to quicken them to an alertnefs in new murders atid maffacres, if it fhould fuit the purpose of the Guifes of the day. An affembly, in which fat a multitude of priests and prelates, was obliged to fuffer this indignity at its door. The author was not fent to the gallies, nor the players to the house of correction. Not long after this exhibition, thofe players came forward to the affembly to claim the rites of that very religion which they had dared to expofe, and to fhew their prostituted faces in the fenate, whilft the archbishop of Paris, whofe function was known to his people only by his prayers and benedictions, and his wealth only by his alms, is forced to abandon his houfe, and to fly from his flock (as from ravenous wolves) because, truly, in the fixteenth century, the cardinal of Lorraine was a rebel and a murderer.

Such is the effect of the perverfion of hiftory, by thofe, who, for the fame nefarious purposes, have perverted every other part of learning. But those who will stand upon that elevation of reafon, which places centuries under our eye, and brings things to the true point of comparifon, which obfcures little names, and effaces the colours of little parties, and to which nothing can afcend but the fpirit and moral quality of human actions, will fay to the teachers of the Palais Royal,-the cardinal of Lorraine was -the murderer of the fixteenth century, you have the glory of being the murderers in the eighteenth; and this is the only difference between you. But history, in the nineteenth century, better underftood, and better employed, will, I truft, teach a civilized pofterity to abhor the mifdeeds of both thefe barbarous ages. It will teach future priests and magiftrates not to retaliate upon the fpeculative and inactive atheifts of future times, the enormities committed by the prefent practical zealots and furious fanatics of that wretched error, which, in its quiefcent ftate, is more than punished, whenever it is em

braced.

braced. It will teach pofterity not to make war upon either religion or philofophy, for the abuse which the hypocrites of both have made of the two most valuable bleilings conferred upon us by the bounty of the univerfal Patron, who in all things eminently favours" and protects the race of man.

If your clergy, or any clergy, fhould fhew themfelves vicious beyond the fair bounds allowed to human infirmity, and to thofe profeffional faults which can hardly be feparated from profeffional virtues, though their vices never can countenance the exercife of oppreffion, I do admit, that they would naturally have the effect of abating very much of our indignation against the tyrants who exceed meafure and juftice in their punishment. I can allow in clergymen, through all their divifions, fome tenacioufness of their own opinion; fome overflowings of zeal for its propagation; fome predilection to their own state and office; fome attachment to the intereft of their own corps; fome preference to those who liften with docility to their doctrines, beyond those who fcorn and deride them. I allow all this, becaufe I am a man who have to deal with men, and who would not, through a violence of toleration, run into the greatest of all intolerance. I must bear with infirmities until they fefter into crimes.

Undoubtedly, the natural progress of their paffions, from frailty to vice, ought to be prevented by a watchful eye and a firm hand. But is it true that the body of your clergy had paft thofe limits of a just allowance? From the general ftyle of your late publications of all forts, one would be led to believe that your clergy in France were a fort of monsters; an horrible compofition of superftition, ignorance, floth, fraud, avarice, and tyranny. But is this true? Is it true, that the lapfe of time, the ceffation of conflicting interefts,

the

the woful experience of the evils refulting from party rage, have had no fort of influence gradually to meliorate their minds? Is it true, that they were daily renewing invafions on the civil power, troubling the domeftic quiet of their country, and rendering the operations of its government feeble and precarious? Is it true, that the clergy of our times have preffed down the laity with an iron hand, and were, in all places, lighting up the fires of a favage perfecution? Did they by every fraud endeavour to encrease their eftates? Did they use to exceed the due demands on eftates that were their own? Or, rigidly forewing up right into wrong, did they convert a legal clair into a yexatious extortion? When not poffeffed of power, were they filled with the vices of those who envy it? Were they enflamed with a violent litigious fpirit of controverfy? Goaded on with the ambition of intellectual fovereignty, were they ready to fly in the face of all magiftracy, to fire churches, to maffacre the priests of other de feriptions, to pull down altars, and to make their way over the ruins of fubverted governments to an empire of doctrine, fometimes flattering, fometimes forcing the confciences of men from the jurifdiction of public inftitutions into a fubmiffion to their perfonal authority, beginning with a claim of liberty and ending with an abufe of power?

Thefe, or fome of thefe, were the vices objected, and not wholly without foundation, to feveral of the churchmen of former times, who belonged to the two great parties which then divided and diftracted Europe.

If there was in France, as in other countries there vifibly is, a great abatement, rather than any increafe of thefe vices, inftead of loading the prefent clergy with the crimes of other men, and the odious character of other times, in commen equity they ought to be praised, encouraged, and fup

ported,

ported, in their departure from a fpirit which difgraced their predeceffors, and for having affumed a temper of mind and manners more fuitable to their facred function.

With

When my occafions took me into France, towards the clofe of the late reign, the clergy, under all their forms, engaged a confiderable part of my curiofity. So far from finding (except from one fet of men, not then very numerous though very active) the com plaints and difcontents against that body, which fome publications had given me reafon to expect, I perceiv↳ ed little or no public or private uneafinefs on their account. On further examination, I found the clergy in general, perfons of moderate minds and decorous manners; I include the feculars, and the regulars of both sexes. I had not the good fortune to know a great many of the parochial clergy; but in general I received a perfectly good account of their morals, and of their attention to their duties. fome of the higher clergy I had a perfonal acquaintance; and of the reft in that clafs, very good means of information. They were, almost all of them, per fons of noble birth. They resembled others of their own rank; and where there was any difference, it was in their favour. They were more fully educated than the military nobleffe; fo as by no means to difgrace their profeffion by ignorance, or by want of fitness for the exercife of their authority. They feemed to me, beyond the clerical character, liberal and open; with the hearts of gentlemen, and men of honour; neither infolent nor fervile in their manners and conduct. They seemed to me rather a fuperior claís; a fet of men, amongst whom you would not be furprifed to find a Fenelon. I faw among the clergy in Paris (many of the description are not to be met with any where) men of great learning and candour; and I had reafon to believe, that this defcription was ⚫ not confined to Paris. What I found in other places,

places, I know was accidental; and therefore to be prefumed a fair fample. I spent a few days in a provincial town, where, in the abfence of the bifhop, I paffed my evenings with three clergymen, his vicars general, perfons who would have done honour to any church. They were all well informed; two of them of deep, general, and extenfive erudition, antient and modern, oriental and western; particularly in their own profeffion. They had a more extenfive knowledge of our English divines than I expected; and they entered into the genius of thofe writers with a critical accuracy. One of these gentlemen is fince dead, the Abbé Morangis. I pay this tribute, withcut reluctance, to the memory of that noble, reverend, learned, and excellent perfon; and I fhould do the fame, with equal cheerfulness, to the merits of the others, who I believe are ftill living, if I did not fear to hurt those whom I am unable to serve.

Some of thefe 'ecclefiaftics of rank, are, by all titles, perfons deferving of general respect. They are deferving of gratitude froin me, and from many English. If this letter fhould ever come into their hands, I hope they will believe there are those of our nation who feel for their unmerited fall, and for the cruel confifcation of their fortunes, with no common fenfibility. What I fay of them is a teftimony, as far as one feeble voice can go, which I owe to truth. Whenever the queftion of this unnatural perfecution is concerned, I will pay it. No one shall prevent me from being just and grateful. The time is fitted for the duty; and it is particularly becoming to thew our juftice and gratitude, when thofe who have deferved well of us and of mankind are labouring under popular obloquy and the perfecutions of oppreffive power.

You had before your revolution about an hundred and twenty bishops. A few of them were men of eminent fanctity, and charity with

out