or probability I have indeavoured to prove before sic transeat cum caeteris erroribus 2. As to the second point What is Heresie and who is the Heretick who is to be persecuted with such fearful Damnations and Excommunications I say in short 1. That it is agreed amongst their Casuists and Canonists That Heresie is an Error against that Faith which they ought to believe joyned with pertinacy or it is a pertinacious Error in Points of Faith and he who so holds such an Opinion is an Heretick 2. And he is pertinacious they say who holds such an Opinion which he does or might and ought to know to be against Scripture or the Church By the way I desire to be inform'd how it is possible for their Lay-people and unlearned to know with any certainty or assurance what Truths are approved or Errors damn'd in Scripture when they are prohibited under pain of Excommunication ever to read or have Scripture in any Tongue they understand Nor are Bibles only in any Vulgar Tongue prohibited but all Books of Controversie between Protestants and Papists in any Vulgar Tongue are equally prohibited So that they are absolutely deprived of the principal means to know Truth and Error what Doctrines are Evangelical what Heretical 3. And although they are pleased sometimes to mention Scripture in the Definition of Heresie yet 't is not really by them meant For by their receiv'd Principles a man may hold a hundred Errors which he Does or Might and Ought to know to be against Scripture and the Articles of Faith and yet be no Heretick For thus Cardinal Tolet tells us Many Rusticks or Country Clowns having Errors against the Articles of Faith are excused from Heresie because they are Ignorant of those Articles and are ready to Obey The Church And a little before If any man err in those things he is bound to know yet so as it is without pertinacy because he Knows it not to be against The Church and is ready to believe as the Church believes he is no Heretick So that by their Principles let a man believe as many things as he will contrary to Scripture yet if he have the Colliers faith and implicitly believe as the Church believes all is well he is by them esteemed no Heretick 4. And hence it is that they have of late left the word Scripture out of their definition of Heresie and they only pass for Hereticks at Rome not who hold Opinions contrary to Scripture but who receive not or contradict what is believed to be de fide by the Pope and his Party And therefore they plainly tell us That None can be an Heretick who believes that Article of our Creed The Holy Catholick Church you may be sure they mean their own Popish Church not only without but against all reason For so their Trent-Catechism tells us not only in the Text but least we should not take notice of it in the Margent too where they say Verus 9. Articuli Professor that is he who will believe what their Church believes Nequit dici Haereticus That is he who believes the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church in the Creed and that Church Infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost he shall not we may be sure be call'd an Heretick at Rome Nay so far are they in Love with their most irrational Hypothesis That to believe as the Church believes excuses their Laicks and the Vnlearned from Heresie that they expresly say That such men may in some Cases not only Lawfully but Meritoriously believe an Error contrary to Scripture which in another more knowing Person would be a real and formal Heresie The Case is this as Cardinal Tolet and Robert Holkott propose it If a Rustick or Ignorant Person concerning Articles of Faith do believe his Bishop proposing some Heretical Opinion he does Merit by believing although it be an Heretical Error because he is Bound to believe till it appear to him to be against The Church So that in the mean time he is no Heretick For 1. He may lawfully do it 2 He is Bound to do it to believe his Bishop and the Doctrines proposed by him 3. Nay it is a Meritorious action to believe such Heretical Errors though it be contrary to Scripture and the word of our gracious God This is strange Doctrine yet publickly maintain'd by their Casuists and Schoolmen and approved by their Church For I do not find it Condemn'd in any Index Expurgatorius nor in any publick declaration disown'd by their Church quae non prohibet peccare aut errare cum possit Jubet And here in relation to the Premisses I shall further propose two things and leave them to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader 1. That seeing it is their Received Doctrine that an Implicite Faith in their Church and a profession and resolution to believe as she believes is enough to free a Papist from Heresie and the punishment of it though otherwise through Ignorance he hold some heretical Errors contrary to what his Church believes why may not a Protestants Implicite Faith in Scripture with a Profession and Resolution to believe every thing in it as it comes to his knowledge free him from Heresie and the punishment of it though otherwise in the mean time he may believe some things contrary to Scripture Certainly if an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party for they are the Roman Church with a resolution to believe them all when they come to their knowledge be sufficient to free a Papist from Heresie and the Punishment of it much more will an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles in Scripture with a Resolution to believe them all when they really come to their knowledge be sufficient to free a Protestant from Heresie and the punishment of it Because the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles are Divine and in such a measure and degree Infallible as the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party without great Error and Impudence cannot pretend to 2. Seeing it is their Received Doctrine as may appear by the Premisses that if any Bishop preach to his People the Laity and Unlearned Rusticks some Heretical Doctrine they are bound to believe it and may not only Lawfully but Meritoriously do so till it appear that their Church is against it Hence it evidently follows That if the Bishop preach'd this Doctrine That 't is lawful to kill an Heretical King who is actually Anathematiz'd and Deposed by the Pope they were bound to believe it and might lawfully and meritoriously do so and then if it was meritorious to believe such a Doctrine then to put it in Execution and actually kill such a King could not be unlawful and vitious So that we need not wonder that those prodigious Popish Villains who were hired to Assassinate our Gracious
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
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
to any Monastery or Religious House whatsoever be they of whatsoever Order of Regulars And not only these but All Doctors Masters Regents and Professors of any Art or Faculty whether they be of the Laity or Clergy or Regulars of any Order whatsoever in any Vniversity publick School or any where else in Cities Vniversities Towns Churches or Monasteries whether they profess Divinity Canon or Civil Law Physick Philosophy Grammar or any other Liberal Art publickly or privately and all who take any Degrees in any Vniversity All these that is almost all the Learned men in the Papacy by the Disposition and Appointment of the Pope and Council of Trent are to promise vow and swear to obey the Pope as Peter ' s Successor and Christ's Vicar and to receive and without All Doubting to Profess all Things deliver'd defin'd and declared in the Sacred Canons and General Councils Especially in the Council of Trent and all this they swear to do most constantly so long as they live and to take care to the utmost of their Ability that all under them or committed to their Charge shall do so too And the Pope there further tells us That God Almighty did by the Holy Ghost Inspire the Trent Fathers to require That this Oath should be taken Seeing then there are so many thousands in the Church of Rome who do and must take this cursed Oath to Obey the Pope and receive and without doubting believe all their Rebellious Canons before mention'd and to the utmost of their Power to perswade and induce all who are under their Cure and Charge that is all the Laity in the whole Roman Church for all of them are under the Charge and Cure of some of those who take that Oath to receive and believe them too Hence it manifestly follows 1. That the Church of Rome approves those impicus and rebellious Doctrines to which so many thousands swear by the Command of the Pope and Trent Council 2. That all their Ecclesiasticks Secular and Regular who have any Cure of Souls and Charge over others are bound not only by their Papal Constitutions and Decrees of their General Councils but by a Personal Promise Vow and Oath in facinus Jurasse putes to believe and profess and as there is opportunity to practise according to these Principles 3. And hence it appears That Queen Elizabeth was and all Protestant Kings and Princes are and in the like case will be in most eminent Danger of assassination by her Popish Subjects especially after Pope Pius the fifth had damn'd and deposed her absolved all her Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and Commanded them on pain of Excommunication never to obey her or any of her Laws or Commands it being also declared by their Supream Infallible Power That the killing the Queen by open War publickly or privately by Poyson or Pistol had neither been Rebellion Treason nor Murder but an Act morally good and meritorious by which they should merit not only Heaven but a higher Degree of Glory in it and be as Glorious Martyrs if they died in that Cause commended to Posterity Nay when their Ecclesiasticks both Secular and Regular who had any Cure of Souls or Authority and Charge over others had promised vow'd and solemnly sworn That they would obey the Pope as Christs Vicar c. I say those who had such great Promises to allure them and their Promise Oath and vow to oblige them to it would certainly indeavour as indeed they did as will appear anon the ruin and destruction of that good Queen Neither is this all For 6. Lastly the Pope and his Party have further Inducements more efficacious and powerful to perswade their Instruments to Assassinate Princes and Extirpate Hereticks especially Protestants the greatest Enemies of their Antichristian Tyranny and Papal Usurpations For although to pious men who really desire and use the just means to obtain it the promise of Eternal Joys in Heaven is the greatest Motive and Incouragement imaginable yet to such Impious and Prodigious Villains who will undertake to kill Kings and murder Innocents Heaven signifies no more then the Diamond did to Aesop's Cock in the Fable who preferr'd a Grain of Barly before it And therefore for such and none but such will serve them in the Execution of such Execrable Villanies they have present and more prevailing Incouragements I mean Money and great Sums of Gold or some vast Temporal Advantages to be injoy'd here which prevails more with such Persons then the Promise of Heaven hereafter I shall out of many give two or three Instances As 1. In the year 1594. Roderigo Lopez a Jew and Physician Stephen Ferriera Gama and Emanuel Loisie two Portugals by the Roman Arts and Impiety were hired and undertook to Poyson Queen Elizabeth Lopez had a rich Jewel sent him and was by Contract to have Fifty thousand Duckets which evidently appeared at their Trial by their own Confessions And though Letters intercepted and the Good Providence of God by whom King's Reign their Villany was detected and they as Traitors justly Executed yet their Popish Desires and Indeavours were not less mischievous and impious because the Good Providence of God graciously prevented the Execution of their Designs 2. This by the Mercy of God not taking Effect for there is no Power or Policy can prevail against Divine Providence a little after in the same year Edmund York and Richard Williams were by the same Roman Arts and Impiety hired to Kill the Queen York at his Trial confess'd That Holt the Jesuit Hugh Owen Jacomo de Francisco and others had offer'd him an Assignment of Forty thousand Duckets if he would Kill the Queen himself or assist Richard Williams in Killing Her This York confess'd at his Trial and that Holt the Jesuit in whose Hand the Assignment of Forty thousand Duckets was deposited kissing the Holy Host swore that the Money should be paid so soon as the Queen was kill'd and bound York and Williams by an Oath and the Sacrament of the Eucharist To Dispatch it In short many others besides these named conspired the assassination and death of the Queen For Instance to omit others 1. Dr. Story Ann. 1572. 2. Somervil Ann. 1583. 3. Dr. Parry Ann. 1585. by the Approbation and Incouragement of the Pope and Cardinal Como 4. John Savage Ann. 1586. 5. Ant. Babington and five or six more with him are incouraged and perswaded to Murder the Queen in the same year 1586. 6. Moody Ann. 1587. 7. Patrich Cullen Ann. 1594. 8. Edward Squire Ann. 1598. 9. Winter and Tesmond the Jesuit Ann. 1602. c. We see there were many too many desperate Villains who valued not their own so that they might take away the Queens life and yet too few Divine Providence preventing their Impious Designs to Effect and Compass that more then Pagan Popish Conspiracy which at so vast an
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
only for his life that it was not to have an end and period with his Person For if it was then his Successor whoever he be can have no pretence to it For 't is impossible that any Successor can have any legal or just Claim to that Power which vanish'd and ceas'd to be with his Predecessor who possess'd it only for his life 3. Admit both these to be true which yet are equally and evidently false that Peter had such a Power and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to his Successor seeing such transmission must either be done by our blessed Saviour immediately or by Power deriv'd from him by Peter Let our Adversaries make it appear that either our blessed Saviour himself or Peter by Power deriv'd from him did actually transmit that Power to any Successor and I submit 4. Lastly Suppose all these to be what not one of them is true yet unless it do appear that the Bishop of Rome and not the Bishop of Antioch where they say Peter was Bishop first was that Successor of St. Peter to whom such Supremacy was transmitted he can have no pretence to it For in this Case Idem est non esse non apparere Let our Adversaries then make it appear that either our blessed Saviour immediately by himself or Peter by Authority from him did transmit the Supremacy to the Pope and we shall be satisfy'd and thankful for the Discovery And this brings me to the Second thing proposed before 2. The thing next to be enquired after is Whether and how it may appear that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successor Our Adversaries say and vainly say it only that Peter was Supream Head after our blessed Saviour's Ascension and Monarch of the Church and from him Jure Successionis the Pope derives his Monarchical Power and Supremacy and that by the Institution and Command of our blessed Saviour and so not by Humane but Divine Right This is a Position of greatest Consequence and will require good proof Nor is it possible to prove the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick unless it first appear that Peter was his Predecessor in that See Linus Clemens or Cletus cannot with any Truth or Sense be said to succeed Peter unless it appear first that he preceeded them Our Adversaries I confess do constantly with great noise and confidence affirm That Peter did preceed in the Bishoprick of Rome but sure I am that hitherto they have not brought any so much as probable much less cogent and concluding Reason to prove it nor do I think it possible they should bring what they neither have nor can have any true and concluding proof to prove what this is an erroneous and false Position And that this may not be begg'd and gratis dictum I shall offer to the Impartial Reader these Considerations 1. When they say That Peter fix'd his Episcopal Chair at Rome Jubente Domino Let them shew that Command and there will be an end of the Controversie we will obey our blessed Saviour's Command and the Pope too But this they have neither done nor can It being impossible they should shew that to be which never was nor ever had any being 2. That ever Peter was at Rome much less that he was Bishop there for Five and twenty years as is vainly pretended cannot be made appear out of Scripture or any Apostolical or Authentick Record and therefore that he was there at all where he might be as he was in many other good Cities and not Bishop of any of them must depend solely upon human and fallible Testimonies I say Testimonies certainly fallible if not absolutely false which many Learned men have and do believe Now seeing the whole Papal Monarchy and Infallibility depend upon Peter's being Bishop of Rome and the grounds we have to assure us that he ever was there are fallible and dubious and seeing it is irrational if not impossible that any considering Person should give a firm and undoubted assent to any Conclusion inferr'd only upon fallible and dubious premisses Hence it evidently follows That our Faith and belief of the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility is and till they find better and more necessary premisses must be fallible and dubious And here I desire to be inform'd how it comes to be an Article of Faith in their new Roman Creed That the Bishop of Rome is Vicar of Christ and Peter ' s Successor which Article with the rest in that Creed they promise swear and vow to believe and profess most Constantly to their last breath With what Conscience their Church can require or they take such an Oath Most Constantly and firmly to believe to their last breath such things for the belief of which they have no grounds if any save only fallible and very dubious Ipsi viderint 3. I know that the Assertors of the Papal Monarchy according to their Interest are very desirous to prove out of Scripture that Peter was at Rome and to that end produce those words in his first Epistle The Church which is at Babylon salutes you And by Babylon they say the Apostle meant Rome And for this they cite Papias in Eusebius That by Babylon Rome is figuratively to be understood So that if this be true Peter writ that Epistle at Babylon that is at Rome and so must be at Rome when he writ it And the proof of this depends upon the Authority of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis and those who follow him Now how little Credit is to be given to Papias in this or any thing else will manifestly appear out of the same Eusebius who tells us 1. That Papias was much given to Tradition inquiring of the Elders who had heard the Apostles what Peter or James or John c. had said thinking he gâ—tâ—less benefit by reading Scriptures then by the talk of those who heard the Authors of them 2. That he had by such Tradition strange Parables and Preachings of our blessed Saviour and other things very Fabulous Such as the Heresie of the Millenaries which he believed and propagated That he thus err'd by Misunderstanding the Apostles Doctrine For as Eusebius goes on he was a man of very little understanding 4. And yet as the same Author says he was the occasion that most of the Ecclesiastical Writers who followed him Reverencing his Antiquity err'd with him I know that in Eusebius both in the worst Edition of him by Christopherson sometime a Popish Bishop of Chichester and the best by Hen. Valesius we have a high Commendation of Papias At the same time says Eusebius as Valesius renders him Papias was famous a man very Eloquent and Learned and well skill'd in Scripture But Christopherson his other Translator goes higher as usually he does when it makes for the Catholick Cause and in his Translation says more in Commendation of
King in the late Conspiracy undertook such an Impious Imployment since besides great store of Gold given to incourage them their Religion and Learned Casuists afforded them such Principles which they were bound to believe to warrant and justifie their Villany so that without scruple of Conscience they might do it In short they are Hereticks whom the Pope and his Party are pleased to call so for by their Law and Canons they are sole Judges of the Crime what Heresie is and the punishment due to it 'T is true when they have passed Sentence upon any Heretick they deliver him to the Civil Magistrate but he is only their Executioner to hang or burn according to their Sentence but has no Power to reverse their Sentence nor so much as to Examine whether it be just or unjust but right or wrong must do as they determine And here to say nothing of the Impiety and Injustice of the Roman Church in Condemning those they call or rather miscall Herericks I shall take notice of a strange piece of their Hypocrisie used by them when after Condemnation they deliver the Condemned Person to the Civil Magistrate when the Bishop or Inquisitor who delivers him thus bespeaks the Civil Magistrate Sir We passionately desire you that for The Love of God and in reguard of Piety Mercy and our Mediation you would free this miserable Person from All Danger of Death or mutilation of Members And it is there said that the Bishop may do this Effectually and from his Heart But notwithstanding all this seeming Piety and Tenderness when they have Sentenced an Heretick to death they expect and require the Magistrate to Execute that Sentence within six days upon pain of Excommunication Deprivation and loss of Authority and Offices Hence it is that Pope Alexander the Fourth about the year 1260. gives Authority to the Inquisitors to Compel All Magistrates to Execute their Sentence be it what it will And Pope Innocent the Eighth says they must neither Examine Nor see the Process against those they are to Execute Nor is the matter mended since the times of Innocent the Eighth and Alexander the Fourth their Successors are for the same Compulsatory Power The Council of Trent expresly says That All Catholick Princes are to be Compelled to observe All the Sanctions and Constitutions declaring their Ecclesiastical Immunities amongst which this of punishing Hereticks is not the least c. By the Premisses I believe it may appear that the Hypocrisie of the Popish Church is inexcusable when she takes God's Name in vain and prays the Civil Magistrate For the Love of God c. to do that which she knows if he were willing he neither can nor dare do nor will she permit him to do having under pain of Excommunication and many other Penalties absolutely prohibited him to do it I say 't is not only the Bishop who so intercedes to the Civil Magistrate but the Church of Rome her self by him Pope Innocent the Third is my warrant for saying so who in a Decretal Epistle to the Bishop of Paris tells us That when a Condemn'd Person is delivered to the Secular Judge The Church must effectually interceed that he moderate the Sentence so which she knows he neither dare nor by their Law can do that the Condemn'd Person may be in no danger of death I know that Roffensis other of the Popish Party do endeavour with many little shifts to palliate the Hypocrisie of their Church but in vain For Omnia cum fecit Thaida Thais olet Sure I am that Aquinas Bannes and others who Comment on that part of Aquinas tells us That the Condemn'd Heretick is deliver'd over to the Secular Power to this very end that he may be Put to Death and taken out of the World and a great and famous Canonist Hostiensis says expresly what I have done that this Intercession of their Church to the Secular Magistrate in behalf of the Condemned Heretick is in the Common Opinion barely a Colour and verbal only not real For thus I find him cited in Panormitan on the Decretals Whatever says he may be said to the contrary yet To this end is He Delivered to The Secular Power That He may be punished with death Upon these Premisses I think it evident that the Church of Rome in this her Intercession to the Secular Power does with strange Hypocrasie seem earnestly to desire that of the Magistrate which she knows he dare not do nay which she herself by her publick Laws has Commanded him not to do How she will Answer God who Infallibly knows all her Hypocrisie or her Adversaries objecting it I know not ipsa viderit In short it is confess'd that all those who will not be Inslaved to Rome and believe as she believes in every thing are Hereticks and not only so but damn'd and while they continue so and do not intirely believe their New-Trent-Creed they are out of all Possibility of Salvation So their Casuists perpetually affirm and their Trent Council in that Forma Juramenti Professionis Fidei in the Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth Extant in the Constitutions of that Council requires all their Ecclesiasticks to promise vow and swear to believe and maintain it to their death For in the end of that Creed the words are This is the Catholick Faith out of which no man can be saved And then they must promise swear and vow to believe and profess it most constantly as long as they live So that although mens lives be exemplary and innocent their Doctrines which they believe Ancient and Catholick yet if they dissent from Rome in any one thing and that too upon just grounds and evident reason yet they shall be call'd and used as Hereticks A signal Instance we have of this in the Waldenses anciently and because many perhaps I speak not of the Learned may neither know what it is nor where to find it I shall here crave leave to set it down Reinerus a Dominican Frier an Inquisitor a severe Persecutor who writ against the Waldenses does to their great honour and the shame of Rome give them this signal Testimony He tells us of more then Seaventy ancient Heresies most of which he says in his time were overcome and vanished But says he of all the Sects that were or had been None was so pernicious to The Church of Rome as the Leonists or Waldenses and that for three Reasons For the Antiquity and long Continuance of these Waldenses from the time of Pope Sylvester who was made Pope Anno Christ. 316. as some said or as others from the time of the Apostles For the Generality of that Sect because there was Scarce any Country where they were not When all other Hereticks by reason of their Blasphemies against God were abborr'd by those who heard them The Waldenses
Cases of High Treason Nor was this Rebellious Doctrine maintained only by the Popes Party and Parasites but the Pope himself whom the Jesuits and Canonists miscall Infallible approves and justifies it and in Decemb. 1605. tells the Venetian Ambassador That Ecclesiasticks were not Comprehended in the number of A Princes Subjects nor could be Punished By him though they were Rebels A hundred such Passages out of their School-men Canonists Casuists especially the Jesuites and their Canon Law might easily be quoted but these to Impartial and Intelligent Persons will be sufficient to Evince That the Pope and his Party do publickly and expresly maintain this Rebellious Doctrine and when it makes for their Catholick Cause and they have Opportunity and Ability to put it in Execution do also practise it The Sum of which Damnable Doctrine repugnant to the clear Principles of Nature and Scripture and all Religions save that of Rome is this If any King be Excommunicate and Deposed by the Pope then any of his Subjects Clergy or Laity horresco referens may take Arms and Rebel against him or Murder him and yet by this Impious Popish Doctrine be neither Rebels nor Traitors And if their King be neither Excommunicate nor Deposed but stands rectus in Curia Romanâ and be as they call it a good Catholick yet if any of his Ecclesiasticks Secular or Regular Rebel or Murder him it can be no Treason or Rebellion in them seeing according to their Principles they are none of his Subjects nor he their Superior and Treason or Rebellion against an Equal or Inferior is in propriety of Law impossible But this is not all For 3. Let it be granted which is both Impious and Evidently untrue That any Popish Assassin or Roman Raviliac had not been Guilty of any Treason if he had kill'd the Queen after the Pope had Deposed her as a Heretick yet sure they must grant that it was Murder and an Impious Act to kill a Person overwhom he had no Jurisdiction No this they deny the approved and received Principles of the Popish Church acquit such Prodigious Villains not only from Rebellion and Treason but from Murder too He who had kill'd the Queen after Excommunication and Deposition by the Pope had been no Traitor nor which is less so much as a Murderer We are told in the Body of their Canon Law That they are no Murderers who out of Zeal to the Church take Arms against Excommunicate Persons So the Title prefix'd to the Canon cited in the Margent and the Text of the Canon says further Those Souldiers so armed Are not Murderers if out of a burning Zeal to their Catholick Mother the Church of Rome he means they Kill any of such Excommunicate Hereticks Thus the Case is deliberately determin'd by their Supream Infallible Judge Pope Vrban the Second a little before the end of the Eleventh Century and about Twenty years after by Ivo Carnotensis referred into a Collection of the Roman Canons And Gratian about Forty years after Ivo Registers it in his Decretum which Pope Gregory the Thirteenth approves and confirms for Law and so it stands confirm'd and received for Law in their last and best Editions of that Law ever since Whence it may and does appear that this Impious and Rebellious Doctrine That Killing Kings or Queens Excommunicate by the Pope was no Murder has been approved at Rome since the Devil was let loose and Antichrist appeared above Six hundred years I know that honest Father Caron not so disloyal as most of his Party indeavours to mollifie this Rebellious Constitution of Pope Vrban the Second and tells us that the meaning of that Canon is only this That if any man by Chance and Casually had kill'd an Excommunicated Person si contigerit trucidasse then he was not A Formal Murderer So Pope Urban ' s Sentence was not to Excuse those from Murder who Intended and directly Purposed to kill Hereticks and Excommunicate Persons For says he this were to Overthrow all Truth and Fidelity to Princes The good man was God forgive him a Roman Catholick and believed though Erroneously that the Supream Head of his Church and St. Peter's Successor and Vicar of Christ could not approve and maintain such a Rebellious and Impious Position and Principle That men might lawfully be kill'd because they were Hereticks or Excommunicate Persons which he there truly calls A Horrible Cursed and Execrable Principle That the Doctrine is Cursed and Execrable is easily believed and by me willingly granted But that Vrban the Second did not in that Canon approve it notwithstanding what Father Caron has said to the contrary I absolutely deny Sure I am 1. That Cardinal Bellarmine as is confessed by Father Caron in the place cited expounds that Canon as I have done 2. So does Cardinal Turrecremato too who says That Excommunicate Hereticks may be kill'd not only Casually as Father Caron mistakes the Text but with an Intention and Purpose to kill them and yet they who intend and do kill them be no Murderers but both the Intention and Act Just and Innocent But then their Intention must not be to get the Goods of those Hereticks they kill but it must be Zelo Matris Ecclesiae to secure the Church from the Mischievous Designs of those Hereticks So that in the Opinion of this great Cardinal and Canonist who well knew the opinions and practise of their Church killing of Hereticks was so far from being Murder that it was no Crime at all but sine Reatu as he says without all guilt and therefore nulla poenitentia erat imponenda it needed no Repentance 3. Cardinal Peron in his Oration to the Estates of France does expresly affirm That all Tyrants by Vsurpation may lawfully be kill'd and such was Queen Elizabeth and all Protestant Kings and Princes now are in the Judgment of the Pope and his Party seeing they all did and now do stand Excommunicate at Rome and deprived of all Dominion and therefore their medling with the Government after such Deprivation is evidently Usurpation in the Opinion of our Adversaries and then it follows on their Principles that they may lawfully be kill'd and therefore the killing of them cannot be Murder it being impossible that a Crime against the Indispensable Law of Nature should be lawful 4. But we have greater Evidence to prove that at Rome the killing of Protestant Princes as Excommunicate Hereticks is not Murder For in the year 1648. when the Parliament was or seemed to be severe against Papists as believing and maintaining Principles Inconsistent with our Government This Question amongst others was proposed to some of our English Popish Divines Whether the Pope could Depose or Kill Protestant Princes or Magistrates as Excommunicate Persons Some of those Divines met and whether out of Love of Truth or fear of the Parliament I know not Subscribed the Negative
Book which moved and incouraged him to that Impious Design I know that the Jesuites did then indeavour to free themselves from the Odium of that Impious Fact as if they had neither approved nor incouraged that Monstrous and Mahometan Assassination Sed quid verba audiam cum facta videam This was only a ridiculous indeavour Aethiopem Lavare to wash a Blackamore and do Impossibilities It is evident That their approved Doctrine and Principles in Mariana and many others was the Motive which induced Raviliac to Murder his Prince Which Doctrine has never been Condemned by any Publick Act of their Society nor by the Inquisitors in any Index Expurgatorius now for them to approve those Traiterous Principles and deny the Consequents of them is most irrationally to approve and grant the Premisses and yet deny the Conclusion 5. But this though bad enough is not all For it is not only the Jesuites and their Accomplices but the Pope too their Supream Judge thom they believe to be Infallible both in Matters of Faith and Fact who approved their Seditious and Traiterous Principles of Rebellion and Assassination of Princes Thuanus speaking of the Jesuites Practices to stir up the People to Rebellion in the time of Henry the Third of France he adds That these things were well known to the Pope who sent Breves and Bulls secretly to the Heads of those Rebels whereby they were incouraged to Rebel Afterwards when that Prodigious Villain Jaques Clement had Murder'd the said King Sixtus the Fifth then Pope did not only approve the Fact but in a premediated Oration publickly spoke in the Consistory blasphemously compares it in respect of its greatness and amiableness to our blessed Saviours Incarnation and Resurrection and then highly Commends the Murderer for his Virtue Courage and Zealous Love of God above Eleazar and Judith c. And to omit the rest pronounceth the Murder'd King Eternally Damn'd as having Committed the Sin against the Holy Ghost This the Historian though a Papist modestly and justly Censures as a Fact Extreamly Insolent and Vnworthy the Moderation of a Pastor especially the Supream Pastor of the Church Christs Vicar and St. Peter's Successor as they call him And then he tells us of Anti-Sixtus or the Answer to Pope Sixtus his Oration and says 1. That it had been more for the Credit of the Pope and the Holy Apostolick Sea that his Oration had been suppress'd then as it was by those of the League Published 2. That Anti-Sixtus or the Answer to it though it was something sharp and bitter yet the Popes Oration abundantly deserved it in which were Many Things Absurd and Impious This was the Judgment of that Faithful and Excellent Historian though a Papist concerning the Erroneous and Impious Principles of the Pope and Jesuites 6. Nor is this all For although only privately to approve and incourage Rebellion and Assassination of Kings and Princes be an Execrable Villany to be abhorr'd by all men especially Christians as being repugnant to that clear Light of Nature and Scripture to common Reason and Religion yet in Publick Writings to vindicate and justifie such Actions to perswade the World that they are not only morally good but meritorious This argues a higher degree of Impiety and Impudence We know by sad Experience that many Pagans and Christians have blasphem'd their Gods committed Adulteries Murders Perjuries c. yet we do not find that any Christians the Jesuites and their Accomplices excepted or any sober Pagan who acknowledg'd a God did ever justifie Blasphemy Adultery Murder or Perjury but when they were Apprehended Convict and brought to Execution they would confess the Crime pray for Pardon and desire others to pray for them But the Jesuites and those possess'd with their Principles though they be Convict and Legally Condemn'd for Rebellion and Assassination of Princes yet they neither do nor can repent believing such Actions not to be any Vices but Vertues and themselves if they suffer for them not Traytors or Murderers but Holy Martyrs That this is their approved and received Doctrine which they publickly defend and industriously in their Publick Writings indeavour to justifie is evident to the Western World and may appear by the Premisses Yet being a thing of such great concern omitting Mariana Emanuel Sa Sanctarellus and others before mentioned I shall only add Two or Three Eminent Testimonies in further confirmation of it First then Fran. Suarez Publick and Prime Professor of Divinity in the University of Conimbra in Portugal handling that Point how and in what Cases a Tyrant may by any private Person be Murder'd And having told us that a Tyrant was either 1. Tyrannus Titulo one who without any just Title usurp'd the Government to the ruine of the Common-weal 2. Tyrannus Administratione one who having a just Title ruled Tyrannically And he there tells us That all Christian Kings are such Tyrants who induce their Subjects to Heresie Apostasie or Schism So that all Protestant Princes we may be sure are such Tyrants though he there name only King James of happy Memory Having Premised this he gives the state of the Question Thus 1. He does in the General give us two Cases wherein it is Lawful for a Subject to kill his King 1. In defence of his own Life If a King invade Sempronius to kill him he may in defence of his own life take away the Kings 2. In defence of the Commonwealth This in the General But then 2. For a Tyrant in Title he absolutely declares it as a thing commonly received amongst them That such a Tyrant may be lawfully kill'd by Any Private Person who is a Member of that Commonwealth if there be no other Means to free it from such a Tyranny And least it should not be observ'd 't is set in the Margent That such a Tyrant may Lawfully be kill'd So that the Case is with him out of all doubt That any private man may kill a Tyrant in Title and the Pope is Judge who is such a Tyrant Whence it evidently follows That no Princes can have any Security as to the Preservation of their Kingdoms or Lives longer then they please the Pope For if he declare any of them Tyrants as many times with Execrable Pride and Impiety he has done Excommunicate and Depose them then by this Jesuitical and Papal Doctrine any Private Person any of their Subjects especially may Assassinate and Murder them 3. For those Princes who have a just Title to their Dominions and are as they call them Tyrants not in Title but in their Injustice and Impious Government He tells us 1. That all Protestant Princes being Hereticks are such Tyrants 2. That being Hereticks they are by their Heresie Ipso facto and presently deprived aliquo modo in some manner of all Right to their Dominions 3. That the Pope as their Superior to whom even