that Jesus Christ was the true Messias the Son of the Living God. And the Fathers understood it no otherwise I do not pretend here to relate all that they have said upon this subject but only some clear passages Origen upon St. Matthew tells us That if we say as Peter did Thou art the Christ c. we are also what St. Peter was and that it shall be also said unto us what follows Thou art Peter For whosoever is the Disciple of Christ the same is also Peter And St. Cyprian shews very well that he did not believe that St. Peter was priviledged beyond the other Apostles when he says that the other Apostles were as considerable as Saint Peter and that they were all equal in authority and power but that our Lord to shew the Unity there ought to be in his Church speaks but to one and that the first place was given to Peter And in another place Our Lord says he gave to all his Apostles the same power after his Resurrection and said to them As the Father hath sent me so send I you And Saint Ambrose Our Lord said to Peter Vpon this Rock c. that is to say upon this Confession of the Catholick Church I ordain that Believers shall have life And in another place What was said to Peter was said to the other Apostles And St. Hierom The Church is the House built upon the firm Rock which is Christ. And in another place She was founded upon a Rock that is to say Christ for this is the only foundation which the Apostle as a good Architect hath laid viz. our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Augustine Our Lord said Vpon this Rock c. because that Peter had said Thou art the Christ c. Vpon this Rock then which thou hast confessed will I build my Church The Rock was Christ upon whose fâ—undation Peter himself was builded for no man can lay any other foundation than that which hath been laid viz. Jesus Christ. Ideo ait Dominus super hanc Petram c. Quia dixerat Petrus tu es Christus c. Super hanc ergo Petram quam confessus es aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Petra erat Christus super quod fundamentum ipse aediâ—icatus est Petrus nam nemo potest ponere aliud fundamentum quam id quod positum est a Christo. The same Author speaks in another place thus Quid est super hanc Petram super id quod dictum est Tu es Christus super Petram quam confessus es super hanc Petram quam agnovisti dicens Tu es Christus super me aedificabo te non me super te Nam volentes homines super homines aedificare dicebant Ego quidem sum Pauli ego autem Apollo ego autem Cephae ipse est Petrus sed alii qui nolebant aedificare super Petrum sed super Petram dicebant Ego sum Christi c. What is this saying Vpon this Rock That is upon this Faith upon what was said That thou art the Christ upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying Thou art the Christ Vpon me will I build thee and not thee upon me for they who would build upon men said I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas who is Peter but those who would not build upon Peter but upon the Rock said I am the Disciple of Christ. This Holy Doctor hath a thousand such like sayings which I cannot relate to avoid being tedious Chrysostome says also Vpon this Rock c. That is to say upon this Faith and Confession Super hanc Petram hoc est super hanc fidem confessionem And in another place Super hanc Petram non dixit super Petrum non enim super hominem sed super fidem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam Quae autem erat fides Tu es Christus filius Dei viventis Vpon this Rock he did not say upon Peter for he hath not built his Church upon a man but upon Faith. What then was this Faith Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Gregory Nyssen Non Petrus Johannes Jacobus tantum sunt Ecclesiae columnae sed omnes qui Ecclesiam sustentant Peter James and John are not the only Pillars of the Church but all they who support the Church Methinks there needs no more to perswade every honest minded man that the Fathers did not believe that Jesus Christ founded his Church upon St. Peter in particular much less upon the Popes I could easily produce a thousand other Evidenâ—es from the ancient Fathers and even from many Doctors that lived within the last four or five hundred years tho the truth hath been almost wholly stifled and that by men perfectly sold to the Court of Rome as well as to Iniquity But I must not tire out my Reader The Jesuit Salermont alone is worth a thousand of them for he doth own that the Popes Authority hath no foundation in the Scripture and he placeth it among Traditions not written I demand only the liberty of confuting the abuse of two other places of Scripture whereof we have spoken One would think they were already sufficiently confuted by the passages which I have alledged which prove that the Fathers did not believe that St. Peter had any Prerogative above the other Apostles and here a Reflection may be made which I think necessary to prevent the Cheat which may be put upon us in this matter by producing some passages of the Fathers falsified or maimed or else some Testimonies of the Doctors of the later times who have been for the most part vile slaves to the Popes and the Court of Rome It must be considered that when upon such a subject as this a man shall pretend to alledg any thing of Antiquity which seems to favour the opinion of St. Peter's Primacy that cannot counter-ballance what I have produced in short against that Primacy not only because I can produce an hundred places against one which they shall alledg but principally for this reason that it is never allowable for any man to oppose the Institutions of God nor to misunderstand deny change or diminish them So that if St. Peter had had the Authority over the Apostles and over the whole Church which they pretend and which the Popes at this time do exercise over Bishops Kings and the whole Church the Fathers never could deny it without a crime nor could they ever equal him to the other Apostles without being guilty of Heresie and heinous offence against God. Whereas we may very lawfully speak advantageously of the Ordinances and Institutions of God of Holy things and every thing that conduceth to the true Worship of God and consequently of the Holy Apostles also who were the admirable Organs of his Grace for the conversion of the World. We may I say speak of them with praise and with wonder with respect
the truth is that he said that for all and that he received also this power for all because that he represented the person of them all and the union that there ought to be amongst them One spoke for all because the unity was in all The same Father also says in another place Manifesta est Sententia Domini nostri Apostolos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem a patre sibi datam promittentis quibus nos successimus eadem potestate Ecclesiam regentes That is to say We see clearly the intention of our Lord when he sent out his Apostles and promised them the same power which his Father had given him and we have succeeded them governing the Church with the same power And so in other places Quando Petro dictum est Tibi dabo claves c. Typum Ecclesiae gerebat unus pro omnibus respondit When it was said to Peter I will give thee the Keys c. he represented the Church one single person answered for all And in another place Ecclesiae dictum est Tibi dabo claves c. It was said to the Church I will give thee the Keys c. Theophylactalso Habent potestatem remittendi ligandi quicunque sicut Petrus Episcopatus gratiam assecuti sunt quamvis autem Petro soli dictum sit Dabo tibi omnibus tamen Apostolis concessae sunt That is to say All they have the power of remitting and unloosing who as St. Peter have obtained the Honour of being Bishops for tho it were said to Peter alone I will give c. yet the Keys were given to all the Apostles And Leo the first Transivit etiam in alios Apostolos vis potestatis istius ad omnes Ecclesiae Principes Decreti hujus constitutio commeavit sed non frustra uni commendavit quod omnibus intimetur Petro idem ideo hoc singulariter creditur quia cunctis Ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur manet ergo Petri privilegium ubicunque fertur ex ipsius aequitate Judicium That is to say That the power of the Keys was given also to all the Apostles and not only to them but to all Bishops and that it was not without design that our Lord committed to one what he intimated to all For thereby the example of Peter is proposed to all them who have a share in the Government of the Church Where-ever then any one judges as Peter did there is the priviledg of Peter also to be found And it is to be observed that Leo said this in a time when the Bishop of Constantinople would have had the Primacy I think these Evidences are sufficient to shew the injustice of the Popes who attribute to St. Peter alone those things which he had in common with all the other Apostles and all good Pastors and that to usurp an authority which neither St. Peter nor any other Creature ever could have and though it were possible that St. Peter or any other might have had it the Popes have less right to pretend to it than any other Priest because that they are but Temporal Princes For under the Gospel men derogate both from Episcopacy and Priesthood when they become Temporal Princes and it is certain that according to the Scripture and the Holy Canons these two things are inconsistent They ought to consider which they will stand to I am perswaded they would not contradict themselves in the matter but would always hold to the Temporal which they call the solid thing as Cardinal Palavicini very well observes that they desire the Popedom only for the vast quantities of Money which they get by it with the means of Obliging and doing Courtesies Due beni per cui soli appar Desiderable il Pontificato il Principiato dell Oro e del Obligo And in the Age we live in they would be in danger of not making so much of their Episcopacy as Boniface the third did by Phocas and if they should let their Beast but once get loose they would find it a hard matter to get up again But besides I think I ought here to put you in mind of one thing which is that the power of binding and loosing is not what the Popes and many evil minded Priests would make us believe for I do maintain not only that the Pope cannot free a man from the guilt of his Crimes and from the punishment due to them no more than the meanest Priest as Marsilius of Padua heretofore said but also that neither one nor other of them hath any power of pardoning Sins but as far as it doth appear to them that God doth pardon them and that properly it belongs not to them but to God. I shall be asked how the Priest or the Pope knows when God pardons any mans Sins And I ask them by what Authority they can dispence with the punishments a man hath deserved for having offended God without there be some appearance of Contrition in this Man I know very well there are many who affirm that the Pope can do it and others who pretend that attrition is sufficient but it will be no hard matter for me to prove that these Opinions are both foolish and Impious It is God only that can truly pardon Sins and he never does it but to the Contrite Heart that is to say to those who have a real sorrow within themselves for having offended so good and so merciful a God and who make a firm Resolution to forsake their Sins and to punish themselves by Repentance and by the Mortification of their Flesh and of their Passions and who will as much as in them lies in reference to men repair their crimes by making Satisfaction to all those they have wronged and Lastly who have made a Vow to endeavour all their Life-time to root up all their evil habits When these Dispositions do not appear in a Penitent the Pastor cannot pardon his Sins and when they do appear he cannot refuse to give him Absolution The Holy Scripture mentions no other power of binding and loosing Sinners but doth detest the use which the Popes make of it who Excommunicated whomsoever they please even Kings themselves and whole Nations for no other reason that their Fantasy St. Hierom made light enough of these Excommunications when he said Apud Deum non Sententia Sacerdotum sed reorum vita quaeritur And in an other place Solvunt Apostoli Sermone Dei testimoniis Scripturarum Exhortatione virtutum That is to say that God enquires not after the Priests Opinion but what sort of life a Sinner hath led It is the word of God the Evidences of Holy Scripture and Exhortations to vertue by which the Apostles do Absolve St. Ambrose also Verbum Dei says he dimittit peccata sacerdos est Judex sacerdos officium suum exhibet nullius autem potestatis jura exercet It is the word of God says he that pardons Sins the Priest
to do at Rome nor was he ever there as they imagine There is yet somewhat of greater weight then all this That is that St. Paul tells us he withstood St. Peter to his face because he deserved reproof This looks as if St. Paul had had some Authority over St. Peter We hear not that he reproached him for his Arrogance nor that he Excommunicated him It must be acknowledged that here is a great difference between the proceedings of the Pope and those of St. Peter For it is certain that if a Bishop should at this day dare to displease the Majesty of the Pope he should be soon swallowed up and destroyed by his glory I believe that Origen might have an eye to St. Paul's thus correcting St. Peter when he said that St. Paul was the greatest of all the Apostles Paulus Apostolorum maximus or else he might also have regard to the great extent of St. Pauls Ministry or to what he himself says that he took more pains than all the other Apostles And all the Fatheâ—s looked upon him as he who among all the Apostles wrote the most profoundly and with the greatest light This is what St. Augustin says of him St. Chrysostom looks upon him as the first of all the Saints and if there had been any Preheminence among the Apostles he should have been preferred before any other We may say then that the Popes in that Authority which they usuâ—p have nothing common with St. Peter nor can they be compared together but in one thing which is that as St. Peter being come into Pilates-Hall denyed Christ three times the Popes since they have taken upon themselves the Authority of Pilate and of worldly Princes have denyed him not three times but once for all Vna sol volta in Corte di Pilato entro est Petro e tra rinego Christo. Thus we see that in the Holy Scripture there is not one word that can in the least authorize the Popes Supremacy And we may compare those who establish it there to poor Heralds who to get a little money do very frequently make people meanly descended to derive from the Ancient Greek and Roman Emperors because the Cullyes havâ— gotten an Estate and are become rich tho most usually 't is only by Rogueries and Robberies And it is not difficult thus to deceive people who always admire those that are rich and able to do them a kindness They never enquire how they came by it as the Spaniard says Alcansados los honores quedam Borrados los passos pordende se subio a ellos Since then that the new Testament doth not acknowledg this Authority of the Popes but absolutely condemn it it hath no lawful Institution for a Doctrine of that Importance as the Primacy of the Pope is whereon they make the whole Government of the Church Religion it self and the Salvation of all Christians to depend being not to be found in Scripture cannot be but false For though it be true that there are some Customs and Ceremonies in the Church which are not to be found in Scripture and which the Protestants are greatly in the wrong obstinately to reject because that Tradition and the use or practise of the Church have so long since given them sufficient Authority as they themselves acknowledg yet that cannot be said of this Article which according to the Popes and the greatest part of the Doctors is Capital and so Capital they would willingly perswade us that without it the rest signifies nothing It was very impiously said of Cardinal Palavicim in his Third Book of his History of the Council of Trent Chap. the 15. That the Christian Religion hath no more sure and immediate certainty than the Popes Authority Quella Religione i cui Articoli Vnitamente considerati non hanno Altera Certezza prossima immediata che l' Autorita del Pontifice We see clearly that if this Authority were laid aside they would renounce the profession of Christianity as piety hath been already renounced by them CHAP. II. That the Primitive Church knew not the Papacy The Vanity of some Humane Reasons by which for want of the Scriptures and the Fathers they would establish it LET us now see if the Primitive Church did acknowledg a power in the Church like to that of the Popes Altho that which hath been already alledged from the Holy Fathers proves sufficiently that they knew not the Papacy let us however examine the thing a little more particularly We are told then that St. Peter was Head of the Church that he was at Rome that he was a Bishop there that he died there that he resigned that Charge of Head of the Church and of Bishop but not that of an Apostle to a Successor which Successor he either chose or the Church of Rome did it after his death by the power which he had given her which things are all of them very difficult to prove and certainly very false for a thing of this consequence ought not to be founded upon conjectures of meer probabilities but we ought to have as certain and as exact a knowledg of it as of any other Article of our Religion And yet we see that they who have spoken of St. Peter's coming to Rome and of his Death there have said it upon such miserable grounds and say so many contradictory things as well of it as of his pretended Successor that there is nothing more uncertain in all Antiquity But besides this none of them ever believed no nor so much as suspected that St. Petâ—r was Head of the Universal Church And the contradiction and little certainty that is in these Authors shews sufficiently that in the Primitive times it was not believed that this was necessary to be known nor did they in the least suspect that ever any body would endeavour to lay upon it the foundation of that horrible Authoâ—ity which the Popes do Exercise To give you some Instances of their Contradictions I need only to shew you that some say it was Linus who succeeded Peter others Clement and lastly others say it was Anacletus some will have it that St. Peter founded this Church and was the first that Preached at Rome Others maintain namely Dorotheus that it was Barnabas Barnabas primus Romae praedicavit And St. Paul shews us clearly that it was he himself who founded that Church for he complains that coming to Rome he found that the Jews there who had embraced Christianity were but very little instructed in the Doctrine of the Christian Religion Who can believe that if St. Peter had been there and had founded this Church he would not have instructed them better And what is yet more St. Paul says expresly in another plaâ—e that he would not go and preach whâ—re others had preached before him because he would not build upon the Foundation of others As for the manner of his Death some say he was Crucified with St. Paul Others that he was
had pleased they might have been reconciled to the Church of Rome by submitting to the Laws of that Bishop St. Gregory of Nazianzen writing to the Clergy of the Church of Caesarea in Cappadocia speaks to them thus It is just that care should be taken of the whole Church as of the Body of Jesus Christ chiefly of yours which hath been from the beginning the Mother of almost all the Churches which is so at this time and is so esteemed and to which the whole body of the Church relates as a Circle does to the Center round which it is formed c. This holy man thought not the Church of Rome was the Center of all the Churches In the Milevitan Council where St. Augustine was present it was Ordained That those of Africk who should Appeal to Rome should be Excommunicated These are the words We have adjudged that all Priests Deacons and other Inferior Ecclesiasticks who shall complain of their Bishops Administration shall apply themselves to the Neighbouring Bishops who by the consent of their own Bishops shall decide the Controversie between them And if they will Appeal from their Opinions let them not do it but to the Councils of Africa And if any man makes his Appeal to any place beyond the Seas here Rome must be understood let him be looked upon as an Excommunicated person by all Africa And since that time the same thing was Ordained in the Council of Africa and this they give for their reason That no Council hath taken away this Authority from the African Councils and that the Decrees of the Council of Nice have committed as well Priests as the Bishops to the direction of their Metropolitans Most prudently and justly providing that affairs should be determined upon the place where they had their first beginnings and that no Province would ever want the assistance of the Holy Ghost to discern equity that any injured person might procure a Council of his own Province yea and appeal from that to a General one and a man must be a fool to think that God would not rather inspire with the love and knowledg of Justice a great number of Prelates assembled in Council than a single person be he who he will. What stupidity and dulness is it that hinders Christians in these times from carrying it in the same manner towards Rome And the Council of Constantinople after having limited the bounds of each Patriarchal See says that the Affairs of every Diocess ought to be Regulated by the Synods of the Diocess and that in Confirmation of the Fourth Canon of the Council of Nice And in the sixth Canon it doth Enact That if any man hath been vexed by the Bishop let him complain of this Bishop to all the other Bishops of the Province and if these Bishops cannot determine the affair he ought to apply himself to a greater Synod of Bishops of that Diocess whereby we see that the Bishop of Rome had in those days no Authority over other Bishops but that every thing was then Regulated by Councils and by Synods If an Archbishop or a Metropolitan were accused the Affair was determined by an Assembly of the Synod of the Diocess and if any man appealed from thence it was not to the Bishop of Rome but to a Synod composed of many Diocesses which may be seen in the case of Bagadius Bishop of Bostra Metropolitan of Arabia who having been Deposed by some Bishops of his Province appealed from them not to Rome but to Constantinople where quickly afterwards was assembled a Synod of many of the Eastern Diocesses at which Nectarius of Constantinople Flavian of Antioch and Theophilus of Alexandria all three Patriarches assisted and the case was determined in the year 394 and Bagadius Reestablished in his place It was the opinion of St. Hierom tho a Roman and very zealous for his own Patriarch That if there be any question concerning Authority that of the whole world is greater than that of one single City For what end shall a man alledg the Customs of one only Town Wheresoever there is a Bishop there is always the same Dignity Neither Riches nor Poverty making them Superiors or Inferiors They are all Successors of the Apostles St. Chrysostom was also of this opinion when he spoke thus If any Bishop affecteth Supremacy on Earth he shall find confusion in Heaven And whosoever shall be ambitious of raising himself above others shall not be reckoned among the servants of Jesus Christ. Thus are all the Popes Inclusively Excommunicated by St. Chrysostome since Boniface the Third and not only by him but by the Milevitan Council by the Council of Sardis the third Council of Carthage and another Council held at Carthage at the Instance of Gregory the First under the Emperor Maurice all these Councils do Excommunicate and declare him a forerunner of Antichrist who shall call himself Universal Bishop St. Grâ—gory doth himself abominate the Pride and Impiety of our Popes of these last Ages when he says That whosoever shall make himself be called Vniversal Bishop shall be the forerunner of Antichrist because he will by his Insolence raise himself above others And in another place speaking to Anastasius Bishop of Antiâ—ch he says That without mâ—ntioning the dishonâ—ur that the pride of such a man would do you If a Bishop should mâ—ke himself be called Vniversal Head of the Churâ—h the whole Church must run to ruin if this Vniversal Head shâ—uld fall For my pâ—rt I prâ—y God keep me from hearkening to any such folâ—ies and from bâ—ing capable of so greâ—t â—â—anity c. I should never have done if I should pretend here to relate all the Evidences of Antiquity which are contrary to the pretences of the Bishops of Rome for some Ages past St. Austin tells us a story which I cannot lâ—t pass which shews things pretty clearly He says that Donâ—â—us had accused Ceciliâ—n Arch-bishop of Carthage of a great Crime and that the Emperor Constantine chose the Bishop of Rome and several other bishops for Judges of the Affair Donatus was condemned by them and made his Appeal to the Emperor who referred the Judgment of his Appeal to Arles At this Judgment the Bishop of Arles presided and the Affair was by him determined in favour of Cecilian and the Judgment given at Rome confirmed It would be a fine thing now to see the Emperor in an Affair purâ—ly Ecclesiastical as that was establish the Pope as his Commissary with other Bishops and an Appeal made from their sentence before the Emperor and he should send the cause before another Bishop to judge definitively of it I know not after this what Evidenâ—es I further need to prove the Usurpations which the Popes have made since those times Christians ought to die in confusion who want Proofs for a thing as clear as the day considering the enormity and exorbitance of the power which these people take
their Government and destroy the Maxims by which they have managed themselves so long They answer That then their lives would be in danger and that the Court of Rome would destroy them as they did Adrian the Sixth who thought to have reformed the Church of whom Cardinal Palavicini gives this Account That he was Ottimo Ecclesiastico Pontefice Mediocre a Good Priest but an Indifferent Pope But if the Popes cannot find a Remedy for the Disorders which are so prevalent because as they say their Authority is not sufficient what are they then good for and why shall we any longer suffer this Tyranny in the Church If they can find a Remedy and will not they are then not only unprofitable but detestable Creatures It is certainly one or other or both together for we see that every thing is overturned in the Church And what If they are the Vicars of Jesus Christ and Successors of St. Peter ought they not to think themselves happy to die for the Glory of God and Good of the Church Is it better to be the Object of Mens Worship to provoke the Jealousie of God and to do so much mischief in the Church Where is the Zeal of Moses or of St. Paul who would have died for their Brethren and have been even accursed and of the first Bishops of Rome who suffered Martyrdom so Couragiously They love rather to give them Money and Benefices because that thus they put out all to great Usury they sow that they may reap they give what is none of their own or else what signifies nothing to them If it be true that they are careful of the Salvation of these People why are they not so of their own Why do they not labour for the Salvation of Catholicks That would cost them no Money There needs nothing but to allow the Reading of the Holy Scripture every where and recommend it as God hath recommended it to us to suffer Divine Service to be read in a Language which every body understands For it cannot be denied but that the want of these things doth produce among us great Ignorance with which Piety is never to be found But to give Money to convert People it is the mark of a very prophane Spirit and a very dishonest method and an Example for Mahometans and Hereticks to make use of even towards Christians And to give Benefices it is yet worse for by this the Clergy is filled up more and more with Hypocrites and People of no Religion who spend the Goods of the Poor upon Debauchery and Luxury and most commonly are of no use at all to the Church They say That they make Religion to be respected But how Is it by their own Piety or Sanctity or that of their Court or by their Humility No truly these Vertues are wholly there unknown and the contrary Vices have ruled the Rost long since but their fine Court and the Greatness and Magnificence of the Cardinals are the things we hear of But are these the things that ought to make men love Religion Is it Gold and Silver costly Furniture Riches Carnal Pleasures which the Prelates glut themselves withal Is it their Cavalcades to Montecavallo their Horse and Foot-Guards their Armies and their Fleets which make Religion to be respected If it be so both Jesus Christ and his Apostles deserved to be despised in comparison of their Vicars and the Christian Religion also was very contemptible in their days Is it to Excommunicate all the World when they please without Authority without Cause and against the Nature of the Gospel which is Charity it self But wise men are so far from respecting them for this that they look upon them as Fools Is it to hold a Chappel or Consistory where they treat only of prophane things and of promoting of Cardinals What doth this signifie or what Relation hath it to the Glory of God or the Salvation of Men And what is there in all this which the Patriarch of Venice or the Archbishop of Lyons might not do as well as the Pope if he had a mind to it We must not dissemble All the Respect which men have for the Papacy at least they who hope for no advantage by it comes only from the Respect or from the Fear which they see Princes have of it And this respect of Princes if it be voluntary proceedeth from great Ignorance of Religion in which they have been brought up for that purpose or from the ill Council of some Ambitious Clergy-man who compasses his Designs at the Prince's Expence If this Respect be forced as ordinarily it is it is then out of the fear which men have of the Popes Power whereby he rules the vast Numbers of the Ecclesiasticks and especially the Monks who govern the meaner People who as Palavicini says are the disposers of the Religion of Countries It is said That they have the Power of making the Laws of God to be observed If so they ought themselves to give an Example they ought to apply to themselves what our Saviour said to St. Peter not to draw his Sword. It is a thing both ridiculous and horrible that these People should have Armies and make War. They do it in Germany after the Bishop of Rome his Example But where is it that they make the Laws of God to be observed Is there any place where they are violated more than where they have most Authority Is Rome at this day better than Sodom Do not they on the contrary favour as much as in them lies the very Crime by the Example of their Court by their Expences by their pretending to exempt all Clergy-men from the Jurisdiction of the Civil Magistrate that so they may commit all sorts of Crimes and go unpunished But they say furthermore That they make Kings stand in Awe and hinder them from professing Heresie On the contrary it is they who made them become Hereticks as in England Sweden and Denmark and who by their Tyranny hinder them from returning into the bosom of the Church It is also pretended That they are very useful for the composing of Differences between Princes being looked upon as common Fathers to them all On the contrary their Artifices and Ambition are so well known that thâ—re is no Prince whom they are more distrustful of They never carried on their own Interest better than during the Wars of Italy Germany France and Spain which either they always began or kept on foot They are also constant Enemies to Great Princes What is alledged might take place if the Popes were not thâ—mselves become Temporal Princes at the Expence of the Emperoâ—â— and other Princes whom they have robbed And it is kâ—own that they have Pretensions over all Christian Kingdoms That there is no Court more refined in Policy than theirs or that makes less Conscience of taking to themselves what belongs to another In truth they think it not taken wrongfully because they pretend that it is