beholden to Hierome Grotius and Justellus for it that such an Heretick as the Apostle here speaks of might be known well enough and punished too 4. That this may appear I say 1. That the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is as all know vox mediae significationis sometimes taken in a good sometimes in a bad sense The several Sects of Philosophers were anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hippobotus writ a Book de sectis seu Haeresibus Philosophorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. So Christianity is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by St. Luke And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same Luke signifies the Heresie or Sect of the Pharisees On the other side sometimes it is taken in the worse sense See Gal. 5. 20. Heresies are reckoned amongst the works of the flesh and in this of Titus also 2. Concerning Heresie in the worse sense I believe it true which Grotius observes Ubi Haeresis in malam partem sumitur significat idem quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi quod illa generalitas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 limitatur ad eas partes quae fiunt ex opinionum diversitate Est ergo Haereticus hîc is qui per opinionem de Ecclesiâ partes facit He is an Heretick here in the Apostles sense who not only imbraces and maintains an erroneous opinion but makes a schism in the Church by separating himself from the Communion and drawing others after him and so disturbs the publick peace This is the opinion of Grotius and Justellus and long before them of St. Hierome Inter Haeresin Schisma hoc interesse arbitramur quod Haeresis perversum Dogma habet Schisma propter Episcopalem Dissensionem ab Ecclesiâ Pariter separet Quod quidem in principio aliquâ ex parte intelligi potest diversum caeterum nullum Schisma non sibi aliquam confingit Haeresin ut rectè ab Ecclesiâ recessisse videatur In his opinion Heresie and Schism do both agree in this that they make a rent in the Church Pariter separant and so break the bond of Peace and Ecclesiastical Union Whence it is that the Apostle calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned so we render it amiss I believe for the Apostle speaks of such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as men may know see and be sensible of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. knowing that such an Heretick is subverted being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not self-condemned for who is so none does or can know It being impossible for any man to know when an Heretick maintains his Heresie against the light of his own Conscience none being able to know that save he who knows the heart And therefore I conceive that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here should be rendered à seipso separatus rather than à seipso condemnatus One that broaches an error and separates from the Church This self-separation may be known but self-condemnation cannot and therefore the Apostle speaks not of this but that And I am the rather induced to be of this opinion 1. Because the word will very well bear this signification for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes originally and properly signifies seccrno separo as well as judico And if Stephanus mistake not to separate is the prime signification of it 2. Because I find Justellus and Grotius of the same opinion Grotius on these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith thus Non dicit Excommunica nam ipsi ultro Communionem deserunt And St. Hierome more fully Propterea à seipso dicitur damnatus quia fornicator homicida adulter caetera vitia per sacerdotes de Ecclesia pelluntur Haeretici autem in semetipsos sententiam ferunt suo arbitrio de Ecclesia recedentes c. So that in St. Hierom's opinion the Heretick Saint Paul speaks of is such a one who besides his Erroneous opinion is Schismatical and not only makes a separation from the Church himself but seduces others to the disturbance of the publick peace which crime is visible and confessedly punishable However t is certain we may know and avoid all familiarity with such a person which is all which that Apostolical Injunction Haereticum devita signifies And so much for that passage in St. Paul 3. For the practice of the Primitive Church in punishing those they call'd Hereticks with Excommunications I confess t is true they did so But then 1. It will not hence follow they did well and justly in doing so Afacto ad jus non sequitur argumentum We cannot infer Illos justè fecisse ex eo quod fecerint Nay he that reads the ancient Church-story will find that even those ancient Christian Bishops though otherwise good men were oft times too precipitate and passionately hot and fierce against their Brethren and too free of their Anathematismes and Excommunications although they were not then come to the now practised Popish cruelty of confuting Hereticks with fire and faggot As is evident in that famous story of Pope Victor to omit others Excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their Observation of Easter though no Law of God or man obliged them to keep it otherwise than they then did 2. Yet I grant that the Church anciently did and still justly may punish an erring person with Excommunication altho they cannot be certain how far and in what measure such persons err culpably and yet neither Church or State can justly punish such persons with loss of Livelihood Liberty or Life So I suppose an Arian or one who denies the Resurrection though otherwise peaceable neither separating himself nor factiously seducing others may justly be Excommunicated by the Church because he does not keep the Conditions on which he had the Christian Communion He that has the grant of any Communion Sacred or Civil upon Conditions cannot be Excommunicated justly while he keeps those Conditions but if he do not then conditione non praestitâ he may be justly Excommunicate Now Christians anciently and in ours and all Churches were received into the Communion of the Church on Condition of believing the Creed or Faith into which they were Baptized The Priest at Baptism asked Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty c. The party Baptized answered by himself if he were of age by his Sureties if not All this I stedfastly believe Then the Priest demands further Wilt thou be Baptized into this Faith He answers That is my desire c. Upon these Conditions he was received into the Church and admitted into the Christian Communion Now if after Baptism and this promise he deny any of those Fundamental Articles into the belief of which he was Baptized though otherwise he lived never so peaceably he might justly be Excommunicated by the Church 'T is a good and true Rule in Morality and Divinity too Volenti non fit injuria he desired and had the
by the light of Natural Reason knew and confest Ingratitude to be a fault yet in Hypothesi how far this or that man in particular is guilty of that fault is very difficult if not impossible to be known by any save him who knows the heart 2. It is a known and received truth by all Lawyers and Divines generally that no positive Law of God or man does or can bind us without a sufficient promulgation such a sufficient Promulgation being necessary to the obligation of all positive Laws But now when the positive truths of the Gospel are sufficiently revealed and romulgated to Titius and Sempronius to this and that particular person is difficult if not impossible for any man to know unless he could know the divers abilities and capacities of those persons to whom those Truths are published For as those Pagans to whom the Gospel was never revealed as to many Nations it never was are no way under the obligation of it nor any way lyable to sin or punishment for not believing it whence that saying of Augustine speaking of the Gentiles Veniam habebunt propter Infidelitatem damnabuntur propter peccata contra naturam So amongst those to whom it has been revealed there is a great difference in respect of the sufficiency or insufficiency of its promulgation for it may be a sufficient promulgation to one which their capacities considered is not to another and so the error of one be a crime when the other tho holding the same opinion is innocent And theerefore to persecute and punish men with loss of Livelihood Liberty or Life for Opinions in Religion only when we cannot know whether or how far they are crimes to consume diffenting Brethren with Fire and Faggot to make a Coal of a Christian and certainly kill him for an uncertain crime this is that which none should and it were to be wished that no Christian wo'd do It is to this purpose well observed by Grotius that in the Jewish Religion which was established in some cases by Penal Sanctions and Coactive punishments although the Sadduces deny'd the Resurrection and in that were judged to be as indeed they were erroneous yet they were not punished for it Nunquam eos poenis subdiderunt faith Grotius and he conceives the reason to be that we now speak of that is want of clear revelation or sufficient promulgation Dogma resurrectionis verissimum illud quidem sed in lege judaicâ non nisi obscurè sub verborum aut rerum involucris traditum And on this ground I think many thousand poor Souls in Spain and Italy who by Priests and Parents and Governours are kept in an invincible ignorance of the Gospel innocently disbelieve or are ignorant of many Gospel-truths which to us who have a greater measure of Revelation would be Criminal and damnable 5. Upon this ground I am absolutely against punishing Hereticks with death it being uncertain who are really such For to kill a man for an Heretick before I can tell whether he be so or no is certainly a temerarious act which may argue some zeal but little Justice in him that does it For further evidencing of this I say 1. That 't is not yet agreed amongst Divines who are formally Hereticks and to agree of the punishment and that Capital before there be a constat for the crime is a strange piece of justice 2. Some would have the formality of Herefie to consist in pertinacy or contumacy out of St. Augustine who tells us Qui in Ecclesiâ pravum quod sapiunt si correcti non sapiunt sed resistunt Contumaciter Haeretici sunt So St. Augustine and Justinian to the same effect though in other words Haeresis est obstinatioris animi dementia Now Seeing pertinacy is an internal thing and such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and constitution of the Soul as none but God does or can know it were but just to stay the execution of Hereticks till they be certain what is Heresie Constet de culpâ priusquam irrogetur paena 3. The Greek Scholia on that of Tit. 3. 10. require to an Heretick that he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 self-condemned incurable incorrigible but none of these are within the compass of humane cognizance for who can tell what Heretick is self-condemned incorrigible or incurable and if they cannot why should they inflict a certain for an uncertain crime Certainly all sober men will and must confess that Autocatacrisie Incurability and Incorrigibility depend on many spiritual and internal Circumstances which are visible to no eye but that of Heaven And therefore the punishment of those Crimes should be left to that Judge who alone can certainly know them Si judicas cognosce 4. They say an Heresie must be contra Articulos fidei Now 't is not agreed which and how many are such and what makes them so those being Articles of Faith to some which are not so to others Certainly it is but equal that men should not be hanged for Heresie against the Articles of our Faith till it be resolved and known what Propositions are such If a man commit Murder Adultery Theft Perjury if he be a Traytor to his Prince or a Robber on the High-ways all men generally agree in this that these are crimes and accordingly punish them But 't is not so with Heresie and Opinions in Religion each party believes his own Positions to be true and condemns his adversary so that what is Heresie to one is Catholick verity to another In short it were to be wish'd that men would not be so fierce to punish Heresie till they be more certainly informed and assured what it is But if Heresie cannot be certainly known why doth the Apostle say Haereticum de vita How can we avoid what we cannot certainly know why do we and all Christians punish Hereticks with Ecclesiastical Censures Suspension Penance Excommunication c. Can we justly punish that crime with any punishment Ecclesiastical or Civil which we cannot certainly know To this Discourse in short I say 1. That the old Monk mistook the Apostles meaning much when he would have us believe that the Apostle there commands to punish the Heretick with death and reads the Text thus Haereticus de Vitâ i. e. de vitâ tolle He was beholden to the Latin Translation for that Gloss for sure he was not guilty of much Greek though the Latin was little beholding to him for mangling it so barbarously 2. He saith only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evita turn away from such a one Such are to be admonished first Mat. 17. 16 17. and then as Grotius well observes Id sinon prosit abrumpenda est cum eis omnis familiarior consuetudo Here is nothing of punishment 't is only Evita not Excommunica 3. And if you ask how I can avoid an Heretick if I cannot certainly know what Heresie is I answer and I am
Consistory I know it passes for good Law and Divinity among the Popish Casuists and Schoolmen that the People are bound to believe their Bishop even then when he preaches Heresie And are so far from sinning in doing so that their submission to the Bishop and believing errors when taught by him is Meritorious It is a Cardinal who tells us Si rusticus circa Articulos fideì credat suo Episcopo proponenti aliquod dogma Hereticum meretur in Credendo licet sit Error quia tenetur credere donec ei constat esse contra Ecclesiam And before him our Countryman and he a famous Schoolman tells us to the same wild purpose Si audiat prelatum praedicantem propositionem erroneam quam nescit esse erroneam credat ei non peccat sed tenetur errare quid tenetur ei credere meretur volendo credere errorem tum simplicitas ignorantia excusant Nay such an ignorant person believing an Error which the Bishop has preached and proposed as a Truth and Article of Faith if he be put to Death and die in defence of that Error which he believes to be an Article of Faith he shall be a Martyr and have the honour and merit of Martyrdom Concedo si interficiatur pro tali errore quem credit esse articulum fidei potest adipisci meritum debitum martyrî quia error invincibilis non diminuit de merito But however this anciently did and at Rome still does pass for Catholick Doctrine with the Pope and his miserably inslaved Party yet the Church of England and all her true Sons believe and know it to be a prodigious and stupid Error Eighthly That our King and Bishops have power to question that Archbishop's or any such Sentence and when our King or his Subjects are concern'd if upon a just Examination they find it for want of Truth or Justice faulty they may justly condemn and reject it This is I believe evident For our Kings and Church of England de facto jure have question'd condemn'd and rejected Sentences of greater Popish Consistories than that of the Archbishop of Turin I mean Sentences given by the Pope himself in his own Consistory and his general Councils Of this we have a hundred Instances I shall for your satisfaction set down three or four thus First Pope Julius the Second Ex plenitudine potestatis certâ scientiâ c. Grants a Dispensation for Hen. 8th to marry the Relict of his Brother Arthur and declares the Marriage to be just and lawfull and yet Hen. 8th and his Bishops b did and justly might afterwards examine the Papal Sentence disobey'd it and declared it Null Secondly Pope Paul the Third Venerabilium fratrum Cardinalium consilio consensu gives Sentence and declares for a general Council and by his Bulls summons it to meet at Mantua then at Vincentia and then at Trent But Hen. the 8th and his Bishops and Parliament having seen those Bulls containing the Pope's Sentence and Decree for and Summons of a general Council at several times and to several places they did not only question his Sentence and Summons but condemned though they were Papists and absolutely rejected it shewing the many Nullities of that Summons and added their Protestation which they made good that they were neither bound nor would obey it as is evident by an Epistle of Hen. the 8th to the Emperor and all Christian Kings and in a Tract containing the Sentence of the King and Parliament and their Protestation against the Pope's Sentence for and Summons to that Council Thirdly When that Trent Council had met and sate eighteen Years made many Canons and Constitutions particularly about Matrimony and pronounced many Anathema's against all who did not believe and obey them The Bishops of England were so far from thinking that they had no power to question those Synodical Sentences and Constitutions that they have constantly and publickly Preach'd and Writ against them and proved them to be in many things erroneous impious or idolatrous Have the Bishops of England power to question and condemn the constitutions and synodical Decrees of the Pope made in his own consistory and his general Councils and have they no power to question one single Sentence given in a consistory of an inferior Archbishop Credat Judaeus Appella Fourthly Pope Paul the Third Habitâ cum Cardinalibus deliberatione maturâ de illorum consilio assensu by a solemn Sentence Excommunicates Hen. 8. Deposes him absolves his Subjects from their Oaths of Fidelity c. So Pope Pius 5. sub eadem formâ Excommunicates and deposes Queen Elizabeth And when some honest and loyal Papists had under their hands signified their b opinion 1. That the Pope could not absolve Papists from their Oath of Allegiance to a Protestant King 2. That he could not Depose and Murder Excommunicate Kings c. I say when this was heard at Rome Pope Innocent the 10 th with his Sacra Cardinalium Congregatio passes a damnatory Sentence and condemns the true opinion of those loyal Papists as heretical declarat subscriptores in poenas in sacris Canonibus Constitutionibus Apostolicis contranegantes potestatem Papae in causis fidei incidisse Now pray ' ask those Gentlemen whether the Bishops of England have not power to question the aforesaid Solemn and Judicial Sentences of the Popes for excommunicating deposing and murdering Kings If they have such power and may question the Pope's judicial Sentences given in his own Consistory or his General Councils then certainly they may much rather question Sentences past in any Archbishop's or inferior Consistory But if they say what I suppose they will not I am sure they should not That we have not power to question such Sentences they must pardon my incredulity if I neither do nor can believe them to be Protestants or true Sons of the Church of England but rather Jesuited Papists for I know none save such who do or dare say That such impious and traiterous Sentences given by the Pope in his Consistory or Councils may not be question'd by any Authority in the Church of England Is it possible that any Protestant nay any honest Papist should seriously think that a Sentence of the Pope to depose a King and absolve his Subjects from all Fidelity and Allegiance to him should be such as is not to be question'd by the King his Bishops or any loyal Subjects If so good night to Monarchy and all the royal Rights of Kings the Pope may when he will depose and deprive them of all their Jura Regalia and their Subjects though by the Law of God and Man obliged to it must not assist them Ninthly It is to be considered That our present Case is an Ecclesiastical not a Civil Cause concerning the Validity or Nullity of a Matrimonial Contract which both by our Laws and those of
facto confirm what they had illegally done For it is both Reason and Law that a Nullity is not capable of Confirmation because Confirmation always presupposeth some antecedent Right in the thing to be confirmed It does not give a Right but does only strengthen an antecedent infirm Right Now it is certain that the Parishioners had no Right to raze out those Texts of Scripture which the Supreme Authority had placed there and therefore no Order got ex post facto could confirm what they had Illegally done 3. Nor could the Deputy-Chancellor's Order if they had procured it before they went to raze out those Texts of Scripture formerly writ upon the Walls have given them any just Power to raze out those Texts it being impossible that any inferiour Judg or Court should null the Sentence of the Supreme I know that Pope Gregory the First one of the first Introducers of Popish Superstition about Images tells us that Images are Lay-mens Books and that Pictures are as profitable to Idiots who cannot as the Scriptures are to those who can read them An Assertion evidently erronoous and impious And yet the Trent-Conventicle to the same purpose faith That Images instruct and confirm the People in the Articles of Faith to their great Benefit But God Almighty by his Prophet tells us That Images are Teachers of Lies This King James of happy Memory and his pious and learned Convocation well knowing and that the Church of England had condemned the setting up of Images in our Churches as shall anon appear they Decree and Command That instead of Popish Images which were Teachers of Lies the Ten Commandments and choice Sentences of Scripture should be writ upon the Walls of our Churches whence without fear of Error the People might learn Divine and Infallible Truths And here the Saying of an antient and excellent Person is worthy of our Memory and Consideration 't is this They deserve to err who as the Papists do seek Christ and his Apostles not in the Sacred Scriptures but in Images and Pictures I know that the Painter and those few Parishioners who were for taking away those Sentences of Scripture antiently writ upon the Walls have instead of them writ some other Sentences of Scripture in several Places where none were before But this does not excuse but rather aggravate their Crime For 1. This was not done till some time after they had finished their Work wash'd out the Texts of Scripture antiently writ upon the Walls and set up all their Images When finding what they had done displeased many particularly their Bishop and that their Proceedings were censured as Illegal and by no Law Warrantable then and not till then they caused some other Texts of Scripture to be writ upon the Walls 2. And this they did without any Advice or Direction of their Minister or any who had the Cure of their Souls Whereas the Canon required that chosen Sentences of Scripture should be writ upon the Walls And we may be sure that the pious and learned King and Convocation who made that Canon did not intend that the ignorant Painter and poor Parishioners but some who had more Understanding and Cure of their Souls should choose such Sentences as should be for the Peoples Edification most plain and pertinent But no more of this For although what the Painter and a few private Persons did against the Canon and Constitution of the Supreme Power was Illegal and by no Law Warrantable yet the setting up Images in the place of those Sentences of Scripture which they have erazed was much worse as being repugnant and directly contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England which has been and is approved and by our Supreme Power at present stands established by our good Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil That this may evidently appear it is to be considered 1. That the Popish Church in their Trent-Council which to them is an Oecumenical and General Council does define and command in order to their superstitious and Idolatrous Worship of them That the Images of their Saints be had and retained more especially in Churches where the poor People may see and have opportunity to worship them 2. That in the Reformation of our Church our Supreme Powers who regularly begun and piously and happily finish'd it expresly condemn'd not only the worshipping of Images but the having them in our Churches This does evidently appear in our Authentick Records to say nothing of our Learned particular Writers published by Supreme Authority to that purpose For 1. By the Injunctions of Edw. 6. it is commanded thus They shall take away and utterly destroy all Shrines c. and all Pictures Paintings and all Monuments of Idolatry and Superstition that there remain no memory of them in Walls Windows or elsewhere c. 2. And about three or four Years after in the same King's time it is by Act of Parliament expresly required That all Images graven carved or painted which yet stand in any Church should be defaced and destroyed And though this Statute in favour of Popish Superstition and Idolatry was repealed by Q. Mary yet that Queen's Statute was by good K. James repealed and to prevent and discourage Popery that Statutre of Edw. 6. was expresly revived and so remains still obligatory 3. Queen Elizabeth in her Injunctions Injunct 23. renews the Injunction of Edw. 6. in the same Words That all Images Paintings and Pictures should be taken out of all Churches c. 4. And the Homilies published by Q. Elizabeth tell us that Images de facto were taken out of Churches For the Homily says That the Churches were scowred and swept from the sinful and superstitious Filthiness which defiled them By which as appears by the said Homilies Images are principally meant 5. To the same purpose Cambden in his Life of Q. Elizabeth tells us That Images were actually removed out of our Churches by the Authority of Parliament 6. Once more the learned and incomparable Bishop Jewel in his Defence of his Apology of the Church of England doth both say and prove that Images ought not to be in any Churches or Places of God's Publick Worship By the Premisses it may and I believe does appear that in the Judgment of the Church of England Images are not to be tolerated in our Churches and Places of God's Publick Worship and therefore they were removed and defaced by the Supreme Powers Ecclesiastical and Civil declared and published in Canons of Convocation and Acts of Parliament But here it is objected by the Enemies of our Church and Reformation That our Reformers have been so zealous and indiscreetly fierce against Images that they have condemn'd the ingenious Art of Painting and even the civil Use of Images But this is a malicious Calumny and no real Consequence of our Churches Doctrine about Images as has been expresly and publickly
Gratiâ requested his Lordship to resolve him how far the said Tenet is chargeable on the Church of Rome And thereupon his Lordship was pleased to send him under his own Hand a Paper writ as followeth Quaeritur An Dominium fundetur in Gratia IN Answer to this I shall say only a few things which to me seem certain and evident Truths 1. The Question must be held Negatively Dominium non fundatur in Gratia Neither Dominium Temporale of Kings or Lay-Magistrates nor Dominium Spirituale of the Bishops and Clergy This has been evidently proved by many of our Divines especially and clearly by Dr. Davenant Bishop of Salisbury 2. The Papists who are both the Accusers and Judges do impute this Opinion to Wickliff and Hus and their Followers and condemn the Opinion and them for it as Hereticks for saying that Dominium fundatur in Gratia which is a manifest Calumny and no just or proved Accusation as might be proved out of Hus his printed Works and several Manuscript Works of Wickliff in Bodley's Library But they bring these lying Accusations against them that they may have some pretence to destroy and murder them 3. That erroneous and impious Council of Constance Anno 1413 which is an Oecumenical and General Council at Rome having confess'd that our Blessed Saviour did institute the Eucharist in both kinds they blasphemously add Quod non obstante Institutione Christi they decree That the Sacrament should be taken only in one kind Whence Luther would not call it Concilium Constantiense but Concilium NON-OBSTANTIENSE Now this Council condemns this Proposition Dominium fundatur in Gratia 1 st In John Hus and his Followers 2 dly In Wickliff and his Followers 4. I do not find any Popish Author who affirms and approves this Proposition Dominium fundatur in Gratia in those very Terms in which the Council of Constance had condemned it as Heretical For this were to contradict their own Principles and approve that for Truth which their Supreme Infallible Guide a General Council had Synodically declared Heresy 5. But the Church of Rome though in other Terms doth both profess and practise this Doctrine that Dominium fundatur in Gratia For they say that Dominium fundatur in Fide Religione Catholica so they miscal Popery or the Roman Religion so that if any Man by Apostacy desert their Religion or by Heresy deny any Article of their Faith he does not only forfeit his Dominion over his Inferiors but all his Goods and Livelihood and his Life here and eternal Life hereafter This is the erroneous and impious Doctrine of the Church of Rome approved and vindicated not only by their Schoolmen Casuists Canonists Summists c. but received into the Body of their Canon-Law in their last and as they say the most correct Editions of it and declared and confirmed in their General Councils That this may appear I shall of many hundreds give you some few but pertinent and great Instances 1. Aquinas says PRINCIPIBUS apostatantibus a Fide non est obediendum And again when such an Apostate Prince is excommunicared Ipso facto ejus Subditi à dominio juramento fidelitatis ejus liberati sunt And a little before Haereticus non solum excommunicari sed juste occidi potest excommunicatus ulterius relinquitur judicio saeculdri à mundo exterminandus per mortem His Commentators do believe and as far as they are able justify this Doctrine 2. Alphonsus à Castro is very large and learned on this Subject and proves first That for Heresy a Father does lose the Dominion and yet that Dominium is jure Naturae Patri debitum which he had over his Children Propter Haeresin says he Pater amititt Jus quod habuit super filios c. And again Dominium Politicum amittitur per Haeresin it a quod Rex factus Haereticus ipso jure est Regno suo privatus Dux suo Ducatu c. 3. Nicolaus Eymericus in his Directorium Inquisitorion Parte 2 3. and Francis Pegna his Commentator do assert all and more than I have said and out of many Popish Canons and Councils and Papal Constitutions fully prove it 4. The Canon Law tells us That Bona Haereticorum sunt ipso jure confiscata and not only so but their Children are made incapable of any Benefice or Office Ecclesiastical or Civil Haereticorum filii usque ad secundam generationem ad aliquod beneficium ecclesiasticum seu publicum officium ne admittantur quod st secus actum fuerit sit irritum There are many other Constitutions in their Canon Law which expresly declare that Hereticks that is such as deny any Article of their Popish Creed lose all Dominion Ecclesiastical and Civil of which they were justly possessed before they fell from the Popish Faith into Heresy as they call it 5. Lastly Their Concilium Lateranum Magnum sub Innocentio III. in which there were for so they tell us about 1200 Fathers I say this great Council which they acknowledg to be General or Oecumenical expresly declares That an Heretick tho a King or Emperour does by his Heresy forfeìt all his Dominion and therefore with them Dominion must be in Fide fundatum that is in their Apocryphal Popish Faith For if believing and continuing in that Faith do preserve their Dominion and the rejecting it by Heresy forfelt it then it necessarily and evidently follows that their Roman Catholick Faith is the Foundation of their Dominion and the Cause which preserves it as Here 's is the Cause why they lose it And as this is their Popish impious Doctrine that not only Subjects but Supreme Governors Kings and Emperors forfeit their Dominions by Heresy so the Practice of their Popes has in this case been suitably impious and sinful I need not go far for evident Instances in particular Paul III. excommunicates our Henry 8 for Heresy absolves his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and declares him to have lost all Right to his Dominions So Pius V. for the same reason because Q. Elizabeth was an Heretick excommunicates and deposes her and gives her Kingdoms to Philip the 2 d of Spain who came with his great Armada and the Pope's Benediction which brought the Curse of God upon him and his Fleet for there is no Power or Policy against Providence to take possession of it in 1588. In prosecution of these Principles many hundred thousands have been actually murdered in the Papacy either 1. By open War as in France and the Countries adjoining in Ireland in our late Rebellion c. 2. By their bloody Inquisition 3. Or endeavour'd to be murdered by secret Conspiracies as in our Gun-Powder Treason and many Conspiracies against Q. Elizabeth and our late gracious Soveraign But his Sacred Majesty having graciously promised to maintain the Church of England as it is by Law establish'd who has ever been and I