OCR Text |
Show of W~tr And Pt11ce their Confederates. In which cafe,neither were the (Arthagmians viol~tors of the League, if they di? war u.pon the. Sa,~u~~tineJ, when they JUd~d 1t to be JUH; nor the · Romarts , if they di9 defend them. Plainly, as· in the time Pyrrhu~ , . it was Polyb. Hift. 3· agreed 'twilt the (arthaginitM and the 'JVman , that if either of them entred League yvirh P1rrhu.r, he ihould fo do ir, faving the right of fending aids to him, whom Pyrrhm £hould invade. I do not fay , that war could have been juft on both .fides ; but I fay this petteined not t P P to the violation of rhe Leagtie t. So doth fie. rocop. cr- p l b. . · h n· I . d 2. .. Dictbat o l t.'l s , m t e quernon touc 1mg a; Al•mttndarw fent by the R()mans to the Mamcrtim , R.tx S•r«ce~o- ditHngui.fu the Q_uerees, Whether it were r~, n~n fJ~ol•- juil and Vvhetber it were la wfull by the n 4 (e q11tt t1Jttr ' ' Per{t.U Rom4- League. nofq; lonvtne- · J"•nt, qua1doq14idcm ip[t & neutr• parte &onv~.cis lnfcript• tffil, Liv. li~ •• p .. LIX. One Jhall not wage war with· out /~ave o.f the other, How under: ftooi An.d, That Carrhag e foal/ bc>Jree. THe former exlmp}e was in hn :qt~al League , we will let down anodicr m an uucqual: if it were agreed, th~t one fhould not waoe war without content of the ocher Confederace. This was an ar· ticle in the Leaoue ofthcRomam and (ar· tht1fJnittnJ ,.af~r the fccQnd Ptwil: war : · and Thefocolld and like wife in that of the MMtdoni~tnr~ with the Romans, befor~ the reign of Pn-• feut.Whereas the wordWarring,may both lignify all war, and peculiarly that which is ojfenjive;here we £hal take the narrower lignification, tbat liberty may not be too much reftrained. Of the fame kind it is ·, that the Romans promiied, That CarthAge t Diodorus Si.. Jhall ·be free t: Which 'althouoh. by the c•lllsptfic rJcferc )" • l:> ~ C:XCCr G til• nature of the a&, lt could not be under- tionu01 17, flood of the fullefi power ( for they had m•nfur• illiJ afore let go the right of undertaking war Ltf.ts J ,,;,.. and fo~ other thines) yet did it leave~~":' '"t;b' ,{•· t he m i·-o e liberty , a.n......d ar leaft fo much , tPtm""." " ' wt•·· that they were not bound, at anothers command ·, to change the feat of their City. In vain therefor~ dig the 'R..fmans urge the word C~rthage, faying the mul-titude of Citizens , n~t the City, were thereby lignified ( which , though ill}pro- .P<;r, may be ~ranted, by reafon of the at-tribute, which i6 more. meet for the Citi-zens than the City·~) For , in die word free ( J.uw•D~M•, as Appian.fpeaks) there wa~ a mani~eft fallacy. '. LX. Of .Agrumems per[o~ ' . mel and rt.kfl. : . ,.. I"fi5 alfo a frequent .~eftion, per~i~ent here , concerning Agreements perfon~\ and real. And ,truly,ifthe Treaty was w1th a free people , no doubt but what was, is promifed t~em, is in its own· na-ture • ..1 |