Reflections upon the BULLS OF THE POPE'S PAUL THE THIRD, AND PIUS THE FIFTH, Emitted against KING HENRY The 8. And QUEEN ELIZABETH OF ENGLAND.  
Printed in the Year, 1686.   

TO The Right Honourable and truly Noble JAMES EARL OF PERTH, LORD DRUMMOND, etc. LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF SCOTLAND.  
MY LORD,  
THere is nothing so much amuseth these out of the Communion of the Catholic Church, as the supposed guilt of Disloyalty, maliciously fixed upon the Roman Catholic Religion: Nor is there any thing more confirms this unhappy prejudice in the Hearts of Honest and Loyal Subjects in these Kingdoms, than the Bulls and damnatory Sentences issued out by the Popes, PAUL the Third and PIUS the Fifth, against King HENRY the vl, and Queen ELIZABETH of England: Now until this great mistake be removed, the Subjects divide amongst themselves, and ill Blood is Nourished, to the intolerable damage of his MAJESTY, whose Interest is the less secured while so dangerous an Hypothesis is unjustly charged on Catholic Subjects, and no vindication made to wipe off so foul a Crime: For if a Catholic Prince must not trust his Catholic Subjects, he must give only credit to these who would have the municipal Statutes of this Kingdom, made upon politic considerations, unalterable and irreversible, never to be repealed upon the fairest emergencies, and justest reflections, that after Ages may make for the discovery of conceived prejudices, which were to bind up the hands of Princes in the prudent management of their Affairs, and restrict their supreme Right of Legislation. My LORD. I have adventured to vindicate the Church Catholic from so destructive a Doctrine in as few Words as the subject matter could allow off: And since none hath suffered the severe lashes of viperous Tongues more than Your Lordship, for that the Catholic Religion is joined in your Person with that great trust reposed in you, and yet far beyond the least tincture or suspicion of Disloyalty, I thought none fit to shelter and protect this small Essay than Your Lordship I give it then up, My LORD, to Your Patronage, and Tuition, in the protection whereof you will demean yourself as a true SON of the Holy Cacholick Church, and justify the Honest and Religious service of  
MY LORD, Your Lordship's most oblidges and most Humble Servant. Philotheus   

Some Reflections on the Bulls of PAUL THE THIRD, AND PIUS THE FIFTH, Emitted against KING HENRY The 8. And QUEEN ELIZABETH OF ENGLAND.  
THE Christians of the Roman Catholic Communion believe nothing as matter of Faith, but what the Universal Church practices, or a General Council by its Decrees oblidges to believe as such; And since neither the Church Catholic in diffusion, or representation practices, or by Her Cannons enjoins as matters of Faith, viz. That its Lawful for Popes upon the Heads of Heresy, Schism, or scandalous iniquity to Excommunicate Kings and absolute Princes, and thereupon to absolve their natural Subjects from their necessary alledgeance, it's the highest injustice to impose this on the Catholic Religion as an Article of Faith.  
To clear this, let us first consider what is the practice of the Church diffusive in this affair: It's plain that this dangerous Doctrine so destructive to Humane Societies is disowned by all Catholic Princes and Monarches, guarding sufficiently against it by their Imperial and Royal Laws, and Constitutions: How do the Italian Princes debate their Temporal Interests with Popes who sometimes quarrel with them, and defend their secular Rights by the Sword? And who more eagerly and vigorously vindicates his Royal prerogative in Temporal concerns against all the pretensions of Popes, than the French King? And it's as evident that the Emperor, the Spanish and Polonian Princes by their municipal Laws assert their Imperal and Royal Rights against all mortals. And as this is the practice of Catholic Princes, so is it of the particular Churches within their Dominions and Territories, for they in their Ecclesiastical Conventions declare the independency of their absolute Princes in Temporals, and that the Church cannot pretend by virtue of the power of the Keys directly, or indirectly to divest any absolute Prince or Monarch of his Royal Rights and Privileges: Look to the Cannons of the late Gallican National Assembly, and to the Universities of Rehemes, Caen, Poitiers, Valence, Bourdeaux, Bourges, etc. And to the whole College of Sorbon, condemning Sanctarellus his propositions, viz. That the Pope might for Schism or Heresy deposo Princes, and exempt Subjects from their Alledgeance: And tho' this Doctrine be charged maliciously upon the generality of the Jesuits, yet a provincial Council of that Order caused publicly to burn Mariana his Book for handling problematically that of kill Kings, and this Society in all the Catholic Territories, where they are scattered, do generally renounce that Doctrine so fatal to Civil Authority, else they should not have so easy an access to the Courts of Princes, and find with them such kind receptions as they daily do.  
Secondly. There is no Authority from a general Council that allows of this dangerous Doctrine, nor is there any thing like it to be found in the last general Counsel held at Trent, in which are all these Articles that oblige the Catholics as matters of Faith, nor in any other general Counsel prior to that, save what, is ignorantly concluded from a Decree of the Lateran Council held under Innocent 3. But to free this Counsel of any thing that looks like that unhappy Doctrine: Let us notice first, There were present at this Convention held at the Lateran the Emperors of the East and West, the Kings of England, France, Hungary, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Arragon, etc. By their Ambassdors, says Mattheus Parisiensis, who all might have agreed together to have purged their Territories and Dominions from the Heretical crew of the Waldenses and Albigenses, so that by this compact amongst absolute Princes they might have consented upon their faileure, if not concurring to exterminate the Heretics, that at the Church's Sentence the guilty should forfeit his Dominion and Property, and the party performing receive it: And this is as warrantable as the Convention made by the confederate Princes at Smalcad.  
Secondly. The Persons here threatened to lose their Territories and Properties are termed by the Decree, Domini principales, and certainly by these the Church never understood absolute Princes, but only-petty and Feudatory Lords, who being Superiors over other Vassals, had a Dominion directum over them to which Lords the Vassals owed Fidelity, and with that sometime Subjection, as many do in Germany. And of these allenerly are the Words of the Lateran Decree to be understood, and not of the Imperial or Regal Dignities, who ob eminentiam dignitatis, are still excepted from the highest censures of the Church, as you shall hear anon.  
Thirdly. It's more than propable that the Domini principales there expressed were chief, if not only the Feudatory petty Superiors, who supported the Albigenses, continued the Heresy and Crocked the Wars. Such as the Earls of Tholouse, Foix, Comminges, and Prince of Bern, all Protectors of these Rebellious Heretics, and it was upon the score of this Lateran Decree that Montferret was invested in the Superiorties and Territories of Tholouse after the Victorious success of the Catholic Princes had against these confederate Nobles.  
Let me add further that in the foresaid Decree there is no mention had of Reges, but of Domini, or of Regna, but Terram, which certainly relate to the Lands and Possessions of the petty Feudatory Lords.  
Lastly, To sum up all, upon supposition that the Counsel so determined, that the Censure should reach all Dignities of the highest Quality (which is morally inpossible to think that such absolute powers should consent to their own ruin.) yet still it must be considered that this Decree did relate only to a matter of Discipline or Ecclesiastic Government, in which cases the Church pretends not to Infallibility, for she altars her Government when inavoidable inconveniencies appear: For had that Decree been of Faith, the Tridentine Council had not passed it by without a determination, especially since before the Session of that Synod the Heretics frequently charged this scandalous Doctrine upon the Roman Catholic Church: Yea had that Lateran Decree respected the highest Powers without exception, and the Decree being of Faith, then how could the whole University at Paris, April 20. 1626. have condemned Sanctarelleus' proposition? Or how could the College of Sorbon together with the Provincial Council of the Jesuits, the supposed asserters of the Popal Authority over Kings, have subscribed the said condemnation to the great satisfaction of the Parliament of Paris? Certainly if the Lateran Decree was of Faith, and extended to imperial and Regal Dignities, than all the aforesaid Persons must have been Heretical for condemning that proposition of dethroning Princes in case of Heresy, Schism, or some enorm crime: Yea how could Popes themselves judicially in the meetings of Cardinals at Rome have censured the Books of Bellarmine, Becan, and others for asserting the Pope's power of deposing Princes as aforesaid? If before this in the Lateran it had been matter of Faith.  
We come now to consider some particular instances alleged for proving this Doctrine to be of Faith in the Romish Church, such as the Bulls of Paul 3. against Henry 8, and of Pius 5. against Queen Elizabeth of England, wherein not only these are excommunicated, and their Subjects adhering to them, struck with the same Sentence, but all Catholic Subjects are also absolved from their alledgeance; and all Catholic Powers and Dignities abroad commanded under pain of Excommunication, not to correspond, transact, or converse with them: They are also required to invade these Excommunicated Princes: The Pope's giving the Invaders full power thereto. In answer to these sad instances, its replied by all True and Honest Catholics. that they cannot justify the misdemeanours of particular Popes, who through misinformation pick or humour have adventured to do somethings that are unaccountable, since God hath given no promise of an infallible direction to them in all the Instances of their Life, nor hath any Catholic of the most wild and roving Humour dared to plead for their impeccability in their personalor principal Actions, that being proper for Angels and the Spirits of just Men made perfect. However, since these of the Papal Dignity have the Honour of so great and venerable a Character as to be the Chief Bishops of the Church Catholic, and to be Temporal Princes likewise, it were the highest indiscretion, to put a gross and scandalous construction upon their Actions without considering what were the motives that moved them, and measures they used in a matter that seems so Offensive to the World, and Destructive or Humane Society; and if ye but regard and consider the special care the Divine Providence has had of that See above all the particular Churches and Societies in the World, it would fright any modest and humble Man, from passing a rash and severe Censure against the Supreme Governors of that Church: Notice but how the whole Christian World near from the Infancy of Christianity was divided into three Patriarchates, whereof the chief and the most powerful was the Western Church, and the Seat thereof Rome, to this all had anciently recourse, saith Ireneus, and in so far was the Church's Unity preserved, for that the particular Churches lived in Conjunction with this, which was founded by the two chief Apostles. St. Peter and Paul, to the first of which the Circumcision, and to the second the Incircumcision was chief committed, so that the whole Christian World being eminently entrusted to these two, and their charge transmitted to the Bishops of Rome their Successors, these eminent vast trusts conspire in this Apostolic See: And tho' Infallibility were not allowed to that particular See, yet certainly indefectability cannot in justice be denied it, for we see defacto, all the Churches of Apostolic Foundation have failed, and their Successions interrupted, this only remaining entire, and unless we have recourse to Her for the determination of Contraversies relating to Faith, according to the Rule of the Fathers, it shall not be possible to distinguish Catholic Truth, from Heresy: Tertullian particularly tells us in his Book of Prescriptions, that the only way left the Church by which She should distinguish Heresy, from Truth, was to have recourse ad Ecclesias matrices, and, thereto inquire if such Doctrines were derived down to them from the Apostolic Foundation: Now since there is no Church in existence of an Apostolic Foundation whose Succession hath not been interrupted, save that of Rome, we must needs then have recourse to Her for settling us in matters of Faith, otherwise the Father's Rule is not practicable, and no means left by God to secure us Infallibly from Error: So that not only the Indefectibility of that See; but the greatness of its principality, and the Wisdom of its Clergy, the confluence of Nations towards Her, and the protection of all the Catholic Princes bestowed on Her, all these should strongly oblige us not to pass indiscreetly and rashly a Censure upon the Actions of its chief Governor.  
But to come to the instances, it's answered that the Bull given out by Paul 3 against Henry 8, was concerning a matter of secular interest or plea of Law, for the ground of the Pope's sentence was from that unwarantable deed done by John of England, who made a resignation of his Crown to the See of Rome, and England Feudatory and himself a Vassal to that See, which deed though its most certain was ab origine null and void, he having no power to alienate his Royal hereditary Rights to any in prejudice of his Lawful Heirs and Successors, yet the Apostolic See having had such a grant made to them, several of her Bishops continued the claim of Superiority upon the said Title, And it was certainly upon this head, that Paul 3 proceeded against Henry 8, who had by Act of Parliament renounced all Foreign Jutisdiction, by which Paul the third Judged the Apostolic See, and St. Peter's Patrimony prejudged, and thereupon treated Henry 8. as his Vassal and absolved his Subjects from their alledgeance, and requiring all Catholic Princes to concur to the reducing him as a Rebel, who denied fidelity to the Apostolic See his supposed temporal Lord. It's known to all that ever read the English History that there were great heats between the Roman See and the English Kings, upon this pretended Title of the resignation, The Pope still requiring Fidelity mid other Feudatory duties from England, which were ever Justly denied, Several Laws and Statutes being made in England to guard them against that unjust Title. And to make this appear more evident that Paul the 3 treated Henry the 8 in this Bull as his supposed Vassal, read but the Words of the Bull, Sect. 15. Where the Pope commands all that were below an Imperial and Regal Dignity, not to correspond, converse, or transact, with Henry the eight, or his Accomplices, or Favourers, under pain of Excommunication, but as for the Imperial and Regal Dignites, he only beseeches and exorts them so to do without threatening any such Censure, thus runs the Bull (praeterea ad dictum Henricum Regem facilius ad sanitatem, & praefatae sedis obaedientiam reducendum, omnes & singulos Christianos principes, quâcunque etiam Imperiali & regali dignitate fulgentes per viscera miserecordiae Dei nostri (cujus causa agitur) hortamur & in dommo requirimus, eye nihil ominous, qui imperatore & Rege inferiores fuerint, quos propter exellentiam dignitatis à censuris excipimus, sub excomunicationis paenâ mandantes, ne Henrico regi ejusque complicibus, &c) Where its plain and undisputable to any, safe quibbling Lawyers, that Imperial and Regal Dignities are still excepted from the great Censure of Excommunication, and that propter eminentiam dignitatis, so that Paul the Third in his Bull, looked on Henry the Eighth, as Feudatory to himself and the Apostolic See, and as no absolute Prince, tho' he was infinitely wrong in so judging: From all this it follows that the Pope dealt with Henry the vl, in a matter reputed Secular and Temporal, and they Acted one against another as Temporal Princes, contending violently for their secular Rights and concerns, in which matters all Mankind, Pope, and all may Err, and the true Holy and Catholic interest remain entire and secure, and Catholic Princes are no worse Sons of the Church for maintaining their Rights and Privileges against all whatsoever: Truly, this grant of King John's as it was Originally void and null, so it was done by a most undeserving Governor, who neither knew nor had care of his own Interest, who was guilty of Rebellion against his Father and Brother, and who murdered his Nephew to usurp the Crown, who lost also all the English Interest, either by conquest or matches in France, not to speak of his Irreligion and Atheism: And as this grant was Originally null and done by so unworthy a Prince, so it was soon revoked by his Successors in Parliament, who in so unjust a matter would have been Highly prejudged, the very Catholic Clergy detesting the Pope for the severe and unjust courses against England, because of that Title, as the Bishops of Durham, Winchester, Norwich, etc. Yea the Archbishop of Canterbury, than a Cardinal and Legate, being at Rome, when a Charter adorned with a Golden Bull was presented at the High Altar in presence of the King, the said Prelate stepped in, as the Archbishop of Dublin had done at the first grant, and in Name of the Clergy and Kingdom of England produced at the same Altar his appeals, and all the Peers accorded with him therein: How did EDWARD the First resist the claim of the after Popes? and in EDWARD the Third's time did England secure their Right by Act of Parliament, where were Prelates, Lords, and Commons, against all the Papal pretensions: Yea a Parliament was held at London 1214, being the Year after the Grant, where the Archbishop sat as Precedent with all the Clergy and Laity, and there by command of the Pope, the Charter, Fealty and Homage, by which the King was obliged to the Pope, was absolutely released on the 7. of July: So that Catholic Princes have still vindicated their Rights against the highest Powers of the Church, and yet judged no Heretics upon the matter.  
Let's now consider Pius 5 his Bull against Queen Elizabeth; It's true there he declares to all Catholic subjects that she is no true Princess and absolves her Subjects from their allegiance, but upon good ground, for first consider that if Mary Queen of England lawfully succeeded King Edward her Brother: then Elizabeth could have no Title, as my Lord Beacon acknowledged H: 7: p. 206: (the legitimation of Queen Mary and Elizabeth are incompatible) unless ye justify both the marriages, which no Christian will adventure, and the Kingdom not being Elective, in that case Mary Queen of Scotland should in all Justice have succeeded. Pius 5th in his Bull saith Queen Mary of England is legitimat (usu namque verae religionis, quam ab illius desertore Henrico 8, olim eversam, Clarae mem: Maria regina legitima, hujus sedis praesidio reparaverat, etc. now since Mary Queen of England is acknowledged the true Child by this Pope, Then was Elizabeth an natural: all the Lords and Commons in a Parliament in England held after the Death of Edward 6. acknowledged Mary for their Sovereign, and that the marriage of her Mother was good and stood with God's Law and most Holy Word; which was this same thing as to say that Elizabeth was illegitmate, and LUTHER the great Reformer deemed her so too, says Osburn Mem: Q: Eliz; p. 5. Yea look to the date of her birth as it's in my Lord herbert's, H: 8. p. 350. which was in September the 7. 1533, while Queen Catherines divorce was pronounced by Cranmer, the King's Casuist and judge appointed for that end, the 23. of May proceeding, so that her Mother was then quick whilst Henry 8. was yet Husband to Queen Catherine, which continued till the term of that Sentence: I know Stow, Speed, and others allege a private Marriage between Henry 8. and Anna Bullen, Elizabeth, Mother, on January 25, yet still Elizabeth is born within seven months and a few odd days, by which we may guests at the Honesty of her Mother who brought forth Elizabeth into the World as vigorous, lusty, and healthful, as others use to be at the end of nine months. If it be said that the Pope innodates her not for her unjust Title, but for her Religion; to this it's answered first, that its evident in that the Pope declared Queen Mary legitimate, he must have looked on Elizabeth as an unjust usurper, for its impossible to reconcile to them both a just Title of Succession, yea Pius 5. in his Bull calls her praetensa angliae Regina) the pretended Queen of England, and so not the true.  
Secondly. The sad and Unnatural, Inhuman and dishonourable usage done by Elizabeth, to Queen Marry of Scotland, keeping Her under restraint and in close Prison, moved the Pope to conceal Queen Mary of Scotland Her just Title, (of which he was fully persuaded) lest the expression thereof might hasten the fatal stroke which at length befell Her.  
Thirdly. When the Inhumanity which Queen Elizabeth used against her Cousin Queen Mary was noised abroad the World over, than did Pius the fifth send Ridulph a Florentine to Consult with the Catholics in England to an insurrection against Elizabeth, upon which followed the rising in Arms in the North; and though the Catholic Lords did in their Declaration mention Religion, yet the true cause was the settling Queen Mary of Scotland the true and undoubted Heiress of England, and the Lords proposing Religion then, did ipso facto imply the alteration of Religion and Government together, and upon the advancing of the Catholic Religion followed the interest of Queen Mary, so that the Pope and Catholic Lords did in this as the memorable General Monk did in carrying on the Loyal design of restoring our late Sovereign King Charles II. not daring to express his Name, lest it should have marred and ruined his honest purposes.  
Fourthly. Cambden tells us 1569. p. 160, that Leonard Deackers second Son to the Lord Deackers of Gysland, under took the delivery of Queen Mary of Scotland, who then was in Derbyshire in my Lord Shrewsburrys keeping, and my Lord Northumberland was chief complotter in this design, and he also was chief Commander of the insurrection of the North, who as all know intended nothing so much as Queen Mary's Title, tho' in the Declaration of War he Judged fit to conceal and not express it. From all this then its clear that the Pope in his Bull against Elizabeth designed chief the settling of the righteous Heir, and he looked on Elizabeth not only as an usurper, but as a Heretical Subject also, whom all were to avoid, because of her Heresy, and not to yield obedience or alledgeance because of her unjust Title; and in all this affair the Pope acted nothing against the Faith and Doctrine of the Catholic Church, or the true Properties, Interests, and Privileges, of Christian Princes, but rather evidenced his paternal care in securing the Rights and concerns of Monarches, and suppressing of usurping and unjust Powers, to which he might concur not only as a Ghostly Father by his Spiritual advices and censures, but as a Temporal Prince gave aid and assistance to settle and reposess Lawful, and righteous Heirs thrust from their legal Rights.   
FINIS  

Erratas.  
Page 2. l. 15. for Imperal r. Imperial, Page 4. l. 1. for Crocked r. broached, l. 29. for Popal r. Papal Page 5. l. 24. for principal r. private Page 6. l. 16. for indefectability r. indefectibility l. 17. for defacto r. de facto Page 7. l. 20. for requiring r. required Page 8. l. 1. for exorts r. exhorts Page 10. l. 16. for term r. term