MORAL and POLITICAL PARADOXES.

PARADOX I.

The Invention of Gun-powder has been of great Use, and also very beneficial to Mankind.

I. If in the account which Virgil gives of the descent of Æneas into hell, he points out, as one of the most tormented and afflicted he saw there, Salmoneus that king of Elide, who in order to acquire to himself divine honours, attempted to imitate, although it was but in a very poor way, the thunder and lightning of Jupiter;

I say, if this was the case of Salmoneus, I believe I may venture to pronounce, that the bulk of mankind, would judge the man deserving a much more severe punishment, who invented gun-powder, and contrived cannon, and would think, that he had imitated much better than the king of Elide, the noise, the flash, and the havoc made by those fiery flying meteors. In truth, the world contemplate the Author of that invention with such horror and indignation, that they detest his name. And Quevedo speaks the sentiment of them all, or they nearly all assent to the opinion he expressed of him, in the following lines:

II. This abomination of the inventor, arises from the world’s considering the invention of gun-powder, as a most pernicious thing to the human race, as in consequence of it, the number of violent deaths has been greatly increased; but this is an error, which in the discussion of this Paradox I propose to banish from the world; and do not doubt, that by the help of a little reasoning and reflexion, I shall be able so to explain the matter, as to cause the mistake to vanish.

III. So far is the common conjecture, that the invention of gun-powder has increased the mortality of mankind, from being true, that on the contrary, it has lessened it. It is a notorious fact, established upon the faith of all antient and modern histories, that when they only used what are commonly called white arms in war, the battles were much more bloody than they are at present. It was very rare then, that the dispute was decided, when the contest lay between troops that were nearly equal in valour and discipline, till one of the parties were almost half destroyed; but at present, instead of that, the death of a tenth part, is generally sufficient to determine the victory in favour of the conquering side. I confess, that this in some measure may be owing to the superior perfection the art of war is arrived at now, compared with what it was formerly. I say in some measure, because I apprehend the greatest difference, should be imputed to the different way of fighting. In former days, when they fought principally with swords, or cutting and thrusting weapons, the troops could not engage, without being intimately mixed one with another. This mixing, conduced to irritate men’s minds, and caused a greater difficulty in discerning the advantages one army had gained, and the disadvantages the other laboured under: it also created great confusion, and made it difficult for them to attend to or obey orders; and likewise made it very hard to withdraw the vanquished out of the reach of the conquerors; all which causes, concurred to make battles very obstinate and bloody. Now-a-days, it is sometimes sufficient to decide the contest, if one of the parties before their coming very near each other, is greatly disordered by the fire of their adversaries; in which case, if the general upon weighing the circumstances, concludes he cannot repair the mischief, he orders a retreat.

IV. In the sieges of fortified towns, this difference of bloodshed is still greater; for the reduction of places, is become much more easy by the invention of gun-powder, and the slaughter attending reducing them greatly less, than it was before the use of it. The siege of Troy, which we are told lasted ten years, would probably not have continued two months, if they had then known the use of cannon and mortars; by so much the more havoc these implements make of the stone walls, by so much the less, is the havoc made of men’s lives. Bombs and cannon balls, are more terrifying than destructive. All hear their noise, and but few perish by their flash. Frequently, the surprize and panic they occasion, redeem people from the mischief of them, because the garrison, by being intimidated before they are considerably wasted, entertain thoughts of surrendering; by which means, an infinite number of deaths, both on the part of the besieged, and the besiegers, are prevented.

V. It has not only been observed, that there has been a saving of men and time in sieges, since they have introduced carrying them on by artillery; but it has also been remarked, that in proportion as the fire of them has been augmented, the destruction of the human race has been lessened. Upon this experience, and with a view of preventing the effusion of blood, Louis the fourteenth during his reign, either from his own feelings, or by the advice of his best officers, directed, that they should increase the expence of gun-powder in sieges. And Spain once imitated this practice very happily, and with great success; for having observed that the siege of the town of Namur in 1695, on account of the smallness of their fire, cost them much time, and a great number of men, before they could reduce the place; therefore when they came to besiege the citadel, they for the space of seven days, kept an incessant fire against it, with a hundred and forty cannon, and a hundred mortars and royals; by which means, they obliged it to surrender in much less time than they spent in besieging the town, and when the garrison consisted of eight thousand good troops able to do duty, exclusive of sick and wounded. It is a fact, that this good purpose was attained upon that occasion, and would no doubt be attained upon others of the same sort, not only on account of the terror, which such a fire impresses the besieged with, but because also, the continual fatigue it exposes them to, exhausts their spirits, and does not permit them, either to eat or sleep in safety, and obliges them to exert an almost continual bodily labour, in repairing the breaches, and clearing the ditches of the rubbish that is beat down into them, and also in transporting materials to make breastworks at the places attacked, together with ammunition and other things. Where the garrison is not composed of veterans, the terror occasioned by the noise of so many cannon and mortars, joined to the tumbling of the edifices, is sufficient to intimidate, and frighten them into a surrender. And the same thing will happen, when there are a great number of inhabitants shut up in a place, although the garrison should be a veteran one; as we are informed by that great master in the art of war, the Marquis de Santa Cruz de Mercenado, in the fifth book of his Military Reflexions.

VI. It being then certain, that gun-powder has prevented the loss of a great many lives in war, the mischief that has happened from it is very light, compared to this great advantage, nor is the evil of its affording people the means of putting one another to death, to revenge private grudges, to be compared with this benefit; for such misfortunes do not amount to a thousandth part of the other advantages. Nor should all the deaths that happen in that way, be charged to the account of gun-powder; for the steel in most of these cases, is commonly the instrument of vengeance, and there are many of those instruments contrived very artfully, for the purpose of giving desperate wounds to people when they are off their guard. To this we may add, that rigorous laws against peoples carrying concealed pistols, may in a great measure, prevent these cruelties from being perpetrated by the means of gun-powder; so that by making a general computation, of all the good and bad resulting from gun-powder in these respects, we shall find, that for one man that is slain by it in consequence of private piques and quarrels, the lives of a thousand are saved, that would otherwise have been lost in the disputes between princes.

VII. If we consider powder with regard to the advantages we derive from it in other respects, we shall find it to be very useful and beneficial to mankind, for it assists us to kill game, to extirpate wild beasts, to smooth rugged surfaces, to blow up lime-stone, to open passages through craggy mountains, to stop the progress of fires, and is likewise useful in a thousand other instances.

VIII. From all which it may be inferred, that the inventor of gun-powder, instead of meriting the execrations that are fulminated against him, is deserving of the thanks and applause of the world. Who this inventor was, agreeable to the general opinion, may be seen in the twelfth Discourse of the fourth volume of the Theatrico-Critico[1].

PARADOX II.

What is commonly called Clemency in Princes and Magistrates, is pernicious to the Public.

IX. Clemency, as it is explained by Moralists and Theologians, is a virtue; but as understood by the vulgar, it is a vice. This different acceptation of one and the same word, may be easily accounted-for. If we advert to the doctrine laid down by St. Thomas, we shall there find, Clemency explained as not inconsistent with severity. But I ask whether in the idea of the vulgar, these two qualities are not very different? They are clearly so; because that which is termed severe, they without the least hesitation deny can be clement. Therefore the signification which the vulgar give to the word Clemency, is different from that which is given to it by learned and wise men.

X. Severity then in the opinion of these last, is an habitual inflexibility of the mind, which will not relax in the punishment of crimes, whenever the dictates of right reason require they should be punished. Clemency also, as explained by them, is an habitual disposition to lessen the punishment of crimes, whenever the same right reason dictates that they should be lessened; Quando oportet, et in quibus oportet, says the angelic doctor, and it is from his doctrine that this definition is taken. It is clear, there is no opposition, but rather an agreeable harmony between these two qualities; and it is also clear, that the vulgar look upon that inflexibility of the mind in which severity consists, as diametrically opposite to clemency; and thus they call obdurate, rigorous, inexorable, and austere, all those, who possess that inflexible habit.

XI. That prince or magistrate is clement in the opinion of the vulgar, who is to be wrought upon by the intreaties of friends, the tears of the guilty, and the cries of his orphan family; and who indulges the softness of his own disposition, and is induced from these motives, to mitigate the punishments, which the law has allotted to crimes. But in reality, this is not Clemency, but injustice. It is rather a vileness, and a weakness of mind, which is cloaked under the name of Clemency. He is a protector and an encourager of wickedness, who from such considerations, and without any other motives, slackens his hand in the punishment of crimes. He is an indirect tyrant of the state, and becomes an abettor of all those evils, which are occasioned by the daring rashness of delinquents; and he is also a multiplier of them to an excessive number, by his forbearing to deter bad men from committing them by proper examples; and it is for this reason, that we said in the title of this paradox, that that which is called Clemency in princes and magistrates, is prejudicial to the public at large.

XII. Who then should be deemed truly clement? Why he who after duly weighing and considering all the particulars and circumstances of a case, is convinced by the dictates of right reason, that he ought to lessen the punishment assigned to a crime by the common law, and does lessen it in consequence of such a conviction. This is all agreeable to the doctrine of St. Thomas before quoted; and from hence it may be inferred, that the exercise of clemency can never be arbitrary, as is generally imagined. I mean, that the lessening a punishment which the law prescribes for a guilty person, can never be supposed to depend upon the mere will of a prince or magistrate. He ought only to lessen it, when he finds after maturely weighing the circumstances, that it should be lessened, for if they would not justify his doing it, he should not lessen it at all. There is no middle way. Clemency is a moderating virtue, which if exercised with excessive zeal may become vicious. I am very well aware, this is giving much less extension to the virtue of clemency than the general opinion allows to it. But that is nothing to the purpose, for this is the true and sound doctrine respecting it.

XIII. The just motives for lessening punishments in various cases, are many; for example, the antecedent merits of the convicted person, the use he may be of to the public, his known ignorance of the consequence of what he did, or his having committed the crime inadvertently; any serious inconvenience that might result to the public from his punishment; or any convenience that might be derived to the state from moderating it, &c.

XIV. That great Asturian hero, Pedro Menendez de Aviles governour of Florida, acted on various occasions, and in matters of the utmost importance, contrary to the orders that had been given him by the king. For each of these transgressions, according to the strict letter of the law, he deserved to be punished capitally. The king, and a king who was so zealous of his authority as Philip the second, pardoned them all; but not totally, for we may estimate as a partial punishment, his delaying so long to confer on him the rewards due to his signal merits, during which interval, that eminent man experienced not a few pinchings and inconveniences. The king acted clemently by proceeding in this manner; for it would have been unjust, cruel, and savage in many respects, if he had adhered to the letter of the law in punishing him. The state would have lost a most profitable subject, some signal merits would have gone unrewarded, and so ill judged a precedent, would have been productive of great disadvantages to the public, because other commanders, who might afterwards find themselves in circumstances where strictly obeying their orders would be attended with pernicious consequences, would obey them notwithstanding, for fear of the punishment. Even without the assistance of so bad a precedent, that dread, occasioned the ruin of the grand Armada, fitted out by the same king Philip for the chastisement of England.

XV. I suppose, that Peter Menendez, having always been successful when he acted contrary to his orders, conduced much to excite, if it was not the sole cause of the king’s lenity and benevolence to him. But even the plea of this merit, was of no avail to that valiant youth the son of Manlius Torquatus, who after returning home victorious and crowned with laurels, was by order of his own father put to death, for having contrary to his orders, fought with, and defeated his enemies. This was acting with improper severity, for although the offence by the strict letter of the law, should have been punished capitally, the putting him to death was savage, cruel, inhuman, and barbarous. The ardour and fire of his youth, ought to have been admitted as a plea to mitigate his fault; but there was much more room for shewing lenity to him on account of the zeal he manifested for the public good, by taking the advantage of a favourable conjuncture, which it was impossible for the Consul to foresee when he gave him his orders, and thereby, doing so eminent a service to his country. But the ferocious and sour virtue of the obdurate Manlius, neither weighed circumstances, nor attended to, or was influenced by the dictates of morality; and thus, he unjustly deprived his country of the life and services of a youth, who gave the most promising hopes of his becoming one day a great commander.

XVI. When the circumstances of a case do not afford just motives for departing from the letter of the law, there is no room for the exercise of clemency; as the departing from it in such an instance, would be injustice, and it is impossible that the same action, should be conformable to one virtue, and contrary to another, because at that rate, it might be both good and bad at one and the same time. Thus in these cases, there is no other course to take, but that of applying the punishment the law prescribes, without regarding the clamours of weak-minded people, who are capable of censuring such conduct as over-severe or harsh; for acting in this manner conduces to the public good.

XVII. Annon, the pious archbishop of Cologne, did, in the eleventh century, cause the eyes of several of his judges to be put out, for having given an unjust judgment against a poor woman; but he left one of the number with a single eye, in order that he might be able to lead the others about. I suppose that such an example, could not fail to fill the whole city with horror; but although many might exclaim against the cruelty of it, it was still just and useful, as the blinding of those few judges, might contribute to open the eyes of an infinite number of others, and cause them to look attentively, how they pronounced sentences in future.

XVIII. The case I am about to mention, is more singular still: when Count Evkembaldus the sovereign of Burdan, was in a very weak and infirm state, a complaint was preferred to him against a nephew of his, who had violated the chastity of a young lady, and upon the charge being clearly proved against him, he, as he was a zealous lover and assertor of justice, ordered him to be put to death; but those who were directed to execute this sentence, evading doing it, upon a supposition that the Count must soon die, somebody informed him of the omission; and as he saw clearly that in his present weak state, although he should repeat his orders, they would not be executed, he artfully contrived, by declaring that his indignation against the youth was appeased, and that he was disposed to forgive him, to get him brought into his sick room, where coaxing him under some pretence to approach his bed, he seized him by the collar with his left hand, and with a poignard that he held concealed in his right, stabbed him into the throat, and killed him on the spot. Many seemed scandalized with this act; but there is no reason to suppose, that it was displeasing in the eyes of God.

XIX. This inviolable integrity in the administration of justice, is no indication of obdurateness, but is rather compatible, with the greatest tenderness and compassion the human heart is susceptible of; although, where effective clemency cannot be admitted, there may be room for the introduction of the affective.

Briante Prieneus, one of the seven wise men of Greece, was observed to weep very bitterly after condemning a guilty person to death; upon which, somebody present asked him why he lamented, since it was in his own power to pardon the man; to this he answered, You mistake, for it is by no means in my power, and therefore I weep. His life is a debt that is due to justice, and this tenderness of mine, one that I owe to nature. It is said of Vespasian, that he frequently wept and lamented in tears, the deaths of guilty persons, whom he himself had justly condemned.

XX. To him who has a heart so delicate, that the gentleness of his disposition is apt to degenerate into weakness and debility, I will prescribe an admirable remedy, which shall comfort and strengthen his heart, and not lessen or abate its softness. This consists, in directing his attention to contemplate another object, and in making that the object of his compassion. Let us figure to ourselves a judge, at the crisis when he has just passed sentence of death on a notorious rogue, who has been guilty of many cruelties and outrages, and when he is assailed with the cries and intreaties of the convict to be merciful to him; and let us also consider him, when those intreaties are afterwards repeated with the enumeration of all those particulars, that are most likely to excite tenderness and compassion, such, as imploring him to commiserate his distressed wife and children, and to look with an eye of pity, on the miserable and afflicted state of an unhappy man, who is all contrition and repentance, and whose ignominious death, will bring disgrace and affliction on his innocent friends and relations. Upon hearing this, he may be apt to say to himself, taking away the life of a man is a terrible thing, and may perhaps revolve in his mind, all the horrors of a person leading to execution, and also those he may feel, when he is just on the point of suffering the punishment he has been condemned to by the law. These reflections may possibly stagger his constancy, and dispose him to pardon the offender.

XXI. But if he would turn the eyes of his understanding from contemplating this tragical picture, and view another, which is much more tragical, and which is drawn and depicted from the circumstances that appeared in evidence at the trial; he might there see representations of cruelty and outrage in a variety of shapes, and distress and misery of various kinds, which have been brought by the depredations of this savage fury, on numbers of innocent people, who are all then praying that justice may be done on this violator of the laws of God and man; this enemy to the peace, security, and happiness of mankind. When a judge contemplates such things, ought he not to be more affected with the cries and lamentations of these sufferers, than with the intreaties and affliction of a wretch, who has been the author of so many evils, and whose misery and distress has been brought upon himself, by his own outrages and misdeeds?

XXII. It may be replied to this, that these mischiefs can’t be remedied by the execution of the man, and that putting him to death, will be only adding a new tragedy to those already exhibited; but have patience. Although it is true, that this will not remedy the mischiefs that are past, it will deter others from committing the like offences for the future. The pardoning crimes, operates like a contagion; and the impunity of a delinquent, inspires others with boldness, and infects them with the inclination of becoming delinquents also; on the contrary, by punishing such a man, you strike terror into ill-intentioned people, and prevent the distresses of thousands; and although you can’t remedy the misfortunes of the innocent persons who have already been injured, you may prevent the like mischiefs from being done to an infinite number of others. Let a judge now weigh all these things, and then determine, whether advancing the public good, and doing justice to these injured people, ought not more to excite his compassion, than that devil in human shape who awaits the execution of his sentence; and finally, I must observe to him, that if he lets such a miscreant go unpunished, those very innocent people whom he has injured, will implore the justice of heaven against him for having pardoned so horrid a wretch.

PARADOX III.

What is termed liberality in princes, is for the most part injurious to their subjects.

XXIII. I consider liberality, not only as a virtue, but as a most noble one, that is so much the more worthy to be treasured up in the breast of a man, by so much the more his station of life is exalted. It is certain, that although all vices are vile and base, and all virtues noble, there are vices, which in an especial manner deserve to be stigmatized with the epithet of sordid, and that there are virtues, which shine forth with a superior splendor and dignity. Among the first sort, avarice should be classed, and among the second, liberality.

XXIV. From hence it may be inferred, that avarice, which is always a vile quality, in princes, is a superlatively vile one, as this meanness of spirit, is unworthy of the elevated dignity of a throne. Vespasian was a prince of admirable endowments, he was a great warrior, politician, and magistrate, and was besides temperate, discreet, and affable; but his avarice was a dark shade, which obscured all these perfections; so that the most a person can do who reads his history, is not to abhor him, but he never can bring himself to esteem or love him. He, to increase his revenues and fill his coffers, went to the extreme length, of laying a tax on the excrements of the human body; but the matter out of which the tax arose, was not so noisome and stinking, as the tax itself.

XXV. Although, it does not follow from hence, that prodigality, which is a vice diametrically opposite to avarice, is not a great blemish in princes; for in truth, it is more blameable in them than in private people. A private prodigal, wastes his own substance; a prince, the substance of other men. A private person by his extravagance, hurts himself; a sovereign, by his, injures a whole community; so that, although the two vices are unlike in themselves, when centered in princes, they produce with respect to the public, the same effects. The avaricious prince impoverishes his people to enrich himself; and the prodigal one, impoverishes himself to enrich others. What the first heaps up, is buried; what the other amasses together, is dissipated; and by attending closely to this object, you will find, that prodigality is the most pernicious vice of the two; because what a prodigal sovereign squanders in needless largesses to enrich particular people, does not return, or if ever it does, it is very late, or it is by some rare accident, that it ever returns again to the public stock; whereas what an avaricious prince hoards up, may be serviceable in the days of his successor, and may greatly contribute to lessen the burdens of his subjects.

XXVI. But how shall we define what should be termed prodigality in princes? Why by calling all that such, which is commonly stiled liberality. The vulgar, and even those who are superior to the vulgar, allow of a large extension, to the arbitrary and voluntary expences of princes. It is commonly understood, that when a prince from caprice, or from particular affections for a subject, makes him a present, that the donation should be proportioned to the power and grandeur of the person who bestows it; but I consider the thing in quite a different light. Whatever considerable sum of the public money is expended, which is not laid out, directly or indirectly, to advance the public benefit, is injustice and profusion. That which comes out of the pockets of the public, should be expended in such things as are beneficial to the public. Would it not be most unjust providence, to apply, for the sake of indulging the caprice or ostentation of a sovereign, that which is contributed by millions of people, to enrich a particular person, who by some chance accident, in a matter that was of little importance to the community, has done something that was agreeable to, and that has gained him the favour of his prince?

XXVII. Alexander ordered his treasurer to give to the philosopher Anaxarchus, any sum of money he should desire. He requested a hundred talents; and the treasurer informed Alexander of the excessive demand of the philosopher; to which Alexander answered, he has done very right, for he well knows that he has a friend who is both able and willing to give him that sum; and ordered the treasurer to pay him the money immediately. Is this liberality? It is true, that it is celebrated as such in an infinite number of books; but I say, that it was no such thing, for that it should rather have been termed mad prodigality, which is the legitimate child of vain-glory; and that it was not only prodigality, but cruelty and tyranny. With those hundred talents, he might have administered to many distresses; and if a prince has superfluities, he should lay them out for such purposes. But refraining to administer to the hunger and necessities of numbers of poor people, to satiate the gluttonous cravings of an avaricious philosopher, was a glaring act of partiality, which rendered it doubtful, which of the two was the most unjust person, Anaxarchus for demanding such a sum, or Alexander for gratifying him in his demand.

XXVIII. The same Alexander, being requested by his friend Perilus to furnish him with a sum of money to portion out his daughters, ordered fifty talents to be delivered to him. To which Perilus modestly replied, that ten would be sufficient; to this Alexander answered, that is not a matter for my consideration, for although ten talents would be as much as would answer your purpose, it would not be a present suitable to my grandeur. I find this celebrated by many writers, as a noble and magnanimous act, and Alexander’s saying upon doing it, as a commendable and a well-pointed one; but in my opinion, the act was an act of madness, and that his saying upon doing it, was a very weak and trifling one. Does the grandeur of a prince consist in extravagances and profusions? Does it display grandeur, to take from many what is absolutely needful for them, to furnish a few others with superfluities? It does not, but rather favours of injustice, baseness, and tyranny; and they only can call such behaviour magnanimous, who have lost the use of their understanding.

XXIX. A thousand crowns in specie, were one day presented to Don Alfonso, the fifth king of Arragon of that name, and the first of Naples. A person who was standing by at the time, said, How happy it would make me, if all that money was mine! To which the king answered, Take it then, for I am desirous of making you happy. Was this magnanimity? I know that it has been cried up as such; but I say, it rather shewed weakness of mind, and a want of proper resolution, to resist an absurd impulse of vain-glory. I suppose also, that it was from the want of thinking or reflexion, that the king was guilty of that profusion, and that he was hurried into it by his vanity, which suggested to him, that making the man a present of the money would blazon his fame, and manifest to the world, that he had both the disposition and the power to make a man happy. But I would ask him (and this is a question that might be put to all the princes in the world) whether, if it is an act of greatness to make one man happy, it is not a much superior one to make a great many so? If it is glorious in a sovereign to make an individual happy, is it not beyond comparison more glorious, to make a whole nation so? And there is no doubt but this might be done, if a prince would avoid all profusion, and regulate his conduct by a discreet œconomy; if he would curtail all superfluous expences, be a check upon the avarice of his ministers, or else deliver the administration of his affairs into the hands of none but men of integrity, who are capable of proportioning the contributions to be paid by his subjects to their abilities, and who should be careful, not to over-burthen the husbandmen and manufacturers; for these are the people, who by their labours, are the principal instruments of enriching a state, and whenever they find the weight of the taxes, squeeze out of them the greatest part of their earnings, they will leave off work, and betake themselves to an idle and vagabond life. To sum up the whole, a prince, by conforming to the precepts that are dictated by justice, religion, and prudence, and by not bestowing on any one in particular, more than his necessities demand, or than is due to his merits, will become the common father of his people; and by extending his paternal care, and dispensing his generosity with an equal and impartial hand to them all alike, will be able to make them all happy.

XXX. The royal treasury, may be compared to the ocean. It receives its pecuniary contributions from all the monies in the kingdom, as the ocean does its stock of waters from all the rivulets, fountains, and streams in the whole world. The royal treasury then, should do by the kingdom, as the ocean does by the world; that is, after permitting those waters to be exhaled in vapours, return the same stock in refreshing rains, to fertilize the earth. It would argue a great defect in the sovereign providence, as the stock of the ocean is supplied by all the waters of the world, if he was only to permit a return of them, to fertilize here and there a district, in consequence of which, all the rest would become barren. Just so, would it be an intolerable absurdity in human government, to apply the money of the public treasury, to which the whole kingdom has contributed, in prodigal donations to enrich a few individuals, and by with-holding it from all the rest, leaving them in distress and misery.

XXXI. The reigning emperor of China at the beginning of this century, was with respect to the matter we are treating of, one of the greatest examples, that ever has, or perhaps ever will be exhibited to the world. I rely on the authority of Father Contanein for the truth of this assertion, and on the account he gives of this emperor in his letters, which are dated at Canton the latter end of the year 1725, and which are copied into the 18th volume of edifying and curious letters of foreign missionaries; but I only at present, have before me an extract from them, which is inserted in the second volume of the Memoirs of Trevoux of the year 1728.

XXXII. That prince, laboured incessantly to promote the good of his subjects. The object absorbed all his thoughts, and occupied his whole attention. Every day of the year, and all hours of the day, were days and hours of giving audience and expediting business; and he scarce devoted any to amusement or recreation. To provide for the conveniences of his own person, he used the riches of his treasury with great moderation; but he expended them with a truly royal magnificence, when he administered to the necessities of his people. He procured punctual information, of the state and condition of all his provinces, and took care to know, which of them was opulent, and which indigent; this he did, to the end, that he might succour with the greater ease, such of them as were in distress. If any town had been desolated, either by an earthquake or a conflagration, if any province had suffered by an inundation, or by any adverse accidents, had been prevented from yielding their usual produce, or if by any other chain of accidents, a province happened to be impoverished, he immediately remitted large sums, to repair their buildings, and to relieve their poor. All his subjects experienced to flow from his bowels, a balsam of tenderness, compassion, and paternal love, which healed all their calamities, and relieved all their distresses.

XXXIII. In the same year, 1725, some provinces suffered greatly from excessive rains, and the emperor took measures to relieve the distresses that had been occasioned by them, which, in order to do more effectually, he sent instructions written in his own hand, to the principal men and mandarines of all his empire, which began thus; This summer, extraordinary and uncommon quantities of rain have fallen, and the provinces of Pekin, Chantong, and Honan, have been inundated by them. I feel much for the distresses of my people who inhabit those provinces; and have it much at heart to relieve them. Their afflictions are continually present to my imagination both night and day, nor can I enjoy sound sleep, or tranquillity of mind, while I know that my subjects suffer; and as it is absolutely necessary to send immediate relief to those vast numbers of poor distressed people, I command you great men and magistrates of my empire, to choose some trusty and able persons, such as are capable of executing my instructions, and who prefer the public good to their own private interests; and dispatch them to the three before-named provinces, to distribute to the afflicted inhabitants of them, the tokens of my benevolence and compassion. Let them scrutinize the most obscure and remote corners, to find out all the poor and distressed, to the end, that no one may remain without proper succour and relief. I know that it has sometimes happened, that in the making these sort of distributions, acts of injustice and partiality have been committed; but I will take care that the conduct of those you send shall be watched, and do you look to it also.

XXXIV. There is another testimony in the before recited letter, which does honour, not only to the generosity and benevolence of this prince, but to his heroic disinterestedness also. It having been customary with him for a great many years, to release a certain province from paying a part of their annual tribute; which he did because he thought it was just and necessary. The inhabitants, to express their gratitude for this kindness and generosity to them, meditated erecting some monuments to his honour, and had actually begun the work, which the governor of the province informed him of. To which information of the governor’s, the emperor gave the following answer: What you acquaint me with, is totally disagreeable to me, and what I by no means approve. When I conceded this grace to the inhabitants of the province you preside over, I had no other motive or view in doing it, than that of acting justly by, and making all my subjects happy alike; but had no intention of procuring to myself a vain honour. Such expences are superfluous and unnecessary, and can never be of any use or benefit to me; and as I have sent proclamations through all my empire, exhorting my people to practise frugality and œconomy, I wonder how they could presume to think of running into these needless and mad expences, or how you could permit them to do it: it is also to be apprehended, that the inferior officers who are generally the collectors of money for these purposes, may be tempted to put part of it into their own pockets. Prohibit therefore immediately, the proceeding any further in this matter, and with respect to the edifice and monument of stone, I forbid the erecting of it; and I repeat again, that when I do these acts of grace and favour, it is not with a view of acquiring a vain reputation, but because I think it just and necessary; and to the end, that every one may be enabled to do his duty in society, and that the tranquillity and happiness of my subjects in general may be established on a solid foundation.

XXXV. All the conduct of this prince was of the same tenor. He with a most sagacious penetration, attended to the proceedings and conduct of all the mandarines; and gave them instructions, that they should apprize him of all that occurred to them, which might conduce to promote good government. He made many regulations, that were just and wise; he established premiums for the husbandmen, who had distinguished themselves by their industry, and the improvements they had made in agriculture; and for the manufacturers and mechanics, who had signalized themselves by their diligence and ingenuity; he made provision for the widows of virtuous citizens, and settled rewards that were to be paid to such children, as distinguished themselves by their filial care of, and tenderness to their aged parents, &c. and is this Prince who was so perfect in his morals, and so great a pattern of policy, the same man, who proscribed Christianity throughout all his dominions? I fear we must be obliged to answer in the affirmative, and to contemplate with astonishment, the inscrutable secrets of the divine Providence; and to exclaim, Oh! how incomprehensible are God’s judgments, and how untraceable are his ways! But the blindness of this emperor in matters of religion, should not preclude our recommending him as a signal pattern, of that sort of œconomy and liberality which should be practised by princes.

XXXVI. I have said of the œconomy and liberality, for both these virtues, are found to be perfectly compatible with each other, and to be admirably reconciled together in the practice of that prince. The true and proper effect, and essential operation of liberality, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, consists, in proportioning our affection for money in such a manner, that our excessive love of it shall never obstruct our laying it out for such purposes, as are just and laudable. Thus the epithet of liberal, does not belong to him who expends it to indulge his whim or humour, or from motives of ostentation, or to gratify his affection for some particular people, he is desirous of enriching; for all this is prodigality: but he deserves to be called liberal, who applies money to promote and accomplish virtuous ends, and who is always ready to part with it, when it may be made conducive to promote such purposes. There is field enough within these limits, for the exercise of the virtue of liberality. He is liberal, who succours the poor, rewards the deserving, supports by generous donations men of ability, and who constructs useful public edifices, and, in general, all money that is laid out for the benefit of the public, may be said to be expended on objects of liberality, which liberality, if judiciously extended, may be deserving of the epithet of magnificence. These two last virtues are distinguishable from each other, by the first being limited not to exceed the bounds of moderation: and the other being permitted to extend to the expending vast sums, provided the money is laid out from laudable motives, and on objects, that are really conducive to the public utility. Thus Louis the Fourteenth did an act of magnificence, in building the Hospital of Invalids at Paris, and did a much superior one, by constructing the canal, that makes a navigable communication between Languedoc and Bourdeaux; because the great expences that attended executing these works, were incurred to promote the public good, and actually were great advantages to the public at large; but the palaces that were built by Nero and Caligula, which occupied as much ground as two large towns might have stood on, do not deserve to be called works of magnificence; because the vast sums that were laid out in constructing them, were by no means expended to promote the public good, but only to gratify the ostentatious vanity of two profuse men. The emperor Adrian was magnificent, by forgiving at once, the payment of all that was owing to him for the sixteen preceding years, by Rome, Italy, and all the imperial provinces; but Alfonso the Twelfth of Castile was prodigal (provided the story that is told of him, and circulated in so many books respecting this matter is true) in expending a vast sum of money, for the redemption of Baldwin, emperor of Constantinople; as the first case concerned the whole Roman empire; and Spain was not at all interested in the last.

XXXVII. Finally, A prince may exercise not only his liberality, but his magnificence also, by bestowing great donations, upon here and there an individual of signal and superior merit, (but I would be understood to mean such merit as has been beneficial to the state) because in doing this, his attention may be supposed, as not confined to rewarding the virtue of a single man; but to the exciting the emulation of many. And considered in this light, what Spain gave to Colon, did not exceed the bounds of justice and moderation; what she gave to Cortez was little; and what she gave to the great Captain next to nothing. When a prince or nation should exercise magnificence, if the donation they bestow is not equal to the merit of the person it is conferred on, or the dignity of the party who confers it, it can never deserve to be termed liberality, for there is no middle way in these cases, and if the gift does not amount high enough to be deserving of the epithet of magnificence, it declines to the other extreme, and sinks into parsimony.

PARADOX IV.

There is more Objection made to promoting People to important Employments on account of their Youth, than there ought to be.

XXXVIII. As in the use of their potential or intellectual faculties, some give early tokens of dulness or perverseness, and others display bright tokens of commendable and useful talents; which render it probable, that the state would prevent great mischiefs by the early chastisements of the first, and that it would reap great benefits by the timely favouring and encouraging the virtuous bodings of the second; as there are young men, who in prudence and understanding excell those who are much further advanced in years. If such, in the prime of their lives, were promoted to fill posts of importance, the state would for a long time, reap the benefit of their good administration: whereas, by deferring their advancement till they grow old, this benefit is but of short duration. The most learned and penetrating society of Jesuits, at the age of thirty-eight, raised to the high post of Prepositor-general of their Order, Father Claudius Acquaviva. Who can entertain a doubt, but that in so extensive a society, there were many men further advanced in life, possessed of all the requisites for the well-discharging the duties of such an office? But notwithstanding this, Father Acquaviva, at this age, was preferred to all the others, to fill this important station; this was done, either because he possessed the requisite qualities for discharging the duties of the office in a more eminent degree than the others, or because, although they might be equal to him in talents, there was a probability of their enjoying the fruits of his excellent government for a much longer time, than they were likely to enjoy the benefit of the services of those who were further advanced in life; in which expectation it turned out afterwards that they were not disappointed. The famous Servita Fray Pablo Sarpi was made Provincial of his Religion, at the age of twenty-seven. The portentous talents of that young man, gave just reason for their electing him, and their judgment in doing so, was afterwards confirmed by the sentiments of the republic; who appointed him, contrary to their ordinary practice, at about the same period his own society conferred this honour on him, their Counsellor. It is true, that this extraordinary favour of the republic, was very injurious to the religious character of Father Sarpi, for he engaged with such warmth in defence of the state, against the pretensions of the Apostolic See, that only in his habit of a friar, he preserved the appearance of being a Catholic.

XXXIX. He who at thirty, has the discretion that people commonly have at fifty, when he arrives at the age of forty, will have a discretion, much superior to that of the bulk of mankind. And this exceeding will be greater still, if from the age of thirty, he begins to exercise his talents in public business, as he will go on improving them more and more every day by his practice. Why then should not the state encourage the cultivation of a soil, which is capable of producing so much for their service? Or why should they lose any part of the copious fruit, that may be produced from such a stock?

XL. To this reasoning I shall add, that when there is an equality of intellectual talents, the middle age should be preferred to the more advanced, for that is the time, in which the faculties of both body and mind are in their full vigour, which are things of great importance, in the good administration or execution of public business. What might be gained by the experience of a man who has had a great deal of practice; if he happens only to begin to act at a time of life when his faculties are on the decline, may be overbalanced by the loss that would be sustained by the languid execution of his designs. I am persuaded that the miscarriages of Cyrus, Pompey, and other famous warriors in their advanced state of life, who had always been conquerors in the days of their youth and vigour, was owing to no other cause but this; and am of opinion, that they attributed to a falling-off of fortune, what only resulted from a decadence of their robustness, and the activity of their minds.

XLI. It may perhaps be objected to what I have been advancing, that it is in but here and there a rare instance, that this doctrine of mine will apply, for that it is very uncommon to meet in an early time of life, with a man of equal ability, to one who is more advanced in years; and that if I only mean to recommend, that in these rare instances, they shall have the preference given them, I have been beating my brains to little purpose; for that this is already an established practice; and there is no man who has observed the world with any attention, who is not convinced, that we have had here and there an instance, of a young man being preferred to one more advanced in years?

XLII. But to this, I reply in the first place, that admitting, in these particular cases, what is just and proper has been done, it does not follow from thence, that the doctrine we have been laying down is useless; for although our arguments on this head may be unnecessary as an instruction to those who have the dispensation of employments, they may be of use by way of reproof or correction, to grumblers and complainers. A young man scarce ever attains any honour or preferment, but a thousand old unprofitable ones murmur at it, and not only a thousand old ones who are useless, but the majority of the young ones also; who by being of about the same standing in life, are stimulated to shew resentment, by the fire of emulation.

XLIII. We shall answer secondly, that a young man’s excelling old ones in understanding and judgment, is nothing near so uncommon as is generally imagined, but is rather a thing which we experience very frequently. There is scarce a community consisting of twenty or thirty individuals, where we do not see a particular young man, better informed, and more capable than many of the old ones. This proceeds, from the temperaments of men having generally a greater effect on the faculties of their minds, than their ages. The exceeding that a man experiences in himself in this respect at fifty years of age, and at thirty-five, is seldom very considerable, and will rarely be perceptible, if he has not passed the last fifteen years, from a life of much indolence, to one of much application. On the contrary, the exceeding there is between some men and others on account of their different temperaments and geniuses, is enormous. We every day see those, who from their aptness at acquiring every science and faculty, will become adepts in them, in a quarter part of the time, that others are obliged to employ in hard study to attain them.

XLIV. From this great difference in the temperaments and genius of individuals, spring those prodigious advances of some young men in literary attainments, which are frequently not equalled, by those who have studied till eighty. Such for example as John Pico de Mirandola, the Scotch man Jacob Creighton, the Spaniard Fernando de Cordoba, Gaspar Scioppius, Hugo Grotius, Spanolito who is now the wonder of Paris, and others. We might add to these examples many more, which are not so well known, but which are not less extraordinary; but we shall content ourselves with pointing out two, that are the most striking ones. The first is Gustavus de Helmfeld, the son of a Swedish Senator, who at ten years of age, could speak twelve Languages, the Swedish, the Muscovite, the Polish, the French, the Spanish, the Italian, the German, the Flemish, the English, the Latin, the Greek, and the Hebrew; he besides had a knowledge of philosophy, and a tincture of that of theology, and also understood some parts of the mathematics.

XLV. But the prodigious child, that was born at Lubec in 1721, and died in 1725, exceeded every thing we have hitherto heard of. His name was Christian Henry Heneiken. The relation I shall give of him, is taken from the first volume of the Memoirs of Trevoux of 1731, into which it was copied, from the accounts we have had of him from various authors of the same city and country, all of whom were esteemed men of the greatest credit and veracity. This surprizing child, at ten months old begun to speak, and at twelve, understood the principal events contained in the Pentateuch; and at thirteen, those of the history of the Old Testament; at fourteen those of the New; and at two years of age, he answered pertinently to any questions that were asked him, concerning antient or modern history, and likewise, with respect to geography. He very soon after, began to speak Latin with ease, and immediately upon that, French also. Before he entered into his fourth year, he knew the genealogies of the principal houses in Europe, and explained sensibly and judiciously, many sentences and passages of holy scripture. He soon after this, learned to write, at a time when he was scarce able to hold the pen. He abhorred all other aliment except milk, which must always be that of the nurse who first begun to suckle him; so that he was not weaned till a few months before his death. He was of a very delicate frame, and frequently visited with sickness. And at length, on the 27th of June, 1725, he died; filling with astonishment all those who knew him, at the constancy and heroic resignation he shewed through the whole course of his sickness, till the period, that he surrendered his soul into the hands of his Creator.

XLVI. I am very well aware, that the circumstances of this history may have been exaggerated, but I do not find any thing impossible in them. Who knows the ultimate bounds, to which the ability of man may extend? Perhaps there may be none assigned to it, but that it may continue to increase more and more, and that the limits of its extension have never yet been fixed or assigned. With respect to his essential perfection, all philosophers and theologians agree, that no creature was ever so perfect, but that God may create another still more perfect. Why then with regard to accidental perfection in the same species, do we not see the same thing? Our gross mode of reasoning, is apt to confine possibility within the narrow limits of our experience. That which we never saw, we imagine can never happen; as if in the little which God has been pleased to present to our view, is displayed the utmost extent of the omnipotent power. Setting bounds to possibility, is setting them to the operations of the all powerful.

XLVII. I agree, that our assent to the existence of a thing, should not be extended so far, as not to be confined within less bounds, than the immense space of possibility; letting our belief be regulated by probability, is much safer, than letting it extend to possibilities; possibility, can only be measured by the extent of the divine power; probability, may be guided and limited by the force and credibility of testification. Thus he would act prudently, who with respect to the history of the child of Lubec, should reject a good portion of the circumstances, but still admit enough of them, to render the story a most wonderful one, the like of which, had never been known in former ages; as it is not probable, that the authors who were the countrymen of the child, should lie exorbitantly, in a case where if they had deviated greatly from the truth, it was in the power of thousands of living witnesses to have convicted them of the imposture.

XLVIII. From the beforementioned examples, and an infinite number of others that might be instanced, may be inferred, the enormous difference there is between some souls and others, which difference, is owing solely to a difference of temperament; compared to which, that produced by a disparity of age, is very small, even if we compute it from early manhood, to the period of decadence. The result of my own observation, with the exception of here and there a rare instance, is, that those who at thirty years old are dull, will always be dull; that those who at that age are imprudent, will always be imprudent; and that those who at thirty, in matters of argument or conversation, do not talk pertinently, or reason well, will never reason well. I do not however deny, that cultivation will not improve both men and plants, but it will never make thorns bear grapes, or brambles figs.

XLIX. I think there seems now to remain but one objection for me to answer out of all those that have been urged to what I have advanced; and that is, that although admitting some have a great natural superiority of talents compared to others; still, the impetuosity and fire which commonly prevails in the flower of a man’s youth, is apt to have a pernicious effect on his conduct. Granted. But besides the exceptions to this rule being infinite, as we every day see youths, who are very sedate and discreet; and to which we may add, that there is another passion very predominant in old people that is productive of much more mischief in public affairs, than the fire or impetuosity of youth; I mean the vice of avarice, in the operations of which, there is not a moment’s relaxation; on the contrary, the passion of anger, is only apt to be excited by particular accidents, and when the ebullitions of choler abate or subside, they are succeeded by long intervals of calm and tranquillity. Anger is a transitory fury, or a fever of short duration, whose attacks are sudden, and last but for a little while, and which in a moderate space of time vanish and disappears; but avarice is a harpy, that has nested itself in the heart, and is a dropsy of the soul, which increases and grows worse every day. The first, now and then disturbs and irritates the moral temper of man; the other, vitiates all his actions, because its venomous influence ever exists. The first grows weaker every day, and is enfeebled by its own exertions; the other, is incessantly gaining new strength, and becoming more powerful, vires acquirit eundo; so that avarice contrary to the ordinary course of nature, is by so much the more vigorous, by so much the older it grows; it is a passion, that not only acts in cold blood, but acts with so much the more activity, the colder the blood grows; and hence it is, that its mischiefs are not only greater than those produced by anger; but they are also much more incurable. Thus if the infirmities incident to youth, are pernicious in those who occupy posts of importance in the public line, those that are attendant on old age are much more so.

PARADOX V.

All Handicraft Trades Should be hereditary.

L. In Lacedemonia, which was one of the best-governed states of antiquity, it was an inviolable law, as Herodotus informs us, that the son of a husbandman, should be bred a husbandman, and the son of a taylor, a taylor, and the same with respect to all other occupations where people earn their living by their labour. The same practice prevailed in Egypt, and prevails among the idolatrous people of Indostan at this day.

LI. I know very well, that to enforce the importance and propriety of this paradox, the authority of these, and other such examples that might be instanced, is weak, compared to the infinite number of opposite ones that might be produced against it. Therefore, it will be absolutely necessary for us to have recourse to reason, to supply this defect of authority.

LII. It appears to me, that two advantages of great importance would be derived to the public by trades being hereditary; the first of which is, that it would contribute greatly to the perfectioning of arts. When there is no other relation or connexion between the master and his pupil, than the latter being the apprentice of the first, the master is seldom very anxious about instructing his scholar; and what is more, he is not well disposed to communicate to him any particular secrets of his art, which he has acquired by virtue of his own penetration and experience; and generally, contents himself with instructing him in what is commonly known and practised. But there is no reserve of this sort, when the instruction is conveyed from the father to his son, for paternal love cannot assent to it; and hence it is, that where the skill of the master is equal, he will be better taught who learns of his father, than he who is instructed by a stranger.

LIII. By this total translation of skill from father to son, and by the same trade being continued in, and handed down to their posterity, there would without doubt result this benefit, that the art of it would be improved, and that it would continue advancing every age, nearer and nearer to perfection. It is very common, for one artist to make some improvements on what he has learned from another; and it is very common also, for him who has made them, to let them die and be buried with him; on account of its being against his interest, to communicate them to other people. This impediment to making his improvements known, seldom subsists between father and son; because the father, most commonly considers the interest of his son as his own; and consequently, communicates to his son all he knows. If the son from his own ingenuity, makes improvements on what he has been taught by his father, and hands them down to the grandson; and they all continue to do the same by their successors; the arts by this means, would proceed to approach nearer to perfection every generation.

LIV. There are two other circumstances that are very worthy of being attended to, which would contribute to recommend this political system for improving the arts; the one is, that children would begin to learn much sooner than they commonly do. In the house of an artificer, where the son is destined to follow the trade of his father, he will scarce have done sucking the breast of his mother, when he will begin to drink the milk of his father’s instruction; in consequence of which, not only time would be gained, but his application to the business would become more natural to him. The other circumstance is, that the state would avoid the loss of many good artificers, which is occasioned by the inconstancy of the tempers and dispositions of youth. Those, who by continuing to work at the trade they first began to learn, would become excellent artificers, by going on to change their occupations continually, would never arrive at being more, than mere novices, or beginners; and this mischief would be avoided, by obliging the son of every handicraft person, to follow the trade of his father.

LV. The second convenience that would result to the public by trades being hereditary, is, that it would ascertain the ranks and classes of people in a state; it being no uncommon thing, for disputes to arise between families, about birth and precedence; which inconvenience would be remedied by such a regulation, as in such a case, the rank of most people would be ascertained, and the cause of these disputes in a great measure removed.

PARADOX VI.

Torture is a very fallible means for discovering the truth in criminal Cases.

LVI. I enter upon this essay, begging permission of all tribunals of justice to speak my sentiments on this head. I venerate the laws and the use of them; but as I am treating here of such as are purely human, I apprehend I may be permitted to reason on the tendency or propriety of them. Nor is the torture being admitted in the ecclesiastical courts, as a mode of enquiry in the examination into crimes, any objection to my doing this, for as the learned Canonist Francis Schomer observes, this practice is not conformable to the antient discipline of the church; and he quotes other authors in support of this opinion, and says further, that in a long course of time, it by little and little, came to be transferred from the secular tribunals to the ecclesiastical ones: Predetentim à curiis sæcularibus ad ecclesiasticas pervenisse (Schmier in Supplem. ad lib. v. Decret); so that doubting of the propriety of inquiring by torture in the ecclesiastical courts, amounts to no more, than disputing whether the antient or modern practice of those courts, is the most consonant to reason.

LVII. Besides, this being a matter which in its own nature is open to controversy, there are two notable circumstances in it, which encourage me to enter upon the discussion of the point. The first is, that very many people think as I do on the subject, and that among those very many, there are more than a few of the very judges, who practise ordering the torture, in cases where that practice has been long established. Their sentiments in theory do not correspond with their conduct, but notwithstanding this, they act as they should do, for they have no authority to dispense with the laws, but are only ministerial under them. The second is, that the most learned father Claudius Lacroix, has preceded me in publishing the same sentiments I entertain on this subject, in his first volume of Moral Theology, lib. iv. &c.

LVIII. Countenanced and encouraged by so illustrious an author, whose opinion in questions of morality is so much respected, and so generally assented to by all Christendom, I shall enter upon the undertaking boldly, and shall argue with spirit in support of his opinion and my own. The extent of the question is but short, and whenever reason sets its foot within its boundary, it soon arrives at the end of it.

LIX. It cannot be denied, that the not confessing in the torture, depends upon the spirit and fortitude of the person tortured, to resist the rigour of that trial; and I ask now, is this spirit and fortitude produced by the innocence of such a person? It clearly is not, but rather by the robustness of mind or body which that person possesses. The torture then, can be of no use to ascertain the guilt or innocence of any one, but it is the bodily strength or weakness of mind, of whoever is unfortunate enough to experience its rigour, that determines the point.

LX. Nero having unjustly repudiated his wife Octavia, and married Poppea, she not content with having usurped the bridal bed, and crown of Octavia, but in order to deprive her of life and honour also, accused her of having had a criminal correspondence with a slave. For the purpose of ascertaining the guilt of Octavia, six of her female servants were put to answer by the torture; and what was the result of this? why, that some of them declared her guilty, and others denied it. Did not they all know that the accusation was false? and do not all authors agree that they did? But what did this signify, if, in the torture, their pain, and not their veracity, influenced them to confess she was guilty of the crime? Whoever has fortitude enough to endure the rigour of the cord, will deny the fault he is tortured to confess, although he was really guilty of it; whoever has not, will confess a crime he never committed. The effects of the torture on the servants of Octavia, tended to prove the fortitude of some of then, and the weakness of others; but for ascertaining the truth were of no use.

LXI. It seems then, that the innocent are exposed to equal danger from the torture with the guilty. A terrible inconvenience this, but the worst part of it is, that the danger is not equal, but greater on the side of innocence. I may be told that I am advancing a new paradox, and I confess that I am, but if I am not greatly mistaken, I shall make it appear, that I have been advancing nothing that is not strictly true. It is a known fact, that those who are daring enough to commit great crimes, are much more hardened, robust, and ferocious people, than those who lead a quiet and regular life. It should follow then from these premises, that they are better calculated to endure the rigours of a torture, than the tranquil and inoffensive part of mankind; and it will also follow from thence, that these last will be more likely to confess themselves guilty of a crime they are falsely accused of, than the others will be, to confess one they have really committed. This is a remark made by father Lacroix, and the following are his words: sequitur per torturas sæpè everti justitiam, quia innocentes, qui sæpè sunt impatientes dolorum, coguntur se fateri nocentes; e contra nocentes, qui plerumque sunt ferociores, tolerata tortura se probant innocentes.

LXII. On the contrary, those of quiet and peaceable dispositions, are generally people of more delicate feelings than the others, and especially, if their mode of living has corresponded with the native excellence of their tempers. From whence it should follow, that the probable result of putting one of these to the torture, would be, that he would sooner confess himself guilty of a crime he never committed, than one of the others, would own himself guilty of one he had actually perpetrated.

LXIII. I consider the sentiment of Plato to be a true one, who says, that great vices, no less than great virtues, require great powers and fortitude to exercise them. The serenity with which Geronimus Olgiatus, Balthasar Gerardus, and Francis Ravillac, the first for the assassination of Galeazus Maria duke of Milan, the second for that of William prince of Orange, and the third for that of Henry the Fourth of France, fully demonstrate, that those who dare attempt great and dangerous things, are capable of enduring great torments.

LXIV. I shall conclude this subject, with the striking, and most efficacious testimony of Father Frederic Spe, which throws all the light upon this matter that can be wished for, or desired. This learned German Jesuit, when he is treating of the little dependance there is to be placed on the confessions of people accused of witchcraft, which confessions have been extorted from them by the rack; quotes, in support of what he advances, the testimony of the Baron de Leibnitz, and Vincent Placcius, whom he supposes to be the author of the anonymous Treatise, intituled, Cautio criminalis in processu contra sagas.

LXV. Father Spe, when he is speaking of the confessions that have been made by supposed witches and wizards, when put to torture, delivers himself thus; the numbers of lyes they will tell, both of themselves and others, is incredible. All which the judges are desirous they should say is true, they confess to be true; and they own every thing they would have them own of themselves, compelled to it by the violence of the torture; and they do not afterwards dare to retract what they have said, for fear of being tortured again; thus these miserable wretches, go to their deaths attesting a falsehood. Father Spe concludes in this manner, I am certain that what I have said is just and right, and I appeal for the truth of it, to the judge of that supreme tribunal, where all mankind, both quick and dead, will one day be sentenced to rewards and punishments, proportioned to their merits and demerits.

LXVI. I declare that when I first read this account, I found my whole frame pervaded by a deep melancholy sensation, that resembled somewhat like horror mixed with pity. He who gives the relation, is a learned, grave, exemplary, and sound divine, instructed in this case, not by conjectural reasoning, but by certain informations, acquired in the sacred confessional chair, and taken from the mouths of those, who were on the point of being led to execution as guilty people; and this he declared from repeated experience he had had of those matters, during a long course of years. What can be objected that is deserving of any attention, to so conclusive a testimony?

LXVII. The certainty Father Spe had, of the almost invincible force of the torture, to oblige innocent people to confess themselves guilty of crimes they never committed, is very forcibly illustrated, in a vehement declaration to the judges, with which he concludes his Essay. He says to them, why are you so solicitous in searching out, and why do you take so much pains to discover, people who are guilty of witchcraft? There is no necessity for your giving yourselves all this trouble, for if you want to discover more, I can tell you how to furnish yourselves with them, without labour or difficulty; take the first Capuchins, the first Jesuits, and the first men of any other religious order, that you shall meet by chance, and put them to the torture; and if you shall be desirous of making them do so, you will find that there is scarce one of them, who will not confess that he has been guilty of the crime of witchcraft. If any of them should deny it, repeat the torture two or three times, and I will engage that you will bring them to. Pluck out their hair by the roots, exorcise them, and repeat to them the common-place cant that the devil has hardened them; and as if you was convinced this suspicion was just, behave to them, with determined inflexibility, and you will perceive, that there is not one among them, who will refuse to submit. I have pointed out to you already how you may be supplied with an ample stock of sorcerers, but if you want more still, take the prelates of the churches, and all the canons and doctors belonging to them; and by the application of the same means, you will be convinced, that they may be all brought to confess themselves guilty of witchcraft; for people who have been bred up in so delicate a way, will hardly find themselves able to resist the rigours of a torture. But if you are not satisfied with this supply, and should want more still, I would recommend to you, to put one or two of yourselves to the torture, and you will find that you will confess also in the same manner the others have done; and if immediately after this, you were to torture me, you would be satisfied, that I should do the same. And by this mode of proceeding, you may make witches, wizards, and magicians, of all mankind.

LXVIII. I am ready to admit, that so vehement a declamation, should not be made to all judges indifferently, but that it should be addressed only to such as proceeded with the little caution those did whom Father Spe alludes to; although it is certain, that in accusations for witchcraft, there is more danger of innocent people being brought to capital punishment by the torture, than there is by charges of any other nature. Every man of discretion knows, upon what ridiculous grounds, the common people spread reports of folks being guilty of witchcraft, and with what ease the world believe them, and how ready they are to testify to the truth of such reports. In consequence of which, if the accused persons happen to be brought before judges, who, like the rustic vulgar, are filled with the notion or belief, that there are multitudes of witches and wizards, they immediately have recourse to the torture, and innocent people are tormented like delinquents. From whence it follows, that those who are falsely accused, from their inability to resist the pain of the rack, assent to the interrogatory, and against their consciences own themselves guilty. To this number, we may add many others, who own themselves guilty from delusion or infatuation. This delusion is contagious, and multiplies and spreads exceedingly, whenever there prevails a rage for finding out witchcrafts; for the numbers of these delinquents are increased, in all places where there are officious inquisitors after sorcerers, just as the numbers of possessed people are, where there are plenty of persevering and absurd exorcists.

LXIX. But notwithstanding that in such accusations, on account of their being so frequently ill-founded, the hazard of innocence being oppressed by the anguish of the torture becomes greater than in other cases; still the same danger subsists, though not in so great a degree, with respect to all those who are falsely accused of any other serious crimes. I mean, that if any one from want of fortitude, confesses in the torture the crime of witchcraft, which he is quite innocent of, he may in the same manner, and by the same means, be brought to confess himself guilty of a murder, a sacrilege, a robbery, or any other great offence he never committed. Thus the experience of the learned Jesuit, with respect to the fallibility of the torture in the examination into the truth of witchcraft; identifies and proves its fallibility, in the inquiry into the certainty, of whether any other person has been guilty of a crime he stands accused of.

PARADOX VII.

It should be the Duty of Magistrates, to oblige every individual in a state to earn his own living.

LXX. This was one of the laws of the most prudent Solon; and it was so inviolably observed in Athens, that Athenæus tells us, the two philosophers Asclepiades and Menedemus, were convened before the Areopagus, to give an account how they got their living; and they obviated the charge that had been brought against them, of leading an idle life, and having no visible means of subsistence; by proving, that they earned two drachmas every night, by grinding in, or turning a horse-mill; and Herodotus says, that before the days of Solon, this same law had been established in Egypt by King Amasis.

LXXI. There is no doubt, but the same establishment would be useful in all states. Why do I say useful? It would be laudable also, and of the utmost importance. By a careful examination into, and attention to this matter, communities would be freed from the nuisance of great numbers of drones, and poisonous reptiles. There is scarce a populous town or city, where you don’t see great numbers of people, who without any estate or income, and without employing themselves in any honest or useful occupation, live well in their houses, and appear genteelly and handsomely dressed in the streets. And what are the funds by which they support all this? why some of them support themselves, by thefts and robberies; others by the vile practice, of prostituting the beauty of their wives for hire; others by money they borrow of a thousand people, without any intention of ever paying it; others by tricks and cheats of various kinds, with which they impose upon innocent and unguarded people; and indeed, if the mask was to be taken off from all those who are said to live by their ingenuity, it would be found, that almost all of them, live by foul practices and roguery; and the mask would be taken off, by adopting the before proposed examination and enquiry, and by providing, and rigorously executing punishments proportioned to such evils, the body politic, would be purged and cleansed from an infinite number of vicious humours.

PARADOX VIII.

A great part of what is expended in Alms, is not only thrown away, but does mischief.

LXXII. The following sentence of King David’s is a remarkable one; Blessed is he who exercises his attention and his understanding, for the relief of the poor and the needy. Beatus qui intelligit super egenum, et pauperem.—He does not say, blessed is he who to succour the poor, exercises his love, his compassion, or his charity, but blessed is he who exercises his attention or understanding on this object. There is doubtless the appearance of a mystery in this, but the mystery is, that alms, unless distributed with understanding, discretion, and judgment, do no good.

LXXIII. A hand that is precipitate in giving, such a one for example, as Claudian represents that of Probus to have been,

who relieved many poor, but at the same time supported many people in idleness; and such conduct not only supports, but it creates or breeds up many such, for wherever alms are distributed copiously and without discretion, there will be found many people, who without this assistance would betake themselves to work to procure themselves a livelihood, who at present live idly, and omit their own industry, which they are enabled to do, at the expence, and by the profusion of others. The evils that result to a state from such imprudent dispensations, are sufficiently serious; it loses by this means, the work of a great many useful hands, and the numbers of the indolent, vicious, and profligate, are greatly increased by it.

LXXIV. It is said of a man who distributes great quantities of alms, that he gives with both hands; but he should remember, that according to the directions of our Lord and Saviour, he should only give with one; he says, when you dispense alms, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand does: te autem faciente eleemosynam, nesciat sinistra tua quid faciat dextra tua. This implies, that it is with the right hand only that alms should be given. If I am told that I dwell too much on the literal meaning of the word, I answer it was never my intention to do so; for I am inclined to think, there is a profound implied sentiment couched under this description. It is the constant stile of holy writ, to use the expression right hand, to symbolize or define good works, and the expression left hand to signify the contrary; and hence it is, that in many parts of it, when it speaks of the hand of God, it never mentions it in an emphatical manner, without the addition of the adverb right, which is used to convey an idea, that the operations of God are just and holy. Christ then requires, that alms should be given with the right hand, by which expression, we may suppose he meant to signify, that there are good and bad alms, and that he approves the first, and condemns the others; and also to prohibit our giving with both hands, for that this would be proceeding without choice or distinction, and would also confound the good with the bad.

LXXV. I know some divines are of opinion, that we should bellow our charity, and that it is not incumbent on us to examine scrupulously into the necessities of those we bestow it on; but this is no argument why a state should not take proper precautions, to prevent those from receiving the benefit of charitable christian donations, who ought to get their living by their labour, and to exclude all such from being partakers of this benevolence, who surrender themselves up to indolence, and a voluntary and vicious state of poverty.

PARADOX IX.

Death should not be dreaded, on account of what there is simply in the thing itself, or on account of what a person feels at that crisis.

LXXVI. There is a fear of death, which is well founded and salutary; another, which is ill founded and pernicious; and another, which ought to be indifferent, because it is natural, and which only by being carried to too great an excess can become vicious. He fears death reasonably and profitably, who contemplates it as a transition from hence to eternity; he fears it naturally, who considers it as the termination of his life; and he fears it unreasonably, who viewing it simply with regard to what there is in the thing itself, abstracted from all that has preceded, and all that is to follow it, supposes that it will be attended with excessive pain.

LXXVII. This apprehension, although it is very common both among the ignorant and the learned, I look upon to be chimerical and vain, and to have no foundation in truth, therefore, I shall not scruple placing it in the catalogue of vulgar errors. I don’t mean to treat here, of the pains incident to diseases which dispose or lead to death, which without doubt are often very severe; but I only mean to enquire or examine, whether it is probable we feel any, or any very sensible pain, at that moment when the soul is separated from the body. It is generally thought, that at that instant, a more intense pain is felt, than can be produced by all the torments a man is capable of inventing. Authors exaggerate this pain in books, orators in pulpits, and all sorts of people in conversation, and reason upon it in the following manner. If, say they, tearing a nail from the finger, or a finger from the hand, produces a pain so acute, that a man is scarce able to endure it, what must he feel, or how will he be able to bear that which tears the soul from the body? Here the strict union between these parts is described in the most feeling manner, in order to enhance or aggravate the sensation that must be experienced at their separation; and they compare it to the final parting of two fast or fond friends, who have lived long and happily together; or to two integrant parts of an animated body, the division of which is the more painful, the more firmly and intimately they are united together. To heighten this description, they add, that this pain pervades all, and every one of the parts of the human body, both internal and external, because the soul is torn equally from them all alike; which is a universality, that cannot exist in any other pain, because he who is roasted alive, or thrown into a great fire, does not feel pain in his entrails, at the time his external parts begin to scorch: agreeable to this mode of reasoning, they conclude, that the pain which is felt at the moment of death, is enormous, beyond all imagination and description.

LXXVIII. I see this matter in quite a different light, and look upon all this aggravated degree of pain to be imaginary, and consider the reasoning by which the existence of it is attempted to be proved, as fallacious and delusive. It is confounding our ideas of objects, to suppose that the division of integral parts, is analogous to the separation of the soul from the body. The pain in the first instance, consists in the forcibly breaking their connexions, or in the first shocks of the violence, which disposes to their disunion. In the separation of the soul from the body, there is no insertion of material fibres to be torn out by the roots, nor any division to be made of connected substantial parts. From whence then can bodily pain be derived?

LXXIX. The using the same words promiscuously, causes mankind to run into infinite errors, and especially if the application of them is made to things that are fundamentally very different. The expression tearing the soul from the body, fascinates or misleads many people in the business we are now treating of; the phrase should be understood in a figurative sense, and we are apt to construe it in a strict or literal one. In consequence of which, as we know we can’t tear from our bodies, the most minute shred, without feeling great pain, or even extract any foreign substance, that has been violently introduced into, and sticks in any part of our frame, without being liable to the same sensation; led away then and betrayed by the sound of the expression, we are apt to imagine, that something similar happens in the separation of the soul from the body; but the soul is a pure spirit, that can neither adhere, or be made to adhere to any body whatever, nor can it be bound to it by ligatures, nor united with it by fibres, nor fixed to it by any kind of fastening, nor intangled with it by any kind of roots or insertions; and finally, the mode of its union to the body, is incomprehensible to all our philosophy or understanding; and consequently, a description of its disunion cannot be given in the words of any language. There is no doubt, but the term tearing from is metaphorical; and that we might with less impropriety, although we never can with propriety, in describing the separation of the soul from the body, say, that it evaporated off, it was dissipated, or that it had been exhaled, than that it had been torn away; for its disunion from the body, is performed by a movement that is supremely insensible, because on the part of the corporeal substance, there is not the least resistance made to its flying off. Vapours are continually exhaling from every part of our bodies, without giving us the least pain. And why is this? Why it is, because that on account of their thinness and delicacy, they find no opposition in their passage, either from the solids, or the pores of the skin. What obstruction then can you suppose the soul meets with, in its exit from the body, which is infinitely more subtil and thin, than the finest vapours?

LXXX. Let us contemplate the thing in another point of view; and admit that the soul at the time of its being snatched away from the body, caused a violent shock, like that of tearing to pieces all the entrails, and inverting the whole interior organization. I say that even supposing this, the pain that it would occasion would be very slight, or next to nothing; and the reason is, because that in those ultimate stages of life, all the faculties are so extremely languid, and the operations of nature so feeble and remiss, as hardly to be perceived; and the sensation of pain, which is one of those faculties, being in the same state with the others, and the agent which is to stimulate them being equally feeble with the rest; although in the time of vigour, it was capable of exerting a force that had the power of producing great pain, in the present state of things, it is not capable of giving a shock that can excite any very acute sensation, nor if it was, is the subject it is exercised upon capable of perceiving, or being violently affected by it.

LXXXI. I am inclined to think, that a few moments before death, there comes on a kind of half death, or stupor, that is something like a lethargy or swooning, and that in this interval, there remains no kind of recollection or reflexion; and it is probable, that the morning of our life, and the evening of our death, are preceded by a sort of crepuscules or twilight, which brighten and grow clearer as the day of our life comes on, and which darken and grow more obscure, as the total night of our death draws near.

LXXXII. Hitherto we have been treating of natural deaths; but violent deaths, which do not happen till three or four days after receiving the injury that occasions them, may be considered to come under the description of natural ones; as we may suppose those people die in the same way, that those do who are carried off by an acute disease.

LXXXIII. Sudden violent deaths, which are so much dreaded, are the least painful of all; and indeed I was about to say, that people in such cases, hardly feel any pain at all, or at most but an instantaneous one; because the operation of the cause which induces them, takes away in a moment, all sense of feeling. It is well known, that those who have fallen from a great height, and have lain a considerable time afterwards as if they were dead, have, when they came to themselves, affirmed, they did not feel the blow they received upon coming to the ground. The great Chancellor Bacon, tells a story of a gentleman who was very desirous of knowing what people felt who were hanged, and in order to be satisfied about it, determined to make an experiment of the thing on himself. For this purpose, he fastened a rope to the cieling of a room, in which rope he made a noose, and after adjusting it to a proper length, he stood upon a stool, and fixed the nooze round his neck, in the expectation, that after suffering himself to be suspended, he should be able to recover the stool again; but the good gentleman was a little out in his calculation; for if it had not been for a friend who was present, to whom he had communicated what he intended to do, and who cut the rope in time, the experimental philosopher had been as dead as if he had been executed by the hands of the hangman. The account he gave of this matter was, that from the moment his body became suspended by the rope, he lost all sense and recollection; that he had not the least remembrance of the stool, or apprehension of the danger he was in, nor even any sensation of pain, arising from the suffocation that was brought on.