THE Christians of the Roman Catholick Com­munion believe nothing as matter of Faith, but what the Universal Church practises, or a General Council by its Decrees oblidges to be­lieve as such; And since neither the Church Ca­tholick in diffusion, or representation practises, or by Her Cannons enjoyns as matters of Faith, viz. That its Lawful for Popes upon the Heads of Heresie, Schism, or scandalous iniquity to Excommunicate Kings and absolute [Page 2]Princes, and thereupon to absolve their natural Subjects from their necessary alledgeance, its the highest injustice to impose this on the Catholick Religion as an Article of Faith.

To clear this, let us first confider what is the practice of the Church diffusive in this affair: Its plain that this dangerous Doc­trine so destructive to Humane Societies is disowned by all Ca­tholick Princes and Monarchs, guarding sufficiently against it by their Imperial and Royal Laws, and Constitutions: How do the Italian Princes debate their Temporal Intrests with Popes who sometimes quarrel with them, and defend their secular Rights by the Sword? And who more eagerly and vigourously vindicates his Royal prerogative in Temporal concerns against all the pretentions of Popes, then the French King? And its as evident that the Emperour, the Spanish and Polonian Princes by their municipal Laws assert their Imperal and Royal Rights against all mortals. And as this is the practise of Catholick Princes, so is it of the particular Churches within their Domi­nions and Teritories, for they in their Ecclesiastical Conven­tions declare the independency of their absolute Princes in Tem­porals, and that the Church cannot pretend by vertue of the power of the Keyes directly, or indirectly to divest any abso­lute Prince or Monarch of his Royal Rights and Priviledges: Look to the Cannons of the late Gallican National Assembly, and to the Universities of Rehemes, Caen, Poictiers, Valence, Bordeaux, Bourges, &c. And to the whole Colledge of Sor­bon, condemning Sanctarellus his propositions, viz. That the Pope might for Schism or Heresie deposo Princes, and exempt Subjects from their Alledgeance: And tho' this Doc­trine be charged maliciously upon the generality of the Jesuits, yet a provincial Councel of that Order caused publickly to burn Mariana his Book for handling problematically that of kill­ing Kings, and this Society in all the Catholick Territories, where they are scattred, do generally renounce that Doctrine so fatal to Civil Authority, else they should not have so easie an access to the Courts of Princes, and find with them such kind receptions as they daily do.

[Page 3] Secondly. There is no Authority from a general Council that allows of this dangerous Doctrine, nor is there any thing like it to be found in the last general Counsel held at Trent, in which are all these Articles that oblidge the Catholicks as matters of Faith, nor in any other general Counsel prior to that, save what, is ignorantly concluded from a Decree of the Lateran Council held under Innocent 3. But to free this Counsel of any thing that looks like that unhappy Doctrine: Let us no­tice first, There were present at this Convention held at the Lateran the Emperours of the East and West, the Kings of England, France, Hungary, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Arragon, &c. By their Ambassdors, sayes Mattheus Parisiensis, who all might have agreed together to have purged their Territo­ries and Dominions from the Heretical crew of the Walden­ses and Albigenses, so that by this compact amongst absolute Princes they might have consented upon their faileure, if not concurring to exterminate the Hereticks, that at the Church­es Sentence the guilty should forfeit his Dominion and Pro­perty, and the party performing receive it: And this is as warrantable as the Convention made by the confederate Princes at Smalcad.

Secondly. The Persons here threatned to lose their Terri­tories and Properties are termed by the Decree, Domini prin­cipales, and certainly by these the Church never understood absolute Princes, but only-petty and Feudatory Lords, who being Superiors over other Vassals, had a Dominion directum over them to which Lords the Vassals owed Fidelity, and with that sometime Subjection, as many do in Germany. And of these allenerly are the Words of the Lateran Decree to be understood, and not of the Imperial or Regal Dignities, who ob eminentiam dignitatis, are still excepted from the highest censures of the Church, as you shall hear anon.

Thirdly. Its more then propable that the Domini princi­pales there exprest were chiefly, if not only the Feudatory petty Superiors, who supported the Albigenses, continued [Page 4]the Heresie and Crocked the Wars. Such as the Earls of Tho­louse, Foix, Comminges, and Prince of Bern, all Protectors of these Rebellious Hereticks, and it was upon the score of this Lateran Decree that Montferret was invested in the Su­periorties and Territories of Tholouse after the Victorious suc­cess of the Catholick Princes had against these confederate Nobles.

Let me add further that in the foresaid Decree there is no mention had of Reges, but of Domini, or of Regna, but Ter­ram, which certainly relate to the Lands and Possessions of the petty Feudatory Lords.

Lastly, To sum up all, upon supposition that the Counsel so determined, that the Censure should reach all Dignities of the highest Quality (which is morally inpossible to think that such absolute powers should consent to their own ruin.) yet still it must be considered that this Decree did relate only to a matter of Discipline or Ecclesiastick Government, in which cases the Church pretends not to Infallibility, for she alters her Government when inavoidable inconveniencies appear: For had that Decree been of Faith, the Tridentine Council had not passed it by without a determination, especially since be­fore the Session of that Synod the Hereticks frequently charg­ed this scandalous Doctrine upon the Roman Catholick Church: Yea had that Lateran Decree respected the highest Powers without exception, and the Decree being of Faith, then how could the whole University at Paris, April 20. 1626. have condemned Sanctarelleus proposition? Or how could the Colledge of Sorbon together with the Provincial Councel of the Jesuites, the supposed asserters of the Popal Authority over Kings, have subscribed the said condemnation to the great sa­tisfaction of the Parliament of Paris? Certainly if the La­teran Decree was of Faith, and extended to imperial and Re­gal Dignities, then all the aforesaid Persons must have been Heretical for condemning that proposition of dethroning Princes in case of Heresie, Schism, or some enorme crime: Yea how [Page 5]could Popes themselves judicially in the meetings of Cardinals at Rome have censured the Books of Bellarmine, Becan, and others for asserting the Popes power of deposing Princes as aforesaid? If before this in the Lateran it had been matter of Faith.

We come now to consider some particular instances alleadg­ed for proving this Doctrine to be of Faith in the Romish Church, such as the Bulls of Paul 3. against Henry 8, and of Pius 5. against Queen Elizabeth of England, wherein not only these are excommunicated, and their Subjects adhear­ing to them, struck with the same Sentence, but all Catho­lick Subjects are also absolved from their alledgeance; and all Catholick Powers and Dignities abroad commanded under pain of Excommunication, not to corresponde, transact, or con­verse with them: They are also required to invade these Ex­communicated Princes: The Popes giving the Invaders full power thereto. In answer to these sad instances, its replyed by all True and Honest Catholicks. that they cannot justifie the misdemeanours of particular Popes, who through mis-in­formation pick or humour have adventured to do somethings that are unaccountable, since God hath given no promise of an infallible direction to them in all the Instances of their Life, nor hath any Catholick of the most wild and roving Humour dared to plead for their impeccability in their personalor principal Actions, that being proper for Angels and the Spirits of just Men made perfect. However, since these of the Papal Dignity have the Honour of so great and venerable a Character as to be the Chief Bishops of the Church Catholick, and to be Temporal Princes likewise, it were the highest indiscretion, to put a gross and scanda­lous construction upon their Actions without considering what were the motives that moved them, and measures they used in a matter that seems so Offensive to the World, and Destructive or Humane Society; and if ye but regard and consider the special care the Divine Providence has had of that See above all the particular Churches and Societies in the World, it [Page 6]would fright any modest and humble Man, from passing a rash and severe Censure against the Supream Governours of that Church: Notice but how the whole Christian World near from the Infancy of Christianity was divided into three Patriarchates, whereof the chief and the most powerful was the Western Church, and the Seat thereof Rome, to this all had anciently recourse, saith Ireneus, and in so farr was the Churches Unity preserved, for that the particular Churches lived in Conjunction with this, which was founded by the two chief Apostles. St. Peter and Paul, to the first of which the Circumcision, and to the second the Incircumcision was chiefly committed, so that the whole Christian World being eminent­ly intrusted to these two, and their charge transmitted to the Bishops of Rome their Successors, these eminent vast trusts conspire in this Apostolick See: And tho' Infallibility were not allowed to that particular See, yet certainly indefectabi­lity cannot in justice be denyed it, for we see defacto, all the Churches of Apostolick Foundation have failed, and their Successions interrupted, this only remaining entire, and unless we have recourse to Her for the determination of Contraver­sies relating to Faith, according to the Rule of the Fathers, it shall not be possible to distinguish Catholick Truth, from He­resie: Tertullian particularly tells us in his Book of Prescrip­tions, that the only way left the Church by which She should distinguish Heresie, from Truth, was to have recourse ad Ecclesias matrices, and, thereto enquire if such Doctrines were derived down to them from the Apostolick Foundation: Now since there is no Church in existence of an Apostolick Foun­dation whose Succession hath not been interrupted, save that of Rome, we must needs then have recourse to Her for set­tling us in matters of Faith, otherwise the Fathers Rule is not practicable, and no means left by God to secure us Infallibly from Errour: So that not only the Indefectibility of that See; but the greatness of its principality, and the Wisdom of its Clergy, the confluence of Nations towards Her, and the [Page 7]protection of all the Catholick Princes bestowed on Her, all these should strongly oblidge us not to pass indiscreetly and rashly a Censure upon the Actions of its chief Governour.

But to come to the instances, its answered that the Bull given out by Paul 3 against Henry 8, was concerning a matter of secular intrest or plea of Law, for the ground of the Popes sentence was from that unwarantable deed done by John of Eng­land, who made a resignation of his Crown to the See of Rome, and England Feudatory and himself a Vassall to that See, which deed tho its most certain was ab origine null and void, he having no power to alienate his Royal hereditary Rights to any in prejudice of his Lawful Heirs and Successors, yet the Apostolick See having had such a grant made to them, several of her Bishops continued the claim of Superiority upon the said Title, And it was certainly upon this head, that Paul 3 proceeded against Henry 8, who had by Act of Parliament renounced all Forreign Jutisdiction, by which Paul the third Judged the Apostolick See, and St. Peters Patrimony prejudged, and thereupon treated Henry 8. as his Vassall and absolved his Subjects from their alledgeance, and requiring all Catholick Princes to concurr to the reducing him as a Rebel, who denyed fidelity to the Apostolick See his supposed temporal Lord. Its known to all that ever read the English History that there were great heats between the Roman See and the English Kings, upon this pretended Title of the resignation, The Pope still requiring Fidelity mid other Feudatory duties from England, which were ever Justly denyed, Several Laws and Statutes being made in England to guard them against that unjust Title. And to make this appear more evident that Paul the 3 treated Henry the 8 in this Bull as his supposed Vassal, read but the Words of the Bull, Sect. 15. Where the Pope command's all that were below an Imperial and Regal Dignity, not to cor­respond, converse, or transact, with Henry the eight, or his Accomplices, or Favourers, under pain of Excomunication, but as for the Imperial and Regal Dignites, he only beseeches [Page 8]and exorts them so to do without threatning any such Censure, thus runs the Bull (praeterea ad dictum Henricum Regem fa­cilius ad sanitatem, & praefatae sedis obaedientiam reducen­dum, omnes & singulos Christianos principes, quâcunque etiam Imperiali & regali dignitate fulgentes per viscera miserecor­diae Dei nostri (cujus causa agitur) hortamur & in dommo requirimus, eis nihil ominus, qui imperatore & Rege inferio­res fuerint, quos propter exellentiam dignitatis à censuris ex­cipimus, sub excomunicationis paenâ mandantes, ne Henrico regi ejusque complicibus, &c) Where its plain and undisput­able to any, safe quibling Lawyers, that Imperial and Regal Dignities are still excepted from the great Censure of Excom­munication, and that propter eminentiam dignitatis, so that Paul the Third in his Bull, looked on Henry the Eighth, as Feudatory to himself and the Apostolick See, and as no absolute Prince, tho' he was infinitely wrong in so judging: From all this it follows that the Pope dealt with Henry the Eigth, in a matter reputed Secular and Temporal, and they Acted one against another as Temporal Princes, contending violently for their secular Rights and concerns, in which mat­ters all Mankind, Pope, and all may Err, and the true Holy and Catholick intrest remain entire and secure, and Catholick Princes are no worse Sons of the Church for maintaining their Rights and Priviledges against all whatsoever: Truly, this grant of King John's as it was Originally void and null, so it was done by a most undeserving Governour, who neither knew nor had care of his own Intrest, who was guilty of Re­bellion against his Father and Brother, and who murthered his Nephew to usurp the Crown, who lost also all the English Intrest, either by conquest or matches in France, not to speak of his Irreligion and Atheism: And as this grant was Originally null and done by so unworthy a Prince, so it was soon revoked by his Successors in Parliament, who in so un­just a matter would have been Highly prejudged, the very Catholick Clergy detesting the Pope for the severe and un­just [Page 9]courses against England, because of that Title, as the Bishops of Durham, Winchester, Norwich, &c. Yea the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, then a Cardinal and Legate, being at Rome, when a Charter adorned with a Golden Bull was presented at the High Altar in presence of the King, the said Prelate stept in, as the Arch-Bishop of Dublin had done at the first grant, and in Name of the Clergy and Kingdom of England produced at the same Altar his appeals, and all the Peers accorded with him therein: How did EDWARD the First resist the claim of the after Popes? and in ED­WARD the Third's time did England secure their Right by Act of Parliament, where were Prelates, Lords, and Com­mons, against all the Papal pretensions: Yea a Parliament was held at London 1214, being the Year after the Grant, where the Arch-Bishop sat as President with all the Clergy and Laity, and there by command of the Pope, the Char­ter, Fealty and Hommage, by which the King was oblidged to the Pope, was absolutely released on the 7. of July: So that Catholick Princes have still vindicated their Rights against the highest Powers of the Church, and yet judged no Here­ticks upon the matter.

Lets now consider Pius 5 his Bull against Queen Elizabeth; Its true there he declares to all Catholick subjects that she is no true Princess and absolves her Subjects from their allegiance, but upon good ground, for first consider that if Mary Queen of England lawfully succeeded King Edward her Brother: then Elizabeth could have no Title, as my Lord Beacon acknowledged H: 7: p. 206: (the legitimation of Queen Mary and Elizabeth are incompatible) unless ye justifie both the marriages, which no Christian will adventure, and the Kingdom not being Elective, in that case Mary Queen of Scot­land should in all Justice have succeeded. Pius 5th in his Bull saith Queen Mary of England is legitimat (usu namque verae religionis, quam ab illius desertore Henrico 8, olim eversam, [Page 10]Clarae mem: Maria regina legitima, hujus sedis praesidio reparaverat, &c. now since Mary Queen of England is acknow­ledged the true Child by this Pope, Then was Elizabeth an natural: all the Lords and Commons in a Parliament in England held after the Death of Edward 6. acknowledged Mary for their Soveraign, and that the marriage of her Mother was good and stood with Gods Law and most Holy Word; which was this same thing as to say that Elizabeth was illegitmate, and LUTHER the great Reformer deemed her so too, says Osburn Mem: Q: Eliz; p. 5. Yea look to the date of her birth as its in my Lord Herberts, H: 8. p. 350. which was in September the 7. 1533, while Queen Catherines divorce was pronounced by Cranmer, the Kings Casuist and judge apoint­ed for that end, the 23. of May proceeding, so that her Mother was then quick whilst Henry 8. was yet Husband to Queen Catherine, which continued till the tearm of that Sentence: I know Stow, Speed, and others alledge a private Mariage between Henry 8. and Anna Bullen, Elizabeth, Mother, on January 25, yet still Elizabeth is born within seven months and a few odd dayes, by which wee may guess at the Honesty of her Mother who brought forth Elizabeth into the World as vigo­rous, lusty, and healthful, as others use to be at the end of nine months. If it be said that the Pope innodates her not for her unjust Title, but for her Religion; to this its answered first, that its evident in that the Pope declared Queen Mary legitimate, he must have looked on Elizabeth as an unjust usurper, for its impossible to reconcile to them both a just Title of Succession, yea Pius 5. in his Bull calls her praetensa angliae Re­gina) the pretended Queen of England, and so not the true.

Secondly. The sad and Unnatural, Inhumane and dishonourable usage done by Elizabeth, to Queen Mary of Scotland, keeping Her under restraint and in close Prison, moved the Pope to conceal Queen Mary of Scotland Her just Title, (of which he was fully perswaded) lest the ex­pression [Page 11]thereof might hasten the fatal stroke which at length befel Her.

Thirdly. When the Inhumanity which Queen Elizabeth used against her Cousin Queen Mary was noysed abroad the World over, then did Pius the fifth send Ridulph a Florentine to Consult with the Catholicks in England to an insurrection against Elizabeth, upon which followed the rising in Arms in the North; and tho the Catholick Lords did in their Declaration mention Religion, yet the true cause was the setling Queen Mary of Scotland the true and undoubted Heiress of England, and the Lords proposing Religion then, did ipso facto imply the alteration of Religion and Government together, and upon the advancing of the Catholick Religion followed the intrest of Queen Mary, so that the Pope and Catholick Lords did in this as the memorable General Monk did in carrying on the Loyal design of restoring our late Soveraign King Charles II. not daring to express his Name, least it should have marred and ruined his honest purposes.

Fourthly. Cambden tells us 1569. p. 160, that Leonard Deackers second Son to the Lord Deackers of Gysland, under took the delivery of Queen Mary of Scotland, who then was in Derbyshire in my Lord Shrewsburrys keeping, and my Lord Northumberland was cheif complotter in this design, and he also was chief Commander of the insurrection of the North, who as all know intended nothing so much as Queen Mary's Title, tho' in the Declaration of War he Judged fit to conceal and not express it. From all this then its clear that the Pope in his Bull against Elizabeth designed chiefly the setling of the righteous Heir, and he looked on Elizabeth not only as an usurper, but as a Heretical Subject also, whom all were to avoid, because of her Heresie, and not to yeild obedience or alledgeance because of her unjust Title; and in all this affair the Pope act [...]d nothing against the Faith and Doctrine of the Catho­lick Church, or the true Properties, Intrests, and Priveledges, of [Page 12]Christian Princes, but rather evidenced his paternal care in securing the Rights and concerns of Monarchs, and suppressing of usurping and unjust Powers, to which he might concurr not only as a Ghostly Father by his Spiritual advices and censures, but as a Temporal Prince gave aid and assistance to setle and reposess Lawful, and righteous Heires thrust from their legal Rights.