his wife and family are forced to\nbeg their bread.\n\nThis jurisprudence, which consists in depriving orphans of their food,\nwas unknown to the Roman commonwealth. Sulla introduced it in his\nproscriptions, and it must be acknowledged that a rapine invented by\nSulla was not an example to be followed. Nor was this law, which seems\nto have been dictated by inhumanity and avarice alone, followed either\nby C\u00e6sar, or by the good Emperor Trajan, or by the Antonines, whose\nnames are still pronounced in every nation with love and reverence. Even\nunder Justinian, confiscations took place only in cases of high treason.\nThose who were accused having been, for the most part, men of great\npossessions, it seems that Justinian made this ordinance through avarice\nalone. It also appears that, in the times of feudal anarchy, the princes\nand lords of lands, being not very rich, sought to increase their\ntreasure by the condemnation of their subjects. They were allowed to\ndraw a revenue from crime. Their laws being arbitrary, and the Roman\njurisprudence unknown among them, their customs, whether whimsical or\ncruel, prevailed. But now that the power of sovereigns is founded on\nimmense and assured wealth, their treasure needs no longer to be swollen\nby the slender wreck of the fortunes of some unhappy family. It is true\nthat the goods so appropriated are abandoned to the first who asks for\nthem. But is it for one citizen to fatten on the remains of the blood of\nanother citizen?\n\nConfiscation is not admitted in countries where the Roman law is\nestablished, except within the jurisdiction of the parliament of\nToulouse. It was formerly established at Calais, where it was abolished\nby the English when they were masters of that place. It appears very\nstrange that the inhabitants of the capital live under a more rigorous\nlaw than those of the smaller towns; so true is it, that jurisprudence\nhas often been established by chance, without regularity, without\nuniformity, as the huts are built in a village.\n\nThe following was spoken by Advocate-General Omer Talon, in full\nparliament, at the most glorious period in the annals of France, in\n1673, concerning the property of one Mademoiselle de Canillac, which had\nbeen confiscated. Reader, attend to this speech; it is not in the style\nof Cicero's oratory, but it is curious:\n\n\"In the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, God says, 'If thou shalt find\na city where idolatry prevails, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants\nof that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all\nthat is therein. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the\nmidst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city and all\nthe spoil thereof, every whit, for the Lord thy God.'\n\n\"So, in the crime of high treason, the king seized the property, and the\nchildren were deprived of it. Naboth having been proceeded against,\n'_quia maledixerat regi_,' King Ahab took possession of his inheritance.\nDavid, being apprised that Mephibosheth had taken part in the rebellion,\ngave all his goods to Sheba, who brought him the news--'_Tibi sunt omnia\nqu\u00e6 fuerunt Mephibosheth._'\"\n\nThe question here was, who should inherit the property of Mademoiselle\nde Canillac--property formerly confiscated from her father, abandoned by\nthe king to a keeper of the royal treasure, and afterwards given by this\nkeeper of the royal treasure to the testatrix. And in this case of a\nwoman of Auvergne a lawyer refers us to that of Ahab, one of the petty\nkings of a part of Palestine, who confiscated Naboth's vineyard, after\nassassinating its proprietor with the poniard of Jewish justice--an\nabominable act, which has become a proverb to inspire men with a horror\nfor usurpation. Assuredly, Naboth's vineyard has no connection with\nMademoiselle de Canillac's inheritance. Nor do the murder and\nconfiscation of the goods of Mephibosheth, grandson of King Saul, and\nson of David's friend Jonathan, bear a much greater affinity to this\nlady's will.\n\nWith this pedantry, this rage for citations foreign to the subject; with\nthis ignorance of the first principles of human nature; with these\nill-conceived and ill-adapted prejudices, has jurisprudence been treated\non by men who, in their sphere, have had some reputation.\n\n\n\n\nCONSCIENCE.\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_Of the Conscience of Good and of Evil._\n\n\nLocke has demonstrated--if we may use that term in morals and\nmetaphysics--that we have no innate ideas or principles. He was obliged\nto demonstrate this position at great length, as the contrary was at\nthat time universally believed. It hence clearly follows that it is\nnecessary to instil just ideas and good principles into the mind as soon\nas it acquires the use of its faculties.\n\nLocke adduces the example of savages, who kill and devour their\nneighbors without any remorse of conscience; and of Christian soldiers,\ndecently educated, who, on the taking of a city by assault, plunder,\nslay, and violate, not merely without remorse, but with rapture, honor,\nand glory, and with the applause of all their comrades.\n\nIt is perfectly certain that, in the massacres of St. Bartholomew, and\nin the \"_autos-da-f\u00e9_\" the holy acts of faith of the Inquisition, no\nmurderer's conscience ever upbraided him with having massacred men,\nwomen, and children, or with the shrieks, faintings, and dying tortures\nof his miserable victims, whose only crime consisted in keeping Easter\nin a manner different from that of the inquisitors. It results,\ntherefore, from what has been stated, that we have no other conscience\nthan what is created in us by the spirit of the age, by example, and by\nour own dispositions and reflections.\n\nMan is born without principles, but with the faculty of receiving them.\nHis natural disposition will incline him either to cruelty or kindness;\nhis understanding will in time inform him that the square of twelve is a\nhundred and forty-four, and that he ought not to do to others what he\nwould not that others should do to him; but he will not, of himself,\nacquire these truths in early childhood. He will not understand the\nfirst, and he will not feel the second.\n\nA young savage who, when hungry, has received from his father a piece of\nanother savage to eat, will, on the morrow, ask for the like meal,\nwithout thinking about any obligation not to treat a neighbor otherwise\nthan he would be treated himself. He acts, mechanically and\nirresistibly, directly contrary to the eternal principle.\n\nNature has made a provision against such horrors. She has given to man a\ndisposition to pity, and the power of comprehending truth. These two\ngifts of God constitute the foundation of civil society. This is the\nreason there have ever been but few cannibals; and which renders life,\namong civilized nations, a little tolerable. Fathers and mothers bestow\non their children an education which soon renders them social, and this\neducation confers on them a conscience.\n\nPure religion and morality, early inculcated, so strongly impress the\nhuman heart that, from the age of sixteen or seventeen, a single bad\naction will not be performed without the upbraidings of conscience. Then\nrush on those headlong passions which war against conscience, and\nsometimes destroy it. During the conflict, men, hurried on by the\ntempest of their feelings, on various occasions consult the advice of\nothers; as, in physical diseases, they ask it of those who appear to\nenjoy good health.\n\nThis it is which has produced casuists; that is, persons who decide on\ncases of conscience. One of the wisest casuists was Cicero. In his book\nof \"Offices,\" or \"Duties\" of man, he investigates points of the greatest\nnicety; but long before him Zoroaster had appeared in the world to guide\nthe conscience by the most beautiful precept, \"If you _doubt_ whether an\naction be good or bad, abstain from doing it.\" We treat of this\nelsewhere.\n\n_Whether a Judge Should Decide according to his Conscience, or according\nto the Evidence._\n\nThomas Aquinas, you are a great saint, and a great divine, and no\nDominican has a greater veneration for you than I have; but you have\ndecided, in your \"Summary,\" that a judge ought to give sentence\naccording to the evidence produced against the person accused, although\nhe knows that person to be perfectly innocent. You maintain that the\ndeposition of witnesses, which must inevitably be false, and the\npretended proofs resulting from the process, which are impertinent,\nought to weigh down the testimony of his own senses. He saw the crime\ncommitted by another; and yet, according to you, he ought in conscience\nto condemn the accused, although his conscience tells him the accused is\ninnocent. According to your doctrine, therefore, if the judge had\nhimself committed the crime in question, his conscience ought to oblige\nhim to condemn the man falsely accused of it.\n\nIn my conscience, great saint, I conceive that you are most absurdly and\nmost dreadfully deceived. It is a pity that, while possessing such a\nknowledge of canon law, you should be so little acquainted with natural\nlaw. The duty of a magistrate to be just, precedes that of being a\nformalist. If, in virtue of evidence which can never exceed probability,\nI were to condemn a man whose innocence I was otherwise convinced of, I\nshould consider myself a fool and an assassin.\n\nFortunately all the tribunals of the world think differently from you. I\nknow not whether Farinaceus and Grillandus may be of your opinion.\nHowever that may be, if ever you meet with Cicero, Ulpian, Trebonian,\nDemoulin, the Chancellor de l'H\u00f4pital, or the Chancellor d'Aguesseau, in\nthe shades, be sure to ask pardon of them for falling into such an\nerror.\n\n_Of a Deceitful Conscience._\n\nThe best thing perhaps that was ever said upon this important subject is\nin the witty work of \"Tristram Shandy,\" written by a clergyman of the\nname of Sterne, the second Rabelais of England. It resembles those small\nsatires of antiquity, the essential spirit of which is so piquant and\nprecious.\n\nAn old half-pay captain and his corporal, assisted by Doctor Slop, put a\nnumber of very ridiculous questions. In these questions the French\ndivines are not spared. Mention is particularly made of a memoir\npresented to the Sorbonne by a surgeon, requesting permission to baptize\nunborn children by means of a clyster-pipe, which might be introduced\ninto the womb without injuring either the mother or the child. At length\nthe corporal is directed to read to them a sermon, composed by the same\nclergyman, Sterne.\n\nAmong many particulars, superior even to those of Rembrandt and Calot,\nit describes a gentleman, a man of the world, spending his time in the\npleasures of the table, in gaming, and debauchery, yet doing nothing to\nexpose himself to the reproaches of what is called good company, and\nconsequently never incurring his own. His conscience and his honor\naccompany him to the theatres, to the gaming houses, and are more\nparticularly present when he liberally pays his lady under protection.\nHe punishes severely, when in office, the petty larcenies of the vulgar,\nlives a life of gayety, and dies without the slightest feeling of\nremorse.\n\nDoctor Slop interrupts the reading to observe that such a case was\nimpossible with respect to a follower of the Church of England, and\ncould happen only among papists. At last the sermon adduces the example\nof David, who sometimes possessed a conscience tender and enlightened,\nat others hardened and dark.\n\nWhen he has it in his power to assassinate his king in a cavern, he\nscruples going beyond cutting off a corner of his robe--here is the\ntender conscience. He passes an entire year without feeling the\nslightest compunction for his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of\nUriah--here is the same conscience in a state of obduracy and darkness.\n\nSuch, says the preacher, are the greater number of mankind. We concede\nto this clergyman that the great ones of the world are very often in\nthis state; the torrent of pleasures and affairs urges them almost\nirresistibly on; they have no time to keep a conscience. Conscience is\nproper enough for the people; but even the people dispense with it, when\nthe question is how to gain money. It is judicious, however, at times,\nto endeavor to awaken conscience both in mantua-makers and in monarchs,\nby the inculcation of a morality calculated to make an impression upon\nboth; but, in order to make this impression, it is necessary to preach\nbetter than modern preachers usually do, who seldom talk effectively to\neither.\n\n_Liberty of Conscience._\n\n[Translated from the German.]\n\n[We do not adopt the whole of the following article; but, as it contains\nsome truths, we did not consider ourselves obliged to omit it; and we do\nnot feel ourselves called upon to justify what may be advanced in it\nwith too great rashness or severity.--_Author._]\n\n\"The almoner of Prince ----, who is a Roman Catholic, threatened an\nanabaptist that he would get him banished from the small estates which\nthe prince governed. He told him that there were only three authorized\nsects in the empire--that which eats Jesus Christ, by faith alone, in a\nmorsel of bread, while drinking out of a cup; that which eats Jesus\nChrist with bread alone; and that which eats Jesus Christ in body and in\nsoul, without either bread or wine; and that as for the anabaptist who\ndoes not in any way eat God, he was not fit to live in monseigneur's\nterritory. At last, the conversation kindling into greater violence, the\nalmoner fiercely threatened the anabaptist that he would get him hanged.\n'So much the worse for his highness,' replied the anabaptist; 'I am a\nlarge manufacturer; I employ two hundred workmen; I occasion the influx\nof two hundred thousand crowns a year into his territories; my family\nwill go and settle somewhere else; monseigneur will in consequence be a\nloser.'\n\n\"'But suppose monseigneur hangs up your two hundred workmen and your\nfamily,' rejoined the almoner, 'and gives your manufactory to good\nCatholics?'\n\n\"'I defy him to do it,' says the old gentleman. 'A manufactory is not to\nbe given like a farm; because industry cannot be given. It would be more\nsilly for him to act so than to order all his horses to be killed,\nbecause, being a bad horseman, one may have thrown him off his back. The\ninterest of monseigneur does not consist in my swallowing the godhead in\na wafer, but in my procuring something to eat for his subjects, and\nincreasing the revenues by my industry. I am a gentleman; and although I\nhad the misfortune not to be born such, my occupation would compel me to\nbecome one; for mercantile transactions are of a very different nature\nfrom those of a court, and from your own. There can be no success in\nthem without probity. Of what consequence is it to you that I was\nbaptized at what is called the age of discretion, and you while you were\nan infant? Of what consequence is it to you that I worship God after the\nmanner of my fathers? Were you able to follow up your wise maxims, from\none end of the world to the other, you will hang up the Greek, who does\nnot believe that the spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; all\nthe English, all the Hollanders, Danes, Swedes, Icelanders, Prussians,\nHanoverians, Saxons, Holsteiners, Hessians, W\u00fcrtembergers, Bernese,\nHamburgers, Cossacks, Wallachians, and Russians, none of whom believe\nthe pope to be infallible; all the Mussulmans, who believe in one God,\nand who give him neither father nor mother; the Indians, whose religion\nis more ancient than the Jewish; and the lettered Chinese, who, for the\nspace of four thousand years, have served one only God without\nsuperstition and without fanaticism. This, then, is what you would\nperform had you but the power!' 'Most assuredly,' says the monk, 'for\nthe zeal of the house of the Lord devours me.' _'Zelus domus su\u00e6 comedit\nme.'_\n\n\"'Just tell me now, my good almoner,' resumed the anabaptist, 'are you a\nDominican, or a Jesuit, or a devil?' 'I am a Jesuit,' says the other.\n'Alas, my friend, if you are not a devil, why do you advance things so\nutterly diabolical?' 'Because the reverend father, the rector, has\ncommanded me to do so.' 'And who commanded the reverend father, the\nrector, to commit such an abomination?' 'The provincial.' 'From whom did\nthe provincial receive the command?' 'From our general, and all to\nplease the pope.'\n\n\"The poor anabaptist exclaimed: 'Ye holy popes, who are at Rome in\npossession of the throne of the C\u00e6sars--archbishops, bishops, and abb\u00e9s,\nbecome sovereigns, I respect and fly you; but if, in the recesses of\nyour heart, you confess that your opulence and power are founded only on\nthe ignorance and stupidity of our fathers, at least enjoy them with\nmoderation. We do not wish to dethrone you; but do not crush us. Enjoy\nyourselves, and let us be quiet. If otherwise, tremble, lest at last\npeople should lose their patience, and reduce you, for the good of your\nsouls, to the condition of the apostles, of whom you pretend to be the\nsuccessors.'\n\n\"'Wretch! you would wish the pope and the bishop of W\u00fcrtemberg to gain\nheaven by evangelical poverty!' 'You, reverend father, would wish to\nhave me hanged!'\"\n\n[Illustration: \"I'm a Jesuit.\"]\n\n\n\n\nCONSEQUENCE.\n\n\nWhat is our real nature, and what sort of a curious and contemptible\nunderstanding do we possess? A man may, it appears, draw the most\ncorrect and luminous conclusions, and yet be destitute of common sense.\nThis is, in fact, too true. The Athenian fool, who believed that all the\nvessels which came into the port belonged to him, could calculate to a\nnicety what the cargoes of those vessels were worth, and within how many\ndays they would arrive from Smyrna at the Pir\u00e6us.\n\nWe have seen idiots who could calculate and reason in a still more\nextraordinary manner. They were not idiots, then, you tell me. I ask\nyour pardon--they certainly were. They rested their whole superstructure\non an absurd principle; they regularly strung together chimeras. A man\nmay walk well, and go astray at the same time; and, then, the better he\nwalks the farther astray he goes.\n\nThe Fo of the Indians was son of an elephant, who condescended to\nproduce offspring by an Indian princess, who, in consequence of this\nspecies of left-handed union, was brought to bed of the god Fo. This\nprincess was sister to an emperor of the Indies. Fo, then, was the\nnephew of that emperor, and the grandson of the elephant and the monarch\nwere cousins-german; therefore, according to the laws of the state, the\nrace of the emperor being extinct, the descendants of the elephant\nbecome the rightful successors. Admit the principle, and the conclusion\nis perfectly correct.\n\nIt is said that the divine elephant was nine standard feet in height.\nYou reasonably suppose that the gate of his stable should be above nine\nfeet in height, in order to admit his entering with ease. He consumed\ntwenty pounds of rice every day, and twenty pounds of sugar, and drank\ntwenty-five pounds of water. You find, by using your arithmetic, that he\nswallows thirty-six thousand five hundred pounds weight in the course of\na year; it is impossible to reckon more correctly. But did your elephant\never, in fact, exist? Was he the emperor's brother-in-law? Had his wife\na child by this left-handed union? This is the matter to be\ninvestigated. Twenty different authors, who lived in Cochin China, have\nsuccessively written about it; it is incumbent on you to collate these\ntwenty authors, to weigh their testimonies, to consult ancient records,\nto see if there is any mention of this elephant in the public registers;\nto examine whether the whole account is not a fable, which certain\nimpostors have an interest in sanctioning. You proceed upon an\nextravagant principle, but draw from it correct conclusions.\n\nLogic is not so much wanting to men as the source of logic. It is not\nsufficient for a madman to say six vessels which belong to me carry two\nhundred tons each; the ton is two thousand pounds weight; I have\ntherefore twelve hundred thousand pounds weight of merchandise in the\nport of the Pir\u00e6us. The great point is, are those vessels yours? That is\nthe principle upon which your fortune depends; when that is settled, you\nmay estimate and reckon up afterwards.\n\nAn ignorant man, who is a fanatic, and who at the same time strictly\ndraws his conclusions from his premises, ought sometimes to be smothered\nto death as a madman. He has read that Phineas, transported by a holy\nzeal, having found a Jew in bed with a Midianitish woman, slew them\nboth, and was imitated by the Levites, who massacred every household\nthat consisted one-half of Midianites and the other of Jews. He learns\nthat Mr. ----, his Catholic neighbor, intrigued with Mrs. ----, another\nneighbor, but a Huguenot, and he will kill both of them without scruple.\nIt is impossible to act in greater consistency with principle; but what\nis the remedy for this dreadful disease of the soul? It is to accustom\nchildren betimes to admit nothing which shocks reason, to avoid relating\nto them histories of ghosts, apparitions, witches, demoniacal\npossessions, and ridiculous prodigies. A girl of an active and\nsusceptible imagination hears a story of demoniacal possessions; her\nnerves become shaken, she falls into convulsions, and believes herself\npossessed by a demon or devil. I actually saw one young woman die in\nconsequence of the shock her frame received from these abominable\nhistories.\n\n\n\n\nCONSTANTINE.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_The Age of Constantine._\n\nAmong the ages which followed the Augustan, that of Constantine merits\nparticular distinction. It is immortalized by the great changes which it\nushered into the world. It commenced, it is true, with bringing back\nbarbarism. Not merely were there no Ciceros, Horaces, and Virgils, any\nlonger to be found, but there was not even a Lucan or a Seneca; there\nwas not even a philosophic and accurate historian. Nothing was to be\nseen but equivocal satires or mere random panegyrics.\n\nIt was at that time that the Christians began to write history, but they\ntook not Titus Livy, or Thucydides as their models. The followers of the\nancient religion wrote with no greater eloquence or truth. The two\nparties, in a state of mutual exasperation, did not very scrupulously\ninvestigate the charges which they heaped upon their adversaries; and\nhence it arises that the same man is sometimes represented as a god and\nsometimes as a monster.\n\nThe decline of everything, in the commonest mechanical arts, as well as\nin eloquence and virtue, took place after the reign of Marcus Aurelius.\nHe was the last emperor of the sect of stoics, who elevated man above\nhimself by rendering him severe to himself only, and compassionate to\nothers. After the death of this emperor, who was a genuine philosopher,\nthere was nothing but tyranny and confusion. The soldiers frequently\ndisposed of the empire. The senate had fallen into such complete\ncontempt that, in the time of Gallienus, an express law was enacted to\nprevent senators from engaging in war. Thirty heads of parties were\nseen, at one time, assuming the title of emperor in thirty provinces of\nthe empire. The barbarians already poured in, on every side, in the\nmiddle of the third century, on this rent and lacerated empire. Yet it\nwas held together by the mere military discipline on which it had been\nfounded.\n\nDuring all these calamities, Christianity gradually established itself,\nparticularly in Egypt, Syria, and on the coasts of Asia Minor. The Roman\nEmpire admitted all sorts of religions, as well as all sects of\nphilosophy. The worship of Osiris was permitted, and even the Jews were\nleft in the enjoyment of considerable privileges, notwithstanding their\nrevolts. But the people in the provinces frequently rose up against the\nChristians. The magistrates persecuted them, and edicts were frequently\nobtained against them from the emperors. There is no ground for\nastonishment at the general hatred in which Christians were at first\nheld, while so many other religions were tolerated. The reason was that\nneither Egyptians nor Jews, nor the worshippers of the goddess of Syria\nand so many other foreign deities, ever declared open hostility to the\ngods of the empire. They did not array themselves against the\nestablished religion; but one of the most imperious duties of the\nChristians was to exterminate the prevailing worship. The priests of the\ngods raised a clamor on perceiving the diminution of sacrifices and\nofferings; and the people, ever fanatical and impetuous, were stirred up\nagainst the Christians, while in the meantime many emperors protected\nthem. Adrian expressly forbade the persecution of them. Marcus Aurelius\ncommanded that they should not be prosecuted on account of religion.\nCaracalla, Heliogabalus, Alexander, Philip, and Gallienus left them\nentire liberty. They had, in the third century, public churches\nnumerously attended and very opulent; and so great was the liberty they\nenjoyed that, in the course of that century, they held sixteen councils.\nThe road to dignities was shut up against the first Christians, who were\nnearly all of obscure condition, and they turned their attention to\ncommerce, and some of them amassed great affluence. This is the resource\nof all societies that cannot have access to offices in the state. Such\nhas been the case with the Calvinists in France, all the Nonconformists\nin England, the Catholics in Holland, the Armenians in Persia, the\nBanians in India, and the Jews all over the world. However, at last the\ntoleration was so great, and the administration of the government so\nmild, that the Christians gained access to all the honors and dignities\nof the state. They did not sacrifice to the gods of the empire; they\nwere not molested, whether they attended or avoided the temples; there\nwas at Rome the most perfect liberty with respect to the exercises of\ntheir religion; none were compelled to engage in them. The Christians,\ntherefore, enjoyed the same liberty as others. It is so true that they\nattained to honors, that Diocletian and Galerius deprived no fewer than\nthree hundred and three of them of those honors, in the persecution of\nwhich we shall have to speak.\n\nIt is our duty to adore Providence in all its dispensations; but I\nconfine myself to political history. Manes, under the reign of Probus,\nabout the year 278, formed a new religion in Alexandria. The principles\nof this sect were made up of some ancient doctrines of the Persians and\ncertain tenets of Christianity. Probus, and his successor, Carus, left\nManes and the Christians in the enjoyment of peace. Numerien permitted\nthem entire liberty. Diocletian protected the Christians, and tolerated\nthe Manich\u00e6ans, during twelve years; but in 296 he issued an edict\nagainst the Manich\u00e6ans, and proscribed them as enemies to the empire and\nadherents of the Persians. The Christians were not comprehended in the\nedict; they continued in tranquillity under Diocletian, and made open\nprofession of their religion throughout the whole empire until the\nlatter years of that prince's reign.\n\nTo complete the sketch, it is necessary to describe of what at that\nperiod the Roman Empire consisted. Notwithstanding internal and foreign\nshocks, notwithstanding the incursions of barbarians, it comprised all\nthe possessions of the grand seignor at the present day, except Arabia;\nall that the house of Austria possesses in Germany, and all the German\nprovinces as far as the Elbe; Italy, France, Spain, England, and half of\nScotland; all Africa as far as the desert of Sahara, and even the Canary\nIsles. All these nations were retained under the yoke by bodies of\nmilitary less considerable than would be raised by Germany and France at\nthe present day, when in actual war.\n\nThis immense power became more confirmed and enlarged, from C\u00e6sar down\nto Theodosius, as well by laws, police, and real services conferred on\nthe people, as by arms and terror. It is even yet a matter of\nastonishment that none of these conquered nations have been able, since\nthey became their own rulers, to form such highways, and to erect such\namphitheatres and public baths, as their conquerors bestowed upon them.\nCountries which are at present nearly barbarous and deserted, were then\npopulous and well governed. Such, were Epirus, Macedonia, Thessaly,\nIllyria, Pannonia, with Asia Minor, and the coasts of Africa; but it\nmust also be admitted that Germany, France, and Britain were then very\ndifferent from what they are now. These three states are those which\nhave most benefited by governing themselves; yet it required nearly\ntwelve centuries to place those kingdoms in the flourishing situation in\nwhich we now behold them; but it must be acknowledged that all the rest\nhave lost much by passing under different laws. The ruins of Asia Minor\nand Greece, the depopulation of Egypt and the barbarism of Africa, are\nstill existing testimonials of Roman greatness. The great number of\nflourishing cities which covered those countries had now become\nmiserable villages, and the soil had become barren under the hands of a\nbrutalized population.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Character of Constantine._\n\nI will not here speak of the confusion which agitated the empire after\nthe abdication of Diocletian. There were after his death six emperors\nat once. Constantine triumphed over them all, changed the religion of\nthe empire, and was not merely the author of that great revolution, but\nof all those which have since occurred in the west. What was his\ncharacter? Ask it of Julian, of Zosimus, of Sozomen, and of Victor; they\nwill tell you that he acted at first like a great prince, afterwards as\na public robber, and that the last stage of his life was that of a\nsensualist, a trifler, and a prodigal. They will describe him as ever\nambitious, cruel, and sanguinary. Ask his character of Eusebius, of\nGregory Nazianzen, and Lactantius; they will inform you that he was a\nperfect man. Between these two extremes authentic facts alone can enable\nus to obtain the truth. He had a father-in-law, whom he impelled to hang\nhimself; he had a brother-in-law whom he ordered to be strangled; he had\na nephew twelve or thirteen years old, whose throat he ordered to be\ncut; he had an eldest son, whom he beheaded; he had a wife, whom he\nordered to be suffocated in a bath. An old Gallic author said that \"he\nloved to make a clear house.\"\n\nIf you add to all these domestic acts that, being on the banks of the\nRhine in pursuit of some hordes of Franks who resided in those parts,\nand having taken their kings, who probably were of the family of our\nPharamond or Clodion _le Chevelu_, he exposed them to beasts for his\ndiversion; you may infer from all this, without any apprehension of\nbeing deceived, that he was not the most courteous and accommodating\npersonage in the world.\n\nLet us examine, in this place, the principal events of his reign. His\nfather, Constantius Chlorus, was in the heart of Britain, where he had\nfor some months assumed the title of emperor. Constantine was at\nNicomedia, with the emperor Galerius. He asked permission of the emperor\nto go to see his father, who was ill. Galerius granted it, without\ndifficulty. Constantine set off with government relays, called\n_veredarii_. It might be said to be as dangerous to be a post-horse as\nto be a member of the family of Constantine, for he ordered all the\nhorses to be hamstrung after he had done with them, fearful lest\nGalerius should revoke his permission and order him to return to\nNicomedia. He found his father at the point of death, and caused himself\nto be recognized emperor by the small number of Roman troops at that\ntime in Britain.\n\nAn election of a Roman emperor at York, by five or six thousand men, was\nnot likely to be considered legitimate at Rome. It wanted at least the\nformula of \"_Senatus populusque Romanus_.\" The senate, the people, and\nthe pr\u00e6torian bands unanimously elected Maxentius, son of the C\u00e6sar\nMaximilian Hercules, who had been already C\u00e6sar, and brother of that\nFausta whom Constantine had married, and whom he afterwards caused to be\nsuffocated. This Maxentius is called a tyrant and usurper by our\nhistorians, who are uniformly the partisans of the successful. He was\nthe protector of the pagan religion against Constantine, who already\nbegan to declare himself for the Christians. Being both pagan and\nvanquished, he could not but be an abominable man.\n\nEusebius tells us that Constantine, when going to Rome to fight\nMaxentius, saw in the clouds, as well as his whole army, the grand\nimperial standard called the _labarum_, surmounted with a Latin P. or a\nlarge Greek R. with a cross in \"_saltier_,\" and certain Greek words\nwhich signified, \"By this sign thou shalt conquer.\" Some authors pretend\nthat this sign appeared to him at Besancon, others at Cologne, some at\nTrier and others at Troyes. It is strange that in all these places\nheaven should have expressed its meaning in Greek. It would have\nappeared more natural to the weak understandings of men that this sign\nshould have appeared in Italy on the day of the battle; but then it\nwould have been necessary that the inscription should have been in\nLatin. A learned antiquary, of the name of Loisel, has refuted this\nnarrative; but he was treated as a reprobate.\n\nIt might, however, be worth while to reflect that this war was not a war\nof religion, that Constantine was not a saint, that he died suspected of\nbeing an Arian, after having persecuted the orthodox; and, therefore,\nthat there is no very obvious motive to support this prodigy.\n\nAfter this victory, the senate hastened to pay its devotion to the\nconqueror, and to express its detestation of the memory of the\nconquered. The triumphal arch of Marcus Aurelius was speedily dismantled\nto adorn that of Constantine. A statue of gold was prepared for him, an\nhonor which had never been shown except to the gods. He received it,\nnotwithstanding the _labarum_, and received further the title of\nPontifex Maximus, which he retained all his life. His first care,\naccording to Zosimus, was to exterminate the whole race of the tyrant,\nand his principal friends; after which he assisted very graciously at\nthe public spectacles and games.\n\nThe aged Diocletian was at that time dying in his retreat at Salonica.\nConstantine should not have been in such haste to pull down his statues\nat Rome; he should have recollected that the forgotten emperor had been\nthe benefactor of his father, and that he was indebted to him for the\nempire. Although he had conquered Maxentius, Licinius, his\nbrother-in-law, an Augustus like himself, was still to be got rid of;\nand Licinius was equally anxious to be rid of Constantine, if he had it\nin his power. However, their quarrels not having yet broken out in\nhostility, they issued conjointly at Milan, in 313, the celebrated edict\nof liberty of conscience. \"We grant,\" they say, \"to all the liberty of\nfollowing whatever religion they please, in order to draw down the\nblessing of heaven upon us and our subjects; we declare that we have\ngranted to the Christians the free and full power of exercising their\nreligion; it being understood that all others shall enjoy the same\nliberty, in order to preserve the tranquillity of our government.\" A\nvolume might be written on such an edict, but I shall merely venture a\nfew lines.\n\nConstantine was not as yet a Christian; nor, indeed, was his colleague,\nLicinius, one. There was still an emperor or a tyrant to be\nexterminated; this was a determined pagan, of the name of Maximin.\nLicinius fought with him before he fought with Constantine. Heaven was\nstill more favorable to him than to Constantine himself; for the latter\nhad only the apparition of a standard, but Licinius that of an angel.\nThis angel taught him a prayer, by means of which he would be sure to\nvanquish the barbarian Maximin. Licinius wrote it down, ordered it to be\nrecited three times by his army, and obtained a complete victory. If\nthis same Licinius, the brother-in-law of Constantine, had reigned\nhappily, we should have heard of nothing but his angel; but Constantine\nhaving had him hanged, and his son slain, and become absolute master of\neverything, nothing has been talked of but Constantine's _labarum_.\n\nIt is believed that he put to death his eldest son Crispus, and his own\nwife Fausta, the same year that he convened the Council of Nice. Zosimus\nand Sozomen pretend that, the heathen priests having told him that there\nwere no expiations for such great crimes, he then made open profession\nof Christianity, and demolished many temples in the East. It is not\nvery probable that the pagan pontiffs should have omitted so fine an\nopportunity of getting back their grand pontiff, who had abandoned them.\nHowever, it is by no means impossible that there might be among them\nsome severe men; scrupulous and austere persons are to be found\neverywhere. What is more extraordinary is, that Constantine, after\nbecoming a Christian, performed no penance for his parricide. It was at\nRome that he exercised that cruelty, and from that time residence at\nRome became hateful to him. He quitted it forever, and went to lay the\nfoundations of Constantinople. How dared he say, in one of his\nrescripts, that he transferred the seat of empire to Constantinople, \"by\nthe command of God himself?\" Is it anything but an impudent mockery of\nGod and man? If God had given him any command, would it not have\nbeen--not to assassinate his wife and son?\n\nDiocletian had already furnished an example of transferring the empire\ntowards Asia. The pride, the despotism, and the general manners of the\nAsiatics disgusted the Romans, depraved and slavish as they had become.\nThe emperors had not ventured to require, at Rome, that their feet\nshould be kissed, nor to introduce a crowd of eunuchs into their\npalaces. Diocletian began in Nicomedia, and Constantine completed the\nsystem at Constantinople, to assimilate the Roman court to the courts of\nthe Persians. The city of Rome from that time languished in decay, and\nthe old Roman spirit declined with her. Constantine thus effected the\ngreatest injury to the empire that was in his power.\n\nOf all the emperors, he was unquestionably the most absolute. Augustus\nhad left an image of liberty; Tiberius, and even Nero, had humored the\nsenate and people of Rome; Constantine humored none. He had at first\nestablished his power in Rome by disbanding those haughty pr\u00e6torians who\nconsidered themselves the masters of the emperors. He made an entire\nseparation between the gown and the sword. The depositories of the laws,\nkept down under military power, were only jurists in chains. The\nprovinces of the empire were governed upon a new system.\n\nThe grand object of Constantine was to be master in everything; he was\nso in the Church, as well as in the State. We behold him convoking and\nopening the Council of Nice; advancing into the midst of the assembled\nfathers, covered over with jewels, and with the diadem on his head,\nseating himself in the highest place, and banishing unconcernedly\nsometimes Arius and sometimes Athanasius. He put himself at the head of\nChristianity without being a Christian; for at that time baptism was\nessential to any person's becoming one; he was only a catechumen. The\nusage of waiting for the approach of death before immersing in the water\nof regeneration, was beginning to decline with respect to private\nindividuals. If Constantine, by delaying his baptism till near the point\nof death, entertained the notion that he might commit every act with\nimpunity in the hope of a complete expiation, it was unfortunate for the\nhuman race that such an opinion should have ever suggested itself to the\nmind of a man in possession of uncontrolled power.\n\n\n\n\nCONTRADICTIONS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThe more we see of the world, the more we see it abounding in\ncontradictions and inconsistencies. To begin with the Grand Turk: he\norders every head that he dislikes struck off, and can very rarely\npreserve his own. If we pass from the Grand Turk to the Holy Father, he\nconfirms the election of emperors, and has kings among his vassals; but\nhe is not so powerful as a duke of Savoy. He expedites orders for\nAmerica and Africa, yet could not withhold the slightest of its\nprivileges from the republic of Lucca. The emperor is the king of the\nRomans; but the right of their king consists in holding the pope's\nstirrup, and handing the water to him at mass. The English serve their\nmonarch upon their knees, but they depose, imprison, and behead him.\n\nMen who make a vow of poverty, gain in consequence an income of about\ntwo hundred thousand crowns; and, in virtue of their vow of humility,\nthey become absolute sovereigns. The plurality of benefices with care\nof souls is severely denounced at Rome, yet every day it despatches a\nbull to some German, to enable him to hold five or six bishoprics at\nonce. The reason, we are told, is that the German bishops have no cure\nof souls. The chancellor of France is the first person in the State, but\nhe cannot sit at table with the king, at least he could not till lately,\nalthough a colonel, who is scarcely perhaps a gentleman--_gentil-homme_\n--may enjoy that distinction. The wife of a provincial governor is a\nqueen in the province, but merely a citizen's wife at court.\n\nPersons convicted of the crime of nonconformity are publicly roasted,\nand in all our colleges the second eclogue of Virgil is explained with\ngreat gravity, including Corydon's declarations of love to the beautiful\nAlexis; and it is remarked to the boys that, although Alexis be fair and\nAmyntas brown, yet Amyntas may still deserve the preference.\n\nIf an unfortunate philosopher, without intending the least harm, takes\nit into his head that the earth turns round, or to imagine that light\ncomes from the sun, or to suppose that matter may contain some other\nproperties than those with which we are acquainted, he is cried down as\na blasphemer, and a disturber of the public peace; and yet there are\ntranslations _in usum Delphini_ of the \"Tusculan Questions\" of Cicero,\nand of Lucretius, which are two complete courses of irreligion.\n\nCourts of justice no longer believe that persons are possessed by\ndevils, and laugh at sorcerers; but Gauffredi and Grandier were burned\nfor sorcery; and one-half of a parliament wanted to sentence to the\nstake a monk accused of having bewitched a girl of eighteen by breathing\nupon her.\n\nThe skeptical philosopher Bayle was persecuted, even in Holland. La\nMotte le Vayer, more of a skeptic, but less of a philosopher, was\npreceptor of the king Louis XIV., and of the king's brother. Gourville\nwas hanged in effigy at Paris, while French minister in Germany.\n\nThe celebrated atheist Spinoza lived and died in peace. Vanini, who had\nmerely written against Aristotle, was burned as an atheist; he has, in\nconsequence, obtained the honor of making one article in the histories\nof the learned, and in all the dictionaries, which, in fact, constitute\nimmense repositories of lies, mixed up with a very small portion of\ntruth. Open these books, and you will there find not merely that Vanini\npublicly taught atheism in his writings, but that twelve professors of\nhis sect went with him to Naples with the intention of everywhere making\nproselytes. Afterwards, open the books of Vanini, and you will be\nastonished to find in them nothing but proofs of the existence of God.\nRead the following passage, taken from his \"_Amphitheatrum_,\" a work\nequally unknown and condemned; \"God is His own original and boundary,\nwithout end and without beginning, requiring neither the one nor the\nother, and father of all beginning and end; He ever exists, but not in\ntime; to Him there has been no past, and will be no future; He reigns\neverywhere, without being in any place; immovable without rest, rapid\nwithout motion; He is all, and out of all; He is in all, without being\nenclosed; out of everything, without being excluded from anything; good,\nbut without quality; entire, but without parts; immutable, while\nchanging the whole universe; His will is His power; absolute, there is\nnothing of Him of what is merely possible; all in Him is real; He is the\nfirst, the middle, and the last; finally, although constituting all, He\nis above all beings, out of them, within them, beyond them, before them,\nand after them.\" It was after such a profession of faith that Vanini was\ndeclared an atheist. Upon what grounds was he condemned? Simply upon the\ndeposition of a man named Francon. In vain did his books depose in favor\nof him; a single enemy deprived him of life, and stigmatized his name\nthroughout Europe.\n\nThe little book called \"_Cymbalum Mundi_,\" which is merely a cold\nimitation of Lucian, and which has not the slightest or remotest\nreference to Christianity, was condemned to be burned. But Rabelais was\nprinted \"_cum privilegio_\"; and a free course was allowed to the\n\"Turkish Spy,\" and even to the \"Persian Letters\"; that volatile,\ningenious, and daring work, in which there is one whole letter in favor\nof suicide; another in which we find these words: \"If we suppose such a\nthing as religion;\" a third, in which it is expressly said that \"the\nbishops have no other functions than dispensing with the observance of\nthe laws\"; and, finally, another in which the pope is said to be a\nmagician, who makes people believe that three are one, and that the\nbread we eat is not bread, etc.\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 St. Pierre, a man who could frequently deceive himself, but who\nnever wrote without a view to the public good, and whose works were\ncalled by Cardinal Dubois, \"The dreams of an honest citizen\"; the Abb\u00e9\nSt. Pierre, I say, was unanimously expelled from the French Academy for\nhaving, in some political work, preferred the establishment of councils\nunder the regency to that of secretaries of state under Louis XIV.; and\nfor saying that towards the close of that glorious reign the finances\nwere wretchedly conducted. The author of the \"Persian Letters\" has not\nmentioned Louis XIV. in his book, except to say that he was a magician\nwho could make his subjects believe that paper was money; that he liked\nno government but that of Turkey; that he preferred a man who handed him\na napkin to a man who gained him battles; that he had conferred a\npension on a man who had run away two leagues, and a government upon\nanother who had run away four; that he was overwhelmed with poverty,\nalthough it is said, in the same letter, that his finances are\ninexhaustible. Observe, then, I repeat, all that this writer, in the\nonly work then known to be his, has said of Louis XIV., the patron of\nthe French Academy. We may add, too, as a climax of contradiction, that\nthat society admitted him as a member for having turned them into\nridicule; for, of all the books by which the public have been\nentertained at the expense of the society, there is not one in which it\nhas been treated more disrespectfully than in the \"Persian Letters.\" See\nthat letter wherein he says, \"The members of this body have no other\nbusiness than incessantly to chatter; panegyric comes and takes its\nplace as it were spontaneously in their eternal gabble,\" etc. After\nhaving thus treated this society, they praise him, on his introduction,\nfor his skill in drawing likenesses.\n\nWere I disposed to continue the research into the contraries to be found\nin the empire of letters, I might give the history of every man of\nlearning or wit; just in the same manner as, if I were inclined to\ndetail the contradictions existing in society, it would be necessary to\nwrite the history of mankind. An Asiatic, who should travel to Europe,\nmight well consider us as pagans; our week days bear the names of Mars,\nMercury, Jupiter, and Venus; and the nuptials of Cupid and Psyche are\npainted in the pope's palace; but, particularly, were this Asiatic to\nattend at our opera, he would not hesitate in concluding it to be a\nfestival in honor of the pagan deities. If he endeavored to gain more\nprecise information respecting our manners, he would experience still\ngreater astonishment; he would see, in Spain, that a severe law forbids\nany foreigner from having the slightest share, however indirect, in the\ncommerce of America; and that, notwithstanding, foreigners--through the\nmedium of Spanish factors--carry on a commerce with it to the extent of\nfifteen millions a year. Thus Spain can be enriched only by the\nviolation of a law always subsisting and always evaded. He would see\nthat in another country the government establishes and encourages a\ncompany for trading to the Indies, while the divines of that country\nhave declared the receiving of dividends upon the shares offensive in\nthe sight of God. He would see that the offices of a judge, a commander,\na privy counsellor, are purchased; he would be unable to comprehend why\nit is stated in the patents appointing to such offices that they have\nbeen bestowed gratis and without purchase, while the receipt for the sum\ngiven for them is attached to the commission itself. Would not our\nAsiatic be surprised, also, to see comedians salaried by sovereigns, and\nexcommunicated by priests? He would inquire why a plebeian\nlieutenant-general, who had won battles, should be subject to the\n_taille_, like a peasant; and a sheriff should be considered, at least\nin reference to this point, as noble as a Montmorency; why, while\nregular dramas are forbidden to be performed during a week sacred to\nedification, merry-andrews are permitted to offend even the least\ndelicate ears with their ribaldry. He would almost everywhere see our\nusages in opposition to our laws; and were we to travel to Asia, we\nshould discover the existence of exactly similar contradictions.\n\nMen are everywhere inconsistent alike. They have made laws by piecemeal,\nas breaches are repaired in walls. Here the eldest sons take everything\nthey are able from the younger ones; there all share equally. Sometimes\nthe Church has ordered duels, sometimes it has anathematized them. The\npartisans and the opponents of Aristotle have been both excommunicated\nin their turn; as have also the wearers of long hair and short hair.\nThere has been but one perfect law in the world, and that was designed\nto regulate a species of folly--that is to say, play. The laws of play\nare the only ones which admit of no exception, relaxation, change or\ntyranny. A man who has been a lackey, if he plays at _lansquenet_ with\nkings, is paid with perfect readiness when he wins. In other cases the\nlaw is everywhere a sword, with which the strongest party cuts in pieces\nthe weakest.\n\nIn the meantime the world goes on as if everything was wisely arranged;\nirregularity is part of our nature. Our social world is like the natural\nglobe, rude and unshapely, but possessing a principle of preservation;\nit would be folly to wish that mountains, seas, and rivers were traced\nin regular and finished forms; it would be a still greater folly to\nexpect from man the perfection of wisdom; it would be as weak as to\nwish to attach wings to dogs or horns to eagles.\n\n_Examples Taken from History, from Sacred Scripture, from Numerous\nAuthors, etc._\n\nWe have just been instancing a variety of contradictions in our usages,\nour manners, and our laws, but we have not said enough. Everything,\nparticularly in Europe, has been made in the same manner as Harlequin's\nhabit. His master, when he wanted to have a dress made for him, had not\na piece of cloth, and therefore took old cuttings of all sorts of\ncolors. Harlequin was laughed at, but then he was clothed.\n\nThe Germans are a brave nation, whom neither the Germanicuses nor the\nTrajans were ever able completely to subjugate. All the German nations\nthat dwelt beyond the Elbe were invincible, although badly armed; and\nfrom these gloomy climes issued forth, in part, the avengers of the\nworld. Germany, far from constituting the Roman Empire, has been\ninstrumental in destroying it.\n\nThis empire had found a refuge at Constantinople, when a German--an\nAustrasian--went from Aix-la-Chapelle to Rome, to strip the Greek C\u00e6sars\nof the remainder of their possessions in Italy. He assumed the name of\nC\u00e6sar Imperator; but neither he nor his successors even ventured to\nreside at Rome. That capital could not either boast or regret that from\nthe time of Augustulus, the final excrement of the genuine Roman\nEmpire, a single C\u00e6sar had lived and been buried within its walls.\n\nIt is difficult to suppose the empire can be \"holy,\" as it professes\nthree different religions, of which two are declared impious,\nabominable, damnable, and damned, by the court of Rome, which the whole\nimperial court considers in such cases to be supreme. It is certainly\nnot Roman, since the emperor has not any residence at Rome.\n\nIn England people wait upon the king kneeling. The constant maxim is,\n\"The king can do no wrong\"; his ministers only can deserve blame; he is\nas infallible in his actions as the pope in his judgments. Such is the\nfundamental, the \"Salic\" law of England. Yet the parliament sat in\njudgment on its king, Edward II., who had been vanquished and taken\nprisoner by his wife; he was declared to have done all possible wrong,\nand deprived of all his rights to the crown. Sir William Tressel went to\nhim in prison, and made him the following complimentary address:\n\n\"I, William Tressel, as proxy for the parliament and the whole English\nnation, revoke the homage formerly paid you; I put you to defiance, and\ndeprive you of royal power, and from this time forth we will hold no\nallegiance to you.\"\n\nThe parliament tried and sentenced King Richard II., grandson of the\ngreat Edward III. Thirty-one articles of accusation were brought against\nhim, among which two are not a little singular--that he had borrowed\nmoney and not repaid it; and that he had asserted before witnesses that\nhe was master of the lives and properties of his subjects.\n\nThe parliament deposed Henry VI., who, undoubtedly, was exceedingly\nwrong, but in a somewhat different sense: he was imbecile.\n\nThe parliament declared Edward IV. a traitor, and confiscated his goods;\nand afterwards, on his being successful, restored him. As for Richard\nIII., he undoubtedly committed more wrong than all the others; he was a\nNero, but a bold one; and the parliament did not declare his wrongs till\nafter he was slain.\n\nThe House of Commons imputed to Charles I. more wrong than he was justly\nchargeable with, and brought him to the scaffold. Parliament voted that\nJames II. had committed very gross and flagrant wrongs, and particularly\nthat of withdrawing himself from the kingdom. It declared the throne\nvacant; that is, it deposed him. In the present day, Junius writes to\nthe king of England that he is faulty in being good and wise. If these\nare not contradictions, I know not where to find them.\n\n_Contradictions in Certain Rites._\n\nNext to those great political contradictions, which are subdivided into\ninnumerable little ones, nothing more forcibly attracts our notice than\nthe contradiction apparent in reference to some of our rites. We hate\nJudaism. No longer than fifteen years ago Jews were still burned at the\nstake. We consider them as murderers of our God, and yet we assemble\nevery Sunday to chant Jewish psalms and canticles; it is only owing to\nour ignorance of the language that we do not recite them in Hebrew. But\nthe fifteen first bishops, the priests, deacons and congregation of\nJerusalem, which was the cradle of the Christian religion, always\nrecited the Jewish psalms in the Jewish idiom of the Syriac language;\nand, till the time of the Caliph Omar, almost all the Christians, from\nTyre to Aleppo, prayed in that Jewish idiom. At present any one reciting\nthe psalms as they were originally composed, or chanting them in the\nJewish language, would be suspected of being a circumcised Jew, and\nmight be burned as one; at least, not more than twenty years since, that\nwould have been his fate, although Jesus Christ was circumcised, as were\nalso his apostles and disciples. I set aside the mysterious doctrines of\nour holy religion--everything that is an object of faith--everything\nthat we ought to approach only with awe and submission. I look only at\nexternals; I refer simply to observances; I ask if anything was ever\nmore contradictory?\n\n_Contradictions in Things and Men._\n\nIf any literary society is inclined to undertake a history of\ncontradictions, I will subscribe for twenty folio volumes. The world\ndisplays nothing but contradictions. What would be necessary to put an\nend to them? To assemble the states-general of the human race. But,\naccording to the nature and constitution of mankind, it would be a new\ncontradiction were they to agree. Bring together all the rabbits in the\nworld, and there would not be two different minds among them.\n\nI know only two descriptions of immovable beings in the\nworld--geometricians and brute animals; they are guided by two\ninvariable rules--demonstration and instinct. Some disputes, indeed,\nhave occurred between geometricians, but brutes have never varied.\n\nThe contrasts, the lights and shades, in which men are represented in\nhistory, are not contradictions; they are faithful portraits of human\nnature. Every day both censure and admiration are applied to Alexander,\nthe murderer of Clitus, but the avenger of Greece; the conqueror of\nPersia, and the founder of Alexandria; to C\u00e6sar, the debauchee, who\nrobbed the public treasury of Rome to enslave his country, but whose\nclemency was equal to his valor, and whose genius was equal to his\ncourage; to Mahomet, the impostor and robber, but the only legislator of\nreligion that ever displayed courage, or founded a great empire; to the\nenthusiast, Cromwell, at once knave and fanatic, the murderer of his\nking by form of law, but equally profound as a politician, and valiant\nas a warrior. A thousand contrasts frequently present themselves at once\nto the mind, and these contrasts are in nature. They are not more\nastonishing than a fine day followed by a tempest.\n\n_Apparent Contradictions in Books._\n\nWe must accurately distinguish in books, and particularly the sacred\nones, between apparent and real contradictions. It is said in the\nPentateuch that Moses was the meekest of men, and that he ordered\ntwenty-three thousand Hebrews to be slain who had worshipped the golden\ncalf, and twenty-four thousand more, who had, like himself, married\nMidianitish women. But sagacious commentators have adduced solid proofs\nthat Moses possessed a most amiable temper, and that he only executed\nthe vengeance of God in massacring these forty-seven thousand\nIsraelites, as just stated.\n\nSome daring critics have pretended to perceive a contradiction in the\nnarrative in which it is said that Moses changed all the waters of Egypt\ninto blood, and that the magicians of Pharaoh afterwards performed the\nsame prodigy--the Book of Exodus leaving no interval of time between the\nmiracle of Moses and the magical operation of the enchanters.\n\nIt appears, at first view, impossible that these magicians should change\nto blood that which was already made such; but the difficulty may be\nremoved by supposing that Moses had allowed the waters to resume their\noriginal nature, in order to give Pharaoh time for reflection. This\nsupposition is the more plausible, inasmuch as, if not expressly favored\nby the text, the latter is not contrary to it.\n\nThe same skeptics inquire how, after all the horses were destroyed by\nhail, in the sixth plague, Pharaoh was able to pursue the Jewish nation\nwith cavalry. But this contradiction is not even an apparent one, since\nthe hail which killed all the horses that were out in the fields, could\nnot fall on those which were in the stables.\n\nOne of the greatest contradictions which has been supposed to be found\nin the history of the kings is the utter scarcity of offensive and\ndefensive arms among the Jews at the time of the accession of Saul,\ncompared with the army of three hundred and thirty thousand men, whom he\nconducted against the Ammonites who were besieging Jabesh Gilead.\n\nIt is a fact related that, then, and even after that battle, there was\nnot a lance, not even a single sword, among the whole Hebrew people;\nthat the Philistines prevented the Hebrews from manufacturing swords and\nlances; that the Hebrews were obliged to have recourse to the\nPhilistines for sharpening and repairing their plowshares, mattocks,\naxes, and pruning-hooks.\n\nThis acknowledgment seems to prove that the Hebrews consisted of only a\nvery small number, and that the Philistines were a powerful and\nvictorious nation, who kept the Israelites under the yoke, and treated\nthem as slaves; in short, that it was impossible for Saul to collect\nthree hundred and thirty thousand fighting men, etc.\n\nThe reverend Father Calmet says it is probable \"that there is a little\nexaggeration in what is stated about Saul and Jonathan\"; but that\nlearned man forgets that the other commentators ascribe the first\nvictories of Saul and Jonathan to one of those decided miracles which\nGod so often condescended to perform in favor of his miserable people.\nJonathan, with his armor-bearer only, at the very beginning, slew twenty\nof the enemy; and the Philistines, utterly confounded, turned their arms\nagainst each other. The author of the Book of Kings positively declares\nthat it was a miracle of God: _\"Accidit quasi miraculum a Deo.\"_ There\nis, therefore, no contradiction.\n\nThe enemies of the Christian religion, the Celsuses, the Porphyrys, and\nthe Julians, have exhausted the sagacity of their understandings upon\nthis subject. The Jewish writers have availed themselves of all the\nadvantages they derived from their superior knowledge of the Hebrew\nlanguage to explain these apparent contradictions. They have been\nfollowed even by Christians, such as Lord Herbert, Wollaston, Tindal,\nToland, Collins, Shaftesbury, Woolston, Gordon, Bolingbroke, and many\nothers of different nations. Fr\u00e9ret, perpetual secretary of the Academy\nof Belles Lettres in France, the learned Le Clerc himself, and Simon of\nthe Oratory thought they perceived some contradictions which might be\nascribed to the copyists. An immense number of other critics have\nendeavored to remove or correct contradictions which appeared to them\ninexplicable.\n\nWe read in a dangerous little book, composed with much art: \"St. Matthew\nand St. Luke give each a genealogy of Christ different from the other;\nand lest it should be thought that the differences are only slight, such\nas might be imputed to neglect or oversight, the contrary may easily be\nshown by reading the first chapter of Matthew and the third of Luke. We\nshall then see that fifteen generations more are enumerated in the one\nthan in the other; that, from David, they completely separate; that they\njoin again at Salathiel; but that, after his son, they again separate,\nand do not reunite again but in Joseph.\n\n\"In the same genealogy, St. Matthew again falls into a manifest\ncontradiction, for he says that Uzziah was the father of Jotham; and in\nthe \"_Paralipomena_,\" book I, chap. iii., v. II, 12, we find three\ngenerations between them--Joas, Amazias, and Azarias--of whom Luke, as\nwell as Matthew, make no mention. Further, this genealogy has nothing to\ndo with that of Jesus, since, according to our creed, Joseph had had no\nintercourse with Mary.\"\n\nIn order to reply to this objection, urged from the time of Origen, and\nrenewed from age to age, we must read Julius Africanus. See the two\ngenealogies reconciled in the following table, as we find it in the\nrepository of ecclesiastical writers:\n\n                             DAVID.\n\n     Solomon and his                            Nathan and his\n     descendants, enumerated                    descendants, enumerated\n     by Saint                                   by Saint\n     Matthew.                                   Luke.\n\n\n                             ESTHER.\n\n     Mathan, her first                          Melchi, or rather\n     husband.                                   Mathat, her second\n                                                husband.\n                       The wife of these two\n                       persons successively,\n     Jacob, son of     married first to Heli,          Heli.\n     Mathan, the       by whom she had no\n     first husband.    child, and afterwards\n                       to Jacob, his brother.\n\n     Joseph, natural                            Legitimate son of\n     son of Jacob.                              Heli.\n\nThere is another method to reconcile the two genealogies, by St.\nEpiphanius. According to him, Jacob Panther, descended from Solomon, is\nthe father of Joseph and of Cleophas. Joseph has six children by his\nfirst wife--James, Joshua, Simeon, Jude, Mary, and Salome. He then\nespouses the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the daughter of\nJoachim and Anne.\n\nThere are many other methods of explaining these two genealogies. See\nthe \"Dissertation\" of Father Calmet, in which he endeavors to reconcile\nSt. Matthew with St. Luke, on the genealogy of Jesus Christ. The same\nlearned skeptics, who make it their business to compare dates, to\nexplore books and medals, to collate ancient authors, and to seek for\ntruth by human skill and study, and who lose in their knowledge the\nsimplicity of their faith, reproach St. Luke with contradicting the\nother evangelists, and in being mistaken in what he advances on the\nsubject of our Lord's birth. The author of the \"Analysis of the\nChristian Religion\" thus rashly expresses himself on the subject (p.\n23):\n\n\"St. Luke says that Cyrenius was the governor of Syria, when Augustus\nordered the numbering of all the people of the empire. We will show how\nmany decided falsehoods are contained in these few words. First, Tacitus\nand Suetonius, the most precise of historians, say not a single word of\nthe pretended numbering of the whole empire, which certainly would have\nbeen a very singular event, since there never had been one under any\nemperor--at least, no author mentions such a case. Secondly, Cyrenius\ndid not arrive in Syria till ten years after the time fixed by St. Luke;\nit was then governed by Quintilius Varus, as Tertullian relates, and as\nis confirmed by medals.\"\n\nWe contend that in fact there never was a numbering of the whole Roman\nempire, but only a census of Roman citizens, according to usage;\nalthough it is possible that the copyists may have written \"numbering\"\nfor \"census.\" With regard to Cyrenius, whom the copyists have made\nCirinus, it is certain that he was not governor of Syria at the time of\nthe birth of Jesus Christ, the governor being Quintilius Varus; but it\nis very probable that Quintilius might send into Jud\u00e6a this same\nCyrenius, who ten years after succeeded him in the government of Syria.\nWe cannot dissemble, however, that this explanation still leaves some\ndifficulties.\n\nIn the first place, the census made under Augustus does not correspond\nin time with the birth of Jesus Christ. Secondly, the Jews were not\ncomprised in that census. Joseph and his wife were not Roman citizens.\nMary, therefore, it is said, being under no necessity, was not likely to\ngo from Nazareth, which is at the extremity of Jud\u00e6a, within a few miles\nof Mount Tabor, in the midst of the desert, to lie in at Bethlehem,\nwhich is eighty miles from Nazareth.\n\nBut it might easily happen that Cirinus, or Cyrenius, having been sent\nto Jerusalem by Quintilius Varus to impose a poll-tax, Joseph and Mary\nwere summoned by the magistrate of Bethlehem to go and pay the tax in\nthe town of Bethlehem, the place of their birth. In this there is\nnothing contradictory. The critics may endeavor to weaken this solution\nby representing that it was Herod only who imposed taxes; that the\nRomans at that time levied nothing on Jud\u00e6a; that Augustus left Herod\ncompletely his own master for the tribute which that Idumean paid to the\nempire. But, in an emergency, it is not impossible to make some\narrangement with a tributary prince, and send him an intendant to\nestablish in concert with him the new tax.\n\nWe will not here say, like so many others, that copyists have committed\nmany errors, and that in the version we possess there are to be found\nmore than ten thousand; we had rather say with the doctors of the Church\nand the most enlightened persons, that the Gospels were given us only to\nteach us to live holily, and not to criticise learnedly.\n\nThese pretended contradictions produced a dreadful impression on the\nmuch lamented John Meslier, rector of Etrepigni and But in Champagne.\nThis truly virtuous and charitable, but at the same time melancholy,\nman, being possessed of scarcely any other books than the Bible and some\nof the fathers, read them with a studiousness of attention that became\nfatal to him. Although bound by the duties of his office to inculcate\ndocility upon his flock, he was not sufficiently docile himself. He saw\napparent contradictions, and shut his eyes to the means suggested for\nreconciling them. He imagined that he perceived the most frightful\ncontradictions between Jesus being born a Jew and afterwards being\nrecognized as God; in regard to that God known from the first as the son\nof Joseph the carpenter and the brother of James, yet descended from an\nempyrean which does not exist, to destroy sin upon earth that is still\ncovered with crimes; in regard to that God, the son of a common artisan\nand a descendant of David on the side of his father, who was not in fact\nhis father; between the creator of all worlds, and the descendant of the\nadulterous Bathsheba, the prurient Ruth, the incestuous Tamar, the\nprostitute of Jericho, the wife of Abraham, so suspiciously attractive\nto a king of Egypt, and again at the age of ninety years to a king of\nGerar.\n\nMeslier expatiates with an impiety absolutely monstrous on these\npretended contradictions, as they struck him, for which, however, he\nmight easily have found an explanation, had he possessed only a small\nportion of docility. At length his gloom so grew upon him in his\nsolitude that he actually became horror-stricken at that holy religion\nwhich it was his duty to preach and love; and, listening only to his\nseduced and wandering reason, he abjured Christianity by a will written\nin his own hand, of which he left three copies behind him at his death,\nwhich took place in 1732. The copy of this will has been often printed,\nand exhibits, in truth, a most cruel stumbling-block. A clergyman, who\nat the point of death, asks pardon of God and his parishioners for\nhaving taught the doctrines of Christianity; a charitable clergyman, who\nholds Christianity in execration because many who profess it are\ndepraved; who is shocked at the pomp and pride of Rome, and exasperated\nby the difficulties of the sacred volume; a clergyman who speaks of\nChristianity like Porphyry, Jamblichus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and\nJulian! And this just as he is to make his appearance before God! How\nfatal a case for him, and for all who may be led astray by his example!\n\nIn a similar manner the unfortunate preacher Antony, misled by the\napparent contradictions which he imagined he saw between the new and the\nold law, between the cultivated olive and the wild olive, wretchedly\nabandoned the Christian religion for the Jewish; and, more courageous\nthan John Meslier, preferred death to recantation.\n\nIt is evident from the will of John Meslier that the apparent\ncontradictions of the gospel were the principal cause of unsettling the\nmind of that unfortunate pastor, who was, in other respects, a man of\nthe strictest virtue, and whom it is impossible to think of without\ncompassion. Meslier is deeply impressed by the two genealogies, which\nseem in direct opposition; he had not seen the method of reconciling\nthem; he feels agitated and provoked to see that St. Matthew makes the\nfather and mother of the child travel into Egypt, after having received\nthe homage of the three eastern magi or kings, and while old King Herod,\nunder the apprehension of being dethroned by an infant just born at\nBethlehem, causes the slaughter of all the infants in the country, in\norder to prevent such a revolution. He is astonished that neither St.\nLuke, nor St. Mark, nor St. John make any mention of this massacre. He\nis confounded at observing that St. Luke makes Joseph, and the blessed\nVirgin Mary, and Jesus our Saviour, remain at Bethlehem, after which\nthey withdraw to Nazareth. He should have seen that the Holy Father\nmight at first go into Egypt, and some time afterwards to Nazareth,\nwhich was their country.\n\nIf St. Matthew alone makes mention of the three magi, and of the star\nwhich guided them to Bethlehem from the remote climes of the East, and\nof the massacre of the children; if the other evangelists take no notice\nof these events, they do not contradict St. Matthew; silence is not\ncontradiction.\n\nIf the three first evangelists--St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St.\nLuke--make Jesus Christ to have lived but three months from his baptism\nin Galilee till his crucifixion at Jerusalem; and if St. John extends\nthat time to three years and three months, it is easy to approximate St.\nJohn to the other evangelists, as he does not expressly state that Jesus\nChrist preached in Galilee for three years and three months, but only\nleaves it to be inferred from his narrative. Should a man renounce his\nreligion upon simple inferences, upon points of controversy, upon\ndifficulties in chronology?\n\nIt is impossible, says Meslier, to harmonize St. Mark and St. Luke;\nsince the first says that Jesus, when he left the wilderness, went to\nCapernaum, and the second that he went to Nazareth. St. John says that\nAndrew was the first who became a follower of Jesus Christ; the three\nother evangelists say that it was Simon Peter.\n\nHe pretends, also, that they contradict each other with respect to the\nday when Jesus celebrated the Passover, the hour and place of His\nexecution, the time of His appearance and resurrection. He is convinced\nthat books which contradict each other cannot be inspired by the Holy\nSpirit; but it is not an article of faith to believe that the Holy\nSpirit inspired every syllable; it did not guide the hand of the\ncopyist; it permitted the operation of secondary causes; it was\nsufficient that it condescended to reveal the principal mysteries, and\nthat in the course of time it instituted a church for explaining them.\nAll those contradictions, with which the gospels have been so often and\nso bitterly reproached, are explained by sagacious commentators; far\nfrom being injurious, they mutually clear up each other; they present\nreciprocal helps in the concordances and harmony of the four gospels.\n\nAnd if there are many difficulties which we cannot solve, mysteries\nwhich we cannot comprehend, adventures which we cannot credit, prodigies\nwhich shock the weakness of the human understanding, and contradictions\nwhich it is impossible to reconcile, it is in order to exercise our\nfaith and to humiliate our reason.\n\n_Contradictions in Judgments Upon Works of Literature or Art._\n\nI have sometimes heard it said of a good judge on these subjects, and of\nexquisite taste, that man decides according to mere caprice. He\nyesterday described Poussin as an admirable painter; to-day he\nrepresents him as an ordinary one. The fact is, that Poussin has merited\nboth praise and censure.\n\nThere is no contradiction in being enraptured by the delicious scenes\nof the Horatii and Curiatii, of the Cid, of Augustus and of Cinna, and\nafterwards in seeing, with disgust and indignation, fifteen tragedies in\nsuccession, containing no interest, no beauty, and not even written in\nFrench.\n\nIt is the author himself who is contradictory. It is he who has the\nmisfortune to differ entirely from himself. The critic would contradict\nhimself, if he equally applauded what is excellent and detestable. He\nwill admire in Homer the description of the girdle of Venus; the parting\nof Hector and Andromache; the interview between Achilles and Priam. But\nwill he equally applaud those passages which describe the gods as\nabusing and fighting with one another; the uniformity in battles which\ndecide nothing; the brutal ferocity of the heroes, and the avarice by\nwhich they are almost all actuated; in short, a poem which terminates\nwith a truce of eleven days, unquestionably exciting an expectation of\nthe continuation of the war and the taking of Troy, which, however, are\nnot related?\n\nA good critic will frequently pass from approbation to censure, however\nexcellent the work may be which he is perusing.\n\n\n\n\nCONTRAST.\n\n\nContrast, opposition of figures, situations, fortune, manners, etc. A\nmodest shepherdess forms a beautiful contrast in a painting with a\nhaughty princess. The part of the impostor and that of Aristes\nconstitute a very admirable contrast in \"_Tartuffe_.\"\n\nThe little may contrast with the great in painting, but cannot be said\nto be contrary to it. Opposition of colors contrasts; but there are also\ncolors contrary to each other; that is, which produce an ill effect\nbecause they shock the eye when brought very near it.\n\n\"Contradictory\" is a term to be used only in logic. It is contradictory\nfor anything to be and not to be; to be in many places at once; to be of\na certain number or size, and not to be so. An opinion, a discourse, or\na decree, we may call contradictory. The different fortunes of Charles\nXII. have been contrary, but not contradictory; they form in history a\nbeautiful contrast.\n\nIt is a striking contrast--and the two things are perfectly\ncontrary--but it is not contradictory, that the pope should be\nworshipped in Rome, and burned in London on the same day; that while he\nwas called God's vicegerent in Italy, he should be represented in the\nstreets of Moscow as a hog, for the amusement of Peter the Great.\n\nMahomet, stationed at the right hand of God over half the globe, and\ndamned over the other half, is the greatest of contrasts. Travel far\nfrom your own country, and everything will be contrast for you. The\nwhite man who first saw a negro was much astonished; but the first who\nsaid that the negro was the offspring of a white pair astonishes me\nmuch more; I do not agree with him. A painter who represents white men,\nnegroes, and olive-colored people, may display fine contrasts.\n\n\n\n\nCONVULSIONARIES.\n\n\nAbout the year 1724 the cemetery of St. M\u00e9dard abounded in amusement,\nand many miracles were performed there. The following epigram by the\nduchess of Maine gives a tolerable account of the character of most of\nthem:\n\n     _Un d\u00e9crotteur \u00e0 la Royale,_\n     _Du talon gauche estropi\u00e9,_\n     _Obtint, pour gr\u00e2ce speciale,_\n     _D'\u00eatre tortueux de l'autre pied._\n\n     A Port-Royal shoe-black, who had _one_ lame leg,\n     To make both alike the Lord's favor did beg;\n     Heaven listened, and straightway a miracle came,\n     For quickly he rose up, with _both_ his legs lame.\n\nThe miracles continued, as is well known, until a guard was stationed at\nthe cemetery.\n\n     _De par le roi, d\u00e9fense \u00e0 Dieu_\n     _De faire miracles en ce lieu._\n\n     Louis to God:--To keep the peace,\n     Here miracles must henceforth cease.\n\nIt is also well known that the Jesuits, being no longer able to perform\nsimilar miracles, in consequence of Xavier having exhausted their stock\nof grace and miraculous power, by resuscitating nine dead persons at one\ntime, resolved in order to counteract the credit of the Jansenists, to\nengrave a print of Jesus Christ dressed as a Jesuit. The Jansenists, on\nthe other hand, in order to give a satisfactory proof that Jesus Christ\nhad not assumed the habit of a Jesuit, filled Paris with convulsions,\nand attracted great crowds of people to witness them. The counsellor of\nparliament, Carr\u00e9 de Montgeron, went to present to the king a quarto\ncollection of all these miracles, attested by a thousand witnesses. He\nwas very properly shut up in a ch\u00e2teau, where attempts were made to\nrestore his senses by regimen; but truth always prevails over\npersecution, and the miracles lasted for thirty years together, without\ninterruption. Sister Rose, Sister Illumin\u00e9e, and the sisters Promise and\nComfitte, were scourged with great energy, without, however, exhibiting\nany appearance of the whipping next day. They were bastinadoed on their\nstomachs without injury, and placed before a large fire; but, being\ndefended by certain pomades and preparations, were not burned. At\nlength, as every art is constantly advancing towards perfection, their\npersecutors concluded with actually thrusting swords through their\nchairs, and with crucifying them. A famous schoolmaster had also the\nbenefit of crucifixion; all which was done to convince the world that a\ncertain bull was ridiculous, a fact that might have been easily proved\nwithout so much trouble. However, Jesuits and Jansenists all united\nagainst the \"Spirit of Laws,\" and against, and against.... and\nagainst.... and.... And after all this we dare to ridicule Laplanders,\nSamoyeds, and negroes!\n\n\n\n\nCORN.\n\n\nThey must be skeptics indeed who doubt that _pain_ comes from _panis_.\nBut to make bread we must have corn. The Gauls had corn in the time of\nC\u00e6sar; but whence did they take the word _bl\u00e9_? It is pretended that it\nis from _bladum_, a word employed in the barbarous Latin of the middle\nage by the Chancellor Desvignes, or De Erneis, whose eyes, it is said,\nwere torn out by order of the Emperor Frederick II.\n\nBut the Latin words of these barbarous ages were only ancient Celtic or\nTeutonic words Latinized. _Bladum_ then comes from our _blead_, and not\nour _blead_ from _bladum_. The Italians call it _bioda_, and the\ncountries in which the ancient Roman language is preserved, still say\n_blia_.\n\nThis knowledge is not infinitely useful; but we are curious to know\nwhere the Gauls and Teutons found corn to sow? We are told that the\nTyrians brought it into Spain, the Spaniards into Gaul, and the Gauls\ninto Germany. And where did the Tyrians get this corn? Probably from the\nGreeks, in exchange for their alphabet.\n\nWho made this present to the Greeks? It was the goddess Ceres, without\ndoubt; and having ascended to Ceres, we can scarcely go any higher.\nCeres must have descended from heaven expressly to give us wheat, rye,\nand barley. However, as the credit of Ceres, who gave corn to the\nGreeks, and that of Ishet, or Isis, who gratified the Egyptians with\nit, are at present very much decayed, we may still be said to remain in\nuncertainty as to the origin of corn.\n\nSanchoniathon tells us that Dagon or Dagan, one of the grandsons of\nThaut, had the superintendence of the corn in Ph\u0153nicia. Now his Thaut\nwas near the time of our Jared; from which it appears that corn is very\nancient, and that it is of the same antiquity as grass. Perhaps this\nDagon was the first who made bread, but that is not demonstrated.\n\nWhat a strange thing that we should know positively that we are obliged\nto Noah for wine, and that we do not know to whom we owe the invention\nof bread. And what is still more strange, we are still so ungrateful to\nNoah that, while we have more than two thousand songs in honor of\nBacchus, we scarcely sing one in honor of our benefactor, Noah.\n\nA Jew assured me that corn came without cultivation in Mesopotamia, as\napples, wild pears, chestnuts, and medlars, in the west. It is as well\nto believe him, until we are sure of the contrary; for it is necessary\nthat corn should grow spontaneously somewhere. It has become the\nordinary and indispensable nourishment in the finest climates, and in\nall the north.\n\nThe great philosophers whose talents we estimate so highly, and whose\nsystems we do not follow, have pretended, in the natural history of the\ndog (page 195), that men created corn; and that our ancestors, by means\nof sowing tares and cow-grass together, changed them into wheat. As\nthese philosophers are not of our opinion on shells, they will permit us\nto differ from them on corn. We do not think that tulips could ever have\nbeen produced from jasmine. We find that the germ of corn is quite\ndifferent from that of tares, and we do not believe in any\ntransmutation. When it shall be proved to us, we will retract.\n\nWe have seen, in the article \"Breadtree,\" that in three-quarters of the\nearth bread is not eaten. It is pretended that the Ethiopians laughed at\nthe Egyptians, who lived on bread. But since corn is our chief\nnourishment, it has become one of the greatest objects of commerce and\npolitics. So much has been written on this subject, that if a laborer\nsowed as many pounds of wheat as we have volumes on this commodity, he\nmight expect a more ample harvest, and become richer than those who, in\ntheir painted and gilded saloons, are ignorant of the excess of his\noppression and misery.\n\nEgypt became the best country in the world for wheat when, after several\nages, which it is difficult to reckon exactly, the inhabitants found the\nsecret of rendering a destructive river--which had always inundated the\ncountry, and was only useful to the rats, insects, reptiles, and\ncrocodiles of Egypt--serviceable to the fecundity of the soil. Its\nwaters, mixed with a black mud, were neither useful to quench the thirst\nof the inhabitants, nor for ablution. It must have required a long time\nand prodigious labor to subdue the river, to divide it into canals, to\nfound towns on lands formerly movable, and to change the caverns of the\nrocks into vast buildings.\n\nAll this is more astonishing than the pyramids; for being accomplished,\nbehold a people sure of the best corn in the world, without the\nnecessity of labor! It is the inhabitant of this country who raises and\nfattens poultry superior to that of Caux, who is habited in the finest\nlinen in the most temperate climate, and who has none of the real wants\nof other people.\n\nTowards the year 1750, the French nation, surfeited with tragedies,\ncomedies, operas, romances, and romantic histories--with moral\nreflections still more romantic, and with theological disputes on grace\nand on convulsionaries, began to reason upon corn. They even forgot the\nvine, in treating of wheat and rye. Useful things were written on\nagriculture, and everybody read them except the laborers. The good\npeople imagined, as they walked out of the comic opera, that France had\na prodigious quantity of corn to sell, and the cry of the nation at last\nobtained of the government, in 1764, the liberty of exportation.\n\nAccordingly they exported. The result was exactly what it had been in\nthe time of Henry IV., they sold a little too much, and a barren year\nsucceeding, Mademoiselle Bernard was obliged, for the second time, to\nsell her necklace to get linen and chemises. Now the complainants passed\nfrom one extreme to the other, and complained against the exportation\nthat they had so recently demanded, which shows how difficult it is to\nplease all the world and his wife.\n\nAble and well-meaning people, without interest, have written, with as\nmuch sagacity as courage, in favor of the unlimited liberty of the\ncommerce in grain. Others, of as much mind, and with equally pure views,\nhave written in the idea of limiting this liberty; and the Neapolitan\nAbb\u00e9 Gagliana amused the French nation on the exportation of corn, by\nfinding out the secret of making, even in French, dialogues as amusing\nas our best romances, and as instructive as our good serious books. If\nthis work did not diminish the price of bread, it gave great pleasure to\nthe nation, which was what it valued most. The partisans of unlimited\nexportation answered him smartly. The result was that the readers no\nlonger knew where they were, and the greater part took to reading\nromances, expecting that the three or four following years of abundance\nwould enable them to judge. The ladies were no longer able to\ndistinguish wheat from rye, while honest devotees continued to believe\nthat grain must lie and rot in the ground in order to spring up again.\n\n\n\n\nCOUNCILS.\n\n_Meetings of Ecclesiastics, Called Together to Resolve Doubts or\nQuestions on Points of Faith or Discipline._\n\n\nThe use of councils was not unknown to the followers of the ancient\nreligion of Zerdusht, whom we call Zoroaster. About the year 200 of our\nera, Ardeshir Babecan, king of Persia, called together forty thousand\npriests, to consult them touching some of his doubts about paradise and\nhell, which they call the _gehen_--a term adopted by the Jews during\ntheir captivity at Babylon, as they did the names of the angels and of\nthe months. Erdoviraph, the most celebrated of the magi, having drunk\nthree glasses of a soporific wine, had an ecstasy which lasted seven\ndays and seven nights, during which his soul was transported to God.\nWhen the paroxysm was over, he reassured the faith of the king, by\nrelating to him the great many wonderful things he had seen in the other\nworld, and having them written down.\n\nWe know that Jesus was called _Christ_, a Greek word signifying\n_anointed_; and his doctrine _Christianity_, or _gospel_, i.e., _good\nnews_, because having, as was his custom, entered one Sabbath day the\nsynagogue of Nazareth, where he was brought up, He applied to Himself\nthis passage of Isaiah, which He had just read: \"The spirit of the Lord\nis on me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the\npoor.\" They of the synagogue did, to be sure, drive Him out of their\ntown, and carry Him to a point of the hill, on which it was built, in\norder to throw Him headlong from it; and His relatives \"went out to lay\nhold on Him,\" for they were told, and they said, \"that He was beside\nHimself.\" Nor is it less certain that Jesus constantly declared He had\ncome not to destroy the law or the prophecies, but to fulfil them.\n\nBut, as He left nothing written, His first disciples were divided on the\nfamous question, whether the Gentiles were to be circumcised and ordered\nto keep the Mosaic law. The apostles and the priests, therefore,\nassembled at Jerusalem to examine this point, and, after many\nconferences, they wrote to the brethren among the Gentiles, at Antioch,\nin Syria, and in Cilicia, a letter of which we give the substance: \"It\nhas seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, not to impose upon you any\nobligations but those which are necessary, viz., to abstain from meats\noffered up to idols, from blood, from the flesh of choked animals, and\nfrom fornication.\"\n\nThe decision of this council did not prevent Peter, when at Antioch,\nfrom continuing to eat with the Gentiles, before some of the\ncircumcised, who came from James, had arrived. But Paul, seeing that he\ndid not walk straight in the path of gospel truth, resisted him to the\nface, saying to him before them all. \"If thou, being a Jew, livest after\nthe manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the\nGentiles to live as do the Jews?\" Indeed Peter had lived like the\nGentiles ever since he had seen, in a trance, \"heaven opened, and a\ncertain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet, knit\nat the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner\nof four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping\nthings, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise,\nPeter, kill and eat.\"\n\nPaul, who so loudly reproved Peter for using this dissimulation to make\nthem believe that he still observed the law, had himself recourse to a\nsimilar feint at Jerusalem. Being accused of teaching the Jews who were\namong the Gentiles to renounce Moses, he went and purified himself in\nthe temple for seven days, in order that all might know that what they\nhad heard of him was false, and that he continued to observe the law;\nthis, too, was done by the advice of all the priests, assembled at the\nhouse of James--which priests were the same who had decided with the\nHoly Ghost, that these observations were unnecessary.\n\nCouncils were afterwards distinguished into general and particular.\nParticular councils are of three kinds--national, convoked by the\nprince, the patriarch, or the primate; provincial, assembled by the\nmetropolitan or archbishop; and diocesan, or synods held by each bishop.\nThe following is a decree of one of the councils held at Macon:\n\n\"Whenever a layman meet a priest or a deacon on the road, he shall\noffer him his arm; if the priest and the layman are both on horseback,\nthe layman shall stop and salute the priest reverently; and if the\npriest be on foot, and the layman on horseback, the layman shall\ndismount, and shall not mount again until the ecclesiastic be at a\ncertain distance; all on pain of interdiction for as long a time as it\nshall please the metropolitan.\"\n\nThe list of the councils, in Mor\u00e9ri's \"Dictionary,\" occupies more than\nsixteen pages, but as authors are not agreed concerning the number of\ngeneral councils, we shall here confine ourselves to the results of the\nfirst eight that were assembled by order of the emperors.\n\nTwo priests of Alexandria, seeking to know whether Jesus was God or\ncreature, not only did the bishops and priests dispute but the whole\npeople were divided, and the disorder arrived at such a pitch that the\nPagans ridiculed Christianity on the stage. The emperor Constantine\nfirst wrote in these terms to Bishop Alexander and the priest Arius, the\nauthors of the dissension: \"These questions, which are unnecessary, and\nspring only from unprofitable idleness, may be discussed in order to\nexercise the intellect; but they should not be repeated in the hearing\nof the people. Being divided on so small a matter, it is not just that\nyou should govern, according to your thoughts, so great a multitude of\nGod's people. Such conduct is mean and puerile, unworthy of the priestly\noffice, and of men of sense. I do not say this to compel you entirely\nto agree on this frivolous question, whatever it is. You may, with a\nprivate difference, preserve unity, provided these subtleties and\ndifferent opinions remain secret in your inmost thoughts.\"\n\nThe emperor, having learned that his letter was without effect,\nresolved, by the advice of the bishops, to convoke an ecumenical\ncouncil--_i.e_., a council of the whole habitable earth, and chose for\nthe place of meeting the town of Nic\u00e6a, in Bithynia. There came thither\ntwo thousand and forty-eight bishops, who, as Eutychius relates, were\nall of different sentiments and opinions. This prince, having had the\npatience to hear them dispute on this point, was much surprised at\nfinding among them so little unanimity; and the author of the Arabic\npreface to this council says that the records of these disputes amounted\nto forty volumes.\n\nThis prodigious number of bishops will not appear incredible when it is\nrecollected that Usher, quoted by Selden, relates that St. Patrick, who\nlived in the fifth century, founded three hundred and sixty-five\nchurches, and ordained the like number of bishops; which proves that\nthen each church had its bishop, that is, its overlooker.\n\nIn the Council of Nice there was read a letter from Eusebius of\nNicomedia, containing manifest heresy, and discovering the cabal of\nArius's party. In it was said, among other things, that if Jesus were\nacknowledged to be the Son of God uncreated, He must also be\nacknowledged to be consubstantial with the Father. Therefore it was that\nAthanasius, a deacon of Alexandria, persuaded the fathers to dwell on\nthe word _consubstantial_, which had been rejected as improper by the\nCouncil of Antioch, held against Paul of Samosata; but he took it in a\ngross sense, marking division; as we say, that several pieces of money\nare of the same metal: whereas the orthodox explained the term\n_consubstantial_ so well, that the emperor himself comprehended that it\ninvolved no corporeal idea--signified no division of the absolutely\nimmaterial and spiritual substance of the Father--but was to be\nunderstood in a divine and ineffable sense. They moreover showed the\ninjustice of the Arians in rejecting this word on pretence that it was\nnot in the Scriptures--they who employ so many words which are not there\nto be found; and who say that the Son of God was brought out of nothing,\nand had not existed from all eternity.\n\nConstantine then wrote two letters at the same time, to give publicity\nto the ordinances of the council, and make them known to such as had not\nattended it. The first, addressed to the churches in general, says, in\nso many words, that the question of the faith has been examined, and so\nwell cleared up, that no difficulty remains. In the second, among\nothers, the church of Alexandria is thus addressed: \"What three hundred\nbishops have ordained is no other than the seed of the only Son of God;\nthe Holy Ghost has declared the will of God through these great men,\nwhom he inspired. Now, then, let none doubt--let none dispute, but each\none return with all his heart into the way of truth.\"\n\nThe ecclesiastical writers are not agreed as to the number of bishops\nwho subscribed to the ordinances of this council. Eusebius reckons only\ntwo hundred and fifty; Eustathius of Antioch, cited by Theodoret, two\nhundred and seventy; St. Athanasius, in his epistle to the Solitaries,\nthree hundred, like Constantine; while, in his letter to the Africans,\nhe speaks of three hundred and eighteen. Yet these four authors were\neye-witnesses, and worthy of great faith.\n\nThis number 318, which Pope St. Leo calls mysterious, has been adopted\nby most of the fathers of the church. St. Ambrose assures us that the\nnumber of 318 bishops was a proof of the presence of our Lord Jesus\nChrist in his Council of Nic\u00e6a, because the cross designates three\nhundred, and the name of Jesus eighteen. St. Hilary, in his defence of\nthe word _consubstantial_, approved in the Council of Nice, though\ncondemned fifty-five years before in the Council of Antioch, reasons\nthus: \"Eighty bishops rejected the word _consubstantial_, but three\nhundred and eighteen have received it. Now this latter number seems to\nme a sacred number, for if is that of the men who accompanied Abraham,\nwhen, after his victory over the impious kings, he was blessed by him\nwho is the type of the eternal priesthood.\" And Selden relates that\nDorotheus, metropolitan of Monembasis, said there were precisely three\nhundred and eighteen fathers at this council, because three hundred and\neighteen years had elapsed since the incarnation. All chronologists\nplace this council in the year 325 of our modern era; but Dorotheus\ndeducts seven years, to make his comparison complete; this, however, is\na mere trifle. Besides, it was not until the Council of Lestines, in\n743, that the years began to be counted from the incarnation of Jesus.\nDionysius the Less had imagined this epoch in his solar cycle of the\nyear 526, and Bede had made use of it in his \"Ecclesiastical History.\"\n\nIt will not be a subject of astonishment that Constantine adopted the\nopinion of the three hundred or three hundred and eighteen bishops who\nheld the divinity of Jesus, when it is borne in mind that Eusebius of\nNicomedia, one of the principal leaders of the Arian party, had been an\naccomplice in the cruelty of Licinius, in the massacres of the bishops,\nand the persecutions of the Christians. Of this the emperor himself\naccuses him, in the private letter which he wrote to the church of\nNicomedia:\n\n\"He sent spies about me,\" says he, \"in the troubles, and did everything\nbut take up arms for the tyrant. I have proofs of this from the priests\nand deacons of his train, whom I took. During the Council of Nic\u00e6a, with\nwhat eagerness and what impudence he maintained, against the testimony\nof his conscience, the error exploded on every side! repeatedly\nimploring my protection, lest, being convicted of so great a crime, he\nshould lose his dignity. He shamefully circumvented and took me by\nsurprise, and carried everything as he chose. Again, see what has been\ndone but lately by him and Theogenes.\"\n\nConstantine here alludes to the fraud which Eusebius of Nicomedia and\nTheogenes of Nic\u00e6a resorted to in subscribing. In the word \"omoousios,\"\nthey inserted an iota, making it \"omoiousios,\" meaning of like\nsubstance; whereas the first means of _the same_ substance. We hereby\nsee that these bishops yielded to the fear of being displaced or\nbanished; for the emperor had threatened with exile such as should not\nsubscribe. The other Eusebius, too, bishop of C\u00e6sarea, approved the word\n_consubstantial_, after condemning it the day before.\n\nHowever, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais continued\nobstinately attached to Arius; and, the council, having condemned them\nwith him, Constantine banished them, and declared by an edict that\nwhosoever should be convicted of concealing any of the writings of Arius\ninstead of burning them, should be punished with death. Three months\nafter, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theogenes were likewise exiled into\nGaul. It is said that, having gained over the individual who, by the\nemperor's order, kept the acts of the council, they had erased their\nsignatures, and begun to teach in public that the Son must not be\nbelieved to be consubstantial with the Father.\n\nHappily, to replace their signatures and preserve entire the mysterious\nnumber three hundred and eighteen, the expedient was tried of laying the\nbook, in which the acts were divided into sessions, on the tomb of\nChrysanthus and Mysonius, who had died while the council was in session;\nthe night was passed in prayer and the next morning it was found that\nthese two bishops had signed.\n\nIt was by an expedient nearly similar, that the fathers of the same\ncouncil distinguished the authentic from the apocryphal books of\nScripture. Having placed them altogether upon the altar, the apocryphal\nbooks fell to the ground of themselves.\n\nTwo other councils, assembled by the emperor Constantine, in the year\n359, the one, of upwards of four hundred bishops, at Rimini, the other,\nof more than a hundred and fifty, at Seleucia; after long debates,\nrejected the word _consubstantial_, already condemned, as we have before\nsaid, by a Council of Antioch. But these councils are recognized only by\nthe Socinians.\n\nThe Nicene fathers had been so much occupied with the consubstantiality\nof the Son, that they had made no mention of the church in their symbol,\nbut contented themselves with saying, \"We also believe in the Holy\nGhost.\" This omission was supplied in the second general council,\nconvoked at Constantinople, in 381, by Theodosius. The Holy Ghost was\nthere declared to be the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the\nFather, who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified, who\nspake by the prophets. Afterwards the Latin church would have the Holy\nGhost proceed from the Son also; and the \"filioque\" was added to the\nsymbol: first in Spain, in 447; then in France, at the Council of Lyons,\nin 1274; and lastly at Rome, notwithstanding the complaints made by the\nGreeks against this innovation.\n\nThe divinity of Jesus being once established, it was natural to give to\nhis mother the title of Mother of God. However, Nestorius, patriarch of\nConstantinople, maintained in his sermons that this would be justifying\nthe folly of the Pagans, who gave mothers to their gods. Theodosius the\nyounger, to have this great question decided, assembled the third\ngeneral council at Ephesus, in the year 431, and in it Mary was\nacknowledged to be the mother of God.\n\nAnother heresy of Nestorius, likewise condemned at Ephesus, was that of\nadmitting two persons in Jesus. Nevertheless, the patriarch Photius\nsubsequently acknowledged two natures in Jesus. A monk named Eutyches,\nwho had already exclaimed loudly against Nestorius, affirmed, the better\nto contradict them both, that Jesus had also but one nature. But this\ntime the monk was wrong; although, in 449, his opinion had been\nmaintained by blows in a numerous council at Ephesus. Eutyches was\nnevertheless anathematized, two years afterwards, by the fourth general\ncouncil, held under the emperor Marcian at Chalcedon, in which two\nnatures were assigned to Jesus.\n\nIt was still to be determined, with one person and two natures, how many\nwills Jesus was to have. The fifth general council, which in the year\n553 quelled, by Justinian's order, the contentions about the doctrine of\nthree bishops, had no leisure to settle this important point. It was not\nuntil the year 680 that the sixth general council, also convened at\nConstantinople by Constantine Pogonatus, informed us that Jesus had\nprecisely two wills. This council, in condemning the Monothelites, who\nadmitted only one, made no exception from the anathema in favor of Pope\nHonorius I., who, in a letter given by Baronius, had said to the\npatriarch of Constantinople:\n\n\"We confess in Jesus Christ one only will. We do not see that either the\ncouncils or the Scriptures authorize us to think otherwise. But whether,\nfrom the works of divinity and of humanity which are in him, we are to\nlook for two operations, is a point of little importance, and one which\nI leave it to the grammarians to decide.\"\n\nThus, in this instance, with God's permission, the account between the\nGreek and Latin churches was balanced. As the patriarch Nestorius had\nbeen condemned for acknowledging two persons in Jesus, so Pope Honorius\nwas now condemned for admitting but one will in Jesus.\n\nThe seventh general council, or the second of Nice, was assembled in\n787, by Constantine, son of Leo and Irene, to re-establish the worship\nof images. The reader must know that two Councils of Constantinople, the\nfirst in 730, under the emperor Leo, the other twenty-four years after,\nunder Constantine Copronymus, had thought proper to proscribe images,\nconformably to the Mosaic law and to the usage of the early ages of\nChristianity. So, also, the Nicene decree, in which it is said that\n\"whosoever shall not render service and adoration to the images of the\nsaints as to the Trinity, shall be deemed anathematized,\" at first\nencountered some opposition. The bishops who introduced it, in a Council\nof Constantinople, held in 789, were turned out by soldiers. The same\ndecree was also rejected with scorn by the Council of Frankfort in 794,\nand by the Caroline books, published by order of Charlemagne. But the\nsecond Council of Nice was at length confirmed at Constantinople under\nthe emperor Michael and his mother Theodora, in the year 842, by a\nnumerous council, which anathematized the enemies of holy images. Be it\nhere observed, it was by two women, the empresses Irene and Theodora,\nthat the images were protected.\n\nWe pass on to the eighth general council. Under the emperor Basilius,\nPhotius, ordained patriarch of Constantinople in place of Ignatius, had\nthe Latin church condemned for the \"filioque\" and other practices, by a\ncouncil of the year 866: but Ignatius being recalled the following\nyear, another council removed Photius; and in the year 869 the Latins,\nin their turn, condemned the Greek church in what they called the eighth\ngeneral council--while those in the East gave this name to another\ncouncil, which, ten years after, annulled what the preceding one had\ndone, and restored Photius.\n\nThese four councils were held at Constantinople; the others, called\n_general_ by the Latins, having been composed of the bishops of the West\nonly, the popes, with the aid of false decretals, gradually arrogated\nthe right of convoking them. The last of these which assembled at Trent,\nfrom 1545 to 1563, neither served to convert the enemies of papacy nor\nto subdue them. Its decrees, in discipline, have been scarcely admitted\ninto any one Catholic nation: its only effect has been to verify these\nwords of St. Gregory Nazianzen: \"I have not seen one council that has\nacted with good faith, or that has not augmented the evils complained of\nrather than cured them. Ambition and the love of disputation, beyond the\npower of words to express, reign in every assembly of bishops.\"\n\nHowever, the Council of Constance, in 1415, having decided that a\ncouncil-general receives its authority immediately from Jesus Christ,\nwhich authority every person, of whatever rank or dignity, is bound to\nobey in all that concerns the faith; and the Council of Basel having\nafterwards confirmed this decree, which it holds to be an article of\nfaith which cannot be neglected without renouncing salvation, it is\nclear how deeply every one is interested in paying submission to\ncouncils.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Notice of the General Councils._\n\nAssembly, council of state, parliament, states-general, formerly\nsignified the same thing. In the primitive ages nothing was written in\nCeltic, nor in German, nor in Spanish. The little that was written was\nconceived in the Latin tongue by a few clerks, who expressed every\nmeeting of _lendes_, _herren_, or _ricohombres_, by the word\n_concilium_. Hence it is that we find in the sixth, seventh, and eighth\ncenturies so many councils which were nothing more than councils of\nstate.\n\nWe shall here speak only of the great councils called _general_, whether\nby the Greek or by the Latin church. At Rome they were called _synods_,\nas they were in the East in the primitive ages--for the Latins borrowed\nnames as well as things from the Greeks.\n\nIn 325 there was a great council in the city of Nic\u00e6a, convoked by\nConstantine. The form of its decision was this: \"We believe that Jesus\nis of one substance with the Father, God of God, light of light,\nbegotten, not made. We also believe in the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nNicephorus affirms that two bishops, Chrysanthus and Mysonius, who had\ndied during the first sittings, rose again to sign the condemnation of\nArius, and incontinently died again, as I have already observed.\nBaronius maintains this fact, but Fleury says nothing of it.\n\nIn 359 the emperor Constantius assembled the great councils of Rimini\nand of Seleucia, consisting of six hundred bishops, with a prodigious\nnumber of priests. These two councils, corresponding together, undo all\nthat the Council of Nice did, and proscribe the consubstantiality. But\nthis was afterwards regarded as a false council.\n\nIn 381 was held, by order of the emperor Theodosius, a great council at\nConstantinople, of one hundred and fifty bishops, who anathematize the\nCouncil of Rimini. St. Gregory Nazianzen presides, and the bishop of\nRome sends deputies to it. Now is added to the Nicene symbol: \"Jesus\nChrist was incarnate, by the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary. He was\ncrucified for us under Pontius Pilate. He was buried, and on the third\nday he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He sits at the right\nhand of the Father. We also believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and\ngiver of life, who proceeds from the Father.\"\n\nIn 431 a great council was convoked at Ephesus, by the emperor\nTheodosius II. Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, having violently\npersecuted all who were not of his opinion on theological points,\nundergoes persecution in his turn, for having maintained that the Holy\nVirgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, was not mother of God; because\nsaid he, Jesus Christ being the word, the Son of God, consubstantial\nwith His Father, Mary could not, at the same time, be mother of God the\nFather and of God the Son. St. Cyril exclaims loudly against him.\nNestorius demands an ecumenical council, and obtains it. Nestorius is\ncondemned; but Cyril is also displaced by a committee of the council.\nThe emperor reverses all that has been done in this council, then\npermits it to re-assemble. The deputies from Rome arrive very late. The\ntroubles increasing, the emperor has Nestorius and Cyril arrested. At\nlast he orders all the bishops to return, each to his church, and after\nall no conclusion is reached. Such was the famous Council of Ephesus.\n\nIn 449 another great council, afterward called \"the banditti,\" met at\nEphesus. The number of bishops assembled is a hundred and thirty; and\nDioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, presided. There are two deputies from\nthe church of Rome, and several abbots. The question is, whether Jesus\nChrist has two natures. The bishops and all the monks of Egypt exclaim\nthat \"all who would divide Jesus Christ ought themselves to be torn in\ntwo.\" The two natures are anathematized; and there is a fight in full\ncouncil, as at the little Council of Cirta in 355, and at the minor\nCouncil of Carthage.\n\nIn 452, the great Council of Chalcedon was convoked by Pulcheria, who\nmarried Marcian on condition that he should be only the highest of her\nsubjects. St. Leo, bishop of Rome, having great influence, takes\nadvantage of the troubles which the quarrel about the two natures has\noccasioned in the empire, and presides at the council by his legates--of\nwhich we have no former example. But the fathers of the council,\napprehending that the church of the West will, from this precedent,\npretend to the superiority over that of the East, decide by their\ntwenty-eighth canon, that the see of Constantinople, and that of Rome,\nshall enjoy alike the same advantages and the same privileges. This was\nthe origin of the long enmity which prevailed, and still prevails,\nbetween the two churches. This Council of Chalcedon established the two\nnatures in one only person.\n\nNicephorus relates that, at this same council, the bishops, after a long\ndispute on the subject of images, laid each his opinion in writing on\nthe tomb of St. Euphemia, and passed the night in prayer. The next\nmorning the orthodox writings were found in the saint's hand, and the\nothers at her feet.\n\nIn 553, a great council at Constantinople was convoked by Justinian, who\nwas an amateur theologian, to discuss three small writings, called _the\nthree chapters_, of which nothing is now known. There were also disputes\non some passages of Origen.\n\nVigilius, bishop of Rome, would have gone thither in person; but\nJustinian had him put in prison, and the Patriarch of Constantinople\npresided. No member of the Latin church attended; for at that time Greek\nwas no longer understood in the West, which had become entirely\nbarbarous.\n\nIn 680, another general council at Constantinople was convoked by\nConstantine the bearded. This was the first council called by the Latins\n_in trullo_, because it was held in an apartment of the imperial palace.\nThe emperor, himself, presided; on his right hand were the patriarchs of\nConstantinople and Antioch; on his left, the deputies from Rome and\nJerusalem. It was there decided that Jesus Christ had two wills; and\nPope Honorius I., was condemned as a Monothelite, i.e., as wishing Jesus\nChrist to have but one will.\n\nIn 787, the second Council of Nice was convoked by Irene, in the name of\nthe emperor Constantine, her son, whom she had deprived of his eyes. Her\nhusband, Leo, had abolished the worship of images, as contrary to the\nsimplicity of the primitive ages, and leading to idolatry. Irene\nre-established this worship; she herself spoke in the council, which was\nthe only one held by a woman. Two legates from Pope Adrian V., attended,\nbut did not speak, for they did not understand Greek: the patriarch did\nall.\n\nSeven years after, the Franks, having heard that a council at\nConstantinople had ordained the adoration of images, assemble, by order\nof Charles, son of Pepin, afterwards named Charlemagne, a very numerous\ncouncil at Frankfort. Here the second Council of Nice is spoken of as\n\"an impertinent and arrogant synod, held in Greece for the worshipping\nof pictures.\"\n\nIn 842, a great council at Constantinople was convoked by the empress\nTheodora. The worship of images was solemnly established. The Greeks\nhave still a feast in honor of this council, called the _orthodoxia_.\nTheodora did not preside. In 861, a great council at Constantinople,\nconsisting of three hundred and eighteen bishops, was convoked by the\nemperor Michael. St. Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople, is deposed,\nand Photius elected.\n\nIn 866, another great council was held at Constantinople, in which Pope\nNicholas III. is deposed for contumacy, and excommunicated. In 869 was\nanother great council at Constantinople, in which Photius, in turn, is\ndeposed and excommunicated, and St. Ignatius restored.\n\nIn 879, another great council assembled at Constantinople, in which\nPhotius, already restored, is acknowledged as true patriarch by the\nlegates of Pope John VIII. Here the great ecumenical council, in which\nPhotius was deposed, receives the appellation of \"_conciliabulum_.\" Pope\nJohn VIII. declares all those to be Judases who say that the Holy Ghost\nproceeds from the Father and the Son.\n\nIn 1122-3, a great council at Rome was held in the church of St. John of\nLateran by Pope Calixtus II. This was the first general council convoked\nby the popes. The emperors of the West had now scarcely any authority;\nand the emperors of the East pressed by the Mahometans and by the\nCrusaders, held none but wretched little councils.\n\nIt is not precisely known what this Lateran was. Some small councils had\nbefore been assembled in the Lateran. Some say that it was a house built\nby one Lateran in Nero's time; others, that it was St. John's church\nitself, built by Bishop Sylvester. In this council, the bishops\ncomplained heavily of the monks. \"They possess,\" said they, \"the\nchurches, the lands, the castles, the tithes, the offerings of the\nliving and the dead; they have only to take from us the ring and the\ncrosier.\" The monks remained in possession.\n\nIn 1139 was another great Council of Lateran, by Pope Innocent II. It is\nsaid there were present a thousand bishops. A great many, certainly.\nHere the ecclesiastical tithes are declared to be of _divine right_, and\nall laymen possessing any of them are excommunicated. In 1179 was\nanother great Council of Lateran, by Pope Alexander III. There were\nthree hundred bishops and one Greek abbot. The decrees are all on\ndiscipline. The plurality of benefices is forbidden.\n\nIn 1215 was the last general Council of Lateran, by Pope Innocent III.,\ncomposed of four hundred and twelve bishops, and eight hundred abbots.\nAt this time, which is that of the Crusades, the popes have established\na Latin patriarch at Jerusalem, and one at Constantinople. These\npatriarchs attend the council. This great council says that, \"God having\ngiven the doctrine of salvation to men by Moses, at length caused His\nson to be born of a virgin, to show the way more clearly,\" and that \"no\none can be saved out of the Catholic church.\"\n\nThe _transubstantiation_ was not known until after this council. It\nforbade the establishment of new religious orders; but, since that time,\nno less than eighty have been instituted. It was in this council that\nRaymond, count of Toulouse, was stripped of all his lands. In 1245 a\ngreat council assembled at the imperial city of Lyons. Innocent IV.\nbrings thither the emperor of Constantinople, John Pal\u00e6ologus, and makes\nhim sit beside him. He deposes the emperor Frederick as a _felon_, and\ngives the cardinals red hats, as a sign of hostility to Frederick. This\nwas the source of thirty years of civil war.\n\nIn 1274 another general council was held at Lyons. Five hundred bishops,\nseventy great and a thousand lesser abbots. The Greek emperor, Michael\nPal\u00e6ologus, that he may have the protection of the pope, sends his Greek\npatriarch, Theophanes, to unite, in his name, with the Latin church. But\nthe Greek church disowns these bishops.\n\nIn 1311, Pope Clement V. assembled a general council in the small town\nof Vienne, in Dauphiny, in which he abolishes the Order of the Templars.\nIt is here ordained that the B\u00e9gares, Beguins, and B\u00e9guines shall be\nburned. These were a species of heretics, to whom was imputed all that\nhad formerly been imputed to the primitive Christians. In 1414, the\ngreat Council of Constance was convoked by an emperor who resumes his\nrights, viz.: by Sigismund. Here Pope John XXIII., convicted of numerous\ncrimes, is deposed; and John Huss and Jerome of Prague, convicted of\nobstinacy, are burned. In 1431, a great council was held at Basel, where\nthey in vain depose Pope Eugene IV., who is too clever for the council.\n\nIn 1438, a great council assembled at Ferrara, transferred to Florence,\nwhere the excommunicated pope excommunicates the council, and declares\nit guilty of high treason. Here a feigned union is made with the Greek\nchurch, crushed by the Turkish synods held sword in hand. Pope Julius\nII. would have had his Council of Lateran, in 1512, pass for an\necumenical council. In it that pope solemnly excommunicated Louis XII.,\nking of France, laid France under an interdict, summoned the whole\nparliament of Provence to appear before him, and excommunicated all the\nphilosophers, because most of them had taken part with Louis XII. Yet\nthis council was not, like that of Ephesus, called the Council of\nRobbers.\n\nIn 1537, the Council of Trent was convoked, first at Mantua, by Paul\nIII., afterwards at Trent in 1543, and terminated in December, 1561,\nunder Pius VI. Catholic princes submitted to it on points of doctrine,\nand two or three of them in matters of discipline. It is thought that\nhenceforward there will be no more general councils than there will be\nstates-general in France or Spain. In the Vatican there is a fine\npicture, containing a list of the general councils, in which are\ninscribed such only as are approved by the court of Rome. Every one puts\nwhat he chooses in his own archives.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Infallibility of Councils._\n\nAll councils are, doubtless, infallible, being composed of men. It is\nnot possible that the passions, that intrigues, that the spirit of\ncontention, that hatred or jealousy, that prejudice or ignorance, should\never influence these assemblies. But why, it will be said, have so many\ncouncils been opposed to one another? To exercise our faith. They were\nall right, each in its time. At this day, the Roman Catholics believe in\nsuch councils only as are approved in the Vatican; the Greek Catholics\nbelieve only in those approved at Constantinople; and the Protestants\nmake a jest of both the one and the other: so that every one ought to be\ncontent.\n\nWe shall here examine only the great councils: the lesser ones are not\nworth the trouble. The first was that of Nice, assembled in the year 325\nof the modern era, after Constantine had written and sent by Osius his\nnoble letter to the rather turbulent clergy of Alexandria. It was\ndebated whether Jesus was created or uncreated. This in no way concerned\nmorality, which is the only thing essential. Whether Jesus was in time\nor before time, it is not the less our duty to be honest. After much\naltercation, it was at last decided that the Son was as old as the\nFather, and _consubstantial_ with the Father. This decision is not very\neasy of comprehension, which makes it but the more sublime. Seventeen\nbishops protested against the decree; and an old Alexandrian chronicle,\npreserved at Oxford, says that two thousand priests likewise protested.\nBut prelates make not much account of mere priests, who are in general\npoor. However, there was nothing said of the Trinity in this first\ncouncil. The formula runs thus: \"We believe Jesus to be consubstantial\nwith the Father, God of God, light of light, begotten, not made; we also\nbelieve in the Holy Ghost.\" It must be acknowledged that the Holy Ghost\nwas treated very cavalierly.\n\nWe have already said, that in the supplement to the Council of Nice it\nis related that the fathers, being much perplexed to find out which were\nthe authentic and which the apocryphal books of the Old and the New\nTestament, laid them all upon an altar, and the books which they were to\nreject fell to the ground. What a pity that so fine an ordeal has been\nlost!\n\nAfter the first Council of Nice, composed of three hundred and seventeen\ninfallible bishops, another council was held at Rimini; on which\noccasion the number of the infallible was four hundred, without\nreckoning a strong detachment, at Seleucia, of about two hundred. These\nsix hundred bishops, after four months of contention, unanimously took\nfrom Jesus his _consubstantiality_. It has since been restored to him,\nexcept by the Socinians: so nothing is amiss.\n\nOne of the great councils was that of Ephesus, in 431. There, as already\nstated, Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, a great persecutor of\nheretics, was himself condemned as a heretic, for having maintained\nthat, although Jesus was really God, yet His mother was not absolutely\nmother of God, but mother of Jesus. St. Cyril procured the condemnation\nof Nestorius; but the partisans of Nestorius also procured the\ndeposition of St. Cyril, in the same council; which put the Holy Ghost\nin considerable perplexity.\n\nHere, gentle reader, carefully observe, that the Gospel says not one\nsyllable of the consubstantiality of the Word, nor of Mary's having had\nthe honor of being mother of God, no more than of the other disputed\npoints which brought together so many infallible councils.\n\nEutyches was a monk, who had cried out sturdily against Nestorius, whose\nheresy was nothing less than supposing two persons in Jesus; which is\nquite frightful. The monk, the better to contradict his adversary,\naffirmed that Jesus had but one nature. One Flavian, bishop of\nConstantinople, maintained against him, that there must absolutely be\ntwo natures in Jesus. Thereupon, a numerous council was held at Ephesus\nin 449, and the argument made use of was the cudgel, as in the lesser\ncouncil of Cirta, in 355, and in a certain conference held at Carthage.\nFlavian's nature was well thrashed, and two natures were assigned to\nJesus. At the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, Jesus was again reduced to\none nature.\n\nI pass by councils held on less weighty questions, and come to the sixth\ngeneral Council of Constantinople, assembled to ascertain precisely\nwhether Jesus--who, after having for a long period had but one nature,\nwas then possessed of two--had also two wills. It is obvious how\nimportant this knowledge is to doing the will of God.\n\nThis council was convoked by Constantine the Bearded, as all the others\nhad been by the preceding emperors. The legates from the bishop of Rome\nwere on the left hand, and the patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch\non the right. The train-bearers at Rome may, for aught I know, assert\nthat the left hand is the place of honor. However, the result was that\nJesus obtained two wills.\n\nThe Mosaic law forbade images. Painters and sculptors had never made\ntheir fortunes among the Jews. We do not find that Jesus ever had any\npictures, excepting perhaps that of Mary, painted by Luke. It is,\nhowever, certain that Jesus Christ nowhere recommends the worship of\nimages. Nevertheless the primitive Christians began to worship them\nabout the end of the fourth century, when they had become familiar with\nthe fine arts. In the eighth century this abuse had arrived at such a\npitch that Constantine Copronymus assembled, at Constantinople, a\ncouncil of three hundred and twenty bishops, who anathematized\nimage-worship, and declared it to be idolatry.\n\nThe empress Irene, the same who afterwards had her son's eyes torn out,\nconvoked the second Council of Nice in 787, when the adoration of images\nwas re-established. But in 794 Charlemagne had another council held at\nFrankfort, which declared the second of Nice idolatrous. Pope Adrian IV.\nsent two legates to it, but he did not convoke it.\n\nThe first great council convoked by a pope was the first of Lateran, in\n1139; there were about a thousand bishops assembled; but scarcely\nanything was done, except that all those were anathematized who said\nthat the Church was too rich. In 1179, another great council of Lateran\nwas held by Alexander III., in which the cardinals, for the first time,\ntook precedence of the bishops. The discussions were confined to matters\nof discipline. In another great council of Lateran, in 1215, Pope\nInnocent III. stripped the count of Toulouse of all his possessions, by\nvirtue of his excommunication. It was then that the first mention was\nmade of _transubstantiation_.\n\nIn 1245, was held a general council at Lyons, then an imperial city, in\nwhich Pope Innocent IV. excommunicated the emperor Frederick II., and\nconsequently deposed him, and forbade him the use of fire and water. On\nthis occasion, a red hat was given to the cardinals, to remind them that\nthey must imbrue their hands in the blood of the emperor's partisans.\nThis council was the cause of the destruction of the house of Suabia,\nand of thirty years of anarchy in Italy and Germany.\n\nIn a general council held at Vienne, in Dauphiny, in 1311, the Order of\nthe Templars was abolished: its principal members having been condemned\nto the most horrible deaths, on charges most imperfectly established.\nThe great Council of Constance, in 1414, contented itself with\ndismissing Pope John XXIII., convicted of a thousand crimes, but had\nJohn Huss and Jerome of Prague burned for being obstinate; obstinacy\nbeing a much more grievous crime than either murder, rape, simony, or\nsodomy. In 1430 was held the great council of Basel, not recognized at\nRome because it deposed Pope Eugenius IV., who would not be deposed. The\nRomans reckon among the general councils the fifth Council of Lateran,\nconvoked against Louis XII., king of France, by Pope Julius II.; but\nthat warlike pope dying, the council had no result.\n\nLastly, we have the great Council of Trent, which is not received in\nFrance in matters of discipline; but its doctrine is indisputable,\nsince, as Fra Paolo Sarpi tells us, the Holy Ghost arrived at Trent from\nRome every week in the courier's bag. But Fra Paolo Sarpi was a little\ntainted with heresy.\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 03","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":77320}