CHAP IV.

On the Extirpation of Herefy.

IT feems neceffary to diftinguish an herefy of opinion from faction. From the first ages of Christianity opinions have been different. The Christians of Alexandria were, in many points, of a different opinion from thofe of Antioch. The Achaians differed from the Afiatics. This diversity of opinion, existed from the beginning, and probably will continue for ever. Jefus Chrift, who could have united all the faithful in the fame fentiments, did it not; and therefore we may conclude that it was not his defign; but that he chofe rather to exercise all his churches in acts of indulgence and charity, by permitting differ ent fystems, yet all agreeing to acknowledge him their lord and mafter. These feveral fects, fo long as they were tolerated by the emperors, or concealed from their fight, had it not in their power to profecute each other, being equally fubject to the Roman magiftrates; they could only difpute. If they were perfecuted, they equally claimed the privilege of nature: "Suffer us," they faid, " to adore our God in peace, and do not refuse

"as the liberty you grant to the Jews:" Every fect may now urge the fame argument to their oppreffors. They may fay to those who want privileges to the Jews; "Treat us as you treat the fons of Jacob; let us, like "them, pray to God according to our con"fcience. Our opinion will no more injure

your ftate, than Judaifm. You tolerate the "enemies of Jefus Chrift, tolerate us who adore "him, and who differ from you only in theo. "logical fubtleties. Do not deprive yourselves of useful fubjects; ufeful in your manufac

tures, your marine, and the cultivation of your

lands. Of what importance is it, that their "creed be fomewhat different from yours? You "want their labour, and not their catechifin?"

Faction is quite a different thing. It always happens, that a perfecuted fect degenerates into faction. The oppreffed naturally unite and animate each other; and are generally more induftrious in ftrengthening their party, than their perfecutors in their extermination. They must either destroy or be destroyed. So it happened after the perfecution excited in 304, by Galerius, in the two last years of Dioclefian. The Chriftians, having been favoured by that emperor during eighteen years, were become too numerous and too rich to be exterminated. They joined Chlorus; they fought for his fon Con

ftantine,

stantine, and a total revolution of the empire was the confequence.

Smallevents may be compared with great, when they are produced by the fame fpirit. Revolutions of a fimilar kind happened in Holland, in Scotland, and in Switzerland. When Ferdinand and Ifabella drove the Jews out of Spain, where they were established not only before the reigning family, but before the Moors, the Goths, or even the Carthaginians; if the Jews had been as warlike as they were rich, they might easily, in conjunction with the Arabs, have effected a revolution.

In fhort, no fect ever changed the govern ment, unless excited by defpair. Mahomed himfelf fucceeded only because he was driven from Mecca, and a reward offered for his head.

Would you prevent a sect from overturning the state, imitate the prefent wife conduct of England, of Germany, of Holland; ufetoleration. The only methods, in policy, to be taken with a new fect, are, to put to death the chief and all his adherents, men, women, and children, without fparing one individual; or to tolerate them, when numerous. The firft method is that of a

monster; the fecond of a wife man.

Chain your fubjects to the state by their intereft. Let the Quaker and the Turk find their advantage in living under your laws. Religion is of God to man; the civil law is of you to your people.

CHAP.

CHAP. V.

Of Profanation.

LEWIS IX. king of France, who for his virtues was numbered among the faints, made a Jawagainst blafphemers. He condemned them to a new punishment; their tongues were pierced with a hot iron. It was a kind of retaliation the finning member fuffering the punishment. But it was fomewhat difficult to determine what was blafphemy. Expreffions frequently escape from a man in a paffion, from joy, or even in converfation, which are merely expletives, fuch as the fela and the vah of the Hebrews, the pol and the adepol of the Latins, as alfo per Deos immortales, an expreffion frequently used, without the leaft intention of fwearing by the im mortal gods.

The words which are called oaths and blaf phemy, are commonly vague terms that may be variously interpreted. The law by which they are punished, seems to be founded on that of the Jews, which fays, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. The best commentators are of opinion, that this commandment

relates to perjury; and there is the more reafon to believe them right, as the word have, which is translated in vain, properly fignifies perjury. Now, what analogy can there be between perjury and Cabo de Dios, Cadedis, Sangbleu, Ventrebleu, Corpo de Dio, &c.?

It was cuftomary with the Jews to fwear by the life of God, as the Lord liveth: the phrase was common; fo that it was lying in the name of God that was forbidden.

Philip Auguftus, in 1181, condemned the nobility who should pronounce the words which are foftened in the terms Tetebleu, Ventrebleu, Corbleu, Sangbleu, to pay a fine, and the plebeians to be drowned. The first part of this law feems puerile, the latter abominable. It was an outrage to nature, to drown one man for a crime for which another paid a few pence of the money of thofe times. So that this law, like many other, remained unexecuted, especially when the king was excommunicated, and his kingdom interdicted by Pope Celestine III.

Saint Lewis, tranfported with zeal, ordered indifcriminately, that whofoever should pronounce, thefe indecent words, fhould have his tongue bored, or his upper lip cut off. A citizen of Paris, having fuffered this punishment, complained to Poje Innocent IV. This pontiff remon

ftrated