I thought fit to mention all these things, not only because they afford us a short and useful instruction about a very difficult and important subject, but also because they discover to us that our Gregorius Ariminensis did not use any evasion and subterfuge. He dived into the bottom of a doctrine, he perceived the most natural consequences of a principle, and owned them boldly, without seeking any equivocal or mitigated expressions. I do not say this, to condemn those who endeavour to soften what they think might offend their readers. They may have a good design, and some matters are so difficult and intricate, that we may well excuse those who use sometimes a different method to explain them. The question about sins of ignorance is one of that kind: it is surrounded with precipices. It is therefore no wonder if those, who walk in such a way, do sometimes turn aside or go back. They grant one thing, and then they oppose it they give with one hand what they take away with the other. They will grant "that an invincible ignorance excuses men, both in fact and right," and then they will allege a great many examples, taken from holy scripture, to show that the sins of ignorance do not excuse men; and the necessary result of those quotations must be, either that the ignorance of moral duties was never invincible, or that, though it is invincible, it does not excuse a sinner. If you consider narrowly all their arguments, you will find that they have supposed that ignorance of right or of fact is never a sin, but when it is not invincible; they leave, properly speaking, no case wherein that ignorance is invincible; for, they say, it may be overcome with respect to the passion of Jesus Christ, even when it has never been heard of. They pretend, that if a savage of America be ignorant of the matters of fact contained in the New Testament it is his fault, because he has not put himself in a disposition that may move God to reveal to him the mysteries of th

e

salvation, and has made himself unworthy of that heavenly favour. Ask them this question; could he have that good disposition that you speak of? could he make a good use of the light of nature? They will answer you, that he could if he would. If you ask them whether he could have such a will? I think they will answer you, that he could not, but that it was only a moral impotency, which is nothing else but the ill disposition of his will, and a consequence of the corruption wherewith the children of Adam are born. This is at the bottom the same doctrine with that of our Gregory, and I think it were better to say plainly, as he does, that an invincible ignorance can be no excuse when it proceeds from original sin, and is a punishment for it. It is true that this doctrine is liable to some inconveniences; for it seems to lead one by degrees to this assertion, frenzy and madness can be no excuse, since they ought not to be excluded from the number of evils which have been introduced by sin, and which serve as a punishment for sin. But is not the first opinion, mentioned by Mr Arnauld, also liable to many inconveniences? The question is not to chuse between an opinion free from all intricacies and one that is very intricate; but the question is to chuse between two extremes, whereof one is contrary to philosophical notions, and the other to the theological systems.-Art. RIMINI.

JUPITER.

(His employment.)

CHILO, one of the seven wise men of Greece, it is not well known where and when, having asked Æsop what was the employment of Jupiter, received this answer: "he lowers things that are high, and raises those that are low." Without doubt, this answer is an exact epitome of the history of mankind. Take that history at which end you please, and follow the course

of it from the beginning to the end, you will see every where instances of the alternative meant by Æsop. The world is a true wheel of fortune, where every thing by turns ascends and descends, and wherein we ought to admire the depths of a wise providence, and the activity of our passions. Does a man grow rich, his children, brought up in wealth, are puffed up with vanity, become prodigal, and ruin themselves. The children of the latter, having nothing to trust to but their industry, labour day and night to enrich themselves, and succeed accordingly. A kingdom requires great power; they grow proud, and treat their neighbours haughtily each fearing to be subdued, to secure themselves from danger, make such formidable leagues, that they humble the prince who raised himself so high. This rule is not without its exceptions; for there are families and states who preserve their grandeur a long time. The Roman Commonwealth, which pulled down so many sovereigns, increased in greatness for many ages. The Pagans were so thoroughly persuaded that heaven purposely humbled high things, that they feigned there were some Gods, who were filled with jealousy at the prosperity of men. The philosophers themselves, who denied a providence, acknowledged I know not what, which affected to overthrow great things.

Usque adeo res humanas vis abdita quædam
Obterit, et pulcros fasces, sævasque secures
Proculcare ac ludibrio sibi habere videtur.

LUCRET. lib. v. ver. 1233.

And hence we fancy unseen powers in things,
Whose force and will such strange confusion brings,
It spurns and overthrows our greatest kings.

CREECH.

If man were not an undisciplinable animal, would he not have been cured of his pride after so many proofs of Esop's maxim, reiterated in every country, and

in every age? Two thousand years hence, if the world should last so long, the continual revolutions of the wheel will have made no changes in the heart of man. Art. Esop.

KISSES,

(Of civility.)

PUTEANUS educated a young Italian gentlewoman, and wrote to his friend that he would not suffer her to let herself be kissed; "that," says he, " is dangerous for Italian girls. Our Flemish ones may do it without any hazard or detriment; they do not understand that there are any love-lessons in ogling and kisses; but those of your country know very well the consequences of it, and for this reason I have taught her our language, and all our customs, except that of kissing." Kempius quotes this passage, in his learned and curious compilation, " de Osculis," and refers us to a professor of philosophy at Leyden. This professor, treating of temperance, one of the four cardinal virtues, proposes this among other questions: "Is the custom which is allowed to strangers in the Low Countries and elsewhere, to kiss other people's wives, widows, and maidens, when they pay them a formal visit, conformable to the laws of chastity?" He answers" that this custom is very ancient; but the several wise men of antiquity looked on it as a little unchaste." He quotes Socrates, who would have people absolutely abstain from it, there being nothing which stirs up the fire of love so much as kisses. He quotes Seneca as saying, "that a maiden was accused of impudence, because she received a kiss." He says, "that the ancients were persuaded that kissing made a strong attack on chastity," and proves it by these words of Ovid:

Oscula qui sumpsit, si non et cætera sumpsit,
Hæc quoque quæ data sunt perdere dignus erat.
He that took kisses, and took nothing more,
Deserved to lose what he obtained before.

His conclusion is, that ceremonial kisses are not contrary to chastity; and that we must not think that every body is so easily moved, that kisses of civility may not be altogether honest. This determination, and the reason on which it is grounded, are solid and good; but what can be more foolish than the quotation out of Ovid, for the verses of the poet concern only the kisses of lovers? This professor is to be blamed for quoting them on such a subject. He should have laid aside the learning that is in his thesis, and kept to the difference of climates, like Puteanus. Those familiarities which are dangerous in Italy, are very little, or not at all so, in the northern countries. This is certainly the meaning of the Louvain professor; for he had no thoughts of a farewell kiss, or of a kiss upon the return from a long journey. There is no probability that, upon such occasions, he would have excepted his young Italian maid from that custom. There were other occasions enough, in which he might prescribe her a particular rule, and in which she might, according to the knowledge of her nation, experience what Horace says:

Oscula, quæ Venus

Quinta parte sui Nectaris imbuit.

HOR. Lib. I. Ode XIII.

Socrates has expressed himself on this in the liveliest manner. "Critobulus," said he, "is more rash than if he had thrown himself upon the point of naked swords, or leaped into the fire, for he had the boldness to kiss a fine face." "Is this so great a rashness?" says Xenophon to him. I could very easily expose myself to Ah, unfortunate," says Socrates, follows, after kissing a fine face?

"Truly, I fancy the same danger." "do you know what Do not you lose