was 25. years Bishop of Rome and actually transferred that Power to his Successor there or that our blessed Saviour ever had or exercis'd such a terrene and temporal power as they pretend the Pope as his Vicar has from him I say let them make all or any one of these Pariculars appear from Scripture and I will confess and retract my error Nor is the Condition unjust or unequal when I require Scripture proof For they themselves constantly affirm that the Pope has Right to his Monarchical Supremacy Jure Divino by the Constitution of our blessed Saviour and Divine Right and this their Popes Canonists and Divines with great noise and confidence but no reason endeavour to prove from Scripture miserably mistaken and misapply'd I know that their late Jesuitical Methodists so much magnify'd by their Party require of Protestants to confute their Popish Doctrines Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory c. by express words of Scripture not admitting of Consequences however deduced from plain Texts as Premisses This method of theirs being irrational and demonstrated so to be I shall not tye them too But if they can prove any of the aforesaid Positions by the express words of Scripture or by good Consequences deduced from it or what they pretend to Vniversal and Apostolical Tradition I shall admit the proof Nay I shall make our Popish Adversaries two further and if that be possible fairer offers 1. Let them prove by any just and concluding reason whatsoever that any Christian Church in the World acknowledg'd or the Church of Rome her self assumed and publickly pleaded for such a Papal Supremacy as now they pretend to for 1000. years after our B. Saviour and for my own part I will confess and retract my Error 2. Let them prove by any such concluding reason that any Church in the World Eastern or Western Greek or Latin did acknowledge what now the Pope and his Party so earnestly and vainly contend for the Popes Infallibility and his Supremacy over all General Councils for 1500. years after our blessed Saviour and for my part Cedat Jülus Agris manus dabimus captivas I will retract what here I have affirmed and be what I hope I never shall be their Proselyte To Conclude I have no more to say my Adversaries will think I have said too much save only to desire the Readers who sincerely and impartially desire truth and satisfaction to read and consider the Margent as well as the Text. In this they have my Positions and the proofs of them in plain English In the Margent the Authorities and Authors I rely upon in their own words and the Language in which they writ and I have for the Readers ease not my own cited not only the Authors and their Books but the Chapter Paragraph Page and mostly the Editions of them That so the Reader may with more ease find the places quoted and judge whether I have cited and translated them aright It is notoriously known that our Popish Adversaries have published many forged Canons and Councils many spurious Decretals and supposititious Tracts under the names of Primitive Fathers and ancient Bishops that they have shamefully corrupted the Canons of Legitimate Councils and thousands of other Authors making them by adding and substracting words or Sentences say what they never meant or not to say what indeed they did both mean and say and this they themselves have without shame or honesty publickly own'd in their Expurgatory Indices and after all this fraud and falsification of Records these Apocryphal Books and supposititious Authors are continually produced by them for proofs of their Errors against Protestants who well know and as many sober men of their own Communion justly condemn such impious Roman Arts Nec tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis Christus eget Truth needs no such forg'd and false Medium's to maintain it nor will any honest man use them Sure I am I have not in this Discourse built the truth of my Positions upon the Testimonies of our own Protestant Authors knowing that our Adversaries would with scorn reject their Testimony nor of any supposititious or spurious ones The Testimonies and Proofs I have quoted and rely upon are drawn from Scripture the genuine Works of the ancient Fathers and Councils or which ad hominem must be valid from their own Councils the Popes Bulls their Canon Law their Casuists Schoolmen Summists the Trent Catechism the Book of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Rom. Church their approved and received Publick Offices such as their Missal Breviary Ritual Pontifical c. which Authorities if I do not misquote or mistake their meaning are and to them must be just proofs of those Positions for which I have produced them But let the Evidence of the Testimonies and the Authority of the Authors quoted be what it will I have little hope that they will gain any assent from our Adversaries so long as they believe the Infallibility of their Pope and Church and their Learned Men are solemnly sworn firmly to believe their new Trent Creed the whole Body of Popish Errors to their last breath and to Anathematize and Damn what Doctrine soever contradicts it For while they are possess'd with these Principles it may be truly said of them what was said of the Luciferian Hereticks in St. Hierome Facilius cos Vinci posse quam persuaderi you may sooner bassle then perswade them They will in despite of Premisses hold the Conclusion nor shall the clearest demonstration overcome their blind Zeal and Affection to their Catholick Cause However that God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless us and them with a clear knowledge of Sacred Truth with a firm belief and in dangerous times upon undanted and pious profession of it is and shall be the Prayer of Oct. 3. 1680. Thy Friend and Servant in Christ T. L. The Damnation and Excommunication of Elizabeth Queen of England and her Adherents with an Addition of other Punishments Pius Bishop Servant to God's Servants for a perpetual memorial of the matter HE that reigneth on High to whom is given all Power in Heaven and in Earth committed one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church out of which there is no Salvation to one alone upon Earth namely to Peter the Prince of the Apostles and to Peter's Successor the Bishop of Rome to be governed in fulness of Power Him alone he made Prince over all People and all Kingdoms to pluck up destroy scatter consume plant and build that he may contain the faithful that are knit together with the band of Charity in the Unity of the Spirit and present them spotless and umblameable to their Saviour Sect. 1. In discharge of which Function we which are by God's goodness called to the Government of the aforesaid Church do spare no pains labouring with all earnestness that Unity and the Catholick Religion which the Author thereof hath for the trial of his Children's
at an end we would acquiesce and admit what upon undeniable evidence we deny the Popes Supremacy But this they neither do nor is there any possibility they ever should prove For there is not one Syllable in Scripture of Peter's Successor or of what Power he received from him and nothing but Scripture can prove our blessed Saviour's Institution and Divine Law whereby Peter's Supremacy is transmitted to his Successor The truth is that Pius V. in the beginning of this his Impious Bull and other Popes many times in their Bulls Breves and Decretal Constitutions and their Writers generally take it for granted that our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Supremacy over the whole Church and to his Successors after him And when some of them sometimes go about to prove it the Reasons they bring are so far from Sense and Consequence that they may deserve Pity and Contempt rather than a serious Answer But when Reason will not Convince they have other Roman Arts to Cosen men into a Belief that what was given to Peter was likewise given to the Pope his Successor and that is amongst other ways by Corrupting the Ancient Fathers with false Translations So when Chrysostom had faid That the Power of the Keys was not given to Peter only but to the rest of the Apostles Pet. Possinus adds Successors and renders it thus The Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter And His Successors c. where Chrysostome whom he Translates has nothing of Peter's Successors but truly and plainly says That the Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter but to the rest of the Apostles when our blessed Savionr told them whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So in the Epistle of Pope Leo to the Bishops of France and of his Legat Paschasinus about the Condemnation of Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon these Words occur in the Latin Copies The most holy and most blessed Pope Leo Head of the Vniversal Church Where these words Head of the Vniversal Church are not in the Greek Copies as that Learned Archbishop ingenuously and truly Confesseth but by Roman Arts falsly and basely interserted that so they might by fraud what by no Reason they can maintain the Pope's impiously usurped Supremacy And that we may know how unpleasing the publishing of such things though evidently true are to the Pope and his Party at Rome who are resolved in despight of truth to maintain the Popes pretended Supremacy this Learned Work of that great Roman Catholick Archbishop is damn'd by the Inquisitors not to be printed read or had by any He who seriously reads and understands the Latin Versions of the Greek Councils Fathers and other Greek and Latin Writers may find an hundred such Frauds to maintain what they know they have no just reason for their Papal and Antichristian Tyranny And their Jndices Expurgatorij are Authentick Evidences to Convince them of these Unchristian Practises to conceal truth and cosen the World into a belief of their pernicious Papal Errors Nor is this all nor the worst for so desperately are they set upon it that if their Interest and the Papal Monarchy cannot otherwise be maintain'd as 't is impossible it should by any just and lawful means they speak impiously and blasphemously of our blessed Saviour Thomas Campegius Episcopus Feltrensis in his Book of the Power of the Pope to Paul IV. says That our blessed Saviour had not been a Diligent Father of the Family to his Church unless he had left such a Monarch over his Church as the Pope of whom he is there speaking And the Cites Pope Innocent and Aquinas to justifie it Albertus Pighius is as high to the same impious purpose and expresly says That our blessed Saviour had been wanting to his Church in things necessary if he had not Constituted and left such a Monarch and Judge of Controversies And a great Canonist if that be possible more blasphemously says That our blessed Saviour while he was on Earth had power to pronounce the Sentence of Deposition and Damnation against the Emperor or any other And by the same Reason His Vicar now can do it And then he impiously adds That our blessed Saviour would not have seem'd Discreet unless he had left such a Vicar as could do all these things c. So if it be granted which is most evident and certainly true that our blessed Saviour left no such Monarchical Vicar as the Pope then they are not affraid to accuse him of want of Diligence and Discretion And this impious Gloss is approved and confirm'd by Pope Gregory XIII as we may be sure what makes for his Extravagant Power and Papal Monarchy how Erroneous and Impious soever shall not want his Approbation And thus much of the third Priviledge of the Apostles their Vniversal Jurisdiction equally in them all in James and John and Paul as much as Peter and this Jurisdiction Personal to all and never transmitted to any of their Successors 4. Besides the Immediate call of the Apostles their Power of doing Miracles and their Universal Jurisdiction over all the World they were all of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinely Inspired by the Holy Ghost so that they had Infallibility so far as whatever they preach'd or writ was Divine and the undoubted Word of God This Priviledge also was Personal nor ever was Communicated to any of their Successors I know that the Canonists and Jesuits in the last and worst of times would make the World believe without any shadow of rational ground that Peter transferred his Infallibility to the Pope and made him the Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith and Fact too A thing so evidently false and without any possibility of proof that 't is a wonder tha◠any should have the Confidence to assert it especially in Paris the great Metropolis of 〈◊〉 Church which constantly does and has deny◠the Popes Infallibility and Superiority to a General Council 2. But that which might fo◠ever silence this Irrational and Injust Claim 〈◊〉 Infallibility in the Pope is that for Matter o◠Fact none of them though they were some times nibling at a kind of Supremacy for above a Thousand Years after our blessed Saviour either did or dared pretend to Infallibility and if they had they had made themselves ridiculous For 3. It was notoriously known that several of their Popes were Hereticks For instance Liberius Honorius Vigilius c. And for Heresie Condemn'd in General Councils as is evident from the Acts themselves and has been demonstrated not only by Protestants but by very Learned men of the Roman Communion 4. And he who seriously reads and impartially considers their Papal Bulls Breves and Decretal Constitutions and in them how ridiculously they reason and prophane rather than expound Scripture will have abundant
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
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
Hereticks Pope Julius II. afterwards confirms this Constitution of his Predecessor as to all the Punishments contain'd in it Excommunicates and Curses all Persons Ecclesiastical and Secular of what Dignity soever though Kings who shall offend against that Constitution and Decrees that they shall have their Portion and Damnation with Dathan and Abiron The Damnation then intended and threatned in this Impious Bull of Pius V. as in other Papal Bulls of the like nature is not only some Temporal loss and damage though that also be included and expressed but the Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul Which further appears by that Famous or indeed Infamous Erroneous and Ridiculous Constitution of Boniface VIII wherein having said That there is but one Catholick Church out of which there is no Salvation and that our Blessed Saviour made Peter and his Successors his Vicarij Vice-Gerents and Heads of that Church he adds That whoever are not of that Church and in Subjection and Obedient to the Pope can have no Salvation And Pius V. in this very Bull expresly says the same For 1. He says That out of the Apostolick Church he means evidently his own Roman Church there is no Salvation 2. He Declares Queen Elizabeth an Heretick that she and all her Adherents had Incurr'd an Anathema and Malediction were Excommunicate and cut off from the Body of Christ. So that Queen Elizabeth and all her Loyal Protestant Subjects who never were nor could be as without great Error and Impiety they could not subject to the Pope nor Members of his Apostolical Church are by this Bull Eternally Damn'd 4. But this is not all for we have greater Evidence that by the word Damnation in their Bulls wherein all Hereticks Protestants you may be sure who without Truth or Charity they call so are Curs'd and Excommunicated they do and must mean Eternal Damnation For 1. Pope Leo. X. in the Lateran Council which with them is General and Oecumenial innovates and establisheth with the Approbation and Consent of that Council the aforesaid Doctrine and Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII 2. The Trent Council does so too and absolutely Anathematizes and Damns all those who do not believe their whole new Creed in which there is not one true Article but all Erroneous many Superstitious and Impious and tells us It is the Catholick Faith without the belief of which no man can be saved and swear firmly to believe it to their last breath and Anathematize all who do not And which is further very considerable and pertinent to confirm what is abovesaid they do in that Oath promise vow and swear to receive and imbrace All Things delivered defined and declared in their General Councils and All the Constitutions of their Church For these Particulars are parts of that new Creed to the Belief and Profession of which they are sworn And the Trent Council it self as well as the Pope in that Creed requires that they make such a Profession Whence it evidently follows that all their Bishops all Regulars of what Order soever who are provided of Monasteries Religious Houses c. All Canons and Dignitaries in their Church all who have any Cure of Souls and all who profess and teach any of the Liberal Arts c. for all these are required to take that Oath are sworn to receive believe and profess all the Desinitions of the Lateran Council under Leo. X. and the Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII which denounces Damnation to all those who submit not to the Pope and imbrace not their Popish Religion and hence it further and as evidently follows that not only Queen Elizabeth but all good Protestants then and ever since who neither did nor without great Error and Impiety could so submit to their Popes or believe their New Creed are by their Papal and uncharitable Divinity Eternally Damn'd So that it is not only some Temporal mischief or loss but the Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul which is threatned and Declared to be the Effect and Inevitable Consequence of this against Queen Elizabeth and such other Excommunications of those whom they call Hereticks 4. In the beginning of this Impious Bull we are told by the Pope That our Blessed Saviour committed the Government of His Church with all plenitude and fulness of Power to Peter and his Successors And that we might know how great the Power was over all Kings and Kingdoms he miserably misapplies a Text in Jeremy and says That our blessed Saviour did Constitute Peter alone a Prince over All Nations and All Kingdoms to Pull up and Throw down to Dissipate and Destroy to Plant and Build in Ordine ad Spiritualia in Order to the Salvation of his Faithful People so that if we may believe this Infallible Expositor the same Power which God gave Jeremy over all Nations and Kingdoms to pull up and destroy them the very same did our blessed Saviour give to Peter and his Successors Nor is Pius V. the only Pope who makes use of that Text to prove their extravagant Papal Power over Kings Pope Alexander III. having told some of his Brethren how the Emperor held his Stirrup when he mounted his Palfrey In his next Constitution having said That the Diligence of the Bishops and Pastors was necessary to pull up and cut off Hereticks and wicked men in the Church he Cites the place of Jeremy to prove it and says That the Power over Nations and Kingdoms to pull up cast down and destroy was Given to Jeremy and In Him to the Evangelical Priest to Peter and his Successors as he there expresly explains it And Pope Paul III. tells us That he was Vicar of Christ our blessed Saviour and plac'd in the Throne of Justice Above All Kings in the whole World According to the Prophecy of Jeremy And then Cites the words of Jeremy before mention'd And to omit others Pope Boniface VIII Cites the same Text though to as little purpose to the same end to prove the Popes power above Kings so as to punish and depose them And before him Innocent III. in his wild and irrational Epistle to the Emperor of Constantinople Cites the same Text of Jeremy and another Gen. 1. 16. more impertinent if that be possible to prove the vast Power of Popes above all Kings and Emperors By all which Papal Bulls and Constitutions as by many others of the like nature it may evidently appear that they challenge a Power to depose Kings and that they bring the Text of Jeremy as a ground and proof of it But although their Popes brag That they have all Laws in the Archives of their own breasts and that they are Supream and Infallible Judges in all Controversies of Faith yet their whole Discourse and Deductions from the Text of the Prophet Jeremy is inconsequent and indeed ridiculous and no way concerns either Peter or any of his
Princeps Omnium Apostolorum And then it there follows Christus Petrum Vniversi Fidelium Generis Caput ut Qui ei successit Eandem Plane Totius Ecclesiae Potestatem habere voluerit It was our blessed Saviour's will That Peter should have The same Power our blessed Saviour had Sed Apage nugas Impias Blasphemas The bare recitation of such wild Positions should and will be Confutation enough to all sober Christians who are solicitous to maintain our blessed Saviour's Honor and will never give that Place or Power to the Pope or Peter which is solely and eternally due to their Redeemer 3. But further when our Adversaries upon that Place of Matthew Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church would have us believe That Peter was that Rock while he liv'd and his Successors after him And thence infer their Supremacy They must pardon our Infidelity if we believe it not For 1. They do or might know that not only Protestants but the Fathers and Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers generally by Rock in that Text understand not Peter's Person but either the Profession of his Faith he there made or our blessed Saviour But our Adversaries like not this Doctrine And therefore when Hilary had truly said Vnum hoc est immobile fundamentum Vna Haec est foelix fidei Petra Petri Ore Confessa and Erasmus had put this Note in the Margent Petram Interpretatur Ipsam Fidei Professionem and when the same Erasmus on Matth. XVI 18. had cited Augustin for the same sense of the place which Hilary gives And had put in the Margent Ecclesia non est fundata super Petrum The Spanish Inquisitors command it to be blotted out of Erasmus his Text and Margent Although Hilary and Augustin and many others as they well knew said the same thing 2. And this truth is so Evident that not only the Fathers and Ancient Authors but Sober and Learned men in the Church of Rome even in darkest times when Popery unhappily prevailed were of the same Judgment And by the Rock in this Place of Matthew upon this Rock I will build my Church understand not Peter but that Confession of his Faith there made to be meant So John Semeca Author of the Gloss upon Gratian and Nic. Lyranus and Ansel. Laudunensis Author of the Interlineary Gloss upon his Text of Matthew by the Rock on which the Church was built understand Christ our blessed Saviour and not Peter And a late Learned Sorbon Doctor though he would seem to say that Peter was that Rock yet acknowledgeth that by that Rock the Faith of Peter might be meant and not his Person Nay which is more considerable and may seem strange to the Reader the Fathers of the Trent Council expresly say That the Creed or Profession of Faith which the Church of Rome useth the Constantinopolitan Creed they mean and there set it down is The Firm and Only Foundation against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail and our present Text is in the Margent Cited for it whence it evidently appears that those Fathers at Trent have Declared That the Creed or true Faith of Christ is that firm Rock and The Only Foundation on which the Church is built and against which the Gates of Hell cannot prevail and if that Faith be the only Foundation of such firmness then the Pope is not For if there be another then that is not what the Trent Fathers say it is the Only Foundation And lastly it is very considerable what Stapleton their Learned Professor at Doway and great Champion of their Church confesseth and without great Impudence he could not deny it that not only Chrysostome Cyril and Hilary but four Popes Leo Agatho Nicolas and Adrian each of them the first of that name have in their Decretal Epistles declared That the Rock on which the Church was built was not Peter's Person but his Faith or Confession of it This was the Opinion of those ancient Popes and they as infallible sure as any of their Successors By the way that we may observe the Contradiction amongst our Adversaries notwithstanding the pretended Infallibility of their Church The Trent Catechism says That Peter Only was the Rock on which our blessed Saviour built his Church And this the Author or Authors of the Catechism pretends to prove out of Cyprian some others there named So that if the Trent Council say True the Creed or the Confession of the Cathol Faith is the Only Foundation on which the Church is built but if the Trent Catechism be in the Right Peter Only is that Rock and Foundation Now seeing it is impossible that both these Positions should be true it Evidently follows that there is an Error in the Council or Catechism or which I rather believe in both That this may further appear I say 4. That 't is certain and generally Confess'd That a Lively Faith and a firm belief of the Gospel is a Rock and Foundation against which the Gates of Hell cannot prevail Our blessed Saviour tells us That he who hears his sayings and doth them he who really and practically believes the Gospel builds upon a Rock And St. John tell us That such Faith is victorious nay victory and cannot be overcome Hence it is that in the Liturgie of St. James in the Administration of the Eucharist they pray That God would bless the Sacred Elements that they might be Effectual to the Establishment of the Holy Catholick Church which he had Founded and Built upon the Rock of Faith But though Faith and a firm belief of the Gospel be a Rock yet 't is not as the Trent Fathers say the Only Rock on which the Church is built Peter was a Rock too this our Adversaries Confess and earnestly Contend for But neither was he the Only Rock though the Trent Catechism and Popish Writers commonly say so nor such a Rock as they without any Reason or Just Ground would have him That this may Appear it is to be Considered 1. That by Evident Scripture our blessed Saviour is the Prime and Chief Fundamental Rock on which the whole Church is built Behold says God by Isay I lay in Sion for a Foundation a Stone a precious Corner Stone a Sure Foundation c. I know that in the Vulgar Latin of Sixtus V. and Clemens 8. it is untruly render'd Lapideâ— pretiosum in Fundamento Fundatum Whence Bellarmine will have it meant of Peter and so of the Pope who in his Opinion is Lapis pretiosus in Fundamento fundatus But had the Cardinal consulted the Hebrew Text or the Version of the Septuagint or Hieromes Version of both and his Notes upon them he might have seen his Error But though Bellarmine Expound this Place of Isay to be meant of Peter yet Peter himself who understood that Text as well as the
reason to believe that those Popes were so far from Infallibility that their own Writings Convince them guilty of Gross Ignorance and Folly 5. Lastly All the Apostles were Fundamenta Ecclesiae Domus Dei Foundations of the Church or House of God as has before been evidently proved from Scripture and this was in all the Apostles Extraordinary and a Personal Apostolical Priviledge to which as it was in the Apostles none of their Successors no not the Pope ever did or with any reason could pretend And as this Apostolical Priviledge so the other four before mention'd 1. Immediate Vocation 2. Power to work Miracles 3. Vniversality of Jurisdiction 4. Infallibility in all things they preach'd or writ I say all these Priviledges were Extraordinary and Personal to the Apostles and never were transmitted to any of their Successors And this being granted as of necessity it ought and must it will evidently follow that Peter neither had nor could have that Monarchical Supremacy over the Apostles and Universal Church to which the Pope and his Party vainly and without any reason or ground pretend For that Papal Supremacy and Monarchy they pretend Peter had according to their Hypothesis consisted principally in the Universality of his Jurisdiction over the whole Church and his Infallibility as a Judge to determine Controversies of Faith both which every Apostle had as much and as well as he and therefore it was impossible that in these respects he should have any Superiority much less Supremacy over the other Apostles more than they over him especially seeing in Scripture to men who have good Eyes and will Impartially use them there is not one Syllable looks that way Nay seeing our blessed Saviour hath expresly determin'd the contrary The Apostles were disputing and reasoning amongst themselves which of them should be greatest they had their Infirmities and ambitious desires But our Saviour tells them Whosoever will be great among you though Peter be the man let him be their Minister and whosoever will be chief let him be your Servant And again Be not ye call'd Masters for one is your Master even Christ not Peter and ye are Brethren but he that will be greatest among you shall be your Servant The Apostles had no Master under Heaven but their blessed Saviour it was of him and him Only that they learned the Gospel and that Immediately they had it not from any man nor one from another Our blessed Saviour was their only Master and Superior and they his Scholars subordinate to him and co-ordinate amongst themselves He tells them that they are Brethren Condiscipuli School-fellows Names which in themselves and in their Master's meaning import Equality especially as to any Jurisdiction one over another There may be amongst Scholars of the same School and Brethren an inequality and so there was amongst the Apostles 1. In respect of Age Some might be elder some younger 2. In respect of their coming to that School some might come before others So Andrew was first call'd to our blessed Saviours School before Peter 3. In respect of Natural Parts and Abilities some might have greater Capacities then others 4. In respect of their Masters Love and Kindness he might love one more then another So amongst the Twelve John was the belovod Disciple Such inequality there was amongst them and we willingly grant it But to say as the Pope and many of his Party most vainly do that amongst these Brethren and School-fellows in our blessed Saviour's School Peter or any other had not only an Authority and Jurisdiction but a Monarchical Supremacy over all the rest this is so contradictory to our blessed Saviour's plain words and the manifest and undoubted meaning of them that were it not that we know men may be sway'd with worldly Interests and sometimes have strong Delusions to believe a Lye it were incredible that any Learned men should with so much Confidence and no Reason assert the Contrary To pass by all Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for many hundred years and many sober Papists before Luther who neither knew nor believed Peter's Monarchy over the Church and his fellow Apostles his Equals sure I am 1. That Francis Lucas Brugensis a Roman Catholick in our days eminent in their Church for Dignity and Learning says the same thing I have done and on the same Texts for the Equality of the Apostles against Peter's pretended Monarchy 2. And a greater then he I mean Petrus de Marca Archbishop of Paris convinc'd with the Evidence of the former Texts and Truth was of Opinion and has publish'd it to the World That our blessed Saviour at his Ascension did not leave the Church establish'd in Peter and a Monarchy But in an Aristocratie or the Colledge of the Apostles In which Colledge Peter was one not Superior much less a Monarch to the other Apostles and the Apostles left the Government of the Church Establish'd in the Bishops and Aristocratical only he thinks that both in the Colledge of the Apostles and Councils of Bishops after them there was for Orders sake to be a President not a Monarch for that was Inconsistent with Aristocratie And if this will content them we will grant it Because we do know that the Ancient Church allow'd the Pope the prime Place and Precedency in Councils for Orders sake and that not by any Divine Right which was not in those days so much as pretended to but because Rome was the Imperial City and Metropolis of the Roman Empire the greatness of the City usually giving greatness and precedency to the Bishops such were Constantinople Alexandria Antioch c. I know the Inquisitors at Rome have damned this Book of Petrus de Marca but this is no Argument that what he has said is not true Grande aliquo◠bonum est quod à Nerone ab Inquisitoribus damnatur To conclude this Point if our Adversaries assent not to this manifest Truth as being Contradictory to their worldly Interest and misconceived Infallible Pretensions 't is probable they will not I shall make them this to all unprejudiced Lovers of Truth fair offer Let them give me any one cogent Argument from Scripture or Universal Tradition and nothing else can do it whereby they can prove the following Positions I will thank God and them for the discovery and promise hereby to be their Proselyte 1. If they can by any such Argument prove that Peter by Divine Right had such a Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church as is vainly pretended I will yield the Cause But if he had no such Power 't is impossible he should transmit the Power he never had to his Successors 2. Let it be suppos'd which yet is evidently untrue that St. Peter had such a Monarchical Authority and Jurisdiction even over the rest of the Apostles let them prove by any such Argument as is before mention'd that it was not only Temporal his
and Judged that sufficient without going to Rome The Bishop of Rome in those days pretended to no more Supremacy or Infallibility in the Apostolical Church and Chair at Rome then the Bishop of Ephesus or Corinth in the Apostolical Chairs and Churches of those Cities If Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica be a sufficient ground to infer and prove Supremacy then either all such Churches must be Supream which is impossible or none at all which is certainly true 3. But they say The Bishop of Rome is Peter ' s Successor and on this they principally and generally ground his Supremacy as derived to him Jure â—â—â—cessions and Jure Divino too by Divine Right and Succession Now if this be true if Succession to Peter carry Supremacy with it Then seeing they constantly say 1. That Peter was seven years Bishop of Antioch before he was of Rome 2. And that Euodius was his Successor there I desire to know why the Supremacy did not descend to Euodius his first and immediate Successor For admit that Peter had such Supremacy and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to some Successor both which are manifestly untrue yet seeing such Transmission of his Supremacy must be done either 1. By some Act of our blessed Saviour Or 2. By some Act of Peter transmitting his Supremacy to his Successor at Rome and not to Euodius at Antioch it will concern our Adversaries to shew such Act of our blessed Saviour or Peter For if they can we will submit and give the Cause but if they cannot then seeing idem est non esse non apparere they must pardon our unbelief if we assent not to that which they cannot prove I say cannot prove there being not one syllable in Scripture or Antiquity for Six hundred years I might give more either expresly affirming or from which it may by good Consequence be deduced that either our blessed Saviour or Peter did transmit such a Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility to the Bishop of Rome more then to the Bishop of Antioch If any man think otherwise let him give us good proof of the contrary and we will give him thanks and the Cause 2. But admit that the Pope succeeds Peter and really sits in Cathedrâ Petri as his Successor which is evidently untrue yet this will not prove his Monarchical Supremacy if it do appear that any other Apostle succeeded our blessed Saviour before Peter was Bishop any where and by his own Appointment sat in our blessed Saviour's Place and Episcopal Chair as his Successor I say if this appear then as our blessed Saviour is far greater then Peter so his Successor will be greater then the Pope and have a fairer pretence for the Supremacy as our blessed Saviour's immediate Successor then the Pope can possibly have as Peter's Now for this let our Adversaries consider what Epiphanius says Thus James the Brother of 〈◊〉 Lord was the first Bishop when our blessed Savioâ—r concredited and resign'd to him before all others his Throne or Episcopal Chair on Earth And heâ— let it be consider'd 1. That in Scripture 〈◊〉 blessed Saviour is call'd a Bishop Vniversâ— Bishop of the whole Church with Monarchiâ—cal and Kingly Power 2. He was in a particulaâ— and peculiar way Bishop of the Jews he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Peculiar Oversight and Cure 〈◊〉 them He was sent in Person only to them He Constituted a Church amongâ— them Ordain'd Apostles and Seventy otheâ— Inferior Ministers whom he sent to Preacâ— and do Miracles in Confirmation of their Doctrine he constantly preached the Gospel amongst them and did all those Acts a Bishop should do in his Diocese 3. And Jerusalem being the Metropolis of the Jews Epiphanius tells us that it was on Earth his Throne Thronus suus his Episcopal Seat or Chair where he usually was preach'd and did Miracles 4. He says That our blessed Saviour chose James before all the Rest even before Peter and concredited and resigned to him Thronum suum his Episcopal Seat and that James was Bishop of Jerusalem is attested by all Antiquity And this probably was the Reason 1. Why Paul names James as Bishop of Jerusalem before Peter 2. Why in the Council of the Apostles James and not Peter gave the definitive Sentence So that these things seem to me certain 1. That our blessed Saviour though Bishop of the Universal Church yet he had a Particular Episcopal Cure and Charge of the Jews As his Father was King of all the World yet Particularly of the Jews 1. Sam. 12. 12. it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That James was his Successor in that Cure 3. And if Epiphanius say true our blessed Saviour himself appointed him his Successor Let our Adversaries by so good Authority shew that Peter was our blessed Saviour's Successor either at Rome as some of them before mention'd only pretend or any where else and for my part let them take the Cause Otherwise if they cannot then we may evidently conclude That if James never did nor could pretend justly to a Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church though our blessed Saviour's Successor much less may the Pope for succeeding Peter Q. E. D. 4. But the Pope they say is Christ's Vicar and that he is or should be so we grant But we further say that many thousands besides him are Christ's Vicars as well and as much as he This has been manifestly proved before I shall only add that the Trent Fathers who far they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and so surely Infallible expresly say and Synodically define That our blessed Saviour before his Ascention left all Priests his own Vicars to whom as to Presidents and Judges all Mortal sins were to be Confess'd And Aquinas and their Schoolmen say That in the Church the Bishop is Christ's Vicar and they prove it well from the express and plain words of the Apostle and they might have added also 2. Cor. 5. 20. And Henry Holden a Learned Sorbon Doctor in his Annotations upon those Texts says the same thing And now if to be Christ's Vicar give any ground or pretence to Supremacy then all Bishops and Priests who are Confess'd to be Christ's Vicars may pretend to Supremacy as well as the Pope And they being Christ's Vicars as to the Power of Absolving and Retaining Sins every poor Priest has as much power to absolve the Pope as he him So that any Argument drawn from this Title that he is Christ's Vicar to prove the Popes Supremacy is not only Inconsequent but Impertinent and indeed Ridiculous And yet upon this ground and another as Insignificant Pope Innocent the Fourth in their General Council at Lions Excommunicates and Deposes the Emperor Friderick Seeing says the Pope there we are Christ's Vicar on Earth and it was in the Person of Peter said to us Whatsoever thou binds on Earth
usque ad mortem non Rex vel Princeps per Solâ—m voluntatem suam possit Regnum dare vel tributarium facere unde nobiles regni essent servi Matth. Paris in Johanne ad Ann. 1213. s Matth. Westmin ad Ann. 1213. p. 271. Johannes Rex est Papae Tributarius seu Feâ—datarius t Hen. Knighton de Event Angl. l. 2. c. 15. p. 2420. u Card. Tuschus Pract. Conclus Juris Tom. 6. Conclus 41. x Papa potest deponere Imperatorem Reges Duces Omnes qui de facto Superiorem non recognoscunt Ibid. §. 49. y Rex Angliae Siciliae sunt Tributarij Ecclesiae Romanae Ibid. §. 34. z Qui negat potestatem Papae Negat se Christianum Ibid. §. 37. a Vid. Const. 4. Johan Papae 22. In Bullar Rom. Tom. 1. p. 172. Edit Rom. 1638. b My Lord Cook Inst. Part. 4. c. 1. p. 13. c Significetur Pontifici ut Ipse Vasallos à fidelitate absolvat Terram Exponat Catholicis occupandam Conc. Lateran 4. Can. 3. De Haereticis And it now goes for Law Cap. 13. Extra de Haereticis d Qui terram illam Exterminatis Haereticis absque ullâ Contradictione possideant in fidei puritate conservent Ibidem e Papa Philippo Francorum Regi Literas mittit in quibus rogat ut Regem Angliae non Inquiet aret sed ut Romanae Ecclesiae Vassallum protegeret Mat. Paris Hist. an Ann. 1216. p. 280. In Johanne f Papa non se capiens prae ira indignatione it was Grostheads Letter had angred him torvo aspectu superbo animo ait Nonne Rex Anglorum noster est Vasallus ut plus dicam Mancipium Mat. Paris Hist. in Hen. 3. ad Ann. Dom. 1253. p. 872. in Edit G. Watsij London 1640. g Matth. 20. 28. Luc. 22. 27. h Matth. 20. 45. 46. 47. Matth. 23. 11. 12. Luc. 22. 24. 25. 26. i 2. Thess. 2 4. k Greg. 7. deposeth Hen. 4. Emperor by the Power of the Keys Potestas Ligandi Solvendi in Coelo Terrâ mihi à Dco data Hac ideo fiducia fretus Henrico totius Regni Teutonini Italiae gubernacula Interdico Omnes Christianos à vincule Juramenti quod sibi fecere absolvo Baronius Annal Tom. 11. ad Ann. 1076. §. 25. 26. l Ecclesia Rom. Nunquam Erravit nec in perpetuum Scripturâ testante Errabit Inter Dictatus Papae Ibid. apud Bar. §. 33. p. 479. Edit Antv. 1608. m Dictatus seu Sententiae Breviores Gregorij Papae Quâ— Hactenus in â—cclesiâ Catholicâ usu receptae ut ex his reprimeretur audacia Schismaticorum Episcoporum Principum Baron Ibid. §. 31. p. 479. And Pope Leo. 10. in their General Lateraâ— Council 1513. and in his Bull in Bullario Rom. Romae 1638. Tom. 1. p. 451. says the same thing that the Church and Pope of Rome have never err'd Ibid. in Constit. Leo. 10. 40. §. 3. 6. n Vide Stat. 3. Jac. Capp 1. 2. A Conspiracy undertaken by Malignant and Devilish Jesuits and Priests Ibid. Cap. â— A Design so barbarous and cruel as the like was never before heard of Ibidem The most wicked barbarous execrable and abominable Treason that ever enter'd into the heart of the most wicked man Ibid. cap. 2. o Vid. Thuani Hist. Tom. 4. lib. 95. ad Ann. 1598. p Vide Anticoton by Peter Du Moulin In that Pyramid erected in Paris upon the Murder of Henry the Fourth the Jesuits are noted as men Malificae Superstitionis Quorum Instinctu piacularis Adolescens Raviliac Dirum facinus the murder of the King Instituerat q Ann. 1678. 1679. r Cum poenae pro culpis debitae delentur remittuntur tum crimina velentur remittuntur Quo sensu Ecclesia per Indulgentias concedit peccatorum Omnium plenissimam veniam id est Poenarum Omnium quas peccando contraximus Quia non est Plene remissa Culpa quamdiu peccator Reus est Solvendae Poenae Melch. Canus Locorum Theol. lib. 12. cap. 13. §. Ex quo Ambrosij pag. 694. Edit Colon Agrip. 1605. Observ. 12. s It was the saying of this Gregory Intelligant Omnes Imperia Regna Principatus quicquid habere mortales possunt avferre dare Nos Posse Plat. in vitâ Greg. 7. Edit 1485. And Baronius tells us that this and such dictates of that Pope In Ecclesia Catholica Hactenùs usurecepti sunt Annal Tom. 11. ad Ann. 1076. §. 31. t Constitutio illa extat in Corpore Juris Can. de Homicidio cap. pro humani 1. In. 6. u Sacri approbatione Concilij Statuimus Ibid. x Qui Horrenda Impietate Detestandaque Saevitiâ Mortem suiunt aliorum ut Ipsos faciunt per Assassinos occidi non solum Corporum sed mortem procurent Animarum Statuimus ut quicunque Princeps vel Praelatus quempiam Christianorum per praedictos Assassinos interfici fecerit vel mandaverit quanquam mors non sequatur Excommunicatus Depositus à Dignitate Honore Officio Ipso facto sit bonis etiam Mundanis Omnibus à toto Christiano populo perpetuo diffidatus Ibid. Conc. Tom. 11. Part. 1. p. 672. Edit per Labbe Paris 1671. y Cap. pro humani â— De Homicidio In. 6. Decretalium z Vid. Edit Juris Canonici Paris 1612. 1618. Lugduni 1661. c. a Vt hujus utilissimi gravissimi Codicis non vacillaret Authoritas placuit Pio. 4. dein Pio. 5. Greg. 13. ut illi Corrigendo Summa opera daretur c. Ita admonitio ad Lect. praefixa Corpori Juris Can. Paris 1612. Ludg. 1661. b Summa de Ecclesia l. 25. 35. 36. as he is cited for I have not the Book by me in the Margent of the Canon Law ad Cap. 1. de Homicidio in 6. c In Summula verbo Assassinus d Conclus Pract. Juris Lit. A. verbo Assassinus Conclus 531. e Continuat Annal. Baronij ad Ann. 1231. §. 3. 4. 5. c. f Operum Tom. 1. p. 528. De Delict Conat §. 9. g Papa volens obviare hujusmodi malis profert plures poenas in istos Assassinos illos qui eis mandabant Glossa ad dictum Cap. 1. De Homicidio In. 6. h Non contraipsos Assassinos utpote Infideles sed contra Mandantes per Ipsos aliquem occidi Innocentius 4. Excommunicationem promulgavit Cajetan in Summula verbo Assassinus i Papa cum prius esset Purus Homo nunc Vices Veri Deiâ—gerit Johan Andreas in Glossa ad Prooemium 6. Decret verbo Bonifacius k Et hi non comprehenduntur sub Censura dicta quamvis digni sunt Morte Temporaeli Aeternâ Cajetan Ibidem l Qui cum quolibet Christiano aut Infideli pecuniae data vel promissa pactionem inierit de homine Christiano occidendo in ipso Mandatario si ad actum proximum processerit ut per eum minime steterit quin scelus
1. Their many and monstrous Errors contradictory to sacred Scripture and the sense and belief of the Christian World for a thousand years after Christ our blessed Saviour which they approve and publickly receive as Articles of their Faith in their new Creed the Trent-Council and Roman Catechism Considering also their many Superstitions and stupid Idolatry professed and practised by them in their sacred Offices their Missal Breviary Horae B. Virginis their Ritual and Pontifical c. I say these things impartially considered they may be and really are Idolatrous Hereticks but 't is impossible they should be what they against greatest evidence pretend to true Catholicks 2. Considering the unchristian indeed Antichristian Pride and Tyranny of the Pope and his Party Excommunicating Cursing and Damning all Christians save themselves without and against that Charity which the Gospel requires and so Schismatically cutting off from the Body of Christ whole Kingdoms at a Clap as Pius the Fifth does in the following Bull which are things inconsistent with the Christian Temper and Charity of a true Catholick I say these things considered and that the Pope and his Party are really guilty of such uncharitable Actions dividing and violating the Vnion of the Church it evidently follows that they are so far from being true Catholicks that they are great and formal Schismaticks And therefore they must pardon me if in these Papers I do not call them what really they are not Catholicks and for the same Reason I do not call them Roman Catholicks For as it is neither reason nor sense to call him an English Gentleman who is no Gentleman at all or him a Sorbon Doctor who never saw Paris or ever had or desired that Degree so it is alike irrational to call him a Roman Catholick who really is an Erring Schismatick and no Catholick at all 5. I know some otherwise learned and pious Writers who say that those words Roman Catholick are inconsistent and imply a Contradiction as signifying a particular Universal But this I confess is a manifest mistake For not only particular Persons of which before but particular Churches in this or that City be it great or little have anciently and usually been call'd Catholick Churches without any Contradiction or Impropriety In an Epistle of a great Council at Antioch we find the Bishop of that City call'd a Catholick and that particular Church a Catholick Church So in the Subscriptions to Nazianzen's last Will and Testament Optimus Bp. of Antioch subscribes thus Optimus Bp. of the Catholick Church at Antioch and the rest of the Bishops who subscribe that Testament and they are six or seven use the same Form So Nazianzen subscribes himself Bishop of the Catholick Church in Constantinople Amphilochius Bishop of the Catholick Church in Iconium and so all the rest In the Appendix to the Theodosian Code Pope Vigilius begins his Encyclical Epistle thus Vigilius Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Urbis Romae Bishop of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome So Pope Leo the Great and many more Bishops of Rome uses the very same form The Popes stiled themselves Catholicae Ecclesiae non Orbis sed Urbis Romae Episcopos The Antichristian stile of Universal Bishop as Pope Gregory the Great calls it was not yet usurped at Rome The Bishops of Rome then and their Church were Catholick and so was every Orthodox Bishop and his Church as well and as much as they Constantinople Iconium Antioch c. and their Bishops were as truly Catholick as St. Peter's Successor or Rome it self The truth is evidently this the Pope and his Party are in this nec Christi nec Petri sed Donati Successores they do not follow Peter or our blessed Saviour as they vainly bragg but that impious Heretick Donatus whose damnable Schism and Heresie they have espoused St. Augustin who well knew it tells us in several places That the Donatists assumed to themselves the Name of Catholick said that their Sect was the only true Church and so damn'd all other Christians and upon this Heretical Opinion they Schismatically separated from the whole Catholick Church The Pope and his Party with as little reason and charity do the very same thing they as the Donatists anciently Heretically affirm That they and they only are truly Catholicks and the only Members of the true Christian and Catholick Church and then Schismatically Seperate from Excommunicate and Damn all other Christians 6. And further that I may freely speak what I really believe I am so far from believing the Pope and his Party to be what they vainly pretend the only true Christian and Catholick Church that I do believe them and so did thousands before Luther and many whole Kingdoms and Provinces since to be Ecclesia Malignantium an Antichristian Sect and Synagogue in side highly erroneous and in facto as highly impious And the Pope so far from being Peter's Successor and our B. Saviour's Vicar-General that he is that man of Sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Adversary of our blessed Saviour and the great Antichrist the Apostle speaks of who Exalts himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above all Kings and Emperors This I hope will in part appear by what is said in the following Papers At present I shall desire the Impartial Reader who possibly may read this short Epistle and trouble himself no further to read what follows to consider That the Pope really and professedly does Exalt himself above all Kings and Emperors and so has this Mark of the Beast and Indelible Character of Antichrist That he does so Exalt himself will evidently appear thus 1. Pope Innocent the Third tells the Emperor of Constantinople and with prodigious Error and Impudence indeavours to prove it out of Scripture That the Pope is as much greater Then the Emperor as The Sun is greater Then the Moon So Innocent the third and that we may be sure his Successors liked it well Gregory the Ninth approves and refers it into the Body of Canon-Law And Greg. the Thirteenth approves it too and with the other Decretals confirms it for Law and 't is continued in all Editions of that Law ever since It is then certain and confess'd That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is call'd God above all Kings and Emperors and that he is far greater then they And if you inquire of the Proportion how much he is greater I say 2. That their approved and received Glosses on their Law with some difference of Opinion calculate how many times the Sun is greater then the Moon and then infer the Pope's Greatness above the Emperor And here 1. The Author of the Gloss Bernardus de Botono was the man a good Lawyer but sure I am no good Astronomer tells us ignorantly and ridiculously That the Sun is greater than the Moon and consequently the Pope greater than the Emperor Forty seaven times This is
and Seditious Book to Exhort all the English and Irish Papists to joyn with the Spanish Forces against their Queen and Country under the Prince of Parma and Pope Sixtus V. sends Allen with that Book and his own Bull into the Low-Countries and there a great number of those Books and Bulls were printed at Antverpe to be sent into England Were it necessary many things now might be said pertinent to this purpose but I suppose the Instances already given will be sufficient to convince Intelligent and Impâ—â—tial Persons That Pope Pius V. was neither the first nor last who usurped this Extravagant Power to Depose Princes seeing several of his Predecessors and Successors for above 600. years have owned approved and as they had opportunity put that Power in practise This in General premis'd I come now to consider the Bull of Pius V. wherein he damns and deposeth Queen Elizabeth wherein two things occur very considerable 1. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title prefix'd to the Bull. 2. The Particulars contain'd in it For the first the Title prefix'd to the Bull is thus The Damnation of Elizabeth c. where though Damnation may seem a very hard word as indeed it is in the sense they use it as shall by and by appear yet it is not unusual but occurs in other Bulls of the like nature So we find it in the Bull of Pope Innocent IV. wherein he Excommunicates the Emperor Friderick II. For the Lemma or Title of that Bull is thus The Damnation Deposition of Friderick II. So in the Bull of Pope Paul III. Excommunicating Henry VIII the Title prefix'd to it is The Damnation of Henry VIII and his Favourers c. So that Pius V. Damning Queen Elizabeth was not singular though Impious he had some of his Predecessors Forms to follow I say his Predecessors for I do not find that any Bishops in the World save those of Rome ever used such Unchristian and indeed Anti-christian Forms of Excommunicating and Damning Kings and Emperors And it is observable and well known to those who diligently read and consider the Papal Bulls now extant of which there is a vast number that the Popes of later Ages when they go about to justifie some extravagant Act of their unsurped Power they usually cite the Bulls and Constitutions of their Predecessors who had done the like not for matter of fact barely but to prove a Right that because their Predecessors had done so formerly therefore they who succeeded in the same Power might do it too Now although to Argue thus à Facto ad Jus be evidently inconsequent and irrational no better than this Peter de facto deny'd and forswore his Master Ergo His Successors de jure may do so to Yet if their Principles were true as I suppose they may think them such Arguing would be more concluding For Pope Leo. X. expresly affirms and publickly declares in one of their General Councils that it is more clear than light it self That None of his Predecessors Popes of Rome Did ever Err in any of their Canons or Constitutions Now if this were true as it is evidently false and his Asserting it an Argument not only of his Fallibility but of his great Error and Folly That none of his Predecessors ever Err'd then they might with more Security follow them for certainly it can be no great fault or danger to follow an unerring Guide Especially if it be true which they tell us For 1. In their Laws and Canons approved by their Supream Authority and retained in publick use in their Church we are told That all their Papal Sanctions are so to be received as if the Divine Voice of Peter himself had Confirmed them This as Gratian there tells us was Pope Agatho ' s Sentence is Received into the Body of their Canon Law Revised Corrected and Purged from all things Contrary to Catholick Verity So Gregory XIII says and confirms it Whence it evidently follows that in Pope Gregory's Judgment This Sentence of Agatho is not repugnant to Catholick Verity And in the same place it is farther declared for Law Pope Stephen I. is cited as Author of that Sentence That Whatever the Church of Rome does Ordain or Constitute it is without all Contradiction perpetually to be Observed 2. Though this be beyond all truth and reason highly erroneous yet the Jesuits of late have gone much higher and in their Claromont Colledge at Paris publickly maintain'd these two Positions 1. That our Blessed Saviour left Peter and his Successors the same Infallibility he himself had so oft as they spoke è Cathedra 2. That even out of a General Council He is the Infallible Judge in Controversies of Faith both in Questions of Right and Fact This as to the main of it though Erroneous and Impious is maintain'd by others as well as Jesuits F. Gregory de Rives a Capuchin Priest tells us and his Book is approved by the General and several others of his Order and by Father D. Roquet a Dominican and Doctor of Divinity c. That as the Authority of Christ our blessed Saviour if he were now on Earth were greater than all Councils so by the Same Reason the Authority of the Pope who is Christ's Vicar is greater than all Councils too That the Priviledge of Infallibility was given to the Pope not to Councils and then Concludes That the Church of Rome he means the Pope is Judge of Controversies and all her Desinitions and Determinations are De Fide Thus De Rives And three or four years before him Lud. Bail a Parisian Doctor and Propenitentiary expresly affirms That the Word of God is threefold 1. His written Word in Scripture 2. His unwritten Word in the Traditions of the Church 3. The Word Declared or Explain'd when doubtful passages in Scripture or Tradition are explain'd and their meaning determin'd by the Pope whether in or out of Councils and this he says is the most approved way in which men acquiesce and think they need look no further And hence he Infers That seeing this is so we ought not to be affraid to follow the Pope's Guidance in Doctrines of Faith and Manners but acquiesce in his Judgment and submit all our writings to be Corrected by him I neither will nor need Cite any more Authorities to prove the aforesaid Particulars That Their Popes may Damn and Depose Kings and Emperors especially if they be Hereticks and think they have as Christ's Vicars a just Prerogative and Power to do it Sure I am that these Positions though Erroneous and Impious are generally maintain'd by the Jesuits Canonists Schoolmen and their Followers which are very many receiv'd into the Body of their Canon Law of their best and as they themselves say their most Correct Editions and approved and when they had opportunity practis'd by their Supream Powers their Popes and General Councils I
that what Erasmus Observes out of Hierome is true is this The Spanish Inquisitors have damn'd it and in their Index Expurgatorius Commanded it to be blotted out But Erasmus adds further That it cannot Logically and firmly be concluded from the Order wherein the Apostles are number'd which of them is to be preferr'd before the rest because where many are number'd there is a necessity we begin with some one and 't is not material which we begin with And This the Inquisitors let pass without a Deleatur they do not condemn it to be blotted out and so seem to approve it otherwise it had not pass'd so that even by our Adversaries consent all that can be rationally Inferr'd from that Text where in numbering the Apostles Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first is only a Primacy of Order which we willingly grant but no Primacy much less a Supremacy of Authority Dominion and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles which the Pope and his Party desire and we justly deny 2. And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primus so Princeps or Prince amongst the best Latin Authors usually signifies Order Only or some Excellent Quality in those who are call'd Principes without any Authority or Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom they are so call'd And that the Rest of the Apostles were call'd Principes as well as Peter I have Authentick warrant even the Roman Breviary restored according to the Decree of the Council of Trent publish'd by Pius V. The very Pope who publish'd this Impious Bull a-against Queen Elizabeth and then Revised by the Authority of Clement VIII and Vrban VIII and Printed at Antverp 1660. In this Breviary we have this Hymn in the Office for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. Now in this Hymn Peter and Paul too are call'd Ecclesiarum Principes Princes of the Churches For being a Hymn for the Feast of those two Apostles Ecclesiarum Principes cannot relate to less than two nor Properly to any but them two in that Place Though elsewhere it relates to all the Apostles as in the Place cited in the Margent when after the Invitatory as they call it Come let us adore the Lord King of the Apostles it follows thus Aeterna Christi munera Apostolorum Gloria Palmas Hymnos debitos Laetis canamus mentibus Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. So that if we may believe their own Authentick Breviary Publish'd and Carefully Revised by these Popes according to the Decree of the Trent Council All the other Apostles under our blessed Saviour and by his Authority were Princes of the Christian Church as well as Peter Now I desire to know how these things will Consist Pius V. in this Bull against Queen Elizabeth says That our blessed Saviour Committed the Government of his Church to One Only to Peter and Constituted him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms so he in his Bull and yet the same Pope in this Roman Breviary for it was Approved and Published by him and the Hymn here cited says That all the Apostles were Ecclesiarum Principes and if so then Peter was not the Only Prince to whom the Government of the Church was Committed no the Commission of every Apostle given by our blessed Saviour was as unlimited and as large as Peters This will appear in all the Particulars of it equally given to all as they are expresly set down in Scripture from whence alone we can surely know what their Authority and Commission was Our blessed Saviour tells them and us 1. As my Father sent me so send I you There we have the Author and Authority of their Commission The same blessed Saviour of the World sends them all 2. Then he breath'd upon them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost There we have the Principle inabling them to discharge that great Office and Trust reposed in them It was that Holy Spirit which gave them 1. Infallibility in their Doctrine 2. Power to work Miracles for Confirmation of it 3. Then he adds whose sins ye retain they are retained c. Here we have the great Spiritual Power given them for the calling and governing the Church which is elsewhere called The Power of the Keys which Consists in binding and loosing retaining and remitting sins For so 't is Explain'd by our blessed Saviour in the Place last cited and is by our Adversaries confess'd So that 't is Evident that the Power of the Keys the Power of binding and loosing of retaining and remitting sins is Equally given to all the Apostles to every One as well as Peter 4. He Assigns them their Place and Province where and the way how they were to Exercise their Apostolical Power Go and Teach All Nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have Commanded you Their Diocese was the World Go ye into All The World and preach the Gospel to every Creature every man And the administring the Sacraments and teaching men to believe and observe the whole Goâ—pel was the business they were to do in that their Diocese 5. And to incourage them to this great and difficult Work he graciously promises his Presence and Divine Assistance Lo I am with you Always even to the End of the World These are the Powers and Promises given to the Apostles and which to me seems Evident without difference or distinction Equally to all to Simon the Cannite for so it should be writ as well and as much as to Simon Peter If any think otherwise if he can and will by any Cogent Reason make it appear either 1. That the foregoing Powers and Promises were not Equally given to all the Apostles 2. Or that some other Power or Promise was in Scripture given peculiarly to Peter whereby he had an Authority and Dominion over the other Apostles and the whole Church to make him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms as Pope Pius V. in this his wild Bull confidently affirms I say he who can and will make both or either of these appear shall have my hearty thanks for the Discovery and I shall for the future have a better Opinion of Peter's Supremacy which at present I take to be a groundless Error without any proof or probability I know that the Popes in their Constitutions and their Party usually urge that place in Matthew to prove Peter's and thence their own vast and Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves not excepted the words These Thou art Peter and upon This Rock I will build my Church And I give unto thee The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven From this Place most
irrationally and without any Sense or Consequence they infer That Peter and every Successor of his was Constituted Supream Head Prince and Monarch of the Vniversal Church So that what Peter or his Successor shall è Cathedrâ Determine and Decree is to be received as if God himself had decreed it So Tirinus and their Canon Law in their most Correct Editions Though this be Erroneous and evidently Impious yet Tirinus Gratian and their Canonists are not singular in this point another Learned Jesuit in his Commentary on this Place tells us That when our blessed Saviour says On this Rock will I build my Church he speaks of Peter as the Fundamental Rock on which the Church is built And he adds That though our blessed Saviour was chiefly that Fundamental Rock yet Peter and the Popes of Rome succeeded him as his Vicars with Supream Power c. This place they conceive concerns no Apostle but Peter and proves his and his Successors Supremacy To this I say 1. That all they say in this particular is gratis dictum for they only say it without any pretence of proof If we will take their bare word we may otherwise we may chuse for they bring no proof to prove their Exposition of this Text such as might command and necessitate our Assent And then a bare denial is Answer enough to a bare Assertion For as St. Hierome says in the like case an unproved Position eâdem facilitate rejicitur quâ Affirmatur 2. When they say our blessed Saviour was the chief Fundamental Rock on which the Church was built and that St. Peter and the Popes succeeded him with Supream Power They consequently must say Two things 1. That our blessed Saviour left his Place and Office of being the Fundamental Rock to Peter when he left this World For if he kept it and still do keep it neither the Pope nor Peter could be his Successors No man can be Successor and succeed into a Place till his Predecessor leave it Linus neither did nor could succeed Peter in the Bishoprick of Rome whilst Peter liv'd and possess'd it himself so that by this Erroneous and Impious Doctrine they have displac'd our blessed Saviour from being the Fundamental Rock on which the Church is built and instead of him have plac'd Peter first and then particular Popes successively And then let the World judge in what a miserable Condition the Church of Christ must be 1. When the Fundamental Rock on which it was built was an Idolater as Marcellinus was 2. Or an Heretick as Liberius Honorius Vigilius c. were 3. Or an Impudent whorish Woman as Johannes Anglicus or Pope Joan certainly was 4. Or when many Popes together no less than Fifty by the Confession of their own Learned men were Apostatici potiùs quam Apostolici 5. Or when the Popes were such Monstrous Villains as were put into and out of St. Peter ' s Chair by Impudent Whores made Popes by Violence and Simony such as even in Baronius his Judgment none should or dared call true Popes whose names were recorded only to fill up the Catalogues of the Roman Bishops 6. Or in the Vacancies when for two or three years and if some Writers say true sometime for Eight years there was no Pope at all and so by this Doctrine the Church had no Fundamental Rock at all for several years together 7. Lastly Or when they had for near Fifty years together two or three Popes at the same time when it was Impossible they should be all Legitimate and true Successors of St. Peter and what they pretend to Vicars of Christ our blessed Saviour and which or whether any of them were such indeed none did or could know Nay 't is certain and must by our Adversaries be confess'd unless they will deny their own received Principles that sometimes all of the Pretenders were Impious Usurpers of the Papal Chair without any Just Right or Title to it Then the first Council of Pisa met and it was a General One consisting of above 600. Fathers there were Two Popes in being such as they were Gregory XII and Benedict XIII who were both Damn'd and Deposed as Perjur'd Persons Schismaticks and Hereticks c. and that by an unanimous Consent and Decree of that Great Council At the Council at Constance four or five years after there were three Popes the two beforenamed Gregory and Benedict who would not sit down though damn'd at Pisa and John XXIII For the two former what Villains they were the Council of Pisa has told us For John XXIII the Council of Constance gives him this Character That he was a Person all the time he was Pope notoriously Scandalous to the Church that his Life was damnable and he in his Conversation guilty of Impieties not to be nam'd And the Council adds in their Definitive Sentence of his Deposition That he had broke his Vow his Oath and Promise made to God and his Church that he was Notoriously Simoniacal and by his dishonest and detestable Life and Manners notoriously Scandalous c. Now if these and such other Popes be the Fundamental Rock upon which the Church is built and this they say and would have us believe it She must of necessity be in a miserable Condition and the Gates of Hell must prevail against Her when they evidently prevail against the Rock upon which they say she is built for if the Rock and Foundation fail that which is built upon it must evidently fall and come to Ruin This is the first Consequence of their Doctrine manifestly Erroneous but this is not all For there is a second Consequence of it both Erroneous and indeed Blasphemous For 2. when they say that our blessed Saviour was the Fundamental Rock on which the Church was built and that Peter and the Popes aftâ—r did succeed him in that Place and Office cum Potestatis plenitudine says Pius V. here Cum Summâ Potestate as others Generally Hence it follows That the present Pope has and every one of his Predecessors had the same Power required to the being of a Fundamental Rock which our blessed Saviour had For if they succeed him in the same Place and with a Supream Power then they have the same Place and Power our blessed Saviour had His Power neither was nor could be greater then Potestas summa summo non datur Superius there can be nothing higher then the highest nor superior to the Supream and if Peter had and every pitiful Pope has potestatem summam Then they have a Power as great and equal to that our Blessed Saviour had before he Resigned it to his Successors But I might have saved the Labour of proving this for 't is Acknowledg'd and expresly Affirm'd in their Roman Catechism ex Decreto Concilij Tridentini juslu Pii V. Edito in which they say that Peter was Caput
Cardinal refers it to our blessed Saviour so does Paul too and if this be not sufficient to Convince the Cardinal and such other Papal Parasites our blessed Saviour expounds it not of Peter but himself and that after he had said to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church 2 This being granted as of necessity it must that our blessed Saviour is the first Immoveable Rock and most sure Foundation on which the Church is built It is also granted and must be so Scripture expresly saying it That Peter is a Foundation too on which the Church is built But in a way far different from that our Adversaries dream of for they do but dream nor will any Considering and Intelligent Person think them well awake when they writ such things For 1. When we say That Peter is a Foundation on which the Church is built our meaning is not that he has by this any Prerogative or Superiority much less what our Adversaries pretend any Monarchical Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church for every one of the Apostles is as well and as much a Foundation of the Christian Church as Peter The Apostle tells us That the Church is a spiritual House which is built upon The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner-stone And St. John to the same purpose speaking of the Church the New Jerusalem says The City had Twelve Foundations and in them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. In these Texts all the Apostles James and Paul as well as Peter are Foundations of the Church equally and without any distinction or difference no Prerogative given to Peter above the rest much less that vast Monarchical Supremacy which is pretended to Both the Greek and Latin Fathers say That the Gospel the Christian Faith or the Creed which contains the Sum of it or Peter's Confession of our blessed Saviour to be Christ the Son of the Living God which is the Chief Fundamental Article of our Faith I say That in those Father's Judgment this Faith is the Foundation on which the Church is built St. Augustin Explaining the Creed to the Catechumens has these words Know you saith he that this Creed is the Foundation on which the Edifice or Building of the Church is raised To the same purpose Theophylact tells us That the Faith which Peter Confess'd was to be the Foundation of the faithful that is of the Church This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Jesuit having Cited and approved Alcazar a Zealous Roman Catholick for this very same Opinion does not only receive and approve but largely and undeniably prove it out of Clemens Romanus Augustin Hierome Russin the Trent Council and St. Paul And then adds That other Councils and Fathers say the same Another Learned Jesuit confesses that it was the opinion of many Ancient Fathers yet he endeavours to Confute it that those words upon this Rock I will build my Church are thus to be understood Upon this Faith or Confession of Faith which thou hast made That I am Christ the Son of the Living God will I build my Church And then he Cites many Fathers to prove it and immediately quotes St. Augustin and with little respect or modesty says That Augustine ' s Opinion was further from sense then those he there Cited because he made Christ the Rock on which the Church was built 3. I take it then for Certain and Confess'd and so does a very Learned Jesuit too that the Twelve Foundations in that Place in the Revelation before Cited Cap. 21. 14. signifies the Twelve Apostles on whom the Wall of the New Jerusalem or the Church of Christ was built and therefore their Names as St. John says were written on those Foundations to signifie that the Apostles Paul as well as Peter were Founders or Foundations of the Christan Church And that this may more distinctly appear and from Scripture it self that every Apostle as well as Peter is a Foundation of the Christian Church we are to Consider First That in Scripture the Church is commonly call'd a House the House of God and every good Christian is a Lively Stone which goes to the building of that spiritual House 2. Our blessed Saviour call'd and sent all his Apostles as well as Peter to build this House He gave some Apostles for the Edifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or building the Body of Christ That is the Church 3. The Apostles all of them Paul as well as Peter were Master-Builders of this House Evident it is in the Text Cited that St. Paul was a Master-Builder and St. Peter was no more nor is he any where in Scripture expresly said to be so much though I believe and grant he was 4. The Means by which these Master-Builders edify'd and built the Church were these Their diligent Preaching of the Gospel first and more Infallibly Communicated to them then to any others Their Pious and Exemplary Conversation which made their Preaching more Effectual and gave Reputation to it and themselves Their Confirming with Miracles and Sealing the Truth of it with their Blood and Martyrdom 5. Hence the Gospel it self and our Christian Faith is call'd the Foundation of the Church as may appear by what is said before and by St. Paul who expresly calls it so For that Foundation which he there says he had laid at Corinth as may appear from the Context was the Gospel he had preach'd among them So that by the Authorities above Cited I think it may appear that Divines Ancient and Modern Protestant and Papist seem to agree in this That there is a double Foundation of the Church Doctrinal and Personal The first is the Gospel or those Holy Precepts and gracious Promises contain'd in it On the belief and practise whereof the Church solely relyes for Grace here and Glory hereafafter And therefore they are Commonly and Justly call'd the Foundation on which the Church is built Whence it is very usual in Scripture to say that by Preaching the Gospel the Church is Edify'd or Built And because our blessed Saviour immediately call'd all his Apostles gave them Authority and the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit and sent them to Preach the Gospel and they with great success did it Converting Nations building or founding Churches therefore they were call'd Master-Builders Founders and Foundations of the Christian Church as our Adversaries Confess Now as to this Particular as the Apostles were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church Peter had no Preheminence or Prerogative above the other Apostles He was no more Petra a Founder or Foundation of the Church then the other Apostles Nay in this if any certainly St. Paul might challenge a Preference and Preheminence above Peter himself or any of the Rest. For he with truth and modesty
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
Son and Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have Commanded you And again Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature Here I observe 1. That the Apostles in their first Mission were sent to the Jews and them only But now their Commission is Inlarged and they are Equally sent every one as much as any one to all Nations says Matthew To All the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Eusebius Explains it says St. Mark Jidem Jurisdictionis Apostolicae Orbis Termini The whole World was their Diocese every ones Jurisdiction Extended so far and Peter's could not extend no further 2. For the Persons they were to Preach to they were Every Man in the World It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to every Creature every Rational Creature who if Infancy and Infirmity hinder'd not was capable They were to Convert Pagans and make them our blessed Saviour's Disciples and Sheep and then feed them with the Word and Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Matthew Convert and make them Disciples and then Baptize and Teach them to observe whatever I have Commanded you Those words Feed my sheep on which without any just Reason they would build Peter's Supremacy contain only an Indefinite Proposition which as every one who understands Logick must Confess is only equivalent to a Particular But here the Commission given by our blessed Saviour to every Apostle as well as Peter is expresly Vniversal Preach to every Creature That is Feed All my sheep This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Roman Catholick Confesseth and fully proves it Only to save the Popes and his own Credit he says That to call General Councils belong'd only to Peter and the Pope by their Supremacy and not to any other But this is gratis dictum and an evident Untruth For the Pope by no Law of God or Man has or ever had Power to call any General Council And for many Ages never pretended to it which I only say now and when there is a Convenient time can and will make it Good In the mean time I think 't is certain either 1. That by those words Feed my sheep on which they build the Popes and Peters Supremacy our blessed Saviour gave Peter no supream Power to call General Councils that by them he might feed his Sheep Or 2. That the Apostles and Primitive Christians in their times knew no such thing For 1. When a Controversie arose at Antioch about Circumcision they send not to Peter as supream Head of the Church desiring him to call a Council but to the Apostles and Elders Had they known and believ'd that Peter had been Invested with such Power and Supremacy as is now pretended it had been Civility and Duty in them to have sent to him in the first place But they send to the Apostles and Elders without any notice taken of what they knew not Peter's Prerogative 2. It neither does nor can appear that Peter call'd that Council 3. Nor did he as Head and President of the Council speak first but the Question was much disputed before Peter spoke any thing 4. Nor did Peter after the Question was debated give the Definitive Sentence For 't is Evident in the Text That James the Less Son of Alphaeus and Bishop of Jerusalem gave the Definitive Sentence which both Peter and the whole Council acquiesc'd in 5. Nor did Peter send his Legats to Antioch to signifie what he and the Council had done but the Apostles and the whole Church chose and sent their Messengers 6. Nor are the Letters sent in Peter's Name or any notice taken of any Primacy or Prerogative of his above the other Apostles No the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is The Apostles Elders and Brethren send Greeting 7. Nor was that Decree publish'd To the Churches in Peter's Name as made or confirm'd by him more than any other Apostle 8. Nay the Apostles send Peter on a Message to Samaria and he obeys and goes which had been a strange piece of Presumption had either he or they known his now pretended Monarchical Supremacy 9. So far were those Primitive Christians from knowing or acknowledging the now pretended Monarchical Supremacy of Peter that even in the Apostles times and Presence they question and call him to an Account for his Actions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disceptabant adversus illum says the Vulgar Latin tanquam valde offensi expostulabant says Chrysostom And honest John Ferus a Roman Catholick tells us That he was Compell'd to give a Reason of his Actions to the Church nor was Peter offended at it because he knew that he was not a Lord but Minister of the Church But now as Ferus there goes on the Case is alter'd for wicked Popes as though they were Lords and not Ministers will not be Question'd for any thing or reprov'd Had the Canon Law been then in force which his pretended Successors have approved and by their Supream Authority publish'd he might have told those who Question'd him That he was to judge all men and none him nor was he to be reprov'd by any mortal man though by his Impiety and ill Example he carried thousands to Hell with him 10. Nay St. Paul does not only question St. Peter's Actions but to his face before the People publickly condemn them and that justly for he says he was to be blamed which he neither would nor indeed well could have done had he known Peter to have been so far his Superior as to have by Divine Institution a Monarchical Jurisdiction and Power over him 11. Lastly St. Paul himself tells us That he was in Nothing Inferior to the Chiefest Apostles not to Peter James or John whom elsewhere he reckons the chiefest I know they say That Paul was equal to Peter as to his Apostolical Office but Inferior to Peter as he was Supream Pastor over the Apostles and the whole Church But this is gratis dictum and indeed a begging of the Question and taking that for granted which never was nor ever will be proved However 't is certain 1. That every Apostle as well as Peter had an Vniversal supream Authority and Jurisdiction in any Part of the World and over any Christians wherever they came 2. That this largeness of their Jurisdiction was Apostolical and Personal to themselves which they neither did nor could transmit to their Successors whose Jurisdiction was limited to some City and Territory and that particular Place the Care and Charge whereof was committed unto them as Ephesus was to Timothy and Creet to Titus 3. Our Adversaries confess this as to all the other Apostles but for Peter they say He transmitted his Supremacy and Vniversal Jurisdiction over the whole Church to his Successor and that by the Institution of our blessed Saviour and Divine Right If they could prove this the Controversie were
was two whole years at Rome Converted and Established a Church there but it cannot appear by Scripture that Peter was ever there 4. The Care 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all The Churches lay upon St. Paul no such thing in Scripture ever said of Peter 5. St. Paul made Orders and Constitutions for the good government of All the Churches without any Authority Leave or Commission from Peter no such thing ever said of Peter either in Scripture or primitive and pure Antiquity 6. St. Paul writ a Long and Excellent Epistle to the Romans Peter did no such thing Had the Holy Ghost in Scripture expresly told us 1. That our blessed Saviour had Appointed and Commission'd Peter to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and such were the Romans 2. That he was two whole years residing at Rome Converting and Establishing a Church there 3. That the Care and Cure of All the Churches lay upon him 4. That he made Orders and Constitutions for the Government of All The Churches 5. That he had writ an Epistle to the Romans to Confirm them in that Faith he had preach'd amongst them I say had all these things been in Scripture expresly said of Peter our Adversaries with great noise and confidence would and with far more reason and probability might have asserted Peter's Supremacy and his Roman Episcopacy and that the Pope was and is his Successor But seeing not one of all these is said of Peter and every one of them expresly said of Paul it is Evident that there is far more reason and probability and that grounded upon express Scripture that Paul was Bishop of Rome and not Peter and so the Pope might be his Successor And yet our Adversaries reject Paul and will have Peter their first Bishop though some of them impiously say our blessed Saviour was their first Bishop That St. Paul was not Bishop of Rome notwithstanding all the former things said of him in Scripture we believe and know and willingly grant But on the other side to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome concerning whom no such things are said in Scripture either in express terms as they are of Paul or by Equivalence or any just Consequence this we say is very irrational For in things Moral or Historical and of such we are now speaking which are Incapable of Physical or Mathematical Demonstration the highest Prudential Motives and Probabilities will and ought to carry the Assent of all wise men and therefore seeing it is deny'd and justly too that Paul was ever Bishop of Rome though the Probabilities grounded on Scripture that he was so be far greater then Peter can pretend to for our Adversaries to say that Peter was Bishop of Rome must be and is evidently irrational If the great probabilities we have that Paul was Bishop of Rome deserve not our Assent certainly we cannot rationally conclude from far less Probabilities that Peter was so But when they would magnifie the Pope's Power and Supremacy having no better Arguments they make use of several Honorary Titles given to the Bishop of Rome and his See and of some Priviledges which they take or mistake rather to be peculiar to the Popes such as these 1. The Bishop of Rome in many Stories and Canons is called Apostolicus 2. His See is call'd Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica 3. He is call'd Successor Petri. 4. Vicar of Christ. 5. That our blessed Saviour gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. I confess that these and many such Particulars have been urged and as pertinent stood upon by several Popes in their Bulls their Decretal Constitutions and Epistles and generally by all their Party especially the Clergy Secular and Regular whose great and principal Interest it is to maintain the Papal Supremacy for if that fail they irrecoverably fall with it In some Centuries past while gross Ignorance and Tyranny benighted and overaw'd this Western Part of the World such Arguments did their Business For few could and the danger being very great few or none durst Answer them But after Luther arose and Learning reviv'd all knowing and impartial Persons did see and know that all the Arguments they did or could bring from such Topicks were not only Inconsequent but indeed impertinent and ridiculous That this may not be gratis dictum I shall indeavour to make it Appear by plain Instances and I hope Effect it that none of those Honorary Titles or Priviledges do or can afford any just ground of that Supremacy and Papal Monarchy they now so earnestly contend for And here 1. It is to be observed that the word Apostolicus which for some Ages last past the Pope has Assumed and his Flatterers given him as peculiar to himself was Anciently a Title given to all Archbishops So Alcuinus Flaccus tells us That when a Bishop was Elected they sent him ad Apostolicum that he might Consecrate him The Learned Archbishop of Paris tells me this and also that this was the use of that word in the Sixth Century in the time of Gregorius Turonensis who was made Bishop about the Year 572. but afterwards That Title was appropriated to the Pope Now I desire to know of our Adversaries how The Title being Appropriated to the Pope does make more for his Supremacy then it did for the Archbishops when it was common to them all 2. That Rome was Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica we grant Because we are sure St. Paul though not as Bishop sate there But that Peter ever was there neither we nor our Adversaries are or can be sure But it is and by our Adversaries must be granted too That Jerusalem Antioch and other Churches besides Rome were Sedes Apostolicae and Ecclesiae Apostolicae and eo Nomine were of great Esteem in the Ancient Church But the Bishops of none of them then did or could pretend to any Supremacy much less to an Ecclesiastical Monarchy And why Rome should more then they when our Adversaries can and will give which as yet they never did any Just and Cogent Reason I shall submit Tertullian also reckons the Apostolical Churches such as Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica Philippi Rome c. and tells us That Cathedrae Apostolorum the Chairs of the Apostoles were then in those Apostolical Churches That Bishops presided in them that if they had great Curiosity and Care of their Salvation they should make their Address to those Apostolical Chairs and Churches He sends them not all to Rome and Peter's Chair there But saith he if thou art near Macedonia thou hast Philippi and Thessalonica to go to If in Asia Ephesus If in Achaia Corinth If thou art near Italy thou hast Rome to Address to He knew no Supremacy or Infallibility annex'd to Peter's Chair at Rome more then to Paul's at Corinth or Philippi He directs them to that Apostolical Chair and Church which was next them
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
Contarunt verissima esse experimentis animadvertimus nisi planè Asini simus Sentimus c. m Qui contra obstrepere ausit tanquam Reipubl hostis inimicus Pietaetis Satelles Antichristi ultimo Supplicio Parricidium luet Conditum est hoc Decretum Ann. 1338. Extat apud Aventinum Annal. Lib. 7. p. 479. n The Portugal Index Expurgatorius Olysipone 1624. pag. 29. damns Aventine in General only But the Spanish Index Expurgat Madriti 1612. p. 449. and at Madrid 1667. p. 562. Col. 2. sets down particularly all the passages to be Expunged Dubium o Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 3. cap. 3. §. 1. p Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. q Item Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68. §. 16. 17. Sol. 1. r Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. Lib. 3. cap. 3. §. Refert B. Augustinus s Concilium Florentinum Episcopornm 340. Praeside Paschal 2. contra Fluentinum illius Loci Episcopum qui Motus Quotidianis Portentis quae tunc Accidebant dicebat jam tum natum esse Antichristum Genebrard Chron. Lib. 4. ad Annum 1105. p. 355. t Since that Council wherein he was censured Ann. 1105. are 574 years pass'd u In Bodley's Library in Oxon. Cod. 76 super D. Arts. The MS. was given to St. Peter's Church in Excester in Edward the Confessor's time by Leofricke first Bishop of Exon as appears by his own hand in the beginning of that Manuscript x Malis Artibus Pontificatum adeptus est Ambitione Diabolicâ dominandi cupiditate Impulsus Archiepiscopatum Rhemensem dein Ravennatem postremò Pontificatum Adjuvante Diabolo consecutus And a little before Relicto Monasterio Diabolum secutus cui se Totum tradiderit c. Plat. in vitâ Sylvest 2. See the Hist. of Magick by Gabr. Nandaeus c. 19. pag. 255. Johan Stella de vitis Pontificum opus revisum correctum sub Julio 2. as we are told in the last page save one Basil. 1507. in vita Silvestri 2. y In Annotat. ad vit Silvest 2. apud Plat. Edit 1626. z In vitâ Silvest 2. a Grot. in 2. Thess. 2. 4. 5. b Dr. Hammond on the same place and more largely contra D. Bâ—ondellum Dissert 1. Prooemialis De Antechristo c 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. d Secundum Computum Dionysij vulgat 38. sed Ann. Christ. 40. secundum verum Computum Collegi inquit Grotius scriptam hanc Epistolam Anno Altero Caiani Principatus Grotius in Prologo ad 2. ad Thess. e Usserius Annal. Part. posteriori Aetat Mundi 7. ad Ann. 54. p. 667. in which year he says and proves this Epistle to be writ f Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 53. §. 1. p. 408. In which year he says this Epistle was writ g Ed. Simpson Chronici Cathol part 7. ad Ann. 51. p. 36. hoc Ann. 2. ad Thess. Epist. scriptam putat h Corn. A Lapide in Argumento ad 2. ad Thess. in Chronolaxi Actuum Apostolorum ad Ann. Christ. 53. pag. 4. quo Ann. 2. ad Thess. Epist. esse Scriptam asserit i Calvisius ad Ann. Christ. 50. hoc Ann. 2. ad Thess. scriptain vult k Annal. part posteriori Aetate Mund. 7. ad Ann. Christ. 54. p. 668. Toto Coelo erravit Grotius cum hanc Epistolam sub Caio exaratam existimabat l 1 Thess. 1. 5. m Gal. 1. 17. n Gal. 1. 18. o Gal. 2. 1. p Act. 15. 2. q Chron. Catholici part 7. ad Ann. 47. p. 34. r Centur. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 420. s Theatro Hist. ad dictum Annum t Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. u Chronol ad dictuÌ„ Annum p. 93. x In Chronotaxi ad Ann 51. y In Chronot sua ad dictum Annum z Usserius Annal. Part. 2. ad Ann. 52. pag. 660. a 1. Thess. 1. 5. b Act. 15. 30. c Ibid. vers 41. d Act. 16. 1. 2. e Ibid. vers 6. f Ibid. vers 11. 12. g Act. 17. 1. h Ibid. vers 10. i Ibid. vers 15. k Act. 18. 1. l Orosium secuti sunt Omnes deinceps Chronographi Baronius c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. Lib. 2. Eusebij p 37. m Paulus Anno demum Claudij 9. venit in Graeciam Ibid. Col. 2. B. n 1. Thessal 3. 2. 6. vide Hen. Holden Theolog Parisiensem in Tabula Gestorum Pauli in Calce N. Test. à se cum Arnotat Edit Paris 1660. p. 883. 884. ubi haec Omnia firmat o 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. p Dr. Hammond in the Prologue to his Annotat on the Second to the Thessalonians q Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 43. §. 1. In which year 't is certain Caius died r Dr. Hammond Annot p. 718. Col. 2. ex Professo proves that Caius could not be Antichrist s Act. 8. t Ibid. vers 13. u Vers. 18. x They Money perish with thee vers 20. y Ibid. vers 23. z Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 35. §. 9. Ita etiam Hen. Holden Dr. Theol. in Tabulâ Gestorum Petri in Calce N. Test. cum Annot. suis Edit Paris 1660. p. 881. a Magus cum inde recessissent Apostoli contra eos obniti corúmque Doctrinae adversari non dubitarct qui olim Samaritas dementarat Judaeos iisdem Artibus aggressus quos Apostolis Insensos videat se esse Dei Filium illis Suadere Conatus est Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 35. §. 20. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Itáque hinc Simon Magus aemulatione percitus contra Apostolos corúmque Doctrinam se Armavit Nicephor Histor. Eccles. Lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 141. c Dr. Hammond in his Annotat. on 2. Thess. 2. 3. Lit. E. p. 719. Col. 1. d Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 35. §. 9. e Dr. Hammond Annotat on 2. Thess. 2. 3. literad p. 718. Col. 2. f Eusebius Hist. Ecclesiast lib. 2. cap. 12. In the Latin but 13. in the Greek g Hierome De Scriptor Eccles. in Petro. h Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. i Vide Hen Holden Dr. Parisiens in cap. 13. vers 1. Apoc. vidi Bestiam i. e. Antichristum habentem Cap. 7. i. e. Authoritatem Supremam Cornua 10. id est potestatem Maximam Vid. Grotium in dictum locum k Apoc. 13. 7. l Apoc. 17. 6. m Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nero Rom. Imperat. primus Hostis c. Ita Tertullianus Neronem primum in sectam nostram gladio ferocisse Euseb. in Chronico ad Ann. Christ. 70. n Caius died Anno Christ. 43. and the first Persecution under Nero was Anno Christ. 66. Baronius Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. ad Ann. 66. §. 9. o 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. 3. p 2. Thess. 2. 3. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Tim. 4. 1. r Gravius peccat Sacerdos si matrimonium contrahat quam si fornicetur domi concubinam foveat