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
denounc'd against the Assassins as well as those who procur'd or hired them to Assassinate any Christians But the man is miserably mistaken for 't is Evident and Confess'd That the Punishments contain'd in the Constitution are denounced only against those Christians who hire and imploy those Impious Assassins Excommunication and the Consequents of it is the Punishment mention'd in that Constitution which neither did nor possibly could concern those Mahometan Assassins For although the said Author of the Gloss elsewhere tells us That the Pope is more then a pure man and Gods Vice-Roy yet certainly he cannot do Impossibilities and Excommunicate Mahometans and Infidels unless he can turn those out of the Christian Church who never were nor would be in it and deprive them of that Communion which they never had But although Pope Innocent the Fourth in the afore-mention'd Constitution speaks only of the Infidel and Mahometan Assassins and of those Christians who procure or hire them to Murder Princes and has nothing of any other who are not of that Mahometan Society though they undertake and act the same Villanies yet those Great and Learned Canonists and Writers of the Popish Church before-named upon proportion and parity of Reason justly Condemn all Christians who shall undertake and effect or indeavour such Assassinations Of these Christian Assassins Cardinal Cajetan says That though they be not comprehended under the Censures of that Constitution yet they Deserve both a Temporal and Eternal Death And to the same purpose Covarruvias tells us and he says it is the Common Opinion That whosoever he be Christian or Mahometan who for Money given or promised undertakes the Assassination of any Christian in this Case both the Mandans and Mandatarius both he that hires and he who is hired to do such Villany are highly guilty and under the Censures and the Severity of them though he who is hired do not actually effect the Assassination if he really indeavour it Nor is it only these I have named who Damn this Impious Mahometan and Turkish Doctrine of Assassinating Kings and Princes I believe and from good Authority know that many thousands more in the Communion of the Church of Rome do equally abhorr and detest it especially in France where their Divines and Parliaments famous for Learning and their General Defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church against the Usurpations and Tyranny of Rome in the year 1594. publickly Condemn'd this Mahometan and Jesuitical Doctrine and declared it to be what indeed it is Heretical Prodigious and Diabolical 4. But all this notwithstanding the Jesuites and others of their Party and Principles did and do approve and practise that Diabolical Doctrine and when they conceive Princes to be Enemies to their Interest or the Catholick Cause as they call it indeavour by Lying Calumnies to disaffect the People and to raise Rebellions against those Princes that so they may cut them off by Publick War and Seditions and when this succeeds not by private Assassinations This is by sad Experience notoriously known to our Western World as may appear by the Premisses and further Testimonies of their own Roman Catholick Historians in this Case of Indubitable Truth and Veracity Thuanus tell us That in those Bloody Wars in France in the Reign of Henry the Third it was some of the Religious and Regulars especially the Jesuites who by an Industrious and I add Impious Diligence did first Alienate the People from their Obedience to their Prince and then sollicited them to Rebellion I know that those words Ac Jesuitarum Patrum Imprimis are not to be found in those Editions of Thuanus we have being left out by the Arts and Frauds of those who corrupt all Authors who have any thing against their Errors or Impieties but we are assured that those words were in the Original Copy of Thuanus his History But when this would not do and they saw the King could not be cut off by a Rebellious War and publickly they perswade and incourage Jaques Clement a Desperate Villain to Assassinate his Prince who August the First 1589. did the Execrable Act and Murder'd his King Thuanus tells us That Friar Clement was incouraged to Commit that Prodigious Parricide by the furious Sermons and Declamations of their New Divines Especially of the Jesuites who publickly taught them That it was lawful nay Meritorious to kill a Tyrant and if he outlived the Fact he should be a Cardinal at Rome and if he died a Saint in Heaven And accordingly when he was dead by a Death he deserved his Party caused his Picture to be cut in Brass adorned their Churches and Chambers with it counted him a Saint and Martyr and as such made their Addresses and Prayers to him Horrid Superstition and Popish blindness not to put a vast difference between a Martyr of Jesus Christ and an Impious Traytor and Murtherer of his King 2. After this in the year 1594. Johan Chastell undertakes and indeavours the Assassination of Henry the Fourth of France struck him in the Mouth but the good Providence of Heaven protecting that Prince did not effect his Impious Design Now if you ask How any who pretends to be a Christian could have a Conscience so seared or a Soul possess'd with so Prodigious an Insensibility as not to tremble at the very thought of Committing such a horrid and inhuman Villany Davila will tell you That he was a Disciple of the Jesuites That he himself freely confessed that he was bred up in the Schools of the Jesuites and had often heard it discours'd and disputed That it was not Only Lawful but Meritorious to Kill Henry of Bourbon a Relapsed Heretick and Persecutor of the Holy Church That Father Gueret a Jesuite was his Confessor c. so that being possess'd with their Impious Principles and Perswasions he undertook that prodigious and damnable Parricide In short it was notoriously known to all France that the Jesuites both approved and designed the Execrable Assassination of their King Whence it was as Davila goes on that the Parliament of Paris pass'd this Sentence That Father Guignard and Gueret Jesuites should be Condemned to the Gallows that the rest of the Jesuites profess'd or not profess'd should be banished out of France as Enemies to the Crown and publick Tranquility their Goods and Revenues Jeiz'd and distributed to pious Vses c. And it had been well for France had they stood banished still and never return'd For about Sixteen years after what Johan Chastell impiously indeavour'd that bloody Villain Raviliac May the Fourteenth 1610. effected and with Monstrous Impiety and a Cursed hand Murder'd his King Henry the Fourth And it was the Jesuites and their Traiterous Principles which moved and incouraged him to Commit that Monstrous Unchristian and Antichristian Parricide For after the Fact was done Raviliac freely and publickly confessed That it was the Jesuite Mariana's
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
Brutum Fulmen OR THE BULL OF Pope Pius V. Concerning the Damnation Excommunication and Deposition OF Q. ELIZABETH As also the Absolution of her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance with a Peremptory Injunction upon Pain of an Anathema never to obey any of Her Laws or Commands With some Observations and Animadversions upon it By THOMAS Lord Bishop of Lincoln Whereunto is Annex'd the Bull of Pope Paul the Third containing the Damnation Excommunication c. of King Henry the Eighth Come out of her my People that ye partake not of her Sins and Plagues Rev. XVIII 4. LONDON Printed by S. Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard MDCLXXXI The Right Hon. ble Algernon Capell Earl of Essex Viscount Maldon and Baron Capell of Hadham 〈◊〉 THE EIPSTLE TO THE READER Reader WHoever thou art Protestant or Papist Courteous or Censorious having made these Papers publick thou hast a liberty to read and a right to judge and that thou maist do it impartially not out of hate or kindness to me but upon a serious and just Consideration of the Cause I shall neither importune thy Favour nor deprecate when 't is just thy severest Censure For 1. 'T is truth I have impartially desired and not indiligently sought and if by the blessing of God I have found it Magna est veritas praevalebit it will prevail in despite of all Enemies and Opposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nat super non immersabilis undis Truth we know especially Divine Truth which concerns our Souls and their salvation ever had and so long as there are Devils and wicked Men will have in this World many Enemies who will indeavour what they cannot do to suppress it premi potest veritas opprimi non potest They may dipp and for some time keep it under water but they cannot drown it If these Papers contain truth as I hope they do then I am sure that every Intelligent Reader and pious lover of Truth will be its Patron and though in this Epistle I do not sollicit him ready to vindicate it from the Objections of its Adversaries But on the other side if my Reader relate to Rome and be possess'd with strong delusion to believe against Reason and Divine Revelation his Catholick Cause the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility it will be in vain for me in this Epistle to desire what I believe I cannot have his Favour However he shall have my Pity and Prayers That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to open his Eyes and bless him with the Knowledge and Love of the Truth 2. We know 't is true what the great Roman Orator long since said Humanum est errare labi decipi c. The wisest men have their mistakes Bernardus non videt Omnia quandóque bonus dormitat Homerus Since Adam fell the best men have their Infirmities and sometimes erre even when they desire and seek Truth Since the Prophets our blessed Saviour and his Apostles left the world I know no man Infallible nor any save the Pope who against evident Reason and the sense of Christendom pretends to it For my own part I do humbly acknowledge my many and great Infirmities and for these Papers Hominem pagina nostra sapit there may be mistakes and errors in them yet it is my hope and not ungrounded belief that there are none such as may prove pernicious or in the main dangerous Non hic Centauros non Gorgonas Harpyasve invenies No such prodigious and pernicious errors as our Popish Adversaries maintain so far as they are able vindicate such I mean as their stupid Doctrine of Transubstantiation contradictory to Natural Reason Divine Revelation and all our Senses their Idolatrous Adoration of a piece of Bread with Divine Worship due to God only their Sacrilegious robbing the Laity of half the Sacrament in the Eucharist contrary to our blessed Saviour's express Command and the practise of the Christian World even of the Church of Rome her self for above a thousand years as their own great and learned Writers confess c. I say such errors as these I do and have reason to believe the Reader will not find in these Papers Though it be certain and confess'd that every one even the best and most learned Writers are fallible yet so long as they rationally build their Conclusions upon the clear Principles of Nature Scripture or Vniversal Tradition They may be sure enough and so may their Reader too that they are not actually false nor what they so write erroneous However if the Reader find any errors of what nature soever and can make it appear that they are indeed errors I shall not as I said before deprecate his severest Censure but concur with him and Censure them my self as much as he and do hereby promise publickly to retract them and heartily thank him for the discovery For in this Case my Reader and I shall both be Gainers and in a several way Conquerors Vicimus utérque nostrum palmam Tu refers mei Ego Erroris my Reader has overcome me by manifesting my mistakes and I by his help have overcome those errors otherwise in Cyprian's opinion and language Non vincimur cum offeruntur nobis meliora sed instruimur He who by his Adversaries help and concluding Arguments gains the knowledge of Truth is in that good Father's opinion not conquered but instructed But if the Intelligent Reader discover any error in these Papers and can and will really make it appear to be so let him call it what he will Victory or Instruction I shall thankfully submit and both love that truth and him for the discovery of it 3. I know that this Tract of mine as every one of the like nature is already prohibited and damned at Rome for the Rules presix'd to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum contrived by the Authority of the Trent Council declare all Books of Controversies between Catholicks and Hereticks Protestants and Papists in any Vulgar Tongue prohibited and damned neither to be had nor read by any Papist under pain of Excommunication and many other Penalties contained in their Canons Papal Constitutions and their Expurgatory Indices So that although our blessed Saviour by his holy Spirit in the Gospel Command all even the Common people for to those he writes to Examin and try all things to use that understanding and discretion God has given us to distinguish truth from error for that 's evidently the meaning of those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prove all things as scher and learned Papists confess and when we have done so then we must hold fast that which is good I say in this Case in the choice of our Religion wherein the Eternal weal or woe of our Souls is concerned though Christian prudence require it and our blessed Saviour by his Apostle Command that we should not believe every Spirit but try before we
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
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
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
nec ab Ecclesiâ argui aut in Ordinem cogi volunt quasi sint Domini non Ministri Ibidem d Si Papa innumerabiles populos sccum ducit primo mancipio Gehennae c. Hujus Culpas redarguere praesumat mortalium nullus quia Cunctos ipse judicaturus à nemine est Judicandus nisi sit à side deviss Can. si Papa 6. Dist. 40. e Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. f 2. Cor. 11. 5. 12. vers 11. g Gal. 2. 9. h Locus hic non derogat praerogativae Petri qui totius Ecclesiae rector Pastor Constitutus etiam ipsis Apostolis Major Superior fuit Estius in 2. Cor. 12. 11. i Qui Apostolus est Sammam habet in Omnem Ecclesiam Potestatem Bellarmin De Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 12. in Respons 3. Object 2. k Successio ex Christi Instituto Jure Divino est quia ipse Christus Instituit in Petro Pontificatum infinem Mundi duraturum ac ideo quicunque Petro succedit à Christo accipit Pontificatum Bellarmin dicto lib. cap. §. ut autem l Romanum Pontificem succedere Petro non habetur expresse in Scripturis no nor Implicitè neither tamen succedere aliquem Petro deducitur evidentèr ex Scripturis illum autem esse Romanum Pontificem habetur ex traditione Apostolica Bellarmin dicto lib. cap. §. Observandum Tertio m Vid. Cap. Solitae 6. Extra de Major Obedientiâ Cap. Per venerabilem 13. Extra Qui filij sunt legit Cap. Ad Apostolicae 2. De Sent. re judicatâ in 6. Cap. pro Human 1. De Homicidio in 6. n Vid. Tho. Campegium Episc. Feltrensem de Potestate Rom. Pont. Capp 13. 14. Bellarminum de Roman Pontisice lib. 2. c. 12. c. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Non id Petro uni Successorbusque suis reservatum Pet. Possinus Jesuita Catena Graec. Patrum in Matth. Tom. 1. p. 232. p Joh. 20. 22. 23. q Vid. Pet. de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotij Imperij Tom. 2. 1. 5. c. 10. §. 2. p. 35. Pet. Crab. Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 945. Col. 2. The words are these Vnde Sanctissimus Beatissimus Papa Caput Vniversalis Ecclesiae c. r Absent à Contextu Graeco verba illa Caput Vniversalis c. loco dicto in margine s Vide Indicem Librorum Prohibitorum Alexand. 7. Jussu Editum Romae Ann. 1664. verbo De Concordia Sacerdotij c. p. 29. p. 352. ubi extat Decretum Congrationis Jndicis in quo damnatur hic Petri de Marca Liber t Non fuisset Christus Diligens Pater-familias si non dimisisset in Terrâ aliquem qui Vice suâ possit subvenire necessitatibus Ecclesiae c. De Potestat Rom. Pontif. cap. 1. §. 3. pag. 2. u Christus Ecclesiae Defuissct nec de Necessariis prospexisset Nisi Monarcham aliquem Judicem Constituisset c. Vide Albert. Pighium Controvers 3. fol. 70. 71. 76. x Christus dum fuit in Mundo de jure naturali in Imperatorem Quoscunque Alios Deposnionis Sementias ferre potuisset Damnationis Eadem Ratione Vicarius ejus potest Nam non videretur Dominus Discretus fuisse nisi unicum post se Talem Vicarium reliquisset Fuit autem iste Vicarius Petrus idem dicendum est de Successoribus Petri. Ita Petrus Bertrandus in Addit ad Glossas ad Cap. Unam Sanctam 1. De Major Obed. Extrav Commun y Vide Bullam Greg. 13. dat Rom. 1. Julij Ann. 1580. praefixam Corp. Juris Can. Paris 1612. 1618. z Sic Omnes Apostolicae Sodis Sanctiones accipiendae sunt tanquam Ipsius divini Petri voce firmatae sint Can. sic Omnes 2. Dist. 19. And this the Gloss there indeavours to prove from a spurious and ridiculous as well as impious Canon Can. Non Nos 1. Dist. 40. a The Jesuits in their Thesis proposed in the Claromont Coll. 12. Decemb. Ann. 1661. Impudently and Impiously say Christus Ecclesiae regimen primum Petro dein Successoribus Commisit Eandem quam habebat Ipse Infallibilitatem Concessit quoties ex Cathedrâ loqueretur And then Thes. 20. tells us Datur Infallibilis Controversiarum Judex etiam Extra Concilium Generale Tum in Quaestio â—ibus Juris tum facti b Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Ecclesiast in Fortunatiano c Vid. Hist. Haeresis Monothlitarum per Fran. de Combesis Dominicanum Paris 1648. p. 65. c. 121. c. ubi contra Pighium Baronium c. probat evidentèr Honorium Synodo 6. damnatum d Vid. D. Rlch. Crakanthorp in Vigilio dormitante e Let any man read those two Constitutions before nam'd 1. That of Innocent 3. Cap. Solicitae 6. Extra de Major Obedient 2. That of Bonif. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam 1. eodem Titulo Extravag Commun and if he have eyes and will Impartially use them he will find what I say true Or he may with the same success read the Bulls and Damnations of the Emperor Hen. 4. by Greg. 7. in Bull. Rom. 1638. Tom. 1. p. 49. 50. 51. And of Freder 2. Ibid. p. 94. 95. by Innoc. 4. And the Excommunications of the same Emperor by Greg. 9. Ann. 1239. Ibid. in dicto Bullario Tom. 1. p. 89. 90. f Matth. 20. 26. 27. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Primus seu Princeps plus est quam esse Magnum aliis Omnibus Major yet this the Pope would have Luc. Burgensis in Matth. 20. 27. h Matth. 23. 8. 9. 10. 11. i Gal. 1. 1. * Joh. 1. 40 41 c. k Matth. 23. 8. Omnes autem vos fratres estis On which words Luc. Brugensis saith thus Quia fratres sumus Neminem in alios Magisterio fungi Concedit Fratres non Magistri Alii in Alios estis Condiscipuli nemo in alium proprie agere potest Magistrum Nullus aliorum Magisterium mereatur se habere vos Omnes merito debeatis Condiscipulos Christus Solus Omnium Magister agnoscendus Ita L. Brugensis Commentar in 4. Evang. ad 23. Math. 8. p. 361. vid. Hieronym in Gal. 2. 1. ubi dicit Petrum Paulum reliquos Apostolos fuisse aequales l Sed quia Ecclesia regenda est juxta unitatem necessarium fuit Institui ab Apostolis modum quendam Communionis inter Episcopos secundum Exemplum A Christo datum in Institutione Collegij Apostolici quod Vniversum Ecclesiae Corpus repraesentabat Ideoque praescribenda ab iis fuit forma regiminis Aristocratici nimirum it a ut unus Praesideret Pet. de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotij Imperij lib. 6. cap. 1. §. 2. pag. 58. Col. 1. m Conc. Chalcedon Can. 28. Conc. Constant. 1. Can. 5. apud P. Crabb Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 411. n But it is not only Pet de Marca but even the Popish General Councils of Pisa Constance and Basil and the Gallican Church and Sorbon and the Ancient Church
for a thousand years after our blessed Saviour which maintain'd the same Doctrine Marca did as is evidently proved by a Learned Sorbon Doctor Edm. Rechier In Hist. Conc. General l. 1. Edit Colon. Ann. 1680. The design of the whole Book is against the Popes Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility Vide dicti lib. cap. 13. pag. 393. c. o I know that some of them eminent for Learning and Dignity in their Church say That our blessed Saviour did give Peter power to transfer his great Authority to his Successor and only to him not to any of the other Apostles But this they say only without any pretence of proof And I commend their Prudence not to attempt Impossibilities Johan Franciscus Bordinus Archbishop of Avignion has published his Opinion in these words Christus Vniversale Totius Ecclesiae Caput Petrum Constituit qui suas Vices in Terris ageret Quo quidem in Munere si dum viveret Aequales mark that habuit caeteros Coapostolos Nulli tamen Eorum quod à Domino accipissent jus per Successionem in alios transferendi facult as fuit Soli Petro Id Promissum Soli Petro Id Traditum ut Petra esset post Christum Ecclesiae fundamentum Ita Johan Fran. Bordinus Archiepiscopus Avenionensis in Serie Gestis Roman Pontif. ad Clement Papam 8. ad Annum Christ. 34. Tiberij 18. 2. p Petrus Romae Sedem suam Jubente Domino Collocavit Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. q Probatur Roman Pontificem Petro Succedere in Pontificatu Ecclesiae Vniversae Ex Divino Jure Ratione Successionis Bellarmin Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Primum ergo Papa in Petri Cathedrâ Sedet summum in eo dignitatis gradum Jurisdictionis amplitudinem non Humanis Constitutionibus sed Divinitus datum agnoscit est Pater Vnixersalis Ecclesiae Petri Successor Christi Vicarius c. Catechism Trident. Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. pag. 391. Edit Paris 1635. r Bellarm. Locis proxime citatis ut alij passim And Pope Pius 5. in this his Impious Bull. §. 1. Christus Ecclesiam Catholicam uni soli Petro Petrique Successori Romano Pontifici in Potestatis Plenitudine Tradidit Gubernandam s Nullum Christi ea dere Decretum Extat So A Lapide Confesses in Apoc. 17. vers 17. pag. 268. Col. 2. A. t Romano Pontifici Beati Petri Apostolorum Principis Successori ac Christi Vicario veram Obedientiam spondeo ae juro Vid. Bullam Pii 4. super forma Juramenti Professionis fidei in Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. p. 452. Edit Antv. 1633. u Hanc Catholicam fidem extra quam nemo Salvus esse potest quam in Praesenti profiteor teneo eandem usque ad ultimum vitae spiritum Constantissime retinere c. Spondeo Voveo Juro Ibidem x 1 Pet. 5. 13. y Primam Petri Epistolam Romae Scriptam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aiunt quam Petrus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellat Eusebius Hist. l. 2. c. 15. p. 53. B. Valesio z Curiose sciscitabar said Papias à Senioribus quid Petrus quid Jacobus dicere soliâ—ì essent Néque ex Bibliorum Lectione tantam me utilitatem capere posse Existimabam quantam ex hominum vivâ voce Euseb. l. 3. c. 39. p. 111. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex Traditione non scriptâ habuit novas quasdam Servatoris parabolas praedicationes aliáque Fabulis propiora inter quae Mille Annorum spatium post resurrectionem fore dicit Euseb. ibid. p. 112. b Ita opinatus videtur Papias ex male Intellectis Apostolorum narrationibus Fuit enim Mediocri Admodum Ingenio Praeditus Euseb. ibidem Lit. c. c Plerisque tamen post Ipsum Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus Ejusdem Erroris occasionem praebuit hominis vetustate Sententiam suam tuentibus Ibidem D. Ita etiam Nicephorus Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 20. pag. 252. D. Object d Colon. Allobr 1612. e Paris 1659. f Papias eadem aetate Celebris fuit Vir Imprimis disertus eruditus ac Scripturarum peritus Euseb Hist. lib. 3. cap. 36. Edit Valesij Sed in Edit Christopherson Cap. 35. Grae. 30. Latinae Versionis g Omnium aliaruni Artium scientiâ vir planè disertissimus Ibidem h Papias was a friend and familiar of St. Polycarpe Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39. and Polycarpe suffered Martyrdom Anno Christ. 167. Baronius Annotat. ad Martyrolog Romanum ad diem Jan. 26. p. 81. Col. 1. Answer i Quibus Temporibus floruit Polycarpus Smyrnaeorum Episcopus Papias Similiter Apud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens Ruffin l. 3. c. 35. in Excuso Rhenarci Basil. 1528. k In Cod. MS. Ruffini est Lib. 3. cap. 32. l Totum hoc Elogium Papiae deest in nostris Codicibus Valesius in Not. ad Lib. 3. Eusebij c. 36. p. 55. m Non dubito quin haeâ— verba ab Imperito Scholiastè adjecta sunt praeter Eusebij mentem Sementiam Valesius Ibidem n Quomodo fieri potest ut Eusebius Papiam hic appellet virum doctissimum scripturarum peritissimum cum in fine Libri affirmat diserte Papiam Mediocri Ingenio praeditum Planéque Rudem ac Simplicem Valesius Ibidem o Euseb. lib. 3. c. 39. p Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. c. 39. p. 112. Valesij Edit vide Nicephor lib. 3. c. 20. q Act. 21. 8. Vide Nicephor Hist. lib. 3. pag. 252. C. r Vide Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39. Hieronym de Illust. Doct. cap. 18. Nicephor l. 3. c. 20. s Joh. 20. 30. 31. 21. 25. t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Novas quasdam Servatoris parabolas ac praedicationes u Scaliger in Annotat in Joh. 18. 31. Petrus Romae nunquam fuit sed praedicabat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cujus Metropolis erat Babylon ex quâ scribit Epistolam suam Vid. Johan Rainoldum contra Hartum c. x Tametsi Veteres Existimaverint Petrum vocabulo Babylonis signisicasse Vrbem Romam probabilis est Scaligeri Conjectura qui ex Ipsa Babylone scriptam à Petro putat Epistolam hanc ad Judaeos dispersos c. Petrus de Marca Archiepiscopus Parisiensis De Concordia Sacerd. Imperij l. 6. c. 1. §. 4. p. 59. Tom. 2. y Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christi 45. §. 16. 17. z Haec Sententia refelli videtur ex Actis Apostolorum ex quibus constat Petrum in Judaea ac Syriâ semper mansisse usque ad ultimum Annum Agrippae c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 16. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Eusebij pag. 33. 34. a Act. 15. c. b Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. c In Chronico Alexandrino Concilium Hierosolymitanum refertur Anno Claudij 6. Christi 48. melius dixisset 7 â— sic enim cuncta egregié conveniunt c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Euseb. p. 37. Col. 2. A. d Gal. 1. 18.