and what valuable purposes can it ferve? It is no difficult task for a writer of our Author's genius and fprightly fancy, to declaim upon fuch a fubject as this, and it is obvious with what view he does it. The real friend to mankind, however, inftead of labouring to give them mean and debafing ideas of their nature, endeavours to give them exalted notions of its importance and destination; to touch thofe generous fprings of action which the original parent mind has implanted in the human breaft; and to infpire them with a noble and god-like ambition. How different from this is the general aim and tendency of Voltaire's writings; and ih this view, how contemptible must he appear in the eyes of every virtuous and good man, notwithftanding his fprightly fallies of imagination, his original strokes of wit and humour, and his lively and agreeable manner.of writing!-But to proceed.

One fupreme Artist only.

Great part of mankind, obferving phyfical and moral evit diffufed over this globe, have imagined that there are two powerful Beings, one the Author of good, the ter the Author of evil. If fuch Beings exift, they must exist neceffarily in the fame space, and must therefore penetrate each other, which is abfurd. The idea of these two hoftile powers, can only derive its origin from thofe examples which ftrike us here on earth: we fee men of gentle, and men of favage difpofitions, useful and pernicious animals, good mafters and tyrants. In like manner, it has been thought, that there must be two oppofite powers, which prefide over nature; but this is only an Afiatic romance, Through the whole of nature there is, manifeftly, an unity of defign; the laws of motion and gravitation are variable, and it is impoffible that two fupreme Artifts, entirely opposite to each other, fhould eftablish the fame laws. This alone, in my opinion, overthrows the Manichean fyftem, and there is no occafion for large volumes to fhew the abfurdity of it.

There is therefore one only fupreme and eternal power, with which every thing is connected, and on which every thing depends; the nature of which, however, is incomprehenfible. Saint Thomas tells us, that God is a pure act, a form, which has neither genus nor predicate, which exifts effentially, participitatively, and nuncupatively. When the Dominicans were mafters of the Inquifition, they would have burnt any man who fhould have denied these fine things; as for me, I fhould not have denied them, but I fhould not have understood them.

I am told that God is a fimple Being. I humbly confefs that I do not understand the meaning of this. I do not indeed attribute to him grofs parts which I can feparate, but I cannot conceive, how the Principle and Lord of every thing which exfifts in extenfion, fhould not be extended. Simplicity, ftrictly fpeaking,

Nn 2

fpeaking, feems to me very like non-existence. The extreme weakness of my understanding, has no inftrument fine enough to lay hold of this fimplicity. I fhall be told, I know, that a mathematical point is fimple; but a mathematical point has no real existence.

I am told, like wife, that an idea is fimple; but neither is this intelligible to me. I fee a horfe, I have an idea of him, but I only fee an affemblage of parts in him. I fee a colour, I have the idea of colour, but this colour is extended. I pronounce the abstract names of colour in general; of vice, of virtue, of truth, in general; but it is becaufe I have the knowledge of coloured objects, of actions which appear to me virtuous or vicious, and of things which feem true or falfe. I exprefs all this by a word; but I have no clear knowledge of fimplicity; I know no more what it is, than I know what infinite is.

Being convinced, that I know not what I am myself, I cannot poffibly know what the Author of my being is. My ignorance overwhelms me every moment, but I comfort myself with reflecting that it is of small importance to know whether he exifls in extenfion or not, provided I do nothing contrary to that confcience which he has given me. Which of all the systems, therefore, that have been invented by men in regard to the Deity, fhall I embrace? None, excepting that of adoring him.'

It is in this oblique manner, our Author fcatters his infinuations against revelation up and down his writings. And indeed, this is the most prudent method of attack, and, with the generality of readers, the most likely to answer the ends propofed by it. A direct attack would be a little more troublesome, and would put many readers upon their guard; but fly innus endres artfully introduced, occafion no alarm, and have a happy effect upon thofe exalted minds, who are raised far above vulgat prejudices; being placed likewife where there was little reafon to expect them, they give the pleasure of an agreeable furprize. But let us return to our Author.

• Of the Greek philofophers, and first of Pythagoras.

All the Greek philofophers have talked very abfurdly upon fubjects of natural philofophy and metaphyfics. They are all excellent in morality; they are all equal to Zoroafter, Confucius, and the Brachmans. Only read the golden verfes of Pythagoras, which are the fubftance of his doctrine; no matter who is the author of them; tell me, if a fingle virtue is omitted in them.'

• Of Zaleucus.

Unite all your common places, ye preachers of Greece, Haly, Spain, Germany, France, &c. let all your demations

be

be diftilled, can a purer fpirit be drawn from them, than the exordium to the laws of Zaleucus?

• Subdue your foul, purify it, banish every criminal thought. Do not imagine that the Deity can be properly ferved by the vicious; do not imagine that he is like weak mortals, who are flattered by praifes and magnificent prefents; it is virtue alone can procure his favour.-This is the fummary of all religion, and of all morality.'

• Of Epicurus.

College-pedants, and petty pedagogues have imagined, in confequence of fome pleafantries of Horace and Petronius, that Epicurus taught pleasure both by precept and example. Epicurus, during his whole life, was a temperate, wife, and juft philofopher. At the age of twelve or thirteen years, he gave marks of an uncommon degree of understanding; for when the grammarian, who inftructed him, repeated to him that verse of Hefiod, wherein it is faid, that Chaos was produced the first of all beings: Epicurus afked, And pray, who produced Chaos, if Chaos was the first? I know nothing of that, replied the grammarian, none but the philofophers can anfwer that queflion. I will have recourfe to them, therefore, faid Epicurus, for a folution of it; and from that time, till the age of feventy-two, he cultivated philofophy. His last will, which Diogenes Laertes has preferved entire, difcovers a foul full of tranquillity and juftice; he enfranchises such of his flaves as he thought deferved it; he recommends to his executors to fet those at liberty, who should render themselves worthy of it: no oftentation, no unjuft preference! it is the last will of a man, whose whole conduct in life was governed by reafon. He was the only one of all the philofophers, who was beloved by all his Difciples, and his fect was the only one where love prevailed, and which was not divided into feveral others.

After examining his doctrine, and all that has been written. both for and against him; it appears evident, that the whole amounts to no more than the difpute between Malbranche and Arnaud. Malbranche acknowledges that pleasure makes a man happy, Arnaud,denies it; the difpute is merely about words, like many other difputes, into which philofophy and divinity introduce obfcurity and uncertainty.'

Of the Stoics.

If the Epicureans rendered human nature amiable, the Stoics rendered it almoft divine. Refignation, or rather an elevation of foul, to the fupreme Being; contempt of pleasure, contempt even of pain, contempt of life, and of death, inflexibility in juftice fuch was the character of the true Stoics; and all that can be faid against them is, that they difcouraged other

men.

Nn3

C Socrates,

Socrates, who did not belong to their fect, fhewed that it was impoffible to carry virtue fo far as they did; and at the fame time belong to any party; and the death of this martyr, is the eternal difgrace of Athens, though the repented of it.

The Stoic Cato, on the other hand, is the eternal honour of Rome. Epictetus in bondage, is, perhaps, fuperior to Cato; because he is always contented with his condition. I am, fays he, in that fituation wherein it has pleafed providence to place me; to complain of it, is to complain of providence.

Shall I fay, that the emperor Antoninus was even fuperior to Epictetus, because he triumphed over more temptations, and becaufe it was much more difficult for an Emperor not to be corrupted, than for a poor man not to murmur? Read the thoughts of the one and the other; the Emperor and the Slave will ap pear of equal dignity.

Shall I dare to mention the Emperor Julian on this occaLion? He was miftaken in many of his opinions; but in regard to morality he certainly was not miftaken. In a word, none of the philofophers of antiquity were more defirous of rendering men happy.

There have been perfons among us, who have faid, that al the virtues of these great men were only fplendid fins. O that the earth were covered with fuch finners! "

• Philofophy is virtue.

2

• There were Sophifts, who were to Philofophers, what monkeys are to men. Lucian laughed at them, and the confequence was, that they were defpifed. They were very like the mendicant monks in our univerfities. But let us never forget that all the philofophers have given great examples of virtue, and that the Sophifts, nay, even the Monks, have refpected virtue in their writings."

• Of Æfop.

I fhall place fop among thefe great men, and even at the head of them, whether he was the Pilpay of the Indians, the Lokman of the Perfians, the Akkim of the Arabs, or the Hacam of the Phenicians; this is of no importance: I find that his fables have been highly valued by all the oriental nations, and that their origin is loft in an unfathomable antiquity. They have taught almost all our hemifphere. They are not col lections of faftidious fentences, which tire rather than inftruct the Reader; they are truth itfcif with the charms of fable. All that modern languages have been able to do, is to embellish them. This antient wifdom is fimple and naked in the original Author.What do all thefe fables teach us? To be just.”

Of the peace which fprung from Philofophy.

Since all the Philofophers had different opinions, it is evident that opinion and virtue, are very different in their natures, Whether

they

they did or did not believe that Thetis was the Goddess of the Sea, whether they had or had not faith in the war of the Giants, the golden age, the box of Pandera, the death of the ferpent Pithon, &c. thefe doctrines had nothing in common with morality. What deferves admiration in Antiquity, is, that their Theology never difturbed the public peace.'

Questions.

O that we could imitate antiquity! O that we could be perfuaded to do, in regard to theological difputes, what we have done, at the end of feventeen centuries, in regard to the bellesLettres !

We have forfaken the barbarifm of the Schools, and returned to the fine Writers of Antiquity. The Romans were never fo abfurd as to think of perfecuting a man, because he believed a vacuum, or a plenum; because he imagined that accidents might fubfift without a fubftratum; or becaufe he explained a paffage of an Author in a different fenfe from others.

We have recourfe every day to the Roman jurifprudence; and when we want laws, (which is often the cafe) we go and confult the Code and the Digeft. Why not imitate our malters in their wife toleration?

Of what importance is it to the flate, whether the opinions of the Reals, or the Nominals prevail, whether we believe in Scotus, or in Thomas, in Oecolampadius, or in Melan&thon, &c ? Is it not evident that the true intereft of a nation has no more concern with this, than it has in a good or bad tranflation of a paffage from Lycophron or Hefied?"

Thefe fpecimens of our Author's manner of treating the fubjects he writes upon, are fufficient to give our Readers a juft idea of the merits of his performance, and to convince them how eafy a matter it would be for a writer, even of moderate abilities, to multiply volumes upon fuch topics.

The reflections, which are proper to be made on fuch writings, muft neceflarily occur to every difcerning Reader. One thing, however, we cannot help mentioning; Voltaire, and fome other modern infidels of great name; take frequent opportunities of afferting, and that roundly, and without any manner of hesitation, that there was no fuch thing among the antients, as perfecution for religious opinions. Now every one who is converfant with antient hiftory, knows that this is abfolutely falfe, and can produce ftriking inftances in fupport of the contrary. Are fuch affertions, therefore, to be charged to ignorance, or to wilful mifreprefentation?