up,' to be of the most dangerous confequence to civil fociety, and that the spirit of toleration which admits that one may be faved in all religions,' ought to be univerfally propagated, as conducive to the peace of ftates and happiness of mankind. Wc are also so far from being convinced that oaths are, as he says, abfolutely requifite in civil fociety, that we think it better they fhould be entirely abolished, than that the horrid principles of intolerance and perfecution fhould be cherished, in order to render them of use.

The next extraordinary affertion our Author ventures to make is that Religion dares not depend on argument.' The reafon which he gives in fupport of this affertion is curious; for this, fays he, cannot be done without allowing every man's reafon to be a judge.'-But why should not every man's reafon be his judge? Will this Writer pretend to say that moral virtue is lefs practifed, or that religion hath a lefs good effect on the minds of men, in thofe countries where every man is at liberty to chúse his religion, than in thofe where all are compelled to adopt the religion of the Prince? Are the Dutch or English more wicked and licentious people than the Italians, Spaniards or Portuguese? Our Author may lament the lofs of that influence, which the Clerical character once had over the minds of men; but we are perfuaded that every fenfible man, who is a friend to Liberty, will think the gradual fuppreffion of ecclefiaftical tyranny one of the greatest bleffings that diftinguifh modern times. Mr. Mofer, on the contrary, thinks it abfolutely neceffary that truth and prejudice, or any thing elfe, muft join together in order to keep up this political fanctity, this divine mark of infallibility, and to preserve the greater reverence for this order.' View only those states and countries, continues he, out of which a part of this truth, or this important prejudice, has been banished by Thomafius, or his fucceffors. The bishops, canons and other ecclefiaftics, have caft off with their black robes the character of their order. They are not feared more than other men.' Thus we see this curious politician is not content with placing the fear of God before our eyes; but we muft alfo ftand in like fear of the priest. Imprudent politicians, fays Mr. Mofer, have in fome countries invested the fovereign even with the adminiftration of the ecclefiaftical revenues, and not only rendered him master of all the benefices, but alfo deprived the ecclefiaftics of their right of voting. The fanctity of common fenfe, by which the fecular states were fupported, is vanished away, and it is but a meer chance that the fovereign is juft; if he be not, no body can oblige him to be fo.--Come on now with your natural religion, and transform all the clergy into ordinary men, leffen the opinion of the common people concerning them, and say, that the Holy Ghoft does no longer in a particular manner dwell

in them, fortify therewith the fovereign against heaven and hell, against tumults and infurrections; what advantage do you think would arife from that? Indeed the Reformation was of great fervice to a Roman Catholic Prince, but the Roman Catholic Religion is ftill at prefent of great fervice to Proteftant Subjects; in this religion the political fanctity of the Clergy is much better preserved. It has not yet been fuppreffed by the double-edged conclufion, That no STATE within a STATE ought to be endured; which in its undeterminate compafs may as well be dangerously as ufefully employed. It is true, that the epifcopal rights are now justly united, under one head,, with thofe of the prince of the country, but m. ft happily not fo mixed together, but one may diftinguifh the various places and charges, or the office of High Steward from the Sovereign himself. All those who robbed the Clergy of their political fanctity, which cannot be fufficiently founded upon any thing else but a divine revelation; all thofe, I fay, brought upon mankind a very great calamity; for we need not have been afraid, that the clergy would have abused their pow er, given by us, fince the Sovereign keeps up a perpetual military force.

Never, (faid once a Turkifh statesman to me) never mind the Mufti's being ever fo bad a man, do but kneel before him in the duft, if thou art a fubject to the Grand Sultan; for he and his clergy are the only facred rocks behind which thou canst fcreen thyself, if the tyrant fhould be feeking after thee. Does God Almighty grant thee, in his wrath, thy demand, allowing thee to venerate the worthy clergyman alone, and to defpife the unworthy one publickly; then doft thou destroy the political fanetity of this Order, and the tyrant will readily accept of this thy distinction, and that priest who is to justify and vindicate thy caufe, he will call an unworthy advocate, and for this reafon condemn him to be killed, and then he will afterwards kill thee alfo.'

So reafoned a Turk, who was not a Donatift, and who did not affirm, That the force of the word of God depended only upon the behaviour of the priests. "What would become of Spain and Portugal, fince they loft their laws, if the ecclefiaftics did not prevent the exorbitant ufe of the fovereign power*."-This is what Montefquieu fays, and I don't urge any more but this, that natural religion cannot affect fo great an advantage, and that there are in fome countries fuch political regulations established,

Had the natives the fpirit to thake off ecclefiaftical tyranny, they might easily reftrain the Monarchical, obtain new laws, and become an happy fice people.-Probatum eft: Witnefs England and Holland; Countries once labouring under the feveret yoke both of regal and ecclefiaftical tyranny.

by

by which the horrible inquifition is turned to a neceffary evil, and to a facred bridle for defpotic power.'

What a pretty ufe this writer hath found for the horrible inquifition! A very falutary inftitution truly; by the abolition of which, the Spaniards and Portuguese would doubtlefs be great fufferers! Is it poffible our Civilian can be fo ignorant of hiftory, or fo blind to the operations of the human heart, as not to know that the fpirit of liberty in any people, is a greater bulwark against defpotic power than all the religious orders in the world? Can he be ignorant that the political fanctity, he contends for, hath been almost always the tool of tyranny! Hiftory affords us hardly one inftance in which the Clergy have opposed the Prince, merely for the good of the people. The church and ftate have contended, indeed, frequently for the rod of power; but whereever the former hath got the better, the people have profited only by obtaining twenty tyrants instead of one. It is well our Author tells us, from whence he derives his fyftem of politics: the Turks are undoubtedly first-rate politicians, and their political creed as worthy of adoption as their religious one! Mr. Mofer, indeed, feems a little aware of the infufficiency of his political' arguments; and endeavours therefore to enforce them by philofophical reasoning. He is here, however, in our opinion, no better a philofopher than politician.

There is a ftrange difpofition in men towards wonderful and extraordinary things, fuch as apparitions, fpectres, forebodings, fecret operations of nature, and all these things which force even philofophers to confefs, we don't yet know every thing. Thofe great men who have argued and written against this fuperftitious difpofition of mind have fucceeded well enough, fo far as at least to prevent it from being dangerous; but however they could not radically extirpate it, and many people are now afhamed to confefs publickly, what in their private thoughts they confefs to themselves. But may not this propensity of mind be accounted for from fome higher reafons? Horfes have a tender mouth in order that a bridle may the better rule them; and perhaps this difpofition has been implanted in us, in order that we may the better be carried by it to execute the wife purpofes of nature. Do but imagine to yourfelf that we had not fuch a difpofition of mind, and fuppofe that our brain was fo conftituted that it could not be affected by any thing but mathemati, cal demonstrations, fhould we then be poffeffed of that tenger fenfibility, that eafy credulity, which fo much contributes to our pleature? We must then either look into the very bottom of every thing, (which pretenfion is however very abfurd) or we are now a great deal happier, because we are fooner and more eafily fatisfied. It is true enough, this difpofition is very apt to kindle the fire of superstition; but good-nature, kindness,

and

1

H

and generofity, are not lefs liable to be mifled. This you know yourself, and have not cenfured fuch qualities neither. Indeed man is a curious, wonderful, and incomprehenfible being; he is both the mafter and the fool of all his fellow-creatures. We have conjectures and fyftems concerning the end and defign of his existence, but viewing him only as he ftands in relation to this life, and the rank he here holds, I find by experience that it is neceffary for him to be led and tamed by various ways and means.'

It is with fome indignation we fee even the language of philofophy employed, in attempts to enflave the perfons, and blind the understandings, of mankind: we fhall, therefore, take the above curious piece of fophiftry to pieces, for the entertainment or information of the Reader.

Our Author fets out, with adopting the fuppofition of many other fuperficial reafoners, viz. that fuperftition is a natural paffion originally implanted, and fo deeply rooted in the human heart, as never to be eradicated.' But fuperftition is not a paffion originally inherent in, or infeparably attached to human nature: it is only an habitual and factitious difpofition, compounded of the joint operations of admiration and fear. Thefe indeed are original inherent paffions, and, when properly culti vated or directed, produce curiofity and veneration; whence knowledge and religion: but, when neglected or improperly turned, are productive of ignorant wonder and timid fuperftition. Our Author pays a fine compliment to human nature, in fuppofing our minds to have been made purposely feeble, that we might be the better ruled; nor do we think even that noble animal the horse, hath any thing to thank him for: as we conceive a free and independent Houyhnhnm would difpute the right of bridling him merely because he might have a tender mouth.As to that eafy credulity, which fo much contributes to our pleasure,' we do not envy our Author any fhare of it that nature or education may have beftowed on him. We agree with him that Man is a curious, wonderful and incomprehenfible Being, and that individuals are the mafters and the fools of their fellow-creatures. But here lies the rub: the difpute is, who are to be the mafters and who the fools? Mr. Mofer fays, he finds by experience, that it is neceffary man fhould be led and tamed. "What? Man, in the abstract? All mankind?—No, furely for, if fo, by whom are we to be thus led and tamed? It is only a certain part of mankind, the fimple and ignorant, the poor fubjects and the laity that are to be bridled, led and tamed by the ingenious and learned, the magiftrates and the clergy. But have not even the fimple and ignorant multitude, the canaille, the mob, or whatever opprobrious term we pleafe to give them; have not they the commón privileges of man? Who hath promoted and elevated thefe

guides and rulers into angels and demigods, to bridle and goad their fellow-creatures like brutes? What natural right doth fuperior cunning give one man over the liberty and independency of another? Is it not a right of the fame kind as that which fuperior ftrength may give one to his property? Doubtless it is: nor can any better reafon be given, why a wifer man should enflave him, than why a fronger man fhould rob him. In Society, mutual fagacity, like mutual ftrength, is united for the common good; but the focial compact gives the cunning no greater right to opprefs the fimple than it gives the ftrong to opprefs the weak. Add to this that the ftupid father may have an ingenious fon; and it would be the greatest act of injuftice to shut the gates of knowledge against thofe who may not as yet have acquired information. How fhould we exclaim against the tyranny of a defign, to prevent the Poor from acquiring property, and for perpetuating wealth in the families of thofe who are now rich! But this would be neither more unjust, nor more cruel, than the design of entailing on the generation of the simple and unlearned a conftant ftate of ftupidity and ignorance; for to such a flate, that of flavery is infeparably annexed. We cannot help, therefore, expreffing our difapprobation of fuch doctrines as this Author inculcates. The rulers of the people, indeed, may infinuate, as much as they pleafe, that the multitude are happier in their ignorance, than they would be made by their enquiries after knowledge: but men are never happy unlefs they are permitted to be happy their own way; nor do they enjoy the common privileges of human nature, if they are prevented from exerting thofe faculties, whether of imagination or reafon, with which God hath endowed them.

It is with a very ill grace, the tranflator takes upon him to cenfure the inabilities of others: nor can we allow the juftice of any of his reafons for engaging in a tafk, to which his own acquifitions are so evidently, and, indeed, confeffedly inadequate. The ill-fuccefs of preceeding tranflators from the German, is by no means, a fufficient plea for his adding to the number of wretched translations. The Mah of Klopftock, and the Satires of Rabener, may be miferable vertions, without conferring any degree of merit on that of the letter before us. Mr. Warnecke, indeed, feems to impute the deficiency of the tranfla tions to the circumftance of their being made by Eng men; but we do not fee why an Englifhman, who does not underland German, may not tranflate from that language as wela German who does not underfland English. Is it eader to write a language than to read it? The contrary is generals, and indeed very juftly, conceived to be the cat. We would atriz tim, therefore, to ftudy the Engi fh language for para los per, before he ventures to tranflate again: for we can let

2

the