267 in the Confultations at the Hague? Had not the Courts of Vienna and Madrid both Hatred enough for France, and zeal enough for the Pope to concert thofe Articles in Favour of him without his being perfonally concern'd in the Matter? And if so, can be no Proof, that the Pope was acceffory to the Depofition of King James. Nay let us fuppofe he even was concern'd in that Treaty, which (as you fay) was set on Foot in Feb. 1691. What Connection could it have with King Jame's Depofition, which was fully completed Ann. 1688. Befides I cannot but think the French are found Papifts: and therefore King Jame's being a French Papift, as you call him, could be no Provocation to the Pope to defire his Depofition.

G. My Lord, fuch Proteftants are the French at «Rome, that they are reckon'd there to be tolerated « Hereticks. pag. 80. «

L. Under Favour, Sr, that fmells as rank of Grub-freet as King William's being a Papist, and defigning to establish Italian Popery in France.

G. Nor would they be tolerated, if the Pope e could help it. That is, if he durft imitate the ex- « ample of his Predeceffor the new Saint Pope Pius ce V. to depofe the Sovereign, 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 tried « again either in France, or any where elfe. The « Thunder of the Vatican is spent, and become a bru- « tum fulmen. pag. 80.81. «

L. That's good News indeed. But why then will you not cease Railing at the Pope, fince he is never like to give you any farther Moleftation?

G. The Emperor keeps Commachie ftill, not- « withstanding it is particularly named by the La-u tin Name Comaclum in the Bulla Cone. pag. 81, «

L. So much the worfe for him, unless he can juf tify it before God. And 'tis more than you or I can tell, whether he can or no.

» G The 2d Article damns all, who appeal from the Pope to a future Council. Yet have we not 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?

L. Sr, it was never thrown off, because it was never received in France.

» G. The whole Gallican Church are under Ex➜› communication in almost all the Articles of it by the four memorable Propofitions here annex'd: which » were establish'd in the general Affembly of their Bishops and Clergy An. 1682. Upon which the Pope »refufed his Bulls to the Bishops there, as is complain'd of in the Proceedings of the Parliament of Pa ris, and was the Ground of their Quarrel with pope →Innocent XI. And the learned du Pin wrote his Treatife de la Puiffance Ecclefiaftique in Defence of these »Propofitions against all the Objections of the Pope, and Church of Rome. pag. 81.

L. He did fo. And is it any Wonder, that in dif putes about Privileges both Sides should write in Defence of their own Caufe? However that be the Four Propofitions, you fpeak of, were never condemn'd as Heretical by the Pope: but being difpleafed with the Proceedings of the Bishops, which he look'd upon as disrespectful, he refused to fend Bull. for the filling up of the Bishopsricks that were va cant. Nor do I fee how thofe Propofitions could pu the Gallican Church under the Excommunications of the Bulla Cone: because the whole Subject of tha Bull being Matters of Difcipline, it do's not oblig but where it is received: fince even Rules of Difci pline made by the fupreme Tribunal of the Church o.

of

blige not all Nations equally, as I have already reamark'd. And where they do not oblige, a Non-compliance cannot be punishable by Excommunication. And fo the four Propofitions, tho never fo contrary to the Bulla Coena, could not involve the Gallican Church in that Punishment.

Now then, as to what you have afferted with a Pofitiveness as if you had a Revelation of it, viz. that Innocent XI. wrought the Depofition of King James, I shall beg leave not to believe one Word of your Story ftill you produce fome uncontested Facts to prove it. Did Innocent abfolve King Jame's Subjects from the Allegiance, they had fworn to him? Did his Holineß give a Difpenfation to the Lords Spiri tual and Temporal to invite the Prince of Orange 0ver? Was it by his Orders that the English Fleet let him pafs, and that the Army went over to him? Finalely, did he fend his Bull to authorize the Convention to place the Crown upon King William's Head? For, if he wrought King Jame's Depofition, as you pretend he did, it must certainly be upon Record, that he employ'd fome of the Means, I have mention'd, in Order to it. For I am fure he neither fent Men nor Money to affift the Prince of Orange.

But is it not ridiculous to run upon a Fool's Errand as far as Rome in Quest of the true Inftruments of the Revolution, when they may be found without the Trouble even of Croffing the Seas? Why will you needs rob your own Church of the Glory of it, after she has fignaliz'd herself so eminently in that important Service? Why muft the Pope go away with the Honour of an Exploit, the Maintaining whereof has coft England fo much true Proteftant Blood and Treasure? Surely King William, who underftood the Bottom of that Bufinefs the best of any, never thought himself indebted to his Holinef

for the Success of his Expedition. For if he had, he would never have requited his Benefactor by fuffering him to be burnt in Effigie several Times a Year as long as he lived. But fuppofe it were fo, what is it to our Purpose? Do you make no Difference be tween the Church, and the Court of Rome?

» G. I understand not the Diftinction. If you mean nothing by the Church of Rome but a general Council, then there is no Church of Rome now in the » World. But if there be a Church of Rome, where shall 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? pag. 81. 82.

L, Really, Sr, I cannot but admire your affected Ignorance, as if you knew no better than you pretend to do. You tell me you do not understand the Difference between the Church and Court of Rome. How can that be? Is not the Pope a temporal Prince, and a very confiderable one as well as Head of the Church? As he is a temporal Prince, he has his Court and Politicks like other Princes, But as be is Bishop of the Dioceẞ of Rome, and Head of the Church, he is confider'd purely in a spiritual Capacity, and as fuch he has no Court, as that Word is ufually taken. For St Peter (whofe Succeffor he is in Spirituals) was both Head of the Church, and Bishap of Rome, yet e had no Court. And when St Paul wrote his Epiftle to the Romans, he wrote to the Church, but not the Court of Rome. They are therefore feparable, and by Confequence diftinct.

You tell me next, if I mean nothing by the Church of Rome but a General Council, then there is no Church of Rome now in the World. But who was ever fo ridicu lous, as to have fuch a Meaning? For a general Coun sil is neither the Epifcopal See of Rome, nor the Dif

fufive Body of the Roman Catholick Church, but the Reprefentative of that Body. And therefore as there is a British Nation in Being, when there is no British Parliament sitting, so I hope that neither the Epif copal See of Rome, nor the Roman Catholick Church lose their Being, when there is not general Council assembled. You ask, if there be a Church of Rome, where is it to be look'd for but at Rome? I anfwer, that it is a probable Opinion amongst the learned, that neither the City, nor Dioceẞ of Rome is the whole Roman Catholick Church, which however we commonly call the Church

of Rome.

You ask again, what is there at Rome but the Pope and his Cardinals? Go to Rome, Sr, and you will find fomething else besides the Pope, and his Cardinals, I hope however they are not the whole Roman Catho lick Church.

→ But I am weary of Politicks. For that is not our Bufinefs, but Religion; efpecially fince neither you nor I are ever like to be Minifters of State. I am a Member of the Church, but not of the Court of Rome $. and will always pay a due Submiffion and Obedience to the Pope, as he is the Chief Bishop, and Supreme, Paftor of the Church.

G.

§. 45.

The Supremacy misrepresented by the Gentleman.

TH

ce

He Precedence of Bishops is not a Matter of that Confequence, as to break the « Peace of the Church for it or which of them « should prefide in a Council. If that were all the Dif- « ference, the Bishop of Rome should have it with e all my Heart, or any other Bishop they should « agree upon. And if this were all that is meant by the Supremacy of the Pope, we should not trouble a