Officers, happened to say, as he was leaving them, with rather a consequential air, " I am going to dine with Villars." The Mareschal de Villars being close behind him, said to him, On account of my rank as General, and not on account of my merit, say Monsieur de Villars. The Gascon with great readiness replied, Zounds Sir, we don't say Mr. Cæsar, (Monsieur de Cæsar!)—but to return to Bayle.

He committed another breach of etiquette with regard to Queen Christina, of which it is curious to see the notice that was taken. In citing one of her letters to a Chevalier Terlon, he made it end with the common terms, Je suis, &c. &c. upon which he received the following remonstrance. "Sa Majesté ne desavoue pas la Lettre qu'on a imprimée sous sa nom, et que vous rapportez dans vos nouvelles; il n'y a que le mot de Je suis' à la fin, qui n'est pas d'elle, un homme d'esprit comme vous, devoit bien avoir fait cette reflexion, et l'avoir corrigé. Une Reine comme elle ne peut se servir de ce terme, qu'avec tres-peu de personnes, et M. de Terlon n'est pas de nombre." M. Bayle himself, indeed, was not of the number, as may be seen by her Majesty's own letters to him; which conclude," Dieu vous prospere," Christine

Alexandre. A man can lose nothing one should think by receiving a blessing instead of a condescension. But M. Bayle was very unfortunate, for he erred again, by calling her Majesty "famous;" which in French, Latin, and Italian, had different meanings. He was therefore gravely admonished by the Queen's Advocate, to avoid all ambiguous terms in addressing crowned heads. You should select, says his correspondent, in speaking of such high personages, golden or silken words, "des parolles d'or et de soye"-This master of the ceremonies concludes with inviting Bayle to write to the Queen herself, but on no account to call her Serenissima, "most serene," for it was too common for her!

From what has been said, it appears, that under certain circumstances, it is even a greater honor to lose a title, than to gain one. Bacon, Clarendon, and Newton, are beyond comparison greater than Lord Bacon, Lord Clarendon, or Sir Isaac Newton. And who would ever think of quoting Mr. Shakespeare, or Mr. Milton; Mr. Dryden, or Mr. Pope? We have a modern instance of a still more curious distinction; the omission of the surname. The French calling

Rousseau, "Jean Jaques."

POPE HOLINESS.

I HAVE spoken of the Cardinal's Title; but I believe the Pope's Title of " Holiness" might be cited as amongst the most flagrant instances of the abuse of significant Titles. I am not going to treat the Popes as they formerly were treated by Protestant writers. They have for some time conducted themselves with far greater moderation than their predecessors, and the present Pope*, (Pius VII.) is too well known to us all, to be spoken of with any sort of disrespect. But yet I should doubt whether it befits any man with a triple crown to assume a title which bespeaks such a conformity, not only to the will, but to the very nature of God, as to be entirely detached from the principles and practice, maxims and customs, of this wicked world. How strangely must the title of Holiness have sounded when applied to such a Pontiff as Boniface VIII. of whom it was said, that he

* He is no longer so, having terminated a long life, and troublesome reign, in the interval between the publication of the first and present edition.

crept into the Papacy like a Fox, ruled like a Lion, and died like a Dog! Intravit ut Vulpes, regnavit ut Leo, mortuus est ut Canis-and whose own ideas of that Holiness without which " no man shall see the Lord," stand recorded in his Decretal de majoratu et obedientiâ, in these words;

porro subesse humano Pontifici omnes creaturas humanas, declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate Salutis." That is, in plain terms, that the entire submission of all men living to the Pope of Rome, is indispensably necessary to their salvation! The Apostle tells us, we must "perfect Holiness in the fear of God;" Boniface VIII. insisted upon it that Holiness was to be perfected in the fear of man! And that man, no other than himself, the Pope of Rome! Philip the Fair of France had the courage to dispute this solemn decree, and to insist upon more liberty being granted, both to himself and subjects, and he wrote to Rome to say so. And what is odd enough, exchanged the title of" Holiness," for that of" Sottishness," for so he actually began his letter, "Sciat tua maxima FATUITAS, &c.!" I would have your great Sottishness to know, &c. &c.

The Popes would have done better to stick to

another title which used to be given to them, namely, your "beatitude," for this is a title of extensive import, and might express what many Popes have been, without being naturally either holy or blessed; as happy, joyful, rich, and fruitful! Holiness was a title indeed not confined originally to the Popes or Bishops of Rome; many other personages were judged to be quite as holy in ancient times; even Emperors and Kings, in virtue of being anointed with holy oil at their Coronation. According to Du Cange, indeed, some of our own Kings have been so called. No wonder that such oily holiness should have slid out of fashion. I trust that the holy Office, or holy Inquisition, as it is called, (not to mention the holy Alliance) is likely to take the same turn.

I do not much like the Popes' adopted names, if I may so call them; especially when I compare them with their histories. Boniface, Felix, Formosus, Leo, Simplicius, or Urban, might do occasionally; but what are we to think of XIV Benedicts, (whether we understand by that title blessed or well spoken of) V Celestines, XII Clements, IV Victors, VII Pii, and XII Innocents? We have all heard of one Pope Innocent, in