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
and Seditious Book to Exhort all the English and Irish Papists to joyn with the Spanish Forces against their Queen and Country under the Prince of Parma and Pope Sixtus V. sends Allen with that Book and his own Bull into the Low-Countries and there a great number of those Books and Bulls were printed at Antverpe to be sent into England Were it necessary many things now might be said pertinent to this purpose but I suppose the Instances already given will be sufficient to convince Intelligent and Impâ—â—tial Persons That Pope Pius V. was neither the first nor last who usurped this Extravagant Power to Depose Princes seeing several of his Predecessors and Successors for above 600. years have owned approved and as they had opportunity put that Power in practise This in General premis'd I come now to consider the Bull of Pius V. wherein he damns and deposeth Queen Elizabeth wherein two things occur very considerable 1. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title prefix'd to the Bull. 2. The Particulars contain'd in it For the first the Title prefix'd to the Bull is thus The Damnation of Elizabeth c. where though Damnation may seem a very hard word as indeed it is in the sense they use it as shall by and by appear yet it is not unusual but occurs in other Bulls of the like nature So we find it in the Bull of Pope Innocent IV. wherein he Excommunicates the Emperor Friderick II. For the Lemma or Title of that Bull is thus The Damnation Deposition of Friderick II. So in the Bull of Pope Paul III. Excommunicating Henry VIII the Title prefix'd to it is The Damnation of Henry VIII and his Favourers c. So that Pius V. Damning Queen Elizabeth was not singular though Impious he had some of his Predecessors Forms to follow I say his Predecessors for I do not find that any Bishops in the World save those of Rome ever used such Unchristian and indeed Anti-christian Forms of Excommunicating and Damning Kings and Emperors And it is observable and well known to those who diligently read and consider the Papal Bulls now extant of which there is a vast number that the Popes of later Ages when they go about to justifie some extravagant Act of their unsurped Power they usually cite the Bulls and Constitutions of their Predecessors who had done the like not for matter of fact barely but to prove a Right that because their Predecessors had done so formerly therefore they who succeeded in the same Power might do it too Now although to Argue thus à Facto ad Jus be evidently inconsequent and irrational no better than this Peter de facto deny'd and forswore his Master Ergo His Successors de jure may do so to Yet if their Principles were true as I suppose they may think them such Arguing would be more concluding For Pope Leo. X. expresly affirms and publickly declares in one of their General Councils that it is more clear than light it self That None of his Predecessors Popes of Rome Did ever Err in any of their Canons or Constitutions Now if this were true as it is evidently false and his Asserting it an Argument not only of his Fallibility but of his great Error and Folly That none of his Predecessors ever Err'd then they might with more Security follow them for certainly it can be no great fault or danger to follow an unerring Guide Especially if it be true which they tell us For 1. In their Laws and Canons approved by their Supream Authority and retained in publick use in their Church we are told That all their Papal Sanctions are so to be received as if the Divine Voice of Peter himself had Confirmed them This as Gratian there tells us was Pope Agatho ' s Sentence is Received into the Body of their Canon Law Revised Corrected and Purged from all things Contrary to Catholick Verity So Gregory XIII says and confirms it Whence it evidently follows that in Pope Gregory's Judgment This Sentence of Agatho is not repugnant to Catholick Verity And in the same place it is farther declared for Law Pope Stephen I. is cited as Author of that Sentence That Whatever the Church of Rome does Ordain or Constitute it is without all Contradiction perpetually to be Observed 2. Though this be beyond all truth and reason highly erroneous yet the Jesuits of late have gone much higher and in their Claromont Colledge at Paris publickly maintain'd these two Positions 1. That our Blessed Saviour left Peter and his Successors the same Infallibility he himself had so oft as they spoke è Cathedra 2. That even out of a General Council He is the Infallible Judge in Controversies of Faith both in Questions of Right and Fact This as to the main of it though Erroneous and Impious is maintain'd by others as well as Jesuits F. Gregory de Rives a Capuchin Priest tells us and his Book is approved by the General and several others of his Order and by Father D. Roquet a Dominican and Doctor of Divinity c. That as the Authority of Christ our blessed Saviour if he were now on Earth were greater than all Councils so by the Same Reason the Authority of the Pope who is Christ's Vicar is greater than all Councils too That the Priviledge of Infallibility was given to the Pope not to Councils and then Concludes That the Church of Rome he means the Pope is Judge of Controversies and all her Desinitions and Determinations are De Fide Thus De Rives And three or four years before him Lud. Bail a Parisian Doctor and Propenitentiary expresly affirms That the Word of God is threefold 1. His written Word in Scripture 2. His unwritten Word in the Traditions of the Church 3. The Word Declared or Explain'd when doubtful passages in Scripture or Tradition are explain'd and their meaning determin'd by the Pope whether in or out of Councils and this he says is the most approved way in which men acquiesce and think they need look no further And hence he Infers That seeing this is so we ought not to be affraid to follow the Pope's Guidance in Doctrines of Faith and Manners but acquiesce in his Judgment and submit all our writings to be Corrected by him I neither will nor need Cite any more Authorities to prove the aforesaid Particulars That Their Popes may Damn and Depose Kings and Emperors especially if they be Hereticks and think they have as Christ's Vicars a just Prerogative and Power to do it Sure I am that these Positions though Erroneous and Impious are generally maintain'd by the Jesuits Canonists Schoolmen and their Followers which are very many receiv'd into the Body of their Canon Law of their best and as they themselves say their most Correct Editions and approved and when they had opportunity practis'd by their Supream Powers their Popes and General Councils I
blessed Saviour did to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says he Feed the Flock He thinks it their duty as well as his to feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep And that which further and ad hominem more strongly confirms what I have said in this Particular is That our Adversaries grant though in Contradiction to the Sense many of them â—ive of those words Feed my Sheep when they â—ould build the Popes Supremacy upon them â—hat the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both as it signifies to rule and feed and so the duty of ruling and feeding our blessed Saviours Sheep is so far from being Peculiar to Peter or proving his Supremacy that it is the Duty not only of Peter but of every Bishop in the Christian World both to rule and feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep This the Trent Catechism expresly affirms That all Bishops as well as Peter are Pastores Pastors to Rule as well as Feed the Flock and Sheep of our blessed Saviour and to prove this they Cite the Two very places which I a little before produced to the same purpose whence it manifestly appears That even in our Adversaries Judgment when the Popes Supremacy is a little out of their Head the feeding our blessed Saviour's sheep is not Peter ' s Supream Prerogative but a Duty required of every Bishop in the World 3. But this though enough is not all we have greater and with them Infallible and therefore undeniable Authority to confirm what I have said and Confute our Adversaries as to their proof of Peter's or the Pope's Supremacy from those words Feed my Sheep For their Trent Council which if the Pope say true was Divinely Inspired and therefore Infallible and if he do not say true he himself was not only fallible but actually false expresly tells us That not only every Bishop but every one who had Cure of Souls was bound by the Law of Christ in the Gospel to rule and feed his Sheep by offering Sacrifices for them by preaching the Word Administring the Sacraments by good Example by a Paternal Care of the Poor and All Other Pastoral Offices And this is there proved by Texts quoted in the Margent which with some others are the very same with those I have a little before cited out of the Acts of the Apostles and St. Peters Epistle Nor those only but this very place of St. John on which they would build Peter's Supremacy is Cited in the Margent as containing a Precept obliging not Peter only but All who had Cure of souls to feed Christ's sheep Now if those words Feed my sheep contain Praeceptum a Precept Obliging all Pastors to a Pastoral Duty then they do not contain what they pretend Donum a Donation of Supremacy 4. But Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Innocent III. in their before mention'd Constitutions tell us that by Oves meas our blessed Saviour means All his sheep All Christians in the World Because he does not speak singularitèr of these or those but Generalitèr of his sheep Whence they and many after them conclude Thaâ— our blessed Saviour Committed all his Sheep Universally to Peter's Care so that even the Apostles being his Sheep were committed to Peter's Care and by Consequence he became their Pastor and Superior Certainly they who reason at this rate and so irrationally may possibly be fit Pastors to feed Sheep and Oxen and such other brutish Cattle but surely not to feed Men and Christians For 1. Feed my sheep as all know unless they bâ— such as those two Popes were is an Indefinite Proposition and then any Novice or youngâ— Sophister in the University could have truly told them That Propositio indefinita in materiâ— Contingenti as this evidently is aequivalet particulari When we say men are young or wise or learned we mean not all but some are such So he who says Christ's sheep are to be fed by Peter must mean some of them are to be fed by him pro loco tempore as he had place and time to meet with them It being impossible he should feed them all There were many thousands of our blessed Saviour's Sheep whom Peter never did nor could see nor they hear him And certainly his gracious Lord and Master would not tye him to Impossibilities 2. When they say which is evidently untrue that by those words Feed my sheep all the Faithful are meant and are Committed to Peter's care and charge and therefore the Apostles themselves being our Saviour's Sheep as well as others are part of his Charge and under his Jurisdiction This they say indeed usually but miserably mistaken only say it For they neither have nor can have any Just Ground or Reason for it For it is certain 1. That our blessed Saviour is to his whole Church the only High Priest the Prince of all the Pastors and the Grand Shepherd of the sheep and as King has Imperial Power to Rule and Govern them 2. It is certain the Apostles from and under him are Pastores and Shepherds as well as Peter to feed the Flock But their Power is Ministerial not Imperial Even the Apostleship it self is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ministery and they Ministers of Christ and his Church Now though in respect of Christ the great Shepherd they are Sheep even Peter himself yet on Earth they are Shepherds only not Sheep neither in respect of the Church over which our blessed Saviour has set them to be Shepherds nor in relation one to another Paul or James or John are no more Sheep in Respect of Peter to be fed and ruled by him then he to be fed and ruled by them And therefore to say as our Adversaries vainly do that in those words Feed my sheep Peter is Commanded to feed and rule the rest of the Apostles as his Charge who were Shepherds only and Sheep to no Superior Pastor except our blessed Saviour And by their Apostolical Commission Equal to himself is irrational without any ground in Scripture or purer Antiquity There is another Metaphor concerning the Apostles and their Feeding and Building the Church which may illustrate this business All the Apostles as well and as much as Peter are in Scripture call'd Foundations 〈◊〉 the Church converted fed and confirm'd by them In respect of Christ our blessed Saviour who is the only prime and principal firmâ— Rock on which the Church is built they are all of them Superstructions but in respect of the Christian Church Foundations and that without any dependence upon Peter he is not the Foundation on which they are built but but both he and they immediately upon the Prime Rock and Foundation Jesus Christ So that as the Apostles are Superstructures in the House of God the Church in Respect of Christ the Prime firm Foundation and none of them Superstructures in respect of Peter being neither built upon him nor made Superstructions by him by
quam Regia Dignitate sit Altior Dignitas Sacerdotalis Gratian. Can. Duo sunt 10. Distinct. 96. a Quia Colla Regum Principum submittuntur Genibus Sacerdotum By Sacerdotes here the Popes are principally meant as is evident both by the Text and the Gloss Glossa ad dictum Can. verbo Dúo sunt b Papa excipit Imperatorem ad osculum pedisut primum videt Papam detecto Capite illum genâ—â— terram tangens veneraâ—u Poutificis pedes Devotè osculatur Lib. Sacrarum Ceremoniarum Rom. 1560. l. 1. Tit. 5. p. 22. Col. 2. 3. c Volentes ut hac tantum Compilatione utantur Vniversi in Judiciis in Scholis c. Greg. 9. in Literis Acad. Bononiensi dat 1230. Juri Canonico Praefixis Edit Lugduni 1661. d Edit Paris 1520. cum Glossis e Vide Bullam Greg. 13. datam Romae Anno 1580. Corpori Juris Canonici praefixam f Nulli liceat Libris Canonici Juris de mandaâ—o nostro Correctis Recognitis Expurgatis quicquam addere detrahere vel immutare c. Ibid. dicta Greg. 13. Bulla g They tell us that it was our blessed Saviour himself who Constituted Peter and his Successors Supream Monarchs of the Catholick Church Christus Catholicam Ecclesiâ—m Vni Soli in Terris Petro PetrÃque Successori Rom. Pontifici in Potestatis Plenitudine tradidit Gubernandam So Pius the Fifth in this Bull of Excommunication of Eliz. In Principio And Bellarmine says Successio ex Christi Instituto Jure Divino est quia Ipse Christus Instituit in Petro Pontificatum ideo quicumque Petro succedit à Christo accipit Pontificatum De Rom. Pont. l 2. c. 12. § ut autem Cum Papa in Petri Cathedra Sedeat summum in eo Dignitatis gradum nonnullis Humanis Constitutionibus sed Divinitus datum agnoscit Catechis Trident. Part. 2. c 7. De Ordinis Sacramento § 28. vide Can. Sacrosancta 2. Dist. 22. Glossam Turrecrematam Idem h Baronius says that Peter suffered Martyrdom Anno Christi 69. therefore 34. or 35. years after our blessed Saviours Passion Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 1. i Bellarmine says tha 't is evident in Scripture that Peter's Supremacy was to descend to a Successor Aliquem Petro Succedere deducitur Evidentèr ex Scripturis De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 12. § Observandum Tertio k Bellarmine tells us that it is not expresly in Scripture that the Pope is Peter's Successor but that must be proved by Apostolical Tradition Rom. Pontificem succedere Petro non habetur expresse in Scripturis sed habetur ex traditione Apostolicâ Bellarm. Loco dicto l They constantly tell us the Pope has two Swords and of the Temporal Sword they say Figurat Pontisicalis hic gladius potestatem summam Temporalâ—m à Christo ejus Vicario collatam juxta illud data est mihi omnis Potestas in Câ—elo in Terrâ alibi dominabitur à Mari usque ad Mare à Flumine usque ad Terminos Orbie Terrarum Liber Sacrarum Ceremoniorum Ecclesiae Rom. Romae 1560. Lib. 1. Tit. 7. De Ense benedicendo p. 36. Col. 1. m Vide Methodum Veronianam seu modum quo quilibet Catholicus potest Solis Bibliis Religionis praetensae Ministrum evidentèr mutum reddere c. Authore Francisco Verono Parisiensi Societatis Jesu Theolog. Colon. Agrip. 1610. Vide Jac. Masenij meditatam Concordiam Protestantium cum Catholics ex verbo Dei. Edit Colon. 1661. n Francis Veroni Scientiam è doctissimâ Societate Jesu prodeuntem veneramur sententiam libenter sequimur labores optimo successu à Deo donatos honoramus Adrian Petrus Walenburch in Exam Princip fidei c. Exam 3. §. 1. num 3. p. 111. o Vide Dispute de fidei ex scripturis demonstratione contra novam nonnullorum MethoduÌ„ Per Joh. Dallaeum 8â— Genevae 1610. p They do now pretend to potestatem Summain Temporalem as the Book of their Sacred Ceremonies a little before cited tells us That our blessed Saviour gave Peter in him the Pope Coelestis Terreni Imperij Jura Can. Omnes 1. dist 22. Power to depose Kings and Emperors absolve their Subjects from Oaths of Allegiance and dispose of their Dominions Plat. in vita Greg. 7. Conc. Lateran sub Innocent 3. Can. de Haeret. 3. Hence it was that Bonif. 8. that Prodigy of Antichristian Pride and Impiety in the Solemn Jubilee shew'd himself to the People the first day in his Pontificalibus and the next day Imperiali habitu Intula Caesarea Insignis gladium ante se nudatum jussit deferri sedens alta voce â—â—statur Ecce duo gladij Vide Paralip ad Chron. Urspergen ad An. 1294. p. 344. a It is notoriously known how many Decretal Epistles have been forged and fathered upon the ancient Bishops I shall only instance in the fifth Epistle of that pious Pope and Martyr Clemens the first in which he pleads for a community of all things in the world even of Wives Communis usus Omnium quae sunt in hoc mundo Omnibus esse Debuit In Omnibus Sunt Sine Dubio Conjuges Joh. Sichardus and James Merlin have that Epistle and those very words Gratian has refer'd them into the Canon Law Can. dilectissimis 2. Caus. 12. Quaest. 1. and there they are still in all the Editions of that Law even that corrected and approved by Pope Gregory the Thirteenth b I shall instance only in one the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon as it is shamefully corrupted in Gratian. Can. Renovant 6. Dist. 22. where 1. It is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 definimus statuimus for which Gratian has Petimus 2. In the Original Canon it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior Roma but Gratian has Superior Roma 3. In the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aequalia Privilegia But Gratian has Similia privilegia as being unwilling that Constantinople should have equal priviledges with Rome 4. In the Original Canon it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That Constantinople should be equal to Rome in Ecclesiastical Matters etiam in Ecclesiasticis But Gratian in contradiction to the Canon says Non tamen in Ecclesiasticis c. So it was in Gratian in the old Editions only in the Later Editions of Gratian An. 1612. 1618. 1661. this last corruption is acknowledg'd and which is not usual mended But other corruptions remain still in their last and best Editions of Gratian. Extat haec Bulla in Bullario Romano Romae 1638. Tom. 2. p. 229. Observ. 1. a Carolus Sigonius de Regno Italiae lib. 3. pag. 58. b Omnium Consensu omnes qui Imaginibus venerationem negarem damnati Philippicus ipse Nominatim Diro in eum composito Carmine Poenis Inferorum devotus Ibid. c Car. Sigonius de Regno Italiae l. 9. p. 219. Extabant praeclara Gregorii 2. 3. exempla
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
reason to believe that those Popes were so far from Infallibility that their own Writings Convince them guilty of Gross Ignorance and Folly 5. Lastly All the Apostles were Fundamenta Ecclesiae Domus Dei Foundations of the Church or House of God as has before been evidently proved from Scripture and this was in all the Apostles Extraordinary and a Personal Apostolical Priviledge to which as it was in the Apostles none of their Successors no not the Pope ever did or with any reason could pretend And as this Apostolical Priviledge so the other four before mention'd 1. Immediate Vocation 2. Power to work Miracles 3. Vniversality of Jurisdiction 4. Infallibility in all things they preach'd or writ I say all these Priviledges were Extraordinary and Personal to the Apostles and never were transmitted to any of their Successors And this being granted as of necessity it ought and must it will evidently follow that Peter neither had nor could have that Monarchical Supremacy over the Apostles and Universal Church to which the Pope and his Party vainly and without any reason or ground pretend For that Papal Supremacy and Monarchy they pretend Peter had according to their Hypothesis consisted principally in the Universality of his Jurisdiction over the whole Church and his Infallibility as a Judge to determine Controversies of Faith both which every Apostle had as much and as well as he and therefore it was impossible that in these respects he should have any Superiority much less Supremacy over the other Apostles more than they over him especially seeing in Scripture to men who have good Eyes and will Impartially use them there is not one Syllable looks that way Nay seeing our blessed Saviour hath expresly determin'd the contrary The Apostles were disputing and reasoning amongst themselves which of them should be greatest they had their Infirmities and ambitious desires But our Saviour tells them Whosoever will be great among you though Peter be the man let him be their Minister and whosoever will be chief let him be your Servant And again Be not ye call'd Masters for one is your Master even Christ not Peter and ye are Brethren but he that will be greatest among you shall be your Servant The Apostles had no Master under Heaven but their blessed Saviour it was of him and him Only that they learned the Gospel and that Immediately they had it not from any man nor one from another Our blessed Saviour was their only Master and Superior and they his Scholars subordinate to him and co-ordinate amongst themselves He tells them that they are Brethren Condiscipuli School-fellows Names which in themselves and in their Master's meaning import Equality especially as to any Jurisdiction one over another There may be amongst Scholars of the same School and Brethren an inequality and so there was amongst the Apostles 1. In respect of Age Some might be elder some younger 2. In respect of their coming to that School some might come before others So Andrew was first call'd to our blessed Saviours School before Peter 3. In respect of Natural Parts and Abilities some might have greater Capacities then others 4. In respect of their Masters Love and Kindness he might love one more then another So amongst the Twelve John was the belovod Disciple Such inequality there was amongst them and we willingly grant it But to say as the Pope and many of his Party most vainly do that amongst these Brethren and School-fellows in our blessed Saviour's School Peter or any other had not only an Authority and Jurisdiction but a Monarchical Supremacy over all the rest this is so contradictory to our blessed Saviour's plain words and the manifest and undoubted meaning of them that were it not that we know men may be sway'd with worldly Interests and sometimes have strong Delusions to believe a Lye it were incredible that any Learned men should with so much Confidence and no Reason assert the Contrary To pass by all Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for many hundred years and many sober Papists before Luther who neither knew nor believed Peter's Monarchy over the Church and his fellow Apostles his Equals sure I am 1. That Francis Lucas Brugensis a Roman Catholick in our days eminent in their Church for Dignity and Learning says the same thing I have done and on the same Texts for the Equality of the Apostles against Peter's pretended Monarchy 2. And a greater then he I mean Petrus de Marca Archbishop of Paris convinc'd with the Evidence of the former Texts and Truth was of Opinion and has publish'd it to the World That our blessed Saviour at his Ascension did not leave the Church establish'd in Peter and a Monarchy But in an Aristocratie or the Colledge of the Apostles In which Colledge Peter was one not Superior much less a Monarch to the other Apostles and the Apostles left the Government of the Church Establish'd in the Bishops and Aristocratical only he thinks that both in the Colledge of the Apostles and Councils of Bishops after them there was for Orders sake to be a President not a Monarch for that was Inconsistent with Aristocratie And if this will content them we will grant it Because we do know that the Ancient Church allow'd the Pope the prime Place and Precedency in Councils for Orders sake and that not by any Divine Right which was not in those days so much as pretended to but because Rome was the Imperial City and Metropolis of the Roman Empire the greatness of the City usually giving greatness and precedency to the Bishops such were Constantinople Alexandria Antioch c. I know the Inquisitors at Rome have damned this Book of Petrus de Marca but this is no Argument that what he has said is not true Grande aliquo◠bonum est quod à Nerone ab Inquisitoribus damnatur To conclude this Point if our Adversaries assent not to this manifest Truth as being Contradictory to their worldly Interest and misconceived Infallible Pretensions 't is probable they will not I shall make them this to all unprejudiced Lovers of Truth fair offer Let them give me any one cogent Argument from Scripture or Universal Tradition and nothing else can do it whereby they can prove the following Positions I will thank God and them for the discovery and promise hereby to be their Proselyte 1. If they can by any such Argument prove that Peter by Divine Right had such a Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church as is vainly pretended I will yield the Cause But if he had no such Power 't is impossible he should transmit the Power he never had to his Successors 2. Let it be suppos'd which yet is evidently untrue that St. Peter had such a Monarchical Authority and Jurisdiction even over the rest of the Apostles let them prove by any such Argument as is before mention'd that it was not only Temporal his
only for his life that it was not to have an end and period with his Person For if it was then his Successor whoever he be can have no pretence to it For 't is impossible that any Successor can have any legal or just Claim to that Power which vanish'd and ceas'd to be with his Predecessor who possess'd it only for his life 3. Admit both these to be true which yet are equally and evidently false that Peter had such a Power and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to his Successor seeing such transmission must either be done by our blessed Saviour immediately or by Power deriv'd from him by Peter Let our Adversaries make it appear that either our blessed Saviour himself or Peter by Power deriv'd from him did actually transmit that Power to any Successor and I submit 4. Lastly Suppose all these to be what not one of them is true yet unless it do appear that the Bishop of Rome and not the Bishop of Antioch where they say Peter was Bishop first was that Successor of St. Peter to whom such Supremacy was transmitted he can have no pretence to it For in this Case Idem est non esse non apparere Let our Adversaries then make it appear that either our blessed Saviour immediately by himself or Peter by Authority from him did transmit the Supremacy to the Pope and we shall be satisfy'd and thankful for the Discovery And this brings me to the Second thing proposed before 2. The thing next to be enquired after is Whether and how it may appear that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successor Our Adversaries say and vainly say it only that Peter was Supream Head after our blessed Saviour's Ascension and Monarch of the Church and from him Jure Successionis the Pope derives his Monarchical Power and Supremacy and that by the Institution and Command of our blessed Saviour and so not by Humane but Divine Right This is a Position of greatest Consequence and will require good proof Nor is it possible to prove the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick unless it first appear that Peter was his Predecessor in that See Linus Clemens or Cletus cannot with any Truth or Sense be said to succeed Peter unless it appear first that he preceeded them Our Adversaries I confess do constantly with great noise and confidence affirm That Peter did preceed in the Bishoprick of Rome but sure I am that hitherto they have not brought any so much as probable much less cogent and concluding Reason to prove it nor do I think it possible they should bring what they neither have nor can have any true and concluding proof to prove what this is an erroneous and false Position And that this may not be begg'd and gratis dictum I shall offer to the Impartial Reader these Considerations 1. When they say That Peter fix'd his Episcopal Chair at Rome Jubente Domino Let them shew that Command and there will be an end of the Controversie we will obey our blessed Saviour's Command and the Pope too But this they have neither done nor can It being impossible they should shew that to be which never was nor ever had any being 2. That ever Peter was at Rome much less that he was Bishop there for Five and twenty years as is vainly pretended cannot be made appear out of Scripture or any Apostolical or Authentick Record and therefore that he was there at all where he might be as he was in many other good Cities and not Bishop of any of them must depend solely upon human and fallible Testimonies I say Testimonies certainly fallible if not absolutely false which many Learned men have and do believe Now seeing the whole Papal Monarchy and Infallibility depend upon Peter's being Bishop of Rome and the grounds we have to assure us that he ever was there are fallible and dubious and seeing it is irrational if not impossible that any considering Person should give a firm and undoubted assent to any Conclusion inferr'd only upon fallible and dubious premisses Hence it evidently follows That our Faith and belief of the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility is and till they find better and more necessary premisses must be fallible and dubious And here I desire to be inform'd how it comes to be an Article of Faith in their new Roman Creed That the Bishop of Rome is Vicar of Christ and Peter ' s Successor which Article with the rest in that Creed they promise swear and vow to believe and profess most Constantly to their last breath With what Conscience their Church can require or they take such an Oath Most Constantly and firmly to believe to their last breath such things for the belief of which they have no grounds if any save only fallible and very dubious Ipsi viderint 3. I know that the Assertors of the Papal Monarchy according to their Interest are very desirous to prove out of Scripture that Peter was at Rome and to that end produce those words in his first Epistle The Church which is at Babylon salutes you And by Babylon they say the Apostle meant Rome And for this they cite Papias in Eusebius That by Babylon Rome is figuratively to be understood So that if this be true Peter writ that Epistle at Babylon that is at Rome and so must be at Rome when he writ it And the proof of this depends upon the Authority of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis and those who follow him Now how little Credit is to be given to Papias in this or any thing else will manifestly appear out of the same Eusebius who tells us 1. That Papias was much given to Tradition inquiring of the Elders who had heard the Apostles what Peter or James or John c. had said thinking he gâ—tâ—less benefit by reading Scriptures then by the talk of those who heard the Authors of them 2. That he had by such Tradition strange Parables and Preachings of our blessed Saviour and other things very Fabulous Such as the Heresie of the Millenaries which he believed and propagated That he thus err'd by Misunderstanding the Apostles Doctrine For as Eusebius goes on he was a man of very little understanding 4. And yet as the same Author says he was the occasion that most of the Ecclesiastical Writers who followed him Reverencing his Antiquity err'd with him I know that in Eusebius both in the worst Edition of him by Christopherson sometime a Popish Bishop of Chichester and the best by Hen. Valesius we have a high Commendation of Papias At the same time says Eusebius as Valesius renders him Papias was famous a man very Eloquent and Learned and well skill'd in Scripture But Christopherson his other Translator goes higher as usually he does when it makes for the Catholick Cause and in his Translation says more in Commendation of
Papias then is in the Text For he tells us That Papias besides his knowledge of Scripture was a man certainly most learned in the Knowledge of All Other Arts. Now if this be true then that Character I have given him before is not so and then his Antiquity which was great and his great Learning in all Arts and Sciences as well as Scripture consider'd his Testimony that Babylon whence St. Peter writ was Rome will be more valid and of greater Authority In Answer to this I say 1. That all this Commendation of Papias before mention'd is so far from having any Authority from Eusebius that 't is a plain Forgery Eusebius as to this passage is evidently corrupted and this Commendation of Papias by whose Ignorance or Knavery I know not shuffled into the Text long after Eusebius his death For 2. Ruffinus who Translated Eusebius his History above One thousand two hundred years ago in the place above quoted says only thus About this time flourished Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna and Papias Bishop of Hierapolis So the Printed Edition of Ruffinus by B. Rhenanus and a very Ancient and Compleat MS. of Ruffinus in my Keeping and Possession exactly agrees with it and there is not one word of that Commendation of Papias which is now extant in Eusebius And therefore we may Conclude that Anciently it was not there but the Text of Eusebius by fraud or folly is since Corrupted For had it been in Eusebius when Ruffin Translated him there had been no reason he should have left it out 3. And which is yet more considerable Valesius a very Learned Roman Catholick who last published Eusebius Ingenuously Confesses that of three or four Greek MSS. of Eusebius which he made use of in his Edition not any one of them had that Commendation of Papias and therefore he doubts not but these words were added by some Ignorant Scholiast contrary to the Judgment and Sense of Eusebius For says he how is it possible that Eusebius should call Papias a Most Learned Man and Most Skill'd in Scripture who in the same Book says he was A Rule and Simple Person of Very Little Wit or Judgment And his Ignorance especially appears as in other things in that 1. He says that Philip whose Daughters were Prophetesses was Philip the Apostle when the Text had he read or remembred it expresly says That it was Philip the Deacon 2. Papias said and in his Writings published his Opinion That hearing Oral Traditions was more profitable then reading Scriptures That is to hear the Stories and Tales of private and fallible Persons and that in Matters of Religion was more profitable then to read the Sacred Oracles of God penn'd by Divinely Inspired Infallible Persons St. John tells us he had writ so many and such things as were necessary and sufficient to Salvation yet left out thousands of things which he thought not necessary But Papias with great Ignorance and Impiety prefers the unwritten Tradition of those things concerning our blessed Saviour which the Apostles had omitted as not necessary nor so useful as those things they had writ And so in Contradiction to the Holy Spirit and St. John his Infallible Amanuensis calls the Tradition of those unwritten things more useful which they had omitted as not useful at all And this his Ignorance and want of Judgment further appears 3. Because Eusebius tells us That he had amongst his Traditions strange and novel Parables and Doctrines of our blessed Saviour and other things more Fabulous and amongst them his Millenary Heresie of which he was Father and to the Infecting many others did propagate it And he fell to those wild Opinions chiefly by his Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Scripture as Eusebius and Nicephorus tell us And yet this simple Person and Arch-Heretick is the principal and prime Witness Rome has to prove that Babylon in the Epistle of Peter signifies Rome and that Peter was there For other place in Scripture they have none and only Papias and his Followers for that By the Premisses I think it may appear to Impartial Persons That seeing Papias preferr'd Tradition or some mens talk before the Scriptures that he was a man of very weak understanding and err'd by misunderstanding Scripture that he writ Fables rather than History and maintain'd the Millenary Opinion which Rome now calls Heresie I say these things Consider'd his Authority and Credit is if any at all very little and yet 't is all our Adversaries have his Followers Testimonies being derived from and depending upon his to prove out of Scripture that Peter writ that Epistle at Rome or ever was there This is a Truth so manifest that not only Protestants but most Learned Roman Catholicks say and prove that Peter writ that Epistle not at Rome but Babylon in Chaldea And further that he did not write it at Rome will be evident from Scripture and what their own most Learned Author Confesses For 1. Baronius tells us It was writ Anno Christi 45. 2. To make this probable both he Petavius and others generally say That Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius which was Anno Christi 44. 3. But this a very Learned Roman Catholick evidently Confutes from Scripture and good Authorities and plainly shews that Peter was always in Judea or Syria till the death of Herod Agrippa which was in the fourth year of Claudius and the Six and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour And therefore it was impossible that Peter should write that Epistle at Rome in the Five and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour who never came thither till the year Forty six unless they will say and they do say things as impossible that he writ an Epistle at Rome when he was not there 4. Nay 't is certain from what Luke says in the Acts of the Apostles that Peter continued in Judaea till the Council met at Jerusalem about the Question concerning Circumcision and the Ceremonial Law Sure it is that he was present at that Council which was Anno Christi 51. says Baronius Bellarmine and others the Learned Valesius thinks and gives his reason for it more probable to me then any brought for the Contrary Opinions that the Council was held Anno Claudij 7. and Christi 49. take which Computation you please if St. Peter wrote that Epistle at Rome Anno Christi 45. he must have writ there several years before he came thither 5. Nay 't is further Evident let that Council be when they will that Peter was not at Rome in the year 51. which Baronius mentions but at Jerusalem For St. Paul tells us that three years after his Conversion which was about the year 37. he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and found him there And then fourteen years after which was about the year 51. he went to Jerusalem again and
Word of God So a Learned Popish Author tells us That the Word of God is threefold 1. His written Word the Scriptures 2. His unwritten Word Traditions 3. His explained or declared Word when Scripture or Traditions are declared and explained by the Pope whether in or out of a Council And he says That this Last word of God the Popes Definitions and Explications is the most approved and most men do with greater pleasure acquiesce in it Though this be much yet not all For the Pope does not only pretend to and assume to himself an Universal Monarchy over all the Kingdoms of the World but such an Absolute Power to dispose of them that he can parte inconsultâ give away Kingdoms pro Arbitrio to whom he pleases A Memorable and for Papal Pride and Injustice a Prodigious Instance we have of this in Pope Alexander the Sixth who at one Clap gave to Ferdinand and Elizabeth King and Queen of Castile and their Heirs for ever All the West-Indies from Pole to Pole and all the Isles about them which lay One hundred Leagues Westward from Cape Verd and the Azores with all their Dominions Cities Castles Villages all the Rights and Jurisdictions belonging to them And this he says he gives of his own meer Liberality by Power deriv'd from Peter and as Vicar of Christ. Then he Excommunicates all of what degree soever Kings and Emperors by name who shall dare to trade into the West-Indies given to Ferdinand by him without the leave and licence of the said Ferdinand Here we see the Pope gives away almost half the World from the true Owners Causa incognita inaudita indicta the Persons and their Quality being utterly unknown to him If it be said They were Pagan Idolaters Grant that Yet 1. What they all were he neither did nor could know 2. If they really were such as probably they were yet dominium non fundatur in gratiâ a Pagan and Idolater may jure naturae have as just a Temporal Right to his Estate as a Christian. Caesar was a Pagan in our blessed Saviours time and yet he Commands them to give to Caesar the things which were Caesars Some things were Caesars in which he had a propriety and to which he had a right and his Subjects an Obligation to pay him tribute and other things due to him But I hope this will not be deny'd For if none but pious men and true Christians have any just Right to what they possess it will I fear go hard with his Holyness and he will have no Propriety in St. Peters Patrimony or any other thing he does possess And therefore if he Impartially consider it he may find some reason if not for Truths sake which with him is not always a prevailing Motive yet for his own to be in this of my opinion By the Premisses I hope it may and does appear That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is called God or worshipped and so really has the Characteristical Note and Mark of the Beast that Man of Sin and is indeed that great Antichrist described and foretold in Scripture 4. Nor am I singular in this Opinion many Excellent Persons both for Learning and Piety have said as much and some have given us a Catalogue of their Testimonies I shall say nothing of the Fathers many of which make Rome Babylon in the Revelation some of them I have Cited before and Schardius in the Place last Quoted has more Nor shall I say any thing of the poor persecuted Waldenses and Wiclisists or the Reformed Churches since Luther who both believ'd and constantly affirm'd and prov'd the Pope to be Antichrist especially the Church of England as appears both by her ablest Writers and her Authentick Homilies confirmed by the Kings Supream Authority in Convocations and Parliaments Omitting all these which yet were abundantly sufficient to shew that I am not singular in this Opinion I shall only of very many more give a few Evident Instances and Testimonies of those who lived and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome And here 1. The Emperor Frederick the Second in a Letter to the King of France complaining of the Prodigious Pride and Tyranny of the Pope and his Impious Practices to divide the Empire and ruin him he says That he Indeavour'd to build the Tower of Babylon against him And that we may know what and whom he meant by Babylon in another Epistle to the King and Nobility of France he Complains of the horrid Injuries and Injustice done him by the Pope and his Party he calls them the Elders of Babylon c. 2. A faithful Historian speaking of Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the Seaventh and his Prodigious Tyranny and Impiety tells us That in those times Most Men both Privately and Publickly curs'd Hildebrand call'd him Antichrist that under the Name and Title of Christ he did the work of Antichrist that he sat in Babylon in the Temple of God and as if he had been a God Exalted himself above all that is worshipped c. And much more to the same purpose abundantly Testify'd by the Historians of those times who were neither Lutherans nor by the Roman Church then reputed Hereticks And afterward speaking of the same Hildebrand we are told That he laid the Foundation of the Kingdom of Antichrist One hundred and seaventy years before that time when that was said under a colour and shew of Religion He begun the War with the Emperor which his Successors continued to that Day till the time of Friderick the Second and Pope Gregory the Ninth where we have many things more concerning the Prodigious Pride Impiety and Tyranny of the Pope to prove that he was Antichrist The same Historian also tells us That almost All Good Just and Honest Men did in their Writings publish to the World that the Empire of Antichrist begun about that time the time of Hildebrand he means because they Saw those things then come to pass which were foretold long before 3. But this is not all We have further Testimonies of this Truth 1. Robert Grosthead who both for Learning and Piety was Inferior to none in his Age He on his Death-bed having spoke of many horrid Enormities of Rome and loss of Souls by Papal Avarice he adds Is not such a one deservedly call'd Antichrist Is not a Destroyer of Souls the Pope he means an Enemy of God and Antichrist And after a long List of Papal Tyranny and Impieties he calls Rome Egypt so Saint John calls it Spiritually Sodom and Egypt and concludes that the Church will never be deliver'd from that Egyptian Servitude but by the Sword 2. Nor is this all we have great Councils of whole Nations in their Publick Edicts and Constitutions expresly declaring the Pope to be that Antichrist who Exalts himself above all that is called God We have a Publick Edict
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