Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	tradition_n	word_n	write_a	3,323	5	10.7817	5	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

and Seditious Book to Exhort all the English and Irish Papists to joyn with the Spanish Forces against their Queen and Country under the Prince of Parma and Pope Sixtus V. sends Allen with that Book and his own Bull into the Low-Countries and there a great number of those Books and Bulls were printed at Antverpe to be sent into England Were it necessary many things now might be said pertinent to this purpose but I suppose the Instances already given will be sufficient to convince Intelligent and Imp●●tial Persons That Pope Pius V. was neither the first nor last who usurped this Extravagant Power to Depose Princes seeing several of his Predecessors and Successors for above 600. years have owned approved and as they had opportunity put that Power in practise This in General premis'd I come now to consider the Bull of Pius V. wherein he damns and deposeth Queen Elizabeth wherein two things occur very considerable 1. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Title prefix'd to the Bull. 2. The Particulars contain'd in it For the first the Title prefix'd to the Bull is thus The Damnation of Elizabeth c. where though Damnation may seem a very hard word as indeed it is in the sense they use it as shall by and by appear yet it is not unusual but occurs in other Bulls of the like nature So we find it in the Bull of Pope Innocent IV. wherein he Excommunicates the Emperor Friderick II. For the Lemma or Title of that Bull is thus The Damnation Deposition of Friderick II. So in the Bull of Pope Paul III. Excommunicating Henry VIII the Title prefix'd to it is The Damnation of Henry VIII and his Favourers c. So that Pius V. Damning Queen Elizabeth was not singular though Impious he had some of his Predecessors Forms to follow I say his Predecessors for I do not find that any Bishops in the World save those of Rome ever used such Unchristian and indeed Anti-christian Forms of Excommunicating and Damning Kings and Emperors And it is observable and well known to those who diligently read and consider the Papal Bulls now extant of which there is a vast number that the Popes of later Ages when they go about to justifie some extravagant Act of their unsurped Power they usually cite the Bulls and Constitutions of their Predecessors who had done the like not for matter of fact barely but to prove a Right that because their Predecessors had done so formerly therefore they who succeeded in the same Power might do it too Now although to Argue thus à Facto ad Jus be evidently inconsequent and irrational no better than this Peter de facto deny'd and forswore his Master Ergo His Successors de jure may do so to Yet if their Principles were true as I suppose they may think them such Arguing would be more concluding For Pope Leo. X. expresly affirms and publickly declares in one of their General Councils that it is more clear than light it self That None of his Predecessors Popes of Rome Did ever Err in any of their Canons or Constitutions Now if this were true as it is evidently false and his Asserting it an Argument not only of his Fallibility but of his great Error and Folly That none of his Predecessors ever Err'd then they might with more Security follow them for certainly it can be no great fault or danger to follow an unerring Guide Especially if it be true which they tell us For 1. In their Laws and Canons approved by their Supream Authority and retained in publick use in their Church we are told That all their Papal Sanctions are so to be received as if the Divine Voice of Peter himself had Confirmed them This as Gratian there tells us was Pope Agatho ' s Sentence is Received into the Body of their Canon Law Revised Corrected and Purged from all things Contrary to Catholick Verity So Gregory XIII says and confirms it Whence it evidently follows that in Pope Gregory's Judgment This Sentence of Agatho is not repugnant to Catholick Verity And in the same place it is farther declared for Law Pope Stephen I. is cited as Author of that Sentence That Whatever the Church of Rome does Ordain or Constitute it is without all Contradiction perpetually to be Observed 2. Though this be beyond all truth and reason highly erroneous yet the Jesuits of late have gone much higher and in their Claromont Colledge at Paris publickly maintain'd these two Positions 1. That our Blessed Saviour left Peter and his Successors the same Infallibility he himself had so oft as they spoke è Cathedra 2. That even out of a General Council He is the Infallible Judge in Controversies of Faith both in Questions of Right and Fact This as to the main of it though Erroneous and Impious is maintain'd by others as well as Jesuits F. Gregory de Rives a Capuchin Priest tells us and his Book is approved by the General and several others of his Order and by Father D. Roquet a Dominican and Doctor of Divinity c. That as the Authority of Christ our blessed Saviour if he were now on Earth were greater than all Councils so by the Same Reason the Authority of the Pope who is Christ's Vicar is greater than all Councils too That the Priviledge of Infallibility was given to the Pope not to Councils and then Concludes That the Church of Rome he means the Pope is Judge of Controversies and all her Desinitions and Determinations are De Fide Thus De Rives And three or four years before him Lud. Bail a Parisian Doctor and Propenitentiary expresly affirms That the Word of God is threefold 1. His written Word in Scripture 2. His unwritten Word in the Traditions of the Church 3. The Word Declared or Explain'd when doubtful passages in Scripture or Tradition are explain'd and their meaning determin'd by the Pope whether in or out of Councils and this he says is the most approved way in which men acquiesce and think they need look no further And hence he Infers That seeing this is so we ought not to be affraid to follow the Pope's Guidance in Doctrines of Faith and Manners but acquiesce in his Judgment and submit all our writings to be Corrected by him I neither will nor need Cite any more Authorities to prove the aforesaid Particulars That Their Popes may Damn and Depose Kings and Emperors especially if they be Hereticks and think they have as Christ's Vicars a just Prerogative and Power to do it Sure I am that these Positions though Erroneous and Impious are generally maintain'd by the Jesuits Canonists Schoolmen and their Followers which are very many receiv'd into the Body of their Canon Law of their best and as they themselves say their most Correct Editions and approved and when they had opportunity practis'd by their Supream Powers their Popes and General Councils I

Word of God So a Learned Popish Author tells us That the Word of God is threefold 1. His written Word the Scriptures 2. His unwritten Word Traditions 3. His explained or declared Word when Scripture or Traditions are declared and explained by the Pope whether in or out of a Council And he says That this Last word of God the Popes Definitions and Explications is the most approved and most men do with greater pleasure acquiesce in it Though this be much yet not all For the Pope does not only pretend to and assume to himself an Universal Monarchy over all the Kingdoms of the World but such an Absolute Power to dispose of them that he can parte inconsultâ give away Kingdoms pro Arbitrio to whom he pleases A Memorable and for Papal Pride and Injustice a Prodigious Instance we have of this in Pope Alexander the Sixth who at one Clap gave to Ferdinand and Elizabeth King and Queen of Castile and their Heirs for ever All the West-Indies from Pole to Pole and all the Isles about them which lay One hundred Leagues Westward from Cape Verd and the Azores with all their Dominions Cities Castles Villages all the Rights and Jurisdictions belonging to them And this he says he gives of his own meer Liberality by Power deriv'd from Peter and as Vicar of Christ. Then he Excommunicates all of what degree soever Kings and Emperors by name who shall dare to trade into the West-Indies given to Ferdinand by him without the leave and licence of the said Ferdinand Here we see the Pope gives away almost half the World from the true Owners Causa incognita inaudita indicta the Persons and their Quality being utterly unknown to him If it be said They were Pagan Idolaters Grant that Yet 1. What they all were he neither did nor could know 2. If they really were such as probably they were yet dominium non fundatur in gratiâ a Pagan and Idolater may jure naturae have as just a Temporal Right to his Estate as a Christian. Caesar was a Pagan in our blessed Saviours time and yet he Commands them to give to Caesar the things which were Caesars Some things were Caesars in which he had a propriety and to which he had a right and his Subjects an Obligation to pay him tribute and other things due to him But I hope this will not be deny'd For if none but pious men and true Christians have any just Right to what they possess it will I fear go hard with his Holyness and he will have no Propriety in St. Peters Patrimony or any other thing he does possess And therefore if he Impartially consider it he may find some reason if not for Truths sake which with him is not always a prevailing Motive yet for his own to be in this of my opinion By the Premisses I hope it may and does appear That the Pope Exalts himself above all that is called God or worshipped and so really has the Characteristical Note and Mark of the Beast that Man of Sin and is indeed that great Antichrist described and foretold in Scripture 4. Nor am I singular in this Opinion many Excellent Persons both for Learning and Piety have said as much and some have given us a Catalogue of their Testimonies I shall say nothing of the Fathers many of which make Rome Babylon in the Revelation some of them I have Cited before and Schardius in the Place last Quoted has more Nor shall I say any thing of the poor persecuted Waldenses and Wiclisists or the Reformed Churches since Luther who both believ'd and constantly affirm'd and prov'd the Pope to be Antichrist especially the Church of England as appears both by her ablest Writers and her Authentick Homilies confirmed by the Kings Supream Authority in Convocations and Parliaments Omitting all these which yet were abundantly sufficient to shew that I am not singular in this Opinion I shall only of very many more give a few Evident Instances and Testimonies of those who lived and died in the Communion of the Church of Rome And here 1. The Emperor Frederick the Second in a Letter to the King of France complaining of the Prodigious Pride and Tyranny of the Pope and his Impious Practices to divide the Empire and ruin him he says That he Indeavour'd to build the Tower of Babylon against him And that we may know what and whom he meant by Babylon in another Epistle to the King and Nobility of France he Complains of the horrid Injuries and Injustice done him by the Pope and his Party he calls them the Elders of Babylon c. 2. A faithful Historian speaking of Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the Seaventh and his Prodigious Tyranny and Impiety tells us That in those times Most Men both Privately and Publickly curs'd Hildebrand call'd him Antichrist that under the Name and Title of Christ he did the work of Antichrist that he sat in Babylon in the Temple of God and as if he had been a God Exalted himself above all that is worshipped c. And much more to the same purpose abundantly Testify'd by the Historians of those times who were neither Lutherans nor by the Roman Church then reputed Hereticks And afterward speaking of the same Hildebrand we are told That he laid the Foundation of the Kingdom of Antichrist One hundred and seaventy years before that time when that was said under a colour and shew of Religion He begun the War with the Emperor which his Successors continued to that Day till the time of Friderick the Second and Pope Gregory the Ninth where we have many things more concerning the Prodigious Pride Impiety and Tyranny of the Pope to prove that he was Antichrist The same Historian also tells us That almost All Good Just and Honest Men did in their Writings publish to the World that the Empire of Antichrist begun about that time the time of Hildebrand he means because they Saw those things then come to pass which were foretold long before 3. But this is not all We have further Testimonies of this Truth 1. Robert Grosthead who both for Learning and Piety was Inferior to none in his Age He on his Death-bed having spoke of many horrid Enormities of Rome and loss of Souls by Papal Avarice he adds Is not such a one deservedly call'd Antichrist Is not a Destroyer of Souls the Pope he means an Enemy of God and Antichrist And after a long List of Papal Tyranny and Impieties he calls Rome Egypt so Saint John calls it Spiritually Sodom and Egypt and concludes that the Church will never be deliver'd from that Egyptian Servitude but by the Sword 2. Nor is this all we have great Councils of whole Nations in their Publick Edicts and Constitutions expresly declaring the Pope to be that Antichrist who Exalts himself above all that is called God We have a Publick Edict

only for his life that it was not to have an end and period with his Person For if it was then his Successor whoever he be can have no pretence to it For 't is impossible that any Successor can have any legal or just Claim to that Power which vanish'd and ceas'd to be with his Predecessor who possess'd it only for his life 3. Admit both these to be true which yet are equally and evidently false that Peter had such a Power and that it was not Personal but to be transmitted to his Successor seeing such transmission must either be done by our blessed Saviour immediately or by Power deriv'd from him by Peter Let our Adversaries make it appear that either our blessed Saviour himself or Peter by Power deriv'd from him did actually transmit that Power to any Successor and I submit 4. Lastly Suppose all these to be what not one of them is true yet unless it do appear that the Bishop of Rome and not the Bishop of Antioch where they say Peter was Bishop first was that Successor of St. Peter to whom such Supremacy was transmitted he can have no pretence to it For in this Case Idem est non esse non apparere Let our Adversaries then make it appear that either our blessed Saviour immediately by himself or Peter by Authority from him did transmit the Supremacy to the Pope and we shall be satisfy'd and thankful for the Discovery And this brings me to the Second thing proposed before 2. The thing next to be enquired after is Whether and how it may appear that the Bishop of Rome is Peters Successor Our Adversaries say and vainly say it only that Peter was Supream Head after our blessed Saviour's Ascension and Monarch of the Church and from him Jure Successionis the Pope derives his Monarchical Power and Supremacy and that by the Institution and Command of our blessed Saviour and so not by Humane but Divine Right This is a Position of greatest Consequence and will require good proof Nor is it possible to prove the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick unless it first appear that Peter was his Predecessor in that See Linus Clemens or Cletus cannot with any Truth or Sense be said to succeed Peter unless it appear first that he preceeded them Our Adversaries I confess do constantly with great noise and confidence affirm That Peter did preceed in the Bishoprick of Rome but sure I am that hitherto they have not brought any so much as probable much less cogent and concluding Reason to prove it nor do I think it possible they should bring what they neither have nor can have any true and concluding proof to prove what this is an erroneous and false Position And that this may not be begg'd and gratis dictum I shall offer to the Impartial Reader these Considerations 1. When they say That Peter fix'd his Episcopal Chair at Rome Jubente Domino Let them shew that Command and there will be an end of the Controversie we will obey our blessed Saviour's Command and the Pope too But this they have neither done nor can It being impossible they should shew that to be which never was nor ever had any being 2. That ever Peter was at Rome much less that he was Bishop there for Five and twenty years as is vainly pretended cannot be made appear out of Scripture or any Apostolical or Authentick Record and therefore that he was there at all where he might be as he was in many other good Cities and not Bishop of any of them must depend solely upon human and fallible Testimonies I say Testimonies certainly fallible if not absolutely false which many Learned men have and do believe Now seeing the whole Papal Monarchy and Infallibility depend upon Peter's being Bishop of Rome and the grounds we have to assure us that he ever was there are fallible and dubious and seeing it is irrational if not impossible that any considering Person should give a firm and undoubted assent to any Conclusion inferr'd only upon fallible and dubious premisses Hence it evidently follows That our Faith and belief of the Papal Monarchy and Infallibility is and till they find better and more necessary premisses must be fallible and dubious And here I desire to be inform'd how it comes to be an Article of Faith in their new Roman Creed That the Bishop of Rome is Vicar of Christ and Peter ' s Successor which Article with the rest in that Creed they promise swear and vow to believe and profess most Constantly to their last breath With what Conscience their Church can require or they take such an Oath Most Constantly and firmly to believe to their last breath such things for the belief of which they have no grounds if any save only fallible and very dubious Ipsi viderint 3. I know that the Assertors of the Papal Monarchy according to their Interest are very desirous to prove out of Scripture that Peter was at Rome and to that end produce those words in his first Epistle The Church which is at Babylon salutes you And by Babylon they say the Apostle meant Rome And for this they cite Papias in Eusebius That by Babylon Rome is figuratively to be understood So that if this be true Peter writ that Epistle at Babylon that is at Rome and so must be at Rome when he writ it And the proof of this depends upon the Authority of Papias Bishop of Hierapolis and those who follow him Now how little Credit is to be given to Papias in this or any thing else will manifestly appear out of the same Eusebius who tells us 1. That Papias was much given to Tradition inquiring of the Elders who had heard the Apostles what Peter or James or John c. had said thinking he g●t●less benefit by reading Scriptures then by the talk of those who heard the Authors of them 2. That he had by such Tradition strange Parables and Preachings of our blessed Saviour and other things very Fabulous Such as the Heresie of the Millenaries which he believed and propagated That he thus err'd by Misunderstanding the Apostles Doctrine For as Eusebius goes on he was a man of very little understanding 4. And yet as the same Author says he was the occasion that most of the Ecclesiastical Writers who followed him Reverencing his Antiquity err'd with him I know that in Eusebius both in the worst Edition of him by Christopherson sometime a Popish Bishop of Chichester and the best by Hen. Valesius we have a high Commendation of Papias At the same time says Eusebius as Valesius renders him Papias was famous a man very Eloquent and Learned and well skill'd in Scripture But Christopherson his other Translator goes higher as usually he does when it makes for the Catholick Cause and in his Translation says more in Commendation of

Papias then is in the Text For he tells us That Papias besides his knowledge of Scripture was a man 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

quam Regia Dignitate sit Altior Dignitas Sacerdotalis Gratian. Can. Duo sunt 10. Distinct. 96. a Quia Colla Regum Principum submittuntur Genibus Sacerdotum By Sacerdotes here the Popes are principally meant as is evident both by the Text and the Gloss Glossa ad dictum Can. verbo Dúo sunt b Papa excipit Imperatorem ad osculum pedisut primum videt Papam detecto Capite illum gen●● terram tangens venera●u Poutificis pedes Devotè osculatur Lib. Sacrarum Ceremoniarum Rom. 1560. l. 1. Tit. 5. p. 22. Col. 2. 3. c Volentes ut hac tantum Compilatione utantur Vniversi in Judiciis in Scholis c. Greg. 9. in Literis Acad. Bononiensi dat 1230. Juri Canonico Praefixis Edit Lugduni 1661. d Edit Paris 1520. cum Glossis e Vide Bullam Greg. 13. datam Romae Anno 1580. Corpori Juris Canonici praefixam f Nulli liceat Libris Canonici Juris de manda●o nostro Correctis Recognitis Expurgatis quicquam addere detrahere vel immutare c. Ibid. dicta Greg. 13. Bulla g They tell us that it was our blessed Saviour himself who Constituted Peter and his Successors Supream Monarchs of the Catholick Church Christus Catholicam Ecclesi●m Vni Soli in Terris Petro Petríque Successori Rom. Pontifici in Potestatis Plenitudine tradidit Gubernandam So Pius the Fifth in this Bull of Excommunication of Eliz. In Principio And Bellarmine says Successio ex Christi Instituto Jure Divino est quia Ipse Christus Instituit in Petro Pontificatum ideo quicumque Petro succedit à Christo accipit Pontificatum De Rom. Pont. l 2. c. 12. § ut autem Cum Papa in Petri Cathedra Sedeat summum in eo Dignitatis gradum nonnullis Humanis Constitutionibus sed Divinitus datum agnoscit Catechis Trident. Part. 2. c 7. De Ordinis Sacramento § 28. vide Can. Sacrosancta 2. Dist. 22. Glossam Turrecrematam Idem h Baronius says that Peter suffered Martyrdom Anno Christi 69. therefore 34. or 35. years after our blessed Saviours Passion Annal. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. §. 1. i Bellarmine says tha 't is evident in Scripture that Peter's Supremacy was to descend to a Successor Aliquem Petro Succedere deducitur Evidentèr ex Scripturis De Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 12. § Observandum Tertio k Bellarmine tells us that it is not expresly in Scripture that the Pope is Peter's Successor but that must be proved by Apostolical Tradition Rom. Pontificem succedere Petro non habetur expresse in Scripturis sed habetur ex traditione Apostolicâ Bellarm. Loco dicto l They constantly tell us the Pope has two Swords and of the Temporal Sword they say Figurat Pontisicalis hic gladius potestatem summam Temporal●m à Christo ejus Vicario collatam juxta illud data est mihi omnis Potestas in C●elo in Terrâ alibi dominabitur à Mari usque ad Mare à Flumine usque ad Terminos Orbie Terrarum Liber Sacrarum Ceremoniorum Ecclesiae Rom. Romae 1560. Lib. 1. Tit. 7. De Ense benedicendo p. 36. Col. 1. m Vide Methodum Veronianam seu modum quo quilibet Catholicus potest Solis Bibliis Religionis praetensae Ministrum evidentèr mutum reddere c. Authore Francisco Verono Parisiensi Societatis Jesu Theolog. Colon. Agrip. 1610. Vide Jac. Masenij meditatam Concordiam Protestantium cum Catholics ex verbo Dei. Edit Colon. 1661. n Francis Veroni Scientiam è doctissimâ Societate Jesu prodeuntem veneramur sententiam libenter sequimur labores optimo successu à Deo donatos honoramus Adrian Petrus Walenburch in Exam Princip fidei c. Exam 3. §. 1. num 3. p. 111. o Vide Dispute de fidei ex scripturis demonstratione contra novam nonnullorum Methodū Per Joh. Dallaeum 8● Genevae 1610. p They do now pretend to potestatem Summain Temporalem as the Book of their Sacred Ceremonies a little before cited tells us That our blessed Saviour gave Peter in him the Pope Coelestis Terreni Imperij Jura Can. Omnes 1. dist 22. Power to depose Kings and Emperors absolve their Subjects from Oaths of Allegiance and dispose of their Dominions Plat. in vita Greg. 7. Conc. Lateran sub Innocent 3. Can. de Haeret. 3. Hence it was that Bonif. 8. that Prodigy of Antichristian Pride and Impiety in the Solemn Jubilee shew'd himself to the People the first day in his Pontificalibus and the next day Imperiali habitu Intula Caesarea Insignis gladium ante se nudatum jussit deferri sedens alta voce ●●statur Ecce duo gladij Vide Paralip ad Chron. Urspergen ad An. 1294. p. 344. a It is notoriously known how many Decretal Epistles have been forged and fathered upon the ancient Bishops I shall only instance in the fifth Epistle of that pious Pope and Martyr Clemens the first in which he pleads for a community of all things in the world even of Wives Communis usus Omnium quae sunt in hoc mundo Omnibus esse Debuit In Omnibus Sunt Sine Dubio Conjuges Joh. Sichardus and James Merlin have that Epistle and those very words Gratian has refer'd them into the Canon Law Can. dilectissimis 2. Caus. 12. Quaest. 1. and there they are still in all the Editions of that Law even that corrected and approved by Pope Gregory the Thirteenth b I shall instance only in one the 28. Canon of the Council of Chalcedon as it is shamefully corrupted in Gratian. Can. Renovant 6. Dist. 22. where 1. It is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 definimus statuimus for which Gratian has Petimus 2. In the Original Canon it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior Roma but Gratian has Superior Roma 3. In the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aequalia Privilegia But Gratian has Similia privilegia as being unwilling that Constantinople should have equal priviledges with Rome 4. In the Original Canon it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That Constantinople should be equal to Rome in Ecclesiastical Matters etiam in Ecclesiasticis But Gratian in contradiction to the Canon says Non tamen in Ecclesiasticis c. So it was in Gratian in the old Editions only in the Later Editions of Gratian An. 1612. 1618. 1661. this last corruption is acknowledg'd and which is not usual mended But other corruptions remain still in their last and best Editions of Gratian. Extat haec Bulla in Bullario Romano Romae 1638. Tom. 2. p. 229. Observ. 1. a Carolus Sigonius de Regno Italiae lib. 3. pag. 58. b Omnium Consensu omnes qui Imaginibus venerationem negarem damnati Philippicus ipse Nominatim Diro in eum composito Carmine Poenis Inferorum devotus Ibid. c Car. Sigonius de Regno Italiae l. 9. p. 219. Extabant praeclara Gregorii 2. 3. exempla