nons are the handy-work of the clergy, who form them as much as poffible to their own advantage. Now for legiflators to make a law for their own conveniency, and to expect obedience to it, not from their own fubjects, but from free princes, would be the height of infolence on one fide, and blind obedience, or rather stark blindness on the other. I know it will be objected, that when a Council is held, all the princes who receive fuch Council, do thereby approve all its decrees. I grant, they do indeed approve them, but 'tis with a provifo that they do not turn to their prejudice, for 'tis not to be fuppos'd that any one would willingly injure himfelf for another's benefit; but on the other hand, if a prince refuse to receive fuch Council, he is presently accus'd of obftinacy, disobedience, and contempt of the canon law.

But here. I would be glad to know one thing. Why are more indulto's and privileges granted to one prince than to another, by which means the one's disobedience is branded a's finful, and the other's not? Does not this making fish of one, and flesh of another, fignify, that fin, which draws everlasting damnation along with it, depends meerly on the good will and pleasure of the court of Rome? But will any one make us believe that God falls in with the paffions of fome, to fave or damn others, fince we are all alike redeem'd with the infinite price of Chrift's precious Blood.

The

The Greek Church never grants Difpenfa tions. If any one defires his prelate to dif charge him of a burden which he has not ftrength enough to bear, the prelate fays to him: "If your weakness is real and fincere, "the righteous God will pardon you, tho' you "do not fullfil the law; to what purpose "then should I grant you a dispensation, fince, "in that cafe, fome would be bound by the "law, and others left free? But if you are "under fuch a predicament as the legiflator "would undoubtedly have excepted, if he " had foreseen it; you may act with a safe "confcience, for God does not require impof"fibility of you: On the contrary, if your "cafe be fuch, that if it had been foreseen, it "would not have been excepted, and you de"fire the favour, or privilege of fuch excep"tion, this would be to defire God to be par"tial, who is one and the fame to all man"kind." Such then is the behaviour of the Greek paftors, and whether it be owing to this, or to their poverty, or to their abhorrence of whatever favours of temporal dominion, 'tis certain they have no innovators among them, and they continue unanimous and unchangeable in their opinions

Before the Popes of Rome had any temporal dominion, they expected no more of chriftians than a plain honeft faith, with the use and veneration of the facraments; but when, by the generous liberality of fovereigns, they R 2

became

became princes as well as they, instead of bounding their power, they augmented it as much as poffible, and not content with defpotic fway, either in their temporal or fpiritual government, they were fond of extending their fecular authority into the dominions of other fovereigns, and fet up to be oracles of faith for the whole christian world.

When a prince, for any reason of state, or government, declares war against any other that is his equal, he would be accountable for his conduct only to his own confcience, and to God, who fearcheth the heart, and trieth the reins, and will render to every man according to his works, and is not to be reprov'd for it by the Pope, who, as he is the common father of the Church, seems to have no other authority in that quality, than to defend the juft, protect the weak, and oppose the rash and litigious aggreffor. Yet the Pope is not bound by these ties, and we don't find that he ever excommunicates a prince for attacking another unjustly; whereas, if a prince happens to lay claim to any of the territories of the fovereign pontiff, which are not yet lawfully devolv'd to his holiness, or which he poffeffes by ancient ufurpation; and if the prince feeks to do himfelf juftice by force, the Pope immediately proceeds to excommunication, tho' all the prince's fault is his endeavouring to procure that justice by force of arms, which he could not obtain by good words. But if, on the other hand, a

prince happens to attack another whofe dominions are either totally, or but in part fiefs of the holy See, the Pope immediately takes the field with letters monitory, and the thunder of excommunication, efpecially if the aggreffor is weak, or has his hands fo full of another. war at the fame time, that he is not able to revenge the injury, and to cancel the fentence with the point of his fword; in which unhapру cafe indeed he must be content with the bare declaration of war. Now I defire to know the cause of this different conduct, and of this confounding the fpiritual and temporal weapons together. Why fhould excommunication be iffu'd to hinder injuftice, when dominions are invaded, which do not own the Pope's fovereignty in temporalibus? When a medicine is known to be good and wholefome, it ought in charity to be diftributed to all that fuffer for want of it; fince to give it to one, and to deny it to another, would imply that thole who have it to bestow, are mighty defirous to prolong the life of the one, and that the prefervation of the other is the leaft of their thoughts. It must therefore be confefs'd, that this variety, of conduct is the fruit of the Pope's temporal fovereignty, and that if he was still in that primitive ftate, which was inftituted by Chrift, and kept up to by the apoftles and their fucceffors, for feveral centuries, he would not trouble himself to guard his temporal dominions with fpiritual weapons, as not thinking he

し

R 3

ought

ought to defend them after the manner of caftles.

I would know whether the advocates of the court of Rome affent to the truth of that maxim, which is in the mouth of all politicians; viz. That when a prince attacks another, after declaration of open war, the prince who is attack'd, may, by right of neceffary defence, not only oppofe his attempts, and hinder him, fword in hand, from breaking in upon his dominions; but also, if it happens that in the difpute he fhould make himself master of a part of his enemy's territories, he has a right to keep the faid acquifition as the lawful prize of a juft war. This is the maxim of all politicians; and if the gentlemen of the court of Rome will affent to it, I ask, if any feudatory duke of the holy See fhould fall upon a free prince, and thereby give him occafion to fight and overcome him, and to seize fome fiefs of the Church, whether the conquering prince would be oblig'd, or no, to restore them? Mean time, I am fully convinc'd, that if the reftitution be not speedy, the thunder of excommunication would foon rattle over the head of fuch prince, how contrary foever fuch a proceeding would be to the maxims of christianity. This was the very cafe of the most serene republic; which falling into a rupture with the duke of Ferrara in 1480, in the time of Pope Sixtus IV. the Pope himself improv'd the quarrel; they fell to blows, and the Vene