order to promulgate such a public law. It exists notwithstanding, and is literally practised according to the preceding announcement; and there have been compiled, compiled, and compiled, upon these national rights, very admirable commentaries, which have never produced a sous to the great numbers who have been ruined by war, by edicts, and by taxgatherers.

These compilations closely resemble the case of conscience of Pontas. It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished who kill not in large companies, and to the sound of trumpets; it is the rule.

At the time when Anthropophagi still existed in the forest of Ardennes, an old villager met with a maneater, who had carried away an infant to devour it. Moved with pity, the villager killed the devourer of children, and released the little boy, who quickly fled away. Two passengers, who witnessed the transaction at a distance, accused the good man with having committed a murder on the king's highway. The person of the offender being produced before the judge, the two witnesses, after they had paid the latter an hundred crowns for the exercise of his functions, deposed to the particulars, and the law being precise, the villager was hanged upon the spot, for doing that which had so much exalted Hercules, Theseus, Orlando, and Amadis the Gaul. Ought the judge to be hanged himself, who executed this law to the letter? How ought the point to be decided, upon a general principle? To resolve a thousand questions of this kind, a thousand volumes have been written.

Puffendorff first established moral existences"There are,” said he,* "certain modes which intelligent beings attach to things natural, or to physical operations, with the view of directing or restraining the voluntary actions of mankind, in order to infuse order, convenience, and felicity into human existence."

Thus to give correct ideas to the Swedes and the Germans of the just and the unjust, he remarks, that "there are two kinds of place, in regard to one of

* Vol 1. Translation of Barbeyrac, with his commentary.

which, it is said, that things are for example, here or there; and in respect to the other, that they have existed, do, or will exist at a certain time, as for examIn the same ple, yesterday, to-day, or to-morrow.

manner, we conceive two sorts of moral existence, the one of which denotes a moral state, that has some conformity with place, simply considered; the other a certain time, when a moral effect will be produced,” &c. &c. &c.

This is not all: Puffendorff curiously distinguishes the simple moral from the modes of opinion, and the formal from the operative qualities. The formal qualities are simple attributes, but the operative are to be carefully divided into original and derivated.

In the mean time, Barbeyrac has commented on these fine things, and they are taught in the universi-ties, and opinion is divided between Grotius and Puffendorff, in regard to questions of similar importance. Take my recommendation: read Tully's Offices.

SECTION II.

Nothing possibly can tend more to render a mind false, obscure, and uncertain, than the perusal of Grotius, Puffendorff, and almost all the writers on the 'jus gentium.'

We must not do evil that good may come of it, the writer to whom nobody hearkens. It is persays mitted to make war on a power, lest it should become too strong, says the "Spirit of Laws.”

When rights are to be established by proscription, the publicists call to their aid divine right and human right; and the theologians take their part in the dis"had a pute. "Abraham and his seed," say they, right to the land of Canaan, because he had travelled there; and God had given it to him in a vision." But, according to the vulgate sage teachers, five hundred and forty-seven years elapsed between the time when Abraham purchased a sepulchre in the country, and Joshua took possession of a small part of it. No matter, his right was clear and correct. And then prescrip

tion? Away with prescription! Ought that which once took place in Palestine to serve as a rule for Germany and Italy? Yes, for he has said so. Be it so, gentlemen: God preserve me from disputing with you!

The descendants of Attila, it is said, established themselves in Hungary. At what time must the ancient inhabitants hold themselves bound in conscience to remain serfs to the descendants of Attila?

Our doctors, who have written on peace and war, are very profound; if we attend to them, everything belongs of right to the sovereign for whom they write; he in fact has never been able to alienate his domains. The emperor of right ought to possess Rome, Italy, and France; such was the opinion of Bartholus; first, because the emperor was entitled king of the Romans; and secondly, because the archbishop of Cologne is chancellor of Italy, and the archbishop of Treves chancellor of Gaul. Moreover, the emperor of Germany carries a gilded ball at his coronation, which of course proves that he is the rightful master of the whole globe.

At Rome, there is not a single priest who has not learned, in his course of theology, that the pope ought to be master of this earth, seeing it is written, that it was said to Simon, the son of Jonas, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." It was well said to Gregory VII. that this treated only of souls, and of the celestial kingdom. Damnable observation! he replied; and would have hanged the observer, had he been able.

Spirits still more profound establish this reasoning by an argument to which there is no reply. He to whom the bishop of Rome calls himself vicar has declared, that his dominion is not of this world; can this world then belong to the vicar, when his master has renounced it? Which ought to prevail, human nature or the decretals? The decretals, indisputably.

If it be asked, whether the massacre of ten or twelve millions of unarmed men in America was defensible? It is replied, that nothing can be more just and

VOL. VI.

C

holy, since they were not catholics, apostolical and Roman.

There is not an age in which the declarations of war of christian princes have not authorised the attack and pillage of all the subjects of the prince, to whom war has been announced by a herald, in a coat of mail and hanging sleeves. Thus, when this signification has been made, should a native of Auvergne meet a German, he is bound to kill, and entitled to rob him either before or after the murder.

The following has been a very thorny question for the schools: The ban, and the arriere-ban, having been ordered out in order to kill and be killed on the frontiers, ought the Swabians, being satisfied that the war is atrociously unjust, to march? Some doctors say yes; others, more just, pronounce no.-What say the politicians?

When we have fully discussed these great preliminary questions, with which no sovereign embarrasses himself, or is embarrassed, we must proceed to discuss the right of fifty or sixty families upon the county of Alost; the town of Orchies; the duchy of Berg and of Juliers; upon the countries of Tournay and Nice; and above all, on the frontiers of all the provinces, where the weakest always loses his cause.

It was disputed for an hundred years, whether the dukes of Orleans, Louis XII. and Francis I. had a claim on the duchy of Milan, by virtue of a contract of marriage with Valentina de Milan, grand daughter of the bastard of a brave peasant, named Jacob Muzio. Judgment was given in this process at the battle of Pavia.

The dukes of Savoy, of Lorraine, and of Tuscany, still pretend to the Milanois; but it is believed that a family of poor gentlemen exist in Friuli, the posterity in a right line from Alboin, king of the Lombards, who possess an anterior claim.

The publicists have written great books upon the rights of the kingdom of Jerusalem. The Turks have written none, and Jerusalem belongs to them; at least at this present writing: nor is Jerusalem a kingdom.

CANONICAL RIGHTS-OR LAW.

General Idea of the Rights of the Church or Canon Law, by M. Bertrand, heretofore First Pastor of the Church of Berne.

We assume neither to adopt nor contradict the principles of M. Bertrand; it is for the public to judge of them.

Canon law, or the canon, according to the vulgar opinion, is ecclesiastical jurisprudence. It is the collection of canons, rules of the council, decrees of the popes, and maxims of the fathers.

According to reason, and to the rights of kings and of the people, ecclesiastical jurisprudence is only an exposition of the privileges accorded to ecclesiastics by sovereigns representing the nation.

If two supreme authorities, two administrations, having separate rights, exist, and the one will make war without ceasing upon the other, the unavoidable result will be, perpetual convulsions, civil wars, anarchy, tyranny, and all the misfortunes of which history presents so miserable a picture.

If a priest is made sovereign; if the dairo of Japan remained emperor until the sixteenth century; if the dalai-lama is still sovereign at Thibet; if Numa was at once king and pontiff; if the caliphs were heads of the state as well as of religion; and if the popes reign at Rome,—these are only so many proofs of the truth of what we advance: the authority is not divided; there is but one power. The sovereigns of Russia and of England preside over religion; the essential unity of power is there preserved.

Every religion is within the state; every priest forms a part of civil society, and all ecclesiastics are among the number of the subjects of the sovereign under whom they exercise their ministry. If a religion exists which establishes ecclesiastical independence, and supports them in a sovereign and legitimate au