J. 18, » Authority, &c. Then he go's on to vindicate the » Rights of every National Church independent of the » Church of Rome, and past her Power to controll or alter. pag. 21. 22.

L. Sr, I have already told you (but you are fomewhat forgetful) that if Popes should pretend to invade the juft Rights or Privileges of particular Churches, they may lawfully maintain them, and the learned du Pin may be their Advocate, if he pleafes, without Derogating from the Supremacy of St Peter, or his Succeffors. But, as to the long Paffage, you have quoted from him, there is not a Word in it can do you any Service; unlefs you become guilty of the old Equivocation in Confounding the Diece or Patriarchat of Rome with the whole Church in Communion with that See.

It is true (fays du Pin) that at prefent the Name of the Church of Rome is given to the Catholick Church, and thefe Terms paß for Synonimous. I answer, that du Pin certainly means the whole Church in Communion with the See of Rome. For the learned du Pin is not fuch a Blunderer as to fay, that the Dioceß of Rome, and the Catholick Church pafs for Synonimous Terms,

He go's on. But in Antiquity no more was intended by the Name of the Church of Rome, than the Church of the City of Rome. And the Popes in their Subfcriptions, or Superfcriptions took fimply the Quality of Bishop of Rome.

Very right, Sr. But cannot Custom enlarge the Signification of Words? Or muft du Pin be our Monitor to tell us, that the Dioceßs of Rome was not formerly the whole Catholick Church? Or that the Catholick Church was not always call'd by the Name of the Church of Rome The Latin Church was not always call'd by that Name, yet I think the Latin Church was always the Latin Church, as the Greek Church was always the Greek Church, tho it had not always that Name; and as Chrif.

tians were always Chriftians, tho they were not call'd fo till there was a Church founded at Antioch. What therefore du Pin fays concerning the Occafion of the different Appellations to diftinguish the rwo Churches from one another, is nothing to the Purpofe. If he had faid, that the whole Church in Com munion with the See of Rome was not anciently the Catholick Church, this indeed would have been a fweet Bit for you. But du Pin is too good a Papift to write in that extravagant Manner.

As to the Subfcriptions or Superscriptions used by Popes, I prefume you would not have them fill up whole Pages with pompous Titles like the Grand Senior; or Kings of Perfia. Nay every Pope fince St Gregory's Time has only ftiled himself, the Servant of the Servants of God. But this never hinder'd them from Afferting their Supremacy against any one, that offer'd to attack it. Thus much then for du Pin's I Words. Let us now confider what you have faid yourself.

You tell me, there never was a General Council. Sr, if you speak the usual Language of Christendom, you have it entirely against you. Nay your own Church allows of the 4 first General Councils, and calls them by that Name. But if you coin Notions, which no Man ever thought of, what you fay may be true, but I am fure 'tis nothing to the Purpose.

You add, that because the Roman Empire had the Vanity to call itself the Oicumene, hence the Councils call'd within that Empire ftiled themselves Oecumenical, or General. But I should be glad to know, where you learnt this Piece of profound Erudition. For pray, Sr, were there not innumerable National and Provincial Councils held within the Empire, which yet never ftiled themselves Oecumenical or General? The true Reafon therefore why the other Councils were

fo ftiled

was because the Catholick Bishops of all Nations were invited to them; and there was a sufficient Number prefent at them to make them the Reprefentatives of the whole Catholick Church.

Your Obfervation, that the Latin Church was not fo much as the Oicumene of the Empire; is just as much to the Purpose, as if you should tell me that Greece is not in Italy, or that it was not fubject to the Patriarchat of Rome; which no Man ever dreamt of. For the Popes pretend not to the Supremacy either as Bishops or Patriarchs of Rome, but as Succeffors of St Pe ter. And fo the Question is not, how far the Patriarchal Jurifdiction of Rome (which is commonly call'd the Latin Church) is extended; but whether the Bishop of Rome be not the Head of the Catholick Church, precisely as he is the Succeffor of St Peter?

As to what you add, viz. that after the Empire was tranflated to Conftantinople, the Greek Church contended with Rome for the Supremacy, I have already shew'd the Falfehood of it. §. 9. So you may now proceed, if you please.

§. 19.

Mr Talon's Speech in the Parliament of Paris against Innocent XI. misrepresented.

» G.

He Proceedings of the Parliament of Paris

T (Appen. P. 39. 40.) tells the Pope, that

» his Bishoprick extends only to the Dioces of Rome, » and his Patriarchat to the Provinces call'd Subur » bicarial. And that by taking upon him to excom»municate others unjustly, and where his Power » did not reach, he had excommunicated himself. » And then he was fo far from being Head, that he was not fo much as a Member of the Church.

And

And they mind him, as likewife du Pin in the « Treatife above-mention'd, pag. 263. of the ftout « Refiftance made by the Bishops of France to the a Pope who threaten'd to excommunicate all of « them, that would not submit to his Decifion. But « they refolutely answer'd, that they would not fub- « mit to his Will; and that if he came to excom- « municate them, he should go back excommuni- «<< cated himself. Si excommunicaturus veniret, excom- « municatus abiret. Now what is that Head, can be « excommunicated by it's Members? What is that « Supremacy can be limited, and controll'd by it's « Subjects? And of which they are the Judges, and «< can fay to it as God to the Sea: hitherto shall't « thou come and no farther, here shall thy proud Waves a be ftaid? pag. 22. 23. “

ADVERTISEMENT.

N. B. That the Piece here quoted by the Gentleman is printed in the Appendix of his Cafe ftated. Beginning pag. 39. and Ending pag. 52. And tho it be the Harangue of an Advocate General in Defence of the Franchises of the Gallicane Church, fill'd with many warm Expreffions, but too ufual in the Heat of Difputes, yet the Gentleman is pleafed to lay as much Streß upon it as if it were a Dogmatical Piece approved by all Catholick Divines. But, what is still more furprizing, tho the Gentleman had the Piece before him, yet in the Small Part, he has quoted of it, he is guilty of two Falfifications: whether voluntary, or involuntary I refer to the Reader.

L. SR; Veinhver that is, Mr Talon's

we have the Proceedings of the Parliament

N

$.197 warm Speech against the Bull of Innocent XI. But you have made him fay more, than he really did or ever thought of.

For first, you fay he tells the Pope, that his Bishoprick extends only to the Dioceẞ of Rome, and his Patriarchat to the Provinces call'd Suburbicarial. Where as Mr Talon's Words are no more than an expoftulatory Interrogation, and can bear no fuch Meaning any more than a Child can be said to disown the Authority of his Father, if thinking himself injured he should ask him in an expoftulatory Way, whether he meant to renounce that Title?

Mr Talon's Words are these. Is it that the Pope means to have no more Commerce with France? Is he perfuaded that bis Power reaches no farther than the Diocess of Rome, and his Patriarchship than the Neighbouring Provinces ftiled Suburbicarial? Do's he intend to renounce the Quality of Head of the Church and common Father of the Faithful? (Appen. pag. 43.44.) Now let any Man Judge whether you have quoted him fairly. Nay his laft Words imply no lefs, than an Acknowledgment of the Pope's being the Head of the Church, and common Father of the Faithful: which in Reality is the Point in Quef. tion betwixt us. For what is it to the Purpose how far the Bishoprick or Patriarchat of Rome is extended? Our Question is precifely concerning the Pope's Su premacy, to which he has no Title but precisely as he is the Succeffor of St Peter. And this Mr Talon acknowledges, pag. 49. Appen. and promises that the Gallicane Church will always maintain Communion with the See of Rome which you know very well is impracticable without Owning the Supremacy.

2dly, you quote that Part of Mr Talon's Speech, where he puts the Pope in Mind of the ftout Refiftance made by the Bishops of France in the Reign of Lewis the Debonnaire against Pope Gregory IV. who