ly criminal in the fubjects, to refufe paying the prince moderate impofts, and in the prince, not to take care of the people under his government: Thus, when the night closes the eyelids of mankind to fleep, the heavens open millions of eyes upon them, as it were to watch for their prefervation; fo that we may fay, aftra regunt homines, with the poet, &

etiam curant.

This right of fovereigns to levy tenths, and other impofts, on their fubjects, both for an acknowledgment of his fovereignty, and defraying the expences of his government, is fo lawful and univerfal, that even infidel princes are not excluded from it; fo that chriftians, who happen to be born in the Turkish dominions, are oblig'd in confcience, as long as they live there, to discharge all the duties of their dependence. Principi populi tui non maledices; for if we were not oblig'd to this acknowledgment by the bonds of faith, yet thofe of fociety demand it; and 'tis, moreover, decided by the canons, that we ought to place an infidel in the rank of our neighbour, because he is capable of being a partaker of the benefits of our Saviour's redemption, if he will obey. the gofpel. This is what Jefus Chrift defign'd alfo as a leffon for us, who, when a certain lawyer ask'd him, Mafter, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? the fum of his answer was, Love God and thy neighbour. To which the lawyer demanding, Who is my neighbour? Je

fus

fus told him the ftory of that inhabitant of Je rufalem, viz. one that liv'd after the law of Mofes, who falling among thieves, was stript of his raiment, and fo wounded, that they left him half dead: But by chance there came down a certain prieft of the law that way, and when he faw him, he pafs'd by on the other fide And likewife a levite, i. e. a minifter of the temple, when he was at the place, came and look'd on him, and pafs'd by on the other fide; but a certain Samaritan, one who profefs'd another religion, as he journeyed, came where he was, and when he saw him, he had compaffion on him, and went to him, bound up his wounds, carry'd him to an inn, and paid the host for his cure. Now, fays Jefus Chrift to the lawyer, which of these three, thinkeft thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? why, he did not fcruple to say the Samaritan, who fhew'd mercy on him. Fefus Chrift approv'd of his anfwer, by saying, go and do thou likewife: So that a chriftian is oblig'd to look upon him as his neighbour, who fhew's him acts of charity. From hence I infer, that if men are oblig'd in confcience to be obe dient and tributary fubjects to an infidel prince, under whofe government they live, they have much more reafon, furely, to pay fuch obedience and tribute to a chriftian prince, their natural fovereign, to whom they are united by the profeffion of the fame faith; and that who

ever tranfgreffes this command, is guilty of the breach of God's law.

We will now proceed to try how far the argument will bear with refpect to the clergy, The question then is, whether a fecular prince has a legal authority to demand the clergy's tenths? To this I answer readily, that if the obligation of subjects to their prince is as general as that of the prince to his fubjects, (which was demonftrated juft now) the clergy are under an indifpenfible neceffity to plead fome fpecial privilege that exempts them from any fuch obligation; for the fovereign prince's authority is boundless and univerfal, and even this privilege ought not to be barely human, but they must hold it from God himself; for the authority of the prince is founded on the divine law, and not on that of man. Some men, of the beft learning, have been so fenfible of the force of the argument, that finding no way to come off, they have given it up entirely, and own'd, that 'tis very true the prince has a right to exact fuch tribute from all his fubjects, but that this fecular right terminates in the laity. A fine crafty answer this, but in the main really frivolous! for I would fain know which of thefe two ought, according to God's law, to be in greatest fubjection to his prince? whether a Chriftian to a Turk,in whose dominions he lives? or an ecclefiaftic, living in a chriftian country, to the fecular prince? in the one cafe, 'tis my dwelling only that ren

ders

ders me fubject to the Turk, whofe fovereignty over fuch my dwelling is no less than ufurpation and tyranny; but in the other cafe, the ecclefiaftic dwells in a place where the prince has the legal right of fovereignty, and is moreover united to him by the fame faith. I fhould be glad to know what answer they could poffibly make to that objection; for if they should be fo imprudent as to affert, that a christian is more oblig'd to obey a Turk,than a clergyman his chriftian prince; I would ask them, by what rule have the Popes fo often publish'd croisadoes, and invited all chriftians to fall upon the Turks, fince fuch chriftians, who live under the dominion of the Turks, are, if that affertion be true,more oblig'd to obey the Turk,than the clergy are oblig'd to own the authority of chriftian princes? Now, 'tis certain that every clergyman is fubject to his lay-prince in all things that are independent on the ecclefiaftic miniftry. But, in the functions of the priesthood, the ecclefiaftic is not fubject to the temporal prince, who has in that cafe no authority over him, and if he should pretend to ufurp it, he would deferve blame and cenfure, as we have fhewn under another head. On the other hand, the payment of tenths is a thing fo far from being injurious to the priesthood, that it has no relation to it. For we have elsewhere demonftrated, that the clergy's poffeffion of temporalities is fo far from being jure divino, that tis hardly compatible with the priesthood;

and

and from hence it neceffarily follows, that by virtue of fuch poffeffions, they are fubject to the prince, and that the fovereign, however he became fuch, has authority to treat them on a level with the other fubjects. Left any fhould accufe me of replying to the fame thing a hundred times, I will reduce all that I have to fay, as to this head, to one fingle point, viz. whether 'tis poffible to form an ecclefiaftic fovereignty within one that is fecular? The whole controversy turns upon this one queftion, which, however, I have divided into fo many chapters, only to render it the more clear and intelligible; for, tho' I have made twelve feparate articles of it, they have fo near an af finity to each other, that it wa simpoffible to treat of the one, without breaking in upon the other.

4

If it be certain that not one good reason can be produc'd why ecclefiaftics fhould be tolerated in the poffeffion of temporalities, how vainly then do fome people argue, who fay, that the fecular prince is oblig'd to regard them as a thing facred, and, as it were, divine? We will now inquire how tenths came to be firft establifh'd. The priest thinks he is authoriz'd to collect the tenths of the laity's poffeffions by the exprefs command of God; that confequently, if the eftate, which the priest poffeffeth, confifts only in the tenths, he fhall be exempt from the impoft of the prince, becaufe it would be unreasonable for him to pay

the