entertained even to this day, so that we have seen men distinguished for their general knowledge, and especially profound in history, who have all their lives been infatuated by so despicable an error? But the error was ancient, and that was enough.

The Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Jews, foretold the future; therefore, it may be foretold now. Serpents were charmed and spirits were raised in those days;therefore spirits may be raised and serpents charmed now. It is only necessary to know the precise formula made use of for the purpose. If predictions are at an end, it is the fault, not of the art, but of the artist. Michael Morin and his secret died together. It is thus that alchymists speak of the philosopher's stone: if, say they, we do not now find it, it is because we do not yet know precisely how to seek it; but it is certainly in Solomon's collar-bone. And, with this. glorious certainty, more than two hundred families in France and Germany have ruined themselves.

It is not then to be wondered at, that the whole world has been duped by astrology. The wretched argument" there are false prodigies, therefore there are true ones," is neither that of a philosopher, nor of a man acquainted with the world.

"That is false and absurd, therefore it will be believed by the multitude," is a much truer maxim.

It is still less astonishing that so many men, raised in other things so far above the vulgar; so many princes; so many popes, whom it would have been impossible to mislead in the smallest affair of interest, have been so ridiculously seduced by this astrological nonsense. They were very proud and very ignorant. The stars were for them alone; the rest of the world were a rabble, with whom the stars had nothing to do. They were like the prince who trembled at the sight of a comet, and said gravely to those who did not fear it, "You may behold it without concern; you are not princes."

The famous German leader Wallenstein was one of those infatuated by this chimera: he called himself a prince, and consequently thought that the zodiac had

been made on purpose for him. He never besieged a town, nor fought a battle, until he had held a council with the heavens; but, as this great man was very ignorant, he placed at the head of this council a rogue of an Italian, named Seni, keeping him a coach and six, and giving him a pension of twenty thousand livres. Seni, however, never foresaw that Wallenstein would be assassinated by order of his most gracious sovereign, and that he himself would return to Italy on foot.

It is quite evident that nothing can be known of the future, otherwise than by conjectures. These conjectures may be so well-founded as to approach certainty. You see a shark swallow a little boy; you may wager a ten thousand to one that he will be devoured; but you cannot be absolutely sure of it, after the adventures of Hercules, Jonas, and Orlando Furioso, who each lived so long in a fish's belly.

It cannot be too often repeated, that Albertus Magnus and Cardinal D'Ailli both made the horoscope of Jesus Christ. It would appear that they read in the stars how many devils he would cast out of the bodies of the possessed, and what sort of death he was to die. But it was unfortunate that these learned astrologers foretold all these things so long after they happened.

We shall elsewhere see that in a sect which passes for Christian, it is believed to be impossible for the Supreme Intelligence to see the future otherwise than by supreme conjecture; for, as the future does not exist, it is, say they, a contradiction in terms to talk of seeing at the present time that which is not.

ATHEISM.

SECTION I.

On the Comparison so often made between Atheism and Idolatry.

It seems to me that, in the Dictionnaire Encyclopédique, a more powerful refutation might have been brought against the Jesuit Richeome's opinion concerning atheists and idolaters-an opinion formerly

maintained by St. Thomas, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Cyprian, and Tertullian-an opinion which Arnobius placed in a strong light when he said to the pagans, "Do you not blush to reproach us with contempt for your gods? Is it not better to believe in no god, than to impute to them infamous actions?"-an opinion long before established by Plutarch, who said, he would rather have it said that there was no Plutarch, than that there was a Plutarch, inconstant, choleric, and vindictive-an opinion, too, fortified by all the dialectical efforts of Bayle.

Such is the ground of dispute, placed in a very striking point of view by the Jesuit Richeome, and made still more specious by the way in which Bayle sets it off:

"There are two porters at the door of a house. You ask to speak to the master. He is not at home, answers one. He is at home, answers the other, but is busied in making false money, false contracts, daggers and poisons, to destroy those who have only accomplished his designs. The atheist resembles the former of these porters, the pagan the latter. It is then evident that the pagan offends the Divinity more grievously than the atheist."

With the permission of Father Richeome, and that of Bayle himself, this is not at all the state of the question. For the first porter to be like the atheist, he must say, not “ My master is not here," but "I have no master; he who you pretend is my master, does not exist. My comrade is a blockhead to tell you that the gentleman is engaged in mixing poisons, and whetting poniards, to assassinate those who have executed his will. There is no such being in the world."

Richeome, therefore, has reasoned very ill; and Bayle, in his rather diffuse discourses, has so far forgotten himself as to do Richeome the honour of making a very lame comment upon him.

Plutarch seems to express himself much better, in declaring that he prefers those who say there is no Plutarch, to those who assert that Plutarch is unfit for

society. Indeed, of what consequence to him was its being said that he was not in the world? But it was of great consequence that his reputation should not be injured. With the Supreme Being it is otherwise.

Still Plutarch does not come to the real point in discussion. It is only asked, who most offends the Supreme Being-the man who denies him, or he who disfigures him? It is impossible to know, otherwise than by revelation, whether God is offended at the vain discourses which men hold about him.

Philosophers almost always fall unconsciously into the ideas of the vulgar, in supposing that God is jealous of his glory, wrathful, and given to revenge, and in taking rhetorical figures for real ideas. That which interests the whole world is, to know whether it is not better to admit a rewarding and avenging God, recompensing hidden good actions, and punishing secret crimes, than to admit no God at all.

Bayle exhausts himself in repeating all the infamous things imputed to the gods of antiquity. His adversaries answer him by unmeaning common-places. The partisans and the enemies of Bayle have almost always fought without coming to close quarters. They all agree that Jupiter was an adulterer, Venus a wanton, Mercury a rogue. But this, I conceive, ought not to be considered: the religion of the ancient Romans should be distinguished from Ovid's Metamorphoses. It is quite certain that neither they nor even the Greeks ever had a temple dedicated to Mercury the Rogue, Venus the Wanton, or Jupiter the Adulterer.

The god whom the Romans called "Deus optimus maximus"-most good, most great, was not believed to have encouraged Clodius to lie with Cæsar's wife, nor Cæsar to become the minion of King Nicomedes.

Cicero does not say that Mercury incited Verres to rob Sicily, though, in the fable, Mercury had stolen Apollo's cows. The real religion of the ancients was, that Jupiter, most good and just, with the secondary divinities, punished perjury in the infernal regions. Thus the Romans were long the most religious obser

vers of their oaths. It was in no wise ordained that they should believe in Leda's two eggs, in the transformation of Inachus's daughter into a cow, or in Apollo's love for Hyacinthus.

Therefore it must not be said that the religion of Numa was dishonouring to the Divinity. So that, as but too often happens, there has been a long dispute about a chimera.

Then it is asked, can a people of atheists exist? I consider that a distinction must be made between the people, properly so called, and a society of philosophers above the people. It is true that, in every country, the populace require the strongest curb; and that if Bayle had had but five or six hundred peasants to govern, he would not have failed to announce to them a rewarding and avenging God. But Bayle would have said nothing about him to the Epicureans, who were people of wealth, fond of quiet, cultivating all the social virtues, and friendship in particular, shunning the dangers and embarrassments of public affairs, leading, in short, a life of ease and innocence. The dispute, so far as it regards policy and society, seems to me to end here.

As for people entirely savage, they can be counted neither among the theists nor among the atheists. To ask them what is their creed, would be like asking them if they are for Aristotle or Democritus. They know nothing; they are no more atheists than they are peripatetics.

But it may be insisted that they live in society, though they have no God; and that therefore society may subsist without religion.

In this case I shall reply, that wolves live so; and that an assemblage of barbarous cannibals, as you suppose them to be, is not a society. And further, I. will ask you if, when you have lent your money to any one of your society, you would have neither your debtor, nor your attorney, nor your notary, nor your judge, believe in a God?

VOL. I.

2 B