to have read all the authorities he mentions, which, we confess, we have not; but from what we have seen we dare answer that their depravity necessarily deprives them of all influence save on minds already lost to every sense of honour and virtue. In this assertion, we believe, a short sketch of the doctrine of probabilities will suffice to bear us out.

According to this doctrine of probabilities every tenet is valid that is supported by the authority of an approved member of the Society. Thus two opinions may be directly opposite to each other, and yet both be applicable according to circumstances, only one is more probable than the other, in the same proportion as the authority from which it claims its origin is more or less respectable, that is to say, bears a higher rank in the Order. This degree of probability may, however, not influence the judgment or final decision of the doubting; for,' says Immanuel Sa, (Aphorism de dubio, p. 182,) 'one may do what one supposes to be permitted in consequence of such an opinion, even if the contrary be more certain.' Father Eusebius, in our book, is probably the only one among his brethren honest enough directly to confess : we answer what we think fit, or rather, what is most to the minds of those asking us, and what they desire to hear;' but the same may, without difficulty, be inferred from the words of his less candid brethren. Thus, P. Laymann, (Theol. Moral. 1. i. fr. 1, c. 2, §. 2, n. 7,) expresses the following opinion: If any teacher be asked his advice, he may not only give that advice which to his own mind is the most probable one, but even any other contrary to his own opinions, provided it has been maintained as probable by another, (Sc. Jesuit,) and is more favourable to, and more to the liking of, the person asking his advice, than his own opinion (si forte illi et favorabilior et exoptatior sit). It is, therefore, no more than what consistently follows from this doctrine. P. Bauny (Fr. 4, de Pœnit. Qu. 13.) avers: Whenever the Confessing has acted according to any probable opinion, the Confessor is obliged to absolve him, even if his own views are opposed to it. To deny the absolution in such a case would be committing a deadly sin. And thus it came to pass that the Jesuit Watts, at Paris, was called a heretic by his brother Jesuit Codret, because, when William Parry, who in 1584 was executed for his attempt on the life of Queen Elizabeth, came to confess himself to him, he had endeavoured to dissuade him from his purpose, and refused his absolution. For Parry, forsooth, had previously asked the advice and opinion of the Jesuit Palmio at Venice, who had approved it, and found it very much to the honour and service of God.

To obviate any difficulty that might arise from any such opinion directly militating against the precepts of the Gospel, or the conclusions of the Fathers of the Church, it is another fundamental maxim, omnia intelligenda juxta Societatis Jesu constitutiones et declarationes,-every thing is to be understood according to the tenets and the declarations of the Society of Jesus; and, in order to bring this about, the admirable doctrine of the mental reservations has been invented. According to this doctrine it suffices if we say the truth within ourselves, let the meaning conveyed by our words to the hearer be what it will, even though we make use of an oath to gain them credit. Suarez (Opus de virtute et statu religionis, t. ii. 1. 3, c. 9, ass. 1, n. 2, p. 473,) affirms with respect to this point, Making use of amphibology, (a good euphemism for an indirect lie) in swearing, is committing no wrong by itself, and not always perjury. For that only is a lie which is in opposition to the thoughts of the speaker himself, as he is only obliged to make his words accord with his own thoughts, and not with those of his hearers. Whoever, therefore, makes use of words of a double meaning, cannot be said to speak against his own thoughts, because he only takes those words in his own sense; what he says is therefore no lie, and consequently it is not wrong

VOL. V.-NO. IX.

R

speaking

speaking thus, the lie alone constituting the wrong. From this position it necessarily follows, that affirming any such assertion by an oath cannot be called perjury, God not being called to witness a lie, as no lie has been told'. To illustrate this by a few examples: if a prisoner is asked whether he have committed the crine he stands accused of, he may safely deny it, provided he understands in order to confess it,' (subintelligendo ad dicendum); or that he had not committed it since he was in prison. Or if he is asked about his accomplices, he may deny having had any, provided he himself means only those crimes he has committed alone. Again, if any body should embezzle sums of money, which he is wanting for his own subsistance, from fear they might else be seized by his creditors, and himself be reduced to beggary, he may, if asked by the judge, swear not to have embezzled any thing. The same may be sworn by those knowing about it, provided it be evident to them that he only has embezzled those sums for that purpose, and has therefore nothing concealed which he was bound to declare. Or if any body comes from a place which is really not afflicted by any contagion, though it is erroneously thought to be so, he may swear that he is not coming from that place, understanding, as far as it is considered as a place of contagion. And these are tenets not proposed by any obscure or insignificant member, but fixed by the precepts of the very highest among the brotherhood, such as Thomas Sanchez, in his Opus mor. in præscripta Decalogi, p. ii. b. 3, c. 6, n. 31 and 35.

We cannot refrain from adding a few more of the most extravagant positions already proffered by that reverend Society, begging only our readers to remember, from what we have said in the introduction, that all these principles are not to be considered as positive injunctions for every body, or at least for every member of the Society to obey, or to believe in, but only as offering a latitude of interpretation to those who else might find it too difficult perhaps, or absolutely impossible, to come to any composition with their own conscience. Thus it is with the deadly sin of Simony. The Order would have gained but few friends among the clergy at large, had they not found means to demonstrate it away. But the reverend Father Gregor. a Valentia, of the Society of Jesus, in his Commentat. Theologicis, vol. iii., has a large chapter on this point. To give a secular good for a spiritual one,' he says, (that is to say, money for a prebend,) and to give it as the price of the latter, is undeniably committing Simony. But to give it merely as the motive which might dispose the proprietor to confer the prebend on the donor, is no simony, even if the proprietor should have considered and expected the money as his main object. And on the part of the Ordinary it is no Simony, if he conferred the prebend on the donor, that he may not have any further obligation to him.' Charitably interposing in behalf of poorer sinners, Escobar gives it as his opinion, that it is no Simony to accept a prebend for which one has promised to pay a sum of money, provided one has the intention of not keeping that promise, because this would only be an apparent Simony, and as little to be termed a real one, as false gold may be called true gold.

Another charitable doctrine is, that which allows sons to rejoice at the death of their parents, provided these leave an ample inheritance; for it is not the death they rejoice at, but the riches they will get by it, and a child has only distinctly to separate these two ideas in his own mind in order to keep his conscience clear. As to the instruction for domestics, with regard to the cases in which robbing their masters would not be committing a sin, it seems, from an occurrence that took place at Paris in the year 1647, as if the reverend Fathers were not always inclined themselves to be done by, as they would have others done to. John d'Alba, a domestic at a college of Jesuits,

being apprehended in a theft on his masters, was by them delivered over to the hands of the secular judge. John did not hesitate to confess the act, but denied its being a crime, alleging in his favour the express words of one Father Bauny, who exculpates any domestic robbing his master merely to supply a defect in his wages to which he has only agreed because compelled by necessity, in which emergency he contended to have found himself. The judge seemed indeed not much disposed to relish such doctrines, but, on the contrary, was of opinion, that the obsequious scholar deserved no less to be scourged before the doors of the college, and the writings containing such things to be publicly burnt by the executioner: the culprit was finally dismissed with a warning to abstain for the future from putting such doctrines into practice.

In conclusion, we shall recommend the following work to those who may be desirous of collecting more ample information:

Extraits des Assertions dangereuses et pernicieuses en tout Genre, que les soi-disans Jésuites ont dans tous les Tems et persévéramment soutenues, enseignées et publiées dans leurs Livres, avec l'approbation de leurs Supérieurs et Généraux: Vérifiés et collationnés par les Commissaires du Parlament, en exécution de l'Arrêt de la Cour du 31 Août, 1761, et Arrêt du 3 Sept. suivant, sur les Livres, Thèses, Cahiers composés, dictés, et publiés par les soi-disans Jésuites et autres Actes authentiques. Déposés au Greffe de la Cour, en 1761 et 1762. Paris, 3 vols. 8vo. 1762.'

Denkmal der Erinnerung an Moses Mendelssohn, zu dessen erster Säcular- VJD feyer im September, 1829-oder Gedanken über die wichtigsten Angelegenheiten der Menschheit aus den Schriften des unsterblichen Weisen nebst einem Blick in sein Leben von Dr. Gotthold Salomon.-Hamburg, Hoffmann & Campe, 1829, 8vo.

AFTER the great question of Catholic Emancipation has been finally determined, much has been spoken in recent days of a total emancipation of the Jewish nation from all civil disabilities. We disclaim all intention of here entering upon this subject, or even having had it in view, when we resolved to make our readers acquainted with the above-mentioned little volume. As far as we are able to discern, and judging from general principles, such a measure would be followed by an effect, far different from that hoped for by those who now most ardently desire it; for we cannot but consider it as the most efficient mode of conversion to Christianity. Every reason that might give the least claim to martyrdom, to the boast of suffering for the sake of religion, will disappear; they will, as a religious sect, be allowed to mingle on an equal footing with all the classes of the community; they will have the right of being received into guilds and corporations, and to be promoted along with the rest, according to their merits; and if we are not quite mistaken, the extension of a privilege to another does all but take away the prejudices and bad feelings of the present possessor. But, we may ask, will they really have the benefit of all this? Instead of a sweeping clause prohibiting their participation in a certain class of rights, they may have against them all the petty intrigues, the chicanery, that may effectually prevent them from enjoying what the laws intend giving them; but from a national cause it will have been reduced to a personal one; from a national feeling to a personal feeling, more difficult to be borne, because more individually felt; and seeing that nothing more may be done for them from without-that the only obstacle, the only cause of so much embittered feeling is in themselves, how many will be able longer to hold out against a persuasion from which the only odium, that of national oppression, has been taken off? But we reserve the subject for maturer discussion, and R 2

revert

revert to our theme, that of introducing to our readers a man, whom his nation may well glory in, as he would have been an ornament to any country and to every age. The little volume before us may indeed be called a monument to his memory, with respect to the facts recorded, though we could have wished a style partaking somewhat more of the elegant simplicity of its prototype. Mere rhetorical flourishes never improve an eulogy.

Moses Mendelssohn was one of those few men who, by the mere force of their genius, are able to overcome all obstacles in their way to that most arduous height for mortals to attain—the summit of wisdom and moral perfection,-as far as the words 'man' and 'perfection' may be construed together. Born of poor Jewish parents, a century ago, when many of those prejudices that have since subsided or, at least, been much softened down, were still most strenuously harboured and expressed—without means of subsistence, without even knowing the German language, otherwise than from the corrupt jargon used among the lower classes of the Jews-he rose to rank among the highest philosophers of his age; the age of Kant, Lessing, Jacobi, Lavater, and so many others; to be loved by many, admired and esteemed by all; to impart, by his writings, to the German language an elegance of expression, of which, till then, it had scarce been thought susceptible, without taking away from its original force and vigour; and to have so far silenced all national prejudices against himself, as to offer the first example of a Jew being proposed as a member to a public body-the Royal Academy at Berlin. This proposal, and the universal applause with which it was received, certainly did as much honour to that learned body, as it little redounded to that of the great philosopher, then on the throne, to refuse his assent on account of Mendelssohn being a Jew. Whether Frederick II. was betrayed to such an unphilosophical answer by a motive of jealousy, or of policy, we are at a loss to understand. Mendelssohn revenged himself by saying, I should only have been grieved had the king proposed, and the Academy refused to receive me.'

Mendelssohn was born at Dessau (Anhalt) on the 6th of September, 1729. His father, Mendel, was a sort of clerk to the synagogue, and from his earliest infancy kept his son at school; but being very poor, and having to support a large family, he was obliged to consent to a separation as soon as young Moses had attained his fifteenth year, when, according to a precept of the Talmud, the Jewish boy is obliged to watch over his own mental welfare, a duty with which the necessity of providing for his bodily necessities has been always combined, at least among the poorer classes of that people. Mendelssohn wandered to Berlin, where he earned a scanty subsistence by teaching young children, while he was himself most strenuously intent upon enlarging his knowledge and the capacities of his mind. By his own unassisted efforts he acquired a sufficient knowledge of the old languages, to be able to read the classical authors in the originals, and the rising sun often surprised the young student in his garret, still studying the writings of Leibnitz and of Wolf. His irreproachable conduct and amiable character soon gained him a number of friends; but it was not before the year 1750 that fortune placed him in a more comfortable situation. One Mr. Bernhard, a rich silk manufacturer at Berlin, at that time engaged young Mendelssohn as a tutor for his children; but on account of his fine handwriting and arithmetical skill, employed him also in his countinghouse, and finished by making him chief agent in his extensive business; a situation which afforded Mendelssohn a comfortable livelihood for himself and family, and in which he continued to his death. (Jan. 4th, 1786.)

As will be seen from this rapid sketch, the life of Mendelssohn affords no romantic or extraordinary events. It was throughout the life of a philosopher

sopher and a sage, and every word, every action, proved him such. We shall now briefly notice the works which he has left, by which he first attracted the notice of the world, and which will carry his fame to posterity. We shall conclude by recording some of the emanations of his pure soul and penetrating wisdom.

His first essays were the Philosophical Dialogues, which Lessing introduced to the world, and which, meeting with great success, were soon followed (1761) by the Letters on Sentiments, (Briefe über Empfindungen,) in which he endeavoured to investigate the origin and developement of our notions of the Beautiful, and to analyze its elements. Two years later appeared his treatise, On what is evident in Metaphysical Sciences, which gained the prize proposed by the Royal Academy at Berlin, and led to the event above mentioned. But what will secure his own undying fame is his work styled, Phædon, or on the Immortality of the Soul, in three dialogues, -an imitation of the Dialogues of Plato. Purity of sentiment, cogency of reasoning, and a noble, manly, yet elegant style, make this a truly classical work. Lavater thought he could not better show his sense of the merits of the author than by writing to him, inviting him to accept the blessings of the Christian religion, of which he seemed so well deserving; but we must refer the reader to the work itself for Mendelssohn's answer, which is favourable both to him and to Lavater, but in which he declines the invitation, declaring his firm persuasion in the truth of the faith of his fathers. The most distinguished among his other works are: A Commentary on the Preacher of Solomon, in Hebrew; a beautiful translation of the Psalms into German; a translation of the Pentateuch, with a very learned Commentary; a treatise on the Ritual Laws of the Jews, concerning Inheritances, Wardships, &c, undertaken at the request of the Prussian government; &c. &c. His last was an apology for his friend Lessing, who after his death had been attacked by F. Jacobi, in a work, On the Doctrine of Spinoza; in Letters to Mr. Moses Mendelssohn. (Breslau, 1785.) Mendelssohn published his answer in form of an appendix to that correspondence, under the title, M. Mendelssohn, to the Friends of Lessing; but he died before its appearance, his already declining health having probably been still more enfeebled by that dispute.

The author of the little volume before us has, with reference to the second part of the title, brought his subject under six different heads, viz. I. On God. II. On Truth, Reason, and Philosophy. III. On Religion, State, and Church. IV. On Man, his calling, his education. V. On Immortality. VI. Miscellaneous philosophical observations. To which are added, VII. a few Letters. We are not disposed to quarrel with this arrangement, though perhaps it is neither the most logical, nor is there always any correspondence between the title and the subject of which it actually treats. We have also been unable to find any distinction between the two words affixed to the fifth rubric-Fortdauer Unsterblichkeit, i. e. continued existence, and immortality; still we hope, by selecting a few specimens of what is offered to us, to gratify our readers.

Seeking for truth, with a pure heart, is the adoration most worthy of that God, who alone is able to send us assistance.'

'The State will be satisfied with mere outward actions, with works without the spirit, without any accordance with our thoughts. Even he who does not believe in the laws, is yet obliged to follow them, as soon as they have been sanctioned. The State may leave to the individual the right of judging the law, but not of acting according to his judgment, for, the latter right he was obliged to renounce, when he became a member of society, as without such renunciation civil society must cease to exist. It is not thus with reli