Monarch of the World? Nay, he puts in his Claim for more, if more can be thought of, as it is Worded in the Bulla in Cana. Artic. 24. All the Rights of the Apoftolick See and Holy Church of Rome, howsoever and whenfoever obtained or to be obtained. -Howfoever obtained, that is, You are not to enquire whether Right or Wrong And Whenfoever, that is, You are not to go back to Antiquity, or the Inftitution, or look further than the prefent Poffeffi on, which with him gives Right, when it is for him. And to be obtained, fecures any new Acquifitions he can make, and all his future Pretences. This is like Swearing Et cætera's. And now I think the Plenitude of his Power is fufficiently Guarded! And all this is included in the Regalia of St. Peter, and the Rights of the Roman Church, to which the Bishops of France, as well as of other Popish Countries are Sworn, if they take that Oath fincerely, that is, according to the known and declared Sense of the Impofer.

(21.) L. But I fuppofe this Oath must have been taken away, if that Model of Church Government had gone on which was proposed by the Parliament of Paris (and no doubt with the King's Approbation) that a Council of the Bishops, &c. in France fhould be conftituted by His Majefty to difpofe of vacant Bifhopricks, &c. and determine all Ecclefiaftical Matters, without any Appeal or Recourfe to Rome.

G. And it had gone on, but for the Success of that Confederacy formed by Pope Innocent XI. against

against the King of France, to Re-establish his Supremacy there. In order to which he fent a Nuncio to our late King James to invite him to be Head of that Confederacy. But he who had learnt no other than French Popery, abfolutely refused, and oppofed the Encroachments of the Pope's Supremacy, as appears plainly by his Concurrence with Monfieur Barillon the French Ambassador, then refiding with him, to cause the Proceedings of the Parliament of Paris against the Pope's Supremacy, hereunto Annexed, to be Translated into English, and Printed at London in the Year 1688, which was his laft of Reigning here. And the Pope had this for his Excufe, that he could not otherwise have carried on his Confederacy, than by concerting the Depofition of King James. Who would not have agreed to the firft of the Articles Sworn at the Hague by the Princes, Allies, and Confederates, in February, 1691, and Printed here at that time, viz. That no Peace be made with Lewis XIV, till he has made Reparation to the Holy See, for whatsoever he has acted against it; and till he Annul and make void all thofe Infamous Proceedings against the Holy Father, Innocent XI. These are the Proceedings of the Parliament of Paris hereunto annexed. And in the Treaty of K, William with Spain, bearing Date Dec. 31, 1690. it is ftipulated, Art. 4. That all things in the Ecclefiafticks (in France) should be restored as in their former State.

Now if King James would not come in to these things, was there not fufficient Reason

F 3

for

for the Pope to exercife his Depofing Power against him, in the best manner that he could? And if he had fuch Power from God, then King James had no Injury to complain of as done to him, being Depofed by his Lawful Superior.

L. You recal to my Mind the Aftonishment we were in here at the cold Reception, and even Slights put upon the Earl of Castlemain, Ambaffador of King James at Rome, while a Proteftant Doctor, no ways acceptable there upon his own Account, and fome others, were Careffed in an extraordinary manner. But the Event of things explains their Conduct. And now we fee the Reason why Innocent XI. was then called here the Proteftant Pope, because he took part against King James, and helped on the Revolution. And I have been told, That at that time the Pope did require of King James his Promise to ufe his Endeavours to have the Oath of Supremacy taken away in England. And that His Majefty did pofitively refufe it, which fome of us wondered at here. But that another did Promise it, and in this, was as good as his Word, and has taken this Stumbling-block out of the Way.

And

G. King James his Fate was very hard, he was Abdicated in England, becaufe he was a Papift: And the Pope wrought his Depofition, because he was too much a Proteftant. fuch Proteftants are the French reckoned at Rome, they are called there Heretici Tolerati, Tolerated Hereticks. Nor would they be ToleFated, if the Pope could help it, that is, if he

durft

durft imitate the Example of his Predeceffor, the new Saint, Pope Pious V. to Depose the Soveraign, Abfolve the Subjects from their Allegiance, and Interdict the Kingdom. But that Experiment proved fo fatal to the Pope in England, that it is not likely it will ever be try ed again, either in France, or any where elfe. The Thunder of the Vatican is spent, and become a Brutum Fulmen. The Emperor keeps Commacchio ftill, notwithstanding it is particularly named, by the Latin Name Comaclum, in the Bulla in Cana. The 2d Article Damns all who Appeal from the Pope to a future Coun cil Yet have we feen it done in Form by the King of France and the Parliament of Paris, and that very Bull named, and thrown off without any Regard. And the whole Gallican Church are under this Excommunication in almost all the Articles of it, by the four memorable Propofitions, here annexed, which were Established in the General Assembly of their Bishops and Clergy in the Year 1682, upon which the Pope refused his Bull to the Bishops there, as is complained of in the Proceedings of the Parliament of Paris, and was the Ground of. their Quarrel with Pope Innocent XI. And the Learned du Pin wrote his Treatife before mentioned de la Puiffance Ecclefiaftique, &c. in Defence of thefe Propofitions against all the Ob jections of the Pope and Church of Rome.

L. You fhould have faid the Court of Rome. G. I understand not the Diftinction. If you mean nothing by the Church of Rome. but a F 4

General

General Council, then there is no Church of Rome now in the World, but if there be a Church of Rome, where fhall we look for it but at Rome? And what is it there but the Pope and his Cardinals? And is not that it which you call the Court of Rome. Where then is the Difference?

L. We own the Pope to be the First and the Chief of the Bishops, and as fuch keep Communion with him, as it is faid in the Proceedings of the Parliament of Paris, p. 51.

G. The Precedence of Bishops is not a Matter of that Consequence as to break the Peace of the Church for it, or which of them fhould be Prefident in a Council. If that were all the Difference, the Bishop of Rome fhould have it with all my Heart, or any other Bishop they fhould agree upon. And if this were all that is meant by the Supremacy of the Pope, we fhould not trouble the World much about it. But he will not be content with any such thing. The Supremacy he claims is no less than an abfolute Soveraignty over all the Churches and Kingdoms of the Earth, their Bishops and their Kings And this not by any Ecclefiaftical Conftitution, or Grant of Temporal Princes, which might be Conditional, Limited, and Revocable; and would infer their Superiority to him: But by a Divine and Indefeasible Right, as Succeffor of St. Peter, and Heir of all the Promifes made to him, Unalterable, Unlimitable, and Unaccountable to any Power upon Earth.

L. What