AN ANSWER TO Monsieur Talon's PLEA, Published at PARIS.  Exod. 21.17. 
Qui maledixerit Patri suo.  
He that nurseth his Father.  Exod. 22.28. 
Principi populi tui non maledices.  
You shall not curse the head of your people.  Ambros. in Psalm. 118. 
Vere frustra impugnatur, qui apud impios& infidos impietatis arcessitur, cum fidei sit Magister.  
He truly is opposed in vain, who by the Wicked and Unfaithfull is aspersed with impiety, when he is indeed the master of our Faith.  
With Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed, and Sold by Randal tailor, near Stationers-Hall, 1688.   

An Answer to Monsieur Talon's Plea, Published at Paris.  
HEre has appeared some days ago, a Plea of Monsieur Talon's, at the head of a Decree of the Parliament of Paris, issued against a Bull of our Lord the Pope, which Excommunicates all those who under pretence of pretended Franchises, shelter all sorts of Villains, Banditts, and Assassinates, and hinder the course of Justice in the City of Rome.  
If this Paper had not appeared publicly in Paris in the name of the Parliament, we should never have believed that under a Prince of that wisdom and Zeal for the catholic Faith, as his Most Christian Majesty has ever appeared to be, any man durst have published such a Pamphlet as this, that looks rather like a defamatory libel, filled with injuries against the Pope and the apostolic See, then like the Plea of an Advocate-General, that has spent his Age in the Profession of Eloquence and Law.  
This Magistrate in his Youth, spoken of the Church of Rome but from the memorials of Dr Launoy, who never had other end in his Writings then to lessen the Sovereign Authority of the Pope: It was hoped that Age and Experience would have tempered by this time that Critical and Morose humour of his, which made him heretofore writ with so little Moderation of the Sacred See.  
And we might have thought that the Clergy of France, having so vigorously remonstrated, and so notably complained of a Plea of his he made above Twenty years ago, in which he had advanced Propositions so absolutely Erroneous, and so injurious to the Church of God, that the Bishops of France openly Taxed 'em with Heresy and Schism, he would not have presumed to have pulled upon himself again; not only the just indignation of those Venerable Prelates, but indeed the Clamour of the whole catholic Church, for Violating that Sacred Respect, which has ever from all good Christians been due to the Vicar of Christ, and the Visible Head of the Church.  
Besides, the Advocate speaking upon this occasion, only in compliance with the Ministers of the King, we had some ground to expect more Modesty from him. But whether it were that he acted by order of the Court, or that he Indulged that Extravagant humour of his, ever contrary to the Roman Church, 'tis certain he never with more Liberty was transported against the Pope and the Sacred See, then in this last Plea of his. We might have thought that in a matter of this importance, and a Controversy that has made such a Noise in the World, as this of the Franchises has done, a Man of Learning and Parts, would have examined the matter in question to the bottom; would have established the Pretensions of France by Arguments of some force; would have brought us Presidents from authentic History; would have given us Reasons well grounded in Law, and so with some Colour at least have asserted those unjust and chimerical pretensions which aim at the power of exercising Acts of Sovereignty in the middle of other Lands then his own, and in the Capital City of another princes Dominions: for indeed the right which Monsieur Talon maintains, is nothing else but this: To be able to tie the hands of a Sovereign Prince in his own State; to be able to exercise an Absolute Sovereignty in a place where he has no Authority at all: to be able to give shelter, and allow impunity to all Criminals whatsoever: to be able to Authorize all sorts of Disorders in a City which( as Monsieur Lavardin was pleased to call it) is the general country of all good Christians, and where consequently good Order and exact Government are more necessary then in any part of the World. In a word, 'tis to be able to expose that infinity of Persons which come to Rome from all parts of the World, to all sorts of insolences and Injuries without their being any ways able to demand Justice or to secure themselves. This in short is the substance of that right of Franchises or privileges which the ambassador of France pretends to have at his particular House within the Walls of Rome. A right so odious and so abominable, if we consider the consequences well, that though the Most Christian King had all the right in the world on his side, yet that Piety and Justice which God and the World expects from such a Prince as he, would oblige him voluntarily to renounce it, that he might not be one day forced to answer both to God and Man for that infinity of Crimes and villainies that this pretended privilege of his not only permits, but Authorizes too. And yet in this Discourse of Monsieur Talon, we cannot find so much as the least Argument, nor proof of any thing he affirms: We see nothing here of that Pompons and borrowed erudition, which he makes so much use of in his other Discourses; He makes but little use here of those large common places, of the enterprises of the Court of Rome, and of the privileges of the Gallican Church: this Plea of his is nothing but a bitter and perpetual satire against the Pope and the Sacred See of Rome. He never goes about to prove( as so bold an Assertor of Novelty ought to have done) that from the first beginning of the Monarchy of France, the King had always enjoyed such a Privilege as this in Rome, never offers to tell us how and in what manner those privileges of France by their Kings were made use of in all times; but thinks it sufficient to say, that That Privilege is a Right of the French Crown, from which this King desires the world to believe he will never depart. He affirms that neither Kings, nor their Ambassadors can be Excommunicated by the Pope, but never takes upon him to prove it, no more then he does to show us that pretended injustice of the Interdict of the Church of St. Lewis in Rome: he thinks it seems a shorter and faciler way of dispute, barely to say with a definitive Gravity, Here's a great abuse; This Wounds the Liberty of France; but reasons that might satisfy such Intelligent and Learned men as may not only red, but search perhaps into the bottom of such a Controversy as this, he gives none at all. So that in all appearance this will at last be the fate of this famous Advocate so much vaunted of in the Gazette of France, that this Plea of his will give all heretics and Enemies of the Church an excellent occasion to triumph, All Learned and Intelligent men good ground to despise him; All Good catholics that are firm in the Communion of the catholic Church sufficient cause to look upon him with Indignation and Horror: Evil men themselves will blushy at his Confidence, and the Good will not be able to red him without tears; when they shall consider that under a King that professes so great moderation and wisdom, such a declaimer as this shall be suffered to appear with such Insolence against the head of the Church, and take the Confidence to Publish such schismatic Propositions against the Pope, and the Church of Rome.  
But this above all must needs be to all Good catholics a most insupportable grief, to see that those very men in whose hands the King trusts all the Ecclesiastical affairs of his Kingdom, as well as those chief Ministers he employs at Rome, are so far from blaming these rash and ill-considered Propositions of this Advocate-General, that they are the principal fomentors of this Rebellion against the Sacred See, the only Authors and Promoters of those unworthy calumnies against his Holiness, and the men that most rejoice to see that grand Reputation which this Excellent Pope throughout his whole Reign by so many great and glorious actions had acquired, not only amongst catholics, but in all Nations else, even among schismatics themselves, whilst his Enemies honour him, whilst Separatists love him, whilst all Christians admire him; that That Reputation of his, should be by catholics publicly, and shamefully torn in the face of a catholic, Country, and under a Most Christian King.  
I have endeavoured all I can to put this libel into some kind of order, that I might give the Reader a true Idea of the whole piece, and so the more exactly have examined it some and some; but this Advocate is so little a Friend to Order and Method in what he Writes, that we must refute his Arguments but as we find 'em, and take 'em as they come.  
His whole Plea seems to consist of these Principal Heads.  
The Advocate's outrageous injuries against the Pope; His Complaints of the Pope's Conduct in the affairs of France; The Errors he broaches against the Authority of the Roman Church, that Mother and Mistress of all others; The pitiful Chicanneries he employs to give the King of France those Cymerical Rights contrary to all Laws human and Divine, and such as the basest of Flatterers never allowed him till now.  
This is as near as I can collect the sum of his Plea. The first Calumny with which Monsieur Talon reproaches the Pope, is this: That his Holiness has been conceived this many years to have had a design to declare himself Enemy to France, still favouring those who either were Enemies, or were jealous at least of the greatness and power of that King. Since this Advocate has aspersed his Holiness with so black a Calumny as this, it might be very well expected he should give us some proof of what he says; let him show therefore what leagues the Pope has made with the Enemies of France. Let him tell us in what ill enterprise, or in what violent action this Pope has been concerned. But he can show us no such thing. This Pope never took any thing so much to heart as the Uniting of the Christian Princes, nor ever desired any thing more then to give the King of France all the signs imaginable of his particular esteem, and Paternal affection. As for Leagues this Pope never made any, but that Holy one of as many Christian Princes as could, by the best endeavours he was able to use, be induced to oppose the Ottoman Emperour, that Common Enemy of Christendom; where those miraculous successses of the Christian Arms have sufficiently demonstrated how much the endeavours of so good a Pope were seconded by extraordinary blessings from God. Though his Holiness indeed could not oftentimes without great Tenderness and trouble behold how too too easily a Prince otherwise so Pious, and Just, as his Most Christian Majesty always appeared, whilst he was pleased to follow his own Royal inclinations, did at last absolutely abandon himself to the pernicious Councells of some of his Ecclesiastical Ministers.  
With what Charity did this great Pope represent to his Christian Majesty the Injustice Committed, and Injuries done in his name, by extending the Regalia upon four Provinces that had ever been free? With what grief did he see so many Holy Bishops and good Priests of the Church, Persecuted so bitterly in the name of his Christian Majesty, for no other Crime then defending the immunities of their several Churches, which the Bishops of France had for near these Eight Hundred years so generously defended, and so stoutly maintained, and which Monsieur de Marca, as devoted as he was to the Court, yet compelled by the force of truth itself, did ingeniously confess; with what grief did he think of the dissolving of the Institute of the nuns of the Infancy, which had been authorized by the Bishops of the diocese, approved by Popes, confirmed by Letters Patents, and that contrary to all Order, and without any regular form of Justice?  
What grief was it to him to see on one side the Destruction of the Monastery of Charonne, and on the other side, the violent Establishment of Abbesses in the Houses of the Urbanists, contrary both to Civil and Canon Law? What grief was it to him, to see what continual Usurpations the Lay-Judges made in France, as well upon the Liberties, as Jurisdictions of the Church?  
What grief must it have been to him to see how shamefully the Church of France was forced to serve under the Yoke of those Persons whose Lives were but too well known; that a Church, I say, where nothing but Liberty is talked of, should be so enslaved to Parliaments which make no scruple at all to take Cognizance of the most Spiritual matters, and to exercise their Jurisdiction upon all holy things with more haughtiness in their Usurped Power, then the legallest General Councils ever did, or the Sovereign Popes themselves?  
What a grief was it to him to see all the Principal Abbeys as well of the conquered Countries, as of the ample Kingdom of France given in great Commendum without the Authority of the Church, and contrary to all Canon Law; to see what manifest intrusions were authorised in obliging the Bishops to remove and abandon their lawful Spouses, those Flocks to which they properly belonged, into the hands of new Bishops nominated only by the King, whilst they went themselves to govern other Churches that did not belong to their care. To see a Bishop transferred make his own Vicar; to see the Chapters, in the vacancies of bishoprics, not only forced against their will, but in spite of their Conscience too, name for Grand Vicar those whom the King intends to bestow the bishoprics upon, and banish all such Prebends as refuse to Elect the person which the King had designed to promote.  
What trouble was it to him to think that the Bishops of France, which formerly by their extraordinary respect, and profoundest submission, were so intimately united with the Head of the Church, now instead of applying themselves thither, should declare open War against him? As they did in the Letter to the King sent from the extraordinary Assembly of the Year 1680. Subscribed by all the Bishops, when it never had been red by half those that were there. And again in those deliberations that were taken against the Authority of the Sacred See in the Assembly of 1682. Proceedings very different from those the Clergy of France at the meeting of the Estates in the Year 1616. published to the World by that admirable mouth of the Gallican Church, Cardinal rosne, or from those Articles which were drawn up in the Year 1625. for the re-establishment of the catholic Faith, and for the restoring the Ecclesiastical Discipline in the Kingdom of France. But then the French Prelates acted of themselves, and animated with the Spirit of Religion: in these later Assemblies influenced by the Impression of the Court, they acted more like a cabal then an Ecclesiastical Assembly, rather as their fear then as their Reason and Learning directed 'em, which made a Bishop the least scrupulous perhaps in that Assembly of 1682.( giving a Friend of his an account of what had passed there) say not much amiss, that those French Bishops had at that time partend with, besides their Wealth, their Honour and Consciences too.  
And what trouble do you think it was to him to see the Clergy of France once so Orthodoxal and exemplar, that they were by their Piety, and Learning, and Sacerdotal vigour known and distinguished from all other men, now so fallen from that Primitive Spirit of theirs, that the Bishops poorly and shamefully abandon their Rights, and the privileges of their Churches without ever daring so much as to open their mouths to complain?  
But above all, it must needs afflict that Father and Protector of Christianity the Head of the Christian Church, to see so many good Priests, so many Learned Doctors proscribed, persecuted, imprisoned, banished, and driven from their benefice and Employments by Letters under the Kings Seal without any Legal Process, without any reason in the world, nay sometimes without so much as acquainting the Bishop of the diocese to whom they belonged: and this only upon those general Accusations of Jansenism, which at present, it seems, must be the common ruin of all those good Priests, and all those innocent men which do not relish at Court. Nay though these ecclesiastics, to justify themselves positively declare that they do absolutely condemn, and have ever condemned the Doctrine contained in those five condemned Propositions of Jansenius; yet they are not to be believed, though certainly in matters of Religion no man without a high injustice can but believe that profession of Faith which every one makes for himself. But they continue still to upbraid 'em, that they are of the cabal; that they are under suspicion of Jansenism; that their Moral is rotten, and with an infinity of such other terms, which signifies no more in effect but that they are Persons which do not please those who have in the Court of France the super-intendency of Ecclesiastical affairs.  
Monsieur Talon complains very much of the Roman Inquisition: But if on the one side he did but know how things are carried at that Tribunal, with what attention they hear the accusations that are brought against any man, with what application every mans justification and answers are examined; with what maturity they decide; and on the other side do but reflect how at present they try, and judge the ecclesiastics in France; how they are Condemned without ever being heard, without ever being made acquainted with what their Adversaries have against 'em, without over being confronted with their Accusers and Witnesses, nay without so much as consulting the Bishops of the diocese in the matter at all, in a word without any form or semblance of juridical process, and only upon a bare letter of— that in this manner so many irreprehensible ecclesiastics should be detained in horrid Prisons, or sent away to the remotest and savagest parts of the Kingdom of France without Money, without any help or comfort whatsoever, and without the least hope of ever returning to their Country again, and without knowing all this while upon what account they suffer. Monsieur Talon as much as he is prepossessed, would, I believe, conclude in his heart at least, though he should not vouchsafe to own the truth publicly, that in France we bear a heavier and much more insupportable Yoke then those at Rome; and that the Inquisition of those supreme Ministers, in whose hands his Majesty of France is pleased to entrust the Ecclesiastical affairs of this Nation, is without comparison harder than the Inquisition of either Rome or Spain, which in France they rail at so much, without ever knowing any thing of the proceedings of those Courts: and alas! without making all this while the least reflection upon those so violent and irregular proceedings, which are used in France against the best and most irreprehensible men, when any of them have the misfortune to have for their Enemies those which are in favour at Court.  
The Pope saw long ago these Mischiefs, and sees 'em still, with an infinity of other evils which would be too tedious to relate. He has sighed for 'em before Almighty God, he has represented 'em to the King in his briefs, with all the tenderness that his paternal Charity could suggest; some of 'em he declared by his Nuncio's. And if this be, to be Enemy of France, to be tenderly concerned at their Miseries, to sigh for 'em in the presence of God, to advertise the King out of his Fatherly care, that remedies might be had: If this be, to be Enemy of France, to defend the Liberties of the Church, to desire the Reformation of the Clergy, to endeavour the ease of Persons unjustly afflicted, then we will yield to Monsieur Talon, that the Pope is a declared Enemy of France; though certainly he can be Enemy no otherwise to that State, then a careful physician is to the Patient he endeavours to recover; or then a wise and affectionate Father is to his Child, when he endeavours to make him sensible of his faults.  
The Second head of Monsieur Talon's complaint against the Pope,( if yet the Complaint be his) for it has so little report with what goes before, and that which comes after, that it looks as if it had been inserted into the discourse: however it was, he complains in his Second head of this Plea, that the Pope entertains particular correspondence with all those who formerly were the declared Disciples of Jansenius; that he loads them with his graces and favours, gives great eulogiums of 'em, and declares himself their Protector. But who are those declared Disciples of Jansenius upon whom the Pope heaps so many graces and favours, of whom he gives such eulogiums, and of whom he declares himself the Protector? Monsieur Talon ought to clear us that point; but let him have a care when he does it, that he do not appear rather a Caluminator, then any thing else, and that he do not openly contradict those Declarations of the King, which forbid him to look upon any of those as Jansenists or Sectaries either, who have submitted to the Constitutions of the Pope against Jansenius, and have not any ways been publicly convicted or condemned upon that account, by the censures of an Ecclesiastical Judge.  
But that you may see his insolence to the full, he has the Confidence to affirm that the Pope supports and foments the cabal of the Jansenists. And this he is suffered to say in a most Christian Kingdom. This is suffered to be placed at the head of a Decree that bears the name of the most Christian King. And such a Calumny as this goes on and spreads without the least notice taken, or any thought had of making satisfaction to the head of the Church. And is this the respect we show the Pope? Is it thus the Kingdom of France acknowledges him? What Priest or Bishop then, let him be as Innocent as he will, can ever hope to secure himself from such calumnies as these, If the Pope, and such a Pope as this, so Pious, so Zealous to maintain the catholic Faith in its purity, as his present Holiness is, cannot escape such public and impudent calumnies as these?  
But 'tis not enough to make the Pope appear a favourer of heretics in France, but that they may render him odious too in Italy and Spain. Monsieur Talon complains of a supine Negligence and strange backwardness in the Pope, because he did not suppress the Quietists more speedily then he did; And yet with what Zeal and Indignation has he proceeded against that Infamous Sect? What greater care then has been, could have been taken to get that bad Doctrine Condemned, since the first time that the Impostor Molina was first convicted? 'tis true his Holiness, when any Priests were to be judged, would not suffer Sentence to be too much precipitated against 'em, nor suffer his Judges to act by humour, or as if they were influenced by a cabal; He thought it fit to make some difference betwixt the Author of a Sect, and those, who( deluded by such Impostors) with too much obstinacy perhaps had adhered to the Errors of other men, surprised it may be, with the false appearance of the Piety, which the Molinists made a great show of for above Twenty years. In all which the Pope has done no more then the Canons of the Church, and the Decretal Letters of his Predecessors have prescribed. But because the Pope does not think fit to crush persons of the Highest Quality, and men of Exemplar Piety, who have ever owned an humble and faithful Submission to the Sacreed See, and to the Church; Therefore if we believe Monsieur Talon, he carries himself sleepily, and as if he were in a Lethargy, towards the Quietists. When the Pope, some years ago by a solemn Decree condemned the infamous errors of the corrupted Moral of the Casuists, the Parliament of Paris opposed it, and forbid the Publication of the Decree because the Inquisition was mentioned in it. But when the Pope does not think fit to Sacrifice Eminent Prelates and men of an Extraordinary Merit to the passion of their Adversaries, and because he thinks fit to do nothing without mature deliberation, and after a strict and serious examination in his judgement of the Molinists, they complain he does not act with ardour enough; and they are impatient till they can improve the Decisions of the Inquisition now, as odious as that Tribunal was to Monsieur Talon upon all other occasions, and especially when it condemned the errors and Laxities of the bad Casuists of our time.  
Finally this able Orator finds great fault that we look upon this Pope as a Model of Piety and Virtue. He takes all those for Disciples of Jansenius, he says, which erect such Altars to his Holiness: But truly this Magistrate must needs be mightily transported with Passion, or strangely prepossessed to believe that this Pope has no other Esteemers nor Admirers but that despicable handful of men here and there dispersed, and hide up and down, which to day are called Jansenists; when all Europe mean while honours him with so much admiration as it does, and looks upon him as a Pope which God out of his extraordinary mercy has sent his Church in so corrupted an Age as this, to let us see that his hand is not straitned, and that he can at all times raise up faithful Pastours to his Church, and men according to his own heart, though the World be not worthy of them.  
The City of Rome before his promotion to the Sacred See, looked upon him as a Person the most worthy of that Supreme Dignity of any in the world. And the effects God be thanked, have answered the hopes which all men had of him then. That unconcernedness of his in all Temporal Affairs so well known to the world, as well in regard of his Person in particular, as of his Family, who are none of 'em now any richer then when he was first promoted to the Papacy. That continual and earnest application to put the Apostolical Chamber in better order and into a better Condition which for these many years had been exhausted and beggared. His Indefatigable care and pains for uniting the Princes of Europe against the common Enemy of Christendom, the Treasure that he has so profusely spent to that purpose, and for the universal good of the Christian World. The strange blessings of God that followed his endeavours in such total Victories over that Enemy of Christianity, and that panic fear the Infidels minds were so often filled with; in which the hand of God so evidently appeared: the safety of Germany which that Emperour owes chiefly to the glorious endeavours of this great Pope. Then his great aversion from all kind of Pride; the freest from Nepotism of any; His exemplar Piety always equal and always the same; his great firmness of Mind, uncapable of being shaken; to say nothing of all his other more Personal Virtues, which those who are about him are better able to know then we, at this distance, can do. All these things, I say, must needs be looked upon by the world as the admirable effects of his high and extraordinary Virtues; and will be doubtless the eternal Monuments of that Glory of his which the Envy and Malignity of his Enemies will never be able to obscure.  
After all those black Calumnies thrown upon the Pope, Monsieur Talon makes yet other Complaints against his Conduct in the Gallican Affairs: but that which he insists upon most, and where he hopes to have the greatest advantage, is that his Holiness refuses to supply the vacant bishoprics of France upon the Kings nomination, as he used in that Kingdom to do; that above the third part of the Churches of France are at this time without Pastours, and that if the Pope will not execute the Concordat, his Majesty may Lawfully break it too on his side, and appoint Bishops in the name of the People, of which he is undoubtedly the head. Would to God the Concordat were but as Religiously executed in France as it is in Rome, there would not then be seen in this Kingdom of France so many abuses as all good men have so long grieved to see; and which indeed are the more deplorable, because there is no remedy to be had.  
But to come to the Fact in Question, the Pope never did refuse to provide for those bishoprics where the King had nominated, if the Persons name were so qualified, as the Canons and Concordat require.  
But the Pope pretends that by the words of the Concordat, it belongs to him and his Successors, to examine whether the Persons name by the King have the Qualities required, or no: and that those that have them not, lose for that very reason immediately the right which they have by the King's nomination, who is obliged within three Months after such exceptions made by the Pope to nominate again such others as shall have the Qualities required. But the Pope is not bound to show cause why he refuses, and therefore no body can Judge of the reasons of his refusal but himself. 'tis true, the Pope ought not to make such refusal without a lawful cause: his Conscience indeed is charged with it in the sight of God: but no Power upon Earth has any right to take Cognizance of, much less, to Judge of that refusal of the Pope's, or to force him to establish those that are unworthy and not qualified for the place; or to fall off from the Concordat upon that account. It is no difficult thing in this to justify the right of the Pope, we need but only look upon the text of the Concordat, and then take notice of what has passed since in France; we shall find in the Letters of Cardinal D'Ossat, that René Benoist Confessor to Henry the Fourth, was never able to get the Pope's Bulls for the bishopric of Troyes, for which he had been nominated by the King, notwithstanding all the instance that was made by the ambassadors of the King and all the Cardinals of France.  
And no body, I think, can be ignorant of the Story of that famous Abbot( whose name shall be here concealed) that was nominated for a certain bishopric by the late King of France Lewis the Thirteenth with the greatest eulogiums that could be; And yet could never obtain of the Pope an Establishment in that bishopric for some shameful Disorders of his, of which private information was given to the Pope.  
Well, but you'l say, the Pope has refused to establish by his Bulls above five and thirty of those Bishops which are nominated by the King of France. Monsieur Talon is extremely mistaken: For the Pope of himself refused but only two, who had both been of the Assembly of 1682. and had there Subscribed to all those Resolutions which were then taken against the Pope: but the rest happened not to be Established because those of that Assembly who were charged with Misdemeanour in the Court of Rome, whether by any Order from the King, or of their own accord, I know not, did absolutely declare that since these two were not admitted by his Holiness, they would not propose any more.  
It is not our business here to censure the carriage of that Assembly towards the Pope: but I think it would have become their Prudence better, not to have engaged the King their Master to make so ill a Step. Other Ministers would have used their best endeavours to have maintained a good Correspondence betwixt the Pope, and the King; They should have considered of the Complaints made against the nominated Bishops, and either have endeavoured to have justified them, or at least to have excused them, or to have found some means or other to have satisfied his Holiness, that he might at least have accepted of those Persons which were nominated by the King; But those sweet and handsome ways of proceeding with the Pope, are with those Gentlemen, grown quiter out of use. They take very different ways from these, and instead of facilitating affairs, desire rather to hamper 'em more.  
But this is certain according to the words of the Concordat: If Briefs of nomination to any bishopric vacant be not within the first six Months of the vacancy presented to the Pope, his Holiness then has full Right and Absolute Power to provide and Establish what Bishops he pleases, so that instead of complaining of those so many vacant Sees in France, they should rather admire& commend the Pope's Moderation, who for the good of the Christian Church, would rather in such Cases not stand upon his utmost Right, nor make use of his Absolute Power, in suddenly preferring who he pleased, as he might. Therefore if we consider the business well, 'tis to the ill Conduct of the Court of France that we must attribute those so long vacancies of bishoprics in France; and not to any morose humour of the Pope, who acts in all these things not according to Humour, but according to Reason, by Principles of Justice and Conscience, always ready to grant his Bulls and to confirm the nominations of the King whensoever he pleases to present such Persons as are endowed with Qualities requisite for such Employments as those. And the Pope indeed is resolved, I believe, never to promote those, that he shall find unworthy, notwithstanding all the instances that can be made, and notwithstanding those abominable injuries of Monsieur Talon, who certainly deserves in all reason in the world, to be removed from his Employment, till such time as he has made ample and public satisfaction for all these villainous Calumnies which he has so injuriously thrown upon the Pope in this Defamatory Libel of his.  
But Monsieur Talon, it may be will say, that the Pope refuses his Bulls in France, because they will not believe his infallibility, nor own him superior to general councils. In this Monsieur Talon is mightily mistaken, for t'was not only upon that account that the Pope refused his Bulls to those two ecclesiastics, which as were mentioned before, has been nominated by the King for bishoprics; They know very well at Rome what the opinions of the Paris Doctors were upon this point, in the time of the council of Constance and of Basil, and though that opinion of theirs be rejected and disapproved by the more Orthodox men, yet they have not in that been yet expressly condemned or anathematized by the Pope.  
Then those ecclesiastics had openly declared themselves against the Pope in an Assembly of Bishops( which if we believe themselves) was assembled for no other cause but to reunite the Pope and the King, and to settle a good correspondence betwixt the Clergy and the Civill Magistracy of that Nation, and had yet taken upon them with the rest of that Assembly to determine, in as much as in them lay, the business of the Regalia, which yet was undoubtedly one of those great and more considerable causes which under the name of causae majores, as well by the new as by the ancient Canons, are reserved to the Sacred See, and by the express words of the Concordat; and which besides was devolved to his Holiness at that time by just and juridical appeals. But those ecclesiastics then assembled were so far from joining themselves with their head in this conjuncture to defend their own liberties, that they took all occasion they could to quarrel with the Pope their master, took upon 'em to limit his power, without any reason at all, without any necessity, and undoubtedly without any legitimate power. These were as near as I can Judge the reasons which forced the Pope to refuse his Bulls to those nominated Bishops which had been in this Assembly before, and had Subscribed and approved all the decisions that then were made against the Authority of the Pope. And indeed could ever any thing be stranger in the Church of God, then to see the Bishops of a catholic Country rise up so Rebelliously against their Head, a Pope so exemplar and of so holy a Life as his present Holiness is, and one that never had any quarrel with the King of France, but because he defended the Liberties of the Churches of France, and maintained the just pretensions of the Bishops of those four Conquered Provinces against the Usurpation of the Regalia, which the King of France pretended to impose wherever he Conquered the Place. A rare occasion for those Prelates to draw up a Declaration as they did against the ecclesiastical power, without ever having been empowered from their Provinces to treat a matter of so great importance, they themselves having been too for the most part chosen( as all the world very well knows) in the provincial Assemblies by violence, and by the power of the French Court, and not with that liberty of Suffrages which ought to have been. Besides it was very well known that all these points which passed in that Assembly were not all put to the vote, and that neither the Bishops, nor the other Deputies that were there, had the liberty to think as they pleased, or freely to deliver their opinions: All being concluded as the President thought fit or rather by the power and inclination of the French Court. It is not our business here to examine the four propositions of that Declaration, and the manner of their penning: That has been done already with vigour enough: and those pitiful Chicanneries of P. Maimbourg( a fit defender of such an Assembly) have been so battered and broken already, that it would be to little purpose to treat of that matter at length any more. 'tis enough if we say, that that Assembly went farther then the Bishops of the council of Basil, and all the Richerists, and that they flew in the face of the papal Authority with higher and far less moderation then they. The first said only, that there were some particular and extraordinary cases in which the Pope was inferior to general councils: as in that of Schism, heresy, and other insufferable disorders, but these Gentlemen of the French Assembly cut off all his Authority at a stroke, and say, that the Pope in all cases is inferior to a general council; so that according to these Gentlemens opinion, a Council that were legally called, and that might consequently proceed to the condemning of Heresies, could not be dissolved by the Pope. If these Bishops had well perused the resolutions of that Assembly in France of 1625. they would have found that their predecessors defined clearly against the Richerists, and established a doctrine in the Galliean Church quiter contrary to those Gentlemens late Declaration. And if they had but maturely considered the Acts reported in the Councils, they would have found the matter quiter otherwise then they seem to suppose, and that indeed there is scarce any case in which the Pope is subject to a general council; their Decisions and Laws being of no force, nor Authority till they are confirmed by the Sacred and apostolic See, and by the head of the Church. This boldness and temerity of the Deputies of the Assembly, was it not enough to render 'em suspected, and to give all men good ground to think that they did not look upon the Pope as that head of the Uniuersall Church which all the faithful ought to obey? And such a carraige as this, so far from that profound respect which all good catholics owe to the Pope their Supreme sovereign in ecclesiastical affairs, was it not enough to oblige his holiness to suspend his Bulls till such time as he could be better informed of their opinions; and till they had made him some kind of satisfaction at least for so great a fault?  
Besides, the Pope, as I think I have  told you before, offered to grant his Bulls to any other of the Kings nomination, but only such as were of that Assembly, which monsieur Talon has taken great care to conceal. Did not his Holiness promote to the bishopric of Queback in New France, the Abbot of St. Valier upon the nomination of the most Christian King? What does the Pope do then in this behalf that is irregular? Would France pretend to tie the Pope's hands more then the Concordat has done? Or do they think the Pope is obliged to admit all the royal nominations without ever inquiring into the lives or capacities of the persons presented? Or would they fear violently from him that right which the Concordat gives him of refusing such as are unworthy? Or would they pretend to Judge of the Popes judgement in this matter, and appeal to some other tribunal? If the Pope has not absolute power of refusing the persons nominated, why should the Concordat require as it does, that the King shall be bound to name another in three months time when ever the Pope thinks sit to refuse the first that is name? Has this Pope less Power then his predecessors? Has Monsieur Talon forgot what happened not Forty year ago in the case of Monsieur de Marca, who nominated by the King for the bishopric of Couseraus, and afterwards for the archbishopric of Tolose, was never able to procure the Popes Bulls, whatever instance the French ambassador made, till he had satisfactorily expiated those two too bold propositions of the Pope's Authority, and of the Roman Church, which were found in that famous book of his, de concordia Sacerdotii& Imperii. And let not Monsieur Talon tell us, that that opinion of the French Assembly of 1682. was formerly publicly defended in the Council of Trent by the cardinal of lorraine, I cannot tell whence Monsieur Talon could have what he affirms; that that cardinal had declared publicly in that council, that all France was persuaded that the Pope was not infallible. For neither Father Paolo, nor cardinal Pallavicino mention any such thing, and yet such Historians as those neither could be ignorant, nor would have dissembled a passage of that importance, without relating it to the world, and making their several reflections upon it. It must have been therefore some instruction of the cardinal of lorraine given to an Agent of his in the Court of Rome called le Breton, related by Monsieur du Puy, which must have given occasion to Monsieur Talon to affirm that passage so boldly as he does. But that piece, besides that 'tis much suspected to have been suppositions, or at least to have been altered and corrupted by some Enemies of the Sacred See, it makes that cardinal affirm that which no good catholic would ever at least publicly own, which is, that in France the council of Florence is not received. There is none but the Greek schismatics that reject the council of Florence; All the catholics in the world without difficulty receive that council for ecumenical; and if there were any trouble, because those who adhered to the council of Basil would not consent to the calling of the council of Florence, yet it is certain at last the council of Basil was deserted by all the Christian Princes, whereas there was not any one of the Princes of Christendom which did not admit the council of Florence for ecumenical, and submit to all it's decisions. And Monsieur Du Puy himself put's in the margin of this instruction of the cardinal of Lorraine, that as much of that instruction as concerns the Pope, the Sacred See, and the superiority of councils, was never red before the Pope. Which makes it plainly appear, that though the cardinal of Lorraine had perhaps in the heat of Contests written any such thing to his Agent, he revoked it again after having thought more seriously of it, and for that reason, it seems forbid his Agent to red it before the Pope; And besides Monsieur Talon may take notice, if he please, that the Council of Lateran held under lo the Tenth, in which the Pope's Authority over general Councils was so highly Established, was received by Lewis the Twelfth, and Francis the First of France, not in their own names only, but in the name of the Nation too: And let him remember too that when chancellor du Prat carried the Parliament a Declaration of Francis the First to justify the Advantages that France received by the Concordat, 'twas affirmed in the same Declaration, that it was certain, that the Pope was above a general Council in all, except some very particular and extraordinary cases. Therefore let him tell us no more, that France has always adhered to the Decrees of the Council of Basil in the business of the General Council's Superiority over the Pope.  
Let not Monsieur Talon tell us neither, that all the Doctors of France are of the same opinion. We know very well how great a number there are of the best and the learnedest Men in France that condemn in their hearts the opinion of that Assembly, and are so much of a contrary opinion to theirs, that if they durst freely speak what they think, without being sent by a privy Seal from Court, to Prison or Banishment; they would stoutly oppose the Declaration of that Assembly of 1682. and would give the world good Testimony of the profound respect and submission which they bear to the Authority of the Pope, and the Decisions of the Sacred See.  
But whatever the particular opinions of the Divines of France may be, 'tis certain there are not many that have publicly appeared against the Authority of the Pope. And it is only to such as those that his Holiness refuses his Bulls, till such time as they make satisfaction for their fault; and truly had that business been handsomely managed; those unhappy differences which have made so great a noise in Christendom, would soon have fallen to the ground, had not those Gentlemen of the Assembly of 1682. so briskly and so Turbulently too, made that unhappy step from whence they either cannot or will not retire.  
Nor let Monsieur Talon think to fright the Pope with threatening, that if His Holiness will not by his Bulls confirm and Establish those nominated Bishops which he thinks unworthy, France will sand no more money to Rome. Alas! this Magistrate does not know this Pope, if he think him a man that can be touched with so mean and base an Interest as that. The money that he Receives from France is so inconsiderable, and must when it comes be divided amongst so many, that those who are the most concerned, make very little or no account of it at all, much less will the consideration of that inconsiderable money, any ways be able to affect this Pope, whom we all know to be a man so unconcerned in all worldly things, and of so nice, and tender a Conscience, that for all the Kingdoms in the world, he could not be brought to do the least thing either contrary to his duty, or that he could think, might displease Almighty God: And yet this is one of the greatest threats of Monsieur Talon, to which he adds this, that the King( if his Holiness persists,) will break the Concordat. For according to the doctrine, it seems of Monsieur Talon, the Popes refusing to grant his Bulls to any one of those the King names, is cause sufficient for the King to break the Concordat; no more is required it seems to establish the pragmatic Sanction; but because this pragmatic practise would neither accommodate— nor the Court, and because this way the Court would be forced to use perpetual violence in the Provinces to get those chosen which the King had a mind to, which yet would not always be affencted neither; Monsieur Talon has found this expedient to abrogate and to annul at the same time, the pragmatic Sanction, and the Concordat too, and then establish a new Law which can be certainly grounded in nothing but their own vain imagination. The Election, says Talon, of Bishops, originally belongs to the People. The people of France now are no more in a condition to nominate: we have some examples in the first and second rate, where Kings have nominated Bishops in some singular cases. They are the heads of their Kingdoms, and have a right to act as well in the peoples name as in their own. Therefore the King may name Bishops himself, which the Metropolitan with some other Bishops of the dioceses, after they approved the Kings Nominations, may Consecrate and establish. This is the discourse of Monsieur Talon.  
Could any man have advanced such propositions as these without first renouncing all common sense, and all the rules of Equity and Justice in the world? yet if we believe Monsieur Talon, he'l tell us, that this is an excellent reason, that, that right which the faithful anciently had to appoint themselves a Bishop, since it cannot conveniently now be any more exercised in common, must necessary pass into the person of their sovereign the King. How can you that desire so much to be taken for the great Defender of the liberties of the Gallican Church, abandon the pragmatic Sanction, grounded as well in common law, as upon the Councils of Constance and Basil?  
Is not that ordinance of orleans worth your taking notice of, where it was decreed, that Elections of Bishops should be made by the Cathedrall Chapter, and also by Deputies of the Gentry of the diocese, and of the principal Citizens of the episcopal City? Why will you needs suppose that the canonical Elections cannot be made any more as they have been? Do you remember none of those Pleas of your predecessors in defence of such Elections as those in their full extent? and that they look't upon 'em then, as the principal point of the Liberties of the Gallican Church?  
But it is not upon such maxims or principles as these that monsieur Talon determines any point of the matter in question; neither the liberties of Churches, nor the Ordinances of Estates, nor the Sacred Canons of the ecumenical councils, which yet he uses( with so much Ostentation) to city, are ever any rule of Monsieur Talon's opinion or carriage in this business. The sovereign Law which with him takes place above all ecclesiastical Laws, and those of the state besides, is a resolution to please, and comply with the Court.  
Settled in these resolutions and full of such extravagant designs as these, no wonder if he establish new Laws, of his own head, and by his own private Authority; He'l abolish the Concordat, because he does not like the power that the Pope has reserved to himself, of refusing such of the King's nominated Bishops, as he shall find unfit. He'l abolish the pragmatic Sanction, because the re-establishing of the ancient Elections would not svit with the present interest of the Court of France, but rather deprive the King of his right of Nomination: and therefore after having taken away from the Pope the right of collation, he would give the King a right of nominating Bishops without being restrained by the rule of the Concordat. A right, none of his royal predecessors ever enjoyed, but by virtue of the Concordat.  
And truly the Church of France would be much to be blamed, if instead of being governed by the holy Canons of the Church, and papal decretals, they should suffer themselves to be lead away by such fancies as a lay-Judg, that daily changes his opinion, according to the different impressions which the Court of France makes upon him; and has not of himself any true and Solid knowledge of the ecclesiastical Laws, but only takes up such Scraps as he meets with up and down in memorials, whilst he hunts for Erudition to fill up his Plea's: nor has he either honour or conscience before his eyes, nor the laws of the Church or of the State; he goes on merely puffed up with extravagant passion, and an Ambitious desire to please the Court.  
We have been forced to follow this Declaimer all this while in all his digressions; let us see now what he says of the matter in question, and of the pretended Franchises; but he makes again another great digression against the Popes Bull, in Coena Domini, then tells us, that Bull is very pernicious, because it establishes, as he pretends, the Pope sovereign Monarch of the world, and because it seems not to allow Parliaments any power to take cognizance of the possessions of benefice, or of any causes real or personal that belong to ecclesiastics.  
What he says of the Pope's Sovereign Authority, is of his own head, for there is no such thing in the Bull: And therefore if Monsieur Talon has nothing else against that Bull, but that it forbids Parliaments to meddle with ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, I do not see what persons in the world, though never so little equitable, can have any thing to say to it, except such Lay-Judges, as too much addicted to their own interest would bring all fish into their own Nets.  
But if we consider what manner Monsieur Talon speaks of that Bull, we might have reason enough to think he never had red the Bull in his Life but speaks by hear-say only, and what he has learned from: other men? For first, he supposes that that Bull Establishes the Pope Sovereign Lord of the world; of which Sovereignty, there is not a word in the Bull. Secondly, he seems to suppose, that that Bull began but under Julius the Second, whereas it appears, that long before that time, other Popes as Urban the Fifth, Paul the Second, and Sixtus the Fourth, had published the like censures in their Constitutions, and many others after Judius the Second, and Paul the Third had done the same, and with the same Solemnity, which yet were never accused of being Enemies to France. Nor can I see any reason why Monsieur Talon should cry down that Bull, unless it be, because it condemns Parliaments, that intrude themselves into ecclesiastical Affairs, and take upon 'em a jurisdiction that does not belong to them. After this Digression against the Bull, he makes a great complaint against the Pope for laying an Interdict upon the Church of St. Lewis in Rome, and as he tells us, against all the rules of Canon Law.  
'tis not the Parliament of Paris's business, nor much less Monsieur Talon's, to examine what the Pope does in Rome. The Pope has a Supreme Authority as well Temporal as Spiritual over that City of his, and of his Government there is to give no account, but only to God. But yet that much, I think, we may say, that they are a little more regular in their caconical proceedings at Rome then in France. Would to God in France in the destruction of the Monastery of Charonne, in the dissolving the Institute of the Nuns of the Infancy, in the Elections of Urbanist Abbesses, of the Cystertian Abbots, and of the Abbots of Cluny, and of the Trinitarians: In the business of the Regalia, in the Judging and Condemning of Priests, and in all other Ecclesiastical Affairs, they had but as well observed the Canons and Rules of the Church in France, as the Pope observes 'em in Rome. The Cardinal-Vicar Interdicted the Church of St. Lewis in Rome; because the Rector of the Community of Priests, which belong to that Church had received Monsieur Lavardin to Prayers, and to participation of Sacraments with them, after he had been most notoriously Excommunicated by the Pope, and in Rome itself. For what could be more notoriously public then an Excommunication published by a Bull of the Pope in Rome, and well known both to the King of France and his Ministers, before the departure of Monsieur Lavardin. Could he that came with Arms in his hands, and with full resolution to defend the pretended Franchises of his House in Rome, and that above five Months after the publication of this Bull, pretend ignorance then? Was not Monsieur-Lavardin's action notorious to all the world? By what Trick or Artifice could any body excuse or dissemble the knowledge of so public a Fact?  
He comes to Rome more like an Enemy, then an ambassador; enters the Sacred City, like a Conquered Town, he cheats the Officers of the Customs at the Gates, brings in his Ammunition of War, the Palace of Cardinal Farnesius is filled with strong Guards and troops of Armed men, they go the round about the Palace in a Military manner all night, as if they had already made a citadel in Rome; And that all this might be the more publicly known to the City, these Guards are relieved, and these Rounds are made at the sound of a Bell. After all this, would those of St. Lewis pretend to doubt whether Monsieur Lavardin had incurred the Popes Excommunication published by a Bull? And if these Facts were so notorious that they could neither be disowned nor excused, how could the Rector of the Priests of St. Lewis admit Monsieur Lavardin in time of Divine Service to Church, and to the participation of the Sacraments, without pulling upon themselves the Censure of the Church?  
But Monsieur Talon replies, The Excommunication was not denounced. Has this Magistrate forgot that Article of the pragmatic Sanction, and of the Concordat too, where it's said in express terms, that to incur Excommunication or Interdict by Communicating in Holy things with a Person that has notoriously incurred the Excommunication, it is not at all necessary that there should be any precedent denunciation. 'twas a thing notorious that Monsieur Lavardin had incurred the Excommunication expressed in the Bull: First, because the Bull itself was notorious: Secondly, because he publicly and constantly made a defence against it, when he made that open and Military defence at the Palace where he lodged, of his pretended Franchises: the Rector and Priests of St. Lewis could not be ignorant of all this, and yet they publicly gave him the Sacraments; did not they very well deserve then to have their Church Interdicted, since it was a fault committed not by any one particular Person but by the whole Community? And therefore let not Monsieur Talon bring all those common places against Interdicts in this case. The question is not here of the Interdict of a Kingdom or Province, which were formerly so much in use, but our Question is of an Interdict only of one Parochial Church, and that in Rome, over which the Pope has all Absolute Jurisdiction; and the Interdict is founded upon the disobedience of a whole Community. Nor can Monsieur Talon with all his critics bring any solid Argument against it. But the Pope cannot Excommunicate an Ambassador, says he, nor a Magistrate acquitting himself of his duty and executing the orders of the King his Master. 'tis Evident( have as ill Principles of Religion as you will) you cannot but own the Pope has an Absolute universal Power without exception, without limitation, or restriction, to bind, and release all, or any Christians whatsoever. Quaecunque Ligaveris, &c.  
And upon what ground that unheard of privilege is founded, that Ambassadors and Magistrates( if they be Christians) cannot be Excommunicated by the Pope, I cannot find: undoubtedly they as well as other Men, are Subject to the Keys of Sr. Peter, and to the Authority of the Church: Nor do I see why they may not in executing the orders of their Masters, fall into such Crimes as may pull upon 'em the Censures of the Church.  
May an ambassador, do you think, by order of his master, have a Prelate Assassinated without incurring excommunication? and to speak more particularly of the matter in question, shall an Ambssadour by order of his Master invade the Patrimony of Sr. Peters, affront the head of the Church in Rome itself, take from the Pope in a part of his capital City, the power of exercising his sovereign Authority without incurring excommunication, and those other penalties the Canons have provided against those Sacrilegious Persons that steal holy things, and usurp the endowments of the Church? This is a new Divinity which Christendom has not heard of yet. 'tis easy enough to make appear not only by the Canons and by the practise of the universal Church, but also by the Canons of the Church of France, that Kings themselves may be excommunicated, much more their ambassadors, who certainly are not privileged more then their Masters. The ecclesiastical history furnishes us with abundance of examples of Greek and German Emperours, of Kings of France and of England, that have felt and acknowledged the weight of excommunication. Clotaire, Philip the first, Philip August, the examples of Henry the third, and Henry the fourth are too public in France, and too well remembered to be denied.  
The greatest Enemies the Sacred See has in the world, agree, that at the beginning of the Eighth age, Gregory the second excommunicated lo Ironomatus, and this heretic Emperour lost by that means the Exarcat of Ravenna. All the defenders of the Gallican rights agree, that three of the French Kings, Clotaire, Philip the First, and Philip August, were all excommunicated by Popes, and were obliged every one to put away their Concubines, and to receive again their lawful wifes which they had expelled. Nicholas the First excommunicated Lothaire, for having put away Fewburg his wife, and marrying Valdrade his Concubine. Urban the Second excommunicated Phillip the First in the council of Clermont. And Innocent the Third excommunicated Philip August upon the like account: so that none of all his Subjects durst have any access to him till he had received his wife, and abandoned his Concubine. And all that while they dated in France, regnant Christo, without taking any notice of Philip August at all: I refer the Reader to Father Maimbourg, that great enemy to Popes, for the Stories of the Emperours Henry the Fourth, Henry the First, Frederick the First, Philip the First, Othon the Fourth, Frederick the Second, conrad the First, Raymond Earl of Tolose Excommunicated by Alexander the Third; and of a great number of Kings of England Excommunicated, by Popes, who before they were absolved, did ask upon their knees absolution from the Excommunication incurred, either before the Popes, or before their Legates. We find besides that, Foulques Arch-Bishop of Rheims threatened to Excommunicate Charles the simplo if he made alliance with Normans, who were then Heathens, by a Letter penned thus: Sciatis quod si hoc feceritis,& consiliis nostris non acquieveritis, nunquam me fidelem habebitis, said& quoscunque potero a vestra fidelitate revocabo,& cum omnibus co-Episcopis meis vos& omnes vestros Excommunicationis perpetuo anathemate condemnabo. And in the Sixth Book of the Capitulers, ch. 249. 'tis said expressly, Hujus Constitutionis forma servetur ut execrandum anathema fiat, ut velut Prevaricator Catholicae fidei, semper a domino Reus existat quicunque Regum deinceps Canonis hujus censuram in quocunque crediderit esse violandam. This may be seen in the Capitulers approved and authorised by the Kings of France; And those Kings all acknowledged the power of the Church, and humbly submitted to its Authority. They openly detested their faults either by themselves or by their ambassadors. They earnestly begged Absolution of the Popes. They faithfully executed the Penances which were enjoined them for Satisfaction for their faults, and for reparation of the Scandal which they by their ill example had given to the world. But if those Princes had had for their Counsel Monsieur Talon, they would have looked upon the Vatican Thunder but like Squibs that expire but in Smoke, and hurt no body more then those that throw them; they would learn to have forced the Priests by severe Imprisonments or by seizures of their Estates to have opened them the Doors of the Churches, and to have given them the Sacraments, they would have railed at the Pope, wounded their famed and torn their Reputations, as this Orator does, without any ground in the world. They woul'd have appealed from the Pope to their Parliaments, and have complained of the abuses, or to the next General Council that shall be called. But those innocent Monarchs and Emperours did no such thing; but with a sincere and Christian Devotion acknowledged, that as they were as capable of Sin as other men were, so though Emperours; yet as well as other men, they might incur the Censures of the Church; They placed their greatness and Glory not in contesting the Pope's Authority by pitiful Chicanneries and tricks of the Law, but in submitting with humility to the Laws of the Church, in mending their faults and excesses: in giving good example to their People, and in teaching their People by the practise of the Prince, in what awe of the Ecclesiastical Censures all good Christians ought to be, what deference and respect they ought to pay to the Church and to him that is President there, the visible Head and Vicar of Christ. Thus much indeed we must confess, that some Bishops of France jealous of their Authority pretended, yet afore, that the Censuring and Excommunicating of Kings when they deserved it, belonged properly to the Bishops of the Country, where those Kings Reigned, rather then to the Pope; perhaps they might think sometimes there might be danger in delay, or for several other Reasons whatever it was; in that Sense certainly and no other, those Bishops of France must have formerly written those shameful and temeratious words to Pope Gregory the Fourth: If you come hither to Excommunicate our King, you shall return excommunicated yourself. Words which the Bishops of France may well blushy at for their predecessors sake, and fitter to be butted in eternal oblivion, then to be interpnted as they are by Monsieur Talon for the advantage of the present times. What? The Pope shall return excommunicated? By whom? By the Bishops of France? If a Pope can be excommunicated by particular Bishops, then the Pope is not only subject to general councils, as Monsieur Talon pretends to have it, but to the particular Bishops of France too, whensoever they shall be in an humour to oppose him. These are arguments of that extravagance that they destroy themselves fast enough, and need no other refutation. But all that can in any rational sense be made of those words of the French Bishops to Gregory the Fourth, is, that the French Bishops did believe themselves to have power enough then to excommunicate their Kings without complaining farther to the Pope.  
Now because of the great inconveniences that might follow by the particular Bishops having so great a power as to excommunicate Kings, as authorizing Factions and fomenting Rebellions in several nations might be, therefore the Christian Kings earnestly always desired not to be excommunicated but by Popes; And if Monsieur Talon had taken the pains to red over the Bulls of Pope Clement the Sixth and other Popes granted at the earnest request of several Kings, he might have seen there that the Popes and Kings did both agree of that power which Popes still have to excommunicate Kings for those faults that fall under the censures of the Church, and that the Kings then, only desired to be exempted from any censure such Bishops as were their own subjects might throw upon them, because of ill consequences that might follow as I have observed before.  
Let him but red the instructions of Charles the Ninth given to his ambassadors who were with Pope Paul the Fourth, about the Kingdom of navarre, the supplications of Augennet Bishop of Maus in the name of Henry the Third, and those of cardinal D'ossat and Cardinal Perron in behalf of Henry the Fourth: And see what sincere Submissions and acknowledgements those Bishops and cardinals made in behalf of those Kings, how humbly they Submitted to the Censures of the Church, how clearly and hearty they desired to be absolved. The Judges and Advocates of the last age although the greatest part of them were infected with those heretical Maxims which then were so spread through this Kingdom of France, yet all agree of this truth, and aclowledge that Theodosius, Leon, the two Fredericks, and other Emperours were excommunicated, and that Popes used the same power over the Kings of France. I know those Lawyers might be perhaps of opinion then, that the Pope could not throw an Interdict upon a whole Nation, or abandon it to the next occupant: But that is not our question here; our present question is only, whether Kings or their ambassadors may be Excommunicated by the Pope when they commit crimes that fall under the censures of the Church? I affirm that they can; and say no man can deny that, without denying the supreme Authority of the Church, which depends neither of time, nor place, nor of the capriciousness of men, but stands settled and unshaken upon that Rock of Life, Christ Jesus, and upon his Sacred word, against which Hell itself shall not be able to prevail.  
By what we have said it clearly appears that Kings may be Excommunicated, and their Ambassadors in Executing the Orders of their Masters( if they be catholics) may incur Excommunication too, if in Executing those Orders of their Masters, they commit such crimes as fall under the censures of the Church.  
I shall not here make it my business to refute those falsities which Mensieur Talon alleges concerning what passed at Naples, occasioned by some Ecclesiastical Censures which the Nuncio there had pronounced against some Counsellors and other Officers of the Council of State. For that business was so certainly and publicly known, that not one of all those who were then Excommunicated by the Nuncio there, ever durst appear at any Divine Service in any Church. And therefore to be able to keep their Christmas last past; like true Children of the Church, they humbly demanded Absolution, which was granted 'em with the clause de reincidentia, that is, in case of relapse to be in force, if afterwards they should not fully submit to perform all that was enjoined 'em: And all the world knows as well what passed some years ago in the Kingdom of Sicily; where the Vice-Roy and some other Officers of the King were Excommunicated by the Arch-Bishop of Palermo, for something they had done against the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. Where the Offenders were all forced to appear before the same Arch-Bishop, and receive of him publicly Absolution in the ordinary form. Nor need I take much notice of those little Chicanneries which Monsieur Talon delivers with such an air that we may see, he himself does not value 'em much; As that the Bull was not published in France, nor signified to Monsieur Lavardin. But the Bull was affixed and published at Rome, which was enough to be sufficiently known to those that live there.  
Nor is it our question whither Monsieur de Lavardin having not presented his Letters of Credence, and having not yet been acknowledged by the Pope, were ambassador or not. But if that were the question, we can easily make it appear by the Laws of Nations, that to be an absolute ambassador, 'tis not enough to be sent in that quality by any Prince; but he must be admitted, and acknowledged by the Sovereign Prince, to whom he is sent, before he can be truly styled an ambassador: whence it happened formerly, that when any Pope sent a Nuncio to France that the King did not like, he was always stopped upon the Frontiers, and never acknowledged for Nuncio at all.  
All that we have to make out, is, that whether Monsieur de Lavardin were ambassador, or whether he vere not, he either did know, or ought to have known, being in Rome, that the Pope had forbid, under pain of Excommunication. to be incurred by the very Fact whenever it should be committed, to pretend to attribute any such privilege of Franchises to any particular House or Quarter in the City of Rome. Monsieur de Lavardin did attribute to himself and his place of Residence in Rome, that pretended right of Franchise publicly and constantly. He has no privilege that can shelter him from the Censures of the Church, nay, the King his Master has none for his own Royal Person: he did therefore certainly incur the Excommunication declared in the Pope's Bull, nor could without trampling on the power of the Pope, and treading the Authority of the Christian Church under foot, enter, as he did, into the Parish Church of St. Lewis, and receive the Blessed Sacrament before he had received Absolution from the Pope. Monsieur Talon after having confidently without any proof imposed upon us this Proposition; that an ambassador cannot be Excommunicated by the Pope; defends in particular, that the Pope cannot at least Excommunicate him upon the account of the pretended Franchises which are in question; Because, says Talon, those Franchises are things purely Temporal, and therefore cannot properly be the Subject of an Excommunication; And besides, because the King has been in possession of that right time out of mind.  
But before I dive further into the business, I'll first ask Monsieur Talon, what right the Parliament of Paris has to meddle with, or inquire into the Franchises of Rome? Can that belong to their Jurisdiction, or which way is it within their reach? The Kings of France have always limited that Company of Persons assembled in the Parliament of Paris to take Cognizance only betwixt Party and Party of their own Dominions: But has any King ever given 'em power to Judge of difficulties that may happen, or Causes that may depend betwixt them and the Pope? Nay which way could any King or his present Majesty give 'em any such Power?  
But to examine the business to the bottom, we must see first what the Pretensions of the ambassadors of France are in the City of Rome? and then upon what they are grounded.  
If we believe Monsieur Talon, the King of France might pretend to be Sovereign Prince of Rome; and turn out the Pope. A new and unheard of right that neither python, nor Du Puy ever yet understood or offered to mention in that Collection which they have made of rights which France has in other Princes Dominions in all parts of Europe; and yet Monsieur Talon confidently tells us, that the King of France at present has favoured the Pope upon this account, by pretending no farther then he does to the Franchises with a reserve of right to be renewed some other time, when the King pleases, or upon the first Quarrel the King may have with the Pope. But at present Monsieur Tolon will go no further, then to defend that the King of France has a Right of Quarters in Rome, to make the Lodgings or House where he dwells, a privileged place, that is, that his ambassador may Establish himself there in what Quality or Condition he pleases: For the Palace of Farnesius where he resides, being but a borrowed house, and belonging to the Duke of Parma: he yet, besides the profits which his Servants make of it to several persons that Establish themselves there, pretends to make an Asylum and safe retreat of it for all Bandits, Assassinates, poisoners, Thieves, Atheists, Sacrilegious Persons, for all Debauched Women, even those who run from their Husbands, and for all sorts of Villains whatsoever.  
He pretends, that neither the Justice of Rome, nor Officers, can take any Criminal from thence, or Prosecute any that are there: That the ambassador there has power, and those that are with him, to fight and kill any that shall( though with the Popes Authority) pursue a Criminal thither, nor that they are any ways obliged to deliver those Offenders into the hands of Justice at all. And this Monsieur Talon maintains to be an unalienable right of the Crown of France, from which that King will never depart, and which Parliament of Paris has desired him to maintain.  
At this indeed the Christian World might be sufficiently allarmed; And is undoubtedly very much surprised to see, that Magistrates so enlightened as those Gentlemen of the Parliament of Paris pretend to be; should ever in the face of the Christian World presume to defend and maintain a pretention so highly unjust as that of the Franchises in Rome: and it is as hard for us to understand how all those persons that were consulted in that case, could be so blinded; how they could come to lose all the use of Reason they had, how they could so oppose common sense, as to confounded that ridiculous pretention of France, so contrary to all Laws human and Divine, with the Law of Nations as they do, and that crudely too, without any qualification or limitation at all. If the King of France had pretended to have had some particular Sovereignty in Rome, or some Territory, some part of Rome to himself with a Right to Judge Criminals that might be taken there, and determine such causes as might be brought thither; such a right as this,( though the most ridiculous in the World, and without the least appearance of Justice,( yet in this respect) would be more supportable then that other of the Franchises, because in such a Right or Jurisdiction as this, Criminals at least would not be sheltered, but at some rate or other might be brought to Condign Punishment, though by different Lords, yet in all parts of Rome.  
But this is a Right which the French ambassador has not yet thought of, though we have reason enough to believe that the King of France does not want, neither in his Court, nor in his Parliament, no, nor in his Counsel of Conscience neither, those that would be ready enough to set up this Extravagant pretention too, if they found the King were but inclined to it; They would tell him that charlemagne and other of his Predecessors, Kings of France, having Established that Sovereignty of the Pope in Rome, the least thing this Great Prince their Successor can pretend to, would be modestly to divide that Sovereignty with the Pope, and especially, if his Majesty were so moderate as to limit that Sovereignty to the Quarters only of Ambassadors abode in Rome.  
Monsieur Talon does not drive so far as this: but only maintains, that although the King of France has no kind of Sovereignty in Rome, yet from the very moment that a Criminal goes into the French Ambassadors Quarters, which Quarters of his comprehend ample Squares, a great circuit of Streets, and Houses, yet whatever Crime it is that he has committed, he can be no further pursued by any Justice in Rome, nay, without ever being tried or Judged, without ever being pardonned, his crime is absolutely extinguished, and he absolved from the very moment that he sets his Foot upon the Territory of the Ambassador of France.  
But pray, let us put the case that other Ambassadors did pretend to the same right of Franchises in Rome as Monsieur Lavardin does( and certainly they might as well as he) if they all Entred Rome in Triumph; if every one kept Garrison in their own Quarters as Monsieur Lavardin did, to defend their pretended Franchises. A Banditt that should Assassinate one of Monsieur Lavardins Train, or a Notable Thief that should get an opportunity to run away with his Cupboard of Plate, such a murderer or Thief would have no more to do then to run to another Ambassadors with his Booty, and both Thief and murderer would be clear of their crimes: I hardly believe Monsieur Lavardin, as Zealous as he is now for that right of his Masters, would then be so unconcerned in his own, as to think that his Master then or any Prince else could have any right at all to such Mischievous privileges, as such a protection of Murtherers and Thieves. Then under the smart of his own losses, his Eyes would be so opened, he would think the Franchises the most insupportable grievance in the World, and find his great Master out, some better things to protext, then Crimes, and some better sort of men to favour then Murtherers and Thieves, and would be easily brought to conceive that these pretended Franchises were truly as much; and with as great reason to be abolished as some of those obsolete rights of some particular Lordships in France, which were with reason destroyed because they were contrary to good Morality, to the Law of Nature, and Nations too.  
And yet this is that specious Right which Monsieur Talon pretends to maintain. And if we should ask him what he grounds it upon: since he finds nothing like it neither in his own Memorials, nor those of the Court neither, he is feign to draw his foundations into a Narrow compass; and therefore tell us only of Three ambassadors that have been in possession of that right, and of an Article of Treaty made at Pisa, betwixt Pope Alexander the Seventh, and the King of France that now is, which says nothing less, nay, which indeed says quiter contrary to what they would have it say. But we must follow Monsieur Talon close in the narrow compass he has taken of grounds to find out the bottom of these pretensions.  
To settle the grounds of this privilege therefore, First, I ask Monsieur Talon whether he owns the Pope for Sovereign Prince in Rome, or if he dare contest the Sovereignty with him? He dares not contest it, and if he did, we are able to make appear that this Sovereignty has been Established and owned many Ages before the Race, from whence the present King of France came, and had possession of the Throne.  
Now if the Pope be Sovereign Lord of the Ecclesiastical State, with the highest Sovereignty, as much as any crwoned Head whatsoever, without holding either of the Emperour, or any other Crown, we must examine and see how the present King of France can come to pretend to any right in the middle of Rome, the Capital City of the Ecclesiastical State.  
This is a thing most undeniable, nay, even amongst the Civil Lawyers of France themselves, that the Right of Sovereignty is imprescriptible: So Monsieur le Bret Advocate General, speaks of it in his Treaty of Sovereignty, where he clearly demonstrates that the Right of Sovereignty is inviolable, and that the Centinary possession, as they call it, or the enjoyment for many Ages can make no prescription against Sovereignty. Now since the power of Life and Death, and of punishing the guilty, is as Monsieur le Bret observes too very well, the most important power that any Sovereign has: The Pope being Sovereign Lord in Rome with the highest Sovereignty that can be, and owned for such by all Christian Princes sufficiently in that great respect they pay the Pope by their ambassadors giving place to his Nuncio's wherever they meet. It follows necessary that the Pope has an Absolute and undeniable right to apprehended and chastise the guilty, throughout the whole extent of the Ecclesiastical State, especially in Rome the Capital City, and consequently that the pretended possession of the ambassador of France is but a mere Usurpation, and that but of short time, which of whatever continuance it were, according to their own Civilian's Opinion, can never prescribe against the Absolute, and so long Established Sovereignty of the Pope. Now let Monsieur Talon consider with himself how he Pleads for his own Sovereign the King of France, and whether he does not defend the right of his Sovereignty to be imprescriptible and inalienable; and then pray let him tell us in how different a balance he weighs Sovereignty, when he pleads against Rome, and the Sovereignty of the Pope; yet Absolute Sovereignty certainly is, or ought to be every where the same. How would they treat the Pope's Nuncio in France, if he should once pretend to such Franchises as Monsieur Lavardin does in Rome? yet sovereign Rights are reciprocal so far that as one sovereign uses another, so the other ought to use him; And since the Law of Nations ought to be the rule of the privileges which belong to ambassadors in general; the ambassador of France can pretend to no more privilege in Rome then the Nuncio of the Pope may pretend to at Paris. Monsieur Talon would do well to consult upon this point, Grotius de Jure belly ac pacis, and then perhaps he may frame a more reasonable idea, and truer, of the privileges and Immunities of ambassadors, then he made of his own head, when he first undertook to defend the Usurpation of the ambassador of France. Since it is therefore clear, that the Pope being an absolute Sovereign, and a Sovereign that holds not of any, and does homage to none, and that has so absolute a Sovereign Power, that neither suffers attaint, nor is prescriptible: The power of apprehending and punishing Criminals, which is the importantest part of his Sovereign Power, ought to be also imprescriptible. And therefore Monsieur Talon must first destroy the absolute Sovereignty of the Pope, before he can rob him of the right of apprehending and punishing criminals in any part of Rome, or from taking them from the houses of ambassadors themselves; much less should he abuse the Officers of the Pope that come to execute his Justice there.  
But now let us see more in particular upon what Monsieur Talon grounds his pretended privilege of Franchises in Rome: Either he defends it as a right-inseparable from any ambassador in general, or else a right attach'd particularly to the ambassadors of France. Again, either he pretends to that right in all the Courts of Christendom where the French ambassadors come, or else only in the Court of Rome, and there as belonging only to the French ambassador too, and no other. And then it may be supposed, that in Rome only he pretends, because that it is an ecclesiastical State, where the Sovereign has neither the will, nor perhaps the power to resist the formidable power of the most Christian King. Finally, whether he pretends to this right by privilege, or by concession of Popes; whither he pretends to it by Title in Fee, or Conquests, or by Transactions and Concordat, or else merely by a possession that the French ambassadors have had of this pretended right for about twenty years; Monsieur Talon does not tell us on which of all these he grounds his Title.  
If it be upon the bare title of Ambassador, as Ambassador, and no more, then all ambassadors ought to have that same privilege in all Courts. Yet France, 'tis thought would hardly be brought to yield to such a privilege as that, though all other States did.  
But if it be merely upon the account and right of the ambassador of France, and a right that he dares pretend to neither in no place but Rome, we may with reason enough ask him, upon what he grounds his chimerical pretensions? He can make out no Title at all. For first, there's no Concordat or Transaction made betwixt the Pope and King of any such thing. There is not any Donation that bears it. The Kings of France never Conquered the City of Rome, nor none ever gave it the Pope upon that Condition. We say nothing of the Treaty of Pisa, because Monsieur Talon himself speaks but a word of it passing, and lets us sufficiently understand that he dares not himself rely upon so ruinous a Foundation as that; for the question was not then of the Franchises which we dispute of now, but there having been some insolences committed by the Corsers, the business was how to provide for the security of the Ambassadour's House and Family for the future: which was then promised. But this was only to secure the ambassador and his Family, there was no mention of Franchises, such as are now pretended to. What was the securing of the Ambassadour's Family and himself, to the securing of Banditts and all sorts of Criminals? To which I may safely add, and can prove it by Writings, that there was indeed then some mention made of endowing the place or Square before the Palace of Farnesius with the privilege of Franchise, but the Pope that then was, Alexander the Seventh, absolutely refused to grant any such thing.  
Monsieur Talon then at last is reduced, in the proofs of his Franchises, barely to the Possession or rather Usurpation of three ambassadors, of which we deny that two of the three were ever in the absolute Possession of any such thing. The first manifest Usurpation therefore of that right of Franchises has been but since the time of the Duke D'Estrée. 'tis very well known how in the time of Clement the Tenth to vex that Pope, and his Principal Ministers, all foreign ambassadors that were then in Rome, were induced and engaged violently to make themselves Masters of their Quarters, and take possession: But this violent possession which they took then contrary to so many Bulls, and in despite of the Pope's resistance, can that ground a prescription against an Absolute Sovereign in his own Dominions? And though forced by the exigence perhaps of the present times, or for other reasons best known to himself, that Usurpation was endured or rather dissembled for a time: Must the Pope never therefore defend the Rights of his Sovereignty? How many Rights and pretensions to Rights has the King of France set up that his predecessors never thought of?  
But that which is most remarkable in this business, is, that though our Lord the Pope knew very well, that there was no abuse in the City of Rome that made more noise then this did, nor that had more need of a Remedy, yet he would not do it hastily, nor with a high hand, but with all the sweetness that might be, and as insensibly as he could. The Pope represented it to the King either at the departure or at the death of the ambassadors concerned; and with so much Prudence it was carried, that no Officers of Justice ever appeared about the Palace of Farnesius, not only while the Duke D'Estree was there, but not as long as his Body lay in the House, which is a most evident sign that the Pope did not publish his Bull against the pretended Franchises on purpose to affront the King of France, but rather out of a motive of Justice, for the security of the public, and for the quiet of his Capital City, by taking from criminals all hopes of impunity by such privilege as the French now pretend to in so considerable a part of the City of Rome, as all that belongs to the Palace of Farnesius is. Nor yet did the Pope come to the publication of those Bulls, till he had long and to no purpose made many earnest Addresses by his Nuncio to obtain of the King of France that his ambassadors might depart from that unreasonable pretence of the privilege of Franchise in Rome.  
Thus his Holiness carried himself in the publication of his Bull, and yet chiefly for Publishing that Bull, Monsieur Talon calls the Pope Enemy to France— Opiniatre, Friend to all that oppose France, Supporters of heretics, especially the Jansenists and Quietists.  
But that which indeed is to be wondered at more then all, is, that whilst the King of France professes so great a zeal for Religion, as so effectively to reduce all the Dissenters of his Kingdom to the bosom of the Church, his Officers in the mean while use their utmost endeavours to asperse the head of the Church, and to obscure the glorious reputation of the Sacred See. And this perhaps is a thing as strange as that, and which after ages will hardly believe, that the Magistrates and Officers of a King who Governs with such Justice and Authority in his own Dominions, should strive to tear from an Absolute Sovereign the Pope, in the middle of Rome, a power to erect under pretence of Franchises, an Asylum for all sorts of villainy, against all Right, or without any ground in the World. 'twould better have become so great and so Christian a King as his Majesty of France, to have employed his power to have supported so good a Pope as this, and one that has done so much for the Exaltation of the Christian name; to have seconded his Piety, to have strengthened his Holy intentions; and to have maintained the Roman Church in that Authority and splendour which was given it by God.  
Monsieur Talon at last pretends, that the question betwixt King and Pope, being of Franchises of Quarters only, was a thing merely Temporal; and therefore since the Pope cannot be Judge in his own cause, he could not Publish a Bull of Excommunication against those that should establish the Franchises; the most he could offer at, would be to forbid it under pain of High Treason as his predecessors had done.  
Perhaps if there were now that respect had to the Majesty of Sovereignty, which formerly has been, or to the Head of the Church, either, it may be that the setting up of those pretended Privileges would have been forbidden only under pain of High Treason, and no more.  
But at present things are in that Condition in Christendom, that his Holiness thought it necessary to employ all the Strength and Authority of the Christian Church, to stop so Scandalous a disorder as that, and yet that cannot do, neither. For to our great grief, we see that the Churches Authority with all her severest censures is now trod under foot, and catholics themselves speak as contemptibly of 'em, as the worst part of Calvinists do, nor are Sentiments of Justice and Religion sufficient to prevail with those men, who have engaged his Majesty of France in this indefensible and scandalous point now in question.  
But let us go on to satisfy Monsieur Talon in his other difficulties. I say therefore, the Pope does not appear Judge in his own cause, by publishing his Bull, any more then the King of France is his own Judge by publishing his Declaration in such things as regard the Government of his own Dominions, nor is he any more Judge there in his own cause then the Parliament of Paris is, when they maintain their own Jurisdiction: The Pope as Sovereign makes a Bull for the Government of Rome, to maintain Order and Justice there; This Bull is executed but only in the Pope's Dominions, and therefore it neither was, nor is necessary to be signified in France, nor to Monsieur Lavardin; nor was published there any more then the Edicts of the King of France, are published out of France, or signified to any Ambassadors. And yet those Edicts in France are Executed without contradiction, or without any bodies complaining that the King of France is Judge in his own cause.  
But we see very well what they aim at in France, they would have the Pope looked upon in regard of Kings, only as a Lord of the Fee, or as a Vassal in regard of his Sovereign. But they are extremely mistaken, for both the Spiritual and Temporal Power of the Pope are independent of all the Kings and Emperours that are upon the Earth: he holds both his Powers immediately of God. And therefore if Kings and other Princes with so great obstinacy defend their Pretensions, and those sometimes ill enough grounded too, why should not the Pope with as great resolution defend and preserve that both Spiritual and Temporal Authority which God hath put in his hands? And though perhaps he may not make use of those Temporal Arms which he has, or might have, if he pleases to repel the violence of those infamous Calumnies and insults with which they attack him: yet he has other ways of defending those rights with which God has entrusted him, which amongst good Christians ought to be more formidable then Temporal Arms: the Prayers which he pours forth before God, the Sacrifice he offers, and the Tears which he sheds to beg the Protection of that God, whose Vicar he is, and in whom only he trusts; under the omnipotent hand of which God, the most powerful Kings ought to tremble, especially those who take upon 'em to attack the Saints, and Vicars of Christ, Timeat orationem, qui non timuit exhortationem.  
But still Monsieur Talon maintains that no person whatsoever can be Excommunicated for Temporal things. I answer him therefore to that point, that the Pope does not Excommunicate for Temporal things, but for Enormous Sins, and for the Crimes that are occasioned by Temporal things: As for Example, nothing can be more Temporal then Silver and Gold, and yet the Canons of France as well as those of the Universal Church Excommunicate those Sacrilegious Thieves who steal Silver or Gold out of the Churches.  
But pray reflect a little; do not the Parliaments of France oblige the Officials sometimes by virtue of the New Codex, to give their Monitory Letters, and in pursuance to fulminate their Excommunications for things merely Temporal? So, though the question of the ambassadors Quarters in Rome, were a business merely Temporal, yet the Crime they commit in attributing to those Quarters of theirs a Franchise of that Mischievous Nature, so unjustly as they do, may justly be punished with Excommunication. But certainly this I think must pass with our Adversaries themselves for certain enough; that the Usurpation of any thing that belongs to the Church, is an Enormous Crime, and a Sacrilege that deserves to be punished with Excommunication: The Canons made in those Ancient Councils of France, which Monsieur Talon affirms to have been called by the only Authority of Kings, and the Capitulars of charlemagne, and Charles the bold, Pronounce anathemas against all those that Invade, that Plunder or Usurp the tithes or any Rights, Lands, Rents, or Jurisdictions belonging to the Church. These Councils and Capitulers both, put all sorts of Goods, Rights, and Jurisdictions belonging to the Church all in the same rank of things that are Consecrated to God, and of which consequently the Usurpation must be a Sacrilege that deserves to be struck with Anathema: and if the least Lordships or Jurisdictions that belong to Bishops or Abbots, are all received for the Holy things according to the Holy Canons; who can deny that the right of Sovereignty in Rome, which so many Ages with the consent and applauses of all Christendom, has ever belonged to the Sacred See, is a thing so Sacred that it cannot be violently torn from the Pope without committing such Sacrilege as deserves to be punished with Excommunication?  
Nor is this a matter merely politic as Monsieur Talon pretends, where Religion has nothing to do: for the matter itself cannot be a profane, but must be a Sacred thing. For, let the Pope have acquired that Sovereignty in Rome in what manner you will, he and his predecessors have enjoyed it many Ages, and our Adversaries must of necessity grant that that Sovereignty changed its State and Condition from the very first moment in which it was given and Consecrated to God, and of a profane, became a Sacred thing, and therefore even according to the Canons of the Councils held in France, and Convocated only by Kings as I mentioned above, the Usurpation of that Sacred Sovereignty is Sacrilegious, and may be punished with Excommunication.  
Therefore though charlemain, and the other predecessors of the present King of France had given formerly to the Pope all that extent of Land which he now enjoys; though all the Sovereignty the Pope has in Rome, and the whole Ecclesiastical State came wholly from the Liberality of that Prince, and the Emperours of France, which yet the most Eminent Historians of France, and amongst the rest Monsieur de Marca, deny; I say, though it did, yet that Dominion and Sovereignty being now Consecrated to God, and given to the Head of the Church, without any limitation or reserve of right whatsoever to any superior Sovereign in the world, no Person in the world, can upon any pretence whatsoever Usurp those Rights of Sovereignty, and rob the Pope of a Right so many Ages possessed by the Head of the Church, without deserving to be treated like a Sacrilegious Person, and Usurper of the Rights of the Church, of such Rights as no Person can meddle with, without incurring Excommunication, even according to those ancient Canons and Councils of France, which I cited above, and which the Pope now in his Bulls against the Franchises, did but only Execute and renew. And certainly if the Pope had not used those utmost endeavours, and interposed his Authority in the highest manner that could be, to put a stop to that Mischievous protection or villainy in Rome, he might have been thought to have betrayed the Rights of the Sacred See, and that power of the Church which God has trusted in his hands: and of which to God he must give an account.  
FINIS.