who was Wifdom itself, chofe to be X Say not that it is good to join the fpiritual and the temporal together, and fo to allure by all forts of inducements men whose weaknefs is well known. Jefus Chrift knew their weak fide better than we, and yet never employed fuch methods. It is all an illufion of felflove; and the Minifters of the Gospel are glad in the mean time themselves to enjoy that wealth and thofe honours which they pretend to employ as means to gain and to fave fouls. Let us return to the Bishops, and conclude that it was grofs and coarfe ignorance which made them imagine that Seignories added to their Sees were ufeful means for the fupport of religion. I know of no See, except that of Rome, which admits a peculiar plea for the union of the two Powers. long as the Roman Empire fubfifted, it contained in its vaft extent almost all Christendom: but fince Europe hath been divided amongst many independent Princes, if the Pope had been fubject to one of them, it might have been As feared feared that the reft would not have been difpofed to acknowledge him as a common father, and that fchifms would have been frequent. It may therefore be thought that by a particu lar Providence the Pope became independent, and Lord of a State fo powerful as not to be easily oppreffed by other Sovereigns; that fo he might be more at liberty in the exercife of his fpiritual power, and better able to keep all the Buhops in order. This is the notion of a great Prelate in our days. But in general, if the union of the two Powers can be profitable for religious purposes, it ought to have conduced to establish and fupport those good morals which are the genuine fruits of Chriftian doctrine. For Jefus Christ did not only come to inftruct us in fpeculative truths; he came, as St. Paul fays, to purify to himself a people acceptable, and zealous of good works. If this be the aim of true political wif Whom I should guefs to be Boffuet. It looks like one of his refinement. X 2 dom, dom, and the first duty of Christian Princes, much more fhould it be fo of Ecclefiaftics, whofe very profeffion is to fanctify others. Let thofe who have travelled in the dominions of Ecclefiaftical Princes tell us how the cafe is, whether fewer horrible crimes and fcandalous vices are committed there, whether the high-ways are lefs infested with robbers, whether more honefty and veracity is found in trade and commerce, in a word, whether the fubjects of these Prelates diftinguish themselves from thofe of Secular Rulers by the purity of their morals. I never yet heard it faid that the dominions of Ecclefiaftics are happier than other kingdoms even in things temporal. On the contrary, as thefe Princes. are not warriors by profeffion, their fubjects are often more expofed to the infults of foreign enemies. As thofe dominions are not hereditary, the relations and the creatures of the Prince are only attentive to enrich themselves, and that at the expence of the people. They They have no views of ferving the public by augmenting the number of the inhabitants, cultivating the lands, favouring honest industry, facilitating commerce, encouraging arts and fciences, inviting and importing all that conduceth to fecure plenty and the conveniences of life, Thefe extenfive views are more fuitable to Republics, or to kingdoms where Princes have a regard for their own pofterity. Amongst the Greeks we find no Lords-Prelates, because, notwithstanding the weakness and declenfion of their Empire, they ever preserved the Roman Laws, and the maxims of wiser Antiquity, according to which all the public power was vefted in the Sovereign, and was never communicated to the fubject, except in Magiftracies and Offices which were not held as a property. Accordingly, the Greeks were much scandalized when they saw our Bishops poffeffing Seignories, bearing arms, raifing troops, and heading them. X 3 One |