Brutum Fulmen: OR THE BULL OF Pope Pius V. Concerning the Damnation, Excommunication, and Deposition OF Q. ELIZABETH, As also the Absolution of her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance, with a Peremptory Injunction, upon Pain of an Anathema, never to obey any of Her Laws or Commands. With some Observations and Animadversions upon it. By THOMAS Lord Bishop of Lincoln. Whereunto is Annexed the Bull of Pope Paul the Third, containing the Damnation, Excommunication, etc. of King Henry the Eighth. Come out of her my People, that ye partake not of her Sins and Plagues. Rev. XVIII. 4. LONDON, Printed by S. Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXI. The Right Hon. ble Algernon Capell, Earl of Essex, Viscount Maldon, and Baron Capell of Hadham: 〈◊〉. THE EIPSTLE TO THE READER. Reader, WHoever thou art (Protestant or Papist, Courteous or Censorious) having made these Papers public, thou hast a liberty to read, and a right to judge; and that thou mayst do it impartially, (not out of hate or kindness to me, but upon a serious and just Consideration of the Cause) I shall neither importune thy Favour, nor deprecate (when 'tis just) thy severest Censure. For, 1. 'Tis truth, I have impartially desired, and not indiligently sought; and if (by the blessing of God) I have found it, Magna est veritas & praevalebit, it will prevail, in despite of all Enemies and Opposition; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not super, non immersabilis undis. Truth we know (especially Divine Truth, which concerns our Souls and their salvation) ever had, and, so long as there are Devils and wicked Men, will have in this World many Enemies; who will endeavour (what they cannot do) to suppress it; premi potest veritas, opprimi non potest. They may dipp, and (for some time) keep it under water, but they cannot drown it. If these Papers contain truth, (as I hope they do) than I am sure that every Intelligent Reader, and pious lover of Truth, will be its Patron; and (though in this Epistle I do not solicit him) ready to vindicate it from the Objections of its Adversaries. But (on the other side) if my Reader relate to Rome, and be possessed with strong delusion to believe (against Reason and Divine Revelation) his Catholic Cause, the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility, it will be in vain for me, in this Epistle, to desire (what I believe I a The reason why I cannot expect the favour or assent of my Adversaries, (especially of the Jesuits) is, because Maldonate tells us, That Luther and Calvin (Arch-heretics) are not to be followed, though they speak things consonant to Scripture— Cum sacris literis consent ancadocent, Non Sequendi. Nay Calvinists and Lutherans, Even When They Speak Truth, are no more to be harkened to, Then To the Devil. Lutherani & Calvinistae à Deo, & Ecclesia tanquam perniciosissimi Haeretici declarati, non magis, Etiam Cum Vera Dicunt, Audiendi sunt, Quam Diabolus, Maldonat. Comment. in Matth. 16. vers. 6. p. 336. C. Nor is this Maldona●'s peculiar Opinion; for the Censor Librorum, who approves his Commentaries on Matthew, tells us, That Omnia in illis juxta Orthodoxam Apostolicae ac Romanae Ecclesiae Doctrinam Summa Cum Eruditione exponi. Ita Joh. Clavius De villo. Libr. Censor. cannot have) his Favour. However, he shall have my Pity and Prayers, That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to open his Eyes, and bless him with the Knowledge and Love of the Truth. 2. We know 'tis true, what the great Roman Orator long since said— Humanum est errare, labi, decipi, etc. The wisest men have their mistakes; Bernardus non videt Omnia, & quandóque bonus dormitat Homerus. Since Adam fell, the best men have their Infirmities, and sometimes err, even when they desire and seek Truth. Since the Prophets, our blessed Saviour and his Apostles, left the world, I know no man Infallible; nor any, save the Pope, who (against evident Reason and the sense of Christendom) pretends to it. For my own part, I do humbly acknowledge my many and great Infirmities; and for these Papers— Hominem pagina nostra sapit, there may be mistakes and errors in them; yet it is my hope and (not ungrounded) belief, that there are none such as may prove pernicious, or (in the main) dangerous— Non hic Centauros, non Gorgonas, Harpyasve invenies. No such prodigious and pernicious errors, as our Popish Adversaries maintain, & (so far as they are able) vindicate: such I mean as their stupid Doctrine of Transubstantiation (contradictory to Natural Reason, Divine Revelation, and all our Senses) their Idolatrous Adoration of a piece of Bread, with Divine b Nullus dubitand● Locus, quin Cultus Latriae qui Vero Deo debetur, sic huic Sacramento exhibendus. Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. De Encharistâ. cap. 5. Worship due to God only) their Sacrilegious robbing the Laity of half the Sacrament in the Eucharist, contrary to our blessed Saviour's express c Matth. 26. 27. And they obeyed, and did all drink. & Marc. 14. 23. Command, and the practice of the Christian d Cardinal Bona, De Rebus Liturgicis, l. 2. c. 18. pag. 491: 492: Paris. 1672. Lindanus Panopliae, l. 4. c. 56. p. 342. Colon. 1575. World (even of the Church of Rome herself) for above a thousand years (as their own great and learned Writers confess) etc. I say, such errors as these, I do (and have reason to) believe, the Reader will not find in these Papers. Though it be certain and confessed, that every one, even the best and most learned Writers are fallible; yet so long as they rationally build their Conclusions upon the clear Principles of Nature, Scripture, or Universal Tradition, They may be sure enough, (and so may their Reader too) that they are not actually false, nor what they so write erroneous. However if the Reader find any errors of what nature soever, and can make it appear, that they are indeed errors, I shall not (as I said before) deprecate his severest Censure, but concur with him, and Censure them myself, as much as he; and do hereby promise publicly to retract them, and heartily thank him for the discovery. For in this Case my Reader and I shall both be Gainers, and (in a several way) Conquerors— e Vid. Hieronym. adversus Luciferianos, in sine. Tom. Operum. 1. p. 230. Col. 2. G. Vicimus utérque nostrum, palmam Tu refers mei, Ego Erroris; my Reader has overcome me, by manifesting my mistakes, and I (by his help) have overcome those errors; otherwise, in Cyprian's opinion and language, f Cyprian Epist. 71. ad Quintum fratrem, p. 140. in Editione Rigaltij, Paris. 1648. Non vincimur cum offeruntur nobis meliora, sed instruimur. He, who by his Adversaries help and concluding Arguments, gains the knowledge of Truth, is (in that good Father's opinion) not conquered, but instructed. But if the Intelligent Reader discover any error in these Papers, and can, and will really make it appear to be so, let him call it what he will, Victory or Instruction, I shall thankfully submit, and both love that truth, and him for the discovery of it. 3. I know that this Tract of mine (as every one of the like nature) is already prohibited and damned at Rome; for the Rules g Extant dictae Regulae Indici Tridentino praesixae, in Calce Concilij Tridentini. Antu. 1633. presixed to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, contrived by the Authority of the Trent Council, declare all Books of h Libri Vulgari Idiemate de Controverstis inter Catholicos & Haereticos nostri temporis disserentes, non passim permittantur, sed de iis idem servetir quod de Bibliis Vulgari Linguâ scriptis Statutum est. Ibidem Reg. 6. Controversies between Catholics and Heretics (Protestant's and Papists) in any Vulgar Tongue, prohibited and damned; neither to be i Legentes, aut habentes, poenas in Sacris Canonibus, Constitutionibus Apostolicis, & Indicibus Librorum prohibitorum contentas, incurrere volumus, Ita Bulla Creg. 15. Data Rom. 30. Decemb. 1622. had nor read by any Papist, under pain of Excommunication, and many other Penalties contained in their Canons, Papal Constitutions, and their Expurgatory Indices. So that although our blessed Saviour, by his holy k 1. Thess. 5. 21. & 1. Joh. 4. ●. Spirit, in the Gospel, Command all (even the Common people, for to those he writes) to Examine and try all things, to use that understanding and discretion God has given us, to distinguish truth from error (for that's evidently the meaning of those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prove all things, as l Omnia probate, i. e. Per Discretionem dijudicate. Dr. Hen. Holden in Locum. scher and learned Papists confess) and when we have done so, than we must hold fast that which is good. I say, in this Case, in the choice of our Religion, wherein the Eternal weal or woe of our Souls is concerned; though Christian prudence require it, and our blessed Saviour, (by his Apostle) Command, that we should not believe every Spirit, but try before we trust, and diligently examine Things till we be assured of truth: yet his pretended Vicar, with an Antichristian Pride and Impiety, Contradicts this, and Commands the contrary. He forbids all Examination; Those under his Tyranny (at least the unlearned and Common people) must believe as the Church believes; that is, all that he proposeth, though it be Transubstantiation, or any thing evidently repugnant to their Reason and Senses too. They must m Sublato Omni Proprio Judicio, paratus semper sit Animus, ad Obediendum Ecclesiae. Vide Exercitia spiritualia Ign. Loyolae. Tolosae, 1593. p. 172. Reg. 1. renounce their own Reason, and if he say that is white, which they see black, they n Si quod Oculis nostris apparet Album, Ecclesia Nigrum definierit, debemus quod nigrum sit pronunciare. Ibid. Reg. 13. p. 176. are to believe what he says, and not their own Senses. All means for the People to examine, whether it be truth or error, which the Pope and his Church proposes, is prohibited, and denied them; nor is it only the Books of Protestants which write of Religion, but the Bible and Sacred Scripture too; even the whole Law of God, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ (in any vulgar Language, which the People can understand) come amongst prohibited Books, and damned at Rome; and the reason they give of such prohibition is impious and blasphemous. For they say (horresco referens) the reading of the Holy Scripture by the People, in any vulgar Tongue, is more o Si Sacra B●●lia vulgari ●ingua, passim sine discrimine permittantur, Plus Ind, ob hominum temeritatem, Detrimenti, culm Vtilitatis Oriri. Ita Reg. 4. Indici Tridentino praesixa. pernicious than profitable, and brings more loss than benefit to the Reader. Although this Doctrine be (as I said) impious, and (against God and his Holy Word) blasphemous; yet it is publicly owned amongst those Rules for prohibited Books, contrived by a p Vid. Praefat. ad Indicem Librorum Prohib. Confectum à Deputatione Synodi Tridentinae; Author. Praef. erat Francisc. Forerius Deputationi Secretarius. Deputation (or Committee) of the Trent Fathers, according to the Decree of that Council; and afterwards approved and confirmed by Pius the Fourth, Sixtus the Fifth, and Clemens the Eighth, as q Index Libr. Prohib. ex Concil. Trid. praescripto; Authoritate Pij. 4. primo Editus, postea à Sixto. 5. auctus; demum Clement. 8. Juss● recognitus. the Title of the Trent Index assures us. After them (that we may be sure they continue their Antichristian Tyranny, to prohibit and damn the Bible and all Books which make against them) r Greg. 15. Bulla data Rom. 30. Decemb. An. 1622. in Calce Indicis Trid. Antu. Ann. 1633. Gregory the Fifteenth, and s Constit. 114. Urbani. 8. dat. Rom. 2. April. 1631. Urban the Eighth do further approve and confirm the Impious Rules and Doctrine aforementioned; and both of them expressly declare, and in the same words; 1. That it is known that the Reading prohibited Books, (the Bible is one of them) brings t Cum Librorum Prohibitorum Lectio, Magno sincere Fidei cultoribus Detrimento esse noscatur, etc. Those be their words in both their Bulls. great detriment to the Professors of the sincere Faith. (Roman Errors and Popery they mean, which they miscall sincere Faith). And what they say, is most certain; for there is no Book under Heaven so destructive of their Popish Superstition and Idolatry (which they call sincere Faith) as the Bible, as it has been truly explained and preached by Protestants, since Luther ' s time. Which is evident in this, that so many Kingdoms and Provinces, by the help of Scriptures and Knowledge of the Gospel, have clearly seen the Errors of Rome, and justly abhorring her and them, are come out of Babylon. 2. All Licences to read any prohibited u Omnes & singulas licentias legendi aut habendi Libros quoscunque prohibitos, quibuscunque Personis, cujuscunque gradus, etiamper literas Apostolicas, à Nobis aut Praedecessoribus nostris concessas, revocamus, cassamus, anullamus. So both of them declare in the same words. Books, whosoever gave them, & to whomsoever they were given) they recall, cassate, and declare null. 3. Then they Command (under severest x Qui Libros prohibitos habuerint, eos ad Episcopum ant Inquisitorem, qui illos quantocius Comburere debeat, defer teneantur. Ibidem. punishments) that all those who have any prohibited Books, (the Bible is one, if it be in any Vulgar Tongue) they are to bring them to the Bishop or Inquisitor, and they are presently to Burn them. 4. And then they declare, y Néque de caetero similes Licentiae, nisi à Congregatione Sancti Officij, quae singulis hebdomadis coram Nobis habetur, vel ab aliis per Nos, in eadem Congregatione deputandis concedantur. Urban. 8. dictae Bullae. §. 3. That no man shall have any Licence for the future, to read or have any prohibited Book, (no Bible or Protestant Book concerning Religion, in any Vulgar Tongue) save only from the Congregation of the Sacred Office, (the supreme Office of the Inquisitors) which sits every week before the Pope at Rome. By the Premises, I think 'tis certain, that these Papers of mine are (in Antecessum, and) already prohibited and damned at Rome; and if their Papal Constitutions be obligatory and obeyed, not to be read or had by any Papist, save only such as have a faculty and licence from the Congregation of the Sacred Office, (as they call it) the Roman Inquisitors; and we may be sure, that those watchful Fathers who guard the Capitol, and industriously study to preserve and promote the Papal Greatness and Interest, (on which their own depends) will give licence to none to read such Protestant Writings, save to those, who (for fidelity to their Catholic Cause and Learning) they judge able and willing to Answer and Confute them: That is, None shall have Licence to read such (to them) dangerous and damned Books, save such as have a Hanc Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, quam in praesenti Profiteor, & veracitèr Yeneo, eandémque Integram, usque ad extremum vitae spiritum, constantissimè retinere, & confiteri, & a meis subditis, vel illis qu●rum cura ad m● spectat, Teneri, & Praedicari, quantum in me ●rit, curaturum, Ego idem N. Spondeo, Voveo, ac Juro. Ita in Bulla Pij Papae 4. super forma Juramenti Professionis fidei, in Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. De Refor '. c. 12. p. 4 52. Editionis Anverp. 1633. solemnly Promised, Vowed and Sworn firmly to believe and constantly to hold and profess to their last breath (and, to the utmost of their Power, endeavour that others, under them do so too) their new Trent-Creed, and so the whole Mass of their Popish Errors and Idolatries contained and commanded in it. The Case being evidently this; that (if their Papal Constitutions be obligatory and obeyed) none are to read or have these Papers, save such as have promised, vowed, and sworn never to believe them; as I have little reason to desire or hope for their favour, so (be it known unto them) I do as little fear their Confutation, or (what I am like enough to have) their Calumnies. 4. Although I well know (to say nothing of others) that all our English Papists (both in their Words and Writings) do constantly call themselves Catholics, and Roman Catholics; yet they must pardon me, if in these Papers, I neither do, nor justly can call them so: Papists I do call them, and (I hope) they will not be offended, or take it ill, that I do so. For b Recentiores Haeretici Catholicos homines Papistas vocant; & certe nullo sublimiore Gloriae Titulo Exornare potuissent. Sint ideo nobis viventibus, haec semper Praeconia La●dum, & post mortem, Tituli Sepulchrales, ut sic Semper Dicamur Papistae. Baronius Notat. ad Martyrologium Rom. Oct. 16. B. p. 707. Col. Agrip. 1610. Baronius (their great Cardinal and Annalist) having said, That the Heretics (we know whom he means) called them Papists; he adds, That we could not honour them with a more glorious Title then that of Papists, and therefore he desires that they may have the honour of that Title while they live, and that (after death) it may be writ upon their Tombs and Sepulchral Monuments. For my part, so long as they believe and profess their new Trent-Creed, and the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy, I shall (according to the Cardinal's desire) call them Papists, and if it be so honourable a Title (as he says it is) let them have it, I shall not envy them that honour, but pity their error, who glory in that which is indeed their sin and shame: For the other Title of Catholic, which our Adversaries, (without and against reason) appropriate to themselves; we grant, and know, that anciently it was, and (when rightly used) is a word of a good sound & signification, when it was applied to persons, (as a Catholic Bishop, or Catholic Doctor, etc.) it signified such persons as were, 1. In respect of their Faith, Orthodox; who entirely believed and professed the true Christian Faith, rejecting all pernicious and dangerous errors, and so were no Heretics. 2. In respect of their Charity, such as were in Communion with the Church of Christ, without any uncharitable Separation from it, and so no Schismatics. Now that our Adversaries of Rome are (as they pretend) such Catholics, is absolutely denied; not only by Protestants, but (except themselves) by all Christians in the World, and that upon evident and great reason; Considering, 1. Their many and monstrous c Concerning the Errors, Superstition and Idolatry of the Church of Rome, (with which I charge them) I do not here name the Particulars, much less the proofs of them. It is not the business of this Epistle. But many of our learned Writers have long since effectually done it. Such I mean, as Bishop Jewel, Bp. Morton, Davenant, John White, Chillingworth and Dr. Crakanthorp, and (to omit many more) lately, my learned Friend Dr. Stillingfleet Dean of Paul's. The Reader (if he please) may consult these and find satisfaction. Some thing also is said to that purpose, in the following Papers. But if my Popish Adversaries (who are not easily, if at all to be satisfied) require me particularly to make good my Charge; I shall undertake it; and hope (by the blessing of God, and the help of the Writings of those learned Persons I have named) to say that which might (though may be it will not) satisfy my Adversaries. Errors (contradictory to sacred Scripture, and the sense and belief of the Christian World for a thousand years after Christ our blessed Saviour) which they approve and publicly receive as Articles of their Faith, in their new Creed, the Trent-Council, and Roman Catechism; Considering also their many Superstitions and stupid Idolatry, professed and practised by them in their sacred Offices (their Missal, Breviary, Horae B. Virgins, their Ritual and Pontifical, etc.) I say, these things impartially considered, they may be (and really are) Idolatrous Heretics; but 'tis impossible they should be, (what they against greatest evidence pretend to) true Catholics. 2. Considering the unchristian (indeed Antichristian) Pride and Tyranny of the Pope and his Party, Excommunicating, Cursing and Damning all Christians, save themselves, (without and against that Charity which the Gospel requires) and so Schismatically cutting off from the Body of Christ whole Kingdoms at a Clap (as Pius the Fifth does, d Declaramus praedictam Elizabetham Haereticam, eique Adhaerentes Anathematis Sententiam inc●rrisse, esséque à Christi Corporis Vnitate Praecisos. In dictâ Pij. 5. Bullâ. §. 3. in the following Bull) which are things inconsistent with the Christian Temper and Charity of a true Catholic; I say these things considered, and that the Pope and his Party are really guilty of such uncharitable Actions, dividing and violating the Union of the Church; it evidently follows, that they are so far from being true Catholics that they are great and formal Schismatics; And therefore they must pardon me, if in these Papers, I do not call them (what really they are not) Catholics; and for the same Reason, I do not call them Roman Catholics. For, as it is neither reason nor sense to call him an English Gentleman, who is no Gentleman at all; or him a Sorbon Doctor, who never saw Paris, or ever had or desired that Degree; so it is alike irrational to call him a Roman Catholic, who really is an Erring Schismatic, and no Catholic at all. 5. I know some (otherwise learned and pious) Writers, who say that those words Roman Catholic are inconsistent, and imply a Contradiction, as signifying a particular Universal. But this (I confess) is a manifest mistake. For not only particular Persons, (of which before) but particular Churches, in this or that City (be it great or little) have anciently and usually been called Catholic Churches, without any Contradiction or Impropriety. In an Epistle of a e Synodus innumerabilium fere Episcoporum (as Valesius renders it) apud Euseb. Hist. l. 7. c. 29. pag. 278. D. great Council at Antioch, we find the f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 homo professionis Catholicae. Even Paulus Samosatenus, till he was discovered to be an Heretic, was called a Catholic. Ibid. c. 30. p. 282. B. Bishop of that City called a Catholic, and that particular Church a g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. speaking of the Church of Antioch, Euseb. Ibid. p. 282. 6. Catholic Church. So in the Subscriptions to Nazianzen's last Will and Testament, Optimus Bp. of Antioch, subscribes thus; Optimus Bp. of the Catholic h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Testam. Nazian. cum Invert. contra Julian. Graecè Aetonae 1610. p. 126. & apud Leunclavium, Juris Graeco-Rom. Tom. 2. p. 203. vide Epiphan. Edit. D. Petau. Paris. 162. 2. Tom. 2. p. 2. Church at Antioch; and the rest of the Bishops who subscribe that Testament, (and they are six or seven) use the same Form. So Nazianzen subscribes himself Bishop of the Catholic Church in Constantinople; Amphilochius Bishop of the Catholic Church in Iconium; and so all the rest. In the Appendix to the Theodosian Code, Pope Vigilius begins his Encyclical Epistle thus— Vigilius i Vid. App. Cod. Theod. per Sirmondu● p. 218. Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Urbis Romae: Bishop of the Catholic Church of the City of Rome. So Pope k Leo Papa Ecclesiae Catholicae Urbis Romae. Conc. Chalcedon. part. 1. num. 10. 12. & Act. 8. Leo the Great (and l The Reader may have a very large Catalogue of such Subscriptions, by John Launoy. Epist. part. 1. In Epist. ad Franc s. Bonum. many more Bishops of Rome) uses the very same form. The Popes styled themselves Catholicae Ecclesiae (non Orbis, sed) Urbis Romae Episcopos. The Antichristian stile of Universal Bishop, (as Pope m Pope Gregory damns that proud Title, twelve several times; the places are particularly cited by Joh. Launoy (and he no Lu●heran) in the Epistle ad Bonum beforenamed▪ Gregory the Great calls it) was not yet usurped at Rome. The Bishops of Rome then, and their Church, were Catholic, and so was every Orthodox Bishop and his Church, as well and as much as they. Constantinople, Iconium, Antioch, etc. and their Bishops, were as truly Catholic as St. Peter's Successor, or Rome itself: The truth is evidently this; the Pope and his Party are in this, nec Christi, nec Petri, sed Donati Successores; they do not follow Peter or our blessed Saviour, (as they vainly brag) but that impious Heretic Donatus, whose damnable Schism and Heresy they have espoused. St. Augustin (who well knew it) tells us, in n Vide Augustinum Breviculi Collatine cum Donatistis, Collat. 3. Diei. Tom. 7. p. 568. Edit. Basil. 1569. & Epist. 67. ad Alipium. Tom. 2. p. 323. several places, That the Donatists assumed to themselves the Name of Catholic, said that their Sect was the only true Church, and so damned all other Christians; and upon this Heretical Opinion, they Schismatically separated from the whole Catholic Church. The Pope and his Party (with as little reason and charity) do the very same thing; they (as the Donatists anciently) Heretically affirm, That they, and they only, are truly Catholics, and the only Members of the true Christian and Catholic Church: and then Schismatically Separate from, Excommunicate and Damn all other Christians. 6. And further (that I may freely speak, what I really believe) I am so far from believing the Pope and his Party to be (what they vainly pretend) the only true Christian and Catholic Church; that I do believe them (and so did thousands before Luther, and many whole Kingdoms and Provinces since) to be Ecclesia Malignantium an Antichristian Sect and Synagogue (in side) highly erroneous, and (in facto) as highly impious. And the Pope so far from being Peter's Successor, and our B. Saviour's Vicar-General, that he is o 2 Thess. 2. 3. 4. See Bishop Jewel on this Chapter, and this fourth Verse. Sir Christoph. Sibthorp's Advertisement to the Catholics in Ireland. Dublin 1622. part. 3. c. 2. p. 280. 281. 282. etc. Andr. Rivet. contra Silvestrum Petrasanctam c. 28. p. 537. 538. etc. vid. Georg. Dounamum, Dia●r de Antichristo, l. 3. & 4. Lond. 1620. that man of Sin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That Adversary of our blessed Saviour, and the great Antichrist, the Apostle speaks of, who Exalts himself (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) above all Kings and Emperors. This (I hope) will in part appear by what is said in the following Papers. At present, I shall desire the Impartial Reader (who possibly may read this short Epistle, and trouble himself no further, to read what follows) to consider, That the Pope really and professedly does Exalt himself above all Kings and Emperors, and so has this Mark of the Beast, and Indelible Character of Antichrist. That he does so Exalt himself, will evidently appear, thus, 1. Pope Innocent the Third tells the p Vide Cap. Solitae. 6. Extra de Major. & Obedientia; and the Lemma to that Chap. which is this— Imperium Sacerdotio subest, & ei Obedire Tenetur. Emperor of Constantinople (and with prodigious Error and Impudence, endeavours to prove it out of q 1 Pet. 2. 13. (which place evidently proves the contrary) Jer. 1. 10. Gen. 1. 16. Joh. 21. 16. Matth. 16. 19 Scripture) That the r Quanta est inter solemn & Lunam, tanta inter Pontifices & Reges differentia cognoscitur. Dicto Cap. Solitae. 6. Pope is as much greater Than the Emperor, as The Sun is greater Than the Moon. So Innocent the third; and (that we may be sure his Successors liked it well) Gregory the Ninth approves, and refers it into the Body of Canon-Law: And s Bulla Romae data 1580. Juri Can. pr●efixa. Greg. the Thirteenth approves it too; and (with the other Decretals) confirms it for Law; and 'tis continued in all Editions of that Law, ever since. It is then certain and confessed, That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is called God, above all Kings and Emperors; and that he is far greater than they: And if you inquire of the Proportion, how much he is greater? I say, 2. That their approved and received Glosses on their Law, (with some difference of Opinion) calculate how many times the Sun is greater than the Moon, and then infer the Pope's Greatness above the Emperor. And here 1. The Author of the Gloss, (Bernardus de Botono was the man) a good Lawyer, but (sure I am) no good Astronomer, tells us, (ignorantly and ridiculously)— That the Sun is greater than the Moon, (and consequently the Pope greater than the Emperor) t Cum igitur terra sic septies major Luna, Sol autem octies major terra: restat ergo, ut Pontificalis Dignitas Quadragesies septies so major Regali. Glossa verbo. Inter solemn & Lunam. Cap. Solitae. 6. Extra. de Major. & Obedientia. I quote the Edition of the Canon Law at Paris, 1612. Forty seven times. This is pretty well, but much short of that Magnitude the Pope meant, (if he knew what he said) when he affirmed, That he was as much greater than the Emperor, as the Sun was greater than the Moon. 2. And therefore another u Alias quinquagies septics. Ita Nota in Margin, ad dictum Cap. Solitae verbo, Inter solemn & Lunam. Ibid. Canonist, would have the Sun greater than the Moon (and so the Pope greater than the Emperor) Fifty seven times. 3. But this (as too little) does not please the Pope's Party and Parasites; and therefore Laurentius (another Canonist) says, That it is x Manifestum est, quod magnitudo Solis continet magnitudinem terrae Centies quadragies septies & duas medietates. Vid. Additionem ad Glossam. verbo. Inter solemn & Lunam. Cap. Solitae. 6. manifest, that the Sun is greater than the Moon (so the Pope than the Emperor) an hundred forty seven times. I omit the fractions; for if the Pope be. 147. times greater than the Emperor, me thinks it might satisfy his Ambition, so that he needed not stand upon the fraction, or little overplus. 4. But this also comes far short of that Magnitude, which they ascribe to the Sun above the Moon, (and so to the Pope above the Emperor) for they tell us, y Palam est, quod magnitudo Solis continet magnitudem Lunae septies millies septingenties & quadragies quater, & insuper ejus medietatem. Ibidem in dicta additione ad dictam Glossam. That the Sun is greater than the Moon (7744 ½) seven thousand seven hundred, forty four times, and one half more. To such a Prodigious greatness, does the Bishop of Rome exalt himself. So that if St. Paul say true, (That he is Antichrist, who exalts himself above all Kings and Emperors) than it will evidently follow, that the Pope is Antichrist; for never man did, or (without Antichristian Pride and Impiety) can so exalt himself. They sometimes tell us in their Law,— z Aurum non tam pretiosius est plumbo, quam Regia Dignitate sit Altior Dignitas Sacerdotalis. Gratian. Can. Duo sunt. 10. Distinct. 96. That the Papal Dignity is to be preferred to the Imperial, more than Gold is to Led; and if Gratian saytrue) it was the Pope who said so. And the Gloss gives the reason of this Papal a Quia Colla Regum & Principum submittuntur Genibus Sacerdotum. (By Sacerdotes here, the Popes are principally meant, as is evident both by the Text and the Gloss) Glossa ad dictum Can. verbo. Dúo sunt. Greatness above all Kings; Because Kings and Princes are to submit their Necks to the Pope's Knees; (he might have said, and their b Papa excipit Imperatorem ad osculum pedisut primum videt Papam, detecto Capite, illum, gen●● terram tangens, venera●u,— & Poutificis pedes Devotè osculatur. Lib. Sacrarum Ceremoniarum, Rom. 1560. l. 1. Tit. 5. p. 22. Col. 2. 3. Mouths to the Pope's Feet, which the Emperor is bound to kiss). That this is Impious and Antichristian Doctrine, I think evident; and I have some reason to believe, that intelligent and impartial Judges will think so too, and yet it has heretofore, and still is approved, and (as Catholic) received at Rome. For, 1. That Decretal of Pope Innocent the Third, was by Gregory the Ninth made a Law, & (amongst other Decretals) by him commanded to be received as Law, in all c Volentes ut hac tantum Compilatione utantur Vniversi in Judiciis & in Scholis, etc. Greg. 9 in Literis Acad. Bononiensi, dat. 1230. Juri Canonico Praefixis. Edit. Lugduni. 1661. Universities and Papal Consistories, abont 450. years ago, and so continues to this day. 2. For the Glosses beforementioned, they are not only in the d Edit. Paris. 1520. cum Glossis. old Editions of their Law, but were approved and confirmed afterwards by e Vide Bullam Greg. 13. datam Romae, Anno 1580. Corpori Juris Canonici praefixam. Gregory the Thirteenth (and so stand approved and confirmed to this day) who expressly tells us, That the Law being by his f Nulli liceat Libris Canonici Juris, de manda●o nostro Correctis, Recognitis, & Expurgatis quicquam addere, detrahere, vel immutare, etc. Ibid. dicta Greg. 13. Bulla. command received, corrected and purged; no man (for the future) should dare to add, detract, or change any thing in it. In short, whether the Champions of the Church of Rome and Catholic Cause, (as they call it) will think what is said in these Papers, worthy of any Answer, or no, I know not. But in case they do, I shall make them (if I mistake not) a very fair offer, which (if accepted) will much lessen their pains and labour, yet so, as (if they perform the Condition annexed) they may (as to myself) effectually do their business, and make me their Proselyte: The thing I mean is this; If they can from Scripture, (by any one Cogent and Concluding Argument) prove any one of these following Propositions (and unless they be all proved, their Papal Monarchy cannot stand) I will grant the rest, and give them the Cause. I say then, if they can make it appear, 1. That our blessed Saviour before his Ascension, did constitute Peter his Vicar, and gave him such a Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction (as is g They tell us, that it was our blessed Saviour himself, who Constituted Peter and his Successors, Supreme Monarches of the Catholic Church. Christus Catholicam Ecclesi●m, Vni Soli in Terris Petro, Petríque Successori Rom. Pontifici, in Potestatis Plenitudine, tradidit Gubernandam. So Pius the Fifth in this Bull of Excommunication of Eliz. In Principio. And Bellarmine says— Successio ex Christi Instituto, & Jure Divino est, quia Ipse Christus Instituit in Petro Pontificatum, ideo quicumque Petro succedit, à Christo accipit Pontificatum. De Rom. Pont. l 2. c. 12. § ut autem. Cum Papa in Petri Cathedra Sedeat, summum in eo Dignitatis gradum, nonnullis Humanis Constitutionibus, sed Divinitus datum agnoscit. Catechis. Trident. Part. 2. c 7. De Ordinis Sacramento. § 28. vide Can. Sacrosancta. 2. Dist. 22. & Glossam & Turrecrematam. Idem. now contended for) over the Apostles and the whole Church. For if Peter had no such Power he could not transfer it to his Successors; it being impossible, that they should have that Power (Jure Successionis) which their Predecessor never had. 2. If they can prove, that St. Peter, while he lived, did exercise such Power and Supreme Jurisdiction, even over the Apostles, etc. By their own h Baronius▪ says, that Peter suffered Martyrdom Anno Christi. 69. & therefore 34. or 35. years after our blessed Saviour's Passion. Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 1. Computation, St. Peter lived 34. or 35. years after the Ascension of our blessed Saviour, and was (as they say) Bishop of Antioch, 7. and of Rome, 25. years. Now if it neither do, nor can appear, that in all that time he exercised any such Monarchical Power or Jurisdiction; we may safely conclude, either that he had no such Power (which is most true) or betrayed his trust in not making use of it, for his Master's Glory, and his Churches good; which (I suppose) our Adversaries will not say. In this Case, Idem est non esse & non apparere; and therefore our Adversaries must pardon us, if we do not believe (what they cannot prove) St. peter's Monarchy. 3. But let it be supposed (which neither has been, nor can be proved) that Peter had, and executed such Power; let them make it appear that it was not Personal and Temporary, to cease with his Person, (as the Apostleship did) but to be transferred to some i Bellarmine says, that 'tis evident in Scripture that Peter's Supremacy was to descend to a Successor— Aliquem Petro Succedere, deducitur Evidentèr ex Scriptures. De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 12. § Observandum Tertio. Successor. For if it was temporary, and ceased with St. Peter's Person, than whoever (after Peter's death) pretends to that Power, is not bonae fidei possessor, but an Impious and Antichristian Usurper. 4. But let all those Particulars be supposed, (which being untrue, cannot possibly be proved) that Peter had and executed such Power, and that it was to be transmitted to his Successor; Let them make it appear that the Bishop of Rome was that k Bellarmine tells us, that it is not expressly in Scripture, that the Pope is Peter's Successor, but that must be proved by Apostolical Tradition. Rom. Pontificem succedere Petro, non habetur express in Scriptures, sed habetur ex traditione Apostolicâ. Bellarm. Loco dicto. Successor, that Peter was (as they say) 25. years' Bishop of Rome, or 25. days, or that he ever was at Rome: For, if it be so far from truth that Peter was 25. years' Bishop of Rome, that it cannot appear from Scripture, that he was ever Bishop there at all, or that he ever was at Rome. It will evidently follow, that the Pope is not St. Peter's Successor, and so can have no Title (Jure Successionis) to that Supremacy, they say, Peter had: It being impossible that the Pope should succeed Peter, if he never preceded him in the Bishopric of Rome. 5. Let them make it appear, that our blessed Saviour, while on Earth, either exercised or had such a Temporal Monarchy, as the l They constantly tell us, the Pope has two Swords; and of the Temporal Sword they say— Figurat Pontisicalis hic gladius potestatem summam Temporal●m, à Christo ejus Vicario collatam; juxta illud, data est mihi omnis Potestas in C●elo & in Terrâ, & alibi, dominabitur à Mari usque ad Mare, & à Flumine, usque ad Terminos Orbie Terrarum. Liber Sacrarum Ceremoniorum Ecclesiae Rom. Romae. 1560. Lib. 1. Tit. 7. De Ense benedicendo, p. 36. Col. 1. Pope now challenges as his Vicar. For unless this appear, all their pretences to such Power, (as Vicars of our B. Saviour) will be vain and irrational; it being impossible that the Pope or Peter should derive from him that power which he himself neither had, nor ever here on Earth exercised. These are the Foundations upon which the Papal Monarchy (Spiritual and Temporal) is built; and if these fail, the whole Fabric will and must fall; and therefore they are concerned, by some real and rational proof, to make them good. Now if our Adversaries can and will make it appear, from Sacred Scripture, that Peter ever had or exercised such a Power, as is pretended; that▪ it was not personal in him, but to be transmitted to his Successor; that he was 25. years' Bishop of Rome, and actually transferred that Power to his Successor there; or that our blessed Saviour ever had or exercised such a terrene and temporal power, as they pretend the Pope (as his Vicar) has from him: I say, let them make all, or any one of these Pariculars appear from Scripture, and I will confess, and retract my error. Nor is the Condition unjust or unequal, when I require Scripture proof. For they themselves constantly affirm that the Pope has Right to his Monarchical Supremacy Jure Divino; by the Constitution of our blessed Saviour, and Divine Right; and this their Popes, Canonists and Divines (with great noise and confidence, but no reason) endeavour to prove from Scripture, miserably mistaken and misapplyed. I know, that their late m Vide Methodum Veronianam, seu modum, quo quilibet Catholicus potest Solis Bibliis, Religionis praetensae Ministrum evidentèr mutum reddere, etc. Authore Francisco Verono Parisiensi, Societatis Jesus Theolog. Colon. Agrip. 1610. Vide Jac. Masenij meditatam Concordiam Protestantium cum Catholics, ex verbo Dei. Edit. Colon. 1661. Jesuitical Methodists (so much n Francis. Veroni Scientiam, è doctissimâ Societate Jesu prodeuntem, veneramur, sententiam libenter sequimur, & labores, optimo successu à Deo donatos, honoramus. Adrian. & Petrus Walenburch in Exam Princip. fidei, etc. Exam. 3. §. 1. num. 3. p. 111. magnified by their Party) require of Protestants to confute their Popish Doctrines (Transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, etc.) by express words of Scripture) not admitting of Consequences, however deduced from plain Texts as Premises. This method of theirs (being irrational and o Vide Dispute. de fidei ex scripturis demonstratione, contra novam nonnullorum Methodun Per Joh. Dallaeum. 8●▪ Genevae, 1610. demonstrated so to be) I shall not tie them too: But if they can prove any of the aforesaid Positions by the express words of Scripture, or by good Consequences deduced from it, or (what they pretend to) Universal and Apostolical Tradition; I shall admit the proof. Nay, I shall make our Popish Adversaries two further, and (if that be possible) fairer offers. 1. Let them prove by any just and concluding reason whatsoever, that any Christian Church in the World acknowledged, or the Church of Rome herself assumed and publicly pleaded for such a Papal Supremacy, as p They do now pretend to potestatem Summain Temporalem; as the Book of their Sacred Ceremonies (a little before cited) tells us. That our blessed Saviour gave Peter, (& in him the Pope) Coelestis & Terreni Imperij Jura. Can. Omnes. 1. dist. 22. Power to depose Kings and Emperors, absolve their Subjects from Oaths of Allegiance, and dispose of their Dominions. Plat. in vita Greg. 7. Conc. Lateran. sub. Innocent. 3. Can. de Haeret. 3. Hence it was, that Bonif. 8. (that Prodigy of Antichristian Pride and Impiety) in the Solemn Jubilee showed himself to the People the first day in his Pontificalibus, and the next day, Imperiali habitu, Intula Caesarea Insignis, gladium ante se nudatum jussit deferri & sedens alta voce ●●statur; Ecce duo gladij. Vide Paralip. ad Chron. Urspergen: ad An. 1294. p. 344. now they pretend to, for 1000 years after our B. Saviour; and (for my own part) I will confess and retract my Error. 2. Let them prove, by any such concluding reason, that any Church in the World (Eastern or Western, Greek or Latin) did acknowledge (what now the Pope and his Party so earnestly and vainly contend for) the Pope's Infallibility, and his Supremacy over all General Councils, for 1500. years after our blessed Saviour; and for my part, Cedat Jülus Agris, manus dabimus captivas, I will retract what here I have affirmed, and be (what I hope I never shall be) their Proselyte. To Conclude, I have no more to say, (my Adversaries will think I have said too much) save only to desire the Readers, who sincerely and impartially desire truth and satisfaction, to read and consider the Margin as well as the Text. In this, they have my Positions, and the proofs of them, in plain English: In the Margin, the Authorities and Authors I rely upon, in their own words, and the Language in which they writ: and I have (for the Readers ease, not my own) cited not only the Authors and their Books, but the Chapter, Paragraph, Page, and mostly the Editions of them: That so the Reader may with more ease, find the places quoted, and judge whether I have cited and translated them aright. It is notoriously known, that our Popish Adversaries have published many forged Canons and Councils, many spurious a It is notoriously known how many Decretal Epistles have been forged, and fathered upon the ancient Bishops. I shall only instance in the fifth Epistle of that pious Pope and Martyr, Clemens the first; in which he pleads for a community of all things in the world, even of Wives. Communis usus Omnium, quae sunt in hoc mundo, Omnibus esse Debuit. In Omnibus Sunt Sine Dubio, & Conjuges. Joh. Sichardus and James Merlin have that Epistle, and those very words; & Gratian has referred them into the Canon Law. Can. dilectissimis. 2. Caus. 12. Quaest 1. and there they are still, in all the Editions of that Law, even that corrected and approved by Pope Gregory the Thirteenth. Decretals, and supposititious Tracts, under the names of Primitive Fathers, and ancient Bishops; that they have shamefully corrupted the Canons of Legitimate b I shall instance only in one, the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, as it is shamefully corrupted in Gratian. Can. Renovant. 6. Dist. 22. where, 1. It is in the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, definimus, statuimus; for which Gratian has, Petimus. 2. In the Original Canon, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Senior Roma; but Gratian has Superior Roma. 3. In the Original, it is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,/ Aequalia Privilegia; But Gratian has Similia privilegia: as being unwilling that Constantinople should have equal privileges with Rome. 4. In the Original Canon, it is— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. That Constantinople should be equal to Rome, in Ecclesiastical Matters, etiam in Ecclesiasticis. But Gratian (in contradiction to the Canon) says, Non tamen in Ecclesiasticis, etc. So it was in Gratian, in the old Editions; only in the Later Editions of Gratian (An. 1612. 1618. 1661. &.) this last corruption is acknowledged, and (which is not usual) mended. But other corruptions remain still, in their last and best Editions of Gratian. Councils, and thousands of other Authors; making them (by adding and substracting words or Sentences) say what they never meant, or not to say what indeed they did both mean and say: and this they themselves have (without shame or honesty) publicly owned, in their Expurgatory Indices; and after all this fraud and falsification of Records, these Apocryphal Books and supposititious Authors, are continually produced by them (for proofs of their Errors) against Protestant's who well know, and (as many sober men of their own Communion) justly condemn such impious Roman Arts— Nec tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis Christus eget. Truth needs no such forged and false; Medium's to maintain it; nor will any honest man use them. Sure I am, I have not, in this Discourse, built the truth of my Positions upon the Testimonies of our own Protestant Authors, (knowing that our Adversaries would with scorn reject their Testimony) nor of any supposititious or spurious ones. The Testimonies and Proofs I have quoted, and rely upon, are drawn from Scripture, the genuine Works of the ancient Fathers and Councils, or (which add hominem, must be valid) from their own Councils, the Pope's Bulls, their Canon Law, their Casuists, Schoolmen, Summists, the Trent Catechism, the Book of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Rom. Church, their approved and received Public Offices, (such as their Missal, Breviary, Ritual, Pontifical, etc.) which Authorities (if I do not misquote, or mistake their meaning) are, and (to them) must be just proofs of those Positions for which I have produced them. But let the Evidence of the Testimonies, and the Authority of the Authors quoted, be what it will; I have little hope, that they will gain any assent from our Adversaries; so long as they believe the Infallibility of their Pope and Church, and their Learned Men are solemnly sworn, firmly to believe their new Trent Creed, (the whole Body of Popish Errors) to their last breath, and to Anathematise and Damn what Doctrine soever contradicts it. For while they are possessed with these Principles, it may be truly said of them, what was said of the Luciferian Heretics in St. Jerome— Facilius eos Vinci posse, quam persuaderi, you may sooner baffle, then persuade them: They will (in despite of Premises) hold the Conclusion; nor shall the clearest demonstration overcome their blind Zeal and Affection to their Catholic Cause. However, that God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless us and them, with a clear knowledge of Sacred Truth, with a firm belief, and (in dangerous times) upon undaunted and pious profession of it, is and shall be the Prayer of Oct. 3. 1680. Thy Friend and Servant in Christ, T. L. The Damnation and Excommunication of Elizabeth Queen of England, and her Adherents, with an Addition of other Punishments. Pius Bishop, Servant to God's Servants, for a perpetual memorial of the matter. HE that reigneth on High, to whom is given all Power in Heaven and in Earth, committed one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (out of which there is no Salvation) to one alone upon Earth, namely, to Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and to Peter's Successor the Bishop of Rome, to be governed in fullness of Power. Him alone he made Prince over all People, and all Kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant and build, that he may contain the faithful that are knit together with the band of Charity in the Unity of the Spirit, and present them spotless, and umblameable to their Saviour. Sect. 1. In discharge of which Function, we which are by God's goodness called to the Government of the aforesaid Church, do spare no pains, labouring with all earnestness, that Unity, and the Catholic Religion (which the Author thereof hath for the trial of his Child's Faith, and for our amendment, suffered to be punished with so great Afflictions) might be preserved uncorrupt: But the number of the ungodly hath gotten such power, there is now no place left in the whole World, which they have not assayed to corrupt with their most wicked Doctrines: Amongst others, Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England, a Slave of Wickedness, lending thereunto her helping hand, with whom, as in a Sanctuary, the most pernicious of all men have found a Refuge. This very Woman having seized on the Kingdom, and monstrously usurping the place of Supreme Head of the Church in all England, and the chief Authority and Jurisdiction thereof, hath again brought back the said Kingdom into miserable destruction, which was then newly reduced to the most Catholic Faith and good Fruits. Sect. 2. For having by strong hand inhibited the exercise of the true Religion, which Mary lawful Queen of famous memory, had by the help of this See restored, after it had been formerly overthrown by Henry the Eighth, a Revolter therefrom; and following and embracing the Errors of Heretics, she hath removed the Royal Council consisting of the English Nobility, and filled it with obscure men, being Heretics, oppressed the Embracers of the Catholic Faith, placed impious Preachers, Ministers of Iniquity, abolished the Sacrifice of the Mass, Prayers, Fast, choice of Meats, unmarried Life, and the Catholic Rites and Ceremonies. Commanded Books to be read in the whole Realm containing manifest Heresy; and impious Mysteries and Institutions, by herself entertained, and observed according to the Prescript of Calvin, to be likewise observed by her Subjects; presumed to throw Bishops, Parsons of Churches, and other Catholic Priests, out of their Churches and Benefices; and to bestow them and other Church Livings upon Heretics, and to determine of Church Causes, prohibited the Prelates, Clergy, & People to acknowledge the Church of Rome, or obey the Precepts and Canonical Sanctions thereof, compelled most of them to condescend to her wicked Laws, and to abjure the Authority and Obedience of the Bishop of Rome, and to acknowledge her to besole Lady in Temporal and Spiritual matters, and this by Oath; imposed Penalties and Punishments upon those which obeyed not, and exacted them of those which persevered in the Unity of the Faith, and their Obedience aforesaid, cast the Catholic Prelates and Rectors of Churches in Prison, where many of them, being spent with long languishing and sorrow, miserably ended their lives. All which things, seeing they are manifest and notorious to all Nations, and by the gravest Testimony of very many so substantially proved, that there is no place at all left for Excuse, Defence, or Evasion. Sect. 3. We seeing that impieties and wicked actions are multiplied one upon another; & moreover, that the persecution of the faithful, & affliction for Religion, groweth every day heavier & heavier, through the instigation and means of the said Elizabeth; because we understand her Mind to be so hardened and indurate, that she hath not only contemned the godly Requests and Admonitions of Catholic Princes, concerning her healing and conversion, but also hath not so much as permitted the Nuncios of this See, to cross the Seas into England; are strained of necessity to betake ourselves to the Weapons of Justice against her, not being able to mitigate our sorrow, that we are drawn to take punishment upon one, to whose Ancestors the whole State of Christendom hath been so much bounden. Being therefore supported with his Authority, whose pleasure it was to place Us (though unable for so great a burden) in this Supreme Throne of Justice, we do out of the fullness of our Apostolic power, declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, being an Heretic, and a favourer of Heretics, and her Adherents in the matters aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of Anathema, and to be cut off from the Unity of the Body of Christ. Sect. 4. And moreover, we do declare Her to be deprived of her pretended Title to the Kingdom aforesaid, & of all Dominion, Dignity, and Privilege whatsoever. Sect. 5. And also the Nobility, Subjects, and People of the said Kingdom, and all others, which have in any sort sworn unto her, to be forever absolved from any such Oath, and all manner of Duty, of Dominion, Allegiance, and Obedience; As we also do by Authority of these presents absolve them, and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended Title to the Kingdom, and all other things abovesaid. And we do Command and Interdict all and every the Noblemen, Subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, or her Monitions, Mandates, and Laws: And those which shall do the contrary, We do innodate with the like Sentence of Anathema. Sect. 6. And because it were a matter of too much difficulty, to convey these presents to all places wheresoever it shall be needful; our will is, that the Copies thereof, under a public Notary's hand, and sealed with the Seal of an Ecclesiastical Prelate, or of his Court, shall carry altogether the same credit with all people Judicial and Extrajudicial, as these presents should do, if they were exhibited or showed. Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the Year of the Incarnation of our Lord, 1570. the Fifth of the Calends of May, and of our Popedom the Fifth year. Damnatio & Excommunicatio Elizabethae Reginae Angliae, eique Adhaerentium, cum aliarum poenarum Adjectione. Pius Episcopus, Servus Servorum Dei, ad perpetuam Rei memoriam. REgrans in Excelsis, cui data est Omnis in Coelo & in Terra Potestas, unam Sanctam, Catholicam & Apostolicam Ecclesiam (extra quam nulla est salus) soli in terris, videlicet, Apostolorum Principi Petro, Petrique Successori Romano Pontifici, in Potestatis plenitudine tradidit Gubernandam. Hunc unum super omnes Gentes, & omnia Regna Principem constituit, qui evellat, destruat, dissipet, disperdat, plantet, & aedisicet, ut fidelem populum, mutuae Charitatis nexu constrictum, in unitate Spiritus contineat, salvumque & incolumem suo exhibeat salvatori. Sect. 1. Quo quidem in munere obeundo, Nos ad praedictae Ecclesiae gubernacula Dei Benignitate vocati, nullum laborem intermittimus, omni operà contendentes, ut ipsa Vnitas, & Catholica Religio (quam illius Auctor ad probandam suorum fidem, & correctionem nostram, tantis procellis conslictari permisit) integra conservetur. Sed Impiorum numerus tantum potentia invaluit, ut nullus jam in Orbe locus sit relictus, quem illi pessimis doctrinis corrumpere non tentârint, adnitente inter caeteros flagitiorum seruâ Elizabeth, praetensâ Angliae Reginâ ad quam, veluti ad asylum, omnium infestissimi profugium invenerunt. Haec eadem, Regno occupato, supremi Ecclesiae capitis locum, in omni Angliâ, ejusque praecipuam Auctoritatem atque Jurisdictionem monstruose sibi usurpans, regnum ipsum jam tum ad Fidem Catholicam & bonam frugem reductum, rursus in exitium miserum revocavit. Sect. 2. Vsu namque verae Religionis, quam ab illius desertore Henrico VIII. olim eversam, Clarae Mem. Maria Regina legitima, hujus Sedis Praesidio reparaverat, potenti manu inhibito, secutisque & amplexis Haereticorum erroribus, Regium Concilium ex Anglicâ Nobilitate confectum diremit, illudque obscuris hominibus Haereticis complevit, Catholicae Fidei cultores oppressit, improbos Concionatores, atque Impietatum Administros reposuit, Missae Sacrificium, Preces, Jejunia, Ciborum delectum, Ritusque Catholicos abolevit. Libros manifestam Heresim continentes, toto Regno proponi, impia Mysteria, & Instituta ad Calvini Praescriptum à se suscepta, & observata, etiam à subditis observari mandavit. Episcopos, Ecclesiarum Rectores, & alios Sacerdotes Catholicos, suis Ecclesiis, & Beneficiis ejicere, ac de illis & aliis Ecclesiasticis rebus, in haereticos homines disponere, d●que Ecclesiae causis decernere ausa, Praelatis, Clero, & Populo, ne Romanam Ecclesiam agnoscerent, n●ve ejus Praeceptis, Sanctionibusque Canonicis obtemperarent, Interdixit; plerosque in nefarias leges suas venire, & Romani Pontisicis Auctoritatem atque obedientiam abjurare; seque solam in Temporalibus & Spiritualibus Dominam agnoscere jurejurando coegit; poenas & supplicia in eos qui dicto non essent Audientes, Imposuit; easdemque ab iis, qui in unitate sidei, & praedicta Obedientia perseverârunt, Exegit. Catholicos Antistites, & Ecclesiarum Rectores in vincula conjecit, ubi multi diuturno Languore & Tristitia Confecti, Extremum vitae diem miserè siniverunt. Quae omnia cum apud Omnes Nationes perspicua & notoria sunt, & gravissimo quamplurimorum Testimonio, it a comprobata, ut nullus omnino locus Excusationis, Defensionis, aut Tergiversationis relinquatur. Sect. 3. Nos, multiplicantibus aliis atque aliis super alias Impietatibus, & facinoribus, & praeterea fidelium persecutione, Religionisque afflictione, impulsu & Operâd. Elizabeth quotidie magis Ingravescente, quoniam illius animum ita obsirmatum atque induratum Intelligimus, ut non modo pias Catholicorum Principum de sanitate & conversione, preces, monitionesque contempserit, sed ne hujus quidem sedis ad ipsam hac de causâ Nuncios in Angliam trajicere permiserit; ad Arma Justitiae contra eam de necessitate conversi, dolorem lenire non possumus, quod Adducamur in unam animadvertere, Cujus majores de Republicâ Christianâ tantopere meruêre. Illius itaque Auctoritate suffulti, Qui Nos in hoc Supremo Justitiae Throno, (licêt tanto Oneri Impares) voluit Collocare, de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine declaramus praedictam Elizabeth Haereticam, haereticorumque fautricem, eique adhaerentes in praedictis, Anathematis sententiam incurrisse, esseque à Christi Corporis unitate praecisos. Sect. 4. Quin etiam ipsam praetenso Regni praedicti jure, necnon omni & quocunque Dominio, Dignitate, Privilegioque privatam. Sect. 5. Et etiam Proceres, subditos, & populos dicti Regni, ac caeteros omnes qui illi quomodocunque juraverunt. A Juramento hujusmodi, ac omni prorsus Dominii, Fidelitatis, & obsequii debito, perpetuo absolutos, prout Nos illos Praesentium Auctoritate absolvimus, & privamus eandem Elizabeth praetenso Jure Regni, aliisque Omnibus supradictis. Praecipimusque & Interdicimus Vniversis & singulis proceribus, subditis, populis, & aliis praedictis, ne illi ejusve monitis, Mandatis, & Legibus audeant obedire. Qui secus egerint, eos simili Anathematis Sententiâ innodamus. Sect. 6. Quia vero dissicile nimis esset, Praesentes quocunque illis Opus erit perferre, volumus, ut eorum exempla, Notarii publici manu, & Praelati Ecclesiastici, ejusve Curiae Sigillo Obsignata eandem illam prorsus fidem in Judicio, & extra illud, ubique Gentium faciant, quam ipsae Praesentes facerent, si essent exhibitae vel ostensae. Dat' Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, Anno Incarnationis Dominicae 1570. 5. Cal. Maij Pontisicat' nostri Anno 5. SOME ANIMADVERSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS Upon the Impious Damnation & Excommunication Extat haec Bulla in Bullario Romano. Romae 1638. Tom. 2. p. 229. OF Q. Elizabeth BY PIUS V. Anno 1570. BEfore I come to a particular and distinct Examination of the several parts and paragraphs of this Impious Popish Bull, I shall in general observe, 1. That Pius V. was not the first or only Pope, Observ. 1. who usurped this Extravagant and Antichristian power over Kings and Emperors; to damn, depose, and deprive them of all their Royal Rights and Imperial Jurisdiction; for both his Predecessors and Successors approved, and with prodigious pride and impiety, exercised such power. That this may appear, I shall give the Reader some Instances, extant upon Record, in their own Popish Annals and Histories. 1. Pope a Carolus Sigonius de Regno Italiae, lib. 3. pag. 58. Constantine in a Council of Italian Bishops (it was about the Year 711.) Anathematises all who denied the worshipping of Images, and b Omnium Consensu, omnes qui Imaginibus venerationem negarem, damnati; & Philippicus ipse Nominatim, Diro in eum composito Carmine, Poenis Inferorum devotus. Ibid. particularly, and by name damns the Emperor Philippicus to the Torments of Hell. So Carolus Sigonius tell us, and Martinus Polonus, and the Fasciculus Temporum concur with him. 2. After Pope Constantine, Gregory the second, and Gregory the third, succeed c Car. Sigonius de Regno Italiae. l. 9 p. 219. Extabant praeclara Gregorii 2. & 3. exempla, qui Leoni Isauro Imperatori, Sacris Interdicere, & Juratâ Italiae obedientiâ spoliare non dubitârant, uno ●o Crimine, quod Imaginibus se Inimicum praebuisset. ; and both of them Excommunicate the Emperor Leo Isaurus, for this only Crime, because he was against worshipping of Images; and though the Italians had sworn Allegiance to him, yet they null that Oath: And the Historian commends these Actions of those two Popes, as excellent Examples for Posterity. And Platina says, that Gregory the third d Gregorius 3. Leonem Imperio & Communione fidelium private. Plat. in vita Greg. 3. Excommunicated the Emperor Leo, and deprived him of his Empire. 3. To Gregory the third, succeeded Pope Zachary, and (if Gratian say true) he e Zacharias Papa Regem Francorum, non tam pro ejus Iniquitatibus, quamquod erat inutilis deposuit: & Francigenas à juramento fidelitatis absolvit. Gratian. Can. Alius. Caus. 15. Quaest 6. deposed Childericus King of France, and absolves his Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and gives his Kingdom to Pippin: And this he did, not for the great crimes of Childeric, but because he was unprofitable, and unfit for the Government; not that he was Insufficient (says the f Non quod insufficiens sed quod dissolutus erat cum mulieribus, & effoeminatus. Gloss. ibid. verbo Inutilis. Gloss) but because he was Effeminate, and dissolute with Women. And from this Canon, Joh. Semeca (the f Non quod Insufficiens sed quod dissolutus erat cum Mulicribus, & Effoeminatus, Gloss. ibid. verbo Inutilis. Glossator) infers, That the Pope may depose the Emperor; and proves it by citing other Canons, And by the Authority of Pope g Gloss. ibid. verbo Alius. Gelasius, who tells Anastasius the Emperor, That he had power to Depose him, and proves it from the Example of this Pope Zachary. I know, that what Gratian, and the Canonist, say, of Pope Zachary's Deposing Childeric, is evidently untrue, (and by many h Vid. Joh. Launoium Epist. Tom. 7. p. 117, 118, etc. & p. 245, 246, etc. Hottomanni Francogalliam, cap. 13. p. 96, 97, 98. demonstrated so to be) yet it stands uncensured in their last and best i Vid. Edit. Paris 1612. & 1618. Edition of the Canon Law, which Pope Gregory XIII. k Vid. Bullam Gregorij 13. dat. Romae 1. Die Julij 1580. approved and published, as most correct. And they further tell us, That Clement VIII. published an l Vide Indicem Librorum prohibitorum Lusitanicum Olysipone, 1624. p. 350. in Carolo Molinaeo. Exact Correction of all the Glosses and Additions to the Canon Law, and yet this of Pope Zachary's deposing Childeric (and, what the Gloss says of it) is neither left out, nor any way censured. Whence it is evident, that they approve the Doctrine of deposing Kings, and (having no just reason for it) forge Instances to prove it. 4. Pope Hildebrand, or m Vide Bullarium Romanum Romae Anno 1638. Tom. 1. p. 49. Gregory VII. deposeth the Emperor Henry IV. by the Authority given n Potestate à Deo data Ligandi & Solvendi in Coelo, & in Terra. Ibid. by God, (as he says) of binding and losing both in Heaven and Earth: And then he o Omnes Christianos à vinculo Juramenti, quod sibi faciunt, aut facient, absolvo, & ut nullus ci serviat, sicut Regi, interdico. Ibid. §. 1. absolves his Subjects from their Oath of Fidelity, and then prohibits them to obey him. This Bull is dated at Rome, Anno Domini 1075. and five years after he ●xcommunicates, and Deposes him again 1080. And implores the Assistance of Peter and Paul, in this his Excommunication and Deposition of the Emperor; that the World may p Vt Mundus Intelligat, quia si potestis in Coelo ligare & solvere, potestis in Terra Imperia, Regna, Principatus, Marchias, Ducatus, Comitatus, & Omnium Hominum possessiones, pro meritis tollere, Vnicuique & Concedere. In dicto Bullario Roman, Bullae Excommunicationis. Hen. 4. §. 10. p. 51. Col. 1. know, that as they have power to bind and lose in Heaven; so they have power on Earth to give and take away Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities, Dukedoms, Earldoms, and (according as they shall deserve, and he is q Sive Roman. Pontificem Supremum in Ecclesiâ Dei Judicem. Ita Gregorius 13. in Bulla data Romae, 8 Apr. 1575. In Ecloge Bullarum Lugduni. 1582. p. 359. Col. 2. Judge of that) the possessions of all men. This power, he says, Peter had; and so he, and the Bishops of Rome have it too, and that from God, as Vicars of Christ, and Peter' s Successors. And so by this most Erroneous and Impious Doctrine, the Popes have a Power (which neither Peter, nor any, nor all the Apostles ever had) to dispose of all men's Temporal Estates in the World, whether they be Supreme or Subjects. 5. After this, Pope Gregory IX. r Vide Bullam. 13. Gregorij 9 datam Romae. Anno 1239. In Bullario Romano, Tom. 1. p. 89, 90. Excommunicates the Emperor Friderick II. Absolves his Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, lays an Interdict on all his Cities, Castles, and Villages, Excommunicates all that favour him, or any way assist or obey him, commands the Germane Bishops (upon pain of Excommunication) solemnly to publish this Excommunication with all their Impious Solemnities, ringing of Bells, lighting, and then extinguishing Candles, etc. 6. After this, Pope s Vid. Constitutionem Ejus 3. dat. Lugduni 1245. In Bullario Romano, Tom. 1. p. 94, 95. Innocent IV. (in the like form) Excommunicates and Deposes the said Frederick. The Lemma or Title prefixed to the Bull is thus t Damnatio & Excommunicatio Friderici. 2. Ibidem. , The Damnation and Excommunication of Frederick II. etc. And lest this might be thought a rash and inconsiderate Act of the Pope, he himself tells us, That u Cum Fraribus & Sacro Concilio, deliberatione diligenti habitâ. Ib. dictae Constitutionis. §. 6. Bullarij dicti. p. 95. Col. 1. lin. ultimâ. he did diligently deliberate about it, with his Brethren (the Cardinals he means) and the Sacred Council, the General Council of Lions.) I know, that Matthew Paris says, that he published that Excommunication in that Council, not without the x Non sine Omnium audientium & Circumstantium stupore & horrore. Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad Annum 1245. p. 668. lin. 33. Horror and Amazement of all who heard it. But Platina tells us, That it was done by the y Fridericum Omnium Consensu Imperio & Regnis privavit. Platina in vita Innocentij 4. p. 209. Col. 1. Edit. Col. Agripp. 1626. general and concurrent consent of the Council. And Innocent himself expressly says, That it was done (Friderick Excommunicate) by the z Quem (Fridericum) Concilium Generale Lugdunense Cassaverat & Condemnaverat. Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad An. 1250. p. 773. lin. ultimâ. Council itself; (and therefore the Major part must concur) and if it was not so, that Pope was not only fallible, but actually false: And it is a considerable Observation which Matthew Paris has, (and therefore I shall not omit it) when he tells us— That some did positively affirm, (and he believed it) that a A nonnullis affirmative dicebatur, quod Dominus Papa sitienter & super Omnia desiderabat, Fridericum (quem magnum Draconem vocabat) pessundare, ut ipso suppeditato & Conculcaeo, Reges Francorum & Angliae, aliósque Christianitatis Reges, (quos omnes Regulos & Serpentulos esse dicebat) faciliùs, Exemplo dicti Friderici perterritos, Conculcaret, & Bonis suis, ac Praelatos eorum, ad Libitum spoliaret. Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad dictum Annum 1250. p. 774. lin. 2. etc. Innocent IV. did above all things earnestly desire to ruin the Emperor Friderick, (whom he called the great Dragon) that, he being trampled upon, the King of France, England, and other Christian Kings, (whom he called diminutive Kings, and little Serpents) affrighted with the sad Fate of Friderick, might more easily be kept under, and they and their Prelates spoiled of their Goods, and by him plundered. So that although he, and other Popes did pretend, (as appears by their Bulls) that they deposed Kings for the Extirpation of Heresy, the Preservation of the Catholic Faith, and Christian Religion; yet 'tis evident to any intelligent and impartial Judge of their Actions, that it was their prodigious ambition and covetousness, their inordinate and erroneous desire of Dominion, of Rule and Riches, which made them usurp and exercise a power to depose Kings and Emperors, which St. Peter (from whom they pretend to have it) never had, nor pretended to. 7. Pope Paul III. b Vide Bullam. 7. Pauli. 3. dat. Romae 3. Cal. Sept. Anno. 1535. In Bullario Romano. Tom. 1. p. 514. Editionis Romae 1638. Excommunicates, Curses, Deposes and Damns Henry VIII. of England, and all who adhere to him, favour or obey him; absolves his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance; commands them all, under pain of Excommunication, not to obey him, or any c Mandantes, ut ab Henrici Regis, suorúmque Officialium, Judicum & Magistratuum quorumcunque Obedientâ penitùs & omninò recedant, nec illas in superiores recognoscant, néque eorum Mandatis Obtemperent. Dictae Bullae. §. 10. Magistrate or Officer under him; nor to acknowledge the King or any of his Judges or Officers to be their Superiors. And further (with a strange Impiety and Impudence) he declares King Henry and his Complices and Favourers, and their Children and Descendants to be Infamous, incapable to be Witnesses, make Wills, or be Heirs to any; Incapable to do any legal Act, and that in any Cause d Et Nulli ipsis, sed Ipsi aliis super quocunque debito, & negotio, tam Civili, quam Criminali, de jure respondere teneantur. Ibid. §. 11. of Debt, or any other Cause Civil or Criminal, none should be bound to answer them, and yet they bound to answer every body. And to omit the rest, (for I shall at the end of these Observations, set down the whole Bull) he commands the e Praelatis quóque & Caeteris personis Ecclesiasticis mandat sub poenis in Bulla Contentis, quatenùs de Regno Angliae discedant, 〈◊〉 revertantur, donec dicti Excommunicati, privati, maledicti, & damnati meruerim absolutionis Beneficium. Ibid. §. 13. p. 516. ecclesiastics (Secular and Regular) to quit the Kingdom, and not to return, till the Persons Excommunicate, deprived, cursed and damned (the King and all his Loyal Subjects he means) be absolved from their Censures. This Bull, though framed and ready to be published, yet the Execution of it was suspended for three years, and then actually published in the Year 1538. which was the fifth year of Pope Paul III. as appears by the Date of it, in the aforesaid Bullary. And when it was published, as it was in itself highly Impious, so (to Hen. VIII and his Loyal Subjects) it was ridiculous; and all the Effect it had was, that it increased their hate and contempt of the Antichristian pride and folly of its Author. It appeared (what indeed it was) Brutum fulmen, and that King had too great a courage and understanding, to be frighted with an Ignis fatuus, Papal Squibs and Wildfire, which could neither warm or burn him. 8. Last; as the Pope's preceding Pius V. so those who followed approved and (so far as they were able) put in practice that execrable Doctrine of Deposing Kings. Pope Gregory XIII. did immediately succeed Pius V. and renews and confirms his Bull for deposing Queen Elizabeth, and absolving her Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance (as is testified not only by f Cambdens Elizabeth. lib. 3. p. 360, 361. ad Annum 1588. Cambden, but by the Romish Priests themselves, (the g See a Book with this Title— Important Considerations, etc. written by the Secular Priests here in England, printed Anno. 1601. and reprinted with other Tracts, with this Title— A Collection of several Treatises concerning the Reasons and Occasion of Penel Laws, etc. London 1675. In which Collection, pag. 76. the Secular Priests tell us, that Pope Gregory. 13. did excommunicate Queen Elizabeth. Seculars, who seemed most moderate) and in prosecution of that damnatory Sentence, the said Pope Gregory did constitute Fitz-Gerald (an Irish Rebel against the Queen) General of all the Irish Rebels; that so he and they by Fire and Sword might Execute the Sentence of those two Popes, deposing that Queen. This is expressly testified by Fitz-Gerald h Gregorius. 13. in Ducem ac Generalem hujus belli Capitaneum, Nos Elegit, ut ex ipsius Diplomate constat: Quod tanto magis fecit, quia ejus Praedecessor Pius. 5. Elizabetham haeresium Patronam Omni Regia Potestate privaverat. Vid. Edictum Illustriss. D. Jac. Geraldini, de Justitia ejus belli, quod in Hibernia pro side gerit. 'Tis Extant in the History of the Irish Rebellion. Lond. 1680. in the Appendix, p. 8. himself, in an Edict published by him, after he was General, declaring the Justice of that Irish War, which (he says) was undertaken for the Catholic Faith, and restoring it in Ireland. To Gregory. XIII. Sixtus Quintus immediately succeeds, and confirms the damnatory Sentences of his two Predecessors, and (as he who well knew, tells us) Excommunicates and i Cambdens Elizabeth. lib. 3. p. 360, 361. deposes the Queen, Absolves her Subjects from their Oaths of Fidelity, and published a Croisado, as against Turks and Insidels (indeed as afterwards evidently appeared against England and Queen Elizabeth) and gave (what he Never had ●o give) plenary Indulgence to all who should assist in that War. Nor is this all; Cardinal Allen k Cambden ibid. lib. 3. p. 364. writ a Traitorous and Seditious Book, to Exhort all the English and Irish Papists, to join 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 Impartial 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 practice: This in General premised, 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 prefixed to the Bull. 2. The Particulars contained in it. For the first; Observ. 2. the Title prefixed to the Bull is thus:— The Damnation of Elizabeth, etc. 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— l Damnatio & Depositio Friderici. 2. Vid. Bullarium Romanum, Romae 1638. Tom. 1. p. 94. Col. 7. Edita erat Bulla ista Anno 1245. The Damnation & Deposition of Friderick. II. So in the Bull of Pope Paul III Excommunicating Henry. VIII. the Title prefixed to it is— m Damnatio Hen. 8, ejúsque Fautorum, etc. In Bullario Romano. ibid. p. 514. Col. 2. Edita dicta Bella, Anno 1535. & postea 1538. The Damnation of Henry VIII. and his Favourers, etc. 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 n Vid. Bullarium Romanum Lugduni. 1655. in. 4. Tomis in Folio, & Eclogen Bullarum & motu propriorum Pii. 4. etc. Lugduni. 1582. 8o. 0 & Novam Collectionem, etc. Eman. Roder. Turnoni. 1609. fol. where in that one Volume you have above. 500 Bulls, with the Names of. 46. Popes, who published them. number) that the Popes of later Ages, when they go about to justify some extravagant Act of their unsurped Power; they usually cite o Vid. Constitut. 22 Julij Papae. 2. In Bullario Romano Tom. 1. p. 378. & Constitut. 81. Gregorij. 13. In dicto Bullario Tom. 2. p. 348. vide Extravag. Communes, 1. 5. Tit. 9 cap. Unigenitus 2. 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) denied 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. expressly p Docuissemus cum (Lutherum) Luce clarius, Sanctos Rom. Pontifices Praedecessores nostros, in suis Canonibus seu Constitutionibus Nunquam Errasse. Vide Bullam Apostolicam Leonis 10. contra Errores Lutheri, & sequacium. Dat: Romae 17 Cal. Julij, An. 1520. & Pontificatus sui, 8o. 0 Apud Pet. Crab. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 715. etc. And his Predecessor, Julius. 2. says as much for the Church of Rome,— S. Sancta Ecclesia Romana, Magistra fidei, Omnium Errorum Expers, unica, immaculata, etc. Constitutio. 27. Julij. 2. data Anno. 1512. In Bullario Romano Tom. 1. p. 384. affirms, and publicly declares, in one of their General Councils, that it is more clear than light itself; 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 Erred, than 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 Supreme Authority, and retained in public use in their Church, we are told, q Sic Omnes Apostolicae Sedis Sanctiones accipiendae sunt, tanquam Ipsuss Divini Petri voce Firmatae sint. Can. sic Omnes 2. dist. 19 & Ibid. Can. 3. 4. etc. 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 Catholic Verity: So r Vide Bullam Greg. 13. datam Romae. 1. Jul. 1580. Jur. Can. praefixam. Gregory XIII. says, and confirms it. Whence it evidently follows; that (in Pope Gregory's Judgement) This Sentence of Agatho is not repugnant too Catholic Verity: And in the same place it is farther declared for Law, (Pope Stephen. I. is cited as Author of that Sentence) That, s Quicquid Statuit, Quicquid Ordinat Romana Ecclesia, Ab Omnibus perpetno & Irrefragobilitèr est Observandum. Ibid. Can. Enimvero. 4. Dist. 19 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 College at Paris, publicly t Christum ita Caput Ecclesiae Agnoscimus, ut illius regimen, dum in Coelos abiit, primum Petro, dein successoribus commiserit, & eandem quam habebat Ipse infallibilitatem, concesserit, quoties ex Cathedrâ loqueretur. Datur, ergo, in Eccles. Rom. Controversiarum fidei Judex Infallibilis, etiam Extra Concilium generale, tum in Quaestionibus Juris & Facti. Vid. Exposit. Theseos. in Coll. Claromontano propositae. 12. Dec. 1661. maintained 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 maintained 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, etc.) u Si Christi Authoritas non penderet à Concilio, si adhuc in terris viveret, sed Omni Concilio Major esset. Eâdem Ratione, & Pontificis Authoritas, quae ipsius Christi Vicaria est, Concilio superior est— Privilegium Infallibilis veritatis, non Concitio, sed Pontisici à Christo Collatum est. Luc. 22. 32. Gr. de Rives Epitome Concil. in Principio, praelud. 5. 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 Privilege of Infallibility was given to the Pope, not to Councils; and then Concludes; That the x Ecclesia Romana est Judex Controversiarum in Rebus Fidei, & Ipsius Determinationes Sunt De Fide. Ibid. Praelud. 9 Edit. Lugd. Anno. 1663. 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) expressly affirms, That the y Verbum Dei, vel est Scriptum in Scriptures: vel non scriptum, Traditiones: vel Explicatum, cum dubia in verbo Scripto aut Tradito Explicantur. Quod fit Praesertim per Papam, sive Extra Concilia, seu in Conciliis. Isque modus ultimus Magis probat us est, & Majori suavitate ei Plures acquiescunt, ut nihil ulterius Contendendum existiment. Lud. Bail in Print Apparatus ad summam Conc. De tripliciverbo Dei. 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 Explained; when doubtful passages in Scripture or Tradition are explained, and their meaning determined 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 z Quae cum it a sint, nec Nos debemus vereri ejus ductum sequi, In Doctrinâ Fidei & Morum, ejus Judicio Nos sistere, & scripta Omnia corrigenda submittere. Idem in Calce praefationis ad Lectorem, Tom. 1. praefixam. ought not to be afraid to follow the Pope's Guidance in Doctrines of Faith and Manners, but acquiesce in his Judgement, 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 Heretics) 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 maintained by the Jesuits, Canonists, a Vide Aquinatem. 2. 2. Quaest 11. Art. 3. Vtrum Haeretici sint tollerandi? negat. & ibid. Quest. 12. Art. 2. Vtrum Princeps propter Apostasiam à fide, amittat Dominium in Subditos, ita quod ei obedire non Tenentur? He affirms it, and says— Ejus Subditi à Dominio ejus & Juramento Fidelitatis (si sit Excommunicatus) Ipso facto liberantur. Schoolmen, and their Followers (which are very many) received 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) practised by (their Supreme Powers) their Popes and General Councils. I would not be mistaken; I do not say that all who now do, or for this Six hundred years last passed, have lived in the Communion of the Church of Rome, either do, or did approve such Papal Positions or Practices. I know the Sorbon and University of Paris, and many in other Countries, have publicly Declared their disbelief and dislike of them; Especially in b Vid. Johan. Aventinum Annal: Bojorum. Lib. 5. 6. 7. Carol. Sigonium de Regno Italiae. Matth. Paris. etc. Ad An. 1078. p. 10. 11. & p. 13. lin. 1. & p. 668. lin. 30. & 773. lin. 49. & p. 774. lin. 1. 2. & p. 875. where R. Grosthead (for his Tyrannical Usurpations) calls the Pope Antichrist. Germany, in the time of Hen. III. Hen. IV. Friderick II. etc. 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 Charon in his Remonstrantiâ Hibernorum (if some have rightly told the Number) has cited Two hundred and fifty Popish Authors, who deny the Pope's 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 Justify or Excuse the Church of Rome, so long as her Governing and Ruling part publicly approves and maintains it. For, 1. Father c Remonstrant: Hibernorum, part. 1. Cap. 3. etc. Charon 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 reckoned many more) did condemn his Doctrine, The Inquisitors damned his Book, and his Superiors Excommunicate him. 2. It is confessed, That the Supreme Infallible Power of their Church, resides either in the Pope, or Council, or both together; And 'tis also certain, That their Popes, in their approved, and (in d Volentes (verba sunt Gregorij Papae. 9) ul hac Tantum Compilatione Vniversi ut antur, & in Judiciis & Scholis, etc. Bulla Greg. 9 Decretal. praefixa. public use) received Canon Law, in their Authentic Bulls, (published by themselves) in their General Councils (and e Innocent. 4. Excommunicates. Fridèrick. 2. in the General Council at Lions, Omnium Consensu, etc. Platina in vita Innocent. 4. And Pope Innocent himself said constantly that the Council of Lions Excommunicated and Deposed that Emperor. Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. Ad Ann. 1250. p. 773. lin. 58. 59 And Pope Pasch. 2. tells us, That he Excommunicated the Emperor Hen. 4. Judicio Totius Ecclesiae. Carol. Sigonius de Regno Italiae. l. 9 p. 237. lin. 18. Observ. 3. with their Consent) have approved, and (for this Six hundred years last passed) many times practised this Doctrine of Deposing Kings; nor has the Church of Rome (I mean the Governing and Ruling part of it) by any Public Act or Declaration disowned or censured it, as doubtless she would, had she indeed disliked it. Quae non prohibet, cum possit, jubet. If any man think otherwise, and can really show me, that their Popes and General Councils have not formerly approved, or since have disowned and disapproved 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 contained 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 confessed; That the word Damnum (from whence Damnation comes) signifies a f Damnum à demendo, quia damnum est Rei diminutio unde Damna Lunae, apud Gellium. Noct. Atticarum lib. 20. Cap. 8. And Varro; Damnum à demptione lib. 4. de Legibus. So Isiodore lib. 5. Orig. Cap. 22. diminution, or g Damnum est amissio eorum quae habueras. Quinctilianus Declamat. 120. And a good Lawyer tells me, that— Damnare; est rem sine remedio sublevandi tormentis seu Ignominiae sententialitor deputare. Panormitan. in Cap. Damnamus. in. 2. Notab. de summâ Trinit. & side Catholicâ. 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 itself, 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 Heretics (and such the Queen is declared to be in the Bull) dying Excommunicate, (as that Queen did, and all true Protestants do) are Eternally Damned. For, 1. A very great h Excommunicatus est Membrum Diaboli. Lindewood ad Cap. Seculi Principes. verbo. Reconciliationis. De Immunit. Ecclesiae. Canonist of our own Nation, (while Popish Superstition unhappily prevailed here) tells us, That every Excommunicate Person is a Member of the Devil. And for farther proof of this, he Cites i Gratian. Can. Omnis Christianus. 32. Caus. 11. Quaest 3. Gratian and their Canon Law, (and he might have Cited other as pertinent places in Gratian) who tells us, in another Canon k Excommunicatio est Aeternae Mortis Damnatio. Idem Gratian. Can. Nemo. 41. Caus. 11. Quaest 3. , 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 l Est Perpetua Damnatio cum ab Excommunicato contemnitur. Gloss. ad dictum Can. verbo mortis. 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 m This Bulla Coenae often (with some alterations) occurs in Bullario Romano. vid. Constit. 25. Julii. 2. Tom. 1. pag. 382. Edit. Romae. 1638. & Constit. 63. Pauli. 5. Tom. 3. p. 83. ubi reliqua, hujus Bullae Exemplaria dicto Bullario comprehensa, indicantur. 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— n Non modo deponi, sed etiam Excommunicari, & in Aeterno Examine Damnari Decrevit. Baronius Annal. Tom. 8. ad An. Christi. 593. num. 86. That Pope Gregory. VII. did not only depose the Emperor Hen. IU. but Excommunicate, and Decree him to be Eternally Damned. And for this he o Gregor. 7. lib. 4. Epist. 2. & 23. & lib. 8. Epist. 21. 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, p Henricus. 4. primum à Gregorio Papâ, dein ab Vrbano, Postremo à Nobis, Judicio Totius Ecclesiae, Perpetuo Anathemate Obligatus est. Car. Sigonius de Regno Italiae. lib. 9 pag. 237. That he had Excommunicated the Emperor Hen. IU. in a Council; and adds, That by the Judgement of the whole Church, he lay bound under An Eternal Anathema. And after this Pope Paul. III. q Henricum, Ejúsque fautores, Adhaerentes, etc. Excommunicatos Decernimus, cosque Anathematis, Maledictionis, & Aeternae Damnationis mucrone percutimus. In Bulla Damnationis Hen. 8. Dat. Romae. Cal. Sept. Ann. 1535. 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 unanimous Consent of his Council, at Mantua, Excommunicates and Damns all those (even r Si Imperiali, Regali, aut Pontificali Dignitate praefulgeant. §. 3. dictae Bullae. Kings and Emperors) who shall Appeal from the Pope to a General Council, and that they shall be punished as s Poenis quae Loesae Majestatis & Haereticae pravitatis reis Imponuntur. Ibidem. Traitors and Heretics. Pope Julius. II. afterwards confirms this Constitution of his Predecessor, as to all the Punishments contained 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 t Decernentes eos pro Schismaticis, & de Catholicâ fide male sentientibus, cum Dathan & Abiron partem & Damnationem habere: Constit. 22. Pii. 2. §. 6. vid. P. Crab. Concil. Tom. 3. p. 690. Col. 2. & ibi foreman— sub paenâ Maledictionis Aeternae. their Portion and Damnation with Dathan and Abiron. The Damnation then intended and threatened 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 Catholic 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 u Porro subesse Rom. Pontifici Omni humanae Creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, & pronunciamus Omnino esse de Necessitate Salutis. Constit. Bonifacii. 8. dat. Romae. Ann. 1301. Pont. Ann. 8. Cap. unam sanctam. 1. De Major. & Obed. Extrav. Communes. 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, expressly says the same. For, 1. He says, That out of the Apostolic x Ecclesia Apostolica, extra quam nulla est Salus. In Prin. Bullae. Pii. 5. Church (he means evidently his own Roman Church) there is no Salvation. 2. He Declares Queen Elizabeth an y Declaramus Elizabetham Haereticam eique Adhaerentes Anathematis sententiam, incurrisse, esseque a Christi Corporis Vnitate Praecisos. Ibid. §. 3. Heretic, that she and all her Adherents had Incurred 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 Damned. 4. But this is not all; for we have greater Evidence, that by the word Damnation in their Bulls, wherein all Heretics, (Protestant's you may be sure, who without Truth or Charity, they call so) are Cursed and Excommunicated, they do and must mean Eternal Damnation. For, 1. Pope Leo. X. in the Lateran z Cum de necessitate Salutis sit, Omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse, prout Divinae Scripturae & Sanctorum Patrum Testimonio edocemur, & Constitutione Bonifa●ii Papae. 8. quae incipit Vnam Sanctam, declaratur.— Constitutionem Ipsam Sacro praesenti Concilio Approbante Innovamus, & Approbamus. Conc. Lateran. sub Leone. 10. Sess. 10. apud P. Crab. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 697. Col. 1. 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 Catholic a Contraria Omnia & Haereses, ab Ecclesia Damnatas & Anathematizatas Ego paritèr Anathematizo. Hanc veram Catholicam fidem, Extra quam Nemo Salvus esse Potest, quam veracitèr teneo, & ad Extremum vitae Spiritum, Constantissimè retinere, spondeo, voveo, juro. Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat. in Calce Cap. 12. p. 452. Edit. Antverp. 1633. Faith, without the belief of which, no man can be saved, and swear firmly to believe it to their last breath, and Anathematise 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 embrace b Omnia à Concilijs Oecumenicis tradita, definita, & Declarata, Indubitant●r recipio, & profiteor. Ibid. p. 452. All Things delivered, defined, and declared in their General Councils, and All c Apostolicas Traditiones, reliqu●sque Ejusdem Ecclesiae Constitutiones firmissimè admitto & amplector. Ibid. p. 451. 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 itself (as well as the Pope in that Creed) d Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat. cap. 12. Proviside Beneficiis, etc. Teneantur fidei publicam sacere professionem in Rom. Ecclesiae Obedientiâ se Permansuros spondeant ac Jurent. p. 432. dictae Editionis. And that we may know that the Faith they are to profess and swear to, is the Creed of Pius. V. in the afore-named Edition of the Council of Trent, at Antverp. 1633. Pius. 5. his Creed, and the Forma Juramenti Professionis Fidei, is placed immediately after that 12. Cap. Sess. 24. De Reformat. pag. 450. 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, etc. 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, etc. (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 embrace 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 Damned. So that it is not only some Temporal mischief or loss, but the Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul, which is threatened, and Declared to be the Effect and Inevitable Consequence of this against Queen Elizabeth, and such other Excommunications of those whom they call Heretics. 4. In the beginning of this Impious Bull, Observ. 4. we are told by the Pope, That our Blessed Saviour committed the Government of His Church (with all plenitude and fullness 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 e Jer. 1. 10. Jeremy; and says— f Petro & Successoribus, Ecclesiam, in plenitudine Potestatis gubernandam tradidit. Hunc unum super Omnes Gentes, & Omnia Regna Principem Constituit, qui Evellat, Destruat, Dissipet, Disperdat, plantet & aedificet; ut fideles Salvos exhibeat Salvatori. 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 g Cum Ascenderemus Palfredum nostrum, Fridericus Imp. Stepham tenuit. etc. Constit. 8. Alexand. 3. In Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 65. Col. 2. 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 Heretics, 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 h Deus Jeremiam, & in illo Evangelicum Sacerdotem instruxit dicens; Ecce Constitui Te super Gentes & Regna, ut Evellas, destruas, disperdas, etc. quae Potestas imminet in Romano Antistite, qui à Christo, ut sit Caput Ecclesiae, accepit. Ibid. Constit. 9 p. 65. Col. 2. , and In Him, to the Evangelical Priest, to Peter and his Successors, as he there expressly explains it. And Pope Paul. III. tells us;— i Ejus Vices gerenics in terris, & in Seed Justitiae Constituti, Juxta Jeremiae Vaticinium, etc. super Omnes Reges Vniversae Terrae. In Bullâ Damnationis Hen. 8. data Rom. 1535. & 1538. That he was Vicar of Christ, our blessed Saviour, and placed 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 mentioned. And (to omit others) Pope Boniface. VIII. Cites the same Text (though to as little purpose) to the same end; to prove the k Spiritualis Potestas terrenam judicare debet, si bona non fuerit: sic Verificatur Vaticinium Jeremiae, Constitui Te super Gentes, etc. Cap. unam Sanctam. 1. de major. & Obed. Extrav. Communes. Pope's 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 l Cap. Solicit. 6. Extra. De Major. & Obedientia. , 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 m Deus Papam Totius Orbis praecipuum ob●inere voluit Magistratum. Bonif. 8. in Bulla. 6. Decretalium praesixa. 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 Pope's brag, That they have n Dictum Bonif. 8. Cap. Licet Romanus. De Constitut. in. 6. Romanus Pontifex jura Omnia in Scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere. all Laws in the Archives of their own breasts, and that they are Supreme 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 pretended Successors. For, 1. This Power which God gave to Jeremy, was Personal, to himself only, not hereditary or after his death to be continued to any Successor; much less to Peter, who came above Six hundred years after. That the Popes of this or former Ages, were Successors to Peter, both the Popes themselves, and Popish Authors universally affirm; but (as yet) I have found none (except the Pope and some few of his Party) who say that either Peter, or any Pope, was Successor to Jeremy. It's true, Pope Alexander. III (in the Place quoted a little before) says; That that Power over Nations and Kingdoms, to pull up▪ dissipate, and destroy, etc. was (by God) given to Jeremy, and in Him to Peter. So that (by this wild Supposition) Peter succeeded into that Power, which before him, Jeremy had. But (notwithstanding his Infallibility) this is gratis dictum without any shadow or pretence of Reason: For he who succeeds into a Right which another possessed before him, must do it either, 1. Per generationem & Jure Sanguinis; as a Son succeeds his Father, or the next Heir, In jus defuncti: and that Peter, or any Pope did this way succeed Jeremy, as none (with any reason) can, I suppose none will say. 2. Per Consecrationem & Jure Ordinis; so one Bishop succeeds another in the same Bishopric. Neither could Peter succeed Jeremy this way; for Jeremy was never Bishop of Rome, or any other place; and then 'tis impossible that they should succeed him in a Place he never had, and be Successor to one who never was their Predecessor. 3. A man may be said to succeed another, who has a new Commission given him, to Execute an Office which (though intermitted) some had lo● before him. So suppose the King should give one a Commission to be High Constable of England, after the Place had been long void; he who had such Commission, may be said to succeed him, who had that Office last, though One or Two hundred years before. Now if the Pope (or any for him) can show, that our blessed Saviour gave Peter the same Commission, which God gave Jeremy, and set him over Nations and Kingdoms, to pull up, dissipate, and destroy, etc. (as Pope Pius. V. expressly says o Regnans in Excelsis (i.e. Christus) Ecclesiam soli Petro & Successoribus tradidit Gubernandam. And then it immediately follows— Hunc Vnum (Petrum scilicet) super Omnes Gentes, & Omnia Regna Principem Constituit, qui evellat, destruat, dissipet, disperdat, plantet, etc. Bulla dicta in Principio. he did, in this His Impious Bull against Q. Elizabeth) than I will Confess, that in this Sense Peter may be called Jeremy's Successor. But that our blessed Saviour gave Peter any such Commission (though the Pope say it) is absolutely untrue; not only without any foundation or ground of Reason for it in Scripture, (and nothing else can prove it) but point blank against it. As our Saviour's Kingdom was not of this World, no Temporal Power or Dominion; so he neither exercised any such Power himself, nor gave Peter or his Apostles, (who, all of them had Equal Power with Peter) any such p Pope Nicol. 1. (and he as Infallible as any of his Successors) tells us; That Ecclesia non habet Gladium nisi Spiritualem, qui non occidit, sed vivisicat. Luitprandus in vita, Nicol. 1. Cap. 107. But he lived above. 800. years since, and though Gratian records it for Law (Can. inter haec. 6. Caus. 33. Quaest 2.) yet the Case is altered since, and the Gloss upon that Canon (verbo Gladium) tells us, that the meaning is; that the Pope has not the Temporal Sword, Quoad Executionem only: the Power of the Temporal Sword belongs to the Emperor, but the Pope makes him Emperor, and gives him that Power: and this he proves out of a Decree of Pope Innocent 3. Cap. Venerabil. 34. Extra. De Elect. & Electi Potestate. Temporal Power over Nations and Kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, and dissipate, etc. All the Power they had was Spiritual; they could punish no man (unless miraculously, which the Pope pretends not to) in his person, by loss of Life, or Liberty (by Imprisonment) nor in his purse, by imposing and exacting Pecuniary Mulcts; as has been, and might be farther demonstrated, were it now my business: Only (by the way) I crave leave to observe, That Pope Pius in this Bull, makes that Commission, which he says, our blessed Saviour gave Peter, far larger than that which God gave Jeremy. For he tells us, 1. That our blessed Saviour did q Hunc unum (Petrum scilicet) Principem Constituit, etc. Ibid. in dicta Bulla. Constitute Peter a Prince, to pull up, and destroy, etc. but there is no such thing in Jeremy's Commission. 2. That Peter was Constituted a Prince over r Super Omnes Gentes, & Omnia Regna, Ibid. All Nations, and All Kingdoms; but Jeremy had not such Universal Power, as is evident from the s Jer. 1. 10. Text. But to make this further appear, it is to be Considered, 2. That Jeremy was a Priest, and a Prophet; so that if Peter and his Successors succeeded him, it must be in one of those two Capacities. But, 1. 'Tis certain, that neither Peter, nor any Christian Bishop did, or could succeed him, as a Priest; he being a Priest of Aaron's Order, which absolutely ceased at our Saviour's death. 2. Nor did he succeed Jeremy as to his Prophetical Office. 1. Because that was, Extraordinary, Temporary, and Expired with his Person. The Prophetical Office was not Hereditary or Successive. 'Tis true, some Prophets preceded in time, and some afterwards followed: So t Vide Corn. A Lapide in Prin. Argument. Comment. sui in Jeremiam. Jeremy was after Isaiah about One hundred sixty five years; Ezekiel after him Four and thirty years; Daniel after him Twenty years. But each Prophet had a new Call and Commission, and that for particular and different purposes, as is evident by the Prophecies themselves. 2. Jeremy and those Prophets were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Divinely Inspired, and that to an Infallibility, and their Prophecies (as Divine, and the Word of God) referred into the Sacred Canon of Scripture; Now although Peter, (not by Succession from Jeremy, but by a new Call and Commission from our blessed Saviour) was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and had such an Assistance of the Holy Spirit, as made him Infallible, and his Doctrine Divine Truth; yet such assistance being personal in him, (as it was in all Prophets before him) his Successors cannot, without Impudence and Impiety pretend to it; though some of the u For proof of this, see the Quotations before Observ. 2. Canonists, the Jesuits, and Papal Parasites, would have us believe (what the x Pope Honorius, and Pope Vigilius anciently condemned for Heretics in General Councils; and of later times, the General Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil condemned others. World knows to be false) that they are Infallible. 3. But that I may (in short) come to the main scope and hinge of the Question; the truth is Evident, That all these Popes in the Exposition and Application of this Text in Jeremy, (notwithstanding their pretended Supremacy and Infallibility) are miserably mistaken, and put a sense upon it, which, before them, never any Father or Ancient Author did; no nor their own Learned Writers of later times, even when Popery most prevailed; a sense (if I may call it so) inconsistent with the true and certain meaning of Jeremy. For when 'tis in that Text, I have set thee over the Nations and Kingdoms, to pull down, dissipate, destroy, plant, and build; That which y Vide Constitut. 9 Alexand. 3. In Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 65. Col. 2. Alexander. III (and other Popes after him) Cite this Text for, is, to infer a Power in Jeremy, (and from him, in them) so far, to pull down, dissipate, and destroy, as to Depose Kings and Emperors, and Absolve their Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance: Though the Text mean nothing less; nor can any such Impious Conclusion, by any (save possibly Popish) Logic, be deduced from it. For when the z (2) Jer. 1. 10. Text says, I have set thee over the Nations, to pull down, and destroy, etc. 1. The meaning is not, that Jeremy (by this Commission) had Power and Jurisdiction, (per modum Imperantis) as a Prince and Superior, to pull down and destroy any man, much less Kings and Emperors; nay so far was he from that, that he quietly and patiently submitted to the Authority and Commands of Injust and Impious Superiors, (as is evident in his Prophecy) and was several times a He is beaten by Pashur. Jer. 20, 1. Apprehended and Arraigned. Jer. 26. 8. Imprisoned by Zedekiah. Chap. 32. 3. and beaten and imprisoned by the Princes. Jer. 37. 15. by them put into a Dungeon. Jer. 38. 6. Imprisoned and cast into Dungeons, with great danger of his Life, at Jerusalem; and when carried Captive into Egypt, by some Rebellious Jews, who would not obey the Word of God by him, he was more miserably used, and at last, by them b A suis Concivibus in Taphnis Aegypti, Lapidibus Obrut us, Martyr occubuit. Ita Hieronymus, Tertull. Doroth. Epiphan. Isiodor. etc. Corn. A Lapide Comment. in Jerem. in Argumento. murdered and martyred. So far was Jeremy (after God had given him that c The Commission was given him, when he was a Child. Jer. 1. 6. 7. when he was 14. or 15. years old. So Corn. A Lapide in Prin. Argumenti Commentariis suis in Jeremiam praefixi. Commission) from pulling down, or destroying any man, that (on the contrary) he patiently submitted to his Superiors, and was by them (though most injustly) punished, pulled down, and at last destroyed. 2. But the meaning of that Text evidently is, I have set thee o-over Nations and Kingdoms, to pull down, destroy, and dissipate, etc. Per modum Prophetantis, & Quid Judicio Justo facturus esset Deus, praedicentis; As a Prophet, to foretell what God would do; that (unless they repented) he would pull down, destroy, and dissipate those Nations and Kingdoms, against which (by God's express Command) he Prophesied. Jeremy had no Commission, no Power or Authority to pull down, or destroy any one single Person, much less Kings and Emperors; nor did he ever do, or attempt any such thing; he only Prophetied, and premonished them from God, that Destruction would come upon them for their sins, but it was God only who could and did execute that Sentence, and when they repented not, destroyed them. So in Scripture, the Prophet is said to do that, which he foretells will be done. Joseph in Prison, tells Pharaoh's Butler and Baker, That within three days the one should be restored to his Place, and the other hanged. This coming to pass (not by any Power of Joseph, for he was a Prisoner) yet the d Gen. 41. 13. Text says, That He restored the one, and that He hanged the other. And this, those Popes, who so often urge this Text of Jeremy, might have easily and certainly known, had they studied Scripture and Divinity as much as Human Policy (as too e It is a memorable Story we are told to this purpose; not by any Lutheran, but a Learned Sorbon Doctor, an earwitness of it, who says, That when Pope Innocent. X. was pressed to Determine the Controversy between the Jesuits and Jansenists, He (who was bred a Lawyer) told them that he was No Divine, that Divinity was not His Profession, nor had he studied Divinity. Monsieur de St. Amour in his Journal Part. 3. Cap. 12. & p. 120. many of them do not) For what I have said is expressly said in the very Text of Jeremy's prophety; as he who compares and considers f Vide Jer. 18. 7. 8. etc. Jer. 25. 15. 16. 17. etc. & Cap. 42. 10. & 45. 4. two or three Chapters in it, may evidently see. Sure I am, (to say nothing of the Fathers and Ancient Writers of the Church) what I have said of the true meaning of this place in Jeremy, is acknowledged even by the Jesuits and Canonists (the greatest Flatterers of the Pope, and Sticklers for his pretended Supremacy) who Expound the Text as I have done. I shall instance in One or Two. 1. Corn: A. Lapide (a Noted and Learned Jesuit Expounding this Place of Jeremy, says thus— g Constitui Te ut Evellas, i. e. ut Intermineris Hostibus meis, (quos Regionibus suis Plantavi) Me inde per Bella, etc. evulsurum, nisi resipuerint. A Lapide. in Jer. 1. 70. I have set thee over the Nations, that thou should pull up: That is (saith he) that thou shouldst Threaten my Enemies, that unless they repent, I will pull them out of the Countries, where I have placed them. And then he tells us truly, that this is the Opinion of Jerome, Theodoret, Rabanus, Vatablus, Lyranus, Dion-Carthusianus, and others. And then he adds— h Ita Deus Plant at & Evellit Gentes: nam Jeremias reipsa nec plantavit nec Ev●lsit Gentes. Ergo, ut Ev●●las & plants; Idem est quod, ut has Gentes evellendas, illas plantandas A Deo mineris ac Praedices. Idem Ibidem. That it is God (not Jeremy) who Pulls up, and Plants the Nations. So that when 'tis said— I have set thee To pull up, and plant the Nations: it is all one as● if he had said— I have set thee to Threaten and Preach that God would Pull up and Plant those Nations. This is that we say and prove to be th● meaning of that Text in Jeremy, and the Jesuit fully Consents, and Acknowledges it to be true. 2. Pope Innocent. III. in his i Cap. Solitae. 6. Extra de Major. & Obedientia. Epistle to the Emperor of Constantinople, (amongst several other places of Scripture) brings this Text of Jeremy, to prove the Priest (especially Peter's Successor the Pope) to be k Ostendit S●cerdotium praeeminere R●gibus, dicto Jeremiae Glossa ad dictum Cap. verbo. Solitae Benignitatis. Superior to all Kings: and yet Bernardus de Botono (the l Vide Corpus Juris Can. Cum Glossis; Paris. 1612. In Nota, Titulum. Tom. 2. Immediatè (seu pagina proxima) sequente. Author of the Gloss there) when he comes to Explain that Text— I have set thee over the Nations, to pull up, and plant; he has nothing of Deposing and setting up Kings: but Conceives the meaning to be— That Jeremy was set over m Constitui Te, ut Evellas] Vitia scilicet, & plants] Virtutes, Glossa ad dictum Cap. Solitae. verbo, Constitui Te, etc. Nations, To pull up Vices, and plant Virtues. He truly Conceives, that Jeremy was not Constituted a Prince, with Dominion and Jurisdiction over Kings and Emperors; to set them up, or pull them down, at his pleasure; (to which purpose many of the Popes produce it) but a Prophet, to foretell them, what God would do. That is, He would plant them, if they were Penitent; if not, pull down and destroy them. So the Author of the Gloss; and they tell us, that he n Glossas Eruditissumas Edidit. Vid. dictam Notam in Prin. Tom. 2. Juris Can. Paris 1612. writ most Learned Glosses upon the Decretals of Gregory. IX. which o Vid. Bullam Greg. 13. Corp. Juris Can. praefixam. afterwards had the Approbation of Pope Gregory XIII. Be it concluded then, that Pius. V. and those other Popes before mentioned (notwithstanding their Infallibility) have miserably mistaken the true meaning of this place of Jeremy. And indeed he who reads and seriously Considers the several Places of Scripture, which the Popes of the last 600. years have explained in their Bulls and Decretals, and produced as proofs of their extravagant & usurped Supremacy; I say, he will have just reason to believe, that Popes are not the best Expositors of Scripture. For Instance; (to omit others) I shall refer the Reader to those p 1. Peter 2. 13. 14. Jer. 1. 10. Gen. 1. 16. 17. etc. Joh. 21. 16. Matth. 16. 18. 19 Luc. 22. 38. Rom. 13. 1. 2. Gen. 1. 1. 1. Cor. 2. 15. 8. or 9 Places, which Pope Innoc. III. and Bonif. VIII. have Cited, and Explained, in two of their Constitutions, both Extant in their q That of Innocent 3. Cap. Solitae. 6. Extra de Majorit. & Obed. And that of Boniface. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. Eodem Tit. Extrav. Commun. Canon Law, in the places before Cited, where the Expositions and Applications of those places, by those Popes, are not only evidently Erroneous, but (being repugnant to all good Sense and Reason) exceedingly ridiculous: such as may give their Adversaries reason to believe that the Authors of such wild Interpretations, Observ. 5. are rather Fools than Infallible. 5. Pope Pius. V. here in the beginning of this his Bull, calls r Christus Ecclesiam Apostolorum Principi tradidit gubernandam; & hunc unum Super Omnes Gentes & Omnia Regna Principem Constituit. Dictae Bullae principio. Peter (as other Popes and their Parasites usually do) Prince of the Apostles; and tells us, that our blessed Saviour did set and constitute him a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms. From whence, they (Illogically and without any shadow of Just Consequence) would Conclude, Peter's Supremacy, his Dominion and Authority even over all the Apostles. For although Peter in the Gospel (when the Names of the Twelve Apostles are numbered) is called s Matth. 10. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Primus; and amongst Latin Authors anciently (Princeps Apostolorum) The Prince of the Apostles; yet that t Petrus Apostolorum Primus & Primas, poterat Apostolis praecipere, & si in fide aut moribus errarent, Corrigere, etc. Corn. A Lapide in Matth. 10. 2. Papal Supremacy, which the Popes and their Party generally attribute to him, that they (as his Successors) might have it themselves, cannot thence be concluded. So u Caeteri Evangelistae Matthaeum praeponunt Thomae, Matthaeus Thomam Praefert, Paulus ad Galat. 2. 9 Jacobum primo Loco recenset, ante Petrum & Johannem, Existimat Hieronymus (so Erasmus says) Ejus esse, Ordinem Apostolotum distribuere, Qui illos Elegit: innuens, Authoritatem Apostolis Omnibus Parem fuisse, quod ad Apostolici muneris functionem attinet. Erasmus in Locum. Erasmus tells us, (out of St. Jerome) That the Apostles in the other Evangelists, are not reckoned in the Order they are in Matthew; lest any man should think, that Peter were first of all the Apostles, because he is reckoned in the first Place. Matthew reckons Thomas before himself; but Mark after him: Matthew reckons Andrew before James and John, but Mark after them. So St. Paul reckons James before Peter and John, though Matthew puts Peter first. And Erasmus there says further, that Jerome intimates, That the Apostles were all (as to their Apostolic Office) Equal. That which makes me believe, that what Erasmus Observes out of Jerome, is true, is this; The Spanish Inquisitors have damned it, and (in their Index x Index Librorum Prohib. & Expurg. Madriti. 1667. p. 289. Col. 1. Expurgatorius) Commanded it to be blotted out. But Erasmus adds further,— y Certe ex Ordine recensionis, non Efficacitèr Colligitur Quis Cui sit praeferendus; siquidem ubi multi numerantur, aliquis primus sit opportet. Erasmus ibidem, in Matth. 10. 2. That it cannot Logically and firmly be concluded, from the Order wherein the Apostles are numbered, which of them is to be preferred before the rest, because where many are numbered, there is a necessity we begin with some one, and 'tis 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 passed; so that (even by our Adversaries consent) all that can be rationally Inferred, from that Text, where in numbering the Apostles, Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first, is only z So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usually signifies; Eusebius calls Simon Magus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primus Dux Haereseos, scilice● Primus Ordine Temporis, non Jurisdictionis. Euseb. Hist Lib. 2. Cap. 13. p. 51. Edit. Valesii. 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 called Principes, without any a So Homer and Virgil are called Poetarum Principes. So in Tully, Patroni Principes, ●eminent Advocates. So Plato and Aristotle, Philosophorum Principes, and yet no Dominion or Jurisdiction meant in these Expressions. Authority or Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom they are so called. And that the Rest of the Apostles were called Principes as well as Peter, I have Authentic warrant, even the Roman Breviary, restored according to the Decree of the Council of Trent, published by Pius V. (The very Pope who published this Impious Bull against Queen Elizabeth) and then Revised by the Authority of Clement. VIII. and urban VIII. and Printed at Antverp. 1660. In this Breviary, we have this b Dicti● Breviarij Part. aestiuâ, ad Diem. 29. Junij, in Festo SS. Apostolorum Petri & Pauli. p. 476. & in Festo S. Andreae. Nou. 30. Ibidem pag. 780. Hymn, in the Office for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul; Ecclesiarum Principes, Belli Triumphales Deuces, Coelestis Aulae Milites, Et vera Mundi Lumina, etc. Now in this Hymn Peter and Paul too, are called 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 c Vide Commune Sanctorum in Calce Partis Aestivae, dicti Breviarij, & in Communi Apostolorum & Evangelistarum. pag. 4. relates to all the Apostles; as in the Place cited in the Margin; when after the Invitatory, (as they call it) d Ad matutinum, Invitatorium. Regem Apostolorum Dominum, Venite adoremus. 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 e Vide Card. Cusan Opera. p. 836. & Gratian. Caul. 2. Quaest 7. Can. Beati. 37. & Theodoret in Gal. 2. p. 270. where Peter and Paul are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & in 2. Cor. 11. 6. p. 251. Principes Apostolorum alij praeter Petrum. Vid. Bellarmin. de Rom. Pontif l. 1. c. 12. p. 861. Potestas clavium transtvit ad alios Apostolos, & ad Omnes Ecclesiae Principes, etc. These are the words of Pope Leo (and he Infallible) cited there by Bellarmine. Principes, Belli Triumphales Deuces, Coelestis Aulae Milites, Et vera Mundi Lumina, etc. So that if we may believe their own Authentic Breviary, Published 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 f Hoc erant utique & Caeteri Apostoli, Quod suit Petrus, Pari Consortio praediti & Honoris & Potestatis. Cyprian de Unitate Ecclesiae. p. 208. Edit. Rigaltij. Peter. Now I desire to know, how these things will Consist? g Ecclesiam suam Vni Soli, Petro Commisit gubernandam; & hunc Vnum Super Omnes Gentes & Regna Principem Constituit. Bulla dicta in Principio. 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 Peter's. This will appear in all the Particulars of it, equally given to all, as they are expressly set down in Scripture, from whence alone, we can surely know, what their Authority and Commission was. Our blessed Saviour tells them, and us,— h Joh. 20. 21. 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 breathed upon them, and said, i Ibidem. vers. 22. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. There we have the Principle enabling 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 k Mark. 16. 20. Confirmation of it. 3. Then he adds, l Ibid. vers. 23. whose sins ye retain, they are retained, etc. Here we have the great Spiritual Power given them for the calling and governing the Church, which is elsewhere called, m Matth. 16. 19 The Power of the Keys; which Consists in binding and losing, retaining and remitting sins. For so 'tis Explained by our blessed Saviour in the Place last cited, and is (by our Adversaries) n Ministri Ecclesiae ad Remmissionem peccati, Per Virtutem Clavium Ministerialiter operantur. Lyran. in Joh. 20. 23. Vid. Tirinum, Menochium, etc. in Matth. 16. 19 confessed. So that 'tis Evident that the Power of the Keys, the Power of binding and losing, 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— o Matth. 28. 19 20. Go and Teach All Nations, baptising them, and teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have Commanded you. Their Diocese was the World— p Mark. 16. 15. Go ye into All The World, and preach the Gospel to every Creature (every man.) And the administering the Sacraments, and teaching men to believe and observe the whole Go●pel, was the business they were to do in that their Diocese. 5. And to encourage them to this great and difficult Work, he graciously promises his Presence and Divine Assistance; Lo, I am q Matth. 28. 20. 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 r Simon, who Matth. 10. 4. is called Simon the Cananite, in the Syriack Version there, and Luk. 6. 15. is called Simon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the Greek word for Cannita, or Cinnaeus. For the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Canna signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. vid. Ang. Caminium, in Explicat. locorum. N. Test. p. 51. 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. Objection. I know that the Popes in their s Vide Constitut. Bonif. 8. Cap. unam Sanctam. 1. De Majorit. & Obed. Extravag. Communes. & Innocent. 3. Cap. Solicitae. 6. Extra. de Major. & Obedientiâ. Constitutions, and their Party usually urge that place in t Matth. 16. 18. 19 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 irrationally, and without any Sense or Consequence) they infer, That u Promittit hic Christus Petro, quod ipse & Successor Ejus Omnis, sit Ecclesiae Supremum Caput, Princeps & Monarcha. Jac. Tirinus in Math. 16. 18. 19 Peter, and every Successor of his, was Constituted Supreme Head, Prince and Monarch of the Universal Church. So that what Peter or his x Quamvis mortalis homo sit Petrus Ejusque Successor, tamen Coelesti praeditus Potestate, & quod ille è Cathedrâ decreverit, habendum est tanquam ab Ipso Deo Decretum. Idem Ibidem, ad vers. 19 Gratian. Can. 2. Sic Omnes. dist. 19 Successor shall (è Cathedrâ) Determine and Decree, is to be received, as if God himself had decreed it. So Tirinus, and their Canon Law, in their most Correct Editions. Though this be Erroneous, and evidently Impious, yet Tirinus, Gratian, and their Canonists are not singular in this point, another Learned Jesuit (in his Commentary on this Place) tells us, That when our blessed Saviour says, On this Rock will I build my Church; he speaks of y De Petro ut Fundamentali Petra loquitur Christus. Joh. Stephan. Menochius in Matth. 16. 18. Peter, as the Fundamental Rock, on which the Church is built. And he adds— z Christus est Fundamentalis Petra Praecipuè, sed ei Successerunt Petrus & reliqui summi Pontifices, ut Ejus Vicarij cum Summâ Potestate. Menochius ibid. p. 41. Col. 2. vid. Gratian. Can. In nono. Dist. 21. That though our blessed Saviour was chiefly that Fundamental Rock, yet Peter and the Popes of Rome succeeded him, as his Vicars, with Supreme Power, etc. This place, they conceive; concerns no Apostle but Peter, and proves his, and his Successors Supremacy. To this, I say, 1. Responsio. 1. That all they say, in this particular, is gratis dictum; for they only say it, without any pretence of proof. If we will take their bare word, we may; otherwise we may choose; for they bring no proof to prove their Exposition of this Text, such as might command and necessitate our Assent. And then a bare denial, is Answer enough to a bare Assertion. For (as St. Jerome says in the like case) an unproved Position, eâdem facilitate rejicitur, quâ Affirmatur. 2. When they say, our blessed Saviour was the chief Fundamental Rock on which the Church was built, and that St. Peter and the Popes succeeded him, with Supreme Power. They consequently must say Two things; 1. That our blessed Saviour left his Place and Office of being the Fundamental Rock, to Peter, when he left this World. For if he kept it, and still do keep it, neither the Pope nor Peter could be his Successors. No man can be Successor and succeed into a Place till his Predecessor leave it. Linus neither did, nor could succeed Peter in the Bishopric of Rome, whilst Peter lived, and possessed it himself; so that by this Erroneous and Impious Doctrine, they have displaced our blessed Saviour from being the Fundamental Rock, on which the Church is built, and instead of him, have placed Peter first, and then particular Popes successively. And then let the World judge, in what a miserable Condition the Church of Christ must be. 1. When the Fundamental Rock on which it was built, was an a Marcellinus Pontifex ad Scrificia Gentium ductus, Deos alienos Adoravit. Plat. in vita Marcel. Idolater, as Marcellinus was. 2. Or an Heretic; as b Cum Arianis sentiebat, etc. Plat. in vit. Liber. Liberius, c Honorius Synod. 6. damnatur. Act. 18. vid. Theoph. Chronagraph. p. 299. 301. Anastas. Biblioth. in vitis Pontif. p. 54. Francis. Combesis in Auctario Biblioth. Graec. Patrum. Tom. 2. p. 66. Synodus Nicena. 2. apud Joverium. Part. 1. p. 106. Col. 2. Honorius, d Vid. Synod. 5. & Rich. Crakanthorp. in vigilio Dormitante. Ed. Richerium in Hist. Concil. Generalium. p. 302. Vigilius, etc. were. 3. Or an Impudent whorish Woman, as Johannes Anglicus, or Pope e Vid. Plat. in vitâ Johan. 8. & Notas Car. Annibalis Fabroti, ad vitas Pont. Anast. p. 290. Joan certainly was. 4. Or when many Popes together, no less than Fifty (by the Confession of their own Learned men) were f Vid. Genebrardi Chronol. circa Initium seculi. 10. l. 4. p. 807. ad Annum 901. Apostatici potius quam Apostolici. 5. Or when the Popes were such g Tunc foedissima Rom. Ecclesiae facies, cum Romae Dominarentur sordidissimae Meretrices, quarum arbitrio, Intruderentur in Sedem Petri earum Amasij Pseudopontifices; qui non nisi ad fignanda tempora, in Catalogo Rom. Pontif. scripti: Quis enim à scortis intrusos sine lege, legitimos dicere possit Romanos fuisse Pontifices? Baronius Annal. Tom. 10. ad An. 912. §. 14. p. 663. vid. eundem an Ad. 897. §. 8. p. 624. & add An. 925. §. 10. p. 688. Edit. Annal. Antverp. 1618. vid. loca & hic add. Monstrous Villains, as were put into, and out of St. Peter' s Chair by Impudent Whores, made Popes by Violence and Simony, such (as even in Baronius his Judgement) none should, or dared call true Popes, whose names were recorded only to fill up the Catalogues of the Roman Bishops. 6. Or in the Vacancies, when for h Post Clem. 4. vacat Sedes. Ann. 3. m. 2. dies. 10. Post Nicolaum 3. vacat Sedes. Ann. 3. Post Clement. 5. vacat Sedes. Ann. 2. m. 3. d. 17. Platina in Ejus vita. two or three years, and (if some i Sunt qui scribunt, post mortem Nicolai. 1. Sedem vacasse Ann. 8. Mens. 7. d. 9 Platina in Calce vitae Nicolai. 1. Writers say true) sometime for Eight years, there was no Pope at all, and so (by this Doctrine) the Church had no Fundamental Rock at all, for several years together. 7. Lastly, Or when they had for near k In that great Schism, commonly reckoned for the 27. Schism in their Church; which begun about the Year 1378. Vrbanus. 6. being Pope at Rome, and Clem. 7. at Avignion. Fifty years together, two or three Popes at the same time; when it was Impossible they should be all Legitimate, and true Successors of St. Peter, and (what they pretend to) Vicars of Christ our blessed Saviour; and which, or whether any of them, were such indeed, none did, or could know: Nay, 'tis certain, (and must by our Adversaries be confessed, (unless they will deny their own received Principles) that sometimes, all of the Pretenders were Impious Usurpers of the Papal Chair, without any Just Right or Title to it. Then the first Council of l Anno Dom. 1409. or as others. 1410. Pisa met (and it was a General One, consisting of above. 600. m Longus A Coriolano. Summa Con. p. 857. Col. 2. Father's) there were Two Popes in being (such as they were) Gregory XII. and Benedict. XIII. who were both n In maximâ Praelatorum Frequentiâ, utérque Pontifex ab iis damnatus est, utróque tanquam Perjuro, Schismatico, Haeretico, è Pontificatu dejecto. Idem Ibidem Col. 1. Damned and Deposed, as Perjured Persons, Schismatics, and Heretics, etc. and that by an unanimous Consent and Decree of that Great Council. At the Council at Constance (four or five o Concil. Constanti●nse Anno 1414. years after) there were three Popes; the two beforenamed, Gregory and Benedict, (who would not sit down, though damned at Pisa, and John. XXIII. For the two former, what Villains they were, the Council of Pisa has told us. For John. XXIII. the Council of Constance gives him this Character— p Nobis Legitimè Constat. Johan. Papam. 23. à tempore quo fuit assumptus, usque nunc, Papatum in Scandalum Ecclesiae notorium rexisse; vitâque sua Damnabili ejúsque Nephandis moribus, populis exemplum vitae Male praebuisse. Concil. Constant, Sess. 10. That he was a Person (all the time he was Pope) notoriously Scandalous to the Church, that his Life was damnable, and he in his Conversation guilty of Impieties not to be named: And the Council adds, (in their Definitive Sentence of his Deposition) q Johan. 23. Schismatis nutritivum, à voto, promisso, & Juramento per Ipsum Deo, Ecclesiae & huic Concilio praestitis dirimativum, Simoniacum notorium, suis Inhonestis & Detestabilibus vita & moribus Ecclesiam Dei & Populum Christianum notorie scandalizantem. Idem Concil. Sess. 12. in sententia contra Johan. 23. desinitiuâ. That he had broke his Vow, his Oath, and Promise made to God, and his Church, that he was Notoriously Simoniacal, and by his dishonest and detestable Life and Manners notoriously Scandalous, etc. Now if these (and such other) Popes be the Fundamental Rock upon which the Church is built, (and this they say, and would have us believe it) She must of necessity be in a miserable Condition, and the Gates of Hell must prevail against Her; when they evidently prevail against the Rock, upon which (they say) she is built; for if the Rock and Foundation fail, that which is built upon it, must evidently fall and come to Ruin. This is the first Consequence of their Doctrine, manifestly Erroneous: but this is not all; For there is a second Consequence of it, both Erroneous, and indeed Blasphemous. For, 2. when they say, that our blessed Saviour was the Fundamental Rock on which the Church was built, and that Peter and the Pope's aft●r, did succeed him in that Place and Office, cum Potestatis plenitudine, (says Pius. V. here) Cum Summâ Potestate (as others Generally) Hence it follows, That the present Pope has (and every one of his Predecessors had) the same Power required to the being of a Fundamental Rock, which our blessed Saviour had. For if they succeed him in the same Place, and with a Supreme Power, than they have the same Place and Power our blessed Saviour had. His Power neither was, nor could be greater than Potestas summa; (summo non datur Superius, there can be nothing higher than the highest, nor superior to the Supreme) and if Peter had, and every pitiful Pope has potestatem summam, Then they have a Power as great, and equal to that our Blessed Saviour had before he Resigned it to his Successors: But I might have saved the Labour of proving this; for 'tis Acknowledged and expressly Affirmed in their Roman Catechism (ex Decreto Concilij Tridentini, juslu Pii. V. Edito) in which they say, that Peter was r Catechismus Romanus. Part. 1. Cap. 10. §§. 11. 12. Caput & Princeps Omnium Apostolorum. And then it there follows, Christus s Ibid. §. 13. p. 117. Edit. Paris. 1635. Petrum Vniversi Fidelium Generis Caput, ut Qui ei successit Eandem Plane Totius Ecclesiae Potestatem habere voluerit. It was our blessed Saviour's will, That Peter should have The same Power our blessed Saviour had. Sed Apage nugas Impias & Blasphemas. The bare recitation of such wild Positions, should and will be Confutation enough to all sober Christians, who are solicitous to maintain our blessed Saviour's Honour, and will never give that Place or Power to the Pope or Peter, which is solely and eternally due to their Redeemer. 3. But further, when our Adversaries, upon that Place of Matthew [Thou t Matth. 16. 19 art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church] would have us believe, That Peter was that Rock, while he lived, and his Successors after him; And thence infer their Supremacy. They must pardon our Infidelity, if we believe it not. For, 1. They do or might know, that not only Protestants, but the Fathers, and u Vid. Chrysost. in. Matth. 26. Hom. 82. pag. 702. Edit. 1607. Isiod. Pelusiota. l. 1. Epist. 235. Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 20. & De verbis Dom. Serm. 13. Tom. 18. Col. 58. ita Cyrillus & Anonymus in 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. Ancient Ecclesiastical Writers generally, by Rock in that Text, understand not Peter's Person, but either the Profession of his Faith he there made, or our blessed Saviour. But our Adversaries like not this Doctrine; And therefore when Hilary had truly said— Vnum hoc est immobile fundamentum, una Haec est foelix fidei Petra, Petri Ore Confessa; and Erasmus had put this Note in the Margin, Petram Interpretatur Ipsam Fidei Professionem; and when the same Erasmus on Matth. XVI. 18. had cited Augustin for the same sense of the place, which Hilary gives; And had put in the Margin— Ecclesia non est fundata super Petrum. The x Index Librorum Prohibit: & Expurg. Madriti. 1667. In Desid. Erasmo. p. 289. Col. 1. Spanish Inquisitors command it to be blotted out of Erasmus his Text and Margin; Although Hilary and Augustin; and many others (as they well knew) said the same thing. 2. And this truth is so Evident, that not only the Fathers, and Ancient Authors, but Sober and Learned men in the Church of Rome, even in darkest times when Popery unhappily prevailed, were of the same Judgement; And by the Rock in this Place of Matthew, [upon this Rock I will build my Church] understand not Peter, but that Confession of his Faith there made, to be meant. So y Super hanc Petram; i. e. super fidei Tuae soliditatem. Can. loquitur. 18. Caus. 24. Quaest 1. verbo. Petram, in Glossâ. John Semeca, Author of the Gloss upon Gratian, and z Super hanc Petram, quam Confessus es; i. e. Christum. Lyranus in Matth. 16. 18. Nic. Lyranus, and Ansel. Laudunensis, Author of the a Super hanc Petram, i. e. Christum in quem credis. Glossa Interlinearia in dictum Locum. Interlineary Gloss, upon his Text of Matthew; by the Rock on which the Church was built, understand Christ (our blessed Saviour) and not Peter b So Gregorius Magnus in. 7. Psalmos Penitential. 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 Friar, 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. Endeavouring 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, etc. 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. . And a late Learned Sorbon Doctor (though he would seem to say, that Peter was that Rock) yet acknowledgeth, that by that Rock, the 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 Nou. Testam. Paris. 1660. ad Matth. 16. 18. & ad. 7. Matth. vers. 25. Faith of Peter might be meant, and not his Person. Nay, which is more considerable (and may seem strange to the Reader) the Fathers of the Trent Council expressly say, That the 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. Creed or Profession of Faith, which the Church of Rome useth, (the Constantinopolitan Creed they mean, and there set it down), is The Firm and Only Foundation, against which the Gates of Hell can never prevail; and our present e Matth. 16. 18. Text is in the Margin Cited for it, whence it evidently appears, that those Fathers at Trent have Declared, That the Creed, or true Faith of Christ, is that firm Rock, and The Only Foundation on which the Church is built, and against which the Gates of Hell cannot prevail; and if that Faith be the only Foundation of such firmness, than the Pope is not. For if there be another, then that is not (what the Trent Fathers say it is) the Only Foundation. And lastly, it is very considerable, what 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. Stapleton (their Learned Professor at Douai, and great Champion of their Church) confesseth (and without great Impudence, he could not deny it) that not only chrysostom, Cyril, and Hilary; but four Popes, Leo, Agatho, Nicolas, and Adrian (each of them the first of that name) have, in their Decretal Epistles, declared, That the Rock on which the Church was built, was not Peter's Person, but his Faith or Confession of it. This was the Opinion of those ancient Popes, and they as infallible sure as any of their Successors. By the way, (that we may observe the Contradiction amongst our Adversaries, notwithstanding the pretended Infallibility of their Church) The Trent Catechism says— 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. That Peter Only was the Rock on which our blessed Saviour built his Church. And this the Author (or Authors) of the Catechism pretends to prove out of Cyprian, & some others there named. So that if the Trent Council say True: the Creed, or the Confession of the Cathol. Faith, is the Only Foundation on which the Church is built, but if the Trent Catechism be in the Right, Peter Only is that Rock and Foundation. Now seeing it is impossible, that both these Positions should be true, it Evidently follows, that there is an Error in the Council or Catechism, or (which I rather believe) in both. That this may further appear, I say, 4. That 'tis certain, and generally Confessed, That a Lively Faith, and a firm belief of the Gospel, is a Rock and Foundation against which the Gates of Hell cannot prevail. Our blessed Saviour tells us, That he who h Matth. 7. 24. 25. hears his sayings, and doth them; (he who really and practically believes the Gospel) builds upon a Rock. And St. John tell us, That such Faith is i 1 Joh. 5. 4. 5. victorious, nay victory, and cannot be overcome. Hence it is, that in the Liturgy of St. James, in the Administration of the Eucharist, they pray— That God would bless the Sacred Elements, that they might be Effectual, to the 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 (Judas 20.) adviseth all, to build up themselves on their most holy Faith. Establishment of the Holy Catholic Church, which he had Founded and Built upon the Rock of Faith. But though Faith and a firm belief of the Gospel, be a Rock, yet 'tis not (as the Trent Fathers say) the Only Rock, on which the Church is built. Peter was a Rock too; this our Adversaries Confess, and earnestly Contend for. But neither was he the Only Rock (though the Trent Catechism and Popish Writers commonly say so) nor such a Rock, as they (without any Reason or Just Ground) would have him. That this may Appear, it is to be Considered, (1.) That (by Evident Scripture) our blessed Saviour is the Prime and Chief Fundamental Rock on which the whole Church is built. l Isa. 28. 16. Behold (says God by Isay) I lay in Zion, for a Foundation a Stone, a precious Corner Stone, a Sure Foundation, etc. I know that in the Vulgar Latin of m Edit. Rom. 1590. Sixtus. V. and n Edit. Rom. 1592. Clemens. 8. it is untruly rendered— Lapide● pretiosum in Fundamento Fundatum. Whence o Bellarmine, in Praefat. ad Libr. de Pontif. Rom. vid. R. Crakanth. Contra Spalatens. Cap. 81. §. 3. p. 612. Bellarmine will have it meant of Peter, and so of the Pope; who (in his Opinion) is Lapis pretiosus in Fundamento fundatus. But had the Cardinal consulted the Hebrew Text, or the Version of the Septuagint, or p Vid. Hieronym. in Isaiae 28. vers. 16. Isiodor. Clarius in. 1. Cor. 3. 10. Fundatissimum Fundamentum Christus. Hieromes Version of both, and his Notes upon them; he might have seen his Error: But though Bellarmine Expound this Place of Isay, to be meant of Peter; yet q 1 Pet. 2. 6. 7. 8. and Act. 4. 11. Peter himself (who understood that Text as well as the Cardinal) refers it to our blessed Saviour, so does r Rom. 9 33. & 10. 11. 1. Cor. 3. 11. & 1. Cor. 10. 4. 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 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 'tis 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 cyril 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. Penitent. Tom. 2. p. 980. D. So Chrysostom, etc. 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 immovable Rock, and most sure Foundation on which the Church is built; It is also granted, and must be so, (Scripture expressly 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 t 1. Pet. 2. 5. Apostle tells us, That the Church is a spiritual House, which is built upon u Eph. 2. 20. The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. And St. John to the same purpose speaking of the Church, the New Jerusalem, says— x Rev. 21. 14. 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 Judgement) this Faith is the Foundation on which the Church is built; St. Augustin, Explaining the Creed to the Catechumen, has these words— y Noveritis Symbolum hoc esse Fundamentum super quod aedificium Ecclesiae surrexit. Ang. lib. 3. de Symbolo ad Catechumen. Tom. 9 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— z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact. in Matth. 16. 17. 18. That the Faith which Peter Confessed, 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 a Alcazar' s words are these— Censco Apostolos ideo fundatores Ecclesiae dici; quia fidei summam ediderunt, & eff us● Cruoris Testimonio, necnon praedicatione & Miraculi● in hominum animis inseverunt. Corn. A Lapide in Apocal. 21. 14. p. 112. Col. 2. C. Alcazar, (a Zealous Roman Catholic) for this very same Opinion, does not only receive and approve, but largely and undeniably prove it, out of Clemens Romanus, Augustin, Jerome, Russin, the b Concil. Trident. Sess. 3. Apostolicum Symbolum vocat firmum atque Vnicum Fundamentum, Contra quod portae Inferi non praevalebunt. Idem, ibid. Col. 2. E: Trent Council, and c Tale Fundamentum à Paulo fuit Jactum. 1 Cor. 3. 10. in Saptens Architectus Fundamenum posui. Idem, ibidem. St. Paul: And then adds— d Idem dic●nt alia Concilia & Pa●res. Ibid. That other Councils and Fathers say the same. Another 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, Ambrose in Epistolas Pauli, etc. Maldonat. in Matth. 16. 17. p. 339. Col. 1. E. 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 f Longiùs etiam à Sensu Reccdens Augustinus interpretatur, super hanc Petram, i. e. Super meipsum, quia Petra erat Christus. Maldonat. ibid. Augustine ' s Opinion was further from sense, than those he there Cited; because he made Christ the Rock on which the Church was built. (3.) I take it then for Certain, and Confessed, (and so does a very 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 fundament & fundatores (haec enim duo eodem recidunt) Ecclesiae. Corn. A Lapide in Apoc. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 1. D. 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 signify, that the Apostles (Paul as well as Peter) were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church. And that this may more distinctly appear, and from Scripture itself, 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 called h 1. Tim. 3. 15. 1. Cor. 3. 9 16. a House, the House of God; and every good Christian is a i 1 Pet. 2. 5. Lively Stone which goes to the building of that spiritual House. 2. Our blessed Saviour called and sent all his Apostles (as well as Peter) to k Eph. 4. 11. 12. build this House. He gave some Apostles— for the Edifying (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or building the Body of Christ; That is, the l Eph. 1. 22. 23. The Church which is his Body. Church. 3. The Apostles all of them, (Paul m 1 Cor. 3. 9 10. And I (says Paul) as a Masterbuilder, etc. as well as Peter) were Master-Builders of this House. Evident it is (in the Text Cited) that St. Paul was a Masterbuilder, and St. Peter was no more; nor is he any where in Scripture, expressly said to be so much; though I believe, and grant he was. 4. The Means by which these Master-Builders edified 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 itself and our Christian Faith, is called the Foundation of the Church; as may appear by what is said before, and by St. Paul, who expressly n Ye are God's building, and as a skilful Masterbuilder, I have laid The Foundation. 1. Cor. 3. 11: 12. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peritum, significat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesychius. calls it so. For that Foundation, which he there says he had laid at Corinth (as may appear from the Context) was the o Fundamentum posui; i. e. prima initia fidei Annunciavi. Lyranus. Annunciavi vitae aeternae fundamentum, id est, Christum. Fab. Stapulensis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodor. vid. Cor. A Lapide in Apocal. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 2. E. vid. Grotium in 1. Cor. 3. 10. Rom. 15. 20. Hebr. 6. 1. Ita etiam Lyranus & Glossa Interlinearia. Gospel he had preached 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 contained in it; On the belief and practice whereof, the Church solely relies for Grace here, and Glory hereafafter; And therefore, they are Commonly and Justly called the Foundation on which the Church is built. Whence it is very usual in Scripture, to say, that by Preaching the Gospel, the p Act. 9 31. 1. Cor 14. 3. 5. 12. so St. Paul's Authority was given him for Edification, or building the Church. 2. Cor. 10. 8. Church is Edified or Built. And because our blessed Saviour immediately called 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 called Master-Builders, Founders, and Foundations of the Christian Church; as our q Ideo enim Apostolorum nomina Fundamentis Ecclesiae Inscripta sunt. Rev. 21. 14. ut significetur Ipsos esse Fundamenta & Fundatores (haec enim duo eodem recidum) Ecclesiae. Corn. A. Lapide ubi supra, in Apoc. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 1. D. Adversaries Confess. Now (as to this Particular) as the Apostles were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church; Peter had no Pre-eminence or Prerogative above the other Apostles; He was no more Petra, a Founder or Foundation of the Church, than the other Apostles. Nay in this (if any) certainly St. Paul might challenge a Preference and Pre-eminence above Peter himself, or any of the Rest. For he (with truth and modesty enough, r 1. Cor. 15. 10. I laboured More abundantly than They All. And 2. Cor. 11. 23. tells us— That in Preaching the Gospel he laboured More than they All: (And s Plus reliquis; quia illi, ut plurimum, Judaeis praedicabant, quorum facilis Catechizatio (cum legem & Prophetas admiserunt) Paulus Gentibus, qui utransque negabant. Irenaeus Adversus Haereses lib. 4. cap. 41. p. 379. C. Edit. Feuardentij. Irenaeus gives the Reason of it) His Sufferings were t 2. Cor. 11. 23. Vid. Originem contra Celsum, Graeco-Lat. p. 49. more, He planted more Churches, He writ more Epistles, than 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 Supreme Monarch of the Church) is; That he tells the Corinthians, That the care of u 2. Cor. 11. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All The Churches lay upon him. Nor that only, but that he made Orders and X 1. Cor. 7. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 Y Concil. Trident. Sess. 4. In Decreto de Edit. Sacrorum Liborum. Fathers ridiculously declare Authentic) renders it otherwise— So I teach in all Churches: but the z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Ind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Edictum, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Constitutio. Glossae veteres in Calce Cyrilli, etc. word there, signifies not to teach, but properly to a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Phavorinus, verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ordain and Legally Constitute, Define, and Command. So that thereupon Obedience becomes due from those who are Concerned 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 b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodor. in. 1. Cor. 7. 17. Oecumenius and Theophylact say to the same purpose, on the same place. Confer 1. Cor. 16. 1. Law, which they were to obey. So that here are two things expressly 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 called St. Paul, A Preacher to the whole World; So c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Photius Epist. 117. pag. 158. & ibid. p. 109. 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, etc. He adds; concerning d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paulus autem peculiaritèr Orbi Vniverso. Nicol. Methon. De Corp. & Sang. Christi in magna Bibl. Patrum. Tom. 12. p. 519. 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 e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vniversi Orbis Terrarum sollicitudinem mecum gero. Theodor. in. 2. Cor. 11. 28. solicitude 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 expressly 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 show, That St. Paul (his Labours, Sufferings, the many Churches founded by him, and His Canonical Writings considered) 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 confessed 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 mentioned 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, 1. Our blessed Saviour. and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most firm and immovable Rock on which the Church is Built, is evident from the f Vid. Matth. 21. 40. Rem. 9 33. & Rom. 10, 11, & 1. Cor. 3. 11. & 1. Cor. 10. 4. & Act. 4. 11. & 1. Pet. 2. 6. 7. 8. & Isai. 28. 16. The Septuagint Translate it thus— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vid. Hieronymum in locum; & 1 Pet. 2. 6. 7. ubi Isaiam citat▪ & eadem pene verba habet, quae apud. 70. Interpretes hodiè Extant. vide Procopium in Isai. 44. p. 504. & Fabr. Stapulensem in Matth. 16. 18. 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 g Christus lapis summus Angularis Omnia sustinens, & in unam fidem Abrahae Colligens eos, qui in Vtroque Testamento apti sunt in aedificationem Dei. Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 42. p. 380. Edit. Fevardentij. which (as Irenaeus tells us) the Universal Church, both before and since his coming into the World, was built. He was h Gen. 3. 15. promised by God presently after the fall of Adam, and then successfully by i Act. 13. 18. 24. Luc. 1. 70. & Luc. 24. 27. all the Prophets; His Death and Passion was a Propitiation, as well for the Sins of those who k Hebr. 9 15. lived before, as ours who live after it; and those Promises of the Messiah were such, as all the Patriarches, Prophets, and Pious men before Christ did l Hebr. 11. 13. vid. Eusebium Hist. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 6. B. Edit. Valesij. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Omnes ab origine Generis humani qui Justitiae laude floruerunt, ut Abraham, Moses, & Quicunque postea Justi, Omnes Christum agnoverunt, eíque tanquam Dei Filio, debitum Cultum Exhibuerunt. Et Demonstrat. Evang. lib. 1. Capp. 5. 6. know and believe. Nay, (if we believe Eusebius) the Promises of the Messias, were m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christum distinctè cognitum habuerunt. Enseb. Hist. lib. 1. c. 4. p. 16. B. clearly and distinctly revealed to the Ancient Patriarches 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 n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Si non nomine, reipsa tamen Christianos. Idem plane habet Augustinus, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 13. called Christians before Christ. The Apostle tells us, That the o Galat. 3. 8. Gospel was preached to Abraham, and so it was to all the Ancient Church, by the p Luc. 24. 25. 26. 27. 44. Prophets; who foretold them of the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ. It was the Gospel St. Paul every where preached, and yet he says, that He preached No q Act. 26. 22. 23. and Act. 28. 23. other Things, than 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) r Lombard. Sent. I. 3. Dist. 25. vid. Johan. Martinez de Ripalda ad dictam Distinctionem. Peter Lombard, and the Popish Schoolmen, 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 published) 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, s Augustinus in Evang. secundum Matth. Serm. 13. Tom. 10. p. 58. D. Basil. 1569. Super hanc Petram quam confessus es, dicens; Tues Christus Filius Dei vivi, aedijicabo Ecclesiam meam. Id est, Super Meipsum aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Super Me aedificabo Te; non Me super Te— Non in Pauli, nec in Petri Nomine baptizati sumus, sed Christi; ut Petrus aedificetur super Petram, non Petra super Petrum. Ibid. pag. 59 A. Peter● as well as Paul) in respect of Christ (who is the great immovable Rock, which sustains the t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Omnium siquidem fundamentum est Christus, qui sibi ad mota, fixa firmáque sustineat. Procopius in Cap. 44. Isaiae. p. 504. And a little after— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Ecclesiae idem fundamentum jesit, qui Ipse Fundamentum est, super quod & nos, tanquam Lapides pretiosi, superstruimur. Procopius ibid. pag. 519. Omnis Ecclesiae Compages innititur & Incum●it, ut nunquam cadat, summo Angulari Lapide Christo Jesus. Augustin. Enarrat. in Psal. 86. Tom. 8. pag. 955. Operum Basil. 1569. whole Building) are Superstructions; though otherwise, in respect of the Christian World converted by their Preaching, they are called Foundations; yet only Secundary Foundations, all of which are built upon the Principal and prime Foundation Jesus Christ u Fundamentum est solus Christus, vel fides Ipsius. Object. Apoc. 21. 14. Apostoli sunt Fundamenta. Sol 1. Fundamentum propriè, est illud quod habet firmitatem & stabilitatem in se; sic Solus Christus est Fundamentum. 2. Impropriè, illud quod adhaeret primo Fundamento; sicut sunt Lapides primarij Fundamento inhaerentes: sic Apostoli dicuntur fundamenta qui Primitùs Adhaeserunt Christo. Lyranus in. 1. Cor. 3. 11. vid. Per. Lombard. in locum. pag. 73. C. D. Christus primus Lapis & Angularis; super Christum Apostoli & Prophetae, super illos, Nos aedificati sumus. Maldonatus in Matth. 16 pag. 342. And again— Multi in eodem Fundamento Lapides sunt; summus & primus solus est Christus, & praeter illud, Fundamentum Aliud nemo potest ponere; super illud autem, etiam alia sunt, quae eo nituntur, Fundamenta: nam & Apostoli & Prophetae Fundamentum Appellantur, sed ipso summo Angulari Lapide Christo Jesus. Eph. 2. 20. Maldonat. in Matth. 7. 24. p. 178. 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 x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hebr. 13. 20. great and y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Pet. 5. 4. chief Shepherd. My z John 10. 27. Sheep hear my voice, (says our blessed Saviour:) The Apostles did so; when he called them, they heard and obeyed him. Again, I lay a John 10. 15. down my life for my Sheep; so he did for his Apostles, else they could not have been saved; And therefore they also are his Sheep. 2. Yet they were Shepherds too (sent by, and subordinate to the great and chief Shepherd Jesus Christ) in respect of the Church and Christians, over which the b Act. 20. 28. Holy Ghost had set them. 3. Our blessed Saviour is such a foundation and Founder of his Church, as does not find, but make these Lively Stones, which are the Materials with which he builds it. He gives his Spirit, and by it Grace and a Lively Faith, which things alone make men Lively Stones, and fit for that Building. This no Apostle, (not Peter, much less any succeeding Pope) ever did, or could do; nor (without great folly and impiety) can pretend to. 4. Our blessed Saviour is such a Rock, such a Foundation and Founder of the Church, as was and is Proprietary and the sole true Owner of it; 'tis his House, purchased with his precious Blood; and he ever had, and still hath a Magisterial and Imperial power over it, to rule and govern it; He is c Rev. 15. 3. King of Saints. 'Tis true, the Prophets and Apostles are called Foundations and Founders of the Church; Those of the Judaical Church, before our blessed Saviour's Incarnation; these of the Christian Church, after it. But the Power, and the Authority, the Prophets or Apostles had, (even the greatest of them (Moses, or Peter) was only Ministerial, the Authority of Servants, derived from our blessed Saviour, and Exercised under him. So the Apostle tells us— d Hebr. 3. 5. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut famulus: Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, super domum, ut Filius & Dominus. That Moses was faithful in all his House, (i. e. in the Judaical Church) As A Servant; but Christ as a Son, over his Own House, whose House Are We, etc. So in the Christian Church, the Apostles (All of them) were Prime and Principal Ministers, from and under Christ, to call and build the Church. They were Servants of Christ, and (for his e 2. Cor. 4. 5. sake) of the Church: they had Ministerium, but not Imperium. Neither Peter, nor any other, had that vast Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church, which is (not without great Error and Impiety) pretended to; when they blasphemously say— That Peter f Christus Petrum Vniversi fidelium Generis Caput Constituit— ut qui Ei Successit, Eandem Plane Totius Ecclesiae Potestatem habere voluerit. Catechismus Tridentinus Part. 1. cap. 10. §§. 11. 12. & praecipuè. §. 13. p. 117. Edit. Paris. 1635. 2. The Apostles. was our blessed Saviour's Successor, and (by him) Constituted the Head of the Universal Church, with the very same Power our blessed Saviour had. But this they say only, without any Proof or Probability; and so transeat cum caeteris erroribus. 2. But although we say, (and have evident Reason and Authority for it) That our blessed Saviour was the one and only prime and chief foundation and founder of the Church, and all the Apostles (Peter as well as the Rest) Superstructions in respect of him; yet we know and acknowledge, that (both in Scripture and Antiquity) they are called Foundations and Founders of the Christian Church in respect of the Churches, called, Converted, and Constituted by them; but all Equally so; Peter was no more a foundation than Paul, or James, or John. For, 1. They were all immediately called by our g Matth. 10. 1. 2. 3. etc. Mark. 3. 14. Luk. 9 1. etc. blessed Saviour, without any dependence h Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus nec per hominem, Gal. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Dominus eum vocavit voelitus, homine non usus Administro. Theodoret in loc. Non Petro. Estius in locum. upon Peter, or any body else, (as is Evident in the Text itself) And this is generally Confessed by the Popish Commentators, even the Jesuits, such as Tirinus, Menochius, etc. I say, all the Apostles had this immediate calling to their Apostleship, from our blessed Saviour, except Mathias; and he was not chosen by Peter (who neither knew nor had any such Supremacy, as without all reason, is now ascribed to him) but the i Mathias à Collegio Apostolorum factus est Apostolus; Ita Estius in Gal. 1. 1. College of the Apostles, and consent of the faithful there present. And though a Learned Jesuit, (zealous for Peter, and the Pope's Supremacy) would have Peter to be the k Haec omnia factae sunt dirigente Petro, qui totius Operis fuit Choraegus. A Lapide in cap. 1. Act. Apost. p. 57 Col. 1. C. Directior in that business (the Election of Mathias) yet he cannot deny, but it was done by the Common l Apostoli cateríque fideles Communi consensis Nominarunt duos, etc. A. Lapide, ibidem. Consent of the Apostles and Brethren. 2. As the Apostles all of them, (Mathias excepted) had their call Immediately and Equally from our blessed Saviour, without any dependence upon St. Peter; so they had their Commission immediately from him, and in it, the very same Power, equally given to all. The same power given to any one, (even St. Peter) was given to every one. This is Evident, 1. From those plain Texts where their m Matth. 10. 1. 2. 3. etc. Mark. 3. 13. 14. 15. Luk. 9 1. Commission and Apostolical Power is given them by our blessed Saviour, before the Resurrection; when they were sent to the n Matth. 10. 5. 6. Jews only; and the very same Power equally given to all. 2. And from those other (as clear and plain) Texts, wherein (after the Resurrection) they had Commission and Authority given them by our blessed Saviour, to preach to o Matth. 28. 18. 19 Mark. 16. 15. 16. John. 20. 22. 23. all Nations; where it is— As my Father sent me, so I send you, and Go ye, etc. All equally sent, no difference or distinction of the Persons, as to any Privilege or Precedence, no Degrees of Power more or greater in one, than every one. Their Commission and Authority given in it, was the very same, and equally given to all the Apostles. These Truths are so evident in the Text, that some sober Popish Writers do both profess and industriously prove them. Franc: A Victoria, (prime Professor of Divinity at Salamanca in Spain, and (as they esteemed and called him) an p Francis. A Victoria. SS. Theol. Salamanticensis Academiae, in primariâ Cathedra Professore Eximio & Incomparabili. Ita habet Libri sui Epigraphe seu Titulus. Excellent and Incomparable Divine) Proposes and proves these two Conclusions. 1. All the q Omnem Potestatem, quam Apostoli habuerunt, reciperunt Immediatè à Christo. Victoria Prelect. 2. De Potest. Eccles. Conc. 3. p. 84. Power the Apostles had, was (by them) received Immediately from Christ. 2. All the r Apostoli Omnes habuerunt aequalem Potestatem cum Petro. Ibid. Conc. 4. p. 85. Apostles had Equal Power with Peter: And then he Explains his meaning thus— f Quod sic Intelligo; quod quilibet Apostolus habuit Potestatem Ecclesiasticam in toto Orb, & ad Omnes Actus ad quos Petrus habuit. Ibid. That every Apostle had Ecclesiastical Power in the whole World, and to do Every Act, which Peter had Power to do. But then (to please the Pope and his Party) he Excepts those Acts which were proper and belonged t Non loquor de illis Actibus, qui spectant ad solum summum Pontisicem, ut Congregatio Generalis Concilij. Ibidem. peculiarly to the Pope; as Calling of a General Council. But this is gratis dictum, without any pretence of proof, or probability from Scripture, and evidently contradictory to the known Practice of the Christian World, after the Emperors became Christians, who alone (and not the Pope) called all the Ancient Councils; as is fully proved by a late and Learned u Vid. Hist. Conc. Generalium, per Ed. Richerium Doct. & Socium Sorbonicum. Colon. 1680. where he clearly proves, the first Eight General Councils were called by the Emperors. Sorbon Doctor. 5. But to proceed; That Place in x Matth. 16. 19 Matthew is urged in the foregoing Objection, to prove the Monarchical Supremacy of Peter— I Give unto thee, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, etc. Now that I may give a short and distinct Answer to this place: I consider, 1. That this Text is generally urged (though most Impertinently) to prove Peter's and the Pope's Power over Kings and Emperors. So y Cap. Solicit. 6. Extra De Major. & Obedientiâ. vid. Baron. Tom▪ 11. ad Ann. 1076. §. 25. 26. Innocent. III. Cites it to prove, that the Emperor is subject to the Pope. To the same purpose Pope Boniface VIII. produceth it, in his Impious and (as to the Nonsense and Inconsequence of it) ridiculous z Cap. unam sanct. 1. De Major. & Obedientia. Extravag. Com. Extravagant; which a Bellarm. de Pont. Rom. l. 5. c. 7. §. Item; & §. sic enim. Bellarmine approves, and Leo. X. and his b Conc. Lateran. sub Leo. 10. Sess. 11. apud Binium. Tom. 9 p. 153. A. B. Lateran Council (which they call a General one) Innovates and Confirms; and yet a late c Honoratus Faber Society Jesus, libro cui Titulus— Una Fides, Unius Ecclesiae Rom. Delingae. 1567. cap. 19 Cujus Lemma est; Claves Regni Coelorum Duntaxac Petro Datae fuerunt. Jesuit, expressly tells us, (and you may be sure, with the d Prodiit dictus Liber, cum facultate Superiorum, & Privilegio Caesareo. Approbation of his Superiors) That the Keys were given Only to Peter. These, and many more, quote this Place to the same purpose. 2. It is certain (and e Dabo ait, non do; promittit, non dat. Luc. Brugensis in Matth. 16. 19 Ita etiam Faber Stapulensis in dictum locum, ut & alij. Vide Catenam Graecorum Patrum in Matthaeum à Nicetâ Serrarum Episcopo Collectam; & à Balth: Corderio Jesuita Editá Tholos. 1647. & ibi Cyril. p. 548. ubi ait, Christum Claves Petro promississe. Matth. 16. 19 Sed non dedisse. Joh. 20. 22. 23.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Confessed) that our blessed Saviour in this place of Matthew, does not Actually give St. Peter the Power of the Keys (be what it will) but (pro futuro) promise that he will give it. For it is in that Text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dabo, I will give, not I have given, or do give; and therefore they must show some other place in Scripture, where that Power is Actually given to Peter, and that to him alone; else, (if it be given to the other Apostles as well as to him) it will be Impossible to prove his Prerogative and Supremacy over the other Apostles, from that Power, which they have as well as he. 3. But it is certain, that the Power of the Keys (b● what it will) was (by our blessed Saviour) afterwards given to all the Apostles, as well, and 〈◊〉 much, as to Peter. So it evidently Appears b● St. f Matth. 18. 18. Matthew, in the place Cited. Where ou● blessed Saviour speaking to all his Disciples, a● well as Peter, hath these words— Verily I say unt● You, ('tis all g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Petro dedit Claves cum Liga●di Potestate; eam vero Potestatem tradidit & Discipulis Omnibus. Procop. in Isaiae Cap. 61. & p. 715. 716. Potestatem tribuit Apostolis. Hieronym in Matth. 18. 18. so even the Popish Commentators upon that Place; Menochius. Luc. Brugensis, etc. of them he speaks to) whatsoever you shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heave● and whatsoever you shall lose on Earth, shall loosed in Heaven. Here his Promise made befor● to Peter, Chap. 16. 19 is made Good to him and the Power of the Keys given him; but 't●● manifest, that it is (in the same time and Plac● equally given to all the Apostles, as well as 〈◊〉 Peter. Their own Authentic Offices, no● and heretofore in Public use in the Church Rome, do attest this truth. In one of which they are taught to Invocate the Apostles in th● Form— h Processionale juxta Ritum Ecclesiae Romanae restitutum Paris. 1663. p. 205. In Commendatione Animae. Orate pro eo Omnes Sancti Aposto●● Quibus à Domino data est Potestas Ligandi & S●●vendi. The Power of Binding and Loosin●● (and so the Power of the Keys) was given to the Apostles, as well as to Peter. This the i Manuale dictum. Londini. 1554. p. 72. Manual of the Church of Salisbury acknowledge that the Power of binding and losing, was given Paul as well as Peter; and further adds— k Quilibet Sacerdos est Vicarius Petri & Pauli, etc. Ibid. p. 73. Th● Every Priest is Vicar of Peter and Paul, and 〈◊〉 Petri & Pauli ligat & solvit) binds and looseth their stead and place. The l Missale dictum Ms. In Formulâ Absolutionis. p. 111. 112. Ancient MS. M●●sal belonging to the Abbots of Evesham, says the ●ry same thing; So does m Apud Eadmerum Hist. Novorum, per Seldenum lib. 1. pag. 27. their St. Anselm: a●● the Old n Apud G. Ferrarium De Cath. Eccl. Divi nis Officiis. Romae. 1591. p. 39 in Absolute. plurali & p. 40. In Absolute. singulari. Col. 1. A. B. Ordo Romanus expressly says; That the Power of the Keys, or the Power of binding and losing, was (by our blessed Saviour) given to all the Apostles, and (in them) to all their Successors. Vide Bandinum, Lombardum, etc. Sent. lib. 4. Dist. 18. 19 and the rest there. Their Trent Catechism (published by Pope Pius. V. according to the Decree of the Trent Council) assures us, That every o Catechis. Roman. Paris. 1635. Part. 2. c. 11. De. 10. Symboli Artic. §. 4. 6. Dominus Episcopis tantum & Sacerdotibus hanc Potestatem dedit. Et Idem habemus §. 9 Ibidem. Bishop and Priest has the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour. Hence it is, that in their Roman p Pontificale Romanum. Romae. 1611. p. 52. De Ordinat. Presbyteri. Pontifical, in their Ordination of a Priest, this Power of the Keys, of remitting and retaining sins, is given to every one Ordained to that Office, and (which may seem strange) in the very q Joh. 20. 22. 23. Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, quorum remisseris peccata, remit antur eyes; & quorum retinueris, retenta sunt. same words our blessed Saviour used, when he gave that Power to Peter and the other Apostles. Nor is this all; Their Ecumenical Council of Trent approves and (by a Synodical Definition and Decree) confirms all this; And says further, That our r Christus Ascensurus in Coelos, Sacerdotes sui Ipsius Vicarios reliquit, tanquam Praesides ac Judices, ad quos Omnia mortalia crimina deferantur; quo, Pro Potestate Clavium, remissionis & retentionis Sententiam pronuncient. Concil. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentia. c. 5. blessed Saviour, before his Ascension, left All Priests His Vicars, as Precedents and Judges, who By the Power of the Keys, should Pronounce Sentence of the Remission and retaining of Sins. And this they there prove out of this very Place s Matth. 16. 19 Conc. Trident. Ibid. c. 6. of Matthew, from which they would (and generally endeavour to) prove the Pope's t Summam Absolutamque Potestatem, Supremum Caput, summumique Pastorem. Luc. Brugensis. in locum Matth. 16. 19 Absolute Monarchical Supremacy, And Power to Depose Kings and Emperors. To omit all other Instances (which are too many) sure I am, that Pope Innocent. IV. builded his Power to Depose the Emperor Friderick upon this one Text— u Nos Christi Vices tenentes, in terris, Nobisque in. Petri Personâ, dictum sit, Quodcunque Ligaveris, etc. Imperatonem Privamus, & Subditos à Juramento fidelitatis absolvimus. Apud Binium. Conc. Tom. 7. Part. 2. p. 854. We (saith that Pope) being Christ's Vicar, and it being said to us, in the Person of Peter, whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, etc. do Depose that Emperor, and Absolve all His Subjects from their Oaths of Allegigance, etc. From the Premises, and Authorities above Cited, I think 'tis Evident, 1. That in that Text Matth. 16. 19 The Power of the Keys, was only promised, but not Actually given to Peter. 2. When it was really and (de facto) given him, Matth. 18. 18. It was as well, and as much given to all the other Apostles as to him: as (besides what is aforesaid) is attested, and expressly affirmed by Pope x Vide Sacramentarium Gregorij Magni, per Hugonem Menardun Paris. 1642. p. 113. In Vigilia 88 Petri & Pauli. Where they pray thus— Deus, qui Ligandi Solvendique Licentiam This Aposlolis Commisisti, etc. Barlaam de Primatu Papae. lib. 2. Confesseth that the Keys were given to Peter— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sed Non illi soli, sed Pari cum Ipso Dignitate, unicuíque è duodecem. And then he proves, it from Matth. 18. 18. and Joh. 20. 22. 23. The Learned Dan: Huetius citys this, In Notis ad Originem. Part. 2. p. 46. Col. 1. but neither gives, nor pretends to give any Just Answer to it. Only he says— Barlaamum corrupit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This was easily said, and Barlaam might as easily have answered, Doct●ssimum Huetium corrupit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gregory the Great, in his Book of the Sacraments, published by Hugo Menardus, a Learned Benedictine Monck; where Pope Gregory (and he as Wise and Learned, and as Infallible as those who follow him) teaches them to pray thus; O God, who hast Committed the Power of Binding and Losing To the Apostles, etc. He knew not (it seems) any Supremacy given to Peter by our blessed Saviour, when he gave him Potestatem Clavium, The Power of the Keys; seeing the same Power was given to other Apostles, who never claimed any such Supremacy. 3. Lastly, I desire then to know, by what Logic they can prove St. Peter's Supremacy over all the Apostles, for having a Power (the Power of the Keys) which every Apostle had as well as Herald 4. There is one place y Joh. 20. 21. 22. 23. more (and but one) wherein the Power of the Keys is Actually given to Peter; The words are these— As my Father sent me, so send I you; And he breathed on them, and said; Receive the Holy Ghost; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. Where, 1. It is certain and confessed, That though the Power of the Keys, be not here expressly named, yet to retain and remit here in John signifies the very same thing, That to bind and lose in Matthew, where only the Power of the Keys is named. This the Trent Catechism, and the Trent Fathers themselves must, and do acknowledge, (as will manifestly appear by the Places cited in the z Vide Catechism. Trident. Part. 1. cap. 11. §. 4. et. loca in Margin notata, in Edit. Paris. 1635. p. 129. & Ibid. §. 9 p. 132. & Part. 2. cap. 5. De Penitent. §. 12. p. 309. 310. & Ibidem §. 55. p. 339. 340. & Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentiâ. cap. 5. & 6. Margin) and the most Learned Commentators on this Place in John, allow it, and tell us truly, a Remittuntur eyes, verè & reipsâ Judicio meo Patrìsque Coelestis, Soluta sunt in Coelo; quomodo loquitur Matth. 16. 19 Luc. Brugensis in Joh. 20. 23. Comment. Tom. 4. pag. 134. Vid. Catenam Graec. Patrum in Johan. per Corderium, ad Joh. 20. 23. p. 459. And Ammonius there. That remittere here in John, is the very same with solvere, to lose, in Matthew; and so retinere here, the same with ligare in Matthew. 2. And 'tis as certain, (from the express words of the Text) and the undoubted meaning of them) that the Power of the Keys is here given Equally to all the Apostles, as well as Peter; For so the words of their Commission, I send You (mine Apostles) and he Breathed on Them; (his Apostles) whose sins Ye (my Apostles) retain, etc. The Authority and Power here mentioned, is (without distinction or difference of Degree) Equally given to all; to James, and John, and Judas, as well as Peter. 3. Nay more; it is b Ego, filius Dei, perfunctus Vicibus meis, mitto Aequali Authoritate in Mundum Vniversum, vos, quos creavi Apostolos meos,— Ordino vos Successores meos— Quod ait Euthymius, Chrysostomum secutus— Apostoli tanquam Legati ac Vicarij Christi, sustinentes Personam ipsius absentis. Luc. Brugensis in Joh. 20. 21. Commentariorum in. 4. Evangelia. Tom. 4. pag. 172. Confessed, and positively and truly affirmed, by a very Learned Popish Author, That all the Apostles (as well as Peter) are by this Commission Vicars and Successors of Christ, and have the Power of the Keys (to bind and lose, retain and remit sins) Equally given to them All. Now, if this be true, than it will inevitably follow, That all the Arguments they usually bring to prove the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy (even over Kings and Emperors) because he was Christ's Vicar, and had the Power of the Keys given him; I say, All such Arguments, from such Topics, will not only be inconsequent, but indeed altogether impertinent and ridiculous. For if this Argument be good and concluding, The Keys were given to Peter, and he is the Vicar of Christ: Ergo, He is the sole Supreme Monarch of the whole Church. Then this will be as good and concluding— Every Apostle (as well as Peter) was the Vicar of Christ, and had the Keys given him: Ergo, Every Apostle was sole Supreme Monarch of the whole Church. And then (by this wild Logic) we shall have Twelve or Thirteen Persons, and every one of them sole Supreme Monarch of the whole Church. That the Power of the Keys, was by our blessed Saviour, given to All the Apostles as well as Peter, seems to me Evident by the Premises, and that all of them (as much and as well as He) were Christi Vicarij, Christ's Vicars, may be as Evident, and must be Confessed, even by our Adversaries; unless they will deny the plain Truth of Scripture, and their own received Principles. For, 1. Our blessed Saviour tells us— As my c Joh. 20. 21. Father sent me, so send I you. Christ was our great d Hebr. 3. 1. Apostle sent immediately by his Father, so that he was Legatus & Vicarius Patris, his Father's Vicar and Ambassador (as St. e Deus erat in Christo, quasi in Vicario & Legato. Ambros. in. 2. Cor. 5. 19 Explicat. Ambros. Cap. 16. Ambrose says) And our blessed Saviour sends his Apostles, as his Vicars and Ambassadors. So the same Father tells us, in the f Deus pro Christo Vicarios dedit Apostolos, ut Pro Ipso praedicarent reconciliationem. Idem ibidem. same place; and St. Paul says as much of g 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. himself and the other Apostles— He hath Committed to us the Word of Reconciliation; now than We are Ambassadors, for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christs's stead. All the Apostles were (by our blessed Saviour) Commissioned and sent as his Ambassadors, what they did was in Christ's stead and place. They were his Vicars, and what they did was as his Deputies, Vice-Christi, supplying his place. Thus h Obsecramus pro Christo; i. e. Loco Christi, cujus sumus Ministri. Lyranus in locum. 2. Cor. 5. 20. Lyranus, and the Interlinatory i Ministerium reconciliationis dedit nobis; i. e. Vicariis Apostolis; And again, Legatione fungimur pro Christo; i. e. Vice Christi. Glossator, (and they no Lutherans) Explain that place; so the Famous Bishop of Paris, and Father of the Schoolmen, Peter k Dedit quosdam Apostolos; i. e. Vicarios Praedicationis suae. Lombard. in Eph. 4. pag. 171. & rursus in. 2. Cor. 5. 19 20. Dedit Ministerium reconciliationis nobis Apostolis, Vicariis Christi. pag. 125. Col. E. Lombard; so Pope l Vide Johan. Lanoium Epist. Tom. 6. pag. 292. Gregory the Great; nay the Jesuits (Instituta Societat. Jesus. Tom. 3. pag. 262. 263. acknowledge their Superiors (though they be neither Popes nor Apostles) to be Vicarios Christi, Christ's Vicars. And that I may neither trouble the Reader, nor myself with more Testimonies; Their own Authentic Offices, which have been; or are Approved, and publicly used in their Church, expressly say the very same thing; That the Apostles (All of them as well as Peter) were Christ's Vicars; particularly, the present Roman m Vid. Missale Roman. ex Decreto Concilij Trident. restitutum, Pij. 5. Jussu Editum. Clement. 8. Authoritate recognitum; Antu. 1619. Inter Praefationes Missae sine notis. p. 219. ubi in Praefat. De Apostolis, Sic Orant— Aequum est Te Domine supplicitèr exorare, ut gregem tuum, Pastor aeterne, non deseras; sed per Apostolos tuos, continuâ protectione Custodias; ut iisdem Rectoribus gubernatur, quos operis Tui Vicarios eidem Contulisti praeesse pastors. Hanc Orationem iisdem plane verbis conceptam, habes in Missali secudum usum York, inter Praefationes Missales, in Calce Tom. 1. & in Missali secundum usum Ecclesiae Salisburiensis. Inter Praefationes Missales. And Guil: Estius the Learned Professor and Chancellor of the University of Douai, expressly approves, and confirms this; in his Comment. on the. 2. Cor. 5. 20. Postquam Sublatus est Christus in Coelum, Nos (Apostoli) Illius Vices Gerimus in terrâ. Deus igitur primus Author, Christus Minister principalis, Nos (Apostoli) Ministri secundarij, at que Vicarij, A Deo & Christo Missi. Missal, as does manifestly appear by the place quoted in the Margin. This then being certain, and (by our Adversaries) Confessed, That every Apostle (as well as Peter) was Christ's Vicar, and had the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour, at the same time, and in the very same n Matth. 18, 18. Joh. 20. 22. 23. words when and wherein they were given to Peter: I say, this being granted (as it is, and must) it will be absolutely impossible for them to prove any Superiority in Peter (much less a Monarchical Supremacy) over the other Apostles, from his Title of Christ's Vicar, or the Power of the Keys, both which every Apostle had as well and as much as He, unless you will say, That very Power which only makes Peter Equal to the rest, makes him their Monarch and Superior. Sure I am, if this Argument be good (and they have no better) Peter is Christ's Vicar, and has the Power of the Keys: Ergo, he is Superior to John. Then this will be good too— John is Christ's Vicar, and has the Power of the Keys: Ergo, He is Superior to Peter. But enough (if not too much) of this. For the Arguments they bring for the Pope's Supremacy, drawn from his being Christ's Vicar, and having the Power of the Keys, are such as rather deserve pity, or scorn, than any serious Answer, were it not that their greatest men (for Place and Learning, even o So Pope. Bonif. 8. urges that Place, Matth. 16. 19 Quodcunque Ligaveris, etc. Cap. unam Sanctam. 1. De Major. & Obed. Extrav. Commun. And Innocent. 4. Justifies his Deposing the Emperor, (as is aforesaid) from those words— Quodcunque Ligaveris, and the Power given to Peter and the Pope by them. Binius Concil. Tom. 7. Part. 2. pag. 854. Edit. Paris. 1636. And Gregory. 7. citys the same Place, to the same purpose. Lib. 8. Epist. 21. And the same Gregory grounds his Excommunication of the Emperor Hen. 4. upon the Power of the Keys. Mihi est Potestas data Ligandi in Coelo & Terrâ. Hac Ideo Fiduciâ Fretus, Henrico totius Regni Teutonicorum & Italiae gubernacula Contradico, & Omni Christianos à vinculo Juramenti, quod sibi fecere, an't facient, absolvo. Baronius Annal. Tom. 11. Ad Ann. 1076. §§. 25. 26. their Infallible Popes in their Authentic Bulls) perpetually urge them, to prove the Pope Superior to Kings and Emperors, and to have (what Pope Pius. V. in This Impious Bull against Queen Elizabeth pretends to) Power to Depose them, and Absolve Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity. The Premises considered, I think it is Evident, and (I doubt not but) Impartial and Intelligent men think so too: 1. That every Apostle, as well as Peter, was Christ's Vicar, and had the Power of the Keys Committed to him, by our blessed Saviour, and that Immediately without Any dependence on Peter, or any other; Sure I am, that Cardinal Cusanus (though a zealous Assertor of the Pope's Supremacy) was convinced of this Truth (as to St. Paul, and so he might for the Rest) and does in Terminis Acknowledge it. He says, That both Peter and Paul were p Petrus & Paulus ambo Principes. Card. Cusanus. Epist. 2. De usu Communionis ad Bohemos. Operum. p. 836. Edit. Basil. 1565. Ecclesiae Principes, Princes of the Catholic Church; That they (both of them) had the q Nec Mysterio caret, Romanum Pontificem. Authoritate Petri & Pauli Ligare & Solvere. Idem ibid. Power of the Keys, power to bind and lose; and both of them had it r De utriusque tam Petri inter Judaeos, quam Pauli inter Gentes Primatu, Immediate à Christo Vtrique Collato. And this he proves, out of Ambrose on the Galat. 2. 7. who says the same thing. Idem ibidem. Immediately from our blessed Saviour; That as Peter was s Potuit utérque ubique Ecclesias fundare, tam in Circumcisione, quam praeputio; Licet Principalis Commissio cum Primatu, Petri fuerit in Circumcisione, & Pauli in Praeputio. Idem ibidem. Primate, as to the Jews; so Paul was Primate as to the Gentiles; and so, that (in this Primacy) Peter was not subject to Paul, nor t Nec in hoc Alter Alteri Suberat, sed Ambo sub Christo Immediate. Idem ibidem. Paul to Peter, but each of them had that Primacy Immediately from Christ, without any dependence on each other. And this Cusanus there proves out of Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome. 2. And as every Apostle, as well as Peter, was Vicar of Christ, and had the Power of the Keys; so it appears by the Premises, and is Confessed by our Adversaries (in the Places before Cited) that all of them transferred that Title and Power to their Successors; so that every Bishop, and every Priest, after the Apostles, is Christ's u Cyprian says, That the Bishop is— Judex Vice Christi, and that the Bishops, Apostolis Vicariâ Ordinatione succedunt. This Rigaltius observes; And adds, Ecce Episcopos, avo jam Cypriani, Vicarios Christi. Rigalt. Observat. in Epist. Cypr. p. 73. And a little after,— Episcopus est Dei Sacerdos, & Vicarius Christi. Vicar, and has the Power of the Keys. Whence it Evidently follows, that the Bishops of Rome (notwithstanding their great Noise, and groundless pretence to the contrary) are no more our blessed Saviour's Vicars, nor have any more Power of the Keys, than any, (I say again, than any) other Bishop in the World; The Pope and Bishop of Rome no more, than the Bishops of Rouen and Rochester. For their own Ecumenical and (with them) Infallible Council of Trent, assures us of two things. 1. That all Bishops are x Synodus declarat Episcopos, qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt. Conc. Trid. Sess. 23. De Sacramento Ordin. c. 4. Apostolorum Successores, Successors of the Apostles. 2. That our blessed Saviour, when he was about to Ascend into Heaven, y Christus Ascensurus, Sacerdotes sui Ipsius Vicarios reliquit, etc. Con. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenit. c. 5. de Confession. left Sacerdotes (that z Vid. Ibid. c. 6. De Minist. Sacramenti Poenitent. where it is evident, that by Sacerdotes, c. 5. all Bishops & Priests are meant; And that it should be sure that they are meant, in the Index of that Council these words are expressly set down,— Saoerdotes sunt Vicarij Christi. And refer to the. 14. Sess. c. 5. before Cited. In Edit. Conc. Trid. Antu. 1633. is Bishops and other Priests) his Vicars, and gave them the Power of the Keys, to bind and lose, to remit and retain sins. To conclude this Point; If the Pope and his Party, have no better ground in Scripture, (than the Places above mentioned) to prove and support that vast Papal Supremacy, they most vainly and irrationally pretend to; the whole Fabric must of necessity fall. It being impossible that so vast a Superstruction as their Popish Monarchy should be so sustained, by such Reasons which are so far from being Cogent, that they are altogether Impertinent. Well; Object. but if these will not prove (what they are produced for) the Pope's 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 Ci●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— a Christus in Coelum abiturus, hic suum creatum Vicarium designat ac summum Pontificem creat Petrum; Promiserat Christus Id Ipsum Petro. Matth. 16. 18. Sed hoc loco praestat; eumque Principem & Pastorem Totius Ecclesiae Constituit. Corn: A Lapide in Joh. 21. 15. pag. 546. That our blessed Saviour leaving the World, did create Peter his Vicar, and highest Priest, and Prince of the Universal Church, which he had promised before, Matth. 16. 18, and now performed that promise. And again (they say)— b Ex hoc loco patet S. Petrum (& Ejus Successores Rom. Pontifices) esse Caput & Principem Ecclesiae, Omnésque fideles, & jam Apostolos ipsi Subjici, & ab eo pasci & Regi debere. Idem ibid. pag. 547. Col. 2. 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 c Ait Christus Petro & Successoribus: Pasce Oves meas; non distinguens inter has oves & alias: ut alienum à suo ovili demonstraret, qui Petrum & Successores Ipsius, Magistros non recognosceret & pastors. Cap. Solicit. 6. Extrav. de Majorit. & Obedientiâ. meant all his Sheep, all good Christians. That he might show, (says that Pope) that they were none of our blessed Saviour's 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. endeavours to prove, that our blessed Saviour by those words, Feed my Sheep, meant universally all his Sheep d Pasce Oves, inquit, & generalitèr non singularitèr has vel illas: per quod Commisisse sibi Intelligitur Vniversas. Cap. unam Sanctam. 1. De Major. & Obedientiâ. Extrav. Commun. Ita. Tirinus Reliquique passim. in Joh. 21. 15. — 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, Answer. 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 misapplyed and misunderstood Scripture, to prove that great e The Pope's Supremacy consists in this, that he is, Petri Successor, & Christi verus & legitimus in terris Vicarius. Catechis. Trid. Part. 2. c. 7. §. 28. p. 391. Edit. Paris. 1635. And this an Article of their Creed, (I mean their new Creed) to which they swear (all who have any Dignities, Cure of Souls, etc. Vide Bullam Pij Papae 4. Super forma professionis fidei in Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat. post. cap. 12. Edit. Antverp. 1633. Article of their Pope's Supremacy; which being a manifest Error, 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, f Matth. 10. 2. says— The First was Peter. First in Order, or (if you will) first respectu vocationis; as first called by our blessed Saviour; not to be one of his Disciples; for so Andrew was called before him (as is evident in the g Joh. 1. 40. 41. 42. 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, h Catechis. Trid. in the Place and Section last Cited, says— Romanus Pontifex est Episcoporum Maximus; Idque Jure Divino. That's the Lemma to that Section. And then 'tis added, That the Supreme Jurisdiction of the Pope, Nullis Synodicis, aut Humanis Constitutionibus, sed Divinitùs data est. 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— i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Etenim Antiquae Romae Throno, quod Vrbs illa Imperaret, Jure Patres Privilegiadederunt. Conc. Chalcedon. Can. 28. Apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 446. That because old Rome was the Imperial City, therefore the Fathers had rightly given Privileges to the Episcopal Seat of that City. Where it is evident, that in the Judgement of that great and good Council, (and of the General Council of k Conc. Const. 1. Can. 5. apud been. Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 661. Episcopus Constantinopolitanus habere debet. Primatûs Honorem Post Romanum Episcopum, quia Civitas illa est nova Roma. Constantinople too, which they there Cite.) 1. That the Privilege and Precedency the Bishop of Rome had, was not Conveyed 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 Privilege, 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 Pope's Legates 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 l Vid. Binium Conc. Tom. 3. Edit. Paris. 1636. pag. 461. & pag. 464. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Council, (the Pope's Legates excepted, which was acknowledged by the m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Binius ibidem. p. 463. E. F. & 464. D. Judges, and then n Vide Edictum Valentiniani & Marciani. Ibid. pag. 476. 477. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Universi ideo quae à Synodo Chalcedonensi Constituta sunt, Custodire debent. Et vide ibid. p. 477 478 Edictum Marciani, de Confirmatione Synodi Chalcedonensis. Confirmed by the Emperor, and Received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae. That which troubled the Pope, was, that Constantinople should have Equal Privileges 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 than (by any Law of God or Man) the Pope ever had under him. And 'tis here observable, that although this Canon (giving Equal Privileges to the Bishop of Constantinople, as to him of Old Rome (Precedency only excepted) absolutely denied that Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over all Patriarches, (which the Popes were then nibbling at, and have since openly owned) yet Leo in his Epistles to the o Binius ibid. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 480. Emperor, p Ibid. pag. 479. Anatolius, q Ibid. pag. 481. Pulchoria Augusta, etc. wherein he writes fiercely against this Canon, never pretended (as afterwards, and now they do) That the Bishops of Rome had by Divine r So Pope Nicol. 1. tells us, That Primatûs Sedis Romanae non à Patribus, aut Imperiali Civitate, sed à Christo & Beato Petro. Vid. Binium Conc. Tom. 6. p. 508. Col. 2. F. Edit. Paris. 1636. & pag. 513. Col. 2. C. So the Trent. Catechis. part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. Papa Rom. Suprematum habet— Non ullis Synodicis, aut humanis Constitutionibus, sed Divinitùs, etc. See the Authorities they there urge for it. p. 391. Edit. Paris. 1635. Right, (as Vicars of our blessed Saviour) a Supreme Jurisdiction over all Bishops and Patriarches in the whole World: but complains of Anatolius s Apud Binium ubi supra. pag. 479. E. his pride, (Catalina Cethegum) the Violation of the Nicene Canons, and the wrong done to the Patriarches 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 passed, by the Unanimous Consent of the Council, and was Confirmed by the Imperial and Supreme Power of the Emperor; (for the Pope does Petition and t Clementiam vestram Precor, & Sedulâ Suggestione Obsecro, etc. Ita Leo Papa in Epist. Marciano Imperatori, Apud Binium. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 481. Col. 1. B. 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 u Consensiones Episcoporum (even those in the General Council at Chalcedon he means) in irritum mittimus, & per Authoritatem Beati Petri, Generali Definitione Cassamus. Leo Papa in Epist. ad Pulcheriam, apud Binium. Tom. 3. p. 482. B. Cassate and thursdays 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 the Jure it ought) Obeyed by the Eastern Churches, both then, and ever x It was in terminis Confirmed in the sixth General Council at Constantinople. Can. 36. And the second General Council at Constantinople. Can. 5. give the same precedence to the Bishop of Byzantium, which the Council of Chalcedon does. after. When these Pretensions of the Pope and his Legates 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 Authentic Book, next to the Bible, the Christian Church has, or ever had) y Dionysius Exiguus Abbas-Romanus sub Justiniano, Circa An. 540. as Trithemius, or. 520. as others. 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 z So Isiodor. Jac. Merlinus. Paris. 3535. Codex Canonum vetus Eccl. Romanae. Edit. 2. Mogunt. 1525. dein Paris. 1619. Editio Latina prisca Canonum, Apud Justell. Biblioth. Tom. 1. p. 300. So Pet. Crabb. Joverius. Joh. Sichardus. Post Opera D. Clement. Paris. 1568. etc. others of the Popish Party, follow him. 2. They Corrupt the a Can Renovantes. 6. Dist. 22. Petimus, ut Constantinopolitana Sedes Similia Privilegia, quae Superior Roma habet, accipiat; Non tamen in Ecclesiasticis rebus magnificetur ut illa, etc. So Gratian in the Old Editions, as is Confessed. Vid. Corpus Jur. Can. Cum Glossis. Paris. 1612. & sine Glossis. Paris. 1618. & ibi Notas ad hunc Canonem. Canon itself; 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 Privileges. 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, etc. But notwithstanding all that Pope Leo or his Legates 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 b Definimus neminem Mundi Potentum, quenquam qui Patriarchalibus praesunt Sedibus, in honorare praecipuè sanctissimum Papam Senioris Romae, deinceps autem Constantinopoleos Patriarcham, deinde Alexandria, etc. Ita Synodus. 8. habita sub Adriano Papa. Can. 21. And this an approved Council at Rome. Precedency to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which the Canon of Chalcedon before gave him; And this acknowledged and referred into the Body of their c Gratian. Can. Definimus. 7. Dist. 22. Vid. Glossam Ibid. Canon Law, in the best Editions of it, Revised and Corrected by Pope d Vid. Bullam Greg. 13. dat. Romae. 1. Julij 1580. Juri Canonico praefixam. Edit. Paris. 1612. & 1618. Gregory. XIII. And 'tis to be observed, that this Synodus. 8. was Subscribed by the Pope or his Legates 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 Pope's Authority, who was by that Council, basely and servilly flattered; they Calling him Most e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In Epist. Synod. 8. ad Adrianum. Apud Binium Conc. Tom. 7. Part. 1. p 984. Holy and Ecumenical Pope, and Equal to the Angels, etc. This Title Ecumenical, the Pope took kindly then, though his Predecessor f Vid. Greg. Maj. Regist. l. 4. Epist. 32. & 34. 36. 38. & l. 6. Epist. 30. & l. 7. Epist. 30. pag. 220. Gregory the Great abhorred 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 Pope's 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 bade him, Feed his Sheep, and that it was our blessed Saviour's Will, that all Peter' s Successors should have the very same Power, which Peter had; (so the Trent g Salvator Noster Petrum suae Potestatis Vicarium praefecit; & Vniversi Fidelium generis Caput & Pastorem Constituit, cum illi Oves suas pascendas, Verbis Amplissimis Commendavit; ut qui ei successit, Eandem planè Totius Ecclesiae Regendae Potestatem habere volùrit. Catechis. Trid. ex Decreto Conc. Trid. à Pio. 5. Editus. Part. 1. c. 10. §: 13. p. 117. Edit. Paris. 1634. Vid. N. Rigaltij Observat. Galeatam, Notis suis in Cyprianum praefixam. 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: etc. And here I consider, 1. That, if the Supremacy was first given to Peter, in those words— h John 21. 15. 16. Pasce Oves, Feed my Sheep, (as is confessed, and by our Adversaries positively affirmed in the Objection) which was after our blessed Saviour's Resurrection: than 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, Schoolmen, 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, versed 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 i Vide Epitomen Canon. etc. per Greg. De Rives Capucinum. Lugd. 1603. Tract. de Primatu, p. 3. 4. where for Peter's Supremacy, he citys Matth. 16. 17. 18. 19 Super hanc Petram: & dabo Tibi Claves: Matth. 10. 2. Primus Petrus. Matth. 17. 27. Christ paid Tribute only for himself and Peter. Joh. 1. 43. Thou shalt be called Cephas. Joh. 21. 7. 8. Peter alone cast himself into the Sea. Matth. 14. 28. He calls Peter only to come to him; Et ita Vnicum se Christi Vicarium designavit. Matth. 18. 21. Matth. 19 27. Mark. 14. 37. He said only to Peter, Simon sleepest thou. Others Cite for Peter's Supremacy, Luk. 22. 38. Here are two Swords. So Pope Bonif. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. Extrav. Commun. vide Glossam. verbo, Coelestis. Can. Omnes. 1. Dist. 22. Though their proofs from all those Places, (and they have no better) are not only Inconsequent, and Erroneous, but indeed Ridiculous. Vid. Tho. Campegium, Episc. Feltrensem, De Potestate Romani Pontificis. Venet. 1555. Cap. 4. 5. Opus Paulo. 4. Papae dedicat. ubi loca haec & plura, ad probandum Papae Suprematum, vanè adducit, & ridicule explicat. vid. etiam Bellarmin. De Romano Pontif. lib. 1. cap. 10. 11. 12. & inde ad cap. 24. Inclusiuè. Margin, 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 pother to show (what k 'Tis certain, and confessed, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule. King's are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, populi pastors. So Menelaus and Agamemnon usually in Homer, and in Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the Gloss. veteres in Galce Cyrilli, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pecor, a pasco and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rego. none denys) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule and govern. But let the word signify what it will, in the Civil State, yet in the Ecclesiastical and Scripture Sense of the Word, where our blessed Saviour's Lambs and Sheep (that is the Faithful) are to be fed, every Bishop and Presbyter (as well as Peter) are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pastors, and may and ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to feed the ●lock of Christ. So, 1. St. Paul tells us, l Act. 20. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Presbyters of that Church. who from Miletum, sends for the Presbyters of Ephesus, (I say Presbyters, for Timothy, who was their first Bishop, was with Paul at m Act. 20. 4. 6. 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, n Vers. 28. cap 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. To feed the Church of God, etc. 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 o 1. Pet. 5. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Peter himself (who little dreamed of any Supremacy given him by those words, Feed my Sheep) writing to the Asiatic 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 blessed Saviour did to him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (says he) Feed the Flock; He thinks it their duty, as well as his, to feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep. And that which further, and (ad hominem) more strongly confirms what I have said (in this Particular) is; That our Adversaries grant (though in Contradiction to the Sense many of them ●ive of those words, Feed my Sheep, when they ●ould build the Pope's Supremacy upon them) ●hat the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both as it signifies to rule and feed, and so the duty of ruling and feeding our blessed Saviour's Sheep, is so far from being Peculiar to Peter, or proving his Supremacy, that it is the Duty, not only of Peter, but of every Bishop in the Christian World, both to rule and feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep. This the p Episcopi (says that Catechism) singulis Episcopatibus praepos●i sunt, ●t Caeteros Ecclesiae Ministros, & fidelium populum Regant, & eorum saluti summâ Curâ Prospiciant; unde in Sacris Literis Pastores Ovium) saepe Appellantur. Catechis. Trid. part. 2. cap. 7. §. 26. pag. 389. 390. Editionis Paris. 1635. Trent Catechism expressly affirms, That all Bishops (as well as Peter) are pastors, Pastors to Rule as well as Feed the Flock and Sheep of our blessed Saviour; and to prove this, they Cite the Two very q Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. places which I (a little before) produced to the same purpose, whence it manifestly appears, That even in our Adversaries Judgement, (when the Pope's Supremacy is a little out of their Head) the feeding our blessed Saviour's sheep, is not Peter' s Supreme Prerogative, but a Duty required of every Bishop in the World. 3. But this (though enough) is not all; we have greater (and with them Infallible, and therefore undeniable) Authority to confirm what I have said, and Confute our Adversaries, as to their proof of Peter's, or the Pope's Supremacy, from those words, Feed my Sheep. For their Trent Council (which if the Pope say true, was r Dominus Patres Tridentinos Divinitùs Inspirare dignatus est. Pius Papa. 4. in Bullà super formâ Juramenti professionis Fidei. Divinely Inspired, and therefore Infallible; and if he do not say true, he himself was not only fallible but actually false) expressly tells us, That not only every Bishop, but every one s Praecepto Divino Mandatum est Omnibus, quibus Animarum Cura Commissa est, Oves Agnoscere, pro iis Sacrificium offer, verbi praedicatione, Sacramentorum Administratione, ac bonorum operum Exemplo pascere, pauperum curam paternam gerere, & in Caetera Munia Pastoralia incumbere— ideo Synodus eos admonet, ut praeceptorum divinorum memores, in Judicio & veritate Pascant & Regant. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. De Reformat. cap. 1. Edit. Antv●rp. 1633. pag. 284. who had Cure of Souls, was bound by the Law of Christ in the Gospel, to rule and feed his Sheep, by offering Sacrifices for them, by preaching the Word, Administering the Sacraments, by good Example, by a Paternal Care of the Poor, and All Other Pastoral Offices. And this is there proved by Texts, quoted in the Margin; which (with some others) are the very same with those I have (a little before) cited out of the t Act. 20. 28. Acts of the Apostles, and u 1. Pet. 5. 2. St. Peter's Epistle: Nor those only, but this very place of x Joh. 21. 15. 16. St. John (on which they would build Peter's Supremacy) is Cited in the Margin, as containing a Precept obliging (not Peter only, but) All, who had Cure of souls, to feed Christ's sheep. Now if those words, Feed my sheep, contain Praeceptum, a Precept, Obliging all Pastors to a Pastoral Duty; then they do not contain (what they pretend) Donum, a Donation of Supremacy. 4. But Pope Boniface. VIII. and Pope Innocent. III. in their before mentioned y That of Bonif. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. De Major. & Obed. Extravag. Commun. and that of Innocent. 3. cap. Solicitae. 6. extra eodem Titulo. Constitutions, tell us; that by Oves meas, our blessed Saviour means, All his sheep, All Christians in the World▪ Because he does not speak singularitèr of these or those; but Generalitèr of his sheep. Whence they, (and many after them) conclude, Tha● our blessed Saviour Committed all his Sheep Universally to Peter's Care, so that even the Apostles, (being his Sheep) were committed to Peter's Care, and by Consequence, he became their Pastor and Superior. Certainly they who reason at this rate, and so irrationally may possibly be fit Pastors to feed Sheep and Oxen, and such other brutish Cattle, but surely not to feed Men and Christians. For▪ 1. Feed my sheep, (as all know, unless they b● such as those two Popes were) is an Indefinite Proposition: and then any Novice or young● Sophister in the University, could have truly told them, That Propositio indefinita in materie Contingenti, (as this evidently is) aequivalet particulari. When we say men are young or wise, or learned; we mean, not all, but some are such. So he who says, Christ's sheep are to be fed by Peter; must mean some of them are to be fed by him, pro loco & tempore, as he had place and time to meet with them. It being impossible he should feed them z Maldonut. speaking of Matth. 28. 19 where our blessed Saviour gives Commission to all his Apostles— Go ye therefore into All the World, etc. He says thus— Non fieri poterat ut Singuli omnes terrae partes peragrarent, Gentésque Omnes docerent; néque erat necessarium. Quid enim erat Opus, ut Omnes à singulis, modo Omnes ab hominibus, aliae ab aliis docerentur. Maldonat. in Joh. 21. 15. 16. etc. §. 65. p. 1889. E. This he says, and truly. But then he should have considered, that if it was impossible for every one of the Apostles to teach all the world; than it will be impossible for any one. Impossible for Peter to feed all Christ's Sheep in the whole world: and yet this he endeavours to prove— Quicunque intra Ecclesiam erant, Petro pas●endos tradit. Dicit enim pasce Oves, non has, aut illas, fed pasce Oves meas. Omniu●i ergo suarum Ovium curam illi dedit. Ibid. §. 62. all. There were many thousands of our blessed Saviour's Sheep, whom Peter never did, nor could see, nor they hear him: And certainly his gracious Lord and Master would not tie him to Impossibilities. 2. When they say, (which is evidently untrue) that by those words— Feed my sheep, all the Faithful are meant, and are Committed to Peter's care and charge; and therefore the a Ex hoc loco (Joh. 21. 15.) patet Sanctum Petrum (& Ejus Successores Romanos Pontifices) esse Caput & Principem Ecclesiae, Omnésque fideles, etiam Apostolos Ipsi Subjici, & ab eo Pasci & Regi debere. Corn. A Lapide, in Joh. 21. 15. p. 547. Col. 2. Apostles themselves (being our Saviour's Sheep as well as others) are part of his Charge; and under his Jurisdiction. This they say indeed usually, but (miserably mistaken) only say it. For they neither have, nor can have any Just Ground or Reason for it. For it is certain, 1. That our blessed Saviour, is (to his whole Church) the only b Heb. 4. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. High Priest, the c 1. Pet. 5. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Prince of all the Pastors, and the Grand d Heb. 13. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shepherd of the sheep; and as King, has Imperial Power to Rule and Govern them. 2. It is certain, the Apostles (from and under him) are pastors and Shepherds, as well as Peter, to feed the Flock. But their Power is Ministerial, not Imperial. Even the Apostleship itself is e Act. 1. 17. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ministry, and they Ministers of Christ, and his f 2. Cor. 4. 5. Church. Now though in respect of Christ the great Shepherd, they are Sheep, even Peter himself: yet (on Earth) they are Shepherds only, not Sheep, neither in respect of the Church, over which our blessed Saviour has set them to be Shepherds; nor in relation one to another. Paul, or James, or John, are no more Sheep in Respect of Peter, to be fed and ruled by him, than he to be fed and ruled by them▪ And therefore to say (as our Adversaries vainly do) that in those words, Feed my sheep; Peter is Commanded to feed and rule the rest of the Apostles, as his Charge, (who were Shepherds only, and Sheep to no Superior Pastor, except our blessed Saviour; And by their Apostolical Commission g Hoc erant Caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus; Pari Consortio praediti & Honoris, & Potestatis, Cyprian. de Unit. Eccles. p. 208. Edit. Rigaltij. pastors sunt Omnes Apostoli, sed Grex Vnus, qui ab Omnibus unanimi Consensione Pascatur. Pasce Oves meas, belonged equally to all the Apostles, as well as to Peter, in Cyprian' s Opinion, as shall appear anon. Equal to himself) is irrational; without any ground in Scripture, or purer Antiquity. There is another Metaphor concerning the Apostles, and their Feeding and Building the Church, which may illustrate this business, All the Apostles (as well and as much as Peter) are in Scripture called Foundations 〈◊〉 the Church, converted, fed, and confirmed by them. In respect of Christ, our blessed Saviour (who is the only prime and principal firm● Rock on which the Church is built) they are (all of them) Superstructions; but in respect of the Christian Church, Foundations; and that without any dependence upon Peter; he is not the Foundation on which they are built, but but both he and they immediately upon the Prime Rock and Foundation, Jesus Christ: So that as the Apostles are Superstructures in the House of God (the Church) in Respect of Christ, the Prime firm Foundation; and none of them Superstructures, in respect of Peter: being neither built upon him, nor made Superstructions by him, by his Feeding or Ruling them: So they (and Peter too) are Sheep in Respect of our blessed Saviour, the great Shepherd of the Sheep; but not in respect of Peter; they are Shepherds as well as he, and never Committed to his Care or Cure, that (as his Sheep) he should feed and govern them: And as all the other Apostles (in Respect of Peter) were Foundations & Shepherds of the Church, coordinate with, and equal to him: So all other Bishops, the Apostles Successors, were Equal to Peter's pretended Successor (the Bishop of Rome) and no way bound to give any Reason of their Administration to him, as to their Superior; much less as to a Supreme Prince and Monarch of the Christian World, as the Canonists, Jesuits, and the Popish Party, do now Erroneously and Impiously miscall him. This was Cyprian's Opinion, in the Place but now Cited; And Rigaltius (a Learned Roman Catholic) though he h Nicol. Regaltius in Observatione Galeata, Notis suis ad Cypriani Opera praesixa. seem to say much for Peter's and the Pope's Supremacy; yet he Confesseth, (as upon a serious Consideration of several Passages in i Vid. Cypr. Epist. 67. p. 128. 129. Edit. Rigaltii: & Epist. 72. Ibid. p. 142. in Cal●e dictae Epistolae, etc. & Epist. 55. p. 95. Cyprian, and the African Councils, well he might) That Cyprian's k Singulis Pastoribus Episcopis portionem gregis esse adscriptam, quam regat unusquisque; Actus sui, sive Administrationis suae rationem redditurus; Non Romae, sed in Coelis; Non Cornelio, sed Christo— Negat (Cyprianus) Ecclesiae Romanae Vllas ess● Parts in Causa Novatiani, peractâ jam in Africâ Cognitione damn●ti. (There lay no Appeal to the Pope, as Superior to the Bishops of Africa). Rigalti●s in Notis ad 〈◊〉 ●●stolam 55. p. 95. & Notarum p. 77. 78. Opinion was, That all Bishops were equal, and were bound to give an Account of their Administration to our blessed Saviour Only, and not to any Superior Bishop, no not to Peter' s Successor, the Pope. Nor is it any way probable, that a Person so Excellent and Knowing as Cyprian, should think otherwise; seeing in his time (as is notorious and well known to all who know Antiquity) there was no Patriarch or Archbishop Superior (by any Law of God or Man) to the Ordinary Bishops, (as may, and when there is an Opportunity, shall be made Good.) It is true, Cyprian (if it be he, and not the Interpolator of that Tract) says, That the Primacy l Cyprian De Unitate Ecclesiae, pag. 208. apud Rigaltium. Hoc ●rant Caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Potrus, Pari Consortio praediti honoris & Potestatis; sed Primatus Petro datur. was given to Peter; and that the Church of Rome was The m Cyprian. Epist. 55. ad Cornelium, pag. 95. Ad Petri Cathedram, & ad Ecclesiam Principalem, unde unitas exorta est. Principal Church. Now this Primacy, and Principality Cyprian speaks of, is, by me before, and now freely granted. A Primacy of Order and Precedency, not of Jurisdiction, or that Monarchical Authority, which (Anciently was not pretended to by themselves) they now contend for. And this Primacy, which anciently was allowed to the Bishop of Rome, was not from our blessed Saviour's gift, but the greatness of that Imperial City; Non à n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Quia Vrbs illa Imperaret, Patres dederunt Privilegia. Conc. Chalcedonense. Can. 28. Petro, sed à Patribus, (as the Canon of Chalcedon tells us.) And that which makes it more probable, that I have given the true Sense of Cyprian, is; That Rigaltius (a Learned Roman Catholic) in his Dissertations, and Notes on Cyprian, Explains Cyprian's meaning just as I have done, reducing the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Church, not from any Prerogative given to that Bishop or Church by our blessed Saviour, but from the greatness of that o Ad Ecclesiam Principalem] Id est, in Vrbe Principali Constitutam. Rigaltius ad Epist. Cyprian. 55. p. 78. Notarum Imperial City: And then Cites the Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon, which in Terminis, and (when Translated) in plain English, says the very same thing I have done. And indeed that Canon, made by Six hundred and thirty Fathers Synodically met, in a legitimate General Council, confirmed by p Justiniani Constit. Novel. 115. Cap. 3. §. 14. Graeco-Lat. Lugd. 1571. p. 745. & Novel. Const. 131. cap. 1. ibid. p. 1056. where the Emperor says— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. dictarum quatuor Synodorum dogmata, sicut Sanctas Scripturas accipimus, & Canon's sicut Leges Observamus. Imperial Edicts, and received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae, does Authentically and utterly overthrow that vast Monarchical Supremacy, which the Pope and his Party for some Ages last passed (without any just ground) contend for. If any of our Adversaries think otherwise, (as possibly they may) I shall make them this fair offer; Let them bring me any Canon, of any General Council (of equal Authority and Antiquity with this of Chalcedon) by which they can prove the Pope's pretended Supremacy, (or any one Article of their own new Trent Creed). And for the future, I shall acquiesce, and they shall have my Thanks and Subscription. 6. Observ. 6. Pius. V. in his Bull says further— q Christus Catholicam Ecclesiam uni soli in terris, Apostolorum Principi Petro, Petríque Successori Rom. Ponti●ici, in Potestatis plenitudine tradidit gubernandam. Ita Bulla dicta in principio. That our blessed Saviour Committed the Care and Charge of the Universal Church, with a plenitude of Power to govern it, to one only, that is to Peter the Prince of the Apostles, And His Successors. Here I consider, 1. That although it be certain, (from Scripture, and evident Testimonies of pure and primitive Antiquity) that Peter never had, nor Executed any such Monarchical Supremacy over the other Apostles, and the whole Christian Church, as is now vainly pretended to; yet 'tis as certain, that the Pope (and his Party) cry up, and magnify St. Peter's Power, that he (as his Heir and Successor) may possess the same Power. For this they say, (and without any just proof, say it only) That it was our blessed Saviour's will, that Peter' s Successor should have r Christus Petrum universi fidelium generis Caput & Pastorem Constituit, cum illi Oves suas pascendas commendavit, ut qui ei Successisset▪ Eandem Plane totius Ecclesiae regendae Potestatem habere voluerit. Catechis. Trid. Part. 1. De. 9 Symboli Art. §. 13. p. 117. Paris. 1635. The Very same Power Peter had; and this because he was s Cum in Petrì Cathedrâ sedeat, ut Petri Successor, Christique Vicarius in terris, Vniversali Ecclesiae Praesidet. Ibid. Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. p. 391. Christ's Vicar, (though every Bishop in the World, (as shall, God willing, appear anon) be Christ's Vicar as well, and as much as he) and sat in Peter' s Chair, as his lawful Successor. 2. But admit, (dato non Concesso) which is absolutely untrue, That Peter had such a Supremacy and Monarchical Power (as they Erroneously pretend to) yet it might be Personal, to himself, and for his Life only, (as his Apostolical power was; as to that part of it, which was properly Apostolical) and not Hereditary, to be transferred to any Successor. So that the Hinge of the Controversy will be here, and our Adversaries concerned to prove two Things. 1. That Peter's Power (be what it will) was not Personal, but Hereditary, and to be Transmitted to his Successor. 2. And that the Pope and Bishop of Rome was his Legal Successor. For if they do not, upon just Grounds, make both these good, good night to their pretended Supremacy. For the First; That the greatest Power St. Peter and the Apostles had, was Extraordinary and Personal, not to be Transmitted to any Successor (what Power they did transmit, I shall anon show) will be Evident, in these Particulars. 1. Peter and the Apostles, had Vocationem à Christo Immediatam. Our blessed t Matth. 10. 1. Mark. 3. 14. Luk. 9 1. Saviour called them all (except Mathias) Immediately; as is evident from the Text. And, sure I am, that the Pope cannot pretend to such an Immediate Call. 2. The Apostles (every one as well as Peter) had a Power given them to do Miracles, to Cast out u Ibid. Matth. 10. 1. Devils, and heal all manner of Diseases, and Sicknesses. Nor can Peter's Successor (whoever he be) pretend to this. 3. The Jurisdiction, which was by our blessed Saviour given to every Apostle, (to James and John, and Paul as well as Peter) was Universal; the whole World was their Diocese. Not that every one could possibly be in every place, but where ever any of them came, they had Authority to Preach, Administer the Sacraments, Constitute and Govern Churches. So Paul did at x It does not appear in Scripture, that Peter ever was at Antioch, save once. Gal. 2. 11. But Paul was many times, and long there, and constituted that Church. See Act. 11. 26. Act. 14. 21. 28. Act. 15. 35. Act. 18. 22. 23. Antioch and Rome, as much, and y Paul was there two whole years, Act. 28. 30. writ them a long and excellent Epistle; But 'tis certain, Peter never writ to them, nor can it appear from Scripture that he was ever two weeks, much less two years, at Rome. Where St. Paul is, by Origen, said to be (next Christ) Primus Ecclesiarum Fundator. Origen Contra Celsum, lib. 1. pag. 49. Graeco-Lat. more than Peter; though they pretend that Peter alone (and not Paul) was first Bishop of both those Places. That every Apostle (as well as Peter) had Universal Jurisdiction and Authority over the whole World, is in Scripture Evident by the Commission our blessed Saviour gave them— z Matth 28. 19 20. Go and teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have Commanded you. And again,— a Mark. 16. 15. Go ye into all the World, and Preach the Gospel to every Creature. Here I observe, 1. That the Apostles in their first Mission, were sent to the b Matth. 10. 5. 6. Jews, and them only. But now their Commission is Enlarged; and they are Equally sent (every one as much as any one) to all Nations (says Matthew) To All the World, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as c Euseb. 1. 3. Demonstrat. Evangelicae. p. 136. and he has our blessed Saviour's word for it. Matth. 24. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eusebius Explains it) says St. Mark; Jidem Jurisdictionis Apostolicae & Orbis Termini; The whole World was their Diocese; every one's Jurisdiction Extended so far, and Peter's could not extend no further. 2. For the Persons they were to Preach to, they were Every Man in the World. It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to every Creature, (every Rational Creature, who (if Infancy and Infirmity hindered not) was capable. They were to Convert Pagans, and make them our blessed Saviour's Disciples and Sheep, and then feed them, with the Word and Sacraments: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (says Matthew) Convert, and make them Disciples, and then Baptise and Teach them to observe whatever I have Commanded you. Those words, Feed my sheep (on which without any just Reason, they would build Peter's Supremacy) contain only an Indefinite Proposition, which (as every one who understands Logic, must Confess) is only equivalent to a Particular; But here the Commission, given by our blessed Saviour, (to every Apostle as well as Peter) is expressly Universal; Preach to every Creature: That is, Feed All my sheep. This is a Truth so evident, that a Learned d Franc. Victoria. Relect. Theol. Lugduni. 1587. Relect. 2. De Potestate Ecclesiae Concl. 4. p. 85. where he tells us, Apostoli Omnes habuerunt Aequalem Potestatem cum Petro. Quod sic Intelligo; quod Quilibet Apostolorum habuit Potestatem Ecclesiasticam in Toto Orb, & ad Omnes Actus ad quos Petrus habuit. Non tamen loquor de illis Actibus, qui spectant ad solum summum Pontificem, ut est Congregatio Generalis Concilij. And this he there proves; as to their Power over the whole world; and to Acts; only (and he dared do no otherwise) he excepts some few, to which no Pope, for many Ages, pretended. In the present Roman Breviary the Universal Jurisdiction of Paul (as well as Peter) is acknowledged; Paul an Apostle, Praedicator veritatis per Vniversum Mundum. In Festo Cathedrae Petri Antiochiae. Febr. 22. Roman Catholic Confesseth and fully proves it. Only (to save the Popes and his own Credit) he says, That to call General Councils belonged only to Peter and the Pope, by their Supremacy, and not to any other, But this is, gratis dictum, and an evident Untruth. For the Pope (by no Law of God or Man) has, or ever had Power, to call any General Council: And for many Ages never pretended to it; which I only say now, and (when there is a Convenient time) can and will make it e A Learned Papist, Doctor of the Sorbon (newly come to my hand) has saved me the labour, and ex professo, and data opera proved, that all the Eight first General Councils were called solely by the Emperors: The Popes did indeed (as he evidently proves) sometimes Petition the Emperors, to call a Council at such a time or place; but they were always both called and confirmed by the Emperors. Vid. Edm. Richer. D. Sorb. in Hist. de Conc. General. Colon. 1680. Good. In the mean time, I think 'tis certain, either, 1. That by those words, Feed my sheep, (on which they build the Popes and Peter's Supremacy) our blessed Saviour gave Peter no supreme Power to call General Councils, that by them he might feed his Sheep: Or, 2. That the Apostles and Primitive Christians in their times, knew no such thing. For, 1. When a Controversy arose at Antioch, about Circumcision, they send not to Peter, as supreme Head of the Church, desiring him to call a Council; but to the f Act. 15. 2. Apostles and Elders. Had they known and believed, that Peter had been Invested with such Power and Supremacy, as is now pretended; it had been Civility and Duty in them, to have sent to him in the first place; But they send to the Apostles and Elders; without any notice taken of (what they knew not) Peter's Prerogative. 2. It neither does, nor can appear, that Peter called that Council. 3. Nor did he (as Head and Precedent of the Council) speak g Act. 15. 7. first; but the Question was much disputed, before Peter spoke any thing. 4. Nor did Peter (after the Question was debated) give the Definitive Sentence; For 'tis Evident h Act. 15. 19 20. 21. in the Text, That James the Less, Son of Alphaeus, and Bishop of Jerusalem, gave the Definitive Sentence, which both Peter and the whole i Act. 15. 22. Council acquiesced in. 5. Nor did Peter send his Legates to Antioch, to signify what he, and the Council had done, but the k Ibidem. Apostles and the whole Church chose and sent their Messengers. 6. Nor are the Letters sent in Peter's Name, or any notice taken of any Primacy or Prerogative of his, above the other Apostles; No, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, l Act. 15. 23. Vide dictum Edmundum Richerium D. Sorbonicum, in Hist. Conc. Generalium, lib. 1. cap. 13. §. 5. pag. 401. Edit. Colon. 1680. Ubi ex Card. Alliaceno, & Concilio hoc Apostolico Act. 15. demonstrat, Petrum Primatum (qualem Jesuitae vellent) non habuisse, sed Primatum illum Monarchicum ab Hildebrando, seu Gregorio. 7. retroductum. Ibid. §. 2. 5. The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren send Greeting. 7. Nor was that Decree published To the Churches in Peter's Name, as made or m Act. 16. 4. confirmed by him, more than any other Apostle. 8. Nay, the Apostles send Peter on a n Act. 8. 14. Message to Samaria (and he obeys and goes) which had been a strange piece of Presumption, had either he or they known his (now pretended) Monarchical Supremacy, 9 So far were those Primitive Christians, from knowing or acknowledging the now pretended Monarchical Supremacy of Peter, that even in the Apostles times and Presence, they question and a Act. 11. 2. 3. call him to an Account for his Actions. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disceptabant adversus illum (says the Vulgar Latin) tanquam valde offensi expostulabant (says Chrysostom.) And honest John Ferus (a Roman Catholic) tells us, b Petrus Apostolorum Primus, rationem reddere Ecclesiae Cogitur, nec indigne fert, quia non Dominum sed Ministrum Ecclesiae se agere sciebat. Ferus in Act. 11. 2. That he was Compelled to give a Reason of his Actions to the Church; nor was Peter offended at it, because he knew that he was not a Lord, but Minister of the Church. But now (as c Impijautem Pontifices Nunc nec ab Ecclesiâ argui, aut in Ordinem cogi volunt, quasi sint Domini non Ministri. Ibidem. Ferus there goes on) the Case is altered; for wicked Popes, (as though they were Lords and not Ministers) will not be Questioned for any thing, or reproved. Had the Canon Law been then in force, (which his pretended Successors have approved, and by their Supreme Authority published) he might have told those who Questioned him, d Si Papa innumerabiles populos sccum ducit, primo mancipio Gehennae, etc. Hujus Culpas redarguere praesumat mortalium nullus: quia Cunctos ipse judicaturus, à nemine est Judicandus; nisi sit à side deviss. Can. si Papa. 6. Dist. 40. That he was to judge all men, and none him; nor was he to be reproved by any mortal man, though by his Impiety and ill Example, he carried thousands to Hell with him. 10. Nay, St. Paul does not only e Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. question St. Peter's Actions, but to his face, before the People publicly condemn them, and that justly; for (he says) he was to be blamed: which he neither would, nor indeed well could have done, had he known Peter to have been so far his Superior as to have (by Divine Institution) a Monarchical Jurisdiction and Power over him. 11. Lastly, St. Paul himself tells us, f 2. Cor. 11. 5. & 12. vers. 11. That he was in Nothing Inferior to the Chiefest Apostles; not to Peter, James, or John, whom g Gal. 2. 9 elsewhere he reckons the chiefest. I know they say, That Paul was equal to Peter as to his Apostolical Office, but Inferior to Peter, as he was h Locus hic non derogat praerogativae Petri, qui totius Ecclesiae rector & Pastor Constitutus, etiam ipsis Apostolis Major & Superior fuit. Estius in 2. Cor. 12. 11. Supreme Pastor over the Apostles, and the whole Church. But this is gratis dictum, and indeed a begging of the Question, and taking that for granted, which never was, nor ever will be proved. However, 'tis certain, 1. That every Apostle (as well as Peter) had an Universal supreme i Qui Apostolus est, Sammam habet in Omnem Ecclesiam Potestatem, Bellarmin. De Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 12. in Respons. 3. & Object. 2. Authority and Jurisdiction, in any Part of the World, and over any Christians wherever they came. 2. That this largeness of their Jurisdiction, was Apostolical, and Personal to themselves, which they neither did, nor could transmit to their Successors; whose Jurisdiction was limited to some City and Territory, and that particular Place, the Care and Charge whereof was committed unto them; as Ephesus was to Timothy, and Crect to Titus. 3. Our Adversaries confess this, (as to all the other Apostles) but for Peter, they say, He k Successio ex Christi Instituto, & Jure Divino est, quia ipse Christus Instituit in Petro Pontificatum, infinem Mundi duraturum, ac ideo quicunque Petro succedit, à Christo accipit Pontificatum. Bellarmin. dicto lib. & cap. §. ut autem. transmitted his Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction over the whole Church to his Successor, and that by the Institution of our blessed Saviour, and Divine Right. If they could prove this, the Controversy were at an end; we would acquiesce, and admit (what upon undeniable evidence we deny) the Pope's Supremacy. But this they neither do, nor is there any possibility they ever should prove. For there is not one Syllable in l Romanum Pontificem succedere Petro, non habetur express in Scriptures, (no, nor Implicitè neither) tamen succedere aliquem Petro, deducitur evidentèr ex Scriptures, illum autem esse Romanum Pontificem, habetur ex traditione Apostolica. Bellarmin. dicto lib. & cap. §. Observandum Tertio. 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 Pope's many m Vid. Cap. Solitae. 6. Extra. de Major. & Obedientiâ. & Cap. Per venerabilem. 13. Extra. Qui filij sunt legit. & Cap. Ad Apostolicae. 2. De Sent. & re judicatâ, in. 6. & Cap. pro Human. 1. De Homicidio, in. 6. 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 n Vid. Tho. Campegium Episc. Feltrensem, de Potestate Rom. Pont. Capp. 13. 14. & Bellarminum de Roman. Pontisice, lib. 2. c. 12. etc. 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 Cousin 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 o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &c Non id Petro uni Successorbusque suis reservatum. Pet. Possinus Jesuita, Catena Graec. Patrum in Matth. Tom. 1. p. 232. Successors, etc. where chrysostom (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 p Joh. 20. 22. 23. Savionr told them, whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained. So in the Epistle of Pope q Vid. Pet. de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotij & Imperij. Tom. 2. 1. 5. c. 10. §. 2. p. 35. & Pet. Crab. Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 945. Col. 2. The words are these; Vnde Sanctissimus & Beatissimus Papa, Caput Vniversalis Ecclesiae, etc. Leo to the Bishops of France, and of his Legate 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 Universal Church: Where these words— Head of the Universal Church, are not in the Greek Copies; (as that Learned Archbishop ingenuously and truly r Absent à Contextu Graeco, verba illa, Caput Vniversalis, etc. loco dicto, in margin. Confesseth) but (by Roman Arts) falsely 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 despite of truth) to maintain the Pope's pretended Supremacy) this Learned Work of that great Roman Catholic Archbishop s Vide Indicem Librorum Prohibitorum Alexand. 7. Jussu Editum, Romae, Ann. 1664. verbo, De Concordia Sacerdotij, etc. p. 29. & p. 352. ubi extat Decretum Congrationis Jndicis, in quo damnatur hic Petri de Marca Liber. , is damned 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 Authentic Evidences, to Convince them of these Unchristian Practices, to conceal truth, and cozen 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 maintained (as 'tis 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. IU. says,— t Non fuisset Christus Diligens Pater-familias, si non dimisisset in Terrâ aliquem qui Vice suâ possit subvenire necessitatibus Ecclesiae, etc. De Potestat. Rom. Pontif. cap. 1. §. 3. pag. 2. 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 justify it. Albertus' Pighius is as high to the same impious purpose, and expressly says— u Christus Ecclesiae Defuissct, nec de Necessariis prospexisset, Nisi Monarcham aliquem & Judicem Constituisset, etc. Vide Albert. Pighium Controvers. 3. fol. 70. 71. 76. 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 x Christus dum fuit in Mundo, de jure naturali, in Imperatorem & Quoscunque Alios Deposnionis Sementias' far potuisset, & Damnationis— & Eadem Ratione & Vicarius ejus potest. Nam non videretur Dominus Discretus fuisse, nisi unicum post se Talem Vicarium reliquisset. Fuit autem iste Vicarius Petrus: & idem dicendum est de Successoribus Petri. Ita Petrus Bertrandus in Addit. ad Glossas ad Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. De Major. & Obed. Extrav. Commun. 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 seemed Discreet, unless he had left such a Vicar, as could do all these things, etc. 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 afraid to accuse him of want of Diligence and Discretion. And this impious Gloss is approved and confirmed by Pope y Vide Bullam Greg. 13. dat. Rom. 1. Julij, Ann. 1580. praefixam. Corp. Juris Can. Paris. 1612. & 1618. 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 Privilege of the Apostles, their Universal 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 preached or writ was Divine, and the undoubted Word of God. This Privilege also was Personal, nor ever was Communicated to any of their Successors. I know that the z Sic Omnes Apostolicae Sodis Sanctiones accipiendae sunt, tanquam Ipsius divini Petri voce firmatae sint. Can. sic Omnes. 2. Dist. 19 And this the Gloss there endeavours to prove, from a spurious and ridiculous, as well as impious Canon. Can. Non Nos. 1. Dist. 40. Canonists and a The Jesuits in their Thesis proposed in the Claromont Coll. 12. Decemb. Ann. 1661. Impudently and Impiously say, Christus Ecclesiae regimen primum Petro, dein Successoribus Commisit, & Eandem quam habebat Ipse, Infallibilitatem, Concessit, quoties ex Cathedrâ loqueretur. And then. Thes. 20. tells us— Datur Infallibilis Controversiarum Judex, etiam Extra Concilium Generale, Tum in Quaestio ●ibus Juris, tum facti. 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 'tis 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 Pope's 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 nibbling 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 Heretics. For instance, b Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Ecclesiast in Fortunatiano. Liberius, c Vid. Hist. Haeresis Monothlitarum, per Fran. de Combesis Dominicanum. Paris. 1648. p. 65. etc. 121. etc. ubi contra Pighium, Baronium, etc. probat evidentèr Honorium Synodo. 6. damnatum. Honorius, d Vid. D. Rlch. Crakanthorp, in Vigilio dormitante. Vigilius, etc. And for Heresy Condemned 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 e Let any man read those two Constitutions before named. 1. That of Innocent. 3. Cap. Solicitae. 6. Extra de Major. & Obedient. &, 2. That of Bonif. 8. Cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. eodem Titulo. Extravag. Commun. and if he have eyes, and will Impartially use them, he will find what I say, true. Or he may (with the same success) read the Bulls and Damnation's of the Emperor Hen. 4. by Greg. 7. in Bull. Rom. 1638. Tom. 1. p. 49. 50. 51. And of Freder. 2. Ibid. p. 94. 95. by Innoc. 4. And the Excommunications of the same Emperor, by Greg. 9 Ann. 1239. Ibid. in dicto Bullario. Tom. 1. p. 89. 90. Constitutions; and in them how ridiculously they reason, and profane (rather than expound) Scripture; will have abundant reason to believe, that those Popes were so far from Infallibility, that their own Writings Convince them guilty of Gross Ignorance and Folly. 5. Lastly, All the Apostles were Fundamenta Ecclesiae, Domus Dei, Foundations of the Church, or House of God, (as has before been evidently proved from Scripture) and this was in all the Apostles Extraordinary, and a Personal Apostolical Privilege, to which, (as it was in the Apostles) none of their Successors (no not the Pope,) ever did, or (with any reason) could pretend. And as this Apostolical Privilege, so the other four before mentioned (1. Immediate Vocation. 2. Power to work Miracles. 3. Universality of Jurisdiction. 4. Infallibility in all things they preached or writ.) I say, all these Privileges, were Extraordinary and Personal to the Apostles, and never were transmitted to any of their Successors. And this being granted, (as of necessity it ought and must) it will evidently follow, that Peter neither had, nor could have, that Monarchical Supremacy over the Apostles and Universal Church, to which the Pope and his Party vainly, and without any reason or ground pretend. For that Papal Supremacy and Monarchy they pretend Peter had, (according to their Hypothesis) consisted principally, in the Universality of his Jurisdiction over the whole Church, and his Infallibility, as a Judge, to determine Controversies of Faith; both which every Apostle had, as much and as well as he) and therefore it was impossible, that (in these respects) he should have any Superiority (much less Supremacy) over the other Apostles, more than they over him; especially, seeing in Scripture, (to men who have good Eyes, and will Impartially use them) there is not one Syllable looks that way. Nay, seeing our blessed Saviour hath expressly determined the contrary. The Apostles were disputing and reasoning amongst themselves, which of them should be greatest: (they had their Infirmities and ambitious desires). But our Saviour tells them— f Matth. 20. 26. 27. Whosoever will be great among you (though Peter be the man) let him be their Minister; and whosoever will be g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Primus seu Princeps, (plus est quam esse Magnum) aliis Omnibus Major (yet this the Pope would have). Luc. Burgensis. in Matth. 20. 27. chief, let him be your Servant. And again,— h Matth. 23. 8. 9 10. 11. Be not ye called Masters, for one is your Master, even Christ (not Peter) and ye are Brethren; but he that will be greatest among you, shall be your Servant. The Apostles had no Master under Heaven, but their blessed Saviour; it was of him, and him Only, that they learned the Gospel, and that Immediately; they had it not from i Gal. 1. 1. any man, nor one from another. Our blessed Saviour was their only Master and Superior, and they his Scholars, subordinate to him, and coordinate amongst themselves. He tells them, that they are Brethren; Condiscipuli, Schoolfellows. Names which (in themselves, and in their Master's meaning) import Equality; especially as to any Jurisdiction one over another. There may be amongst Scholars of the same School, and Brethren, an inequality, (and so there was amongst the Apostles) 1. In respect of Age; Some might be elder, some younger. 2. In respect of their coming to that School; some might come before others; So Andrew was first called to our blessed Saviour's School, (before Peter * Joh. 1. 40, 41, etc. ). 3. In respect of Natural Parts and Abilities, some might have greater Capacities than others. 4. In respect of their Master's Love and Kindness, he might love one more than another, So amongst the Twelve, John was the belovod Disciple. Such inequality there was amongst them, and we willingly grant it. But to say, (as the Pope, and many of his Party most vainly do) that amongst these Brethren, and Schoolfellows in our blessed Saviour's School, Peter, (or any other) had not only an Authority and Jurisdiction, but a Monarchical Supremacy, over all the rest, this is so contradictory to our blessed Saviour's plain words, and the manifest and undoubted meaning of them; that were it not, that we know men may be swayed with worldly Interests, and sometimes have strong Delusions to believe a Lie; it were incredible that any Learned men should (with so much Confidence, and no Reason, assert the Contrary. To pass by all Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for many hundred years, and many sober Papists before Luther, (who neither knew, nor believed Peter's Monarchy over the Church and his fellow Apostles, his Equals) sure I am, 1. That Francis k Matth. 23. 8. Omnes autem vos fratres estis. On which words, Luc. Brugensis saith thus— Quia fratres sumus, Neminem in alios Magisterio fungi Concedit— Fratres non Magistri Alii in Alios— estis Condiscipuli, nemo in alium proprie agere potest Magistrum. Nullus aliorum Magisterium mereatur, se habere vos Omnes merito debeatis Condiscipulos. Christus Solus Omnium Magister agnoscendus. Ita L. Brugensis Commentar. in. 4. Evang. ad. 23. Math. 8. p. 361. vid. Hieronym. in Gal. 2. 1. ubi dicit Petrum, Paulum, & reliquos Apostolos fuisse aequales. Lucas Brugensis, a Roman Catholic (in our days) eminent in their Church for Dignity and Learning, says the same thing I have done (and on the same Texts) for the Equality of the Apostles, against Peter's pretended Monarchy. 2. And a greater than he, (I mean, l Sed quia Ecclesia regenda est juxta unitatem, necessarium fuit, Institui ab Apostolis modum quendam Communionis inter Episcopos, secundum Exemplum, A Christo datum in Institutione Collegij Apostolici; quod Vniversum Ecclesiae Corpus repraesentabat: Ideoque praescribenda ab iis fuit forma regiminis, Aristocratici nimirum, it a ut unus Praesideret. Pet. de Marca de Concordia Sacerdotij & Imperij, lib. 6. cap. 1. §. 2. pag. 58. Col. 1. Petrus de Marca Archbishop of Paris) convinced with the Evidence of the former Texts, and Truth, was of Opinion, and has published it to the World, That our blessed Saviour, at his Ascension, did not leave the Church established in Peter, and a Monarchy; But in an aristocraty, or the College of the Apostles. In which College Peter was one, not Superior (much less a Monarch) to the other Apostles; and the Apostles left the Government of the Church Established in the Bishops, and Aristocratical; only he thinks, that both in the College of the Apostles, and Councils of Bishops after them, there was (for Orders sake) to be a Precedent, (not a Monarch, for that was Inconsistent with aristocraty) And (if this will content them) we will grant it. Because we do know, that the Ancient Church allowed the Pope the prime Place and Precedency in Councils, (for Orders sake) and that not by any Divine Right, (which was not in those days, so much as pretended to) but because Rome was the m Conc. Chalcedon. Can. 28. Conc. Constant. 1. Can. 5. apud P. Crabb. Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 411. Imperial City, and Metropolis of the Roman Empire; the greatness of the City usually giving greatness and precedency to the Bishops; such were Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. I know the Inquisitors at Rome have damned this Book of n But it is not only Pet, de Marca, but even the Popish General Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, and the Gallican Church and Sorbon, and the Ancient Church for a thousand years after our blessed Saviour, which maintained the same Doctrine Marca did; as is evidently proved by a Learned Sorbon Doctor, Edm. Rechier. In Hist. Conc. General. l. 1. Edit. Colon. Ann. 1680. The design of the whole Book is against the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility. Vide dicti lib. cap. 13. pag. 393. etc. Petrus de Marca, but this is no Argument, that what he has said, is not true; Grande aliquo● bonum est, quod à Nerone (ab Inquisitoribus) damnatur. To conclude this Point, if our Adversaries assent not to this manifest Truth, as (being Contradictory to their worldly Interest and misconceived Infallible Pretensions) 'tis probable they will not; I shall make them this (to all unprejudiced Lovers of Truth) fair offer. Let them give me any one cogent Argument from Scripture or Universal Tradition (and nothing else can do it) whereby they can prove, the following Positions; I will thank God and them for the discovery, and promise hereby to be their Proselyte. 1. If they can (by any such Argument) prove that Peter (by Divine Right) had such a Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Apostles, and the whole Church, (as is vainly pretended) I will yield the Cause. But if he had no such Power, 'tis impossible he should transmit the Power (he never had) to his Successors. 2. Let it be supposed, (which yet is evidently untrue) that St. Peter had such a Monarchical Authority and Jurisdiction, even over the rest of the Apostles, let them prove by any such Argument as is before mentioned; that it was not only Temporal, & his only for his life; that it was not to have an end and period with his Person. For if it was, than his Successor (whoever he be) can have no pretence to it. For 'tis impossible, that any Successor, can have any legal or just Claim to that Power, which vanished and ceased to be, with his Predecessor, who possessed it only for his life. 3. Admit both these to be true, (which yet are equally and evidently false) that Peter had such a Power, and that it was not Personal, but to be transmitted to his Successor, seeing such transmission must either be done by our blessed Saviour immediately, or (by Power derived from him) by Peter. Let our Adversaries make it appear, that either our blessed Saviour himself, or Peter (by Power derived from him) did actually transmit that Power to any Successor, and I submit. 4. Lastly, Suppose all these to be (what not one of them is) true; yet unless it do appear, that the Bishop of Rome (and not the Bishop of Antioch, (where they say Peter was Bishop first) was that Successor of St. Peter, to whom such Supremacy was transmitted; he can have no pretence to it. For in this Case, Idem est non esse & non apparere. Let our Adversaries then make it appear, that either our blessed Saviour immediately by himself, or Peter (by Authority from him) did o I know that some of them (eminent for Learning and Dignity in their Church) say; That our blessed Saviour did give Peter power to transfer his great Authority to his Successor, and only to him, not to any of the other Apostles; But this they say only, without any pretence of proof. And I commend their Prudence, not to attempt Impossibilities. Johan. Franciscus Bordinus Archbishop of Avignion, has published his Opinion, in these words— Christus Vniversale Totius Ecclesiae Caput Petrum Constituit, qui suas Vices in Terris ageret. Quo quidem in Munere, & si dum viveret, Aequales (mark that) habuit caeteros Coapostolos, Nulli tamen Eorum, quod à Domino accipissent, jus per Successionem in alios transferendi facultas fuit. Soli Petro Id Promissum, Soli Petro Id Traditum, ut Petra esset, & post Christum Ecclesiae fundamentum. Ita Johan. Fran. Bordinus Archiepiscopus Avenionensis, in Serie & Gestis Roman. Pontif. ad Clement. Papam. 8. ad Annum Christ. 34. Tiberij. 18. transmit the Supremacy to the Pope, and we shall be satisfied; and thankful for the Discovery. And this brings me to the Second thing proposed before. 2. The thing next to be enquired after is, 2. Whether, and how it may appear that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's Successor. Our Adversaries say, (and vainly say it only) that Peter was Supreme Head (after our blessed Saviour's Ascension) and Monarch of the Church; and from him, (Jure Successionis) the Pope derives his Monarchical Power and Supremacy; and that by the Institution and p Petrus Romae Sedem suam, Jubente Domino, Collocavit. Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. Command of our blessed Saviour, and so not by Humane, but q Probatur, Roman. Pontificem Petro Succedere, in Pontificatu Ecclesiae Vniversae Ex Divino Jure, & Ratione Successionis, Bellarmin. Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Primum ergo. Papa in Petri Cathedrâ Sedet, summum in eo dignitatis gradum, & Jurisdictionis amplitudinem, non Humanis Constitutionibus, sed Divinitus datum agnoscit: est Pater Vnixersalis Ecclesiae Petri Successor, & Christi Vicarius, etc. Catechism. Trident. Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. pag. 391. Edit. Paris. 1635. Divine Right. This is a Position of greatest Consequence, and will require good proof. Nor is it possible to prove the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor in that Bishopric, unless it first appear that Peter was his Predecessor in that See. Linus, Clemens or Cletus cannot (with any Truth or Sense) be said to succeed Peter, unless it appear first, that he preceded them. Our Adversaries (I confess) do constantly (with great noise and confidence) affirm, That Peter did preceded in the Bishopric of Rome; but sure I am, that hitherto, they have not brought any, so much as probable (much less cogent and concluding) Reason to prove it: nor do I think it possible they should bring (what they neither have, nor can have) any true and concluding proof, to prove (what this is) an erroneous and false Position. And that this may not be begged and gratis dictum, I shall offer to the Impartial Reader, these Considerations. 1. When they r Bellarm. Locis proxime citatis, (ut & alij passim). And Pope Pius. 5. in this his Impious Bull. §. 1. Christus Ecclesiam Catholicam uni soli Petro Petrique Successori Romano Pontifici in Potestatis Plenitudine Tradidit Gubernandam. say, That Peter fixed his Episcopal Chair at Rome, Jubente Domino: Let them show that s Nullum Christi, ea dear, Decretum Extat. So A Lapide Confesses; in Apoc. 17. vers. 17. pag. 268. Col. 2. A. Command, and there will be an end of the Controversy; we will obey our blessed Saviour's Command, and the Pope too. But this they have neither done, nor can: It being impossible, they should show that to be, which never was, nor ever had any being. 2. That ever Peter was at Rome, (much less that he was Bishop there, for Five and twenty years (as is vainly pretended) cannot be made appear out of Scripture, or any Apostolical or Authentic Record; and therefore that he was there at all, (where he might be, as he was in many other good Cities, and not Bishop of any of them) must depend solely upon human and fallible Testimonies, (I say, Testimonies certainly fallible, if not absolutely false; which many Learned men have, and do believe). Now seeing the whole Papal Monarchy and Infallibility, depend upon Peter's being Bishop of Rome, and the grounds we have to assure us, that he ever was there, are fallible and dubious; and seeing it is irrational (if not impossible) that any considering Person, should give a firm and undoubted assent to any Conclusion, inferred only upon fallible and dubious premises. Hence it evidently follows, That our Faith and belief of the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility is, and (till they find better, and more necessary premises) must be fallible and dubious. And here I desire to be informed how it comes to be an Article of Faith, in their new Roman Creed; That the Bishop of Rome is Vicar of Christ, and t Romano Pontifici, Beati Petri Apostolorum Principis, Successori, ac Christi Vicario, veram Obedientiam spondeo ae juro. Vid. Bullam Pii. 4. super forma Juramenti Professionis fidei, in Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. p. 452. Edit. Antu. 1633. Peter' s Successor; which Article (with the rest in that Creed) they promise, u Hanc Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo Salvus esse potest, quam in Praesenti profiteor, & teneo, eandem usque ad ultimum vitae spiritum Constantissime retinere, etc. Spondeo, Voveo, Juro. Ibidem. swear and vow, to believe and profess most Constantly, to their last breath. With what Conscience their Church can require, or they take such an Oath, Most Constantly and firmly to believe, to their last breath, such things, for the belief of which, they have no grounds (if any) save only fallible and very dubious, Ipsi viderint. 3. I know, that the Assertors of the Papal Monarchy (according to their Interest) are very desirous to prove out of Scripture, that Peter was at Rome; and to that end produce those words in his first Epistle— x 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church which is at Babylon salutes you: And by Babylon, they say, the Apostle meant Rome: And for this, they cite Papias in y Primam Petri Epistolam Romae Scriptam (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) aiunt, quam Petrus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellat. Eusebius Hist. l. 2. c. 15. p. 53. B. Valesio. Eusebius, That by Babylon, Rome is figuratively to be understood. So that (if this be true) Peter writ that Epistle at Babylon; that is, at Rome, and so must be at Rome when he writ it: And the proof of this depends upon the Authority of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis, and those who follow him. Now how little Credit is to be given to Papias in this, (or any thing else) will manifestly appear out of the same Eusebius; who tells us, 1. That Papias was much given to Tradition; z Curiose sciscitabar (said Papias) à Senioribus, quid Petrus, quid Jacobus, dicere soli●ì essent. Néque ex Bibliorum Lectione, tantam me utilitatem capere posse Existimabam, quantam ex hominum viuâ voce. Euseb. l. 3. c. 39 p. 111. enquiring (of the Elders who had heard the Apostles) what Peter, or James, or John, etc. had said: thinking he gateless benefit by reading Scriptures, then by the talk of those who heard the Authors of them. 2. That he had by such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ex Traditione non scriptâ habuit novas quasdam Servatoris parabolas & praedicationes, aliáque Fabulis propiora; inter quae Mille Annorum spatium post resurrectionem, fore dicit. Euseb. ibid. p. 112. Tradition, strange Parables and Preachings of our blessed Saviour, and other things very Fabulous: Such as the Heresy of the Millenaries; which he believed and propagated. That he thus erred, by b Ita opinatus videtur Papias, ex male Intellectis Apostolorum narrationibus. Fuit enim Mediocri Admodum Ingenio Praeditus. Euseb. ibidem. Lit. c. Misunderstanding the Apostles Doctrine: For (as Eusebius goes on) he was a man of very little understanding. 4. And yet (as the same Author says) he was the occasion that, c Plerisque tamen post Ipsum Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus, Ejusdem Erroris occasionem praebuit, hominis vetustate, Sententiam suam tuentibus. Ibidem D. Ita etiam Nicephorus Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 20. pag. 252. D. most of the Ecclesiastical Writers who followed him (Reverencing his Antiquity) erred with him. I know, Object. that in Eusebius (both in the worst Edition of him, by d Colon. Allobr. 1612. Christopherson, (sometime a Popish Bishop of Chichester) and the best by e Paris. 1659. Hen. Valesius) we have a high Commendation of Papias; f Papias eadem aetate Celebris fuit; Vir Imprimis disertus, & eruditus, ac Scripturarum peritus. Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 36. Edit. Valesij: Sed in Edit. Christopherson. Cap. 35. Grae. 30. Latinae Versionis. At the same time (says Eusebius, as Valesius renders him) Papias was famous; a man very Eloquent and Learned, and well skilled in Scripture. But Christopherson (his other Translator) goes higher, (as usually he does when it makes for the Catholic Cause) and in his Translation says more in Commendation of Papias, then is in the Text: For he tells us, That Papias (besides his knowledge of Scripture) was a man g Omnium aliaruni Artium scientiâ vir planè disertissimus. Ibidem. certainly most learned in the Knowledge of All Other Arts. Now if this be true, than that Character I have given him before, is not so; and then his Antiquity (which was h Papias was a friend and familiar of St. Polycarpe. Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39 and Polycarpe suffered Martyrdom Anno Christ. 167. Baronius Annotat. ad Martyrolog. Romanum, ad diem Jan. 26. p. 81. Col. 1. great) and his great Learning (in all Arts and Sciences, as well as Scripture) considered; his Testimony, that Babylon, whence St. Peter writ, was Rome, will be more valid, and of greater Authority. In Answer to this; Answer. I say, 1. That all this Commendation of Papias before mentioned, is so far from having any Authority from Eusebius, that 'tis a plain Forgery. Eusebius (as to this passage) is evidently corrupted; and this Commendation of Papias (by whose Ignorance or Knavery, I know not) shuffled into the Text, long after Eusebius his death. For, 2. Ruffinus (who Translated Eusebius his History above One thousand two hundred years ago) in the place above quoted, says only thus— About this time flourished Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna, and Papias Bishop of Hierapolis. So the Printed Edition of i Quibus Temporibus floruit Polycarpus Smyrnaeorum Episcopus, & Papias Similiter Apud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens. Ruffin. l. 3. c. 35. in Excuso Rhenarci. Basil. 1528. Ruffinus by B. Rhenanus; and a very Ancient and Complete MS. of Ruffinus (in my Keeping and Possession) exactly k In Cod. MS. Ruffini, est. Lib. 3. cap. 32. agrees with it; and there is not one word of that Commendation of Papias, which is now extant in Eusebius: And therefore we may Conclude, that Anciently it was not there, but the Text of Eusebius (by fraud or folly) is since Corrupted: For had it been in Eusebius when Ruffin Translated him, there had been no reason he should have left it out. 3. And which is yet more considerable, Valesius (a very Learned Roman Catholic) who last published Eusebius, Ingenuously Confesses, that of three or four Greek MSS. of Eusebius, which he made use of in his Edition, not any one of them l Totum hoc Elogium Papiae deest in nostris Codicibus. Valesius in Not. ad Lib. 3. Eusebij. c. 36. p. 55. had that Commendation of Papias; and therefore he doubts not, but these words were m Non dubito, quin hae● verba ab Imperito Scholiastè adjecta sunt, praeter Eusebij mentem & Sementiam. Valesius Ibidem. added by some Ignorant Scholiast, contrary to the Judgement and Sense of Eusebius. For (says n Quomodo fieri potest ut Eusebius Papiam hic appellet virum doctissimum, & scripturarum peritissimum, cum in fine Libri affirmat diserte, Papiam Mediocri Ingenio praeditum, Planéque Rudem ac Simplicem. Valesius Ibidem. he) how is it possible that Eusebius should call Papias a Most Learned Man, and Most Skilled in Scripture, who in the same o Euseb. lib. 3. c. 39 Book says, he was A Rule and Simple Person, of Very Little Wit or Judgement. And his Ignorance especially appears (as in other things) in that 1. He says that Philip, whose Daughters were Prophetesses, was Philip the p Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. c. 39 p. 112. Valesij Edit. vide Nicephor. lib. 3. c. 20. Apostle; when the q Act. 21. 8. Vide Nicephor. Hist. lib. 3. pag. 252. C. Text, (had he read or remembered it) expressly says, That it was Philip the Deacon. 2. Papias said, (and in his Writings published his Opinion) That hearing r Vide Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39 Hieronym. de Illust. Doct. cap. 18. Nicephor. l. 3. c. 20. Oral Traditions, was more profitable, then reading Scriptures). That is, to hear the Stories and Tales of private and fallible Persons (and that in Matters of Religion) was more profitable, then to read the Sacred Oracles of God, penned by Divinely Inspired Infallible Persons. St. s Joh. 20. 30. 31. & 21. 25. John tells us, he had writ so many and such things, as were necessary and sufficient to Salvation, yet left out thousands of things, which he thought not necessary. But Papias (with great Ignorance and Impiety) prefers the unwritten Tradition of those things concerning our blessed Saviour, which the Apostles had omitted, as not necessary, nor so useful as those things they had writ. And so in Contradiction to the Holy Spirit and St. John (his Infallible Amanuensis) calls the Tradition of those unwritten things more useful, which they had omitted as not useful at all. And this his Ignorance and want of Judgement further appears, 3. Because Eusebius tells us, That he had (amongst his Traditions) t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Novas quasdam Servatoris parabolas ac praedicationes. strange and novel Parables and Doctrines of our blessed Saviour, and other things more Fabulous; and amongst them his Millenary Heresy, of which he was Father, and (to the Infecting many others) did propagate it: And he fell to those wild Opinions chiefly by his Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Scripture; as Eusebius and Nicephorus tell us. And yet this simple Person, and Arch-Heretick, is the principal and prime Witness Rome has, to prove that Babylon (in the Epistle of Peter) signifies Rome, and that Peter was there. For other place in Scripture, they have none, and only Papias (and his Followers) for that. By the Premises, I think it may appear to Impartial Persons, That seeing Papias preferred Tradition (or some men's talk before the Scriptures) that he was a man of very weak understanding, and erred by misunderstanding Scripture, that he writ Fables rather than History, and maintained the Millenary Opinion, which Rome now calls Heresy: I say these things Considered, his Authority and Credit is, (if any at all) very little; and yet 'tis all our Adversaries have (his Followers Testimonies being derived from, and depending upon his) to prove out of Scripture, that Peter writ that Epistle at Rome, or ever was there. This is a Truth so manifest, that not only u Scaliger in Annotat. in Joh. 18. 31. Petrus Romae nunquam fuit: sed praedicabat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Cujus Metropolis erat Babylon, ex quâ scribit Epistolam suam. Vid. Johan. Rainoldum contra Hartum, etc. Protestants, but most Learned Roman x Tametsi Veteres Existimaverint Petrum vocabulo Babylonis signisicasse Vrbem Romam, probabilis est Scaligeri Conjectura; qui ex Ipsa Babylone scriptam à Petro putat Epistolam hanc ad Judaeos dispersos, etc. Petrus de Marca▪ Archiepiscopus Parisiensis. De Concordia Sacerd. & Imperij. l. 6. c. 1. §. 4. p. 59 Tom. 2. Catholics, say and prove; that Peter writ that Epistle, not at Rome, but Babylon in Chaldea. And further; that he did not write it at Rome, will be evident from Scripture, and what their own most Learned Author Confesses. For, 1. y Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christi 45. §. 16. 17. Baronius tells us, It was writ, Anno Christi 45. 2. To make this probable, both he, Petavius, and others, generally say; That Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius; which was Anno Christi 44. 3. But this a very Learned Roman Catholic evidently z Haec Sententia refelli videtur ex Actis Apostolorum, ex quibus constat Petrum, in Judaea ac Syriâ semper mansisse, usque ad ultimum Annum Agrippae, etc. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 16. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Eusebij pag. 33. 34. Confutes from Scripture, and good Authorities; and plainly shows, that Peter was always in Judea or Syria, till the death of Herod Agrippa, which was in the fourth year of Claudius, and the Six and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour. And therefore it was impossible that Peter should write that Epistle at Rome, in the Five and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour, who never came thither till the year Forty six, unless they will say (and they do say things as impossible) that he writ an Epistle at Rome when he was not there. 4. Nay, 'tis certain from what Luke says in the a Act. 15. etc. Acts of the Apostles, that Peter continued in Judaea till the Council met at Jerusalem about the Question concerning Circumcision, and the Ceremonial Law. Sure it is, that he was present at that Council; which was Anno Christi 51. says b Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. Baronius, Bellarmine, and others; the Learned c In Chronico Alexandrino Concilium Hierosolymitanum refertur Anno Claudij. 6. (Christi. 48.) melius dixisset. 7 ●. sic enim cuncta egregié conveniunt, etc. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Euseb. p. 37. Col. 2. A. Valesius thinks (and gives his reason for it, (more probable to me, than any brought for the Contrary Opinions) that the Council was held, Anno Claudij. 7. and Christi. 49. take which Computation you please, if St. Peter wrote that Epistle at Rome, Anno Christi 45. he must have writ there, several years before he came thither. 5. Nay, 'tis further Evident, (let that Council be when they will) that Peter was not at Rome, in the year. 51. which Baronius mentions, but at Jerusalem. For St. d Gal. 1. 18. Paul tells us, that three years after his Conversion, (which was about the year. 37.) he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and found him there: And then e Gal. 2. 1. 8. 9 fourteen years after, (which was about the year. 51.) he went to Jerusalem again, and then found Peter there. According to our Adversaries Computation, in the year. 51. Peter had sat Bishop in Rome about f They say, he sat at Rome. 25. years, and that he was martyred Neronis. 13. or Anno Christi. 68 so that those 25. years must begin Anno Christi. 43. And then Anno Christi. 51. he had sat at Rome eight years. eight years; and yet St. Paul neither found, nor sought him at Rome (where he was not) but at Jerusalem, where he was, with the Jews, who were Committed to his Charge and Cure. 6. Lastly, 'Tis Evident, St. Peter writ that first Epistle to the Asiatic g 1 Pet. 1. 1. Dispersion of the Jews, of which Babylon was the Metropolis: And sure it is, that when he says, The Church of Babylon salutes you; he intended (as all men do, who write Epistles of that Nature) that they should know where he was, and who they were who saluted them; which was Impossible for them to do, if by Babylon he meant Rome. For at that time, Rome neither was, nor could be known to any by the name of Babylon; no Author (Sacred or Civil) having ever called it so. 'Tis true, St. John above h The First Epistle of Peter was writ Anno Christi. 45. So Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 45. §. 16. And the same Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christ. 97. §. 1. tells us, that the Revelation of St. John was writ Anno Christi 97. that is, 52. years after. Fifty years after, call● Rome, Babylon. But he writing Mysterious Propheties, spoke (to use Eusebius' word) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used many Types, Figures and Metaphors, to express future things. But that Peter, 〈◊〉 writ no such Mysterious Prophetical Predictions, but the plain Duties, and Promises of th● Gospel, should use such Types or Figures, ha●● neither truth nor any probability. By the Premises, I hope it may appear, that it cannot be proved out of Scripture, that ever Peter was at Rome. 4. But let it be granted, that it could be proved out of Scripture (which is manifestly untrue) that Peter was at Rome, yet thence it will not follow that ever he was Bishop there: much less for Five and twenty years, as is vainly pretended. For, 1. That he was Bishop of Rome (or any place else) there is not one syllable in Scripture; and so from thence there can be no proof of his Roman Bishopric. And, 2. If it be granted (which is evidently untrue) that it could (out of Scripture) be clearly proved, that he was at Rome a longer time, yet hence it does not follow that he was Bishop there: For he was at Jerusalem, Samaria, Joppa, etc. (as is evident in Scripture) and yet our Adversaries neither do, nor (with any sense or reason) can say, that he was Bishop of all those places. 3. Irenaeus (an ancient and an approved Author) expressly says, i Petrus & Paulus fundantes Ecclesiam Romanam, Lino Episcopatum tradiderunt. Succedit ei Anacletus, post eum Tertio Loco ab Apostolis Clemens. Irenaeus. lib. 3. cap. 3. That Peter and Paul Constituted Linus first Bishop of Rome; That Anacletus succeeded him, and that Clemens (after the Apostles) was the third Bishop there. After him, Eusebius says the same thing; That after the k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Post Pauli Petríque Martyrium, Primus Ecclesiae Romanae. Episcopatum suscepit Linus. Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 2. vide Niceph. l. 3. cap. etiam. 2. Martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first Bishop of Rome. And again, speaking of the Bishops of Rome, he says, That l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Primus fuit Linus, secundus Anencletus. Euseb. Ibid. l. 3. c. 21. Linus was the first, and Anencletus (or Anacletus, as he is usually called) the second. And though Eusebius say, That Linus was m Euseb. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Primus post Petrum, the first Bishop of Rome after Peter; yet his meaning is not, that Peter was Bishop of Rome before him, as is evident by what he says afterwards; That Clemens n Clemens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tertius à Paulo & Petro Romae Episcopus. Euseb. loco dicto. cap. 21. vide Epiphanium adversus Haereses. lib. 1. Haeres. 27. Carpocratianorum §. 6. pag. 107. was the third Bishop of Rome, After the Apostles Paul and Peter; and by what Irenaeus said before him, That Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome After the Apostles. For if this be good consequence— Linus was first Bishop of Rome after Peter; Ergo, Peter was Bishop Rome too. Then this (in Irenaeus and Eusebius, who both say it,) will be good Consequence also; Clemens was third Bishop of Rome after Paul and Peter▪ Ergo, Paul and Peter, were both Bishops of Rome. The truth is, that neither Consequence is good. Irenaeus and Eusebius did indeed believe Paul and Peter Founders of the Roman Church, but neither of them to be Bishops there; which a Learned Roman Catholic evidently see, and publicly o Sciendum est Eusebium Apostolos Inordine Episcoporum minime N●merare. Hen. Valesius in Annotat. ad Hist. Ecclesiasticam Euseb. l. 3. c. 21. & Notarum. pag. 50. Col. 2. B. acknowledges. By the way, let me observe; That Eusebius in two places here p Lib. 3. Cap. 2. & Cap. 21. cited, puts Paul before Peter: and not only Eusebius (a fallible Author) but St. Paul himself puts James before q Gal. 2. 9 Peter. Now if Eusebius or St. Paul had known and believed St. Peter to have been (what the Pope and his Party, without any ground vainly Imagine) the Supreme Monarc● over the whole Church and the Apostles themselves; it had been a great Affront and Injury to St. Peter, and such an Incivility as St. Paul would not have been guilty of. 4. And 'tis yet more Considerable, what St. Paul says r Gal. 2. 1. 7. 8. 9 in the place last cited; For there we have these things certain in the Text, 1. That Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision; the Jews were Committed to him, as his s Gal. 2. 7. Charge and Cure, as the Gentiles to Paul. 2. It was our blessed Saviour who t Vnus & idem mihi Evangelium praeputij, & Petro Circumcisionis credidit; me misit ad Gentes, Illum posuit in Judea. Hieronymus in Cap. 2. ad Galatas. d. Commissioned both of them, and appointed them those Provinces; for none else could. He only could assign them their Provinces, who gave them the Apostolical Power to govern them. Peter (as our Adversaries say) was Supreme Monarch of the whole Church, had no Superior but our blessed Saviour, and so none else to Commission him, or Appoint him his Province. 3. Both of them till that time, had diligently, and (with great Success) effectually laboured in their u Vers. 8. several Provinces; Peter amongst the Jews, Paul amongst the Gentiles. 4. By a mutual Agreement, they x Vers. 9 consent and promise, That Peter (as he had y As is evident in the Acts of the Apostles, and by his first Epistle writ (as Baronius says) Ann 45. Christi. Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 45. Num. 16. vid. Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 1. where he says, that Peter preached the Gospel long to the Asiatic Dispersion of the Jews, before he came to Rome; and Nicephorus says so too. before, so) for z And 'tis certain, that after the year. 51. (of which we now speak) he took the Jews for his Charge and Cure: as is evident from his two Epistles writ to them, Ann. 68 And the Confession of Baronius, Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68 Num. 3. the future, He should go to the Jews, and make them his Charge and Cure, and Paul to the Gentiles. 5. And this Agreement was about the year of our Lord. 51. when (according to our Adversaries Computation) he was, and had been Bishop of Rome Eight or Nine years. 6. I desire then to know, Whether Peter (after this Consent and Agreement of the Apostles) continued Bishop of the Gentiles at Rome, (as our Adversaries pretend he did) or not? If he did, he contradicted his Commission, which our blessed Saviour had given him, to be the Apostle of the Circumcision, and Neglected the Jews, whom he had a Gal. 2. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Petro Concreditum est Evangelium praeputij. Concredited to his care, and Committed to him, as his proper Charge. For to take the charge of the Gentiles and Jews too, was not only against his Commission, but against that Solemn Consent, and Agreement of the Apostles before mentioned, wherein it was agreed and promised, That Peter should go (not to Rome) but to the Circumcision, and Paul to the Gentiles. Nor can it be credible that Peter would Act in Contradiction to his Commission, and his Agreement so solemnly made with the Apostles. But if at the time of that Agreement, (which was Anno Christi. 51.) he either was not, (which is most true) Bishop of Rome, or then left it; than it evidently follows, That he Continued not Bishop of Rome for Five and twenty years, as is by our Adversaries, (with great confidence and no reason) asserted. 7. And this is further manifest, from our Adversaries own Principles and Positions: Baronius tells us, That Peter was b Quod spectat ad Ecclesiam Antiochenam, hoc Anno (Christi. 39) Institutam à Petro, & septem Annis ab eodem administratam, etc. Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christi. 39 §. 9 Bishop of Antioch seven years; and at Rome five and twenty years: And for this he Cites Eusebius his Chronicon. By the way, (concerning what Baronius says of Peter's being Bishop for so many years at Antioch and Rome) Observe, 1. That Eusebius says indeed, that Peter c Petrus Ecclesiam Antiochenam fundans, inde Romam adiit. Euseb. in Chron. ad Ann. Claud. 1. And they say he went to Rome, Our blessed Saviour Commanding him so to do. Cum. 7. Annos Antiochiae sedisset, Postea Jubente Christo Romam vemit. Longus A Coriolano in summâ Concil. in Principio, in serie Pontificum. founded the Church of Antioch; and then, by our blessed Saviour's Command, (as they say) went to Rome. But so far is he from saying that he was seven years' Bishop there, that he expressly says, That Euodius was the First d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Antiochenae Ecclesiae Episcopus Primus erat Enodius. Idem in Chronico, ad Annum Claudij 2. Bishop of Antioch. 2. When he Cites Eusebius his e Baronius Ibidem; ad Ann. 39 §. 9 Chronicon to prove that Peter was Five and twenty years' Bishop of Rome, and refers us, to what Eusebius f All that Eusebius says, is only this— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ad Ann. Claudij. 1. says) ad Ann. 2. Claudij. The man (who understood no Greek) is miserably mistaken; as Universally he is, when he meddles with Greek Authors, unless their Translations be true) for Eusebius in his Greek Text, (as all know, and may see) has no such g The words Baronius Cites, as being Eusebius his words Ad Annum. 2. Claudij, are indeed (part of them) Ad Annum. 1. Claudij: but the rest (Peter's being five and twenty years' Bishop of Rome) are neither at that, nor any other year of Claudius. thing, as Five and twenty years; nay, he does not so much as say, that he was Bishop of Rome at all; much less that he was Five and twenty years' Bishop there. But the Latin Copies (Interpolated and Corrupted, as thousands others are by Roman Arts) deceived him. But to let this pass; Baronius says, That Peter was Seven years' Bishop of Antioch, and Five and twenty of Rome. So that (in the whole) he was Two and thirty years' Bishop in Syria and Italy, and took upon him the Charge and Cure of the Gentiles in those Provinces. Now our blessed Saviour's Passion and Ascension was h Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christi, 34. §. 1. & 2. Anno Christi. 34. to which if 32. be added (the time wherein Peter was Bishop of Antioch or Rome) the product will be. 66. So that from the Ascension of our blessed Saviour till the year. 66. Peter had taken the Episcopacy and particular Charge of a Gentile-Church; and his i Idem. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christi. 69. §. 9 Martyrdom was. 13. Neronis, that is, Anno Christi, 68 or (as Baronius Computes) 69. whence (by this their Account) it evidently follows, that during all the time from our blessed Saviour's Ascension to his Martyrdom (about two years only excepted) Peter was the Apostle and Bishop of a Gentile-Church. Which is, 1. Manifestly untrue, and inconsistent with what is said of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, with his Commission, in which the care of the Circumcision was concredited to him by our blessed Saviour, and with his Solemn Agreement with the Apostles to go to the Circumcision, as Paul was to the Gentiles. And, 2. It is without any the least ground in Scripture, by which, it neither does, nor can appear that ever Peter was at Rome, so much as for one Day, much less that he was Bishop there Five and twenty years. Nor can it appear in Scripture, that ever he was at Antioch, save k Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. etc. once; nor is there any mention of any thing he then did there; save that he dissembled, and was justly reprehended for it, by St. Paul; whereas it is evident in Scripture, that St. Paul was at Antioch for a whole l Act. 11. 26. year at one time, constituted the Church there, confirmed them m Act. 14. 22. afterwards in the Faith, and n Act. 14. 23. ordained Elders to govern them, stayed there a o Act. 14. 26. 28. long time; and p Act. 15. 35. vid. Act. 18. 22. 23. continued there preaching the Gospel; and yet (notwithstanding all this) if we will believe them; Peter was Bishop there, and not Paul. The truth is; though it be Evident that Paul, as Apostle, did all Episcopal Acts there; yet 'tis certain, that neither he nor Peter, was particularly Bishop of that, or any other place. 3. It is utterly incredible, that Peter the Supreme Head and Monarch of the Church (as they pretend) should for Two and thirty years be Bishop, and have the particular Charge and Cure of two of the greatest Cities in the Roman Empire, and that while the Apostles lived; and yet none of them (nor he himself) in any of their Writings, should say one Syllable of it, nor mention so much as one single Episcopal Act done by him, in either of those Cities, in those two and thirty years; no nor St. p I confess Baronius, and Hierom (whom he Cites, Commentariorum in Epist. ad Gal. lib. 1. cap. 2.) tell us, That Peter was Bishop of Antioch; and are not well pleased that Luke left it out of his History in the Acts of the Apostles. Nay they speak irreverently of him, and say, That he left that, and many other things out of his History, by a Liberty or Licence he took to himself. Hanc cum tacuit Lucas, & alia Multa Historiographi Licentia Praetermisit. Primum Episcopum Antiochae Petrum fuisse Accepimus (says Jerome there) quoth Lucas penitùs Omisit. But Hierom (though an excellent Person) had his Passions and Errors, and in that very place, endeavours to justify Peter, as not to be blamed, against the express words of St. Paul, Gal. 1. 11. Luke writ by the direction of the Holy Ghost, and if he writ not all that Jerome or Baronius would have him, yet they should not Censure him. Vide Baronium ad Annum Christi. 39 §. 8. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, nor St. Paul, who lived long in Antioch, and longer in Rome, and had opportunity, nay (had it been true) a necessity to mention it. He had need of a strong Faith, who can believe this; for my part, Credat Judaeus Apella, etc. 4. And as for Peter's being Seven years' Bishop of Antioch, and Twenty five of Rome; it is further Considerable, That the greatest Patrons of this Popish Position, although they agree in the Conclusion, that Peter was so long Bishop at those two places; yet they Contradict each other, and the Truth; and by their own Positions, (to save their Adversaries that Labour) utterly Overthrow and Confute that Position they endeavour to prove. This Evidently appears in this Case, as it is stated by Onuphrius, Baronius and Bellarmine. 1. q Onuph. Panvin. in Annotat ad Plat. in vitis Pont. ad vitam Petri. Onuphrius tells us; That Peter remained constantly in Judea, for Nine r Ex his. 9 primis Annis, usque ad Initium An. 2. Imper. Claudiij, Petrum Judaea nunquam exessisse, ex quo & Paulo, apertissimè Constat. Idem. ibidem. years' next after our blessed Saviour's death, that is till the year of Christ. 43. after this, he was Bishop of Antioch Seven years; to the year of our blessed Saviour. 50. And then Five and twenty years' he● sat Bishop of Rome; that is, (by his own Computation) till the year of Christ, 75. So that by this Account, Peter was Bishop of Rome, Anno Christi. 75. And yet he there says, That Peter s Petrus Cruci Affix●●est, novissimo Neronis Anno, Christi vero 69. Ibidem. died, Anno Christi. 69. And then (by his Calculation) Peter was Bishop of Rome Six years after his death. t Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 39 §. 8. 9 etc. 2. Baronius states the Question thus. Peter came to Antioch Anno Christi. 39 and was Bishop there u Baronius Ibidem. §. 13. Seven years; that is, till the year of Christ. 46. And then he says, that from Antioch Peter went to Rome, and sat there Bishop x Baronius Ibidem. §. 9 Ann. 39 Five and twenty years; that is, till the year. 71. And so (by his own account) Peter must be Bishop of Rome two years after he was dead: For the same Baronius tells y Anno Christ. 69. Capitone & Rufo Coss. Petrus & Paulus Martyrium subiere. Annal. Tom. 1. an Annum. 69. §. 1. Neronis. 13. us, that Peter died Anno Christi. 69. And though this Account of Peter's Episcopacy at Rome, be not only Erroneous, but (to all Intelligent Persons) Ridiculous; yet z Vide Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. in Petro Aposto; & Chronol. suae Part. 2. ad Annum 39 & 44. Bellarmine maintains the same Opinion, not only in Contradiction to Onuphrius, but to Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, etc. a Vide Baronium Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 2. whose Opinions Baronius endeavours to confute. In short, as there is no ground in Scripture, that Peter ever was at Rome; so that he was Twenty five years' Bishop there, neither Scripture nor purer Antiquity affords them any proof, or probability: Eusebius his Greek Chronicon, basely b Vide Jos. Scaligeri Animadvers. in Chronologica Eusebij; Amstelod. 1658. pag. 189. corrupted in a Latin Version of it, about Four hundred years after our blessed Saviour, being that they must rely upon. 5. Our Adversaries had ill luck, when they made Peter first Bishop of Rome, attributed the Supremacy to him, and (that he might have it) made the Pope his Successor. For had they chosen Paul in stead of Peter, they might have had far more (though not enough) to prove (and that out of express Scripture) both Paul's Supremacy, and the Pope's Succession to him. For these following Particulars (every one of them) may evidently be proved out of Scripture. 1. That the Romans were c Rom. 1. 13. Gentiles. 2. That Paul (by our blessed Saviour's d Act. 22. 21. Gal. 27. 8. Appointment) was the Apostle of the Gentiles, Peter was not, but of the e Ibidem. Jews. 3. Paul was two whole f Act. 28. 30. 31. years at Rome, Converted, and Established a Church there; but it cannot appear by Scripture, that Peter was ever there. 4. The Care (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) g 2. Cor. 11. 28. 1. Cor. 7. 17. of all The Churches lay upon St. Paul; no such thing in Scripture ever said of Peter. 5. St. Paul made Orders and Constitutions for the good government of h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (hinc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Edictum, Constitutio.) So I ordain in all Churches. Versio vulg. frigidè— In Ecclesiis Omnibus doceo. 1. Cor. 7. 17. vide Act. 18. 2. All the Churches (without any Authority, Leave, or Commission from Peter) no such thing ever said of Peter, either in Scripture, or primitive and pure Antiquity. 6. St. Paul writ a Long and Excellent Epistle to the Romans, Peter did no such thing. Had the Holy Ghost in Scripture expressly told us, 1. That our blessed Saviour had Appointed, and Commissioned Peter to be the Apostle of the Gentiles (and such were the Romans), 2. That he was two whole years residing at Rome, Converting and Establishing a Church there. 3. That the Care and Cure of All the Churches lay upon him. 4. That he made Orders and Constitutions for the Government of All The Churches. 5. That he had writ an Epistle to the Romans, to Confirm them in that Faith he had preached amongst them: I say, had all these things been in Scripture expressly said of Peter, our Adversaries with great noise and confidence would (and with far more reason and probability might) have asserted Peter's Supremacy, and his Roman Episcopacy, and that the Pope was, and is his Successor. But seeing not one of all these is said of Peter, and every one of them expressly said of Paul, it is Evident, that there is far more reason and probability (and that grounded upon express Scripture) that Paul was Bishop of Rome (and not Peter) and so the Pope might be his Successor. And yet our Adversaries i I confess Bellarmine would (out of Irenaeus as he vainly thinks) persuade us, that both Peter and Paul were Bishops of Rome. Irenaeus (says he) lib. 3. cap. 3. fixit Catalogum Romanorum Episcoporum, & Primo Loco ponit Petrum & Paulum. De Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 6. Irenaeus. reject Paul, and will have Peter their first Bishop (though some of them impiously say, our k Series & Successio Rom. Pontif. sic est: Primus Jesus Christus. Longus à Coriol. summa Co●cil. in Prin. in Serie Rom. Pontif. we have the very same words in the Edition of Platina, De vi●● Pont. Col. Agripp. 1626. But Platina (basely corrupted since his death) has no such thing in the Old Edition, 1485. But to make our blessed Saviour the first Bishop of Rome, is not only erroneous, but impious. 1. He never was at Rome. 2. He was not sent, save to the lost Sheep of the Ho●● of Israel, (not in Person sure, not to be a Bishop of any Gentile Church). 3. There was no Christian Church at Rome while he lived of which he could be Bishop. 4. Our blessed Saviour remains a Priest for ever, and cannot have any Successor. Heb. 5. 6. And therefore Bellarm. justly denies ou● B. Saviour to have any Successor, because he is Pontifex aeternus. Bellar. de Script. Eccles. in T. Aquia▪ blessed Saviour was their first Bishop) That St. Paul was not Bishop of Rome (notwithstanding all the former things said of him, in Scripture) we believe and know, and willingly grant. But on the other side, to say, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, concerning whom no such things are said in Scripture, either in express terms, (as they are of Paul) or by Equivalence or any just Consequence; this we say, is very irrational. For in things Moral or Historical (and of such we are now speaking) which are Incapable of Physical or Mathematical Demonstration, the highest Prudential Motives and Probabilities will, and aught to carry the Assent of all wise men: and therefore seeing it is denied (and justly too) that Paul was ever Bishop of Rome, though the Probabilities, grounded on Scripture, that he was so, be far greater than Peter can pretend to; for our Adversaries to say, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, must be, and is, evidently irrational. If the great probabilities we have that Paul was Bishop of Rome deserve not our Assent, certainly we cannot rationally conclude from far less Probabilities that Peter was so. But when they would magnify the Pope's Power and Supremacy, Object. (having no better Arguments) they make use of several Honorary Titles given to the Bishop of Rome, and his See, and of some Privileges which they take (or mistake rather) to be peculiar to the Popes, such as▪ these. 1. The Bishop of Rome in many Stories and Canons, is called l Apostolicus non nisi à Cardinalibus inthronizaendus, Gratian. Dist. 79. Part. 1. & ibidem. Can. 1. Alitèr inthronizatus non est Papa vel Apostolicus, sed Apostaticus &, Can. si Papa. 6. Dist. 4. In gemmate. Damnatur Apostolicus, suae & fraternae salutis negligens. Apostolicus. 2. His See is called Sedes Apostolica, and Cathedra Apostolica. 3. He is called Successor Petri. 4. Vicar of Christ. 5. That our blessed Saviour gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. I confess that these, and many such m Bellarmine gives us a Catalogue of fifteen such Papal Titles; which are these— Papa, Pater Patrum, Christianorum Pontifex, summus Sacerdos, Princeps Sacerdotum, Vicarius Christi, Caput Ecclesiae, Fundamentum Ecclesiae, Pastor Ovilis Domini, Pater & Doctor Omnium Fidelium, Rector Domus Dei, Custos vineae Dei, Sponsus Ecclesiae Dei, Apostolicae Sedis Praesul, Episcopus Vniversalis, ex quibus Omnibus & Singulis Apertè Colligitur Ejus Primatus. De Romano Pont. lib. 2. cap. 31. Particulars have been urged, and (as pertinent) stood upon by several Popes in their Bulls, Answer. their Decretal Constitutions and Epistles, and generally by all their Party; especially the Clergy (Secular and Regular) whose great and principal Interest it is, to maintain the Papal Supremacy: for if that fail, they irrecoverably fall with it. In some Centuries past, while gross Ignorance and Tyranny, benighted and overawed this Western Part of the World, such Arguments did their Business; For few could, and (the danger being very great) few, or none, durst Answer them. But after Luther arose, and Learning revived, all knowing and impartial Persons did see and know, that all the Arguments they did (or could) bring from such Topics, were not only Inconsequent, but indeed impertinent and ridiculous. That this may not be gratis dictum, I shall endeavour to make it Appear by plain Instances, (and I hope Effect it) that none of those Honorary Titles or Privileges do, or can afford any just ground of that Supremacy, and Papal Monarchy, they now so earnestly contend for; And here 1. It is to be observed, that the word Apostolicus, which (for some Ages last passed) the Pope has Assumed, and his Flatterers given him, as peculiar to himself, was Anciently a Title given to all Archbishops. So n Cum Episcopus Civitatis fuerit demortuus, Eligitur alius, & veniunt ad Apostolicum cum Electo, ut cis Consecret Episcopum. Alcuinus de Divinis Officiis. Cap. 36. Alcuinus Flaccus tells us, That when a Bishop was Elected, they sent him, ad Apostolicum, that he might Consecrate him. The Learned Archbishop o Petrus de Marca de Concordiâ Sacerdotij & Imperij. Tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 3. §. 3. pag. 67. of Paris, tells me this; and also that this was the use of that word in the Sixth Century, in the time of Gregorius Turonensis, who was made Bishop about the Year. 572. but afterwards, That Title was p Sequens aetas abstinuit— & deinceps Apostolici Titulus Soli Summo Pontifici attributus est ab Authoribus. Idem Ibidem. appropriated to the Pope. Now I desire to know of our Adversaries, how The Title, being Appropriated to the Pope, does make more for his Supremacy, than it did for the Archbishops, when it was common to them all? 2. That Rome was Sedes Apostolica, and Cathedra Apostolica, we grant. Because we are sure St. Paul (though not as Bishop) sat there. But that Peter ever was there, neither we nor our Adversaries are, or can be sure. But it is, and (by our Adversaries) must be granted too; That Jerusalem, Antioch, and other q The Archbishop of Paris next before cited, amongst the Apostolical Churches (besides those I have named) reckons Alexandria, Ephesus, Ancyra, Corinth, Thessalonica; and he might have added Philippi, etc. (De Concordiâ Sacred. & Imperij, lib. 7. cap. 4. § 7. Tom. 2. p. 224.) for Tertullian adds it, in the Place next cited. Churches (besides Rome) were Sedes Apostolicae, and Ecclesiae Apostolicae, and eo Nomine, were of great Esteem in the Ancient Church. But the Bishops of none of them then did, or could pretend to any Supremacy, much less to an Ecclesiastical Monarchy: And why Rome should more then they, when our Adversaries can, and will give (which as yet they never did) any Just and Cogent Reason, I shall submit. r Age jam qui voles Curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae, percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas Ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis Praesidentur; apud quas Ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, & repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proxima est Tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum: Si non long ●s à Macedoniâ, habes Philippos, aut Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Afiam tendere, habes Ephesum: si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam. etc. Tertullian. de Prescript. cap. 36. pag. 338. Edit. Pamelij, 1662. Tertullian also reckons the Apostolical Churches, such as Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Philippi, Rome, etc. and tells us, That Cathedrae Apostolorum, the Chairs of the Apostles were then in those Apostolical Churches; That Bishops presided in them; that if they had great Curiosity and Care of their Salvation, they should make their Address to those Apostolical Chairs and Churches. He sends them not all to Rome, and Peter's Chair there: But (saith he) if thou art near Macedonia, thou hast Philippi and Thessalonica to go to; If in Asia, Ephesus; If in Achaia, Corinth; If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome to Address to. He knew no Supremacy or Infallibility annexed to Peter's Chair at Rome, more than to Paul's at Corinth, or Philippi. He directs them to that Apostolical Chair and Church which was next them, 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, than 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 Supreme, (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, s Ecclesiae Rom. specialius in Petro, Coeli Terraeque retine● habenas. Gratian. Can. Si Papa. 6. Dist. 40. Jure ●●●cessions, and t Jus Successionis, Pontificum Romanorum in eofundatur; quod Petrus Sedem suam, Jubente Domino, Romae Collocaverit. Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. 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 u Ecclesia Antiocheia hos Anno (Christi. 39) à Petro Instituta, & 7. Annis ab eodem administrata. Baron. ad An. Christ. 39 §. 9 Tom. 1. p. 269. Edit. Antverp. 1612. seven years' Bishop of Antioch before he was of Rome. 2. And that x Baron. ibid. §. 18. p. 272. and in their present Roman Breviary, Antverp. 1660. They have a Holiday for St. Peter's Instalment at Antioch; In Cathedrâ Sancti Petri Antiochiae, (so they call it) In parte Breviarij Hiemali▪ ad diem. 22. Februarij. And we are there told, that that Festival was called Cathedra Petri; Quia Primus Apostolorum Petrus hodiè Episcopatus Cathedram suscipisse referatur. Ibid. Lect. 3. p. 760. Col. 2. And for this they cite St. Augustin De Sanctis, Serm. 15. n known supposititius and spurius scrap, unworthily fathered on St. Augustin. 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 show 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 expressly 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 than 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 than Peter, so his Successor will be greater than the Pope, and have a fairer pretence for the Supremacy, as our blessed Saviour's immediate Successor, than the Pope can possibly have, as Peter's. Now for this, let our Adversaries consider, what Epiphanius says, Thus; y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Hic Primus Episcopalem Cathedram caepit, cum ei Ante Coeteros Omnes, Suum ei in Terris Thronum Dominus Tradisset. Epiphanius Adversus Haeres. lib. 3. Tom. 2. Haeres. 78. §. 7. pag. 1039. B. James the Brother of 〈◊〉 Lord was the first Bishop, when our blessed Saviour concredited and resigned to him, before all others his Throne or Episcopal Chair on Earth. And he● let it be considered, 1. That in Scripture 〈◊〉 blessed Saviour is called z 1. Pet. 2. 25. a Bishop, Universe Bishop of the whole Church; with a Rev. 17. 14. & 19 16. Monarchi●cal and Kingly Power. 2. He was in a particular and peculiar way, Bishop of the Jews; he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Peculiar Oversight and Cure 〈◊〉 them. He was sent (in Person) only to b Matth. 10. 6. & 15. 24. Rom. 15. 8. them: He Constituted a Church among● them, Ordained Apostles, and Seventy other c Luk. 10. 1. 2. Inferior Ministers, whom he sent to Preac● 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, preached 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 d Gal. 2. 9 names James (as Bishop of Jerusalem) before Peter. 2. Why in the Council of the Apostles, James (and not Peter) gave the definitive e Act. 15. 13. 19 20. 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. f God your King: (so Samuel tells them) and so 1. Sam. 8. 7. and cap. 10. 19 1. Sam. 12. 12. it was g So Josephus and Philo call the Jewish Government, from Moses to Saul. God was personally their King. 1. He himself Personally did give them all their Laws. 2. He Personally sent his Vice-Roys, Moses, Joshua, and all the Judges. 3. He received, and personally answered all their last Appeals, which are evident Characters that he was their Supreme Power, their King. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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) show; that Peter was our blessed Saviour's Successor, either at Rome, (as some of them, before mentioned, only pretend) or any where else; and (for my part) let them take the Cause. Otherwise, if they cannot, than 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, h Synodus à Spiritu Sancto, qui est Spiritus Sapientiae & Intellectûs Edocta declarat, etc. Concil. Trid. Sess. 21. de Communione, cap. 1. And yet what it declares there is most evidently untrue. were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and so surely Infallible) expressly say, and Synodically define, That our blessed Saviour before his Ascension, left all Priests his i Christus à Terris Ascensurus ad Coelos, Sacerdotes sui Ipsius Vicarios reliquit tanquam Praesides ac Judices, ad quos Omnia Mortalia Crimina deferantur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentiâ, cap. 5. De Confession. vid. Aquinat. part. 3. Quaest 8. Art. 6. in Corpore. own Vicars, to whom, as to Precedents and Judges, all Mortal sins were to be Confessed. And k Aquin. 2. 2. Quaest 88 Art. 12. Praelatus gerit Vicem Christi. 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 l 2. Cor. 2. 10. 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, than all Bishops and Priests (who are Confessed 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, m Si periculum mortis immineat, approbatúsque desit Confessarius, Quilibet Sacerdos Potest à Quibuscunque Censuris & Pecatis absolvere. Rituale Romanum Pauli Papae. 5. Jussu Editum Antverp. 1652. De Sacramento Poenitentiae pag. 61. & 65. 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 Pope's 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 n Cum Jesu Christi Vices teneamus in Terris, Nobísque in Petri personâ dictum sit, Quodcunque Ligaveris, etc. Memoratum Principem Omni Dignitate privatum denunciamus, & Sententiando privamus; Omnésque ei Juramento Fidelitatis astrictos, à juramento absolvimus; inhibentes ne quisquam de Coetero ei, ut Imperatori pareat; & qui Ipsi favorem aut auxillum praestiterint, sint Ipso facto Excommunicati. Cap. ad Apostolicae, 2. Extra de Sent. & re judicata. vid. Cap. Quanto. 3. Extra de Translatione Episcopi. 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 show him any favour, or obey him as Emperor. And to the same purpose their Trent Catechism tells us; o Cum in Petri Cathedrâ Sedeat, summum in eo Dignitatis gradum, non ullis humanis Constitutionibus, sed divinitùs datum agnoscit: Estque Moderator Vniversalis Ecclesiae, ut Petri Successor, & in terris verus Christi Vicarius. Ita Catechis. Trident. part. 2. cap. 7. de Ordinis Sacramento. §. 28. vid. etiam Bullarium Romanum, Tom. 1. pag. 347. Col. 1. §. 6. where Alexand. Papa. 6. gives all the West-Indies to the King of Spain, as Vicar of Christ. That the Pope has (by Divine Right, (not by any Human Constitutions) that Supreme Degree of Dignity and Jurisdiction, over the Universal 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, etc. For in their p Vid. Breviarium Romanum, in Cathedrâ S. Petri Antiochiae. Febr. 22. & in Festo Cathedrae S. Petri qua Romae primum Sedet. Jan. 18. Breviarij parte Hiemali. 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 expressly says; for having told us, that our blessed Saviour gave the Keys to Peter: it follows; q Petro dedit Claves; transivit quidem etiam in Alios Apostolos vis potestatis illius, & in Omnes Ecclesiae Principes. Breviar. Rom. in Festo Cathedr. S. Petri Antioch. Febr. 22. Lect. 9 Part. Hiemali. p. 762. Edit. Antverp. 1660. That this Power did pass to the other Apostles and Princes of the Church. 2. Their Trent Catechism, having r Part. 1. cap. 11. §. 4. 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 s Eam Potestatem Episcopis & Presbyteris concessit. Ibid. §. 9 Bishops and Presbyters. So that Catechism, published according to the Decree of the Council of Trent, by Pope Pius the Fifth. And, 3. Their Roman Pontifical gives the Authentic Form how they Ordain a Priest; in which the Power of the Keys is given to every Priest, in the very same t Joh. 20. 22. 23. words our blessed Saviour did give it to the Apostles— u Pontificale Romanum jussu Clement. 8. restitutum Rom. 1611. p. 52. Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eye; & quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt. Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins you remit, they are remitted; And whose sins you retain, they are retained. 4. Last; The Trent Fathers are yet (if that be possible) more express; For speaking of the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution, They x Declarat Synodus, falsas esse Doctrinas Omnes, quae ad alios quosvis praeter Episcopos, & Presbyteros, Clavium Ministerium extendunt, Putantes verba illa, Quodcunque Ligaveris, etc. & quorum remiseritis peccata, remittentur, etc. ad Omnes fideles indifferenter dict●, etc. Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentiâ, cap. 6. declare all their Opinions to be false and erroneous, who think that the Exercise of the Ministry and Power of the Keys, belong to any, save The Bishops and Presbyters; and who think those words— Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth, etc. And whose sins you remit shall be remitted, etc. to be spoken indifferently to all the Faithful; and so think that any of the faithful may bind and lose, remit and retain sins. In which words the Council does (I suppose) Infallibly Declare (at least in our Adversaries Opinion) 1. That those two y Matth. 16. 19 & Joh. 20. 23. Texts (which are cited in the Margin of the z Conc. Trid. Antu. 1633. p. 152. Council) are to be understood of the Power of the Keys; though in one of them (that of John) the Keys be not expressly named. 2. That the Exercise of that Power of the Keys belongs To the Bishops and Presbyters, but to none else; neither to Laymen nor any Inferior Orders. By the Premises, I think it evident, (and confessed 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 'tis impossible that the Bishop of Rome, or any of his party, should (as they vainly endeavour) prove his Supremacy from his Power of the Keys; which is common, and really possessed by so many thousands beside himself. For this is just as if Titius should brag, that he is far richer than 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 than 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 Fabric 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 endeavours to prove, that the Papal Dignity, is as much a Vid. Cap. Solicit. 6. Extra de Major. & Obedientiâ. Where the Lemma or Title prefixed to that Decretal is thus— Imperium non praeest Sacerdotio, sed subest, & ei Obedire Tenetur. This he endeavours to prove by several ridiculous Instances; and then comes with Dabo Tibi Claves, & quodcunque Ligaveris, as a most known ground of his Supremacy. Illud tanquam Notissimum omittamus, quod Dominus dixit Petro & in Petro ad Successores Ipsius; Quodcunque Ligaveris, erit ligatum in Coelis, etc. Nihil excipit, qui dixit Quodcunque, etc. And a little before he tells the Emperor of Constantinople, (to whom he writes) Quanta est Inter solemn & Lunam, Tanta inter Pontifices & Reges, Differentia Cognoscatur. greater than 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 b Cap. ad. Apostol. 2. De Sent. & re Judicata. In. 6. Extant in the Canon Law, and two things there prefixed to that most Impious Decretal. 1. That he deposed Frederick in the Council, for a perpetual c Innocentius Sacro praesente Concilio in Memoriam Sempiternam. memory of it. And so it stands for a perpetual memory of his Antichristian Pride and Impiety. 2. That the Pope can Depose the d Papa Imperatorem depo●ere potest ex Causis Ligitimis. Emperor for lawful Causes. And then, in that Impious Decretal, he grounds his Power to Depose the Emperor principally upon the Power of e Cum à Christo Nobis in Petri Persona dictum sit; Quodcunque Ligaveris super Terram, Ligatum erit in Coelis, etc. Memoratum Principem, suis Ligatum peccatis, Omni Dignitate privatum denunciamus, sententiamus & privamus; Omnésque ei Juramento astrictos, à Juramento perpetuo absolvimus; Inhibentes ne quisquam sibi de Coetero, tanquam Imperatori pareat. 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, etc. so he, (and his Predecessors and Successors generally for this Six hundred years last passed) 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 disinteressed Persons) that in former f Vid. 1. Breviarium Romanum, by Card. Quignonius, approved and highly commended by Clement the Seventh, and Paul the Third, and often printed at Paris, An. 1536. Again, An. 1537. and at Lions, An. 1543. and at Lions, 1546. and, 1548. and again at Lions, 1556. and at Antu. 1566. and though it be the best Breviary Rome has had this Six hundred years; yet 'tis damned by Pius. 5. Bullâ Romae dat. 7. Idus Julij, 1568. 2. Breviarium Romanum, ex Decreto Concilii Trident. Jussu Pij. 5. Antverp. Editum, 1568. & iterum, 1585. Roman Breviaries (as also in our Portiforium or g Portiforium Salis. Lond. 1555. Part. Hiemali. in Festo Cathedr. S. Petri, Febr. 22. Breviary of Sarum; and in the h Missale Secundum usum, Sarum, Paris. 1555. eodem festo & die. Missals of Salisbury and i Missale secundum usum Hereford Rothomagi, 1520. eodem Festo & die. 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, etc. 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 losing men's Souls, grant that by the help of his Intercession, etc. 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 men's souls, (if Impenitent) and (if Contrite and truly Penitent) to lose them. I say spiritual, for edification and saving men's souls, and not temporal, for Deposing Kings and Emperors, and absolving their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance. 2. But this Doctrine was not pleasing to the Pope and his Party; And therefore in their late k Breviarium Rom. Antu. Ann. 1660. parte Hiemali, in Festo Cathedrae Petri Antioch. Febr. 22. p. 759. & parte aestiuâ in Festo Cathedrae Petri Romae, Jan. 18. Ibid. p. 698. Breviaries and l Missal. Rom. Antu. 1619. In Festo Cathedrae Petri Romae, Jan. 18. p. 331. And they have the same again in Festo Cathedrae Petri Antiochiae, Febr. 22. Missals, they have left out the word Animas, Souls, and say only, that God had given Peter Power of binding and losing; not mentioning in that Prayer, what it was he had Power to bind and lose. 3. But that we may better know their meaning and reason why they left out the word Souls; it follows, a little after in those late Offices— m Dict. Brev. Rom. Antu. 1660. in Festo Cathedrae Petri Antiochiae, Febr. 22. In Resp. post Lect. 4. p. 760. Partis Hiemalis. And that it might not be forgotten, (being a Doctrine that makes so much for the Papal Interest) it is repeated again, in Festo Petri & Pauli, Jan. 29. Partis aestivae, p. 482. & in Festo Petri ad vincula. Ibidem p. 541. Tu es Pastor ovium, Princeps Apostolorum; Tibi n Though I find the word Animas, left out in some of their Older Offices; yet these words Tibi Tradidit, etc. I find in none till of late. tradidit Deus Omnia Regna Mundi; & Ideo Tibi traditae sunt Claves Regni Coelorum. They all agree, That the Power of binding and losing is (as they call it in that Prayer) Pontificium, the Pontifical or Papal Power; and having told us, That God had given All the Kingdoms in the World, to Peter and his Successors; they add, That Ideo, Therefore he gave him Pontificium, the Papal Power of binding and losing, superior to all Kingly o The Pope's Tribunal (they say) is Supremus Justitiae Thronus. So Pius the Fifth in this his Bull, ●. 3. Power; so that they might, by it, Depose Kings and Emperors, if they were not Obedient to the Pope; for so their Popes (as appears before) have, in Thesi, affirmed, and (in their Bulls, their Public and Authentic Constitutions approved, and publicly maintained that Doctrine; and (in Praxi) to the fatal Mischief and Disquieting of the Western World, the ruin of many Princes, and scandal of Christian Religion, impiously acted according to it, and put it in practice; when they had advantage and opportunity. By the Premises, I hope it may (and does) appear, that all those Honorary Titles given to the Pope, or his See, (Apostolicus, Sedes Apostolica, Cathedra Apostolica, Peter's Successor, Christ's Vicar, the Power of the Keys, Prince of the Apostles, etc. having been Anciently given to Thousands (beside the Pope) who never had, nor dreamed of any Supremacy: Though in these late, and worst Ages, they have been appropriated to the Bishop of Rome, and (though Old and Innocent Titles) made use of, to amuse and deceive the Ignorant, to cover, and give some Colour and Credit to New Errors, and made Arguments to prove (what he never had) the Pope's Supremacy; yet 'tis Evident, that all such Arguments, drawn from such Topics, are not only inconsequent, but (as I said before, and still believe) Impertinent, and indeed ridiculous; and Conclude nothing, save that surely they who bring so bad, had no better Arguments. Two other words there are (Papa and Summus Pontifex) now appropriate to the Bishop of Rome, and as generally and impertinently used (as the former) to Insinuate (what they can never prove) the Pope's Supremacy. For many Learned men have evidently proved (or confessed) that Anciently, every Bishop was called p Vide Originem Dialogo contra Marcionitas Graeco-Lat. per Rad. Westenium, p. 247. & Westenij Notas, pag. 230. 231. Pet. Delalande Concil. Antiquorum Galliae Supplemento, p. 35. 36. 39 Baronium in Notis ad Martyrologium Rom. ad Diem, Jan. 10. c. p. 35. Nomen Papae transit in Dignitatis Nomen, ut Clerici venerandi eo nomine Appellarentur. Postea nomen illud capit esse peculiare Episcoporum, usque enim ad Annum, 850. Nomen Commune fuit Omnibus Episcopis, inde peculiarius tribui eonsuevisset Rom. Pontifici, & sequitur, p. 36. Gregorius. Papa. 7. in Concilio Romae habito, 1073. Statuit, ut Nomen Papae Vnicum esset in toto Mundo, etc. Papa, a Pope, and Summus q Vid. Pet. de Mercade Concord. Sacerdotij & Imperij, Lib. 6. c. 13. §. 3. Tom. 2. p. 126. Col. 1. So Ruffinus calls Chromatius, Pontisicem maximum. Vid. Russin. Opuscula, Paris. 1580. Epist. ad Chromatium, Pontificem maximum, post p. 194. So Clemens Romanus (one of the best and Ancientest Popes Rome ever had) calls every Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Summus Sacerdos. Clemens Rom. Epist. ad Corinthios, per Patr. Junium, p. 53. Edit. Oxon. 1633. Pontifex too. Baronius a most Zealous and Partial Assertor of the Pope's Supremacy and Monarchy over Kings and Emperors) has, in the Place quoted in the Margin, confessed (what without great Impudence he could not deny) that Anciently every venerable Presbyter was usually called Papa, or Pope. Afterwards (he says) the word Papa became common to all the Bishops, though more particularly given to the Bishop of Rome; and he further adds, That the name Papa continued common to All the Bishops, for Eight hundred and fifty years; till Hildebrand (Pope Gregory the Seventh) in a Council at Rome,) in the Year, 1073. decreed, That there should be but one Pope (meaning himself) in the whole World. Here we see, that Hildebrand (that Prodigy of r Plerique tum privatìm tum publicè, Hildebrandum Antichristum praedicant, Titulo Christi, negotium Antichristi agitat: in Babyloniâ in Templo Dei Sedet. Super Omne quod Colitur, extollitur, quasi Deus sit, se errare non posse gloriatur, etc. Aventinus Annal. Bojorum, Lib. 5. p. 352. & Lib. 7. p. 473. . Antichristian Pride and Tyranny) appropriates the name Pope to himself and See, which had for Eight hundred years (he might have said a thousand) been commonly given to Bishops and Presbyters, as well as to the Pope. Now I desire to know, how this, or any of the aforesaid Honorary Titles or Privileges, (which were common to all Bishops, and usually given them, for many Ages, as well as to the Bishop of Rome); can be an Argument or Ground of the Pope's Supremacy, which were confessedly no ground of any such Supremacy in other Bishops, who had the very same Titles and Privileges, as well, and as much as he? Suppose twenty Swans (possibili posito in esse, nil absurdi sequitur) to have equal whiteness, and the same Degree of that Quality; To say that any one of those Swans was, by far, the whitest Swan in the World, when as nineteen others were as white as that one: Or suppose twenty men of Equal Piety, all having the same Degree of Goodness and Virtue; to say, that any one of them, was, by far, the most Pious man in the World, when nineteen others were as Pious as he; this were certainly irrational, and ridiculous. And yet our Adversaries reason no better, when they say; The Pope being Christ's Vicar, and having the Power of the Keys, has a Monarchical Supremacy over all the Bishops in the World; when all those Bishops are Christ's Vicars, and have the Power of the Keys, as well as he. But enough (if not too much) of this. For were it not for the great noise, number, and confidence of our Adversaries, such miserable inconsequent Reasonings, might deserve Pity and Contempt, rather than any serious Answer. 7. Observ. 7. Having made some Observations upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Title and Preamble of this Impious Bull; I come now to the Penal part of it, to observe what Punishments and Curses are contained in it, and the Persons against whom they are denounced. For although in the Title prefixed to the Bull, 'tis called, The Damnation and Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth only; yet Thousands besides the Queen, are concerned in those Curses, (as will appear anon). Here then, it is to be Observed, 1. That in this Uncharitable Bull, the Pope Anathematizes and Excommunicates the Queen, as a Slave of s Flagitiorum Serua. Ita §. 1. who they are who speak ill of Dignities, (which the Archangel would not do of the Devil) St. Judas tells us, in his Epistle, vers. 9 Impiety, as an t Apostolicae Potestatis plenitudine declaramus praedi●●m Elizabeth Haereticam, & Haereticorum fautric●m, Anaethematis Sementiam incurrisse, Esséque à Christi Corporis unitate praecisam. §. 3. Heretic, and a Favourer of Heretics, and Cuts her off from The Unity of Christ's Body. 2. He deposes and deprives her (so far as the Plenitude of his Usurped Power and Tyranny could) of her pretended u Quin etiam ipsam Praetenso praedicti regni jure, necnon Omni & quocunque Dominio, Dignitate, Privilegioque privatam. §. 4. And again; Dictam Elizabeth. Praetenso jure Regni privamus. §. 5. right to the Crown of England, and of all, and all manner of Dominion, Dignity, and Privilege. By the way; what the Pope speaks here (notwithstanding his Infallibility) is neither Reason, nor Sense; for if her Right to the Crown, was only (as he calls it) Pretended; he could not possibly take it away, no not by his Plenitude of Apostolical Power (if he really had it): For, 1. (Notwithstanding all his Excommunications and Cursing) she might keep that Right, and as strongly pretend a Right to the Crown after, as before his anathemas. 2. And if she had only a Pretended Right, than he could not deprive her of any real Right; it being impossible to deprive her of a Right she had not. 3. He Absolves all her x Itemproceres, Subditos, & populos dicti Regni, ac coeteros Omnes qui illi Quomodocunque juraverunt, à Juramento hujusmodi, ac Omni prorsus Dominij, fidelitatis & Obsoquij dehito. Perpetuo absolutos, prout nos Authoritate Praesentium absolvimus, Ibid. §. 5. Subjects, and All Others, who were bound to her by Any Oath, from their Oaths, and all Debt of Fidelity and Obedience, and that For ever. Where observe, 1. That 'tis not only her own Subjects he absolves from Oaths of Allegiance; but All Others, who were bound to her, by Any Oath whatsoever. So that if any Frenchman, Dutch, or Spaniard, any Pagan, Jew, or Turk had sworn to pay her Ten thousand pounds, really (and by the Law of God and Man) due to her; he absolves them from their Oaths; and so (if they had not more Honesty and Conscience than he) she must lose her Money. The Pope, in the mean time, being more kind to Turks, and Pagans, then to (a far better Christian then himself) Queen Elizabeth. 2. He absolves them from all such Oaths For ever. So that, if the Queen had y Nay, such is 〈◊〉 Antichristian 〈◊〉 and barbarous 〈◊〉 to those they call 〈◊〉; ticks; that when 〈◊〉 are once actually 〈◊〉 judicially condemned▪ 〈◊〉 though they turn good Catholics, and repent never so sincerely; and though our blessed Saviour Jesus would pardon Penitents, yet Antichrist will not. For by the Popish Law, such Penitents are to be put into Prison, and be immured there, and live and die in a miserable condition. Si dicat Haercticus se velle paenitere, ac Haereses abjurare, de misericordia possit recipi, ut Haereticus poenitens, & Perpetuo Immurari. Nic. Eymericus, Direct. Inquisitorum, part. 3. pag. 516. Col. 1. And Fran. Regne in his Commentary upon Eymericus there. Comment. 46. p. 517. Col. 2. Num. 202. turned Papist, none of her Subjects (if the Pope's Absolution had been valid) were, by an Oath, (unless they took a new one) bound to Obey her, as their Sovereign. 4. Nor does he only Absolve all the afore mentioned (Subjects and all others) from all Oaths made to the z Praecipimus & Interdicimus Vniversis & Singulis Proceribus, Subditis, Populis & Aliis Praedictis, ne illi Ejusuè Monitis, Mandatis, & Legibus Audeam Obedire. Ibid. §. 5. Queen; but also severely interdicts and prohibits them all, to Obey any of her Laws or Commands. That is; he forbids them to do that, to which (by the Indispensable Law of God and Nature) they were absolutely bound. 5. And if any of the Persons mentioned in the aforesaid Particulars, did a Praecipimus Vniversis & Singulis Praedictis, ne Ejus Mandatis aut Legibus audeant Obedire, Qui secus Egerint, eos Simili Anathematis Sententiâ Innodamus. Ibidem, §. 5. otherwise, and obeyed any of her Laws or Commands; he pronounces the same Excommunication and Anathema against them. So that, 1. If any French, Spanish, or Italian Papists lived in England in Queen Elizabeth's days; (after the Bull and Excommunication was published, (as many did, and do, either as Merchants or Travellers) and obeyed the Laws of England; (as of necessity they must, and aught to conform to the Civil Laws of the Country where they live) all these, (by this wild Bull) did stand Excommunicate. Nor had they any way to Escape it, but either by Leaving the Kingdom, and all their Trade and Interest in it, to their great loss, and possibly the ruin of some: Or by staying here, and disobeying the Queen's Laws, (which never was, nor would be permitted) to undergo all the Severity and Penalties of those Laws. 2. But (which is yet much more strange) suppose any Jews, Turks, or Pagans in England in the Queen's time; he Excommunicates all those, if they obey the Queen; But surely this Rash and Impious Sentence, was not pronounced è Cathedrâ; for (which is no good Sign of his Infallibility) he does in this undertake a thing beyond all the Power he did or could pretend to, an absolute Impossibility. For Excommunication being a Selusion and Depriving a man of Ecclesiastical Communion, a turning out of the Christian Church; it was absolutely Impossible that either Peter, or the Pope his pretended Successor, should deprive those of a Communion they never had, or turn them out of a Church in which they never were. 6. He Excommunicates all Papists, as well as Protestants, if they obeyed any of the Queen's Laws or Commands. So that their Case was this; If they obeyed the Queen, their Sovereign, (to whom they ought a natural and sworn Allegiance) the Pope Curses and Damns them; and if they did not obey her, (as St. b Rom. 13. 4. Paul assures us) God himself would Condemn them. Certainly, all pious and considering Persons will think this an easy choice; and that it is better rather to Obey God then Men, and believe St. Paul rather than the Pope; and yet such is the Power of Error and strong Delusion, that the generality of the Papists, (I do not say all) choose to obey the Pope; as shall appear evidently anon, by their many open Rebellions, and continual Plots and Conspiracies to disquiet the Government, and their Endeavours (by Pistol or Poison) to Assassinate and take away the Queen's Life. 2. That all Papists who gave any Obedience to the Queen's Commands or Laws, were Excommunicate, as well as Protestants, is evident by this: That the Popish Party c Their Petition was, That Their most holy Lord Gregory the Thirteenth, would give a Declaratory Explication of Pius the Fifth's Bull, against Queen Elizabeth, and her Adherents; that it might be understood so, as always to bind her and the Heretics, but not the Catholics, as matters than stood; but hereafter, when Public Execution of the Bull may be had. The Answer was, These Graces the highest Bishop hath granted to Rob. Parsons and Ed. Campian (who are now coming into England) the Seventeenth day of April, 1580. in the Presence of Rather Oliver Manark Assistant. Camden in his History of Elizabeth, ad Ann. 1580. Elizabeth. 23. pag. 217. Edit. Angl. Lond. 1635. petioned Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, Ann. 1580. Elizabeth. 13. That he would declare, that the Bull of Pius the Fifth should always bind the Queen, and all Heretics, but not the Roman Catholics, As Things than stood; but hereafter only, when That Bull might be put in Execution. They were willing to Obey the Pope, and Disobey their Queen, when they had an Opportunity; They Petition the Pope to give them leave to do, what God (by Divine Law, Natural and Positive) had Commanded them to do; that is, to obey their Lawful Sovereign, and that they will Obey no longer, then till they have a Power and Ability, (with Security to themselves and Estates) to Disobey. 7. It is a certain Rule of Law and Justice, that before any Judge can Legally Condemn any; Two things are necessary to preceded; 1. Cognitio d The necessity of these things ariseth from the Infirmity and Fallibility of all Human Judges; which is attested by Pope Innocent the Third, in the Canon Law; Judicium Dei veritati, semper inititur, Judicium aut em Ecclesiae, nonnunquam opinionem sequitur, quam & fallere Saepe contingit, & falli; propter quod contingit interdum, ut Qui Ligatus est apud Deum, apud Ecclesiam sit solutus; & qui liber est apud Deum, Ecclesiastica sit Sententiâ innodatus. Innocent. 3. Cap. A Nobis. 28. Extra. De Sententia Excommunicationis. It is Pope Innocent the Third who says this; and if he was Infallible, (as the Jesuits, Canonists, etc. pretend) then the Church of Rome does (Saepe) often err in her Excommunications; and if he was not Infallible, then both he and his Successors may err. Causae, a Convenient Knowledge of the Cause; What Accusation the Actor or Plaintiff brings; what Answer and Defence the Reus, or Defendant makes. 2. That the Proofs and Evidence be such, as may be a just ground for a Damnatory Sentence. If either of these be wanting, either the Judge or Sentence, (or both) are unjust. Qui aliquid Statuit, parte inaudita alterâ, Aequum licet Statuerit, haud aequus fuit. And hence it was that a Pagan Judge could truly say, It is e Act. 25. 16. not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to Die, before he which is Accused have the Accuser face to face, and have Licence to answer for himself. Such was the Justice of Pagan Rome. But as Christian (or, I fear, Antichristian) Rome, the Case is altered. Pius the Fifth, the pretended Vicar of Christ (our blessed Saviour) Anathematizes and Damns many hundred Thousands, even Two whole Kingdoms at once, Causâ indictâ f Gen. 18. 20. 21. The Cry of the Sins of Sodom was great; but before God did destroy them, I will go down And See, whether they have done Altogether according to the Cry of it, which is come to me; and if not, I will know. Si Judicas Cognosce. God gives us an example, that we ought to be sure of the sin, which deserves it, before we pass Sentence to punish it. But the Pope here, Curses two Kingdoms, without any Hearing or Cognizance of the Cause, or possibility to know (notwithstanding the Cry which might come to Rome) that every one whom he Cursed, deserved it. 2. God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for ten righteous men, Gen. 18. 32. But the Pope Curses two Kingdoms, though he neither did, nor possibly could know, but that there might be in them Ten thousand pious Persons who deserved it not: Nay, he Excommunicates them for their Piety to God and their Prince, in Obeying the Commands of both, to which by the Law of God and the Land, they were indispensably obliged. & inauditâ. An Action so prodigiously Impious, as hath no ground or pretence for it in Nature or Scripture, or any Precedent amongst Pagans or Christians for a Thousand years after Christ; till Hildebrand, one of the worst in the Papal Catalogue (to the Scandal of Christianity, and fatal Disturbance of Christendom) unhappily Introduced it, and his Successors since, have (with like Antichristian Pride and Tyranny) impiously practised it. 8. Seeing it appears by this Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth, Observ. 8. (as by many more such, published by his g Vide Bullarium Romanum Romae, 1638. & ibi Excommunicate. Frideric. 2. à Gregor. 9 Const. 13. Tom. 1. p. 89. & Excommunicate. Hen. 8. à Paul. 3. Tom. 1. p. 514. etc. Predecessors and h Gregory the Thirteenth, and Sixtus the Fifth, renewed the Bull of Pius the Fifth. Camden's History of Queen Elizabeth, Ad Ann. 1588. p. 360. 361. Edit. Anglicanae. Successors) that the Bishops of Rome Usurp and Exercise such a vast Extravagant Power, to Excommunicate Kings and Emperors, to Depose and Deprive them of all their Dominions, Honour, and Dignity; to Absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity: To Inhibit and Interdict them (against the Laws of God and Man) to give any Obedience to their Lawful Sovereigns; and if they do, to Anathematise and Curse them for so doing; and lastly, to Excommunicate whole Kingdoms at once (Causa indicta & inauditâ) if they do their Duty, and give any Obedience to their Prince, when they forbid them, etc. I say for this, (and many other Reasons) I believe the Bishop of Rome has the fairest Plea, of any in the World, to be than Man of Sin, and the great Antichrist spoken of in the Gospel. It is neither my intention or business now, fully to dispute that Question. Whether the Pope be Antichrist? (many have with great success, already, done it) I shall only (in short) give the Reader two or three Arguments, or Motives, which (at present) induce me to believe that the Pope is Antichrist; And those Motives, either grounded on Scripture, the Confessions of our Adversaries, the Testimonies of many and great men before, or the concurrent Consent of the Reformed Churches since Luther. Here consider, 1. That it is not only i See the Annotat. on 1. Pet. 5. 13. and Tirinus the Jesuit says, (in his Commentary on the same Text) Vnanimitèr ●sserunt Patres & Doctores Orthodoxi, Citati apud Bellarminum, Riberam, Viegam, Pererium, Aleazar. etc. per Babylonem, Romam Intelligi. And so Corn. A Lapide on the same place: The same A Lapide upon Rev. 17. 16. on these words—. Hi odient fornicaeriam, scilicet, Babylozem; i. e. Romam. Vide Hen. Valesium in Notis ad Lib. 2. Eusebij Hist. Cap. 15. Notarum p. 33. Col. 2. Riberam in Apocal. 14. 8. §. 25. Confessed by our Adversaries (in their Commentaries on 1. Pet. 5. 13. The Church of Babylon salutes you) but endeavoured to be proved by many Arguments they bring, That Rome is that Babylon, St. John speaks of, in the Revelation; which he calls the Great Whore, Mother of Harlots, and Abominations of the Earth, and (in more plain Terms) The k Rev. 17. 18. Great City which reigns over the Kings of the Earth; which cannot possibly be meant of any but Rome, that being then the only great City, which Reigned over the Kings of the Earth. I know that some of them would have l Pamelius Annot. ad Lib. 3. Tertul. adversus Marcionem, num. 98. pag. 687. Pagan Rome meant: but this evidently untrue; for, 1. It must be Apostatical Rome; (as indeed it is) for the Apostle expressly tells us; That Antichrist will not come, till an m 2. Thess. 2. 3. vid. 1. Tim. 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, An Apostasy from the Faith. Apostasy and falling from the Faith come first: which cannot be meant of Pagan Rome; it being impossible they should fall from the Faith, who never had any. 2. It is meant of that Babylon, or Rome, which St. John calls the n Rev. 17. 1. 5. And so Jerome calls her (alluding to this Place, Come in babylon versarer (says he) & Purpuratae Meretricis esse●s Colonus, & Jure Quiritum viverem, etc. in praefat. ad Didymum. Alexandrinum, de Sp. Sancto, Tom. 6. p. 217. And again, lib. 2. Adversus Jovinianum; Sed (Hierom. Tom. 2. p. 379. 380. in calce Libri) ad Te loquor, qui scriptam in frome blasphemiam, Christi Confessione delisti. Vrbs Orbis Dominâ, Maledictionem, quam Tibi Salvator in Apocalypsi Comminatus est, potes effugere per poenitentiam, etc. Marian. Victorius in Notis ad dictum Librum & Locum, num. 68 says he means Pagan Rome. But 'tis certain (which I only cite him for) that Babylon in the Revelation (in Hierom's Opinion) is Rome: Sure I am, that Tertullian is of the same judgement; (Libro adversus Judaeos, cap. 8. pag. 142. num. 106.) Sic & Babylon apud Johannem, Romanae Vrbis figuram portat, proinde & Regno superbae, & sanctorum debellatricis. And he has the same words again, (Lib. 3. Adversus Martion. cap. 13. num. 98. p. 674.) where Pamelius in his Notes on those places, 1. Would have Pagan Rome meant. However, by Babylon in the Revelation (in Tertullian's Opinion, as well as Hieroms) Rome is meant. 2. He would have those words, (Babylon Roma) which were in the Margin of a former Edition of Tertullian, blotted out; that men might not be put in mind that Rome was the Mystical Babylon, more Romano, corrupting Records, and blotting out whatever makes against them. Great Whore, and Harlot: but in Scripture, none but Apostates from the Faith, and true o See Host 1. 2. etc. and Host 2. 2. Religion, are called so; none but she who was once a Wife, and afterwards falls into Spiritual Whoredom; which of Pagan Rome neither is, nor can be true. 3. The Actings of Antichrist are called p 2. Thes. 2. 7. Rev. 17. 5. 7. Mysterium, a Mystery, things hard to be understood: but that Pagan Idolaters should persecute and oppress Christians, and be drunk with the Blood of the Saints, this is no Mystery. But that all this should be done in pretence of the only True and Catholic Religion, in Honour of Christ, and by his Vicar; this is indeed a Mystery, not easily understood. So that it is evident, and confessed, that Rome is Babylon, (Mystical Babylon) called so, (as she is called q Rev. 11. 8. Sodom and Egypt) in respect of that Analogy and Similitude between the Literal and Mystical, the Pagan and Antichristian Babylon, (Babylon Chaldaeae & Italiae.) Some of the Particulars wherein that Similitude consists, are here in the r The Similitude between the Pagan Babylon, in the Old, and the Antichristian in the New Testament, may appear in this; 1. They were both very great Cities. (Isai. 13. 19 Rev. 16. 19) 2. They were both Impious and Idolatrous. (Isai. 46. 1. Rev. 9 20.) 3. They were both Oppressors of the Church of God; the Literal and Pagan Babylon, of the Jews, (Jer. 50. 11.) the Mystical Babylon of Christian Church. (Rev. 17. 6.) 4. They both propagated their Impiety, and made other Nations to sin with them. (Jer. 51. 7. Rev. 13. 16. etc. Rev. 17. 2.) 5. In the Pagan Babylon God had some Saints and Servants, and they were Commanded to come out of her. (Jer. 50. 8. & 51. 6.) And so in the Mystical Babylon, (Rev. 18. 4.) 6. The destruction of both is denounced in the same words, of Pagan Babylon, (Isai. 21. 9 Jer. 51. 8.) and of Mystical Babylon, (Rev. 14. 8. & 18. 2.) Margin; and he who considers what St. John says of the Mystical, and what isaiah and Jeremy of the Literal Babylon, may find more. I take it then for a manifest Truth, (and confessed by our Adversaries) that by Babylon in the Revelation, Rome is meant, and that it is the Seat of Antichrist. The next Query will be, Who that great Antichrist is, whose Seat is to be at Rome? And this will best appear by the Description and Characters of him in Scripture. 2. One Characteristical Note and Mark of Antichrist, is given by s 2 Thess. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. Paul; That he is an Enemy, an Adversary to Christ (our blessed Saviour) so the word in St. Paul properly t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hesychius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Adversarius. Glossae veteres in Calce Cyrilli. Etymolog. Magnum, in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and then adds; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. signifies; so their Authentic; Vulgar Latin u Filius perditionis, qui Adversatur. translates it, and their Learned x Corn. A Lapide in 2. Thess. 2. 4. Commentators prove it. So that we are agreed on this; That Antichrist (whoever he be) is an Adversary to our blessed Saviour; and though he may pretend (as we know he does) to be Christ's Vicar, and Act by his Authority, and for him; yet he is really his Adversary, and acts in Opposition, and Contradiction to him. Now if this be a true Character of Antichrist (and it is St. Paul's) then the Pope has a fairer Plea to be that Beast, than any man in the World. For under the Name and Notion of Christ's Vicar, and by a vainly pretended and usurped Power from him, he acts contrary to Christ, and the express Commands of the Gospel. I shall (of many) give two or three Instances, 1. Our blessed Saviour, at the Institution of the Eucharist, expressly Commands his Disciples (and so all Christians, who are of Age and rightly qualified) y Matth. 26. 27. Drink Ye All of this: And another Evangelist tells us, that they obeyed, and z Mark. 14. 23. Did All Drink. But the Pope, in Contradiction to this, a Concilium Constantiense, Sess. 13. absolutely forbids all (save the Priest who Consecrates) to drink the Eucharistical Cup; and so (in Contradiction to our Saviour's Command) deprives them of half that Sacrament. And this they do with a blasphemous Impiety, forbidding bidding all Laics to have the Communion in both kinds, Notwithstanding the b Licet Christus post coenam, Instituerit, & Discipulis sub Vtrâque Specie panis & vini administraverit: Hoc non Obstante, etc. Ibid. Institution of Christ, and notwithstanding that in the c Licet in Primitiuâ Ecclesiâ hoc Sacramentum reciperetur à fidelibus sub Vtrâque Specie, tamen Consuetudo ab Ecclesiâ introducta, pro lege habenda est. Ibidem. By the way, let the Intelligent and Impartial Reader consider, with what contradiction to truth and right reason the Fathers at Constance, establish their half Communion. They reject the uninterrupted perpetual Custom of the Universal Church, (both Greek and Latin, Eastern and Western) for above One thousand two hundred years, for receiving the Communion in both kinds: and yet tell us, That a late Custom of the Roman Church only, and that in some places only (for it was not a general Custom in the Roman Church to receive only in one kind, till Ann. 1414. the Council of Constance met and defined it) must be a Law to oblige all to receive only in one kind. Primitive Church it was Received in both kinds: and they further declare them d Pertinacitèr asseremes oppositum, tanquam Haeretici arc●ndi sunt & Gravitèr puniendi. Ibidem. Heretics, who think otherwise; and Command, that no Priest shall administer it in both kinds to any Layman, under pain of e Nullu● Presbyter sub poenâ Excommunicationis, Communicet populum sub utraque Specie. Ibidem. Excommunication. By the way; it is observable, That it is Confessed by our Adversaries f Lindanus in Panoplia, Lib. 4. Cap. 56. pag. 342. Edit. Colon. 1575. Lindanus, Cardinal g Card. Bona de rebus Liturgicis. Lib. 2. Cap. 18. pag. 491. 492. Paris. 1672. Bona, etc.) that the whole Church of God (Lay and Clergy) for about One thousand two hundred years, Received in both kinds, even the Church of Rome herself: And after that, in h In Quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur, ut populo Sanguis Sumendus non detur. Aquinas part. 3. Quaest 8. Art. 12. in Corpore. Aquinas his time, it was but in some i Which was about the year of Christ, 1265. Bellarmine de Script. Ecclesiasticis, in Tho. Aquinate. Churches, that the Cup was denied to the Laity. The sum is this; He who acts in Opposition and Contradiction to our blessed Saviour's Commands in the Gospel, abrogates them, (so much as in him lies) calls them Heretics, and Excommunicates those who obey them, and Incourages those who disobey Christ, and obey him; he (I say) is an Adversary to Christ and Antichrist. But (by the Premises) it appears, that the Pope does all this, more signally in taking away the Cup in the Eucharist than any (who pretends to be a Christian) in the whole World; Ergo, he is Antichrist. 2. The next Instance whereby it may appear, that the Pope is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Adversary to our blessed Saviour, and so has one Character of Antichrist, is this; St. Paul in his Epistle to the l 1. Cor. 14. Corinthians, tells them, (and he says they are the m Ibid. vers. 37. The things I write unto you are the Commandments of the Lord. Commandments of Christ he writes) 1. That it is the Commandment of our blessed Saviour, that in their Assemblies all things be done to n Ibid. vers. 26. & vers. 12. Edification. 2. That speaking in an unknown Tongue, does not o Ibid. vers. 17. Edify or p Ibid. vers. 6. Profit the Church to which he speaks; q Ibid. vers. 2. 9 14. 15. 16. because they understand not what he says. 3. He absolutely forbids all speaking in their Assemblies (if there be none to Interpret) in any r Ibid. vers. 28. unknown Tongue. Now whether the Pope be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Adversary to Christ, let the Reader Judge, by that which follows. Our blessed Saviour expressly Commands, that in the Assemblies of Christians all things should be in a Tongue understood by the People, for their Edification, (and the Apostle thinks it s Ibid. vers. 23. madness to do otherwise) that they might know his Precepts and gracious Promises; and so their Duty, and Encouragements to do it. But the Pope (as all know) in Contradiction to this, absolutely forbids what our blessed Saviour expressly Commands; and prohibits all Public Prayers in any Vulgar Tongue; nay, the printing, reading, or having their own t Cum quidam Missale Romanum, ad Gallicam vi●●g arem linguam convertere tent averint: Nos Novitatem istam Ecclestae decoris deformatricem, detestamur; & Missale praedictum Gallico Idiomate conscriptum, damnamus, ac Interdicimus, sub poenâ Excommunicationis latae Sententiae, Ipso Jure incurrendae. Mandantes, ut qui illud habuerint tradant Ordinarijs, aut Inquisitoribus, qui sine Morâ, Exemplaria igne comburant. Bulla Alexand. 7. dat. Romae, 12. Jan. 1661. Pontificatûs Ann. 6. Roman Missal in French u Vid. Bullam Cloment. 9 Rom. 9 April, 1668. It was to be burnt by the Bishop or Inquisitors, even their own Missal in French. , into which it was faithfully Translated, (not by any Heretics, but by good Roman Catholics). This evidently appears by the Authentic Bull of Pope Alexander the Seventh, and some of his words cited in the Margin. And he there tells us, That the Translators and Publishers of that Missal, were Studiers of Novelties, to the x Quidam Perditionis Filij in perniciem Animarum novitatibus students, & Ecclesiasticas Sanctiones, & praxin Contemnentes, ad cam nuper Vesaniam pervenerint, ut Missale Romanum in Gallicam vulgarem linguam convertere tentaverint. So it is in the said Bull. ruin of Souls; Contemners of the Sanctions and Practice of the Church; and that they were Sons of Perdition. But in this, I think his Holiness was not well advised. For if the Apostles y 2. Thess. 2. vers. 3. 4. Character of Antichrist be true, he himself has a better claim to that Title, and really is (what he calls them) The Son of Perdition. What they say in Answer to St. Paul, and the clear Texts against all praying to, or praising God in an unknown Tongue, is most Irrational, and Indeed Impertinent. It is not my Business or Intention (in this place and time) particularly to Examine it; but refer the Reader to their z Vide Corn. A Lapide in 1. Cor. 14. Costeri Enchiridion. Cap. 17. De precibus. Latin Recitandis, pag. 502. etc. Johan. Eckij Enchiridion adversus Lutherum, pag. 392. Colon. 1565. vide Azorium Instit. Moral. Part. 1. lib. 8. cap. 26. Learned Writers for their Latin Prayers, where he may see what they say; and if he be Intelligent, and an Impartial Seeker, and Lover of Truth, he will find that St. Paul Condemns all Prayers to, and Praises of God in an unknown Tongue. Sure I am, a very Learned Sorbon Doctor in his a Hen. Holden. Theologus Parisiensis, in Annotat. ad i. Cor. 14. Paris. 1660. Notes on that place in St. Paul (convinced with the Evidence of the Text and Truth) does acknowledge it, and explains St. Paul as I have done. If they damn and burn their own Offices in any Vulgar Tongue, (which deserve to be burnt for many other better Reasons) we may easily guess (when they have power to do it, which I pray and hope they never will) what they will do with ours. 3. But that which is the highest and most evident Instance, that the Pope is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an Adversary and Enemy to our blessed Saviour Christ, and true Christianity, is; That whereas the Gospel was writ to be read and studied (by all who had ability) as the great means of their Salvation; and accordingly was Translated into all Christian Languages, and all permitted to have and read it; that they might (for their direction and comfort) know the holy Precepts, and gracious Promises contained in it; and continued so to this Day in all Christian Churches (except Rome) and in that too, for many hundred years after Christ, while Latin was their Vulgar Tongue. But when the Impiety and Tyranny of the Bishops of Rome unhappily prevailed, the Gospel itself, and the whole Book of God, was reckoned amongst Damned Books▪ and Authors, and not permitted to be b Nulla conceditur facultas Legendi vel retinendi Biblia vulgaria, aut alias Sacrae Scripturae parts, quavis Vulgari Linguâ Editas, & Insuper Summaria & Compendia etiam Historia Sacrae Scripturae, quocunque vulgari Idiomate conscripta; quod Inviolatè Observandum. Vid. Observat. ad Regul. 4. Indicis, in Calce Concilij Trident. Antverp. 1633. & Indicem Expurg. Alexand. 7. Rom. 1667. p. 14. verbo. Biblia, & Bibliorum. read in any Vulgar Tongue; no not so much as any Summary or Historical Compendium of it. And further, amongst the Rules of the Index Expurgatorius, published by the Command of the Trent Council, we are told, (with great Impiety and Blasphemy) that by permitting the Scripture to be commonly read in Vulgar Tongues, there comes c Plus inde ob hominum temeritatem, Detrimenti quam Vtilitatis Oriri. Ibid. Reg. 4. In Indice Alexand. 7. p. 4. more Mischief than Benefit. Pope Vrban the Eighth says d Librorum prohibitorum Lectio, magno sincerae fidei Cultoribus Detrimento esse noscitur. Urban. 8. Constit. 114. Bullarij Rom. Tom. 4. §. 1. p. 119. Edit. Rom. An. 1638. the very same, (with as much Impiety as his Predecessors) and further adds; That all who have any prohibited Books, (of which number it is Evident the Bible in any Vulgar Language is one) they must bring them to the Bishop or Inquisitor, and they must Burn them presently, by the hand of the Hangman, or some such Officer, (for I suppose they are not to do it themselves). And we have a late and further Instance of this Antichristi in Impiety, in a Bull of Pope Clement the Ninth. The New Testament (as appears by the Bull) was Translated into French, and Printed at Lions; The Pope (Animus meminisse horret) e Liber Versionis Gallicae Novi Testamenti, cui Titulus est— Le Nouvean Testament de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ, etc. Nos Librum hujusmodi tanquam temerariu, Damnosum, à vulgatâ Editione deformem Damnamus, & prohibemus: ita ut nemo cujuscunque Conditionis sub poena Excommunicationis, illum legere aut retinere audeat, sed Ordinariis aut Inqlisitoribus deferat. etc. Ita Clem. 9 Bulla data Rom. 20. Apr. An. 1668. Damns and prohibits it, under the very Name, The New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ; and Excommunicates all, of what dignity soever, who shall print, sell, read, or have it; and Commands (under pain of Excommunication) that they who have it, bring it to the Ordinary or f li qui Libros prohibitos habuerint, eos ad Episcopum aut Inquisitores deserant, qui eos quantocyus Comburere debeant. Ibid. §. 3. Inquisitors; and what they must do, with it, the Bull of Vrban the Eighth, (but now Cited) will tell you; they must burn it, and (as a damned Book) abolish it. So Clement the Ninth Commands the g In his Bull, 9 Apr. 1668. Pontificatus sui Ann. 1. Damnamus— mandantes, ut quicunque librum illum Ritualem habuerint vel habebunt, locerum Ordinariis, vel Inquisitoribus statim tradant, qui nullâ interpositâ mora, igni comburant, aut comburi faciant, &c Roman Ritual in French, to be burnt. But that which makes their Error and Impiety more evident, is; That even then and there, where they absolutely prohibit the Gospel in any Vulgar Tongue, and Damn it to the Fire, they permit the h Item Alboranus Mahometis in Linguâ Vulgari, ex Concessione Inquisitorum haberi possit. Index Librorum prohibitorum. Alexandr. 7. Edit. Rom. 1664. pag. 3. the Turkish Koran in a Vulgar Tongue, with leave had from the Inquisitors, who yet could give no leave to any (as appears before by the Rules of their Expurgatory i Biblin quocunque I diomate Vulgari conscripta. Ita Index Librorum prohibitorum, Alexand. 7. Jussu Editus Romae, 1667. verbo Biblia, p. 14. Index) to have the Gospel, or any part of it, in any Vulgar Tongue. Prodigious Impiety! The Turkish Alcoran (the contrivance of a Monstrous Impostor, and Enemy to Christ and Christianity) is permitted; and the Gospel of our blessed Saviour is absolutely prohibited and damned. And though in doing this, they Act very Impiously, yet (in their Generation and Circumstances) very wisely. For neither the Alcoran, nor any Book in the World, is so fatal to their miscalled Catholic Religion, as (when truly understood and believed) the Bible. That Book evidently discovers, and condemns their Errors; and therefore they are concerned to keep it from the People, lest they should find (as by that Divine Light they easily might) and forsake their Errors. The Premises considered, let the Reader judge, Whether the Pope have not this Mark of the Beast, and Character of Antichrist, that he is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Adversary of Christ, and that Religion Established by him; who prohibits the having and reading (and so the Understanding) of the Gospel, Damns it to the Fire, and burns it; and yet at the same time permits the Koran. 3. Another Characteristical Note or Mark of Antichrist given by St. Paul, is; That he Exalts himself above all that is called God, or Worshipped; So our English Translation; so their Authentic Vulgar k Extollitur super Omne quod dicitur Deus, aut quod Colitur. Clem. 8. in Bibliis, 1592. Latin; and their own Learned l Corn. A Lapide in 2. Thess. 4. §. 27. Commentators justify it. The word in the Text properly m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Colo, veneror. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (Suidae & Hesychio) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Colendum, venerandum, Id quod veneratur. Athanasius Orat. Contra Gentes, (ex sapientiâ Sirach, c. 14. 17.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ubi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Numen, Deum significat. Sic Act. 17. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sacra Gentilia, quae venerabantur, seu Numina, Altaria, Templa, etc. Hinc Caesares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Augusti; Hesychio, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. signifying, Id quod Colitur, any thing or Person, which is the Object of Honour and Veneration. So that thus far we are agreed, That Antichrist will Exalt himself above all that is called God, (as all Magistrates Subordinate and Supreme, Kings and Emperors in Scripture are) or worshipped. This then (in Thesi) being granted; we must next (in Hypothesi) Inquire, Whether this Characteristical Note and Mark of Antichrist, may be truly affirmed of the Pope, and be really found in him? In Answer to which Query, I say; I hope it may, and does appear by the Premises, That the Pope does Exalt himself, far above all Kings and Emperors, more than any man in the World ever did, or (Antichrist excepted) ever will; and therefore I shall only add two or three things in Confirmation of the Premises. 1. Then, his Favourers and Flatterers give him (and he approves and assumes it) The n Sanctiss. Vrban. 8. Vniversi Imperator. Angelus Maria Cherubinus, in Calce. Tom. 4. Bullarij Romani, Rom. 1638. pag. 120. Title of Emperor of the Universe. Upon this account, That the Pope is Emperor of the Universe, of the whole World; it follows, That all Kings and Emperors are his Subjects, and he their Supreme Lord and Sovereign, and so, far greater in Power, than any one, or all of them together. And lest we should mistake, and undervalue his Papal Greatness; Pope Innocent the Third told the Emperor of Constantinople, (and has told us in the Body of their approved and received Law) That the Pope is as much greater than the Emperor, as the o Vid. Cap. Solicit 6. Extra. De Major. & Obed. Quanta est inter solemn & Lunam, tanta inter Pontifices & Reges differentia cognoscatur. Sun is greater than the Moon. And here the Author of the Gloss, (Bernardus de Botono, a great Lawyer, but no good Astronmer) tells us, That the Sun is 47. times greater than the Moon; and so (by that Computation) the Pope is 47. times greater than the Emperor. This is pretty well, and gives so vast a Magnitude to the Pope above the Emperor, that a man would think it might satisfy his Ambition, so that he needed not ask, nor his greatest Flatterers give him more. Yet they do give much more. For in a Marginal Note on the said Chapter, (in their most p Vid. Corpus Juris Canon. cum Glossis. Paris. 1612. Correct Editions of their Law) we are told, That the Sun is greater than the Moon, Quinquagies Septies, 57 times; and so the Pope so much greater than the Emperor. But this is not all. Laurentius (a Canonist) in the same q Palam est, quod magnitudo Solis continet magnitudinem▪ Lunae 7744 ½. Vice Addit. ad Gloss. verb. Inter Solem. Ad dictum cap. 6. place, tells us; That it is evident, that the Sun is 7744 ½ greater than the Moon; and so the Pope (omitting the Fraction) Seven thousand, seven hundred, and forty four times greater than the Emperor. This is so prodigiously erroneous and impious, as none, save their most Holy and Infallible Guide, could be guilty of such Error and Impiety. But a Learned Roman r Clavius Comment. in Johan. de Sacro Bosco. p. 189. Catholic (who understood Astronomy, and the Magnitude of the Sun, (much better than the Pope, or his Parasites) seriously tells us, that the Sun is greater than the Moon. 6539. times. And so by the Pope's Logic and Decretal Definition, and the Computation of his best Artists, he must be. 6539. times greater than the Emperor. Monstrous Pride and Ignorance! which is so far from proving him to be our blessed Saviour's Vicar, that it evidently proves him, to be that s 2 Thess. 2. 4. Man of Sin, the great Antichrist, who exalts himself (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) above all Kings and Emperors. Certainly Antichrist cannot exalt himself more, then to declare to the World, (as the Pope here does) in his Public Laws and Constitutions, that he is. 6539. times greater than any King or Emperor. So that although St. t Rom. 13. 1. Paul, and u 1. Pet. 2. 13. Peter too, acknowledged the Emperor's Power Supreme, and required that all men (even the Pope if he were a man) should conscientiously obey them; though St. Paul x Act. 25. 11. appeal (not to Peter, but) to Caesar, as Supreme: Though Athanasius say, That there lay no y Athanasius in Apologia, ad Constantium Tom. 1. p. 680. D. Appeal from the Emperor, but to God; and though z Tertull. ad Scap. cap. 2. & Apolog. c. 30. Tertullian say, That the Emperor was, Solo Deo minor; and the Bishops of Rome, for almost One thousand years after our blessed Saviour, acknowledged the Emperors their Sovereign Lords, yet Hildebrand and his Successors, have (as above) exalted themselves far above all that is called God, and have that indelible Character of Antichrist. Q. E. D. 2. And they further say, That this Universal Monarchy is given him by God himself; and so he has it, (not by any Human Right or Injust Usurpation, but Jure Divino) by the Law of God, and a Right derived from him; and this is said, not once only, nor by any private a Tu es Pastor Ovium, Princeps Apostolorum; Tibi Tradidit Deus Omnia Regna Mundi: Breviar. Roman. Antu. 1660. part. Hiemali, in Festo Cathedrae S. Petri Antiochiae, in Resp. post Lect. 4. p. 760. Person, (whose Authority might be questioned) but many times in their Authentic Roman b Ibid. parte Hiemali in Festo Cathedrae Sti. Petri Romae, ad diem Jan. 18. p. 700. Col. ●. & in dicti Breviarij Part. Aestiva, p. 482. In Festo Petri & Pauli, Jun. 29. & ibidem rursus p. 541. In Festo S. Petriad vincula. Breviary, restored according to the c The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title of that Breviary, is thus— Breviarium Romanum, ex Decreto Sacro-Sancti Concilij Tridentini restitutum, ●ij. 5. Pont. Max. Jussu Editum, & Clement. 8. primum, nunc demum Vrbani P. 8. Authoritate recognitum. Antu. 1660. Decree of the Council of Trent, and revised and published by the Authority and Command of d Pius. 5. Clem. 8. Urban. 8. as above. three Popes successively; so that we may be sure they approve it. That Breviary has it thus, (speaking of Peter)— Thou art Prince of the Apostles; And God hath Given Thee All the Kingdoms of the World. These are the words of that Authentic Breviary, approved and confirmed by the Authority of those three Popes before mentioned, (as appears by their Bull prefixed to the Edition) and is now in public use in their Church. So that he Exalts himself, as Universal Monarch, over all the Kings and Kingdoms in the World; and that (as he impiously pretends) by a Divine Right, and the Donation of God himself; And hence it is, That not only the Canonists (the constant and great Parasites of the Pope) but even the Learned Divines of the Roman Church, give the Pope (and he Approves and Assumes) such Extravagant and Blasphemous Titles, as none but the Man of Sin, who Exalts himself above all that is called God, would approve. To pass by many hundreds of the like nature, I shall Instance only in one. Stapleton (an English man, and a very Learned Professor of Divinity at Douai, in his Dedicatory Epistle to Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, calls that Pope e Stapleton, in Academiâ Duacenâ Theol. Professor, in Epist. Greg. 13. Princip. Fidei Doctrine. Demonstrationi praefixa; Papam appellat, Catholicae Ecclesiae Virticem Coruphaeotatum, Totius Orbis Magistrum & Supremum in terris Numen. — The Highest Top and Prince of the Catholic Church, The Master of the whole World, and on Earth The Supreme God or Deity. Certainly, ●he who approves and admits such Titles to be given him, Exalts himself above all that is called God, and so has the Character of Antichrist mentioned by the Apostle, 2 Thess. 2. 4. And here (though I intended it not) I shall crave leave to add two or three Passages more, which casually come in my way and memory, and are very pertinent to our present purpose. 1. The Gloss on their f Nec Deus es, nec Homo, quasi neuteres, inter utrúmque. Glossa ad Prooemium Clement. verbo, Papa. Canon Law tells us, That the Pope is neither God nor Man, but something more than Man. And though this Impious and Blasphemous Gloss was g Vide Censuram in Glossas Jur. Can. per Tho. Manrique, Colon. 1572. p. 13. 14. Censured to be left out, by the Master of the Sacred Palace. Yet h Vide Indicem Expurgat. Olysipone, 1624. p. 350. Clement the Eighth thought otherwise; and those words are still in the best Edition of the i Paris. 1612. Canon Law; only with this Note in the Margin, Haec verba sunt sano modo intelligenda, pr●lata enim sunt, ad Ostendendum Amplissimam Pontificis Rom. Potestatem. But this Gloss is something modest, though it make the Pope more than Man; and being in Verse, may have some Poetical Licence allowed. 2. But another Gloss in plain Prose expressly says, That it is k Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam non posse sic statuere, Haereticum Censetur. Glossa ad Cap. cum inter. 4. verbo. Declaramus. De verborum signific. Extravag. Johan. 22. our Lord God the Pope. For although in some l Edit. Paris. 1519. Old Editions of the Canon Law, it was only Our Lord the Pope; yet now in the most m Edit. Paris. 1612. Correct Editions of that Law, confirmed by Gregory the Thirteenth, it is (without any Qualification in the Margin) our Lord God the Pope. 3. And to make the Blasphemy full, and evidently Antichristian, Ant. Puccius in an Oration made by him in their General Lateran Council, speaking to Pope Leo the Tenth, says, n Diviniae Majestatistuae Conspectus, rutilanti cujus fulgore oculi mei Caligant, etc. Crab. Concil. Tom. 3. Conc. Lateran. Sess. 9 p. 648. Col. 2. That the Rays of His Divine Majesty did dazzle his Eyes. Impious and Antichristian Pride and Blasphemy! yet approved at Rome, and by themselves (to their shame) published to the World. Nor is this all: He pretends to, and assumes an Infallibility, and that of so high a Nature, that all his Definitions and Determinations of Doubts (whether è Cathedrâ or not; whether in a General Council, or out of it; to be the Word of God. So a Learned Popish o Verbum Dei est triplex: 1. Scriptum, scilicet Scriptura sacra. 2. Non scriptum, Traditio. 3. Explicatum; Cum dubia in verbo scripto vel non scripto Explicantur, & determinantur: & hoc sit praesertìm per summum Pontificem, sive Extra Concilium, s●u in Concilio. Lud. Bail: in Apparatu de triplici verbo Dei, Tom. 1. Summae Concil. Praefixo. 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; p Iste Modus ultimus (the Pope's determinations of doubts) Magis Probatus est, & cum majore suavitate ei Plures acquiescunt. Ibidem in principio dicti Apparatus. That this Last word of God, (the Pope's 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 q De nostra mera Liberalitate, Omnes Insulas & Terras firmas inventas & Inveniendas, versus Occidentem & Meridiem, fabricando unam. Lineam à Polo Arctico ad Antarcticum, quae Linea distet à qualibet Insularum quae Vulgaritèr dictae sunt, De 〈◊〉 Azores y Cabo Vi●rde, Centum Leucis versus occidentem, Cum Omnibus illarum dominijs, Ciritati●us, Castris, Villis, Juribus, & Pertinentiis Vniversis, vobis, haeredibus & successoribus in 〈…〉. Constit. 2. Alexand. 6. §. 8. in Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 347. Ferdinand and Elizabeth, (King and Queen of Castille) 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 mere Liberality, by Power derived from Peter, and as Vicar of Christ. Then he Excommunicates all of what degree soever, Kings and r Ac Personis cujuscúnque Dignitatis, etiam Imperialis, Regalis, etc. sub Excommunicationis latae Sententiae poenâ, districtius Inhibemus, ne ad Insulas aut terras dictas, pro mercibus habendis, vel causa aliâ quavis, accedere praesumant, absque veniâ vestrâ, aut Haeredum Speciali Licentiâ. Ibid. §. 8. 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 Saviour's time; and yet he Commands them to s Matth. 22. 21. give to Caesar the things which were Caesar's. 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 t Rom. 13. 7. The Apostle commands the Romans to pay tribute to whom it was due, that is, to Caesar; for to him only they were Subjects, and to him only Tribute was due from them. Our blessed Saviour (as man, born in the Roman Empire) was subject to Caesar, and paid him Tribute. Matth. 17. 25. And that (as Cajetan and Lucas Burgensis on that place, truly say; That he paid that Tribute, not the facto only, but de debito. due to him. But I hope this will not be denied: 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 Holiness, and he will have no Propriety in St. Peter's Patrimony, or any other thing he does possess. And therefore (if he Impartially consider it) he may find some reason, if not for Truth's sake (which with him is not always a prevailing Motive) yet for his own, to be (in this) of my opinion: By the Premises, 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 u Vide Testimonia ex variis Authoribus Collecta Romam Babylona esse, Ejúsque Episcopum jure Antichristum dici; per Simon. Schardium, in calce Epistolarum Petri de Vincis. Basil. ●566. 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 believed and constantly affirmed and proved the Pope to be Antichrist; especially the Church of England, as appears, both by her ablest Writers, and her Authentic x See the third part of the Homily of Good Works; in the first part of the Homilies, p. 38. and the sixth part of the Homily against Rebellion, in the second part of the Homilies, p. 316. where the Pope is called the Babylonical Beast of Rome. Homilies, confirmed by the King's Supreme Authority in Convocations and Parliaments. Omitting all these (which yet were abundantly sufficient to show, 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 Endeavoured to build the y Novissime ad Supplantationem nostram aspirans, ut adversus David, turrem Construeret Babylonis, etc. Apud Pet. de. de Vincis, Epist. Lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 129. 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 z Videte Orbis generale Scandalum, dissidia gentium, generale justitiae doleatis Excidium, exeunte Nequitia A Senioribus Babylonis, qui populum hactenus Regere videbantur, etc. Apud eundem, lib. 1. cap. 21. pag. 152. the Elders of Babylon, etc. 2. A faithful Historian (speaking of Pope Hildebrand, or Gregory the Seaventh, and his Prodigious Tyranny and Impiety) tells us, a Plerique tum privatim, tum Publicè indignum facinus clamitant, Pro Concione Gregorio Maledicunt, Hildebrando male precantur; ipsum Antichristum esse praedicaent, Titulo Christi, negotium Antichristi agitat; in Babylonia, in Temple Dei Sedet; super Omne id quod colitur, extollitur; quasi Deus sit, etc. Joh. Aventinus Annal. Bojor. lib. 5. p. 352. Basil. 1615. vide plura Ibid. p. 363. That in those times, Most Men, both Privately and Publicly, cursed Hildebrand, called 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, etc. And much more to the same purpose; abundantly Testified by the Historians of those times, who were neither Lutherans, nor (by the Roman Church) then reputed Heretics. And afterward (speaking of the same Hildebrand) we are told— b Hildebrandus ante Annos. 170. primus specie Religionis Antichristi Imperij fundamenta jecit. Hoc bellun nefandum primus auspicatus est, quod per Successores huc usque continuatur— Flamines illi (Papas Rom. Intelligit) Babyloniae Soli regnare cupiunt: far parem non possunt, in Templo Dei Sedeant, Extollantur supra omne id quod Colitur: Ingentia loquitur perditus homo ille, quasi Deus esset, etc. Aventine Ibid. lib. 7. pag. 420. 421. Vide plura ibidem pag. 444. 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 show 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 c Plerique Omnes Boni, justi, ingenui, simplices, tum Imperium Antichristi coepisse, quod ea quae Christus tot Annos Ante nobis Cantavit, evenisse cernebant, memoriae Literarum prodidere. Joh. Aventinus, Ibidem, lib. 5. pag. 363. Edit. 1615. & Edit. 1580. pag. 470. And the Learned Marcus Ephesius in the Council of Florence, called Rome Babylon. Binius Concil. Tom. 8. pag. 980. Edit. Paris. 1636. 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 than 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 Deathbed) having spoke of many horrid Enormities of Rome, and loss of Souls by Papal Avarice; he adds— d Episcopus deleus de jacturâ Animarum per Papalis Curiae Avaritiam, suspirans ait: Christus devenit, ut animas Lucraretur. Ergo, qui animas perdere non formidas, nun Antichristus merito dicendus est? Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad Ann. 1253. p. 875. Is not such a one deservedly called Antichrist? Is not a Destroyer of Souls (the Pope he means) an e Nun ergo Animarum destructor inimicus Dei & Antichristus censetur? Ibidem. Enemy of God and Antichrist? And after a long List of Papal Tyranny and Impieties, he calls Rome Egypt; (so Saint John calls it f Rev. 11. 8. Spiritually Sodom and Egypt) and concludes that the g Ibid. p. 876. Edit. Watsij. Nec Liberabitur Ecclesia ab Aegyptia servitute, nisi in ore Gladij Cruentati. Church will never be delivered from that Egyptian Servitude, but by the Sword. 2. Nor is this all: we have great Councils of whole Nations, in their Public Edicts and Constitutions, expressly declaring the Pope, to be that Antichrist, who Exalts himself above all that is called God. We have a Public Edict, published by Ludovicus Bavarus Emperor, and his Counsel; wherein Pope John the Two and twentieth is called h Quise Mystas Christi ferunt, sunt Nuncij Antichristi— Nec per hunc Antichristum, licet Christianis pac●m à Deo datam servare. Joh. Aventinus Annal. Bojorum, lib. 7. pag. 469. Editionis Basil. 1615. Antichrist, the Disturber of the Peace of Christendom, and the Bishops and Clergy who adhered to him, Messengers of Antichrist. And not long after, the same Emperor, in a Diet or Counsel of the Bishops and Nobility of Germany and Italy too, and with their joint Consent, publishes an Edict, in the Year 1328. wherein we have a long Catalogue of the Prodigious Impieties and Tyranny of the Pope, and then and there they call him— i Sicuti Pastor est Personatus, ita Mysticus est Antichristus. Ibidem, p. 473. vid. Epist. Ecclesiae Leodiensis ad Paschal. 2. apud Binium, Tom. 7. part. 2. p. 518. A Personated Pastor, (one who would seem to be a Pastor of the Church) but was indeed, That Mystical Antichrist. And in the same great Counsel, they publish another Imperial Decree or Constitution, wherein having set down that Character of k In Temlo Dei, hoc est, Ecclesiâ, quasi Deus, Sedebunt, & super Omne illud quod usquam Gentium, aut Colitur, aut cultum est, extollentur. Dominationem, Vrbi orbique Terrarum, rejecta Cruce Christi, arripient, etc. Antichrist, That he should Exalt himself above all that is called God, or worshipped, and assume a Power and Domination over the whole World: They add, That by many l Quae ideo vates veridici, Nobis ante Contarunt, verissima esse experimentis animadvertimus; & nisi planè Asini simus, Sentimus, etc. Experiments, they saw these Predictions, come to pass, and (unless they were as stupid as Asses) they must be sensible of them; And then m Qui contra obstrepere ausit, tanquam Reipubls. hostis, inimicus Pietaetis & Satelles Antichristi, ultimo Supplicio Parricidium luet. Conditum est hoc Decretum. Ann. 1338. Extat apud Aventinum, Annal. Lib. 7. p. 479. Declare, That all who adhere to, and follow the Pope, are Antichristians, and He Antichrist. I know that the Roman n The Portugal Index Expurgatorius. Olysipone, 1624. pag. 29. damns Aventine, in General only. But the Spanish Index Expurgat. Madriti, 1612. & p. 449. and at Madrid, 1667. p. 562. Col. 2. sets down particularly, all the passages to be Expunged. Inquisitors have called Aventine, Author damatus, an Author damned by them; and have noted all these places, I have Cited, to be Expunged; (I have the Inquisitors own Book, wherein all the Places in Aventine are to that purpose, Vncis inclusi, and to be left out in all following Editions of Aventine). But the World knows, that they have (with great Impieties and Impudence) corrupted thousands of Authors, putting out whatever makes against their Errors, and putting in, what makes the Author say, what he never meant. But their damnation of what Aventine says, out of the Imperial Constitutions, is no refutation of it; nor are those things untrue because they would have them Expunged: as the Second Commandment is no less Divine, and a part of the Decalogue, because they leave it out. But enough of this; The Case is too plain, to need more proof. But some say, Dubium. That Antichrist is not yet come; nor will come till towards the end of the World. And o Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 3. cap. 3. §. 1. Bellarmin says, That this is the Opinion of Catholics. And some Learned Protestants (as Grotius and Doctor Hammond) say, That Antichrist is both come, and gone, 1600. years ago. For Caius Caligula (Grotius his Antichrist) died p Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. Anno Christi, 43. And Simon Magus (who by Dr. Hammond is supposed to be Antichrist) died q Item Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68 §. 16. 17. Anno Christi, 68 So that both Caius and Simon Magus, (who are their supposed Antichrists) are dead above a thousand six hundred years ago. Whence it will follow, That the Pope neither is, nor ever was, or can be Antichrist. For if either Caius the Emperor, or Simon Magus were then, when they lived, Antichrist, than the Pope was not; (neither of them being Bishop of Rome) and both of them being (so many Ages since) dead; the Pope neither is, nor ever can be Antichrist, unless you will have two great Antichrists; which no man yet ever did, or (with any Reason or Sense) can say. In Answer to this, Sol. 1. I shall say a few things: And, 1. For Bellarmine (who says, That the Catholic Opinion is, That Antichrist is not yet come) I confess he, and all his Party are highly concerned to say so. For if Antichrist be Actually come, than the Pope must be that Man of Sin; He (and none in the World but he) having all the Characters and Marks of Antichrist mentioned in Scripture, so plain, that he who runs may read them. 2. Though Bellarmine say, 'Tis the Catholic Opinion, that Antichrist is not yet come; yet it evidently appears (by the many Authentic Testimonies before Cited, and the Authors were Papists) That Antichrist is come Six hundred years ago, and that the Pope was he, Plerique Omnes Boni, etc. (says the Historian before Cited) Most Good Men believed Rome to be Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist. 3. Bellarmine r Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. Lib. 3. cap. 3. §. Refert. B. Augustinus. Cites one, (and he Bishop of Florence) whose s Concilium Florentinum, Episcopornm 340. Praeside Paschal. 2. contra Fluentinum illius Loci Episcopum, qui Motus Quotidianis Portentis, quae tunc Accidebant, dicebat jam tum natum esse Antichristum. Genebrard. Chron. Lib. 4. ad Annum 1105. p. 355. Opinion was, That Antichrist was then come, (almost t Since that Council wherein he was censured, (Ann. 1105.) are 574 years passed. Six hundred years ago) and was severely rebuked for it by Pope Paschal the Second, in a Synod called by him at Florence. But Bellarmine might have named Five hundred more, (which he wisely concealed, because they were against him; and he neither had, nor could have any just Answer to so many, and so evident Testimonies) I shall only add (besides those before mentioned) one signal Testimony more, to show, That even at Rome itself, it was believed, that Antichrist should come in the end of the Tenth Century. I have seen (and the Book, if any desire it, is still to be u In Bodley's Library in Oxon. Cod. 76, super D. Arts. The MS. was given to St. Peter's Church in Excester, in Edward the Confessor's time, by Leofricke; first Bishop of Exon, as appears by his own hand, in the beginning of that Manuscript. seen) a very Ancient and Excellent MS. Missal, belonging anciently to the Church and City of Rome, (for there are some particular Services in it, to be said in some of the chief Churches in Rome) In this MS. Missal, in the beginning of it, there is a Chronological Table, in which (amongst other things) we are told, That à Christo ad Antichristum sunt Anni. 999. So that it was believed then at Rome, that Antichrist should come in the last year of the tenth Century: and if he did so, (and so it was believed then) Sylvester the Second (a Prodigious x Malis Artibus Pontificatum adeptus est— Ambitione & Diabolicâ dominandi cupiditate Impulsus, Archiepiscopatum Rhemensem, dein Ravennatem, postremò Pontificatum, Adjuvante Diabolo, consecutus. And a little before, Relicto Monasterio. Diabolum secutus, cui se Totum tradiderit, etc. Plat. in vitâ Sylvest. 2. See the Hist. of Magic by Gabr. Nandaeus, c. 19 pag. 255. & Johan. Stella de vitis Pontificum, (opus revisum & correctum sub Julio. 2. as we are told in the last page save one) Basil. 1507. in vita Silvestri. 2. Villain was then Pope, who was a famous (or rather infamous) Magician, and obtained the Popedom by the help of the Devil, as their own Platina, and Johan. Stella tell us. I know their Writers and the Pope's Parasites since Luther, do (but without any just reason) question the truth of what Platina, Stella, and others more ancient have said of this Sylvester; so y In Annotat. ad vit. Silvest. 2. apud Plat. Edit. 1626. Onuphrius, Papirius z In vitâ Silvest. 2. Massonus, and others; who against Truth, and the Faith of all former Historians, endeavour (Aethiopen lavare) to quit Sylvester of all these Crimes, and make him (what he was not) an Excellent Person. 2. For a Grot. in 2. Thess. 2. 4. 5. Grotius, who would have Caius Caligula to be Antichrist, and Dr. Hammond, who thinks, that Simon b Dr. Hammond on the same place, and more largely, contra D. B●ondellum Dissert. 1. Prooemialis. De Antechristo. Magus and his Gnostics better deserved that Name: I confess they were very Learned and Worthy men, but men; and had (as the best have) their Errors. Optimus ille non qui nullis, sed minimis urgetur. Certainly it is as lawful for me (and not more immodestly) to contradict them, as it was for them to contradict all (Ancient and Modern) who ever writ on those Passages in the Second to the Thessalonians, conconcerning Antichrist. I had, and have great respect and reverence for their Persons, and Memory, but more for Truth; and therefore, the Apology of Aristotle (concerning the Errors of his Master Plato) may, and shall be mine. Amicus Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He (whoever he be) who out of Reverence and Respect to any men (how great soever) either embraces, or (when he knows them) conceals their Errors, wants Charity to himself, and others; who possibly (if he had not concealed them) might have avoided those Errors, and gained the knowledge of Truth. In short then, I consider 1. That it is evident in the Apostle, that Antichrist was not come when St. Paul writ that Epistle; for he tells them, c 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. That an Apostasy must first come, and that which hindered the Appearing of Antichrist, must be taken out of the way, (neither of which was done, when he writ that Epistle) Grotius saw this, and therefore (unless he would Contradict Truth and the Apostle) he could not make Caius Antichrist, unless the Epistle were so dated, that it was writ before Caius appeared. For this purpose, he tells us, That Paul writ the Epistle, Anno d Secundum Computum Dionysij vulgat. 38. sed Ann. Christ. 40. secundum verum Computum. Collegi (inquit Grotius) scriptam hanc Epistolam Anno Altero Caiani Principatus. Grotius in Prologo ad 2. ad Thess. Christi, 38. or, 40. in the Second year of Caius Caligula; and (he says) that although Caius was Emperor before St. Paul writ this Epistle, yet his Impiety did not appear till afterwards; He in the beginning of his Reign carrying himself like a good Prince. So that the main Hinge on which Grotius his Opinion turns, is this date of Paul's Epistle: For if it was not writ before Caius appeared, (or the year, 40.) then 'tis evident that Caius cannot be Antichrist, nor Grotius his Hypothesis true. Now that this Epistle was writ in the Second year of Caius Caligula (which Grotius affirms) is so far from being true, that (by the Judgement and Consent of the most Learned Chronologers (Papists and Protestants) it was writ at least Seven or Eight years after Caius was dead. Such, I mean, as the late Lord Primate of Ireland Dr. e Usserius Annal. Part. posteriori. Aetat. Mundi. 7. ad Ann. 54. p. 667. in which year he says, and proves this Epistle to be writ. Usher, f Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 53. §. 1. p. 408. In which year he says this Epistle was writ. Baronius, g Ed. Simpson Chronici Cathol. part. 7. ad Ann. 51. p. 36. hoc Ann. 2. ad Thess. Epist. scriptam putat. Simpson, h Corn. A Lapide in Argumento ad. 2. ad Thess. & in Chronolaxi Actuum Apostolorum ad Ann. Christ. 53. pag. 4. quo Ann. 2. ad Thess. Epist. esse Scriptam asserit. A Lapide, i Calvisius ad Ann. Christ. 50. hoc Ann. 2. ad Thess. scriptain vult. Calvisius, etc. all of which Authors (and many more) say, and prove, that it could not be writ before the year of Christ, 50. and some of them, that it was writ Anno Christi, 53. or, 54. So that the Learned Primate of Ireland (Second to none in Exactness in Chronology) speaking of Grotius his date of this Epistle, says, k Annal. part. posteriori, Aetate Mund. 7. ad Ann. Christ. 54. p. 668. Toto Coelo erravit Grotius, cum hanc Epistolam sub Caio exaratam existimabat. That Grotius erred exceedingly, when he said this Epistle was writ in the time of Caius Caligula. 2. But that it may evidently appear, that St. Paul did not write this Second Epistle to the Thessalonians Anno Christi. 40. (as Grotius says) but at least Ten or Eleven years after; let it be considered, 1. That it is a received Truth, that Paul was Converted Anno Christi. 34. 2. 'Tis certain in the Text, that Paul had been at l 1 Thess. 1. 5. Thess alonica, before he writ his First Epistle to them. The Query then will be, When he came to Thessalonica: For if he had not been there, before the year 40. Grotius his Hypothesis will be evidently untrue. And that he was not, will appear from that Account Scripture gives of him, after his Conversion; Thus, 1. He himself tells us, that immediately after his Conversion, he m Gal. 1. 17. went into Arabia, and returned to Damascus; And then n Gal. 1. 18. after three years, he went to Jerusalem (which was Anno Christ. 37. and o Gal. 2. 1. fourteen years after, he and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem (Anno Christ. 51.) 2. He and Barnabas (sent from Antioch) went to Jerusalem, and were at the p Act. 15. 2. Council of the Apostles there; which Council was held, Anno Christ. 47. says q Chron. Catholici, part. 7. ad Ann. 47. p. 34. Simpson; Ann. 48. as the r Centur. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 9 p. 420. Magdeburgenses think; Ann. 50. says s Theatro Hist. ad dictum Annum. Helvicus; Ann. 51. so t Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. Baronius, u Chronol ad dictum Annum. p. 93. Funccius, x In Chronotaxi, ad Ann 51. A Lapide, y In Chronot sua ad dictum Annum. Bellarmine, etc. Anno Christ. 52. says z Usserius Annal. Part. 2. ad Ann. 52. pag. 660. Archbishop Vsher. Now let the Council be held which of these years you please, it will utterly overthrow Grotius his Hypothesis. For, 3. It is evident in the Text, that Paul at the time of that Synod, had not been at Thessalonica, and so had writ no Epistle to them; seeing he says, a 1. Thess. 1. 5. that he had been with them before he writ his First Epistle. That he had not been at Thessalonica at or before the time of the Council, appears by what Luke says of him after the Synod: who tells us, that he went to b Act. 15. 30. Antioch; then through c Ibid. vers. 41. Syria and Cilicia; then to d Act. 16. 1. 2. Derbe and Lystra, Circumcised Timothy, and took him along with him. Then he went through e Ibid. vers. 6. Phrigia, Galatia, and Mysia, and so to Troas. And (in a Vision) being called to f Ibid. vers. 11. 12. Macedonia, he went to Neapolis and Philippi: and having passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, he came to g Act. 17. 1. Thessalonica (the first time he ever was there; but, as yet, had never writ to them. Thence he went to h Ibid. vers. 10. Berea, i Ibid. vers. 15. Athens, and k Act. 18. 1. Corinth; At Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla (banished from Rome, as all Jews were, by Claudius) came to him: and this was the Ninth year of Claudius, (that is, Anno Christ. 51.) as Josephus, Orosius, Baronius, and all Chronologers testify, as a very Learned l Orosium secuti sunt Omnes deinceps Chronographi; & Baronius, etc. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. Lib. 2. Eusebij. p 37. Historian tells me: And he himself confesses, that Paul came into Greece m Paulus Anno demum Claudij. 9 venit in Graeciam. Ibid. Col. 2. B. Anno Claudij. 9 that is, Anno Christ. 51. And yet Paul had writ no Epistle to the Thessalonians, till Timothy (whom he left at Thessalonica) came to him into n 1. Thessal. 3. 2. 6. vide Hen. Holden Theolog. Parisiensem in Tabula Gestorum Pauli, in Calce N. Test. à se, cum Arnotat. Edit. Paris. 1660. p. 883. 884. ubi haec Omnia firmat. Greece, (as he himself tells us) so that by the Premises, I think it may, and does appear, that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, was not only writ after the Synod of the Apostles, Act. 15. but after Paul had passed through and preached in all those Countries before mentioned, after he had been at Thessalonica, left Timothy there, came into Greece, met Aquila and Priscilla come from Rome, (which was Anno Christ. 51.) and Timothy was returned to him; then (and not till then) he writ his First Epistle to the Thessalonians; and therefore it is impossible Caius Caligula should be Antichrist; who was not come (as o 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. St. Paul tells us) when he writ his Second Epistle, who yet was come and dead, at least Seven or Eight years before he writ the first. 3. And Dr. Hammond confirms what I have said; who grants, that the Second Epistle to the p Dr. Hammond in the Prologue to his Annotat. on the Second to the Thessalonians. Thessalonians was writ Anno Christ. 51. which was at least Seven or Eight years after Caius (Grotius his Antichrist) was q Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 43. §. 1. In which year 'tis certain Caius died. dead and gone. So that (by r Dr. Hammond Annot. p. 718. Col. 2. ex Professo proves that Caius could not be Antichrist. Dr. Hammond's Principles) Gretius his Hypothesis is utterly overthrown, and Caius the Emperor cannot possibly be that Antichrist St. Paul speaks of; who was not come, when he writ that Epistle. 2. And by the same. Principles, Dr. Hammond has evidently Confuted his own Opinion, and Excluded Simon Magus from all possibility of being Antichrist. For that Doctor expressly affirms two things; 1. That the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, was writ, in the year of our blessed Saviour, 51. 2. That then Antichrist (when that Epistle was writ) was not come or revealed: which two things being granted, (as they must, for the Doctor says the one, and the Apostle the other) it evidently follows, that Simon Magus neither was, nor could be that Antichrist the Apostle speaks of in that Epistle. For it is certain, that Simon Magus was come, and his Heresy and Prodigious Impiety discovered many years before. For, 1. It is certain, that when Peter and John were sent to s Act. 8. Samaria, they met Simon Magus there; who though he had been t Ibid. vers. 13. baptised by Philip the Deacon, was no better for it, and Impiously offered u Vers. 18. Money to purchase Power to give the Holy Ghost; Peter (cursing both x They Money perish with thee, vers. 20. him and his Money) told him, That he was in the y Ibid. vers. 23. Gall of Bitterness, and the Bond of Iniquity. 2. Now this was done, in the year of our blessed Saviour z Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 35. §. 9 Ita etiam Hen. Holden, Dr. Theol. in Tabulâ Gestorum Petri, in Calce N. Test. cum Annot. suis Edit. Paris. 1660. p. 881. 35. which was Fifteen or Sixteen years before, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was writ, or Antichrist come and revealed, (according to Dr. Hammond's own Computation) And therefore it is impossible that Simon Magus should be that Antichrist, the Apostle speaks of. For that from the year. 35. till after. 51. (for Sixteen years together) he should not discover, but conceal his Impiety, (who was a Magician and an Impious Villain before, and then declared by Peter, to be in the Gall of Bitterness, and Bond of Iniquity) is utterly Incredible. Sure I am, that a Magus cum inde recessissent Apostoli, contra eos obniti, corúmque Doctrinae adversari non dubitarct: & qui olim Samaritas dementarat, Judaeos iisdem Artibus aggressus, quos Apostolis Insensos' videat, se esse Dei Filium, illis Suadere Conatus est. Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 35. §. 20. Baronius and b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Itáque hinc Simon Magus aemulatione percitus, contra Apostolos, corúmque Doctrinam se Armavit. Nicephor. Histor. Eccles. Lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 141. Nicephorus, (to name no more) tell us, That after the Apostles were gone from Samaria, Simon Magus set himself against our blessed Saviour and his Apostles, (whom he thought only better Conjurers than himself) and by his Magic and Diabolical Arts seduced many Samaritans and Jews, and made them believe that he was the Son of God, etc. So far was he from Concealing his Impiety, till after the writing of that Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, and the year. 51. That by all the Magic and Malice he had, he publicly seduced both Jews and Gentiles, long before that time; and so could not be that great Antichrist St. Paul speaks of. 2. But I neither shall, nor need bring any further proof of this Particular, (that Simon Magus had before the year. 51. discovered himself to be an Adversary to our blessed Saviour, and his Apostles and Christianity) because Dr. Hammond himself (though in Contradiction and Evident Confutation of his own Hypothesis) doth both Confess, and ex professo, prove it. For he tells us— c Dr. Hammond in his Annotat. on 2. Thess. 2. 3. Lit. E. p. 719. Col. 1. That after he was baptised, Act. 8. he went on in his way of deceiving the People by Sorceries, as appears, by his desiring to buy the Power of working Miracles from the Apostles, and being denied that, Soon after he set up, and opposed himself against Christ, and accordingly is hear called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Adversary, etc. where Dr. Hammond tells us, That soon after Simon' s being with the Apostles at Samaria, he discovered himself to be an Adversary to Christ, our blessed Saviour. Now 'tis certain, that his meeting the Apostles at Samaria, was Anno d Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 35. §. 9 Christ. 35. and so (by Dr. Hammond's Computation, who says that Epistle (the Second to the Thessalonians) was writ Ann. 51. that is, Fifteen or Sixteen years before Antichrist came, and therefore it is impossible Simon should be that Antichrist Paul speaks of, who was not come when he writ that Epistle, unless you will say, (which is highly irrational) that Antichrist came Fifteen or Sixteen years, before St. Paul says he was to come. 3. Nor is this all; for the same Learned and Reverend e Dr. Hammond Annotat. on 2. Thess. 2. 3. literad. p. 718. Col. 2. Doctor tells us, out of f Eusebius Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. 2. cap. 12. In the Latin; but, 13. in the Greek. Eusebius; That Simon Magus came to Rome, in the Beginning of Claudius his Reign; where he did such Miracles by the help of the Devil, that he was taken for a God, and had a Statue erected for him. And almost all the Samiritans, and some of other Nations confessed him to be the first and principal God, and worshipped him with all sorts of Sacrifices, etc. These are his words; by which it is Evident (in the Doctor's Opinion) that Simon was at Rome, In the Beginning of Claudius his Reign, and sufficiently revealed to be an Adversary to our blessed Saviour and the Gospel, and prevailed so far, that (as g Jerome De Scriptor. Eccles. in Petro. Jerome tells us) Peter went to Rome, Anno Claudij. 2. (which was Anno Christ. 44.) to oppose Simon and defend the Gospel. Now all know, that Claudius began his Reign, Anno h Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. Christ. 43. which was at least Seven or Eight years (in Dr. Hammond's own Computation) before the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was writ, or Antichrist come; And therefore Simon Magus could not be that Antichrist Paul speaks of, who was not come or revealed, when that Epistle was writ; whereas Simon was both come and revealed some years before. 3. Many things are said of Antichrist in Scripture, which cannot be applied to Caius, or Simon Magus, with any truth or probability. 1. Antichrist was (by usurpation) to have a Supreme Power and Authority, (as our i Vide Hen Holden. Dr. parisians. in cap. 13. vers. 1. Apoc. vidi Bestiam; i. e. Antichristum, habentem Cap. 7. i. e. Authoritatem Supremam, & Cornua. 10. id est, potestatem Maximam. Vid. Grotium in dictum locum. Adversaries confess) and should make war with, and persecute the Servants of Christ, and (as to killing the Body) overcome k Apoc. 13. 7. them, till he was drunk l Apoc. 17. 6. ●ith the Blood of the Saints. This neither Caius nor Simon Magus did. Caius (though he had a Supreme Power) was no persecutor of Christians; much less so far, as to be drunk with their Blood. Nero m Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Nero Rom. Imperat. primus Hostis, etc. Ita Tertullianus— Neronem primum in sectam nostram gladio ferocisse. Euseb. in Chronico ad Ann. Christ. 70. was the first Roman Emperor who persecuted Christians; three and twenty years after Caius n Caius died Anno Christ. 43. and the first Persecution under Nero was Anno Christ. 66. Baronius Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. & add Ann. 66. §. 9 was deed: And as for Simon Magus (a despicable and beggarly Magician) he never had any Power of the Sword, nor ever did, or could make War against the Christians, much less overcome them, and be drunk with their blood. 2. But (that I may not trouble the Reader, nor myself, with any more Particulars) I say (and think it an Evident Truth) that there is nothing said in Scripture, or in the Works of the Fathers, or in any Writings of Ecclesiastical Authors, for Sixteen hundred years after our blessed Saviour, from which it may but probably be concluded, that Caius the Emperor, or Simon Magus, was that great Antichrist mentioned by St. Paul and St. John; But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the contrary, it does appear both by Scripture and the Consent of Christendom, for Sixteen hundred years, that neither of the two was, or possibly could be that great Antichrist. For, 1. It does appear (by what is above said) that what St. Paul says of Antichrist, 2. Thess. 2. cannot be meant of Caius or Simon Magus; because St. Paul in that place says expressly, that when he writ that Epistle, the Man of Sin, and Son of Perdition was not come and revealed. And yet that Epistle being writ (as Dr. Hammond Confesseth) Anno Christ. 51. Caius was both come and dead at least Seven or Eight years before the year. 51. and therefore could not possibly be that Antichrist who was not come till after it. And for Simon Magus, he was (as Dr. Hammond grants and proves) both come and revealed as many years (as Caius was dead) before St. Paul writ that Epistle; and consequently before Antichrist was come or revealed. And so he (who was come and revealed) could not be that Antichrist, who (as St. Paul assures us) was not then come or revealed. 2. St. Paul elsewhere gives us some Characters of Antichrist, and his Adherents; as o 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. 3. men giving heed to seducing spirits, speaking lies in Hypocrisy, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God had created to be received, etc. Where I observe, 1. That in the former place, (but now p 2. Thess. 2. 3. spoken of) he told the Thessalonians, that an Apostasy must precede the coming of Antichrist; and he tells us, what kind of Apostasy it must be; q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Tim. 4. 1. A departing or falling from the Faith. 2. That these two Ma●ks of Antichrist (forbidding marriage, and commanding to abstain from meats) are such as none but the Pope can pretend to; who so severely forbids the marriage of the Clergy (Secular and Regular) that it is a r Gravius peccat Sacerdos, si matrimonium contrahat, quam si fornicetur, & domi concubinam foveat. Vid. Costeri Enchiridion, cap. 15. Propos. 9 p. 459. Edit. 1587. greater sin (with them) for a Priest to marry (though God Approves and Commands it) in such as otherwise have not the gift of Continence) than it is for him to commit Fornication, and keep a Concubine. Nay they say, that a Priest's marriage is s Haereticorum Ministri Sacerdotium Incestis Nuptiis foedant; quae non sunt Nuptiae, sed Pejora Omnibus Adulteriis Sacrilegia. Idem ibid. p. 460. Incestuous, Sacrilegious, and worse than All Adulteries. Nor is this Abominable Doctrine, the Opinion of any private Doctor only, but is approved as Orthodox, by t See the Approbations of Coster's Enchiridion in the Beginning. Edit. Colon. 1587. & Edit. Turnoni, 1591. Where we have, 1. The Approbation of the University of Mentz; and they say, they had read it diligently; Dignissimúmque judicasse quod in publicum prodiret, manibúsque Studiosorum Assiduè tereretur. 2. The University of Colon: Approbat, Omnibúsque veritatis amantibus Plurimum Profuturum testatur. 3. The University of Lovan:— Dignum judicat, quod adversus pestilentes nostri Temporis Sectariorum errores, Catholicorum manibus teratur. 4. The Divines of Triers:— Enchiridion Costeri, quia & eruditè & Orthodoxè Per Omnia Scriptum, Summa Cum Vtilitate legi possit. several Universities. So that in both these [forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats] what God in his Word expressly approves, the Pope condemns; and what God Commands, he Impiously Contradicts; and so evidently proves himself to be, That Man of Sin, who Exalts himself above all that is called God. 3. What the Apostle in this Epistle speaks of the Apostasy and Antichrist which followed, is not of things past or then in being, but of things to come afterwards. For he expressly says— u 1. Tim. 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That in the Latter Times some should depart from the Faith, etc. Neithe Apostasy nor Antichrist were then come; but afterwards, in the Latter times, should come. 4. Now he writ this Epistle, as some x So Ed. Simpson Chronol. Cathol. Part. 7. ad Ann. 54. p. 37. think, Anno Christ. 54. or as some y So Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 57 Num. 189. so Ger. Mercator Atlant. Minoris Arnhemij, 1621. p. 676. In Itinerario Pauli. And so Corn. A Lapide in Chronotaxi, ad Ann. 57 others (and they far more) Ann. 57 or (as the most Exact z Jac. Usserius Armachanus Annal. Part. 2. ad Ann. Christ. 65. pag. 688. Chronologer) Anno Christ. 65. Now let my Adversaries choose which Computation they will, for the date and time of writing this Epistle; let it be (if they please) the year 54. which is furthest from Truth, yet most favourable to their Opinion. I say, admit that this first Epistle to Timothy was writ by St. Paul, Ann. 54. yet it will appear by the Premises, 1. That Antichrist was not then come, nor revealed, because St. Paul says so. 2. And therefore, that neither Caius nor Simon Magus could be Antichrist; Because Caius was both come and dead ten or eleven years before; and Simon Magus was come, and his Heresy and Impieties revealed (as Dr. Hammond grants and proves) long before that time. 3. After a In his Second to Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. etc. which Epistle was writ, says Baronius, Ann. Christ. 59 Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 59 num. 19 And Archbishop Usher says it was writ Anno Christ. 66. Annal. Part. 2. ad dictum Annum, p. 691. this, St. Paul speaks of this Apostasy from the Faith; but still as of a thing not yet come, but to come in future b 2. Tim. 3. 1. times; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the last times; so that if St. Paul say true, that great Apostasy (which was to c 2. Thess. 2. 3. preceded the coming of Antichrist, was not come when he writ that Epistle, which was (as the Learned Primate of Ireland Dr. Usher thinks) Anno Christ. 66. or (as Baronius) Anno Christ. 59 And therefore it is impossible that Caius or Simon Magus should be Antichrist, both come, and their Villainies revealed long before. 4. St. Peter writ his Second Epistle a little before his Martyrdom; for so he himself says— d 2. Pet. 1. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, velox est deposito tabernaculi mei. Versio Vulgata. Knowing that I must shortly put off this Tabernacle, (or that my death hastens) now an Exact e Jac. Usserius Armach. Annal. Part. 2. ad Ann. 67. p. 691. vide Lyranum in Glossa ad Prologum Hieron●m. in. 7. Epist. Canonicas, & Hie●onymum, De Illust. Eccles. Doctoribus, c. 1. Chronologer tells me (and proves) that he died Ann. 67. and writ this f Idem Usserius ibid. p. 691. Epistle Anno Christ. 66. I do know that some g Simpson Chron. Cathol. Part. 7. ad Ann. 67. p. 44. say he writ it Anno Christ. 67. and Baronius says h Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 1. he writ it Anno 69. But, 2. which of those years soever it was writ in, the great Apostasy (which preceded the coming of Antichrist) was future and afterwards to come. So he himself tell us, i 2. Pet. 2. 1. But there were false Prophets among the People, even so (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) there shall be false Teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies, etc. These false Prophets and the great Apostasy were (when he writ that Epistle) future and to come. And therefore 'tis certain Caius or Simon Magus could not be Antichrist. For if it was writ in the year. 66. Caius was come, dead and gone three and twenty years before; and Simon Magus his Heresies and Impieties publicly revealed and known, as is afore proved, even by Dr. Hammond himself. 5. In the Revelation, St. John does more fully describe Antichrist; That k Rev. 13. 1. he rose out of the Sea, with seven Heads and ten Horns, and on his Horns ten Crowns, etc. That he should make War l Rev. 17. 6. with the Saints, overcome them, and be drunk with their blood; That his Seat should be m Rev. 17. 18. Rome, mystically, or n Rev. 11. 8. spiritually called Egypt, Sodom, and Babylon; That ten o Rev. 17. 12. 13. Kings should give their Power to that Beast, aid and assist him in his Tyranny and Impieties; That those Kings should at last forsake him, and utterly destroy p Ibidem vers. 16. 17. him, and burn and utterly destroy q Rev. 18. 2. 21. Babylon (or Rome) his Seat, never to be inhabited any more: Which is such a Description of the great Antichrist, as never can (with any truth or probability) be attributed to Caius Caligula or Simon Magus. 2. But that which here, I more particularly press, is, 1. That St. John in the Revelation speaks of Antichrist, (not as past, or present, but) as future, and yet to come, when he writ that Book (as is evident in the Text, and is, and must be confessed. 2. And it is as certain, and generally agreed upon, that he writ the Revelation in r Rev. 1. 9 Patmos (whither he was banished by s Johannes Apocalypsin viderat, pene sub nostro seculo, ad Finem Domitiani Imperij. Irenaeus advers. Haeres. l. 5. p. 259. Col. 2. Edit. Erasmi. So Eusebius Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 23. where he citys Clemens Alexandr. for the same purpose. So the Acta Martyrij Timothei, apud Photium Biblioth. Cod. 254. p. 1402. 1403. So Orosius Hist. l. 7. c. 10. 11. p. 598. And so Hierom, de Doct. Ecclesiae Illust. c. 9 ad Ann. 97. Domitian) Anno t Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 97. §. 1. Christ. 97. The Premises being granted, (as they ought and must; being built upon better Authority, than any is, or can be for the contrary, 1. That Antichrist was future and to come, when St. John writ the Revelation. 2. That he writ it Anno Christ. 97. It will evidently follow, that it was impossible, that either Caius the Emperor, or Simon Magus, should be that great u The Revelation was writ Anno Christ. 97. Caius died Ann. 43. (Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad An. 43. §. 1.) and so was dead 54. years before Antichrist came. Antichrist. Caius being dead four and fifty, and Simon x Simon Magus died Anno Christ. 68 (Ita Baronius, ex Eusebio, Epiphanio, etc. Tom. Annal. 1. ad Annum Christ. 68 §. 17. 18.) which was. 29. years before the Revelation was writ, or Antichrist come, if St. John says true. Magus nine and twenty years before St. John writ the Revelation, and so before Antichrist was to come. I know that the Reverend Dr. y Dr. Hammond in his Premonition to his Annotat. on the Revelation, p. 906. & 907. Hammond endeavours to prove, that John was in Patmos, and writ the Revelation there in the time, and about the ninth year of Claudius, which was Anno Christ. 51. which was six and forty years before the time I have assigned for St. John's being in Patmos, and writing the Revelation. Now for his Opinion, Dr. Hammond neither has, nor pretends to any Testimony of Antiquity, save only that of z Epiphanius Haeresi. 51. § 12. & 33. Epiphanius; who in that particular is miserably mistaken, (as he is in many more) as is a Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum. 99 §. 2. Dionysius Petavius in Notis ad Epiphan. Haeresin. 51. Num. 33. & Baronius Ibid. ad An. 93. §. 9 D. Blondellus de Sybillis, lib. 2. cap. 2. Possevin. in Apparat. verbo Johannes Apostolus, p. 814. &c confessed and proved by Learned men, and they such, who have a due Reverence for the Fathers, and particularly for Epiphanius. 2. That St. John should be banished, and write the Revelation under Claudius, (which only Dr. Hammond and c Grot. in Apocalyp. 1. 9 Grotius say (out of Epiphanius) to give some Colour to their new and contradictory Hypothesis) is evidently against the concurrent Sense and Testimonies of Ancient and Modern Authors. For besides Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Acta Martyrij Timothei apud Photium, Jerome, and Orosius (before Cited) Johan. d Joh. Malela in Domitiano MS. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxon. pag. 161. alias 171. Malela Antiochenus, e Haimo Hist. lib. 3. cap. 15. pag. 55. Haymo, f Arethas in Apocalyps. cap. 1. 9 Arethas, Ado g Ado Viennensis in Chronico, ad Annum Christ. 84. apod Laurent. de la Bar, p. 493. Viennensis (and many more) constantly say; That John was banished into Patmos, not by Claudius, but by Domitian, and writ his Revelation there. 3. But I shall not go about any further proof of this; For Dr. Hammond has saved me the Labour, and confessed it; For it is certain from the Text, that Antipas had suffered Martyrdom, before John writ the Revelation; John himself telling us h Rev. 2. 13. so, Thou hast not denied my faith, when Antipas my faithful Martyr was slain among you. So that 'tis Evident, Antipas had suffered Martyrdom before John writ his Revelation. Now Antipas suffered, and was slain by Domitian, in the Second Persecution of the Christians, which was Anno Domitiani. 10. Christi. 92. So the Old Roman i Martyrologium Romanum ad diem Apr. 11. Martyrology, and k Baronies Annot. ad Martyrologium Roman. ad dictum diem April. 11. & Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 93. §. 9 Baronius assures us; and Dr. l Dr. Hammond in Annotat. ad Apocal. 2. 13. lit. 1. pag. 927. Col. 1. Hammond confesses it, That Antipas suffered Martyrdom under Domitian. Whence it evidently follows, That St. John speaking of Antipas his Martyrdom, as a thing past when he writ his Revelation (and that in Domitian's time) he could not write it in Claudius his time, who was dead m Moritur Claudius Ann. Christ. 55. seu 56. Baronius ad An. Christ. 56. §. 42. & Domitianus Imperium adiit Anno Christ. 84. Baronius ad dictum Annum. §. 1. And hence it appears, that Claudius died either 84 55 29 Twenty nine, or, 84 56 28 Twenty eight years before Domitian came to the Empire. eight or nine and twenty years before Domitian came to the Empire. So that Antipas being put to death, in Domitian's time, (as Dr. Hammond affirms) and St. John in the Revelation, mentioning his Martyrdom as a thing past, when he writ; 'tis Evident, that he writ that Book after the death of Antipas, and so in, or after Domitian's time, and not in the time of Claudius. 6. St. John in his first n 1 Joh. 2. 18. & cap. 4. 3. Epistle, speaks of Antichrist as then to come, when he writ that Epistle. It is the last time (saith he) and as you have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists, etc. Here two things (I conceive) are Evident; 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nunc, when St. John writ this Epistle; there were many Antichrists; that is, many o Nunc multisunt Antichristi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui unum illum praecedunt, it érque illi parant: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecumenius in 1. Johan. Epistol.. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 573. C. D. So Bede, Estius, etc. in. 1. Joh. 2. 18. 80 Gagnaeius. Ibid. etc. false Prophets and Heretics forerunners of Antichrist, who made way for him. 2. And that the great Antichrist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem Ibidem. Nunc multi sunt Antichristi; qui Omnes Maximo illi Antichristo In Finem Secul; Vanturo, qu●si suo Capiti, Testimonium creddunt. Beda in. 1. Joh. 2. 18. come, when St. John writ. This Oecumenius, Bede, Estius, and generally all Commentators (Ancient and Modern, Protestant and Papist) which I have yet met with, constantly affirm. 'Tis true, that when St. John says q 1. Joh. 4. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. afterward, that Antichrist was Now in the World already: they truly Explain it, that the meaning is, That he is now in the World; Not r Jam in Mund, est; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Oecumenius Ibidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 587. D. personally, but in respect to his Forerunners (false Prophets and Heretics) who make way for him. I take it then for a certain truth, that when St. John writ this Epistle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Antichrist, or (as Venerable Bede calls him) Maximus ille Antichristus, was future, and to come. And (which is something strange) Grotius confirms what I have said (which makes much for mine, but little for his purpose) For, 1. He grants, that this Text (1. Joh. 2. 18.) speaks of s Vide Grotium in 1. Joh. 2. 18. Antichrist, as future, and to come. For though the word here (and cap. 4. vers. 3.) be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in the Present Tense, yet Grotius confesses, that it must be taken in the t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, est sono praesens, sensu futurum. Grotius in 1. Joh. 4. 3. future; Veniet Antichristus, Antichrist will come. 2. He says, that amongst those many Antichrists St. John here speaks of, there shall be one u Inter Antichristos, unus futurus erat Caeteris Eminentior, ad quem Locus. 1. Joh. 4. 3. pertinet, is vero non alius fuit quam Barchochebas. Grotius in 1. Joh. 2. 18. more Eminent, which he says was Barcochebas, who appeared not (he says) till the Emperor Adrian' s time (which was x Apparuit Barchochebas Ann. Christ. 130. Adrian. 11. apud Baronium, Annal. Tom. 2. ad Ann. 130. Num. 4. 5. long after St. John writ this Epistle). And he further says, (in Confirmation of what is aforesaid) y Grotius in. 1. Joh. 4. 3. Talis Prophetia (he speaks of the Propheties of false Christ's, and Prophets) viam struit Magno Ipsi & Eximio Antichristo. That the false Christ's, Heretics, and false Prophets, (which John calls Antichrists) do make way for that Great and Eminent Antichrist. I take it then for certain, (and confessed by Grotius) that the great Antichrist was not come, when St. John writ this Epistle. The next thing to be inquired after, is, When this Epistle was writ; for if it was writ after Caius Caligula, and Simon Magus were dead, than it will be undeniably Evident, that neither of them could be that great Antichrist, of whom St. John speaks; who (when he writ this Epistle) was future, and to come. Now here it is to be considered, 1. That 'tis a common and received Opinion amongst Learned men, that St. John writ this Epistle Anno z So Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christ. 99 Num. 7. Bart. Gavantus Comment. in Rubricas, Breviarij Rom. Sect. 5. p. 84. Christ. 99 or at least after a Johannes vero nullum post Evangelium & Epistolas Scripsit; Scilicet post mortem Domitiani; quia reversus de Exilio invenit Ecclesiam per Haereticos perturbatam, & tunc, Scripsit Evangelium & Epistolas contra Ipsos. Lyranus in Glossa ad Prologum Hieronymi in septem Epist. Canonicas. the death of Domitian (which was Anno Christ. 95.) So Baronius, Gavantus, Lyranus, (in the places cited) and many others. Now if this Computation be true, (as in the Opinion of very many Learned men it is) than Grotius his Antichrist (the Emperor Caius Caligula, who died Ann Christ. 42. was dead seven and fifty years before John writ this Epistle; and therefore seven and fifty years before Antichrist came; for St. John says, he was future, and to come when he writ. And for Simon Magus (Dr. Hammond's Antichrist) it is b Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68 Num. 16. 17. etc. certain, he died Anno Christi 68 and so One and thirty years before Antichrist was come. 2. But be this as it will; I shall not (though I might) stand upon it; but take the Computation which both c ●uto Scriptam hanc Epistolam non multo ante Excidium Hierosolymorum. Grotius Annot. in. 1. Johannis, In Principio. Grotius, and Dr. d This Epistle seems to have been writ A Little Before the great destruction which befell the Jews, etc. Dr. Hammond in his Prologue to his Annot. on the first of John. Hammond approve; for they both agree in this, that St. John writ this Epistle a little before the destruction of Jerusalem; and (in the places cited) endeavour to prove it. 2. This being granted; it is further certain, that the Excidium Hierosolymorum, was in the second year of Vespasian; that is, Anno Christ. 72. That this is so, e Josephus de Bello Judaico, lib. 7. cap. 47. p. 969. Josephus, f Eusebius in Chronico ad Ann. 72. Eusebius, g Usserius Annal. part. 2. p. 698. Jac. Vsserius Armachanus, h Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 72. Num. 20. Baronius, etc. assure us. 3. And hence it evidently follows, That both Caius Caligula and Simon Magus were dead before the year. 72. when Antichrist (as St. John assures us) was not come. Caligula being dead thirty, and Simon Magus four years before that time. By the Premises (I believe) it may, and does appear, that in Scripture, Antichrist (the great Antichrist) is never spoken of, but as future and to come: and therefore it is impossible by Scripture, (and there is no other Medium can do it) to prove that Antichrist was come, in any part of that time in which Scripture was writ. 2. And as the Apostles believed and writ, that in their times, (even in St. John's, who lived i Hierom. de Illust. Eccles. Doctoribus, c. ●. says St. John lived. 68 years after the Passion of our blessed Saviour, to which if we add. 34. (the year of the Passion) it will appear that St. Joh. died Anno Christ. 102. Trajan. 2. vel. 3. longest) Antichrist was not come. So the Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Writers after them, for about a thousand years generally, (if not universally) speak of Antichrist as still future, and (in their several times) to come. I know that some k Vid. Baronium Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 70. Num. 3. 4. ex Augustino, De Civitate Dei, lib. 20. c. 19 where he says, That by those words (2. Thess. 2. 7.) Mysterium Iniquitatis jam operatur; Neronem voluerit Intelligi: cujus jam facta velut Antichristi videbantur. So Athanasius tells us, that Constantius (the Arian Emperor) acted all those things, which are spoken of Antichrist, but was not that Antichrist spoken of in Scripture, (for he was future, and to come, says Athanasius) Quid Igitur Hic (Constantius) Quod Antichristi Est, Omisit? aut Quid Ille ubi Venerit, plus committere poterit? Athanasius Epistola ad Solit. vitam Agentes. p. 236. anciently (and wildly) thought, that Nero was Antichrist, and as much might be said for him, as Grotius has said for Caligula) but they said, that he was to rise again, and come Sub Seculi Finem, and Act as Antichrist. But I never yet read or heard of any, besides the Learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond, who (in Sixteen hundred years after our blessed Saviour) ever seriously affirmed, that Caligula, or Simon Magus was Antichrist: The two Learned Persons (before mentioned) are the first, and they Contradict each other, themselves, the received Opinion of the Christian World, and gratify Rome; whilst they endeavour (which neither they, nor any body else can do) to free the Pope from being the great Antichrist. For if either Caligula, or Simon Magus (who have been dead this Sixteen hundred years and more) be that Antichrist, than (unless you will have two or three such Antichrists) The Pope is secure, and (wronged by those who call him so) miscalled Antichrist. Sed salva res est, there is little danger from such extravagant Opinions; they will neither be beneficial to the Pope, nor prejudicial to his Adversaries, to believe and prove him to be Antichrist. That Caligula, or Simon Magus, was that great Antichrist, none, or (if any) very few believe. The Reformed Churches say, that the Pope is Antichrist, and have great reason to say so: many of the Propheties, and Predictions of him in Scripture, being now actually fulfilled, and so the truth of the Prediction made Evident, and easy to be understood by the Event. On the other side the Popish Party say, that Antichrist is not yet come; and so neither Party does believe Caligula or Simon Magus to be Antichrist; because it is a Novel and Apocryphal Hypothesis (take which of the two you will) without truth or probability. Sure I am, that the Reasons those two Learned Persons bring for their Opinions, are evidently Illogical and Inconsequent. For, 1. If Grotius his proofs for Caligula, be cogent and concluding, than Dr. Hammonds for Simon Magus are Inconsequent; and if Dr. Hammonds be Good, those of Grotius are not. Whence 'tis evident, that all the proofs of the one Party, (at least) are Impertinent, and to prove his Position Insufficient. 2. But indeed all the Reasons they both bring, to prove their several Positions, are (as I said) Illogical and Inconsequent. That this may not be gratis dictum; I say, 1. That both their proofs are built and rely upon the same ground; they take (not all, but) only some of the Characters and Marks of Antichrist which the Apostles give him in Scripture. 2. They endeavour to accommodate and apply those Marks to Caligula, or Simon Magus; and think they make it appear, that such Marks are really found in Caligula or Simon Magus. 3. And hence they Argue and Conclude thus— Such Marks of Antichrist are to be found in Caligula, or Simon Magus: Ergo, They (the one of them at least) are that Antichrist: Or (which is all one) Magus and Antichrist agree in some things; Ergo, They are the same. 4. Now such Arguing is miserably Illogical and Inconsequent; and no better than this— A Duck and a Goose do agree in many things (each of them has one Head, two Legs, two Eyes, a flat Bill or Beak, and sometimes Feathers of the same colour, etc.) Ergo, A Duck is a Goose. Or thus— Sempronius and Titius agree in many things (they have the same Father and Mother, Romans both, born in the same Hour, (being Twins) bread at the same School, both good Scholars, etc. Ergo, Titius is Sempronius. The Reasons those Learned men bring to prove their several Antichrists, prove no more than those I have given; that is, just nothing. 5. The reason of such Inconsequence, in such Arguments, is this; Young Sophisters in the University can tell you, out l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Porphyrius in Isagog. c. 2. §. 38▪ of Porphyry, Aristotle, and their Scholiasts) That every individual person or thing, is made up, and does consist of such Properties and Qualifications, Quorum Collectio nunquam in aliquo alio Eadem esse potest. It is certain, that a Collection of all the Properties and Qualifications which Constitute any Individual person, cannot be in any other person whomsoever; though it is as certain, that some of them may. Now had Grotius or Dr. Hammond taken a Collection of all the Characters and Marks of Antichrist, given him in Scripture, and made it appear, that all those Marks had been really found in Caius Caligula, or Simon Magus, their proofs had been Logical and Consequent, (This they neither did, nor could) But their accommodation and applying only some of the Marks of the Beast, to Caius or Magus, and thence Concluding that they were Antichrist, such deductions are evidently Illogical and Inconsequent. And so much the more Inconsequent, because even those marks of Antichrist which they endeavour to prove to be really in Caligula or Simon Magus, never were in either of them, in that sense and extent, in which they were (and since his coming are) to be found in Antichrist. If any man censure me (as may be some will) for contradicting those two Learned Persons (Dr. Hammond and Grotius) all the Apology I shall make, (for it needs none) is only this; It is as lawful for me to contradict them, in defence of evident truth; as it was for them to contradict each other, and the Christian World, in defence of a manifest Error. 9 Observ. 9 The Pope in this his Impious and Lying Bull, declares the Queen to be (what he really was, and she was not) a m Elizabetha praetensa Angliae Regina, Flagitiorum Serua. Bulla. §. 1. Slave of Sin, a n Declaramus praedictam Elizabeth Haereticam & Hereticorum fautricem. §. 3. Heretic, and a favourer of Heretics: And then (with a prodigious Antichristian Pride and Impiety) pronounceth his Penal Sentence against her, of Damnation, Excommunication, Deprivation, etc. And here it is further to be observed; 1. What this Papal Power is (and whence he has it) which he pretends to enable and authorise him, to sit Judge and pass such Damnatory Sentences against Princes and Supreme Powers, for Heresy. 2. What that Heresy is, and who the Heretics, who (by the Pope) are so severely damned for it. 3. What those punishments are, which they pretend they may, and actually do Inflict upon such Heretics. 1. For the first, Pius the Fifth, in the beginning of this Impious Bull, tells us; that this Papal Power is Divine. For he says— o Christus Soli Petro, Petríque Successori, Romano Pontifici, in Potestatis, plenitudine Ecclesiam tradidit Gubernandam. Hunc Vnum super Omnes Gentes & Omnia Regna Principem Constituit, qui Evellat, Destruat, Dissipet, Disperdat, etc. In dictae Bullae Principio. That our blessed Saviour did Constitute Peter and his Successors, the Popes of Rome, Princes over all Nations, and Kingdoms, with a Plenitude of Power, to Pull up, Dissipate, and Destroy, etc. Thus he, and so others, in their Damnatory Bulls; but with some variation; and (if it were possible) in such words as are more Extravagant, Erroneous, and Impious. I shall only Instance in one; Paulus the Fourth, who was next Predecessor (save one) to Pius the Fifth, who in his Bull p Hereticorum, Schismaticorum corúmque f●●torum poenae. That's the Title of the Bull. against Heretics and Schismatics and their Favourers, expresses his power to damn them, thus— q Romanus Portifex, qui Dei & Domini nostri Jesu Christi Vices-gerit in terris, & super Gentes & Regna, plenitudinem Potestatis, obtinet, Omnésque Judicat, à Nemine in Seculo Judicandus, etc. In Bulla. 19 Paul. 4. Bullarij Rom. Tom. 1. p. 602. Edit. Rom. 1638. The Pope of Rome here in Earth is Vicar, or Viceroy of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, and has Plenitude of Power over Nations and Kingdoms, and is Judge of All men, and not to be Judged by any Man in the World. And that you may see, that they are not ashamed to pretend to, and usurp such an Antichristian Power (for none but r 2. Thess. 2. 4. Antichrist ever pretended to it). This Bull of Pope Paul the Fourth is referred into the s Corpus Juris Canonici per Pet. Matthaeum, Francofurti, Ann. 1599 Cap. Cum ex Apostolatûs, 9 De Haeret. & Schismat. in 7. Body of their Canon Law (almost One hundred years ago) dedicated to Cardinal Cajetan; and lately published t In Corpore Juris Canonici, Lugduni, 1661. again, as a part of their Law, without any Contradiction (and therefore with the approbation) of the Pope or his Party. That this their Opinion of the Papal Power is far from truth or probability, I have endeavoured to prove before; & sic transeat cum caeteris erroribus. 2. As to the second point; What is Heresy, and who is the Heretic, who is to be persecuted with such fearful Damnation's and Excommunications? I say in short, 1. That it is agreed amongst their u Haeresis est Error in Fide, Cum Pertinaciâ. Card. Tolet. Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 1. cap. 29. §. 2. Casuists, and x Gratian. Can. dixit Apostolos, 29. & Can. Qui in Ecclesiâ. 3. Caus. 24. Quaest 3. & Glossa 〈◊〉. Canonists, That Heresy is an Error against that Faith which they ought to believe, joined with pertinacy; or it is a pertinacious Error in Points of Faith; and he who so holds such an Opinion, is an Heretic. 2. And he is pertinacious, they say, who holds such an y Est autem pertinacia, quando homo scit, aut scire debuit & potuit, aliquid esse contrarium Scripturae, aut ab Ecclesiâ damnatum. Cajetan. ibidem. Opinion, which he does, or might, and aught to know to be against Scripture, or the Church. By the way; I desire to be informed, how it is possible for their Lay-people and unlearned, to know (with any certainty, or assurance) what Truths are approved, or Errors damned in Scripture; when they are z Vide Regulas, Indici librorum Prohibit. ex Decreto Conc. Trid. Confecto, praefixas; Reg. 4. & Observat. Regulae dictae annexam. 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 Controversy between Protestants and Papists, in any Vulgar Tongue, are a Libri Vulgari Idiomate, de Controversy i●ter Catholicos & Haereticos nostri Temporis differences, non passim permittantur; Sed Idem de ipsis servetur, quod de Bibliìs vulgari linguâ scriptis, Statutum est. Ibid. Reg. 6. 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 Heresy; yet 'tis not really by them meant. For (by their received 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 Heretic. For thus Cardinal Tolet tells us— b Vnde multi Rustici, habentes errores contra Articulos fidei, excusantur ab Haeresi; Quia Ignorant Articulos, & sunt Parati Obedire Ecclesiae, etc. Card. Toletus Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 4. cap. 3. §. 7. Many Rustics or Country Clowns, having Errors against the Articles of Faith, are excused from Heresy; because they are Ignorant of those Articles, and are ready to Obey The Church. And a little before— c Siquis arret in his, quae tenebatur scire, tamen sine pertinaciâ, Quia nescit esse contra Ecclesiam, paratúsque est credere, quod tenet Ecclesia, non est Haereticus. Idem ibidem. 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 Heretic. So that (by their Principles) let a man believe as many things as he will, contrary to Scripture; yet if he have the Collier's faith, and implicitly believe, as the Church believes, all is well; he is (by them) esteemed no Heretic. 4. And hence it is, that they have of late, left the word d Non enim ut quisque primum in fide peccaverit, Haereticus dicendus est. Sed qui Ecclesiae Authoritate neglectâ, impias opiniones pertinaci animo tuetur. Catechis. Trid. ex Decreto Concilij Tridentini, Jussu Pij. 5. Edit. Paris. 1635. Part. 1. cap. 10. De 9 Symboli Articulo, §. 1. p. 107. Scripture out of their definition of Heresy; and they only pass for Heretics 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 Heretic, who believes that Article of our Creed, The Holy Catholic Church (you may be sure they mean their own Popish Church, not only without, but against all reason) For so their e Fieri igitur non possit; ut aliquis se Haeresis Peste Commaculet, si iis fidem adhibeat, quae in hoc nono fidei Articulo credenda proponuntur. Catechis. Trident. loco dicto. Trent-Catechism tells us; not only in the Text, but (lest we should not take notice of it) in the Margin 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 Catholic Church in the Creed, and that Church Infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost, he shall not (we may be sure) be called an Heretic at Rome. Nay, so far are they in Love with their most irrational Hypothesis; That to believe as the Church believes, excuses their Laics and the Unlearned from Heresy; that they expressly 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 Heresy. The Case is this, (as Cardinal Tolet and Robert Holkott propose it, f Rursus, si Rusticus circa Articulos Credat suo Episcopo, proponenti aliquod Dogma Haereticum, in Credendo Meretur, licet sit Error; quia Tenetur Credere, donec ei Constet esse contra Ecclesiam. Tolet. Instruct. Sacerd. l. 4. c. 3. §. 7. Idem habet Rob. Holcott, in. 1. Sentent. Quaest 1. in Replica. ad 6. Principale: where he tells us, that simple people may err in many things, Dummodo velint Credere sicut Ecclesia Catholica credit. And when he puts the case in an old simple woman, and says— Si audiat praelatum praedicantem Propositionem erroneam, quam ipsa nescit esse erroneam, & ei credit: Non peccat, sed Tenetur Errare, quia tenetur ei Credere; & Meretur volendo Credere Errorem; & concedo (Inquit) quod ipsa potest adipisci Meritum Debitum Martyri, si ipsa Imerficitur pro tali Err●re, quem credit Articulum fidei, etc. If a Rustic 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 Heretic. 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 publicly maintained by g Especially the Jesuits; In the end of the Exercitia Spiritualia Ignatij Loyalae, Tolosae, 1593. there are Regulae Servandae, ut cum Ecclesiâ verè Sentiamus. The first of which is, Sublato Proprio Omni Judicio, tenendus est Paratus Animus ad Obediendum verae Ecclesiae. You may be sure they mean the Church of Rome. The thirteenth Rule is this— Si quid quod Oculis nostris Album apparet Ecclesia Nigrum esse definierit, debemus itidem, quod nigrum sit pronunciare. And to the same purpose Bellarmine tells us— Fides Catholica docet, Omnem virtutem esse bonam, & Omne vitium malum. Si autem Papa erraret, praecipiendo vitia & prohibendo virtutes, Tenetur Ecclesia Credere vitia esse Bona, & virtutes Malas— Tenetur credere bonum esse quod ille praecipit, & malum quod ille prohibet. Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 5. §. ultima. Ita etiam V. Erbermannus contra Amesium, Tom. 1. lib. 3. cap. 6. §. 5. pag. 401. 402. their Casuists and Schoolmen, and approved by their Church. For I do not find it Condemned in any Index Expurgatorius, nor (in any public declaration) disowned by their Church; & quae non prohibet peccare, aut errare cum possit, Jubet. And here, in relation to the Premises, I shall further propose two things, and leave them to the Judgement of the Impartial Reader. 1. That seeing it is their Received Doctrine, that an Implicit Faith in their Church, and a profession and resolution to believe as she believes, is enough to free a Papist from Heresy, 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 Implicit Faith in Scripture, with a Profession and Resolution to believe every thing in it, as it comes to his knowledge; free him from Heresy and the punishment of it; though otherwise (in the mean time) he may believe some things contrary to Scripture? Certainly, if an Implicit 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 Heresy and the Punishment of it; much more, will an Implicit 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 Heresy 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 Premises) that if any Bishop preach to his People, (the Laity and Unlearned Rustics) 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 preached this Doctrine, That 'tis lawful to kill an Heretical King, who is actually Anathematised, 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 vicious. So that we need not wonder, that those prodigious Popish Villains who were hired to Assassinate our Gracious King in the late Conspiracy, undertook such an Impious Employment, since besides great store of Gold given to encourage them, their Religion and Learned Casuists afforded them such Principles (which they were bound to believe) to warrant and justify their Villainy, so that without scruple of Conscience they might do it. In short, they are Heretics whom the Pope and his Party are pleased to call so; for (by their h Crimen Haeresis est Mere Ecclesiasticum. Innocent. 8. Constit. 10. §. 2. In Bullario Romano, Romae, 1638. Tom. 1. p. 337. Col. ●. vide Cap. Ad abolendum, 9 Extra de Haereticis. Qui alitèr docent quam Ecclesia Romana, Excommunicantur. Law and Canons) they are sole Judges of the Crime (what Heresy is,) and the punishment due to it. 'Tis true, when they have passed Sentence upon any Heretic, they deliver him to the Civil Magistrate; but he is only their Executioner, to hang or burn according to their Sentence; but has no Power to reverse their Sentence, nor so much as to Examine whether it be just or unjust; but (right or wrong) must do as they determine. And here (to say nothing of the Impiety and Injustice of the Roman Church, in Condemning those they call (or rather miscall) Herericks; I shall take notice of a strange piece of their Hypocrisy, used by them, when (after Condemnation) they deliver the Condemned Person to the Civil Magistrate: when the Bishop or Inquisitor who delivers him, thus bespeaks the Civil Magistrate— i Domine Judex, rogamus Vos cum Omni affectu, quo possumus, ut Amore Dei, Pietatis, & Misericordiae Intuitu, & nostrorum interventu precaminum, miscrimo huic nullum mortis, vel mutilationis periculum Inferatis. Pontif. Roman. Romae, 1611. p. 456. & Hostiensis in summâ. l. 5. De Haereticis, pag. 424. Edit. Ludg. 1517. Sir, We passionately desire you, that for The Love of God, and in regard of Piety, Mercy, and our Mediation, you would free this miserable Person, from All Danger of Death or mutilation of Members. And it is there said, that the Bishop may do this, k Pontifex Essicacitèr, & ex Cord, Omni Instantiâ intercedit, etc. Ibidem in Rubrica. Effectually and from his Heart. But notwithstanding all this seeming Piety and Tenderness, when they have Sentenced an Heretic to death; they expect and require the Magistrate to Execute that Sentence, within l Infra. 6. dies, sine aliqua Processuum Visione, Sententias latas promptè exequantur, sub Excommunicationis poenâ, aliisque Censuris. Innocent. 8. Constit. 10. In Bullar. Rom. Tom. 1. p. 337. six days, upon pain of Excommunication, Deprivation, and loss of Authority and Offices. Hence it is, that Pope Alexander the Fourth, about the year. 1260. gives Authority to the Inquisitors, to m Facultas Cogendi Quoscunque Magistratus, sub poena Excommunicationis & Interdicti, etc. Alexand. 4. Const. 17. in dicto Bullar. p. 117. Tom. 1. & Constit. 18. in Lemmate. Ibid. Compel All Magistrates to Execute their Sentence, (be it what it will). And Pope Innocent the Eighth says, they must neither Examine n Sine Aliqua Processuum Visione. Innocent. 8. dicta Constit. 10. Nor see the Process against those they are to Execute. Nor is the matter mended since the times of Innocent the Eighth, and Alexander the Fourth; their Successors are for the same Compulsatory Power. The Council of Trent expressly says— o Cogantur Omnes Principes Catholici Conservare Omnia Sancita quibus Immunitas Ecclesiastica declaratur. Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. De Reformat. c. 20. In Lemmate, Edit. Antverp. 1633. That All Catholic Princes are to be Compelled to observe All the Sanctions and Constitutions declaring their Ecclesiastical Immunities, amongst which this of punishing Heretics is not the least, etc. By the Premises (I believe) it may appear, that the Hypocrisy of the Popish Church is inexcusable, when she takes God's Name in vain, and prays the Civil Magistrate, For the Love of God, etc. to do that which she knows (if he were willing) he neither can nor dare do; nor will she permit him to do, having under pain of Excommunication (and many other Penalties) absolutely prohibited him to do it. I say, 'tis not only the Bishop who so intercedes to the Civil Magistrate, but the Church of Rome herself, by him. Pope Innocent the Third is my warrant for saying so; who (in a Decretal Epistle to the Bishop of Paris) tells us; That when a Condemned Person is delivered to the Secular p Degradatus propter flagitium damnabile & damnosum, traditur Curiae seculari; pro quo tamen debet Ecclesia efficaciter Intercedere, ut contra mortis periculum, circa eum sententia moderetur. Cap. Novimus. 27. Extra. De verb. significatione. Judge, The Church must effectually interceded, that he moderate the Sentence so, (which she knows he neither dare, nor by their Law can do) that the Condemned Person may be in no danger of death. I know that q Roffensis cotra Lutherum, ad Art. 33. Operum p. 642. Dixit enim Lutherus, Eos dicta Orationis formulâ non Orare, sed ludere. Roffensis, (& other of the Popish Party) do endeavour, with many little shifts, to palliate the Hypocrisy of their Church, but in vain. For Omnia cum fecit, Thaida, Thais olet. Sure I am, that r Ecclesia Haereticum Excommunicate, & ulterius relinquit cum Judicio Seculari, à Mundo Exterminandum Per Mortem. Aq●in. 2. 2. Quaest 11. Art. 3. Respondeo. Si Judex Ecclesiasticus tradat Curiae Seculari haereticum, non potest in aliquo cognoscere secularis; scilicet, An Bene vel Male fuerit judicatum, sed tenetur exequi omninò. Card. Tuschus Conclus. Practicarum Juris. Tom. 4. Lit. H. Concl. 95. §. 4. p. 166. vide Turrecrematam summa de Ecclesia. Venet. 1561. part. 2. l. 4. p. 411. where he citys Wicliff' s Opinion, That the Popish Bishops are like the Pharisees, who having said, Non licet nobis quenquam occidere, Christum Seculari potestati tradiderunt, erant tamen homicidae Pilato Graviores. And when the Gloss (verbo deprehensi. Cap. Excommunicamus, 15. Extra de Haereticis) made some distinction of Persons delivered to the Secular Magistrate, and that docentes erant ultimo supplicio, officiendi; discentes vero decem Libris auri, etc. There is this Note in the (b) Margin— Hodie nulla est talis distinctio, nam Magistratus Secularis, Quemcunque Haereticum, sibi à Judicibus fidei traditum, debet Vltimo Supplicio afficere. Cap. ut. Inquisitioni de Haereticis. Lib. 6. (b) In Corpore Juris Canon. cum Glossis. Paris. 1612. Aquinas (Bannes s Bannes' ibidem. Conclus. 3. and others who Comment on that part of Aquinas) tells us, That the Condemned Heretic is delivered over to the Secular Power, to this very end, that he may be Put to Death, and taken out of the World; and a great and famous t Sed quicquid dicatur, Ad Hoc fit ista Traditio ut Puniatur morte. Vid. Panormitan. ad Cap. Novimus. 27. Extra. De verb. significat. §. 8. Canonist (Hostiensis) says expressly, what I have done; that this Intercession of their Church to the Secular Magistrate, in behalf of the Condemned Heretic, is, (in the Common Opinion) barely a Colour, and verbal u Solet Communitèr dici, quod ista Intercessio est Potius Vocalis & Colorata quam Effectualis. Idem Hostieusis, ibidem. only, not real. For thus I find him cited in Panormitan on the Decretals— Whatever (says he) may be said to the contrary; yet To this end, is He Delivered to The Secular Power, That He may be punished with death. Upon these Premises, I think it evident, that the Church of Rome, in this her Intercession to the Secular Power, does (with strange hypocrisy) seem earnestly to desire that of the Magistrate, which she knows he dare not do; nay, which she herself, by her public Laws, has Commanded him not to do. How she will Answer God (who Infallibly knows all her Hypocrisy) or her Adversaries, objecting it, I know not; ipsa viderit. In short; it is x Omnes qui ab Ecclesiâ Rom. hactenus desciverant, pro Haereticis habiti fuerint. Honorat. Fabri Contra Indifferentes; Dilingae, 1657. lib. 2. cap. 18. & Mart. Bresserum. De Conscientia, lib. 1. cap. 25. pag. 113. 117. 118. Qui in Vno rejiciunt Authoritatem Ecclesiae. pag. 117. Col. 1. Lin. ultima & penultima. confessed, that all those who will not be Enslaved to Rome, and believe as she believes, in every thing, are Heretics; and not only so, but damned, and while they continue so, and do not entirely believe their New-Trent-Creed, they are out of all Possibility of Salvation. So their y In Ecclesiâ duntaxat Romana homines salvari possunt. Honorat. Fabri, Loco citato. pag. 133. So Bresserus and the rest of them not only of late, but above five hundred years ago; (yet after the Devil was let loose, and Antichrist revealed) For an old Collector of their Canons tell us (Ivo Cornotens. Decret. part. 1. De fide. c. 38.) Firmissimè tene, & nullatenus dubites, Omnes Paganos, Judaeos, Haereticos & Schismaticos, qui Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam (Romanum Intelligit) finiunt vitam, in Ignem Aeternum ituros, qui diabolo & Angulis ejus paratus est. This is the Charity of Rome, to damn all but themselves. Casuists perpetually affirm, and their Trent Council (in that Forma Juramenti Professionis Fidei, in the Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth, Extant in the z Conc. Trid. Antu. 1633. Sess. 24. De Reform. p. 452. Constitutions of that Council) requires all their ecclesiastics, to promise, vow, and swear to believe and maintain it to their death. For in the end of that Creed, the words are— a Ibid. Haec est Fides Catholica Extra quam, Nemo Salvus esse potest. This is the Catholic Faith, out of which no man can be saved. And then, they must b Hanc fidem teneo & profiteor, in Praesenti, & Constantissimè tenere ad ultimum vitae spiritum spondeo, voveo, juro. Ibid. promise, swear, and vow to believe and profess it, most constantly as long as they live. So that although men's lives be exemplary and innocent, their Doctrines which they believe, Ancient and Catholic, yet if they descent from Rome in any one thing, (and that too upon just grounds and evident reason) yet they shall be called, and used as Heretics. A signal Instance we have of this in the Waldenses anciently: and because many perhaps, (I speak not of the Learned) may neither know what it is, nor where to find it; I shall here crave leave to set it down. c Reinerus contra Waldenses, Cap. 4. in Magna Bibliothecâ Patrum. Paris. 1654. Tom. 4. Part. 2. Col. 749. Sectae Haereticorum fuerant plures quam. 70. quae Omnes deletae sunt. Cap. 4. Reineri. Reinerus, a Dominican Friar, an Inquisitor, a severe Persecutor, who writ against the Waldenses, does (to their great honour, and the shame of Rome) give them this signal Testimony. He tells us of more than Seaventy ancient Heresies, most of which (he says) in his time, were overcome and vanished; But (says he) of all the Sects that were, or had been, d Inter Omnes sectas quae adhuc sunt, vel fuerunt, non est Perniciosior Ecclesiae, quam Leonistarum, & hoc tribus de Causis. Ibidem. None was so pernicious to The Church of Rome, as the Leonists, or Waldenses: and that for three Reasons. 1 Prima est, quia est Diut urnior; aliqui enim dicunt quod duraverit, à tempore Sylvestri; aliqui, A Tempore Apostolorum. For the Antiquity and long Continuance of these Waldenses, from the time of Pope Sylvester (who was made Pope, Anno Christ. 316.) as some said; or (as others) from the time of the Apostles. 2 Quia est Generalior; Ferè enim nulla est Terra, in qua haec Secta non sit. Ibid. cap. 4. For the Generality of that Sect; because there was Scarce any Country where they were not. 3 Tertia, quia Cum Omnes aliae Sectae immanitate Blasphemiarum in Deum, audientibus horrorem inducunt; Haec Leonistarum, Magnam Habet Speciem Pietatis; eo quod coram hominibus Justè Vivant; & Bene Omnia De Deo Credant, & Omnes Articulos Qui in Symbolo Continentur. Ibidem. When all other Heretics (by reason of their Blasphemies against God) were abhorred by those who heard them: The Waldenses had A Great Appearance of Piety; because they Lived Justly Before Men; Believed All Things well of God, and All the Articles of the Creed. (The Twelve Articles of their New Trent Creed, were neither then believed, 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 pernicious to any Truth, or any True Church. What was it then? Why, he tells us, in the next words, that it was e Solummodo Romaenam Ecclesiam Blasphemant, & Clerum; cui Multitudo Laicorum Facilis est ad Credendum. Ibid. only this; They Blasphemed, (or spoke 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 f Ecclesia Romana est Meretrix in Apocalypsi. cap. 17. vers. 1. 2. etc. Reinerus loco citato. c. 5. De Sectis Modernorum Haereticorum. Errore. 6. pag. 750. Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon in the Revelation. 2. That the Pope was the g Papa est Caput Omnium errorum, etc. Ibid. Errore. 8. they denied also Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, the Pope's Supremacy. Vide Card. Turrecrematam, in summa De Ecclesiâ. Part. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 35. pag. 407. Edit. Venet. 1561. 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 Heretics, and as such, did (with Fire and Sword and the utmost Cruelty) persecute them. For (as is aforesaid) he is an Heretic at Rome who contradicts or disbelieves the h Haeresis est, cum quis non secutus Doctrinam Christi, vel Apostolorum, vel Ecclesiae, Eligit sibi novam credulitatem. Card. Tuschas Conclus. Juris. Tom. 4. Lit. H. Concl. 91. verbo Haeresis. p. 164. Haereticus est, qui aliquid credit, non obstante quod Ecclesia contrarium decreverit. Debet enim Intellectum Captivare Sacrae Scripturae Sanctaeque Ecclesiae. (Cajet. in sum. verbo Haeresis.) And by Holy Church you may be sure they do mean their own Roman Church, for they acknowledge none else, but damn all other Christians, as Heretics. Canons and Constitutions of that Church; although he do not really disbelieve any Divine Truth contained 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 (Princess and People, Supreme or Subjects) they are (at Rome) declared Heretics, and liable to all the Punishments of that, which they are pleased to call Heresy; 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 Heresy 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 Heresy (according to the Popish Principles) and the Number of its Punishments. And here, 1. The Gloss of their Canon Law reduces the Punishments of Heretics to Four Heads, in the General: Heretics (says the i Quadruplex Haereticorum poena secundum Canon's: scilicet, Excommunicatio, Depositio, Bonorum ablatio, Militaris Persecutio. Gloss. ad Cap. ad Apostol. 2. De Sentent. & re Judicata. In 6. verbo. Haeresis, In additione. Ita Hostiensis in summa. Lib. 5. pag. 424. Edit. Lugd. 1517. 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 Soldiers. This is k Reynerius de Pisis, in summa De Haeresi. cap. 4. & F. Reynerus contra Waldenses. cap. 10. 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 leisure, may consult the Titles De Haereticis, which occur in the l Decretal. Greg. 9 Lib. 5. & Tit. 7. Decretals of Greg. 9 of m De Haereticis. Lib. 5. Tit. 2. In Sexto. Bonis. 8. in the n Clement. Lib. 5. Tit. 3. De Haereticis. Clementines, Extravagantes o Extrav. Commun. Lib. 5. Tit. 3. De Haereticis. Communes (and in the lately added p Septimi Decret. Lib. 7. Tit. 3. De Haereticis & Schismaticis. This seaventh Book of the Decretals was first Printed with the Body of the Canon Law, (dedicated to Card. Cajetan) at Francfurt. 1590. and since at Lions, Anno 1661. Seaventh Book of the Decretals) with the Glosses, and Panormitan's large Comment upon them. 3. For the Punishment of Heretics 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 q Leges Frider. 2. extant in Corpore Jur. Civilis cum Gloss. Lugd. 1618. in Calce lib. 2. Feudorum. Tom. 5. pag. 137. 138. etc. Friderick the Second, made in pursuance of the r Conc. Laterani fub Innocent. 3. Ann. 1215. & praecipuè Canonis. 3. De Haereticis. Lateran Council, and (though he had little reason for it) to gratify the Pope in his barbarous designs to ruin all those he called (generally miscalled) Heretics: which Laws (as we may be sure they would) the s Nos Honorius, Servus Servorum Dei, has leges à Friderico, pro utilitate Omnium Christianorum (pro Pernicie Waldensium) Editas, Laudamus, Approbamus, & Confirmamus, tanquam In Aeternum valituras. Ita Honorius Papa. 3. in Calce dictarum Legum. Pope and his Party did highly approve. And have referred 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 Heretics Inflicted by them, their Casuists and Canonists may be consulted: Amongst many others, such as these; t Moral. Quaest Tract. 32. cap. 7. De Poenis Haereticorum. Filliucius, u Speculi. Lib. 4. part. 4. De Haereticis. Durantus, x Summae. part. 2. Tit. 12. Cap. 4. De Haeresi. & Haereticorum Poenis. Antonius Archiepiscopus Florentinus, y Instit. Moral. Tom. 1. Lib. 8. Capp. 10. 11. 12. Azorius, Paul z Theol. Moral. Lib. 2. Tract. 1. c. 16. p. 202. Layman, a Summae. Tom. 1. De Haeresi. p. 1017. Venet. 1585. Raynerius, Johan de b Summae de Ecclesiae. part. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 1. etc. Turrecremata, Cardinal c Hostiensis in summae. Lib. 5. De Haereticis. p. 422. Edit. Lugd. 1517. Hostiensis, and Antonius Augustinus Archiepiscopus Terraconensis (a most Learned Canonist, and a very useful Book) has given us a Catalogue of their d Epitome Juris Pontisicij Veteris. Lib. 34. Tit. 3. & lib. 38. & lib. 11. Tit. 53. part. 1. & 2. etc. Canons De poenis quae sunt Hoereticis Constitutae. In short, whoever has a mind, opportunity and ability to Consult the aforementioned 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 Heretics. 10. Observ. 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 e Vide Constit. 63. Paul. 5. In Bull. Romano. Rom. 1638. Tom. 3. pag. 183. Vbi Omnes Istiusmo di Bullae, quae dicto Bullario occurrunt Notantur. Bulla Coenae Domini (take famous in which sense you will, the worst is good enough) wherein they do (at Rome) Anathematise and f Anathematizamus Quoscunque Hussitas, Wickliffistas, Lutheranos, Suinglianos, Calvinistas, Hugonottos, §. 1. dictae Bullae. 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 Die 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 purpose) give some short Account of the Contents of it. The Bull I mean, is that of Pope g Vid. Paul. 4. Constit. 19 In dicto Bullar. Tom. 1. p. 602. Paul the Fourth, next Predecessor, (save one) to Pius the Fifth, and is h Bulla Paul. 4. data Romae, 15. Cal. Mart. Ann. 1559. Bulla autem Pij. 5. data Rom. 5. Cal. Maij. 1570. Eliz. 13. In dicto Bullario. Tom. 2. p. 229 dated eleven years before that of Pope Pius the Fifth. Now concerning this Bull, I observe 1. That it was no rash Act of that Pope, but (if he say true) made with i Habita deliberatione Maturâ, de Cardinalium Consiliis & unanimi assensu. Bullae dictae. §. 2. Mature deliberation, by the Counsel and unanimous Consent of himself and the Cardinals. 2. And it is further k Bullam Paul. 4. etc. Renovamus Confirmamus, illámque Inviolabilitèr, & Ad Vnguem Observari volumus & Mandamus. Constit. Pij. 5. 22. §. 3. dicti Bullar. Tom. 2. p. 151. Confirmed by his Successor Pius the Fifth, who Approves and Commands it to be Inviolably kept and observed. Nor is this all; but (that we may see how such Doctrine is approved at Rome). This Bull of Paul the Fourth, and that of Pius the Fifth, which so fairly confirms it, are now both of them referred into the Body of their l Vid. Cap. 9 10. Decret. 7. De Haereticis & Schismaticis. In Corpore Juris Canon. Ludg. 1661. Canon Law. Now in this Bull of Pope Paul the Fourth, thus confirmed, approved, and received into the Body of their Law; 1. He does m Omnes & singulas Excommunicationis, Privationis, etc. & Quasvis alias Censuras & Poenas à Quibusvis Rom. Pont. aut Pro Talibus Habitis, in Constitut. contra Haereticos Quomodolibet Latis, Approbamus, Innovamus, ac Perpetuo observari, ac in Viridi Observantia esse debere decernimus. §. 2. Approve, Innovate, and Confirm All the Censures and Punishments due to Heretics and Schismatics, by any Constitution of any former Pope, or those who were Reputed Popes, Howsoever those Constitutions were made and promulgated, and Commands them to be kept in fresh Memory, and perpetually Observed. 2. And then he n Necnon Quoscunque qui hactenus à fide Catholicâ deviasse, aut in Schisma aut Haeresin incidisse deprehensi sint, seu in Posterum incident, cujuscunque Conditionis, Gradus, seu Praeeminentiae existunt, etiamsi Baronali, Ducali, Regali, & Imperiali excellentia profulgeant, & eorum Quemlibet, Censuras Poenas praedictas incurrere Volumus ac Decernimus. Ibidem. §. 2. declares (with as little Charity as Infallibility) that All Heretics which are, or For the Future shall be, do Incur All these Censures and Punishments, and 'tis his express Will and Decree they should do so. And that we may not mistake his meaning, as if All those Censures and Punishments were by him Inflicted and Denounced only upon and against some Inferior Persons and Heretics; he does seven or eight times expressly name Counts, Barons, Marquesses, Dukes, Kings and Emperors: And further says; That as Heresy and Schism in them is more Pernicious to others, so ought their Punishment to be more severe; and then (by his Constitution, which he declares to be o Hac nostra Constitutione in Perpetuum Valiturâ, sancimus, statuimus, definimus, etc. §. 3. perpetually and for ever Obligatory, he actually and totally p Comitatibus, Baroniis, Marchionatibus, Ducalibus, Regnis & Imperiis penitus, &, in Totum Perpetuo Privati sint, etc. Ibidem. Deprives them of their Counties, Baronies, Marquisats, Dukedoms, Kingdoms and Empires, and leaves them to the Secular Power, to q Secularis relinquantur arbitrio Potestatis, animadversione Debita puniendi, habentúrque Pro Relapsis. Ibid. §. 3. receive Due Punishment, that is, Death; as is evident by the Consequents in that Constitution). Nor is this all; He damns them to an r Ad illa de Caetero sint Inhabiles & Incapaces; nec Restitui aut Rehabilitari Possint. Ibidem. Incapacity and Perpetual Inability of being restored to their Honours or Possessions; No, not if they seriously and truly repent, and become good Catholics. For in that case of their true Repentance and forsaking their Heresy, they shall save their Lives; yet they must be s Apparentibus verè Poenitentiae Judiciis & Condignis fructibus, in loco aliquo Regulari, ad Peragendum Perpetuam in Pane Doloris & Aqua Moestitiae poenitentiam, Detrudendi sunt— & evitari Omnique Humanitatis Solatio destitui debent. Ibid. Cast into Perpetual Prison, and there be fed with Bread of Sorrow, and Water of Sadness, and to have no Comfort or Humanity showed them by any, no not by Kings or Emperors. And though this be the height of Impious and Antichristian Tyranny, yet t Ex Ipsius Sanctae Sedis Benignitate & Clementia. Ibid. §. 3. N. Eymericus Directorio Inquisitorum, part. 3. pag. 516. Col. 1. it must be Imputed (as he tells us) to the Pope's Clemency and Benignity. By the Premises it may evidently appear, That Queen Elizabeth was (by many Papal Bulls and Damnatory Constitutions) actually Excommunicate, before this Bull of Pius the Fifth. I desire then to know, Whether those anathemas of former Popes, (which they Declared and Commanded to be in force against all Heretics For ever, and Perpetually Obligatory) were valid and did Actually and (as they Intended) Effectually Exclude that Queen out of their Church, or not? If not; then 'tis certain, the Pope has not that Supreme Power he pretends to. For when so many Popes, in their Damnatory Bulls, (and that Ex Plenitudine Potestatis Apostolicae) declare the Queen, and all such Heretics, Excommunicate, and (as their Phrase is) cut u Esséque à Christi Corporis unitate praecisam. In Bulla Pij. 5. §. 3. & Paul the Third in his Damnation of Hen. 8. and all his Adherents, says, Eósque Anathematis, Maledictionis, & Damnationis Aeternae Mucrone Percutimus. Bulla Paul. 3. 7. §. 7. In Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 515. Col. 2. Edit. Romae, 1638. off from the Unity of the Body of Christ, and Eternally damned: If this be not Effectually done, than all those Bulls are Bruta Fulmina, Inefficacious, Null and Insignificant. But if those anathemas and Excommunications of former Popes, were valid, and the Queen by them, Actually put out of the Church, (as will, I suppose, and must (by them) be granted) than Pius the Fifth his Excommunication is a nullity, and indeed a ridiculous Impossibility. It being impossible, he should take from her, what she had not; and deprive her (by any Excommunication) of that Ecclesiastical Communion, of which the stood Actually deprived before by his Predecessors; especially by Pope Paul the Third, who Excommunicates and Curses not only Henry the Eighth, but particularly all x Henrici Regis ex dicta Annanatos & nascituros, aliósque descendentes, usque ad gradum in Jure Constitutum, nulla aetatis aut sexus ratione habitâ, dignitatibus, Dominiis, etc. Privamus. & ad Similia obtinenda Inhabilitamus. Ibid. dictae Bullae. §. 9 his Children, Male and Female, born or to be born of Ann Bolen (Mother of Queen Elizabeth) declares them deprived of all Power and Dominion, and of all their Goods and Patrimony, and Incapable of restitution to that Power and Patrimony, and of Acquisition of any other for the future. And that we should not doubt, that this was the Pope's meaning, they have added a Marginal Note to that Bull in the Roman Edition, which tells us; y Filiòsque eorum de dignitatibus, Dominiis, etc. & bonis Omnibus Privatos, & Ad Alia de Caetero Obtinenda Inhabiles esse declarat. Ibid. in Margin. That the Pope (in that Bull) did deprive the Children of Henry the Eighth, and his Adherents, of All their Goods and Dignities, and declared them Incapable of any other for the future. By the Premises, I think it may be, and is Evident, that Queen Elizabeth (by most Papal Bulls and Constitutions) stood Actually Excommunicate and Deposed before this Bull of Pius the Fifth. Sure I am, the Popish Party never owned her as their lawful Sovereign, but called her an Usurper of the Crown, to which (as a Declared and Excommunicate Heretic) she had no right at all. And it seems, Pope Pius himself was of the same Opinion. For in this very Bull, he speaks of her only as z Elizabetha Praetensa Angliae Regina. Bullae. 〈◊〉. 5. §. 1. Pretended Queen; and of her a Ipsum Praetenso Regni Jure privatam. Ibidem. §. 4 Pretended right to the Crown. And hence we may with Reason and good Logic Infer, That when Pius the Fifth in this his Bull Excommunicates and Deposes her; he does (notwithstanding his Plenitude of Power and Infallibility) ridiculously undertake (what he could not do) an Impossibility. For as it is impossible to turn Sempronius out of a House in which he never was; or deprive him of a Dominion which he never had, (turning out of a House, necessarily presupposing his being in it, and deprivation presupposing Right and Possession) so it is a like Impossibility for the Pope, by any Excommunication, to turn the Queen out of the Communion of the Popish Church, in which she never was; (being born, baptised and always bred in the Protestant Church and Religion) or deprive her of those Dignities and Dominions, which (according to their own b It is a Resolved Case in the Canon Law, (and Pope Gelasius is the Casuist who Resolves it) Quicúnque in Haeresin s●mel damnatam labitur, ejus damnatione seipsum invaluit: Or (as it is in the Lemma prefixed to that Canon) Ejus Damnationis participem se facit. Vid. Can. Achatius. 1. Caus. 24. Quaest 1. And Can. Majores. 2. Idem Gelasius codem modo Statuit. And Pope Felix says, Non ultra in eum procedere oportet, qui in haeresin damnatam incidit. Ibid. Can. Achatius. 3. Principles) she never had any right to, nor ever could have any; being (by their Law, and many Papal anathemas and Decretals) utterly disabled, and made incapable of any such Dominions or Dignities. 11. It is evident that the Pope in this Impious Bull, Observ. II. does (by his usurped Antichristian Power) Depose and Deprive Queen Elizabeth of all her Royal Authority, Dominion and Dignity, and so puts her into the Condition of a poor private Person, without any Power or Jurisdiction over all, or any of her Subjects. Whence these damnable Doctrines and Impious Conclusions evidently follow, 1. That if any Jesuit, any Villainous Raviliac, or through paced Papist had killed, or with Poison or Pistol had taken away her Life, (as they often Endeavoured) it had been no Treason. For all know, that Treason is Crimen c Vid. Justinianum F. ad. Leg. Juliam Majestatis; & Statut. 25. Edvardi. 3. c. 2. in the Statute of Purveyors, Anno Domini. 1350. Majestatis, or Laesa Majestas; a Crime against Sacred Majesty; either Immediately, against the Person, or Persons in whom Majesty resides; or mediately against those who are his nearer Representatives, as the Lord Chancellor, Treasurer and the Judges, when they are in Execution of their Office. And though there be an Inferior Degree of Treason, (as of a Servant against his Lord and Master, a Wife against her Husband) yet no Treason ever was (either by the Imperial and Civil, or our National and Common Laws) but against a Superior. And therefore the Queen being deposed by the Pope as an Heretic, and actually deprived, not only of all her Royal Power and Majesty, but of all Jurisdiction and Superiority over her Subjects (and they absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity) and so a private Person only, without any Power to command Obedience. I say, upon these Impious Popish Principles, to kill the Queen could not possibly have had the Nature or Name of Treason. Had they by open War, or privately by Poison or Pistols, taken away her life (as they Intended, and often Endeavoured, as we shall see anon) they might have been Murderers, but not Traitors. So that the Pope and his Party believing that the Queen was Actually deposed and deprived of all her Royal Dignity and Dominion, as a Heretic; they must consequently believe, that the Murdering of her, by any of her former Subjects, neither was, nor could be Treason. But this is not all, For 2. Admit she had not been deposed, by any Papal Law, Bull or Decretal Constitution; yet any of their Popish Clergy might have murdered her, and been no way guilty of Treason, though they were English men, and born her Subjects; nay, though they had actually taken the Oaths of Allegiance before they took Popish Orders. The reason of this is evident, and a necessary Consequent, from their Impious and Rebellious Principles. For they say, That the Clergy d Clerici Rebellio in Regem non est Crimen Laesae Majestatis, quia nen est Subditus Regi. Eman. Sa Aphoris. Confess. verbo Clericus. p. 41. Are no Subjects of any Prince; and therefore they themselves conclude (as well they may) that if they Rebel and seek the Ruin of their Prince, yet (in them) it is no Treason. This Emanuel Sa, the Jesuit expressly tells us, in a Book (not surreptitiously sent into the World, but) published with his e Colon. 1599 Name to it, Dedicated to the Virgin f Ad Beatiss. Dei Matrem. Accipe (Sapientiae Divinae Sacr●rium) Libellum hu●c; tuoque Praesidio sic tuere & promove, ut ad Multorum proficiat aeternam Salutem. Ibid. pag. 2. Mary, approved, highly Commended, and Licenc'd by g Hi Aphorismi Docti sunt & Pij, Multámque utilitatem alaturi Confessariis Omnibus. Ibid. pag. 384. Sylvester Pardo. Eccles. Antverp. Canonicas Librorumque Censor. Public Authority. Thus is this Rebellious Doctrine approved, not only by the Librorum Censor at Antverp; but in Heaven too; at least in the Opinion of the Author, who otherwise would not have dedicated it to the Virgin Mary, and desired her Patronage, and Promotion of it, for the good of Souls. Sure I am, I do not find it Condemned in any of their Indices Expurgatorij (neither in the h Index Librorum Prohibit. Novissimus, Madriti. 1667. Eman. Sa non Omnino meminit. Spanish Index, nor that of i Index Librorum Prohibit. Olysipone. An. 1624. p. 543. Portugal, nor that of Pope k Index Librorum Prohibit. Alexandr. 7. Romae, 1667. pag. 41. Alexander the Seaventh at Rome, etc. Nay, so far are the Inquisitors from Condemning this Rebellious Doctrine of Emanuel Sa, that the Spanish Index does not so much as name, much less censure him or his Aphorisms. But the l Loco dicto. Portugal Index, (in which both the Author and his Aphorisms are expressly named) censures only two Propositions (one about Penance, the other about Extreme Unction) which the Inquisitors (the Supreme m Two Aphorismorum Codices deinceps permit tuntur, à quibus Expunctae sunt duae Sententiae, quas Ann. 1611. pridie Calend. Mart. Cavendas Rescripsit, Sanctae & universalis Inquisitionis Congregatio, per Illustriss. Card. Arragonium. Index Olysipone. 1624. loco dicto. Congregation of them at Rome) would have left out; and then approved and permitted all the rest. And so that Erroneous and Impious Aphorism, That Clergymen are not Subjects of Kings, and therefore not Capable of Committing Treason, although they actually Rebel against and Murder them. But the late Index of Pope Alexander the Seaventh, speaks more fully and home to our present purpose, and expressly, permits, and approves (for we may be sure they will not permit what they do not approve) all Editions of those n Emanuelis Sa Aphorismi Confessariorum Hactenus Impressi, etiam Romae, ante Ann. 1602. post autem tale Tempus Romae Editi de mandato Magistri Sacri Palatij Permittuntur. Index Alexandri. 7. loco dicto. Aphorisms, (Even at Rome) before the year 1602. In all which this Rebellious Aphorism, we are speaking of, was, and so was approved by them. This does further and (if that be possible) more evidently appear out of these their Approved and Authentic Expurgatory Indices, wherein this Proposition— (Priests Are By The Law of God Subject to Princes) is damned as Erroneous and Heretical, both in the o Ex Indice Joh. Chrysostom. Basil. 1558. Deal sequentia. And then (amongst many other evident truths) this Proposition follows; Sacerdotes Etiam Principibus Jure Divino Subditi. This must be Expunged. Index Libr. Prohib. Madriti. 1667. pag. 703. Col. 1. Spanish Index, and that of p And the Index of Portugal, Edit. Olysipone, Ann. 1624. p. 753. Col. 1. damns the very same Position. Portugal. For the Inquisitors finding it in the q In Indice Operum Chrysostom. Basil. 1558. ex Officina Frobeniana. Index of Chrysostom, Command it to be expunged and blotted out; Although Chrysostom (in the Text) says the very same thing. Hence it evidently follows; That if this Proposition (Priests (by the Law of God) Are Subject to Princes) be erroneous and false, as the Pope and his Party say it is, (their Inquisitors Commanding it to be Expunged, as Erroneous) then the Contradictory (Priests Are not by The Law of God Subject to Princes) must of necessity be true, and by them approved and believed. Unless they will say, (which were highly irrational and ridiculous) that Contradictory Propositions may be both false, and they believe neither of them. But this they neither do, nor will say; for their greatest Writers publicly say, and Endeavour to prove, That Priests Are not Subject to Princes. Nay, r Persona Cujuslibet Clerici est Sancta quoad hoc, quod Non Potest Subjici Potestati Seculari. Cajetan. in. 2. 2. Quaest 99 §. Ad Quintum Dubium mihi. p. 247. Col. 3. 4. Cardinal Cajetan expressly says, That the Clergy are so Sacred, that 'tis Impossible they should be Subject to Princes. When he says, It is impossible, his meaning is, that 'tis (not naturally, but) morally impossible; because if any Prince should use his Priests and Clergy as Subjects, it were a great Sin, and (in his Opinion) Sacrilege; and therefore Impossible: Because, according to the Rule of Law, Illud solum Possumus quod Jure Possumus. So we have that great Roman Cardinal expressly approving that Rebellious Doctrine, That Priests are not Subject to Princes. Nor (we may be sure) was it any private or singular Opinion of his, which died with him; For when s R. Patris Emanuelis Sa Aphorismi Confessariorum. Coloniae 1599 afterwards, Emanuel Sa's Aphorisms (wherein the same Doctrine was maintained) were published, as a t Opusculum Theologis Omnibúsque animarum Curam habentibus Vtile ac Necessarium. Ibid. in Libri dicti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Work Profitable and Necessary for Divines, and All who had Cure of Souls. An Advocate of the Parliament of Paris (eminent for Law and Learning) tells us two Things: 1. That those Aphorisms were Approved at u Vide Librum cum hac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Les Oevures de Maistre Jaques Leschasier, etc. Paris. 1652. p. 421. Libellus Aphorismorum Romae Probatus. Rome: 2. And then passes a just Censure upon them— x Quae Doctrina (that the Clergy are not Subjects to Princes) est pestis & eversio Rerum publicarum— Regia potestas vel suprema nihil aliud est, quam Constitutio Dei, quae Omnes Mortales Jurisdictioni Regum subjiciuntur. Ibidem. That such Doctrine was the Plague and Ruin of Commonwealths: Royal and Supreme Powers being the Ordinance of God, by which All Men are made Subject to the Jurisdiction of Kings; So that Learned Person. And (to pass by all others) an Excellent Person) of great Judgement and Integrity, and a Roman Catholic, (I mean Father y Vide Historiam Interdict Veneti, per P. Sarpium, 1626. Edit. Latina. Paul of Venice) tells us; that in the Quarrels between Pope Paul the Fifth, and the Venetians, a World of Books were writ (by Jesuits and others) to vindicate the Pope's Cause, and they z Omnes, in eo Concordes asserebant, Clericos Non esse Principi Subditos, ne in Crimine quidem Laesae Majestatis. pag. 107. dictae Historiae & pag. 13. All Agreed in this, That the Clergy were Exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction, & quoad Personas & Bona; Secular Princes had nothing to do with their Persons or Purses; nor were They Subjects to Princes, no not in Cases of High Treason. Nor was this Rebellious Doctrine maintained only by the Pope's Party and Parasites; but the Pope himself (whom the Jesuits and Canonists miscall Infallible) approves and justifies it; and in Decemb. 1605. tells the Venetian Ambassador, That a Ecclesiasticos non Comprehendi inter Subditos Principis, nec ab eo posse poenis affici, etsi Rebelles essent. They are the words of Pope Paul the fifth to the Venetian Ambassador, in Decemb. 1605. in the aforesaid History, pag. 13. Gre●ser tells us— Cl●rici non pertinent ad Regis Jurisdictionem. Considerate. ad Theolog. Venetos. l. 2. pag. 137. Edit. Ingolstadij, Ann. 1607. And there (besides Bellarmine and Baronius) he gives us a List of Thirteen or Fourteen Authors, who writ for the Pope in his Quarrel with the Venetians, of the same Opinion. Gretser Ibid. p. 380. ecclesiastics were not Comprehended in the number of A Prince's Subjects, nor could be Punished By him, though they were Rebels. A hundred such Passages (out of their Schoolmen, Canonists, Casuists, (especially the Jesuits) and their Canon Law) might easily be quoted; but these, to Impartial and Intelligent Persons, will be sufficient to Evince, That the Pope and his Party do publicly and expressly maintain this Rebellious Doctrine, and (when it makes for their Catholic Cause, and they have Opportunity and Ability to put it in Execution) do also practise it. The Sum of which Damnable Doctrine (repugnant to the clear Principles of Nature and Scripture, and all Religions, save that of Rome) is this; If any King be Excommunicate and Deposed by the Pope, than any of his Subjects, Clergy or Laity, (horresco referens) may take Arms and Rebel against him, or Murder him, and yet (by this Impious Popish Doctrine) be neither Rebels nor Traitors: And if their King be neither Excommunicate nor Deposed, but stands rectus in Curia Romanâ, and be (as they call it) a good Catholic; yet if any of his ecclesiastics (Secular or Regular) Rebel or Murder him, it can be no Treason or Rebellion in them; seeing (according to their Principles) they are none of his Subjects, nor he their Superior; and Treason or Rebellion against an Equal or Inferior, is (in propriety of Law) impossible. But this is not all. For; 3. Let it be granted, (which is both Impious and Evidently untrue) That any Popish Assassin or Roman Raviliac, had not been Guilty of any Treason, if he had killed the Queen, after the Pope had Deposed her, as a Heretic; yet sure, they must grant that it was Murder, and an Impious Act, to kill a Person overwhom he had no Jurisdiction. No; this they deny: the approved and received Principles of the Popish Church acquit such Prodigious Villains not only from Rebellion and Treason, but from Murder too. He who had killed the Queen, after Excommunication and Deposition by the Pope, had been no Traitor, nor (which is less) so much as a Murderer. We are told in the Body of their Canon Law— b Nont sunt Homicidae, qui adversus Excommunicatos Zelo Matris Ecclesiae, armantur. Ita Lemma praesixum Can. Excommunicatorum. 47. Caus. 23. Quaest 5. vide Lemma hujus Can. apud Juonem. Decreti part. 10. cap. 54. That they are no Murderers, who (out of Zeal to the Church) take Arms against Excommunicate Persons. So the Title prefixed to the Canon cited in the Margin; and the Text of the Canon says further; Those Soldiers so armed, c Non eos Homicidas Arbitramur, quos adversus Excommunicatos, Zelo Catholicae Matris ardentes, aliquos corum Trucidasse contigerit. Ibid. in Canone. Are not Murderers, if out of a burning Zeal to their Catholic Mother (the Church of Rome he means) they Kill any of such Excommunicate Heretics: Thus the Case is deliberately determined by their Supreme Infallible Judge, Pope Vrban the Second, a little before the d Ivo Carnotensis Episcopus; Decret. part. 30. cap. 54. end of the Eleventh Century; and about Twenty years after (by Ivo Carnotensis) referred into a e Moritur Urban. 2. Anno Christ. 1099. Collection of the Roman Canons: And Gratian (about Forty years after Ivo) Registers it in his Decretum, which Pope f Vide Bullam Gregor. 13. dat. Romae, 1. Jul. 1580. Corpori Juris Canonici praesixam. Gregory the Thirteenth approves and confirms for Law; and so it stands confirmed, and received for Law, g Vide Edit. Juris Canon. cum Glossis Paris. 1612. & Edit. sine Glossis, Paris. 1618. & Editionem Lugduni, 1661. etc. in their last and best Editions of that Law, ever since. Whence it may (and does) appear, that this Impious and Rebellious Doctrine, (That Killing Kings or Queens Excommunicate by the Pope, was no Murder) has been approved at Rome (since h Rev. 20. 2. 3. the Devil was let loose, and Antichrist appeared) above Six hundred years. I know that honest Father i Remonstrant. Hibernorum part. 5. c. 13. §. 10. pag. 34. Charon (not so disloyal as most of his Party) endeavours to mollify this Rebellious Constitution of Pope Vrban the Second; and tells us, that the meaning of that Canon is only this k Si Contingentèr trucidaverit, non esse Homicidam Formalem, etc. Ibidem. — That if any man by Chance and Casually had killed an Excommunicated Person, (si contigerit trucidasse) than he was not A Formal Murderer: So Pope Urban ' s Sentence was not to l Vrbani ideo Sententia Non suit, Excommunicatos vel Haereticos De Proposito interimi posse. Ibidem. Excuse those from Murder, who Intended, and directly Purposed to kill Heretics and Excommunicate Persons. For (says he) this were to m Alioquin certe veritatem Omnem & Fidem expugnasset. Ibidem. Overthrow all Truth and Fidelity to Princes. The good man was (God forgive him) a Roman Catholic, and believed (though. Erroneously) that the Supreme Head of his Church, and St. Peter's Successor and Vicar of Christ, could not approve and maintain such a Rebellious and Impious Position and Principle, That men might lawfully be killed, because they were Heretics or Excommunicate Persons: which he there truly calls— n Horrendum igitur Principium, Maledictum & Execrabile est, Haereticos, vel Excommunicatos, eo ipso interimi posse, etc. And again, Inter Damnabilia & Anathemata reponimus. Ibid. §. 11. p. 35. A Horrible, Cursed and Execrable Principle. That the Doctrine is Cursed and Execrable, is easily believed, and (by me) willingly granted. But that Vrban the Second did not, in that Canon, approve it, (notwithstanding what Father Charon has said to the contrary) I absolutely deny. Sure I am, 1. That Cardinal Bellarmine (as is confessed by Father Charon in the place cited) expounds that Canon as I have done. 2. So does o Turrecremata ad Can. Excommunicator. 47. Caus. 23. Quaest 5. Cardinal Turrecremato too; who says, That Excommunicate Heretics may be killed, not only Casually (as Father Charon mistakes the Text) but with an p Intentio requiritur, quia licet bonam habuerint voluntatem, potuerunt tamen peccare Intention. Si Interfecerunt Haereticos, quia Infestabant Ecclesiam, in hoc Bonam haberunt Voluntatem; peccaverunt tamen si Intendebant habere Bona Haereticorum. Si ergo bono Z●lo & Mandato Ecclesiae aliquos Interfecerunt, non sunt Homicidae Reatu, nec Vlla Poenitentia est Impenenda. Turrecremata loco dicto. Intention and Purpose to kill them; and yet they who intent and do kill them, be no Murderers; but both the Intention and Act Just and Innocent. But then their Intention must not be to get the Goods of those Heretics they kill, but it must be Zelo Matris Ecclesiae, to secure the Church from the Mischievous Designs of those Heretics. So that in the Opinion of this great Cardinal, and Canonist, (who well knew the opinions and practice of their Church) killing of Heretics was so far from being Murder, that it was no Crime at all; but sine Reatu (as he says) without all guilt; and therefore (nulla poenitentia erat imponenda) it needed no Repentance. 3. Cardinal Peron in his Oration to the Estates of France, does expressly q Agnoscit Peronius, (Orat, ad Status, pag. 107.) Tyrannum Vsurpatione Licitè interimi posse: at qui Rex Omnis semel à Papa depositus, si postea administraverit, Rex Vsurpatione & Tyrannus est; quia abs●ue Jure Jus Vsurpat. F. Charon. Remonstrant. Hibernorum. part. 4. c. 1. §. 20. p. 265. affirm, That all Tyrants by Usurpation, may lawfully be killed; and such was Queen Elizabeth, and all Protestant Kings and Princes now are, (in the Judgement of the Pope and his Party) seeing they all did, and now do stand Excommunicate (at Rome) and deprived of all Dominion; and therefore, their meddling with the Government, after such Deprivation, is evidently Usurpation (in the Opinion of our Adversaries) and then it follows on their Principles) that they may lawfully be killed, and therefore the kill of them cannot be Murder; it being impossible that a Crime against the Indispensable Law of Nature, should be lawful. 4. But we have greater Evidence to prove, that (at Rome) the killing of Protestant Princes, (as Excommunicate Heretics) is not Murder. For in the year 1648. when the Parliament was, (or seemed to be) severe against Papists, as believing and maintaining Principles Inconsistent with our Government: This Question (amongst others) was proposed to some of our English Popish Divines— r An Pontifex Romanus Principes seu Magistratus Protestantium possit deponere, vel Occidere, tanquam Excommunicatos? Vide F. Charon Remonstrant. Hibernorum part. 1. cap. 4. §. 3. p. 12. Whether the Pope could Depose or Kill Protestant Princes or Magistrates, as Excommunicate Persons? Some of those Divines met, and (whether out of Love of Truth, or fear of the Parliament, I know not) s Convenientibus ergo in hac Causa Theologis Anglicanis, pro Negatiuâ resolverunt. Ibid. §. 3. num. 3. Subscribed the Negative; That the Pope could not Depose or Kill such Protestants. But when this was heard at t His nunciis Romae receptis, sacra Congregatio resolutionem illam negativam, tanquam Haereticam mox Condemnat, citatisque Romam Authoribus, Carceres & Censurae parantur. Ibidem. Rome, the Pope and his Sacred Congregation (as they call it) Condemned that Negative Proposition, as Heretical, and Summoned the Subscribers to Rome, where Prisons and Censures (as Father Charon tells us) were prepared for them. Whence it is Evident, that to deny the Pope's Power to Depose and Kill Protestant Princes, is (at Rome) declared Heretical; and therefore, that he has a Power to Depose and Kill, is a part of their Catholic Creed, and believed three. Whence it further follows, that they do think such Killing of Protestants to be no Murder, nor those who kill them, (out of Zeal to the Catholic Cause) Murderers. 5. When Raymundus u Floruit sub Greg. 11. circa Ann. 1311. Nicol. Eymericus Direct. Inquisit. p. 255. Col. 2. D. Lullus (a x Possevin. Apparat. in Pet. Remundo. man famous in his time and after it) had said, and in his Writings published, That it was y Interficientes Haereticos sunt Injuriosi & vitiosi in suo Memorari, Intelligere, & Velle, etc. Eymericus Ibid. p. 260. Col. 2. A. unlawful and impious to kill and murder Heretics; (for he had seen and heard, of the bloody Persecutions of the Waldenses, and such as at Rome were called Heretics, in, and before his time) Nic. Eymericus (Inquisitor of Arragon) complains of him, and his Writings, to Pope Gregory the Eleventh; who (in full Consistory with the z Greg. 11. in Consistorio, etiam de Consilio Fratrum, interdixit & condemnavit Doctrinam Raym. Lulli, etc. Eymericus loco dicto. p. 255. Council of his Cardinals) damns the Doctrine of Raymundus Lullus; and declares for the Lawfulness and Justice of Killing Heretics. 6. And Lastly, Pope Leo the Tenth in his Ecumenical (so they call it) Lateran Council (Sacro approbante Concilio) with the Consent and Approbation of that Council) declares; That our blessed Saviour a Christus Petrum Ejúsque Successores Vicarios suos Instituit, quibus (ex Libri Regum Testimonio) Ita Obedire Necesse est, ut qui non Obediret, Morte Moriatur. Binius Concil. Tom. 9 pag. 151. Col. 2. E. Edit. Paris. 1636. Did Institute Peter and his Successors his Vicars; to whom (by the Testimony of The Book of Kings) it was so necessary to yield Obedience, that Whosoever would not (as no true Protestant ever would or could) was to be punished with Death. The Pope was not pleased to tell us, what Book of Kings (for in their Vulgar Latin Version, there are four Books of that name) nor what Chapter or Verse he meant: and he did wisely to conceal what Place in those Books he intended; for had he named any particular place, (though he pretended to Infallibility) his folly would have much sooner appeared. It is indeed ridiculous, for any man to think, that any thing said in those Books of Kings, can prove, that our blessed Saviour Constituted a Vicar General over his whole Christian Church, with power to kill all who would not comply with him, and that Peter and his Successors the Popes, were the men: seeing there is not one Syllable of all, or any of this, in any of the four Books of Kings; Nor any Text from which it may (with any sense or probability) be deduced. Nor have the Publishers of that Lateran and other Councils (Peter Crab, Surius, Binius, Labbe, etc. supplied that defect, and told us, what place Pope Leo meant, and from which he, or they could prove the Pope's Power to kill all who complied not with his Commands. I know that b Pet. Crab. Concil. Colon. Agrip. 1551. Tom. 3. p. 694. Col. 2. So Turrecremata summa de Eccles. l. 2. cap. 114. Prop. 7. Crab, c Laur. Surius Concil. Colon. Agripp. 1567. Tom. 4. p. 681. Col. 2. Surius, and d Binius Concil. Latet. Paris. 1636. Tom. 9 pag. 151. Col. 2. B. Binius (though Labbe has omitted it, as Impertinent) have, in their Editions of the Councils, cited in their Margins, Deut. 17. for a proof of that Erroneus and Impious Position, (it seems their Infallible Judge mistook Kings for Deuteronomy, or that they could find nothing in any Book of Kings for the Pope's purpose.) But they name not the Verse; though (I believe) it is the Twelfth Verse of that Seaventeenth Chapter they mean. Where 'tis said, That he who will not hearken to the Priest or Judge, That Man shall Die. This (I say) is altogether impertinent, as to the proof of the Pope's Position. For admit (which is e Vide Grotium and Ainsworth in Deut. 17. vers. 9 12. etc. Vide 2 Chron. 19 8. 9 etc. manifestly untrue) that by Priest here, the High Priest only was meant: yet it will neither be consequence nor sense to say, Whosoever disobeyed the Sentence of the High Priest, in the Jewish Church, must be put to death: Ergo, Whoever disobeys the Pope in the Christian Church, must be so too. This (I say) is Inconsequent, for the Priests in the Jewish Church (not only the High Priest, but other Priests and Levites) by the express Law of God, had as Judges in many Cases, Power of Life and Death: but in the Gospel, our blessed Saviour left no such Power to his Apostles and their Successors; Excommunication is the highest Punishment, Peter, or any, or all the Apostles could inflict, by any Authority from our blessed Saviour in the Christian Church, and this Power succeeded Intersection or putting to death in the Judaical Church. So St. f Non nunc Agit in Ecclesia Excommunicatio, quod tunc (ante Christum in Synagoga) agebat Intersectio. Aug. Quaest super Deuteronomium, lib. 5. cap. 38. And elsewhere; Phineas Sacerdos Adulteros simul Inventos ferro ultore confixit, Quod utique Degradationibus & Excommunicationibus, significatum esse faciendum hoc tempore. Idem. Aug. de Fide & Bonis Operibus. cap. 6. Augustin expressly tells us, and to him I refer the Reader. By the Premises, I think it may appear, that, if (after the Pope's Damnation and Deposition of Queen Elizabeth) any of her Popish Subjects, (Laity or Clergy, Regular or Secular) had by taking Arms publicly, or by Poison or Pistol, Privately taken away her life, (according to their approved Principles) it had been no Rebellion, Treason or Murder, but (in their Opinion) an Action Just and Innocent. But this (though too much) is not all; their Error and Impiety rises higher. For, 4. Had any of Queen Elizabeth's Subjects (after the Pope's Excommunication) killed her, that Execrable Fact had been so far from being Murder, that (in their opinion) it had been an Action not only Indifferent, or Morally good, but Meritorious. In the year 1586. (which was the Nine and twentieth of Elizabeth) in the College of Rheims, Giffard, Dr. of Divinity, Gilbert Giffard and Hodgson, Priests, had so possessed the English Seminaries, with a belief of this Doctrine, That John Savage willingly and gladly vowed to kill the Queen. The Story is in g In the English Seminary at Rheims, some there were, who believed, Pius the fifth's Bull to be dictated by the Holy Ghost, and they persuaded themselves and others, that it was meritorious to take away the lives of Princes Excommunicate, and Martyrdom to spend a man's life in the Cause. These things Giffard, Dr. of Divinity, Gilbert Giffard and Hodgson inculcated so deeply into John Savage, that he willingly and gladly vowed to kill Queen Elizabeth. Camb. Annals of Q. Eliz. l. 3. p. 301. 302. of the English Edition, (I have not the Latin now by me) Lond. 1635. Cambden (an Historian of unquestionable truth and fidelity) After h Ann. Christ. 1598. Eliz. 41. apud Cambdenum Annal. l. 4. p. 498. 499. dictae Editionis. this, Walpoole, the English Jesuit, persuades Edward Squire, that it was a Meritorious Act to take away the Queen; tells him, it might easily be done, by Poisoning the Pommel of her Saddle; gives him the Poison; Squire undertakes it, Walpoole blesseth him, and promises him Eternal Salvation, and so (having sworn him to Secrecy) sends him into England: where (notwithstanding all the Jesuits blessings) he was taken, confessed all this, and was Executed in the year. 1598. And Camdben i Ibid. p. 499. there tells us, That a Pestilent Opinion (as he truly calls it) was got amongst the Popish Party (even amongst their Priests) That to take away Kings Excommunicate, was Nothing Else, but to Weed the Cockle out of the Lords Field. It is true, none of those impious and damnable Designs, had their desired Effect; God Almighty protecting that good Queen, (it being impossible that any Power or Policy should prevail against his Providence) yet the Matter of Fact (confessed by themselves, or evidently proved by Legal Witnesses) manifestly shows, that they thought killing the Queen, (for the benefit of their Catholic Cause) was a Meritorious Work, which they designed to do, and (had their Ability been Equal to their Impiety) would have done. 2. Nor was this the private opinion of some Priests and Jesuits only; but the definitive Sentence of several Popes, (their k All the Pope's Sanctions (they say) are Divine (Can. sic Omnes. 2. dist. 19) as if Peter himself had made them. And no wonder, seeing they tell us, That God by his Holy Spirit, speaks in the mouth of the Pope, Deus ipse, Spiritu suo, per Ora Pontificum loquitur. Pet. Matthaeus J. C. Lugdun. Praefat. praefixa Corp. Juris Can. à se Edito, Francof. 1590. Infallible and Supreme Judges) publicly declared, and (that we may be sure they are obligatory at Rome) amongst other Papal Decrees referred into the Body of their Canon Law, k Jul. 2. Conc. Lateran. 5. Generali, approbante Concilio. Sess. 5. apud Binium. Tom. 9 p. 48. Col. 1. F. 2. A. confirmed by Gregory the Thirteenth, and by their General Councils (the fifth Lateran, and that of Trent) Commanded to be obeyed, Tanquam Divina Inspiratione Edita, & Tanquam l Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. De Reformat. c. 20. p. 624. Edit. Antverp. 1633. Dei Praecepta. Now the Papal Sentences or Decrees I mean, are 1. That of Pope m Can. Omnium. 46. Causa. 23. Quaest 5. Nicolas to the French Army: wherein the Pope tells them, That if any of them were slain in that War against the Insidels, that is, (as Cardinal n Turrecremata ad dictum Canoncm. Turrecremata explains it) against the Heretics, Heaven o Regna illi Coel●stia minime negabuntur. should not be denied them: They should be sure of that. But the Lemma or Summary prefixed to the Canon p In Certamine quod Contra Infideles (Haereticos) geritur quisquis moritur Coeleste Regum meretur. says, That those Soldiers who faithfully fought against the Heretics, if any one of them were slain in the sight, He should merit Heaven. Murdering Heretics, was (in the Pope's Opinion) a meritorious Work, and if the Soldiers could kill them, and take away their Temporal Life here, they should (for that good Service to the Pope) gain to themselves, an Eternal Life hereafter. 2. Pope q Can. Omni Timore. 9 Caus. 23. Quaest 8. Leo (to the same purpose, and almost in the same words) Incourages a French Army to r Omni timore Deposito contra inimicos Sanctae Ecclesiae virilitèr ag●re Studete, novit enim Omnipoteus, si quilibet vestrum morietur, quod pro veritate fidei mortuus est, & Ideo Proemium Coeleste consequitur. sight stoutly against the Enemies of the Faith, and of the Church, (you may be sure he means the Roman Church) and tells them, that they need not be any way afraid, to kill Heretics and the Church's Enemies, for God knew, that if any of them died in that Service, it was for the true Faith, for which Heaven should be their Reward. So the Pope in that Canon. And because some of those Soldiers might fear (as there was great reason they should) that the Persecuting those poor Christians, whom the Pope called Heretics, with Fire and Sword, might rather deserve punishment then a Heavenly Reward; John Semeca (the Glossator) tells us, That the Pope's meaning was, f Hortatur Papa, ut virilitèr pugnet contra Inimicos Ecclesiae; & si qui propter hoc moriatur, Non Poenam, sed Coeleste Praemium Consequetur. Glossa Ibidem. that (being secured from Punishment) Heaven should be their Reward. These, and such other Principles, must (of necessity) be a great Encouragement to the Popish Party, who believe (though without, and in contradiction to Truth and Reason) the vast usurped Papal Power and Infallibility, to Execute the Pope's Damnatory Bulls and Excommunications, and kill all Heretics (even Kings and Emperors) having Heaven promised for doing it. This is very much, but there are more and greater Promises made by the Pope, for kill Heretics. For, 5. The Pope (out of his great Ability and Bounty) promises such Impious and Bloody Murderers of Heretics, not Heaven only, but a higher Degree of Glory in it, and many other great Privileges, to be enjoyed here, before they came to Heaven; and this Promise the Pope makes, not singly by himself, but in, and with the consent of the greatest General Council Rome ever had. Innocent the Third is the Pope, and the t Conc. Later. mag. num sub Innocentio. 3. Ann. 1215. fourth Lateran is the Council I mean; in which u Ita Abbas Ursperg. in Chronico ad dictum Ann. 1215. Binius in Hist. Conc. Later. 4. praesixa. there were, above Twelve hundred Fathers. By the Authority of this x Can. 3. De Haereticis. Council, an Army was to be raised for the y Ad Haereticorum Exterminium. Destruction of Heretics (the poor Wabdenses) and they were to have the sum z Illa Indulgentia & Privilegio muniti sunt, quod Accedentibus ad terrae Sanctae subsidium conceditur. Ibid. dicto Can. 3. Privileges which were granted to those who fought against the Turks to recover the Holy Land. What those Privileges were Pope Innocent (in his a Const. Innocent. 3. 12. data Lateran. 19 Cal. Jan. 1215. Bull) tells us. 1. They were to be freed from b A Collectis, Talliis, aliisque gravaminibus sunt Immunes. Bullae dictae. §. 10. all Taxes, Impositions, and all Burdens whatsoever. 2. They were to be received into the c Quorum Personas & Bonasua sub Beati Petri & Nostrâ Protectione suscipimus. Ibidem. Protection of St. Peter and the Pope; there is nothing of God's Protection mentioned. The Pope (who sits in the Temple of God, d 2. Thess. 2. 4. showing himself that he is God) thought (and would have them think so too) that he was sufficient to protect them. 3. If they had borrowed any Money upon Use, and had solemnly sworn to pay it; yet the Pope Commands that they shall be freed both from their e Si ad Praestandas usuras Juramento teneantur astricti, Creditores ut remittant Juramentum & Vsuras Compelli praecipimus. Ibid. §. 11. Oath, and paying any Use. 4. If they went to kill and exterminate Heretics in Person, and at their own Expenses, than A Full f Plenam peccatorum Veniam Indulgemus, & Salutis Aeternae pollicemur Augmentum. Ibidem §. 17. In Bullario Romano, Romae, 1638. Tom. 1. p. 78. Col. 7. vide Matth. Paris. ad Ann. 1213. In Johanne. pag. 241. and Plenary Pardon of All their Sins here, and A Greater Degree of Glory hereafter, is (by the Pope and that great General Council) promised them. By the Premises I think it evident, that if any of Queen Elizabeth's Subjects (after her Damnation and Excommunication by the Pope) had by raising Arms against her publicly, or by Poison or Pistol privately taken away her Life, it had neither been Rebellion, Treason, nor Murder, but an innocent Action; And that not one of those which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Naturae Mediae, and Indifferent, which are morally neither good nor bad; but (in the Judgement of the Church of Rome, and upon those her approved Principles) it had been an Action Morally Good, nay, (which is far more) Meritorious: For which they should have Remission of All their Sins here, and not only Heaven, but (in it) A higher Degree of Glory hereafter: And if it happened, that any of them miscarried in this their meritorious Act of killing Heretical Kings, and were (according to their desert) hanged for Treason, than (with the Pope and his Party) they pass for Martyrs, and as such, shall be honoured, and highly commended to Posterity. I wrong them not, Ribadeneira the Jesuit (to omit many others) in a g Catalogus Scriptorum Religionis Societatis Jesus; Auctore Pet. Ribadeneira, Ejusdem Societ. Theol. Antverp. 1613. Book Licenced by the h Ferdinandus Lucero in Censura Libro praefixa, Madritif, 17. Sept. 1607. Vice-Provincial of Toledo, approved by the Bishop of i Lavin. Torrentius in Oda ad Societatem Libr. praefixa. Antverp, and k Gravium doctorumque hominum Judicio Probatus. Ferd. Lucero indicta Censura. other Grave and Learned Men (as they are there called) I say, in this Book he has a l Dicti Libri. p. 357. 358. etc. Century of Martyrs of his Society; and amongst them, reckons m Ibid. p. 366. Campian, n Ibid. p. 371. Walpoole, o Ibid. p. 372. Southwell, p In supplemento addictam Cent●riam. pag. 375. Garnett, q Ibidem. Oldcorne, etc. and calls them Martyrs; who were Legally Convict here, and Justly Executed as Impious Traitors. God Almighty preserve our Gracious King from the Traitorous and Pernicious Conspiracies of those men, who (by a strange delusion) believe such Principles, and call Impious Traitors Holy Martyrs. The Premises considered, there can be little reason to doubt, but the Popish Party (as ever since the Reformation they constantly have, so they) always will endeavour by secret Plots and Conspiracies, by Poison, Pistols, or (when they have Ability) by open War, to ruin and utterly extirpate and destroy all the Protestants of this Nation (King and Subjects) who are by the Pope Declared and Excommunicated Heretics, seeing there are such exceeding great Rewards (aforementioned) assured to them, for doing it; not only by private and fallible persons, but by the Constitutions of their Popes, and the Canons of their greatest and approved General Councils; their Supreme Judge and Infallible Guide, which all Papists (by the Principles of their Religion) are bound to obey, and act according to such Canons and Constitutions. And were they indeed (what they pretend to) Infallible, it were great folly and midness not to do so. For he is certainly a Fool, who (having a Journey to go, on which the Eternal misery or felicity of his Soul depends) will not follow an Infallible Guide. And (which is further very considerable) All their r Omnes, quas Cathedralibus & Superioribus Ecclesiis praefici, vel quibus de illarum dignit atibus, Canonicatibus & alis, quibuscunque Beneficiis Ecclesiasticis, Curam Animarum habentibus, providere Contingat, publicam Orthodoxae fidei professionem facere, seque in Rom. Ecclesiae Obedientiâ permansuros, Spondere & Jurare teneantur. Vide Bullam Pij. 4. super forma Juramenti Professionis fidei, in Concilio Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat. Cap. 12. pag. 450. Edit. Antverp. 1633. Dignitaries in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, All who have Cure of Souls, All who are provided for, and preferred to any s Etiam per quoscunque quibus de Monasteriis, Conventibus, Domibus, & aliis quibuscunque locis, Regularium quorumcunque Ordinum, etiam Militiarum, quocunque nomine providebitur, idem Servari. Idem. pag. 451. Extat etiam in Bullario Romano. Edit. Romae, 1638. Tom. 2. pag. 97. Dat. Ibid. Novem. 1564. Pontificatus sui Ann. 5. Monastery, or Religious House whatsoever, be they of whatsoever Order of Regulars. And not only these; but t Nullus Doctor, Magister, Regens, vel alius cujuscunque Artis & Facultatis Professor, sive Clericus, sive Laicus, ac Secularis, vel cujusvis Ordinis Regularis, sit, in quibusvis Vniversitatibus aut Gymnasiis publicis, aut Alibi Lectoris Cathedram obtinere, aut obtentam retinere, seu alias Theologiam, Canonicam vel Civilem Censuram, Medicinam, Philosophiam, Grammalicam vel alias Artes Liberales, publice vel privatim profiteri, nisi Juramento prius praestito. etc. Bulla Pij. 4. in Bullarij Rom. Tom. 2. p. 96. & cap. In Sacro Sancta. 2. De Magist. & Doctoribus in 7. All Doctors, Masters, Regent's, and Professors of any Art or Faculty, whether they be of the Laity or Clergy, or Regulars of any Order whatsoever, in any University, public School, or any where else, in Cities, Universities, Towns, Churches or Monasteries; whether they profess Divinity, Canon or Civil Law, Physic, Philosophy, Grammar, or any other Liberal Art, publicly or privately, and all who take any Degrees in any University; All these (that is, almost all the Learned men in the Papacy) by the u Juxta dispositicnem Conc. Trid. in Constit. 89. Pij. 4. Bullar. Rom. Tom. 2. pag. 97. Disposition and Appointment of the Pope and Council of Trent, are to x Romano Pontifici, Petri Apostolorum Principis Successori, & Christi Vicario veram Obedientiam Spondeo, ac Juro. Caetera item Omnia à Sacris Canonibus & Occumenicis Conciliis, Praecipuè à Trident. Synodo tradita, definita ac declarata, Indubitanter recipio & profiteor, & ad Vltimum vitae spiritum Constantisstmè retinere ac profiteri, & à meis subditis, illísque quorum Cura ad me spectat, teneri, quantum in me est, Curaturum. Ego. N. Spondeo, Voveo, Juro, etc. p. 98. §. 2. dictae Bullae. promise, vow, and swear to obey the Pope as Peter' s Successor and Christ's Vicar, and to receive, and without All Doubting to Profess all Things delivered, defined, and declared in the Sacred Canons, and General Councils, Especially in the Council of Trent; and all this they swear to do most constantly so long as they live, and to take care (to the utmost of their Ability) that all under them, or committed to their Charge, shall do so too. And the Pope there further tells us, y Deus Omnipotens Patribus (Tridentinis) Divinitus Inspirare Dignatus est. Ibidem, in dictae Bullae Initio. That God Almighty did by the Holy Ghost Inspire the Trent Fathers to require, That this Oath should be taken. Seeing then there are so many thousands in the Church of Rome, who do and must take this cursed Oath, to Obey the Pope, and receive, and without doubting believe all their Rebellious Canons before mentioned, and (to the utmost of their Power) to persuade and induce all who are under their Cure and Charge (that is, all the Laity in the whole Roman Church, for all of them are under the Charge and Cure of some of those who take that Oath) to receive and believe them too. Hence it manifestly follows, 1. That the Church of Rome approves those impicus and rebellious Doctrines to which so many thousands swear, by the Command of the Pope and Trent Council. 2. That all their ecclesiastics (Secular and Regular) who have any Cure of Souls and Charge over others, are bound, not only by their Papal Constitutions and Decrees of their General Councils; but by a Personal Promise, Vow, and Oath, (in facinus Jurasse putes) to believe and profess, and (as there is opportunity) to practise according to these Principles. 3. And hence it appears, That Queen Elizabeth was (and all Protestant Kings and Princes are, and in the like case, will be) in most eminent Danger of assassination by her Popish Subjects, especially after Pope Pius the fifth had damned, and deposed her, absolved all her Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and Commanded them (on pain of Excommunication) never to obey her, or any of her Laws or Commands; it being also declared, by their Supreme Infallible Power, That the kill the Queen, by open War publicly, or privately by Poison or Pistol, had neither been Rebellion, Treason, nor Murder, but an Act morally good and meritorious; by which they should merit, not only Heaven, but a higher Degree of Glory in it, and be, as Glorious Martyrs (if they died in that Cause) commended to Posterity; Nay, when their ecclesiastics (both Secular and Regular) who had any Cure of Souls, or Authority and Charge over others, had promised, vowed, and solemnly sworn, That they would obey the Pope as Christ's Vicar, etc. I say, those who had such great Promises to allure them, and their Promise, Oath and vow to oblige them to it, would certainly endeavour (as indeed they did, as will appear anon) the ruin and destruction of that good Queen. Neither is this all. For 6. Last; the Pope and his Party have further Inducements, more efficacious and powerful to persuade their Instruments to Assassinate Princes and Extirpate Heretics, especially z They are more afraid of Protestants, then of all others they call Heretics, and there is good reason for it. For truth (which the Protestants constantly maintain) is more destructive of their Popish Errors, than any one Error can be of another. Extrema (Errores & vitia) facile Coexistunt; Media (virtutes & veritates) Extrema destruunt. This appears, 1. Because they will not permit their Italian Papists to live in any Protestant County. Prohibentur Nunc Itali Catholici habitare, ciu Commorari extra Italiam Occasione Mercimonij adsque Licentiâ Inquisitorum, si in illis partibus non viget Libertas Religiones Catholicae. Vide Const. 42. Clement. 8. in Bullario Rom. Tom. 3. pag. 42. 2. They permit no Heretics (Protestant's you may be sure especially) to inhabit in Italy, or the adjacent Isles, on pretence of Merchandise, etc. Gregorius. 15. sub gravissimis poenis vetuit, Haereticos quoscunque etiam sub praetextu Coinmercij habere domum apertam propriam, vel Conductam in Italiâ, vel adjacientibus insulis. Gregorius. 15. in Constitut. 38. In dicto Bullario. Tom. 3. pag. 314. Edit. Romae. 1638. Vide Corp. Jur. Canon. Lugduni. 1661. & ibi Annotationes in Calce Tom. 2. pag. 55. 3. Because 'tis notoriously known, that they permit Jews, (who deny Jesus Christ, and the whole Gospel) to live and have Houses, even in Rome itself, and yet they will not permit Protestants. It is a less Crime (it seems) at Rome, to deny Jesus Christ, then to deny (what all Protestants do) that the Pope is his Vicar, and Monarchical Head of the whole Christian Church. Protestant's, the greatest Enemies of their Antichristian Tyranny, and Papal Usurpations. For although to pious men, (who really desire, and use the just means to obtain it) the promise of Eternal Joys in Heaven, is the greatest Motive and Encouragement imaginable; yet to such Impious and Prodigious Villains (who will undertake to kill Kings and murder Innocents') Heaven signifies no more, than the Diamond did to Aesop's Cock in the Fable, who preferred a Grain of Barley before it. And therefore, for such, (and none but such will serve them in the Execution of such Execrable Villainies) they have present and more prevailing Encouragements; I mean Money and great Sums of Gold, or some vast Temporal Advantages to be enjoyed here; which prevails more with such Persons, than the Promise of Heaven hereafter: I shall (out of many) give two or three Instances. As, 1. In the year. 1594. a Cambdens Eliz. l. 4. ad Ann. 1594. p. 430. 431. Edit. Lond. 1635. Roderigo Lopez (a Jew and Physician) Stephen Ferriera Gama, and Emanuel Loisie (two Portugals) by the Roman Arts and Impiety, were hired, and undertook to Poison Queen Elizabeth. Lopez had a rich Jewel sent him, and was (by Contract) to have b Fifty thousand Ducats promised by the Popish Party, for Poisoning Q. Elizabeth. Fifty thousand Ducats; which evidently appeared (at their Trial) by their own Confessions. And though Letters intercepted, and the Good Providence of God (by whom King's Reign) their Villainy was detected, and they (as Traitors) justly Executed; yet their Popish Desires and Endeavours were not less mischievous and impious, because the Good Providence of God graciously prevented the Execution of their Designs. 2. This, by the Mercy of God not taking Effect, (for there is no Power or Policy can prevail against Divine Providence) a little after in the c Cambdens Eliz. l. 4. ad Ann. 1594. 1596. p. 440. vide Plura in Statuto de Ann. 3. Jac. c. 2. same year, Edmund York and Richard Williams, were (by the same Roman Arts and Impiety) hired to Kill the Queen. York (at his Trial) confessed, That Holt the Jesuit, Hugh Owen, Jacomo de Francisco, and others, had offered him an Assignment of d Forty thousand Ducats promised for killing Q. Elizabeth. Forty thousand Ducats, if he would Kill the Queen himself, or assist Richard Williams in Killing Her. This York confessed at his Trial; and that Holt the Jesuit (in whose Hand the Assignment of Forty thousand Ducats was deposited) kissing the Holy Host, swore that the Money should be paid so soon as the Queen was killed; and bound York and Williams by an Oath, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist, To Dispatch it. In short, many others (besides these named) conspired the assassination and death of the Queen. For Instance; (to omit others) 1. Dr. e Cambdens Eliz. l. 2. p. 144. 145. Story, Ann. 1572. 2. f Ibid. l. 3. p. 257. Somervil, Ann. 1583. 3. Dr. g Ibid. l. 3. p. 272. Parry, Ann. 1585. by the Approbation and Encouragement of the Pope and Cardinal Como. 4. John h Ibid. l. 3. p. 302. Savage, Ann. 1586. 5. Ant. i Ibid. p. 303. Babington; and five or six more with him are encouraged and persuaded to Murder the Queen, in the same year, 1586. 6. k Ibid. p. 336. Moody, Ann. 1587. 7. Patrich l Ibid. l. 4. p. 431. Cullen, Ann. 1594. 8. Edward m Ibid. l. 4. p. 498. Squire, Ann. 1598. 9 n Ibid. l. 4. p. 578. Winter and Tesmond the Jesuit, Ann. 1602. etc. We see there were many (too many) desperate Villains, who valued not their own, so that they might take away the Queen's life; and yet too few (Divine Providence preventing their Impious Designs) to Effect and Compass that (more than Pagan) Popish Conspiracy, which at (so vast an Expense of Money) the Pope and his Party designed and earnestly desired, and endeavoured to Execute. 3. When all this would not do; and the Pope and his Party plainly saw, that they could not cut off the Queen by Pistol, Poison, or private Assassinations, horrendum & majus machinantur scelus: they design by Fire and Sword, by open War, utterly to destroy that good Queen, and all her Heretical (that is, Loyal) Subjects. And to this end, (besides Plenary Indulgence and Pardon of all sins here, and the Kingdom of Heaven hereafter) Pius the Fifth promises, and immediately gives two whole Kingdoms (England and Ireland) to Philip the Second, King of Spain; as is notoriously known, and o Pius. 5. In Depositione Eliz. Jus Britanniae, Hiberniaeque ad Philip. 2. Hispaniae Regem transtulit; vi cujus donationis, demandat us postea Sidonius fuit. Ann. 1588. Class Hispanicâ Instructus, ut Regna Britanniae Possideret. F. R. Charon, Remonstrant. Hibernorum. Part. c. 3. §. 4. p. 7. confessed by their own Popish Writers His Successors, Gregory the Thirteenth, and Sixtus the Fifth, renew and confirm the Excommunication of Elizabeth, and the donation of her Kingdoms; and accordingly (not with Gods, but) with the Pope's p Sixtus the Fifth was Pope, and it was in the fourth year of his Popedom. Vide Cambd. Eliz. l. 3. ad Ann. 1588. p. 360. 361. Approbation and Blessing, in that memorable year 1588. the (vainly supposed) Invincible Armado was sent to destroy the damned Heretics (the Queen and her Loyal Subjects) and take Possession of her Kingdoms, which the Pope had given him. The Pretences the Pope had to give those Kingdoms, (for they were but miserable Pretences, void of all Reason and Justice) were Two. 1. King John's Donation and q Matth. Paris. ad dictum Ann. 1213. pag. 236. Resignation of his Crown to Pope Innocent the Third, about the year, 1213. when that King and the whole Nation groaned under many Miseries and Papal Oppressions. Which Act of King John was invalid and absolutely Null; he having no just Power to give away his Kingdom. And even then declared to be Null; not only by the English Barons and Nation, but by the King of r Rex Francorum respondet, Regnum Angliae Patrimonium Petri nunquam fuit; Nec est, Nec erit. Nullus Rex potest dare Regnum suum, sine assensu Baronum suorum, Qui Regnum tenantur defendere. Tunc Magnates Omnes Vno Oreclamabant, quod isto Articulo starent usque ad mortem, non Rex vel Princeps per Sol●m voluntatem suam possit Regnum dare, vel tributarium facere, unde nobiles regni essent servi. Matth. Paris in Johanne ad Ann. 1213. France and his Nobility, as Matthew Paris tells us. 2. Nor is it only Matthew Paris who says that the Kings of England and Ireland▪ are (since King John's time) Tribuiaries to the Pope, (as they pretend) but their Historians, Canonists, and the Popes themselves. So s Matth. Westmin. ad Ann. 1213. p. 271. Johannes Rex est Papae Tributarius, seu Fe●datarius. Matthew Westminster, Henry t Hen. Knighton de Event. Angl. l. 2. c. 15. p. 2420. Knighton, Cardinal Tuscus, etc. The Cardinal tells us, That the Pope is the Supreme u Card. Tuschus Pract. Conclus. Juris. Tom. 6. Conclus. 41. Judge of All. That he can Depose the x Papa potest deponere Imperatorem, Reges, Deuces, & Omnes qui de facto Superiorem non recognoscunt. Ibid. §. 49. Emperor, Kings, Dukes, and All who Acknowledge No Superior; and that the Kings of England, and Sicily are y Rex Angliae & Siciliae sunt Tributarij Ecclesiae Romanae. Ibid. §. 34. Tributaries to the Church of Rome. And he who denies this Papal z Qui negat potestatem Papae, Negat se Christianum. Ibid. §. 37. Power, is No Christian. And for Ireland; Pope John the Two and twentieth, in a Bull to our King Edward the Second, tells him, That his Predecessor, Adrian the Fourth, Gave the Kingdom of Ireland to Henry the Second, King of England, upon certain Conditions, which Conditions our King had not kept. And this ridiculous Bull we have in Matthew Paris, ad Ann. 1156. pag. 95. where he tells us, That all the Islands in the World, which are Christian, belong to Peter, and so to the Pope. See Archbishop Usher of the Religion professed by the Ancient Irish, pag. 51. 92. 93. 94. etc. And upon these (and such like ridiculous) Pretences, the Pope required Edward the Third to do him a Vid. Const. 4. Johan. Papae, 22. In Bullar. Rom. Tom. 1. p. 172. Edit. Rom. 1638. Homage for the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the Arrears of One thousand Marks per Annum. All the Pope's pretences were in a full Popish Parliament declared vain and evidently null; as appears by my Lord b My Lord Cook▪ Inst. Part. 4. c. 1. p. 13. Cook, and the Record before mentioned. Besides; 'tis certain that John was an Usurper, and had only Possession of the Crown, but no just Right and Title to it. For Elinor, Daughter to Jeffery his Elder Brother, was living, and was the true Heir of the Crown; so that King John's Resignation of the Crown to the Pope, was absolutely null; it being impossible he should give a Just Title to another, who had none himself. His second Pretence was, that the Queen being an Excommunicate and Deposed Heretic, (as he was pleased to miscall her) her Kingdom was forfeited to him, by the Canon of their great Lateran Council. Wherein 'tis c Significetur Pontifici, ut Ipse Vasallos à fidelitate absolvat, & Terram Exponat Catholicis occupandam. Conc. Lateran. 4. Can. 3. De Haereticis. And it now goes for Law. Cap. 13. Extra. de Haereticis. declared, That such obstinate Persons (as they call the Queen) when they stood Excommunicate, and would not give Satisfaction, the Pope was to absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and give their Lands and Kingdoms to Catholics: who by that Canon, were bound to Exterminate or Extirpate d Qui terram illam Exterminatis Haereticis absque ullâ Contradictione possideant, & in fidei puritate conservent. Ibidem. all Heretics. Upon the aforesaid Sandy Foundations, the Popes successively since King John's time, build their Right to the Crown of England; and believe, (or at least say, and would have others believe) that the Imperial or Royal Power of England and Ireland is in them; and our Kings only Beneficiarij & Feudatarij (as the Civil Law calls them) Feudataries to the Pope, of whom (as their Supreme Lord) they hold their Kingdoms. Whence it was, that Pope Innocent the Third, in his Letter to Philip King of France, calls the King of England his e Papa Philippo Francorum Regi Literas mittit, in quibus rogat ut Regem Angliae non Inquiet art; sed ut Romanae Ecclesiae Vassallum protegeret. Mat. Paris Hist. an Ann. 1216. p. 280. In Johanne. Vassal. And his Successor, Pope Innocent the Fourth (with a Prodigious Antichristian Pride and Impiety) calls our King (Henry the Third was then King) His Vassal, and (which is more) his Slave. What (says he) f Papa non se capiens prae ira & indignatione (it was Grostheads Letter had angered him) torvo aspectu, & superbo animo, ait: Nun Rex Anglorum noster est Vasallus, & ut plus dicam Mancipium? Mat. Paris Hist. in Hen. 3. ad Ann. Dom. 1253. p. 872. in Edit. G. Watsij. London. 1640. Is not the King of England our Vassal? Nay, that I may say more, our Slave? These are his words, and expressions, of such prodigious Pride, as is absolutely Inconsistent with that great and exemplary Humility, which our blessed g Matth. 20. 28. Luc. 22. 27. Saviour practised in his own Person, and Commanded all (even h Matth. 20. 45. 46. 47. & Matth. 23. 11. 12. Luc. 22. 24. 25. 26. Peter and his Apostles) to imitate: But yet congruous enough, and consistent with the Hypocrisy of him, who would be called Servus Servorum Dei, the Servant of all God's Servants; and yet as the Man of Sin (mentioned by the i 2. Thess. 2, 4. Apostle) Exalts himself above all that is called God, and (with Pope Innocent the Fourth, in the place now cited) calls Kings his Slaves and Vassals. 'Tis true, we believe and know, that the Pope indeed had no Power to perform those aforesaid Promises; and so in making them was (to all intelligent, sober, and pious Persons) not only impious, but ridiculous; yet to those of his Popish Party, who (having strong delusion to believe a Lie) were persuaded he had Power to make good his Promises; that he was Christ's Vicar, Supreme Head and Monarch of the Church; that he had the Power of the Keys, and so could shut and open, keep out and let into Heaven whom he pleased, that he could by this Power Depose k Greg. 7. deposeth Hen. 4. Emperor, by the Power of the Keys. Potestas Ligandi & Solvendi in Coelo & Terrâ, mihi à Dco data. Hac ideo fiducia fretus, Henrico totius Regni Teutonini & Italiae gubernacula Interdico, & Omni Christianos, à vincule Juramenti, quod sibi fecere, absolvo. Baronius Annal Tom. 11. ad Ann. 1076. §. 25. 26. Kings, and was Infallible and l Ecclesia Rom. Nunquam Erravit, nec in perpetuum (Scripturâ testante) Errabit. Inter Dictatus Papae. Ibid. apud Bar. §. 33. p. 479. Edit. Antu. 1608. never Erred (for these Erroneous and Impious Positions are m Dictatus seu Sententiae Breviores Gregorij Papae, Qu● Hactenus in ●cclesiâ Catholicâ usu receptae, ut ex his reprimeretur audacia Schismaticorum Episcoporum & Principum. Baron. Ibid. §. 31. p. 479. And Pope Leo. 10. in their General Latera● Council, 1513. and in his Bull in Bullario Rom. Romae, 1638. Tom. 1. p. 451. says the same thing, that the Church and Pope of Rome have never erred. Ibid. in Constit. Leo. 10. 40. §. 3. & 6. approved and received at Rome) I say, such Promises, made by such a Person, were very great. And (to such deluded Persons, who were persuaded of the truth and reality of them) prevailing Encouragements, to make them desperately endeavour to Assassinate and Murder Queen Elizabeth. Forty or Fifty thousand Ducats promised, was great and intic●ing Wages for doing such a Work, and actually prevailed with many to endeavour it. But when (what the Pope promised Philip King of Spain) two whole Kingdoms here, and the Kingdom of Heaven hereafter are promised for destroying the Heretics (the Queen and her Loyal Subjects) this was such an offer, as could not be refused by any who desired (as most do) Wealth or Honour here; or (as all should do) the Joys of Heaven hereafter. These were the Impious Policies, and Bloody Practices of Rome, to destroy Queen Elizabeth and her Protestant Subjects: and as their fear of the Protestant Religion, (destructive of their Superstition and Idolatry) continued, so their hate of it, and their desire and endeavours to destroy all the Professors of it. For the Queen being dead, in the beginning of King James his Reign (upon the aforementioned, or the like motives) they undertook the Gunpowder n Vide Stat. 3. Jac. Capp. 1. & 2. A Conspiracy undertaken by Malignant and Devilish Jesuits and Priests. Ibid. Cap. ●▪ A Design so barbarous and cruel, as the like was never before heard of. Ibidem. The most wicked barbarous, execrable, and abominable Treason that ever entered into the heart of the most wicked man. Ibid. cap. 2. Conspiracy, (such a horrid and hellish Villainy, as no Turkish or Pagan Story can parallel) wherein they endeavoured, and (if the Powerful Providence of Heaven had not hindered it) had Assassinated, not not the King only, but the whole Kingdom, in its Representative. And further, (to omit the bloody and barbarous Assassinations of o Vid. Thuani Hist. Tom. 4. lib. 95. ad Ann. 1598. Henry the Third of France, by Jaques Clement, and of Henry the Fourth, by Raviliac, p Vide Anticoton, by Peter Du Moulin. In that Pyramid erected in Paris upon the Murder of Henry the Fourth, the Jesuits are noted as men, Malificae Superstitionis, Quorum Instinctu, piacularis Adolescens (Raviliac) Dirum facinus (the murder of the King) Instituerat. encouraged to those Villainies by Jesuitical and Popish Principles and Promises; for Raviliac confessed, That it was the Book of Mariana the Jesuit, and the Traitorous Positions maintained in it, which induced him to that Prodigious Villainy, the Murder of the King; for which Cause that Book (Damned by the Sentence of the Parliament and Sorbon) was publicly burnt in Paris. I say, to let these, and such Instances pass, it is too well known and believed, that in the late q Ann. 1678. & 1679. horrid and hellish Conspiracy (continued and carried on, principally by the Jesuits) to take away the Life of our Gracious King (whom God preserve) one of the Assassins' had Fifteen thousand pounds paid or promised, and another, Thirty thousand Masses to be said for him, if he miscarried, to Encourage them to that Monstrous Popish Villainy. Now their Impiety in this their Engagement, was equal; both undertaking the Commission of the same Sin, the Murder of their King: But their folly seemed unequal. For Fifteen thousand pounds might possibly (in this World) have been some benefit to him who contracted for it: But the 30000. Masses, were altogether Insignificant, and could be no way beneficial or profitable to him to whom they were promised, either in this, or the World to come. The poor Miscreant was cozened by his Party, with the noise and number of their Masses. For they knew, and (had he not been a Fool as well as Knave and Villain) so might he too; that those Masses could never do him any good. For even by their own approved and received Principles, killing of Heretics (especially an Excommnicated Prince) was such a meritorious Work, as (without any Masses) deserved a Plenary Indulgence and pardon of all his Sins, and an higher place in Heaven; and therefore he could not go to r Cum poenae pro culpis debitae delentur & remittuntur, tum crimina velentur & remittuntur. Quo sensu Ecclesia per Indulgentias concedit peccatorum Omnium plenissimam veniam, id est, Poenarum Omnium, quas peccando contraximus.— Quia non est Plene remissa Culpa, quamdiu peccator Reus est Solvendae Poenae. Melch. Canus Locorum Theol. lib. 12. cap. 13. §. Ex quo Ambrosij pag. 694. Edit. Colon. Agrip. 1605. Purgatory (had there been any such Place) nor could the Devil or the Pope punish him there, for such Sins as were absolutely pardoned, and all the Punishment due to them remitted; I say, they could not justly do it: or admit the Devil (had he power and permission) might be willing to punish an innocent Soul, which had no Sin to punish; yet sure his Holiness (who as Christ's Vicar has the Keys of Purgatory as well as Heaven) would not do, or at least not own (for otherwise he does, and has done as Impious things) the doing of that, which is so evidently injust. So that (if their own Principles be true) those Thirty thousand Masses could no way be profitable to that miserable deluded Person, in Purgatory, whither he was never to come; and I suppose, they will not say, that their Masses here, are profitable to the glorified Saints and Martyrs in Heaven. 12. Observ. 12. And here, (for a more clear and distinct Explication of their Jesuitical and Popish Assassinations) it will neither be Impertinent nor Improper to observe further, That although since the time of Hildebrand or s It was the saying of this Gregory; Intelligant Omnes, Imperia, Regna, Principatus, & quicquid habere mortales possunt, auferre & dare Nos Posse. Plat. in vitâ Greg. 7. Edit. 1485. And Baronius tells us, that this, and such dictates of that Pope— In Ecclesia Catholica Hactenùs usurecepti sunt. Annal. Tom. 11. ad Ann. 1076. §. 31. Gregory the Seaventh, the Antichristian Pride or Tyranny of the Pope and his Party, has been exceeding great, and pernicious to the Western Part of the World; they both approving and practising the Excommunications and Depositions of Kings and Emperors, Absolutions of their Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance, with Injunctions (against the Law of Nature and Scripture) never to Obey them: yet I do not find that the Popes or their Party approved or practised the Assassinations of Princes before Ignatius Loyola, and the unhappy Approbation and Confirmation of his Society, Ann. 1540 Nay, I find it Condemned, as Impious, Inhuman, and Barbarous; not only by their Learned men, (even their Canonists) but by their Popes and Councils. That this may appear, I desire it may be considered, 1. That Pope Innocent the Fourth, about the year 1245. or 1246. makes a t Constitutio illa extat, in Corpore Juris Can. de Homicidio. cap. pro humani. 1. In. 6. Constitution in the General Council at Lions, (and with the u Sacri approbatione Concilij Statuimus. Ibid. approbation of that Council) wherein he calls Assassinations x Qui Horrenda Impietate Detestandaque Saevitiâ Mortem suiunt aliorum, ut Ipsos faciunt per Assassinos occidi, non solum Corporum, sed mortem procurent Animarum— Statuimus, ut quicunque Princeps vel Praelatus quempiam Christianorum per praedictos Assassinos interfici fecerit, vel mandaverit (quanquam mors non sequatur) Excommunicatus & Depositus à Dignitate, Honore, & Officio, Ipso facto, sit bonis etiam Mundanis Omnibus à toto Christiano populo perpetuo diffidatus. Ibid. & Conc. Tom. 11. Part. 1. p. 672. Edit. per Labbe Paris. 1671. Horrid Inhumanity, and Detestable Cruelty, and an endeavour to kill Body and Soul: and then adds, That if any Prince or Prelate, any Person Ecclesiastical or Civil, shall procure any Assassin to kill any Christian, (though the Effect do not follow) or receive, conceal, or any way favour such Assassin, than such Person is (Ipso facto) Excommunicate, Deposed, and Deprived of all his Honour, Dignity and Revenue. This was the Judgement of Pope Innocent the Fourth about 435. years since; and although for Antichristian Pride and Tyranny (as in other things, so) in his Impious Excommunication and Deposition of the Emperor Frederick, he was as bad as his Predecessors; yet neither they nor he, were (as yet) arrived at the height of Impiety to approve Mahometan and Turkish Assassinations of Kings and Emperors. 2. About Eight and forty years after the making of his Constitution by Innocent the Fourth, Boniface the Eighth (as Impious and Tyrannical as his Predecessors, was made Pope, and approved this Constitution of Innocent against Assassinations, and referred it into the Body of their y Cap. pro humani. ●. De Homicidio, In. 6. Decretalium. Canon Law; where it still z Vid. Edit. Juris Canonici, Paris. 1612. & 1618. Lugduni. 1661. etc. remains in all Editions of that Law, even to this Day: and that (to give a Vt hujus utilissimi & gravissimi Codicis non vacillaret Authoritas, placuit Pio. 4. dein Pio. 5. & Greg. 13. ut illi Corrigendo Summa opera daretur, etc. Ita admonitio ad Lect. praefixa Corpori Juris Can. Paris. 1612. & Ludg. 1661. Authority to it) with the Approbation and Confirmation of succeeding Popes; particularly of Pius the Fourth, Pius the Fifth, and Gregory the Thirteenth. 3. And hence it is, that eminent Writers of the Church of Rome (except the Jesuits and their Party) do, even to this Day, generally Condemn all such Assassinations, as Impious, and to the Public Pernicious. This evidently appears (to say nothing of the Gloss) by Cardinal b Summa de Ecclesia, l. 25. 35. & 36. as he is cited (for I have not the Book by me) in the Margin of the Canon Law; ad Cap. 1. de Homicidio. in. 6. Turrecremata, Cardinal c In Summula. verbo Assassinus. Cajetan, Cardinal d Conclus. Pract. Juris, Lit. A. verbo Assassinus. Conclus. 531. Tuschus, Henry e Continuat. Annal. Baronij, ad Ann. 1231. §. 3. 4. 5. etc. Spondanus (Bishop of Pamiez in France,) Didacus f Operum, Tom. 1. p. 528. De Delict. & Conat. §. 9 Couvarruvias (Bishop of Segobia in Spain, etc.) And here it is further observable, 1. That Pope Innocent the Fourth, in the aforesaid Decretal Constitution, speaks only of those Ancient, and properly so called Mahometan-Assassins; and though he censures their Assassinations as Impious, yet he appoints not their Punishment. I know that the Author of the Gloss upon that Constitution (Joh. Andrea's Boniensis, was the man) tells us; g Papa volens obviare hujusmodi malis, profert plures poenas in istos Assassinos, & illos qui eis mandabant. Glossa ad dictum Cap. 1. De Homicidio. In. 6. That the Punishments expressed there, are denounced against the Assassins', as well as those who procured or hired them to Assassinate any Christians. But the man is miserably mistaken; for 'tis Evident, and h Non contraipsos Assassinos, utpote Infideles; sed contra Mandantes per Ipsos aliquem occidi; Innocentius. 4. Excommunicationem promulgavit. Cajetan. in Summula. verbo Assassinus. Confessed, That the Punishments contained in the Constitution, are denounced only against those Christians who hire and employ those Impious Assassins'. Excommunication (and the Consequents of it) is the Punishment mentioned in that Constitution; which neither did, nor possibly could concern those Mahometan Assassins'. For although the said Author of the Gloss, elsewhere tells us, That the Pope is i Papa cum prius esset Purus Homo, nunc Vices Veri Dei●gerit. Johan. Andrea's, in Glossa ad Prooemium. 6. Decret. verbo Bonifacius. more than a pure man; and God's Viceroy; yet certainly, he cannot do Impossibilities, and Excommunicate Mahometans and Infidels; unless he can turn those out of the Christian Church, who never were, nor would be in it; and deprive them of that Communion, which they never had. But although Pope Innocent the Fourth (in the aforementioned Constitution) speaks only of the Infidel and Mahometan Assassins', and of those Christians who procure or hire them to Murder Princes, and has nothing of any other, who are not of that Mahometan Society; though they undertake and act the same Villainies; yet those Great and Learned Canonists and Writers of the Popish Church (beforenamed) upon proportion and parity of Reason, justly Condemn all Christians who shall undertake and effect, or endeavour such Assassinations. Of these Christian Assassins', Cardinal Cajetan says— k Et high non comprehenduntur sub Censura dicta, quamvis digni sunt & Morte Temporaeli & Aeternâ. Cajetan. Ibidem. That though they be not comprehended under the Censures of that Constitution, yet they Deserve both a Temporal and Eternal Death. And to the same purpose Covarruvias tells us, (and he says it is the Common Opinion) l Qui cum quolibet Christiano aut Infideli, pecuniae data vel promissa pactionem inierit, de homine Christiano occidendo, in ipso Mandatario, si ad actum proximum processerit, ut per eum minime steterit; quin scelus peregerit, notant puniendum fore poena Ordinariâ; id est, Morte. D. Covarruvias, Part. 2. Relect. Clem. Si furiosus, de Homicidio, de delictis & Conat. num. 9 Operum. Tom. 1. p. 258. Col. 1. That whosoever he be (Christian or Mahometan) who for Money given or promised, undertakes the Assassination of any Christian; in this Case, both the Mandans and Mandatarius, both he that hires, and he who is hired to do such Villainy, are highly guilty, and under the Censures, and the Severity of them: though he who is hired, do not actually effect the Assassination, if he really endeavour it. Nor is it only these I have named, who Damn this Impious, Mahometan: and Turkish Doctrine of Assassinating Kings and Princes. I believe, and (from good Authority) know, that many thousands more in the Communion of the Church of Rome do equally abhor and detest it, especially in France, where their Divines and Parliaments (famous for Learning and their General Defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church, against the Usurpations and Tyranny of Rome) in the year 1594. publicly Condemned this Mahometan and Jesuitical Doctrine, and declared it to be (what indeed it is) m Hen. Carter. Davila in his Hist. of the Civil Wars of France▪ add Ann. 1594. in Calce istius Anni. Heretical, Prodigious, and Diabolical. 4. But all this notwithstanding, the Jesuits (and others of their Party and Principles) did, and do approve and practise that Diabolical Doctrine; and when they conceive Princes to be Enemies to their Interest, or the Catholic Cause, (as they call it) endeavour (by Lying Calumnies) to disaffect the People, and to raise Rebellions against those Princes; that so they may cut them off, by Public War and Seditions; and when this succeeds not, by private Assassinations. This is (by sad Experience) notoriously known to our Western World; as may appear by the Premises, and further Testimonies of their own Roman Catholic Historians (in this Case) of Indubitable Truth and Veracity. Thuanus tell us, n Accident ad hoc Sacri ordinis favore & quorundam Religiosorum non segni Opera, & Jesuitarum Patrum Imprimis, qui fascinatum per scrupulosas in Arcanis Confessionibus quaestiones, lebem sensim à Principis obsequio alienatam, Ad Defectionem Sollicitabant. Thuanus Hist. Tom. 3. lib. 75. p. 561. A. B. Edit. 1620. & Tom. 4. l. 86. p. 170. ad Ann. 1587. And the same excellent person (Thuanus) gives us this account of the Society of the Jesuits. Nata Magistratum convellere, nata Ministris Subtrahere obsequium, praesulibusque suum. Et viles Regnantum animas, ipsosque Necandos Horrenda Regis proditione docet; Servandamque fidem Negat, argutisque cavillis Detorquet magni jussa severa Dei. Hi sunt Ampliss. Praesidis Thuani versus de Jesuitarum Sectâ, in Elegia sua eleganti in Parricidas, sub finem Sacrae Poeseos. That in those Bloody Wars in France, in the Reign of Henry the Third; it was some of the Religious and Regulars, especially the Jesuits, who by an Industrious, and (I add) Impious Diligence, did first Alienate the People from their Obedience to their Prince, and then solicited them to Rebellion. I know that those words (Ac Jesuitarum Patrum Imprimis) are not to be found in those Editions of Thuanus we have, being left out by the Arts and Frauds of those who corrupt all Authors who have any thing against their Errors or Impieties; but we are assured that those words were in the o Vide Thuanum Restitutum Amstoladami. Ann. 1663. p. 49. Original Copy of Thuanus his History. But when this would not do, and they saw the King could not be cut off by a Rebellious War, and publicly; they persuade and encourage Jaques Clement (a Desperate Villain) to Assassinate his Prince; who August the First, 1589. did the Execrable Act, and Murdered his King. Thuanus tells us, p Thuanus Hist. Tom. 4. l. 95. p. 454. A. Facundis Concionatorum Declamationibus, & Novitiorum, Theologorum, ac praecipuè Jesuitarum disputationibus, qui Tyrannum Impune occidere Licere affirmabant, Incitatus Clemens, etc. That Friar Clement was encouraged to Commit that Prodigious Parricide by the furious Sermons and Declamations of their New Divines, q Vide Thuanum Restitutum. p. 84. Especially of the Jesuits, who publicly taught them, That it was lawful, nay r Non solum inoffensa Conscientiâ facere posse, sed multum apud Deum Meriturum. Thuanus' dicto Tom. 4. & p. 454. Meritorious to kill a Tyrant, and if he outlived the Fact, he should be a Cardinal at s Hen. Cart. Davila, in his Hist. of the Civil Wars in France, Lib. 10. ad Ann. 1589. Rome; and if he died, a t Si in actu Ipso moriatur, proculdubio inter Beatorum choros animam ejus Evolaturam. Thuan. dicto Tom. 4. & p. 454. & Davila, l. 10. ad Ann. 1589. Saint in Heaven. And accordingly when he was dead (by a Death he deserved) his Party caused his u Historical Collections of the most Memorable Accidents, and Tragical Massacres in France, under Hen. 2. Francis. 2. Charles. 9 Hen. 3. and Hen. 4. ad Ann. 1589. in the beginning of Hen. 4. & Thuan. Tom. 4. ad dictum Ann. p. 458. Picture to be cut in Brass, adorned their Churches and Chambers with it, counted him a Saint and Martyr, and (as such) made their Addresses and Prayers to him. Horrid Superstition and Popish blindness, not to put a vast difference between a Martyr of Jesus Christ, and an Impious Traitor and Murderer of his King. 2. After this, in the year 1594. Johan. chastel undertakes and endeavours the Assassination of Henry the Fourth of France, struck him in the Mouth, but (the good Providence of Heaven protecting that Prince) did not effect his Impious Design. Now if you ask, How any who pretends to be a Christian, could have a Conscience so seared, or a Soul possessed with so Prodigious an Insensibility, as not to tremble at the very thought of Committing such a horrid and inhuman Villainy? a Hen. Carter. Davilâ, in his History of the Civil wars of France, lib. 14. ad Ann. 1594. sub sinem istius Anni. See to the same purpose the Author of the Civil Wars of France under Hen. 2. Fran. 2. Charl. 9 Hen. 3. and Hen. 4. In Henry the Fourth, ad Ann. 1594. a little before the end of that year. Davila will tell you, That he was a Disciple of the Jesuits; That he himself freely confessed, that he was bred up in the Schools of the Jesuits, and had often heard it discoursed, and disputed, That it was not Only Lawful, but Meritorious to Kill Henry of Bourbon, a Relapsed Heretic, and Persecutor of the Holy Church; That Father Gueret a Jesuit, was his Confessor, etc. so that being possessed with their Impious Principles and Persuasions, he undertook that prodigious and damnable Parricide. In short, it was notoriously known to all France, that the Jesuits both approved and designed the Execrable Assassination of their King. Whence it was, (as Davila goes on) that the Parliament of Paris passed this Sentence— That Father Guignard and Gueret (Jesuits) should be Condemned to the Gallows; that the rest of the Jesuits (professed or not professed) should be banished out of France, as Enemies to the Crown and public Tranquillity, their Goods and Revenues Jeized and distributed to pious uses, etc. And it had been well for France had they stood banished still, and never returned. For about Sixteen years after, what Johan. Chastell impiously endeavoured, that bloody Villain Raviliac, May the Fourteenth, 1610. effected; and with Monstrous Impiety, and a Cursed hand Murdered his King, Henry the Fourth; And it was the Jesuits, and their Traitorous Principles, which moved and encouraged him to Commit that Monstrous Unchristian and Antichristian Parricide. For (after the Fact was done) Raviliac freely and publicly confessed, That it was the Jesuit Mariana's Book which moved and encouraged him to that Impious Design. I know that the Jesuits did then endeavour to b See Father Cotton, the Jesuits Declaration, with the Bishop of Paris his Preface prefixed to it, to this purpose. free themselves from the Odium of that Impious Fact; as if they had neither approved nor encouraged that Monstrous and Mahometan Assassination. Sed quid verba audiam, cum facta videam? This c See Anti-Cotton by Peter Du Moulia. was only a ridiculous endeavour, Aethiopem Lavare, to wash a Blackamoor, and do Impossibilities. It is evident, That their approved Doctrine and Principles in Mariana, (and many others) was the Motive which induced Raviliac to Murder his Prince. Which Doctrine has never been Condemned by any Public Act of their Society, nor by the Inquisitors in any Index Expurgatorius; now for them to approve those Traitorous Principles, and deny the Consequents of them, is most irrationally to approve and grant the Premises, and yet deny the Conclusion. 5. But this (though bad enough) is not all. For it is not only the Jesuits and their Accomplices, but the Pope too, (their Supreme Judge, thom they d Christus Petro & Successoribus Ecclesiae regimen Commisit, & Eandem quam habebat Ipse, Infallibilit atem Concessit, quoties è Cathedra Loquerentur. Datur, Ergo, in Rom. Ecclesiâ, Controversiarum Fidei Judex Infallibilis, etiam extra Concilium Generale, tum in Quaestionibus Juris, tum Facti. Haec erat Thesis in Coll. Claromontano à Jesuitis proposita & expositâ Decem. 12. Ann. 1661. believe to be Infallible, both in Matters of Faith and Fact) who approved their Seditious and Traitorous Principles of Rebellion and Assassination of Princes. Thuanus' speaking of the Jesuits Practices to stir up the People to Rebellion in the time of Henry the Third of France; he adds— e Quae Omnia Conscio Pontifice gerebantur, crebro Commeantibus ad eum Emissariis, qui Brevia & occulta Diplomata ad partium Duces adferebant, & indies magis plebem ad seditionem incendebant. Vid. Thuanum Restitutum. p. 49. That these things were well known to the Pope, who sent Breves and Bulls secretly to the Heads of those Rebels, whereby they were encouraged to Rebel. Afterwards, when that Prodigious Villain Jaques Clement had Murdered the said King, f Sixtus Papa. 5. Oratione praemeditata. 3. Idus Sept. in Consistorio habita, factum Clementis Operi Assumptae à Domino Carnis, & Resurrectionis, propter magnitudinem, & rei administrationem comparat. Tum virtutem hominis, animi Robur, & ferventem Erga Deum Amorem, supra Eleazarum & Juditham, Multis verbis, Extollit, etc. Thuan's Hist. Tom. 4. li●. 95. ad Ann. 1589. p. 458. Edit. 1620. Sixtus the Fifth than Pope, did not only approve the Fact, but (in a premediated Oration, publicly spoke in the Consistory) blasphemously compares it (in respect of its greatness and amiableness) to our blessed Saviour's Incarnation and Resurrection: and then highly Commends the Murderer (for his Virtue, Courage, and Zealous Love of God) above Eleazar and Judith, etc. And (to omit the rest) pronounceth the Murdered King Eternally Damned, as having Committed the g Peccato in Spiritum Sanctum admisso, quale erat Regis peccatum. Ibid. p. 458. E. Sin against the Holy Ghost. This the Historian (though a Papist) modestly and justly Censures, as a Fact h Thuanus' ibidem. Summè Insolens, & Pastoris moderatione indignum. Extremely Insolent and Unworthy the Moderation of a Pastor, (especially the Supreme Pastor of the Church, Christ's Vicar, and St. Peter's Successor, as they call him). And then he tells us of Anti-Sixtus, (or the Answer to Pope Sixtus his Oration) and says, 1. That it had been more for the i Supprimi potius quam publieari, famae Sixti & Sanctae Sedis Interfuit. Ibidem. Credit of the Pope and the Holy Apostolic Sea, that his Oration had been suppressed, then (as it was by those of the League) Published. 2. That Anti-Sixtus (or the Answer to it) though it was something sharp and bitter, k Responsio acerbior, sed fali Oratione prorsus Digna, in qua Multa Absurda & Impia not antur. Ibidem. yet the Pope's Oration abundantly deserved it, in which were Many Things Absurd and Impious. This was the Judgement of that Faithful and Excellent Historian, (though a Papist) concerning the Erroneous and Impious Principles of the Pope and Jesuits. 6. Nor is this all; For although, only privately to approve and encourage Rebellion and Assassination of Kings and Princes, be an Execrable Villainy, to be abhorred by all men (especially Christians) as being repugnant to that clear Light of Nature and Scripture, to common Reason and Religion; yet in Public Writings to vindicate and justify such Actions, to persuade the World, that they are not only morally good, but meritorious: This argues a higher degree of Impiety and Impudence. We know (by sad Experience) that many Pagans and Christians have blasphemed their Gods, committed Adulteries, Murders, Perjuries, etc. yet we do not find, that any Christians, (the Jesuits and their Accomplices excepted) or any sober Pagan (who acknowledged a God) did ever justify Blasphemy, Adultery, Murder, or Perjury; but when they were Apprehended, Convict and brought to Execution, they would confess the Crime, pray for Pardon, and desire others to pray for them. But the Jesuits (and those possessed with their Principles) though they be Convict, and Legally Condemned for Rebellion and Assassination of Princes, yet they neither do, nor can repent; believing such Actions not to be any Vices, but Virtues; and themselves (if they suffer for them) not Traitors or Murderers, but Holy Martyrs. That this is their approved and received Doctrine, which they publicly defend, and industriously (in their Public Writings) endeavour to justify, is evident to the Western World, and may appear by the Premises. Yet being a thing of such great concern, (omitting Mariana, Emanuel Sa, Sanctarellus, and others before mentioned) I shall only add Two or Three Eminent Testimonies, in further confirmation of it. First then, Fran. l Fran. Suarez in Defence. Fidei Cathol. adversus Angl. Sectae Errores cum Respons●d Apolog. Jacobi Regis, & 〈◊〉, Agrip. 1614 l. 6. c. 4. pag. 814. etc. Suarez, Public and Prime Professor of Divinity in the University of Conimbra in Portugal, handling that Point, how, and in what Cases a Tyrant may, (by any private Person) be Murdered: And having told us, that a Tyrant was either, 1. Tyrannus m Tyrannus tit●lo, qui vi, & injustè Regnu●● occupat, qui Revera Rex non est, sed locum illi●● occupat. Ibid. §. 1. Titulo; one who, (without any just Title) usurped the Government, to the ruin of the Common-weal. 2. Tyrannus n Qui licet justo Titulo Regnum possideat, quoad usum tamen & gubernationem, Tyrannicè regnat. Ibid. Administratione; one who having a just Title, ruled Tyrannically. And he there tells us, That all Christian o Inter Christianos, Maxim est numerandus in hoc Ordine Princeps, qui Subditos suos in Heresy, aut aliud Apostasiae genus, aut Schisma inducit. Ibid. §. 2. p. 811. Col. 1. Kings are such Tyrants, who induce their Subjects to Heresy, Apostasy, or Schism. So that all Protestant Princes (we may be sure) are such Tyrants, though he there name only King James of happy Memory. Having Premised this, he gives the state of the Question: Thus, 1. He does (in the General) give us two Cases, wherein it is Lawful for a Subject to kill his King. 1. In defence of his p Si defensio sit propriae vitae, quam Rex violentèr auferre aggreditur, tunc quidem Ordinarie licebit Subdito, seipsum defendere, etiamsi Mors Principis sequatur, quia jus tuendae vitae est Maximum, etc. Ibid. p. 815. B. own Life. If a King invade Sempronius to kill him, he may, in defence of his own life, take away the Kings. 2. In defence of the q St Rex Actu aggrediatur Civitatem, ut Cives perdat, etc. tunc certe licebit Principi resistere, Etiam Occidere Illum, si aliter fieri defensio, etc. Ibid. §. 6. C. Tunc enim Civitas habet justum bellum defensivum, Contra Injustum Invasorem, Etiamsi Proprius Rex sit. Ibidem. D. Commonwealth. This in the General. But then 2. For a Tyrant in Title, he absolutely declares it, as a thing r Communitèr asseritur Tyrannum quoad Titulum, Interfici posse, à Quacunque privata Persona, quae sit Membrum Reipubls. quae Tyrannidem patitur, etc. Ibid. §. 7. F. commonly received amongst them; That such a Tyrant may be lawfully killed, by Any Private Person, who is a Member of that Commonwealth, if there be no other Means to free it from such a Tyranny. And lest it should not be observed, 'tis set in the s Tyrannus in Titulo Licite Occiditur. Ibidem. §. 7. Ma●gine. Margin, That such a Tyrant may Lawfully be killed. So that the Case is (with him) out of all doubt, That any private man may kill a Tyrant in Title; and the Pope is Judge who is such a Tyrant. Whence it evidently follows, That no Princes can have any Security (as to the Preservation of their Kingdoms or Lives) longer than they please the Pope. For if he declare any of them Tyrants, (as many times, with Execrable Pride and Impiety, he has done) Excommunicate and Depose them; then by this Jesuitical and Papal Doctrine, any Private Person, (any of their Subjects especially) may Assassinate and Murder them. 3. For those Princes who have a just Title to their Dominions, and are (as they call them) Tyrants not in Title, but in their Injustice and Impious Government: He tells us, 1. That t Inter Christianos Maximè in hoc Ordine (Tyrannorum ex Administratione Tyrannieâ) numerandus est Princeps, qui Subditos in Haeresia aut aliud Apostaesiae Genus, aut publicum Schisma Inducit. Ibid. c. 4. §. 1. all Protestant Princes being Heretics are such Tyrants. 2. That being Heretics, they are by their u Rex Haereticus Statim per Haeresin ipso Facto privatur, Aliquo Modo, proprietate & Dominio Regni sui. Ibid c. 4. §. 14. p. 819. Heresy, Ipso facto, and presently deprived (aliquo modo) in some manner, of all Right to their Dominions. 3. That the Pope (as their x In summo Pontisice est haec potestas tanquam In Superiori habente Jurisdictionem ad Corripiendum Reges, etiam Supremos, tanquam Sibi Subditos, etc. Ibidem. Superior, to whom even Supreme Princes are Subjects) may totally and absolutely depose and deprive them of all their Dominions and right to Govern. 4. When the Pope has passed such Sentence, and deprived them of their Dominions; if afterwards they meddle with the Government, they become every y Si Rex post depositionem Legitimam, in sua pertinacia perseverans, Regnum per vim retineat, incipit esse Tyrannus in Titulo, quia non est Legitimus Rex, nec justo Titulo Regnum possidet. Ibidem. way Tyrants (both Titulo & Administratione). And then, 5. After such z Ergo Extunc poterit Rex tanquam Omnino Tyrannus Tractari; & Consequentèr A Quocunque Privato Poterit Interfici. Ibidem. p. 819. B. Sentence passed by the Pope, such Kings or Supreme Princes may be dealt with, as Altogether, and Every Way Tyrants, and Consequently may be killed 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 Jesuit further declares, That though a Respubli●●● prout inter Gentiles, & hunc inter Ethnicos) habet potestatem, se defendendi à Rege Tyranno, & illum deponendi si necessarium fuerit, etc. Ibid. §. 17. p. 820. A. Pagans anciently had, and still have Power, to Depose their Tyrannical Kings; yet in Christian Commonwealths, they have such dependence upon the b Regna Christiana quoad hoc (scilicet depositionem Regum suorum) habent dependentiam & subordinationem ad Pontificem Romanum; qui potest Regno praecipere, ut se Inconsulto, Regem non deponat, nisi prius Causa & Ratione Ab Ipso Cognita propter pericula, & Animarum dispendia, quae in his Tumultibus popularibus Interveniunt. Ibid. A. 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) c Ibidem. p. 820. C. Chilperick was Deposed in France, and Sancius Secundus in Portugal. And (to make up their Errors and Impieties full) he further tells us,— d Pendet Règnum Christianum à Pontifice in hoc, ut posset Pont. non solum Consulere, aut Consentire, ut Regem sibi perniciosum deponat, sed etiam Praecipere, & Cogere ut id faciat, praesertim cum ad vitandas Haereses & Schismata necessarium esse Judicaverit. Suarez. Ibid. p. 820. B. C. 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 ruin of the true Protestant Religion, and establishing their Roman Superstition and Idolatry. And to conclude, he further declares, That (in such Cases) the Pope's Command (to Murder a Deposed King) is so far from being any Crime, that it is e Quia tale praeceptum in illo Casu Justissimum est. Idem Ibidem. Superlatively Just. I might here cite Cardinal f Instruct. Sacerd. l. 5. c. 6. §. 17. p. 738. Tolet, Guliel. g G. Rossaeus de Justa Reipub Christiana in Impios, etc. Authoritate. Cap. 3. Rossaeus, and a hundred such others, who approve, and in their Publicks Writings (Approved and Licenced, according to the Decree of their h Conc. Trident. Sess. 4. in Decreto de Editione & usu Sacrorum librorum. Trent Council, by the Auhority of their Church) justify 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 citys 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 encouraged, as a Doctrine asserting the Pope's Extravagant, and (as they call it) Supernatural i Firmis & Inconcussis Argumentis Potestatem Summi Pontificis Supernaturalem tuetur. Ita in Censura Illust. D. D. Alphon. A melo, Epis. Lamecensis, Suaresij Libro praefixa. Power, and so their Common Interest. Let the Reader consult the Censures prefixed 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 Catholic Majesty. 2. Two Provincials of the Society; one of the Jesuits in Portugal, the other of those in Germany. 3. Academia, Complutensis, the University of Alcala de Henares approves it too. 4. Last●● the k Facultas Supremi Senatus S. Inquisitionis. Supreme Senate (Court or Congregation) of the Inquisitors, do also approve and licence it, and this they do by l Ex Commissione Illustrissimi Episcopi, D. Petri de Castillo, Lusit aniae Proregis, & Supremi in rebus Fidei Inquisitoris. In Censura Alphonsi à Castello, Episc. Conimbricensis, à Consiliis Catholicae Majestati. Commission from Peter de Castello, Viceroy of Portugal, and in Matters of Faith Supreme inquisitor. The Premises impartially considered, 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 Traitorous 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, m Humanarum rerum Religiosus Contemptor, & Vnius Pietatis & Religionis fortissimus Defensor, & propter Eximiam Sapientiam, Communis hujus aetatis Magister, & Alter Augustinus. That he was a Contemner of Humane things, and a most Valiant Desender only of Piety and Catholic Religion: And (for his Excellent Wisdom) the Common Master, and another Augustine of that Age.— That for his great Zeal for the Catholic Faith, he was a most Famous Author, and a most Eminent Divine. That he was a n Religiosissimus juxta ac Gravissimus Auctor, cujus Ingenii monumenta, Orbis Suspicit, Miratur, Amat. Most Grave, and most Religious Writer; whose Works the World, (the Popish World) does Honour, Admire, and Love, etc. 2. And for his Book, and the Doctrine contained in it, They say, That all o In qua non Solum S. Scripturae Authoritati Omnia Religiosè Consonant, Apostolicis traditionibus Picinino Correspondent, Oecumenicis Conciliis, summerum Pontificum Decretis erudite consentium. 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 expressly affirm it themselves, it evidently follows, That this Traitorous Doctrine is approved by the Pope, and is Consonant to his Decrees. And those Public Censors of Suarez his Book severally add; That they find p Quâ in defension Nihil Planè offendi, quod Fidem Offendat, quae vero defendant, Inveni Multa. So it is in the Censure of Ferdinand Martinez Counsellor to his Catholic Majesty. 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 q Librum Suaresij quanta potuimus diligentiâ, evolvimus, in quo opere Nihil veritate Catholicae fidei Alienum, Nihil devium, Nihil dissonum deprehenditur: Nihil quod probari loudaríque non debeat. Denique Nihil à Nostro Omnium Sensu discordans, cum hac in re, sit Omnium nostrum Eadem vox, Idem Animus, Eadémque Sententia. 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 Catholic 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 Judgement. Nay, we are further told, That he had Composed that Work, by r Plusquam Humano Study. In Censura Alphon. A Castello, Epis. Conimbricensis. More than Human Helps; and therefore they Judge it s Dignissimum ut in Lucem eat, ad Fidei Nostrae Victoriam De Haeresibus Insignem, & totius Orbis Christiani Publicam & Communem utilitatem. In Censura Illustris. D. D. Alphons. A melo. Episc. Lamec. A Consiliis Cathol. Majestati. Most Worthy to be Published, for the Public, 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) t By Pope Paul. 5. who in his damnatory Breve, says— Juramentum illud, salva fide Catholica, & Salute Animarum, praestari non potest; cum Multa Contineat, quae fidei saluti Aperte Adversantur. Vide Remonstrant. Hibernorum, pe R. Charon. 1 p. 9 Condemned there, as Impious and Heretical: From Rome it was sent to Suarez, who (by the Pope's 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 mentioned. But these Positions need no further proof, that they are owned and publicly approved by the Pope and his Party. I shall only add; When King u In Apolog. pro Juramento fidelitatis. 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, etc. x In Commentario Exegetico contra Jac. Regem. Ingolstadij, An. 1610. Gretser in his Answer, has these memorable words— y Non diffitemur, sed Libere Profitemur, quod Papa, suppetente legitima Causa possit, Principes Excommunicare, Deponere, Subditos à Juramento Fidelitatis Exsolvere, etc. Gretser Ibid. p. 255. We do not deny, (says he) but freely Profess, that the Pope, upon just cause, (and he is Judge of that) may Excommunicate and Depose Princes, and Absolve their Subjects, from their Oath of Allegiance. And then he adds— z Subditi in Conscientia tenentur stare Sententiae Pontificis. Ibidem. That the Subjects are bound in Conscience to Obey the Pope's Sentence; not only in the Cases mentioned, But in a Et si qui sint Alij Casus Hujus Generis. Ibid. All other of the like Nature. And this impious and traitorous Doctrine of Gretser, is not only approved by b Ibidem. p. 11. Apolog. Jac. Gretseri, Romae, à Deputatis ad id Theologis lectam & approbatam, ego quoque Theod. Bu●aeus Approbo, etc. the Provincial of the Jesuits in Germany, and the Rector and Vicechancellor of the University of Ingolstade; but his whole Book (and so those mentioned, and many more such Rebellious and Impious Positions) Was Approved at Rome, by the Suffrage of Most Learned Divines. This the said Provincial of the Jesuits, and the c Hunc Librum Jac. Gretseri, Doctissimorum Theologorum Suffragiis Romae Approbatum, ego itidem Approbo, ut quamprimum, Antipharmaci loco, sparsis ex Britannia Venenis, opponatur, opto ego Petrus Stevartius, Academiae Ingolstadiensis Procancellarius, & hoc tempore Rector. Ibid. p. 12. Rector of the University of Ingolstade expressly testify, in their Public and Printed Approbations of Gretsers' Book. The Premises, and Traitorous Popish Principles considered, (which are received and believed at Rome) though men may d Rev. 13. 3. wonder at the Beast, (the Pope and his Party) and that any, (who would not only be thought Christians, but the only Catholics in the World) should maintain, and publicly justify such Principles: yet we need not wonder, that such Persons should practise and act according to such Principles, and continually endeavour (especially after the Anathema of Pius the Fifth) by Rebellions at home, and Invasions from abroad, to rob Queen Elizabeth of her Crown and Kingdoms, and of her Life too, by Roman and Mahometan Assassinations. I say, we need not wonder at this. For let the aforesaid Doctrines (which they approve and constantly contend for) be granted, (That the Pope is Supreme Judge and Monarch of the World (directè or indirecte) that all Kings and Emperors are His Subjects, that he has Power to Depose and Deprive them of their Kingdoms, that when he has Judicially deprived them, any Private Person may Murder them; that he has Power to Absolve their Subjects from all Obligations and Oaths of Allegiance, and to Command them, upon pain of an Anathema never to obey any of their Prince's Laws or Commands; that the People may depose their King, with His Consent and Counsel; and that he may Command and Compel them to do it; and this so d Potest Pontifex non solum Consulere, aut Consentire, ut Regnum Regem suum sibi perniciosum Deponat; sed etiam Praecipere, & Cogere, ut id Faciat; quando Saluti Spirituali Regni, & praesertim ad vitandas Haereses necessarium esse Papa Judicaverit. Suarez dicto. l. 6. cap. 4. p. 820. B. C. This place is before cited, but that the Reader may not be troubled to look back for it, I have again put it here. Where in the Margin, (which I before omitted) Suarez citys others, (to show he was not singular in this Opinion) Azorius, Tom. 3. l. 2. c. 7. Quaest 30. A Castro, lib. 2. De justa Haereticorum Punitione; cap. 14. vid. Hist. Conciliorum General. per Ed. Richerium Doctorem Sorbonicum, lib. 1. cap. 13. §. 3. p. 398. Colon. 1680. where he acknowledges that Bellarmine, Suarez, Becanus, and the Jesuits maintain this Doctrine of Deposing and killing Kings— Jesuitae non modo docent, Papam habere potestatem Regum Abdicandorum verum etiam & Capite Puniendorum in Officio Sacrae Inquisitionis, ut vocant, etc. And the same Sorbon Doctor, Ibidem. cap. 8. §. 13. pag. 191. tells us, that 'tis the Jesuits Doctrine; Licere Pontifici Reges sibi immorigeros, hand alitèr Abdicare, quam Paster Canes, quos minus habet ad manus, Occidere. And that it is their Practice, to accuse those Princes who do not please them, to the People, of Tyranny, Schism or Heresy, Hacque viâ Illos tanquam arietes, aut Canes Furiosos, Parricidis mactandos Exponere. oft as he shall Think it Good for the Spiritual Health of the Kingdom. (Prodigious Error and Impiety! as if Rebellion, Assassinations and Murdering their Kings, conduced to the Salvation of the Subjects.) I say, these Erroneous and Impious Doctrines granted, and (as they are at Rome) believed, it is certain, that (so far as they have opportunity and ability) they will (as they ever have done) prosecute their Interest, and practise according to those Principles; and all Christian Kings will be in perpetual danger to lose their Crowns, their Kingdoms, and their Lives too; unless they can please the Pope, and become his dutiful Servants, and indeed Slaves to his Antichristian Tyranny. I say no Christian King, Tros Tyriusve, Papist or Protestant can be out of eminent Danger, where such Doctrine is, by such Doctors maintained. We have sad and certain Instances of this Truth: For, 1. Henry the Third and Fourth of France were neither Calvinists nor Lutherans, but declared Sons of the Roman Synagogue; yet because they did not Comply with the Popish Interest, in that degree and measure, the Pope and his Party expected, they fatally fell by the Traitorous and Prodigious Villainy of bloody Assassins', Ridente & gaudente Roma; The Pope and his Jesuitical Party, (with an Ecstasy of Joy) Approving and Commending the Treason, and (in their Writings and Pictures) Canonising the Traitors. 2. For Protestants, and (as they call them) Heretical Princes, their danger (proportionable to Rome's hatred of them) is greater. They may (by the Power and Gracious Providence of God) want ability, but they neither do, nor (unless they renounce their Erroneous and Impious Principles) ever will want a desire and endeavour to ruin those they call Heretics, either by open Hostility and Rebellions, or by Poison, Pistols, and private Assassinations. Their many known Plots and Conspiracies against Queen Elizabeth, King James, Charles' the Martyr, and his Gracious Majesty now Reigning, (whom God preserve) are undeniable Demonstrations of this Truth. The Ark of God and Dagon, Light and Darkness, Truth and Error, the Bible and Popish Bullary, Protestancy and Popery cannot possibly Consist, and be in Peace. Nothing is (or can be) so destructive of Darkness and Error, as Truth and Light; And 'tis evidently known to this Western World, That the Evangelical Light and Truth, which the Protestants have haphily and clearly discovered, to the long deluded Church of God, have awakened thousands, to a detestation of that Superstition and Idolatry, under which they formerly lay, to the dishonour of God, and ruin of their Souls, and to a shaking and great diminution of the Papal Monarchy and Tyranny; so many Kingdoms forsaking Rome, and shaking off the Heavy and Intolerable Yoke of Sin and Popish Servitude. Et hinc illae Lacrymae; Hence it is, that the Pope, and his enraged Party, when they cannot, by any probable pretence of Reason confute, what they call Heresy, (the Protestant Religion) they endeavour to Confound and (by Fire and Sword) Consume the Heretics— Aeterna bella, pace sublatâ, gerunt, Jurant odium, nec prius hostes esse desinunt, quam esse desinunt. They excite and encourage e This is evident (to omit others) by the Bull of Pope Paul the Third, wherein King Hen. 8. is Excommunicated and Deposed. For in that Bull having declared that King an Heretic and deposed him; he commands all Christian Princes (Kings or Emperor) to take Arms against K. Henry and his Adherents— Insuper, tam Principes, praedictos (quacunque etiam Imperiali aut Regali dignitate fulgentes. §. 15.) quam quoscunque alios, etiam ad stipendia quorumcunque Christi fidelium militantes & alias quascunque personas, tam Per Mare quam Per Terras, Armigeros habentes, eye Mandantes, ut contra Henricum Regem, eique adhaerentes, dum in erroribus adversus Sedem praedictum permanserint, Armis Insurgant, eosque & eorum singulos Persequantur, etc. And then (such is his liberality) he gives those Soldiers all the Goods of those Anathematised Heretics, wherever they can find them— Eorumque Bona, Mobilia, & Immobilia, Mercantias, Navigia, Credita, Res, & Animalia, etiam extra territorium Henrici Regis, Vbi Libet Consistentia, Capiant, etc. Vide Pauli Papae. 3. Constit. 7. datum Romae, Decemb. 17. Ann. Dom. 1538. Pontificatus sui, Ann. 5. In Bullario Romano, Romae 1638. Tom. 1. p. 516. Col. 2. §. 16. Princes of their Profession, to persecute and destroy all Protestants in their Dominions; and their barbarous and bloody Poet has told us, how they desire it to be done; Vtere Jure Tuo Caesar, Sectámque Lutheri Ense, Rota, Ponto, Funibus, Igne neca. Use thy Power Caesar, let Lutherans be slain, By Fire, Rack, Halter, Sword, or drowned i'th' Maine. DAMNATIO ET EXCOMMUNICATIO Henrici VIII. REGIS ANGLIAE EJUSQUE FAUTORUM, Cum aliarum ADJECTIONE POENARUM. Paulus Episcopus, Servus Servorum Dei. Aeditae. A. D. 1535. & 1538. Ad futuram Rei Memoriam. EJUS qui immobilis permanens, sua Providentia, Ordine mirabili dat cuncta moveri, disponente Clementiâ, vices, licet immeriti gentes in Terris, & in Sede Justitiae Constituti, juxta quoque Prophetae Hieremiae vaticinium Ecce Te Constitui super Gentes, Exordium. & Regna, ut evellas, & destruas, aedisices, plantes, praecipuum super Omnes Reges Vniversae Terrae, cunctosque populos obtinentes Principatum, ac illum qui pius, & misericors est, & vindictam ei, qui illam praevenit paratam temperat, nec quos Impoenitentes videt severa ultione Castigat, quin prius Comminetur, in assidue autem peccantes, & in peccatis perseverantes, cum Excessus Misericordiae sines praeteriunt, ut saltem metu poenae ad Cor reverti cogantur, Justitiae vires Exercet, imitantes, & Incumbenti Nobis Apostolicae solicitudinis studio perurgemur, ut cunctarum Personarum nostrae Curae Coelitùs Commissarum salubri Statui solertius Intèndamus, ac Erroribus, & Scandalis, quae hostis Antiqut versutia imminere conspicimus, propensius obviemus, Excessusque, & Enormia, ac scandalosa Crimina congrua severitate Coerceamus, & juxta Apostolum inobedientiam ovium promptius ulciscendo, illorum perpetratores debitâ Correctione si Compescamus, quod eos Dei iram provocasse poeniteat, & ex hoc aliis Exemplum Cautelae salutaris accedat. Sect. Henticus postquam à Leone decimo Titulo Defensoris Fidei donatus fuit, ex Causa hic expressa, à Catholica side deviavit, & multa enorm●a commisit. 1. Sane cum Superioribus Diebus nobis relatum fuisset, quod Angliae Rex, licet Tempore Pontisicatûs Fel. recor. Leonis Papae decimi Praedecessoris nostri diversorum Haereticorum Errores saepe ab Apostolica Sede, & Sacris Conciliis praeteritis Temporibus damnatos, & novissimè Nostra Aetate per Perditionis Alumnum Martinum Lutherum suscitatos, & innovatos, Zelo Catholicae Fidei, & Erga dictam Sedem, devotionis servore inductus, non minus doctè, quam piè per quendam Librùm per eum desuper Compositum & eidem Leoni Praedecessori, ut eum Examinaret, approbaret, oblatum Confutasset, ob quod, ab eodem Leone Predecessore, Vltra dicti Libri cum magna Ipsius Henrici Regis Laude & Commendatione, approbationem, Titulum Defensoris Fidei reportaverit, à rectâ Fide & Apostolico tramite devians, ac propriae salutis, famae & honoris immemor, Postquam Carissima in Christo Filia nostra Catherina Angliae Regina, Illustri sua Progenie Conjuge, cum qua publicè in facie Ecclesiae Matrimonium Contraxerat, & per plures Annos Continuaverat, ac ex qua, dicto constante Matrimonio prolem pluries susceperat, nulla Legitima subsistente Causa, & contra Ecclesiae Prohibitionem dimissa, cum quadam Anna Bolena, Muliere Anglica, dicta Catherina adhuc vivente, de facto Matrimonium Contraxerat, ad deteriora prosiliens, quasdam Leges, seu Generales Constitutiones edere, non erubuit, per quas, subditos suos ad quosdam Haereticos, & Schismaticos Articulos tenendos; Inter quos & hoc erat, quod Romanus Pontifex Caput Ecclesiae, & Christi Vicarius non erat, & quod ipse in Anglicâ Ecclesiâ Supremum Caput Existebat, sub Gravibus etiam mortis poenis cogebat. Et his non Contentus, Diabolo Sacrilegij Crimen suadente, quamplures Praelatos etiam Episcopos, aliásque Personas Ecclesiasticas, etiam Regulares, necnon Seculares sibi ut Haeretico, & Schismatico adhaerere, ac Articulos praedictos sanctorum Patrum decretis, & sanctorum Conciliorum statutis, immo etiam Ipsi Evangelicae veritati contrarios, tanquam tales alios damnaros approbare, & sequi nolentes, & intrepíde recusantès capi, & carceribus mancipari. Hísque similitèr non Contentus, mala malis accumulando, bonae mem. Jo. H. S. vitalis Presbyter Cardinalis Roffen. quem ob Fidei Constantiam, & vitae sanctimoniam, ad Cardinalatus Dignitatem promoveramus, cum dictis Haersibus & Erroribus consentire nollet, horrendà immanite & deterstanda saevitiâ, publicè Miserabili supplicio tradi, & decollari mandaverat, & secerat Excommunicationis, & Anathematis, aliásque gravissimas sententias, censuras, & poenas in Literis, ac Constitutionibus recolendae mem. Bonifacij Octavi, Honorij Tertij, Roman. Pontificum Praedecessorum Nostrorum desuper Editis Contentas, & alias in tales à jure latas damnabilitèr incurrendo ac Regno Angliae, & Dominiis, quae tenebat, necnon Regalis fastigiis Celstudine, ac praefati Tituli praerogatiuâ, & honore se Indignum reddendo. Sect. ●●emen. 7. (ejus Constit. hic non habes) tandem illum Excommunicavit, quin in Censuris insordescendo deterior evasit. 2. Nos licet ex eo, quod prout non Ignorabamus, Idem Henricus Rex in Certis Censuris Ecclesiasticis quibus à Piae Memoriae Clement Papa Septimi etiam Praedecessore nestro, postquam humanissimis literis, & paternis Exhortationibus, multìsque Nunciis, & mediis, Primo & Postremo, etiam Judicialiter, ut praefatam Annam à se dimitteret, & ad Praedictae Catherinae suae verae Conjugis Consortium rediret srustra monitus fuerat, innodatus Extiterat, Pharaonis duritiam imitando, per Longum Tempus in Clavium Contemptum Insorduerat, & Insordescebat, quod ad Cor rediret vix sperare posse videremus ob Paternam tamen Charitatem, qua in minoribus Constituti donec in Obedientiâ, & Reverentia Sedis praedictae permansit, eum prosecuti sueramus, útque clarius videre dere Possemus, an Clamor qui ad nos delatus fuerat (quam certè etiam Ipsius Henerici Respectum falsum esse disiderabamus) verus esset, statuimus ab ulteriori contra Ipsum Henricum Regem processu ad Tempus abstinendo, hujus Rei veritatem diligentius Indagare. Sect. Ideo Pont. Iste contra Regem, Complices, & Fautores decrevit, procedere, ut hic. 3. Cum autem debitis diligentiis desuper factis clamorem ad Nos, ut praefertur, delatum, verum esse, simúlque, quod dolentèr referimus, dictum Henricum Regem ita in Profundum malorum descendisse, ut de Ejus Recipiscentiâ nulla penitùs videatur spes haberi posse, reperimus. Nos attendentes veteri Lege Crimen Adulterij notatum, lapidari Mandatum, ac Auctores Schismatis hiatu terrae absorptos, eorúmque sequaces Coelesti Igne Consumptos, Elimámque Magum viis Domini Resistentem per Apostolum Aeterna severitate damnatum suisse, volentesque ne in districto Examine Ipsius Henrici Regis & Subditorum suorum, quos secum in Perditione trahere videmus, Animarum Ratio à Nobis Exposcatur, quantum Nobis ex alto conceditur providere contra Henricum Regem, Ejúsque Complices, Fautores, Adbaerentes & sequaces; & in Praemissis quomodolibet culpabiles, contra quos, ex eo quod Excessus, & delicta praedicta adeo manisesta sunt, notiora, ut nulla possint tergiversatione celari absque ulteriori morâ ad Executionem procedere Possemus, benignius agendo, decrevimus infrascripto modo procedere. Sect. Regem itáque hortatur, ut ab hujusmodi erroribus desistat. 4. Habita itáque super his cum venerabilibus Fatribus Nostris S. R. E. Cardinalibus deliberatione maturâ, & de Illorum Consilio, & Assensu praefatum Henricum Regem, Ejusque Complices, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores & Sequaces, ac quoscúnque alios in Praemissis, seu eorum aliquo quoquomodo Culpabiles, tam Laicos, quam Clericos, etiam Regulares, cujuscúnque Dignitatis, Status, Gradus, Ordinis, Conditionis, Praeeminentiae, & Excellentiae existant (quorum Nomina, & Cognomina perinde ac si Praesentibus Intersererentur, pro sufficienter expressis haberi volumus) per viscera Misericordiae Dei Nostri hortamur, & requirimus in Domino, quatenus Henricus Rex à praedictis Erroribus prorsus abstineat, & Constitutiones, seu Leges praedictas, sicut defacto eas fecit, revocet, Casset, & annullet, & Coactione Subditorum suorum ad eas Servandas, necnon Carceratione, Captura, & Punitione illorum, qui ipsis Constitutionibus. seu Legibus Adhaerere, aut eas servare noluerint, & ab aliis Erroribus praedictis penitus, & Omnino abstineat, & si quos Praemissorum occasione Captivos habeat, relaxet. Sect. Complices vero & Fautores monet ut abstineant Regi desuper favere, vel adhaerere. 5. Complices verò, Fautores, Adhaerentes, & Sequaces dicti Henrici Regis in praemissis, & circa ea Ipsi Henrico Regi super his de cetero non adsistant, nec adhaereant, vel faveant, nec ei Consilium, Auxilium, vel Favorem, desuper praestent. Sect. Inobedientésque Majoris Excommunicationis sententia innodat. 6. Alias si Henricus Rex, ac Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores, & Sequaces hortationibus, & requisitionibus hujusmodi modi non audiverint cum Effectu, Henricum Regem, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores & Sequaces, ac alios Culpabiles praedictos, Authoritate Apostolicâ, ac ex certâ nostra Scientiâ, & de Apostolicae Potestatis Plenitudine tenore Praesentium in virtute Sanctae Obedientiae, ac sub Majoris Excommunicationis Latae Setentiae, à quà etiam praetextu cujuscúnque Privilegij, vel facultatis, etiam in forma Confessionalis, cum quibuscúnque efficacissimis Clausulis à Nobis, & Sede praedicta quomodolibet Concessis, etiam iteratis vicibus innovatis, ab alio quam à Romano Pontifice, praeterquam in mortis Arliculo Constituti, ita tamen, quod si aliquem absolvi contingat, qui postmodum Convaluerit, nisi post Convalescentiam, Monitioni, & Mandatis nostris hujusmodi paruerit cum Effectu, in eandem Excommunicationis Sententiam reincidat) absolvi non possint. Sect. Rebellionis quoque, & Amissionis Regni poenam Imponit. Regémque & Complices monet, uc infra, certum Terminum Compareat alioquin in poenas hic expressas incidisse declarat. 7. Necnon Rebellionis, & quoad Henricum Regem, etiam Perditionis Regni, & Dominiorum Praedictorum, & tam quoad eum, quam quoad alios Monitos supradictos, supra & infra scriptis poenis, quas si dictis Monitione & Mandatis, ut praefertur, non paruerint, eos, & eorum singulos, Ipso facto respectiuè incurrere volumus, per Praesentes Monemus; eísque, & eorum cuilibet districtè praecipiendo Mandamus, quatenus Henricus Rex per se, vel Procuratorem Legitimum, & sufficienti Mandato suffultum, Infra Nonaginta, Complices vero, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores & Sequaces, ac alij in Praemissis quomodolibet Culpabiles supradicti, Seculares & Ecclesiastici, etiam Regulares, Personaliter, Infra Sexaginta dies Compareant Coram Nobis, ad se super Praemissis legitimè Excusandum, & Defendendum, alias videndum, & Audiendum Contra eos, & eorum singulos etiam Nominatim, quos sic Monemus, quatenus expediat, ad Omnes, & singulos Actus, etiam Sententiam Definitivam, Declaratoriam, Condemnatoriam, & Privatoriam, ac Mandatum Excusativum procedi. Quod si Henricus Rex, & alij Moniti Praedicti Intra dictos terminos eis, ut praefertur, respectiuè praesixos, non Comparuerint, ad Praedictam Excommunicationis Sententiam per tres dies, post Lapsum dictorum Terminorum Animo, quod absit, sustinuerint Indurato, Censuras Ipsas aggravamus, & successive reaggravamus, Henricúmque Regem Privationis Regni, & Dominicorum praedictorum, & tam eum, quam alios Monitos Praedictos, et eorum singulos, Omnes et singulas alias poenas praedictas Incurrisse, ab omnibúsque Christi Fidelibus, cum eorum bonis, perpetuo diffidatos esse. Et si Interim ab humanis decedat, Ecclesiastica debere carere Sepulturâ, Auctoritate et Potestatis Plenitudine praedictis decernimus, et Declaramus, eósque Anathematis, Maledictionis, et Damnationis Aeternae mucrone percutimus. Sect. Et quascunque Civitates Ecclesias & alica Loca, ad quàe Ipsi declinaverint, Interdicto Ecclesiastico supponit. 8. Necnon quae praefatus Rex Henricus quomodolibet, et ex quavis Causa tenet, habet, aut possidet, quam diu Henricus Rex, et alij Moniti praedicti, & eorum singuli in aliis per dictum Henricum Regem non tentis, habitis, aut possessis permanserint, & Triduo post eorum inde recessum, & alia quaecunque, ad quae Henricum Regem, & alios monitos praedictos post Lapsum dictorum Terminorum declinare contigerit, Dominia, Civitates, Terras, Castra, Villas, Oppida, Metropolitanásque, & alias Cathedrales, ceterásque Inferiores Ecclesias, necnon Monasteria, Prioratus, Domos, Conventos, & Loca Raligiosa, vel Pia Cujuscunque, etiam S. Benedicti, Cluniacen. Cistercien. Praemonstraten. ac Praedicatorum, Minorum, Eremitarum. S. Augustini, Carmelitarum, & aliorum Ordinum, ac Congregationum, & Militarium quarumcunque in Ipsis Dominiis, Civitatihus, Terris, Castris, Villis, Oppidis, & Locis Existentiâ, Ecclesiastico supponimus Interdicto; ita ut illo durante in illis etiam praetextu cujuscunque Apostolici Indulti Ecclesiis, Monasteriis, Prioratibus, Domibus, Conventibus, Locis, Ordinibus, aut Personis, etiam quacunque Dignitate Fulgentibus Concessi, praeterquam in Casibus à jure permissis, ac etiam in illis alias quam Clausis Januis, & Excommunicatis & Interdictis Exclusis, nequeant Missae, aut alia Divina Officia Celebrari. Sect. Filiósque eorum de dignitatibus, gratiis & privilegiis ac dominiis & bonis omnibus privatos, & ad alia de cetero obtinenda inhabiles esse declarat. 9 Et Henrici Regis, Complicúmque, Fautorum, Adhaerentium, Consultorum, Sequacium, et Culpabilium praedictorum Filij, Poenarum ut hic in hoc Casu par est, participes sint, Omnes et singulos ejusdem Henrici Regis ex dictâ Annâ, ac singulorum aliorum praedictorum Filios natos, et nascituros, aliosque descendentes, usque in eum gradum, ad quem Jura poenas in Casibus hujusmodi extendunt (Nemine excepto, nulláque minoris aetatis, aut Sexus, vel Ignorantiae, vel alterius cujusvis Causae habitâ ratione) Dignitatibus et Honoribus in quibus quomodolibet Constituti Existunt, seu quibus gaudent, utuntur, potiuntur, aut muniti sunt, necnon Privilegiis, Concessionibus, Gratiis, Indulgentiis, Immunitatibus, Remissionibus, Libertatibus, et Indultis, ac Dominiis, Civitatibus, Castris, Terris, Villis, Oppidis, et Locis, etiam Commendatis, vel in Gubernium Concessis, et quae in seudum, emphyteusim, vel alias à Romans, vel aliis Ecclesiis, Monasteriis, et Locis Ecclesiasticis, ac Secularibus, Principibus, Dominiis Potentatibus, etiam Regibus et Imperatoribus, aut aliis Privatis, vel publicis Personis quomodolibet habent, tenent, aut Possident, Ceterisque Omnibus bonis, Mobilibus et immobilibus, Juribus et Actionibus, eye quomodolibet Competentibus privatos, dicta bona feudalia, vel emphyteutica, et alia quaecunque, ab aliis quomodolibet obtenta, ad directos Dominos, ita ut de illis libere desponere possint, Respectiuè devoluta, et eos qui Ecclesiastici fuerint, etiamsi Religiosi existant, Ecclesiis etiam Cathedralibus, et Metropolitanis, necnon Monasteriis et Prioratibus, Praeposituris, Praepositatibus, Dignitatibus, Personatibus, Officiis, Canonicatibus, et Praebendis, aliísque Beneficiis Ecclesiasticis per eos quomodolibet obtentis, privatos, et ad alia, ac alia in posterum obtinenda Inhabiles esse, simplicitèr decernimus, et declaramus; eósque sic respectiuè Privatos, ad alia et alia quaecunque similia, ac dignitates, honores, administrationes, et officia, jura, ac feuda in Posterum obtinenda, Auctoritate et Scientia, ac Plenitudine similibus Inhabilitamus. Sect. Subditósque à juramento fidelitatis & subjectione liberat. Et eisdem mandat ut ab obedientia omnino recedant. 10. Ipsiúsque Henrici Regis, ac Regni omniúmque aliorum Dominiorum, Civitatum, Terrarum, Castrorum, Villarum, Fortaliciorum, Arcium, Oppidorum, & Locorum suorum, etiam de facto obtentorum, Magistratus, Judices, Castellanos, Custodes, & Officiales quoscunque, necnon Communitates, Vniversitates, Collegia, Feudatarios, Vassallos, Subditos, Cives, Incolas, & Inhabitatores etiam Forenses, dicto Regi de facto Obedientes, tam Saeculares, quam si qui rationis alicujus temporalitatis Ipsum Henricum Regem in Superiorem recognoscant, etiam Ecclesiasticos, à Praefato Rege, seu Ejus Complicibus, Fautoribus, Adhaerentibus, Consultoribus, & Sequacibus supradictis deputatis, à juramento fidelitatis, jure vassilitico, & omni erga Regem, & alios praedictos subjectione absolvimus, ac penitùs liberamus, eye Nihilominùs sub Excommunicationis poena Mandantes, & ab ejusdem Henrici Regis, suorúmque Officialium, Judicum, & Magistratuum quorumcúnque. Obedientiâ penitùs, & omnino recedant, nec illos in Superiores recognoscant, néque illorum Mandatis obtemperent. Sect. Henrico & Complicibus alias poenas hic Expressas Imponit. 11. Et ut alij eorum Exemplo perterriti, discant ab hujusmodi Excessibus abstinere, eisdem Auctoritate, Scientiâ & Plenitudine, volumus, & decernimus, quod Henricus Rex, & Complices, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores, Sequaces, & alij in praemissis Culpabiles, Postquam alias poenas praedictas, ut praefertur respectiuè incurrerint, necnon Praefati descendentes, extunc Infames existant, & ad Testimonium non admittantur, Testamenta, & Codicillos, aut alias dispositiones, etiam Inter vivos concedere, & facere non possint, & ad alicujus Successionem ex Testamento, vel ab Intestato, necnon ad Jurisdictionem, seu Judicandi Potestatem, & ad Notariatus Ossicium, Omnesque Actus Legitimos quoscunque (ita ut eorum Processus, sive Instrumenta atque alij Actus quicunque, nullius sint Roboris, vel momenti) Inhabiles existant; & Nulli Ipsis, sed Ipsi aliis super quocunque debito, & Negotio, tam Civili quam Criminali, de jure respondere teneantur. Sect. 12. Christi fidelibus sub poenis hie expressis praecipit, ut Infidelium Commercium evitent. Et Nihilominus Omnes, & singulos Christi sideles, sub Excommunicationis, & aliis Infrascriptis poenis, monemus, ut monitos, Excommunicatos, aggravatos, interdictos, privatos, maledictos, & damnatos, praedictos evitent, & quantum in eis est, ab aliis evilari faciant, nec cum eisdem, seu Praefati Regis Civitatum, Dominiorum, Terrarum, Castrorum, Comitatuum, Villarum, Fortaliciorum, Oppidorum, & Lecorum praedictorum Civibus, Incolis, vel Habitatoribus, aut Subditis, & Vassallis, Emendo, Vendendo, Permutando, aut quamcunque Mercaturam, seu Negotij Exercendo, Commercium, seu aliquam Conversationem, seu Communionem habeant, aut vinum, granum, sal, seu alia victualia, arma, pannos, merces, vel quasvis alias Mercantias, vel Res per Mare in eorum Navibus, Triremibus, aut aliis Navigiis, sive per Terram cum Mulis, vel aliis Animalibus deferre, aut Conducere, seu deferri, aut Conduci facere, vel delata per illos recipere, pulicè vel occultè, aut talia facientibus auxilium, consilium, vel favorem, publicè, vel occultè, vel indirectè quovis quaesito colore, per se, vel alium, seu alios quoquomodo praestare praesumant, quod si fecerint, ultra Excommunicationis praedictae, etiam Nullitatis Contractuum, quos inirent, necnon Perditionis Mercium, Victualium, & bonorum omnium delatorum, quae Capientium fiant, poenas similitèr eo Ipso Incurrant. Sect. 13. Praelatis quóque & ceteris Personis Ecclesiasticis mandat sub poenis hic contentis quatenus de Regno Angliae discedant, ut hic. Ceterum quia Convenire non videtur, ut cum his qui Ecclesiam Contemnunt, dum praesertìm ex eorum pertinaciâ spes Corrigibilitatis non habetur, hi qui Divinis Obsequiis vacant Conversentur, quod etiam illos tutè facerè non posse dubitandum est, Omnium & singularum Metropolitan: & aliarum Cathedralium, Ceterarúmque Inferiorum Ecclesiarum, & Monasteriorum, Domorum, & Locorum Religiosorum & Piorum quorumcunque, etiam S. Augustini, S. Benedicti, Cluniacen. Cistercien. Praemonstraten. ac Praedicatorum, Minorum, Carmelitarum, alorúmque quorumcúnque Ordinum, & Militiarum, etiam Hospitalis Hierosolymitani, Praelatibus, Abbatibus, Prioribus, Praeceptoribus, Praepositis, Ministris, Custodibus, Guardianis, Conventibus, Monachis, & Canonicis, necnon Parochialium Ecclesiarum Rectoribus, aliísque quibuscunque Personis Ecclesiasticis in Regno & Dominiis praedictis Commorantibus, sub Excommunicationis, ac Privationis administrationum, & Regiminum Monasterirum, Dignitatum, Personatuum, Administrationum, ac Officiorum, Cannonicatuúmque, & Praebendarum, Parochialium Ecclesiarum, & aliorum Beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum quorumcunque quomodolibet qualificatorum, per eos quomodolibet obtentorum poenis Mandamus, quatenus Infra quinque dies post Omnes & singulos Terminos praedictos Elapsos, de Ipsis Regno, & dominiis, dimissis tamen aliquibus Presbyteris in Ecclesiis, quarum Curam habuerint pro administrando Baptismate parvulis, & in Poenitentia decedentibus, ac aliis Sacramentis Ecclesiasticis, Quae Tempore Interdicti Ministrari permittuntur, exeant, & discedant, néque ad Regnum, & Dominia praedicta revertantur, donec Moniti, & Excommunincati, aggravati, reaggravati, privati, maledicti, & damnati praedicti Monitionibus, & Mandatis nostris hujusmodi obtemperaverint, & meruerint à Censuris hujusmodi absolutionis Benesicium obtinere, seu Interdictum in Regno, & dominiis praedictis fuerit sublatum. Sect. 14. Ducésque & alios monet sub poenis supradictis, ut Henricum & ejus Complices de Regno expellere & expelli procurent. Praeterea si Praemissis non obstantibus Henricus Rex, Complices, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores, & Sequaces praedicti in eorum pertinacia perseveraverint, nec Conscientiae stimulus eos ad Cor Reduxerit, in eorum forte Potentia, & armis Considentes, Omnes & singalos Duces, Marchiones, Comites, & alios quoscunque, tam Saeculares, quam Ecclesiasticos, etiam sorenses, de facto dicto, Henrico Regi Obedientes, sub ejusdem Excommunicationis, ac Perditionis bonorum suorum (quae, ut Infra dictus similiter Capientium siant) poenis, requirimus, & monemus, quatenus Omni mora, & Excusatione Postposita, eos & eorum singulos, ac Ipsorum Milites, & Stipendarios, tam Equestres, quam Pedestres, aliósque quoscunque qui eis cum armis faverint, de Regno & Dominiis praedictis, etiam vi armorum, si Opus suerit, expellant, ac quod Henricus Rex, & ejus Complices, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores, & Sequaces Mandatis nostris non obtemperantes Praedicti de Civitatibus, Terris, Castris, Villis, Oppidis, Fortalitiis, aut aliis Locis Regni, & Dominij Praedictorum, se non Intromittant, procurent, Eis sub Omnibus & singulis paenis praedictis Inhibentes, ne in favorem Henrici ejúsque Complicum, Fautorum, Adhaerentium, Consultorum & Sequacium, aliorúmque Monitorum Praedictorum Mandatis Nostris non obtemperantium, arma Cujusiibet Generis offensiva, & defensiva, Machinas quoque bellicas, seu tormenta (artellarias nuncupata) sumant, aut teneant, seu illis utantur, aut armatos aliquos, praeter Consuetam familiam parent, aut ab Henrico Rege Complicibus, Fautoribus, Adhaerentibus, Consultoribus, & Sequacibus, vel aliis in Regis Ipsius favorem paratos, quomodolibet, quavis occasione vel Causâ, per se, vel alium, seu alios publicè vel occultè, directè vel indirectè teneant, vel receptent, aut dicto Henrico Regi, seu Illius Complicibus, Fautoribus, Adhaerentibus, Consultoribus, & Sequacibus Praedictis, Consilium, Auxilium, vel quomodolibet ex quavis Causa, vel quovis quaesito Colore sive Ingenio, publicè vel occultè, directè vel indirectè, tacitè vel expressè, per se vel alium seu alios Praemissis, vel aliquo Praemissorum praestent, seu praestari faciant quoquomodo. Sect. 15. Principum Christianorum Confoederationes, & Obligationes Contractas cum Henrico nullas & invalidas declarat. Praeterea ad dictum Henricum Regem facilius ad sanitatem, & praefatae Sedis Obedientiam reducendum, Omnes & singulos, Christianos Principes, quacunque etiam Imperiali & Regali Dignitate fulgentes, per viscera Misericordiae Dei Nostri (Cujus Causa agitur) hortamur & in Domino Requirimus, eye Nihilominùs, qui Imperatore & Rege Inferiores fuerint, quos propter Excellentiam Dignitatis à Censuris Excipimus, sub Excommunicationis poena Mandantes ne Henrico Regi Ejúsque Complicibus, Fautoribus, Adhaerentibus, Consultoribus, & Sequacibus, vel eorum alicui per se vel alium seu alios, publicè vel occultè, directè vel indirectè, tacitè vel expressè, etiam sub praetextu Confoederationum aut Obligationum quarumcunque, etiam Juramento, aut quavis aliâ firmitate roboratarum, & saepius geminatarum, à quibus quidem Obligationibus, & Juramentis Omnibus, nos eos, & eorum singulos eisdem Auctoritate & Scientia, ac plenitudine per praesentes absolvimus, Ipsásque Confoederationes & Obligationes tam factas, quam in Posteram faciendas, quas tamen (in quantum Henricus Rex, & Complices, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores, & Sequaces praedicti circa praemissa, vel eorum aliquod se directè vel indirectè Juvare possent sub eadem poena fieri prohibemus, nullius Roboris vel Momenti, nullásque, irritas, Cassas, inanes, ac pro Infectis habendas fore decernimus & declaramus, consilium, auxilium, vel favorem, quomodolibet, praestent; quinimo si qui illis, aut eorum alicui ad praesens quomodolibet assistant ab Ipsis omnino, & cum Effectu recedant. Quod si non fecerint postquam Praesentes publicatae & Executioni demandatae fuerint, et dicti Termini lapsi fuerint, Omnes & singulas Civitates, Terras, Oppida, Castra, Villas, & alia Loca eis Subjecta, simili Ecclesiastico Interdicto supponimus, volentes Ipsum Interdictum donec Ipsi Principes à Consilio, Auxilio & Favore Henrico Regi & Complicibus, Fautoribus, Adhaerentibus, Consultoribus, & Sequacibus praedictis praestando, destiterint, perdurare. Sect. 16. Principibus & aliis Ma●dat, ut contra Henricum & Complices Arma Capiant. Insuper tam Principes praedictos, quam quoscunque alios, etiam ad Stipendia quorumcunque Christi fidelium Militantes, & alias quascunque personas, tam per Mare, quam per Terras, Armigeros habentes, similitèr hortamur, & requirimus, & nihilominùs eye in virtute Sanctae Obedientiae Mandantes, quatenus contra Henricum Regem, Complices, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores, & Sequaces praedictos, dum in Erroribus praedictis, ac adversus Sedem praedictam, rebellione permanserint, Armis Insurgant, eosque & eorum singulos, persequantur, ac ad Vnitatem Ecclesiae, & Obedientiam dictae Sedis redire cogant, & compellant; & ram eos, quam Ipsorum Subditos, & Vassallos, ac Civitatum, Terrarum, Castrorum, Oppidorum, Villarum, & Locorum suorum Incolas, & habitatores, aliásque Omnes singulas Personas supradictis Mandatis nostris, ut praefertur, non obtemperantes, & quae praefatum Henricum Regem Postquam Censuras & Poenas praedictas incurrerit, in Dominum quomodolibet etiam de facto recognoverint, vel ei quovis modo obtemperare praesumpserint, aut qui eum, ac Complices, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores, Sequaces, ac alios non obtemperantes praedictos, ex Regno & Dominiis praedictis, ut praefertur, expellere noluerint, ubicúnque eos invenerint, eorúmque bona, mobilia & immobilia, mercantias, pecunias, navigia, credita, res, & Animalia, etiam extra territorium, dicti Henrici Regis ubilibet Consistentià, Capiant. Sect. 17. Infideles & inobedientes capientium servos, & corundem bona occupantium sieri decernit. Nos enim bona, Mercantias, Pecunias Navigia, Res, & Animalia, praedicta sic capta, In proprios eorum usus convertendi, eisdem Auctoritate, Scientia, & Potestatis Plentudine, Plenariam Licentiam, Facultatem & Auctoritatem concedimus, illa omnia ad eosdem Capientes plenariè pertinere, & spectare, & Personas ex Regno, & Dominiis praedictis Originem trahentes, seu in illis Domicilium habentes, aut quomodolibet habitantes, Mandatis nostris praedictis non obtemperantes, ubicúnque eos Capi Contigerit, Capientium servos fieri decernentes, Praesentésque Literas, quoad hoc, ad omnes alios cujuscúnque Dignitatis, Gradus, Status, Ordinis, vel Conditionis fuerint, qui Ipsi Henrico Regi, vel ejus, Complicibus, Fautoribus, Adhaerentibus, Consultoribus, & Sequacibus, aut aliis Monitionibus, & Mandatis nostris hujusmodi, quoad Commercium non obtemperantibus, vel eorum alicui victualia, arma, vel pecunias subministrare, aut cum eis Commercium habere, seu Auxilium, Consilium, vel Favorem per se vel alium, seu alios publicè vel occultè, directè vel indirectè, quovis modo contra tenorem Praesentium praestare praesumpserint, extendentes. Sect. 18. Praelatis & aliis Mandat sub poenis de quibus hic, ut in eorum Ecclesiis Henricum & Complices qui supradictas poenas, & Censuras Incurrerint, Excommunicatos publicè enuncient, & evitari faciant. Et ut praemissa facilius iis quos concernunt innotescant, universis & singulis Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, & Patriarchalium Metropolitan. & aliarum Cathedralium, & Collegiatarum Ecclesiarum Praelatis, Capitulis, aliísque Personis Ecclesiasticis Saecularibus ac quorumvis Ordinum Regularibus, necnon Omnibus, & singulis etiam Mendicantium Ordinum Professoribus Exemptis, & non Exemptis, ubilibet, Constitutis, per easdem Praesentes, sub Excommunicationis, & Privationis Ecclesiarum, Monasteriorum, ac aliorum Beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum, Graduum quoque & Officiorum, necnon Privilegiorum, & Indultorum quorumcúnque etiam à Sede praedicta quomodolibet Emanatorum poenis ipso facto Incurrendis, praecipimus, & mandamus, quatenus Ipsi, ac eorum singuli, si, & Postquam vigore Praesentium desuper requisiti fuerint, Infra tres dies Immediatè sequentes praefatum Henricum Regem, Omnesque alios & singulos, qui supradictas Censuras, & poenas Incurrerint, in eorum Ecclesiis Dominicis, & aliis Festivis diebus, dum Major Inibi populi Multitudo, ad divina Convenerit, cum Crucis vexillo, pulsatis Campanis, & accensis, ac demum Extinctis, & in Ter●am projectis, & Conculcatis Candelis, & aliis in similibus servari solitis Caeremoniis servatis, Excommunicatos publicè nuncient, & ab aliis nunciari, ac ab Omnibus Arctius evitari faciant, & mandent, necnon sub supradictis▪ Censuris & Poenis, Praesentes Literas, vel earum transumptum, sub forma Infrascripta Confectum, Infra Terminum trium Dierum, Postquam, ut praefertur requisiti fuerint, in Ecclesiis, Monasteriis, Conventibus, et aliis eorum Locis, publicari, et assigi faciant. Sect. 19 Publicationem Isti●s Const. Impedientib. easdem poenas Imponit. Volentes, Omnes, et singulos cujuscúnque Status, Gradus, Conditionis, Praeeminentiae, Dignitatis, aut Excellentiae fuerint, qui quominus Praesentes Literae, vel earum transumpta, Copiae seu Exemplaria, in suis Civitatibus, Terris, Castris, Oppidis, Villis, et Locis Legi, et affigi, ac publicari possint, per se, vel alium, seu alios, publice vel occultè, directè vel indirectè impediverint, easdem Censuras, et Paenas Ipso facto Incurrere. Et cum fraus et dolus nemini debeant Patrocinari, ne quisquam ex his, qui alicui Regimini, et Administrationi deputati sunt Infra Tempus sui Regiminis, seu Administrationis, Praedictas Sententias, Censuras, et Poenas sustineat, quasi p●st dictum Tempus Sententiis, Censuris et Poenis praedictis amplius Ligatus non existat, quemcúnque qui dum in Regimine, et Administratione existens, monitioni, et mandato nostris, quoad praemissa, vel aliquid eorum obtemperare noluerit, etiam deposito Regimine, et Administratione hujusmodi, nisi paruerit, eisdem Censuris, et Poenis subjicere decernimus. Sect. 20. Publicari Mandat hanc Const. in Locis hic Expressis. Sed haec forma immutata est, ut hic in fine. Et ne Henricus, Ejusque Complices, et Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores, et Sequaces, aliíque quos praemissa Concernunt, Ignorantiam eorundem Praesentium Literarum, et in eis Contentorum praetendere valeant, Literas ipsas (in quibus Omnes et singulos, tam juris, quam facti, etiam solemnitatum, et Processuum, Citationúmque Omissarum defectus, etiamsi Tales sint, de quibus Specialis, et expressa mentio facienda esset, propter Notorietatem facti, Auctoritate, Scientia, et Potestatis plenitudine similibus, supplemus) in Basilicae Principis Apostolorum, et Cancellariae Apostolicae de urbe, et in partibus in Collegiatae Beatae Mariae Brugen. Tornacen. et Parochialis de Dunkercae, Oppidorum Moriensis Dioecesis, Ecclesiarum valvis Affigi; et Publicari Mandamus, decernentes quod earundem Literarum Publicatio sic facta, Henricum Regem, Ejúsque Complices, Fautores, Adhaerentes, Consultores et Sequaces Omnesque alios, et singulos, quos Literae Ipsae quomodolibet Concernunt, perinde eos arctent, ac si Literae Ipsae eis Personalitèr Lectae, et Intimatae fuissent, cum non sit verisimile, quod ea, quae tam patentèr fiunt, debeant apud eos incognita remanere. Sect. 21. Transumptis credi jubet. Ceterum quia difficile foret Praesentes Literas ad singula quaeque Loca, ad quae necessarium esset deferri, volumus, et dictâ Auctoritate decernimus, quod earum transumptis manu publici Notarij Confectis, vel in Almâ Vrbe Impressis, ac Sigillo alicujus Personae in Dignitate Ecclesiastica Constitutae munitis, ubíque eadem fides adhibeatur quae Originalibus adhiberetur si essent exhibitae vel ostensae. Sect. 22. Sanctionem poenalem Imponit. Nulli ergo Omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam Nostrae Monitionis, Aggravationes, Reaggravationis, Declarationis, Percussionis, Suppositionis, Inhabilitationis, Absolutionis, Liberationis, Requisitionis, Inhibitionis, Hortationis, Exceptionis, Prohibitionis, Concessionis Extensionis, Suppletionis, Mandatorum, Voluntatis, et Decretorum Infringere, vel ei ausu Temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare Praesumpserit, Indignationem Omnipotentis Dei, ac Beatorum Petri, et Pauli Apostolorum ejus se noverit Incursurum. Dat. Romae apud S. Marcum, D. P. An. 1. Die 30. Aug. Anno Incarnationis Dom. 1435. 3. Kal. Septemb. Pont. Nostri Anno Primo. FINIS. A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK. I. THE Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth (containing the Damnation and Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth) in Latin and English. P. 1. II. The first Observation, that Pius V. was neither the first nor last Pope, who Excommunicated and damned Kings and Emperors. For, 1. before him Pope Constantine, Gregory the Second, Greg. the Third, Greg. the Seventh, Gregory the Ninth, Innocent the Fourth, Paul the Third, etc. did the same thing: And, 2. Gregory the Thirteenth, and Sixtus the Fifth, after him. p. 7. III. The second Observation, concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title prefixed to Pius the Fifth his Bull; that it is Damnatio & Excommunicatio Elizabethae. Where it is proved, 1. That not only Pius the Fifth, but other Pope's (not short of him in time or impiety) use the same hard word (Damnation) in the Titles prefixed to their damnatory Bulls, wherein they Excommunicate Kings and Emperors. 2. The uncharitable Error, and Invalidity of their reasons they do, or can pretend for doing so. p. 15. IV. The third Observation, wherein, 1. The notion and significations of the word Damnation are explained. 2. That by the word Damnation in their anathemas and Damnatory Bulls, not only some temporal loss or punishment (as to their Bodies or Estates) but eternal Damnation of Body and Soul, is meant, by the Pope and his Party; together with the invalidity of their reasons and pretences to justify them in this particular. p. 20. V. The fourth Observation, wherein we have, 1. The grounds on which Pius the Fifth, and other Popes, build their Power to Excommunicate and Depose Kings; and that in the Supremacy and Plenitude of Power, which (they pretend) our blessed Saviour gave to Peter, and in him to all his Successors. So that Peter (and so every Successor of his) was constituted a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms, to pull up, and throw down, to dissipate and destroy, to plant and build, etc. 2. That such Power was (by our blessed Saviour) given to Peter and his Successors, they endeavour to prove out of Scripture, (and in their Bulls, cite the places) Gen. 1. 16. and Jer. 1. 10. 3. The ridiculous inconsequence and impertinence of such Papal reasoning, which shows them rather to be Fools, then Infallible. p. 26. VI The fifth Observation, against the Pope's pretended Supremacy. 1. That Peter's Supremacy (much less the Popes) cannot be proved from Matth. 10. 2. where he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, primus (or as in the Latin Fathers) Princeps Apostolorum. 2. Nor from that place, Matth. 16. 18. 19 3. That St. Paul in Scripture, hath a far better pretence to the Supremacy and the Bishopric of Rome, then St. Peter; and yet neither he, nor any for him, ever pretended to any Papal Supremacy. 4. How our blessed Saviour and the Apostles (yet Peter no more than the rest) are in Scripture, said to be Foundations of the Church. 5. That the Power of the Keys was given to every Apostle, as well and as much as to Peter. Nay, 6. To every Bishop and Priest, as is expressly affirmed in the Authentic Offices of the Roman Church, and in their Trent Council and Catechism. 7. That every Apostle was Christ's Vicar as well as Peter; that the Jesuits profess, (and in their Institutions do publish it) that their Superiors are Christ's Vicars. 8. That Pasce Oves, Joh. 21. 15. 16. 17. (though usually) is most impertinently urged to prove Peter's Supremacy. 9 That the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon (which utterly overthrows the Pope's Supremacy) is basely corrupted by Gratian and the Canonists, and (that it might not appear) left out of their old Editions of the Councils. p. 36. 37. etc. VII. The sixth Observation, In which a further examination and confutation of the Popish pretended grounds for the Pope's Supremacy. That they neither do, nor can prove that Peter ever had any such Monarchical Supremacy over the Apostles and all Christians, with the reasons why they cannot. 2. If it were granted (which is evidently untrue) that he had such a Power, yet it neither does, nor can appear (by Scripture, or any just Medium) that it was hereditary, and to pass to his Successor, but might be personal, and (as his Apostleship did) die with him. 3. And if it were granted (which neither is, nor ever can be proved) that that Power was hereditary, and to be transferred to his Successor, yet they neither have, nor can have any just grounds to prove, that the Bishop of Rome is that Successor, and not the Bishop of Antioch, where (they say) St. Peter first sat. 4. That 'tis certain from Scripture, that Peter neither was nor could be (as they pretend) 25. years' Bishop of Rome. 5. Nor can it (by Scripture) appear that ever he was at Rome, nor can Rome be meant by Babylon, 1. Pet. 5. 13. 6. Nor can it appear by any just Testimonies of Antiquity, that ever he was at Rome. Papias is the ground and Author on whom they rely for that Fable; and he an ignorant Person, and Arch-Heretick. 7. That to get credit to Papias, they have impiously corrupted Eusebius. 8. If it were granted, that he was at Rome, yet they have no ground or probability for it, that he was Bishop there; seeing there are far greater probabilities grounded on Scripture, that Paul was Bishop there, than Peter (or any for him) can pretend to; and yet they do not say, nor (without contradiction to their own Principles) can say, that he was Bishop there. 9 That those other honorary Titles or Epithets, which their Authors every where use as proper to the Pope, and marks of his Supremacy, or (at least) superiority over all Bishops (such as Apostolicus Pontifex Summus, Papa, Sedes Apostolica, Vicarius Christi, Cathedra Apostolica, Successor Petri, etc.) are impertinently made use of, without any proof or probability. p. 91. 92. etc. VIII. The seventh Observation, concerning the Censures, Punishments and Curses contained in this Bull; and the Antichristian impiety of them. 1. He miscalls the Queen, an Heretic, a favourer of Heretics, a Slave of Impiety, and then Anathematizes her, and cuts her off from the Unity of Christ's Body. 2. He deposes and deprives her of her pretended Right to the Crown, and of all manner of Dignity, Dominion and Privilege. 3. He absolves her Subjects, and all others, who are bound to her by any Oath, from all their Oaths, and all debt of Fidelity and Obedience, and that for ever. 4. He severely prohibits them all, to obey any of her Laws or Commands. 5. If any of them do otherwise, he Excommunicates and Curses them, whether they be Papists or Protestants. p. 145. 146. etc. IX. The eighth Observation, That the Pope is the great Antichrist, the Man of Sin, and Son of Perdition, spoken of 2. Thess. 3. 4. That the Opinions of H. Grotius, (that Caius Caligula) and of Dr. Hammond, (that Simon Magus was Antichrist) are inconsistent and contradictory to each other, and to themselves. That they are (both of them) repugnant to Scripture, the Judgement of the primitive Fathers, of Protestants and Papists, and the sense of Christendom for about 1600. years after our blessed Saviour, etc. p. 151. 152. etc. ad p. 199. X. The ninth Observation, What the Pope's Power is, (and whence they pretend to have it) which enables them with Authority to sit Judges, and pass damnatory Sentences against Supreme Princes, for Heresy. 2. What that Heresy is, and who the Heretics, who by the Pope are so severely damned. 3. What those punishments are, which they pretend they may, and (when and where they can) actually do inflict on such Heretics. 4. Of the Waldenses, that (by the testimony of their Enemies) 1. They had continued ever since the Apostles times. 2. That there was scarce any Christian Country in which they were not. 3. That they lived justly before men, and believed all things well of God, and all the Articles of the Creed: but their fault was, They said Rome was Babylon, and the Pope Antichrist, etc. p. 199. 200. etc. XI. Observation the Tenth, That Queen Elizabeth stood Excommunicate, before the Damnatory Bull of Pius the Fifth, and by whom, etc. p. 213. XII. Observation the Eleventh, Of the damnable and pernicious Doctrines and Conclusions, which evidently follow, upon their approved and practised Principles, of Deposing and Anathematising Kings and Supreme Princes. That 'tis neither Treason, Murder, or any Sin, for Subjects to Assassinate their King, if he be Excommunicate by the Pope. Nay, that it is a meritorious Act, for which they promise them vast rewards here, and an higher degree of glory in Heaven hereafter, etc. p. 219. 220. etc. XIII. The Damnation and Excommunication of Henry the Eighth by Pope Paul the Third, Decemb. 17. Anno 1538. FINIS.