I Received and read your Letter, and this comes to (bring my humble Service, and) tell you so. In your Letter you tell me, First, Of an Inhumane and Bloody De­sign and Popish Plot, a Traite­rous and Roman-Catholick Conspiracy (as you call it) against the Sacred Person and Life of our Gracious KING, (whom GOD preserve) and many more (by them) design'd for Ruine, and for the Subversion of the true Religion Establish'd by Law, and introducing Papal Tyranny, Supersti­tion and Idolatry. A Design not only Unchristian, but Inhumane and Barbarous; beyond all examples of Turkish or Pagan Cruelty; nor has it (in any [Page 2] story) any parallel Impiety; unless perhaps, that Bloody Nuptiae Parisinae & La­niena Protestantium in Gallia, Anno 1572. Vide Thuanum, ad dictum Annum. French Massacre, or the Gun-powder-Treason; all contriv'd and carry'd on, by Men of the same desperate Principles, and (though with the blood and ruine of many thousand innocent per­sons) to advance the Papal Interest. Secondly, You say, That the Popish Party decry this Impious Con­spiracy, as a State-Trick (without truth or reallity) to make Catholicks (as they commonly miscall themselves) odious to the People, and this whole Nation. This I believe (and know) they do. As their Plots and Conspiracies, so their Impudence to deny or lessen them, (when discover'd) is mon­strous, and (were not their Persons and Principles known) incredible. So they did, (where, and when they durst) and still do In an Almanack com­monly sold, since His Majesties Happy Return; call'd, Calen­darium Catholicum; the Gun-powder-Treason is call'd, Ce­cil's Contrivance. It was prin­ted 1662. call the Gun-powder-Treason, A State-Design, to make them (though they were innocent) seem guilty, and Criminals. Thirdly, Lastly, you say, that several Papists tell you, (in excuse of Popery, and their Party) That if indeed there be such a Plot and Con­spiracy, (as is pretended) yet it is the only fault of those persons concern'd in it, not of Popery, or their Religion; the Principles and Doctrine of their Church, giving no ground or incouragement to such impious and Anti-Monarchical practices. This I believe too; because I find them making the same Apology for themselves, to take off the guilt of the Gun-powder-Treason. For (without all truth or modesty) they tell us in Print; The aforesaid Popish Calendarium Catholicum, or Ca­tholick Almanack, at the end of it, about Holy-days set apart by Act of Parliament. That the Gun-powder-Treason was MORE THAN SUSPECTED, to be the CONTRIVANCE of Cecil, the great Politici­an, [Page 3] TO RENDER CATHOLICKS ODIOUS; and that there were but VERY FEW of that Religion, (AND THOSE DESPERADOES TOO) detected of it, &c. All And yet Ribadaneira▪ Bzovius, &c. reckon those Gunpowder Traitors amongst the eminent Martyrs for their Church and Religion; as you shall see anon. And Father Parsons calls Garnet (Executed for High Treason, and the Gun-powder Conspiracy).......... An Innocent Man, who suffer'd Un­justly; that he lived a SAINTS Life, and accomplish'd the same with an HAPPY DEATH, dy­ing in DEFENCE of JU­STICE. In his Book against the Oath of Allegiance; call'd, A Discussion of the Answer of Dr. William Barlow, &c. p. 22, 23. sober Catholicks detesting that, and all such Conspiracies.

Now these things premis'd, you desire to know of me, whether I think these their Allegations and Apo­logies true; or if I think them untrue and insignifi­cant (as you may be sure I do) that I would give you some reasons why I do so. In obedience there­fore to your command, and to satisfie that Obligati­on that lies upon me (so far as I am able) to Vindicate Truth, and my Mother the Church of England; (though I have little time, and few Books here (be­ing absent from my own) save what I borrow of friends) I shall endeavour to say something, which may (I hope) be pertinent, towards the conviction of our Adversaries, and your satisfaction. And here, I shall plainly set down,

• I. The Position I undertake to make good.
• II. The Proofs and Reasons of it.

I. The Position is this ...... The Doctrine and Princi­ples of Popery, own'd by the Church of Rome (when believed and practised) are not onely dangerous, but pernicious to Kings, (especially to those who are Prote­stants) prejudicial to the just rights of Monarchy, and inconsistent with that Loyalty, which (by the Laws of Nature and Scripture) is due to them; and parti­cularly to our Kings, by the establish'd and known Laws of England, made antiently, even by Popish [Page 4] Kings and Parliaments, against Papal Usurpations, and Anti-Monarchical Practices. And here (because it is impossible distinctly to shew, how Popish Prin­ciples are dangerous to our Kings, and prejudicial to their Just Rights, and Royal Prerogative; unless we first know, what that Prerogative, and those Rights are) I shall inquire,

• 1. What the Jura Coronae, the Rights and Prerogatives of the Imperial Crown of England are, as to our present con­cern.
• 2. How Popish Doctrines and Principles, may be dangerous, or pernicious to them.

1. For the First; That England is a Monarchy, the Crown Imperial, and our Kings SUPREME Governors, and SOLE SUPREME Governors of this Realm, and all other their Dominions, will (I believe, I am sure it should) be granted; seeing our Authentick Laws and Statutes do so expresly, and so often say it. In our Oath of Supremacy we Swear, that the King is, the ONLY SUPREME Governor. SUPREME, so none (not the Pope) above Him: and ONLY SUPREME; so none co­ordinate, or equal to Him. So that by our known Laws, our King is, Solo Deo minor, invested with such a Supremacy, as excludes both Pope and People (and all the World, God Almighty only except­ed, by whom Kings Reign) from having any Power, Jurisdiction, or Authority over Him. For [Page 5] this Soveraignty and Supremacy belonging to our Kings, and the Imperial Crown of England is assert­ed, not only by the Statutes of Vid. Stat. 1. Eliz. cap. 1. 5. Eliz. cap. 1. & 13. Eliz. cap. 2. Q. Elizabeth, Vid. 1. Jac. cap. 7. & 3. Jac. cap. 4. King James, and Vid. 12. Car. 2. cap. 30. In the Preamble. Charles the Second, (Pro­testant Princes) but even those Statutes made by Po­pish Princes and Parliaments, declare the same: I instance only in Statut. 16. Rich. 2. cap. 5. Richard the Second, Statut. 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. & 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19. & 37. Hen. 8. cap. 17. & 26. Hen. 8. cap. 1. Henry the Eighth, and Parliamentum secun­dum 2. Mariae, cap. 1. Q. Mary; (though all the Sta­tutes of Provisors, were pertinent to this purpose.) That Richard the Second and His Parliament were Roman-Catholicks, is manifest; and it is as certain, That Henry the Eighth and His Parliaments (when the Statutes cited were made) were so too. For 'tis evident, that those Statutes were made Anno. 24. and Anno. 25. Hen. 8. that is, Anno. Dom. 1532. and 1533. when neither He, nor His Adherents, were Excommunicate, but actual Members of the Roman Church then, and for some years after. For though Pope Paul the Third was angry, and about it, Anno. 1535. yet he did not actually Excommu­nicate him or his Adherents, before the year The Bull by which Hen. 8. was Excommunicate, was Dat. Romae 16. Cal. Januarii▪ Pauli Papae 3. Anno 5. Vid. Bullarium Cherubini, Tom. 1. pag. 704 Edit. Lugduni. 1655. 1538. which was six years after Henry the Eighth, and His Popish Parliament had Vindicated the Rights of the Imperial Crown of England, against the irrational and unjust Pretences and Usurpations of the Pope; and declared, that the Supremacy (both in Ecclesiasti­cal and Civil Things) ever did (de Jure) belong to the Imperial Crown of England, not to the Pope's Mitre: He having no more to do in England, (Jure proprio, or by any Law of God or Man) than Henry the Eighth in Italy. And that Parliament of Queen Mary, (cited in the Margent) although a Popish [Page 6] Parliament, yet declares fully for the Queen's Su­premacy, (which, to some may seem strange) for that Act expresly says, 1. That the IMPERIAL CROWN of this Realm, with all its Prerogatives, Ju­risdictions, &c. was descended to the Queen. 2. That she was the SOVEREIGN and SUPREME Gover­nor of all Her Dominions, in AS FULL, LARGE, and AMPLE MANNER, AS ANY OF HER PRO­GENITORS, (therefore in as ample a manner as Her Father Henry the Eighth.) 3. That by the MOST ANCIENT LAWS of this Realm, the punishment of ALL OFFENDERS, against the Regality and Laws of this Realm, belong'd to the King, &c. So that even a Popish Parliament acknowledges and de­clares, the Kings of England possess'd of such a Su­premacy, over all Persons, and that by our MOST ANCIENT Laws, that He may punish ALL OF­FENDERS (Clergy or Laity) against the Laws, and His Regality. (How contradictory to this, the Trent Council and the Doctrine of the Roman Church is, you shall see anon.) But for the Supre­macy of the Kings of England, (according to our Ancient and Later Laws, I refer you to the Vid. Coke's Reports, Part. 5. de Jure Regis Eccle­siastico; and Calvin's Case, 7. Report; Sir John Davis his Reports, in the Case of Prae­munire, &c. Learned in those Laws; who will give you a clear Declaration of this Supremacy, and a just Vindica­tion of it, from those impertinent (and seditious) Objections brought against it by some, who, in­slaved to Rome, have cast off Loyalty to their King, and Love to their Country.

And lastly, As for the Supremacy of Kings, (so far as it concerns the Laws of God, (Natural or Positive) and Divines to determine it) I refer you [Page 7] to the Answer [...] of the Vid. Literas Acad. Oxon. Hen. 8. Dat. 27. Jul. 1534. University of Oxon, to a Letter of Henry the Eighth, requiring their Judg­ment in that Point: To the Art. Ed. 6. 1552. Art. 36. Articles of Edward the Sixth; Of Queen Art. 5. Eliz. 1562. Art. 37. Elizabeth; The Articles Articuli Hiberniae, 1615. Sect. 57. of Ireland; The Editae 1559. in calce post Injunctionem, 53. Injunctions of Elizabeth; The Canones, 1603. Can. 1. 2. Canons of 1. Jacobi; And the Can. 1640. Can. 1. &c. Canons (sub Carolo Martyre) 1640. (besides the Writings of many particular Learned Men:) In which you may see the Judgement of the Church of England, concerning Supremacy, and the Loyalty due to our King, clearly and fully express'd; and (in the late unhappy Rebellion) more truly profess'd and practic'd by Her Sons, than Papist, Presbyter, or Fanatique, (though some of them vainly brag of their Loyalty) can, with any just reason pretend to. If you desire further satisfaction and evidence, for the Supremacy of Kings, (particularly of our Kings, and the Roman Emperors) even in Ecclesiastical Mat­ters; you know, and (at your leisure) may con­sult, the Collections of our See our Saxon Laws by Mr. Lambert, Spelman Concil. Tom. 7. Whelogus, &c. Saxon, and the Vid. Cod. Theodosia­num, cum Doctiss. Gothofred. Notis, & Cod. & Novellas Constitut. Justiniani. Imperial Laws; where you may have sufficient and abundant evidence, that (as to matter of Fact, ne­ver questioned in those days) those Emperours and Kings, made many Laws and Constitutions, in Ec­clesiastical Matters, (which concern'd the Church) as well as Civil, (which concern'd the State.) And (if you desire it) I can shew you, an Original MS. (agreed upon, and approved by the Convocations of both Provinces, (Canterbury and York) and sub­scribed by both Archbishops, and several of each Province) wherein it is clearly shewn, (so far as Scripture, and other Records of those times men­tion [Page 8] them) that Kings (from the beginning of the World, till our Blessed Saviours time) did, and de Jure, might exercise an Ecclesiastical, as well as Civil Jurisdiction and Supremacy; especially the Kings of the Jews, his own People; which Monar­chy was of Gods own (and perticularly Divine) In­stitution. These things premis'd, I come now to shew you, (in the second place) how dangerous, and (when, and where they have power to put them in execution) how pernicious Popish Principles are, to the Persons of Kings, and their just Rights and Prerogatives. And here, I say,

1. That many of their Popish Principles, and ge­nerally approved and received Doctrines, are not on­ly dangerous, but destructive to, and inconsistent with the just Soveraignty and Supremacy of Kings. Because they generally say, and (in a thousand Books writ to that purpose) industriously endeavor to prove it, That all Kings and Emperors, are so far from being Supreme, that they are Subject to the Pope, as to their Superior Lord, to whom they owe Service and Fidelity. That this may appear, consider,

1. The Emperor, Casar, ut primùm Ponti­ficem videt, illum DETECTO CAPITE, genu TERRAM TANGENS VENERATUR: & iterum cum appropinquet ad gradus sedis Papae, genu flect it; ac demum cum ad Pontificis pe­des pervener [...]t, illos DEVOTE osculatur: Sacrarum Ceremon. Sanctae Rom. Ecclesiae, Lib. 1. Tit. 5. pag. 22. Col. 3. Edit. onis Rom. Anno 1560. when he comes into the Popes presence, as soon as ever he sees him, he must (His Hat off, and bare-headed) bow, till his Knee touch the ground, and worship the Pope; and coming nearer, must bow again; and when he comes to the Pope, he must how a third time, and DEVOUTLY Kiss the Popes Foot. The Emperor must WOR­SHIP the Pope, with the Incurvations, or bowings of Body, even to the ground; and then (bare­headed, [Page 9] and on his Knees) DEVOUTLY Kiss the Pope's Foot. Execrable and prodigious Pride! The Pope (without all truth or probability) vainly and ridiculously, only pretends to be Christ's Vicar, and so, (if it were true) is less than his Master; and yet our blessed Saviour never requir'd, nor had such Adorations, Incurvations, or Kissings of his Toe, of any, much less of Kings or Emperors. Nor would any Man require such, but the 2 Thess. 2. Vers. 3, 4. Man of Sin; who exalts himself (takes that greatness which God ne­ver gave him) above all that is call'd God, or wor­shipped: That is, above all Kings and Emperors. Well, but does not the Pope (in this Case) shew some respect and civility to the Emperor? Does he not uncover his head, or bow his body, &c. No; for the same Authentick Book, of the SACRED Ce­remonies, of the HOLY Roman Church, tells us Pontifex Romanus NE­MINI omnino mortalium, re­verentiam facit, assurgendo ma­nifestè, caput inclinando, aut de­tegendo. Romano autem Impe­ratori, postquam illum SEDENS ad osculum pedis suscepit. ALI­QUANTULUM assurgit Mag­nis etiam Principibus. PRIVA­TIM adventantibus, cum NON EST in PONTIFICALIBUS, aliquantulum assurgit TAN­QUAM reverentiam faciens, &c. dictus Liber Sacrar. Ce­remon. Lib. 3. Pag. 113. Col. 2. .... That the Pope never gives any reverence, to any MOR­TAL whomsoever, either by rising up apparently▪ or by uncovering, or bowing his head. Onely (sayes that Ceremonial) when the Emperor has kiss'd the Foot of the Pope, sitting in his Chair, he riseth up, A VERY LITTLE to him; and so he does sometimes to GREAT PRINCES. Whether this can stand with that Su­premacy, which (by Divine Law, Natural and Po­sitive) is due to Kings, to be so far subject, and slaves to the Pope; let Kings (who are most con­cern'd) and the World Judge. And it is to be consider'd, that the Book I cite for those passages concerning the Pope, is no Apocryphal, or Non-licenc'd Pamphlet, containing the inventions of some private person; but it contains the SACRED Ceremonies of [Page 10] the ROMAN CHURCH, collected by Marcellus ARCHBISHOP of Corcyra, dedicated to POPE LEO the Tenth, printed at ROME, and highly approved, and Liber VALDE PRO­BATUS, sayes Possevin: In▪ Apparatu sacro; in Christ. Marcello. commended by their eminent Writers.

2. But this is not all; the poor Emperor must do (the Pope) his great Superior and Master, more ser­vice, and be his Groom, or (at best) Gentleman He must execute Strato­ris Officium (be Yeoman of the Stirrup) says Card. Baronius. Annal. Tom. 12. ad An. 1177. Sect. 38. of his Horse. He must hold the Popes Stirrup till he get on Horseback, and then lead the Horse for some paces Dicto Sacrarum Care­moniarum, lib. 1. Tit. 5. p. 26. Col. 3. .....Caesar (traditis sceptro & po­mo▪ uni ex suis) praevenit ad equum Pontificis, & TENET STAPHAM, quoad Pontifex equum ascen­derit; & deinde accepto equi fraeno, per aliquot pas­sus ducit equum Pontificis: and the Emperors have (de facto) executed this mean Office (which was impious and prodigious pride in the Pope, requiring or permitting; and degenerous in the Emperors, in performing it:) So the Emperor Tho. Walsingham, Hypo­dig. Neustriae, p. 588. Sigismund held the Stirrup of Pope Martin the Fifth. And the Em­peror Baronius Annal. Tom. 12. ad Annum 1177. Sect. 124. Frederick, of Alexander the Third, &c. And the same Frederick had done the same to Pope Adrian the Fourth (if Idem Annal. Tom. 12. ad Annum 1155. num. 13, 14. Baronius say true) ..... In conspectu exercitus sui, Fredericus OFFICIUM STRA­TORIS cum JUCUNDITATE implevit, & streguam FORTITER tenuit. And, that it might be remem­ber'd, Baronius has put this Note in the Ibid. num. 13. Mar­gent ..... Ut Reges & Imperatores INSERVIANT. PAPAE. And in the Margent of the next Paragraph ...... Rex implet Ibid. num. 14. munus STRATORIS Papae.

3. Nor is this all; the Emperor must Swear Fe­alty to the Pope; and that he will be his Proctor, to defend and maintain all his Rights and Honors, [Page 11] &c. In this form Sacrar. Ceremoniarum S. Rom. Ecclesiae. lib. 1. Tit. 5. p. 23. ..... Ego Rex Romanorum futu­rus Imperator, promitto & juro, me de caetero Protecto­rem & Procuratorem fore summi Pontificis, in omni­bus Necessitatibus & utilitatibus suis, custodiendo & conservando possessiones, honores, Jura, &c. Thus Pope Innocent the Third made our King John Swear Fidelity and Allegiance to him, in this form Hen. de Knighton. de E­ventibus Angliae, lib. 2. p. 2420. & Math. Westmonast. ad An­num 1213. p. 272. E­go Johannes Rex Angliae..... fidelis ero..... Ecclesiae Ro­manae ac DOMINO MEO, Innocentio Papae 3. &c. And before this, Pope Gregory the Seventh (that Prodigy of wickedness and Papal Tyranny) sends Hubertus to William the Conqueror, Ut sibi & successoribus FIDELITATEM fac [...]ret. Baro­nius Annal. Tom. 11. ad An­num 1079. num. 25. requiring him to Swear Allegiance and Fidelity to him and his Suc­cessors. 'Tis true, that the Conqueror had under­standing enough to know His Royal Rights, and the Popes injust pretences, and so (as well became a King) peremptorily refused to take any such Oath. Fidelitatem facere nolui (sayes he in his Letters to the Pope) neo volo. However, hoc Ithacus vellet; this power they pretended to, and (as they had abi­lity and opportunity) required it, and (we may be sure) when they have an advantage and power, they will both require, and severely (by Interdicts, Ana­thema's and Excommunications) exact it. And well they might, if they had that vast Power and Juris­diction over Kings, which the Canonists, Jesuits, Schoolmen, Casuists, Summists, and their greatest Writers generally give them. I shall (of many) give you some few Instances.

4. Cardinal Pool Libro ad Hen. 8. pro Ec­clesiasticae Unionis▪ Defensione. Romae, apud Antonium Badum Asulanum, p. 25, 26. It is in Folio, but the year when 'twas Printed not express'd. after he had said, and (as he thought) proved; That the King was the product of the Pope and People; by them created and made King; [Page 12] and that the Office of the Pope and Priest, was the Of­fice of a Father, the King being his Son. He adds..... That Officium Patris est PRORSUS MAJUS REGIO ET DIVINIUS. And then he has put these words in the Margent (that they might be taken into special consideration) SACERDOS in suo mu­nere REGI PRAECIPIT, NON CONTRA. Ibidem p. 26. col. 1. .... The Priest COMMANDS THE KING, but the KING CANNOT COMMAND THE PRIEST. The Priest then is superior, and the King his subject: and so good night to the Kings Supre­macy. And a little before, he says Henricus Rex LUCIFE­RI SUPERBIAM imitatur, dum se ipse VICARIUM CHRISTI constituit. Ibid. p. 17. col. 1. .... Henry the Eighth imitated the PRIDE of LUCIFER, when he made himself VICAR of Christ. This is pretty well; but as the Pope desires, so the Cardinal (and others generally) give him more Polus Card. de Concilio. p. 91. Editionis in 8^o. ...... Petri Cathe­dram SUPER OMNIA IMPERATORUM solia, & OMNIA REGUM tribunalia CONSTITUIT CHRISTUS. The Pope (by their Divinity) is Jure di­vino, superiour to all Kings and Emperors: And yet St. Paul 2 Cor. 11. 5. & 2 Cor. 12. 11. (equal to St. Peter, and far above any of his successors) acknowledges that the Emperor Act. 25. 10, 11. (and he a Pagan) was his Judge, and legal superior, and (as such) Appeals to him. Azorius (a great and learned person) confirms the Cardinals Opinion; and tells us Imperator PAPAE JU­RE DIVINO SUBJECTUS, [...]tiam in TEMPORALIBUS. Azorius Institut. Moral. Tom. 2. lib. 10. cap. 6. p. 1041. That the Emperor, BY THE LAW OF GOD, is SUBJECT to the POPE, even IN TEMPORALS. And since him, a learned Man, and Prior General of his Order, tells us Unicus DEI VICARI­US PONTIFEX ROMANUS, habet SUMMAM potestatem & IMPERIUM super OMNES REGES & Principes TER­RAE. Blasius Bagnus de S. Ro­manae Ecclesiae Dignitatibus. Tract. 7. p. 83. That the Popes EMPIRE is over ALL THE WORLD (Pa­gan and Christian) and that HE is the ONELY VI­CAR OF GOD, who has SUPREME Power and EM­PIRE, over ALL KINGS and PRINCES OF THE EARTH. And again Ibid. p. 84. ..... Sicut unus est Deus, [Page 13] monarcha omnium; sic inter homines, VNUS DE­BET esse PRINCEPS & MONARCHA, qui OM­NIBUS MORTALIBUS praesit & DOMINE­TUR, DEI scilicet VICARIUS. Non igitur Pe­trus SUB REGE, sed REGES SUB PETRO esse DEBENT, sibique & suis SUCCESSORIBUS INCURVARI, TENENTUR, & COLLA SUB­MITTERE. And a little after Ibid. p. 89. ...... Unus Dei Vicarius OMNIUM PRINCEPS & DOMINUS, Cui IMPERATORES, REGES, & Potestates OMNES HUMILITER OBEDIANT, sintque SUBJECTI. And good reason they should be so (if he say true) for Princes have all their Power and Authority from the Pope....... Sicut luna accipit lumen à sole, sic RE­GIA potestas recepit authoritatem, NON ALIUNDE nisi A PAPA. And for the proof of this, he cites two great Ibid. p. 85. Lawyers (and might have cited an hun­dred more) Johannes Andreas, and Hostiensis ... Ad Can. Nemo 13. & Can. Aliorum. 14. Caus. 9. Quaest. 3. Mul­tas rationes afferunt Johannes Andreas & Hostiensis quibus probant, Papam esse Principem & MONAR­CHAM, & SUPERIOREM Laicorum omnium & Clericorum. Nay, 'tis THE DUTY OF ALL KINGS, to suffer the Pope to domineer over them Glossa ad cap. Unam Sanctam. de Majore & Obed. in Extravag. Commun. Verbo, porro subesse, in Respect. ad 3. Argumentum. .... DEBET Potestas Spiritualis Temporali DOMI­NARI. Nay, they are damn'd if they do not sub­mit: for so the Lemma, or Title to that impious Extravagant of Pope Boniface the Eighth. Omnes Chri­sti fideles (the Text and Gloss expresly say it) DE NECESSITATE SALUTIS SUBSUNT ROMA­NO PONTIFICI. Qui utrumque Luc. 22. 38. 1. It can­not appear that Peter had them both. 2. Nor that they were given him by Christ.▪ 3. Nor that they signify'd two distinct powers. 4. Nor that Peter might use them both, who was severely condemn'd for using one, Mat. 26. 51, 52. gladium habet, & OMNES Judicat, & A NEMINE judicatur. The Pope has both Swords, that is, (as their Infal­lible [Page 14] Judge, the Pope, falsely and ridiculously ex­pounds it) both the Spiritual and Temporal Power, and is SUPREME MONARCH, above all Kings. Nay further, they blasphemously say, That our Bles­sed Saviour had not done DISCRETELY, unless he had left such a Supreme Monarch over his Church at his Ascension to govern the World, Glossa ad dictum Cap. Unam Sanctam. ....Non vide­retur Dominus fuisse DISCRETUS, nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset.

And, (to fill up the measure of their Blasphemy against God, and their sordid and impious flattery of the Pope) Hence it is, that they declare the Pope to be more than Man,

So the Gloss upon the Clementines, in their Canon-Law. And the famous Inscription (if I forget not) on an Altar at Rome, is as blasphemous (or rather more) as the former. The words these; Paulo 5^o VICE­DEO, Pontificiae OMNIPOTENTIAE vindici acer­rimo, &c. where although VICE-DEUS, signifie something less than God; yet Omnipotence blasphe­mously attributed to the Pope, must signifie, that he was more than Man. But there is another Gloss, which does not mince the matter, but in plain words, speaks down-right blasphemy: in which it is Glossa ad Cap. Cum in­ter. 4. verbo, declaramus. De verb. Signif. in Extravag. Jo­han. 22. Dominus DEUS noster Papa. So that these Glosses, though they agree in Impiety, and are both blasphe­mous; yet they contradict each other; the one say­ing, that the Pope is God; the other, that he is nei­ther [Page 15] God nor Man. Now, if this be true, I desire some of their Canonists would inform me, what they think the Pope is. For if (according to their Law) he neither be God nor Man; seeing (I suppose) it will be granted, that he is a rational Creature, and no good Angel, he must be (by their Law and Logick) an incarnate Devil. I do not call him so; but only shew, what (by the just consequences of their impious and blasphemous Glosses) he must be.

5. And here, it may not be unworthy of our ob­servation, that although Thomas Manrique (Master of the sacred Palace) in the year 1572. thought Censura in Glossas Juris Canonici. Colon. 1572. p. 13. 14. & 52. fit to have this impious Gloss left out, and has (in Print) published his opinion: yet Pope Vide Bullam ejus datam Romae 1. Jul. 1580. praefixam Juri Canon. Paris. 1612. Gregory the XIII. thought otherwise, and approves and passes this blasphemous Gloss (with such others) and so it still remains in the Anno 1580. Roman and Paris. 161 [...]. Parisian Edi­tions. Now although the Congregatio Indicis, and their Inquisitors, in their Indices Expurgatorii, take particular notice of, and Damn such Sentences as these (though Principles of Christian Religion evi­dently contain'd in Scripture) Index Expurgat. Hispan. Juxta exemplar. Madriti. 1667. p. 99. Abraham fide ju­stus. Ibidem, p. 112. Col. 2. Christus credentibus salus. Ibidem. Justitia nostra Christus. Omnes Ibidem. sumus peccatores. I say, though they constantly Damn such Sacred Truths, and com­mand them to be expung'd; yet this impious Gloss (making, as they think, for the Popes absolute Mo­narchy) stands untouch'd, in their last and best E­ditions of their Canon-Law. Onely they have in the last Edition (I have yet seen) added this Note in the Margent, over against the Gloss Edit. Jur. Canon. Paris. 1612. Clement. Col. 4. in mar­gine, ad Prooemium Clementina­rum. .....Haec verba [Page 16] sano modo sunt accipienda. And that is (according to the meaning of Johannes Andreas, the Author of that Gloss) those words must be taken so, as they make most for the Popes Supremacy: for so it immediately follows....Prolata enim sunt ad ostendendam amplissi­mam esse Pontificis Romani potestatem.

Now this Supremacy of the Pope being granted, (which their Lawyers, Authentick Laws, their Cano­nists and Councils, and all their greatest Writers, Je­suits especially, generally contend for) it evidently follows, that the Pope is the sole and onely Supreme Power on Earth; and so all Kings and Emperors are, and must be his Subjects, and so must lose that Su­premacy, which (by the Laws of Nature and Scri­pture) does de Jure belong to them: For they say, and industriously endeavor to prove this Absolute Supreme Power and Monarchy of the Pope, over all Kings and Emperors in the World. I shall, to sa­tisfie you, bring two or three more Witnesses to prove it.

I. Abraham Abrah. Bzovius de Pon­tifice Romano. Coloniae Agrip. 1619. says, 1. Papa est Christianorum Mo­narcha, cap. 1. 2. Mortalium supremus, cap. 3. 3. A quo Provocatio nulla, cap. 16. 4. Judex coeli, & in judici [...] terreno supremus, cap. 32. 5. Arbiter Orbis, cap. 45. Bzovius tells us, 1. That the Pope is MONARCH of ALL CHRISTIANS (Kings and Emperors included.) 2. That he is SU­PREME over ALL MORTALS. 3. That there lies no APPEAL from him. 4. That he is JUDGE of HEAVEN, and in al [...] EARTHLY JUDGMENTS SUPREME 5. That he is, THE ARBITRATOR of THE WORLD. These (and many more such) Bzo­vius industriously indeavors to prove out o [...] their Popish Authors. Nor is his Book an [...] surreptitious Work, clandestinely publish'd [Page 17] such as Rome would not own; for it comes out, with all the Solemn Approbations and Commendations of his Superiors, and the A­postolick Inquisitor; who thus approves Bzovi­us his Book (and so all the above-mention'd Extravagant and Antimonarchical Positions) Vide Approbationes li­bro Bzovii, De Pontifice Ro­mano praefixus; iu Approbati­one Inquisitoris Apostolici—Cum de praesentis Operis SIN­GULARI eruditione, SOLI­DAQUE IN FIDE AC MO­RIBUS DOCTRINA, tam ex DOCTORUM CALCULO, quam ex Authoris CELEBRI NOMINE, satis CONSTET, cense [...] ut ad COMMUNEM UTILITATEM excudatur, &c.—Seeing it sufficiently appears, by the AP­PROBATIONS of the DOCTORS, and the Authors FAMOUS NAME; that the Learn­ing of this present Work is SINGULAR, and the DOCTRINE SOLID, both IN FAITH and MANNERS; therefore I think it fit to be pu­blish'd, FOR THE COMMON UTILITY. So that this Doctrine of the Popes Supremacy, above all Kings and Emperors, is not Bzovius his private Opinion, but has the Approbation of the Roman Church (at least in the Judg­ment of those who approved it) being at­tested by those, who (by that Church) are impowered for that purpose.

II. My next Witness is Isiodorus Mosconius (Vi­car-General to the Archbishop of Bononia, and a learned Lawyer) who tells us [...] God. Mosconius, de Ma­jestat. Ecclesiae Militantis, lib. 1. cap. 7. p. 26. Venetiis [...]6 [...]2. Pontifex Rom. est Judex Uni­versalis, Rex Regum, & Domi­nus Dominantium, [...]o quod eju [...] Potestas à Deo est, & nullum [...]a­bet superiorem nisi Deum: E [...] ­que unum Tribunal inter D [...]m & Papam. Ideo omnes alie [...]o­te [...]at [...]s ei s [...]ditae sunt, & à ne­mine judicatur, nisi à Deo; non ab Augusto, non à Regibus, nec à Clero aut Populo. Et p. 640. in Margine, Papa est omnium P [...] ­cipum Monarcha, &c.—That the Pope is UNIVERSAL JUDGE, KING OF KINGS, and LORD of LORDS, because his Power is of God; That GODS TRIBU­NAL and the POPES, is one and the SAME, and that they have the SAME CONSISTORY: and therefore ALL other Powers are HIS SUB­JECTS, and that the Pope is JUDGED of NONE BUT GOD; not of THE EMPEROR or KINGS, or of the CLERGY or LAITY. [Page 18] And he cites many of their Canons and Coun­cils, which (as positively as he) say and prove the same thing.

III. Celsus Mancinus (De Juribus Principatuum, Romae 1596. lib. 3. cap. 1, 2.) is not far short, in attributing an absolute supreme Power to the Pope, even in Temporal things. For (in the place cited) he tells us Three things (which he fully proves, out of their best Authors.) Mancinus loco citato, ait. 1. Papa est TOTIUS OR­BIS DOMINUS. 2. PAPA (ut Papa) habet POTESTA­TEM TEMPORALEM. 3. Potestas Papae temporalis, est OMNIUM aliarum Potestatum EMINENTISSIMA, aliaeque potestates OMNES ab illo DE­PENDENT. 1. That the Pope is LORD OF THE WHOLE WORLD. 2. That the Pope (as Pope) has TEMPORAL POWER. 3. That this temporal power of the Pope, is, of ALL OTHER POWERS in the World most EMI­NENT; and ALL other Powers DEPEND on the POPE. But let this pass; I shall cite you a greater Authority which will not only tell you, that the Papal Power is greater than Regal and Imperial, but how much it is greater: for,

IV. Pope Innocent the III. (as Infallible as any of his Successors) tells us, that the Papal Innocentius 3. cap. So­licitae, 6. Extra de Major. & Obedientiâ. Power, is as much greater than the Imperial, as the SUN is greater than the MOON. And the Gloss there Pontificalis dignitas qua­dragies Septies Regali major [...] So the learned Gloss. says, that is 47 times greater. He who put the Note in the Mar­gent there, thinks this too little; and there­fore he says, Quinquagies septies; The Papal Power is (according to his Arithmetick) 57 times greater than the Imperial. A Man would think, that (by these accounts) the Popes Power were great enough. But there [Page 19] is an Addition there, (who was the Author of it, I know not) in which we are told, (you may believe so far as you think sit) that the Papal Dignity exceeds the Imperial, no less than 7744. so inconsiderable a thing (in these Mens account) is Regal and Imperial Majesty, in re­spect of the vast Greatness of Papal Supre­macy.

In short; If you compare that Decretal of Inno­cent the Third (but now cited) with that famous Extravagant of Pope Bonifacius 8. cap. U­nam Sanctam. 1. de majori­tate & Obed. Extrav. Com. Boniface the Eighth, (both which are received into the Body of their Canon-Law) you will find them cite several places of Scri­pture, (miserably mis­understood) and bring reasons to prove the Papal Power above the Regal and Im­perial. But the consequences they draw from those Texts they cite, are so far from being Infallible, that they are (like those who cite them) evidently false; and what other Arguments they bring, are not only unlike reason, but ridiculous: yet although neither the Reasons, nor the Authority of their Popes, nor the general consent of the ablest Writers Rome has, (who all endeavor to establish the same Position, and the Popes extravagant Supremacy) can prove that he really has such Power, (nor are they cited by me to any such purpose) yet they clearly prove that they own that Doctrine (which is all I aim at) and (though they cannot) gladly would make it appear probable, and have us and all others to be­lieve it.

6. And further, from this unlimited Supremacy of the Pope, they conclude (and publickly profess) [Page 20] his power to depose Kings, absolve their Subjects from all Oathes of Allegiance, and dispose of their King­doms. That this may appear, I consider,

1. That to cite particular Popish Writers, would be endless, and needless; that Bellarmine, Emanuel Sa, Suares, Mariana, Turrecremata, &c. that the Ca­nonists, Casuists, Schoolmen, Summists, Jesuits, &c. are generally (if not universally) of this opinion, (That the Pope may depose Kings, &c.) is notori­ously known to all, who know them. I shall one­ly instance in two or three (to give you a taste of that impious doctrine, which all of them profess, assert, and (so far as they are able) vindicate, &c.) And here, 1. Celsus Mancinus (a learned Canon-Regular of the Order of St. Augustine) tells us, that Conspicuum est OMNI­BUS, à Summo Pontifice DE­PONI PRIVARI que Impera­tores, idque non TANTUM ratione eorum quae ad FIDEM spectant, verum etiam & eorum quae ad MORES & JUS CI­VILE spectant. Celsus Man­cinus De Juribus Principatu­um, lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 76. Ro­mae 1596.—It is EVIDENT TO ALL, THAT EMPE­RORS ARE DEPOSED and DEPRIVED by the Pope, and that not ONELY FOR things pertaining TO FAITH, but ALSO for things pertaining to MANNERS and the CIVIL LAW. And Abra­ham Bzovius (more fully) sayes, (as generally the rest do) 1. Bzovius De Pont. Ro­mano, cap. 46. p. 621. col. 2. Col. Agrip. 1618. 1. Potestas secularis subdita est spirituali, ita ut non sit indicium usurpatum, si potestas spiritualis de temporalibus judicet. 2. Papa sammam ha­bet potestatem etiam in Reges & Principes Christianos, qui eos corrigat, officio amoveat, & in loco eorum alios constituat. 3. Papa potest Regem propter Haere­sin, Schisma, crimen intolerabile in populo, negligentiam aut so­cordi [...]m, si juramento dato, in rebus gravissimis non satisfecerit, a [...]t Ecclesiam opprimeret, DIG­NITATE REGIA EX­UERE. That the secular power IS SUB­JECT to the SPIRITUAL; so that it is no usurpa­tion, if the Spiritual JUDGE the Secular. 2. The Pope has SUPREME POWER over Christian KINGS and PRINCES, who may CORRECT, DE­POSE, and PUT OTHERS in their PLACES. 3. The Pope may DEPRIVE a KING of his Royal Dignity for HERESY, SCHISM, for any intolera­ble crime, negligence, or laziness, if in great matters he break his Oath, or oppress the Church, &c. So that in all these cases (by him there mention'd, and they [Page 21] are Eight or Nine) the Pope may depose a Supreme Prince; and the Pope himself is SOLE JUDGE both of the CRIME and Condemnation. And to make all this good, 1. he gives us a Bzovius loco citato, pag. 611, 612, &c. Catalogue of above Thirty Kings and Princes, who have (de facto) been Deposed, or (by Excommunications and Anathema's) Damn'd by the Pope. 2. And then he cites the Canon of a Ibid. pag. 619, 620, 621. General Council of their own, (of which anon) and above an hun­dred eminent Authors of their own Church, who assert and justifie that Impious Opinion. 3. And then he further adds, that AN INNUMERABLE company of ENGLISH MARTYRS (following their Captain Edmund Campian, a Villain Condemned and Executed for Campian justly executed for High Treason, 24 of Eliz. 1581. Vide Camden's Elizab. Lib. 3. pag. 239, 240. High Treason) did with their Pens and Blood maintain the same Opinion.—INNU­MERABILES etiam Anglicani MARTYRES DU­CEM Edmundum CAMPIANUM secuti, pro PRI­MATU Roniani Pontificis, ab Hen. 8. & Elizabetha caesi, Sanguine profuso, & stilo exerto idem do [...]uerunt. So that we may see, the Doctrine of the Pope's Pow­er to DEPOSE KINGS, must be de Fide, an Arti­cle of Divine Truth, and They Martyrs who die in defence of it: for Campian is with them, a MARTYR CHRISTI INCLYTUS, & sui seculi CLA­RISSLMUS. Pet. Ribaden [...]ira in Catalog. Scriptorum, Reli­gionis Societatis Jesu, in Ed­mundo Gampiano. Parsons the sesuit says as much for Garnet, in his Discussion of the Answer of W. B. pag. 22, 23. Most FAMOUS MARTYR.

These Positions, asserted publickly and in Print, by Popish Authors, with so much confidence, and without any check of the Romish Church, of which they are Members; may justly seem impious and horrid to any sober Christian, who wishes well (as all good Subjects should) to Kings and Monarchy: yet I shall shew you greater Abominations. One [Page 22] of their Casp. Sci [...]ppi [...]s, in his Ecclesiasticum J [...]cobo Magnae Britanniae Regi Oppositum, cap. 139. pag. 502. Edit. 1611. Authors, writing against King James, (of happy Memory) tells us,

1. That the Pope's Power (in the BELIEF of CATHOLICKS) is not barely Ministerial, but IMPERIAL. CATHOLICI (says he) non tan­tum MINISTERIO, sed & IMPERIO Papam praesidere CREDUNT. And this Papal Power is Penes Papam in Ecclesia SUMMUM IMPERIUM, Po­testas SUMMA, tam dirigen­di quam COGENDI, jus etiam VITAE & NECIS in Papa re­sid [...]t. Ibidem cap. 138. pag. 426. SUPREME, so that there resides in the Pope a night to direct and COMPEL, and a POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH. And to shew the reason of this, he adds; Papa est SUMMUS DEI VICARIUS, Caesar summus Ec­clesiae ADVOCATUS; quo NI­HIL ULLI REGI amplius aut HONORIFICENTIUS. Papa CAPUT est Corporis Christi. Caesar [...]c REGES sunt BRA­CHIA seu MANUS. Itaque insania est dicere nullum Capi­tis in Brachia Imperium esse. Papa (qui est Caput & vertex Ecclesiastici corporis) Spiritus Sancti inspiratione regitur. BRA­CHIA NIHIL facere possunt, nisi quod ad corporis Victum, amictum ac protectionem perti­net; quorum omnium Regimen ac praescriptum, quin penes Ca­put sit, & inde ad Brachia deri­vetur, Dubitare Paulus vetat, Col. 2. 19. Itaque si Reges non nutriant, neque vestiant Corpus.—Si Brachia aut Manus mu­nere non fungantur, nec teneant Caput.—Ut membrum inutile. CAPITIS IMPERIO AMPU­TENTUR. Ibid. cap. 241. pag. 511. If you desire to see more of the Pope's Deposing King's, Card. Baronius (in an hundred places) vindicates the Power, and approves and com­mends the practice. See his Annals, Ad annum 593. num. 8. & ad Annum 730. num. 5. That the POPE is the SUPREME VICAR of GOD, the Emperor Supreme ADVOCATE of the Church, than which NOTHING can be more HO­NOURABLE for any KING: (Surely Kings are much bound to him for that Honourable Office.) The POPE (as he goes on) is THE HEAD of Christ's Body; The Emperor and Kings are ARMS and HANDS; And therefore it is MADNESS to say, That the HEAD has not EMPIRE over the ARMS. The POPE, who is the Head and Top of the Ecclesiastical Body, is govern'd by the INSPIRATION of the Holy Ghost. The ARMS can do nothing, but what pertains to the Food, Rayment, and Protection of the Body. And St. Paul forbids us to doubt, that the Government and Prescription of all these, belongs to the Head, and from thence is derived to the ARMS. And therefore if Kings do not feed and cloath the Body, if the ARMS or HANDS do not do their Office, they may (by the Command of the HEAD) be CUT OFF, as [Page 23] unprofitable Members. These are his words, or the English of them.

So that (by this Popish Doctrine) the Pope, being Head of the Body, may, when he pleases, (for he is Supreme and Sole Judge in the case) cut off Kings and Emperors, who are but the Hands or Arms of that Body. And yet so hard is the Forehead of that Author, that he is not ashamed to say, (and put it in the Margent, that all might take notice of it) That this great Power of the Pope, is Summa Papae potestas NIHIL PRORSUS PERI­CULI ADFERY REGIBUS. Idem cap. 141. pag. 512. NOT AT ALL dangerous or prejudicial to Princes. How dan­gerous this Doctrine of this Papal Supremacy, has been to Princes, the many Excommunications and Depositions of Kings and Emperors, in the six last Centuries, are evident and sad Witnesses; and what mischief (if not carefully prevented) it may do for the future, it will concern Princes, and all who are Loyal, and love Them, and their own Pre­servation, seriously to consider. It was a Wise Mans saying, That Protestant Princes may be too secure, but never safe, while any Jesuite dwells in their Dominions. Thuanus speaking of the fatal, and (by them, too secure) not fear'd Tragedy of Hen. 3. and 4. of France, he seems to blame their too great Security, and then adds: MISEROS PRINCIPES, QUIBUS DE CONJURATIONE NON CREDI [...]UR, NISI OCCISIS. But to pro­ceed.

2. Another of their Authors, and he a Learned Bishop (Jacobus Jacobus. Simanca. Enchir. Judicum Tit. 67. Sect. 12. p. 349. Antwerp. 1573 HAERE­TICI PRIVATI SUNT OM­NI DOMINIO & Jurisdictione, & EORUM SUBDITI ab eis LIBERI sunt, quod & REGES, & alios rerum Dominos compre­hendit. Simanca by Name) tells us that, which concerns all Protestant Princes to consider, and what they must expect from [Page 24] the Pope; when he has Power to put their Traiterous Principles in execution. The thing he tells us, is this: Heretiques (says he, and we know who are meant by that hard word) are actually DEPRIVED OF ALL DOMINION and JURISDICTION, and their SUBJECTS FREED FROM THEIR OBEDIENCE: and this comprehends KINGS & OTHER LORDS. So Simanca. Nor is this his private or singular Opinion: For, 1. He proves it expresly out of a Decretal of Pope Gregory the Ninth, ex­tant in the Body of their Cap. Absolutos. 16. Ex­tra▪ de Haereticus. Canon-Law. 2. He cites Alph. à Castro, de Justâ Haereticor. Punit. Lib. 2. Cap. 7. &c. Alphonsus a Castro, who also proves the Position of Simanca, by evident Testimonies of many and eminent Popish Au­thors. 3. It is to be considered too, that Si­manca's Book is Priviledg'd, and Licenc'd to be Printed by Publick Authority, and with the Approbation and high Commendation of the Censor Librorum, the Learned Ben. Arias Montanus; who tells us, that he had read it, Valde utilem esse censeo ad TOTIUS argumenti suscepti cognitionem & PRAXIM, NI­HIL QUE continere quod CA­THOLICAM FIDEM offendat: Ideoque DIGNUM judico, ut ad MULTORUM UTILI­TATEM, TERTIO, & etiam SAEPIUS edatur: So are the words in Arias Montanus his License of that Book. and judged it HIGHLY PROFITABLE, for the Knowledge and PRACTICE of the WHOLE Argument undertaken, and that it con­tain'd NOTHING OFFENSIVE to the CA­THOLICK FAITH, (then, in that great Man's Judgment, that Rebellious Roman Doctrine, of Deposing Heretical Kings, and Absolving their Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance, is not offensive to their Catholick Faith.) And therefore I JUDGE it WORTHY, that FOR THE PROFIT OF MANY, it be A THIRD [Page 25] TIME, and OFTNER, Published. So that this Doctrine, (That Heretical Kings are Depriv'd of all their Dominion, and their Subjects Ab­solved from all Oaths of Allegiance) is not only approved by Simanca, Alfonsus à Castro, Arias Montanus, (all great and very learned Persons in the Church of Rome) but by their Canon-Law, and the Decretal of Pope Gregory the Ninth. And it is further considerable, that this Do­ctrine (though Impious and Trayterous) is not (in any Index Expurgatorius, I have yet seen) condemned either in Simanca, or any other of all those, who generally assert and vindicate it.

3. One more I shall only cite, (though an hun­dred such might be cited) and he a famous Jesuite, who plainly tells us, (what their So­ciety constantly profess, and many of them have, and do practice) Clerici rebellio in Regem, non est crimen laesae Majestatis, quia Clericus non est Regisubdi­tus. Eman. Sa. Aphor. Confess. Verbo Clericus, pag. 41. Col. 1599. That if a CLERGY­MAN Rebel against his KING, it is NO TREASON, because CLERGY-MEN are not the KINGS SUBJECTS. Nor is this the singular Opinion of Emanuel Sa; for it is approved, and highly commended, (by their Censores Li­brorum) both at the Opus Theologis, OMNI­BUSQUE animarum curam ha­bentibus UTILE ac NECES­SARIUM. beginning, and Hi Aphorismi DOCTI sunt ac PII, MULTAMQUE Utilitatem allaturi. end of that Book; and (as an Jac. Leschassier operum pag. 421. Edit. Paris 1652. excellent and learned Person tells me) it was highly ap­proved and commended at Rome too. So that (if such a multitude of eminent Popish Au­thors may have that credit they deserve in this particular) we may be sure, that this impious and trayterous Doctrine is approved and re­ceived [Page 26] in the Church of Rome. And though I said I would cite no more such Testimonies, to manifest so certain and clear a Truth; yet I shall add two more, (not unworthy your Consideration) which are (if that be possible) more highly impious than the former.

1. Then, a great Popish Phil, Maynardus de Pri­vilegiis Ecclesiast. Dedicated to Pope Paulus 5. and printed at Ancona. 1607. Lawyer, (in assert­ing the Papal Power) has, and endeavours to prove these erroneous and desperate Positions.

• 1. The Emperour and Kings are the Popes Sub­jects.
  (1) Imperator subest Papae ut & Reges. Art. 5. Sect. 19. 21.
• 2. The Emperour and Kings may be Deposed by the Pope, for Heresie and any great Sin.
  (2) Imperator & Rex rati­one fidei & peccati gravis, possunt à Papa deponi & priva­ri, Ibid. Sect. 23.
• 3. The Pope has Power in the whole World, in Spi­rituals and TEMPORALS; and this TEMPORAL Power he has in a more Worthy, a Superiour and perfect manner, than Secular Princes.
  (3) Papa habet potestatem in toto Orbe, in Spiritualibus & Temporalibus; & in Temporali­bus modo digniori, superiori, & perfectiori quam habent Prin­cipes seculares. Ibid. Art. 6. Sect. 1. & Sect. 11.
• 4. Statutes made by Laymen, do not bind the Clergy.
  (4) Statuta Laicorum non ob­ligant Clericos. Art. 13. Sect. 9.
• 5. The Pope is Vicar of God, and preferred before all Powers, as GOD HIMSELF; and EVERY CREATURE IS SUBJECT TO HIM.
  (5) Vicarius Dei Omnibus Potestatibus Praeponitur, SICUT IPSE DEUS, & PAPAE SUB­EST OMNIS CREATURA, Ibid. Art. 6. Sect. 11. 12.
• 6. It is necessary to Salvation to be Subject to the Pope, and he who affirms the contrary, IS NO CHRI­STIAN.
  (6) Papae subesse, est DE NE­CESSITATE SALUTIS, & contrarium asserens, NON PO­TEST DICI CHRISTIANUS. Ibidem Sect. 13.

This he has out of the Cap. Unam Sanct. De Major, & Obedientia. Inter. Extrav. Communes. Canon-Law, and the Decretal of Pope Boniface the Eighth. So that by this impious and uncharitable Doctrine, all Protestant Kings, Princes and People, are de­ny'd to be Christians, and absolutely damned, without all hope or possibility of Salvation. [Page 27] And yet their Vide Glossam ad dictum Cap. unam Sanctam: & Card. Turrecrematam summa de Ec­clesi Lib. 4. Part 2. Pag. 409. Canonists (to say nothing of others) and Vid. Bellarmin. de Pont. Rom. Lib. 5. cap. 7. Sect. Item. Sect. sic enim. Jesuites generally, (nay, Vid. Apologiam Jesuita­rum, Editam Anno 1591. cum hoc Titulo. La veritè defendue. universally) approve and defend it, and the Pope and Vid. Sanction. Pragmat. (Paris 1613. in Quarto) pag. 1042. & Concil. Lateran. sub Leone 10. Sess. 11. apud Bi­nium. Tom. 9. Concil. pag. 153. A. And that OBEDIENTIA VERA (and so Subjection) is due and to be given Jesu Christi Vicario Pontifci Romano, is an Article of their New CREED. (contrived at Trent) EXTRA QUAM NULLA SALVUS ESSE POTEST; and to the belief of this, all their Eccle­siasticks solemnly swear. Vid. Bullam Pii. 4. super Forma Pro­fessionis Fidei, in Concilio Tri­dentino. Sess. 25. Council confirm and establish it. Theologia haec damnatoria, Pseudo-Catholica, Ro­mana sit licet, tamen non est Christiana. Let them brag (as usually they do) of their Catholick Faith; for my part, I can have no great Opi­nion of their Faith, who have little Charity, and damn all save themselves.

2 Once more, Stanislaus Orichovius in Chimaera, pag. 99. Stanislaus Orichovius, (while he magnifies the Pope and his Papal Great­ness, with high contempt of Kings, and Blas­phemy against God) hath this passage, unfit to fall from the Pen of any sober Christian, Sacerdos praestat Regi, Quantum HOMO praestat BES­TIAE. Qui Regem praefert Sa­cerdoti, is CREATURAM an­eponit creatori. loco citato. The PRIEST (says he) excels THE KING, as much as a MAN excels a BEAST. And says further, HE WHO PREFERS THE KING BEFORE THE PRIEST, he prefers the CREATURE before the CREATOR. This is strange Doctrine, and yet approved at Rome, at least nor condemned there (as Antimonar­chical Positions, which decry Royal, and mag­nifie Papal Power, seldom, or never are) the reason why I say and believe this, is; Because I find in the Index Expurgatorius Hispan. in Stanislao Orichovio. Spanish Expurgatory Index, some other things of this Author censur'd; but this passage now cited, is neither medled with, nor once mentioned.

But to pass by particular Testimonies of single Po­pish Authors, (who publickly assert, and industri­ously [Page 28] endeavour to Vindicate this Rebellious Do­ctrine, That Kings may be deposed and murdered by the Pope or People.) I shall give you greater, and (to the Church of Rome) more Athentique Autho­rity. As for instance,

1. Their Decretum Gratiani E­MENDATUM, jussu Grego­rii. 13. Editum, juxta Exem­plar ROMANUM, DILI­GENTER RECOGNITUM. Paris. 1612. Canon-Law, approved, received, used and obey'd in their Church, as a Rule of Justice in all their Courts and Consistories. I shall quote their best Edition; Corrected, Approved, and Publish'd by the Popes Command, (and he Infallible no doubt) for so he himself tells us....... Gregorius Papa. 13. in Bulla Corpori Juris Canonici praesixâ. Dat. Romae. 1580. Anno Pontificatus sui. 9, Nos providere vo­lentes, ut hoc Jus Canonicum, sic EXPURGATUM, ad OMNES CHRISTI FIDELES SARTUM per­veniat, ac ne cuiquam liceat operi QUICQUAM ADDERE, vel IMMUTARE, aut INVERTERE, sed prout in urbe nostra Romà nuper impressum fuit, perpetuo integrum & INCORRUPTUM conservetur. Now in his Canon-Law, so purged and corrected, that it might come to ALL THE FAITHFUL, (as the Pope himself tells us, who, if he were In­fallible, could not, and if he were but an Honest Man, would not publish an Untruth) we are told,

I. That the Pope may depose Princes, and then absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, Vid. Can. Authorita­tem. 2. Caus. 15. Quaest. 6. Part. 2. ..... A FIDELITATIS etiam JU­RAMENTO, Romanu Pontifex nonnullos ABSOL­VIT, cum aliquos A SUA DIGNITATE DEPO­NIT. And having set down this for Law, it immediately follows,

[Page 29]II. That Alius autem Rom. Pon­tifex, Zacharias scilicet, Re­gem Francorum, non tam pro sui [...] Iniquitatibus; quam pro eo, quod tantae potestati erat inutilis à REGNO DEPOSUIT, om­nesque Francigenos à JURA­MENTO FIDELITATIS. quod illi fecerunt, ABSOLVIT. Quod etiam ex AUTHORITA­TE FREQUENTI facit Ec­clesia. Ibid. Can. Alius 3. another Pope (Zachary by Name) deposed the King of France; not so much for HIS INIQUITIES, but that he was UNPROFITA­BLE for such a Power.....And then he ABSOLVED ALL THE FRENCH from their Oath of FIDE­LITY: And then adds, .. ... That the Holy-Church (he means the Pope) does (by an usual Authority) so absolve Subjects from their Oaths to their Su­periors.

Now concerning this memorable Canon, give me leave to observe,

1. That the Gloss tells us, (John Semeca, a fa­mous Canonist, was Author of it) that Pope Gelasius maintain'd the Doctrine of deposing Emperors; Glossa ad dictum Cano­nem. verbo Alius. ..... Gelasius Papa scribens con­tra Anastasium Imperatorem, dicit, QUOD PO­TEST EUM DEPONERE PROPTER mali­tiam suam, &c.

2. In the Lemma, or Title of this Canon, (in the Edit. Paris. 1519, &c. old Editions of the Canon-Law) it was, . . . . . Gelasius Papa Anastasio Imperatori. But in later Edit. Lugduni. 1661. &c Editions the Title is this,..... Pontificalis Authoritas A JURAMENTO FI­DELITATIS nonnullos ABSOLVIT, unde Gregorius Papa. The Vid. Notam ad dictum Can. Alius; in Edit. recentiori­bus. Annotator tells us truly, that Gelasius could not speak of the French Kings deposition; seeing Gelasius was dead, above 240 years before Chilpericus (or Childericus, they write him both ways) [Page 30] came to be King of France. But they say, the words of this Canon are found in the Gregorius. 7. Regist. lib. 8. Epist. 21. E­pistles of Pope Gregory the Seventh, and there­fore they do rightly refer them to him, as the true Author of them. Now, whether it were Gelasius or Gregory the Seventh, it is all one, (as to my present business) it is by them confess'd, that a Pope was Author of that Re­bellious passage, Gratian refers it into the Body of their Canon-Law, and Pope Vide Bullam Gregorii. 13. Dat. Romae. 1. Julii. 1580. Corpori Jur. Can. praefixam. Gregory the Thirteenth approves, and (together with the whole Body of the Law, the Gloss and Annotations) confirms and ratifies it. Whence we may rationally conclude, that this Doctrine of the Popes Power to depose Kings, and ab­solve their Subjects from their Oaths of Alle­giance (though impious and rebellious) is so far from being disown'd, or detested by all Pa­pists (as some now pretend) that the Su­preme power of that Church has not only approved, but establish'd it for Law. By the way; though you see, that Gratian and Pope Gregory say, that Pope Zachary was the Man who deposed the French King Hildericus; yet Eginhardus in Vita Ca­roli Magni, p. 4, 5. Edit. Co­lon. 1521. who says—Hil­dericus Rex, JUSSU STE­PHANI, Romani Pontificis, de­positus est. This impious Fact of Pope Stephen, has been ap­prov'd, and (in practice) Imi­tated by many of his followers. Bzovius (before cited) gives us a List of above 30 Kings and Princes, thus deposed by Popes, and Anathematiz'd. an Historian of more Antiquity and Cre­dit than either of them (notwithstanding Gregories Infallibility) tells us, that it was Pope Stephen (Zacharies Successor) who de­posed him. So that all agree, that A Pope (it matters not which) was Author of that im­piety.

[Page 31]3. When the Canon says, that the French King was deposed by the Pope, because he was INUTILIS, &c. the Gloss gives you the meaning of that word; ......Non intelligas, INUTILS, id est INSUFFICIENS, tunc enim ei dari debuit Coadjutor; sed quia DIS­SOLUTUS erat, cum Ipse Papa Pater Patrum putativus, sed filiorum VERUS Pater: quod, qui Nopotes ejus, omnes norunt. Il. Nepotismo, pag.— MULIERIBUS, & EFFOEMINATUS; so that (by this Pa­pal Law) we see, that (if the Pope please) the greatest Prince may be deposed for a ve­ry small matter.

4. When this Canon says; the Pope deposed the King of France; the Glossa ad dictum. Can Alius. 3. Verbo, deposuit. Gloss notes.....Er­go Papa deponit Imperatorem. And (least we should not take notice of it) these words (in their best Editions of the Canon-Laws Cum bis quae ab impiis Scriptoribus, extra in margine, vel intra aspersa fuerunt Catho­licae veritati contraria revidendi corrigendi, expurgandi curam de­mandavimus—I AM TOTUM EMENDATUM, &c. In Bul­là dicta Gregorii. 13. Corpori Juris Canonici praefixa. corrected, purged, revised, and whatever wick­ed men had put into the Text or Margent, con­trary to the Catholick Faith, by Pope Gregories command expunged) I say (notwithstanding all this) these words are put in the Margent .......IMPERATOR POTEST A PAPA DE­PONI. Whence it is evident, that in Pope Gregories Opinion, this impious Doctrine and Position (though contrary to the true Chri­stian) is not contrary to THEIR ROMAN FAITH; being expresly in those Glosses and Canons; in which, their Supreme and Infal­lible Judge says, There is NOTHING CA­THOLICAE VERITATI CONTRARIUM. Nor is this Pope Gregories singular opinion; that the Pope may depose Kings. For seeing [Page 32] it has been approved by their Popes, and their General Councils, (as you shall see anon) and for some Ages received amongst their Sacred Canons, (as they call them) it is become a ne­cessary part of their Creed, (and no Salvation without the belief of it) to which all their Se­cular Clergy, Archbishops, Bishops, and whoever has any cure of Souls; and all their Regulars (at least the Heads and Governors of them) are solemnly One Article of the Trent-Creed is this...Item OM­NIA à Sacris CANONIBUS & Oecumenicis Conciliis desinita INDUBLTANTER recipio & prositeor....Hanc Catholicam fi­dem, extra quam non est SA­LUS prositeor, & ab aliis te­neri, (quantum in me est) cu­rabo. Ita habent verba Pro­fessionis fidei, in Bulla dicta Pii Papae, 4. Concil. Triden­tin. sess. 25. sworn. For they swear, promise, and vow, without all doubtings, to receive, and profess ALL THINGS defined and declared in the SACRED CANONS, and General Councils; and (so far as they are able) to make others re­ceive them too. So that all their Ecclesiastiques (especially all who have any Cure of Souls) do not only believe this impious Doctrine of Popes Power to depose Kings, but they swear, both to BELIEVE and PROFESS IT, and (as far as they are able) make others do so too. How pernicious to Kings and Princes, such Principles, and such Persons, (sworn to Profess and Promote them) heretofore have been, the many sad and Tragical Examples of deposed Princes, in the six last Centuries, can abundantly witness, and assure us: And how pernicious (for the future) they may be, un­less (with care and prudence) they be pre­vented, we, or our Posterity, may unhappily, and too soon see. Dirum omen misericors, qui solus potest, averruncet Deus.

[Page 33]5. Lastly; If we consult Cardinal Johan. Card. de Turre­cremata, ad Can. alius 3. Caus. 15. Quast. 6. & in summa de Ecclesia, lib. 2. cap. 14, &c. Turrecre­mata (a very great and learned person) who well understood their sacred Canons, and in what sense the Roman Church received them) he, in his Commentary on the Canon before­cited, affirmes, and endeavours to prove these following The Cardinals own words are these which follow. Propositions.

• I. The Pope may DEPOSE the Emperor, or a King
  I. Papa potest deponere Im­peratorem, aut Regem, qui non subest Imperatori.
  not subject to the Emperor.
• II. The Pope may LAWFULLY absolve Subjects
  II. Papa LICITE potest ab­solvere subditos à juramento side­litatis.
  from their Oath of Allegiance.
• III. The Pope may depose Counts, Dukes, and other
  III. Papa potest deponere Co­mites, Duces & alios Barones, si­ne consensu Imperatorum, aut Re­gum quibus subsunt.
  Barons, without the Consent of the Emperor, or those Kings, whose Subjects they are.
• IV. Subjects (if they have the Popes consent) which
  IV. Subditi (si habeant assen­sum Papae) possunt Regem depo­nere.......Et si Rex sit manifestus HAERETICUS, potest ab Ec­clesia deponi.
  they are sure to have (if it make for his interest) may depose their Kings. This he farther proves, and adds.....That if the King be a manifest Heretick (as all Protestants are with them) then THE CHURCH may depose him.

The Premises consider'd, it will highly concern all Protestant Kings and Princes to look to it, who, (as Hereticks) are all damned, and Vid. Bullam dictam à Clemente X. Editam, An 1671. 7. Cal. April. & Pontif. sui An. 1. in Bullario Rom. Lugduni 1673. p. 528. Sect. 1. Anathe­matiz'd once every year, on Maundy-Thursday, in their Bulla Coenae Domini. For, had they of Rome power to act according to their Principles, Preten­ces, and Interest, they would make short work, a speedy and thorough Reformation; and compel all Protestant (or, as they constantly miscall them, [Page 34] Heretical) Kings and Princes, to quit their Religion, or their Realms and Kingdoms.

Be it concluded then; that (according to the Ap­proved and Received Doctrine of the Roman Church) Kings and Princes may be deposed, and their subjects absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance. And for the truth of what I here say; we have the Precept and Practice of three Popes (Zachary, Gregory the Seventh, and Urban the Second) and three Vide Gratian. Can. Ali­us. 3. Can. Nos Sanctorum. 4. & Can. Juratos. 5. Caus. 15. Quaest. 6. Ca­nons grounded on that Papal Authority, received in­to the Body of their Canon-Law: which, when you have occasion, you may (for further satisfaction) con­sult.

Now if you inquire, for what Crimes Kings may be deposed by the Pope; whether for Heresie onely (for that's universally agreed on) or for other Crimes also? John Semeca (Author of the Gloss on Gratian) gives us a full and Categorical Answer. For, 1. He Glossa ad Can. si Papa 6. Dist. 40. Verbo. A [...]ide de­vius. proposes the Question: Pro quo peccato potest Imperator deponi? For what Sin can the Emperor be deposed? (That he may be deposed, is (in that Law) no Question, but an undoubted truth; the Questi­on onely is, for what Crimes it may be done.) And the Answer is.......... PRO QUOLIBET pec­cato potest Imperator deponi, si sit incorrigibilis. Ibidem. That he may be deposed for ANY SIN, if he be INCORRIGIBLE; and not onely for his sins, but if he Papa Zacharias Regem Francorum, non tam pro suis ini­quitatibus, quam quod tantae po­testatis erat INUTILIS. depo­suit. Can. Alius. 2. Caus. 15. Quaest. 6. UNPROFITABLY ma­nage that Regal Power: And this he proves out of another Canon. This is the sad condition of Kings and Emperors (by the Popish Canon-Law) they may be deposed (if they be incorrigible) for ANY SIN, and sometimes for no sin; at least as the principal cause of their deposition. Whereas (by the same [Page 35] Law) if the Pope be so Dicto Can. si Papa. 6 Dist. 40. prodigiously impious, that he not onely damn himself, but carry [IN­NUMERABILES POPULOS] innumerable people to hell with him, yet there is no deposing, or Judg­ing him. This not only the Canon in Gratian, but a long Annotation (lately added, since Gratians time) approves, and confirmes: and Pope Gregory the Thir­teenth approves both the Canon, and Annotation, in his Bulla Gregorii. 13. Corp. Jur. Can. praesixa. Bull, I have so often mention'd. So that (according to this Law) If the Emperor, or any King, will not be good Boyes, and obey their Grand Maister (Dominum DEUM NOSTRUM, as they call him) the Pope; if they will not be corrected by him, and amend what he thinks amiss (for he is Supreme and Sole Judge of the Crime and Punish­ment) Then the Pope may, and (if he have ability and opportunity, we may be sure) he will depose them.

Thus much (and may be too much) for the Canon-Law; that Sink of Forgeries, Impiety, and Disloyalty. For I scarce know any Book, where­in are more forged Writings (under good names sometimes) for bad purposes; or more Impious Doctrines and Positions own'd and authoriz'd for Law, and that by one who pretends (though with­out, and against all reason) to be Christ's Vicar, and Infallible; or any Book which has more Sedi­tious and Rebellious Principles of Disloyalty. This I onely say now, but when I have (what now I want) time, and opportunity; I can, and ( [...]) will make it good. How dangerous, and (when [Page 36] believ'd and practis'd) how pernicious to Kings and Princes, the Principles of that Law are, you may (in part) see by the premises: if you desire more, you may (at your leasure) consult, and con­sider those Places here mention'd in the Margent Vide Gratian Dist. 96. in Lemmate, & Can. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Cujus Lemma est Quod Im­peratores debent Pontificibus SUBESSE, non PRAEESSE. Can. etiam 12. Can. etiam 2, 3, 4 5. Caus. 5. Qu [...]st. 6. & Can. Excommunicatorum. 47. Caus. 23. Quaest. 5. & cap. Vergen­tis, 10. & cap. Excommunic. 13. & cap. absolutos. 16. Extra De Haereticis, & cap. Gravem. 13. Extra de Poenis. & cap. Ad Apo­stolicae. 2. De sent. & re Judica­ [...]a, in 6. & 7 Decret. lib. 2. Tit. 1. cap. 1. Cujus Lemma est LAICIS in Clericos NULLA POTESTAS. & 7 Decret. lib. 2. Tit. 2. cap. 2. & ibidem lib. 5. Tit. 3. De Haereticis & Schis­maticis. cap. 9, &c. Et cap. Ni­mis 30. Extra De Jurejurando. Cujus Lemma est. Clerici—non tenentur Laicis praestare Ju­ [...]amenta FIDELITATIS, & cap. Solicitae. 6. Extra De Major. & Obedientia. with the Gloss and Case upon them; toge­ther with Cardinal Turrecremata's Commentary on Gratians Decree, and Panormitan on the Decre­tals (to omit all other Canonists) you will find Evidence, more than enough, to convince you, out of their own Testimonies, that the Principles of their own Law, as explain'd by their greatest, and best Interpreters, are not onely Dangerous, but De­structive of the Right of Kings, and inconsist­ent with that Loyalty, which (by the Lawes of Nature and Scripture) are really due to them.

3. But besides these Testimonies of particular Writers of their own Church, and their Approv­ed, and (by Puplick Authority) Establish'd, and Received Canon-Law, we have greater and more Authentick Testimonies, that in the Popish Church, they both profess and practice this impious and rebellious doctrine, of Anathematizing, and De­posing Kings and Emperors, of giving away their Kingdoms to others, and Absolving their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity. For their Popes (who are their Supreme and Infallible Judges) testifie as much, in their Breves and Bulls; and those not forged, or corrupted by Hereticks; but Publish'd by themselves, and Printed at Rome, in [Page 37] their own Vid. Bullarium Roma­num, per Cherubinum Romae ex Typograph. Camerae Apo­stolicae, Anno 1638. Vatican Press. Where (to omit others) we have,

1. The Bull of Pius the Fifth against Queen Eli­zabeth. The Title prefixed to that impious Bull, is this: Dicti Bullarii. Tom. 2. p. 229. and in the Edition at Li­ons. An. 1655. p. 303. It is da­ted 5. Cal. Maii. 1570. Elizabe­thae Anno 13. Till which year all Papists came to our Com­mon-Prayers. DAMNATIO, & Excommunicatio Eliza­bethae, Reginae Angliae, eique ADHAERENTIUM, Where (in one breath and Bull) he Damns that Innocent Queen, and all her Loyal Subjects, (Prote­stants and Papists.) Where (by the way) it is to be consider'd, That if any Papists be Loyal, (as by the Law of God and Nature they ought) to any Hereti­cal King or Prince, (and at Rome, our Gracious King, and all Protestants are such) it is reputed their Crime, and they Damn'd at Rome for it. For it is not only (OMNES Vide Bullam Clementis 10 dat. Romae. 7. Cal. April. 1671. in Bullario Cherubini Lugduni. 1673. Tom. 5. p. 528▪ & SINGULOS HAERETICOS, QUO­CUNQUE NOMINE CENSEANTUR.) All and singular Heretiques, of what sort soever, but also all those, who RECEIVE, FAVOUR, or DEFEND them. So that if any Roman-Catholick Favour, or (accor­ding to his Natural, or Sworn Allegiance) Defend his Prince, who is a Protestant, (and so a Declared Here­tique) he is under the same Anathema and Condem­nation. And this Anathema and Condemnation of all Heretiques, and all those who Favour or Defend them, is solemnly renewed every In Bulla Coenae Domini. year at Rome, and lately referred into the Body of their Vid 7. Decret. lib. 5. Ti [...]. 3. cap 2. & 9. pag. 193. & 203. [...]dit, Lugd. 1661. Canon-Law.

But to proceed: In this Bull of Pope Pius the Fifth, which contains the Anathema and Damnation (as 'tis called in the Lemma prefix'd to that Bull) of Queen Elizabeth; which proved BRUTUM [Page 38] FULMEN, (the good and most gracious GOD bles­sing what the Pope impiously cursed) we have these Particulars very considerable.

1. The extravagant Power the Pope assumes; when he tells us, That our Blessed Saviour did constitute Peter, and by consequence Christus—QUI NOS in hoc SUPREMO JUSTITIAE THRONO voluit collocare. Di­ctae Bullae. Sect. 3. Him, (as St Peter's Successor.) .... ...SUPER OMNES GENTES, & OMNIA Regna PRINCIPEM, ut EVELLAT, DESTRUAT, DISSIPET, DISPERDAT, &c. These are the words of God to Jer. 1. 10. Jeremy, (not Peter or his Successors) miserably misunderstood and misapplyed by this Pope and By Innocent 3, and yet it goes for Law. Cap: Solicitae, 6. Extra De Major. & Obed. and by Boniface the 8. cap. Unam Sanctam. 1. eodem Tit. Extravag. Com. &c. his Predecessors. Here is a pretence to a vast and destructive Power; and though it be a bare pretence, and (without any just ground) irrational and ridiculous; yet let Princes look to it. For when the Popes had Power, they did; and when they have, they will make use of it.

2. This premised, he proceeds to his Damnatory Sentence, in these words: Nos Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine declaramus praedict­am Elizabetham Haereticam, ei­que adhaerentes, Anathematis sen­tentiam tincurrisse, esseque A CHRISTI CORPORIS UNI­TATE PRAECISOS. Dictae Bullae Sect. 3. We (saith he) by the Plenitude of Apostolical Power, declare the said Elizabeth an Heretick, and both her, and her Adherents, to have incurr'd the Sentence of Excommunication, and to be all cut off from the Unity of the Body of Christ. But this is not all; He proceeds (very unlike a Christian, and what he would be thought, Christ's Vicar) to depose her, from all her Royal Dignity, and all that Dominion, to which she had (by [Page 39] Birth, the Law of God, and the Land) a just Right, in the following Form—

3. And we Quinetiam ipsam praetenso REGNIJURE, nec non OM­NI & quocunque DOMINIO, DIGNITATE, privilegioque PRIVATAM. Ibid. Sect. 4. Deprive her of her pretended Royal Right, and all Dominion, Dignity and Priviledge whatsoever. He calls it, Her PRETENDED Royal Right, because (according to their Re­bellious and Impious Principles) she being an Heretick, (as they miscall'd her) for that Crime she had lost her Royal Right, even be­fore her actual Excommunication. Nor is this all; he proceeds—

4. And further, Item Proceres subditos & populos dicti Regni, ac caeteros OMNES, qui illi QUOMO­DOCUNQUE JURAVE­RUNT, à JURAMENTO hu­iusmodi, ac OMNI prorsus do­minii, sidelitatis & obsequii de­bito perpetuo absolutos & prae­senti authoritate absolvimus. Ibid. Sect. 5. we Absolve all the Nobility, Sub­jects, and People of England, and all others who have any way Sworn to her, from such Oath; and we declare them FOR EVER Absolved from any Obligation of Allegiance or Obedience to her; and we do, (by these Presents) Absolve them. So that here, (so far as was able) he Absolves all her Subjects, from the Obligation of the Oaths, in which they had sworn Allegiance. But because there is, (as the Lawyers truly say) A Natural, as well A Sworn Allegiance; (for, by Birth, they who never swore it, owe a Natu­ral Allegiance to their Prince, being born Sub­jects) lest, (after their Oath was null'd) they should Obey the Queen, and (upon the Princi­ple of Natural Allegiance) think themselves bound so to do; He goes on, to declare this Natural Bond Null, and frees them from any Obligation of it: Thus:—

5. We Praecipimus & interdici­mus UNIVERSIS & singulis PROCERIBUS,, subditis popu­lis & aliis praedictis, ne ILLI, ejusve MONITIS, MANDA­TIS, aut LEGIBUS audeant OBEDIRE. Qui secus sece­rint simili Anathematis senten­tia innodamus. Ibid, Sect. 5. Command, and Forbid all the Peers, People and Subjects of England, to dare to give [Page 40] any Obedience to the Queen, her Monitions, Com­mands, or Laws. And if any do otherwise, we in­volve them in the same Sentence of Anathema and Excommunication. Whence it evidently ap­pears, 1. That the Pope, in this Authentique Bull, and Decretory Sentence, does (so far as he is able) Depose the Queen. 2. Absolve all her Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance. 3. And (under pain of Excommunication) command and require them, (contrary to their Natural Allegiance) to give no Obedience to their undoubted Soveraign. Nor is this all for,

6. When he had done all this, he gave away the Queens Kingdom, and Dominions, to Philip the Second, King of Spain; as is notoriously known, and In depositione Elizabe­the. Pius 5. Jus Britanniae & Hiberniae ad Philippum 2. tran­stulit vi cujus donationis, deman­datus pòstea Sidonius fuit, Anno 1588. classe Hispanicâ Instru­ctus, ut Brittanniae regna posside­ret. Remonstran. Hibernorum per Frat. R. Caron. Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect. 4. pag. 7. ingeniously confess'd by (an honest Roman Catholick) Father R. Caron, an Irish Priest.

Many more such impious Bulls there are in the Roman Bullary, in all which Kings and Princes and Anathematiz'd and deposed by the Pope, and their Subjects absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance on pretence of that vast and extravagant Supre­macy and Dominion over all the World, (which they challenge by Divine Right, though without any and against all Reason) even over Kings and Em­perors. For instance, the Excommunication and Deposition of the Bullarium Romanum. Tom. 1. p. 52, 53. Lugduni. A [...]. 1655. Vid. Binium Concil Tom. 7. part. 1. p. 484. Emperor Henry the Fourth who was twice Anathematiz'd by Gregory the Seventh [Page 41] Of Frederique Ibidem. p. 105. & p. 112. dicti Bullarii. the Second. By Gregory the Ninth, and Innocent the Fourth. Of our King Henry Ibid. Tom. 1. p. 740. The Excommunication was da­ted 1533. and executed Anno 1538. the Eighth, by Pope Paul the Third. And (to omit all others) we have an Excommunication of all Here­tical Kings and Princes, and Heretiques in general, in that famous Vid. dictum Bullarium, Tom. 3. p. 248. & Constitut. 62. Pauli 5. Ibidem, & pluri­mas ejusdem generis Bullas ibi indicatas. Bullà Coenae, wherein (on Maundy-Thursday) an Anathema is solemnly denounced against all Heretiques, even Emperors, Etiam Imperiali Regali, Ducali, aut alia mundana excel­lentia fugentibus. They are the words of the Bull. Kings, Dukes, and all of what Dignity soever: and this Anathema is re­peated every year. So that (amongst others) our Gracious King, and all his Protestant Subjects, are Anathematiz'd and Curs'd once every year at Rome, as if their Mons Vaticanus, were become Mount Ebal, Deut. 11. 29. & 27. 12. from whence all Curses were to come. Now, whether this Doctrine and Practices of Popes be not dangerous and pernicious to Kings, let the World Judge.

Well, but if all this will not do; if the Testimo­nies of their own Writers, (which both for learning and dignity in their Church, are most eminent) nor their receiv'd and establish'd Laws and Canons; nor their Authentique Papal Bulls Vid Pauli Papae. 4. Bul­lam 12. in Bullario Cherubini. Romae 1638. Tom. 1. p. 602. Qua Imperatores Reges, &c. Hae­reticos, Imperiis, Regnis & Do­miniis omnibus privatos pronunci­at; Dominiaque illa omnia esse publicanda, publicata autem sint juris & proprietatis eorum, qui ipsa primò [...]. and Decretal Con­stitutions: I say, if all these be not evidence enough, to intitle the Church of Rome to this Seditious, Im­pious, and (to Kings especially, if they be Prote­stants) Pernicious Doctrine; yet the Decrees and Canons of their own General Councils, (which, (by their own Principles and Confessions) are Represen­tatives of their whole Church, and Infallible) I say, the Decrees of such Councils (if there be any such) will, and must be undeniable Evidences of what I have said in this particular. And, that their appro­ved [...] [Page 36] [...] [Page 37] [...] [Page 38] [...] [Page 39] [...] [Page 40] [...] [Page 41] [Page 42] General Councils have approved this Doctrine of the Popes Power to depose Kings and Emperors, and absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Al­legiance, I shall give you two or three evident In­stances.

I. In the General It is one of those General Councils, which the Council of Constans decreed all future Popes should sweat to maintain: Sess. 39. In formâ Professionis à Pa­ga faciendae, p 250. Edit. 1514. Council of Lions, (for a General Council they do universally acknowledge it) Pope Innocent the Fourth deposed the Em­peror Frederique the Second; That he deposed him in that Council, is undeny'd by any I have yet met with; and that it was, after diligent deliberation had with his Brethren, and the Coun­cil, Cum fratribus nostris & [...]tio CONCILIO, deliberatione diligemi praehabitâ. Cap. cum aterni. 1. Extra de Sent. & re Judic. in 6. The Title to that Chap. is— Innocentius 4. in Concilio Lugdunensi. appears by the form of the Excom­munication, registred, and upon Record in the Body of their Canon-Law. Where, 1. He Omni honore & dignitate sententiando privamus. Ibidem. deprives him of all his Honor and Imperial Dig­nity. 2. And then Omnes qui ei Juramento fidelitatis tenentur astricti, à Ju­ramento hujusmodi perpetuo ab­solvimus. Ibid. absolves all his Subjects from their Oaths of Fidelity. 3. And Quoslibet, qui ei, velut Imperatori vel Regi, Consili­um, vel auxilium praestiterint, vel favorem Excommunicatio­nis sententiae subjacere. Ex­communicates all who should acknowledge him King, or Emperor; or should counsel, assist, or favor him.

II. In the great Lateran Concil. Lateranum Mag­num, sub Innocentio. 3. Anno 1215. Can. 3. De Haereticis: and the Canon is received into the Canon Law, by Pope Gre­gory the 9. Cap. Excommuni­camus. 13. Extra de Haereticis. Council, (for so they commonly call it) in which (if they misreckon not) there were no less than 1215. Fathers) it was Synodically and Categorically conclu­ded, That the Pope might depose Kings, absolve their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, and give away their Kingdoms. The Series and Sum of the Canon is this; First, It is de­creed, That all Secular Powers shall expel all (whom the Pope and his Party shall call) Here­tiques, [Page 43] out of their Dominions, and they were to be admonish'd to do this, Moneantur secu­lares potestates, &c. Secondly, But in case they obey'd not that Monition, they were to be Si necesse fuerit, per Cen­suras Ecclesiasticas COMPEL­LANTUR potestates seculares, &c. Ibid. Can. 3. COMPELL'D. And not only the La­teran, but the Concil. Trident. Sess. 25. De Reformat. cap. 20. Trent-Council, (a most Apocryphal Conventicle, as I shall, when re­quired, make evident to you) useth the same Saucy Language to Princes and Supreme Pow­ers, Imperatorem Reges, Prin­cipes, & OMNES, cujuscunque status & dignitatis, &c. (even Emperors, Kings, Princes, and all other of what State or Dignity soever) for all these are PRAECIPIT Sacros Ca­nones, & Concilia Generalia OMNIA, & Apostolicas San­ctiones in favorem Ecclesiast. personarum, tanquam DEI PRAECEPTA, Ordinatione Dei constituta, &c. COMMANDED to observe all the Sacred Canons, and ALL GENERAL COUN­CILS, (and so even the Lateran Council, and this Canon we are speaking of) which are in favor of Ecclesiastical Persons, and the Liberties of the Church; and they are to observe all these, and ALL OTHER PAPAL SANCTI­ONS, as the PRECEPTS OF GOD, and DI­VINE ORDINATIONS. And the Lemma, [...]ANTUR OMNES PRINCIPES Catholici, conser­vare OMNIA SANCITA, &c. In Lemmate dicto Cap. prae­fixo, in Edit. Concil. Trident. Anno 1634. if I forget not; for I have not the Book now by me. or Title to that Chapter, is this.... . CO­GANTUR, &c. LET ALL CATHOLIQUE PRINCES (and much more Heretical) be COMPELL'D to observe ALL the SANCTI­ONS concerning Ecclesiastical Liberty, &c. And this is the common and usual Language of their most eminent Writers, of their Popes and Councils: as you may see (to omit all others) in Cardinal Card. Tuschus, Conclu­sion. Pract. Juris. Tom. 6. Con­clus. 41. Sect. 40. 41, 61. Tuschus, the life of Pope Imperator potest COGI ad Officium Execrationibus, & AR­MIS. Gregorius. 7. apud Pla­tinam in cjus Vita. Gregory the Seventh by Plati­na, and in the Lateran Council under Leo the Tenth, where the Pope in his Monitory against [Page 48] the Gallican Pragmatical Sanction, faucily says, .... Leo 10. in Concil. Late­rano, Approbante Concilio, apud Binium Concil. Tom. 9. p. 49. Edit. Paris. Ann. 1636. RE­GES PEREMPTORIE RE­QUIRIMUS. We PEREMPTORILY COMMAND KINGS, &c. Secondly, Well then, by this Lateran Council and Canon, we are speaking of, Kings are to be COMPELL'D, by the Pope, to do their duty; and that is (as the Canon tells us) to expell all Heretiques out of their Kingdoms. And if you ask, Who, or What Heretiques those are? The same Canon tells you, That it is all those, whom the Pope and his Party, shall be pleased to Haereticos AB ECCLE­SIA NOTATOS. call Here­tiques. Thirdly, And they (Kings and Prin­ces) must be COMPELL'D to take an OATH, and swear they will Expel such Heretiques; and this Oath they must take publickly, (that all may see and know that Princes obey the Pope) for the words of the Canon are, .... Praestent JURAMENTUM PUBLICE, quod universos Haereticos, AB ECCLESIA NOTATOS exterminare studeant. Fourthly, And if any King, or Prince Si requisitus neglexerit, per Metropolitanum & compro­vinciales Episcopos Excommuni­cationis vincu'o inn [...]detur. They are the words of the Canon. neglect this duty, and (when it is tendred) refuse the Oath, or to expel Heretiques out of his Do­minions; Then the Metropolitan and the Bishops of his Province must Excommunicate him. Fifthly, And then if he persist contumacious, and refuse to give satisfaction by expelling all Heretiques; they must signifie it to the POPE, that he Ut ex tunc ipse Papa VA­SALLOS ab ejus FIDELITATE denunciat ABSOLUTOS, & TERRAM exponant CATHO­LICIS OCCUPANDAM. may DEPOSE HIM, ABSOLVE HIS SUBJECTS FROM THEIR OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE, and GIVE HIS KING­DOM TO CATHOLIQUES. So the Canon. [Page 45] So that if the Pope, and a Popish General Coun­cil, very great for number, (but as for Learn­ing and Loyalty little enough) consisting of 1215. Fathers; I say, if these may be Judges, Kings and Princes are Subjects and Slaves to the Pope, who may COMPEL them to expel as many of their own Subjects, as he shall call (or miscall) Heretiques, out of their Dominions; and impose an Oath upon them, to bind them to obedience, and unless they obey such Papal com­mands, the Pope may depose the Prince who disobeys, absolve his Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance, and his Kingdom (forfeited to the Pope by his disobedience) may be given away, to any, to whom the Pope shall please to give it. Now whether such impious and rebellious Positions (approv'd and own'd by the Roman Church, in her greatest General Councils, which, she believes, (at least would have us believe) infallible) be not dangerous and pernicious to Princes, and destructive of their just rights, let the World Judge. I know, that although the See a Book lately print­ed, call'd, The Jesuites Loyalty. It contains three Letters of a Jesuite, (Father Kein, or Keins, (if I forget not) was the Man) in which this [...]ateral Canon, and all the consequences of it, are approv'ed, and the Popes Power to depose Kings, (out of Popish Authors and Coun­cils) largely, and datâ Operâ, proved to be de fide. Jesuites and Canonists publickly approve and own the Doctrine of this Canon and the La­teran Council, and the consequences of it; yet some more sober Papists do not: And there­fore two Answers (or insignificant shifts) are brought by some, to evade or mollifie, and lessen the impiety of those consequences, which are by Protestants inferr'd from it.

[Page 46]1. First then, say they, that the Lateran Canon 1. Answer. is to be meant only of Feudatary, or Subordinate, not of Absolute, or Supreme Princes.

But this is an evident mistake of the meaning ofRefutation. the Lateran Canon, and in terminis, contradicts the express words and sense of the Canon. For,

1. By the Canon, All Princes, (Supreme and Sub­ordinate, and Feudatary) if they refuse to ex­pel all Heretiques out of their Dominions, are to be Excommunicated by the Metropolitan and the Bishops of his Province, and then Depos'd by the Pope: but with this difference express'd in the Canon. When any Subordinate Prince was Deposed, it was with a Salvo Jure Dominii Prin­cipalis. They are the words of the third Canon of that Late­ran Council. Salvo, or Proviso, for the Rights of his Superior Lord. The Inferior Lord Deposed, loses only what was his own proper Right; his Superior Lord loses nothing. If the Inferior Lord was to pay any Rents, or ought any Services to his Su­preme Lord, those he did not forfeit; but those remain'd due (as before) to the Supreme Lord. But on this condition, That the Supreme Lord himself did not Dummodo ipse (Dominus Principalis) nullum praestet obsta­cul [...]on, &c. Ibidem. concur to hinder the expul­sion of all Heretiques out of the Dominions of the Feudatary, or Inferior Lord: that is, if he hindered not the Execution of the Popes com­mands. For if he did; then even he (the SUPREME LORD) must be Deposed too, as well as the Inferior Lord. The Law and [Page 47] Decree of that Council, involves both the Infe­rior and Supreme Lords, (if both be guilty and negligent in expelling Heretiques) in the same Punishments of Deposition, and loss of their Do­minions. For the Canon says, ...... EADEM LEGE SER­VATA CIRCA EOS, Qui non HABENT DOMINOS PRIN­CIPALES. And this impious Doctrine was not only appro­ved by Honorius 3. Pope Inno­cent 3. his next Successor, but approv'd, confirm'd, and referr'd into the Body of their Canon-Law by Gregory 9. cap Excom­municamus, 13. Extra. de Haere­ticis. Afterward Innocentius 4. Anno 1243. Alexander 4. 1258. Clement 4. Anno 1265. all con­firm it, as appears in the Bul­larium Magnum Romanum Lug­duni, 1655. Tom. 1. pag. 109. col. 2. And lest it might be thought that they have alter'd their opinion now, and are be­come more favourable to Prin­ces, they have lately added the confirmation of it by Innocen­tius 4. to the Body of their Canon-Law, Lugd. 1661. Vid. 7. Decret. Lib. 5. Tit. 3. De Haeret. & Schism. cap. 1. 2. That THE SAME LAW MUST BE OBSER­VED CONCERNING THOSE who (have, and) have no SUPERIOR LORDS. That is; the Supreme Lords, (be it King or Emperor) if they Obey not the Pope's command, and effectu­ally expel all Heretiques out of their Dominions, they must (by this Canon) be Deposed.

2. But admit (which is evidently untrue) that the Canon meant only Feudatary and Inferior Princes should be Deposed by the Pope. The mischief and injustice is less, (as a Subordinate Prince is less than the Supreme) but very great: and (even upon this false Supposition) this Power challenged by the Pope, (and approved by the Lateran Canon and Council) will be not only dangerous, but pernicious to Subordinate and Feudatary Princes. This is too plain to need any further proof.

The second Answer some bring to what we urge2 Answer. against Rome from the Lateran Canon, is this: The Author of the An­swer to The Jesuites Loyalty, London, 1678. pag. 12. Father Preston, under the name of Wytherington, &c. They deny that Council to be a General One, or (if it were) that it made any Canons: and therefore the Doctrine of that Canon (whatever it be) cannot be imputed to the Church of Rome, as Approved by it.

[Page 44]But this is as void of Ground or Truth, as the for­mer.Refut. For this Lateran Council (and the Canons of it) have been, and are universally received in the Church of Rome, the Council as In the Bull by which In­nocent 3. call'd the Lateran Council, the Title is this,—Indictio sacri & OECUME­NICI Concilii Lateranensis pro. 1. die Nov. 1215. In Bullario. Rom. Tom. 1. pag. 87. Edit. 1655. Oecumenical, and the Canons attributed to it, as Genuine, and not Supposititious, and Spurious. That this may ap­pear, consider,

1. That all their Writers de Conciliis (which I have hitherto met with) do universally acknow­ledge it to have been a General Council, and commonly call it, Concilium Lateranense Mag­num, and cite the Canons attributed to it, as Genuine.

2. All the Popish Writers, who have publish'd the Councils, or Epitome's, and Sum of them, (as Crabb, Surius, Binius, Joverius, Caranza, &c. publish it as a General Council. And Jo­verius confidently says, .... Non video qua fronte au­deat qnis negare hoc Concilium esse Oecumenicum. Joverius Con­cil. Part. 1. pag. 120. in Lem­mate Concilio praefixo. That he can­not see, with what Face any Man dare deny it to be a General Council.

3. In their last and best Vid. Edit. Juris Cano­nici Paris. 1612, & 1618, & Lugduni. 1661. &c. Editions of their Ca­non-Law, there is (in the beginning) a distinct Catalogue of their General and Provincial Councils, acknowledged to be such, and this Lateran is ever reckoned amongst those which they admit as General.

2. There is a commonly received distinction amongst their Writers de Conciliis, wherein they So Bellarm [...], Longas à Coriolano, Rives, &c. tell us, That Concilia Generalia s [...]nt. 1. Approbata. 2. Reprobata. 3. Partim ap­probata, [Page 49] partim reprobata. 4. Nec approbata nec reprobata, of which last sort they make the first Council of Pisa. Now this Lateran Council, (we are speaking of) they always reckon a­mongst the General Councils of the first Or­der, or those which are approv'd by their Church. Though this distinction of Councils be ridicu­lous, and inconsistent with Truth, or their own Principles; as (were it my business now, or pertinent) might evidently be proved: yet (by it) it manifestly appears, that the Lateran Council was (in their Opinion and Judgment) a General Council; which is that for which I pro­duce it. But further, I say,

5. In their own Canon-Law, (and as in others be­fore, so in a late and approved Corpus Juris Canonici Lugduni. 1661. Edition of it) this Lateran Council under Pope Innocent the Third, is acknowledged to be a General, or Oecu­menical Council. For in the Decretals, publish'd by the Authority and Command of Pope Vide Bullam Gregorii. 9. Decretalibus praefixam. Gregory the Ninth, for the common Ad communem maxime studentium Utilitatem. Ibidem. benefit, and with command that Volentes ut hac TAN­TUM compilatione, UNIVER­SI utantur, in JUDICIIS & SCHOLIS, &c. Ibidem. they, (and none else without Papal Authority) should be used by all Judges in Judicature, and by Readers of Law in the Universities; and all this confirm'd by a Bull of Bulla haec Romae data Anno 1580. Jul. 1. & Corp. Juris Canon praefixa. Gregory the Thirteenth. In the very first Chapter of those Decretals, the Lemma, or Title prefix'd to it, is thus: Cap. Firmiter 1. Extra, De Summa Trinitate. The Title to that Chapter is this—Innocentius 3. in Concilio GE­NERALI. Innocent the Third, in a General Council: And that we may be sure, 'tis the Lateran Council he means; a Antonius Naldus:-.-.- Hoc Concilium Rom [...] in Latera­no celebratum, Anno 1215. & Innocentii 3. 18. assistentibus Hierosol. & Constantinop. Pa­triarchis, & TOTIUS FERE ORBIS EPISCOPIS, &c. great Lawyer in his An­notations, (subjoyn'd to that Bull of Gregory [Page 50] the Ninth before mentioned) tells us, That this Council was held at Rome, in the Lateran, in the Year 1215. in the Eighteenth Year of Inno­cent the Third. The Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople, and the Bishops of almost the WHOLE WORLD, &c. So that if the Title of a Decretal publish'd by Pope Gregory the Ninth, or the Annotation upon it, by Naldus an eminent Lawyer, and the Approbation and Confirmation of both, by Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, be true; it will evidently follow, that the Lateran Council was a General or Oe­cumenical Council. And afterwards, in the same Canon-Law and Decretals, we meet with this Title to another Chapter;...... Cap. Nimis. 30. Extra De Jurejurando. Idem in Con­cilio Generali. And it appears, (both by the former Cap. Veniens. 16. attri­buitur Innocentio. 3. and so are all the, 13. following, and this 30. of which we now speak. Chapters of that Title, and the An­notation on this) that Innocent the Third was the Pope, and that in the Concilium Lateranum sub Innocentio. 3, so says the An­notation. ad dictum cap. 30. Et. C. Lateran was the Council, which is there call'd General. And af­terwards Cap. Qualiter. 24 Ex­tra. De Accusationibus. several times to the very same purpose; especially in the Cap. Excommunicamus 13. Extra. De Haereticis. Vid. Lemma dicti Capitis, & Anno­tat. lit. A. Fifth Book of Gregories Deeretals, and the Seventh Title; where this Impious Canon (for Deposing Kings, and Absolving their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance) is intirely Registred for Law, re­ferr'd to Pope Innocent the Third, in his Late­ran Council, and that Council declared Oecumeni­cal.

6. Lastly, To put the matter out of doubt, that the Lateran Council was Oecumenical, and made Canons, the Council of Constans does [Page 51] Concil. Constant. Sess. 19. pag. 126. Edit. in Octavo. Ann. 1514. & ibid, pag. 280. & pag. 312. In confirmat. Con­stitutionis Frederici. 2. testifie it several times, and expresly names it amongst those General Councils, to the ob­servation whereof the Popes were to Concil. Constant. Sess. 39▪ in forma Professionis a Pa­pa Electo facienda. swear, at their coming to the Papal Dignity. And al­though these Authorities be abundantly suffi­cient to satisfie our more sober Adversaries; yet I shall add one more, which may (I hope) silence the more Confident. It is the Autho­rity of the Sess, 24. cap. 5. de Re­format. pag. 290. Edit. Sala­mant. 1588. Constitutionem, sub Innocentio 3. in CONCILIO GENERALI, quae incipit, Qua­liter & quando Synodus innovat. Trent-Council, which does expres­ly call it a General Council, and confirms one of its Canons.

The sum of this Discourse is; That if the Con­current Testimonies, 1. Of their own most learned, and (for Dignity) most eminent Writers de Conciliis; 2. Or their Publishers of their Councils General and Provincial; 3. Or many Decrees of their Popes ge­nerally approved and received into their Canon-Law, of the last, and (as they tell us) of the most correct Editions; 4. Or of their General Councils (for such they esteem them) of Constance and Trent: I say, if all these be of any validity, (and with them, some of those Testimonies are infallible) then it will evidently follow; 1. That this Lateran Council under Pope Innocent the Third, is (and, with them, must be) an Oecumenical or General Council. 2. And so, those Impious and Damnable Positions in the Third Canon of that Council, (1. That Kings and Emperors may be Excommunicated by their own Bishops for not obeying the Pope: 2. And Deposed by the Pope: 3. And their Subjects Absolved by him, from their Oaths of Allegiance: 4. And their Kingdoms given [Page 52] away to those, who Obey and please the Pope:) I say, all those Positions, must be acknowledged to be the Doctrines of the Roman Church, being Decrees and Constitutions of her received General Councils, which she professeth to be infallible, and therefore ob­liging her to a firm belief of them. 3. This being evidently so, that the Pope and his Party (obliged thereunto, by their approved and received Canon-Law, and their General Councils) do believe, and publickly profess, such Impious, Traiterous, and Damnable Do­ctrines; it will be easie for all (who have good Eyes, and will use them) to see, how Dangerous and Pernicious such Principles are, to all (especial­ly Protestant) Kings, Princes, and their People and Subjects. And that,

• 1. In point of Conscience, and in respect of their Souls and Salvation, if they believe and re­ceive such Impious Positions and Princi­ples.
• 2. In point of Civil Prudence, in respect of their Persons, Honors and Estates, if they receive them not.

1. In point of Conscience, if they submit to the Pope, and believe and receive such Heretical Posi­tions, and Damnable Doctrines, it must of neces­sity, be Dangerous and Pernicious to their Souls. For this Argument will be both consequent, and evident: To believe Heretical and Damnable Opinions and Doctrines, is Dangerous and Pernicious to the Soul; (this all Sides confess:) But to believe that [Page 53] the Pope can Excommunicate and Depose Kings, ab­solve their Subjects, from their Oaths of Allegiance, so as they may I say, Lawfully; accor­ding to their Popish Princi­ples. For, 1. They say, It is not Treason to kill such a King after deposition, for he is not King then, nor his People (ab­solved from their Oaths of Fi­delity▪) Subjects. Nor is it Murder; for their Supreme and infallible Judge, the Pope, has determin'd and made it Law; NON SUNT HOMICIDAE, qui adversus Excommunicatos, ZELO MATRIS ECCLE­SIAE ARMANTUR, EOS­QUE TRUCIDANT. This is the determination of Pope Ur­ban the Second. And it is Law in Gratian, cap. Excommuni­catorum 47. Caus. 23. Quaest. 5. lawfully murder and kill their Kings so Excommunicated and Deposed, is Heretical and Damnable Doctrine; as is declared in a great and full Parliament I do from my heart abjure and detest, as Impious and Here­tical; that Damnable Doctrine and Position; That Princes, that are Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be Deposed or Mur­dered by their Subjects, or any other. So the Oath in the Sta­tute. 5. Jac. Cap. 4. on occasion of that hor­rid and bloody Gun-powder-Treason, in (the Fifth year of King James) In the Oath of Allegi­ance: which Oath, not onely you and I, but all the Cler­gy, the Nobility, Magistrates, all Graduates in the University, &c. have (or should have) taken, and so (by a Solemn, and Sacred Oath) h [...]ve Sworn such doctrine to be Impious, Damnable, and Heretical. O­ther Arguments I need not use to you, (or any who love truth; and the Church of England) to prove the error and impiety of such Opinions, and the danger those poor deluded Souls are in, who believe and practice them. The [...] the Original Er­ror, from which the rest follow, is that vast Supre­macy, which the Pope (as Peters Successor) chal­lengeth, and (when he has ability) Usurps over Kings. A power St. Peter never had, nor pretend­ed to; who knew no power in himself, or any other meer Man, superior to Kings. 1 Pet. 2. 13. This place troubled Pope Innocent the 3d; and if you will consult and con­sider his ridiculous, as well as erroneous Exposition of it, you will have reason to think him a Fool, rather than Infallible; and yet it is in their Canon­Law. Cap. Solicitae. 6. Extra De Majoritate & Obedientia. Submit your selves (sayes he) to every humane Ordinance, whether to the KING AS SUPREME, &c. He who sayes, the KING IS SUPREME, does with the same breath (and undeniable consequence) say, he has no Superior. It being a manifest contradiction, to say, any thing is SUPERIOR to that which is Su­preme. St. Peter commands all to SUBMIT them­selves to their Kings (and there were none then [Page 54] but Pagan and Idolatrous Princes) and obey them as SUPREME Governors; the Pope command [...] Subjects to disobey their Kings (if he miscall them Hereticks) to refuse any assistance or subjection to them, to take Armes against them, and tells them, that if (in zeal to the Catholick Cause) they Non sunt homicidae, qui adversus excommunicatos, zelo matris Ecclesi [...] armantur. Lem­ma ad dictum. cap. 47. Caus. 23, Quaest. 5. kill them (or any Heretique) it is no Mur­der: and threatens them with Excommunication, if they do not what he commands them. Now, let any sober person tell me, whether they can (in this case) disobey the Apostle, and obey these impious commands of the Pope, without great and appa­rent danger to their Soules? Our blessed Saviour (whose Vicar the Pope pretends to be) does him­self pay Tribute Math. 17. 27. Vid. Rob. Abbot. de Suprema potestate Regia Praelect. 4. p. 38. to Caesar (though a Pagan and Idolater) leaving us an admirable and most pious example of that Obedience and Loyalty due; even to impious and Pagan Princes: nor is this all; for he further gives express command, That all should render unto Marc. 12. 17. CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESARS. He acknowledgeth the Imperial Rights of Caesar, of which his Impiety and Idolatry Dominium non fundatur in gratia, &c. did not deprive him. St. Paul (both by his practice and precept) confirms the same doctrine. 1. He acknowledges the Emperors power superior to his (though he was an Apostle, [...] &c. In NOTHING short of the VERY CHIEFEST Apostles. 2 Cor. 11. 5. & 12. vers. 11. not inferior to Peter or any Apostle, which he twice affirms to the Corinthians) I stand at Caesars Acts 25. 10. 11. Judgment-Seate (saith he) WHERE I OUGHT TO BE JUDG­ED; if I have done any thing worthy of DEATH: he pleaded no exemption from the Jurisdiction of the Civil Magistrate, in a Criminal Cause (as now every [Page 55]Concil. Tridentinum. Sect. 24. Cap. 5. De Refor­matione.Popish Bishop does (as by their Law they may) but he confesseth the Superiority of the Civil Power, and Appeales to it Act, 25. 11. vid. R. Ab­bott De suprema potestat. Re­gia Praelect. 60. pag. 60. 61. I APPEAL TO CAESAR (sayes he.) 'Tis evident, that all Appeales are from an Inferior, to a Superior Judge, and one who has Jurisdiction over the Apellant, and cognizance of the crime, and therefore Paul appealing to Caesar, does (ipso facto) acknowledge him his legal and superior Judge. So far was St. Paul from believ­ing those Popish and Rebellious Principles, and from Disloyalty, or Disobedience to that Imperial (though Pagan) Power, under which he lived; that he pub­lickly acknowledged, and humbly submitted to it. 2. Nor was he onely in his own person obedient, and a loyal subject to the Emperor, but (Writing to the Romans) he did, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, command them also to be Loyal and Obedient Rom. 13. 1. Let every Soul (every Gen. 46. 27. Levit. 22. 3. 6. 11. Man) be subject to the higher (the [...], suprema 1 Pet. 2, 13. It is the same word in Peter and Paul too. Supreme) Powers, &c. And then he adds Rom. 13, 7. That they should render to them, TRI­BUTE, CUSTOM, FEAR, HONOR, and ALL THEIR DUES. By supreme For [...], Vers. 1 are [...], Vers. 3. and [...], Vers. 4. powers here, he means men possessing Supreme Power; and the Su­preme power under which he and the Romans then were, was Nero, a most impious Pagan, and persecu­ter of Christ and Christians; and yet every soul with­in his Empire (even Peter as well as Paul) was (by [...]the Law of God and the Gospel) to be subject to him, to fear, honor, pay him Tribute and Loyally o­bey him. As, (by the before-said Examples and pre­cepts of St. Paul, and our blessed Saviour) evidently appears. Now your Popish Doctrine, and (by [Page 56] them) Approved Principles▪ contradicts all this; and let St. Peter, Paul and our blessed Saviour say, or do what they will; let them acknowledge Caesars Su­preme Power, and command obedience to him (though a Pagan) and submit to his power themselves: yet at Rome, they acknowledge NO SUPREME POWER but the POPE; whom (as I have before See the place before­cited, Cap. Solicit, 6. Extrâ De Major. & Obedient▪ where Pope Innocent the Third says, That the Papal Power is greater than the Imperial, as much as the Sun is greater than the Moon. The Glosse there says; He is 47 times greater; The Note in the Margent says 57 times; but (upon mature consideration, no doubt) The Addition there, says the Papal Power is 7744. times greater than the Imperi­al. shew'd) they make [...]astly superion, and greater then Kings; so that (when he thinks fit) he may depose a King, or Supreme Prince, and command their Subjects (up­on pain of Excommunication, and an Anathema) to pay them no Tribute, Fear, or Honor, nor Pr cipimus universis sub­ditis, ne illi ejusve mandatis aut legibus audeant obedire, qui secus egerint, Anathematis sententia in­nodamus. Ita Bulla Pii 5. de Damnat. Elizab. Anho 15 [...]0, Eliz. 13. In Bullario Romano. Lugd. 1655. Tom. 2. p. 303. Sometimes they are forbid in such Bulls; Ne consilium, Ju­v [...]men Oper [...], Operamve aliqua­tenus impendant Regi deposito. So in the deposition of the Em­peror Friderique the Second. In Bullario dicto. Tom. 1. p. 106. Col. 1. O­BEY ANY OF THEIR COMMANDS: For such is the stile of their Anathema's and Damnatory Bulls, particularly of that, wherein Pope Pius the Fifth deposeth Q. Elizabeth, quoted in the Margent. This premised, as evidently certain; be you judge, whether it be not a great crime and crying sin, for any subjects to believe this rebellious and Popish doctrine, against the express command of our blessed Saviour and his Apostles in the Gospel? And if it be (as undenia­bly it is) then it is as certain, that the belief and pra­ctice of such doctrine and principles, is not onely dan­gerous, but (without repentance) pernicious and dam­nable to those miserably deluded Souls, who do so believe and practice it.

And it is considerable, and undeniably certain, that their Popish Doctrine, and received principles, do not onely approve the Excommunication and Deposition of Kings, the Absolution of their Subjects from their Oathes of Allegiance, their Prohibition of them to obey the Laws or Commands of their Princes so deposed, [Page 57] that they may take Arms, and innocently Kill all He­retiques, (Princes or People.) But they are encou­raged to do this, (by their Popes Decretals, approved and received Vid. Oratian. Can. Om­nium 46. Caus. 23. Quaest. 5. & ibid. Can. Omni timore 9. Quaest. 8. Vid. Glossam & Tur­recrematam ad dictos Canones. for Law, in the Body of their Ca­non-Law, in the last, and (as they say) the most correct Editions of that Law, approved and establi­shed by the Bull and Authority of Gregory the Thir­teenth) with the Promise of Heaven and Eternal Life, if they die in the War against the Enemies of the Roman Faith, Heretiques and Infidels. This was a fair promise; but Pope Innocent the Third, (Popes having for some Ages been liberal in promising what they had no power to give) promises more; for be­sides a Plenary Remission of Sins, he promises, not only Heaven, but a Vid. Bullam Innocenti 3. dat. Laterani 19. Cal. Jan. Anno Pontificat. 18. & Anno Dom. 1215. Mag. Bullarii Ro­man. Tom. 1. pag. 89. Sect. 17. dictae Bullae. Nos ideo (they are the words of the Bull) Om­nibus—PLENAM peccatorum OMNIUM VENIAM indul­gemus, & in retributione Justo­rum SALUTIS AETERNAE POLLICEMUR AUGMEN­TUM. And all this extrava­gant Power of pardoning all their sins, and giving higher degrees of glory in Heaven; this (as is pretended) Infallible Judge, erroneously and ridicu­lously builds upon the power of binding and loosing, which eve­ry Apostle had as well, and as much as Peter, and every Bi­shop in the World, as much as the Pope. greater degree of Glory in it, to the Crusado's, the Crucisignati, Soldiers marked with a Cross: who (as it was pretended) were raised, to recover the Holy Land from the Saracens; but they, or some with the like indulgence, imploy'd to Murder the poor Catholici, qui crucis as­sampto charactere, ad Haeretico­rum exterminium se accinxerint, illa gaudeant Indulgentia, quae accedentibus ad Terrae Sanctae sub­cidium conceditur. Concil. La­teran. sub Innocent. 3. Can. 3. Vid. dictum Leonis Papae 4. apud Gratianum Can. Omni timore 9. Caus. 33. Quaest. 8. Waldenses, which with barbarous and inhumane cruelty they did. Now how dangerous to the Soul, Sin so encourag'd must be, a weak-sighted Man may easily see, without Spectacles or further proof. Be it concluded then; such Popish Principles (when believ'd and practic'd) are not only dangerous to the Soul, but pernicious, and (without repentance) destructive of Salvation.

2. But, besides that such Popish Doctrines and Principles (in point of Conscience) are dangerous to the Soul, and (without true repentance) destructive [...] [Page 54] [...] [Page 55] [...] [Page 56] [...] [Page 57] [Page 58] of Salvation; they are also (if consider'd in Civil Prudence) dangerous and pernicious to Princes, and Supreme Powers; depriving them (when put in ex­ecution) of all their Honors, Estates, and Lives too. The truth of this is (without further proof) noto­rious, by the sad and miserable Ruines of many great Princes, caus'd by Popes and their Party, who approv'd and practic'd such Rebellious Popish Prin­ciples, as we are speaking of. I say, the ruine of great Princes.

• 1. Before the Reformation, (who were no Pro­testants) and some since, who were Papists too.
• 2. Since the Reformation, who were indeed Pro­testants, or as such (or favorers of them) Ex­communicated, and deprived of their Crowns and Kingdoms; though the Excommunicati­ons did prove bruta fulmina, vain and ineffectu­al, and did not that mischief, which their impi­ous Author intended: for which we are to thank the good Providence of Heaven, and not the Pope.

1. For the first; Authentique Stories tell us, that Pope And a little before him, Pope Gregory 2. Deposed the Emperor Leo Isaurus, because he was against Images, which was Anno 729. Vid. Baron. An­nal. ad Annum 730. Num. 5. Where he has this Note con­cerning that Emperors Depo­sition:—Sic exemplum posteris DIGNUM reliquit Gregorius; ne in Ecclesia Christi REG­NARE SINE RENTUR HAERETICI PRINCIPES. The Cardinal every where highly approves this Doctrine, &c. Vid. Baron. ad Ann. 593. Num. 86. Zachary Deposed Childerick (or Chilpe­rick) King of France, about the middle of the Eighth Century. 2. Gregory the Seventh Deposeth Henry the Fourth, and causeth great and miserable Rebellions and Bloodshed in the Roman Empire, in the Eleventh Century. 3. Pope Sylvester the [Page 59] Third, in the Twelfth Century, Excommunicates the Emperor Henry the Fifth, Et Magnas turbas in Germania excitat (says Urspergensis.) 4. Pope In­nocent the Third Excommunicates Otto the Fourth, in the beginning of the Thirteenth Century. 5. In­nocent the Fourth, in the same Century, Deposed the Emperor Frederick the Second. In short, (to omit many others) the barbarous Murders of Henry the Third and Fourth of France, have been, and most justly were, and will be imputed to these Po­pish Principles, in the belief of which, those im­pious Assassins were confirm'd and Catechiz'd. Sure I am, that Pope Sixtus the Fifth did approve and highly magnifie the impious Fact of Jaques Clement the Dominican, who was the Murderer of Henry the Third, in that famous (and impious) This Speech of Sixtus [...]. was Printed at Paris, An. 1589. according to the Latin Copy printed at Rome, as is attested by three Doctors of the Sor­bon. Speech of his, made to his Cardinals (no doubt as well pleased as the Pope) in the Consistory; and after­wards Publish'd and Printed at Rome: An evident Argument, that they were not (though great reason they should have been) asham'd of it: for certainly they would never have Printed what they did not approve.

2. But although the Popish Positions and Prin­ciples we are speaking of, are dangerous to all Su­preme Powers, (even Roman Catholiques, as ap­pears by what is already said) yet more especially to all Protestant Princes and People: For,

1. All Protestant (Kings and Subjects) being declared Heretiques, are Excommunicated, and [Page 60] solemnly The form of that Ex­communication is now extant in the Body of their Law, lib. 7. Decret. lib. 5. Tit. 3. De Hae­reticis & Schism. cap. 9. Cursed by Pope Paul the Fourth, about 120 years ago; and that we may take notice of it, it is lately referr'd into the Body The Bull of Excommu­nication is dated at Rome, An. 1558. which was 1 Elizabeth [...]. of their Canon-Law. Now this Excom­munication contains many considerable par­ticulars, As, 1. All Heretiques, of what dig­nity Quacunque dignitate, e­tiam Comitali, Buronali, Mar­chionali, Ducali, Regia, seu Im­periali prae [...]ulgeant. soever, Barons, Earls, Marquesses, Dukes, Kings, and Emperors: none excepted, they are all involved in the same Curse and Anathema. 2. Nor is it onely those Heretiques who then were in being, but ALL also, which Quicunque HACTENUS à [...]ide deviarunt, seu INPOSTE­RUM deviabunt, seu in Haeresin incident, &c. AFTERWARDS SHOULD BE. So that our gracious King and his Protestant subjects now, are as much under the Curse, as Q. Eli­zabeth and her subjects were, in the First of her Reign, when that Bull was first publish'd. 3. Nor was this Bull rashly made, but after Habitâ cum Card. deli­beratione matura, & de eorum Consilio, & Unanimi assensu, &c. mature deliberation with the Cardinals, and by their Counsel, and unanimous consent. It was (it seems) a premeditated and deliberate▪ as well as an Impious Act they were about; for impi­ous it was, and by all sober and impartial Judges, ever will be thought so. 4. The punishments which this Bull tyes upon Here­tiques, are Omnes Suspensionis, Excommunicationis, Interdi­cti, Privationis poenas, à QUI­BUSVIS Rom. Pontificibus, aut pro TALIBUS HABITIS, per eorum literas Extravagan­tes, seu in Consiliis seu Patrum Decretis & Canonibus QUO­MODOLIBET contra Haereticos Latas, approbamus, innovamus, & PERPETUO OBSERVARI Volumus, &c. Excommunication, Suspension, Deprivation, and all other punishments, which any Pope, in any Papal Canon or Constitution (howsoever made) denounced against He­retiques; all which Canons and Constitutions he approves, confirms, and will have PER­PETUALLY observed. 5. And for Kings Regnis & Imperio PENI­TUS & IN TOTUM, PER­PETUO sint PRIVATI, & ad illa de caetero inhabiles & IN­CAPACES, &c. and Emperors (the same is for Barons, Earls, [Page 61] Marquisses and Dukes) they are TOTALLY and FOR EVER DEPRIVED of their King­domes and Empires, and made incapable ever to enjoy them. The same Censure passeth up­on Bishops, Archbishops, which were Here­tiques then, when the Curse was publish'd, (vel in posterum in Haeresin incident) or for the fu­ture EVER SHOULD BE Heretiques. Nor is this Constitution (which denounceth this Curse) temporary; But CONSTITUTIO IN PERPETUUM VALITURA, a Constituti­on and a Curse to be in force, and effectual against Heretiques, for ever. Nor is there any need, of any Legal Process to convict any person of Heresie, before the Curse come up­on him: but, EO IPSO ABSQUE ALIQUO JURIS VEL FACTI MINISTERIO (they are the words of this impious Excommunica­tion) All Heretiques, by being so, without any accusation, or legal conviction, are actually under that curse: So that our gracious King, all his Protestant Nobility, all Archbishops and Bishops, Eorum etiam Vid. Constit. 34. Cle­mentis Papae 10. which next follows, & Alexandri 7. Con­stit. 16. dat. Romae, Anno 1656. In Bullario Romano, Tom. 4. p. 218. where we are referr'd to many more such forms of Excommunications. receptatores, fauto­res, &c. and all who shall receive, or any way favor them, stand actually Excommunicated and Accursed. And here I desire to know of our Papists, who do (as much as any) pretend to Loyalty; do they (as good subjects should) favor their King, or do they not? If not, then they neither are, nor can be good subjects: If they do, then they disobey their Supreme and Infallible Judges, and are (as well as we) un­der [Page 62] the Excommunication and the Popes Curse, and so no members of their so much (and with so little reason) magnify'd Roman Church.

2. But lest this Excommunication and Curse might not prove so effectual as they desire, to blast all Protestants (which they make, for they are not so, the worst of all Heretiques) the Curse, to make Sure Work (as they think, and would have it) is solemnly renewed eve­ry year, in that famous (and impious) Bulla A Form of this Bull we have in Bullar. Roman. Tom. 4. p. 528. Constit. 34. Clement. 10. An. 1671. Coenae Domini, read every year on Maundy-Thursday. Wherein all Protestants are (by name) curs'd, whether Princes or People. We Excommunicamus & A­nathematizamus, ex parte Dei, & authoritate Petri & Pauli, ac nostra, quoscunque Hussitas, Wickliffistas, Lutheranos, Zuing­lianos, Calvinistas, Ugonottos, &c. Eorumque receptatores, fau­tores, & desensores. Excommunicate and Curse (sayes the Pope in that Bull) All Hussites, Wickliffists, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, Hugonots, &c. And whosoever shall RECEIVE, DEFEND, or FAVOR them. And here again, it will con­cern our Roman Catholicks seriously to consi­der, into what straits, the ambition and un­parallel'd pride of their Popes, has brought them. For if (according to their duty) they defend their King, they are cursed at Rome. And if they do not defend him, then they do not per­form that duty of Allegiance and Fidelity to their King, to which (by the Law of God and Nature) they are indispensably bound, and so will be (according to their desert) accused in Heaven. And here, It is a short Que­stion which they are concern'd to Answer; [Page 63] Whether they resolve to obey God, or the Pope.

3. But this is not all; for after this Excommuni­cation and Curse laid upon all Protestant Prin­ces, after their deposition and total deprivation of all their royal power and dignity, and a perpetual incapacity brought upon them, disabling them for ever to return to those lost rights: another Curse is consequent, and immediately follows such Ex­communication: Their Subjects are declared free from all Obligations of Loyalty and Fidelity, due to such Princes, while they stand Excom­municate. This the Decretal of Pope Honorius 3. Praeposito Archidiac. & H. Canonico Su­ession. Ho­norius the Third, (and 'tis made Cap. Gravem, 13. Extra De Poenis. Law by Pope Gregory the Ninth, and approved and con­firmed by Pope In Bulla, Corp. Juris Can. praefixâ. Gregory the Thirteenth) tells us, That while any Domino Excommunicato Manente, SUBDITI FIDE­LITATEM NON DEBENT. So the Lemma, or Title of that 13 Chapter. Lord remains Ex­communicate, his SUBJECTS OWE HIM NO ALLEGIANCE or FIDELITY. That's the Title: and then it follows in the Decretal, (speaking of a Count who was Excommunicate) that the Pope commands those to whom he writes, That they should Fideles ipsius (quamdiu in Excommunicatione perstiterint) ab ejus FIDELITATIS JU­RAMENTO denuncietis PE­NIIUS ABSOLUTOS. They are the words of the Law; and if you consult the Gloss and Card. Turrecramata's Commen­tary upon it, you may find more to that Purpose. declare to the Subjects of that Excommunicated Count, that they were FULLY ABSOLVED FROM THEIR OATH OF FIDELITY while their Lord continued Excommunicate. How dangerous this Doctrine may be, to our Gracious King, and all Prote­stant Princes, (who stand actually Excommu­nicated at Rome) and how little trust they can repose in their Popish Subjects, I need not tell [Page 64] you: Seeing such subjects, by their Authen­tique laws, and the declared and definitive sentence of their supreme and Infallible Judge, are assured that they owe no Allegiance or Fidelity to their Excommunicated Soveraigns.

4. Nor is this all; for there is (at least in the judgment and belief of our Adversaries) a far greater and more pernicious consequent and effect of their Excommunication and Curse of Prote­stant Princes. For the mischiefs of their Ex­communications hitherto mention'd, are onely temporal, (though the greatest in that kind possible) as loss of their Royal Power, Lively­hood, and Life it self. But they say, there is an other, a Spiritual effect, which concerns the Soul, and is the greatest mischief and misery it is capable of. For they say, that Here­tiques (Protestants, with them are declared such) dying Excommunicate, (as all good Pro­testants do) are eternally damn'd. For, 1. A very great Excommunicatus est MEM­BRUM DIABOLI. Lindewood in Glossa, ad Cap. Seculi Princi­pes. Verbo Reconciliationis. De Immunitate Ecclesiae. Canonist of our own Nation (while Popery unhappily prevailed here) tells us; that every Excommunicated person is a MEMBER OF THE DEVIL: And for fur­ther proof of this, he cites Gratian, and the Gratian. Can. Omnis Christianus 32. Caus. 11. Quaest. 3. Canon-Law. And a far greater Author than Lindewood, or Gratian, and (in our dayes) long after them, more plainly tells us: Non modo deponi, sed eti­am excommunicari, & in AE­TERNO EXAMINE DAMNA­RI DECREVIT. Baron. Annal. Tom. 8. ad Annum Chrsti 593. Num. 86. that Pope Gregory the Seventh did not onely de­pose the Emperor Henry the Fourth, but Ex­communicate, and DECREE HIM TO BE [Page 65] ERETNALLY DAMND. And for this, he cites Pope Gregories own Gregorius 7. lib. 4. Epist. 2. & 23. & lib. 8. Epist. 21. Epistles, who best knew his own mind, and the meaning of his own Decree. So that in the Popes and Cardinals Judgment such an Excommunication is a defi­nitive sentence, and a Papal Decree; whereby the persons Excommunicate are consign'd and doom'd to Eternal Damnation. Whence we may understand the meaning of the Titles usu­ally prefix'd to such Damnatory Bulls of Ex­communication; such as these, Bullario Roman. Paull. 3. Constit. 7. p. 704. Tom. 1. in Magno Bullario Romano Lug­duni 1655. .... DAM­NATIO & Excommunicatio Hen. 8. by Pope Paul the Third, Constit. Pii 5. 101. Ibi­dem. Tom. 2. p. 303. Edit. 1655. DAMNATIO & Excom­municatio Elizabethae, by Pius the Fifth, where it seems, (by what the Pope and Cardinal be­fore told us) that it is not any temporal, (or not that only) but the eternal damnation of Soul and Body, which is intended and desired by them, in their uncharitable and impious Ana­thema's and Excommunications. Whence also it manifestly follows; that all Protestants, Kings and Subjects, Princes and People, (who, by many Papal Bulls and Anathema's, stand actually Cursed and Excommunicated) are in a damnable condition, and if they die, (as they do, and should) without Popish Abso­lution, by this Roman, Uncharitable, and Un­christian Divinity, they are eternally damn'd. This I say, not that I think such Papal Bulls and Excommunications either have, or can have any such effects, or bring such danger to Protestants (Kings or Subjects) as is pretend­ed; [Page 66] for I believe and know, that they are bruta fulmina, insignificant Squibs of false Fire; which can neither hurt their Souls here, nor hinder their Salvation hereafter. But notwithstanding this, they may prove dan­gerous and pernicious to Protestant Princes, as they may be, and are great incouragements to their Popish Subjects, to rebel, and diso­bey their Soveraigns, and securely (as to any thing of Conscience or Injustice in it) act any thing to their ruine. For they who be­lieve the Popes pretended Power, that he can deprive their Prince of all Royal Power and Dignity, and that he has actually done it; that he has absolved them from all Obligati­ons of Allegiance and Fidelity due to him; that he is a Member of the Devil here, and surely to be damn'd hereafter, and that to kill him is no Murder. I say, those who submit to the Pope, and believe these Errone­ous and Impious Doctrines, (as all must who believe the Pope, or the Roman Church In­fallible) have too much incouragement, not only to disobey and rebel, but (when they have power and opportunity) to take away their Princes Life, as being a Person odious to God and Man, and by the Pope, (their In­fallible and Supreme Judge) by their appro­ved Laws, and their General Councils, decla­red to be such; especially seeing that if they miscarry in that attempt, (and while they seek their Princes Life, lose their own) yet [Page 67] their Names shall (in Red Letters) be Regi­ster'd in the Calendar, and they (by their Party) shall be reputed Martyrs; as all know, that Campian, Garnet, and our Powder-Tray­tors are. An honor, I am so far from envying them that I should be very glad (and so would many thousands more) to see our present Con­spirators (according to their merit) referr'd into their Calendar amongst such Martyrs; that so we might be freed from the fears of those Prodigious Villains and mischiefs they intended and indeavoured to act here, against their Gracious Soveraign, the Church and State, and there is too much reason to believe, that (while they live, and have ability and oppor­tunity) they will prosecute those Black De­signs. Dirum omen misericors (qui solus potest) averruncet Deus.

These are the known Positions and Doctrines of the Church of Rome, approved and received by the Supreme Authority of that Church; which (in Thesi) when they are believ'd, may be very dan­gerous, and when (in Praxi) put in execution, (and they who believe such impious Doctrines, act ac­cordingly) pernicious to all Kings, Princes, and People, especially Heretiques (as they miscal them) who imbrace not all their Popish Errors, in which number all Protestants (Kings and Subjects) are, by them, always included. And that the Popish Party, (especially Jesuits) since their unhappy ap­pearing in the The Order of the Je­suits was approved and Insti­tuted by Pope Paul the Third, Anno 1540. and highly incou­raged by succeeding Popes. Vile Bullarium Romanum Lugduni 1665. Tom. 1. p. 738. World, as also their Ecclesiastiques [...] [Page 68] [...] [Page 69] [...] [Page 72] [...] [Page 73] [Page 68] Secular and Regular, (with their adherents) have acted according to those Principles, for some Ages last past, and what Barbarous Murders, Depositions of Princes, and Fatal Tragedies, have been the sad con­sequences of such belief and actings, both our own, and Forreign Historians abundantly testifie. And here,

1. I shall pass by the horrid Murders and Massa­cres of the poor Waldenses; who (upon pro­secution of the foresaid Principles) have been persecuted with Fire and Sword, Armies Vid. Matth. Paris ab Anno 1100, & Historian Wal­densium; Directorium Inquisito­rum; Historiam Inquisitionis, Ar­machanum, De statu & success. Eccles. &c. That Directorium Inquisitorum (I mean) was Writ by Nie. Eymericus, Print­ed at Venice. 1607. and Inquisitions; and very many thousand; (nay, infinite numbers) of them, (as some of their own Writers testifie) have been inhu­manely murdered, Causà indictà & inaudita, (many times) especially in France, to say no­thing of other Countries.

2. I desire you to consider that barbarous and pro­digious Villany, the great Massacre of Prote­stants in France, Ann. 1572. where and when above 30. or 40000. Abrege Chronologique &c. par le Sicur de Mezeray, Paris. 1567. Tom. 3, p. 1082. 1086. ad Annum. 1572. Innocent Protestants (in Paris, and other parts of France) were suddenly and inhumanely Murdered, by Papists acting upon such Popish Principles, as I have before mentioned. And this Horrid Villany was so far from being publickly disapproved and damn'd by the Church of Rome, or the Impious Actors punish'd; that the news of it was received at Rome with great Joy, This testify'd by Thua­nus (a faithful Historian) Hist. lib. 53. ad Annum 1372. p. 837. Edit. 1620. and by Fam. Strada. de Bello Belgico. lib. 7. p. 373. Editionis Romae, 1648. and giving Thanks to God for it, (Quasi author & [Page 69] consors sceleris fuisse Deus): nor was it so at Rome only, but in other places too, Papists received that news with great joy. An evi­dent argument that they approved both that Impious Doctrine, and the pernicious effects of it.

3. To omit the many Seditions and Rebellions in the time of Henry the Eighth, (after he had deny'd the Popes Supremacy) and Edward the Sixth, (caused by such Persons and Prin­ciples) it is notoriously known, that the same Party, in prosecution of the same Principles and Popish Interest, did (in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth) continually conspire, and endeavour to take Vid. Speed's Chron. in Q. Eliz. Ann. 1584. of Dr. Par­ries design'd Assassination of the Queen, by the Incouragement of the Jesuits, Card. de Como, and the Pope, promising a Ple­nary Indulgence, for that (as they call'd it) meritorious Act. See the like attempt of Ed. Squire to poyson the Queen, on the like incouragement, in Speed in Vita Eliz. p. 1263. num. 122. away the life of that good Queen, by Poison, Pistol, and such other impious (and to persons of such Principles, usual) ways of Assassination; to raise Rebellions and Armies (having the Popes Assistance and Blessing to incourage them to that Villany) to destroy her and her Religion. And when all this would not do, (Heav'n Blessing, what Rome Impiously Curs'd) Pope Pius the Fifth In depositione Elizabethae Angliae Reginae, Pius 5. Jus Bri­tanniae & Hiberniae, ad Philip▪ pum▪ Hispaniae Regem transuli vi cujus donationis, demandat postea Sidonius fuit Anno 15 88. Classe Hispanicâ instructus ut reg­na Britanniae possideret. Remon­strant. Hibernorum perfiatrem. Rob. Caron. Part. 1. cap. 3. Sect 4▪ p. 7. gives the Kingdoms of England and Ireland to Philip the Second King of Spain, and he (with the Popes Assistance and Blessing) sends his (as he and his Holiness imagin'd) Invincible Armado, to take possession; But that vast Armado, and the Popish Impious Design, were utterly defeated; not so much by the Queens Fleet, (which was very inconsiderable) as by great storms and tem­pests, [Page 70] the immediate Hand of Heaven, and a most Gracious and Miraculous Providence: And this was so evident, that the Admiral of that Armado (the Duke of Medina Sidonia) blasphemously swore, That he feared Jesus Christ was turned Lutheran. But Philip King of Spain, (hearing of the strange defeat and ruine of his Fleet, and seeing the Hand of Hea­ven in it) said more soberly, . . . . . . That he did not send his Fleet to fight against God, (to whose Power and Providence, he attributed the loss of it) but against Men.

4. The Queen being dead, Popish Conspiracies did not die with her; the Pope and his Party continue as industrious and (as to their De­signs and Plots) as impious as before. They saw and knew, that King James (a Prote­stant) was Legal Successor and Heir to the Crown of England, yet used all Roman Arts, to hinder his having possession of it; and to this end, Father Parsons (the Jesuite) writes a Book, to prove (what was evidently un­true, and he could not chuse but know it) That King JAMES had no just Title to the Crown of England; though the whole Right of the Saxons and Normans, and of the Houses of York and Lancaster, were intirely and evi­dently united in him:) But when these Po­pish and Jesuitical Arts prevailed not, (ha­ving neither true Reason or Religion to further their Designs, which were impious and irratio­nal) [Page 71] they contrive, and resolve to execute such a Conspiracy, as (for barbarous and prodigious Villany) neither Heathens nor Hell had (till that time) ever put in execution; I mean the See the Act of Parlia­ment 3. Jacobi, Cap. 4, 5. where we are told (by the Parliament) of the HELLISH Conspiracies of the Jesuites and Seminary Priests. For a more particu­lar Narrative of the horrid Powder-Plot, you may consult an ingenious Tract, called THE HISTORY OF THE GUNPOWDER-TREASON; and those Authors out of which he collected it, in the last page of that Tract; and the Authentique History of the Trial of those Traitors, now in the Press, and Re-printing. Gun-Powder-Treason, which was not any ordinary or before-known Wickedness; (as the Killing a King, or Poysoning a Prince, &c.) but a black and unparallell'd Villany, worthy Rome and a Jesuite; the Blowing up of a whole Parliament, King, Lords and Commons, the Murdering of a Kingdom in its Representatives, and this in a moment, before they could see, or dream of any danger. But though this (for its impiety) was a prodigious Conspiracy, carried on with sworn secrecie, and lay hid, in the dark, and under ground; yet there is no Power or Policy against Providence, nor concealing any thing from the All-seeing Eye of our God; he saw, and gratiously discover'd that horrid, Po­pish-Powder-Treason, to the Preservation of his People, the Confusion of their Adversaries, and (nisi periisset pudor) if they had any, to the Eternal Shame of Papists, and (Popery) their Religion, which approves and encourages such abominable Impieties.

When King James slept with his Fathers, and was translated to a better Kingdom, out of the reach of such Popish Conspirators, and whither (without a serious and timely repen­tance of such inhumane Villanies) they can never come, their Designs slept not; they pro­secute [Page 72] their Plots and Conspiracies, (to ruine our Church and establish'd Religion) as much in Charles the First's, as in his Fathers time. And at last it came to this issue, that (other means failing) the King This Jesuitical and Po­pish Plot was discovered by Andreas ab Habernfeld, to Sir W. Boswell, our Ambassador at the Hague, and by him to the Archbishop of Canterbury, after whose death the Original was found in the Archbishops Li­brary, and then printed: and is lately reprinted under this Ti­tle,—The Grand Designs of Pa­pists in the Reign of CHARLES the First, &c. London, 1678. where you have an authentick discovery of that (I cannot call it worse) Jesuitical Conspiracy. and the Arch­bishop of Canterbury must be made away. This was conceived the likeliest means to compass their Ends, and bring in that Religion they miscal Catholique and Christian. For certainly such barbarous Murders and Assassinations may possibly promote Turcism, and the Errors of Mahomet, (and if you will, Popery) but ne­ver were (nor can be) any just means to propagate true Christianity. This Traiterous Conspiracy to Murder Charles the First, and the Archbishop, &c. was discovered (by an honorable Person) to the English Ambassador in Holland, and (by him) to the Archbishop, and by him, to the King. And the Original Copy of the Discovery, being found in the Archbishop's Library, after his death, was then publish'd, and is in Print, in many hands, and (amongst others) in mine. In the mean time, our unhappy Civil Wars began; and our Po­pish Conspirators, (animated by a belief of such Rebellious Doctrines and Principles, as I have before mentioned, and incouraged and assisted by the Pope) are first in Arms, and the bloody Rebellion; and (in Ireland) mur­dered above 100000 Protestants in cold blood, without any provocation given, but to kill Heretiques, (which according to their impious [Page 73] and erroneous Principles, was lawful and me­ritorious) and thereby promote the Catho­lique Cause. This is notoriously known to both Kingdoms, (England and Ireland.) And further, when in the process of that fatal Re­bellion, (carried on openly by English, and covertly by Popish Rebels) that good King was taken, imprison'd, with design to bring His Sacred Head to the Block, (for the distance is seldom great between a Princes Prison and His Grave) our Popish Conspirators had a Coun­cil of Priests and Jesuites, which sate in Lon­don, and signifi'd the condition of their Affairs here, to a Council of their Confederates at Pa­ris, and they transmitted the The Question put to the Sorbon (then almost wholly Je­suited) by our English Jesuites, sent from London, was (in Wri­ting) this:—That seeing the State of England was in a likely posture to change the Government, whether it was lawful for the Ca­tholiques to work that change, for the advancing and securing the Catholick Cause in England, BY MAKING AWAY THE KING, whom there was no hope to turn from his Heresie? The Answer of the Sorbon was Af­firmative. And at Rome it was resolved by the Pope and his Coun­cil; That it was both LAWFUL and EXPEDIENT for the Ca­tholiques to procure that Altera­tion of State, &c. Dr. Du Mou­lin in his Book next cited. Case to Rome, from whence Directions and Commands were return'd (by the same way) back again to London. In short, it was determin'd, that it was for the Interest of the Catholick Cause, that the King should die; and accordingly their Council of Priests and Jesuites in London Voted His Death▪ This is now Notoriously known to be true, and (in Print) publish'd to the By Dr. Du Moulin in his Answer to Philanax Anglicus▪ (a Popish scandalous and lying Pamphlet) and in another Tract since; neither of which I have here, and so cannot cite (as in Books about me I do) the particular Pages. World, by a Reverend and Learned Person, who, (if any shall call him to an account for it) is so convinc'd of the truth of what he writ, that he (in scriplis) publickly offers, and promises to make it good. I do not hear, that he has (as yet) been call'd to any account, to prove what he publickly, and in Print, has profess'd and promised to do: Nor do I think, he will be call'd to any such account, because I have [Page 74] reason to believe, that he can, and will pro­duce such Proofs, as will evidently demonstrate, both their bloody Conspiracies, and the unde­niable truth of what he affirm'd.

6. By the Premises it may sufficiently appear, That the Rebellious Popish Principles and Pra­ctices have been very dangerous to all our Pro­testant Princes, and their Loyal Subjects, ever since the Reformation; and had they taken that effect, which they designed, and with un­wearied wickedness industriously endeavoured, they would have proved destructive and (both to Prince and People pernicious. Nay, (which I have omitted) while this whole Nation con­tinued actually in the Communion of the Church of Rome; when Henry the Eighth his Parliament and Convocation (all Roman-Ca­tholiques, and far from being Protestants) had deny'd and (lege Statut. 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. & 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19, 20, 21. latâ) taken away the Popes Usurped Supremacy, (that we may be sure the Pope's Practices are suitable to his pernici­ous Principles) Pope Paul the Third, Excommu­nicates, Curses, and Damnatio & Excommuni­catio Hen. 8. ejusque fautorum & complicum, &c. That's the Ti­tle prefix'd to the Bull of his Excommunication, in Bullario Romano Lugd. 1655. Tom. 1. p. 704. Damns the King, and all his Good Subjects; Commands him to Requir [...]us quatenus Hen. Rex Leges praedictas revocet cas­set, anullet. Dict. Bullae. Sect. 4. Abrogate and Null the Laws made against his Supremacy; and to appear before him at Stricte praecipiendo man­damus, quatenus Hen▪ Rex per se, vet procuratorem infra 90. dies, fautores vero, & ei adhae­rentes infra 60. dies compareant coram NOBIS. Ibid. Sect. 7. Rome within Ninety Days; and his Adherents and Favorers, (which were all his Loyal Sub­jects, especially his Parliament and Convoca­tion) within Sixty Days. They not appear­ing, he Ratifies the Excommunication, Hen. Regem. privationis Regni & Dominiorum poenas in­currisse declaram [...]. Ibid. De­prives [Page 75] him of his Kingdom and Dominions; Prohibits peremptorily the Si interim ab humanis de­cedant, Ecclesiastica debere care­re sepultura, authoritate et [...]o [...]e­statis plenitudine decernimus, cos­que Anathematis, maledictionis, et DAMNATIONIS AETER­NAE mucrone percutimus, Ibid. King or his Adherents (if they die, as they did before he Absolved them) to have any CHRISTIAN BURIAL, and declares them ETERNALLY DAMND. Then he layes that most impious Interdict upon the whole Henrici Dominia, Civita­tes, &c. Interdicto supponimus. Ibid. Sect. 8. Nation; for­bids all Publick Prayers, Nequeant Missae, aut aliae Divina officia celebrari. Ibid. Masses, and Di­vine Offices. Nor this only; but he Deprives the Children of Henry the Eighth, Omnes Hen. Regis ex An­na, ac singulorum ejus Adhaerenti­um silios, natos et nascituros, ali­osque descendentes (nemine excep­to) honoribus dignitatibus, bonis mobilibus et immobilibus, &c. pri­vatos et ad illa aut alia obtinen­da inhakiles esse, declaramus ac authoritate, scientia ac plenitudi­ne similibus inhabilitamus. Ibid. Sect. 9. Born, or to be Born of Queen Anna, and all the Children of his Adherents, and their Descendents, (none excepted) of all their Rights, Priviledges, and Goods, Moveable and Immoveable, and makes them (for the future) incapable, and depri­ved of all Dignities, Honors, Offices, Rights, Fees, &c. which otherwise they might have obtain'd, and this he does knowingly, and by the Plenitude of his Power. Then he goes on, and declares the King and his Adherents, and Descendents, to be Infamous Persons, disabled to be Witness, to make any Will or Testament, or to receive any Legacy or Benefit by the Te­stament of any other: Omnes sub Excommuni­cationis ac aliis poenis' monemus, ut pr [...]fat [...]s maledictos ac priva­tos evitent, & quantum in eis est, ab aliis evitari faciant: nec cum praefati Regis Dominiorum, Civi­tatum, &c. subditis aut incolis, emendo, vendendo, &c. quamcun­que mercaturam commercium aut communionem habeant, Ibid. Sect. 12. Forbids all Men to have any Conversation, Commerce, or Trade with them, on pain of Excommunication, and loss of all their Goods, &c. And further, Commands all Christian Omnes Christianos Prin­cipes (etiam Imperiali aut Regali dignitate fulgentes) requirimus. Ibid. Sect. 15. Princes, (quacunque dignitate Imperiali aut Regali fulgeant) Kings and Em­perors, no way to favour the King and his Adhe­rents, and Juramenta confederatio­nes, obligationes, quae Henricum juvare possunt, irritas cassas et inanes decernimus. Ibid. Nulls all Oaths, Compacts, Treaties, &c. (made, or to be made) to or with [Page 76] the King, or in favour of him or his Adherents; and gives Authority and express COMMAND to all Christian Princes, and their Armies, (by Sea or Land) to turn their Arms against the King and his Adherents, and Principes & quoscunque alios militantes, per mare vel ter­ras, requirimus, mandantes, qua­tenus Hen. Regem & ei adharen­tes (dum contra sanctam sedem REBELLIONE permanserint) armis insurgant, eosque persequ tn­tur, & ad obedientiam dictae sedis redite cogant, eorumque bona, navigia, Animalia, &c. Ubilibet (etiam extra territorium Henrici Regis) consistentia, CAPIANT: & sic capta in proprios usus con­vertendi, authoritatem concedi­mus, illaque omnia ad capientes PLENARIE pertinere, & per­sonas, vel ex regno dicto origi­nem trabentes, vel in eo habitan­tes, mandatis nostris non obtem­perantes, ubicunque eos capi con­tigerit, capientium SERVOS fieri decernentes. Ibid. Sect. 16. 17. compel them to re­turn to the Unity of the Church, and Obedience to the Pope. And whoever acknowledges Hen­ry the Eighth to be King, or any way Obeys him, and will not (in Obedience to the Popes Command) expel him and them, out of the Kingdom and their Dominions, all their Goods, (Moveable and Immoveable) Moneys, Merchan­dizes, (whether within or without England) are to be seiz'd on, and (by the Popes Autho­rity) possess'd and kept by any who can catch them. And he there gives them (such Thieves and Robbers) full power to enjoy and possess such Plunder'd Goods of the Kings or his Loyal Subjects, as in their own Right and Propriety. And if they take any Inhabitants in England, (Native or Alien) who Obey the King, and Disobey the Pope, then all so taken, are to be Slaves to those who take them: So that impious Bull; in contradiction to the Laws of Nature and Scripture, Reason and Christian Religion. Our Blessed Saviour, (the Prince of Peace) came not to destroy, but to save; not to Depose Kings and Emperors, Absolve their Subjects from the Obligations of their Natural or Sworn Alle­giance, or to Arm them against Governors, and (as his pretended Vicar does) promise them a Reward (Remission of Sins here, and an higher [Page 77] place in Heaven hereafter) for Rebellion, and Murdering their Brethren, Fellow-Subjects and Christians, for believing and maintaining that Truth, which by the Pope and his Party, should be miscall'd Heresie. No, he was the good Shepherd, who laid down his own life for his Sheep; and when they stray'd and err'd from his Fold, he did not hire and send Dogs or Wolves to worry them; but (with infinite Patience and Mercy) went himself to seek them, and being found (though erring and out of his Fold) laid them on his own shoulders, and (with great love and labor) brought them home to his Fold, from which (as his Sheep may, and yet not cease to be his Sheep) they had erred. We read indeed, that our Blessed Saviour gives Peter Commission to Joh. 21. 15, 16. FEED HIS SHEEP and his LAMBS. But we never read that he (whose Kingdom was not of this World) gave any Commission to Peter, or his pretended Vicar, to raise Armies to kill, and (indictà causà) to Murder them. Though I know there are some, who from pasce oves, (with bad Logique and worse Divinity) con­clude, that the Pope has Power to kill He­retiques. Like that Monk Erasmus mentions, who, with great Zeal for the Catholique Cause, and greater Ignorance, endeavoured to prove, that the Church might kill Here­tiques, from that passage in the Apostle, Tit. 3. 10. HAERETICUM DEVITA, that is, (says the Monk) (who had no Greek, and little [Page 78] Latine) DE VITA TOLLE, take him out of this life, that is, kill him. Sed è diverticulo in Viam.

7. From the aforesaid reasons, I think we may (with good consequence) conclude; that the Pope and his party, ever since Henry the Eighth, (de facto) assum'd the Supremacy, which (de jure) was his before) have been in a perpe­tual Conspiracy against the Lives and Religion of our Protestant Princes; at least till the Hap­py Return of our Gracious Soveraign (whom God preserve) who being (by the good and Miraculous Providence of Heaven Restor'd to His Fathers Throne (His own Right and Inheritance) a blessed Peace, and all the happy effects of it, did immediately follow, to the great comfort and benefit of the whole Na­tion; The Government of Church and State before shatter'd and ruin'd by a horrid Re­bellion (Begun, Incourag'd, and Promoted by the Pope and his Jesuitical Party) was hap­pily Restored, and (by Law) establish'd; the Just Rights and Liberties of the Subjects assured to them, and confirm'd; a Gracious Act of Oblivion, and Pardon of Illegal, Sedi­tious and Rebellious actions against the King and His Laws granted; and the blessing and benefit of all these extended to Papists as well as other. So that beside their Obligation to Obe­dience and Loyalty, by their Natural or Sworn Al­legiance, there lay upon them an Obligation to [Page 79] Gratitude, for those signal favors they receiv­ed, from the goodness of a gratious Prince. So that it was the beliefe and hope of some, that the foremention'd Popish Principles and Practises had been forgot, or laid aside; and that the Ro­man Catholiques (as both in words and wri­tings they publickly pretended) would be very Loyal Subjects But these were vain hopes; for (notwithstanding all obligations to obe­dience and gratitude) even since His Maje­sties Happy Return, the Popish Party have carried on their Plots and Conspiracies, against their gracious Prince, the establish'd Religion, and the Peace of our Church and State, with as much industry and impiety, as formerly. Which now evidently appears, by their impious Conspiracy, by the blessing of God very happily, though lately discover'd. That you may (in the Gene­ral) know what this Plot is, and that I do not miscall it, when I say it is an Impious Conspira­cy: I shall give you two Authentique Testi­monies.

I. Our gratious King calls it In His Majesties Pro­clamation, for banishing all Pa­pists, Ten miles from London, Dated, Octob. 30. 1678. A BLOODY TRAITEROUS design of POPISH Recusants, against His MAJESTIES Sacred PERSON, the GOVERNMENT, and the PROTESTANT RE­LIGION.

II. The House of Commons (in a Vote of that The Votes of the Com­mons was read to the Lords, and by them approved at a Conference, 1 Nov. 1678. House, approved by the Lords) say thus ........Resolved, &c. That this House is of [Page 80] Opinion, that there HATH BEEN, and STILL IS, a DAMNABLE, and HELLISH PLOT, contrived and carried on by POPISH RECV­SANTS, for (horresco referens) ASSASSI­NATING and MURDERING THE KING, and for SUBVERTING the GOVERN­MENT, and rooting out, and DESTROYING the PROTESTANT RELIGION.

By what is already said, (I suppose) you may see, what the Roman-Catholick, or Po­pish Principles and Practises have been, are, and (while there is a Pope, and a Party to be­lieve and incourage such Practises) ever will be; and how dangerous such Principles are, and (when put in execution) how pernicious they are (and ever will be) to all PRINCES, espe­ally PROTESTANTS, and all those they are pleas'd to call, or miscall Heretiques. Their re­ceived Principles I have hitherto mentioned are these:

1. The Pope (with them) is Supreme MO­NARCH of all the World, even in Temporals; at least indirectè, (as the most moderate amongst them sometimes say) and in ordine ad spiritualis, which distinction can afford no comfort or security to Temporal Princes. For if the Pope have such vast power, directè, or indirectè, 'tis all one, he has it; and if a Prince be deposed, or murdered, by either end of the distinction, he is equally, and as [Page 81] surely Murder'd; as he who is kill'd by the edge, or back of the Sword, is as certainly kill'd.

2. They say, the Pope has power to And this vast power the Pope challenges over all King, and Emperors, to Excommu­nicate and Depose them, is such; that if any King or Em­peror obey not the Decree of the Pope and his Councils, he is, ipso facto, deprived of all his dignity, and Goods, &c. It is not any private person, but a General Council of their own, which tells us so..........Omnibus Christi fidelibus inhibet, sub p nâ PRIVATIONIS OMNIUM DIGNITATUM & BONO­RUM Ecclesiasticorum & mun­danorum, et ALIS P▪AENIS juris: etiamsi REGALIS sit dignitatis aut IMPERIALIS; quibus si contra HANC IN­HIBITIONEM fecerint, sint AUTHORITATE HUJUS DECRETI, et IPSO FACTO PRIVATI, &c. Concil. Con­stantiense. S. ss. 38. In Senten. contra Benedictum. 13. Nay, if they be but negligent in exe­cuting the Decrees of the Pope and his Council, they incurre all those punishments..... .... Si NEGLIGENS extiterit, cu­juscunque dignitatis fuerit; eti­amsi IMPERIALIS, &c. il [...]as poenas IPSO FACTO incurr [...]t, qu [...] in Constitut. Bonifacii Pa­pae 8. continentur, cap. [...]clicis 5. Extra de Poenis, in 6 They are the words of the same Council of Constance, Sess. 39. In Provisione adversus Schisma futurum. Excom­municate, Curse, and Damn Kings.

3. To depose and deprive them of all their Royal Power and Jurisdiction.

4. To absolve their Subjects from all Obligations (whether Natural, or afterwards arising from Oaths) to fidelity and obedience.

5. To Arme their Subjects against their Sovereigns, so deposed by the Pope, their Supreme Judge, and (ac­cording to the profess'd Doctrine of the Jesuites, Canonists,) &c. infallible too, In rebus facti & fidei.

6. That this taking of Arms against their King, (when deposed by the Pope) is no Rebellion against their King; seeing (by their Traiterous Principles) as soon as deposed, he ceases to be their Sove­reign.

7. That, if in such a War, they kill their King, (especially if he be an Heretique) it is no crime, no Homicide or Murder, but a Meritorious work, to which the Pope has promised Plenary Indulgence, and Pardon of all their Sins, and an higher place in Hea­ven.

[Page 82]8 Nay, (to give them the highest encouragements to commit all those Villanies, Christians are capable of) they shall be reputed Martyrs, referr'd into their Calendars in Red Letters, and (in their opi­nion) be esteemed great Saints in Heaven, who in Earth were known to be Rebels to their Prince, and justly Executed for High Treason. For so, as is be­fore said and proved) those who (by the Hand of Justice) perish'd for their Prodigious Villany, in the Gunpowder-Conspiracy, are reckon'd for Martyrs in the Jesuites Martyrology. Now, how dangerous such Principles (having such No less than 15000 Guineys promised by the Je­suites, to one who should As­sassinate our Gracious King; and 4000 to Murder Justice Godfrey: as appears by the Pa­pers of the discovery of the late horrid Conspiracy, and Mr. Bedlow's Confession. Incouragements) may prove to all, especially Protestant Princes, do you and the World Judge.

But (as to the danger of such Doctrines) this is not all, (though too much) for it is not only a re­ceived Doctrine in the Roman-Church, That the Pope may depose Kings and Emperors if they be Heretiques, (as with them, we are sure all Prote­stants are) but further,

• I. That Subjects also (as well as the Pope) may lawfully depose their Soveraigns, if they be Heretiques.
• II. Nay, that they ought, and (both in Law and Conscience) are strictly bound to depose their Princes if they be Heretiques.
• III. And their approved, and great Writers pub­lickly confess, (in their Books printed, and li­censed by the Authority of their Church) that both the former Propositions are approved by [Page 83] all Catholiques. Sure I am, they have not pub­lickly been condemn'd by any Act, Decree or Sentence of their Church; and therefore we have reason to believe, that they approve them. For, qui non prohibet peccare cum possit, jubet.

For the proof of all this, I shall only give you two or three Testimonies of their own (by publick Authority) approved and licenc'd Authors, who expresly say, and endeavor to prove, what here I have affirm'd. 1. One of them says ........ OMNIUM CATHO­LICORUM sententia, &c. Jos. Creswel in his Philopater, Sect. [...]. num. 160. That it is the Opinion of ALL CATHOLIQUES, that Sub­jects ARE BOUND to depose an Heretical KING. And he adds there....... Pr [...]cepto DIVINO & arctissimo CONSCIENTIAE VINCULO, ac EXTREMO ANIMARUM suarum PERI­CULO, Haereticos Principes DETURBARE Ibidem. [...]. 162. That they are BOUND, by the LAW of GOD, by the MOST STRICT BOND of CONSCIENCE, and UTMOST PERIL of their SOULS, to DEPOSE HERETICAL PRINCES. And (their great Controvertist, and Cardinal) Bellarmine, says as much; (and with more authority) speaking of Heretical Princes......... Bellarmin. de Roman. Pontif. lib. 5. cap. 7. Sect. Pro­batur. OMNIUM CONSENSU (all Roman-Catho­licks he means) possunt ac DEBENT privari suo Dominio. It is the consent (says the Cardinal) of ALL, that Heretical PRINCES may, and OUGHT to be DEPRIVED of their Dominions. And in a Book Mariana de Rege & Regis Institutione Mogunt. 1605. approved by the Jesuites, and highly commended by the Vid. Censuram autho­ritate Regia factum, Marianae libro praesixam. Licencer; we are told; That the Power and Authority of the Cap. 6. p. 68. PEO­PLE is greater than that of their Prince. 2. That Ibid. p. 59, 60. the PEOPLE (as well as the Pope) may declare, a King to be a Tyrant: and when the Pope or PEO­PLE have so declared him to be such, Regem (si Tyrannus de­claretur a Papa vel POPULO) QUILIBET ETIAM PRIVA­TUS potest JUSTE PERI­MERE. Ibidem. ANY PRI­VATE [Page 84] MAN may MURDER HIM. 3. And he there tells us, That he is a Tyrannus est qui SA­CRA PATRIA pessundat Ibid. p. 60. Tyrant, who endea­vors to ruin the religion of his Countrey; (the Ro­man-Catholique Religion, you may be sure he means) and then (by these Jesuitical and Popish Principles) All Protestant Princes are Tyrants, and may lawful­ly be kill'd by any private person. So that 'tis evi­dent, that these Popish Principles, are not only dan­gerous, but pernicious to all Protestant Princes; who, (in their account) being Heretiques, are consequent­ly Tyrants, and may be declared such by the People, and Murder'd by any private Man.

I know that some Roman Catholiques deny thisObject. Doctrine to be approved by the Church of Rome, and tell us; that the Church has expresly condemn'd it as scandalous, and (both in faith and manners erro­neous: and for this they quote the Concil. Constansiense Sess. 15. In condemnatione il­lius Propositionis, Quilibet Tyrannus, &c. Council of Constance. In answer to this I shall,

• 1. Set down the words of the Council.
  Solutio.
• 2. The Answer to them

1. The words of the Council are these; and the Proposition they condemn this......Quilibet Tyrannus potest ac debet licite ac meritoriè occidi, per quemlibet vassallum & subditum, etiam per insidias, vel blan­ditias, vel adulationes non obstante quocunque Jura­mento seu confederatione factis cum eo, non expectata sententiâ vel mandato Judicis cujuscunque. That is ..... Any Tyrant may, and ought to be lawfully and me­ritoriously kill'd, by any vassal or subject of his, even by treachery or flattery; notwithstanding any oath, or con­federation made to, or with him; and not having the preceding sentence or command of any Judge whomsoever.

[Page 85]2. This is the Proposition, which the Fathers at the They confess it to be Concilium Generale approbatum, & a Gregorio Duodecimo Vero Pontifice, confirmatum. Longus a Coriolano, in summa Con­cil. p. 858. yet they reject what displeaseth the Pope in it. Idem Ibidem. General Council at Constance, condemned, (for a General approved Council, and confirm'd by a true Pope, they acknowledge it; though they have little reason for it, as may appear by what (b) Ges­ner has said, and Longus à Coriolano p. 866. Longus à Coriolano has not (though he endeavour it) Answer'd.) But it is penn'd with(g) Gesnar. in Praefat. ad Epitomen Concil. ex additis ad Chronicon Urspergens. that Art, and Roman-Catholick cunning, that though it seem to say something for the Security of Kings and Princes; yet indeed it is (as to that purpose) al­together insignificant. For,

1. Here is nothing in this Proposition, or the Condemnation of it, by the Council; which condemns, or any way disapproves the Popes Excommunications or Depositions of Kings, their Absolutions of their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance, or giving away their Do­minions. It is only the Assassinations and Mur­dering of Tyrants which are spoken of; not any Excommunications, Depositions, &c. of Kings.

2. Nor does the Council deny, but that every TYRANT may be kill'd; but that which they condemn as erroneous, is; That every Tyrant may, and also OUGHT to be kill'd. Now this is a Conjunctive and Copulative Proposition; and such Propositions are (in Logique) false, when either part is false, though both be not. So this Proposition, Every Man is rational and Learn'd; is erroneous, because one part is so: [Page 86] for though every Man be Rational, yet every Man is not Learned. In like manner, although it will be granted at Rome, that every Tyrant may be Kill'd; yet that every Tyrant ought to be Kill'd, will not be so easily granted. For let him be a Tyrant in respect of Title, one who is an Usurper, and has no right to the Crown; yet let him be a Roman Catholique, a zealous Maintainer and Promoter of the Papal Religion and Interest; or one under whom they find more favour than they did ex­pect from the true King; they will not say that he OUGHT to be Kill'd. And on this account it was (I believe) that the Pope and his Party did not think, That CROMWEL (though a Tyrant) OUGHT to be Kill'd; or (for ought I know) ever went about it; (though they desired and endeavoured to take away the Life of CHARLES the Martyr, who had a most just Title to the Crown) because they found more favour under him, and more freedom from the punishment of Penal Laws, than they ever had before; or could expect, if the true Owner of it, possess'd the Crown. In Cromwel's time, no Oaths of Allegiance or Supremacy were press'd upon them, our Li­turgy and Common-Prayers were taken away, and an Ordinance passed, That no Man should be Censured for not coming to Church; so that there was no way then to discover, or legally con­vict a Popish Recusant. On which ground, the Fathers at Constance, might condemn this [Page 87] Proposition, (as erroneous) Quilibet Tyrannus &c. Every Tyrant MAY, and OUGHT o be Kill'd; and not deny that every Tyrant MIGHT be Kill'd.

3. When they condemn this Proposition, (as er­roneous) ......Every Tyrant may LAWFULLY, and MERITORIOUSLY be Kill'd: on the same account the Proposition is erroneous, and (as such) might be condemned by them; and yet they might believe it LAWFUL to Kill any Tyrant, thought not Meritorious.

4. When they say, a Tyrant cannot lawfully be kill'd per Quemcunque Vassallum & Subditum, by any of his Subjects; this is but poor com­fort for Kings or Pinces, and afford them no certain Security. For if a King be Kill'd, it is not much material, whether a Native or an A­lien be the Assassin, he is Kill'd. So that not­withstanding all the Council of Constance has said; they may hire an Alien to Kill a Prote­stant Prince, as Lopez was to Murder Queen Elizabeth; and a Spaniard to Assassinate Mau­rice of Nassaw: or (what was really intended and endeavoured, and probably had taken ef­fect, had not the good Providence of Heaven miraculously hindred it) the Pope may give away our Nation, and send a Spanish Armado, (as he did in Queen Elizabeths time) or a French Army, to kill Prince and People, and take possession of it. Dirum omen misericors (qui solus potest) averruncet Deus.

[Page 88]5. When that Council denies this Proposition, (and condemns the Affirmative as erroneous) That a Tyrant may be Murdered by any Vassal and Subject; it is in the singular number, (per Vassallum & Subditum) and hinders not, but that more, or the major part of the Sub­jects and Commonweal may do it; for although this Doctrine be impious and Heretical, yet (at Rome) it is Catholique, (or Roman-Catho­lique) and by many of their eminent Writers, maintain'd and justify'd.

6 But [...]astly; This Sentence of their General Council of Constance, is so far f [...]om proving that, for which it is produced; (That the Church of Rome does not approve the Deposi­tions, or Assassinations of Kings) that it evi­dently proves the direct contrary. That this may appear (and without any going back, or trouble) to you; I shall put in the Quilibet Tyrannus potest, ac debet licitè ac meritorie occi­di, per quemcunque Vassallum & Subditum, etiam per insidias, blanditias vel adulationes, non obstante quocunque juramento aut corfederatione factis cum eo. NON EXPECTATA SEN­TENTIA VEL MANDATO JUDICIS CUJUSCUN­QUE Concil. Constant. ubi supra. Sess. 15. Mar­gent, the words of the Council of Constance, (though you have them before.) Now in the words cited, it is evident; 1. That when they condemn the Killing of Tyrants, NON EX­PECTATA SENTENTIA AUT MANDATO JUDICIS, Not expecting the Sentence o [...] command of the Judge; there is some Judge whose sentence and command should be ex­pected. For it were ridiculous to talk of ex­pecting the sentence or command of a judge, if there were no such Judge, whose sentence [Page 89] could be expected. 2. Now although to us, (and in truth) Kings and Supreme Princes, neither have, nor can have any Judge: it being necessary, that the Judge be Superior in Power and Jurisdiction, to the Person Judg­ed, (otherwise he cannot be a legal and com­petent Judge) and to say, That Kings and Supreme Princes have any Superior on Earth, (where they are Supreme) is a contradiction. 3. But at Rome, it is otherwise; the Roman­Catholiques do constantly affirm, That both the Pope and the People, are Superiors to Kings, and may pass sentence on them, and declare them Tyrants. 4. And therefore if Subjects may not kill Kings, (who are Tyrants) without such sentence or command, but must expect it; then if thy have expected, and have it, then they may kill them lawfully and meritoriously. For exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis. 5. And 'tis to be observed, that it is, Sententia vel Mandato Judicis, by the Sentence or Com­mand of the Judge. So that if any private Per­son have the command of the Pope or People, (who are Regem (si Tyrannus de­claretur à PAPA vel POPU­LO) quilibet, etiam PRIVA­TUS, potest JURE PER [...] ­MERE. Mariana de Rege & Regis Institut. Mogunt. 1605. p. 59, 60. the Popish Judges in this case) or the Sentence of either of them, declaring any King to be a Tyrant; then this is War­rant enough (by their impious Popish Poli­tiques) for any private Person to kill such a King. From which Roman-Catholique Doctrine, it evidently follows, that when (in our late Ci­vil Wars, and unhappy Rebellion) the Par­liament had declared CHARLES the Martyr a [Page 90] Tyrant, any particular Person (without E­recting an High Court of Justice, as they mis­call'd it) might lawfully have Murdered him. 6. It is to be further observed, that (by their Popish Principles) Tyranny and Heresie in Kings, are crimes equally deserving Deposition and Death; and every Tyrannus est, qui SACRA PATRIA pessundat. Ibid. p. 60. That is, qui sacra Papistica, & Religionem Romano-Catholicam, (quantum in se est) supprimit, & extirpat. Heretical King is a Tyrant with them. Whence it follows, 1. That if the Pope command any one to kill a Prote­stant (or which with them is all one, an He­retical) Prince; then (according to this De­cree and Doctrine of the Council of Constance) he may lawfully do it. 2. Or if he give no such command, but pass a definitive Sentence against any such Prince, and in a Damnatory Bull declare him an Excommunicate and De­posed Heretique; (or In all their Excommu­nications of Heretiques, the stile is usually this—Anathema­tizamus omnes Haereticos, eorum FAUTORES, & generalit [...] ▪ quoslibet illorum DEFENSO­RES, &c. Bulla Coenae. Sect. 1. In Bullario Romano, Lugd. 1673. Tom, 5. p. 528. Favorer of them) then any private Person has sufficient Warrant and Authority to Murder him. So that when Pope Pius the Fifth had Excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, (by this their Popish Divinity) any one of her Subjects might (without any further Authority, or fault) have Murdered her. Now whether such Principles as these, be not dangerous, inconsistent with Loyalty, and (to Protestant Princes) pernicious, let the World judge. Sure I am, our Kings (and Parlia­ments) knowing (by sad experience) the fatal and pernicious Consequences of such Po­pish Principles, have publickly declared this their sense and detestation of them. I shall give an Instance or two.

[Page 91]1. Our Gratious King, (in a Proclamation) ha­ving spoken of the Intestine Divisions amongst us, it follows: ....... Proclamation dated at White [...]all, 16 Jan. 1673. and you have it in the Gazette, Num. 853. Which are CHIEFLY OCCASIONED by the Undermining Contrivan­ces of POPISH RECUSANTS, whose Num­bers and INSOLENCIES are of late GREATLY increased, and whose RESTLESS PRACTICES threaten SUBVERSION to the CHURCH and STATE. The restless Practices are the mis­chievous Consequents of their impious Princi­ples.

2. A full Statut. Anno 25 Hen. 8. cap. 22. which was Ann. Christ. 1533. and he was not Excom­municated till the year 1538. Magnum Bullarium Roman. Lugd. 1655. Tom. 1. p. 704. Parliament, (and a Popish one too) takes notice of, and condemns the Pa­pal Usurpations, in taking upon them to dis­pose of inheritances and Kingdoms, in these words: ..........The Pope, CONTRARY to the inviolable Grants of Jurisdictions BY GOD IMMEDIATELY to Emperors and Kings, hath PRESUMD to invest who should please him, to inherit in other Mens Kingdoms and Domi­nions: which we your Loyal Subjects SPIRI­TUAL and TEMPORAL, ABHORRE and DETEST. Such were the Popes Usurpations then; but (as in Parliament they confess) abhorred and detested by Clergy and Laity. But now (as evidently appears by the lately discovered damnable Conspiracy) the Pope and his Party, take upon them to Murder our Gratious King, (whom God preserve) and dispose of His Kingdoms. Which Practices, [Page 92] and Principles which cause and encourage them, I do (and justly may) call Dangerous, and (when they take effect, which I hope they never will) Destructive and Pernicious.

And here further, because many of our Popish Party, seeing the horridness of this Damnable and Hellish Conspiracy, and (in reality I hope, or at least) seem to condemn both it, and the Authors of it; laying the blame upon the Persons only of some few, and with great confidence, (to give it no worse name) denying the Roman Church to approve, or receive any Principles, which can encourage such Con­spiracies, or prove pernicious, or dangerous to Prin­ces, their Persons, or Government: I shall briefly give you an account of some more of their received Doctrines and Principles, (besides those already na­med) which have been, and (while they are believ­ed) ever will be prejudicial to Princes, and the Peace and Quiet of their Subjects and Dominions. For instance,

1. The Church of Rome expresly declares it un­lawful for Secular Princes to require any Oath of Fidelity or Allegiance of their Clergy; and as expresly forbids all their Clergy to take any such Oath, if it be required...... Concil. Lateran. Mag­num sub Innocentio 3. Can. 43. Vid. Baronium Annal. Tom. 10. ad Annum 858. Sect. 49. pag. 155. Nimis d [...] Jure DIVINO quidam LAICI Usurpare ce­nantur, cum Viros Ecclesiasticos nihil temporale continentes, ad praestandum sibi FIDELITATIS JURAMENTUM compellunt ......Sacri Authori­tate Concilii PROHIBEMUS, ne tales CLE­RICI [Page 93] personis SECULARIBUS praestare cogan­tur hujusmodi Juramentum, &c. This is the Constitution of their great and Oecumenical Council under Innocent the Third, and is re­ferr'd into the Body of their Canon Cap. Nimis. 30. Extra De Jurejurando. Law, by Pope Gregory the IX, and remains in the Corpus Juris Canon. Paris. 1612. & 1618. & Lug­duni 1661. best Editions of it, commended and In Bulla dat. Rom. 1. Jul. 1580. Corpori Juris Ca­nonici praesixa. confirm'd by Pope Gregory the XIII. So that by the Popish Canons, and their approved and received Laws, no Secular Prince may require any Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity, of any of the Clergy, or Ecclesiastiques, nor are the Clergy to take any such Oaths. And if a Clergy-man should take any such Oath, it is (by their Canon-Law) for several reasons, declared null, and not obligatory. For, 1. They tell us, That no Oath which is against the Juramentum contra utili­tatem Ecclesiasticam prastitum NON TENET. Lemma ad cap. Sicut. 27. Extra De Jure­jurando. Ecclesiastical Utility, and Benefit of the Church, is valid and binding: Nay, the Law it self there says, That all such Oaths against Ecclesi­astical Utility, are not Oaths properly, but Non jurament [...] sed perju­ria potius dicenda, quae contra u­tilitatem Ecclesiasticam, &c. dicto cap. Sicut. 27. Perjurics. And the case is put in their Law, of a Prince, who fearing some Princeps timens conspira­tiones aliquas fieri contra eum. Juramentum extorsit, quod, de coetero contra ipsum non essent. Cap. Petitio. 31. Extra De Ju­rejurando. CON­SPIRACY against him, took an Oath of some, that they should not (for the future) be in any Conspiracy against him. They who had ta­ken this Oath, desired to know how far they were bound by this Oath? And that Law, and Innocent the Third, gives this Answer, Declaramus, vos Jura­mento hujusmodi NON TENE­RI, quin pro juribus & honori­bus Ecclesiae, & vestris, legitime defendendis, CONTRA IP­SUM PRINCIPEM stare libere valeatis. That they were not so bound by that Oath, but that they might stand against the Prince (to whom they had so Sworn) in the lawful defence [Page 94] of the rights and honors of the Church and their own. Now 'tis certain, that the Pope (with them) is the sole Supreme Judge in all Ec­clesiastical Causes; (and such this is, concern­ing the Rights and Honors of the Church) and therefore if he Judge (as we are sure he will) that our Oathes of Allegiance and Su­premacy, be against the Rights and Honor of that Church, of which he pretends to be the Head; neither those, nor any such Oathes will be obligatory to any of his party; at least they will think them not to be so; and so they will think, that (notwithstanding any such Oath) they may, for the benefit of the Church, and the Catholique Cause, oppose and conspire against their Prince. 2. It is a Rule in their Dictum juramentum ex­cusare non potest, in quo debet in­telligi jus superioris exceptum. In­nocentius. 3. cap. Venientes. 19. extra. De jurejurando. Law (and in reason too) That in all Oathes, it must be understood, that the right of the Su­perior is excepted, and must be preserved. So if a Tenent Swear Fealty to his Landlord, how great soever (so he be a subject) it must be, salvo jure dominii principalis; the Royal Rights of his Prince, must not, cannot be prejudiced by that Oath. This is true in Thesi. Now we know, that the Pope (and his party who acknowledge him) thinks that he is far supe­rior to all Kings; and therefore if he think and declare (as we know he has done) that our Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are prejudicial to his rights, then neither he, nor his party will think them binding. 3. If they were confess'd to be obligatory; yet they of [Page 95] the Popish Church, believe he can dispence Papa secundum plenitudi­nem potestatis, de jure potest su­pra jus di pensare. Cap. Propo­suit. 4. Extra De Concession. Praebendae. Vid. Spotswoods Hist. of Scotland, p. 308. with them, and null the obligation. This is the constant Tenet of the Vid. Gratian. Can. 2, 3, 4, 5. Caus. 15. Quaest. 6. the Gloss. and Card. Turrecremata there. Canonists; who tell us; That the Pope does usually and easily dis­pence with Involuntary, but not with voluntary Oaths; yet if he do dispence with voluntary Oaths, it is Si tamen absolvat aliquem, tenet absolutio Glossa ad dictum. Can. 2. verbo. Absolvimus. valid. Nor is it any won­der, if the Pope dispence with Oathes (volun­tary or involuntary) if it be true, which John Semeca the Glossator there tells us.......That the Pope can dispence against the LAW OF Dico (says the Gloss) Quod contra JUS NATURA­LE potest dispensare & contra APOSTOLUM. Gloss. Ibid. NATURE, and against the APOSTLE. And that we might take notice of it, those words (in the Edit. Paris. 1522. old Editions of the Canon-Law) are put in the Margent. .....Papa contra Aposto­lum dispensat: the Pope dispenses against the A­postle. And in the latter Edit. Paris. 1612. Editions of that Law with the Gloss (even those confirm'd by Pope Gregory the Thirteenth, as most Correct, and purged from Errors) they are so far from disowning that irrational and impious Gloss; that (in a Note there in the Margent) they explain and justifie it... ..It is not absurd (sayes the Non est absurdum Papam dispensare contra Apostolum quoad jus positivum. Nota ad Glossam ad dictum Can. [...]. verbo Absol­vimus. Author of that Note) for the Pope to dispence against the Apostle, as to positive Law. So that Papists may take as many Oaths of Al­legiance and Supremacy as their Prince shall please, yet the Pope (when he pleases) can dispence with them, and set them free, from all obligation of fidelity. And hence it evi­dently follows; That a true Roman-Catho­lique (who believes this Popish Power of dis­pensing [Page 96] with all Oaths) may take a thousand Oaths of Allegiance, and yet give no assurance of his Fidelity to his Prince; seeing the Pope may (upon their approv'd Principles) when he pleases, set them free from all such Obliga­tions. 4. But, if all these ways, of nulling the Obligations of Oaths of Allegiance fail: yet the Popes Janizaries (the Jesuites) have a new way to prevent all such Obligations of Oaths, without any Dispensations; and that is by Equivocations, rectifying Intentions, and their Doctrine of Probabilities: pernicious Er­rors, destructive of Humane Society, and so notoriously now known to the World, that I neither shall, nor need go about to prove them, or shew the pernicious consequences of them. Sure I am, that by their Popish Prin­ciples, no Papists in England are As may (to omit all o­thers) abundantly appear by Father Parsons Book writ a­gainst the Oath of Allegiance: The Title of his Book is this, A Discussion of the Answer of Dr. Will. Barlow. And at large lately in Father Caron's Remon­strantia Hibernorum, &c. per­mitted to take the Oath of Allegiance to their King: and then 'tis easie to judge, what good Subjects they are like to be. For certainly, what I may lawfully do, that (on a just and serious occasion) I may swear to do. If it be a duty, and lawful for me to obey my Princes commands, and pay him fidelity; then certainly, I may (by Oath) bind my self to the performance of it. So all Men, by the Law of Nature and Moral Veracity, are bound to speak truth; it is both lawful and a duty: and therefore, when (in Judicature) I am call'd to be a Witness; I may, and (by the consent of all Nations) ought to take an Oath, to [Page 97] bind me, and assure others, that I will speak truth. All Men (as I said, and all confess) are bound by an indispensable Law of Nature to speak truth (when there is a just occasion for it) and yet (in Judicature) his testimony would not pass for good evidence, who (be­ing required) would not (by Oath) con­firm the truth of it. And therefore Princes have just reason to believe, that those who will not take an Oath to be Loyal Subjects, will never be so without it. And indeed the rea­son why Princes may justly suspect the fidelity of their Popish Clergy, who refuse the Oath of Allegiance, will farther appear, if we consider,

2. That when and where Popery prevails, all their Bishops swear absolute Allegiance and Fidelity to the Pope, and therefore cannot swear it to their Prince too. The Oath every Po­pish Bishop must take at his Consecration, is this ... Ego N. ab hac hora in antea, fidelis & obediens ero ..... Domino N. Papae & suis succes­soribus▪ Consilium quod mihi cre­dituri sunt, ad eorum damnum NEMINI pandam. Papatum & REGALIA St. Petri ad­jutor eis ero ad retinendum & defendendum CONTRA OM­NEM HONINEM Jura, ho­nores privilegia, & AUTHO­RITATEM PAPAE—Con­servare, defendere & promevere curabo. Non ero in consilio, facto vel Tractatu, in quibus con­tra Papam—aliqua sinistra vel praejudicialia personarum, ju­ris & potestatis ejus machinentur, & si talia à QUIBUSCUN­QUE tractari novero, impediam pro POSSE, & quanto citius potero SIGNIFICABO Do­mino PAPAE—Mandata A­postolica TOTIS VIRIBUS observabo, & FACIAM AB A­LIIS OBSERVARI. HAE­RETICOS ET REBELLES DOMINO PAPAE PERSE­QUAR▪ & IMPUGNABO Vocatus ad Synodum veniam, Verba sunt dicti Juramenti. Vide Pontificale Romanum. De Consecratione Electi in E­piscopum, p. 57. Editum Romae 1611. I. N. from this time forward, will be FAITH­FUL and OBEDIENT to my Lord the Pope and his Successors.....THE COUNSELS with which they trust me, I will not discover TO ANY MAN, to the hurt of the Pope or his Successors...I will assist them to retain and defend the Popedome, and THE Here it is REGALIA Sancti Petri. But this is an Ad­dition to the Oath (which was bad enough before) for anti­ently it was REGULAS SAN­CTORUM Patrum. As their own Canon-Law assures us. Cap. Ego. N. 4. Extra de Ju­rejurando, ROYALTIES of St. Peter, against ALL MEN .....I will carefully conserve, defend, and promote the rights, honors, priviledges, and authority of the Pope. I will not be in any Counsel, Fact, or Treaty, in which any thing prejudicial to the per­sons, rights, or power of the Pope is contrived: and if I shall know any such things treated of, by ANY [Page 98] WHOMSOEVER, I will (to the utmost of my power) hinder them, and with all possible speed signifie them to the Pope.... I will (to the UTMOST OF MY POWER) observe the POPES COM­MANDS, and MAKE OTHERS observe them. I will impugn and PERSECUTE HERETICKS, and REBELS to my LORD THE POPE. I will come to the Synod, WHEN HE CALLS ME, &c. This, and much more such stuff, you have in that Oath. Now this is evidently an Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity to the Pope. Wherein (to omit other things) they swear, 1. Never to discover the Popes Counsels (how treasonable so­ever) TO ANY MAN, (not the King.) 2. To defend the Popes ROYALTIES, against ALL MEN, (the King not excepted.) 3. And if any thing be treated of prejudicial to the Pope, BY ANY WHOMSOEVER, (the King not ex­cepted) they swear, (TO THE UTMOST OF THEIR POWER) to oppose and hinder it. Here is (you see) an Oath of absolute Allegiance to the Pope, which cannot consist with that Ho­mage and Allegiance, or Fidelity, which not only at present, but anciently, even in times of Popery, all the Bishops of England did, and solemnly swore to their King, as a Vide Hen. Bracton, De Legibus Angliae, lib. 2. cap. 35. Sect▪ 4. Bracton flourished about the. 30. year of Hen. 3. An. Dom. 1246. great Lawyer tells me. And not long before him, it it certain, that Bishops at their Consecration, took no Oath at all to the Pope, but only pro­mised him Canonical Obedience. For in the old Ordo Vid. Ordinem Roma­num veterem, apud Georg. Ferrarium, De Catholicae Ec­cles. Divinis officiis. Romae 1591, p. 70 71. Romanus, which (as all agree) was writ by So Tritthemius de Scri­ptoribus, &c. Possevines Ap­parat. both of them, In Ar­noldo Constantiensi, and Vosi­us de Symbolis Coenae Dom. Thesi 2. p. 441. Arnoldus Constantiensis Presbyter, about [Page 99] the year 1060. The Metropolitan (who consecrates) askes the person to be consecra­ted, thus; Visne Beato Petro, suaeque Ecclesiae, ejusque VICARIO & successoribus, fidem & subjectionem per omnia exhibere? The Answer is: Volo. Then follows the promise of fidelity and subjection to his Metropolitan: But with this difference. To the Pope he promises....... Fidem & obedientiam per omnia (as to the prime Patriarch.) But to the Metropolitan he only promises (but swears to neither of them) Fidem & obedientiam exhibere. But to let this pass: It is manifest, that whenever this Oath to the Pope began to be exacted of Bishops, it has been in use ever since the time of Pope Gregory Sedet Gregorius 9. An. Dom. 1226. In that year he was made Pope. the IX. who patch'd up, and Which was Ann. 1230. and refers that Oath to Gre­gory the 7th. who was made. Pope, An. 1073. publish'd the Decretals; In which you have the form of the Oath the Bishops then took to the Pope; neither so long by far, nor so bad, as of later years has been required of all Bishops; yet bad enough. For when they swore obedi­ence and fidelity absolutely to the Pope (as now they do) Vid. Cap. Ego. N. 4. Extra. De Jurejurando. CONTRA OMNES HO­MINES, (neither King nor Emperor except­ed.) And we are told in some later Editions of their Canon-Law, that now, not onely all Bishops, but whoever receives any Hodie omnes recipien­tes dignitatem à Papa, sib [...] jurant. Ita Lemma ad Cap. dictum 4. Edit. Lugduni. 1661▪ dignity of the Pope, take an Oath, and swear Allegi­ance to him: and, is it possible, that these per­sons who do, and must Swear such absolute obedience and fidelity to the Pope, can be faithful and loyal subjects to their Prince? and [Page 100] indeed, are not such Popish Principles both dangerous, and especially to Protestant Prin­ces pernicious, and inconsistent with the Loy­alty of Subjects, or safety of Supreme Powers? nor is this all; there is more danger yet to Kings and Princes, from their Popish Principles. For,

3. They Exempt all Ecclesiastiques from paying any Tax or Contribution to secular Princes, without the Popes Leave. This is the con­stant Doctrine of their Vid. Filliucium Quaes [...]. Moralium. Tractatu. 16. cap. 11. p. 325. Casuists, their Vid. cap. non minus. 4. & cap. Adversus. 7. extra. De Immunitate Ecclesiarum. Canon-Law, and Panormitan ad dicta, cap. 4. & 7. Canonists. Who tell us Lemma ad dictum, [...]. 4. ........ Quod Laici Collectas imponentes Cleri­cis, sunt excommunicati, cum suis fa [...]toribus; All Laymen (by their Law) are Excommuni­cated, if they lay any Tax upon the Clergy. And again (more fully) we are told. 1. That Clerici non debent ne­cessitatibus Civitatum aut aliorum locorum, etiam ubi laicorum non suppetunt facultates, subvenire (this is highly uncharitable) nisi prius Rom. Pontifex consu­l [...]tur. 2. Sententiae & Constitu­tiones editae à Laicis collect­antibus Ecclesiam, sunt ipso jure IRRITAE, nec ullo tempore convalescunt. 3. Rectores Ex­communicati ob gravamina prae­missa, remanent Excommunicati, etiam post deposium officium, & successores, nisi satisfecerint intra mensem. Hac dicit ad majorem declarationem & pro Novitiis. Lemma ad cap. adversus 7. Ex­tra. De Immunitate Ecclesiarum. the Clergy OUGHT NOT to relieve the NECESSITIES of Cities, or any other places; no, not even then when the Laicks are in want, unless the Pope be first consulted. 2. That all Decrees and Constitutions of Laymen, lay­ing such Taxes upon the Clergy, are null, and never can be made obligatory. 3. All persons Excommunicated for such grievances laid upon the Clergy, and their SUCCES­SORS, stand Excommunicated; unless they make satisfaction within a Month. 4. And they tell us, that all this is said for a ful­ler declaration of the Law in this Case, that Novices may better understand it. This is [Page 101] their own Exposition of the Canon, in the most Vid. Corpus Juris Ca­nonici Lugduni. Anno 1661. correct Body of their Canon-Law; and they there tell us, that it is the Canon of a Dicto Cap. Adversus 7. in Lemmate. Idem Innocen­tius. 3. in Concil. Generali. And the Note tells us, in Concil. Lat [...]an. cap. 46. General Council, and then (according to their Principles) infallibly true, and obliga­tory to all the Christian World. So that by this Popish Law, if any Lay-men (the King and Parliament of England) lay any Tax, or (by a Statute) require any Subsidy of Clergy­men, (though in the Necessities of the King­dom) without the Popes leave; such Sta­tute is declared Void and Null, and they and their Successors (unless satisfaction be made) Excommunicate. Nor is it only some Inferior Magistrates or Officers, who are thus Excom­municated; but all Persons, Ita Urbanus Papa 5. Constitut. 1. Edita Anno 1364. In Bullario Rom. Tom. 1. pag. 282. mim. 1. 2. Edit. Lugduni. 1655. CUJUS­CUNQUE conditionis, Status aut DIGNITA­TIS. And that we may know, that such Ex­communications are not a rash and inconside­rate Act of Urban the Fifth, or some angry Pope, they have been, (for some Ages past) and still are solemnly publish'd at Rome, every Year, in that famous and impious Bulla Coenae Domini, on Maundy-Thursday. (Even on that day, in which our Blessed Saviour Instituted that Coen [...] Domini, as a Sacrament of our Union with him, by a lively Faith, and of the Commu­nion of all Christians amongst themselves, by an unfeigned love and charity. I say, on this day, the greatest part of the Christian World, are Anathematiz'd and Curs'd at Rome, by their Popes successively, for no other reason but [Page 102] because they are for the Truth of the Gospel, and against his (without any reason or sense) Usurp'd Greatness and Worldly Interest.) In that Bull, the Anathema, or Papal Curse (Stilo Curiae) is thus: Qui Collectas, Tallias, praestantias, & alia onera personis Ecclesiasticis, & eorum, Eccle­siarum, & Beneficiorum Ecclesi­asticorum bonis, illorumque red­ditibus—absque Romani Ponti­sicis expressa licentiâ imponunt; aut sic imposita, ETIAM A SPONTE DANTIBUS, reci­piunt. Necnon qui per se, vel alios directe vel indirecte praedi­cta facere, exequi vel procurare non verentur, CUJUSCUN­QUE sint praeeminentiae, digni­tatis, &c. etiamsi IMPERIA­LI, REGALI, &c. praefulge­ant dignitate, &c. They are all Excommunicated every year in that Bulla Coenae. Vid. Bullam Alexandri Papae 7. seu Constitut. ejus 16. In Bulla­rio Rom. Tom. 5. data erat Bulla dicta, Idib. April 1656. & Bullam Clementis Papae 10. dat. Rom. 7. Cal. April. Anno 1671. Ejusdem Bullarii Tom. 5. Constitut. Clement. 10. 34. and in both those Bulls, Sect. 18. We Excommunicate all, of what Dignity soever, REGAL, IMPERIAL, DUCAL, &c. who impose any Tax, Toll, or Prestation upon any Ecclesiastiques, or receive any Taxes so impos'd, (though the Persons on whom they are imposed, would WILLINGLY pay them) without the special and EXPRESS LI­CENCE of the Pope. Now although this (aforesaid) were evidence enough to intitle the Church of Rome to such desperate Do­ctrine and Excommunications; yet we have further and greater evidence; I mean, their Great Lateran Concil. Lateran. sub Innocentio Papa 3. Ann. 1215. Can. 46. Council, consisting of above 1200 Fathers, (such as they were) Synodi­cally Concil. Lateran. mag­num sub Innocentio 3. Anno 1215. Can. 46. ratifying the same Doctrine: and all this expresly confirmed by the Sess. 25. cap. 20. De Im­munitate Ecclesiarum. Trent Council; which tells us, That this Immunity and Exemption of the Clergy, is, DEI ORDI­NATIONE & Canonicis Sanctionibus Constitu­ta; and therefore Decrees and Decernit ac PRAECI­PIT sacros Canones, & Conci­lia Generalia OMNIA, & A­POSTOLICAS sanctiones—EXACTE ab OMNIBUS ob­servari DEBERE. Ibid. COM­MANDS, That all the Sacred Canons, all Ge­neral Councils, and all Papal Constitutions, in favor of Ecclesiastical Persons and the Liberties of the Church, be (and ought to be) exactly observed; and that, as Tanquam DEI PRAE­CEPTA. Ibidem. THE COMMAND­MENTS OF GOD: and admonisheth the EM­PEROR, KINGS and PRINCES, &c. and [Page 103] obliges them to such Observation. Nor is the Trent Council content with this; but Concil. Trident. in for­ma Professionis Fidei, in calce Sess. 25. re­quires her Ecclesiastiques (and many more, of which anon) to Promitto, Voveo, Juro. Ibid. PROMISE, SWEAR and VOW, firmly (and without all doubting) to believe all the Canons and Councils before­mentioned, (especially the Decrees of the Trent Fathers.) By the Premises, I think it evident; that (by the How dear this Doctrine of the Exemption of Ecclesi­astical Persons from the Power of Laymen to Tax them, &c. is at Rome, appears by the In­dex Expurgatorius of Pope A­lexander the Seventh, Edit. Ro­mae 1667. pag. 8. where the Command is—Expurgandae sunt OMNES Propositiones con­tra libertatem, Immunitatem, & Jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam. approved Doctrine and Principles of the Roman Church) no Kings, Princes or Parliaments, nor any LAY­MEN, (how many or great soever) can lay any Tax upon Ecclesiastiques, (no not in the greatest Necessity and Poverty of the Lay-Subjects) without express leave first had from the Pope. Now whether this Popish Doctrine, (if approved and believed) be not very dangerous and pernicious, (especially to Protestant Princes) do you judge. Nor is this all; for,

4. Their approved and received Popish Principles, do not only free them, from taking Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and their Estates (I speak of their Clergy) from Taxes, (unless the Pope consent) but their Persons also, (be their Crimes never so great) from all Punish­ment by Kings, or any Lay-Court or Magistrate of what State or Dignity soever. This is a manifest and known Truth, and needed no proof, were it not, that some, who have an [Page 104] ungrounded courage to believe such Seditions Principles, have also (when it makes for their Interest) a confidence to deny them. But, seeing some of the Popish Party do deny it, I shall endeavour to bring such Authentique and evident Proofs, as will (I hope) satisfie you, and might convince the Gainsayers (if they can and will impartially judge) of the Truth of the aforesaid Popish Position. The Proofs I mean, shall be drawn from the clear Testimonies of their own eminent and learned Writers, their Canon-Laws, approved and re­ceived in and by their Church, their Popes De­cretals, and their own General Councils. And here,

1. An eminent Popish Excommunicantur QUI­CUNQUE Magistratus, qui contra PERSONAS ECCLE­SIASTICAS se interponunt in QUACUNQUE causa cri­minali, sive HOMICIDII. sive LAESAE MAJESTATIS. Filliucius Moral. Quaest. Tra­ctatu, 16. cap. 11. Sect. 307. 309. Casuist tells us, That ALL MAGISTRATES whoever they be, (Kings and Princes not excepted) who inter­pose in Judicature, against Ecclesiastical Persons, in ANY CRIMINAL CAUSE, whether it be MURDER, or HIGH TREASON, are to be Excommunicated. And this he proves out of their Canon Can. Si quis suadente. 22. Caus. 17. Quaest. 4. Law, and the Constitu­tion of Pope Innocent the Second, in a Concil. Lateran. 2 sub Innocentio. 2 Can. 15. General Council, own'd and approved by them.

2. We have a Canon of a Council at Paris, referr'd into the Body of their Law, publish'd by the Authority of Pope Gregory the Ninth, [Page 105] which determines the case thus Cap. Nullus Judicum 2. Extra. De [...]oro competenti: Ju­dex SECULARIS, si Clericum per se distrinxit, vel condemnat, excommunicari debet. That's the Lemma to the Chapter in which 'tis more fully express'd. No SE­CULAR JUDGE may distrain or condemn ANY CLERGY-MAN, without the PERMISSION of the POPE: and if he do, he is to be excommuni­cate; and to continue so, till he acknowledge and mend his fault. You see this Seditious Popish doctrine is established by the Council of Paris, and the General Council in the Lateran: and by 3 Popes (Innocent the Second, Gregory the Ninth, and In his Bull approving and confirming the Canon-Law. D [...]t. Romae 1 Julii, 1580. Gregory the Thirteenth) and so must be the Doctrine of the Roman-Church. For it is Law with them; NEMINI permissum est de eo quod PAPA STATUIT JUDICARE, vel sententiam ejus retractare. So Pope Nico­las tells us in Gratian. Can. Nemini 3. Caus. 17. Quaest. 4. That NO MAN must be permitted to RETRACT, or QUESTION any Papal Sentence. And their Law says further; Omnes sanctiones Aposto­lisae sedis irrefragabiliter sunt ob­servandae. That's the Lemma or Title, and the Canon follows— Sic omnes Apostolicae sedis san­ctiones accipiendae sunt, tanquam ipsius DIVINI PETRI VOCE FIRMATAE. Can. Sic omnes. 2. Dist. 19. That ALL the Popes Decrees are IRREFRAGABLY to be observed; and that so far, and undoubtedly, as if St. Peter had confirm'd them with his own mouth: and Gratian cites Pope Agatho for it.

3. Nay further, all Secular Magistrates, are (at Rome) every year, solemnly Anathematiz'd and curs'd; Qui personas Ecclesiasti­cas ad suum Tribunat, Audienti­am, Cancellariam, PARLIA­MENTUM, Consilium, &c. tr [...]ant, aut trahi faciant directè vel indirectè carcerando, vel mo­lestando, &c. Vide Bullam Cle­mentis Papae 10. Dat. Romae 3 April 1671. In Bullario Roma­no. Lugd. 1673. Tom. 5. pag. 530. Sect. 14, 15, 16. who call any Ecclesiastical persons to their Tribunals, Courts, Chancellaries, Councils, Parliaments, &c. or any way molest them directly or indirectly; for it is but six or seven years since Pope Clement the Tenth did solemnly curse all secular Magistrates and all Courts (even Par­liaments) who should any way trouble the Cler­gy, or punish, or take any cognizance of their crimes. So that by this Popish Doctrine, our gratious King, his great Council (the Parlia­ment) and all our Courts in Westminster, stand [Page 106] now accursed, and (till they become Papists and Slaves to the Pope, which cursed day, I hope will never come) that curse will be con­tinued, and every year solemnly and impiously renewed; and I am perswaded that a greater curse cannot befal this Nation, than that which will procure a Popes absolution, and free us from his Curse.

4. In a word, the Trent Cause crimina [...]es gravio­res contra Episcopos, ab ipso TANTUM Rom. Pontifice co­gnoscantur, ac terminentur; & mi­nores, in Concilio TANTUM Provinciali cognoscantur & ter­minentur. Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. De Reformat. cap. 5. & Sess. 13. De Reformat. cap. 8. Council publickly maintains this erronious and impious doctrine, of the exemption of their Clergy and Eccle­siastiques, from the Jurisdiction of all Secu­lar powers; The greater Crimes of the Bishops, (say the Trent-Fathers, in the place And all their Ecclesia­stiques do promise, vow and also swear, that they will firm­ly believe and profess all that the Canons and Councils have declared concerning these ex­emptions—OMNIA à Sacris Canonibus & Oecumenicis Conci­liis, & praecipue à Sancta Sy­nodo Tridentina definita, indu­bitanter recipere ac profiteri spon­deo, VOVEO, JURO. In formâ juramenti professionis fidei, in Bulla Pii Papae 4. in calce Sess. 25. Concil. Tridentin. now cited) can be examin'd and punish'd ONELY BY THE POPE; and their lesser crimes, ONE­LY BY THE COUNCIL of Bishops. No lay-Judge or Judicature how great soever, (nor Kings, nor Parliaments) must meddle with them; they may securely sin, and need not fear any punishment by any Secular power. How dangerous and pernicious this must needs be to all Secular supreme powers, let the world judge. Certainly (upon these Popish principles) all the Clergy must and will much rather fear and obey the Pope who can, than their Prin­ces, who (by their principles) have no power to punish them. But this is not all; for (to omit all other) there is one pernicious Popish principle more, not yet mention'd, which ab­solutely abrogates and deprives Princes and [Page 107] Kings of all their Regal power, as to the Cler­gy. For,

Lastly, It is a constantly approved and received Doctrine at Rome, (though evidently impious and traiterous) That the Clergy and Ecclesia­stiques, are NONE OF THE KINGS SUB­JECTS. If this be not true, (as sure enough it is not) then their Popish Canons are erroneous, (as you shall see anon) and their General Coun­cils and Popes, so far from being infallible, that they are actually and evidently false: For both their Canon-law, their Councils, (even General ones) and their Popes in their Decrotal Epistles (as by the following Testimonies will appear) have approved, received, and by their authority (so far as they are able) establish'd and confirm'd this rebellious and Popish principle. But (on the other side) if they approve and acknowledge this Principle to be true, (as constantly they do) then they approve a Doctrine which is not onely dangerous, but pernicious to Princes, which dethrones and unkings them, (as to all their Clergy and Ecclesiastiques:) for if they be not Subjects to any Secular Prince, then it is evident, that no such Prince can be their King; it being impossible, that any man should be King of such persons, who are none of his Subjects. And although this Popish principle be erroneous and traiterous, against the light of Nature and Scripture, Reason and Revelation; yet 'tis not all. For they do not only say, that [Page 108] the CLERGY ARE NONE OF THE KINGS SUBJECTS: But (which is more erroneous and irrational) they do expresly say, that THE CLERGY ARE SUPERIOR TO THE KING, and HE THEIR SUBJECT. That both these Popish Positions may appear to be ap­proved by, and generally received in the Church of Rome; I desire you seriously to consider these following Testimonies.

1. In the Body of their Canon-Law, of their most correct Emendatum, CORREC­TUM, recognitum, & APPRO­BATUM. Ita in Bulla Grego­rii 13. data Romae. 1580. Juri Canonico praefixâ. Editions, and (as such) publish'd by the Authority of Gregory the thirteenth; we finde these words Imperium non PRAEEST Sacerdotio, sed SUBEST. Lem­ma ad Cap. Solicitae 6. Extra De Major. & Obedientiâ. The EMPIRE IS NOT SUPERIOR, but SUBJECT to the PRIEST­HOOD. And it there follows immediately Episcopus NON DEBET SUBESSE. PRINCIPIBUS, sed PRAEESSE. Ibidem. THE BISHOP OUGHT NOT TO BE SUB­JECT, BUT SUPERIOR TO PRINCES. And that all may take notice of this Popish Position, it is there added Hoc dicit Innocentius 3. & est MULTUM ALLEGABILE. Ibidem. Pope Innocent the third says this, and it is FIT TO BE AL­LEDG'D MUCH (for the Popes Supremacy he means.) And indeed Pope Innocent says that, and much more, in that Decretal Praecellit Imperator illos DUNTAXAT, qui ab eo recipi­unt temporalia—Super bonos & malos, gladii accepit potestatem Imperator; sed in eos SOLUM­MODO, qui utentes gladio, sunt ejus jurisdictioni Commissi—De sacerdotali prosapia dictum est, non DE REGIA STIRPE, Constitui te super gentes & REG­NA; ut▪ EVELLAS, DISSI­PES, &c. dicto Cap. Solicitae. 6. Extra. De Majorit. & Obedi­entiâ. E­pistle; some of the words are in the margent. And all this, in their approved Editions of their Canon-Law Corpus Juris Canonici. Paris 1520. Antverp. An. 1570. old and Paris 1612. and 1618. and at Lions 1661. new. Pa­normitan (their great Canonist) is more Panormitan. ad dictum Cap. Solicitae 6. Edit. 1509. Lugduni ex­press and full to our purpose. The sum of what he says (as the Author of the Laur. de Flisco Episco­pus. Brumatensis. Sum­maries prefix'd to that Chapter tells us) is this, 1. Imperium SUBEST sacerdotio, & ei OBEDIRE TE­NETUR. 2. Clericus NULLO MODO subest LAICO, nisi ra­tione feudi ab eo habiti. 3. Cle­rici sunt EXEMPTIA Ju­risdictione Laicorum, JURE DIVINO. 1. The Emperor is SUBJECT to, and BOUND TO OBEY THE PRIEST.

[Page 109]2. The Clergy is NO WAY SUBJECT to the LAITY (not to the King) but onely for some Lay-Fee, or Farm held of him. 3. The CLER­GY BY THE LAW OF GOD, are EXEMPT from the JURISDICTION of LAYMEN. And no wonder, if the IMPERIAL POWER must be subject to the PONTIFICAL; if it be true, which their Canon-Law Cap. Solicitae 6. Extra De Majorit. & Obedientiâ. (out of the De­cretal of Pope Innocent the Third) the Author of the Bernard. de Botano Ca­nonicus Bononiensis in Glossa, ad verbum, Inter solem. Ib. Gloss, and the Laurentius in his Additi­on to the Gloss. [...] Additions to it, say. For the Pope in that Law, says; That the Popes power, is as much greater than the Emperors, as THE SUN is greater than the MOON. 2. The Gloss says (for so, in his Arithmetique, the difference is ignorantly and wildly computed) that the Popes Power is 47 times greater than the Emperors: and the Addition to the Gloss (in their best Editions of the Vide Corpus Juris Cano­nici, cum Glossis. Paris. 1612. Canon-Law) further tells us, (out of Ptolemy) that the Sun is greater than the Moon 7744 times; and so (by this their Account) the Pontifical Power is no less than 7744 times greater than the Imperial; and then there is no doubt, but in their opinion who believe all this, the Emperor and all Kings must be the Popes Subjects, and they no way superior to him.

2. Pope Martin the Fifth cites the Decretal of Pope Innocent the Third, and more fully ex­plains the meaning of it; approves Cap. Ad reprimendas 3. De Foro competenti. In 7. Edit. Juris Canonici. Lugd. 1661. and confirms it, and both their Decretals are now referr'd into the body of their Law (where [...] [Page 108] [...] [Page 109] [Page 110] Pope Martins Decretal was not before:) The Lemma, or Title to the Chapter before cited, is this L [...]icis in Clericos NUL­LA POTESTAS, &c. Lemma ad dictum Caput. .......... Lay-men have NO POWER OVER CLERGY-MEN, &c. And the Decretal it self says Non attendentes, quod LAICIS in CLERICOS, EC­CLESIASTICAS personas, aut EORUM BONA, NULLA sit attributa POTESTAS. Ibid. Ca­pite dicto. ............ That LAY-MEN have NO AUTHORITY over the Clergy, ECCLE­SIASTICAL PERSONS, or their GOODS. Pope Urban the sixth has the very same Cap. Quia 2. De soro competenti. in 7. words, approves, and (by his Papal Authority) confirms them; and declares all Lay-men (of Cujuscunque praeeminentiae, dignitatis, status, aut conditionis existant. Ibidem. what eminence soever) who exercise any jurisdiction over Ecclesiastiques, Principes, Marchiones, Duces, &c. non possunt sine culpa SACRILEGII, Clericos bannire aut relegare. Ibid. Sacrilegi­ous, and Excommunicates them, and all whoe­ver assist, abett, or defend them.

3. Cardinal Cajetan, who (his great Learning, and eminent place in Government of that Church considered) could not be ignorant what Positions were approved at Rome, tells us Persona CUJUSLIBET CLERICI est SANCTA quoad hoc, quod NON POTEST SUB­JICI POTESTATI SECU­LARI; & is qui contrarium faciat, SACRILEGUS est. Ca­jetan. in Aquinat. 2. 2. Quaest. 99. Art. 3. Sect. ad. 5. dubi­um. And much more to the same purpose, we have in those 2 Titles. 1. De soto compe­tenti; and 2. De Invasoribus bonorum Ecclesiae in 7. Decre­talium. ......... That the Person of EVERY CLERGY­MAN, was SACRED thus far, that he COULD NOT BE SUBJECT to any SECULAR POWER.

4. Nay, a whole Learned Colledge assures us, of the truth of the 3 Propositions. 1. KINGS 1. Reges non habent potestatem coactivam in Eccle­siasticos. 2. Ecclesiastici non possunt conveniri, nisi coram supe­riori suo Ecclesiastico▪ 3. EX­EMPTIO CLERICORUM, est ex OMNIUM SENTENTIA, de Jure DIVINO, ita ut à po­testatibus secularibus ETIAM SUPREMIS, judicari aut con­demnari nequtant. Vid. Collegii Bononiensis Responsum pro li­bertate Eccles. Bonon. 1607. Sect. 21. 46, &c. have NO COACTIVE POWER over EC­CLESIASTICKS. 2. ECCLESIASTICKS cannot be sued, or call'd to an account, before any, save onely THEIR ECCLESIASTICAL Superior. 3. The EXEMPTION of the Clergy, is IN THE JUDGMENT OF ALL (all [Page 111] Papists they mean) of DIVINE RIGHT; so that they cannot be JUDG'D, or PUNISH'D by any SECULAR, no NOT SUPREME POW­ERS. And here I desire you to consider; (what the Colledge of Bononia here affirms) that the Ecclesiastiques (Secular and Regular) are, in the opinion of ALL ROMAN▪ CATHO­LIQUES, by the LAW OF GOD, so Vid. cap. Et quia 4. extra. De foro competenti. in 7. where the Title, or Lemma, is this—Constitutiones editae contra Principes Seculares, Ju­risdictionis Ecclesiasticae liberta­tem impedientes, Innovantur. And in the Chapter, it is de­clared; 1. Quod Laicis in Clericos, & personas Ecclesia­sticas, & bona Ecclesiastica, non est attributa potestas. 2. And then it follows—REGES, DUCES, MARCHIONES, &c. in virtute Sanctae OBEDI­ENTIAE MANDANTES, ut ipsi constitutiones praedictas ob­servent—Si Dei offensam, & SEDIS APOSTOLICAE vitare voluerint ULTIONEM. Kings cannot meddle with any Ecclesiastical Persons; if they do, they offend God, and shall be punish'd by the Pope: that is, Excommunicated. So says the Pope, and his Lateran Coun­cil, Cap. 2. De Invas [...]r. & Oc­cup. Bon. Ecclisie, in 7. Decreta­lium. ex­empted from the Jurisdiction of all Secular, (even SUPREME) POWERS, that they can neither Judge, nor punish them. Whence it evidently follows, 1. That the Popish Clergy, where-ever they are (especially in England, and Protestant Kingdoms) are no Subjects of that King, in whose dominions they live, because they are (by the Law of God) exempt from all Secular Jurisdiction: It being a contradiction to say, that any Man is a King in respect of those, over whom he has no Jurisdiction. And, 2. It follows, that this impious and traiterous Doctrine and Position, is not the opinion of some one, or a few private persons, but of ALL RO­MAN-CATHOLIQUES; and so of their Po­pish Church; and then their Church (by their own Confession) is guilty of maintaining and approving such dangerous, and to all (espe­cially Protestant) Kings, Pernicious Princi­ples. Q. E. D.

5. But we have greater Authority (than that of the Colledge of Bononia) to manifest the truth of what we say, when we accuse the Po­pish [Page 112] Church for approving and maintaining this impious and pernicious Doctrine; That their Ecclesiastiques are not the Kings Subjects. I mean the Inquisitors of Index Expurgatorius Hispanicus, Madriti, Anno 1667. in Johanne Chrysost. pag. 703. Spain and Index Expurg. Lusitan. Olysip. 1624. pag. 753. Portugal, &c. who finding in the Index of Chry­sostome, Edit. Basil. 1558. words expressing this proposition Sacerdotes etiam Princi­pibus Jure Divino subditi. PRIESTS, BY THE LAW OF GOD, ARE SUBJECT TO PRINCES; they (know­ing that Position to be inconsistent with the Exemptions of their Popish Clergy) damn that Proposition, and command it to be blotted out: Deleantur illa verba (say they) though Chry­sostome say the very same thing, in the place to which the Index refers. Now it is evident, that they who damn this Proposition (as erronious) PRIESTS by the Law of God, are subject to Princes; must (of necessity) approve and af­firm the contradictory; That Priests, by the Law of God ARE NOT subject to Princes: which is that rebellious Position, with which the Church of Rome is justly charged.

6. Lastly, the principal Authorities I have brought to prove this (or any of the former Rebellious Doctrines charg'd on the Church of Rome) have been, 1. Their approved, and (by Publick Authority of their Church) recei­ved and establish'd Laws. 2. Their Popes Bulls, Decretals and Constitutions. 3. Or the Canons of their Provincial, National, or General Councils: All which are approved, innovated, and confirm'd expresly, in their Trent Concil. Trident. Sess. 25. De Reformat. Cap. 20. Praecipit sancta Synodus, Sacros CANO­NES, & Consilia Generalia OM­NIA, necnon alias APOSTOLI­CAS SANCTIONES in favo­rem Ecclesiasticarum personarum, & libertatis Ecclesiasticae; & contra ejus Violatores editos, quae OMNIA praesenti Decreto IN­NOVAT, EXACTE ab OMNI­BUS observari debere. Coun­cil, [Page 113] (as was before mentioned) and all their Vide Bullam Pii. 4. su­per formá Juramenti Professi­onis fidei, in calce Sess. 25. Cor­cilii Trident. datam Romae. Id. Nov. 1 [...]64. Secular Clergy, all who have any Cure of Souls, the chief of their Regulars, Vid. Pullam Pii. 4. Extra De Magistris & Doctoribus, cap. In sacrofancta. 2. In septimo. all Gra­duates, Professors and Readers in their Univer­sities, Vid. Bullam Pii Papae 5. Extra De Medicis, cap. su­pra gregem. 1. Decret. 7. all Physitians, &c. are solemnly Vide dictam Pii. 4. Bul­lam, super forma Juramenti Profess. fidei, & Concil. Tri­dent. Sess. 25. & 24. De Refor­mat. cap. 12. Item OMNIA à sacris Canonibus; & Oecumenicis Conciliis▪ ac praecipue à Sacro­sancta Synodo Trident. definita, INDUBITANTER recipio ac profiteor, ac CONTRARIA OMNIA re [...]cio ac An [...]thema­tizo, ac à meis subditis, vel illis, quorum cura ad me spectat, tene­ri, doceri, & praedicari (quantum in [...]e est) curabo. Verba sunt dictae Bullae Pii Papae. 4 sworn to approve, receive, and (without all doubting) to profess all those Canons and Papal Constituti­ons, and, to Anathematize, Reject, and Curse all contrary Opinions, and to endeavour (as much as in them lies) that all committed to their care, shall constantly hold and teach the same.

The Premises impartially consider'd, I think two things may, and will evidently follow:

1. That the Principles and Positions before men­tion'd, are not only dangerous, but pernicious to all Supreme Powers; (especially to Protestant Kings and Princes) and that in one thing omit­ted before; that is; That Faith is not to be kept with Heretiques, but that any competent Ecclesiastical Judge, may condemn, and execute Heretiques, (or those who are reputed such) not­withstanding any SAFE CONDUCT given them, BY THE EMPEROR, KINGS, or SECULAR PRINCES, though confirm'd by OATH; and this impious, and (to Supreme Powers) perni­cious Doctrine, approved, and publickly declared and profess'd; not only by particular, and pri­vate persons, but by their own General Quod non obstantibus sal­vis Conductibus IMPERATO­RIS, REGUM, & SECULI PRINCIPUM, QUOCUN­QUE VINCULO SE OB­STRINXERINT, possit per Ju­dicem competentem de Haereticâ pravitate inquiri, &c. Concil. Constantiens. Sess. 19. Coun­cil of Constance: which condemn'd Consil. Constant. Sess. 21. damnatio Hieronymi Pra­gensis Sess. 45. damnatio Jo­han. Hus. and exe­cuted Jerome of Prague, and John Hus, not­withstanding [Page 114] the Emperors Safe Conduct, with­out which they would not have come to that Council. To which we may add, that those Fathers of Constance (it will highly concern Pro­testant Princes to consider it) Synodically de­fine, and declare, That all Heretiques, (that is all they call, and commonly miscal Heretiques) all their defendors, or favourers, &c. of what dig­nity soever, OMNES & singulos Hae­reticos, nec non eorum sectatores u [...]riusque sex [...]s; & etiam defen­dentes eosdem, vel ipsis quomodo­libet, publicè vel occultè partici­pantes; etiam si REGALI, RE­GINALI, DUCALI aut alia QUAVIS DIGNITATE Ec­clesiasticâ aut mandan [...] praeful­geant;—per Excommunicationis, & PRIVATIONIS bonorum ac dignitatum secularium, & alias paenas etiam per captiones & IN­CARCERATIONES punian­tur. Concil. Constansien [...]. Sess. 45. (Kings, and Queens, and Dukes, &c.) shall be Excommunicated and deprived of all their Goods, and Secular Dignities. This (in Thesi) is their impious Doctrine and Principle; and (in Praxi) they are now endeavouring to put it in execution here in England; as evident­ly appears by their Popish and Hellish Conspi­racy, by the Gracious and Powerful Providence of Heaven, lately and happily discovered. I take it then to be evident, that the aforesaid Popish Doctrines and Principles are exceeding dangerous, and to all Supreme Powers (especi­ally Protestant Kings and Princes) pernicious.

2. And from the Premises, it will as evidently fol­low, that the aforesaid Popish Principles, are not the private Opinions of some particular Persons only: seeing, 1. They are profess'd and vindi­cated by the Jesuites, Canonists, and generally by other great Writers of that Church, in their Books publish'd with the Approbation and Com­mendation of Authority. 2. Establish'd in their approved and received Canon-Law. 3. In the Authentick Decretal Epistles, and Papal Constitu­tions. [Page 115] 4. In their General Councils; those (I mean) which they acknowledge to be General. 5. And (to say no more) all their Clergy and Ecclesiastiques, (who have place in those Councils) have taken a Solemn Oath to maintain all those Canons, and Papal Constitutions; and this Oath required and taken by the Authority and Com­mand of the Vide Concil. Trident. Sess. 24. Cap. 12. de Refor­mat. & Annotat. Joh. Sotealli Theologi, & Horatii Lutii, Ju­risconsulti, ad caput dictum in Edit. dicti Concilii Antverp. 1596. aliisque nuperis. Council of Trent, and the In Bulla Pii Papae. 4. su­p [...]r forma Juramenti professio­nis Fidei, Romae. 1564. Pope; who is acknowledged to be their Concil. Florent. Decre­to. 4. apud Longum à Corio­lano, pag. 886. Supreme Judge, and (since the Councils of Pisa, Constance and Basil, declared by Pope Leo the Tenth, and his Lateran Council, (which they account a Ge­neral Council) to be above all General Councils: and this Declaration (that all might know it is Law and Obligatory) has lately been Cap. Pastor. 1. Extra De Concilii [...], in Septimo. And in the same place, Cap. Sicut. 3. and Cap. Benedictus. 4. The same Doctrine is confirmed by Pope Pius. 4. re­ferr'd into the Body of their Canon-Law. Now these things being undeniably true, that their Popes and General Councils (the Supreme Au­thority of their Church) have approved and received the aforesaid Principles and Positions, and caused their Ecclesiastiques solemnly to swear, That they do believe, and will constant­ly profess them, and (so far as they are able) make all committed to their charge, do so too; it evidently follows, that they are Roman-Ca­tholick Doctrines, own'd and approved by their Church, and not only by private and particular persons. So that if any (who knows, and has impartially considered the Premises) deny it; I shall not call him Impudent, but I may (and must) say, he has a hard Forehead, and a little thing will not make him blush.

[Page 116]To conclude; If that Priest, or Popish Gentle­man, (you mention) who so confidently denies the Church of Rome to approve such Principles, as I have laid to her charge; can (as to the sum and substance of the Testimonies here cited; for I neither need, nor will undertake for every particular Circum­stance, or Typographical Error) either shew,

• 1. That I have misquoted the Authors and Books I cite, and that such Passages do not occur in the places quoted.
• 2. Or (if they do occur) that I have mistook their meaning, as to the purposes for which they are produc'd.
• 3. Or (if neither of these can be shown) if he can make it appear, that the Church of Rome has (by any publick Act or Declaration) dis­own'd such pernicious Principles and Positions, and damn'd them as erroneous, and (what they really are) impious: I do hereby pro­mise him, that I will be (what I hope I never shall be) one of the worst sort of Christians in the World, I mean a Roman-Catholique. Farewel.