{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35628/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35628","id":"gutenberg_35628","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35628","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: French Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME VIII\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  One hundred and sixty-eight designs, comprising reproductions\n      of rare old engravings, steel plates, photogravures,\n                    and curious fac-similes\n\n\nVOLUME XII\n\n\nE.R. DuMONT\n\nPARIS--LONDON--NEW YORK--CHICAGO\n\n1901\n\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\n\nLIST OF PLATES--Vol. VIII\n\nALLEGORICAL BUST OF VOLTAIRE--frontispiece\n\nTHE INITIATE BANISHING THE PRIEST\n\nJEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU\n\nJOHN CALVIN\n\n\n[Illustration: Allegorical bust of Voltaire.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY.\n\nIN TEN VOLUMES\n\nVOL. VIII\n\nMONEY--PRIVILEGE\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nMONEY.\n\n\nA word made use of to express gold. \"Sir, will you lend me a hundred\nlouis d'or?\" \"Sir, I would with all my heart, but I have no money; I am\nout of ready money.\" The Italian will say to you: \"_Signore, non ha di\ndanari_\"--\"I have no deniers.\"\n\nHarpagon asks Ma\u00eetre Jacques: \"Wilt thou make a good entertainment?\"\n\"Yes, if you will give me plenty of money.\"\n\nWe continually inquire which of the countries of Europe is the richest\nin money? By that we mean, which is the people who circulate the most\nmetals representative of objects of commerce? In the same manner we ask,\nwhich is the poorest? and thirty contending nations present\nthemselves--the Westphalian, Limousin, Basque, Tyrolese, Valois, Grison,\nIstrian, Scotch, and Irish, the Swiss of a small canton, and above all\nthe subjects of the pope.\n\nIn deciding which has most, we hesitate at present between France,\nSpain, and Holland, which had none in 1600.\n\nFormerly, in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, the\nprovince of the papal treasury had no doubt the most ready money, and\ntherefore the greatest trade. How do you sell that? would be asked of a\ntheological merchant, who replied, For as much as the people are fools\nenough to give me.\n\nAll Europe then sent its money to the Roman court, who gave in change\nconsecrated beads, agnuses, indulgences plenary and limited,\ndispensations, confirmations, exemptions, benedictions, and even\nexcommunications against those whom the subscriber chose, and who had\nnot sufficient faith in the court of Rome.\n\nThe Venetians sold nothing of all this, but they traded with all the\nWest by Alexandria, and it was through them only that we had pepper and\ncinnamon. The money which went not to the papal treasury came to them,\nexcepting a little to the Tuscans and Genoese. All the other kingdoms of\nEurope were so poor in ready money that Charles VIII. was obliged to\nborrow the jewels of the duchess of Savoy and put them in pawn, to raise\nfunds to conquer Naples, which he soon lost again. The Venetians\nsupported stronger armies than his. A noble Venetian had more gold in\nhis coffers, and more vessels of silver on his table, than the emperor\nMaximilian surnamed \"_Pochi danari._\"\n\nThings changed when the Portuguese traded with India as conquerors, and\nthe Spaniards subjugated Mexico and Peru with six or seven hundred men.\nWe know that then the commerce of Venice, and the other towns of Italy\nall fell to the ground. Philip II., the master of Spain, Portugal, the\nLow Countries, the Two Sicilies, and the Milanese, of fifteen hundred\nleagues of coast in Asia, and mines of gold and silver in America, was\nthe only rich, and consequently the only powerful prince in Europe. The\nspies whom he gained in France kissed on their knees the Catholic\ndoubloons, and the small number of angels and caroluses which circulated\nin that country had not much credit. It is pretended that America and\nAsia brought him in nearly ten million ducats of revenue. He would have\nreally bought Europe with his money, but for the iron of Henry IV. and\nthe fleets of Queen Elizabeth.\n\nThe \"_Dictionnaire Encyclop\u00e9dique,_\" in the article on \"Argent,\" quotes\nthe \"Spirits of Laws,\" in which it is said: \"I have heard deplored a\nthousand times, the blindness of the council of Francis I., who rejected\nthe proposal of Christopher Columbus for the discovery of the\nIndies--perhaps this imprudence has turned out a very wise thing.\"\n\nWe see by the enormous power of Philip that the pretended council of\nFrancis I. could not have done such a wise thing. But let us content\nourselves with remarking that Francis I. was not born when it is\npretended that he refused the offers of Christopher Columbus. The\nGenoese captain landed in America in 1492, and Francis I. was born in\n1497, and did not ascend the throne until 1515. Let us here compare the\nrevenues of Henry III., Henry IV., and Queen Elizabeth, with those of\nPhilip II. The ordinary income of Elizabeth was only one hundred\nthousand pound sterling, and with extras it was, one year with another,\nfour hundred thousand; but she required this surplus to defend herself\nfrom Philip II. Without extreme economy she would have been lost, and\nEngland with her.\n\nThe revenue of Henry III. indeed increased to thirty millions of livres\nof his time; this, to the sum that Philip drew from the Indies, was as\nthree to ten; but not more than a third of this money entered into the\ncoffers of Henry III., who was very prodigal, greatly robbed, and\nconsequently very poor. We find that Philip II. in one article was ten\ntimes richer than Henry.\n\nAs to Henry IV., it is not worth while to compare his treasures with\nthose of Philip II. Until the Peace of Vervins, he had only what he\ncould borrow or win at the point of his sword; and he lived as a\nknight-errant, until the time in which he became the first king in\nEurope. England had always been so poor that King Edward III. was the\nfirst king who coined money of gold.\n\nWould we know what became of the money which flowed continually from\nMexico and Peru into Spain? It entered the pockets of the French,\nEnglish and Dutch, who traded with Cadiz under Spanish names; and who\nsent to America the productions of their manufactories. A great part of\nthis money goes to the East Indies to pay for spices, cotton, saltpetre,\nsugar, candy, tea, cloths, diamonds, and monkeys.\n\nWe may afterwards demand, what is become of all the treasures of the\nIndies? I answer that Shah Thamas Kouli-Khan or Shah Nadir had carried\naway all those of the great Mogul, together with his jewels. You would\nknow where those jewels are, and this money that Shah Nadir carried with\nhim into Persia? A part was hidden in the earth during the civil wars;\npredatory leaders made use of the rest to raise troops against one\nanother; for, as C\u00e6sar very well remarks: \"With money we get soldiers,\nand with soldiers we steal money.\"\n\nYour curiosity is not yet satisfied; you are troubled to know what have\nbecome of the treasures of Sesostris, of Cr\u0153, Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar, and\nabove all of Solomon, who, it is said, had to his own share equal to\ntwenty millions and more of our pounds in his coffers.\n\nI will tell you. It is spread all over the world. Things find their\nlevel in time. Be sure, that in the time of Cyrus, the Gauls, Germany,\nDenmark, Poland, and Russia, had not a crown. Besides, that which is\nlost in gilding, which is fooled away upon our Lady of Loretto, and\nother places, and which has been swallowed up by the avaricious sea must\nbe counted.\n\nHow did the Romans under their great Romulus, the son of Mars, and a\nvestal, and under the devout Numa Pompilius? They had a Jupiter of oak;\nrudely carved huts for palaces; a handful of hay at the end of a stick\nfor a standard; and not a piece of money of twelve sous value in their\npockets. Our coachmen have gold watches that the seven kings of Rome,\nthe Camilluses, Manliuses, and Fabiuses, could not have paid for.\n\nIf by chance the wife of a receiver-general of finances was to have this\nchapter read at her toilette by the bel-esprit of the house, she would\nhave a strange contempt for the Romans of the three first centuries, and\nwould not allow a Manlius, Curius, or Fabius to enter her antechamber,\nshould he come on foot, and not have wherewithal to take his part at\nplay.\n\nTheir ready money was of brass. It served at once for arms and money.\nThey fought and reckoned with brass. Three or four pounds of brass, of\ntwelve ounces weight, paid for an ox. They bought necessaries at market,\nas we buy them at present; and men had, as in all times, food, clothing,\nand habitations. The Romans, poorer than their neighbors, conquered\nthem, and continually augmented their territory for the space of five\nhundred years, before they coined silver money.\n\nThe soldiers of Gustavus Adolphus in Sweden had nothing but copper money\nfor their pay, before the time that they made conquests out of their own\ncountry.\n\nProvided we have a pledge of exchange for the necessary things of life,\ncommerce will continually go on. It signifies not whether this pledge be\nof shells or paper. Gold and silver have prevailed everywhere, only\nbecause they have been the most rare.\n\nIt was in Asia that the first manufactures of money of these two metals\ncommenced, because Asia was the cradle of all the arts.\n\nThere certainly was no money in the Trojan war. Gold and silver passed\nby weight; Agamemnon might have had a treasure, but certainly no money.\n\nWhat has made several hardy scholars suspect that the \"Pentateuch\" was\nnot written until the time in which the Hebrews began to procure coins\nfrom their neighbors is that in more than one passage mention is made of\nshekels. It is there said that Abraham, who was a stranger and had not\nan inch of land in the country of Canaan, bought there a field and a\ncave in which to bury his wife, for four hundred shekels of silver\ncurrent money. The judicious Dom Calmet values this sum at four hundred\nand forty-eight livres, six sous, nine deniers, according to the ancient\ncalculation adopted at random, in which the silver mark was of\nsix-and-twenty livres value. As the silver mark has, however, increased\nby half the sum, the present value would be eight hundred and ninety-six\nlivres.\n\nNow, as in that time there was no coined money answering to the word\n\"_pecunia,_\" that would make a little difficulty, from which it is not\neasy to extricate ourselves.\n\nAnother difficulty is, that in one place it is said that Abraham bought\nthis field in Hebron, and in another at Sichem. On that point consult\nthe venerable Bede, Raban, Maure, and Emanuel Sa.\n\nWe will now speak of the riches which David left to Solomon in coined\nmoney. Some make it amount to twenty-one or twenty-two millions of\nFrench livres, others to five-and-twenty. There is no keeper of the\nroyal treasure, nor _tefterdan_ of the grand Turk's, who can exactly\ncompute the treasure of King Solomon; but the young bachelors of Oxford\nand the Sorbonne make out the amount without difficulty.\n\nI will not speak of the innumerable adventures which have happened to\nmoney since it has been stamped, marked, valued, altered, increased,\nburied, and stolen, having through all its transformations constantly\nremained the idol of mankind. It is so much loved that among all\nChristian princes there still exists an old law which is not to allow\ngold and silver to go out of their kingdoms. This law implies one of two\nthings--either that these princes reign over fools who lavish their\nmoney in a foreign country for their pleasure, or that we must not pay\nour debts to foreigners. It is, however, clear that no person is foolish\nenough to give his money without reason, and that, when we are in debt\nto a foreigner, we should pay him either in bills of exchange,\ncommodities, or legitimate coin. Thus this law has not been executed\nsince we began to open our eyes--which is not long ago.\n\nThere are many things to be said on coined money; as on the unjust and\nridiculous augmentation of specie, which suddenly loses considerable\nsums to a state on the melting down again; on the re-stamping, with an\naugmentation of ideal value, which augmentation invites all your\nneighbors and all your enemies to re-coin your money and gain at your\nexpense; in short, on twenty other equally ruinous expedients. Several\nnew books are full of judicious remarks upon this subject. It is more\neasy to write on money than to obtain it; and those who gain it, jest\nmuch at those who only know how to write about it.\n\nIn general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as\npossible from one part of the citizens to give to the other.\n\nIt is demanded, if it be possible radically to ruin a kingdom of which\nthe soil in general is fertile. We answer that the thing is not\npracticable, since from the war of 1689 till the end of 1769, in which\nwe write, everything has continually been done which could ruin France\nand leave it without resource, and yet it never could be brought about.\nIt is a sound body which has had a fever of eighty years with relapses,\nand which has been in the hands of quacks, but which will survive.\n\n\n\n\nMONSTERS.\n\n\nThe definition of monsters is more difficult than is generally imagined.\nAre we to apply the term to animals of enormous size; to a fish, or a\nserpent fifteen feet long, for instance? There are some, however, that\nare twenty or even thirty feet long, in comparison with which of course\nthe others, instead of enormous or monstrous, would appear small.\n\nThere are monsters through defect. But, if a generally well-made and\nhandsome man were destitute from his birth of the little toes and little\nfingers, would he be a monster? Teeth are more necessary to a man; I\nhave seen a man who never had a tooth. He was in other respects pleasing\nin his person. Being destitute of the organs of generation, still more\nnecessary in the system of nature, would not constitute the person thus\ndefective a monster.\n\nThere are monsters by excess as well as by defect. But those who have\nsix fingers, or three testicles, or two perforations instead of one, or\nthe spine elongated in the form of a small tail, are not considered\nmonsters.\n\nThe third kind consists of those which have members of other animals;\nas, for example, a lion with the wings of an ostrich, or a serpent with\nthe wings of an eagle, like the griffin and ixion of the Jews. But all\nbats have wings, and flying fish have them, without being monsters.\n\nLet us, then, reserve the name for animals whose deformities strike us\nwith horror.\n\nYet the first negro, upon this idea, was a monster to white women; and\nthe most admirable of European beauties was a monster in the eyes of\nnegroes.\n\nIf Polyphemus and the Cyclops had really existed, people who carried an\neye on each side of the root of the nose, would, in the island of\nLipari, and the neighborhood of Mount \u00c6tna, have been pronounced\nmonsters.\n\nI once saw, at a fair, a young woman with four nipples, or rather dugs,\nand what resembled the tail of a cow hanging down between them. She was\ndecidedly a monster when she displayed her neck, but was rather an\nagreeable woman in appearance when she concealed it.\n\nCentaurs and Minotaurs would have been monsters, but beautiful monsters.\nThe well-proportioned body of a horse serving as a base or support to\nthe upper part of a man would have been a masterpiece of nature's\nworkmanship on earth; just as we draw the masterpieces of heaven--those\nspirits which we call angels, and which we paint and sculpture in our\nchurches--adorned sometimes with two wings, sometimes with four, and\nsometimes even with six.\n\nWe have already asked, with the judicious Locke, what is the boundary of\ndistinction between the human and merely animal figure; what is the\npoint of monstrosity at which it would be proper to take your stand\nagainst baptizing an infant, against admitting it as a member of the\nhuman species, against according to it the possession of a soul? We have\nseen that this boundary is as difficult to be settled as it is difficult\nto ascertain what a soul is; for there certainly are none who know what\nit is but theologians.\n\nWhy should the satyrs which St. Jerome saw, the offspring of women and\nbaboons, have been reputed monsters? Might it not be thought, on the\ncontrary, that their lot was in reality happier than ours? Must they not\nhave possessed more strength and more agility? and would they not have\nlaughed at us as an unfortunate race, to whom nature had refused both\ntails and clothing? A mule, the offspring of two different species; a\njumart, the offspring of a bull and a mare; a tarin, the offspring, we\nare told, of a canary bird and hen linnet--are not monsters.\n\nBut how is it that mules, jumarts, and tarins, which are thus produced\nin nature, do not themselves reproduce? And how do the seminists,\novists, or animalculists, explain, upon their respective theories, the\nformation of these mongrel productions?\n\nI will tell you plainly, that they do not explain it at all. The\nseminists never discovered how it is that the ass communicates to his\nmule offspring a resemblance only in the ears and crupper; the ovists\nneither inform us, nor understand how a mare should contain in her egg\nanything but an animal of her own species. And the animalculists cannot\nperceive how a minute embryo of an ass could introduce its ears into the\nmatrix of a mare.\n\nThe theorist who, in a work entitled the \"Philosophy of Venus,\"\nmaintained that all animals and all monsters are formed by attraction,\nwas still less successful than those just mentioned, in accounting for\nphenomena so common and yet so surprising.\n\nAlas! my good friends! you none of you know how you originate your own\noffspring; you are ignorant of the secrets of nature in your own\nspecies, and yet vainly attempt to develop them in the mule!\n\nIt may, however, be confidently presumed, in reference to a monster by\ndefect, that the whole seminal matter did not reach its destined\nappropriation; or, perhaps, that the small spermatic worm had lost a\nportion of its substance; or, perhaps that the egg was crazed and\ninjured. With respect to a monster by excess, you may imagine that some\nportions of the seminal matter superabounded; that of two spermatic\nworms united, one could only animate a single member of the animal, and\nthat that member remains in supererogation; that two eggs have blended\ntogether, and that one of them has produced but a single member, which\nwas joined to the body of the other.\n\nBut what would you say of so many monstrosities arising from the\naddition of parts of animals of a totally different species? How would\nyou explain a crab on the neck of a girl? or the tail of a rat upon the\nthigh? or, above all, the four dugs and tail of a cow, which was\nexhibited at the fair at St. Germain? You would be reduced to the\nsupposition that the unfortunate woman's mother belonged to the very\nextraordinary family of _Pasiph\u00e6._\n\nLet each of us boldly and honestly say, How little is it that I really\nknow.\n\n\n\n\nMORALITY.\n\n\nBabblers, preachers, extravagant controversialists! endeavor to remember\nthat your master never announced that the sacrament was the visible sign\nof an invisible thing; He has nowhere admitted four cardinal virtues,\nand three divine ones. He has never decided whether His mother came into\nthe world maculate or immaculate. Cease, therefore, to repeat things\nwhich never entered into His mind. He has said, in conformity with a\ntruth as ancient as the world--Love God and your neighbor. Abide by that\nprecept, miserable cavillers! Preach morality and nothing more. Observe\nit, and let the tribunals no longer echo with your prosecutions; snatch\nno longer, by the claw of an attorney, their morsel of bread from the\nwidow and the orphan. Dispute not concerning some petty benefice with\nthe same fury as the papacy was disputed in the great schism of the\nWest. Monks! place not to the utmost of your power, the universe under\ncontribution, and we may then be able to believe you. I have just read\nthese words in a piece of declamation in fourteen volumes, entitled,\n\"The History of the Lower Empire\"; \"The Christians had a morality, but\nthe Pagans had none.\"\n\nOh, M. Le Beau! author of these fourteen volumes, where did you pick up\nthis absurdity? What becomes of the morality of Socrates, of Zaleucus,\nof Charondas, of Cicero, of Epictetus, and of Marcus Aurelius?\n\nThere is but one morality, M. Le Beau, as there is but one geometry. But\nyou will tell me that the greater part of mankind are ignorant of\ngeometry. True; but if they apply a little to the study of it, all men\ndraw the same conclusions. Agriculturists, manufacturers, artisans, do\nnot go through a regular course of morality; they read neither the \"_De\nFinibus_\" of Cicero, nor the \"Ethics\" of Aristotle; but as soon as they\nreflect, they are, without knowing it, disciples of Cicero. The Indian\ndyer, the Tartarian shepherd, and the English seaman, are acquainted\nwith justice and injustice. Confucius did not invent a system of morals,\nas men construct physical systems. He found his in the hearts of all\nmankind.\n\nThis morality existed in the bosom of the pr\u00e6tor Festus, when the Jews\npressed him to put Paul to death for having taken strangers into their\ntemple. \"Learn,\" said he, \"that the Romans never condemn any one\nunheard.\"\n\nIf the Jews were deficient in a moral sense, the Romans were not, and\npaid it homage.\n\nThere is no morality in superstition; it exists not in ceremonies, and\nhas nothing to do with dogmas. We cannot repeat too frequently that\ndogmas differ, but that morality is the same among all men who make use\nof their reason. Morality proceeds from God, like light; our\nsuperstitions are only darkness. Reflect, reader; pursue the truth, and\ndraw the consequences.\n\n\n\n\nMOSES.\n\nSECTION I.\n\n\nPhilosophy, of which we sometimes pass the boundaries, researches of\nantiquity, and the spirit of discussion and criticism, have been carried\nso far that several learned men have finally doubted if there ever was a\nMoses, and whether this man was not an imaginary being, such as were\nPerseus, Bacchus, Atlas, Penthesilea, Vesta, Rhea Silvia, Isis,\nSammonocodom, Fo, Mercury, Trismegistus, Odin, Merlin, Francus, Robert\nthe Devil, and so many other heroes of romance whose lives and prowess\nhave been recorded.\n\nIt is not very likely, say the incredulous, that a man ever existed\nwhose life is a continual prodigy.\n\nIt is not very likely that he worked so many stupendous miracles in\nEgypt, Arabia, and Syria, without their being known throughout the\nworld.\n\nIt is not likely that no Egyptian or Greek writer should have\ntransmitted these miracles to posterity. They are mentioned by the Jews\nalone; and in the time that this history was written by them, they were\nnot known to any nation--not indeed until towards the second century.\nThe first author who expressly quotes the Book of Moses is Longinus,\nminister of Queen Zenobia, in the time of the emperor Aurelian.\n\nIt is to be remarked that the author of the \"_Mercury Trismegistus,_\"\nwho certainly was an Egyptian, says not a single word about this Moses.\n\nIf a single ancient author had related a single one of these miracles,\nEusebius would no doubt have triumphed in this evidence, either in his\n\"History\" or in his \"Evangelical Preparation.\"\n\nIt is true, he mentions authors who have quoted his name, but none who\nhave cited his prodigies. Before him, the Jews, Josephus and Philo, who\nhave so much celebrated their own nation, sought all the writers in\nwhich the name of Moses is found, but there was not a single one who\nmade the least mention of the marvellous actions attributed to him.\n\nIn this silence of the whole world, the incredulous reason with a\ntemerity which refutes itself.\n\nThe Jews are the only people who possessed the Pentateuch, which they\nattribute to Moses. It is said, even in their books, that this\nPentateuch was not known until the reign of their king Josiah,\nthirty-six years before the destruction and captivity of Jerusalem; and\nthey then only possessed a single copy, which the priest Hilkiah found\nat the bottom of a strong box, while counting money. The priest sent it\nto the king by his scribe Shaphan. All this, say they, necessarily\nobscures the authenticity of the Pentateuch.\n\nIn short, if the Pentateuch was known to all the Jews, would\nSolomon--the wise Solomon, inspired by God Himself to build a\ntemple--have ornamented this temple with so many statues, contrary to\nthe express order of Moses?\n\nAll the Jewish prophets, who prophesied in the name of the Lord from the\ntime of Moses till that of King Josiah, would they not have been\nsupported in all their prophecies by the laws of Moses? Would they not a\nthousand times have quoted his own words? Would they not have commented\nupon them? None of them, however, quote two lines--no one follows the\ntext of Moses--they even oppose them in several places.\n\nAccording to these unbelievers, the books attributed to Moses were only\nwritten among the Babylonians during the captivity, or immediately\nafterwards by Esdras. Indeed, we see only Persian and Chald\u00e6an\nterminations in the Jewish writings: \"_Babel,_\" gate of God;\n\"_Phegor-beel,_\" or \"_Beel-phegor,_\" god of the precipices;\n\"_Zebuth-beel,_\" or \"_Beel-zebuth,_\" god of insects; \"_Bethel,_\" house\nof God; \"_Daniel,_\" judgment of God; \"_Gabriel,_\" man of God; \"_Jahel,_\"\nafflicted of God; \"_Jael,_\" the life of God; \"_Israel,_\" seeing God;\n\"_Oviel,_\" strength of God; \"_Raphael,_\" help of God; \"_Uriel,_\" fire of\nGod.\n\nThus, all is foreign in the Jewish nation, a stranger itself in\nPalestine; circumcision, ceremonies, sacrifices, the ark, the cherubim,\nthe goat Hazazel, baptism of justice, simple baptism, proofs,\ndivination, interpretation of dreams, enchantment of serpents--nothing\noriginated among these people, nothing was invented by them.\n\nThe celebrated Lord Bolingbroke believed not that Moses ever existed; he\nthought he saw in the Pentateuch a crowd of contradictions and puzzling\nchronological and geographical faults; names of towns not then built,\nprecepts given to kings at a time when not only the Jews had no kings,\nbut in which it is probable there were none, since they lived in\ndeserts, in tents, in the manner of the Bedouin Arabs.\n\nWhat appears to him above all the most palpable contradiction is the\ngift of forty-eight cities with their suburbs, made to the Levites in a\ncountry in which there was not a single village; and it is principally\non these forty-eight cities that he refutes Abbadie, and even has the\ncruelty to treat him with the aversion and contempt of a lord of the\nUpper Chamber, or a minister of state towards a petty foreign priest who\nwould be so impertinent as to reason with him.\n\nI will take the liberty of representing to Viscount Bolingbroke, and to\nall those who think with him, not only that the Jewish nation has always\nbelieved in the existence of Moses, and in that of his books, but that\neven Jesus Christ has acknowledged him. The four Gospels, the Acts of\nthe Apostles, recognize him. St. Matthew says expressly, that Moses and\nElias appeared to Jesus Christ on the mountain during the night of the\ntransfiguration, and St. Luke says the same.\n\nJesus Christ declares in St. Matthew that he is not come to abolish this\nlaw, but to accomplish it. In the New Testament, we are often referred\nto the law of Moses and to the prophets. The whole Church has always\nbelieved the Pentateuch written by Moses; and further, of five hundred\ndifferent societies, which have been so long established in Christendom,\nnone have ever doubted the existence of this great prophet. We must,\ntherefore, submit our reason, as so many men have done before us.\n\nI know very well that I shall gain nothing in the mind of the viscount,\nor of those of his opinion. They are too well persuaded that the Jewish\nbooks were not written until very late, and during the captivity of the\ntwo tribes which remained. But we shall possess the consolation of\nhaving the Church with us.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIf you would be instructed and amused with antiquity, read the life of\nMoses in the article on \"Apocrypha.\"\n\nIn vain have several scholars believed that the Pentateuch could not\nhave been written by Moses. They say that it is affirmed even by the\nScripture, that the first known copy was found in the time of King\nJosiah, and that this single copy was brought to the king by the\nsecretary Shaphan. Now, between the time of Moses and this adventure of\nthe secretary Shaphan, there were one thousand one hundred and\nsixty-seven years, by the Hebrew computation. For God appeared to Moses\nin the burning bush, in the year of the world 2213, and the secretary\nShaphan published the book of the law in the year of the world 3380.\nThis book found under Josiah, was unknown until the return from the\nBabylonish captivity; and it is said that it was Esdras, inspired by\nGod, who brought the Holy Scriptures to light.\n\nBut whether it was Esdras or another who digested this book is\nabsolutely indifferent, since it is inspired. It is not said in the\nPentateuch, that Moses was the author; we might, therefore, be permitted\nto attribute it to the declaration of some other divine mind, if the\nChurch had not decided that the book is by Moses.\n\nSome opposers add, that no prophet has quoted the books of the\nPentateuch, that there is no mention of it either in the Psalms or in\nthe books attributed to Solomon, in Jeremiah or Isaiah, or, in short, in\nany canonical book of the Jews. Words answering to those of Genesis,\nExodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, are not found in any other\nlanguage recognized by them as authentic. Others, still more bold, have\nput the following questions:\n\n1. In what language could Moses have written in a savage desert? It\ncould only be in Egyptian; for by this same book we are told that Moses\nand all his people were born in Egypt. It is therefore probable that\nthey spoke no other language. The Egyptians had yet made no use of\npapyrus; they engraved hieroglyphics on tables of wood or marble. It is\neven said, that the tables of the commandments were engraved on polished\nstones, which required prodigious time and labor.\n\n2. Is it likely, that in a desert where the Jewish people had neither\nshoemaker nor tailor--in which the God of the universe was obliged to\nwork a continual miracle to preserve the old dresses and shoes of the\nJews--men could be found clever enough to engrave the five books of the\nPentateuch on marble or wood? You will say, that they found laborers who\nmade a golden calf in one night, and who afterwards reduced the gold\ninto powder--an operation impracticable to common chemistry, which was\nnot yet discovered. Who constructed the tabernacle? Who ornamented\nthirty columns of brass with capitals of silver? Who wove and\nembroidered veils of linen with hyacinth, purple, and scarlet? An\naccount that supports the opinion of the contradictors. They answer,\nthat it was not possible that in a desert, where they were in want of\neverything, for them to perform works so intricate; that they must have\nbegun by making shoes and tunics; that those who wanted necessaries\ncould not indulge in luxuries; and that it is an evident contradiction\nto say, that they had founders, engravers, and embroiderers, when they\nhad neither clothes nor bread.\n\n3. If Moses had written the first chapter of Genesis, would all young\npeople have been forbidden to read the first chapter? Would so little\nrespect have been paid to the legislator? If it was Moses who said that\nGod punished the iniquity of the fathers to the fourth generation, would\nEzekiel have dared to say the contrary?\n\n4. If Moses wrote Leviticus, could he have contradicted it in\nDeuteronomy? Leviticus forbids a woman to marry her brother, Deuteronomy\ncommands it.\n\n5. Could Moses have spoken of towns which existed not in his time? Would\nhe have said that towns which, in regard to him, were on the east of the\nJordan were on the west?\n\n6. Would he have assigned forty-eight cities to the Levites, in a\ncountry in which there were never ten, and in a desert in which he had\nalways wandered without habitation?\n\n7. Would he have prescribed rules for the Jewish kings, when not only\nthere were no kings among this people, but they were held in horror, and\nit was not probable they would ever have any? What! would Moses have\ngiven precepts for the conduct of kings who came not until five hundred\nyears after him, and have said nothing in relation to the judges and\npriests who succeeded him? Does not this religion lead us to believe\nthat the Pentateuch was composed in the time of kings, and that the\nceremonies instituted by Moses were only traditional.\n\n8. Suppose he had said to the Jews: I have made you depart to the number\nof six hundred thousand combatants from the land of Egypt under the\nprotection of your God? Would not the Jews have answered him: You must\nhave been very timid not to lead us against Pharaoh of Egypt; he could\nnot have opposed to us an army of two hundred thousand men. There never\nwas such an army on foot in Egypt; we should have conquered them easily;\nwe should have been the masters of their country. What! has the God, who\ntalks to you, to please us slain all the first-born of Egypt, which, if\nthere were in this country three hundred thousand families, makes three\nhundred thousand men destroyed in one night, simply to avenge us, and\nyet you have not seconded your God and given us that fertile country\nwhich nothing could withhold from us. On the contrary you have made us\ndepart from Egypt as thieves and cowards, to perish in deserts between\nmountains and precipices. You might, at least, have conducted us by the\ndirect road to this land of Canaan, to which we have no right, but which\nyou have promised us, and on which we have not yet been able to enter.\n\nIt was natural that, from the land of Goshen, we should march towards\nTyre and Sidon, along the Mediterranean; but you made us entirely pass\nthe Isthmus of Suez, and re-enter Egypt, proceed as far as Memphis, when\nwe find ourselves at Beel-Sephor on the borders of the Red Sea, turning\nour backs on the land of Canaan, having journeyed eighty leagues in this\nEgypt which we wished to avoid, so as at last to nearly perish between\nthe sea and the army of Pharaoh!\n\nIf you had wished to deliver us to our enemies, you could not have taken\na different route and other measures. God has saved us by a miracle, you\nsay; the sea opened to let us pass; but after such a favor, should He\nlet us die of hunger and fatigue in the horrible deserts of\nKadesh-barnea, Mara, Elim, Horeb, and Sinai? All our fathers perished in\nthese frightful solitudes; and you tell us, at the end of forty years,\nthat God took particular care of them.\n\nThis is what these murmuring Jews, these unjust children of the\nvagabonds who died in the desert, might have said to Moses, if he had\nread Exodus and Genesis to them. And what might they not have said and\ndone on the article of the golden calf? What! you dare to tell us that\nyour brother made a calf for our fathers, when you were with God on the\nmountain? You, who sometimes tell us that you have spoken to God face to\nface, and sometimes that you could only see His back! But no matter, you\nwere with this God, and your brother cast a golden calf in one day, and\ngave it to us to adore it; and instead of punishing your unworthy\nbrother, you make him our chief priest, and order your Levites to slay\ntwenty-three thousand men of your people. Would our fathers have\nsuffered this? Would they have allowed themselves to be sacrificed like\nso many victims by sanguinary priests? You tell us that, not content\nwith this incredible butchery, you have further massacred twenty-four\nthousand of our poor followers because one of them slept with a\nMidianitish woman, whilst you yourself espoused a Midianite; and yet you\nadd, that you are the mildest of men! A few more instances of this\nmildness, and not a soul would have remained.\n\nNo; if you have been capable of all this cruelty, if you can have\nexercised it, you would be the most barbarous of men, and no punishment\nwould suffice to expiate so great a crime.\n\nThese are nearly the objections which all scholars make to those who\nthink that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch. But we answer them,\nthat the ways of God are not those of men; that God has proved,\nconducted, and abandoned His people by a wisdom which is unknown to us;\nthat the Jews themselves, for more than two thousand years, have\nbelieved that Moses is the author of these books; that the Church, which\nhas succeeded the synagogue, and which is equally infallible, has\ndecided this point of controversy; and that scholars should remain\nsilent when the Church pronounces.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nWe cannot doubt that there was a Moses, a legislator of the Jews. We\nwill here examine his history, following merely the rules of criticism;\nthe Divine is not submitted to similar examination. We must confine\nourselves to the probable; men can only judge as men. It is very natural\nand very probable that an Arab nation dwelt on the confines of Egypt, on\nthe side of Arabia Deserta; that it was tributary or slave to the\nEgyptian kings, and that afterwards it sought to establish itself\nelsewhere; but that which reason alone cannot admit is, that this\nnation, composed of seventy persons at most in the time of Joseph,\nincreased in two hundred and fifteen years, from Joseph to Moses, to the\nnumber of six hundred thousand combatants, according to the Book of\nExodus, which six hundred thousand men capable of bearing arms imply a\nmultitude of about two millions, counting old men, women, and children.\nIt is not certainly in the course of nature for a colony of seventy\npersons, as many males as females, to produce in two centuries two\nmillions of inhabitants. The calculations made on this progression by\nmen very little versed in the things of this world, are falsified by the\nexperience of all nations and all times. Children are not made by a\nstroke of the pen. Reflect well that at this rate a population of ten\nthousand persons in two hundred years would produce more inhabitants\nthan the globe of the earth could sustain.\n\nIs it any more probable, that these six hundred thousand combatants,\nfavored by the Author of nature who worked for them so many prodigies,\nwere forced to wander in the deserts in which they died, instead of\nseeking to possess themselves of fertile Egypt?\n\nBy these rules of an established and reasonable human criticism, we must\nagree that it is very likely that Moses conducted a small people from\nthe confines of Egypt. There was among the Egyptians an ancient\ntradition, related by Plutarch in his \"Treatise on Isis and Osiris,\"\nthat Tiphon, the father of Jerosselaim and Juddecus, fled from Egypt on\nan ass. It is clear from this passage that the ancestors of the Jews,\nthe inhabitants of Jerusalem, were supposed to have been fugitives from\nEgypt. A tradition, no less ancient and more general is, that the Jews\nwere driven from Egypt, either as a troop of unruly brigands, or a\npeople infected with leprosy. This double accusation carries its\nprobability even from the land of Goshen, which they had inhabited, a\nneighboring land of the vagabond Arabs, and where the disease of\nleprosy, peculiar to the Arabs, might be common. It appears even by the\nScripture that this people went from Egypt against their will. The\nseventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy forbids kings to think of leading the\nJews back to Egypt.\n\nThe conformity of several Egyptian and Jewish customs still more\nstrengthens the opinion that this people was an Egyptian colony, and\nwhat gives it a new degree of probability is the feast of the Passover;\nthat is to say, of the flight or passage instituted in memory of their\nevasion. This feast alone would be no proof; for among all peoples there\nare solemnities established to celebrate fabulous and incredible events;\nsuch were most of the feasts of the Greeks and Romans; but a flight from\none country to another is nothing uncommon, and calls for belief. The\nproof drawn from this feast of the Passover receives a still greater\nforce by that of the Tabernacles, in memory of the time in which the\nJews inhabited the desert on their departure from Egypt. These\nsimilitudes, united with so many others, prove that a colony really went\nfrom Egypt, and finally established itself for some time at Palestine.\n\nAlmost all the rest is of a kind so marvellous that human sagacity\ncannot digest it. All that we can do is to seek the time in which the\nhistory of this flight--that is to say, the Book of Exodus--can have\nbeen written, and to examine the opinions which then prevailed;\nopinions, of which the proof is in the book itself, compared with the\nancient customs of nations.\n\nWith regard to the books attributed to Moses, the most common rules of\ncriticism permit us not to believe that he can be the author of them.\n\n1. It is not likely that he spoke of the places by names which were not\ngiven to them until long afterwards. In this book mention is made of the\ncities of Jair, and every one agrees that they were not so named until\nlong after the death of Moses. It also speaks of the country of Dan, and\nthe tribe of Dan had not given its name to the country of which it was\nnot yet the master.\n\n2. How could Moses have quoted the book of the wars of the Lord, when\nthese wars and this book were after his time?\n\n3. How could Moses speak of the pretended defeat of a giant named Og,\nking of Bashan, vanquished in the desert in the last year of his\ngovernment? And how could he add, that he further saw his bed of iron of\nnine cubits long in Rabath? This city of Rabath was the capital of the\nAmmonites, into whose country the Hebrews had not yet penetrated. Is it\nnot apparent, that such a passage is the production of a posterior\nwriter, which his inadvertence betrays? As an evidence of the victory\ngained over the giant, he brings forward the bed said to be still at\nRabath, forgetting that it is Moses whom he makes speak, who was dead\nlong before.\n\n4. How could Moses have called cities beyond the Jordan, which, with\nregard to him, were on this side? Is it not palpable, that the book\nattributed to him was written a long time after the Israelites had\ncrossed this little river Jordan, which they never passed under his\nconduct?\n\n5. Is it likely that Moses told his people, that in the last year of his\ngovernment he took, in the little province of Argob--a sterile and\nfrightful country of Arabia Petr\u00e6a--sixty great towns surrounded with\nhigh fortified walls, independent of an infinite number of open cities?\nIs it not much more probable that these exaggerations were afterwards\nwritten by a man who wished to flatter a stupid nation?\n\n6. It is still less likely, that Moses related the miracles with which\nthis history is filled.\n\nIt is easy to persuade a happy and victorious people that God has fought\nfor them; but it is not in human nature that a people should believe a\nhundred miracles in their favor, when all these prodigies ended only in\nmaking them perish in a desert. Let us examine some of the miracles\nrelated in Exodus.\n\n7. It appears contradictory and injurious to the divine essence to\nsuppose that God, having formed a people to be the sole depository of\nHis laws, and to reign over all nations, should send a man of this\npeople to demand of the king, their oppressor, permission to go into the\ndesert to sacrifice to his God, that this people might escape under the\npretence of this sacrifice. Our common ideas cannot forbear attaching an\nidea of baseness and knavery to this management, far from recognizing\nthe majesty and power of the Supreme Being.\n\nWhen, immediately after, we read that Moses changed his rod into a\nserpent, before the king, and turned all the waters of the kingdom into\nblood; that he caused frogs to be produced which covered the surface of\nthe earth; that he changed all the dust into lice, and filled the air\nwith venomous winged insects; that he afflicted all the men and animals\nof the country with frightful ulcers; that he called hail, tempests, and\nthunder, to ruin all the country; that he covered it with locusts; that\nhe plunged it in fearful darkness for three days; that, finally, an\nexterminating angel struck with death all the first-born of men and\nanimals in Egypt, commencing with the son of the king; again, when we\nafterwards see his people walking across the Red Sea, the waves\nsuspended in mountains to the right and left, and later falling on the\narmy of Pharaoh, which they swallowed up--when, I say, we read all these\nmiracles, the first idea which comes into our minds is, that this\npeople, for whom God performed such astonishing things, no doubt became\nthe masters of the universe. But, no! the fruit of so many wonders was,\nthat they suffered want and hunger in arid sands; and--prodigy upon\nprodigy--all died without seeing the little corner of earth in which\ntheir descendants afterwards, for some years, established themselves! It\nis no doubt pardonable if we disbelieve this crowd of prodigies, at the\nleast of which reason so decidedly revolts.\n\nThis reason, left to itself, cannot be persuaded that Moses wrote such\nstrange things. How can we make a generation believe so many miracles\nuselessly wrought for it, and all of which, it is said, were performed\nin the desert? What being, enjoying divine power, would employ it in\npreserving the clothes and shoes of these people, after having armed all\nnature in their favor?\n\nIt is therefore very natural to think that all this prodigious history\nwas written a long time after Moses, as the romances of Charlemagne were\nforged three centuries after him; and as the origins of all nations have\nnot been written until they were out of sight, the imagination has been\nleft at liberty to invent. The more coarse and unfortunate a people are,\nthe more they seek to exalt their ancient history; and what people have\nbeen longer miserable, or more barbarous, than the Jews?\n\nIt is not to be believed that, when they had not wherewithal to make\nshoes in their deserts, under the government of Moses, there were any\ncunning enough to write. We should presume, that the poor creatures born\nin these deserts did not receive a very brilliant education; and that\nthe nation only began to read and write when it had some commerce with\nPh\u0153nicia. It was probably in the commencement of monarchy that the Jews,\nfeeling they had some genius, wrote the Pentateuch, and adjusted their\ntraditions. Would they have made Moses recommend kings to read and write\nhis law in a time in which there were no kings? Is it not probable, that\nthe seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy was composed to moderate the\npower of royalty; and that it was written by priests in the time of\nSaul?\n\nIt is most likely at this epoch that we must place the digest of the\nPentateuch. The frequent slaveries to which this people were subject\nseem badly calculated to establish literature in a nation, and to render\nbooks very common; and the more rare these books were in the\ncommencement, the more the authors ventured to fill them with miracles.\n\nThe Pentateuch, attributed to Moses, is, no doubt, very ancient; if it\nwas put in order in the time of Saul and Solomon, it was about the time\nof the Trojan war, and is one of the most curious monuments of the\nmanner of thinking of that time. We see that all known nations, in\nproportion to their ignorance, were fond of prodigies. All was then\nperformed by celestial ministry in Egypt, Phrygia, Greece, and Asia.\n\nThe authors of the Pentateuch give us to understand that every nation\nhas its gods, and that these gods have all nearly an equal power.\n\nIf Moses, in the name of God, changed his rod into a serpent, the\npriests of Pharaoh did as much; if he changed all the waters of Egypt\ninto blood, even to that which was in the vases, the priests immediately\nperformed the same prodigy, without our being able to conceive on what\nwaters they performed this metamorphosis; at least, unless they\nexpressly created new waters for the purpose. The Jewish writers prefer\nbeing reduced to this absurdity, rather than allow us to suspect that\nthe gods of Egypt had not the power of changing water into blood as well\nas the God of Jacob.\n\nBut when the latter fills the land of Egypt with lice, changing all the\ndust into them, His entire superiority appears; the magi cannot imitate\nit, and they make the God of the Jews speak thus: \"Pharaoh shall know\nthat nothing is equal to me.\" These words put into his mouth, merely\nmark a being who believes himself more powerful than his rivals; he was\nequalled in the metamorphosis of a rod into a serpent, and in that of\nthe waters into blood; but he gains the victory in the article of the\nlice and the following miracles.\n\nThis idea of the supernatural power of priests of all countries is\ndisplayed in several places of Scripture. When Balaam, the priest of the\nlittle state of a petty king, named Balak, in the midst of deserts, is\nnear cursing the Jews, their God appears to him to prevent him. It seems\nthat the malediction of Balaam was much to be feared. To restrain this\npriest, it is not enough that God speaks to him, he sends before him an\nangel with a sword, and speaks Himself again by the mouth of his ass.\nAll these precautions certainly prove the opinion which then prevailed,\nthat the malediction of a priest, whatever it was, drew fatal\nconsequences after it.\n\nThis idea of a God superior to other gods, though He made heaven and\nearth, was so rooted in all minds, that Solomon in his last prayer\ncries: \"Oh, my God! there is no other god like thee in earth or heaven.\"\nIt is this opinion which rendered the Jews so credulous respecting the\nsorceries and enchantments of other nations.\n\nIt is this which gave rise to the story of the Witch of Endor, who had\nthe power of invoking the shade of Saul. Every people had their\nprodigies and oracles, and it never even came into the minds of any\nnations to doubt the miracles and prophecies of others. They were\ncontented with opposing similar arms; it seems as if the priests, in\ndenying the prodigies of other nations, feared to discredit their own.\nThis kind of theology prevailed a long time over all the earth.\n\nIt is not for us to enter here on the detail of all that is written on\nMoses. We speak of his laws in more than one place in this work. We will\nhere confine ourselves to remarking how much we are astonished to see a\nlegislator inspired by God; a prophet, through whom God Himself speaks,\nproposing to us no future life. There is not a single word in Leviticus,\nwhich can lead us to suspect the immortality of the soul. The reply to\nthis overwhelming difficulty is, that God proportioned Himself to the\nignorance of the Jews. What a miserable answer! It was for God to\nelevate the Jews to necessary knowledge--not to lower Himself to them.\nIf the soul is immortal, if there are rewards and punishments in another\nlife, it is necessary for men to be informed of it. If God spoke, He\nmust have informed them of this fundamental dogma. What legislator, what\ngod but this, proposes to his people wine, oil, and milk alone! What god\nbut this always encourages his believers, as a chief of robbers\nencourages his troops, with the hope of plunder only! Once more; it is\nvery pardonable for mere human reason simply to see, in such a history,\nthe barbarous stupidity of the first ages of a savage people. Man,\nwhatever he does, cannot reason otherwise; but if God really is the\nauthor of the Pentateuch, we must submit without reasoning.\n\n\n\n\nMOTION.\n\n\nA philosopher, in the neighborhood of Mount Krapak, argued with me that\nmotion is essential to matter.\n\n\"Everything moves,\" says he; \"the sun continually revolves on its own\naxis; the planets do the same, and every planet has many different\nmotions; everything is a sieve; everything passes through a sieve; the\nhardest metal is pierced with an infinity of pores, by which escapes a\nconstant torrent of vapors that circulate in space. The universe is\nnothing but motion; motion, therefore, is essential to matter.\"\n\n\"But, sir,\" said I to him, \"might not any one say, in answer to what you\nhave advanced: This block of marble, this cannon, this house, this\nmotion, are not in motion; therefore motion is not essential?\"\n\n\"They do move,\" he replied; \"they move in space together with the earth\nby the common motion, and they move so incontestably--although\ninsensibly--by their own peculiar motion, that, at the expiration of an\nindefinite number of centuries, there will remain not a single atom of\nthe masses which now constitute them, from which particles are detaching\nthemselves every passing moment.\"\n\n\"But, my good sir, I can conceive matter to be in a state of rest;\nmotion, therefore, cannot be considered essential to it.\"\n\n\"Why, certainly, it must be of vast consequence whether you conceive it\nto be, or conceive it not to be, in a state of rest. I still repeat,\nthat it is impossible for it to be so.\"\n\n\"This is a bold assertion; but what, let me ask you, will you say to\nchaos?\"\n\n\"Oh, chaos! If we were inclined to talk about chaos, I should tell you\nthat all was necessarily in motion, and that 'the breath of God moved\nupon the waters'; that the element of water was recognized in existence,\nand that the other elements existed also; that, consequently, fire\nexisted; that there cannot be fire without motion, that motion is\nessential to fire. You will not succeed much with chaos.\"\n\n\"Alas! who can succeed with all these subjects of dispute? But, as you\nare so very fully acquainted with these things, I must request you to\ninform me why one body impels another: whether it is because matter is\nimpenetrable, or because two bodies cannot be together in one place; or\nbecause, in every case of every description, the weak is driven before\nthe strong?\"\n\n\"Your last reason is rather more facetious than philosophical. No person\nhas hitherto been able to discover the cause of the communication of\nmotion.\"\n\n\"That, however, does not prevent its being essential to matter. No one\nhas ever been able to discover the cause of sensation in animals; yet\nthis sensation is so essential to them, that, if you exclude the idea of\nit, you no longer have the idea of an animal.\"\n\n\"Well, I will concede to you, for a moment, that motion is essential to\nmatter--just for a moment, let it be remembered, for I am not much\ninclined to embroil myself with the theologians--and now, after this\nadmission, tell me how one ball produces motion in another?\"\n\n\"You are very curious and inquisitive; you wish me to inform you of what\nno philosopher ever knew.\"\n\n\"It appears rather curious, and even ludicrous, that we should know the\nlaws of motion, and yet be profoundly ignorant of the principle of the\ncommunication of motion!\"\n\n\"It is the same with everything else; we know the laws of reasoning, but\nwe know not what it is in us that reasons. The ducts through which our\nblood and other animal fluids pass are very well known to us, but we\nknow not what forms that blood and those fluids. We are in life, but we\nknow not in what the vital principle consists.\"\n\n\"Inform me, however, at least, whether, if motion be essential to\nmatter, there has not always existed the same quantity of motion in the\nworld?\"\n\n\"That is an old chimera of Epicurus revived by Descartes. I do not, for\nmy own part, see that this equality of motion in the world is more\nnecessary than an equality of triangles. It is essential that a triangle\nshould have three angles and three sides, but it is not essential that\nthe number of triangles on this globe should be always equal.\"\n\n\"But is there not always an equality of forces, as other philosophers\nexpress it?\"\n\n\"That is a similar chimera. We must, upon such a principle, suppose that\nthere is always an equal number of men, and animals, and moving beings,\nwhich is absurd.\"\n\nBy the way, what, let me ask, is the force of a body in motion? It is\nthe product of its quantity multiplied by its velocity in a given time.\nCalling the quantity of a body four, and its velocity four, the force of\nits impulse will be equal to sixteen. Another quantity we will assume to\nbe two, and its velocity two; the force with which that impels is as\nfour. This is the grand principle of mechanics. Leibnitz decidedly and\npompously pronounced the principle defective. He maintained that it was\nnecessary to measure that force, that product, by the quantity\nmultiplied by the square of the velocity. But this was mere captious\nsophistry and chicanery, an ambiguity unworthy of a philosopher, founded\non an abuse of the discovery of the great Galileo, that the spaces\ntraversed with a motion uniformly accelerated were, to each other, as\nthe squares of the times and velocities.\n\nLeibnitz did not consider the time which he should have considered. No\nEnglish mathematician adopted his system. It was received for a while by\na small number of geometricians in France. It pervaded some books, and\neven the philosophical institutions of a person of great celebrity.\nMaupertuis is very abusive of Mairan, in a little work entitled \"A, B,\nC\"; as if he thought it necessary to teach the _a, b, c,_ of science to\nany man who followed the old and, in fact, the true system of\ncalculation. Mairan was, however, in the right. He adhered to the\nancient measurement, that of the quantity multiplied by the velocity. He\ngradually prevailed over his antagonists, and his system recovered its\nformer station; the scandal of mathematics disappeared, and the quackery\nof the square of the velocity was dismissed at last to the extramundane\nspaces, to the limbo of vanity, together with the monads which Leibnitz\nsupposed to constitute the concentric mirror of nature, and also with\nhis elaborate and fanciful system of \"pre-established harmony.\"\n\n\n\n\nMOUNTAIN.\n\n\nThe fable of the mountain which, after alarming the whole neighborhood\nwith its outcries in labor, was ridiculed by all present when it became\ndelivered of a mouse, is at once ancient and universal. The company,\nhowever, who thus gave way to ridicule were not a company of\nphilosophers. Those who mocked should in reality have admired. A\nmountain's being delivered of a mouse was an event as extraordinary, and\nas worthy of admiration, as a mouse's being delivered of a mountain. A\nrock's producing a rat is a case absolutely prodigious, and the world\nnever beheld anything approaching to such a miracle. All the worlds in\nthe universe could not originate a fly. Thus, in cases where the vulgar\nmock, the philosopher admires; and where the vulgar strain their eyes in\nstupid astonishment, he often smiles.\n\n\n\n\nNAIL.\n\n\nWe only ask here from the censors of books, permission to transcribe\nfrom that which the Dominican missionary Labat, proveditor of the holy\noffice, has written concerning the nails of the cross, into which it is\nmore than probable no nails were ever driven.\n\n\"The Italian priest who conducted us had sufficient interest to get us,\namong other things, a sight of the nails with which our Saviour was\nfastened to the cross. They appeared to me very different from those\nwhich the Benedictines show at St. Denis. Possibly those belonging to\nSt. Denis served for the feet, and the others for the hands. It was\nnecessary that those for the hands should be sufficiently large and\nstrong to support all the weight of the body. However, the Jews must\neither have made use of more than four nails, or some of those which are\nshown to the faithful are not genuine. History relates that St. Helena\nthrew one of them into the sea, to appease a furious tempest which\nassailed the ship in which she had embarked. Constantine made use of\nanother, to make a bit for the bridle of his horse. One is shown entire\nat St. Denis in France; another also entire at the Holy Cross of\nJerusalem at Rome. A very celebrated Roman author of our day asserts\nthat the iron crown with which they crown the emperors in Italy was made\nout of one of these nails. We are shown at Rome and at Carpentras two\nbridle bits also made of these nails, not to mention more at other\nplaces. To be sure, several of them are discreet enough to say, that it\nis the head or point only of these nails which they exhibit.\"\n\nThe missionary speaks in the same tone of all the relics. He observes in\nthe same passage, that when the body of the first deacon, St. Stephen,\nwas brought from Jerusalem to Rome, in 557, and placed in the tomb of\nthe deacon of St. Lawrence: \"St. Lawrence made way of himself to give\nthe right hand to his predecessor; an action which procured him the name\nof the civil Spaniard.\"\n\nUpon this passage we venture only one reflection, which is, that if some\nphilosopher had said as much, in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia\", as the Dominican\nLabat, a crowd of Pantouillets, Nonnottes, Chiniacs, Chaumeix, and other\nknaves, would have exclaimed--Deist, atheist, and geometrician!\nAccording to circumstances things change their names.\n\n     _Selon ce que l'on peut \u00eatre_\n     _Les choses changent de nom._\n                      --_Amphytrion,_ Prologue.\n\n\n\n\nNATURE.\n\n_Dialogue Between The Philosopher And Nature._\n\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nWhat are you, Nature? I live in you? but I have been searching for you\nfor fifty years, and have never yet been able to find you.\n\nNATURE.\n\nThe ancient Egyptians, whose lives it is said extended to twelve hundred\nyears, attached the same reproach to me. They called me Isis; they\nplaced a thick veil over my head; and they said that no one could ever\nraise it.\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nIt is on that account that I apply directly to yourself. I have been\nable to measure some of your globes, to ascertain their courses, and to\npoint out the laws of motion; but I have never been able to ascertain\nwhat you are yourself.\n\nAre you always active? Are you always passive? Do your elements arrange\nthemselves, as water places itself over sand, oil over water, and air\nover oil? Have you a mind which directs all your operations--as councils\nare inspired as soon as they meet, although the individual members\ncomposing them are often ignorant? Explain to me, I entreat, the enigma\nin which you are enveloped.\n\nNATURE.\n\nI am the great universal system. I know nothing farther. I am no\nmathematician, and yet everything in and about me is arranged agreeably\nto mathematical laws. Conjecture, if you can, how all this is effected.\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nCertainly, since your great universal system knows nothing of\nmathematics, and yet the laws by which you are regulated are those of\nthe most profound geometry, there must necessarily be an eternal\ngeometrician, who directs you, and presides over your operations.\n\nNATURE.\n\nYou are perfectly right; I am water, earth, fire, air, metal, mineral,\nstone, vegetable, and animal. I clearly perceive that there is an\nintelligence in me: you possess an intelligence, although you see it\nnot. Neither do I see mine; I feel this invisible power; I am unable to\nknow it: why should you, who are only a very minute portion of myself,\nbe anxious to know what I myself am ignorant of?\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nWe are curious. I should be pleased to learn how it is, that while so\nrough and coarse in your mountains, and deserts, and seas, you are at\nthe same time so ingenious and finished in your animals and vegetables?\n\nNATURE.\n\nMy poor child, shall I tell you the real truth? I have had bestowed upon\nme a name that does not at all suit me: I am called nature, while I am\nall art.\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nThat word deranges all my ideas. What! is it possible that nature should\nbe nothing but art.\n\nNATURE.\n\nIt is undoubtedly the case. Do you not know that there is infinite art\nin those seas and mountains which you represent as so rough and so\ncoarse? Do you not know that all those waters gravitate towards the\ncentre of the earth, and are raised only by immutable laws; and that\nthose mountains which crown the earth are immense reservoirs of eternal\nsnows, incessantly producing the fountains, lakes, and rivers, without\nwhich my animal and vegetable off-spring would inevitably perish? And,\nwith respect to what are denominated my animal, vegetable, and mineral\nkingdoms, constituting thus only three kingdoms, be assured that I have\nin fact millions of them. But if you consider the formation of an\ninsect, of an ear of corn, of gold, or of copper, all will exhibit to\nyou prodigies of art.\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nIt is undoubtedly true. The more I reflect on the subject, the more\nclearly I perceive that you are only the art of some Great Being,\nextremely powerful and skilful, who conceals Himself and exhibits you.\nAll the reasoners, from the time of Thales, and probably long before\nhim, have been playing at hide and seek with you. They have said, \"I\nhave hold of you\"; and they in fact held nothing. We all resemble Ixion:\nhe thought he embraced Juno, when he embraced only a cloud.\n\nNATURE.\n\nSince I am the whole that exists, how is it possible for a being like\nyou, so small a portion of myself, to comprehend me? Be contented, my\ndear little atomic children, with seeing a few particles that surround\nyou, with drinking a few drops of my milk, with vegetating for a few\nmoments in my bosom, and at last dying without any knowledge of your\nmother and your nurse.\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nMy beloved mother, pray tell me a little why you exist--why anything has\nexisted?\n\nNATURE.\n\nI will answer you in the language in which I always have answered, for\nso long a series of ages, those who have interrogated me on the subject\nof first principles: \"I know nothing at all about the matter.\"\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nNothing itself, would it not be preferable to that multitude of\nexistences formed to be continually dissolved; those tribes of animals\nborn and reproduced to devour others, and devoured in their turn; those\nnumberless beings endued with sensation, and formed to experience so\nmany sensations of pain; and those other tribes of reasoning beings\nwhich never, or at least only rarely, listen to reason? For what\npurpose, Nature, was all this?\n\nNATURE.\n\nOh! pray go and inquire of Him who made me.\n\n\n\n\nNECESSARY--NECESSITY.\n\n\nOSMIN.\n\nDo you not assert that everything is necessary?\n\nSELIM.\n\nIf all be not necessary, it follows that God does unnecessary things.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nThat is to say, it was necessary for the Divine Nature to do what it has\ndone.\n\nSELIM.\n\nI believe, or at least I suspect so. There are men who think\ndifferently. I do not understand them; but possibly they are right. I\nfear to dispute on this subject.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nIt is, however, necessary for me to talk to you upon it.\n\nSELIM.\n\nIn what manner? Would you speak of what is necessary to sustain life, or\nthe evil to which people are reduced who cannot procure it?\n\nOSMIN.\n\nNo; for that which is necessary to one is not always necessary to\nanother. It is necessary for an Indian to possess rice, for an\nEnglishman to eat animal food, as Russians must wear furs, and Africans\ngauze. One man believes that he has need of a dozen coach-horses,\nanother limits himself to a pair of shoes, and a third walks gayly on\nhis bare feet. I wish to speak to you of that which is necessary to all\nmen.\n\nSELIM.\n\nIt appears to me that God has given us all that is necessary in this\nsense: eyes to see, feet to walk, a mouth to eat, a gullet to swallow, a\nstomach to digest, a brain to reason, and organs to produce our kind.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nHow happens it then that men are sometimes born who are deprived of a\npart of these necessary faculties?\n\nSELIM.\n\nBecause the general laws of nature are liable to accidents which produce\nmonsters; but in general man is provided with all things necessary to\nhis existence in society.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nAre there not notions common to all men necessary to this purpose?\n\nSELIM.\n\nYes; I have travelled with Paul Lucas, and wherever I went I saw that\nman respected his father and mother; that he thought himself bound to\nkeep his promise; that he pitied oppressed innocence; that he detested\npersecution; that he regarded freedom of thinking as a right of nature,\nand the enemies of that freedom as the enemies of the human race. They\nwho think differently appear to me to be badly organized, and monsters,\nlike those who are born without eyes or heads.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nThese necessary things--are they necessary in all times, and in all\nplaces?\n\nSELIM.\n\nYes: otherwise they would not be necessary to human kind.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nTherefore, a new creed is not necessary to mankind. Men could live in\nsociety, and perform all their duties towards God, before they believed\nthat Mahomet had frequent conversations with the angel Gabriel.\n\nSELIM.\n\nNothing is more evident; it would be ridiculous to think that man could\nnot perform his duties until Mahomet came into the world. It was no way\nnecessary for men to believe the Koran. The world went on before the\nappearance of Mahomet, precisely as at present. If Mahometanism was\nnecessary to the world, it would exist everywhere. God, who has given us\ntwo eyes to see the sun, would have bestowed upon us some means of\ndiscovering the truths of the Mahometan religion. That sect therefore\nresembles the arbitrary laws which change according to times and places,\nlike fashions or the theories of physicians, which displace and succeed\none another. The Mahometan religion cannot therefore be essentially\nnecessary to man.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nBut since it exists, God has permitted it.\n\nSELIM.\n\nYes, as He permits all the world to abound in absurdities, errors, and\ncalamities. This is not saying that men were absolutely created in order\nto be foolish and unhappy. God permits some men to be eaten by serpents,\nbut we ought not to say that God made man to be eaten by serpents.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nWhat do you mean by saying that God permits? Can anything happen but by\nHis orders? To permit and to will--are they not with Him the same thing?\n\nSELIM.\n\nHe permits crime, but does not commit it.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nTo commit a crime is to act against Divine justice--to disobey God.\nTherefore, as God cannot disobey Himself, He cannot commit crime; but He\nhas so made man that man commits it frequently. How does that arise?\n\nSELIM.\n\nSome men can tell, but I am not one of them. All that I know is, that\nthe Koran is ridiculous, although possessing here and there things which\nare passable. The Koran, however, is certainly not necessary to\nman--that I maintain. I perceive clearly that which is false, but know\nvery little of that which is true.\n\nOSMIN.\n\nI thought that you would instruct me, but you teach me nothing.\n\nSELIM.\n\nIs it not something to know the men who deceive you, and the gross and\ndangerous errors they promulgate?\n\nOSMIN.\n\nI should have cause to complain of a physician who made me acquainted\nwith poisonous plants, without instructing me in regard to such as are\nsalutary.\n\nSELIM.\n\nI am no physician, nor are you a sick man; and it appears to me that I\ngive you a very useful prescription, when I say to you: Distrust the\ninventions of charlatans; worship God; be an honest man; and believe\nthat two and two make four.\n\n\n\n\nNEW--NOVELTIES.\n\n\nIt seems as if the first words of Ovid's \"Metamorphoses\"--\"_In nova fert\nanimus_\"--were the emblem of mankind. No one is touched with the\nadmirable spectacle of the sun which rises or seems to rise every day;\nbut everybody runs at the smallest meteor which appears for a moment in\nthe map of vapors which surround the earth, and which we call heaven. We\ndespise whatever is common, or which has been long known:\n\n     _Vilia sunt nobis qu\u00e6cumque prioribus annis_\n     _Vidimus, et sordet quidquid spectavimus olim._\n\nA hawker will not burden himself with a \"Virgil\" or a \"Horace,\" but with\na new book, were it ever so detestable. He draws you aside and says to\nyou: \"Sir, will you have some books from Holland?\"\n\nFrom the commencement of the world, women have complained of the\ninfidelities done to them in favor of the first new object which\npresents itself, and which has often this novelty for its only merit.\nSeveral ladies--we must confess it, notwithstanding the infinite respect\nwhich we have for them--have treated men as they complain that the men\nhave treated them; and the story of Jocondo is much more ancient than\nAriosto.\n\nPerhaps this universal taste for novelty is a benefit of nature. We are\ntold: Content yourselves with what you have; desire nothing beyond your\nsituation; subdue the restlessness of your mind. These are very good\nmaxims; but if we had followed them, we should still live upon acorns\nand sleep under the stars, and we should have had neither Corneille,\nRacine, Moli\u00e8re, Poussin, Le Brun, Lemoine, nor Pigal.\n\n\n\n\nNUDITY.\n\n\nWhy do we shut up a man or a woman whom we find naked in the streets?\nand why is no one offended at entirely naked statues, and with certain\npaintings of Jesus and of Magdalen which are to be seen in some of the\nchurches? It is very likely that human beings existed for a considerable\ntime without clothing. In more than one island and on the continent of\nAmerica, people are still found who are ignorant of clothing.\n\nThe most civilized of them conceal the organs of generation by leaves,\nby interlaced rushes or mats, and by feathers. Whence this latter\nmodesty? Is it the instinct of nature to provoke desire by the\nconcealment of that which we are inclined to discover? Is it true that\namong nations somewhat more polished than the Jews and demi-Jews, there\nare entire sects who, when they worship God, deprive themselves of\nclothing. Such have been, it is said, the Adamites and the Abelians.\nThey assembled, naked, to sing the praises of God. St. Epiphanius and\nSt. Augustine say this, who, it is true, were not contemporaries, and\nwho lived very distant from their country. But after all, this folly is\npossible, and is not more extraordinary or insane than a hundred other\nfollies which have made the tour of the world, one after another.\n\nWe have seen, in the article \"Emblem\", that the Mahometans still possess\nsaints who are mad, and who go about naked as apes. It is very possible\nthat crazy people have existed, who thought that it was more proper to\npresent ourselves before the Deity in the state in which He has formed\nus, than under any disguise of our own invention. It is possible that\nthese persons exposed themselves out of pure devotion. There are so few\nwell-made people of either sex, that nudity may have inspired chastity,\nor rather disgust, instead of augmenting desire.\n\nIt is moreover asserted that the Abelians renounced marriage. If they\nabounded in youthful gallants and amorous maidens, they were the less\ncomparable with St. Adhelm and the happy Robert D'Arbriselle, who lay\nwith the most beautiful women, only in order to prove the strength of\ntheir continence. I confess, however, that it must be pleasant to\nwitness a hundred naked Helens and Parises singing anthems, giving one\nanother the kiss of peace, and performing the ceremonies of the agap\u00e6.\n\nAll this proves that there is nothing so singular, so extravagant, or so\nsuperstitious, which has not been conceived by the head of man. Happy it\nis, when these follies do not trouble society, and make of it a scene of\nhate, of discord, and of fury. It is doubtless better to pray to God\nstark naked, than to soil His altars and the public places with human\nblood.\n\n\n\n\nNUMBER.\n\n\nWas Euclid right in defining number to be a collection of unities of the\nsame kind? When Newton says that number is an abstract relation of one\nquantity to another of the same kind, does he not understand by that the\nuse of numbers in arithmetic and geometry? Wolfe says, number is that\nwhich has the same relation with unity as one right line has with\nanother. Is not this rather a property attributed to a number, than a\ndefinition? If I dared, I would simply define numbers the idea of\nseveral unities.\n\nI see white--I have a sensation, an idea of white. It signifies not\nwhether these two things are or are not of the same species; I can\nreckon two ideas. I see four men and four horses--I have the idea of\neight; in like manner, three stones and six trees will give me the idea\nof nine.\n\nThat I add, multiply, subtract, and divide these, are operations of the\nfaculty of thought which I have received from the master of nature; but\nthey are not properties inherent to number. I can square three and cube\nit, but there is not certainly in nature any number which can be squared\nor cubed. I very well conceive what an odd or even number is, but I can\nnever conceive either a perfect or an imperfect one.\n\nNumbers can have nothing by themselves. What properties, what virtue,\ncan ten flints, ten trees, ten ideas, possess because they are ten? What\nsuperiority will one number divisible in three even parts have over\nanother divisible in two?\n\nPythagoras was the first, it is said, who discovered divine virtue in\nnumbers. I doubt whether he was the first; for he had travelled in\nEgypt, Babylon, and India, and must have related much of their arts and\nknowledge. The Indians particularly, the inventors of the combined and\ncomplicated game of chess, and of ciphers, so convenient that the Arabs\nlearned of them, through whom they have been communicated to us after so\nmany ages--these same Indians, I say, joined strange chimeras to their\nsciences. The Chald\u00e6ans had still more, and the Egyptians more still. We\nknow that self-delusion is in our nature. Happy is he who can preserve\nhimself from it! Happy is he who, after having some access of this fever\nof the mind, can recover tolerable health.\n\nPorphyrius, in the \"Life of Pythagoras,\" says that the number 2 is\nfatal. We might say, on the contrary, that it is the most favorable of\nall. Woe to him that is always single! Woe to nature, if the human\nspecies and that of animals were not often two and two!\n\nIf 2 was of bad augury, 3, by way of recompense, was admirable, and 4\nwas divine; but the Pythagoreans and their imitators forgot that this\nmysterious 4, so divine, was composed of twice that diabolical number 2!\nSix had its merit, because the first statuaries divided their figures\ninto six modules. We have seen that, according to the Chald\u00e6ans, God\ncreated the world in six _gahambars;_ but 7 was the most marvellous\nnumber; for there were at first but seven planets, each planet had its\nheaven, and that made seven heavens, without anyone knowing what was\nmeant by the word heaven.\n\nAll Asia reckoned seven days for a week. We divide the life of man into\nseven ages. How many reasons have we in favor of this number!\n\nThe Jews in time collected some scraps of this philosophy. It passed\namong the first Christians of Alexandria with the dogmas of Plato. It is\nprincipally displayed in the \"Apocalypse of Cerinthus,\" attributed to\nJohn the Apostle.\n\nWe see a striking example of it in the number of the beast: \"That no man\nmight buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast,\nor the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath\nunderstanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a\nman; and his number is six hundred three score and six.\"\n\nWe know what great pains all the great scholars have taken to divine the\nsolution of this enigma. This number, composed of three times two at\neach figure, does it signify three times fatal to the third power? There\nwere two beasts, and we know not yet of which the author would speak.\n\nWe have seen that Bossuet, less happy in arithmetic than in funeral\norations, has demonstrated that Diocletian is the beast, because we find\nthe Roman figures 666 in the letters of his name, by cutting off those\nwhich would spoil this operation. But in making use of Roman figures, he\ndoes not remember that the Apocalypse was written in Greek. An eloquent\nman may fall into this mistake. The power of numbers was much more\nrespected among us when we knew nothing about them.\n\nYou may observe, my dear reader, in the article on \"Figure,\" some fine\nallegories that Augustine, bishop of Hippo, extracted from numbers.\n\nThis taste subsisted so long, that it triumphed at the Council of Trent.\nWe preserve its mysteries, called \"Sacraments\" in the Latin church,\nbecause the Dominicans, with Soto at their head, allege that there are\nseven things which contribute to life, seven planets, seven virtues,\nseven mortal sins, six days of creation and one of repose, which make\nseven; further, seven plagues of Egypt, seven beatitudes; but\nunfortunately the fathers forget that Exodus reckons ten plagues, and\nthat the beatitudes are to the number of eight in St. Matthew and four\nin St. Luke. But scholars have overcome this difficulty; by retrenching\nfrom St. Matthew the four beatitudes of St. Luke, there remain six, and\nadd unity to these six, and you will have seven. Consult Fra Paolo\nSarpi, in the second book of his history of the County of Trent.\n\n\n\n\nNUMBERING.\n\nSECTION I.\n\n\nThe most ancient numberings that history has left us are those of the\nIsraelites, which are indubitable, since they are extracted from the\nJewish books. We believe that we must not reckon as a numbering the\nflight of the Israelites to the number of six hundred thousand men on\nfoot, because the text specifies them not tribe by tribe; it adds, that\nan innumerable troop of people gathered together and joined them. This\nis only a relation.\n\nThe first circumstantial numbering is that which we see in the book of\nthe \"Viedaber,\" which we call Numbers. By the reckoning which Moses and\nAaron made of the people in the desert, we find, in counting all the\ntribes except that of Levi, six hundred and three thousand five hundred\nand fifty men capable of bearing arms; and if we add the tribe of Levi,\nsupposing it equal in number to the others, the strong with the weak, we\nshall have six hundred and fifty-three thousand nine hundred and\nthirty-five men, to which we must add an equal number of old women and\nchildren, which will compose two millions six hundred and fifteen\nthousand seven hundred and forty-two persons, who departed from Egypt.\n\nWhen David, after the example of Moses, ordered the numbering of all the\npeople, he found eight hundred thousand warriors of the tribes of\nIsrael, and five hundred thousand of that of Judah, according to the\nBook of Kings; but according to Chronicles they reckoned eleven hundred\nthousand warriors in Israel; and less than five hundred thousand in\nJudah.\n\nThe Book of Kings formally excludes Levi and Benjamin, and counts them\nnot. If therefore we join these two tribes to the others in their\nproportion, the total of the warriors will amount to nineteen hundred\nand twenty thousand. This is a great number for the little country of\nJud\u00e6a, the half of which is composed of frightful rocks and caverns: but\nit was a miracle.\n\nIt is not for us to enter into the reasons for which the Sovereign\nArbiter of kings and people punished David for an operation which he\nhimself commanded to Moses. It still less becomes us to seek why God,\nbeing irritated against David, punished the people for being numbered.\nThe prophet Gad ordered the king on the part of God to choose war,\nfamine, or pestilence. David accepted the pestilence, and seventy\nthousand Jews died of it in three days.\n\nSt. Ambrosius, in his book of \"Repentance,\" and St. Augustine in his\nbook against Faustus, acknowledged that pride and ambition led David to\nmake this calculation. Their opinion is of great weight, and we can\ncertainly submit to their decision by extinguishing all the deceitful\nlights of our own minds.\n\nScripture relates a new numbering in the time of Esdras, when the Jewish\nnation returned from captivity. \"All this multitude (say equally Esdras\nand Nehemiah, being as one man) amounted to forty-two thousand three\nhundred and sixty persons.\" They were all named by families, and they\ncounted the number of Jews of each family, and the number of priests.\nBut in these two authors there are not only differences between the\nnumbers and the names of families, but we further see an error of\ncalculation in both. By the calculation of Esdras, instead of forty-two\nthousand men, after computation we find but twenty-nine thousand eight\nhundred and eighteen; and by that of Nehemiah we find thirty-one\nthousand and eighty-nine.\n\nWe must consult the commentators on this apparent mistake, particularly\nDom Calmet, who adding to one of these calculations what is wanting to\nthe other, and further adding what is wanted to both of them, solves all\nthe difficulty. To the computations of Esdras and Nehemiah, as reckoned\nby Calmet, are wanting ten thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven\npersons; but we find them in families which could not give their\ngenealogy; besides, if there were any fault of the copyist, it could not\ndestroy the veracity of the divinely inspired text.\n\nIt is to be believed that the great neighboring kings of Palestine made\nnumberings of their people as frequently as possible. Herodotus gives us\nthe amount of all those who followed Xerxes, without including his naval\nforces. He reckons seventeen hundred thousand men, and he pretends, that\nto arrive at this computation, they were sent in divisions of ten\nthousand into a place which would only hold this number of men closely\ncrowded. This method is very faulty, for by crowding a little less, each\ndivision of ten thousand might easily contain only from eight to nine.\nFurther, this method is not at all soldier-like, and it would have been\nmuch more easy to have counted the whole by making the soldiers march in\nrank and file.\n\nIt should further be observed, how difficult it was to support seventeen\nhundred thousand men in the country of Greece, which they went to\nconquer. We may very well doubt of this number, and the manner of\nreckoning it; of the whipping given to the Hellespont; and of the\nsacrifice of a thousand oxen made to Minerva by a Persian king, who knew\nher not, and who adored the sun alone as the only emblem of the\nDivinity. Besides, the numbering of seventeen hundred thousand men is\nnot complete, even by the confession of Herodotus, since Xerxes further\ncarried with him all the people of Thrace and Macedonia, whom he forced,\nhe says, to follow him, apparently the sooner to starve his army. We\nshould therefore do here what all wise men do in reading ancient, and\neven modern histories--suspend our judgment and doubt much.\n\nThe first numbering which we have of a profane nation is that made by\nServius Tullius, the sixth king of Rome. He found, says Titus Livius,\neighty thousand combatants, all Roman citizens: that implies three\nhundred and twenty thousand citizens at least, as many old people, women\nand children, to which we must add at least twenty thousand domestics,\nslaves and freemen.\n\nNow we may reasonably doubt whether the little Roman state contained\nthis number. Romulus only reigned (if we may call him king) over about\nthree thousand bandits, assembled in a little town between the\nmountains. This town was the worst land of Italy. The circuit of all his\ncountry was not three thousand paces. Servius was the sixth chief or\nking of this rising people. The rule of Newton, which is indubitable for\nelective kingdoms, gives twenty-one years' reign to each king, and by\nthat contradicts all the ancient historians, who have never observed the\norder of time, nor given any precise date. The five kings of Rome must\nhave reigned about a hundred years.\n\nIt is certainly not in the order of nature that an ungrateful soil,\nwhich was not five leagues in length or three in breadth, and which must\nhave lost many of its inhabitants in its almost continual little wars,\ncould be peopled with three hundred and forty thousand souls. There is\nnot half the number in the same territory at present, when Rome is the\nmetropolis of the Christian world; when the affluence of foreigners and\nthe ambassadors of so many nations must serve to people the towns; when\ngold flows from Poland, Hungary, half of Germany, Spain, and France, by\na thousand channels into the purse of the treasury, and must further\nfacilitate population, if other causes intercept it.\n\nAs the history of Rome was not written until more than five hundred\nyears after its foundation, it would not be at all surprising if the\nhistorians had liberally given Servius Tullius eighty thousand warriors\ninstead of eight thousand, through false zeal for their country. Their\nzeal would have been much more judicious if they had confessed the weak\ncommencement of their republic. It is much more noble to be raised from\nso poor an origin to so much greatness, than to have had double the\nsoldiers of Alexander to conquer about fifteen leagues of country in\nfour hundred years.\n\nThe census was never taken except of Roman citizens. It is pretended\nthat under Augustus it amounted to four millions one hundred and\nthirty-seven thousand in the year 29 before our vulgar era, according to\nTillemont, who is very exact, and Dion Cassius, who is no less so.\n\nLawrence Echard admits but one numbering, of four millions one hundred\nand thirty-seven thousand men, in the year 14 of our era. The same\nEchard speaks of a general numbering of the empire for the first year of\nthe same era; but he quotes no Roman author, nor specifies any\ncalculation of the number of citizens. Tillemont does not speak in any\nway of this numbering.\n\nWe have quoted Tacitus and Suetonius, but to very little purpose. The\ncensus of which Suetonius speaks is not a numbering of citizens; it is\nonly a list of those to whom the public furnished corn. Tacitus only\nspeaks, in book ii., of a census established among the Gauls, for the\npurpose of raising more tribute on each head. Augustus never made a\ncalculation of the other subjects of his empire, because they paid not\nthe poll-tax, which he wished to establish in Gaul.\n\nTacitus says that Augustus had a memoir, written in his own hand, which\ncontained the revenues of the empire, the fleets and contributary\nkingdoms. He speaks not of any numbering. Dion Cassius speaks of a\ncensus, but he specifies no number.\n\nJosephus, in his \"Antiquities,\" says that in the year 759 of Rome--the\ntime answering to the eleventh year of our era--Cyrenius, then\nconstituted governor of Syria, caused a list to be made of all the\nproperty of the Jews, which caused a revolt. This has no relation to a\ngeneral numbering, and merely proves that this Cyrenius was not governor\nof Jud\u00e6a--which was then a little province of Syria--until ten years\nafter, and not at the birth of our Saviour.\n\nThese seem to me to be all the principal passages that we can collect in\nprofane histories, touching the numberings attributed to Augustus. If we\nrefer to them, Jesus Christ would be born under the government of Varus,\nand not under that of Cyrenius; and there could have been no universal\nnumbering. But St. Luke, whose authority should prevail over that of\nJosephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Dion Cassius, and all the writers of\nRome--St. Luke affirms positively that there was a universal numbering\nof all the earth, and that Cyrenius was governor of Jud\u00e6a. We must\ntherefore refer solely to him, without even seeking to reconcile him\nwith Flavius Josephus, or with any other historian. As to the rest,\nneither the New nor the Old Testament has been given to us to enlighten\npoints of history, but to announce salutary truths, before which all\nevents and opinions should vanish. It is thus that we always reply to\nthe false calculations, contradictions, absurdities, enormous faults of\ngeography, chronology, physics, and even common sense, with which\nphilosophers tell us the Holy Scripture is filled; we cease not to reply\nthat there is here no question of reason, but of faith and piety.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nWith regard to the numbers of the moderns, kings fear not at present\nthat a doctor Gad should propose to them on the part of God, either\nfamine, war, or pestilence, to punish them for wishing to know the\namount of their subjects. None of them know it. We conjecture and guess,\nand always possibly within a few millions of men.\n\nI have carried the number of inhabitants which compose the empire of\nRussia to twenty-four millions, in the statements which have been sent\nto me; but I have not guaranteed this valuation, because I know very\nlittle about it. I believe that Germany possessed as many people,\nreckoning the Hungarians. If I am deceived by one or two millions, we\nknow it is a trifle in such a case.\n\nI beg pardon of the King of Spain, if I have only awarded him seven\nmillions of subjects in our continent. It is a very small number; but\nDon Ustaris, employed in the ministry, gives him no more. We reckon from\nabout nine to ten millions of free beings in the three kingdoms of Great\nBritain. In France we count between sixteen and twenty millions. This is\na proof that Doctor Gad has nothing wherewith to reproach the ministry\nof France.\n\nAs to the capital towns, opinions are further divided. According to some\ncalculators, Paris has seven hundred thousand inhabitants, and according\nto others five hundred thousand. It is thus with London, Constantinople,\nand Grand Cairo.\n\nAs to the subjects of the pope, they will make a crowd in paradise, but\nthe multitude is moderate on earth. Why so?--because they are subjects\nof the pope. Would Cato the Censor have ever believed the Romans would\ncome to that pass?\n\n\n\n\nOCCULT QUALITIES.\n\n\nOccult qualities have for a very long time been much derided; it would\nbe more proper to deride those who do not believe in them. Let us for\nthe hundredth time repeat that every principle, every primitive source\nof any of the works which come from the hand of the _demiourgos,_ is\noccult, and eternally hidden from mortals.\n\nWhat is the centripetal force, the force of gravitation, which acts\nwithout contact at such immense distances? What causes our hearts to\nbeat sixty times a minute? What other power changes this grass into milk\nin the udder of a cow? and this bread into the flesh, blood, and bone of\nthat child, who grows proportionally while he eats it, until he arrives\nat the height determined by nature, after which there is no art which\ncan add a line to it.\n\nVegetables, minerals, animals, where is your originating principle? In\nthe hands of Him who turns the sun on its axis, and who has clothed it\nwith light. This lead will never become silver, nor this silver gold;\nthis gold will never become diamond, nor this straw be transformed into\nlemons and bananas. What corpuscular system of physics, what atoms,\ndetermine their nature? You know nothing about it, and the cause will be\neternally occult to you. All that surrounds us, all within us, is an\nenigma which it is not in the power of man to divine.\n\nThe furred ignoramus ought to have been aware of this truth when he said\nthat beasts possess a vegetative and sensitive soul, and man a soul\nwhich is vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual. Poor man, kneaded up\nof pride, who has pronounced only words--have you ever seen a soul? Know\nyou how it is made? We have spoken much of the soul in these inquiries,\nbut have always confessed our ignorance. I now repeat this confession\nstill more emphatically, since the more I read, the more I meditate, and\nthe more I acquire, the more am I enabled to affirm that I know nothing.\n\n\n\n\nOFFENCES (LOCAL).\n\n\nIf we travel throughout the whole earth, we still find that theft,\nmurder, adultery, calumny, etc., are regarded as offences which society\ncondemns and represses; but that which is approved in England and\ncondemned in Italy, ought it to be punished in Italy, as if it were one\nof the crimes against general humanity? That which is a crime only in\nthe precincts of some mountains, or between two rivers, demands it not\nfrom judges more indulgence than those outrages which are regarded with\nhorror in all countries? Ought not the judge to say to himself, I should\nnot dare to punish in Ragusa what I punish at Loretto? Should not this\nreflection soften his heart, and moderate the hardness which it is too\napt to contract in the long exercise of his employment? The \"Kermesses\"\nof Flanders are well known; they were carried in the last century to a\ndegree of indecency, revolting to the eyes of all persons who were not\naccustomed to such spectacles.\n\nThe following is the manner in which Christmas is celebrated in some\ncountries. In the first place appears a young man half-naked, with wings\non his shoulders; he repeats the Ave Maria to a young girl, who replies\n\"fiat,\" and the angel kisses her on the mouth; after which a child, shut\nup in a great cock of pasteboard, imitates the crowing of the cock.\n\"_Puer natus est nobis._\" A great ox bellows out \"ubi\"; a sheep baas out\n\"Bethlehem\"; an ass brays \"hihanus\", to signify \"eamus\"; and a long\nprocession, preceded by four fools with bells and baubles, brings up the\nrear. There still remain some traces of this popular devotion, which\namong a civilized and educated people would be taken for profanation. A\nSwiss, out of patience, and possibly more intoxicated than the\nperformers of the ox and the ass, took the liberty of remonstrating with\nthem at Louvain, and was rewarded with no small number of blows; they\nwould indeed have hanged him, and he escaped with great difficulty.\n\nThe same man had a dangerous quarrel at The Hague for violently taking\nthe part of Barnevelt against an outrageous Gomarist. He was imprisoned\nat Amsterdam for saying that priests were the scourge of humanity, and\nthe source of all our misfortunes. \"How!\" said he, \"if we maintain that\ngood works are necessary to salvation, we are sent to a dungeon; and if\nwe laugh at a cock and an ass we risk hanging!\" Ridiculous as this\nadventure was, it is sufficient to convince us that we may be criminal\nin one or two points in our hemisphere, and innocent in all the rest of\nthe world.\n\n\n\n\nONAN.\n\n\nThe race of Onan exhibits great singularities. The patriarch Judah, his\nfather, lay with his daughter-in-law, Tamar the Ph\u0153nician, in the\nhighroad; Jacob, the father of Judah, was at the same time married to\ntwo sisters, the daughters of an idolater; and deluded both his father\nand father-in-law. Lot, the granduncle of Jacob, lay with his two\ndaughters. Saleum, one of the descendants of Jacob and of Judah,\nespoused Rahab the Canaanite, a prostitute. Boaz, son of Saleum and\nRahab, received into his bed Ruth the Midianite; and was great\ngrandfather of David. David took away Bathsheba from the warrior Uriah,\nher husband, and caused him to be slain, that he might be unrestrained\nin his amour. Lastly, in the two genealogies of Christ, which differ in\nso many points, but agree in this, we discover that he descended from\nthis tissue of fornication, adultery, and incest.\n\nNothing is more proper to confound human prudence; to humble our limited\nminds; and to convince us that the ways of Providence are not like our\nways. The reverend father Dom Calmet makes this reflection, in alluding\nto the incest of Judah with Tamar, and to the sin of Onan, spoken of in\nthe 38th chapter of \"Genesis\": \"Scripture,\" he observes, \"gives us the\ndetails of a history, which on the first perusal strikes our minds as\nnot of a nature for edification; but the hidden sense which is shut up\nin it is as elevated as that of the mere letter appears low to carnal\neyes. It is not without good reasons that the Holy Spirit has allowed\nthe histories of Tamar, of Rahab, of Ruth, and of Bathsheba, to form a\npart of the genealogy of Jesus Christ.\"\n\nIt might have been well if Dom Calmet had explained these sound reasons,\nby which we might have cleared up the doubts and appeased the scruples\nof all the honest and timorous souls who are anxious to comprehend how\nthis Supreme Being, the Creator of worlds, could be born in a Jewish\nvillage, of a race of plunderers and of prostitutes. This mystery, which\nis not less inconceivable than other mysteries, was assuredly worthy the\nexplanation of so able a commentator--but to return to our subject.\n\nWe perfectly understand the crime of the patriarch Judah, and of the\npatriarchs Simeon and Levi, his brothers, at Sichem; but it is more\ndifficult to understand the sin of Onan. Judah had married his eldest\nson Er to the Ph\u0153nician, Tamar. Er died in consequence of his\nwickedness, and the patriarch wished his second son to espouse the\nwidow, according to an ancient law of the Egyptians and Ph\u0153nicians,\ntheir neighbors, which was called raising up seed for his brother. The\nfirst child of this second marriage bore the name of the deceased, and\nthis Onan objected to. He hated the memory of his brother, or to produce\na child to bear the name of Er; and to avoid it took the means which are\ndetailed in the chapter of \"Genesis\" already mentioned, and which are\npractised by no species of animals but apes and human beings.\n\nAn English physician wrote a small volume on this vice, which he called\nafter the name of the patriarch who was guilty of it. M. Tissot, the\ncelebrated physician of Lausanne, also wrote on this subject, in a work\nmuch more profound and methodical than the English one. These two works\ndetail the consequences of this unhappy habit--loss of strength,\nimpotence, weakness of the stomach and intestines, tremblings, vertigo,\nlethargy, and often premature death.\n\nM. Tissot, however, to console us for this evil, relates as many\nexamples of the mischiefs of repletion in both sexes. There cannot be a\nstronger argument against rash vows of chastity. From the examples\nafforded, it is impossible to avoid being convinced of the enormous\nfolly of condemning ourselves to these turpitudes in order to renounce a\nconnection which has been expressly commanded by God Himself. In this\nmanner think the Protestants, the Jews, the Mahometans, and many other\nnations; the Catholics offer other reasons in favor of converts. I shall\nmerely say of the Catholics what Dom Calmet says of the Holy Ghost--That\ntheir reasons are doubtless good, could we understand them.\n\n\n\n\nOPINION.\n\n\nWhat is the opinion of all the nations of the north of America, and\nthose which border the Straits of Sunda, on the best of governments, and\nbest of religions; on public ecclesiastical rights; on the manner of\nwriting history; on the nature of tragedy, comedy, opera, eclogue, epic\npoetry; on innate ideas, concomitant grace, and the miracles of Deacon\nParis? It is clear that all these people have no opinions on things of\nwhich they have no ideas.\n\nThey have a confused feeling of their customs, and go not beyond this\ninstinct. Such are the people who inhabit the shores of the Frozen Sea\nfor the space of fifteen hundred leagues. Such are the inhabitants of\nthe three parts of Africa, and those of nearly all the isles of Asia; of\ntwenty hordes of Tartars, and almost all men solely occupied with the\npainful and continual care of providing their subsistence. Such are, at\ntwo steps from us, most of the Morlachians, many of the Savoyards, and\nsome citizens of Paris.\n\nWhen a nation begins to be civilized, it has some opinions which are\nquite false. It believes in spirits, sorcerers, the enchantment of\nserpents and their immortality; in possessions of the devil, exorcisms,\nand soothsayers. It is persuaded that seeds must grow rotten in the\nearth to spring up again, and that the quarters of the moon are the\ncauses of accesses of fever.\n\nA Talapoin persuades his followers that the god Sammonocodom sojourned\nsome time at Siam, and that he cut down all the trees in a forest which\nprevented him from flying his kite at his ease, which was his favorite\namusement. This idea takes root in their heads; and finally, an honest\nman who might doubt this adventure of Sammonocodom, would run the risk\nof being stoned. It requires ages to destroy a popular opinion. Opinion\nis called the queen of the world; it is so; for when reason opposes it,\nit is condemned to death. It must rise twenty times from its ashes to\ngradually drive away the usurper.\n\n\n\n\nOPTIMISM.\n\n\nI beg of you, gentlemen, to explain to me how everything is for the\nbest; for I do not understand it. Does it signify that everything is\narranged and ordered according to the laws of the impelling power? That\nI comprehend and acknowledge. Do you mean that every one is well and\npossesses the means of living--that nobody suffers? You know that such\nis not the case. Are you of the opinion that the lamentable calamities\nwhich afflict the earth are good in reference to God; and that He takes\npleasure in them? I credit not this horrible doctrine; neither do you.\n\nHave the goodness to explain how all is for the best. Plato, the\ndialectician, condescended to allow to God the liberty of making five\nworlds; because, said he, there are five regular solids in geometry, the\ntetrahedron, the cube, the hexahedron, the dodecahedron, and the\nicosahedron. But why thus restrict divine power? Why not permit the\nsphere, which is still more regular, and even the cone, the pyramid of\nmany sides, the cylinder, etc.?\n\nGod, according to Plato, necessarily chose the best of all possible\nworlds; and this system has been embraced by many Christian\nphilosophers, although it appears repugnant to the doctrine of original\nsin. After this transgression, our globe was no more the best of all\npossible worlds. If it was ever so, it might be so still; but many\npeople believe it to be the worst of worlds instead of the best.\n\nLeibnitz takes the part of Plato; more readers than one complain of\ntheir inability to understand either the one or the other; and for\nourselves, having read both of them more than once, we avow our\nignorance according to custom; and since the gospel has revealed nothing\non the subject, we remain in darkness without remorse.\n\nLeibnitz, who speaks of everything, has treated of original sin; and as\nevery man of systems introduces into his plan something contradictory,\nhe imagined that the disobedience towards God, with the frightful\nmisfortunes which followed it, were integral parts of the best of\nworlds, and necessary ingredients of all possible felicity: \"_Calla,\ncalla, senor don Carlos; todo che se haze es por su ben._\"\n\nWhat! to be chased from a delicious place, where we might have lived for\never only for the eating of an apple? What! to produce in misery\nwretched children, who will suffer everything, and in return produce\nothers to suffer after them? What! to experience all maladies, feel all\nvexations, die in the midst of grief, and by way of recompense be burned\nto all eternity--is this lot the best possible? It certainly is not\n_good_ for us, and in what manner can it be so for God? Leibnitz felt\nthat nothing could be said to these objections, but nevertheless made\ngreat books, in which he did not even understand himself.\n\nLucullus, in good health, partaking of a good dinner with his friends\nand his mistress in the hall of Apollo, may jocosely deny the existence\nof evil; but let him put his head out of the window and he will behold\nwretches in abundance; let him be seized with a fever, and he will be\none himself.\n\nI do not like to quote; it is ordinarily a thorny proceeding. What\nprecedes and what follows the passage quoted is too frequently\nneglected; and thus a thousand objections may rise. I must,\nnotwithstanding, quote Lactantius, one of the fathers, who, in the\nthirteenth chapter on the anger of God, makes Epicurus speak as follows:\n\"God can either take away evil from the world and will not; or being\nwilling to do so, cannot; or He neither can nor will; or, lastly, He is\nboth able and willing. If He is willing to remove evil and cannot, then\nis He not omnipotent. If He can, but will not remove it, then is He not\nbenevolent; if He is neither able nor willing, then is He neither\npowerful nor benevolent; lastly, if both able and willing to annihilate\nevil, how does it exist?\"\n\nThe argument is weighty, and Lactantius replies to it very poorly by\nsaying that God wills evil, but has given us wisdom to secure the good.\nIt must be confessed that this answer is very weak in comparison with\nthe objection; for it implies that God could bestow wisdom only by\nallowing evil--a pleasant wisdom truly! The origin of evil has always\nbeen an abyss, the depth of which no one has been able to sound. It was\nthis difficulty which reduced so many ancient philosophers and\nlegislators to have recourse to two principles--the one good, the other\nwicked. Typhon was the evil principle among the Egyptians, Arimanes\namong the Persians. The Manich\u00e6ans, it is said, adopted this theory; but\nas these people have never spoken either of a good or of a bad\nprinciple, we have nothing to prove it but the assertion.\n\nAmong the absurdities abounding in this world, and which may be placed\namong the number of our evils, that is not the least which presumes the\nexistence of two all-powerful beings, combating which shall prevail most\nin this world, and making a treaty like the two physicians in Moli\u00e8re:\n\"Allow me the emetic, and I resign to you the lancet.\"\n\nBasilides pretended, with the platonists of the first century of the\nchurch, that God gave the making of our world to His inferior angels,\nand these, being inexpert, have constructed it as we perceive. This\ntheological fable is laid prostrate by the overwhelming objection that\nit is not in the nature of a deity all-powerful and all-wise to intrust\nthe construction of a world to incompetent architects.\n\nSimon, who felt the force of this objection, obviates it by saying that\nthe angel who presided over the workmen is damned for having done his\nbusiness so slovenly, but the roasting of this angel amends nothing. The\nadventure of Pandora among the Greeks scarcely meets the objection\nbetter. The box in which every evil is enclosed, and at the bottom of\nwhich remains Hope, is indeed a charming allegory; but this Pandora was\nmade by Vulcan, only to avenge himself on Prometheus, who had stolen\nfire to inform a man of clay.\n\nThe Indians have succeeded no better. God having created man, gave him a\ndrug which would insure him permanent health of body. The man loaded his\nass with the drug, and the ass being thirsty, the serpent directed him\nto a fountain, and while the ass was drinking, purloined the drug.\n\nThe Syrians pretended that man and woman having been created in the\nfourth heaven, they resolved to eat a cake in lieu of ambrosia, their\nnatural food. Ambrosia exhaled by the pores; but after eating cake, they\nwere obliged to relieve themselves in the usual manner. The man and the\nwoman requested an angel to direct them to a water-closet. Behold, said\nthe angel, that petty globe which is almost of no size at all; it is\nsituated about sixty millions of leagues from this place, and is the\nprivy of the universe--go there as quickly as you can. The man and woman\nobeyed the angel and came here, where they have ever since remained;\nsince which time the world has been what we now find it. The Syrians\nwill eternally be asked why God allowed man to eat the cake and\nexperience such a crowd of formidable ills?\n\nI pass with speed from the fourth heaven to Lord Bolingbroke. This\nwriter, who doubtless was a great genius, gave to the celebrated Pope\nhis plan of \"all for the best,\" as it is found word for word in the\nposthumous works of Lord Bolingbroke, and recorded by Lord Shaftesbury\nin his \"Characteristics.\" Read in Shaftesbury's chapter of the\n\"Moralists\" the following passage:\n\n\"Much may be replied to these complaints of the defects of nature--How\ncame it so powerless and defective from the hands of a perfect\nBeing?--But I deny that it is defective. Beauty is the result\nof contrast, and universal concord springs out of a perpetual\nconflict.... It is necessary that everything be sacrificed to other\nthings--vegetables to animals, and animals to the earth.... The laws of\nthe central power of gravitation, which give to the celestial bodies\ntheir weight and motion, are not to be deranged in consideration of a\npitiful animal, who, protected as he is by the same laws, will soon be\nreduced to dust.\"\n\nBolingbroke, Shaftesbury, and Pope, their working artisan, resolve their\ngeneral question no better than the rest. Their \"all for the best\" says\nno more than that all is governed by immutable laws; and who did not\nknow that? We learn nothing when we remark, after the manner of little\nchildren, that flies are created to be eaten by spiders, spiders by\nswallows, swallows by hawks, hawks by eagles, eagles by men, men by one\nanother, to afford food for worms; and at last, at the rate of about a\nthousand to one, to be the prey of devils everlastingly.\n\nThere is a constant and regular order established among animals of all\nkinds--a universal order. When a stone is formed in my bladder, the\nmechanical process is admirable; sandy particles pass by small degrees\ninto my blood; they are filtered by the veins; and passing the urethra,\ndeposit themselves in my bladder; where, uniting agreeably to the\nNewtonian attraction, a stone is formed, which gradually increases, and\nI suffer pains a thousand times worse than death by the finest\narrangement in the world. A surgeon, perfect in the art of Tubal-Cain,\nthrusts into me a sharp instrument; and cutting into the perineum,\nseizes the stone with his pincers, which breaks during the endeavors, by\nthe necessary laws of mechanism; and owing to the same mechanism, I die\nin frightful torments. All this is \"for the best\", being the evident\nresult of unalterable physical principles, agreeably to which I know as\nwell as you that I perish.\n\nIf we were insensitive, there would be nothing to say against this\nsystem of physics; but this is not the point on which we treat. We ask\nif there are not physical evils, and whence do they originate? There is\nno absolute evil, says Pope in his \"Essay on Man\"; or if there are\nparticular evils, they compose a general good. It is a singular general\ngood which is composed of the stone and the gout--of all sorts of crime\nand sufferings, and of death and damnation.\n\nThe fall of man is our plaister for all these particular maladies of\nbody and soul, which you call \"the general health\"; but Shaftesbury and\nBolingbroke have attacked original sin. Pope says nothing about it; but\nit is clear that their system saps the foundations of the Christian\nreligion, and explains nothing at all.\n\nIn the meantime, this system has been since approved by many\ntheologians, who willingly embrace contradictions. Be it so; we ought to\nleave to everybody the privilege of reasoning in their own way upon the\ndeluge of ills which overwhelm us. It would be as reasonable to prevent\nincurable patients from eating what they please. \"God,\" says Pope,\n\"beholds, with an equal eye, a hero perish or a sparrow fall; the\ndestruction of an atom, or the ruin of a thousand planets; the bursting\nof a bubble, or the dissolution of a world.\"\n\nThis, I must confess, is a pleasant consolation. Who does not find a\ncomfort in the declaration of Lord Shaftesbury, who asserts, \"that God\nwill not derange His general system for so miserable an animal as man?\"\nIt must be confessed at least that this pitiful creature has a right to\ncry out humbly, and to endeavor, while bemoaning himself, to understand\nwhy these eternal laws do not comprehend the good of every individual.\n\nThis system of \"all for the best\" represents the Author of Nature as a\npowerful and malevolent monarch, who cares not for the destruction of\nfour or five hundred thousand men, nor of the many more who in\nconsequence spend the rest of their days in penury and tears, provided\nHe succeeds in His designs.\n\nFar therefore from the doctrine--that this is the best of all possible\nworlds--being consolatory, it is a hopeless one to the philosophers who\nembrace it. The question of good and evil remains in irremediable chaos\nfor those who seek to fathom it in reality. It is a mere mental sport to\nthe disputants, who are captives that play with their chains. As to\nunreasoning people, they resemble the fish which are transported from a\nriver to a reservoir, with no more suspicion that they are to be eaten\nduring the approaching Lent, than we have ourselves of the facts which\noriginate our destiny.\n\nLet us place at the end of every chapter of metaphysics the two letters\nused by the Roman judges when they did not understand a pleading. N.L.\n_non liquet_--it is not clear. Let us, above all, silence the knaves\nwho, overloaded like ourselves with the weight of human calamities, add\nthe mischief of their calumny; let us refute their execrable imposture\nby having recourse to faith and Providence.\n\nSome reasoners are of opinion that it agrees not with the nature of the\nGreat Being of Beings for things to be otherwise than they are. It is a\nrough system, and I am too ignorant to venture to examine it.\n\n\n\n\nORACLES.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nAfter the sect of the Pharisees among the Jews had become acquainted\nwith the devil, some reasoners among them began to entertain the idea\nthat the devil and his companions inspired, among all other nations, the\npriests and statues that delivered oracles. The Sadducees had no belief\nin such beings. They admitted neither angels nor demons. It appears that\nthey were more philosophic than the Pharisees, and consequently less\ncalculated to obtain influence and credit with the people.\n\nThe devil was the great agent with the Jewish populace in the time of\nGamaliel, John the Baptist, James Oblia, and Jesus his brother, who was\nour Saviour, Jesus Christ. Accordingly, we perceive that the devil\ntransports Jesus sometimes into the wilderness, sometimes to the\npinnacle of the temple, and sometimes to a neighboring hill, from which\nmight be discovered all the kingdoms of the world; the devil takes\npossession, when he pleases, of the persons of boys, girls, and animals.\n\nThe Christians, although mortal enemies of the Pharisees, adopted all\nthat the Pharisees had imagined of the devil; as the Jews had long\nbefore introduced among themselves the customs and ceremonies of the\nEgyptians. Nothing is so common as to imitate the practices of enemies,\nand to use their weapons.\n\nIn a short time the fathers of the church ascribed to the devil all the\nreligions which divided the earth, all pretended prodigies, all great\nevents, comets, plagues, epilepsies, scrofula, etc. The poor devil, who\nwas supposed to be roasting in a hole under the earth, was perfectly\nastonished to find himself master of the world. His power afterwards\nincreased wonderfully from the institution of monks.\n\nThe motto or device of all these newcomers was, \"Give me money and I\nwill deliver you from the devil.\" But both the celestial and terrestrial\npower of these gentry received at length a terrible check from the hand\nof one of their own brotherhood, Luther, who, quarreling with them about\nsome beggarly trifle, disclosed to the world all the trick and villainy\nof their mysteries. Hondorf, an eye-witness, tells us that the reformed\nparty having expelled the monks from a convent at Eisenach in Thuringia,\nfound in it a statue of the Virgin Mary and the Infant Jesus, contrived\nwith such art that, when offerings were placed upon the altar, the\nVirgin and Child bent their heads in sign of grateful acknowledgment,\nbut turned their backs on those who presented themselves with empty\nhands.\n\nIn England the case was much worse. When by order of Henry VIII., a\njudicial visitation took place of all the convents, half of the nuns\nwere found in a state of pregnancy; and this, at least it may be\nsupposed, was not by the operation of the devil. Bishop Burnet relates\nthat in a hundred and forty-four convents the depositions taken by the\nking's commissioners attested abominations which those of Sodom and\nGomorrah did not even approach. In fact, the English monks might\nnaturally be expected to be more dissolute than the inhabitants of\nSodom, as they were richer. They were in possession of the best lands in\nthe kingdom. The territory of Sodom and Gomorrah, on the contrary,\nproduced neither grain, fruit, nor pulse; and being moreover deficient\neven in water fit to drink, could be neither more nor less than a\nfrightful desert, inhabited by miserable wretches too much occupied in\nsatisfying their absolute necessities to have much time to devote to\npleasures.\n\nIn short, these superb asylums of laziness having been suppressed by act\nof parliament, all the instruments of their pious frauds were exposed in\nthe public places; the famous crucifix of Brocksley, which moved and\nmarched like a puppet; phials of a red liquid which was passed off for\nblood shed by the statues of saints when they were dissatisfied with the\ncourt; candlesticks of tinned iron, in which the lighted candles were\ncarefully placed so as to make the people believe they were the same\ncandles that were always burning; speaking tubes--_sarbacans_--which\ncommunicated between the sacristy and the roof of the church, and by\nwhich celestial voices were occasionally heard by apparently devotees,\nwho were paid for hearing them; in short, everything that was ever\ninvented by knavery to impose upon imbecility.\n\nMany sensible persons who lived at this period, being perfectly\nconvinced that the monks, and not the devils, had employed all these\npious stratagems, began to entertain the idea that the case had been\nvery similar with the religions of antiquity; that all the oracles and\nall the miracles so highly vaunted by ancient times had been merely the\ntricks of charlatans; that the devil had never had anything to do with\nsuch matters; and that the simple fact was, that the Greek, Roman,\nSyrian, and Egyptian priests had been still more expert than our modern\nmonks.\n\nThe devil, therefore, thus lost much of his credit; insomuch that at\nlength the honest Bekker, whose article you may consult, wrote his\ntiresome book against the devil, and proved by a hundred arguments that\nhe had no existence. The devil himself made no answer to him, but the\nministers of the holy gospel, as you have already seen, did answer him;\nthey punished the honest author for having divulged their secret, and\ntook away his living; so that Bekker fell a victim to the nullity of\nBeelzebub.\n\nIt was the lot of Holland to produce the most formidable enemies of the\ndevil. The physician Van Dale--a humane philosopher, a man of profound\nlearning, a most charitable citizen, and one whose naturally bold mind\nbecame proportionately bolder, in consequence of his intrepidity being\nfounded on virtue--undertook at length the task of enlightening mankind,\nalways enslaved by ancient errors, and always spreading the bandage that\ncovers their eyes, until at last some powerful flash of light discovers\nto them a corner of truth of which the greater number are completely\nunworthy. He proved, in a work abounding in the most recondite learning,\nthat the devils had never delivered a single oracle, had never performed\na single prodigy, and had never mingled in human affairs at all; and\nthat there never had in reality been any demons but those impostors who\nhad deceived their fellow men. The devil should never ridicule or\ndespise a sensible physician. Those who know something of nature are\nvery formidable enemies to all juggling performers of prodigies. If the\ndevil would be advised by me, he would always address himself to the\nfaculty of theology, and never to the faculty of medicine.\n\nVan Dale proved, then, by numberless authorities, not merely that the\nPagan oracles were mere tricks of the priests, but that these knaveries,\nconsecrated all over the world, had not ceased at the time of John the\nBaptist and Jesus Christ, as was piously and generally thought to be the\ncase. Nothing was more true, more clear, more decidedly demonstrated,\nthan this doctrine announced by the physician Van Dale; and there is no\nman of education and respectability who now calls it in question.\n\nThe work of Van Dale is not, perhaps, very methodical, but it is one of\nthe most curious works that ever came from the press. For, from the\ngross forgeries of the pretended Histape and the Sibyls; from the\napocryphal history of the voyage of Simon Barjonas to Rome, and the\ncompliments which Simon the magician sent him through the medium of his\ndog; from the miracles of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, and especially the\nletter which that saint wrote to the devil, and which was safely\ndelivered according to its address, down to the miracles of the reverend\nfathers, the Jesuits, and the reverend fathers, the Capuchins, nothing\nis forgotten. The empire of imposture and stupidity is completely\ndeveloped before the eyes of all who can read; but they, alas! are only\na small number.\n\nFar indeed was that empire, at that period, from being destroyed in\nItaly, France, Spain, the states of Austria, and more especially in\nPoland, where the Jesuits then bore absolute sway. Diabolical\npossessions and false miracles still inundated one-half of besotted and\nbarbarized Europe. The following account is given by Van Dale of a\nsingular oracle that was delivered in his time at Terni, in the States\nof the Pope, about the year 1650; and the narrative of which was printed\nat Venice by order of the government:\n\nA hermit of the name of Pasquale, having heard that Jacovello, a citizen\nof Terni, was very covetous and rich, came to Terni to offer up his\ndevotions in the church frequented by the opulent miser, soon formed an\nacquaintance with him, flattered him in his ruling passion, and\npersuaded him that it was a service highly acceptable to God to take as\nmuch care as possible of money; it was indeed expressly enjoined in the\ngospel, as the negligent servant who had not put out his lord's money to\ninterest at five hundred per cent was thrown into outer darkness.\n\nIn the conversations which the hermit had with Jacovello, he frequently\nentertained him with plausible discourses held by crucifixes and by a\nquantity of Italian Virgin Marys. Jacovello agreed that the statues of\nsaints sometimes spoke to men, and told him that he should believe\nhimself one of the elect if ever he could have the happiness to hear the\nimage of a saint speak.\n\nThe friendly Pasquale replied that he had some hope he might be able to\ngive him that satisfaction in a very little time; that he expected every\nday from Rome a death's head, which the pope had presented to one of his\nbrother hermits; and that this head spoke quite as distinctly and\nsensibly as the trees of Dodona, or even the ass of Balaam. He showed\nhim the identical head, in fact, four days after this conversation. He\nrequested of Jacovello the key of a small cave and an inner chamber,\nthat no person might possibly be a witness of the awful mystery. The\nhermit, having introduced a tube from this cave into the head, and made\nevery other suitable arrangement, went to prayer with his friend\nJacovello, and the head at that moment uttered the following words:\n\"Jacovello, I will recompense thy zeal. I announce to thee a treasure of\na hundred thousand crowns under a yew tree in thy garden. But thou shalt\ndie by a sudden death if thou makest any attempt to obtain this treasure\nuntil thou hast produced before me a pot containing coin amounting to\nten gold marks.\"\n\nJacovello ran speedily to his coffers and placed before the oracle a pot\ncontaining the ten marks. The good hermit had had the precaution to\nprocure a similar vessel which he had filled with sand, and he\ndexterously substituted that for the pot of Jacovello, on his turning\nhis back, and then left the pious miser with one death's head more, and\nten gold marks less, than he had before. Nearly such is the way in which\nall oracles have been delivered, beginning with those of Jupiter Ammon,\nand ending with that of Trophonius.\n\nOne of the secrets of the priests of antiquity, as it is of our own, was\nconfession in the mysteries. It was by this that they gained correct and\nparticular information about the affairs of families, and qualified\nthemselves in a great measure to give pertinent and suitable replies to\nthose who came to consult them. To this subject applies the anecdote\nwhich Plutarch has rendered so celebrated. A priest once urging an\ninitiated person to confession, that person said: \"To whom should I\nconfess?\" \"To God,\" replied the priest. \"Begone then, man,\" said the\ndesired penitent; \"begone, and leave me alone with God.\"\n\n[Illustration: The Initial Banishing of the Priest.--Begone and leave me\nalone with God.]\n\nIt would be almost endless to recount all the interesting facts and\nnarratives with which Van Dale has enriched his book. Fontenelle did not\ntranslate it. But he extracted from it what he thought would be most\nsuitable to his countrymen, who love sprightly anecdote and observation\nbetter than profound knowledge. He was eagerly read by what in France is\ncalled good company; and Van Dale, who had written in Latin and Greek,\nhad been read only by the learned. The rough diamond of Van Dale shone\nwith exquisite brilliancy after the cutting and polish of Fontenelle:\nthe success of the work was such that the fanatics became alarmed.\nNotwithstanding all Fontenelle's endeavors to soften down the\nexpressions of Van Dale, and his explaining himself sometimes with the\nlicense of a Norman, he was too well understood by the monks, who never\nlike to be told that their brethren have been impostors.\n\nA certain Jesuit of the name of Baltus, born near Messina, one of that\ndescription of learned persons who know how to consult old books, and to\nfalsify and cite them, although after all nothing to the purpose, took\nthe part of the devil against Van Dale and Fontenelle. The devil could\nnot have chosen a more tiresome and wretched advocate; his name is now\nknown solely from the honor he had of writing against two celebrated men\nwho advocated a good cause.\n\nBaltus likewise, in his capacity of Jesuit, caballed with no little\nperseverance and bitterness on the occasion, in union with his brethren,\nwho at that time were as high in credit and influence as they have since\nbeen plunged deep in ignominy. The Jansenists, on their part, more\nimpassionate and exasperated than even the Jesuits, clamored in a still\nlouder tone than they did. In short, all the fanatics were convinced\nthat it would be all over with the Christian religion, if the devil were\nnot supported in his rights.\n\nIn the course of time the books of Jansenists and Jesuits have all sunk\ninto oblivion. That of Van Dale still remains for men of learning, and\nthat of Fontenelle for men of wit. With respect to the devil, he\nresembles both Jesuits and Jansenists, and is losing credit from day to\nday.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nSome curious and surprising histories of oracles, which it was thought\ncould be ascribed only to the power of genii, made the Christians think\nthey were delivered by demons, and that they had ceased at the coming of\nChrist. They were thus enabled to save the time and trouble that would\nhave been required by an investigation of the facts; and they thought to\nstrengthen the religion which informed them of the existence of demons\nby referring to those beings such events.\n\nThe histories however that were circulated on the subject of oracles are\nexceedingly suspicious. That of Thamus, to which Eusebius gives credit,\nand which Plutarch alone relates, is followed in the same history by\nanother story so ridiculous, that that would be sufficient to throw\ndiscredit upon it; but it is, besides, incapable of any reasonable\ninterpretation. If this great Pan were a demon, can we suppose the\ndemons incapable of communicating the event of his death to one another\nwithout employing Thamus about it? If the great Pan were Jesus Christ,\nhow came it that not a single Pagan was undeceived with respect to his\nreligion, and converted to the belief that this same Pan was in fact\nJesus Christ who died in Jud\u00e6a, if God Himself compelled the demons to\nannounce this death to the pagans?\n\nThe history of Thulis, whose oracle is clear and positive on the subject\nof the Trinity, is related only by Suidas. This Thulis, king of Egypt,\nwas not certainly one of the Ptolemies. What becomes of the whole oracle\nof Serapis, when it is ascertained that Herodotus does not speak of that\ngod, while Tacitus relates at length how and why one of the Ptolemies\nbrought the god Serapis from Pontus, where he had only until then been\nknown?\n\nThe oracle delivered to Augustus about the Hebrew infant who should be\nobeyed by all the gods, is absolutely inadmissible. Cedrenus quotes it\nfrom Eusebius, but it is not now to be found in him. It certainly is not\nimpossible that Cedrenus quotes it from Eusebius, but it is not now to\nbe found in him. It certainly is not impossible that Cedrenus may have\nmade a false quotation, or have quoted a work falsely ascribed to\nEusebius; but how is it to be accounted for, that all the early\napologists for Christianity should have preserved complete silence with\nrespect to an oracle so favorable to their religion?\n\nThe oracles which Eusebius relates from Porphyry, who was attached to\npaganism, are not of a more embarrassing nature than those just noticed.\nHe gives them to us stripped of all the accompanying circumstances that\nattended them in the writings of Porphyry. How do we know whether that\npagan did not refute them. For the interest of his cause it would\nnaturally have been an object for him to do so; and if he did not do it,\nmost assuredly it was from some concealed motive, such, for instance, as\npresenting them to the Christians only for an occasion to prove and\nderide their credulity, if they should really receive them as true and\nrest their religion on such weak foundations.\n\nBesides, some of the ancient Christians reproached the pagans with being\nthe dupes of their priests. Observe how Clement of Alexandria speaks of\nthem: \"Boast as long as you please of your childish and impertinent\noracles, whether of Claros or the Pythian Apollo, of Dindymus or\nAmphilocus; and add to these your augurs and interpreters of dreams and\nprodigies. Bring forward also those clever gentry who, in the presence\nof the mighty Pythian Apollo, effect their divinations through the\nmedium of meal or barley, and those also who, by a certain talent of\nventriloquism, have obtained such high reputation. Let the secrets of\nthe Egyptian temples, and the necromancy of the Etruscans, remain in\ndarkness; all these things are most certainly nothing more than decided\nimpostures, as completely tricks as those of a juggler with his cups and\nballs. The goats carefully trained for the divination, the ravens\nelaborately instructed to deliver the oracles, are--if we may use the\nexpression--merely accomplices of the charlatans by whom the whole world\nhas thus been cheated.\"\n\nEusebius, in his turn, displays a number of excellent reasons to prove\nthat oracles could be nothing but impostures; and if he attributes them\nto demons, it is the result of deplorable prejudices or of an affected\nrespect for general opinion. The pagans would never admit that their\noracles were merely the artifices of their priests; it was imagined\ntherefore, by rather an awkward process of reasoning, that a little was\ngained in the dispute by admitting the possibility, that there might be\nsomething supernatural in their oracles, and insisting at the same time,\nthat if there were, it was the operation, not of the deity, but of\ndemons.\n\nIt is no longer necessary now, in order to expose the finesse and\nstratagems of priests, to resort to means which might themselves appear\ntoo strongly marked by those qualities. A time has already been when\nthey were completely exhibited to the eyes of the whole world--the time,\nI mean when the Christian religion proudly triumphed over paganism under\nChristian emperors.\n\nTheodoret says that Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, exhibited to the\ninhabitants of that city the hollow statues into which the priests\nentered, from secret passages, to deliver the oracles. When, by\nConstantine's order, the temple of \u00c6sculapius at \u00c6gea, in Cilicia, was\npulled down, there was driven out of it, says Eusebius in his life of\nthat emperor, not a god, nor a demon, but the human impostor who had so\nlong duped the credulity of nations. To this he adds the general\nobservation that, in the statues of the gods that were thrown down, not\nthe slightest appearance was found of gods, or demons, or even any\nwretched and gloomy spectres, but only hay, straw, or the bones of the\ndead.\n\nThe greatest difficulty respecting oracles is surmounted, when it is\nascertained and admitted, that demons had no concern with them. There is\nno longer any reason why they should cease precisely at the coming of\nJesus Christ. And moreover, there are many proofs that oracles continued\nmore than four hundred years after Jesus Christ, and that they were not\ntotally silenced but by the total destruction of paganism.\n\nSuetonius, in the life of Nero, says the oracle of Delphi warned that\nemperor to be aware of seventy-three years, and that Nero concluded he\nwas to die at that age, never thinking upon old Galba, who, at the age\nof seventy-three, deprived him of the empire.\n\nPhilostratus, in his life of Apollonius of Tyana, who saw Domitian,\ninforms us that Apollonius visited all the oracles of Greece, and that\nof Dodona, and that of Delphos; and that of Amphiaraus. Plutarch, who\nlived under Trajan, tells us that the oracles of Delphos still\nsubsisted, although there was then only one priestess, instead of two or\nthree. Under Adrian, Dion Chrysostom relates that he consulted the\noracle of Delphos; he obtained from it an answer which appeared to him\nnot a little perplexed, and which in fact was so.\n\nUnder the Antonines, Lucian asserts that a priest of Tyana went to\ninquire of the false prophet Alexander, whether the oracles which were\nthen delivered at Dindymus, Claros, and Delphos, were really answers of\nApollo, or impostures? Alexander had some fellow-feeling for these\noracles, which were of a similar description to his own, and replied to\nthe priest, that that was not permitted to be known; but when the same\nwise inquirer asked what he should be after his death, he was boldly\nanswered, \"You will be a camel, then a horse, afterwards a philosopher,\nand at length a prophet as great as Alexander.\"\n\nAfter the Antonines, three emperors contended for the empire. The oracle\nof Delphos was consulted, says Spartian, to ascertain which of the three\nthe republic might expect as its head. The oracle answered in a single\nverse to the following purport: The black is better; the African is\ngood; the white is the worst. By the black was understood Pescennius\nNiger; by the African, Severus Septimus, who was from Africa; and by the\nwhite, Claudius Albinus.\n\nDion, who did not conclude his history before the eighth year of\nAlexander Severus, that is, the year 230, relates that in his time\nAmphilocus still delivered oracles in dreams. He informs us also, that\nthere was in the city of Apollonia an oracle which declared future\nevents by the manner in which the fire caught and consumed the incense\nthrown upon an altar.\n\nUnder Aurelian, about the year 272, the people of Palmyra, having\nrevolted, consulted an oracle of Sarpedonian Apollo in Cilicia; they\nagain consulted that of the Aphacian Venus. Licinus, according to the\naccount of Sozomen, designing to renew the war against Constantine,\nconsulted the oracle of Apollo of Dindymus, and received from it in\nanswer two verses of Homer, of which the sense is--Unhappy old man, it\nbecomes not you to combat with the young! you have no strength, and are\nsinking under the weight of age.\n\nA certain god, scarcely if at all known, of the name of Besa, if we may\ncredit Ammianus Marcellinus, still delivered oracles on billets at\nAbydos, in the extremity of the Thebais, under the reign of Constantius.\nFinally, Macrobius, who lived under Arcadius and Honorius, sons of\nTheodosius, speaks of the god of Heliopolis of Syria and his oracle, and\nof the fortunes of Antium, in terms which distinctly imply that they all\nstill subsisted in his time.\n\nWe may observe that it is not of the slightest consequence whether these\nhistories are true or whether the oracles in fact delivered the answers\nattributed to them; it is completely sufficient for the purpose that\nfalse answers could be attributed only to oracles which were in fact\nknown still to subsist; and the histories which so many authors have\npublished clearly prove that they did not cease but with the cessation\nof paganism itself.\n\nConstantine pulled down but few temples, nor indeed could he venture to\npull them down but on a pretext of crimes committed in them. It was on\nthis ground that he ordered the demolition of those of the Aphacian\nVenus, and of \u00c6sculapius which was at \u00c6gea in Cilicia, both of them\ntemples in which oracles were delivered. But he forbade sacrifices to\nthe gods, and by that edict began to render temples useless.\n\nMany oracles still subsisted when Julian assumed the reins of empire. He\nre-established some that were in a state of ruin; and he was even\ndesirous of being the prophet of that of Dindymus. Jovian, his\nsuccessor, began his reign with great zeal for the destruction of\npaganism; but in the short space of seven months, which comprised the\nwhole time he reigned, he was unable to make any great progress.\nTheodosius, in order to attain the same object, ordered all the temples\nof the pagans to be shut up. At last, the exercise of that religion was\nprohibited under pain of death by an edict of the emperors Valentinian\nand Marcian, in the year 451 of the vulgar era; and the destruction of\npaganism necessarily involved that of oracles.\n\nThis conclusion has nothing in it surprising or extraordinary: it is the\nnatural consequence of the establishment of a new worship. Miraculous\nfacts, or rather what it is desired should be considered as such,\ndiminish in a false religion, either in proportion as it becomes firmly\nestablished and has no longer occasion for them, or in proportion as it\ngradually becomes weaker and weaker, because they no longer obtain\ncredit. The ardent but useless desire to pry into futurity gave birth to\noracles; imposture encouraged and sanctioned them; and fanaticism set\nthe seal; for an infallible method of making fanatics is to persuade\nbefore you instruct. The poverty of the people, who had no longer\nanything left them to give; the imposture detected in many oracles, and\nthence naturally concluded to exist in all; and finally the edicts of\nthe Christian emperors; such are the real causes of the establishment,\nand of the cessation, of this species of imposture. The introduction of\nan opposite state of circumstances into human affairs made it completely\ndisappear; and oracles thus became involved in the vicissitudes\naccompanying all human institutions.\n\nSome limit themselves to observing that the birth of Jesus Christ is the\nfirst epoch of the cessation of oracles. But why, on such an occasion,\nshould some demons have fled, while others remained? Besides, ancient\nhistory proves decidedly that many oracles had been destroyed before\nthis birth. All the distinguished oracles of Greece no longer existed,\nor scarcely existed, and the oracle was occasionally interrupted by the\nsilence of an honest priest who would not consent to deceive the people.\n\"The oracle of Delphi,\" says Lucian, \"remains dumb since princes have\nbecome afraid of futurity; they have prohibited the gods from speaking,\nand the gods have obeyed them.\"\n\n\n\n\nORDEAL.\n\n\nIt might be imagined that all the absurdities which degrade human nature\nwere destined to come to us from Asia, the source at the same time of\nall the sciences and arts! It was in Asia and in Egypt that mankind\nfirst dared to make the life or death of a person accused, dependent on\nthe throw of a die, or something equally unconnected with reason and\ndecided by chance--on cold water or hot water, on red hot iron, or a bit\nof barley bread. Similar superstition, we are assured by travellers,\nstill exists in the Indies, on the coast of Malabar, and in Japan.\n\nThis superstition passed from Egypt into Greece. There was a very\ncelebrated temple at Trez\u00e8ne in which every man who perjured himself\ndied instantly of apoplexy. Hippolytus, in the tragedy of \"Ph\u00e6dra,\" in\nthe first scene of the fifth act, addresses the following lines to his\nmistress Aricia:\n\n     _Aux portes de Trez\u00e8ne, et parmi ces tombeaux,_\n     _Des princes de ma race antiques sepultures,_\n     _Est un temple sacr\u00e9 formidable aux parjures._\n     _C'est l\u00e0 que les mortels n'osent jurer en vain;_\n     _Le perfide y re\u00e7oit un ch\u00e2timent soudain;_\n     _Et, craignant d'y trouver la mort in\u00e9vitable,_\n     _Le mensonge n'a point de frem plus redoubtable._\n\n     At Trez\u00e8ne's gates, amidst the ancient tombs\n     In which repose the princes of my race,\n     A sacred temple stands, the perjurer's dread.\n     No daring mortal there may falsely swear,\n     For swift the vengeance which pursues his crime,\n     Inevitable death his instant lot;\n     Nowhere has falsehood a more awful curb.\n\nThe learned commentator of the great Racine makes the following remark\non these Trezenian proofs or ordeals:\n\n\"M. de la Motte has remarked that Hippolytus should have proposed to his\nfather to come and hear his justification in this temple, where no one\ndared venture on swearing to a falsehood. It is certain, that in such a\ncase Theseus could not have doubted the innocence of that young prince;\nbut he had received too convincing evidence against the virtue of\nPh\u00e6dra, and Hippolytus was not inclined to make the experiment. M. de la\nMotte would have done well to have distrusted his own good taste, when\nhe suspected that of Racine, who appears to have foreseen the objection\nhere made. In fact, Theseus is so prejudiced against Hippolytus that he\nwill not even permit him to justify himself by an oath.\"\n\nI should observe that the criticism of La Motte was originally made by\nthe deceased marquis de Lassai. He delivered it at M. de la Faye's, at a\ndinner party at which I was present together with the late M. de la\nMotte, who promised to make use of it; and, in fact, in his \"Discourses\nupon Tragedy,\" he gives the honor of the criticism to the marquis de\nLassai. The remark appeared to me particularly judicious, as well as to\nM. de la Faye and to all the guests present, who--of course excepting\nmyself--were the most able critics in Paris. But we all agreed that\nAricia was the person who should have called upon Theseus to try the\naccused by the ordeal of the Trezenian temple; and so much the more so,\nas Theseus immediately after talks for a long time together to that\nprincess, who forgets the only thing that could clear up the doubts of\nthe father and vindicate the son. The commentator in vain objects that\nTheseus has declared to his son he will not believe his oaths:\n\n     Toujours les sc\u00e9l\u00e9rats ont recours au parjure.\n                      --_Phedra._ Act iv., scene 2.\n\n     The wicked always have recourse to oaths.\n\nThere is a prodigious difference between an oath taken in a common\napartment, and an oath taken in a temple where the perjured are punished\nby sudden death. Had Aricia said but a single word on the subject,\nTheseus could have had no excuse for not conducting Hippolytus to this\ntemple; but, in that case, what would have become of the catastrophe?\n\nHippolytus, then, should not have mentioned at all the appalling power\nof the temple of Trez\u00e8ne to his beloved Aricia; he had no need whatever\nto take an oath of his love to her, for of that she was already most\nfully persuaded. In short, his doing so is an inadvertence, a small\nfault, which escaped the most ingenious, elegant, and impassioned\ntragedian that we ever had.\n\nFrom this digression, I return to the barbarous madness of ordeals. They\nwere not admitted in the Roman republic. We cannot consider as of one of\nthese ordeals, the usage by which the most important enterprises were\nmade to depend upon the manner in which the sacred pullets ate their\nvetches. We are here considering only ordeals applied to ascertain the\nguilt or innocence of men. It was never proposed to the Manliuses,\nCamilluses, or Scipios, to prove their innocence by plunging their hands\ninto boiling water without its scalding them.\n\nThese suggestions of folly and barbarism were not admitted under the\nemperors. But the Tartars who came to destroy the empire--for the\ngreater part of these plunderers issued originally from Tartary--filled\nour quarter of the world with their ridiculous and cruel jurisprudence,\nwhich they derived from the Persians. It was not known in the Eastern\nEmpire till the time of Justinian, notwithstanding the detestable\nsuperstition which prevailed in it. But from that time the ordeals we\nare speaking of were received. This manner of trying men is so ancient\nthat we find it established among the Jews in all periods of their\nhistory.\n\nKorah, Dathan, and Abiram dispute the pontificate with the high priest\nAaron in the wilderness; Moses commands them to bring him two hundred\nand fifty censors, and says to them: Let God choose between their\ncensors and that of Aaron. Scarcely had the revolted made their\nappearance in order to submit to this ordeal, before they were swallowed\nup by the earth, and fire from heaven struck two hundred and fifty of\ntheir principal adherents; after which, the Lord destroyed fourteen\nthousand seven hundred more men of that party. The quarrel however for\nthe priesthood still continued between the chiefs of Israel and Aaron.\nThe ordeal of rods was then employed; each man presented his rod, and\nthat of Aaron was the only one which budded.\n\nAlthough the people of God had levelled the walls of Jericho by the\nsound of trumpets, they were overcome by the inhabitants of Ai. This\ndefeat did not appear at all natural to Joshua; he consulted the Lord,\nwho answered that Israel had sinned; that some one had appropriated to\nhis own use a part of the plunder that had been taken at Jericho, and\nthere devoted as accursed. In fact, all ought to have been burned,\ntogether with the men and women, children and cattle, and whoever had\npreserved and carried off any part was to be exterminated. Joshua, in\norder to discover the offender, subjected all the tribes to the trial by\nlot. The lot first fell on the tribe of Judah, then on the family of\nZarah, then on the house of Zabdi, and finally on the grandson of Zabdi,\nwhose name was Acham.\n\nScripture does not explain how it was that these wandering tribes came\nto have houses; neither does it inform us what kind of lots were made\nuse of on the occasion; but it is clear from the text, that Acham, being\nconvicted of stealing a small wedge of gold, a scarlet mantle, and two\nhundred shekels of silver, was burned to death in the valley of Achor,\ntogether with his sons, his sheep, his oxen, and his asses; and even his\nvery tent was burned with him.\n\nThe promised land was divided by lot; lots were drawn respecting the two\ngoats of expiation which should be sacrificed to the Lord, and which\nshould go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. When Saul was to be\nchosen king, lots were consulted, and the lot fell on the tribe of\nBenjamin, on the family of Metri belonging to that tribe, and finally on\nSaul, the son of Kish, in the family of Metri.\n\nThe lot fell on Jonathan to be punished for having eaten some honey at\nthe end of a rod. The sailors of Joppa drew lots to learn from God what\nwas the cause of the tempest. The lot informed them that it was Jonah;\nand they threw him into the sea.\n\nAll these ordeals by lot, which among other nations were merely profane\nsuperstitions, were the voice of God Himself when employed by His\ncherished and beloved people; and so completely and decidedly the voice\nof God that even the apostles filled the place of the apostle Judas by\nlot. The two candidates for the succession were Matthias and Barnabas.\nProvidence declared in favor of St. Matthias.\n\nPope Honorius, the third of that name, forbade by a decretal from that\ntime forward the method of choosing bishops by lot. Deciding by lots was\na very common practice, and was called by the pagans, \"_sortilegium._\"\nCato, in the \"Pharsalia,\" says, \"_Sortilegis egeant dubil...._\"\n\nThere were other ordeals among the Jews in the name of the Lord; as, for\nexample, the waters of jealousy. A woman suspected of adultery was\nobliged to drink of that water mixed with ashes, and consecrated by the\nhigh priest. If she was guilty she instantly swelled and died. It is\nupon the foundation of this law that the whole Christian world in the\nWest established oracles for persons under juridical accusation, not\nconsidering that what was ordained even by God Himself in the Old\nTestament was nothing more or less than an absurd superstition in the\nNew.\n\nDuel by wager of battle was one of those ordeals, and lasted down to the\nsixteenth century. He who killed his adversary was always in the right.\nThe most dreadful of all these curious and barbarous ordeals, was that\nof a man's carrying a bar of red-hot iron to the distance of nine paces\nwithout burning himself. Accordingly, the history of the middle ages,\nfabulous as it is, does not record any instance of this ordeal, nor of\nthat which consisted in walking over nine burning ploughshares. All the\nothers might be doubted, or the deceptions and tricks employed in\nrelation to them to deceive the judges might be easily explained. It was\nvery easy, for example, to appear to pass through the trial of boiling\nwater without injury; a vessel might be produced half full of cold\nwater, into which the judicial boiling water might be put; and the\naccused might safely plunge his arm up to the elbow in the lukewarm\nmixture, and take up from the bottom the sacred blessed ring that had\nbeen thrown into it for that purpose.\n\nOil might be made to boil with water; the oil begins to rise and appears\nto boil when the water begins to simmer, and the oil at that time has\nacquired but a small degree of heat. In such circumstances, a man seems\nto plunge his hand into boiling water; but, in fact, moistens it with\nthe harmless oil, which preserves it from contact with and injury by the\nwater.\n\nA champion may easily, by degrees, harden and habituate himself to\nholding, for a few seconds, a ring that has been thrown into the fire,\nwithout any very striking or painful marks of burning. To pass between\ntwo fires without being scorched is no very extraordinary proof of skill\nor address, when the movement is made with great rapidity and the face\nand hands are well rubbed with ointment. It is thus that the formidable\nPeter Aldobrandini, or \"The Fiery Peter,\" as he was called, used to\nmanage--if there is any truth in his history--when he passed between two\nblazing fires at Florence, in order to demonstrate, with God's help,\nthat his archbishop was a knave and debauchee. O, charlatans!\ncharlatans! henceforth disappear forever from the pages of history!\n\nThere existed a rather ludicrous ordeal, which consisted in making an\naccused person try to swallow a piece of barley bread, which it was\nbelieved would certainly choke him if he were guilty. I am not, however,\nso much diverted with this case as with the conduct of Harlequin, when\nthe judge interrogated him concerning a robbery of which Dr. Balouard\naccused him. The judge was sitting at table, and drinking some excellent\nwine at the time, when Harlequin was brought in; perceiving which, the\nlatter takes up the bottle, and, pouring the whole of its contents into\na glass, swallows it at a draught, saying to the doctor: \"If I am guilty\nof what you accuse me, sir, I hope this wine will prove poison to me.\"\n\n\n\n\nORDINATION.\n\n\nIf a soldier, charged by the king of France with the honor of conferring\nthe order of St. Louis upon another soldier, had not, when presenting\nthe latter with the cross, the intention of making him a knight of that\norder, would the receiver of the badge be on that account the less a\nmember of the order than if such intention had existed? Certainly not.\n\nHow was it, then, that many priests thought it necessary to be\nre-ordained after the death of the celebrated Lavardin, bishop of Mans?\nThat singular prelate, who had instituted the order of \"Good\nFellows\"--Des Coteaux--bethought himself on his deathbed of a singular\ntrick, in the way of revenge, on a class of persons who had much annoyed\nhim. He was well known as one of the most daring freethinkers of the age\nof Louis XIV., and had been publicly upbraided with his infidel\nsentiments, by many of those on whom he had conferred orders of\npriesthood. It is natural at the approach of death, for a sensitive and\napprehensive soul to revert to the religion of its early years. Decency\nalone would have required of the bishop, that at least at his death he\nshould give an example of edification to the flock to which he had given\nso much scandal by his life. But he was so deeply exasperated against\nhis clergy, as to declare, that not a single individual of those whom he\nhad himself ordained was really and truly a priest; that all their acts\nin the capacity of priests were null and void; and that he never\nentertained the intention of conferring any sacrament.\n\nSuch reasoning seems certainly characteristic, and just such as might be\nexpected from a drunken man; the priests of Mans might have replied to\nhim, \"It is not your intention that is of any consequence, but ours. We\nhad an ardent and determined desire to be priests; we did all in our\npower to become such. We are perfectly ingenuous and sincere; if you are\nnot so, that is nothing at all to us.\" The maxim applicable to the\noccasion is, \"_quic quid accipitur ad modum recipientis accipitur,_\" and\nnot \"_ad modum dantis._\" \"When our wine merchant has sold us a half a\nhogshead of wine, we drink it, although he might have a secret intention\nto hinder us from drinking it; we shall still be priests in spite of\nyour testament.\"\n\nThose reasons were sound and satisfactory. However, the greater number\nof those who had been ordained by that bishop did not consider\nthemselves as real and authorized priests, and subjected themselves to\nordination a second time. Mascaron, a man of moderate talents, but of\ngreat celebrity as a preacher, persuaded them, both by his discourses\nand example, to have the ceremony repeated. The affair occasioned great\nscandal at Mans, and Paris, and Versailles; but like everything else was\nsoon forgotten.\n\n\n\n\nORIGINAL SIN.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThis is a subject on which the Socinians or Unitarians take occasion to\nexult and triumph. They denominate this foundation of Christianity its\n\"original sin.\" It is an insult to God, they say; it is accusing Him of\nthe most absurd barbarity to have the hardihood to assert, that He\nformed all the successive generations of mankind to deliver them over to\neternal tortures, under the pretext of their original ancestor having\neaten of a particular fruit in a garden. This sacrilegious imputation is\nso much the more inexcusable among Christians, as there is not a single\nword respecting this same invention of original sin, either in the\nPentateuch, or in the prophets, or the gospels, whether apocryphal or\ncanonical, or in any of the writers who are called the \"first fathers of\nthe Church.\"\n\nIt is not even related in the Book of Genesis that God condemned Adam to\ndeath for eating an apple. God says to him, indeed, \"in the day that\nthou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.\" But the very same Book of\nGenesis makes Adam live nine hundred and thirty years after indulging in\nthis criminal repast. The animals, the plants, which had not partaken of\nthis fruit, died at the respective periods prescribed for them by\nnature. Man is evidently born to die, like all the rest.\n\nMoreover, the punishment of Adam was never, in any way, introduced into\nthe Jewish law. Adam was no more a Jew than he was a Persian or\nChald\u00e6an. The first chapters of Genesis--at whatever period they were\ncomposed--were regarded by all the learned Jews as an allegory, and even\nas a fable not a little dangerous, since that book was forbidden to be\nread by any before they had attained the age of twenty-one.\n\nIn a word, the Jews knew no more about original sin than they did about\nthe Chinese ceremonies; and, although divines generally discover in the\nScripture everything they wish to find there, either \"_totidem verbis,_\"\nor \"_totidem literis,_\" we may safely assert that no reasonable divine\nwill ever discover in it this surprising and overwhelming mystery.\n\nWe admit that St. Augustine was the first who brought this strange\nnotion into credit; a notion worthy of the warm and romantic brain of an\nAfrican debauchee and penitent, Manich\u00e6an and Christian, tolerant and\npersecuting--who passed his life in perpetual self-contradiction.\n\nWhat an abomination, exclaim the strict Unitarians, so atrociously to\ncalumniate the Author of Nature as even to impute to Him perpetual\nmiracles, in order that He may damn to all eternity the unhappy race of\nmankind, whom he introduces into the present life only for so short a\nspan! Either He created souls from all eternity, upon which system, as\nthey must be infinitely more ancient than the sin of Adam, they can have\nno possible connection with it; or these souls are formed whenever man\nand woman sexually associate; in which case the Supreme Being must be\nsupposed continually watching for all the various associations of this\nnature that take place, to create spirits that He will render eternally\nmiserable; or, finally, God is Himself the soul of all mankind, and upon\nthis system damns Himself. Which of these three suppositions is the most\nabsurd and abominable? There is no fourth. For the opinion that God\nwaits six weeks before He creates a damned soul in a f\u0153tus is, in fact,\nno other than that which creates it at the moment of sexual connection:\nthe difference of six weeks cannot be of the slightest consequence in\nthe argument. I have merely related the opinion of the Unitarians; but\nmen have now attained such a degree of superstition that I can scarcely\nrelate it without trembling.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIt must be acknowledged that we are not acquainted with any father of\nthe Church before St. Augustine and St. Jerome, who taught the doctrine\nof original sin. St. Clement of Alexandria, notwithstanding his profound\nknowledge of antiquity, far from speaking in any one passage of his\nworks of that corruption which has infected the whole human race, and\nrendered it guilty from its birth, says in express words, \"What evil can\na new-born infant commit? How could it possibly prevaricate? How could\nsuch a being, which has, in fact, as yet done no one thing, fall under\nthe curse of Adam?\"\n\nAnd it is worth observing that he does not employ this language in order\nto combat the rigid opinion of original sin, which was not at that time\ndeveloped, but merely to show that the passions, which are capable of\ncorrupting all mankind, have, as yet, taken no hold of this innocent\ninfant. He does not say: This creature of a day would not be damned if\nit should now die, for no one had yet conjectured that it would be\ndamned. St. Clement could not combat a system absolutely unknown.\n\nThe great Origen is still more decisive than St. Clement of Alexandria.\nHe admits, indeed, in his exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the\nRomans, that sin entered into the world by Adam, but he maintains that\nit is the inclination to sin that thus entered; that it is very easy to\ncommit evil, but that it is not on that account said, man will always\ncommit evil, and is guilty even as soon as he is born.\n\nIn short, original sin, in the time of Origen, consisted only in the\nmisfortune of resembling the first man by being liable to sin like him.\nBaptism was a necessary ordinance; it was the seal of Christianity; it\nwashed away all sins; but no man had yet said, that it washed away those\nwhich the subject of it had not committed. No one yet asserted that an\ninfant would be damned, and burned in everlasting flames, in consequence\nof its dying within two minutes of its birth. And an unanswerable proof\non this point is, that a long period passed away before the practice of\nbaptizing infants became prevalent. Tertullian was averse to their being\nbaptized; but, on the persuasion that original sin--of which these poor\ninnocents could not possibly be guilty--would affect their reprobation,\nand expose them to suffer boundless and endless torture, for a deed of\nwhich it was impossible for them to have the slightest knowledge: to\nrefuse them the consecrated bath of baptism, would be wilfully\nconsigning them to eternal damnation. The souls of all the executioners\nin the world, condensed into the very essence of ingenious cruelty,\ncould not have suggested a more execrable abomination.\n\nIn a word, it is an incontestable fact that Christians did not for a\ncertain period baptize their infants, and it is therefore equally\nincontestable that they were very far from damning them.\n\nThis, however, is not all; Jesus Christ never said: \"The infant that is\nnot baptized will be damned.\" He came on the contrary to expiate all\nsins, to redeem mankind by His blood; therefore, infants could not be\ndamned. Infants would, of course, _a fortiori,_ and, preferably, enjoy\nthis privilege. Our divine Saviour never baptized any person. Paul\ncircumcised his disciple Timothy, but is nowhere said to have baptized\nhim.\n\nIn a word, during the two first centuries, the baptism of infants was\nnot customary; it was not believed, therefore, that infants would become\nvictims of the fault of Adam. At the end of four hundred years their\nsalvation was considered in danger, and great uncertainty and\napprehension existed on the subject.\n\nIn the fifth century appears Pelagius. He treated the opinion of\noriginal sin as monstrous. According to him, this dogma, like all\nothers, was founded upon a mere ambiguity. God had said to Adam in the\ngarden: \"In the day in which thou shalt eat of the tree of knowledge,\nthou shalt die.\" But, he did not die; and God pardoned him. Why, then,\nshould He not spare His race to the thousandth generation? Why should He\nconsign to infinite and eternal torments the innocent infants whose\nfather He received back into forgiveness and favor?\n\nPelagius considered God, not merely as an absolute master, but as a\nparent, who left His children at perfect liberty, and rewarded them\nbeyond their merits, and punished them less than their faults deserved.\nThe language used by him and his disciples was: \"If all men are born\nobjects of the eternal wrath of that Being who confers on them life; if\nthey can possibly be guilty before they can even think, it is then a\nfearful and execrable offence to give them being, and marriage is the\nmost atrocious of crimes. Marriage, on this system, is nothing more or\nless than an emanation from the Manich\u00e6an principle of evil; and those\nwho engage in it, instead of adoring God, adore the devil.\"\n\nPelagius and his partisans propagated this doctrine in Africa, where the\nreputation and influence of St. Augustine were unbounded. He had been a\nManich\u00e6an, and seemed to think himself called upon to enter the lists\nagainst Pelagius. The latter was ill able to resist either Augustine or\nJerome; various points, however, were contested, and the dispute\nproceeded so far that Augustine pronounced his sentence of damnation\nupon all children born, or to be born, throughout the world, in the\nfollowing terms: \"The Catholic faith teaches that all men are born so\nguilty that even infants are certainly damned when they die without\nhaving been regenerated in Jesus.\"\n\nIt would be but a wretched compliment of condolence to offer to a queen\nof China, or Japan, or India, Scythia, or Gothia, who had just lost her\ninfant son to say: \"Be comforted, madam; his highness the prince royal\nis now in the clutches of five hundred devils, who turn him round and\nround in a great furnace to all eternity, while his body rests embalmed\nand in peace within the precincts of your palace.\"\n\nThe astonished and terrified queen inquires why these devils should\neternally roast her dear son, the prince royal. She is answered that the\nreason of it is that his great-grandfather formerly ate of the fruit of\nknowledge, in a garden. Form an idea, if possible, of the looks and\nthoughts of the king, the queen, the whole council, and all the\nbeautiful ladies of the court!\n\nThe sentence of the African bishop appeared to some divines--for there\nare some good souls to be found in every place and class--rather severe,\nand was therefore mitigated by one Peter Chrysologus, or Peter\nGolden-tongue, who invented a suburb to hell, called \"limbo\", where all\nthe little boys and girls that died before baptism might be disposed of.\nIt is a place in which these innocents vegetate without sensation; the\nabode of apathy; the place that has been called \"The paradise of fools.\"\nWe find this very expression in Milton. He places this paradise\nsomewhere near the moon!\n\n\n_Explication Of Original Sin._\n\nThe difficulty is the same with respect to this substituted limbo as\nwith respect to hell. Why should these poor little wretches be placed in\nthis limbo? what had they done? how could their souls, which they had\nnot in their possession a single day, be guilty of a gormandizing that\nmerited a punishment of six thousand years?\n\nSt. Augustine, who damns them, assigns as a reason, that the souls of\nall men being comprised in that of Adam, it is probable that they were\nall accomplices. But, as the Church subsequently decided that souls are\nnot made before the bodies which they are to inhabit are originated,\nthat system falls to the ground, notwithstanding the celebrity of its\nauthor.\n\nOthers said that original sin was transmitted from soul to soul, in the\nway of emanation, and that one soul, derived from another, came into the\nworld with all the corruption of the mother-soul. This opinion was\ncondemned.\n\nAfter the divines had done with the question, the philosophers tried at\nit. Leibnitz, while sporting with his monads, amused himself with\ncollecting together in Adam all the human monads with their little\nbodies of monads. This was going further than St. Augustine. But this\nidea, which was worthy of Cyrano de Bergerac, met with very few to adopt\nand defend it. Malebranche explains the matter by the influence of the\nimagination on mothers. Eve's brain was so strongly inflamed with the\ndesire of eating the fruit that her children had the same desire; just\nlike the irresistibly authenticated case of the woman who, after having\nseen a man racked, was brought to bed of a dislocated infant.\n\nNicole reduced the affair to \"a certain inclination, a certain tendency\nto concupiscence, which we have derived from our mothers. This\ninclination is not an act; but it will one day become such.\" Well said,\nNicole; bravo! But, in the meantime, why am I to be damned? Nicole does\nnot even touch the difficulty, which consists in ascertaining how our\nown souls, which have but recently been formed, can be fairly made\nresponsible for the fault of another soul that lived some thousands of\nyears ago.\n\nWhat, my good friends, _ought_ to be said upon the subject? Nothing.\nAccordingly, I do not give _my_ explication of the difficulty: I say not\na single word.\n\n\n\n\nOVID.\n\n\nScholars have not failed to write volumes to inform us exactly to what\ncorner of the earth Ovidius Naso was banished by Octavius Cepias,\nsurnamed Augustus. All that we know of it is, that, born at Sulmo and\nbrought up at Rome, he passed ten years on the right shore of the\nDanube, in the neighborhood of the Black Sea. Though he calls this land\nbarbarous, we must not fancy that it was a land of savages. There were\nverses made there; Cotis, the petty king of a part of Thrace, made Getic\nverses for Ovid. The Latin poet learned Getic, and also composed lines\nin this language. It seems as if Greek poetry should have been\nunderstood in the ancient country of Orpheus, but this country was then\npeopled by nations from the North, who probably spoke a Tartar dialect,\na language approaching to the ancient Slavonian. Ovid seemed not\ndestined to make Tartar verses. The country of the Tomites, to which he\nwas banished, was a part of Mysia, a Roman province, between Mount Hemus\nand the Danube. It is situated in forty-four and a half degrees north\nlatitude, like one of the finest climates of France; but the mountains\nwhich are at the south, and the winds of the north and east, which blow\nfrom the Euxine, the cold and dampness of the forests, and of the\nDanube, rendered this country insupportable to a man born in Italy. Thus\nOvid did not live long, but died there at the age of sixty. He complains\nin his \"Elegies\" of the climate, and not of the inhabitants. \"_Quos ego,\ncum loca sim vestra perosus, amo._\"\n\nThese people crowned him with laurel, and gave him privileges, which\nprevented him not from regretting Rome. It was a great instance of the\nslavery of the Romans and of the extinction of all laws, when a man born\nof an equestrian family, like Octavius, exiled a man of another\nequestrian family, and when one citizen of Rome with one word sent\nanother among the Scythians. Before this time, it required a\n\"plebiscitum\", a law of the nation, to deprive a Roman of his country.\nCicero, although banished by a cabal, had at least been exiled with the\nforms of law.\n\nThe crime of Ovid was incontestably that of having seen something\nshameful in the family of Octavius:\n\n     _Cur aliquid vidi, cur noxia lumina feci?_\n     Why saw I aught, or why discover crime?\n\nThe learned have not decided whether he had seen Augustus with a\nprettier boy than Mannius, whom he said he would not have because he was\ntoo ugly; whether he saw some page in the arms of the empress Livia,\nwhom this Augustus had espoused, while pregnant by another; whether he\nhad seen the said Augustus occupied with his daughter or granddaughter;\nor, finally, whether he saw him doing something still worse, \"_torva tu\nentibus hircis?_\" It is most probable that Ovid detected an incestuous\ncorrespondence, as an author, almost contemporary, named Minutionus\nApuleius, says: \"_Pulsum quoque in exilium quod Augusti incestum\nvidisset._\"\n\nOctavius made a pretext of the innocent book of the \"Art of Love,\" a\nbook very decently written, and in which there is not an obscene word,\nto send a Roman knight to the Black Sea. The pretence was ridiculous.\nHow could Augustus, of whom we have still verses filled with\nobscenities, banish Ovid for having several years before given to his\nfriends some copies of the \"Art of Love\"? How could he impudently\nreproach Ovid for a work written with decorum, while he approved of\nHorace, who lavishes allusions and phrases on the most infamous\nprostitution, and who proposed girls and boys, maid servants and valets\nindiscriminately? It is nothing less than impudence to blame Ovid and\ntolerate Horace. It is clear that Octavius alleged a very insufficient\nreason, because he dared not allude to the real one. One proof that it\nrelated to some secret adventure of the sacred imperial family is that\nthe goat of Caprea--Tiberius, immortalized by medals for his\ndebaucheries; Tiberius, that monster of lust and dissimulation--did not\nrecall Ovid, who, rather than demand the favor from the author of the\nproscriptions and the poisoner of Germanicus, remained on the shores of\nthe Danube.\n\nIf a Dutch, Polish, Swedish, English, or Venetian gentleman had by\nchance seen a stadtholder, or a king of Great Britain, Sweden, or\nPoland, or a doge of Venice, commit some great sin, even if it was not\nby chance that he saw it; if he had even sought the occasion, and was so\nindiscreet as to speak of it, this stadtholder, king, or doge could not\nlegally banish him.\n\nWe can reproach Ovid almost as much as Augustus and Tiberius for having\npraised them. The eulogiums which he lavishes on them are so extravagant\nthat at present they would excite indignation if he had even given them\nto legitimate princes, his benefactors, instead of to tyrants, and to\nhis tyrants in particular. You may be pardoned for praising a little too\nmuch a prince who caresses you; but not for treating as a god one who\npersecutes you. It would have been a hundred times better for him to\nhave embarked on the Black Sea and retired into Persia by the Palus\nM\u00e6otis, than to have written his \"Tristia.\" He would have learned\nPersian as easily as Getic, and might have forgotten the master of Rome\nnear the master of Ecbatana. Some strong minds will say that there was\nstill another part to take, which was to go secretly to Rome, address\nhimself to some relations of Brutus and Cassius, and get up a twelfth\nconspiracy against Octavius; but that was not in elegiac taste.\n\nPoetical panegyrics are strange things! It is very clear that Ovid\nwished with all his heart, that some Brutus would deliver Rome from that\nAugustus, to whom in his verses he wished immortality. I reproach Ovid\nwith his \"Tristia\" alone. Bayle forms his system on the philosophy of\nchaos so ably exhibited in the commencement of the \"Metamorphoses\":\n\n     _Ante mare et terras, et quod tegit omnia c\u0153lum,_\n     _Unus erat toto natur\u00e6 vultus in orbe._\n\nBayle thus translates these first lines: \"Before there was a heaven, an\nearth, and a sea, nature was all homogeneous.\" In Ovid it is, \"The face\nof nature was the same throughout the universe,\" which means not that\nall was homogeneous, but heterogeneous--this assemblage of different\nthings appeared the same; \"_unus vultus._\" Bayle criticises chaos\nthroughout. Ovid, who in his verses is only the poet of the ancient\nphilosophy, says that things hard and soft, light and heavy, were mixed\ntogether:\n\n     _Mollia cum duris, sine pondere habentia pondus._\n                             --OVID'S Met., b. i., l. 20.\n\nAnd this is the manner in which Bayle reasons against him: \"There is\nnothing more absurd than to suppose a chaos which had been homogeneous\nfrom all eternity, though it had the elementary qualities, at least\nthose which we call alteratives, which are heat, cold, humidity, and\ndryness, as those which we call matrices, which are lightness and\nweight, the former the cause of upper motion, the latter of lower.\nMatter of this nature cannot be homogeneous, and must necessarily\ncontain all sorts of heterogeneousness. Heat and cold, humidity and\ndryness, cannot exist together, unless their action and reaction temper\nand convert them into other qualities which assume the form of mixed\nbodies; and as this temperament can be made according to innumerable\ndiversities of combinations, chaos must contain an incredible number of\ncompound species. The only manner of conceiving matter homogeneous is by\nsaying that the alterative qualities of the elements modify all the\nmolecules of matter in the same degree in such a way, that throughout\nthere is the same warmth, the same softness, the same odor, etc. But\nthis would be to destroy with one hand that which has been built up with\nthe other; it would be by a contradiction in terms to call chaos the\nmost regular, the most marvellous for its symmetry, and the most\nadmirable in its proportions that it is possible to conceive. I allow\nthat the taste of man approves of a diversified rather than of a regular\nwork; but our reason teaches us that the harmony of contrary qualities,\nuniformly preserved throughout the universe, would be as admirable a\nperfection as the unequal division of them which has succeeded chaos.\nWhat knowledge and power would not the diffusion of this uniform harmony\nthroughout nature demand! It would not be sufficient to place in any\ncompound an equal quantity of all the four ingredients; of one there\nmust be more and of another less, according as their force is greater or\nless for action or resistance; for we know that philosophers bestow\naction and reaction in a different degree on the elementary qualities.\nAll would amount to an opinion that the power which metamorphosed chaos\nhas withdrawn it, not from a state of strife and confusion as is\npretended, but from a state of the most admirable harmony, which by the\nadjustment of the equilibrium of contrary forces, retained it in a\nrepose equivalent to peace. It is certain, therefore, that if the poets\nwill insist on the homogeneity of chaos, they must erase all which they\nhave added concerning the wild confusion of contrary seeds, of the\nundigested mass, and of the perpetual combat of conflicting principles.\n\n\"Passing over this contradiction we shall find sufficient subject for\nopposing them in other particulars. Let us recommence the attack on\neternity. There is nothing more absurd than to admit, for an infinite\ntime, the mixture of the insensible particles of four elements; for as\nsoon as you suppose in them the activity of heat, the action and\nreaction of the four primary qualities, and besides these, motion\ntowards the centre in the elements of earth and water, and towards the\ncircumference in those of fire and air, you establish a principle which\nnecessarily separates these four kinds of bodies, the one from the\nother, and for which a definite period alone is necessary. Consider a\nlittle, that which is denominated \"the vial of the four elements\". There\nare put into it some small metallic particles, and then three liquids,\nthe one much lighter than the other. Shake these well together, and you\nno longer discern any of these component parts singly; each is\nconfounded with the other. But leave your vial at rest for a short time,\nand you will find every one of them resume its pristine situation. The\nmetallic particles will reassemble at the bottom of the vial, the\nlightest liquid will rise to the top, and the others take their stations\naccording to their respective degrees of gravity. Thus a very short time\nwill suffice to restore them to the same relative situation which they\noccupied before the vial was shaken. In this vial you behold the laws\nwhich nature has given in this world to the four elements, and,\ncomparing the universe to this vial, we may conclude, that if the earth\nreduced to powder had been mingled with the matter of the stars, and\nwith that of air and of water, in such a way as that the compound\nexhibited none of the elements by themselves, all would have immediately\noperated to disengage themselves, and at the end of a certain time, the\nparticles of earth would form one mass, those of fire another; and thus\nof the others in proportion to the lightness or heaviness of each of\nthem.\"\n\nI deny to Bayle, that the experiment of the vial infers a definite\nperiod for the duration of chaos. I inform him, that by heavy and light\nthings, Ovid and the philosophers intended those which became so after\nGod had placed His hand on them. I say to him: \"You take for granted\nthat nature arranged all, and bestowed weight upon herself. You must\nbegin by proving to me that gravity is an essential quality of matter, a\nposition which has never been proved.\" Descartes, in his romance has\npretended that body never became heavy until his vortices of subtle\nmatter began to push them from the centre. Newton, in his correct\nphilosophy, never says that gravitation or attraction is a quality\nessential to matter. If Ovid had been able to divine the \"Principia\" of\nNewton, he would have said: \"Matter was neither heavy nor in motion in\nmy chaos; it was God who endowed it with these properties; my chaos\nincludes not the forces you imagine\"--\"_nec quidquam nisi pondus\niners;_\" it was a powerless mass; \"pondus\" here signifies not weight but\nmass.\n\nNothing could possess weight, before God bestowed on matter the\nprinciple of gravitation. In whatever degree one body is impelled\ntowards the centre of another, would it be drawn or impelled by another,\nif the Supreme Power had not bestowed upon it this inexplicable virtue?\nTherefore Ovid will not only turn out a good philosopher but a passable\ntheologian.\n\nYou say: \"A scholastic theologian will admit without difficulty, that if\nthe four elements had existed independently of God, with all the\nproperties which they now possess, they would have formed of themselves\nthe machine of the world, and have maintained it in the state which we\nnow behold. There are therefore two great faults in the doctrine of\nchaos; the first of which is, that it takes away from God the creation\nof matter, and the production of the qualities proper to air, fire,\nearth, and water; the other, that after taking God away, He is made to\nappear unnecessarily on the theatre of the world, in order to assign\ntheir places to the four elements. Our modern philosophers, who have\nrejected the faculties and the qualities of the peripatetician physics,\nwill find the same defects in the description of the chaos of Ovid; for\nthat which they call general laws of motion, mechanical principles,\nmodifications of matter, the form, situation, and arrangement of atoms,\ncomprehends nothing beyond the active and passive virtue of nature,\nwhich the peripatetics understand by the alterative and formative\nqualities of the four elements. Seeing, therefore, that, according to\nthe doctrine of this school, these four bodies, separated according to\ntheir natural heaviness and lightness, form a principle which suffices\nfor all generation, the Cartesians, Gassendists, and other modern\nphilosophers, ought to maintain that the motion, situation, and form of\nthe particles of matter, are sufficient for the production of all\nnatural effects, without excepting even the general arrangement which\nhas placed the earth, the air, the water, and the stars where we see\nthem. Thus, the true cause of the world, and of the effect which it\nproduces, is not different from the cause which has bestowed motion on\nparticles of matter--whether at the same time that it assigned to each\natom a determinate figure, as the Gassendists assert, or that it has\nonly given to particles entirely cubic, an impulsion which, by the\nduration of the motion according to certain laws, makes it ultimately\ntake all sorts of forms--which is the hypothesis of the Cartesians. Both\nthe one and the other consequently agree, that if matter had been,\nbefore the generation of the present world, as Ovid describes, it would\nhave been capable of withdrawing itself from chaos by its own necessary\noperation, without the assistance of God. Ovid may therefore be accused\nof two oversights--having supposed, in the first place, that without the\nassistance of the Divinity, matter possessed the seeds of every\ncompound, heat, motion, etc.; and in the second, that without the same\nassistance it could extricate itself from confusion. This is to give at\nonce too much and too little to both God and matter; it is to pass over\nassistance when most needed, and to demand it when no longer necessary.\"\n\nOvid may still reply: \"You are wrong in supposing that my elements\noriginally possessed all the qualities which they possess at present.\nThey had no qualities; matter existed naked, unformed, and powerless;\nand when I say, that in my chaos, heat was mingled with cold, and\ndryness with humidity, I only employ these expressions to signify that\nthere was neither cold, nor heat, nor wet, nor dry, which are qualities\nthat God has placed in our sensations, and not in matter. I have not\nmade the mistakes of which you accuse me. Your Cartesians and your\nGassendists commit oversights with their atoms and their cubic\nparticles; and their imaginations deal as little in truth as my\n\"Metamorphoses\". I prefer Daphne changed into a laurel, and Narcissus\ninto a flower, to subtile matter changed into suns, and denser matter\ntransformed into earth and water. I have given you fables for fables,\nand your philosophers have given you fables for truth.\"\n\n\n\n\nPARADISE.\n\n\nThere is no word whose meaning is more remote from its etymology. It is\nwell known that it originally meant a place planted with fruit trees;\nand afterwards, the name was given to gardens planted with trees for\nshade. Such, in distant antiquity, were those of Saana, near Eden, in\nArabia Felix, known long before the hordes of the Hebrews had invaded a\npart of the territory of Palestine.\n\nThis word \"paradise\" is not celebrated among the Jews, except in the\nBook of Genesis. Some Jewish canonical writers speak of gardens; but not\none of them has mentioned a word about the garden denominated the\n\"earthly paradise\". How could it happen that no Jewish writer, no Jewish\nprophet, or Jewish psalmodist, should have once cited that terrestrial\nparadise which we are talking of every day of our lives? This is almost\nincomprehensible. It has induced many daring critics to believe that\nGenesis was not written till a very late period.\n\nThe Jews never took this orchard or plantation of trees--this garden,\nwhether of plants or flowers--for heaven. St. Luke is the first who uses\nthe word \"paradise,\" as signifying heaven, when Jesus Christ says to the\ngood thief: \"This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise.\"\n\nThe ancients gave the name of \"heaven\" to the clouds. That name would\nnot have been exactly appropriate, as the clouds actually touch the\nearth by the vapors of which they are formed, and as heaven is a vague\nword signifying an immense space in which exist innumerable suns,\nplanets, and comets, which has certainly but little resemblance to an\norchard.\n\nSt. Thomas says that there are three paradises--the terrestrial, the\ncelestial, and the spiritual. I do not, I acknowledge, perfectly\nunderstand the difference between the spiritual and celestial. The\nspiritual orchard is according to him, the beatific vision. But it is\nprecisely that which constitutes the celestial paradise, it is the\nenjoyment of God Himself. I do not presume to dispute against the \"angel\nof the schools.\" I merely say--Happy must he be who always resides in\none of these three paradises!\n\nSome curious critics have thought the paradise of the Hesperides,\nguarded by a dragon, was an imitation of the garden of Eden, kept by a\nwinged ox or a cherub. Others, more rash, have ventured to assert that\nthe ox was a bad copy of the dragon, and that the Jews were always gross\nplagiarists; but this will be admitted to be blasphemy, and that idea is\ninsupportable.\n\nWhy has the name of paradise been applied to the square courts in the\nfront of a church? Why has the third row of boxes at the theatre or\nopera house been called paradise? Is it because, as these places are\nless dear than others, it was thought they were intended for the poor,\nand because it is pretended that in the other paradise there are far\nmore poor persons than rich? Is it because these boxes are so high that\nthey have obtained a name which also signifies heaven? There is,\nhowever, some difference between ascending to heaven, and ascending to\nthe third row of boxes. What would a stranger think on his arrival at\nParis, when asked: \"Are you inclined to go to paradise to see\nPourceaugnac?\"\n\nWhat incongruities and equivoques are to be found in all languages! How\nstrongly is human weakness manifested in every object that is presented\naround us! See the article \"Paradise\" in the great Encyclop\u00e6dia. It is\ncertainly better than this. We conclude with the Abb\u00e9 de St. Pierre's\nfavorite sentiment--\"Paradise to the beneficent.\"\n\n\n\n\nPASSIONS.\n\n_Their Influence Upon The Body, And That Of The Body Upon Them._\n\n\nPray inform me, doctor--I do not mean a doctor of medicine, who really\npossesses some degree of knowledge, who has long examined the\nsinuosities of the brain, who has investigated whether there is a\ncirculating fluid in the nerves, who has repeatedly and assiduously\ndissected the human matrix in vain, to discover something of the\nformation of thinking beings, and who, in short, knows all of our\nmachine that can be known; alas! I mean a very different person, a\ndoctor of theology--I adjure you, by that reason at the very name of\nwhich you shudder, tell me why it is, that in consequence of your young\nand handsome housekeeper saying a few loving words, and giving herself a\nfew coquettish airs, your blood becomes instantly agitated, and your\nwhole frame thrown into a tumult of desire, which speedily leads to\npleasures, of which neither herself nor you can explain the cause, but\nwhich terminate with the introduction into the world of a thinking being\nencrusted all over with original sin. Inform me, I entreat you, how the\naction tends to or is connected with the result? You may read and\nre-read Sanchez and Thomas Aquinas, and Scot and Bonaventure, but you\nwill never in consequence know an iota the more of that incomprehensible\nmechanism by which the eternal architect directs your ideas and your\nactions, and originates the little bastard of a priest predestined to\ndamnation from all eternity.\n\nOn the following morning, when taking your chocolate, your memory\nretraces the image of pleasure which you experienced the evening before,\nand the scene and rapture are repeated. Have you any idea, my great\nautomaton friend, what this same memory, which you possess in common\nwith every species of animals, really is? Do you know what fibres recall\nyour ideas, and paint in your brain the joys of the evening by a\ncontinuous sentiment, a consciousness, a personal identity which slept\nwith you, and awoke with you? The doctor replies, in the language of\nThomas Aquinas, that all this is the work of his vegetative soul, his\nsensitive soul, and his intellectual soul, all three of which compose a\nsoul which, although without extension itself, evidently acts on a body\npossessed of extension in course.\n\nI perceived by his embarrassed manner, that he has been stammering out\nwords without a single idea; and I at length say to him: If you feel,\ndoctor, that, however reluctantly, you must in your own mind admit that\nyou do not know what a soul is, and that you have been talking all your\nlife without any distinct meaning, why not acknowledge it like an honest\nman? Why do you not conclude the same as must be concluded from the\nphysical promotion of Doctor Bourssier, and from certain passages of\nMalebranche, and, above all, from the acute and judicious Locke, so far\nsuperior to Malebranche--why do you not, I say, conclude that your soul\nis a faculty which God has bestowed on you without disclosing to you the\nsecret of His process, as He has bestowed on you various others? Be\nassured, that many men of deep reflection maintain that, properly\nspeaking, the unknown power of the Divine Artificer, and His unknown\nlaws, alone perform everything in us: and that, to speak more correctly\nstill, we shall never know in fact anything at all about the matter.\n\nThe doctor at this becomes agitated and irritated; the blood rushes into\nhis face; if he had been stronger than myself, and had not been\nrestrained by a sense of decency, he would certainly have struck me. His\nheart swells; the systole and diastole are interrupted in their regular\noperation; his brain is compressed; and he falls down in a fit of\napoplexy. What connection could there be between this blood, and heart,\nand brain, and an old opinion of the doctor contrary to my own? Does a\npure intellectual spirit fall into syncope when another is of a\ndifferent opinion? I have uttered certain sounds; he has uttered certain\nsounds; and behold! he falls down in apoplexy--he drops dead!\n\nI am sitting at table, \"_prima mensis,_\" in the first of the month,\nmyself and my soul, at the Sorbonne, with five or six doctors, \"_socii\nSorbonnici,_\" fellows of the institution. We are served with bad and\nadulterated wine; at first our souls are elevated and maddened; half an\nhour afterwards our souls are stupefied, and as it were annihilated; and\non the ensuing morning these same worthy doctors issue a grand decree,\ndeciding that the soul, although occupying no place, let it be\nremembered, and absolutely immaterial--is lodged in the \"_corpus\ncallosum_\" of the brain, in order to pay their court to surgeon La\nPeyronie.\n\nA guest is sitting at table full of conversation and gayety. A letter is\nbrought him that overwhelms him with astonishment, grief, and\napprehension. Instantly the muscles of his abdomen contract and relax\nwith extraordinary violence, the peristaltic motion of the intestines is\naugmented, the sphincter of the rectum is opened by the convulsions\nwhich agitate his frame, and the unfortunate gentleman, instead of\nfinishing his dinner in comfort, produces a copious evacuation. Tell me,\nthen, what secret connection nature has established between an idea and\na water-closet.\n\nOf all those persons who have undergone the operation of trepanning, a\ngreat proportion always remain imbecile. Of course, therefore, the\nthinking fibres of their brain have been injured; but where are these\nthinking fibres? Oh, Sanchez! Oh, Masters de Grillandis, Tamponet,\nRiballier! Oh, Cog\u00e9-Pecus, second regent and rector of the university,\ndo give me a clear, decisive, and satisfactory explanation of all this,\nif you possibly can!\n\nWhile I was writing this article at Mount Krapak for my own private\nimprovement, a book was brought to me called \"The Medicine of the Mind,\"\nby Doctor Camus, professor of medicine in the University of Paris. I was\nin hopes of finding in this book a solution of all my difficulties. But\nwhat was it that I found in fact? Just nothing at all. Ah, Master Camus!\nyou have not displayed much mind in preparing your \"Medicine of the\nMind.\" This person strongly recommends the blood of an ass, drawn from\nbehind the ear, as a specific against madness. \"The virtue of the blood\nof an ass,\" he says, \"re-establishes the soul in its functions.\" He\nmaintains, also, that madmen are cured by giving them the itch. He\nasserts, likewise, that in order to gain or strengthen a memory, the\nmeat of capons, leverets, and larks, is of eminent service, and that\nonions and butter ought to be avoided above all things. This was printed\nin 1769 with the king's approbation and privilege; and there really were\npeople who consigned their health to the keeping of Master Camus,\nprofessor of medicine! Why was he not made first physician to the king?\n\nPoor puppets of the Eternal Artificer, who know neither why nor how an\ninvisible hand moves all the springs of our machine, and at length packs\nus away in our wooden box! We constantly see more and more reason for\nrepeating, with Aristotle, All is occult, all is secret.\n\n\n\n\nPAUL.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_Questions Concerning Paul._\n\nWas Paul a Roman citizen, as he boasted? If he was a native of Tarsus in\nCilicia, Tarsus was not a Roman colony until a hundred years after his\ndeath; upon this point all antiquaries are agreed. If he belonged to the\nlittle town or village of Gescala, as St. Jerome believed, this town was\nin Galilee, and certainly the Galileans were not Roman citizens.\n\nIs it true, that St. Paul entered into the rising society of Christians,\nwho at that time were demi-Jews, only because Gamaliel, whose disciple\nhe was, refused him his daughter in marriage? It appears that this\naccusation is to be found exclusively in the Acts of the Apostles, which\nare received by the Ebionites, and refuted by the Bishop Epiphanius in\nhis thirtieth chapter.\n\nIs it true, that St. Thecla sought St. Paul in the disguise of a man,\nand are the acts of St. Thecla admissible? Tertullian, in the thirteenth\nchapter of his book on \"Baptism,\" maintains that this history was\ncomposed by a priest attached to Paul. Jerome and Cyprian, in refuting\nthe story of the lion baptized by St. Thecla, affirm the genuineness of\nthese acts, in which we find that singular portrait of St. Paul, which\nwe have already recorded. \"He was fat, short, and broad shouldered; his\ndark eyebrows united across his aquiline nose; his legs were crooked,\nhis head bald, and he was full of the grace of the Lord.\" This is pretty\nnearly his portrait in the \"Philopatris\" of Lucian, with the exception\nof \"the grace of God,\" with which Lucian unfortunately had no\nacquaintance.\n\nIs Paul to be reprehended for his reproof of the Judaizing of St. Peter,\nwho himself Judaized for eight days together in the temple of Jerusalem?\nWhen Paul was traduced before the governor of Jud\u00e6a for having\nintroduced strangers into the temple, was it proper for him to say to\nthe governor, that he was prosecuted on account of his teaching the\nresurrection of the dead, whilst of the resurrection of the dead nothing\nwas said at all.\n\nDid Paul do right in circumcising his disciple Timothy, after having\nwritten to the Galatians, that if they were circumcised Jesus would not\nprofit them? Was it well to write to the Corinthians, chap. ix.: Have we\nnot power to eat and drink at your expense? \"Have we not power to lead\nabout a sister, a wife?\" etc. Was it proper to write in his Second\nEpistle to the Corinthians, that he will pardon none of them, neither\nthose who have sinned nor others? What should we think at present of a\nman who pretended to live at our expense, himself, and his wife; and to\njudge and to punish us, confounding the innocent with the guilty? What\nare we to understand by the ascension of Paul into the third\nheaven?--what is the third heaven? Which is the most probable--humanly\nspeaking? Did St. Paul become a Christian in consequence of being thrown\nfrom a horse by the appearance of a great light at noon day, from which\na celestial voice exclaimed: Saul, \"Saul, why persecutest thou Me?\" or\nwas it in consequence of being irritated against the Pharisees, either\nby the refusal of Gamaliel to give him his daughter, or by some other\ncause?\n\nIn all other history, the refusal of Gamaliel would appear more probable\nthan the celestial voice; especially if, moreover, we were not obliged\nto believe in this miracle. I only ask these questions in order to be\ninstructed; and I request all those who are willing to instruct me to\nspeak reasonably.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThe Epistles of St. Paul are so sublime, it is often difficult to\nunderstand them. Many young bachelors demand the precise signification\nof the following words: \"Every man praying or prophesying, having his\nhead covered, dishonoreth his head.\" What does he mean by the words: \"I\nhave learned from the Lord, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which\nHe was betrayed, took bread?\"\n\nHow could he learn anything from that Jesus Christ to Whom he had never\nspoken, and to Whom he had been a most cruel enemy, without ever having\nseen Him? Was it by inspiration, or by the recital of the apostles? or\ndid he learn it when the celestial light caused him to fall from his\nhorse? He does not inform us on this point.\n\nThe following again: \"The woman shall be saved in child-bearing.\" This\nis certainly to encourage population: it appears not that St. Paul\nfounded convents. He speaks of seducing spirits and doctrines of devils;\nof those whose consciences are seared up with a red-hot iron, who forbid\nto marry, and command to abstain from meats. This is very strong. It\nappears that he abjured monks, nuns, and fast-days. Explain this\ncontradiction; deliver me from this cruel embarrassment.\n\nWhat is to be said of the passage in which he recommends the bishops to\nhave one wife?--\"_Unius uxoris virum._\" This is positive. He permits the\nbishops to have but one wife, whilst the Jewish pontiffs might have\nseveral. He says unequivocally, that the last judgment will happen\nduring his own time, that Jesus will descend from on high, as described\nby St. Luke, and that St. Paul and the righteous inhabitants of\nThessalonica will be caught up to Him in the air, etc.\n\nHas this occurred? or is it an allegory, a figure? Did he actually\nbelieve that he should make this journey, or that he had been caught up\ninto the third heaven? Which is the third heaven? How will he ascend\ninto the air? Has he been there? \"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,\nthe Father of Glory, may give you the spirit of wisdom.\" Is this\nacknowledging Jesus to be the same God as the Father? He has manifested\nHis power over Jesus \"when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at\nHis own right hand.\" Does this constitute the divinity of Jesus?\n\n\"Thou madest him (Jesus) a little lower than angels; thou crownedst him\nwith glory.\" If He is inferior to angels--is He God?\n\n\"For if by one man's offence death reigneth, much more they who receive\nof the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign\nin life by one Jesus Christ.\" Almost man and never God, except in a\nsingle passage contested by Erasmus, Grotius, Le Clerc, etc.\n\n\"Children of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.\" Is not this\nconstantly regarding Jesus as one of us, although superior by the grace\nof God? \"To God, alone wise, honor and glory, through Jesus Christ.\" How\nare we to understand these passages literally, without fearing to offend\nJesus Christ; or, in a more extended sense, without the risk of\noffending God the Father?\n\nThere are many more passages of this kind, which exercise the sagacity\nof the learned. The commentators differ, and we pretend not to possess\nany light which can remove the obscurity. We submit with heart and mouth\nto the decision of the Church. We have also taken some trouble to\npenetrate into the meaning of the following passages:\n\n\"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keepest the law; but if thou\nbe a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.\" \"Now\nwe know, that whatever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the\nlaw; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become\nguilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be\njustified; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.... Seeing that it is\none God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and\nuncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law, through\nfaith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.\" \"For if Abraham was\njustified by his works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.\"\n\nWe fear that even the ingenuous and profound Dom Calmet himself gives us\nnot, upon these somewhat obscure passages, a light which dissipates all\nour darkness. It is without doubt our own fault that we do not\nunderstand the commentators, and are deprived of that complete\nconception of the text, which is given only to privileged souls. As\nsoon, however, as an explanation shall come from the chair of truth, we\nshall comprehend the whole perfectly.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nLet us add this little supplement to the article \"Paul.\" It is better to\nedify ourselves with the Epistles of this apostle, than to weaken our\npiety by calumniating the times and persons for which they were written.\nThe learned search in vain for the year and the day in which St. Paul\nassisted to stone St. Stephen, and to guard the mantles of his\nexecutioners.\n\nThey dispute on the year in which he was thrown from his horse by a\nmiraculous light at noonday, and on the epoch of his being borne away\ninto the third heaven. They can agree neither upon the year in which he\nwas conducted to Rome, nor that in which he died. They are unacquainted\nwith the date of any of his letters. St. Jerome, in his commentary on\nthe \"Epistle to Philemon\" says that Paul might signify the _embouchure_\nof a flute.\n\nThe letters of St. Paul to Seneca, and from Seneca to St. Paul, were\naccounted as authentic in the primitive ages of the Church, as all the\nrest of the Christian writings. St. Jerome asserts their authenticity,\nand quotes passages from these letters in his catalogue. St. Augustine\ndoubts them not in his 153d letter to Macedonius. We have thirty letters\nof these two great men, Paul and Seneca, who, it is pretended, were\nlinked together by a strict friendship in the court of Nero. The seventh\nletter from Paul to Seneca is very curious. He tells him that the Jews\nand the Christians were often burned as incendiaries at Rome:\n\n\"_Christiani et Jud\u00e6i tanquam machinatores incendii supplicio affici\nsolent._\" It is in fact probable, that the Jews and the Christians,\nwhose mutual enmity was extremely violent, reciprocally accused each\nother of setting the city on fire; and that the scorn and horror felt\ntowards the Jews, with whom the Christians were usually confounded,\nrendered them equally the objects of public suspicion and vengeance.\n\nWe are obliged to acknowledge, that the epistolary correspondence of\nSeneca and Paul is in a ridiculous and barbarous Latin; that the\nsubjects of these letters are as inconsistent as the style; and that at\npresent they are regarded as forgeries. But, then, may we venture to\ncontradict the testimony of St. Jerome and St. Augustine? If writings,\nattested by them, are nothing but vile impostures, how shall we be\ncertain of the authenticity of others more respectable? Such is the\nimportant objection of many learned persons. If we are unworthily\ndeceived, say they, in relation to the letters of Paul and Seneca on the\nApostolical Institutes, and the Acts of St. Peter, why may we not be\nequally imposed upon by the Acts of the Apostles? The decision of the\nChurch and faith are unequivocal answers to all these researches of\nscience and suggestions of the understanding.\n\nIt is not known upon what foundation Abdias, first bishop of Babylon,\nsays, in his \"History of the Apostles,\" that St. Paul caused St. James\nthe Less to be stoned by the people. Before he was converted, however,\nhe might as readily persecute St. James as St. Stephen. He was certainly\nvery violent, because it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, that he\n\"breathed threatenings and slaughter\". Abdias has also taken care to\nobserve, that the mover of the sedition in which St. James was so\ncruelly treated, was the same Paul whom God had since called to the\napostleship.\n\nThis book, attributed to Abdias, is not admitted into the canon; but\nJulius Africanus, who has translated it into Latin, believes it to be\nauthentic. Since, however, the church has not admitted it, _we_ must not\nadmit it. Let us content ourselves with adoring Providence, and wishing\nthat all persecutors were transformed into charitable and compassionate\napostles.\n\n\n\n\nPERSECUTION.\n\n\nI will not call Diocletian a persecutor, for he protected the Christians\nfor eighteen years; and if, during his latter days, he did not save them\nfrom the resentment of Galerius, he only furnished the example of a\nprince seduced, like many others, by intrigue and cabal, into a conduct\nunworthy of his character. I will still less give the name of persecutor\nto Trajan or Antonius. I should regard myself as uttering blasphemy.\n\nWhat is a persecutor? He whose wounded pride and fanaticism irritate\nprinces and magistrates into fury against innocent men, whose only crime\nis that of being of a different opinion. Impudent man! you have\nworshipped God; you have preached and practised virtue; you have served\nand assisted man; you have protected the orphan, have succored the poor;\nyou have changed deserts, in which slaves dragged on a miserable\nexistence, into fertile districts peopled with happy families; but I\nhave discovered that you despise me, and have never read my\ncontroversial work. I will, therefore, seek the confessor of the prime\nminister, or the magistrate; I will show them, with outstretched neck\nand twisted mouth, that you hold an erroneous opinion in relation to the\ncells in which the Septuagint was studied; that you have even spoken\ndisrespectfully for these ten years past of Tobit's dog, which you\nassert to have been a spaniel, whilst I maintain that it was a\ngreyhound. I will denounce you as the enemy of God and man! Such is the\nlanguage of the persecutor; and if these words do not precisely issue\nfrom his lips, they are engraven on his heart with the graver of\nfanaticism steeped in the gall of envy.\n\nIt was thus that the Jesuit Letellier dared to persecute Cardinal de\nNoailles, and that Jurieu persecuted Bayle. When the persecution of the\nProtestants commenced in France, it was not Francis I., nor Henry II.,\nnor Francis II., who sought out these unfortunate people, who hardened\nthemselves against them with reflective bitterness, and who delivered\nthem to the flames in the spirit of vengeance. Francis I. was too much\nengaged with the Duchess d'\u00c9tampes; Henry II., with his ancient Diana,\nand Francis II. was too much a child. Who, then, commenced these\npersecutions? Jealous priests, who enlisted in their service the\nprejudices of magistrates and the policy of ministers.\n\nIf these monarchs had not been deceived, if they had foreseen that these\npersecutions would produce half a century of civil war, and that the two\nparts of the nation would mutually exterminate each other, they would\nhave extinguished with their tears the first piles which they allowed to\nbe lighted. Oh, God of mercy! if any man can resemble that malignant\nbeing who is described as actually employed in the destruction of Your\nworks, is it not the persecutor?\n\n\n\n\nPETER (SAINT).\n\n\nWhy have the successors of St. Peter possessed so much power in the West\nand none in the East? This is just the same as to ask why the bishops of\nW\u00fcrzburg and Salzburg obtained for themselves regal prerogatives in a\nperiod of anarchy, while the Greek bishops always remained subjects.\nTime, opportunity, the ambition of some, and the weakness of others,\nhave done and will do everything in the world. We always except what\nrelates to religion. To this anarchy, must be added opinion; and opinion\nis the queen of mankind. Not that, in fact, they have any very clear and\ndefinite opinion of their own, but words answer the same end with them.\n\n\"I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.\" The zealous\npartisans of the bishop of Rome contended, about the eleventh century,\nthat whoever gives the greater gives the less; that heaven surrounded\nthe earth; and that, as Peter had the keys of the container, he had also\nthe keys of what was contained. If by heaven we understand all the stars\nand planets, it is evident, according to Tomasius, that the keys given\nto Simon Barjonas, surnamed Peter, were a universal passport. If we\nunderstand by heaven the clouds, the atmosphere, the ether, and the\nspace in which the planets revolve, no smith in the world, as Meursius\nobserves, could ever make a key for such gates as these. Railleries,\nhowever, are not reasons.\n\nKeys in Palestine were wooden latches with strings to them. Jesus says\nto Barjonas, \"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in\nheaven.\" The pope's clergy concluded from these words, that the popes\nhad received authority to bind and unbind the people's oath of fidelity\nto their kings, and to dispose of kingdoms at their pleasure. This\ncertainly was concluding magnificently. The Commons in the\nstates-general of France, in 1302, say, in their memorial to the king,\nthat \"Boniface VIII. was a b---- for believing that God bound and\nimprisoned in heaven what Boniface bound on earth.\" A famous German\nLutheran--the great Melancthon--could not endure the idea of Jesus\nhaving said to Simon Barjonas, Cepha or Cephas, \"Thou art Peter, and\nupon this rock will I build my assembly, my church.\" He could not\nconceive that God would use such a play of words, and that the power of\nthe pope could have been established on a pun. Such a doubt, however,\ncan be indulged only by a Protestant.\n\nPeter has been considered as having been bishop of Rome; but it is well\nknown that, in the apostolic age, and long after, there was no\nparticular and appropriate bishopric. The society of Christians did not\nassume a regular form until about the middle of the second century. It\nmay be true that Peter went to Rome, and even that he was crucified with\nhis head downwards, although that was not the usual mode of crucifixion;\nbut we have no proof whatever of all this. We have a letter under his\nname, in which he says that he is at Babylon: acute and shrewd canonists\nhave contended that, by Babylon, we ought to understand Rome; and on the\nsame principle, if he had dated at Rome, we might have concluded that\nthe letter had been written at Babylon. Men have long been in the habit\nof drawing such reasonable and judicious inferences as these; and it is\nin this manner that the world has been governed.\n\nThere was once a clergyman who, after having been made to pay\nextortionately for a benefice at Rome--an offence known by the name of\nsimony--happened to be asked, some time afterwards, whether he thought\nSimon Peter had ever been in that city? He replied, \"I do not think that\nPeter was ever there, but I am sure Simon was.\"\n\nWith respect to the personal character and behavior of St. Peter, it\nmust be acknowledged that Paul is not the only one who was scandalized\nat his conduct. He was often \"withstood to the face,\" as well as his\nsuccessors. St. Paul vehemently reproached him with eating forbidden\nmeats: that is, pork, blood-pudding, hare, eels, the ixion, and the\ngriffin; Peter vindicated himself by saying that he had seen heaven\nopened about the sixth hour, and as it were a great sheet descending\nfrom the four corners of it, which was filled with creeping things,\nquadrupeds, and birds, while the voice of an angel called out to him,\nsaying, \"Kill and eat.\" This, says Woolston, seems to have been the same\nvoice which has called out to so many pontiffs since, \"Kill everything;\neat up the substance of the people.\" But this reproach is much too\nstrong.\n\nCasaubon cannot by any means bring himself to approve the manner in\nwhich St. Peter treated Ananias and Sapphira, his wife. \"By what right,\"\nsays Casaubon, \"did a Jew slave of the Romans order or permit that all\nthose who believed in Jesus should sell their inheritance, and lay down\nthe price paid for it at his feet?\" If an Anabaptist at London was to\norder all the money belonging to his brethren to be brought and laid at\nhis feet, would he not be apprehended as a seditious seducer, as a thief\nwho would certainly be hanged at Tyburn? Was it not abominable to kill\nAnanias, because, after having sold his property and delivered over the\nbulk of the produce to Peter, he had retained for himself and his wife a\nfew crowns for any case of necessity, without mentioning it? Scarcely,\nmoreover, has Ananias expired, before his wife arrives. Peter, instead\nof warning her charitably that he had just destroyed her husband by\napoplexy for having kept back a few oboli, and cautioning her therefore\nto look well to herself, leads her as it were intentionally into the\nsnare. He asks her if her husband has given all his money to the saints;\nthe poor woman replies in the affirmative, and dies instantly. This is\ncertainly rather severe.\n\nCorringius asks, why Peter, who thus killed the persons that had given\nhim alms and showed him kindness, did not rather go and destroy all the\nlearned doctors who had brought Jesus Christ to the cross, and who more\nthan once brought a scourging on himself. \"Oh, Peter!\" says Corringius,\n\"you put to death two Christians who bestowed alms on you, and at the\nsame time suffer those to live who crucified your God!\"\n\nIn the reigns of Henry IV., and Louis XIII., we had an advocate-general\nof the parliament of Provence, a man of quality, called d'Oraison de\nTorame, who, in a book respecting the church militant, dedicated to\nHenry IV., has appropriated a whole chapter to the sentences pronounced\nby St. Peter in criminal causes. He says, that the sentence pronounced\nby Peter on Ananias and Sapphira was executed by God Himself, \"in the\nvery terms and forms of spiritual jurisdiction.\" His whole book is in\nthe same strain; but Corringius, as we perceive, is of a different\nopinion from that of our sagacious and liberal provincial advocate. It\nis pretty evident that Corringius was not in the country of the\nInquisition when he published his bold remarks.\n\nErasmus, in relation to St. Peter, remarked a somewhat curious\ncircumstance, which is, that the chief of the Christian religion began\nhis apostleship with denying Jesus Christ, and that the first pontiff of\nthe Jews commenced his ministry by making a golden calf and worshipping\nit.\n\nHowever that may be, Peter is described as a poor man instructing the\npoor. He resembles those founders of orders who lived in indigence, and\nwhose successors have become great lords and even princes.\n\nThe pope, the successor of Peter, has sometimes gained and sometimes\nlost; but there are still about fifty millions of persons in the world\nsubmitting in many points to his laws, besides his own immediate\nsubjects.\n\nTo obtain a master three or four hundred leagues from home; to suspend\nyour own opinion and wait for what he puts forth as his; not to dare to\ngive a final decision on a cause relating to certain of our\nfellow-citizens, but through commissioners appointed by this stranger;\nnot to dare to take possession of certain fields and vineyards granted\nby our own sovereign, without paying a considerable sum to this foreign\nmaster; to violate the laws of our country, which prohibit a man's\nmarriage with his niece, and marry her legitimately by giving this\nforeign master a sum still more considerable than the former one; not to\ndare to cultivate one's field on the day this stranger is inclined to\ncelebrate the memory of some unknown person whom he has chosen to\nintroduce into heaven by his own sole authority; such are a part only of\nthe conveniences and comforts of admitting the jurisdiction of a pope;\nsuch, if we may believe Marsais, are the liberties of the Gallican\nChurch.\n\nThere are some other nations that carry their submission further. We\nhave, in our own time, actually known a sovereign request permission of\nthe pope to try in his own courts certain monks accused of parricide,\nand able neither to obtain this permission nor to venture on such trial\nwithout it!\n\nIt is well known that, formerly, the power of the popes extended\nfurther. They were far above the gods of antiquity; for the latter were\nmerely supposed to dispose of empires, but the popes disposed of them in\nfact. Sturbinus says, that we may pardon those who entertain doubts of\nthe divinity and infallibility of the pope, when we reflect: that forty\nschisms have profaned the chair of St. Peter, twenty-seven of which have\nbeen marked by blood; that Stephen VII., the son of a priest,\ndisinterred the corpse of Formosus, his predecessor, and had the head of\nit cut off; that Sergius III., convicted of assassinations, had a son by\nMarozia, who inherited the popedom; that John X., the paramour of\nTheodora, was strangled in her bed; that John XI., son of Sergius III.,\nwas known only by his gross intemperance; that John XII. was\nassassinated in the apartments of his mistress; that Benedict IX. both\nbought and sold the pontificate; that Gregory VII. was the author of\nfive hundred years of civil war, carried on by his successors; that,\nfinally, among so many ambitious, sanguinary, and debauched popes, there\nwas an Alexander VI., whose name is pronounced with the same horror as\nthose of Nero and Caligula.\n\nIt is, we are told, a proof of the divinity of their character, that it\nhas subsisted in connection with so many crimes; but according to this,\nif the caliphs had displayed still more atrocious and abominable\nconduct, they would have been still more divine. This argument,\ninferring their divinity from their wickedness, is urged by Dermius. He\nhas been properly answered; but the best reply is to be found in the\nmitigated authority which the bishops of Rome at present exercise with\ndiscretion; in the long possession which the emperors permit them to\nenjoy, because in fact they are unable to deprive them of it; and in the\nsystem of the balance of power, which is watched with jealousy by every\ncourt in Europe.\n\nIt has been contended, and very lately, that there are only two nations\nwhich could invade Italy and crush Rome. These are the Turks and\nRussians; but they are necessarily enemies; and, besides, I cannot\ndistinctly anticipate misfortunes so distant.\n\n     _Je ne sais point pr\u00e9voir les malheurs de si loin._\n                   --RACINE, _Andromache,_ act. i, scene 2.\n\n\n\n\nPETER THE GREAT AND J.J. ROUSSEAU.\n\n\n\"The Czar Peter ... had not true genius--that which creates and makes\nall of nothing. Some things which he did were good; the greater part\nwere misplaced. He saw that his people were barbarous; he has not seen\nthat they were not prepared for polishing; he would civilize them when\nthey only wanted training. He wished at once to make Germans and English\nwhen he should have commenced by making Russians. He prevented his\nsubjects from becoming what they might be, by persuading them that they\nwere what they are not. It is thus that a French preceptor forms his\npupil to shine for a moment in his childhood, and never afterwards to be\nanything. The empire of Russia would subjugate Europe, and will be\nsubjugated itself. The Tartars, its subjects or neighbors, will become\nits masters and ours. This revolution appears to me unavoidable: all the\nkings of Europe labor together to accelerate it.\" (_Contrat Social,_\nlivre ii. chap. viii.) These words are extracted from a pamphlet\nentitled the \"_Contrat Social,_\" or \"unsocial,\" of the very unsociable\nJean Jacques Rousseau. It is not astonishing, that having performed\nmiracles at Venice he should prophesy on Moscow; but as he well knows\nthat the good time of miracles and prophecies has passed away, he ought\nto believe, that his prediction against Russia is not so infallible as\nit appeared to him in his first fit of divination. It is pleasant to\nannounce the fall of great empires; it consoles us for our littleness.\nIt will be a fine gain for philosophy, when we shall constantly behold\nthe Nogais Tartars--who can, I believe, bring twelve thousand men into\nthe field--coming to subjugate Russia, Germany, Italy, and France. But I\nflatter myself, that the Emperor of China will not suffer it; he has\nalready acceded to perpetual peace, and as he has no more Jesuits about\nhim, he will not trouble Europe. Jean Jacques, who possesses, as he\nhimself believes, true genius, finds that Peter the Great had it not.\n\n[Illustration: JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU]\n\nA Russian lord, a man of much wit, who sometimes amuses himself with\nreading pamphlets, while reading this, remembered some lines of Moli\u00e8re,\nimplying, that three miserable authors took it into their heads, that it\nwas only necessary to be printed and bound in calf, to become important\npersonages and dispose of empires:\n\n     _Il semble \u00e0 trois gredins, dans leur petit cerveau,_\n     _Que pour \u00eatre imprim\u00e9s et reli\u00e9s en veau,_\n     _Les voil\u00e0 dans l'\u00e9tat d'importantes personnes,_\n     _Qu'avec leur plume ils font le destin des couronnes._\n\nThe Russians, says Jean Jacques, were never polished. I have seen some\nat least very polite, and who had just, delicate, agreeable, cultivated,\nand even logical minds, which Jean Jacques will find very extraordinary.\nAs he is very gallant, he will not fail to say, that they are formed at\nthe court of the empress of Russia, that her example has influenced\nthem: but that prevents not the correctness of his prophecy--that this\nempire will soon be destroyed.\n\nThis good little man assures us, in one of his modest works, that a\nstatue should be erected to him. It will not probably be either at\nMoscow or St. Petersburg, that anyone will trouble himself to sculpture\nJean Jacques.\n\nI wish, in general, that when people judge of nations from their\ngarrets, they would be more honest and circumspect. Every poor devil can\nsay what he pleases of the Romans, Athenians, and ancient Persians. He\ncan deceive himself with impunity on the tribunes, comitia, and\ndictatorships. He can govern in idea two or three thousand leagues of\ncountry, whilst he is incapable of governing his servant girl. In a\nromance, he can receive \"an acrid kiss\" from his Julia, and advise a\nprince to espouse the daughter of a hangman. These are follies without\nconsequence--there are others which may have disastrous effects.\n\nCourt fools were very discreet; they insulted the weak alone by their\nbuffooneries, and respected the powerful: country fools are at present\nmore bold. It will be answered, that Diogenes and Aretin were tolerated.\nGranted; but a fly one day seeing a swallow wing away with a spider's\nweb, would do the same thing, and was taken.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nMay we not say of these legislators who govern the universe at two sous\nthe sheet, and who from their garrets give orders to all kings, what\nHomer said to Calchas?:\n\n     _Os ede ta conta, taere essomena, pro theonta._\n     He knew the past, present, and future.\n\nIt is a pity that the author of the little paragraph which we are going\nto quote, knew nothing of the three times of which Homer speaks. \"Peter\nthe Great,\" says he, \"had not the genius which makes all of nothing.\"\nTruly, Jean Jacques, I can easily believe it; for it is said that God\nalone has this prerogative. \"He has not seen that his people were not\nprepared for polishing.\"\n\nIn this case, it was admirable of the czar to prepare them. It appears\nto me, that it is Jean Jacques who had not seen that he must make use of\nthe Germans and English to form Russians.\n\n\"He has prevented his subjects from ever becoming what they might be,\"\netc. Yet these same Russians have become the conquerors of the Turks and\nTartars, the conquerors and legislators of the Crimea, and twenty\ndifferent nations. Their sovereign has given laws to nations of which\neven the names were unknown in Europe.\n\nAs to the prophecy of Jean Jacques, he may have exalted his soul\nsufficiently to read the future. He has all the requisites of a prophet;\nbut as to the past and the present, it must be confessed that he knows\nnothing about them. I doubt whether antiquity has anything comparable to\nthe boldness of sending four squadrons from the extremity of the Baltic\ninto the seas of Greece--of reigning at once over the \u00c6gean and the\nEuxine Seas--of carrying terror into Colchis, and to the Dardanelles--of\nsubjugating Taurida, and forcing the vizier Azem to fly from the shores\nof the Danube to the gates of Adrianople.\n\nIf Jean Jacques considers so many great actions which astonished the\nattentive world as nothing, he must at least confess, that there was\nsome generosity in one Count Orloff, who having taken a vessel which\ncontained all the family and treasures of a pasha, sent him back both\nhis family and treasures. If the Russians were not prepared for\npolishing in the time of Peter the Great, let us agree that they are now\nprepared for greatness of soul; and that Jean Jacques is not quite\nprepared for truth and reasoning. With regard to the future, we shall\nknow it when we have Ezekiels, Isaiahs, Habakkuks, and Micahs; but their\ntime has passed away; and if we dare say so much, it is to be feared\nthat it will never return.\n\nI confess that these lies, printed in relation to present times, always\nastonish me. If these liberties are allowed in an age in which a\nthousand volumes, a thousand newspapers and journals, are constantly\ncorrecting each other, what faith can we have in those histories of\nancient times, which collected all vague rumors without consulting any\narchives, which put into writing all that they had heard told by their\ngrandmothers in their childhood, very sure that no critic would discover\ntheir errors?\n\nWe had for a long time nine muses: wholesome criticism is the tenth,\nwhich has appeared very lately. She existed not in the time of Cecrops,\nof the first Bacchus, or of Sanchoniathon, Thaut, Bramah, etc. People\nthen wrote all they liked with impunity. At present we must be a little\nmore careful.\n\n\n\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nPhilosopher, \"lover of wisdom,\" that is, \"of truth.\" All philosophers\nhave possessed this two-fold character; there is not one among those of\nantiquity who did not give examples of virtue to mankind, and lessons of\nmoral truth. They might be mistaken, and undoubtedly were so, on\nsubjects of natural philosophy; but that is of comparatively so little\nimportance to the conduct of life, that philosophers had then no need of\nit. Ages were required to discover a part of the laws of nature. A\nsingle day is sufficient to enable a sage to become acquainted with the\nduties of man.\n\nThe philosopher is no enthusiast; he does not set himself up for a\nprophet; he does not represent himself as inspired by the gods. I shall\nnot therefore place in the rank of philosophers the ancient Zoroaster,\nor Hermes, or Orpheus, or any of those legislators in whom the countries\nof Chald\u00e6a, Persia, Syria, Egypt, and Greece made their boast. Those who\ncalled themselves the sons of gods were the fathers of imposture; and if\nthey employed falsehood to inculcate truths, they were unworthy of\ninculcating them; they were not philosophers; they were at best only\nprudent liars.\n\nBy what fatality, disgraceful perhaps to the nations of the West, has it\nhappened that we are obliged to travel to the extremity of the East, in\norder to find a sage of simple manners and character, without arrogance\nand without imposture, who taught men how to live happy six hundred\nyears before our era, at a period when the whole of the North was\nignorant of the use of letters, and when the Greeks had scarcely begun\nto distinguish themselves by wisdom? That sage is Confucius, who deemed\ntoo highly of his character as a legislator for mankind, to stoop to\ndeceive them. What finer rule of conduct has ever been given since his\ntime, throughout the earth?\n\n\"Rule a state as you rule a family; a man cannot govern his family well\nwithout giving a good example; virtue should be common to the laborer\nand the monarch; be active in preventing crimes, that you may lessen the\ntrouble of punishing them.\n\n\"Under the good kings Yao and Xu, the Chinese were good; under the bad\nkings Kie and Chu, they were wicked.\n\n\"Do to another as to thyself; love mankind in general, but cherish those\nwho are good; forget injuries, but never benefits.\"\n\nI have seen men incapable of the sciences, but never any incapable of\nvirtue. Let us acknowledge that no legislator ever announced to the\nworld more useful truths.\n\nA multitude of Greek philosophers taught afterwards a morality equally\npure. Had they distinguished themselves only by their vain systems of\nnatural philosophy, their names would be mentioned at the present day\nonly in derision. If they are still respected, it is because they were\njust, and because they taught mankind to be so.\n\nIt is impossible to read certain passages of Plato, and particularly the\nadmirable exordium of the laws of Zaleucus, without experiencing an\nardent love of honorable and generous actions. The Romans have their\nCicero who alone is perhaps more valuable than all the philosophers of\nGreece. After him come men more respectable still, but whom we may\nalmost despair of imitating; these are Epictetus in slavery, and the\nAntonines and Julian upon a throne.\n\nWhere is the citizen to be found among us who would deprive himself,\nlike Julian, Antoninus, and Marcus Aurelius, of all the refined\naccommodations of our delicate and luxurious modes of living? Who would,\nlike them, sleep on the bare ground? Who would restrict himself to their\nfrugal habits? Who would, like them, march bareheaded and barefooted at\nthe head of the armies, exposed sometimes to the burning sun, and at\nother times to the freezing blast? Who would, like them, keep perfect\nmastery of all his passions? We have among us devotees, but where are\nthe sages? where are the souls just and tolerant, serene and undaunted?\n\nThere have been some philosophers of the closet in France; and all of\nthem, with the exception of Montaigne, have been persecuted. It seems to\nme the last degree of malignity that our nature can exhibit, to attempt\nto oppress those who devote their best endeavors to correct and improve\nit.\n\nI can easily conceive of the fanatics of one sect slaughtering those of\nanother sect; that the Franciscans should hate the Dominicans, and that\na bad artist should cabal and intrigue for the destruction of an artist\nthat surpasses him; but that the sage Charron should have been menaced\nwith the loss of life; that the learned and noble-minded Ramus should\nhave been actually assassinated; that Descartes should have been obliged\nto withdraw to Holland in order to escape the rage of ignorance; that\nGassendi should have been often compelled to retire to Digne, far\ndistant from the calumnies of Paris, are events that load a nation with\neternal opprobrium.\n\nOne of the philosophers who were most persecuted, was the immortal\nBayle, the honor of human nature. I shall be told that the name of\nJurieu, his slanderer and persecutor, is become execrable; I acknowledge\nthat it is so; that of the Jesuit Letellier is become so likewise; but\nis it the less true that the great men whom he oppressed ended their\ndays in exile and penury?\n\nOne of the pretexts made use of for reducing Bayle to poverty, was his\narticle on David, in his valuable dictionary. He was reproached with not\npraising actions which were in themselves unjust, sanguinary, atrocious,\ncontrary to good faith, or grossly offensive to decency.\n\nBayle certainly has not praised David for having, according to the\nHebrew historian, collected six hundred vagabonds overwhelmed with debts\nand crimes; for having pillaged his countrymen at the head of these\nbanditti; for having resolved to destroy Nabal and his whole family,\nbecause he refused paying contributions to him; for having hired out his\nservices to King Achish, the enemy of his country; for having afterwards\nbetrayed Achish, notwithstanding his kindness to him; for having sacked\nthe villages in alliance with that king; for having massacred in these\nvillages every human being, including even infants at the breast, that\nno one might be found on a future day to give testimony of his\ndepredations, as if an infant could have possibly disclosed his\nvillainy; for having destroyed all the inhabitants of some other\nvillages under saws, and harrows, and axes, and in brick-kilns; for\nhaving wrested the throne from Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, by an act of\nperfidy; for having despoiled of his property and afterwards put to\ndeath Mephibosheth, the grandson of Saul, and son of his own peculiar\nfriend and generous protector, Jonathan; or for having delivered up to\nthe Gibeonites two other sons of Saul, and five of his grandsons who\nperished by the gallows.\n\nI do not notice the extreme incontinence of David, his numerous\nconcubines, his adultery with Bathsheba, or his murder of Uriah.\n\nWhat then! is it possible that the enemies of Bayle should have expected\nor wished him to eulogize all these cruelties and crimes? Ought he to\nhave said: Go, ye princes of the earth, and imitate the man after God's\nown heart; massacre without pity the allies of your benefactor; destroy\nor deliver over to destruction the whole family of your king;\nappropriate to your own pleasures all the women, while you are pouring\nout the blood of the men; and you will thus exhibit models of human\nvirtue, especially if, in addition to all the rest, you do but compose a\nbook of psalms?\n\nWas not Bayle perfectly correct in his observation, that if David was\nthe man after God's own heart, it must have been by his penitence, and\nnot by his crimes? Did not Bayle perform a service to the human race\nwhen he said, that God, who undoubtedly dictated the Jewish history, has\nnot consecrated all the crimes recorded in that history?\n\nHowever, Bayle was in fact persecuted, and by whom? By the very men who\nhad been elsewhere persecuted themselves; by refugees who in their own\ncountry would have been delivered over to the flames; and these refugees\nwere opposed by other refugees called Jansenists, who had been driven\nfrom their own country by the Jesuits; who have at length been\nthemselves driven from it in their turn.\n\nThus all the persecutors declare against each other mortal war, while\nthe philosopher, oppressed by them all, contents himself with pitying\nthem.\n\nIt is not generally known, that Fontenelle, in 1718, was on the point of\nlosing his pensions, place, and liberty, for having published in France,\ntwenty years before, what may be called an abridgement of the learned\nVan Dale's \"Treatise on Oracles\", in which he had taken particular care\nto retrench and modify the original work, so as to give no unnecessary\noffence to fanaticism. A Jesuit had written against Fontenelle, and he\nhad not deigned to make him any reply; and that was enough to induce the\nJesuit Letellier, confessor to Louis XIV., to accuse Fontenelle to the\nking of atheism.\n\nBut for the fortunate mediation of M. d'Argenson, the son of a forging\nsolicitor of Vire--a son worthy of such a father, as he was detected in\nforgery himself--would have proscribed, in his old age, the nephew of\nthe great Corneille.\n\nIt is so easy for a confessor to seduce his penitent, that we ought to\nbless God that Letellier did no more harm than is justly imputed to him.\nThere are two situations in which seduction and calumny cannot easily be\nresisted--the bed and the confessional.\n\nWe have always seen philosophers persecuted by fanatics. But can it be\nreally possible, that men of letters should be seen mixed up in a\nbusiness so odious; and that they should often be observed sharpening\nthe weapons against their brethren, by which they are themselves almost\nuniversally destroyed or wounded in their turn. Unhappy men of letters,\ndoes it become you to turn informers? Did the Romans ever find a\nGarasse, a Chaumeix, or a Hayet, to accuse a Lucretius, a Posidonius, a\nVarro, or a Pliny?\n\nHow inexpressible is the meanness of being a hypocrite! how horrible is\nit to be a mischievous and malignant hypocrite! There were no hypocrites\nin ancient Rome, which reckoned us a small portion of its innumerable\nsubjects. There were impostors, I admit, but not religious hypocrites,\nwhich are the most profligate and cruel species of all. Why is it that\nwe see none such in England, and whence does it arise that there still\nare such in France? Philosophers, you will solve this problem with ease.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThis brilliant and beautiful name has been sometimes honored, and\nsometimes disgraced; like that of poet, mathematician, monk, priest, and\neverything dependent on opinion. Domitian banished the philosophers, and\nLucian derided them. But what sort of philosophers and mathematicians\nwere they whom the monster Domitian exiled? They were jugglers with\ntheir cups and balls; the calculators of horoscopes, fortune-tellers,\nmiserable peddling Jews, who composed philtres and talismans; gentry who\nhad special and sovereign power over evil spirits, who evoked them from\ntheir infernal habitations, made them take possession of the bodies of\nmen and women by certain words or signs, and dislodged them by other\nwords or signs.\n\nAnd what were the philosophers that Lucian held up to public ridicule?\nThey were the dregs of the human race. They were a set of profligate\nbeggars incapable of applying to any useful profession or occupation;\nmen perfectly resembling the \"Poor Devil,\" who has been described to us\nwith so much both of truth and humor; men who are undecided whether to\nwear a livery, or to write the almanac of the \"_Annus Mirabilis,_\" the\nmarvellous year; whether to work on reviews, or on roads; whether to\nturn soldiers or priests; who in the meantime frequent the\ncoffee-houses, to give their opinion upon the last new piece, upon God,\nupon being in general, and the various modes of being; who will then\nborrow your money, and immediately go away and write a libel against you\nin conjunction with the barrister Marchand, or the creature called\nChaudon, or the equally despicable wretch called Bonneval.\n\nIt was not from such a school that the Ciceros, the Atticuses, the\nEpictetuses, the Trajans, Adrians, Antonines, and Julians proceeded. It\nwas not such a school that formed a king of Prussia, who has composed as\nmany philosophical treatises as he has gained battles, and who has\nlevelled with the dust as many prejudices as enemies.\n\nA victorious empress, at whose name the Ottomans tremble, and who so\ngloriously rules an empire more extensive than that of Rome, would never\nhave been a great legistratrix, had she not been a philosopher. Every\nnorthern prince is so, and the North puts the South to absolute shame.\nIf the confederates of Poland had only a very small share of philosophy,\nthey would not expose their country, their estates, and their houses, to\npillage; they would not drench their territory in blood; they would not\nobstinately and wantonly reduce themselves to being the most miserable\nof mankind; they would listen to the voice of their philosophic king,\nwho has given so many noble proofs and so many admirable lessons of\nmoderation and prudence in vain.\n\nThe great Julian was a philosopher when he wrote to his ministers and\npontiffs his exquisite letters abounding in clemency and wisdom, which\nall men of judgment and feeling highly admire, even at the present day,\nhowever sincerely they may condemn his errors.\n\nConstantine was not a philosopher when he assassinated his relations,\nhis son and his wife, and when, reeking with the blood of his family, he\nswore that God had sent to him the \"_Labarum_\" in the clouds. It is a\nlong bound that carries us from Constantine to Charles IX., and Henry\nIII., kings of one of the fifty great provinces of the Roman Empire. But\nif these kings had been philosophers, one would not have been guilty of\nthe massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the other would not have made\nscandalous processions, nor have been reduced to the necessity of\nassassinating the duke of Guise and the cardinal, his brother, and at\nlength have been assassinated himself by a young Jacobin, for the love\nof God and of the holy church.\n\nIf Louis the Just, the thirteenth monarch of that name, had been a\nphilosopher, he would not have permitted the virtuous de Thou and the\ninnocent Marshal de Marillac to have been dragged to the scaffold; he\nwould not have suffered his mother to perish with hunger at Cologne; and\nhis reign would not have been an uninterrupted succession of intestine\ndiscords and calamities.\n\nCompare with those princes, thus ignorant, superstitious, cruel, and\nenslaved by their own passions or those of their ministers, such a man\nas Montaigne, or Charron, or the Chancellor de l'H\u00f4pital, or the\nhistorian de Thou, or la Mothe Le Vayer, or a Locke, a Shaftesbury, a\nSidney, or a Herbert; and say whether you would rather be governed by\nthose sovereigns or by these sages.\n\nWhen I speak of philosophers I do not mean the coarse and brutal cynics\nwho appear desirous of being apes of Diogenes, but the men who imitate\nPlato and Cicero. As for you, voluptuous courtiers, and you also, men of\npetty minds, invested with a petty employment which confers on you a\npetty authority in a petty country, who uniformly exclaim against and\nabuse philosophy, proceed as long as you please with your invective\nrailing. I consider you as the Nomentanuses inveighing against Horace;\nand the Cotins attempting to cry down Boileau.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nThe stiff Lutheran, the savage Calvinist, the proud Anglican high\nchurchman, the fanatical Jansenist, the Jesuit always aiming at\ndominion, even in exile and at the very gallows, the Sorbonnist who\ndeems himself one of the fathers of a council; these, and some imbecile\nbeings under their respective guidance, inveigh incessantly and bitterly\nagainst philosophy. They are all different species of the canine race,\nsnarling and howling in their peculiar ways against a beautiful horse\nthat is pasturing in a verdant meadow, and who never enters into contest\nwith them about any of the carrion carcasses upon which they feed, and\nfor which they are perpetually fighting with one another.\n\nThey every day produce from the press their trash of philosophic\ntheology, their philosophico-theological dictionaries; their old and\nbattered arguments, as common as the streets, which they denominate\n\"demonstrations\"; and their ten thousand times repeated and ridiculous\nassertions which they call \"lemmas,\" and \"corollaries\"; as false coiners\ncover a lead crown with a plating of silver.\n\nThey perceive that they are despised by all persons of reflection, and\nthat they can no longer deceive any but a few weak old women. This state\nis far more humiliating and mortifying than even being expelled from\nFrance and Spain and Naples. Everything can be supported except\ncontempt. We are told that when the devil was conquered by Raphael--as\nit is clearly proved he was--that haughty compound of body and spirit at\nfirst easily consoled himself with the idea of the chances of war. But\nwhen he understood that Raphael laughed at him, he roundly swore that he\nwould never forgive him. Accordingly, the Jesuits never forgave Pascal;\naccordingly, Jerieu went on calumniating Bayle even to the grave; and\njust in the same manner all the Tartuffes, all the hypocrites, in\nMoli\u00e8re's time, inveighed against that author to his dying day. In their\nrage they resort to calumnies, as in their folly they publish arguments.\n\nOne of the most determined slanderers, as well as one of the most\ncontemptible reasoners that we have among us, is an ex-Jesuit of the\nname of Paulian, who published a theologico-philosophical rhapsody in\nthe city of Avignon, formerly a papal city, and perhaps destined to be\nso again. This person accuses the authors of the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia\" of\nhaving said:\n\n\"That as man is by his nature open only to the pleasures of the senses,\nthese pleasures are consequently the sole objects of his desires; that\nman in himself has neither vice nor virtue, neither good nor bad morals,\nneither justice nor injustice; that the pleasures of the senses produce\nall the virtues; that in order to be happy, men must extinguish remorse,\netc.\"\n\nIn what articles of the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" of which five new editions have\nlately commenced, are these horrible propositions to be found? You are\nbound actually to produce them. Have you carried the insolence of your\npride and the madness of your character to such an extent as to imagine\nthat you will be believed on your bare word? These ridiculous\nabsurdities may be found perhaps in the works of your own casuists, or\nthose of the Porter of the Chartreux, but they are certainly not to be\nfound in the articles of the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia\" composed by M. Diderot, M.\nd'Alembert, the chevalier Jaucourt, or M. de Voltaire. You have never\nseen them in the articles of the Count de Tressan, nor in those of\nMessrs. Blondel, Boucher-d'Argis, Marmontel, Venel, Tronchin,\nd'Aubenton, d'Argenville, and various others, who generously devoted\ntheir time and labors to enrich the \"Encyclop\u00e6dic Dictionary,\" and\nthereby conferred an everlasting benefit on Europe. Most assuredly, not\none of them is chargeable with the abominations you impute to them. Only\nyourself, and Abraham Chaumeix, the vinegar merchant and crucified\nconvulsionary, could be capable of broaching so infamous a calumny.\n\nYou confound error with truth, because you have not sense sufficient to\ndistinguish between them. You wish to stigmatize as impious the maxim\nadopted by all publicists, \"That every man is free to choose his\ncountry.\"\n\nWhat! you contemptible preacher of slavery, was not Queen Christina free\nto travel to France and reside at Rome? Were not Casimir and Stanislaus\nauthorized to end their days in France? Was it necessary, because they\nwere Poles, that they should die in Poland? Did Goldoni, Vanloo, and\nCassini give offense to God by settling at Paris? Have all the Irish,\nwho have established themselves in fame and fortune in France, committed\nby so doing a mortal sin?\n\nAnd you have the stupidity to print such extravagance and absurdity as\nthis, and Riballier has stupidity enough to approve and sanction you;\nand you range in one and the same class Bayle, Montesquieu, and the\nmadman de La Mettrie; and it may be added, you have found the French\nnation too humane and indulgent, notwithstanding all your slander and\nmalignity, to deliver you over to anything but scorn!\n\nWhat! do you dare to calumniate your country--if indeed a Jesuit can be\nsaid to have a country? Do you dare to assert \"that philosophers alone\nin France attribute to chance the union and disunion of the atoms which\nconstitute the soul of man?\" \"_Mentiris impudentissime!_\" I defy you to\nproduce a single book, published within the last thirty years, in which\nanything at all is attributed to chance, which is merely a word without\na meaning.\n\nDo you dare to accuse the sagacious and judicious Locke of having said\n\"that it is possible the soul may be a spirit, but that he is not\nperfectly sure it is so; and that we are unable to decide what it may be\nable or unable to acquire?\"\n\n\"_Mentiris impudentissime!_\" Locke, the truly respectable and venerable\nLocke, says expressly, in his answer to the cavilling and sophistical\nStilling-fleet, \"I am strongly persuaded, although it cannot be shown,\nby mere reason, that the soul is immaterial, because the veracity of God\nis a demonstration of the truth of all that He has revealed, and the\nabsence of another demonstration can never throw any doubt upon what is\nalready demonstrated.\"\n\nSee, moreover, under the article \"Soul,\" how Locke expresses himself on\nthe bounds of human knowledge, and the immensity of the power of the\nSupreme Being. The great philosopher Bolingbroke declares that the\nopinion opposite to Locke's is blasphemy. All the fathers, during the\nfirst three ages of the church, regarded the soul as a light, attenuated\nspecies of matter, but did not the less, in consequence, regard it as\nimmortal. But now, forsooth, even your college drudges consequentially\nput themselves forward and denounce as \"atheists\" those who, with the\nfathers of the Christian church, think that God is able to bestow and to\npreserve the immortality of the soul, whatever may be the substance it\nconsists of.\n\nYou carry your audacity so far as to discover atheism in the following\nwords, Who produces motion in nature? God. \"Who produces vegetation in\nplants? God. Who produces motion in animals? God. Who produces thought\nin man? God.\"\n\nWe cannot so properly say on this occasion, \"_Mentiris impudentissime_\";\nbut we should rather say you impudently blaspheme the truth. We conclude\nwith observing that the hero of the ex-Jesuit Paulian is the ex-Jesuit\nPatouillet, the author of a bishop's mandate in which all the\nparliaments of the kingdom are insulted. This mandate was burned by the\nhands of the executioner. Nothing after this was wanting but for the\nex-Jesuit Paulian to elevate the ex-Jesuit Nonnotte to be a father of\nthe church, and to canonize the Jesuits Malagrida, Guignard, Garnet, and\nOldham, and all other Jesuits to whom God has granted the grace of being\nhanged or quartered; they were all of them great metaphysicians, great\nphilosophico-theologians.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nPeople who never think frequently inquire of those who do think, what\nhas been the use of philosophy? To destroy in England the religious rage\nwhich brought Charles I. to the scaffold; to deprive an archbishop in\nSweden of the power, with a papal bull in his hand, of shedding the\nblood of the nobility; to preserve in Germany religious peace, by\nholding up theological disputes to ridicule; finally, to extinguish in\nSpain the hideous and devouring flames of the Inquisition.\n\nGauls! unfortunate Gauls! it prevents stormy and factious times from\nproducing among you a second \"Fronde,\" and a second \"Damiens.\" Priests\nof Rome! it compels you to suppress your bull _In c\u0153na domini,_ that\nmonument of impudence and stupidity. Nations! it humanizes your manners.\nKings, it gives you instruction!\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\nThe philosopher is the lover of wisdom and truth; to be a sage is to\navoid the senseless and the depraved. The philosopher, therefore, should\nlive only among philosophers.\n\nI will suppose that there are still some sages among the Jews; if one of\nthese, when dining in company with some rabbis, should help himself to a\nplate of eels or hare, or if he cannot refrain from a hearty laugh at\nsome superstitious and ridiculous observations made by them in the\ncourse of conversation, he is forever ruined in the synagogue; the like\nremark may be made of a Mussulman, a Gueber, or a Banian.\n\nI know it is contended by many that the sage should never develop his\nopinions to the vulgar; that he should be a madman with the mad, and\nfoolish among fools; no one, however, has yet ventured to say that he\nshould be a knave among knaves. But if it be required that a sage should\nalways join in opinion with the deluders of mankind, is not this clearly\nthe same as requiring that he should not be an honest man? Would any one\nrequire that a respectable physician should always be of the same\nopinion as charlatans?\n\nThe sage is a physician of souls. He ought to bestow his remedies on\nthose who ask them of him, and avoid the company of quacks, who will\ninfallibly persecute him. If, therefore, a madman of Asia Minor, or a\nmadman of India, says to the sage: My good friend, I think you do not\nbelieve in the mare Borac, or in the metamorphoses of Vishnu; I will\ndenounce you, I will hinder you from being bostanji, I will destroy your\ncredit; I will persecute you--the sage ought to pity him and be silent.\n\nIf ignorant persons, but at the same time persons of good understanding\nand dispositions, and willing to receive instruction, should ask him:\nAre we bound to believe that the distance between the moon and Venus is\nonly five hundred leagues, and that between Mercury and the sun the\nsame, as the principal fathers of the Mussulman religion insist, in\nopposition to all the most learned astronomers?--the sage may reply to\nthem that the fathers may possibly be mistaken. He should at all times\ninculcate upon them that a hundred abstract dogmas are not of the value\nof a single good action, and that it is better to relieve one individual\nin distress than to be profoundly acquainted with the abolishing and\nabolished. When a rustic sees a serpent ready to dart at him, he will\nkill it; when a sage perceives a bigot and a fanatic, what will he do?\nHe will prevent them from biting.\n\n\n\n\nPHILOSOPHY.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWrite filosophy or philosophy as you please, but agree that as soon as\nit appears it is persecuted. Dogs to whom you present an aliment for\nwhich they have no taste, bite you. You will say that I repeat myself;\nbut we must a hundred times remind mankind that the holy conclave\ncondemned Galileo; and that the pedants who declared all the good\ncitizens excommunicated who should submit to the great Henry IV., were\nthe same who condemned the only truths which could be found in the works\nof Descartes.\n\nAll the spaniels of the theological kennel bark at one another, and all\ntogether at de Thou, la Mothe, Le Vayer, and Bayle. What nonsense has\nbeen written by little Celtic scholars against the wise Locke!\n\nThese Celts say that C\u00e6sar, Cicero, Seneca, Pliny, and Marcus Aurelius,\nmight be philosophers, but that philosophy is not permitted among the\nCelts. We answer that it is permitted and very useful among the French;\nthat nothing has done more good to the English; and that it is time to\nexterminate barbarity. You reply that that will never come to pass. No;\nwith the uninformed and foolish it will not; but with honest people the\naffair is soon concluded.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nOne of the great misfortunes, as also one of the great follies, of\nmankind, is that in all countries which we call polished, except,\nperhaps, China, priests concern themselves with what belongs only to\nphilosophers. These priests interfered with regulating the year; it was,\nthey say, their right; for it was necessary that the people should know\ntheir holy days. Thus the Chald\u00e6an, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman priests,\nbelieved themselves mathematicians and astronomers; but what mathematics\nand astronomy! Whoever makes a trade of quackery cannot have a just and\nenlightened mind. They were astrologers, and never astronomers.\n\nThe Greek priests themselves first made the year to consist only of\nthree hundred and sixty days. Their geometricians must have informed\nthem that they were deceived by five days and more. They, therefore,\ncorrected their year. Other geometricians further showed them that they\nwere deceived by six hours. Iphitus obliged them to change their Greek\nalmanac. They added one day in four years to their faulty year; Iphitus\ncelebrated this change by the institution of the Olympiads.\n\nThey were finally obliged to have recourse to the philosopher Meton,\nwho, combining the year of the moon with that of the sun, composed his\ncycle of nineteen years, at the end of which the sun and moon returned\nto the same point within an hour and a half. This cycle was graven in\ngold in the public place of Athens; and it is of this famous golden\nnumber that we still make use, with the necessary corrections.\n\nWe well know what ridiculous confusion the Roman priests introduced in\ntheir computation of the year. Their blunders were so great that their\nsummer holidays arrived in winter. C\u00e6sar, the universal C\u00e6sar, was\nobliged to bring the philosopher Sosigenes from Alexandria to repair the\nenormous errors of the pontiffs. When it was necessary to correct the\ncalendar of Julius C\u00e6sar, under the pontificate of Gregory XIII., to\nwhom did they address themselves? Was it to some inquisitor? It was to a\nphilosopher and physician named Lilio.\n\nWhen the almanac was given to Professor Cog\u00e9, rector of the university,\nto compose, he knew not even the subject. They were obliged to apply to\nM. de Lalande, of the Academy of Sciences, who was burdened with this\nvery painful task, too poorly recompensed. The rhetorician Cog\u00e9,\ntherefore, made a great mistake when he proposed for the prize of the\nuniversity this subject so strangely expressed:\n\n\"_Non magis Deo quam regibus infensa est ista qu\u00e6 vocatur hodie\nphilosophia._\"--\"That which we now call philosophy, is not more the\nenemy of God than of kings.\" He would say _less_ the enemy. He has taken\n_magis_ for _minus._ And the poor man ought to know that our academies\nare not enemies either to the king or God.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nIf philosophy has done so much honor to France in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" it\nmust also be confessed that the ignorance and envy which have dared to\ncondemn this work would have covered France with opprobrium, if twelve\nor fifteen convulsionaries, who formed a cabal, could be regarded as the\norgans of France; they were really only the ministers of fanaticism and\nsedition; those who forced the king to dissolve the body which they had\nseduced. Their fanatical credulity for convulsions and the miserable\nimpostures of St. M\u00e9dard, was so strong, that they obliged a magistrate,\nelsewhere wise and respectable, to say in full parliament that the\nmiracles of the Catholic church always existed. By these miracles, we\ncan only understand those of convulsions, for assuredly it never\nperformed any others; at least, if we believe not in the little children\nresuscitated by St. Ovid. The time of miracles is passed; the triumphant\nchurch has no longer occasion for them. Seriously, was there one of the\npersecutors of the Encyclop\u00e6dia who understood one word of the articles\nAstronomy, Dynamics, Geometry, Metaphysics, Botany, Medicine, or\nAnatomy, of which this book, become so necessary, treats in every\nvolume. What a crowd of absurd imputations and gross calumnies have they\naccumulated against this treasure of all the sciences! They should be\nreprinted at the end of the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" to eternize their shame. See\nwhat it is to judge a work which they were not even fit to study. The\nfools! they have exclaimed that philosophy ruined Catholicism. What,\nthen, in twenty millions of people, has one been found who has vexed the\nleast officer of the parish! one who has failed in respect to the\nchurches! one who has publicly proffered against our ceremonies a single\nword which approached the virulence with which these railers have\nexpressed themselves against the regal authority! Let us repeat that\nphilosophy never did evil to the state, and that fanaticism, joined to\nthe _esprit du corps,_ has done much in all times.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_Substance Of Ancient Philosophy._\n\n\nI have consumed about forty years of my pilgrimage in two or three\ncorners of the world, seeking the philosopher's stone called truth. I\nhave consulted all the adepts of antiquity, Epicurus and Augustine,\nPlato and Malebranche, and I still remain in ignorance. In all the\ncrucibles of philosophers, there are perhaps two or three ounces of\ngold, but all the rest is _caput mortuum,_ insipid mire, from which\nnothing can be extracted.\n\nIt seems to me that the Greeks, our masters, wrote much more to show\ntheir intellect, than they made use of their intellect to instruct\nthemselves. I see not a single author of antiquity who has a consistent,\nmethodical, clear system, going from consequence to consequence.\n\nAll that I have been able to obtain by comparing and combining the\nsystems of Plato, of the tutor of Alexander, Pythagoras, and the\nOrientals, is this: Chance is a word void of sense; nothing can exist\nwithout a cause. The world is arranged according to mathematical laws;\ntherefore, it is arranged by an intelligence.\n\nIt is not an intelligent being like myself who presided at the formation\nof the world; for I cannot form a miserable worm; therefore, the world\nis the work of an intelligence prodigiously superior. Does this being,\nwho possesses intelligence and power in so high a degree, necessarily\nexist? It must be so, for he must either have received being from\nanother, or through his own nature. If he has received his being from\nanother, which is very difficult to conceive, I must look up to this\nother, which will in that case be the first cause. On whichever side I\nturn, I must admit a first cause, powerful and intelligent, who by his\nown nature is necessarily so.\n\nHas this first cause created things out of nothing? We cannot conceive\nthat to create out of nothing is to change nothing into something. I\ncannot admit such a creation, at least until I find invincible reasons\nwhich force me to admit what my mind can never comprehend. All that\nexists appears to exist necessarily, since it exists; for if to-day\nthere is a reason for the existence of things, there was one yesterday;\nthere has been one in all times; and this cause must always have had its\neffect, without which it would have been a useless cause during\neternity.\n\nBut how can things have always existed, being visibly under the hand of\nthe first cause? This power must always have acted in like manner. There\nis no sun without light, there is no motion without a being passing from\none point of space to another.\n\nThere is, therefore, a powerful and intelligent being who has always\nacted; and if this being had not acted, of what use to him would have\nbeen his existence? All things are, therefore, emanations from this\nfirst cause. But how can we imagine that stone and clay may be\nemanations of the eternal, intelligent, and puissant being? Of two\nthings, one must be; either that the matter of this stone and mine\nnecessarily exists of itself, or that it exists necessarily by this\nfirst cause; there is no medium.\n\nThus, therefore, there are but two parts to take; either to admit matter\neternal of itself, or matter eternally proceeding from a powerful,\nintelligent, eternal being. But existing of its own nature, or emanating\nfrom a producing being, it exists from all eternity, because it exists;\nand there is no reason that it might not have always existed.\n\nIf matter is eternally necessary, it is in consequence impossible--it is\ncontradictory, that it should not exist; but what man can assure you\nthat it is impossible, that it is contradictory, that this fly and this\nflint have not always existed? We are, however, obliged to swallow this\ndifficulty, which more astonishes the imagination than contradicts the\nprinciples of reasoning.\n\nIndeed, as soon as we have conceived that all has emanated from the\nsupreme and intelligent being; that nothing has emanated from him\nwithout reason; that this being, always existing, must always have\nacted; that, consequently, all things must have eternally proceeded from\nthe bosom of his existence--we should no more be deterred from believing\nthe matter of which this fly and flint are formed is eternal, than we\nare deterred from conceiving light to be an emanation of the\nall-powerful being.\n\nSince I am an extended and thinking being, my extent and thought are the\nnecessary productions of this being. It is evident to me that I cannot\ngive myself extent or thought. I have, therefore, received both from\nthis necessary being.\n\nCan he have given me what he has not? I have intelligence; I am in\nspace; therefore, he is intelligent and is in space. To say that the\nEternal Being, the All-Powerful God, has from all time necessarily\nfilled the universe with His productions, is not taking from Him His\nfree-will; but on the contrary, for free-will is but the power of\nacting. God has always fully acted; therefore God has always used the\nplenitude of His liberty.\n\nThe liberty which we call indifference is a word without an idea--an\nabsurdity; for this would be to determine without reason; it would be an\neffect without a cause. Therefore God cannot have this pretended\nfree-will, which is a contradiction in terms. He has, therefore, always\nacted by the same necessity which causes His existence. It is,\ntherefore, impossible for the world to exist without God; it is\nimpossible for God to exist without the world. This world is filled with\nbeings who succeed each other; therefore, God has always produced beings\nin succession.\n\nThese preliminary assertions are the basis of the ancient eastern\nphilosophy, and of that of the Greeks. We must except Democritus and\nEpicurus, whose corpuscular philosophy has combated these dogmas. But\nlet us remark that the Epicureans were founded on an entirely erroneous\nphilosophy, and that the metaphysical system of all the other philosophy\nsubsisted with all the physical systems. All nature, except the void,\ncontradicts Epicurus, and no phenomenon contradicts the philosophy which\nI explain. Now, a philosophy which agrees with all which passes in\nnature, and which contents the most attentive mind, is it not superior\nto all other unrevealed systems?\n\nAfter the assertions of the most ancient philosophers, which I have\napproached as nearly as possible, what remains to us? A chaos of doubts\nand chimeras. I believe that there never was a philosopher of a system\nwho did not confess at the end of his life that he had lost his time. It\nmust be confessed that the inventors of the mechanical arts have been\nmuch more useful to men than the inventors of syllogisms. He who\nimagined a ship, towers much above him who imagined innate ideas.\n\n\n\n\nPHYSICIANS.\n\n\nRegimen is superior to medicine, especially as, from time immemorial,\nout of every hundred physicians, ninety-eight are charlatans. Moli\u00e8re\nwas right in laughing at them; for nothing is more ridiculous than to\nwitness an infinite number of silly women, and men no less than women,\nwhen they have eaten, drunk, sported, or abstained from repose too much,\ncall in a physician for the headache, invoke him like a god, and request\nhim to work the miracle of producing an alliance between health and\nintemperance, not omitting to fee the said god, who laughs at their\nfolly.\n\nIt is not, however, the less true that an able physician may preserve\nlife on a hundred occasions, and restore to us the use of our limbs.\nWhen a man falls into an apoplexy, it is neither a captain of infantry\nnor a sergeant at law who will cure him. If cataracts are formed on my\neyes, it is not my neighbor who will relieve me. I distinguish not\nbetween physicians and surgeons, these professions being so intimately\nconnected.\n\nMen who are occupied in the restoration of health to other men, by the\njoint exertion of skill and humanity, are above all the great of the\nearth. They even partake of divinity, since to preserve and renew is\nalmost as noble as to create. The Roman people had no physicians for\nmore than five hundred years. This people, whose sole occupation was\nslaughter, in particular cultivated not the art of prolonging life.\nWhat, therefore, happened at Rome to those who had a putrid fever, a\nfistula, a gangrene, or an inflammation of the stomach? They died. The\nsmall number of great physicians introduced into Rome were only slaves.\nA physician among the great Roman patricians was a species of luxury,\nlike a cook. Every rich man had his perfumers, his bathers, his harpers,\nand his physician. The celebrated Musa, the physician of Augustus, was a\nslave; he was freed and made a Roman knight; after which physicians\nbecame persons of consideration.\n\nWhen Christianity was so fully established as to bestow on us the\nfelicity of possessing monks, they were expressly forbidden, by many\ncouncils, from practising medicine. They should have prescribed a\nprecisely contrary line of conduct, if it were desirable to render them\nuseful to mankind.\n\nHow beneficial to society were monks obliged to study medicine and to\ncure our ailments for God's sake! Having nothing to gain but heaven,\nthey would never be charlatans; they would equally instruct themselves\nin our diseases and their remedies, one of the finest of occupations,\nand the only one forbidden them. It has been objected that they would\npoison the impious; but even that would be advantageous to the church.\nHad this been the case, Luther would never have stolen one-half of\nCatholic Europe from our holy father, the pope; for in the first fever\nwhich might have seized the Augustine Luther, a Dominican would have\nprepared his pills. You will tell me that he would not have taken them;\nbut with a little address this might have been managed. But to proceed:\n\nTowards the year 1517 lived a citizen, animated with a Christian zeal,\nnamed John; I do not mean John Calvin, but John, surnamed of God, who\ninstituted the Brothers of Charity. This body, instituted for the\nredemption of captives, is composed of the only useful monks, although\nnot accounted among the orders. The Dominicans, Bernardines, Norbertins,\nand Benedictines, acknowledge not the Brothers of Charity. They are\nsimply adverted to in the continuation of the \"Ecclesiastical History\"\nof Fleury. Why? Because they have performed cures instead of\nmiracles--have been useful and not caballed--cured poor women without\neither directing or seducing them. Lastly, their institution being\ncharitable, it is proper that other monks should despise them.\n\nMedicine, having then become a mercenary profession in the world, as the\nadministration of justice is in many places, it has become liable to\nstrange abuses. But nothing is more estimable than a physician who,\nhaving studied nature from his youth, knows the properties of the human\nbody, the diseases which assail it, the remedies which will benefit it,\nexercises his art with caution, and pays equal attention to the rich and\nthe poor. Such a man is very superior to the general of the Capuchins,\nhowever respectable this general may be.\n\n\n\n\nPIRATES OR BUCCANEERS.\n\n\nIn the time of Cardinal Richelieu, when the Spaniards and French\ndetested each other, because Ferdinand the Catholic laughed at Louis\nXII., and Francis I. was taken at the battle of Pavia by an army of\nCharles V.--while this hatred was so strong that the false author of the\npolitical romance, and political piece of tediousness, called the\n\"Political Testament of Cardinal Richelieu,\" feared not to call the\nSpaniards \"an insatiable nation, who rendered the Indies tributaries of\nhell\"; when, in short, we were leagued in 1635 with Holland against\nSpain; when France had nothing in America, and the Spaniards covered the\nseas with their galleys--then buccaneers began to appear. They were at\nfirst French adventurers, whose quality was at most that of corsairs.\n\nOne of them, named Legrande, a native of Dieppe, associated himself with\nfifty determined men, and went to tempt fortune in a bark which had not\neven a cannon. Towards the Isle of Hispaniola (St. Domingo), he\nperceived a galley strayed from the great Spanish fleet; he approached\nit as a captain wishing to sell provisions; he mounted, attended by his\npeople; he entered the chamber of the captain, who was playing at cards,\nthrew him down, made him prisoner with his cargo, and returned to Dieppe\nwith his vessel laden with immense riches. This adventure was the signal\nfor forty years' unheard-of exploits.\n\nFrench, English, and Dutch buccaneers associated together in the caverns\nof St. Domingo, of the little islands of St. Christopher and Tortola.\nThey chose a chief for each expedition, which was the first origin of\nkings. Agriculturists would never have wished for a king; they had no\nneed of one to sow, thrash, and sell corn.\n\nWhen the buccaneers took a great prize, they bought with it a little\nvessel and cannon. One happy chance produced twenty others. If they were\na hundred in number they were believed to be a thousand; it was\ndifficult to escape them, still more so to follow them. They were birds\nof prey who established themselves on all sides, and who retired into\ninaccessible places; sometimes they ravaged from four to five hundred\nleagues of coast; sometimes they advanced on foot, or horseback, two\nhundred leagues up the countries. They surprised and pillaged the rich\ntowns of Chagra, Maracaybo, Vera Cruz, Panama, Porto Rico, Campeachy,\nthe island of St. Catherine, and the suburbs of Cartagena.\n\nOne of these pirates, named Olonois, penetrated to the gates of Havana,\nfollowed by twenty men only. Having afterwards retired into his boat,\nthe governor sent against him a ship of war with soldiers and an\nexecutioner. Olonois rendered himself master of the vessel, cut off the\nheads of the Spanish soldiers, whom he had taken himself, and sent back\nthe executioner to the governor. Such astonishing actions were never\nperformed by the Romans, or by other robbers. The warlike voyage of\nAdmiral Anson round the world is only an agreeable promenade in\ncomparison with the passage of the buccaneers in the South Sea, and with\nwhat they endured on terra firma.\n\nHad their policy been equal to their invincible courage, they would have\nfounded a great empire in America. They wanted females; but instead of\nravishing and marrying Sabines, like the Romans, they procured them from\nthe brothels of Paris, which sufficed not to produce a second\ngeneration.\n\nThey were more cruel towards the Spaniards than the Israelites ever were\nto the Canaanites. A Dutchman is spoken of, named Roc, who put several\nSpaniards on a spit and caused them to be eaten by his comrades. Their\nexpeditions were tours of thieves, and never campaigns of conquerors;\nthus, in all the West Indies, they were never called anything but _los\nladrones._ When they surprised and entered the house of a father of a\nfamily, they put him to the torture to discover his treasures. That\nsufficiently proves what we say in the article \"Question,\" that torture\nwas invented by robbers.\n\nWhat rendered their exploits useless was, that they lavished in\ndebauches, as foolish as monstrous, all that they acquired by rapine and\nmurder. Finally, there remains nothing more of them than their name, and\nscarcely that. Such were the buccaneers.\n\nBut what people in Europe have not been pirates? The Goths, Alans,\nVandals, and Huns, were they anything else? What were Rollo, who\nestablished himself in Normandy, and William Fier-a-bras, but the most\nable pirates? Was not Clovis a pirate, who came from the borders of the\nRhine into Gaul?\n\n\n\n\nPLAGIARISM.\n\n\nIt is said that this word is derived from the Latin word _plaga,_ and\nthat it signifies the condemnation to the scourge of those who sold\nfreemen for slaves. This has nothing in common with the plagiarism of\nauthors, who sell not men either enslaved or free. They only for a\nlittle money occasionally sell themselves.\n\nWhen an author sells the thoughts of another man for his own, the\nlarceny is called plagiarism. All the makers of dictionaries, all\ncompilers who do nothing else than repeat backwards and forwards the\nopinions, the errors, the impostures, and the truths already printed, we\nmay term plagiarists, but honest plagiarists, who arrogate not the merit\nof invention. They pretend not even to have collected from the ancients\nthe materials which they get together; they only copy the laborious\ncompilers of the sixteenth century. They will sell you in quarto that\nwhich already exists in folio. Call them if you please bookmakers, not\nauthors; range them rather among second-hand dealers than plagiarists.\n\nThe true plagiarist is he who gives the works of another for his own,\nwho inserts in his rhapsodies long passages from a good book a little\nmodified. The enlightened reader, seeing this patch of cloth of gold\nupon a blanket, soon detects the bungling purloiner.\n\nRamsay, who after having been a Presbyterian in his native Scotland, an\nAnglican in London, then a Quaker, and who finally persuaded F\u00e9nelon\nthat he was a Catholic, and even pretended a penchant for celestial\nlove--Ramsay, I say, compiled the \"Travels of Cyrus,\" because his master\nmade his Telemachus travel. So far he only imitated; but in these\ntravels he copies from an old English author, who introduces a young\nsolitary dissecting his dead goat, and arriving at a knowledge of the\nDeity by the process, which is very much like plagiarism. On conducting\nCyrus into Egypt, in describing that singular country, he employs the\nsame expressions as Bossuet, whom he copies word for word without\nciting; this is plagiarism complete. One of my friends reproached him\nwith this one day; Ramsay replied that he was not aware of it, and that\nit was not surprising he should think like F\u00e9nelon and write like\nBossuet. This was making out the adage, \"Proud as a Scotsman.\"\n\nThe most singular of all plagiarism is possibly that of Father Barre,\nauthor of a large history of Germany in ten volumes. The history of\nCharles XII. had just been printed, and he inserted more than two\nhundred pages of it in his work; making a duke of Lorraine say precisely\nthat which was said by Charles XII.\n\nHe attributes to the emperor Arnold that which happened to the Swedish\nmonarch. He relates of the emperor Rudolph that which was said of King\nStanislaus. Waldemar, king of Denmark, acts precisely like Charles at\nBender, etc.\n\nThe most pleasant part of the story is, that a journalist, perceiving\nthis extraordinary resemblance between the two works, failed not to\nimpute the plagiarism to the author of the history of Charles XII., who\nhad composed his work twenty years before the appearance of that of\nFather Barre. It is chiefly in poetry that plagiarism is allowed to\npass; and certainly, of all larcenies, it is that which is least\ndangerous to society.\n\n\n\n\nPLATO.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_Of The Tim\u00e6us Of Plato And Some Other Things._\n\nThe fathers of the Church, of the first four centuries, were all Greeks\nand Platonists: you find not one Roman who wrote for Christianity, or\nwho had the slightest tincture of philosophy. I will here observe, by\nthe way, that it is strange enough, the great Church of Rome, which\ncontributed in nothing to this establishment, has alone reaped all the\nadvantage. It has been with this revolution, as with all those produced\nby civil wars: the first who trouble a state, always unknowingly labor\nfor others rather than for themselves.\n\nThe school of Alexandria, founded by one named Mark, to whom succeeded\nAthenagoras, Clement, and Origen, was the centre of the Christian\nphilosophy. Plato was regarded by all the Greeks of Alexandria as the\nmaster of wisdom, the interpreter of the divinity. If the first\nChristians had not embraced the dogmas of Plato, they would never have\nhad any philosophers, any man of mind in their party. I set aside\ninspiration and grace which are above all philosophy, and speak only of\nthe ordinary course of human events.\n\nIt is said that it was principally in the \"Tim\u00e6us\" of Plato that the\nGreek fathers were instructed. This \"Tim\u00e6us\" passes for the most sublime\nwork of all ancient philosophy. It is almost the only one which Dacier\nhas not translated, and I think the reason is, because he did not\nunderstand it, and that he feared to discover to clear-sighted readers\nthe face of this Greek divinity, who is only adored because he is\nveiled.\n\nPlato, in this fine dialogue, commences by introducing an Egyptian\npriest, who teaches Solon the ancient history of the city of Athens,\nwhich was preserved faithfully for nine thousand years in the archives\nof Egypt.\n\nAthens, says the priest, was once the finest city of Greece, and the\nmost renowned in the world for the arts of war and peace. She alone\nresisted the warriors of the famous island Atlantis, who came in\ninnumerable vessels to subjugate a great part of Europe and Asia. Athens\nhad the glory of freeing so many vanquished people, and of preserving\nEgypt from the servitude which menaced us. But after this illustrious\nvictory and service rendered to mankind, a frightful earthquake in\ntwenty-four hours swallowed the territory of Athens, and all the great\nisland of Atlantis. This island is now only a vast sea, which the ruins\nof this ancient world and the slime mixed with its waters rendered\nunnavigable.\n\nThis is what the priest relates to Solon: and such is the manner in\nwhich Plato prepares to explain to us subsequently, the formation of the\nsoul, the operations of the \"Word,\" and his trinity. It is not\nphysically impossible that there might be an island Atlantis, which had\nnot existed for nine thousand years, and which perished by an\nearthquake, like Herculaneum and so many other cities; but our priest,\nin adding that the sea which washes Mount Atlas is inaccessible to\nvessels, renders the history a little suspicious.\n\nIt may be, after all, that since Solon--that is to say, in the course of\nthree thousand years--vessels have dispersed the slime of the ancient\nisland Atlantis and rendered the sea navigable; but it is still\nsurprising that he should prepare by this island to speak of the \"Word.\"\n\nPerhaps in telling this priest's or old woman's story, Plato wished to\ninsinuate something contrary to the vicissitudes which have so often\nchanged the face of the globe. Perhaps he would merely say what\nPythagoras and Tim\u00e6us of Locris have said so long before him, and what\nour eyes tell us every day--that everything in nature perishes and is\nrenewed. The history of Deucalion and Pyrrha, the fall of Ph\u00e6thon, are\nfables: but inundations and conflagrations are truths.\n\nPlato departs from his imaginary island, to speak of things which the\nbest of philosophers of our days would not disavow. \"That which is\nproduced has necessarily a cause, an author. It is difficult to discover\nthe author of this world; and when he is found it is dangerous to speak\nof him to the people.\"\n\nNothing is more true, even now, than that if a sage, in passing by our\nLady of Loretto, said to another sage, his friend, that our Lady of\nLoretto, with her little black face, governs not the entire universe,\nand a good woman overheard these words, and related them to other good\nwomen of the march of Ancona, the sage would be stoned like Orpheus.\nThis is precisely the situation in which the first Christians were\nbelieved to be, who spoke not well of Cybele and Diana, which alone\nshould attach them to Plato. The unintelligible things which he\nafterwards treats of, ought not to disgust us with him.\n\nI will not reproach Plato with saying, in his \"Tim\u00e6us,\" that the world\nis an animal; for he no doubt understands that the elements in motion\nanimate the world; and he means not, by animal, a dog or a man, who\nwalks, feels, eats, sleeps, and engenders. An author should always be\nexplained in the most favorable sense; and it is not while we accuse\npeople, or when we denounce their books, that it is right to interpret\nmalignantly and poison all their words; nor is it thus that I shall\ntreat Plato.\n\nAccording to him there is a kind of trinity which is the soul of matter.\nThese are his words: \"From the indivisible substance, always similar to\nitself, and the divisible substance, a third substance is composed,\nwhich partakes of the same and of others.\"\n\nAfterwards came the Pythagorean number, which renders the thing still\nmore unintelligible, and consequently more respectable. What ammunition\nfor people commencing a paper war! Friend reader, a little patience and\nattention, if you please: \"When God had formed the soul of the world of\nthese three substances, the soul shot itself into the midst of the\nuniverse, to the extremities of being; spreading itself everywhere, and\nreacting upon itself, it formed at all times a divine origin of eternal\nwisdom.\"\n\nAnd some lines afterwards: \"Thus the nature of the immense animal which\nwe call _the world,_ is eternal.\" Plato, following the example of his\npredecessors, then introduces the Supreme Being, the Creator of the\nworld, forming this world before time; so that God could not exist\nwithout the world, nor the world without God; as the sun cannot exist\nwithout shedding light into space, nor this light steal into space\nwithout the sun.\n\nI pass in silence many Greek, or rather Oriental ideas; as for\nexample--that there are four sorts of animals--celestial gods, birds of\nthe air, fishes, and terrestrial animals, to which last we have the\nhonor to belong.\n\nI hasten to arrive at a second trinity: \"the being engendered, the being\nwho engenders, and the being which resembles the engendered and the\nengenderer.\" This trinity is formal enough, and the fathers have found\ntheir account in it.\n\nThis trinity is followed by a rather singular theory of the four\nelements. The earth is founded on an equilateral triangle, water on a\nright-angled triangle, air on a scalene, and fire on an isosceles\ntriangle. After which he demonstratively proves that there can be but\nfive worlds, because there are but five regular solid bodies, and yet\nthat there is but one world which is round.\n\nI confess that no philosopher in Bedlam has ever reasoned so powerfully.\nRouse yourself, friend reader, to hear me speak of the other famous\ntrinity of Plato, which his commentators have so much vaunted: it is the\nEternal Being, the Eternal Creator of the world; His word, intelligence,\nor idea; and the good which results from it. I assure you that I have\nsought for it diligently in this \"Tim\u00e6us,\" and I have never found it\nthere; it may be there \"_totidem literis,_\" but it is not \"_totidem\nverbis,_\" or I am much mistaken.\n\nAfter reading all Plato with great reluctance, I perceived some shadow\nof the trinity for which he is so much honored. It is in the sixth book\nof his \"Chimerical Republic,\" in which he says: \"Let us speak of the\nSon, the wonderful production of good, and His perfect image.\" But\nunfortunately he discovers this perfect image of God to be the sun. It\nwas therefore the physical sun, which with the Word and the Father\ncomposed the platonic trinity. In the \"Epinomis\" of Plato there are very\ncurious absurdities, one of which I translate as reasonably as I can,\nfor the convenience of the reader:\n\n\"Know that there are eight virtues in heaven: I have observed them,\nwhich is easy to all the world. The sun is one of its virtues, the moon\nanother; the third is the assemblage of stars; and the five planets,\nwith these three virtues, make the number eight. Be careful of thinking\nthat these virtues, or those which they contain, and which animate them,\neither move of themselves or are carried in vehicles; be careful, I say,\nof believing that some may be gods and others not; that some may be\nadorable, and others such as we should neither adore or invoke. They are\nall brothers; each has his share; we owe them all the same honors; they\nfill all the situations which the Word assigned to them, when it formed\nthe visible universe.\"\n\nHere is the Word already found: we must now find the three persons. They\nare in the second letter from Plato to Dionysius, which letters\nassuredly are not forged; the style is the same as that of his\ndialogues. He often says to Dionysius and Dion things very difficult to\ncomprehend, and which we might believe to be written in numbers, but he\nalso tells us very clear ones, which have been found true a long time\nafter him. For example, he expresses himself thus in his seventh letter\nto Dion:\n\n\"I have been convinced that all states are very badly governed; there is\nscarcely any good institution or administration. We see, as it were, day\nafter day, that all follow the path of fortune rather than that of\nwisdom.\" After this short digression on temporal affairs, let us return\nto spiritual ones, to the Trinity. Plato says to Dionysius:\n\n\"The King of the universe is surrounded by His works: all is the effect\nof His grace. The finest of things have their first cause in Him; the\nsecond in perfection have in Him their second cause, and He is further\nthe third cause of works of the third degree.\"\n\nThe Trinity, such as we acknowledge, could not be recognized in this\nletter; but it was a great point to have in a Greek author a guaranty of\nthe dogmas of the dawning Church. Every Greek church was therefore\nPlatonic, as every Latin church was peripatetic, from the commencement\nof the third century. Thus two Greeks whom we have never understood,\nwere the masters of our opinions until the time in which men at the end\nof two thousand years were obliged to think for themselves.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Questions On Plato And Some Other Trifles._\n\nPlato, in saying to the Greeks what so many philosophers of other\nnations have said before him, in assuring them that there is a Supreme\nIntelligence which arranged the universe--did he think that this Supreme\nIntelligence resided in a single place, like a king of the East in his\nseraglio? Or rather did he believe that this Powerful Intelligence\nspread itself everywhere like light, or a being still more delicate,\nprompt, active, and penetrating than light? The God of Plato, in a word,\nis he in matter, or is he separated from it? Oh, you who have read Plato\nattentively, that is to say, seven or eight fantastical dreams hidden in\nsome garret in Europe, if ever these questions reach you, I implore you\nto answer them.\n\nThe barbarous island of Cassite rides, in which men lived in the woods\nin the time of Plato, has finally produced philosophers who are as much\nbeyond him as Plato was beyond those of his contemporaries who reasoned\nnot at all. Among these philosophers, Clarke is perhaps altogether the\nclearest, the most profound, the most methodical, and the strongest of\nall those who have spoken of the Supreme Being.\n\nWhen he gave his excellent book to the public he found a young gentleman\nof the county of Gloucester who candidly advanced objections as strong\nas his demonstrations. We can see them at the end of the first volume of\nClarke; it was not on the necessary existence of the Supreme Being that\nhe reasoned; it was on His infinity and immensity.\n\nIt appears not indeed, that Clarke has proved that there is a being who\npenetrates intimately all which exists, and that this being whose\nproperties we cannot conceive has the property of extending Himself to\nthe greatest imaginable distance.\n\nThe great Newton has demonstrated that there is a void in nature; but\nwhat philosopher could demonstrate to me that God is in this void; that\nHe touches it; that He fills it? How, bounded as we are, can we attain\nto the knowledge of these mysteries? Does it not suffice, that it proves\nto us that a Supreme Master exists? It is not given to us to know what\nHe is nor how He is.\n\nIt seems as if Locke and Clarke had the keys of the intelligible world.\nLocke has opened all the apartments which can be entered; but has not\nClarke wished to penetrate a little above the edifice? How could a\nphilosopher like Samuel Clarke, after so admirable a work on the\nexistence of God, write so pitiable a one on matters of fact?\n\nHow could Benedict Spinoza, who had as much profundity of mind as Samuel\nClarke, after raising himself to the most sublime metaphysics, how could\nhe not perceive that a Supreme Intelligence presides over works visibly\narranged with a supreme intelligence--if it is true after all that such\nis the system of Spinoza?\n\nHow could Newton, the greatest of men, comment upon the Apocalypse, as\nwe have already remarked? How could Locke, after having so well\ndeveloped the human understanding, degrade his own in another work? I\nfancy I see eagles, who after darting into a cloud go to rest on a\ndunghill.\n\n\n\n\nPOETS.\n\n\nA young man on leaving college deliberates whether he shall be an\nadvocate, a physician, a theologian, or a poet--whether he shall take\ncare of our body, our soul, or our entertainment. We have already spoken\nof advocates and physicians; we will now speak of the prodigious fortune\nwhich is sometimes made by the theologian.\n\nThe theologian becomes pope, and has not only his theological valets,\ncooks, singers, chamberlains, physicians, surgeons, sweepers, _agnus\ndei_ makers, confectioners, and preachers, but also his poet. I know not\nwhat inspired personage was the poet of Leo X., as David was for some\ntime the poet of Saul.\n\nIt is surely of all the employments in a great house, that which is the\nmost useless. The kings of England, who have preserved in their island\nmany of the ancient usages which are lost on the continent, have their\nofficial poet. He is obliged once a year to make an ode in praise of St.\nCecilia, who played so marvellously on the organ or psalterium that an\nangel descended from the ninth heaven to listen to her more\nconveniently--the harmony of the psaltery, in ascending from this place\nto the land of angels, necessarily losing a small portion of its volume.\n\nMoses is the first poet that we know of; but it is thought that before\nhim the Chald\u00e6ans, the Syrians, and the Indians practised poetry, since\nthey possessed music. Nevertheless, the fine canticle which Moses\nchanted with his sister Miriam, when they came out of the Red Sea, is\nthe most ancient poetical monument in hexameter verse that we possess. I\nam not of the opinion of those impious and ignorant rogues, Newton, Le\nClerc, and others, who prove that all this was written about eight\nhundred years after the event, and who insolently maintain that Moses\ncould not write in Hebrew, since Hebrew is only a comparatively modern\ndialect of the Ph\u0153nician, of which Moses could know nothing at all. I\nexamine not with the learned Huet how Moses was able to sing so well,\nwho stammered and could not speak.\n\nIf we listened to many of these authors, Moses would be less ancient\nthan Orpheus, Mus\u00e6us, Homer, and Hesiod. We perceive at the first glance\nthe absurdity of this opinion; as if a Greek could be an ancient as a\nJew!\n\nNeither will I reply to those impertinent persons who suspect that Moses\nis only an imaginary personage, a fabulous imitation of the fable of the\nancient Bacchus; and that all the prodigies of Bacchus, since attributed\nto Moses, were sung in orgies before it was known that Jews existed in\nthe world. This idea refutes itself; it is obvious to good sense that it\nis impossible that Bacchus could have existed before Moses.\n\nWe have still, however, an excellent Jewish poet undeniably anterior to\nHorace--King David; and we know well how infinitely superior the\n\"_Miserere,_\" is to the \"_Justum ac tenacem propositi virum._\" But what\nis most astonishing, legislators and kings have been our earliest poets.\nWe find even at present people so good as to become poets for kings.\nVirgil indeed had not the office of poet to Augustus, nor Lucan that of\npoet to Nero; but I confess that it would have debased the profession\nnot a little to make gods of either the one or the other.\n\nIt is asked, why poetry, being so unnecessary to the world, occupies so\nhigh a rank among the fine arts? The same question may be put with\nregard to music. Poetry is the music of the soul, and above all of great\nand of feeling souls. One merit of poetry few persons will deny; it says\nmore and in fewer words than prose. Who was ever able to translate the\nfollowing Latin words with the brevity with which they came from the\nbrain of the poet: \"_Vive memor lethi, fugit hora, hoc quod loquor inde\nest?_\"\n\nI speak not of the other charms of poetry, as they are well known; but I\ninsist upon the grand precept of Horace, \"_Sapere est principium et\nfons._\" There can be no great poetry without great wisdom; but how\nconnect this wisdom with enthusiasm, like C\u00e6sar, who formed his plan of\nbattle with circumspection, and fought with all possible ardor?\n\nThere have no doubt been ignorant poets, but then they have been bad\npoets. A man acquainted only with dactyls and spondees, and with a head\nfull of rhymes, is rarely a man of sense; but Virgil is endowed with\nsuperior reason.\n\nLucretius, in common with all the ancients, was miserably ignorant of\nphysical laws, a knowledge of which is not to be acquired by wit. It is\na knowledge which is only to be obtained by instruments, which in his\ntime had not been invented. Glasses are necessary--microscopes,\npneumatic machines, barometers, etc., to have even a distant idea of the\noperations of nature.\n\nDescartes knew little more than Lucretius, when his keys opened the\nsanctuary; and an hundred times more of the path has been trodden from\nthe time of Galileo, who was better instructed physically than\nDescartes, to the present day, than from the first Hermes to Lucretius.\n\nAll ancient physics are absurd: it was not thus with the philosophy of\nmind, and that good sense which, assisted by strength of intellect, can\nacutely balance between doubts and appearances. This is the chief merit\nof Lucretius; his third book is a masterpiece of reasoning. He argues\nlike Cicero, and expresses himself like Virgil; and it must be confessed\nthat when our illustrious Polignac attacked his third book, he refuted\nit only like a cardinal.\n\nWhen I say, that Lucretius reasons in his third book like an able\nmetaphysician, I do not say that he was right. We may argue very\nsoundly, and deceive ourselves, if not instructed by revelation.\nLucretius was not a Jew, and we know that Jews alone were in the right\nin the days of Cicero, of Posidonius, of C\u00e6sar, and of Cato. Lastly,\nunder Tiberius, the Jews were no longer in the right, and common sense\nwas possessed by the Christians exclusively.\n\nThus it was impossible that Lucretius, Cicero, and C\u00e6sar could be\nanything but imbecile, in comparison with the Jews and ourselves; but it\nmust be allowed that in the eyes of the rest of the world they were very\ngreat men. I allow that Lucretius killed himself, as also did Cato,\nCassius, and Brutus, but they might very well kill themselves, and still\nreason like men of intellect during their lives.\n\nIn every author let us distinguish the man from his works. Racine wrote\nlike Virgil, but he became Jansenist through weakness, and he died in\nconsequence of weakness equally great--because a man in passing through\na gallery did not bestow a look upon him. I am very sorry for all this;\nbut the part of Ph\u00e6dra is not therefore the less admirable.\n\n\n\n\nPOISONINGS.\n\n\nLet us often repeat useful truths. There have always been fewer\npoisonings than have been spoken of: it is almost with them as with\nparricides; the accusations have been very common, and the crimes very\nrare. One proof is, that we have a long time taken for poison that which\nis not so. How many princes have got rid of those who were suspected by\nthem by making them drink bullock's blood! How many other princes have\nswallowed it themselves to avoid falling into the hands of their\nenemies! All ancient historians, and even Plutarch, attest it.\n\nI was so infatuated with these tales in my childhood that I bled one of\nmy bulls, in the idea that his blood belonged to me, since he was born\nin my stable--an ancient pretension of which I will not here dispute the\nvalidity. I drank this blood, like Atreus and Mademoiselle de Vergi, and\nit did me no more harm than horse's blood does to the Tartars, or\npudding does to us every day, if it be not too rich.\n\nWhy should the blood of a bull be a poison, when that of a goat is\nconsidered a remedy? The peasants of my province swallow the blood of a\ncow, which they call fricass\u00e9e, every day; that of a bull is not more\ndangerous. Be sure, dear reader, that Themistocles died not of it.\n\nSome speculators of the court of Louis XIV. believed they discovered\nthat his sister-in-law, Henrietta of England, was poisoned with powder\nof diamonds, which was put into a bowl of strawberries, instead of\ngrated sugar; but neither the impalpable powder of glass or diamonds,\nnor that of any production of nature which was not in itself venomous,\ncould be hurtful.\n\nThey are only sharp-cutting active points which can become violent. The\nexact observer, Mead, a celebrated English physician, saw through a\nmicroscope the liquor shot from the gums of irritated vipers. He\npretends that he has always found them strewn with these cutting,\npointed blades, the immense number of which tear and pierce the internal\nmembranes.\n\nThe cantarella, of which it is pretended that Pope Alexander VI. and his\nbastard, the duke of Borgia, made great use, was, it is said, the foam\nof a hog rendered furious by suspending him by the feet with his head\ndownwards, in which situation he was beaten to death; it was a poison as\nprompt and violent as that of the viper. A great apothecary assures me\nthat Madame la Tofana, that celebrated poisoner of Naples, principally\nmade use of this receipt; all which is perhaps untrue. This science is\none of those of which we should be ignorant.\n\nPoisons which coagulate the blood, instead of tearing the membranes, are\nopium, hemlock, henbane, aconite, and several others. The Athenians\nbecame so refined as to cause their countrymen, condemned to death, to\ndie by poisons reputed cold; an apothecary was the executioner of the\nrepublic. It is said that Socrates died very peacefully, and as if he\nslept: I can scarcely believe it.\n\nI made one remark on the Jewish books, which is, that among this people\nwe see no one who was poisoned. A crowd of kings and priests perished by\nassassination; the history of the nation is the history of murders and\nrobberies; but a single instance only is mentioned of a man who was\npoisoned, and this man was not a Jew--he was a Syrian named Lysias,\ngeneral of the armies of Antiochus Epiphanes. The second Book of\nMaccabees says that he poisoned himself--\"_veneno vitam finivit_;\" but\nthese Books of Maccabees are very suspicious. My dear reader, I have\nalready desired you to believe nothing lightly.\n\nWhat astonishes me most in the history of the manners of the ancient\nRomans is the conspiracy of the Roman women to cause to perish by\npoison, not only their husbands, but the principal citizens in general.\n\"It was,\" says Titus Livius, \"in the year 423 from the foundation of\nRome, and therefore in the time of the most austere virtue; it was\nbefore there was any mention of divorce, though divorce was authorized;\nit was when women drank no wine, and scarcely ever went out of their\nhouses, except to the temples.\" How can we imagine, that they suddenly\napplied themselves to the knowledge of poisons; that they assembled to\ncompose them; and, without any apparent interest, thus administered\ndeath to the first men in Rome?\n\nLawrence Echard, in his abridged compilation, contents himself with\nsaying, that \"the virtue of the Roman ladies was strangely belied; that\none hundred and seventy who meddled with the art of making poisons, and\nof reducing this art into precepts, were all at once accused, convicted,\nand punished.\" Titus Livius assuredly does not say that they reduced\nthis art into rules. That would signify that they held a school of\npoisons, that they professed it as a science; which is ridiculous. He\nsays nothing about a hundred and seventy professors in corrosive\nsublimate and verdigris. Finally, he does not affirm that there were\npoisoners among the wives of the senators and knights.\n\nThe people were extremely foolish, and reasoned at Rome as elsewhere.\nThese are the words of Titus Livius: \"The year 423 was of the number of\nunfortunate ones; there was a mortality caused by the temperature of the\nair or by human malice. I wish that we could affirm with some author\nthat the corruption of the air caused this epidemic, rather than\nattribute the death of so many Romans to poison, as many historians have\nfalsely written, to decry this year.\"\n\nThey have therefore written falsely, according to Titus Livius, who\nbelieves not that the ladies of Rome were poisoners: but what interest\nhad authors in decrying this year? I know not.\n\n\"I relate the fact,\" continues he, \"as it was related before me.\" This\nis not the speech of a satisfied man; besides, the alleged fact much\nresembles a fable. A slave accuses about seventy women, among whom are\nseveral of the patrician rank, of causing the plague in Rome by\npreparing poisons. Some of the accused demand permission to swallow\ntheir drugs, and expire on the spot; and their accomplices are condemned\nto death without the manner of their punishment being specified.\n\nI suspect that this story to which Titus Livius gives no credit,\ndeserves to be banished to the place in which the vessel is preserved\nwhich a vestal drew to shore with a girdle; where Jupiter in person\nstopped the flight of the Romans; where Castor and Pollux came to combat\non horseback in their behalf; where a flint was cut with a razor; and\nwhere Simon Barjonas, surnamed Peter, disputed miracles with Simon the\nmagician.\n\nThere is scarcely any poison of which we cannot prevent the consequences\nby combating it immediately. There is no medicine which is not a poison\nwhen taken in too strong a dose. All indigestion is a poison. An\nignorant physician, and even a learned but inattentive one, is often a\npoisoner. A good cook is a certain slow poisoner, if you are not\ntemperate.\n\nOne day the marquis d'Argenson, minister of state for the foreign\ndepartment, whilst his brother was minister of war, received from London\na letter from a fool--as ministers do by every post; this fool proposed\nan infallible means of poisoning all the inhabitants of the capital of\nEngland. \"This does not concern me,\" said the marquis d'Argenson to us;\n\"it is a packet to my brother.\"\n\n\n\n\nPOLICY.\n\n\nThe policy of man consists, at first, in endeavoring to arrive at a\nstate equal to that of animals, whom nature has furnished with food,\nclothing, and shelter. To attain this state is a matter of no little\ntime and difficulty. How to procure for himself subsistence and\naccommodation, and protect himself from evil, comprises the whole object\nand business of man.\n\nThis evil exists everywhere; the four elements of nature conspire to\nform it. The barrenness of one-quarter part of the world, the numberless\ndiseases to which we are subject, the multitude of strong and hostile\nanimals by which we are surrounded, oblige us to be constantly on the\nalert in body and in mind, to guard against the various forms of evil.\n\nNo man, by his own individual care and exertion, can secure himself from\nevil; he requires assistance. Society therefore is as ancient as the\nworld. This society consists sometimes of too many, and sometimes of too\nfew. The vicissitudes of the world have often destroyed whole races of\nmen and other animals, in many countries, and have multiplied them in\nothers.\n\nTo enable a species to multiply, a tolerable climate and soil are\nnecessary; and even with these advantages, men may be under the\nnecessity of going unclothed, of suffering hunger, of being destitute of\neverything, and of perishing in misery.\n\nMen are not like beavers, or bees, or silk-worms; they have no sure and\ninfallible instinct which procures for them necessaries. Among a hundred\nmen, there is scarcely one that possesses genius; and among women,\nscarcely one among five hundred.\n\nIt is only by means of genius that those arts are invented, which\neventually furnish something of that accommodation which is the great\nobject of all policy.\n\nTo attempt these arts with success, the assistance of others is\nrequisite; hands to aid you, and minds sufficiently acute and\nunprejudiced to comprehend you, and sufficiently docile to obey you.\nBefore, however, all this can be discovered and brought together,\nthousands of years roll on in ignorance and barbarism; thousands of\nefforts for improvement terminate only in abortion. At length, the\noutlines of an art are formed, but thousands of ages are still requisite\nto carry it to perfection.\n\n_Foreign Policy._\n\nWhen any one nation has become acquainted with metallurgy, it will\ncertainly beat its neighbors and make slaves of them. You possess arrows\nand sabres, and were born in a climate that has rendered you robust. We\nare weak, and have only clubs and stones. You kill us, or if you permit\nus to live, it is that we may till your fields and build your houses. We\nsing some rustic ditty to dissipate your spleen or animate your languor,\nif we have any voice; or we blow on some pipes, in order to obtain from\nyou clothing and bread. If our wives and daughters are handsome, you\nappropriate them without scruple to yourselves. The young gentleman,\nyour son, not only takes advantage of the established policy, but adds\nnew discoveries to this growing art. His servants proceed, by his\norders, to emasculate my unfortunate boys, whom he then honors with the\nguardianship of his wives and mistresses. Such has been policy, the\ngreat art of making mankind contribute to individual advantage and\nenjoyment; and such is still policy throughout the largest portion of\nAsia.\n\nSome nations, or rather hordes, having thus by superior strength and\nskill brought into subjection others, begin afterwards to fight with one\nanother for the division of the spoil. Each petty nation maintains and\npays soldiers. To encourage, and at the same time to control these\nsoldiers, each possesses its gods, its oracles, and prophecies; each\nmaintains and pays its soothsayers and slaughtering priests. These\nsoothsayers or augurs begin with prophesying in favor of the heads of\nthe nation; they afterwards prophesy for themselves and obtain a share\nin the government. The most powerful and shrewd prevail at last over the\nothers, after ages of carnage which excite our horror, and of impostures\nwhich excite our laughter. Such is the regular course and completion of\npolicy.\n\nWhile these scenes of ravage and fraud are carried on in one portion of\nthe globe, other nations, or rather clans, retire to mountain caverns,\nor districts surrounded by inaccessible swamps, marshes, or some verdant\nand solitary spot in the midst of vast deserts of burning sand, or some\npeninsular and consequently easily protected territory, to secure\nthemselves against the tyrants of the continent. At length all become\narmed with nearly the same description of weapons; and blood flows from\none extremity of the world to the other.\n\nMen, however, cannot forever go on killing one another; and peace is\nconsequently made, till either party thinks itself sufficiently strong\nto recommence the war. Those who can write draw up these treaties of\npeace; and the chiefs of every nation, with a view more successfully to\nimpose upon their enemies, invoke the gods to attest with what sincerity\nthey bind themselves to the observance of these compacts. Oaths of the\nmost solemn character are invented and employed, and one party engages\nin the name of the great Somonocodom, and the other in that of Jupiter\nthe Avenger, to live forever in peace and amity; while in the same names\nof Somonocodom and Jupiter, they take the first opportunity of cutting\none another's throats.\n\nIn times of the greatest civilization and refinement, the lion of \u00c6sop\nmade a treaty with three animals, who were his neighbors. The object was\nto divide the common spoil into four equal parts. The lion, for certain\nincontestable and satisfactory reasons which he did not then deem it\nnecessary to detail, but which he would be always ready to give in due\ntime and place, first takes three parts out of the four for himself, and\nthen threatens instant strangulation to whoever shall dare to touch the\nfourth. This is the true sublime of policy.\n\n_Internal Policy._\n\nThe object here is to accumulate for our own country the greatest\nquantity of power, honor, and enjoyment possible. To attain these in any\nextraordinary degree, much money is indispensable. In a democracy it is\nvery difficult to accomplish this object. Every citizen is your rival; a\ndemocracy can never subsist but in a small territory. You may have\nwealth almost equal to your wishes through your own mercantile dealings,\nor transmitted in patrimony from your industrious and opulent\ngrandfather; your fortune will excite jealousy and envy, but will\npurchase little real co-operation and service. If an affluent family\never bears sway in a democracy, it is not for a long time.\n\nIn an aristocracy, honors, pleasures, power, and money, are more easily\nobtainable. Great discretion, however, is necessary. If abuse is\nflagrant, revolution will be the consequence. Thus in a democracy all\nthe citizens are equal. This species of government is at present rare,\nand appears to but little advantage, although it is in itself natural\nand wise. In aristocracy, inequality or superiority makes itself\nsensibly felt; but the less arrogant its demeanor, the more secure and\nsuccessful will be its course.\n\nMonarchy remains to be mentioned. In this, all mankind are made for one\nindividual: he accumulates all honors with which he chooses to decorate\nhimself, tastes all pleasures to which he feels an inclination, and\nexercises a power absolutely without control; provided, let it be\nremembered, that he has plenty of money. If he is deficient in that, he\nwill be unsuccessful at home as well as abroad, and will soon be left\ndestitute of power, pleasures, honors, and perhaps even of life.\n\nWhile this personage has money, not only is he successful and happy\nhimself, but his relations and principal servants are flourishing in\nfull enjoyment also; and an immense multitude of hirelings labor for\nthem the whole year round, in the vain hope that they shall themselves,\nsome time or other, enjoy in their cottages the leisure and comfort\nwhich their sultans and pashas enjoy in their harems. Observe, however,\nwhat will probably happen.\n\nA jolly, full-fed farmer was formerly in possession of a vast estate,\nconsisting of fields, meadows, vineyards, orchards, and forests. A\nhundred laborers worked for him, while he dined with his family, drank\nhis wine, and went to sleep. His principal domestics, who plundered him,\ndined next, and ate up nearly everything. Then came the laborers, for\nwhom there was left only a very meagre and insufficient meal. They at\nfirst murmured, then openly complained, speedily lost all patience, and\nat last ate up the dinner prepared for their master, and turned him out\nof his house. The master said they were a set of scoundrels, a pack of\nundutiful and rebellious children who assaulted and abused their own\nfather. The laborers replied that they had only obeyed the sacred law of\nnature, which he had violated. The dispute was finally referred to a\nsoothsayer in the neighborhood, who was thought to be actually inspired.\nThe holy man takes the farm into his own hands, and nearly famishes both\nthe laborers and the master; till at length their feelings counteract\ntheir superstition, and the saint is in the end expelled in his turn.\nThis is domestic policy.\n\nThere have been more examples than one of this description; and some\nconsequences of this species of policy still subsist in all their\nstrength. We may hope that in the course of ten or twelve thousand ages,\nwhen mankind become more enlightened, the great proprietors of estates,\ngrown also more wise, will on the one hand treat their laborers rather\nbetter, and on the other take care not to be duped by soothsayers.\n\n\n\n\nPOLYPUS.\n\n\nIn quality of a doubter, I have a long time filled my vocation. I have\ndoubted when they would persuade me, that the _glossopetres_ which I\nhave seen formed in my fields, were originally the tongues of sea-dogs,\nthat the lime used in my barn was composed of shells only, that corals\nwere the production of the excrement of certain little fishes, that the\nsea by its currents has formed Mount Cenis and Mount Taurus, and that\nNiobe was formerly changed into marble.\n\nIt is not that I love not the extraordinary, the marvellous, as well as\nany traveller or man of system; but to believe firmly, I would see with\nmy own eyes, touch with my own hands, and that several times. Even that\nis not enough; I would still be aided by the eyes and hands of others.\n\nTwo of my companions, who, like myself, form questions on the\n\"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" have for some time amused themselves with me in studying\nthe nature of several of the little films which grow in ditches by the\nside of water lentils. These light herbs, which we call polypi of soft\nwater, have several roots, from which circumstance we have given them\nthe name of polypi. These little parasite plants were merely plants,\nuntil the commencement of the age in which we live. Leuenhoeck raises\nthem to the rank of animals. We know not if they have gained much by it.\n\nWe think that, to be considered as an animal, it is necessary to be\nendowed with sensation. They therefore commence by showing us, that\nthese soft water polypi have feeling, in order that we should present\nthem with our right of citizenship.\n\nWe have not dared to grant it the dignity of sensation, though it\nappeared to have the greatest pretensions to it. Why should we give it\nto a species of small rush? Is it because it appears to bud? This\nproperty is common to all trees growing by the water-side; to willows,\npoplars, aspens, etc. It is so light, that it changes place at the least\nmotion of the drop of water which bears it; thence it has been concluded\nthat it walked. In like manner, we may suppose that the little,\nfloating, marshy islands of St. Omer are animals, for they often change\ntheir place.\n\nIt is said its roots are its feet, its stalk its body, its branches are\nits arms; the pipe which composes its stalk is pierced at the top--it is\nits mouth. In this pipe there is a light white pith, of which some\nalmost imperceptible animalcules are very greedy; they enter the hollow\nof this little pipe by making it bend, and eat this light paste;--it is\nthe polypus who captures these animals with his snout, though it has not\nthe least appearance of head, mouth, or stomach.\n\nWe have examined this sport of nature with all the attention of which we\nare capable. It appeared to us that the production called polypus\nresembled an animal much less than a carrot or asparagus. In vain we\nhave opposed to our eyes all the reasonings which we formerly read; the\nevidence of our eyes has overthrown them. It is a pity to lose an\nillusion. We know how pleasant it would be to have an animal which could\nreproduce itself by offshoots, and which, having all the appearances of\na plant, could join the animal to the vegetable kingdom.\n\nIt would be much more natural to give the rank of an animal to the\nnewly-discovered plant of Anglo-America, to which the pleasant name of\nVenus' fly-trap has been given. It is a kind of prickly sensitive-plant,\nthe leaves of which fold of themselves; the flies are taken in these\nleaves and perish there more certainly than in the web of a spider. If\nany of our physicians would call this plant an animal, he would have\npartisans.\n\nBut if you would have something more extraordinary, more worthy of the\nobservation of philosophers, observe the snail, which lives one and two\nwhole months after its head is cut off, and which afterwards has a\nsecond head, containing all the organs possessed by the first. This\ntruth, to which all children can be witnesses, is more worthy than the\nillusion of polypi of soft water. What becomes of its sensorium, its\nmagazine of ideas, and soul, when its head is cut off? How do all these\nreturn? A soul which is renewed is a very curious phenomenon; not that\nit is more strange than a soul begotten, a soul which sleeps and awakes,\nor a condemned soul.\n\n\n\n\nPOLYTHEISM.\n\n\nThe plurality of gods is the great reproach at present cast upon the\nGreeks and Romans: but let any man show me, if he can, a single fact in\nthe whole of their histories, or a single word in the whole of their\nbooks, from which it may be fairly inferred that they believed in many\nsupreme gods; and if neither that fact nor word can be found, if, on the\ncontrary, all antiquity is full of monuments and records which attest\none sovereign God, superior to all other gods, let us candidly admit\nthat we have judged the ancients as harshly as we too often judge our\ncontemporaries.\n\nWe read in numberless passages that Zeus, Jupiter, is the master of gods\nand men. \"_Jovis omnia plena._\"--\"All things are full of Jupiter.\" And\nSt. Paul gives this testimony in favor of the ancients: \"_In ipso\nvivimus, movemur, et sumus, ut quidam vestrorum poetarum dixit._\"--\"In\nGod we live, and move, and have our being, as one of your own poets has\nsaid.\" After such an acknowledgment as this, how can we dare to accuse\nour instructors of not having recognized a supreme God?\n\nWe have no occasion whatever to examine upon this subject, whether there\nwas formerly a Jupiter who was king of Crete, and who may possibly have\nbeen considered and ranked as a god; or whether the Egyptians had twelve\nsuperior gods, or eight, among whom the deity called Jupiter by the\nLatins might be one. The single point to be investigated and ascertained\nhere is, whether the Greeks and Romans acknowledged one celestial being\nas the master or sovereign of other celestial beings. They constantly\ntell us that they do; and we ought therefore to believe them.\n\nThe admirable letter of the philosopher Maximus of Madaura to St.\nAugustine is completely to our purpose: \"There is a God,\" says he,\n\"without any beginning, the common Father of all, but who never produced\na being like Himself. What man is so stupid and besotted as to doubt\nit?\" Such is the testimony of a pagan of the fourth century on behalf of\nall antiquity.\n\nWere I inclined to lift the veil that conceals the mysteries of Egypt, I\nshould find the deity adored under the name of Knef, who produced all\nthings and presides over all the other deities; I should discover also a\nMithra among the Persians, and a Brahma among the Indians, and could\nperhaps show, that every civilized nation admitted one supreme being,\ntogether with a multitude of dependent divinities. I do not speak of the\nChinese, whose government, more respectable than all the rest, has\nacknowledged one God only for a period of more than four thousand years.\nLet us here confine ourselves to the Greeks and Romans, who are the\nobjects of our immediate researches. They had among them innumerable\nsuperstitions--it is impossible to doubt it; they adopted fables\nabsolutely ridiculous--everybody knows it; and I may safely add, that\nthey were themselves sufficiently disposed to ridicule them. After all,\nhowever, the foundation of their theology was conformable to reason.\n\nIn the first place, with respect to the Greeks placing heroes in heaven\nas a reward for their virtues, it was one of the most wise and useful of\nreligious institutions. What nobler recompense could possibly be\nbestowed upon them; what more animating and inspiring hope could be held\nout to them? Is it becoming that we, above all others, should censure\nsuch a practice--we who, enlightened by the truth, have piously\nconsecrated the very usage which the ancients imagined? We have a far\ngreater number of the blessed in honor of whom we have created altars,\nthan the Greeks and Romans had of heroes and demi-gods; the difference\nis, that they granted the apotheosis to the most illustrious and\nresplendent actions, and we grant it to the most meek and retired\nvirtues. But their deified heroes never shared the throne of Jupiter,\nthe great architect, the eternal sovereign of the universe; they were\nadmitted to his court and enjoyed his favors. What is there unreasonable\nin this? Is it not a faint shadow and resemblance of the celestial\nhierarchy presented to us by our religion? Nothing can be of a more\nsalutary moral tendency than such an idea; and the reality is not\nphysically impossible in itself. We have surely, upon this subject, no\nfair ground for ridiculing nations to whom we are indebted even for our\nalphabet.\n\nThe second object of our reproaches, is the multitude of gods admitted\nto the government of the world; Neptune presiding over the sea, Juno\nover the air, \u00c6olus over the winds, and Pluto or Vesta over the earth,\nand Mars over armies. We set aside the genealogies of all these\ndivinities, which are as false as those which are every day fabricated\nand printed respecting individuals among ourselves; we pass sentence of\ncondemnation on all their light and loose adventures, worthy of being\nrecorded in the pages of the \"Thousand and One Nights,\" and which never\nconstituted the foundation or essence of the Greek and Roman faith; but\nlet us at the same time candidly ask, where is the folly and stupidity\nof having adopted beings of a secondary order, who, whatever they may be\nin relation to the great supreme, have at least some power over our very\ndifferently-constituted race, which, instead of belonging to the second,\nbelongs perhaps to the hundred thousandth order of existence? Does this\ndoctrine necessarily imply either bad metaphysics or bad natural\nphilosophy? Have we not ourselves nine choirs of celestial spirits, more\nancient than mankind? Has not each of these choirs a peculiar name? Did\nnot the Jews take the greater number of these names from the Persians?\nHave not many angels their peculiar functions assigned them? There was\nan exterminating angel, who fought for the Jews, and the angel of\ntravellers, who conducted Tobit. Michael was the particular angel of the\nHebrews; and, according to Daniel, he fights against the angel of the\nPersians, and speaks to the angel of the Greeks. An angel of inferior\nrank gives an account to Michael, in the book of Zachariah, of the state\nin which he had found the country. Every nation possessed its angel; the\nversion of the Seventy Days, in Deuteronomy, that the Lord allotted the\nnations according to the number of angels. St. Paul, in the Acts of the\nApostles, talks to the angel of Macedonia. These celestial spirits are\nfrequently called gods in Scripture, _Eloim._ For among all nations, the\nword that corresponds with that of Theos, Deus, Dieu, God, by no means\nuniversally signifies the Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth; it\nfrequently signifies a celestial being, a being superior to man, but\ndependent upon the great Sovereign of Nature; and it is sometimes\nbestowed even on princes and judges.\n\nSince to us it is a matter of truth and reality, that celestial\nsubstances actually exist, who are intrusted with the care of men and\nempires, the people who have admitted this truth without the light of\nrevelation are more worthy of our esteem than our contempt.\n\nThe ridicule, therefore, does not attach to polytheism itself, but to\nthe abuse of it; to the popular fables of superstition; to the multitude\nof absurd divinities which have been supposed to exist and to the number\nof which every individual might add at his pleasure.\n\nThe goddess of nipples, \"_dea Rumilia_\"; the goddess of conjugal union,\n\"_dea Pertunda_\"; the god of the water-closet, \"_deus Stercutius_\"; the\ngod of flatulence, \"_deus Crepitus_\"; are certainly not calculated to\nattract the highest degree of veneration. These ridiculous absurdities,\nthe amusement of the old women and children of Rome, merely prove that\nthe word _deus_ had acceptations of a widely different nature. Nothing\ncan be more certain or obvious, than that the god of flatulence, \"_deus\nCrepitus,_\" could never excite the same idea as _deus div\u00fbm et hominum\nsator,_ the source of gods and men. The Roman pontiffs did not admit the\nlittle burlesque and baboon-looking deities which silly women introduced\ninto their cabinets. The Roman religion was in fact, in its intrinsic\ncharacter, both serious and austere. Oaths were inviolable; war could\nnot be commenced before the college of heralds had declared it just; and\na vestal convicted of having violated her vow of virginity, was\ncondemned to death. These circumstances announce a people inclined to\nausterities, rather than a people volatile, frivolous, and addicted to\nridicule.\n\nI confine myself here to showing that the senate did not reason absurdly\nin adopting polytheism. It is asked, how that senate, to two or three\ndeputies from which we were indebted both for chains and laws, could\npermit so many extravagances among the people, and authorize so many\nfables among the pontiffs? It would be by no means difficult to answer\nthis question. The wise have in every age made use of fools. They freely\nleave to the people their lupercals and their saturnalia, if they only\ncontinue loyal and obedient; and the sacred pullets that promised\nvictory to the armies, are judiciously secured against the sacrilege of\nbeing slaughtered for the table. Let us never be surprised at seeing,\nthat the most enlightened governments have permitted customs and fables\nof the most senseless character. These customs and fables existed before\ngovernment was formed; and no one would pull down an immense city,\nhowever irregular in its buildings, to erect it precisely according to\nline and level.\n\nHow can it arise, we are asked, that on one side we see so much\nphilosophy and science, and on the other so much fanaticism? The reason\nis, that science and philosophy were scarcely born before Cicero, and\nthat fanaticism reigned for centuries. Policy, in such circumstances,\nsays to philosophy and fanaticism: Let us all three live together as\nwell as we can.\n\n\n\n\nPOPERY.\n\n\nPAPIST.--His highness has within his principality Lutherans, Calvinists,\nQuakers, Anabaptists, and even Jews; and you wish that he would admit\nUnitarians?\n\nTREASURER.--Certainly, if these Unitarians bring with them wealth and\nindustry. You will only be the better paid your wages.\n\nPAPIST.--I must confess that a diminution of my wages would be more\ndisagreeable to me than the admission of these persons; but, then, they\ndo not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.\n\nTREASURER.--What does that signify to you, provided that you are\npermitted to believe it, and are well lodged, well clothed, and well\nfed? The Jews are far from believing that He is the Son of God, and yet\nyou are very easy with the Jews, with whom you deposit your money at six\nper cent. St. Paul himself has never spoken of the divinity of Jesus\nChrist, who is undisguisedly called a man. Death, says he, entered into\nthe world by the sin of one man ... and by one man, Jesus Christ, the\ngift of grace hath abounded unto many, etc. All the early fathers of the\nChurch thought like Paul. It is evident that, for three hundred years,\nJesus was content with His humanity; imagine yourself a Christian of one\nof the first three centuries.\n\nPAPIST.--Yes, sir; but neither do they believe in eternal punishments.\n\nTREASURER.--Nor I either; be you damned eternally if you please; for my\nown part, I do not look for that advantage.\n\nPAPIST.--Ah, sir! it is very hard not to be able to damn at pleasure all\nthe heretics in the world; but the rage which the Unitarian displays for\nrendering everybody finally happy is not my only complaint. Know, that\nthese monsters believe the resurrection of the body no more than the\nSadducees. They say, that we are all anthropophagi, and that the\nparticles which compose our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, having\nbeen necessarily dispersed in the atmosphere, become carrots and\nasparagus, and that it is possible we may have devoured a portion of our\nancestors.\n\nTREASURER.--Be it so; our children will do as much by us; it is but\nrepayment, and Papists will be as much benefited as others. This is no\nreason for driving you from the states of his highness; and why any more\nso for ejecting the Unitarians? Rise again, if you are able; it matters\nlittle whether the Unitarians rise again or no, provided they are useful\nduring their lives.\n\nPAPIST.--And what, sir, do you say to original sin, which they boldly\ndeny? Are you not scandalized by their assertion, that the Pentateuch\nsays not a word about it, that the bishop of Hippo, St. Augustine, is\nthe first who decidedly taught this dogma, although it is evidently\nindicated by St. Paul?\n\nTREASURER.--Truly, if the Pentateuch does not mention it, that is not my\nfault. Why not add a text or two about original sin to the Old\nTestament, as it is said you have added on other subjects? I know\nnothing of these subtleties; it is my business only to pay you your\nstipend, when I have the money to do so.\n\n\n\n\nPOPULATION.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThere were very few caterpillars in my canton last year, and we killed\nnearly the whole of them. God has rendered them this year more numerous\nthan the leaves. Is it not nearly thus with other animals, and above all\nwith mankind? Famine, pestilence, death, and the two sister diseases\nwhich have visited us from Arabia and America, destroy the inhabitants\nof a province, and we are surprised at finding it abound with people a\nhundred years afterwards.\n\nI admit that it is a sacred duty to people this world, and that all\nanimals are stimulated by pleasure to fulfil this intention of the great\nDemiourgos. Why this inhabiting of the earth? and to what purpose form\nso many beings to devour one another, and the animal man to cut the\nthroat of his fellow, from one end of the earth to the other? I am\nassured that I shall one day be in the possession of this secret, and in\nmy character of an inquisitive man I exceedingly desire it.\n\nIt is clear that we ought to people the earth as much as we are able;\neven our health renders it necessary. The wise Arabians, the robbers of\nthe desert, in the treaties which they made with travellers, always\nstipulated for girls. When they conquered Spain, they imposed a tribute\nof girls. The country of Media pays the Turks in girls. The buccaneers\nbrought girls from Paris to the little island of which they took\npossession; and it is related that, at the fine spectacle with which\nRomulus entertained the Sabines, he stole from them three hundred girls.\n\nI cannot conceive why the Jews, whom moreover I revere, killed everybody\nin Jericho, even to the girls; and why they say in the Psalms, that it\nwill be sweet to massacre the infants at the mother's breast, without\nexcepting even girls. All other people, whether Tartars, Cannibals,\nTeutons, or Celts, have always held girls in great request.\n\nOwing to this happy instinct, it seems that the earth may one day be\ncovered with animals of our own kind. Father Petau makes the inhabitants\nof the earth seven hundred millions, two hundred and eighty years after\nthe deluge. It is not, however, at the end of the \"Arabian Nights\" that\nhe has printed this pleasant enumeration.\n\nI reckon at present on our globe about nine hundred millions of\ncontemporaries, and an equal number of each sex. Wallace makes them a\nthousand millions. Am I in error, or is he? Possibly both of us; but a\ntenth is a small matter; the arithmetic of historians is usually much\nmore erroneous.\n\nI am somewhat surprised that the arithmetician Wallace, who extends the\nnumber of people at present existing to a thousand millions, should\npretend in the same page, that in the year 966, after the creation, our\nforefathers amounted to sixteen hundred and ten millions.\n\nIn the first place, I wish the epoch of the creation to be clearly\nestablished; and as, in our western world, we have no less than eighty\ntheories of this event, there will be some difficulty to hit on the\ncorrect one. In the second place, the Egyptians, the Chald\u00e6ans, the\nPersians, the Indians, and the Chinese, have all different calculations;\nand it is still more difficult to agree with them. Thirdly, why, in the\nnine hundred and sixty-sixth year of the world, should there be more\npeople than there are at present?\n\nTo explain this absurdity, we are told that matters occurred otherwise\nthan at present; that nature, being more vigorous, was better concocted\nand more prolific; and, moreover, that people lived longer. Why do they\nnot add, that the sun was warmer, and the moon more beautiful.\n\nWe are told, that in the time of C\u00e6sar, although men had begun to\ngreatly degenerate, the world was like an ants' nest of bipeds; but that\nat present it is a desert. Montesquieu, who always exaggerates, and who\nsacrifices anything to an itching desire of displaying his wit, ventures\nto believe, and in his \"Persian Letters\" would have others believe, that\nthere were thirty times as many people in the world in the days of C\u00e6sar\nas at present.\n\nWallace acknowledges that this calculation made at random is too much;\nbut for what reason? Because, before the days of C\u00e6sar, the world\npossessed more inhabitants than during the most brilliant period of the\nRoman republic. He then ascends to the time of Semiramis, and if\npossible exaggerates more than Montesquieu.\n\nLastly, in conformity with the taste which is always attributed to the\nHoly Spirit for hyperbole, they fail not to instance the eleven hundred\nand sixty thousand men, who marched so fiercely under the standards of\nthe great monarch, Josophat, or Jehosophat, king of the province of\nJudah. Enough, enough, Mr. Wallace; the Holy Spirit cannot deceive; but\nits agents and copyists have badly calculated and numbered. All your\nScotland would not furnish eleven hundred thousand men to attend your\nsermons, and the kingdom of Judah was not a twentieth part of Scotland.\nSee, again, what St. Jerome says of this poor Holy Land, in which he so\nlong resided. Have you well calculated the quantity of money the great\nKing Jehosophat must have possessed, to pay, feed, clothe, and arm\neleven hundred thousand chosen men? But thus is history written.\n\nMr. Wallace returns from Jehosophat to C\u00e6sar, and concludes, that since\nthe time of this dictator of short duration, the world has visibly\ndecreased in the number of its inhabitants. Behold, said he, the Swiss:\naccording to the relation of C\u00e6sar, they amounted to three hundred and\nsixty-eight thousand, when they so wisely quitted their country to seek\ntheir fortunes, like the Cimbri.\n\nI wish by this example to recall those partisans into a little due\nconsideration, who gift the ancients with such wonders in the way of\ngeneration, at the expense of the moderns. The canton of Berne alone,\naccording to an accurate census, possesses a greater number of\ninhabitants than quitted the whole of Helvetia in the time of C\u00e6sar. The\nhuman species is, therefore, doubled in Helvetia since that expedition.\n\nI likewise believe, that Germany, France, and England are much better\npeopled now than at that time; and for this reason: I adduce the vast\nclearance of forests, the number of great towns built and increased\nduring the last eight hundred years, and the number of arts which have\noriginated in proportion. This I regard as a sufficient answer to the\nbrazen declamation, repeated every day in books, in which truth is\nsacrificed to sallies, and which are rendered useless by their abundant\nwit.\n\n\"_L'Ami des Hommes_\" says, that in the time of C\u00e6sar fifty-two millions\nof men were assigned to Spain, which Strabo observes has always been\nbadly peopled, owing to the interior being so deficient in water. Strabo\nis apparently right, and \"_L'Ami des Hommes_\" erroneous. But they scare\nus by asking what has become of the prodigious quantity of Huns, Alans,\nOstrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, and Lombards, who spread like a torrent\nover Europe in the fifth century.\n\nI distrust these multitudes, and suspect that twenty or thirty thousand\nferocious animals, more or less, were sufficient to overwhelm with\nfright the whole Roman Empire, governed by a Pulcheria, by eunuchs, and\nby monks. It was enough for ten thousand barbarians to pass the Danube;\nfor every parish rumor, or homily, to make them more numerous than the\nlocusts in the plains of Egypt; and call them a scourge from God, in\norder to inspire penitence, and produce gifts of money to the convents.\nFear seized all the inhabitants, and they fled in crowds. Behold\nprecisely the fright which a wolf caused in the district of Gevanden in\nthe year 1766.\n\nMandarin the robber, at the head of fifty vagabonds, put an entire town\nunder contribution. As soon as he entered at one gate, it was said at\nthe other, that he brought with him four thousand men and artillery. If\nAttila, followed by fifty thousand hungry assassins, ravaged province\nafter province, report would call them five hundred thousand.\n\nThe millions of men who followed Xerxes, Cyrus, Tomyris, the thirty or\nforty-four millions of Egyptians, Thebes with her hundred gates--\"_Et\nquicquid Grecia mendax audet in historia_\"--resemble the five hundred\nthousand men of Attila, which company of pleasant travellers it would\nhave been difficult to find on the journey.\n\nThese Huns came from Siberia, and thence I conclude that they came in\nvery small numbers. Siberia was certainly not more fertile than in our\nown days. I doubt whether in the reign of Tomyris a town existed equal\nto Tobolsk, or that these frightful deserts can feed a great number of\ninhabitants.\n\nIndia, China, Persia, and Asia Minor were thickly peopled; this I can\ncredit without difficulty; and possibly they are not less so at present,\nnotwithstanding the destructive prevalence of invasions and wars.\nThroughout, Nature has clothed them with pasturage; the bull freely\nunites with the heifer, the ram with the sheep, and man with woman.\n\nThe deserts of Barca, of Arabia, and of Oreb, of Sinai, of Jerusalem, of\nGobi, etc., were never peopled, are not peopled at present, and never\nwill be peopled; at least, until some natural revolution happens to\ntransform these plains of sand and flint into fertile land.\n\nThe land of France is tolerably good, and it is sufficiently inhabited\nby consumers, since of all kinds there are more than are well supplied;\nsince there are two hundred thousand impostors, who beg from one end of\nthe country to the other, and sustain their despicable lives at the\nexpense of the rich; and lastly, since France supports more than eighty\nthousand monks, of which not a single one assists to produce an ear of\ncorn.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nI believe that England, Protestant Germany, and Holland are better\npeopled in proportion than France. The reason is evident; those\ncountries harbor not monks who vow to God to be useless to man. In these\ncountries, the clergy, having little else to do, occupy themselves with\nstudy and propagation. They give birth to robust children, and give them\na better education than that which is bestowed on the offspring of\nFrench and Italian marquises.\n\nRome, on the contrary, would be a desert without cardinals, ambassadors,\nand travellers. It would be only an illustrious monument, like the\ntemple of Jupiter Ammon. In the time of the first C\u00e6sar, it was computed\nthat this sterile territory, rendered fertile by manure and the labor of\nslaves, contained some millions of men. It was an exception to the\ngeneral law, that population is ordinarily in proportion to fertility of\nsoil.\n\nConquest rendered this barren country fertile and populous. A form of\ngovernment as strange and contradictory as any which ever astonished\nmankind, has restored to the territory of Romulus its primitive\ncharacter. The whole country is depopulated from Orvieto to Terracina.\nRome, reduced to its own citizens, would be to London only as one to\ntwelve; and in respect to money and commerce, would be to the towns of\nAmsterdam and London as one to a thousand.\n\nThat which Rome has lost, Europe has not only regained, but the\npopulation has almost tripled since the days of Charlemagne. I say\ntripled, which is much; for propagation is _not_ in geometrical\nprogression. All the calculations made on the idea of this pretended\nmultiplication, amount only to absurd chimeras.\n\nIf a family of human beings or of apes multiplied in this manner, at the\nend of two hundred years the earth would not be able to contain them.\nNature has taken care at once to preserve and restrain the various\nspecies. She resembles the fates, who spin and cut threads continually.\nShe is occupied with birth and destruction alone.\n\nIf she has given to man more ideas and memory than to other animals; if\nshe has rendered him capable of generalizing his ideas and combining\nthem; if he has the advantage of the gift of speech, she has not\nbestowed on him that of multiplication equal to insects. There are more\nants in a square league of heath, than of men in the world, counting all\nthat have ever existed.\n\nWhen a country possesses a great number of idlers, be sure that it is\nwell peopled; since these idlers are lodged, clothed, fed, amused, and\nrespected by those who labor. The principal object, however, is not to\npossess a superfluity of men, but to render such as we have as little\nunhappy as possible.\n\nLet us thank nature for placing us in the temperate zone, peopled almost\nthroughout by a more than sufficient number of inhabitants, who\ncultivate all the arts; and let us endeavor not to lessen this advantage\nby our absurdities.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nIt must be confessed, that we ordinarily people and depopulate the world\na little at random; and everybody acts in this manner. We are little\nadapted to obtain an accurate notion of things; the _nearly_ is our only\nguide, and it often leads us astray.\n\nIt is still worse when we wish to calculate precisely. We go and see\nfarces and laugh at them; but should we laugh less in our closets when\nwe read grave authors deciding exactly how many men existed on the earth\ntwo hundred and eighty-five years after the general deluge. We find,\naccording to Father Petau, that the family of Noah had produced one\nthousand two hundred and twenty-four millions seven hundred and\nseventeen thousand inhabitants, in three hundred years. The good priest\nPetau evidently knew little about getting children and rearing them, if\nwe are to judge by this statement.\n\nAccording to Cumberland, this family increased to three thousand three\nhundred and thirty millions, in three hundred and forty years; and\naccording to Whiston, about three hundred years after the Deluge, they\namounted only to sixty-five millions four hundred and thirty-six.\n\nIt is difficult to reconcile and to estimate these accounts, such is the\nextravagance when people seek to make things accord which are repugnant,\nand to explain what is inexplicable. This unhappy endeavor has deranged\nheads which in other pursuits might have made discoveries beneficial to\nsociety.\n\nThe authors of the English \"Universal History\" observe, it is generally\nagreed that the present inhabitants of the earth amount to about four\nthousand millions. It is to be remarked, that these gentlemen do not\ninclude in this number the natives of America, which comprehends nearly\nhalf of the globe. For my own part, if, instead of a common romance, I\nwished to amuse myself by reckoning up the number of brethren I have on\nthis unhappy little planet, I would proceed as follows: I would first\nendeavor to estimate pretty nearly the number of inhabited square\nleagues this earth contains on its surface; I should then say: The\nsurface of the globe contains twenty-seven millions of square leagues;\ntake away two-thirds at least for seas, rivers, lakes, deserts,\nmountains, and all that is uninhabited; this calculation, which is very\nmoderate, leaves us nine millions of square leagues to account for.\n\nIn France and Germany, there are said to be six hundred persons to a\nsquare league; in Spain, one hundred and fifty; in Russia, fifteen; and\nTartary, ten. Take the mean number at a hundred, and you will have about\nnine hundred millions of brethren, including mulattoes, negroes, the\nbrown, the copper-colored, the fair, the bearded, and the unbearded. It\nis not thought, indeed, that the number is so great as this; and if\neunuchs continue to be made, monks to multiply, and wars to be waged on\nthe most trifling pretexts, it is easy to perceive that we shall not\nvery soon be able to muster the four thousand millions, with which the\nEnglish authors of the \"Universal History\" have so liberally favored us;\nbut, then, of what consequence is it, whether the number of men on the\nearth be great or small? The chief thing is to discover the means of\nrendering our miserable species as little unhappy as possible.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_Of The Population Of America._\n\nThe discovery of America--that field of so much avarice and so much\nambition--has also become an object of philosophical curiosity. A great\nnumber of writers have endeavored to prove that America was a colony of\nthe ancient world. Some modest mathematicians, on the contrary, have\nsaid, that the same power which has caused the grass to grow in American\nsoil, was able to place man there; but this simple and naked system has\nnot been attended to.\n\nWhen the great Columbus suspected the existence of this new world, it\nwas held to be impossible; and Columbus was taken for a visionary. When\nit was really discovered, it was then found out that it had been known\nlong before.\n\nIt was pretended that Martin Behem, a native of Nuremberg, quitted\nFlanders about the year 1460, in search of this unknown world; that he\nmade his way even to the Straits of Magellan, of which he left unknown\ncharts. As, however, it is certain that Martin Behem did not people\nAmerica, it must certainly have been one of the later grandchildren of\nNoah, who took this trouble. All antiquity is then ransacked for\naccounts of long voyages, to which they apply the discovery of this\nfourth quarter of the globe. They make the ships of Solomon proceed to\nMexico, and it is thence that he drew the gold of Ophir, to procure\nwhich he borrowed them from King Hiram. They find out America in Plato,\ngive the honor of it to the Carthaginians, and quote this anecdote from\na book of Aristotle which he never wrote.\n\nHornius pretends to discover some conformity between the Hebrew language\nand that of the Caribs. Father Lafiteau, the Jesuit, has not failed to\nfollow up so fine an opening. The Mexicans, when greatly afflicted, tore\ntheir garments; certain people of Asia formerly did the same, and of\ncourse they are the ancestors of the Mexicans. It might be added, that\nthe natives of Languedoc are very fond of dancing; and that, as in their\nrejoicings the Hurons dance also, the Languedocians are descended from\nthe Hurons, or the Hurons from the Languedocians.\n\nThe authors of a tremendous \"Universal History\" pretend that all the\nAmericans are descended from the Tartars. They assure us that this\nopinion is general among the learned, but they do not say whether it is\nso among the learned who reflect. According to them, some descendants of\nNoah could find nothing better to do, than to go and settle in the\ndelicious country of Kamchatka, in the north of Siberia. This family\nbeing destitute of occupation, resolved to visit Canada either by means\nof ships, or by marching pleasantly across some slip of connecting land,\nwhich has not been discovered in our own times. They then began to busy\nthemselves in propagation, until the fine country of Canada soon\nbecoming inadequate to the support of so numerous a population, they\nwent to people Mexico, Peru, Chile; while certain of their\ngreat-granddaughters were in due time brought to bed of giants in the\nStraits of Magellan.\n\nAs ferocious animals are found in some of the warm countries of America,\nthese authors pretend, that the Christopher Columbuses of Kamchatka took\nthem into Canada for their amusement, and carefully confined themselves\nto those kinds which are no longer to be found in the ancient\nhemisphere.\n\nBut the Kamchatkans have not alone peopled the new world; they have been\ncharitably assisted by the Mantchou Tartars, by the Huns, by the\nChinese, and by the inhabitants of Japan. The Mantchou Tartars are\nincontestably the ancestors of the Peruvians, for Mango Capac was the\nfirst inca of Peru. Mango resembles Manco; Manco sounds like Mancu;\nMancu approaches Mantchu, and Mantchou is very close to the latter.\nNothing can be better demonstrated. As for the Huns, they built in\nHungary a town called Cunadi. Now, changing Cu into Ca, we have Canadi,\nfrom which Canada manifestly derives its name.\n\nA plant resembling the ginseng of the Chinese, grows in Canada, which\nthe Chinese transplanted into the latter even before they were masters\nof the part of Tartary where it is indigenous. Moreover, the Chinese are\nsuch great navigators, they formerly sent fleets to America without\nmaintaining the least correspondence with their colonies.\n\nWith respect to the Japanese, they are the nearest neighbors of America,\nwhich, as they are distant only about twelve hundred leagues, they have\ndoubtless visited in their time, although latterly they have neglected\nrepeating the voyage. Thus is history written in our own days. What\nshall we say to these, and many other systems which resemble them?\nNothing.\n\n\n\n\nPOSSESSED.\n\n\nOf all those who boast of having leagues with the devil, to the\npossessed alone it is of no use to reply. If a man says to you, \"I am\npossessed,\" you should believe it on his word. They are not obliged to\ndo very extraordinary things; and when they do them, it is more than can\nfairly be demanded. What can we answer to a man who rolls his eyes,\ntwists his mouth, and tells you that he has the devil within him?\nEveryone feels what he feels; and as the world was formerly full of\npossessed persons, we may still meet with them. If they take measures to\nconquer the world, we give them property and they become more moderate;\nbut for a poor demoniac, who is content with a few convulsions, and does\nno harm to anyone, it is not right to make him injurious. If you dispute\nwith him, you will infallibly have the worst of it. He will tell you,\n\"The devil entered me to-day under such a form; from that time I have\nhad a supernatural colic, which all the apothecaries in the world cannot\nassuage.\" There is certainly no other plan to be taken with this man,\nthan to exorcise or abandon him to the devil.\n\nIt is a great pity that there are no longer possessed magicians or\nastrologers. We can conceive the cause of all these mysteries. A hundred\nyears ago all the nobility lived in their castles; the winter evenings\nare long, and they would have died of ennui without these noble\namusements. There was scarcely a castle which a fairy did not visit on\ncertain marked days, like the fairy Melusina at the castle of Lusignan.\nThe great hunter, a tall black man, hunted with a pack of black dogs in\nthe forest of Fontainebleau. The devil twisted Marshal Fabert's neck.\nEvery village had its sorcerer or sorceress; every prince had his\nastrologer; all the ladies had their fortunes told; the possessed ran\nabout the fields; it was who had seen the devil or could see him; all\nthese things were inexhaustible subjects of conversation which kept\nminds in exercise. In the present day we insipidly play at cards, and we\nhave lost by being undeceived.\n\n\n\n\nPOST.\n\n\nFormerly, if you had one friend at Constantinople and another at Moscow,\nyou would have been obliged to wait for their return before you could\nobtain any intelligence concerning them. At present, without either of\nyou leaving your apartments, you may familiarly converse through the\nmedium of a sheet of paper. You may even despatch to them by the post,\none of Arnaults sovereign remedies for apoplexy, which would be received\nmuch more infallibly, probably, than it would cure.\n\nIf one of your friends has occasion for a supply of money at St.\nPetersburg, and the other at Smyrna, the post will completely and\nrapidly effect your business. Your mistress is at Bordeaux, while you\nare with your regiment before Prague; she gives you regular accounts of\nthe constancy of her affections; you know from her all the news of the\ncity, except her own infidelities. In short, the post is the grand\nconnecting link of all transactions, of all negotiations. Those who are\nabsent, by its means become present; it is the consolation of life.\n\nFrance, where this beautiful invention was revived, even in our period\nof barbarism, has hereby conferred the most important service on all\nEurope. She has also never in any instance herself marred and tainted so\nvaluable a benefit, and never has any minister who superintended the\ndepartment of the post opened the letters of any individual, except when\nit was absolutely necessary that he should know their contents. It is\nnot thus, we are told, in other countries. It is asserted, that in\nGermany private letters, passing through the territories of five or six\ndifferent governments, have been read just that number of times, and\nthat at last the seal has been so nearly destroyed that it became\nnecessary to substitute a new one.\n\nMr. Craggs, secretary of state in England, would never permit any person\nin his office to open private letters; he said that to do so was a\nbreach of public faith, and that no man ought to possess himself of a\nsecret that was not voluntarily confided to him; that it is often a\ngreater crime to steal a man's thoughts than his gold; and that such\ntreachery is proportionally more disgraceful, as it may be committed\nwithout danger, and without even the possibility of conviction.\n\nTo bewilder the eagerness of curiosity and defeat the vigilance of\nmalice, a method was at first invented of writing a part of the contents\nof letters in ciphers; but the part written in the ordinary hand in this\ncase sometimes served as a key to the rest. This inconvenience led to\nperfecting the art of ciphers, which is called \"stenography.\"\n\nAgainst these enigmatical productions was brought the art of\ndeciphering; but this art was exceedingly defective and inefficient. The\nonly advantage derived from it was exciting the belief in weak and\nill-formed minds, that their letters had been deciphered, and all the\npleasure it afforded consisted in giving such persons pain. According to\nthe law of probabilities, in a well-constructed cipher there would be\ntwo, three, or even four hundred chances against one, that in each mark\nthe decipherer would not discover the syllable of which it was the\nrepresentative.\n\nThe number of chances increases in proportion to the complication of the\nciphers; and deciphering is utterly impossible when the system is\narranged with any ingenuity. Those who boast that they can decipher a\nletter, without being at all acquainted with the subject of which it\ntreats, and without any preliminary assistance, are greater charlatans\nthan those who boast, if any such are to be found, of understanding a\nlanguage which they never learned.\n\nWith respect to those who in a free and easy way send you by post a\ntragedy, in good round hand, with blank leaves, on which you are\nrequested kindly to make your observations, or who in the same way\nregale you with a first volume of metaphysical researches, to be\nspeedily followed by a second, we may just whisper in their ear that a\nlittle more discretion would do no harm, and even that there are some\ncountries where they would run some risk by thus informing the\nadministration of the day that there are such things in the world as bad\npoets and bad metaphysicians.\n\n\n\n\nPOWER--OMNIPOTENCE.\n\n\nI presume every reader of this article to be convinced that the world is\nformed with intelligence, and that a slight knowledge of astronomy and\nanatomy is sufficient to produce admiration of that universal and\nsupreme intelligence. Once more I repeat \"_mens agitat molem._\"\n\nCan the reader of himself ascertain that this intelligence is\nomnipotent, that is to say, infinitely powerful? Has he the slightest\nnotion of infinity, to enable him to comprehend the meaning and extent\nof almighty power?\n\nThe celebrated philosophic historian, David Hume, says, \"A weight of ten\nounces is raised in a balance by another weight; this other weight\ntherefore is more than ten ounces; but no one can rationally infer that\nit must necessarily be a hundred weight.\"\n\nWe may fairly and judiciously apply here the same argument. You\nacknowledge a supreme intelligence sufficiently powerful to form\nyourself, to preserve you for a limited time in life, to reward you and\nto punish you. Are you sufficiently acquainted with it to be able to\ndemonstrate that it can do more than this? How can you prove by your\nreason that a being can do more than it has actually done?\n\nThe life of all animals is short. Could he make it longer? All animals\nare food for one another without exception; everything is born to be\ndevoured. Could he form without destroying? You know not what his nature\nis. It is impossible, therefore, that you should know whether his nature\nmay not have compelled him to do only the very things which he has done.\n\nThe globe on which we live is one vast field of destruction and carnage.\nEither the Supreme Being was able to make of it an eternal mode of\nenjoyment for all beings possessed of sensation, or He was not. If He\nwas able and yet did not do it, you will undoubtedly tremble to\npronounce or consider Him a maleficent being; but if He was unable to do\nso, do not tremble to regard Him as a power of very great extent indeed,\nbut nevertheless circumscribed by His nature within certain limits.\n\nWhether it be infinite or not, is not of any consequence to you. It is\nperfectly indifferent to a subject whether his sovereign possesses five\nhundred leagues of territory or five thousand; he is in either case\nneither more nor less a subject. Which would reflect most strongly on\nthis great and ineffable Being: to say He made miserable beings because\nit was indispensable to do so; or that He made them merely because it\nwas His will and pleasure?\n\nMany sects represent Him as cruel; others, through fear of admitting the\nexistence of a wicked Deity, are daring enough to deny His existence at\nall. Would it not be far preferable to say that probably the necessity\nof His own nature and that of things have determined everything?\n\nThe world is the theatre of moral and natural evil; this is too\ndecidedly found and felt to be the case; and the \"all is for the best\"\nof Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke, and Pope, is nothing but the effusion of a\nmind devoted to eccentricity and paradox; in short, nothing but a dull\njest.\n\nThe two principles of Zoroaster and Manes, so minutely investigated by\nBayle, are a duller jest still. They are, as we have already observed,\nthe two physicians of Moli\u00e8re, one of whom says to the other: \"You\nexcuse my emetics, and I will excuse your bleedings.\" Manich\u00e6ism is\nabsurd; and that circumstance will account for its having had so many\npartisans.\n\nI acknowledge that I have not had my mind enlightened by all that Bayle\nhas said about the Manich\u00e6ans and Paulicians. It is all controversy;\nwhat I wanted was pure philosophy. Why speak about our mysteries to\nZoroaster? As soon as ever we have the temerity to discuss the critical\nsubject of our mysteries, we open to our view the most tremendous\nprecipices.\n\nThe trash of our own scholastic theology has nothing to do with the\ntrash of Zoroaster's reveries. Why discuss with Zoroaster the subject of\noriginal sin? That subject did not become a matter of dispute until the\ntime of St. Augustine. Neither Zoroaster nor any other legislator of\nantiquity ever heard it mentioned. If you dispute with Zoroaster, lock\nup your Old and New Testament, with which he had not the slightest\nacquaintance, and which it is our duty to revere without attempting to\nexplain.\n\nWhat I should myself have said to Zoroaster would have been this: My\nreason opposes the admission of two gods in conflict with each other;\nsuch an idea is allowable only in a poem in which Minerva quarrels with\nMars. My weak understanding much more readily acquiesces in the notion\nof only one Great Being, than in that of two great beings, of whom one\nis constantly counteracting and spoiling the operations of the other.\nYour evil principle, Arimanes, has not been able to derange a single\nastronomical and physical law established by the good principle of\nOromazes; everything proceeds, among the numberless worlds which\nconstitute what we call the heavens, with perfect regularity and\nharmony; how comes it that the malignant Arimanes has power only over\nthis little globe of earth?\n\nHad I been Arimanes, I should have assailed Oromazes in his immense and\nnoble provinces, comprehending numbers of suns and stars. I should never\nhave been content to confine the war to an insignificant and miserable\nvillage. There certainly is a great deal of misery in this same village;\nbut how can we possibly ascertain that it is not absolutely inevitable?\n\nYou are compelled to admit an intelligence diffused through the\nuniverse. But in the first place, do you absolutely know that this\nintelligence comprises a knowledge of the future? You have asserted a\nthousand times that it does; but you have never been able to prove it to\nme, or to comprehend it yourself. You cannot have any idea how any being\ncan see what does not exist; well, the future does not exist, therefore\nno being can see it. You are reduced to the necessity of saying that he\nforesees it; but to foresee is only to conjecture.\n\nNow a god who, according to your system, conjectures may be mistaken. He\nis, on your principles, really mistaken; for if he had foreseen that his\nenemy would poison all his works in this lower world, he would never\nhave produced them; he would not have been accessory to the disgrace he\nsustains in being perpetually vanquished.\n\nSecondly, is he not much more honored upon my hypothesis, which\nmaintains that he does everything by the necessity of his own nature,\nthan upon yours, which raises up against him an enemy, disfiguring,\npolluting, and destroying all his works of wisdom and kindness\nthroughout the world!\n\nIn the third place, it by no means implies a mean and unworthy idea of\nGod to say that, after forming millions of worlds, in which death and\nevil may have no residence, it might be necessary that death and evil\nshould reside in this.\n\nFourth, it is not deprecating God to say that He could not form man\nwithout bestowing on him self-love; that this self-love could not be his\nguide without almost always leading him astray; that his passions are\nnecessary, but at the same time noxious; that the continuation of the\nspecies cannot be accomplished without desires; that these desires\ncannot operate without exciting quarrels; and that these quarrels\nnecessarily bring on wars, etc.\n\nFifth, on observing a part of the combinations of the vegetable, animal,\nand mineral kingdoms, and the porous nature of the earth, in every part\nso minutely pierced and drilled like a sieve, and from which exhalations\nconstantly rise in immense profusion, what philosopher will be bold\nenough, what schoolman will be weak enough, decidedly to maintain that\nnature could possibly prevent the ravages of volcanoes, the\nintemperature of seasons, the rage of tempests, the poison of\npestilence, or, in short, any of those scourages which afflict the\nworld?\n\nSixth, a very great degree of power and skill are required to form lions\nwho devour bulls, and to produce men who invent arms which destroy, by a\nsingle blow, not merely the life of bulls and lions, but--melancholy as\nthe idea is--the life of one another. Great power is necessary to\nproduce the spiders which spread their exquisitely fine threads and\nnet-work to catch flies; but this power amounts not to omnipotence--it\nis not boundless power.\n\nIn the seventh place, if the Supreme Being had been infinitely powerful,\nno reason can be assigned why He should not have made creatures endowed\nwith sensation infinitely happy; He has not in fact done so; therefore\nwe ought to conclude that He could not do so.\n\nEighth, all the different sects of philosophers have struck on the rock\nof physical and moral evil. The only conclusion that can be securely\nreached is, that God, acting always for the best, has done the best that\nHe was able to do.\n\nNinth, this necessity cuts off all difficulties and terminates all\ndisputes. We have not the hardihood to say: \"All is good\"; we say:\n\"There is no more evil than was absolutely inevitable.\"\n\nTenth, why do some infants die at the mother's breast? Why are others,\nafter experiencing the first misfortune of being born, reserved for\ntormentes as lasting as their lives, which are at length ended by an\nappalling death? Why has the source of life been poisoned throughout the\nworld since the discovery of America? Why, since the seventh century of\nthe Christian era, has the smallpox swept away an eighth portion of the\nhuman species? Why, in every age of the world, have human bladders been\nliable to be converted into stone quarries? Why pestilence, and war, and\nfamine, and the Inquisition? Consider the subject as carefully, as\nprofoundly, as the powers of the mind will absolutely permit, you will\nfind no other possible solution than that all is necessary.\n\nI address myself here solely to philosophers, and not to divines. We\nknow that faith is the clue to guide us through the labyrinth. We know\nfull well that the fall of Adam and Eve, original sin, the vast power\ncommunicated to devils, the predilection entertained by the Supreme\nBeing for the Jewish people, and the ceremony of baptism substituted for\nthat of circumcision, are answers that clear up every difficulty. We\nhave been here arguing only against Zoroaster, and not against the\nUniversity of Coimbra, to whose decisions and doctrines, in all the\narticles of our work, we submit with all possible deference and faith.\nSee the letters of Memmius to Cicero; and answer them if you can.\n\n\n\n\nPOWER.\n\n_The Two Powers._\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWhoever holds both the sceptre and the censer has his hands completely\noccupied. If he governs a people possessed of common sense he may be\nconsidered as a very able man; but if his subjects have no more mind\nthan children or savages, he may be compared to Bernier's coachman, who\nwas one day suddenly surprised by his master in one of the public places\nof Delhi, haranguing the populace, and distributing among them his quack\nmedicines. \"What! Lapierre,\" says Bernier to him, \"have you turned\nphysician?\" \"Yes, sir,\" replied the coachman; \"like people, like\ndoctor.\"\n\nThe dairo of the Japanese, or the grand lama of Thibet, might make just\nthe same remark. Even Numa Pompilius, with his Egeria, would have\nanswered Bernier in the same manner. Melchizedek was probably in a\nsimilar situation, as well as the Anius whom Virgil introduces in the\nfollowing two lines of the third book of his \"\u00c6neid\":\n\n     _Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Ph\u0153bique sacerdos,_\n     _Vittis et sacra redimitus tempora lauro._--VIRGIL.\n\n     Anius, the priest and king, with laurel crowned\n     His hoary locks with purple fillets bound.--DRYDEN.\n\nThis charlatan Anius was merely king of the isle of Delos, a very paltry\nkingdom, which, next to those of Melchizedek and Yvetot, was one of the\nleast considerable in the world; but the worship of Apollo had conferred\non it a high reputation; a single saint is enough to raise any country\ninto credit and consequence.\n\nThree of the German electors are more powerful than Anius, and, like\nhim, unite the rights of the mitre with those of the crown; although in\nsubordination, at least apparently so, to the Roman emperor, who is no\nother than the emperor of Germany. But of all the countries in which the\nplenitude of ecclesiastical and the plenitude of royal claims combine to\nform the most full and complete power that can be imagined, modern Rome\nis the chief.\n\nThe pope is regarded in the Catholic part of Europe as the first of\nkings and the first of priests. It was the same in what was called\n\"pagan\" Rome; Julius C\u00e6sar was at once chief pontiff, dictator, warrior,\nand conqueror; distinguished also both for eloquence and gallantry; in\nevery respect the first of mankind; and with whom no modern, except in a\ndedication, could ever be compared.\n\nThe king of England, being the head also of the Church, possesses nearly\nthe same dignities as the pope. The empress of Russia is likewise\nabsolute mistress over her clergy, in the largest empire existing upon\nearth. The notion that two powers may exist, in opposition to each\nother, in the same state, is there regarded even by the clergy\nthemselves as a chimera equally absurd and pernicious.\n\nIn this connection I cannot help introducing a letter which the empress\nof Russia, Catherine II., did me the honor to write to me at Mount\nKrapak, on Aug. 22, 1765, and which she permitted me to make use of as I\nmight see occasion:\n\n\"The Capuchins who are tolerated at Moscow (for toleration is general\nthroughout the Russian empire, and the Jesuits alone are not suffered to\nremain in it), having, in the course of the last winter, obstinately\nrefused to inter a Frenchman who died suddenly, under a pretence that he\nhad not received the sacraments, Abraham Chaumeix drew up a factum, or\nstatement, against them, in order to prove to them that it was\nobligatory upon them to bury the dead. But neither this factum, nor two\nrequisitions of the governor, could prevail on these fathers to obey. At\nlast they were authoritatively told that they must either bury the\nFrenchman or remove beyond the frontiers. They actually removed\naccordingly; and I sent some Augustins from this place, who were\nsomewhat more tractable, and who, perceiving that no trifling or delay\nwould be permitted, did all that was desired on the occasion. Thus\nAbraham Chaumeix has in Russia become a reasonable man; he absolutely is\nan enemy to persecution; were he also to become a man of wit and\nintellect, he would make the most incredulous believe in miracles; but\nall the miracles in the world will not blot out the disgrace of having\nbeen the denouncer of the 'Encyclop\u00e6dia.'\n\n\"The subjects of the Church, having suffered many, and frequently\ntyrannical, grievances, which the frequent change of masters very\nconsiderably increased, towards the end of the reign of the empress\nElizabeth, rose in actual rebellion; and at my accession to the throne\nthere were more than a hundred thousand men in arms. This occasioned me,\nin 1762, to execute the project of changing entirely the administration\nof the property of the clergy, and to settle on them fixed revenues.\nArsenius, bishop of Rostow, strenuously opposed this, urged on by some\nof his brother clergy, who did not feel it perfectly convenient to put\nthemselves forward by name. He sent in two memorials, in which he\nattempted to establish the absurd principle of two powers. He had made\nthe like attempt before, in the time of the empress Elizabeth, when he\nhad been simply enjoined silence; but his insolence and folly\nredoubling, he was now tried by the metropolitan of Novgorod and the\nwhole synod, condemned as a fanatic, found guilty of attempts contrary\nto the orthodox faith, as well as to the supreme power, deprived of his\ndignity and priesthood, and delivered over to the secular arm. I acted\nleniently towards him; and after reducing him to the situation of a\nmonk, extended his punishment no farther.\"\n\nSuch are the very words of the empress; and the inference from the whole\ncase is that she well knows both how to support the Church and how to\nrestrain it; that she respects humanity as well as religion; that she\nprotects the laborer as well as the priest; and that all orders in the\nstate ought both to admire and bless her.\n\nI shall hope to be excused for the further indiscretion of transcribing\nhere a passage contained in another of her letters, written on November\n28, 1765:\n\n\"Toleration is established among us; it constitutes a law of the state;\npersecution is prohibited. We have indeed fanatics who, as they are not\npersecuted by others, burn themselves; but if those of other countries\nalso did the same, no great harm could result; the world, in consequence\nof such a system, would have been more tranquil, and Calas would not\nhave been racked to death.\"\n\nDo not imagine that she writes in this style from a feeling of transient\nand vain enthusiasm, contradicted afterwards in her practice, nor even\nfrom a laudable desire of obtaining throughout Europe the suffrages and\napplause of those who think, and teach others the way to think. She lays\ndown these principles as the basis of her government. She wrote with her\nown hand, in the \"Council of Legislations,\" the following words, which\nshould be engraved on the gates of every city in the world:\n\n\"In a great empire, extending its sway over as many different nations as\nthere are different creeds among mankind, the most pernicious fault\nwould be intolerance.\"\n\nIt is to be observed that she does not hesitate to put intolerance in\nthe rank of faults--I had nearly said offences. Thus does an absolute\nempress, in the depths of the North, put an end to persecution and\nslavery--while in the South--.\n\nJudge for yourself, sir, after this, whether there will be found a man\nin Europe who will not be ready to sign the eulogium you propose. Not\nonly is this princess tolerant, but she is desirous that her neighbors\nshould be so likewise. This is the first instance in which supreme power\nhas been exercised in establishing liberty of conscience. It constitutes\nthe grandest epoch with which I am acquainted in modern history.\n\nThe case of the ancient Persians forbidding the Carthaginians to offer\nhuman sacrifices is a somewhat similar instance. Would to God, that\ninstead of the barbarians who formerly poured from the plains of\nScythia, and the mountains of Imaus and Caucasus, towards the Alps and\nPyrenees, carrying with them ravage and desolation, armies might be seen\nat the present day descending to subvert the tribunal of the\nInquisition--a tribunal more horrible than even the sacrifices of human\nbeings which constitute the eternal reproach of our forefathers.\n\nIn short, this superior genius wishes to convince her neighbors of what\nEurope is now beginning to comprehend, that metaphysical unintelligible\nopinions, which are the daughters of absurdity, are the mothers of\ndiscord; and that the Church, instead of saying: \"I come to bring, not\npeace, but the sword,\" should exclaim aloud: \"I bring peace, and not the\nsword.\" Accordingly the empress is unwilling to draw the sword against\nany but those who wish to crush the dissidents.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Conversation Between The Reverend Father Bouvet, Missionary Of The\nCompany Of Jesus, And The Emperor Camhi, In The Presence Of Brother\nAttiret, A Jesuit; Extracted From The Private Memoirs Of The Mission, In\n1772._\n\nFATHER BOUVET.\n\nYes, may it please your sacred majesty, as soon as you will have had the\nhappiness of being baptized by me, which I hope will be the case, you\nwill be relieved of one-half of the immense burden which now oppresses\nyou. I have mentioned to you the fable of Atlas, who supported the\nheavens on his shoulders. Hercules relieved him and carried away the\nheavens. You are Atlas, and Hercules is the pope. There will be two\npowers in your empire. Our excellent Clement will be the first. Upon\nthis plan you will enjoy the greatest of all advantages; those of being\nat leisure while you live, and of being saved when you die.\n\nTHE EMPEROR.\n\nI am exceedingly obliged to my dear friend, the pope, for condescending\nto take so much trouble; but how will he be able to govern my empire at\nthe distance of six thousand leagues?\n\nFATHER BOUVET.\n\nNothing, may it please your Imperial Majesty, can be more easy. We are\nhis vicars apostolic, and he is the vicar of God; you will therefore be\ngoverned by God Himself.\n\nTHE EMPEROR.\n\nHow delightful that will be! I am not, however, quite easy on the\nsubject. Will your vice-god share the imperial revenues with myself? For\nall labor ought to be paid for.\n\nFATHER BOUVET.\n\nOur vice-god is so kind and good that in general he will not take, at\nmost, more than a quarter, except in cases of disobedience. Our\nemoluments will not exceed fifty million ounces of pure silver, which is\nsurely a trifling object in comparison with heavenly advantages.\n\nTHE EMPEROR.\n\nYes, it is certainly, as you say, giving them almost for nothing. I\nsuppose your celebrated and benevolent city derives just about the same\nsum from each of my three neighbors--the Great Mogul, the Emperor of\nJapan, and the Empress of Russia; and also from the Persian and the\nTurkish empires?\n\nFATHER BOUVET.\n\nI cannot exactly say that is yet the case; but, with Gods help and our\nown, I have no doubt it will be so.\n\nTHE EMPEROR.\n\nAnd how are you, who are the vicars apostolic, to be paid?\n\nFATHER BOUVET.\n\nWe have no regular wages; but we are somewhat like the principal female\ncharacter in a comedy written by one Count Caylus, a countryman of mine;\nall that I ... is for myself.\n\nTHE EMPEROR.\n\nBut pray inform me whether your Christian princes in Europe pay your\nItalian friend or patron in proportion to the assessment laid on me.\n\nFATHER BOUVET.\n\nNo, they do not! One-half of Europe has separated from him and pays him\nnothing; and the other pays him no more than it is obliged to pay.\n\nTHE EMPEROR.\n\nYou told me some time since that he was sovereign of a very fine and\nfertile territory.\n\nFATHER BOUVET.\n\nYes; but it produces very little to him; it lies mostly uncultivated.\n\nTHE EMPEROR.\n\nPoor man! he does not know how to cultivate his own territory, and yet\npretends to govern mine.\n\nFATHER BOUVET.\n\nFormerly, in one of our councils--that is, in one of our assemblies of\npriests, which was held in a city called Constance--our holy father\ncaused a proposition to be made for a new tax for the support of his\ndignity. The assembly replied that any necessity for that would be\nperfectly precluded by his attending to the cultivation of his own\nlands. This, however, he took effectual care not to do. He preferred\nliving on the produce of those who labor in other kingdoms. He appeared\nto think that this manner of living had an air of greater grandeur.\n\nTHE EMPEROR.\n\nWell, go and tell him from me, that I not only make those about me\nlabor, but that I also labor myself; and I doubt much whether it will be\nfor him.\n\nFATHER BOUVET.\n\nHoly Virgin! I am absolutely taken for a fool!\n\nTHE EMPEROR.\n\nBegone, this instant! I have been too indulgent.\n\nBROTHER ATTIRET TO FATHER BOUVET.\n\nI was right, you see, when I told you that the emperor, with all his\nexcellence of heart, had also more understanding than both of us\ntogether.\n\n\n\n\nPRAYER (PUBLIC), THANKSGIVING, ETC.\n\n\nVery few forms of public prayers used by the ancients still remain. We\nhave only Horace's beautiful hymn for the secular games of the ancient\nRomans. This prayer is in the rhythm and measure which the other Romans\nlong after imitated in the hymn, \"_Ut queat laxis resonare fibris._\"\n\nThe _Pervigilium Veneris_ is written in a quaint and affected taste, and\nseems unworthy of the noble simplicity of the reign of Augustus. It is\npossible that this hymn to Venus may have been chanted in the festivals\ncelebrated in honor of that goddess; but it cannot be doubted that the\npoem of Horace was chanted with much greater solemnity.\n\nIt must be allowed that this secular poem of Horace is one of the finest\nproductions of antiquity; and that the hymn, \"_Ut queat laxis,_\" is one\nof the most flat and vapid pieces that appeared during the barbarous\nperiod of the decline of the Latin language. The Catholic Church in\nthose times paid little attention to eloquence and poetry. We all know\nvery well that God prefers bad verses recited with a pure heart, to the\nfinest verses possible chanted by the wicked. Good verses, however,\nnever yet did any harm, and--all other things being equal--must deserve\na preference.\n\nNothing among us ever approached the secular games, which were\ncelebrated at the expiration of every hundred and ten years. Our jubilee\nis only a faint and feeble copy of it. Three magnificent altars were\nerected on the banks of the Tiber. All Rome was illuminated for three\nsuccessive nights; and fifteen priests distributed the lustral water and\nwax tapers among the men and women of the city who were appointed to\nchant the prayers. A sacrifice was first offered to Jupiter as the great\ngod, the sovereign master of the gods; and afterwards to Juno, Apollo,\nLatona, Diana, Pluto, Proserpine, and the Fates, as to inferior powers.\nAll these divinities had their own peculiar hymns and ceremonies. There\nwere two choirs, one of twenty-seven boys, and the other of twenty-seven\ngirls, for each of the divinities. Finally, on the last day, the boys\nand girls, crowned with flowers, chanted the ode of Horace.\n\nIt is true that in private houses his other odes, for Ligurinus and\nLiciscus and other contemptible characters, were heard at table;\nperformances which undoubtedly were not calculated to excite the finest\nfeelings of devotion; but there is a time for all things, \"_pictoribus\natque poetis._\" Caraccio, who drew the figures of Aretin, painted saints\nalso; and in all our colleges we have excused in Horace what the masters\nof the Roman Empire excused in him without any difficulty.\n\nAs to forms of prayer, we have only a few slight fragments of that which\nwas recited at the mysteries of Isis. We have quoted it elsewhere, but\nwe will repeat it here, because it is at once short and beautiful:\n\n\"The celestial powers obey thee; hell is in subjection to thee; the\nuniverse revolves under thy moving hand; thy feet tread on Tartarus; the\nstars are responsive to thy voice; the seasons return at thy command;\nthe elements are obedient to thy will.\"\n\nWe repeat also the form supposed to have been used in the worship of the\nancient Orpheus, which we think superior even to the above respecting\nIsis:\n\n\"Walk in the path of justice; adore the sole Master of the Universe; He\nis One Alone, and self-existent; all other beings owe their existence to\nHim; He acts both in them and by them; He sees all, but has never been\nHimself seen by mortal eyes.\"\n\nIt is not a little extraordinary that in the Leviticus and Deuteronomy\nof the Jews, there is not a single public prayer, not one single formula\nof public worship. It seems as if the Levites were fully employed in\ndividing among themselves the viands that were offered to them. We do\nnot even see a single prayer instituted for their great festivals of the\nPassover, the Pentecost, the trumpets, the tabernacles, the general\nexpiation, or the new moon.\n\nThe learned are almost unanimously agreed that there were no regular\nprayers among the Jews, except when, during their captivity at Babylon,\nthey adopted somewhat of the manners, and acquired something of the\nsciences, of that civilized and powerful people. They borrowed all from\nthe Chaldaic Persians, even to their very language, characters, and\nnumerals; and joining some new customs to their old Egyptian rites, they\nbecame a new people, so much the more superstitious than before, in\nconsequence of their being, after the conclusion of a long captivity,\nstill always dependent upon their neighbors.\n\n                    _... In rebus acerbis_\n     _Arcius advertunt animos ad religionem._\n                       --LUCRETIUS, book iii., 52, 53.\n\n                            _... The common rout,_\n     _When cares and dangers press, grow more devout._\n                                             --CREECH.\n\nWith respect to the ten other tribes who had been previously dispersed,\nwe may reasonably believe that they were as destitute of public forms of\nprayer as the two others, and that they had not, even up to the period\nof their dispersion, any fixed and well-defined religion, as they\nabandoned that which they professed with so much facility, and forgot\neven their own name, which cannot be said of the small number of\nunfortunate beings who returned to rebuild Jerusalem.\n\nIt is, therefore, at that period that the two tribes, or rather the two\ntribes and a half, seemed to have first attached themselves to certain\ninvariable rites, to have written books, and used regular prayers. It is\nnot before that time that we begin to see among them forms of prayer.\nEsdras ordained two prayers for every day, and added a third for the\nSabbath; it is even said that he instituted eighteen prayers, that there\nmight be room for selection, and also to afford variety in the service.\nThe first of these begins in the following manner:\n\n\"Blessed be Thou, O Lord God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac,\nand Jacob; the great God, the powerful, the terrible, the most high, the\nliberal distributor of good things, the former and possessor of the\nworld, who rememberest good actions, and sendest a Redeemer to their\ndescendants for Thy name's sake. O King, our help and Saviour, our\nbuckler, blessed be Thou, O Lord, the buckler of our father Abraham.\"\n\nIt is asserted that Gamaliel, who lived in the time of Jesus Christ, and\nwho had such violent quarrels with St. Paul, ordered a nineteenth\nprayer, which is as follows:\n\n\"Grant peace, benefits, blessing, favor, kindness, and piety to us, and\nto Thy people Israel. Bless us, O our Father! bless us altogether with\nthe light of Thy countenance; for by the light of Thy countenance Thou\nhast given us, O Lord our God, the law of life, love, kindness, equity,\nblessing, piety, and peace. May it please Thee to bless, through all\ntime, and at every moment, Thy people Israel, by giving them peace.\nBlessed be Thou, O Lord, who blessest Thy people Israel by giving them\npeace. Amen.\"\n\nThere is one circumstance deserving of remark with regard to many\nprayers, which is, that every nation has prayed for the direct contrary\nevents to those prayed for by their neighbors.\n\nThe Jews, for example, prayed that God would exterminate the Syrians,\nBabylonians, and Egyptians; and these prayed that God would exterminate\nthe Jews; and, accordingly, they may be said to have been so, with\nrespect to the ten tribes, who have been confounded and mixed up with so\nmany nations; and the remaining two tribes were more unfortunate still;\nfor, as they obstinately persevered in remaining separate from all other\nnations in the midst of whom they dwelt, they were deprived of the grand\nadvantages of human society.\n\nIn our own times, in the course of the wars that we so frequently\nundertake for the sake of particular cities, or even perhaps villages,\nthe Germans and Spaniards, when they happened to be the enemies of the\nFrench, prayed to the Holy Virgin, from the bottom of their hearts, that\nshe would completely defeat the Gauls and the Gavaches, who in their\nturn supplicated her, with equal importunity, to destroy the Maranes and\nthe Teutons.\n\nIn England advocates of the red rose offered up to St. George the most\nardent prayers to prevail upon him to sink all the partisans of the\nwhite rose to the bottom of the sea. The white rose was equally devout\nand importunate for the very opposite event. We can all of us have some\nidea of the embarrassment which this must have caused St. George; and if\nHenry VII. had not come to his assistance, St. George would never have\nbeen able to get extricated from it.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nWe know of no religion without prayers; even the Jews had them, although\nthere was no public form of prayer among them before the time when they\nsang their canticles in their synagogues, which did not take place until\na late period.\n\nThe people of all nations, whether actuated by desires or fears, have\ninvoked the assistance of the Divinity. Philosophers, however, more\nrespectful to the Supreme Being, and rising more above human weakness,\nhave been habituated to substitute, for prayer, resignation. This, in\nfact, is all that appears proper and suitable between creature and\nCreator. But philosophy is not adapted to the great mass of mankind; it\nsoars too high above the vulgar; it speaks a language they are unable to\ncomprehend. To propose philosophy to them would be just as weak as to\npropose the study of conic sections to peasants or fish-women.\n\nAmong the philosophers themselves, I know of no one besides Maximus\nTyrius who has treated of this subject. The following is the substance\nof his ideas upon it: \"The designs of God exist from all eternity. If\nthe object prayed for be conformable to His immutable will, it must be\nperfectly useless to request of Him the very thing which He has\ndetermined to do. If He is prayed to for the reverse of what He has\ndetermined to do, He is prayed to be weak, fickle, and inconstant; such\na prayer implies that this is thought to be His character, and is\nnothing better than ridicule or mockery of Him. You either request of\nHim what is just and right, in which case He ought to do it, and it will\nbe actually done without any solicitation, which in fact shows distrust\nof His rectitude; or what you request is unjust, and then you insult\nHim. You are either worthy or unworthy of the favor you implore: if\nworthy, He knows it better than you do yourself; if unworthy, you commit\nan additional crime in requesting that which you do not merit.\"\n\nIn a word, we offer up prayers to God only because we have made Him\nafter our own image. We treat Him like a pasha, or a sultan, who is\ncapable of being exasperated and appeased. In short, all nations pray to\nGod: the sage is resigned, and obeys Him. Let us pray with the people,\nand let us be resigned to Him with the sage.\n\nWe have already spoken of the public prayers of many nations, and of\nthose of the Jews. That people have had one from time immemorial, which\ndeserves all our attention, from its resemblance to the prayer taught us\nby Jesus Christ Himself. This Jewish prayer is called the Kadish, and\nbegins with these words: \"O, God! let Thy name be magnified and\nsanctified; make Thy kingdom to prevail; let redemption flourish, and\nthe Messiah come quickly!\"\n\nAs this Kadish is recited in Chaldee it has induced the belief that it\nis as ancient as the captivity, and that it was at that period that the\nJews began to hope for a Messiah, a Liberator, or Redeemer, whom they\nhave since prayed for in the seasons of their calamities.\n\nThe circumstance of this word \"Messiah\" being found in this ancient\nprayer has occasioned much controversy on the subject of the history of\nthis people. If the prayer originated during the Babylonish captivity,\nit is evident that the Jews at that time must have hoped for and\nexpected a Redeemer. But whence does it arise, that in times more\ndreadfully calamitous still, after the destruction of Jerusalem by\nTitus, neither Josephus nor Philo ever mentioned any expectation of a\nMessiah? There are obscurities in the history of every people; but those\nof the Jews form an absolute and perpetual chaos. It is unfortunate for\nthose who are desirous of information, that the Chald\u00e6ans and Egyptians\nhave lost their archives, while the Jews have preserved theirs.\n\n\n\n\nPREJUDICE.\n\n\nPrejudice is an opinion without judgment. Thus, throughout the world,\nchildren are inspired with opinions before they can judge. There are\nuniversal and necessary prejudices, and these even constitute virtue. In\nall countries, children are taught to acknowledge a rewarding and\npunishing God; to respect and love their fathers and mothers; to regard\ntheft as a crime, and interested lying as a vice, before they can tell\nwhat is a virtue or a vice. Prejudice may, therefore, be very useful,\nand such as judgment will ratify when we reason.\n\nSentiment is not simply prejudice, it is something much stronger. A\nmother loves not her son because she is told that she must love him; she\nfortunately cherishes him in spite of herself. It is not through\nprejudice that you run to the aid of an unknown child nearly falling\ndown a precipice, or being devoured by a beast.\n\nBut it is through prejudice that you will respect a man dressed in\ncertain clothes, walking gravely, and talking at the same time. Your\nparents have told you that you must bend to this man; you respect him\nbefore you know whether he merits your respect; you grow in age and\nknowledge; you perceive that this man is a quack, made up of pride,\ninterest, and artifice; you despise that which you revered, and\nprejudice yields to judgment. Through prejudice, you have believed the\nfables with which your infancy was lulled: you are told that the Titans\nmade war against the gods, that Venus was amorous of Adonis; at twelve\nyears of age you take these fables for truth; at twenty, you regard them\nas ingenious allegories.\n\nLet us examine, in a few words, the different kinds of prejudices, in\norder to arrange our ideas. We shall perhaps be like those who, in the\ntime of the scheme of Law, perceived that they had calculated upon\nimaginary riches.\n\n_Prejudices Of The Senses._\n\nIs it not an amusing thing, that our eyes always deceive us, even when\nwe see very well, and that on the contrary our ears do not? When your\nproperly-formed ear hears: \"You are beautiful; I love you,\" it is very\ncertain that the words are not: I hate you; you are ugly; but you see a\nsmooth mirror--it is demonstrated that you are deceived; it is a very\nrough surface. You see the sun about two feet in diameter; it is\ndemonstrated that it is a million times larger than the earth.\n\nIt seems that God has put truth into your ears, and error into your\neyes; but study optics, and you will perceive that God has not deceived\nyou, and that it was impossible for objects to appear to you otherwise\nthan you see them in the present state of things.\n\n_Physical Prejudices._\n\nThe sun rises, the moon also, the earth is immovable; these are natural\nphysical prejudices. But that crabs are good for the blood, because when\nboiled they are of the same color; that eels cure paralysis, because\nthey frisk about; that the moon influences our diseases, because an\ninvalid was one day observed to have an increase of fever during the\nwane of the moon: these ideas and a thousand others were the errors of\nancient charlatans, who judged without reason, and who, being themselves\ndeceived, deceived others.\n\n_Historical Prejudices._\n\nThe greater part of historians have believed without examining, and this\nconfidence is a prejudice. Fabius Pictor relates, that, several ages\nbefore him, a vestal of the town of Alba, going to draw water in her\npitcher, was violated, that she was delivered of Romulus and Remus, that\nthey were nourished by a she-wolf. The Roman people believed this fable;\nthey examined not whether at that time there were vestals in Latium;\nwhether it was likely that the daughter of a king should go out of her\nconvent with a pitcher, or whether it was probable that a she-wolf\nshould suckle two children, instead of eating them: prejudice\nestablished it.\n\nA monk writes that Clovis, being in great danger at the battle of\nTolbiac, made a vow to become a Christian if he escaped; but is it\nnatural that he should address a strange god on such an occasion? Would\nnot the religion in which he was born have acted the most powerfully?\nWhere is the Christian who, in a battle against the Turks, would not\nrather address himself to the holy Virgin Mary, than to Mahomet? He\nadds, that a pigeon brought the vial in his beak to anoint Clovis, and\nthat an angel brought the oriflamme to conduct him: the prejudiced\nbelieved all the stories of this kind. Those who are acquainted with\nhuman nature well know, that the usurper Clovis, and the usurper Rollo,\nor Rol, became Christians to govern the Christians more securely; as the\nTurkish usurpers became Mussulmans to govern the Mussulmans more\nsecurely.\n\n_Religious Prejudices._\n\nIf your nurse has told you, that Ceres presides over corn, or that\nVishnu and Xaca became men several times, or that Sammonocodom cut down\na forest, or that Odin expects you in his hall near Jutland, or that\nMahomet, or some other, made a journey to heaven; finally, if your\npreceptor afterwards thrusts into your brain what your nurse has\nengraven on it, you will possess it for life. If your judgment would\nrise above these prejudices, your neighbors, and above all, the ladies,\nexclaim \"impiety!\" and frighten you; your dervish, fearing to see his\nrevenue diminished, accuses you before the cadi; and this cadi, if he\ncan, causes you to be impaled, because he would command fools, and he\nbelieves that fools obey better than others; which state of things will\nlast until your neighbors and the dervish and cadi begin to comprehend\nthat folly is good for nothing, and that persecution is abominable.\n\n\n\n\nPRESBYTERIAN.\n\n\nThe Anglican religion is predominant only in England and Ireland;\nPresbyterianism is the established religion of Scotland. This\nPresbyterianism is nothing more than pure Calvinism, such as once\nexisted in France, and still exists at Geneva.\n\nIn comparison with a young and lively French bachelor in divinity,\nbrawling during the morning in the schools of theology, and singing with\nthe ladies in the evening, a Church-of-England divine is a Cato; but\nthis Cato is himself a gallant in presence of the Scottish\nPresbyterians. The latter affect a solemn walk, a serious demeanor, a\nlarge hat, a long robe beneath a short one, and preach through the nose.\nAll churches in which the ecclesiastics are so happy as to receive an\nannual income of fifty thousand livres, and to be addressed by the\npeople as \"my lord,\" \"your grace,\" or \"your eminence,\" they denominate\nthe whore of Babylon. These gentlemen have also several churches in\nEngland, where they maintain the same manners and gravity as in\nScotland. It is to them chiefly that the English are indebted for the\nstrict sanctification of Sunday throughout the three kingdoms. They are\nforbidden either to labor or to amuse themselves. No opera, no concert,\nno comedy, in London on a Sunday. Even cards are expressly forbidden;\nand there are only certain people of quality, who are deemed open souls,\nwho play on that day. The rest of the nation attend sermons, taverns,\nand their small affairs of love.\n\nAlthough Episcopacy and Presbyterianism predominate in Great Britain,\nall other opinions are welcome and live tolerably well together,\nalthough the various preachers reciprocally detest one another with\nnearly the same cordiality as a Jansenist damns a Jesuit.\n\nEnter into the Royal Exchange of London, a place more respectable than\nmany courts, in which deputies from all nations assemble for the\nadvantage of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian\nbargain with one another as if they were of the same religion, and\nbestow the name of infidel on bankrupts only. There the Presbyterian\ngives credit to the Anabaptist, and the votary of the establishment\naccepts the promise of the Quaker. On the separation of these free and\npacific assemblies, some visit the synagogue, others repair to the\ntavern. Here one proceeds to baptize his son in a great tub, in the name\nof the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; there another deprives his boy of a\nsmall portion of his foreskin, and mutters over the child some Hebrew\nwords which he cannot understand; a third kind hasten to their chapels\nto wait for the inspiration of the Lord with their hats on; and all are\ncontent.\n\n[Illustration: John Calvin.]\n\nWas there in London but one religion, despotism might be apprehended; if\ntwo only, they would seek to cut each others throats; but as there are\nat least thirty, they live together in peace and happiness.\n\n\n\n\nPRETENSIONS.\n\n\nThere is not a single prince in Europe who does not assume the title of\nsovereign of a country possessed by his neighbor. This political madness\nis unknown in the rest of the world. The king of Boutan never called\nhimself emperor of China; nor did the sovereign of Tartary ever assume\nthe title of king of Egypt.\n\nThe most splendid and comprehensive pretensions have always been those\nof the popes; two keys, _saltier,_ gave them clear and decided\npossession of the kingdom of heaven. They bound and unbound everything\non earth. This ligature made them masters of the continent; and St.\nPeter's nets gave them the dominion of the seas.\n\nMany learned theologians thought, that when these gods were assailed by\nthe Titans, called Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists, etc., they\nthemselves reduced some articles of their pretensions. It is certain\nthat many of them became more modest, and that their celestial court\nattended more to propriety and decency; but their pretensions were\nrenewed on every opportunity that offered. No other proof is necessary\nthan the conduct of Aldobrandini, Clement VIII., to the great Henry IV.,\nwhen it was deemed necessary to give him an absolution that he had no\noccasion for, on account of his being already absolved by the bishops of\nhis own kingdom, and also on account of his being victorious.\n\nAldobrandini at first resisted for a whole year, and refused to\nacknowledge the duke of Nemours as the ambassador of France. At last he\nconsented to open to Henry the gate of the kingdom of heaven, on the\nfollowing conditions:\n\n1. That Henry should ask pardon for having made the sub-porters--that\nis, the bishops--open the gate to him, instead of applying to the grand\nporter.\n\n2. That he should acknowledge himself to have forfeited the throne of\nFrance till Aldobrandini, by the plenitude of his power, reinstated him\non it.\n\n3. That he should be a second time consecrated and crowned; the first\ncoronation having been null and void, as it was performed without the\nexpress order of Aldobrandini.\n\n4. That he should expel all the Protestants from his kingdom; which\nwould have been neither honorable nor possible. It would not have been\nhonorable, because the Protestants had profusely shed their blood to\nestablish him as king of France; and it would not have been possible, as\nthe number of these dissidents amounted to two millions.\n\n5. That he should immediately make war on the Grand Turk, which would\nnot have been more honorable or possible than the last condition, as the\nGrand Turk had recognized him as king of France at a time when Rome\nrefused to do so, and as Henry had neither troops, nor money, nor ships,\nto engage in such an insane war with his faithful ally.\n\n6. That he should receive in an attitude of complete prostration the\nabsolution of the pope's legate, according to the usual form in which it\nis administered; that is in fact, that he should be actually scourged by\nthe legate.\n\n7. That he should recall the Jesuits, who had been expelled from his\nkingdom by the parliament for the attempt made to assassinate him by\nJean Ch\u00e2tel, their scholar.\n\nI omit many other minor pretensions. Henry obtained a mitigation of a\nnumber of them. In particular, he obtained the concession, although with\na great deal of difficulty, that the scourging should be inflicted only\nby proxy, and by the hand of Aldobrandini himself.\n\nYou will perhaps tell me, that his holiness was obliged to require those\nextravagant conditions by that old and inveterate demon of the South,\nPhilip II., who was more powerful at Rome than the pope himself. You\ncompare Aldobrandini to a contemptible poltroon of a soldier whom his\ncolonel forces forward to the trenches by caning him.\n\nTo this I answer, that Clement VIII. was indeed afraid of Philip II.,\nbut that he was not less attached to the rights of the tiara; and that\nit was so exquisite a gratification for the grandson of a banker to\nscourge a king of France, that Aldobrandini would not altogether have\nconceded this point for the world.\n\nYou will reply, that should a pope at present renew such pretensions,\nshould he now attempt to apply the scourge to a king of France, or\nSpain, or Naples, or to a duke of Parma, for having driven the reverend\nfathers, the Jesuits, from their dominions, he would be in imminent\ndanger of incurring the same treatment as Clement VII. did from Charles\nV., and even of experiencing still greater humiliations; that it is\nnecessary to sacrifice pretensions to interests; that men must yield to\ntimes and circumstances; and that the sheriff of Mecca must proclaim Ali\nBey king of Egypt, if he is successful and firm upon the throne. To this\nI answer, that you are perfectly right.\n\n_Pretensions Of The Empire; Extracted From Glafey And Schwedar._\n\nUpon Rome (none). Even Charles V., after he had taken Rome, claimed no\nright of actual domain.\n\nUpon the patrimony of St. Peter, from Viterbo to Civita Castellana, the\nestates of the countess Mathilda, but solemnly ceded by Rudolph of\nHapsburg.\n\nUpon Parma and Placentia, the supreme dominion as part of Lombardy,\ninvaded by Julius II., granted by Paul III., to his bastard Farnese:\nhomage always paid for them to the pope from that time; the sovereignty\nalways claimed by the seigneurs of Lombardy; the right of sovereignty\ncompletely ceded to the emperor by the treaties of Cambray and of\nLondon, at the peace of 1737.\n\nUpon Tuscany, right of sovereignty exercised by Charles V.; an estate of\nthe empire, belonging now to the emperor's brother.\n\nUpon the republic of Lucca, erected into a duchy by Louis of Bavaria, in\n1328; the senators declared afterwards vicars of the empire by Charles\nIV. The Emperor Charles VI., however, in the war of 1701, exercised in\nit his right of sovereignty by levying upon it a large contribution.\n\nUpon the duchy of Milan, ceded by the Emperor Wincenslaus to Galeas\nVisconti, but considered as a fief of the empire.\n\nUpon the duchy of Mirandola, reunited to the house of Austria in 1711 by\nJoseph I.\n\nUpon the duchy of Mantua, erected into a duchy by Charles V.; reunited\nin like manner in 1708.\n\nUpon Guastalla, Novellara, Bozzolo, and Castiglione, also fiefs of the\nempire, detached from the duchy of Mantua.\n\nUpon the whole of Montferrat, of which the duke of Savoy received the\ninvestiture at Vienna in 1708.\n\nUpon Piedmont, the investiture of which was bestowed by the emperor\nSigismund on the duke of Savoy, Amadeus VIII.\n\nUpon the county of Asti, bestowed by Charles V., on the house of Savoy:\nthe dukes of Savoy always vicars in Italy from the time of the emperor\nSigismund.\n\nUpon Genoa, formerly part of the domain of the Lombard kings. Frederick\nBarbarossa granted to it in fief the coast from Monaco to Portovenere;\nit is free under Charles V., in 1529; but the words of the instrument\nare _In civitate nostra Genoa, et salvis Romani imperii juribus._\n\nUpon the fiefs of Langues, of which the dukes of Savoy have the direct\ndomain.\n\nUpon Padua, Vicenza, and Verona, rights fallen into neglect.\n\nUpon Naples and Sicily, rights still more fallen into neglect. Almost\nall the states of Italy are or have been in vassalage to the empire.\n\nUpon Pomerania and Mecklenburg, the fiefs of which were granted by\nFrederick Barbarossa.\n\nUpon Denmark, formerly a fief of the empire; Otho I. granted the\ninvestiture of it.\n\nUpon Poland, for the territory on the banks of the Vistula.\n\nUpon Bohemia and Silesia, united to the empire by Charles IV., in 1355.\n\nUpon Prussia, from the time of Henry VII.; the grand master of Prussia\nacknowledged a member of the empire in 1500.\n\nUpon Livonia, from the time of the knights of the sword. Upon Hungary,\nfrom the time of Henry II.\n\nUpon Lorraine, by the treaty of 1542; acknowledged an estate of the\nempire, paying taxes to support the war against the Turks.\n\nUpon the duchy of Bar down to the year 1311, when Philip the Fair, who\nconquered it, did homage for it.\n\nUpon the duchy of Burgundy, by virtue of the rights of Mary of Burgundy.\n\nUpon the kingdom of Arles and Burgundy on the other side of the Jura,\nwhich Conrad the Salian, possessed in chief by his wife.\n\nUpon Dauphiny, as part of the kingdom of Arles; the emperor Charles IV.\nhaving caused himself to be crowned at Arles in 1365, and created the\ndauphin of France his viceroy.\n\nUpon Provence, as a member of the kingdom of Arles, for which Charles of\nAnjou did homage to the empire.\n\nUpon the principality of Orange, as an arri\u00e8re-fief of the empire.\n\nUpon Avignon, for the same reason.\n\nUpon Sardinia, which Frederick II. erected into a kingdom.\n\nUpon Switzerland, as a member of the kingdoms of Arles and Burgundy.\n\nUpon Dalmatia, a great part of which belongs at present wholly to the\nVenetians, and the rest to Hungary.\n\n\n\n\nPRIDE.\n\n\nCicero, in one of his letters, says familiarly to his friend: \"Send to\nme the persons to whom you wish me to give the Gauls.\" In another, he\ncomplains of being fatigued with letters from I know not what princes,\nwho thank him for causing their provinces to be erected into kingdoms;\nand he adds that he does not even know where these kingdoms are\nsituated.\n\nIt is probable that Cicero, who often saw the Roman people, the\nsovereign people, applaud and obey him, and who was thanked by kings\nwhom he knew not, had some emotions of pride and vanity.\n\nThough the sentiment is not at all consistent in so pitiful an animal as\nman, yet we can pardon it in a Cicero, a C\u00e6sar, or a Scipio; but when in\nthe extremity of one of our half barbarous provinces, a man who may have\nbought a small situation, and printed poor verses, takes it into his\nhead to be proud, it is very laughable.\n\n\n\n\nPRIESTS.\n\n\nPriests in a state approach nearly to what preceptors are in private\nfamilies: it is their province to teach, pray, and supply example. They\nought to have no authority over the masters of the house; at least until\nit can be proved that he who gives the wages ought to obey him who\nreceives them. Of all religions the one which most positively excludes\nthe priesthood from civil authority, is that of Jesus. \"Give unto C\u00e6sar\nthe things which are C\u00e6sar's.\"--\"Among you there is neither first nor\nlast.\"--\"My kingdom is not of this world.\"\n\nThe quarrels between the empires and the priesthood, which have bedewed\nEurope with blood for more than six centuries, have therefore been, on\nthe part of the priests, nothing but rebellion at once against God and\nman, and a continual sin against the Holy Ghost.\n\nFrom the time of Calchas, who assassinated the daughter of Agamemnon,\nuntil Gregory XII., and Sixtus V., two bishops who would have deprived\nHenry IV., of the kingdom of France, sacerdotal power has been injurious\nto the world.\n\nPrayer is not dominion, nor exhortation despotism. A good priest ought\nto be a physician to the soul. If Hippocrates had ordered his patients\nto take hellebore under pain of being hanged, he would have been more\ninsane and barbarous than Phalaris, and would have had little practice.\nWhen a priest says: Worship God; be just, indulgent, and compassionate;\nhe is then a good physician; when he says: Believe me, or you shall be\nburned; he is an assassin.\n\nThe magistrate ought to support and restrain the priest in the same\nmanner as the father of a family insures respect to the preceptor, and\nprevents him from abusing it. The agreement of Church and State is of\nall systems the most monstrous, for it necessarily implies division, and\nthe existence of two contracting parties. We ought to say the protection\ngiven by government to the priesthood or church.\n\nBut what is to be said and done in respect to countries in which the\npriesthood have obtained dominion, as in Salem, where Melchizedek was\npriest and king; in Japan, where the dairo has been for a long time\nemperor? I answer, that the successors of Melchizedek and the dairos\nhave been set aside.\n\nThe Turks are wise in this; they religiously make a pilgrimage to Mecca;\nbut they will not permit the xerif of Mecca to excommunicate the sultan.\nNeither will they purchase from Mecca permission not to observe the\nramadan, or the liberty of espousing their cousins or their nieces. They\nare not judged by imans, whom the xerif delegates; nor do they pay the\nfirst year's revenue to the xerif. What is to be said of all that?\nReader, speak for yourself.\n\n\n\n\nPRIESTS OF THE PAGANS.\n\n\nFather Navarette, in one of his letters to Don John of Austria, relates\nthe following speech of the dalai-lama to his privy council: \"My\nvenerable brothers, you and I know very well that I am not immortal; but\nit is proper that the people should think so. The Tartars of great and\nlittle Thibet are people with stiff necks and little information, who\nrequire a heavy yoke and gross inventions. Convince them of my\nimmortality, and the glory will reflect on you, and you will procure\nhonors and riches.\n\n\"When the time shall come in which the Tartars will be more enlightened,\nwe may then confess that the grand lamas are not now immortal, but that\ntheir predecessors were so; and that what is necessary for the erection\nof a grand edifice, is no longer so when it is established on an\nimmovable foundation.\n\n\"I hesitated at first to distribute the _agremens_ of my water-closet,\nproperly inclosed in crystals ornamented with gilded copper, to the\nvassals of my empire; but these relics have been received with so much\nrespect, that the usage must be continued, which after all exhibits\nnothing repugnant to sound morals, and brings much money into our sacred\ntreasury.\n\n\"If any impious reasoner should ever endeavor to persuade the people\nthat one end of our sacred person is not so divine as the other--should\nthey protest against our relics, you will maintain their value and\nimportance to the utmost of your power.\n\n\"And if you are finally obliged to give up the sanctity of our nether\nend, you must take care to preserve in the minds of the reasoners the\nmost profound respect for our understanding, just as in a treaty with\nthe Moguls, we have ceded a poor province, in order to secure our\npeaceable possession of the remainder.\n\n\"So long as our Tartars of great and little Thibet are unable to read\nand write, they will remain ignorant and devout; you may therefore\nboldly take their money, intrigue with their wives and their daughters,\nand threaten them with the anger of the god Fo if they complain.\n\n\"When the time of correct reasoning shall arrive--for it will arrive\nsome day or other--you will then take a totally opposite course, and say\ndirectly the contrary of what your predecessors have said, for you ought\nto change the nature of your curb in proportion as the horses become\nmore difficult to govern. Your exterior must be more grave, your\nintrigues more mysterious, your secrets better guarded, your sophistry\nmore dazzling, and your policy more refined. You will then be the pilots\nof a vessel which is leaky on all sides. Have under you subalterns\ncontinually employed at the pumps, and as caulkers to stop all the\nholes. You will navigate with difficulty, but you will still proceed,\nand be enabled to cast into the fire or the water, as may be most\nconvenient, all those who would examine whether you have properly\nrefitted the vessel.\n\n\"If among the unbelievers is a prince of Calkas, a chief of the\nKalmucks, a prince of Kasan, or any other powerful prince, who has\nunhappily too much wit, take great care not to quarrel with him. Respect\nhim, and continually observe that you hope he will return to the holy\npath. As to simple citizens, spare them not, and the better men they\nare, the more you ought to labor to exterminate them; for being men of\nhonor they are the most dangerous of all to you. You will exhibit the\nsimplicity of the dove, the prudence of the serpent, and the paw of the\nlion, according to circumstances.\"\n\nThe dalai-lama had scarcely pronounced these words when the earth\ntrembled; lightnings sparkled in the firmament from one pole to the\nother; thunders rolled, and a celestial voice was heard to exclaim,\n\"Adore God and not the grand lama.\"\n\nAll the inferior lamas insisted that the voice said, \"Adore God and the\ngrand lama;\" and they were believed for a long time in the kingdom of\nThibet; but they are now believed no longer.\n\n\n\n\nPRIOR, BUTLER, AND SWIFT.\n\n\nIt was not known to France that Prior, who was deputed by Queen Anne to\nadjust the treaty of Utrecht with Louis XIV., was a poet. France has\nsince repaid England in the same coin, for Cardinal Dubois sent our\nDestouches to London, where he passed as little for a poet as Prior in\nFrance. Prior was originally an attendant at a tavern kept by his uncle,\nwhen the earl of Dorset, a good poet himself and a lover of the bottle,\none day surprised him reading Horace; in the same manner as Lord Ailsa\nfound his gardener reading Newton. Ailsa made his gardener a good\ngeometrician, and Dorset made a very agreeable poet of his vintner.\n\nIt was Prior who wrote the history of the soul under the title of\n\"Alma,\" and it is the most natural which has hitherto been composed on\nan existence so much felt, and so little known. The soul, according to\n\"Alma,\" resides at first, in the extremities; in the feet and hands of\nchildren, and from thence gradually ascends to the centre of the body at\nthe age of puberty. Its next step is to the heart, in which it engenders\nsentiments of love and heroism; thence it mounts to the head at a mature\nage, where it reasons as well as it is able; and in old age it is not\nknown what becomes of it; it is the sap of an aged tree which\nevaporates, and is not renewed again. This work is probably too long,\nfor all pleasantry should be short; and it might even be as well were\nthe serious short also.\n\nPrior made a small poem on the battle of Hochst\u00e4dt. It is not equal to\nhis \"Alma\"; there is, however, one good apostrophe to Boileau, who is\ncalled a satirical flatterer for taking so much pains to sing that Louis\ndid _not_ pass the Rhine. Our plenipotentiary finished by paraphrasing,\nin fifteen hundred verses, the words attributed to Solomon, that \"all is\nvanity\". Fifteen thousand verses might be written on this subject; but\nwoe to him who says all which can be said upon it!\n\nAt length Queen Anne dying, the ministry changed, and the peace adjusted\nby Prior being altogether unpopular, he had nothing to depend upon\nexcept an edition of his works; which were subscribed for by his party:\nafter which he died like a philosopher, which is the usual mode of dying\nof all respectable Englishmen.\n\n_Hudibras._\n\nThere is an English poem which it is very difficult to make foreigners\nunderstand, entitled \"Hudibras.\" It is a very humorous work, although\nthe subject is the civil war of the time of Cromwell. A struggle which\ncost so much blood and so many tears, originated a poem which obliges\nthe most serious reader to smile. An example of this contrast is found\nin our \"Satire of Menippus.\" Certainly the Romans would not have made a\nburlesque poem on the wars of Pompey and C\u00e6sar, or the proscription of\nAntony and Octavius. How then is it that the frightful evils of the\nLeague in France, and of the wars between the king and parliament in\nEngland, have proved sources of pleasantry? because at bottom there is\nsomething ridiculous hid beneath these fatal quarrels. The citizens of\nParis, at the head of the faction of Sixteen, mingled impertinence with\nthe miseries of faction. The intrigues of women, of the legates and of\nthe monks, presented a comic aspect, notwithstanding the calamities\nwhich they produced. The theological disputes and enthusiasm of the\nPuritans in England, were also very open to raillery; and this fund of\nthe ridiculous, well managed, might pleasantly enough aid in dispersing\nthe tragical horrors which abound on the surface. If the bull\n_Unigenitus_ caused the shedding of blood, the little poem \"Philotanus\"\nwas no less suitable to the subject; and it is only to be complained of\nfor not being so gay, so pleasant, and so various as it might have been;\nand for not fulfilling in the course of the work the promise held out by\nits commencement.\n\nThe poem of \"Hudibras\" of which I speak, seems to be a composition of\nthe satire of \"Menippus\" and of \"Don Quixote.\" It surpasses them in the\nadvantage of verse and also in wit; the former indeed does not come near\nit; being a very middling production; but notwithstanding his wit, the\nauthor of \"Hudibras\" is much beneath \"Don Quixote.\" Taste, vivacity, the\nart of narrating and of introducing adventures, with the faculty of\nnever being tedious, go farther than wit; and moreover, \"Don Quixote\" is\nread by all nations, and \"Hudibras\" by the English alone.\n\nButler, the author of this extraordinary poem, was contemporary with\nMilton, and enjoyed infinitely more temporary popularity than the\nlatter, because his work was humorous, and that of Milton melancholy.\nButler turned the enemies of King Charles II. into ridicule, and all the\nrecompense he received was the frequent quotation of his verses by that\nmonarch. The combats of the knight Hudibras were much better known than\nthe battles between the good and bad angels in \"Paradise Lost\"; but the\ncourt of England treated Butler no better than the celestial court\ntreated Milton; both the one and the other died in want, or very near\nit.\n\nA man whose imagination was impregnated with a tenth part of the comic\nspirit, good or bad, which pervades this work, could not but be very\npleasant; but he must take care how he translates \"Hudibras.\" It is\ndifficult to make foreign readers laugh at pleasantries which are almost\nforgotten by the nation which has produced them. Dante is little read in\nEurope, because we are ignorant of so much of his allusion; and it is\nthe same with \"Hudibras.\" The greater part of the humor of this poem\nbeing expended on the theology and theologians of its own time, a\ncommentary is eternally necessary. Pleasantry requiring explanation\nceases to be pleasantry; and a commentator on _bon mots_ is seldom\ncapable of conveying them.\n\n_Of Dean Swift._\n\nHow is it that in France so little is understood of the works of the\ningenious Doctor Swift, who is called the Rabelais of England? He has\nthe honor, like the latter, of being a churchman and an universal joker;\nbut Rabelais was not above his age, and Swift is much above Rabelais.\n\nOur curate of Meudon, in his extravagant and unintelligible book, has\nexhibited extreme gayety and equally great impertinence. He has lavished\nat once erudition, coarseness and ennui. A good story of two pages is\npurchased by a volume of absurdities. There are only some persons of an\neccentric taste who pique themselves upon understanding and valuing the\nwhole of this work. The rest of the nation laugh at the humor of\nRabelais, and despise the work; regarding him only as the first of\nbuffoons. We regret that a man who possessed so much wit, should have\nmade so miserable a use of it. He is a drunken philosopher, who wrote\nonly in the moments of his intoxication.\n\nDr. Swift is Rabelais sober, and living in good company. He has not\nindeed the gayety of the former, but he has all the finesse, sense,\ndiscrimination, which is wanted by our curate of Meudon. His verse is in\na singular taste, and almost inimitable. He exhibits a fine vein of\nhumor, both in prose and in verse; but in order to understand it, it is\nnecessary to visit his country.\n\nIn this country, which appears so extraordinary to other parts of\nEurope, it has excited little surprise that Doctor Swift, dean of a\ncathedral, should make merry in his \"Tale of a Tub\" with Catholicism,\nLutheranism, and Calvinism; his own defence is that he has not meddled\nwith Christianity. He pretends to respect the parent, while he scourges\nthe children. Certain fastidious persons are of opinion that his lashes\nare so long they have even reached the father.\n\nThis famous \"Tale of a Tub\" is the ancient story of the three invisible\nrings which a father bequeathed to his three children. These three rings\nwere the Jewish, the Christian, and the Mahometan religions. It is still\nmore an imitation of the history of Mero and En\u00e9gu by Fontenelle. Mero\nis the anagram of Rome; En\u00e9gu of Geneva, and they are two sisters who\naspire to the succession of the kingdom of their father. Mero reigns the\nfirst, and Fontenelle represents her as a sorceress, who plays tricks\nwith bread and effects conjuration with dead bodies. This is precisely\nthe Lord Peter of Swift, who presents a piece of bread to his two\nbrothers, and says to them, \"Here is some excellent Burgundy, my\nfriends; this partridge is of a delicious flavor.\" Lord Peter in Swift\nperforms the same part with the Mero of Fontenelle.\n\nThus almost all is imitation. The idea of the \"Persian Letters\" was\ntaken from that of the \"Turkish Spy.\" Boyardo imitated Pulci; Ariosto,\nBoyardo; the most original wits borrow from one another. Cervantes makes\na madman of his Don Quixote, but is Orlando anything else? It would be\ndifficult to decide by which of the two knight-errantry is more\nridiculed, the grotesque portraiture of Cervantes, or the fertile\nimagination of Ariosto. Metastasia has borrowed the greater part of his\noperas from our French tragedies; and many English authors have copied\nus and said nothing about it. It is with books as with the fires in our\ngrates; everybody borrows a light from his neighbor to kindle his own,\nwhich in its turn is communicated to others, and each partakes of all.\n\n\n\n\nPRIVILEGE--PRIVILEGED CASES.\n\n\nCustom, which almost always prevails against reason, would have the\noffences of ecclesiastics and monks against civil orders, which are very\nfrequent, called privileged offences; and those offences common which\nregard only ecclesiastical discipline, cases that are abandoned to the\nsacerdotal hierarchy, and with which the civil power does not interfere.\n\nThe Church having no jurisdiction but that which sovereigns have granted\nit, and the judges of the Church being thus only judges privileged by\nthe sovereign, those cases should be called privileged which it is their\nprovince to judge, and those common offences which are punishable by the\nprince's officers. But the canonists, who are very rarely exact in their\nexpressions, particularly when treating of regal jurisprudence, having\nregarded a priest called the official, as being of right the sole judge\nof the clergy, they have entitled that privilege, which in common law\nbelongs to lay tribunals, and the ordinances of the monarch have adopted\nthis expression in France.\n\nTo conform himself to this custom, the judge of the Church takes\ncognizance only of common crime; in respect to privileged cases he can\nact only concurrently with the regal judge, who repairs to the episcopal\ncourt, where, however, he is but the assessor of the judge of the\nChurch. Both are assisted by their register; each separately, but in one\nanother's presence, takes notes of the course of the proceedings. The\nofficial who presides alone interrogates the accused; and if the royal\njudge has questions to put to him, he must have permission of the\necclesiastical judge to propose them.\n\nThis procedure is composed of formalities, and produces delays which\nshould not be admitted in criminal jurisprudence. Judges of the Church\nwho have not made a study of laws and formalities are seldom able to\nconduct criminal proceedings without giving place to appeals, which ruin\nthe accused in expense, make him languish in chains, or retard his\npunishment if he is guilty.\n\nBesides, the French have no precise law to determine which are\nprivileged cases. A criminal often groans in a dungeon for a whole year,\nwithout knowing what tribunal will judge him. Priests and monks are in\nthe state and subjects of it. It is very strange that when they trouble\nsociety they are not to be judged, like other citizens, by the officers\nof the sovereign.\n\nAmong the Jews, even the high priest had not the privilege which our\nlaws grant to simple parish priests. Solomon deposed the high priest\nAbiathar, without referring him to the synagogue to take his trial.\nJesus Christ, accused before a secular and pagan judge, challenged not\nhis jurisdiction. St. Paul, translated to the tribunal of Felix and\nFestus, declined not their judgment. The Emperor Constantine first\ngranted this privilege to bishops. Honorius and Theodosius the younger\nextended it to all the clergy, and Justinian confirmed it.\n\nIn digesting the criminal code of 1670, the counsellor of state,\nPussort, and the president of Novion, wished to abolish the conjoint\nproceeding, and to give to royal judges alone the right of judging the\nclergy accused of privileged cases; but this so reasonable desire was\ncombated by the first president De Lamoignon, and the advocate-general\nTalon, and a law which was made to reform our abuses confirmed the most\nridiculous of them.\n\nA declaration of the king on April 26, 1657, forbids the Parliament of\nParis to continue the proceeding commenced against Cardinal Retz,\naccused of high treason. The same declaration desires that the suits of\ncardinals, archbishops, and bishops of the kingdom, accused of the crime\nof high treason, are to be conducted and judged by ecclesiastical\njudges, as ordered by the canons.\n\nBut this declaration, contrary to the customs of the kingdoms, has not\nbeen registered in any parliament, and would not be followed. Our books\nrelate several sentences which have doomed cardinals, archbishops, and\nbishops to imprisonment, deposition, confiscation, and other\npunishments. These punishments were pronounced against the bishop of\nNantes, by sentence of June 25, 1455; against Jean de la Balue, cardinal\nand bishop of Angers, by sentence dated July 29, 1469; Jean Hebert,\nbishop of Constance, in 1480; Louis de Rochechouart, bishop of Nantes,\nin 1481; Geoffroi de Pompadour, bishop of P\u00e9rigueux, and George\nd'Amboise, bishop of Montauban, in 1488; Geoffroi Dintiville, bishop of\nAuxerre, in 1531; Bernard Lordat, bishop of Pumiers, in 1537; Cardinal\nde Ch\u00e2tillon, bishop of Beauvais, the 19th of March, 1569; Geoffroi de\nLa Martonie, bishop of Amiens, the 9th of July, 1594; Gilbert G\u00e9n\u00e9brard,\narchbishop of Aix, the 26th of January, 1596; William Rose, bishop of\nSenlis, September 5, 1598; Cardinal de Sourdis, archbishop of Bordeaux,\nNovember 17, 1615.\n\nThe parliament sentenced Cardinal de Bouillon to be imprisoned, and\nseized his property on June 20, 1710.\n\nCardinal de Mailly, archbishop of Rheims, in 1717, made a law tending to\ndestroy the ecclesiastical peace established by the government. The\nhangman publicly burned the law by sentence of parliament.\n\nThe sieur Languet, bishop of Soissons, having maintained that he could\nnot be judged by the justice of the king even for the crime of high\ntreason, was condemned to pay a fine of ten thousand livres.\n\nIn the shameful troubles excited by the refusal of sacraments, the\nsimple presidial of Nantes condemned the bishop of that city to pay a\nfine of six thousand francs for having refused the communion to those\nwho demanded it.\n\nIn 1764, the archbishop of Auch, of the name of Montillet, was fined,\nand his command, regarded as a defamatory libel, was burned by the\nexecutioner at Bordeaux.\n\nThese examples have been very frequent. The maxim, that ecclesiastics\nare entirely amenable to the justice of the king, like other citizens,\nhas prevailed throughout the kingdom. There is no express law which\ncommands it; but the opinion of all lawyers, the unanimous cry of the\nnation, and the good of the state, are in themselves a law.\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 08","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":75781}