his Prince? In justice to our Author, it must be confeffed, that, though a lawyer, and, as fuch, merely a fervant to the flate, he doth not feem to give up the caufe of God fo entirely as hath been done by fome of his priests. He admits, indeed, that religion is a political engine, but then, he fays, it is fuch an one as is framed and employed by God, in his terreftrial dominions; and when we worship, extol, or praise him, then we promote his honour, and the honour of God is the happiness of his creatures.'

As to the manner in which this political engine hath been introduced to the world; the Letter-writer endeavours to prove it perfectly confiftent with the divine wisdom apparent in the ordinary dif penfations of providence. On this head, he throws out fome fhrewd and ingenious remarks, tending to fhew the infufficiency of natural religion and the expediency and utility of revelation. But we fhall pass over his arguments on thefe fubjects; and proceed to the exceptionable paffages above hinted at. After inculcating the neceffity of an established religion in every civilized ftate, our Author afferts, that the oeconomy of every religion abfolutely requires this public affertion, that there is no falvation out of it. It feems to me, fays he, that a religion without this axiom cannot produce its proper effects in civil fociety; at least I think that if the following doctrine was inferted in capital letters in a public catechifm, that ONE MIGHT BE SAVED IN ALL RELIGIONS, fuch a doctrine would very much leffen that enthusiasm which is neceflary to be kept up. I, for inftance, in my thoughtlefs puerile days, fhould certainly have reafoned thus: "Let my mind have its full fcope, and if it does not bring forth truths, it will at leaft produce fancies, and every religion is acceptable to God." So certainly I fhould have argued, unless my father had concealed from my view a little longer the important doctrine of the indifferency of all religions, and had first inspired me with a prejudice against this opinion you have adopted. When I had attained to riper years and more difcretion, I might perhaps have been reasonable enough not to fuffer myfelf to be put out of the way by it. But the world of children, who never arrive to the age of manly understanding, I fhould always have pitied, Such an indifferency would, in my humble opinion, have deprived every religion of the power of laying hold of the confcience, which, however, is neceflary for obtaining the purpofes of an oath, which, though fo awful and tremendous a thing, is yet abfolutely requifite in civil focict). This induces me to believe, that every religion, in its public doctrine, muft exclude all others, and leave to the philofopher alone a falutary uncertainty for the fubject of his fpeculation.'

Now, with due deference to this learned councellor, we conceive that enthufiafm, which he thinks fo neceffary to be kept

upa

one may

We

up, to be of the most dangerous confequence to civil fociety, and that the fpirit of toleration which admits that be faved in all religions,' ought to be univerfally propagated, as 'conducive to the peace of ftates and happiness of mankind. are alfo fo far from being convinced that oaths are, as he fays, 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 cherifhed, 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 fhould not every man's reafon be his judge? Will this Writer pretend to fay 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 chufe 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 loss 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 preferve the greater reverence for this order.' View only thofe ftates and countries, continues he, out of which a part of this truth, or this important prejudice, has been banifhed 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 fee this curious politician is not content with placing the fear of God before our eyes; but we must also stand in like fear of the priest. Imprudent politicians, fays Mr. Mofer, have in Jome countries invested the fovereign even with the adminiftration of the ecclefiaftical revenues, and not only rendered him mafter 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 fay, that the Holy Ghoft does no longer in a particular manner dwell

in

in them, fortify therewith the fovereign against heaven and hell, againit tumults and infurrections; what advantage do you think would arife from that? Indeed the Reformation was of great fervice to a R man Catholic Prince, but the Roman Catholic Religion is ftill at prefent of great service to Proteftant Subjects; in this religion the political fanctity of the Clergy is much better preferved. 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 juftly 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 himfelf.-All those who robbed the Clergy of their political fanctity, which cannot be fufficiently founded upon any thing elle 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 power, given by us, fince the Sovereign keeps up a perpetual military force.

Never, (faid once a Turkish 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 subject to the Grand Sultan; for he and his clergy are the only facred rocks behind which thou canst fcreen thyfelf, if the tyrant fhould be fecking 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 fanctity of this Order, and the tyrant will readily accept of this thy diftinction, and that pricft who is to juftify and vindicate thy caufe, he will call an unworthy advocate, and for this reafon conden 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 priest- "What would become of Spain and Portugal, fince they loft their laws, if the ecclefiaftics did not prevent the exorbitant use of the fovereign power *."-This is what Montefquieu says, 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 shake off ecclefiaftica! tyranny, they might cafily refrain the Monarchical, obtain new laws, and become an happy fe prple.-Probatum eft: Witnefs England and Holland; countries once 1. bouring under the feverest 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 inquifit on! A very falutary inftitution truly; by the abolition of which, the Spaniards and Portuguese would doubtless be great fufferers! Is it poffible our Civilian can be fo ignorant of history, or fo blind to the operations of the human heart, as not to know that the spirit 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 oppofed 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 inftead 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 reafoning. 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 thefe 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 leaft 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 themfelves. But may not this propenfity 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 so conftituted that it could not be affected by any thing but mathematical demonftrations, fhould we then be poffeffed of that tender 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 fuperftition; but good-nature, kindness,

and

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 master 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 purpofely 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 dispute 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 masters and the fools of their fellow-creatures. But here lies the rub: the difpute is, who are to be the masters 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 abftract? All mankind?- No, furely: for, if so, 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 please to give them; have not they the common privileges of man? Who hath promoted and elevated thefe

6