are continually grasping at dominion over souls as well as bodies;
among those who are employed in procuring to themselves impunity for
the most enormous villainies, and studying methods of destroying
their fellow-creatures, not for their crimes but their errors; if he
would not expect to meet benevolence, engage in massacres, or to
find mercy in a court of inquisition, he would not look for the true
church in the Church of Rome.

Mr. Le Grand has given in one dissertation an example of great
moderation, in deviating from the temper of his religion, but in the
others has left proofs that learning and honesty are often too weak
to oppose prejudice. He has made no scruple of preferring the
testimony of Father du Bernat to the writings of all the Portuguese
Jesuits, to whom he allows great zeal, but little learning, without
giving any other reason than that his favourite was a Frenchman.
This is writing only to Frenchmen and to Papists: a Protestant
would be desirous to know why he must imagine that Father du Bernat
had a cooler head or more knowledge; and why one man whose account
is singular is not more likely to be mistaken than many agreeing in
the same account.

If the Portuguese were biassed by any particular views, another bias
equally powerful may have deflected the Frenchman from the truth,
for they evidently write with contrary designs: the Portuguese, to
make their mission seem more necessary, endeavoured to place in the
strongest light the differences between the Abyssinian and Roman
Church; but the great Ludolfus, laying hold on the advantage,
reduced these later writers to prove their conformity.

Upon the whole, the controversy seems of no great importance to