Manchet is a name given in the 16th century to the wafer used in the mass. — Walcott, /S(/c.j4 rchceol.s.v.
Manchuria. See Mantchuria.
Mancius, George AVioielmus, one of the promi- nent ministers of the Eeformed Church in America, and a sturdy opposer of the movements for securing its in- dependence of the Church in Holland. He was settled in Bergen County, N. J., at Schraalcnbergh and Para- mus (1730-32), and at Kingston, N. Y. (1732-56 or '59). He possessed much ability and learning, but it was al- leged that "consciences slumbered" under his orthodox preaching. His friends, however, claim that his manu- script sermons show him to have been "a faithful, learned, industrious, and zealous preacher of the Gospel, one who did not fear to declare the whole counsel of God ; and that it was, on the other hand, his opposition to an illiterate ministry and to heresy, his independence in reproving vice, and his general zeal and fidelity wliich induced certain of his enemies to misrepresent him." He left 420 members in full communion of his Church. He died Sept. 6, 1762. See Corwin's Maiiual of the Reformed Church, p. 150. (W. J. R. T.)
Maiidaeans. See Mendjeans.
MANDATA DE PROVIDENDO 098
MANDINGO
Mandata de Providendo. See Expectantia.
Mandeville, Bernard de, a sceptical writer in the Eiiglisli tongue, was born of French extraction about 1G70 at Dort, Holland, and went to England near the opening of the 18tli centiir}% He practiced medicine in London, but does not appear to have had much suc- cess as a physician, and depended mainly on his literary activity for the means of support. He died in 1733. In the article Deism (q. v.) the name of Mandeville has not been inserted "because his speculations" (see works below), as Farrar says (Ci-it. IJisf. of Free Thought, p. 135, note Go ), " did not bear directly on religion." Upon morality, however, jNIandeville exerted so great an in- tiuence that we cannot pass him unnoticed. His attacks on Christian morals already reveal him to have been a champion of Deism. The doctrines laid down in several of his works is nothing more nor less than a further elu- cidation of the assertion of Bayle (in Pensees diverses), that Atheism does not necessarily make man vicious, nor a state unhappy, -because dogmas have no influence on the acts of men. Superficial observation of society led Mandeville to the belief that many institutions of public weal derive their strength and support from pre- vailing immorality. This view he developed in a poem entitled The GrumhUng Hive, or Knaves turned Honest (1714), to which he afterwards added long explanatory notes, and then published the whole under the new title of The Fable of the Bees. However erroneous may be its views of morals and of socifltj^, it bears all the marks of an honest and sincere inquiry on an important sub- ject. It exposed Mandeville, however, to much oblo- quy, and, besides meeting with many answers and at- tacks, was denounced as injurious to morality. It would appear that some of the hostility against this work, and against Mandeville generally, is to be traced to another publication, recommending the public licensing of stews, the matter and manner of which are certainly excep- tionable, though it must at the same time be stated that Mandeville earnestly and with seeming sincerity recom- mends his plan as a means of diminisliing immorality, and that he endeavored, so far as lay in his power, by atHxing a high price and in other ways, to prevent the work from having a general circulation. Mandeville subsequently published a second part of The Fable of the Bees, and several other works, among which are t^vo entitled Free Thoughts on Religion, the Church, and Na- tional Happiness, and An Inquiry into the Origin of Honor and the Usefulness of Christianity in War. " The Fable of the Bees, or Pi-ivate Vices Public Benefits, may be viewed in two ways, as a satire on men and as a the- ory of society and national prosperity. So far as it is a satire, it is sufficiently just and pleasant; but viewed in its more ambitious character of a theory of society, it is altogether worthless. It is Mandeville's object to show that national greatness depends on the prevalence of fraud and luxury; and for this purpose he supposes a 'vast hive of bees,' possessing in all respects institutions similar to those of men; he details the various frauds, similar to those among men, practiced by bees one upon another in various professions ; he shows how the wealth accumulated by means of these frauds is turned, through luxurious habits, to the good of others, who again prac- tice their frauds upon the wealthy; and, having already assumed that wealth cannot be gotten without fraud and cannot exist without luxury, he assumes further that wealth is the only cause and criterion of national greatness. His hive of bees having tluis become wealthy and great, he afterwards sui)p<>ses a mutual jealousy of frauds to arise, and fraud to be by common consentdis- missed; and he again assumes that wealth and luxury immediately disappear, and that the greatness of the society is gone. It is needless to point out inconsisten- cies and errors, such, for nistance, as the absence of all distinction between luxury and vice, when the whole theory rests ujion obviously false assumptions; and the long dissertations ap|)cudeil to the fable, however amus- ing and full of valuable remarks, contain no attempts to