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, &c. of King Henry the Eighth. Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. 1681 Approx. 767 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 164 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A69677 Wing B826 ESTC R12681 12095763 ocm 12095763 53979 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A69677) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 53979) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 680:20, 757:1) 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, &c. of King Henry the Eighth. Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691. Catholic Church. Pope (1566-1572 : Pius V). Regnans in excelsis. English & Latin. Catholic Church. Pope (1534-1549 : Paul III). Ejus qui immobilis permanens. English & Latin. [24], 294, [7] p. Printed by S. Roycroft for Robert Clavell ..., London : 1681. Running title: Observations on the Pope's bull against Queen Elizabeth. UMI reel guide incorrectly lists item as Wing B827. Includes bibliographical references. Reproduction of originals in Cambridge University Library and Huntington Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Elizabeth -- I, -- Queen of England, 1533-1603. Henry -- VIII, -- King of England, 1491-1547. Catholic Church. -- Pope (1566-1572 : Pius V). -- Regnans in excelsis. Excommunication -- Catholic Church -- Papal documents. 2005-03 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-04 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-05 Rachel Losh Sampled and proofread 2005-05 Rachel Losh Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion Brutum Fulmen : OR THE BULL OF Pope Pius V. Concerning the Damnation , Excommunication , and Deposition OF Q. ELIZABETH , As also the Absolution of her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance , with a Peremptory Injunction , upon Pain of an Anathema , never to obey any of Her Laws or Commands . With some Observations and Animadversions upon it . By THOMAS Lord Bishop of Lincoln . Whereunto is Annex'd the Bull of Pope Paul the Third , containing the Damnation , Excommunication , &c. of King Henry the Eighth . Come out of her my People , that ye partake not of her Sins and Plagues . Rev. XVIII . 4. LONDON , Printed by S. Roycroft for Robert Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard . MDCLXXXI . The Right Hon. ble Algernon Capell , Earl of Essex , Viscount Maldon , and Baron Capell of Hadham : 〈◊〉 . THE EIPSTLE TO THE READER . Reader , WHoever thou art ( Protestant or Papist , Courteous or Censorious ) having made these Papers publick , thou hast a liberty to read , and a right to judge ; and that thou maist do it impartially , ( not out of hate or kindness to me , but upon a serious and just Consideration of the Cause ) I shall neither importune thy Favour , nor deprecate ( when 't is just ) thy severest Censure . For , 1. 'T is truth , I have impartially desired , and not indiligently sought ; and if ( by the blessing of God ) I have found it , Magna est veritas & praevalebit , it will prevail , in despite of all Enemies and Opposition ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nat super , non immersabilis undis . Truth we know ( especially Divine Truth , which concerns our Souls and their salvation ) ever had , and , so long as there are Devils and wicked Men , will have in this World many Enemies ; who will indeavour ( what they cannot do ) to suppress it ; premi potest veritas , opprimi non potest . They may dipp , and ( for some time ) keep it under water , but they cannot drown it . If these Papers contain truth , ( as I hope they do ) then I am sure that every Intelligent Reader , and pious lover of Truth , will be its Patron ; and ( though in this Epistle I do not sollicit him ) ready to vindicate it from the Objections of its Adversaries . But ( on the other side ) if my Reader relate to Rome , and be possess'd with strong delusion to believe ( against Reason and Divine Revelation ) his Catholick Cause , the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility , it will be in vain for me , in this Epistle , to desire ( what I believe I a cannot have ) his Favour . However , he shall have my Pity and Prayers , That God Almighty would be graciously pleased to open his Eyes , and bless him with the Knowledge and Love of the Truth . 2. We know 't is true , what the great Roman Orator long since said — Humanum est errare , labi , decipi , &c. The wisest men have their mistakes ; Bernardus non videt Omnia , & quandóque bonus dormitat Homerus . Since Adam fell , the best men have their Infirmities , and sometimes erre , even when they desire and seek Truth . Since the Prophets , our blessed Saviour and his Apostles , left the world , I know no man Infallible ; nor any , save the Pope , who ( against evident Reason and the sense of Christendom ) pretends to it . For my own part , I do humbly acknowledge my many and great Infirmities ; and for these Papers — Hominem pagina nostra sapit , there may be mistakes and errors in them ; yet it is my hope and ( not ungrounded ) belief , that there are none such as may prove pernicious , or ( in the main ) dangerous — Non hic Centauros , non Gorgonas , Harpyasve invenies . No such prodigious and pernicious errors , as our Popish Adversaries maintain , & ( so far as they are able ) vindicate : such I mean as their stupid Doctrine of Transubstantiation ( contradictory to Natural Reason , Divine Revelation , and all our Senses ) their Idolatrous Adoration of a piece of Bread , with Divine b 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 Command , and the practise of the Christian d World ( even of the Church of Rome her self ) for above a thousand years ( as their own great and learned Writers confess ) &c. I say , such errors as these , I do ( and have reason to ) believe , the Reader will not find in these Papers . Though it be certain and confess'd , that every one , even the best and most learned Writers are fallible ; yet so long as they rationally build their Conclusions upon the clear Principles of Nature , Scripture , or Vniversal Tradition , They may be sure enough , ( and so may their Reader too ) that they are not actually false , nor what they so write erroneous . However if the Reader find any errors of what nature soever , and can make it appear , that they are indeed errors , I shall not ( as I said before ) deprecate his severest Censure , but concur with him , and Censure them my self , as much as he ; and do hereby promise publickly to retract them , and heartily thank him for the discovery . For in this Case my Reader and I shall both be Gainers , and ( in a several way ) Conquerors — e 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 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 presix'd to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum , contrived by the Authority of the Trent Council , declare all Books of h Controversies between Catholicks and Hereticks ( Protestants and Papists ) in any Vulgar Tongue , prohibited and damned ; neither to be i 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 Spirit , in the Gospel , Command all ( even the Common people , for to those he writes ) to Examin and try all things , to use that understanding and discretion God has given us , to distinguish truth from error ( for that 's evidently the meaning of those words , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prove all things , as l scher and learned Papists confess ) and when we have done so , then we must hold fast that which is good . I say , in this Case , in the choice of our Religion , wherein the Eternal weal or woe of our Souls is concerned ; though Christian prudence require it , and our blessed Saviour , ( by his Apostle ) Command , that we should not believe every Spirit , but try before we trust , and diligently examin 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 renounce their own Reason , and if he say that is white , which they see black , they n are to believe what he says , and not their own Senses . All means for the People to examin , whether it be truth or error , which the Pope and his Church proposes , is prohibited , and deny'd 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 damn'd 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 pernicious then profitable , and brings more loss then benefit to the Reader . Although this Doctrine be ( as I said ) impious , and ( against God and his Holy Word ) blasphemous ; yet it is publickly own'd amongst those Rules for prohibited Books , contrived by a p 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 the Title of the Trent Index assures us . After them ( that we may be sure they continue their Antichristian Tyranny , to prohibit and damne the Bible and all Books which make against them ) r Gregory the Fifteenth , and s Urban the Eighth do further approve and confirm the Impious Rules and Doctrine afore-mention'd ; and both of them expresly declare , and in the same words ; 1. That it is known that the Reading prohibited Books , ( the Bible is one of them ) brings t 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 explain'd 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 Books , whosoever gave them , & to whomsoever they were given ) they recall , cassate , and declare null . 3. Then they Command ( under severest x 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 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 supream Office of the Inquisitors ) which sits every week before the Pope at Rome . By the Premisses , I think 't is certain , that these Papers of mine are ( in Antecessum , and ) already prohibited and damn'd 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 Catholick 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 solemnly Promised , Vow'd and Sworn firmly to believe and constantly to hold and profess to their last breath ( and , to the utmost of their Power , indeavour 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 obey'd ) none are to read or have these Papers , save such as have promised , vow'd , 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 Catholicks , and Roman Catholicks ; 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 Baronius ( their great Cardinal and Annalist ) having said , That the Hereticks ( we know whom he means ) call'd 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 Popes Monarchical Supremacy , I shall ( according to the Cardinal's desire ) call them Papists , and if it be so honourable a Title ( as he saies 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 Catholick , 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 Catholick Bishop , or Catholick Doctor , &c. ) it signified such persons as were , 1. In respect of their Faith , Orthodox ; who intirely believed and profess'd the true Christian Faith , rejecting all pernicious and dangerous errors , and so were no Hereticks . 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 Schismaticks . Now that our Adversaries of Rome are ( as they pretend ) such Catholicks , is absolutely deny'd ; 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 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 publickly 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. Virginis , their Ritual and Pontifical , &c. ) I say , these things impartially considered , they may be ( and really are ) Idolatrous Hereticks ; but 't is impossible they should be , ( what they against greatest evidence pretend to ) true Catholicks . 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 in the following Bull ) which are things inconsistent with the Christian Temper and Charity of a true Catholick ; I say these things considered , and that the Pope and his Party are really guilty of such uncharitable Actions , dividing and violating the Vnion of the Church ; it evidently follows , that they are so far from being true Catholicks that they are great and formal Schismaticks ; And therefore they must pardon me , if in these Papers , I do not call them ( what really they are not ) Catholicks ; and for the same Reason , I do not call them Roman Catholicks . 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 Catholick , who really is an Erring Schismatick , and no Catholick at all . 5. I know some ( otherwise learned and pious ) Writers , who say that those words Roman Catholick 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 call'd Catholick Churches , without any Contradiction or Impropriety . In an Epistle of a e great Council at Antioch , we find the f Bishop of that City call'd a Catholick , and that particular Church a g Catholick Church . So in the Subscriptions to Nazianzen's last Will and Testament , Optimus Bp. of Antioch , subscribes thus ; Optimus Bp. of the Catholick h 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 Catholick Church in Constantinople ; Amphilochius Bishop of the Catholick Church in Iconium ; and so all the rest . In the Appendix to the Theodosian Code , Pope Vigilius begins his Encyclical Epistle thus — Vigilius i Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Urbis Romae : Bishop of the Catholick Church of the City of Rome . So Pope k Leo the Great ( and l many more Bishops of Rome ) uses the very same form . The Popes stiled themselves Catholicae Ecclesiae ( non Orbis , sed ) Urbis Romae Episcopos . The Antichristian stile of Universal Bishop , ( as Pope m Gregory the Great calls it ) was not yet usurped at Rome . The Bishops of Rome then , and their Church , were Catholick , and so was every Orthodox Bishop and his Church , as well and as much as they . Constantinople , Iconium , Antioch , &c. and their Bishops , were as truly Catholick as St. Peter's Successor , or Rome it self : 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 bragg ) but that impious Heretick Donatus , whose damnable Schism and Heresie they have espoused . St. Augustin ( who well knew it ) tells us , in n several places , That the Donatists assumed to themselves the Name of Catholick , said that their Sect was the only true Church , and so damn'd all other Christians ; and upon this Heretical Opinion , they Schismatically separated from the whole Catholick 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 Catholicks , and the only Members of the true Christian and Catholick Church : and then Schismatically Seperate 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 Catholick 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 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 Emperor of Constantinople ( and with prodigious Error and Impudence , indeavours to prove it out of q Scripture ) That the r Pope is as much greater Then the Emperor , as The Sun is greater Then 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 Greg. the Thirteenth approves it too ; and ( with the other Decretals ) confirms it for Law ; and 't is continued in all Editions of that Law , ever since . It is then certain and confess'd , That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is call'd God , above all Kings and Emperors ; and that he is far greater then 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 then 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 Forty seaven times . This is pretty well , but much short of that Magnitude the Pope meant , ( if he knew what he said ) when he affirm'd , That he was as much greater then the Emperor , as the Sun was greater than the Moon . 2. And therefore another u Canonist , would have the Sun greater than the Moon ( and so the Pope greater than the Emperor ) Fifty seaven 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 manifest , that the Sun is greater than the Moon ( so the Pope than the Emperor ) an hundred forty seaven times . I omit the fractions ; for if the Pope be . 147. times greater than the Emperor , me thinks it might satisfie 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 That the Sun is greater than the Moon ( 7744 ½ ) seaven thousand seaven 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 ) then 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 That the Papal Dignity is to be prefer'd to the Imperial , more then Gold is to Lead ; and if Gratian saytrue ) it was the Pope who said so . And the Gloss gives the reason of this Papal a Greatness above all Kings ; Because Kings and Princes are to submit their Necks to the Popes Knees ; ( he might have said , and their b Mouthes to the Popes 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 Catholick ) 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 Vniversities and Papal Consistories , abont 450. years ago , and so continues to this day . 2. For the Glosses before-mentioned , they are not only in the d old Editions of their Law , but were approved and confirmed afterwards by e Gregory the Thirteenth ( and so stand approved and confirmed to this day ) who expresly tells us , That the Law being by his f command receiv'd , 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 Catholick 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 my self ) 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 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 Supream Jurisdiction , even over the Apostles , &c. By their own h 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 betray'd his trust in not making use of it , for his Masters 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. Peters 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 Successor . For if it was temporary , and ceas'd with St. Peter's Person , then 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 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 preceeded him in the Bishoprick of Rome . 5. Let them make it appear , that our blessed Saviour , while on Earth , either exercis'd or had such a Temporal Monarchy , as the l 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 exercis'd . These are the Foundations upon which the Papal Monarchy ( Spiritual and Temporal ) is built ; and if these fail , the whole Fabrick will and must fall ; and therefore they are concern'd , 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 exercis'd such a terrene and temporal power , as they pretend the Pope ( as his Vicar ) has from him : I say , let them make all , or any one of these Pariculars appear from Scripture , and I will confess , and retract my error . Nor is the Condition unjust or unequal , when I require Scripture proof . For they themselves constantly affirm that the Pope has Right to his Monarchical Supremacy Jure Divino ; by the Constitution of our blessed Saviour , and Divine Right ; and this their Popes , Canonists and Divines ( with great noise and confidence , but no reason ) endeavour to prove from Scripture , miserably mistaken and misapply'd . I know , that their late m Jesuitical Methodists ( so much n magnify'd by their Party ) require of Protestants to confute their Popish Doctrines ( Transubstantiation , the Sacrifice of the Mass , Purgatory , &c. ) by express words of Scripture ) not admitting of Consequences , however deduced from plain Texts as Premisses . This method of theirs ( being irrational and o demonstrated so to be ) I shall not tye them too : But if they can prove any of the aforesaid Positions by the express words of Scripture , or by good Consequences deduced from it , or ( what they pretend to ) Vniversal and Apostolical Tradition ; I shall admit the proof . Nay , I shall make our Popish Adversaries two further , and ( if that be possible ) fairer offers . 1. Let them prove by any just and concluding reason whatsoever , that any Christian Church in the World acknowledg'd , or the Church of Rome her self assumed and publickly pleaded for such a Papal Supremacy , as p now they pretend to , for 1000. years after our B. Saviour ; and ( for my own part ) I will confess and retract my Error . 2. Let them prove , by any such concluding reason , that any Church in the World ( Eastern or Western , Greek or Latin ) did acknowledge ( what now the Pope and his Party so earnestly and vainly contend for ) the Popes Infallibility , and his Supremacy over all General Councils , for 1500. years after our blessed Saviour ; and for my part , Cedat Jülus Agris , manus dabimus captivas , I will retract what here I have affirmed , and be ( what I hope I never shall be ) their Proselyte . To Conclude , I have no more to say , ( my Adversaries will think I have said too much ) save only to desire the Readers , who sincerely and impartially desire truth and satisfaction , to read and consider the Margent as well as the Text. In this , they have my Positions , and the proofs of them , in plain English : In the Margent , the Authorities and Authors I rely upon , in their own words , and the Language in which they writ : and I have ( for the Readers ease , not my own ) cited not only the Authors and their Books , but the Chapter , Paragraph , Page , and mostly the Editions of them : That so the Reader may with more ease , find the places quoted , and judge whether I have cited and translated them aright . It is notoriously known , that our Popish Adversaries have published many forged Canons and Councils , many spurious a Decretals , and supposititious Tracts , under the names of Primitive Fathers , and ancient Bishops ; that they have shamefully corrupted the Canons of Legitimate b Councils , and thousands of other Authors ; making them ( by adding and substracting words or Sentences ) say what they never meant , or not to say what indeed they did both mean and say : and this they themselves have ( without shame or honesty ) publickly own'd , in their Expurgatory Indices ; and after all this fraud and falsification of Records , these Apocryphal Books and supposititious Authors , are continually produced by them ( for proofs of their Errors ) against Protestants who well know , and ( as many sober men of their own Communion ) justly condemn such impious Roman Arts — Nec tali auxilio , nec defensoribus istis Christus eget . Truth needs no such forg'd and false ; Medium's to maintain it ; nor will any honest man use them . Sure I am , I have not , in this Discourse , built the truth of my Positions upon the Testimonies of our own Protestant Authors , ( knowing that our Adversaries would with scorn reject their Testimony ) nor of any supposititious or spurious ones . The Testimonies and Proofs I have quoted , and rely upon , are drawn from Scripture , the genuine Works of the ancient Fathers and Councils , or ( which ad hominem , must be valid ) from their own Councils , the Popes Bulls , their Canon Law , their Casuists , Schoolmen , Summists , the Trent Catechism , the Book of the Sacred Ceremonies of the Rom. Church , their approved and received Publick Offices , ( such as their Missal , Breviary , Ritual , Pontifical , &c. ) which Authorities ( if I do not misquote , or mistake their meaning ) are , and ( to them ) must be just proofs of those Positions for which I have produced them . But let the Evidence of the Testimonies , and the Authority of the Authors quoted , be what it will ; I have little hope , that they will gain any assent from our Adversaries ; so long as they believe the Infallibility of their Pope and Church , and their Learned Men are solemnly sworn , firmly to believe their new Trent Creed , ( the whole Body of Popish Errors ) to their last breath , and to Anathematize and Damn what Doctrine soever contradicts it . For while they are possess'd with these Principles , it may be truly said of them , what was said of the Luciferian Hereticks in St. Hierome — Facilius cos Vinci posse , quam persuaderi , you may sooner bassle , then perswade them : They will ( in despite of Premisses ) hold the Conclusion ; nor shall the clearest demonstration overcome their blind Zeal and Affection to their Catholick Cause . However , that God Almighty would be graciously pleased to bless us and them , with a clear knowledge of Sacred Truth , with a firm belief , and ( in dangerous times ) upon undanted and pious profession of it , is and shall be the Prayer of Oct. 3. 1680. Thy Friend and Servant in Christ , T. L. The Damnation and Excommunication of Elizabeth Queen of England , and her Adherents , with an Addition of other Punishments . Pius Bishop , Servant to God's Servants , for a perpetual memorial of the matter . HE that reigneth on High , to whom is given all Power in Heaven and in Earth , committed one Holy , Catholick and Apostolick Church ( out of which there is no Salvation ) to one alone upon Earth , namely , to Peter the Prince of the Apostles , and to Peter's Successor the Bishop of Rome , to be governed in fulness of Power . Him alone he made Prince over all People , and all Kingdoms , to pluck up , destroy , scatter , consume , plant and build , that he may contain the faithful that are knit together with the band of Charity in the Unity of the Spirit , and present them spotless , and umblameable to their Saviour . Sect. 1. In discharge of which Function , we which are by God's goodness called to the Government of the aforesaid Church , do spare no pains , labouring with all earnestness , that Unity , and the Catholick Religion ( which the Author thereof hath for the trial of his Children's 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 Supream 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 Catholick 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 Hereticks , she hath removed the Royal Council consisting of the English Nobility , and filled it with obscure men , being Hereticks , oppressed the Embracers of the Catholick Faith , placed impious Preachers , Ministers of Iniquity , abolished the Sacrifice of the Mass , Prayers , Fastings , choice of Meats , unmarried Life , and the Catholick Rites and Ceremonies . Commanded Books to be read in the whole Realm containing manifest Heresie ; and impious Mysteries and Institutions , by her self 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 Catholick Priests , out of their Churches and Benefices ; and to bestow them and other Church Livings upon Hereticks , 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 Catholick 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 hardned and indurate , that she hath not only contemned the godly Requests and Admonitions of Catholick 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 our selves 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 burthen ) in this Supream Throne of Justice , we do out of the fulness of our Apostolick power , declare the aforesaid Elizabeth , being an Heretick , and a favourer of Hereticks , 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 Priviledge 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 publick Notaries 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 shewed . Given at Rome , at St. Peters , 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 servâ 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 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 , 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 , exercis'd 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 Constantine in a Council of Italian Bishops ( it was about the Year 711. ) Anathematises all who deny'd the worshipping of Images , and b 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 ; 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 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 deposed Childericus King of France , and absolves his Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance , and gives his Kingdom to Pipin : 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 Gloss ) but because he was Effeminate , and dissolute with Women . And from this Canon , Joh. Semeca ( the f Glossator ) infers , That the Pope may depose the Emperor ; and proves it by citing other Canons , And by the Authority of Pope g 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 demonstrated so to be ) yet it stands uncensur'd in their last and best i Edition of the Canon Law , which Pope Gregory XIII . k approved and publish'd , as most correct . And they further tell us , That Clement VIII . published an l 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 censur'd . 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 Gregory VII . deposeth the Emperor Henry IV. by the Authority given n by God , ( as he says ) of binding and loosing both in Heaven and Earth : And then he o 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 know , that as they have power to bind and loose 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 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 mens Temporal Estates in the World , whether they be Supream or Subjects . 5. After this , Pope Gregory IX . r 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 German Bishops ( upon pain of Excommunication ) solemnly to publish this Excommunication with all their Impious Solemnities , ringing of Bells , lighting , and then extinguishing Candles , &c. 6. After this , Pope s Innocent IV. ( in the like form ) Excommunicates and Deposes the said Frederick . The Lemma or Title prefix'd to the Bull is thus t , The Damnation and Excommunication of Frederick II. &c. And least this might be thought a rash and inconsiderate Act of the Pope , he himself tells us , That u 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 publish'd that Excommunication in that Council , not without the x Horror and Amazement of all who heard it . But Platina tells us , That it was done by the y general and concurrent consent of the Council . And Innocent himself expresly says , That it was done ( Friderick Excommunicate ) by the z Council it self ; ( 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 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 call'd 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 Heresie , the Preservation of the Catholick Faith , and Christian Religion ; yet 't is 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 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 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 Descendents 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 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 Ecclesiasticks ( Secular and Regular ) to quit the Kingdom , and not to return , till the Persons Excommunicate , deprived , cursed and damn'd ( the King and all his Loyal Subjects he means ) be absolved from their Censures . This Bull , though fram'd and ready to be publish'd , 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 Wild-fire , which could neither warm or burn him . 8. Lastly ; as the Popes preceeding Pius V. so those who followed approved and ( so far as they were able ) put in practise that execrable Doctrine of Deposing Kings . Pope Gregory XIII . did immediately succeed Pius V. and renues and confirms his Bull for deposing Queen Elizabeth , and absolving her Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance ( as is testified not only by f Cambden , but by the Romish Priests themselves , ( the g Seculars , who seem'd 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 expresly testify'd by Fitz-Gerald h himself , in an Edict publish'd by him , after he was General , declaring the Justice of that Irish War , which ( he says ) was undertaken for the Catholick 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 deposes the Queen , Absolves her Subjects from their Oaths of Fidelity , and published a Croisado , as against Turks and Insidels ( indeed as afterwards evidently appear'd 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 writ a Traiterous and Seditious Book , to Exhort all the English and Irish Papists , to joyn with the Spanish Forces ( against their Queen and Country ) under the Prince of Parma : and Pope Sixtus V. sends Allen ( with that Book , and his own Bull ) into the Low-Countries , and there a great number of those Books and Bulls were printed at Antverpe , to be sent into England . Were it necessary , many things now might be said , pertinent to this purpose ; but ( I suppose ) the Instances already given , will be sufficient to convince Intelligent and Imp●●tial Persons , That Pope Pius . V. was neither the first nor last , who usurped this Extravagant Power to Depose Princes ; seeing several of his Predecessors and Successors , for above . 600. years , have owned , approved , and ( as they had opportunity ) put that Power in practise : This in General premis'd , I come now to consider the Bull of Pius . V. wherein he damns and deposeth Queen Elizabeth ; wherein two things occur very considerable ; 1. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Title prefix'd to the Bull. 2. The Particulars contain'd in it . For the first ; the Title prefix'd to the Bull is thus : — The Damnation of Elizabeth , &c. where , though Damnation may seem a very hard word ( as indeed it is , in the sense they use it , as shall by and by appear ) yet it is not unusual ; but occurs in other Bulls of the like nature : So we find it in the Bull of Pope Innocent . IV. wherein he Excommunicates the Emperor Friderick . II. For the Lemma or Title of that Bull is thus — l The Damnation & Deposition of Friderick . II. So in the Bull of Pope Paul III. Excommunicating Henry . VIII . the Title prefix'd to it is — m The Damnation of Henry VIII . and his Favourers , &c. So that Pius . V. Damning Queen Elizabeth , was not singular ( though Impious ) he had some of his Predecessors ; Forms to follow . I say , his Predecessors ; for I do not find that any Bishops in the World ( save those of Rome ) ever used such Unchristian , and indeed Anti-christian Forms of Excommunicating and Damning Kings and Emperors . And it is observable , and well known to those who diligently read and consider the Papal Bulls now extant , ( of which there is a vast n number ) that the Popes of later Ages , when they go about to justifie some extravagant Act of their unsurped Power ; they usually cite o the Bulls and Constitutions of their Predecessors , who had done the like ; not for matter of fact barely , but to prove a Right ; that because their Predecessors had done so formerly , therefore they ( who succeeded in the same Power ) might do it too . Now , although to Argue thus , à Facto ad Jus , be evidently inconsequent and irrational : ( no better than this — Peter ( de facto ) deny'd and forswore his Master : Ergo , His Successors ( de jure ) may do so to . ) Yet , if their Principles were true , ( as I suppose they may think them ) such Arguing would be more concluding . For , Pope Leo. X. expresly p affirms , and publickly declares , in one of their General Councils , that it is more clear than light it self ; That None of his Predecessors , Popes of Rome , Did ever Err , in any of their Canons or Constitutions . Now if this were true , ( as it is evidently false , and his Asserting it , an Argument not only of his Fallibility , but of his great Error and Folly ) That none of his Predecessors ever Err'd , then they might with more Security follow them ; for certainly , it can be no great fault or danger to follow an unerring Guide . Especially if it be true which they tell us . For 1. In their Laws and Canons , approved by their Supream Authority , and retained in publick use in their Church , we are told , q That all their Papal Sanctions are so to be received , as if the Divine Voice of Peter himself had Confirmed them : This ( as Gratian there tells us ) was Pope Agatho ' s Sentence , & is Received into the Body of their Canon Law , Revised , Corrected , and Purged from all things Contrary to Catholick Verity : So r Gregory XIII . says , and confirms it . Whence it evidently follows ; that ( in Pope Gregory's Judgment ) This Sentence of Agatho is not repugnant to Catholick Verity : And in the same place it is farther declared for Law , ( Pope Stephen . I. is cited as Author of that Sentence ) That , s Whatever the Church of Rome does Ordain or Constitute , it is ( without all Contradiction ) perpetually to be Observed . 2. Though this be ( beyond all truth and reason ) highly erroneous ; yet the Jesuits ( of late ) have gone much higher , and in their Claromont Colledge at Paris , publickly t maintain'd these two Positions . 1. That our Blessed Saviour left Peter and his Successors , the same Infallibility , he himself had , so oft as they spoke è Cathedra . 2. That ( even out of a General Council ) He is the Infallible Judge in Controversies of Faith , both in Questions of Right and Fact. This ( as to the main of it , though Erroneous and Impious ) is maintain'd by others , as well as Jesuits . F. Gregory de Rives , a Capuchin Priest , tells us ( and his Book is approved by the General , and several others of his Order , and by Father D. Roquet , a Dominican , and Doctor of Divinity , &c. ) u That as the Authority of Christ ( our blessed Saviour ) if he were now on Earth , were greater than all Councils , so by the Same Reason , the Authority of the Pope ( who is Christ's Vicar ) is greater than all Councils too . That the Priviledge of Infallibility was given to the Pope , not to Councils ; and then Concludes ; That the x Church of Rome ( he means the Pope ) is Judge of Controversies , and all her Desinitions and Determinations are De Fide. Thus De Rives . And three or four years before him , Lud. Bail ( a Parisian Doctor and Propenitentiary ) expresly affirms , That the y Word of God is threefold . 1. His written Word , in Scripture . 2. His unwritten Word , in the Traditions of the Church . 3. The Word Declared or Explain'd ; when doubtful passages in Scripture or Tradition are explain'd , and their meaning determin'd by the Pope , whether in , or out of Councils ; and this ( he says ) is the most approved way , in which men acquiesce , and think they need look no further . And hence he Infers , That seeing this is so ; we z ought not to be affraid to follow the Pope's Guidance in Doctrines of Faith and Manners , but acquiesce in his Judgment , and submit all our writings to be Corrected by him . I neither will nor need Cite any more Authorities , to prove the aforesaid Particulars ; That Their Popes may Damn and Depose Kings and Emperors ( especially if they be Hereticks ) and think they have ( as Christ's Vicars ) a just Prerogative and Power to do it . Sure I am , that these Positions ( though Erroneous and Impious ) are generally maintain'd by the Jesuits , Canonists , a Schoolmen , and their Followers ( which are very many ) receiv'd into the Body of their Canon Law of their best , and ( as they themselves say ) their most Correct Editions , and approved , and ( when they had opportunity ) practis'd by ( their Supream Powers ) their Popes and General Councils . I would not be mistaken ; I do not say that all who now do , or for this Six hundred years last past , have liv'd in the Communion of the Church of Rome , either do , or did approve such Papal Positions or Practices . I know the Sorbon and Vniversity of Paris , and many in other Countries , have publickly Declared their disbelief and dislike of them ; Especially in b Germany , in the time of Hen. III. Hen. IV. Friderick II. &c. not only private Persons , but some Synods declared the Papal Excommunications and Depositions of their Emperors , not only Injust and Impious , but Antichristian . I grant also , That Father Caron in his Remonstrantiâ Hibernorum ( if some have rightly told the Number ) has cited Two hundred and fifty Popish Authors , who deny the Popes Power to depose Kings : And though I know that many of his Citations are Impertinent ; yet I shall neither deny nor doubt , but that there are many thousand honest Papists in the outward Communion of the Church of Rome , who dislike this Doctrine . But this will neither Justifie or Excuse the Church of Rome , so long as her Governing and Ruling part publickly approves and maintains it . For , 1. Father c Caron himself tells us , that ( notwithstanding his Book , and all his Authorities for Loyalty to Kings ) The Divines of Lovane , The Pope's Nuncio , the Cardinals , four or five Popes , ( Paulus . V. Pius . V. Alexander . VII . Innocentius . X. ( he might easily have reckon'd many more ) did condemn his Doctrine , The Inquisitors damn'd his Book , and his Superiors Excommunicate him . 2. It is confessed , That the Supream Infallible Power of their Church , resides either in the Pope , or Council , or both together ; And 't is also certain , That their Popes , in their approved , and ( in d publick use ) received Canon Law , in their Authentick Bulls , ( publish'd by themselves ) in their General Councils ( and e with their Consent ) have approved , and ( for this Six hundred years last past ) many times practis'd this Doctrine of Deposing Kings ; nor has the Church of Rome ( I mean the Governing and Ruling part of it ) by any Publick Act or Declaration disown'd or censur'd it , as doubtless she would , had she indeed disliked it . Quae non prohibet , cum possit , jubet . If any man think otherwise , and can really shew me , that their Popes and General Councils have not formerly approved , or since have disown'd and disapprov'd this Doctrine : I shall willingly acknowledge my mistake , and be thankful to him for a Civility , which ( at present ) I really believe I shall never receive . However , Grata supervenient quae non sperantur . 3. Seing it is Evident that Pope Pius . V. ( and his Predecessors in the like Cases ) calls the Anathema and Curse contain'd in this Bull , The Damnation of Q. Elizabeth ; The next Query will be , What that hard word signifies , and what they mean by it , in their Bulls ? For the Solution of which doubt , and Satisfaction to the Query : 1. I take it to be certain and confess'd ; That the word Damnum ( from whence Damnation comes ) signifies a f diminution , or g loss of some good things , had and enjoyed before , or of a right to future good things , and then Damnation ( as to our present Case ) will be a judicial sentence , which ( by way of punishment ) imposes such loss and diminution . 2. As the Damnum or loss may be either of Temporal things here ( as loss of Honours , Liberty , Lands or Life ) or of Spiritual and Eternal things , ( as Heaven and Salvation ) hereafter ; so the Damnation also ( according to the Nature of the sentence , and the mischief intended by it ) may be Temporal or Eternal , or both ; if it penally inflict the loss both of Goods Temporal and Eternal . 3. I say then ( and I hope to make it evident ) that the mischief intended by this Papal Bull , and Excommunication ( so far as the malice and injustice of an Usurped Power could ) endeavoured to be brought upon that good Queen , was not only Temporal , but also Spiritual and Eternal . This the word Damnation , in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Title of the Bull , ( in their Popish Construction ) intends and signifies . For the Temporal mischiefs intended to be brought upon that Good Queen , there is no question ; they are all particularly named in the Bull it self , as we shall see anon . For the Spiritual , that is , a seclusion out of Heaven and Happiness , and Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul ; that these also were the intended and designed Effects of this Impious Bull and Excommunication , is now to be proved . And here it is to be Considered , 1. That they constantly say , and ( having strong Delusion ) possibly may believe it ; That Hereticks ( and such the Queen is declared to be in the Bull ) dying Excommunicate , ( as that Queen did , and all true Protestants do ) are Eternally Damn'd . For , 1. A very great h Canonist of our own Nation , ( while Popish Superstition unhappily prevail'd here ) tells us , That every Excommunicate Person is a Member of the Devil . And for farther proof of this , he Cites i Gratian and their Canon Law , ( and he might have Cited other as pertinent places in Gratian ) who tells us , in another Canon k , 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 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 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 That Pope Gregory . VII . did not only depose the Emperor Hen. IV. but Excommunicate , and Decree him to be Eternally Damn'd . And for this he o 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 That he had Excommunicated the Emperor Hen. IV. in a Council ; and adds , That by the Judgment of the whole Church , he lay bound under An Eternal Anathema . And after this Pope Paul. III. q Damns ( that 's the word ) and Excommunicates our King Hen. VIII . and all his Favourers and Adherents ; And we smite them ( saith he ) with the Sword of an Anathema , Malediction , and Eternal Damnation . In the Year 1459. Pius . II. ( with the Vnanimous Consent of his Council , at Mantua , Excommunicates and Damns all those ( even r Kings and Emperors ) who shall Appeal from the Pope to a General Council , and that they shall be punish'd as s Traytors and Hereticks . Pope Julius . II. afterwards confirms this Constitution of his Predecessor , as to all the Punishments contain'd in it ; Excommunicates and Curses all Persons , Ecclesiastical and Secular , of what Dignity soever ( though Kings ) who shall offend against that Constitution ; and Decrees that they shall have t their Portion and Damnation with Dathan and Abiron . The Damnation then intended and threatned in this Impious Bull of Pius V. ( as in other Papal Bulls of the like nature ) is not only some Temporal loss and damage ( though that also be included and expressed ) but the Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul. Which further appears by that Famous ( or indeed Infamous , Erroneous and Ridiculous ) Constitution of Boniface VIII . wherein having said , That there is but one Catholick Church , out of which , there is no Salvation ; and that our Blessed Saviour made Peter and his Successors his Vicarij , Vice-Gerents , and Heads of that Church ; he adds , That u whoever are not of that Church , and in Subjection and Obedient to the Pope , can have no Salvation . And Pius . V. in this very Bull , expresly says the same . For , 1. He says , That out of the Apostolick x Church ( he means evidently his own Roman Church ) there is no Salvation . 2. He Declares Queen Elizabeth an y Heretick , that she and all her Adherents had Incurr'd an Anathema and Malediction , were Excommunicate , and cut off from the Body of Christ. So that Queen Elizabeth , and all her Loyal Protestant Subjects , who never were , nor could be , ( as without great Error and Impiety they could not ) subject to the Pope , nor Members of his Apostolical Church , are ( by this Bull ) Eternally Damn'd . 4. But this is not all ; for we have greater Evidence , that by the word Damnation in their Bulls , wherein all Hereticks , ( Protestants you may be sure , who without Truth or Charity , they call so ) are Curs'd and Excommunicated , they do and must mean Eternal Damnation . For , 1. Pope Leo. X. in the Lateran z Council , ( which with them is General and Oecumenial ) innovates and establisheth ( with the Approbation and Consent of that Council ) the aforesaid Doctrine and Constitution of Pope Boniface . VIII . 2. The Trent Council does so too , and absolutely Anathematizes and Damns all those who do not believe their whole new Creed ; ( in which there is not one true Article , but all Erroneous , many Superstitious and Impious ) and tells us , It is the Catholick a Faith , without the belief of which , no man can be saved , and swear firmly to believe it to their last breath , and Anathematize all who do not . And ( which is further very considerable and pertinent to confirm what is abovesaid ) they do in that Oath promise , vow , and swear to receive and imbrace b All Things delivered , defined , and declared in their General Councils , and All c the Constitutions of their Church ; For these Particulars are parts of that new Creed , to the Belief and Profession of which they are sworn . And the Trent Council it self ( as well as the Pope in that Creed ) d requires that they make such a Profession . Whence it evidently follows , that all their Bishops , all Regulars of what Order soever , who are provided of Monasteries , Religious Houses , &c. All Canons and Dignitaries in their Church , all who have any Cure of Souls , and all who profess and teach any of the Liberal Arts , &c. ( for all these are required to take that Oath ) are sworn to receive , believe , and profess all the Desinitions of the Lateran Council under Leo. X. and the Constitution of Pope Boniface . VIII . which denounces Damnation to all those who submit not to the Pope , and imbrace not their Popish Religion ; and hence it further , and as evidently follows , that not only Queen Elizabeth , but all good Protestants then , and ever since , ( who neither did , nor without great Error and Impiety , could so submit to their Popes , or believe their New Creed ) are , by their Papal and uncharitable Divinity , Eternally Damn'd . So that it is not only some Temporal mischief or loss , but the Eternal Damnation of Body and Soul , which is threatned , and Declared to be the Effect and Inevitable Consequence of this against Queen Elizabeth , and such other Excommunications of those whom they call Hereticks . 4. In the beginning of this Impious Bull , we are told by the Pope , That our Blessed Saviour committed the Government of His Church ( with all plenitude and fulness of Power ) to Peter and his Successors . And that we might know , how great the Power was over all Kings and Kingdoms , he miserably misapplies a Text in e Jeremy ; and says — f 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 Emperor held his Stirrup when he mounted his Palfrey ; In his next Constitution , ( having said , That the Diligence of the Bishops and Pastors was necessary to pull up , and cut off Hereticks , and wicked men in the Church ) he Cites the place of Jeremy to prove it ; and says , That the Power over Nations and Kingdoms , to pull up , cast down , and destroy , was Given to Jeremy h , and In Him , to the Evangelical Priest , to Peter and his Successors , as he there expresly explains it . And Pope Paul. III. tells us ; — i That he was Vicar of Christ , our blessed Saviour , and plac'd in the Throne of Justice Above All Kings in the whole World , According to the Prophecy of Jeremy ; And then Cites the words of Jeremy before mention'd . And ( to omit others ) Pope Boniface . VIII . Cites the same Text ( though to as little purpose ) to the same end ; to prove the k Popes power above Kings , so as to punish and depose them . And before him Innocent . III. in his wild and irrational Epistle to the Emperor of Constantinople l , 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 Kings and Emperors . By all which , Papal Bulls and Constitutions ( as by many others of the like nature ) it may evidently appear , that they challenge a Power to depose Kings , and that they bring the Text of Jeremy as a ground and proof of it . But although their Popes brag , That they have n all Laws in the Archives of their own breasts , and that they are Supream and Infallible Judges in all Controversies of Faith ; yet their whole Discourse and Deductions from the Text of the Prophet Jeremy , is inconsequent , and indeed ridiculous , and no way concerns either Peter , or any of his 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 , &c. 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 possess'd 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 Bishoprick . Neither could Peter succeed Jeremy this way ; for Jeremy was never Bishop of Rome , or any other place ; and then 't is 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 shew , 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 , &c. ( as Pope Pius . V. expresly says o he did , in this His Impious Bull against Q. Elizabeth ) then 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 a-against it . As our Saviour's Kingdom was not of this World , no Temporal Power or Dominion ; so he neither exercis'd any such Power himself , nor gave Peter or his Apostles , ( who , all of them had Equal Power with Peter ) any such p Temporal Power over Nations and Kingdoms , to pull up , destroy , and dissipate , &c. 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 Constitute Peter a Prince , to pull up , and destroy , &c. but there is no such thing in Jeremy's Commission . 2. That Peter was Constituted a Prince over r All Nations , and All Kingdoms ; but Jeremy had not such Universal Power , as is evident from the s Text. But to make this further appear , it is to be Consider'd , 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. 'T is 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 . 'T is true , some Prophets preceded in time , and some afterwards followed : So t 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 ) referr'd 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 Canonists , the Jesuits , and Papal Parasites , would have us believe ( what the x 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 prevail'd ; a sense ( if I may call it so ) inconsistent with the true and certain meaning of Jeremy . For when 't is in that Text , I have set thee over the Nations and Kingdoms , to pull down , dissipate , destroy , plant , and build ; That which y 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 ) Logick , be deduced from it . For when the z Text says , I have set thee over the Nations , to pull down , and destroy , &c. 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 Imprison'd 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 murder'd and martyr'd . So far was Jeremy ( after God had given him that c 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 , pull'd down , and at last destroy'd . 2. But the meaning of that Text evidently is , I have set thee o-over Nations and Kingdoms , to pull down , destroy , and dissipate , &c. 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 premonish'd 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 Text says , That He restored the one , and that He hang'd 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 many of them do not ) For what I have said is expresly said in the very Text of Jeremy's Prophetie ; as he who compares and considers f 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 acknowledg'd 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 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 Hierome , Theodoret , Rabanus , Vatablus , Lyranus , Dion-Carthusianus , and others . And then he adds — h That it is God ( not Jeremy ) who Pulls up , and Plants the Nations . So that when 't is 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 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 Superior to all Kings : and yet Bernardus de Botono ( the l 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 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 writ most Learned Glosses upon the Decretals of Gregory . IX . which o afterwards had the Approbation of Pope Gregory XIII . Be it concluded then , that Pius . V. and those other Popes before mention'd ( 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 produc'd as proofs of their extravagant & usurp'd 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 8. or 9. Places , which Pope Innoc. III. and Bonif. VIII . have Cited , and Explain'd , in two of their Constitutions , both Extant in their q 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 , are rather Fools than Infallible . 5. Pope Pius . V. here in the beginning of this his Bull , calls r 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 numbred ) is called s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Primus ; and amongst Latin Authors anciently ( Princeps Apostolorum ) The Prince of the Apostles ; yet that t 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 Erasmus tells us , ( out of St. Hierome ) That the Apostles in the other Evangelists , are not reckon'd in the Order they are in Matthew ; lest any man should think , that Peter were first of all the Apostles , because he is reckon'd 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 Hierome intimates , That the Apostles were all ( as to their Apostolick Office ) Equal . That which makes me believe , that what Erasmus Observes out of Hierome , is true , is this ; The Spanish Inquisitors have damn'd it , and ( in their Index x Expurgatorius ) Commanded it to be blotted out . But Erasmus adds further , — y That it cannot Logically and firmly be concluded , from the Order wherein the Apostles are number'd , which of them is to be preferr'd before the rest , because where many are number'd , there is a necessity we begin with some one , and 't is not material which we begin with . And This the Inquisitors let pass , without a Deleatur ; they do not condemn it to be blotted out , and so seem to approve it , otherwise it had not pass'd ; so that ( even by our Adversaries consent ) all that can be rationally Inferr'd , from that Text , where in numbering the Apostles , Peter is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , first , is only z a Primacy of Order , ( which we willingly grant ) but no Primacy ( much less a Supremacy ) of Authority , Dominion , and Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles ; which the Pope and his Party desire , and we justly deny . 2. And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primus ; so Princeps , or Prince ( amongst the best Latin Authors ) usually signifies Order Only , or some Excellent Quality in those who are call'd Principes , without any a Authority or Jurisdiction over those in relation to whom they are so call'd . And that the Rest of the Apostles were call'd Principes as well as Peter , I have Authentick warrant , even the Roman Breviary , restored according to the Decree of the Council of Trent , publish'd by Pius V. ( The very Pope who publish'd this Impious Bull a-against Queen Elizabeth ) and then Revised by the Authority of Clement . VIII . and Vrban VIII . and Printed at Antverp . 1660. In this Breviary , we have this b Hymn , in the Office for the Feast of St. Peter and Paul ; Ecclesiarum Principes , Belli Triumphales Duces , Coelestis Aulae Milites , Et vera Mundi Lumina , &c. Now in this Hymn Peter and Paul too , are call'd Ecclesiarum Principes , Princes of the Churches ; For being a Hymn for the Feast of those two Apostles ; Ecclesiarum Principes cannot relate to less than two ; nor Properly to any but them two in that Place . Though elsewhere it c relates to all the Apostles ; as in the Place cited in the Margent ; when after the Invitatory , ( as they call it ) d 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 Principes , Belli Triumphales Duces , Coelestis Aulae Milites , Et vera Mundi Lumina , &c. So that if we may believe their own Authentick Breviary , Publish'd and Carefully Revised by these Popes , according to the Decree of the Trent Council ; All the other Apostles ( under our blessed Saviour , and by his Authority ) were Princes of the Christian Church as well as f Peter . Now I desire to know , how these things will Consist ? g Pius . V. in this Bull against Queen Elizabeth , says , That our blessed Saviour Committed the Government of his Church to One Only , to Peter , and Constituted him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms ( so he in his Bull ) and yet the same Pope , in this Roman Breviary , ( for it was Approved and Published by him ) and the Hymn here cited , says , That all the Apostles were Ecclesiarum Principes ; and if so , then Peter was not the Only Prince to whom the Government of the Church was Committed ; no , the Commission of every Apostle ( given by our blessed Saviour ) was as unlimited and as large as Peters . This will appear in all the Particulars of it , equally given to all , as they are expresly set down in Scripture , from whence alone , we can surely know , what their Authority and Commission was . Our blessed Saviour tells them , and us , — h 1. As my Father sent me , so send I you . There we have the Author and Authority of their Commission . The same blessed Saviour of the World sends them all . 2. Then he breath'd upon them , and said , i Receive ye the Holy Ghost . There we have the Principle inabling them to discharge that great Office and Trust reposed in them ; It was that Holy Spirit , which gave them , 1. Infallibility in their Doctrine . 2. Power to work Miracles for k Confirmation of it . 3. Then he adds , l whose sins ye retain , they are retained , &c. Here we have the great Spiritual Power given them for the calling and governing the Church , which is elsewhere called , m The Power of the Keys ; which Consists in binding and loosing , retaining and remitting sins . For so 't is Explain'd by our blessed Saviour in the Place last cited , and is ( by our Adversaries ) n confess'd . So that 't is Evident that the Power of the Keys , the Power of binding and loosing , of retaining and remitting sins , is Equally given to all the Apostles , to every One as well as Peter . 4. He Assigns them their Place and Province , where , and the way how they were to Exercise their Apostolical Power — o Go and Teach All Nations , baptizing them , and teaching them to observe all things , whatsoever I have Commanded you . Their Diocese was the World — p Go ye into All The World , and preach the Gospel to every Creature ( every man. ) And the administring the Sacraments , and teaching men to believe and observe the whole Go●pel , was the business they were to do in that their Diocese . 5. And to incourage them to this great and difficult Work , he graciously promises his Presence and Divine Assistance ; Lo , I am q 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 so it should be writ ) as well , and as much as to Simon Peter . If any think otherwise , if he can , and will ( by any Cogent Reason ) make it appear either , 1. That the foregoing Powers and Promises were not Equally given to all the Apostles . 2. Or that some other Power or Promise was ( in Scripture ) given peculiarly to Peter , whereby he had an Authority and Dominion over the other Apostles and the whole Church , to make him Only a Prince over all Nations and Kingdoms , ( as Pope Pius . V. in this his wild Bull confidently affirms ) I say , he who can and will make both or either of these appear , shall have my hearty thanks for the Discovery , and I shall ( for the future ) have a better Opinion of Peter's Supremacy ; which ( at present ) I take to be a groundless Error , without any proof or probability . I know that the Popes in their s Constitutions , and their Party usually urge that place in t 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 Peter , and every Successor of his , was Constituted Supream Head , Prince and Monarch of the Vniversal Church . So that what Peter or his x 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 Peter , as the Fundamental Rock , on which the Church is built . And he adds — z That though our blessed Saviour was chiefly that Fundamental Rock , yet Peter and the Popes of Rome succeeded him , as his Vicars , with Supream Power , &c. This place , they conceive ; concerns no Apostle but Peter , and proves his , and his Successors Supremacy . To this , I say , 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 chuse ; 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. Hierome 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 Supream 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 Bishoprick of Rome , whilst Peter liv'd , and possess'd it himself ; so that by this Erroneous and Impious Doctrine , they have displac'd our blessed Saviour from being the Fundamental Rock , on which the Church is built , and instead of him , have plac'd 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 Idolater , as Marcellinus was . 2. Or an Heretick ; as b Liberius , c Honorius , d Vigilius , &c. were . 3. Or an Impudent whorish Woman , as Johannes Anglicus , or Pope e Joan certainly was . 4. Or when many Popes together , no less than Fifty ( by the Confession of their own Learned men ) were f Apostatici potiùs quam Apostolici . 5. Or when the Popes were such g 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 Judgment ) 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 two or three years , and ( if some i 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 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 , 't is certain , ( and must by our Adversaries be confess'd , ( 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 Pisa met ( and it was a General One , consisting of above . 600. m Fathers ) there were Two Popes in being ( such as they were ) Gregory XII . and Benedict . XIII . who were both n Damn'd and Deposed , as Perjur'd Persons , Schismaticks , and Hereticks , &c. and that by an unanimous Consent and Decree of that Great Council . At the Council at Constance ( four or five o years after ) there were three Popes ; the two beforenamed , Gregory and Benedict , ( who would not sit down , though damn'd 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 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 nam'd : And the Council adds , ( in their Definitive Sentence of his Deposition ) q 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 , &c. 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 Popes 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 Supream Power , then they have the same Place and Power our blessed Saviour had . His Power neither was , nor could be greater then Potestas summa ; ( summo non datur Superius , there can be nothing higher then the highest , nor superior to the Supream ) 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 't is Acknowledg'd and expresly Affirm'd in their Roman Catechism ( ex Decreto Concilij Tridentini , juslu Pii . V. Edito ) in which they say , that Peter was r Caput & Princeps Omnium Apostolorum . And then it there follows , Christus s 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 Honor , 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 art Peter , and upon this Rock I will build my Church ] would have us believe , That Peter was that Rock , while he liv'd , 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 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 , Vna Haec est foelix fidei Petra , Petri Ore Confessa ; and Erasmus had put this Note in the Margent , 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 Margent — Ecclesia non est fundata super Petrum . The x Spanish Inquisitors command it to be blotted out of Erasmus his Text and Margent ; 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 Judgment ; 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 John Semeca , Author of the Gloss upon Gratian , and z Nic. Lyranus , and Ansel. Laudunensis , Author of the a 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 . 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 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 expresly say , That the d 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 Text is in the Margent 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 , then 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 Stapleton ( their Learned Professor at Doway , and great Champion of their Church ) confesseth ( and without great Impudence , he could not deny it ) that not only Chrysostome , 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 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 't is certain , and generally Confess'd , 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 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 victorious , nay victory , and cannot be overcome . Hence it is , that in the Liturgie 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 Establishment of the Holy Catholick 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 't is 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 Behold ( says God by Isay ) I lay in Sion , for a Foundation a Stone , a precious Corner Stone , a Sure Foundation , &c. I know that in the Vulgar Latin of m Sixtus . V. and n Clemens . 8. it is untruly render'd — Lapide● pretiosum in Fundamento Fundatum . Whence o 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 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 Peter himself ( who understood that Text as well as the Cardinal ) refers it to our blessed Saviour , so does r 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 said to Peter — Thou art Peter , and upon this Rock I will build my Church . ( 2 ) . This being granted ( as of necessity it must ) that our blessed Saviour is the first Immoveable Rock , and most sure Foundation on which the Church is built ; It is also granted , and must be so , ( Scripture expresly saying it ) That Peter is a Foundation too , on which the Church is built . But in a way far different from that our Adversaries dream of ; ( for they do but dream , nor will any Considering and Intelligent Person think them well awake when they writ such things ) For , 1. When we say , That Peter is a Foundation on which the Church is built ; our meaning is not , that he has by this , any Prerogative or Superiority , much less ( what our Adversaries pretend ) any Monarchical Supremacy over the rest of the Apostles , and the whole Church ; for every one of the Apostles is , as well and as much a Foundation of the Christian Church , as Peter . The t Apostle tells us , That the Church is a spiritual House , which is built upon u The Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets , Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner-stone . And St. John to the same purpose speaking of the Church , the New Jerusalem , says — x The City had Twelve Foundations , and in them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. In these Texts , all the Apostles ( James and Paul , as well as Peter ) are Foundations of the Church equally , and without any distinction or difference ; no Prerogative given to Peter above the rest ; much less that vast Monarchical Supremacy which is pretended to . Both the Greek and Latin Fathers say , That the Gospel , the Christian Faith , or the Creed ( which contains the Sum of it ) or Peter's Confession of our blessed Saviour to be Christ the Son of the Living God , ( which is the Chief Fundamental Article of our Faith , I say , That ( in those Father's Judgment ) this Faith is the Foundation on which the Church is built ; St. Augustin , Explaining the Creed to the Catechumens , has these words — y 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 That the Faith which Peter Confess'd , was to be the Foundation of the faithful , that is of the Church . This is a Truth so evident , that a Learned Jesuit , having Cited and approved a Alcazar , ( a Zealous Roman Catholick ) for this very same Opinion , does not only receive and approve , but largely and undeniably prove it , out of Clemens Romanus , Augustin , Hierome , Russin , the b Trent Council , and c St. Paul : And then adds — d That other Councils and Fathers say the same . Another 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 Augustine ' s Opinion was further from sense , then those he there Cited ; because he made Christ the Rock on which the Church was built . ( 3. ) I take it then for Certain , and Confess'd , ( and so does a very g Learned Jesuit too , that the Twelve Foundations , in that Place in the Revelation before Cited ( Cap. 21. 14. ) signifies the Twelve Apostles on whom the Wall of the New Jerusalem , or the Church of Christ was built ; and therefore their Names ( as St. John says ) were written on those Foundations , to signifie , that the Apostles ( Paul as well as Peter ) were Founders or Foundations of the Christan Church . And that this may more distinctly appear , and from Scripture it self , that every Apostle , ( as well as Peter ) is a Foundation of the Christian Church ; we are to Consider , First , That in Scripture the Church is commonly call'd h a House , the House of God ; and every good Christian is a i Lively Stone which goes to the building of that spiritual House . 2. Our blessed Saviour call'd and sent all his Apostles ( as well as Peter ) to k build this House . He gave some Apostles — for the Edifying ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) or building the Body of Christ ; That is , the l Church . 3. The Apostles all of them , ( Paul m as well as Peter ) were Master-Builders of this House . Evident it is ( in the Text Cited ) that St. Paul was a Master-Builder , and St. Peter was no more ; nor is he any where in Scripture , expresly said to be so much ; though I believe , and grant he was . 4. The Means by which these Master-Builders edify'd and built the Church , were these : Their diligent Preaching of the Gospel , ( first , and more Infallibly Communicated to them , then to any others ) Their Pious and Exemplary Conversation , which made their Preaching more Effectual , and gave Reputation to it , and themselves ; Their Confirming with Miracles , and Sealing the Truth of it , with their Blood and Martyrdom . 5. Hence , the Gospel it self and our Christian Faith , is call'd the Foundation of the Church ; as may appear by what is said before , and by St. Paul , who expresly n calls it so . For that Foundation , which he there says he had laid at Corinth ( as may appear from the Context ) was the o Gospel he had preach'd among them . So that ( by the Authorities above Cited ) I think it may appear , that Divines ( Ancient and Modern , Protestant and Papist ) seem to agree in this ; That there is a double Foundation of the Church , Doctrinal and Personal : The first is the Gospel , or those Holy Precepts , and gracious Promises contain'd in it ; On the belief and practise whereof , the Church solely relyes for Grace here , and Glory hereafafter ; And therefore , they are Commonly and Justly call'd the Foundation on which the Church is built . Whence it is very usual in Scripture , to say , that by Preaching the Gospel , the p Church is Edify'd or Built . And because our blessed Saviour immediately call'd all his Apostles , gave them Authority , and the Infallible Assistance of his Spirit , and sent them to Preach the Gospel , and they ( with great success ) did it , Converting Nations , building or founding Churches ) therefore they were call'd Master-Builders , Founders , and Foundations of the Christian Church ; as our q Adversaries Confess . Now ( as to this Particular ) as the Apostles were Founders or Foundations of the Christian Church ; Peter had no Preheminence or Prerogative above the other Apostles ; He was no more Petra , a Founder or Foundation of the Church , then the other Apostles . Nay in this ( if any ) certainly St. Paul might challenge a Preference and Preheminence above Peter himself , or any of the Rest. For he ( with truth and modesty enough , r tells us — That in Preaching the Gospel he laboured More then they All : ( And s Irenaeus gives the Reason of it ) His Sufferings were t more , He planted more Churches , He writ more Epistles , then they all ; ( his being Fourteen , and all the rest but Seven , and they ( in respect of his ) short ones too ; which then were , and ever since have been , and ( while the World stands ) will be Doctrinal Foundations of the Christian Church . But that which makes more against Peter's Supremacy , and for St. Paul's Preference before him , ( at least his Independence upon Peter ( as the Supream Monarch of the Church ) is ; That he tells the Corinthians , That the care of u All The Churches lay upon him . Nor that only , but that he made Orders and X 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 Fathers ridiculously declare Authentick ) renders it otherwise — So I teach in all Churches : but the z word there , signifies not to teach , but properly to a Ordain and Legally Constitute , Define , and Command . So that thereupon Obedience becomes due from those who are Concern'd in such Constitution or Ordinance . And this Theodoret took to be the true meaning of that Text ; and therefore he says , That Paul's Ordaining in all Churches , was giving them a b Law , which they were to obey . So that here are two things expresly said of Paul in Scripture , and that by himself , who best knew , and was Testis idoneus , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Witness beyond all Exception . 1. That the care of All the Churches lay upon him . 2. That he made Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions for them All : whereas ( in Scripture ) no such thing is said of Peter , or any other Apostle . Upon consideration of the Premises , some of the Ancients have call'd St. Paul , A Preacher to the whole World ; So c Photius and Nicolaus Methonensis Episcopus , speaking of several Apostles Officiating at several places ; as of James at Jerusalem , John in Asia , Peter and Paul at Antioch , &c. He adds ; concerning d 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 sollicitude and care of the Whole World lay upon Paul. More than this cannot be said of Peter , nor is there half so much said of him , as of St. Paul in Scripture . Had Peter told us — That the care of All the Churches lay upon him ; and that He made Orders and Constitutions , to be observed In All Churches , ( both which are expresly said of St. Paul ) the Canonists and Popish Party , would have had some pretence ( who now have none ) for Peter's Supremacy . I urge not this , to Ascribe to Paul , that Supremacy we deny to Peter ; ( For neither had they , nor any other Apostle , any such thing ) but only to shew , That St. Paul ( his Labo●s , Sufferings , the many Churches founded by him , and His Canonical Writings consider'd ) may be thought ( not without reason ) a more eminent Founder of the Christian Church , then St. Peter . 2. But as it is , and must be confess'd by Divines , Ancient and Modern , Protestants and Papists , That the Gospel is the Doctrinal Foundation , and that Petra , on which the Church is Built ; So there is also a Personal Foundation , evidently mention'd in Scripture . I mean Persons , on whom the Christian Church is built : And they are 1. Our blessed Saviour . 2. His Apostles . 1. That our blessed Saviour is a Rock , and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the most firm and immoveable Rock on which the Church is Built , is evident from the f 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 which ( as Irenaeus tells us ) the Vniversal Church , both before and since his coming into the World , was built . He was h promised by God presently after the fall of Adam , and then successfully by i all the Prophets ; His Death and Passion was a Propitiation , as well for the Sins of those who k lived before , as ours who live after it ; and those Promises of the Messiah were such , as all the Patriarchs , Prophets , and Pious men before Christ did l know and believe . Nay , ( if we believe Eusebius ) the Promises of the Messias , were m clearly and distinctly revealed to the Ancient Patriarchs and Prophets ( though in a less degree and measure of clearness ) and their Belief and suitable Obedience such , that ( though they had not the name , yet they might truly be n call'd Christians before Christ. The Apostle tells us , That the o Gospel was preached to Abraham , and so it was to all the Ancient Church , by the p Prophets ; who foretold them of the Incarnation , Passion , and Resurrection of Christ. It was the Gospel St. Paul every where preach'd , and yet he says , that He preached No q other Things , then those which The Prophets And Moses did say should come . And this is a truth so manifest , that ( to say no more of the Ancient Christian Writers ) r Peter Lombard , and the Popish School-men , writing De fide Antiquorum , of the Faith by which the Saints , before our blessed Saviour , were saved ; they all say , that they then ( as we now ) were saved by Faith in Christ their Redeemer . The difference was , 1. They believed in Christo Exhibendo , we in Christo Actu Exhibito . 2. Their Faith before our blessed Saviour's coming , was more Imperfect and Implicit ; Ours ( since he is come , and the Gospel clearly publish'd ) much more Perfect and Explicite . This I say , to prove that our blessed Saviour was the Rock , on which the Church under the Old Testament was built , and ( in this Particular ) such a Rock and Foundation of the Church as Peter never was , nor could be ; it being impossible he should be a Foundation of that Church which was founded almost Four thousand years before he was born . 2. Our blessed Saviour is a Rock and Foundation , on which the whole Christian Church is built , even the Apostles themselves , as well as others : who ( all of them , s Peter● as well as Paul ) in respect of Christ ( who is the great Immoveable Rock , which sustains the t whole Building ) are Superstructions ; though otherwise , in respect of the Christian World converted by their Preaching , they are call'd Foundations ; yet only Secundary Foundations , all of which are built upon the Principal and prime Foundation Jesus Christ u 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 great and y chief Shepherd . My z Sheep hear my voice , ( says our blessed Saviour : ) The Apostles did so ; when he call'd them , they heard and obey'd him . Again , I lay a 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 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 ; 't is 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 King of Saints . 'T is 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 , deriv'd from our blessed Saviour , and Exercised under him . So the Apostle tells us — d 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 , &c. 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 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 was our blessed Saviours Successor , and ( by him ) Constituted the Head of the Vniversal 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 , call'd , Converted , and Constituted by them ; but all Equally so ; Peter was no more a foundation then Paul , or James , or John. For , 1. They were all immediately call'd by our g blessed Saviour , without any dependence h upon Peter , or any body else , ( as is Evident in the Text it self ) And this is generally Confess'd by the Popish Commentators , even the Jesuits , such as Tirinus , Menochius , &c. I say , all the Apostles had this immediate calling to their Apostleship , from our blessed Saviour , except Matthias ; 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 Colledge of the Apostles , and consent of the faithful there present . And though a Learned Jesuit , ( zealous for Peter , and the Popes Supremacy ) would have Peter to be the k Directior in that business ( the Election of Matthias ) yet he cannot deny , but it was done by the Common l Consent of the Apostles and Brethren . 2. As the Apostles all of them , ( Matthias 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 Commission and Apostolical Power is given them by our blessed Saviour , before the Resurrection ; when they were sent to the n 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 all Nations ; where it is — As my Father sent me , so I send you , and Go ye , &c. All equally sent , no difference or distinction of the Persons , as to any Priviledge or Precedence , no Degrees of Power more or greater in one , then 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 Excellent and Incomparable Divine ) Proposes and proves these two Conclusions . 1. All the q Power the Apostles had , was ( by them ) received Immediately from Christ. 2. All the r Apostles had Equal Power with Peter : And then he Explains his meaning thus — f 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 belong'd t 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 Practise of the Christian World , after the Emperors became Christians , who alone ( and not the Pope ) call'd all the Ancient Councils ; as is fully proved by a late and Learned u Sorbon Doctor . 5. But to proceed ; That Place in x 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 , &c. Now that I may give a short and distinct Answer to this place : I consider , 1. That this Text is generally urg'd ( though most Impertinently ) to prove Peter's and the Popes Power over Kings and Emperors . So y 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 Extravagant ; which a Bellarmine approves , and Leo. X. and his b Lateran Council ( which they call a General one ) Innovates and Confirms ; and yet a late c Jesuit , expresly tells us , ( and you may be sure , with the d 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 Confess'd ) 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 shew 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 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 , ( 't is all g of them he speaks to ) whatsoeve● you shall bind on Earth , shall be bound in Heave● and whatsoever you shall loose 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 Authentick Offices , no● and heretofore in Publick use in the Church Rome , do attest this truth . In one of which they are taught to Invocate the Apostles in th● Form — h 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 Manual of the Church of Salisbury acknowledg● that the Power of binding and loosing , was given Paul as well as Peter ; and further adds — k Th● Every Priest is Vicar of Peter and Paul , and 〈◊〉 Petri & Pauli ligat & solvit ) binds and looseth their stead and place . The l Ancient MS. M●●sal belonging to the Abbots of Evesham , says the ●ry same thing ; So does m their St. Anselme : a●● the Old n Ordo Romanus expresly says ; That the Power of the Keys , or the Power of binding and loosing , was ( by our blessed Saviour ) given to all the Apostles , and ( in them ) to all their Successors . Vide Bandinum , Lombardum , &c. 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 Bishop and Priest has the Power of the Keys given him by our blessed Saviour . Hence it is , that in their Roman p Pontifical , in their Ordination of a Priest , this Power of the Keys , of remitting and retaining sins , is given to every one Ordain'd to that Office , and ( which may seem strange ) in the very q same words our blessed Saviour used , when he gave that Power to Peter and the other Apostles . Nor is this all ; Their Oecumenical Council of Trent approves and ( by a Synodical Definition and Decree ) confirms all this ; And says further , That our r blessed Saviour , before his Ascention , left All Priests His Vicars , as Presidents 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 of Matthew , from which they would ( and generally endeavor to ) prove the Popes t 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 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 , &c. do Depose that Emperor , and Absolve all His Subjects from their Oaths of Allegigance , &c. From the Premisses , and Authorities above Cited , I think 't is 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 expresly affirmed by Pope x 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 Loosing To the Apostles , &c. 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 claim'd any such Supremacy . 3. Lastly , I desire then to know , by what Logick 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 He. 4. There is one place y 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 confess'd , That though the Power of the Keys , be not here expresly nam'd , yet to retain and remit here in John signifies the very same thing , That to bind and loose 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 Margent ) and the most Learned Commentators on this Place in John , allow it , and tell us truly , a That remittere here in John , is the very same with solvere , to loose , in Matthew ; and so retinere here , the same with ligare in Matthew . 2. And 't is 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 , &c. The Authority and Power here mention'd , is ( without distinction or difference of Degree ) Equally given to all ; to James , and John , and Jude , as well as Peter . 3. Nay more ; it is b Confess'd , and positively and truly affirm'd , 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 loose , retain and remit sins ) Equally given to them All. Now , if this be true , then 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 Topicks , 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 Supream 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 Supream Monarch of the whole Church . And then ( by this wild Logick ) we shall have Twelve or Thirteen Persons , and every one of them sole Supream 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 Premisses , 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 Confess'd , 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 Father sent me , so send I you . Christ was our great d Apostle sent immediately by his Father , so that he was Legatus & Vicarius Patris , his Father's Vicar and Ambassador ( as St. e Ambrose says ) And our blessed Saviour sends his Apostles , as his Vicars and Ambassadors . So the same Father tells us , in the f same place ; and St. Paul says as much of g himself and the other Apostles — He hath Committed to us the Word of Reconciliation ; now then 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 ) Commission'd 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 Lyranus , and the Interlinatory i Glossator , ( and they no Lutherans ) Explain that place ; so the Famous Bishop of Paris , and Father of the School-men , Peter k Lombard ; so Pope l Gregory the Great ; nay the Jesuits ( Instituta Societat . Jesu . 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 my self with more Testimonies ; Their own Authentick Offices , which have been ; or are Approved , and publickly used in their Church , expresly say the very same thing ; That the Apostles ( All of them as well as Peter ) were Christ's Vicars ; particularly , the present Roman m Missal , as does manifestly appear by the place quoted in the Margent . This then being certain , and ( by our Adversaries ) Confess'd , 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 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 Popes Supremacy , drawn from his being Christ's Vicar , and having the Power of the Keys , are such as rather deserve pity , or scorn , then any serious Answer , were it not that their greatest men ( for Place and Learning , even o their Infallible Popes in their Authentick 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 convinc'd 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 Ecclesiae Principes , Princes of the Catholick Church ; That they ( both of them ) had the q Power of the Keys , power to bind and loose ; and both of them had it r Immediately from our blessed Saviour ; That as Peter was s 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 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 Hierome . 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 Confess'd 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 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 , then any , ( I say again , then any ) other Bishop in the World ; The Pope and Bishop of Rome no more , then the Bishops of Roan and Rochester . For their own Oecumenical and ( with them ) Infallible Council of Trent , assures us of two things . 1. That all Bishops are x Apostolorum Successores , Successors of the Apostles . 2. That our blessed Saviour , when he was about to Ascend into Heaven , y left Sacerdotes ( that z is Bishops and other Priests ) his Vicars , and gave them the Power of the Keys , to bind and loose , to remit and retain sins . To conclude this Point ; If the Pope and his Party , have no better ground in Scripture , ( then the Places above mention'd ) to prove and support that vast Papal Supremacy , they most vainly and irrationally pretend to ; the whole Fabrick must of necessity fall . It being impossible that so vast a Superstruction as their Popish Monarchy should be so sustain'd , by such Reasons which are so far from being Cogent , that they are altogether Impertinent . Well ; but if these will not prove ( what they are produc'd for ) the Popes Supremacy ; other Texts they bring , with as much Noise and Confidence as they did the former , and ( if that be possible ) with less Reason or Consequence . For Instance , they 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 That our blessed Saviour leaving the World , did create Peter his Vicar , and highest Priest , and Prince of the Vniversal Church , which he had promised before , Matth. 16. 18 , and now perform'd that promise . And again ( they say ) — b 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 meant all his Sheep , all good Christians . That he might shew , ( says that Pope ) that they were none of our blessed Saviours Sheep , who would not Acknowledge Peter and the Popes of Rome to be their Masters and Pastors . And ( to name no more ) Pope Boniface . VIII . indeavours to prove , that our blessed Saviour by those words , Feed my Sheep , meant Vniversally all his Sheep d — because he does not say singularly these or those , but generally Feed my Sheep : And from this Place so Expounded , they would prove Peter ' s , and so the Pope's Monarchical Supremacy over all Christians , even the Apostles , Kings , and Emperors . 1. Were it not certain , that there is no possibility that any man should bring a true and concluding Reason to prove an erroneous and false Position ; it would hardly be credible that otherwise Learned men , furnished with great Parts of Art and Nature , should bring such miserable Stuff , such misapply'd and misunderstood Scripture , to prove that great e Article of their Popes Supremacy ; which being a manifest Errour , without any Foundation in Scripture or Primitive Antiquity , I cannot blame them , for not bringing ( what they neither have , nor can have ) better Arguments ; but that they bring any at all , to establish that , which they ought , and with evident and cogent Reasons , might confute . 2. As Antiquity did , so we do grant ( all that with any Reason or Just ground they can desire ) that Peter had a Primacy of Order ( but not of Power or Jurisdiction ) amongst the Apostles . For the Evangelist naming the Apostles , f says — The First was Peter . First in Order , or ( if you will ) first respectu vocationis ; as first call'd by our blessed Saviour ; not to be one of his Disciples ; for so Andrew was call'd before him ( as is evident in the g 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 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 That because old Rome was the Imperial City , therefore the Fathers had rightly given Priviledges to the Episcopal Seat of that City . Where it is evident , that in the Judgment of that great and good Council , ( and of the General Council of k Constantinople too , which they there Cite . ) 1. That the Priviledge and Precedency the Bishop of Rome had , was not Convey'd to him by any Divine Right ( as they now pretend ) non à Christo vel Petro , sed à Patribus ; it was the Fathers who gave them . 2. And the Reason why they gave him such Priviledge , and Precedency , was not because he was Christ's Vicar and St. Peter's Successor , but because Rome was Vrbs Imperialis , the great Metropolis of the Roman Empire . I know the Popes Legats in that Council , did what they could to hinder the passing that Canon , and Pope Leo out of it , ( when the Canon was passed ) did oppose it , as much as he was able , but in vain . For the Canon was Synodically passed , by the Concurrent Consent of the whole l Council , ( the Popes Legats excepted , which was acknowledg'd by the m Judges , and then n Confirm'd by the Emperor , and Received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae . That which troubled the Pope , was , that Constantinople should have Equal Priviledges with Rome ( Precedency only expected ) even in all Ecclesiastical business ; and that ( by the Canon of that great Council , and Confirmation of the Emperor ) the Patriarch of Constantinople should have so vast a Territory under his Jurisdiction , to wit , Three whole Dioceses , ( Thracica , Asiana , Pontica , ) more then ( by any Law of God or Man ) the Pope ever had under him . And 't is here observeable , that although this Canon ( giving Equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Constantinople , as to him of Old Rome ( Precedency only excepted ) absolutely deny'd that Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over all Patriarchs , ( which the Popes were then nibling at , and have since openly own'd ) yet Leo in his Epistles to the o Emperor , p Anatolius , q Pulchoria Augusta , &c. wherein he writes fiercely against this Canon , never pretended ( as afterwards , and now they do ) That the Bishops of Rome had by Divine r Right , ( as Vicars of our blessed Saviour ) a Supream Jurisdiction over all Bishops and Patriarchs in the whole World : but complains of Anatolius s his pride , ( Catalina Cethegum ) the Violation of the Nicene Canons , and the wrong done to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch . To talk of such a Monarchical Supremacy then , as the Popes have since pretended to ; Pope Leo neither did , nor durst ; it was a Doctrine unheard of in those purer times ; and had he challenged it then , as due to him by Divine Right , as he was Christ's Vicar , he would have made himself Odious , and ( having no ground for such a Challenge ) ridiculous to the Christian World. But when ( notwithstanding all his Legates could do in the Council , or he out of it ) the Canon pass'd , by the Unanimous Consent of the Council , and was Confirm'd by the Imperial and Supream Power of the Emperor ; ( for the Pope does Petition and t 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 Cassate and null that Canon by the Authority of St. Peter , ( who never had any such Authority to Null any Just Imperial or Synodical Constitutions ) yet that Canon was approved , received , and ( as de Jure it ought ) Obey'd by the Eastern Churches , both then , and ever x after . When these Pretensions of the Pope and his Legats prevailed not , nor were regarded by the Council , or Emperor , or the Eastern Church ; other Arts were used at Rome , to Conceal that Canon ( which they could not Cassate ) from the knowledge of the Western Church . And to this end , 1. They Corrupt the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversalis ( the most Authentick Book , next to the Bible , the Christian Church has , or ever had ) y 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 others of the Popish Party , follow him . 2. They Corrupt the a Canon it self ; and by putting in other words in their false Translation , they make it contradict the Greek Canon , and the certain Sense of the Council that made it . So in Gratian , the Corruptions of this Canon , are thus — 1. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( aequalia Privilegia ) in the Original Greek ; Gratian has Similia Privilegia ; like , but not equal Priviledges . 2. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( Senior Roma ) Gratian has Superior Roma — Old Rome must be Superior to New Rome , or Constantinople , if Forgery and Falsification of Records can do it : for better Grounds they have none . 3. For , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , etiam in Ecclesiasticis magnificetur ut illa . Gratian impudently reads , Non Tamen in Ecclesiasticis , &c. But notwithstanding all that Pope Leo or his Legats could do , and all their other Indirect Arts afterwards , this Eight and twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon was received in the Christian World , and long after Confirmed by General Councils , not only by the Synodus 6. Generalis , which was held Anno 681. ( of which a little before ) But the Eighth General Council under Pope Adrian . II. about the Year 870. gives that b 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 Canon Law , in the best Editions of it , Revised and Corrected by Pope d Gregory . XIII . And 't is to be observed , that this Synodus . 8. was Subscribed by the Pope or his Legats there , and was then , and still is approved and received at Rome : Nor need we wonder at it , For what it did , was carried chiefly by the Popes Authority , who was by that Council , basely and servilly flatter'd ; they Calling him Most e Holy and Oecumenical Pope , and Equal to the Angels , &c. This Title Oecumenical , the Pope took kindly then , though his Predecessor f Gregory the Great abhorr'd it , as Antichristian . But to return to the Objection . 3. And here before I give a Particular and Distinct Answer to this Place of John , ( Feed my Sheep ) on which they commonly ( and vainly ) build the Popes Supremacy ; I shall crave leave , a little to Explain , the nature and measure of that Power which they give the Pope under the name of his Supremacy . And here they say , That our blessed Saviour gave His own Power to Peter , made him his Vicar , Head and Pastor of all the Faithful in the World ; and that in most ample Words , when he bad him , Feed his Sheep , and that it was our blessed Saviours Will , that all Peter ' s Successors should have the very same Power , which Peter had ; ( so the Trent g Catechism tells us ) And this is that Plenitude of Power by which they Erroneously and Impiously Depose Kings and Emperors , and ( as Pius . V. does , in this Bull , we are now speaking of , against Queen Elizabeth ) absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance , and sworn or natural Fidelity . This premised , I shall proceed to a direct ( and I hope a full and satisfying ) Answer to that place in John , Feed my Sheep : &c. And here I consider , 1. That , if the Supremacy was first given to Peter , in those words — h Pasce Oves , Feed my Sheep , ( as is confess'd , and by our Adversaries positively affirm'd in the Objection ) which was after our blessed Saviours Resurrection : then it is Evident he had it not before : It being impossible he should have it before it was given him . And then it will as Evidently follow , that all those Places in the Gospel , spoken of , or to Peter , before our blessed Saviour's Passion , are Impertinently urged to prove Peter's Supremacy , which he had not till after the Resurrection . And yet Innocent . III. Boniface . VIII . and other Popes in their Bulls and Papal Constitutions , the Canonists , School-men , and Commentators usually Cite many places in the Gospel ( besides this , Pasce Oves ) to prove that Peter had the Supremacy before our blessed Saviour's Passion ; which here they Confess was not given him till after the Resurrection . That they do urge many such Places is known to all Learned men , vers'd in these Controversies ; but if any man doubt of it , and desire Satisfaction , I shall refer him to what a Learned Popish Writer ( and Capucine ) has said in the i Margent , where he tells us , how many places are Cited for the Supremacy . 2. When our blessed Saviour says , Pasce Oves , Feed my Sheep , and Feed my Lambs ; he useth two words — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Both which words the Vulgar Latin renders , Pasce , feed my Sheep and Lambs : Now their Commentators on this place , ( to very little purpose ) make a great stir and pudder to shew ( what k none denys ) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to rule and govern . But let the word signifie what it will , in the Civil State , yet in the Ecclesiastical and Scripture Sense of the Word , where our blessed Saviours Lambs and Sheep ( that is the Faithful ) are to be fed , every Bishop and Presbyter ( as well as Peter ) are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Pastores , and may and ought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to feed the ●lock of Christ. So , 1. St. Paul tells us , l who from Miletum , sends for the Presbyters of Ephesus , ( I say Presbyters , for Timothy , who was their first Bishop , was with Paul at m 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 To feed the Church of God , &c. where St. Paul ( when he bids the Presbyters feed the Church ) useth the very same word our blessed Saviour doth , when he bids Peter feed his Sheep . 2. So o . Peter himself ( who little dream'd of any Supremacy given him by those words , Feed my Sheep ) writing to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews , and Exhorting the Jewish Elders , ( or Presbyters ) to a diligent care , in feeding the Flock ; he useth the very same word to them , our 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 Popes Supremacy upon them ) ●hat the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , both as it signifies to rule and feed , and so the duty of ruling and feeding our blessed Saviours Sheep , is so far from being Peculiar to Peter , or proving his Supremacy , that it is the Duty , not only of Peter , but of every Bishop in the Christian World , both to rule and feed our blessed Saviour's Sheep . This the p Trent Catechism expresly affirms , That all Bishops ( as well as Peter ) are Pastores , Pastors to Rule as well as Feed the Flock and Sheep of our blessed Saviour ; and to prove this , they Cite the Two very q places which I ( a little before ) produced to the same purpose , whence it manifestly appears , That even in our Adversaries Judgment , ( when the Popes Supremacy is a little out of their Head ) the feeding our blessed Saviour's sheep , is not Peter ' s Supream Prerogative , but a Duty required of every Bishop in the World. 3. But this ( though enough ) is not all ; we have greater ( and with them Infallible , and therefore undeniable ) Authority to confirm what I have said , and Confute our Adversaries , as to their proof of Peter's , or the Pope's Supremacy , from those words , Feed my Sheep . For their Trent Council ( which if the Pope say true , was r Divinely Inspired , and therefore Infallible ; and if he do not say true , he himself was not only fallible but actually false ) expresly tells us , That not only every Bishop , but every one s who had Cure of Souls , was bound by the Law of Christ in the Gospel , to rule and feed his Sheep , by offering Sacrifices for them , by preaching the Word , Administring the Sacraments , by good Example , by a Paternal Care of the Poor , and All Other Pastoral Offices . And this is there proved by Texts , quoted in the Margent ; which ( with some others ) are the very same with those I have ( a little before ) cited out of the t Acts of the Apostles , and u St. Peters Epistle : Nor those only , but this very place of x St. John ( on which they would build Peter's Supremacy ) is Cited in the Margent , as containing a Precept obliging ( not Peter only , but ) All , who had Cure of souls , to feed Christ's sheep . Now if those words , Feed my sheep , contain Praeceptum , a Precept , Obliging all Pastors to a Pastoral Duty ; then they do not contain ( what they pretend ) Donum , a Donation of Supremacy . 4. But Pope Boniface . VIII . and Pope Innocent . III. in their before mention'd y 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 materi● 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 all . There were many thousands of our blessed Saviour's Sheep , whom Peter never did , nor could see , nor they hear him : And certainly his gracious Lord and Master would not tye him to Impossibilities . 2. When they say , ( which is evidently untrue ) that by those words — Feed my sheep , all the Faithful are meant , and are Committed to Peter's care and charge ; and therefore the a 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 High Priest , the c Prince of all the Pastors , and the Grand d Shepherd of the sheep ; and as King , has Imperial Power to Rule and Govern them . 2. It is certain , the Apostles ( from and under him ) are Pastores and Shepherds , as well as Peter , to feed the Flock . But their Power is Ministerial , not Imperial . Even the Apostleship it self is e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ministery , and they Ministers of Christ , and his f Church . Now though in respect of Christ the great Shepherd , they are Sheep , even Peter himself : yet ( on Earth ) they are Shepherds only , not Sheep , neither in respect of the Church , over which our blessed Saviour has set them to be Shepherds ; nor in relation one to another . Paul , or James , or John , are no more Sheep in Respect of Peter , to be fed and ruled by him , then he to be fed and ruled by them ▪ And therefore to say ( as our Adversaries vainly do ) that in those words , Feed my sheep ; Peter is Commanded to feed and rule the rest of the Apostles , as his Charge , ( who were Shepherds only , and Sheep to no Superior Pastor , except our blessed Saviour ; And by their Apostolical Commission g Equal to himself ) is irrational ; without any ground in Scripture , or purer Antiquity . There is another Metaphor concerning the Apostles , and their Feeding and Building the Church , which may illustrate this business , All the Apostles ( as well and as much as Peter ) are in Scripture call'd Foundations 〈◊〉 the Church , converted , fed , and confirm'd by them . In respect of Christ , our blessed Saviour ( who is the only prime and principal 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 Supream 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 Catholick ) though he h seem to say much for Peter's and the Popes Supremacy ; yet he Confesseth , ( as upon a serious Consideration of several Passages in i Cyprian , and the African Councils , well he might ) That Cyprian's k 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 was given to Peter ; and that the Church of Rome was The m 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 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 Catholick ) 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 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 , confirm'd by p Imperial Edicts , and received into the Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Vniversae , does Authentickly and utterly overthrow that vast Monarchical Supremacy , which the Pope and his Party for some Ages last past ( 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 Popes 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. Pius . V. in his Bull says further — q That our blessed Saviour Committed the Care and Charge of the Vniversal 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 't is as certain , that the Pope ( and his Party ) cry up , and magnifie 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 The Very same Power Peter had ; and this because he was s 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 Controversie will be here , and our Adversaries concern'd 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 shew ) will be Evident , in these Particulars . 1. Peter and the Apostles , had Vocationem à Christo Immediatam . Our blessed t Saviour call'd them all ( except Matthias ) 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 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 Antioch and Rome , as much , and y 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 Go and teach all Nations , baptizing them in the Name of the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost : Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have Commanded you . And again , — a 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 Jews , and them only . But now their Commission is Inlarged ; and they are Equally sent ( every one as much as any one ) to all Nations ( says Matthew ) To All the World , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as c Eusebius Explains it ) says St. Mark ; Jidem Jurisdictionis Apostolicae & Orbis Termini ; The whole World was their Diocese ; every ones 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 hinder'd 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 Baptize 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 Logick , 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 expresly Vniversal ; Preach to every Creature : That is , Feed All my sheep . This is a Truth so evident , that a Learned d Roman Catholick Confesseth and fully proves it . Only ( to save the Popes and his own Credit ) he says , That to call General Councils belong'd 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 Good. In the mean time , I think 't is certain , either , 1. That by those words , Feed my sheep , ( on which they build the Popes and Peters Supremacy ) our blessed Saviour gave Peter no supream 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 Controversie arose at Antioch , about Circumcision , they send not to Peter , as supream Head of the Church , desiring him to call a Council ; but to the f Apostles and Elders . Had they known and believ'd , 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 call'd that Council . 3. Nor did he ( as Head and President of the Council ) speak g 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 't is Evident h 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 Council acquiesc'd in . 5. Nor did Peter send his Legats to Antioch , to signifie what he , and the Council had done , but the k 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 The Apostles , Elders , and Brethren send Greeting . 7. Nor was that Decree publish'd To the Churches in Peter's Name , as made or m confirm'd by him , more than any other Apostle . 8. Nay , the Apostles send Peter on a n 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 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 Catholick ) tells us , b That he was Compell'd 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 Ferus there goes on ) the Case is alter'd ; for wicked Popes , ( as though they were Lords and not Ministers ) will not be Question'd for any thing , or reprov'd . Had the Canon Law been then in force , ( which his pretended Successors have approved , and by their Supream Authority publish'd ) he might have told those who Question'd him , d That he was to judge all men , and none him ; nor was he to be reprov'd 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 question St. Peter's Actions , but to his face , before the People publickly 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 That he was in Nothing Inferior to the Chiefest Apostles ; not to Peter , James , or John , whom g 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 Supream 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 , 't is certain , 1. That every Apostle ( as well as Peter ) had an Vniversal supream i 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 Creet to Titus . 3. Our Adversaries confess this , ( as to all the other Apostles ) but for Peter , they say , He k transmitted his Supremacy and Vniversal 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 Controversie were at an end ; we would acquiesce , and admit ( what upon undeniable evidence we deny ) the Popes Supremacy . But this they neither do , nor is there any possibility they ever should prove . For there is not one Syllable in l Scripture , of Peter's Successor , or of what Power he received from him : and nothing but Scripture can prove our blessed Saviour's Institution , and Divine Law , whereby Peter's Supremacy is transmitted to his Successor . The truth is , that Pius . V. in the beginning of this his Impious Bull , and other Popes many m 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 some of them , sometimes go about to prove it , the Reasons they bring , are so far from Sense and Consequence , that they may deserve Pity and Contempt , rather than a serious Answer . But when Reason will not Convince , they have other Roman Arts to Cosen men into a Belief , that what was given to Peter , was likewise given to the Pope his Successor ; and that is ( amongst other ways ) by Corrupting the Ancient Fathers with false Translations . So when Chrysostom had faid , That the Power of the Keys , was not given to Peter only , but to the rest of the Apostles : Pet. Possinus adds , Successors ; and renders it thus — The Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter And His o Successors , &c. where Chrysostome ( whom he Translates ) has nothing of Peter's Successors : but truly and plainly says — That the Power of the Keys was not given only to Peter , but to the rest of the Apostles , when our blessed p 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 Leo to the Bishops of France , and of his Legat Paschasinus about the Condemnation of Dioscorus , in the Council of Chalcedon , these Words occur in the Latin Copies — The most holy and most blessed Pope Leo , Head of the Vniversal Church : Where these words — Head of the Vniversal Church , are not in the Greek Copies ; ( as that Learned Archbishop ingenuously and truly r Confesseth ) but ( by Roman Arts ) falsly and basely interserted , that so they might by fraud ( what by no Reason they can ) maintain , the Pope's impiously usurped Supremacy . And that we may know , how unpleasing the publishing of such things ( though evidently true ) are to the Pope and his Party at Rome , ( who are resolved , in despight of truth ) to maintain the Popes pretended Supremacy ) this Learned Work of that great Roman Catholick Archbishop s , is damn'd by the Inquisitors , not to be printed , read , or had by any . He who seriously reads ( and understands ) the Latin Versions of the Greek Councils , Fathers , and other Greek and Latin Writers , may find an hundred such Frauds , to maintain ( what they know , they have no just reason for ) their Papal and Antichristian Tyranny : And their Jndices Expurgatorij are Authentick Evidences , to Convince them of these Unchristian Practises , to conceal truth , and cosen the World into a belief of their pernicious Papal Errors . Nor is this all , ( nor the worst ) for so desperately are they set upon it , that if their Interest and the Papal Monarchy cannot otherwise be maintain'd ( as 't is impossible it should by any just and lawful means ) they speak impiously and blasphemously of our blessed Saviour . Thomas Campegius Episcopus Feltrensis , in his Book of the Power of the Pope , to Paul. IV. says , — t That our blessed Saviour had not been a Diligent Father of the Family , to his Church , unless he had left such a Monarch over his Church , as the Pope , of whom he is there speaking : And the Cites Pope Innocent , and Aquinas to justifie it . Albertus Pighius is as high to the same impious purpose , and expresly says — u 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 Canonist ( if that be possible ) more blasphemously says — That our blessed Saviour , while he was on Earth , had power to pronounce the Sentence of Deposition , and Damnation against the Emperor , or any other ; And by the same Reason , His Vicar now can do it . And then he impiously adds — That our blessed Saviour would not have seem'd Discreet , unless he had left such a Vicar , as could do all these things , &c. So if it be granted ( which is most evident and certainly true ) that our blessed Saviour left no such Monarchical Vicar , as the Pope ; then they are not affraid to accuse him of want of Diligence and Discretion . And this impious Gloss is approved and confirm'd by Pope y Gregory . XIII . as ( we may be sure ) what makes for his Extravagant Power and Papal Monarchy ( how Erroneous and Impious soever ) shall not want his Approbation . And thus much of the third Priviledge of the Apostles , their Vniversal Jurisdiction ; equally in them all , in James , and John , and Paul as much as Peter ; and this Jurisdiction Personal to all , and never transmitted to any of their Successors . 4. Besides the Immediate call of the Apostles , their Power of doing Miracles , and their Universal Jurisdiction over all the World ; they were ( all of them ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Divinely Inspired by the Holy Ghost , so that they had Infallibility , so far , as whatever they preach'd or writ was Divine , and the undoubted Word of God. This Priviledge also was Personal , nor ever was Communicated to any of their Successors . I know that the z Canonists and a Jesuits , ( in the last and worst of times ) would make the World believe ( without any shadow of rational ground ) that Peter transferred his Infallibility to the Pope , and made him the Infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith , and Fact too . A thing so evidently false , and without any possibility of proof , that 't is a wonder , tha● any should have the Confidence to assert it , especially in Paris , the great Metropolis of 〈◊〉 Church which constantly does , and has deny● the Popes Infallibility and Superiority to a General Council . 2. But that which might fo● ever silence this Irrational and Injust Claim 〈◊〉 Infallibility in the Pope , is , that ( for Matter o● Fact ) none of them , ( though they were some times nibling at a kind of Supremacy ) for above a Thousand Years after our blessed Saviour , either did or dared pretend to Infallibility ; and if they had , they had made themselves ridiculous . For , 3. It was notoriously known , that several of their Popes were Hereticks . For instance , b Liberius , c Honorius , d Vigilius , &c. And for Heresie Condemn'd in General Councils , as is evident from the Acts themselves . and has been demonstrated , not only by Protestants , but by very Learned men of the Roman Communion . 4. And he who seriously reads , and impartially considers their Papal Bulls , Breves , and Decretal e Constitutions ; and in them how ridiculously they reason , and prophane ( 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 Priviledge , to which , ( as it was in the Apostles ) none of their Successors ( no not the Pope , ) ever did , or ( with any reason ) could pretend . And as this Apostolical Priviledge , so the other four before mention'd ( 1. Immediate Vocation . 2. Power to work Miracles . 3. Vniversality of Jurisdiction . 4. Infallibility in all things they preach'd or writ . ) I say , all these Priviledges , were Extraordinary and Personal to the Apostles , and never were transmitted to any of their Successors . And this being granted , ( as of necessity it ought and must ) it will evidently follow , that Peter neither had , nor could have , that Monarchical Supremacy over the Apostles and Universal Church , to which the Pope and his Party vainly , and without any reason or ground pretend . For that Papal Supremacy and Monarchy they pretend Peter had , ( according to their Hypothesis ) consisted principally , in the Universality of his Jurisdiction over the whole Church , and his Infallibility , as a Judge , to determine Controversies of Faith ; both which every Apostle had , as much and as well as he ) and therefore it was impossible , that ( in these respects ) he should have any Superiority ( much less Supremacy ) over the other Apostles , more than they over him ; especially , seeing in Scripture , ( to men who have good Eyes , and will Impartially use them ) there is not one Syllable looks that way . Nay , seeing our blessed Saviour hath expresly determin'd the contrary . The Apostles were disputing and reasoning amongst themselves , which of them should be greatest : ( they had their Infirmities and ambitious desires ) . But our Saviour tells them — f Whosoever will be great among you ( though Peter be the man ) let him be their Minister ; and whosoever will be g chief , let him be your Servant . And again , — h Be not ye call'd Masters , for one is your Master , even Christ ( not Peter ) and ye are Brethren ; but he that will be greatest among you , shall be your Servant . The Apostles had no Master under Heaven , but their blessed Saviour ; it was of him , and him Only , that they learned the Gospel , and that Immediately ; they had it not from i any man , nor one from another . Our blessed Saviour was their only Master and Superior , and they his Scholars , subordinate to him , and co-ordinate amongst themselves . He tells them , that they are Brethren ; Condiscipuli , School-fellows . Names which ( in themselves , and in their Master's meaning ) import Equality ; especially as to any Jurisdiction one over another . There may be amongst Scholars of the same School , and Brethren , an inequality , ( and so there was amongst the Apostles ) 1. In respect of Age ; Some might be elder , some younger . 2. In respect of their coming to that School ; some might come before others ; So Andrew was first call'd to our blessed Saviours School , ( before Peter * ) . 3. In respect of Natural Parts and Abilities , some might have greater Capacities then others . 4. In respect of their Masters Love and Kindness , he might love one more then another , So amongst the Twelve , John was the belovod Disciple . Such inequality there was amongst them , and we willingly grant it . But to say , ( as the Pope , and many of his Party most vainly do ) that amongst these Brethren , and School-fellows in our blessed Saviour's School , Peter , ( or any other ) had not only an Authority and Jurisdiction , but a Monarchical Supremacy , over all the rest , this is so contradictory to our blessed Saviour's plain words , and the manifest and undoubted meaning of them ; that were it not , that we know men may be sway'd with worldly Interests , and sometimes have strong Delusions to believe a Lye ; it were incredible that any Learned men should ( with so much Confidence , and no Reason , assert the Contrary . To pass by all Testimonies of Ancient Fathers for many hundred years , and many sober Papists before Luther , ( who neither knew , nor believed Peter's Monarchy over the Church and his fellow Apostles , his Equals ) sure I am , 1. That Francis k Lucas Brugensis , a Roman Catholick ( in our days ) eminent in their Church for Dignity and Learning , says the same thing I have done ( and on the same Texts ) for the Equality of the Apostles , against Peter's pretended Monarchy . 2. And a greater then he , ( I mean , l Petrus de Marca Archbishop of Paris ) convinc'd with the Evidence of the former Texts , and Truth , was of Opinion , and has publish'd it to the World , That our blessed Saviour , at his Ascension , did not leave the Church establish'd in Peter , and a Monarchy ; But in an Aristocratie , or the Colledge of the Apostles . In which Colledge Peter was one , not Superior ( much less a Monarch ) to the other Apostles ; and the Apostles left the Government of the Church Establish'd in the Bishops , and Aristocratical ; only he thinks , that both in the Colledge of the Apostles , and Councils of Bishops after them , there was ( for Orders sake ) to be a President , ( not a Monarch , for that was Inconsistent with Aristocratie ) And ( if this will content them ) we will grant it . Because we do know , that the Ancient Church allow'd the Pope the prime Place and Precedency in Councils , ( for Orders sake ) and that not by any Divine Right , ( which was not in those days , so much as pretended to ) but because Rome was the m Imperial City , and Metropolis of the Roman Empire ; the greatness of the City usually giving greatness and precedency to the Bishops ; such were Constantinople , Alexandria , Antioch , &c. I know the Inquisitors at Rome have damned this Book of n Petrus de Marca , but this is no Argument , that what he has said , is not true ; Grande aliquo● bonum est , quod à Nerone ( ab Inquisitoribus ) damnatur . To conclude this Point , if our Adversaries assent not to this manifest Truth , as ( being Contradictory to their worldly Interest and misconceived Infallible Pretensions ) 't is probable they will not ; I shall make them this ( to all unprejudiced Lovers of Truth ) fair offer . Let them give me any one cogent Argument from Scripture or Universal Tradition ( and nothing else can do it ) whereby they can prove , the following Positions ; I will thank God and them for the discovery , and promise hereby to be their Proselyte . 1. If they can ( by any such Argument ) prove that Peter ( by Divine Right ) had such a Monarchical Supremacy and Jurisdiction over the Apostles , and the whole Church , ( as is vainly pretended ) I will yield the Cause . But if he had no such Power , 't is impossible he should transmit the Power ( he never had ) to his Successors . 2. Let it be suppos'd , ( which yet is evidently untrue ) that St. Peter had such a Monarchical Authority and Jurisdiction , even over the rest of the Apostles , let them prove by any such Argument as is before mention'd ; that it was not only Temporal , & his only for his life ; that it was not to have an end and period with his Person . For if it was , then his Successor ( whoever he be ) can have no pretence to it . For 't is impossible , that any Successor , can have any legal or just Claim to that Power , which vanish'd and ceas'd to be , with his Predecessor , who possess'd it only for his life . 3. Admit both these to be true , ( which yet are equally and evidently false ) that Peter had such a Power , and that it was not Personal , but to be transmitted to his Successor , seeing such transmission must either be done by our blessed Saviour immediately , or ( by Power deriv'd from him ) by Peter . Let our Adversaries make it appear , that either our blessed Saviour himself , or Peter ( by Power deriv'd from him ) did actually transmit that Power to any Successor , and I submit . 4. Lastly , Suppose all these to be ( what not one of them is ) true ; yet unless it do appear , that the Bishop of Rome ( and not the Bishop of Antioch , ( where they say Peter was Bishop first ) was that Successor of St. Peter , to whom such Supremacy was transmitted ; he can have no pretence to it . For in this Case , Idem est non esse & non apparere . Let our Adversaries then make it appear , that either our blessed Saviour immediately by himself , or Peter ( by Authority from him ) did o transmit the Supremacy to the Pope , and we shall be satisfy'd ; and thankful for the Discovery . And this brings me to the Second thing proposed before . 2. The thing next to be enquired after is , Whether , and how it may appear that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successor . Our Adversaries say , ( and vainly say it only ) that Peter was Supream Head ( after our blessed Saviour's Ascension ) and Monarch of the Church ; and from him , ( Jure Successionis ) the Pope derives his Monarchical Power and Supremacy ; and that by the Institution and p Command of our blessed Saviour , and so not by Humane , but q Divine Right . This is a Position of greatest Consequence , and will require good proof . Nor is it possible to prove the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick , unless it first appear that Peter was his Predecessor in that See. Linus , Clemens or Cletus cannot ( with any Truth or Sense ) be said to succeed Peter , unless it appear first , that he preceeded them . Our Adversaries ( I confess ) do constantly ( with great noise and confidence ) affirm , That Peter did preceed in the Bishoprick of Rome ; but sure I am , that hitherto , they have not brought any , so much as probable ( much less cogent and concluding ) Reason to prove it : nor do I think it possible they should bring ( what they neither have , nor can have ) any true and concluding proof , to prove ( what this is ) an erroneous and false Position . And that this may not be begg'd and gratis dictum , I shall offer to the Impartial Reader , these Considerations . 1. When they r say , That Peter fix'd his Episcopal Chair at Rome , Jubente Domino : Let them shew that s Command , and there will be an end of the Controversie ; we will obey our blessed Saviour's Command , and the Pope too . But this they have neither done , nor can : It being impossible , they should shew that to be , which never was , nor ever had any being . 2. That ever Peter was at Rome , ( much less that he was Bishop there , for Five and twenty years ( as is vainly pretended ) cannot be made appear out of Scripture , or any Apostolical or Authentick Record ; and therefore that he was there at all , ( where he might be , as he was in many other good Cities , and not Bishop of any of them ) must depend solely upon human and fallible Testimonies , ( I say , Testimonies certainly fallible , if not absolutely false ; which many Learned men have , and do believe ) . Now seeing the whole Papal Monarchy and Infallibility , depend upon Peter's being Bishop of Rome , and the grounds we have to assure us , that he ever was there , are fallible and dubious ; and seeing it is irrational ( if not impossible ) that any considering Person , should give a firm and undoubted assent to any Conclusion , inferr'd only upon fallible and dubious premisses . Hence it evidently follows , That our Faith and belief of the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility is , and ( till they find better , and more necessary premisses ) must be fallible and dubious . And here I desire to be inform'd how it comes to be an Article of Faith , in their new Roman Creed ; That the Bishop of Rome is Vicar of Christ , and t Peter ' s Successor ; which Article ( with the rest in that Creed ) they promise , u 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 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 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 inquiring ( of the Elders who had heard the Apostles ) what Peter , or James , or John , &c. had said : thinking he g●t●less benefit by reading Scriptures , then by the talk of those who heard the Authors of them . 2. That he had by such a Tradition , strange Parables and Preachings of our blessed Saviour , and other things very Fabulous : Such as the Heresie of the Millenaries ; which he believed and propagated . That he thus err'd , by b 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 most of the Ecclesiastical Writers who followed him ( Reverencing his Antiquity ) err'd with him . I know , that in Eusebius ( both in the worst Edition of him , by d Christopherson , ( sometime a Popish Bishop of Chichester ) and the best by e Hen. Valesius ) we have a high Commendation of Papias ; f At the same time ( says Eusebius , as Valesius renders him ) Papias was famous ; a man very Eloquent and Learned , and well skill'd in Scripture . But Christopherson ( his other Translator ) goes higher , ( as usually he does when it makes for the Catholick Cause ) and in his Translation says more in Commendation of Papias , then is in the Text : For he tells us , That Papias ( besides his knowledge of Scripture ) was a man g certainly most learned in the Knowledge of All Other Arts. Now if this be true , then that Character I have given him before , is not so ; and then his Antiquity ( which was h great ) and his great Learning ( in all Arts and Sciences , as well as Scripture ) consider'd ; his Testimony , that Babylon , whence St. Peter writ , was Rome , will be more valid , and of greater Authority . In Answer to this ; I say , 1. That all this Commendation of Papias before mention'd , is so far from having any Authority from Eusebius , that 't is a plain Forgery . Eusebius ( as to this passage ) is evidently corrupted ; and this Commendation of Papias ( by whose Ignorance or Knavery , I know not ) shuffled into the Text , long after Eusebius his death . For , 2. Ruffinus ( who Translated Eusebius his History above One thousand two hundred years ago ) in the place above quoted , says only thus — About this time flourished Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna , and Papias Bishop of Hierapolis . So the Printed Edition of i Ruffinus by B. Rhenanus ; and a very Ancient and Compleat MS. of Ruffinus ( in my Keeping and Possession ) exactly k agrees with it ; and there is not one word of that Commendation of Papias , which is now extant in Eusebius : And therefore we may Conclude , that Anciently it was not there , but the Text of Eusebius ( by fraud or folly ) is since Corrupted : For had it been in Eusebius when Ruffin Translated him , there had been no reason he should have left it out . 3. And which is yet more considerable , Valesius ( a very Learned Roman Catholick ) who last published Eusebius , Ingenuously Confesses , that of three or four Greek MSS. of Eusebius , which he made use of in his Edition , not any one of them l had that Commendation of Papias ; and therefore he doubts not , but these words were m added by some Ignorant Scholiast , contrary to the Judgment and Sense of Eusebius . For ( says n he ) how is it possible that Eusebius should call Papias a Most Learned Man , and Most Skill'd in Scripture , who in the same o Book says , he was A Rule and Simple Person , of Very Little Wit or Judgment . And his Ignorance especially appears ( as in other things ) in that 1. He says that Philip , whose Daughters were Prophetesses , was Philip the p Apostle ; when the q Text , ( had he read or remembred it ) expresly says , That it was Philip the Deacon . 2. Papias said , ( and in his Writings published his Opinion ) That hearing r Oral Traditions , was more profitable , then reading Scriptures ) . That is , to hear the Stories and Tales of private and fallible Persons ( and that in Matters of Religion ) was more profitable , then to read the Sacred Oracles of God , penn'd by Divinely Inspired Infallible Persons . St. s John tells us , he had writ so many and such things , as were necessary and sufficient to Salvation , yet left out thousands of things , which he thought not necessary . But Papias ( with great Ignorance and Impiety ) prefers the unwritten Tradition of those things concerning our blessed Saviour , which the Apostles had omitted , as not necessary , nor so useful as those things they had writ . And so in Contradiction to the Holy Spirit and St. John ( his Infallible Amanuensis ) calls the Tradition of those unwritten things more useful , which they had omitted as not useful at all . And this his Ignorance and want of Judgment further appears , 3. Because Eusebius tells us , That he had ( amongst his Traditions ) t strange and novel Parables and Doctrines of our blessed Saviour , and other things more Fabulous ; and amongst them his Millenary Heresie , of which he was Father , and ( to the Infecting many others ) did propagate it : And he fell to those wild Opinions chiefly by his Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Scripture ; as Eusebius and Nicephorus tell us . And yet this simple Person , and Arch-Heretick , is the principal and prime Witness Rome has , to prove that Babylon ( in the Epistle of Peter ) signifies Rome , and that Peter was there . For other place in Scripture , they have none , and only Papias ( and his Followers ) for that . By the Premisses , I think it may appear to Impartial Persons , That seeing Papias preferr'd Tradition ( or some mens talk before the Scriptures ) that he was a man of very weak understanding , and err'd by misunderstanding Scripture , that he writ Fables rather than History , and maintain'd the Millenary Opinion , which Rome now calls Heresie : I say these things Consider'd , his Authority and Credit is , ( if any at all ) very little ; and yet 't is all our Adversaries have ( his Followers Testimonies being derived from , and depending upon his ) to prove out of Scripture , that Peter writ that Epistle at Rome , or ever was there . This is a Truth so manifest , that not only u Protestants , but most Learned Roman x Catholicks , say and prove ; that Peter writ that Epistle , not at Rome , but Babylon in Chaldea . And further ; that he did not write it at Rome , will be evident from Scripture , and what their own most Learned Author Confesses . For , 1. y Baronius tells us , It was writ , Anno Christi 45. 2. To make this probable , both he , Petavius , and others , generally say ; That Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius ; which was Anno Christi 44. 3. But this a very Learned Roman Catholick evidently z Confutes from Scripture , and good Authorities ; and plainly shews , that Peter was always in Judea or Syria , till the death of Herod Agrippa , which was in the fourth year of Claudius , and the Six and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour . And therefore it was impossible that Peter should write that Epistle at Rome , in the Five and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour , who never came thither till the year Forty six , unless they will say ( and they do say things as impossible ) that he writ an Epistle at Rome when he was not there . 4. Nay , 't is certain from what Luke says in the a 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 , Bellarmine , and others ; the Learned c Valesius thinks ( and gives his reason for it , ( more probable to me , then any brought for the Contrary Opinions ) that the Council was held , Anno Claudij . 7. and Christi . 49. take which Computation you please , if St. Peter wrote that Epistle at Rome , Anno Christi 45. he must have writ there , several years before he came thither . 5. Nay , 't is further Evident , ( let that Council be when they will ) that Peter was not at Rome , in the year . 51. which Baronius mentions , but at Jerusalem . For St. d 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 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 sate Bishop in Rome about f 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 , 'T is Evident , St. Peter writ that first Epistle to the Asiatick g 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 call'd it so . 'T is true , St. John above h Fifty years after , call● Rome , Babylon . But he writing Mysterious Propheties , spoke ( to use Eusebius's word ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used many Types , Figures and Metaphors , to express future things . But that Peter , 〈◊〉 writ no such Mysterious Prophetical Predict●ons , but the plain Duties , and Promises of th● Gospel , should use such Types or Figures , ha●● neither truth nor any probability . By the Premisses , 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 Bishoprick . 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 , &c. ( 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 ) expresly says , i 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 Martyrdom of Paul and Peter , Linus was the first Bishop of Rome . And again , speaking of the Bishops of Rome , he says , That l Linus was the first , and Anencletus ( or Anacletus , as he is usually call'd ) the second . And though Eusebius say , That Linus was m 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 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 Catholick evidently saw , and publickly o acknowledges . By the way , let me observe ; That Eusebius in two places here p cited , puts Paul before Peter : and not only Eusebius ( a fallible Author ) but St. Paul himself puts James before q Peter . Now if Eusebius or St. Paul had known and believ'd St. Peter to have been ( what the Pope and his Party , without any ground vainly Imagine ) the Supream 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 't is yet more Considerable , what St. Paul says r 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 Charge and Cure , as the Gentiles to Paul. 2. It was our blessed Saviour who t Commission'd 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 Supream 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 labour'd in their u several Provinces ; Peter amongst the Jews , Paul amongst the Gentiles . 4. By a mutual Agreement , they x consent and promise , That Peter ( as he had y before , so ) for z 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 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 mention'd , 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 ; then 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 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 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 expresly says , That Euodius was the First d Bishop of Antioch . 2. When he Cites Eusebius his e Chronicon to prove that Peter was Five and twenty years Bishop of Rome , and refers us , to what Eusebius f 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 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 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 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 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 year at one time , constituted the Church there , confirmed them m afterwards in the Faith , and n ordain'd Elders to govern them , staid there a o long time ; and p 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 't is certain , that neither he nor Peter , was particularly Bishop of that , or any other place . 3. It is utterly incredible , that Peter the Supream 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 liv'd ; 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 Luke in the Acts of the Apostles , nor St. Paul , who liv'd 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 , &c. 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 indeavour to prove . This Evidently appears in this Case , as it is stated by Onuphrius , Baronius and Bellarmine . 1. q Onuphrius tells us ; That Peter remain'd constantly in Judea , for Nine r 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 died , Anno Christi . 69. And then ( by his Calculation ) Peter was Bishop of Rome Six years after his death . t 2. Baronius states the Question thus . Peter came to Antioch Anno Christi . 39. and was Bishop there u Seven years ; that is , till the year of Christ. 46. And then he says , that from Antioch Peter went to Rome , and sate there Bishop x 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 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 Bellarmine maintains the same Opinion , not only in Contradiction to Onuphrius , but to Eusebius , Hierome , Epiphanius , &c. a 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 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 Popes Succession to him . For these following Particulars ( every one of them ) may evidently be proved out of Scripture . 1. That the Romans were c Gentiles . 2. That Paul ( by our blessed Saviour's d Appointment ) was the Apostle of the Gentiles , Peter was not , but of the e Jews . 3. Paul was two whole f years at Rome , Converted , and Established a Church there ; but it cannot appear by Scripture , that Peter was ever there . 4. The Care ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) g 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 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 expresly told us , 1. That our blessed Saviour had Appointed , and Commission'd 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 preach'd amongst them : I say , had all these things been in Scripture expresly 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 expresly 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 reject Paul , and will have Peter their first Bishop ( though some of them impiously say , our k 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 ought to carry the Assent of all wise men : and therefore seeing it is deny'd ( and justly too ) that Paul was ever Bishop of Rome , though the Probabilities , grounded on Scripture , that he was so , be far greater then 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 magnifie the Pope's Power and Supremacy , ( having no better Arguments ) they make use of several Honorary Titles given to the Bishop of Rome , and his See , and of some Priviledges 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 . 2. His See is call'd Sedes Apostolica , and Cathedra Apostolica . 3. He is call'd Successor Petri. 4. Vicar of Christ. 5. That our blessed Saviour gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven , &c. I confess that these , and many such m Particulars have been urged , and ( as pertinent ) stood upon by several Popes in their Bulls , 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 overaw'd 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 reviv'd , all knowing and impartial Persons did see and know , that all the Arguments they did ( or could ) bring from such Topicks , were not only Inconsequent , but indeed impertinent and ridiculous . That this may not be gratis dictum , I shall indeavour to make it Appear by plain Instances , ( and I hope Effect it ) that none of those Honorary Titles or Priviledges 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 past ) the Pope has Assumed , and his Flatterers given him , as peculiar to himself , was Anciently a Title given to all Archbishops . So n Alcuinus Flaccus tells us , That when a Bishop was Elected , they sent him , ad Apostolicum , that he might Consecrate him . The Learned Archbishop o 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 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 , then 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 ) sate 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 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 Tertullian also reckons the Apostolical Churches , such as Corinth , Ephesus , Thessalonica , Philippi , Rome , &c. and tells us , That Cathedrae Apostolorum , the Chairs of the Apostoles 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 annex'd to Peter's Chair at Rome , more then 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 , then the Bishop of Ephesus or Corinth , in the Apostolical Chairs and Churches of those Cities . If Sedes Apostolica , and Cathedra Apostolica be a sufficient ground to infer and prove Supremacy ; then either all such Churches must be Supream , ( which is impossible ) or none at all , which is certainly true . 3. But they say ; The Bishop of Rome is Peter ' s Successor , and on this they principally and generally ground his Supremacy ; as derived to him , s Jure ●●●cessions , and t 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 seven years Bishop of Antioch before he was of Rome . 2. And that x Euodius was his Successor there . I desire to know , why the Supremacy did not descend to Euodius , his first and immediate Successor ? For admit , that Peter had such Supremacy , and that it was not Personal , but to be transmitted to some Successor ; ( both which are manifestly untrue ) yet seeing such Transmission of his Supremacy , must be done either , 1. By some Act of our blessed Saviour . Or , 2. By some Act of Peter , transmitting his Supremacy to his Successor at Rome , and not to Euodius at Antioch : it will concern our Adversaries to shew such Act of our blessed Saviour , or Peter . For if they can , we will submit , and give the Cause ; but if they cannot , then seeing , idem est non esse & non apparere ; they must pardon our unbelief , if we assent not to that , which they cannot prove . I say , cannot prove ; there being not one syllable in Scripture or Antiquity for Six hundred years , ( I might give more ) either expresly affirming , or from which it may ( by good Consequence ) be deduced , that either our blessed Saviour or Peter did transmit such a Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility to the Bishop of Rome , more then to the Bishop of Antioch . If any man think otherwise , let him give us good proof of the contrary , and we will give him thanks and the Cause . 2. But admit , that the Pope succeeds Peter , and really sits in Cathedrâ Petri , as his Successor , ( which is evidently untrue ) yet this will not prove his Monarchical Supremacy ; if it do appear that any other Apostle succeeded our blessed Saviour ( before Peter was Bishop any where ) and by his own Appointment , sat in our blessed Saviour's Place and Episcopal Chair , as his Successor ; I say , if this appear , then as our blessed Saviour is far greater then Peter , so his Successor will be greater then the Pope , and have a fairer pretence for the Supremacy , as our blessed Saviour's immediate Successor , then the Pope can possibly have , as Peter's . Now for this , let our Adversaries consider , what Epiphanius says , Thus ; y James the Brother of 〈◊〉 Lord was the first Bishop , when our blessed Savio●r concredited and resign'd to him , before all others his Throne or Episcopal Chair on Earth . And he● let it be consider'd , 1. That in Scripture 〈◊〉 blessed Saviour is call'd z a Bishop , Vnivers● Bishop of the whole Church ; with a Monarchi●cal and Kingly Power . 2. He was in a particula● and peculiar way , Bishop of the Jews ; he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Peculiar Oversight and Cure 〈◊〉 them . He was sent ( in Person ) only to b them : He Constituted a Church among● them , Ordain'd Apostles , and Seventy othe● c 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 , preach'd and did Miracles . 4. He says , That our blessed Saviour chose James , before all the Rest , even before Peter ) and concredited and resigned to him , Thronum suum , his Episcopal Seat , and that James was Bishop of Jerusalem , is attested by all Antiquity . And this probably was the Reason , 1. Why Paul d names James ( as Bishop of Jerusalem ) before Peter . 2. Why in the Council of the Apostles , James ( and not Peter ) gave the definitive e 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 1. Sam. 12. 12. it was g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 2. That James was his Successor in that Cure. 3. And ( if Epiphanius say true ) our blessed Saviour himself appointed him his Successor . Let our Adversaries ( by so good Authority ) shew ; that Peter was our blessed Saviour's Successor , either at Rome , ( as some of them , before mention'd , only pretend ) or any where else ; and ( for my part ) let them take the Cause . Otherwise , if they cannot , then we may evidently conclude , That if James never did , nor could pretend justly to a Monarchical Supremacy over the whole Church , though our blessed Saviour's Successor ; much less may the Pope for succeeding Peter . Q. E. D. 4. But the Pope ( they say ) is Christ's Vicar ; and that he is , or should be so , we grant . But we further say ; that many thousands ( besides him ) are Christ's Vicars as well , and as much as he . This has been manifestly proved before . I shall only add ; that the Trent Fathers ( who , far they , h were inspired by the Holy Ghost , and so surely Infallible ) expresly say , and Synodically define , That our blessed Saviour before his Ascention , left all Priests his i own Vicars , to whom , as to Presidents and Judges , all Mortal sins were to be Confess'd . And k 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 Apostle ; and they might have added also 2. Cor. 5. 20. And Henry Holden , a Learned Sorbon Doctor , in his Annotations upon those Texts , says the same thing . And now if to be Christ's Vicar , give any ground or pretence to Supremacy , then all Bishops and Priests ( who are Confess'd to be Christ's Vicars ) may pretend to Supremacy as well as the Pope . And they being Christ's Vicars as to the Power of Absolving and Retaining Sins , m every poor Priest has as much power to absolve the Pope , as he him . So that any Argument drawn from this Title , that he is Christ's Vicar , to prove the Popes Supremacy , is not only Inconsequent , but Impertinent , and indeed Ridiculous : And yet upon this ground , and another as Insignificant , Pope Innocent the Fourth , in their General Council at Lions , Excommunicates and Deposes the Emperor Friderick ; Seeing ( says the Pope there ) we are Christ's n Vicar on Earth ; and it was in the Person of Peter said to us , Whatsoever thou binds on Earth , shall be bound in Heaven ; we declare and denounce the said Friderick deprived of all his Honour and Dignity , absolve his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance , and Excommunicate all who shew him any favour , or obey him as Emperor . And to the same purpose their Trent Catechism tells us ; o That the Pope has ( by Divine Right , ( not by any Human Constitutions ) that Supream Degree of Dignity and Jurisdiction , over the Vniversal Church , as Peter's Successor , sitting in his Chair , and as Vicar of Christ. 5. But that which they press with most Noise and Confidence , is , That our blessed Saviour gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven . They seem to be in Love with these words , Dabo Tibi Claves , &c. For in their p Offices , for only two of St. Peter's Festivals , they are repeated almost Twenty times . But how Impertinent this is , to prove any Supremacy ( much less their Papal Monarchy ) will evidently appear , in that this Power of the Keys , which they would appropriate to the Pope , was given to the rest of the Apostles , as well as to Peter ( as is proved before ) nay to every Bishop and Priest in the World. For , 1. So their own Roman Breviary , published by the Authority of Pope Pius the Fifth , and afterwards revised by Clement the Eighth , and Vrban the Eighth expresly says ; for having told us , that our blessed Saviour gave the Keys to Peter : it follows ; q That this Power did pass to the other Apostles and Princes of the Church . 2. Their Trent Catechism , having r 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 Bishops and Presbyters . So that Catechism , publish'd according to the Decree of the Council of Trent , by Pope Pius the Fifth . And , 3. Their Roman Pontifical gives the Authentick Form how they Ordain a Priest ; in which the Power of the Keys is given to every Priest , in the very same t words our blessed Saviour did give it to the Apostles — u Receive the Holy Ghost , whose sins you remit , they are remitted ; And whose sins you retain , they are retained . 4. Lastly ; The Trent Fathers are yet ( if that be possible ) more express ; For speaking of the Sacrament of Pennance and Absolution , They x declare all their Opinions to be false and erroneous , who think that the Exercise of the Ministery and Power of the Keys , belong to any , save The Bishops and Presbyters ; and who think those words — Whatsoever you shall bind on Earth , &c. And whose sins you remit shall be remitted , &c. to be spoken indifferently to all the Faithful ; and so think that any of the faithful may bind and loose , remit and retain sins . In which words the Council does ( I suppose ) Infallibly Declare ( at least in our Adversaries Opinion ) 1. That those two y Texts ( which are cited in the Margent of the z Council ) are to be understood of the Power of the Keys ; though in one of them ( that of John ) the Keys be not expresly named . 2. That the Exercise of that Power of the Keys belongs To the Bishops and Presbyters , but to none else ; neither to Lay-men nor any Inferior Orders . By the Premisses , I think it evident , ( and confess'd by our Adversaries ) that every Apostle had the Power of the Keys , as well as Peter , and ( since they left the World ) every Bishop and Priest , as well as the Pope . Whence it further ( and manifestly ) follows ; That 't is impossible that the Bishop of Rome , or any of his party , should ( as they vainly indeavor ) prove his Supremacy from his Power of the Keys ; which is common , and really possess'd by so many thousands beside himself . For this is just as if Titius should brag , that he is far richer then Sempronius , because he has Five hundred pounds per Annum ; when Sempronius has an equal Estate , and of the very same Value . Or as if Sejus should say he had far greater Power then Cajus , when the Power given them by the Emperor was equal and the same . And yet such is the vanity and folly of their pretended Infallible Judges , that in their Bulls , and Papal Constitutions , received into the Body of their Canon Law , Dabo Tibi Claves , this Power of the Keys , is laid as a ( Sandy and Insignificant ) Foundation , on which they build the vast and Insupportable Fabrick of their Supremacy . I shall Instance only in two ( though I might in many more , ) 1. In that famous Decretal of Innocent the Third ( before cited ) wherein he impiously and ridiculously indeavors to prove , that the Papal Dignity , is as much a greater then the Imperial , as the Sun is greater than the Moon : And amongst other wild and ridiculous Arguments to prove his equally wild and extravagant Position , he comes at last , to this , Dabo Tibi Claves , to the Power of the Keys , as the most known ground of his Supremacy . 2. The second Instance , is that of Pope Innocent the Fourth , in his Impious Excommunication and Deposition of the Emperor Frederick , ( who had been before Excommunicated by his Predecessor Gregory the Ninth ) in the Council of Lions . It is b Extant in the Canon Law , and two things there prefix'd to that most Impious Decretal . 1. That he depos'd Frederick in the Council , for a perpetual c 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 Emperor for lawful Causes . And then , in that Impious Decretal , he grounds his Power to Depose the Emperor principally upon the Power of e the Keys ; which ( he says ) was given to him in Peter , when our blessed Saviour said , Whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth , should be bound in Heaven , &c. so he , ( and his Predecessors and Successors generally for this Six hundred years last past ) applies that Power of the Keys ( which is purely spiritual ) to carnal and temporal ends , and impious purposes . And here it seems to me , Considerable , ( and I believe will seem so , to pious and dis-interessed Persons ) that in former f Roman Breviaries ( as also in our Portiforium or g Breviary of Sarum ; and in the h Missals of Salisbury and i Hereford , we have this Prayer ; 1. Deus qui Beato Petro Apostolo tuo , Collatis Clavibus Regni Coelestis , Animas Ligandi atque Solvendi Pontisicium tradidisti ; Concede , ut Intercessionis ejus Auxilio , &c. O God , who by giving the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to thy Apostle Peter , hast concredited and delivered to him the Pontifical Power of binding and loosing mens Souls , grant that by the help of his Intercession , &c. Where it is evident that , ( in the sense and plain meaning of this Prayer and Scripture too ) the Power of the Keys is spiritual , to bind mens souls , ( if Impenitent ) and ( if Contrite and truly Penitent ) to loose them . I say spiritual , for edification and saving mens souls , and not temporal , for Deposing Kings and Emperors , and absolving their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance . 2. But this Doctrine was not pleasing to the Pope and his Party ; And therefore in their late k Breviaries and l Missals , they have left out the word Animas , Souls , and say only , that God had given Peter Power of binding and loosing ; not mentioning in that Prayer , what it was he had Power to bind and loose . 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 Tu es Pastor ovium , Princeps Apostolorum ; Tibi n tradidit Deus Omnia Regna Mundi ; & Ideo Tibi traditae sunt Claves Regni Coelorum . They all agree , That the Power of binding and loosing 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 loosing , superior to all Kingly o 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 , affirm'd , and ( in their Bulls , their Publick and Authentick Constitutions approved , and publickly maintain'd 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 Premisses , 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 , &c. having been Anciently given to Thousands ( beside the Pope ) who never had , nor dream'd 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 Popes Supremacy ; yet 't is Evident , that all such Arguments , drawn from such Topicks , 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 Popes Supremacy . For many Learned men have evidently proved ( or confess'd ) that Anciently , every Bishop was called p Papa , a Pope , and Summus q Pontifex too . Baronius a most Zealous and Partial Assertor of the Popes Supremacy and Monarchy over Kings and Emperors ) has , in the Place quoted in the Margent , confess'd ( what without great Impudence he could not deny ) that Anciently every venerable Presbyter was usually call'd 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 . 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 Priviledges , ( 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 Popes Supremacy , which were confessedly no ground of any such Supremacy in other Bishops , who had the very same Titles and Priviledges , 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 Vertue ; 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. 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 contain'd in it , and the Persons against whom they are denounc'd . For although in the Title prefix'd to the Bull , 't is call'd , The Damnation and Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth only ; yet Thousands besides the Queen , are concern'd 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 Impiety , as an t Heretick , and a Favourer of Hereticks , and Cuts her off from The Vnity 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 right to the Crown of England , and of all , and all manner of Dominion , Dignity , and Priviledge . 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 Anathema's . 2. And if she had only a Pretended Right , then 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 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 't is 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 French-man , 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 then he ) she must loose 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 turned Papist , none of her Subjects ( if the Popes 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 mention'd ( Subjects and all others ) from all Oaths made to the z 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 mention'd in the aforesaid Particulars , did a otherwise , and obey'd 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 Elizabeths days ; ( after the Bull and Excommunication was publish'd , ( as many did , and do , either as Merchants or Travellers ) and obey'd the Laws of England ; ( as of necessity they must , and ought 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 Queens 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 Queens time ; he Excommunicates all those , if they obey the Queen ; But surely this Rash and Impious Sentence , was not pronounc'd 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 obey'd any of the Queens Laws or Commands . So that their Case was this ; If they obey'd 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 Paul assures us ) God himself would Condemn them . Certainly , all pious and considering Persons will think this an easie choice ; and that it is better rather to Obey God then Men , and believe St. Paul rather then 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 Indeavors ( by Pistol or Poyson ) to Assassinate and take away the Queens Life . 2. That all Papists who gave any Obedience to the Queens Commands or Laws , were Excommunicate , as well as Protestants , is evident by this : That the Popish Party c petion'd 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 Hereticks , but not the Roman Catholicks , As Things then 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 preceed ; 1. Cognitio d 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 not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to Dye , before he which is Accused have the Accuser face to face , and have Lycence to answer for himself . Such was the Justice of Pagan Rome . But as Christian ( or , I fear , Antichristian ) Rome , the Case is alter'd . 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 & 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 Introduc'd it , and his Successors since , have ( with like Antichristian Pride and Tyranny ) impiously practis'd it . 8. Seeing it appears by this Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth , ( as by many more such , published by his g Predecessors and h 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 Anathematize 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 , &c. 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 Confess'd by our Adversaries ( in their Commentaries on 1. Pet. 5. 13. The Church of Babylon salutes you ) but indeavour'd 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 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 Pagan Rome meant : but this evidently untrue ; for , 1. It must be Apostatical Rome ; ( as indeed it is ) for the Apostle expresly tells us ; That Antichrist will not come , till an m Apostasie 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 Great Whore , and Harlot : but in Scripture , none but Apostates from the Faith , and true o Religion , are call'd 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 call'd p 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 Catholick Religion , in Honour of Christ , and by his Vicar ; this is indeed a Mystery , not easily understood . So that it is evident , and confess'd , that Rome is Babylon , ( Mystical Babylon ) call'd so , ( as she is call'd q 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 Margent ; and he who considers what St. John says of the Mystical , and what Isaie and Jeremy of the Literal Babylon , may find more . I take it then for a manifest Truth , ( and confess'd 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 St. Paul ; That he is an Enemy , an Adversary to Christ ( our blessed Saviour ) so the word in St. Paul properly t signifies ; so their Authentick ; Vulgar Latin u translates it , and their Learned x 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. Pauls ) then the Pope has a fairer Plea to be that Beast , then 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 , expresly Commands his Disciples ( and so all Christians , who are of Age and rightly qualify'd ) y Drink Ye All of this : And another Evangelist tells us , that they obey'd , and z Did All Drink . But the Pope , in Contradiction to this , a 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 Laicks to have the Communion in both kinds , Notwithstanding the b Institution of Christ , and notwithstanding that in the c Primitive Church it was Received in both kinds : and they further declare them d Hereticks , who think otherwise ; and Command , that no Priest shall administer it in both kinds to any Lay-man , under pain of e Excommunication . By the way ; it is observable , That it is Confess'd by our Adversaries f Lindanus , Cardinal g Bona , &c. ) 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 her self : And after that , in h Aquinas his time , it was but in some i Churches , that the Cup was deny'd 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 Hereticks , 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 Premisses ) it appears , that the Pope does all this , more signally in taking away the Cup in the Eucharist then 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 Corinthians , tells them , ( and he says they are the m 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 Edification . 2. That speaking in an unknown Tongue , does not o Edify or p Profit the Church to which he speaks ; q 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 unknown Tongue . Now whether the Pope be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , an Adversary to Christ , let the Reader Judge , by that which follows . Our blessed Saviour expresly 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 madness to do otherwise ) that they might know his Precepts and gracious Promises ; and so their Duty , and Incouragements to do it . But the Pope ( as all know ) in Contradiction to this , absolutely forbids what our blessed Saviour expresly Commands ; and prohibits all Publick Prayers in any Vulgar Tongue ; nay , the printing , reading , or having their own t Roman Missal in French u , into which it was faithfully Translated , ( not by any Hereticks , but by good Roman Catholicks ) . This evidently appears by the Authentick Bull of Pope Alexander the Seventh , and some of his words cited in the Margent . And he there tells us , That the Translators and Publishers of that Missal , were Studiers of Novelties , to the x ruin of Souls ; Contemners of the Sanctions and Practise 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 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 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 Notes on that place in St. Paul ( convinc'd 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 contain'd 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 prevail'd , the Gospel it self , and the whole Book of God , was reckon'd amongst Damned Books ▪ and Authors , and not permitted to be b 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 , publish'd 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 more Mischief than Bene●it . Pope Vrban the Eighth says d 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 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 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 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 the Turkish Alcaron 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 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 damn'd . 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 miscall'd Catholick Religion , as ( when truly understood and believ'd ) the Bible . That Book evidently discovers , and condemns their Errors ; and therefore they are concern'd to keep it from the People , least they should find ( as by that Divine Light they easily might ) and forsake their Errors . The Premisses consider'd , 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 Establish'd 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 Alcaron . 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 Authentick Vulgar k Latin ; and their own Learned l Commentators justifie it . The word in the Text properly m 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 Supream , 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 affirm'd 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 Premisses , That the Pope does Exalt himself , far above all Kings and Emperors , more then 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 Premisses . 1. Then , his Favourers and Flatterers give him ( and he approves and assumes it ) The n Title of Emperor of the Vniverse . Upon this account , That the Pope is Emperor of the Vniverse , of the whole World ; it follows , That all Kings and Emperors are his Subjects , and he their Supream Lord and Sovereign , and so , far greater in Power , then any one , or all of them together . And least 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 then the Emperor , as the o Sun is greater then 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 then the Moon ; and so ( by that Computation ) the Pope is 47. times greater then 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 satisfie 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 Correct Editions of their Law ) we are told , That the Sun is greater then the Moon , Quinquagies Septies , 57. times ; and so the Pope so much greater then the Emperor . But this is not all . Laurentius ( a Canonist ) in the same q place , tells us ; That it is evident , that the Sun is 7744 ½ greater then the Moon ; and so the Pope ( omitting the Fraction ) Seaven thousand , seaven hundred , and forty four times greater then 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 Catholick ( who understood Astronomy , and the Magnitude of the Sun , ( much better then the Pope , or his Parasites ) seriously tells us , that the Sun is greater then the Moon . 6539. times . And so by the Popes Logick and Decretal Definition , and the Computation of his best Artists , he must be . 6539. times greater then the Emperor . Monstrous Pride and Ignorance ! which is so far from proving him to be our blessed Saviours Vicar , that it evidently proves him , to be that s 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 Publick Laws and Constitutions , that he is . 6539. times greater then any King or Emperor . So that although St. t Paul , and u Peter too , acknowledged the Emperors Power Supream , and required that all men ( even the Pope if he were a man ) should conscienciously obey them ; though St. Paul x appeal ( not to Peter , but ) to Caesar , as Supream : Though Athanasius say , That there lay no y Appeal from the Emperor , but to God ; and though z 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 call'd God , and have that indelible Character of Antichrist . Q. E. D. 2. And they further say , That this Vniversal 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 Person , ( whose Authority might be question'd ) but many times in their Authentick Roman b Breviary , restored according to the c Decree of the Council of Trent , and revised and publish'd by the Authority and Command of d 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 Authentick Breviary , approved and confirm'd by the Authority of those three Popes before mentioned , ( as appears by their Bull prefix'd to the Edition ) and is now in publick 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 Doway , in his Dedicatory Epistle to Pope Gregory the Thirteenth , calls that Pope e — The Highest Top and Prince of the Catholick Church , The Master of the whole World , and on Earth The Supream 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 mention'd 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 Canon Law tells us , That the Pope is neither God nor Man , but something more then Man. And though this Impious and Blasphemous Gloss was g Censured to be left out , by the Master of the Sacred Pallace . Yet h Clement the Eighth thought otherwise ; and those words are still in the best Edition of the i Canon Law ; only with this Note in the Margent , 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 then Man ; and being in Verse , may have some Poetical Licence allow'd . 2. But another Gloss in plain Prose expresly says , That it is k our Lord God the Pope . For although in some l Old Editions of the Canon Law , it was only Our Lord the Pope ; yet now in the most m Correct Editions of that Law , confirmed by Gregory the Thirteenth , it is ( without any Qualification in the Margent ) 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 That the Rayes of His Divine Majesty did dazle 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 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 That this Last word of God , ( the Popes Definitions and Explications ) is the most approved , and most men do with greater pleasure acquiesce in it . Though this be much , yet not all . For the Pope does not only pretend to , and assume to himself an Universal Monarchy , over all the Kingdoms of the World ; but such an Absolute Power to dispose of them ; that he can ( parte inconsultâ ) give away Kingdoms ( pro Arbitrio ) to whom he pleases . A Memorable , and ( for Papal Pride and Injustice ) a Prodigious Instance we have of this , in Pope Alexander the Sixth , who at one Clap , gave to q Ferdinand and Elizabeth , ( King and Queen of Castile ) and their Heirs for ever , All the West-Indies , from Pole to Pole , and all the Isles about them ( which lay One hundred Leagues Westward from Cape Verd , and the Azores ) with all their Dominions , Cities , Castles , Villages , all the Rights and Jurisdictions belonging to them . And this , he says , he gives , of his own meer Liberality , by Power deriv'd from Peter , and as Vicar of Christ. Then he Excommunicates all of what degree soever , Kings and r Emperors ( by name ) who shall dare to trade into the West-Indies ( given to Ferdinand by him ) without the leave and licence of the said Ferdinand . Here we see , the Pope gives away almost half the World , from the true Owners , Causa incognita , inaudita , indicta ; the Persons and their Quality being utterly unknown to him . If it be said , They were Pagan Idolaters : Grant that . Yet , 1. What they all were , he neither did , nor could know . 2. If they really were such , ( as probably they were ) yet dominium non fundatur in gratiâ ; a Pagan and Idolater may ( jure naturae ) have as just a Temporal Right to his Estate , as a Christian. Caesar was a Pagan in our blessed Saviours time ; and yet he Commands them to s give to Caesar the things which were Caesars . Some things were Caesars in which he had a propriety , and to which he had a right , and his Subjects an Obligation to pay him tribute , and other things t due to him . But I hope this will not be deny'd : For if none , but pious men , and true Christians have any just Right to what they possess , it will ( I fear ) go hard with his Holyness , and he will have no Propriety in St. Peters Patrimony , or any other thing he does possess . And therefore ( if he Impartially consider it ) he may find some reason , if not for Truths sake ( which with him is not always a prevailing Motive ) yet for his own , to be ( in this ) of my opinion : By the Premisses , I hope it may , and does appear , That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is called God , or worshipped ; and so really has the Characteristical Note and Mark of the Beast , that Man of Sin , and is indeed that great Antichrist described and foretold in Scripture . 4. Nor am I singular in this Opinion ; many Excellent Persons ( both for Learning and Piety ) have said as much : and some have given us a Catalogue of their u Testimonies . I shall say nothing of the Fathers ; many of which make Rome Babylon in the Revelation , some of them I have Cited before , and Schardius ( in the Place last Quoted ) has more . Nor shall I say any thing of the poor persecuted Waldenses and Wiclisists , or the Reformed Churches since Luther ; who both believ'd and constantly affirm'd and prov'd the Pope to be Antichrist ; especially the Church of England , as appears , both by her ablest Writers , and her Authentick x Homilies , confirmed by the Kings Supream Authority in Convocations and Parliaments . Omitting all these ( which yet were abundantly sufficient to shew , that I am not singular in this Opinion ) I shall only ( of very many more ) give a few Evident Instances and Testimonies of those who lived and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome . And here 1. The Emperor Frederick the Second , in a Letter to the King of France , complaining of the Prodigious Pride and Tyranny of the Pope , and his Impious Practices to divide the Empire , and ruin him ; he says , That he Indeavour'd to build the y 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 the Elders of Babylon , &c. 2. A faithful Historian ( speaking of Pope Hildebrand , or Gregory the Seaventh , and his Prodigious Tyranny and Impiety ) tells us , a That in those times , Most Men , both Privately and Publickly , curs'd Hildebrand , call'd him Antichrist : that under the Name and Title of Christ , he did the work of Antichrist ; that he sat in Babylon , in the Temple of God ; and ( as if he had been a God ) Exalted himself above all that is worshipped , &c. And much more to the same purpose ; abundantly Testify'd by the Historians of those times , who were neither Lutherans , nor ( by the Roman Church ) then reputed Hereticks . And afterward ( speaking of the same Hildebrand ) we are told — b That he laid the Foundation of the Kingdom of Antichrist One hundred and seaventy years before that time ( when that was said ) under a colour and shew of Religion ; He begun the War with the Emperor , which his Successors continued to that Day , ( till the time of Friderick the Second , and Pope Gregory the Ninth ) where we have many things more , concerning the Prodigious Pride , Impiety , and Tyranny of the Pope , to prove that he was Antichrist . The same Historian also tells us ; That almost All Good , Just , and c Honest Men did in their Writings publish to the World , that the Empire of Antichrist begun about that time , ( the time of Hildebrand he means ) because they Saw those things then come to pass , which were foretold long before . 3. But this is not all . We have further Testimonies of this Truth . 1. Robert Grosthead , who ( both for Learning and Piety ) was Inferior to none in his Age : He ( on his Death-bed ) having spoke of many horrid Enormities of Rome , and loss of Souls by Papal Avarice ; he adds — d Is not such a one deservedly call'd Antichrist ? Is not a Destroyer of Souls ( the Pope he means ) an e 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 Spiritually Sodom and Egypt ) and concludes that the g Church will never be deliver'd from that Egyptian Servitude , but by the Sword. 2. Nor is this all : we have great Councils of whole Nations , in their Publick Edicts and Constitutions , expresly declaring the Pope , to be that Antichrist , who Exalts himself above all that is called God. We have a Publick Edict , published by Ludovicus Bavarus Emperor , and his Counsel ; wherein Pope John the Two and twentieth is call'd h Antichrist , the Disturber of the Peace of Christendom , and the Bishops and Clergy who adhered to him , Messingers 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 joynt 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 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 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 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 Declare , That all who adhere to , and follow the Pope , are Antichristians , and He Antichrist . I know that the Roman n Inquisitors have call'd Aventine , Author damatus , an Author damn'd 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 , That Antichrist is not yet come ; nor will come till towards the end of the World. And o Bellarmin says , That this is the Opinion of Catholicks . 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 Anno Christi , 43. And Simon Magus ( who by Dr. Hammond is supposed to be Antichrist ) died q 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 , then 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 , I shall say a few things : And , 1. For Bellarmine ( who says , That the Catholick Opinion is , That Antichrist is not yet come ) I confess he , and all his Party are highly concern'd to say so . For if Antichrist be Actually come , then the Pope must be that Man of Sin ; He ( and none in the World but he ) having all the Characters and Marks of Antichrist mention'd in Scripture , so plain , that he who runs may read them . 2. Though Bellarmine say , 'T is the Catholick Opinion , that Antichrist is not yet come ; yet it evidently appears ( by the many Authentick 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 , &c. ( says the Historian before Cited ) Most Good Men believed Rome to be Babylon , and the Pope Antichrist . 3. Bellarmine r Cites one , ( and he Bishop of Florence ) whose s Opinion was , That Antichrist was then come , ( almost t Six hundred years ago ) and was severely rebuked for it by Pope Paschal the Second , in a Synod call'd by him at Florence . But Bellarmine might have named Five hundred more , ( which he wisely conceal'd , 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 mention'd ) one signal Testimony more , to shew , That even at Rome it self , it was believ'd , 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 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 believ'd 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 Villain was then Pope , who was a famous ( or rather infamous ) Magician , and obtain'd the Popedom by the help of the Devil , as their own Platina , and Johan . Stella tell us . I know their Writers and the Popes 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 Onuphrius , Papirius z Massonus , and others ; who against Truth , and the Faith of all former Historians , indeavour ( Aethiopen lavare ) to quit Sylvester of all these Crimes , and make him ( what he was not ) an Excellent Person . 2. For a Grotius , who would have Caius Caligula to be Antichrist , and Dr. Hammond , who thinks , that Simon b Magus and his Gnosticks better deserv'd 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 imbraces , or ( when he knows them ) conceals their Errors , wants Charity to himself , and others ; who possibly ( if he had not conceal'd them ) might have avoided those Errors , and gain'd 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 That an Apostacy must first come , and that which hindred 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 appear'd . For this purpose , he tells us , That Paul writ the Epistle , Anno d 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 't is 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 Judgment and Consent of the most Learned Chronologers ( Papists and Protestants ) it was writ at least Seaven or Eight years after Caius was dead . Such , I mean , as the late Lord Primate of Ireland Dr. e Vsher , f Baronius , g Simpson , h A Lapide , i Calvisius , &c. 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 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 consider'd , 1. That it is a received Truth , that Paul was Converted Anno Christi . 34. 2. 'T is certain in the Text , that Paul had been at l 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 went into Arabia , and returned to Damascus ; And then n after three years , he went to Jerusalem ( which was Anno Christ. 37. and o 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 Council of the Apostles there ; which Council was held , Anno Christ. 47. says q Simpson ; Ann. 48. as the r Magdeburgenses think ; Ann. 50. says s Helvicus ; Ann. 51. so t Baronius , u Funccius , x A Lapide , y Bellarmine , &c. Anno Christ. 52. says z 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 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 Antioch ; then through c Syria and Cilicia ; then to d Derbe and Lystra , Circumcised Timothy , and took him along with him . Then he went through e Phrigia , Galatia , and Mysia , and so to Troas . And ( in a Vision ) being call'd to f Macedonia , he went to Neapolis and Philippi : and having pass'd through Amphipolis and Apollonia , he came to g Thessalonica ( the first time he ever was there ; but , as yet , had never writ to them . Thence he went to h Berea , i Athens , and k Corinth ; At Corinth , Aquila and Priscilla ( banish'd 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 testifie , as a very Learned l Historian tells me : And he himself confesses , that Paul came into Greece m 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 Greece , ( as he himself tells us ) so that by the Premisses , 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 pass'd through and preach'd in all those Countries before mention'd , 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 St. Paul tells us ) when he writ his Second Epistle , who yet was come and dead , at least Seaven 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 Thessalonians was writ Anno Christ. 51. which was at least Seaven or Eight years after Caius ( Grotius his Antichrist ) was q dead and gone . So that ( by r 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 expresly 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 reveal'd : 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 Heresie and Prodigious Impiety discovered many years before . For , 1. It is certain , that when Peter and John were sent to s Samaria , they met Simon Magus there ; who though he had been t baptiz'd by Philip the Deacon , was no better for it , and Impiously offer'd u Money to purchase Power to give the Holy Ghost ; Peter ( cursing both x him and his Money ) told him , That he was in the y Gall of Bitterness , and the Bond of Iniquity . 2. Now this was done , in the year of our blessed Saviour z 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 Baronius and b 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 then himself ) and by his Magick and Diabolical Arts seduced many Samaritans and Jews , and made them believe that he was the Son of God , &c. 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 Magick and Malice he had , he publickly seduc'd 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 That after he was baptiz'd , 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 deny'd that , Soon after he set up , and opposed himself against Christ , and accordingly is here call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Adversary , &c. 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 't is certain , that his meeting the Apostles at Samaria , was Anno d 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 Doctor tells us , out of f 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 confess'd him to be the first and principal God , and worshipped him with all sorts of Sacrifices , &c. These are his words ; by which it is Evident ( in the Doctors 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 Hierome 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 Christ. 43. which was at least Seaven 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 reveal'd , when that Epistle was writ ; whereas Simon was both come and reveal'd 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 Supream Power and Authority , ( as our i Adversaries confess ) and should make war with , and persecute the Servants of Christ , and ( as to killing the Body ) overcome k them , till he was drunk l ●ith the Blood of the Saints . This neither Caius nor Simon Magus did . Caius ( though he had a Supream Power ) was no persecutor of Christians ; much less so far , as to be drunk with their Blood. Nero m was the first Roman Emperor who persecuted Christians ; three and twenty years after Caius n 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 my self , 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 mention'd 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 expresly , that when he writ that Epistle , the Man of Sin , and Son of Perdition was not come and reveal'd . And yet that Epistle being writ ( as Dr. Hammond Confesseth ) Anno Christ. 51. Caius was both come and dead at least Seaven 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 reveal'd 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 reveal'd ) 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 men giving heed to seducing spirits , speaking lies in Hypocrisie , forbidding to marry , and commanding to abstain from meats , which God had created to be received , &c. Where I observe , 1. That in the former place , ( but now p spoken of ) he told the Thessalonians , that an Apostasie must precede the coming of Antichrist ; and he tells us , what kind of Apostasie it must be ; q 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 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 ) then it is for him to commit Fornication , and keep a Concubine . Nay they say , that a Priests marriage is s Incestuous , Sacrilegious , and worse then All Adulteries . Nor is this Abominable Doctrine , the Opinion of any private Doctor only , but is approved as Orthodox , by t several Vniversities . So that in both these [ forbidding to marry , and commanding to abstain from meats ] what God in his Word expresly 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 Apostasie and Antichrist which followed , is not of things past or then in being , but of things to come afterwards . For he expresly says — u That in the Latter Times some should depart from the Faith , &c. Neithe Apostasie nor Antichrist were then come ; but afterwards , in the Latter times , should come . 4. Now he writ this Epistle , as some x think , Anno Christ. 54. or as some y others ( and they far more ) Ann. 57. or ( as the most Exact z Chronologer ) Anno Christ. 65. Now let my Adversaries chuse 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 Premisses , 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 Heresie and Impieties revealed ( as Dr. Hammond grants and proves ) long before that time . 3. After a 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 times ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the last times ; so that if St. Paul say true , that great Apostasie ( which was to c preceed the coming of Antichrist , was not come when he writ that Epistle , which was ( as the Learned Primate of Ireland Dr. Vsher 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 Villanies revealed long before . 4. St. Peter writ his Second Epistle a little before his Martyrdom ; for so he himself says — d Knowing that I must shortly put off this Tabernacle , ( or that my death hastens ) now an Exact e Chronologer tells me ( and proves ) that he died Ann. 67. and writ this f Epistle Anno Christ. 66. I do know that some g say he writ it Anno Christ. 67. and Baronius says h he writ it Anno 69. But , 2. which of those years soever it was writ in , the great Apostasie ( which preceeded the coming of Antichrist ) was future and afterwards to come . So he himself tell us , i But there were false Prophets among the People , even so ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) there shall be false Teachers among you , who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies , &c. These false Prophets and the great Apostasie were ( when he writ that Epistle ) future and to come . And therefore 't is 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 publickly reveal'd and known , as is afore prov'd , even by Dr. Hammond himself . 5. In the Revelation , St. John does more fully describe Antichrist ; That k he rose out of the Sea , with seaven Heads and ten Horns , and on his Horns ten Crowns , &c. That he should make War l with the Saints , overcome them , and be drunk with their blood ; That his Seat should be m Rome , mystically , or n spiritually call'd Egypt , Sodom , and Babylon ; That ten o 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 him , and burn and utterly destroy q 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 confess'd . 2. And it is as certain , and generally agreed upon , that he writ the Revelation in r Patmos ( whither he was banish'd by s Domitian ) Anno t Christ. 97. The Premisses being granted , ( as they ought and must ; being built upon better Authority , then 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 Antichrist . Caius being dead four and fifty , and Simon x 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 Hammond indeavours 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. Johns 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 ; who in that particular is miserably mistaken , ( as he is in many more ) as is a confess'd and prov'd by Learned men , and they such , who have a due Reverence for the Fathers , and particularly for Epiphanius . 2. That St. John should be banish'd , and write the Revelation under Claudius , ( which only Dr. Hammond and c 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 , Hierome , and Orosius ( before Cited ) Johan . d Malela Antiochenus , e Haymo , f Arethas , Ado g Viennensis ( and many more ) constantly say ; That John was banish'd 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 confess'd it ; For it is certain from the Text , that Antipas had suffer'd Martyrdom , before John writ the Revelation ; John himself telling us h so , Thou hast not deny'd my faith , when Antipas my faithful Martyr was slain among you . So that 't is Evident , Antipas had suffer'd Martyrdom before John writ his Revelation . Now Antipas suffer'd , and was slain by Domitian , in the Second Persecution of the Christians , which was Anno Domitiani . 10. Christi . 92. So the Old Roman i Martyrology , and k Baronius assures us ; and Dr. l Hammond confesses it , That Antipas suffer'd 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 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 ; 't is 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 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 , &c. Here two things ( I conceive ) are Evident ; 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , nunc , when St. John writ this Epistle ; there were many Antichrists ; that is , many o false Prophets and Hereticks forerunners of Antichrist , who made way for him . 2. And that the great Antichrist , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to p 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 . 'T is true , that when St. John says q 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 personally , but in respect to his Forerunners ( false Prophets and Hereticks ) 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 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 future ; Veniet Antichristus , Antichrist will come . 2. He says , that amongst those many Antichrists St. John here speaks of , there shall be one u more Eminent , which he says was Barcochebas , who appeared not ( he says ) till the Emperor Adrian ' s time ( which was x long after St. John writ this Epistle ) . And he further says , ( in Confirmation of what is aforesaid ) y That the false Christs , Hereticks , and false Prophets , ( which John calls Antichrists ) do make way for that Great and Eminent Antichrist . I take it then for certain , ( and confess'd 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 , then 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 't is a common and received Opinion amongst Learned men , that St. John writ this Epistle Anno z Christ. 99. or at least after a 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 ) then Grotius his Antichrist ( the Emperor Caius Caligula , who died Ann Christ. 42. was dead seaven and fifty years before John writ this Epistle ; and therefore seaven 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 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 Grotius , and Dr. d 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 ) indeavour 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 , f Eusebius , g Jac. Vsserius Armachanus , h Baronius , &c. 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 Premisses ( 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 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 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 affirm'd , that Caligula , or Simon Magus was Antichrist : The two Learned Persons ( before mention'd ) are the first , and they Contradict each other , themselves , the received Opinion of the Christian World , and gratifie Rome ; whilst they indeavour ( 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 , then ( unless you will have two or three such Antichrists ) The Pope is secure , and ( wrong'd by those who call him so ) miscall'd 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 easie 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 , then Dr. Hammonds for Simon Magus are Inconsequent ; and if Dr. Hammonds be Good , those of Grotius are not . Whence 't is 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 indeavor 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 then 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 , &c. ) 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 , &c. Ergo , Titius is Sempronius . The Reasons those Learned men bring to prove their several Antichrists , prove no more then 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 of Porphyrie , 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 indeavour 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. The Pope in this his Impious and Lying Bull , declares the Queen to be ( what he really was , and she was not ) a m Slave of Sin , a n Heretick , and a favourer of Hereticks : And then ( with a prodigious Antichristian Pride and Impiety ) pronounceth his Penal Sentence against her , of Damnation , Excommunication , Deprivation , &c. And here it is further to be observed ; 1. What this Papal Power is ( and whence he has it ) which he pretends to inable and authorize him , to sit Judge and pass such Damnatory Sentences against Princes and Supream Powers , for Heresie . 2. What that Heresie is , and who the Hereticks , who ( by the Pope ) are so severely damn'd for it . 3. What those punishments are , which they pretend they may , and actually do Inflict upon such Hereticks . 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 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 , &c. 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 against Hereticks and Schismaticks and their Favourers , expresses his power to damn them , thus — q The Pope of Rome here in Earth is Vicar , or Vice-Roy 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 asham'd to pretend to , and usurp such an Antichristian Power ( for none but r Antichrist ever pretended to it ) . This Bull of Pope Paul the Fourth is referr'd into the s Body of their Canon Law ( almost One hundred years ago ) dedicated to Cardinal Cajetan ; and lately publish'd t 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 indeavoured to prove before ; & sic transeat cum caeteris erroribus . 2. As to the second point ; What is Heresie , and who is the Heretick , who is to be persecuted with such fearful Damnations and Excommunications ? I say in short , 1. That it is agreed amongst their u Casuists , and x Canonists , That Heresie is an Error against that Faith which they ought to believe , joyned with pertinacy ; or it is a pertinacious Error in Points of Faith ; and he who so holds such an Opinion , is an Heretick . 2. And he is pertinacious , they say , who holds such an y Opinion , which he does , or might , and ought to know to be against Scripture , or the Church . By the way ; I desire to be inform'd , how it is possible for their Lay-people and unlearned , to know ( with any certainty , or assurance ) what Truths are approved , or Errors damn'd in Scripture ; when they are z prohibited ( under pain of Excommunication ) ever to read , or have Scripture in any Tongue they understand ? Nor are Bibles only , in any Vulgar Tongue prohibited ; but all Books of Controversie between Protestants and Papists , in any Vulgar Tongue , are a equally prohibited . So that they are absolutely deprived of the principal means to know Truth and Error , what Doctrines are Evangelical , what Heretical . 3. And although they are pleased sometimes to mention Scripture in the Definition of Heresie ; yet 't is not really by them meant . For ( by their receiv'd Principles ) a man may hold a hundred Errors , which he Does , or Might and Ought to know to be against Scripture and the Articles of Faith , and yet be no Heretick . For thus Cardinal Tolet tells us — b Many Rusticks or Country Clowns , having Errors against the Articles of Faith , are excused from Heresie ; because they are Ignorant of those Articles , and are ready to Obey The Church . And a little before — c If any man err in those things he is bound to know ; yet so , as it is without pertinacy , because he Knows it not to be against The Church , and is ready to believe as the Church believes , he is no Heretick . So that ( by their Principles ) let a man believe as many things as he will , contrary to Scripture ; yet if he have the Colliers faith , and implicitly believe , as the Church believes , all is well ; he is ( by them ) esteemed no Heretick . 4. And hence it is , that they have of late , left the word d Scripture out of their definition of Heresie ; and they only pass for Hereticks at Rome , ( not who hold Opinions contrary to Scripture , but ) who receive not , or contradict what is believed to be de fide , by the Pope and his Party . And therefore they plainly tell us ; That None can be an Heretick , who believes that Article of our Creed , The Holy Catholick Church ( you may be sure they mean their own Popish Church , not only without , but against all reason ) For so their e Trent-Catechism tells us ; not only in the Text , but ( least we should not take notice of it ) in the Margent too ; where they say , Verus . 9. Articuli Professor ( that is , he who will believe what their Church believes ) Nequit dici Haereticus . That is , he who believes the Church of Rome , to be the Catholick Church in the Creed , and that Church Infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost , he shall not ( we may be sure ) be call'd an Heretick at Rome . Nay , so far are they in Love with their most irrational Hypothesis ; That to believe as the Church believes , excuses their Laicks and the Vnlearned from Heresie ; that they expresly say , That such men may in some Cases , ( not only Lawfully , but Meritoriously ) believe an Error contrary to Scripture , which ( in another more knowing Person , would be a real and formal Heresie . The Case is this , ( as Cardinal Tolet and Robert Holkott propose it , f If a Rustick or Ignorant Person , concerning Articles of Faith , do believe his Bishop proposing some Heretical Opinion , he does Merit by believing , although it be an Heretical Error ; because he is Bound to believe , till it appear to him to be against The Church . So that in the mean time he is no Heretick . For , 1. He may lawfully do it . 2 He is Bound to do it , to believe his Bishop , and the Doctrines proposed by him . 3. Nay , it is a Meritorious action to believe such Heretical Errors , though it be contrary to Scripture and the word of our gracious God. This is strange Doctrine , yet publickly maintain'd by g their Casuists and Schoolmen , and approved by their Church . For I do not find it Condemn'd in any Index Expurgatorius , nor ( in any publick declaration ) disown'd by their Church ; & quae non prohibet peccare , aut errare cum possit , Jubet . And here , in relation to the Premisses , I shall further propose two things , and leave them to the Judgment of the Impartial Reader . 1. That seeing it is their Received Doctrine , that an Implicite Faith in their Church , and a profession and resolution to believe as she believes , is enough to free a Papist from Heresie , and the punishment of it : though otherwise ( through Ignorance ) he hold some heretical Errors , contrary to what his Church believes : why may not a Protestants Implicite Faith in Scripture , with a Profession and Resolution to believe every thing in it , as it comes to his knowledge ; free him from Heresie and the punishment of it ; though otherwise ( in the mean time ) he may believe some things contrary to Scripture ? Certainly , if an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by the Pope and his Party , ( for they are the Roman Church ) with a resolution to believe them all , when they come to their knowledge , be sufficient to free a Papist from Heresie and the Punishment of it ; much more , will an Implicite Faith in the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour , and his Apostles in Scripture , with a Resolution to believe them all , when they really come to their knowledge , be sufficient to free a Protestant from Heresie and the punishment of it . Because the Doctrines taught by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles are Divine , and in such a measure and degree Infallible , as the Doctrines taught by the Pope , and his Party , ( without great Error and Impudence ) cannot pretend to . 2. Seeing it is their Received Doctrine ( as may appear by the Premisses ) that if any Bishop preach to his People , ( the Laity and Unlearned Rusticks ) some Heretical Doctrine , they are bound to believe it , and may not only Lawfully , but Meritoriously do so , till it appear that their Church is against it . Hence it evidently follows ; That if the Bishop preach'd this Doctrine , That 't is lawful to kill an Heretical King , who is actually Anathematiz'd , and Deposed by the Pope ; they were bound to believe it , and might lawfully and meritoriously do so ; and then , if it was meritorious to believe such a Doctrine , then to put it in Execution , and actually kill such a King , could not be unlawful and vitious . So that we need not wonder , that those prodigious Popish Villains who were hired to Assassinate our Gracious King in the late Conspiracy , undertook such an Impious Imployment , since besides great store of Gold given to incourage them , their Religion and Learned Casuists afforded them such Principles ( which they were bound to believe ) to warrant and justifie their Villany , so that without scruple of Conscience they might do it . In short , they are Hereticks whom the Pope and his Party are pleased to call so ; for ( by their h Law and Canons ) they are sole Judges of the Crime ( what Heresie is , ) and the punishment due to it . 'T is true , when they have passed Sentence upon any Heretick , 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 Hypocrisie , 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 Sir , We passionately desire you , that for The Love of God , and in reguard 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 Effectually and from his Heart . But notwithstanding all this seeming Piety and Tenderness , when they have Sentenced an Heretick to death ; they expect and require the Magistrate to Execute that Sentence , within l 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 Compel All Magistrates to Execute their Sentence , ( be it what it will ) . And Pope Innocent the Eighth says , they must neither Examine n 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 expresly says — o That All Catholick Princes are to be Compelled to observe All the Sanctions and Constitutions declaring their Ecclesiastical Immunities , amongst which this of punishing Hereticks is not the least , &c. By the Premisses ( I believe ) it may appear , that the Hypocrisie of the Popish Church is inexcusable , when she takes God's Name in vain , and prays the Civil Magistrate , For the Love of God , &c. 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 , 't is not only the Bishop who so intercedes to the Civil Magistrate , but the Church of Rome her self , 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 Condemn'd Person is delivered to the Secular p Judge , The Church must effectually interceed , that he moderate the Sentence so , ( which she knows he neither dare , nor by their Law can do ) that the Condemn'd Person may be in no danger of death . I know that q Roffensis , ( & other of the Popish Party ) do endeavour , with many little shifts , to palliate the Hypocrisie of their Church , but in vain . For Omnia cum fecit , Thaida , Thais olet . Sure I am , that r Aquinas ( Bannes s and others who Comment on that part of Aquinas ) tells us , That the Condemn'd Heretick is deliver'd 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 Canonist ( Hostiensis ) says expresly , what I have done ; that this Intercession of their Church to the Secular Magistrate , in behalf of the Condemned Heretick , is , ( in the Common Opinion ) barely a Colour , and verbal u 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 Premisses , I think it evident , that the Church of Rome , in this her Intercession to the Secular Power , does ( with strange Hypocrasie ) seem earnestly to desire that of the Magistrate , which she knows he dare not do ; nay , which she herself , by her publick Laws , has Commanded him not to do . How she will Answer God ( who Infallibly knows all her Hypocrisie ) or her Adversaries , objecting it , I know not ; ipsa viderit . In short ; it is x confess'd , that all those who will not be Inslaved to Rome , and believe as she believes , in every thing , are Hereticks ; and not only so , but damn'd , and while they continue so , and do not intirely believe their New-Trent-Creed , they are out of all Possibility of Salvation . So their y 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 Constitutions of that Council ) requires all their Ecclesiasticks , to promise , vow , and swear to believe and maintain it to their death . For in the end of that Creed , the words are — a This is the Catholick Faith , out of which no man can be saved . And then , they must b promise , swear , and vow to believe and profess it , most constantly as long as they live . So that although mens lives be exemplary and innocent , their Doctrines which they believe , Ancient and Catholick , yet if they dissent from Rome in any one thing , ( and that too upon just grounds and evident reason ) yet they shall be call'd , and used as Hereticks . 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 , a Dominican Frier , 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 then 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 None was so pernicious to The Church of Rome , as the Leonists , or Waldenses : and that for three Reasons . 1 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 For the Generality of that Sect ; because there was Scarce any Country where they were not . 3 When all other Hereticks ( by reason of their Blasphemies against God ) were abborr'd by those who heard them : The Waldenses had A Great Appearance of Piety ; because they Lived Justly Before Men ; Believ'd All Things well of God , and All the Articles of the Creed . ( The Twelve Articles of their New Trent Creed , were neither then believ'd , nor known , no not at Rome ) . Well , if all this be true , ( and it is their Enemy , who gives them this ample Testimony ) what was it , that made this Sect of all others the most pernicious to the Church of Rome ? Certainly , the Antiquity or generality of this Sect , the Piety of their Lives , their believing all things well of God , and all the Articles of the Creed ; none of these could be ●ernicious to any Truth , or any True Church . What was it then ? Why , he tells us , in the next words , that it was e only this ; They Blasphemed , ( or spake ill of ) the Church and Clergy of Rome ; And ( as he Confesses ) The Multitude of the Laity easily believed them : which is an evident Argument , that it was neither incredible nor altogether improbable , which the Multitude of the Laiety so easily believed . Two things indeed those poor persecuted Waldenses said , which were very true , and most pernicious to the Church of Rome ; ( for nothing is more pernicious to darkness and error then light and truth ) 1. They said , That the f Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon in the Revelation . 2. That the Pope was the g Head of all the Errors in that Antichristian Church . And on this Account it was , that the Church of Rome did call those poor Waldenses Hereticks , and as such , did ( with Fire and Sword and the utmost Cruelty ) persecute them . For ( as is aforesaid ) he is an Heretick at Rome who contradicts or disbelieves the h Canons and Constitutions of that Church ; although he do not really disbelieve any Divine Truth contain'd in the Canon of Scripture . Now as it was with the poor Waldenses ; so we are sure , it has been , is , and will be with all Protestants ( Princes and People , Supream or Subjects ) they are ( at Rome ) declared Hereticks , and liable to all the Punishments of that , which they are pleas'd to call Heresie ; and ( when they have opportunity and ability ) those Punishments will certainly be Inflicted , without any Pity or Mercy . And this brings me to the third Inquiry , What those Punishments are ? And here , because the Punishments of Heresie are very many , and very great , it is neither my present business nor purpose , particularly to set them all down , and explain them ; Only I shall ( in favour to the Ordinary Reader , for to the Learned they are better known ) name some Authors , where he may find a Distinct and full Explication of the Nature of Heresie ( according to the Popish Principles ) and the Number of its Punishments . And here , 1. The Gloss of their Canon Law reduces the Punishments of Hereticks to Four Heads , in the General : Hereticks ( says the i Glossator ) are to be punished either , 1. By Excommunication . 2. Deposition . 3. Loss of all their Goods . 4. By Military Persecution : that is , by Fire and Sword , by War and armed Souldiers . This is k approved by several of their Learned Writers . 2. For the Body of the Canon Law , ( to pass by Gratian and his Decretum ) those who have a mind and leasure , may consult the Titles De Haereticis , which occur in the l Decretals of Greg. 9. of m Bonis . 8. in the n Clementines , Extravagantes o Communes ( and in the lately added p Seaventh Book of the Decretals ) with the Glosses , and Panormitan's large Comment upon them . 3. For the Punishment of Hereticks by the Civil Laws ; they who have a mind to know , may consult Justinians Code . Lib. 1. Tit. 5. De Haereticis & Manichaeis , with the Gloss there . And especially the Theodosian Code , Lib. 16. Tit. 5. De Haereticis , Manichaeis & Samaritanis , with the Larger and most Learned Notes of Jacobus Gothofredus ; in the Edition of the Codex Theodosianus at Lions , 1665. Tom. 6. pag. 104. To these may be added the Severe Laws of the Emperor q Friderick the Second , made in pursuance of the r Lateran Council , and ( though he had little reason for it ) to gratifie the Pope in his barbarous designs to ruin all those he call'd ( generally miscall'd ) Hereticks : which Laws ( as we may be sure they would ) the s Pope and his Party did highly approve . And have referr'd them into the Body of their Canon Law. 7. Decretalium . Lib. 5. Tit. 3. Capp . 1. 2. In Edit . Corporis Juris Can. Lugduni , Anno 1661. 4. And for a full and particular Explication of those Laws , and the Quality of the Punishments of Hereticks Inflicted by them , their Casuists and Canonists may be consulted : Amongst many others , such as these ; t Filliucius , u Durantus , x Antonius Archiepiscopus Florentinus , y Azorius , Paul z Layman , a Raynerius , Johan de b Turrecremata , Cardinal c Hostiensis , and Antonius Augustinus Archiepiscopus Terraconensis ( a most Learned Canonist , and a very useful Book ) has given us a Catalogue of their d Canons De poenis quae sunt Hoereticis Constitutae . In short , whoever has a mind , opportunity and ability to Consult the aforemention'd Authors , ( or such others ) may easily find the Number and Nature of those Punishments , which ( by their Impious Papal Canons and Constitutions ) are to be Inflicted on those ( better Christians then themselves ) they are pleased to call Hereticks . 10. Concerning this Impious Bull , containing the Damnation ( as he calls it ) and Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth , by Pope Pius the Fifth ; it is further to be observed , That it is no new thing . For Queen Elizabeth was actually Excommunicate before , 1. In their famous e Bulla Coenae Domini ( take famous in which sense you will , the worst is good enough ) wherein they do ( at Rome ) Anathematize and f Curse all Protestants ( both Kings and Subjects , Princes and Common People ) It is called Bulla Coenae Domini , because it is published every year on Maundy Thursday , the Day in which our blessed Saviour Instituted ( Coenam Domini ) the Sacrament of his last Supper . And here , ( by the way ) we may observe the difference between Christ , and ( his pretended Vicar ) Antichrist . 1. On that Day our blessed Saviour Institutes that Sacrament , as a blessing and seal of the mutual Love between him and his Church , and of the Communion and Charity of Christians amongst themselves ; but the Pope ( far otherwise and unlike him , whose Vicar he pretends to be ) on the very same Day , ( without and against Christian Charity ) Anathematizes and Curses the greatest part of Christians . 2. Our blessed Saviour was that Day ready to Dye for the Salvation of Sinners ; but his pretended Vicar is ready , ( on the same Day ) and ( so far as he is able ) does actually Damn the greatest part of the Christian World , and has been drunk with the blood of the Saints . 3. Nor did Queen Elizabeth stand Accursed ( before Pius the Fifth's Excommunication of her ) only in that Bulla Coenae , but in several other Papal Bulls . I shall only name one ; and ( because it is of signal Consequence , and to our present purpose ) give some short Account of the Contents of it . The Bull I mean , is that of Pope g Paul the Fourth , next Predecessor , ( save one ) to Pius the Fifth , and is h 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 Mature deliberation , by the Counsel and unanimous Consent of himself and the Cardinals . 2. And it is further k 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 referr'd into the Body of their l Canon Law. Now in this Bull of Pope Paul the Fourth , thus confirm'd , approved , and received into the Body of their Law ; 1. He does m Approve , Innovate , and Confirm All the Censures and Punishments due to Hereticks and Schismaticks , 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 declares ( with as little Charity as Infallibility ) that All Hereticks which are , or For the Future shall be , do Incurr All these Censures and Punishments , and 't is 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 Hereticks ; he does seaven or eight times expresly name Counts , Barons , Marquesses , Dukes , Kings and Emperors : And further says ; That as Heresie 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 perpetually and for ever Obligatory , he actually and totally p Deprives them of their Counties , Baronies , Marquisats , Dukedoms , Kingdoms and Empires , and leaves them to the Secular Power , to q 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 Incapacity and Perpetual Inability of being restored to their Honours or Possessions ; No , not if they seriously and truly repent , and become good Catholicks . For in that case of their true Repentance and forsaking their Heresie , they shall save their Lives ; yet they must be s Cast into Perpetual Prison , and there be fed with Bread of Sorrow , and Water of Sadness , and to have no Comfort or Humanity shew'd them by any , no not by Kings or Emperors . And though this be the height of Impious and Antichristian Tyranny , yet t it must be Imputed ( as he tells us ) to the Popes Clemency and Benignity . By the Premisses 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 Anathema's of former Popes , ( which they Declared and Commanded to be in force against all Hereticks 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 't is certain , the Pope has not that Supream 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 Hereticks , Excommunicate , and ( as their Phrase is ) cut u off from the Vnity of the Body of Christ , and Eternally damned : If this be not Effectually done , then all those Bulls are Bruta Fulmina , Inefficacious , Null and Insignificant . But if those Anathema's 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 ) then 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 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 Popes meaning , they have added a Marginal Note to that Bull in the Roman Edition , which tells us ; y 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 Premisses , I think it may be , and is Evident , that Queen Elizabeth ( by most Papal Bulls and Constitutions ) stood Actually Excommunicate and Depos'd before this Bull of Pius the Fifth . Sure I am , the Popish Party never own'd her as their lawful Sovereign , but call'd her an Usurper of the Crown , to which ( as a Declared and Excommunicate Heretick ) 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 Pretended Queen ; and of her a Pretended right to the Crown . And hence we may with Reason and good Logick 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 , baptiz'd and always bred in the Protestant Church and Religion ) or deprive her of those Dignities and Dominions , which ( according to their own b Principles ) she never had any right to , nor ever could have any ; being ( by their Law , and many Papal Anathema's and Decretals ) utterly disabled , and made incapable of any such Dominions or Dignities . 11. It is evident that the Pope in this Impious Bull , does ( by his usurp'd 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 Villanous Raviliac , or through pac'd Papist had kill'd , or with Poyson or Pistol had taken away her Life , ( as they often Indeavor'd ) it had been no Treason . For all know , that Treason is Crimen c 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 Heretick , 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 Poyson or Pistols , taken away her life ( as they Intended , and often Indeavor'd , 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 Heretick ; 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 murder'd 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 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 expresly tells us , in a Book ( not surreptitiously sent into the World , but ) publish'd with his e Name to it , Dedicated to the Virgin f Mary , approved , highly Commended , and Licenc'd by g Publick 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 Condemn'd in any of their Indices Expurgatorij ( neither in the h Spanish Index , nor that of i Portugal , nor that of Pope k Alexander the Seaventh at Rome , &c. 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 Portugal Index , ( in which both the Author and his Aphorisms are expresly nam'd ) censures only two Propositions ( one about Pennance , the other about Extream Vnction ) which the Inquisitors ( the Supream m 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 Clergy-men 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 expresly , permits , and approves ( for we may be sure they will not permit what they do not approve ) all Editions of those n 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 Authentick Expurgatory Indices , wherein this Proposition — ( Priests Are By The Law of God Subject to Princes ) is damn'd as Erroneous and Heretical , both in the o Spanish Index , and that of p Portugal . For the Inquisitors finding it in the q 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 Expung'd , 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 publickly say , and Indeavour to prove , That Priests Are not Subject to Princes . Nay , r Cardinal Cajetan expresly says , That the Clergy are so Sacred , that 't is Impossible they should be Subject to Princes . When he says , It is impossible , his meaning is , that 't is ( 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 ) Sacriledge ; and therefore Impossible : Because , according to the Rule of Law , Illud solum Possumus quod Jure Possumus . So we have that great Roman Cardinal expresly 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 afterwards , Emanuel Sa's Aphorisms ( wherein the same Doctrine was maintained ) were publish'd , as a t 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 Rome : 2. And then passes a just Censure upon them — x That such Doctrine was the Plague and Ruin of Commonwealths : Royal and Supream 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 Judgment and Integrity , and a Roman Catholick , ( I mean Father y 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 Popes Cause , and they z 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 Popes 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 Ecclesiasticks were not Comprehended in the number of A Princes Subjects , nor could be Punished By him , though they were Rebels . A hundred such Passages ( out of their School-men , Canonists , Casuists , ( especially the Jesuites ) 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 publickly and expresly maintain this Rebellious Doctrine , and ( when it makes for their Catholick 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 , then 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 Catholick ; yet if any of his Ecclesiasticks ( 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 kill'd the Queen , after the Pope had Deposed her , as a Heretick ; 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 kill'd 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 That they are no Murderers , who ( out of Zeal to the Church ) take Arms against Excommunicate Persons . So the Title prefix'd to the Canon cited in the Margent ; and the Text of the Canon says further ; Those Souldiers so armed , c Are not Murderers , if out of a burning Zeal to their Catholick Mother ( the Church of Rome he means ) they Kill any of such Excommunicate Hereticks : Thus the Case is deliberately determin'd by their Supream Infallible Judge , Pope Vrban the Second , a little before the d end of the Eleventh Century ; and about Twenty years after ( by Ivo Carnotensis ) referred into a e Collection of the Roman Canons : And Gratian ( about Forty years after Ivo ) Registers it in his Decretum , which Pope f Gregory the Thirteenth approves and confirms for Law ; and so it stands confirm'd , and received for Law , g 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 the Devil was let loose , and Antichrist appeared ) above Six hundred years . I know that honest Father i Caron ( not so disloyal as most of his Party ) indeavours to mollifie this Rebellious Constitution of Pope Vrban the Second ; and tells us , that the meaning of that Canon is only this k — That if any man by Chance and Casually had kill'd an Excommunicated Person , ( si contigerit trucidasse ) then he was not A Formal Murderer : So Pope Urban ' s Sentence was not to l Excuse those from Murder , who Intended , and directly Purposed to kill Hereticks and Excommunicate Persons . For ( says he ) this were to m Overthrow all Truth and Fidelity to Princes . The good man was ( God forgive him ) a Roman Catholick , and believed ( though . Erroneously ) that the Supream 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 kill'd , because they were Hereticks or Excommunicate Persons : which he there truly calls — n 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 Caron has said to the contrary ) I absolutely deny . Sure I am , 1. That Cardinal Bellarmine ( as is confessed by Father Caron in the place cited ) expounds that Canon as I have done . 2. So does o Cardinal Turrecremato too ; who says , That Excommunicate Hereticks may be kill'd , not only Casually ( as Father Caron mistakes the Text ) but with an p Intention and Purpose to kill them ; and yet they who intend 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 Hereticks they kill , but it must be Zelo Matris Ecclesiae , to secure the Church from the Mischievous Designs of those Hereticks . So that in the Opinion of this great Cardinal , and Canonist , ( who well knew the opinions and practise of their Church ) killing of Hereticks 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 expresly q affirm , That all Tyrants by Vsurpation , may lawfully be kill'd ; and such was Queen Elizabeth , and all Protestant Kings and Princes now are , ( in the Judgment 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 medling 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 kill'd , and therefore the killing 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 Hereticks ) 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 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 Subscribed the Negative ; That the Pope could not Depose or Kill such Protestants . But when this was heard at t Rome , the Pope and his Sacred Congregation ( as they call it ) Condemned that Negative Proposition , as Heretical , and Summon'd the Subscribers to Rome , where Prisons and Censures ( as Father Caron tells us ) were prepared for them . Whence it is Evident , that to deny the Popes 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 Catholick Creed , and believ'd 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 Catholick Cause ) Murderers . 5. When Raymundus u Lullus ( a x man famous in his time and after it ) had said , and in his Writings published , That it was y unlawful and impious to kill and murder Hereticks ; ( for he had seen and heard , of the bloody Persecutions of the Waldenses , and such as at Rome were call'd Hereticks , 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 Council of his Cardinals ) damns the Doctrine of Raymundus Lullus ; and declares for the Lawfulness and Justice of Killing Hereticks . 6. And Lastly , Pope Leo the Tenth in his Oecumenical ( so they call it ) Lateran Council ( Sacro approbante Concilio ) with the Consent and Approbation of that Council ) declares ; That our blessed Saviour a 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 nam'd 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 deduc'd . Nor have the Publishers of that Lateran and other Councils ( Peter Crab , Surius , Binius , Labbe , &c. supply'd that defect , and told us , what place Pope Leo meant , and from which he , or they could prove the Popes Power to kill all who comply'd not with his Commands . I know that b Crab , c Surius , and d Binius ( though Labbe has omitted it , as Impertinent ) have , in their Editions of the Councils , cited in their Margents , 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 Popes purpose . ) But they name not the Verse ; though ( I believe ) it is the Twelfth Verse of that Seaventeenth Chapter they mean. Where 't is said , That he who will not hearken to the Priest or Judge , That Man shall Dye . This ( I say ) is altogether impertinent , as to the proof of the Popes Position . For admit ( which is e manifestly untrue ) that by Priest here , the High Priest only was meant : yet it will neither be consequence nor sense to say , Whosoever disobey'd 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 Augustin expresly tells us , and to him I refer the Reader . By the Premisses , I think it may appear , that , if ( after the Popes Damnation and Deposition of Queen Elizabeth ) any of her Popish Subjects , ( Laity or Clergy , Regular or Secular ) had by taking Arms publickly , or by Poyson 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 Elizabeths Subjects ( after the Popes Excommunication ) kill'd 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 Colledge of Rhemes , Giffard , Dr. of Divinity , Gilbert Giffard and Hodgson , Priests , had so possess'd 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 Cambden ( an Historian of unquestionable truth and fidelity ) After h this , Walpoole , the English Jesuite , perswades Edward Squire , that it was a Meritorious Act to take away the Queen ; tells him , it might easily be done , by Poysoning the Pomel of her Sadle ; gives him the Poyson ; Squire undertakes it , Walpoole blesseth him , and promises him Eternal Salvation , and so ( having sworn him to Secresie ) sends him into England : where ( notwithstanding all the Jesuits blessings ) he was taken , confess'd all this , and was Executed in the year . 1598. And Camdben i 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 desir'd 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 shews , that they thought killing the Queen , ( for the benefit of their Catholick 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 Infallible and Supream Judges ) publickly declared , and ( that we may be sure they are obligatory at Rome ) amongst other Papal Decrees referr'd into the Body of their Canon Law , k confirm'd 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 Dei Praecepta . Now the Papal Sentences or Decrees I mean , are 1. That of Pope m 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 explains it ) against the Hereticks , Heaven o should not be deny'd them : They should be sure of that . But the Lemma or Summary prefix'd to the Canon p says , That those Souldiers who faithfully fought against the Hereticks , if any one of them were slain in the sight , He should merit Heaven . Murdering Hereticks , was ( in the Popes Opinion ) a meritorious Work , and if the Souldiers 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 Leo ( to the same purpose , and almost in the same words ) Incourages a French Army to r 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 affraid , to kill Hereticks and the Churches 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 Souldiers might fear ( as there was great reason they should ) that the Persecuting those poor Christians , whom the Pope call'd Hereticks , with Fire and Sword , might rather deserve punishment then a Heavenly Reward ; John Semeca ( the Glossator ) tells us , That the Popes meaning was , f that ( being secured from Punishment ) Heaven should be their Reward . These , and such other Principles , must ( of necessity ) be a great Incouragement 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 Popes Damnatory Bulls and Excommunications , and kill all Hereticks ( 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 killing Hereticks . For , 5. The Pope ( out of his great Ability and Bounty ) promises such Impious and Bloody Murderers of Hereticks , not Heaven only , but a higher Degree of Glory in it , and many other great Priviledges , to be injoy'd 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 fourth Lateran is the Council I mean ; in which u there were , above Twelve hundred Fathers . By the Authority of this x Council , an Army was to be raised for the y Destruction of Hereticks ( the poor Wabdenses ) and they were to have the sume z Priviledges which were granted to those who fought against the Turks to recover the Holy Land. What those Priviledges were Pope Innocent ( in his a Bull ) tells us . 1. They were to be freed from b all Taxes , Impositions , and all Burdens whatsoever . 2. They were to be received into the c Protection of St. Peter and the Pope ; there is nothing of God's Protection mention'd . The Pope ( who sits in the Temple of God , d shewing 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 Oath , and paying any Vse . 4. If they went to kill and exterminate Hereticks in Person , and at their own Expences , then A Full f 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 Premisses I think it evident , that if any of Queen Elizabeths Subjects ( after her Damnation and Excommunication by the Pope ) had by raising Arms against her publickly , or by Poyson 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 Judgment 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 ) hang'd for Treason , then ( with the Pope and his Party ) they pass for Martyrs , and as such , shall be honour'd , and highly commended to Posterity . I wrong them not , Ribadeneira the Jesuit ( to omit many others ) in a g Book Licenced by the h Vice-Provincial of Toledo , approved by the Bishop of i Antverp , and k other Grave and Learned Men ( as they are there call'd ) I say , in this Book he has a l Century of Martyrs of his Society ; and amongst them , reckons m Campian , n Walpoole , o Southwell , p Garnett , q Oldcorne , &c. and calls them Martyrs ; who were Legally Convict here , and Justly Executed as Impious Traitors . God Almighty preserve our Gracious King from the Traiterous and Pernicious Conspiracies of those men , who ( by a strange delusion ) believe such Principles , and call Impious Traitors Holy Martyrs . The Premisses consider'd , there can be little reason to doubt , but the Popish Party ( as ever since the Reformation they constantly have , so they ) always will indeavour by secret Plots and Conspiracies , by Poyson , 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 Hereticks , seeing there are such exceeding great Rewards ( aforemention'd ) 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 Supream 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 Dignitaries in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches , All who have Cure of Souls , All who are provided for , and preferr'd to any s Monastery , or Religious House whatsoever , be they of whatsoever Order of Regulars . And not only these ; but t All Doctors , Masters , Regents , and Professors of any Art or Faculty , whether they be of the Laity or Clergy , or Regulars of any Order whatsoever , in any Vniversity , publick School , or any where else , in Cities , Vniversities , Towns , Churches or Monasteries ; whether they profess Divinity , Canon or Civil Law , Physick , Philosophy , Grammar , or any other Liberal Art , publickly or privately , and all who take any Degrees in any Vniversity ; All these ( that is , almost all the Learned men in the Papacy ) by the u Disposition and Appointment of the Pope and Council of Trent , are to x 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 deliver'd , defin'd , 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 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 mention'd , and ( to the utmost of their Power ) to perswade 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 Ecclesiasticks ( 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 damn'd , 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 Supream Infallible Power , That the killing the Queen , by open War publickly , or privately by Poyson 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 Ecclesiasticks ( both Secular and Regular ) who had any Cure of Souls , or Authority and Charge over others , had promised , vow'd , and solemnly sworn , That they would obey the Pope as Christs Vicar , &c. I say , those who had such great Promises to allure them , and their Promise , Oath and vow to oblige them to it , would certainly indeavour ( as indeed they did , as will appear anon ) the ruin and destruction of that good Queen . Neither is this all . For 6. Lastly ; the Pope and his Party have further Inducements , more efficacious and powerful to perswade their Instruments to Assassinate Princes and Extirpate Hereticks , especially z Protestants , 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 Incouragement imaginable ; yet to such Impious and Prodigious Villains ( who will undertake to kill Kings and murder Innocents ) Heaven signifies no more , then the Diamond did to Aesop's Cock in the Fable , who preferr'd a Grain of Barly before it . And therefore , for such , ( and none but such will serve them in the Execution of such Execrable Villanies ) they have present and more prevailing Incouragements ; I mean Money and great Sums of Gold , or some vast Temporal Advantages to be injoy'd here ; which prevails more with such Persons , then the Promise of Heaven hereafter : I shall ( out of many ) give two or three Instances . As , 1. In the year . 1594. a 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 Poyson Queen Elizabeth . Lopez had a rich Jewel sent him , and was ( by Contract ) to have b Fifty thousand Duckets ; 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 Villany was detected , and they ( as Traitors ) justly Executed ; yet their Popish Desires and Indeavours 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 same year , Edmund York and Richard Williams , were ( by the same Roman Arts and Impiety ) hired to Kill the Queen . York ( at his Trial ) confess'd , That Holt the Jesuit , Hugh Owen , Jacomo de Francisco , and others , had offer'd him an Assignment of d Forty thousand Duckets , if he would Kill the Queen himself , or assist Richard Williams in Killing Her. This York confess'd at his Trial ; and that Holt the Jesuit ( in whose Hand the Assignment of Forty thousand Duckets was deposited ) kissing the Holy Host , swore that the Money should be paid so soon as the Queen was kill'd ; 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 Story , Ann. 1572. 2. f Somervil , Ann. 1583. 3. Dr. g Parry , Ann. 1585. by the Approbation and Incouragement of the Pope and Cardinal Como . 4. John h Savage , Ann. 1586. 5. Ant. i Babington ; and five or six more with him are incouraged and perswaded to Murder the Queen , in the same year , 1586. 6. k Moody , Ann. 1587. 7. Patrich l Cullen , Ann. 1594. 8. Edward m Squire , Ann. 1598. 9. n Winter and Tesmond the Jesuit , Ann. 1602. &c. We see there were many ( too many ) desperate Villains , who valued not their own , so that they might take away the Queens life ; and yet too few ( Divine Providence preventing their Impious Designs ) to Effect and Compass that ( more then Pagan ) Popish Conspiracy , which at ( so vast an Expence of Money ) the Pope and his Party designed and earnestly desired , and indeavour'd 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 , Poyson , 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 confess'd by their own Popish Writers His Successors , Gregory the Thirteenth , and Sixtus the Fifth , renue and confirm the Excommunication of Elizabeth , and the donation of her Kingdoms ; and accordingly ( not with Gods , but ) with the Popes p Approbation and Blessing , in that memorable year 1588. the ( vainly supposed ) Invincible Armado was sent to destroy the damn'd Hereticks ( 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 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 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 Matthew Westminster , Henry t Knighton , Cardinal Tuscus , &c. The Cardinal tells us , That the Pope is the Supream u Judge of All. That he can Depose the x Emperor , Kings , Dukes , and All who Acknowledge No Superior ; and that the Kings of England , and Sicilie are y Tributaries to the Church of Rome . And he who denies this Papal z 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 Vsher of the Religion profess'd by the Ancient Irish , pag. 51. 92. 93. 94. &c. And upon these ( and such like ridiculous ) Pretenses , the Pope required Edward the Third to do him a Homage for the Kingdoms of England and Ireland , and the Arrears of One thousand Marks per Annum . All the Popes pretences were in a full Popish Parliament declared vain and evidently null ; as appears by my Lord b Cooke , and the Record before mention'd . Besides ; 't is 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 Heretick , ( as he was pleased to miscall her ) her Kingdom was forfeited to him , by the Canon of their great Lateran Council . Wherein 't is c 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 Catholicks : who by that Canon , were bound to Exterminate or Extirpate d all Hereticks . 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 Supream 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 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 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 Saviour practis'd in his own Person , and Commanded all ( even h Peter and his Apostles ) to imitate : But yet congruous enough , and consistent with the Hypocrisie of him , who would be call'd Servus Servorum Dei , the Servant of all Gods Servants ; and yet as the Man of Sin ( mention'd by the i 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 . 'T is true , we believe and know , that the Pope indeed had no Power to performe 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 Lye ) were perswaded he had Power to make good his Promises ; that he was Christs Vicar , Supream 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 Kings , and was Infallible and l never Err'd ( for these Erroneous and Impious Positions are m approved and received at Rome ) I say , such Promises , made by such a Person , were very great . And ( to such deluded Persons , who were perswaded of the truth and reality of them ) prevailing Incouragements , to make them desperately indeavour to Assassinate and Murder Queen Elizabeth . Forty or Fifty thousand Duckets promised , was great and intic●ing Wages for doing such a Work , and actually prevail'd 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 Hereticks ( 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 indeavours to destroy all the Professors of it . For the Queen being dead , in the beginning of King James his Reign ( upon the aforemention'd , or the like motives ) they undertook the Gunpowder n Conspiracy , ( such a horrid and hellish Villany , as no Turkish or Pagan Story can parallel ) wherein they indeavour'd , and ( if the Powerful Providence of Heaven had not hinder'd 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 Henry the Third of France , by Jaques Clement , and of Henry the Fourth , by Raviliac , p incouraged to those Villanies by Jesuitical and Popish Principles and Promises ; for Raviliac confess'd , That it was the Book of Mariana the Jesuite , and the Traiterous Positions maintain'd in it , which induced him to that Prodigious Villany , the Murder of the King ; for which Cause that Book ( Damn'd by the Sentence of the Parliament and Sorbon ) was publickly burnt in Paris . I say , to let these , and such Instances pass , it is too well known and believ'd , that in the late q 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 pay'd or promised , and another , Thirty thousand Masses to be said for him , if he miscarried , to Incourage them to that Monstrous Popish Villany . Now their Impiety in this their Ingagement , was equal ; both undertaking the Commission of the same Sin , the Murder of their King : But their folly seem'd 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 cozen'd 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 Hereticks ( 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 Purgatory ( had there been any such Place ) nor could the Devil or the Pope punish him there , for such Sins as were absolutely pardon'd , 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 Christs 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 glorify'd Saints and Martyrs in Heaven . 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 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 approv'd or practis'd 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 consider'd , 1. That Pope Innocent the Fourth , about the year 1245. or 1246. makes a t Constitution in the General Council at Lions , ( and with the u approbation of that Council ) wherein he calls Assassinations x Horrid Inhumanity , and Detestable Cruelty , and an indeavour 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 , then such Person is ( Ipso facto ) Excommunicate , Deposed , and Deprived of all his Honour , Dignity and Revenue . This was the Judgment 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 referr'd it into the Body of their y Canon Law ; where it still z remains in all Editions of that Law , even to this Day : and that ( to give a 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 Jesuites and their Party ) do , even to this Day , generally Condemn all such Assassinations , as Impious , and to the Publick Pernicious . This evidently appears ( to say nothing of the Gloss ) by Cardinal b Turrecremata , Cardinal c Cajetan , Cardinal d Tuschus , Henry e Spondanus ( Bishop of Pamiez in France , ) Didacus f Couvarruvias ( Bishop of Segobia in Spain , &c. ) 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 call'd 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. Andreas Boniensis , was the man ) tells us ; g That the Punishments express'd there , are denounc'd against the Assassins , as well as those who procur'd or hired them to Assassinate any Christians . But the man is miserably mistaken ; for 't is Evident , and h Confess'd , That the Punishments contain'd in the Constitution , are denounced only against those Christians who hire and imploy those Impious Assassins . Excommunication ( and the Consequents of it ) is the Punishment mention'd 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 more then a pure man ; and Gods Vice-Roy ; 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 afore-mention'd 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 Villanies ; yet those Great and Learned Canonists and Writers of the Popish Church ( before-named ) upon proportion and parity of Reason , justly Condemn all Christians who shall undertake and effect , or indeavour such Assassinations . Of these Christian Assassins , Cardinal Cajetan says — k 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 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 Villany , 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 indeavour 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 abhorr 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. publickly Condemn'd this Mahometan and Jesuitical Doctrine , and declared it to be ( what indeed it is ) m Heretical , Prodigious , and Diabolical . 4. But all this notwithstanding , the Jesuites ( 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 Catholick Cause , ( as they call it ) indeavour ( by Lying Calumnies ) to disaffect the People , and to raise Rebellions against those Princes ; that so they may cut them off , by Publick 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 Premisses , and further Testimonies of their own Roman Catholick Historians ( in this Case ) of Indubitable Truth and Veracity . Thuanus tell us , n That in those Bloody Wars in France , in the Reign of Henry the Third ; it was some of the Religious and Regulars , especially the Jesuites , who by an Industrious , and ( I add ) Impious Diligence , did first Alienate the People from their Obedience to their Prince , and then sollicited 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 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 publickly ; they perswade and incourage Jaques Clement ( a Desperate Villain ) to Assassinate his Prince ; who August the First , 1589. did the Execrable Act , and Murder'd his King. Thuanus tells us , p That Friar Clement was incouraged to Commit that Prodigious Parricide by the furious Sermons and Declamations of their New Divines , q Especially of the Jesuites , who publickly taught them , That it was lawful , nay r Meritorious to kill a Tyrant , and if he outlived the Fact , he should be a Cardinal at s Rome ; and if he died , a t Saint in Heaven . And accordingly when he was dead ( by a Death he deserved ) his Party caused his u 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 Traytor and Murtherer of his King. 2. After this , in the year 1594. Johan . Chastell undertakes and indeavours 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 possess'd with so Prodigious an Insensibility , as not to tremble at the very thought of Committing such a horrid and inhuman Villany ? a Davila will tell you , That he was a Disciple of the Jesuites ; That he himself freely confessed , that he was bred up in the Schools of the Jesuites , and had often heard it discours'd , and disputed , That it was not Only Lawful , but Meritorious to Kill Henry of Bourbon , a Relapsed Heretick , and Persecutor of the Holy Church ; That Father Gueret a Jesuite , was his Confessor , &c. so that being possess'd with their Impious Principles and Perswasions , he undertook that prodigious and damnable Parricide . In short , it was notoriously known to all France , that the Jesuites both approved and designed the Execrable Assassination of their King. Whence it was , ( as Davila goes on ) that the Parliament of Paris pass'd this Sentence — That Father Guignard and Gueret ( Jesuites ) should be Condemned to the Gallows ; that the rest of the Jesuites ( profess'd or not profess'd ) should be banished out of France , as Enemies to the Crown and publick Tranquility , their Goods and Revenues Jeiz'd and distributed to pious Vses , &c. And it had been well for France had they stood banished still , and never return'd . For about Sixteen years after , what Johan . Chastell impiously indeavour'd , that bloody Villain Raviliac , May the Fourteenth , 1610. effected ; and with Monstrous Impiety , and a Cursed hand Murder'd his King , Henry the Fourth ; And it was the Jesuites , and their Traiterous Principles , which moved and incouraged him to Commit that Monstrous Unchristian and Antichristian Parricide . For ( after the Fact was done ) Raviliac freely and publickly confessed , That it was the Jesuite Mariana's Book which moved and incouraged him to that Impious Design . I know that the Jesuites did then indeavour to b free themselves from the Odium of that Impious Fact ; as if they had neither approved nor incouraged that Monstrous and Mahometan Assassination . Sed quid verba audiam , cum facta videam ? This c was only a ridiculous indeavour , Aethiopem Lavare , to wash a Blackamore , 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 Publick Act of their Society , nor by the Inquisitors in any Index Expurgatorius ; now for them to approve those Traiterous Principles , and deny the Consequents of them , is most irrationally to approve and grant the Premisses , and yet deny the Conclusion . 5. But this ( though bad enough ) is not all . For it is not only the Jesuites and their Accomplices , but the Pope too , ( their Supream Judge , thom they d believe to be Infallible , both in Matters of Faith and Fact ) who approved their Seditious and Traiterous Principles of Rebellion and Assassination of Princes . Thuanus speaking of the Jesuites Practices to stir up the People to Rebellion in the time of Henry the Third of France ; he adds — e That these things were well known to the Pope , who sent Breves and Bulls secretly to the Heads of those Rebels , whereby they were incouraged to Rebel . Afterwards , when that Prodigious Villain Jaques Clement had Murder'd the said King , f Sixtus the Fifth then Pope , did not only approve the Fact , but ( in a premediated Oration , publickly spoke in the Consistory ) blasphemously compares it ( in respect of its greatness and amiableness ) to our blessed Saviours Incarnation and Resurrection : and then highly Commends the Murderer ( for his Virtue , Courage , and Zealous Love of God ) above Eleazar and Judith , &c. And ( to omit the rest ) pronounceth the Murder'd King Eternally Damn'd , as having Committed the g Sin against the Holy Ghost . This the Historian ( though a Papist ) modestly and justly Censures , as a Fact h Extreamly Insolent and Vnworthy the Moderation of a Pastor , ( especially the Supream Pastor of the Church , Christs 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 Credit of the Pope and the Holy Apostolick Sea , that his Oration had been suppress'd , 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 yet the Popes Oration abundantly deserved it , in which were Many Things Absurd and Impious . This was the Judgment of that Faithful and Excellent Historian , ( though a Papist ) concerning the Erroneous and Impious Principles of the Pope and Jesuites . 6. Nor is this all ; For although , only privately to approve and incourage Rebellion and Assassination of Kings and Princes , be an Execrable Villany , to be abhorr'd by all men ( especially Christians ) as being repugnant to that clear Light of Nature and Scripture , to common Reason and Religion ; yet in Publick Writings to vindicate and justifie such Actions , to perswade 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 blasphem'd their Gods , committed Adulteries , Murders , Perjuries , &c. yet we do not find , that any Christians , ( the Jesuites and their Accomplices excepted ) or any sober Pagan ( who acknowledg'd a God ) did ever justifie 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 Jesuites ( and those possess'd with their Principles ) though they be Convict , and Legally Condemn'd for Rebellion and Assassination of Princes , yet they neither do , nor can repent ; believing such Actions not to be any Vices , but Vertues ; and themselves ( if they suffer for them ) not Traytors or Murderers , but Holy Martyrs . That this is their approved and received Doctrine , which they publickly defend , and industriously ( in their Publick Writings ) indeavour to justifie , is evident to the Western World , and may appear by the Premisses . 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 Suarez , Publick 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 Murder'd : And having told us , that a Tyrant was either , 1. Tyrannus m Titulo ; one who , ( without any just Title ) usurp'd the Government , to the ruine of the Common-weal . 2. Tyrannus n Administratione ; one who having a just Title , ruled Tyrannically . And he there tells us , That all Christian o Kings are such Tyrants , who induce their Subjects to Heresie , Apostasie , 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 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 Commonwealth . This in the General . But then 2. For a Tyrant in Title , he absolutely declares it , as a thing r commonly received amongst them ; That such a Tyrant may be lawfully kill'd , 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 least it should not be observ'd , 't is set in the s Margent , That such a Tyrant may Lawfully be kill'd . 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 then 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 all Protestant Princes being Hereticks are such Tyrants . 2. That being Hereticks , they are by their u Heresie , Ipso facto , and presently deprived ( aliquo modo ) in some manner , of all Right to their Dominions . 3. That the Pope ( as their x Superior , to whom even Supream Princes are Subjects ) may totally and absolutely depose and deprive them of all their Dominions and right to Govern. 4. When the Pope has pass'd such Sentence , and deprived them of their Dominions ; if afterwards they meddle with the Government , they become every y way Tyrants ( both Titulo & Administratione ) . And then , 5. After such z Sentence pass'd by the Pope , such Kings or Supream Princes may be dealt with , as Altogether , and Every Way Tyrants , and Consequently may be kill'd by Any Private Person . 4. And though these be Prodigious Errors , Unchristian , and indeed Antichristian Impieties ; such as neither ours , nor any Language can fully express ; yet this is not all : The Jesuite further declares , That though a Pagans anciently had , and still have Power , to Depose their Tyrannical Kings ; yet in Christian Commonwealths , they have such dependence upon the b 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 Chilperick was Deposed in France , and Sancius Secundus in Portugal . And ( to make up their Errors and Impieties full ) he further tells us , — d That all Christian Kingdoms and Commonwealths do so far depend upon the Pope , that he may not only Counsel the People , and Consent to their Deposition and Assassination of their Tyrannical Princes ; But he may Command and Compel them to do it , when he shall think it sit , for avoiding Schisms and Heresies : That is indeed , for the rooting out and ruine of the true Protestant Religion , and establishing their Roman Superstition and Idolatry . And to conclude , he further declares , That ( in such Cases ) the Popes Command ( to Murder a Deposed King ) is so far from being any Crime , that it is e Superlatively Just. I might here cite Cardinal f Tolet , Guliel . g Rossaeus , and a hundred such others , who approve , and in their Publicks Writings ( Approved and Licenced , according to the Decree of their h Trent Council , by the Auhority of their Church ) justifie this Impious and Antichristian Doctrine of Deposing and Assassinating Heretical Kings : but this I conceive a needless work . For , 1. Suarez himself declares it to be the received Doctrine of their Church , and cites many of their Eminent Writers to prove it ; which , any may see , who is not satisfied with those before cited . 2. The Licencers of Suarez and his Book are ( for Dignity in their Church and for Learning ) so great , and ( for Number ) so many , and the Commendations they give Suarez and his Work so high , that there neither is , nor can be any just Reason to doubt , but this Doctrine was approved at Rome , and by the Ruling part of that Church ( the Pope and his Party ) believed and incouraged , as a Doctrine asserting the Popes Extravagant , and ( as they call it ) Supernatural i Power , and so their Common Interest . Let the Reader consult the Censures prefix'd to Suarez his Book , and he will find all these following to Approve and Licence it . First , Three great Bishops , all of them Counsellors to his Catholick Majesty . 2. Two Provincials of the Society ; one of the Jesuites in Portugal , the other of those in Germany . 3. Academia , Complutensis , the University of Alcala de Henares approves it too . 4. Last●● the k Supream Senate ( Court or Congregation ) of the Inquisitors , do also approve and licence it , and this they do by l Commission from Peter de Castello , Vice-Roy of Portugal , and in Matters of Faith Supream inquisitor . The Premisses impartially consider'd , I think we may truly say , That it is not only Suarez , or some particular or private Persons , but the Church of Rome , and her Ruling part , which approves this Impious and Trayterous Doctrine : Which may further appear ( besides their Approbations and Licences ) from the great Commendations they give Suarez and his Book and Doctrine . And here 1. For Suarez ; They say , m That he was a Contemner of Humane things , and a most Valiant Desender only of Piety and Catholick Religion : And ( for his Excellent Wisdom ) the Common Master , and another Augustine of that Age. — That for his great Zeal for the Catholick Faith , he was a most Famous Author , and a most Eminent Divine . That he was a n Most Grave , and most Religious Writer ; whose Works the World , ( the Popish World ) does Honour , Admire , and Love , &c. 2. And for his Book , and the Doctrine contained in it , They say , That all o things in his Book , are Religiously Consonant to Sacred Scripture , to Apostolical Traditions , General Councils , and Papal Decrees ; ( this last we admit , and they profess it to be true ) . And hence , if they may be believed , who expresly affirm it themselves , it evidently follows , That this Traiterous Doctrine is approved by the Pope , and is Consonant to his Decrees . And those Publick Censors of Suarez his Book severally add ; That they find p 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 Henares ( to omit the rest ) more fully testifies — That they read Suarez his Book with all possible Diligence , and found Nothing in it repugnant to the Catholick Faith ; nor was there Any Thing in it which ought not to be Approved and Commended . And then add , ( that we may be sure they spoke cordially and deliberately ) That there was Nothing in that whole Work , which All of them did not approve ; so that they were All of the same Mind and Judgment . Nay , we are further told , That he had Composed that Work , by r More then Human Helps ; and therefore they Judge it s Most Worthy to be Published , for the Publick , and Common Benesit of the Whole Christian World , and a Signal Victory of their Faith over Heresies . Such are the Commendations of Suarez his Book and Doctrine ; so that we may be sure that it is Approved and Received at Rome . And here let me further add , that when King James had Published his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance , and Sir Henry Savil Translated it into Latin ; the Latin Copy was ( by the Popish Party ) immediately sent to Rome , and ( by the Pope ) t Condemned there , as Impious and Heretical : From Rome it was sent to Suarez , who ( by the Popes Command ) was to Confute and Answer it . He undertook and finished the Answer , sent it to Rome , where it was highly approved , and afterwards Printed and Published with all those Approbations and Commendations before mention'd . But these Positions need no further proof , that they are own'd and publickly approved by the Pope and his Party . I shall only add ; When King u James had charged Bellarmine and the Church of Rome , with this Rebellious and Impious Doctrine , of deposing Kings , absolving Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity , &c. x Gretser in his Answer , has these memorable words — y 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 That the Subjects are bound in Conscience to Obey the Popes Sentence ; not only in the Cases mentioned , But in a All other of the like Nature . And this impious and traiterous Doctrine of Gretser , is not only approved by b the Provincial of the Jesuites in Germany , and the Rector and Vice-Chancellor 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 Jesuites , and the c Rector of the University of Ingolstade expresly testifie , in their Publick and Printed Approbations of Gretsers Book . The Premisses , and Traiterous Popish Principles consider'd , ( which are received and believed at Rome ) though men may d wonder at the Beast , ( the Pope and his Party ) and that any , ( who would not only be thought Christians , but the only Catholicks in the World ) should maintain , and publickly justifie such Principles : yet we need not wonder , that such Persons should practise and act according to such Principles , and continually indeavour ( 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 Supream 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 Princes 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 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 , conduc'd to the Salvation of the Subjects . ) I say , these Erroneous and Impious Doctrines granted , and ( as they are at Rome ) believ'd , 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 loose their Crowns , their Kingdoms , and their Lives too ; unless they can please the Pope , and become his dutiful Servants , and indeed Slaves to his Anti-Christian Tyranny . I say no Christian King , Tros Tyriusve , Papist or Protestant can be out of eminent Danger , where such Doctrine is , by such Doctors maintain'd . 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 Traiterous and Prodigious Villany of bloody Assassins , Ridente & gaudente Roma ; The Pope and his Jesuitical Party , ( with an Extasie of Joy ) Approving and Commending the Treason , and ( in their Writings and Pictures ) Canonizing the Traitors . 2. For Protestants , and ( as they call them ) Heretical Princes , their danger ( proportionable to Romes 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 indeavour to ruine those they call Hereticks , either by open Hostility and Rebellions , or by Poyson , 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 't is 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 ruine 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 Intollerable Yoke of Sin and Popish Servitude . Et hinc illae Lacrymae ; Hence it is , that the Pope , and his inraged Party , when they cannot , by any probable pretence of Reason confute , what they call Heresie , ( the Protestant Religion ) they indeavour to Confound and ( by Fire and Sword ) Consume the Hereticks — Aeterna bella , pace sublatâ , gerunt , Jurant odium , nec prius hostes esse desinunt , quam esse desinunt . They excite and incourage e 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 drown'd i th' Maine . DAMNATIO ET EXCOMMUNICATIO Henrici VIII . REGIS ANGLIAE EJUSQUE FAUTORUM , Cum aliarum ADJECTIONE POENARUM . Paulus Episcopus , Servus Servorum Dei. Ad futuram Rei Memoriam . EJVS 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 , & 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. 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 praerogativâ , & honore se Indignum reddendo . Sect. 2. Nos licet ex eo , quod prout non Ignorabamus , Idem Henricus Rex in Certis Censuris Ecclesiasticis quibus à Piae Memoriae Clemente 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 respectivè 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 , respectivè 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. 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. 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 Romanis , 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 , eis 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 , Respectivè 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 respectivè 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. 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 , eis 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. 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 respectivè 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 , eis 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. 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 eis 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 , 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 damn'd 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 , &c. 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 prefix'd 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 Popes ( not short of him in time or impiety ) use the same hard word ( Damnation ) in the Titles prefix'd 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 explain'd . 2. That by the word Damnation in their Anathema's 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 justifie 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 , &c. 2. That such Power was ( by our blessed Saviour ) given to Peter and his Successors , they indeavour 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 shews 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 Bishoprick 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 then 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 expresly affirm'd in the Authentick 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 Jesuites 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 Popes 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. &c. VII . The sixth Observation , In which a further examination and confutation of the Popish pretended grounds for the Popes 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 ) dye with him . 3. And if it were granted ( which neither is , nor ever can be proved ) that that Power was hereditary , and to be transferr'd 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 sate . 4. That 't is 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 Epithites , 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 , &c. ) are impertinently made use of , without any proof or probability . p. 91. 92. &c. VIII . The seventh Observation , concerning the Censures , Punishments and Curses contain'd in this Bull ; and the Antichristian impiety of them . 1. He miscalls the Queen , an Heretick , a favourer of Hereticks , 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 Priviledge . 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. &c. 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 Judgment of the primitive Fathers , of Protestants and Papists , and the sense of Christendom for about 1600. years after our blessed Saviour , &c. p. 151. 152. &c. ad p. 199. X. The ninth Observation , What the Popes Power is , ( and whence they pretend to have it ) which inables them with Authority to sit Judges , and pass damnatory Sentences against Supream Princes , for Heresie . 2. What that Heresie is , and who the Hereticks , who by the Pope are so severely damn'd . 3. What those punishments are , which they pretend they may , and ( when and where they can ) actually do inflict on such Hereticks . 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 believ'd 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 , &c. p. 199. 200. &c. XI . Observation the Tenth , That Queen Elizabeth stood Excommunicate , before the Damnatory Bull of Pius the Fifth , and by whom , &c. p. 213. XII . Observation the Eleventh , Of the damnable and pernicious Doctrines and Conclusions , which evidently follow , upon their approv'd and practised Principles , of Deposing and Anathematizing Kings and Supream Princes . That 't is 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 , &c. p. 219. 220. &c. XIII . The Damnation and Excommunication of Henry the Eighth by Pope Paul the Third , Decemb. 17. Anno 1538. FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A69677-e270 a The reason why I cannot expect the favour or assent of my Adversaries , ( especially of the Jesuites ) is , because Maldonate tells us , That Luther and Calvin ( Arch-Hereticks ) 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 hearken'd 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 . b Nullus dubitand● Locus , quin Cultus Latriae qui Vero Deo debetur , sic huic Sacramento exhibendus . Concil . Trid. Sess. 13. De Encharistâ . cap. 5. c Matth. 26. 27. And they obey'd , and did all drink . & Marc. 14. 23. 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. e Vid. Hieronym . adversus Luciferianos , in sine . Tom. Operum . 1. p. 230. Col. 2. G. f Cyprian Epist. 71. ad Quintum fratrem , p. 140. in Editione Rigaltij , Paris . 1648. g Extant dictae Regulae Indici Tridentino praesixae , in Calce Concilij Tridentini . Antv. 1633. 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. 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. k 1. Thess. 5. 21. & 1. Joh. 4. ● . l Omnia probate , i. e. Per Discretionem dijudicate . Dr. Hen. Holden in Locum . m Sublato Omni Proprio Judicio , paratus semper sit Animus , ad Obediendum Ecclesiae . Vide Exercitia spiritualia Ign. Loyolae . Tolosae , 1593. p. 172. Reg. 1. n Si quod Oculis nostris apparet Album , Ecclesia Nigrum definierit , debemus quod nigrum sit pronunciare . Ibid. Reg. 13. p. 176. o Si Sacra B●●lia vulgari ●ingua , passim sine discrimine permittantur , Plus Inde , ob hominum temeritatem , Detrimenti , cu●m Vtilitatis Oriri . Ita Reg. 4. Indici Tridentino praesixa . p Vid. Praefat. ad Indicem Librorum Prohib . Confectum à Deputatione Synodi Tridentinae ; Author . Praef. erat Francisc . Forerius Deputationi Secretarius . q Index Libr. Prohib . ex Concil . Trid. praescripto ; Authoritate Pij . 4. primo Editus , postea à Sixto . 5. auctus ; demum Clement . 8. Juss● recognitus . r Greg. 15. Bulla data Rom. 30. Decemb. An. 1622. in Calce Indicis Trid. Antv. Ann. 1633. s Constit. 114. Urbani . 8. dat . Rom. 2. April . 1631. t Cum Librorum Prohibitorum Lectio , Magno sincere Fidei cultoribus Detrimento esse noscatur , &c. Those be their words in both their Bulls . 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 . x Qui Libros prohibitos habuerint , eos ad Episcopum ant Inquisitorem , qui illos quantocius Comburere debeat , deferre teneantur . Ibidem . 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. 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. 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. 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 Pauls . 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 satisfy'd ) 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 ) satisfie my Adversaries . d Declaramus praedictam Elizabetham Haereticam , eique Adhaerentes Anathematis Sententiam inc●rrisse , esséque à Christi Corporis Vnitate Praecisos . In dictâ Pij . 5. Bullâ . §. 3. e Synodus innumerabilium fere Episcoporum ( as Valesius renders it ) apud Euseb. Hist. l. 7. c. 29. pag. 278. D. f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 homo professionis Catholicae . Even Paulus Samosatenus , till he was discovered to be an Heretick , was call'd a Catholick . Ibid. c. 30. p. 282. B. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . speaking of the Church of Antioch , Euseb. Ibid. p. 282. 6. 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. Petav. Paris . 162. 2. Tom. 2. p. 2. i Vid. App. Cod. Theod . per Sirmondu● p. 218. k Leo Papa Ecclesiae Catholicae Urbis Romae . Conc. Chalcedon . part . 1. num . 10. 12. & Act. 8. l The Reader may have a very large Catalogue of such Subscriptions , by John Launoy . Epist . part . 1. In Epist. ad Franc s. Bonum . 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 Epist●e ad Bonum before-nam'd ▪ n Vide Augustinum Breviculi Collat. cum Donatistis , Collat. 3. Diei . Tom. 7. p. 568. Edit . Basil. 1569. & Epist. 67. ad Alipium . Tom. 2. p. 323. o 2 Thess. 2. 3. 4. See Bishop Jewel on this Chapter , and this fourth Verse . Sir Christoph. Sibthorp's Advertisement to the Catholicks in Ireland . Dublin 1622. part . 3. c. 2. p. 280. 281. 282. &c. Andr. Rivet . contra Silvestrum Petrasanctam c. 28. p. 537. 538. &c. vid. Georg. Dounamum , Dia●r de Antichristo , l. 3. & 4. Lond. 1620. p Vide Cap. Solitae . 6. Extra de Major . & Obedientia ; and the Lemma to that Chap. which is this — Imperium Sacerdotio subest , & ei Obedire Tenetur . q 1 Pet. 2. 13. ( which place evidently proves the contrary ) Jer. 1. 10. Gen. 1. 16. Joh. 21. 16. Matth. 16. 19. r Quanta est inter Solem & Lunam , tanta inter Pontifices & Reges differentia cognoscitur . Dicto Cap. Solitae . 6. s Bulla Romae data 1580. Juri Can. pr●efixa . t Cum igitur terra sic septies major Luna , Sol autem octies major terra : restat ergo , ut Pontificalis Dignitas Quadragesies septies su major Regali . Glossa verbo . Inter Solem & Lunam . Cap. Solitae . 6. Extra . de Major . & Obedientia . I quote the Edition of the Canon Law at Paris , 1612. u Alias quinquagies septics . Ita Nota in Margine , ad dictum Cap. Solitae verbo , Inter Solem & Lunam . Ibid. x Manifestum est , quod magnitudo Solis continet magnitudinem terrae Centies quadragies septies & duas medietates . Vid. Additionem ad Glossam . verbo . Inter Solem & Lunam . Cap. Solitae . 6. y Palam est , quod magnitudo Solis continet magnitudem Lunae septies millies septingenties & quadragies quater , & insuper ejus medietatem . Ibidem in dicta additione ad dictam Glossam . z Aurum non tam pretiosius est plumbo , quam Regia Dignitate sit Altior Dignitas Sacerdotalis . Gratian. Can. Duo sunt . 10. Distinct. 96. a Quia Colla Regum & Principum submittuntur Genibus Sacerdotum . ( By Sacerdotes here , the Popes are principally meant , as is evident both by the Text and the Gloss ) Glossa ad dictum Can. verbo . Dúo sunt . b Papa excipit Imperatorem ad osculum pedisut primum videt Papam , detecto Capite , illum , gen●● terram tangens , venera●u , — & Poutificis pedes Devotè osculatur . Lib. Sacrarum Ceremoniarum , Rom. 1560. l. 1. Tit. 5. p. 22. Col. 2. 3. c Volentes ut hac tantum Compilatione utantur Vniversi in Judiciis & in Scholis , &c. Greg. 9. in Literis Acad. Bononiensi , dat . 1230. Juri Canonico Praefixis . Edit . Lugduni . 1661. d Edit . Paris . 1520. cum Glossis . e Vide Bullam Greg. 13. datam Romae , Anno 1580. Corpori Juris Canonici praefixam . f Nulli liceat Libris Canonici Juris , de manda●o nostro Correctis , Recognitis , & Expurgatis quicquam addere , detrahere , vel immutare , &c. Ibid. dicta Greg. 13. Bulla . g They tell us , that it was our blessed Saviour himself , who Constituted Peter and his Successors , Supream Monarchs of the Catholick Church . Christus Catholicam 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 . h Baronius ▪ says , that Peter suffered Martyrdom Anno Christi . 69. & therefore 34. or 35. years after our blessed Saviours Passion . Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 1. i Bellarmine says , tha 't is evident in Scripture that Peter's Supremacy was to descend to a Successor — Aliquem Petro Succedere , deducitur Evidentèr ex Scripturis . De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 12. § Observandum Tertio . k Bellarmine tells us , that it is not expresly in Scripture , that the Pope is Peter's Successor , but that must be proved by Apostolical Tradition . Rom. Pontificem succedere Petro , non habetur expresse in Scripturis , sed habetur ex traditione Apostolicâ . Bellarm. Loco dicto . l They constantly tell us , the Pope has two Swords ; and of the Temporal Sword they say — Figurat Pontisicalis hic gladius potestatem summam 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. m Vide Methodum Veronianam , seu modum , quo quilibet Catholicus potest Solis Bibliis , Religionis praetensae Ministrum evidentèr mutum reddere , &c. Authore Francisco Verono Parisiensi , Societatis Jesu Theolog. Colon. Agrip. 1610. Vide Jac. Masenij meditatam Concordiam Protestantium cum Catholics , ex verbo Dei. Edit . Colon. 1661. n Francis. Veroni Scientiam , è doctissimâ Societate Jesu prodeuntem , veneramur , sententiam libenter sequimur , & labores , optimo successu à Deo donatos , honoramus . Adrian . & Petrus Walenburch in Exam Princip . fidei , &c. Exam . 3. §. 1. num . 3. p. 111. o Vide Dispute . de fidei ex scripturis demonstratione , contra novam nonnullorum Methodū Per Joh. Dallaeum . 8● ▪ Genevae , 1610. p They do now pretend to potestatem Summain Temporalem ; as the Book of their Sacred Ceremonies ( a little before cited ) tells us . That our blessed Saviour gave Peter , ( & in him the Pope ) Coelestis & Terreni Imperij Jura . Can. Omnes . 1. dist . 22. Power to depose Kings and Emperors , absolve their Subjects from Oaths of Allegiance , and dispose of their Dominions . Plat. in vita Greg. 7. Conc. Lateran . sub . Innocent . 3. Can. de Haeret. 3. Hence it was , that Bonif. 8. ( that Prodigy of Antichristian Pride and Impiety ) in the Solemn Jubilee shew'd himself to the People the first day in his Pontificalibus , and the next day , Imperiali habitu , Intula Caesarea Insignis , gladium ante se nudatum jussit deferri & sedens alta voce ●●statur ; Ecce duo gladij . Vide Paralip . ad Chron. Urspergen : ad An. 1294. p. 344. a It is notoriously known how many Decretal Epistles have been forged , and fathered upon the ancient Bishops . I shall only instance in the fifth Epistle of that pious Pope and Martyr , Clemens the first ; in which he pleads for a community of all things in the world , even of Wives . Communis usus Omnium , quae sunt in hoc mundo , Omnibus esse Debuit . In Omnibus Sunt Sine Dubio , & Conjuges . Joh. Sichardus and James Merlin have that Epistle , and those very words ; & Gratian has refer'd them into the Canon Law. Can. dilectissimis . 2. Caus. 12. Quaest. 1. and there they are still , in all the Editions of that Law , even that corrected and approved by Pope Gregory the Thirteenth . b I shall instance only in one , the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon , as it is shamefully corrupted in Gratian. Can. Renovant . 6. Dist. 22. where , 1. It is in the Original , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , definimus , statuimus ; for which Gratian has , Petimus . 2. In the Original Canon , it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Senior Roma ; but Gratian has Superior Roma . 3. In the Original , it is , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , / Aequalia Privilegia ; But Gratian has Similia privilegia : as being unwilling that Constantinople should have equal priviledges with Rome . 4. In the Original Canon , it is — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. That Constantinople should be equal to Rome , in Ecclesiastical Matters , etiam in Ecclesiasticis . But Gratian ( in contradiction to the Canon ) says , Non tamen in Ecclesiasticis , &c. So it was in Gratian , in the old Editions ; only in the Later Editions of Gratian ( An. 1612. 1618. 1661. & . ) this last corruption is acknowledg'd , and ( which is not usual ) mended . But other corruptions remain still , in their last and best Editions of Gratian. Notes for div A69677-e5540 Extat haec Bulla in Bullario Romano . Romae 1638. Tom. 2. p. 229. Observ. 1. a Carolus Sigonius de Regno Italiae , lib. 3. pag. 58. b Omnium Consensu , omnes qui Imaginibus venerationem negarem , damnati ; & Philippicus ipse Nominatim , Diro in eum composito Carmine , Poenis Inferorum devotus . Ibid. c Car. Sigonius de Regno Italiae . l. 9. p. 219. Extabant praeclara Gregorii 2. & 3. exempla , qui Leoni Isauro Imperatori , Sacris Interdicere , & Juratâ Italiae obedientiâ spoliare non dubitârant , uno ●o Crimine , quod Imaginibus se Inimicum praebuisset . d Gregorius 3. Leonem Imperio & Communione fidelium privat . Plat. in vita Greg. 3. 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. f Non quod insufficiens sed quod dissolutus erat cum mulieribus , & effoeminatus . Gloss. ibid. verbo Inutilis . f Non quod Insufficiens sed quod dissolutus erat cum Mulicribus , & Effoeminatus , Gloss. ibid. verbo Inutilis . g Gloss. ibid. verbo Alius . h Vid. Joh. Launoium Epist. Tom. 7. p. 117 , 118 , &c. & p. 245 , 246 , &c. Hottomanni Franco-Galliam , cap. 13. p. 96 , 97 , 98. i Vid. Edit . Paris 1612. & 1618. k Vid. Bullam Gregorij 13. dat . Romae 1. Die Julij 1580. l Vide Indicem Librorum prohibitorum Lusitanicum Olysipone , 1624. p. 350. in Carolo Molinaeo . m Vide Bullarium Romanum Romae Anno 1638. Tom. 1. p. 49. n Potestate à Deo data Ligandi & Solvendi in Coelo , & in Terra . Ibid. o Omnes Christianos à vinculo Juramenti , quod sibi faciunt , aut facient , absolvo , & ut nullus ci serviat , sicut Regi , interdico . Ibid. §. 1. 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. 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. r Vide Bullam . 13. Gregorij 9. datam Romae . Anno 1239. In Bullario Romano , Tom. 1. p. 89 , 90. s Vid. Constitutionem Ejus 3. dat . Lugduni 1245. In Bullario Romano , Tom. 1. p. 94 , 95. t Damnatio & Excommunicatio Friderici . 2. Ibidem . u Cum Fraribus & Sacro Concilio , deliberatione diligenti habitâ . Ib. dictae Constitutionis . §. 6. Bullarij dicti . p. 95. Col. 1. lin . ultimâ . x Non sine Omnium audientium & Circumstantium stupore & horrore . Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad Annum 1245. p. 668. lin . 33. y Fridericum Omnium Consensu Imperio & Regnis privavit . Platina in vita Innocentij 4. p. 209. Col. 1. Edit . Col. Agripp . 1626. z Quem ( Fridericum ) Concilium Generale Lugdunense Cassaverat & Condemnaverat . Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad An. 1250. p. 773. lin . ultimâ . 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. &c. b Vide Bullam . 7. Pauli . 3. dat . Romae 3. Cal. Sept. Anno. 1535. In Bullario Romano . Tom. 1. p. 514. Editionis Romae 1638. 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. d Et Nulli ipsis , sed Ipsi aliis super quocunque debito , & negotio , tam Civili , quam Criminali , de jure respondere teneantur . Ibid. §. 11. 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. f Cambdens Elizabeth . lib. 3. p. 360 , 361. ad Annum 1588. g See a Book with this Title — Important Considerations , &c. 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 , &c. London 1675. In which Collection , pag. 76. the Secular Priests tell us , that Pope Gregory . 13. did excommunicate Queen Elizabeth . 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 . 'T is Extant in the History of the Irish Rebellion . Lond. 1680. in the Appendix , p. 8. i Cambdens Elizabeth . lib. 3. p. 360 , 361. k Cambden ibid. lib. 3. p. 364. Observ. 2. l Damnatio & Depositio Friderici . 2. Vid. Bullarium Romanum , Romae 1638. Tom. 1. p. 94. Col. 7. Edita erat Bulla ista Anno 1245. m Damnatio Hen. 8 , ejúsque Fautorum , &c. In Bullario Romano . ibid. p. 514. Col. 2. Edita dicta Bella , Anno 1535. & postea 1538. n Vid. Bullarium Romanum Lugduni . 1655. in . 4. Tomis in Folio , & Eclogen Bullarum & motu propriorum Pii . 4. &c. Lugduni . 1582. 8 0. & Novam Collectionem , &c. Eman. Roder. Turnoni . 1609. fol. where in that one Volume you have above . 500. Bulls , with the Names of . 46. Popes , who published them . 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. 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 , 8 0. Apud Pet. Crab. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 715. &c. And his Predecessor , Julius . 2. says as much for the Church of Rome , — S. Sancta Ecclesia Romana , Magistra fidei , Omnium Errorum Expers , unica , immaculata , &c. Constitutio . 27. Julij . 2. data Anno. 1512. In Bullario Romano Tom. 1. p. 384. 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. &c. r Vide Bullam Greg. 13. datam Romae . 1. Jul. 1580. Jur. Can. praefixam . s Quicquid Statuit , Quicquid Ordinat Romana Ecclesia , Ab Omnibus perpetno & Irrefragobilitèr est Observandum . Ibid. Can. Enimvero . 4. Dist. 19 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. 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. x Ecclesia Romana est Judex Controversiarum in Rebus Fidei , & Ipsius Determinationes Sunt De Fide. Ibid. Praelud . 9. Edit . Lugd. Anno. 1663. y Verbum Dei , vel est Scriptum in Scripturis : 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. 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 . 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 . b Vid. Johan . Aventinum Annal : Bojorum . Lib. 5. 6. 7. Carol. Sigonium de Regno Italiae . Matth. Paris . &c. 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 . c Remonstrant : Hibernorum , part . 1. Cap. 3. &c. d Volentes ( verba sunt Gregorij Papae . 9. ) ul hac Tantum Compilatione Vniversi ut antur , & in Judiciis & Scholis , &c. Bulla Greg. 9. Decretal . praefixa . e Innocent . 4. Excommunicates . Fridèrick . 2. in the General Council at Lions , Omnium Consensu , &c. 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. 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. 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 . h Excommunicatus est Membrum Diaboli . Lindewood ad Cap. Seculi Principes . verbo . Reconciliationis . De Immunit . Ecclesiae . i Gratian. Can. Omnis Christianus . 32. Caus. 11. Quaest. 3. k Excommunicatio est Aeternae Mortis Damnatio . Idem Gratian. Can. Nemo . 41. Caus. 11. Quaest. 3. l Est Perpetua Damnatio cum ab Excommunicato contemnitur . Gloss. ad dictum Can. verbo mortis . 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 . n Non modo deponi , sed etiam Excommunicari , & in Aeterno Examine Damnari Decrevit . Baronius Annal. Tom. 8. ad An. Christi . 593. num . 86. o Gregor . 7. lib. 4. Epist. 2. & 23. & lib. 8. Epist. 21. 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. q Henricum , Ejúsque fautores , Adhaerentes , &c. Excommunicatos Decernimus , cosque Anathematis , Maledictionis , & Aeternae Damnationis mucrone percutimus . In Bulla Damnationis Hen. 8. Dat. Romae . Cal. Sept. Ann. 1535. r Si Imperiali , Regali , aut Pontificali Dignitate praefulgeant . §. 3. dictae Bullae . s Poenis quae Loesae Majestatis & Haereticae pravitatis reis Imponuntur . Ibidem . 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 forman — sub paenâ Maledictionis Aeternae . 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 . x Ecclesia Apostolica , extra quam nulla est Salus . In Prin. Bullae . Pii . 5. y Declaramus Elizabetham Haereticam eique Adhaerentes Anathematis sententiam , incurrisse , esseque a Christi Corporis Vnitate Praecisos . Ibid . §. 3. 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. 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. b Omnia à Concilijs Oecumenicis tradita , definita , & Declarata , Indubitant●r recipio , & profiteor . Ibid. p. 452. c Apostolicas Traditiones , reliqu●sque Ejusdem Ecclesiae Constitutiones firmissimè admitto & amplector . Ibid. p. 451. d Conc. Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat . cap. 12. Proviside Beneficiis , &c. 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. Observ. 4. e Jer. 1. 10. 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 . g Cum Ascenderemus Palfredum nostrum , Fridericus Imp. Stepham tenuit . &c. Constit. 8. Alexand. 3. In Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 65. Col. 2. h Deus Jeremiam , & in illo Evangelicum Sacerdotem instruxit dicens ; Ecce Constitui Te super Gentes & Regna , ut Evellas , destruas , disperdas , &c. quae Potestas imminet in Romano Antistite , qui à Christo , ut sit Caput Ecclesiae , accepit . Ibid. Constit. 9. p. 65. Col. 2. i Ejus Vices gerenics in terris , & in Sede Justitiae Constituti , Juxta Jeremiae Vaticinium , &c. super Omnes Reges Vniversae Terrae . In Bullâ Damnationis Hen. 8. data Rom. 1535. & 1538. k Spiritualis Potestas terrenam judicare debet , si bona non fuerit : sic Verificatur Vaticinium Jeremiae , Constitui Te super Gentes , &c. Cap. unam Sanctam . 1. de major . & Obed. Extrav . Communes . l Cap. Solicit . 6. Extra . De Major . & Obedientia . m Deus Papam Totius Orbis praecipuum ob●inere voluit Magistratum . Bonif. 8. in Bulla . 6. Decretalium praesixa . n Dictum Bonif. 8. Cap. Licet Romanus . De Constitut. in . 6. Romanus Pontifex jura Omnia in Scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere . 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 , &c. Bulla dicta in Principio . 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 alter'd 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 . q Hunc unum ( Petrum scilicet ) Principem Constituit , &c. Ibid. in dicta Bulla . r Super Omnes Gentes , & Omnia Regna , Ibid . s Jer. 1. 10. t Vide Corn. A Lapide in Prin. Argument . Comment . sui in Jeremiam . u For proof of this , see the Quotations before Observ. 2. x Pope Honorius , and Pope Vigilius anciently condemned for Hereticks in General Councils ; and of later times , the General Councils of Pisa , Constance , and Basil condemned others . y Vide Constitut. 9. Alexand. 3. In Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. p. 65. Col. 2. z ( 2 ) Jer. 1. 10. a He is beaten by Pashur . Jer. 20 , 1. Apprehended and Arraigned . Jer. 26. 8. Imprison'd by Zedekiah . Chap. 32. 3. and beaten and imprison'd by the Princes . Jer. 37. 15. by them put into a Dungeon . Jer. 38. 6. b A suis Concivibus in Taphnis Aegypti , Lapidibus Obrut us , Martyr occubuit . Ita Hieronymus , Tertull. Doroth. Epiphan . Isiodor . &c. Corn. A Lapide Comment . in Jerem. in Argumento . 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 . d Gen. 41. 13. e It is a memorable Story we are told to this purpose ; not by any Lutheran , but a Learned Sorbon Doctor , an ear-witness of it , who says , That when Pope Innocent . X. was pressed to Determine the Controversie 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. f Vide Jer. 18. 7. 8. &c. Jer. 25. 15. 16. 17. &c. & Cap. 42. 10. & 45. 4. g Constitui Te ut Evellas , i. e. ut Intermineris Hostibus meis , ( quos Regionibus suis Plantavi ) Me inde per Bella , &c. evulsurum , nisi resipuerint . A Lapide . in Jer. 1. 70. h Ita Deus Plant at & Evellit Gentes : nam Jeremias reipsa nec plantavit nec Ev●lsit Gentes . Ergo , ut Ev●●las & Plantes ; Idem est quod , ut has Gentes evellendas , illas plantandas A Deo mineris ac Praedices . Idem Ibidem . i Cap. Solitae . 6. Extra de Major . & Obedientia . k Ostendit S●cerdotium praeeminere R●gibus , dicto Jeremiae Glossa ad dictum Cap. verbo . Solitae Benignitatis . l Vide Corpus Juris Can. Cum Glossis ; Paris . 1612. In Nota , Titulum . Tom. 2. Immediatè ( seu pagina proxima ) sequente . m Constitui Te , ut Evellas ] Vitia scilicet , & plantes ] Virtutes , Glossa ad dictum Cap. Solitae . verbo , Constitui Te , &c. n Glossas Eruditissumas Edidit . Vid. dictam Notam in Prin. Tom. 2. Juris Can. Paris 1612. o Vid. Bullam Greg. 13. Corp. Juris Can. praefixam . p 1. Peter 2. 13. 14. Jer. 1. 10. Gen. 1. 16. 17. &c. Joh. 21. 16. Matth. 16. 18. 19. Luc. 22. 38. Rom. 13. 1. 2. Gen. 1. 1. 1. Cor. 2. 15. 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 . Observ. 5. r Christus Ecclesiam Apostolorum Principi tradidit gubernandam ; & hunc unum Super Omnes Gentes & Omnia Regna Principem Constituit . Dictae Bullae principio . s Matth. 10. 2. t Petrus Apostolorum Primus & Primas , poterat Apostolis praecipere , & si in fide aut moribus errarent , Corrigere , &c. Corn. A Lapide in Matth. 10. 2. 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 . x Index Librorum Prohib . & Expurg . Madriti . 1667. p. 289. Col. 1. 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. 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 So Homer and Virgil are call'd 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 . b Dicti● Breviarij Part. aestivâ , ad Diem . 29. Junij , in Festo SS . Apostolorum Petri & Pauli . p. 476. & in Festo S. Andreae . Nov. 30. Ibidem pag. 780. c Vide Commune Sanctorum in Calce Partis Aestivae , dicti Breviarij , & in Communi Apostolorum & Evangelistarum . pag. 4. d Ad matutinum , Invitatorium . Regem Apostolorum Dominum , Venite adoremus . 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 call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . & 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 , &c. These are the words of Pope Leo ( and he Infallible ) cited there by Bellarmine . f Hoc erant utique & Caeteri Apostoli , Quod suit Petrus , Pari Consortio praediti & Honoris & Potestatis . Cyprian de Unitate Ecclesiae . p. 208. Edit . Rigaltij . g Ecclesiam suam Vni Soli , Petro Commisit gubernandam ; & hunc Vnum Super Omnes Gentes & Regna Principem Constituit . Bulla dicta in Principio . h Joh. 20. 21. i Ibidem . vers . 22. k Mark. 16. 20. l Ibid. vers . 23. m Matth. 16. 19. n Ministri Ecclesiae ad Remmissionem peccati , Per Virtutem Clavium Ministerialiter operantur . Lyran. in Joh. 20. 23. Vid. Tirinum , Menochium , &c. in Matth. 16. 19. o Matth. 28. 19. 20. p Mark. 16. 15. q Matth. 28. 20. r Simon , who Matth. 10. 4. is call'd Simon the Cananite , in the Syriack Version there , and Luk. 6. 15. is call'd 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. Objection . s Vide Constitut. Bonif. 8. Cap. unam Sanctam . 1. De Majorit . & Obed. Extravag . Communes . & Innocent . 3. Cap. Solicitae . 6. Extra . de Major . & Obedientiâ . t Matth. 16. 18. 19. u Promittit hic Christus Petro , quod ipse & Successor Ejus Omnis , sit Ecclesiae Supremum Caput , Princeps & Monarcha . Jac. Tirinus in Math. 16. 18. 19. 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. y De Petro ut Fundamentali Petra loquitur Christus . Joh. Stephan . Menochius in Matth. 16. 18. 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. Responsio . 1. a Marcellinus Pontifex ad Scrificia Gentium ductus , Deos alienos Adoravit . Plat. in vita Marcel . b Cum Arianis sentiebat , &c. Plat. in vit . Liber . 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. d Vid. Synod . 5. & Rich. Crakanthorp . in vigilio Dormitante . Ed. Richerium in Hist. Concil . Generalium . p. 302. e Vid. Plat. in vitâ Johan . 8. & Notas Car. Annibalis Fabroti , ad vitas Pont. Anast. p. 290. f Vid. Genebrardi Chronol . circa Initium seculi . 10. l. 4. p. 807. ad Annum 901. 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. & ad An. 925. §. 10. p. 688. Edit . Annal. Antverp . 1618. vid. loca & hic adde . 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 . i Sunt qui scribunt , post mortem Nicolai . 1. Sedem vacasse Ann. 8. Mens . 7. d. 9. Platina in Calce vitae Nicolai . 1. k In that great Schism , commonly reckon'd for the 27. Schism in their Church ; which begun about the Year 1378. Vrbanus . 6. being Pope at Rome , and Clem. 7. at Avignion . l Anno Dom. 1409. or as others . 1410. m Longus A Coriolano . Summa Con. p. 857. Col. 2. n In maximâ Praelatorum Frequentiâ , utérque Pontifex ab iis damnatus est , utróque tanquam Perjuro , Schismatico , Haeretico , è Pontificatu dejecto . Idem Ibidem Col. 1. o Concil . Constanti●nse Anno 1414. 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. 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. desinitivâ . r Catechismus Romanus . Part. 1. Cap. 10. §§ . 11. 12. s Ibid. §. 13. p. 117. Edit . Paris . 1635. t Matth. 16. 19. 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. x Index Librorum Prohibit : & Expurg . Madriti . 1667. In Desid . Erasmo . p. 289. Col. 1. y Super hanc Petram ; i. e. super fidei Tuae soliditatem . Can. loquitur . 18. Caus. 24. Quaest. 1. verbo . Petram , in Glossâ . z Super hanc Petram , quam Confessus es ; i. e. Christum . Lyranus in Matth. 16. 18. a Super hanc Petram , i. e. Christum in quem credis . Glossa Interlinearia in dictum Locum . b So Gregorius Magnus in . 7. Psalmos Poenitential . Tom. 2. Operum Paris . 1619. pag. 908. D. Christus est Petra , à qua Petrus Nomen Accepit , & Super Quam se aedificaturum Ecclesiam dixit — Quod Ecclesia nullis Persecutionibus sit superanda , Ipse Super Quem aedificata est , Ostendit , cum ait , Portae Inferorum non praevalebunt contra eam . So Strabo Fuldensis in his Ordin . Gloss. on Matth. 16. 18. circa Ann. 840. And after them Lyranus ( in the Place cited ) who though he was a Franciscan Frier , and flourished almost Four hundred years ago , and in many things ( as those times were ) Popish enough ; yet he was not come so far , as to make Peter , or any but Christ , the Rock on which the Church was built : And again , on the 1. Cor. 3. 11. Solus Christus est Fundamentum Ecclesiae , quod ex se firmitatem & stabilitatem habet . And the Gloss on their own Canon Law , says , That Christ was the Rock ; for Boniface . 8. in that famous Extravagant . Cap. Unam Sanctam . 1. Indeavouring to prove the Papal Supremacy from several Places in Scripture ; he adds , That the Authority given to Peter and his Successors by our blessed Saviour , was not Human but Divine . Haec Authoritas , licet homini data , non humana , sed potius Divina , ore divino Petro data & Successoribu , &c. The Gloss on these words , Est autem haec Authoritas . p. 191. says thus — Haec Authoritas est Divina , quia firmata est in Petra firma , in Christo , qui erat verus Deus : & quod sit Divina , quia fundata in eo ; patet ex Evangelio ; quia Christus loquebatur cum dixit , super hanc Petram ; id est , super meipsum ( qui sum Petra , & qui significor per Petram ) aedificabo Ecclesiam meam . Ita Gloss. verbo , Est autem haec Authoritas . Ad Cap. Unam Sanctam . 1. Extrav . Commun . c Super hanc Petram , i. e. Super Ipsum Petrum , seu Petram seu Cepham , vel Super Fidem Petri quae est Catholica . Dr. Hen. Holden in Annotat. in Nov. Testam . Paris . 1660. ad Matth. 16. 18. & ad . 7. Matth. vers . 25. d Synodus Statuit , praemittendam esse Confessionem Fidei — Symbolum fidei ; quo Romana Ecclesia utitur , tanquam Principium — ac Fundamentum firmum ac Vnicum , contra quod portae Inferi nunquam praevalebunt . Conc. Trident. Sess. 3. Feb. 4. Ann. 1546. e Matth. 16. 18. f Per Petram , Confessionem Fidei intelligunt Chrysostomus , Cyrillus , Hilarius , & Rom. Pontifices , Leo magnus , Agatho , Nicolaus , & Adrianus primus in suis Decretalibus , Stapleton , Princep . Fidei Doct. Demonstr . Controvers . 2. l. 6. c. 2. p. 207. 208. g Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum ; Ego dico Tibi , quia Tues Petrus , & Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam . Super Illum Vnum aedificat Ecclesiam . Catechis . Trid. ex Decreto Conc. Trid. à Pio. 5. Editus . Part. 1. Cap. 10. de . 9. Symboli Art. §. 12. p. 115. Edit . Paris . 1635. h Matth. 7. 24. 25. i 1 Joh. 5. 4. 5. k Orat Sacerdos , ut Sacra Symbola Omnibus cedant , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In Lit. Jac. Graec. Paris . 1560. p. 20. vid. Fabr. Stapulensem in Matth. 16. 18. So Pope Nicol. 2. Ecclesia super Petram fidei fundata , Gratian. Can. Omnes . 1. Dist. 22. And the Apostle in his Canonical Epistle ( Jude 20. ) adviseth all , to build up themselves on their most holy Faith. l Isa. 28. 16. m Edit . Rom. 1590. n Edit . Rom. 1592. o Bellarmine , in Praefat. ad Libr. de Pontif . Rom. vid. R. Crakanth . Contra Spalatens . Cap. 81. §. 3. p. 612. p Vid. Hieronym . in Isaiae 28. vers . 16. Isiodor . Clarius in . 1. Cor. 3. 10. Fundatissimum Fundamentum Christus . q 1 Pet. 2. 6. 7. 8. and Act. 4. 11. r Rom. 9. 33. & 10. 11. 1. Cor. 3. 11. & 1. Cor. 10. 4. s Matth. 21. 42. But though Paul and Peter , and our blessed Saviour himself do expound the word Rock on which the Church is built , not to be meant of Peter , but Christ the Messiah , ( as appears by the foregoing Texts ) yet Maldonate the Jesuit ( whose words I shall cite anon ) says — That 't is very far from sense so to expound it . Maldonate in Matth. 16. 17. p. 339. Col. 1. E. And yet Card. Cusanus says , That Christ was that Rock . Operum p. 826. And so Cyrill in the Aurea Catenâ Graec. Patrum in Psalmos David . 50. per Dan. Barbaram Patriarcham Aquileiensem ; Venet. 1569. ad vers . 2. Psal. 39. ( aliâs . 40. p. 400. 401. So Gregorius Magnus in 7. Psal. Poenitent . Tom. 2. p. 980. D. So Chrysostom , &c. t 1. Pet. 2. 5. u Eph. 2. 20. x Rev. 21. 14. y Noveritis Symbolum hoc esse Fundamentum super quod aedificium Ecclesiae surrexit . Ang. lib. 3. de Symbolo ad Catechumen . Tom. 9. z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophylact . in Matth. 16. 17. 18. a Alcazar ' s words are these — Censco Apostolos ideo fundatores Ecclesiae dici ; quia fidei summam ediderunt , & eff us● Cruoris Testimonio , necnon praedicatione & Miraculi● in hominum animis inseverunt . Corn. A Lapide in Apocal. 21. 14. p. 112. Col. 2. C. b Concil . Trident. Sess. 3. Apostolicum Symbolum vocat firmum atque Vnicum Fundamentum , Contra quod portae Inferi non praevalebunt . Idem , ibid. Col. 2. E : c Tale Fundamentum à Paulo fuit Jactum . 1 Cor. 3. 10. in Saptens Architectus Fundamenum posui . Idem , ibidem . d Idem dic●nt alia Concilia & Pa●res . Ibid. e Sunt inter veteres Authores , qui Interpretantur super hanc Petram ; i. e. Super Hanc Fidem ; aut Super hanc Fidei Confessionem quâ me Filium esse Dei vivi dixisti : ut Hilarius , Greg : Nyssenus , Chrysostomus , Cyrillus Alexandrinus , Ambrosius in Epistolas Pauli , &c. Maldonat . in Matth. 16. 17. p. 339. Col. 1. E. f Longiùs etiam à Sensu Reccdens Augustinus interpretatur , super hanc Petram , i. e. Super meipsum , quia Petra erat Christus . Maldonat . ibid. g Certum est apud Omnes haec . 12. Fundamenta ( Rev. 21. 14. ) significare . 12. Apostolos ; ipsorum enim humeris quasi innixus Ecclesiae murus recumbit . Ideo enim eorum nomina fundamentis Inscripta sunt , ut significetur Ipos esse fundamente & fundatores ( haec enim duo eodem recidunt ) Ecclesiae . Corn. A Lapide in Apoc. 21. 14. p. 312. Col. 1. D. h 1. Tim. 3. 15. 1. Cor. 3. 9. 16. i 1 Pet. 2. 5. k Eph. 4. 11. 12. l Eph. 1. 22. 23. The Church which is his Body . m 1 Cor. 3. 9. 10. And I ( says Paul ) as a Master-Builder , &c. n Ye are Gods building , and as a skilful Master-Builder , I have laid The Foundation . 1. Cor. 3. 11 : 12. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 peritum , significat . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hesychius . 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 . 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. 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. r 1. Cor. 15. 10. I laboured More abundantly then They All. And 2. Cor. 11. 23. s Plus reliquis ; quia illi , ut plurimum , Judaeis praedicabant , quorum facilis Catechizatio ( cum legem & Prophetas admiserunt ) Paulus Gentibus , qui utrāsque negabant . Irenaeus Adversus Haereses lib. 4. cap. 41. p. 379. C. Edit . Feu-Ardentij . t 2. Cor. 11. 23. Vid. Originem contra Celsum , Graeco-Lat . p. 49. u 2. Cor. 11. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . X 1. Cor. 7. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Y Concil . Trident. Sess. 4. In Decreto de Edit . Sacrorum Liborum . z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Inde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; Edictum , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Constitutio . Glossae veteres in Calce Cyrilli , &c. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Phavorinus , verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Theodor. in . 1. Cor. 7. 17. Oecumenius and Theophylact say to the same purpose , on the same place . Confer 1. Cor. 16. 1. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Photius Epist. 117. pag. 158. & ibid. p. 109. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Paulus autem peculiaritèr Orbi Vniverso . Nicol. Methon . De Corp. & Sang. Christi in magna Bibl. Patrum . Tom. 12. p. 519. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Vniversi Orbis Terrarum sollicitudinem mecum gero . Theodor. in . 2. Cor. 11. 28. 1. Our blessed Saviour . 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. 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 . Feuardentij . h Gen. 3. 15. i Act. 13. 18. 24. Luc. 1. 70. & Luc. 24. 27. k Hebr. 9. 15. l Hebr. 11. 13. vid. Eusebium Hist. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 6. B. Edit . Valesij . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . &c. 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. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Christum distinctè cognitum habuerunt . Enseb . Hist. lib. 1. c. 4. p. 16. B. n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Si non nomine , reipsa tamen Christianos . Idem plane habet Augustinus , Retract . lib. 1. cap. 13. o Galat. 3. 8. p Luc. 24. 25. 26. 27. 44. q Act. 26. 22. 23. and Act. 28. 23. r Lombard . Sent. I. 3. Dist. 25. vid. Johan . Martinez de Ripalda ad dictam Distinctionem . 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. t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Omnium siquidem fundamentum est Christus , qui sibi ad mota , fixa firmáque sustineat . Procopius in Cap. 44. Isaiae . p. 504. And a little after — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. 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 Jesu . Augustin . Enarrat . in Psal. 86. Tom. 8. pag. 955. Operum Basil. 1569. 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 Jesu . Eph. 2. 20. Maldonat . in Matth. 7. 24. p. 178. x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hebr. 13. 20. y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Pet. 5. 4. z John 10. 27. a John 10. 15. b Act. 20. 28. c Rev. 15. 3. d Hebr. 3. 5. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ut famulus : Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , super domum , ut Filius & Dominus . e 2. Cor. 4. 5. 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 . g Matth. 10. 1. 2. 3. &c. Mark. 3. 14. Luk. 9. 1. &c. h Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus nec per hominem , Gal. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Dominus eum vocavit voelitus , homine non usus Administro . Theodoret in loc . Non Petro. Estius in locum . i Matthias à Collegio Apostolorum factus est Apostolus ; Ita Estius in Gal. 1. 1. k Haec omnia factae sunt dirigente Petro , qui totius Operis fuit Choraegus . A Lapide in cap. 1. Act. Apost . p. 57. Col. 1. C. l Apostoli cateríque fideles Communi consensis Nominarunt duos , &c. A. Lapide , ibidem . m Matth. 10. 1. 2. 3. &c. Mark. 3. 13. 14. 15. Luk. 9. 1. n Matth. 10. 5. 6. o Matth. 28. 18. 19. Mark. 16. 15. 16. John. 20. 22. 23. p Francis. A Victoria . SS . Theol. Salamanticensis Academiae , in primariâ Cathedra Professore Eximio & Incomparabili . Ita habet Libri sui Epigraphe seu Titulus . q Omnem Potestatem , quam Apostoli habuerunt , reciperunt Immediatè à Christo. Victoria Prelect . 2. De Potest . Eccles. Conc. 3. p. 84. r Apostoli Omnes habuerunt aequalem Potestatem cum Petro. Ibid. Conc. 4. p. 85. f Quod sic Intelligo ; quod quilibet Apostolus habuit Potestatem Ecclesiasticam in toto Orbe , & ad Omnes Actus ad quos Petrus habuit . Ibid. t Non loquor de illis Actibus , qui spectant ad solum summum Pontisicem , ut Congregatio Generalis Concilij . Ibidem . u Vid. Hist. Conc. Generalium , per Ed. Richerium Doct. & Socium Sorbonicum . Colon. 1680. where he clearly proves , the first Eight General Councils were call'd by the Emperors . x Matth. 16. 19. y Cap. Solicit . 6. Extra De Major . & Obedientiâ . vid. Baron . Tom ▪ 11. ad Ann. 1076. §. 25. 26. z Cap. unam sanct . 1. De Major . & Obedientia . Extravag . Com. a Bellarm. de Pont. Rom. l. 5. c. 7. §. Item ; & §. sic enim . b Conc. Lateran . sub Leo. 10. Sess. 11. apud Binium . Tom. 9. p. 153. A. B. c Honoratus Faber Societi● Jesu , libro cui Titulus — Una Fides , Unius Ecclesiae Rom. Delingae . 1567. cap. 19. Cujus Lemma est ; Claves Regni Coelorum Duntaxac Petro Datae fuerunt . d Prodiit dictus Liber , cum facultate Superiorum , & Privilegio Caesareo . 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. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. f Matth. 18. 18. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. 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 , &c. h Processionale juxta Ritum Ecclesiae Romanae restitutum Paris . 1663. p. 205. In Commendatione Animae . i Manuale dictum . Londini . 1554. p. 72. k Quilibet Sacerdos est Vicarius Petri & Pauli , &c. Ibid. p. 73. l Missale dictum Ms. In Formulâ Absolutionis . p. 111. 112. m Apud Eadmerum Hist. Novorum , per Seldenum lib. 1. pag. 27. n Apud G. Ferrarium De Cath. Eccl. Divi nis Officiis . Romae . 1591 p. 39. in Absolut . plurali & p. 40. In Absolut . singulari . Col. 1. A. B. 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 . p Pontificale Romanum . Romae . 1611. p. 52. De Ordinat . Presbyteri . q Joh. 20. 22. 23. Accipe Spiritum Sanctum , quorum remisseris peccata , remitt antur eis ; & quorum retinueris , retenta sunt . 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. s Matth. 16. 19. Conc. Trident. Ibid. c. 6. t Summam Absolutamque Potestatem , Supremum Caput , summumique Pastorem . Luc. Brugensis . in locum Matth. 16. 19. u Nos Christi Vices tenentes , in terris , Nobisque in . Petri Personâ , dictum sit , Quodcunque Ligaveris , &c. Imperatonem Privamus , & Subditos à Juramento fidelitatis absolvimus . Apud Binium . Conc. Tom. 7. Part. 2. p. 854. x Vide Sacramentarium Gregorij Magni , per Hugonem Menardū Paris . 1642. p. 113. In Vigilia 88. Petri & Pauli . Where they pray thus — Deus , qui Ligandi Solvendique Licentiam This Aposlolis Commisisti , &c. Barlaam de Primatu Papae . lib. 2. Confesseth that the Keys were given to Peter — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. 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 cites 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . y Joh. 20. 21. 22. 23. z Vide Catechism . Trident. Part. 1. cap. 11. §. 4. et . loca in Margine notata , in Edit . Paris . 1635. p. 129. & Ibid. §. 9. p. 132. & Part. 2. cap. 5. De Poenitent . §. 12. p. 309. 310. & Ibidem §. 55. p. 339. 340. & Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentiâ . cap. 5. & 6. a Remittuntur eis , 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 . 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. c Joh. 20. 21. d Hebr. 3. 1. e Deus erat in Christo , quasi in Vicario & Legato . Ambros. in . 2. Cor. 5. 19. Explicat . Ambros. Cap. 16. f Deus pro Christo Vicarios dedit Apostolos , ut Pro Ipso praedicarent reconciliationem . Idem ibidem . g 2 Cor. 5. 19. 20. h Obsecramus pro Christo ; i. e. Loco Christi , cujus sumus Ministri . Lyranus in locum . 2. Cor. 5. 20. i Ministerium reconciliationis dedit nobis ; i. e. Vicariis Apostolis ; And again , Legatione fungimur pro Christo ; i. e. Vice Christi . 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. l Vide Johan . Lanoium Epist. Tom. 6. pag. 292. m Vid. Missale Roman . ex Decreto Concilij Trident. restitutum , Pij . 5. Jussu Editum . Clement . 8. Authoritate recognitum ; Antv. 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 Pastores . Hanc Orationem iisdem plane verbis conceptam , habes in Missali secudum usum Yorke , 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 Doway , expresly 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 . n Matth. 18 , 18. Joh. 20. 22. 23. o So Pope . Bonif. 8. urges that Place , Matth. 16. 19. Quodcunque Ligaveris , &c. 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. cites 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 , & Omnes Christianos à vinculo Juramenti , quod sibi fecere , an t facient , absolvo . Baronius Annal. Tom. 11. Ad Ann. 1076. §§ . 25. 26. p Petrus & Paulus ambo Principes . Card. Cusanus . Epist. 2. De usu Communionis ad Bohemos . Operum . p. 836. Edit . Basil. 1565. q Nec Mysterio caret , Romanum Pontificem . Authoritate Petri & Pauli Ligare & Solvere . Idem ibid. 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 . 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 . t Nec in hoc Alter Alteri Suberat , sed Ambo sub Christo Immediate . Idem ibidem . 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 . x Synodus declarat Episcopos , qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt . Conc. Trid. Sess. 23. De Sacramento Ordin . c. 4. y Christus Ascensurus , Sacerdotes sui Ipsius Vicarios reliquit , &c. Con. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenit. c. 5. de Confessione . 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 expresly set down , — Saoerdotes sunt Vicarij Christi . And refer to the. 14. Sess. c. 5. before Cited . In Edit . Conc. Trid. Antv. 1633. Object . 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. 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. 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 & Pastores . Cap. Solicit . 6. Extrav . de Majorit . & Obedientiâ . 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. Answer . e The Popes 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 , &c. Vide Bullam Pij Papae 4. Super forma professionis fidei in Concil . Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat . post . cap. 12. Edit . Antverp . 1633. f Matth. 10. 2. g Joh. 1. 40. 41. 42. 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 't is added , That the Supream Jurisdiction of the Pope , Nullis Synodicis , aut Humanis Constitutionibus , sed Divinitùs data est . i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . &c. Etenim Antiquae Romae Throno , quod Vrbs illa Imperaret , Jure Patres Privilegiadederunt . Conc. Chalcedon . Can. 28. Apud Bin. Tom. 3. p. 446. k Conc. Const. 1. Can. 5. apud bin . Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 661. Episcopus Constantinopolitanus habere debet . Primatûs Honorem Post Romanum Episcopum , quia Civitas illa est nova Roma . l Vid. Binium Conc. Tom. 3. Edit . Paris . 1636. pag. 461. & pag. 464. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Binius ibidem . p. 463. E. F. & 464. D. n Vide Edictum Valentiniani & Marciani . Ibid. pag. 476. 477. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. Universi ideo quae à Synodo Chalcedonensi Constituta sunt , Custodire debent . Et vide ibid. p. 477 478. Edictum Marciani , de Confirmatione Synodi Chalcedonensis . o Binius ibid. Conc. Tom. 3. p. 480. p Ibid. pag. 479. q Ibid. pag. 481. 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 , &c. See the Authorities they there urge for it . p. 391. Edit . Paris . 1635. s Apud Binium ubi supra . pag. 479. E. t Clementiam vestram Precor , & Sedulâ Suggestione Obsecro , &c. Ita Leo Papa in Epist. Marciano Imperatori , Apud Binium . Conc. Tom. 3. p. 481. Col. 1. B. 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. x It was in terminis Confirm'd 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 . y Dionysius Exiguus Abbas-Romanus sub Justiniano , Circa An. 540. as Trithemius , or . 520. as others . 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. &c. 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 , &c. So Gratian in the Old Editions , as is Confess'd . Vid. Corpus Jur. Can. Cum Glossis . Paris . 1612. & sine Glossis . Paris . 1618. & ibi Notas ad hunc Canonem . b Definimus neminem Mundi Potentum , quenquam qui Patriarchalibus praesunt Sedibus , in honorare praecipuè sanctissimum Papam Senioris Romae , deinceps autem Constantinopoleos Patriarcham , deinde Alexandriae , &c. Ita Synodus . 8. habita sub Adriano Papa . Can. 21. And this an approved Council at Rome . c Gratian. Can. Definimus . 7. Dist. 22. Vid. Glossam Ibid. d Vid. Bullam Greg. 13. dat . Romae . 1. Julij 1580. Juri Canonico praefixam . Edit . Paris . 1612. & 1618. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In Epist. Synod . 8. ad Adrianum . Apud Binium Conc. Tom. 7. Part. 1. p 984. f Vid. Greg. Maj. Regist. l. 4. Epist. 32. & 34. 36. 38. & l. 6. Epist. 30. & l. 7. Epist. 30. pag. 220. 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 . h John 21. 15. 16. i Vide Epitomen Canon . &c. per Greg. De Rives Capucinum . Lugd. 1603. Tract . de Primatu , p. 3. 4. where for Peter's Supremacy , he cites 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. Inclusivè . k 'T is certain , and confess'd , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s●gnifies to rule . Kings are call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , populi pastores . So Menelaus and Agamemnon usually in Homer , and in Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And the Gloss. veteres in Galce Cyrilli , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pecor , a pasco and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Rego . l Act. 20. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Presbyters of that Church . m Act. 20. 4. 6. n Vers. 28. cap 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. o 1. Pet. 5. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. q Act. 20. 28. 1. Pet. 5. 2. 3. r Dominus Patres Tridentinos Divinitùs Inspirare dignatus est . Pius Papa . 4. in Bullà super formâ Juramenti professionis Fidei . s Praecepto Divino Mandatum est Omnibus , quibus Animarum Cura Commissa est , Oves Agnoscere , pro iis Sacrificium offerre , 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. t Act. 20. 28. u 1. Pet. 5. 2. x Joh. 21. 15. 16. 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 . z Maldonut . speaking of Matth. 28. 19. where our blessed Saviour gives Commission to all his Apostles — Go ye therefore into All the World , &c. 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. &c. §. 65. p. 1889. E. This he says , and truly . But then he should have consider'd , that if it was impossible for every one of the Apostles to teach all the world ; then 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. 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. b Heb. 4. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . c 1. Pet. 5. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . d Heb. 13. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e Act. 1. 17. 25. f 2. Cor. 4. 5. g Hoc erant Caeteri Apostoli , quod fuit Petrus ; Pari Consortio praediti & Honoris , & Potestatis , Cyprian . de Unit. Eccles. p. 208. Edit . Rigaltij . Pastores sunt Omnes Apostoli , sed Grex Vnus , qui ab Omnibus unanimi Consensione Pascatur . Pasce Oves meas , belong'd equally to all the Apostles , as well as to Peter , in Cyprian ' s Opinion , as shall appear anon . h Nicol. Regaltius in Observatione Galeata , Notis suis ad Cypriani Opera praesixa . i Vid. Cypr. Epist. 67. p. 128. 129. Edit . Rigaltii : & Epist. 72. Ibid. p. 142. in Cal●e dictae Epistolae , &c. & Epist. 55. p. 95. 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● Partes 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. 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 . m Cyprian . Epist. 55. ad Cornelium , pag. 95. Ad Petri Cathedram , & ad Ecclesiam Principalem , unde unitas exorta est . n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. Quia Vrbs illa Imperaret , Patres dederunt Privilegia . Conc. Chalcedonense . Can. 28. o Ad Ecclesiam Principalem ] Id est , in Vrbe Principali Constitutam . Rigaltius ad Epist. Cyprian . 55. p. 78. Notarum 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 — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. dictarum quatuor Synodorum dogmata , sicut Sanctas Scripturas accipimus , & Canones sicut Leges Observamus . Observ. 6. 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 . 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. s Cum in Petrì Cathedrâ sedeat , ut Petri Successor , Christique Vicarius in terris , Vniversali Ecclesiae Praesidet . Ibid . Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. p. 391. t Matth. 10. 1. Mark. 3. 14. Luk. 9. 1. u Ibid. Matth. 10. 1. 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. y Paul was there two whole years , Act. 28. 30. writ them a long and excellent Epistle ; But 't is 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 . z Matth 28. 19. 20. a Mark. 16. 15. b Matth. 10. 5. 6. c Euseb. 1. 3. Demonstrat . Evangelicae . p. 136. and he has our blessed Saviour's word for it . Matth. 24. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 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 Orbe , & 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 acknowledg'd ; Paul an Apostle , Praedicator veritatis per Vniversum Mundum . In Festo Cathedrae Petri Antiochiae . Febr. 22. 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 call'd 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 call'd and confirm'd by the Emperors . Vid. Edm. Richer . D. Sorb . in Hist. de Conc. General . Colon. 1680. f Act. 15. 2. g Act. 15. 7. h Act. 15. 19. 20. 21. i Act. 15. 22. k Ibidem . 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. m Act. 16. 4. n Act. 8. 14. a Act. 11. 2. 3. 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. c Impijautem Pontifices Nunc nec ab Ecclesiâ argui , aut in Ordinem cogi volunt , quasi sint Domini non Ministri . Ibidem . d Si Papa innumerabiles populos sccum ducit , primo mancipio Gehennae , &c. 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. e Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. 14. f 2. Cor. 11. 5. & 12. vers . 11. g Gal. 2. 9. 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. i Qui Apostolus est , Sammam habet in Omnem Ecclesiam Potestatem , Bellarmin . De Rom. Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 12. in Respons . 3. & Object . 2. 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 . l Romanum Pontificem succedere Petro , non habetur expresse in Scripturis , ( no , nor Implicitè neither ) tamen succedere aliquem Petro , deducitur evidentèr ex Scripturis , illum autem esse Romanum Pontificem , habetur ex traditione Apostolica . Bellarmin . dicto lib. & cap. §. Observandum Tertio . 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. n Vid. Tho. Campegium Episc. Feltrensem , de Potestate Rom. Pont. Capp . 13. 14. & Bellarminum de Roman . Pontisice , lib. 2. c. 12. &c. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c Non id Petro uni Successorbusque suis reservatum . Pet. Possinus Jesuita , Catena Graec. Patrum in Matth. Tom. 1. p. 232. p Joh. 20. 22. 23. 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 , &c. r Absent à Contextu Graeco , verba illa , Caput Vniversalis , &c. loco dicto , in margine . s Vide Indicem Librorum Prohibitorum Alexand. 7. Jussu Editum , Romae , Ann. 1664. verbo , De Concordia Sacerdotij , &c. p. 29. & p. 352. ubi extat Decretum Congrationis Jndicis , in quo damnatur hic Petri de Marca Liber . t Non fuisset Christus Diligens Pater-familias , si non dimisisset in Terrâ aliquem qui Vice suâ possit subvenire necessitatibus Ecclesiae , &c. De Potestat . Rom. Pontif. cap. 1. §. 3. pag. 2. u Christus Ecclesiae Defuissct , nec de Necessariis prospexisset , Nisi Monarcham aliquem & Judicem Constituisset , &c. Vide Albert. Pighium Controvers . 3. fol. 70. 71. 76. x Christus dum fuit in Mundo , de jure naturali , in Imperatorem & Quoscunque Alios Deposnionis Sementias ferre 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 . y Vide Bullam Greg. 13. dat . Rom. 1. Julij , Ann. 1580. praefixam . Corp. Juris Can. Paris . 1612. & 1618. 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 indeavours to prove , from a spurious and ridiculous , as well as impious Canon . Can. Non Nos . 1. Dist. 40. 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 . b Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Ecclesiast in Fortunatiano . c Vid. Hist. Haeresis Monothlitarum , per Fran. de Combesis Dominicanum . Paris . 1648. p. 65. &c. 121. &c. ubi contra Pighium , Baronium , &c. probat evidentèr Honorium Synodo . 6. damnatum . d Vid. D. Rlch. Crakanthorp , in Vigilio dormitante . e Let any man read those two Constitutions before nam'd . 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 Damnations 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. f Matth. 20. 26. 27. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Primus seu Princeps , ( plus est quam esse Magnum ) aliis Omnibus Major ( yet this the Pope would have ) . Luc. Burgensis . in Matth. 20. 27. h Matth. 23. 8. 9. 10. 11. i Gal. 1. 1. * Joh. 1. 40 , 41 , &c. 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 . 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. m Conc. Chalcedon . Can. 28. Conc. Constant. 1. Can. 5. apud P. Crabb . Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 411. 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 maintain'd 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 Popes Monarchical Supremacy and Infallibility . Vide dicti lib. cap. 13. pag. 393. &c. 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 facult as 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. 2. p Petrus Romae Sedem suam , Jubente Domino , Collocavit . Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. 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 , &c. Catechism . Trident. Part. 2. cap. 7. §. 28. pag. 391. Edit . Paris . 1635. 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 . s Nullum Christi , ea dere , Decretum Extat . So A Lapide Confesses ; in Apoc. 17. vers . 17. pag. 268. Col. 2. A. 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 . Antv. 1633. u Hanc Catholicam fidem , extra quam nemo Salvus esse potest , quam in Praesenti profiteor , & teneo , eandem usque ad ultimum vitae spiritum Constantissime retinere , &c. Spondeo , Voveo , Juro . Ibidem . x 1 Pet. 5. 13. y Primam Petri Epistolam Romae Scriptam ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) aiunt , quam Petrus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellat . Eusebius Hist. l. 2. c. 15. p. 53. B. Valesio . 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 vivâ voce . Euseb. l. 3. c. 39. p. 111. 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. b Ita opinatus videtur Papias , ex male Intellectis Apostolorum narrationibus . Fuit enim Mediocri Admodum Ingenio Praeditus . Euseb. ibidem . Lit. c. 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. Object . d Colon. Allobr . 1612. e Paris . 1659. 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 . g Omnium aliaruni Artium scientiâ vir planè disertissimus . Ibidem . 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. Answer . i Quibus Temporibus floruit Polycarpus Smyrnaeorum Episcopus , & Papias Similiter Apud Hierapolim Sacerdotium gerens . Ruffin . l. 3. c. 35. in Excuso Rhenarci . Basil. 1528. k In Cod. MS. Ruffini , est . Lib. 3. cap. 32. l Totum hoc Elogium Papiae deest in nostris Codicibus . Valesius in Not. ad Lib. 3. Eusebij . c. 36. p. 55. m Non dubito , quin hae● verba ab Imperito Scholiastè adjecta sunt , praeter Eusebij mentem & Sementiam . Valesius Ibidem . 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 . o Euseb. lib. 3. c. 39. p Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. c. 39. p. 112. Valesij Edit . vide Nicephor . lib. 3. c. 20. q Act. 21. 8. Vide Nicephor . Hist. lib. 3. pag. 252. C. r Vide Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 39. Hieronym . de Illust. Doct. cap. 18. Nicephor . l. 3. c. 20. s Joh. 20. 30. 31. & 21. 25. t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Novas quasdam Servatoris parabolas ac praedicationes . 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 , &c. 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 , &c. Petrus de Marca ▪ Archiepiscopus Parisiensis . De Concordia Sacerd. & Imperij . l. 6. c. 1. §. 4. p. 59. Tom. 2. y Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christi 45. §. 16. 17. z Haec Sententia refelli videtur ex Actis Apostolorum , ex quibus constat Petrum , in Judaea ac Syriâ semper mansisse , usque ad ultimum Annum Agrippae , &c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 16. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Eusebij pag. 33. 34. a Act. 15. &c. b Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. c In Chronico Alexandrino Concilium Hierosolymitanum refertur Anno Claudij . 6. ( Christi . 48. ) melius dixisset . 7 ● . sic enim cuncta egregié conveniunt , &c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. Euseb. p. 37. Col. 2. A. d Gal. 1. 18. e Gal. 2. 1. 8. 9. f They say , he sate at Rome . 25. years , and that he was martyr'd Neronis . 13. or Anno Christi . 68. so that those 25. years must begin Anno Christi . 43. And then Anno Christi . 51. he had sate at Rome eight years . g 1 Pet. 1. 1. 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 . i Petrus & Paulus fundantes Ecclesiam Romanam , Lino Episcopatum tradiderunt . Succedit ei Anacletus , post eum Tertio Loco ab Apostolis Clemens . Irenaeus . lib. 3. cap. 3. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. Post Pauli Petríque Martyrium , Primus Ecclesiae Romanae . Episcopatum suscepit Linus . Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 2. vide Niceph. l. 3. cap. etiam . 2. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Primus fuit Linus , secundus Anencletus . Euseb. Ibid. l. 3. c. 21. m Euseb. Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 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. 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. p Lib. 3. Cap. 2. & Cap. 21. q Gal. 2. 9. r Gal. 2. 1. 7. 8. 9. s Gal. 2. 7. t Vnus & idem mihi Evangelium praeputij , & Petro Circumcisionis credidit ; me misit ad Gentes , Illum posuit in Judea . Hieronymus in Cap. 2. ad Galatas . d. u Vers. 8. x Vers. 9. 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 preach'd the Gospel long to the Asiatick Dispersion of the Jews , before he came to Rome ; and Nicephorus says so too . z And 't is 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. a Gal. 2. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Petro Concreditum est Evangelium praeputij . b Quod spectat ad Ecclesiam Antiochenam , hoc Anno ( Christi . 39. ) Institutam à Petro , & septem Annis ab eodem administratam , &c. Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Annum Christi . 39. §. 9. 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 . d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Antiochenae Ecclesiae Episcopus Primus erat Enodius . Idem in Chronico , ad Annum Claudij 2. e Baronius Ibidem ; ad Ann. 39. §. 9. f All that Eusebius says , is only this — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ad Ann. Claudij . 1. 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 . h Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christi , 34. §. 1. & 2. i Idem . Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christi . 69. §. 9. k Gal. 2. 11. 12. 13. &c. l Act. 11. 26. m Act. 14. 22. n Act. 14. 23. o Act. 14. 26. 28. p Act. 15. 35. vid. Act. 18. 22. 23. 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 pleas'd 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 Hierome there ) quod Lucas penitùs Omisit . But Hierom ( though an excellent Person ) had his Passions and Errors , and in that very place , indeavours to justifie Peter , as not to be blam'd , 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 Hierome or Baronius would have him , yet they should not Censure him . Vide Baronium ad Annum Christi . 39. §. 8. q Onuph . Panvin . in Annotat ad Plat. in vitis Pont. ad vitam Petri. r Ex his . 9. primis Annis , usque ad Initium An. 2. Imper. Claudiij , Petrum Judaea nunquam exessisse , ex quo & Paulo , apertissimè Constat . Idem . ibidem . s Petrus Cruci Affix●●est , novissimo Neronis Anno , Christi vero 69. Ibidem . t Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 39. §. 8. 9. &c. u Baronius Ibidem . §. 13. x Baronius Ibidem . §. 9. Ann. 39. y Anno Christ. 69. Capitone & Rufo Coss. Petrus & Paulus Martyrium subiere . Annal. Tom. 1. an Annum . 69. §. 1. Neronis . 13. z Vide Bellarm. de Script . Eccles. in Petro Aposto ; & Chronol . suae Part. 2. ad Annum 39. & 44. a Vide Baronium Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 2. b Vide Jos. Scaligeri Animadvers . in Chronologica Eusebij ; Amstelod . 1658. pag. 189. c Rom. 1. 13. d Act. 22. 21. Gal. 27. 8. e Ibidem . f Act. 28. 30. 31. g 2. Cor. 11. 28. 1. Cor. 7. 17. 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. i I confess Bellarmine would ( out of Irenaeus as he vainly thinks ) perswade 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 . 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 liv'd 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 ▪ Object . 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 ●emmate . Damnatur Apostolicus , suae & fraternae salutis negligens . 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. Answer . n Cum Episcopus Civitatis fuerit demortuus , Eligitur alius , & veniunt ad Apostolicum cum Electo , ut cis Consecret Episcopum . Alcuinus de Divinis Officiis . Cap. 36. o Petrus de Marca de Concordiâ Sacerdotij & Imperij . Tom. 2. lib. 6. cap. 3. §. 3. pag. 67. p Sequens aetas abstinuit — & deinceps Apostolici Titulus Soli Summo Pontifici attributus est ab Authoribus . Idem Ibidem . q The Archbishop of Paris next before cited , amonst the Apostolical Churches ( besides those I have named ) reckons Alexandria , Ephesus , Ancyra , Corinth , Thessalonica ; and he might have added Philippi , &c. ( De Concordiâ Sacred . & Imperij , lib. 7. cap. 4. § 7. Tom. 2. p. 224. ) for Tertullian adds it , in the Place next cited . 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 longe ●s à Macedoniâ , habes Philippos , aut Thessalonicenses . Si potes in Afiam tendere , habes Ephesum : si autem Italiae adjaces , habes Romam . &c. Tertullian . de Praescript . cap. 36. pag. 338. Edit . Pamelij , 1662. s Ecclesiae Rom. specialius in Petro , Coeli Terraeque retine● habenas . Gratian. Can. Si Papa . 6. Dist. 40. t Jus Successionis , Pontificum Romanorum in eofundatur ; quod Petrus Sedem suam , Jubente Domino , Romae Collocaverit . Bellarm . de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 1. §. 1. 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. x Baron . ibid. §. 18. p. 272. and in their present Roman Breviary , Antverp . 1660. They have a Holy-day for St. Peter's Installment 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 call'd 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 father'd on St. Augustin . y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . &c. 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. z 1. Pet. 2. 25. a Rev. 17. 14. & 19. 16. b Matth. 10. 6. & 15. 24. Rom. 15. 8. c Luk. 10. 1. 2. d Gal. 2. 9. e Act. 15. 13. 19. 20. f God your King : ( so Samuel tells them ) and so 1. Sam. 8. 7. and cap. 10. 19. 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 Supream Power , their King. h Synodus à Spiritu Sancto , qui est Spiritus Sapientiae & Intellectûs Edocta declarat , &c. Concil . Trid. Sess. 21. de Communione , cap. 1. And yet what it declares there is most evidently untrue . 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 Confessione . vid. Aquinat . part . 3. Quaest. 8. Art. 6. in Corpore . k Aquin. 2. 2. Quaest. 88. Art. 12. Praelatus gerit Vicem Christi . l 2. Cor. 2. 10. 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. n Cum Jesu Christi Vices teneamus in Terris , Nobísque in Petri personâ dictum sit , Quodcunque Ligaveris , &c. 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 . 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. 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 . 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. r Part. 1. cap. 11. §. 4. s Eam Potestatem Episcopis & Presbyteris concessit . Ibid. §. 9. t Joh. 20. 22. 23. u Pontificale Romanum jussu Clement . 8. restitutum Rom. 1611. p. 52. Accipe Spiritum Sanctum quorum remiseritis peccata , remittuntur eis ; & quorum retinueritis , retenta sunt . x Declarat Synodus , falsas esse Doctrinas Omnes , quae ad alios quosvis praeter Episcopos , & Presbyteros , Clavium Ministerium extendunt , Putantes verba illa , Quodcunque Ligaveris , &c. & quorum remiseritis peccata , remittentur , &c. ad Omnes fideles indifferenter dict● , &c. Conc. Trid. Sess. 14. De Poenitentiâ , cap. 6. y Matth. 16. 19. & Joh. 20. 23. z Conc. Trid. Antv. 1633. p. 152. a Vid. Cap. Solicit . 6. Extra de Major . & Obedientiâ . Where the Lemma or Title prefix'd to that Decretal is thus — Imperium non praeest Sacerdotio , sed subest , & ei Obedire Tenetur . This he indeavours 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 , &c. Nihil excipit , qui dixit Quodcunque , &c. And a little before he tells the Emperor of Constantinople , ( to whom he writes ) Quanta est Inter Solem & Lunam , Tanta inter Pontifices & Reges , Differentia Cognoscatur . b Cap. ad . Apostol . 2. De Sent. & re Judicata . In. 6. c Innocentius Sacro praesente Concilio in Memoriam Sempiternam . d Papa Imperatorem depo●ere potest ex Causis Ligitimis . e Cum à Christo Nobis in Petri Persona dictum sit ; Quodcunque Ligaveris super Terram , Ligatum erit in Coelis , &c. 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 . 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 Antv. 1566. and though it be the best Breviary Rome has had this Six hundred years ; yet 't is damn'd 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. g Portiforium Salis. Lond. 1555. Part. Hiemali . in Festo Cathedr . S. Petri , Febr. 22. h Missale Secundum usum , Sarum , Paris . 1555. eodem festo & die . i Missale secundum usum Hereford Rothomagi , 1520. eodem Festo & die . k Breviarium Rom. Antv. Ann. 1660. parte Hiemali , in Festo Cathedrae Petri Antioch . Febr. 22. p. 759. & parte aestivâ in Festo Cathedrae Petri Romae , Jan. 18. Ibid. p. 698. l Missal . Rom. Antv. 1619. In Festo Cathedrae Petri Romae , Jan. 18. p. 331. And they have the same again in Festo Cathedrae Petri Antiochiae , Febr. 22. m Dict. Brev. Rom. Antv. 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. n Though I find the word Animas , left out in some of their Older Offices ; yet these words Tibi Tradidit , &c. I find in none till of late . o The Popes Tribunal ( they say ) is Supremus Justitiae Thronus . So Pius the Fifth in this his Bull , ● . 3. 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 , &c. q Vid. Pet. de Marcade 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. 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 , &c. Aventinus Annal. Bojorum , Lib. 5. p. 352. & Lib. 7. p. 473. Observ. 7. s Flagitiorum Serva . Ita §. 1. who they are who speak ill of Dignities , ( which the Arch-Angel would not do of the Devil ) St. Jude tells us , in his Epistle , vers . 9. t Apostolicae Potestatis plenitudine declaramus praedi●●m Elizabeth Haereticam , & Haereticorum fautric●m , Anaethematis Sementiam incurrisse , Esséque à Christi Corporis unitate praecisam . §. 3. 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. 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. y Nay , such is 〈◊〉 Antichristian 〈◊〉 and barbarous 〈◊〉 to those they call 〈◊〉 ; ticks ; that when 〈◊〉 are once actually 〈◊〉 judicially condemn'd ▪ 〈◊〉 though they turn good Catholicks , 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 dye 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. z Praecipimus & Interdicimus Vniversis & Singulis Proceribus , Subditis , Populis & Aliis Praedictis , ne illi Ejusvè Monitis , Mandatis , & Legibus Audeam Obedire . Ibid. §. 5. a Praecipimus Vniversis & Singulis Praedictis , ne Ejus Mandatis aut Legibus audeant Obedire , Qui secus Egerint , eos Simili Anathematis Sententiâ Innodamus . Ibidem , §. 5. b Rom. 13. 4. 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 Hereticks , but not the Catholicks , as matters then stood ; but hereafter , when Publick 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. 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 , &c. 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 . e Act. 25. 16. 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 . Observ. 8. g Vide Bullarium Romanum Romae , 1638. & ibi Excommunicat . Frideric . 2. à Gregor . 9. Const. 13. Tom. 1. p. 89. & Excommunicat . Hen. 8. à Paul. 3. Tom. 1. p. 514. &c. 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 . 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 . &c. 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. k Rev. 17. 18. l Pamelius Annot. ad Lib. 3. Tertul. adversus Marcionem , num . 98. pag. 687. m 2. Thess. 2. 3. vid. 1. Tim. 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , An Apostacy from the Faith. n Rev. 17. 1. 5. And so Hierome calls her ( alluding to this Place , Cum in Babylone versarer ( says he ) & Purpuratae Meretricis esse●s Colonus , & Jure Quiritum viverem , &c. 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 , &c. Marian. Victorius in Notis ad dictum Librum & Locum , num . 68. says he means Pagan Rome . But 't is 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 judgment ; ( 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 Marcion . 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 Margent 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 . o See Hos. 1. 2. &c. and Hos. 2. 2. p 2. Thes. 2. 7. Rev. 17. 5. 7. q Rev. 11. 8. 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. &c. 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. ) s 2 Thess. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Hesychius . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Adversarius . Glossae veteres in Calce Cyrilli . Etymolog . Magnum , in verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; which he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and then adds ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . u Filius perditionis , qui Adversatur . x Corn. A Lapide in 2. Thess. 2. 4. y Matth. 26. 27. z Mark. 14. 23. a Concilium Constantiense , Sess. 13. b Licet Christus post coenam , Instituerit , & Discipulis sub Vtrâque Specie panis & vini administraverit : Hoc non Obstante , &c. Ibid. c Licet in Primitivâ 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 . d Pertinacitèr asseremes oppositum , tanquam Haeretici arc●ndi sunt & Gravitèr puniendi . Ibidem . e Nullu● Presbyter sub poenâ Excommunicationis , Communicet populum sub utraque Specie . Ibidem . f Lindanus in Panoplia , Lib. 4. Cap. 56. pag. 342. Edit . Colon. 1575. g Card. Bona de rebus Liturgicis . Lib. 2. Cap. 18. pag. 491. 492. Paris . 1672. h In Quibusdam Ecclesiis observatur , ut populo Sanguis Sumendus non detur . Aquinas part . 3. Quaest. 8. Art. 12. in Corpore . i Which was about the year of Christ , 1265. Bellarmine de Script . Ecclesiasticis , in Tho. Aquinate . l 1. Cor. 14. m Ibid. vers . 37. The things I write unto you are the Commandments of the Lord. n Ibid. vers . 26. & vers . 12. o Ibid. vers . 17. p Ibid. vers . 6. q Ibid. vers . 2. 9. 14. 15. 16. r Ibid. vers . 28. s Ibid. vers . 23. 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. 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. x Quidam Perditionis Filij in perniciem Animarum novitatibus studentes , & 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. y 2. Thess. 2. vers . 3. 4. z Vide Corn. A Lapide in 1. Cor. 14. Costeri Enchiridion . Cap. 17. De precibus . Latine Recitandis , pag. 502. &c. Johan . Eckij Enchiridion adversus Lutherum , pag. 392. Colon. 1565. vide Azorium Instit. Moral . Part. 1. lib. 8. cap. 26. a Hen. Holden . Theologus Parisiensis , in Annotat . ad i. Cor. 14. Paris . 1660. b Nulla conceditur facultas Legendi vel retinendi Biblia vulgaria , aut alias Sacrae Scripturae partes , 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 . c Plus inde ob hominum temeritatem , Detrimenti quam Vtilitatis Oriri . Ibid. Reg. 4. In Indice Alexand. 7. p. 4. 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. e Liber Versionis Gallicae Novi Testamenti , cui Titulus est — Le Nouvean Testament de nostre Seigneur Jesus Christ , &c. 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 . &c. Ita Clem. 9. Bulla data Rom. 20. Apr. An. 1668. f li qui Libros prohibitos habuerint , cos ad Episcopum aut Inquisitores deserant , qui eos quantocyus Comburere debeant . Ibid. §. 3. 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 h Item Alboranus Mahometis in Linguâ Vulgari , ex Concessione Inquisitorum haberi possit . Index Librorum prohibitorum . Alexandr . 7. Edit . Rom. 1664. pag. 3. i Biblin quocunque I diomate Vulgari conscripta . Ita Index Librorum prohibitorum , Alexand. 7. Jussu Editus Romae , 1667. verbo Biblia , p. 14. k Extollitur super Omne quod dicitur Deus , aut quod Colitur . Clem. 8. in Bibliis , 1592. l Corn. A Lapide in 2. Thess. 4. §. 27. 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 , &c. Hinc Caesares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Augusti ; Hesychio , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . n Sanctiss . Vrban . 8. Vniversi Imperator . Angelus Maria Cherubinus , in Calce . Tom. 4. Bullarij Romani , Rom. 1638. pag. 120. o Vid. Cap. Solicit 6. Extra . De Major . & Obed. Quanta est inter Solem & Lunam , tanta inter Pontifices & Reges differentia cognoscatur . p Vid. Corpus Juris Canon . cum Glossis . Paris . 1612. q Palam est , quod magnitudo Solis continet magnitudinem ▪ Lunae 7744 ½ . Vice Addit . ad Gloss. verb. Inter Solem. Ad dictum cap. 6. r Clavius Comment . in Johan . de Sacro Bosco . p. 189. s 2 Thess. 2. 4. t Rom. 13. 1. u 1. Pet. 2. 13. x Act. 25. 11. y Athanasius in Apologia , ad Constantium Tom. 1. p. 680. D. z Tertull. ad Scap. cap. 2. & Apolog. c. 30. a Tu es Pastor Ovium , Princeps Apostolorum ; Tibi Tradidit Deus Omnia Regna Mundi : Breviar . Roman . Antv. 1660. part . Hiemali , in Festo Cathedrae S. Petri Antiochiae , in Resp. post Lect. 4. p. 760. 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 . 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 . Antv. 1660. d Pius . 5. Clem. 8. Urban . 8. as above . e Stapleton , in Academiâ Duacenâ Theol. Professor , in Epist. Greg. 13. Princip . Fidei Doctrin . Demonstrationi praefixa ; Papam appellat , Catholicae Ecclesiae Virticem Coruphaeotatum , Totius Orbis Magistrum & Supremum in terris Numen . f Nec Deus es , nec Homo , quasi neuteres , inter utrúmque . Glossa ad Prooemium Clement . verbo , Papa . g Vide Censuram in Glossas Jur. Can. per Tho. Manrique , Colon. 1572. p. 13. 14. h Vide Indicem Expurgat . Olysipone , 1624. p. 350. i Paris . 1612. 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. l Edit . Paris . 1519. m Edit . Paris . 1612. n Diviniae Majestatistuae Conspectus , rutilanti cujus fulgore oculi mei Caligant , &c. Crab. Concil . Tom. 3. Conc. Lateran . Sess. 9. p. 648. Col. 2. 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 . p Iste Modus ultimus ( the Popes determinations of doubts ) Magis Probatus est , & cum majore suavitate ei Plures acquiescunt . Ibidem in principio dicti Apparatus . 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. r Ac Personis cujuscúnque Dignitatis , etiam Imperialis , Regalis , &c. 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. s Matth. 22. 21. 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 de facto only , but de debito . 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 . 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 call'd the Babylonical Beast of Rome . y Novissime ad Supplantationem nostram aspirans , ut adversus David , turrem Construeret Babylonis , &c. Apud Pet. de . de Vincis , Epist. Lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 129. z Videte Orbis generale Scandalum , dissidia gentium , generale justitiae doleatis Excidium , exeunte Nequitia A Senioribus Babylonis , qui populum hactenus Regere videbantur , &c. Apud eundem , lib. 1. cap. 21. pag. 152. 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 , &c. Joh. Aventinus Annal. Bojor . lib. 5. p. 352. Basil. 1615. vide plura Ibid. p. 363. 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 : ferre parem non possunt , in Templo Dei Sedeant , Extollantur supra omne id quod Colitur : Ingentia loquitur perditus homo ille , quasi Deus esset , &c. Aventine Ibid. lib. 7. pag. 420. 421. Vide plura ibidem pag. 444. 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 , call'd Rome Babylon . Binius Concil . Tom. 8. pag. 980. Edit . Paris . 1636. d Episcopus deleus de jacturâ Animarum per Papalis Curiae Avaritiam , suspirans ait : Christus devenit , ut animas Lucraretur . Ergo , qui animas perdere non formidas , nonne Antichristus merito dicendus est ? Matth. Paris in Hen. 3. ad Ann. 1253. p. 875. e Nonne ergo Animarum destructor inimicus Dei & Antichristus censetur ? Ibidem . f Rev. 11. 8. g Ibid. p. 876. Edit . Watsij . Nec Liberabitur Ecclesia ab Aegyptia servitute , nisi in ore Gladij Cruentati . 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. 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. 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 , &c. l Quae ideo vates veridici , Nobis ante Contarunt , verissima esse experimentis animadvertimus ; & nisi planè Asini simus , Sentimus , &c. m Qui contra obstrepere ausit , tanquam Reipubl . hostis , inimicus Pietaetis & Satelles Antichristi , ultimo Supplicio Parricidium luet . Conditum est hoc Decretum . Ann. 1338. Extat apud Aventinum , Annal. Lib. 7. p. 479. 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 . Dubium . o Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. lib. 3. cap. 3. §. 1. p Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. q Item Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68. §. 16. 17. Sol. 1. r Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. Lib. 3. cap. 3. §. Refert . B. Augustinus . 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. t Since that Council wherein he was censured , ( Ann. 1105. ) are 574 years pass'd . 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 . 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 , &c. Plat. in vitâ Sylvest . 2. See the Hist. of Magick 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. y In Annotat. ad vit . Silvest . 2. apud Plat. Edit . 1626. z In vitâ Silvest . 2. a Grot. in 2. Thess. 2. 4. 5. b Dr. Hammond on the same place , and more largely , contra D. B●ondellum Dissert . 1. Prooemialis . De Antechristo . c 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. 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. 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 . f Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 53. §. 1. p. 408. In which year he says this Epistle was writ . g Ed. Simpson Chronici Cathol . part . 7. ad Ann. 51. p. 36. hoc Ann. 2. ad Thess. Epist. scriptam putat . 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 . i Calvisius ad Ann. Christ. 50. hoc Ann. 2. ad Thess. scriptain vult . k Annal. part . posteriori , Aetate Mund. 7. ad Ann. Christ. 54. p. 668. Toto Coelo erravit Grotius , cum hanc Epistolam sub Caio exaratam existimabat . l 1 Thess. 1. 5. m Gal. 1. 17. n Gal. 1. 18. o Gal. 2. 1. p Act. 15. 2. q Chron. Catholici , part . 7. ad Ann. 47. p. 34. r Centur. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 9. p. 420. s Theatro Hist. ad dictum Annum . t Tom. 1. ad Ann. 51. §. 6. u Chronol ad dictū Annum . p. 93. x In Chronotaxi , ad Ann 51. y In Chronot sua ad dictum Annum . z Usserius Annal. Part. 2. ad Ann. 52. pag. 660. a 1. Thess. 1. 5. b Act. 15. 30. c Ibid. vers . 41. d Act. 16. 1. 2. e Ibid. vers . 6. f Ibid. vers . 11. 12. g Act. 17. 1. h Ibid. vers . 10. i Ibid. vers . 15. k Act. 18. 1. l Orosium secuti sunt Omnes deinceps Chronographi ; & Baronius , &c. Hen. Valesius in Notis ad Cap. 18. Lib. 2. Eusebij . p 37. m Paulus Anno demum Claudij . 9. venit in Graeciam . Ibid. Col. 2. B. 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 . o 2. Thess. 2. 6. 7. p Dr. Hammond in the Prologue to his Annotat . on the Second to the Thessalonians . q Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 43. §. 1. In which year 't is certain Caius died . r Dr. Hammond Annot . p. 718. Col. 2. ex Professo proves that Caius could not be Antichrist . s Act. 8. t Ibid. vers . 13. u Vers. 18. x They Money perish with thee , vers . 20. y Ibid. vers . 23. 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. 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. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. Itáque hinc Simon Magus aemulatione percitus , contra Apostolos , corúmque Doctrinam se Armavit . Nicephor . Histor. Eccles. Lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 141. c Dr. Hammond in his Annotat. on 2. Thess. 2. 3. Lit. E. p. 719. Col. 1. d Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 35. §. 9. e Dr. Hammond Annotat . on 2. Thess. 2. 3. literad . p. 718. Col. 2. f Eusebius Hist. Ecclesiast . lib. 2. cap. 12. In the Latin ; but , 13. in the Greek . g Hierome De Scriptor . Eccles. in Petro. h Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. i Vide Hen Holden . Dr. Parisiens . 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 . k Apoc. 13. 7. l Apoc. 17. 6. m Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Nero Rom. Imperat. primus Hostis , &c. Ita Tertullianus — Neronem primum in sectam nostram gladio ferocisse . Euseb. in Chronico ad Ann. Christ. 70. n Caius died Anno Christ. 43. and the first Persecution under Nero was Anno Christ. 66. Baronius Tom. 1. ad Ann. 43. §. 1. & ad Ann. 66. §. 9. o 1. Tim. 4. 1. 2. 3. p 2. Thess. 2. 3. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 1. Tim. 4. 1. r Gravius peccat Sacerdos , si matrimonium contrahat , quam si fornicetur , & domi concubinam foveat . Vid. Costeri Enchiridion , cap. 15. Propos . 9. p. 459. Edit . 1587. s Haereticorum Ministri Sacerdotium Incestis Nuptiis foedant ; quae non sunt Nuptiae , sed Pejora Omnibus Adulteriis Sacrilegia . Idem ibid. p. 460. 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 . u 1. Tim. 4. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . x So Ed. Simpson Chronol . Cathol . Part. 7. ad Ann. 54. p. 37. 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. z Jac. Usserius Armachanus Annal. Part. 2. ad Ann. Christ. 65. pag. 688. a In his Second to Tim. 3. 1. 2. 3. &c. which Epistle was writ , says Baronius , Ann. Christ. 59. Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 59. num . 19. And Archbishop Vsher says it was writ Anno Christ. 66. Annal . Part. 2. ad dictum Annum , p. 691. b 2. Tim. 3. 1. c 2. Thess. 2. 3. d 2. Pet. 1. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , velox est deposito tabernaculi mei . Versio Vulgata . 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. f Idem Usserius ibid. p. 691. g Simpson Chron. Cathol . Part. 7. ad Ann. 67. p. 44. h Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 1. i 2. Pet. 2. 1. k Rev. 13. 1. l Rev. 17. 6. m Rev. 17. 18. n Rev. 11. 8. o Rev. 17. 12. 13. p Ibidem vers . 16. 17. q Rev. 18. 2. 21. r Rev. 1. 9. 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 cites 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. t Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 97. §. 1. 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 . x Simon Magus died Anno Christ. 68. ( Ita Baronius , ex Eusebio , Epiphanio , &c. 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 . y Dr. Hammond in his Premonition to his Annotat. on the Revelation , p. 906. & 907. z Epiphanius Haeresi . 51. § 12. & 33. 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 c Grot. in Apocalyp . 1. 9. d Joh. Malela in Domitiano MS. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana Oxon. pag. 161. alias 171. e Haimo Hist. lib. 3. cap. 15. pag. 55. f Arethas in Apocalyps . cap. 1. 9. g Ado Viennensis in Chronico , ad Annum Christ. 84. apod Laurent . de la Barre , p. 493. h Rev. 2. 13. i Martyrologium Romanum ad diem Apr. 11. k Baroni●s Annot. ad Martyrologium Roman . ad dictum diem April . 11. & Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. Christ. 93. §. 9. l Dr. Hammond in Annotat. ad Apocal. 2. 13. lit . 1. pag. 927. Col. 1. 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 . n 1 Joh. 2. 18. & cap. 4. 3. o Nunc multisunt Antichristi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui unum illum praecedunt , it érque illi parant : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Oecumenius in 1. Johan . Epistol . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 573. C. D. So Bede , Estius , &c. in . 1. Joh. 2. 18. 80 Gagnaeius . Ibid. &c. 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. q 1. Joh. 4. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . r Jam in Mund , est ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Oecumenius Ibidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , p. 587. D. s Vide Grotium in 1. Joh. 2. 18. t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , est sono praesens , sensu futurum . Grotius in 1. Joh. 4. 3. 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. x Apparuit Barchochebas Ann. Christ. 130. Adrian . 11. apud Baronium , Annal. Tom. 2. ad Ann. 130. Num. 4. 5. y Grotius in . 1. Joh. 4. 3. Talis Prophetia ( he speaks of the Propheties of false Christs , and Prophets ) viam struit Magno Ipsi & Eximio Antichristo . z So Baronius Annal . Tom. 1. ad Annum Christ. 99. Num. 7. Bart. Gavantus Comment . in Rubricas , Breviarij Rom. Sect. 5. p. 84. 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 . b Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68. Num. 16. 17. &c. c ●uto Scriptam hanc Epistolam non multo ante Excidium Hierosolymorum . Grotius Annot. in . 1. Johannis , In Principio . d This Epistle seems to have been writ A Little Before the great destruction which befell the Jews , &c. Dr. Hammond in his Prologue to his Annot. on the first of John. e Josephus de Bello Judaico , lib. 7. cap. 47. p. 969. f Eusebius in Chronico ad Ann. 72. g Usserius Annal. part . 2. p. 698. h Baronius Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 72. Num. 20. i Hierom. de Illust. Eccles. Doctoribus , c. ● . says St. John liv'd . 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. 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. l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Porphyrius in Isagog . c. 2. §. 38 ▪ Observ. 9. m Elizabetha praetensa Angliae Regina , Flagitiorum Serva . Bulla . §. 1. n Declaramus praedictam Elizabeth Haereticam & Hereticorum fautricem . §. 3. 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 , &c. In dictae Bullae Principio . p Hereticorum , Schismaticorum corúmque f●●torum poenae . That 's the Title of the Bull. 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 , &c. In Bulla . 19. Paul. 4. Bullarij Rom. Tom. 1. p. 602. Edit . Rom. 1638. r 2. Thess. 2. 4. s Corpus Juris Canonici per Pet. Matthaeum , Francofurti , Ann. 1599. Cap. Cum ex Apostolatûs , 9. De Haeret. & Schismat . in 7. t In Corpore Juris Canonici , Lugduni , 1661. u Haeresis est Error in Fide , Cum Pertinaciâ . Card. Tolet. Instruct. Sacerd . lib. 1. cap. 29. §. 2. x Gratian. Can. dixit Apostolos , 29. & Can. Qui in Ecclesiâ . 3. Caus. 24. Quaest. 3. & Glossa 〈◊〉 . y Est autem pertinacia , quando homo scit , aut scire debuit & potuit , aliquid esse contrarium Scripturae , aut ab Ecclesiâ damnatum . Cajetan . ibidem . z Vide Regulas , Indici librorum Prohibit . ex Decreto Conc. Trid. Confecto , praefixas ; Reg. 4. & Observat. Regulae dictae annexam . a Libri Vulgari Idiomate , de Controversi● i●ter Catholicos & Haereticos nostri Temporis di●●erences , non passim permittantur ; Sed Idem de ipsis servetur , quod de Bibliìs vulgari linguâ scriptis , Statutum est . Ibid. Reg. 6. b Vnde multi Rustici , habentes errores contra Articulos fidei , excusantur ab Haeresi ; Quia Ignorant Articulos , & sunt Parati Obedire Ecclesiae , &c. Card. Toletus Instruct . Sacerd. lib. 4. cap. 3. §. 7. c Siquis ●rret in his , quae tenebatur scire , tamen sine pertinaciâ , Quia nescit esse contra Ecclesiam , paratúsque est credere , quod tenet Ecclesia , non est Haereticus . Idem ibidem . 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. 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 . 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 , &c. 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. 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 . 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. k Pontifex Essicacitèr , & ex Corde , Omni Instantiâ intercedit , &c. Ibidem in Rubrica . 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. m Facultas Cogendi Quoscunque Magistratus , sub poena Excommunicationis & Interdicti , &c. Alexand. 4. Const. 17. in dicto Bullar . p. 117. Tom. 1. & Constit. 18. in Lemmate . Ibid. n Sine Aliqua Processuum Visione . Innocent . 8. dicta Constit. 10. 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. 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 . q Roffensis cotra Lutherum , ad Art. 33. Operum p. 642. Dixit enim Lutherus , Eos dicta Orationis formulâ non Orare , sed ludere . r Ecclesia Haereticum Excommunicat , & 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 cites 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 deliver'd to the Secular Magistrate , and that docentes erant ultimo supplicio , officiendi ; discentes vero decem Libris auri , &c. There is this Note in the ( b ) Margent — 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. s Bannes ibidem . Conclus . 3. t Sed quicquid dicatur , Ad Hoc fit ista Traditio ut Puniatur morte . Vid. Panormitan . ad Cap. Novimus . 27. Extra . De verb. significat . §. 8. u Solet Communitèr dici , quod ista Intercessio est Potius Vocalis & Colorata quam Effectualis . Idem Hostieusis , ibidem . 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 . 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 . z Conc. Trid. Antv. 1633. Sess. 24. De Reform . p. 452. a Ibid. Haec est Fides Catholica Extra quam , Nemo Salvus esse potest . b Hanc fidem teneo & profiteor , in Praesenti , & Constantissimè tenere ad ultimum vitae spiritum spondeo , voveo , juro . Ibid. 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 . d Inter Omnes sectas quae adhuc sunt , vel fuerunt , non est Perniciosior Ecclesiae , quam Leonistarum , & hoc tribus de Causis . Ibidem . 1 Prima est , quia est Diut urnior ; aliqui enim dicunt quod duraverit , à tempore Sylvestri ; aliqui , A Tempore Apostolorum . 2 Quia est Generalior ; Ferè enim nulla est Terra , in qua haec Secta non sit . Ibid. cap. 4. 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 . e Solummodo Romaenam Ecclesiam Blasphemant , & Clerum ; cui Multitudo Laicorum Facilis est ad Credendum . Ibid. f Ecclesia Romana est Meretrix in Apocalypsi . cap. 17. vers . 1. 2. &c. Reinerus loco citato . c. 5. De Sectis Modernorum Haereticorum . Errore . 6. pag. 750. g Papa est Caput Omnium errorum , &c. Ibid. Errore . 8. they deny'd also Transubstantiation , Purgatory , Invocation of Saints , the Popes Supremacy . Vide Card. Turrecrematam , in summa De Ecclesiâ . Part. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 35. pag. 407. Edit . Venet. 1561. h Haeresis est , cum quis non sequutus 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 Hereticks . i Quadruplex Haereticorum poena secundum Canones : 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. k Reynerius de Pisis , in summa De Haeresi . cap. 4. & F. Reynerus contra Waldenses . cap. 10. l Decretal . Greg. 9. Lib. 5. & Tit. 7. m De Haereticis . Lib. 5. Tit. 2. In Sexto . n Clement . Lib. 5. Tit. 3. De Haereticis . o Extrav . Commun . Lib. 5. Tit. 3. De Haereticis . 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. q Leges Frider. 2. extant in Corpore Jur. Civilis cum Gloss. Lugd. 1618. in Calce lib. 2. Feudorum . Tom. 5. pag. 137. 138. &c. r Conc. Laterani fub Innocent . 3. Ann. 1215. & praecipuè Canonis . 3. De Haereticis . 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 . t Moral . Quaest. Tract . 32. cap. 7. De Poenis Haereticorum . u Speculi . Lib. 4. part . 4. De Haereticis . x Summae . part . 2. Tit. 12. Cap. 4. De Haeresi . & Haereticorum Poenis . y Instit. Moral . Tom. 1. Lib. 8. Capp . 10. 11. 12. z Theol. Moral . Lib. 2. Tract . 1. c. 16. p. 202. a Summae . Tom. 1. De Haeresi . p. 1017. Venet . 1585. b Summae de Ecclesiae . part . 2. Lib. 4. cap. 1. &c. c Hostiensis in summae . Lib. 5. De Haereticis . p. 422. Edit . Lugd. 1517. d Epitome Juris Pontisicij Veteris . Lib. 34. Tit. 3. & lib. 38. & lib. 11. Tit. 53. part . 1. & 2. &c. Observ. 10. 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 . f Anathematizamus Quoscunque Hussitas , Wickliffistas , Lutheranos , Suinglianos , Calvinistas , Hugonottos , §. 1. dictae Bullae . g Vid. Paul. 4. Constit . 19. In dicto Bullar . Tom. 1. p. 602. 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 i Habita deliberatione Maturâ , de Cardinalium Consiliis & unanimi assensu . Bullae dictae . §. 2. k Bullam Paul. 4. &c. Renovamus Confirmamus , illámque Inviolabilitèr , & Ad Vnguem Observari volumus & Mandamus . Constit . Pij . 5. 22. §. 3. dicti Bullar . Tom. 2. p. 151. l Vid. Cap. 9. 10. Decret . 7. De Haereticis & Schismaticis . In Corpore Juris Canon . Ludg. 1661. m Omnes & singulas Excommunicationis , Privationis , &c. & 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. 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. o Hac nostra Constitutione in Perpetuum Valiturâ , sancimus , statuimus , definimus , &c. §. 3. p Comitatibus , Baroniis , Marchionatibus , Ducalibus , Regnis & Imperiis penitus , & , in Totum Perpetuo Privati sint , &c. Ibidem . q Secularis relinquantur arbitrio Potestatis , animadversione Debita puniendi , habentúrque Pro Relapsis . Ibid. §. 3. r Ad illa de Caetero sint Inhabiles & Incapaces ; nec Restitui aut Rehabilitari Possint . Ibidem . 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. t Ex Ipsius Sanctae Sedis Benignitate & Clementia . Ibid. §. 3. N. Eymericus Directorio Inquisitorum , part . 3. pag. 516. Col. 1. 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. x Henrici Regis ex dicta Annanatos & nascituros , aliósque descendentes , usque ad gradum in Jure Constitutum , nulla aetatis aut sexus ratione habitâ , dignitatibus , Dominiis , &c. Privamus . & ad Similia obtinenda Inhabilitamus . Ibid. dictae Bullae . §. 9. y Filiòsque eorum de dignitatibus , Dominiis , &c. & bonis Omnibus Privatos , & Ad Alia de Caetero Obtinenda Inhabiles esse declarat . Ibid. in Margine . z Elizabetha Praetensa Angliae Regina . Bullae . 〈◊〉 . 5. §. 1. a Ipsum Praetenso Regni Jure privatam . Ibidem . §. 4 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 prefix'd 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. Observ. II. c Vid. Justinianum F. ad . Leg. Juliam Majestatis ; & Statut. 25. Edvardi . 3. c. 2. in the Statute of Purveyors , Anno Domini . 1350. d Clerici Rebellio in Regem non est Crimen Laesae Majestatis , quia nen est Subditus Regi . Eman. Sa Aphoris . Confess . verbo Clericus . p. 41. e Colon. 1599. 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. g Hi Aphorismi Docti sunt & Pij , Multámque utilitatem alaturi Confessariis Omnibus . Ibid. pag. 384. Sylvester Pardo . Eccles . Antverp . Canonicas Librorumque Censor . h Index Librorum Prohibit . Novissimus , Madriti . 1667. Eman. Sa non Omnino meminit . i Index Librorum Prohibit . Olysipone . An. 1624. p. 543. k Index Librorum Prohibit . Alexandr . 7. Romae , 1667. pag. 41. l Loco dicto . m Ii 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 . 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 . o Ex Indice Joh. Chrysostom . Basil. 1558. Dele 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. p And the Index of Portugal , Edit . Olysipone , Ann. 1624. p. 753. Col. 1. damns the very same Position . q In Indice Operum Chrysostom . Basil. 1558. ex Officina Frobeniana . 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. s R. Patris Emanuelis Sa Aphorismi Confessariorum . Coloniae 1599. t Opusculum Theologis Omnibúsque animarum Curam habentibus Vtile ac Necessarium . Ibid. in Libri dicti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . u Vide Librum cum hac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Les Oevures de Maistre Jacques Leschasier , &c. Paris . 1652. p. 421. Libellus Aphorismorum Romae Probatus . 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 . y Vide Historiam Interdict Veneti , per P. Sarpium , 1626. Edit . Latina . z Omnes , in eo Concordes asserebant , Clericos Non esse Principi Subditos , ne in Crimine quidem Laesae Majestatis . pag. 107. dictae Historiae & pag. 13. 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 . Considerat . 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. 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. c Non eos Homicidas Arbitramur , quos adversus Excommunicatos , Zelo Catholicae Matris ardentes , aliquos corum Trucidasse contigerit . Ibid. in Canone . d Ivo Carnotensis Episcopus ; Decret . part . 30. cap. 54. e Moritur Urban . 2. Anno Christ. 1099. f Vide Bullam Gregor . 13. dat . Romae , 1. Jul. 1580. Corpori Juris Canonici praesixam . g Vide Edit . Juris Canon . cum Glossis Paris . 1612. & Edit . sine Glossis , Paris . 1618. & Editionem Lugduni , 1661. &c. h Rev. 20. 2. 3. i Remonstrant . Hibernorum part . 5. c. 13. §. 10. pag. 34. k Si Contingentèr trucidaverit , non esse Homicidam Formalem , &c. Ibidem . l Vrbani ideo Sententia Non suit , Excommunicatos vel Haereticos De Proposito interimi posse . Ibidem . m Alioquin certe veritatem Omnem & Fidem expugnasset . Ibidem . n Horrendum igitur Principium , Maledictum & Execrabile est , Haereticos , vel Excommunicatos , eo ipso interimi posse , &c. And again , Inter Damnabilia & Anathemata reponimus . Ibid. §. 11. p. 35. o Turrecremata ad Can. Excommunicator . 47. Caus. 23. Quaest. 5. p Intentio requiritur , quia licet bonam habuerint voluntatem , potuerunt tamen peccare Intentione . 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 . 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. Caron . Remonstrant . Hibernorum . part . 4. c. 1. §. 20. p. 265. r An Pontifex Romanus Principes seu Magistratus Protestantium possit deponere , vel Occidere , tanquam Excommunicatos ? Vide F. Caron Remonstrant . Hibernorum part . 1. cap. 4. §. 3. p. 12. s Convenientibus ergo in hac Causa Theologis Anglicanis , pro Negativâ resolverunt . Ibid. §. 3. num . 3. t His nunciis Romae receptis , sacra Congregatio resolutionem illam negativam , tanquam Haereticam mox Condemnat , citatisque Romam Authoribus , Carceres & Censurae parantur . Ibidem . u Floruit sub Greg. 11. circa Ann. 1311. Nicol . Eymericus Direct . Inquisit . p. 255. Col. 2. D. x Possevin . Apparat. in Pet. Remundo . y Interficientes Haereticos sunt Injuriosi & vitiosi in suo Memorari , Intelligere , & Velle , &c. Eymericus Ibid. p. 260. Col. 2. A. z Greg. 11. in Consistorio , etiam de Consilio Fratrum , interdixit & condemnavit Doctrinam Raym. Lulli , &c. Eymericus loco dicto . p. 255. 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. b Pet. Crab. Concil . Colon. Agrip. 1551. Tom. 3. p. 694. Col. 2. So Turrecremata summa de Eccles. l. 2. cap. 114. Prop. 7. c Laur. Surius Concil . Colon. Agripp . 1567. Tom. 4. p. 681. Col. 2. d Binius Concil . Latet . Paris . 1636. Tom. 9. pag. 151. Col. 2. B. e Vide Grotium and Ainsworth in Deut. 17. vers . 9. 12. &c. Vide 2 Chron. 19. 8. 9. &c. 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. g In the English Seminary at Rhemes , some there were , who believ'd , Pius the fifth's Bull to be dictated by the Holy Ghost , and they perswaded 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. h Ann. Christ. 1598. Eliz. 41. apud Cambdenum Annal. l. 4. p. 498. 499. dictae Editionis . i Ibid. p. 499. k All the Popes 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. k Jul. 2. Conc. Lateran . 5. Generali , approbante Concilio . Sess. 5. apud Binium . Tom. 9. p. 48. Col. 1. F. 2. A. l Concil . Trid. Sess. 25. De Reformat . c. 20. p. 624. Edit . Antverp . 1633. m Can. Omnium . 46. Causa . 23. Quaest. 5. n Turrecremata ad dictum Canoncm . o Regna illi Coel●stia minime negabuntur . p In Certamine quod Contra Infideles ( Haereticos ) geritur quisquis moritur Coeleste Regum meretur . q Can. Omni Timore . 9. Caus. 23. Quaest. 8. 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 . f Hortatur Papa , ut virilitèr pugnet contra Inimicos Ecclesiae ; & si qui propter hoc moriatur , Non Poenam , sed Coeleste Praemium Consequetur . Glossa Ibidem . t Conc. Later . mag . num sub Innocentio . 3. Ann. 1215. u Ita Abbas Ursperg . in Chronico ad dictum Ann. 1215. Binius in Hist. Conc. Later . 4. praesixa . x Can. 3. De Haereticis . y Ad Haereticorum Exterminium . z Illa Indulgentia & Privilegio muniti sunt , quod Accedentibus ad terrae Sanctae subsidium conceditur . Ibid. dicto Can. 3. a Const. Innocent . 3. 12. data Lateran . 19. Cal. Jan. 1215. b A Collectis , Talliis , aliisque gravaminibus sunt Immunes . Bullae dictae . §. 10. c Quorum Personas & Bonasua sub Beati Petri & Nostrâ Protectione suscipimus . Ibidem . d 2. Thess. 2. 4. e Si ad Praestandas usuras Juramento teneantur astricti , Creditores ut remittant Juramentum & Vsuras Compelli praecipimus . Ibid. §. 11. 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. g Catalogus Scriptorum Religionis Societatis Jesu ; Auctore Pet. Ribadeneira , Ejusdem Societ . Theol. Antverp . 1613. h Ferdinandus Lucero in Censura Libro praefixa , Madritif , 17. Sept. 1607. i Lavin . Torrentius in Oda ad Societatem Libr. praefixa . k Gravium doctorumque hominum Judicio Probatus . Ferd. Lucero indicta Censura . l Dicti Libri . p. 357. 358. &c. m Ibid. p. 366. n Ibid. p. 371. o Ibid. p. 372. p In supplemento addictam Cent●riam . pag. 375. q Ibidem . 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. 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. 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 . &c. Bulla Pij . 4. in Bullarij Rom. Tom. 2. p. 96. & cap. In Sacro Sancta . 2. De Magist. & Doctoribus in 7. u Juxta dispositicnem Conc. Trid. in Constit . 89. Pij . 4. Bullar . Rom. Tom. 2. pag. 97. 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 , &c. p. 98. §. 2. dictae Bullae . y Deus Omnipotens Patribus ( Tridentinis ) Divinitus Inspirare Dignatus est . Ibidem , in dictae Bullae Initio . z They are more affraid of Protestants , then of all others they call Hereticks , and there is good reason for it . For truth ( which the Protestants constantly maintain ) is more destructive of their Popish Errors , then 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 Hereticks ( Protestants you may be sure especially ) to inhabit in Italy , or the adjacent Isles , on pretense of Merchandize , &c. 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 't is notoriously known , that they permit Jews , ( who deny Jesus Christ , and the whole Gospel ) to live and have Houses , even in Rome it self , 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 . a Cambdens Eliz. l. 4. ad Ann. 1594. p. 430. 431. Edit . Lond. 1635. b Fifty thousand Duckets promised by the Popish Party , for Poysoning Q. Elizabeth . c Cambdens Eliz. l. 4. ad Ann. 1594. 1596. p. 440. vide Plura in Statuto de Ann. 3. Jac. c. 2. d Forty thousand Duckets promised for killing Q. Elizabeth . e Cambdens Eliz. l. 2. p. 144. 145. f Ibid. l. 3. p. 257. g Ibid. l. 3. p. 272. h Ibid. l. 3. p. 302. i Ibid. p. 303. k Ibid. p. 336. l Ibid. l. 4. p. 431. m Ibid. l. 4. p. 498. n Ibid. l. 4. p. 578. 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. Classe Hispanicâ Instructus , ut Regna Britanniae Possideret . F. R. Caron , Remonstrant . Hibernorum . Part. c. 3. §. 4. p. 7. 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. q Matth. Paris . ad dictum Ann. 1213. pag. 236. 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. s Matth. Westmin . ad Ann. 1213. p. 271. Johannes Rex est Papae Tributarius , seu Fe●datarius . t Hen. Knighton de Event . Angl. l. 2. c. 15. p. 2420. u Card. Tuschus Pract. Conclus . Juris . Tom. 6. Conclus . 41. x Papa potest deponere Imperatorem , Reges , Duces , & Omnes qui de facto Superiorem non recognoscunt . Ibid. §. 49. y Rex Angliae & Siciliae sunt Tributarij Ecclesiae Romanae . Ibid. §. 34. z Qui negat potestatem Papae , Negat se Christianum . Ibid. §. 37. a Vid. Const. 4. Johan . Papae , 22. In Bullar . Rom. Tom. 1. p. 172. Edit . Rom. 1638. b My Lord Cook ▪ Inst. Part. 4. c. 1. p. 13. 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 . d Qui terram illam Exterminatis Haereticis absque ullâ Contradictione possideant , & in fidei puritate conservent . Ibidem . e Papa Philippo Francorum Regi Literas mittit , in quibus rogat ut Regem Angliae non Inquiet aret ; sed ut Romanae Ecclesiae Vassallum protegeret . Mat. Paris Hist. an Ann. 1216. p. 280. In Johanne . f Papa non se capiens prae ira & indignatione ( it was Grostheads Letter had angred him ) torvo aspectu , & superbo animo , ait : Nonne 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. g Matth. 20. 28. Luc. 22. 27. h Matth. 20. 45. 46. 47. & Matth. 23. 11. 12. Luc. 22. 24. 25. 26. i 2. Thess. 2 , 4. 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 , & Omnes Christianos , à vincule Juramenti , quod sibi fecere , absolvo . Baronius Annal Tom. 11. ad Ann. 1076. §. 25. 26. l Ecclesia Rom. Nunquam Erravit , nec in perpetuum ( Scripturâ testante ) Errabit . Inter Dictatus Papae . Ibid. apud Bar. §. 33. p. 479. Edit . Antv. 1608. 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 err'd . Ibid. in Constit. Leo. 10. 40. §. 3. & 6. 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 enter'd into the heart of the most wicked man. Ibid. cap. 2. o Vid. Thuani Hist. Tom. 4. lib. 95. ad Ann. 1598. 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 . q Ann. 1678. & 1679. 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. Observ. 12. s It was the saying of this Gregory ; Intelligant Omnes , Imperia , Regna , Principatus , & quicquid habere mortales possunt , avferre & 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. t Constitutio illa extat , in Corpore Juris Can. de Homicidio . cap. pro humani . 1. In. 6. u Sacri approbatione Concilij Statuimus . Ibid. 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. y Cap. pro humani . ● . De Homicidio , In. 6. Decretalium . z Vid. Edit . Juris Canonici , Paris . 1612. & 1618. Lugduni . 1661. &c. a Vt hujus utilissimi & gravissimi Codicis non vacillaret Authoritas , placuit Pio. 4. dein Pio. 5. & Greg. 13. ut illi Corrigendo Summa opera daretur , &c. Ita admonitio ad Lect. praefixa Corpori Juris Can. Paris . 1612. & Ludg. 1661. b Summa de Ecclesia , l. 25. 35. & 36. as he is cited ( for I have not the Book by me ) in the Margent of the Canon Law ; ad Cap. 1. de Homicidio . in . 6. c In Summula . verbo Assassinus . d Conclus . Pract. Juris , Lit. A. verbo Assassinus . Conclus . 531. e Continuat . Annal. Baronij , ad Ann. 1231. §. 3. 4. 5. &c. f Operum , Tom. 1. p. 528. De Delict . & Conat . §. 9. 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. h Non contraipsos Assassinos , utpote Infideles ; sed contra Mandantes per Ipsos aliquem occidi ; Innocentius . 4. Excommunicationem promulgavit . Cajetan . in Summula . verbo Assassinus . i Papa cum prius esset Purus Homo , nunc Vices Veri Dei●gerit . Johan . Andreas , in Glossa ad Prooemium . 6. Decret . verbo Bonifacius . k Et hi non comprehenduntur sub Censura dicta , quamvis digni sunt & Morte Temporaeli & Aeternâ . Cajetan . Ibidem . 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. m Hen. Carter . Davila in his Hist. of the Civil Wars of France ▪ ad Ann. 1594. in Calce istius Anni . n Accedent 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 Jesuites . 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 . o Vide Thuanum Restitutum Amstoladami . Ann. 1663. p. 49. 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 , &c. q Vide Thuanum Restitutum . p. 84. r Non solum inoffensa Conscientiâ facere posse , sed multum apud Deum Meriturum . Thuanus dicto Tom. 4. & p. 454. s Hen. Cart. Davila , in his Hist. of the Civil Wars in France , Lib. 10. ad Ann. 1589. 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. 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 begining of Hen. 4. & Thuan. Tom. 4. ad dictum Ann. p. 458. 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 . b See Father Cotton , the Jesuites Declaration , with the Bishop of Paris his Preface prefixed to it , to this purpose . c See Anti-Cotton by Peter Du Moulia . 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. e Quae Omnia Conscio Pontifice gerebantur , crebro Commeantibus ad eum Emissariis , qui Brevia & occulta Diplomata ad partiū Duces adferebant , & indies magis plebem ad seditionem incendebant . Vid. Thuanum Restitutum . p. 49. 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 , &c. Thuan's Hist. Tom. 4. li● . 95. ad Ann. 1589. p. 458. Edit . 1620. g Peccato in Spiritum Sanctum admisso , quale erat Regis peccatum . Ibid. p. 458. E. h Thuanus ibidem . Summè Insolens , & Pastoris moderatione indignum . i Supprimi potius quam publieari , famae Sixti & Sanctae Sedis Interfuit . Ibidem . k Responsio acerbior , sed fali Oratione prorsus Digna , in qua Multa Absurda & Impia not antur . Ibidem . l Fran. Suarez in Defens . Fidei Cathol . adversus Angl. Sectae Errores cum Respons●d Apolog. Jacobi Regis , & 〈◊〉 , Agrip. 1614. l. 6. c. 4. pag. 814. &c. m Tyrannus tit●lo , qui vi , & injustè Regnu●● occupat , qui Revera Rex non est , sed locum illi●● occupat . Ibid. §. 1. n Qui licet justo Titulo Regnum possideat , quoad usum tamen & gubernationem , Tyrannicè regnat . Ibid. o Inter Christianos , Maxime est numerandus in hoc Ordine Princeps , qui Subditos suos in Haeresi● , aut aliud Apostasiae genus , aut Schisma inducit . Ibid. §. 2. p. 811. Col. 1. 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 , &c. Ibid. p. 815. B. q St Rex Actu aggrediatur Civitatem , ut Cives perdat , &c. tunc certe licebit Principi resistere , Etiam Occidere Illum , si aliter fieri defensio , &c. Ibid. §. 6. C. Tunc enim Civitas habet justum bellum defensivum , Contra Injustum Invasorem , Etiamsi Proprius Rex sit . Ibidem . D. r Communitèr asseritur Tyrannum quoad Titulum , Interfici posse , à Quacunque privata Persona , quae sit Membrum Reipubl . quae Tyrannidem patitur , &c. Ibid. §. 7. F. s Tyrannus in Titulo Licite Occiditur . Ibidem . §. 7. Ma●gine . 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. u Rex Haereticus Statim per Haeresin ipso Facto privatur , Aliquo Modo , proprietate & Dominio Regni sui . Ibid c. 4. §. 14. p. 819. x In summo Pontisice est haec potestas tanquam In Superiori habente Jurisdictionem ad Corripiendum Reges , etiam Supremos , tanquam Sibi Subditos , &c. Ibidem . 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 . z Ergo Extunc poterit Rex tanquam Omnino Tyrannus Tractari ; & Consequentèr A Quocunque Privato Poterit Interfici . Ibidem . p. 819. B. a Respubli●●● prout inter Gentiles , & hunc inter Ethnicos ) habet potestatem , se defendendi à Rege Tyranno , & illum deponendi si necessarium fuerit , &c. Ibid. §. 17. p. 820. A. 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. c Ibidem . p. 820. C. 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. e Quia tale praeceptum in illo Casu Justissimum est . Idem Ibidem . f Instruct. Sacerd. l. 5. c. 6. §. 17. p. 738. g G. Rossaeus de Justa Reipub Christiana in Impios , &c. Authoritate . Cap. 3. h Conc. Trident. Sess. 4. in Decreto de Editione & usu Sacrorum librorum . i Firmis & Inconcussis Argumentis Potestatem Summi Pontificis Supernaturalem tuetur . Ita in Censura Illust. D. D. Alphon . A Mello , Epis. Lamecensis , Suaresij Libro praefixa . k Facultas Supremi Senatus S. Inquisitionis . 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 . m Humanarum rerum Religiosus Contemptor , & Vnius Pietatis & Religionis fortissimus Defensor , & propter Eximiam Sapientiam , Communis hujus aetatis Magister , & Alter Augustinus . n Religiosissimus juxta ac Gravissimus Auctor , cujus Ingenii monumenta , Orbis Suspicit , Miratur , Amat . o In qua non Solum S. Scripturae Authoritati Omnia Religiosè Consonant , Apostolicis traditionibus Pic Correspondent , Oecumenicis Conciliis , summerum Pontificum Decretis erudite consentium . p Quâ in defensione Nihil Planè offendi , quod Fidem Offendat , quae vero defendant , Inveni Multa . So it is in the Censure of Ferdinand Martinez Counsellor to his Catholick Majesty . 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 . r Plusquam Humano Studio . In Censura Alphon. A Castello , Epis. Conimbricensis . 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 Mello . Episc . Lamec . A Consiliis Cathol . Majestati . 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. Caron . 1 p. 9. u In Apolog. pro Juramento fidelitatis . x In Commentario Exegetico contra Jac. Regem . Ingolstadij , An. 1610. y Non diffitemur , sed Libere Profitemur , quod Papa , suppetente legitima Causa possit , Principes Excommunicare , Deponere , Subditos à Juramento Fidelitatis Exsolvere , &c. Gretser Ibid. p. 255. z Subditi in Conscientia tenentur stare Sententiae Pontificis . Ibidem . a Et si qui sint Alij Casus Hujus Generis . Ibid. b Ibidem . p. 11. Apolog . Jac. Gretseri , Romae , à Deputatis ad id Theologis lectam & approbatam , ego quoque Theod. Bu●aeus Approbo , &c. 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 Steuartius , Academiae Ingolstadiensis Pro-Cancellarius , & hoc tempore Rector . Ibid. p. 12. d Rev. 13. 3. 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 Margent , ( which I before omitted ) Suarez cites others , ( to shew 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 Jesuites 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 , &c. And the same Sorbon Doctor , Ibidem . cap. 8. §. 13. pag. 191. tells us , that 't is the Jesuites Doctrine ; Licere Pontifici Reges sibi immorigeros , hand alitèr Abdicare , quam Paster Canes , quos minus habet ad manus , Occidere . And that it is their Practise , to accuse those Princes who do not please them , to the People , of Tyranny , Schism or Heresie , Hacque viâ Illos tanquam arietes , aut Canes Furiosos , Parricidis mactandos Exponere . 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 Heretick 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 , eis Mandantes , ut contra Henricum Regem , eique adhaerentes , dum in erroribus adversus Sedem praedictum permanserint , Armis Insurgant , eosque & eorum singulos Persequantur , &c. And then ( such is his liberality ) he gives those Souldiers all the Goods of those Anathematiz'd Hereticks , wherever they can find them — Eorumque Bona , Mobilia , & Immobilia , Mercantias , Navigia , Credita , Res , & Animalia , etiam extra territorium Henrici Regis , Vbi Libet Consistentia , Capiant , &c. 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. Notes for div A69677-e79200 Aeditae . A. D. 1535. & 1538. Exordium . Henticus postquam à Leone decimo Titulo Defensoris Fidei donatus fuit , ex Causa hic expressa , à Catholica side deviavit , & multa enorm●a commisit . ●●emen . 7. ( ejus Constit. hic non habes ) tandem illum Excommunicavit , quin in Censuris insordescendo deterior evasit . Ideo Pont. Iste contra Regem , Complices , & Fautores decrevit , procedere , ut hic . Regem itáque hortatur , ut ab hujusmodi erroribus desistat . Complices vero & Fautores monet ut abstineant Regi desuper favere , vel adhaerere . Inobedientésque Majoris Excommunicationis sententia innodat . Rebellionis quoque , & Amissionis Regni poenam Imponit . Regémque & Complices monet , uc infra , certum Terminum Compareat alioquin in poenas hic expressas incidisse declarat . Et quascunque Civitates Ecclesias & alica Loca , ad quàe Ipsi declinaverint , Interdicto Ecclesiastico supponit . Filiósque eorum de dignitatibus , gratiis & privilegiis ac dominiis & bonis omnibus privatos , & ad alia de cetero obtinenda inhabiles esse declarat . Subditósque à juramento fidelitatis & subjectione liberat . Et eisdem mandat ut ab obedientia omnino recedant . Henrico & Complicibus alias poenas hic Expressas Imponit . Christi fidelibus sub poenis hie expressis praecipit , ut Infidelium Commercium evitent . Praelatis quóque & ceteris Personis Ecclesiasticis mandat sub poenis hic contentis quatenus de Regno Angliae discedant , ut hic . Ducésque & alios monet sub poenis supradictis , ut Henricum & ejus Complices de Regno expellere & expelli procurent . Principum Christianorum Confoederationes , & Obligationes Contractas cum Henrico nullas & invalidas declarat . Principibus & aliis Ma●dat , ut contra Henricum & Complices Arma Capiant . Infideles & inobedientes capientium servos , & corundem bona occupantium sieri decernit . Praelatis & aliis Mandat sub poenis de quibus hic , ut in eorum Ecclesiis Henricum & Complices qui supradictas poenas , & Censuras Incurrerint , Excommunicatos publicè enuncient , & evitari faciant . Publicationem Isti●s Const. Impedientib . easdem poenas Imponit . Publicari Mandat hanc Const. in Locis hic Expressis . Sed haec forma immutata est , ut hic in fine . Transumptis credi jubet . Sanctionem poenalem Imponit . D. P. An. 1. Die 30. Aug.