Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

sacred, as they have now to say, that
God wrote the history of their kings.
We may be allowed here to make one
reflection; which is, that as God was for
à very long period their king, and after-
wards became their historian, we are
bound to entertain for all Jews the most
profound respect. There is not a single
Jew broker, or slop-man, who is not in-
finitely superior to Cæsar and Alexander.
How can we avoid bending in prostration
before an old-clothes-man, who proves to
us that his history has been written by
God himself, while the histories of Greece
and Rome have been transmitted to us
merely by the profane hand of man.

but zeal of this description is injurious to the great society of mankind. Romulus murders his brother, and he is made a god. Constantine cuts the throat of his son, strangles his wife, and murders almost all his family: he has been eulogized in general councils, but history should ever hold up such barbarities to detestation. It is undoubtedly fortunate for us that Clovis was a Catholic. It is fortunate for the Anglican church that Henry VIII. abolished monks, but we must at the same time admit that Clovis and Henry VIII. were monsters of cruelty.

When first the Jesuit Berruyer, who If the style of the history of the kings, although a Jesuit was a fool, undertook and of the Paralipomena, is divine, it to paraphrase the Old and New Testamay nevertheless be true, that the acts ment in the style of the lowest populace, recorded in these histories are not divine. with no other intention than having them David murders Uriah; Ishbosheth and read. He scattered some flowers of rheMephibosheth are murdered; Absalom toric over the two-edged knife which the murders Ammon; Joab murders Absa- Jew Ehud thrust up to the hilt in the lom; Solomon murders his brother Ado- } stomach of the King Eglon; and over nijah; Baasha murders Nadab; Zimri the Sabre with which Judith cut off the murders Ela; Omri murders Zimri; head of Holofernes after having prostiAhab murders Naboth; Jehu murders tuted herself to his pleasures; and also Ahab and Joram; the inhabitants of Je-over many other acts recorded of a sirusalem murder Amaziah, son of Joash;milar description. The parliament, reShallum, son of Jabesh, murders Zacha-specting the Bible which narrates these riah, son of Jeroboam; Menahhem mur- histories, nevertheless condemned the ders Shallum, son of Jabesh; Pekah, Jesuit who extolled them, and ordered son of Remaliah, murders Pekahiah, son the Old and New Testament to be burnt: of Manehem; and Hoshea, son of Elah, —I mean merely those of the Jesuit. murders Pekah, son of Remaliah. We But as the judgments of mankind are pass over, in silence, many other minor ever different in similar cases, the same murders. It must be acknowledged, { thing happened to Bayle in circumstances that, if the Holy Spirit did write this totally different. He was condemned for history, he did not choose a subject par- not praising all the actions of David, ticularly edifying. King of the province of Judea. A man of the name of Jurieu, a refugee preacher in Holland, associated with some other refugee preachers, were desirous of obliging him to recant. But how could he recant with reference to facts delivered in the scripture? Had not Bayle some reason to conclude that all the facts recorded in the Jewish books are not the actions of saints? that David, like other men, had committed some criminal acts; and that if he is called a man after God's

SECTION VI.

Of bad Actions which have been consecrated or excused in History.

It is but too common for historians to praise very depraved and abandoned characters, who have done service either to a dominant sect, or to their nation at large. The praises thus bestowed, come perhaps from a loyal and zealous citizen;

[ocr errors]

Tacitus applies to Domitian. This book did not raise in England the slightest murmur; every reader felt that bad actions are always bad, that God may pardon them when repentance is propor tioned to guilt, but that certainly no man can ever approve of them.

There was more reason, therefore, prevailing in England than there was in Holland in the time of Bayle. We now perceive clearly and without difficulty,

HONOUR.

own heart, he is called so in consequence of his penitence, and not of his crimes? Let us disregard names and confine our consideration to things only. Let us suppose, that during the reign of Henry IV. clergyman of the League party secretly poured out a phial of oil on the head of a shepherd of Brie; that the shepherd comes to court; that the clergyman presents him to Henry IV. as an excellent violin player, who can completely drive away all care and melan-that we ought not to hold up as a model choly; that the king makes him his of sanctity what, in fact, deserves the equerry, and bestows on him one of his severest punishment; and we see with daughters in marriage; that afterwards, equal clearness that, as we ought not to the king having quarrelled with the shep- consecrate guilt, so we ought not to beherd, the latter takes refuge with one of lieve absurdity. the princes of Germany, his father-inlaw's enemy; that he enlists and arms six hundred banditti overwhelmed by debt and debauchery; that with this regiment of brigands he rushes to the field, slays friends as well as enemies, exterminating all, even to women and children at the breast, in order to prevent a single individual's remaining to give intelligence of the horrid butchery. I farther suppose this same shepherd of Brie to become king of France after the death of Henry IV. that he procures the murder of that king's grandson, after having invited him to sit at meat at his own table, and delivers over to death seven other younger children of his king and benefactor. Who is the man that will not conceive the shepherd of Brie to act rather harshly? Commentators are agreed that the adultery of David, and his murder of Uriah, are faults which God pardoned. We may therefore conclude that the massacres above mentioned are faults which God also pardoned.

However, Bayle had no quarter given him; but at length some preachers at London having compared George II. to David, one of that monarch's servants prints and publishes a small book, in which he censures the comparison. He examines the whole conduct of David; he goes infinitely farther than Bayle, and treats David with more severity than

THE author of the Spirit of Laws has founded his system on the idea that virtue is the principle of republican government, and honour that of monarchical. Is there virtue then without honour, and how is a republic established on virtue?

Let us place before the reader's eyes that which has been said in an able little book upon this subject. Pamphlets soon sink into oblivion. Truth ought not to be lost, it should be consigned to works of duration.

66

Assuredly republics have never been formed on a theoretical principle of virtue. The public interest being opposed to the domination of an individual, the spirit of self-importance, and the ambition of every person, serve to curb ambition and the inclination to rapacity, wherever they may appear. The pride of each citizen watches over that of his neighbour, and no person would willingly be the slave of another's caprice. Such are the feelings which establish republics, and which preserve them. It is ridiculous to imagine that there must be more virtue in a Grison than in a Spaniard."

That honour can be the sole principle of monarchies is a no less chimerical idea, and the author shows it to be so himself, without being aware of it. The nature of honour, says, he, in chapter vii. of book

ii. is to demand preferences and distinc-mility:-" If thou passest for a person tions. It, therefore, naturally suits a of consequence in the opinion of some monarchical government. people, distrust thyself.-No lifting up of thy eye-brows.-Be nothing in thine own eyes-If thou seekest to please, thou art lost.-Give place to all men; prefer them to thyself; assist them all.'

Was it not on this same principle, that the Romans demanded the prætorship, consulship, ovation, and triumph in their republic? These were preferences and distinctions well worth the titles and preferences purchased in monarchies, and for which there is often a regular fixed price.

We see by these maxims, that never capuchin went so far as Epictetus.

Some theologians, who had the misfortune to be proud, have pretended that This remark proves, in our opinion, humility cost nothing to Epictetus, who that the Spirit of Laws, although spark-was a slave; and that he was humble by ling with wit, and commendable by its station, as a doctor or a Jesuit may be respect for the laws and hatred of super-proud by station. stition and rapine is founded entirely upon false views.

Let us add, that it is precisely in courts that there is always least honour :—

L'ingannare, il mentir, la frode, il furto,
E la rapina di pict vestita,
Crescer col damno e precip zio altrui,
E fare a se de l'altrui biasmo onore,
Son le virtù di quella gente infidà.

Pastor Fido, atto v. scena 1.
Ramper avec bassesse en affectant l'audace,
S'engraisser de rapine en attestant les lois,
Etouffer en secret son ami qu'on embasse.
Voila l'honneur qui regne à la suite des rois.
To basely crawl, yet wear a face of pride;
To rob the public, yet o'er law preside;
Salute a friend, yet stung in the embrace-
Such is the honour which in courts takes place.

But what will they say of Marcus Antoninus, who on the throne recommended humility? He places Alexander and his muleteer on the same line. He said that the vanity of pomp is only a bone thrown in the midst of dogs; that to do good, and to patiently hear himself calumniated, constitute the virtue of a king.

Thus the master of the known world recommended humility; but propose humility to a musician, and see how he will laugh at Marcus Aurelius.

Descartes, in his treatise on the Passions of the Soul, places humility among Indeed, it is in courts, that men de- their number, who-if we may personify void of honour, often attain to the highest this quality-did not expect to be redignities; and it is in republics that agarded as a passion. He also distinknown dishonourable citizen is seldom guishes between virtuous and vicious trusted by the people with public con-humility,

[blocks in formation]

But we leave to philosophers more enlightened than ourselves the care of explaining this doctrine, and will confine ourselves to saying, that humility is "the modesty of the soul."

It is the antidote to pride. Humility could not prevent Rousseau from believing, that he knew more of music than those to whom he taught it; but it could induce him to agree that he was not superior to Lulli in recitative.

The reverend father Viret, cordelier, theologian, and preacher, all humble as he is, will always firmly believe that he knows more than those who learn to read and write; but his Christian humility, his modesty of soul, will oblige him to

confess in the bottom of his heart, that } fered his zeal to carry him too far; that he has written nothing but nonsense. when we strip beautiful women, it is not Oh, brothers Nonotte, Guyon, Pantou- to massacre them; that St. Cyril, no illet, vulgar scribblers! be more humble, doubt, asked pardon of God for this and always bear in recollection "the abominable action; and that I pray the modesty of the soul." father of mercies to have pity on his soul. He who wrote the two volumes against ECCLECTISME, also inspires me with infinite commiseration.

HYPATIA.

I WILL suppose that Madame Dacier had been the finest woman in Paris; and that in the quarrel on the comparative merits of the ancients and moderns, the Carmelites pretended that the poem of the Magdalen, written by a Carmelite, was infinitely superior to Homer, and that it was an atrocious impiety to prefer the Iliad to the verses of a monk. I will take the additional liberty of supposing that the Archbishop of Paris took the part of the Carmelites against the governor of the city, a partisan of the beautiful Madame Dacier, and that he excited the Carmelites to massacre this fine woman in the church of Notre Dame, and to drag her naked and bloody to the Place Maubert,-would not everybody say that the Archbishop of Paris had done a very wicked action, for which he ought to do penance?

IDEA.

SECTION I.

WHAT is an idea?

It is an image painted upon my brain.
Are all your thoughts, then, images?
Certainly; for the most abstract

thoughts are only the consequences of
all the objects that I have perceived. I
utter the word being' in general, only
because I have known particular beings;
I utter the word 'infinity,' only because
I have seen certain limits, and because
I push back those limits in my mind to
a greater and still greater distance, as far
as I am able. I have ideas in my head
only because I have images.

And how do you know that the ideas are not made by yourself?

And who is the painter of this picture? It is not myself; I cannot draw with This is precisely the history of Hy-sufficient skill; the being that made me, patia. She taught Homer and Plato, in makes iny ideas. Alexandria, in the time of Theodosius II. St. Cyril, incensed the Christian populace against her, as it is related by Damasius and Suidas, and clearly proved by the most learned men of the age, such as Bruker, La Croze, Basnage, &c. as is very judiciously exposed in the great Dictionaire Encyclopedique, in the ar

ticle ECCLECTISME.

[merged small][ocr errors]

Because they frequently come to me involuntarily when I am awake, and always without my consent when I dream.

You are persuaded, then, that your ideas belong to you only in the same manner as your hairs, which grow and become white, and fall off, without your having anything at all to do with the matter?

Nothing can possibly be clearer; all that I can do is to frizzle, cut, and powder them; but I have nothing to do with producing them.

You must then, I imagine, be of Malebranche's opinion, that we see all in God?

I am at least certain of this, that if we do not see things in the great being,

we see them in consequence of his pow- { all those ideas which have crowded into erful and immediate action.

And what was the nature or process of this action?

my brain in conflict with each other, and actually converted my medullary magazine into their field of battle. After a hard fought contest between them, I have obtained nothing but uncertainty

It is a melancholy thing to possess so many ideas, and yet to have no precise knowledge of the nature of ideas?

I have already told you repeatedly, in the course of our conversation, that I did not know a single syllable about the sub-from the spoils. ject, and that God has not communicated his secret to any one. I am completely ignorant of that which makes my heart beat, and my blood flow through my veins; I am ignorant of the principle of all my movements, and yet you seem to expect that I should explain how I feel and how I think. Such an expectation is unreasonable.

But you at least know whether your faculty of having ideas is joined to extension?

It is, I admit; but it is much more melancholy, aud inexpressibly more foolish, for a man to believe he knows what in fact he does not?

But, if you do not positively know what an idea is, if you are ignorant whence ideas come, you at least know by what they come?

Yes; just in the same way as the ancient Egyptians, who, without knowing the source of the Nile, knew perfectly well that its waters reached them by its bed. We know perfectly that ideas come to us by the senses; but we never know whence they come. The source of this Nile will never be discovered.

Not in the least. It is true that Tatian, in his discourse to the Greeks, says, the soul is evidently composed of a body. Irenæus, in the twenty-sixth chapter of his second book, says, the Lord has taught that our souls preserve the figure of our body in order to retain the memory of it. Tertullian asserts, in his If it is certain that all ideas are given second book on the Soul, that it is aby means of the senses, why does the body. Arnobius, Lactantius, Hilary, Sorbonne, which has so long adopted Gregory of Nyssa, and Ambrose, are this doctrine from Aristotle, condemn it precisely of the same opinion. It is with so much virulence in Helvetius? pretended that other fathers of the church Because the Sorbonne is composed of assert that the soul is without extension, theologians. and that in this respect they adopt the opinion of Plato; this, however, may well be doubted. With respect to myself, I dare not venture to form an opinion; I see nothing but obscurity and incomprehensibility in either system; and, after a whole life's meditation on the subject, I am not advanced a single step beyond where I was on the first day.

The subject, then, was not worth thinking about!

That is true; the man who enjoys knows more of it, or at least knows it better, than he who reflects; he is more happy. But what is it that you would have? It depended not, I repeat, upon myself whether I should admit or reject

SECTION II.
All in God.

In Deo vivimus, movemur, et sumus.
In God we live and move and have our being.
St. Paul, Acts xvii. 28.

Aratus, who is thus quoted and approved by St. Paul, made this confession of faith, we perceive among the Greeks.

The virtuous Cato says the same thing:

Jupiter est quodcumque vides quocumque moveris.
Lucan's Pharsalia, ix. 580.

Whate'er we see, whate'er we feel, is Jove.

Malebranche is the commentator on Aratus, St. Paul, and Cato. He succeeded, in the first instance, in showing

« AnteriorContinua »