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
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
or probability I have indeavoured to prove before sic transeat cum caeteris erroribus 2. As to the second point What is Heresie and who is the Heretick who is to be persecuted with such fearful Damnations and Excommunications I say in short 1. That it is agreed amongst their Casuists and Canonists That Heresie is an Error against that Faith which they ought to believe joyned with pertinacy or it is a pertinacious Error in Points of Faith and he who so holds such an Opinion is an Heretick 2. And he is pertinacious they say who holds such an Opinion which he does or might and ought to know to be against Scripture or the Church By the way I desire to be inform'd how it is possible for their Lay-people and unlearned to know with any certainty or assurance what Truths are approved or Errors damn'd in Scripture when they are prohibited under pain of Excommunication ever to read or have Scripture in any Tongue they understand Nor are Bibles only in any Vulgar Tongue prohibited but all Books of Controversie between Protestants and Papists in any Vulgar Tongue are equally prohibited So that they are absolutely deprived of the principal means to know Truth and Error what Doctrines are Evangelical what Heretical 3. And although they are pleased sometimes to mention Scripture in the Definition of Heresie yet 't is not really by them meant For by their receiv'd Principles a man may hold a hundred Errors which he Does or Might and Ought to know to be against Scripture and the Articles of Faith and yet be no Heretick For thus Cardinal Tolet tells us Many Rusticks or Country Clowns having Errors against the Articles of Faith are excused from Heresie because they are Ignorant of those Articles and are ready to Obey The Church And a little before If any man err in those things he is bound to know yet so as it is without pertinacy because he Knows it not to be against The Church and is ready to believe as the Church believes he is no Heretick So that by their Principles let a man believe as many things as he will contrary to Scripture yet if he have the Colliers faith and implicitly believe as the Church believes all is well he is by them esteemed no Heretick 4. And hence it is that they have of late left the word Scripture out of their definition of Heresie and they only pass for Hereticks at Rome not who hold Opinions contrary to Scripture but who receive not or contradict what is believed to be de fide by the Pope and his Party And therefore they plainly tell us That None can be an Heretick who believes that Article of our Creed The Holy Catholick Church you may be sure they mean their own Popish Church not only without but against all reason For so their Trent-Catechism tells us not only in the Text but least we should not take notice of it in the Margent too where they say Verus 9. Articuli Professor that is he who will believe what their Church believes Nequit dici Haereticus That is he who believes the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church in the Creed and that Church Infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost he shall not we may be sure be call'd an Heretick at Rome Nay so far are they in Love with their most irrational Hypothesis That to believe as the Church believes excuses their Laicks and the Vnlearned from Heresie that they expresly say That such men may in some Cases not only Lawfully but Meritoriously believe an Error contrary to Scripture which in another more knowing Person would be a real and formal Heresie The Case is this as Cardinal Tolet and Robert Holkott propose it If a Rustick or Ignorant Person concerning Articles of Faith do believe his Bishop proposing some Heretical Opinion he does Merit by believing although it be an Heretical Error because he is Bound to believe till it appear to him to be against The Church So that in the mean time he is no Heretick For 1. He may lawfully do it 2 He is Bound to do it to believe his Bishop and the Doctrines proposed by him 3. Nay it is a Meritorious action to believe such Heretical Errors though it be contrary to Scripture and the word of our gracious God This is strange Doctrine yet publickly maintain'd by their Casuists and Schoolmen and approved by their Church For I do not find it Condemn'd in any Index Expurgatorius nor in any publick declaration disown'd by their Church quae non prohibet peccare aut errare cum possit Jubet And here in relation to the Premisses I shall further propose two things and leave them to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader 1. That seeing it is their Received Doctrine that an Implicite Faith in their Church and a profession and resolution to believe as she believes is enough to free a Papist from Heresie and the punishment of it though otherwise through Ignorance he hold some heretical Errors contrary to what his Church believes why may not a Protestants Implicite Faith in Scripture with a Profession and Resolution to believe every thing in it as it comes to his knowledge free him from Heresie and the punishment of it though otherwise in the mean time he may believe some things contrary to Scripture Certainly if an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party for they are the Roman Church with a resolution to believe them all when they come to their knowledge be sufficient to free a Papist from Heresie and the Punishment of it much more will an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles in Scripture with a Resolution to believe them all when they really come to their knowledge be sufficient to free a Protestant from Heresie and the punishment of it Because the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles are Divine and in such a measure and degree Infallible as the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party without great Error and Impudence cannot pretend to 2. Seeing it is their Received Doctrine as may appear by the Premisses that if any Bishop preach to his People the Laity and Unlearned Rusticks some Heretical Doctrine they are bound to believe it and may not only Lawfully but Meritoriously do so till it appear that their Church is against it Hence it evidently follows That if the Bishop preach'd this Doctrine That 't is lawful to kill an Heretical King who is actually Anathematiz'd and Deposed by the Pope they were bound to believe it and might lawfully and meritoriously do so and then if it was meritorious to believe such a Doctrine then to put it in Execution and actually kill such a King could not be unlawful and vitious So that we need not wonder that those prodigious Popish Villains who were hired to Assassinate our Gracious
would not be mistaken I do not say that all who now do or for this Six hundred years last past have liv'd in the Communion of the Church of Rome either do or did approve such Papal Positions or Practices I know the Sorbon and Vniversity of Paris and many in other Countries have publickly Declared their disbelief and dislike of them Especially in Germany in the time of Hen. III. Hen. IV. Friderick II. c. not only private Persons but some Synods declared the Papal Excommunications and Depositions of their Emperors not only Injust and Impious but Antichristian I grant also That Father Caron in his Remonstrantiâ Hibernorum if some have rightly told the Number has cited Two hundred and fifty Popish Authors who deny the Popes Power to depose Kings And though I know that many of his Citations are Impertinent yet I shall neither deny nor doubt but that there are many thousand honest Papists in the outward Communion of the Church of Rome who dislike this Doctrine But this will neither Justifie or Excuse the Church of Rome so long as her Governing and Ruling part publickly approves and maintains it For 1. Father Caron himself tells us that notwithstanding his Book and all his Authorities for Loyalty to Kings The Divines of Lovane The Pope's Nuncio the Cardinals four or five Popes Paulus V. Pius V. Alexander VII Innocentius X. he might easily have reckon'd many more did condemn his Doctrine The Inquisitors damn'd his Book and his Superiors Excommunicate him 2. It is confessed That the Supream Infallible Power of their Church resides either in the Pope or Council or both together And 't is also certain That their Popes in their approved and in publick use received Canon Law in their Authentick Bulls publish'd by themselves in their General Councils and with their Consent have approved and for this Six hundred years last past many times practis'd this Doctrine of Deposing Kings nor has the Church of Rome I mean the Governing and Ruling part of it by any Publick Act or Declaration disown'd or censur'd it as doubtless she would had she indeed disliked it Quae non prohibet cum possit jubet If any man think otherwise and can really shew me that their Popes and General Councils have not formerly approved or since have disown'd and disapprov'd this Doctrine I shall willingly acknowledge my mistake and be thankful to him for a Civility which at present I really believe I shall never receive However Grata supervenient quae non sperantur 3. Seing it is Evident that Pope Pius V. and his Predecessors in the like Cases calls the Anathema and Curse contain'd in this Bull The Damnation of Q. Elizabeth The next Query will be What that hard word signifies and what they mean by it in their Bulls For the Solution of which doubt and Satisfaction to the Query 1. I take it to be certain and confess'd That the word Damnum from whence Damnation comes signifies a diminution or loss of some good things had and enjoyed before or of a right to future good things and then Damnation as to our present Case will be a judicial sentence which by way of punishment imposes such loss and diminution 2. As the Damnum or loss may be either of Temporal things here as loss of Honours Liberty Lands or Life or of Spiritual and Eternal things as Heaven and Salvation hereafter so the Damnation also according to the Nature of the sentence and the mischief intended by it may be Temporal or Eternal or both if it penally inflict the loss both of Goods Temporal and Eternal 3. I say then and I hope to make it evident that the mischief intended by this Papal Bull and Excommunication so far as the malice and injustice of an Usurped Power could endeavoured to be brought upon that good Queen was not only Temporal but also Spiritual and Eternal This the word Damnation in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title of the Bull in their Popish Construction intends and signifies For the Temporal mischiefs intended to be brought upon that Good Queen there is no question they are all particularly named in the Bull it self as we shall see anon For the Spiritual that is a seclusion out of Heaven and Happiness and Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul that these also were the intended and designed Effects of this Impious Bull and Excommunication is now to be proved And here it is to be Considered 1. That they constantly say and having strong Delusion possibly may believe it That Hereticks and such the Queen is declared to be in the Bull dying Excommunicate as that Queen did and all true Protestants do are Eternally Damn'd For 1. A very great Canonist of our own Nation while Popish Superstition unhappily prevail'd here tells us That every Excommunicate Person is a Member of the Devil And for farther proof of this he Cites Gratian and their Canon Law and he might have Cited other as pertinent places in Gratian who tells us in another Canon That Excommunication is a Damnation to Eternal Death And John Semeca the Glossator gives us their meaning of it That it is certainly true when the Person Excommunicate is incorrigible and contemns the Excommunication as for my part I really do contemn all their Excommunications as Bruta fulmina which neither do nor can hurt any honest Protestant so that by their Injust Law and most uncharitable Divinity not only Queen Elizabeth but all Protestants who are every Year Excommunicated by the Pope in their Bulla Coenae Domini are Eternally damned and that è Cathedra A Sentence Erroneous and Impious and though it be the Popes whom they miscall Infallible inconsistent with Truth or Christian Charity 2. But we have both for Learning and Authority a far greater Author than Lindwood or Gratian and in our days long after them I mean Cardinal Baronius who tells us That Pope Gregory VII did not only depose the Emperor Hen. IV. but Excommunicate and Decree him to be Eternally Damn'd And for this he Cites Pope Gregory's own Epistles who surely best knew his own mind and the meaning of his own Decree 3. But we have greater Authors and Authority for this than Baronius for Pope Paschal II. tells us That he had Excommunicated the Emperor Hen. IV. in a Council and adds That by the Judgment of the whole Church he lay bound under An Eternal Anathema And after this Pope Paul III. Damns that 's the word and Excommunicates our King Hen. VIII and all his Favourers and Adherents And we smite them saith he with the Sword of an Anathema Malediction and Eternal Damnation In the Year 1459. Pius II. with the Vnanimous Consent of his Council at Mantua Excommunicates and Damns all those even Kings and Emperors who shall Appeal from the Pope to a General Council and that they shall be punish'd as Traytors and
Hereticks Pope Julius II. afterwards confirms this Constitution of his Predecessor as to all the Punishments contain'd in it Excommunicates and Curses all Persons Ecclesiastical and Secular of what Dignity soever though Kings who shall offend against that Constitution and Decrees that they shall have their Portion and Damnation with Dathan and Abiron The Damnation then intended and threatned in this Impious Bull of Pius V. as in other Papal Bulls of the like nature is not only some Temporal loss and damage though that also be included and expressed but the Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul Which further appears by that Famous or indeed Infamous Erroneous and Ridiculous Constitution of Boniface VIII wherein having said That there is but one Catholick Church out of which there is no Salvation and that our Blessed Saviour made Peter and his Successors his Vicarij Vice-Gerents and Heads of that Church he adds That whoever are not of that Church and in Subjection and Obedient to the Pope can have no Salvation And Pius V. in this very Bull expresly says the same For 1. He says That out of the Apostolick Church he means evidently his own Roman Church there is no Salvation 2. He Declares Queen Elizabeth an Heretick that she and all her Adherents had Incurr'd an Anathema and Malediction were Excommunicate and cut off from the Body of Christ. So that Queen Elizabeth and all her Loyal Protestant Subjects who never were nor could be as without great Error and Impiety they could not subject to the Pope nor Members of his Apostolical Church are by this Bull Eternally Damn'd 4. But this is not all for we have greater Evidence that by the word Damnation in their Bulls wherein all Hereticks Protestants you may be sure who without Truth or Charity they call so are Curs'd and Excommunicated they do and must mean Eternal Damnation For 1. Pope Leo. X. in the Lateran Council which with them is General and Oecumenial innovates and establisheth with the Approbation and Consent of that Council the aforesaid Doctrine and Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII 2. The Trent Council does so too and absolutely Anathematizes and Damns all those who do not believe their whole new Creed in which there is not one true Article but all Erroneous many Superstitious and Impious and tells us It is the Catholick Faith without the belief of which no man can be saved and swear firmly to believe it to their last breath and Anathematize all who do not And which is further very considerable and pertinent to confirm what is abovesaid they do in that Oath promise vow and swear to receive and imbrace All Things delivered defined and declared in their General Councils and All the Constitutions of their Church For these Particulars are parts of that new Creed to the Belief and Profession of which they are sworn And the Trent Council it self as well as the Pope in that Creed requires that they make such a Profession Whence it evidently follows that all their Bishops all Regulars of what Order soever who are provided of Monasteries Religious Houses c. All Canons and Dignitaries in their Church all who have any Cure of Souls and all who profess and teach any of the Liberal Arts c. for all these are required to take that Oath are sworn to receive believe and profess all the Desinitions of the Lateran Council under Leo. X. and the Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII which denounces Damnation to all those who submit not to the Pope and imbrace not their Popish Religion and hence it further and as evidently follows that not only Queen Elizabeth but all good Protestants then and ever since who neither did nor without great Error and Impiety could so submit to their Popes or believe their New Creed are by their Papal and uncharitable Divinity Eternally Damn'd So that it is not only some Temporal mischief or loss but the Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul which is threatned and Declared to be the Effect and Inevitable Consequence of this against Queen Elizabeth and such other Excommunications of those whom they call Hereticks 4. In the beginning of this Impious Bull we are told by the Pope That our Blessed Saviour committed the Government of His Church with all plenitude and fulness of Power to Peter and his Successors And that we might know how great the Power was over all Kings and Kingdoms he miserably misapplies a Text in Jeremy and says That our blessed Saviour did Constitute Peter alone a Prince over All Nations and All Kingdoms to Pull up and Throw down to Dissipate and Destroy to Plant and Build in Ordine ad Spiritualia in Order to the Salvation of his Faithful People so that if we may believe this Infallible Expositor the same Power which God gave Jeremy over all Nations and Kingdoms to pull up and destroy them the very same did our blessed Saviour give to Peter and his Successors Nor is Pius V. the only Pope who makes use of that Text to prove their extravagant Papal Power over Kings Pope Alexander III. having told some of his Brethren how the Emperor held his Stirrup when he mounted his Palfrey In his next Constitution having said That the Diligence of the Bishops and Pastors was necessary to pull up and cut off Hereticks and wicked men in the Church he Cites the place of Jeremy to prove it and says That the Power over Nations and Kingdoms to pull up cast down and destroy was Given to Jeremy and In Him to the Evangelical Priest to Peter and his Successors as he there expresly explains it And Pope Paul III. tells us That he was Vicar of Christ our blessed Saviour and plac'd in the Throne of Justice Above All Kings in the whole World According to the Prophecy of Jeremy And then Cites the words of Jeremy before mention'd And to omit others Pope Boniface VIII Cites the same Text though to as little purpose to the same end to prove the Popes power above Kings so as to punish and depose them And before him Innocent III. in his wild and irrational Epistle to the Emperor of Constantinople Cites the same Text of Jeremy and another Gen. 1. 16. more impertinent if that be possible to prove the vast Power of Popes above all Kings and Emperors By all which Papal Bulls and Constitutions as by many others of the like nature it may evidently appear that they challenge a Power to depose Kings and that they bring the Text of Jeremy as a ground and proof of it But although their Popes brag That they have all Laws in the Archives of their own breasts and that they are Supream and Infallible Judges in all Controversies of Faith yet their whole Discourse and Deductions from the Text of the Prophet Jeremy is inconsequent and indeed ridiculous and no way concerns either Peter or any of his
that what Erasmus Observes out of Hierome is true is this The Spanish Inquisitors have damn'd it and in their Index Expurgatorius Commanded it to be blotted out But Erasmus adds further That it cannot Logically and firmly be concluded from the Order wherein the Apostles are number'd which of them is to be preferr'd before the rest because where many are number'd there is a necessity we begin with some one and 't is not material which we begin with And This the Inquisitors let pass without a Deleatur they do not condemn it to be blotted out and so seem to approve it otherwise it had not pass'd so that even by our Adversaries consent all that can be rationally Inferr'd from that Text where in numbering the Apostles Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first is only a Primacy of Order which we willingly grant but no Primacy much less a Supremacy of Authority Dominion and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles which the Pope and his Party desire and we justly deny 2. And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primus so Princeps or Prince amongst the best Latin Authors usually signifies Order Only or some Excellent Quality in those who are call'd Principes without any Authority or Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom they are so call'd And that the Rest of the Apostles were call'd Principes as well as Peter I have Authentick warrant even the Roman Breviary restored according to the Decree of the Council of Trent publish'd by Pius V. The very Pope who publish'd this Impious Bull a-against Queen Elizabeth and then Revised by the Authority of Clement VIII and Vrban VIII and Printed at Antverp 1660. In this Breviary we have this Hymn in the Office for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. Now in this Hymn Peter and Paul too are call'd Ecclesiarum Principes Princes of the Churches For being a Hymn for the Feast of those two Apostles Ecclesiarum Principes cannot relate to less than two nor Properly to any but them two in that Place Though elsewhere it relates to all the Apostles as in the Place cited in the Margent when after the Invitatory as they call it Come let us adore the Lord King of the Apostles it follows thus Aeterna Christi munera Apostolorum Gloria Palmas Hymnos debitos Laetis canamus mentibus Ecclesiarum Principes Belli Triumphales Duces Coelestis Aulae Milites Et vera Mundi Lumina c. So that if we may believe their own Authentick Breviary Publish'd and Carefully Revised by these Popes according to the Decree of the Trent Council All the other Apostles under our blessed Saviour and by his Authority were Princes of the Christian Church as well as Peter Now I desire to know how these things will Consist Pius V. in this Bull against Queen Elizabeth says That our blessed Saviour Committed the Government of his Church to One Only to Peter and Constituted him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms so he in his Bull and yet the same Pope in this Roman Breviary for it was Approved and Published by him and the Hymn here cited says That all the Apostles were Ecclesiarum Principes and if so then Peter was not the Only Prince to whom the Government of the Church was Committed no the Commission of every Apostle given by our blessed Saviour was as unlimited and as large as Peters This will appear in all the Particulars of it equally given to all as they are expresly set down in Scripture from whence alone we can surely know what their Authority and Commission was Our blessed Saviour tells them and us 1. As my Father sent me so send I you There we have the Author and Authority of their Commission The same blessed Saviour of the World sends them all 2. Then he breath'd upon them and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost There we have the Principle inabling them to discharge that great Office and Trust reposed in them It was that Holy Spirit which gave them 1. Infallibility in their Doctrine 2. Power to work Miracles for Confirmation of it 3. Then he adds whose sins ye retain they are retained c. Here we have the great Spiritual Power given them for the calling and governing the Church which is elsewhere called The Power of the Keys which Consists in binding and loosing retaining and remitting sins For so 't is Explain'd by our blessed Saviour in the Place last cited and is by our Adversaries confess'd So that 't is Evident that the Power of the Keys the Power of binding and loosing of retaining and remitting sins is Equally given to all the Apostles to every One as well as Peter 4. He Assigns them their Place and Province where and the way how they were to Exercise their Apostolical Power Go and Teach All Nations baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have Commanded you Their Diocese was the World Go ye into All The World and preach the Gospel to every Creature every man And the administring the Sacraments and teaching men to believe and observe the whole Goâ—pel was the business they were to do in that their Diocese 5. And to incourage them to this great and difficult Work he graciously promises his Presence and Divine Assistance Lo I am with you Always even to the End of the World These are the Powers and Promises given to the Apostles and which to me seems Evident without difference or distinction Equally to all to Simon the Cannite for so it should be writ as well and as much as to Simon Peter If any think otherwise if he can and will by any Cogent Reason make it appear either 1. That the foregoing Powers and Promises were not Equally given to all the Apostles 2. Or that some other Power or Promise was in Scripture given peculiarly to Peter whereby he had an Authority and Dominion over the other Apostles and the whole Church to make him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms as Pope Pius V. in this his wild Bull confidently affirms I say he who can and will make both or either of these appear shall have my hearty thanks for the Discovery and I shall for the future have a better Opinion of Peter's Supremacy which at present I take to be a groundless Error without any proof or probability I know that the Popes in their Constitutions and their Party usually urge that place in Matthew to prove Peter's and thence their own vast and Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church even the Apostles themselves not excepted the words These Thou art Peter and upon This Rock I will build my Church And I give unto thee The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven From this Place most
Cardinal refers it to our blessed Saviour so does Paul too and if this be not sufficient to Convince the Cardinal and such other Papal Parasites our blessed Saviour expounds it not of Peter but himself and that after he had said to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church 2 This being granted as of necessity it must that our blessed Saviour is the first Immoveable Rock and most sure Foundation on which the Church is built It is also granted and must be so Scripture expresly saying it That Peter is a Foundation too on which the Church is built But in a way far different from that our Adversaries dream of for they do but dream nor will any Considering and Intelligent Person think them well awake when they writ such things For 1. When we say That Peter is a Foundation on which the Church is built our meaning is not that he has by this any Prerogative or Superiority much less what our Adversaries pretend any Monarchical Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church for every one of the Apostles is as well and as much a Foundation of the Christian Church as Peter The Apostle tells us That the Church is a spiritual House which is built upon The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner-stone And St. John to the same purpose speaking of the Church the New Jerusalem says The City had Twelve Foundations and in them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. In these Texts all the Apostles James and Paul as well as Peter are Foundations of the Church equally and without any distinction or difference no Prerogative given to Peter above the rest much less that vast Monarchical Supremacy which is pretended to Both the Greek and Latin Fathers say That the Gospel the Christian Faith or the Creed which contains the Sum of it or Peter's Confession of our blessed Saviour to be Christ the Son of the Living God which is the Chief Fundamental Article of our Faith I say That in those Father's Judgment this Faith is the Foundation on which the Church is built St. Augustin Explaining the Creed to the Catechumens has these words Know you saith he that this Creed is the Foundation on which the Edifice or Building of the Church is raised To the same purpose Theophylact tells us That the Faith which Peter Confess'd was to be the Foundation of the faithful that is of the Church This is a Truth so evident that a Learned Jesuit having Cited and approved Alcazar a Zealous Roman Catholick for this very same Opinion does not only receive and approve but largely and undeniably prove it out of Clemens Romanus Augustin Hierome Russin the Trent Council and St. Paul And then adds That other Councils and Fathers say the same Another Learned Jesuit confesses that it was the opinion of many Ancient Fathers yet he endeavours to Confute it that those words upon this Rock I will build my Church are thus to be understood Upon this Faith or Confession of Faith which thou hast made That I am Christ the Son of the Living God will I build my Church And then he Cites many Fathers to prove it and immediately quotes St. Augustin and with little respect or modesty says That Augustine ' s Opinion was further from sense then those he there Cited because he made Christ the Rock on which the Church was built 3. I take it then for Certain and Confess'd and so does a very Learned Jesuit too that the Twelve Foundations in that Place in the Revelation before Cited Cap. 21. 14. signifies the Twelve Apostles on whom the Wall of the New Jerusalem or the Church of Christ was built and therefore their Names as St. John says were written on those Foundations to signifie that the Apostles Paul as well as Peter were Founders or Foundations of the Christan Church And that this may more distinctly appear and from Scripture it self that every Apostle as well as Peter is a Foundation of the Christian Church we are to Consider First That in Scripture the Church is commonly call'd a House the House of God and every good Christian is a Lively Stone which goes to the building of that spiritual House 2. Our blessed Saviour call'd and sent all his Apostles as well as Peter to build this House He gave some Apostles for the Edifying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or building the Body of Christ That is the Church 3. The Apostles all of them Paul as well as Peter were Master-Builders of this House Evident it is in the Text Cited that St. Paul was a Master-Builder and St. Peter was no more nor is he any where in Scripture expresly said to be so much though I believe and grant he was 4. The Means by which these Master-Builders edify'd and built the Church were these Their diligent Preaching of the Gospel first and more Infallibly Communicated to them then to any others Their Pious and Exemplary Conversation which made their Preaching more Effectual and gave Reputation to it and themselves Their Confirming with Miracles and Sealing the Truth of it with their Blood and Martyrdom 5. Hence the Gospel it self and our Christian Faith is call'd the Foundation of the Church as may appear by what is said before and by St. Paul who expresly calls it so For that Foundation which he there says he had laid at Corinth as may appear from the Context was the Gospel he had preach'd among them So that by the Authorities above Cited I think it may appear that Divines Ancient and Modern Protestant and Papist seem to agree in this That there is a double Foundation of the Church Doctrinal and Personal The first is the Gospel or those Holy Precepts and gracious Promises contain'd in it On the belief and practise whereof the Church solely relyes for Grace here and Glory hereafafter And therefore they are Commonly and Justly call'd the Foundation on which the Church is built Whence it is very usual in Scripture to say that by Preaching the Gospel the Church is Edify'd or Built And because our blessed Saviour immediately call'd all his Apostles gave them Authority and the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit and sent them to Preach the Gospel and they with great success did it Converting Nations building or founding Churches therefore they were call'd Master-Builders Founders and Foundations of the Christian Church as our Adversaries Confess Now as to this Particular as the Apostles were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church Peter had no Preheminence or Prerogative above the other Apostles He was no more Petra a Founder or Foundation of the Church then the other Apostles Nay in this if any certainly St. Paul might challenge a Preference and Preheminence above Peter himself or any of the Rest. For he with truth and modesty
enough tells us That in Preaching the Gospel he laboured More then they All And Irenaeus gives the Reason of it His Sufferings were more He planted more Churches He writ more Epistles then they all his being Fourteen and all the rest but Seven and they in respect of his short ones too which then were and ever since have been and while the World stands will be Doctrinal Foundations of the Christian Church But that which makes more against Peter's Supremacy and for St. Paul's Preference before him at least his Independence upon Peter as the Supream Monarch of the Church is That he tells the Corinthians That the care of All The Churches lay upon him Nor that only but that he made Orders and Constitutions for All those Churches which they were bound to observe So I Ordain saith he in All the Churches So our English truly renders it I know the Vulgar Latin which the Trent Fathers ridiculously declare Authentick renders it otherwise So I teach in all Churches but the word there signifies not to teach but properly to Ordain and Legally Constitute Define and Command So that thereupon Obedience becomes due from those who are Concern'd in such Constitution or Ordinance And this Theodoret took to be the true meaning of that Text and therefore he says That Paul's Ordaining in all Churches was giving them a Law which they were to obey So that here are two things expresly said of Paul in Scripture and that by himself who best knew and was Testis idoneus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Witness beyond all Exception 1. That the care of All the Churches lay upon him 2. That he made Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions for them All whereas in Scripture no such thing is said of Peter or any other Apostle Upon consideration of the Premises some of the Ancients have call'd St. Paul A Preacher to the whole World So Photius and Nicolaus Methonensis Episcopus speaking of several Apostles Officiating at several places as of James at Jerusalem John in Asia Peter and Paul at Antioch c. He adds concerning Paul That he did particularly Officiate to the whole World And to the same purpose Theodoret Expounding the words of the Apostle That the care of All the Churches lay upon him He says That the sollicitude and care of the Whole World lay upon Paul More than this cannot be said of Peter nor is there half so much said of him as of St. Paul in Scripture Had Peter told us That the care of All the Churches lay upon him and that He made Orders and Constitutions to be observed In All Churches both which are expresly said of St. Paul the Canonists and Popish Party would have had some pretence who now have none for Peter's Supremacy I urge not this to Ascribe to Paul that Supremacy we deny to Peter For neither had they nor any other Apostle any such thing but only to shew That St. Paul his Laboâ—s Sufferings the many Churches founded by him and His Canonical Writings consider'd may be thought not without reason a more eminent Founder of the Christian Church then St. Peter 2. But as it is and must be confess'd by Divines Ancient and Modern Protestants and Papists That the Gospel is the Doctrinal Foundation and that Petra on which the Church is Built So there is also a Personal Foundation evidently mention'd in Scripture I mean Persons on whom the Christian Church is built And they are 1. Our blessed Saviour 2. His Apostles 1. That our blessed Saviour is a Rock and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most firm and immoveable Rock on which the Church is Built is evident from the Scriptures before Cited Such a Rock as Peter neither was nor could be much less any of those they call his Successors For 1. Our blessed Saviour was and still is a Rock on which as Irenaeus tells us the Vniversal Church both before and since his coming into the World was built He was promised by God presently after the fall of Adam and then successfully by all the Prophets His Death and Passion was a Propitiation as well for the Sins of those who lived before as ours who live after it and those Promises of the Messiah were such as all the Patriarchs Prophets and Pious men before Christ did know and believe Nay if we believe Eusebius the Promises of the Messias were clearly and distinctly revealed to the Ancient Patriarchs and Prophets though in a less degree and measure of clearness and their Belief and suitable Obedience such that though they had not the name yet they might truly be call'd Christians before Christ. The Apostle tells us That the Gospel was preached to Abraham and so it was to all the Ancient Church by the Prophets who foretold them of the Incarnation Passion and Resurrection of Christ. It was the Gospel St. Paul every where preach'd and yet he says that He preached No other Things then those which The Prophets And Moses did say should come And this is a truth so manifest that to say no more of the Ancient Christian Writers Peter Lombard and the Popish School-men writing De fide Antiquorum of the Faith by which the Saints before our blessed Saviour were saved they all say that they then as we now were saved by Faith in Christ their Redeemer The difference was 1. They believed in Christo Exhibendo we in Christo Actu Exhibito 2. Their Faith before our blessed Saviour's coming was more Imperfect and Implicit Ours since he is come and the Gospel clearly publish'd much more Perfect and Explicite This I say to prove that our blessed Saviour was the Rock on which the Church under the Old Testament was built and in this Particular such a Rock and Foundation of the Church as Peter never was nor could be it being impossible he should be a Foundation of that Church which was founded almost Four thousand years before he was born 2. Our blessed Saviour is a Rock and Foundation on which the whole Christian Church is built even the Apostles themselves as well as others who all of them Peterâ— as well as Paul in respect of Christ who is the great Immoveable Rock which sustains the whole Building are Superstructions though otherwise in respect of the Christian World converted by their Preaching they are call'd Foundations yet only Secundary Foundations all of which are built upon the Principal and prime Foundation Jesus Christ So in the like Instance all the Apostles Peter as well as the rest were both Sheep and Shepherds 1. Sheep in respect of Christ who is the great and chief Shepherd My Sheep hear my voice says our blessed Saviour The Apostles did so when he call'd them they heard and obey'd him Again I lay down my life for my Sheep so he did for his Apostles else
Party have no better ground in Scripture then the Places above mention'd to prove and support that vast Papal Supremacy they most vainly and irrationally pretend to the whole Fabrick must of necessity fall It being impossible that so vast a Superstruction as their Popish Monarchy should be so sustain'd by such Reasons which are so far from being Cogent that they are altogether Impertinent Well but if these will not prove what they are produc'd for the Popes Supremacy other Texts they bring with as much Noise and Confidence as they did the former and if that be possible with less Reason or Consequence For Instance they Ciâ—e to prove the Pope's Supremacy over the whole Church even over all the other Apostles Joh. 21. 15. 16. 17. Pasce Oves meas Feed my Sheep And tell us That our blessed Saviour leaving the World did create Peter his Vicar and highest Priest and Prince of the Vniversal Church which he had promised before Matth. 16. 18 and now perform'd that promise And again they say It appears from this place That Peter and his Successors Popes of Rome is Head and Prince of the Church and that all the Faithful even the Apostles are made Subjects to him to be fed and ruled by him This place is urged by Pope Innocent the Third to the like though God knows little purpose who would have us understand by those words Feed my Sheep that our blessed Saviour meant all his Sheep all good Christians That he might shew says that Pope that they were none of our blessed Saviours Sheep who would not Acknowledge Peter and the Popes of Rome to be their Masters and Pastors And to name no more Pope Boniface VIII indeavours to prove that our blessed Saviour by those words Feed my Sheep meant Vniversally all his Sheep because he does not say singularly these or those but generally Feed my Sheep And from this Place so Expounded they would prove Peter ' s and so the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy over all Christians even the Apostles Kings and Emperors 1. Were it not certain that there is no possibility that any man should bring a true and concluding Reason to prove an erroneous and false Position it would hardly be credible that otherwise Learned men furnished with great Parts of Art and Nature should bring such miserable Stuff such misapply'd and misunderstood Scripture to prove that great Article of their Popes Supremacy which being a manifest Errour without any Foundation in Scripture or Primitive Antiquity I cannot blame them for not bringing what they neither have nor can have better Arguments but that they bring any at all to establish that which they ought and with evident and cogent Reasons might confute 2. As Antiquity did so we do grant all that with any Reason or Just ground they can desire that Peter had a Primacy of Order but not of Power or Jurisdiction amongst the Apostles For the Evangelist naming the Apostles says The First was Peter First in Order or if you will first respectu vocationis as first call'd by our blessed Saviour not to be one of his Disciples for so Andrew was call'd before him as is evident in the Text but in respect of his Call to be an Apostle For when out of his Disciples he chose Twelve to be his Apostles Matthew in the Place Cited saith The first was Peter So we grant to the Bishop of Rome what anciently was given him a Primacy of Order and Precedency before all the Bishops in the Roman Empire But not Jure Divino by Divine Right which without all Reason they pretend to but by the Consent of the Ancient Fathers and Councils And for this we have the Synodical Definition and Declaration of Six hundred and thirty Fathers in an Ancient and received General Council who said That because old Rome was the Imperial City therefore the Fathers had rightly given Priviledges to the Episcopal Seat of that City Where it is evident that in the Judgment of that great and good Council and of the General Council of Constantinople too which they there Cite 1. That the Priviledge and Precedency the Bishop of Rome had was not Convey'd to him by any Divine Right as they now pretend non à Christo vel Petro sed à Patribus it was the Fathers who gave them 2. And the Reason why they gave him such Priviledge and Precedency was not because he was Christ's Vicar and St. Peter's Successor but because Rome was Vrbs Imperialis the great Metropolis of the Roman Empire I know the Popes Legats in that Council did what they could to hinder the passing that Canon and Pope Leo out of it when the Canon was passed did oppose it as much as he was able but in vain For the Canon was Synodically passed by the Concurrent Consent of the whole Council the Popes Legats excepted which was acknowledg'd by the Judges and then Confirm'd by the Emperor and Received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae That which troubled the Pope was that Constantinople should have Equal Priviledges with Rome Precedency only expected even in all Ecclesiastical business and that by the Canon of that great Council and Confirmation of the Emperor the Patriarch of Constantinople should have so vast a Territory under his Jurisdiction to wit Three whole Dioceses Thracica Asiana Pontica more then by any Law of God or Man the Pope ever had under him And 't is here observeable that although this Canon giving Equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Constantinople as to him of Old Rome Precedency only excepted absolutely deny'd that Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over all Patriarchs which the Popes were then nibling at and have since openly own'd yet Leo in his Epistles to the Emperor Anatolius Pulchoria Augusta c. wherein he writes fiercely against this Canon never pretended as afterwards and now they do That the Bishops of Rome had by Divine Right as Vicars of our blessed Saviour a Supream Jurisdiction over all Bishops and Patriarchs in the whole World but complains of Anatolius his pride Catalina Cethegum the Violation of the Nicene Canons and the wrong done to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch To talk of such a Monarchical Supremacy then as the Popes have since pretended to Pope Leo neither did nor durst it was a Doctrine unheard of in those purer times and had he challenged it then as due to him by Divine Right as he was Christ's Vicar he would have made himself Odious and having no ground for such a Challenge ridiculous to the Christian World But when notwithstanding all his Legates could do in the Council or he out of it the Canon pass'd by the Unanimous Consent of the Council and was Confirm'd by the Imperial and Supream Power of the Emperor for the Pope does Petition and Supplicate to him as his Superior though the Pope in a
Private Epistle to Pulcheria Augusta with great Insolence and without any Ground pretends to Cassate and null that Canon by the Authority of St. Peter who never had any such Authority to Null any Just Imperial or Synodical Constitutions yet that Canon was approved received and as de Jure it ought Obey'd by the Eastern Churches both then and ever after When these Pretensions of the Pope and his Legats prevailed not nor were regarded by the Council or Emperor or the Eastern Church other Arts were used at Rome to Conceal that Canon which they could not Cassate from the knowledge of the Western Church And to this end 1. They Corrupt the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversalis the most Authentick Book next to the Bible the Christian Church has or ever had Dionysius Exiguus a Roman-Abbot begins that Impious Work and in his Latin Translation of that Code amongst other things leaves out that Eight and twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon and others of the Popish Party follow him 2. They Corrupt the Canon it self and by putting in other words in their false Translation they make it contradict the Greek Canon and the certain Sense of the Council that made it So in Gratian the Corruptions of this Canon are thus 1. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aequalia Privilegia in the Original Greek Gratian has Similia Privilegia like but not equal Priviledges 2. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior Roma Gratian has Superior Roma Old Rome must be Superior to New Rome or Constantinople if Forgery and Falsification of Records can do it for better Grounds they have none 3. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etiam in Ecclesiasticis magnificetur ut illa Gratian impudently reads Non Tamen in Ecclesiasticis c. But notwithstanding all that Pope Leo or his Legats could do and all their other Indirect Arts afterwards this Eight and twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was received in the Christian World and long after Confirmed by General Councils not only by the Synodus 6. Generalis which was held Anno 681. of which a little before But the Eighth General Council under Pope Adrian II. about the Year 870. gives that Precedency to the Patriarch of Constantinople which the Canon of Chalcedon before gave him And this acknowledged and referred into the Body of their Canon Law in the best Editions of it Revised and Corrected by Pope Gregory XIII And 't is to be observed that this Synodus 8. was Subscribed by the Pope or his Legats there and was then and still is approved and received at Rome Nor need we wonder at it For what it did was carried chiefly by the Popes Authority who was by that Council basely and servilly flatter'd they Calling him Most Holy and Oecumenical Pope and Equal to the Angels c. This Title Oecumenical the Pope took kindly then though his Predecessor Gregory the Great abhorr'd it as Antichristian But to return to the Objection 3. And here before I give a Particular and Distinct Answer to this Place of John Feed my Sheep on which they commonly and vainly build the Popes Supremacy I shall crave leave a little to Explain the nature and measure of that Power which they give the Pope under the name of his Supremacy And here they say That our blessed Saviour gave His own Power to Peter made him his Vicar Head and Pastor of all the Faithful in the World and that in most ample Words when he bad him Feed his Sheep and that it was our blessed Saviours Will that all Peter ' s Successors should have the very same Power which Peter had so the Trent Catechism tells us And this is that Plenitude of Power by which they Erroneously and Impiously Depose Kings and Emperors and as Pius V. does in this Bull we are now speaking of against Queen Elizabeth absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and sworn or natural Fidelity This premised I shall proceed to a direct and I hope a full and satisfying Answer to that place in John Feed my Sheep c. And here I consider 1. That if the Supremacy was first given to Peter in those words Pasce Oves Feed my Sheep as is confess'd and by our Adversaries positively affirm'd in the Objection which was after our blessed Saviours Resurrection then it is Evident he had it not before It being impossible he should have it before it was given him And then it will as Evidently follow that all those Places in the Gospel spoken of or to Peter before our blessed Saviour's Passion are Impertinently urged to prove Peter's Supremacy which he had not till after the Resurrection And yet Innocent III. Boniface VIII and other Popes in their Bulls and Papal Constitutions the Canonists School-men and Commentators usually Cite many places in the Gospel besides this Pasce Oves to prove that Peter had the Supremacy before our blessed Saviour's Passion which here they Confess was not given him till after the Resurrection That they do urge many such Places is known to all Learned men vers'd in these Controversies but if any man doubt of it and desire Satisfaction I shall refer him to what a Learned Popish Writer and Capucine has said in the Margent where he tells us how many places are Cited for the Supremacy 2. When our blessed Saviour says Pasce Oves Feed my Sheep and Feed my Lambs he useth two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both which words the Vulgar Latin renders Pasce feed my Sheep and Lambs Now their Commentators on this place to very little purpose make a great stir and pudder to shew what none denys that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule and govern But let the word signifie what it will in the Civil State yet in the Ecclesiastical and Scripture Sense of the Word where our blessed Saviours Lambs and Sheep that is the Faithful are to be fed every Bishop and Presbyter as well as Peter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastores and may and ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed the â—lock of Christ. So 1. St. Paul tells us who from Miletum sends for the Presbyters of Ephesus I say Presbyters for Timothy who was their first Bishop was with Paul at Miletum and so was none of those he sent for and when they came he Exhorts them to take heed unto themselves and the Flock To feed the Church of God c. where St. Paul when he bids the Presbyters feed the Church useth the very same word our blessed Saviour doth when he bids Peter feed his Sheep 2. So Peter himself who little dream'd of any Supremacy given him by those words Feed my Sheep writing to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews and Exhorting the Jewish Elders or Presbyters to a diligent care in feeding the Flock he useth the very same word to them our
at an end we would acquiesce and admit what upon undeniable evidence we deny the Popes Supremacy But this they neither do nor is there any possibility they ever should prove For there is not one Syllable in Scripture of Peter's Successor or of what Power he received from him and nothing but Scripture can prove our blessed Saviour's Institution and Divine Law whereby Peter's Supremacy is transmitted to his Successor The truth is that Pius V. in the beginning of this his Impious Bull and other Popes many times in their Bulls Breves and Decretal Constitutions and their Writers generally take it for granted that our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Supremacy over the whole Church and to his Successors after him And when some of them sometimes go about to prove it the Reasons they bring are so far from Sense and Consequence that they may deserve Pity and Contempt rather than a serious Answer But when Reason will not Convince they have other Roman Arts to Cosen men into a Belief that what was given to Peter was likewise given to the Pope his Successor and that is amongst other ways by Corrupting the Ancient Fathers with false Translations So when Chrysostom had faid That the Power of the Keys was not given to Peter only but to the rest of the Apostles Pet. Possinus adds Successors and renders it thus The Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter And His Successors c. where Chrysostome whom he Translates has nothing of Peter's Successors but truly and plainly says That the Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter but to the rest of the Apostles when our blessed Savionr told them whose sins ye remit they are remitted and whose sins ye retain they are retained So in the Epistle of Pope Leo to the Bishops of France and of his Legat Paschasinus about the Condemnation of Dioscorus in the Council of Chalcedon these Words occur in the Latin Copies The most holy and most blessed Pope Leo Head of the Vniversal Church Where these words Head of the Vniversal Church are not in the Greek Copies as that Learned Archbishop ingenuously and truly Confesseth but by Roman Arts falsly and basely interserted that so they might by fraud what by no Reason they can maintain the Pope's impiously usurped Supremacy And that we may know how unpleasing the publishing of such things though evidently true are to the Pope and his Party at Rome who are resolved in despight of truth to maintain the Popes pretended Supremacy this Learned Work of that great Roman Catholick Archbishop is damn'd by the Inquisitors not to be printed read or had by any He who seriously reads and understands the Latin Versions of the Greek Councils Fathers and other Greek and Latin Writers may find an hundred such Frauds to maintain what they know they have no just reason for their Papal and Antichristian Tyranny And their Jndices Expurgatorij are Authentick Evidences to Convince them of these Unchristian Practises to conceal truth and cosen the World into a belief of their pernicious Papal Errors Nor is this all nor the worst for so desperately are they set upon it that if their Interest and the Papal Monarchy cannot otherwise be maintain'd as 't is impossible it should by any just and lawful means they speak impiously and blasphemously of our blessed Saviour Thomas Campegius Episcopus Feltrensis in his Book of the Power of the Pope to Paul IV. says That our blessed Saviour had not been a Diligent Father of the Family to his Church unless he had left such a Monarch over his Church as the Pope of whom he is there speaking And the Cites Pope Innocent and Aquinas to justifie it Albertus Pighius is as high to the same impious purpose and expresly says That our blessed Saviour had been wanting to his Church in things necessary if he had not Constituted and left such a Monarch and Judge of Controversies And a great Canonist if that be possible more blasphemously says That our blessed Saviour while he was on Earth had power to pronounce the Sentence of Deposition and Damnation against the Emperor or any other And by the same Reason His Vicar now can do it And then he impiously adds That our blessed Saviour would not have seem'd Discreet unless he had left such a Vicar as could do all these things c. So if it be granted which is most evident and certainly true that our blessed Saviour left no such Monarchical Vicar as the Pope then they are not affraid to accuse him of want of Diligence and Discretion And this impious Gloss is approved and confirm'd by Pope Gregory XIII as we may be sure what makes for his Extravagant Power and Papal Monarchy how Erroneous and Impious soever shall not want his Approbation And thus much of the third Priviledge of the Apostles their Vniversal Jurisdiction equally in them all in James and John and Paul as much as Peter and this Jurisdiction Personal to all and never transmitted to any of their Successors 4. Besides the Immediate call of the Apostles their Power of doing Miracles and their Universal Jurisdiction over all the World they were all of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinely Inspired by the Holy Ghost so that they had Infallibility so far as whatever they preach'd or writ was Divine and the undoubted Word of God This Priviledge also was Personal nor ever was Communicated to any of their Successors I know that the Canonists and Jesuits in the last and worst of times would make the World believe without any shadow of rational ground that Peter transferred his Infallibility to the Pope and made him the Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith and Fact too A thing so evidently false and without any possibility of proof that 't is a wonder tha◠any should have the Confidence to assert it especially in Paris the great Metropolis of 〈◊〉 Church which constantly does and has deny◠the Popes Infallibility and Superiority to a General Council 2. But that which might fo◠ever silence this Irrational and Injust Claim 〈◊〉 Infallibility in the Pope is that for Matter o◠Fact none of them though they were some times nibling at a kind of Supremacy for above a Thousand Years after our blessed Saviour either did or dared pretend to Infallibility and if they had they had made themselves ridiculous For 3. It was notoriously known that several of their Popes were Hereticks For instance Liberius Honorius Vigilius c. And for Heresie Condemn'd in General Councils as is evident from the Acts themselves and has been demonstrated not only by Protestants but by very Learned men of the Roman Communion 4. And he who seriously reads and impartially considers their Papal Bulls Breves and Decretal Constitutions and in them how ridiculously they reason and prophane rather than expound Scripture will have abundant
and Judged that sufficient without going to Rome The Bishop of Rome in those days pretended to no more Supremacy or Infallibility in the Apostolical Church and Chair at Rome then the Bishop of Ephesus or Corinth in the Apostolical Chairs and Churches of those Cities If Sedes Apostolica and Cathedra Apostolica be a sufficient ground to infer and prove Supremacy then either all such Churches must be Supream which is impossible or none at all which is certainly true 3. But they say The Bishop of Rome is Peter ' s Successor and on this they principally and generally ground his Supremacy as derived to him Jure â—â—â—cessions and Jure Divino too by Divine Right and Succession Now if this be true if Succession to Peter carry Supremacy with it Then seeing they constantly say 1. That Peter was seven years Bishop of Antioch before he was of Rome 2. And that Euodius was his Successor there I desire to know why the Supremacy did not descend to Euodius his first and immediate Successor For admit that Peter had such Supremacy and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to some Successor both which are manifestly untrue yet seeing such Transmission of his Supremacy must be done either 1. By some Act of our blessed Saviour Or 2. By some Act of Peter transmitting his Supremacy to his Successor at Rome and not to Euodius at Antioch it will concern our Adversaries to shew such Act of our blessed Saviour or Peter For if they can we will submit and give the Cause but if they cannot then seeing idem est non esse non apparere they must pardon our unbelief if we assent not to that which they cannot prove I say cannot prove there being not one syllable in Scripture or Antiquity for Six hundred years I might give more either expresly affirming or from which it may by good Consequence be deduced that either our blessed Saviour or Peter did transmit such a Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility to the Bishop of Rome more then to the Bishop of Antioch If any man think otherwise let him give us good proof of the contrary and we will give him thanks and the Cause 2. But admit that the Pope succeeds Peter and really sits in Cathedrâ Petri as his Successor which is evidently untrue yet this will not prove his Monarchical Supremacy if it do appear that any other Apostle succeeded our blessed Saviour before Peter was Bishop any where and by his own Appointment sat in our blessed Saviour's Place and Episcopal Chair as his Successor I say if this appear then as our blessed Saviour is far greater then Peter so his Successor will be greater then the Pope and have a fairer pretence for the Supremacy as our blessed Saviour's immediate Successor then the Pope can possibly have as Peter's Now for this let our Adversaries consider what Epiphanius says Thus James the Brother of 〈◊〉 Lord was the first Bishop when our blessed Savioâ—r concredited and resign'd to him before all others his Throne or Episcopal Chair on Earth And heâ— let it be consider'd 1. That in Scripture 〈◊〉 blessed Saviour is call'd a Bishop Vniversâ— Bishop of the whole Church with Monarchiâ—cal and Kingly Power 2. He was in a particulaâ— and peculiar way Bishop of the Jews he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Peculiar Oversight and Cure 〈◊〉 them He was sent in Person only to them He Constituted a Church amongâ— them Ordain'd Apostles and Seventy otheâ— Inferior Ministers whom he sent to Preacâ— and do Miracles in Confirmation of their Doctrine he constantly preached the Gospel amongst them and did all those Acts a Bishop should do in his Diocese 3. And Jerusalem being the Metropolis of the Jews Epiphanius tells us that it was on Earth his Throne Thronus suus his Episcopal Seat or Chair where he usually was preach'd and did Miracles 4. He says That our blessed Saviour chose James before all the Rest even before Peter and concredited and resigned to him Thronum suum his Episcopal Seat and that James was Bishop of Jerusalem is attested by all Antiquity And this probably was the Reason 1. Why Paul names James as Bishop of Jerusalem before Peter 2. Why in the Council of the Apostles James and not Peter gave the definitive Sentence So that these things seem to me certain 1. That our blessed Saviour though Bishop of the Universal Church yet he had a Particular Episcopal Cure and Charge of the Jews As his Father was King of all the World yet Particularly of the Jews 1. Sam. 12. 12. it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. That James was his Successor in that Cure 3. And if Epiphanius say true our blessed Saviour himself appointed him his Successor Let our Adversaries by so good Authority shew that Peter was our blessed Saviour's Successor either at Rome as some of them before mention'd only pretend or any where else and for my part let them take the Cause Otherwise if they cannot then we may evidently conclude That if James never did nor could pretend justly to a Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church though our blessed Saviour's Successor much less may the Pope for succeeding Peter Q. E. D. 4. But the Pope they say is Christ's Vicar and that he is or should be so we grant But we further say that many thousands besides him are Christ's Vicars as well and as much as he This has been manifestly proved before I shall only add that the Trent Fathers who far they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and so surely Infallible expresly say and Synodically define That our blessed Saviour before his Ascention left all Priests his own Vicars to whom as to Presidents and Judges all Mortal sins were to be Confess'd And Aquinas and their Schoolmen say That in the Church the Bishop is Christ's Vicar and they prove it well from the express and plain words of the Apostle and they might have added also 2. Cor. 5. 20. And Henry Holden a Learned Sorbon Doctor in his Annotations upon those Texts says the same thing And now if to be Christ's Vicar give any ground or pretence to Supremacy then all Bishops and Priests who are Confess'd to be Christ's Vicars may pretend to Supremacy as well as the Pope And they being Christ's Vicars as to the Power of Absolving and Retaining Sins every poor Priest has as much power to absolve the Pope as he him So that any Argument drawn from this Title that he is Christ's Vicar to prove the Popes Supremacy is not only Inconsequent but Impertinent and indeed Ridiculous And yet upon this ground and another as Insignificant Pope Innocent the Fourth in their General Council at Lions Excommunicates and Deposes the Emperor Friderick Seeing says the Pope there we are Christ's Vicar on Earth and it was in the Person of Peter said to us Whatsoever thou binds on Earth
shall be bound in Heaven we declare and denounce the said Friderick deprived of all his Honour and Dignity absolve his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Excommunicate all who shew him any favour or obey him as Emperor And to the same purpose their Trent Catechism tells us That the Pope has by Divine Right not by any Human Constitutions that Supream Degree of Dignity and Jurisdiction over the Vniversal Church as Peter's Successor sitting in his Chair and as Vicar of Christ. 5. But that which they press with most Noise and Confidence is That our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven They seem to be in Love with these words Dabo Tibi Claves c. For in their Offices for only two of St. Peter's Festivals they are repeated almost Twenty times But how Impertinent this is to prove any Supremacy much less their Papal Monarchy will evidently appear in that this Power of the Keys which they would appropriate to the Pope was given to the rest of the Apostles as well as to Peter as is proved before nay to every Bishop and Priest in the World For 1. So their own Roman Breviary published by the Authority of Pope Pius the Fifth and afterwards revised by Clement the Eighth and Vrban the Eighth expresly says for having told us that our blessed Saviour gave the Keys to Peter it follows That this Power did pass to the other Apostles and Princes of the Church 2. Their Trent Catechism having spoke of the Power of the Keys afterwards tells us to whom our blessed Saviour gave and concredited that Power before he Ascended into Heaven And it was To the Bishops and Presbyters So that Catechism publish'd according to the Decree of the Council of Trent by Pope Pius the Fifth And 3. Their Roman Pontifical gives the Authentick Form how they Ordain a Priest in which the Power of the Keys is given to every Priest in the very same words our blessed Saviour did give it to the Apostles Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins you remit they are remitted And whose sins you retain they are retained 4. Lastly The Trent Fathers are yet if that be possible more express For speaking of the Sacrament of Pennance and Absolution They declare all their Opinions to be false and erroneous who think that the Exercise of the Ministery and Power of the Keys belong to any save The Bishops and Presbyters and who think those words Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth c. And whose sins you remit shall be remitted c. to be spoken indifferently to all the Faithful and so think that any of the faithful may bind and loose remit and retain sins In which words the Council does I suppose Infallibly Declare at least in our Adversaries Opinion 1. That those two Texts which are cited in the Margent of the Council are to be understood of the Power of the Keys though in one of them that of John the Keys be not expresly named 2. That the Exercise of that Power of the Keys belongs To the Bishops and Presbyters but to none else neither to Lay-men nor any Inferior Orders By the Premisses I think it evident and confess'd by our Adversaries that every Apostle had the Power of the Keys as well as Peter and since they left the World every Bishop and Priest as well as the Pope Whence it further and manifestly follows That 't is impossible that the Bishop of Rome or any of his party should as they vainly indeavor prove his Supremacy from his Power of the Keys which is common and really possess'd by so many thousands beside himself For this is just as if Titius should brag that he is far richer then Sempronius because he has Five hundred pounds per Annum when Sempronius has an equal Estate and of the very same Value Or as if Sejus should say he had far greater Power then Cajus when the Power given them by the Emperor was equal and the same And yet such is the vanity and folly of their pretended Infallible Judges that in their Bulls and Papal Constitutions received into the Body of their Canon Law Dabo Tibi Claves this Power of the Keys is laid as a Sandy and Insignificant Foundation on which they build the vast and Insupportable Fabrick of their Supremacy I shall Instance only in two though I might in many more 1. In that famous Decretal of Innocent the Third before cited wherein he impiously and ridiculously indeavors to prove that the Papal Dignity is as much greater then the Imperial as the Sun is greater than the Moon And amongst other wild and ridiculous Arguments to prove his equally wild and extravagant Position he comes at last to this Dabo Tibi Claves to the Power of the Keys as the most known ground of his Supremacy 2. The second Instance is that of Pope Innocent the Fourth in his Impious Excommunication and Deposition of the Emperor Frederick who had been before Excommunicated by his Predecessor Gregory the Ninth in the Council of Lions It is Extant in the Canon Law and two things there prefix'd to that most Impious Decretal 1. That he depos'd Frederick in the Council for a perpetual memory of it And so it stands for a perpetual memory of his Antichristian Pride and Impiety 2. That the Pope can Depose the Emperor for lawful Causes And then in that Impious Decretal he grounds his Power to Depose the Emperor principally upon the Power of the Keys which he says was given to him in Peter when our blessed Saviour said Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth should be bound in Heaven c. so he and his Predecessors and Successors generally for this Six hundred years last past applies that Power of the Keys which is purely spiritual to carnal and temporal ends and impious purposes And here it seems to me Considerable and I believe will seem so to pious and dis-interessed Persons that in former Roman Breviaries as also in our Portiforium or Breviary of Sarum and in the Missals of Salisbury and Hereford we have this Prayer 1. Deus qui Beato Petro Apostolo tuo Collatis Clavibus Regni Coelestis Animas Ligandi atque Solvendi Pontisicium tradidisti Concede ut Intercessionis ejus Auxilio c. O God who by giving the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to thy Apostle Peter hast concredited and delivered to him the Pontifical Power of binding and loosing mens Souls grant that by the help of his Intercession c. Where it is evident that in the sense and plain meaning of this Prayer and Scripture too the Power of the Keys is spiritual to bind mens souls if Impenitent and if Contrite and truly Penitent to loose them I say spiritual for edification and saving mens souls and not temporal for Deposing Kings and Emperors and absolving their Subjects from their Oaths of
had A Great Appearance of Piety because they Lived Justly Before Men Believ'd All Things well of God and All the Articles of the Creed The Twelve Articles of their New Trent Creed were neither then believ'd nor known no not at Rome Well if all this be true and it is their Enemy who gives them this ample Testimony what was it that made this Sect of all others the most pernicious to the Church of Rome Certainly the Antiquity or generality of this Sect the Piety of their Lives their believing all things well of God and all the Articles of the Creed none of these could be â—ernicious to any Truth or any True Church What was it then Why he tells us in the next words that it was only this They Blasphemed or spake ill of the Church and Clergy of Rome And as he Confesses The Multitude of the Laity easily believed them which is an evident Argument that it was neither incredible nor altogether improbable which the Multitude of the Laiety so easily believed Two things indeed those poor persecuted Waldenses said which were very true and most pernicious to the Church of Rome for nothing is more pernicious to darkness and error then light and truth 1. They said That the Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon in the Revelation 2. That the Pope was the Head of all the Errors in that Antichristian Church And on this Account it was that the Church of Rome did call those poor Waldenses Hereticks and as such did with Fire and Sword and the utmost Cruelty persecute them For as is aforesaid he is an Heretick at Rome who contradicts or disbelieves the Canons and Constitutions of that Church although he do not really disbelieve any Divine Truth contain'd in the Canon of Scripture Now as it was with the poor Waldenses so we are sure it has been is and will be with all Protestants Princes and People Supream or Subjects they are at Rome declared Hereticks and liable to all the Punishments of that which they are pleas'd to call Heresie and when they have opportunity and ability those Punishments will certainly be Inflicted without any Pity or Mercy And this brings me to the third Inquiry What those Punishments are And here because the Punishments of Heresie are very many and very great it is neither my present business nor purpose particularly to set them all down and explain them Only I shall in favour to the Ordinary Reader for to the Learned they are better known name some Authors where he may find a Distinct and full Explication of the Nature of Heresie according to the Popish Principles and the Number of its Punishments And here 1. The Gloss of their Canon Law reduces the Punishments of Hereticks to Four Heads in the General Hereticks says the Glossator are to be punished either 1. By Excommunication 2. Deposition 3. Loss of all their Goods 4. By Military Persecution that is by Fire and Sword by War and armed Souldiers This is approved by several of their Learned Writers 2. For the Body of the Canon Law to pass by Gratian and his Decretum those who have a mind and leasure may consult the Titles De Haereticis which occur in the Decretals of Greg. 9. of Bonis 8. in the Clementines Extravagantes Communes and in the lately added Seaventh Book of the Decretals with the Glosses and Panormitan's large Comment upon them 3. For the Punishment of Hereticks by the Civil Laws they who have a mind to know may consult Justinians Code Lib. 1. Tit. 5. De Haereticis Manichaeis with the Gloss there And especially the Theodosian Code Lib. 16. Tit. 5. De Haereticis Manichaeis Samaritanis with the Larger and most Learned Notes of Jacobus Gothofredus in the Edition of the Codex Theodosianus at Lions 1665. Tom. 6. pag. 104. To these may be added the Severe Laws of the Emperor Friderick the Second made in pursuance of the Lateran Council and though he had little reason for it to gratifie the Pope in his barbarous designs to ruin all those he call'd generally miscall'd Hereticks which Laws as we may be sure they would the Pope and his Party did highly approve And have referr'd them into the Body of their Canon Law 7. Decretalium Lib. 5. Tit. 3. Capp 1. 2. In Edit Corporis Juris Can. Lugduni Anno 1661. 4. And for a full and particular Explication of those Laws and the Quality of the Punishments of Hereticks Inflicted by them their Casuists and Canonists may be consulted Amongst many others such as these Filliucius Durantus Antonius Archiepiscopus Florentinus Azorius Paul Layman Raynerius Johan de Turrecremata Cardinal Hostiensis and Antonius Augustinus Archiepiscopus Terraconensis a most Learned Canonist and a very useful Book has given us a Catalogue of their Canons De poenis quae sunt Hoereticis Constitutae In short whoever has a mind opportunity and ability to Consult the aforemention'd Authors or such others may easily find the Number and Nature of those Punishments which by their Impious Papal Canons and Constitutions are to be Inflicted on those better Christians then themselves they are pleased to call Hereticks 10. Concerning this Impious Bull containing the Damnation as he calls it and Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth by Pope Pius the Fifth it is further to be observed That it is no new thing For Queen Elizabeth was actually Excommunicate before 1. In their famous Bulla Coenae Domini take famous in which sense you will the worst is good enough wherein they do at Rome Anathematize and Curse all Protestants both Kings and Subjects Princes and Common People It is called Bulla Coenae Domini because it is published every year on Maundy Thursday the Day in which our blessed Saviour Instituted Coenam Domini the Sacrament of his last Supper And here by the way we may observe the difference between Christ and his pretended Vicar Antichrist 1. On that Day our blessed Saviour Institutes that Sacrament as a blessing and seal of the mutual Love between him and his Church and of the Communion and Charity of Christians amongst themselves but the Pope far otherwise and unlike him whose Vicar he pretends to be on the very same Day without and against Christian Charity Anathematizes and Curses the greatest part of Christians 2. Our blessed Saviour was that Day ready to Dye for the Salvation of Sinners but his pretended Vicar is ready on the same Day and so far as he is able does actually Damn the greatest part of the Christian World and has been drunk with the blood of the Saints 3. Nor did Queen Elizabeth stand Accursed before Pius the Fifth's Excommunication of her only in that Bulla Coenae but in several other Papal Bulls I shall only name one and because it is of signal Consequence and to our present
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
Catena Nicetae Serrarum Episcopi ad Matth. 16. 18. vide Catenam Graecam in Matth. per Possinum Jesuitam Cap. 16. 18. Hilarius Pictaniens De Trinitate l. 2. p. 25. Edit Erasmi Theophylact in Matth. 16. 18. x Index Librorum Prohibit Expurg Madriti 1667. In Desid Erasmo p. 289. Col. 1. y Super hanc Petram i. e. super fidei Tuae soliditatem Can. loquitur 18. Caus. 24. Quaest. 1. verbo Petram in Glossâ z Super hanc Petram quam Confessus es i. e. Christum Lyranus in Matth. 16. 18. a Super hanc Petram i. e. Christum in quem credis Glossa Interlinearia in dictum Locum b So Gregorius Magnus in 7. Psalmos Poenitential Tom. 2. Operum Paris 1619. pag. 908. D. Christus est Petra à qua Petrus Nomen Accepit Super Quam se aedificaturum Ecclesiam dixit Quod Ecclesia nullis Persecutionibus sit superanda Ipse Super Quem aedificata est Ostendit cum ait Portae Inferorum non praevalebunt contra eam So Strabo Fuldensis in his Ordin Gloss. on Matth. 16. 18. circa Ann. 840. And after them Lyranus in the Place cited who though he was a Franciscan Frier and flourished almost Four hundred years ago and in many things as those times were Popish enough yet he was not come so far as to make Peter or any but Christ the Rock on which the Church was built And again on the 1. Cor. 3. 11. Solus Christus est Fundamentum Ecclesiae quod ex se firmitatem stabilitatem habet And the Gloss on their own Canon Law says That Christ was the Rock for Boniface 8. in that famous Extravagant Cap. Unam Sanctam 1. Indeavouring to prove the Papal Supremacy from several Places in Scripture he adds That the Authority given to Peter and his Successors by our blessed Saviour was not Human but Divine Haec Authoritas licet homini data non humana sed potius Divina ore divino Petro data Successoribu c. The Gloss on these words Est autem haec Authoritas p. 191. says thus Haec Authoritas est Divina quia firmata est in Petra firma in Christo qui erat verus Deus quod sit Divina quia fundata in eo patet ex Evangelio quia Christus loquebatur cum dixit super hanc Petram id est super meipsum qui sum Petra qui significor per Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Ita Gloss. verbo Est autem haec Authoritas Ad Cap. Unam Sanctam 1. Extrav Commun c Super hanc Petram i. e. Super Ipsum Petrum seu Petram seu Cepham vel Super Fidem Petri quae est Catholica Dr. Hen. Holden in Annotat. in Nov. Testam Paris 1660. ad Matth. 16. 18. ad 7. Matth. vers 25. d Synodus Statuit praemittendam esse Confessionem Fidei Symbolum fidei quo Romana Ecclesia utitur tanquam Principium ac Fundamentum firmum ac Vnicum contra quod portae Inferi nunquam praevalebunt Conc. Trident. Sess. 3. Feb. 4. Ann. 1546. e Matth. 16. 18. f Per Petram Confessionem Fidei intelligunt Chrysostomus Cyrillus Hilarius Rom. Pontifices Leo magnus Agatho Nicolaus Adrianus primus in suis Decretalibus Stapleton Princep Fidei Doct. Demonstr Controvers 2. l. 6. c. 2. p. 207. 208. g Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico Tibi quia Tues Petrus Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Super Illum Vnum aedificat Ecclesiam Catechis Trid. ex Decreto Conc. Trid. à Pio. 5. Editus Part. 1. Cap. 10. de 9. Symboli Art §. 12. p. 115. Edit Paris 1635. h Matth. 7. 24. 25. i 1 Joh. 5. 4. 5. k Orat Sacerdos ut Sacra Symbola Omnibus cedant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Lit. Jac. Graec. Paris 1560. p. 20. vid. Fabr. Stapulensem in Matth. 16. 18. So Pope Nicol. 2. Ecclesia super Petram fidei fundata Gratian. Can. Omnes 1. Dist. 22. And the Apostle in his Canonical Epistle Jude 20. adviseth all to build up themselves on their most holy Faith l Isa. 28. 16. m Edit Rom. 1590. n Edit Rom. 1592. o Bellarmine in Praefat. ad Libr. de Pontif Rom. vid. R. Crakanth Contra Spalatens Cap. 81. §. 3. p. 612. p Vid. Hieronym in Isaiae 28. vers 16. Isiodor Clarius in 1. Cor. 3. 10. Fundatissimum Fundamentum Christus q 1 Pet. 2. 6. 7. 8. and Act. 4. 11. r Rom. 9. 33. 10. 11. 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Cor. 10. 4. s Matth. 21. 42. But though Paul and Peter and our blessed Saviour himself do expound the word Rock on which the Church is built not to be meant of Peter but Christ the Messiah as appears by the foregoing Texts yet Maldonate the Jesuit whose words I shall cite anon says That 't is very far from sense so to expound it Maldonate in Matth. 16. 17. p. 339. Col. 1. E. And yet Card. Cusanus says That Christ was that Rock Operum p. 826. And so Cyrill in the Aurea Catenâ Graec. Patrum in Psalmos David 50. per Dan. Barbaram Patriarcham Aquileiensem Venet. 1569. ad vers 2. Psal. 39. aliâs 40. p. 400. 401. So Gregorius Magnus in 7. Psal. Poenitent Tom. 2. p. 980. D. So Chrysostom c. t 1. Pet. 2. 5. u Eph. 2. 20. x Rev. 21. 14. y Noveritis Symbolum hoc esse Fundamentum super quod aedificium Ecclesiae surrexit Ang. lib. 3. de Symbolo ad Catechumen Tom. 9. z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact in Matth. 16. 17. 18. a Alcazar ' s words are these Censco Apostolos ideo fundatores Ecclesiae dici quia fidei summam ediderunt eff usâ— Cruoris Testimonio necnon praedicatione Miraculiâ— in hominum animis inseverunt Corn. A Lapide in Apocal. 21. 14. p. 112. Col. 2. C. b Concil Trident. Sess. 3. Apostolicum Symbolum vocat firmum atque Vnicum Fundamentum Contra quod portae Inferi non praevalebunt Idem ibid. Col. 2. E c Tale Fundamentum à Paulo fuit Jactum 1 Cor. 3. 10. in Saptens Architectus Fundamenum posui Idem ibidem d Idem dicâ—nt alia Concilia Paâ—res Ibid. e Sunt inter veteres Authores qui Interpretantur super hanc Petram i. e. Super Hanc Fidem aut Super hanc Fidei Confessionem quâ me Filium esse Dei vivi dixisti ut Hilarius Greg Nyssenus Chrysostomus Cyrillus Alexandrinus Ambrosius in Epistolas Pauli c. Maldonat in Matth. 16. 17. p. 339. Col. 1. E. f Longiùs etiam à Sensu Reccdens Augustinus interpretatur super hanc Petram i. e. Super meipsum quia Petra erat Christus Maldonat ibid. g Certum est apud Omnes haec 12. Fundamenta Rev. 21. 14. significare 12. Apostolos ipsorum enim humeris quasi innixus Ecclesiae murus recumbit Ideo enim eorum nomina fundamentis Inscripta sunt ut significetur Ipos esse