series of doubting and jesting from beginning to end. It is difficult to conceive the extent of ignorance which it shows upon every subject of which it treats, in geography, history, and statistics, theology, criticism, and taste. He boldly offers to demonstrate that a deluge is impossible; and the only two things which he takes for granted are, that the land and the sea occupy an equal space upon the globe, and that the ocean, upon an average, is only five hundred feet deep. As such ignorance is scarcely credible, we shall subjoin his own words: "Toutes les mers couvrent la moitié du globe; en prenant une mesure commune de leur profondeur vers les rivages, et en haute mer, on compte cinq cents pieds." And to obviate any arguments from a deluge, that are brought from the appearance of shells imbedded upon mountainous regions, he modestly suggests that they might have been left there by the pilgrims going to Rome. "Est-ce d'ailleurs une idée tout à fait romanesque de faire reflexion à la foule innombrable de pélerins qui partaient à pied de Saint Jacques en Galice, et de toutes les provinces, pour aller à Rome par le mont Cénis, chargés de coquilles à leurs bonnets?" What weight his arguments against the populousness of the ancient Jews ought to have, is apparent from his estimating the modern Jews at only four hundred thousand. "Nos critiques insistent, et disent qu'il n'y a pas aujourd'hui sur la surface de la terre quatre cent mille Juifs." But, in proportion as he diminishes the number of the Jews, he increases that of the human race at present existing, by at least eight hundred millions. "S'il y a environ seize cent millions d'hommes sur la terre, comme quelques doctes le prétendent." In both these cases he shifts the responsibility of these enumerations upon imaginary critics and learned men, but is at the same time evidently unconscious of their utter absurdity. The intelligence with which Voltaire studied the Scriptures is well exemplified in the following passage from Dr. Priestley's works. "M. Voltaire, in more than one of his pieces, represents the Jews as cannibals, and pretends to prove from Ezekiel xxxix. 17, that God encourages them with the promise of feeding on the flesh of their enemies. But if he had read so much as the verse preceding, he must have seen that the whole passage was a fine apostrophe addressed to the birds and beasts of prey, and was intended to express, in a very emphatical manner, a very great overthrow of the enemies of the Jews." "When afterwards," continues Priestley, "this author acknowledges his mistake, as he does in a postscript to the above mentioned treatise, he says, by way of apology for it, but contrary to all common sense, that two of the verses which I have recited might have been addressed to the Jews as well as to the birds and beasts. What can we think of the fairness and competency of judgment in this most distinguished of modern unbelievers, when he is capable of writing in this very absurd and unguarded manner ?” Voltaire's remarks go as far against natural religion as against revealed:-"La philosophie nous apprend, que cet univers doit avoir été arrangé par un être incompréhensible, éternel, existant par sa nature; mais encore une fois, la philosophie ne nous apprend pas les attributs de cette nature. Nous savons ce qu'il n'est pas, et non ce qu'il est.” “Justice humaine, bonté humaine, sagesse humaine, rien de tout cela ne lui peut convenir. On a beau étendre à l'infini ces qualités, ce ne seront jamais que des qualités humaines dont nous reculons les bornes." Thus, Voltaire, though professedly opposed to atheism, had he reasoned correctly upon his own principles, must have denied the existence of a Deity, for to give the name of Deity to an unknown something, stripped of all conceivable attributes, is certainly not theism; but whatever his notion of that Deity might be, it signified little, while he took away all the moral relations between man and any superior power. "Ce n'est qu'envers l'homme que l'homme peut être coupable. Un voleur du grand chemin ne saurait voler Dieu. Qu'importe a l'être éternel qu'un peu de métal jaune soit entre les mains de Jérôme ou de Bonaventure?" But while he took away all reality from religion, and all hopes of another life, the picture which he gives of human prospects in this life is by no means inviting. "Combien trouve-t-on de ces vieillards qu'on appelle heureux, dont le bonheur consiste à ne pouvoir jouir d'aucun plaisir de la vie, à n'en faire, qu'avec peine, deux ou trois fonctions dégoûtantes, à ne distinguer ni les sons ni les couleurs, à ne connaître ni jouissance ni espérance, et dont toute la félicité est de savoir confusément qu'ils sont un fardeau de la terre, baptisés ou circoncis depuis cent années!" It is chiefly, however, on the score of taste that he attacks revealed religion, and he judges of the Bible, and of all ancient poetry, according to the rules of criticism prevalent at Paris, and among the French, the most anti-poetical of the nations. Talking of some of the higher flights of poetry, he says, "Il est trés certain que les Français ne souffriraient point de pareilles libertés." Corneille is rated by him as at least equal to Homer:-" "Le grand Corneille, génie pour le moins égal à Homère.” Respecting himself, though he has no doubts that he himself is an epic poet, yet he leaves to posterity to determine what degree of precedency he is to have among his epic brethren. "Après Milton, après le Tasse, Parler de moi serait trop fort; Judging of works of genius as he did, it is not wonderful that the sublimities of the Bible appeared to him absurdities, and one can only apply to him his own remark upon another writer:-" Quel malheureux don de la nature que l'esprit, s'il a empêché M. de Voltaire de sentir ces grandes beautés d'imagination." After all, we may easily lay too much stress upon what Voltaire's opinions were, for he frankly confesses himself, that rather than be tied down to the same opinions, whether true or false, he would think it better never to have been born. "Un homme de bon sens, dit on, doit toujours penser de la même façon si on en était réduit là, il vaudrait mieux n'être pas né." VIII. The most dangerous work that could possibly be written against religion, would be an historical narrative, relating to the times and circumstances with which religion is chiefly concerned, preserving an outward regard to morals, but misrepresenting with a delicate and perpetual irony the miraculous history of the Bible, and taking care, without absolutely falsifying facts, to place it in an absurd and improbable point of view. The history of Gibbon, though it does not come up entirely to the standard of infidel perfection, is yet perhaps the most dangerous production which has yet appeared, and the work against Christianity which least admits of a reply. For who, as Paley observes, can refute a sneer?" Gibbon's history deals very much |