the sixteenth century, numbered its twenty millions, is now supposed to contain not eleven millions and a half, being less populous than Prussia. Estimated by the square league, its comparative population is far less than that of Portugal. The priests in Spain are not reckoned to exceed 120,000, which would be about 1 to every 23 male adults. If less numerous in proportion, however, the Spanish ecclesiastics are, we believe, much wealthier than those in the neighbouring country: there was more wealth to absorb, and they have absorbed pretty nearly all. Portugal still retains its commercial, and nominally its political relations to its vast colonies in the western hemisphere. Spain has lost every thing of importance but the Havannah, and has for ever alienated the countries which so long groaned under its oppressive yoke. For Portugal, brighter days, we would fain hope, are yet in reserve, notwithstanding the cloud that has arisen in the horizon. The fallen state and darkened prospects of Spain recal the almost prophetic lines of our own Cowper.

'Oh, could their ancient Incas rise again,

How would they take up Israel's taunting strain!
Art thou too fall'n, Iberia! Do we see

The robber and the murderer weak as we?

Thou, that hast wasted Earth, and dared despise
Alike the wrath and mercy of the skies!
Thy pomp is in the grave, thy glory laid
Low in the pits thine avarice has made.
We come with joy from our eternal rest,
To see th' oppressor in his turn oppressed.
Art thou the god, the thunder of whose hand
Rolled over all our desolated land,
Shook principalities and kingdoms down,
And made the mountains tremble at his frown?
The sword shall light upon thy boasted powers,
And waste them, as thy sword has wasted ours.
'Tis thus Omnipotence his law fulfils,

And Vengeance executes what Justice wills.*

The second work on our list, has obtained the more extensive notoriety on the Continent, in consequence of the prosecution which it drew down upon the Author, at the solicitation, as is generally supposed, of the Pope's nuncio at Paris. The Author pleaded his cause himself, and his defence is the most able and creditable part of his performance. It was received by the public, we are told, with the most flattering marks of approbation; nevertheless the work was suppressed, and its Au

* Charity.

+ The work is stated by the Translator to have gone through five editions in a short space of time in Belgium.

thor was fined and imprisoned. The disclosures which it con-› tains, will sufficiently account for the hostility of the Court of Rome to the liberty of the press. M. de Santo Domingo would hardly have escaped even in this country, from the operation of that shadowy, ever shifting, and unmanageable anomaly in our judicature, the law of libel. His work is an avowed attack upon the religious Machiavelism' of the Vatican; and it is stated to be the Author's design, to give such a representation of the effeminate and corrupt state of society at Rome, as may suggest the reflection,- This odious mass of vice and 'impurity unknown in other countries, is then the real produce ' of that religion which would exterminate all others, and which 'pretends to be the only pure and true religion that exists !'

In pointing out the usurpations of the Vatican, and the ridiculous or revolting abuses of the Court of Rome, so far from having had any aggressive views towards true religion, it has been my intention to hold it up to admiration and respect. The principles I have attacked, are evidently opposed to those of the Divine Redeemer. Ought not the Gospel to be preferred to doctrines that are subversive of it, and the crown of thorns to the triple crown of diamonds?'

With whatever degree of sincerity and intelligent appreciation of the Gospel this avowal be made, it is at least a pleasing circumstance, that, both in his preface and in his defence before the Cour Royale, the Author felt himself called upon, in deference to the state of public feeling, to disclaim every irreligious motive. This homage to the Divine authority of Christianity was probably intended less to propitiate his judges-for with them it would have little weight-than to enlist on his side the popular sentiment; and, viewed in this light, such declarations, in that same Paris, where the Encyclopædists once laboured to overthrow the whole fabric of revealed religion, and triumphed so far as to loosen every tie of moral obligation and every bond of social order,-must be received with satisfaction. We shall give a few extracts from the Defence.

Eager to acquire that sort of instruction which is to be gained by travelling, I visited the country of Virgil and of Cicero. What did I see in the environs of Rome? A land uncultivated, though exhibiting all the signs of fertility; its inhabitants covered with the rags of indigence, numerous hordes of robbers, ransoming or assassinating both foreigners and natives. Within the walls of the city I sought religion; I found only monks.

I demanded of the citizens, what were their philanthropic institutions useful to industry and labour; they answered me by enumerating their convents and friars, who devour the substance of the people.

.

The more I advanced in my investigations, the more I appeared to sink into the barbarism of those rude ages in which a few individuals preyed on the rest of the human species. I wondered how the people

of Rome, surrounded by the progressive movement of all other nations toward social improvement, were withheld by the curb of superstition, and had not dared to pass the barriers that separated them from civilization.

• Being shortly afterward admitted to the intimacy of some men in power, what was my surprise at discovering, from their conversation, the hope of reviving, even in the present day, the usurping pretensions of the Court of Rome; the hope of again moulding kingdoms to their yoke, of outraging the majesty of kings by bulls, excommunications, and interdicts; the hope, in short, of awakening that theocratical ambition which has lain dormant within the walls of the Vatican since the time of Clement XIV!

'The extravagance of such projects excited in me a smile of pity: they remained, however, in my memory. Three years are gone by, and each year my surprise has been increased at seeing on all sides the foundations laying of that Babel, the re-edification of which had appeared to me the greatest chimera.'

A religious order was driven from France in 1549, as accomplice in the parricide committed by John Chaâtel; the good Henry IV, in his edict, expressed himself as follows: "The Jesuits are the enemies of the state and of the crown of France, the corrupters of youth, and the perturbators of public tranquillity." They were suppressed in 1762, by a decree of the parliament of Paris, in which act the most ample reasons were given. This decree contained all the ignominious condemnations which these monks have received in all the tribunals of the Christian world, and a nomenclature, still more ignominious, of the qualifications with which they have been branded. I shall not unfold this long concatenation of conspiracies, outrages, and crimes, unheard of before their time, of which this order has been judicially convicted: I shall not invoke, as witnesses, the gory shades of so many murdered sovereigns: such a picture would not be necessary for the defence of my cause. My voice would never have troubled these monks in their tombs, if they had consented not to issue from them. This is not a prosopopoeia: the spirit that animated this order is risen with it, without suffering any diminution. One of the fundamental principles of the institution is an unreserved submission, an unlimited and exclusive obedience, to the designs and orders of the Court of Rome. It is this vow of absolute devotedness to the holy see, that wounds to the heart the liberties of every country into which this order finds its way; and its duty is, to introduce itself every where. But how do I know that the Jesuits have penetrated into France? Before it was known here as an open and undeniable fact, I had been informed of it at Rome, where the chiefs of the order are more disposed to boast of their successes in France, than to make a mystery of them. These wandering monks, are they Italians, Spaniards, Frenchmen? No, they are Papists: they will undertake to plunge a dagger into the bosom of their mother country, at the least signal from the telegraph of St. Peter's: their chief may be deemed another old man of the mountain. I only repeat in milder terms the decree of the parliament of Paris, which declared, that it expelled them from France as a fanatical

and impious sect, corrupters of the people, regicides, &c, com. manded by a foreign chief, and Machiavelists from principle. How many proofs have confirmed the truth of this sentence! As counsellors of kings, they betrayed them, as Daubenton betrayed Philip V.; as subjects, they conducted the inhabitants of Paraguay in battle array against their legitimate sovereigns: and while confessors in Europe to the kings of Spain and Portugal, they made war against them in America.'

But, say they, your criticisms are addressed to the religion of Rome; and you ought to know, that the Catholic, Apostolic, and Romish religion is the religion of the state: I know it, and I have never forgotten it. You see, gentlemen, I enter frankly upon one of the strongest accusations directed against me.

What sense is it natural to attach to this title of Romish, which is given to the Catholic and Apostolic religion? I understand by this qualification an honorary title, by which homage is rendered to the precedency, or even the pre-eminence of the church of Rome, as the cradle and centre of Christianity, and as having had for its first bishop the first of the apostles: it was in that city that the blood of the martyrs, which has cemented the religion of Jesus Christ, flowed in the greatest abundance: it was then very natural, that, through a sentiment of gratitude, the denomination of Romish, should be added to the Apostolic religion.

According to my definition, the qualification of Romish is immutable, since it is founded on an historical and hierarchical fact; it would have nothing stable in it, on the contrary, if it were applied successively to all the particulars of the worship practised at Rome; and in no catholic country is this truth more forcibly felt than in France, where the exemptions, upon which are founded the liberties of the Gallican church, were long ago established, and which we are daily defending against the pretensions of the tiara.

Do you wish for an example of it? At the time of the great occidental schism, when three popes disputed the keys sword in hand, it was not the pope who held the papacy at Rome, that solved theological questions: the decision of ecumenical councils was

necessary.

Thus the religion of Rome, such as I have defined it, while a number of its practices are in opposition to the doctrines of the apostles, may be assailed without offering the smallest disrespect to the Catholic, Apostolic, and Romish religion.

I have not made the slightest attack on the religion of the state, which is not entitled the religion of Rome, but the Catholic, Apostolic, and Romish religion: it must have this triple attribute, this triple character. I request, gentlemen, you will also observe, that in my book I have never once articulated the word Romish religion. From motives of delicacy I have respected one of the inalienable epithets of the religion of the state.

But, even if I had censured the Romish religion, in reproaching it with being merely Romish, and not sufficiently Apostolic, I should no more have wounded the religion of the state, than I should

injure the constitutional royalty by reasoning against absolute royalty.'

If I be asked what I find deserving of blame in the religion of Rome, I answer, that nothing can be more explicit on this subject than my book. I answer, that it has not been my intention to interfere in the least either with dogmas or doctrines. A traveller observes facts. Cast your eyes, gentlemen, over the preface of the Roman Tablets, which is, I may say, a summary of the whole work. It must appear evident to you, that it has been my design to censure only the practical abuses of the religion of Rome. And what abuses! Torture inflicted upon those who do not observe the fast during Lent; forced and venal conversions, renewed every year at fixed periods, when a few Jews, for a sum of money, submit to be baptised, and to receive the communion, as a spectacle for the people; spiritual ab. solutions and indulgences lavished upon robbers, who consent to suspend the career of their assassinations; shameful abuses of the sacraments-abuses which render hypocrisy and robbery a sort of industry and commercial speculation. But why have I imputed all these disorders and vices to the religion instead of the government of Rome? I have allotted to each its respective part. But spiritual measures, such as sacraments and indulgences, which belong exclusively to practical worship, cannot be attributed to the political government. It is evidently the exercise of the papal authority, distinct from the sovereign power.'

But it appears, that I have afflicted the faithful, in presenting to them a scandalous picture of the state of the sanctuary at Rome. A painting still more frightful than mine has been made by Saint Cyprian, in his book entitled, The Fallen.

"Every priest," says he, "runs after riches and honours with an insatiable fury; the bishops are without religion, the women without modesty; knavery predominates; they swear and forswear themselves; the Christians are divided by animosities; the bishops abandon their pulpits to run to fairs, that they may enrich themselves by traffic; in short, we give satisfaction only to ourselves, and dissatisfaction to all the world."

The Gospel says; "The time will come when we shall see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place," &c. What I have said, accords then with the prophecies.

But I have made a jest of the miracles that are every day performing at Rome. True, I have, because I look upon them as false miracles.

The Gospel says, that the prodigies operated by Jesus Christ and his apostles were sufficient for the establishment of the religion. I have then sufficient authority for not admitting any new ones. Besides, I think, that even for the interest of religion, too much ridicule cannot be thrown on what might make truth ridiculous. They who pretend, that attacking the abuses of religion is attacking religion itself, are in reality those who do it the greatest injury. Has any one ever been offended at the following historical jest?