frated to the king that the punishment was too great for the crime, which however had no effect upon his majesty. Happy had it been for mankind, if the popes had never affected any other fuperiority over kings.

The ordinance of Lewis XIV. fays, "Thofe "who shall be convicted of having fworn by,, "or blafphemed the holy name of God, of his "moft holy mother, or of his faints, fhall, for "the first offence, pay a fine; for the fecond,. "third, and fourth, a double, triple, and qua"druple fine; for the fifth, fhall be put in the "ftocks; for the fixth, fhall ftand in the pillo

"

ry, and lofe his upper lip; for the feventh;. " shall have his tongue cut out."

This law appears to be humane and just, as it inflicts a cruel punishment only on a feven. fold repetition, which can hardly be presumed.

But with regard to more atrocious profanations, which are called Sacrilege, the criminal ordinance mentions only robbing of churches; it takes no notice of public impieties, perhaps becaufe they were not fuppofed to happen, or were too difficult to specify. They are left therefore to the difcretion of the judge; and yet nothing ought to be left to discretion.

In fuch extraordinary cafes, how is the judge to act? He fhould confider the age of the offen

der, the nature and degree of his offence, and particularly the neceffity of a public example. Pro qualitate perfonæ, quòque rei conditione & temporis & ætatis & fexus, vel clementius ftatuendum. If the law does not expressly say that fuch a crime fhall be punished with death, what judge shall think himself authorised to pronounce that fentence? If the law be filent; if neverthelefs a punishment be required, the judge ought certainly, without hesitation, to decree the leaft fevere, because he is a man.

Sacrilegious profanations are never committed except by young debauchees. Would you punish them as feverely as if they had murdered a brother? Their youth pleads in their favour. They are not suffered to difpofe of their poffeffions, because they are fuppofed to want maturity of judgment, fufficient to forefee the confequences of an imprudent tranfaction. Is it not therefore natural to fuppofe, that they are incapable of foreseeing the confequences of their impiety?

Would you treat a wild young man, who, in his phrenzy, had profaned a facred image, without ftealing it, with the fame rigour that you punished a Brinvilliers, who poifoned his father and his whole family?

There is no law against the unhappy youth, and you are determined to make one that shall condemp

condemn him to the feverest punishment! He deserved chastisement, but did he deserve fuch excruciating torture, and the most horrible death?

But he had offended God! True, moft grievously. Imitate God in your proceedings against him. If he be penitent, God forgives him. Impofe a penance, and let him be pardoned.

Your illuftrious Montefquieu hath faid: It is our duty to honour the Deity, and not to revenge him. Let us weigh thefe words. They do not mean, that we fhould neglect the maintenance of public decorum; but, as the judicious author of the preceding Effay obferves, that it is abfurd for an infect to pretend to revenge the Supreme Being. A village magiftrate, or the magiftrate of a city, is neither a Mofes nor a Joshua.

СНАР.

CHAP. VI.

Of the Indulgence of the Romans in Matters of Religion

THE amazing contraff between the Roman laws, and the barbarous inftitutions by which they were fucceeded, hath often been the subject of converfation among the fpeculative part of mankind.

Doubtless the Roman fenate held the fupreme God in as great veneration as we; and professed as much esteem for their fecondary deities as we for our faints. Ab Fove principium was their common formule. Pliny, in his panegyric on the good Trajan, attests, that the Romans never omitted to begin their difcourfe and affairs by invoking the Deity. Cicero and Livy tell us the fame thing. No people were more religious; but they were too wife, and too great, to defcend to the punishment of idle language or philofophic opinions. They were incapable of inflicting barbarous punishments on those who, with Cicero, himself an augur, had no faith in auguries; or on thofe who, like Cæfar, afferted in full fenate, that the gods do not punishe men after death.

It

It hath often been remarked that the fenate permitted the chorus in the Troad to fing, There is nothing after death, and death itfelf is nothing. You afk, what becomes of the dead? They are where they were ere they were born *.

Was ever profanation more flagrant than this? From Ennius to Aufonius all his profanation, notwithstanding the refpect for divine worship. Why were these things difregarded by the fenate? Because they did not, in any wise, affect the govern- · ment of the state; because they disturbed no institution, nor religious ceremony. The police of the Romans was nevertheless excellent; they were nevertheless abfolute mafters of the best. part of the world, till the reign of Theodofius the fecond.

It was a maxim of the Romans, Deorum offenfa, Diis curæ, Offences against the gods concern the gods only. The fenate, by the wifeft inftitution, being at the head of religion, were under no apprehenfions that a convocation of priests should force them to revenge the priesthood under a pretext of revenging Heaven. They never faid, let us tear the impious afunder, left we ourselves be deemed impious; let us

4

Poft mortem nibil eft, mors ipfaque nibil, &c. SENECA.

fhew