Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	aaron_n	certain_a	time_n	18	3	3.7064	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69677	Brutum fulmen, or, The bull of Pope Pius V concerning the damnation, excommunication, and deposition of Q. Elizabeth as also the absolution of her subjects from their oath of allegiance, with a peremptory injunction, upon pain of an anathema, never to obey any of her laws or commands : with some observations and animadversions upon it / by Thomas Lord Bishop of Lincoln ; whereunto is annexed the bull of Pope Paul the Third, containing the damnation, excommunication, &c. of King Henry the Eighth.	Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.; Catholic Church. Pope (1566-1572 : Pius V). Regnans in excelsis. English & Latin.; Catholic Church. Pope (1534-1549 : Paul III). Ejus qui immobilis permanens. English & Latin.	1681 (1681)	Wing B826; ESTC R12681	274,115	334

pretended Successors For 1. This Power which God gave to Jeremy was Personal to himself only not hereditary or after his death to be continued to any Successor much less to Peter who came above Six hundred years after That the Popes of this or former Ages were Successors to Peter both the Popes themselves and Popish Authors universally affirm but as yet I have found none except the Pope and some few of his Party who say that either Peter or any Pope was Successor to Jeremy It 's true Pope Alexander III. in the Place quoted a little before says That that Power over Nations and Kingdoms to pull up dissipate and destroy c. was by God given to Jeremy and in Him to Peter So that by this wild Supposition Peter succeeded into that Power which before him Jeremy had But notwithstanding his Infallibility this is gratis dictum without any shadow or pretence of Reason For he who succeeds into a Right which another possess'd before him must do it either 1. Per generationem Jure Sanguinis as a Son succeeds his Father or the next Heir In jus defuncti and that Peter or any Pope did this way succeed Jeremy as none with any reason can I suppose none will say 2. Per Consecrationem Jure Ordinis so one Bishop succeeds another in the same Bishoprick Neither could Peter succeed Jeremy this way for Jeremy was never Bishop of Rome or any other place and then 't is impossible that they should succeed him in a Place he never had and be Successor to one who never was their Predecessor 3. A man may be said to succeed another who has a new Commission given him to Execute an Office which though intermitted some had lo● before him So suppose the King should give one a Commission to be High Constable of England after the Place had been long void he who had such Commission may be said to succeed him who had that Office last though One or Two hundred years before Now if the Pope or any for him can shew that our blessed Saviour gave Peter the same Commission which God gave Jeremy and set him over Nations and Kingdoms to pull up dissipate and destroy c. as Pope Pius V. expresly says he did in this His Impious Bull against Q. Elizabeth then I will Confess that in this Sense Peter may be called Jeremy's Successor But that our blessed Saviour gave Peter any such Commission though the Pope say it is absolutely untrue not only without any foundation or ground of Reason for it in Scripture and nothing else can prove it but point blank a-against it As our Saviour's Kingdom was not of this World no Temporal Power or Dominion so he neither exercis'd any such Power himself nor gave Peter or his Apostles who all of them had Equal Power with Peter any such Temporal Power over Nations and Kingdoms to pull up destroy and dissipate c. All the Power they had was Spiritual they could punish no man unless miraculously which the Pope pretends not to in his person by loss of Life or Liberty by Imprisonment nor in his purse by imposing and exacting Pecuniary Mulcts as has been and might be farther demonstrated were it now my business Only by the way I crave leave to observe That Pope Pius in this Bull makes that Commission which he says our blessed Saviour gave Peter far larger than that which God gave Jeremy For he tells us 1. That our blessed Saviour did Constitute Peter a Prince to pull up and destroy c. but there is no such thing in Jeremy's Commission 2. That Peter was Constituted a Prince over All Nations and All Kingdoms but Jeremy had not such Universal Power as is evident from the Text. But to make this further appear it is to be Consider'd 2. That Jeremy was a Priest and a Prophet so that if Peter and his Successors succeeded him it must be in one of those two Capacities But 1. 'T is certain that neither Peter nor any Christian Bishop did or could succeed him as a Priest he being a Priest of Aaron's Order which absolutely ceased at our Saviour's death 2. Nor did he succeed Jeremy as to his Prophetical Office 1. Because that was Extraordinary Temporary and Expired with his Person The Prophetical Office was not Hereditary or Successive 'T is true some Prophets preceded in time and some afterwards followed So Jeremy was after Isaiah about One hundred sixty five years Ezekiel after him Four and thirty years Daniel after him Twenty years But each Prophet had a new Call and Commission and that for particular and different purposes as is evident by the Prophecies themselves 2. Jeremy and those Prophets were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinely Inspired and that to an Infallibility and their Prophecies as Divine and the Word of God referr'd into the Sacred Canon of Scripture Now although Peter not by Succession from Jeremy but by a new Call and Commission from our blessed Saviour was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and had such an Assistance of the Holy Spirit as made him Infallible and his Doctrine Divine Truth yet such assistance being personal in him as it was in all Prophets before him his Successors cannot without Impudence and Impiety pretend to it though some of the Canonists the Jesuits and Papal Parasites would have us believe what the World knows to be false that they are Infallible 3. But that I may in short come to the main scope and hinge of the Question the truth is Evident That all these Popes in the Exposition and Application of this Text in Jeremy notwithstanding their pretended Supremacy and Infallibility are miserably mistaken and put a sense upon it which before them never any Father or Ancient Author did no nor their own Learned Writers of later times even when Popery most prevail'd a sense if I may call it so inconsistent with the true and certain meaning of Jeremy For when 't is in that Text I have set thee over the Nations and Kingdoms to pull down dissipate destroy plant and build That which Alexander III. and other Popes after him Cite this Text for is to infer a Power in Jeremy and from him in them so far to pull down dissipate and destroy as to Depose Kings and Emperors and Absolve their Subjects from all Oaths of Allegiance Though the Text mean nothing less nor can any such Impious Conclusion by any save possibly Popish Logick be deduced from it For when the Text says I have set thee over the Nations to pull down and destroy c. 1. The meaning is not that Jeremy by this Commission had Power and Jurisdiction per modum Imperantis as a Prince and Superior to pull down and destroy any man much less Kings and Emperors nay so far was he from that that he quietly and patiently submitted to the Authority and Commands of Injust and Impious Superiors as is evident

Papias then is in the Text For he tells us That Papias besides his knowledge of Scripture was a man certainly most learned in the Knowledge of All Other Arts. Now if this be true then that Character I have given him before is not so and then his Antiquity which was great and his great Learning in all Arts and Sciences as well as Scripture consider'd his Testimony that Babylon whence St. Peter writ was Rome will be more valid and of greater Authority In Answer to this I say 1. That all this Commendation of Papias before mention'd is so far from having any Authority from Eusebius that 't is a plain Forgery Eusebius as to this passage is evidently corrupted and this Commendation of Papias by whose Ignorance or Knavery I know not shuffled into the Text long after Eusebius his death For 2. Ruffinus who Translated Eusebius his History above One thousand two hundred years ago in the place above quoted says only thus About this time flourished Polycarpe Bishop of Smyrna and Papias Bishop of Hierapolis So the Printed Edition of Ruffinus by B. Rhenanus and a very Ancient and Compleat MS. of Ruffinus in my Keeping and Possession exactly agrees with it and there is not one word of that Commendation of Papias which is now extant in Eusebius And therefore we may Conclude that Anciently it was not there but the Text of Eusebius by fraud or folly is since Corrupted For had it been in Eusebius when Ruffin Translated him there had been no reason he should have left it out 3. And which is yet more considerable Valesius a very Learned Roman Catholick who last published Eusebius Ingenuously Confesses that of three or four Greek MSS. of Eusebius which he made use of in his Edition not any one of them had that Commendation of Papias and therefore he doubts not but these words were added by some Ignorant Scholiast contrary to the Judgment and Sense of Eusebius For says he how is it possible that Eusebius should call Papias a Most Learned Man and Most Skill'd in Scripture who in the same Book says he was A Rule and Simple Person of Very Little Wit or Judgment And his Ignorance especially appears as in other things in that 1. He says that Philip whose Daughters were Prophetesses was Philip the Apostle when the Text had he read or remembred it expresly says That it was Philip the Deacon 2. Papias said and in his Writings published his Opinion That hearing Oral Traditions was more profitable then reading Scriptures That is to hear the Stories and Tales of private and fallible Persons and that in Matters of Religion was more profitable then to read the Sacred Oracles of God penn'd by Divinely Inspired Infallible Persons St. John tells us he had writ so many and such things as were necessary and sufficient to Salvation yet left out thousands of things which he thought not necessary But Papias with great Ignorance and Impiety prefers the unwritten Tradition of those things concerning our blessed Saviour which the Apostles had omitted as not necessary nor so useful as those things they had writ And so in Contradiction to the Holy Spirit and St. John his Infallible Amanuensis calls the Tradition of those unwritten things more useful which they had omitted as not useful at all And this his Ignorance and want of Judgment further appears 3. Because Eusebius tells us That he had amongst his Traditions strange and novel Parables and Doctrines of our blessed Saviour and other things more Fabulous and amongst them his Millenary Heresie of which he was Father and to the Infecting many others did propagate it And he fell to those wild Opinions chiefly by his Ignorance and Misunderstanding of Scripture as Eusebius and Nicephorus tell us And yet this simple Person and Arch-Heretick is the principal and prime Witness Rome has to prove that Babylon in the Epistle of Peter signifies Rome and that Peter was there For other place in Scripture they have none and only Papias and his Followers for that By the Premisses I think it may appear to Impartial Persons That seeing Papias preferr'd Tradition or some mens talk before the Scriptures that he was a man of very weak understanding and err'd by misunderstanding Scripture that he writ Fables rather than History and maintain'd the Millenary Opinion which Rome now calls Heresie I say these things Consider'd his Authority and Credit is if any at all very little and yet 't is all our Adversaries have his Followers Testimonies being derived from and depending upon his to prove out of Scripture that Peter writ that Epistle at Rome or ever was there This is a Truth so manifest that not only Protestants but most Learned Roman Catholicks say and prove that Peter writ that Epistle not at Rome but Babylon in Chaldea And further that he did not write it at Rome will be evident from Scripture and what their own most Learned Author Confesses For 1. Baronius tells us It was writ Anno Christi 45. 2. To make this probable both he Petavius and others generally say That Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius which was Anno Christi 44. 3. But this a very Learned Roman Catholick evidently Confutes from Scripture and good Authorities and plainly shews that Peter was always in Judea or Syria till the death of Herod Agrippa which was in the fourth year of Claudius and the Six and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour And therefore it was impossible that Peter should write that Epistle at Rome in the Five and fortieth year of our blessed Saviour who never came thither till the year Forty six unless they will say and they do say things as impossible that he writ an Epistle at Rome when he was not there 4. Nay 't is certain from what Luke says in the Acts of the Apostles that Peter continued in Judaea till the Council met at Jerusalem about the Question concerning Circumcision and the Ceremonial Law Sure it is that he was present at that Council which was Anno Christi 51. says Baronius Bellarmine and others the Learned Valesius thinks and gives his reason for it more probable to me then any brought for the Contrary Opinions that the Council was held Anno Claudij 7. and Christi 49. take which Computation you please if St. Peter wrote that Epistle at Rome Anno Christi 45. he must have writ there several years before he came thither 5. Nay 't is further Evident let that Council be when they will that Peter was not at Rome in the year 51. which Baronius mentions but at Jerusalem For St. Paul tells us that three years after his Conversion which was about the year 37. he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and found him there And then fourteen years after which was about the year 51. he went to Jerusalem again and

Arethas Ado Viennensis and many more constantly say That John was banish'd into Patmos not by Claudius but by Domitian and writ his Revelation there 3. But I shall not go about any further proof of this For Dr. Hammond has saved me the Labour and confess'd it For it is certain from the Text that Antipas had suffer'd Martyrdom before John writ the Revelation John himself telling us so Thou hast not deny'd my faith when Antipas my faithful Martyr was slain among you So that 't is Evident Antipas had suffer'd Martyrdom before John writ his Revelation Now Antipas suffer'd and was slain by Domitian in the Second Persecution of the Christians which was Anno Domitiani 10. Christi 92. So the Old Roman Martyrology and Baronius assures us and Dr. Hammond confesses it That Antipas suffer'd Martyrdom under Domitian Whence it evidently follows That St. John speaking of Antipas his Martyrdom as a thing past when he writ his Revelation and that in Domitian's time he could not write it in Claudius his time who was dead eight or nine and twenty years before Domitian came to the Empire So that Antipas being put to death in Domitian's time as Dr. Hammond affirms and St. John in the Revelation mentioning his Martyrdom as a thing past when he writ 't is Evident that he writ that Book after the death of Antipas and so in or after Domitian's time and not in the time of Claudius 6. St. John in his first Epistle speaks of Antichrist as then to come when he writ that Epistle It is the last time saith he and as you have heard that Antichrist shall come even now there are many Antichrists c. Here two things I conceive are Evident 1. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunc when St. John writ this Epistle there were many Antichrists that is many false Prophets and Hereticks forerunners of Antichrist who made way for him 2. And that the great Antichrist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to come when St. John writ This Oecumenius Bede Estius and generally all Commentators Ancient and Modern Protestant and Papist which I have yet met with constantly affirm 'T is true that when St. John says afterward that Antichrist was Now in the World already they truly Explain it that the meaning is That he is now in the World Not personally but in respect to his Forerunners false Prophets and Hereticks who make way for him I take it then for a certain truth that when St. John writ this Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Antichrist or as Venerable Bede calls him Maximus ille Antichristus was future and to come And which is something strange Grotius confirms what I have said which makes much for mine but little for his purpose For 1. He grants that this Text 1. Joh. 2. 18. speaks of Antichrist as future and to come For though the word here and cap. 4. vers 3. be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Present Tense yet Grotius confesses that it must be taken in the future Veniet Antichristus Antichrist will come 2. He says that amongst those many Antichrists St. John here speaks of there shall be one more Eminent which he says was Barcochebas who appeared not he says till the Emperor Adrian ' s time which was long after St. John writ this Epistle And he further says in Confirmation of what is aforesaid That the false Christs Hereticks and false Prophets which John calls Antichrists do make way for that Great and Eminent Antichrist I take it then for certain and confess'd by Grotius that the great Antichrist was not come when St. John writ this Epistle The next thing to be inquired after is When this Epistle was writ for if it was writ after Caius Caligula and Simon Magus were dead then it will be undeniably Evident that neither of them could be that great Antichrist of whom St. John speaks who when he writ this Epistle was future and to come Now here it is to be considered 1. That 't is a common and received Opinion amongst Learned men that St. John writ this Epistle Anno Christ. 99. or at least after the death of Domitian which was Anno Christ. 95. So Baronius Gavantus Lyranus in the places cited and many others Now if this Computation be true as in the Opinion of very many Learned men it is then Grotius his Antichrist the Emperor Caius Caligula who died Ann Christ. 42. was dead seaven and fifty years before John writ this Epistle and therefore seaven and fifty years before Antichrist came for St. John says he was future and to come when he writ And for Simon Magus Dr. Hammond's Antichrist it is certain he died Anno Christi 68. and so One and thirty years before Antichrist was come 2. But be this as it will I shall not though I might stand upon it but take the Computation which both Grotius and Dr. Hammond approve for they both agree in this that St. John writ this Epistle a little before the destruction of Jerusalem and in the places cited indeavour to prove it 2. This being granted it is further certain that the Excidium Hierosolymorum was in the second year of Vespasian that is Anno Christ. 72. That this is so Josephus Eusebius Jac. Vsserius Armachanus Baronius c. assure us 3. And hence it evidently follows That both Caius Caligula and Simon Magus were dead before the year 72. when Antichrist as St. John assures us was not come Caligula being dead thirty and Simon Magus four years before that time By the Premisses I believe it may and does appear that in Scripture Antichrist the great Antichrist is never spoken of but as future and to come and therefore it is impossible by Scripture and there is no other Medium can do it to prove that Antichrist was come in any part of that time in which Scripture was writ 2. And as the Apostles believed and writ that in their times even in St. John's who lived longest Antichrist was not come So the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers after them for about a thousand years generally if not universally speak of Antichrist as still future and in their several times to come I know that some anciently and wildly thought that Nero was Antichrist and as much might be said for him as Grotius has said for Caligula but they said that he was to rise again and come Sub Seculi Finem and Act as Antichrist But I never yet read or heard of any besides the Learned Grotius and Dr. Hammond who in Sixteen hundred years after our blessed Saviour ever seriously affirm'd that Caligula or Simon Magus was Antichrist The two Learned Persons before mention'd are the first and they Contradict each other themselves the received Opinion of the Christian World and gratifie Rome whilst they indeavour which neither they nor any