trust and diligently examin Things till we be assured of truth yet his pretended Vicar with an Antichristian Pride and Impiety Contradicts this and Commands the contrary He forbids all Examination Those under his Tyranny at least the unlearned and Common people must believe as the Church believes that is all that he proposeth though it be Transubstantiation or any thing evidently repugnant to their Reason and Senses too They must renounce their own Reason and if he say that is white which they see black they are to believe what he says and not their own Senses All means for the People to examin whether it be truth or error which the Pope and his Church proposes is prohibited and deny'd them nor is it only the Books of Protestants which write of Religion but the Bible and Sacred Scripture too even the whole Law of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in any vulgar Language which the People can understand come amongst prohibited Books and damn'd at Rome and the reason they give of such prohibition is impious and blasphemous For they say horresco referens the reading of the Holy Scripture by the People in any vulgar Tongue is more pernicious then profitable and brings more loss then benefit to the Reader Although this Doctrine be as I said impious and against God and his Holy Word blasphemous yet it is publickly own'd amongst those Rules for prohibited Books contrived by a Deputation or Committee of the Trent Fathers according to the Decree of that Council and afterwards approved and confirmed by Pius the Fourth Sixtus the Fifth and Clemens the Eighth as the Title of the Trent Index assures us After them that we may be sure they continue their Antichristian Tyranny to prohibit and damne the Bible and all Books which make against them Gregory the Fifteenth and Urban the Eighth do further approve and confirm the Impious Rules and Doctrine afore-mention'd and both of them expresly declare and in the same words 1. That it is known that the Reading prohibited Books the Bible is one of them brings great detriment to the Professors of the sincere Faith Roman Errors and Popery they mean which they miscall sincere Faith And what they say is most certain for there is no Book under Heaven so destructive of their Popish Superstition and Idolatry which they call sincere Faith as the Bible as it has been truly explain'd and preached by Protestants since Luther ' s time Which is evident in this that so many Kingdoms and Provinces by the help of Scriptures and Knowledge of the Gospel have clearly seen the Errors of Rome and justly abhorring her and them are come out of Babylon 2. All Licences to read any prohibited Books whosoever gave them to whomsoever they were given they recall cassate and declare null 3. Then they Command under severest punishments that all those who have any prohibited Books the Bible is one if it be in any Vulgar Tongue they are to bring them to the Bishop or Inquisitor and they are presently to Burn them 4. And then they declare That no man shall have any Licence for the future to read or have any prohibited Book no Bible or Protestant Book concerning Religion in any Vulgar Tongue save only from the Congregation of the Sacred Office the supream Office of the Inquisitors which sits every week before the Pope at Rome By the Premisses I think 't is certain that these Papers of mine are in Antecessum and already prohibited and damn'd at Rome and if their Papal Constitutions be obligatory and obeyed not to be read or had by any Papist save only such as have a faculty and licence from the Congregation of the Sacred Office as they call it the Roman Inquisitors and we may be sure that those watchful Fathers who guard the Capitol and industriously study to preserve and promote the Papal Greatness and Interest on which their own depends will give licence to none to read such Protestant Writings save to those who for fidelity to their Catholick Cause and Learning they judge able and willing to Answer and Confute them That is None shall have Licence to read such to them dangerous and damned Books save such as have solemnly Promised Vow'd and Sworn firmly to believe and constantly to hold and profess to their last breath and to the utmost of their Power indeavour that others under them do so too their new Trent-Creed and so the whole Mass of their Popish Errors and Idolatries contained and commanded in it The Case being evidently this that if their Papal Constitutions be obligatory and obey'd none are to read or have these Papers save such as have promised vow'd and sworn never to believe them as I have little reason to desire or hope for their favour so be it known unto them I do as little fear their Confutation or what I am like enough to have their Calumnies 4. Although I well know to say nothing of others that all our English Papists both in their Words and Writings do constantly call themselves Catholicks and Roman Catholicks yet they must pardon me if in these Papers I neither do nor justly can call them so Papists I do call them and I hope they will not be offended or take it ill that I do so For Baronius their great Cardinal and Annalist having said That the Hereticks we know whom he means call'd them Papists he adds That we could not honour them with a more glorious Title then that of Papists and therefore he desires that they may have the honour of that Title while they live and that after death it may be writ upon their Tombs and Sepulchral Monuments For my part so long as they believe and profess their new Trent-Creed and the Popes Monarchical Supremacy I shall according to the Cardinal's desire call them Papists and if it be so honourable a Title as he saies it is let them have it I shall not envy them that honour but pity their error who glory in that which is indeed their sin and shame For the other Title of Catholick which our Adversaries without and against reason appropriate to themselves we grant and know that anciently it was and when rightly used is a word of a good sound signification when it was applied to persons as a Catholick Bishop or Catholick Doctor c. it signified such persons as were 1. In respect of their Faith Orthodox who intirely believed and profess'd the true Christian Faith rejecting all pernicious and dangerous errors and so were no Hereticks 2. In respect of their Charity such as were in Communion with the Church of Christ without any uncharitable Separation from it and so no Schismaticks Now that our Adversaries of Rome are as they pretend such Catholicks is absolutely deny'd not only by Protestants but except themselves by all Christians in the World and that upon evident and great reason Considering
would not be mistaken I do not say that all who now do or for this Six hundred years last past have liv'd in the Communion of the Church of Rome either do or did approve such Papal Positions or Practices I know the Sorbon and Vniversity of Paris and many in other Countries have publickly Declared their disbelief and dislike of them Especially in Germany in the time of Hen. III. Hen. IV. Friderick II. c. not only private Persons but some Synods declared the Papal Excommunications and Depositions of their Emperors not only Injust and Impious but Antichristian I grant also That Father Caron in his Remonstrantiâ Hibernorum if some have rightly told the Number has cited Two hundred and fifty Popish Authors who deny the Popes Power to depose Kings And though I know that many of his Citations are Impertinent yet I shall neither deny nor doubt but that there are many thousand honest Papists in the outward Communion of the Church of Rome who dislike this Doctrine But this will neither Justifie or Excuse the Church of Rome so long as her Governing and Ruling part publickly approves and maintains it For 1. Father Caron himself tells us that notwithstanding his Book and all his Authorities for Loyalty to Kings The Divines of Lovane The Pope's Nuncio the Cardinals four or five Popes Paulus V. Pius V. Alexander VII Innocentius X. he might easily have reckon'd many more did condemn his Doctrine The Inquisitors damn'd his Book and his Superiors Excommunicate him 2. It is confessed That the Supream Infallible Power of their Church resides either in the Pope or Council or both together And 't is also certain That their Popes in their approved and in publick use received Canon Law in their Authentick Bulls publish'd by themselves in their General Councils and with their Consent have approved and for this Six hundred years last past many times practis'd this Doctrine of Deposing Kings nor has the Church of Rome I mean the Governing and Ruling part of it by any Publick Act or Declaration disown'd or censur'd it as doubtless she would had she indeed disliked it Quae non prohibet cum possit jubet If any man think otherwise and can really shew me that their Popes and General Councils have not formerly approved or since have disown'd and disapprov'd this Doctrine I shall willingly acknowledge my mistake and be thankful to him for a Civility which at present I really believe I shall never receive However Grata supervenient quae non sperantur 3. Seing it is Evident that Pope Pius V. and his Predecessors in the like Cases calls the Anathema and Curse contain'd in this Bull The Damnation of Q. Elizabeth The next Query will be What that hard word signifies and what they mean by it in their Bulls For the Solution of which doubt and Satisfaction to the Query 1. I take it to be certain and confess'd That the word Damnum from whence Damnation comes signifies a diminution or loss of some good things had and enjoyed before or of a right to future good things and then Damnation as to our present Case will be a judicial sentence which by way of punishment imposes such loss and diminution 2. As the Damnum or loss may be either of Temporal things here as loss of Honours Liberty Lands or Life or of Spiritual and Eternal things as Heaven and Salvation hereafter so the Damnation also according to the Nature of the sentence and the mischief intended by it may be Temporal or Eternal or both if it penally inflict the loss both of Goods Temporal and Eternal 3. I say then and I hope to make it evident that the mischief intended by this Papal Bull and Excommunication so far as the malice and injustice of an Usurped Power could endeavoured to be brought upon that good Queen was not only Temporal but also Spiritual and Eternal This the word Damnation in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title of the Bull in their Popish Construction intends and signifies For the Temporal mischiefs intended to be brought upon that Good Queen there is no question they are all particularly named in the Bull it self as we shall see anon For the Spiritual that is a seclusion out of Heaven and Happiness and Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul that these also were the intended and designed Effects of this Impious Bull and Excommunication is now to be proved And here it is to be Considered 1. That they constantly say and having strong Delusion possibly may believe it That Hereticks and such the Queen is declared to be in the Bull dying Excommunicate as that Queen did and all true Protestants do are Eternally Damn'd For 1. A very great Canonist of our own Nation while Popish Superstition unhappily prevail'd here tells us That every Excommunicate Person is a Member of the Devil And for farther proof of this he Cites Gratian and their Canon Law and he might have Cited other as pertinent places in Gratian who tells us in another Canon That Excommunication is a Damnation to Eternal Death And John Semeca the Glossator gives us their meaning of it That it is certainly true when the Person Excommunicate is incorrigible and contemns the Excommunication as for my part I really do contemn all their Excommunications as Bruta fulmina which neither do nor can hurt any honest Protestant so that by their Injust Law and most uncharitable Divinity not only Queen Elizabeth but all Protestants who are every Year Excommunicated by the Pope in their Bulla Coenae Domini are Eternally damned and that è Cathedra A Sentence Erroneous and Impious and though it be the Popes whom they miscall Infallible inconsistent with Truth or Christian Charity 2. But we have both for Learning and Authority a far greater Author than Lindwood or Gratian and in our days long after them I mean Cardinal Baronius who tells us That Pope Gregory VII did not only depose the Emperor Hen. IV. but Excommunicate and Decree him to be Eternally Damn'd And for this he Cites Pope Gregory's own Epistles who surely best knew his own mind and the meaning of his own Decree 3. But we have greater Authors and Authority for this than Baronius for Pope Paschal II. tells us That he had Excommunicated the Emperor Hen. IV. in a Council and adds That by the Judgment of the whole Church he lay bound under An Eternal Anathema And after this Pope Paul III. Damns that 's the word and Excommunicates our King Hen. VIII and all his Favourers and Adherents And we smite them saith he with the Sword of an Anathema Malediction and Eternal Damnation In the Year 1459. Pius II. with the Vnanimous Consent of his Council at Mantua Excommunicates and Damns all those even Kings and Emperors who shall Appeal from the Pope to a General Council and that they shall be punish'd as Traytors and
Private Epistle to Pulcheria Augusta with great Insolence and without any Ground pretends to Cassate and null that Canon by the Authority of St. Peter who never had any such Authority to Null any Just Imperial or Synodical Constitutions yet that Canon was approved received and as de Jure it ought Obey'd by the Eastern Churches both then and ever after When these Pretensions of the Pope and his Legats prevailed not nor were regarded by the Council or Emperor or the Eastern Church other Arts were used at Rome to Conceal that Canon which they could not Cassate from the knowledge of the Western Church And to this end 1. They Corrupt the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversalis the most Authentick Book next to the Bible the Christian Church has or ever had Dionysius Exiguus a Roman-Abbot begins that Impious Work and in his Latin Translation of that Code amongst other things leaves out that Eight and twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and others of the Popish Party follow him 2. They Corrupt the Canon it self and by putting in other words in their false Translation they make it contradict the Greek Canon and the certain Sense of the Council that made it So in Gratian the Corruptions of this Canon are thus 1. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aequalia Privilegia in the Original Greek Gratian has Similia Privilegia like but not equal Priviledges 2. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior Roma Gratian has Superior Roma Old Rome must be Superior to New Rome or Constantinople if Forgery and Falsification of Records can do it for better Grounds they have none 3. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam in Ecclesiasticis magnificetur ut illa Gratian impudently reads Non Tamen in Ecclesiasticis c. But notwithstanding all that Pope Leo or his Legats could do and all their other Indirect Arts afterwards this Eight and twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was received in the Christian World and long after Confirmed by General Councils not only by the Synodus 6. Generalis which was held Anno 681. of which a little before But the Eighth General Council under Pope Adrian II. about the Year 870. gives that Precedency to the Patriarch of Constantinople which the Canon of Chalcedon before gave him And this acknowledged and referred into the Body of their Canon Law in the best Editions of it Revised and Corrected by Pope Gregory XIII And 't is to be observed that this Synodus 8. was Subscribed by the Pope or his Legats there and was then and still is approved and received at Rome Nor need we wonder at it For what it did was carried chiefly by the Popes Authority who was by that Council basely and servilly flatter'd they Calling him Most Holy and Oecumenical Pope and Equal to the Angels c. This Title Oecumenical the Pope took kindly then though his Predecessor Gregory the Great abhorr'd it as Antichristian But to return to the Objection 3. And here before I give a Particular and Distinct Answer to this Place of John Feed my Sheep on which they commonly and vainly build the Popes Supremacy I shall crave leave a little to Explain the nature and measure of that Power which they give the Pope under the name of his Supremacy And here they say That our blessed Saviour gave His own Power to Peter made him his Vicar Head and Pastor of all the Faithful in the World and that in most ample Words when he bad him Feed his Sheep and that it was our blessed Saviours Will that all Peter ' s Successors should have the very same Power which Peter had so the Trent Catechism tells us And this is that Plenitude of Power by which they Erroneously and Impiously Depose Kings and Emperors and as Pius V. does in this Bull we are now speaking of against Queen Elizabeth absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and sworn or natural Fidelity This premised I shall proceed to a direct and I hope a full and satisfying Answer to that place in John Feed my Sheep c. And here I consider 1. That if the Supremacy was first given to Peter in those words Pasce Oves Feed my Sheep as is confess'd and by our Adversaries positively affirm'd in the Objection which was after our blessed Saviours Resurrection then it is Evident he had it not before It being impossible he should have it before it was given him And then it will as Evidently follow that all those Places in the Gospel spoken of or to Peter before our blessed Saviour's Passion are Impertinently urged to prove Peter's Supremacy which he had not till after the Resurrection And yet Innocent III. Boniface VIII and other Popes in their Bulls and Papal Constitutions the Canonists School-men and Commentators usually Cite many places in the Gospel besides this Pasce Oves to prove that Peter had the Supremacy before our blessed Saviour's Passion which here they Confess was not given him till after the Resurrection That they do urge many such Places is known to all Learned men vers'd in these Controversies but if any man doubt of it and desire Satisfaction I shall refer him to what a Learned Popish Writer and Capucine has said in the Margent where he tells us how many places are Cited for the Supremacy 2. When our blessed Saviour says Pasce Oves Feed my Sheep and Feed my Lambs he useth two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both which words the Vulgar Latin renders Pasce feed my Sheep and Lambs Now their Commentators on this place to very little purpose make a great stir and pudder to shew what none denys that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule and govern But let the word signifie what it will in the Civil State yet in the Ecclesiastical and Scripture Sense of the Word where our blessed Saviours Lambs and Sheep that is the Faithful are to be fed every Bishop and Presbyter as well as Peter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastores and may and ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed the â—lock of Christ. So 1. St. Paul tells us who from Miletum sends for the Presbyters of Ephesus I say Presbyters for Timothy who was their first Bishop was with Paul at Miletum and so was none of those he sent for and when they came he Exhorts them to take heed unto themselves and the Flock To feed the Church of God c. where St. Paul when he bids the Presbyters feed the Church useth the very same word our blessed Saviour doth when he bids Peter feed his Sheep 2. So Peter himself who little dream'd of any Supremacy given him by those words Feed my Sheep writing to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews and Exhorting the Jewish Elders or Presbyters to a diligent care in feeding the Flock he useth the very same word to them our
in any Vulgar Tongue nay the printing reading or having their own Roman Missal in French into which it was faithfully Translated not by any Hereticks but by good Roman Catholicks This evidently appears by the Authentick Bull of Pope Alexander the Seventh and some of his words cited in the Margent And he there tells us That the Translators and Publishers of that Missal were Studiers of Novelties to the ruin of Souls Contemners of the Sanctions and Practise of the Church and that they were Sons of Perdition But in this I think his Holiness was not well advised For if the Apostles Character of Antichrist be true he himself has a better claim to that Title and really is what he calls them The Son of Perdition What they say in Answer to St. Paul and the clear Texts against all praying to or praising God in an unknown Tongue is most Irrational and Indeed Impertinent It is not my Business or Intention in this place and time particularly to Examine it but refer the Reader to their Learned Writers for their Latin Prayers where he may see what they say and if he be Intelligent and an Impartial Seeker and Lover of Truth he will find that St. Paul Condemns all Prayers to and Praises of God in an unknown Tongue Sure I am a very Learned Sorbon Doctor in his Notes on that place in St. Paul convinc'd with the Evidence of the Text and Truth does acknowledge it and explains St. Paul as I have done If they damn and burn their own Offices in any Vulgar Tongue which deserve to be burnt for many other better Reasons we may easily guess when they have power to do it which I pray and hope they never will what they will do with ours 3. But that which is the highest and most evident Instance that the Pope is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Adversary and Enemy to our blessed Saviour Christ and true Christianity is That whereas the Gospel was writ to be read and studied by all who had ability as the great means of their Salvation and accordingly was Translated into all Christian Languages and all permitted to have and read it that they might for their direction and comfort know the holy Precepts and gracious Promises contain'd in it and continued so to this Day in all Christian Churches except Rome and in that too for many hundred years after Christ while Latin was their Vulgar Tongue But when the Impiety and Tyranny of the Bishops of Rome unhappily prevail'd the Gospel it self and the whole Book of God was reckon'd amongst Damned Books and Authors and not permitted to be read in any Vulgar Tongue no not so much as any Summary or Historical Compendium of it And further amongst the Rules of the Index Expurgatorius publish'd by the Command of the Trent Council we are told with great Impiety and Blasphemy that by permitting the Scripture to be commonly read in Vulgar Tongues there comes more Mischief than Beneâ—it Pope Vrban the Eighth says the very same with as much Impiety as his Predecessors and further adds That all who have any prohibited Books of which number it is Evident the Bible in any Vulgar Language is one they must bring them to the Bishop or Inquisitor and they must Burn them presently by the hand of the Hangman or some such Officer for I suppose they are not to do it themselves And we have a late and further Instance of this Antichristi in Impiety in a Bull of Pope Clement the Ninth The New Testament as appears by the Bull was Translated into French and Printed at Lions The Pope Animus meminisse horret Damns and prohibits it under the very Name The New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ and Excommunicates all of what dignity soever who shall print sell read or have it and Commands under pain of Excommunication that they who have it bring it to the Ordinary or Inquisitors and what they must do with it the Bull of Vrban the Eighth but now Cited will tell you they must burn it and as a damned Book abolish it So Clement the Ninth Commands the Roman Ritual in French to be burnt But that which makes their Error and Impiety more evident is That even then and there where they absolutely prohibit the Gospel in any Vulgar Tongue and Damn it to the Fire they permit the the Turkish Alcaron in a Vulgar Tongue with leave had from the Inquisitors who yet could give no leave to any as appears before by the Rules of their Expurgatory Index to have the Gospel or any part of it in any Vulgar Tongue Prodigious Impiety The Turkish Alcoran the contrivance of a Monstrous Impostor and Enemy to Christ and Christianity is permitted and the Gospel of our blessed Saviour is absolutely prohibited and damn'd And though in doing this they Act very Impiously yet in their Generation and Circumstances very wisely For neither the Alcoran nor any Book in the World is so fatal to their miscall'd Catholick Religion as when truly understood and believ'd the Bible That Book evidently discovers and condemns their Errors and therefore they are concern'd to keep it from the People least they should find as by that Divine Light they easily might and forsake their Errors The Premisses consider'd let the Reader judge Whether the Pope have not this Mark of the Beast and Character of Antichrist that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Adversary of Christ and that Religion Establish'd by him who prohibits the having and reading and so the Understanding of the Gospel Damns it to the Fire and burns it and yet at the same time permits the Alcaron 3. Another Characteristical Note or Mark of Antichrist given by St. Paul is That he Exalts himself above all that is called God or Worshipped So our English Translation so their Authentick Vulgar Latin and their own Learned Commentators justifie it The word in the Text properly signifying Id quod Colitur any thing or Person which is the Object of Honour and Veneration So that thus far we are agreed That Antichrist will Exalt himself above all that is called God as all Magistrates Subordinate and Supream Kings and Emperors in Scripture are or worshipped This then in Thesi being granted we must next in Hypothesi Inquire Whether this Characteristical Note and Mark of Antichrist may be truly affirm'd of the Pope and be really found in him In Answer to which Query I say I hope it may and does appear by the Premisses That the Pope does Exalt himself far above all Kings and Emperors more then any man in the World ever did or Antichrist excepted ever will and therefore I shall only add two or three things in Confirmation of the Premisses 1. Then his Favourers and Flatterers give him and he approves and assumes it The Title of Emperor of the Vniverse Upon this account That the Pope is Emperor of the
precede the coming of Antichrist and he tells us what kind of Apostasie it must be A departing or falling from the Faith 2. That these two Maâ—ks of Antichrist forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from meats are such as none but the Pope can pretend to who so severely forbids the marriage of the Clergy Secular and Regular that it is a greater sin with them for a Priest to marry though God Approves and Commands it in such as otherwise have not the gift of Continence then it is for him to commit Fornication and keep a Concubine Nay they say that a Priests marriage is Incestuous Sacrilegious and worse then All Adulteries Nor is this Abominable Doctrine the Opinion of any private Doctor only but is approved as Orthodox by several Vniversities So that in both these forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats what God in his Word expresly approves the Pope condemns and what God Commands he Impiously Contradicts and so evidently proves himself to be That Man of Sin who Exalts himself above all that is called God 3. What the Apostle in this Epistle speaks of the Apostasie and Antichrist which followed is not of things past or then in being but of things to come afterwards For he expresly says That in the Latter Times some should depart from the Faith c. Neithe Apostasie nor Antichrist were then come but afterwards in the Latter times should come 4. Now he writ this Epistle as some think Anno Christ. 54. or as some others and they far more Ann. 57. or as the most Exact Chronologer Anno Christ. 65. Now let my Adversaries chuse which Computation they will for the date and time of writing this Epistle let it be if they please the year 54. which is furthest from Truth yet most favourable to their Opinion I say admit that this first Epistle to Timothy was writ by St. Paul Ann. 54. yet it will appear by the Premisses 1. That Antichrist was not then come nor revealed because St. Paul says so 2. And therefore that neither Caius nor Simon Magus could be Antichrist Because Caius was both come and dead ten or eleven years before and Simon Magus was come and his Heresie and Impieties revealed as Dr. Hammond grants and proves long before that time 3. After this St. Paul speaks of this Apostasy from the Faith but still as of a thing not yet come but to come in future times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the last times so that if St. Paul say true that great Apostasie which was to preceed the coming of Antichrist was not come when he writ that Epistle which was as the Learned Primate of Ireland Dr. Vsher thinks Anno Christ. 66. or as Baronius Anno Christ. 59. And therefore it is impossible that Caius or Simon Magus should be Antichrist both come and their Villanies revealed long before 4. St. Peter writ his Second Epistle a little before his Martyrdom for so he himself says Knowing that I must shortly put off this Tabernacle or that my death hastens now an Exact Chronologer tells me and proves that he died Ann. 67. and writ this Epistle Anno Christ. 66. I do know that some say he writ it Anno Christ. 67. and Baronius says he writ it Anno 69. But 2. which of those years soever it was writ in the great Apostasie which preceeded the coming of Antichrist was future and afterwards to come So he himself tell us But there were false Prophets among the People even so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there shall be false Teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies c. These false Prophets and the great Apostasie were when he writ that Epistle future and to come And therefore 't is certain Caius or Simon Magus could not be Antichrist For if it was writ in the year 66. Caius was come dead and gone three and twenty years before and Simon Magus his Heresies and Impieties publickly reveal'd and known as is afore prov'd even by Dr. Hammond himself 5. In the Revelation St. John does more fully describe Antichrist That he rose out of the Sea with seaven Heads and ten Horns and on his Horns ten Crowns c. That he should make War with the Saints overcome them and be drunk with their blood That his Seat should be Rome mystically or spiritually call'd Egypt Sodom and Babylon That ten Kings should give their Power to that Beast aid and assist him in his Tyranny and Impieties That those Kings should at last forsake him and utterly destroy him and burn and utterly destroy Babylon or Rome his Seat never to be inhabited any more Which is such a Description of the great Antichrist as never can with any truth or probability be attributed to Caius Caligula or Simon Magus 2. But that which here I more particularly press is 1. That St. John in the Revelation speaks of Antichrist not as past or present but as future and yet to come when he writ that Book as is evident in the Text and is and must be confess'd 2. And it is as certain and generally agreed upon that he writ the Revelation in Patmos whither he was banish'd by Domitian Anno Christ. 97. The Premisses being granted as they ought and must being built upon better Authority then any is or can be for the contrary 1. That Antichrist was future and to come when St. John writ the Revelation 2. That he writ it Anno Christ. 97. It will evidently follow that it was impossible that either Caius the Emperor or Simon Magus should be that great Antichrist Caius being dead four and fifty and Simon Magus nine and twenty years before St. John writ the Revelation and so before Antichrist was to come I know that the Reverend Dr. Hammond indeavours to prove that John was in Patmos and writ the Revelation there in the time and about the ninth year of Claudius which was Anno Christ. 51. which was six and forty years before the time I have assigned for St. Johns being in Patmos and writing the Revelation Now for his Opinion Dr. Hammond neither has nor pretends to any Testimony of Antiquity save only that of Epiphanius who in that particular is miserably mistaken as he is in many more as is confess'd and prov'd by Learned men and they such who have a due Reverence for the Fathers and particularly for Epiphanius 2. That St. John should be banish'd and write the Revelation under Claudius which only Dr. Hammond and Grotius say out of Epiphanius to give some Colour to their new and contradictory Hypothesis is evidently against the concurrent Sense and Testimonies of Ancient and Modern Authors For besides Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius Acta Martyrij Timothei apud Photium Hierome and Orosius before Cited Johan Malela Antiochenus Haymo
Arethas Ado Viennensis and many more constantly say That John was banish'd into Patmos not by Claudius but by Domitian and writ his Revelation there 3. But I shall not go about any further proof of this For Dr. Hammond has saved me the Labour and confess'd it For it is certain from the Text that Antipas had suffer'd Martyrdom before John writ the Revelation John himself telling us so Thou hast not deny'd my faith when Antipas my faithful Martyr was slain among you So that 't is Evident Antipas had suffer'd Martyrdom before John writ his Revelation Now Antipas suffer'd and was slain by Domitian in the Second Persecution of the Christians which was Anno Domitiani 10. Christi 92. So the Old Roman Martyrology and Baronius assures us and Dr. Hammond confesses it That Antipas suffer'd Martyrdom under Domitian Whence it evidently follows That St. John speaking of Antipas his Martyrdom as a thing past when he writ his Revelation and that in Domitian's time he could not write it in Claudius his time who was dead eight or nine and twenty years before Domitian came to the Empire So that Antipas being put to death in Domitian's time as Dr. Hammond affirms and St. John in the Revelation mentioning his Martyrdom as a thing past when he writ 't is Evident that he writ that Book after the death of Antipas and so in or after Domitian's time and not in the time of Claudius 6. St. John in his first Epistle speaks of Antichrist as then to come when he writ that Epistle It is the last time saith he and as you have heard that Antichrist shall come even now there are many Antichrists c. Here two things I conceive are Evident 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunc when St. John writ this Epistle there were many Antichrists that is many false Prophets and Hereticks forerunners of Antichrist who made way for him 2. And that the great Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to come when St. John writ This Oecumenius Bede Estius and generally all Commentators Ancient and Modern Protestant and Papist which I have yet met with constantly affirm 'T is true that when St. John says afterward that Antichrist was Now in the World already they truly Explain it that the meaning is That he is now in the World Not personally but in respect to his Forerunners false Prophets and Hereticks who make way for him I take it then for a certain truth that when St. John writ this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Antichrist or as Venerable Bede calls him Maximus ille Antichristus was future and to come And which is something strange Grotius confirms what I have said which makes much for mine but little for his purpose For 1. He grants that this Text 1. Joh. 2. 18. speaks of Antichrist as future and to come For though the word here and cap. 4. vers 3. be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present Tense yet Grotius confesses that it must be taken in the future Veniet Antichristus Antichrist will come 2. He says that amongst those many Antichrists St. John here speaks of there shall be one more Eminent which he says was Barcochebas who appeared not he says till the Emperor Adrian ' s time which was long after St. John writ this Epistle And he further says in Confirmation of what is aforesaid That the false Christs Hereticks and false Prophets which John calls Antichrists do make way for that Great and Eminent Antichrist I take it then for certain and confess'd by Grotius that the great Antichrist was not come when St. John writ this Epistle The next thing to be inquired after is When this Epistle was writ for if it was writ after Caius Caligula and Simon Magus were dead then it will be undeniably Evident that neither of them could be that great Antichrist of whom St. John speaks who when he writ this Epistle was future and to come Now here it is to be considered 1. That 't is a common and received Opinion amongst Learned men that St. John writ this Epistle Anno Christ. 99. or at least after the death of Domitian which was Anno Christ. 95. So Baronius Gavantus Lyranus in the places cited and many others Now if this Computation be true as in the Opinion of very many Learned men it is then Grotius his Antichrist the Emperor Caius Caligula who died Ann Christ. 42. was dead seaven and fifty years before John writ this Epistle and therefore seaven and fifty years before Antichrist came for St. John says he was future and to come when he writ And for Simon Magus Dr. Hammond's Antichrist it is certain he died Anno Christi 68. and so One and thirty years before Antichrist was come 2. But be this as it will I shall not though I might stand upon it but take the Computation which both Grotius and Dr. Hammond approve for they both agree in this that St. John writ this Epistle a little before the destruction of Jerusalem and in the places cited indeavour to prove it 2. This being granted it is further certain that the Excidium Hierosolymorum was in the second year of Vespasian that is Anno Christ. 72. That this is so Josephus Eusebius Jac. Vsserius Armachanus Baronius c. assure us 3. And hence it evidently follows That both Caius Caligula and Simon Magus were dead before the year 72. when Antichrist as St. John assures us was not come Caligula being dead thirty and Simon Magus four years before that time By the Premisses I believe it may and does appear that in Scripture Antichrist the great Antichrist is never spoken of but as future and to come and therefore it is impossible by Scripture and there is no other Medium can do it to prove that Antichrist was come in any part of that time in which Scripture was writ 2. And as the Apostles believed and writ that in their times even in St. John's who lived longest Antichrist was not come So the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers after them for about a thousand years generally if not universally speak of Antichrist as still future and in their several times to come I know that some anciently and wildly thought that Nero was Antichrist and as much might be said for him as Grotius has said for Caligula but they said that he was to rise again and come Sub Seculi Finem and Act as Antichrist But I never yet read or heard of any besides the Learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond who in Sixteen hundred years after our blessed Saviour ever seriously affirm'd that Caligula or Simon Magus was Antichrist The two Learned Persons before mention'd are the first and they Contradict each other themselves the received Opinion of the Christian World and gratifie Rome whilst they indeavour which neither they nor any
Papist had kill'd or with Poyson or Pistol had taken away her Life as they often Indeavor'd it had been no Treason For all know that Treason is Crimen Majestatis or Laesa Majestas a Crime against Sacred Majesty either Immediately against the Person or Persons in whom Majesty resides or mediately against those who are his nearer Representatives as the Lord Chancellor Treasurer and the Judges when they are in Execution of their Office And though there be an Inferior Degree of Treason as of a Servant against his Lord and Master a Wife against her Husband yet no Treason ever was either by the Imperial and Civil or our National and Common Laws but against a Superior And therefore the Queen being deposed by the Pope as an Heretick and actually deprived not only of all her Royal Power and Majesty but of all Jurisdiction and Superiority over her Subjects and they absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity and so a private Person only without any Power to command Obedience I say upon these Impious Popish Principles to kill the Queen could not possibly have had the Nature or Name of Treason Had they by open War or privately by Poyson or Pistols taken away her life as they Intended and often Indeavor'd as we shall see anon they might have been Murderers but not Traitors So that the Pope and his Party believing that the Queen was Actually deposed and deprived of all her Royal Dignity and Dominion as a Heretick they must consequently believe that the Murdering of her by any of her former Subjects neither was nor could be Treason But this is not all For 2. Admit she had not been deposed by any Papal Law Bull or Decretal Constitution yet any of their Popish Clergy might have murder'd her and been no way guilty of Treason though they were English men and born her Subjects nay though they had actually taken the Oaths of Allegiance before they took Popish Orders The reason of this is evident and a necessary Consequent from their Impious and Rebellious Principles For they say That the Clergy Are no Subjects of any Prince and therefore they themselves conclude as well they may that if they Rebel and seek the Ruin of their Prince yet in them it is no Treason This Emanuel Sa the Jesuit expresly tells us in a Book not surreptitiously sent into the World but publish'd with his Name to it Dedicated to the Virgin Mary approved highly Commended and Licenc'd by Publick Authority Thus is this Rebellious Doctrine approved not only by the Librorum Censor at Antverp but in Heaven too at least in the Opinion of the Author who otherwise would not have dedicated it to the Virgin Mary and desired her Patronage and Promotion of it for the good of Souls Sure I am I do not find it Condemn'd in any of their Indices Expurgatorij neither in the Spanish Index nor that of Portugal nor that of Pope Alexander the Seaventh at Rome c. Nay so far are the Inquisitors from Condemning this Rebellious Doctrine of Emanuel Sa that the Spanish Index does not so much as name much less censure him or his Aphorisms But the Portugal Index in which both the Author and his Aphorisms are expresly nam'd censures only two Propositions one about Pennance the other about Extream Vnction which the Inquisitors the Supream Congregation of them at Rome would have left out and then approved and permitted all the rest And so that Erroneous and Impious Aphorism That Clergy-men are not Subjects of Kings and therefore not Capable of Committing Treason although they actually Rebel against and Murder them But the late Index of Pope Alexander the Seaventh speaks more fully and home to our present purpose and expresly permits and approves for we may be sure they will not permit what they do not approve all Editions of those Aphorisms Even at Rome before the year 1602. In all which this Rebellious Aphorism we are speaking of was and so was approved by them This does further and if that be possible more evidently appear out of these their Approved and Authentick Expurgatory Indices wherein this Proposition Priests Are By The Law of God Subject to Princes is damn'd as Erroneous and Heretical both in the Spanish Index and that of Portugal For the Inquisitors finding it in the Index of Chrysostom Command it to be expunged and blotted out Although Chrysostom in the Text says the very same thing Hence it evidently follows That if this Proposition Priests by the Law of God Are Subject to Princes be erroneous and false as the Pope and his Party say it is their Inquisitors Commanding it to be Expung'd as Erroneous then the Contradictory Priests Are not by The Law of God Subject to Princes must of necessity be true and by them approved and believed Unless they will say which were highly irrational and ridiculous that Contradictory Propositions may be both false and they believe neither of them But this they neither do nor will say for their greatest Writers publickly say and Indeavour to prove That Priests Are not Subject to Princes Nay Cardinal Cajetan expresly says That the Clergy are so Sacred that 't is Impossible they should be Subject to Princes When he says It is impossible his meaning is that 't is not naturally but morally impossible because if any Prince should use his Priests and Clergy as Subjects it were a great Sin and in his Opinion Sacriledge and therefore Impossible Because according to the Rule of Law Illud solum Possumus quod Jure Possumus So we have that great Roman Cardinal expresly approving that Rebellious Doctrine That Priests are not Subject to Princes Nor we may be sure was it any private or singular Opinion of his which died with him For when afterwards Emanuel Sa's Aphorisms wherein the same Doctrine was maintained were publish'd as a Work Profitable and Necessary for Divines and All who had Cure of Souls An Advocate of the Parliament of Paris eminent for Law and Learning tells us two Things 1. That those Aphorisms were Approved at Rome 2. And then passes a just Censure upon them That such Doctrine was the Plague and Ruin of Commonwealths Royal and Supream Powers being the Ordinance of God by which All Men are made Subject to the Jurisdiction of Kings So that Learned Person And to pass by all others an Excellent Person of great Judgment and Integrity and a Roman Catholick I mean Father Paul of Venice tells us that in the Quarrels between Pope Paul the Fifth and the Venetians a World of Books were writ by Jesuits and others to vindicate the Popes Cause and they All Agreed in this That the Clergy were Exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction quoad Personas Bona Secular Princes had nothing to do with their Persons or Purses nor were They Subjects to Princes no not in
That the Pope could not Depose or Kill such Protestants But when this was heard at Rome the Pope and his Sacred Congregation as they call it Condemned that Negative Proposition as Heretical and Summon'd the Subscribers to Rome where Prisons and Censures as Father Caron tells us were prepared for them Whence it is Evident that to deny the Popes Power to Depose and Kill Protestant Princes is at Rome declared Heretical and therefore that he has a Power to Depose and Kill is a part of their Catholick Creed and believ'd three Whence it further follows that they do think such Killing of Protestants to be no Murder nor those who kill them out of Zeal to the Catholick Cause Murderers 5. When Raymundus Lullus a man famous in his time and after it had said and in his Writings published That it was unlawful and impious to kill and murder Hereticks for he had seen and heard of the bloody Persecutions of the Waldenses and such as at Rome were call'd Hereticks in and before his time Nic. Eymericus Inquisitor of Arragon complains of him and his Writings to Pope Gregory the Eleventh who in full Consistory with the Council of his Cardinals damns the Doctrine of Raymundus Lullus and declares for the Lawfulness and Justice of Killing Hereticks 6. And Lastly Pope Leo the Tenth in his Oecumenical so they call it Lateran Council Sacro approbante Concilio with the Consent and Approbation of that Council declares That our blessed Saviour Did Institute Peter and his Successors his Vicars to whom by the Testimony of The Book of Kings it was so necessary to yield Obedience that Whosoever would not as no true Protestant ever would or could was to be punished with Death The Pope was not pleased to tell us what Book of Kings for in their Vulgar Latin Version there are four Books of that name nor what Chapter or Verse he meant and he did wisely to conceal what Place in those Books he intended for had he nam'd any particular place though he pretended to Infallibility his folly would have much sooner appeared It is indeed ridiculous for any man to think that any thing said in those Books of Kings can prove that our blessed Saviour Constituted a Vicar General over his whole Christian Church with power to kill all who would not comply with him and that Peter and his Successors the Popes were the men seeing there is not one Syllable of all or any of this in any of the four Books of Kings Nor any Text from which it may with any sense or probability be deduc'd Nor have the Publishers of that Lateran and other Councils Peter Crab Surius Binius Labbe c. supply'd that defect and told us what place Pope Leo meant and from which he or they could prove the Popes Power to kill all who comply'd not with his Commands I know that Crab Surius and Binius though Labbe has omitted it as Impertinent have in their Editions of the Councils cited in their Margents Deut. 17. for a proof of that Erroneus and Impious Position it seems their Infallible Judge mistook Kings for Deuteronomy or that they could find nothing in any Book of Kings for the Popes purpose But they name not the Verse though I believe it is the Twelfth Verse of that Seaventeenth Chapter they mean Where 't is said That he who will not hearken to the Priest or Judge That Man shall Dye This I say is altogether impertinent as to the proof of the Popes Position For admit which is manifestly untrue that by Priest here the High Priest only was meant yet it will neither be consequence nor sense to say Whosoever disobey'd the Sentence of the High Priest in the Jewish Church must be put to death Ergo Whoever disobeys the Pope in the Christian Church must be so too This I say is Inconsequent for the Priests in the Jewish Church not only the High Priest but other Priests and Levites by the express Law of God had as Judges in many Cases Power of Life and Death but in the Gospel our blessed Saviour left no such Power to his Apostles and their Successors Excommunication is the highest Punishment Peter or any or all the Apostles could inflict by any Authority from our blessed Saviour in the Christian Church and this Power succeeded Intersection or putting to death in the Judaical Church So St. Augustin expresly tells us and to him I refer the Reader By the Premisses I think it may appear that if after the Popes Damnation and Deposition of Queen Elizabeth any of her Popish Subjects Laity or Clergy Regular or Secular had by taking Arms publickly or by Poyson or Pistol Privately taken away her life according to their approved Principles it had been no Rebellion Treason or Murder but in their Opinion an Action Just and Innocent But this though too much is not all their Error and Impiety rises higher For 4. Had any of Queen Elizabeths Subjects after the Popes Excommunication kill'd her that Execrable Fact had been so far from being Murder that in their opinion it had been an Action not only Indifferent or Morally good but Meritorious In the year 1586. which was the Nine and twentieth of Elizabeth in the Colledge of Rhemes Giffard Dr. of Divinity Gilbert Giffard and Hodgson Priests had so possess'd the English Seminaries with a belief of this Doctrine That John Savage willingly and gladly vowed to kill the Queen The Story is in Cambden an Historian of unquestionable truth and fidelity After this Walpoole the English Jesuite perswades Edward Squire that it was a Meritorious Act to take away the Queen tells him it might easily be done by Poysoning the Pomel of her Sadle gives him the Poyson Squire undertakes it Walpoole blesseth him and promises him Eternal Salvation and so having sworn him to Secresie sends him into England where notwithstanding all the Jesuits blessings he was taken confess'd all this and was Executed in the year 1598. And Camdben there tells us That a Pestilent Opinion as he truly calls it was got amongst the Popish Party even amongst their Priests That to take away Kings Excommunicate was Nothing Else but to Weed the Cockle out of the Lords Field It is true none of those impious and damnable Designs had their desir'd Effect God Almighty protecting that good Queen it being impossible that any Power or Policy should prevail against his Providence yet the Matter of Fact confessed by themselves or evidently proved by Legal Witnesses manifestly shews that they thought killing the Queen for the benefit of their Catholick Cause was a Meritorious Work which they designed to do and had their Ability been Equal to their Impiety would have done 2. Nor was this the private opinion of some Priests and Jesuits only but the definitive Sentence of several Popes their Infallible and Supream Judges publickly declared and that we may be sure they are obligatory
Supream Princes are Subjects may totally and absolutely depose and deprive them of all their Dominions and right to Govern 4. When the Pope has pass'd such Sentence and deprived them of their Dominions if afterwards they meddle with the Government they become every way Tyrants both Titulo Administratione And then 5. After such Sentence pass'd by the Pope such Kings or Supream Princes may be dealt with as Altogether and Every Way Tyrants and Consequently may be kill'd by Any Private Person 4. And though these be Prodigious Errors Unchristian and indeed Antichristian Impieties such as neither ours nor any Language can fully express yet this is not all The Jesuite further declares That though Pagans anciently had and still have Power to Depose their Tyrannical Kings yet in Christian Commonwealths they have such dependence upon the Pope that without his Knowledge and Authority they should not depose their King For he may Command and Prohibit the People to do it And he gives Instances when People have consulted the Popes and by their Counsel and Consent Deposed their Kings So he says Chilperick was Deposed in France and Sancius Secundus in Portugal And to make up their Errors and Impieties full he further tells us That all Christian Kingdoms and Commonwealths do so far depend upon the Pope that he may not only Counsel the People and Consent to their Deposition and Assassination of their Tyrannical Princes But he may Command and Compel them to do it when he shall think it sit for avoiding Schisms and Heresies That is indeed for the rooting out and ruine of the true Protestant Religion and establishing their Roman Superstition and Idolatry And to conclude he further declares That in such Cases the Popes Command to Murder a Deposed King is so far from being any Crime that it is Superlatively Just. I might here cite Cardinal Tolet Guliel Rossaeus and a hundred such others who approve and in their Publicks Writings Approved and Licenced according to the Decree of their Trent Council by the Auhority of their Church justifie this Impious and Antichristian Doctrine of Deposing and Assassinating Heretical Kings but this I conceive a needless work For 1. Suarez himself declares it to be the received Doctrine of their Church and cites many of their Eminent Writers to prove it which any may see who is not satisfied with those before cited 2. The Licencers of Suarez and his Book are for Dignity in their Church and for Learning so great and for Number so many and the Commendations they give Suarez and his Work so high that there neither is nor can be any just Reason to doubt but this Doctrine was approved at Rome and by the Ruling part of that Church the Pope and his Party believed and incouraged as a Doctrine asserting the Popes Extravagant and as they call it Supernatural Power and so their Common Interest Let the Reader consult the Censures prefix'd to Suarez his Book and he will find all these following to Approve and Licence it First Three great Bishops all of them Counsellors to his Catholick Majesty 2. Two Provincials of the Society one of the Jesuites in Portugal the other of those in Germany 3. Academia Complutensis the University of Alcala de Henares approves it too 4. Lastâ—â— the Supream Senate Court or Congregation of the Inquisitors do also approve and licence it and this they do by Commission from Peter de Castello Vice-Roy of Portugal and in Matters of Faith Supream inquisitor The Premisses impartially consider'd I think we may truly say That it is not only Suarez or some particular or private Persons but the Church of Rome and her Ruling part which approves this Impious and Trayterous Doctrine Which may further appear besides their Approbations and Licences from the great Commendations they give Suarez and his Book and Doctrine And here 1. For Suarez They say That he was a Contemner of Humane things and a most Valiant Desender only of Piety and Catholick Religion And for his Excellent Wisdom the Common Master and another Augustine of that Age. That for his great Zeal for the Catholick Faith he was a most Famous Author and a most Eminent Divine That he was a Most Grave and most Religious Writer whose Works the World the Popish World does Honour Admire and Love c. 2. And for his Book and the Doctrine contained in it They say That all things in his Book are Religiously Consonant to Sacred Scripture to Apostolical Traditions General Councils and Papal Decrees this last we admit and they profess it to be true And hence if they may be believed who expresly affirm it themselves it evidently follows That this Traiterous Doctrine is approved by the Pope and is Consonant to his Decrees And those Publick Censors of Suarez his Book severally add That they find Nothing and therefore not the Assassinations of Kings in it against the Orthodox Faith the Roman Faith they mean but many things which do defend the Faith The University of Alcala de Henares to omit the rest more fully testifies That they read Suarez his Book with all possible Diligence and found Nothing in it repugnant to the Catholick Faith nor was there Any Thing in it which ought not to be Approved and Commended And then add that we may be sure they spoke cordially and deliberately That there was Nothing in that whole Work which All of them did not approve so that they were All of the same Mind and Judgment Nay we are further told That he had Composed that Work by More then Human Helps and therefore they Judge it Most Worthy to be Published for the Publick and Common Benesit of the Whole Christian World and a Signal Victory of their Faith over Heresies Such are the Commendations of Suarez his Book and Doctrine so that we may be sure that it is Approved and Received at Rome And here let me further add that when King James had Published his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance and Sir Henry Savil Translated it into Latin the Latin Copy was by the Popish Party immediately sent to Rome and by the Pope Condemned there as Impious and Heretical From Rome it was sent to Suarez who by the Popes Command was to Confute and Answer it He undertook and finished the Answer sent it to Rome where it was highly approved and afterwards Printed and Published with all those Approbations and Commendations before mention'd But these Positions need no further proof that they are own'd and publickly approved by the Pope and his Party I shall only add When King James had charged Bellarmine and the Church of Rome with this Rebellious and Impious Doctrine of deposing Kings absolving Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity c. Gretser in his Answer has these memorable words We do not deny says he
qui Leoni Isauro Imperatori Sacris Interdicere Juratâ Italiae obedientiâ spoliare non dubitârant uno â—o Crimine quod Imaginibus se Inimicum praebuisset d Gregorius 3. Leonem Imperio Communione fidelium privat Plat. in vita Greg. 3. e Zacharias Papa Regem Francorum non tam pro ejus Iniquitatibus quamquod erat inutilis deposuit Francigenas à juramento fidelitatis absolvit Gratian. Can. Alius Caus. 15. Quaest. 6. f Non quod insufficiens sed quod dissolutus erat cum mulieribus effoeminatus Gloss. ibid. verbo Inutilis f Non quod Insufficiens sed quod dissolutus erat cum Mulicribus Effoeminatus Gloss. ibid. verbo Inutilis g Gloss. ibid. verbo Alius h Vid. Joh. Launoium Epist. Tom. 7. p. 117 118 c. p. 245 246 c. Hottomanni Franco-Galliam cap. 13. p. 96 97 98. i Vid. Edit Paris 1612. 1618. k Vid. Bullam Gregorij 13. dat Romae 1. Die Julij 1580. l Vide Indicem Librorum prohibitorum Lusitanicum Olysipone 1624. p. 350. in Carolo Molinaeo m Vide Bullarium Romanum Romae Anno 1638. Tom. 1. p. 49. n Potestate à Deo data Ligandi Solvendi in Coelo in Terra Ibid. o Omnes Christianos à vinculo Juramenti quod sibi faciunt aut facient absolvo ut nullus ci serviat sicut Regi interdico Ibid. §. 1. p Vt Mundus Intelligat quia si potestis in Coelo ligare solvere potestis in Terra Imperia Regna Principatus Marchias Ducatus Comitatus Omnium Hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere Vnicuique Concedere In dicto Bullario Roman Bullae Excommunicationis Hen. 4. §. 10. p. 51. Col. 1. q Sive Roman Pontificem Supremum in Ecclesiâ Dei Judicem Ita Gregorius 13. in Bulla data Romae 8 Apr. 1575. In Ecloge Bullarum Lugduni 1582. p. 359. Col. 2. r Vide Bullam 13. Gregorij 9. datam Romae Anno 1239. In Bullario Romano Tom. 1. p. 89 90. s Vid. Constitutionem Ejus 3. dat Lugduni 1245. In Bullario Romano Tom. 1. p. 94 95. t Damnatio Excommunicatio Friderici 2. Ibidem u Cum Fraribus Sacro Concilio deliberatione diligenti habitâ Ib. dictae Constitutionis §. 6. Bullarij dicti p. 95. Col. 1. lin ultimâ x Non sine Omnium audientium Circumstantium stupore horrore Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad Annum 1245. p. 668. lin 33. y Fridericum Omnium Consensu Imperio Regnis privavit Platina in vita Innocentij 4. p. 209. Col. 1. Edit Col. Agripp 1626. z Quem Fridericum Concilium Generale Lugdunense Cassaverat Condemnaverat Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad An. 1250. p. 773. lin ultimâ a A nonnullis affirmative dicebatur quod Dominus Papa sitienter super Omnia desiderabat Fridericum quem magnum Draconem vocabat pessundare ut ipso suppeditato Conculcaeo Reges Francorum Angliae aliósque Christianitatis Reges quos omnes Regulos Serpentulos esse dicebat faciliùs Exemplo dicti Friderici perterritos Conculcaret Bonis suis ac Praelatos eorum ad Libitum spoliaret Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad dictum Annum 1250. p. 774. lin 2. c. b Vide Bullam 7. Pauli 3. dat Romae 3. Cal. Sept. Anno. 1535. In Bullario Romano Tom. 1. p. 514. Editionis Romae 1638. c Mandantes ut ab Henrici Regis suorúmque Officialium Judicum Magistratuum quorumcunque Obedientâ penitùs omninò recedant nec illas in superiores recognoscant néque eorum Mandatis Obtemperent Dictae Bullae §. 10. d Et Nulli ipsis sed Ipsi aliis super quocunque debito negotio tam Civili quam Criminali de jure respondere teneantur Ibid. §. 11. e Praelatis quóque Caeteris personis Ecclesiasticis mandat sub poenis in Bulla Contentis quatenùs de Regno Angliae discedant 〈◊〉 revertantur donec dicti Excommunicati privati maledicti damnati meruerim absolutionis Beneficium Ibid. §. 13. p. 516. f Cambdens Elizabeth lib. 3. p. 360 361. ad Annum 1588. g See a Book with this Title Important Considerations c. written by the Secular Priests here in England printed Anno. 1601. and reprinted with other Tracts with this Title A Collection of several Treatises concerning the Reasons and Occasion of Penel Laws c. London 1675. In which Collection pag. 76. the Secular Priests tell us that Pope Gregory 13. did excommunicate Queen Elizabeth h Gregorius 13. in Ducem ac Generalem hujus belli Capitaneum Nos Elegit ut ex ipsius Diplomate constat Quod tanto magis fecit quia ejus Praedecessor Pius 5. Elizabetham haeresium Patronam Omni Regia Potestate privaverat Vid. Edictum Illustriss D. Jac. Geraldini de Justitia ejus belli quod in Hibernia pro side gerit 'T is Extant in the History of the Irish Rebellion Lond. 1680. in the Appendix p. 8. i Cambdens Elizabeth lib. 3. p. 360 361. k Cambden ibid. lib. 3. p. 364. Observ. 2. l Damnatio Depositio Friderici 2. Vid. Bullarium Romanum Romae 1638. Tom. 1. p. 94. Col. 7. Edita erat Bulla ista Anno 1245. m Damnatio Hen. 8 ejúsque Fautorum c. In Bullario Romano ibid. p. 514. Col. 2. Edita dicta Bella Anno 1535. postea 1538. n Vid. Bullarium Romanum Lugduni 1655. in 4. Tomis in Folio Eclogen Bullarum motu propriorum Pii 4. c. Lugduni 1582. 8 0. Novam Collectionem c. Eman. Roder. Turnoni 1609. fol. where in that one Volume you have above 500. Bulls with the Names of 46. Popes who published them o Vid. Constitut. 22 Julij Papae 2. In Bullario Romano Tom. 1. p. 378. Constitut. 81. Gregorij 13. In dicto Bullario Tom. 2. p. 348. vide Extravag Communes 1. 5. Tit. 9. cap. Unigenitus 2. p Docuissemus cum Lutherum Luce clarius Sanctos Rom. Pontifices Praedecessores nostros in suis Canonibus seu Constitutionibus Nunquam Errasse Vide Bullam Apostolicam Leonis 10. contra Errores Lutheri sequacium Dat Romae 17 Cal. Julij An. 1520. Pontificatus sui 8 0. Apud Pet. Crab. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 715. c. And his Predecessor Julius 2. says as much for the Church of Rome S. Sancta Ecclesia Romana Magistra fidei Omnium Errorum Expers unica immaculata c. Constitutio 27. Julij 2. data Anno. 1512. In Bullario Romano Tom. 1. p. 384. q Sic Omnes Apostolicae Sedis Sanctiones accipiendae sunt tanquam Ipsuss Divini Petri voce Firmatae sint Can. sic Omnes 2. dist 19. Ibid. Can. 3. 4. c. r Vide Bullam Greg. 13. datam Romae 1. Jul. 1580. Jur. Can. praefixam s Quicquid Statuit Quicquid Ordinat Romana Ecclesia Ab Omnibus perpetno Irrefragobilitèr est Observandum Ibid. Can. Enimvero 4. Dist. 19
nec ab Ecclesiâ argui aut in Ordinem cogi volunt quasi sint Domini non Ministri Ibidem d Si Papa innumerabiles populos sccum ducit primo mancipio Gehennae c. Hujus Culpas redarguere praesumat mortalium nullus quia Cunctos ipse judicaturus à nemine est Judicandus nisi sit à side deviss Can. si Papa 6. Dist. 40. e Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. f 2. Cor. 11. 5. 12. vers 11. g Gal. 2. 9. h Locus hic non derogat praerogativae Petri qui totius Ecclesiae rector Pastor Constitutus etiam ipsis Apostolis Major Superior fuit Estius in 2. Cor. 12. 11. i Qui Apostolus est Sammam habet in Omnem Ecclesiam Potestatem Bellarmin De Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 12. in Respons 3. Object 2. k Successio ex Christi Instituto Jure Divino est quia ipse Christus Instituit in Petro Pontificatum infinem Mundi duraturum ac ideo quicunque Petro succedit à Christo accipit Pontificatum Bellarmin dicto lib. cap. §. ut autem l Romanum Pontificem succedere Petro non habetur expresse in Scripturis no nor Implicitè neither tamen succedere aliquem Petro deducitur evidentèr ex Scripturis illum autem esse Romanum Pontificem habetur ex traditione Apostolica Bellarmin dicto lib. cap. §. Observandum Tertio m Vid. Cap. Solitae 6. Extra de Major Obedientiâ Cap. Per venerabilem 13. Extra Qui filij sunt legit Cap. Ad Apostolicae 2. De Sent. re judicatâ in 6. Cap. pro Human 1. De Homicidio in 6. n Vid. Tho. Campegium Episc. Feltrensem de Potestate Rom. Pont. Capp 13. 14. Bellarminum de Roman Pontisice lib. 2. c. 12. c. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Non id Petro uni Successorbusque suis reservatum Pet. Possinus Jesuita Catena Graec. Patrum in Matth. Tom. 1. p. 232. p Joh. 20. 22. 23. q Vid. Pet. de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotij Imperij Tom. 2. 1. 5. c. 10. §. 2. p. 35. Pet. Crab. Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 945. Col. 2. The words are these Vnde Sanctissimus Beatissimus Papa Caput Vniversalis Ecclesiae c. r Absent à Contextu Graeco verba illa Caput Vniversalis c. loco dicto in margine s Vide Indicem Librorum Prohibitorum Alexand. 7. Jussu Editum Romae Ann. 1664. verbo De Concordia Sacerdotij c. p. 29. p. 352. ubi extat Decretum Congrationis Jndicis in quo damnatur hic Petri de Marca Liber t Non fuisset Christus Diligens Pater-familias si non dimisisset in Terrâ aliquem qui Vice suâ possit subvenire necessitatibus Ecclesiae c. De Potestat Rom. Pontif. cap. 1. §. 3. pag. 2. u Christus Ecclesiae Defuissct nec de Necessariis prospexisset Nisi Monarcham aliquem Judicem Constituisset c. Vide Albert. Pighium Controvers 3. fol. 70. 71. 76. x Christus dum fuit in Mundo de jure naturali in Imperatorem Quoscunque Alios Deposnionis Sementias ferre potuisset Damnationis Eadem Ratione Vicarius ejus potest Nam non videretur Dominus Discretus fuisse nisi unicum post se Talem Vicarium reliquisset Fuit autem iste Vicarius Petrus idem dicendum est de Successoribus Petri. Ita Petrus Bertrandus in Addit ad Glossas ad Cap. Unam Sanctam 1. De Major Obed. Extrav Commun y Vide Bullam Greg. 13. dat Rom. 1. Julij Ann. 1580. praefixam Corp. Juris Can. Paris 1612. 1618. z Sic Omnes Apostolicae Sodis Sanctiones accipiendae sunt tanquam Ipsius divini Petri voce firmatae sint Can. sic Omnes 2. Dist. 19. And this the Gloss there indeavours to prove from a spurious and ridiculous as well as impious Canon Can. Non Nos 1. Dist. 40. a The Jesuits in their Thesis proposed in the Claromont Coll. 12. Decemb. Ann. 1661. Impudently and Impiously say Christus Ecclesiae regimen primum Petro dein Successoribus Commisit Eandem quam habebat Ipse Infallibilitatem Concessit quoties ex Cathedrâ loqueretur And then Thes. 20. tells us Datur Infallibilis Controversiarum Judex etiam Extra Concilium Generale Tum in Quaestio â—ibus Juris tum facti b Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Ecclesiast in Fortunatiano c Vid. Hist. Haeresis Monothlitarum per Fran. de Combesis Dominicanum Paris 1648. p. 65. c. 121. c. ubi contra Pighium Baronium c. probat evidentèr Honorium Synodo 6. damnatum d Vid. D. Rlch. Crakanthorp in Vigilio dormitante e Let any man read those two Constitutions before nam'd 1. That of Innocent 3. Cap. Solicitae 6. Extra de Major Obedient 2. That of Bonif. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam 1. eodem Titulo Extravag Commun and if he have eyes and will Impartially use them he will find what I say true Or he may with the same success read the Bulls and Damnations of the Emperor Hen. 4. by Greg. 7. in Bull. Rom. 1638. Tom. 1. p. 49. 50. 51. And of Freder 2. Ibid. p. 94. 95. by Innoc. 4. And the Excommunications of the same Emperor by Greg. 9. Ann. 1239. Ibid. in dicto Bullario Tom. 1. p. 89. 90. f Matth. 20. 26. 27. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primus seu Princeps plus est quam esse Magnum aliis Omnibus Major yet this the Pope would have Luc. Burgensis in Matth. 20. 27. h Matth. 23. 8. 9. 10. 11. i Gal. 1. 1. * Joh. 1. 40 41 c. k Matth. 23. 8. Omnes autem vos fratres estis On which words Luc. Brugensis saith thus Quia fratres sumus Neminem in alios Magisterio fungi Concedit Fratres non Magistri Alii in Alios estis Condiscipuli nemo in alium proprie agere potest Magistrum Nullus aliorum Magisterium mereatur se habere vos Omnes merito debeatis Condiscipulos Christus Solus Omnium Magister agnoscendus Ita L. Brugensis Commentar in 4. Evang. ad 23. Math. 8. p. 361. vid. Hieronym in Gal. 2. 1. ubi dicit Petrum Paulum reliquos Apostolos fuisse aequales l Sed quia Ecclesia regenda est juxta unitatem necessarium fuit Institui ab Apostolis modum quendam Communionis inter Episcopos secundum Exemplum A Christo datum in Institutione Collegij Apostolici quod Vniversum Ecclesiae Corpus repraesentabat Ideoque praescribenda ab iis fuit forma regiminis Aristocratici nimirum it a ut unus Praesideret Pet. de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotij Imperij lib. 6. cap. 1. §. 2. pag. 58. Col. 1. m Conc. Chalcedon Can. 28. Conc. Constant. 1. Can. 5. apud P. Crabb Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 411. n But it is not only Pet de Marca but even the Popish General Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil and the Gallican Church and Sorbon and the Ancient Church
for a thousand years after our blessed Saviour which maintain'd the same Doctrine Marca did as is evidently proved by a Learned Sorbon Doctor Edm. Rechier In Hist. Conc. General l. 1. Edit Colon. Ann. 1680. The design of the whole Book is against the Popes Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility Vide dicti lib. cap. 13. pag. 393. c. o I know that some of them eminent for Learning and Dignity in their Church say That our blessed Saviour did give Peter power to transfer his great Authority to his Successor and only to him not to any of the other Apostles But this they say only without any pretence of proof And I commend their Prudence not to attempt Impossibilities Johan Franciscus Bordinus Archbishop of Avignion has published his Opinion in these words Christus Vniversale Totius Ecclesiae Caput Petrum Constituit qui suas Vices in Terris ageret Quo quidem in Munere si dum viveret Aequales mark that habuit caeteros Coapostolos Nulli tamen Eorum quod à Domino accipissent jus per Successionem in alios transferendi facult as fuit Soli Petro Id Promissum Soli Petro Id Traditum ut Petra esset post Christum Ecclesiae fundamentum Ita Johan Fran. Bordinus Archiepiscopus Avenionensis in Serie Gestis Roman Pontif. ad Clement Papam 8. ad Annum Christ. 34. Tiberij 18. 2. p Petrus Romae Sedem suam Jubente Domino Collocavit Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. q Probatur Roman Pontificem Petro Succedere in Pontificatu Ecclesiae Vniversae Ex Divino Jure Ratione Successionis Bellarmin Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Primum ergo Papa in Petri Cathedrâ Sedet summum in eo dignitatis gradum Jurisdictionis amplitudinem non Humanis Constitutionibus sed Divinitus datum agnoscit est Pater Vnixersalis Ecclesiae Petri Successor Christi Vicarius c. Catechism Trident. Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. pag. 391. Edit Paris 1635. r Bellarm. Locis proxime citatis ut alij passim And Pope Pius 5. in this his Impious Bull. §. 1. Christus Ecclesiam Catholicam uni soli Petro Petrique Successori Romano Pontifici in Potestatis Plenitudine Tradidit Gubernandam s Nullum Christi ea dere Decretum Extat So A Lapide Confesses in Apoc. 17. vers 17. pag. 268. Col. 2. A. t Romano Pontifici Beati Petri Apostolorum Principis Successori ac Christi Vicario veram Obedientiam spondeo ae juro Vid. Bullam Pii 4. super forma Juramenti Professionis fidei in Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. p. 452. Edit Antv. 1633. u Hanc Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo Salvus esse potest quam in Praesenti profiteor teneo eandem usque ad ultimum vitae spiritum Constantissime retinere c. Spondeo Voveo Juro Ibidem x 1 Pet. 5. 13. y Primam Petri Epistolam Romae Scriptam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aiunt quam Petrus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellat Eusebius Hist. l. 2. c. 15. p. 53. B. Valesio z Curiose sciscitabar said Papias à Senioribus quid Petrus quid Jacobus dicere soliâ—ì essent Néque ex Bibliorum Lectione tantam me utilitatem capere posse Existimabam quantam ex hominum vivâ voce Euseb. l. 3. c. 39. p. 111. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex Traditione non scriptâ habuit novas quasdam Servatoris parabolas praedicationes aliáque Fabulis propiora inter quae Mille Annorum spatium post resurrectionem fore dicit Euseb. ibid. p. 112. b Ita opinatus videtur Papias ex male Intellectis Apostolorum narrationibus Fuit enim Mediocri Admodum Ingenio Praeditus Euseb. ibidem Lit. c. c Plerisque tamen post Ipsum Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus Ejusdem Erroris occasionem praebuit hominis vetustate Sententiam suam tuentibus Ibidem D. Ita etiam Nicephorus Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 20. pag. 252. D. Object d Colon. Allobr 1612. e Paris 1659. f Papias eadem aetate Celebris fuit Vir Imprimis disertus eruditus ac Scripturarum peritus Euseb Hist. lib. 3. cap. 36. Edit Valesij Sed in Edit Christopherson Cap. 35. Grae. 30. Latinae Versionis g Omnium aliaruni Artium scientiâ vir planè disertissimus Ibidem h Papias was a friend and familiar of St. Polycarpe Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39. and Polycarpe suffered Martyrdom Anno Christ. 167. Baronius Annotat. ad Martyrolog Romanum ad diem Jan. 26. p. 81. Col. 1. Answer i Quibus Temporibus floruit Polycarpus Smyrnaeorum Episcopus Papias Similiter Apud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens Ruffin l. 3. c. 35. in Excuso Rhenarci Basil. 1528. k In Cod. MS. Ruffini est Lib. 3. cap. 32. l Totum hoc Elogium Papiae deest in nostris Codicibus Valesius in Not. ad Lib. 3. Eusebij c. 36. p. 55. m Non dubito quin haeâ— verba ab Imperito Scholiastè adjecta sunt praeter Eusebij mentem Sementiam Valesius Ibidem n Quomodo fieri potest ut Eusebius Papiam hic appellet virum doctissimum scripturarum peritissimum cum in fine Libri affirmat diserte Papiam Mediocri Ingenio praeditum Planéque Rudem ac Simplicem Valesius Ibidem o Euseb. lib. 3. c. 39. p Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. c. 39. p. 112. Valesij Edit vide Nicephor lib. 3. c. 20. q Act. 21. 8. Vide Nicephor Hist. lib. 3. pag. 252. C. r Vide Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39. Hieronym de Illust. Doct. cap. 18. Nicephor l. 3. c. 20. s Joh. 20. 30. 31. 21. 25. t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Novas quasdam Servatoris parabolas ac praedicationes u Scaliger in Annotat in Joh. 18. 31. Petrus Romae nunquam fuit sed praedicabat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cujus Metropolis erat Babylon ex quâ scribit Epistolam suam Vid. Johan Rainoldum contra Hartum c. x Tametsi Veteres Existimaverint Petrum vocabulo Babylonis signisicasse Vrbem Romam probabilis est Scaligeri Conjectura qui ex Ipsa Babylone scriptam à Petro putat Epistolam hanc ad Judaeos dispersos c. Petrus de Marca Archiepiscopus Parisiensis De Concordia Sacerd. Imperij l. 6. c. 1. §. 4. p. 59. Tom. 2. y Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christi 45. §. 16. 17. z Haec Sententia refelli videtur ex Actis Apostolorum ex quibus constat Petrum in Judaea ac Syriâ semper mansisse usque ad ultimum Annum Agrippae c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 16. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Eusebij pag. 33. 34. a Act. 15. c. b Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. c In Chronico Alexandrino Concilium Hierosolymitanum refertur Anno Claudij 6. Christi 48. melius dixisset 7 â— sic enim cuncta egregié conveniunt c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Euseb. p. 37. Col. 2. A. d Gal. 1. 18.