It is still worse when we wish to calculate precisely. We go and see

farces and laugh at them; but should we laugh less in our closets when

we read grave authors deciding exactly how many men existed on the earth

two hundred and eighty-five years after the general deluge. We find,

according to Father Petau, that the family of Noah had produced one

thousand two hundred and twenty-four millions seven hundred and

seventeen thousand inhabitants, in three hundred years. The good priest

Petau evidently knew little about getting children and rearing them, if

we are to judge by this statement.

According to Cumberland, this family increased to three thousand three

hundred and thirty millions, in three hundred and forty years; and

according to Whiston, about three hundred years after the Deluge, they

amounted only to sixty-five millions four hundred and thirty-six.

It is difficult to reconcile and to estimate these accounts, such is the

extravagance when people seek to make things accord which are repugnant,

and to explain what is inexplicable. This unhappy endeavor has deranged

heads which in other pursuits might have made discoveries beneficial to

society.

The authors of the English "Universal History" observe, it is generally

agreed that the present inhabitants of the earth amount to about four

thousand millions. It is to be remarked, that these gentlemen do not

include in this number the natives of America, which comprehends nearly

half of the globe. For my own part, if, instead of a common romance, I

wished to amuse myself by reckoning up the number of brethren I have on

this unhappy little planet, I would proceed as follows: I would first

endeavor to estimate pretty nearly the number of inhabited square

leagues this earth contains on its surface; I should then say: The

surface of the globe contains twenty-seven millions of square leagues;

take away two-thirds at least for seas, rivers, lakes, deserts,

mountains, and all that is uninhabited; this calculation, which is very

moderate, leaves us nine millions of square leagues to account for.

In France and Germany, there are said to be six hundred persons to a

square league; in Spain, one hundred and fifty; in Russia, fifteen; and

Tartary, ten. Take the mean number at a hundred, and you will have about

nine hundred millions of brethren, including mulattoes, negroes, the

brown, the copper-colored, the fair, the bearded, and the unbearded. It

is not thought, indeed, that the number is so great as this; and if

eunuchs continue to be made, monks to multiply, and wars to be waged on

the most trifling pretexts, it is easy to perceive that we shall not

very soon be able to muster the four thousand millions, with which the

English authors of the "Universal History" have so liberally favored us;

but, then, of what consequence is it, whether the number of men on the

earth be great or small? The chief thing is to discover the means of

rendering our miserable species as little unhappy as possible.

SECTION IV.

_Of The Population Of America._

The discovery of America--that field of so much avarice and so much

ambition--has also become an object of philosophical curiosity. A great

number of writers have endeavored to prove that America was a colony of

the ancient world. Some modest mathematicians, on the contrary, have

said, that the same power which has caused the grass to grow in American

soil, was able to place man there; but this simple and naked system has

not been attended to.

When the great Columbus suspected the existence of this new world, it

was held to be impossible; and Columbus was taken for a visionary. When

it was really discovered, it was then found out that it had been known

long before.

It was pretended that Martin Behem, a native of Nuremberg, quitted

Flanders about the year 1460, in search of this unknown world; that he

made his way even to the Straits of Magellan, of which he left unknown

charts. As, however, it is certain that Martin Behem did not people

America, it must certainly have been one of the later grandchildren of

Noah, who took this trouble. All antiquity is then ransacked for

accounts of long voyages, to which they apply the discovery of this

fourth quarter of the globe. They make the ships of Solomon proceed to

Mexico, and it is thence that he drew the gold of Ophir, to procure

which he borrowed them from King Hiram. They find out America in Plato,

give the honor of it to the Carthaginians, and quote this anecdote from

a book of Aristotle which he never wrote.

Hornius pretends to discover some conformity between the Hebrew language

and that of the Caribs. Father Lafiteau, the Jesuit, has not failed to

follow up so fine an opening. The Mexicans, when greatly afflicted, tore

their garments; certain people of Asia formerly did the same, and of

course they are the ancestors of the Mexicans. It might be added, that

the natives of Languedoc are very fond of dancing; and that, as in their

rejoicings the Hurons dance also, the Languedocians are descended from

the Hurons, or the Hurons from the Languedocians.

The authors of a tremendous "Universal History" pretend that all the

Americans are descended from the Tartars. They assure us that this

opinion is general among the learned, but they do not say whether it is

so among the learned who reflect. According to them, some descendants of

Noah could find nothing better to do, than to go and settle in the

delicious country of Kamchatka, in the north of Siberia. This family

being destitute of occupation, resolved to visit Canada either by means

of ships, or by marching pleasantly across some slip of connecting land,

which has not been discovered in our own times. They then began to busy

themselves in propagation, until the fine country of Canada soon

becoming inadequate to the support of so numerous a population, they

went to people Mexico, Peru, Chile; while certain of their

great-granddaughters were in due time brought to bed of giants in the

Straits of Magellan.

As ferocious animals are found in some of the warm countries of America,

these authors pretend, that the Christopher Columbuses of Kamchatka took

them into Canada for their amusement, and carefully confined themselves

to those kinds which are no longer to be found in the ancient

hemisphere.

But the Kamchatkans have not alone peopled the new world; they have been

charitably assisted by the Mantchou Tartars, by the Huns, by the

Chinese, and by the inhabitants of Japan. The Mantchou Tartars are

incontestably the ancestors of the Peruvians, for Mango Capac was the

first inca of Peru. Mango resembles Manco; Manco sounds like Mancu;

Mancu approaches Mantchu, and Mantchou is very close to the latter.

Nothing can be better demonstrated. As for the Huns, they built in

Hungary a town called Cunadi. Now, changing Cu into Ca, we have Canadi,

from which Canada manifestly derives its name.

A plant resembling the ginseng of the Chinese, grows in Canada, which

the Chinese transplanted into the latter even before they were masters

of the part of Tartary where it is indigenous. Moreover, the Chinese are

such great navigators, they formerly sent fleets to America without

maintaining the least correspondence with their colonies.

With respect to the Japanese, they are the nearest neighbors of America,

which, as they are distant only about twelve hundred leagues, they have

doubtless visited in their time, although latterly they have neglected

repeating the voyage. Thus is history written in our own days. What

shall we say to these, and many other systems which resemble them?

Nothing.

POSSESSED.

Of all those who boast of having leagues with the devil, to the

possessed alone it is of no use to reply. If a man says to you, "I am

possessed," you should believe it on his word. They are not obliged to

do very extraordinary things; and when they do them, it is more than can

fairly be demanded. What can we answer to a man who rolls his eyes,

twists his mouth, and tells you that he has the devil within him?

Everyone feels what he feels; and as the world was formerly full of

possessed persons, we may still meet with them. If they take measures to

conquer the world, we give them property and they become more moderate;

but for a poor demoniac, who is content with a few convulsions, and does

no harm to anyone, it is not right to make him injurious. If you dispute

with him, you will infallibly have the worst of it. He will tell you,

"The devil entered me to-day under such a form; from that time I have

had a supernatural colic, which all the apothecaries in the world cannot

assuage." There is certainly no other plan to be taken with this man,

than to exorcise or abandon him to the devil.

It is a great pity that there are no longer possessed magicians or

astrologers. We can conceive the cause of all these mysteries. A hundred

years ago all the nobility lived in their castles; the winter evenings

are long, and they would have died of ennui without these noble

amusements. There was scarcely a castle which a fairy did not visit on

certain marked days, like the fairy Melusina at the castle of Lusignan.

The great hunter, a tall black man, hunted with a pack of black dogs in

the forest of Fontainebleau. The devil twisted Marshal Fabert's neck.

Every village had its sorcerer or sorceress; every prince had his

astrologer; all the ladies had their fortunes told; the possessed ran

about the fields; it was who had seen the devil or could see him; all

these things were inexhaustible subjects of conversation which kept

minds in exercise. In the present day we insipidly play at cards, and we

have lost by being undeceived.

POST.

Formerly, if you had one friend at Constantinople and another at Moscow,

you would have been obliged to wait for their return before you could

obtain any intelligence concerning them. At present, without either of

you leaving your apartments, you may familiarly converse through the

medium of a sheet of paper. You may even despatch to them by the post,

one of Arnaults sovereign remedies for apoplexy, which would be received

much more infallibly, probably, than it would cure.

If one of your friends has occasion for a supply of money at St.

Petersburg, and the other at Smyrna, the post will completely and

rapidly effect your business. Your mistress is at Bordeaux, while you

are with your regiment before Prague; she gives you regular accounts of

the constancy of her affections; you know from her all the news of the

city, except her own infidelities. In short, the post is the grand

connecting link of all transactions, of all negotiations. Those who are

absent, by its means become present; it is the consolation of life.

France, where this beautiful invention was revived, even in our period

of barbarism, has hereby conferred the most important service on all

Europe. She has also never in any instance herself marred and tainted so

valuable a benefit, and never has any minister who superintended the

department of the post opened the letters of any individual, except when

it was absolutely necessary that he should know their contents. It is

not thus, we are told, in other countries. It is asserted, that in

Germany private letters, passing through the territories of five or six

different governments, have been read just that number of times, and

that at last the seal has been so nearly destroyed that it became

necessary to substitute a new one.

Mr. Craggs, secretary of state in England, would never permit any person

in his office to open private letters; he said that to do so was a

breach of public faith, and that no man ought to possess himself of a

secret that was not voluntarily confided to him; that it is often a

greater crime to steal a man's thoughts than his gold; and that such

treachery is proportionally more disgraceful, as it may be committed

without danger, and without even the possibility of conviction.

To bewilder the eagerness of curiosity and defeat the vigilance of

malice, a method was at first invented of writing a part of the contents

of letters in ciphers; but the part written in the ordinary hand in this

case sometimes served as a key to the rest. This inconvenience led to

perfecting the art of ciphers, which is called "stenography."

Against these enigmatical productions was brought the art of

deciphering; but this art was exceedingly defective and inefficient. The

only advantage derived from it was exciting the belief in weak and

ill-formed minds, that their letters had been deciphered, and all the

pleasure it afforded consisted in giving such persons pain. According to

the law of probabilities, in a well-constructed cipher there would be

two, three, or even four hundred chances against one, that in each mark

the decipherer would not discover the syllable of which it was the

representative.

The number of chances increases in proportion to the complication of the

ciphers; and deciphering is utterly impossible when the system is

arranged with any ingenuity. Those who boast that they can decipher a

letter, without being at all acquainted with the subject of which it

treats, and without any preliminary assistance, are greater charlatans

than those who boast, if any such are to be found, of understanding a

language which they never learned.

With respect to those who in a free and easy way send you by post a

tragedy, in good round hand, with blank leaves, on which you are

requested kindly to make your observations, or who in the same way

regale you with a first volume of metaphysical researches, to be

speedily followed by a second, we may just whisper in their ear that a

little more discretion would do no harm, and even that there are some

countries where they would run some risk by thus informing the

administration of the day that there are such things in the world as bad

poets and bad metaphysicians.

POWER--OMNIPOTENCE.

I presume every reader of this article to be convinced that the world is

formed with intelligence, and that a slight knowledge of astronomy and

anatomy is sufficient to produce admiration of that universal and

supreme intelligence. Once more I repeat "_mens agitat molem._"

Can the reader of himself ascertain that this intelligence is

omnipotent, that is to say, infinitely powerful? Has he the slightest

notion of infinity, to enable him to comprehend the meaning and extent

of almighty power?

The celebrated philosophic historian, David Hume, says, "A weight of ten

ounces is raised in a balance by another weight; this other weight

therefore is more than ten ounces; but no one can rationally infer that

it must necessarily be a hundred weight."

We may fairly and judiciously apply here the same argument. You

acknowledge a supreme intelligence sufficiently powerful to form

yourself, to preserve you for a limited time in life, to reward you and

to punish you. Are you sufficiently acquainted with it to be able to

demonstrate that it can do more than this? How can you prove by your

reason that a being can do more than it has actually done?

The life of all animals is short. Could he make it longer? All animals

are food for one another without exception; everything is born to be

devoured. Could he form without destroying? You know not what his nature

is. It is impossible, therefore, that you should know whether his nature

may not have compelled him to do only the very things which he has done.

The globe on which we live is one vast field of destruction and carnage.

Either the Supreme Being was able to make of it an eternal mode of

enjoyment for all beings possessed of sensation, or He was not. If He

was able and yet did not do it, you will undoubtedly tremble to

pronounce or consider Him a maleficent being; but if He was unable to do

so, do not tremble to regard Him as a power of very great extent indeed,

but nevertheless circumscribed by His nature within certain limits.

Whether it be infinite or not, is not of any consequence to you. It is

perfectly indifferent to a subject whether his sovereign possesses five

hundred leagues of territory or five thousand; he is in either case

neither more nor less a subject. Which would reflect most strongly on

this great and ineffable Being: to say He made miserable beings because

it was indispensable to do so; or that He made them merely because it

was His will and pleasure?

Many sects represent Him as cruel; others, through fear of admitting the

existence of a wicked Deity, are daring enough to deny His existence at

all. Would it not be far preferable to say that probably the necessity

of His own nature and that of things have determined everything?

The world is the theatre of moral and natural evil; this is too

decidedly found and felt to be the case; and the "all is for the best"

of Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke, and Pope, is nothing but the effusion of a

mind devoted to eccentricity and paradox; in short, nothing but a dull

jest.

The two principles of Zoroaster and Manes, so minutely investigated by

Bayle, are a duller jest still. They are, as we have already observed,

the two physicians of Molière, one of whom says to the other: "You

excuse my emetics, and I will excuse your bleedings." Manichæism is

absurd; and that circumstance will account for its having had so many

partisans.

I acknowledge that I have not had my mind enlightened by all that Bayle

has said about the Manichæans and Paulicians. It is all controversy;

what I wanted was pure philosophy. Why speak about our mysteries to

Zoroaster? As soon as ever we have the temerity to discuss the critical

subject of our mysteries, we open to our view the most tremendous

precipices.

The trash of our own scholastic theology has nothing to do with the

trash of Zoroaster's reveries. Why discuss with Zoroaster the subject of

original sin? That subject did not become a matter of dispute until the

time of St. Augustine. Neither Zoroaster nor any other legislator of

antiquity ever heard it mentioned. If you dispute with Zoroaster, lock

up your Old and New Testament, with which he had not the slightest

acquaintance, and which it is our duty to revere without attempting to

explain.

What I should myself have said to Zoroaster would have been this: My

reason opposes the admission of two gods in conflict with each other;

such an idea is allowable only in a poem in which Minerva quarrels with

Mars. My weak understanding much more readily acquiesces in the notion

of only one Great Being, than in that of two great beings, of whom one

is constantly counteracting and spoiling the operations of the other.

Your evil principle, Arimanes, has not been able to derange a single

astronomical and physical law established by the good principle of

Oromazes; everything proceeds, among the numberless worlds which

constitute what we call the heavens, with perfect regularity and

harmony; how comes it that the malignant Arimanes has power only over

this little globe of earth?

Had I been Arimanes, I should have assailed Oromazes in his immense and

noble provinces, comprehending numbers of suns and stars. I should never

have been content to confine the war to an insignificant and miserable

village. There certainly is a great deal of misery in this same village;

but how can we possibly ascertain that it is not absolutely inevitable?

You are compelled to admit an intelligence diffused through the

universe. But in the first place, do you absolutely know that this

intelligence comprises a knowledge of the future? You have asserted a

thousand times that it does; but you have never been able to prove it to

me, or to comprehend it yourself. You cannot have any idea how any being

can see what does not exist; well, the future does not exist, therefore

no being can see it. You are reduced to the necessity of saying that he

foresees it; but to foresee is only to conjecture.

Now a god who, according to your system, conjectures may be mistaken. He

is, on your principles, really mistaken; for if he had foreseen that his

enemy would poison all his works in this lower world, he would never

have produced them; he would not have been accessory to the disgrace he

sustains in being perpetually vanquished.

Secondly, is he not much more honored upon my hypothesis, which

maintains that he does everything by the necessity of his own nature,

than upon yours, which raises up against him an enemy, disfiguring,

polluting, and destroying all his works of wisdom and kindness

throughout the world!

In the third place, it by no means implies a mean and unworthy idea of

God to say that, after forming millions of worlds, in which death and

evil may have no residence, it might be necessary that death and evil

should reside in this.

Fourth, it is not deprecating God to say that He could not form man

without bestowing on him self-love; that this self-love could not be his

guide without almost always leading him astray; that his passions are

necessary, but at the same time noxious; that the continuation of the

species cannot be accomplished without desires; that these desires

cannot operate without exciting quarrels; and that these quarrels

necessarily bring on wars, etc.

Fifth, on observing a part of the combinations of the vegetable, animal,

and mineral kingdoms, and the porous nature of the earth, in every part

so minutely pierced and drilled like a sieve, and from which exhalations

constantly rise in immense profusion, what philosopher will be bold

enough, what schoolman will be weak enough, decidedly to maintain that

nature could possibly prevent the ravages of volcanoes, the

intemperature of seasons, the rage of tempests, the poison of

pestilence, or, in short, any of those scourages which afflict the

world?

Sixth, a very great degree of power and skill are required to form lions

who devour bulls, and to produce men who invent arms which destroy, by a

single blow, not merely the life of bulls and lions, but--melancholy as

the idea is--the life of one another. Great power is necessary to

produce the spiders which spread their exquisitely fine threads and

net-work to catch flies; but this power amounts not to omnipotence--it

is not boundless power.

In the seventh place, if the Supreme Being had been infinitely powerful,

no reason can be assigned why He should not have made creatures endowed

with sensation infinitely happy; He has not in fact done so; therefore

we ought to conclude that He could not do so.

Eighth, all the different sects of philosophers have struck on the rock

of physical and moral evil. The only conclusion that can be securely

reached is, that God, acting always for the best, has done the best that

He was able to do.

Ninth, this necessity cuts off all difficulties and terminates all

disputes. We have not the hardihood to say: "All is good"; we say:

"There is no more evil than was absolutely inevitable."

Tenth, why do some infants die at the mother's breast? Why are others,

after experiencing the first misfortune of being born, reserved for

tormentes as lasting as their lives, which are at length ended by an

appalling death? Why has the source of life been poisoned throughout the

world since the discovery of America? Why, since the seventh century of

the Christian era, has the smallpox swept away an eighth portion of the

human species? Why, in every age of the world, have human bladders been

liable to be converted into stone quarries? Why pestilence, and war, and

famine, and the Inquisition? Consider the subject as carefully, as

profoundly, as the powers of the mind will absolutely permit, you will

find no other possible solution than that all is necessary.

I address myself here solely to philosophers, and not to divines. We

know that faith is the clue to guide us through the labyrinth. We know

full well that the fall of Adam and Eve, original sin, the vast power

communicated to devils, the predilection entertained by the Supreme

Being for the Jewish people, and the ceremony of baptism substituted for

that of circumcision, are answers that clear up every difficulty. We

have been here arguing only against Zoroaster, and not against the

University of Coimbra, to whose decisions and doctrines, in all the

articles of our work, we submit with all possible deference and faith.

See the letters of Memmius to Cicero; and answer them if you can.

POWER.

_The Two Powers._

SECTION I.

Whoever holds both the sceptre and the censer has his hands completely

occupied. If he governs a people possessed of common sense he may be

considered as a very able man; but if his subjects have no more mind

than children or savages, he may be compared to Bernier's coachman, who

was one day suddenly surprised by his master in one of the public places

of Delhi, haranguing the populace, and distributing among them his quack

medicines. "What! Lapierre," says Bernier to him, "have you turned

physician?" "Yes, sir," replied the coachman; "like people, like

doctor."

The dairo of the Japanese, or the grand lama of Thibet, might make just

the same remark. Even Numa Pompilius, with his Egeria, would have

answered Bernier in the same manner. Melchizedek was probably in a

similar situation, as well as the Anius whom Virgil introduces in the

following two lines of the third book of his "Æneid":

_Rex Anius, rex idem hominum Phœbique sacerdos,_

_Vittis et sacra redimitus tempora lauro._--VIRGIL.

Anius, the priest and king, with laurel crowned

His hoary locks with purple fillets bound.--DRYDEN.

This charlatan Anius was merely king of the isle of Delos, a very paltry

kingdom, which, next to those of Melchizedek and Yvetot, was one of the

least considerable in the world; but the worship of Apollo had conferred

on it a high reputation; a single saint is enough to raise any country

into credit and consequence.

Three of the German electors are more powerful than Anius, and, like

him, unite the rights of the mitre with those of the crown; although in

subordination, at least apparently so, to the Roman emperor, who is no

other than the emperor of Germany. But of all the countries in which the

plenitude of ecclesiastical and the plenitude of royal claims combine to

form the most full and complete power that can be imagined, modern Rome

is the chief.

The pope is regarded in the Catholic part of Europe as the first of

kings and the first of priests. It was the same in what was called

"pagan" Rome; Julius Cæsar was at once chief pontiff, dictator, warrior,

and conqueror; distinguished also both for eloquence and gallantry; in

every respect the first of mankind; and with whom no modern, except in a

dedication, could ever be compared.

The king of England, being the head also of the Church, possesses nearly

the same dignities as the pope. The empress of Russia is likewise

absolute mistress over her clergy, in the largest empire existing upon

earth. The notion that two powers may exist, in opposition to each

other, in the same state, is there regarded even by the clergy

themselves as a chimera equally absurd and pernicious.

In this connection I cannot help introducing a letter which the empress

of Russia, Catherine II., did me the honor to write to me at Mount

Krapak, on Aug. 22, 1765, and which she permitted me to make use of as I

might see occasion:

"The Capuchins who are tolerated at Moscow (for toleration is general

throughout the Russian empire, and the Jesuits alone are not suffered to

remain in it), having, in the course of the last winter, obstinately

refused to inter a Frenchman who died suddenly, under a pretence that he

had not received the sacraments, Abraham Chaumeix drew up a factum, or

statement, against them, in order to prove to them that it was

obligatory upon them to bury the dead. But neither this factum, nor two

requisitions of the governor, could prevail on these fathers to obey. At

last they were authoritatively told that they must either bury the

Frenchman or remove beyond the frontiers. They actually removed

accordingly; and I sent some Augustins from this place, who were

somewhat more tractable, and who, perceiving that no trifling or delay

would be permitted, did all that was desired on the occasion. Thus

Abraham Chaumeix has in Russia become a reasonable man; he absolutely is

an enemy to persecution; were he also to become a man of wit and

intellect, he would make the most incredulous believe in miracles; but

all the miracles in the world will not blot out the disgrace of having

been the denouncer of the 'Encyclopædia.'

"The subjects of the Church, having suffered many, and frequently

tyrannical, grievances, which the frequent change of masters very

considerably increased, towards the end of the reign of the empress

Elizabeth, rose in actual rebellion; and at my accession to the throne

there were more than a hundred thousand men in arms. This occasioned me,

in 1762, to execute the project of changing entirely the administration

of the property of the clergy, and to settle on them fixed revenues.

Arsenius, bishop of Rostow, strenuously opposed this, urged on by some

of his brother clergy, who did not feel it perfectly convenient to put

themselves forward by name. He sent in two memorials, in which he

attempted to establish the absurd principle of two powers. He had made

the like attempt before, in the time of the empress Elizabeth, when he

had been simply enjoined silence; but his insolence and folly

redoubling, he was now tried by the metropolitan of Novgorod and the

whole synod, condemned as a fanatic, found guilty of attempts contrary

to the orthodox faith, as well as to the supreme power, deprived of his

dignity and priesthood, and delivered over to the secular arm. I acted

leniently towards him; and after reducing him to the situation of a

monk, extended his punishment no farther."

Such are the very words of the empress; and the inference from the whole

case is that she well knows both how to support the Church and how to

restrain it; that she respects humanity as well as religion; that she

protects the laborer as well as the priest; and that all orders in the

state ought both to admire and bless her.

I shall hope to be excused for the further indiscretion of transcribing

here a passage contained in another of her letters, written on November

28, 1765:

"Toleration is established among us; it constitutes a law of the state;

persecution is prohibited. We have indeed fanatics who, as they are not

persecuted by others, burn themselves; but if those of other countries

also did the same, no great harm could result; the world, in consequence

of such a system, would have been more tranquil, and Calas would not

have been racked to death."

Do not imagine that she writes in this style from a feeling of transient

and vain enthusiasm, contradicted afterwards in her practice, nor even

from a laudable desire of obtaining throughout Europe the suffrages and

applause of those who think, and teach others the way to think. She lays

down these principles as the basis of her government. She wrote with her

own hand, in the "Council of Legislations," the following words, which

should be engraved on the gates of every city in the world:

"In a great empire, extending its sway over as many different nations as

there are different creeds among mankind, the most pernicious fault

would be intolerance."

It is to be observed that she does not hesitate to put intolerance in

the rank of faults--I had nearly said offences. Thus does an absolute

empress, in the depths of the North, put an end to persecution and

slavery--while in the South--.

Judge for yourself, sir, after this, whether there will be found a man

in Europe who will not be ready to sign the eulogium you propose. Not

only is this princess tolerant, but she is desirous that her neighbors

should be so likewise. This is the first instance in which supreme power

has been exercised in establishing liberty of conscience. It constitutes

the grandest epoch with which I am acquainted in modern history.

The case of the ancient Persians forbidding the Carthaginians to offer

human sacrifices is a somewhat similar instance. Would to God, that

instead of the barbarians who formerly poured from the plains of

Scythia, and the mountains of Imaus and Caucasus, towards the Alps and

Pyrenees, carrying with them ravage and desolation, armies might be seen

at the present day descending to subvert the tribunal of the

Inquisition--a tribunal more horrible than even the sacrifices of human

beings which constitute the eternal reproach of our forefathers.

In short, this superior genius wishes to convince her neighbors of what

Europe is now beginning to comprehend, that metaphysical unintelligible

opinions, which are the daughters of absurdity, are the mothers of

discord; and that the Church, instead of saying: "I come to bring, not

peace, but the sword," should exclaim aloud: "I bring peace, and not the

sword." Accordingly the empress is unwilling to draw the sword against

any but those who wish to crush the dissidents.

SECTION II.

_Conversation Between The Reverend Father Bouvet, Missionary Of The

Company Of Jesus, And The Emperor Camhi, In The Presence Of Brother

Attiret, A Jesuit; Extracted From The Private Memoirs Of The Mission, In

1772._

FATHER BOUVET.

Yes, may it please your sacred majesty, as soon as you will have had the

happiness of being baptized by me, which I hope will be the case, you

will be relieved of one-half of the immense burden which now oppresses

you. I have mentioned to you the fable of Atlas, who supported the

heavens on his shoulders. Hercules relieved him and carried away the

heavens. You are Atlas, and Hercules is the pope. There will be two

powers in your empire. Our excellent Clement will be the first. Upon

this plan you will enjoy the greatest of all advantages; those of being

at leisure while you live, and of being saved when you die.

THE EMPEROR.

I am exceedingly obliged to my dear friend, the pope, for condescending

to take so much trouble; but how will he be able to govern my empire at

the distance of six thousand leagues?

FATHER BOUVET.

Nothing, may it please your Imperial Majesty, can be more easy. We are

his vicars apostolic, and he is the vicar of God; you will therefore be

governed by God Himself.

THE EMPEROR.

How delightful that will be! I am not, however, quite easy on the

subject. Will your vice-god share the imperial revenues with myself? For

all labor ought to be paid for.

FATHER BOUVET.

Our vice-god is so kind and good that in general he will not take, at

most, more than a quarter, except in cases of disobedience. Our

emoluments will not exceed fifty million ounces of pure silver, which is

surely a trifling object in comparison with heavenly advantages.

THE EMPEROR.

Yes, it is certainly, as you say, giving them almost for nothing. I

suppose your celebrated and benevolent city derives just about the same

sum from each of my three neighbors--the Great Mogul, the Emperor of

Japan, and the Empress of Russia; and also from the Persian and the

Turkish empires?

FATHER BOUVET.

I cannot exactly say that is yet the case; but, with Gods help and our

own, I have no doubt it will be so.

THE EMPEROR.

And how are you, who are the vicars apostolic, to be paid?

FATHER BOUVET.

We have no regular wages; but we are somewhat like the principal female

character in a comedy written by one Count Caylus, a countryman of mine;

all that I ... is for myself.

THE EMPEROR.

But pray inform me whether your Christian princes in Europe pay your

Italian friend or patron in proportion to the assessment laid on me.

FATHER BOUVET.

No, they do not! One-half of Europe has separated from him and pays him

nothing; and the other pays him no more than it is obliged to pay.

THE EMPEROR.

You told me some time since that he was sovereign of a very fine and

fertile territory.

FATHER BOUVET.

Yes; but it produces very little to him; it lies mostly uncultivated.

THE EMPEROR.

Poor man! he does not know how to cultivate his own territory, and yet

pretends to govern mine.

FATHER BOUVET.

Formerly, in one of our councils--that is, in one of our assemblies of

priests, which was held in a city called Constance--our holy father

caused a proposition to be made for a new tax for the support of his

dignity. The assembly replied that any necessity for that would be

perfectly precluded by his attending to the cultivation of his own

lands. This, however, he took effectual care not to do. He preferred

living on the produce of those who labor in other kingdoms. He appeared

to think that this manner of living had an air of greater grandeur.

THE EMPEROR.

Well, go and tell him from me, that I not only make those about me

labor, but that I also labor myself; and I doubt much whether it will be

for him.

FATHER BOUVET.

Holy Virgin! I am absolutely taken for a fool!

THE EMPEROR.

Begone, this instant! I have been too indulgent.

BROTHER ATTIRET TO FATHER BOUVET.

I was right, you see, when I told you that the emperor, with all his

excellence of heart, had also more understanding than both of us

together.

PRAYER (PUBLIC), THANKSGIVING, ETC.

Very few forms of public prayers used by the ancients still remain. We

have only Horace's beautiful hymn for the secular games of the ancient

Romans. This prayer is in the rhythm and measure which the other Romans

long after imitated in the hymn, "_Ut queat laxis resonare fibris._"

The _Pervigilium Veneris_ is written in a quaint and affected taste, and

seems unworthy of the noble simplicity of the reign of Augustus. It is

possible that this hymn to Venus may have been chanted in the festivals

celebrated in honor of that goddess; but it cannot be doubted that the

poem of Horace was chanted with much greater solemnity.

It must be allowed that this secular poem of Horace is one of the finest

productions of antiquity; and that the hymn, "_Ut queat laxis,_" is one

of the most flat and vapid pieces that appeared during the barbarous

period of the decline of the Latin language. The Catholic Church in

those times paid little attention to eloquence and poetry. We all know

very well that God prefers bad verses recited with a pure heart, to the

finest verses possible chanted by the wicked. Good verses, however,

never yet did any harm, and--all other things being equal--must deserve

a preference.

Nothing among us ever approached the secular games, which were

celebrated at the expiration of every hundred and ten years. Our jubilee

is only a faint and feeble copy of it. Three magnificent altars were

erected on the banks of the Tiber. All Rome was illuminated for three

successive nights; and fifteen priests distributed the lustral water and

wax tapers among the men and women of the city who were appointed to

chant the prayers. A sacrifice was first offered to Jupiter as the great

god, the sovereign master of the gods; and afterwards to Juno, Apollo,

Latona, Diana, Pluto, Proserpine, and the Fates, as to inferior powers.

All these divinities had their own peculiar hymns and ceremonies. There

were two choirs, one of twenty-seven boys, and the other of twenty-seven

girls, for each of the divinities. Finally, on the last day, the boys

and girls, crowned with flowers, chanted the ode of Horace.

It is true that in private houses his other odes, for Ligurinus and

Liciscus and other contemptible characters, were heard at table;

performances which undoubtedly were not calculated to excite the finest

feelings of devotion; but there is a time for all things, "_pictoribus

atque poetis._" Caraccio, who drew the figures of Aretin, painted saints

also; and in all our colleges we have excused in Horace what the masters

of the Roman Empire excused in him without any difficulty.

As to forms of prayer, we have only a few slight fragments of that which

was recited at the mysteries of Isis. We have quoted it elsewhere, but

we will repeat it here, because it is at once short and beautiful:

"The celestial powers obey thee; hell is in subjection to thee; the

universe revolves under thy moving hand; thy feet tread on Tartarus; the

stars are responsive to thy voice; the seasons return at thy command;

the elements are obedient to thy will."

We repeat also the form supposed to have been used in the worship of the

ancient Orpheus, which we think superior even to the above respecting

Isis:

"Walk in the path of justice; adore the sole Master of the Universe; He

is One Alone, and self-existent; all other beings owe their existence to

Him; He acts both in them and by them; He sees all, but has never been

Himself seen by mortal eyes."

It is not a little extraordinary that in the Leviticus and Deuteronomy

of the Jews, there is not a single public prayer, not one single formula

of public worship. It seems as if the Levites were fully employed in

dividing among themselves the viands that were offered to them. We do

not even see a single prayer instituted for their great festivals of the

Passover, the Pentecost, the trumpets, the tabernacles, the general

expiation, or the new moon.

The learned are almost unanimously agreed that there were no regular

prayers among the Jews, except when, during their captivity at Babylon,

they adopted somewhat of the manners, and acquired something of the

sciences, of that civilized and powerful people. They borrowed all from

the Chaldaic Persians, even to their very language, characters, and

numerals; and joining some new customs to their old Egyptian rites, they

became a new people, so much the more superstitious than before, in

consequence of their being, after the conclusion of a long captivity,

still always dependent upon their neighbors.

_... In rebus acerbis_

_Arcius advertunt animos ad religionem._

--LUCRETIUS, book iii., 52, 53.

_... The common rout,_

_When cares and dangers press, grow more devout._

--CREECH.

With respect to the ten other tribes who had been previously dispersed,

we may reasonably believe that they were as destitute of public forms of

prayer as the two others, and that they had not, even up to the period

of their dispersion, any fixed and well-defined religion, as they

abandoned that which they professed with so much facility, and forgot

even their own name, which cannot be said of the small number of

unfortunate beings who returned to rebuild Jerusalem.

It is, therefore, at that period that the two tribes, or rather the two

tribes and a half, seemed to have first attached themselves to certain

invariable rites, to have written books, and used regular prayers. It is

not before that time that we begin to see among them forms of prayer.

Esdras ordained two prayers for every day, and added a third for the

Sabbath; it is even said that he instituted eighteen prayers, that there

might be room for selection, and also to afford variety in the service.

The first of these begins in the following manner:

"Blessed be Thou, O Lord God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac,

and Jacob; the great God, the powerful, the terrible, the most high, the

liberal distributor of good things, the former and possessor of the

world, who rememberest good actions, and sendest a Redeemer to their

descendants for Thy name's sake. O King, our help and Saviour, our

buckler, blessed be Thou, O Lord, the buckler of our father Abraham."

It is asserted that Gamaliel, who lived in the time of Jesus Christ, and

who had such violent quarrels with St. Paul, ordered a nineteenth

prayer, which is as follows:

"Grant peace, benefits, blessing, favor, kindness, and piety to us, and

to Thy people Israel. Bless us, O our Father! bless us altogether with

the light of Thy countenance; for by the light of Thy countenance Thou

hast given us, O Lord our God, the law of life, love, kindness, equity,

blessing, piety, and peace. May it please Thee to bless, through all

time, and at every moment, Thy people Israel, by giving them peace.

Blessed be Thou, O Lord, who blessest Thy people Israel by giving them

peace. Amen."

There is one circumstance deserving of remark with regard to many

prayers, which is, that every nation has prayed for the direct contrary

events to those prayed for by their neighbors.

The Jews, for example, prayed that God would exterminate the Syrians,

Babylonians, and Egyptians; and these prayed that God would exterminate

the Jews; and, accordingly, they may be said to have been so, with

respect to the ten tribes, who have been confounded and mixed up with so

many nations; and the remaining two tribes were more unfortunate still;

for, as they obstinately persevered in remaining separate from all other

nations in the midst of whom they dwelt, they were deprived of the grand

advantages of human society.

In our own times, in the course of the wars that we so frequently

undertake for the sake of particular cities, or even perhaps villages,

the Germans and Spaniards, when they happened to be the enemies of the

French, prayed to the Holy Virgin, from the bottom of their hearts, that

she would completely defeat the Gauls and the Gavaches, who in their

turn supplicated her, with equal importunity, to destroy the Maranes and

the Teutons.

In England advocates of the red rose offered up to St. George the most

ardent prayers to prevail upon him to sink all the partisans of the

white rose to the bottom of the sea. The white rose was equally devout

and importunate for the very opposite event. We can all of us have some

idea of the embarrassment which this must have caused St. George; and if

Henry VII. had not come to his assistance, St. George would never have

been able to get extricated from it.

SECTION II.

We know of no religion without prayers; even the Jews had them, although

there was no public form of prayer among them before the time when they

sang their canticles in their synagogues, which did not take place until

a late period.

The people of all nations, whether actuated by desires or fears, have

invoked the assistance of the Divinity. Philosophers, however, more

respectful to the Supreme Being, and rising more above human weakness,

have been habituated to substitute, for prayer, resignation. This, in

fact, is all that appears proper and suitable between creature and

Creator. But philosophy is not adapted to the great mass of mankind; it

soars too high above the vulgar; it speaks a language they are unable to

comprehend. To propose philosophy to them would be just as weak as to

propose the study of conic sections to peasants or fish-women.

Among the philosophers themselves, I know of no one besides Maximus

Tyrius who has treated of this subject. The following is the substance

of his ideas upon it: "The designs of God exist from all eternity. If

the object prayed for be conformable to His immutable will, it must be

perfectly useless to request of Him the very thing which He has

determined to do. If He is prayed to for the reverse of what He has

determined to do, He is prayed to be weak, fickle, and inconstant; such

a prayer implies that this is thought to be His character, and is

nothing better than ridicule or mockery of Him. You either request of

Him what is just and right, in which case He ought to do it, and it will

be actually done without any solicitation, which in fact shows distrust

of His rectitude; or what you request is unjust, and then you insult

Him. You are either worthy or unworthy of the favor you implore: if

worthy, He knows it better than you do yourself; if unworthy, you commit

an additional crime in requesting that which you do not merit."

In a word, we offer up prayers to God only because we have made Him

after our own image. We treat Him like a pasha, or a sultan, who is

capable of being exasperated and appeased. In short, all nations pray to

God: the sage is resigned, and obeys Him. Let us pray with the people,

and let us be resigned to Him with the sage.

We have already spoken of the public prayers of many nations, and of

those of the Jews. That people have had one from time immemorial, which

deserves all our attention, from its resemblance to the prayer taught us

by Jesus Christ Himself. This Jewish prayer is called the Kadish, and

begins with these words: "O, God! let Thy name be magnified and

sanctified; make Thy kingdom to prevail; let redemption flourish, and

the Messiah come quickly!"

As this Kadish is recited in Chaldee it has induced the belief that it

is as ancient as the captivity, and that it was at that period that the

Jews began to hope for a Messiah, a Liberator, or Redeemer, whom they

have since prayed for in the seasons of their calamities.

The circumstance of this word "Messiah" being found in this ancient

prayer has occasioned much controversy on the subject of the history of

this people. If the prayer originated during the Babylonish captivity,

it is evident that the Jews at that time must have hoped for and

expected a Redeemer. But whence does it arise, that in times more

dreadfully calamitous still, after the destruction of Jerusalem by

Titus, neither Josephus nor Philo ever mentioned any expectation of a

Messiah? There are obscurities in the history of every people; but those

of the Jews form an absolute and perpetual chaos. It is unfortunate for

those who are desirous of information, that the Chaldæans and Egyptians

have lost their archives, while the Jews have preserved theirs.

PREJUDICE.

Prejudice is an opinion without judgment. Thus, throughout the world,

children are inspired with opinions before they can judge. There are

universal and necessary prejudices, and these even constitute virtue. In

all countries, children are taught to acknowledge a rewarding and

punishing God; to respect and love their fathers and mothers; to regard

theft as a crime, and interested lying as a vice, before they can tell

what is a virtue or a vice. Prejudice may, therefore, be very useful,

and such as judgment will ratify when we reason.

Sentiment is not simply prejudice, it is something much stronger. A

mother loves not her son because she is told that she must love him; she

fortunately cherishes him in spite of herself. It is not through

prejudice that you run to the aid of an unknown child nearly falling

down a precipice, or being devoured by a beast.

But it is through prejudice that you will respect a man dressed in

certain clothes, walking gravely, and talking at the same time. Your

parents have told you that you must bend to this man; you respect him

before you know whether he merits your respect; you grow in age and

knowledge; you perceive that this man is a quack, made up of pride,

interest, and artifice; you despise that which you revered, and

prejudice yields to judgment. Through prejudice, you have believed the

fables with which your infancy was lulled: you are told that the Titans

made war against the gods, that Venus was amorous of Adonis; at twelve

years of age you take these fables for truth; at twenty, you regard them

as ingenious allegories.

Let us examine, in a few words, the different kinds of prejudices, in

order to arrange our ideas. We shall perhaps be like those who, in the

time of the scheme of Law, perceived that they had calculated upon

imaginary riches.

_Prejudices Of The Senses._

Is it not an amusing thing, that our eyes always deceive us, even when

we see very well, and that on the contrary our ears do not? When your

properly-formed ear hears: "You are beautiful; I love you," it is very

certain that the words are not: I hate you; you are ugly; but you see a

smooth mirror--it is demonstrated that you are deceived; it is a very

rough surface. You see the sun about two feet in diameter; it is

demonstrated that it is a million times larger than the earth.

It seems that God has put truth into your ears, and error into your

eyes; but study optics, and you will perceive that God has not deceived

you, and that it was impossible for objects to appear to you otherwise

than you see them in the present state of things.

_Physical Prejudices._

The sun rises, the moon also, the earth is immovable; these are natural

physical prejudices. But that crabs are good for the blood, because when

boiled they are of the same color; that eels cure paralysis, because

they frisk about; that the moon influences our diseases, because an

invalid was one day observed to have an increase of fever during the

wane of the moon: these ideas and a thousand others were the errors of

ancient charlatans, who judged without reason, and who, being themselves

deceived, deceived others.

_Historical Prejudices._

The greater part of historians have believed without examining, and this

confidence is a prejudice. Fabius Pictor relates, that, several ages

before him, a vestal of the town of Alba, going to draw water in her

pitcher, was violated, that she was delivered of Romulus and Remus, that

they were nourished by a she-wolf. The Roman people believed this fable;

they examined not whether at that time there were vestals in Latium;

whether it was likely that the daughter of a king should go out of her

convent with a pitcher, or whether it was probable that a she-wolf

should suckle two children, instead of eating them: prejudice

established it.

A monk writes that Clovis, being in great danger at the battle of

Tolbiac, made a vow to become a Christian if he escaped; but is it

natural that he should address a strange god on such an occasion? Would

not the religion in which he was born have acted the most powerfully?

Where is the Christian who, in a battle against the Turks, would not

rather address himself to the holy Virgin Mary, than to Mahomet? He

adds, that a pigeon brought the vial in his beak to anoint Clovis, and

that an angel brought the oriflamme to conduct him: the prejudiced

believed all the stories of this kind. Those who are acquainted with

human nature well know, that the usurper Clovis, and the usurper Rollo,

or Rol, became Christians to govern the Christians more securely; as the

Turkish usurpers became Mussulmans to govern the Mussulmans more

securely.

_Religious Prejudices._

If your nurse has told you, that Ceres presides over corn, or that

Vishnu and Xaca became men several times, or that Sammonocodom cut down

a forest, or that Odin expects you in his hall near Jutland, or that

Mahomet, or some other, made a journey to heaven; finally, if your

preceptor afterwards thrusts into your brain what your nurse has

engraven on it, you will possess it for life. If your judgment would

rise above these prejudices, your neighbors, and above all, the ladies,

exclaim "impiety!" and frighten you; your dervish, fearing to see his

revenue diminished, accuses you before the cadi; and this cadi, if he

can, causes you to be impaled, because he would command fools, and he

believes that fools obey better than others; which state of things will

last until your neighbors and the dervish and cadi begin to comprehend

that folly is good for nothing, and that persecution is abominable.

PRESBYTERIAN.

The Anglican religion is predominant only in England and Ireland;

Presbyterianism is the established religion of Scotland. This

Presbyterianism is nothing more than pure Calvinism, such as once

existed in France, and still exists at Geneva.

In comparison with a young and lively French bachelor in divinity,

brawling during the morning in the schools of theology, and singing with

the ladies in the evening, a Church-of-England divine is a Cato; but

this Cato is himself a gallant in presence of the Scottish

Presbyterians. The latter affect a solemn walk, a serious demeanor, a

large hat, a long robe beneath a short one, and preach through the nose.

All churches in which the ecclesiastics are so happy as to receive an

annual income of fifty thousand livres, and to be addressed by the

people as "my lord," "your grace," or "your eminence," they denominate

the whore of Babylon. These gentlemen have also several churches in

England, where they maintain the same manners and gravity as in

Scotland. It is to them chiefly that the English are indebted for the

strict sanctification of Sunday throughout the three kingdoms. They are

forbidden either to labor or to amuse themselves. No opera, no concert,

no comedy, in London on a Sunday. Even cards are expressly forbidden;

and there are only certain people of quality, who are deemed open souls,

who play on that day. The rest of the nation attend sermons, taverns,

and their small affairs of love.

Although Episcopacy and Presbyterianism predominate in Great Britain,

all other opinions are welcome and live tolerably well together,

although the various preachers reciprocally detest one another with

nearly the same cordiality as a Jansenist damns a Jesuit.

Enter into the Royal Exchange of London, a place more respectable than

many courts, in which deputies from all nations assemble for the

advantage of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian

bargain with one another as if they were of the same religion, and

bestow the name of infidel on bankrupts only. There the Presbyterian

gives credit to the Anabaptist, and the votary of the establishment

accepts the promise of the Quaker. On the separation of these free and

pacific assemblies, some visit the synagogue, others repair to the

tavern. Here one proceeds to baptize his son in a great tub, in the name

of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; there another deprives his boy of a

small portion of his foreskin, and mutters over the child some Hebrew

words which he cannot understand; a third kind hasten to their chapels

to wait for the inspiration of the Lord with their hats on; and all are

content.

[Illustration: John Calvin.]

Was there in London but one religion, despotism might be apprehended; if

two only, they would seek to cut each others throats; but as there are

at least thirty, they live together in peace and happiness.

PRETENSIONS.

There is not a single prince in Europe who does not assume the title of

sovereign of a country possessed by his neighbor. This political madness

is unknown in the rest of the world. The king of Boutan never called

himself emperor of China; nor did the sovereign of Tartary ever assume

the title of king of Egypt.

The most splendid and comprehensive pretensions have always been those

of the popes; two keys, _saltier,_ gave them clear and decided

possession of the kingdom of heaven. They bound and unbound everything

on earth. This ligature made them masters of the continent; and St.

Peter's nets gave them the dominion of the seas.

Many learned theologians thought, that when these gods were assailed by

the Titans, called Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists, etc., they

themselves reduced some articles of their pretensions. It is certain

that many of them became more modest, and that their celestial court

attended more to propriety and decency; but their pretensions were

renewed on every opportunity that offered. No other proof is necessary

than the conduct of Aldobrandini, Clement VIII., to the great Henry IV.,

when it was deemed necessary to give him an absolution that he had no

occasion for, on account of his being already absolved by the bishops of

his own kingdom, and also on account of his being victorious.

Aldobrandini at first resisted for a whole year, and refused to

acknowledge the duke of Nemours as the ambassador of France. At last he

consented to open to Henry the gate of the kingdom of heaven, on the

following conditions:

1. That Henry should ask pardon for having made the sub-porters--that

is, the bishops--open the gate to him, instead of applying to the grand

porter.

2. That he should acknowledge himself to have forfeited the throne of

France till Aldobrandini, by the plenitude of his power, reinstated him

on it.

3. That he should be a second time consecrated and crowned; the first

coronation having been null and void, as it was performed without the

express order of Aldobrandini.

4. That he should expel all the Protestants from his kingdom; which

would have been neither honorable nor possible. It would not have been

honorable, because the Protestants had profusely shed their blood to

establish him as king of France; and it would not have been possible, as

the number of these dissidents amounted to two millions.

5. That he should immediately make war on the Grand Turk, which would

not have been more honorable or possible than the last condition, as the

Grand Turk had recognized him as king of France at a time when Rome

refused to do so, and as Henry had neither troops, nor money, nor ships,

to engage in such an insane war with his faithful ally.

6. That he should receive in an attitude of complete prostration the

absolution of the pope's legate, according to the usual form in which it

is administered; that is in fact, that he should be actually scourged by

the legate.

7. That he should recall the Jesuits, who had been expelled from his

kingdom by the parliament for the attempt made to assassinate him by

Jean Châtel, their scholar.

I omit many other minor pretensions. Henry obtained a mitigation of a

number of them. In particular, he obtained the concession, although with

a great deal of difficulty, that the scourging should be inflicted only

by proxy, and by the hand of Aldobrandini himself.

You will perhaps tell me, that his holiness was obliged to require those

extravagant conditions by that old and inveterate demon of the South,

Philip II., who was more powerful at Rome than the pope himself. You

compare Aldobrandini to a contemptible poltroon of a soldier whom his

colonel forces forward to the trenches by caning him.

To this I answer, that Clement VIII. was indeed afraid of Philip II.,

but that he was not less attached to the rights of the tiara; and that

it was so exquisite a gratification for the grandson of a banker to

scourge a king of France, that Aldobrandini would not altogether have

conceded this point for the world.

You will reply, that should a pope at present renew such pretensions,

should he now attempt to apply the scourge to a king of France, or

Spain, or Naples, or to a duke of Parma, for having driven the reverend

fathers, the Jesuits, from their dominions, he would be in imminent

danger of incurring the same treatment as Clement VII. did from Charles

V., and even of experiencing still greater humiliations; that it is

necessary to sacrifice pretensions to interests; that men must yield to

times and circumstances; and that the sheriff of Mecca must proclaim Ali

Bey king of Egypt, if he is successful and firm upon the throne. To this

I answer, that you are perfectly right.

_Pretensions Of The Empire; Extracted From Glafey And Schwedar._

Upon Rome (none). Even Charles V., after he had taken Rome, claimed no

right of actual domain.

Upon the patrimony of St. Peter, from Viterbo to Civita Castellana, the

estates of the countess Mathilda, but solemnly ceded by Rudolph of

Hapsburg.

Upon Parma and Placentia, the supreme dominion as part of Lombardy,

invaded by Julius II., granted by Paul III., to his bastard Farnese:

homage always paid for them to the pope from that time; the sovereignty

always claimed by the seigneurs of Lombardy; the right of sovereignty

completely ceded to the emperor by the treaties of Cambray and of

London, at the peace of 1737.

Upon Tuscany, right of sovereignty exercised by Charles V.; an estate of

the empire, belonging now to the emperor's brother.

Upon the republic of Lucca, erected into a duchy by Louis of Bavaria, in

1328; the senators declared afterwards vicars of the empire by Charles

IV. The Emperor Charles VI., however, in the war of 1701, exercised in

it his right of sovereignty by levying upon it a large contribution.

Upon the duchy of Milan, ceded by the Emperor Wincenslaus to Galeas

Visconti, but considered as a fief of the empire.

Upon the duchy of Mirandola, reunited to the house of Austria in 1711 by

Joseph I.

Upon the duchy of Mantua, erected into a duchy by Charles V.; reunited

in like manner in 1708.

Upon Guastalla, Novellara, Bozzolo, and Castiglione, also fiefs of the

empire, detached from the duchy of Mantua.

Upon the whole of Montferrat, of which the duke of Savoy received the

investiture at Vienna in 1708.

Upon Piedmont, the investiture of which was bestowed by the emperor

Sigismund on the duke of Savoy, Amadeus VIII.

Upon the county of Asti, bestowed by Charles V., on the house of Savoy:

the dukes of Savoy always vicars in Italy from the time of the emperor

Sigismund.

Upon Genoa, formerly part of the domain of the Lombard kings. Frederick

Barbarossa granted to it in fief the coast from Monaco to Portovenere;

it is free under Charles V., in 1529; but the words of the instrument

are _In civitate nostra Genoa, et salvis Romani imperii juribus._

Upon the fiefs of Langues, of which the dukes of Savoy have the direct

domain.

Upon Padua, Vicenza, and Verona, rights fallen into neglect.

Upon Naples and Sicily, rights still more fallen into neglect. Almost

all the states of Italy are or have been in vassalage to the empire.

Upon Pomerania and Mecklenburg, the fiefs of which were granted by

Frederick Barbarossa.

Upon Denmark, formerly a fief of the empire; Otho I. granted the

investiture of it.

Upon Poland, for the territory on the banks of the Vistula.

Upon Bohemia and Silesia, united to the empire by Charles IV., in 1355.

Upon Prussia, from the time of Henry VII.; the grand master of Prussia

acknowledged a member of the empire in 1500.

Upon Livonia, from the time of the knights of the sword. Upon Hungary,

from the time of Henry II.

Upon Lorraine, by the treaty of 1542; acknowledged an estate of the

empire, paying taxes to support the war against the Turks.

Upon the duchy of Bar down to the year 1311, when Philip the Fair, who

conquered it, did homage for it.

Upon the duchy of Burgundy, by virtue of the rights of Mary of Burgundy.

Upon the kingdom of Arles and Burgundy on the other side of the Jura,

which Conrad the Salian, possessed in chief by his wife.

Upon Dauphiny, as part of the kingdom of Arles; the emperor Charles IV.

having caused himself to be crowned at Arles in 1365, and created the

dauphin of France his viceroy.

Upon Provence, as a member of the kingdom of Arles, for which Charles of

Anjou did homage to the empire.

Upon the principality of Orange, as an arrière-fief of the empire.

Upon Avignon, for the same reason.

Upon Sardinia, which Frederick II. erected into a kingdom.

Upon Switzerland, as a member of the kingdoms of Arles and Burgundy.

Upon Dalmatia, a great part of which belongs at present wholly to the

Venetians, and the rest to Hungary.

PRIDE.

Cicero, in one of his letters, says familiarly to his friend: "Send to

me the persons to whom you wish me to give the Gauls." In another, he

complains of being fatigued with letters from I know not what princes,

who thank him for causing their provinces to be erected into kingdoms;

and he adds that he does not even know where these kingdoms are

situated.

It is probable that Cicero, who often saw the Roman people, the

sovereign people, applaud and obey him, and who was thanked by kings

whom he knew not, had some emotions of pride and vanity.

Though the sentiment is not at all consistent in so pitiful an animal as

man, yet we can pardon it in a Cicero, a Cæsar, or a Scipio; but when in

the extremity of one of our half barbarous provinces, a man who may have

bought a small situation, and printed poor verses, takes it into his

head to be proud, it is very laughable.

PRIESTS.

Priests in a state approach nearly to what preceptors are in private

families: it is their province to teach, pray, and supply example. They

ought to have no authority over the masters of the house; at least until

it can be proved that he who gives the wages ought to obey him who

receives them. Of all religions the one which most positively excludes

the priesthood from civil authority, is that of Jesus. "Give unto Cæsar

the things which are Cæsar's."--"Among you there is neither first nor

last."--"My kingdom is not of this world."

The quarrels between the empires and the priesthood, which have bedewed

Europe with blood for more than six centuries, have therefore been, on

the part of the priests, nothing but rebellion at once against God and

man, and a continual sin against the Holy Ghost.

From the time of Calchas, who assassinated the daughter of Agamemnon,

until Gregory XII., and Sixtus V., two bishops who would have deprived

Henry IV., of the kingdom of France, sacerdotal power has been injurious

to the world.

Prayer is not dominion, nor exhortation despotism. A good priest ought

to be a physician to the soul. If Hippocrates had ordered his patients

to take hellebore under pain of being hanged, he would have been more

insane and barbarous than Phalaris, and would have had little practice.

When a priest says: Worship God; be just, indulgent, and compassionate;

he is then a good physician; when he says: Believe me, or you shall be

burned; he is an assassin.

The magistrate ought to support and restrain the priest in the same

manner as the father of a family insures respect to the preceptor, and

prevents him from abusing it. The agreement of Church and State is of

all systems the most monstrous, for it necessarily implies division, and

the existence of two contracting parties. We ought to say the protection

given by government to the priesthood or church.

But what is to be said and done in respect to countries in which the

priesthood have obtained dominion, as in Salem, where Melchizedek was

priest and king; in Japan, where the dairo has been for a long time

emperor? I answer, that the successors of Melchizedek and the dairos

have been set aside.

The Turks are wise in this; they religiously make a pilgrimage to Mecca;

but they will not permit the xerif of Mecca to excommunicate the sultan.

Neither will they purchase from Mecca permission not to observe the

ramadan, or the liberty of espousing their cousins or their nieces. They

are not judged by imans, whom the xerif delegates; nor do they pay the

first year's revenue to the xerif. What is to be said of all that?

Reader, speak for yourself.

PRIESTS OF THE PAGANS.

Father Navarette, in one of his letters to Don John of Austria, relates

the following speech of the dalai-lama to his privy council: "My

venerable brothers, you and I know very well that I am not immortal; but

it is proper that the people should think so. The Tartars of great and

little Thibet are people with stiff necks and little information, who

require a heavy yoke and gross inventions. Convince them of my

immortality, and the glory will reflect on you, and you will procure

honors and riches.

"When the time shall come in which the Tartars will be more enlightened,

we may then confess that the grand lamas are not now immortal, but that

their predecessors were so; and that what is necessary for the erection

of a grand edifice, is no longer so when it is established on an

immovable foundation.

"I hesitated at first to distribute the _agremens_ of my water-closet,

properly inclosed in crystals ornamented with gilded copper, to the

vassals of my empire; but these relics have been received with so much

respect, that the usage must be continued, which after all exhibits

nothing repugnant to sound morals, and brings much money into our sacred

treasury.

"If any impious reasoner should ever endeavor to persuade the people

that one end of our sacred person is not so divine as the other--should

they protest against our relics, you will maintain their value and

importance to the utmost of your power.

"And if you are finally obliged to give up the sanctity of our nether

end, you must take care to preserve in the minds of the reasoners the

most profound respect for our understanding, just as in a treaty with

the Moguls, we have ceded a poor province, in order to secure our

peaceable possession of the remainder.

"So long as our Tartars of great and little Thibet are unable to read

and write, they will remain ignorant and devout; you may therefore

boldly take their money, intrigue with their wives and their daughters,

and threaten them with the anger of the god Fo if they complain.

"When the time of correct reasoning shall arrive--for it will arrive

some day or other--you will then take a totally opposite course, and say

directly the contrary of what your predecessors have said, for you ought

to change the nature of your curb in proportion as the horses become

more difficult to govern. Your exterior must be more grave, your

intrigues more mysterious, your secrets better guarded, your sophistry

more dazzling, and your policy more refined. You will then be the pilots

of a vessel which is leaky on all sides. Have under you subalterns

continually employed at the pumps, and as caulkers to stop all the

holes. You will navigate with difficulty, but you will still proceed,

and be enabled to cast into the fire or the water, as may be most

convenient, all those who would examine whether you have properly

refitted the vessel.

"If among the unbelievers is a prince of Calkas, a chief of the

Kalmucks, a prince of Kasan, or any other powerful prince, who has

unhappily too much wit, take great care not to quarrel with him. Respect

him, and continually observe that you hope he will return to the holy

path. As to simple citizens, spare them not, and the better men they

are, the more you ought to labor to exterminate them; for being men of

honor they are the most dangerous of all to you. You will exhibit the

simplicity of the dove, the prudence of the serpent, and the paw of the

lion, according to circumstances."

The dalai-lama had scarcely pronounced these words when the earth

trembled; lightnings sparkled in the firmament from one pole to the

other; thunders rolled, and a celestial voice was heard to exclaim,

"Adore God and not the grand lama."

All the inferior lamas insisted that the voice said, "Adore God and the

grand lama;" and they were believed for a long time in the kingdom of

Thibet; but they are now believed no longer.

PRIOR, BUTLER, AND SWIFT.

It was not known to France that Prior, who was deputed by Queen Anne to

adjust the treaty of Utrecht with Louis XIV., was a poet. France has

since repaid England in the same coin, for Cardinal Dubois sent our

Destouches to London, where he passed as little for a poet as Prior in

France. Prior was originally an attendant at a tavern kept by his uncle,

when the earl of Dorset, a good poet himself and a lover of the bottle,

one day surprised him reading Horace; in the same manner as Lord Ailsa

found his gardener reading Newton. Ailsa made his gardener a good

geometrician, and Dorset made a very agreeable poet of his vintner.

It was Prior who wrote the history of the soul under the title of

"Alma," and it is the most natural which has hitherto been composed on

an existence so much felt, and so little known. The soul, according to

"Alma," resides at first, in the extremities; in the feet and hands of

children, and from thence gradually ascends to the centre of the body at

the age of puberty. Its next step is to the heart, in which it engenders

sentiments of love and heroism; thence it mounts to the head at a mature

age, where it reasons as well as it is able; and in old age it is not

known what becomes of it; it is the sap of an aged tree which

evaporates, and is not renewed again. This work is probably too long,

for all pleasantry should be short; and it might even be as well were

the serious short also.

Prior made a small poem on the battle of Hochstädt. It is not equal to

his "Alma"; there is, however, one good apostrophe to Boileau, who is

called a satirical flatterer for taking so much pains to sing that Louis

did _not_ pass the Rhine. Our plenipotentiary finished by paraphrasing,

in fifteen hundred verses, the words attributed to Solomon, that "all is

vanity". Fifteen thousand verses might be written on this subject; but

woe to him who says all which can be said upon it!

At length Queen Anne dying, the ministry changed, and the peace adjusted

by Prior being altogether unpopular, he had nothing to depend upon

except an edition of his works; which were subscribed for by his party:

after which he died like a philosopher, which is the usual mode of dying

of all respectable Englishmen.

_Hudibras._

There is an English poem which it is very difficult to make foreigners

understand, entitled "Hudibras." It is a very humorous work, although

the subject is the civil war of the time of Cromwell. A struggle which

cost so much blood and so many tears, originated a poem which obliges

the most serious reader to smile. An example of this contrast is found

in our "Satire of Menippus." Certainly the Romans would not have made a

burlesque poem on the wars of Pompey and Cæsar, or the proscription of

Antony and Octavius. How then is it that the frightful evils of the

League in France, and of the wars between the king and parliament in

England, have proved sources of pleasantry? because at bottom there is

something ridiculous hid beneath these fatal quarrels. The citizens of

Paris, at the head of the faction of Sixteen, mingled impertinence with

the miseries of faction. The intrigues of women, of the legates and of

the monks, presented a comic aspect, notwithstanding the calamities

which they produced. The theological disputes and enthusiasm of the

Puritans in England, were also very open to raillery; and this fund of

the ridiculous, well managed, might pleasantly enough aid in dispersing

the tragical horrors which abound on the surface. If the bull

_Unigenitus_ caused the shedding of blood, the little poem "Philotanus"

was no less suitable to the subject; and it is only to be complained of

for not being so gay, so pleasant, and so various as it might have been;

and for not fulfilling in the course of the work the promise held out by

its commencement.

The poem of "Hudibras" of which I speak, seems to be a composition of

the satire of "Menippus" and of "Don Quixote." It surpasses them in the

advantage of verse and also in wit; the former indeed does not come near

it; being a very middling production; but notwithstanding his wit, the

author of "Hudibras" is much beneath "Don Quixote." Taste, vivacity, the

art of narrating and of introducing adventures, with the faculty of

never being tedious, go farther than wit; and moreover, "Don Quixote" is

read by all nations, and "Hudibras" by the English alone.

Butler, the author of this extraordinary poem, was contemporary with

Milton, and enjoyed infinitely more temporary popularity than the

latter, because his work was humorous, and that of Milton melancholy.

Butler turned the enemies of King Charles II. into ridicule, and all the

recompense he received was the frequent quotation of his verses by that

monarch. The combats of the knight Hudibras were much better known than

the battles between the good and bad angels in "Paradise Lost"; but the

court of England treated Butler no better than the celestial court

treated Milton; both the one and the other died in want, or very near

it.

A man whose imagination was impregnated with a tenth part of the comic

spirit, good or bad, which pervades this work, could not but be very

pleasant; but he must take care how he translates "Hudibras." It is

difficult to make foreign readers laugh at pleasantries which are almost

forgotten by the nation which has produced them. Dante is little read in

Europe, because we are ignorant of so much of his allusion; and it is

the same with "Hudibras." The greater part of the humor of this poem

being expended on the theology and theologians of its own time, a

commentary is eternally necessary. Pleasantry requiring explanation

ceases to be pleasantry; and a commentator on _bon mots_ is seldom

capable of conveying them.

_Of Dean Swift._

How is it that in France so little is understood of the works of the

ingenious Doctor Swift, who is called the Rabelais of England? He has

the honor, like the latter, of being a churchman and an universal joker;

but Rabelais was not above his age, and Swift is much above Rabelais.

Our curate of Meudon, in his extravagant and unintelligible book, has

exhibited extreme gayety and equally great impertinence. He has lavished

at once erudition, coarseness and ennui. A good story of two pages is

purchased by a volume of absurdities. There are only some persons of an

eccentric taste who pique themselves upon understanding and valuing the

whole of this work. The rest of the nation laugh at the humor of

Rabelais, and despise the work; regarding him only as the first of

buffoons. We regret that a man who possessed so much wit, should have

made so miserable a use of it. He is a drunken philosopher, who wrote

only in the moments of his intoxication.

Dr. Swift is Rabelais sober, and living in good company. He has not

indeed the gayety of the former, but he has all the finesse, sense,

discrimination, which is wanted by our curate of Meudon. His verse is in

a singular taste, and almost inimitable. He exhibits a fine vein of

humor, both in prose and in verse; but in order to understand it, it is

necessary to visit his country.

In this country, which appears so extraordinary to other parts of

Europe, it has excited little surprise that Doctor Swift, dean of a

cathedral, should make merry in his "Tale of a Tub" with Catholicism,

Lutheranism, and Calvinism; his own defence is that he has not meddled

with Christianity. He pretends to respect the parent, while he scourges

the children. Certain fastidious persons are of opinion that his lashes

are so long they have even reached the father.

This famous "Tale of a Tub" is the ancient story of the three invisible

rings which a father bequeathed to his three children. These three rings

were the Jewish, the Christian, and the Mahometan religions. It is still

more an imitation of the history of Mero and Enégu by Fontenelle. Mero

is the anagram of Rome; Enégu of Geneva, and they are two sisters who

aspire to the succession of the kingdom of their father. Mero reigns the

first, and Fontenelle represents her as a sorceress, who plays tricks

with bread and effects conjuration with dead bodies. This is precisely

the Lord Peter of Swift, who presents a piece of bread to his two

brothers, and says to them, "Here is some excellent Burgundy, my

friends; this partridge is of a delicious flavor." Lord Peter in Swift

performs the same part with the Mero of Fontenelle.

Thus almost all is imitation. The idea of the "Persian Letters" was

taken from that of the "Turkish Spy." Boyardo imitated Pulci; Ariosto,

Boyardo; the most original wits borrow from one another. Cervantes makes

a madman of his Don Quixote, but is Orlando anything else? It would be

difficult to decide by which of the two knight-errantry is more

ridiculed, the grotesque portraiture of Cervantes, or the fertile

imagination of Ariosto. Metastasia has borrowed the greater part of his

operas from our French tragedies; and many English authors have copied

us and said nothing about it. It is with books as with the fires in our

grates; everybody borrows a light from his neighbor to kindle his own,

which in its turn is communicated to others, and each partakes of all.

PRIVILEGE--PRIVILEGED CASES.

Custom, which almost always prevails against reason, would have the

offences of ecclesiastics and monks against civil orders, which are very

frequent, called privileged offences; and those offences common which

regard only ecclesiastical discipline, cases that are abandoned to the

sacerdotal hierarchy, and with which the civil power does not interfere.

The Church having no jurisdiction but that which sovereigns have granted

it, and the judges of the Church being thus only judges privileged by

the sovereign, those cases should be called privileged which it is their

province to judge, and those common offences which are punishable by the

prince's officers. But the canonists, who are very rarely exact in their

expressions, particularly when treating of regal jurisprudence, having

regarded a priest called the official, as being of right the sole judge

of the clergy, they have entitled that privilege, which in common law

belongs to lay tribunals, and the ordinances of the monarch have adopted

this expression in France.

To conform himself to this custom, the judge of the Church takes

cognizance only of common crime; in respect to privileged cases he can

act only concurrently with the regal judge, who repairs to the episcopal

court, where, however, he is but the assessor of the judge of the

Church. Both are assisted by their register; each separately, but in one

another's presence, takes notes of the course of the proceedings. The

official who presides alone interrogates the accused; and if the royal

judge has questions to put to him, he must have permission of the

ecclesiastical judge to propose them.

This procedure is composed of formalities, and produces delays which

should not be admitted in criminal jurisprudence. Judges of the Church

who have not made a study of laws and formalities are seldom able to

conduct criminal proceedings without giving place to appeals, which ruin

the accused in expense, make him languish in chains, or retard his

punishment if he is guilty.

Besides, the French have no precise law to determine which are

privileged cases. A criminal often groans in a dungeon for a whole year,

without knowing what tribunal will judge him. Priests and monks are in

the state and subjects of it. It is very strange that when they trouble

society they are not to be judged, like other citizens, by the officers

of the sovereign.

Among the Jews, even the high priest had not the privilege which our

laws grant to simple parish priests. Solomon deposed the high priest

Abiathar, without referring him to the synagogue to take his trial.

Jesus Christ, accused before a secular and pagan judge, challenged not

his jurisdiction. St. Paul, translated to the tribunal of Felix and

Festus, declined not their judgment. The Emperor Constantine first

granted this privilege to bishops. Honorius and Theodosius the younger

extended it to all the clergy, and Justinian confirmed it.

In digesting the criminal code of 1670, the counsellor of state,

Pussort, and the president of Novion, wished to abolish the conjoint

proceeding, and to give to royal judges alone the right of judging the

clergy accused of privileged cases; but this so reasonable desire was

combated by the first president De Lamoignon, and the advocate-general

Talon, and a law which was made to reform our abuses confirmed the most

ridiculous of them.

A declaration of the king on April 26, 1657, forbids the Parliament of

Paris to continue the proceeding commenced against Cardinal Retz,

accused of high treason. The same declaration desires that the suits of

cardinals, archbishops, and bishops of the kingdom, accused of the crime

of high treason, are to be conducted and judged by ecclesiastical

judges, as ordered by the canons.

But this declaration, contrary to the customs of the kingdoms, has not

been registered in any parliament, and would not be followed. Our books

relate several sentences which have doomed cardinals, archbishops, and

bishops to imprisonment, deposition, confiscation, and other

punishments. These punishments were pronounced against the bishop of

Nantes, by sentence of June 25, 1455; against Jean de la Balue, cardinal

and bishop of Angers, by sentence dated July 29, 1469; Jean Hebert,

bishop of Constance, in 1480; Louis de Rochechouart, bishop of Nantes,

in 1481; Geoffroi de Pompadour, bishop of Périgueux, and George

d'Amboise, bishop of Montauban, in 1488; Geoffroi Dintiville, bishop of

Auxerre, in 1531; Bernard Lordat, bishop of Pumiers, in 1537; Cardinal

de Châtillon, bishop of Beauvais, the 19th of March, 1569; Geoffroi de

La Martonie, bishop of Amiens, the 9th of July, 1594; Gilbert Génébrard,

archbishop of Aix, the 26th of January, 1596; William Rose, bishop of

Senlis, September 5, 1598; Cardinal de Sourdis, archbishop of Bordeaux,

November 17, 1615.

The parliament sentenced Cardinal de Bouillon to be imprisoned, and

seized his property on June 20, 1710.

Cardinal de Mailly, archbishop of Rheims, in 1717, made a law tending to

destroy the ecclesiastical peace established by the government. The

hangman publicly burned the law by sentence of parliament.

The sieur Languet, bishop of Soissons, having maintained that he could

not be judged by the justice of the king even for the crime of high

treason, was condemned to pay a fine of ten thousand livres.

In the shameful troubles excited by the refusal of sacraments, the

simple presidial of Nantes condemned the bishop of that city to pay a

fine of six thousand francs for having refused the communion to those

who demanded it.

In 1764, the archbishop of Auch, of the name of Montillet, was fined,

and his command, regarded as a defamatory libel, was burned by the

executioner at Bordeaux.

These examples have been very frequent. The maxim, that ecclesiastics

are entirely amenable to the justice of the king, like other citizens,

has prevailed throughout the kingdom. There is no express law which

commands it; but the opinion of all lawyers, the unanimous cry of the

nation, and the good of the state, are in themselves a law.