THE DEFENCE OF CONSTANTINE: WITH A TREATISE OF the Pope's temporal Monarchy.  
Wherein, besides diverse passages, touching other Counsels, both General and Provincial, the second Roman Synod, under Silvester, is declared to be a mere Fiction and Forgery.  
By Richard Crakanthorp, Doctor of DIVINITY.  
LONDON, Printed by Bernard Alsop, for john Teage, and are to be sold at his Shop in Paul's Churchyard, at the sign of the Golden-Ball. 1621.   

TO THE MOST HIGH, MIGHTY, AND Religious Prince, JAMES by the Grace of God, King of great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith.  
GIVE me leave Most gracious Sovereign, in all humble and submissive manner, to present unto your Princely view, or but lay down at your Royal foot, this Pledge both of my service to God and his Church, and of my dutiful and most loyal affection to your sacred Majesty. Of whom more fitly might I seek Patronage for this Defence of Constantine, then of him who is indeed the Great Constantine of these latter Ages? Betwixt whom, and the ancient Constantine, there is in all Eminency of Honour and Heroical virtues so great and so fair a correspondence, that who so looketh on either of both, may in him as in a resplendent Glass, behold the full and lively portraiture of the other. Both descended of most Princely Progenitors: Both borne and bred in this most happy Island: Both Inheritors and Possessors of the Imperial Crown of great Britain: Both by treacheries of malignant enemies to the Gospel, first in tender 
a Constantinus iwenculus detentus in custodia à Galerio Aur. vict. in Constant.  years, then in riper 
b Insidiae contra illum comparatae semel iterumque Eus. lib. 1. de vit. Colist. ca ●4.  age, most dangerously assaulted: Both by God's only hand, 
c Deus omnem dotum & fallaciam pate ●eat. Eus. lib. 10. hist. ca 8.  most graciously (and your Majesty even miraculously) delivered and preserved for those most happy works, which by your sacred persons he would effect: Both richly beautified with Prudence, justice, Clemency, Magnanimity, & all other Ornaments of Regal Majesty; especially with Piety, which being the Fountain and Foundation of all other virtues, shineth in every part of the lines of both. Constantine his Love to God such, that as himself 
d Eus. l. 2 de vit Const. ca 13  preferred God before his very soul; so he gave this as his 
e Idem lib. 4 cap. 35  chiefest Instruction to his children, that they also should prefer the knowledge of God, and his holy Religion, before all worldly wealth, yea before the Empire. His Love to God's Messengers and holy Bishops such, that he had 
f Idem lib. ● ca 52.  them at his own table, had them in his journeys (as Guardians 
g Idem lib. 2 ca 4  of his soul, wheresoever he went: and looking on them not as 
h Idem lib. ● cap. 35.  at men, but as at Christ, whom he considered and beheld in them, he most honoured those, who had sustained most dishonour for Christ, as he declared in B. Paphnutius, who having lost his right eye, and use of his left thigh for the name of Christ, yet this blind and lame Paphnutius: Would 
i Ruff. lib. 〈◊〉 ca 4.  he often call into his Palace, nor only most lovingly embrace him, but believing 
k Theol. lib. 1. ca 11.  that he should (as no doubt he did) suck a blessing from those blemishes, he would with greedy kisses cherish the disgraced place of that eye, which was pulled out for the profession of Christ. His Love to God's service such, that both for Praying, he bestowed whole 
l Eus. lib. 4. ca 57  nights therein, and himself also, as a most 
m Quasi ●acerdos quid am sacra faciebat. lib. eod. ca 11.  holy Priest, did with zeal and fervency, offer up that Incense of a devout and religious soul unto God: and for hearing God's Word, his attentive affection and reverence thereunto, was far more than ordinary. Eusebius relates, 
n Id. lib. eod. ca 33  how while himself preached before the Emperor, he though being in dutiful manner requested by Eusebius; not only refused to sit down, but when Eusebius fearing to be too tedious, intended abruptly to break off his speech, the Emperor would not permit him so to do, but exhorted him to proceed to the end of his Sermon▪ and when Eusebius the second time entreated him to sit down and take some ease, the Emperor again refusing, with a sad and severe countenance answered, It is not fit, either with negligence or irreverence, to hear the Word of God. His love to the Churches and Houses of God such, that almost everywhere 
o Eus. lib. 3. ca 47.  throughout his Empire, he either builded new, or repaired & enlarged the decayed Churches, and that with such beauty and Munificence, that he spared 
p Id. lib. 2. ca 44.  no cost in so pious a Worke. His Love to the peace of God's Church such: that he not only taken away 
q Ruff. lib. 1. ca 2.  the occasions of quarrels among Bishops, but to prevent contentions himself sat 
r Eus. lib. 3. ca 10.  in their Synodall assemblies; yea sat there, as the Bishop 
s Id lib. 1 ca 37 & lib 4. ca 24.  of them all, and by his vigilancy and prudence, reduced all both to unity in faith, and amity in affection. As the like sincere Love unto God, to his holy Bishops, and to the peace and prosperity of his Church, is relucent in your Majesty, and by innumerable demonstrations made evident unto all: So in the manner and means of propugning and propagating the faith, it may be truly said, to the immortal honour of your sacred Person, that neither Constantine, nor any other Prince or Emperor is a match therein. Constatine like David, a King of War, by the sword of battle subdued the pride and rage of persecuting Tyrants, and so with the borders of his Empire, enlarged the profession of Christ: your Majesty like Solomon, a King of Peace, by that depth of divine and unexpressable knowledge and wisdom, wherewith the God of Heaven hath filled your sacred breast, with the Sword of God's Spirit, subduing the Pride, Idolatries, and Impieties of that Man of Sin, hath made glorious the true faith of Christ, not only in, and beyond the bounds of your own, and the Roman Empire, but from Great Britain, even to the utmost borders of the Earth. Constantine for his great learning and love unto it, is most highly and most justly renowned. His vacant times 
t Id. lib. 4. ca 29.  he bestowed in writing of most useful Treatises, which custom he continued 
u Id. ca 29.  even to his last age. The excellency of whose writings may be easily discerned, partly by that one Oration, ad coetum Sanctorum, which demonstrates an heart, fraught with all humane and divine knowledge: partly by that avidity which whole 
x lb. ca 29.  multitudes had, who flocked to hear his Princely and divine discourses. But in truth, what are these, to those so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? to those exact and never sufficiently admired Apologeticals of the Faith? to those divine and inimitable meditations, to those innumerable and mellifluous Orations, which have, and still do flow from the unemptied Fountain of your Majesty's sacred tongue and pen? which even enforce all judicious and religious Hearers and Readers of them, to break forth into those pathetical admirations of the Queen of Sheba. It 
y 2. Chron. 9 5. etc.  was a true word which I heard of thy sayings and of thy wisdom: but behold the one half thereof was not told unto me. Happy are thy men, and happy are thy servants, which stand before thee always, and hear thy wisdom. Blessed be the Lord thy God, which loved thee, to set thee on his Throne, as King instead of the Lord thy God Because thy God loved Israel, to establish it for ever, therefore hath he made thee King ever them, to execute judgement & justice. This Eminency of Piety, Knowledge and Wisdom, as in all true Christian & Religous hearts it hath, and will ever most deservedly purchase both Honour and Admiration: So from the sons of Belial, & enemies to the faith of Christ. What else could be expected, but the bitter scoffs and scurrile Calumnies of of their most virulent and venomous tongues? In which kind of base and reviling Oratory, the julian's, Zosimi, and other heathen Maligners of Constantine, do by many degrees, come short of the modern Pacentij Parsonij, and Scioppij of this age: all whose names shall rot and become as dung on the Earth, when the unblemished Honour and the most blessed names of the two Constantine's, shall as an ointment of most precious Spickrard be poured throughout the whole Church of God: For God himself hath foretold 
z 1. sam. ●. 30.  of both. Them that honononr me will I honour: but they that despise me shall be despised. What in this Treatise I have now said, either for the Honour & Defence of the former Constantine, or in discovery of that forged Roman Synod, which abetting the calumnies devised against him, was the first occasion of the whole discourse, or of the Pope's temporal Monarchy, which utterly subverts the Imperial Dignity and Rights both of Constantine and all other Princes; I do here, most Gracious Sovereign, with all humility both of mind and body, lay down before your sacred Majesty; in few, but fervent words, beseeching the God of glory that after a long and most happy Reign here upon earth, your Majesty not leaving but exchanging this earthly, with an heavenly Diadem, may both reign here in your Princely and Most blessed Issue so long as the World endureth, and being crowned with Immortality, may shine as the Sun in the brightness of celestial glory for evermore.  
Your Majesty's most humble and dutiful subject, Ri: Crakanthorp.   


The Contents of the Chapters in the first part, which is the defence of Constantine.  
THe first reason proving the second Roman Synod under Silvester to be a forgery, taken from the persons supposed to have been assembled therein. Ca 1  
The second reason proving the same Roman Synod to be a forgery, taken firom the Acts and Canons thereof. Cap. 2.  
The third reason proving the same Synod to be a forgery, taken from the time when this Council is said to have been held. Cap. 3.  
The fourth reason proving the same to be a forgery taken from the supposed murder of Crispus by his father Constantine. Cap. 4.  
The fift reason proving the same Synod to be a forgery taken from the supposed leprosy of Constantine. Cap. 5.  
The sixth reason proving the same Synod to be a forgery, taken from the Baptism of Constantine by Pope Silvester. Cap. 6.  
The seventh reason proving the same Synod to be a forgery taken from the Donation of Constantine, and first of the Charter or Edict thereof. Cap. 7.  
That Constantine made no such Donation as they pretend, and the reasons of Gretzer to prove that Donation refuted. Cap. 8.  
Three reasons to prove that Constantine never made any such Donation as they pretend, either by word or writing. Cap. 9  
Seven witnesses alleged by Doctor Marta for proof of Constantine's Donation examined: namely the first Nicen Douncell, Eusebius Caesariensis, Jerome, Pope Damasus, the acts of Silvester, Pope Gelasius and Isidore. Cap. 10.  
The credit of four Popes and two Counsels, alleged for proof of the Donation examined: namely Hadrian 1. Leo 9 Eugenius 3. and Nicholas 3. the second Nicene and the Council at Constance. Cap. 11.  
Sixteen other witnesses, alleged for proof of Constantine's Donation, examined: namely, Anselm, Iuo, Deus dedit, Adalhardus, Mart. Polonus, Antoninus, Vincentius, Beluac. Sigibert, Ado, Gotofrid. Otho Frising. Photius, Balsamon, Damianus, Bernard & Litprandus Cremonensis. Ca 12.  
Thirty Lawyers, Civilians and Canonists alleged by Marta, to prove the Donation of Constantine, and an answer unto them. Cap. 13.  
The testimonies of eight Emperors, Zeno, justinian Charles the 1. Lewis, Henry the 2. Otho the 4. Fredrick the 2. and Charles the 4. alleged by Marta a● witnesses of Constantine's Donation examined Cap. 14.  
Four reasons brought by Doctor Marta, and Cardinal Albanus for the Donation made by Constantine in the pretended Edict, refuted. Cap. 15.   

The Contents of the Chapters in the second part, which is, Of the Pope's Temporal Monarchy.  
OF the Pope's Temporal Monarchy, and what important consequents do ensue thereof. Cap. 1.  
That Christ had no such Temporal Monarchy as is now claimed for the Pope. Cap. 2.  
That Christ gave no Temporal Monarchy to Peter nor to any of his Apostles, nor any of their successors. Cap. 3.  
That the Pope's temporal monarchy is condemned by the judgement of the Primitive Church, and of general Counsels: as also by the Fathers and learned writers who lived from the 500 year after Christ. Ca 4  
That the Pope's temporal monarchy is condemned by the Fathers and learned writers who lived from the 500 to the 1000 year after Christ. Cap. 5.  
That the Pope's temporal monarchy is condemned by the Bishops and learned writers, who lived from the 1000 to the 1100. year after Christ. Cap. 6.  
That the Pope's temporal monarchy is condemned by the Bishops and learned writers who lived from the year 1100. to the year 1200. after Christ. Ca 7.  
That the Pope's temporal monarchy is condemned by the Bishops and learned writers who lived from the year 1200. to the year 1300. after Christ. Ca 8  
That the Pope's temporal monarchy is condemned by the Bishops and learned writers who lived from the year 1300. to the year 1400. after Christ. Cap. 9  
That the Pope's temporal monarchy is condemned by the Bishops and learned writers who lived from the year 1400. to the year 1500. after Christ. Cap. 10  
That the Pope's temporal monarchy is condemned by the Bishops and learned writers who lived from the year 1500. to the year 1620. Cap. 11.  
That the Pope's temporal Monarchy is condemned by the Emperors, Kings, and Imperial states, in the several ages of the Church. Cap. 12.    

Errata haec corrigat benevolus lector.  

Parte 1. in Textu.  
Page 16. line 15. Arts read Arles. page 64. line 1 doth represent, read, doth scarce represent. p. 65. lin. 14. 600. r. 1600. p. 78. lin. 29. much betrays. r. much more betrays. p. 209. l. 29. Constantius. ●. Constans. p. 100L. l. 22. deal as, p. 260. l 1. would. r. as they would. p. 262. l. 21. q. 9 r. q. 1. p. 3 21. l. 14. Constantine. r. justinian. p. 326. l. 3. r. having. l. eadem dele totam. p. 348. l. 29. r. to untruths. p. 349▪ l. 28. ports r. parts. p. 25●. l. 22. Card. r. Corol.   

Part. 1. in Margin.  
Page 1. line 2. eap. 2. read 22. p. 4. Trid. 87. r. Trid. 187. p. 6. l. 7. c 2●. 4 r 23. p. 28. Pan. 3. r. Paneg. 7. p. 81. l. penul. lib. 5. de Synod. p● 2●0. r. lib. de Synod. p. 252. p. 83. post lin. vlt. addatur haec quotatio Cornel. Epist. ad. Fabium. p. 100 lin. penult. p. 250. r. p. 252. p. 103. l. 2. nu. 63●. nu. 43. p. 107. lin. vlt. diuis. 1. r. diuis. 3. p. 112. l. 9 lib. 1. r. lib. 2. p. 132. lin. penul. p. 91. r. pa. 86. p. 146. lin. penul. an. 430. r. 730 p. 190. 1. ●5. Inlij 20. r. Maij 22. p. 198. lin. vlt. add hanc citationem Steuch. p. 144. p. 201. l. 10. die 21. junij. r. die 22. Maij. p. 210 l. 42. Psal. r. Fol. p, 216. l. 31. nu. 16. r. nu. 15. p. 217. l. 12. an. 1053. r. an. 1043. p. ead. l. vlt. paneg. 9 c. 3. r. paneg. 5. c. 4. p. 220. l. vlt. pane. 5. c. 4 r. paneg. 9 c. 3. p. 2 36. l. 18. an. 447. r. an. 347. p. 269. l. 7. c. 39 r. c. 44. p. 271. l. 10. c. 7. r. c. 70: p. 275. l. 22. Apol. 2. r. Appen. 1. p. 293. l. 4. part 3. r. part. 4. p. 297. l. 1 Barth. r. Bald. p. 318. l. 9 Edict. r. Edit. p. 324. l. ●9. an. 780. r. an. 800. p. 331. l. vlt. Tit. 27. r. Tit. 37 p. 341. l. pen. laic. c. r. laica. p. 351. l. 1. an. 818. r. 817. p. 359. l. 4. nu. 25. r. nu. 26. p. ead. lin. 13. nu. 25. r. nu. 24 p. 380. l. penul. lib. 11. §. lex. r. lib. 11. c. 6. §. lex.    


CHAP. I  
The first reason proving the second Roman Synod under Silvester, to be a forgery taken from the persons supposed to have been assembled therein.  
ALL the calumnies objected to Constantine have such dependence on the second Roman Synod held in Syluesters time, that the due examining of this one Synod will be a full clearing of all the chief calumnies which they have most maliciously devised against him.  
Now this Roman Synod might justly and with much ease be rejected, and that by the warrant of that true and memorable testimony of Hincmarus' 
a Hinc. Epist. 7. Ca 2.  Bishop of Rheims, who speaking of some of the Decrees thereof, saith, Catholic● Ecclesia inter Synodalia decreta non computat. The Catholic Church doth not esteem the Decrees made in this Roman Council to be Synodall. But because it is cited both by Pope Nicholas 
b Nic. 1. Epist. 8. §. Consonat. & §. Hinc etiam.  the first, and by Bellarmine, 
c Bell. lib. 2. de Conc. ca 17. & lib 2. de Ro. pontiff. cap. 26.  as a worthy Synod strengthening the Pope's supremacy, magnified by Baronius 
d Cum haec Rom. Synodus ut legitima in compluribus antiquis codicibus scripta habeatur, non est quod quis ●uspicari possit hum●num esse commentum. Barnes. an. 324. nu. 29.  for an ancient monument of the Church, and for a sacred 
e Quam & sacri Romani Concilij actis intelligimus confirmari. an cod. nu. 30.  Council, published for such an one, by Binnius 
f Bin. tom. 1. Conc. pa. 299. & seq.  and commended in their Roman Breuiarie 
g Breu. Rom: in fest. S. Siluest. Decemb. 31. , to the public use of the Church, let us more at large, and seriously consider the worth and dignity thereof: examining first, the persons therein assembled. Secondly, the Acts and Canons thereof. Thirdly, the time and some circumstances which concern the time, when it is supposed to have been held: by every one of which I doubt not but the baseness and forgery of this Synod will be made manifest.  
For the first, had there been any such true Council, the Church should not have accounted that at Nice, but this at Rome for the first general Council: for this could not be thought a provincial Synod, seeing unto it were called, and present in it, as the Acts do show, of the Western Bishops 139. of the Greek Bishops 132. out of Rinocorura (which Ptolomee 
h Ptol. Tabul. 3. Africa.  placeth in the very utmost part of Egypt, fare beyond Alexandria) 57 Bishops. When out of so many several Provinces, subject to several Patriarches, so many Bishops as 328. were called and present: what reason can be imagined why this should not be a general Council as well as that at Nice, wherein were present not so many Bishops, nor in likelihood out of so many distinct Provinces? And because it was held before the Nicene Council, it must needs (had there been such an one) have been reckoned the first of all general Synods. Seeing then the Church never so accounted it, but ever held that at Nice (which was celebrated after this) for the first, it is manifest by the Church's judgement that they knew not of any such Roman Council as this under Silvester.  
Baronius to heal this sore, telleth 
i Bar. an. 32●. num. 124▪  us, that in the edition of Cresconius the Greek Bishops are omitted, and he gives a reason why they could not be present at this Council, because there was not time enough to call Bishops out of so remote countries: adding further, that Sylvester called only the Italian Bishops to the Synod. Baronius might as well in plain terms have professed the Acts of this Council, wherein all these are said to have been assembled, to be false and forged, (which is the point we endeavour to prove:) but the Cardinal was loath to speak so plainly, and after the Macedonian fashion, to call a Spade a Spade. Let us pass by this his modesty: See but how uncertain and incoherent these conjectures of Baronius are. It is very uncertain how long or short the time was after the Synod was first summoned till the Session thereof: and why out of Greece they might not as easily come to Rome upon a short summons, as out of Egypt and the utmost part thereof (where Rinocorura is) I think it would trouble Baronius to declare. Again, whereas Baronius would out of the Cresconian edition have the number of Bishops in that Synod to be 230. he might have observed that his fellow Bellarmine 
k Bell. lib. 2. de pont. ca 26 , yea and their own Breuiarie 
l Breu. loc. citat.  directly checketh that number, and telleth him, that there were 280. or 284. Bishop's present: and yet neither of those numbers do accord with the Acts 
m Nam recensentur ex urbe Roma & non longe ab ea (puta ex Italia) 139. ex Graecia 132. ex Rinocorura, 57 Act. conc. Rom.  of that Council: for if the Greek Bishops and they of Rinocorura be both omitted, there are but 139. which wants 90. of Baronius number, and of Bellarmine's 140. If they of Greece only be left out, and the other of Rinocorura admitted, then were present 196. which wants of Baronius number 34. and of Bellarmine's 84. So incoherent and confused is their account in seeking to defend the truth of this Synod. Further, whom can Baronius persuade that in Italy 
n Tantum Italiae Episcopos à Syluestro convocatos fuisse Romam credimus. Bar. an. 324. nu. 124.  alone there were at that time 230. Bishops, as by this account 
o Nam ex Cresconiana editione quam sequitur & probat, nu merat Episcopos, 230. ibid.  there must, which only number of Italians (fare more 
p Itali praelati. Tridenti 87. in Appen post sinem Conc. Trid.  than was at Trent) might have overswayed in any ancient Council whatsoever the Pope had pleased.  
But leaving them thus entangled in their defence of this Synod, I wish any indifferent man to think with himself, what credit is to be given to that Council, wherein the forger was not ashamed to set down the names and Chyrographos 
q Act. Conc. Rom. cap. 1.  the hand-writings of 132. Bishops as consenting to that Synod: not one of which (as the Cardinal assures you) were so much as present in the Synod: or whether he might not as easily forge a few Canons out of his own brain, as sergeant the names and hand-writings of so many Bishops wherein his fraud might more easily be perceived and controlled. This briefly for the persons.   

CHAP. II.  
The second reason, proving this Roman Synod to be a forgery, taken from the Acts and Canons thereof.  
THE second consideration is of the Acts and Decrees supposed to be made in this Roman Council, wherein there are divers evident demonstrations of forgery. In it was condemned Photinus as their Breuiarie 
a Breu. loc. citat ubi iterum Arius. Photinus Sabellius damnati sunt.  testifieth, and the like is affirmed by the Epilogue, 
b Epilogue. brevis sequentis Rom. concilij qui Actis praefigitur.  or rather Preface to that Council. An untruth void of all probability, seeing the heresy of Photinus sprung up as Socrates truly showeth, diverse years after the death both of Constantine and Sylvester: for after the Council at Antioch in Encaenijs, he 
c Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 14.  saith; that at Sirmium nova haeresis exoritur, a new heresy did arise, and that was the heresy of Photinus. And again, 
d Socrat. lib. 2 cap. 24.  when Photinus' Bishop of Sirmium endeavoured to diuulge that doctrine which he had devised, and tumult began to arise about it, the Emperor Constantius commanded a Synod to be called to Syrmium, wherein they deposed him from his Bishopric. Thus Socrates, and the like doth Sozomen 
e Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 5.  affirm. Had Photinus been condemned in the great Nicene, and again in this Roman Synod by Silvester, (as their Breuiarie saith he was) how did he continued Bishop of Syrmium more than thirty years 
f Sirmiense concilium habitum est, an. 357. Bin. in Not. ad id. conc. hoc autem Rom. habi●um 324.  after that sentence? or what needed the Council at Syrmium to examine, or condemn either him or his heresy, which both by Pope Silvester had so long before been condemned, and also by the great Nicene Council? or how could either Silvester in the Roman Synod, or the Nicene Council condemn that heresy in Photinus, who began first to broach his heresy near hand twenty years after the end of these two Synods? Binius saw and confessed this, and therefore saith; 
g Bin. notis in hoc Concil. 3. Epilogus.  That which is spoken of the Photinians to be condemned in this Roman Synod, Planè falsum est, It is utterly false.  
In the third Chapter of that Council is decreed, That a Presbyter may not accuse a Bishop, nor a Deacon a Presbyter, nor a sub-Deacon, a Deacon. Concerning which Canon, let the judgement of Hincmarus be observed. He 
h Hinc. Epist. 7. cap. 21. & seq.  at large proveth both by Scripture and ancient Canons, the contrary to this: he calls this vanam opinionem, a vain opinion, and whereas some do produce, saith he, Saint Silvester to have decreed these things: he tells us, that the Catholic Church doth not accounted them as Synodall decrees. And after he hath recited the words of this Roman Synod, and of this third Chapter thereof, he saith 
i Ibid. ●ap. 24.  of it; Quae dicta quam adversa sibi, & quam diversa à Sanctis Canonibus & sacris legibus sint nemo est qui dubitet: Which sayings, how contrary they are in themselves, how repugnant to the holy Canons and sacred Laws, there is none that doubt. And after he hath professedly refuted that Decree by sundry reasons, he in the end concludes, 
k Ibid.  Quapropter credendum non est, wherefore it is not to be believed, that Saint Sylvester did make such Decrees. Thus their famous Archbishop of Rheims.  
In the third Chapter is set down, That a Bishop shall not be condemned under seventy two witnesses against him, nor a Presbyter under forty four, nor a Deacon under thirty six, nor a Sub-deacon, A coluth, ex●rcist or Reader, under seven: and th●se witnesses 
l Testes autem & Accusatores sine aliqua sint in●amia, uxores ac filios habentes. Italegit & citat v●rba Canonis huius tertij Hinem. Epist. 7. ca 22. In edit. Biniana textus multo obscure tior est.  must be such as have wife and children. So the Synodall Canon. It were worthy the learning, (seeing the Canon presupposeth, that a Bishop and Presbyter may be accused and condemned) who they are that can possibly bear any witness against them, not one Bishop or Presbyter against another, for they are not such witnesses as may have wives and children, if you will believe their Roman doctrines 
m Caelibatus iure Apostolico annexus est sacris ordinibus. Bel. lib. 1. de Cler. ca 19  and decrees. Not any inferior unto them, for that the same Canon 
n Can. 3. conc. Rom.  forbids; not any lay person, for a Canon of a more ancient Pope, 
o Marcel. 1. epist. 2. & ●●atur caus. 2. q. 7. ca Laico.  and of as great authority as this of Silvester decreeth, Laico non licet quenquam Clericum accusare. A lay man may not accuse any Clergy man. It was not without good cause that Hincmarus said; The Canon was repugnant to itself. And of the last clause touching married witnesses, Hincmarus' censure is most just, quam 
p Hinc. Epist. 7. cap. 23.  absurdum sit ratio aperta demonstrat. Manifest reason doth demonstrate that to be very absurd, that the testimonies of such as have wives and children, should be more esteemed than such as are continent, or married and have no children.  
In this Synod 
q Can. 6. & alibi.  is mention diverse times of the Cardinal Deacons of Rome, which Title of Cardinals not to have been given to Deacons in Silvesters days, is more than probable. For the name Cardinal being added to Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, betokens a difference betwixt such and others, the one 
r Hoc discrimen ponit Bel. Apol pro Torto ca 4. §. At inquit, & §. Quod addit.  having the dignity and right to elect the Pope, and be of his Council in governing the Church: the other wanting both these. So to say that in Silvesters time there were some Cardinal Deacons, or Presbyters of Rome, implies that some others of the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome were not Cardinals, or else it were frivolous and idle to use that addition. Now in Silvesters time, and long after all the Presbyters, and all the Deacons of Rome joined in the election of the Pope, and assisted him in government. Of the later (which is assisting the Pope) those frequent Roman Synods used in the times of ancient Popes, are witnesses, which since the erection of the College of Cardinals in grown out of use, as Bellarmine 
s Concilia Romana particula●ia exoleverunt & in eorum loca Consistoria Cardinalium successisse videntur. Bell. cap. eod. §. Quod addit.  saith, and in their stead the Consistories of the Cardinals have succeeded. Of the former, which is the election of the Pope, besides innumerable examples, the fourth Canon of their first Council under Symmachus is a witness, where the election of the Pope is signified 
t Con. Rom. 1. sub Sim.  to be made by the consent, totius Ecclesiastici ordinis, of the whole order of the Roman Clergy, or of the mayor part of them: And this was above 170. years 
u Conc. illud Rom. sub Simmacho habitum est an. 499. Bin. in Nor. ad ●d con. hoc sub. Siluestro an. 324. Bin. Not. in hoc conc.  after this Roman Synod. Bellarmine who hath laboured this point, acknowledgeth this truth with us. This, saith he, 
x Hoc solum interest inter antiqua tempora & recentia, etc. Bell. Apol. pro Tort ca 4. §. At inquit.  is the only difference betwixt the ancient and the latter times, because of old, by reason of the paucity of persons, omnes in communi hoc officio fungebantur, All the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome did in common perform that duty (of electing and assisting the Pope) and so 
y Non distinguebantur Presbyteri & Diaconi Romani Cardinales à non Cardinalibus. ibid.  the Roman Presbyters and Deacons that were Cardinals, were not distinguished from those that were not Cardinals, but afterwards when the number of Presbyters and Deacons did increase, it was needful to select some few that should perform this office, and those were called Cardinal Presbyters, and Cardinal Deacons of the holy Church of Rome. Thus Bellarmine, who tells us withal, that this reducing the Pope's election to a few selected Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, is not late or new, seeing it is five or six hundreth years old. Which antiquity we envy not to Cardinal Deacons, seeing the Cardinal confesseth that for the first times (until 1000 years after Christ) all the Roman Presbyters and Deacons were Cardinals alike, no difference being among them, for which some were to be called Cardinals, and not others. Wherefore seeing this Roman Synod gives the Title of Cardinals to Roman Deacons, of which name at that time there neither was nor could be any use, it may thence be perceived that the deviser of these Synodal Acts, bewrayed both his malice in forging, and ignorance in doing if so very unskilfully, it being as ridiculous to call those old Roman Deacons, Diaconi Cardinals, (so the Synod saith) as to say Diaconi homines, or Diaconi Clerici.  
Yea, but in Silvesters time all the Roman Deacons were not Cardinals, (saith Bellarmine 
z Bell. ibid. §. Non 〈◊〉. ) but seven only who were chief among the rest. Bellarmine herein contradicteth his own saying. For in his Controversies he teacheth, That there were but seven 
a Bell. lib. 1. de Cler. cap. 16. §. H●●c.  Deacons in Rome in Silvesters time: And that he proves by the Council of Neocesarea, 
b Conc. Neoce●a. c●n. 14.  Which decreed, that in one city, though it be great and ample, septem tantum debere esse Diaconos, there aught to be only seven Deacons: Which Council was then very fresh in memory, (as held 
c Habitum est, an. 315. ut colligit Bin. Not. in id Concil.  in the time of Pope Silvester) and was withal approved 
d Distinc. 20. ca de libellis.  by the Roman Church: Now all those seven to have been Cardinals, both this Roman 
e Diaconi Cardinales urbis Romae septem. Can. 6 Conc. Rom.  Synod avoucheth, and Bellarmine 
f Tempore Siluestri 7. tantum erant Romae Diaconi (Cardinals abundare videtur) & illi omnes 7. erant Cardinals, Bell. lib. 1. de Cler. ca 16.  expressly confesseth. By what other Arithmetic than he can find any Roman Deacons in Silvesters time, that were not Cardinals, but by the rule of falsehood, it is not easy to conjecture. And although among seven, it were no incongruity to call two or three of them Cardinal Deacons, as chief among the rest, yet to call them all Cardinals, as the Council doth, it is as absurd as to call all the thirty two points, Cardinal winds; which none but such as the unskilful forger of this Roman Synod will affirm. For if all be Cardinals, then are none Collateral; if all chief, than none inferior.  
In another Canon, 
g Can. 5.  Silvester is said to have appointed with a loud voice, that no Presbyter should make Chrism, and the reason thereof the Pope there gives, because Christ hath his, Name of Chrism. By which reason it is as forceably consequent, that no Bishop, nor the Pope himself may make Chrism. The derivation of Christ's name will enforce the one both as Logically and Theologically as the other. And why may not a Presbyter make Chrism, as well as make Christ himself? Or why shall not this reason exclude a Presbyter from consecrating or transubstantiating the Bread, as well as from consecrating Oil or Chrism? Sure this and the former reason concerning married Witnesses, were both framed in one forge of simplicity and folly.  
There are other like worthy reasons set down in another Canon, 
h Can. 16.  Which forbids any Clergy man to enter into the Court, quoniam omnis curia à cruore dicitur, Because every Court hath his name of cruelty. Silvester, it seems, was desirous to show his Papal authority in decreeing Laws for Grammarians as well as for Divines, and making a new Etymologicum. Pomp. Festus knew not this Papal Etymon, when 
i Fest. in voc● Curia.  he said; Curia est locus ubi publicas Curas gerunt, It is called the Court of those public cares, and vigilancy of the chief Magistrate and his Ministers, for the Public good and happiness of the Commonwealth, who like Epaminundas, watch and wake for the City, while the rest by means of their care, sleep securely. Cicero knew not of this Etymon, when he described 
k Cic. orat: pro Milon.  the Court to be, templum sanctitatis, the Temple of sanctity, of honour, of wisdom, of public Counsel, and the like. If every Court hath his name of cruelty, what shall be thought of the Romana Curia, of which it is said; Non vult ovem sine vellere? Nay it were well if they would only fleece, but alas, they flay and worry the sheep of Christ. It is that Court of which Espenceus 
l Claud. Espenc. Com. in Epist ad Tit. ca 1. digress. 2.  their learned Bishop speaketh, wishing Pius the fifth would hear what an Italian Poet and Divine saith of it, There remains in the sheepfold the Boar, the Tiger, the Lion, the Liberd, the Griffin, the Panther and Bear. And unto Leo the tenth he feared not in plain terms to say; Romana gravi maculata veneno Curia, The Roman Court is defiled with poison, the contagion whereof hath infected all Countries. Thus and much more Espen●eus, explaining how truly Silvesters Etymon agrees to the Court of Rome.  
The Canon itself whereof that's a reason, is not unworthy observing; the Pope and Synod most straightly forbidden either Deacon or Priest, or any Clergy man for their own, or for any cause at all, to come, or so much as enter 
m Nemo clericus propter causam suam quamlibet intret in Curiam. Can. 16. Conc. Rom. 2.  into any (secular 
n Ita explicatur in vita Siluestri. Hic constituit, ut nullus clericus propter quamlibet causam in curiam introiret, nec ante iudicem civilem (id est saecularem) causam diceret, nisi in Ecclesia. ) Court, for that is Idolatry; and if any do it, Anathema suscipiat, nunquam rediens ad matrem Ecclesiam: Let him be accursed, and never restored to the Church again. Thus decrees the Synod. Was S. Paul then an Idolater and Anathema for appealing 
o Act. 25. 10. 21.  to Caesar's Court? Or is Constantine's tribunal more accursed than Nero's? Was Athanasius an Idolater, an Anathema, when fleeing from the Council at Tyre, he went to Constantinople 
p Nos adito principe, Eusebianorum scelera patefecimus, Athanas. Apol. 2. pag. 219. , made complaint to Constantine of his wrong: entreated and obtained audience at his Court? Were all those holy ancient Bishop's Idolaters and accursed, who as subordinate officers to the Emperor, and by commission from him, not only came into the Courts, but sat as judges therein, hearing and determining not only Ecclesiastical but civil Causes, and that with such a privilege, that if any man would reject the civil judge, and appeal to the Bishop's judgements, the Bishop's sentence should stand firm, without any appeal: tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolata: as if it had been given by the Emperor in his own person. This Sozomen 
q Sozom. lib. 1 cap. 9  witnesseth, but more effectually the Emperors own Edicts, that of Arcadius 
r De Episc. audientia. l. 8. Cod. justin▪  Honorius, and Theodosius; wherein that which I cited is expressed, & another more ancient than theirs, made even by Constantine himself, who 
s L. 1. de. Episcopali iudic●o Cod. Theod.  thus writ to Albanius. Omnes causae quae vel praetori● iure, vel civili tractantur: All causes which are handled by the Praetorian or civil law, if they be ended by the sentence of Bishops, are ratified for perpetual stability, neither shall it be lawful to examine that cause which the sentence of Bishops hath decided. Thus we did once decree by an wholesome edict, and this perpetua lege firmamus, we ratify by a law to abide for ever. Thus decreed Constantine. Let now any of judgement consider, whether it be credible that so wise and religious an Emperor as Constantine, could so cross his own Acts and Decrees, as in this Roman Synod, to subscribe (as the Synodall Acts of this Council say 
t Subscripserunt Episcopi 284 & Augustus Constantinus. Act. Synodi Rom. 2. ca 20. & ca 10.  he did) to that Canon which accurseth all Clergy men that come into any Court, and yet establish the Episcopal courts and judgement in all causes, and that with such ample privileges as he did in his edict now remembered: or whether this edict of Constantine allowing with many honours and immunities the presence of Clergy men in civil & imperial Courts, do not convince this Roman Synod of forgery, which maketh Constantine subscribe to the condemning and anathematising of all Clergy men that enter into any such Court.  
Another Canon 
u Can. 14 Testimonium 〈◊〉 aduersu●●●aicum 〈◊〉 recipiat.  of this Synod is, that none aught to receive the testimony of a clergy man against a lay man. What? were Clergy men in Pope Silvesters time of so little credit, that their testimony might not be accepted? But of this Hincmarus 
x Hinc. loco 〈◊〉. ca 23.  judgement is very good, who affirms and proves this canon to be repugnant both to the sacred rule, to the determinations of the Apostolic Sea, and to the laws of Christian Emperors. And because the Synod saith that Constantine subscribed to this Canon, and so ratified it, it will suffice both against the Canon is self, and the forgerers untruth touching Constantine, to oppose Constantine's own express words in that Edict to Ablavius before mentioned: who thus saith, 
y L. 1. de Episc. judicio: Cod. Theod.  Testimonium etiam ab uno licet Episcopo perhibitum, omnes iudices indubitanter accipiant: The witness though it be but of one Bishop, let all judges embrace as undoubted, neither let any other be heard when the testimony of a Bishop in any part is delivered. So Constantine.  
Now these so many and evident proofs of untruth in the Decrees and forgery in the Synod, may justly persuade that there is no account to be made, or credit to be given to that Canon which Bellarmine and others allege out of it for the Pope's authority, which is the last Canon of all, that None 
z 〈…〉.  aught to judge the first Sea. And though this also to be a counterfeit and false Canon, not only the judgement and deposing of Pope Liberius (of which I have elsewhere entreated) but the testimony of Pope Hadrian, and a Roman Synod with him declare; for therein 
a Adrian. cum Synodo Rom. cuius acta extant. Act. 7. conc. 8.  was decreed, that In case of heresy the Pope may be judged: whereas by this Synod they would absolutely exempt him from all judgement; yet at this time I will only observe that this Canon (admitting the truth thereof) is not so helpful to their cause as they suppose and vainly boast. Had the Synod said, prima sedes Romana, the first Sea of Rome, is to be judged of none, their pretence had been more colourable. But when it said no more than prima sedes, why should this be restrained to Rome more than to Alexandria, or to Antioch? Is not the name of prima sedes common to all Patriarches and such Primates as had though not the name, yet the authority of Patriarches? Their own Anacletus and Stephanus will testify this, In those cities, saith Anacletus, 
b Anac. Epi. 2  which were the chief of the Provinces, and where the heathens had secular Primates for judgement, both divine and Ecclesiastical laws commanded that there should be placed Patriarches or Primates, (which 
c Qui unam form 〈◊〉 licet diversa s●●t no●●●a.  have one form though they have diverse names) and these and no other should be called Primates: And Pope Stephen 
d Step. Epist. 2  adds of these, Let no Metropolitans or other Bishops be called Primates, nisi hi qui primas sedes tenent: but those that have the first Seas. Seeing then in the Eastern Empire there were seven Dioceses, and every Diocese had a Patriarch or Primate, as Berterius 
e 〈…〉.  at large prooues; seeing also six patriarchal Primates were in the Western Empire, for it contained 
f 〈…〉.  six Dioceses every one of which had several Provinces, as by the Notitia Provinciarum and Berterius is manifest: and every primate by Pope Stephen's testimony had a first Sea; this Canon of the Roman Council, as rightly belongs to any of those thirteen Primates and first Seas, as to the Roman Sea or Pope. The same appears by the third Council at Carthage, wherein Saint Austen was present, and to which he subscribed: they decree 
g Con. Carth 3. tempore Si●●●▪ ca ●6. , that the Bishop of the first Sea should not be called either the Prince of Bishops, or the supreme Bishop, sed tantùm primae sedis Episcopus, that is Primate or Bishop of the first Sea: wherein they did certainly intent such 
h Vt liqunet 〈…〉 ciusdem Conc▪ vb: dic●●●●. ad quod 〈◊〉 ●●●lium omnes Pro●●nciae quae prim●s sedes habent, ternos 〈…〉  as were Patriarches, or patriarchal Primates, of which kind in the Diocese of Africa was the Bishop of Carthage, in the Diocese of Italy the Bishop of Rome, in the Diocese of Gallia the Bishops of Arts, in the Diocese of Britain (as anciently it seems) the Bishop of York (that being 
i Non tamen 〈◊〉 (Londini▪) fuit antiqua huius Diocae●● Metropolis sed potius E●oracum, illic si quidem fuit Imperatoris Palatium, & Britanniarum Praetorium. Bert. Diatr. 1. ca 3. p. 36.  before and in Constantine's time the Imperial city;) but since the coming of Augustine, the Bishop of Canterbury, which in the Heptarchy of the Saxons was the chief city, for which cause the Bishop of this Sea is expressly called by William Malsbury 
k Guil. Malm. in Prologue. ad libr. de Gestis pontiff. Anglo●●●.  Totius Angliae Primas & Patriarcha, the Primate and Patriarch of all England: and the Gloss 
l Glos●a in ●a● Cleros Distm. 21.  on the Canon Law, saith that the name of Primates comprehends other Patriarches, as by name he mentions the Bishop of Canterbury: yea and Pope Vrbane the second in the Synod at Bar, called Anselme Bishop of this Sea, Alterius orbis Patriarcham, (so Berterius 
m Bert. Diatr. 2 ca 4. pa. 199 ● Malm 〈◊〉. 1 de gest. pontiff: Angl. pa. 127.  cities it, and not Papam, as William Malmsbury doth) but the sense was one and the same, for he did not intent him to have a supreme and universal authority, that neither would Anselme accept, nor would the Pope ever give unto him; but he so called him in regard of the like patriarchal authority which Anselme had in England as the Pope had in Italy or in his Roman Diocese. The like might be showed also in the other nine patriarchal Dioceses, whereinto the Empire was divided. But I will not enter into that argument. Seeing it is evident by that third Council of Carthage 
n Conc. Carth. 3. tempore Siricij cap. 2.  that there were other Bishoprickes called by the name of first Seas as well as the Roman, why should they restrain this privilege which Silvester & the Roman Synod gives to the first Sea, only to the Pope? or why shall not every Patriarch or patriarchal Primate challenge the like exemption from all humane judgement, because the first Sea is to be judged of none? Nay it is evident by another Canon of this very Roman Synod, that it intended this as a common privilege unto all patriarchs and patriarchal Primates, to all which the name of summus Praesul (in special signification) is common. A Presbyter shall not be condemned, saith the third Canon, under 44. witnesses, a Bishop not under 72. Neque praesul summus à quoquam indicabitur, nor shall the highest Bishop be judged of any. Now seeing in the same Canon is meant the Subdeacons, Deacons, Presbyters and Bishops of every Diocese, it is evident that by summus Praesul the Patriarch or highest Bishop in any patriarchal Diocese aught to be meant as well as the Italian or Roman Patriarch. And then it is easy to perceive both how untruly this forged Synod saith, that the first Sea can be judged of none, seeing Paulus Somosatenus 
o Paulus Samosatenus condemnatus est in Conc. Antioch. ●t liquet ●x Et s●b lib 7 ca 23. & 24. id Conc. habitum est an. 272. Bin. N●t. in id con.  Bishop of the first Sea at Antioch, not long before Silvesters time, had been judged, condemned, and deposed: as also how little they gain by this Canon, seeing as the Pope by it is exempted from the judgement of other patriarchs; so also is every Patriarch, & patriarchal Primate exempted from his and other humane Tribunals, which will be no small prejudice to the Pope's supremacy. But this out of the Synodall Decrees themselves, is sufficient to demonstrate the falsehood and forgery of this Synod.   

CHAP. III.  
The third Reason, proving the second Roman Synod under Silvester to be a forgery, taken from the time when this Council is said to have been held.  
THE third consideration concerneth the time of this Roman Council. It was held as the Acts do witness, on the thirtieth of May, when Constantine the Emperor was the third time Consul, and with him Priscus: wherein the forger many ways bewrays himself, and his own audacious ignorance, in counterfeiting these Acts. Let us wink at his eloquence and rare Dialect, who calls the Emperor Domnus Augustus, and not after the vulgar fashion in those times, Dominus. In the Fasti neither Greek nor Latin is any Priscus a colleague with Constantine. It is Crispus who was Consul, whom the unskilful fellow calleth Priscus, that is one error, and the lest of all. A second is, that he makes Crispus Consul with Constantine the Emperor the third time. For when Constantine the Emperor was the third time Consul, his colleague was neither Priscus nor Crispus, but Licinius, as the Greek 
a Pa. 283.  Fasti and Latin 
b Pa. 281.  also do witness, and besides them Eusebius 
c Ann. Christ. 313. pa. 211.  in his Greek Chronicle, Cassiodore 
d In suo chro. pa. 47. , Onuphrius, 
e In Fastis. pa. 281. , Cuspinian 
f In Notis so ●s ad Fast pa. 401. , and which is of mroe authentic truth then all these, the Imperial Edicts dated that year, as namely; that 
g Cod. Iust. lib. 10. ut. 31. l. 14.  to Euagrius, which bears date in March, Constantino Aug. 3. & Licinio 3. Coss. and another to 
h Cod. eod. lib. 10. 〈◊〉. 10. l. 2.  Aemilius dated also in March, Constantine the Emperor being the third time, and with him Licinius, Coss. beside diverse the like. Wherefore seeing the Acts do witness, that this Synod was held when Constantine the Emperor was third time Coss. and with him Crispus; and this was never: even by the Acts and date thereof it is clear, there was never any such Council, or if it was, it was held in no year.  
It is true indeed, that the Colleague of Crispus 
i Crispus 3. & Constantinus Caesar 3. ut in Fastis tam Graecis quam Latinis, sed in graeco B. mendose scribitur pro ●.  was Constantine the third time Consul, but that was not the Emperor Constantine, as the forger expressly 
k Constantino Augusto 3. & Pris●. in Conc. Rom.  affirms, but his eldest Son Constantinus Caesar, as the Fasti declare: and because it may be, the forger intended that year when they were Consuls, let us further see, if yet the time and circumstances will accord upon that supposal.  
This Consulship of theirs was the next 
l Vt ex Fastis liqu●●, ●a● Grae●●s quam Latin●●●  year before Paulinus and julianus, in whose time the Council of Nice was held; yea, and began also, as Binnius 
a Bin. Not. in conc. Nic §. Paulino.  and Baronius 
b Bar. an. 325. nu. 3.  very truly do teach, whereupon they both 
c Bin. not. in conc. Rom. 2. ●●b Sil. Barnes. an. 324, nu 127.  do of a certainty collect that this Roman Council was held a whole year before the Nicen began, or was either appointed or summoned. Now I would here entreat Cardinal Bellarmine to reconcile his contradiction unto this: for he clearly affirms that the Nicen Council was begun the year before Constantinus Caesar, and Crispus were Consuls. It continued, saith he 
d Lib. 1 de conc c. 5. , three years & it ended when Paulinus and julianus were Consuls. Certainly either Bellarmine must confess this Synod to be forged, or else acknowledge his own gross error in making the Nicen Council to begin a year before this: to say nothing that it seems some incongruity also for Constantine or Silvester to call first a general Synod to Nice, and during that Council, to call another as general also to Rome, wherein shall be more Bishops then at Nice; which yet upon Bellarmine's assertion is evidently consequent. But it is certain that Bellarmine in his Chronologie both in this and many other places is exceedingly defective, and in making two Counsels to be held at one time, the one at Nice of 318. the other at Rome of 328. (or 280. Bishops, as he accounts) he was not so well advised as he might and should have been. So for Bellarmine, this Council and note of time in it, is a clear conviction of his error.  
For the thing itself, 
The occasion of this second Roman Synod  that this Council was not held in that year of their Consulship, as Baronius & Binnius for a certainty affirm, there is one thing specially to be observed, which contains the whole discovery of this fiction and the falsely supposed occasions of this Council, together with a clearing of the most religious Emperor Constantine from those slanderous calumnies and untruths which Zosimus and other heathen writers, & after them some deceived by their narrations did follow, but Baronius and Binnius wittingly (that I say not maliciously) against the evidence of truth, do not only embrace but earnestly defend.  
The narration out of their own writings is this: The end of this Synod was, that Constantine might celebrated 
a Fuerunt haec celebrata, ut public ●quaedam pro accepto munere gratia rum actio. Bar. an. 324 nu. 124.  a solemn thanksgiving unto God for the benefit lately received in his Baptism: that benefit was the cleansing of his leprosy, as the very Synod 
b Synod. Rom 2. ●ub Sil. ca 1.  itself expresseth. And how he fell into this leprosy Baronius out of Zosimus and some other, as also out of the Acts of Silvester doth at large declare. The first original and cause thereof, as the Cardinal 
c Bar an. 324. nu. 10 & 17.  showeth, was the tyranny and unnatural cruelty which Constantine had lately (to wit in the 
d Initio anni huius 324. Crispus ● patre occis●s fuit. Bin. Not. in hoc conc. §. Constantino.  beginning of this very year) shown, in murdering his own son Crispus. the Consul this year, a most noble 
e Crispum nobilissimum. Caesa●em, Christiana religione imbutum, &c Bar. an. eod. nu. 16.  and religious Prince, of whom Baronius saith, that he was killed, furore tyrannicae patriae potestatis, by the madness and tyranny of his father. To this was added the like murders of his own wife Fausta 
f Constantinus malum, maiori malo sanau● nam cum Faustam b●lneo inclusistet mortuam inde extraxit. Bar. ex Zo●i no ut c●rtum narrat. an. eod. nu. 10. & approbat ibid. nu. 8. , his nephew 
g Licinius junior crudelissime inter●●citur, ex Eus. Che. citat. Bar. an. 324. nu. 1. & ipse probat hoc. nu. 8. & 9 & nu. 〈◊〉. propinqu●s adeo 〈◊〉 non peper● it.  Licinius, and very many 
h Bar. an. eod. nu. 17.  other of his friends. After these, tot 
i Ibid.  tamque immania scelera perpetrata, so many and so immane cruelties committed, Baronius shows 
k Ibid.  out of that Constantine being sore perplexed in his conscience, went to his heathenish Priests (for as yet, saith Sozimus, 
m Sozim. lib. 2. pa. 31.  patritis sacris utebatur, he used the heathen rites, sacrifices, and religion) to be expiated from these crimes by them. But the Heathen Priests denying, that they had any means to lustrate or purge so great and foul offences, He understood by a certain Spaniard, whose name was Aegiptius (Baronius 
n Egiptius, magum notat. ideo in eam planè sententiam i●imus, ut hunc magum Hispanum nullum alium existimemus quam Hosium Corduben●em. Bar. an. cit. nu. 27.  thinks him to have been the renowned Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain) Sententiam doctrinae Christianorum, That by the doctrine of Christians, any sins might be abolished and pardoned; whereupon Constantine forsook his ancient Religion, and followed the Egyptians advice. Thus Sozimus, touching the murder of Crispus and the rest, to whom Baronius 
o Anno eod. 324. nu. 27.  in this manner applauds, Vides haec omnia, You see all these things set down by Sozimus and other Heathens, Esse in omnibus consentanea veritati, to be in all points consonant to truth, and worthy to be entirely received of all such as exactly follow the truth. This was the first supposed cause of the leprosy of Constantine.  
The other was a crime fare greater than this, and that was his Persecution of the Church of God, of which the Acts of Silvester make express mention. When 
p Act. Siluestri apud Bar. an. 324. nu. 33.  Constantine persecuted the Christians, Siluevester with his clergy fled into the Mountain Soracte. Pope Adrian mentions the same in his Epistle sent to Constantine, and Irene, which was read and approved in the second Nicene Council, where he saith 
q Had●i. 1. Epist. 1. ; That when Constantine ad fidem converteretur was converted to Christianity, the Apostles Peter and Paul appearing to him in a vision, said unto him; Sylvester Bishop of Rome with his clergy, Persecutiones tuas fugiens, fleeing thy persecution, is hid in the Mountain Soracte, among the cliffs and dens of the Rocks. And again, When Constantine had sent a troop of Soldiers to bring Silvester unto him, the Pope credidit se ad Martyrij coronam eu●cari, Thought that they had been come to put them to death, and to martyr them. Of the same persecution Baronius entreating out of the Acts of Silvester, affirms 
r Bar. an 324 nu. 33.  Constantinum adhuc patrita sectantem, persecutionem adversus Ecclesiam Dei concitasse; That Constantine as yet following his heathen superstition, raised persecution against the Church of God, Which Sylvester to avoid, fled into the Mountain Soracte. The very same doth Binius 
s Bin. Not. in vitam Silu. §. Hic in. Constantinus adhuc avita ●●ctatus, persecutionem concitavit. etc.  affirm, and then they both 
t Bar. loc. cit. & Bin. Not. in vitam Silu. §. Quem curavit.  add, Constantinum ob admissa flagitia fuisse à Deo lepra percussum. That Constantine was smitten with a leprosy by the hand of God for these crimes, to wit, for those unnaturals murders, and persecution of Christians.  
Thus we have the disease and leprosy of Constantine, and the two causes thereof: Now the cure of it, as they 
u Bar. an. 324. nu. 33. Legend in S. silvest, & Edict. Const. de Donat. 10. 1 Conc. pa. 296. & Hadr. Epist, 1. quae etiam citatur in conc. Nic. 2. Act. 2. & ●re●●iar. Rom. in Festo S. Silu,  declare, was in this manner. Constantine to get help of his leprosy, first consulted with the Priests, who told him that he must make a pond with the blood of Infants, and therein wash himself, and so he should be cleansed: but the▪ Emperor moved with the outcries and lamentations of the mothers, refused such a cure; and then in the night in a vision, did Peter and Paul appear unto him, and willed him to sand for Silvester, who would show him another pond, wherein after thrice washing he should be cleansed and cured: withal admonishing 
r T●● autem relicta omni idolorum superstitio●e deum vnu● adores, etc. Hadr. Epist. 1.  him, to leave his superstitious worship of Idols, and to serve the only true God. Constantine being thus admonished from heaven, sent for Sylvester, and among other conferences, percunctabatur 
s Hadr. loc. cit.  qui essent dij Petrus & Paulus: what Gods Peter and Paul were? and when Silvester had told him that they were two of the Apostles of Christ, and shown their Images unto him, he was baptised by Silvester, and presently 
t Confestim ●●nitati restitutus est. Had. Epist. in conc. Nic. 2 Baptismo sanatur. B●e●. in Festo Siluest●●.  restored to his health.  
Here is the benefit which Constantine received of Silvester by baptism; the consequents whereof were diverse. One, his erecting 
u De his vid. Bar. an. 324. nu. 63. & seq. Bin. Notis in Donat. Const. & ●rcu loco cit.  of many Churches, adorning them with Images and great gifts, particularly with That Donation so famously 
x Bar. an. 324. nu. 117.  mentioned, wherein the city of Rome, all the Provinces in Italy, and other parts of the West were conferred unto the Pope, and his successors for ever. A second, his Edicts 
y Anno citato nu. 82.  for embracing Christianity every where: and specially a liberty granted to Christians to build Churches, Quod ante negatum erat, which before this time, or until then, was not permitted unto them, as their Breuiarie 
z Loco citato.  saith. And to omit others, the holding of this Roman 
a Imperator ●am re●ens baptizatus, hoc Concilium (Rom. 2.) promovit eo fine, ut public●m quandam gratiarum actionem pro accepto beneficio deo ageret. Bin. Not. in hoc Conc. & Bar. an. 324. nu. 124.  Synod, which was to be a public testimony of his thanksgiving for such great benefits. This is the sum of that Narration, by which Baronius and others, do maintain the truth of this Synod, whereof we now entreat.  
It were even an Herculean labour to purge out the untruths of this their narration, which is as foul, as ever was Angias stable. Leaving the rest, I will principally observe such points therein, as tend most of all to declare the falsehood and forgery of this Roman Synod: and those are four, all of them depending on this circumstance of the time when this Council was held.   

CHAP. four  
The fourth reason proving this second Roman Synod to be a forgery, taken from the supposed murder of Crispus by his father Constantine.  
THE first circumstance discovering the forgery of this Roman Synod, is the murder of Crispus. This Synod did follow that murder, as Baronius 
a Ex his explorata prorsus habentur admissa dira ac parricidalia Constantini delicta, ab eodemque ad ea abluenda queasita remedia. Bar. an. 324. nu. 28.  expressly teacheth, and proves also out of Zosimus, seeing that murder and the guiltiness thereof was one occasion why Constantine sought for remedy both of this sin, and of his leprosy: the cure of both which he obtained by baptism at Silvesters hands. Seeing then this Synod followed his baptism, as the Synodall Acts 
b Cap. 1. con. Rom. 2.  do expressly witness: and Baronius 
c Bar a●. 324. nu. 123.  with Binius 
d Postquam Imperator jan. recens baptizatus, etc. 〈◊〉. Notis in hoc Conc.  confesseth, it must of necessity follow that murder of Crispus also.  
Now that Crispus was neither murdered nor dead, at or before the time of this Synod, will be clear, if we carefully observe the time of both these. The Synod ended on the 30. of May. in the year when Crispus and Constantine the younger were the third time Consuls. For so the corrected Acts do testify, Actum in Traianas' thermas 3. Calen. junij. These things were done on the 30. of May, in that year. That 30. of May, in the third Consulship of Crispus, falls out to be in the end of the 18. year of Constantine's Empire, wanting only two months of the end thereof. For Constantine began 
e 8. K●lend. August. succ●ssit Constantio Constantinus. Bar. an 306. nu 3. & Socr. lib. 1. cap. 1.  his Empire at York in Britain on the 25. of july, when Constantius Clorus, and Galerius, were the sixth time Consuls, which was an. 306. From that Consulship exclusive, unto the third Consulship of Crispus, (which was an. Ch. 324.) there being 18. Consulships, and so 18. years, it is certain, that from the 25. day of july, in the sixth Consulship of Constantius Clorus, to the 25. of july, in the third Consulship of Crispus, there are exactly 18. complete years, and no more: whence it certainly followeth, that if Crispus was murdered before the 30. of May, in the 3. Consulship of Crispus, then must he be dead in the end of the 18. year of Constantine the Emperor, seeing his 19 year began not till the 25. day of july next following in that same third Consulship of Crispus.  
Let us now examine the time of the death of Crispus, and you shall see that he neither died in the 18. nor yet in the 19 year of Constantine's Empire, but in the 20. Of it Sozomen thus writeth 
f Sozom. lib. 1. ca 5. ; Crispus for whose murder Constantine is said to have sought expiation, vigesimo anno imperij paterni mortuus est, died in the 20. year of his father's Empire. Baronius strives here against the stream, and sets this Gloss upon the words of Sozomen, that he meant Crispus to have lived 
g Bar. an. 324. nu. 7.  ad vigesimum usque Imperij patris annum, unto the twentieth year of Constantine: now s●ith he, Crispus pervenit ad 20. Constantini annum, sed exclusive, attained or lived unto the 20. year of Constantine exclusively, that is, he lived not in it, but died in the next year before it; namely, in the nineteenth of Constantine. Truly the Cardinal's Gloss is directly contrary, both to the words and meaning of Sozomen. For Sozomen saith not, as the Cardinal with great fraud and falsehood allegeth him, That Crispus came unto the twentieth year of Constantine, (which words may admit the Cardinal's Interpretation) but Crispus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, died and ended his life in the 20. year of Constantine, and so lived in some part thereof. Unto Sozomen herein accord the greek Fasti, where in the 20. year of Constantine, in the Consulship of Paulinus and julianus, and after the Nicen Council was begun, the time of Crispus death is expressly set down to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on the eighteenth day of September, in that twentieth year; that is more than fifteen months, after that thirtieth of May, on which the Roman Synod was ended, in the third Consulship of Crispus-Cassiodore in his tripartite History, affirmeth 
h Crispus vigesimo anno Imperij paterni defunctus est. Hist. Trip. lib. 1. cap. 6.  the same with Sozomen, and so doth Nicephorus 
i Crispus vigesimo Imperij eius (Constantini) anno decessit. Nic. lib. 7. ca 35.  and others; yea, Onuphrius 
k Onuph. Com. in Fast.  affirms, he died not until the 7. Consulship of Constantine, which was the year after the Nicene Council was ended.  
That which misled Baronius, or rather whereby he labours to misled others in this cause, is a sentence in the Latin Chronicle 
l Euseb. chro▪ Lat.  of Eusebius, where it is said, That Crispus was most cruelly murdered by his father Constantine, anno imperij sui nono, in the ninth year of Crispus being Caesar. Now that ninth year of Crispus being Caesar, is the nineteenth year of Constantine's Empire, as Baronius 
m Bar. ann. 315. nu. 1. & seq.  had proved. So the murder of Crispus will fall out in the nineteenth 
n Hic planè annus perspicuè demonstratur esse eorundem Caesarum nonus quo dicuntur esse necati. Bar. an 324 nu. 1. & 7.  year of Constantine.  
Doubtless, the Cardinal was in some ecstasy or passion, when he could not, or would not see how directly this testimony doth overthrew his whole purpose touching this Roman Council, which he strives to defend. For it is certain, that the 9 year of Crispus being Caesar, is the 19 year of Constant. seeing Nazarius in his Panigyricke made in honour of the Caesars, saith 
n Quintum decimum annum Imperij princeps degit. Quinquenna●●a beaussimorum Caesarum occupatos in gaudijs habent. Nazar. Rhet. in paneg. 3. , That the 15. year of Constantine, was the 5. year of the Caesars; which is also evident by Eusebius: for in one place he expressly saith 
o Eus. in chro. an. 8. Constan. tini, iuxta unam editionem: an. 〈◊〉. iuxta aliam , That Crispus and Constantine the younger, were made Caesar's at once, and in one year. And in another 
p Euseb. lib. 4. de vita Const. cap. 40.  he expressly affirms, Constantine the younger to have been made Caesar decimo paterni Imperij anno, in the tenth year of his Father's Empire. So the 9 year of Crispus being Caesar, falling out in the 19 year of Constantine's Empire, could not begin till the 25. of july, in that year when Crispus was third time Consul; seeing on that day, in that year, began the 19 year of his father's Empire. Wherefore seeing both that Latin Chronicle of Eusebius testifieth, and Baronius confesseth that Crispus was murdered in that ninth year, it inevitably ensueth, that he was alive two months after the Roman Synod was ended, which was on the 30. of May in that same year. So inconsiderate was the Cardinal in producing this testimony as his chiefest proof, that by it he hath demonstrated the murder of Crispus, neither to have been any occasion of Constantine's baptism, or of his holding this Roman Synod; neither so much as to have happened before, but two months after the Synod was ended.  
Besides, that Latin Chronicle of Eusebius is many ways untrue, and such as the Cardinal even in these times of Crispus rejecteth. In that Eusebius, it is said that Crispus was made Caesar in the eighth year of Constantine: Erroris arguitur 
q Bar. an. 315. nu. 3. , saith the Cardinal, Eusebius is in this point erroneous: why may not another give the like censure of the last year of Crispus, and say, Erroris arguitur, Eusebius erred, in saying Crispus died in the 9 year of his being Caesar? Again, the ninth year of Crispus being Caesar, and his murder, are both set down in Eusebius to be in the twentieth year of Constantine: of this the Cardinal saith, 
a Bar. 324. nu. 1.  Perperam positus est, This year is placed amiss in Eusebius. May not another say as justly, the ninth year of Crispus is perperam positus, set down amiss in Eusebius, to be the year when he was murdered? Hath Baronius a privilege above others to play the Critic with Eusebius?  
Last of all, there is more than a vehement & strong suspicion, that all this that Baronius citeth out of the Latin Chronicle of Eusebius (that Crispus was murdered in his ninth year) is but some addition that hath crept into the text, for (as after you shall see) neither did Euagrius nor Sozomen know of any such thing in Eusebius: and to this day, in the Greek Eusebius there is nothing at all, either touching the murder of Crispus, or touching the time of his death. And the like corruption of Eusebius his chronicle in other places, may easily be observed; as to go no further, in the very next year before this, that is, in the 18. or, as Scaligers edition accounteth it, the seventeenth year of Constantine, in the Latin Eusebius there is this set down, that Constantine against right and contrary to his oath put Licinius to death at Thessalonica. This is out of doubt an addition thrust in by some, who finding that calumny against Constantine, set down in Zosimus (as it is 
b Zosim. lib. 2. pa. 31. neque multo post violata iurisiurandi religione laqueo vitam ●iad●●●●.  most maliciously) thought good to insert it also into the Latin Chronicle of Eusebius; whereas neither it is in the Greek, neither is it true that Constantine broke his oath or promise therein with Licinius, for his promise of life was conditional, as Socrates 
c Licinius amicitiam simulate cum eo iungere, se astringere iu●a●●ento, nunquam quicquam se moli●u●um in quo aliqua tyrannidis significatio existe●●t. Atque certe non iuravit solum sed etiam peieraui●. etc. Constantinus vb●id intellexit eum occidi iussit. Socrat. l●b. 1. ca 2.  expressly showeth, and Licinius quickly violated the condition by attempting a new rebellion. And Eusebius in his other books is so fare from imputing any blame or blemish to Constantine touching that action, that he expressly saith 
d Eus lib. 2. de vita Con. c. 18.  of Licinius, That he suffered, meritas iustasque poenas, just and deserved punishment, which had it been effected by the perjury of Constantine had certainly been unjust.  
But enough of this testimony out of Eusebius Latin Chronicle, which besides this suspicion, so many ways doth contradict the Cardinals own assertion. So that still it remains sure, that supposing Crispus to have been murdered, yet his murder must fall out after the nineteenth year of Constantine begun, as we have proved, and then the Roman Council which was ended before that time, is certainly convicted to be a counterfeit.  
But what shall be said (to add this in the last place touching Crispus) if Crispus was not at all murdered by Constantine? what then will become of the seeking for expiation, or of baptism to wash away that sin: of this Roman Council, of the donation of Constantine? all the other must needs be accounted fables if that which is the supposed occasion and foundation of them all be fabulous. For the trial of this doubt, hear first what Sozomen saith, I am not ignorant, saith he 
a Sozom. lib. 1 ca 5. , that Constantine is reported by heathen writers to have murdered diverse near of blood unto him, and by name his own son Crispus: for which fact afterwards being sorry, he sought expiation of the heathens; but not obtaining it, he began to be in love with christian religion, and so became a christian. Truly this seems to me to be feigned by those who slander christian religion: So Sozomen. And the very same doth Cassiodore 
b Trip. hist. Cassiod. lib. 1. ca 6.  in his tripartite history set down.  
Hear again what Euagrius saith professedly against Zosimus the narrator of this murder and cruelty. Zosimus, saith he 
c evag. lib. 3. ca 40. , is one of those who are addicted to the nefarious and execrable religion of the heathen, & therefore he is inflamed with spite against Constantine because he was the first Emperor who forsaking that detestable superstition, embraced Christianity. Again, Infinitis maledictis pium & magnificum Constantinum lacerate; he doth with infinite calumnies disgrace the holy Emperor Constantine. For he reporteth that he murdered his own son Crispus, and his wife Fausta; and when he could not by his own heathen priests be expiated from these crimes, then forsaking his ancient religion he turned Christian. Quod autem ista omnino falsa sunt, mox ostendam: But that these things are utterly false I shall strait declare. And a little 
d Ca 41.  after he refutes that slander of Zosimus concerning Crispus, not only by other authors and reasons, but even by Eusebius who lived & was conversant both with Const. & Crispus Which I therefore mention not only to reprove that calumny of Zosimus, but to declare how justly the Latin Chronicle of Eusebius is to be suspected in this matter, seeing in it this cruel murder is expressly imputed to Constantine: whereas Euagrius by the undoubted testimonies of Eusebius, proves the falsehood of that narration. Again, seeing both Euagrius & Sozomen reprove this as a calumny devised by the heathen, and set out by Zosimus; who can think that they would not much rather have reproved it in Eusebius, had he expressed the same, as in that Latin Chronicle it is? Or why should Euagrius reprove Zosimus because he reported that which he heard, living long after, in the time of Honorius: if Eusebius who lived and conversed with Crispus had so expressly delivered the same?  
Hear Nicephorus: I know, saith he 
a Niceph. lib. 7. ca 35. , what crimes the Grecians do impute to Constantine, per sycophantiam & calumnias, by slanders and calumnies; and then reciting this heathenish narration of the murder of Crispus, and after it embracing the Christian religion, he adds: Haec manifesta figmenta, these are manifest fictions, by which they do traduce the faith and piety of Christians, veluti per comaediam, making as it were a play or poetical comedy thereof: Crispus enim vigesimo imperii eius anno decessit, for Crispus (for the murdering of whom they say Constantine fought expiation in his nineteenth year) died in the twentieth year of Constantine. So Nicephorus. Hear lastly their own Augustinus Steuchus 
b Steuch. lib. 2. de donat. Constan. cont. La●. Val p. 156 , who with great scorn rejects the authority of Jerome, and saith, he speaks untruely of Constantine, and he gives this as one reason, because he writes that Crispus was cruelly murdered by him.  
It is true indeed that many writers do mention this murder as committed by Constantine; but the first and most ancient in whom I find it set down, is Zosimus, who lived about the year 400. after Christ, who extremely hating the christian religion▪ in all places where he can pick any occasion, is desirous to publish any calumny against the professors thereof, especially against Constantine, as Euagrius truly observed: from him it is like that Orosius, Sidonius and others living in that age or near hand, first took it, and from them afterward many received it, clausis oculis, not examining the truth or circumstances of the narration. But seeing both Euagrius and Sozomen diligently sifted and examined the truth of that matter, and found it to be but an heathenish calumny (which the circumstance also of time doth manifest) to disgrace the honour of that most famous Emperor: there is more credit and trust herein to be given to them, then to many other, who without trial relate the same as they found it repeated out of Zosimus, of such as took it from Zosimus. And thus much of this circumstance of time when this Council was held, to wit after Constantine's murdering of Crispus in the year when Crispus was third time Consul, and with him Constantinus Augustus, and this was in truth never.   

CHAP. V.  
The fifth reason proving that the second Roman Synod is a forgery, taken from the leprosy of Constantine.  
ANother circumstance discovering this sergeant Council, is, that it was held for a congratulation after Constantine was purged from his leprosy, as the Acts 
a Eodem tempore cum multi nobiles gauderent, quod Constantinus baptizatus à Siluestro, & mundatus ●uisset à lepra, pro beneficio quod accepit, etc. Conc. Ro. 2. ca 1. & Bin. Notis in illud Conc.  do express. And this also was never. For that whole narration touching the leprosy of Constantine, though it be approved not only by Baronius 
b Bar. an. 324. nu. 33. 36. 42. & alibi. , by Binius 
c Bin. notis in Constant. donat. §. Ipse enim. , by their Angelical 
d Aquin. p. 3. q. 69. art. 8.  Doctor, by the Acts 
e Act. Siluest. apud Baron. loco citato. nu 33.  of Silvester, and by the Charter 
f Donat. Constat. apud Bin. pa. 296.  of Constantine's donation, but even by Pope Adrian 
g Hadrian. 1. Epistola prima qu●e citatur in Conc. Nic. 2. Act secunda, ibique probatur. pa. 313. , by the second Nicene Council, and appointed in their reformed Breuiarie 
h Breu. Rom. in fest. Siluest.  for a parcel of a public lesson to be read in the Church, yet is it a very Legendary fable and even an incredible untruth.  
Of it their own Canus saith 
i Leprae Constantinianae testis gravis & probatus ex ●eteribus nemo est. Canu. Loc Theol. lib. 11. cap. 5. §. Quod deinde: &, scriptores omnes veteres (de hac lepra Constantini) tacuerunt, non o●●fluri s●iciuissent, sci●a● omnino rem si fuisset. ibidem. , There is no ancient writer who is a grave and allowed witness that mentioneth this leprosy of Constantine. And again, that Constantine was sick of a leprosy, apud idoneos authores nusquam legi, I no where read it in any author who is a grave, worthy or fit witness thereof. So Canus. And yet he read it in the Roman Council, in Pope Hadrian, among the Acts of the second Nicen Council, in the Acts of Silvester, in the Roman Breuiarie, in the donation of Constantine, in Saint Thomas, in all these it is read, and most of them Canus mentioneth. So by Canus own confession none of all these is either a grave, and allowed, or a fit witness of this matter; that is to say, none of them all, neither they all together are such as may be credited: Which is a very hard censure, specially of this Roman Synod, of Pope Adrian, of the second Nicen Council, and of the Breuiarie.  
Of the same writes Platina 
a Plat. in vit ● Marci. 1.  in this manner: That Constantine fell into a leprosy, as is vulgarly reported, that he was cleansed thereof by Baptism; that he should have been washed in infant's blood as the fable is, Nullo modo credo, I believe none of these in any sort; and he gives this reason, for that, hac de re à nullo scriptorum fit mentio, there is no mention hereof in any (faithful) writers, neither heathen nor Christian. Orosius would not have passed over this, nor Eutropius, nor those who most diligently have written the Acts of Constantine. Thus Platina: and the very same saith Nauclerus 
b Nau in annum Chr. 314. . Now if in no ancient or faithful writer there be mention thereof, then out of question this Roman Synod is neither ancient nor faithful: the donation of Const. is neither ancient nor faithful: the second Nicene Synod neither ancient nor faithful: the acts of Silvester are neither ancient nor faithful: the Epistle of Pope Hadrian neither ancient nor faithful: for in all these this fable is expressly set down and related. To the very like effect saith Caietan 
a Caiet. Annot in p. 3. Aqu. q. 69. art. 8. , Nuliius authoritate constat: it appears by the authority of none (to wit, who are worthy of credit) that Constantine fell into a leprosy and was purged thereof by baptism. And he adds three reasons of his saying; First, because the Acts of Silvester, (those are they which Baronius magnifieth) are uncertain. Secondly, because no good writer either heathen or christian reports this. Thirdly, because it is repugnant to the authority of Saint Ambrose. Thus Caietane.  
This might be sufficient for such as are not addicted to their wilful errors: but because Baronius and Binius, & their applauders are men of another temper, let us now consider whether there be either likelihood or possibility in this narration. There are two causes alleged why God thus smit Constantine with a leprosy: the one his cruelty 
b Habent Acta Siluestri (quae ipse approbat & sequitur illo an. nu. 31.) Constantinum 〈◊〉 admissa flagitia, lepr● percussum, etc. Bar. an 324. nu. 33. Inter ●a flagitia censet Crispi aliorúque occisionem an. eod. nu. 28. & saepe alibi.  and unnatural tyranny in murdering Crispus, Fausta, Licinius, and others. But that this possibly could be no cause thereof (especially in that nineteenth year of Constantine wherein he is supposed to have been a leper) is evident by that which before was declared; seeing Crispus was living in the twentieth year of Constantine, and seeing this was but a malicious calumny and sycophancy of Zosimus and other heathens: so for that cause he could not be a leper.  
The other supposed cause (which now we are to examine) was Constantine's persecuting of the Church, and his following of Heathenish Idolatries, and superstition, until this time of his leprosy, and murder of Crispus, from which by baptism he was cured. Of this Baronius thus writeth 
m Bar. an. 324. nu. 33. , The Acts of Sylvester (for the truth and credit whereof he earnestly 
n An. eod. nu. 31. & seq:  labours) declare Constantinum adhuc patrita sectantem, persecutionem adversus Ecclesiam excitasse, That Constantine until this time following the Heathenish Religion of his fathers, did raise persecution against the Church; for which crimes he was smitten with a leprosy. Thus Baronius; affirming Constantine even adhuc▪ till that time of his leprosy, and till he had killed Crispus, to have been an Idolater and embracer of Heathen superstition. Of it their Roman Breuiarie thus 
o Breu. Rom▪ in Festo S. Siluest.  saith; Constantine being cured of his leprosy by baptism, was inflamed, ad tuendam & propagand●m, both to maintain and propagate the Christian Religion, giving licence and power to Christians to build public Churches, Quod ante negatum est, which till then, was not permitted unto them. The Heathen Writers do relate this at large. Sozomen 
p Zo●om. 〈◊〉. 1. cap. ●.  reports how they writ, That Constantine when he could not obtain of his Heathenish Soothsayers purgation from his crimes, by chance happened to meet with some Bishops, and they promising to him expiation for his sins, caepisse illum, illorum religionem in admiratione habere & fiera Christianum: That he than began to be in love with Christian religion, and to be a Christian himself, and draw his subjects to Christianity. Zosimus 
q Zo●●m. 〈◊〉 2. pa. ●1.  most clearly relates this, saying; That Constantine until he fell into those crimes of murder of Crispus, Fausta, and others, Patritis adhuc sacris utebatur, embraced and followed his heathenish religion. And that When the Egyptian (Hosius) being first admitted to his conference, persuaded him to be a Christian, Tum patrita missa facere. Then he forsook or left his Heathenish Religion, Ad e●que abolenda se convertit; And turned himself to abolish it. So Zosimus. Baronius having related 
r Bar. an. 324. nu. 17. & 27.  this and some other like passages out of Zosimus, approveth them for true, and saith 
s Ibid. nu. 28. ; These things being confirmed, specially by the testimony of Heathen Writers, atque exacta insuper adhibita examinatione probata, certa veraque cognita, etc. Are known to be approved, certain and true by exact examination. So he; teaching it with Zosimus, and other Heathens, to be not only true, but certain, that Constantine till he fell into these crimes, and into this leprosy caused by them, had been not only an embracer of Paganism and Heathenish Idolatries, but a persecuter also of the Church: and that Interea 
t Bar. an. eod. nu. 33.  fuisse ob admissa flagitia lepra percussum, That while he was in this state, for those crimes of murder and persecution, he was smitten with leprosy.  
Truly, they could not have devised a more false and palpable slander to dishonour the religious Emperor: and though the heathen writers may be winked at, yet Baronius approving their malicious untruths for known and certain truths, is unpardonable. Neither was Constantine a persecuter, neither did he at that time follow heathenish Idolatries and superstitions; neither was he then, but many years before converted and become, and so continued a zealous professor and defender also of the true Christian faith. Of all which there are every where so many and so evident demonstrations, that I may truly say, Inopem me copia fecit.  
Among many millions of testimonies, let us consider a few about that time, when he made wars and overcame Licinius. Those wars began about his 11. year, and there was a full conquest of Licinius, and end of the wars against him, in the 12. year of Constantine, as appeareth evidently by Constantine's Edict 
u Cuius est mentio, l. 1. De veteranis, Cod. Theod. , (mentioning both his victory 
x Ex die 5. Nonar. juliarum cum p●●ma per Thraciam victoria universo orbi illuxit. Ibid.  at Thrace, obtained the year before, and his dismission of his soldiers after the end of those wars at Nicomedia) bearing date the 10. of April, when Licinius was fift time Consul, and Crispus his Colleague; which was for the first part of their Consulship in the 12. and after the 24. of july, in the 13. year of Constantine.  
That Constantine at this time had utterly forsaken Paganism, and was now an earnest protector of the Church of Christ, against the cruel persecution of Licinius: besides other, that one memorable speech of Licinius is a most evident witness, which he made to his soldiers in a grove, where they had many Images of their Gods erected, to which they set up burning tapers, and wax candles, and offered sacrifice. Thus said 
y Euseb lib. 2. de vit● Const. ca 5.  Licinius, Dij isti sunt●pasrij, These are the Gods of our Fathers, which from antiquity we have received of our ancestors to be worshipped, and which we do religiously honour. But this Constantine who is to fight against us, patrijs institutis violatis, having violated the ordinances of his fathers, & being blinded with error, worshippeth a strange God, et turpi istius insigni, and with that shameful ensign of his God (he meant the Cross) he greatly disgraceth his army: and in confidence of this God he comes into the field, not only against us, but much more, contra ipsos Deos, quorum cultum ut proditor deseruit, against the Gods themselves, whose worship he as a Traitor hath forsaken. Thus and much more to this purpose said Licinius. Was Constantine think you a persecutor of Christians at this time▪ who fought against Licinius for 
y Licinius persecutionem contra Christianos iam pridem ex●●ctam de integro exuscitavit. Euseb. lib. 2. de vit. Const. cap. 1.  persecuting them? Was he an Idolater or worshipper of heathen Gods, of whom Licinius complains, that he came to fight against those their ancient Gods?  
See again how Constantine prepared himself to the battle, He then especially (saith Eusebius 
z Precibus si vn●●●am alias, ian●●sibi opus intelligens, dei sollicitare sacerdotes, etc. Eus. lib. eod. ca 4. ) gave himself unto prayers, he called the Bishops, and solicited them not to departed from him, but to be ever at hand: whom he kept about him, tanquam animae custodes, as the Watchmen and guardians of his soul; he consecrated all 
a Ibid cap. 12. 13. 14.  the vacant time he had to pour out his prayers to Christ his Saviour: he made more account of God, then of his life, Illius consilijs omnia transigere, he did nothing but with the direction of God's counsel: are these tokens of one as yet not converted? of a persecutor of Christians?  
After the victory, as soon as he had now obtained the so●e government of the Empire, with what care, piety, and zeal, he advanced the Christian faith, all Histories are records, his imperial Edicts, the whole Empire, the whole world is a witness. In his foureteenth year, the Greek Fasti say 
b Epit. Chro. 〈◊〉 an. 14. Constantini. , The heavenly light of our Saviour Christ shined through the whole world unto the Churches, Tyrants every where being dead, and their houses rooted out. The very like doth Eusebius 
b Eus lib ●. ca 19 & 23.  witness. The wickedmen (to wit, persecutors) being now destroyed and rooted out, the world was illustrated as with clear beams of the Sun, and the Emperor, Deum omnibus praedicare coepit, began to publish the true God to all in his Empire. In his 14. year, saith Cedrenus 
c Ced. in hist. , When the whole Empire was now come to Constantine alone, Omnes suas cogitationes ad sacras res convertit, He converted all his thoughts to holy matters, he builded Churches, and magnificently enriched the same: he made diverse laws also, one that such Temples as had been consecrated to Idols, should be dedicated to Christ and his service. Another, that only Christians should go to the wars, that they only should bear rule both in time of peace and war. A third, that he who continued in the worship of the false Gods, capite plectatur, should be put to death. So Cedrenus. The like saith Sozomen 
d Sozom. lib. 1. ca 8. , When Constantine had now got the sole 
e Id vero obtinuit devicto Licinio, quod ante 14 annum factum fuisse ex l. 1. De veteranis ante ●●tata, liquet.  Empire, by a public Edict he commanded his subjects, uti religionem Christianam colerent▪ That they should embrace the Christian religion. And when he had by his Edict commanded this and much more, whereby he was persuaded that his Subjects, ad veram religionem impelli, might be compelled to the true Religion, he abrogated all the Acts and Decrees of persecutors made against Christians; he appointed throughout his Empire such Governors as were Christians, interdicerentque omnibus, and they forbade all, either to erect Statues, to offer to Idols, or Festa gentilitia celebrare, To observe▪ their Heathenish celebrities; he commauded that on the Lords day they should abstain from judgement or doing any work but should consecrated that day to call upon God. So Sozomen.  
The very Imperial Edicts are verbatim recorded in Eusebius 
m Eus. in vita Const. lib 2. ca 24. ad 44. & à ca 47. ad 60. , wherein the several branches of those Laws are set down; two or three of them were these. One, whereby 
n Lib. eod. ca 44. 45.  he forbade those detestable and heathenish Idolatries, which were anciently used in every city or country; the other, Qu● iussit templa exaedificari, whereby he commanded that Churches should be builded, and that they should spare for no cost therein, but that they should receive moneys out of the Emperor's treasury. A third, was touching restitution 
o Ibid. ca 35. & 39  to be made to the Church, of whatsoever in time of persecution had been taken from it. If the public treasury possess any such goods, it shall not be free to retain them, yea, let no man dare to speak aught, Contra sanctas Dei Ecclesias, against the holy Churches; and what he hath by injury for a time possessed, ea Ecclesiis suis iure restituat, Let him restore that to the Church, as in right he aught. The like Edict (besides many other) for Immunity 
p L. ●●de Episcopis, Ecclesijs & Clericis ●od. Theod. Qui divino cultui ministeria impendunt, ab omnibus omnino muneribus excusentur, ne sacrilego ●●ore quorund●m à 〈◊〉 obsequijs anocentur.  of the Clergy, and that no burdens should be imposed upon them, is extant in the Code, and was published in November, in his fifth Consulship, and that was in the beginning of his foureteenth year.  
Nor do I mention these decrees about his 13. or 14. year, as if Constantine had then first of all forsaken and rejected the heathenish superstitions, and embraced the profession of the Christian faith, for he had done that long before. His law 
q Ibid. l. 1.  is yet extant, wherein he mentions, Privilegia indulta, his privileges which he had before granted to the Cleargic; contrary to which, some heretics did molest them. but the Emperor command's that his officers should see such injuries redressed and hindered. This Edict was set forth in October, when himself was the 3. time, and with him Licinius Consul, which was in the beginning of his eight year: and yet before that, he had granted privileges unto them. So clear it is, that long before his 13. much more before his 19 year, he was a Defender of the Catholic faith. Even from his 
r Helena Constantinum filiú ad pi●tatem à puero instituit, ait Bar. an. 315. nu. 12. p●er Christianismum complexus est. Niceph lib 7. ca 18.  infancy he ever bore a loving affection to Christian religion, which both Constantius Clorus his father, and Helena his mother, had before professed: but after he had once been confirmed in the same, by those two visions, which in the sixth or seaventh year 
s Max●ntius à Constantino superatus, occiditur anno Constantini sexto. Euseb. in Chron. ad an. 7 Constant. & in alijs eiusdem editionibus Latinis ad annum 6. Const. quomodo & in Graeca Eusebian. Chron. edit. ponitur.  of his Empire, (when he made war against Maxentius, & overcame him) was manifested unto him, the one of Christ's name 
t De quo mentio est Crucis nomine in Fast. Graecis ad an. 6 Const. & in Euseb lib. 1. de vita Const. ca 22. & 25. Vbi signum illud, non Crucem fuisse, sed duo prima nominis Christi elemen. ●aliquido demonstrat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appearing in the air, in the day time, somewhat like a Cross (for which cause it is usually so called:) the other of Christ  
u Ibid. ca 23.  himself in the night, manifesting himself unto him; after that (as Eusebius 
x Ibid. ca 26  shows) he set down with himself, That he would worship no God, but the God of Christians: he called the Bishops unto him, and was instructed by them; cultu 
y Ibid. ca 35.  et obseruantia honorifice amplecti, he entertained them with all love, reverence and honour, and set 
z Illos suae mensae participes effecit.  them at his own table, whither soever he went, he had them with him, he decreed 
a Ibid. ca 26. , to bend his whole mind to the reading of the Scriptures: in token of his public profession of Christ, he carried the first letters 
b Ibid ca 25. in corona salutaris appellationis seruatoris nota ins●r●pta, duobus solum expressa elementis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae totum Christi nomen perspicuè significarunt.  of Christ's name (usually, but not fitly nor rightly called the Cross) in his helmet, in his ensigns, in his Diadem, and at his 
a Ad pectus usque continuè descriptum continuit.  breast; he erected 
b Ibid. an 33.  a monument thereof in the city. After his victory over Maxentius, in the beginning of his seaventh year, he writ letters to Cecilianus 
c Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. ca 6.  then Bishop of Carthage▪ signifying his Bountiful gifts to the Ministers legitimae et sanctissimae catholicae religionis, of the true and most holy Catholic religion: to Anulinus 
d Ibid. ca 5.  about The liberties and immunities which he granted to the Clergy: after that to Pope Meltiades 
e Ibid. , and Crescus B. of Siracuse, wherein he calls the Christian Profession, the most holy religion: he calls 
g Euseb. lib. 10. ca 5.  them to a Council, himself was present among them at Arles, yea, (as Eusebius 
h Eus lib. 1. devit. Const. ca 37.  saith) he was, tanquam communis Episcopus à Deo constitutus: as a common or general Bishop to the Church; and time would fail to recount the thousand part of those evidences, whereby is demonstrated, that long before his 19 year he had both in his own practice, & by public laws quite abandoned the Heathen worship of the Gods, and had showed himself not only a professor of Christianity, but a protector of Christians, and a nursing father unto the Church.  
By these do most clearly appear the manifold untruths of that legendary tale touching the leprosy of Constantine, and what trust is to be given to the approvers & abetters thereof. First, that Constantine till that 19 year of his reign, wherein he is said to have murdered Crispus; did follow the heathenish worship of the gods, & their superstition, is a most manifest untruth. This doth Zosimus 
i Patritis adhuc sacris utebatur, & hoc consilio (Hosij) impulsus ad eiusmodi abolenda se convertit. Zosim. lib. 2. pa. 〈◊〉.  teach, Pope Adrian 
a ●u autem in hac parte ●u●●fica te ut relicta omni superstitione idolorum etc. Had. 1. Epist. 1.  the 1. the 2. Nicen 
b Act. 2. ubi Hadriani Epistola recitatur & approbatur, p. 309. & 313.  Synod, the Author 
c Donat. Con. ubi idem recitatur quod ab Hadriano.  of the donation of Constantine approve, and Binius 
d Bin. Notis in Donat. Constant. §. Ipse enim. & in Nota marginali ad Epist. Had. in Conc. Nicen 2. Act. 2. p. 309  seals up this and the rest that follow, with this note, Hanc totam historiam Hadrianus, the Pope recites this whole story, and by the authority of this edict doth confirm it.  
2 That till then, when Silvester came unto Constantine to baptise him, he knew not whether Peter and Paul were Gods or Apostles of Christ, is a most palpable untruth: yet this doth Pope Adrian 
e Quae sivit Imperator, qua lesnam arbitraretur Deos esse Petium & Paulum. Hadr. & Conc. Nic. & Donat. Con & Bin. locis citatis. , the second Nicene Council, the Author of Constantine's donation approve, and Binius seals it with his former note: This story is confirmed by the authority of Pope Hadrian.  
3 That Constantine was not converted to Christianity till this time, and this occasion of his murder and leprosy, and in that nineteenth year, is an unexscusable untruth. This doth the narration of Zosimus 
f Locis citatis.  and all the former imply; and Pope Adrian more plainly expresseth it, saying 
g Had. Epist▪ cit. : that this fell out touching the leprosy of Constantine, and cure thereof, Cum ad fidem converteretur pius Imperator, when the conversion of the holy Emperor Constantine was wrought: and the like doth their Breuiarie 
h Breu in festo S Siluest. , where Peter and Paul commanded him, that if he would be delivered from his leprosy, after that he was baptised by Silvester, he should command throughout his Empire, temples to be built after the Christian manner, which till then had not been permitted; and taking away the images of vain gods, he should worship the only true God. And Baronius 
i Haec exacta, adhibita examinatione probata, certa veraque cognita. Bar. an. 324; nu. 28.  approves the narration of Zosimus for true and certain.  
4 That Constantine was at that time a persecutor of Christians, is a most malicious untruth, yet this doth the writer 
a Silvester persecutiones tuas fugiens. Donat. Con.  of Constantine's donation affirm: Hadrian the Pope approves 
b Had. & Con: Nic. locis citatis.  and confirms the same: the second Nicen fathers applaud it, Anastasius 
c Cuius persecutionem sugiens. Anast. in vita Siluest.  records it, Baronius 
d Plane animo exhorrescit, qui audit ipsum Constantinum esse persecutum Ecclesiam. Bar. an. 324. nu. 34. &, tempora plane● Neroniana erant. ibid. nu. 35.  strives to maintain it, and Binius seals it up with his former saying 
e Bin. loco cit. &, Siluestri & Constantini historia confirmata etiam literis & authoritate Adriani Papae. Bin. No. marg. ad Epist. 1. Hadr. loco citato. , This whole history is recited and confirmed by Pope Adrian's authority.  
5 That Pope Silvester fled from the city, and hid himself with his Clergy in dens and caves, or mountains, by reason of Constantine's persecuting of Christians, is another untruth. How could they flee that which was not? yet is this recorded by Anastasius 
f Anast. in vita Siluest. ● , approved by the author of the Donation 
g Locis citatis apud omnes. , by Pope Hadrian, by the second Nicen fathers, by Baronius, and sealed up by Binius as a truth confirmed by the Pope's authority.  
6 That Constantine by occasion of this persecution was smitten of God with a leprosy, is a mere fiction, subl●ta causa tollitur effectus. Seeing the causes of this leprosy are feigned, the effect flowing from them, can have no better reality: yet is this leprosy recorded by Anastasius 
h Quem curavit dominus à ●●pra Anast. in ●ita Siluest. , approved 
i Locis ●itatis, ab omnibus illis approbatur.  as a truth by the author of the Donation; by Pope Hadrian, the 2. Nicen fathers, by their Breui●rie, defended by Baronius, who saith 
k Ne quid de hoc reliquum sit quod fidem lectoris retardare possit. Bar. an. 324. nu. 36. , He would have nothing remain which should stay the Reader from believing it, and it is sealed up as a confirmed truth by Binius 
l Locis citatis. .  
7 Constantine's seeking to the heathenish Priests, his preparation of a bath of infant's blood, the information of the Spanish Egyptian (that is, of Hosius) instructing him then first of all touching the efficacy of Christian religion, his vision of Peter and Paul, his sending for Siluerster to be baptised by him, his enquiring for the Images of Peter and Paul, and Silvesters showing them unto him; his baptizme upon this occasion his deliverance from his leprosy immediately upon that baptizme, his Donation after that deliverance: these are so many appendices and latchets hanging upon the main lie of his leprosy: one great or mother untruth, begetteth an 100 Yet are these by the former authors 
a Locis citatis  approved, applauded, and as Binius tells us, sealed with the Pope's confirmation.  
8 By this may be perceived what regard of truth the second Nicen Council had, and what worthy and authentical reasons they alleged for their adoration of Images. This letter of Pope Adrian was read and applauded 
b Dicat nobis beatiss. patriarcha Tharasius, consentitne literis sanctiss Papae veteris Romae, an minus. Tharasius respondit, vim literarum lectarum confirm amus, etc. Sancta Synodus dixit, universa sancta Synodus sic credu, sic docet & iterum, sancta Synodus dixit, sequimur recipimus & probamus literas sanctis. papae. Cone. Nic. 2. Act. 2. p. 313  therein as a special testimony, seeing the Images of Peter and Paul had been so carefully kept 
c Had. Epist. 1. to. 3. pa. 255. b , and were then so evidently demonstrated to Constantine when he was in his leprosy: and Baronius 
d Bar. an. 324. nu. 40.  tells us, that the very same table or picture which was showed then to Constantine, is yet in Saint Peter's Church in the Vatican at Rome to be seen. Now seeing this is a very Chimerical fiction; when the Pope himself was glad to urge such base forged and indeed incredible legendarytales, for the worshipping of images, the rest of the Synod you may be sure, would take heart to tread in his steps, and so they did very mannerly; for that whole Council is fraught with such rales, and out of the credit of them, was decreed an Anethema to all that deny adoration of images. Of the like writings alleged in that Council, I shall perhaps have occasion elsewhere to entreat: by the way let me here observe touching this of Constantine and Silvester, that whereas that Nicen assembly esteemed it a principal reason for the honouring of Images, it is, if it be truly weighed, a most manifest demonstration, that in the primitive ages, Images were neither adored, nor yet set up in Christian Churches. Constantine as before I shown, had been not only a professor of the Christian faith, but a public defender and protector of it, and of Catholics against Heretics, for more than ten whole years before he fell into his supposed leprosie●, as his law before mentioned dated in his eight year is an irrefragable witness. About his thirteenth, at most fourteenth year, he set out those other laws for re-edifying and repairing of Churches and Oratories, for the speedy effecting whereof he was so religiously careful, that he writ to Eusebius 
a Eus. de vita Const. l. 2. c. 45  (and the same in effect to other Bishops.) Quibuscunque Ecclesiis, what churches soever either you are set over, or other Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, ubicunque terrarum any where, you are all to see that those buildings be diligently looked unto, so that either those churches which remain may be repaired and enlarged, or where need is new may be builded: and what is needful for that work call for of the Governors of Provinces, to whom I have given in charge, ut omni study & propensione animi subministrent, that they give those things to you with all readiness and alacrity: and that this was accordingly performed Eusebius 
b Euseb. lib. 10 hist. c. 2. 3. 4.  witnesseth. Now when there were so many magnificent Churches and Oratories builded and beautified, specially in the chief cities; either those Images of Peter and Paul and the like, were not set up; or if they were, Constantine in all that time either came into none of those Churches and Oratories, or at lest adored not, not nor saw those Images. And truly I shall never be induced to think that Constantine for six or ten years together was a Recusant, and came not at the Church of Christians, of whose zeal in praying, love to the word of God, and to the preachers thereof, there are so many undoubted testimonies. Again, that he should come to those Churches (as most certainly he did) had the Apostles Images been then set up and adored by Christians, his irreligion and negligence had been without excuse, who in all those years gave no adoration to the two chief Apostles, neither at Rome where he was often, nor at Sirmium, nor at Milan, nor in any other place of his Empire; nay that he did not so much as see and know the Images of those two Apostles, till Silvester at this time of his leprosy, in his ninetenth year, shown them unto him, it is hereby evident, that Images were in those days neither adored nor set up in their Churches and Oratories: But this by the way touching the worth and worthy proofs of that second Nicen Synod.  
9 By this may further be perceived what true, holy and religious lessons the Roman Church commendeth, and practiseth in their public Liturgy, one of which in their Breuiarie contains the sum of this poetical fable touching the leprosy of Constantine and the cure of it, by Silvesters baptising, yea the Breviary adds one untruth, which neither in Hadrian, nor in the Donation of Constantine, nor Baronius, nor Binius is observed; and that is, That Constantine being thus cured, gave liberty unto Christians publicly to build Churches, quod ante negatum erat, which before this time was not permitted● an untruth easy to be refuted, by many other testimonies, but those which I even now cited out of the Emperor's letters, commanding the Bishops every where to have care diligently to build 
n Sic ergo cum Maximinus è medio sublatus esset, ecclesiae per gratiam omnipotentis dei ex●●sis fundamentis renovabantur & erigebantur. Euseb. l. 9 hist. c. 11. &. l. 10. ca 3. lan Maximinus (post cuius obitum haec facta sunt) obijt an. constantini 6. ut ait Euseb. in chron. sed anno 9 ut ait Bar. an. 314. nu. 8.  and repair their Churches, and furnishing them with all needful things for that work: the many Panegyrickes which the Bishops used at the dedication of their Churches and Oratories (some of which Eusebius 
o Eus lib. 10, hist▪ ca 4.  reciteth) is so abundant to refute the lying Breviary, that I shall not need to add more thereunto, This only, I say, that they had need (and good reason) to have their Liturgy in an unknown tongue, lest the people understanding what legendary fables and untruths they read instead of God's word; should abhor, as justly they aught, that service of God, which is stuffed with so many untruths.  
Lastly, we see by this, that the Roman Synod under Silvester, whereof we do entreat, is nothing else but a base, even a sottish forgery, the author whereof could device no other occasion, than a thanksgiving after Constantine was delivered from his leprosy, who never was touched or affected with that leprosy. I say no more, but seeing the Council itself is witness (and Baronius and Binius defend it therein) that it was held after Constantine was purged of that leprosy: and seeing he never was purged, nor needed any purging or cleansing thereof, it inevitably follows by the testimony of the Council itself, that there never was any such Roman Council, as this is described to have been. So much of the second circumstance, whereby this Council is discovered, namely the leprosy of Constantine.   

CHAP. VI  
The sixth reason proving the second Roman Synod, to be a forgery, taken from the Baptism of Constantine by Pope Silvester.  
A Third circumstance to discover the same, is, that it was held after Constantine was baptised by Silvester, as the acts 
a Eodem tempore cum multi nobiles gauderent quod Constantinus baptizatus à Siluestro esset, etc. Conc. Rom. 2, ca 1▪  do expressly affirm; and this was also never. For the occasion of that baptising by Sylvester, was the leprosy of Constantine, which seeing we have before declared to be a mere fiction, the baptism of leprous Constantine must needs be like it, a legendary fable also. And even this alone were sufficient to be spoken of that Baptism, specially seeing Baronius tells us, that Constantine's baptism was to expiate 
b Per baptismum patratis facinoribus ablus & expiari iussus est. Bar. an. 324. nu. 41. dira & parricidalia delicta. an. eod. nu. 28.  those former crimes, and as he calls them, immane murders, and purge 
c Omnis te mala leprae valetudo deseret. Bar. ex. Hadriani Epi. 1. citat. an. 324. nu. 37  away, as Pope Hadrian saith, his leprosy. But seeing this baptism by Syvester, is a matter so certainly reported 
d Silvester ab exilio rediens baptizavit constantinum. Anast. in vita. Siluestri, & Saunder in sua visib. Monar. ad an. 314. Genebr. in Chron, in Siluestro, Been: Notis in vitam Silu. §. baptizavit.  by them, set down in their Breviary 
e Breu. Ro. in fest. Silu. , approved by Pope Hadrian 
f Had. 1. epist. 1. , by the 2. Nicene Council 
g In quo Epistola Adriani proba●a est Act. 2, p. 313. b. , for defending whereof Baronius 
h Baro. an. 324. nu. 41. ad nu. 72.  hath taken such pains, that he peremptorily tells us, how Constantine prepared 
a Bar. an. 324. nu. 41. coronam d●posuit & vesten imperialem septem diebus.  himself unto it, laying aside his crown and Imperial robes, how many days of Catechising he had, to wit seven: who was his Catechiser, to wit, 
b Hisce catechismi diebus cum ipsum ad fidem instrueretsummus Pontifex & catechista Silvester. ibid.  Silvester: where he was baptised, to wit, at Rome 
c Voluit fieri intra palatium Late●anēse, in. eodem. nu. 42.  near the Lateran palace▪ what manner of Font he had, to wit, such an one 
d Ibid. nu. 57  as was decked with a Lamb of most pure gold; on the right hand of which Lamb was our Saviour of pure silver (note by the way the dignity of the Lamb above Christ:) & on the left hand john Baptist holding this title, Ecce agnus Dei. What number was present: it was not 
e Ibid. nu. 42.  done publicly by reason Constantine was so deformed with his leprosy: but paucis duntaxat arbitris, a very few being witnesses thereof: though of all these, and the rest which are of this stamp, there can be no fit sentence pronounced, then Vanitas vanitatum & omnia vanitas: yet I will add somewhat to show how these men take pains to make and maintain untruths, even such also as being admitted, they gain nothing at all to their cause thereby, unless it be that this Roman Synod might get, which it is never like to do, some small credit by such fictions.  
That Constantine was not baptised, either in his 19 year, or at Rome, or by Silvester, as these Legendars affirm, but in his one and thirtieth year at Nicomedia, and that after the death of Silvester, is by the ancient Ecclesiastical writers with one consent testified. Eusebius who lived at that time, expressly witnesseth it. When Constantine, saith he 
f Euseb. li. 4. de vit. Const. ●61. 62, , being very sick▪ came to the suburbs of Nicomedia, he called the Bishops together, and then signified his desire of Baptizme, saying, It is time now, that at last we should receive that sign of immortality; telling them that he had so long deferred it because he purposed to have been baptised in jordan, after the example of our Saviour: And then, saith Eusebius, his baptism being consummated, Incredibiliter animo gestiebat, By the abundance of his faith he did incredibly rejoice, and a little after 
n Ibid. ca 64  that died. The like witnesseth Socrates, 
o Socr. lib. 1. ca 26.  When Constantine being sixty and five years old, was greatly afflicted with sickness, he came to Nicomedia, Et illic in suburbie, lavacro baptismatis tingitur, He was there baptised; wherewith being exceedingly comforted, he made his testament, and after a few days died. Theodoret 
p Theod. lib. 1. ca 31.  in like manner saith, that a year and some months after that Athanasius was sent to Triers (which was in the thirtieth year of Constantine) when he was sick at Nicomedia, ibi donum suscepit sacri baptismatis, he there received the sacrament of Baptism, for unto that time he had deferred it, Quia in jordane se consecuturum speraverat, because he haped to have been baptised in jordane. Sozomen 
q Sozom. lib. 2 ca 32.  accords hereunto, When Constantine was sick and languishing, he was carried to Nicomedia, Ibi sacrosancto baptismatis mysterio initiatus est, there did he receive the holy sacrament of baptism, wherein exceedingly rejoicing and giving thanks to God, after that he had made his testament, within a few days he died, being sixty five years old. The same doth Saint Ambrose 
r Ambr. orat. in obitum Theodosij.  witness, who saith of Constantine, Baptismatis gratia in ultimis constituto omnia peccata dimisit, The grace of baptism did free him from all sins, being then ready to dye. The same affirms Saint Hierome 
s Higher in contin. chron Eusebiani. ad annum 340. , who in the 31. year of Constantine saith, He was baptised by Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, In extremo vitae suae tempore, even in the very last time of his life. The same doth the Greek Fasti 
t Epitome chron. ab Adom etc. an. 1. Olimp. 279.  witness, Constantine gloriously and religiously changed his life, having been Emperor 31. years, being first made partaker of saving baptism, by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople, who had been formerly 
u Nam Eusebius à Nicome media constantinopolin translatus est, ut docet Socr. lib. 2. ca 5.  of Nicomedia. The same doth Pomponius Laetus affirm, It is a marvel, saith 
x Pom. Laet. in compend. Rom. historiae. in constantino.  he, that Constantine being deditissimus, most addicted to the Christian faith, did defer his baptism, in extremum vitae tempus, to the last part of his age; and then answering this doubt, he did it, saith he, as I think, volens id in jordane efficere, desirous to be baptised in jordane, and he was baptised of the Bishop of Nicomedia. Such an harmony and consent there is in ancient Writers, all testifying that to be untrue which their Breviary, Pope Hadrian, and this counterfeit Synod do affirm; and which Baronius, Binius, Sanders, Genebrard, and others do maintain, that Constantine was baptised at Rome in the 19 year of his Empire: of which Binius 
y Bin. Notis in Epist. de munificentia const. 10. 1. p. 295.  adds one most vast and unexcusable untruth, that the Nicene Council, consensu omnium, by the consent of all Writers, was held after that Constantine was baptised: whereas all those ancient writers before named, do with one consenting voice proclaim the contrary.  
The same also showeth another foolish error of those who suppose, 
z constantinus à Syluestro baptizatus est. Rursus etiam, sicut in multis ac diversis chronicis legimus, ab Eusebio Nicomediensi episcopo rebaptizatus fuisse natratur. Got of. Viterb. in suo chron. part 16. p. 383 fed falso hoc ascribit historiae Tripartitae Hist. Trip. lib. 3. cap. ●2.  that Constantine being first baptised by Sylvester at Rome, was rebaptised by Eusebius at Nicomedia; for they evidently witness, that Constantine until this last time had deferred his baptism, & upon what occasion he did so defer it.  
Now against this consent of ancient Writers, to all which Baronius 
a Necessario affirmandum est, Eusebium esse mentitum. Bar. an. 324. nu. 48. & 54. &, figmentum vocat Binius, quod ab Eusebio alijsque ei consentientibus hic asseritur. Bin. Not. in vitam Silu. §. Baptizavit.  gives the lie, if you consider what Baronius and Binius do oppose, that will much more confirm one in this truth touching the baptism of Constantine. They could not name one ancient Writer, who affirms Constantine to have been baptised by Sylvester; their chief witnesses are the Acts 
b Bar. an. 324. nu. 42.  of Sylvester, the Acts of Liberius, a book published by Anastasius, out of the Vatican, touching the munificence of Constantine. But who are the authors of those Tracts, and what authority they are of, Baronius and Binius were loath to speak. They are all such, as to which belongs that censure noted out of Gelasius by their own Canus. Gelasius and a Council, saith he 
c Canus. lib. 11. loc. Theol. c. 6. §. Quod. si. , commands, ut eas historias nullo modo amplectamur, quae sine authoris nomine proferuntur, that we should in no sort allow of such histories, as are set out without the certain name of the author, for such books do smell either of imposture or heresy. So Canus. Or if you rather desire to hear Gelasius, and the Roman Synod 
d Concil. Rom. 〈◊〉 sub Gelasio.  itself, they profess indeed that they knew some Catholics in Rome, and so in other Churches, to read the Acts of Sylvester, though it wanted the authors▪ name; but their censure of nameless writings is this: Therefore by ancient custom and singular care, such writings of the Saints are not read in the holy Roman Church▪ because the names of the writers are utterly unknown, & ab infidelibus aut i●i●tis superfula aut minus apta scripta esse putantur, and relating things superfluous or less fit, they are thought to be written either of infidels or idiots. So Gelasius with the Council: which censure alone is sufficient for rejecting those nameless & worthless acts, which are the very best authors that Baronius and Binius had in this cause.  
There is another testimony cited by Baronius, 
c Bar. an. 324. nu. 49. & an. 325. nu. 61.  which carrieth great show of antiquity, and that is of Dalmatianus Bishop of Cyzicum, who collecting some Acts of the Nicene Council, setteth down the Oration of Constantine used there before the Bishops, wherein he often confesseth himself, Sacr● baptismate initiatum, to have been baptised at that time. Thus writes Baronius, and hence would collect, that Constantine was the year before the Nicene Synod baptised by Silvester.  
I answer, that the Cardinal both deludes his Reader, and citeth a witness who is directly opposite unto his own position. The author whom he intends is not Dalmatianus, nor yet Dalmatius (as the true name of that Bishop 
d Dalmatiumque Cyziceni episcopum Cyzici ordinant. Socr. l. 7: c. 28. quem Dalmatium scriptorem fuisse illorum actorum putat Alph. Pisanus praefat. sua in Act. Conc. Nic. apud Bin. pa. 321.  of Cyzicum was) but an impostor, whom some would have to be thought that 
e Gelasius Cyzicenus cum Acta Synodi Niceni ex antiquissimo libro (qui quidem fuit Dalmatij Cyzicenorum Archiepiscopi) descripsisset, redegit ex illo multa, etc. Posseu. in Appar. verbo, Nicaeum Concil. Photius, Gelasius hunc, authorem horum Actorum ait, & cundem vocat caesareae Palestinae episcopum, &, cyzicum fuisse ipsi patriam ait in s●a Bibloth. c 88  Gelasius, mentioned by Photius, and is supposed to have written about the year 
f ut conijcit. Baro. an. 476. nu. 67  476. Neither doth Constantine affirm in his Oration set down in that book, that he was baptised before the Nicene assembly. The Impostor indeed relates, or rather forgeth out of his own brain, what Constantine spoke to the Bishops at the beginning of the Council; and he hath devised such a tedious and witless speech 
g Oratio ea extat. li. 2. Act. Conc. Nic. in initio apud Bin. pa. 328. , as neither is true, nor yet befitting the Emperor. In that Oration the Emperor saith; Quid ergo in meae mediocritatis iustificatione dicere oportebat, What was to be said in the justification of my mediocrity, but that which the divine truth doth demonstrate? And again, I truly in this small furniture of my Oration, dare say no more than animam meam iustificatam, that my soul being justified aught to converse in sincerity: and lastly, I will briefly assay to declare this, quatenus fides & animi iustificatio facultatem dicendi dederit; so fare as faith, and justification of mind shall grant ability of speech. Thus doth the Cardinal's forged Dalmatianus, make the Emperor to speak, and out of these three sayings 
h Imperator saepius prefitetur se plane Christianum esse, sacroque baptismate initiatum. Bar. an. 324. nu. 49. Nota (inquit Bin. in illa Dalmatij verba) iustificationem iam tertio repetitam, contra Eusebium, qui Constantinun in fine vitae baptizatum scribit. & vox iustificationis baptizatum ●am fuisse, constantinum significat. Been in marg. pa. 329. a. b. , wherein the Emperor is made to name his justification, they collect that sure the Emperor was baptised.  
I will not here stay to show how witless and impertinent these sayings are, which the forger hath made Constantine to utter, I will only now demand of Baronius and Binius: if justification doth infer baptism, was not Valentinian the Emperor justified, though he died without baptism? Saint Amhrose 
i Amb. Orat. de obitu Vale●●niani.  saith of him, that seeing he purposed when he should come into Italy to be baptised, certè quia poposcit, accepit, surely in that he had a purpose and desire of baptism, he received the fruit of baptism, that is, grace and justification. So may it be said of Constantine, even before he was baptised, seeing he had a resolution and earnest desire to be baptised where Christ was, in jordan, Certè quta poposcit accepit, undoubtedly he had by this desire the fruit of baptism, though it was but then in voto, not in actu. Or if one who believeth, but is not baptised, hath not grace or justification, than that Scripture shall not be true, With the 
k Rom. 10. v. 10.  heart we believe unto justification: and he that believeth in me, hath everlasting life: And, credidit 
l Rom. 4. 3.  Abraham Deo, Abraham believed God, and that was imputed to him for righteousness, even before he was circumcised. It is an excellent saying of Ambrose 
m Amb. loc. 〈◊〉.  to this purpose: Qui habuit spiritum tuum qu●modo non accepit gratiam tuam; He that had thy Spirit, O God, how shall not he have also thy grace, thy justification? Or, If because baptism is not solemnly administered, this doth move you (saith Saint Ambrose) then let not Martyrs be crowned if they be but Catechumen: for (by your saying) they are not crowned (nay, not justified) if they be not baptised: but if they be baptised in their own blood, et hunc sua pietas ab●uit & voluntas: Truly this believer, though a Catechumen is baptised by his own piety and desire of baptism. So Ambrose. This may suffice to show how very frivolous a collection they make from justification or faith to prove baptism, of which I have in another place shown my opinion, without prejudice▪ to others, that baptism is not given to any, (but without all doubt, not to adulti) that they may have grace or justification, but because they are supposed by the Church to have the first grace and to be justified, therefore are they baptised, and receive the seal of their former, and an holy instrument of a second grace, and further assurance of their justification; But of this elsewhere.  
And this I have answered, supposing Constantine to have spoken as the Imposter makes him, and so often to make boast of his justification. But that the Emperor said in truth no such thing at all, it is witnessed by Eusebius, who was present in the Council, and heard the Emperor's Oration, and hath wholly set down 
c Euseb. lib. ●. de vita Const. ca 12.  the same. In which both wise, eloquent, and religious speech of Constantine, there is no such thing either said or signified: the same is in like manner related by Sozomen 
d Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 18. , of that which the Cardinal cities out of his forged Dalmatianus not one syllable. And this by the way may be one strong presumption, that the Author of those Acts meant not truth and good dealing, in the rest of the disputations and Narrations he sets down, when at the entrance he was so bold as to device a false and witless Oration for the Emperor. But if it please God that I may ever finish my other Treatise concerning the eight general Counsels, I purpose, and nothing doubt, to demonstrate by undeniable evidences, that there is no truth nor credit at all to be given to that forged Author, whom Baronius here calleth Dalmatianus Cizicus, and some other call Gelasius.  
Lastly, what will you say if this Dalmatianus do evidently contradict the Cardinals own position, and teach that Constantine was baptised before his 19 year? In this Dalmatianus it is expressly affirmed, 
e Deci●●o quidem tex●o ann. & sex mensibus regni sui, sanctam Concilium congregavit anno 20. conventum d●●●luit. Dalm vel Gelas. lib. 4 & apud Bin. pa 365. quod ex Graeco Vaticano etiam citaturiterum lib. 1 in fine. pag. 328. , That the Nicene Council began in the sixteenth year of Constantine, and in the sixth month thereof. Now by Baronis and Binius collection and interpretation of Constantine's saying, that he was justified, it avoidable follows, not only that Constantine was converted, and was no persecutor in his nineteeths year, but that he was baptised also two whole years 
f N●m anno 19 Constantini, Consul erat Crispus 3. ut Graeci Fasti testantur & agnoscit Bar. an. 324. nu. 1.  before the beginning of Crispus his third Consulship, before he fell into his leprosy, or sent for Silvester. And then by Dalmatianus the Cardinals own witness, the whole narration of his murdering of Crispus, Fausta, and others; of his leprosy, of his cure, of his baptism by Silvester, of his holding the Roman Synod for thanksgiving of his cure after his baptism, are all clearly proved to be (as in truth they are) mere fables; all which they teach to follow the third Consulship and murder of Crispus: whereas by Dalmatianus, Constantine was baptised & held the Nicene Council two whole years before that Consulship of Crispus began. So very unprovident was the Cardinal in alleging Dalmatianus in this cause. But enough of him, and so of the witnesses which Baronius could find to speak for this baptism of Constantine: which as you see, are both few, and withal uncertain and worthless writings, unfit to be opposed to that consent of ancient Historians, which for the contrary we produced.  
Melchior Canus 
g Canus lib. 11. cap. 5. §. De baptismo. , and Nich. Sanders 
h Sand. Visib. mo●a●ch. ad tempus Siluestri, pa. 282. , add the testimony of Nicephorus to the same purpose, who resolutely indeed, and too confidently, affirms 
i Nicep. Callist. lib. ● cap. 35. & lib. 8. ca ●4. , Constantine to have been baptised at Rome: but Baronius was unwilling to use this testimony, which he knew many ways to overthrew the main point at which he aimeth. For Nicephorus saith, That with Constantine 
k Vnà cum ipso autem Crispus etiam filius eius dininum partucipavit lavacrum. Nic. lib. 7. ca 33.  was Crispus his son also at the same time baptised; and then the fable of Constantine's murdering of Crispus, and falling into a leprosy after that murder, all before his baptism, is quite spoiled. Again, Nicephorus 
l Lib. 7. ca 44. & seq.  placeth the baprisme of Constantine before his victory over Licinius, which as we have showed, fell out in his twelfth year; and then how the Roman Council which puts his baptism in the Consulship of Crispus the third time, that is, in Constantimes nineteen year: how this can be salved, is not easy to declare. Baronius had reason to omit and neglect this testimony of Nicephorus. It is not the Baptizme of Constantine, but the credit of the Roman Synod for which the Cardinal striveth: and seeing that is so contradicted and proved by Nicephorus to be a counterfeit, Baronius thought it more fit to overpass this witness, then cite him, who in the main point is so repugnant, both to the truth, and to the Cardinal's main position.  
Binius 
m Bin. Notis in vitam Siluestri. §. Baptizavit, Authoritate e●us (Romani) Conc●lij Anastasius recenset Constantini baptismum Romae habitum. anno Imperij ill●us 18. etc.  unto these adjoines a testimony of Anastasius, who in his brief Chronicle, by authority of this Roman Synod under Silvester, teacheth, that Constantine was baptised in his eighteenth year, and the same by Zosimus and other writters is, as he saith, confirmed. Suppose it were true. Binius could not have alleged any thing more effectual against himself. For we have before proved that Crispus died not till the twentieth year of Constantine, and Baronius 
a Bar. an. 324. nu. 1. & 7.  confidently affirms and proves out of Eusebius, that he was not slain till the nineteenth year current of Constantine. Wherefore if he was baptised as Anastasius witnesseth, in the eighteenth year, than was he baptised before the murder of Crispus, before he fell into his leprosy, and so not only Baronius and Binius himself; but Pope Hadrian, their Breuiarie, and this very Roman Synod under Silvester, are clearly proved to be fablers, who all teach his baptizme to follow the murder of Crispus, and the leprosy of Constantine.  
Some may perhaps wonder that Baronius did not allege the Pontifical of Damasus in this cause, for therein it is expressly said, That Silvester coming from exile in the mountain Soracte, whither he had fled for the persecution of Constantine, baptised Constantine, and cured him of his leprosy. Now Damasus is an ancient father and Pope, living near to that time also. His name might have gained great countenance and credit to this baptizme by Silvester. But the reason of the Cardinal's silence of Damasus name, is evident. The Pontifical is vulgarly called in deed and inscribed by the name of Damasus: but Baronius 
b Bar. an. 384. nu. 15.  himself confesseth that Damasus is not the author of it: and Binius expressly saith 
c Bin. in Notis ante vitam B. Petri. pa. 19 , Huius libri Pontificalis Damasus author non est, Damasus is not the author of this Pontifical. Again, whosoever was author of it, in that very life of Silvester, he directly contradicts Baronius and Binius and demonstrates this Roman Synod to be a counterfeit: for he placeth this Synod 
d Huius temporibus factum est Concilium in 〈◊〉. etc. Et in v●be Roma con●regatu● Episcopos 277. & damnavit iterum A●●●●, & Photinum. Vita Siluest. apud Bin.  after the Nicen Council, and so the whole fable of Crispus murder, of Constantine's leprosy, cure, and baptizme, before that Nicen Council, is quite spoilt. To say nothing how the Pontifical placeth the death 
a Fuit temporibus Constantini & Volusiani ex die Kalend. Feb. usque in diem ●anuarij Constantine & Volusiano Consulibus. Damas●vt vocatur. in vita Siluest.  of Silvester in the Consulship of Volusianus, which ●●lles 
b Bar. an. 314. nu. 1.  in the ninth year of Constantine (for Volusianus was Consul in no other year during the reign of Constantine) and so by the Pontifical, Silvester dying in the ninth year of Constantine, some ten years after that should rise out of his grave to baptise and cure Constantine, and hold this Roman Synod after the cure thereof: or else because the same Pontifical saith that Silvester lived until the year when Constantine and Volusianus were Consuls, which never was yet, by the authority of that Pontifical, Silvester is yet alive, and Pope also. For these and such like reasons I think Baronius did wisely not to produce the Pontifical of Damasus.  
Besides these testimonies wherein you see is little help for their cause, Baronius and others allege diverse reasons and collections, to persuade that Constantine was baptised at Rome by Silvester. One is the monument of Constantine's Font, that wherein he was baptised, which (as they say) is yet to be seen at Rome. This doth Melchior Canus 
c Canu. leco cit. in testimonium certistimum Romae ass● nature. ●  think a very pregnant & certain proof. Baronius 
d Bar. an. 324. nu. 42.  doth also mention the same, and tells us, that hactenus visitur h●c baptisterium, the Font wherein he was baptised is as yet to be seen in the Lateran, but withal ne ●els us that which exceedingly doth discredit this ancient monument of their Font. There remains s●●●e pritas (saith he 
e Bar. an. 324. nu. 55. 56. ) of that noble antiquity, quam vix in chartis, modo nobis antiquitas representa●, wheen in writing or in Books Antiquity doth represent unto us, but yet those Prints remain by the industry of Anastasius, Qui●tam memorabile monumentum ab iniuria temporis vindicatum, memoriae prodidit: who hath left unto posterity this memorable monument, freed from the injury of time, and these they are, quae nimia vetustate obsita, prout licuit ex mendo so codice, which we have set down as well as we could out of a faulty, torn and too old a book, very rude, and not set out with Anastasius stile. Thus Baronius touching this monument of Constantine's Font. When the memory of it must be gathered out of a torn, rude, and faulty book; when the first whom the Cardinal could produce for it, was Anastasius the keeper of their Vatican, one who lived more than 500 years 
a Claruit Anastasius, an. 860. Tritem, lib. de Eccles. script. & Bellar. lib. de Eccles. script.  after Constantine's death, and who was (as I have elsewhere declared) an arch-corrupter of true monuments, and one principal mintmaster of their fabulous narrations; when the credit of this monument must rely on him, it may justly be thought that there are neither ancient, true, nor certain proofs for this Font of Constantine.  
Binius 
b Baptisterium adhuc extat, & à Marcellino eius aetatis scriptore. lib. 27. appellatur Constantinianum Lavacrum. Bin. Not in Donat. Const. ●. 298.  cities a fare more ancient author than Anastasius, to wit, Ammianus Marcellinus the heathen writer, who, as Binius saith, calleth this Font Lavacrum Constantinianum, and this he saith is a testimony not to be contemned. Truly had Marcellinus mentioned the font of Constantine, or called it by that name it had been a very clear testimony: Binius should not have needed so to have qualified or impaired the same by saying it is non contemnendum testimonium. But I fear Binius was conscious to himself that the Lavacrum Constantinianum in Marcellinus, is not any Font wherein Constantine or any other was baptised, but the Thermae or Balneum, the bath which Constantine made, as many other Emperors had done the like before: as the bath which Maximianus surnamed Herculeus, had a little before made at Milan, is called by Ausonius 
a Et regio Hercule● celebris sub honore lavacri, Auson. De noble. vib. Ep. 4, de Mediol.  Herculeum Lavacrum: of which Sigonius saith 
b Sig. de occid Imper. lib. 1. an. 301. , that it was called Herculeae Thermae sive Lavacrum Herculeum: And in Olympiodorus 
c Olymp. citatur à Lips. lib. 3. de magnit. Rom. c. 8.  are mentioned, Lavacra publica ingenti magnitudine, very spacious and large baths, of which sort of Lavacra, Ammianus himself speaking, saith 
d Am Marc. li. 16. §. Proinde. , Lavacra in morem provinciarum extructa, there were baths at Rome as great as a Province: One of which, namely, Antonianae Thermae, had six hundred seats in it for such as would be bathed there, as Olympiodorus 
e Olymp apud Lips. loc. cit.  testifieth. Such a bath was that Lavacrum Constantinianum, which Ammianus mentions: which Binius might easily have known, partly by the description of Rome prefixed to the Notitia Provinciarum, and set forth also by Onuphrius 
f Onuph. lib. de deser. urb. Rom.  (where besides the general sum of baths in Rome which exceeded the number of 900. there is express mention of eleven principal, one of which 
g Vt liquet ex desc. Rom. tam ante Not. prov. quam apud Onuph.  was Thermae Constantinianae; the same no doubt with that which Ammianns 
h Am. Marc: lib. 27. prop● initium. , and after him Sigonius 
i Sig. lib. 7. de occid. Imp.  calls Lavacrum Constantinianum,) and specially by the very Text and words of Ammianus; for there it is said, that the people would have set on fire the house of Lampadius, prope Constantini Lavacrum, near the bath of Constantine: not near his Font, of which Ammianus knew nothing. And if the Font had been meant by that Lavacrum, he would rather have said, near the Church or Temple of Constantine, and not near the Font, which was in the Temple. So childish was this collection out of Ammianus, that it may most justly be esteemed, testimonium contemnendum.  
Suppose some Font in the Lateran were called Constantine's: what if it was that Constantine which was the son of Irene, and in whose time the second Nicen Council was held? Those gay and glorious Images of the Agnus Dei, of Christ, of john Baptist, of the Angel, and such other Pictures, wherewith the Font is bedecked; do persuade that it was rather his Font, than Constantine's the Great. Or say it was the great Constantine's font, what if it was so called because he bestowed it, & erected it, not because he was baptised in it? as the very Lateran Church (wherein that Font as they say yet remains) is called by the same Anastasius 
a Anast. libel. de munificentia Constantini, apud Bin. pa. 259. , Constantiniana Basilica, the Church of Constantine, not because Constantine was baptised in it, (for it was builded after his baptizme, as themselves also confess) but because he builded it. Howsoever, till there appear more certain proof then is this of Anastasius; there are few I think that will give credit to such a late and fabulous writer, and so uncertain a monument, against so many ancient records and testimonies, some of those who lived at the same time with Constantine, who with one consent do testify, that he was baptised not at Rome, but at Nicomedia.  
A second reason they take, and urge it very earnestly from Constantine's presence in the Nicen council: whereupon they infer, that certainly therefore he was baptised before that Council. Who can believe (saith Canus 
a Can. loco citat. lib. 11. c. 5 ) that the Nicen Bishops would suffer Constantine to be present in that Synod and at their disputations, unless he had been first baptised? Eumne sanctos patres passures (saith Steuchus 
b Steuch. lib. de Donat. pa. 156. ) would the holy Nicene fathers have suffered him to sit among them in the Council if he had been unbaptized? How could he (saith Baronius 
c Baron. an. 324. nu. 49. ) have been present and sit among the Bishops in the holy Synod, if he had been but a Catechume? Laturine essent beatiss. illi Antitistes, would those most holy Bishops have suffered or endured this? This is forbidden (saith Binius 
d Bin. Not. in vitam Siluest. §. Baptizavit. ) to all Catechumes and sinners: and will you think that it was granted to Constantine, guilty of such crimes, and as yet a Catechume? Thus reason they.  
For answer whereunto, I omit what insolency they show in their speech, as if Constantine who was the chief and commander of all in the Synod, might not sit there, but by the leave, courtesy, permission and sufferance of the Bishops? I entreat them first to know what Bellarmine or the Cardinals Dalmatianus would say to this Objection. For both 
e Dur●auit tribus annis, & finitum est anno 20. Constantini, Bell lib. 1. de Conc. ca 5. §. Sed & §. lien. Dalmar sive Gelaf. Cyz●cenus. lib. 4. Act. Nic. p. 365.  they make the Nicen Council to begin before the eighteenth year of Constantine. And seeing Constantine was not baptised before the murder of Crispus, before he fell into his leprosy, which was, as they accounted, in his nineteenth year: what a foul oversight was it in Dalmatianus and Cardinal Bellarmine, to think that Constantine being then but a Catechume and not baptised, did sit in the Nicen Synod, did hear their quarrels, take their bills of complaints, and was present at their disputations & determinations? Certainly this new found learning was not known in the days of Dalmatius.  
Next, I wish them to consider of the Council at Arles, unto which Constantine called very many Bishops, no fewer than two hundred, ex locis diversis ac propè infinitis, almost out of infinite places (as the Emperors own letters 
a Apud Eus, lib. ●o. hist. c. 5.  do witness) among which were precedents also in the Council, four Legates for Silvester, as Baronius 
b Bar. an. 314. nu. 51.  observeth, and after him 
c Bin. Not in Conc, Arel. §. Ad petitionem.  Binius. That Constantine was present in this great and holy Council, Eusebius clearly testifieth, saying, 
d Euseb l. 1. de vita Con. c. 37 , Constantine as a common Bishop appointed by God, called a Council (he means this at Arles) and in media istorum frequentia ac congressu adesse, and he was present in the midst of the Bishops, he did not disdain to sit among them, (this is another manner of speech them to say, they 
e Quod Constantinus ad huc Catechumenus interfuerit. patresconcessisse videntur. Bin. Not. lafoy Conc. Ar●l. §. Ad.  permitted or suffered him) he was made partaker of their deliberations, etc. Now this Council was held, when by all me●s confession, Constantine was a Catechume, for it was assembled 
f Vt Acta Concilij illius declarant.  in August, when Volusianus and Anianus were Consuls, which was in the beginning of Constantine's 9 year. None of all those holy and worthy Bishops, once upbraided the Emperor, that he was not baptised, or that they might not suffer him being but a Catechume to sit in the Council. Seeing Baronius & Binius both of them confess, that he was present in this holy council at Arles, though he were but a Catechume, what perverse dealing is it in them to say the Bishops at Nice would not have suffered him to sit in the Synod had he been but a Catechume?  
And it is but mere dallying, which they add of this Council at Arles, that the Emperor was not to be excluded, (so Baronius 
a Bar an. 314 nu. 53.  speaks) or that the Bishops granted or gave leave unto him to be present, (so speaks 
b Bin. loc. citato.  Binius) because in this Council was handled no matters of faith: For both was there a question of faith, involved in that cause between Cecilianus and the Donatists, (as I have elsewhere made evident,) and where I pray you, do they find, that a Catechume Emperor is to be excluded, more from hearing a cause of faith debated in a Council, than a cause of the facts and scandalous actions of Bishops? For it is a manifest untruth which Binius 
c Bin. Notis in vitam Siluest. §. Baptizavit. Constantio adhuc Catechumeno Mediolanensi Concilio interest non fuisse permissum testatur Sulp. Severus: & similia fere habet Bar. ann. 355. nu 10. 11  affirms, to be witnessed by Sulp. Severus, lib. 2. That Constantius the Emperor was not suffered to be present in the Council at Milan, because he was a Catechume. That he was a Catechume at that time, Severus indeed affirms: but that he was either for that cause, or at all excluded, or not permitted to come to the Synod, Severus hath not one syllable. Nay, to see the vanity of these men, Bintus 
d Cum huic Conuentui praesideret haereticus Imperator, quis legitimum Concilium vocet? Bin. Not. in Concil. Mediol § Reprobatum.  plainly professeth, that the Heretical Emperor Constantius, was precedent in that Council at Milan: and so either by himself or by his Deputies, was present therein. Besides, of the two, it is less to be regarded, that the errors, than the crimes and scandals of Bishops be known to Catechumes, or to any others, as Constantine wisely considered, when at the Nicene Council he Burnt all the bills 
e Ruff hist. lib 1. ca 2. & Soc. lib. 1. ca 5.  of their particular quarrels and accusations, giving this as a reason, Ne ullt hominum innotesceret simultas sacerdotum, adding (as Theodoret 
f Theod. lib. 1. ca 11.  saith) That if himself should see a scandalous fault in one of them, paludamento suo se obtecturum sceleratum facinus, He would hide such a fault with his own Imperial robe. Wherefore seeing the Emperor being as yet unbaptized, sat in so great and holy a Synod, as was that at Arles: it is a very frivolous objection of Baronius and Binius, that he might not be present at Nice, unless he had been baptised.  
A third reason they make, Because Constantine was present at the sacred mysteries 
g Bar. an. 324 nu 49. & Bin. Not. in vitam silvest §. Baptizavit.  at Easter, (they mean the 
h Vsque ad sacratissimae oblationis finem perseverasse, Bar. loc. cit.  Eucharist) and was not commanded by the Deacon to departed, as Catechumes were wont to be: And this they would seem to collect out of Eusebius, who saith 
i Euseb. lib. 4. ca 22. & 57 , That he with all his strength both of mind and body, did perform the divine rites of that holy feast of Easter. But neither doth Eusebius, nor any ancient writer mention his presence at receiving of that Sacrament. Those Sacra, and Divine rites, which Eusebius intends, himself explains to be, The joyful and religious Vigil 
k Nocturnam in hoc festo pervigilationem tam claram reddidit, quam diurnam lucem accensis tota urbe quam celsissimis cereis candelis, & lampadibus, igneis, etc. lib. 4. ca 22. , which the Emperor observed, in honour of Christ's Resurrection, and in token of his assured belief thereof; His magnificence 
l Setuatoris benignitatem imitatus omnib●s beneficam & prolixam manum porrigebat, collaus in omnes maximis beneficijs, ibid. , used as a token of his joy at that time, his zeal and fervency in praying 
m Imperator cum caeteris pernoctans vota precesque Deo suo persoluebat, lib. eod. ca 57 , and praising God; of which Eusebius faith in the very same Chapter 
n Lib. eod. ca 22. , Ille deo suo quasi sacerdos quidam sacra faciebat, he offered sacrifices, or prayers and praises to God at that time, as one of the Priests. From which words, they may as well, nay much better conclude, that he consecrated the Host, then that he was present at the consecrating or receiving thereof. So idle is this their conjecture touching his presence at the Eucharist.  
Steuchus 
o Aug. Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 160 , out of Theophanes addeth a fourth, which he calls validissimum argumentum, a most strong argument, to prove that Constantine was baptised before the Nicen Council; and that is, Because if he had not then been baptised, he might not, orationes cum divinis patribus habere, not so much as have prayed with those holy Fathers, or been present at prayers with them, at which Constantine to have been present, he affirms (and that rightly) to be so certain, That to think the contrary, is, as he saith, absurdissimum, a thing most absurd. Steuchus herein betrays a far worse fault than ignorance. For who can imagine Steuchus to have been ignorant, that Catechumes (they were such 
p Vt patet ex Cyrill. Alex. lib. 12. in joh. ca 50. & August. tract. 4. in johan.  as being instructed in the faith, were not as yet baptised) were in ancient times permitted to be present, at all other parts of divine service, (prayers, reading and preaching of God's word) save only at the receiving of the Eucharist. When that was to be celebrated, the Catechumes were dismissed: even as at the end of all, there was Missa fidelium, a dismission of all the rest, who till the end remained. And from this very custom of dismission, the word Missa 
q Missae nomen significare etiam Mercatum seu● nundinas in const. Carol. Mag. tit. de Malla, ca 2. & alibi obseruat Busaeus. Not. ad illud ca Idem notat joh. Lidius in glo●● suâ La●inobarb. An vero inde dictae voces illae Michaelmas. Martinmas, & similes, alij viderint: nos pro officio divino hic accipi mus. , (which is corruptly now called Mass) took his name, Missa, being anciently used for Missio, as remissa 
r Diximus de remissa peccatorum. Tertul. lib. 4. cont. Marc. cap. 18. Aug. lib. 3 De bapt. ca 18. , for remissio, and collecta 
s Fecit Solomon collectan, etc. ●. Chron. 7. 9 & 1. Cor. 16. 2.  for collectio. It's called Missa, saith Isiodore 
t Isiod lib. 6. Etym. cap. 19 , because the Catechumes were sent away, the Deacons crying, If any who is a Catechume remain, let him departed. The like saith Rabanus 
u Rab. lib. 1. Inst. cler. cap. 32. , & Remigius 
x Remig. lib. de officio Missae. : Missa, saith Alcuinus 
y Alcuin. lib de diuin. office cap. de celebr. Missae. , is so called, because it is a dismission, and the Missa of Catechumes was, before the administration of the Sacrament, the Missa fidelium, (that is, such as were baptised) was after the celebration and receiving of the same. That Canon of the fourth Council at Carthage, (which was held about 
k Conc. Cart. 4. habitum Honorio 4. & ●●tichiano Cons. Act. Conc. apud Bin. pa. 553. is est an. 398. 〈◊〉 Bar. ob●jt autem Constantinus an. 337.  60. years after Constantine) doth clearly witness this: for there 
l Conc. Carth. 4. ca 84.  it is decreed, That no Bishop should hinder any to come into the Church, or to hear the word of God, neither Gentle nor jew, nor Heretic, usque admissam Catechumenorum, until the dismission of the Catechumes. And the like was decreed, concerning notorious offenders, in the Council at Ilerda in Spain, Where 
m Conc. Ilerdense can 4. habitum vero est ann. 524.  they are permitted to stay in the Church no longer, then usque ad missam Catechumenorum, till the dismission of Catechumes. Steuchus could not be ignorant of this custom, continued in all ages of the Church. It was mere hate of the truth, which moved him to avouch, that Constantine a most religious Emperor, might not be permitted to be present at prayers, with the Nicene Fathers, unless he had been baptised; when the use and custom of the Church even in that very age, allowed not only Catechumes, but notorious offenders, and heretics, yea Pagans' and jews, to be present at the same.  
Bishop Canus considering, that the baptism of Constantine could not effectually be concluded, either from his presence at prayers, nor yet at the Eucharist, goes one step further than either Baronius or Steuchus durst adventure: and out of Nicephorus 
n Niceph. lib. 7. ca 35. , tells 
o Canus loc. Theol lib. 11. ca 5. §. de baptismo.  us, (which is their fift reason) That Constantine was particeps mysteriorum cum eyes, partaker of the holy mysteries, (that is, of the Eucharist) with the Nicene Fathers; and they add, Historia tradit, that this is witnessed in the History. Verily, could either Nicephorus or Canus, or any other of them all, produce any one authentical History to testify this, none would ever after open their mouths against them in this matter, touching Constantine's baptism. But no History at all (as I think,) and certainly none of credit, either doth, or can mention this. For it is certain, not only by Eusebius 
p Euseb. Amb. & alij locis citatis. , Ambrose, Jerome, Theodoret, and many other, but even by Constantine's 
q Apud. Eus. lib. 4 de vit. Const. ca 62.  own words, That he deferred his baptism until a little before his death, nine years at lest after the Nicene Council was ended; and he gives a reason, Why he had so long deferred it. Seeing then none unbaptized, might partake of the Eucharist, it is evident and certain, even by Constantine's own testimony, that he being unbaptized at the time of the Nicene Council, neither might, nor did communicate with those Fathers, as Nicephorus 
r Divina mysteria participasse: & eiusdem mensae participem s●isse ait Nicep. loc. cit. & ex eo Canus.  saith he did, at that holy table, nor partake of the Eucharist with them. That which misled Nicephorus herein, was the mistaking of certain words in Eusebius, which is (in all likelihood) the Story that Nicephorus meaneth. Eusebius declaring the devotion, piety and zeal of Constantine, in observing the celebrity of Easter, saith 
s Eus. lib. 4: ca 22. , That he performed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est sacroru● anti●tes & d●ctor.  the divine and sacred rites, or duties prescribed by the Bishops: and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He sacrificed, or was as a Priest to offer the sacrifices of prayers and praises unto God. Nicephorus misconceiving these words, affirms, The Historieto speak of the Eucharist, whereas not one word is meant thereof: and to speak, Of his receiving those sacred mysteries, whereas the History speaks only, of his offering spiritual and holy sacrifices unto God: and to speak Of the time of the Nicene Council, whereas the History speaks only of Easter, at which time there was no assembly of the Nicene 
x Nam Con●. Nic coepit 14. die junij, & terminatum est 25. die Augusti. eodem anno, Bin. Not. in id Conc. §. Paulino.  Fathers. Nicephorus is as foully mistaken in both these sayings, (that Constantine was partaker of the Eucharist, and that the History witnesseth the same,) as he was, saying, That 
y Niceph. lib. 8. ca 14.  the Nicene Council was held in the time of Pope julius, or, that there was a Bishop 
z Ibid.  of Constantinople at that time, or, that Constantine 
a Niceph. lib. 7. ca 33.  was baptised with Crispus. All of them (and many more) are so untrue, that no fit judgement can be given of them, then Possevine gives in another matter: Mendacissimè 
b Posseu. Appar. in Nicephorus.  asserit, Nicephorus is a most lying Author in them all; And for Canus, who herein applauds 
c Quae duae rationes efficiunt, ut non temere ijs accedam, etc. Can. loc. cit.  Nicephorus, none can say otherwise, but that he wittingly followed the lying reports of him whom their own Possevine calls a most lying Author.  
Besides these actions of peace, from which as you see, the baptism of Constantine by Sylvester, cannot be concluded, Baronius urgeth a sixth reason, drawn from his actions of war; Were it true, saith he 
d Bar. ann. 324. nu. 45. , that Constantine was not baptised, till a little before his death, than he must be held for piety and religion fare inferior to Constantius: for as that time when Constantine died, he was preparing a warlike expedition against the Persians, and before that he had made many battles against his enemies; all which time, and in all which wars, he remained unbaptized: whereas Constantius being to fight against Magnentius, Ne lixam quidem voluit nisi ante baptizatum, in hostem proficisci, would not suffer so much as a Skull to go into the battle, unless he were first baptised. So Baronius.  
You may clearly perceive, that by the Cardinal's divinity, Constantine must be proclaimed, and that for a certainty, to have been fare worse than Constantius. For that Constantine was not till near his death baptised, is clearly and undeniably proved, by all those ancient and undoubted Witnesses, whom before we produced. The Cardinal was not a little glad so fare to dishonour and disgrace Constantine, as to make him worse than one of the most heretical and persecuting Tyrants, that ever the Church endured: then one whom the Orthodoxal Fathers accounted and called 
e Quid igitur hic (Constantius) quod Antichristi est omisit? aut quid ille ubi venerit, plus committere poterit? Athan▪ Epist. ad sol●t. vitam agent. pa. 238.  Antichrist, and the Type 
f Quod vere imaginem referat Antichristi, ibid.  of the great Antichrist. But the Cardinal in speaking thus to disgrace Constantine, hath most foully disgraced himself, and bewrayed his own want both of true divinity, and reason. For though Constantius with his whole Army, had been baptised, and had received all the Sacraments in the World, yet seeing he was even then an Heretic, and an impious oppugner, and persecutor of the true and Catholic faith; none of all his outward actions, though they be never so holy in themselves, could make him, I say not equal, but not comparable in any degree to Constantine, a most pious, religious, and sincerely Orthodoxal Emperor. It is neither circumcision 
g Gal. 6. 15. Rom. 2. 28. , nor baptism, but a new creature, and an heart purified and washed by Faith, and the love of God, which avails with the Lord: and it is a very true saying which is collected out of Saint Austen 
h Aug. s●rm. super gestis 〈◊〉 Emerito, lit. ●. , Habere omnia Sacramenta & malus esse potest; habere autem charitatem, & malus esse non potest: A man may receive all the Sacraments, as judas did, and yet be a wicked man, yea a very Devil, as judas was; but have the love of God, the love of God's true Church and Children, and be a wicked man, he cannot. This love of God, and God's Church, which Constantine inwardly and sincerely embraced, made him (though for the outward act unbaptized) by many degrees more acceptable unto God, and more honourable in the Church of God, than the outward receiving of baptism, or any other Sacrament could make Constantius, in whom there was no sincere love to God, but an extreme hatred of God's truth, and of his holy servants who professed the same.  
And yet had the Cardinal sought by this his divinity, to have dishonoured Constantine alone, though his fault therein had been unexcusable, it might more easily have obtained pardon. But by this position of his, he hath made both Valentinian, and Theodosius the Great, fare worse than Constantius also. Of the wars made by Valentinian, and his victories obtained against the Almains, the Illirians, the Quades, the Saxons, the Britons, the people of Africa, and others: Beside many other historians, Ammianus Marcellinus 
a An. Marcel. lib 28. 29 30.  who lived in those times, is a witness. For Theodosius, that he by many and most victorious conquests, subdued the Goths, who then oppressed the Roman Empire: Theodoret 
b Theod. lib. 5. ca 5.  and others 
c Theodosiu● rempub. Gothicis armis penè oppressan restituit. Egnat in Theod.  declare. Now though Valentinian 
d Audio vos dolere, quod non acceperit sacramenta baptizmatis. Ambr. orat. de obit. Valent.  was never baptised, nor Theodosius at the time of those happy conquests, yet are they both so renowned for piety, that Saint Ambrose (to whom the whole Church consents therein) calls 
e Ambr ibid.  the one an inhabitant of Paradise, clothed with celestial light and glory: and of the other, he saith 
f Ambr. orat. de obitu. Theodosij. , he enjoyeth eternal rest and delight in the bosom of Abraham. But it is meat and drink with Baronius by any colour of divinity, to impair the honour of Emperors, and endeavour to have the most religious of them all, to be accounted more impious than any persecuting Tyrant.  
Besides all this which concerns the divinity of Baronius, there are two special points to be observed in his reason also. First, he saith, that Constantius would not suffer, ne lixam 
g Bar. an 324● nu. 45.  quidem, not so much as a skull unbaptized to go with him to battle. Now in Theodoret, out of whom Baronius 
h Bar. an. 351. nu. 15.  relates this; Constantius 
i Vt apud Theod. liquet. lib 3. ca 3.  named neither skull nor cook, but only socios belli. The Cardinal by this base and contemptible addition, or comparison, was pleased to vilify the most renowned and religious Emperor: and as elsewhere reproving justinian, he 
k Illud vetus (●ust inian●) occmendum, Non vl●ra crepidam. Bar. an. 550. nu. 14.  compares him to a Cobbler, so here every skull, if he hap to be baptised, must with the Cardinal be compared with, nay preferred before, and give a check to the religious and most holy Constantine.  
The other point which I observe, is, an eminent defect in the Cardinal's reason. Who would not persuade himself, reading in the Card. this high commendation of Constantius, as being more pious than vnbaptized Constantine; who I say would not assure himself, that Constantius was baptised at the time when he made the war with Magnentius? for otherwise, if Constantius also was then unbaptized, you will certainly judge the Cardinal to have dallied in this matter, who by the piety of Constantius condemns Constantine for going to war being unbaptized. Now the truth is, that Constantius was not baptised when he fought with Magnentius and overcame him in that battle in Pannonia, where 
g Vt liquet ex Zosimo lib. 2.  himself was present, nor in seven years after. For he overcame Magnentius in his seventeenth year 
h Bar. an. 353. nu. 6. , and he was baptised but 
i Bar. an. 361 nu. 20. Moriens voluit baptizari, ait Athanas. lib. de Synod. pa. 250.  a little before his death▪ in the five and twentieth year of his reign. What is now (think you) become of the Cardinal's reason, or how is Constantine for his going to war unbaptized, fare more impious than Constantius, seeing that Constantius in all the wars that he made was unbaptized also?  
Neither will it help the Cardinal to say, that yet the soldiers of Constantius were baptised, and Constantius commanded that they so should be: but this much bewrays the malicious dealing of Baronius, who hereupon prefers either the one or the other before Constantine. Constantius indeed commanded 
k Theod lib. 3. ca 3.  that they should be baptised; adding further, that if they refused it, they should be sent away; but he did that, not in piety, but in mere policy. Magnentius against whom at that time he was to fight, though he pretended himself to be a Christian, yet was in heart a Pagan and an Idolater; and when he had once usurped the Empire, he gave free liberty and toleration to such as would sacrifice and do worship to the heathen Idols, as the very law of Constantius 
l Aboleantur noct●ra sacrificia Magnentio authore permis●a: 〈◊〉 Constantius● leg. 5. De paganis sacrif. Cod. The●d. , dated after the death and overthrow of Magnentius doth declare. Constantius knowing how dangerous it were for him, to have Pagans, and such as were addicted to pagan Idolatries, to be in those wars against Magnentius, commanded that all his soldiers should receive baptism, or else to departed home; if they refused to be baptised. Had Constantius done this in piety, himself would first of all have been baptised: seeing he was not, he shown therein an act of policy, and sought his own safety and security; but there was no token of true piety, nor of seeking their salvation: nothing at all for which he is to be compared with, much less to be preferred to the most religious Constantine. Again, had Constantine being required by superior and lawful authority, refused to be baptised, his contempt of God's ordinance had proved him therein to have been much inferior to the soldiers of Constantius, who at the Emperors command received that sign of their Christian profession. But seeing he never refused to be baptised, but having for many years votum baptismi, a sincere 
m Quam 〈…〉. Eu. li. 4. c. SIXPENCES  desire thereof, deferred only the act, and that for no other cause but in an ardent desire to be more like unto Christ, in being washed with the self same waters of jordan that Christ was; his want of actual baptizme, joined with a sincere desire thereof, and fervent zeal to imitate Christ, is every way equal, if not more commendable, than the actual, but constrained receiving of this Sacrament in those soldiers, who neither had like zeal unto God, nor like cause to defer their baptizme as Constantine had. So the Cardinal is every way most injurious unto Constantine: first, in preferring the soldiers, religious in deed, but constrained act of baptism, before Constantine's zealous deferring of the act, joined with a most pious desire thereof: and again, in preferring Constantius unto Constantine, for that which he not in piety but in mere policy required, himself all the while, remaining without the act of baptizme, as well as Constantine, and never having that pious affection and zealous desire, either to God, or to any godly act or Christian duty as Constantine had.  
After this Baronius proposeth by way of demand, a seventh reason, to prove that Constantine did not defer his baptizme till his last age, and then by consequent, that he was baptised by Silvester: and thus he disputes: Quonam 
a Bar. an. 324. nu. 45.  quaeso maiorum exemplo, By what example of those that went before, did Constantine so long defer his baptizme, even unto his decrepit age, till he was ready to die? I again demand of the Cardinal, seeing himself puts Constantine's baptizme but twelve years before, at which time he was full fifty three years old, by what example of any before, did Constantine (who as the Cardinal confesseth 
b Bar. an. 3●5. 〈◊〉 12. , was trained up in piety even from his youth) defer his baptizme for more than fifty years? I doubt not, but the Cardinal's friends would be as much perplexed to find an example of the one, as we need to be for the other. Had all such particulars been expressed in Stories, there might no doubt abundant examples be produced of either. It was an use, (I do not say how commendable) but an use it was, in the primitive Church, even in Constantine's age and long after, to defer their baptism, oftentimes till they thought their last hour imminent, but usually, for very many years. Theodosius the great, a most renowned and religious Emperor, deferred his baptism till he was forty five years 
g Baptizatus est Gratiano 5. & Theodosio 1. Coss. Socrates lib. 5. c. 6. is est an. Ch. 380. iuxt. Marcel. & Bar. Obijt Olibrio & Probino Coss. Marc. in Chr. & Prosper. is est an iuxta Marc. & Bar. 395. vixit au●● annos 60. ut ●estatur Socr. lib. 5. ca 25.  old, and had deferred it longer, but that returning to Constantinople with many victories, he fell into an extreme sickness at Thessalonica, by occasion whereof he was there and then baptised: and this Theodosius lived even in Constantine's days. The father of this Emperor was named Theodosius also, and almost contemporall with Constantine, a religious father of so religious a child, he living very long, as Orosius signifies (calling 
h Oros. lib. ●. ca 33.  him a man, experientissima providentia, of great prudence, arising from most long experience) yet was he not baptised till he came, as Baronius speaks of Constantine, to his decrepit age; and then by the malice of his barbarous enemies, being commanded to be slain, he first desired that he might be baptised, which being done he willingly offered his neck to the executioner, and gloriously died. Of Constantius the Emperor, and son of Constantine, we shown before, that 
i Athan lib 5. de Synod. pa. 280.  moriens baptizatus est, he was not baptised till he was at the very point of death. Martin, Bishop of Turone, in whose praise they love to be hyperbolical, (one so holy, that Angels 
k Facie ad faciem cum eo est Angelus colioq●●tus. 〈◊〉. Se●. lib. 3. ●●al.  came to confer with him while he lived, and who since his death is canonised 
l Mar●y. Rom. Nou. 11.  for one of their greatest Saints) lived at the same time also, and at lest twenty years 
m Nam natus est. 11. anno Constantini. Gre. Tur. hist. ●●an. li ●. c. 36.  with Constantine: and yet so holy as he was, he deferred his baptizme 
n Baptizatus est anno 15. Constantij. cum esset annorum 35. Bar. an. 351. nu. 1●.  till he was five and thirty years old, nor in likelihood had then received that Sacrament, but that being in wars under Constantius, when he fought against Magnentius, the Emperors command enforced him so to do. Saint Ambrose, who lived likewise in Constantine's 
o Nam obijt ineunte an. aetatis suae 64. anno Chr. 397 Bar. eo an. nu. 30. ergo natus est an. 334. triennio ante obitum Constantini.  time, was chosen Bishop of Milan, being but then a Catechume 
p Socr. lib. 4. ca 25.  and unbaptized, and no less than forty years 
q Creature enim Episcop●s an. 374. Bar. eo an. nu. 7.  of age. The like is observed of Nectarius, whom the whole second general Council approved for Bishop of Constantinople, though he was unbaptized 
r Sozom. lib. 7. ca 8.  when he was chosen to that high See. Yea this was so usual among Christians in those times, that Binius saith, 
s Bin. Not. in Conc. Carth. 3. §. In oriente.  Inoleverae consuetudo, This custom was so strong, ut plerique, that most men, both in the East and West Church deferred their baptizme, usque ad provectiorem aetatem, till they were well stricken in years. So that the Cardinal had little reason to deman●d examples thereof, there being so many, even of those who lived in Constantine's days.  
Nor did this custom begin in that age, as the Cardinal not only by his demand implies, but expressly affirms, saying, that none before Constantine 
t Nullum ante hac d● ca●re praecessisse repetitur simile exemplum. Bar. an. 324. nu. 45.  did thus defer their baptism. There are many evident proofs also, that it was frequent and usual in the Church before Constantine's reign, or days either. That many in the primitive Church, even till their very death deferred baptism, S. Ambrose shows, who mentions Cathechumenos 
u Ambr. de obitu Valentin:  martyrs, martyrs that were but Catechumes and not at all baptised in water, but in their own blood. The same clearly appears, by the 12. Canon of the Council at Neocaesarea, held 8. years before that Constantine, by their own account 
x Conc. Neocaes habitum ante an. 316. probal Bin. not▪ in ●l●ud Conc. § sub ●iluestro.  was baptised: for there it is decreed, that if any were baptised in the time of his sickness, when they were clinici (that is, bedrid, of 〈◊〉 to their bed, so that they could not walk, to whom therefore Cyprian merrily opposed 
y Cyprian lib. 4. Epist. 7.  Peripatetici) such should not be ordained Presbyters, unless either their subsequent zeal, or rarity of such as could be found willing to be ordained, enforced it. The same Canon to have been of force long before, is evident by that which Pope Cornelius, about 50. years 
z Cornelius coepit an. 254. Bin. in notis ad vitam Corn. Constantinus coepit imperare an. 306.  before Constantine, writ, reprooving the ordination of Novatianus, because be was ordained Presbyter when he was Clinicus, whereas minime licebat quenquam in lecto baptizitum in clerum assumi, it was nor lawful to assume any into the Clergy who was baptised in his bed. Now this being mentioned by Cornelius as an ancient law or cannon of the Church, demonstrates that long before Constantine's age, it was so frequent and usual among Christians to defer their baptism not only to their old age, but even till they were at the point of death, that sometimes there were no other but such as had been so baptised, to be assumed into the Clergy. That one memorable Story concerning Genesius 
a Martyrologium Rom. & Mart. Vs●ardi in August. 25. diem. , witnesseth the same custom, He being the chief of the Theatrical Mimi, at the command of Dioclesian, acted a play of the Christian religion before the Emperor, in derision of the Christian Faith and Mysteries. To express the custom of Christians, he was laid as one Clinicus, on his couch upon the Theatre, than he called for baptism; the mimical Presbyter being brought, asked him if he did believe, who answering he did, he was mimically baptised: and then apparelled in white, and then for making that profession, he was in mimical fashion led to be executed. But this play was then turned into sad earnest, for at that time he being truly and sincerely converted to Christianity, in stead of cursing and deriding, began to bless and adore Christ, and seriously exhorted the Emperor, and all in the Theatre, to embrace the holy Christian Faith, as himself did: at which the Emperor being incensed with rage, commanded him to be most cruelly tormented; and when by no torments whatsoever, he could be driven from the constant profession of Christ, he was at last beheaded, and is now enrolled among the blessed Saints and Martyrs.  
If these be not sufficient, there are yet some more ancient observances used in the Church, which declare the same. For whereas Christians of all sorts, both orthodoxal and heretical, deferred their baptism not only to decrepit age, but to the very point of death, Epiphantus 
b Epiph. 〈◊〉. 28.  expounds (and that not unprobably) the words of Saint Paul, Why 
c 1. Cor. 15. 29  are they then baptised for dead? of such as being vicini mortis, near unto death, are said by the Apostle to be baptised for dead: as we say of one that is almost forsaken, Habetur pro derelicto. And whereas many of them died unbaptized, not only the Corinthians 
d Epiph. ibid. , and Marcionites 
e Chrysost. in cap. 15. Hom in Epist. 1. ad Cor. , used to Baptise others that were living, for them that so died: but Tertullian 
f Tert. lib. 5. cont. Marc. ca 10. & lib. de Resur. ca 48. Ita exponit (de ijs qui pro alijs mortuis baptizantur) verba Apostoli, Tertullianus & alij, ut ait Bell. lib 1. de Purgat. ca 4. §. Prima est.  also, and Ambrose 
g Ambr. Com. in ca 15. epi. 1 ad Corinth. , do approve of that Interpretation, and custom also, as being intended by Saint Paul in those words. I will not here examine the sense of the Apostles words, but by this which I have said, it is evident, that according to both expositions, many Catechumes did defer their baptism longer than Constantine, even until their death: and that not only in Tertullia's time, that is, an hundred years 
h Tert. scripsit eos libros circa an. ●09. Bar. eod. an. nu. 2.  before Constantine▪ but as Epiphanius thinketh, even in the, Apostles days also. So that the Cardinal needed not to demand, By what former example (adding, that none could be given) Constantine did defer his baptism so long, until he was sixty four years old, which the Cardinal spitefully, and in disgrace of Constantine, calls decrepit age: whereas himself, when he speaks not of an Emperor, but of a Bishop, to wit of Saint Ambrose, calls the 64. years of his age, But almost the 
i Mol●stissime accidit, ipsum decess●●●e in ipso pe●è li●●ine senect●tis, 〈◊〉 nu. 397. 〈◊〉 30.  entrance into old age.  
Lastly, let's admit that Constantine had no former example: what think you was become of the Cardinal's wit, learning, and judgement; when from this he would prove, that therefore Constantine might not, nay, which is fare more inconsequent, that therefore he did not, de facto, so long defer his baptism? May nothing, nay is nothing, de facto, done, whereof a precedent example cannot be given? Let me then put a few demands to the Cardinal, what example before Benedict 
i Benedictus 9 puer f●rme decennis electus extitit, Glab. lib. 4. ca 5.  the ninth, can his Cardinalship give, that a Boy but ten years old, should be Bishop of Rome? or before john 
k Inter fideles vitam & mores eius cognoscentes (johannes 23.) vulgariter dicitur Diabolus incarnatus, Co●c Constant. sess. 11. artic. 5.  23. that a Devil incarnate should be the Pope? or of any Pope before Sergius 
l Sunt qui dicunt eum ob turpitudmem cognomenti Sergij nomen sumpsisse, eamque consuetudinem (mutandi pontificum nomina) hinc manasse, Plat. in vit. Sergij 2. & Wern. in fasc. temporum, ann. 844.  the second, sur-named Swinesnout, as Platina saith: or Octavianus 
m Hic revera primus inventus, qui mutavit sibi nomen. Bar. an. 955. nu. 4. & Bin. idem in john 12. , as the Cardinal and Binius suppose, that changed their names; or before john the twelfth, that a Pope should drink healths to 
n Diaboil in amorem vinum bibisse omnes ram clerici quam laici acclamarunt. Conc. Rom. sub joh 12. comes acta extant apud L●p●and. lib. 6.  the Devil, and give holy 
o lbidem.  orders in a stable? or before Formosus and Stephen, that a Pope dead 
p Bin. in ●●ta Stephani 7. pro c●rto tradit eum sic tractasse Formosum. Idem testatur Bar. an ●●7. 6. Plat. in vita Steph. 6. alijque▪  and buried, should be pulled out of his grave brought in pontifical Robes before a judicial Tribunal, arraigned, condemned, and then cast into Tiber? What example before Syluesters time of assembling a general Council? What example before the first Nicene, of a general Council, decreeing Arius and all Arians to be heretics? What example before Constantine, of establishing Christianity by Imperial Laws, and banishing Heretics? Sure the Cardinal would be impatient, and judge one little less then bereft of wit and understanding, who would conclude, that because there were no precedent examples of these (and a thousand thousand such like matters) therefore Benedict the ninth, or john the 23. were not Popes; or john 12. & Stephen 7. did not those abominations; or that therefore there neither was, nor might be any general Counsels assembled; or that the Nicen Council did not, or might not decree Arians to be Heretics; or that Constantine might not, and did not establish Christianity by his Imperial Laws. It's so poor, so silly and senseless a reason, to prove a thing was not done, or might not be done, because there was no precedent example for doing the same, that I well hope some of the Cardinal's friends will 'cause this passage of his dispute to pass one day under some Index expurgatorius, and be quite wiped out of his Annals: that the world do not wonder to see so great and renowned a Cardinal, to make so fond and feeble, so silly and senseless arguments.  
An eight reason, which is proper to Binius 
q Bin. Notis in vitam Silu. §. Baptizavit. , is taken out of Eusebius 
r Euseb. lib. 3 de vit. Const. ca 3. , In whom Constantine is said many years before his death, to have showed himself in a Picture, having above his head the sign of the Cross, and under his feet the old enemy the Devil, represented in the shape of a winding Dragon, Medio ventre transfixum, thrust through the midst with a Lance, and cast into the deep sea. From this Picture, thus disputes Binius. How could this be applied to Constantine, if he was not then baptised? For every Catechume is energumenus, possessed of the Devil, and is so fare from killing the Serpent, that he is rather possessed by him, Nam aliter à Catechumeno non expellitur quàm per baptismum, For the Devil is not otherwise expelled from a Catechume, then by baptism. Thus Binius.  
Then by Binius divinity, Valentinian the Empeperor, of whom before I spoke, was still possessed with the Devil, for he was not at all baptised: Then those Martyrs who die Catechumes, are still possessed. And what a worthy piece of Theologie is this, to teach, such as are possessed with the Devil, to go strait to heaven? For so did Valentinian, as Saint Ambrose 
k Credamus, quia ascendit ad illas florulentas delectationes, ubi ae●ernae vitae ●●uitur voluntate, Ambros. Orat. de obitu Valent.  shows, and so do all 
l Martyrs ad p●aemium statim pervenire, Ecclesia semper credidit, Bell. lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 1. §. Haec.  Martyrs. Again, if Constantine was till his nineteenth year possessed of the Devil: how did he, not only by his private piety and zeal, but by his public Laws and religious Edicts, abandon Idolatry and superstition, destroy the tyrannical instruments and agents, yea the very power of the Devil, by advancing the Gospel and profession of Christ throughout his whole Empire? as besides others, Eusebius 
m Deum omnibus qui 〈◊〉 Imperij sui finibus continebantur palam praedicare caepit Constantinus, Euseb. lib. 2. ca 19 hoc factum statim post de●●ctum Licinium, id est, anno suo 12. ut ante proba●imus.  whom Binius citeth, is a most plentiful witness: was Satan then divided against Satan? And what may Bellarmine think of Binius, and this divinity? for by the Cardinal's 
n Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 5. §. Item. Et §. Sed quia.  position, that the Nicene Council continued three years, and ended in the twentieth of Constantine, it avoidable ensueth, that Constantine sat in the Council of Nice among the Bishops, before he was baptised, while he was by Binius assertion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; possessed with the Devil. A wonder, that none of all those two hundred holy Bishops at Arles, none of those three hundred and eighteen Bishops at Nice, did use some exorcism, to expel the Devil out of those holy assemblies, till Silvester did this, nine years after the one Council, and a year and a half after the Nicene was, (by Bellarmine's assertion) begun: Or might one possessed, think you, sit in the Council at Arles, as Binius himself confesseth Constantine did, and not also at Nice?  
Besides, there are two answers which specially concern this objection. The former is touching Eusebius, and that which he conceived of that Picture. He thought it indeed To be 
o Vt liquet ex ipsis verbis Eusebij loco citato.  the Picture of Constantine, and that the Emperor meant to express himself thereby. But what if Eusebius misconceived Constantine? and whereas Constantine in that table, intended to represent Christ like a valiant Warrior, conquering and killing the old Dragon, treading him under his feet, and casting him into the sea; Eusebius thought this was indeed to express Constantine himself. Sure even that which Eusebius adds in that place, doth much persuade, that Constantine meant not himself, but Christ; for he saith, That many admired the wit and acuteness of the Emperor, that he, divino afflatu pulsus, moved by the holy Spirit, figured those same things, which by the words of the Prophet 
p Isa. 27. 1. , were foretold of that dragon, that God should thrust a great terrible sword into the dragon, and kill him in the sea. Thus Eusebius, whereupon it is clearly consequent, that Constantine intending to represent that which the Prophet Isay in those words expressly applied unto God, did not represent himself, but Christ (of whom Isay prophesied) To be the killer & destroyer of the old Serpent. But of this I have spoken more at large in another Treatise, touching St. George killing the Dragon, and that which may be thought to be signified thereby.  
The other answer is touching Binius his collection, admitting Constantine to have been indeed represented by that picture, as both he and all Christian religious Emperors may well be, seeing they by their zealous defending and propagating the Gospel, suppressing the violent and fraudulent oppugners thereof, may truly be said by the power of Christ, to conquer and kill the old Serpent, and tread him under their feet. Now I would demand of Binius, how he knows that Constantine set forth this table or picture, after he was baptised, rather than before? Certainly by Eusebius, who expressly avoucheth 
q Lib. 4. ca 61. 62. 63.  his baptism to have been after his 30. year, when he was near his death, and this picture to have been erected long before 
r Nempe ante coactum conc. Nicen. ut liquet ex lib. 3. ca 3. & 4. : it is undeniably consequent, that Constantine had killed and trodden under foot the Dragon long before his baptism, & so the witness of Binius doth directly contradict that which he affirms, & would prove out of him. Again, I would demand how he knows this picture was set up by Constantine, after his 19 year, rather than before it? for by Eusebius narration it clearly appears, that the Emperor set it forth, upon his subduing of those persecuting tyrants; and therefore the Dragon which Constantine, as Eusebius thought, killed, is there 
s Lib. 3. ca 3.  said to have oppugned the Church impiorum tyrannide, by the tyranny of the wicked. Now the last persecutor and tyrant, in whom the dragon oppugned the Church in Constantine's time, was Licinius, whom Constantine overcame in his 11. or 12. year, as by his Edict 
t L. 1. de vete●anis, Cod. Theod.  we before declared: upon which conquest, or shortly after, the Church enjoyed 
u Impijs hominibus è medio sublatis & po●estate tyrannica deleta, mundus de reliquo, velut solis la●● 〈◊〉 collu●●●●●●●uit, Eu●. lib. 2. ca 19 cum iam Licini●● occisus ●sset.  peace, together with the free promulgation of the Gospel of Christ. Constantine then erected that picture, as a public monument, how by his means, the tyranny of Satan was conquered by the power of Christ: and Eusebius to signify that this picture had reference to those times, about his 12. year gins his next Chapter 
x Lib. 3. ca 4.  in this manner, Quibus rebus ad exitum perductis; These things being ended, (to wit, touching the conquest of tyrants, and of the fury of the dragon) yet the mind of Constantine was much troubled for that pestilent schism, which he heard was in the churches of Thebes & Alexandria, about the cause of Arius: and so he proceeds to that narration, (which he had a little interrupted) touching the Emperor's course which he took in the matter of Arius. So this picture, by which Binius supposed, to prove the baptism of Constantine in his 19 year clearly proves, that he perverts both the writings of Eusebius, & the fact of Constantine, both which do show, that he had overcome the Dragon before his nineteenth year, much more before his baptism.  
The ninth reason, and that which carrieth indeed greatest colour of truth, is urged by Binius 
y Quod Eusebius affirmat Constantinum in extremo vitae cursu ab Eusebio Nicomediensi Artianorum antesignano baptizatum, impium & à Catholica Ecclesiâ alienum, ex hac vita nigrasse, figmentum est. etc. Bin. joco cita. in Not. ad vitam Silu.  That if Constantine had been baptised at Nicomedia, and by Eusebius Bishop of that place, seeing Eusebius was a known Arian, it would follow, that Constantine should at the last turn to Arianism, and so dye out of the Church▪ out of the Catholic faith, as not only communicating with Arians, but even receiving the holy Sacrament of an Arian Bishop, in token of his communion with them. All which Binius saith, (but most untruly 
z Nam Eusebius contrarium diserte asserit. Imperator (inquit, lib. 4. de vit. Const. ca 64.) ad Deum suum assumptus est, & iterum, corpus humi relinquens animi partem intellgentem ac divinam Deo suo c●iunxit, & cap. 72. ter beatum voc●●. ) Eusebius to affirm.  
For answer whereunto, it cannot be denied, nor can any be ignorant thereof, who is conversant in the Ecclesiastical Histories, both that Constantine much esteemed and favoured Eusebius Nicomediensis, and that this Eusebius was a very subtle and malicious Arian; and yet that Constantine even to his death, extremely hated and detested Arianism. Of the respect Constantine had of him, there are besides other, two eminent tokens. The one, that when Athanasius being most injuriously condemned in the Council at Tyre, had complained 
a Epist. Syned● Alexand apud Athana●. Apol. 2. pag. 195.  of their wrong to Constantine: when the matter came to be heard before the Emperor, Eusebius craftily declining 
b Aliud crimen commentitium detulerunt, Apol. 2. pag. 219.  the former accusations, laid unto Athanasius charge a new crime, tending to a kind of treason: that Athanasius had threatened to stay the Emperor's ships and corn which was to be sent out of Egypt, and so by that means (as might be conceived) meant to weaken the Imperial State, or raise a sedition or rebellion in the Empire: which when Athanasius with great grief denied, saying; That he being but a private and poor man, was not able to do such a matter, Eusebius periuring 
c Eusebius de●erauit Athanasium perquam opulentum esse, & satis virium & authoritatis ad ista patranda habere, ibid. pa. 195.  himself, swore that he had both wealth and authority enough to do it: to whole oath the Emperor gave such credit, even as holy David 
d 2. Sam. 16. 4.  did to Ziba, in the cause of innocent Mephibosheth, That without further examination 
e Emicuit ibi Caesaris ira, adeo ut inaudita causa, è vestigio efferbuerit; & omisso iudicio, nos in Gallias relegarit, ibid. pa. 219.  of the truth, he banished Athanasius: but afterwards repenting him of that hasty act he purposed to cal● 
f Cum suis sed●bus hunc Episcopum pater Constantinus restitue●e ●●●let, humana sorte praeventus eit ante●●am hoc impleret, ait constantinus Epistala ad Eccl. Alexand. apud Athanas. Apol. 2. pa. 219.  him home again, but was prevented by death. All which is to be seen in the second Apology of Athanasius. The other token of his love and favour to this Eusebius, was his receiving of the Sacrament of baptism at his hands, when he was so extremely sick and near his death, whereof before we cited very many witnesses.  
It is true that some of the Ancients (as now Binius) considering no more than those outward acts of Constantine, thought him in his latter time to decline to Arianisme: so did Lucifer 
q Lucif. lib. 1. pro Athan. pa. 57  Bishop of Calaret a Confessor, who knowing the fact, but not the cause of Athanasius banishment, said of Constantine, that he hated and banished Athanasius, quia noluerit esse Arianus, because he would not be an Arian. So did Saint Jerome in his Chronicle (if it be not falsely, 
r Hier. in. Chron. an. 31. Constantini.  as may seem, inserted thereinto) who looking to the baptism of Constantine by this Eusebius, collected thereupon, that he declined in Arianam Sectam, to the Arian sect. They both did (and so doth Binius) very injuriously from these or the like facts, conclude any change in the faith of Constantine: for his faith and profession was still the same, that is, Catholic; the change was not in him, but in Eusebius: as if we observe three several times will easily appear.  
At the first, before and in the beginning of the Nicene Council, this Eusebius showed himself in his natural colours an earnest Arrian: yea he was so obstinate in defence thereof, that they were as usually if not more, called from him Eusebians 
t Eusebiani passim vocantur à Synodo Alexandrina, apud Athan. Apol. 2. , then from Arius, Arians. When Eusebius was such, the Emperor subscribed to his condemnation which the Synod had decreed, Edictum Imperatoris Arium▪ Eusebium, & Theognidem in exilium ire mandavit, saith Socrates 
u Socr. lib. 1. ca 5. p. 223. , the Emperor's Edict commanded that Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis, should be banished: but very shortly after both Eusebius and diverse others, though dissemblingly, recanted and subscribed 
x Vobis significamus, nos fidei confessioni consensisse, Epist. Eusebij Nico. & Theognidis. ad Patres Concili● Niceni. apud Socr. l. 1. c. 10.  to the Counsels decree; whereupon they were received 
y In Synodo Nicena octo Episcopes Arianos susceptos scimus. Eusebius episcopus Nicomediensis. etc. Hier. adversus Lucifer●to. 2. p. 145  by the Nicene Council. Eusebius and the rest were permitted by the Emperor 
z Omnia quae voluerat obtinuit. sic de hoc Eusebio scribit Imp. in suis literis apud Theod. 1. c. 19  to enjoy their Bishoprickes: with their profession of change, the Emperor's displeasure was changed also.  
Some few years after the end of the Council, Eusebius returned to his former bias, and began 
a Eusebius Nicomediensis statim po●●. pro viribus laboravit ut A●ium reduceret. Soc l. 1. c. 19 & Theod. l. 1. c. 19  again to labour for Arianisme. How Constantine was displeased with him thereupon, his letters to the Church of Nicomedia, for the banishment of him and Theognis, set down by Theodoret, are a most pregnant testimony: Thus he writ: We 
b Epist. Constantini apud Theod l. 1. c. 19  have given commandment, concerning these ingrateful men (Eusebius and Theognis,) that being carried from their Sees, they should be banished into most remote places: adding withal, that if any man, eas Ecclesiae pests, vel memoria, vel laudibus celebrare aggrediatur, if any should mention or praise those plagues of the Church, he should suffer condign punishment for so doing. Thus did the Emperor show his detestation of Eusebius when he shown himself an Arian. And upon this charge from the Emperor was Eusebius 
c Illi (Eusebius & Theognis) 〈◊〉 honoribus spoliati, Vrbibusque eiecti sunt. Theod. ib.  deprived of his See & banished.  
Shortly after this the Proteus changed his profession again, but with like dissimulation and fraud as he had used before, as Theodoret 
d Theod▪ l. 1. c. 19 etc. 20.  showeth, and as Nicephorus 
e Nicep. lib. S. ca 43.  truly notes of him and Theognis, ovium pellibus amicti, lupos agebant, they put on the habit and show of Catholics, but inwardly in heart they were wolves and cruel heretics. Constantine seeing but with man's eyes, upon his return, received him not only into favour, but into familiarity 
f Familiaris Imperatori effectus. Theodo. loc. cit. , he craftily giving sundry tokens of love to the Catholic faith. Yea Baronius 
g Bar. an. 33. nu. 5.  himself notes of him, that after his return from exile, Nicenam fidem coram ipso ardenter pofitebatur, he before Constantine did earnestly profess the Nicene faith, though in his heart he hated it. And from thencefoorth all the time of Constantine, that Eusebius and Theognis and the rest did not nor durst profess any other faith but the Nicene and Catholic, Sozomen declares, They closely endeavoured, saith he 
h Sozom. lib 2. ca 30. , to altar the Nicene faith, tamet si non auderent palam denegare, though openly they durst not deny the same: and he gives this as a reason, pro certo enim sciebant Imperatorem ita sentire, for they knew of a certainty, that the Emperor did hold the Nicene faith, and they durst not gainsay the Emperor therein: yea they were so forward in showing an outward profession of the Catholic, and dislike of the Arian doctrine, that not only during Constantine's time, but five years also after that, while Constans lived, they openly professed in the Synod at Antioch 
i Quintus iam agebatur annus à morte Constantini Soc. l. 2. c. 5.  in Encaenijs, nos certe 
k Eusebianorume, ist●la apud Athan. lib. de Synod. pa●●48. & apud Soc. lib. 2. ca 7. Eusebium aurem ipsum Nicomediensem interfuisse concilio liquet ex Soc. l. ●. c. 9 & agnoscit Bar. an. 342. 〈◊〉. 43.  Arij acoluthi, id est, fectatores non sumus, of a certainty we are not followers of Arius: & in the very first canon of that Synod, as followers and defenders of the Nicene faith, they decree 
i Canon. 1. C●c. Antioch. 〈◊〉 Encaen●js.  that all should be excommunicated, who durst dissolve or gainstand the definition made for Easter by the Nicene Council, which was assembled in the presence of the most religious Emperor Constantine. And yet notwithstanding this outward and dissembling profession, both in Constantine's time, and after, they not only in heart embraced, but secretly and craftily laboured (as Athanasius shows) to bring in the heresy of Arius into the Church. Omitting other, let Baronius own testimony be observed touching the outward profession of Eusebius, and the chief Eusebians, during the time of Constantine. This (saith he 
k Bar. an. 336. na. 37. 38. ) is to be understood, that the Eusebians so long as Constantine lived, did forinsecus, outwardly make a show and profession of the Nicene faith, to which they had once subscribed. And again, so long as Constantine lived, the Eusebians durst not so much as mutire adversus Nicenae fidei regulam, not once whisper aught against the rule of the Nicene faith. So Baronius.  
Had Constantine favoured Eusebius, or any Arian Bishop, or received baptism at their ha●ds, while they had professed Arianism and heresy, that blemish of declining in his latter age from the faith, and of favouring the Arian heresy, had been justly imputed to him. But seeing he communicated with Eusebius, and received baptism at his hands, as of one, 
l Ardenter profitebatur. an. 331. nu. 5.  who was a Catholic professor, and earnest (as Baronius faith) in that profession, who was Constantine, that he should search into, or judge of the heart? was he to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Was not he in charity to judge, that as Eusebius professed with his tongue, so with his heart he believed the Nicene decree? The Nicene Fathers themselves gave a clear instruction in this point: for when this Eusebius, Theognis, and others; yea even Arius himself, made an outward, but yet a fradulent & dissembling profession of the true faith, subscribed to it with their hands, they received them into the communion of the Church, (as S. Jerome 
l Hier. loco citato.  expressly noteth.) They judged them (and that justly) to be Catholics who made a Catholic profession: yea the Apostles, and Christ himself taught the very same, who held communion, and received 
m Math. 26. 23. & seq. Christus primam Eucharistiam confectam manibus suis, judae sicut caeteris Apostolis tradidit August in psal 10. Adfuit Judas & illius sacrificij communicationem metuit. Chrus. ho. de judae prodit. sic ●●rill. lib. 9 in Ioh●n. ca 15.  the sacrament with judas, so long as he kept the outward and Catholic profession, though in his heart he was an Apostata, yea a devil. By all which this fact of Constantine in receiving baptism of Eusebius Nicomediensis, and holding communion with him, is clearly justified: for even in so doing he communicated with a Catholic Bishop in the eye of the Church, though he was a detestable Arian, and a very judas in the eye of God: he communicated with him in that outward profession which was Orthodoxal, and all that man could see; he did not communicate with his inward belief, which was heretical, and which God did, but man could not see. So this objection touching Constantine's baptism, is but a mere cavil of those, who if this truth be admitted, would collect a declination & Apostasy in Constantine, as if hereby he should have been exeluded from faith, and all hope of salvation: whereas notwithstanding this, yea even by this he gave a token of his constant continuance in the Catholic faith, which until his last gasp he constantly embraced and most honourably maintained and for this cause is honoured as a Saint in the Greek 
y Menol. Graec●ie 21. Maij.  Church, and expressly called Saint Constantine, by Pope 
z Epist. Steph. ●ad Basilium extat post. Act. Conc. 8. apud Been pa. 900.  Steven the sixth, though in their Roman martyrologue, they would not vouchsafe that honour unto him.  
There are yet one or two doubts, which are in this cause eagerly, but most maliciously urged by Augustine Steuchus. He not only calls it in plain terms, 
a Ad mendacia multorum coarguenda de baptismo Constantini. Steuc. pa. 160.  a lie, that Constantine was baptised at Nicomedia, or by Eusebius Bishop of that place, adding that the ancient Historians 
b Gravifissimi scriptores peccaverunt. ibid. pa. 158. & complures erraverunt. ib.  and Writers who say this, do err therein, but he will further also tell you, how and by what occasion they erred and were deceived in this their report. Constantine, saith he 
c Steuch. ibid. pa. 157. 158, , the son of Constantine the Great, was a wicked 
d Fuit improbus atque in Arianorum dogma delapsus. ibid. ipse Arianus erat. ibid.  man, an Arian, and an embracer of Arianism, he expelled 
e E●ecit sanctum Foelicem. pa. 158.  out of the Roman See Pope Foelix, by whom 
f Ob heresin Foelix cum anathema●c percusserat. ibi.  he was anathematised for heresy: and in further token of his love to Arianism, whereas he had been formerly baptised, he was 
g Ab Eusebio Nicomed●ensi rebaptiza●us. ibid.  again baptised in the last part of his age by the Arians, even by that Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia; all which he 
h Quod Dama sus testa●ur. ibi.  saith, is affirmed by Damasus. Now hereupon, saith he, those most grave Historians and Writers attributed that to the Father, which indeed happened to the son, both of them having one and the same name, and they supposed that Constantine the father, was baptised in his last age by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, whereas it was indeed his son Constantine. Thus Steuchus: who much applauds himself in this so witty a conceit.  
Truly I do not know whether I should here reprove his most gross and supine ignorance, or his extreme malice to the truth. I shall not need to show how injuriously and maliciously he accuseth Constantine the younger, to have been an Arian, and a favourer of Arianisme. The great love 
i Intelligetis quantae apud n●●reuerentiae fuerit. & Athanasium vocat admirand●e legis interpreten, & sacrum caput. Epist. Constantini ●unioris apud Athan. Apol. 2. p 219.  and reverend respect which he shown to Athanasius while he was banished, and the religious care 
k Ego mihi convenire puto, ut suis sedibus restituatur. ibid.  he had to see him with honour restored and put in quiet possession of his See again, do undeniably convince Steuchus to be a slanderer.  
That all the rest, which Steuchus hath here heaped together against the same Constantine, how he was rebaptised by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, how he persecuted Pope Foelix, how he was anathematised by the same Foelix, and the rest of the Narration is nothing else but a mere calumny and slander, every one may perceive; and Steuchus himself (if either ignorance or malice had not put out his eyes) might easily have discerned, seeing it is certain that this Constantine was dead at lest 15 years 
l Constantinus junior obijt Acindino & Proclo Coss. Soc. l. 2. c 3. is est annus Christi 340. Bar. Foelix autem P●ntificatum init an. 357. nu. 67.  before Foelix ever came to the Popedom. So blinded was Steuchus with malice that he regarded not, whether he had so much as any colour of truth for his lies & slanders. And whereas he pretends Pope Damasus, to be a witness of that which he saith (to omit his simplicity in thinking Damasus 
m Liber iste est Anastasij non▪ Damasi, ut notum est. Bell, 〈◊〉. descrip. ●ccl. in Damaso.  to be the author of that book) Steuchus in this betrays himself to be voided of all truth, and most impudent in downfacing the same. For in that Damasus, there is not one word of this, which Steuchus allegeth. It is Constantius 
n Hic declaravit Cons●●tium haereti●●. ab eudem Constantio martyrio corona●●● Foelix. vita Foelic. 2. in Pontif. (ut vocatur) Damas●  and not Constantinus of whom Damasus writeth, that he was a persecuter of Foelix, that Foelix declared him an Heretic, that he was rebaptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia; was this, think you, a small fault in Steuchus, first to slander Constantine with all these heinous crimes, and then to belie Damasus as affirming the same, whereas that Damasus speaks all, of the Arian Emperor Constantius, and not one word of the most religious Constantine?  
Now because Steuchus pretends also that the ancient Writers might another way mistake 
o Causa una erroris quòd Constantius filius scribitur supremo vitae tempore baptizatus, Steuc. pa. 157. Potuit fieri ut scriptores tribuerent patri, quod accidit filio Constantio. ibid.,  this matter, and ascribe that to Constantine which happened to Constantius his son: it's further to be observed, that even this which the Anastasian Damasus reports of Constantius his rebaptising by Eusebius, is so palpably untrue, that Binius 
p Bin. not. in vitam Foelicis 2. §. Hic.  saith of it, falsis simum est, it is most false. And well might he so say: for Constantius was not so much as once baptised while Pope Foelix lived, but as Socrates 
q Constantius baptismo ab Euzoio accepto, ad bellum rectà proficisritur, in eoque mortem oppetijt. Soc. lib. 2. ●a. 37.  witnesseth, a very little before Constantius own death; which was three 
r Constantius obijt Coss, Tauro & Florentio. Soc. loc. cit. Is est an. Chr. 361. Bar. eo an. nu. 1. Foelix obijt an. 358▪ ut testatur Bar. an. 357. nu. 67  complete years after the death of Foelix. Again when he was baptised, it was not as that lying Damasus 
s Damas. in vita Foelic. 2.  saith, by Eusebius, but by Euzoius Bishop of Nicomedia: and this not only Athanasius 
t Athan. lib. de Synod. pa. 350. , but Socrates 
u Soc. li. 2. c. 37.  also expresseth. Whereby it is evident that the ancient Historians did not (as Steuchus fancieth) mistake the baptism of Constantius the son, instead of Constantine the father, seeing they mention them both 
x Soc. li. 1. c. 26▪ agit de baptismo Constantini & l. 2. c. 37. agit de baptismo Constantij. , as two divers baptisms, and express the diverse times at which, the diverse persons by whom they were administered. So every way is Steuchus convinced both of slandering Constantinus the younger, and of belying Damasus, and of imputing a very foolish error to those ancient and grave Historians, as if they had erroneously thought, that to agreed to Constantine the Father, which, as Steuchus fancieth, happened either to Constantine the younger, or to Constantius his brother.  
Like ignorance and malice doth Steuchus show in another fancy, touching the baptism of Constantine. He saith 
y Operae pretium est nosse baptismum magni Constantini, quem scripsit Eusebius fuisse potiùs balneum calidarum aquarum, ad quas aeger Constantinus sanit●ti consulens accessit. Steuch. lib, cit. pa. 158, , That whereas Eusebius affirms Constantine to have been baptised at Nicomedia, its worthy your labour, to observe and know, that the baptism whereof Eusebius speaks, was not the Sacramental baptism, but balneum calidarum aquarum, A bath of hot waters at Nicomedia, wherein Constantine when he was sick was bathed for his bodily health. Is this that which is operae pretium, to know? Not, the recompense of your labour must be to know, that Steuchus for this his fancy, doth deserve for ever to wear a bell and a babble. Do but read and consider the most pious and religious speech, and actions of Constantine, used at that time, and recorded by Eusebius, (who, as it seems, was then present with him) and you will not only remain assured, that Constantine was not baptised either at Rome, or by Sylvester, but further also even admire the stupidity, and for ever detest the vile dealing of Steuchus, and all such as follow him.  
Eusebius 
z Euseb. lib. 4. de vit. Const. ca 6● & 6●.  declares, how while Constantine being at Constantinople, grew sick and very distempered in his body, for that cause went ad calida civitatis balnea, to the hot baths of that City; from thence, saith Eusebius, he went to Helenopolis (a City 
a Helinopol●n Bythinia trasitut tbi profluentibus sponte sua aquis, & naturalibus lavacus uteretur, Niceph. lib. 8. ca 54.  in Bythinia) to use the bath of that place also: and departing 
b Ind (Helinopoli) discedens ad suburbana Nicomediae pervenit. Eus. loc. cit.  hence, he came to the Suburbs of Nicomedia, and there calling the Bishops unto him, he said thus; What I have these many years desired, brethren, this day hath brought unto me. Now its time that I should at last be partaker of that 
c Vt tandem insigni illo per quod immortalitatem ●dipiscimur, perfruamur, ibid. ca 62.  sign, by which we obtain immortality, which I had purposed to have done in jordan, after the example of Christ, but God seeing what is most fit, doth vouchsafe these mysteries unto me in this place. And then, saith Eusebius, the prayers being ended, and the accustomed ceremonies of the divine Institution being used, arc●norum mysteriorum eum participem faciunt, They do administer the holy and sacred mysteries unto him: and he, renatus & sacris initiatus, Being then regenerate and initiated by the holy Sacrament, did wonderfully rejoice and admire the divine Majesty, and being attired with princely Robes, more white than light, he laid away his Scarlet, nor would he touch it again. Thus, and much more Eusebius. Can any now sufficiently deride Steuchus, for perverting these words of Eusebius, and all the sacred actions performed both by Constantine, and the Bishops, as meant of an hot bath? Did he defer this so many years, that he might go to an hot bath at jordan? Or will Steuchus dare to say, that Christ's baptism, was but an hot bath? Is an hot bath, a mystery that is a Sacrament, or sacred sign of immortality? Or who duly pondering these words of Constantine, can ever doubt that he was now, and never before, baptised, and that at Nicomedia? and therefore that Pope Hadrian, Steuchus, Baronius, Binius, and all the rest, who affirm, that he was baptised at Rome, and by Sylvester, do most certainly against the evidence of undoubted records, maintain a most evident untruth.  
Now in the last place we are to consider how Baronius declameth & inveigheth most eagerly against Eusebius, who is the relator of this truth. He calls him on Arian 
e Bar. an. 324 nu. 63. , the ringleader 
f Signifer Arianorum. ib.  of Arians, a liar 
g Eusebius mentitus est, ibid. nu. 48. , one subtle in devising 
h Imbibit dolos ad concinnanda quotquot posset mendacia, ib. nu. 43.  as many lies as he could; adding, that he lies 
i Necesse est dicere Eusebium, (in hoc de Constantini baptismo) esse mentitum. ib. nu. 48. de baptismo est falsa narratio, ibid. nu 42.  in this touching Constantine's baptism, that he was the 
k Comment● ab Ariano homine ex ●ogitatum, ibid. n● 49. & nu. 50. v●cat hoc, A●iani hominis imposturam.  architect who first forged and devised this lie, from whom as the spring 
l Exs●●●●o 〈…〉. , others derived this untruth and imposture, none ever before mentioning the same, himself also contradicting 
m Ibid ●n 46.  his own narration. Thus doth Baronius (I say not) reason, but rave against the reporter of this truth, thinking that by disgracing him, he may oppress & overthrew the truth itself.  
It's not my purpose wholly to excuse Eusebius, either for his life or doctrine: Vitijs sine nemo nascitur, optimus ille qui minimis urgetur; yet had Eusebius been worthy of never so much blame, Baronius of all men, was most unworthy and unfit to object the same unto him, Loripidem rectus derideat. The Cardinals own Annals, being so fraught with fables, yea being a lump of lies, and a very mass of misreported matters, he should have been more sparing, in objecting errors or untruths unto others; most of all to Eusebius, whose History and Chronicle, were the very best ●orch, to direct Baronius in that whole course of time which they handle. But he, most ungrateful person, having had so much help▪ & received both light and warmth from the fire of Eusebius, doth like Aesop's Viper, disgorge the venom of his mind and virulency of his tongue upon him, whom he should, and that most deservedly, have honoured.  
Now though I cannot in all matters, nor intent in any one error, to patronise Eusebius, yet can I not endure to hear this Roman Rabsheca, so indignly misuse a reverend Bishop, and a most renowned Historian: and specially for delivering a most clear, certain, and undoubted truth. Omitting many other, there are four points in the Cardinal's Inuective, which I will touch in this place.  
The first is the Cardinal's acuteness, in spying a strange repugnancy in the sayings of Eusebius, whereas he affirms 
a Euseb. lib. 4. de vit. Const. ca 62. , Constantine to be the first Emperor that was baptised: Baronius to disgrace Eusebius, as contradicting himself, and therefore as unworthy of credit, saith 
b Bar. ann. 324. nu. 46. ; Planè immemor, Eusebius had quite forgot what himself had said in his own History 
c Euseb. lib. 6. histor. eccle. ca 33. , that Philip who was Emperor long before Constantine, was a Christian. Do you not admire the Cardinal's subtlety, who can see a repugnancy in those two assertions, which are both true, and fitly coherent the one to the other? Had Eusebius said, that Philip the Emperor had been baptised, the Cardinal might justly have insulted, and declaimed against him. But seeing Eusebius saith only, that he was a Christian, and saith not that he was baptised; you may sooner see here the Cardinal's hatred to Eusebius, than any contradiction in his writings. It's true that before Constantine, not only Philip, 
d Philippus primus Romanorum principum Christianus fuit. Vin●. Lirin▪ ca 23● & Oro●. lib. 7 ca 20. , but Constantius 
e Vt liquet ex Euseb. lib, 1. de vit. Const. ca 11.  Clorus also, the father of Constantine, were Christi●ns, and embraced Christianity, Though neither of them were baptised, neither of them, by Imperial authority established Christianity in the Empire. But of all Emperors, Constantine was the first, who to his Christian profession added baptism, and by his authority commanded all his subjects to embrace the Christian faith. In which respect, he is usually called also the first Christian Emperor; not simply, nor in regard of the profession only, but first of all, who was Christian in a complete manner, who received the holy ensign of that holy profession: first, who by Imperial laws allowed and authorised the profession thereof. Some, I confess, following the nameless and worthless Acts of Pontius 
f Imperatores crediderunt & à S. Fabiano Papa baptizati sunt. Act▪ Pontij, apud Bar. an. 246. nu. 9 Idem ait Gilb. Geneb. in Chron. an. 252. , say of Philip the Emperor and his son, that they were baptised; but Eusebius saith no more as of his own opinion and judgement, but that Philip 
g Cum Christianus esset. Eus loc. cit.  was a Christian: what is further added in Eusebius, That Philip was excluded by Pope Fabianus from the public prayers of Christians, and that he was set to do penance among the vulgar sort of penitents, and after that received into the Christian Communion: all this Eusebius relates, only as a fame and report of others, (saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Christopherson rightly translates, fama est; others, de eo fertur) but Eusebius himself approves not this report, as true; nor is it indeed any way likely: but that Philip was baptised, Eusebius neither as of his own opinion, nor yet so much as by a fame or report of others, doth affirm. Nay Eusebius directly denies the same, and this one testimony so confidently given by Eusebius, that 
a 〈◊〉. lib. 4. ca 62.  Constantine was the first of all the Roman Emperors that were baptised, is of more weight to persuade that Philip was not baptised, them any which can be produced, that affirms he was baptised. Howsoever, seeing Eusebius saith it not, Baronius, you see, herein proves himself a Sophistical trifler, but no way proves any repugnancy in Eusebius.  
The second is, the simplicity of Baronius, who gives this as a reason, why 
b Haec demonstrate ● sunt, ut haec impostura fidem apud lectorem non inueni●t, sià quou●s id trad● reperiat, cum nullus alius praecesserit, praeter Eusebrum à quo id quisquam acceperit author Bar. an. 324. nu. 50.  none should believe that Constantine was baptised at Nicomedia, in whomsoever this be found reported, seeing there is none before Eusebius who hath reported the same. Was not the Cardinal, think you, bereft of reason when he thought any before Eusebius could report either when, or where Constantine was baptised? Eusebius lived at that very time, he conversed daily and familiarly with Constantine; who could sooner or better know it, more certainly relate it, than such a Bishop? The Cardinal might as well prove that none should believe that Constantine was Emperor, in whomsoever this be found to be said, because no Historian before Eusebius doth mention or writ the same. Nay, it may much more firmly be concluded, that Eusebius his report hereof is most true, seeing none in that age did control or contradict him therein: their general silence being a seconding, and approving of his narration, all in that age, knowing it to be so certain, that they rested satisfied in his report, they thought it needless to say the same, and impossible with any colour of truth, to say the contrary. And though none before Eusebius his time did writ thereof (for that was impossible) yet even in that very age, did others most worthy of credit, Saint Ambrose 
a Amb. orat. de obitu The. odd.  and Saint Jerome 
b Hier. in Chron.  writ, and testify that which Eusebius had written before: and both of these were alive 
c Ambrose obijt an. 397. aetatis suae 64. Bar. on. 397. nu. 30. ergo natus est an. 333. Hier. obijt an. 420. aetatis suae 91. Bar. an. 420. nu. 39 ergo natus est an. 330. Baptismus autem Constantini suit ultimo ipsius anno. Id est, 336. aut 337.  when Constantine was baptised, and one of them Bishop within 33. years after. Against these so ancient and faithful witnesnesses, all living at this very time, the Cardinal cannot produce any within 140. years of Constantine, who writ the contrary, not nor after that time neither can he allege any, but the fabulous Acts of Silvester, with the forged second Roman Synod (which both seem to have been devised about the 440. year 
d Nam extabant Acta Siluestri ante Conc. Rom. sub Gelasio, quod habitum est an. 494.  of Christ), and such as being in their credulity abused by their forgeries, do abuse others with false and fabulous reports taken out of them.  
The third thing which I observe in the words of Baronius, is his most uncivil usage of this reverend Bishop, in so often and insolently giving him the lie, and calling him an Architect and deviser of lies. To this reviling of Baronius, let me oppose that testimony of Saint Jerome: Eusebius, saith he 
e Ecclesiast. historiam pulchre Eusebius ●exuit. Hier. epist. ad Pammach. & Ocean , hath excellently written the Ecclesiastical history: and again, I 
f Hier. Apol. 1 advers. Russin.  have praised Eusebius for his Ecclesiastical history, and for his Chronicle. That of Euagrius, Eusebius Caesariensis is a man most eloquent, so excellent in writing, that by his persuasion he enforceth his readers to love and embrace Christian religion. That of their own learned disputer 
g quag. lib. 1. ca 1. , He is the best and most ancient historian of all 
h Heart's conference with D. Rain●●. ca 6. ●●uis. ●.  that ever have traveled in the Stories of the Church. That of their Bishop Christopher ●on the translator of Eusebius, For History, saith he 
x Prooem. Christopher's. in Eusebium, in fine. , Eusebius hath so set it down, that Saint Hierome greatly approves it, Et sic veritati adhaesit, ut nihil in illa error●s omnino reperiatur; He so followed the truth, that there is no error to be found in his Story. Or if this seem (as indeed it is) too excessive commendation, let us hear their own Bishop Canus, who supposing 
y Can. loc. The●l. lib. 11. cap. 6. §. Rei●cit. , (as many other have done) the writings of Eusebius to be condemned by Pope Gelasius, (the occasion of which error, I shall hereafter explain) could find no reason, why Gelasius should so hardly censure the History of Eusebius, but only, Because he sets down the Epistle of Christ to Abagarus, (which yet Eusebius only reports, but approves not as true and undoubted:) and certain Epistles of Clemens Alexandrinus, (wherein Eusebius deserves no blame at all;) and the praises of Origen, (whose errors yet he doth not there approve:) and Canus then adds, Gelasius 
z ●aetara sibi ac Concilio pla●uisse mo●●t, ibid. §. Praeterea▪  did allow the rest in Eusebius; therefore if you except that Epistle to Abagarus▪ and the praises of Origen, his History is such, cui fides omnino haberetur, as may wholly be credited. And for the Chronicle of Eusebius, He was (saith Canus 
a Ibid. ) a man of great diligence and labour, of exceeding variety of reading, and of very grave judgement. Neither do I know whether any Author, either in the Latin or Greek Church, though he strive never so much, can leave more excellent Monuments of time. Thus Canus: who having so diligently examined and weighed this whole matter, his only judgement aught not only to oversway, but utterly abolish and confounded for ever the Cardinals railing against, and reviling of Eusebius: especially for his recording this of Constantine's baptism, wherein by the testimony of Bishop Canus, his history is worthy to be wholly believed.  
The fourth and last point which I here observe, is the Cardinal's imputation of Arianism unto Eusebius: wherein he treads but in the steps of some of the worthy Fathers of their second Nicene Council. Eusebius 
b Con Nic. 2. Act. 5 pa. 351. Eusebij verba cit●ntur. Act. 6 pa. 374.  had taught that no image could fully express Christ, being both God and man: the Nicene Fathers, no● enduring that any should cross their doctrine of Images, reject and anathematise 
c Sancta Synodus dixit, libros illius re●●●imus & anathematizamus. ibid. Act. 5 pa. 352.  his books, yea all that 
d Sancta Synod as dixit, Anathema & illis libris (Eusebi●) & qui●●los l●gunt. ibi.  read them; call him an heretic 
e Originem & ipsum author's (Eusebi●) haereticos ostenda●●s. ibid.  an Arrian 
f Apparet ill●. Ariancae esse opinionis. Act. 6. p. 375. a. , yea and a Theopaskite 
g O●mantur Chri●●um ca●●ē sin● 〈◊〉 assu●●p●sse, etc. abide.  also, one who taught that Christ had no soul, but the Godhead supplied the office of the soul, that so the Deirie might be said to suffer. Eusebius being of this sect, saith their Nicene proctor, Epiphanius 
h Ibid. , imaginem Christi Theopascitarum more reijcit, rejects the image of Christ, as the Theopaskites do, adding, that Eusebius 
i 〈…〉 area domi●ica. (cath● licam dico ecclesiam) 〈◊〉 sunt. ibid. p. 374. b.  is rejected and cast out of the Catholic Church.  
Had Eusebius writ invectives against Constantine, calling him, as Baronius doth, a parricide 
k 〈…〉, 24, nu. 28. & 44. , a persecutor 
l Bar. ib. nu. 33.  of the Church fare worse 
m ann. e●de●, nu 45.  than Constantius (whom Catholics counted and called Antichrist,) had he told fables and lies of Constantine's leprosy, cure, and baptism at Rome: or had he writ for Images and adoration thereof, Eusebius had been a renowned writer with Baronius and the Nicene Fathers; because he doth not this, he must be an heretic, an Arian, and Theopaskite, one cast out of the Church.  
First, for that calumny of the Theopaskites, objected by those Nicene fathers, there is no truth at all in them, nor are they worthy of any credit: for that Eusebius did truly and rightly teach two distinct natures to be, and to abide in Christ, the divine and the humane, all his books do abundantly testify. In his History he 
o Euseb. lib. 1. Eccles. hist. c. 1.  sets down this as the foundation of all that follows, That Christ being God, induit hominem nobis similiter passionibus obnoxium, took upon him man, or humane nature, being by it subject to passion as we are: and again, that the Deity is impassable, he plainly teacheth in that Epistle of his which is recorded in Socrates and Theodoret, wherein he 
p Epist. Eusebij Caesar. apud Socr. li. 1. ca 5. prope finem. & theod. l. c. 12.  professeth the divine nature to be voided and incapable of passion, affection, or mutilation. To say nothing that the heresy of the Theopaskites, (which those Nicene fathers impute to Eusebius) did but spring up, and was borne about 
q Exorti sunt Theopascitae temporibus Hormisdae Pontificis circa annum Do▪ 513. Pratelol. de haeres. in Theopasc.  the year 513. more than 160. years after Eusebius was dead.  
For that other imputation of Arianism; its true, that Eusebius for a while inclined to that heresy, and was an earnest propugner thereof: Saint Jerome testifying of him, Arianum 
r Hier. 〈…〉  fuisse nemo est qui nesciat, there is none but know that Eusebius was an Arian; and again 
s Hier. 〈…〉 , he was Arij apertissimus propugnator, an open defendor of Arius. But that he reclaimed himself and forsook Arianisme at the time of the Nicene Council, it is evident by many witnesses. Theodoret 
t Theod. ●●b. 1. ca 12.  and Socrates 
u S●c. l. b. 1. ca 5. pa. 223.  of purpose declare this, expressing that form of faith which Eusebius made and offered to the Council, so orthodoxal, that Constantine exhorted all the Bishops▪ to subscribe unto it, so that this only word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were added thereunto. To which Eusebius in that his own Epistle 
x Epist. Euseb. citata à Theod▪ & Socr▪ locis cit.  saith, that when he understood what they meant thereby, he assented thereunto; adding, that diverse ancient and holy Bishops before the time of the Nicene Council, used that very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sic tandem, saith Socrates, unà cum reliquis universis came approbavit, & subscriptione ratam fecit: so at last Eusebius with all the rest of the Council approved that of Homousios', and subscribed unto it. Athanasius who was present in the Council witnesseth the same. Eusebius Caesariensis, saith he 
y Athan. con●. Atian. haeres. decreta. pa. 180 , subscribed to that sentence of the Council, which a little before he had denied, and he writ this to the Church of which he was Bishop, telling them, eam esse ecclesiae fidem, that this was the true faith of the Church and the tradition of the Fathers, confessing in his Epistle that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the same substance with the Father. So Athanasius: than whom a more authentic witness cannot be desired.  
That Eusebius persevered in this orthodoxy of faith, the most honourable and memorable testimony of Constantine himself, with whom Eusebius was most inward and familiar, is a most clear evidence. When the people of Antioch, being in a great uproar about their election of a Bishop, requested to have Eusebius, and Eusebius had refused the Bishopric of Antioch, the Emperor much commending that his fact, writ unto him, expressing his own, nay the whole Catholic Churches judgement of Eusebius in this manner, Sic 
a Epist. Constant●●m ad Eusebium l. 3. de vita. Const. 〈◊〉. 59  putato, Think thus of yourself, that you are herein blessed, in that by the testimony almost of the whole world, you are judged worthy to be the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the whole Church, (or as others 
b ●o●●nius 〈…〉. sed totius orbis. Hist trip. l. 1. c. 27. & 〈◊〉. l. 2. c. 18.  have it, of the whole world): and this also is an overplus of your happiness, that every one is so desirous of you, that they would have you to be and abide with them. Thus Constantine. Would himself, being a most religious Emperor, nay would the whole Catholic Church, and almost the whole world, give so ample and honourable a testimony of Eusebius, had he been an Arian?  
Here I can not sufficiently both admire, and detest the most fraudulent dealing of Baronius in this matter. He to persuade you, as do also the second Nicene Fathers, that Eusebius after the Nicene Council, remained an 
c Eusebius postea in Conciliab●l▪ Tyr●o alijsque con●nenticulis pro A●●anis st●●●t, omnibusque studijs Ario f●ui●. Ba●not. in Martyr. Rom. jun. 21. & similia habet. an. 355. nu. 8 9  Arian, most craftily tells you, that this testimony was given by Constantine, not after the Nicene Council (as the narration in Eusebius 
d Eus lib. 3. de vita. Constant. ca▪ 59 cum de Concilio Nic●no 〈…〉. 14.  doth show that it was) but that Constantine 
e 〈…〉.  writ this at that time, when Eustathius was chosen Bishop of Antioch, which was certainly before the Nicene Council (Eustathius being one 
f 〈…〉  of the chief Bishops therein:) and that it was then, that the people of Antioch being in a tumult, requested the Emperor that Eusebius might be translated from Caesarea to Antioch. Yea the Cardinal not only reproves and declaimes against the craft of Eusebius, for setting this, as following after the Nicene Council, whereas it happened before; but also (with more than Sinonian art) he tells you why Eusebius thus perverted the times. I espy, saith he 
g Bar. loc. cir. , incredibilem vafri viri versutiam, the incredible craft of Eusebius herein, and this it is; He was noted in the Nicene Council of Arianisme, and to cover that blemish, he sets this letter of Constantine in his commendation, as written after the time of the Council: which if he had set in his due place, and before the Council, his praise would have been darkened, seeing all the Council knew him to be an Arian: Thus Baronius. If any please to examine this matter, he will certainly see, not as the Cardinal did, per transennam, but as clear as the light, incredibilem vafri viri versutiam, the incredible craft of Baronius. For all those troubles at Antioch about the election of their Bishop, and desiring to have Eusebius, (which Baronius recites 
h Bar. an. 324. nu. 143. , and sets down as falling out at the election of Eustathius) happened not at his election, but 18. years after, when Eustathius was deposed and thrust from that See: Then it was, that the city of Antioch was in an exceeding uproar for a new Bishop: Then it was, that they writ and sent to Constantine, entreating to have Eusebius; than it was, that Eusebius refused to take that patriarchal See; than it was, that Constantine writ the letter, giving so high commendation to Eusebius. All which is most evident, by the narration not only of Eusebius himself, but of Theodoret 
i Theod lib. 1. ca 20 & 21. , of Socrates 
k Soc. l. 1. c. 18. , of Sozomen 
l Sozom. lib. 2. ca 18. , of Cassiodore 
m Cast tripe●t. hist. l 2. c. 25. , and of Nicephorus 
m Nic. lib. 8. ca 45. ; who all expressly mention this offering of the See of Antioch to Eusebius, and his refusal of it, to have been after Eustathius was deposed; yea Socrates, Sozomen, Cassiodore, and Nicephorus, express this very commendation of Eusebius, to have been at that very time given unto him by Constantine, that he was worthy to be the Bishop of the whole world: whereas Baronius produceth not (nor, as I do verily believe, could not produce or found) so much as one either historian or other of his opinion, though he to blemish Eusebius, magisterially takes upon him, against the evidence of truth, and against so many evident witnesses, to turn topsy-turvy, the historical narrations of eighteen years. Say now in truth if you do not see, incredibilem vafri viri versutiam.  
Nay, it's ●leere that Eusebius before, and till the time of the Nicene Council, was a favourer, and as Saint Jerome saith, a propugner of the Arians; so that the Emperor, (and much less the whole Church) could not then think Eusebius to be so worthy a Bishop, or worthy of so high commendation: But this testimony, they having had long experience of his orthodoxy and faith, some ten or eleven years after the Nicene Council, might well give unto him. For the deposing of Eustathius, fell not out three years after Constantine's death, as Baronius 
n Bar. an. 340. nu. 30.  foully misconceiving the Chronologie of Nicephorus 
o Baronius fraudulenter asserit sex annos Vitalis poni a Nicephoro post imperium Constantini inceptum. Sed non hoc ait Niceph in sua Chron sed Vitalem fuisse ex ijs unum, qui Antiochiae sederunt tempor● Christiani Impera●oris: & sedisse in universum sex annos. sed tres aut quatuor ●orum elapsi erant, antequam ad Imperium pervenit Constantinu●, ut ●x ijs quae ●aximus, liquidò constat.  Bishop of Constantinople affirms; but it happened about the last year of Constantine: and seeing Eusebius, as Socrates 
p Socr. lib. 2. ca 3.  witnesseth, died shortly after the return of Athanasius to Alexandria (which was the next year 
q Constantinus obijt an. 337. Athanasius restituitur an. 338. Bar ●o an. nu. ●. & seq.  after Constantine's death) you see what an honourable testimony this is, which the Emperor and the whole Catholic Church gives of the perseverance of Eusebius in the profession of the Catholic faith; and how slanderously Baronius 
r Bar. loc. citatis. , and the second Nicene Fathers say 
s Con. Nic. ●. Act. 6. pa● 375. ma●sit enim ut Aethiops, non commutans cutem suam.  of him, that he continued in heresy like a Blackamoor, and that he did not change his skin.  
To these let us join Socrates, who in his Ecclesiastical history, hath professedly writ an Apology 
t Socr. l. 2. c. 1●  for Eusebius, wherein he plainly calls them slanderers, and reproachful detractors, and contumelious vexers of Eusebius, who accuse him (and so do the second Nicene Fathers, and Baronius) to have been a favourer of Arians, after the Nicene Council: and this he proves, not only because Eusebius consented to the Nicene Council, but out of diverse writing of Eusebius, wherein he directly teacheth the contrary to the Arians. The same Orthodoxy of Eusebius, and his constancy therein, is witnessed by that learned man Georgius 
u Trap. praefat, ad Nich. papam in lib. de praepar. Euang.  Trapezuntius, who saith that Eusebius did willingly follow the authority of the Nicene Father, and sanctissime atque pie in Orthodoxia vixisse, that he lived most holily in the Orthodox faith. But omitting others, I choose rather to allege Sixtus Senensis, who declares the very occasion, how many have been deceived in imputing Arianism to Eusebius Caesariensis. Non defuere, saith he 
x Six. Sen. biblioth. in Eusebius, , There have not wanted some, who have thought Eusebius to have been an Arian, and an oppugner of the N●cene Council, being deceived by the like name of Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, who lived at the very same time, was in great esteem with Constantine, and was Antesignanus Arianorum, the very ringleader of Arians: the likeness of the name, made men to think that to be meant of Eusebius Caesariensis, which was both spoken and meant of Eusebius Nicomediensis. Or else, saith he 
a Ibid. , they were deceived, because Eusebius Caesariensis did in the Nicene Council a long time doubt, whether the word Homousios' might be allowed or no: but when it was explained by the Nicene Fathers what they meant thereby, decreto Homousianorum subscripsit, Eusebius then subscribed to the Nicene Decree. So Sixtus.  
The very same is witnessed by Tritemius 
b Trit. lib. de script. eccles. in, Eusebius. , saying, that whereas Eusebius was first an Arian, coming to the Nicene Council, errorem deposuit, he abandoned his error, and embraced the Nicene faith. Tritemius adds one point further most worthy remembering for clearing of Eusebius. He at the appointment of the Nicene Council, composed that Creed, which is called the Nicene Creed, and in token of his most sincere faith offered it to be read and confirmed by them, In which Creed, he so crushed the errors of the Arians, that they approved it, without either adding or subtracting aught at all from that form of faith which Eusebius had made. Thus Tritemius.  
Whence it is clear, that Eusebius was at no time an heretic, not not even then when he embraced the heresy of Arius. Before the time of the Council, he erred indeed (as Cyprian had done in another matter) but then the cause was not as yet fully decided, & he was not obstinate no● pertinacious (which only makes an heretic) in that error, but even then he was paratus corrigi: And his own fact did demonstrate the same: for after full discussion of the cause, he submitted his, to the Church's judgement: he forsook, and as Tritemius saith, deposuit, left his error, and subscribed to the Catholic faith, which until that full discussion, he had erroneously, but not pertinaciously, and therefore not heretically oppugned. After the Council he cannot be thought an heretic, being so constant (as we have already proved) in the Catholic faith, and that even to his dying day, as Tritemius 
a Trit. 〈◊〉. citato.  witnesseth, saying; Eusebius after the Nicen Council, in orthodoxa fide perseverans, sancti●sime consummatus est, persevering in the Catholic faith in a most holy manner was consummate or died. For which cause he is set in the rank and Catalogue of the blessed Saints and Confessors. Vsuardus in his martyrology saith 
b V●uardi Martyrologia quo Romana Ecclesia, ac permultae aliae utuntur, iussu Carol● magni conserptum▪ in 〈…〉 , that on the twenty one day of june is observed in Palestine, the Celebrity sancti Eusebij, Episcopi, & Confessoris, of S. Eusebius a Bishop, a Confessor, an Historiographer of most excellent wit. Possevine also 
c 〈…〉  witnesseth, that he is reckoned among the Saints, both by Pe●rus de Natalibus in his book de Catalogo Sanctorum, and by the Greek Men●logie. Likewise in the martyrologue of St. Notkerus, who was canonised by Pope Leo the tenth, it is thus said 
f Martyr. Notk●●●. 〈…〉 ; On the twenty one day of june, is the death Sancti Eusebij Episcopi, of Saint Eusebius a Bishop, celebrated at Caesarea. This canonising of Eusebius, and enrolling him among the glorious and blessed Saints, not only by Vsuardus, but, as Possevine saith, by Pet. de Natalibus, by the Greek Menologie, which both Canisius and Baronius commend 
g Hen. Can. in epist. ad left. post Finem Menologij. , as very ancient, and of best note; and specially by Saint Notkerus, who lived about seven hundred years 
h Notkerus obijt anno dom. 912. Metzler. in admonit. ad ●●ct. ante Martyr. Notkeri.  since, and but a little 
i Conc. Nic. 2. habitum, ann. 787. Bin. & Bar. Carolus Magnus obijt an. 814. Bar. ●o an nu. 57 Notkerus valde dilectus Carolo Magno, c●itis nepos fuit. Echerhard in vit. B. Notkeri, cap. 29.  after the second Nicene Council, is sufficient to wipe away that slander and untruth of their second Nicene Synod, (which Notkerus, as it seems, purposely intended to do) where they say, that Eusebius was shaken out like chaff, and cast out of the Church. For though he be cast out of the Idolatrous and Image-worshipping Church here upon earth, yet is he (as you see) reckoned among the glorious Saints of God, and received into the triumphant Church in heaven. Thus Baronius by his disgrace of Eusebius, hath now occasioned us, not only to defend the honour of Eusebius, and vindicate it from his calumnies and slanders; (wherein I confess, I was very willing to take some pains, for the benefit which the whole Catholic Church hath received by his writings:) but further also to leave this baptism of Constantine, witnessed not only by other ancient Fathers, Bishops, and Historians, but by the undoubted testimony of that Eusebius, whom Constantine and all the world honoured for a Catholic Bishop, while he lived, and their own Martyrologies honour for a blessed Saint and Confessor when he is dead. And thus much be spoken of the third circumstance, whereby the forgery of this second Roman Synod is demonstrated, in that it was held after Constantine was baptised at Rome by Pope Sylvester, which as we have clearly proved, was never.   

CHAP. VII.  
The seaventh reason, proving this second Roman Synod to be a forgery, taken from the Donation of Constantine: and first of the Charter or Edict thereof.  
THE fourth and last circumstance which I will mention, whereby this Synod is proved a counterfeit, is the Donation, or as Steuchus calleth 
a Aug. Steu●● lib. 1. de Donat. Const. pa. 43.  it, the Decree, or the Oracle of Constantine. For that was made a little after his baptism, and before this Synod, as the Acts of Sylvester do witness: wherein 
b Act. Silu. apud Bar. ann, 324. nu. 60.  the privileges of the Church, are said, to be given the fourth day after his baptism. That the Edict of the Donation, saith Baronius 
c Bar. an. ●●d. nu. 12●. , was made the fourth day after his baptism, the Latin copies do set down. And Binius in his Marginal notes upon the Edict, expresseth 
d Bin. to. 1. pa. 297.  the same; Constantinus Imperator quarto die, Constantine gave this the fourth day after his baptism. And at the beginning of the Donation, set down in their Canon Law 
e Dist. 96. ca Constantim ●. , as also in Anselme 
a Anselm & Deusdedit citantur ibid. àglosiat. Greg , and Deusdedit, it is said, Constantine the fourth day after his baptism, gave this privilege to the Roman Church, that is, to the Pope. Yea Pope Nicholas the third in his decretal Epistle expressly affirms 
b Nic. 3. c. Fundamenta de elect. & elect. pot. in Sexto , the pragmatical constitution whereby Constantine conferred this Donation of the Monarchy of Rome to the Pope, to have been made quarto die baptismatis, on the fourth day after he was baptised. This Council then, following his baptism, must follow also his Donation; and seeing the Donation bears date 
c Dat. Romae 3. Kal. April. in fine Donat. , the 29. of March, the Council must be held a month or two after it, seeing it ended 
d Act. Conc. Rom. 2. c. vlt.  the 30. of May in that year when this Donation was made. Now this was in truth never. For that Donation of Constantine to be a base and witless forgery, is of old by Laurentius Valla, and since that, by diverse of our learned writers, so fully demonstrated, that scarce aught can be added unto their labours. Nor would I so much as once endeavour to entreat thereof, but that many of the Pope's late flatterers do most pertinaciously, and shamelessly continued still the claim thereof: and it must not seem strange to any, nor be thought unfit, that we should reiterate our just defence of the truth, so long as they reiterate their cavils and vain objections against the truth.  
Eugubinus Steuchus hath writ two whole books in defence of the Edict of that Donation, wherein 
e steuchus lib. de Donat. Const. pa. 189  he thinks and boasts, that he hath proved most clearly, Constantinum sua manu scripsisse illam Donationem, that Constantine writ this Donation with his own hand. Adding 
f Steuch. lib. 〈◊〉 pa. 208. , that they who say this Decree is false or feigned, do maximam iniuriam facere, exceedingly wrong, not only the ancient Popes, sed omnibus Graecis ac Latinis Theologis, but all, both Greek and Latin Divines.  
Cardinal Albanus hath a large Treatise 
l Hier. Alban, Card. lib. de Donat. Constant. Is extat inter Tract. Doct to. 15. part. 2. , or book rather, to prove the truth & validity thereof: wherein he scorns and derides all that accounted it a figment, telling us, that all 
m Ibid. nu. 1.  the words of this Charter of Donation, ab originalibus excepta exemplaribus, were taken out of the original Records, and so left unto us: That they 
n Ibid. nu. 3.  who deny it, are led more by wickedness, then by reason; and he concludes 
o Ibid. nu. 21. & 33. , This Donation of Constantine to be not only true, but of force and validity, and that, iure optimo, for most just reason; he approves also 
p Alb. ibid. nu. 19  the saying of Panonormitane 
q Panor. in Cons. 24. nl. 2. vol. 1. , Eum non procul ab haeresi distare, That he is almost an heretic, who dares speak aught against it. Yea, the same Cardinal adds 
r Ibid. nu. 5.  one other clause worthy to be remembered, that the Popes, nullum alium suae possessionis titulum, quàm Constantini donationem attulisse, Have produced no other title, for their possession of those territories, but only the donation of Constantine.  
Cardinal jacobatius 
s Card. jaco. bat. lib. 10. de Conc. Art. 8. cap. vlt.  concurs wholly with Albanus; but he sets down his opinion, with more both pride and ignorance. He after much insulting in his reasons and authorities alleged, concludes 
t Ibid. nu. 34 36. , Quod hodie non sit dubitandum de validitate huius donationis, That none must at this day doubt, either of the truth of it, that it was made by Constantine, or of the validity thereof, that being made, it aught to be of force.  
johannes à Capistro, is so confident in this matter, that he saith of 
u joh. Capist. lib. de. Author. Papae. part. 2. nu. ●20.  Constantine, Donationis paginam proprijs manibus roboravit, he confirmed this Charter with his own hands; adding, that the same Charter is said to be kept in Sacristia S. Petri bulla aurea roborata, in the Registry of S. Peter, sealed with a golden Bull.  
Boetius Epon, is another, and very eager disputer 
a Boet. Epon. lib. Heroic. quaest. q. 3.  for this Charter. He mentioneth nine several forms thereof, and sets down verbatim four or five 
b Ibid nu. 10. 11. 14. 16.  of them: one of Iuo Carnotensis: a second of Balsamon: a third of Albericus: a fourth of Isiodore, which he liketh 
c Videtur esse ipsissi●a illa quam Constant nus ip●e concepit, ibid.  best of all, as being that which Constantine conceived, and which wholly agrees with that, which is set down in 
d Bin. tom. 1. Conc.  Binius: a fift out of Eugubinus Steuchus, to which he adds for a sixth 
e En tibi qui●as, & cum Gratianea senas Donationis huius formulas, ad amussim, sirem spectes, inter se convenientes. Boet. Epon loc. cit. nu. 28.  that in Gratian. And he is so confident for the verity of that Donation, that having cited 
f Ibid. nu. 1.  for a proof thereof, a Text of Melchiades 
g Ca Futuram caus. 12. q. 1. , the next Pope before Silvester, he saith 
h Ibid. nu. 5. ; Certo certius est Donationem Constantini inde probari: It is more than certain that Constantine's Donation is proved thereby.  
In their Canon Law lately corrected and illustrated with notes, by the command and authority of Gregory the 13. the Gregorian Glossators 
i Not. in cap. Constantinus. dist. 96.  labour to prove the truth of this Edict, as being set down in the Acts of Silvester, and invetustissimis Pontificalibus, in their most ancient Pontificals, in Pope Hadrian, and in many others.  
To these let Binius be adjoined, who not only affirms, the same Edict and grant 
k Ea quae de dominio & temporali regno Rom. sedi colla●o hic (in Edicto) enarrantur, vera esse, etc. Bin. Not. in Donat. Const.  of a temporal kingdom and dominion, made therein to the Pope, to be true: but he adds, that the Emperor's munificence and piety, sais apertè testantur, do evidently witness the truth thereof. Again, whereas Constantine (saith he 
l Bin. Not. in vit. Silu. §. Silvester. ) judged it to be an unworthy thing, that the City, where the Monarch of the whole Church was resident should be subject to the rule of a secular Prince, he most magnificently gave unto Silvester, and to his lawful successors, the dominion and temporal jurisdiction, not only of the City of Rome, but almost of all Italy, and other Provinces. Thus Binius, who further adds 
m Bin. Not. in Edict. Const. §. Ipse. , That Pope Hadrian confirms the History of Constantine's leprosy, and baptism by Silvester, veritate huius Edicti, by the truth of this Edict: signifying, that Pope Hadrian judged this Edict to be true, and by the truth of it, confirmed other matters which he delivered as true.  
None of all these have writ more earnestly for this Edict and Charter, than some few years since, the great Doctor of Naples, Marta; who is so confident of the certainty & truth hereof, that he saith 
n Doc. Mart. lib. de Iurisdict. part. 1. ca 30. nu. 20. & 26. ; Non esse ulterius dubitandum, None may hereafter doubt, but that it was truly made by Constantine. For proof whereof, he produceth the testimonies of many Fathers, of many Historians, of many Civilians and Canonists; yea, of Emperors and of Popes: unto all which he adds some, as he supposeth pregnant reasons, to confirm the same. And jest that might breed some scruple, because that chapter in Gratian 
o Dist. 96. ca Constantinus. , where this Edict is set down, it is called Palea, that is, Chaff; at which Steuchus 
p Ab indoctis Canonistis Palea vocatur. Steu. lib. cit. pa. 43.  was not a little chased; the Doctor tells us a Story, well worthy remembering, how it came to be called Chaff. The narration 
q Mart. loc. cit. nu. 35. & seq.  is this: When Gratian had composed his book of Decrees, he brought it to Rome, to have it approved by the Pope: but in token of reverence, he gave it to a learned Cardinal, that he should present it to his Holiness. The Cardinal being very ambitious, perusing the book, and liking it well, added here and there, many other testimonies and Texts of Fathers and Popes, and then presented it to the Pope as his own work. Gratian disdaining thereat, and remembering the verse, Sic vos non vobis mellificatis apes; in presence of the Cardinal, avouched before his Holiness, that the Book was his, and not the Cardinals; and for proof thereof, he repeated without book, the order and sum of the Chapters, omitting such as the ambitious Cardinal had inserted. Whereupon when the Cardinal pleaded, that sure he had not composed this book, seeing he knew not of such Chapters, Gratian answered concerning every such Chapter, as it was read unto him, Hoc Capitulum non est de tritico meo: Palea est, Palea est, This Chapter is none of my Wheat, its Chaff, its Chaff. Whereupon to every Chapter, which was not truly Gratians, in stead of that ambitious Cardinal's name, which was deservedly buried in oblivion, There was set, Palea. But Eugenius the third than Pope, approved 
r Totus liber ab Eugenio 3. approbatus est, etiam cum omnibus Paleis, & usu receptus, Mart. ●a. cit. nu. 37.  the book, withal the chaff therein. Wheat and Chaff, both were allowed by his Holiness: they both tended to advance his See, they both were received, and authorised to serve for the use of their Church. Thus pleads Marta for this Chaff, and chaffy Charter: whose treatise might be thought nothing inferior to that of Steuchus, but that the book of Marta is dedicated only to Paul the fift, whereas the other of Steuchus, was thought worthy to be dedicated to S. Peter himself; Steuchus telling S. Peter, That he undertook that labour, uni tibi Ecclesiaeque tuae, only for thee O S. Peter, and for Thy Church, as himself saith, in the Epistle 
s Dedicatio libri ad Sanctum Petrum. & Accipe quaeso, quos tibi sacro labores. etc. Steuc. Epist. ante lib. de Donat. Const.  which he writes to S. Peter, and prefixeth it in his book: though I fear me he found no messenger that would deliver either the book, or the Epistle to S. Peter.  
But that which giveth greatest countenance to this Edict, is the Decretal Epistle of Pope Leo 
t Epist. 1. Leon. 9 c. 12. 13. 14.  the ninth, who verbatim repeats almost that whole Edict, so fare as it concerns the Donation: as namely, How Constantine writ in his Edict, that he would exalt the most holy See of Peter, more than his own Empire or earthly throne, giving unto that See, potestatem, dignitatem, & honorificentiam Imperialem, Imperial power, dignity, vigour and honour. There the Pope of a Bishop, is made an Emperor, and that above the secular Emperor himself. How he decreed, that the Roman See, principatum teneat, should be chief of other Churches, and have principality above the See of Alexandria, of Antioch, of jerusalem and Constantinople, and of all other Churches in the whole world. There the spiritual Prince-hood, above other patriarchs and Bishops is conferred to the Pope. How he gave to Silvester and his successors for ever, his Lateran Palace, which is preferred above all Palaces in the world, his Diadem and Crown, his mandilion, his cloak, his coat, & omnia imperialia indumenta, and all imperial robes which himself did wear; his imperial guard, his imperial sceptre, & omnem processionem imperialis culminis, & gloriam potestatis nostrae, and all the residue of his imperial dignity, honour and power: There is his estate, such and so pompous, that Constantine himself (as the Charter saith) held the Pope's bridle, and performed, officio stratoris, the office of a groom of the stable, or yeoman of the stirrup, unto the Pope. How to the end the Pontifical height should not seem vile, but be adorned more than the dignity and power of the earthly Empire, he gave unto Silvester and his successors for ever, both 
u Ecce tam pala ium nostium, quam urben Roman, & omnes totius Italiae, & omnium Occidentalium re●●gionū Prouinci●s, loca & civitates, concessimus, Edict. verba apud Isiod, jucnem. Balsam. Alber. & Bini●m. &, Scire ●nuenit, do●asse Constātinum universum Occidentem. Steuch. loc. cit. pa. 17.  the city of Rome, and all the Provinces, places and cities of Italy, and the Western countries, decreeing all these his grants, to be kept inviolable and unchangeable, usque in finem mundi, even unto the end of the world. here is the Pope's revenues and rich Patrimony of S. Peter.  
This and fare more, doth Pope Leo verbatim, recite out of the Edict or Charter of Constantine, all which, he saith, he sets down jest 
x Ne fortè de terrena ipsius dominatione ●liquis vobis ●ubietatis su●rsit scrupu●us ib. ca 13.  any scruple of doubt should remain touching the Pope's terrene dominion, nèue leviter suspicemini, ineptis & anilibus fabulis Sanctam Romanam sedem velle sibi inconcessum honorem vendicare, & defensare aliquatenus: and jest any should so much as but lightly suspect, that the Roman See would challenge, or any way defend their honour by foolish and uncertain fables: yea, he adds of this Edict, and that which he cities out of it, that he therefore relates it, that hereby, veritas fundetur, & confundatur vanitas, that truth may be confirmed, and vanity confounded; and that all Catholics may know, nos, himself and other Popes, to be the disciples of that Peter, who saith 
y 2. Pet. 1. 16.  of himself, We have not followed unlearned, or sophisticated and falsely devised fables. And yet more to commend this Edict he adjoines; Know ye, that we do inculcate unto you these things, which we have not so much received, relatu quolibet, by any relation or hearsay, quàm quae ipso visu et tactu comperta sunt, as which we have found out by our own sight and feeling. Thus writes Pope Leo for the certainty, truth, and credit of this Charter of Donation, so Pontifically and assuredly, as if he had seen Constantine set his seal unto the same; or lay it with his own hand upon the body of S. Peter, as the same Leo saith he did.  
I must needs confess, that when I considered, how besides Cardinal Albanus, Cardinal jacoba tius, the Gregorian Glossators, Steuchus, and Marta Pope Eugenius also, Pope Nicholas, Pope Hadrian, and especially Pope Leo in his decretal Epistle, had so confidently approved this Edict or Charter of Donation, assuring all Catholics, that he follows the certain truth and no fables therein; I was not a little desirous to sift and examine the same: partly to see what worthy Charters and ancient writings they commend to the world, as bearing evidence to their cause: and especially to try whether their holy Popes, (of whom I had good hope, that of all men they would not countenance and writ● decretal Apologies for forgeries) might be credited in this & like narrations, which concern the dignity and glory of their See, & papal Crown. And first I will speak of the Edict or Charter of th● Donation, and then of the Donation itself, of both which, that they are base and improbable fictions, there are many undeniable reasons: Some few of which I will touch.  
For the Charter: All that we have formerly said of the supposed leprosy, Persecution, and Baptism of Constantine by Silvester, are undoubted Demonstrations of the forgery of this Edict of Donation: for in the Charter are all these not only related, as certain truths: but they are made the very ground and occasion why Constantine made this Charter. Seeing then there is neither truth, nor reality in the foundation, certainly there is no truth at all in the Charter itself, which is builded upon such fictions and fables. But leaving these, I will propose a few other considerations in this cause.  
First, in this Edict is mentioned the See of Constantinople as one of the patriarchal Sees: whereas neither it had Patriarchal dignity before the second general Council, (that is more than fifty 
a Conc. Const. 1. habitum est, an. 381. ●uxta Baron. Edictum verò editum dicitur, an. 324.  years after the Donation is supposed to be made,) nor was there at that time, so much as the name of Constantinople: for the City was then called Byzantium: and diverse years after when Constantine had much enlarged it, and made it, as Socrates saith 
b Soc. l. 1. c. 12. , parem & aequalem Romae, equal to Rome; choosing it for the Imperial fear, it was then first called from his name, Constantinople: and this was done, as Baronius himself acknowledgeth 
c Post hoc (Conc. Nic.) Patres Constantinopolin perrexere. Bar. 325. nu. 196. , a little after the Nicene Council, was ended: but as Sigonius 
d Sig. l. 4 de occid Imp. an. 330.  more truly teacheth, five years after that Nicene Council, when Gallicanus and Symachus were Consuls. So very stupid was the forger, that to gain to the Pope, and See of Rome, principality over Constantinople, he makes Constantine writ of that city, which was not, not nor the name of it so much as extant in the world at that time. I should think indeed, that there was some fraud used in the inserting of this name, but that all the several forms extant of this Charter, as that of Albericus, of Isidore, of the Gregorian and corrected edition of the Decrees, have all the same name of Constantinople, and Pope Leo the ninth, who assureth us, that he felt and saw the very authentical Charter, mentioneth the same name in his Decretal Epistle. Besides in the Greek Edict, set down by Balsamon 
e Theod. Bals. comm. in Pho●● Nomocan. Tit. 8. ca 1. pa. 85. , the same is extant, and the Gregorian glossators 
f Not. in Cap. Constantinus, dist. 96.  testify that the Edict, as it is set down in the Decree, is in a very ancient Manuscript in the Vatican, and that also accords to their most ancient Pontificals: and Marta last of all tells 
g Mart. loc. cit  us, that the copy of the Edict, which he sets down (wherein also this name of Constantinople is expressed) is in the registry of the Vatican. Seeing then there is such an uniform consent in all the forms and copies of the Charter, both Greek and Latin; seeing the Charter is so safely kept in their Vatican, and ratified by the Decretal Epistle of Pope Leo, for true and authentical: there can be no suspicion of corruption at all in those words of the Edict: The error and corruption was in none at all, but in the author himself, who forged such an unlikely, unprobable, and uncredible untruth.  
2. Had Constantine given principality to the Roman See, above all Churches in the world, as the Charter saith he did: what folly was it in john Bishop of Constantinople, Cyriacus and others, to strive 
h Vt liquet ex Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 36. 38. & all ●s multis.  for that pre-eminence? What meant Boniface the third, that he would never show this Charter and grant of principality made by Constantine? Why did he use so much entreaty 
i 〈…〉 3 & Anast. in vita eusdem 〈◊〉.  and means to Phocas a murderer, that the Church of Rome might be called the first of all Churches, when the same was long, almost 300. years before, given by a fair Charter to the Roman See, by Constantin so worthy and renowned an Emperor?  
3. In this Edict Constantine is made solemnly to give unto Pope Silvester, the Lateran palace: whereas not only Sigonius witnesseth that this was given long before to Pope Meltiades, Augustale palatium in Laterano impertijt 
k Sig. lib 3 de occid. Imp. an. 312. , Constantine gave to Meltiades, the Lateran palace: but Baronius 
l Cum tam evidenter demonstratum sit, Melchiaden Papam à Constantino hoc an. in augustiffia●s Lateranenses aede● translatum etc. Bar. an. 312, ●u 85.  and Binius 
m Domum Lateranensem Melchiadi ab Imperatore ●onatam esse, nemo prudens ampliu● dubi●are potest. B●n Not. in lib. de Munific. Const.  avouch the same for a certainty, and say, that no wise body will doubt thereof. Those Augustissimae Lateranenses aedes, say they 
n Loc ci●. , that most princely palace of the Lateran was given by the same Constantine to Pope Meltiades the predecessor of Silvester, and to his successors, and that in the seventh year of Constantine; which was twelve years before he was either baptised, or made this Charter of Donation. Is not this now a piece of great munificence in the Emperor, to give that, which is not his own to give, or to give that to Silvester, which many years before that gift was Silvesters own and his successors for ever?  
4. In this Edict Constantine saith, We will have all people in the world to know, Construxisse nos intra palatium Lateranense, that we have builded unto Christ, within our palace of the Lateran, a Church from the very foundation thereof, together with a Font. Now seeing the Edict was made in the fourth day after Constantine was baptised, (as you have seen themselves to profess) whether it were possible, that such a princely Church, should be builded up in four days, were a fit question for a ●urie of workmen to decide. And for the possibility thereof, I leave it to their verdict. Only I will entreat them to hear one special evidence out of the Acts of Silvester 
o Act. Silu. apud Bar. an. 324 nu. 60, 61. 62. , wherein when the author had told what Constanstine did all the seven days that he was, in Albis, after his baptism, on the eight day (saith he) he laid aside his white garments, his diadem and imperial robes; & accipiens bidentem, and taking a spade he first of all digged and opened the ground, to lay the foundation of that (Lateran) Church, and carried twelve baskets of earth upon his own shoulders unto it, according to the number of the twelve Apostles. Thus the evidence, even those very Acts of Silvester, which Binius 
p Bi●. Not. in vit. Silu §. De su●e epto.  calls, Acta probatissima, most approved Acts. Whereby the jurors may easily be informed, whether the Church was builded on the fourth day, whose foundation was but begun, and the earth first digged, on the eight day after his baptism.  
5. This Edict, as by the words thereof is evident, followeth the leprosy 
q Dum valida squaloris lepra, tot●̄ mei corporis invasisset carnem etc. Verba Edict.  of Constantine, and his baptism 
r Bene●●t●●; so●●e illic a●e trina mers●●ne, unda salutaris put●ficauit. ibid. ; and so could not be made before the nineteenth year of Constantine, in which both these, as you have seen by Baronius and Binius, are supposed to have happened. Yet is it dated 
s 〈…〉  in the Consulship of Constantine the fourth time, with Gal●icanus. Now the fourth Consuship of Constantine, (as by the Fastiboth Greek and Latin, besides other evidences is clear) was before the eleventh year of his Empire: by which account Constantine should have made this Edict and Donation 8. or 9 year before the occasion & cause thereof was offered; and prophetically should tell, how he was a leper, baptised, and thereby cleansed from his leprosy, many years before he had any leprosy, for which he needed any cleansing. Again, see the stupidity of the forger; not Gallicanus, but Licinius was colleague with Constantine in that year, as appeareth both by the Fasti, and by many Imperial Edicts, dated in this manner, 
t L. 1. de Pignoribus. C. Theod. & quàm multae aliae leges.  Constantino A. 4. & Licinio 4. Coss. Nay I say further, seeing Gallicanus was never Consul with Constantine, as by the Fasti is evident, it clearly follows, that this Edict which was made in the Coss. of Constantine and Gallicanus, was of a certainty never made; for that year of their Consulship was never.  
To these, let me add the testimony of their great Cardinal Baronius, to whom accords Gretzer, who hath writ an Apology 
u great. Apol. pro Bar. ca 21. & Append. 1. 〈◊〉 lib. de 〈◊〉. principum. 〈◊〉 86. etc.  for him in this very point. He by many reasons, and at large proues 
x 〈…〉 , this Edict to be, commentitium, prorsusque falsum, a mere figment and forgery, and as Gretzer saith 
y 〈…〉 , commentis accensendum docuit, he hath taught that it is a counterfeit. One reason is; The ancient 
z 〈…〉  Popes since Constantine's time, had many occasions to dispute against Princes, touching the rights and prerogatives of the Church, yet none of them before the thousanth year after Christ, is read to have defended the same, by authority of this Edict: and yet they knew and mention the Acts of Sylvester. Another is this: It is certain 
a Bar. an. eod. nu. 61.  the Emperors make no mention of that Edict of Constantine's Donation; and yet in the Charter of Henry the first there is a sure mention 
b Ibid. nu. ●9. , de Imperatoribus singu●lis, of all the former Emperors, who had made such ample donations of Provinces unto the Roman See. A third is, That this Edict 
c Ibid. nu. 52.  was not in the ancient Acts of Silvester, but was by forgery inserted into them: the time when this was done he defines, to have been after 
d Alia Acta Siluestri non ante 1000 Christi annum cognita ab aliquo fuisse noscuntur. Quibus actis superadditum est ipsum recitatum à Theodoro, Constantini edictum. Ibid &, Illud constat non ante Othonis tempora (coepit 996.) à quoquam citatum. ibid. nu. 60.  the 1000 year of Christ: the parties by whom this forged Edict was made and published, he also declares: it was feigned by some Grecian 
e Ibid. nu. 52▪ , under the name of Eusebius, and set forth by Theodorus Balsamon, whereas, à nullo Graecorum hactenus in lucem editum, until than no Grecian had published it; and from the Grecians it came to the Latins, and Western Church: Leo the ninth being the first Pope, who makes mention thereof. Thus the Cardinal. By whose acknowledgement, you may see what truth there is in their Popes, specially in Pope Leo, who in his decretal Epistle, most solemnly commends this Edict, for an ancient and undoubted evidence, such as he knew by sight and sense to be the true deed of Constantine: which yet their great Cardinal after long sifting of Monuments and Records, testifieth to be a forgery, and that of the Grecians, first of all devised, as he saith, about 700; and published 800. years after the death of Constantine.  
Yet about the time of devising and first publishing of this Edict, which the Cardinal so precisely sets down, I can no way assent unto him. If this Edict was not devised till after the 1000 year of Christ, how doth Leo the ninth (who was not Pope, till an. 1049.) mention it as an ancient Record and Monuments? as besides that his own words 
f ●●9▪ Epist. 1.  make plain, Gretzer 
g Gretz. App●●d. 1. pa. 87.  also confesseth. Is fifty years a not● of antiquity, for that, which is pretended to be made 700. years before? Why do the Gregorian Glossators say 
h Notae ad cap. Constan●●●●.  of this Edict; That it is mentioned, in antiquissimis Pontificalibus, in their most ancient Pontificals? have they no Pontifical more ancient, than 1000 years after Christ? How was it either devised after the 1000 or first published by Balsamon after the 1180. 
i Circa illa tempora Balsa●onē scripsisse ●it Bar. ann. 1191. nu. 49. & Bell lib. de Eccles. scrip.  year, or first mentioned by Pope Leo the ninth in the Latin Church? seeing, as Binius saith 
k Bin. Not. in Donat. Constant. §. Ipse. , Pope Hadrian the first, (more than three hundred years before Leo the ninth) confirms the Story of Constantine's leprosy, veritate huius Edicti, by the truth of this Edict of Constantine: yea the same Hadrian mentions also this Donation in another Epistle, which though it be not extant, yet the contents thereof are recorded by Baronius, out of a Vatican Manuscript, in which it is said 
l Bar. an. 795. nu. 7. , Hadrian (in this thirty fift Epistle) meminit Donationis, makes mention of the Donation made in Constantine's time to siluester, and of other Donations, and he saith; in Lateranensi scrinio eas Donationes haberi, that those Donations are extant in their Lateran Registry. Nay, what will Baronius, or what can he say, to all those who certainly testify, this Edict to be a parcel of those very Acts of Silvester, which Pope Gelasius mentioneth? The Gregorian Glossators speaking of that part of this Edict, which concerns the Donation of Rome, Italy, and the Western Provinces, say 
m Not. in 62. Constantinus, 〈◊〉. 96. ; It is set down in those Acts of Sylvester, whereof Gelasius and the Roman Synod with him entreat. Gelasius, saith Cardinal Alba●●us 
n Card. Alb. lib. de Donat. Const. nu. 1. , one above exception, reckons the Acts of Silvester among those Books which deserve to be approved in the Church: in cis autem tota huius concessionis ratio continetur, and in those Acts (so approved by Gelasius) is the whole form of this Donation contained. Gelasius, saith Cardinal jacobatius 
o Gelasius Donationem factam suisse ponit. jacobat. lib. 10. de Conc. Art. 8. ca vlt. nu. 30. , sets down, that this Donation was made by Constantine. The very like saith Marta 
p Mart. cap. cit nu. 25. & 38. . Of Iuo Carnotensis, Steuchus thus testifieth 
q Steuch. lib. cit. pa. ●48. , Iuo writeth thus; In the ●etes of Silvester, of which Gelasius in a Council of seventy Bishops, speaks, it is thus read: Constantine the Emperor in the fourth day after he was baptised, gave this privilege to the Pope; that all Bishops in the Roman world, should have him for their head. Steuchus himself was keeper of the Vatican Library, as well as Baronius; hear, I pray you, with what confidence he assures you of this matter. If you search, saith he 
r Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 81. , the old Literane books, you shall see, ex illis Siluestri Acts, out of those very Acts of Silvester, of which Gelasius speaketh, that this Donation is described: And besides his own testimony hereof, he adds; That both Anselme, and Iuo Carnotensis do witness the same: for they, saith he, proferunt Donationem, do set down the Donation, out of those very Acts of Sylvester, of which Gelasius speaketh. And in another place 
s Steuch lib. eod pa. 44. 45. , having told us, that there are almost no other Acts of Sylvester, but those which happened betwixt him and Constantine, about his Baptism, & the Donation, and his leaving of Rome unto Sylvester upon that donation, he thus insults over Valla, and his words are every way as effectual against Baronius: Mirabilis hominis impudentia, Truly it is a marvelous impudency in him that denies (and this doth Baronius 
t Bar. an. 1191 nu. 52.  expressly deny) That this Donation or Edict, is set down in those Acts of Silvester, of which Gelasius speaketh. Ego testes omnes bibliothecas proferam, I can produce all Libraries for witness hereof, All which have together with the History of Silvesters baptising Constantine, this Donation, privilege or Edict. Thus their own Champion, convincing as an eyewitness, his fellow Bibliothecarius, Baronius, both of impudence & untruth; first, for denying this Donation to be mentioned in those Acts of Silvester, of which Gelasius speaks; and next, for slandering the Grecians, as devisers of it, after the year 1000 which to have been in their Vatican and other Libraries 500 years 
u Conc▪ illud Rom. sub Gelasio habitum est an. 494. ut Bar. & Bin. agnoscunt.  before that, in the time of Gelasius, he for a certainty assures us. How may we trust any Vatican Bibliothecarij, if Steuchus an eyewitness be not to be trusted in this cause? And if we credit him, who ever hereafter will trust his fellow Baronius, that thus insigniously downe-faceth the truth?  
Now if one might sit as an unpartial judge, betwixt Baronius and Steuchus, in this cause, it may rightly be affirmed, that both of them do in part say truth, and both also in part do err. That this Edict of Donation is a very figment, Baronius rightly avoucheth, but Steuchus, and the rest, who hold the same with him, do herein speak fare amiss. Again, that this Edict was of ancient time in the Pope's Library, and in those Acts of Sylvester, which Gelasius mentioneth, in this Steuchus deserveth to be credited; But Baronius in saying that it was not extant till the 1000 year after Christ, nor published before Balsamons' time, in these the Cardinal saith fare amiss. So with Steuchus we profess, and have proved also, that this Edict of Donation is ancient, as being known not only in the time of Leo the ninth, but of Hadrian, yea of Gelasius also: and with Baronius we profess, and have clearly proved, the same Edict to be nothing else but a forgery and figment. What they say amiss, we reject in either: what they rightly affirm, we accept of either: and upon the true confession of Steuchus, we conclude the Edict of Donation to be ancient: again, upon the true confession of Baronius, we conclude it to be a forgery: And upon both these truths, which they severally profess, we rightly and safely conclude it to be an ancient forgery.   

CHAP. VIII.  
That Constantine made no such Donation, as they pretend: And the reasons of Gretzer to prove that Donation, refuted.  
THough the Edict, or instrument of the Donation be forged or falsifyed; yet the Donation itself may be good, saith Gretzer 
a great. Append. 1. ad lib. de 〈…〉 princ. pa 89. Haec con equ●tio virium est expels, Instrum 〈◊〉 Do●ationis supposititium est, ergo & ip●● Donatio. , and for such he labours to defend it, telling us 
b Nec pro prae cipuo fulchro potentiae temporalis habent Rom. Pontifices Constantinianum diploma, sed alio●um Imperatorum Regum ac principum iudubitatas donationes. ibid. pa. 88 , that the Popes have indeed other undoubted Charters for their temporal dominions, (which Cardinal Albanus 
c Car. Alb. li. de Donat. Const. nu. 5.  flatly denies) quam vis ipsa per se donatione Constantini merito quoque nitantur: though their rights justly or deservedly rely also upon the very Donation of Constantine, seeing none did ever yet evidently prove it to be feigned. So Gretzer, who carp and diverse times reproves the learned Protestant, whom he would seem to confute, because he did not (as he fancieth,) distinguish, as he should have done, the Donation, from the instrument or Charter of the Donation; the Diploma or Charter, he openly professeth commentitium esse, to be counterfeit, the Donation to be such he denieth. And jest he should be thought to have devised this subtlety of himself, he saith, that Baronius is of the same mind. Baronius 
c Neque ipsam Donationem, sed Donationis Diploma falsitatis accu●ae●● Ba●onius, ibid. pa. 89.  did not accuse the Donation to be false, but the Charter or Edict of the Donation. Nay the Donation 
d Donationem certe probabilibus coniecturis, ni●i demonstrat. ibid. pa. 90.  he probably defends. Thus Gretzer, whose childish and sophistical collusion, let us a little examine in this place.  
An acute Logician (saith Gretzer 
e Ibid. pa. 89. Dialecticus paulo ocula●●or oggeret, hoc non sequi. etc. ,) will say, fortassis donationem per solos testes absque ullo Instrumento peractam, that perhaps the Donation was made by witnesses only, without either scrip or scroll. But a judicious divine, an expert lawyer, or prudent statesman, will never say so; not not with a perhaps: Neither when it is said, can any of those witnesses be produced to testify that Donation, or any who ever heard it of them. And why may not the Bishop of Constantinople pled the very like Donation by word of mouth from Constantine: that Rome and Italy was given by Constantine, to him and his successors for ever, and say it is proved by witnesses, which now are dead, without any Charter or instrument to testify the same? How can an acute Logician effectually overthrew the one, & defend the other donation?  
But to silence the Jesuits acute Logician, three several 
f Vt supra declaravimus.  Popes are witnesses, that the donation of Constantine was made, not by ear witness only, but by a Charter and Instrument: and two of those Popes further testify, that the Charter of that donation was extant, & to be seen in their times, among their records or in their registry. The first is Pope Hadrian, who in the thirty fift Epistle before mentioned, faith of the donation of Constantine, and others, In Lateranensi scrinio eas haberi, that they were kept in the Lateran Registry: this was about the year of Christ, 790. The second is Pope Leo the ninth, Who saw (as he tells us) and handled the very Charter of Constantine's Donation: and this was about the year 1050. The 3. is Pope Nicholas the 3. who saith, that Constantine left unto Silvester the city of Rome, and declared per pragmaticum Constitutum, by a pragmatical constitution, or writ of record, that he and his successors should have the disposing or government thereof: and this was about the year 1280. To these may be added Cardinal Albanus, who expressly thus saith 
f Hier. Alb. lib. cit. nu. 12. ; Donatio ipsa fuit scripto interueniente confecta, The Donation was made in writing: Capistranus, Boetius Epon, Steuchus, Marta, and the Gregorian Glossators, who all 
g Vt ante de●●●atum est.  assure us, that the very Charter (writ, as Steuchus saith, with Constantine's own hand) is extant in the Vatican, and that also, as Capistranus adds, embossed or sealed with gold. Now whether three Popes, with Cardinal Albanus, Capistranus, Steuchus, and the rest, some of them being as themselves profess, oculatitestes, or the Jesuits acute Logician, coming in, with a Portassis, be more to be credited, let any be judge.  
The acute Logician, saith Gretzer 
h Posse●enim fier●, ut donationis factae legitimum instrumentum diuturnitate temporis perierit, aut additione, & detractione corruptum fuerit, Gretz. lib. cit. pa. 89. , will further say; It may be that the instrument or Charter, is either perished, or corrupted by long continuance: So may also another, and as good a Logician say, of the Donation of Rome and Italy, which Constantine made to the Bishops of Constantinople. But who can suppose, that the Roman Bishops, who are careful to keep evidences for many little quillets, would suffer the charter of so fair a patrimony, as is the Empire of the West, either to be lost, or to perish, or to be corrupted? Or if the original had by some rare mishap been lost, would they loose all copies and extracts, all records, and inroulments of so fair a Charter? Or could all these be lost and perish, and none of the Pope's lament, or bemoan the loss of them? For to say it was falsified or corrupted, unless it were by the Popes themselves, or their agents, (who had the custody of that Charter) is more than ridiculous.  
But to silence again the jesuits' acute Logician, Steuchus the keeper of the Pope's Library, assures 
t Steuch. lib. cit pa. 44. 45.  us, that this Edict of Donation, such as is now extant, is set down in those very Acts of Silvester, which Pope Gelasius approved, and that Gelasius by approving those Acts, approved also this very Donation: yea he further adds, that all Libraries, together with those Acts, kept also this Donation, quaeremansit omnibus testimonijs confirmata et roborata, which remained, (than it was not lost) confirmed by the testimonies of all those witnesses. Pope Leo the ninth 
u Leo 9 Epist. 1. ante cit.  also avers, and that in verbo sacerdotis, yea, summi Pontificis, that he saw and handled the very true and authentical Charter which Constantine made, and with his own hands laid upon the body of S. Peter. Whether, think you, is Steuchus with all Libraries, yea with Pope Galasius, and Leo the ninth, so assuredly testifying the Charter not to be lost or perished: or Gretzers Logician, coming in with another Fortassis, more to be credited in this cause?  
After these oppositions of the acute Logician, Gretzer adds his proofs for the Donation: and because they are such, as he was conscious to himself, could not necessarily enforce or infer his conclusion, he calls them probabilities 
x Probabilibus coniecturis niti. Gretz. lib. cit pa. 90. haec non absque versi militudine pro Donatione disputare licet. idem. p. 91 & non improbalibiter hoc ●us ex Donatione der●uatur. p. 91 , & conjectures. Two of the best of them we will here examine. The former is taken out of Baronius 
y Magnun sane de collatis ill●s Rom. Ecclesiae à Constantino muneribus argumentum, quod Francorum principes suis diplomatibus ea à Longobardis ablata, se Rom. ecclesiae ●●st●uere prof●ssi sunt. Bar. an 324. nu. 117 & eadem habet Bin. not. in Donat. Constantini. § Edictum. , to whom Biniusi also consents. It is not for nothing (saith he 
z Gretz. loc. cit. pa. 90. ) that Cardinal Baronius noteth, that the French Kings in their writs of Donation doeprofesse, that they restore to the Roman Church, the dominions which they took from the lombards. So Gretzer; who from this Restitution, infers that the Roman Church had them formerly by the Donation of Constantine.  
Truly by the Cardinal's leave, this inference is neither necessary, nor so much as probable. Restitution will prove a former possession, or holding of those Provinces, Cities, or Lordships, which were restored: but it will neither prove, that the Popes possessed them by right, nor by any Donation; much less by any Donation from Constantine. They might be restored, though the Pope had got them by invasion, by wrongful intrusion, by fraud, by robbery, by rebellion, or treason; and so the Popes got them in very deed.  
After that justinian had expelled the Goths out of Italy, who like Pirates and robbers 
p Goths Italiam praedonum more cepisse, atque muitis pristinis possesso ribustenuisse, ai● Belisarius, in su● ad Viticem Ocat. apud Sigon. lib. 13. de Occid. Imp pa. 307. quod fasius declarat contra Gothorum praetextus lib. eod. pa. 312. & 313 , had invaded, and by violence intruded themselves, into a great part of that country, from the time of Alaricus, to the overthrow of Totilas, which is near hand 160. years 
q Italia post annū●ere 160. à Gothis liberata, Sigon. li. 20. pa. 352. ; Italy from that time was governed by the Eastern Emperors, tanquam Orientalis imperij provincia, saith Sigonius 
r Sig. lib. eod. pa. 345. , no longer in manner of a kingdom of Empire (for that being begun in Augustus, ended for the Western part in Augustulus 
s ●●sperium Romanae gentis Imperium quod Augustus primus tenere coepit, cum Augustulo perijt. 〈◊〉. in Chron. ad an. 476. & Bar. an. 475. nu. 2. , about the year four hundred and eighty:) but in manner of a province subjected to the Eastern Emperor. That government in justinian's time, was held by that noble and worthy Counsaillour Narses 
t Sigon. l 20. 〈…〉 , and after him by Longinus, who was the first 
u Primum Ravennae non Ro●●● sedem praefect●uae posuit Longinu●, seque Exarchum Italiae. ae vocavit. Sig. lib. ●. de reg. Ital pa. 5.  that took the name of Exarch upon him, and made Ravenna the chief city for justice: under which rule by exarchs, sent 
x Longinus succesio● Narseti, à sustino ●issus. ibid. pa. 5. & ab hoc tempore in ●aioribus Italiae urbibus Imperator praefectos praeposum ibid.  from the Emperor as his Deputies or Lieutenants into Italy, the Eastern Emperors held the right and government of it about two hundred years 
y Hic finis eius praefecturae (Exarchatus) quae per a Cor: fere annos ltaliae ●●perauit. Sig lib. 3. de reg. Ital. pa. 75. , until it was partly by the Pope, partly by the lombards taken from him; the Popes in the end possessing the lombards share also. The lombards were as the Goths, nothing else but pyratical intruders 
z Narses Imperatorem Italiae possessione decide ran● spoliare, ad Albomum Longobardorum in Pannonia Regem 〈◊〉, cumque ad invadendum & occupandum Italiam invitavit. Sig l. 1. de reg. Ital. pa. 5. & Longobardi an. 568. è Pannonia egressi, anno sequenti praedari in Italia coeperunt; tertio anno dominatum institute. Sig. p. 8 eadem omnino habet Paul. Diac. l. 16. hist. misc. verbis 〈◊〉 , who invaded the country; injuriously withheld from the Emperor a good part of it, & erected a kingdom of their own, from the time of Longinus the first Exarch, when Alboinus invaded it, unto the death of Aystulphus, and Desiderius, that is, about two hundred years. Whatsoever they either possessed themselves, or gave away unto others, it was but held by tyranny and usurpation, the right 
a Omnes 〈…〉. perij famal: in Septentrionalibus vel occiduis parti●us 〈…〉 ●cribit Synodus 125 Episco. in Sexta Synodo. Act. 4. Ho fuit an. 8●0 quo tempore Longobardiregnū Italiae ●uaserant, & possessione tenebant.  still was in the Eastern Emperor. The Pope gained first one great part, & after that almost all Italy in this manner.  
When the question concerning adoration of Images, about the year 712. began to be rise in the Church, Philippicus the Eastern Emperor, and after him Leo Isaurus, and lastly Constantine (whom they with no small note of their immodesty nickname Copronimus, but rightly is he called Iconomachus:) did justly and constantly oppose themselves to that superstition, which was then not creeping, but even rushing into the Church. The Popes of those days, Constantine, Gregory 2. Gregory 3. Zacharie, and Stephen the 3. opposed themselves to the Emperors, and stood earnestly, nay factiously, for defence of the adoration of Images: and this was the first eminent matter wherein the Popes & the Roman Church made a public defection from the ancient and Catholic doctrine, banding themselues & making a strong faction to maintain the same. And of all men they were the greatest gainers by this Schism; for under colour of heresy, they did not only reprove the Eastern Emperors, excommunicate them, withdraw their subjects from their faith, loyalty, and obedience; but in the end quite deprived them also of their Imperial dominions, and most rightful possessions. Pope Constantine began this work with Philippicus, Pope Gregory, and Pope Stephen, finished it in the time of Leo Isaurus, and Constantine Iconomachus. Gregory the second (saith Zonaras 
b Zonar. Annal. to. 3. fol. 101. ,) Vectigalia quae ad id usque tempus imperio inde pendebantur, inhibuit: forbade the Romans and Italians to pay the tributes, which until then had been paid unto the Emperors. When Pope Gregory the second heard, how Leo the Emperor dealt against the venerable Images, Tributa Romanae urbis prohibuit & Italiae, he forbade the tributes to be paid unto the Emperors, out of Rome and Italy. So Paulus Diaconus 
c Paul. Diac. hist. misc. lib. 21. pa. 657.  And again, Pope Gregory 
d Lib. eodem. pa. 663. , removit Romam & Italiam, nec non & omnia tam Reipub. quam Ecclesiastica iura in Hesperijs ab obedientia Leonis, removed from the obedience of the Emperor Leo Isaurus, Rome and Italy, and all his civil and Ecclesiastical rights in Italy. And again 
e Lib. eod. pa. 665. , Romam cum tota Italia ab illius imperio recedere faciens, Gregory caused Rome and all Italy, to departed from the government or obedience of Leo.  
Gregory the 2. saith Alb. Stadensis 
f Alb. stad. an. 731. , Italiam ab eius imperio cedere fecit: caused Italy to forsake the Emperor. Gregory the 2. saith Abbess 
g Abb. Vsper. an. 718.  Vspergensis, omnia tributa Romanae urbis & Italiae Leoni dari prohibuit, forbade any tribute to be given to the Emperor either out of Rome or Italy. At this time, saith john Marius 
h joh Mar l. de Schis. & Conc. part. 1. ca 9 , did the Popes begin to enlarge their fringes, and lift up their horns more proudly against the Emperors. For Gregory 2. did anathematise Leo, & vectigalium receptioni ei interdicere ausus est; and was bold to forbidden tribute to be paid unto him. Gregory 2. saith Sigonius 
i Sig. lib. 3. de Reg. Italiae. pa. 63. , understanding the proceed of Leo, did excommunicate him, lose his people or subjects of Italy, from the religion of their oath, & ne ei aut tributum darent, aut alia ratione obedirent, indixit: and he commanded them that they should pay no tribute unto him, nor any other way obey him. Gregory the 2. saith Bellarmine 
k Bell. l. 5. de Pont. Rom. ca 8. §. Quintum. , vectigalia solui probibuit, forbade the Italians to pay tribute to Leo the Emperor, and so deprived him, parte imperii, of one part of the Empire.  
It is true that Gregory the 2. at the first, and before he excommunicated or deprived Leo, withstood the Italians, and hindered them to make a new Emperor; as not only Platina, but long before him, Anastasius witnesseth, saying 
l Plat. & Anast. in vita Greg. 2. , that when the Italians would have chosen another Emperor, Gregory the 2. authoritate sua obstare, and, compescuit tale consilium, did hinder and withstand that course and counsel: which gave occasion to some learned men, to think that Leo was not at all deprived of his tribute by Gregory the 2. Yet both Platina 
m Gregorius 3. statim ubi. Pontificatum inijt, Leonem Imperio simul & communione fidel●um privauit. Plat. in vit. Greg. 3. , Martinus 
n Mart. Pol. an 731.  Polonus, Nauclerus 
o Naucl. an. 733. , Wernerus 
p Were an. 714 , and others expressly affirm, that Gregory the 3. next successor to the former Gregory, did this to Leo: which to the point in question is all one. But that which Platina, & some others ascribe to Gregory the 3. was indeed performed by his predecessor Gregory the 2. For when he, having used all fair and favourable means, could not prevail with Leo, but still he continued to break down Images, and inflict punishment upon those that maintained the adoration thereof, than he proceeded to excommunicate, and deprive the Emperor of his rightful possessions and tribute. Gregory the 2. saith Sigebert 
q Sig. an. 7●8. , quia Imperatorem incorrigibilem vidit, because the Emperor would not be amended, caused Rome, Italy, and the West, to departed from his obedience; et vectigalia interdicit, and he forbade them to pay any tribute unto him. When the Emperor, saith Binius 
r Bin. Not. in vivan Greg. 2●●. Post. , would not obey the godly admonitions of the Pope; then at length was that done, which Theophanes, Cedrenus, and Zonaras affirm, that the Pope (Gregory 2.) anathematised the Emperor, and exhorted all his subjects in Italy, ab eius obedientia recedere, to forsake his obedience. When the Emperor, saith Baronius 
s Bar. an. 430. nu. 4. , remained impenitent, and would not obey the Pope's advice, (about the cause of Images) at last the Pope (Gregory the 2.) accursed him, tumque Romanos tum Italos ab eius obedientia recedere penitus fecit, and he caused both the Romans and Italians utterly to renounce all obedience unto him.  
The Pope having thus deprived the Emperor of his dominion, in the next place casts about & plots how he might invest himself in the possession of the same. And this he did by hindering the choice of others, that so himself might be accepted for their Lord. When the Romans, who had thus revolted from Leo, would have chosen another Emperor (saith Sigonius 
i Sig. lib. 3. de reg. Italiae. pa. 63. ) the Pope refused that, as an unfit course: but afterwards, they subjected 
k Leonis imperium respue●unt, ac solenni sacramento se Pontifici obtemperaturos iurarunt. ibid. pa. 64.  themselves to the Pope, (who willingly, you may be sure, accepted their service) binding themselves with an oath, that they would for ever defend his life, and state, and in all things obey him. When the Pope had thundered out his curse (saith Baronius 
l Bar. an. 73●. nu. 5. ) mox desciscunt penitus à Leonis imperio, Apostolico Pontifici inhaerentes, they strait forsook the Emperor, and adhaered unto the Pope. Ita Roma, Romanusque Ducatus, and by this means Rome and the Dukedom of Rome, came from the Grecians to the Pope, saith Sigonius 
m Sig. loc. cit. .  
Is not this now a very handsome conveyance, wrought and finished by rebellion and treason, and all under the colour of religion? And by this rebellious revolt, which himself had persuaded, the Pope gained the Dukedom of Rome, wherein was contained Rome with her castles, towers, and villages in the parts of Hetruria, Portus, Circumcellae, Sutrium, Anagnia, Capua, Tibur, with twenty cities besides, as Sigonius 
n Sig ibid.  showeth. So by this means Italy, which in right wholly belonged to the Emperors, was now held by three possessors: The Pope held Rome, and the Dukedom thereof: The lombards, and their Kings, held Milan, Venice, Padu●, and the fare greatest part: The Emperor by his Exarch, held no more but the Exarchate of Ravenna. The Emperor strove 
p Leo indign ferens se Romana ditio●e exutum, & communione piorum eiectum, Pontificem ac Romanos vindicare statuit, etc. Sig. lib. 3. pa. 67.  to recover his own, either of the other to enlarge their usurped dominions. The Lombard, against the Pope; the Pope, against the Lombard; and both of them against the Emperor.  
The lombards as they did long and earnestly thirst after the whole country of Italy, so especially in the time of Luitprandus, and Aystulphus, they assayed the same, and won diverse cities from the Pope, by name 
q Sigon. ibid. pa. 68  Ameria, Orta, Palmarium and Bleda: Afterwards they laid 
r Vrbi obsidionem admovit. Sig. ibid.  very hard siege to Rome itself. The Pope by many plausible and fair persuasions, entreated the aid, first of Charles 
s Ad Carolum Martellum propere Legatos misit Gregorius, obtestans ut ecclesiae rebus succurreret. Sigon. ib.  Martell, and afterwards of his son Pipine 
t Pipinus ultro Pontifex appellavit ac novam Aistulphi etc. Sigon. lib. 3. de reg. Ital. pa. 77. , who by the means and Decree, as Sigonius 
u Cuius (Zachariae) decreto Pipinus ad fastigium dignitatis evectus. Sigon. ibid. & iterum pa. 76:  saith, of Pope Zachary, had obtained the kingdom of France, Childericke the true and rightful king, being deposed from the same. At last when Aystulphus 
x jam Longobardorum imperio omnia citra Romam tenebantur. Sigon lib. 3. pa. 75.  having utterly overcome the Exarch, and gotten the full possession of the Exarchate of Ravenna, and all cities belonging thereto, greedily now gaped 
y Animum ad Pontificiam ditionem adiecit. ibid.  after Rome and the Pope's share, which only was behind, Pope Stephen entreated 
z Stephanus confestim, ad regem Pipinum misit, orare se, etc. Sig. lib. eod. pa. 76.  and obtained 
a Facilè perenti Pontifici est obsecutus Pipinus. ibid. & pa. 77.  of Pipine not only that he would defend the cause of the Church, and restore unto it, such Cities as Aystulphus, and the Lombard's had taken from it: but further, that he would 
c Non solum bellum pro ●ecuperando Exarchat● Pentapoliqu● suasit, sed etiam ne ea redderentur Imperatori contendit: sed ut utramque regionem B. Petro praecipui beneficij loco concederet. Sig. Ibid. pa. 78.  give unto it, and not to the Emperor, the Exarchate of Ravenna, if he should conquer the lombards. Pipine willingly assented unto his Holiness; vowed 
d Ego (inquie Pipinus) polliceor, me, si victoriae compotem fecerit Deus, Exarchatum, Pentopolinque B. Petro, eiusque succestoribus traditurum, in perpetuum possidenda. Hocque fuo, filiorumque suorum iuramento munivit. Sig. ibid. , and swore to perform his request: yea, notwithstanding the Emperor 
e Legati ad Pipinum ab Imperatore missi, quod in mandato ab Imperatore habebant, impense rogare Pipinum ut Exarchatum, et Pentapolim non Pontifici, sed Imperatori concederet. Sig. Ibid. pa. 79. & Sabell. Ennead. 8. lib. 8  earnestly laboured with him, that he would restore to Him, imperialia munera, as Anastasius 
* Anast. vit. Steph. 3.  speaks, those Imperial rights, or dominions; giving this as his special reason, Quia 
f Sabell. loco cit.  Imperij essent, non Pontificis, because in right they belonged to him, and not to the Pope. But the Pope's persuasion prevailed. Pipine overcame Aystulphus, restored whatsoever of the Dukedom of Rome, the Lombard's had taken from the Pope; and further, by a writ 
g Pipinus Exarchatum, Pentapolimque S. Petro & successoribus eius in perpetuum possidenda concessit. Atque ita scribam, refer ipsas in tabulas Donationis iussit. Sig. lib. 3. de Reg. Ital. pa. 80.  of Donation conferred upon him, (that which neither he had right to give, nor the Pope to receive,) the Exarchate of Ranenna, and Pentapolis, containing twenty nine 
h Sig. Ibid.  Cities, or rather Regions of Italy.  
here is the first and truest title, which the Pope ever had to those Provinces in Italy, the Dukedom of Rome, and Exarchate of Ravenna. By which it may be easily discerned, that as he got them by fraud and Treason, so he held them by open wrong and Injustice. For neither that which was given, nor that which was restored by Pippin, did in right belong to the Pope, but to the Emperor. From him, both that which Pipine restored, was treacherously detained by the Pope: and that also which Pipine gave, was first unjustly taken by the Lombard's; and being taken from them, was unjustly given to the Pope: and so from one unjust possessor, was conveied to another, but still, most injuriously withheld from the rightful owner thereof.  
Are not Baronius and Gretzer now very politic disputers, who from the Restitution 
i Pipinus misit Aistulpho, Ecclesiae ac reipub. restituenda iura. Anast, in vit. Steph. 3. pa. 221. &, Aistulphus professus est, se civitates redditurum, ibid.  of some Cities, it seems of Ameria, Orta, Palmarium, and Bleda, belonging to the Emperor, and usurped a while by the Pope, but afterwards taken 
k Ab eod em rege (Litprando) ablatae sunt à Romano ducatu civitates quatuor, Ameria, Orta, etc. Anast. in vit. Zach. 1. pa. 194.  from him, by the Lombard's, and now restored by Pipine; can prove a just Title to those Cities, in the Pope? yea, a title by Donation? even a Donation from Constantine? Whereas Pipine restored no more, than a Robber had taken from a Traitor, the Lombard from the Pope; and which both of them unjustly withheld from the rightful owner, who was the Emperor. And truly I could not choose but smile to see the subtlety of these men, who making this reason: Pipine restored some Cities to the Pope, therefore Constantine gave the same, add this 
l Gretz. in Append. 1 pa. 90. & Bar. ann. 324. nu. 118.  for a confirmation thereof. For if the Church, say they, possessed the dominion of them, before the privileges granted by the French Kings, unde illud sibi, nisi iure debitum potuit vendicasse? How could the Pope claim them otherwise, then as in right due unto him; seeing it is certain 
m Cum certum sit nulla id factum armotum vi atque violenta grassatione. Gretz. & Bar. Ibid.  he got them not by Arms, or by violent grassation. Thus dispute Baronius and Gretzer. As if he must needs hold them either by right, or else by violent and forceable grassation. But they wittingly and craftily omit that tenure, by which alone the Pope held those Cities, and the whole Dukedom of Rome, and that was by a perfidious and traitorous revolt of the Emperor's subjects, persuaded, and caused by the Pope; and by his own traitorous and unjust withholding them from his own Lord the Emperor, the only true owner of them. Seeing thus they obtained them, neither any Donation nor any Restitution by Pipine, could invest in them a rightful possession. For though Pipine had a fair pretence of restoring that, and giving more to Saint Peter, or the Church, to wit, for this end, To 
n Polliceor me pro remissione peccatorum impetranda haec B. Petro traditurum. Dixit Pipinus. Sig. lib. 3. cit. pa. 78.  obtain pardon of his sins: yet was this but a pretence; to colour his injust action. Nor could he by this or any like Act, ever expiate the iniquity and wrong; first of his deposing Childerike, and invading his Regal Throne, and then of his taking by force, and without any just cause of war, those Provinces from the Emperor, and giving them unto the Pope. God 
o Mica. 6. 8.  hath showed thee (O man) what he requireth. Surely, to do justly, and to love mercy: First of all, God requires justice, and then Mercy: To be merciful and charitable in giving that which one hath unjustly got, or unjustly possesseth, is not an Act of Mercy, but of tyranny and injustice; like those sacrifices, which God rejecteth, as an abomination unto him. Thou shalt 
p Deut. 23. 18 Deus hic quicquid partum est illicito & turpi quaestu repudiat. Calu. in ea verba.  not bring the hire of a Whore, (that is, nothing got by unjust or unhonest means) into the house of the Lord. To this purpose S. Augustine 
q Aug. lib. de bono Conjugal. ca 14.  truly saith, If a man will give very large alms, out of those grounds which he hath unjustly invaded, non ideo rapinam iustificat, he doth not thereby justify or make amendss for his wrong. And again 
p Aug. lib. contra mend. ca 7. Quis ista dicat nisi qui res humanas omnes, legesque per●ertere conatur? , They subvert all Law, who say, Let us rob the rich, that we may give to the poor: To the like effect chrysostom 
q Foeneratus sum, aiunt, sed pauperi obtuli. ●ona verba quaeso. Talia sacrificia Deus non accipit. Chrys. Hom. 57 in Math.  speaketh: I have got these goods, sayest thou, by usury, and impiety: but I have offered them to the poor; O, saith he, God, acceptes no such sacrifice. Pipine should have restored as well the Exarchate of Ravenna, as the Dukedom of Rome to the Emperor: that had been indeed an Act of justice; to take either the one, or the other, from the Lombard's, and give them to the Pope, was another Act of iniquity, and an addition to his former sin: which both by the testimony of the Prophet 
r Ezec. 33. 15 , and rule of Saint Austen 
s juxta verbum Augustini, Non remittitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum. Alex. 3. lib. 5. Decretal. tit. de usuris. ca Cum tu. , could not be pardoned, unless the goods, whether got, or kept by wrong, had been justly restored: justly, I say, to the true and rightful owner of them; and that was the Emperor, not the Pope. For, Nulla 
t Bern. epist. 77.  illi poenitentia remittitur peccatum, qui cum possit, non restituit ablatum; by no repentance is the sin of injustice pardoned to any, who when he may, will not restore the wrongfully gotten goods to the rightful owner. But enough of the former reason of Baronius and Gretzer, to prove that Constantine gave those Cities, because Pipine restored them to the Pope.  
The other Conjecture which Gretzer allegeth, concerneth the Pope's patrimony in the Cottian Alpss: long before the time (saith 
u Gretz. Append. 1. ad lib. de Munifi. pa. 90.  he) of Pipine, that other Donation was made, which Paulus Diaconus 
x Paul. Diac. lib. 6. de Gest. Longob. ca 28.  mentioneth: Aripert King of the Lombard's restored the Donation of the patrimony of the Cottian Alpes, which formerly did belong to the Apostolic Sea, but had been for a long time detained by the Lombard's; and this Donation written in golden letters, he sent to Rome: from these words of Paulus Diaconus, Gretzer concludes 
a Loc. cit pag. 91. , Cum ergo certo certius constet, seeing it is most certain, that before Pipines' time, yea before Ariperts, (that is, before the year seven hundred and four,) the Pope or See apostolic, had diverse Provinces subject to their Dominion, and there appears no evidence for any other title, whereby they should have and hold those lands, it followeth, that the right to have them, is not unprobably derived from the Donation of Constantine. So Gretzer.  
I answer, that this reason is many ways defectuous, sophistical, and improbable. First, the proof is only of the patrimony of the Cottian Alpes, but the conclusion is of many 
b Varias Provincias sus in ditione tenuisse. Ibid.  Provinces, whereas that patrimony was so fare from containing many, or any one Province, that it was but certain villages, or farm houses, in the Northwest part of the Alpes; which Gretzer himself calls 
c Gretz. loco citato, pa. 91. , and that significantly, Cortes & villas Alpium Cottiarum, Cottages or places of provision of corn, cattles, or fowl: for so Cortes to signify, both Varro 
d Cors' exterior sit crebro operta stramentis ac paleis, conculcata pedibus pecudum. Var. lib. 1. de re Rust. ca 13: , and Nonnius 
e Cortes sunt Villarum intra macerian spacia. Non. in voce, Certes.  do declare. And by the same name of Cortes, doth Ado Viennensis call that patrimony of the Pope. Aripert restored 
f Ado. in Chron. an. 699.  to the Apostolic See, Cortes & patrimonia Alpium Cottiarum, those farm houses and patrimonies in the Cottian Alpes, which had been taken from them by the Lombard's. What is this to the Donation pretended from Constantine? What are a few Cottages, or Farm houses, to Rome; to all Italy, to all the Western Provinces and kingdoms? It's true, I confess, that the Alpes Cottiae, was one of the seventeen 
b Italia 17. Provincias obtinebat. Liguria, Rhetia, Alpes Cottiae, etc. Sig. lib. 1. de Reg. Ital. pa. 2. & Paulus Diac. lib. 2 de Gest. Longob. cap. 14. & seq.  Provinces which belonged to Italy, and into which it was divided. But that the Pope's patrimony was not the whole Province, but some Cortes, or villages therein, Sigonius evidently doth witness, who saith 
c Sig. lib. 2. pa. 38. ; There were at this times, when Rotharis was King of the Lombard's, (which was more than sixty years before Aripert) two Provinces in the hither part of Italy, adhuc Imperatoriae ditioni subiectae, which were as yet subject to the Emperor's Dominion, and those were Alpes Cottiae, et Opitergium. The Province then of Alpes Cottiae, was the Emperors, and subject to him, until that time when Rotharis invading it, Imperatori 
d Ibid.  provinciam eripuit, bereft the Emperor of the Province, and deprived the Pope, opulento patrimonio, of a fat patrimony which of old he had in the same Province. So Sigonius, speaking of this very patrimony which Aripert restored to the Pope. Gretzer might as well; nay much better conclude, that because some Nobleman, hath a Manor, and some Lordships, and Farms in the Wolds of York, therefore Certo certius the dominion of all England in right doth belong to him.  
Secondly, what a sorry collection is this of Gretzer, because Histories and Records make no mention of any other title, by which the Pope had that patrimony in the Alpes Cottiae; therefore he derives it from the Donation of Constantine? why? Is there no other means how the Pope might get that, but only by Constantine's Donation? what if the records of the conveyance thereof made by some other, were lost or burnt, in some of those often eruptions, sackings, and spoilings by the Goths, Vandals, or Lombard's? What if those lands came to the Church by no Donation at all, but by defect of Heirs, by virtue of that Law 
e Eus. lib. 2. de vit. Const. cap. 36.  of Constantine, If none of the kindred of Martyrs, Confessors, and exiles be alive, who may succeed as heirs unto them, ut Ecclesia semper cuiusque loci haereditatem adeat, ratum esto; be it enacted, that every where, and for ever, the Church shall have and enjoy their possessions. Or why might not the Pope have it by some purchase, the oblations and treasures of the Church being anciently so very great, that they might easily purchase much more than that one patrimony, containing Cortes et villas? Or what if he had it by Donation of some other either before, or after Constantine's time? Certain it is, that many private men, gave not only goods, but lands & fair possessions, both to other Churches, and to that at Rome. Prospero 
f Hilarius acceptis fidelium numerosis haereditatibus Ecclesiam Arelatensem ampliavit. Pros. lib. 2 de vita Contempt. ca 9  mentions this of the Church at Arles, that it was enriched with the inheritances which many bestowed on it. So many and so ample Donations of lands, were made unto the Church in Austin's time, that both Aurelius 
g August. ser. 49. de diver.  his predecessor, and himself 
h Aliquas cum haereditates recusasse novimus. Possid. in vita Aug. ca 24.  also, sometime refused lands that were offered to be given, sometimes restored them, and that unasked, after they were given. The like donations might be showed in other churches; especially in the Roman, to which they were so usually made, that Christian Emperors, (as by name Valentinian and Gratian) by their laws 
i L. 20. De Epis. Eccle. & Cler. Cod. Theod. , did some ways restrain the same. Neither was this used only in, & after the time of Constantine, but even under the Heathen Emperors also, as the Edict of Constantine set down in Eusebius, doth manifest: wherein he commandeth Restitution 
h Euseb. lib. 2. de vita Constant ca 39 & lib. 10. ●cc. hist ca 5.  to be made to the Church, of such houses, lands, orchards, and the like, as by the tyranny of others had been taken away, and withheld from it. Yea, Gretzer (who holds 
i Gretz. Defence ca 14. lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif.  those Epistles which go under the names of the ancient Popes, to be truly theirs, and no counterfeits) will not deny such Donations of Lands, patrimonies and possessions, to have been made in the time of Vrbane the first, and of Pius the first, that is, an hundred and sixty years before Constantine either was baptised, or made this supposed Donation. For those Popes do expressly mention, praedia 
k Epist. 2. Pij. 1. & Epist. Vrbani 1.  divinis usibus dicata, the Church lands or Patrimony: and the one of them further insinuates, this custom to have been long before his time. For whereas many sold their lands, and brought the price of them, and bestowed that on the Church; It was thought more convenient, saith he 
l Vrban. 1. Epist. citat. , both for the present, and future times, if they would give, haereditates et agros, The lands and inheritances themselves unto the Church. Whereupon Christians gave their lands and patrimonies to the mother Churches, and the same in each Diocese was in the disposing of the Bishops, who with his whole Clergy of Presbyters, Deacons, and other Church Officers in that Diocese, were in common to be maintained therewith. Which same custom, Saint Cyprian observeth, who mentions 
m Cypr. Epist. 34. , Sportulas Presbyterorum et divisiones mensurnas, the stipend & monthly allowance which the Bishops allotted to the Presbyters. Seeing then by the testimony of those two Popes, it appears, that 160. 
n Pius papatum inijt an. 158. Bin. Nous in vit am Pij. 1. Constantinun volunt baptizari an. 324.  years before Constantine made this supposed donation, the Church of Rome had farms, inheritances, lands, and patrimonies bestowed upon it; and one part of their lands, as Sigonius 
o Ecclesia Rom. opimis agrorum fundorumque possessionibus erat instructa, quae per omnes fere Europae Africaeque provincias dispersae, Rom. ecclesiae patrimonia dicebantur. In Italia Patrimonium Alpium Cottiarum, etc. Sig. lib. 1. de regno Occid pa. 3.  showeth, was this very Patrimony in the Cottian Alpes, how inconsequent is this reason of Gretzer? The patrimony in the Alpes, was given to the Roman See, long before Aripert, and no record appears by whom: therefore it was given by Constantine. Why may he not rather conclude, therefore it was given in Valentinians time, or in Pope Pius, or in Vrbanes time? for they both witness, that the Church had patrimonies and lands then given unto them. Seeing the Records are not extant, to testify the gift of those Cortes & Villae, what more probability is there, that they should be given by Constantine, rather than by other Christians, either before or after him? The Jesuits reason is much like, as if some noble man in the time of Edward the first, (when they were called to show Quo warranto by what warrant or title they held their lands, most of their evidences being in the Baron's wars lost or burnt) should have thus reasoned, My Ancestors held these Manors and Lordships, in the time of King Richard the first, and long before, and because there appears not by Records any other title whereby they had them, it is most probable, that they were given by King Brutus unto them.  
Thirdly the Jesuits reason and proof, taken from the fact of Aripert and Litprandus, doth directly overthrew that donation of Constantine, which he would thence conclude. For by Sigonius it appears that Aripert was very liberal 
o Ad caeteras ecclesias liberalissime donavit; erga Roman● praecipue munificus erat. Sig. lib. 2. de reg. Ital. pa. 55. , and munficent to the Church of Rome, and therefore gave some great gift unto it. Now, in restoring that patrimony he was just, and not liberal. And whereas both Sigonius, and Diaconus, call the writing which Aripert scent, a Donation 
p Eamque Donationem aureis litteris exaratam misit. Sig. ibid. & Paul. Diac. lib. 6. ca 28. ; they imply, that besides the restoring of that patrimony (which was no Donation, but as they 
q Patrimonium Alpium Cottiarum à Rothare ademptum, restituit. Sig. loco citato. Donationem patrimonij Alpium Cottiarum quae à Longobardis fuerunt ablatae, testituit. Paul. Diac. loc. cit.  expressly call it, a Restitution) Aripert gave some other lands to the See of Rome. But this in king Litprandus is more manifest. He restored to the Pope diverse cities, saith Sigonius 
r Sigon. lib. 3. pa. 70. , atque insuper patrimonijs donavit, and further he gave unto the Pope a patrimony at Naruium, another at Ancona; a third at Auximum, a fourth at Humanate, with the valley of Sutrium called Magna. Thus Sigonius. Had all Italy been given by Constantine to the Pope and his successors, neither Aripert, nor Litprandus, could have given any lands, villages or patrimonies therein unto him; they should but have restored them all; seeing then they restored some, as by name that patrimony in the Alpes Cottiae, and gave others; it is clear by the very restitution of the one, and gift of the other, that the whole was not judged to belong to the Pope, but some parcels only; and that those (even that very patrimony in the Alpes Cottiae) was given not by Constantine (for his gift was of the whole country, yea of all the Western provinces:) but by some other, who gave lesser gifts either before or after Constantine.  
The fourth and last defect in the Jesuits reason is, that whereas he was to prove such a right in the Pope, as Constantine is supposed to have given, to wit an imperial 
s Tribu●ntes ei diguitatem, & honorificentiam Imperialem. verba Edicti. , monarchical 
t Vtriuscue potestatis Monarchian. Nich. 3. ca Fundamenta. ante cit. , a supreme and independent dominion in all Italy and the Western 
u Omnes totius Italiae, & Occidentalium regionum provincias, &c verba Edict.  provinces, he proves indeed that the Pope had before Ariperts time (which was 370. years 
x Aripertus 2. regnare coepit an. 70●. Sig. li. 2. cit. pa. 54.  after Constantine) certain villages, cottages, or farm houses in the Cottian Alpes (which is a very sorry proof for the right of the whole West, or of all Italy:) but that he held even that small patrimony, or so much as those villages or farms, as an absolute Lord of them, and not as a tenant under the Emperor, and with a dependence from him, or with an acknowledgement of him, as an higher Landlord: to prove this, the jesuite speaks not one word, not his witness Paulus Diaconus, nor his master Cardinal Baronius. Nay that the patrimony of the Church paid tribute to the Emperors as an acknowledgement of a sovereignty and dominion in them, both over the persons and lands of the Clergy: that one saying of S. Ambrose doth make evident, If the Emperor, saith he 
y Amb. Orat. in Auxet. post. epist. 32. , demand tribute, we deny it not: Agri Ecclesiae soluunt tributum: the lands of the Church do pay tribute. And that the Roman Church was no more exempt, then that of Milan, Sigonius doth witness, who expressly mentioneth 
z Sig. lib. 2. cit. pa. 50.  the annual rent of 200. head of cattles, which the Roman See did yearly pay to the Emperor (and that but a little before the days of Aripert) for certain lands, or a patrimony which that See had in Brutium and Lucania. Yea Gretzer himself confesseth 
a great. Apol. pro Bar. ca de Const. Othon: & lib. 2. cont. Replic. ca 15.  of the dukedom of Tuscanie, & Spoletum, that notwithstanding the donations both of Constantine, Charles, and others, yet ius dominii apud Imperatorem manebat, the sovereignty, or right of dominion remained in the Emperor. Nor is it likely, that the Cortes & villae in the Cottian Alpes, had a greater privilege than those other lands in Lucania, or in the Dukedoms of Tuscan, and Spoletum: specially seeing Bellarmine confesseth 
b Ante justiniani tempora, clerici non erant liberi à tributis quae pendi solent ratione possessionum: Bel. li. 1. de Cler. ca 28. §. Quatta. , that till the time of justinian, (that is, 200. years after Constantine) the lands of the Church were tributary to the Emperors.  
I say further, that although by those after donations of Charles the Great, of Lewis his son, of Otho the first, and Henry the first, (of the truth and validity whereof I will not here dispute) although by these, the Pope may have some title to the possessions, revenues, and commodities of those Dukedoms, cities, and territories so bestowed upon him; yet that which they now claim, and which they would persuade Constantine and other Emperors to have conferred, to wit, an imperial, an absolute 
c Absolutam donationem complectitur diploma Othonis. Gretz. Apol. pro Bar. ca 20. , and independent dominion in the same, not any of all those donations do import; nay they manifestly witness the contrary. For in the Charters pretended by Otho, and Henry (which are of all most ample) this is expressed, That they 
d Constit. Othon. magni. apud Bar. an. 962. nu. 7. Const. Henr. I. apud Bar. an. 1014. nu. 7.  give or confirm unto the See of Rome, those cities, provinces, and territories, to use, enjoy, and dispose, saving in those Dukedoms, nostra in omnibus dominatione, & illorum ad nostram partem, & filij nostri subiectione, saving our dominion in them all, and their subjection to us and our son: and, salua in omnibus potestate nostra, saving in all these provinces and territories, that power which to us and our successors doth belong, according to the covenant, constitution and promise, which was made with Pope Eugenius. What that covenant made with Eugenius was, is, as Gretzer saith 
e Gretz Apol. pro Bar. ca 20. , explained in the Charter of Otho, wherein it is said, that none should be consecrated for Pope, until he had solemnly made a promise to preserve all Imperial rights, as Pope Leo is known of his own accord to have made. 
f Lib. eod. ca 22.  This Leo, Gretzer tells us, is Leo the 4th. and he saith, he is almost even certain thereof. I will not strive with him about this point; though it will breed no small doubt touching the truth and credit of the Vatican Charters, that in the covenants agreed unto by Eugenius the second, Pope Leo the fourth should be named, Eugenius being dead full twenty years 
g Eugen. 2. obijt an. 827. Bar. in illum an. nu. 26. Leo 4. coepit an. 847. Bar. eo an nu. 7.  before Leo the fourth entered into the Papacy. But let us suppose Leo the fourth to be the man here named: what promise was that which this Leo made? Gretzer 
h Gretz. lib. cit. ca 22.  out of Gratian, Iuo, Panormitane, and Baronius, tells us, that he made promise to the Emperors, de universis Imperii iurihus integre et inviolabiliter conseruandis 〈◊〉 to keep entirely and inviolably all the rights of the Empire. So both by those Imperial Charters before mentioned, and by Gretzers own confession, it is certain that none were to be consecrated or held for Popes, till they had first made this promise to keep entirely and inviolably all the rights of the Empire. Now seeing Sovereignty, or supreme dominion, is one, and even the chiefest of all imperial rights and royalties, it being, as the Lawyer truly saith 
i Covaruv. Pract. quaest. ca 4. nu. 1. , forma et substantialis essentia maiestatis regiae, the very form, substance, and essence of Imperial dignity, and regality; it is hereby clear, that this was still reserved to the Emperor, in those Donations of Charles, Lewis, Henry, Otho and others. Yea Charles the Great, to have expressly reserved this royalty and sovereignty of dominion to himself, and his successors, is evident by Sigonius, who shows 
k Sig. lib. 4. cit. pa. 90. , that when Charles, after the overthrow of Desiderius (the last king of the lombards) and conquest of Italy, divided it as he thought good; to the Pope (saith he) Charles permitted or confirmed the Exarchate of Ravenna, of Pentapolis, the dukedom of Perusium, of Rome, of Tuscanie, of Campiania, iure principatus et ditione sibi retenta, reserving and retaining to himself the right of Principality and sovereign dominion. And although it be clear by the Charters themselves, that Lewis 
l Salu● super eosdem Ducatus nostra in omnibus dominatione, & illorum ad nostram partem subiectione Constit. Ludou. Pij apud Bar. an. 817. nu. 12. , Otho, and Henry herein followed Charles, whose grant they 
m Confirmo tibi Romanum ducatum, etc. sicut à praedecessoribus vestris usque nunc in vestra potestate tenuist●s. ibi. & in Const. Othonis 1.  confirm; yet Sigonius further witnesseth, that in the time of Otho, this right and sovereignty of dominion was acknowledged to be in the Emperor, not in the Pope. For speaking of those cities that were subject to the Pope, they esteemed, saith he 
n Sig. lib. 7. pa. 177. , the Pope as prince of the commonwealth, Regem vero, ut summum Dominum: but Otho ●he Emperor, their Sovereign Lord, and unto him they paid their tributes and performed obedience: Thus Sigonius.  
Let us hear the judgements of those who are learned in the laws, who of all men are most fit to direct us in this question, which is, de iure, and not only de facto. Antonius Rosellus, a man noble 
o Vir nobilis & eruditus. Poss. in Anton. Rossel.  both for birth and learning, skilful both in the Civil and Canon law, one so fare from partiality on our side, that he earnestly 
p Ant. Ross. Monarchiae part. 1. ca 69.  defends the donations made to the Popes, by Charles, Lewis, Otho, yea and even this also of Constantine; hath at large and diligently sifted this point. After long debating the matter on either side, in the end he thus concludes. Firmiter teneo 
q Ant. Ross. li. cit. ca 71. pa. 297. & seq.  I do firmly hold, for those lands and territories which the Pope hath from ancient time possessed (and in 
r Ibid. ca▪ 70. pa. 296:  which prescription is sufficient without any title) that the Donation of Constantine, and others is good, for the possession, propriety, and utile dominium, seeing thereby the imperial right 
s jura imperialia in his bonis remanserunt, ibid. ca 71. pa. 297.  is not taken away: Sed directum dominium est penes Caesarem, but the direct or supreme dominion and jurisdiction, even in those places, is in the Emperor: Neither is it 
t Directum dominium est in ossibus Caesaris, irremovibile, vel inabdicabile. ibid. pa. 297. , nor can it be separated from the body and bones of the Emperor's person. Habet ergo Papa executionem potestatis, therefore the Pope hath the execution of the power, in those territories which are given unto him: but he hath not the dominion or sovereign power in them: that belongs to the Emperors, who in all temporal goods, and possessions is the sovereign prince. Again 
u Ibi. pa. 297. , as we daily see that the Emperor gives Dukedoms, Earldoms, or Kingdoms, & tamen retinet in directo dominio ipsam iurisdictionem; & ius imperij in ipsis bonis, aliis commissis, and yet he retains the direct or sovereign dominion and jurisdiction in himself, & his imperial rights, in the goods which he so commits to others: even so in those goods given by the Emperors to the Church or Pope, Ius imperij & iurisdictionem retinuit, & retinet: The Emperor still held, and doth still hold the imperial rights or supreme jurisdiction, quamuis utile dominium eius, etiam exercitium, Pontifici commisit, although the profit of the dominion, and the exercise of the jurisdiction he committed to the Pope. Again 
h Ibid. pa. 298. , The donation to the Pope is good, quoad proprietatem & dominium particular, sed non quoad iurisdictionem totalem & ius imperii, good to pass away the property and particular dominion in those lands, but not good to pass away the whole or supreme jurisdiction, or the Imperial right in them.  
The same Rosellus adds two or three other points very worthy observing to this purpose. One, that the Pope is not capable of Sovereign dominion, not not in those very territories which have been given unto him. Although, saith he 
i Ibid. pa. 298. , the Pope be capable of the Imperial right, quoad subsidium, in respect of the profit, non tamen est capax principaliter, yet is he not capable thereof as the principal owner of it; nay it is, saith he, impossible that in the same person should consist the Imperial authority, and the priesthood, et ideo impossibile est per viam praescriptionis, and therefore though the Pope prescribe never so long time for his holding those territories, yet it is impossible that by way of prescription, the Pope should either in whole, or in part hold ius imperiale, Imperial or Sovereign right therein.  
An other is, that Emperors being the supreme Lords, may upon just cause recall any, or all the former donations, & take into their own hands the possession or property in those Territories, which the Popes hold by virtue of those Donations. To which purpose he thus saith; The 
m Ibid. pa. 298.  Donations, for passing away the property in those goods, is firm, yea it is not revocable by succeeding Emperors, if they have no cause to revoke it; Cum causa autem posset, but upon just cause it may be revoked, by the successors of those Emperors who made the Donations. Now whether the Popes have given, and that oftentimes, many and just causes, to revoke those Donations, I list not here dispute. Their so often justling with the Emperors, their usurping that Imperial authority which belongs not to them, but to the Emperor; their often misusing Emperors in most base and indigne manner, and making them of the Pope's Lords, the Pope's vassals; these may seem to any who are not factious on the Pope's side, to be just causes to resume all those lands, which he either by Donation or usurpation possesseth. But I leave this to their judgement, to whom in right it belongs; and those are the Emperors and secular Princes themselves; as the same learned Lawyer there rightly sets down: If 
n Ca eod. pa. 299.  there happen, saith he, a controversy betwixt the Pope and the Prince, concerning any mere temporal matter, (and such is this touching the temporal possessions granted to the Pope) I think the Emperor himself aught to be judge herein, seeing in temporal matters he is above all; even the Pope himself, and Ipse est iudex suae causae, The Emperor is judge in his own cause, as the Law teacheth. So he.  
The third is this, that whereas the Popes, to make sure that authority which they use in the patrimony of S. Peter, cause the Emperor to swear, that he 
n Cum iuramento se astringat iu● Imperij & iurisdictionem in illa territoria non exercere. Idem ca cir. pa. 297.  will not exercise that Imperial authority which he hath in those lands, but permit the Popes to enjoy the same as they have used, (tying the Emperors by this oath, from the exercise of any Imperial jurisdiction in those territories) the learned Lawyer teacheth, That Emperors indeed, after 
o Cum iurisdictionem non exercere iuraverit, si facit, extra suum dist●ictum se ex tendit: imo periurus est. ibid. pa. 297.  they have once taken this oath, cannot intermeddle in those lands, but aught by virtue of their oath, leave the jurisdiction therein to the Pope: but withal he adds, which is worthy remembering, that seeing the Emperor retaineth still the direct Dominion in those lands, which Dominion he cannot possibly pass away to the Pope, his successors 
p Quia hoc iuramentum est personale, certè successor ad ipsum praestandum non est asttictus. Ibid. pa. 297.  need not to take that oath; and not taking it, saith he, they may actually use their own Imperial rights, and jurisdiction in the same, and it were better they would do so.  
They may do this. And what if they aught also, so to do? Math. Parisiensis 
q Math. Paris. in johan. ano. 1210. pa. 306. Otho memor sacramenti quod fecerat cum à Papa ad Imperium sublimatus fuerat, quod videlicet, dignitates Imperij conseruaret, & iura dispersa pro possibilitate sua revocaret Ibid.  sets down the oath which Otho the fourth took, and he mentions it as an oath which other Emperors were wont to take, as by name Henry 
r juravit (Henr. 5.) quod obediret Pontifici, Saluo honore Imperij & Regni, sicuti Catholici Imperatores Pontificibus (iurare) solent, Leo Ostiens. in Chron. Cassin. lib. 4. ca 42.  the fift did, and that is, to maintain the dignities and rights belonging to the Empire: yea Baldus their great Lawyer, testifieth the same oath to be usual. The Emperor, saith he 
s Bald. in Prooem. de Feud. nu. 32. , when he is crowned, iurat nihil diminuere de bonis Imperij, doth swear that he will not impair the State of the Empire. And Lucas de Penna more fully, The Emperor, saith he 
t Luc. de Pen. Cod. de omni agro desert. l. Quicunque desertum. fol. 18●. col. 2. , swears at his Coronation, iura regni sui, & honorem Coronae illibata seruare, to keep inviolable the rights of his kingdom, and the honour of his Imperial Crown. By virtue of which oath, the Emperors are strictly obliged, in duty both to God and to the Empire, to take unto themselves, not only all those large and fair territories, which the Pope hath either by fraud or force invaded, decking himself with the plumes of their Eagle, but specially they aught to resume, that Dominion or Sovereignty of authority, in those very lands, which the Pope now challengeth as his own. For this Sovereignty being the most proper and an essential privilege belonging to any Imperial Crown, by virtue of this their sacred oath, they aught utterly to refuse (as the Lawyer saith they may) that other coacted oath, whereby they are most injuriously tied to permit that man of sin quietly to enjoy their Imperial Possessions, Rights, and Royalties, and tread both themselves, and their Crowns under his feet. It was no marvel if this whole passage in their learned Lawyer, seemed very distasteful, and worthy of expunging, to their Roman Censurers, who not enduring to see a testimony so pregnant, and prejudicial to the Pope's authority, and whence so dangerous consequents may be collected, to be recorded in the writings of so learned a Lawyer, at one blow do cut off, cashier, and expunge for ever, that whole passage in his book, that it may never see the light, commanding 
x Index Expurg▪ ●uxta Council Trid. decretum. Philip. 2. Regis Cathol▪ 〈◊〉 concinnatus. ann. 1571.  it wholly to be abolished, though it contain no less than 178. lines in a large folio.  
The like to that in Rossellus, is taught by another of their famous Lawyers, Franc. Vargas 
c Fr. Varg. lib. de Author. Pontif. Axiom. 1. nu. 2. , who allegeth Baldus, and diverse other Lawyers, as consenting with him. He sets down two assertions; The one, that suprema Principis iurisdictio est prorsus inabdicabilis, the supreme jurisdiction of the King cannot possibly be given away from him: The other, that it is impossible, that the Emperor should make any, vel parem sibi, vel superiorem, either equal or superior to himself: for, as Baldus saith, Lex regia contradicit, that is contrary to the law or nature of a King. Then out of doubt, neither Charles, nor Lewis, nor Otho, nor any other Emperor either did, or could by any of their Donations, pass away their Sovereignty to the Pope.  
The words of Baldus are very remarkable, he speaking of this Donation of Constantine, and expressing with his own, the judgement of the Doctors of Law, saith 
d Bald. in Prooem. de Feud. nu. 32. 33.  thus; They determine that this Donation, quoad expropriationem territorij, dignitatis, et iurisdictionis, non valere nec possibilem esse; neither is, nor possibly can be of force, to pass away either the propriety, or supreme Dominion in those territories, or the Imperial dignity and jurisdiction over them. The commodities, profits, et utile dominium, may be granted, saith he, salua semper ab Imperio, recognitione et fide; always reserving and keeping safe to the Emperor, recognition and feoltie, to hold them from him: for to say, that the Emperor would by his Donation, mutilate, or cut away the members of the Empire, est species fatuitatis, is a kind of folly. Thus Baldus; by whose clear testimony, Gretzer, Marta, Steuchus, Albanus, jacobatius, and all that pled either for the Charter, or for the Donation, or that an absolute Dominion was given by Constantine to the Pope; they all by the judgement of Baldus, are a consort of fools.  
Aretine not only assents to Baldus, but much commends his judgement herein. Eleganter tradit Baldus, saith he 
a Aret. in Rubric. ff. de verbor. ob●igat. , Baldus doth very well ●each; That the Emperor, non potest dare quotam Imperij, cannot give away any quotient, neither a third, nor a fourth part, nor half of his Empire; but he may give some goods belonging to the Empire. Whereby Baldus, saith he, means that the Empire being an entire and universal power, the Emperor by giving aught, ceaseth not to be universal Lord of all belonging to the Empire. Then by Aretine's judgement, neither Constantine, nor any other Emperor, by any Donation of Lands and Territories, either doth, or can pass away his supreme and Imperial right in and over them.  
Lucas de Penna, is very pregnant in this point; Imperij Regalia, saith he 
b Luc. de Pen. Cod. de omni agro deserto. l. Quicunque desertum. fol. 184. & 185. , sunt inalienabilia, the Royalties of the Empire cannot be given away, nor alienated from the Empire. Whereupon he infers, that though the Emperor should swear that he would not revoke such royalties, as were alienated to the prejudice of his Crown and Dignity; posset tamen●ea, non obstante iuramento, revocare; yet notwithstanding this his oath, he might recall such grants and alienations. And he gives that reason, which before was touched, because the Emperor swears at his Coronation, to keep safe the honours and rights of his kingdom: but by alienating his domains and Territories (much more his Regal Sovereignty and Dominion) he doth not preserve but impair the Imperial rights. Thus he. By whose judgement, neither was by any of those Donations the Sovereignty and Royalty passed away from the Emperor; and if it were, yea, and that also by an oath, yet seeing such an oath was unlawful, and contrary to the Imperial oath taken at his Coronation, it can bind none, nor can it be vinculum iniquitatis, a band to tie him to do wrong, or contrary to his lawful oath: and therefore notwithstanding such an unlawful oath, Emperors (as he thinks) may, and aught to revoke such grants, and take from the Pope their Imperial rights and royalties, which he now claimeth and usurpeth.  
Albericus de Rosate is abundant in this cause. Let us see, saith he 
x Alb●r. de Ros. de Quadriennij prescript. l. Bene à Zenone. nu. 4. fol. 111. co. 4. , whether Constantine's Donation could be of force to the prejudice of his Successors, Accursius holds it could not: so doth joh. de Pari●ijs; And he gives this reason thereof: Because none being deputed to an Office, may do aught against his own Office. But it is against the Office deputed to the Emperor, to impair his Empire, or cut and take away any part from it. For by the same reason, that he cuts away one part, he may cut away also another: and so may his successors: and so the Empire should at last be brought to nothing, and utterly destroyed; which is against the public good, and the end why the Empire is ordained. Ex quo verè credo. Whereupon I do truly believe, that the foresaid Donation, de iure, cannot be of force to prejudice the Empire, or the successors.  
But may not the Church, saith he, prescribe in this matter? To this Albericus answers by three diverse steps and degrees. First, saith he, For corporal matters, there is no doubt, but longissima praescriptione, by most long prescription of time, the Church may defend itself, praestitis tamen tributis & censibus, yet so that it yield tribute, and due pensions as an acknowledgement of the supreme right and dominion in the Emperor. Secondly, For 
y Alber. de Iurisdict. omn. jud. l. finali. §. per iniquum nu. 4. fol. 146.  those things which are of mere or mixed Empire, Praescriptio dat tantum utile dominium, directum non tollit, Prescription doth only give the useful or profitable dominion (to the Pope) but it doth not take away the direct or supreme dominion from the Emperor. Again, Contra principem non nisi quoad utile dominium praescribitur, Prescription against the Emperor, is only of force, for the profitable dominion, not for the direct or supreme, because the Pope in using the dominion, doth it as the Emperor's minister, a●d in the Emperor's name, and so the Sovereignty doth rest in the Emperor. Thirdly, may not by the Canon Law, prescription, or long possession be good fo● the Pope's right in this cause? To this Albericus 
z Alber. de Quadriennij prescript. loco ante cit.  answers, that it is lest available by that law. For by the Canon Law there is required to a forceable prescription, Titulus, et bona fides, both a good Title, and also good dealing. Both which, saith he, seem to be wanting in this case; for there is a Title pretended, where there is no Title at all, quia datus per ●um qui dare non potuit, because the Title was given to the Pope, by him who could not give it: and because the alienation is made contrary to Law, as we have showed. Bona fides also is here wanting, because the Pope and their successors knew, res esse alienas, hoc est, Imperij, that the things given unto them were not Constantine's, but the Empires. Thus Albericus: showing plainly both by reason, by the Civil, and by the Canon Law, that such Donations of an absolute and Monarchal Dominion as they pretend to be made by Constantine, Charles, Lewis, Henry, and Otho, are of no force at all, nor can be of validity, neither by virtue of any Donation, nor of any Prescription.  
Boetius Epon doth professedly, and at large discuss this point, and thus writeth 
b Boet. Epon. Heroic. quaest. q. 3. nu. 43. . The Donation of Constantine did no way concern the alienating or giving up of the Roman Empire, but only the alienating of all the places in Italy, and in the whole West. Constantine 
c Ibid. quaest. 5▪ nu. 19  did not abdicate his Empire, or give it to the Pope, ne per Occidentem quidem, not not in the West, nor in Italy, nor in the very City of Rome. He honoured the Pope as much as he could, citra Imperij vel abdicationem, vel alienationem ullo modo, without either abdicating, or any way alienating the Empire. He 
d Ibid. nu. 27.  gave to the Pope a certain right of jurisdiction and rule in the Western Regions, Impeperio Romano inserius atque minutius, but inferior and less than Imperial authority. He 
e Ibid. nu. 34.  gave to the Pope, Imperium honorarium duntaxat, & secundarium, sed minime supremum, an honourable and secundary government, but not the supreme, That supreme authority, in solidum penes Constantinum remansit et●am in Occidente, did remain entirely unto Constantine (and so to his successors) even in the West. And in his commentary, which for the honour and credit of Constantine's Donation he hath made upon it, he 
f Boet. Epo. Glossem. in cap. Constantinus. post. ● quaest. 5. nu. 21.  sets this down with a memorandum, Notabis hinc, observe hence, that the Empire or sovereignty in Italy, and in the West, was not transferred by Constantine to the Pope, and very often doth he repeat the like.  
Didacus' Covarrwias, speaking of the sovereignty or supreme jurisdiction which belongs to a King or Emperor, saith 
g Couarr●●. Practic. quaest. ca 4. nu. 1. , nullo modo à rege alienari potest, it can no way be alienated or given away by the King, though in giving lands, cities, or territories, the King use never so ample and abundant words: and he gives an evident reason hereof, because this Sovereignty is essential to regal majesty; and therefore cannot be severed nor given or taken away from it.  
Many others might be added, as by name Guilel. Benedictus, Carolus Degrassatius, and Felinus; all which teach the same, as Vargas 
h Varg. & Covar. loc. c●t. , and Covarrwias' do witness. But I will here only adjoin the testimony of their Hier. Balbus both a Lawyer and Bishop, who in his book dedicated to Charles the fift, in many places insists upon, and diligently discusseth this point. He first shows 
i Hier. Balb. lib. de. Co●onat. pa. 83. , that this sovereignty of temporal authority, was not in the Pope, but in the Emperor, until the time of Phocas: until then, that Emperors h●d the (supreme) power in Rome: This is, saith he, a most certain argument: Because Pope Boniface 4. desiring to build a Church in honour of the blessed Virgin, in that place where the Pantheon stood, necesse fuit ei facultatem obtinere à Phoca, he was of necessity to obtain leave of Phocas so to do. The Pope, saith he, being then, not Dominus sed Inquilinus, not Lord, but tenant under the Emperor, omni ditione carebat, wanted all temporal dominion in the city of Rome, so that he could not so much as build a Chapel, sive iussu Imperatoris, without leave, allowance and licence from the Emperor. Then he shows 
k Ibid. pa. 84.  the like for the next 800. years. The first of the Popes, saith he, qui urbis dominatum sibi vendicare tentavit, who attempted to challenge the Sovereign dominion of Rome, was Boniface the 9 in the year 1400. Yet Balbus is of opinion that he challenged it only, and obtained it not. For of Charles the 5. in the third place he expressly saith 
l Ibid. pa. 86. , and saith it to the Emperor himself, that he was primus ex Imperatoribus, the first Emperor who gave to the Pope the city of Rome, and other adjoining cities, and subjected them to his power and dominion. Fecisti hoc Carole Auguste, thou O Charles (the fift) hast done this; who being, and being called the King of the Romans, omnem Romanae urbis iurisdictionem ● te abdicasti, hast abdicated and passed away from thyself to the Pope, all the jurisdiction of the Roman city. Thus Balbus. Upon whose testimony it followeth that the sovereignty of Rome was by no Emperor, de facto, past away or given to the Pope till the time of Charles the fift, that is, till about the year 1520. And if de facto, it was then done by him, yet, by the former testimonies it is clear and evident, that de iure, it could not be done, and that the grant is not only of itself invalid, but such also as may be any of his successors be, and that justly revoked. And let this suffice to have declared the manifold defects and inconsequents in that poor reason of Baronius and ●retzer, that because the Pope had a patrimony in the Cottian Alpes before Ariperts time, therefore Rome and Italy, and the Western Provinces were given by Constantine unto him, and he was made the supreme, Imperial, and independent Lord, or Monarch thereof.   

CHAP. IX.  
Three reasons to prove that Constantine never made any such Donation as they pretend, either by word or writing.  
THE reasons of Gretzer, and his acute Logician, being now clearly refuted, it were not hard by many evident proofs to refute the position itself, which he and Baronius maintain, that though the Charter be counterfeit, yet the Donation of Constantine is true, and to be so esteemed: Among many, I will rather point at, then handle two or three reasons, to manifest that Constantine made no such Donation at all, either by word, or writing.  
The first, is the testament of Constantine wherein he disposed the whole Empire and divided it among his three sons. Constantine in his testament (saith Sozomen 
a Sozom. lib. 2. ca 32. ) divided the Empire to his sons, the Western part he assigned to Constantine and Constans; the Eastern to Constantius. Constantine and Constans (saith Zosimus 
b Zosim. lib. 2. pa. 35. ) held all beyond the Alpes, with Italy, Illyricum and Africa: to Constantius● was given whatsoever was in Asia, the East and Egypt. To Constantine and Constans was attributed (saith Zonara's 
c Zonar. to. 3. pa. 85. ) Italy and Rome itself, Africa, Sicily, the Cottian Alpes, cum Gallijs, with the countries of the Galls; to Constantius that which was in the East. And though Zozimus affirm that the sons divided the Empire among themselves, yet that they did it by the designment, and according to the testament of Constantine, Eusebius 
d Deinde quae videbā●ur, extrema quoque voluntate sua disponebat. Liberis suis regni haereditatem tanquam patrimonium relin quebat. Eus. li. 4 de vit. Const. ca 63. , Ruffinus 
e Liberis de successione Romani orbis testaniento haeredibus scriptis, etc. Ruff. lib. 1. ca 11. , Socrates 
f Constantinun partibus imperij ad occidentem f●tis praefecit. Constantium, etc. Soc. lib 1. ca 25. , Cassiodore 
g Facto testamento, tribus filijs constitu●is haeredibus, est defunctus. Cass. tripert. hist. lib. 3. ca 12. , Nicephorus 
h Imperio filijs iam diviso, Constantino & Constanti occidentales partes designaverat, Nic. lib. 8. ca 54. , and many more do expressly witness. To omit others, their own Sigonius doth declare, that to Constantius 
i Constantius accepto testamento imperium Orientale inivit. Sigo. lib. 5. de occ. Imper. pa. 73.  the East was given by the testament of Constantine; to Constantine 
k Constans in Italia, Constantinus in Gallia imperium ex testamento patris inierunt, ibid.  and Constans Italy and the Galls, or Western Provinces: who further adds 
l Ibid. , that when there was a difference between two of the brethren about the bounds, Constantine the eldest, demanding of Constans, to have Italy and Africa, Constans answered him, se testamento patris stare velle, that he would stand to his father's testament▪ and would defend that being his last william. Unto all which add the acknowledgement of Baronius. As soon, saith he 
m Bar. an. 337. nu. 51. , as Constantine was dead, each of his sons, relictam sibi ex patris testamento Imperii partem festinus accepit, took that part of the Empire, which by their father's testament was left unto them: and Constantine with Constans to have taken Rome, Italy, and the West, himself doth declare.  
Is it credible, that if Constantine had formerly made either by word or writing, an absolute Donation of Rome, Italy, and the Western Provinces to the Pope, and that so solemnly, that as Leo 9 saith, he decreed that donation to abide firm and inviolable, in finem mundi, unto the end of the world; is it credible, I say, that so pious and prudent an Emperor would within twelve years after do contrary to his own act? especially in his last will and testament, wherein he would rather have testified his religious affection and love to the Church, by an addition of some other gift, then leave so eternal a blemish upon his name of inconstancy, of injustice, of impiety, of sacrilege, and of making his own children inheritors of that which he knew was neither his to give, nor which they without open injustice, impiety, and sacrilege might accept, hold, or possess.  
The second reason is the perpetual possession and dominion which the Emperors had of Rome and Italy with the government thereof; which continued still in them, not only after Constantine's time, but even while he lived, until it was unjustly taken from them, first by the Popes, and then confirmed by Pipine, Charles the Great, and others. In the 20. year of Constantine, the very next after this supposed Donation, was Severus 
n Ad Severum Praef. Vr. juliano & Paulino Coss. l. 2. de judicijs. Cod. Theod.  the praefectus urbis, Precedent of Rome, appointed by Constantine to governei. with the cities belonging thereunto, by the Imperial authority as it formerly had been. The next year after, was Maximus 
o Ad Maxim● P. V Constantino A. 7. & Constantino Caes. Coss. l. 2. ad legem Corneli●▪ de falso. C. Theod. ; the 2. next years was 
p Vt testatur Onuph. comment. in Fas●. lib. 2. ●pa▪ 283. 284.  Anicius julianus; next after that Optatianus, & throughout all Constantine's time, and every year he had his lieutenants and deputies to govern the city of Rome under him, and in his right. It were easy to express almost in each year the several praefectiurbis, under Constans, Constantius, Valentinian, Theodosius, and other Emperors, for more than an 100 years after Comstantine. After the time of Valentinian the younger, when the Western Empire by reason of the eruptions of the Goths and Vandals began to decay, that the supreme government of Rome and Italy still remained in the Emperor, his appointing the Kings of Italy, and after them of the Dukes of Rome, & exarchs of Ravenna, is an evident proof. Leo the Emperor (saith Sigonius 
q Sigon. lib. 14. de Occid. Imp. pa. 234. ) sent Maiorianus into Italy to take the government and Empire thereof. 〈…〉 about the year 457, and within a year or two after Rome had been sacked by Gensericus: again 
r Sigon. lib. cod. pa. 240. & 24●. , the Senate entreated Leo the Emperor, that he would sand in those troublesome times, a Governor, or Emperor into the West, and he gave to Anthemius the dignity of the Western Empire. Again, when Odoacer the Herule, had invaded the kingdom in the West, Zeno the Emperor gave 
s Sig. lib. 15. p●. ●60.  to Theodoricus the Goth, Italy and the government thereof, and he committed unto him the people of Rome, the Senate, cum ipsa urbe ac tota Italia, with the city itself and all Italy: by virtue of which grant Theodoricus, and some few of his successors, had right (but yet with a subordination to the Emperor) to the Italian kingdom; and hereupon the Romans received 
t Ibid. pa. 261.  Theodoricke for their King, and said they would obey him, ut iusto domino, as their lawful Lord (to wit, under the Emperor) for they had already known the Emperor's pleasure to be such. Thus saith Sigonius, and this was about the year 500  
When after this, justinian the great (for so is he, and that worthily called:) had expelled the Goths and Vandals out of Italy, how he made imperial laws whereby he ruled it as the other parts of his Empire; how he substituted Narses to be under him, and in his name the governor thereof; how after that, the exarchs were sent from the Emperors, who as deputies held (so fare as they were able by reason of the lombards intrusion and violence) the rule and possession of Rome and Italy, is not unknown. Longinus the Exarch, saith Sigonius 
u Sig. li. 1. de regno Ital. p. 5 , novam Italiae administrationem indixit, set down a new kind of government for Italy, he set over every city their several Dukes and judges to adminster law unto them, and this he did specially at Rome and Ravenna. Again 
x Lib. cod. pa. 12. , Mauritius the Emperor sent Smaragdus to be Exarchate of Ravenna, Gregory to be the Duke of Rome, and Castorius the captain of the soldiers and garrisons that there were kept, who with great joy were received into the city: Again 
y Sig. lib. 2. pa. 50. , john the Exarch, iudices Romam ad ius dicendum miserat, sent judges to Rome for administration of right: and very often the like, yea that both Rome and Italy in right belonged to the Emperor and was subject to his government, until the time of Pope Gregory the 2. is evident by that which out of Paulus Diaconus, Zonaras, Anastasius, Sigonius and Baronies was showed; they with one consent teaching that by the means of that Gregory, Leo the Emperor was deprived (under colour of piety, but in truth, perfidiously and traitorously) of the Western dominion: the Pope, as Diaconus 
z Paul Dia. lust. lib. 21. pa. 665.  saith, causing Rome and Italy to forsake the Emperor's obedience: and again 
a Ibid. pa. 663 , He removed Rome and all Italy, and the right both of the common weal and of the Church in the Western parts, ab obedientia Leonis & Imperij, from the obedience of Leo and from the Empire. The Romans and others at that time adhaered to the Pope, and so by this traitorous means he got the possession of much of that, which afterward by Pipine and Charles the Great was confirmed unto him. And that was done by Gregory about the 730. year after Christ, until which time, Italy, and Rome remained in the Emperor's possession and subject to his dominion.  
Can it be imagined that Constantine, if he had made such an absolute and solemn Donation of Rome and Italy to the Pope, would immediately, even the next year after that, and all his life time, have continued the possession, rule, and government thereof by his lieutenants in such sort as he had done before? or may we think that both himself, Constans, Theodosius, Valentinian, and other most pious and religious Emperors, would have usurped that government and intruded themselves into S. Peter's patrimony? Or if all those Emperors would have been so unjust and impious, may we think Sylvester, julius, Leo, Gelasius, Gregory, and other Popes, men of high courage to defend their rights, that they would have put up so great indignity, without once so much as checking the Emperors for so open wrong, sacrilege and usurpation? Or may not the silence of so many Popes, and continued possession by so many Emperors, be thought a just reason to condemn that pretended Donation?  
The third proof that Constantine made no such Donation, is the testimony of their own Writers, whereof though it were easy to produce a long Catalogue, yet I will here cite but a few. The first, is Bishop Canus, who thus writes 
b Mel. Can. lib▪ 11. ca 5. §. Quod deinde. ; Eusebius, Ruffinus, Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, Eutr●pius, Victor, and other Authors of good credit, who have m●st diligently written all the Acts of Constantine, not only do make no mention of this Donation; but further they declare, that he so divided the Roman Empire among his three sons, ut Italia uni eorum tota contigerit, that all Italy was allotted to one of them. So Canus. And to him accords, one of their later and most earnest defenders of the Pope's Regalties, Alex. Carerius, who thus saith 
c Ca●. lib. 2. c●. 21. §. Acced●t. , Of this Donation of Constantine, Compertum est, it is certain, that nothing is read in any approved Historian, specially in those, who writ in that or the next Age. Eusebius doth not mention it, nor Hierome, nor Augustine, nor Ambross, nor Basil, nor chrysostom, nor Ammianus, nor the tripartite History, nor Damasus, nor Bede, nor Orosius. So Carerius.  
The second is Cardinal Bellarmine, who among other reasons, why the Emperor's consent was required in calling the four first general Counsels, gives 
Bell. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 13 §. Secunda & §. Quarta.  this, That the Pope in those days was in his temporalties subject to the Emperor, & Dominum suum temporalem eum agnoscebat, and acknowledged the Emperor to be his temporal Lord; and because the Emperors at that time, orbis terrae imperarent▪ did rule over the whole world, there could no Council be called, nisi in urbe aliqua Imperiali, but in some ●ittie of the Emperor. So Bellarmine; who had he known that Constantine had made either by word or writing, such a solemn Donation of Rome, Italy, and the Western Provinces, to Sylucster and his successors for ever, he needed not to have complained of want of Cities, where to hold a general Council without the Emperor's leave or consent: he might have called the Bishops to Milan, to Ra●e●●a, to Capua, to Arles, to a thousand more, even to Rome itself; but the reason why he did not this, saith the Cardinal, was because Rome and all those Cities, were the Emperors, and in the Emperor's Cities, without his leave and consent, a Council could not be called.  
The third is Cardinal Cusanus 
d Nic. Cusan. lib. 3. de Concor. Cath. ca 2. & seq. , who at large hath handled & examined this argument touching Constantine's Donation, and by many reasons refuted the same. Ex istis constat, by these it is manifest, saith he 
e Idem cap. 2. , that Constantine gave not to the Pope, Ravenna, Rome, and the West, seeing the Emperors unto the time of A●stulphus, held a continued possession of them, and that pleno iure, by full right. Again, we read, saith he 
f Ibidem. , that the Popes do confess the Emperors, Dominos suos esse, to be their Lords, and Pope Agatho writes to Constantine the Emperor, who called the sixth Synod, that Rome is, ipsius Imperatoris seruilis urbs, a servile city, and subject to the Emperor. In like manner, Pope Boniface writes to Honorius the Emperor, that Rome is the City of his clemency; and to be short, saith he, the contrary is no where read, but that unto the time of Pippin, the Emperor remained in possession of those places before named; and then he concludes, Haec credo vera esse, I believe these things to be true, notwithstanding the famous opinion to the contrary, touching Constantine's Donation. So Cusanus.  
The fourth is jacob. Almane, who entreating of the Canon Constantinus, where this donation is expressed, he not only rejects it as being of no 
g In capite il●●lorum canonum, ●aquam non habentium authoritatem ponitur palea. jac. Alm. lib. de potest. ●ccl. & laica. §. Doctor iam.  authority, but further adds; that Constantine could not, if he would, give the Western Empire to the Pope, and if he had done it, yet his Donation could not bind his successors; and for each of these he gives several reasons.  
The fift is one unworthy of naming, being the most impudent proctor that ever the Pope had, who saith 
h Gas. Sciop▪ in Ecclesiast. cap. 51. , Non semel risi eos, I have often laughed at those, who are so earnest for this donation of Constantine, the Charter of which we believe to have been made by the fraud of some Grecians, ad fac●endam Romanae Ecclesiae invidiam, to make the Roman Church to be envied, nor do we care much whether there were any such Donation or no.  
The sixth and last, is Aeneas Siluius, who afterwards being Pope, was called Pius 2. He in a Dialogue written when he was 
i In Dialogo, quem adhuc Cardinalis scripsit. Mart. ca 30. ●it. nu. 34.  Cardinal, doth professedly refute this fable of Constantine's Donation, calling the professors of the Law, stolidos, very fools for striving so much about this Donation, whether it were of force or not, cum constet eam ne per somnium quidem in mentem Constantino venisse, Whereas it is very certain, that it never came into Constantine's mind, not not so much as in a dream.  
This to have been indeed written by Aeneas Si●uius, not only others 
d Aeneas Sil. invehitur contra miseros Legistas qui tantum laborarunt an donatio facta Siluestro valu●rit, cum nunquam facta fuerit. Card. jacob. lib. 10. de Co●c. Art. 8. ca vlt. nu. 15. & idem ait Covar. lib. 4. Variar. Resol. ca 16. pa. 69. & Hier. Balb. lib. de Coronat. pa: 80.  testify, but D. Marta himself professeth 
e Mart. loc. cit. nu. 42. , who would gladly excuse this, in saying, that Aeneas 
f Conscripsit ●uuen●s, in minoribus, Ibid.  writ it when he was but a young man, and that being made Cardinal and Pope, he forbade those his books to be read, adding; that this is to be seen in the Index, to wit, librorum prohibitorum. Marta deludes herein, both himself and others. For in the Index 
g Index librorum prohibitorum authoritate Pij 4. primum editus, à Sixto 5. auctus, à Clement 8. recognitus pa. 2. , are only forbidden those things of Aeneas Siluius, Which himself recalled in his Bull of Retractation, and in his Bull, he retracts indeed, whatsoever 
h Bu●la Retract. Pij 2. tom. 4. conc▪ pa. 512.  he had writ about the superiority of a Council above the Pope, and against the supreme authority of the Pope: but that ever he retracted his condemning of this sergeant Donation, Marta will never be able to prove, unless it be against the authority of the Pope, & dignity of their See; that falsehood should not be counted truth, and a forged writing, should not be held for a true and authentic deed. And Marta might easily have perceived this. For Aeneas Siluius was not a young man, when he writ that Dialogue; He writ it, as Marta 
i Mart. ca cit. nu. 42.  confesseth, an. 1454. which was but three years 
k Nam Pontificatum inijt an. 1457. Been, in vit. Pij. 2▪  before he was Pope, at which time he was 54. years old; for he lived 
l joh. Stella in vita Pij. 2.  in all but 64. and having been Pope but seven years at most, he died 
m Bin. in vita. Pij. 2.  ann. 1464. So his writing of that Dialogue at that age, can no way come within the compass of those books which he writ being a young man, and which only are prohibited; and prohibited only so fare also, as they speak against the Pope's supremacy.  
So both by evident reason, and by the clear confession of their own Writers, it doth appear, that Constantine neither by word, nor writing, made any such Donation to the Pope, as they now pretend and claim from him: yea those forenamed, and many other of their Writers, though they knew right well what an hard censure of heresy 
z Vt supra ostensum est, cap. 7. , not only Panormitane, but Cardinal jacobatius also, had pronounced against them, yet chose rather by yielding to the evidence of truth, to be esteemed for little less than heretics, then with the title of Papal Catholics, to approve such a false, fictitious, and forged Donation.   

CHAP. X.  
Seven witnesses alleged by Doctor Marta, for proof of Constantine's Donation examined: namely, the first Nicene Council, Eusebius Caesariensis, Hierom, Pope Damasus, the Acts of Silvester, Pope Gelasius, and Isiodore.  
I Would gladly here have dismissed both this Charter, and Donation of Constantine, as unworthy of any further discourse or refutation, but that their continual exclaiming, that none 
a Eam donationem Constantini fictitiam esse, nemo hactenus evidenter demonstravit, Gretz. Append. 1. ad lib. de manific. princ. pa. 89. hacte. nus nemo exstitit qui hanc donationem evertere potuerit. Ibid. pa. 114. & saepe alibi.  have ever as yet evidently disproved the same; and the manifold reasons and authorities alleged by Aug. Steuchus, by the Gregoririan Glossators, by Boetius Epon, by Cardinal Albanus, by Cardinal jacobatius, and specially by their great Neapolitan, Doctor Marta, do enforce me to enter into a farther examination of this cause. And seeing Marta is the latest, and withal most accurate in handling this matter, who hath raked together almost all, that any of the other hath pleaded for this Donation, and he so triumpheth in his proofs, that he fears not to say 
b Mart. tract. de iurisd. part. 1. ca 30. nu. 20 , that none may hereafter so much as doubt of the truth and validity of this Charter, it may suffice to go pedetentim, with him, adding here and there, what others do allege, where Marta overslippeth any proof which is by them produced.  
First of all, I wish you to observe the wisdom of Marta in this cause. He undertaking, and proposing 
c Verba donationis Constantini sunt ista; quam intendimus comprobar●. Mart. loc. cit. nu. 1.  to prove this Charter to have been truly made by Constantine, after he hath verbatim set down the same, (not changing or correcting so much as those manifest & gross errors of the name of Constantinople, and date of the Charter) immediately after 
d Ibid. nu. 2.  saith; Of this donation, the most wise Cardinal of our times, Baronius writeth in his Annals, an. 323. (he should have said 324. 
e Bar. an. 324. nu. 117. & seq. ) but some malignant 
f Non desunt inu●d●, etc. &. malignorum detrahentium iuribus Eccle●iae. ibid. nu. 2. 3.  persons, envying the greatness of the holy Church, still affirm that it is a vain figment. And then having set down one of those reasons whereby others prove it to be a forgery, he adds 
g Ibid. nu. 3. 4 ; To this argument of these slanderers, most grave men have answered, and among others Cardinal Baronius in the place alleged. Thus Marta. Let any but peruse Baronius, and he will even admire to see the most shameful dealing of Marta herein.  
1. Marta would persuade you, that Baronius doth defend as himself doth, the truth of this Edict: whereas it is as clear as the sun, that Baronius in that very place cited by Marta, calls it 
h Ex depra●ato illo à Graecis mutuato edicto. Bar an. 324. n●. 118.  a falsified Edict; and else where 
i Bar. an. 1191. nu. 52.  in plain terms, saith, The Donation which is set down in this Edict or Charter, penitus esse commentitia, prorsusque falls a convincitur, is convinced to be utterly fictitious, and altogether false.  
2. Marta saith, that Baronius answers the reasons of malignant persons brought to prove this Edict to be a forgery. An untruth so manifest, that there is not one syllable in that place of Baronius, tending to that purpose▪ Nay, Baronius is so far from answering such ●e●●ons, that he himself brings 
k Bar. ibidem.  some evident proofs, ex quibus by which, as he saith, This Edict is convinced to be utterly false, and a very figment. Marta to defend this lying Edict, makes bold to belie and sl●nder their great Cardinal, but lies must ever be supported by lies.  
3. Marta commends 
l Sapientissimus nostri temporis Cardina lis, Baronius, Mart. loco cit nu. 2.  Baronius for a most wise man in handling this matter. Now if Baronius professing, proving and proclaiming this Edict to be utterly fictitious, and altogether false, be most wise; what must be thought of Marta himself? who contrary to the most wise Cardinal professeth, and strives to prove the same Edict to be most 
m Donation● fuisse verissimam. Mart. ca cit. nu. 26. & nu. 39  true.  
4. Marta tells 
n Mart. ca cit. nu. 20.  you, that none may doubt but that the Edict was truly made by Constantine, whereas his most wise Cardinal tells him, that it was not made by Constantine, but forged 
o A Graecis mutuato edicto. Bar. ann. 324. nu. 118. art Graecorun accessit. Bar. an. 1191. nu. 53. Hoc edictum à Graecis, perfida donatione acceptum ait Bin. Not. in Edict §. Edictum.  by some of the Grecians, near hand 700. 
p Bar. ann. 1191. nu. 53.  years after Constantine was dead. Is not Marta now a very wise man, to produce Baronius for a defender with him of this Edict of Donation?  
Fiftly, Marta teacheth 
t Mart. loc▪ cit▪ n●. 2. & 3. , that this Donation was made for the honour of the Roman Church, and that therefore they who writ against the Edict, doe●enuiously seek to impair the dignity and amplitude of that See. Baronius tells him the quite contrary. The 
u Bar. an. 324 ●u. 118.  rightful possession of the Church, ambigua potius redditur, quam probatur, is rather made doubtful then proved by this Edict; and this, he saith, is manifest to every one that diligently looks upon it. Again 
x Bar. an. 1191 nu. 52. , The Grecians are known to have made this Edict, non Latinorum amore sed odio; inque odium Romanae Ecclesiae, not for any good will, but in hatred to the Church of Rome, that what she possesseth might be thought to be given by Constantine. Absit 
y Bar. an. 324. nu. 119.  vero, ut ab homine eiusmodi, but fare be it from the Church to challenge her dignity from such a man as Constantine. Now whereas Marta accounteth and calleth those that judge this Edict a forgery (one of the which is his most wise Cardinal) envious and malignant detractors of the Church: I hope some good friends of the Cardinal will admonish Marta of so foul a slander: or if they will not, yet the Cardinal himself doth in some sort cry quittance with him; I have, saith 
z Bar. ann. 1119. nu. 61.  he, demonstrated this (touching this sergeant Edict) against those who have this Edict in such high esteem, ut stultè timeant, that they foolishly fear, if the Edict be overthrown, that then the whole Church will fall with it. So Marta for making such reckoning of this forgery, hath purchased at his most wise Cardinals hands, the honour to be esteemed a fool.  
In the next place Marta undertakes to answer that reason which is brought 
a Apud Martam. loc. cit. nu. 2. & 3.  against the donation, for that Eusebius, Theodoret, Socrates, and others make no mention thereof. To this Marta, saith 
b Ibid. nu. 4. , he will answer cumulatius, more fully than others before him have done; and his answers are two. The first, that it is a ridiculous 
c Argumentum est deridendum, etc. ibi. nu. 5.  argument, being drawn, ab authoritate negatiuè. But Marta herein demonstrates himself to be indeed ridiculous; for the argument is not barely negative: They do not mention this, therefore it was not done; but the force of it is affirmative, in this manner, Eusebius, Hierom, Ambrose, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and others, are not only silent of this donation, but they affirm that, whence it is clear that Constantine neither did nor could make any such donation: for they testify and affirm, that Constantine was baptised at Nicomedia, and by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and that but a little before his death: and therefore from their testimony, it certainly followeth, that he did not make this Edict of donation after his baptism by Silvester, nor at Rome, nor ten years before he died, as in the Edict it is said that he did. If Marta knew not this to be the effect of the reason, he was too supine, negligent, and careless; if knowing it, he thought it either negative, or ineffectual, he is too ridiculous.  
In his other answer, Marta undertakes to give 
d Cur in antiquis historiis, tam rara monumenta extent de hac donatione. Mart: loc. cit. nu. 7.  a reason why in those ancient Historians there is scarce any mention at all of this Edict; the reason, saith he, 
e Summa ope ni●ebantur, ne ulla huius concessionis mentio in rerum gestarum monumentis haberetur; verùm deleta eius prorsus memoria, nullo unquam tempore posteris innotesceret, Marta ibid.  is this: This Edict was made in ultimis temporibus Constantini, in the very last time of Constantine; and Constantine's successors did with all their might endeavour, that there should remain no mention of this Donation in any monuments, but that the memory of it should utterly be blotted out, that at no time it might come to the knowledge of posterity; and for this cause, scriptores, ne Principibus odio essent, omiserunt: Historians and Writers omitted it, lest they should incur the hatred of Princes. Thus Marta: In whose words there is neither truth, nor so much as any likelihood thereof. First, it is a palpable untruth that Constantine (admitting he made this Edict) made it in his last time: for by the consent of those who think the Edict to be true, Constantine made it the fourth 
f Vt ante ostensum est ca 7.  day after he was baptised: which was as they 
g Bar. & Bin. ut ante ostensu●. est.  teach, An. 324. and therefore ten years full before he died. Again, by Martas 
h Mart. loc. ●it. nu. 13.  own confession it followed the leprosy of Constantine, and the cure thereof by baptism received at Silvesters hands; was Constantine a leper till his last time? was he not cleansed and baptised before the Nicene Council? which was ten years before Constantine's death. Or how could Silvester baptise him in his last times, seeing before Constantine's last times, both Silvester and Marcus his successor were dead, julius being Pope eight or nine 
i julius Papa factus 26. Octob. an. 336. Bar. eo an. nu. 65. Constanti●us obijt 20. junlij an. 337. Bar. eo an. nu. 1.  months before Constantine died. Further what notorious injustice and fraud, doth Marta impute to the most religious Emperors, who succeeded Constantine? who first would seek to wrong the Pope and the Church, in withholding from them that which Constantine had given; and, which is worse, would seek for ever to suppress & smother the right, quite abolishing all mention & memory of that Donation? And of what base and abject minds doth Marta make all the Writers and Historians of those times to have been, who for fear of the Emperors, would not somuch as mention the Pope's right? Had the Pope no Writers, nor Historians that durst speak for the truth? for his right? or what needed they fear the Emperor, when they had the patronage of the Pope, who was now a greater Emperor, as Steuchus 
k Steuch. pa. 187.  calls him? Or would both the Emperors, the Nobles, and Commons, with all Historians, and Writers seek to do so open injustice, when Constantine had so straightly conjured them all, saying, We 
l Edict. constan. apud ●in●to. 1 pa. 298▪ a.  charge before the living God, and by his terrible judgement, all the Emperors our successors, all our Nobles and Senators, and all the people in the whole world, which are subject to our Empire, that it shall not be lawful for them by any means to gainstand, infringe, or any way convellere, to weaken this our grant to the Roman Church and to all the Bishops thereof. Or if any (which we believe not) shall be a violator or contemner hereof, let him be subject to eternal condemnation, and let him feel the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul to be enemies to him, both in this life, and in the life to come, and being burnt in the lowest hell, let him fall with the devil and all the wicked ones. Would they notwithsting all these conjurations, and direful imprecations of Constantine, do so open wrong to the holy Church? would both Emperors and Historians conspire in so great iniquity? Say they would, yet what wit or judgement may we think had they, if (as Marta saith they did,) they had endeavoured to suppress this Charter? Had it been made in the presence or with the knowledge of some few, they might have thought the concealing thereof possible: but these things were not done in a corner, but as the Edict 
l ●ib pa. 297. a.  testifieth, it was made with the knowledge and consent of all Constantine's Lords and Nobles, of all the whole Senate of Rome, and of all people subject to the glory of the Roman Empire? Was not this, think you, a wise and worthy conceit in Marta, to imagine the Emperors would strive to suppress, and Historians to conceal that Donation and all memory thereof, which was publicly known (if the Edict say true) to all the Nobility and Commons, to all both Clergy and laity, even to all people in the Empire? and which being sealed 
m Huius imperiali● decreti nostri paginam p●op●i●s manibus roborantes &c ib. p. 298. a.  and ratified by Constantine's own hand, was given to be kept in the Pope's Registry? Hath not Marta, for this his wife conceit, well deserved the Cardinal's livery, which he hath so dear purchased?  
Marta having now told you not only that ancient Historians and Writers did, but why they did omit and durst make no mention of this Edict, in the next place, like the Esopicall Satire, he will tell you and prove also the quite contradictory, that many ancient Writers, yea holy Fathers 
n A patribus f●de dignis tra●ita sunt. Marto. cit. nu. 6.  also, such as are worthy of credit, do mention the same: and therefore in a vaunting manner he 
o Mart. nu. 22.  saith, Habemus plurimos sanctos Patres, We have very many holy Fathers, Historians, Emperors, Lawyers, and sacred Canons for witness of this Donation. Let us then hear and examine those witnesses, by which you shall see the fair and honest dealing of Marta.  
The most ancient, and withal most honourable witness which he produceth, is the first Nicene Council; of which Marta saith 
p Mart. cap. cit. nu. 21. , The truth of this Donation doth especially appear by the Nicene Council. Not, that appears not, but the extreme folly and falsehood of Marta doth evidently appear thereby. But first see the wit of Marta; He told 
q Ibid. nu. 7.  you this Charter of Donation was made, in ultimis temporibus, in the last times of Constantine, those were his 30. and 31. years; and here he tells you that the Nicene Council is a witness thereof. Now it is certain, that the Nicene Council was held in the twentieth year 
r Eodem tempore (finito Niceno concilio) vigesimus Constantini annus completus est. Euseb● lib. 3. de vit. Const. ca 14.  of Constantine. So that by Martas account, the Nicene Council should testify this Donation to have been extant nine or ten whole years before ever it was made or thought upon.  
See next the truth of Marta: where, I pray you, doth the Nicene Council bear witness of this Donation? Not in the Acts thereof: for of them there is no more extant, but that which in Eusebius, Athanasius, Socrates, Theodoret, and other ancient Writers is recorded. In none of which there is any mention at all of this Donation. Not in the Decrees or Canons: They are extant and in every man's hand, and in them there is not one word touching this Donation.  
Hear now I pray you, the wise answer of Marta: because by the 
s Mart. cap. cit. nu. 21.  Acts of this Council, the Donation did specially appear, propterea toto conatu insidi●ti sunt isti mali homines, therefore did those wicked men endeavour with all their power to falsify and suppress the Nicene Decrees, ut illius memoriam penitus abolerent, that they might utterly abolish the memory of this Donation. By this Marta would persuade you that this Donation is testified in some of the Nicene Canons which were suppressed and lost. But if these Canons be lost, how knows Marta that this Donation was mentioned therein? Or why may not another say that Constantine made the same Donation to the Bishop of Byzantium, and prove it by those Nicene Canons which are lost? How can Marta refute this, but he must withal condemn his own folly in alleging for his proof the Canons which are perished? Again, who were those wicked men that did abolish the Nicene Canons wherein this Donation was mentioned? That Arrians and Heretics, to the end they might abandon the faith, laboured to falsify the Nicene Canons, hath been often said and by many: But that ever any man falsified or suppressed any of those Canons to this end which Marta hath devised, that so they might abolish the memory of Constantine's Donation, none, as I think, so much as ever dreamt thereof before Marta, nor any I hope, will ever abet him in so foolish a conceit.  
Now whereas Marta will needs undertake to prove some of the Nicene Canons to be lost, though his labour therein be altogether vain, (seeing he cannot, nor so much as once goes about to prove that this Donation was mentioned in any of the lost Canons) yet is it worthy observing, what rare proofs he brings of this untrue assertion, also. It is testified, saith he 
t T●statur sanctus Athanasius, etc. Mart. ibid. , by S. Athanasius in his Synodall Epistle to Pope Foelix, wherein he requests the Pope to keep safely the Nicene Canons. And the same Foelix an holy martyr, testifieth that many of those Nicene Canons were abolished by heretics, as may 
u Vt in eius decretis videre licet ca 2. in Epistola Concilij Sardicensis. ibid.  be seen in the Decrees of Foelix in the Epistle of the Sardican Council. Thus he. Marta sure was scarce his own man when he writ these things. First, the authors whom he allegeth are not St. Athanasius, nor St. Foelix; but Sr. forger, and Sr. fool, the only fit witnesses for Marta in this cause. The former 
x Extat apud Bin. pa. 490.  was writ by Athanasius from a Synod at Alexandria, of which Baronius 
y Nullus plane▪ locus, vel tempus cogendae Synodi potuerit esse. Bar. an. 357. nu. 66  saith truly, that there was no place where, no time when that Synod could be held. Besides, in that Epistle the sottish forger makes Athanasius to say 
z Significamus paternitati vestrae, etc. Athan. Epist. loc. cit. pa. 49● , that he received Episcopal consecration at Rome, and by the hands of Pope Foelix, and in the fourth Indiction: whereof not one syllable is true; for Athanasius was created Bishop not at Rome, but at Alexandria twenty years before Foelix, as the holy Council 
a Epist. Synodi Alexandrinae apud Athan. in Apol. 2. pa. 193. & seq.  at Alexandria, wherein were diverse Bishops that were present when Athanasius was consecrated, doth testify: Besides, there is no year of Foelix Popedom, which falls out in the fourth Indiction, as by the Fasti 
b Indictio omnium prima fui● 7. anno Constantini. Onuphr. in Fast. anno vibis 1064. Bar. an. 312. nu. 110. ita annus ille quo Foelix fuit papa, nempe 357. (sedit ●o tan●●. Bar. eo an●nu. 67.) est Indictioni● 14.  is evident. But that which convinceth Marta to have doted, in alleging these forged writings, and whereby, (had he not been blinded with error) he might easily have perceived both those Epistles to be undoubtedly forgeries, is that which himself addeth, that the Decrees of Foelix, are to be seen in the Epistle of the Council at Sardica. For the Sardican Council was held in the time of Pope julius 
b Concilium Sardicense habitum anno julij Papae 11. & Christi 347. Bar. eo an. nu. ●. Foelix autem non fuit Papa ante an. 357. ut ex Bar. patet. , long before Liberius (to whom Foelix succeeded) entered into the Papacy. Is not this now wittily done of Marta, to allege an Epistle of Pope Foelix mentioned in the Sardican Council, when the Sardican Council by many years did precede the Popedom of Foelix? Again, if both those forgeries were indeed true authors, yet is Marta his untruth most evident, for in that Epistle of Athanasius there is no request made to Foelix (as Marta saith there is) for preserving the Nicene Canons: neither in that Epistle of Foelix (which is an answer to the former of Athanasius) is it said that any of the Nicene Canons were perished. So not only the authors whom Marta produceth are forgeries, but that which he citeth out of those forgeries, is also forged.  
Marta further allegeth 
c Mart. lib. cit. c. 15. nu. 6. & 7  for the loss of some Nicene Canons, an Epistle of Pope Marcus 
d Epistola Marci extat apud B●niū●o. 1. Conc. p. 346  writ to Athanasius, and the Epistle of Athanasius 
e Extat ibid. pa. 345.  also to Marcus. In both which it is indeed affirmed, that very many of the Nicene Canons are wanting. But the very same doom must be given of these, as of the former. All feathers of one wing, all of them base & bastardly writings. Athanasius was not at Alexandria, but in banishment at France 
f Nam Conc. Tyrium habitum est tempore Siluestri. B●r. an. 335. nu. 1. Ex isto Con●eilio Athanasius rectâ profectus est Constantinopolim; inde à Constantino missus in ex●lium in Gallian, ibique moratus ad obitum Constantini, ut liquet ex Apologia 2. Athanasij pa. 219. & seq.  all the time of Pope Marcus, where he lived both at ease and in great honour with Constantine the son of Constantine the Great; and yet the forger makes Athanasius to writ 
g Athan. apud B●n. pa. 345.  to him from Alexandria, and writ of the heavy 
h Quanta & qualia quotidie patimur audistis. ibid.  persecution which he there daily suffered. And that Epistle of Marcus was written 
l Epist. Marci. in ●ine.  on the twenty third day of October, when Nepotianus was Consul; whereas Marcus is acknowledged to have died on the seaventh day 
m Marcus sedit tantùm 8. menses. Hier. in Chron. an. 331. Obijsse autem 7. di● Octob▪ testatur Martyrol: Rom. & Vsuard▪ in illum diem.  of October in the same Consulship. Or if it seem nothing to Marta, that such an holy Pope as Marcus was, should rise out of his grave, to writ news about the loss of the Nicene Canons, yet he might have learned of Possevine, of Bellarmine, and diverse others, that these Epistles are undoubtedly forged; Sine dubio non sunt Athanasij & Marci, saith Possevine 
n Posset. in Appar. verbo Athanasius. , These two Epistles without all doubt, were not written by Athanasius and Pope Marcus. Constat eas esse supposititias, saith Bellarmine 
o Bell. lib. de Eccles. scrip. in Athanasio. , It is certain that these two Epistles are counterfeits. Then it is certain also, that Marta strives by forgeries to maintain this forged Donation.  
But to put Marta out of doubt, that none of the Nicene Canons are lost or perished, the African Bishops and their whole Council, is a witness above all exception. For when Pope Boniface and Zosimus alleged 
p Conc. Carthag. 6. apud Bin. ●o 1. pa. 616.  a sergeant Nicene Canon, the African Bishops to convince (as they did 
q Vt liquet ex Epistola. Conc. Africani ad Celestinum. Conc Afric. ca 105.  most clearly) the false dealing of those Popes, sought out with great labour and charges, the ancient and authentic copies of the Nicene Canons, and having obtained 
r Epistolae 〈◊〉, & Cyrils. ibid. ca 102. & 103.  them both from Alexandria, and from Constantinople, they found them for number, and ●ence to be the very same 
s Bin. Not. post cap. 104, Conc. Afric. pa. 645.  which themselves formerly had, and which are extant in the Tomes 
t Tom. 1. Conc. apud Bin. & alios sub titulo, Canon's Co●cilij Niceni.  of the Counsels, in the African 
u Apud. Been▪ to. 1. pa. 617.  Synod, in the Codex 
x Pag. 1.  canonum Romanae Ecclesiae, in the Codex 
y Pag. 3.  canonum Ius●elli, and in many other places. Seeing then those twenty Canons are all which the Nicene Council set down; and seeing in none of them there is any one syllable touching this Charter or Donation of Constantine, it is clear that Marta in pretending the Nicene Council as a Witness of this Donation, belies all those 318. holy Fathers, and was foolishly gulled by Steuchus, when he adventured to say that the Nicene Council doth testify the truth of this Donation.  
Besides all which, there are extant 
z Apud Bin. to 1. pa. 321. & seq.  eighty Canons, bearing the name of the Nicene Council, together with the Acts of that Council, translated out of Arabic, and commended both by Turrian 
a Fran. Turrian. praefat. in Canon. Conc. Nicen. , by Alphonsus Pisanus 
b Al. Pisan. in praefat. ad Nicen. Conc. apud Bin. pag. 3●1. , and by Marta 
c Mart. ca 1●. nu. 8. 9  himself, that he needed not to complain of the want of Nicene Canons. And yet in no part of all those Acts, in none of all those eighty Canons, is there any mention or memory of this Charter, or of this Donation. Seeing then neither the 20. true, nor yet the So. pretended Nicene Canons, will help Marta in his plea for this Donation, it is too apparent, that Marta & Steuch●●, without any shame strive to uphold this forged Charter by belying that ancient and most holy Council as being a witness thereof.  
Nay the insolency, and impudence of Steuchus, (the blind guide 
d Steuc. pa. 119. & 122.  of Marta) is most intolerable. He shames not to say, that if one be in his wits, he must confess the voice 
e Steu. ibidem. pa. 122. Illa quae Imperator suo privilegio edidit, redolere mentem ips●● Concilij, vocem illam Constantini ●sse vocem to●i●● Concilij, qui●i● percipia●, modò ●pud 〈…〉  of Constantine in this Edict, to be the voice of the whole Nicene Council; that this privilege, natum est à Co●cilio Nicen●, had his birth from the Nicene Council; adding in a vaunting, or rather a frantic manner: Is there any Parthian or Turk, or enemy to Christianity, so blind and impious, that doth not see the Nicene Council, complecti Donationem, to contain this Donation, & totum illud edictum fluere ab illo Concilio, and that this whole Edict doth flow from the Nicene Council? and this he saith, is irrefragabile testimonium, an unanswerable testimony for the truth and antiquity of this Charter. If Steuchus could have forborn raving, he might have known that other manner of men than Parthians, or Turks, and enemies to Christ, could not see this Edict to flow from the Nicene Council. Nay to have seen, that it could not possibly flow from thence. For the Author of the Acts of Silvester, (one much esteemed & magnified by Steuchus) saw that this Charter was made the fourth day 
f Acta Siluest. apud Bar. an. 324. nu. 60.  after Constantine was baptised: Pope Nicholas the third saw the same, when he said 
g Tit. de elect. & electi potest. ca Fundamenta. in Sexto. , and that in a decretal Epistle, that Constantine on the fourth day after his baptism, with all his Nobles, and all the Senate, and all the people did grant, per pragmaticam sanctionem▪ by a pragmatical sanction, the Monarchy of Rome to Sylvester, and his successors. So either the Pope was more blind and impious than any Turk, or else Steuchus himself was besotted and blinded with folly, who thought he saw this Edict springing out, and flowing from the Nicene Council, which the holy Pope saw to be made and delivered into Silvesters hands, an whole year 
h Nam C●nstantinū baptizatum ponunt an. 324. idqu● ante 3●. diem Maij, nam tum finitum erat Conc. Romanum secundum. Concilium Nicenum inchoatum est 14. die junij, anno 325. Bin. Not. in Conc: Nic. §. Pa●lino  before the Nicene Council, So this is indeed an irrefragable argument, but not of the verity of Constantine's Charter, but of the vanity of Steuchus, and of his most childish folly.  
The next ancient witness produced by Marta, is Eusebius Caesariensis; of him Marta saith 
i Mart. cap. cit. nu. 15. , That in his books called Enneades, Eusebius writ the life of Silvester, relating all those things which at Rome are reported of Silvester and Constantine, of his Leprosy, of his Baptism, of his Font, of his Donation. The like saith Steuchus, out of whom Marta borrowed it. This whole History, saith he 
k S●euch. lib. cit pa. 94. & 95. , is written by Eusebius, one who lived in Constantine's time. The same Eusebius is alleged also by the Gregorian Glossators 
l Not. in cap. Constantinus. , and by Anton. Augustinus 
m Ant. August. li. 1. de Emendat. Gratian. dial▪ 6. pa. 53. , as proving the truth of this Edict.  
Truly this Euscbius is a very fit witness for Marta, Steuchus, and the Gregorian Glossators, a most base and vile Impostor, calling himself by the name of Eusebius, not known to the world till 1000 years after Christ, as their own most wise Cardinal doth tell them, who thus writeth 
n Bar. ann. 1191. nu. 52. ; After the 1000 year, some of the Grecians counterfeited those Acts, and published them, sub Eusebij nomine, under the name of Eusebius. Of the same Impostor Possevine saith 
o Posseu. in Euseb. Caesariensi. , The Author of those Acts, is fals● ascriptus Eusebio, falsely ascribed to Eusebius Caesariensis. There are many tokens, saith Covarrwias' 
p Covar. lib. 4 Variar. Resol. cap. 16. nu 8. , by which I do easily believe and constantly affirm, that Eusebius Caesariensis writ not those Acts of Sylvester. Yea Marta himself was conscious, that this author was not the true & ancient Eusebius. For had Eusebius writ this, why doth Marta say 
q Mart. cap▪ cit. nu. 7. ▪ That Historians omitted the mention of this Edict, and durst not for fear of the Emperors, mention the same in their books? Besides all this, the true Eusebius doth undeniably convince that Author to be a lying forger. For the true Eusebius doth ex-expresly, and for a certainty affirm, that Constantine was not baptised either at Rome, or by Silvester, but at Nicomedia 
p Euseb.. lib. 4. de vit● Constant. ca 62▪ , by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and that but a little before his death, which was when both Silvester, and his next successor 
q Nam Marcus obijt 7. Octob. ann. 336. Bar. eo, anno nu. 61. Constantinu● obijt 21. die junij, ann. sequenti. Bar. an. 337. nu. 4.  were dead. It was needful, but very shameful for Marta, Steuchus, and the Gregorian Glossators, to support the forged Donation by a forged Eusebius, known also by Marta himself to be such.  
The next witness alleged by Marta, is 
r Mar. cap. cit. nu. 23.  Saint Jerome in his Commentary, in Psal. 138. and in his Epipistle to Eustochium, which gins, Saepissimo r●gatu. I am of a strong opinion, that Marta in writing this defence of Constantine's Charter, had vowed to maintain that one forgery, by diverse other forgeries and lies. Saint Jerome upon that Psalm, neither names Constantine nor Silvester, nor the Donation, nor the Charter of Constantine. That citation must pass for an evident untruth of Marta, and a belying of Saint Hierome. The Epistle to Eustochium is a mere forgery ascribed to Saint Hierome; whereof there are most evident proofs. In it Saint Hierome is made to say 
s Per Syluestium patrem baptizatus est Constantinus. Hier. loc. cit. , That Constantine was baptised by Sylvester, whereas the true Saint Hierome so plainly delivers the contrary, namely that Constantine 
t Hier. in Chron. ad an. 31. Constantini  was baptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and that a very little before his death; that Martas Master, Aug. Steuchus, for this very cause, with great scorn and indignation rejects Saint Hierome, saying 
u Nihil mo●rabor quid Hieronimus scripserit. Steuch. l. b. cit▪ pa. 156. , I care not what Saint Hierome writes. In that sergeant Hierome Constantine saith of himself, that till ●e was baptised he worshipped the Heathen gods, and observed their Heathenish festivities. A most false and slanderous imputation laid to Constantine, whereof the true Saint Hierome clears him, saying of the twenty sixth year of Constantine, (six years before he was baptised, by Saint Hieromes testimony) Edicto 
x Hier. in Chron.  Constantini Gentilium templa eversa sunt, the Temples of the Gentiles were pulled down by the Edict of Constantine. In that forged Hierome, it is said, that Augustus Caesar after the overthrow of Antonius at Actium, returned with triumph to Rome on the first day of August; and then was reckoned among the Gods, and the name of the month which before was Sex●ilis changed to August; and that the solemnity of that first day of August, in memory of that victory, was observed till Constantine was baptised, and then Constantine changed it to the honour of Saint Peter ad Vincula. Not one word of all which hath any colour of truth. For by the true and most exact account of Dio Cassius, and others, Augustus obtained the victory at Actium, not on the first of August, but on the second 
y 4. Nona● Septembris. Dio Cass. lib. 51.  day of September; no● was Augustus referred into the number of the Gods till he was dead, as both Dio 
z ●um (mortuo Augusto) immortalitatem ei tribuerunt. Dio. lib. 56. in fine.  and Suetonius 
a Suet. in Aug. ca 100  declare. Nor did Constantine ordain the solemnity of the first of August, in honour of those bands of Saint Peter, which is the main point that the forged Saint Hierom aims at. For those two fetters of Saint Peter, which gave occasion to that festival celebrity, were not found till the time 
b Temporibus joh. Chrysostomi praedictae ca●●nae erant reper●ae. Bar. Notis in Martyr. Rom. August. 1.  of chrysostom, nor brought to Constantinople or Rome, till the time of Theodosius the younger, and Eudocia 
c Harum (catenarum) altera Constantinopolim est delata, ab Eudocia Augusta; altera ab eadem Romam missa ad Eudoxiam eius filiam. Bar. ibid. & ann. 439. nu. 4.  his Wife, more than 
d Nam Constantinus obijt an. Chr. 337. Eudocia autem Hierosolimis (ubi vincula ac●epit) redijt, anno Chr 439. Hieronimus autem obijt. anno Chr. 4●2. ut ex Prosp. in Chron. liquet.  an hundred years after Constantine's death, and more than eighteen after the death of Hierome. At that time one of those two bands wherewith Peter was chained by Herod, being stayed 
e Bar. an. 439. nu. 4.  by Eudocia at Constantinople, the other was sent to Rome, to her daughter Eudoxia, who in honour of those bands, erected a Church at Rome, called Saint Peter's ad vincula, at the dedication of which, upon the first day 
f Quarum memoriae Kalendae Augusti ●uere à Rom. Pontifice consecratae, in e●r●mque nomen, dicta b●silica d●dicata. Bar. ibid. nu. 7.  of August, the chain of Peter, which came from Jerusalem, was laid in it, and with that another chain also of Saint Peter, wherewith he was bound at Rome by Nero: those two being (as they 
g Ambas has catenas, simul colla●as, sibi 〈◊〉 d●uino ●●raculo copula●as, ut ex duabus una efficeretur, tr●dunt. ibid.  report) miraculously and inseparably linked together, upon this occasion, so long after the death of Constantine, there was instituted a yearly celebrity to be observed on the first of August, in remembrance of those bands of Saint Peter, as Sigebert 
h Sigeb. an. 438. , and after him Baronius doth at large declare.  
If these be not sufficient demonstrations of the forgery of Martaes' Hierome, let him consider what Erasmus his censure is, of that very Epistle which Marta allegeth 
i E●as. annot. ante Episto●am illam ad Eustochium. tom. 4▪ pa 202. , Planè sapit impostorem, it plainly savoureth of forgery, and in his Preface 
k Praef. ante tom. 4. Hier. , he calls those Epistles Pseudepigrapha, Books falsely ascribed unto Saint Hierome, adding that some of them (& this is one of the worst) Nec umbram ullam Hieronimiani pectoris referunt: have not so much as any shadow of Jerome's learning. Let him consider what Baronius writeth of the same Epistle. There is, saith he 
m Bar. not. in Mart. Rom. Aug. 1. , an Apocryphal writing going under the name of St. Jerome unto Eustochium, concerning the bands of St. Peter, wherein the lying author saith, that the celebrity for those bands was instituted by Silvester and Constantine, quae scriptio ob omnibus improbatur, which writing is rejected of all men: Or what Card. Bellarmine saith of the same Epistles, Of 
n Be●l lib. de scrip eccles. in Hieron.  a truth there is nothing in these Epistles (set in the fourth Tome by Erasmus, among which this to Eustochium is one) which is worthy either of credit, or of St. Jerome's learning. For which cause Possevine 
o Poss●u▪ Appar. in Hier. pa. ●52.  reckons this, with other treatises, among those which are falsely ascribed to St. Jerome. So foolish was Marta in citing this Epistle, that he betrays to all, his purpose to have been plainly this, by false, fabulous, and forged writings, to uphold that false, fabulous, and forged Donation.  
Their next witness is Pope Damasus: He, saith Marta 
p Mart. ca cit. nu. 26. , bears witness to this Donation, yea expresseth the very form 
q Eadem donationis forma scripta est in libro Pontificali Damasi Papae. ibid. nu. 20.  of it in his Pontifical. The Gregorian Glossators intent the same, when they say 
r Not. in Cap. Constantinus. dist. 96. , that this Edict is found, in antiquissimis Pontificalibus, in their most ancient Pontificals, or writings of their Pope's lives. Of which kind there is none so ancient as Damasus: Steuchus speaks more plainly. Damasus, saith he 
s Steuch. lib. cit. pa. ●49. , writ the lives of the Popes, and when he comes to Silvester, he there writes of the baptism of Constantine, Totumque edictum donationis explicuit, and he there explaineth the whole Edict or Charter of Constantine's Donation. Truly these men as they began with untruths, so without all shame they proceed therein. Doth Pope Damasus bear witness to this Charter? Doth he express and explicate the whole Edict? Let any man but look upon that life of Silvester, which falsely bears the title 
t Vita Siluestri, ex lib●o Pontificali Damasi Papae.  of Damasus, and he will admire the impudence of these men. There is not one word spoken of this Edict, nor of this Donation. Further, there is another, and that a large Tract adjoined to the life of Silvester, and which is also (though falsely) fathered upon Damasus, entitled, of the Magnificence 
u Ad finem libelli de Munificentia Constantini, sic additur. Haec Damasus. Caeterum neque illius libelli, neque vitarum Pontificum, Damasus ●uth●r est▪ ait Beliar. lib. de ecc. Script.  of Constantine. here, if any where, either in the true or counterfeit Damasus, it was most likely that this Edict should have been explained, at lest mentioned. But to see the vile dealing of these men, and their downe-facing the truth, there is not in this Tract neither, which is a large enumeration of the Magnificent gifts of Constantine, any mention or signification of this Edict, or Donation of the city of Rome, of Italy, and the Western Provinces. If this be not enough let them hear their own Carerius, who tells 
x Alex. Carer. loc cit.  them in plain terms, that in Damasus there is no mention of this Edict. The like doth Card. Cusanus, This is not, saith he 
y Cusan. lib. 3. de Conc. Cath. ca 2. , found in the lives of Popes written by Damasus. And again, it is not found in the history of Silvester, which Damasus made. Let them hear their most wise Cardinal, who speaking of the ancient Popes, such as Leo he first, Foelix, and others before them, saith 
z Bar. an. 1191 nu. 53. , caruerunt hoc Edicto, they had not this Edict. By all which it is certain that Pope Damasus is not, as Marta and Steuchus boast, a witness of this Donation, but he is an undoubted witness of their perfidious dealing and falsification.  
Next to Pope Damasus follow the Acts of Silvester, even those which are mentioned by Gelasius, as Steuchus 
a Mirabilis hominis impudentia, qui neget in historia ●iue gestis Siluestri quorum me●i●●t G●lasius, haberi donationem, seu privilegium. Aug. Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 44.  and Marta 
b In registris & Acts Siluestri quae sunt in Vaticano, Donatio fuit annotata. Mar. ●oc. cit. nu. 8.  assure us, as also that this Donation is set down therein. Now because these Acts are indeed the best, fairest, and most ancient evidence that is or can be brought for this Donation; and because they are the main foundation, not only of this Edict, but of those other fables touching the persecution, leprosy, and baptism of Constantine by Silvester; and because so many Writers in all ages since Pope Hadrians time, being either too credulous in believing, or else too crafty in seeming to give credit to those Acts, have been most shamefully gulled, and miserably misled into many errors and untruths by those Acts; I may not let this one witness of all other pass without a strict and diligent examination in this place. And although that which I have formerly said touching the persecution, leprosy and baptism of Constantine, (of all which the Author of those Acts was the deviser) be so many demonstrations that the author of them was a most impudent fabler; yet omitting all those, there are other evidences by which at this time I will make manifest the same.  
Among all, I will principally insist on that one passage therein, which concerns the first Roman Synod under Silvester. This Synod, as those Acts 
c Acta Siluestri apud Bar. an. 315. nu. 11. & apud Hadrian. 1. Epist. 3. ca 53. & apud Antoninus par. 2. hist. ca 1.  declare, Constantine being converted to the faith, called of purpose, that his mother Helena might also be converted. For the better effecting whereof, Pope Silvester before Constantine and Helena, disputed in that Council with the jews, so stoutly defending the Christian faith, that the jews 
d Silvester cum Episcopis tam per sacram scripturam qu● pe● miracula victores effecti sunt H●d●. loc. citat Idem ●abet Antonin.  were both by reasons confuted, and by miracles confounded at that time. This part of the Acts I the rather make choice of to examine, because Pope Hadrian 
e Loc. cit.  having by his Pontifical authority confirmed that narration, even in his Epistle to the Emperor Charles the Great, and Baronius 
f Facta est Synodus in v●be Roma, etc. Bar. an. 315. nu. 10. Concilium facere consens●runt ex Had●iano ait Bar. ibid. nu. 17. , and Binius 
g Concilium▪ Romanum 1. sub Siluestro. & hoc Concilio Romae habita est dispu●atio, etc. Been▪ to. 1. Conc. pa. 279. , having set it forth as an ancient, and holy Council; it will hereby appear, not only how false and fabulous the author of these Acts is, but how their Popes, and their Proctors take a pride in pestering the Church with such chimerical Counsels, and fabulous writings, as have neither truth, nor any reality in them at all.  
Let us first examine the time of this Council. That is set down in the Acts 
h Apud Bar. an 324. nu. 97.  of Silvester to have been, when Constantine was the fi●t time Consul, and Crispus his Colleague: And that was in truth never. For there was no year, wherein they two were Consuls, as by the Fasti, both Greek, and Latin is evident. Baronius here takes upon him to play the Critic, and tells 
i Er●ore librariorum contingere potuit, ut loco Licinij, Constantini nomen sit positum. Bar. ibid.▪  us that Constantine's name is inserted in stead of Licinius; and so this Council, and the disputation therein, should happen in the Consulship of Licinius the fift time, and Crispus, which is the thirteenth year of Constantine. But so unhappy is the Cardinal in this his Criticism, that himself expressly refutes the same. For speaking of the tenth year of Constantine, wherein Constantinus Augustus, and with him Licinius were both of them Consuls the fourth time, he saith 
k Bar. an. 315. nu. 10. , Hoc ipso anno▪ in this very tenth year of Constantine, and in this Consulship was held that famous disputation at Rome, betwixt Pope Silvester and the jews. And this he saith, is testified by the Exordium of the Acts of Silvester set down in the Vatican Copies, and in two other ancient Manuscripts, the one of St. Marry the greater, the other of his own Library. Binius further adds 
l Constantino & Licinio 4. Consulatum agentibus, qui est Christi 315. & Siluestri ●. & Constantini 10. hunc conventum celebratum fuisse Acta Siluestri, & lex 1. de Iudaeis, Cod. Theod. testantur. Bin. not. in Conc. Rom. 1. §. Sub. , that not only the Acts of Silvester, but (which is a most shameless untruth) the very Imperial law made in that tenth year against the jews doth testify the same. So infatuated was the Cardinal in this cause, that what he writes in one year, not only Binius, but himself also confutes in another.  
But let us see, if this his second correction, approved by Binius, and confirmed by so many ancient copies, and by the Imperial law, will save the credit of these Acts of Silvester. Truly this note of time doth undeniably demonstrate those Acts to be altogether false and fabulous. For it hence clearly followeth, that Constantine was not only converted to the Christian faith, but sought also to convert others in the tenth year of his Empire. Now the Acts of Silvester, and Pope Hadrian, confirming them as authentical 
n Acta Siluestri ab ●●●driano velut authentica c●●ata fuerunt. Bin. Not. in Conc. Rom. 1. §. Concilium. , tells us, that 
o Cum ad fidem converteretur pius lmp. Constantinus. Had. Epist. 1.  Constantine was not converted till he fell into his leprosy, and until Peter and Paul appeared to him in a dream, at which time he was so wholly ignorant of Christianity, that he knew not whether Peter and Paul were gods or no. Constantine fell not into his leprosy as Binius assures 
p Bin. Not. in vitam Silu. §. Silvester.  us, till he had murdered his son Crispus: and that was in the ninteenth 
q Vt liquet ex Bar. an. 324. nu. 1. ubi ait Hic plane annus demonstratur esse, quo dicuntur esse necati. & Binius ait Crispum occisum, an 324. Not. in Conc. Rom. 2. §. Constantino.  year of Constantine. Seeing then Constantine by the Acts of Silvester, was converted to the faith, and become an earnest maintainer of Christianity, one who assembled a Roman Council of purpose for maintaining the same, in his tenth year, when he and Licinius were the fourth time Consuls, it certainly followeth, that all, which those Vatican Acts of Silvester, approved by Pope Had●ian, report of Constantine's persecuting the Church, of his leprosy, of his baptism by Silvester, that all these are false and fabulous lies, yea and that the very self same Acts of Silvester (wherein they were first of all devised and forged) do undeniably convince them to be such.  
After the time, let us consider the occasion of this Roman Council, and that famous disputation of Pope Silvester therein. Helena 
r Acta Silu. apud Bar. an. 315. nu. 11▪  being in the East with two of her nephwes or grandchildren, Constantine, and Constantius, being then Emperors, she as yet being a Gentle 
s Helen● gentilis adhuc, à Iudae●s pene Iudaea eff●cta. ibid. , was almost turned to judaisme, and ●earing that her son Constantine was converted to Christianity, and baptised, 
t Haec ubi Helena in Bithynia cosistens audivit. jac. Voragin Legen. Siluestri. & idem Nicepho●●s t●adit. lib. 7 ca 36. & Antonin. part. 2. hist. c. 1.  sh●e was offended therewith, and thereupon 
y Co●mo● in 〈◊〉, infenso animo ad e●m sc●ipsir. Act. Silu. apud Bar. loc. cit. du●è 〈◊〉. Vorag▪ & Anton. locis ci●▪  writ very angrily unto him, uttering in her letter many blasphemies 
z Multa blasph●mans in ●●ristum. Act. Silu. loc. cit.  against Christ; persuading 
a Ipsum ad Iudaeor● religionem amplect●ndum 〈◊〉. Act● Silu. apud Baron. & Antoninus' loc▪ cit▪  Constantine to embrace the jewish religion. Constantine thereupon writ back to his mother, and told her that he would have a public 
b Ibid.  disputation at Rome, Vt utranam religio praestantior foret, disputatione probaretur, To try whether the Christian or jewish religion were truer, willing 
c Vorag. & Anton. loc. cit.  her to bring the best learned of the jews to pled for their part. Whereupon there 
d Qui coram ipsorum p●trona Helena dissererent. Act. Sil. apud Bar. loc. cit.  came 120. 
e Nicep. loc. cit.  learned jews, sent from Isach the high Priest, with Helena their Patron, and disputed against 24. Roman Bishops: In that disputation, Pope Silvester overcame 
f Hadr. Epist. 1. ca 53.  the jews, by the judgement of those two heathen men Crato 
g Victores effecti sunt a bi●rio Cratonis philosophi, & Zenophil●, quos ad id eleger●nt. Bin. ex Act. Silu. in Not. ad Conc. Rom. ●. De communi consensu duos judices gentiles statuerunt. An●on. loc. cit.  and Zenophilus, who were by the common consent of both sides made judges of that disputation, whereupon Helena (with many others) prostrating 
h Helena nondum instituta, ●rudiri se & baptizari flagitat. Zonar. to. ●. psal. ●3. H●lena patriae religionis cultu relicto, ad Siluestri procidit p●d●s, ab ●odēqu●, fid●i mysteria edoct●. Nicep. loc. cit. Tunc regina, judaei, judices, & caeteri omnes conversi 〈◊〉 ad. fidem▪ ●ac Vor. & Antonm. locis. cit.  herself as Silvesters feet, was at that time converted and baptised. This is the sum and effect of that Roman Council, as it is set down in the Acts of Silvester, and of those who took it from those Acts, namely Pope Hadrian, Zonaras, as Nicephorus, Cedrenus, Antoninus, the Archbishop of Genoa, Baronius and Binius. In which legendary fable, there are not so many words as lies.  
1. That this Roman Council followed the baptism of Constantine, is palpably untrue. For as Baronius 
i Bar. an. ●15. nu. 10.  and Binius 
k Bin. not▪ in hoc. C●nc.  have assured us, it was held in the tenth year of Constantine, whereas by their own account Constantine was not baptised till the ninteenth, but by the true account, not till the one and thirtieth, or last year of his Empire. Now that those Acts of Silvester do put this Council after the baptism of Constantine, Baronius doth testify, who for this ver●e cause saith 
l Bar. an. 324. nu. 97. , Praeter ordinem temporis ea hic inserta, These things touching the first Roman Council, are here inserted in the Acts of Silvester, but against the order of time. For that Council, saith he 
m Bar. an. 315. nu. 10. , was held in the tenth year of Constantine, that is, nine years before he was baptised.  
2. Those Vatican Acts affirm, the two sons of Constantine, namely Constantinus and Constans to have been Augusti, that is, Emperors, before the tenth year of Constantine, when this Council is supposed to have been held. An untruth so notorious that Baronius 
n Ibid. nu. 13.  calls it, deform mendacium, an ugly lie.  
3. That Helena heard of Constantine's baptism as by those Acts she must, seeing he was baptised shortly after his conversion) and as Nicephorus 
o sup. loc. cit. , Antoninus, and the Archbishop of Genoa say she did, is an evident untruth. Constantine, as we have formerly proved, was not baptised till his last year, and a little before his death; and Helena died diverse years before that time, as both Eusebius 
p Eus. lib. 3. de vit. Conc. c 45 , and Socrates 
q Soc. lib. 1. ca 13. ubi morte Helenae declarata, subijcit. ca 14. postea Imperator, etc.  show, and Baronius 
r Bar. ponit Helenae obitum an. 326 (eo. a●. nu. ●9.) id est 5. ann●s ante obi●um Constantini.  confesseth.  
4. Those Vatican Acts affirm, that Constantine was converted to Christianity before his mother Helena, and that she was a pagan, a judaizing pagan, not converted to the faith till the time of this Council, when her son was a maintainer of the faith. Of which, hear the censure of their own men. It is untrue, saith Binius 
x Bin. not. in Conc. Rom. 1. §. Concilium. , that Constantine was a Christian before Helena. This is perspicuously demonstrated, saith Baronius 
y Bar▪ an. 315. nu 12. , to be contrary to the truth, that Helena was made a Christian after Constantine, & he gives a reason out of Paulinus worthy observing▪ that Helena did instruct and train up Constantine in piety, even à puero, from his very childhood: whereby you may further see what truth there is in those Acts of Silvester, in the Edict of the Donation, and in Pope Hadrian who approved 
z Bin. loc. nu. per cit.  those Acts as authentical, seeing those Acts 
a Act. Silu. apud Hadrianun Epist. 1.  and the Edict 
b Edict. Const. apud Bin. pa. 296. b.  make Constantine so ignorant of Christianity in the nineteenth year of his Empire, when he was more than forty year 
c Vixit annos 65. regnavit 31. Socr. lib. 1. ca 26.  old, that he then knew not whether Peter and Paul were gods, and whether Christians held them for gods or no.  
Now because all the rest of the narration, as well the Roman Council, as the disputation therein, and all the consequents thereof, do all depend on this untruth, that Helena was at that time a pagan, inclining to judaisme, & unconuerted, seeing this which is the foundation is a lie, (so Binius 
d Mendacijs scatent Acta. Name, etc. Bin. not. in id Conc.  calls it) all the rest must needs be acknowledged for fables and lies. I will only point at some of them.  
5. It is untrue that Helena was displeased with Constantine for embracing the faith, as the Vatican Acts of Sylvester, say 
e Act. Silu. supra cit.  she was, 6. That she writ unto him in angry manner for that cause, as the Vatican Acts, Antoninus, and the lying Legend say 
f Supra.  she did. 7. That she uttered many blasphemies against Christ in her letter, as the Vatican Acts say she did. 8. That she persuaded Constantine to embrace judaisme, as the sam● Vatican Acts affirm she did. 9 That Constantine for this end, decreed 
g Constantinus statuit conventum, etc. Act. Siluest. supra.  to hold a Council, and have a disputation at Rome, as those Acts, Zonaras 
h Zona. tom. 3. ●s d●creuit, etc.  and Antoninus 
i Anton. loc. cit.  say he did. 10. That Issachar, or Isaac, was high Priest at this time, as the same Acts 
* Act. Silu sup.  say he was; It is exploratissimum, saith Baronius 
k Bar. an. 315 nu 13. , most certain that there were no high Priests among the jews at this time, nor since the sacking of jerusalem by Titus. 11. That Helena brought either 120. as Nicephorus 
l Nic. supra. , or 140. learned jews, as Antoninus, & the Archbishop 
m ●ac. Vorag. in Leg. Silu.  say she did, to dispute at Rome. 12. That there was twenty four Roman Bishops to dispute on Syluesters side, as Nicephorus 
n Ibid.  saith there was. 13. That there was a Council celebrated at Rome, or any assembly of those disputers, as the Vatican Acts 
o Act. Sil. sup. , Pope Hadrian 
p In quo Concilio. Had. loc. cit. , Nicephorus 
q In conventu & colloquio. Nic. loc. cit. , and after them Binius 
r Binius vocat Concilium Romanum 1▪ sub Siluestro.  affirm there was. 14. That there was had in that Council, celeberrima disputatio, as Baronius 
s Bar. an. 315. nu. 10. celebris disputatio.  and Binius 
t Bin. loc. cit.  call it, a most famous disputation, is a most famous lie; though Pope Hadrian 
u Had. loc. cit.  approve it for an authentic 
x Hadrianus acta Siluestri velut authentica citavit▪ Bin. loc. cit.  truth. 15. That Crato, and Zenophilus were judges of that disputation, as out of the Acts of Sylvester Binius 
y Bin. loc. cit.  observeth; and Antoninus with the Legendarian Archbishop 
z Antonin. & jac. Vor. loc. cit▪  sets down the very words, arguments, and answers used i● that disputation. Fit judges I wisle, heathen men to judge of Christianity; and judge, whether it or judaisme were the true Religion; and judge also of the infallible judge's doctrine, whether it were truth or heresy. 16 That Silvester was precedent in this Council, as Pope Hadrian saith 
a Had. loc. cit.  he was. 17. That Silvester overcame the Jews not only by reason, but by miracles also, as the same Pope Hadrian 
b Had. Zonar. Nic. & jac. Vor. locis ci●. , Zonaras, Nicephorus, Antoninus, and the Archbishop of Genoa affirm. 18. That Zambres the jewish Magician, wrought a miracle to confirm judaisme; and that was, to kill a most fierce Bull drawn thither by an 100 men, only by whispering a word in the Bull's ear, as Zonaras 
c Zon. Anton. & jac. Vor. l●c. cit. , Antoninus, and the Archbishop say he did. 19 That when Zambres could not restore the dead Bull to life, Silvester did it by a word, saying, Surge ●aure, rise up dead Bull, and stand on thy feet, as Zonaras, Nicephorus, Glicas', Antoninus, and the Archbishop of Genoa affirm 
d Loc. cit.  he did; adding, that the dead Bull presently rose up and went forth, cum omni mansuetudine, very gently and mannerly. 20. That there was a Dragon 
e ●adam Acta Siluestri habent de Dracone in specu morante & homines enecante. Bar an: 324 nu. 97. Cedr. Glic. ann. part. 4. pa. 345.  then at Rome in a cave, which was 365. steps deep, which killed every day 300. 
f Multos ●aedebat. Cedr. & Glic. loc. cit. Anton. & jac. Vorag. loc. cit. Quotidie 〈◊〉 6000. hominum flatu suo interficiebat. Mart. Polon. ad an. 314.  men and more, with his breath, as Glicas', Cedrenus, Antoninus, the Archbishop, the Acts of Silvester, and Mart. Polonus do affirm. 21. That the vestal virgins brought victuals to this Dragon the first day of every month, as the Vatican Acts 
g Dici●ur (in acts Siluestri) Kalendis sing●lis eidem Draconi à vestalibus virginibus suppeditari solita alimenta. Bar. ann. 324. nu. 98.  say they did; but Baronius adds, in nulla parte consistit, this is in no sort coherent. 22. That Silvester after the disputation, further to confirm the truth of Christianity, and confounded the jews, went down into the cave, and there bound the Dragon's mouth with a thread, and sealing up the brazen gates wherein the Dragon was, with the sign of the Cross, commanded the Dragon to stay there till the coming of Christ, as Antoninus 
h Antonin. & jac. Vor. loc. cit. , the Archbishop of Genoa, Mart. Polonus 
i Draconem aeneis po●tis conclusit & usque ad diem iudicij ser●s ob fi●mauit. Mar. P●l. ad an. 314 , and the Acts of 
k Ex Actis Siluestri citat: ●oc Bar. ann. 324. ●u. 97.  Silvester affirm he did: which for this very cause are reproved by Baronius in this manner: Nothing 
l Nih●l fabulosius ●ffingi posse certum est, etc. Bar. ib. nu. 98.  is more fabulous, then that which is affirmed in the Acts of Silvester, that the Dragon should remain immortal till the coming of Christ. Thus Baronius, who yet saith 
m Bar. ibid. nu. 97. , rem gestam veram credimus, We believe (they had need of a very strong faith) that this thing touching the Dragon was truly done; and the picture 
n Ibid. nu. 102  of Silvester set up in Churches with a Dragon bound at his feet, is a Trophy or Monument of that victory of Silvester; and veritatem Historiae repr●sentat, represents the truth of the History: ●e might better have said, it represents the fiction, and ●he notable lie of that fable. 23. That Helena 
o Helenam tum pr●mum conversan f●●sse a●● Nice. loc. cit. & Zona. to. 3. ●o. 83. Mart. Pol. loc. cit. Tunc Regina, judaei, judices & caeteri omnes ad ●idem conversi ●unt, Anton▪ & jac. Vor. loc. cit. , the two I●dges, & caeteri omnes, and all the rest of the jowes were then (upon those miracles of the Bull, and the Dragon) converted to the faith of Christ, as Niceph Zonaras, Mart. Polonus, Antoninus, and the Archb. of Genoa say; and Christianity was by these miracles enlarged, as saith 
p Dil●tantes Christianorum ●idem, tam per sc●●ptu●am, quàm per miracula. Hadr. loc. cit.  Adrian● 24. That the Empress Helena being not before instructed in Christian Religion, was now first 
q Zon. & Nic. loc. cit▪  informed therein, and then baptised, as Zonaras, and Nicephorus say. By all these, (besides a number moe) which are so many latchets depending on that grand lie, that Helena was not converted to the faith before Constantine, or before the 10. year of his Empire, it doth now clearly appear, that the first Roman Council under Sylvester, is a mere fiction, and Chimaera, and that those Acts of Sylvester, which they so often 
r Bar. an 315 nu. 10. & ann. 324. nu. 31. 33 40. 41. & saepe alibi. Bin. Not. in vitam Siluestri. §. Silvester. & §. De suscepto. & §. Quem. & Not. in Conc. Rom. 1. & No●. in Edict. Constan §. Ipse. Steuch. pa. 87. ubi ait historiam Siluestri, ab vniu●●so Niceno Concilio 2. approbatam. & praecipuè pag. 44. Marta. ca 30. nu. 8. , and with so great ostentation urge in many causes, are nothing else but a very puddle and sink of lies. Besides these, there are other false and fabulous narrations in those Acts of Sylvester, as that Silvester 
s Haec in Ac●i● Siluestri haberi testatur Bin. Not. in Conc. Rom. 1. & Baro. ann. 315. nu. 16.  abrogated the faced on Saturday, of which Binius saith, it is a lie; that Silvester was ordained by Melchiades, of which Binius again saith, it is a lie; that he instituted, that the first day in the week should be called the Lords day: of which Baronius saith 
t Bar. loc. cit. , it is portentosum mendacium, a monstrous lie, and many such like: for those Acts of Silvester scatent 
u Vt ait Bin. loco cit.  mendacijs, do flow and abound with lies: but I will only in the last place touch one other point, which much concerns the honour both of Constantine and his most religious parents.  
The Acts of Silvester either following or devising a lying fable, say, that Helena 
x Referunt Acta Siluestri Helenam ex Bythinia ori●idam fuisse, 〈◊〉 Bin. Not. ●n Conc. 1. Rom. sub Silu.  was borne in Bythinia. The fable touched by Zosimus 
y Zosim. lib. 2. ubi ait Constantinum natum ex muliere quae matter familias non esset, nec legitime Constantio convenit. pa. 23. , but at large set down by Nicephorus 
z Nic▪ lib. 7. cap. 18. , is this: When Constantius Clorus was sent in an Ambassage to Persia, being at Drepanum a town in Bythinia, incensed there with lust, he took Helena his host's daughter for his Concubine, and of her at that time begat Constantine, & then returning home was made Caesar. A mere fiction; devised by the maligners of Christianity of purpose to disgrace the honour of Constantine, as if he had been base of birth; and the piety of Constantius his father, and his mother Helena, whom further in scorn and contumely they called stabulariam, an Innkeeper. That this whole narration is untrue, there is an evident proof taken from the time; seeing Constantius is said to have been made Caesar when he returned either the same or the next year out of Persia. For it is certain by Eusebius 
z Constantius 16 imperij annodiem obijt. Eus. in Chron. an. 311. , that Constantius reigned in all but sixteen years, the three last of which, he was Augustus or Emperor, and all the former but Caesar. The same is clear by the Fasti of Onuphrius, where 
a Constantius imperavit Caesaris nomine annos 13. menses 5. Onuph. in Fast. an. urb. 1053.  Constantius is said to have been made Caesar in the Consulship of Tiberianus the second time and Dio; from whose Consulship, to the death of Constantius, are directly sixteen years. Cuspinian 
b Cuspinian. 14. annos tribuit in Fast. ann. Christi 294. & seq.  gives one, Epiphanius, and the Greek Fasti two years less 
c Epiph. lib. de Pond. & mensur. pa. 417. tribuit Constantio tantum 13. annos. Fasti Graeci solum 12. ei daunt. pa. 283.  to the reign of Constantius; but I am content to allow the most. Now if this fabulous narration of Nicephorus were true, Constantine being borne within a year or two of his father's being Caesar, and succeeding immediately in the Empire unto his father, could not possibly be above seventeen, at the most not above twenty years, when he began to be Emperor. Whereas it is most clear and certain, by Eusebius 
d Eus. lib. 4. de vit. Const. cap. 53. , Socrates 
e Annun 65. ingressus, obijt Soc. lib. 1. ca 26. & annos 31 regnavit. ibid. , and others, that he was 31. years old at that time.  
Besides, that Helena was not of Bythinia, nor Constantine borne there, it is certain and undeniably proved by the Panegyrist, (Eumenus as it is thought) who in his Panegyricke made at the very solemnity of Constantine's marriage with Fausta, in the presence of Constantine himself, and all the Nobles, said thus unto him; Thy 
f Paneg. Maximino & Constantino Paneg. 9 ca 3.  father Constantius did deliver Brittany from bondage, tueas nobiles illic oriund● fecisti, thou by being borne there, and descending of the British blood, hast made that country noble. The same is testified by Pomponius Laetus 
m Pom. Laet. in Constantio Clo●o & Galerio. , Constantinus natus est in Britannijs, Constantine was borne in Britain, of Constantius and Helena: by Henric. Huntingtoniensis 
n Hen. H●nt. hist. lib 1. , Constantine was a Britain, Genere, & Patria, both by his descent, and by his Country: by Onuphrius 
o Onuph. lib. de Rom. princip. pa. 73. , Constantine, natus est in Brittannia, was borne in Britain. A truth so clear, that Cardinal Baronius; no well-willer to the honour of this Island, could not but with strong asseveration acknowledge the same; apertissime 
p Bar. an. 306. nu. 16.  constat Constantinum in Britannia ortum, it is most clear and manifest, that Constantine was borne in Brittany; again 
q Ibid. , certum est, it is certain, that Helena did bring forth Constantine in Brittany: and again 
r Bar. Notis in Martyrol. Rom. August. 18. , I have proved elsewhere, quòd Helena Brittanna fuerit; that Helena was a British woman. The very same doth Possevine 
s Posseu. Appar. in Niceph.  acknowledge, confessing Helenam, Britannam fuisse, & Constantinum in Britannia peperisse, that both Helena was a British woman, and that she brought forth Constantine in Brittany. Yea he reproves Nicephorus for saying the contrary; which reproof of P●sseuine is sufficient also to refute that very idle, and untrue opinion of jul. Firmicus 
t jul. Firmicus vixit tempore Constantini, ut ex ipsius scriptis liquet.  the Astrologian, followed by joh. Levinius, that 
u Constantinus apud That sum genitus. jul. Firm. Mathematicus. lib. 1. (Levin. falso citat. lib. 2) Matheses. ca 4.  Constantine was borne at Tharsus. Certainly his Horoscope did much deceive him; placing Constantine not only in another House, but in another Region and Climate al-also. Whose error Levinius might easily have discerned, seeing Firmicus affirms 
x Ibid.  further, That Constantine, à primo aetatis gradu Imperij gubernacula retinuit, held the government of the Empire, even from his first age. For Socrates 
a Vixit 65. regnavit 31. annis. Socrat. lib. 1. c●. 26. , and others do truly and certainly teach, Constantine not to have been Emperor, till after the thirty one year of his age. Nay the error of Levinius is utterly unexcusable, who 
b joh. Levin Not. ad Panegyric. 5. ca 4.  together with that opinion of Firmicus, maintains also the quite contrary assertion of Nicephorus, that Constantine was borne at Drepanum, a Town in Bythinia: which two assertions are each of them contrary to the other, and both contrary unto the truth; the clear and undoubted testimony of the Panegyrist, uttered before Constantine himself, in that nuptial celebrity, giving assurance, that he was borne neither at Tharsus nor Drepanum, but in Brittany, and of Helena, a British woman.  
As for that other calumny of Zosimus 
c Zosim li. 2▪ , and many 
d Oros▪ lib. 7. cap. 25. ex concubina Helena. Idem ait Niceph. loc▪ cit. Mar. Scot an. 305. Herald. Contr. ann. 305. Rheg. an. 244. Got. Viterb. an. 290 alijque.  others, That Helena was not the Wife, but the concubine of Constantius: it is clearly refuted by Eutropius, who saith 
e Eutr. lib. 9▪ in Dioclesiano , that when Constantius and Galerius were made Caesar's, and married, the later to Valeria, and Constantius to Theodora, the daughter in law to Maximianus the Emperor, ambo uxores quas habuerant repudiare compulsi, they were both compelled to put away their former Wives. The like saith Aurelius Victor 
f Au. Vict. in Diocles. pag. 152. , Constantius and Galerius were joined in affinity to Dioclesian, diremptis prioribus Coniugijs, their former marriages being dissolved. So also Pomponius Laetus 
g Pom. Laet. in Diocles. , they married new, being compelled, priores uxores repudiare, to forsake their first Wives. The Arrians and Pagans, saith Theophanes 
h Theophanis integer textus citatur Graece apud Aug. Steuch. lib. de Const. donat. pa. 159. , do slander Constantine to have been a Bastard, but they lie: for he was borne of royal parentage, his father Constantius, being the Nephew of Claudius the Emperor, and of his first wife Helena he begat Constantine the Great. Constantine, saith Zovius 
z Zou. eccle. hist. ●d ann. 306. nu. 5. , was borne of Constantius Clorus, and Helena, non quidem concubina, ut somniat Nicephorus, sed iusta uxore, who was the lawful wife, and not the Concubine of Constantius, as Nicephorus dreameth. Helena the Empress, saith Onuphrius 
a Onuph. lib. de Rom. princip. pa. 70. , was prima uxor Constantij, the first Wife of Constantius Clorus. Helena, faith Christ. Masseus 
b Chr. Mass. an. 337. , was the daughter of Coel, quae nupta Constantio, who being married to Constantius, bore him three sons. Constantius, saith Volaterranus 
* Volat. lib. 3. Geograph. , duxit in matrimonium Helenam, took to Wife Helena. The Emperors Dioclesian and Maximianus, saith Vitus Basinstochiensis 
c Vit. Basinst. lib. 5. Hist. pa. 432. , adopted Constantius Clorus, and Galerius, qui priores uxores repudiare coacti sunt, who were thereupon compelled to put away their former Wives. And that the former Wife of Constantius was Helena, he 
d Ibid:  also affirms; adding, That Constantine 
e Ibid. pa. 427  being borne (of her) in Brittany, attained to that honour which the Druids had foretell unto him. Constantius Clorus, faith Zonaras 
f Zonar. tom. 2. Annal. in Dioclesiano. , declared that Constantine being his eldest son, ex priore coniuge susceptus, borne of his former Wife, should succeed to him in the Empire.  
The testimonies of the Panegyrist, and Eusebius, both of them living in that age, is of more weight and authority than all the former, yea then any else who writ of this matter. The former in the nuptial celebrity of Constantine, said 
g Eumen. Pa●eg. 5. ca 4. , Imperium nascendo meruisti, Thou, O Constantine, even by thy birth hadst right unto the Empire, and waste the 
g Neque ●rat dubium quin ei competeret Haereditas. ibid. ca 4.  undoubted heir thereof: whereas had he been base of birth, he could have had no right at all thereby, nor been heir unto it. Eusebius also speaking of the second marriages, of Galerius and Constantius Clorus, saith 
h Euseb. in Chron. an. 292. , they both were compelled, uxores 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ens. Chron. Graec.  quas habuerant repudiare, to put away their former wives; and the former wife of Constantius was no other but Helena, as is by all confessed. Whence it is certain, not only that Helena was truly the wife, and not the concubine of Constantius, (as Arians and Pagans did maliciously slander) but that in another place of Eusebius Latin Chronicle 
k Eus. Chron. lat. an. 309. in antiquis edit. sed an. 307. in edit. Lugd. cum. notis josep. Scalig. , those words are corruptly, and both against the mind of Eusebius and the truth, inserted, that Constantine invaded the Empire, ex concubina Helena procreatus, being borne of Helena the concubine of Constantius. For neither did he invade, but most lawfully entered into the Empire, and that by a threefold title; First, by his birth 
l Nascendo meruisti. Eumen. paneger. 9 ca 3. & neque erat dubium quin ei competeret haereditas, ibi. ca 4. , being borne heir of the Empire: Secondly by the joint consent 
m Vniversus in te consensit exercitus. ibidem cap. 8. &, jam tunc coelestibus suffragijs vocabaris. ib. ca 7. , and joyful, yea, celestial suffrages and acclamation of the people: Thirdly, by the special designment 
n manifest sententia patris electus est Imperator. ibid. & apud Zon● loc. ante cit.  of his pious father, appointing him to be his successor: all which the Panegyrist in plain terms expresseth; yea, Zonaras 
o Zonar. tom. 2. in Diocles.  adds a further, and a fourth title, and that is, the designment of God himself, who by an holy Angel commanded Constantius to leave the Empire to his son Constantine: neither was he borne of a concubine, but as Eusebius 
p Loc. nuper. cit.  himself professeth, of the lawful wife of Constantius; Neither are those words extant in the Greek Chronicle of Eusebius, and therefore, no doubt, both maliciously, and quite contrary to the mind and saying of Eusebius, inserted into the Latin. Unto all which may be added that most honourable testimony of justinian the Emperor: who speaking of the city Helenopontus, saith 
f Authent. Tit. 7. Nou. Const. 28. ca 1. , that it was (oh called by the most pious Emperor Constantine, in honour, honestissimae suae matris Helenae, & pientissimae mulieris, of his most honest mother Helena, a most holy woman; which Epithets it seems justinian of purpose gives, that even by his Imperial law, he might wipe away that slanderous imputation which even then was laid upon her. For certainly, those titles of honestissimae, and pientissimae, had been most unfit, had either Helena been unhonest of body, or Constantine base of birth.  
Now for that last scoff of Stabularia, some learned men indeed, not so fully pondering this matter, have affirmed it, to be certain, and that, ex sanctissimis Ecclesiae Patribus, by the testimonies of most holy Fathers. But St. Ambrose (who is for aught I can find, the only Father that mentions this) is not a little mistaken by them. He thus writeth 
g Ambr. orat▪ de obitu Theodosij. : They say, she was at first stabularia. They say it, They indeed, who were Pagans or Heretics, they who envied Constantine, and scoffed at Christian religion, they said it. julian the Apostate, an enemy of Christ and Christianity, was the first that said it, calling 
h Constantinus imperitus ac stolidus. juliani verba in Act. 〈◊〉 j citatis apud Ste●ch. p. 151  Constantine a fool, and Helena 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. juliani verba. ibid. pa. 154.  base and ignoble: they who were the disciples and followers of julian, they said it. But Ambrose himself saith it not; he only shows, in what a good and pious sense she may be so called. A good Innkeeper, who sought the manger of Christ so diligently; a good Innkeeper, who was not ignorant of that Host who healed the wounds of him that fell among thiefs; a good In keeper, who esteemed herself but as dung, that she might gain Christ, and therefore Christ lifted her from the dung (according to their saying) to a kingdom. So Ambrose, not approving what others said, but turning that which others said of her in derision, to such a sense as did best express her piety. And whereas Eutropius 
k Eutrop. lib. 10. in Constantio.  calleth the marriage of Constantius Clorus with Helena, obscurius matrimonium, a more obscure marriage, his meaning is plain. For he neither meant, nor said, that it was simply ignoble, but speaking comparatively, and comparing it to his second marriage with Theodora the daughter in law to the Emperor; by which he obtained first to be Caesar, and then Emperor; in respect of the splendour of this second marriage, and the Imperial dignity obtained thereby, he did and might well say, that the former was more obscure, or not so illustrious; though in itself it was both very honourable, and in no sort any disparagement to Constantius. For Helena was the daughter of Coel King of Britain, as besides the uniform consent of Writers 
l Accepit filiam Regis (cui nomen erat Coel) Helenan. Henr. Hunting. hist. lib. 1. &, tradunt Annales Britannorum Helenam filiam fuisse Coel regis. ● Cusp. lib. de Caesar. in Constantino.  of the British story, is declared by Nauclerus, an Historian both for diligence in searching the truth, and fidelity in delivering it, highly commended by Reucline 
m Nostra historia (i Naucleri) proba est ac fida. etc. joh. Reucl. in sua praefat. ad Naucl. ; and his testimony is well worthy observing. He purposely checking that saying touching Helenas mean parentage, which he supposed Ambrose to utter out of his own, and not (as in truth ●ee did) out of the opinion of other men, saith 
n Naucl. gen. 11. an. 310. , Helena the wife of Constantius was the daughter, regis Coeli, of Coel King of Britain, quamuis Ambrose, though Ambrose call her stabulariam. And again 
o Idem. sub an. Chr. 177. gen. 6 , Asclepiodotus King of Britain being slain, Coel (who builded Colchester) succeeded unto him; then Constantius who was (afterwards) Emperor, being sent into Britain, did quiet the whole Island unto the Romans, and ducta Coelis filia Helena uxore, having married Helena the daughter of Coel, he alone ruled in the Island after the death of Coel. After him ruled his son Constantine the Great, by whose favour, (for that both himself and his mother were Briton's) the Kings of Britain, imperiali diademate usi sunt, did use an Imperial Crown. The like is affirmed by Genebrard; Constantine, saith he 
p Gilb. Geneb. Chron. ad an. 315. , Helenam Coeli, qui Britanniam occupavit, filiam uxorem habuit, took to wife Helena the daughter of Coel, who held the kingdom of Britain. This whole matter is at large related by Vitus Basinstochiensis: Carausius, saith he 
q Vit. Basinst. lib. 5. Hist. pa. 433. , persuaded the Britons to make him King, that so they might free the Island from the subjection of the Romans. The Romans hearing thereof, sent C. Alectus to destroy that usurper, and to reduce the Kingdom of Britain to the Roman dominion. Alectus having slain Carausius, held the kingdom for three years; who being overcome and slain by Asclepiodotus, the Britons with one consent chose Asclepiodotus for their King. When he had governed a while, there fell out great enmity betwixt him and Coel, than Duke of Colchester; who having killed Asclepiodotus, he was made the King of Britain, by the name of Coel the 3. Then the Romans to recover the Island, sent Constantius Clorus, a valiant and wise man, who had a little before subdued Spain. Coel understanding both of his fame, and coming, entreated peace, and promised subjection, upon condition that he might have the Kingdom, paying the yearly accustomed tribute to the Romans. Constantius consented to him 
r Constantio petenti nuptias Helenae, that eam Coel in matrimonium ibid. pa 435. ▪ & desired Helena his daughter, whom Coel gave in marriage to him; and because she was his only child and heir, with her he left the kingdom of Britain to Constantius. The beauty 
s Ibi. pa. 46●.  of this Helena was such that she excelled all the women in the Province, nor was there any where, any comparable to her for skill in music and knowledge of the liberal Arts. So Constantius first, and after him Constantine the Great, held the Kingdom of Britain, together with the Roman Empire. So he▪  
Let them now cease by malicious slanders to disgrace her whom both the Latin & Greek Church highly honoured while she lived, and hath enroulled her among the most blessed Saints 
t Sanctae Helenae (celebratio) Aug. 18. Martyr. Rom. Graeci, in Menologio, habent commemorationem Constantini & Helenae, Maij 21. , ever since she departed. Let them also cease to disgrace Constantius, the father of Constantine, whose most worthy and deserved praises, are to all eternity set forth both by the Panegyrist 
u Eumen. paregyr. 5. ca 3. & 4. , and by Eusebius 
x Eus. lib. 1▪ de vit. Constant. ca 9 10. & 11. ; he being so beautified with piety, (besides other virtues) that Eusebius saith 
y Ibid. ca 11. , Omnem suam familiam uni Deo consecravit, he consecrated his whole family to the true God, putting away all Idolaters out of his royal house, adding that most memorable reason, They 
s Quomodo enim fidem erga Imperatorem seruare poterunt, qui adversus Deum perfidi esse convincuntur. ibi.  will never be faithful to the Emperor, who are perfidious unto God: who also after his death, as the Panegyrist 
t Eum. Paneg. 5. & 9 passi●●. , and Eutropius 
u Eutr. lib. 10. in Constantio,  say, was inter divos relatus. And for a conclusion of this whole point, let us hear that exclamation in the Panegyricke 
x Eumen. Panegyr. 9 c. 9 , O fortunata & omnibus beatior terris Britannia, O happy Brittainy, more blessed than any country, which first saw and saluted Constantine Emperor. I say more; which bred, and brought forth both Constantine himself, and his most blessed mother, and had the first Christian Emperor, the renowned Constantine the Great, to be the ruler, and Imperial King of it. And thus much be spoken of those Acts of Silvester. Concerning which I do now entreat but a very reasonable request, which I hope will easily be granted; that considering those Acts are clearly demonstrated to be nothing else but a very sink of lies; none would hereafter give credit either to them, or to any who allege them as witnesses worthy of credit, in which number, first Pope Hadrian, than Albanus, jacobatius, Steuchus, Marta, the Gregorian Glossators, Baronius and Binius are all to be accounted.  
Their next witness is Pope Gelasius with a Council of 70. Bishops, Pope Gelasius, saith Marta 
y Mar. loc. cit. nu. 26. , bears witness to this Donation. Gelasius, say 
z Annot in cap. Constantinus. dist. 96.  the Gregorian Glossators, as also Anton. 
a Ant. August. loc. cit.  Augustinus, so speaks of the Acts of Silvester (wherein this Donation is expressed) ut videatur approbare, that he seems to approve them. Card. Albanus 
b Alb. lib. cit. nu. 1. , & after him Busaeus the jesuite, puts out videtur, and saith 
c Busaeus No●●s in Epist. 3. H●nc mari. §. Papae Siluestro. , The Acts of Silvester, à Gelasio Papa approbati in Synodo, which are approved by Pope Gelasius in a Council of 70 bishops, have this Edict; and Steuchus 
c Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 81. & pa. 44 Gelasius qui fatetur gesta Siluestri à plerisque legi & approbari, idem suo testimonio quae de donatione in ea historia scribuntur, comprobat.  no less confidently writes, Gelasius approoues those things which are written in the Acts of Silvester, concerning Constantine's Donation.  
Truly, if Pope Gelasius do (as these men avouch) approve those Acts of Silvester, he hath for ever blemished and disgraced the Pontifical Chair, by approving such false & fabulous narrations, as those Acts contain. But I trust, I shall free and fully acquit Gelasius, and that ancient Synod, from this their vile calumny and slander.  
That Gelasius, with his Roman Council did not approve those Acts, their own Bishop Canus doth clearly testify, when he 
d Apud idoneos scriptores nusquam legi. Can. lib. 11. loc. Theolog. ca 5. §. Quod deinde.  saith that no grave or allowed witness among the ancient Writers, mention the leprosy of Constantine. Then certainly the author of those Acts of Silvester, in which that leprosy is set down, is not an approved author: Likewise their own Carerius witnesseth 
e Alex. Carer. lib. ●. de potest. Rom. Pont. ca 21. §. Accedit.  the same, Compertum est, It is certain, that nothing touching this Donation, is read in any approved Historian: Then certainly, the author of those Acts, (seeing in him this Donation is read) is not approved, much less by so honourable approbation of Gelasius, with an whole Council. Card. Cusanus at large declares the same: This Donation of Constantine, saith he, 
f Cusan. lib. 3 Concord. ca 2. pa. ●81. , in libris authenticis & in historijs approbatis non invenitur, is not found in approved histories, nor any authentical Books. Now seeing the Cardinal knew that it was in the 
e Textus ille, Constantinus, est ex Legenda S. Siluestri extractus ibid. pa. 781.  Acts of Silvester, it is plain, that he judged them not to be approved by by Gelasius. Again 
f Ibid pa. 782 , neither doth the Council, under Pope Martin, wherein those writings which were approved, are repeated, nec quisquam approbatus Author, nor any approved Author, which I have seen, make mention of th●se Acts of Silvester. Then doubtless the Author of those Acts was not approved by Gelasius. For certainly Cardinal Cusanus, and Bishop Canus 
g Gelasius author gra●issimus Can. lib. ci●. cap. 6. §. Quod si.  also held him with this Council for an approved Author. The Cardinal yet adds; Let any, saith he 
h Cus. loc. cit. pa. 781. , look upon the 15. dist. Cap. Sancta Romana, and what approbation Gelasius there gives to these Acts, & inveniet pauci roboris, and he shall find it to be a very cold approbation. For Gelasius saith, that though the Author of those Acts be unknown, yet those Acts are read by Catholics, and therefore they may be read. In which words, what manner of approbation there is, every one, saith Cusanus, may consider. For if from hence any will conclude, that Gelasius approves those Acts, he might as well conclude, because a provincial Synod at London did say, that many Catholics in the Church of England, do read the Aurealegenda, that therefore the whole Synod and Church of England, do approve the Aurealegenda for a faithful History. Textus non dicit Historiam veram, sed legiposse, saith 
i Cus. ibid. pa. 781.  Cusanus, the Text of Gelasius, doth not say, that the History of those Acts is true, but that it may be read; and so also any fable may be read. Bishop Canus goes yet further: for though he say 
k Canus. lib. cit. cap. 5. §. Quod deinde. , that Gelasius did not reject those Acts, (to wit, not in express manner, as he doth the Acts of George, of julitta, and many others) yet that in their general censure of nameless writings, the whole Synod rejected them, Canus clearly avoucheth, saying, 
l Can. lib. 11. ca 6. § Quod si. , Gelasius with a Council commands, that we 
m Vt eas histories nullo modo amplectamur, etc. Ibid.  should by no means, accept or credit those writings, which are published without the certain name of the author; for such writings do smell either of imposture, or heresy▪ Gelasius then, is so far from approving (as they boast he did) those shameless Acts of Silvester, that by the confession of Bishop Canus, he did indeed prohibit and condemn the same.  
And all this I have said, supposing those Acts of Gelasius, which are now extant, and which are set down in the 15. Dist. to be true and incorrupt. But there are sundry, and effectual reasons to induce any man, that this, touching the Acts of Silvester, and much more in those Synodall Acts, is falsely ascribed to Gelasius and his Roman Council. For in some ancient editions of that Roman Council, This touching the Acts of Sylvester is not set down: as Baronius 
n Bar. an. 324 nu. 31. ubi ●atetur ea de Actis Siluestri, desiderari apud Gelasium in aliquo ●odice.  himself acknowledgeth. Yea but, saith he 
o Bar. ibid. , they are in the collection of Cresconius, which is more ancient than others. If Baronius mean that which is called, Breviarium Canonum Cresconij, or Concordia canonum, as it seems he doth, (there being nothing else of Cresconius, which concerns Counsels, mentioned in Possevine 
p Posseu. in Appar. in verbo Cresconius. ) the Card▪ deludes his reader. For in all that Collection or Breuiarie, this touching the Acts of Silvester is no where mentioned. But say it were; is that Collection of Cresconius, think you, most ancient? Not, there were many copies of the Acts of that Council, long before Cresconius, who living after Ferrandus (the Scholar 
r Ferrandus, qui Fulgentium uti magistrum magno in honore habuit, claruit ann. 529. Posseu. in Ferrand.  of Fulgentius) made not his collection, till about the year 540. some fifty years 
s Nam Conc. Rom▪ sub Gelasivo habitum est an. 494.  after that Roman Council was held. Baronius should have said and proved, (which he never offers to do) that in some authentic Copies, this had been extant. The Copies of any Council, in less than fifty years may easily be corrupted; especially if the corruption of them, may advantage the Pope and the Roman See. Yea and this very Council to have been so corrupted, Binius acknowledgeth, saying 
t Bin. Not. in. Conc. Rom. 1. sub Gelasio. , It cannot be certain-knowen, Quae sit vera & pura lectio Gelasij, which is the true Text or reading of Gelasius. Again, that in the best and most authentic copies of that Roman Synod, this, touching the Acts of Silvester, was not extant, may be perceived by Gratian: for Card. Cusanus 
u Non invenitur in antiquis libris iste versus de historia Siluestri. Cusan. lib. & ca cit. pa. 581. 582.  witnesseth, That in the ancient Text of Gratian, there is set down no more out of Gelasius, then unto these words, (Item gesta Sanctorum Martyrum,) after which, is that concerning the Acts of Silvester. All that follows unto the end of the decree, is added to the old Text of Gratian. And this not only Cardinal Cusanus, but Guido surnamed Archidiaconus: yea the Gregorian Glossators do testify the same, who at these words, (Item gesta) thus writ 
x Annot. Gregor. in cap. Sancta Romana. distinct. 15. , From hence unto the end of the Chapter, omnia absunt à plerisque vetustis Gratiani codicibus, all is wanting in most of the ancient copies of Gratian, and this doth Archidiaconus also observe. So they. Certainly, had Gratian found that which is now added, touching the censure of all those Apocryphal Books, in the true Acts of the Roman Synod under Gelasius, he would not have omitted it; for he had not only fit, but necessary occasion to express the same, as well as the former. Besides this, let any of judgement compare the appobation given in that Synod to St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, yea even to the four first general Counsels; with that which is given to Orosius, Sedulius, Iwencus, and some others of fare meaner note: and he will see it can no way beseem the wisdom and gravity of that ancient Council. Of the former they 
z Conc. Rom. 1. sub. Gelas.  say only, the Roman Church, non prohibet suscipi, forbids not the reading of them: of the latter they say, We 
a Ibidem.  praise Orosius, we prefer 
b Ibidem.  with great commendation Sedulius, we admire 
c Ibidem.  Iwencus: a proof too too evident, that this unequal censure proceeded not from so equal judges. And as for Eusebius Caesariensis, their censure of him, is quite contradictory to itself: for in one place, they say, that for his singular knowledge of matters, they do not 
d Vsquequaque non dicimus renuendes. ibid.  reject the history and Chronicle of Eusebius: and a little after, they condemn the history of Eusebius 
e Historia E●sebij Apocrypha ibid.  as apocryphal: adding, that the author 
f Haec & omnia his similia, etc. cum suis authoribus, authorumque sequacibus, sub anathematis indissolubili vinculo, confitemur esse damnata. ibid. , and approovers of him, or any other of those apocryphal books, are for ever accursed by the Roman Church with an indissoluble band of an Anathema. Shall we think Gelasius and the holy Council with him, to have played the Satyrs, and blow both heat and cold, commendation and condemnation of the self same writings, with one breath? Or may we not much more rightly conclude, that they (which I verily think to be true) never gave this censure of Eusebius? Which many not observing, think the History of Eusebius, the works of Lactantius, of Clemens Alexandrinus, of Arnobius, of Victorinus, and diverse others there named, to have been condemned in that Council. They only set down their Synodall judgement, and approbation of those books mentioned in the former part of the Synodall Acts, which in the ancient copies of Gratian were only expressed; and some other with a false hand, patched to the same Acts, the later part of them, which in the ancient copies both of Gratian, and (as Baronius confesseth) of some of the Synodall Acts themselves, were omitted. Howsoever, certain it is, that if the Synodall Acts be corrupted (in such manner as I have showed and proved) than Gelasius with that Roman Synod, approves not the Acts of Silvester: if they be not corrupted, though in their particular mention of those Acts, they say, They 
f A multis in urbe Roma Catholicis legi cognovimus. Ibid. ubi nota, legi non publice in Ecclesijs Romae, sed privatim, in urbe.  are read of many in the city of Rome, and may be read, (as is, & may be read the lying Legend also) yet in their general censure of nameless writings, they certainly condemn the same Acts, as being either forged, or heretical; and whethersoever, of no worth or credit at all.  
The next witness and last in this rank, is Isiodorus Hispalensis. He, saith Marta 
g Mart. ca cit. nu. 26. , bears witness to this Donation. Isiodorus praesul Hispalensis, saith Card. jacobatius 
h jacob. loc. cit. nu. 30. , Isiodore the Bishop of Hispalis, affirms Constantine to have made this Donation. Card. Albanus adds 
i Alb. lib. cit. nu. ●. , that Isiodore hath set down the very form of this Donation, inter gesta Concilij Niceni, among the Acts of the Nicene Council. In this testimony, besides other, they show three special frauds. First, they belie Isiodore Hispalensis. For he is so fare from bearing witness to this Donation, that he expressly teacheth, Constantine not to have made the same. Constantine, saith he 
i Isiod. Hispal. in Chron. an. mundi. 5535. , In extremo vitae suae tempore, ab Eusebio Nicomediensi baptizatus est, was baptised of Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia in the last part of his age, or a little before his death: whence it undeniably follows, that he did not make this Donation, which as the Edict itself 
k Edict. Const. loc. cit. , the Acts of Silvester 
l Act. Siluest. apud Bar. loc. cit.  and Binius 
m Bin. Not. in Edict. & in vit. Siluestri.  assure us, was made after Constantine was baptised by Silvester, and that was at lest ten years before his death. Secondly, they pretend that Author, who calls himself Isiodore, and who made the collection of the Counsels and Canons, to be Isodorus Hispalensis. An untruth so evident, that this Author, in the preface 
n Isiod. praef. in tom. 1. Concil.  which he praefixeth in suam Canonum collectionem, to his own collection of those Canons and Decrees, makes mention of Pope Agatho and the sixth general Council: and therefore certainly lived after the time of that Council, which was held 
o Bin. in tit. illius Conc. & Bar. an. 681  an. 681. whereas Isiodore Hispalensis died 40. years before; to wit an▪ 636. as Baronius 
p Bar. an. 636 nu. 7.  and Bellarmine 
q Bell. lib. de Eccles. scrip. in Isiodorus Hispal.  do witness. Their last fraud is in belying, and that most shamefully, even this Collector also (whom they name Isiodore Hispalensis) as setting down this Edict among the Acts of that Nicen Council. A palpable untruth, as any may perceive who looks but into the collection of the Counsels by Isiodore. This Edict is entirely there set down before he comes to the Canons, or any Acts of that Nicen Council: So also in Binius 
r Bin. tom. 1. Conc.  and others. Yea in the ancient collections of Isiodore, the Edict, and the book de Primi●iua Ecclesia, was set (as the note 
s Not, ante lib. de primit. eccles. & Edictum Constantini, tom. 1. Conc.  in the Counsels of Nicholinus his edition doth testify, and Binius 
t Bin. Not. in Epist. de primit. Eccl. §: Melchiadi.  confesseth the same:) continenter post decreta Melchiadis: immediately after the decrees of Pope Melchiades, and therefore before the life of Silvester, much more before the Nicen Council which was held in Silvesters time, and is set after the life & epistles of Silvester. Thus in every one of these 7. (which are their prime, principal & most ancient witnesses in this cause) you do now clearly see the vile & detestable dealing of Marta, & the rest, who plead for this Edict and Donation. Either they belie their witnesses, as they do the 318. Nicen Fathers, and Isiodore Hispalensis; or else in stead of Fathers they obtrude most base, counterfeit and forged writings, as in Eusebius, Hierom, Damasus the Acts of Silvester and Gelasius, we have evidently demonstrated.   

CHAP. XI.  
The credit of four Popes and two Counsels, alleged for proof of the Donation, examined: namely, Hadrian 1, Leo 9 Eugentus 3. the 2. Nicen, and the Council at Constance.  
THE next witnesses alleged for this Donation, are four of their Popes, whom all to bear witness to this Donation, they 
a Mart. cap. 30. nu. 36. & 37. Steuch. pa. 89 Annot. Gregor. in ca Constantinus. Ant. August. lib. 1. Dial. 6. pa▪ 53.  boast, and we do willingly acknowledge. Before we particularly entreat of them, there are one, or two general answers to them all. First, how could any of these, know the truth and certainty of this Donation, seeing Hadrian was not Pope, till more than 440. Leo more than 720. Eugenius more than 800. and Nicholas more than 950. years, after 
b Donatio facta dicitur an. 324. nam co anno Constan. baptizatum asterunt. Bar. an. cod. nu. 41 & seq. Hadr. 1 coepit an▪ 772. Leo 9 ann. 1049. Eug. 3. an. 1145. Nichol 3. ann. 1277 Bin. in eorum vitis.  Constantine is supposed to have made this Donation? Can any man think such to be fit witnesses of a matter of fact, done so many hundred years before their times, unless they have some certain evidence of former ages? And evidence they have none, better nor more ancient, than the false, fabulous, and legendary Acts of Sylvester: to which if any will give credit, he demonstrates himself to be altogether unworthy of credit.  
Again, of all men in the world the Popes are most unfit to be witnesses in this cause. Did Marta never hear of that in the Digests, Nullus 
c Dig. li. 22. tit. 5. l. 9  idoncus testis in resua intelligitur, none is thought a fit witness in his own cause? that is, as they 
d Cuius commodum & utilitas ad se directo spectat. Venat. lib. ●. tit. 20.  do rightly expound it, when the profit redounds directly to him who is the witness. So it doth in this Donation, to the Popes: None do gain so much thereby as they; nor is it a peddling matter, or a fly that such Eagles get thereby; the gain of Rome, of Italy, of all the Western Provinces, will have a strong operation in such witnesses, as have too well learned their lesson of julius Caesar, Si ius violandum, regni causa violandum est. The world is witness, that fare better Popes, of a better faith, and of more fidelity than Hadrian, Leo, Eugenius, and Nicholas, have for ever blemished the Roman See, for defending forgeries, even then, when they looked but for motes and minnims, in comparison of Rome, Italy, and the Western Provinces. Of many examples I will instance but in one.  
Pope Zozimus and Boniface 1. that they might by Appeals draw the gain of some contentious businesses, to the Roman Court, pretended and pleaded 
c Conc. Carth▪ 6. ca 3.  a Nicene Canon to have decreed the same. That Canon, an whole 
f Conc. Afr. ca 101. & ●05 in Epist. ad Celestinum.  Council of African Bishops, by the authentic copies of the Nicen Canons, convinced to be a forgery. And yet this is not the worst fault in those Popes. For (as Bellarmine 
g Bell. lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. ca 25 §. Respo●demus & seq. , Baronius 
h Zozimus & Bonifacius citarunt canones Concilij Sardicensis nomine Nicenae Synodi. Bar. an. 4●7. nu. 99 , and others tell us) Pope Zozimus, and Boniface, when they named the Nicen, meant the Sardican Council: in the 7. Canon of which, is verbatim set down that very Canon, which Zozimus alleged, and the fourth Canon is also in effect the same. In both it is decreed, That it shall be lawful, out of other Provinces, to appeal to the Bishop of Rome, and that he shall have power, to sand if he will, Legates à latere, to end causes in Africa or other Countries.  
Now this is a further demonstration, that the Popes for their own gain, fear not to urge and uphold forgeries. For that these two Canons are forged, and were not extant among the true Sardicane Decrees, the same African Bishops (one of which was Saint Augustine) and their whole Council doth evidently declare, saying 
k Conc. Afric. ca 105.  in their Synodall Epistle to Pope Celestine; That any should be sent from the side of your Holiness, (to hear, and end causes in other Provinces) in nulla invenimus patrum Synodo constitutum, we find it decreed in no Synod. If in none, then for a certainty it was not decreed either in the Nicene, or in the Sardicane, or in the first Constantinopolitan Council; in which only (until that time) were made such Decrees and Canons, as did bind the whole Church, of which kind of Decrees the African Bishops speak in that place.  
Bellarmine 
k Augustinus non agnoscit aliud Sardicense concilium, quam haereticum. Bell: lib. 2 de Rom. Pont. ca 25. §. Add. , Baronius 
l Admirari non desino quonam pacto accidisse po●uerit, ut verum Sardicense Concilium, Catholicos Africanae Ecclesiae praeteri●rit. Bar. an. 347: nu. 96. & 98. , and Binius 
m Been notis in Sard. Conc. §. Approbatum. lidem Africani patres viden●ur▪ illud Sardicense Concilium planè ignorasse. Been not. in Conc. Carthag. 6. §. Hoc●idem. , would gladly persuade, that neither Augustine, nor those other African Bishops knew aught of that holy Sardicane Council. A thing so incredible, that with reason none can imagine it. How could they be ignorant of a holy general Council? For that this Sardicane was such, though some learned men (from whose judgement I crave leave to descent) have thought the contrary, not only Athanasius 
n Athanas. Apol. 2. vocat Magnum Concilium. pa. 191. sic autem oecumeni cum vocat. ut eadem Apol. pa. 194. vocat Nicaenum Concilium magnam Synodun, & alibi. , Socrates 
o Edicitur Concilium generale. Soc. lib. 2. ca 16. , Sulpitius Severus 
p Imperator iubet ex toto orbe apud Latian Episcopos congregari. Sul. Se●. lib. 2. sac. hist. §. His per. , and justinian 
q Vniversale Concilium, express vocat justin. in Edicto contra tria Capitula. quod incipit, Scientes. , but the Council of Chalcedon 
r Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. in Alloqu●t. ad Martianun.  doth witness, wherein is mention of this Sardicane, as of a general Council, such as was that at Nice, at Constantinople, and Ephesus, among which this is reckoned. Yea the Acts of the Council itself do explain the same. First, it is clear, that there were assembled 344. Bishops 
s In universum subscripserunt 344. ait Athan. Apol. 2 pa. 208. , (fare more than were at Nice) and that out of 36. diverse 
t Recensentur 36 Provinciae ab Athan. Apol. 2. in principio & iterum in 2. Epistolis Concilij Sardicensis apud eundem Athan. Apol. 2▪  Provinces, to wit, Egypt, Libya, Palestine, Arabia, Pannonia, Thessalia, Dacia, Misia, Thrace, Macedonia, Achaia, Crete, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Africa, Brittania, and many more: yea there were present in it, and subscribed to the Decrees thereof 36. 
t Recensentur apud Athan. loco citato, pa. 207. , African Bishops, one of which was Gratus Primate of Carthage; Again, the Council binds the whole 
u Sint vobis igitur Georgius etc. Anathema. sic omn●bus Episcopis totius Ecclesiae scribit Conc. Sard. in sine 2. Epist. apud Athan. loc. cit.  Catholic Church to observe their Decrees, which no other but a general could do. How could they possibly be ignorant, I say not of this Synod, to which so many of their own Bishops had subscribed, but of the Decrees also made therein? specially seeing they used to bring home a copy of the Decrees consented upon in general Counsels, as themselves say 
x Conc. Carth. 6. ca 9 , that Cecilianus brought with him the Decrees made at Nice, at which he was present.  
Their first Council at Carthage, is a certain & undeniable proof that they knew right well this holy Sardican Council; for therein Gratus, in the hearing of the whole Synod said 
y Conc. Carth. 1. habitum tempore julij. c. 5.  thus, I remember that this was decreed, in sanctissimo Sardicensi Concilio, In the most holy Council at Sardica: which first Council at Carthage, to have been known unto Augustine (to say nothing of the rest) none may doubt: nay it is Nefas, saith Baronius 
z Bar. an. 347. nu. 97. , to suspect Augustine to have been ignorant of the Ecclesiastical Canons, considering he by reason of his continual conflicts with Heretics, Omnia Concilia scripta evoluit & archiva reseravit, Tossed the Acts and Decrees of every Council, and searched all Registries: yea it seems the Acts of this first Council at Carthage, were (among diverse others) read in that their sixth Council, wherein this cause of Appeals was moved by Faustinus the Pope's Legate, seeing they say 
a Conc. Carth. 6. ca 9 , Let the copies of the Nicene Decrees, Et quae Patres hic constituerunt, and those things which our fathers or predecessors have here (in Africa) set down to confirm the same, be inserted into these Acts.  
Besides, none can doubt, but those learned African Bishops, especially St. Augustine, read and perused diligently the books of Athanasius. Now seeing in those 
b Apud Athan. Apol. 2. , this holy Sardican Council is described, and their very Synodall Epistle expressed, there is no doubt but St. Augustine both certainly knew, and willingly embraced the same, which he saw was approved by so many Bishops, and of so diverse Provinces. Further, St. Augustine himself witnesseth 
c Aug. lib. 3. contra Cresc▪ ca 34. , that he read the Synodall Epistle of the heretical Council at Sardica which was held by Arians: How could he then possibly, but know of the holy Sardican Council held at the same time, by Hosius, Athanasius, and other Orthodoxal Bishops? of which the very Epistle of that heretical Sardican Council, makes often 
d In suo conventiculo habu●runt Osium & Protogen●. & saepe similia Epist. Synodalis Conciliabuli Sardicensis▪ apud Hilar. lib. 2 in fragn●enti●. pa. 6. & seq & Bin. to 1. con. pa. 448.  and expressem●ntion Or what think you, was become of the wit and judgement of Binius, when he said 
e Posteri in African● Ecclesia tempore Zosimi & Bonifacij utrumque concilium, Sardicense, & Carthaginense 1. ignoraverunt. Bin. not. in conc. Sardic. §. canon's. videntur plane ignoraste, Bin. not. in conc. carthag. 6. §▪ Hoc idem.  Augustine was ignorant of this holy Sardican Council? whereas himself confesseth 
f Been▪ Not. in conc: Sard §. O●cumen●cū. , that Augustine in his 162. Epistle calls it, Plenarium universae Ecclesiae concilium, A plenary Council of the whole Church: and Baronius speaking of the African Bishops saith 
g Bar an. 347. nu. 97. , it is satis compertum, clear enough and certain by the very public monuments of the African Church, that the holy and lawful Council of Sardica, was known to the Catholic African Bishops.  
Seeing then it is clear and certain, that St. Augustine and the African Bishops, who writ that Synodall Epistle to Pope Celestine, knew both of that holy Sardican Council, and of the true Decrees thereof, the memory whereof 
h Eodem forme saeculo celebratum Bar. an. eod. nu. 96.  was but then fresh, that Council being held not above eighty years 
i Conc. Sardic. habitum an. 347. Bar. eo. an. nu. 1. Celestinus coepit an. 424. Bar. eo a  before they writ this to Celestine: seeing, I say, they certainly knew all the Decrees thereof, and yet for a certainty profess to Celestine, after so long and diligent search of that cause touching appealing to Rome, that no Synod had decreed, that the Pope upon appeal might sand his Legates to judge and determine causes in other Provinces; it remains as undoubtedly true, that (if no more) yet the Canon which Zozimus alleged (which is now the seventh) as also the fourth; wherein the authority of receiving appeals, and sending such Legates, is granted to the Pope, are not the true Canons of the holy Sardican Council, nor were among the true Canons of that Council, in the time of St. Augustine, and of those African Bishops. For had they truly been there, they had as much furthered the Pope's claim of receiving Appeals, and sending his Legates; and they had as effectually procured the assent of the African Bishops thereunto, as if they had been decreed by the great Nicene Council itself: The Sardican being as general as the Nice●e, and the authority of them both being equal, and the whole Church by the very Sardican Decree, being bound to observe all the constitutions made by it. But Zozimus, Boniface, and Celestine, were concious to themselves, that those Canons (the fourth & seventh) were no true Sardicane Canons, but mere impostures and forgeries, fathered on the Sardican Council, to lift up the authority of the Roman See; and knowing further that if they had but once alleged these, as Canons of the holy Sardican Council, the African Bishops could, and would much more easily have convinced them of fraud & forgery, than they did in alleging the Nicene Canons; those Popes, I say, knowing this, durst not in all those five years (so long 
k Quinquennalem illam controversiam Africanorum, vocat Bin. not. in Conc. Afric. pa. 646.  the contention about this matter continued) so much as once whisper, or intimate to any, that the Canon falsely alleged by Zozimus to be a Nicene, was indeed a Sardican Canon.  
And if any demand, whence this corruption of the Sardican Canons should proceed, the answer is very easy, by the old Cassian rule, Cui bono? Seeing the gainers by those forged Canons were the Popes, the forgerers of them must needs be either Popes, or their favourers. And hereof that which Pope Hadrian the first affirmeth, gives a strong presumption, seeing the Sardican Canons (in such manner as they were in his time) were, as himself saith 
l Hadr. 1. in Epitome Canonum in Conc. Sard. , among the Romans, but not among the Grecians; who yet no doubt, had all the true Decrees made at the Sardican Council. Photius also Patriarch of Constantinople professeth 
m Vt testatur Nich. 1. Epist. 6. §. post haec▪  of the Greek Church, Non habere vel recipere, that they had not, or received not the Sardican Canons. Not meaning, as Baroniu● 
n Non reperiri apud se canon's conc. Sardic. turpiter mentitus est Photius. Bar. an. 347. nu. 53. 54.  (●ailing against Photius) misconceiveth him, That they had not any copies at all of those Canons among them, for Photius him●elfe in his Nomocanon 
o De ijs qui siunt episcopi ex L●icis, Syn. Sard. can. 10. Phot. in Nom. 〈◊〉. 1 ca 11. sed. in ●anonibus Sa●d conc ab al●o●ibus vocatur 13. ut apud 〈…〉 pa. 437.  express mentioneth that very Canon, which Baronius urgeth against him, and saith 
p 〈…〉 , that Photius denieth that they had it or the rest among them:) but he meant they had them not in such esteem, as the Romans had: which to be Photius meaning, his own words do explain, cited by Pope Nicholas 
q Supra. , non habere, vel recipere, they had them not in such manner, as to receive them for Synodall authority, or for the true Canons of that Sardican Council; In this sort, by reason of the fraud of the Latins, inserting false and feigned Canons, they justly received them not, nor approved them; which Gratian well observing, and putting a difference betwixt the Greek and the Latin Church, in their having of these Canons, saith 
r Distinc. 16. ea. Quod dicitis. in rubrica, & cap. Ipso. , The Sardican Council (in regard of the Canons thereof) Authoritate apostolica recipitur, Is received or approved by the Pope's authority; but it is not received among the Grecians. The Popes, or their favourites, having for their own gain, forged (if not all) yet certainly diverse of those Canons, could do no less then approve them; the Grecians knowing the forgery (if not of all) yet certainly of some of those Canons, and by name of that seventh, (which Zozimus pretended for a Nicene Canon) could do no less then reject and condemn them.  
It were easy by many other examples, to declare that the Popes have made this a very trade and custom (as if it were a piece of Pope-craft) either themselues to forge, or else (which is every way as bad) to abett, countenance, & maintain by their authority, such writings as were forged by others; and by them to build up their own pomp and pontifical glory. But leaving all the rest, I will now come to the examination of the credit of those four Pope, who are produced as witnesses for this Donation.  
The first of them is Hadrian 
s Mart. ca 30. nu. 26. Steuch. pa 87.  the first; who of all Popes that went before, is most shameless in uttering untruths, and maintaining false and forged writings. I will give but a touch of either. For his untruth, take that in his Epistle 
t Hadr. 1. Epist. 1▪  to the Emperors Constantine and Irene, which was read 
u Nic. 2. C●c. Act. 2. pa. 309.  and approved 
x Ibid. pa. 313. b.  in their second Nicene Council: where he shames not to say, That Churches were beautified with venerable Images, even from the Apostles time until then, and he further adds, that the Church, Sanctas eorum figuras veneratur, Did from that time worship the holy Images of the Apostles. A palpable untruth, easy to be refuted by Origen, who living within a hundred years of some of the Apostles, writ thus against Celsus: It is impossible 
y Orig. lib. 7. cont. Cels. pa. 97.  that one should know God, and make supplication to Images: and as for Christians he adds, Nec simulachra quidem nos veneramur, We do not adore Images: Of Lactantius, who living in Constantine's time, saith, Non 
z Lactantio lib. 2. ca 19  est dubium quin religio nulla sit, ubi est Simulachrun, It is no doubt, but that there is no true religion, where Images are set up and adored: Of Epiphanius, who living also in that age, rend 
a Epiph. Epist. ad joan▪ Hieros.  in pieces the image which he found set up in a Church, saying, It was against the Scrìpture to hung up Images in Churches. Of which fact of his, whereas some 
b Bell. de Imag. Sanctor. ca 9 §. ad quintum.  make doubt, Cassander saith, Constat 
c Cass Consult. ca de Imag. pa. 167. , It is certainly known that Epiphanius did so; and for this cause not only Waldensis reproves him, and saith, As one Mr. Robert had done before; that Epiphanius 
d Th. Wald. de Sacram. tit. 17. ca 157. pa. 325.  did that perhaps of zeal, but not according to knowledge: but Alphonsus 
e Alp. à cast. lib 8. aduer. haeres. voce Imago.  à Castro adds, that Epiphaniu● though for this cause he be not an heretic, yet he did err herein, and did contrary to the Scripture. Of Pope Gregory the Great, who 600. years after Christ, writing to Serenus Bishop of Massilia, who had broken down Images (which the people began then to adore,) reproves him in this manner 
f Greg. Epist. 9 lib. 9 Ind 4. , Truly I commend you, Quod ea adorari ve●uisses, That you forbade them to adore Images, but I reprove you for breaking them down: That should not have been broken down, Quod non ad adorandum in Ecclesiis, sed ad instruendas solummodo mentes fuit collocatum, which was there set up only for instruction, but not for adoration; than which no clearer testimony can possibly be desired. But omitting all the rest, I will here only propose the words of their own Cassander, which fully demonstrate the falsehood of Pope Hadrian: Certum est, It is certain saith he 
g Cass. loc. cit. pa. 163. , that in the beginning of the Gospel preached, there was no use of Images; especially in the Churches, as by Clemens, and Arnobius is evident. And as for veneration, or adoration of them, he further declares, Quantum 
h Ibid. pa. 6●.  veteres initio Eccl●siae, ab omni veneratione imaginum abhorruerunt, How the ancient Church did even abhor the worshipping of Images; adding one thing of special note, Non tunc valeba● illa ratio, That excuse would not then serve the turn, which now is pretended; that they gave not that worship to the Images themselves, but to those, who were represented by those Images: for this colour of excuse, saith he, did the Pagans also use; as Arnobius and Lactantius declare: adding further, that such worship as is given to God by Images, Non satis castum & conueni●ntem Deo esse, Is neither chaste, nor fi●●ing for God, but devised by them that are superstitious. Thus and much more Cassander. By whose testimony, the untruth of Pope Hadrian doth most clearly appear, who affirms Images not only to have been set up in Churches, but adored also by the Church, even from the Apostles time.  
For his approving false and forged writings, we need to go no further, then to the lying and legendarian Acts of Silvester, which he 
i Hadr. 1. Epist. 1.  c●tes as 
k Bin. not▪ in Conc. Rom. 1. sub Siluestro.  authentical; or to the first Roman 
l C●tatur●d concilium ab Hadriano Epist, 3. ca 53.  Synod under Silvester, and that famous disputation betwixt the Pope and the jews, which we have before demonstrated to be a famous lie. Yet let me add one instance more, and that is his alleging 
m Hadr. 1. Epist. 3. ca 34.  for adoration of Images the book of Athanasius questions to Antiochus: wherein the worshipping of Images is as clearly taught, as in the second Nicene Synod itself. For there 
n Athan. Archepis. Alexand. quast. ad An●ochum. q. 39  it is said, That Christians do adore Images; that they who refuse them, are, dementes, mad people: and further to show what rare and admirable effects the adoration of Images hath wrought, it is there declared: How when a certain Monk at jerusalem, had been long vexed with a, devil, (it was daemon scortationis, as Sophronius 
o Sophronius citatur à Concilio Nic 2. Act 4 pa. 3●6. Vbi haec eadem historia r●citatur ex Soph. & approbatu● à Concilio.  expresseth,) The devil at one time appeared unto him, and said, If thou would not have me to vex thee any more, do not worship this Image of the blessed Virgin, and then I will forsake thee. Quid ad haec respondebunt, what can they, who forbidden adoration of Images, answer unto these things? saith Pope Hadrians Athanasius?  
What else can they, or should they answer, but that Pope Hadrian strives to maintain superstition and Idolatry, by lying and forged writings? That this author, cited by Pope Hadrian, as the writing of St. 
p Nam cum Concilium Francofordense de beati Athanasij Alexandria Episcopi, verba f●cisset, Hadrianus co● refellens ait, Eiusden Athanasij sententias fideliter proferimus. Hadr loc. citat.  Athanasius of Alexandria is such, Possevine will tell them, Constat 
q Posseu. in verbo Athanasius. pa. 127. , it is manifest that this is not the book of Athanasius, seeing Epiphanius and Greg. Nissene are cited therein as ancient authors; who both followed Athanasius. Bellarmine will tell them the same: The questions 
r Athanasij esse non possunt Bell. li. de scrip. eccl. in Athanasio.  to Antiochus cannot be the book of Athanasius. And whereas Bellarmine himself had sometimes alleged 
s Bell. lib. de Notis eccl. ca 9 §. Xenaias'. & lib. 1. de Purg. ca 6. §. Primus.  this, as the book of the ancient and holy Father Athanasius, he afterwards retracts this his error, and saith, I do not think 
t Bellar. Recog. in lib. 4. de Council & eccl. ca 9  that Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria is the author thereof.  
Besides this, the sottishness and gross ignorance, which the forger in every page of that book betrays, doth certainly demonstrate that St. Athanasius was not the author thereof. Qu. 52. it is determined for an undoubted 
u Haud dubie lux praecedit te●ebras.  truth, that at the creation light was before darkness: quite contrary to the Scripture 
x Gen. 1. 2. 3. , and the jewish account ever since the creation. Qu. 64. it is said, that jonas died three several times, once when Elias raised up the widow's son of Sarepta; again, when he was in the Whale's belly; and thirdly, by his natural death after he was delivered out of the Whale: A fable, grounded on the Synopsis 
y Dor. Syn. in voce jonas.  Dorothei, of which Bellarmine saith 
z Illa Synopsis plena est fabulis. Bell. lib. de scrip. eccl. in Dorotheo. , (and saith truly) that it is full of lies. And yet this which he saith of jonas, is as true, as that the Eunuch 
a Vt ibidem Doroth. Pont.  whom Philip baptised, and Caesar, were two of the seventy Disciples of Christ: or that Priscilla and junia (two women) were 
b Priscilla Colophoviae Episcopus fuit, junia Apamiae. ibid.  Bishops. Quae. 47. He sets down for a certainty that Paradise is the East of the whole earth, and further East than India: adding, that the spices which come from the East Indies, and other easterly countries, are more fragrant, because they are near to Paradise; by the fragrancy of which, and the trees therein, the Indian fruits are made more sweet and odoriferous. A sottish conceit, not only because there is no absolute East of the whole world; but because it is certain, that Paradise was near or about Mesopotamia and Babylonia, as besides the consent of the best 
c Vid. junius notis in cap. 2. Gen. Hopkins. in Synopsi Paradis●. Bened. Perer. Com. in Gen. lib. 3. q. 2. & 3.  Writers, the rivers Tigris and Euphrates, which compass Mesopotamia, and which watered the garden, do infallibly demonstrate Quae. 54. he saith, That Christ was conceived on the 25. of March, because on the very same day, God at the beginning created Adam: where besides the reason, voided of reason, it is utterly untrue, that God created the world in March, or at the vernum aequinoctium, but (as in another Treatise I have fully proved) about the aequinoctium hibernum. Qu. 65. he saith that Tharshis', to which jonas fled, was a city of India; a very fable. Witness josephus, who saith 
d josep. lib. 9 Antiq. ca 11. & josephun ita sensisse ait Hieron, in ca 66. & ca 2. Isaiae. , jonas taking ship at joppes, went to Tharshis' of Cili●ia. Witness St. Jerome: whose opinion 
e Sensit per Tharsun, mare significa●i. Hier. in ca 10. Daniel. , though it be not true therein, yet he expressly rejects 
f Ibidem.  that of his going to India; adding, that most 
g Vt Ple●ique 〈…〉.  Writers do take Tharshis' of Cilicia to be there meant. The text itself puts this matter out of doubt: where it is said 
h jona. 1. 3. ▪ that jonas went to japho, and there found a ship going to Tharshis': And that japho is the same with joppes, not only Adricomius 
i Ad●ic. in Theat. terrae Sanctae. in Tribu Dan. nu. 29. , Ortelius 
k Ortet. Sinon. in joppes. , and other Geographers witness; but the very Italian name of joppes, which to this day is called japho 
l Ortet ibid. , doth demonstrate. Now joppes is a Maritime town, on the West side of jury, situated on the mare Mediterranean, or as some call it, Syriacum; whence there is a strait passage through the Mediterraneam Sea to Tharsus of Cilicia, but not 
m Neque en●m jonas de joppe navigans, ad Indian poterat pervenire, ad quam illo mari non potest navigari Hier. come. in ca 2, Isai.  to the Indies. If jonas had purposed then to fly to India, his passage should have been on the East side of jury, by the red Sea, and the Bay of Arabia; the same that Solomon's ships took from Ezion-geber 
n 1. Kin. 9 26.  to Ophir, or Tharshis'. For that these are two Synonimal names of the same place, (though Tharshis' withal signifieth the Ocean) the text itself imports: Seeing jehosaphat purposing to sand whither Solomon had done, is said in one place 
o 1▪ King. 22. 48. , to sand to Ophir, and in another 
p 2. Chron. 20. 36. , to make ships to go to Tharshis'; but God disappointed his voyage, and broke his ships at Ezion-geber▪ in the read Sea, so that they were not able to go to Tharshis'. Besides, the vulgar Latin translator, though he knew Tharshis' in Hebrew to signify the Sea, and so sometimes translates 
q 〈…〉 in mari; ubi H●br, est 〈◊〉. 1. K●ng. 22. 49.  it, yet speaking of Salomons sending to Ophir, he takes Tharshis' for the proper name of the Region, even the same with Ophir; saying 
r 1. King. 10. 22. , That the King's navy, per mare ibat in Tharshis', went by Sea unto Tharshis', bringing gold from thence: and again 
s 1. Kin. 9 28. , when they came to Ophir, sumptum inde aurum detulerunt, They brought from thence gold unto Solomon. So he clearly shows Tharshis' and Ophir to be the self same place whither Solomon sent for gold, and from whence his Navy brought gold unto him. Gasp. Varrerius, after diligent examination of this point concludes 
t Gasp. Varre●. Comment. de Ophyra region. pa. 55. , that the sacred Scripture, candem regionem modò Ophir, modò Tharshis nuncupat, doth call the same region, sometimes Ophir, sometimes Tharshis'.  
Now omitting some unlikely conceits where Ophir was, (as that of Volaterranus and Ludou. Venetus: who suppose 
u Vt testatur Varer. lib. cit. pa▪ 24.  it to be the Island Sofala in the Ethiopian sea, as the Chalde paraphrast 
x Chal. Paraphan. 1. Reg. 10. 22.  takes Tharshis' for Africa, the Septuagint 
y Septuag. ibid.  for Carthage:) there are two opinions which are of all most probable. The former, that Ophir is some region of East India: either japan, as Maginus 
z Mag. in sua Geogr. pa 261 ubi Auream Chersonesum ait esse Iapanicā insulam, sicque M●r●atotorem sentire addit.  and Mercator thought: or, as Rab. Maurus, Lyranus, and Varrerius 
a Varr. lib. cit. pa. 22. 23. & per totum lib.  (who both cities the other, and earnestly contends for this opinion) as also Acosta 
b Accost. li. 1. hist. Ind. c. 13. , and Mounsieur de Plessis 
c Vt testatur Sr. Wat. Ragh. lib. 1. hist. ca 8. §. 15.  affirm, Ophir is the same with that which Ptolemy calls Aurea Chersonesus, and now is known by the names of Pegu, Siam, Malaca, and Sumatra; all situate beyond the gulf of Bengala. To them may be added both josephus and St. Jerome: who 
d Hier. Epist. ad Princip. quae est 140.  call Ophir, Regionem Indiae, A Region of India, (they mean without all doubt East India.) And again 
e Hier. Epist▪ ad Marcel. , Tharshis' is a Region of India, as also josephus teacheth. Of which Regions of Pegu, Malaca, and Sumatra (though many travellers in our times do report the quite contrary) yet Varrerius 
f Var. lib. cit. pa. 34.  and Acosta 
g Acosta loc. cit.  confidently avouch, that in them, there is, ingens copia, very great abundance of gold, silver, precious stones, ivory, Apes, Peacocks, and rare woods, fit to make musical instruments; which were the chief commodities 
e 1. King. 10. v. 11. 12. 22.  that Solomon had from Ophir.  
The other opinion is embraced 
f Ophir Postello Peru videtur; & idem affirmat Ar. Montanus. Abr. Orte●in Sinon. Geograph. voce Ophir.  by Postellus, and Arias Montanus, That Ophir is a part of the West India, or America, as they teach, Peru; as Franc. Vatablus thinks, Hispaniola. Now besides that affinity 
g Vtrisque Cheseph, argentum: Chet●n, aurum purum. Puah, igne 〈◊〉 aut su●tlere (ut tra●sfert jun. Psal. 12. 6. & Ezec. 21. 36.) notat. , which some have observed betwixt that Indian speech, and the Phenician or Hebrew language: besides that conjecture which is taken from the Insulae Salomonis, which are situate in the Mare del Zur, near to the coast of Nova Guinea: there is one persuading inducement for this opinion; In that the holy Scriptures speaking of that gold which Solomon used in the Temple, and which in all likelihood was the same which was brought from Ophir, expressly calls 
h 2. Chro. 3. 6.  it Zahab Peruaijm, the gold of Perüaijm, or the two Perues: Perüaijm and by contraction Paruaijm: being as Arias Montanus 
i Ar. Mont▪ tract▪ de Phaleg, & Gentium regionibus.  noteth, the Dual number of Peru: whereof, as he 
k Ar. Mont. loc. cit.  saith, there were two great Regions divided by a great Isthmus (that is where Mexico is sited) both which being peopled by Ophir (the grandchild of Phaleg 
l Gen. 10. 29. :) who planting his posterity there, and first inhabiting those countries, left his own name (of Ophir) unto them both, and till the time of Solomon, and after, they were so called. But since then, by a little inversion of the letters (the Radicalls of Ophir, and Peru being the same) they were called each of them by itself Peru, (which comes of Parah to multiply or increase: this country being a very great increase or addition to the former world: and both of them together in the Dual number Perüaijm: The name of Peru still continuing to the one, called also thence by Geographers in Latin Paruana, or Perüana, that is, the Region of Peru: the other is now by a new name, and new inhabitants called Hispaniola. The like is declared by Shindler 
m Shindl. in suo Lexic. Hebraeo.  a learned Hebritian, who saith that by Paruaijm are noted the two Regions, of Peru, and Hispaniola.  
I confess the journey from judaea to Peru, was very long, specially in those days when Navigators, as is confessed 
n Accost lib. & cap. eit. Varr. lib. cit. pa. 45. &, Sr. Wal. Ragh. loc. cit. , not knowing that admirable use, and therefore not having the help of the loadstone, Card, and Compass, were forced for many occasions, but especially for their own safety and direction, littus legere, to sail near the shore. But seeing three years (so long was Salomons 
o 1. Kin. 10. 22  Navy in going and coming) is a long time also, there is no doubt but a Navy, though sailing along by the shores of Arabia, India, and the Moiuccae, and from thence passing to Nova Guinea, (which is near unto them) and so holding the coast of Nova Guinea on their right hand, and in like sort the Terra Australis, the streights of Magellane, and the South side of America, might with ease both go to Peru (whither Solomon by his great and inspired wisdom might direct them) and return also in that space of three years.  
To them who embrace this second opinion I might adjoin Goropius Becanus a Dutchman of Traiectum in Brabant; for he also resolutely holds 
p Gorop. Became. lib. 7. Hispanic. pa. 112. , Ophir, whither Solomon sent his Navy, to be Peru, or America, which he calleth Orbis Atlanticus, because Atlas, as he fancieth, the grandchild of japhet, first sailed thither passing from Africa through the vast Ocean, called Oceanus Atlanticus. But Goropius doth so overflow with uncouth, unprobable, and extravagant conceits, that I thought his name would rather disgrace then gain credit to this assertion. For who can with patience hear that which he most confidently avoucheth. That not the Hebrew 
b Eorum assertio defendi non potest, qui linguam Hebraeam omnium primam esse contendunt Gorop. lib. 2. Hermathenae. pa. 25. & saepe alibi. , but the low Dutch, or german 
c Linguam Cymbricam primam esse contendimus ibid. Cymbricam vero su●m vocat. lib. 1. Gallic▪ pa▪ 6. 〈…〉 nullam lingua●, nostr▪ esse priorem. Lib●o 9 Her●●at. pa 2●4. Gall● & Te● o●es nec 〈◊〉. nec lingua differunt. Gor. lib. 2. Gallic. pa. 34. Cernimus cla●issimè Gallica●n linguam non cum Alemanica convenire, sed prors●s cum ea quam h●ctenus Antwertpiani, caeterique Cymbri utuntur. lib. 1▪ Gallic. pa. 11. & 6. Et; G●lli olim e●ndem cum Germanis linguam habuerunt lib. eod. 1. pa. 4.  language (being the very same with the Cymbrian, and also with the old Gallican tongue, as he teacheth, and which hath great affinity with our Saxon;) was the first and primitive language of the world: the very same which Adam spoke, and was author 
d Primus no●●rae linguae Architectus fuit Orpheus Gor. lib. 5. Hermat. pa. 103. Is vero 〈◊〉 ante Dilwium Orpheus dictus est, fuit Adam. lib ●od. pa. 104.  of it also: and which was used by all men till the confusion of languages at Babel? Again, that when the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin words are either the same, or have affinity with the Cymbrian, that is, the old Gailike, or the german tongue, than they are, and must be derived 
e E Cymbrica reliqua derivantur. Gor. Hermat. lib. 9 pa. 204  from the german, as being the first language of all. Upon which ground he derives 
f Lib. 4. Hermat. pa. 94  the Greek Ate, from the german Hate; and the Hebrew Adam 
g Ibid. pa. 95. , from the Greek Ate, and the German, Dam, which signifieth a bank: because Adam was like a bank continually assaulted with the waves of Satan's ●●ate, and temptations: and the Latin Anima, from the Germane Asem, which signifieth Breath. To omit the rest (there are in him infinite of this kind) the very name of Ophir he deriveth from 
g Gor. lib. 7. Hispan. pa. 112  the Germane Over, because it is beyond the Atlantike Sea: and Peru, from 
h Ibidem.  the Germane Pher, which signifieth a custody; and Peruaijm which is mentioned, 1. Chron. 3, he derives 
i Ibid●m.  from the ●ame German Pher and Heim, an house; as if it betokened some house made by Atlas for the safety of merchandise to be exported from America. Such unapt and inept assertions (which abound in him) persuaded me to think him unworthy of citing for that opinion.  
Two exceptions are against this second opinion taken by some 
k Sr. Wal. Ragh. loc. ●it.  who think themselves expert in these matters of Navigation. The one, that the name of Peru was given to that American region since the discovery thereof made by Americus and Columbus: The other, that there is no possible passage thither, but by crossing the main Seas, and leaving the shores in a fare distance: which reasons would easily persuade, and more than persuade if they could be proved. But his former proof is very slight and of no weight. Fr. Pisarro, saith he, having discovered those lands on the South of Panama, some of them by signs enquired of the Indian inhabitants, the name of that country: and pointing with their hands over the river that ran by, the Indians answered, Peru: thereby noting, as he saith, the name of the river, and from this their answer the region was ever since called Peru. But herein his conjecture is many ways fallible: for why may not one think that the Indians truly expressed the ancient name of the Region? or, say they meant the river, why may not that river take his name of the Region, or the first planter in it, Ophir, whi●h by inversion of letters is Peru? Or why might not the Spaniards as well misconceive the answer of the Indians, as the Indians mistake their demand? And for his second reason, it may seem even a wonder, that one professing so exact skill in these matters, could be ignorant that there is a strait course, and that almost fast by the shores, from the Moluccaes' to the coast of Nova Guinea, and so by Terra Australis to the streights of Magellane and thence to Peru, as both the Maps of Ortelius, Maginus, Pet. Bertius, and others, and much more the terrestrial globes of Hondi●s, of john Kereus, of William johnson, and for aught I can perceive, of all later Geographers, do make evident to the eye. Had he well considered either his Maps or Globes, he might have said that journey to Peru had been long or tedious, but he never could have truly said, it had been impossible. But leaving the judgement of this matter to the learned; it doth suffice for our present purpose, that whether soever of the Indies, either East or West be meant by Tharshis', the forged Athanasius doth show himself a very witless man: it being as ridiculous to say that jonas took shipping at joppa to go to either of the Indies; as if one purposing to go from Hull to Berwick, should sail first to Dover, and thence to Plymouth, and so having compassed the whole Island of Britain, should strike in at some Haven ne'er unto Berwick.  
Lastly, in the 115. Quest. there is mention of the heresy 
t Haec est haeresis corum 〈◊〉 a●unt incorruptibile ●ort us assump 〈◊〉 dominum 〈◊〉 Virgin●. Orta 〈…〉.  of the Aphthardokites; which springing up in the time of justinian from one julianus Bishop of Halicarnassus, as both Liberatus 
u Liberat ca 19 , and Leo●tius 
x Leont. lib. de sect. Act. 5.  testify, the forger as in every part of that book he betrays his gross ignorance and folly; so in this, he demonstrates himself to have lived at lest two hundred years after Athanasius. And yet this sottish forgery stu●t with such untruethes, doth Pope Hadrian allege for the writing of that most learned and renowned Bishop of Alexandria Saint Athanasius.  
The next Pope cited by them as an approover of the Edict, is Leo the ninth, who though he be most confident in this matter, alleging this Charter as a record of undoubted credit, and whereof no scruple may be made: yet is he as insolent and shameless as Hadrtan, in maintaining untruths and forged writings, if their Roman See may gain aught thereby. What an insolent and untrue saying is that of Leo, in this very 
y Leo 9 Epist 1. ca 32.  Epistle, The faith of the Church of Rome, nec hactenus defecit, nec deficiet in saecula, neither hath yet, nor ever shall hereafter ●aile; whereas the faith of Pope Vigilius, and the Roman Church to have failed, Vigilius definitively and judicially 
z Consti●utum Vigil●, apud Bat. an. 553. nu. 50. Et seq.  defending the three chapters, and so all the heresies of Nestorius, the whole fi●t general Council is an undoubted witness; as in another treatise touching that whole Council I have at large demonstrated. Of Pope Honorius, that he dogmatized, and doctrinally taught, defined & defended the heresy of the Monothelites, the ●ixth 
a Conc gen. 6. Act. 12. 13. & 14. , seventh 
b Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 7. an Epistola Synod. ad omnes fideles. , and eight 
c Conc. 8. Act. 7.  general Counsels are all witnesses, 〈…〉, that if Leo and others had not 〈…〉 Adamants, they would bl●sh to deny▪  
What credit can be given to this Leo in his alleging of ancient records, when in the very same Epistle also he saith, that Pope 
d Leo 9 Epist 1. ca 10.  Silvester did decree, and Constantine the Emperor, universa Nicena Synodo apprebante & subscribente: the whole first Nicen Synod approving & subscribing to the same, that the highest See should be judged of none? An untruth without all colour fathered on the Nicen Council. For neither was that Canon which Leo speaks of, made in the Nicen, but in the second Roman 
e Conc. Rom 2. sub Silvestto ca 20.  Synod: neither was there ever any such second Roman Council, which decreed that, as before 
f Sup●a ca 1. & 2. etc.  we have proved: neither did the Nicen Fathers ever approve or subscribe to that Canon. Such shameless belying of most holy, and defending of forged Counsels and Canons, doth demonstrate to every man how he may trust this Pope Leo in citing of ancient records.  
In another Epistle 
g Leo 9 Epist 4. , the same Leo to prove the authority of Metropolitans, and specially of the See of Rome, cities the Epistles of Pope Clement the first, Anacletus, and Anicetus, most base and sottish forgeries. The Epistle of Clements which he intends, is the first which bears Clement's name: of which Possevine the jesuite truly saith, Non 
h Posseu. in A●par. verbo Clemens. pa. 366.  potest esse Clementis, it can be none of Clement. Nor can it indeed possibly be his: for Clement is there said to have writ this by the direction of Saint Peter unto james the brother of our Lord seven years 
i Epistola Clementis scripta est post annum 13. Neronis Bin. Not. in eam Epist. jacobus autem mortu● est▪ ann. 7. Neronis, ut testatur Eusebius in Chro. & Hier. lib. de scrip. eccles. in jacobo  after james was dead: & in this Epistle Clement adviseth james being dead, to keep inviolably 
k Vt seruari o●nia immaculata praecipias Clem. Ep. 1. in fine.  all the precepts of Saint Peter. In the Epistle of Anacletus, 
l Anacl. Epist 3. Haec est quam Leo 〈◊〉.  the name of Cephas is ridiculously (as their own Ferus 
m Fer. come in ca 1. johan.  professeth) interpreted to signify caput. And of all those three Epistles of Anacletus, their own Cardinal Cusanus saith, Credo 
n Cus. lib. 2. de Concord. ca 34. , I believe them all to be Apocryphal: and Contius 
o Cont. in Cau. 6. q. 1. ca B●atus.  more plainly, there are many things which demonstrate these Epistles of Anacletus to be counterfeit. The Epistle of Anicetus which Leo mentions, is misdoubted by Bellarmine 
p Fortè falsum titulum prae se fert. Bell. lib. 2. de Monach. ca 40.  himself to be falsely entitled, but by the date thereof it is demonstrated to be a counterfeit, for in the time of Anicetus Popedom, Gallicanus and Ruffinus were not Consuls, nor in ten years either before or after; as by the Fasti both Greek and Latin is evident.  
In the same Epistle 
q Epist. 4. Leonis 9  is alleged a Canon out of the Epistle of Eleutherius 
r Epist. Eleuth ad Galliae provincias. ca 2. & citatur Cau. 3. q. 6. ca Quam●●s. , that Primates and metropolitans in other Provinces may discuss and examine the causes of Bishops, Diffinitivam tamen sententiam, yet they may not pronounce a difinitive sentence till they have consulted with the Pope; to give such sentence, belongs only to the Pope. A forgery also as the former: for besides other proofs, certain sentences in this Epistle, taken verbatim 
s Illa verba Eleuther. Nec litigantibus, etc. desumpta sunt ex l. 1. de judicijs. cod. Theod Ba●an 187 nu. 2.  out of the Imperial law of Constantine and the interpretation thereof, are a clear evidence: for the forger thereby betrays himself to have lived 100 years 
t Eleutherius obijt, an. 194 Bar. eo an. nu▪ 1.  at lest after Eleutherius was dead.  
To omit the rest, (for Leo the 9▪ is full of them) observe but that one, which he produceth as an holy Canon, and by it would defend the dignity of their See. You must know, saith he 
u Leo 9 Epist. 4. , that without the Pope's consent a general Council cannot be called, nor any Bishop deposed, as in the sacred Canons you shall find.  
This Canon is no where found, but in an Epistle 
x Epist. julij ad 〈…〉 to. 1 Conc. apud Been p●. 399.  written to the Eastern Bishops in the behalf of Athanasius, bearing the name of Pope julius, and out of that Epistle it is alleged by Gratian 
y Caus. 3▪ q. 6. ca Dadum. . Now this to be undoubtedly a forgery, many evident circumstances do declare. It is dated when Felicianus and Maximianus were Consuls; and that was never: for the colleague of Felicianus was Tatianus, as both the Fasti Greeke and Latin, and the Imperial Edicts 
z L. ● de Contrah. empt. & l. 2. de excus. a●tif. Cod. Theod.  dated in that Consulship do witness. Let us omit this, and think it a fault of the writer: suppose (as Binius 
a Bin. notis in eam Epistolam quam esse Iul●j contendit. pa. 400. b.  doth stoutly affirm) that it was written in the Consulship of Felicianus & Tatianus; yet that doth more certainly convince the forgery: for therein 
b Epist. jul. loc cit. ca 2.  julius reproves the Eastern Bishops for holding of Counsels, and condemning Bishops without his consent; whereas, saith he, the sacred Canons do forbidden both these to be done. Whence it is evident that this Epistle must follow the Council at Antioch. For after the exile of Athanasius, till then, the Eusebians neither did nor durst hold any Council against him: the Emperor Constantine the younger, professing 
c Intelligetis ●uantae apud nos reverentiae fuerit. Epist. Constantini iunioris, ad Pop. Alex●nd. apud Athan. Apol. 2 pa. 219.  such love and patronage to Athanasius. Yea it is clear by Athanasius and julius 
d Vestri Legati Concilium à nobis indici postularunt. julij Epist. apud Athan. Apol. 2. pa. 199  himself, that the Arians and other maligners of him, sent Legates 
e Quin & Eus●biani literas misere, Synodu●●●●sserunt 〈◊〉, & ipsi Iulio si velle●, arb tri●●m causae detulerunt Athan. Apol. ●. pa. 198.  to entreat of Pope julius that a Synod might be held at Rome for examining all the whole cause of Athanasius; promising to come thither, & offering to refer the whole cause unto his hearing and judgement. But afterwards Constantine being dead, contrary to their own promise, they found a fit opportunity by means of Constantius, to hold a Synod 
f Socr. lib. 2. ca 5.  at Antioch in Encaenijs, where they condemned Athanasius; and this their Decree they would have to be of force to bind both Pope julius and all others, as if it were the Decree of a general Council. Till this time, julius had no occasion, nor reason to urge that Canon of holding general Counsels. And that upon this occasion he urged a Canon to that purpose, both Socrates 
g Docet Iulius eos contra Ecclesiae canon's egypt. Soc. lib. 2. ca 13.  and the undoubted Epistle 
h Oportuit secund●m Canonem, & non isto modo fieri. Epist. jul. apud Athan. Apol. 2. pa. 202  of Pope julius, recorded by Athanasius, do testify. Whence it is clear, that this Epistle which the forger dateth, and Binius assures us to have been written in the beginning of julius' Popedom anno 337. cannot be esteemed the true Epistle of julius, seeing the Council of Antioch was not held till four years 
i Vt liquet ex Socr. lib. 2. ca 5.  after that time.  
But the true and undoubted Epistle 
k Ea extat apud Athanas. Apol. 2. pa. 198  of julius written to the Eastern Bishops, quite different from this, doth clearly demonstrate the forgery hereof; And the Canon also which here is alleged for sacred, makes evident the same. The Canon which the forger intended, is out of all question, that which Socrates mentioneth julius to have alleged against their Council at Antioch. julius, saith he 
l Soc. lib. 2. ca 13. , writ to the Eastern Bishops, that they did against the Canons of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they called not him, nor the Western Bishops to the council, whereas the Canon of the Church forbids any decrees (which should bind the whole would have that at Antioch to do) to be made without the consent of the Bishop of Rome: to wit, without his consent sought for. This to have been truly and indeed the exception of julius, his undoubted Epistle 
m julij Epist. apud Athan. loc. citat. 202.  written from a Roman Synod, doth evidently witness. Oportuit scribere omnibus nobis, ut ita ab omnibus quod iustum est decerneretur, you should have written to us all, and called us to the Council, that so what is just might have been decreed by all. The Canons most justly forbidden any decree (which should have force to bind all) to be made without the knowledge of all, and unless their consent were sought for at lest; unless all who had right to come to make the decree, were called to the Synod, and to the making of that decree. Equity and reason teach, Quod 
n Sexti Dec. lib. 5 de Regu juris, Regul, ●9.  omnes tangit ab omnibus approbari debet, that which binds all must be approved or decreed by all. This being the true and indubitate Canon, the forger whom Leo followed, makes julius to say, that no Council can be held, nor no Bishops be condemned without the Pope's consent: but howsoever others may examine the cause, yet the last and final sentence must belong to the Pope: which to be a forgery, and quite repugnant to the sacred Canons, the Epistle of the African Bishops to Pope Celestine doth demonstrate: for therein they testify 
o Cone. Afric cap. 105.  the Nicen Council to have decreed, that the causes as well of Bishops, as other inferior Clearlees should be referred suis Metropolitanis, to the Metropolitans of each Province, and that the causes finiendae essent, should be there ended where they did arise, leaving no appeal from their sentence to any, not not to the Pope, but only to a Provincial first, and then to a general Council.  
By this now it doth clearly appear how shameless Pope Leo 9 was in seeking to maintain the dignity of their See by forged authors, and sergeant Decrees, which he magnifies for sacred writings, and holy Canons. Now, if Leo would dare to deal thus shamefully for the honour and gain of holding Counsels, and of being a judge of Bishops; would he not much more adventure, to set forth like forged Records, for gain of Rome, of Italy, and of all the Western Provinces; to bring all Emperors in subjection under his feet, and to hold his stirrup, as Constantine in this Donation is said 
p Stratoris officium illi (Siluestro) exh. buimus, ait Constantinus in Edicto donationis.  to have done before?  
The third Pope alleged, as a witness of this Charter, is Eugenius the 3. He, saith Marta 
q Mart. loc. cit. nu. 37. , approved the Decrees compiled by Gratian, both the Triticum and Palea therein; and one of Palea is the chapter Constantinus, wherein this Edict is expressed. Be it so: yet he approved it no otherwise then as Palea. And it had been a point worthy of Martaes' labour, to prove that the Pope's approbation can transubstantiate chaff into wheat, or make of a forged, a true and authentical Charter. Again, because Martae doth so delight himself in this Palea, which the ambitious Cardinal foisted into Gratians Decrees, I would gladly know, of what truth and credit that Cardinal was. Certainly, seeing he was so shameless in lying and forging, as that in Gratians own presence 
r Vt liquet ex Marta. ibid. nu. 35. 36. , and before his face, he blushed not to challenge the book of Decrees for his own work, wherein he was sure that Gratian would convince him of untruth, how can any think, but that he would be most audacious and impudent, in belying Constantine, and fathering that Decree on him, wherein he knew that no such living witness as Gratian was, could be produced against him? Besides, what credit can any man possibly give to Pope Eugenius (if he approved, as Marta saith he did) the whole book of the Decrees of Gratian, which is stuffed with forgeries and false writings? Dist. 16. ca Septuaginta, is cited, The Epistle of Athanasius unto Pope Marcus, concerning the burning of the Nicene Canons. Whereas that burning happened diverse years after Marcus his death: and Marcus was dead also at that time, when he writ (as they say) his answer to that Epistle, as Bellarmine 
s Bell. lib. de scrip. eccl. in Gratiano.  witnesseth. Causa 24. qu. 1. ca Haec est fides, he allegeth a Canon under the name of St. Jerome, which was certainly taken out of the book of Pelagius the Archheretic, as the same Bellarmine 
t Bell. ibid.  again witnesseth. Causa 10. qu 9 ca Quia sacerdotes, he cities another Canon, as out of a book of St. Jerome, of which Bellarmine confesseth 
u Bell ibid. , that it is a counterfeit going under the name of St. Jerome. Causa 22. qu. 2. ca Nec artificioso. He cities as the book of St. Augustine, that Treatise, de conflictu virtutum & vitiorum, which to be a forgery, Bellarmine 
x Ibid.  rightly proves, seeing St. Benedict is named therein, who lived more than an hundred years after Augustine was dead. Not marvel if Pope Eugenius approving these, and an hundred such like passages in Gratian, approved also that Chaff of Canstantines' Donation, which is of the same stamp with the former. Chaff it was, and for all the approbation of Eugenius, or any other Pope, Chaff it will be ever, and aught for ever to be so accounted.  
As for Pope Nicholas 3. (to whom may be added, Clement 
y Clementin. lib. 2. tit. 9 ca Romani.  5.) It was but a point of good manners in them, to approve that Charter, which they saw Hadrian 1. Leo 9 & Eugenius 3. to have before them, commended for authentical. Who were they, that they should give the lie to 3. of their predecessors? But that which disgraceth both them & the former Popes is, that Nicholas, and Clement, followed herein Eugenius, Leo, & Adrian; and they followed the Acts of Silvester. Now those Acts being, as we have before demonstrated, nothing but a very sink of lies, and sottish fables, the Popes by their approbation can no way give or gain any credit to such untruths, but they impair their own credit, and extremely disgrace themselues, in seeking by such fabulous & forged writings to uphold the dignity of their pontifical See.  
After the four Popes, let us examine two of their general Counsels, which are alleged as witnesses of this Donation. The former is their second Nicene, of which Marta saith 
z Mart. ca cit. nu. 10. , that it bears witness to the Donation. Steuchus more plainly and confidently affirms, that this 
a Aug. Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 87.  takes away all doubt concerning the truth of this Donation, seeing the definitions of general Counsels are of greatest authority.  
The answer is easy: first, in that second Nicene Council, there is no mention at all of this Donation, nor aught whence it can be collected. For though they approve that part of the Acts of Silvester, wherein the persecution, leprosy, and baptism of Constantine by Silvester, is set down, yet of the other part of those Acts, wherein this Donation is expressed, they make no mention at all. And that the one may be approved, and the other rejected, Card. Baronius is an undeniable witness, who admits 
b Bar. an. 324 nu. 31, 32. 33.  the former, and yet the later he utterly condemns 
c Bar. an. 1191 nu. 52.  as a forgery. Again, the second Nicene Council is of no truth or credit in the world. They are so impudent in alleging lies, fables, and forged writings, that three quarters of those Acts, though they be very large (I speak it confidently,) are nothing else, but either untruths or forgeries. The Council of Frankford gave a true and just censure of that their Nicene Synod, when it said 
d Car. Magni. lib. 3. ca 30. , that those Fathers being destitute of proofs out of the sacred Scriptures, turned themselves, Ad apocryphas & risu dignas naenias, To apocryphal and ridiculous toys. Of a thousand, take but two or three examples.  
First, the Acts of Silvester, touching Constantine's persecution, leprosy, and baptism, are approved 
e Conc. illud probat primam Epistolan. Had. 1. Act. 2, pa. 313. In ea recitantur Acta Siluestri ut authentica. Act. 2. pa. 309.  therein; which Acts to be not only untrue, but a very puddle of lies, we have before 
f Sup. ca 10.  demonstrated.  
Secondly, that miraculous narration set down by Euagrius, of the Image of Christ made without hands, and sent to Abgarus King of Edessa, by which that city was made unconquerable, is approved 
g Conc. Nic. 2. Act 5. pa. 354.  in that second Nicene Council. A very fiction and fable, as by the event, and diverse other reasons is clearly proved in the defence of justinian against Baronius.  
Thirdly, in that Council is related out of St. Athanasius 
g Sermo B. Patris nostri Athanasij, de Imagine, etc. Conc. Nic, 2. Act. 4. pa. 329. Totus hic liber legitur & recipitur sub nomine S. Athanasij in Conc. Niceno 2. Bell. lib. de script. eccl. in Athanasio. pa. 116. , the whole book, De passione Imaginis domini: How that Image of Christ, taken by Nicodemus his own hands, was brought to Berithus; how the jews by chance getting it, used all the indignities to it, which their fathers had done to Christ himself: they scoffed at it, they crowned it with thorns, they gave it gall and vinegar to drink, they crucified it, and they pierced it with a lance; how a great deal of blood issued out of it, which cured the lame, the blind, and all diseases: upon which miracle the jews were converted, the blood put into glasses, was sent by the Bishop of Berithus throughout Asia, Europe, and Africa, and a solemn festival observed for that miracle. This being read in the Council, all the Bishops were so moved therewith, that they 
h Totam hanc congregationem, Athanasius, ad compunctionem & lachrimas compulit. ibid. pa. 331.  fell to sighing and weeping. And for the truth and certainty of this story, it is added, Haec 
i Ib. pa. 330. b.  certa est & manifesta, This is the certain and manifest narration, touching the Image at Berithus: and again, Haec est vera 
k Ib. pa. 331. a.  & vehementer credita ratio, This is the true and most credible story, touching the blood of our Lord jesus Christ, which came out of the Image that was crucified at Berithus.  
Now this Treatise, De Passione Imaginis, not to be the book of St. Athanasius, that famous Bishop of Alexandria, but a lying and fabulous writing, going under his name, and inserted among his works, is by their own writers confessed. This miracle, saith Bellarmine 
l Bell. lib. de script. eccl. in Athanasio. , happened an. 766. (and that is more than 390. years 
m Athanasius obijt an. 372. Bar. eo an. nu. 63.  after the death of Athanasius:) They err, saith Baronius 
n Bar. an. 787. nu. 29. , who think St. Athanasius, the famous Bishop of Alexandria, to be the author of this book; it was, res recens gesta, a matter which happened but a little before the 2. Nicene Council: and again, Plane 
o Bar. notis in Martyr. Rom. Nou. 9  constat, It is certain that the author of this history touching the passion of Christ's Image, is not Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria: for this thing happened in the reign of Constantine and Irene: And they entered into the Empire, but an. 780 
p Bar. an. 780. nu. 5. . that is, but seven years 
q Name Concil. Nic. 2 habitum est an. 787. Bar. eo an. nu. 10.  before the 2. Nicene Council.  
Then it is certain their Colen censure of Monhemius is of no truth or credit; wherein it is confidently averred 
r Cens. errorum Catech. Monhem. Dial. 3. pa. 59 , That this was the writing of St. Athanasius, the most famous Greek Writer; and most earnest propugner of the faith. Certain that their Fewar dentius is of no credit, who by the warrant of this 2. Nicene Council saith 
s Feward. con. in Iren. lib. 1. ca 24. § .. Nicodemus. , that Athanasius writ this 1260. years before his time, and he said this, an. 1596. Nay it is certain also, that this their 2. Nicene Council is of no credit; for though Baronius labour to wipe away this blemish, by saying 
t Bar. an. 787. nu. 29. & 30. & Not. in Mart. Rom. Nou. 9 , that those Nicene Fathers meant not Athanasius of Alexandria, but some other Bishop of that name, who lived after the year 780. (in which Constantine 
u Hoc miraculum tempore horum Augustorum contigisse asserit. Not. in Martyr. loc cit.  and Irene began to reign:) yet he doth but therein wash the Blackamoor. For that they meant St. Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, not only Fewardentius (of whom I spoke of late) witnesseth, but Possevine & Card. Bellarmine also, who both say 
x Citatur tanquam antiquissima historia in 7. Synodo. Bel. lib. de Imag. sanct. ca 10 §. Tertia. Possevin. in Athanas. pa. 127. , that this is cited by those Nicene Fathers, ut antiquissima historia, as a most ancient story; and it were too ridiculous for them to call this story most ancient, had it happened but some 7. as Baronius, or some 20. years, as Bellarmine accounts before the Nicene Council.  
Peter, Bishop of Nicomedia, who brought 
y Adfero diui Athanasij librum. ait Pet. Nico. in Conc. Niceno 2. Act. 4 pa. 329.  the book of Athanasius into the Nicene Synod to be there read, puts this out of all doubt. For he 
z Relatio miraculorum quae per Imaginem Christi facta sunt Berithi. ea extat inter. opera S. Athan. ante librum de passione Imag. , in a Council held at Caesarea, wherein were present all the Bishops of Asia, testified this to be the book, Athanasij Alexandrinae urbis Episcopi, of Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria. And that Tharasius, and the whole Nicene Council thought no otherwise, it is clear by the very speech of Tharasius, who, after this was read out of Athanasius, demands 
a Conc. Nie. 2. Act, 4. p. 331  Why miracles were not wrought by our Images. Whereupon the marginal Annotation, as well in the ancient editions, as in Binius, is this, Cur hodie imagines non edant miracula, signifying plainly that Tharasius demands why the Images in his time, did not work miracles, as they did in the times of Athanasius: thereby evidently showing, that both he, and the Council thought the Image at Berithus, to have wrought that miracle, not in his time, but long before, even in the days of the great Athanasius. Such palpable forgeries as this, being approved by those Nicene Fathers, the Council of Frankford did upon good and certain proof say 
b Carol. magni. lib. 3. ca 26. contra Nice. nam Synodun 2.  of this Nicene Synod, Pene omnia, almost all, in that vain writing, which they call the 7. Synod, are like unto dreaming imaginations & fantastical obumbrations; and there is almost nothing therein, quod non aut somnij vanitatem, aut alterius deliramenti hebetudinem redoleat, which doth not savour either of a vain dream, or of a dull dotage.  
The other Council produced by Marta, is that at Constance, where john Wickliff was 
c Artic. joh. Wickl. condennati in Conci. Constant. fes●. 8. Art. 33.  condemned, (beside other matters) for saying that Silvester and Constantine did err, dotando Ecclesiam, by endowing or enriching the Church: Whence, saith Marta 
d Mart. ea. 30 cit. nu. 20. , it is gathered, Non esse ulterius dubitandum de veritate & validitate huius donationis, That none must doubt of the truth and validity of this Donation. A very sleight reason I perceive, will remove great doubts with Marta; whereas the silliness of this collection of Marta, with men of reason, will make this Donation, for which he pleads, to be fare more doubtful. For what a consequence call you this, Constantine endowed the Church with riches and possessions, therefore he gave all Rome, Italy, and the Western Provinces to the Pope? Is there no dotation of the Church, but such an ample Donation of the Western Monarchy? Thomas Waldensis professedly against Wicklife proves in a whole chapter 
e Th. Wald. Doctr. to. 1. li. 4. art. 3. ca 38. , That long before Constantine's reign, the Church was endowed with lands, goods, and possessions, in the time of Pope Pius the first in the time of Calixtus the first, and specially in the time of Philip the first Christian Emperor, 60. years before Constantine; of whom Waldensis saith, He embracing the faith, multis praedijs & facultatibus dotavit Ecclesiam, endowed and enriched the Church with lands and great wealth: Of whom Gotof. Viterb. 
f Got. Viter. Chron. an. Chr. 248.  thus versifieth, Et dedit Ecclesijs praedia multa suis. The like doth Waldensis show of diverse others. Now if Philip's endowing the Church with many and great possessions, will not prove, that he made a Donation of Rome and Italy to the Pope, it was a very witless conceit in Marta, to think that because Constantine endowed the Church, therefore without all doubt he made this Charter of Donation. Bene referunt de quarundam Ecclesiarum Romae dotatione, sed de Imperio nihil, saith jacob. Almane 
g jac. Alm. lib. de domin. ciu. li & eccles. Concl. 2. §. Primum est. , histories and writers do well mention the endowing or enriching the Church by Constantine, but of the Donation of the Empire made by him, they speak nothing at all.  
That Constantine endowed the Church, and that in a most princely manner, is not to be doubted. His bounty herein, is at large set forth by Eusebius. At 
h Euseb. lib. 3. de vit. Constant. ca 39  Christ's sepulchre he builded a most sumptuous Church, adorning it with so many gifts of gold, silver, and precious stones, as were numero fere infinita, almost infinite for number. He beautified 
i Ibidem cap. 40. & 41. , regalibus ornamentis, with princely ornaments, a Church at Mount Olivet, and another at Bethlem: both which his mother Helena had builded; the one in honour of Christ's nativity, the other of his ascension. He builded most munificent Churches at Mambre 
k Ibid. ca 50. , where Christ appeared to Abraham; at Heliopolis 
l Ibid. ca 56. , and at Nicomedia 
m Ibid. ca 49. , commanding the like to be done 
n Eus. lib. 4. ca 39 & lib. 2● ca 39 & in omnibus Provincijs Ecclesias exstruxit. lib. 3. ca 47.  in other Provinces, giving charge, ut 
o Ibid lib. a. ca 39  pecunijs non parceretur, that they should spare for no cost, but receive it out of his treasury. At Constantinople he builded 
p Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 47.  many temples, among them, that 
q Eus. lib. 4. ca 58. 59 60.  in memory of the Apostles (where he appointed himself to be buried) was most sumptuous, covered with Gold, without with Brass stripped with Gold, he enriched it with houses, baths, walks, and all other things either necessary or convenient. At Rome (if that book, De Munificencia Constantini, may be trusted) he builded the Constantinian 
r Libellus de Munif. Const. (quem fidelissimum vocat Baron an. 324 nu. 67.) extat post vitam Sal. tom. 1. Conc.  Church, another of Saint Peter, another of Saint Paul, others of S. Agnes, S. Laurence, S. Marcellinus, diverse others at Ostia, at Alba, at Capua, at Naples, all of them so magnificent and costly, that besides the Lands, and revenues given unto them, the very Gold of one 
s Ea est Basilica Constantincana.  only Church came to 1900. and the Silver to 154000. of our pounds. Besides all these, Ecclesijs 
x Euseb. lib. 1 de vit. Const. ca 35.  copiosa suppeditavit subsidia, he gave abundance to maintain them, yea as Eusebius saith 
y Eus. lib. 4. ca 28. , Incredibile est & supra omnem opinionem, he so enriched them with lands, with corn, with ornaments, as is incredible, and above any man's opinion. Seeing Constantine thus munificently endowed the Church, (which is all that the Council of Constance saith he did) it was a very silly collection of Marta, to conclude, That because the Council approved Constantine's endowment of the Church, therefore without all doubt, they teach that Constantine made this Charter of Donation, and gave to the Pope, Rome, Italy, and all the Western Provinces.  
But to see the vanity of Marta; there is evident proof that neither Wickliff in his reproving, nor the Council of Constance in their approving this fact of Constantine's endowing the Church, did, or could mean thereby this pretended Donation. Had Wickliff thought Constantine to have given (as by this Charter he is said) all the Western Provinces to the Pope, and the Church of Rome, he would have reproved in the West none, but Constantine for endowing the Church, nor could he have reproved other Western succeeding Kings and Princes for endowing the same, with their lands and possessions. Those lands had not been theirs to give unto the Church, and endow it therewith, being formerly all given by Constantine. Now its evident by the Council of Constance, that Wickliff 
z Artie. Wiclef. 3●. & 39  reproved later Emperors and Kings in the West for enriching the church: yea he reproved them more justly, and fare more sharply than Constantine. Constantine gave much indeed unto the church, but they added 
a Cu●●ulantur temporalia usque ad putredinem, etc. verba Wiclesi apud Wald. 10. 1. lib. 4. ca 41.  much more. They were taught that lesson which was never heard of in Constantine's time, In 
b Ant. Ros●el. part. 1. Monar. ca 7. pa. 297.  ecclesia omnis immensitas est mensura, In giving to the Church, there is no measure, but to give without measure. Whatsoever Constantine gave, was to maintain the true faith & doctrine of Christ: succeeding Emperors about the year 1200. after Christ, and 900. after Constantine, gave that superfluity and excess of Lands and Possessions to the Church, for impious and superstitious uses, to sing Requiems for their souls departed, to uphold the Idolatrous worship of their Mass, of their Images, of their Saints, and to lift up the man of sin to the Zenith of his Antichristian pride. What Constantine and other Emperors for 1000 years, or thereabout after Christ, gave to the Pope and Church of Rome, they passed only usum fruc●um, the profit and benefit thereof unto the Church; the supreme 
c Vt liquet ex donationibus Caroli, Othonis & aliorum, ante citatis.  Right, Dominion, and jurisdiction they still kept in themselves. Succeeding Emperors and Princes gave Lands in such sort to the Pope, as that they acknowledged him to have Sovereign dominion 
d In Imperatores, reges & principes saeculares iurisdictionem super talia (temporalia) à Deo mediante Papa accipiunt Carer. li. 2. de potest. Rom. Pont. ca 14.  both over themselves, and in those Lands which they gave. It was not so much the bore dotation of the Church, against which Wickliff inveighed, for he expressly taught 
e Praelati Ecclesiae debent vivere, sicut vixerunt sacerdotes veteris testamenti, Wiclesi verba, citata à Thom. Wald. lib. cit. ca 33. , that Prelates of the Church should live as did the Priests in the old Law, who had iure divino, not only Tithes and oblations, but ample possessions of lands and houses, even 48. 
f Numb. 35. 3. & josh 21. 41.  whole cities, with their Suburbs, containing 2000 cubits round about on every side: but the excessive pomp and superfluity 
g Quod intellexit Wicle. fus cum dixit, Cumulantur temporalia. supra. hoc ca  of riches which they enjoyed, their abusing all that wealth to superstition, idolatry, and Antichristianisme 
h Vnde legem Antichristi vocat Wiclefus donationem istam, apud Wal lib. cit. ca 37. , and principally the Sovereignty 
i Hinc reprehendit, quod Imperator Romanus fecit sacerdotes suos dominos, Wic. verba apud Wald. lib. cit. ca 39  of Dominion in them, which was then challenged by the Pope. These things kindled the zeal of Wickliff, and made him bend the tree as it were, to a quite contrary side, that so at length it might come to some mediocrity of straightness. These were the true causes which moved Wickliff to reprove succeeding Emperors, and other endowers of the Church, far more bitterly than he doth Constantine. Of Constantine and Silvester, he only saith, that they erred 
k Erraverunt dotando Ecclesiam, Artic. Wicl. 33.  by endowing the Church: of the other he saith, that they were 
l Artic. Wiclefi. 39  seducti à diabolo, seduced by the devil, in giving so excessively, after such a manner, and to such ends as they did. Wickliff in this his very blaming the succeeding Kings and secular Lords, for giving so much to the Church, demonstrates plainly that he thought not Constantine to have made this supposed Donation, nor to have formerly given all the Western Provinces to the Church. For than none at all of the Western Kings after Constantine, could have given aught to the Church.  
The very same also shows the judgement of the Council of Constance: for seeing they condemn 
m Conc. Constanc. sess. 8.  Wickliff, for that he reproved other succceding Emperors and secular Lords for endowing the Church, they do hereby demonstrate their judgement to have been this, that other Princes and secular Lords in the West, might endow and give their Lands to the Church; and therefore that Constantine had not by any such Donation (as is this which Marta and others pretend) formerly given all the Western Provinces to the Church. So the Council of Constance doth certainly reject this Donation as a forgery, of which Marta boasts, that by that Council it is proved to be a true and undoubted Charter.   

CHAP. XII.  
Sixteen other witnesses alleged for proof of Constantine's Donation, examined: namely, Anselme, Iuo, Deusdedit, Adalhardus, Mart Polonus, Antoninus, Vincentius Belu, Sigebert, Ado, Gotofride, Otho Frising. Photius, Balsamon, Damianus, Bernard, and Luitprandus Cremonensis.  
AFter Counsels and Popes, let us come to that confused heap of Authors, Divines, Historians, and Lawyers, which they huddled together as witnesses of this Donation. Before Gratians time (say 
a Notae Greg▪ in ca Constantinus. Anto. Aug. Dial. 6. lib. 1. pa. 53.  the Gregorian Glossators, as also Anto. Augustinus) Anselme, Iuo, and Deus dedit recite this Donation of Constantine. They do so indeed: but they recite it out of the Acts of Silvester: for Anselme 
b Ausel. lib. 4. ca 32.  and D●u●dedit, in the very beginning of that Chapter say; In the Acts of Silvester it is thus read, and then they set down the Edict: Anselme & Iuo Carnotensis proferunt Donationem ex gestis Siluestri, saith Steuchus 
c Steuc. lib. citat. pa. 81. , they recite the Donation out of the Acts of Silvester. Their citing it, or reciting of it, doth not prove that they thought it true, but their citing it out of those most false and fabulous Acts of Silvester (as the best and most ancient Author that they could find) shows plainly that it is like the rest of those Acts, false, fabulous, and sergeant.  
Adalhardus, who lived in the time of Charles the Great, is cited by Gretzer for a witness of this Edict. For he, saith Gretzer 
a Gretz. Append. 2, ad lib. de Munif. Princ. pa. 118. , mentioneth this Edict, wherein Constantine gave Rome to Pope Silvester. But the same Adalhardus mentioneth withal, that Constantine 
b Adalhar. apud Hincmar. epist. 3. ca 13.  made the Edict after he had been baptised by Sylvester, and had been instructed by the ministry of Peter and Paul appearing to him. Seeing then it is certain, as we have before 
c Sup. cap. 5. & 6.  demonstrated, that Constantine was never baptised by Sylvester, nor ever had any such vision of Peter and Paul appearing unto him, and instructing him in the time of his leprosy; it certainly followeth, even upon Adalhardus own testimony, that Constantine never made this Edict. Adalhardus was familiarly 
d Adalhardus à Leone tanto familiaritatis officio susceptus est, ut nemo ante. Ratbertus' apud Bar. an 807. nu. 7.  acquainted with Pope Leo the third, the next successor to Hadrian the first: Hadrian having mentioned out of the Acts of Sylvester, and confirmed for authentical, that Edict, the one part of it in the second Nicene 
e Ep●st Hadr. 1 lecta & approbata in Conc. 〈◊〉. 2. Act. 2.  Council, the other in an Epistle 
f H●●d● 1 epist. 35. in 〈…〉 donatio●●s Constantins', apud Bar. an. 795. nu. 7.  which then was extant; Adalhardus seeing the Acts of Sylvester recording, and Pope Hadrian confirming that Edict, might easily think it to be such as the Pope's Holiness did commend it for. He was not suspicious of that deep fraud, which lurketh in the Pope's breasts. As Hierom not suspecting any bad dealing in a Christian, in a Monk, was deceived 
g Hier. Apol. 2. adu. Ruff. pa. 2●6. posui hunc librum à Pamphile editum, ita putans esse ut à re few. rat divulgatum.  by Ruffinus, and thought that defence of Origen, to be the book of Pamphilus the Martyr, as Ruffinus said it was: Credidi 
h Higher▪ Apol. 3. cont. Ruff. pa. 238.  Christiano, Credidi Monacho: Non putavi tantum sceleris à te posse confingi, saith Hierom. So Adalhardus, not suspecting that the Pope's Holiness would commit such horrible offences, as to commend and approve forgeries and sergeant writings, deemed the Edict to be such as the Pope said it was, Credidit Christiano, Credidit Pontifici. Had Adalhardus known the Pope's policies, had he examined the matter, or had the truth of that Edict been scanned in his age, he would as certainly have found the Edict to have been a counterfeit, falsely ascribed unto Constantine, as Hierom found the other heretical book to be counterfeited, and falsely to bear the name of Pamphilus. But what meant Gretzer to seek witnesses for this Edict? Of all men, it lest beseems Gretzer to plead for the truth of it. For seeing himself 
i Concessio commentitia esse convincitur. Bar. ann. 1191. nu. 52. Diploma quod hodie superest come. mentitium esse concedimus. Gretz. Apol. 2 citat. pa. 91. & pa. 115.  following Baronius, proclaims to all the world the Edict to be a forgery, he thereby assures all, that Adalhardus in mentioning that Edict, gives testimony to an undoubted and known forgery.  
Martinus Cysentinus, (so Marta ignorantly calls him in stead of Consentinus) is a witness of this Edict, saith Marta 
k Mart. lib. cit. cap. 30. nu. 26. . A worthy witness indeed, the Popes own 
l Martini Poloni Archiep. Consentini summi Pontificis poenitentiarij. Chron. sic habet titulus libri.  Penitentiary, a domestical witness, against whom 
m Testimonium domesticorum & familiarium iur● civili imp. obatur. Venator. Anal. iu●●● Pont. lib. 2. tit. 20.  the Law itself takes exception. Besides, a most simple fellow, as Possevine 
n Poss. Appar. in Mart. Pol.  calls him, one who obtruded fables for most approved truths. This which he tells 
x Mart. Pol. an. Chr. 319.  of Constantine's giving all Imperial dignity to the Pope, is even as true as that which in the same place he tells also, that Helena was not converted to the faith till Silvester disputed with the jews in the first Roman Synod: which Baronius and Binius have assured you to be a lie. Or as true, as that which he adds 
y Mart. Pol. loc. cit. , that Sylvester after that disputation, shut up the Dragon, to live in the cave, usque ad diem iudicij, till the last day of judgement: or as true, as that which elsewhere the same Martinus tells 
z Idem. lib. 2. ca 4. pa. 72. 73  you, That diverse trees spoke and made Orations to Alexander the Great: and that a Vine of Gold, which stood before a Temple of Gold, brought forth instead of Grapes clusters of pearls and precious stones. All which, this worthy witness of Marta, sets down as Historical truths; and aught as certainly to be believed, as this Donation of Constantine.  
St. Antoninus is a witness of it, saith Marta 
a Mart. ca 30 cit. nu. 26. . And so he is 
b Anto. Sum. par. 3. tit. 22. cap. 5. §. 16. & part. 2. Histor. ca 1.  of a thousand other lies, fictions and fables. This Florentine Archbishop, doth in that kind, deserve the next commendation to their Archbishop of Genoa, and his Legendaur. Hear but what their own Bishop Canus saith of him: Vincentius 
c Mel. Canus Loc. Theol. lib. 11. ca 6. §. ●●x vero.  and Antoninus did not so much endeavour to writ true and certain matters, as to omit nothing which they found in any Papers: nor did they use so much as vulgar judgement to examine the same; and therefore with men of gravity and judgement, authoritate carent, they are of no authority or credit. For this time, let this suffice to be observed, that Antoninus not only approoues the Acts of Silvester, but expressly tells us. 
h Ant▪ 2. part. hist. ca 1. , that he took his whole narration touching Constantine's persecution, leprosy, cure by baptism at Silvesters hands, out of those very Acts of Silvester; as also that, about Helenaes' judaising, persuading Constantine to judaisme: and of the Council wherein Silvester disputed with the jews, and overcame them, both by reason and miracles: which whole passage doth verbatim, almost agreed with the words, and wholly in sense with the relation set down in the Legendaur. Now the Acts of Silvester, being nothing else but a very sink of lies, besides ten thousand other, in this only narration touching Constantine, Antoninus is convicted at the lest of an hundreth lies.  
Vincentius Beluacensis is a witness of the Donation, say two Cardinals, Albanus 
i Alb. lib. de Donat. Constant. ante cit. nu. 1. , and jacobatius. 
k jacobat. lib. 10 de Conc. A●t 8. ca vlt. nu. 18. . He is 
l Vinc 〈◊〉. Hist. lib. 13. a. ca 46 ad 57 , I confess, but even just such another as Antoninus. Bishop Canus 
m Can. loc cit.  his censure is the self same of them both: that neither of them is of any authority or credit. His narration is taken, as himself professeth 
n Vinc. loc. cit. , out of those Acts of Silvester. And so much as is in the Legend of Silvester in Voraginensis, is wholly and almost verbatim, in Beluacensis; beside many other heaps of fables and lies. Antoninus, Vincentius, and jacobus Voraginensis, are brave witnesses for Marta, jacobatius, and Albanus. Yet was it no small fault in Albanus to say 
o Alb loc cit.  of Vincentius, that he is, fidelis & integer historiarum relator, A faithful and upright relator of stories. Read him who list, and he will clearly see that both Vincentius himself, and all who approve his relations deserve no other reward at all but a Whetstone.  
Sigebert is a witness of the same, saith Marta 
c Ma●. loc. cit. . But Marta could not tell where. Sigeberts' Chronology gins with the Empire of Theodosius 
d An. Chr. 381. , forty years after the death of Constantine: and in all his book, (though I have diligently sought the same) I can find neither volam nor vestigium of this Donation. Besides, Sigebert testifieth 
e Sigeb. Chr. an. 607. , that Pope Sabinianus, (others say Boniface the third) obtained of Phocas, that the Roman Church should be the chief, and head of all Churches. A very needless and foolish thing, either for Boniface to seek, or Phocas to grant, or Sigebert to record, if any of them had known, or thought, that this had been granted to the Pope by Constantine in so fair a Charter, almost 300. years before.  
Ado Viennensis is a witness hereof, saith Marta 
f Mart. loc. cit. , and the Gregorian Glossators 
g Notis in cap. Constantinus.  also. Ado is a witness of their vanity. He indeed saith 
h Ado Vien. Chron. an. 306 , (but saith untruely) that Constantine was baptised at Rome: and that he builded many Churches in Rome and other places, further he adds (which is utterly untrue,) that Constantine gave Rome in his last testament to the Pope: but of this Charter of Donation, Ado saith not one word; unless Marta and the Glossators think, that this Donation was the last testament of Constantine; whereas the Donation to have been made ten years before his testament, by their own confession is clear, and the same to be directly contrary to his testament, both Socrates, Theodoret, and other ancient Historians do expressly testify.  
another witness alleged 
i Loci● citatis.  by Marta, and the Glossators, is Got of Viterbiensis. A poor witness I wisse. He declares, 
k Got. Viterb. par. 16. in Constantino.  both what the favourers of the Church say for this Donation, and also what the favourers of the Empire say against it: and then coming to tell his own mind, He thinks that what the Church possesseth, it holds that by right: but, Caetera super his quaestionibus, for other things touching these questions (to wit, about Constantine's Donation) I leave, saith he, to be resolved by others. Thus Viterb. And that he did not indeed think the Donation to be true, may easily appear, by his faint speech thereof, saying 
l Ib. pa. 385. , By this Donation, Rome and Italy, videtur collata Ecclesiae, seems to be given to the Church: It seems, saith he; whereas had he thought this to be a true donation, he might and would without any videtur, have said, that they were indeed conferred unto the Church.  
Such another testimony is that which Gretzer allegeth. The Priests, saith he 
m great. Append▪ 2. ad librum de muni● sic. principum. pa. 117. , did urge this Donation in the time of the Schism betwixt Alexander the 3. and Frederick though first, as by Otho Frisingensis doth appear. True, Otho saith 
n Otho. Fris. lib. 4. Chr. ca 3. , that some did so; and these were factious Hildebrandists, who striven to advance the Pope above the Emperor: but Otho saith withal, that the Imperialists, or such as favoured the Emperor, rejected and contemned this donation. And he expresseth their reasons, for that Constantine deuiding the Empire among his sons, gave to one the East, to another the Western Kingdoms, which by this means descended to Theodosius and other religious Emperors. Now they allege, saith Otho, that so holy an Emperor as Constantine, would never leave that to his children, which he had formerly given to the Church, nor would so religious Emperors, as Theodosius and others have usurped that which was not their own, but belonged to the Church. So Otho. Who though he saith 
o Quae omnia de●inire praesentis negotij non est. Oth. ibid. , that he will not define this matter, yet by fortifying the saying of the Imperialists, with so strong and unanswerable reasons, he plainly shows, that the Pope's faction made an unjust challenge, by that pretended Donation of Constantine. But let Otho stand neuter, he being not willing to show his mind in that place (which elsewhere 
p In Epistola ad Fridericum Imp. quae praeponitur Chronico.  he manifests to be for the Emperor's right above the Pope.) What weight can there be, in the saying of some few factious, and partial Hildebrandists, approving the Donation: able to counterpoise not the saying only, but the most clear and pregnant reasons of the Imperialists, rejecting the same Donation, as a fiction and forgery.  
To these which are of inferior note, they add four or five more eminent witnesses, which are with more probability pretended: and therefore are more seriously by us to be examined. The first of them is Photius, out of whose Nomocanon Steuchus with great ostentation allegeth, (and that in two several 
q Aug. Steuch. lib. de Don. Constant. pa. 16. & 110.  places) these words: The whole Church must be ruled by the Bishop of Rome, as it is to be seen in the Edict of Constantine. This, saith Steuchus, is written in the Nomocanon, which he calls the book jurium Ecclesiasticorum & Imperialium; as if both the Ecclesiastical, and Imperial laws did confirm, together with the Pope's supremacy, the pretended Edict or Charter of Constantine's Donation. Suppose that Photius had writ this; what account, think you, do they make of Photius, the Author of that Nomocanon? He was a falsifier of Writings, saith Possevine 
r Posseu. Appar. in photic. ; and out of Baronius he adds, sceleratissimus & immanissimus persecutor Ecclesiae, A most wretched and cruel persecutor of the Church, worse than any other Schismatic, Heretic, or Heathen. This should Photius gain at their hands, if he had been a witness for them, as Steuchus boasts he is. But in very deed, Steuchus belly Photius herein: for in all his Nomocanon, this testimony is not to be found. Marta to help the matter saith 
s Mart. ca 30. nu. 19 ; The book jurium Ecclesiasticorum, & Imperialium, was compiled by Theod. Balsamon, (who was afterward Patriarch of Antioch,) by the appointment of Manuel the Emperor, & Michael Patriarch of Constantinople: And cut of Balsamon, Marta cities it. But Marta was foully deceived herein; for as Balsamon 
t Bals. in Praefat. pa. 1. & 2.  himself testifieth, that Nomacanon was made by Photius about 280. years 
u Nam Photius obijt circa an. 886. Bar. eo an. nu: 29. Michael fit Episcopus Constant. an. 1166. Bar. eo an. nu. 41.  before Michael was Patriarch of Constantinople. Neither did Manuel or Michael appoint him to collect the Canons, (that was done long before by Photius) but to expound 
x Bals. loc. cit.  the same, and show which Canons were obsolete and out of use, and how some apparent repugnances might be reconciled therein. Now its true that Balsamon doth very often 
y Theod: Bal. Scholar in Tit. 1 cap. 36. pa 38. 39  mention this Edict, and calls it the Decree or Constitution of Saint Constantine; yea, he expressly sets down 
z The. Bals. Scho. in tit. 8. ca 1. pa. 85. & seq.  the whole Edict of Donation; so that Marta and Steuchus had little wit, to cite one poor and petite sentence out of Balsamon, where the Edict is, obiter, mentioned; when they might have alleged the whole Charter itself out of him. Neither doth Balsamon approve the Edict; or say that Constantine did truly make it, but when he saw it alleged, and set forth by the Romans, yea even by Pope Leo ●. himself, more than 130. years, before he writ 
a Leo obijt an. 1054 Bar. eo an. nu. 46. Balsamon scripsit, an. 1191. Bar. eo an. nu. 49. 50. , Balsamon upon their credit, without examining the matter, calls it as they did before, The Edict of Constantine.  
And who is Balsamon, that he should be thought a fit witness in a matter of fact, done at lest 800. years before his time? Or whence had Balsamon this Edict? Hear but the judgement of Cardinal Baronius touching this point. He, rejecting 
b Bar. an. 1191 nu. 51. & seq.  this Charter as sergeant: among other reasons, even for this, that Balsamon (as he 
c Bar. an. eodem. nu. 52. & 53.  slanders him) was the first publisher of the same, declaimes against him in this manner: Balsamon 
d Bar. ibid. nu. 51.  being a most crafty Companion, hath by fraud and Sinonian arts, mingled apocryphal and forged, with true and authentical writings. So he did in the Canons of the Apostles; So in the Canons of the sixth Council; And in like sort, out of the Acts of Sylvester, which are counterfeited under the name of Eusebius Cesariensis, did he publish this Edict of Constantine's Donation. So Baronius: expressly testifying, both the Edict itself to be 
e Bar. ibid. nu. 52.  forged: and Balsamon to have taken it out of the forged Acts of Sylvester; who also adds, That Balsamon 
f Bar. an. eodem, nu. 51. 52 & 62.  published it not for any good will to the Church of Rome, but dolo malo, very craftily, and in hatred of the Roman Church. Such a witness they have now got of Balsamon for this Edict, who as the Cardinal declares, is a witness of the forgery thereof.  
Lastly, to see not only the folly, but the vile dealing also, of Steuchus and Marta in this cause, that one poor sentence which they allege, and Steuchus sets forth, in Greek also out of the Nomocanon, is not at all to be found in the best editions 
g Non in ●odice Harlei, non in Edit. Paris. 1620. ex editione joh. T●lij, cui access●t graecus textus ex Codicibus manuscriptis erutus, & inumeris locis emendatus.  of Balsamon. In some, as in that of Agylaeus, it is not as they allege, Omnis Ecclesia a Papa Romae ius accipit, but 
h Vt notatur in Supplemento, in Edit. Paris. & verba apud Balsa monem haberentur paulo ante decretum Constantini. Tit. 8. ca 1. in Scholar pa. 85.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let every City follow consuetudinem, the custom of Rome. It was a pretty slight in Steuchus and Marta, to turn the City into the Church, and in stead of following the custom of the City of Rome, to say that every Church must depend on, and receive laws from the Pope of Rome.  
But Steuchus and Marta were both of them willing not to see the truth in this matter, and to deceive others by the name of Photius and Balsamon. For though the books both of Photius & Balsamon be extant, and vulgar to be read and seen; yet do you think they took this testimony, either out of the book of Photius or of Balsamon? Not, they did not, but either knowing that the text they alleged was not there; or not caring, whether it were there or no: they took it as Marta confesseth 
i Mart. ca 30. cit. nu. 18. 19 , upon the credit of one Nicholas Hidruntinus, Who going to Constantinople in the time of Pope Innocent 3. about the year 1200. written the Edict of Constantine out of that book jurium Ecclesiasticorum, & he, telling them Hoc libro ostenditur, that in this book jurium Ecclesiasticorun, it is showed, that all other Churches must depend on the Roman, as by Constantine's edict is to be seen. Steuchus & Marta upon the word of Nicholas cite that as the saying of Photius, or Balsamon: Whereas in truth, it is in neither of them; but falsely affirmed to be there by Nicholas, and twice falsely avouched by Steuchus and Marta, to be the saying of Photius or Balsamon, which was but the lie and lying device of Nicholas of Hidruntum. To say nothing what a simple man and lying companion this Nicholas was, who at the end of the Edict writ 
h Vt Marta ait. ibid.  thus; Finis testamenti ac Edicti magni Constantini. Here ends the Testament and Edict of Constantine the Great. Whereas neither this Edict was the Testament of Constantine; neither are those words extant in the book jurium Ecclesiasticorum: out of which, as Marta saith, Nicholas exscribed his Notes or Collections. But enough of Photius and Balsamon.  
The next witness is Damianus, of whom the Gregorian Glossators, as also Ant. Augustinus, say 
i Not. in cap. Constantinus. Dist. 96. Anto. Aug. lib. 1. dial. 6. pa. 53. , That in his Synodall disputation betwixt the King's Advocate, and a defender of the Church of Rome, he makes mention of this Edict of Constantine, and his giving of Rome and Italy to Pope Sylvester. Who (as it is there said) accepted some of the ornaments which Constantine gave him, to wit, such as were fit for a Bishop, but the golden Crown and other Robes, which were rather ambitious then mystical, Sylvester refused. Me thinks, they should not much glory in this Testimony of Damianus; for as it shows the modesty, humility, and piety of Pope Sylvester, in refusing the Crown, being offered unto him; so it demonstrates the pride of their later Popes, who take upon them, not one, but a 
i Maxim Pontificum, triplicem qui fron●e Coronam, etc. Mantuan. ad Inno●. 8. de vita D. Lud. Morbioli.  triple Crown, a mitre 
k Mitra auri phrygia●a. lib. 1. Sacr. Cerem. sect. 2. pa. 30.  of Gold, auro 
l Ibid. sect. 1. pa. 17.  & gemmis ornatam, decked with Gold & precious stones; & that so sumptuous, that Pope Clement the fift, when at his coronation 
m Pontifex ex equo deturbatus, solum carbunculum ex tiara amisit, pretij aureorum sex millium. Plat. in vita Clem. 5.  in Lions, by a mishap, either of a fall from his horse, or of a piece 
n Cecidit Corona de capite eius: in casu awlsus est carbunculus pretij sex millibus Florenorum. Supplem. ad Ma●t Polo. an. 1305.  of rubbige falling from a wall, his Crown was smit from his head, he lost one Carbuncle of the value of 6000. Crowns: of which their pride, an eyewitness thus writeth; I have 
o A declaration of Francis Breton, a monk of the order of Celestines, made publicly at Vendosm, on the 28. of jun. 1601.  seen the Pope having upon his head a triple Crown, where was written upon his forehead in precious stones, this word Mystery. The very same word which Saint john in his Apocalypses mentions, to be written in the forehead 
p Apoc. 17. 5.  of the Queen of Babylon.  
But to this testimony I answer, that the Author of that Book is not Damianus, who was sometime Bishop of Ostia: but some forger calling himself by the name of Damianus. Baronius 
q In disputatione quae asseritur Petri Damiani. Bar. an. 1191. nu. 61.  makes a doubt of that book: but diverse circumstances puts the matter almost out of doubt. The Treatise is called a Synodall 
r Disceptatio Synodatis, etc. extat tum apud Bar. an. 1062. nu. 12. tum apud Bin. tom. 3. Conc pa. 1137.  disputation, whether Honorius who was called Cadolaus, or Alexander the second, should be held for the rightful Pope. Now that disputation was not had in any Synod; as by the book itself is manifest, but before 
s Fiet hic Osboriense Concilium. Discep. Synod. Dam. in initio.  the time of the Synod at Osbore (a place 
t Osborium, locus nobis adhuc incompertus. Bar. an. 1062 nu. 21. Nec apud Ptolomeum, nec Melam, nec Maginum, nec Ortelium reperire potui. , for aught is yet known in Utopia.) Again, the Emperor's advocate is there made to pled so ignorantly, and withal, so partially, as if he were hired to betray the Emperor's cause. Damianus a man of great learning and discretion, was neither so simple as to writ so unlearned a dispute; neither so presumptuous as to forestall the Synodal judgement, and before hand direct the whole Council what they should judge: neither so foolish as to call that a Synodall disputation, no part of which was disputed in the Synod.  
Again, the Author of that dispute, saith; that all other both Episcopal and Patriarchal Sees, were instituted by some 
u Homo purus instituit. discep. Synod. ●. Cum beatitudo.  mere man, but Christ alone instituted the Roman Church. Who can think so foolish and absurd a saying to have proceeded from Damianus? To say nothing of other Sees, did not Saint Peter 
x Petrus primo instituit & ere ●it sedem patriarchalem Antio chenam. Bar. an. 39 nu. 16.  himself found the Church and patriarchal See at Antioch, as well as at Rome? was Peter more than a mere man, more than an Apostle, when he founded the Roman? Or was he less than an Apostle, when he founded the Antiochian Church? If the Roman was not founded (ministerially) as other Churches were, by an Apostle, then is it not Apostolical: If other Churches be founded only by men, and not (principally) by Christ, as the Roman was, then are they not Christian: neither of which Damianus would ever have said.  
Further, that Author saith 
y Disc. Synod. Damian. §. Quoniam ubi. ; That the Empeperour non habet in Ecclesia Romana potestatem, hath no authority in the Roman Church. Who can think Damianus so ignoram, as thus to say? He knew right well, that Pope Agatho writing to the Emperor, called Italy seru●lem 
z Epist. Agathonis in Conc. gen. 6. Act. 4. pag. 12.  provinciam, and Rome, seruilem urbem, The Emperor's servile Province, and servile City: That Gregory the great professed, That the Emperor 
a Greg. Epist. 34. lib. 4. ●ud. 13.  was his serene Lord, and that he was ready to obey 
b Vobis obedientiam praebere de●idero. Greg lib. eodem 4 epist. 32  his Imperial commands: and that also in Ecclesiastical causes, concerning one of which, the same Pope saith, It well 
c Greg. lib. eodem epist. 34.  beseemed our religious Lord the Emperor, ut ista praeciperet sacerdotibus, to command these things unto Bishops.  
Besides, that which the forgeter affirms, That Christ 
d Disc. Synod. Dam. §. Cum beatitudo.  gave to Peter and his successors, terreni simul et coelestis imperij iura, The rights both of the Terrene and Celestial Empire, is quite repugnant to the mind and writings of the true Damianus, who puts that true and right difference between the Regal and Episcopal functions, That Kings 
e Pet. Dam. epist. 9 lib. 4.  are to use the secular, and Bishops the spiritual sword, and not meddle with the Temporal. Was Damianus either so unconstant, or so forgetful, that what he taught in one place, he would condemn and contradict in another?  
Say the Author was indeed Damianus, He lived in the time of Pope Leo the ninth: he was esteemed obnoxious in some matter to the Pope's censure; and therefore sought earnestly to regain the Pope's favour, as his own Epistle 
f Pet. Dam. Epist. 4. lib. 1. ad Leonem 9 ut ostendat se de quibusdam criminibus falso accusatum.  to the Pope shows. What if he to please Leo the ninth; Who had published 
g Leo 9 Epist, 1.  the Edict of Constantine's Donation for an authentic Charter, did soothe the Pope's Holiness in such a matter? What credit can it be to the Donation, that it seemed pleasing to him, who durst not displease the Pope? Or if notwithstanding all this, they so much esteem the authority of Damianus, then must they for ever condemn Hildebrand, who was afterwards called Gregory the seaventh, for a most impious person: For Damianus in his Epistle to Pope Alexander the second, calls him, a Tyrant 
h Blandus ille tyrannus. Pet. Dam. epist. 10. lib. 1. , a man of a Nero's 
i Qui mihi Neroniana pietate semper condoluit. ibid.  piety, yea a very Devil 
k Hoc ego sancto Satanae meo respondeo. ibid. . If they upon the testimony of Damianus, will not accounted their St. Hildebrand, to be Saint Devil, they have little reason to persuade us, upon the like testimony of Damianus, to accept a forgery for an authentic writing.  
The next witness is St. Bernard, of whom Marta saith 
l Mart. ca 30. cit. nu. 23. ; Aperte probat Papam Constantino successisse, he evidently proves, that the Pope succeeded to Constantine. O the rare stupidity of Marta! St. Bernard proves no more, that the Pop● succeeds to Constantine, then to Caligula, Nero, or Dioclesian. In using imperial pomp, honour, and authority, (of that St. Bernard speaks) the Pope succeeds, (yea goes beyond) them all; in having right to use it, he succeeds to never a one of them all. St. Bernard tells the Pope, that de facto he did succeed to Constantine, but that he succeeded therein de jure unto him, St. Bernard saith not. Nay he plainly reproves the Pope for such succeeding, and usurping the Imperial Dignity de facto, to which de iure he had no right at all.  
The words of Bernard makes this most evident. Suffer 
m Bern. lib. 4. ad Eugen. Quaeso sustine paulisper, supporta me, Imo da veniam, etc.  me, (saith he to the Pope, carrying himself like an Emperor) bear with me, yea pardon me, I speak this not rashly, but timorously, which I wish may be as fruitful, as it is fervent. Hic, hic non pareo tibi, ut parcat Deus, herein I will not spare you, that God may spare you. Having thus prepared the Pope's mind, to receive with patience his reproof, he than adds; Either deny that you are the Pastor of this people, or show yourself a Pastor unto them: you will not deny that you are their Pastor, lest you deny yourself to be Peter's heir, whose See you hold. Peter never went decked with precious stones, and silks, never covered with Gold, nor carried on a white Palfrey, nor guarded with Soldiers, and yet without these, he thought he could well enough fulfil that commandment, If thou love me feed my sheep. In his successisti non Petro, sed Constantino. In these things you succeed no● Peter, but Constantine. Thus Bernard, clearly reproving the Pope, first for omitting that which belonged to his duty, in that he should have said the flock as Saint Peter did, to whom in that he did by right succeed; and then, for doing that, which belonged not to his duty, in that he took Imperial dignity and honour upon him, as did Constantine, to whom in that he did not by right succeed. For Saint Bernard, to have thought that the Pope was not in right to succeed them both, beside many, those his own words in another place, are a most evident witness, Dominatio 
n Bern. lib. 〈◊〉 de Cons. ad Eugen.  interdicitur, indicitur ministratio, you are forbidden to use domination or imperial authority in ruling, you are enjoined to use ministration, or Apostolical sedulity in feeding. Go 
o I ergo tu, & tibi vsurpate aude aut dominans Apostolatum, ●ut Apostolicus Domn●●um. ibid.  to then, see if you either having Imperial domination, dare usurp the office of an Apostle, or having the office of an Apostle, dare usurp imperial domination. Certainly 
p Pl●●e ab 〈◊〉 prohibe●s, si utrumque simi●●ter habere voles, pe●des utrumque. ibid.  you are forbidden the one of these; if you will have them both, you shall lose them both. So Bernard; By whom it is now evident, that if the Pope rightly succeed Saint Peter in his pastoral vocation, he cannot rightly succeed to Constantine, in his Imperial domination; and therefore by S. Bernard's testimony, can have no right at all to this pretended Donation.  
The next witness urged earnestly by Gretzer 
q Gretz Append 2. ad lib de Munif. princ●pa. 117. , to prove the truth of this Charter, is Litprandus Cremonensis, who in the Narration of his Legacy to Nicephorus Phocas the Emperor, mentioneth the pri●iledges granted by Constantine to the Roman Church, saying 
r Litpr. Crem. in 〈◊〉. ad N●ceph quae t●ta ●xtat ap●d ●ar an 968. nu 11. & seq. ; That Constantine bestowed 
s Litpr loc. cit. nu. 27.  many guilts upon it, not only in Italy, but in Grece, judea, Persia, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Egypt, and Lybia, and in all the Western kingdoms, as his privileges Quae apud nos sunt, which we have do testify: and further he protesteth, That Otho who sent him in that Legacy, withheld from the Church, neither any Town, City, nor Village which Constantine gave, or if he did, deum negavi, I have denied God, saith Litprandus. here, saith Gretzer, it is manifest that Litprandus had respect to the very words of Constantine's Charter, wherein those particulars are expressed. See the perverse dealing of Gretzer, he would by this Litprandus persuade you, that the Edict or Charter of Donation is true, which himself professeth 
t Gretz lib. cit. pa. 115.  and proclaims to be a forgery; and therefore assures you, that Litprandus is a false witness in giving testimony to a forgery.  
Again, that testimony of Litprandus, demonstrates the forgery of this Charter: for Litprandus saith, That Constantine gave 
u In omnibus pene occidentalibus regnis, Litp. loc, cit.  almost in all the Western Kingdoms, many Cities, Towns, and Territories to the Pope or Roman Church. Whence it is clear, that the Charter is forged, wherein Constantine is said, To have given all 
x Vrbem Romam & omnes totius Italiae & occidentalium regionum provincias loca & civitates. Edict Const. apud Bin. pa. 298.  the Western Kingdoms to the Pope and his Successors for ever.  
Besides this, there is another answer to this testimony. Either Litprandus who was Bishop of Cremona, is not the Author of that Treatise, or if he be, then is he of no truth nor credit in the whole world. Do but take a taste of his truth, wit, and judgement. This Litprandus discribing how base and sordid the Bishops of the Greek Church in those days were, saith; I speak 
y Litpr. Crem. loc. cit. nu. 87.  the truth, and lie not, throughout Greece, Bishops are not hospital, they sit alone at a table not covered, themselves do both cell and buy their commodities, themselves shut their doors, themselves carry their own meat to table, ipsi agasones, themselves play the Carters and Muleteers, themselves are Capones, I would say Caupones, hu●sters, and keepers of victualing-houses, and Taverns. So their Litprandus. Can any but laugh at the folly of this fabler, specially considering, that Curopaletes in that very age witnesseth, the pomp and excess of the Greek Bishops to have been such, that Michael 
z Curopal. apud Bar. ann. 1057. nu. 38.  the Emperor restrained their Sybariticas epulas & delicias, The Sybariticall delicacies used at their tables; yea, and this very Emperor Nicephorus complained of them, That they wasted the 
a Asserens ab Episcopis pauperum pecuniam consumi. ait Curop. apud Bar. ann. 964 nu. 34.  treasury of the Church: which by such sordid baseness could never have been done.  
And yet his vilifying of the Bishops, is but a toy, to his misusing the Emperor and his Nobles. He calls the Emperor a monster 
b Reptans monstrum. Litp. apud Bar. an. 968. nu. 21 Homo monstruosus. ibid. nu. 14. , a pigmy 
c Pigmaeum, capite pinguen, oculorum pravitate talp●num, cervise digitali ventre extensum, ibid. nu. 14. , his head as fat as brawn, eyed like a Mole; a neck no bigger than a finger, a gorbelly, swelling like 
d Bufonis in modum tumefactus, ibid. nu. 47.  a Toad, a spindle shank 
e Coxis' longissimum, crutibus pa●uum. ibid. nu. 14. , footed like 
f Capripes. nu. 21.  a Goat, for colour 
g Colore Aethiopem, nu. 14. Silvanus' vultu. anus incessu. agrestis, barbarus, setiger, villosus, nu. 21.  a Blackamoor, for countenance a Satire, for his gate a Beldame, a rude, rustic, and bristled clown, wearing old 
h Nimis veternoso, & diuturnitate ipsa faetido ornamento indutum, ibid. nu. 14.  and stinking apparel: and if all this be not enough, he calls him an Ass 
i Onager iste, nu. 52. , a wild Ass, a very puppet 
k Puppam ipsam meus sibi depinxit mea, ibid. nu. 33. , or a jacke a thrums-riding on horseback, adding; That his attendants went barefooted 
l Vulgi ipsius potior pars nudis processerat pedibus. Sed & optimates nimia vetustate rimatis tunicis erant induti; nullus est cui●s a●●uus hanc novam haberet, ibid. nu. 20. , his Nobles did wear torn and ragged coats, so old, that none of their great Grandfathers knew them to be new; his soldiers 
m vere inquam non homines, sed hominum similes, quibus lingua pro cax, said frigid a bello dextra ibid. nu. 5●.  not men, but shadows of men, pear● of tongue; but faint of their hearts and hands, such that 
n Ibid. nu. 39  400. of Othoes' men, would drive all Nicephorus Armies out of the field.  
Is it credible that a Bish. would use such base & immodest terms, and withal untrue, of the Emperor? or was not some Tharsites the penman of that Legacy? specially seeing of the valour of this Nicephorus, Baronius saith 
o Bar. an. 969. nu. 5. ; It is scarce credible how many, how great, & how memorable victories he obtained in few days. Glicas' saith 
p Glic. Annal. par. 3. pa. 430.  more, There did shine in this Nicephorus plurima multo preclarissima, many and excellent ornaments: and Constant. Manasses writing of him saith 
q Const. Manass. Annal. pag. 150. ; He subdued all the barbarous Nations; the Arabians feared him the Syrians and Cilicians subjected themselves to him: adding further, he was endowed with an absolute perfection of virtue, and beautified with all gifts, with strength of body, with fortitude of mind, with courtesy, prudence, caeterisque tam animi, quam corporis dotibus insigniter lucebat, and he was illustrious & eminent in other gifts, both of body and mind. What think you now of Gretzers Litprandus, and of his truth & credit? O▪ if for all this, they will yet still accounted this Litpr. Cremonensis to be an Author of worth and credit, as Broverius the jesuite, Canisius, Card. Baronius, and Gretzer esteem 
r Magno Dei beneficio factum puto ut ea Litprandi Relatio conseruata sit, quam à Chr. Broverio missam ad Vel. serum Hen. Canisius excudendum curavit, quibus omnibus de antiquitate ecclesiastica bene merentibus, bene precamur. Bar. an. 968. nu. 6.  him: Let them consider what an honourable testimony he gives to the Roman Emperors, and to all the Romans, and their Roman Nation: When 
s Litp. Crem. apud Bar an. 968. nu. 23.  Nicephorus the Emperor said unto him, you are not Romans but Lumbirds, Litprandus answered in this manner, Romulus, of whom the Romans have their name, was a fratricide, a bastard, one who erecting a sanctuary for a company of fugitives, slaves, homicides, and such like, called themselves Romans, and of such progenitors did descend the Roman Emperors, which Romans, we, to wit, Lumbards', Saxons, Frenchmen, Loraners, Germans, Suevians, and Burgundians, do so much disdain, that we term our enemies by no other name of contumely, but call them Romans: In this only name of Romans, comprehending all baseness, all dastardliness, all covetousness, all luxury, all lying, & quicquid vitiorum est, and whatsoever vice can be named; this name of Roman is equivalent to all these. Let the Romanists now glory in this their Litprandus, and produce him as often as they please, for a witness of this Charter of Constantine's Donation.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Thirty Lawyers, Civilians and Canonists, alleged by Marta, to prove the Donation of Constantine: and an answer unto them.  
AFter Divines and Historians, they allege an whole troop of Lawyers, Civilians and Canonists, to the number of thirty, or thereabouts, All witnessing, as Marta saith 
a Mart ca 30. nu. 28. 29. , Constantine's Donation, Pro veris●ima haberi, to be held for most true and certain. For the Canonists, it skils not much what they say in this matter: The cause is the Popes, and they being the Pope's Parasites, must in duty, Gnatonise unto him with Ait, aio. How insolent, nay impious and blasphemous they are in flattering the Pope, that one saying of theirs, Our Lord God the Pope, (which occasioned others among them to think the Pope to 
b Ne sequatur scandalum pusillorum qui aestimant Papam esse unum ●eum, qui habet potestatem omnem in caelo & terra. Gers, in R●s●l, cuca materiam Excom. consid. 11.  be that one God who hath all power both in heaven and in earth) may stand for a thousand. This above all, I here mention, because the ringleader of their Jesuits father Parsons, not only persuades 
c Pars. in his Warnword to Sir Francis Hastings wast-word. Encount. 1. ca 2. nu. 10. fol. 30. , That no such saying is to be ●ound in the writings of the Canonists, and hard it is, saith he, to believe that any such text may be found; but turning that whole matter to a very jest, he scoffs at Protestants, as if they had foolishly devised the same; Whereas some, saith he, found this written D. noster D. Papa, that is, Dominus noster, Dominus Papa, some cavilling horeticke judging it inconvenient to repeat Dominus twice, thought the later D. to stand for Deus, and so read it Dominus, Deus Papa; eu●n as a simple fellow, saith he, having a letter, sent from some mariners, and endorsed, to the Right honourable our good L. the L. Admiral, thought the letter was to be delivered to the Lady Admiral, saying▪ that seeing the former L. stood for Lord, the second L. must needs stand for Lady. Thus the grand 〈◊〉 scoffs at Protestants as fainers of this blasphemous saying; which if he had not vowed to shut his eyes against the truth, he might, and all others may see, to be extant in the Gloss, Cap. Cum inter. Extra. john. 22. de verborum signifis. in fine: Where the Pope is called Dominus Deus noster, not only in the old Gloss, but in the new edition of it also, corrected 
d Bulla Gr●g. 13. praefixa novae editioni Decreti. , and expurged from sundry errors, by the authority of Gregory the 13: even there (as if this were no error, nor a matter needing any correction or qualificaon) is it recorded, for an eternal conviction both of their blasphemy in uttering this, and of their impudency in denying it. The words both in the old and corrected Gloss are these, Credere autem Dominum Deum nostrum Papam, conditorem dicti decretalis & istius, non potuisse statuere prou● statuit, haereticum censetur. Let father Parsons and his friends consider now, whether this be a Protestants fiction to say, that some of their Canonists call the Pope, the Lord their God. It is little to be regarded then, what such blaspheming parasites and patroness, of the Pope's Omnipotency 
y Vetustissima ac fere omnipotens ecclesiae. Rom. potestas. Aug. Steuchus, lib. de Don. Constant. pa. 195. , say in this cause. It is the custom of Canonists, said 
z Sic sibi dixisse Pium 5. ait ipse Nau. Coment. in cap. Non liceat. cans. 12. q. 2.  Pius quintus, to give too much to the Pope's power: Fran. Victoria rightly said 
a Vict. Relect. ●. de potest. eccle. sect. 6. nu. 3.  of them; They gave this dominion to the Pope, cum ipsi essent pauperes rebus & doctrina, when they were beggarly both for learning and living. Cynus 
b Cynus l. quoties Cod. de judicijs.  rightly said of them, Canonistae fecerunt sibi iura pro libito voluntatis, the Canonists make what they list to be Law.  
For Civilians I much honour them, so fare as they keep themselves within the bounds of the Imperial laws, which they profess: but those whom Marta allegeth, lived in those times, when there was such a mixture and confusion of the Canon and Civil Law, as that in all matters, which concerned the Pope, the Canon law ever had the predominance: As Popes had then got the mastery of Emperors, so was the Imperial Law overruled by the Pontifical: nor were any then suffered to profess that Law, unless he had, I say not a tincture, but a deep die of the Papacy, and unless they received his mark both in their hands and foreheads. From hence proceeded those exorbitant speeches of Baldus 
c Barth. l. sin. Cod. sentent. res●●di non posse. ; That the Pope is Deus in terris, a God upon earth. And again 
d Bald. in cap. ●nter corporalia. Extrau. nu. 1. , What things the Pope doth in cases reserved, he doth those non tanquam homo, sed tanquam Deus, not as Man, but as God: & many the like both in him & others. Now both sorts of Martaes' Lawyers being thus servilely addicted to the Pope, (he being the sole master of the Canon, & overmastering the civil Law) were so partial in the Pope's cause, that what Aeneas Siluius said 
e Papam Pium 2. sic scripsisse Decano & capitulo Moguntino testatur auth. Paralip. Abb. Vsperg. pa. 418.  of their Bishops, the same fitly agrees to these. Etiam vera dicere contra Papam, est contra iuramentum Episcoporum, To speak even the truth when it is against the Pope, was against the profession of those Lawyers.  
Besides this general exception, if it were worth the labour to examine all the particulars cited by Marta, it were an easy matter to show how few of them do effectually prove that which he intends and undertakes. But sparing that labour, which would be but irksome to myself, and to the Reader tedious, I will give you in some of them, a taste of Martaes' false and fraudulent dealing, in alleging the writings of men even of his own profession.  
The first and most ancient whom he citeth 
f Mart. loc cit. nu. 28. Est Accursius de antiquissimis scriptoribus, qui scripsit circa, an. 1240. , is Accursius: who thus writeth of the Donation of Constantine. We answer 
g Accur. l. Si plures. ff. de Pactis. , quod de jure non valuit, that in Law this Donation was of no force. And he gives a reason; Because had Constantine given away his Imperial jurisdiction of the West, (as by the Edict he doth) sic potuit perire totum Imperium, the whole Empire might so be ruinated and perish. This to be the true and final judgement of Accursius, is witnessed by Bartholus 
r Bart. in 〈◊〉 ff nu. 13. , Accursius finaliter tenet quod non valuit Donatio, Accursius resolves and determines that Constantine's Donation is of no force: By the Gloss 
s Gloss in cap. Romani▪ Tit. 〈…〉 , Accursius holds that the Donation is not of force. By Covarrwias' 
t Cou●● lib. 4. Va●●ar resol▪ ca 16. pa. 70. , Accursius in the Authentics, holds and proves that the Donation is not of force: By Lupoldus 
u Lup ld. lib. de iu●●b. Imper. ca 13. , Accursius holds that the Donation is not good: By Card. Turrecremata 
x Turr. in Dist. 96. art. 1▪ , The Gloss upon the Authentics holds, Quod Donatio illa non valuit, That this Donation is not of force. And to omit many others, by Alu. Pelagius 
y Alu Pel. lib. 2. de place. 〈◊〉. ca 29. , Accursius affirms, that the Donation made to the Church by Constantine, is not of force, and that his successors may revoke the same: And he also adds a clause worthy Martaes' observing, Hoc communiter tenent legistae, The Lawyers do generally hold this with Accursius. What think you, doth Marta now deserve for producing Accursius as his first, most ancient, and most noble Lawyer, to prove the verity and validity of this Donation? A Laurel, or the reward of a lie?  
Another of Martaes' 
z 〈…〉  Lawyers, is Luc. Paulus Rose●lus, whose testimony I thought fit to set next to Accursius, because it will serve as a very fair Torch, to see the fair dealing of Marta, both with him and others. He in the very same place which 
a Luc. Paul. Rosell. in Repertorio ad Francis Aretinum in verbo Donatio quantumcunque magna.  Marta citeth for proof of the Donation, and to which he directeth us, writeth in this manner, and his words deserve to be writ in golden letters. Whether that great Donation which Constantine is said to have made to Sylvester, be of force or not, diverse men think diversely, and all are entangled in this question; and why so? For it is not lawful to dispute openly against that Donation; because the Popes and Cardinals, statim diris suis execrationibus eos involutos reddunt, will presently enwrap them in their direful curses: Nay, they will have them to be interdicted and forbidden the use both of fire and water. What then, have you yourself nothing to say in this matter? Yes, saith he; I will not omit or forbear to say this, Etsi millies indies mortemulctarer, though I should every day dye a thousand deaths: That this Donation, (if it was ever made) was not so profitable either to the Church, or topietie. Doth not our Saviour say, that his house should be called an house of prayer? But by this Donation of Constantine, it is made Latronum spelunca, & omnium vi●iorum receptaculum: a den of Thiefs, and a sanctuary for all vices: And then a little after he concludeth thus, Quare mihi videtur, Wherefore I think, that that Sylvester, (who ere he was) that wittingly took this Donation of the Emperor, Diabolus statim effectus est, was presently upon that acceptance made a Devil, and changed from an Angel of light, to an Angel of darkness: And citing the words of Christ, Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, he saith; By this it appears, that neither the Emperor aught to forsake, nor the Pope aught to accept those things which belong to Caesar, quae etiamsi millies obtulerit, which though the Emperor should offer a thousand times, Yet a good and holy Pope would never think it fitting to accept them: Thus Paulus Rosellus. Say now in sadness if Marta for citing this Lawyer, this Text, and these words, for a proof of the verity and dignity of Constantine's Donation, doth not ex condigno merit to be crowned with a garland of folly?  
A third Lawyer cited by Marta, 
a Mart. ca cit. nu. 28. , is Bartholus, a man so wavering and unconstant in his opinions, yea even sibi contrarius, as Ant. Rosel. saith, 
b Ant. Ross. tract. de Concil. verbo Postquam. nu. 8. , that he changed cum coelo animum, his mind with the air, soil, and place of his abode; thinking it a point of wisdom, to speak omnia pro tempore & l●co, what the present place and time persuaded, not what the truth. What his true judgement was in this matter, appears certainly by these his own words, in one of the places 
c Bart. l. Hosts f●. de Captivis. nu. 7.  cited by Marta. If any should say that the Emperor is not the Lord and Monarch to●ius orbis, of the whole world, esset hereticus, such a man should be judged an heretic, because he speaks both against the determination of the Church, and against the text of the holy Gospel, where it is said; There went out an Edict from Caesar, that the whole world should be taxed. And in another place 
d Bart. in Prooem. ff. nu. 14. , Papa non habet aliquam iurisdictionem, The Pope hath no (temporal) jurisdiction at all. Thus Bartholus: who denying all temporal jurisdiction to the Pope, and holding him for an heretic, that denies the Emperor to be the temporal Lord and Monarch of the whole world, doth even thereby hold all for heretics, who defend the Donation of Constantine; seeing by it the Pope is said to be the temporal Lord, the Monarch as Pope Nicholas 
d N●ch. 3. ca▪ Fundam. de Elect. & elect. pot. in 6.  calls him, and greatest Emperor, as Steuchus 
e Constantinus cessit maiori Imperatori. Steuch lib. cit. pa. 187.  terms him, of Rome, Italy, and all the Western Provinces, that is of a great, and far the best part of the Empire. That this was the true judgement and resolution of Bartholus, it is witnessed by Petr. de Anchona; Bartholus, saith he 
f Pet. de Anchon. in Prooem. super. 6. Decr §. Sacro sanctae. nu. 5. , doth effectually prove, & concludit, and concludes also, that Constantine's Donation is not of force. Whatsoever Bartholus any where saith contrary to this, (as indeed he doth in diverse places) he speaks that, not ex animi sententia, but as Lucius Paulus Rosellus saith, Adulando Pontifici, in flattery of the Pope, and for fear of his direful execrations and Interdicts; yea, Bartholus his own words import no less. For when he comes to speak of Constantine's Donation, vide●e, saith he 
g Barth. in Prooem; ff. nu. 14. , mark this well, nos sumus in territorijs Ecclesiae, & ideo dico Donationem illam valere, We are now in the Pope's territories, and therefore I say that this Donation is of force, Bartholus for law, was of the like mould and mettle, as were those Romish Divines, of whom it is recorded 
h Paralip. ad Abbat. Vrsperg. an. 1518 pa. 448. , that privately they used to say to their friends concerning Transubstantiation, and such other questions, Sic dicerem in scholis, sed tamen (maneat inter nos) diversum sentio. Thus I say openly, and in the Schools, but (keep my Council I pray you,) I think the contrary. Bartholus saying, is altogether like. Thus I say in the Pope's Territories, or to please the Pope, The Donation is good, but (keep it to yourself) I think he contrary: for the Pope hath no (temporal) jurisdiction, but the Emperor is Lord of all, and he who saith otherwise, is indeed an heretic.  
Martaes' next Lawyer is Baldus 
i Mart. loc. cit. nu. 28. , the Scholar of Bartholus; who had perfectly learned of his master, to Gnathonize to the Pope, and to whom of all other, most fitly agrees that censure of Lucius Paulus Rossellus, he durst not speak against the Pope, but by flattery soothed him. Touching his opinion, it is first to be remembered, that Baldus in all his speeches concerning this matter, presupposeth the Donation to have been truly made by Constantine: the Popes both then, and before, had taught him and others, not to call that into question; and the Palea Constantinus being long before 
k Eugen. 3. obijt an. 1153 Bar. co an. nu. 10. Bartolus objit an. 1355 Galter. saec. 14. Baldus vixit, an. 1390. Bell. lib. scrip. eccle. in Bald.  either Bartholus, or Baldus days, allowed 
l Mart loc. cit, nu. 37.  by Pope Eugenius 3. multum grani attulit Ecclesiae, as one of their Lawyers 
m Nich. Euerard. loc. Argum. legal. in loco 11. à Verisimili. nu. 16.  saith, had brought by that time, much corn and moulter to the Pope's mill. This being then presupposed to be true, (which is utterly false) that Constantine made that Donation, Baldus and other Lawyers disputed only whether this Donation supposing it to be made, were in law good, and of force, or not; or how, and in what manner it might be said to be good in law. Much like as School Divines about the same time disputed, whether Christ's body were really present in the Sacrament by way of Transmutation, or of Transubstautiation; both the one and the other supposing (but not believing and granting) that which is utterly untrue, that Christ is really and corporally there present. Or as at this day, the Romanists contend among themselves, whether the Pope hath directly or indirectly, power and authority to depose Kings, and take away their Kingdoms; whereas the Pope in truth, hath no such authority any way at all: as those disputers suppose on both sides. The very like did the Lawyers. They would not, nor was it safe for them to question whether Constantine made that Donation: but supposing that, (which is untrue) they only disputed whether being made, such a Donation was good and forceable in law or not: or how and by what right he could give away so great a part of the Empire.  
Baldus to please the Pope's Holiness, holds that the Donation is firm, and that after the surest manner that can be wished, but withal after such a manner, as is most unlikely, and can never be proved. First, by any Imperial, any humane authority, or law, Baldus professeth plainly, that according to the determination of the ancient Lawyers, Constantine could not make that Donation, nor could it be of force, to pass away his Imperial right. Constantine or other Emperors may pass away, saith he 
n Bald. in Prooem. de Feudis. nu. 32. 33. , the use, profit, or commodity of their Territories, reserving always feoltie and recognition to the Emperors▪ but neither Constantine nor any other Emperor, can 
o Non valere, nee possibilem esse. ibid.  pass them away, quoad Expropriationem territorij dignitatis aut iurisdictionis, in respect of the supreme right, or of Imperial dignity and jurisdiction. Nay, to think that any Emperor would thus mutilate the Empire is, as Baldus there adds, species fatuitatis, a point of folly. Seeing then as Baldus professeth, neither the Imperial right and royalty can possibly be passed away, nor the use, profit, and commodity of so great a part of the Empire, can by any humane law be given or granted▪ how, or by what means shall this Donation be thought de iure, to be of force, even for the usus fructus? here 
e Bald. ibid.  Baldus goes a note fare beyond Ela, and tells us, That this Donation (supposing it was made by Constantine) potius fuit divinitatis, quam humanitatis, was an Act of God, rather than of Man: and that it proceeded a fide catholica, from the Catholic faith, not from any Imperial Law. Let either Marta, or Baldus, or any other prove, that God either by himself, or by any Divine revelation, or any other way known to the Church, commanded Constantine to make this Edict, and we will most willingly assent unto it, even fide catholica. Till they prove this, (which they are never able to do) both Baldus must be held for a base flattering parasite of the Pope in this matter, and Marta for a trifling disputer, who from an untrue supposal of Baldus, and his untrue collection upon that supposal, strives to prove an absolute assertion of the verity and validity of Constantine's Donation, and that not only for the usus fructus, which Baldus grants in law to be good, but even for the Imperial rights and royalty which Baldus saith, to be granted away is impossible. The censure of Paulus de Castro, falls rightly upon Baldus in this matter: Baldus, saith he 
p Paul. de Castro. in l. 1▪ Cod. Quando non pe●●ntium parts, & in l. Edita. Cod. de edendo.  flies through the air and clouds: that is, hath lofty, but unstaid opinions, founded on the wind and clouds, All that he speaks tends to pomp; & plerumque tantum subtilizat, ut scipsum frangat, for the most part, (specially in this matter) he so follows subtleties, that he confounds himself.  
A fift Lawyer alleged, both by Card. Albanus 
q Hier. Alban lib. de Donat. Const. nu. 1.  and Marta 
r Mart loc. cit. nu 28. , is Albericus de Rosate: one so directly opposite to the validity of this Donation, that Couarru●ias saith 
s Covar. lib. 4. Variar. Resol. cap. 16 pa. 70.  of him, Albericus holds the Donation to be of no force; and Boetius Epo not only affirms the same, saying, Omnium audacissime; Albericus more boldly than any other, affirms 
t Boct. ●po. Heroic. quaest. q. 3. nu. 7●.  the Donation not to be of force: adding also, that this is the common opinion of the Doctors of the Civil law: but for this very cause of rejecting the Donation as invalid, Epo himself calls 
u Quaest eadem. nu. 138.  Albericus, hostem Ecclesiae, a very enemy to the Church. Albericus own words alleged before, do convince Albanus and Marta, both of untruth and folly; for he 
x Alber. de Rosat. l. Bene à Zenone. de Quadri●n. 〈◊〉. fol. 111. col. 4. & l. final. de Iurisdict. omnium ludic. §. per iniquum. nu. 4. fol. 146.  directly affirms, and proves, that this Edict of Constantine, neither is, nor can be of force, either by virtue of any Donation, nor of any prescription, neither by the Imperial, nor by the Pontifical law; And further, That the successors in the Empire may revoke and recall the same. And though, upon the like false supposal as Baldus took, that Constantine did make such a Donation, Albericus thought 
y Alber. in l. Bene à Zenon. supra. cit.  it to have been made not by any humane Law or authority, but by some divine instinct, and command from God; (which is a fancy without all colour of truth:) yet withal he adds two or three remarkable sayings, touching this Donation. The first, that it was only personal, and tied Constantine alone, and not his successors: to which purpose he saith, vere credo, I do verily believe, that this Donation is not of force to prejudice the Empire, or the Emperor's successor. The second is a Memorandum, touching that fancy which he borrowed of Baldus, that this Donation proceeded from God. Albericus tells us, that himself heard some great men say, and that it is recorded also in authenticis scriptures, in very credible writings, that when this Donation was given, and accepted (which certainly was never in Constantine's time, nor many hundred years after) there was then a voice heard from heaven, saying; Hodie seminatum est venenum aspidum in Ecclesia Dei, This day is the poison of Asps poured into the Church. A pregnant evidence that God commanded not Constantine, nor any else, to make any such Donation: for God doth pour grace, and not poison into his Church. The third is a caveat for their Church, not to be too insolent upon this Donation. I have heard, saith he, of men worthy to be credited, that in the time of Pope Bo●iface the eight, a certain Cardinal of the order of Cistertians, a man of exceeding great reputation and knowledge, openly in a festival Sermon said, or foretold, per eosdem passus & gradus, that the Church or Pope by the same pases and degrees, whereby it had ascended in temporalities, should descend also again, till it come to the extreme poverty of Silvester. Sure that prophetical Card. spoke not fare amiss. For the spirit of God foretelleth the like concerning Babylon, (which they 
z Ribera jesuit. come in cap▪ 14. Apoc nu. 38. & seq Babylon matter fornicationum quae casura praedicitur, Roma quidem est, etc.  profess & prove to be Rome,) In as 
a Reuel. 18. 7.  much as she hath glorified herself, & lived in pleasure; so much give ye her torments & sorrow. Albericus by this Cardinal's prophecy, gives Marta and them all a fair warning, not to be too proud in that or any like Donation, for though they sit like the Queen of Babel, and say they shall see no mourning; yet when their sins are once ripe, their plague's shall come upon them, death, sorrow, and famine; and those ten horns by which they have been lifted up, shall hate that whore of Babylon (that is Rome) and make her desolate and naked, and shall eat up her fl●sh, and burn her with fire, But enough of this witness of Albanus and Marta.  
Aretine is brought for another witness by Marta 
b Mar. loc. cit. nu. 28. : but he speaks directly both against Marta, and that Donation, and that also even in the place alleged by Marta. Baldus, saith he 
c Aret. in Rubr. ff. de verbor. obligat. , doth well teach, that the Emperor cannot give away any quotient of the Empire, neither a third part, nor a fourth, nor one half. Then doubtless by Aretine's judgement, Constantine neither did, nor could give Rome, Italy, and all the Western Provinces, (which is the better half of the Empire) to the Pope.  
Cardinal Zabarella is another (a seaventh) witness of Marta 
d Mart loc▪ cit. nu. 29. . But he affirms not the Donation to have been truly made, but only supposeth as others did, that it was made. Sufficiat 
e Card. Zabarel. in Clem. Pastor●lis. §. Illud. in 2. oppos.  praesupponere, let it suffice us to presuppose, that the Donation was made, and was of force. Marta should have known that there is great odds betwixt a position and a supposition.  
Lucas de Penna is another, (the eight) Lawyer, cited by Marta 
f Ma●t. loc. cit nu. 28. , who though he say he will not deny the Donation, yet he sets down that which doth disprove and overthrew the Donation. He plainly affirms 
g Luc de Pen. C●d. de omni agro desert. l. quicunque desertum. fol. 185  That the territories or d●maines of the Empire, cannot be alienated or given away. Again, The Prince is the husband of the Commonwealth. And therefore as the husband cannot alienate bona dotalia, the dowry of the Wi●e, so neither can the Prince the Lands of the Empire: and then he concludes, Interdicta itaque sit talis alienatio, therefore such alienation is forbidden, lest the commonwealth by many, though but small alienations, ad nihilum redigatur, be at length brought to nothing. Yea he further shows, That though such Donations and alienations be already made, and that also with an oath, yet may they, and aught they to be revoked, non obstante interposito juramento, notwithstanding, an oath (he thinks such an oath to be unlawful, and therefore not of force to bind) be taken to the contrary.  
A ninth Lawyer, cited by Marta 
h Mart. loc▪ cit. nu. 28. , is Antonius Corsettus, who in that place alleged 
i Ant. Cors. tract depotest. reg. q. 4.  by Marta, demands, Whether a King may give away the goods of the Kingdom: his answer relying on the judgement of Pope Innocentius, is, That a King or Emperor may do it moderately, so that the Regal Dignity be not hurt thereby, non item immoderate, but he may not do it above measure, not in such sort, ut laedatur dignitas Regalis, That the Regal or Imperial dignity be hurt or impaired by such a gift or alienation. Now seeing this supposed Donation, by which is given away Rome, It●ly, and all the Western Provinces, that is half of the Empire: and that also in such sort as Al●arus Pelagius 
k Al. Pelag. lib. 1. de plane eccles. ca 41.  vaunteth. That by virtue of this Donation, in verita●e Imperator nihil habet facere Romae, necin toto Imperio occidentali, The Emperor hath in truth nothing at all to do with Rome, or with the whole Western Empire: seeing, I say, this Donation is such, that none can doubt but that it is very immoderate and excessive; yea as Baldus saith, a very maiming of the Empire: it follows by the judgement of Martaes' own witness, that Constantine neither might make such a Donation, or if he did, that the Donation is wholly voided, invalid, and of no force or effect. The same Ant. Corset 
l Ibid.  adds diverse testimonies to this purpose: the first of Baldus, cited by Paul de Castro, Who saith that Baldus doth determine, that if a King or Emperor give away the goods of the Empire totaliter, & expropriando, totally, & in such manner that he pass away his Imperial right and property therein, such a Donation is of no force. The second of Durandus their Speculator, wh● saith, that quando regnum enormiter laeditur, when the Kingdom or Empire sustains an enormous loss by such Donations, than they are void. The third of Oldrade, who teacheth, yea pulcre decidit, defiles excellently, as saith Corset, That a King cannot give away immoderately that which belongs to the Empire. The fourth, of Bartholus, Who saith, that if the Donations made by Princes, tend to a great or excessive alienation of the rights of the Empire, non v●lent etiam iuratae, such Donations, though they be confirmed by oath, are invalid, and of no force. Thus Corset: proving clearly not only by reason, but by the consent of Bartholus, Baldus, Durand, and Oldrade, four of Martaes' own witnesses, that this vast Donation of Constantine, is of no worth or force at all.  
A tenth Lawyer cited by Marta 
m Mart. loc. cit. nu. 29. , is Felinus, whose words are so fare from helping Marta, or supporting this Donation, that they indeed overthrew the same. He in the place 
n Felin. in ca Solitae, de Maior. & obed.  which Marta allegeth, refers his Reader for this Donation to Pius secundus, saying, Concerning this Donation, vide la●e in dicto Dialogo Pij, ubi per multa tenet quod Palea sit falsa. See the forenamed Dialogue of Pius the second, where by many reasons he proves, that the Palea (Constantinus) is false and forged, And ●e inveigheth against the miserable Lawyers▪ who ●oyled themselves in disputing about the validity of that Donation which was never made. Doth not Felinus now strongly prove the Donation? And that Felinus his own judgement in this ma●ter, concurred with this sentence of Aeneas Silvius, to which he refers us, Covarrwias' expressly witnesseth, saying 
o Covar. lib. 4 Var. 〈◊〉 ca 16 〈…〉. , Aeneas Siluius denies that Constantine made this Donation, and so doth Hieron. Balbus, and Felinus Cap. Solitae de Maiorit. & obedi. which is the very place that Marta citeth: yea Hier. de Cevallos' not only affirms 
p Hier. de Ceval. in Spec. aureo opin. Commoun.  Felinus to have held the Donation to be of no force; but further adds, that Felinus teacheth this to be the common opinion of the Lawyers.  
I list not, neither is it worth the labour to examine the rest of Martaes' Lawyers; you may by these conjecture, what fair dealing he useth in the rest. Specially if you consider that four more of them must stand for mere Ciphers, or else for witnesses of Martaes' fraud. For in the places which he allegeth out of Oldrade 
q Oldr. in Cons. 158. , jason 
r jas. in l. C● qui ita §. qui ita ff. de verb. obligat. Nulla la●s lex est in eo Tit. , Praepositus 
s Praep. in ca Cum ad verum dist. 86. , and johan. Andreas 
t joh. Aud. in addit. ad Spec. in tit. de prescript §. ratione, & §. Item quod. , there is nothing spoken touching Constantine's Donation.  
Now lest Marta should vainly imagine that all his Masters of the Law are wholly of his side, as he fancied these to be: to those later four which are but cyphers, and the other ten which we have already examined and proved to be more effectual for us then for him, I will adjoin so many, as may in number equal, and in weight preponderate the whole Catalogue of Marta his Lawyers.  
Of eight other more, Hier. de Caevallos 
u Hier. de Cevall. loco cit.  is witness. The other opinion, saith he, that this Donation was not of force de jure, is held by Cagnolus, in repet. rubr. ff. de Dolo. nu. 79. by Genadius sect. 3. fol. 220. by Paulus Fuscus de visitat. lib. 2. cap. 21. by Hier. Monte de finibus reg. ca 1. by Hottoman de Feudis. ca 8. nu. final. by Vulcurnus de reg. mundi 2. part. q. 4. by Sebastian de medicis. de l●g. & statut. part 1. q. 3. nu. 1. 4. by Magdalenus de number. test. in testamen part. 1. cap. 12. nu. 20. The same opinion is held, saith Covarrwias' 
y Cou●r. loc. cit.  by Hier. Balbus. lib. de coronat. pa. 81. by Carol. Molineus, (he calls it a fable) in Alex. Consil. 24. lib. 5. Col. vlt. by Hie●on. in Practica. Cance●lar. fol. 9 & seq. as witnesseth jacobatius 
z 〈◊〉 jacob. lib. 10 de Co●●. Art. 8. ca vl●. nu. 15. 1●. , and by jac. Beluisus in Prooem. ff. as witnesseth Epo 
a B●et, Epo. Herald. ●u. q 3. nu. 78. .  
To these twelve may be added Cynus Pistoriensis, who thus saith. 
b Cynus ad l. Comperit. Cod. de Praescrip. 30. vel 40. ann. nu. 1  This text is against them who think that the Roman Church may prescribe for the Donation of Constantine, because for that which belongs to subjection it cannot prescribe; (for contra 
c Vt ait Lupold. lib. de ●ure reg. ca 11. & probat ●x C●p. cum non lic●at. Extr. de l moscrip.  obedientiam non currit praescriptio) No man can prescribe for not yielding obedience, and then not for the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire, cui subiectus est totus orbis, to which the whole world (than certainly the Pope and Western Empire) is subject. joh. Igneus 
d joh Ign. Respite in l. Donationes nu 2●.  who thus writes, Communis sententia, It is the common judgement of Historians, that those Donations of Rome, and other cities in Italy, were not made by Constantine: and in his summary 
e Sum. in idem cap. nu. 21. , That Donation made to the Church, falso attribuitur Constantino, is falsely ascribed to Constantine. Pet. Ferrariensis, who saith 
f Pet. Ferr. in forma repons. rei con●en●ae in verbo. Praescriptionis. nu. 33. , Italy will never be at quiet till the Donation made (as is pretended) by Constantine, be revoked by some godly and potent Emperor: seeing there is no good concord betwixt Psalterium and Cythara, the Psalm and the Cytherens, neither is it granted either by Christ, or by Saint Feter, that they should possess such things, but they are commanded to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.  
Alciat, who sets down 
g Alc. lib. ●. Pareg ca 19 pa. 475.  six effectual reasons, to prove that Constantine made not this Donation, and then concluding, he declares, that not only the Donation itself, but the occasion also of it is false and fabulous. Truly, saith he, that Constantine was not baptised at Rome, nor by Sylvester, (both these the Edict expressly avoucheth) but at Nicomedia, and by Eusebius Bishop of that place, Hierom and other Writers do testify. Again, that he was affected with a leprosy (this the Edict at large sets down) apud idoneos scriptores nusquam legitur, is no where read in any good Writer, or such as may be credited: But of Constantine the fift, sur-named Copro●ius, it is said, that he was a Leper, unde fortassis aequivocatione nominis error inductus, whence perhaps by the equivocation of the name, that leprosy is erroneously ascribed to Constantine the first, which befell to Constantine the fift. So Alciat: showing this Donation to be a false, lying, and fabulous writing, and conjecturing also the same to have been forged after the time of Constantinus Iconomachus, that is more than 380. years 
h Constant. magnus obijt an. 337. Constantinus Iconomachus natus est & baptizatus an. 719 Bar. eo an. nu. 20.  after Constantine the Great was dead.  
In the last place, to make up the number of thirty two, Covarrwias' 
i Did. Covar. lib. 4 Var. Resol. ca 16. pa. 69. & 70.  may be reckoned. Who besides sundry authorities, by many effectual reasons, shows that Constantine made no such Donation. One is, For that by the consent of Eusebius and all Historians, Constantine in his last will and Testament divided the Empire to his own sons, and gave Italy and other places, (which are said to be given to the Pope) to one of them; quod profecto non fecisset, which truly he would never have done, had he formerly given the same to Sylvester. Another reason is this, Because neither Damasus, nor Historians, either Greek or Latin, who have writ the Acts of Constantine, ullam de hac refecere mentionem: none of them have made any mention of this Donation; Procul dubio non omissuri, who without all doubt, would not have omitted it, if either it had been made, or if they had known that it had been made, whereof, saith he, they could not have been ignorant, seeing they so diligently writ all the Acts which concerned the Church in Constantine's time. A third reason he adds, Because it is certain by the consent of all Writers, that the Popes for four hundred years after Sylvester and Constantine, did not use that Donation, nor had the temporal jurisdiction of Rome. Thus he.  
By this now it appears, how vainly Marta mustered that troop of his thirty Lawyers, as bearing witness to this Donation of Constantine. Those who among them are most favourable on his side, presupposing the truth thereof (which neither he nor they can ever prove) upon that false supposal, strive to maintain it to be de iure, of force: but diverse, and some the very best of them, denying it to be of any worth, validity, or force at all: and upon supposal that it was made by any Emperor, teaching it, not to have been made (as Baldus flatteringly fancied by Divine instinct, but by the Devil's suggestion, and the accepting of it, to have made that Pope who first accepted it, (and them the rest who after him approved it) a very Devil and Angel of the dark and infernal pit.   

CHAP. XIIII.  
The testimonies of eight Emperors: Zeno, justinian, Charles the first, Lewis, Henry the second, Otho the fourth, Frederick the second, and Charles the fourth, alleged by Marta, as witnesses of Constantine's Donation, examined.  
AFter Counsels, Divines, Historians, and Lawyers, Marta allegeth the Emperors themselves as witnesses of this Donation. Among them all he hath found eight, who being of all his witnesses most worthy to be heard in this cause, I shall desire the Reader seriously to consider their testimonies.  
The first is the Emperor Zeno, whose words as Marta citeth 
a Mart. ca 30. cit. nu. 27.  them, are these; We renew the Constitution of Constantine, qui veneranda Christianorum fide Romanorum minuit imperium: who by the venerable faith of Christians, impaired the Roman Empire. Whence Marta concludes that Constantine sure made this Donation, and so impaired the Empire.  
I am much ashamed, that Doctor Marta, even in his own profession 
b jura. civilia, quae ad nos pertinent. ibid. , should bewray so notorious ignorance: was there no way to impair the Empire, but by making this Charter? What if by his dividing the Empire into three parts among his three children, he be thought to weaken it? Seeing in such causes those sayings seem especially to take place, Vis vn●ta fortior, and Imperium impatiens consortis, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and many the like. What if Constantine gave away some Cities, Forts or Castles, standing upon the frontier of the Empire? What if in building Churches, he bestowed so much of the revenues, as that the want thereof seemed to some to impair the Empire? It was a rare fatuity in Marta, to think that the Empire could no way be impaired, but only by giving away Rome, Italy, and all the Western Provinces, that is the better half of the Empire.  
Again, see what a godly and religious mind Marta bears to the Christian Faith. He will prove by the Civil Law, that Christian Religion, and the true Faith, is the imparing of an Empire, or State, and that Constantine impaired the Empire, by the venerable Religion of the Christian Faith. Impious and blasphemous Marta! worse than Matchivell: Religion and piety was, and ever will be the only fortress and bulwark of all Christian States and Kingdoms. If he would not learn this of God, who warned joshua, and in him all Princes, To do that 
c josh. 1. 8.  which God commandeth, for then shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and then shalt thou have good success: if not of this our most religious Constantine, who by experience found it true and professed 
d Euseb. lib. 10. histor. ca 7. , That when Religion is neglected, the Commonweal comes to wrack, but when it is maintained, the state flourisheth: if not of Lactantius 
e Lactan. lib. 5. ca 8. , Ideo omnia mala, the cause why all calamities daily invade the State, is the forsaking of God; if not of Saint Cyrill, who saith 
f Cyril lib. de recta fide ad Theod. in initio. §. Caeterum. , That piety is inconcussum Regiae dignitatis fundamentum, the sure prop and foundation of any Kingdom: yet he might and should have learned this lesson, in those very books of the Law, which he professeth; either of justinian, who saith, It becometh 
g justin. Cod. lib. 1. Tit. de summa Trinit, l. 3. Decere.  us to warn all our subjects, to be religious, for so we shall obtain more abundant favour from the Lord; Or of Pope Nicholas the third, who saith 
h Nich. 3. ca Fundamenta de Elect. & electi potest. in 6. , Fundamenta militantis Ecclesiae in montibus sanctis, The foundation of the Church Militant is set in the holy Mountains; (that is on true piety and Religion) Upon this holy Mountain, tota Ecclesiae fabrica confidenter inni●itur, the whole frame of the Church doth firmly and surely rely; At lest he should have been ashamed that the very Heathens should reach him this lesson. All 
i Livius lib. 5. in orat. Camilli.  things fall out prosperously to the worshippers of God, all infelicity to those that despise him; yea even the Heathenish Poets also, Iniqua 
k Senec. in Medea. Act. 2.  nunquam Regna perpetuo manent: And again 
l Senec. in Thieste. Act. 2. , Vbi non est pudor, nec cura iuris, sanctitas, pietas, fides, instabile regnum est. One might be eloquent in refuting this matchivilian Doctor, it being very easy to demonstrate, that piety, and prosperity in Princes, that the Church and Commonweal, like the two twins of Hypocrates, do stand and fall, flourish and fade together. I will only oppose this one sovereign Antidote, to his poisonful doctrine, 
Arx est religio, murus aheneus,  
O Rex, est pietas, principibus bonis.   
And all this I have spoken, supposing Marta to have cited the true words and text of the law of Zeno. But now I must further answer, that Marta finding the text corrupted (rather by error, as I think, than otherwise) wittingly and maliciously embraceth (as did before him Cardinal Albanus 
i Hier. Alb. lib. de Donat. Const. nu. 9 ) that corruption, which is directly contrary both to the true reading, and true sense of Zeno: for the true words are these; We 
k Zeno smper. Cod. Iust. lib. 5. Tit. 27. l. 5. Ditu Constantini.  renew the Constitution of Saint Constantine, who by the venerable faith of Christians, Romanum munivit imperium, did strengthen and establish the Roman Empire. So it is read in diverse 
l Edict. Paris. ann. 1559.  other, and specially in that edition 
m Quarta editio auctior & emendatior. Lugd. an. 1607  of the Civil Law, which is called emendatior, more corrected; and their learned Civilian Dionis. Gothofr. observes 
n Gotof. not. in dictam legem Z●nonis. , That the other reading of minuit, is rejected by Castrinsis as false, & ita est, and it is false indeed, saith he. Besides other reasons, the very words themselves do show this, seeing it had been very absurd for Zeno to say, That Constantine by the Christian faith had impaired, but he might most truly and justly say, That by the Christian faith, Constantine had fortified and strengthened the Kingdom. Again, it had been most absurd in the Emperor Zeno, to call him Diwm Constantinum, St. Constantine, and so commend him (as he doth in that very place) for embracing of the Christian faith, if he had meant, that by the Christian faith the Empire had been impaired. But that which puts this matter out of all doubt, is another Edict of the same Zeno; called Henoticum, which thus gins, 
m Henot. Zenon. extat apud Euag. lib. 3. cap. 14.  Quoniam procerto scimus Imperium nostrum à sincera solum & vera fide tum initiam habuisse, tum stabilitum esse, tum robur, ac praesidium, quod expugnari nequit ex ea sumpsisse, Because we know assuredly, that our Empire by the true faith, hath both received the beginning, and been established and strengthened in such sort, that it cannot be expugned. How could Zeno say here, that the true faith did impair his Empire, who certainly knew it to be the most inexpugnable prop and stay to uphold his Empire. It was fit that Marta for defending of a false, sergeant, and corrupted Donation, should be so fare infatuated, as that even in his own profession he should allege a false and foolishly corrupted Text of the Law.  
Next to Zeno, the Emperor justinian is alleged, from whom Marta 
n Mart. ca 30 nu. 28.  reasoneth in this manner, justinian saith, that Leo the Emperor post Constantinum fidei principatum auxit, did after Constantine enlarge the Dignity or Majesty of the Faith; From which words, saith Marta, it is gathered that justinian also knew of the foresaid Donation. Do you not think that Marta had sent his wit to Rome, when he writ this at Naples? justinian's words are plainly spoken of the faith; Marta expounds them, as meant of the Empire. justinian saith, Constantine planted and propagated, and that Leo enlarged the faith; Marta thence collects that Constantine diminished, and Leo increased the Empire, whereof there is not any sound at all in the words of justinian. To conclude, from Leo his increasing the faith after Constantine, that Constantine therefore impaired it, is as if one should collect, that Romulus impaired the City of Rome, because Servius Tullus after Romulus enlarged it. And if it were granted, (which neither is true, nor any part of the meaning of justinian) that Constantine had impaired the Empire, yet doth it no way follow which Marta collects, that therefore Constantine gave away Rome, Italy, and all the Western Provinces to the Pope; or that justinian knew that Constantine made this Edict of Donation. He might impair the Empire an hundred ways, and not give so much away, or not give it to the Pope. Besides all this, Marta to make his false Gloss more colourable, eclipse away those words of the Text in justinian, which evidently manifest both the fraud of Marta, and the true meaning of justinian; these are justinian's words, Leo 
o justin. in Authent. Coll. 2. Tit. 1. cap. uram.  of blessed memory, after Constantine fidei inter Imperatores principatum auxit, among those that were Emperors, enlarged the Dignity or Majesty of the Faith, and ordained the honour and discipline of holy Churches. Whence it is clear that justinian commends both Constantine for planting and propagating, and Leo for enlarging the faith, by making laws for advancing the honour, and establishing the holy discipline of the church, which at the first planting of the faith, was not so fully done by Constantine. In which words seeing there is neither mention, nor intention of imparing or enlarging the Empire; every man may conceive, how well Marta deals with writers of other professions, when he so maliciously corrupteth the words, and perverts the sense of those very Imperial laws of Constantine, in the knowledge of which he professeth 
p Percurramus iuta civilia, quae ad nos pertinent. part. 1▪ ca 30. nu. 27  himself a Doctor.  
The third Emperor whom they allege, is Charles the Great, whom to be a witness of this Donation, they prove by diverse collections. First comes in Steuchus, and tells 
q Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 111. & 115.  us, That Charles the great confirmed, id quod magnus Constantinus edicto statuerat, that which Constantine had decreed in his Edict. To this purpose Steuchus recipes 
r Pag. 112. 113. 114. 115.  an whole Chapter out of the libri Carolini: And though in all that large Chapter, there be no mention either of Constantine, or of his Donation, or of his Edict, yet Steuchus will from thence prove this Edict. And how I pray you? Because there are some like sentences in that chapter of Charles, to those that are in Constantine's Edict. Constantine 
s Steuch. ibid. pa. 116.  saith the Pope must be the highest, and rule over all Bishops in the world: Charles saith, The Roman Church primatum habet à Deo, hath Primacy, and is preferred to other Churches by God. Constantine saith, we decree that the Pope shall govern all which pertains to Religion, and stability of Faith. Charles in like sort saith, That learned and holy men, as by name Saint Hierom, have implored help from the Roman Church in doctrines of Faith. From this similitude (there is, as you plainly see no Identity) of Charles his speeches to Constantine's, Steuchus collects, That Charles both knew 
t Hoc sciens, perceptumque habens. Steuc. pa. 111.  of Constantine's Edict, and confirmed 
u Confirmat quod Constant●nus statuerat. Ib▪ d pa. 115.  the same.  
Steuchus hath in many passages before, bewrayed his leaden heart and brazen forehead: In this he will yet once again demonstrate the same unto you. What's Primacy, to Supremacy? What's Primacy above Bishops, to a Temporal Supremacy and Monarchy above the Emperor? Or how can a Primacy given by God, infer the Donation of a Temporal Monarchy over Rome, and all the Western Provinces, given by Constantine? But the eminency of Steuchus his folly appears in that from one or two somewhat like, but yet different sayings, found the one in Charles his words; the other in Constantine's supposed Edict, Steuchus infers, that Charles knew, and confirmed this Edict. Are those speeches of Primacy over Bishops, and expecting the Pope's judgement in causes of Faith, no where to be found before the time of Charles, but in this base Edict of Donation? Read the third Epistle 
x Apud. Bin. ●om. 1. Conc. pa. 104.  of Anacietus, there it is said, This Apostolic See of Rome, Card● & caput omnium Ecclesiarum à Domino constituta, was appointed by the Lord, to be the head and hinge of all Churches, and all Churches to be ruled by it. Again, it is there also said, The Sea of Rome, Primatum obtinuit, obtained from God Primacy over all Churches. It is a witless reason, and a Topical place fit only for Steuchus, from similitude of speeches to conclude, that the one writer knew or confirmed the writing of the other. The speech of the Lyric 
y Horat. lib. 3. Carm. Ode 16 , Bene est cut Deus obtulit parca quod satis est manu, is like to the saying of Solomon 
z Prou. 30. 8. ? Give me not poverty, nor riches; but feed me with food convenient. One might justly deride him, who from the similitude of these sayings, would conclude; that therefore the Epicurian hog knew what Solomon said, or meant to confirm his Proverbs. But the most witless reasons are most fit for Steuchus.  
Next comes Boetius Epo, and among those seven reasons, which are brought by some witty disputers, to prove that Constantine by his Donation transferred the Western Empire to the Pope, sets this down for the fift, which carrieth indeed the fairest colour, and is of all the seven most probable. The Pope, say they 
a Apud Boet. Epon. lib. Heroic. quaest. q. 3. nu. 60. , gave the Western Empire to Charles the great, for so Pope Innocentius the third witnesseth, saying 
b Cap. venerabilem. lib. 1. Decretal. tit. 6. de Elect. & elect. potest. , the Apostolic See transferred the Empire from the Grecians, in personam magnifici Caroli, to the person of Charles the Great, and so to the Germans; Now, say they, the Pope would not give the Western Empire to Charles, unless it were his own, either by Constantine's Donation, or by his proper right from Christ. His proper right or title from Christ, these men could not find, nor did think so good; and therefore they infer from this gift, That the Pope 
c Constanti● nu. ipsum quoque 〈…〉 videtur. ibid. nu. 55.  had the Western Empire by the Donation of Constantine.  
For answer to this reason, first it may be said, that Leo the third was not so free hearted, as to give away his own, yea, all his successors right: specially to an Empire. Such large Donations are not usual in their Popes. But, howsoever not only these disputers for the Donation, but Bellarmine 
d Bell. lib. de Transl. Imp. vb. ait Imperiu●● translatum P●ntificis autho●ta ●. pa. 3. , Baronius 
e Ex in●ita Romano pontifici authoritate, fuisse impl●●um affirma●us. Bar. an. 780. nu. 14. & seq. , Carerius 
f Car. lib. 2. de Rom Pont. ca 19▪ nu. 7. , and many others do vainly boast of the contrary: the truth is, neither had Leo the third the Western Empire to give, neither did he give it unto Charles. All that he conferred was but the Imperial Coronation and unction, which were but accidental ●ites and ceremonies, the substance itself he did not, he could not confer. All the right that Charles ever had to the Western Provinces, was first by Conquest, or jure belli, and then by the unanimous consent of the Roman State, which is equal to Ius electionis; they all accepting him for their King and Emperor: which consent Pope Leo the third, as a chief member of that State, in their name, and as the mouth of the whole politic body, signified unto Charles, and expressed it, by setting the Imperial Crown upon his head.  
Of his former title by conquest, none can doubt, who considers that Charles overcame Desiderius and the Lombard's, & so made himself Lord of all Italy, all the Cities thereof being either by force compelled to yield, or else willingly without force yielding themselves unto him. Charles, saith Rhegino 
g Rhegin an. 774. , returned from Rome to Papia, and took it by force, and then all the Lumbards' coming, de cunctis civitatibus Italiae out of all the Cities of Italy, eius se subdiderunt dominationi, subjected themselves to the rule and government of Charles; and he, Italia subiugata & ordinata, Italy being now subdued & set in order by him, with great triumph returned into France: and in the year 781. coming again to Rome, his two sons were anointed Kings, Pipin King (or Viceroy) of Italy, & Lewis of Aquitane. Charles saith Hermanus 
h Herm. Cont. Cronic. brevi an. 774. & in Chron. maiori. an. e●d.  overcame Desiderius, he subdued Long●bardos cum Italia, the Lumbards' with Italy, and in triumph came to Rome. Charles, saith Otho Frising 
i Oth. Fris. l●b. 5. ca 26. & 28.  subacta Italia, having subdued Italy, returned into France, and some years after coming to Rome, his son Pipin was anointed King of Italy. Charles coming into Italy, saith Athelmus 
k Annal. rerum gest. ● Carolo, an. 774. Illius, lib authorem Adelmum aut Athelmum vocat▪ Pap●r Masson in Leon. 3. & Goldast. ante libros Carolinos pa. 83. , overcame Desiderius, and took him captive, compelled the city of Ticinum to yield; which other cities in Italy following, omnes se potesta●● Regis subdiderunt, they all subjected themselves to the power of Charles, who then returned into France, subacta & ordinata Italia, having conquered Italy, and set it in order. Charles, saith Eginhertus 
l Eginh. de vit. Carol pa 4 , did not desist nor give over war, till he had overcome Desiderius, put to flight Adalguisus his son, totamque Italiam suae ditioni subiugaret, and had brought all Italy under the yoke of his Dominion. Charles, saith Marian. Scotus 
m Mar. Scot an. 774. , went into Italy, and overcame Desiderius and the Lumbards', atque Italiam totam subegit, and subdued all Italy. Charles, saith Sigebert 
n Sigeb▪ 〈◊〉 774. , having Italiam sub iure Regni Francorum redegit, brought all Italy into subjection to the French. Charles ve destroyed the Kingdom of the Lombard's, totam saith Aimonius 
o Aimon. lib. 4. de gest. Fran. ca 70. , forced the city of Ticinum to yield; which other cities in Italy following, omnes se Regis & Francorum potestati subdiderunt, they all subjected themselves to the power of Charles, and the King having subdued Italy, returned into France, carrying Desiderius captive with him. Charles, saith Lupoldus 
p Lupold. lib. de jure Reg. & Imp. ca 1. , came into Italy, forced the city of Papia, being the chief seat of the King of the Lumbards', to yield; other cities in Italy following it, dicti Caroli potestati se tradiderunt, gave and subjected themselves to the power of Charles, and he, Italiae subiugatae, set his son Pipine as Viceroy over Italy, being thus conquered. Again 
q Ibid. ca 7. , Charles bello licito subiugavit, subdued and conquered by just war, Italy, Saxony, Frisia, and many other Provinces. And again 
r Ibid. ca 5. & it erum. ca 9 , Charles licite per bellum acquisivit, conquered, and that lawfully, Italy and many other Provinces, and got them to him and his successors, because the Kings and possessors of them dealt tyrannously against the Church.  
It is true that many Citties yielded without war; but yet their voluntary yielding to a Conqueror, hinders not his Conquest, but furthers the same, and makes it more easy and and speedy. And therefore it is a very frivolous cavil of Bellarmine 
s Cum Romans nunquam pugnavit, etc. qua ration● igitur iure belli Romanos subiectos habuit. Bell. lib. 1. de Transl. Imp. ca 7. pa. 127. , That because Charles fought not with the Romans, nor forceably entered the city of Rome, as an enemy; therefore he obtained it not by conquest: for neither did he fight with any City that yielded itself sine sudore & sanguine, and yet he was a Conqueror of them, as well as of the other▪ and of them all, none was so ready and willing to yield as Rome itself and their State. Yea, they were so forward in this submission of themselves unto him, That before 
t Siffrid. Epit: lib. 1. an. 781.  hand, pactio interuenerat, there was an agreement, a covenant and compact made, betwixt the Princes of Germany, and the Pope with the Romans, that when the Lumbards' were conquered, the Roman Empire should be transferred unto him. What needed force, when they freely, and of their own accord, offered subjection to the Conqueror?  
To omit many other, their own Sigonius speaks most effectually to this purpose, saying 
u Sigon. lib. 4. de reg. Ital. in initio. ; Desiderius and all the Lumbards' being overcome, Carolus Regnum Italiae sibi, iure victorae vendicavit, Charles challenged the Kingdom of Italy as due unto him by Conquest: yea, he further shows, that the Italian States upon this Conquest, willingly accepted him as their Lord. After that saith he 
x Ibid. , the people being demanded, if they would subject themselves to this King Charles, and with constancy and fidelity obey him and his commands, had answered, that they would; he was according to ancient custom crowned, and then anointed King, and set in the Throne at Modoetia, by the Bishop of Milan. Which things being done, Charles thought it his duty being now made the Lord of Italy, non solum armis sed etiam legibus, not only by Conquest but by Law, to set in order the Commonwealth: a●d then having told what Cities or Dukedoms he gave to others, and what to the Pope, for a testimony of his Sovereignty in both, Sigonius declares, That in all the Lands and Territories which he gave or confirmed to the Pope, he did still retain ius principatus & ditionem, Imperial or suprcame Dominion: and for the rest, all the Dukes were to receive an oath of fidelity, every one swearing to be faithful to him and his successors, ut vassallus Domino, as a vassal to his Lord. Thus and much more Sigonius. The like consent was expressed at Rome, and that in a Synod, held shortly after his conquest and crowning at Modoetia, For Charles saith Sigonius, after this 
y His rebus Papiae atque Modoeciae acts, Carolus ad consilia cum Hadriano communicanda Roman iter intendit. Sig. ibid.  returned to Rome 
z Iterum Romam redijt, Synodum constituit. Sigeb. an. 773. sed non ait factam eo anno▪ Nam & reditus Romam & Synodus habita, post expugnatam Papiam ann. 774 & idem declaratur Distinc. 63. Ca Hadrianus & Theod. de Niem. lib. de de jur. Imp. in initio. Herm. Cont. an. 774. : he appointed a solemn Council to be held; that Synod was 
a Sigeb. Theod. de Niem. & Gratian. locis citat. Naucl. an. 772. Mart. Pol. an. 772. Lupol. lib. de jur. regni. ca 1 Rod. de Colum. lib de trans. Imp. §. Hoc. Mars. Patau. de trans. Imp: ca 10. alijque.  most solemnly celebrated in the church of our Saviour, at which were present not only Bishops, Abbots, and other religious persons to the number of an hundred and fifty, but judges 
b Theod. de Ni●: loc. cit.  also, Lawyers, and others, ex universis ordinibus almae urbis, of all the orders of the city, who sought out the customs and laws of the church and Empire, Populus itaque Romanus legem condebat, the Roman people than made a law after their usual manner, and Ius & potestatem Imperij concesserunt, granted to Charles the right and power of the Empire, & in ●um transtulit omne suum ius & potestatem, and the people transferred to him all their power and right. The Testament of Charles set down by Eginhertus 
c Eginh. de vita Carol. pa. 13. , yields an undeniable demonstration, that Charles from the time of this Conquest, accounted himself the supreme Lord and King of Italy, seeing it bears date Anno Christi 811. of his Kingdom in France, the forty three, of his Kingdom in Italy the 36. The first of which thirty six falls out directly in the year 774. By this now it appears, and that also by the consent and judgement of the best Historians, and others, that both Charles esteemed himself to have a right by conquest unto Italy, and that the Italians and Romans acknowledged the same right in him; and that both the Pope, and the other Italians, held their Territories from him as their supreme Lord: In token whereof the Pope 
f Rheg. an. 796. Si●●● eod. an. Aims. lib. 4. ca 86. Naucl. an. 796 Sigon. lib. 4. de reg. Ital. anno 796.  and Romans at the Election of Pope Leo, sent to Charles the keys of St. Peter, and the standard of the city of Rome, and the rest swore fidelity to him, and therein professed him to be their Lord, and themselves his vassals, and the whole State of Italy first at Modoetia accepted, and crowned him for their King, and then at Rome, in a Synod decreed the power and right of the Empire to belong unto him.  
Now seeing both this Conquest of Italy was made by Charles, and this uniform consent was declared by the Romans, Anno. 774. as Rhegino, Hermanus, and others affirm 
g Rheg. Herm. alij que locis cit. , even from that time Charles had the Sovereign, and truly Imperial authority over Rome, Italy, and other conquered Provinces belonging unto the Empire, though he neither desired, nor they gave unto him the Title and Name of Roman Emperor, till more than twenty four 
h Anno. 800. quando Imp●rator Rom. dictus & Corenatus est.  years after. For his power being then truly Regal, was also truly Imperial; seeing it is certain that Rex and Imperator, Regal and Imperial authority differ only in name and title, not in reality and substance. How usually in all writers are the Kingdoms of Assiria, Persia, & Grecia, called three of those four 
i Sl●id. de 4. fummis Imperijs librum scripsit. Medorum Imperium vocat Perer. lib. 2. in Dan. pa. 104. & Imperium Persarum ac Graecorum idem lib. 15. p. 907. Imperium A flyrior●●●. Aeneas Syl. lib. de ortu Imp. ca 4.  summa Imperia, which have ruled the world. Aeneas Silvius calls 
k Aen. Silu. lib. cit. ca 1. , the sacred Empire of Rome, Romanam regiam potestatem, the Regal power of the Romans. Sigonius hath writ twenty books of the Western Roman Emperors, from Charles the Great to Rodulphus. All his books he entitles, 
l Sig. à lib 4. ad 20. de Reg. Ital.  De Regno Italiae, of the Kingdom of Italy. The name of the Emperor, saith Mars. Patavinus 
m Mars. Defen. pac. part. 2. ca 15.  is used to signify Regalis Monarchiae speciem, a kind of Regal Monarch: to wit, such as is truly Regal and Sovereign. Hostiensis saith 
n Host Extr. de verb. signif. ca Super quibusdam, & cit. à Lupol. lib. de jure reg. ca 11. , That Imperial unction (at which ti●e the title of Emperor is usually given) non dat nisi nomen Imperatoris, gives nothing but the name of Emperor: The substance than is the same with the Regal power, which before he hath. Pope Gelasius writing to an Emperor, and of his Imperial authority also, calls it in express terms, Regal power: The world 
o Gelas. Epist. 8. quae est ad Ana●tasium Imp.  is governed by two things, by pontifical authority, & regali pote●tate, and by Regal power. Pope Leo who crowned Charles, calls 
p Leo 3. apud Krantz. Saxon lib. 2. ca 18.  that Regal power, which he had before his Coronation, Imperiale culmen, the Imperial height. Lupoldus handling this point at large, saith 
q Lupold. de jur. reg. & Imp ca 7.  of the Roman King, that eo ipso quod est Rex, est Imperator, even for this cause that he is King, he is also Emperor▪ and that 
r Ibid. habet Rex. Rom. ●andem potestatem exercendi actus reseruatos Imperatori, quam habet post Coronationem.  in those Territories which belong unto him, he may exercise all Imperial Acts: and particularly of Charles, he saith 
s Ibid. ca 9 ; That before his Coronation to be Emperor, he had plenariam & omnimodam potestatem, plenary and all Sovereign power in Italy. He further adds 
t Ibid. cap. 7. Consuetudo generalis est omnium regnorum occidentalium, etc. , That it is the general custom of all the Western Kingdoms, from time beyond all memory, that their Kings do, and may exercise all Imperial acts in their kingdoms, and that by reason of this custom, quae valet et licita est, which is both lawful, and of force, the Roman King may before he be crowned Emperor, exercise in his Kingdom all Imperial rights, acts, and offices; upon which ground he particularly affirms 
u Ibid. ca 7. , that Rex Galliae the French King, as now he is called, hath the same power in his Kingdom, that the Emperor hath in the Empire: and the like is to be said of England, whose Crown is expressly called 
x 25. H. 8. ca 21. 22. & 1. Mar Pa●l. 2. ca 1. & 1. Eliz. ca 1.  Imperial. To the like purpose Hier. Baldus saith 
y Hier. Balb. lib. de Coron. pa. 68 , that the King of the Romans, and the Emperor, idem omnino valent, et sunt Synonimons, are all one in substance, and are Synonimal titles: which he proves, both because the years of one's Empire, incipiunt fluere, begin to be accounted from the time that one is elected King of the Romans, and specially by the law 
z Cod. de Quadr. praescrip. lib. 7. tit. 27. , Bene à Zenone, wherein, that which is in one line called Imperialis maiestas, in the very next, is called Regale culmen: whence it is evident, and that by the Imperial law, that the Regal and Imperial majesty and height is the very same; yea, Charles himself to have judged no otherwise is evident by his own Act, for he 
a Eginhart. de vita & gest. Carol pa. 11.  professed that if he had known that▪ Leo would have crowned him Emperor, he would not have come to Church that day, though it was one of the chiefest festival days in the year; even the day of C●rists Nativity. Now none may doubt, but that if Charles had thought he had got by Imperial Coronation, either a better right, title or interest, or more authority and power then before he had, to Rome, Italy, and the Provinces which he had subdued, he would most willingly have accepted, yea twenty years before that, have sought for Imperial Coronation, and the Imperial Name. But knowing that though he got a more glorious and pompous title, yet he obtained no power or authority to, and over Rome, Italy, or the Provinces which he had conquered, then before he had; he in modesty declining the name of Emperor, which he knew would breed envy, (as afterwards indeed it did 
b Inuidian suscepti nominis, Constantinopolitanis Imperatoribus super hoc indignantibus, magna tulit patien. tia. Eginhart. Ibid. ) contented himself with the authority and power of an Emperor, which before that solemn Imperial inauguration, he both had and exercised in Rome, Italy, and other Western Provinces, which he had got iure belli, by Conquest and law of Arms.  
His other title was the willing consent of the Italian States and people to have him for their Lord. And this was indeed sufficiently performed: first, when after his Conquest, he was crowned at Modoetia King of Italy; and then at Rome, when the Council of all the Italian States decreed him to be their Lord and King; yet the same was again, and that with fare more pomp and solemnity then ever before performed at Rome 
c Anast. in vita Leon. 3 alijque. , in the Church of Saint Peter, on the day of Christ's Nativity, in the year 800 
d Nam obijt an. Imperij 11. an. Chri. 811. ut ex Testamento eiu● ce●tum est a pud Eginba●●. pa. 13. Qu●d ve●o Ath●l●● Otho Fris. Rhegin. Herm. Sig●b. & alij Coronatum dicunt an. 801 hoc eo fit, quia olim annum inchoabant à die▪ N●●●uitatis Christ, non ut nunc à die Circumcis onis, & Kalend. ●anua. Quod obseruat etiam Bell. lib. de Trans. Imp. ca 4 pa. 105. . When Pope Leo the third, in the name of the Senate and whole people of Rome, and so of all the Italian States, Crowned him for the Western Roman Emperor, and with many most joyful acclamations expressed their full consent thereunto, and so transferred the Empire unto him. For though Bellarmine, and other flatterers of the Roman See, challenge this wholly and solely to the Pope, that he only 
e Vt ipse qui solus id facere posset, Imperium transfe●●e● Bell lib. de Trans. cap. 4. pa. 103. , and none else could transfer the Empire; that he 
f Bell. lib. ●od. in tit. ca 12.  suo iure, by his own Papal right, did transfer the Empire to Charles, and that Charles 
g Ibid. ca 12. pa. 207.  obtained the Empire, nullo alio titulo nisi pontificis maximi authoritate, by no other Title at all, but only by the Pope's authority: yet is this but mere ventosity, and puffing up the Pope's pride. For neither hath he right to give or transfer any Kingdom: neither at this time was there aught (either for Title or Power) conferred upon Charles, but what was given by the consenting Decree of the whole body of the Roman State. And this, by the uniform consent of the best Historians & writers is so clear, that none but such as are pervicatious, and wilfully wedded to their own errors, can doubt thereof.  
Athelmus, a most 
h Author Annalium Francorum, omnium co● sensu fidelissimus, & qui tempore Caroli vixit. Bell. lib. de trans. Imp. ca 4. pa. 93. Is fuit Athelmus ut ante ostendi.  faithful author, and contemporall with Charles, saith 
i Athel. Annal. de reb. gest. Carol. an. 801 videntur autem annal Francotum editae per Pythaeum, huius libri Epitome. , Leo put the crown on the head of Charles, cuncto Romanorum populo acclamante, all the people of Rome crying, To Charles the Emperor be life and victory, which being done, à Pontifice more antiquorum principum adoratus est, Pope Leo adored the Emperor, as the ancient custom was to do. the very like words, both for the Coronation of Charles, acclamation of all the people, and adoration given to Charles by the Pope, are set down both in Almonius 
k Aimon. lib. 4 ca 90. , in Ado Vi●nensis 
l Ado Vien. an. 799. , in Abbess Vspergensis 
m Ab. Vsp. an. 801. , in Tritemius 
n Trite. de Orig. Franc. an. 801. , and for the most part in Regino 
o Rheg. in Chron. an. 801 . All the faithful people of Rome, saith Anastasius 
p Anast. in vit. Leon 3. §. Post haec. , seeing how Charles had defended the Church, did with one voice proclaim Charles the Roman Emperor, et ab omnibus constitutus est Imperator, and he was made Roman Emperor by them all. Leo the third, saith Litprandus 
q Litp de vit. Pontif. in Leon. 3. , purged himself by oath before Charles the King, and all the Clergy and people; after which, ab omnibus praedictus Rex Romanorum Imperator est constitutus, the same King Charles was made Roman Emperor by all, (by the Clergy and people) and was crowned by Pope Leo. The Roman people, saith Pope 
r Greg. 7. oratio habetur apud Auent. lib. 5. p. 453.  Gregory the seventh; being the head of the world, and Lords of all, may transfer the Empire, in quos libuerit, unto whom it list; as 275. years since it transferred the Empire from the Grecians to the Germans. The Roman people did it, not the Pope. Pope Leo, saith Helmoldus 
s Helm. Chr. siau. ca 3. , called a solemn Council; omnium ergo votis, omnium laudatione, so by the votes or suffrages of all, by the collaudation of all, was Charles honoured with the Imperial crown; and the Empire translated from the Grecians to the Frankes.  
The Romans, saith Sigebert 
t Sigeb an. 801 , with one consent gave to Cha●les the imperial praises, ●umque per manum Leonis Papae coronant, and they crowned him by the hands of Leo, and called him Emperor. They crowned him, but by the hands of Leo. The Romans with one consent, saith Waltramus Naumbergensis 
u Walt. tract. de Inuestit. in initio. ▪ praised Charles, eumque per manus Leonis coronaverant, and they crowned him by the hands of Leo. Gotofride Viterb. speaking of the Imperial title given to Charles, saith 
x Got. Vit. Chron. in Carolo mag. , Tollere sic nomen curia tota monet, the whole Court (the Clergy, Senate and people of Rome) willed Charles to take the title of Emperor unto him. Leo 3. saith Platina 
y Plat. in ●eon. 3. , populi Rom. Scito ac precibus, Carolum magna voce Imperatorem decernit, by the Decree, and upon the entreaty of the people of R●me, with a loud voice decreed (that is declared) Charles to be the Roman Emperor, and set the Imperial Crown upon him. Charles, saith Beneu. de Rambaldis 
z Ben▪ de Ramb. libr. Augustali, an. 801. inter opera Pe●●arc. , electus est Imperator à senatu populoque Com. confirmatus à summo Pontifice, was chosen Emperor by the Senate and people of Rome, and was confirmed by the Pope. Leo saith Egnatius 
a Egn. Bap. in Carcl. mag. , Scito populi Romani, clerique rogatu, by the Decree of the people of Rome, and by the request of the Clergy, called and consecrated Charles for the Roman Emperor. Pope Leo, saith Sabellicus 
b Sabel. Ennead. 8. lib. 8▪ in fine. , Scito rogatuque populi, by the Decree and entreaty of the people of Rome, consecrated and anointed Charles for the Roman Emperor. Leo, saith Blondus 
c Blon. dec. 2. lib. 1. , Crowned Charles with the old Diadem of Emperors, populi Romani Scito, precibusque Imperatorem Romanorum declaratum, being declared to be the Roman Emperor by the Decree and entreaty of the people of Rome. What Pope Leo did, was done by the Decree of the whole Roman State Pope Leo, saith jac. Wimphel●ngius 
d W●mphel. in ● pit. rer. German ca 9 , Populi Romani scito ac precibus, by the Decree & at the request of the People of Rome, declared with a loud voice Charles to be the Roman Emperor, and set the Imperial Crown upon him. Leo crowned Charles, saith Aeneas Silvius 
e Aen. Sil. lib. 1. Epit. in Dec. Blond. , After he was declared to be Emperor, populi Romani scito, by the decree and entreaty of the people of Rome. And again 
f Aene. Silu. lib. de ort. & auth. Imper. ca 9 , The Roman people, which with their blood (that is bloody wars) had got the Empire; and by their virtues and valour had founded the Monarchy of the world saluted Charles first Patricius, and afterwards Emperor, concurrente summi Pontificis consensu, the consent of the Pope concurring with them. They did it, the Pope in that Act consented to what they did. Pope Leo, saith Onuphrius 
g Onuph praesat. in lib. 4. ●astor. , Romani populi & procerum Italicorum Scito, by the Decree both of the people of Rome, and of the Pears of Italy; as also by the entreaty of the Clergy, called Charles the Roman Emperor of the West. Phil. Achillinus handling this very point, by whom the Empire was translated to Charles, after that testimony so often mentioned of the people's acclamation at the crowning of Charles, These words, saith he 
h Phil. Achil. in Somni. Viridar. ca 183. , seem to imply that Pope Leo crowned Charles, de voluntate, ac ordinatione populi Romani, by the will, ordination, or appointment of the people of Rome, to whom it did belong to dispose of the Empire. Wherefore that translation of the Empire, was made à populo Romano, by the people of Rome, the Pope being included as one of them. And to this purpose he brings this reason. To them principally doth belong the translation of the Empire (if it aught to be transferred) by whom it was instituted: but the Roman Empire was instituted by the people, not by the Pope; and therefore by the people, and not by the Pope must it be transferred also. And again 
i Lib. cod. ca 185. , I answer, saith he, that this translation of the Empire was made not by the Pope, but by the people, who did at the beginning institute it, and from whom at first, the Emperor look it.  
Pope Leo, saith Guiccardine 
k Fr. Guicc. i● Paralip. loc. 2. pa. 43. , together with the people of Rome, named Charles the Roman Emperor, Verum Pontifex haud alia authoritate, quam ut eius populi caput, but the Pope did this by no other authority, but as the chief of that people. The Romans, saith john de Parisijs 
l joh. de Paris. tract. de potest. Reg. & Pap. ca 16▪ , commended and magnified Charles the Great, & Imporatoris ei nomen dederunt, and they gave the name of Emperor unto him. And this was done, saith he, non per solum Papam, not by the Pope only, but by the people, in whose power it is to subject themselves to whom they will without prejudice to another: and they did it upon a necessary cause to defend themselves against Infidels and pagan: nam populus facit regem, ●or the people by their consent make an (Elective) King, and the Army an Emperor. The Romans and other Italians, saith Michael Coccinius 
m Mich. Coccin. lib. de transl. Imperij. , seeing on the one side the avarice and sluggishness of the Grecians; and on the other, the fortitude and justice of the Germans, transferred the Empire from the Grecians to the Germans, in the person of Charles, and this translation of the Empire was made, Romanorum caeterorumque Italiae populorum consensu, & authoritate, by the consent and authority of the Romans, and other people of Italy. The Pope, Senate, and people of Rome, saith Auentinus 
n Auent. lib. 4. pa. 259. , decreed, tacito plebiscito (their consent being in effect as if it had been a written Decree of the Senate and people) to transfer the Roman Empire from the Grecians to the Germans, and to Charles, and then was Charles crowned by Pope Leo, all the people applauding it, which done, Charles was adored by the same Pope, and other Romans.  
Pope Leo, saith Sigonius 
o Sigon. lib. 4. Reg. Ital. ann. 801. , put the Imperial cloak and Crown upon Charles, all the people applauding it with their cries, & Imperatorius illi titulus à populo confirmatus est, and the people confirmed unto him the title of Emperor. When the Roman Noblemen, saith Kranizius 
p Krantz. in Saxon. lib. 3. , came to a Council, the Western Empire was translated to the Germane. Again 
q Krantz. lib. 1. Metrop. cap. 14. , Charles was proclaimed Emperor by all the people: Pope Leo performed that sacred ministry, the people (cui ius ac fas esse videbatur de Imperatore creando, who thought they had right to make an Emperor,) willing Leo so to do. The Roman Church, saith Canzo 
r Canzo Turiens in gest. Carol● mag. ca 7. citatur à Goldast. in suo Ration. part. ●. , cum Proceribus, together with the Nobles or Senators transferred the Empire from the Grecians, to the person of Charles and the Germans. The Romans, saith Alb. Argentinensis 
s Alb. Argent. in Fragm Historic. inter Hist. Germ. editas à Chri: Vrstitio. , praescripserunt, appointed unto Charles the Roman Empire, and he being moved by the request of Leo, of the Princes of the Kingdom, and all the chief men consented to the will both of God and men, and was consecrated Emperor. Pope Leo, saith Bergomensis 
t Phil. Bergon. lib. 11. Supplement. in princ. , being entreated by the Roman people, crowned Charles, being declared to be the Roman Emperor. The translation of the Empire, saith Lupoldus 
u Lupold. lib. de jur. Reg. & Imper. in praef. , from the Grecians to the Frankes, per eccle fiam Romanam facta, was made by the Roman Church. The very same, saith Radulph. de Columna 
x Rad de Colum, lib. de Trans. Imp. §. Quantum. . Now by this name of the Church is meant, not the Pope alone, or Clergy; but the whole body of the Christian State of the Romans, as Lupoldus himself declares; for both he 
y Lupold. lib: cit. cap. 6.  holds, that the election of the Emperor is still made by the seven Electors, vice & authoritate universitatis principum ac populi, by the authority of all the Princes and people of the Empire; and particularly for Charles, he saith 
z Ibid. cap. ●. , That those lands and power which he held, he had not from the Church, (that is from the Pope) either in Fee, vel alio quocunque titulo, or by any other title whatsoever, but he held them either by succession (as the Kingdom of France) vel per bellum licitum, or else by just conquest, as Italy and other Provinces which he subdued. Card. Cusanus 
a Cusan. Concor ●athol, lib. 3. ca 3. , though he knew and allegeth the Chapter venerabtlem, wherein the Pope is said, to have transferred the Empire unto Charles, yet directly, denies any such translation to have been made; yea he goes further, and shows, that to make an (Elective) Emperor, the Pope's authority is not sufficient, Imperatorem 
b Ibid. ca 4.  facit consensus eligentium, non Papa, the consent of the Electors, not the Pope makes an Emperor, and he 
c Ibid.  sets this down, for a Maxim, Esse & posse Imperatoris ab vno●homine non dependet, the Essence and power of an Emperor doth not depend on one man, (that is the Pope) and therefore even at this day, as he teacheth 
d Ibid. ca 4. , the Electors of the Empire, radicalem vim habent ab ipso communi omnium consensu, have power to elect, from the common consent of all that are subject to the Empire, that being as the root and foundation whence their election hath force: And again, The Election made by the Electors hath force, non 
e Ibid. pa. 785  ab ipso Romana Pontifice, not from the Pope, but per 
f Ibid pa. 786.  concordem omnium qui subsunt Imperio transf●sionem in ●os, but from this that all the subjects of the Empire, (one 
g In qua quidem concord a Rom. Pontif●x Gregor. 5. includ●batur. ibid.  of which is the Pope also himself) have transfused, or transferred their power of electing into those seven Electors: and so in their consent upon any, is virtually included the consent of all the subjects of the Empire, even of the Pope himself: The very same touching the Electors, doth Lupoldus teach. They, saith he 
h Lupol. lib. ●it. ca 6. , are esteemed to elect the Emperor in the s●ead, and by the authority of all the Princes and people of the Empire. Now upon this true discourse of Cusanus, it clearly followeth; that if Charles was by any Election made 
i Election● principis ecclesiastici, as●e●imus Carolum & alios Germanos Impera●o●es ●●s Imoperij adeptos esse Bell. lib. 1. de Transl. Im. ca 7. pa. 126.  Emperor, it was not, neither could it be made by the Pope, but by the whole body of the Roman State consenting upon him; which consent was only uttered and expressed by the voice and act of Pope Leo, when he nominated and crowned Charles. Many more authorities (beside reasons) might be alleged to this purpose, but these being so clear, are sufficient every way to encounter Bellarmine's fichlie 
k Aduers●s nostros circiter quinquaginta. ibid. ca 13. pa. 229.  wrested testimonies, whereof he boasteth.  
It is, and not without cause, disputed what effect this Imperial Coronation had in Charles, and what ●e obtained by this making of him the Roman Emperor. Some teach it to be only a 〈◊〉 of Title, not of Reality. So Hostiensis 
l Host. Extr de verb. signif. ca Super quibusdam. . Imperial Unction, gives nothing but the Name and Title of Emperor. Whence john de Parisijs saith 
m joh. de Pa●. lib de potest. regia. ca 16.  of this very Translation of the Empire, when Charles was crowned, Non translulit veritatem, sed Nomen, it did not transfer Imperial power, but the Imperial name unto him. And Cardinal Cusanus 
n Cus. lib. 3. cit. ca 4. , It is evident that Unction and Coronation, nihil praestant Imperiali patestati; add nothing to Imperial power. And to the same effect jacob. Almain 
o jac. Alm. lib depotest. eccle. & laic. ca q. 〈◊〉 ca 10. , Coronation gives no power, sed est tantummodo solemnitas, but it is only a solemnity.  
And truly for Rome, Italy, and other Provinces which before that Coronation and translation Charles had conquered, in respect of them, their sayings are very true. For it is most certain, that in respect of these, Charles obtained thereby neither more right unto them, nor more power and authority over them then before he had: for he formerly held them both iure belli, and iure consensus populi: and his power which before he had being royal and supreme, was truly imperial: and so neither for right unto, nor authority over those Countries did he receive any increase. In this respect the addition was only Nominal, as giving him the highest stile and name of Augustus, or Emperor, it was not Real, as giving him either more right, or more authority in those Provinces. Hier. Balbus teacheth this, saying 
o Hier. Balb. lib de Coron. pa. 68 ; All interpreters of the law, uno ore, parique consensu statuunt, do determine with one consenting voice, that what belongs to the Coronation, is done honoris & officij causa, rather for honour and office, then of necessity, or that quicquam hac actione Caesaribus accedat, that any thing should be added to the kingly power. And he further saith; That the election alone is of the substance, the rest, to wit; Confirmation, Coronation and Unction, are only matters of solemnity. Lupoldus 
p Lupold. lib. cit. ca 4. & cap. 11.  is earnest for the contrary. But if we rightly consider the point, the reality and power, which he thinks to have been added to Charles by crowning him Emperor, is not so great as at the first it seems. He supposeth, that by this 
q Virtute translationis huius Carolus eiusque successores receperunt potestatem impericl●m in omnibus regnis, Provincijs & terris occidentatibus quae non erant ante translationem sub potestate Caroli. Lup. locis ci●atis.  making him Emperor of the West, the Roman State did therein give unto him and his successors, a right unto all other Western Kingdoms and Provinces which formerly belonged to the Empire, and which as yet he had not conquered, which is the only matter of reality superadded, that he could find. But there must necessarily be added two restrictions, to make good this assertion. The one, that he had to those unconquered Provinces such right only, and so fare, as the people of Rome and States of Italy could give unto him▪ Now because there was in them no right at all at this time to do this, they having long before transferred whatsoever power and right they had unto the Emperor 
r Vnde Roma seruilis urbs, & Italia seruilis provincia Constantini pogonatis vocatur, ab Agathone & occidentali Synodo. Act. 4 Conc. gen 6.  of Constantinople, it seems that in him the right and rightful power over such Provinces still resided, till either by just conquest those Provinces were taken from him, or else by voluntary session, or other right, he passed them away. By reason then of this former defect, that may be said of the people's giving or transferring to Charles the right unto those Provinces not as yet conquered, which was often said 
s Nich. 1. Epi, 10 §. Quonian. & Hadr. 2. Epist. 4.  of the Ordinations made by Gregorius Syracusanus, and Phottus▪ Pater mous nihil habuit mihi dare, nihil dedit; they had no power to give aught, they gave nothing.  
The other restriction is, that admitting they had rightly given such power unto Charles, unto those as yet unconquered western Provinces which once belonged to the Roman Empire, yet was this right given only over such Provinces, as were iniuria ab alijs occupatae, to use Bellarmine's 
t Bell. lib. 1. de Trans. Imp. ca 13. §. Decimo sexto.  own words, injuriously withheld from the Empire: for if any of those Countries or Provinces had either iure belli, or by the consent 
u Hi reges dicipossunt constituti sea creati à Principe, propter Tacitum ipsius consensum. Nam qui patitur rem praescribi, vel consuetudine induci, praesumitur consensum praestare. Lup. lib. cit. ca 1  either Express or Tacit of the Emperor and his State, or by any other just title freed themselves from the yoke of the Roman Empire, and so erected a Sovereign or Monarchical kingdom of their own; as in Spain, England, France, and other western Kingdoms, is not to be doubted 
x Qui Imperatotem Rom. pto suo superiors in temporalious non 〈◊〉. cu●● sic●t app●●et deregibus His●●●●●●●●●●ciae, & alijs omni●bus regibus Occidentis. Lupold. lib. c●. ca 13.  but they had; for these, neither had the Roman State any power to give, nor did Charles by their making him Emperor, receitie any right at all unto them. I● in respect of such unconquered Provinces only, as were injuriously detained, the words of Lupoldus be admitted, that Charles by being made western Emperor, received an addition of real power or right unto them, so far as the Romans and Italians could give the same, it is not much material. But for the main point which concerns our present purpose, thus much is evident and clearly demonstrated, that whatsoever it was that Charles received by his Imperial Coronation, and by being made Emperor at that time, whether only a Nominal Title, or some Real authority together with it, he both received and held the same, not from Pope Leo, nor from any Papalauthoritie and power, but from the joint consent and Decree of the whole Roman and Italian State; whose consent and Decree for giving that Title of western Emperor unto Charles, and either confirming what right he before had unto the conquered, or giving a new right unto some unconquered Provinces injuriously detained, was but signified and ministerially expressed by Pope Leo, as the mouth and hand of that political body. The Act itself was the Act of the whole body, which being the only principal agent, translated both the Imperial Title, and whatsoever authority was with it conferred.  
Neither is is to be doubted at all (or so much as questioned) but that Charles and his successors had a most just and rightful Title unto Rome, Italy, and other parts of the western Empire, which he subdued: seeing he first obtained them jure belli, and then jure consensus populi, declared upon his conquest, first at Modoetia, then at Rome, in a very great assembly of all the States, and after both these, An. 800. confirmed by the unanimous consent and Decree of the Roman and Italian States at the time of his Imperial Coronation. Which his rightful Title is yet more clear, if those two points be rightly considered, which both Baronius, and others of his stamp do often profess and teach. The one, that the Cause of those wars by which Charles conquered Italy, was just; seeing it was for defence 
y Ecclesia liberatur à durissimo iugo, & dirissimo sceptro regum Lon. gob. Bar. an. 774. nu. 1.  of God's Church against invading oppressors, undertaken also at the earnest solicitation 
z Deprecans Caroli excellentiam, ut succurreret occlesiae. Bar. an. 773 nu. 1. , yea entreaty and supplication of the Pope's Holiness; and furthered by the special, yea, miraculous favour 
a Fuga miraculosa Longobardorum. Bar. an. eod. nu 8.  of God, who opened a way for Charles 
b Deus Carolo viam semper aperuit, tanquam Cy●o. ibid. nu. 7.  to overcome the Lumbards', as he did unto Cyrus. The other, that Titulus 
c Bar. an. 800. nu. 12.  iuraque occidentalis Imperij iacebant absque possessor●, both the Title and Rights of the western Empire remained then without any possessor, being taken, and that justly, as they teach, from the Grecians by the Pope's authority, for that they pertinactiously adhered to heresy: All which are expressed, saith Baronius 
d Sunt●●sta omnia expressa in fine Epistolae eiusdem Hadriani. Bar. ibid.  by Pope Hadrian in his Epistle to Charles. Now seeing a Conquest made upon a just cause of war, doth iure Gentium produce a just Title in the Conqueror, it hence ensueth that the Title of Charles to Italy, was just, seeing his conquest thereof was grounded upon a just cause of war. Again, seeing the western Empire was then vacant both for the Title and Right, it hence again ensueth, that Charles wronged none of their right or possession, by taking upon him Imperial authority in Rome, Italy, and other subdued Provinces of the western Empire; the right unto them being then tanquam ius in nubibus, did descend upon him, who was the first Occupant. So upon these their own assertions, both the Conquest of Charles was just, in respect of the Lumbards' oppression of the Church: and his taking of Sovereign, that is Regal or Imperial dominion of the whole Country of Italy, was just also in respect of the vacancy of the Empire, the right unto it, and those Provinces hanging yet in the Clouds, and belonging to none but primo Occupanti, and that was Charles.  
This is more than sufficient to answer that doubt of the disputers in Epo, who infer, that Constantine gave the western Empire to the Pope, because Pope Leo conferred it upon Charles. Yet to this which I have already said, let me add the answer of Boetius himself, who contrary to those disputers, holding that 
e Boet. Epo. quaest. Heroic. 9 5. nu. 31. & seq & Glossé. in cap. Constantinus. nu. 21.  Constantine by his Donation, transferred not the Empire of the West unto Sylvester, or other Popes; to this their fift reason, answereth 
f Ibid. Quaest 5. nu. 48.  in this manner. That which is added touching the western Empire given by the Pope unto Charles the Great, is not rightly said. For the Pope as being the head or chief of the Church declared Charles to be Emperor, nomine totius populi Romano Imperio subiecti, in the name of all the people subject to the Empire, the people themselves, sic desiderante, desiring the same; the Emperor of Constantinople being at that time justly deprived of the western Empire by the Pope. Dedit ergo populus Christianus per Pontificem Imperium Carolo; therefore the Christian people subject to the Roman Empire, gave the Empire unto Charles by Leo, that is by his hands or ministry. Even as when the succession of heirs happens to fail in any Kingdom, the people of that kingdom, per ordinum eiusdem regni primores dat regnum novo regi, gives that kingdom to a new King, by the chief Peers and Orders of the same Kingdom. Thus Epo; who clearly both rejects and refutes that vain boast of Bellarmine, and others, that the Pope by his right, gave or transferred the Empire unto Charles.  
But what shall be said to Pope Innocent the third, who in the Chapter venerabilem, doth expressly affirm, that the Apostolic See (that is the Pope) transferred the Empire from the Grecians to the person of Charles, and to the Germane. Truly it might most justly, and by the rule of the law, be said, that Popes are unfit 
g Nullus idoneus testis in re sua intelligitur, ff. lib. 22. t. t. 5. l. 10.  witnesses in their own causes. It might again be said with Albericus de Rosate, That this Chapter 
h Alber. in Diction. iu●● in verbo. Elect. Imper.  venerabilem, is one of those Decretals, which are not iuri consonae, consonant to the Law, but are set forth contraiura & libertatem Imperij, against the right and liberty of the Empire. But I rather choose, to give that favourable construction of the words of Pope Innocentius, which others have done before, and which is consonant to the Historical narration. Innocentius 
i Philoth Achil in Somni. Viridar cap. 183.  said, that the Pope transferred the Empire to the person of Charles, either because he did it authoritate Romanorum, by the authority of the Romans: or because the Roman people, tribuit Papae potestatem transferendi, had then given or committed to the Pope their power (so much as in them lay) to make that translation, Vel quia Papa persuasit, seu consuluit fieri, or else because the Pope did persuade and advice this translation to be made unto Charles. Any one of which ways, if the words of Innocentius be taken, they are true, and consonant to the Histories: if they be so expounded, as that the translation was made either by the Pope alone, or else by his own, or any Papal authority, they are untrue, and to be rejected, as utterly repugnant to the uniform consent of the best Historians, as before we have already declared.  
Marta in the third place, will yet after another fashion prove this Edict by Charles the Great, Because he 
k Mar. ca 30. cit. nu. 31.  by his own Donation made to Pope Hadrian, confirms this Donation of Constantine. Marta hath so enured his tongue to truths, that one can scarce expect aught unelse from his pen. That Charles confirmed what Pipine had given before, Anastasius 
l Anast. in vit. Had. 1. §. Alio.  at large declares. So doth Baronius 
m Bar. an. 774 nu. 5. & 6. , and after them both Gretzer 
n Gretz. lib. de Munif. princ. ca 3. ; and in all these, as also in Leo Ostiensis 
o Leo Ost. in Chror. Cassin. lib. 1. cap. 9 , is expressed the form of that Donation which Pipin 
p Donatio Pipini extat apud Anast. in vit. Steph. 3. §. De quibus. Bar. an. 755. nu. 26. Gretz. citat. ca 1.  made, and Charles confirmed. Let any one peruse that Donation, and he will admire the vile and shameless dealing of Marta: For neither in that which is mentioned of Charles, nor in that of Pipine, is this Donation of Constantine either confirmed, or so much as named. I say more, those Donations of Pippin, and Charles, do evidently, and undeniably convince this Donation of Constantine to be a forgery. For in those Donations, is particularly expressed what Cities, Dukedoms, and Territories in Italy, Pipine gave, and Charles confirmed to the Pope: what was not expressed in their Donations, neither Pippin, nor Charles judged to belong to the Pope. Nay Charles disposed otherwise of diverse Dukedoms, and ports in Italy, and gave them to others, as Sigonius 
q Sigon lib, 4. de Reg Italian 773. pa 90.  expresely witnesseth. Apulia and Calabria he left unto the (Eastern) Emperor, as after the victory of justinian they were; and these afterwards became a new Kingdom, which was called the Kingdom of Naples. The Dukedom of Beneventum he gave to Aragisus, the son in law of Desiderius: the Dukedom of Spoletum, to Hildebrand; the Dukedom of Foroiulium, to Rodgandus, what remained in Italy besides, & these that which he gave to the Pope, of them Sigonius saith, 
r Si●on. Ibid. , Reliqua ipse sibi nomine Regni retinuit, he retained all the rest to himself, as belonging to his own Kingdom or Empire. Had Charles confirmed the Donation of Constantine, he neither would, nor in right could, have either retained to himself, or given to any other, any of all these, but he should have restored them all, and that only to the Pope, to whom by Constantine's Donation they belonged; yea he should in justice have resigned all the other western Proninces also which himself held, to the Pope, not retaining any part of them all. Besides, even in those very Territories which he gave, or confirmed to the Pope; to wit, in the Exarchate of Ravenna, in Pentapolis, in the Dukedoms of Rome, Tuscaine, and Campania, Charles when he gave, or confirmed them to the Pope, he reserved 
s Sigon. ibid.  in them all, Ius principatus & Ditionem, the Sovereign, and direct dominion to himself. For Ius principatus, & ditio, import the direct and high dominion, as Gretzer 
t Quid quaeso est, esse in ●ure, principatu, atque ditione a●icuius, quam habere Dominium directum ●●●us. Gretz. lib. ●. Cont. Replic. ca 15. ●. Horribiliter.  also confesseth. Now had Charles confirmed the Donation of Constantine, he should have passed away, yielded up, or acknowledged the Sovereignty in them all, to be in none but in the Pope alone, and the Pope to be a superior Lord, both in those Territories of Italy, and other western Provinces than himself. Seeing Charles did none of these, his Donation or confirmation, howsoever you call it, doth undeniably demonstrate, that Charles either knew not of this pretended Donation, or if he did, he contemned and condemned it (as justly he might) for a base and sergeant fiction.  
The fourth Emperor alleged by Marta, is Lewis the son of Charles. He, saith Marta 
u Mart. lib. ●t. ca 31. nu. 1. , proves or confirms this Donation. He confirms and demonstrates the vain and vile dealing of Marta. His Donation is set forth by Baronius 
x Bar. an. 818. nu. 9 10. & seq. , out of their vatican monuments (which are, you may be sure, made to speak most favourably for the Pope's cause.) Is either the Edict, or Donation of Constantine, or Constantine himself so much as once named therein? Not verily: nor one syllable whence aught for the Donation can be so much as conjectured. But as the Donation of Charles, so this of Lewes, expressing what cities in Italy he either gave or confirmed to the Pope, and how he reserved as Charles had done before, the Sovereignty to himself, at lest in the Dukedoms of Tuscaine and Spoletum, by the acknowledgement of Gretzer 
y Gretz. lib. 2 contra Replic. ca 15. ●. Porro ubi de Othone agit, sed par est ratio in Ludovici donatione. & in Apol, pro Bar. ca 20.  the most earnest Proctor for those Donations, expressing this very clause, Salua super eosdem ducatus in omnibus nostra dominatione, et ill●rum ad nostram partem subiectione; Saving over those Dukedoms in all things our Sovereign Dominion, and their subjection to us. Besides, as Card. Molineus 
z Car. Molin. contra paru. Datas in Epit. Gless. 15. sub● st. nu. 157.  rightly observes, nec verum nec verisimile est, neither is it true, nor yet probable, that Lewes surnamed Pius, would make a deed of Gift of those things, Quae donare non poterat, which were not his to give (as particularly Calabria and the Dukedom of Naples) which Charleses his Father, Graecorum Imperio reliquerat, had left to the Greek Empire, as before out of Sigonius was declared. These besides many the like do evidently demonstrate, that Lewes either knew not of this Constantinean Donation, or if he did, that he rejected it as a forgery. And the very like is to be answered to the Donation of Henry the second, who is the fift Emperor 
z Mart. ca 30. nu. 31.  alleged by Marta.  
Otho the fourth confirms this Donation, saith Marta. That Otho the fourth confirmed to Innocent the third the patrimonte of St. Peter. Otho de S. Blasio 
a 〈◊〉 de S. Blas. in append. ad Othon. 〈◊〉. ca 52. , Sigonius 
b Sig. lib. 16. de Reg. Ital. an. 1209. , Nauclerus 
c Nauc. in Othone 4. ann. 1209. , Cronicon Belgicum 
d Chron. magnum Belg. an. 1209. , and many others do witness. But that he confirmed this Donation of Constantine, there is not in any of them one word: and the patrimony of St. Peter Baronius shows, was the same 
e Henrici privilegium, quo patrimonia Rom. Ecclesiae ab antecessoribus Imperatoribus collata confirmavit. Bar. an. 1014. nu. 6.  which Pipine gave, and which Charles and Henry the second confirmed to the Sea of Rome, in never one of all which, the Donation of Constantine is so much as mentioned; but in them all, that is expressed, which clearly proves the Donation of Constantine to be forged.  
The very same must be said of Frederick the second, who is the next Emperor alleged by Marta. He in his Aurea Bulla 
f Friderici Aurea bella extat apud. Baron. an. 1097. nu. 72. & apud Gold. part. ●. Imperial. constit. pa. 73. , made Ann. 1113. confirms not only what his predecessors, Charles, Lewes, Otho and Henry had done before, but further he adds, that he will maintain and defend the right of the Pope unto Sicily, Corfica, and Sardinia. But of this Edict of Constantine there is not so much as one word, from whence the confirming of it can so much as probably be concluded. Nay, such particularising of the Pope's Title in some parts of Italy, and some Provinces or Lands in the West, manifestly proves, that he never meant to confirm all the western Provinces to the Pope, which by confirming of this one Donation of Constantine he should certainly have done, yea, had he confirmed but this one, all the other Confirmations had been most idle, needless, and of no effect.  
The last Emperor alleged by Marta is Charles the fourth. That he (as Otho & Friderick had done) confirmed the patrimony of S. Peter unto the Pope, is evident by Nauclerus, who saith 
g Naucl. in Carol. 4. an. 1355. , he took the usual oath at the time of his coronation: yea, further also, the Pope 
h Paralip. ad Abbot Vsper. an. 1346. & H. Mutius in Chron. Germ. lib. 25. an. 1355.  refused to crown him, till he had sworn neither to stay at Rome, nor in Italy. The Pope, as they observe, could not endure 
i Pontifex consortis impatiens. Mut. ibid.  any to be his peer in Italy. Besides this, In the presence, and with consent of all the Electors of the sacred Empire, and other Princes, Barons, and Nobles, An. 1356, the same Charles the fourth, made that large and most famous Charter, called Aurea Bulla 
k Aur. Bull. Caroli. 4. extat apud Goldast. part. 1. Imper. Constitut. pag. 105. , concerning the rights of the Empire, of the Electors thereof, and particularly of the kingdom of Bohemia, decreeing 
l Ibid. ca 7. , that the kingdom of Bohemia 
m Saluis semper privilegijs iuribus & consuetudinibus Regni nostri Boemiae, super electione Regis, in casu vacationis, per regnicolas (qui ius habent eligendi Regem Boemiae) facienda, iuxta continentiam eorundem privilegiorum, & obseruatam consuetudinem diuturnam à Divis Romanorum Imperatoribus obtentorum, etc. Quae decernimus nunc & perpetuis futuris temporibus in omni suo tenore et forma, indubiam tenere roboris firmitatem. ibid.  should for ever enjoy their rights, customs, and privileges which formerly other Emperors had granted unto them, that the Regnicolae, people of the same kingdom should in the vacancy thereof make choice of their own King. He made also another Imperial Constitution 
n Constit. Car. 4. de libertate Ecclesiastica. apud Gold. part. 3. Imper. Constit. pa. 415.  for the liberties and immunities of the Church, and exempting them from judgement, imprisonment, and other punishment by secular men. But in none of all these is there any, not not the lest mention of confirming this Donation of Constantine. Nay, it is expressed by Historians, How 
o H. Mut. Chron. Germ. an. 1355.  diverse cities in Italy belonged to the Emperor, performed all honour and obedience unto him, quod à subditis domino exhtberi potest, which subjects can do to their (Sovereign) Lord, that they swore feoltie to him, that obruebant officijs, & donis, they even oppressed him with multitude of gifts and obsequies. An evident demonstration, that when himself held (as supreme Lord) so many Cities in Italy, that he never confirmed this Charter of Constantine, whereby, Rome, Italy, and all the Western Provinces, were for ever given to the Pope.  
Besides, that none of all those forenamed Emperors confirmed this Donation of Constantine, Baronius whom Marta professeth to be the wisest Cardinal, doth evidently witness. Let Marta hear, and seriously ponder his words, and he will see his own folly in pretending them, as confirmers of this Donation. Sed 
p Bar. an. 1191. nu. 61.  nec Imperatores eiusdem edicti meminisse Certum est, It is certain, that the Emperors have not mentioned this Edict of Constantine, Though Otho the first and his son make mention of Pipines' and Charles his Donation, and Henry mentions both them, and that of Othoes also. If they mentioned it not, then most certainly may Marta know, they did not confirm it: yea the Card. adds 
q Ibid. , That the Popes to whom those Emperors made such grants, de praetermissa Constantinianae Donationis mentione, non inveniuntur questi, never complained that the Donation of Constantine was not mentioned in them: which doubtless they would have done, had they known Constantine to have made this Donation.  
But all this will not serve the turn with Marta. He will yet further prove, that those foresaid Emperors did confirm this Donation. And how I pray you? That Charles the first, Henry the second, Otho the fourth, Friderick the second, and Charles the fourth, confirmed this Donation of Consta●tine, it is gathered, saith he 
r Mar. ca 30. nu. 31. , from the Chapter Romani, tit. de jureiurando in Clem: by the Cap. Fundamenta, tit. de Elect. lib. 6. Decretal. by the Chap. per venerabilem. tit. Qui filij sint legitimi, and by the Chap. Ego Ludovicus distinct. 63. Thus Marta.  
Against which proof of his I might first oppose the Imperial Charters themselves, which directly show that none of those Emperors confirmed it. I might again oppose the Certum est of his wisest Cardinal, It is certain, that Emperors made no mention of it. I might further oppose another most just exception, that the Popes and their laws are no fit witnesses in this, which is their own cause; specially seeing the Imperial Charters of those Emperors do testify the contrary. Yet, if in any one of these Chapters it be said, that the foresaid Emperors confirmed it, I will confess, that Marta hath some colour for his untruth. But if you examine those places, you shall found that there is not one syllable in them whence this may be collected.  
In the Chapter Fundamenta, Pope Nicholas the third saith, (but saith untruly) That Constantine gave to Sylvester and his successors, the Monarchy of Rome, but that either Constantine gave Italy, and all the Western Provinces to Sylvester, (as the Charter of Constantine's Donation saith he did) or that any of the forenamed Emperors, did confirm that Donation of Constantine, Pope Nicholas saith not. Gretzer himself confesseth 
s Caput. Fundamenta, in 6. Donationem Constantineanam tam late non extendit, ut legenti planum fict great. Append. 2. add lib. de munifis. princ. pa. 118. , That this Chapter fundamenta, doth not so fare extend as the Donation of Constantine. Besides, Nicholas doth not once name in that Chapter, either, Charles, Henry, or Otho: and of Fridericke, whom he names with great contumely & scorn, (because he stoutly resisted the Pope's tyranny) he speaks no better, but that he was 
t Frederici, colubri tortuosi, iusto ecclesiae iudicio reprobati. cap. Fundamenta. loco. cit.  a Snake, justly reprobated and rejected by the Church, which is a very poor testimony to prove he confirmed this Charter.  
In the Chapter Romani, Pope Clement the fift names indeed Constantine, Charles, Henry, Otho, and Fridericke, and mentions them to have given privileges 
u Privilegia omnia per praedecessores concessa, etc. cap Romani. loc. cit.  to the Roman Church. And many privileges, and great gifts, no doubt both Constantine, and the rest did give; but that either Constantine made this Charter, and gave so large privileges as are contained therein; to wit, Rome, Italy, and all the Western Provincences; or that either Charles, or any of the forenamed Emperors, confirmed this Edict of Constantine. Clement hath not one word, nor aught whence this can be collected. Whereof if Marta will not be persuaded by us, let him hear their own Gretzer 
x Gretz. App. 2. ad. lib. de munif. princ. pa. 114. , In the Chapter Romani, nulla prorsus fit, mentio edicti Constantiniani, there is no mention at all of Constantine's Edict; and then citing the very words of that Chapter, to which Marta hath reference, he saith, There is nothing here specified concerning the Edict of Constantine, but there is only mention in general of privileges and Lands given by Constantine to the Roman Church. Thus Gretzer: which shows plainly the vanity of Marta, who from the grant of some privileges or Lands given unto the Roman Church by Constantine, would conclude that therefore Constantine gave Rome, Italy, and all the Western Provinces unto the Popes for ever.  
In the Chapter Ego Ludovicus, is set down a parcel of the Donation of Lewis, of which before I shown, that in no part of that grant of Lewis, either Constantine, or his Donation is so much as named; but Lewis his confirming of some parts only in Italy to the Pope; being there expressed, and his reserving of Sovereignty to himself, undeniably proves, that he thought not all Italy to belong to the Pope, nor to him as supreme Lord; and therefore this Donation of Constantine, by which Italy and all the Western Kingdoms are given to Sylvester and his successors, as to the chief Monarches in them to be a mere fiction and fable.  
In citing the Chapter per venerabilem, Marta showeth himself to be more than foolish: for neither is Charles, nor Henry, nor Otho, nor Friderick, nor Constantine, nor this Donation of Constantine, nor aught that can infer it, so much as once mentioned in that place. Nay Pope Innocentius the third in that Chapter, sets down that which directly overthrows this Edict. We, saith the Pope, have in the patrimony of the Church full power in temporal causes, but in other regions (as particularly in France) we exercise temporal power but by casualty. Now seeing by Constantine's Charter, the Pope is made a Monarch, as Pope Nicholas 
y Decernens Monarchiam Rom. Pontificibus, Nich. 3. ca Fundamenta  saith, A Prince and Emperor, as Steuchus calls 
z Maiori principi cessit Constantinus. Steuchus lib. de Donat. Const. pa. 17. & maiori Imperato●i●rbem reliquit. ibid. pa. 1●7.  him, to whom is given 
a In Edicto Constantini.  the government of the whole West; it is evident, that by Innocentius his decree, Constantine did not make this Charter, for then the Pope should have had directly, and not casually, both in France, and all other Western countries and kingdoms, a supreme, monarchical and temporal jurisdiction. Thus you see, that for all which Marta hath said in this cause, still that which his most wise Cardinal avoucheth stands firm. Certum est. It is certain, that the Emperors do not make mention, much less do confirm this Edict of Constantine, for which Marta hath mustered together, but with most unhappy success, an whole army of all sort of witnesses.  
We have now examined the chief of Martaes' witnesses of all sorts, Counsels, Divines, Historians, Lawyers, and Emperors. Some few I confess are omitted; Either for their unworthiness: of which sort is Ptolom●us Pogius, 
a Eius memenit Marta. lib. cit. ca 30. nu. 25.  an Author so obscure and ignoble, that after long and diligent search, I can no where so much as hear of his Book: or else because their testimonies are too slight, and scarce worth refuting. Of this sort there are three cited in Marta. The first is Christ▪ Masseus 
b Apud Mar. ca cit. nu. 25. , who saith 
c Ch. Massae. cron. an, 314▪  only, that Constantine yielded to the pope his palace in Rome: but of giving either all the Western provinces, or all Iraly, or but Rome itself to the Pope, Masseus speaks not one word. Nay he 
d Ibid. an. 336.  expressly declares that Constantine by his last will and Testament gave the Western Kingdoms to Constantine his son, and the East to Constantius. So that testimony of Masseus which Marta produceth for proof of the Donation, doth indeed directly overthrew the Donation.  
Not much unlike is johannes Hugo 
e Citatur a Mar. ca cit. nu. 25. , whom Marta should have ranked among his Lawyers: for though in one place he say 
f joh. Hugo lib. de offic. 4. praelat. seu quadrivio eccles. §. sed sunt. , that Constantine granted regal dignity to the Pope, and subjected Rome to the Church, yet a little after he withal saith (that which clearly demonstrates the falsehood of this supposed Donation.) That 
g lib. eod. §. est autem imperator.  the Emperor is princeps and Dominus totius Mundi, the Prince and Lord of the whole world, (than sure Lord of Italy, Rome, and of the Pope himself.) That all Provinces and all nations (than Italy & the west) are subject to him; & that whosoever will not be subject to the Emperor nec haereditatem habere potest, he can neither hold any inheritance, nor other things which are humane. So by Hugoes testimony, the Pope must either acknowledge his subjection to the Emperor, (and so this Donation to be false) or else renounce all his earthly possessions, and so all the right which he pretends to any part of his lands, either by other title, or by this Donation.  
The third is of no better note. jacob. de valenti● whose 
h Cit a Mar. loc. cit. , words if Marta had duly considered, he might have seen directly to oppugn this his pretended Donation. For he 
i jac. de vavalenti. in Cant. expos. 10.  saith, that Constantine gave to the Church, Rome with the adjacent patrimony, and 72 Cities in Italy, with many other Towns, adding that other Kings by his example bestowed such like gifts on the Church. Had Valentia thought Constantine to have made this Donation, he could not have said either that other Western Kings had done the like, or that Constantine himself had given some few Cities and towns in Italy, seeing by this Donation, not only all Italy, but all the Western Kingdoms are given to the Pope.  
Besides all those that Marta produceth, there is one passage in Lud. Viues, which I could wish to overpass in silence. But his words are so injurious and opprobrious to the most religious Constantine, more beseeming julian, Zosimus, or some malicious pagan, than any Christian or child of the Church, that they may not be omitted without that just censure which they deserve. Dies ille Constantini, saith he 
k Lud. vives lib. de vita sub Tur. ca  trist● pietati fuit; It was a lamentable & an unhapy day to the church, wherein Constantine was made Emperor. He entered into the Church not as a true Christian, but bringing With him, wealth, honour, and pride into the Church. Venit in Christi Domum comitatus Doabolo, he entered into Christ's house accompanied with the Devil. Martyrdom then ceased, zeal was cooled, piety declined, and the faith began to totter. Viues might as justly commend Nero▪ Dioclesian, Galerius, or other persecutors, because they made many Martyrs, and sharpened the zeal and piety of Christians; as dispraise Constantine for bringing peace, and with it all the blessings of peace to God's Church, even that free passage of the Gospel throughout the whole Empire, at which though heathens repined, yet the holy Church, yea the holy Angels of God sung Halleluiah, and sounded forth many Hymns of praise and thanksgiving unto God. He might as justly declaim against Physicians, for freeing of those from sickness and affliction, who in the time 
l Hos. 5. 15.  of their adversity seek diligently unto God: or writ invectives against Moses and joshua, and call their days unhappy, seeing they brought the Israelites out of the furnace of Egypt, and out of the wilderness, and brought them to the land of their peace and prosperity, a land flowing with milk and honey, where being fat with God's blessings, they began to kick and spurn against the Lord. Was it not sufficient for Viues to declaim against Constantine alone, but to condemn also the piety, faith and zeal of the whole Catholic Church in those happy days. Never was the faith more constantly maintained, never did the zeal and piety of Bishops more abound then in the days of Co●stantine, and diverse hundreths of years after. If in some Christians that most happy peace and prosperity occasioned security, yet is the fault thereof in no respect to be imputed to Constantine, but to the corruption of their own nature, which waxeth wanton with God's blessings and being luxuriant with prosperity, turns his best blessings into a curse unto them. Viues should have remembered that good or bad actions are never to be measured by Events, but by their own uprightness. But an inexcusable error blinded and misled Viues in this matter. He supposed (not without a great blemish to his judgement & learning,) Constantine to have made this excessive and exorbitant Donation. He had heard it said that when this Donation was accepted by the Pope, a voice from heaven had proclaimed: This day is poison poured into the Church. Upon these erroneous supposals he inveyes against Constantine as the giver, against the holy ancient Church, as the receiver of this Donation: whereas had he but with any diligence examined the cause, he might have easily discerned, that this Donation was neither given nor accepted in Constantine's days, and that the poison of Antichristian sovereignty, pomp and pride maintained by this Donation, never infected, nor infested the Church, till the days of Pope Hildebrand and his successors, to which times that prophecy doth fitly, and only agreed.  
There remains now but one more whom I will mention, Remundus Rufus, in whom (seeing Boetius Epo 
n Boet. Epo▪ Heroic quest. q. ●. nu. 〈◊〉 quem commode Rusus refiraenavit.  commends him for a worthy defendor of Constantine's Donation) I expected some more weighty persuasions then in others: the rather because he professedly writes against 
o Rem Rufi. responsio ad Molmeum de Donat. Constant.  Carol. Molineus, who hath by many and very pregnant reasons convinced 
p Car. Moli●. lib contra paruas Datas in spit. G●. 15. substiactionis nu 157. et seq.  this Donation to be a counterfeit, a lie 
q Me dacium mendacio cumulantes ibid. nu 167.  and as he fur her calls 
r Ibid nu. 159  it famosam fabulam, a famous fable. Now the truth is Remundus speaks so faintly for the Donation, that under pretence of defending, he seems to be a refuter thereof. Nihil mehercule habeo, verily, saith he 
s Rem. Rufus. lib. citat. pa. 614. , I have nothing at all whereby it can be firmly proved that Constantine made this Donation: yet we will not call ●t a Fable, as Molineus doth, and this he strives to prove by a foolish definition of a Fable. Again 
t Ibid.  Satis constat, It is very clear that before Pipins' time (that is more than 400. years after Constantine) the Popes did not use that Donation, and this by diverse reasons he declareth. Again, 
u Rem. Rufns' lib cit pa. 644. et seq.  the Popes did not touch nor meddle with that Donation, quoad Imperij Romani per occidentem gubernacula, for the rule and government of the Empire in the West; nay they neglected that, and for this cause ius illius Donationis praescriptione extinctum fuisse ante Carolum magnum, that the right of that Donation was by prescription extinct before the time of Charles. Thus Rufus professing what right was coserred by the Donation to have been extinct, and so the Donation itself to be of no force, if it had been made, and yet so faintly pleading for the verity of the making thereof, that his most miserable defence of the same, against the manifold and solid reasons of Molineus, may justly persuade any, that it both is a most base forgery, as we have already demonstrated, and a famous fable, as Molineus fitly calls it. And so much for the testimonies, alleged by Marta and others for this Donation.   

CHAP. XV.  
Four Reasons brought by Doctor Marta, and Card. Albanus for the Donation made by Constantine in the pretended Edict, refuted.  
AFter authorities, in the last place there are brought by Marta and Albanus, some few reasons to confirm the truth of this Donation, which are well worthy observing.  
The first is drawn from the justice of God, who 
a Nec est verisimile Deum omnipotentem perferre potuisse, ut hoc figmentum in hanc usque diem fidelium mentes, sanctam Ecclesiam Romanam obtenebrasset. Marta. ca 30. cit nu. 32.  being omnipotent would never, or as Marta saith, could not have suffered this Edict of Donation, if it had been a figment, to have deceived and darkened the minds of the faithful, and of the Roman Church even unto this day.  
First Marta doth well, to acknowledge their Roman Church, or as Carerius 
b Constantini donationem Orthodoxi & veri Catholici, veramesse fatentur. Car. lib. 2. de potest. Pont. Rom. ca 21. § Verun.  saith, such as are true Catholics among them to hold this Charter to be true. For seeing Leo the ninth in his Decretal Epistle hath declared it to be the authentical writing of Constantine, their Church, and all who are rightly catechised among them, with Super hanc Petram, cannot choose but hold and believe it, to be such as the Pope saith it is: herein they build upon that Rock, which will never fail them. But I trust by this time Marta sees, that herein both their Pope and Church build upon sand, even on a fond, fabulous, and forged Donation. Again, if true Catholics, yea and their Catholic Roman Church, hold this for the true Charter of Constantine, what must be thought of Card. Cusanus, of Card. Baronius, of jac. Almane, of Gretzer, yea, of Pope Aeneas Silvius, who all condemn and reject this Edict for a figment and forgery? None of these in Martaes' judgement, are of the Roman Church, nor with Carcrius true Catholics; They all must now be cashiered, and blotted out of the book of life, rather than this one base and witless forgery must be forsaken.  
Again, whereas Marta saith, that God would not suffer their Church and her Children to be blinded, deceived, or deluded with this figment, he should have considered that to be most just with God, which the Apostle foretelleth, Because 
c 2 Thess. 2. 10. 11.  they received not the love of the truth, therefore shall God sand them strong delusions, that they should believe lies. Neither would it seem strange to Marta, (if he were not a mere stranger to the word of God) that the omnipotent and just God, should suffer them and their Church to be so long deluded with a figment. The justice and omnipotency of God winks at and suffers with long patience greater abominations in the Roman Church then this. The abundance of their Idolatries and tyrannies, the Apostasy of the Roman Antichrist, and his Antichristian Synagogue, God seethe and suffereth long; But tarditatem supplicij gravitate pensabit, Knowest thou 
d Rom. 2. v. 3. 4.  not that the long suffering of God, leadeth thee to repentance? But thou, after the hardness of thine heart, that cannot repent, heapest up wrath against the day of wrath, and of the declaration of the just judgement of God. He suffers them, as he did the Amorites 
e Gen. 15. v. 16.  and jebusites, till their wickedness be full; but as soon as their sins are ripe, he will pour down at once, all the Viols of his wrath 
f Apoc. 18. 2.  upon that proud City, which saith 
g Ibid. v. 7. , in her heart, I sit as a Queen; and he will cast Babylon (which they 
h Babylon, quae casura praedicitur, Babylon meretrix purpurata, matter fornicationum, Roma quidem est. Riber▪ in Apoc. ca 14. nu. 38. Roma non tantum propter priora peccata, conflagratura est, sed propter illa quae extremis illis temporib●● commissura est. ibid. nu. 44.  know and profess to be Rome) like a millstone 
i Apoc. 18. 21  into the bottom of the Sea, yea into a lake 
k Apoc. 20. 10  of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false Prophet that seduceth the world, shall be tormented both day and night for evermore.  
A second reason brought by Card. Albanus, is drawn from the truth of God, who by the mouth of his Prophets, foretold that Constantine should make this very Charter of Donation. This grant of Constantine, saith he 
l Hier. Alban. lib. de Donat. Constant. nu. 23. , (and he speaks of that which was made 
m Ibid. nu. 12  scripto interueniente, by writing and Charter) divinis traditionibus vel maxime innititur, doth especially rely on the Divine Traditions, or Scriptures. And, among 
n Ibid. nu. 22.  them all, offered se vaticinium illud, that Prophecy of David 
o 1. Chron. 29 14.  offers itself to us, Who am I, and what is my people? or what can we promise' to thee O God. All things are thine: but these things which we have received at thy hands, we give unto thee. Quis neget hoc in loco concessionem illam Constantint iam inde à primis temporibus à vate illo fuisse insinuatam? Who may or can deny saith Albanus 
p Hier. Alb. loc. cit. , but that this Donation of Constantine was from ancient time intimated and fore-signified by the Prophet David? I answer, that whosoever hath either wit or judgement, or any learning, either in divinity or humanity, may justly, and aught to deny it. Is there any one syllable there which can be proved to be prophetical, or to foreshow what should come to pass? especially touching the future gift of an Empire? of giving it by Constantine, rather than by Charles or Otho? or giving it to Sylu●ster? What proof, either from the words of the Text, or from the coherence, or from the ancient Fathers, or from the rabbinical, yea, or from the very Cabalistical Expositors, doth Albanus produce? Not any, nor so much as any conjecture for his prophetical prediction of this Donation. But seeing Albanus is so delighted with voluntary expositions of the Scriptures, he may find 1000 fare more likely texts than this of David, wherein this Do●ation is signified. That of the Prophet jeremy 
q jer. 23. 28. , Quid Paleas, ad triticum? what is the Chaff to the Wheat, saith the Lord? A fair Prophetical allusion, or insinuation of their Palea Constantinus. Or that which Michaia 
r 1. King. 22. ver. 22.  foretold, I will go and be a false spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets: Another fair allusion to those Prophets of Antichrist, who either devised, or who applaud this lying Donation. Or that of the Psalmist 
s Psal. 118. v. 85. in vet. vulgata lat. editione. , Narraverunt mihi iniqui fabulationes, wicked men have told fables unto me. Where the Prophet both describes what this Donation is, a mere fable and lie; and who they are that relate, embrace, and defend it, none but wicked and ungodly men. To every one of which Texts, if one should add the words of Card. Albanus, Quis neget hoc in loco, who can deny, but that the Donation of Constantine, and all defenders of it, are prophetically insinuated by these and like Scriptures; all these expositions may be justified and proved against Albanus, in the same manner, as the Venetians proved their right for tribute in the Adriaticke Sea, against the Pope. Let 
t Respondent Veneti, Mirari se quod iuberentur oftendere privilegia quorum Archetypa Pontifex ipse suis Archivis custodiret: reperturus facile, si Donationis Co●stātini membranae partem exteriorem, in qua maiusculis literis ea scripta essent accurate inspiceret. Phil. Camer. meditat. historic. centur. 1. ca 61.  the Pope, or Albanus, or any of them all look on the backside of the Autographum of the Donation that which Constantine writ (as Steuchus 
u Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 189.  tells you) with his own hands, and maiusculis literis ea scripta esse accurate inspiciet, he shall clearly see, that all these texts, and expositions of them, are written there in great Characters, yea even in such Golden letters, as Capistranus 
x joh a Capist. part. 2 de author. Papae. nu. 120. pa. 46  tells you, the Donation itself is written in.  
A third reason, and that is Martaes', is drawn from the justice of their Popes; Those holy Bishops, saith he 
l Nec est verisimile sanctiss. pontifices, qui post Siluestrum bona haec tanqu●̄ ad se spectanti● vigore donationis Constantini possederunt, voluisse occupare. Mart. loc. cit. nu. 32. , after Sylvester held the possession of those things by virtue of this Donation; and seeing they would not, occupare, that is, unjustly invade them, therefore it is very likely that Constantine gave them. Truly, this kind of argument drawn from the Pope's just and upright dealing, is the worst and weakest Topicke place, that was ever devised: There is neither tyranny, nor oppression, nor fraud, nor forgery, which may not very easily by it be justified. But for this particular, it is evident, that neither Sylvester, julius, nor any of those ancient 
m Ecclesia tempore Gregorij magni, (i 600. annis post Chr.) nondum habuerat principatum politicum, sed possidebat bona tempo●alia ad eum modum quo privati ciues possident. Bellar. lib. 5. de Pont. Rom. ca 10. §. Quarto.  Popes, none till Gregory the second, Zacharie, and Stephen, held or possessed so much as those Dukedoms of Rome, Ravenna, & other large Territories in Italy, which they now enjoy; much less did they possess the whole Country of Italy, and all the western Provinces, which by this Charter of Constantine is given unto them. Those ancient, more modest and honest Popes, were content with a fare less portion and patrimony. But when afterwards Gregory the second, & other succeeding Popes, had by treachery 
n Vid. sup. ca 8.  and rebellion withheld some fair possessions from the Emperor, and then to cloak this their injustice, had procured some Charters from Pipine, Charles, and other succeeding Emperors, to confirm (and that with an ouer-plus) the same; when they saw that those also were not large enough, they 
o Hadr. 1. & praecipue, 〈◊〉 9  sent abroad, ratified by their Pontifical authority this forged Charter, as if it had been the true and authentic deed of Constantine. So what they first got by treachery and treason, that they after studied to hold and enlarge by fraud and forgery. I must entreat Marta for this one Argument drawn from the Pope's just and upright dealing, that he will be pleased, not to call it a Topical, but as it is indeed a Sophistical, a Treacherous, a Tyrannical place of arguing.  
The fourth and last reason is Martaes' 
p Mart. ca 30. cit. nu. 33.  also: & it is as he boasts, argumentum firmissimum, a most strong argument, even another Achilles Zenonis: because the Emperors when they are crowned by the Pope, do swear not to violate or infringe the Donation of Constantine. To the like purpose is that of Alex. de Imola, The Emperor, saith he 
q Alex. de Imol. in l. filio quem. ff. de liber. & posthumis. , when he takes his crown, iurat de non contraveniendo dictae Donation●, swears that he will not do aught against this Donation of Constantine. I answer: first, that if it be indeed true which Marta and Alexander say, that Emperors swear to maintain this pretended Charter of Constantine's Donation, (for of that 
r Verba donationis, quam in ten simus comprobare in hoc capite, sunt ista. Mart. loc. cit. nu. 1.  they speak) then are the Pope's most vile and injurious persons, who do not only persuade, but enforce Emperors to swear to maintain and defend a false, forged, and chimerical Charter, and to make God a witness of that as a truth, which hath no reality nor truth at all in it. It may again be answered, that if this oath be offered to Emperors at their coronation, they might, and still may upon just warrant refuse to take the same: not only, for that it is impious & blasphemous for any (much more for an Emperor) to swear that they will maintain that as a true & real Charter of Constantine, which was never made by him: but because it is most prejudicial also to their own Imperial rights and royal dignities. And they may more safely refuse to take it, seeing the Pope upon such their just refusal, may not rightly deny the crown unto them. Mich. Coccinius saith 
s Mich. Cocci. lib. de Imper. translat. prope finem.  very rightly in this case, Non potest Papa Regi coron●m Imperij denegare, etiamsi Rex non iuret se Constantini donationem quam vocant ratam habiturum, the Pope cannot in right deny to crown him, that is truly chosen Emperor, although he do not, or will not swear, to hold as firm and of force, that pretended Donation of Constantine.  
But say the Pope do refuse and deny to Crown him (though in right he aught not) what damage, hurt, or inconvenience doth ensue to the elected Emperor upon such refusal? Truly none at all, as the same Coccinius rightly declares. For, ex ipsa electione, saith he 
t Ibid. fol. praeced. , by virtue of his very election, he may notwithstanding exercise all Imperial authority, and do whatsoever belongs to an Emperor after his Coronation; neither need he seek either the Pope's Coronation, or Approbation: And hereof he gives a demonstrative proof: Because he who is surrogated, and succeeds in the place of another, hath the right and power of him unto whose place he succeeds. But by due Election made by the Prince's Electors, the elected succeeds in locum populi Romani, into the place, and receives the authority of the whole Roman State; the consent of them all being virtually included in those Electors, into whom they transferred their power of electing an Emperor. And seeing before they transferred this power, or while they retained it in themselves, presently upon their election, the party elected, had full Imperial authority, without expecting either the examination, or approbation of any other: the very same power also must presently upon the election be in the party elected by those, unto whom they have transferred their power of electing; and seeing neither Constantine, Theodosius, nor justinian, nor Charles the great, (which is to be remembered) nor Lewis, nor the Othoes, Fridericks and Henries sought for, or desired of the Pope either nomination or approbation; surely others who have not or seek not that Papal approbation, may yet without it be fully Emperors, & exercise all Imperial authority, as the forenamed Emperors without it have done.  
The same Coccinius gives yet another reason, why the Pope may not deny the Imperial Crown, though the elected Emperor refuse any oath of feoltie, or homage, (and such is that whereby they swear to defend this Donation of Constantine) offered to him by the Pope. For the Pope saith he 
u Ibid. , can do nothing in praeiudicium iurium alterius, to prejudice the right of another: but by such an oath of feoltie or homage he should prejudice the Emperor, who by means of this oath should become the Pope's vassal, and hold his Empire from him. But the Emperor holds his Empire from God, not from the Pope. The imperial authority being conferred upon him immediately by God, upon the consent of the Electors in which is virtually the consent of the whole Roman state: even as Bellarmine 
x Bell. lib. 2. de Rom pont. ea. 17. §. obseruandum Tria sunt in Potifice, Pontific●tus ipse, ut forma, persona, ut subiectum formae & Coniunctio unius cum altero Ex his, pontificatus à solo Christo est, persona qua electus est, ab electoribus. Ipsa vero coniunctio est à Christo, mediante act ● humano electorum.  saith of the Pope and of papal or Episcopal authority, that it is conferred immediately from God to the Pope upon the election of the Cardinals or any other, to whom the right of electing belongs. Seeing then by virtue of the election, the whole imperial power is given to the elected Emperor, and seeing the Pope cannot prejudice the Emperor's right, specially seeing the consent 
y In qua conco●dia Rom. pon●ifex Greg. 5. includebatur Cusan. lib. 3. concor. cathol ca 4.  of the Pope himself, is included in that of the Electors, it were injurious, by reason of the refusal of any such impious oath, to deny the solemnity, when the substance is fully conferred upon him, and that even by the Pope's own true, though implicit and virtual consent, though in this particular he should explicitè expressly and actually happen to descent.  
The like is taught by Lupoldus, I conclude, saith he 
z Lu●old lib. de jure Regni. & Imp. ca 7. , that the Roman King after his election by the unanimous consent of the Electors, or of the greater part of them, habet eandem potest atem hath the same power to exercise imperial acts in the provinces subject to the Kingdom and Empire quam habet post uncionem & coronationem, which he hath after Vection and Coronation. To this agreed Hostiensis 
a Hos. Extr. de verb. signif. ca Super qui busdam. , and Card. Cusanus 
b Cusan lib. 3. Co●cor ca 4. , who both hold, that Coronation adds nothing to Imperial authority, nor gives aught but the name and title: and specially Hier. Balbus, who not only affirms 
c Hier. Balb. Coronat. pa. 68  and proves it were admitted, that both Eugenius and Sigismond intended this very Charter of Donation. But that neither in this promise, nor in those forms of oaths set down by Hildebrand and Clement the fift, that in none of them the Charter pretended from Constantine is intended, there are three evident reasons. First, which of all the Emperors that ever took this oath, acknowledged Rome, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and all the Western Provinces to belong, and that also as to the supreme Lord, to the Pope? as by this Charter it is said they do. For the Kingdom of France, to say nothing of many other western Kingdoms, seeing Pope Innocentius the third professeth 
g Innoc. 3. cap. per venerabilem, qui filij sint legitimi. lib. 4. Decretal. tit. 17. , That the King thereof, superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscat, acknowledgeth none to be his superior in temporal matters, it is incredible that either the Popes would require, or any Emperors, though required by the Pope, would ever take a solemn oath and swear, that the Pope were a superior temporal Lord in that kingdom to him. Nay, if Emperors swear to maintain that the Pope was and aught to be the supreme Monarch in Rome, Italy, and all other Western Provinces, how doth their own Hier. Balbus say, and confidently avouch unto Charles the fift, the Emperor, Charles 5. primus 
h Hier. Balb. lib. de Coronat. pa. 86.  ex Christianis Imperatoribus, first of all Christian Emperors, gave the City of Rome, with the adjacent Towns to the apostolic See, abdicating from himself, and renouncing all jurisdiction in the city. Let either Mar- or Imola, or any other show, by fair and undoubted records, that all Emperors since the time of Clement the fifth, or Hildebrand, acknowledged the Pope to be the supreme Monarch in all the Western provinces; or else let them esteem it no other than a slander of Imperial Majesty, and an imputation of perjury to all Emperors since that time, to say, that they swear to maintain the Charter of Constantine's Donation. And yet I say nothing all this time of that which Albericus rightly observes 
q Alberi. in diction. verbo electio Imperatoris. , that this Chapter Romani is another of those Decretals which are not iuri consonae, and which were made against the dignity of the Empire.  
A second reason is taken from the confession of Gretzer, who expressly professeth, that in the Chap. Romani, there is no mention of this Charter or Edict at all, There is nothing saith he 
r Grets'. Appen 2. add lib. de munif. princ. pa. 114. §. In Epilogo. , particularly spoken of thus Edict, but Privileges granted by Constantine are there specified: and privileges Constantine might, and did no doubt grant many to the Ch●rch, and yet not such ample Privileges as this Charter speaks of, to wit, Rome, Italy and all the Western provinces. So they might both take and observe that oath, and yet withal hold this Donation to be a forgery.  
The last reason is, that other oath which Otho the fourth 
s Othonis iuramentum extat apud Math, Pari●. in johan. pa. 306.  and Henry the fifth 
t Henr. 5. iuramentum extat apud Leon. Ostien. in Chron. Cassin lib. 4. ca 42. , are recorded to have taken, and which to be usually taken by all Emperors, out of Baldus 
u Sup. cap. 8. pa. 166.  and Lucas de Penna we have before declared. Their oath 
x Apud Lu●, de Pen. loc. cit.  is, iura regni & honorem coronae illibata seruare, to keep entirely, and inviolably the rights of their Kingdom, and the honour of their Crown. Can they possibly swear that the Pope aught to have and enjoy, Rome, Italy, and all the Western provinces, and yet keep inviolate the rights of the Empire? Is Rome and Italy no part of the Empire. Can they again swear, that the Pope aught to be Supreme Monarch in all those, and yet preserve or keep inviolate the Honour of their Imperial Crown? Is not Sovereignty 
y Vt Ostensum est ex Covar sup ca, 8. pa. ●61.  of Dominion the honour, yea the very form and essence of Imperial authority? Or may we think that the wisdom of Emperors can admit both these, being directly repugnant, and contradicting oaths the one to the other? Seeing it is certain that Constantine granted Privileges and Donations to the Church, they may well with their former oath, swear to maintain those, so fare as they are or shall be made certainly known ununto them: but to swear that they will maintain this pretended Charter of Constantine's Donation, and withal swear to preserve the rights and royalties of their Empire, without open and evident perjury they cannot. Nay I say more, that seeing they are by virtue of this Imperial oath bound to maintain both the Rights & Royalties of their Empire, they are even thereby and by that sacred oath, bond not only to abandon and abolish for ever this pretended Charter of Constantine, which is most prejudicial both to their Rights and Royalties: but further also, to labour and strive to recover both their Imperial Sovereignty in Rome and Italy, and whatsoever Lands, Cities, or Territories the Pope usurpeth, and for which evident and certain proof cannot be showed, that by just and legal conveyance they have been either for the usus fructus given, or otherwise passed unto the Pope. But having spoken of this point before, I will not now further insist upon it.  
You have now seen, whatsoever of any worth or weight, either Marta, Steuchus, Albanus, Epo, Rufus, or others of that rank, could find to gain any credit or countenance to this Donation of Constantine. All which being now fully refuted, you do see how desperate their cause is, which they so eagerly and pertinaciously strive to support, by such false, forged, and legendary writings. But that which now after the full refuting of this Donation, I would specially observe, is this: That seeing by this Charter and Donation of Constantine, the Popes neither have, nor can have any right or just title, either to Rome, Italy, or any Cities which therein they possess; and seeing again Card. Albanus tells 
z Hier. Alb. lib. de Donat. Const. nu. 5.  us, That the Popes nullum alium suae possessionis titulum attulerunt, have brought or produced (they would no doubt if they could) any other Title, but only this grant and Charter of Constantine's Donation, it hereupon clearly ensueth, that the Popes neither now have, nor ever had any right or just title, either to Rome and Italy, or to those Cities and large Territories which they possess therein.  
Lastly for Marta, who hath of all most laboured in pleading for defence of this base and witless forgery, though there can no more be said for excuse of him, than was said for Faustus the Manichee, that the badness of his cause enforced him to pled so badly, yet may it, and will it still justly be answered, as S. Austen 
a August. lib. 16. cont. Faustum. ca 26.  did to Faustus; I grant indeed, that in a bad cause you could not possibly pled better, Mala causa vana loqui coegit, Malam vero causam te habere nemo coegit. A bad cause to use a vain defence enforced you; but to undertake a bad cause, no man enforced you.  
But for his alleging so many false, sergeant and forged writings, and giving credit to them, there is no excuse at all to be made for Marta, unless one will say, that his credulity was such, as Melchior Canus 
b Mel●. Canus loc. Theod. lib. 11. §. Lex vero secunda.  mentions to have been in one of their Priests in his time, Cui persuasissimum esset nil omnino esse fallum quod semel typis excusum esset, who was verily persuaded, that nothing was false which was published in print.    


CHAP. I  
Of the Pope's Temporal Monarchy, and what important Consequents do ensue thereof.  
Having in the former Treatise fully demonstrated the forgery of that pretended Donation of Constantine, there remains yet one consideration touching the Pope's title both to those Kingdoms which are said to be given therein, & to all other Kingdoms in the world. For though they magnify & make much (as you have seen) of this and other Donations, yet do you think the Donation of Constantine, Charles, Henry, Otho, or any other Emperors, by some 
a Nempe per Edictum Constant.  of which Rome, Italy, and all the Western Provinces and Kingdoms are said to be given to the Pope, that this will satisfy the pride and insatiable avarice of the man of sin? Not, the whole world must be his Kingdom; and his title to it, and every part of it, must not be from any mortal man; he in Christ's right, and immediately from him, will be the direct supreme temporal Lord of all: from him must hold all Kings, Princes, and all other persons whatsoever, or else they can have no right unto either lands, goods, or possessions in this world. But jest I may seem to impair their Pope's right, let us hear their claim and challenge in their own words.  
Go to now, O ye most blessed Apostles (saith Pope 
b Grrgorius 7 in sua ex●crationis Henrici Imperatoris, confirmatione, quae recitatur a Platina in vita Greg. 7. ja. 178  Hildebrand unto Peter and Paul,) do you confirm what I have done, that all men may know, if you being in heaven can bind and lose, that I also here on earth can both give and take away Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities, & quicquid habere mortales possunt, and whatsoever any mortal man can have. This aught, saith Pope Leo 
c Leo 9 Epist. 1. cap. 13.  the 9 to satisfy you de terreno, & caelesti Imperio, imò de regali sac●rdotio, that both the temporal and heavenly Kingdom, yea a kingly priesthood is given to the apostolic See, and that divinitus 
d Nobis divinitus, & humanitus concessam gloriam ibid. ap. 39  by God himself, and not only by men. Christ hath committed to Pe●er saith Pope Nicholas the 2. terreni 
e Nich. 2. in Epist. ad. Medi●lanens. dist. 22 ca Omnes sed 〈◊〉 fals●ascribitur Ni●holao 1. qui long ante P●t●um Dam●anum (is huius Nicholai legatus lici tur) obierat.  s●mul & caelestis Imperii iura, the rights both of the earthly and heavenly Empire. When the Pope gives or sends a consecrated sword, saith their book 
f L●b 1. Sacr. Cerem. sect 7. ●ol 84. & 85.  of sacred ceremonies, to the Emperor or other King, which is used to be done on the night of Christ's nativity, he then by Sixtus cuartus, is appointed to say, This Pontifical sword do●h figure or betoken summam temporalem potestatem a Christo Pontifici collatam, That the supreme temporal power, is given by Christ unto the Pope his vicar, according to that saying, Data est mihi omnis potestas, All power is given to me, both in heaven and in earth; and according to that also: He shall rule from Sea unto Sea, and from the flood unto the world's end. Pope Boniface 
g Paral. Abb. Vsperg ad anni● 129 ●. pag. 343 & seq.  8. boasting that he had the power of both swords, shown this by his actions also, when in the year of that grand jubilee 1300. the first day, he road as Pope in his Pontificalibus, and the next day, imperiali habitu, infula Caesarea insignis, he road in his imperial robes with the imperial Crown, having a naked sword carried before him, & one proclaiming with a loud voice, Ecce hic duo gladii, Behold here are two swords, the spiritual and temporal, both given unto me.  
The Papacy or papal authority is defined by Alu. Pelagius 
* Alu. Pel●g. lib. 1. de plancti. Eccl cap 13.  in this manner, Papatus est Principatus tam in spiritualibus quàm in temporalibus, The Papacy is a Supremacy both in spiritual & temporal matters. The Pope, saith August. Triumphus 
h Aug Trump. de potest. Eccle●. q. 36. ●●t. 3.  is greater than any King or Emperor, tam in temporalibus quàm in spiritualibus, as well in temporal as inspirituall matters: and as God is the Lord of all by universal jurisdiction, so is the Pope his Vicar greater than any King or Emperor, both in spiritual and temporal things. The supreme power and dominion, saith Thom. Bozius, 
i Thom. Bozius lib. 1 de jure statu● etc. ca 1● sect. Ob hae●.  which subordinates unto it all other domin●ons, datum est iure divino pon●ifici Romano, is given by the divine Law to the Pope: And by this, Pas●e oves meas which was spoken only to Peter, significatur sacerdotalis ac regalis potestas simul, is signified both pontifical and regal power. So that in the Pope alone is Apex utriusque potestatis, the top of both powers, spiritual and temporal. The temporal 
h Ibid. sect. Sic itaque.  power rests and resides in the Pope, tanquam capite sacerdotum mundique, as in the head both of Priests and of the World. The Pope, saith Rod. Sancius, 
i Rod. Sanc. li. de orig. ac differ. princ. part 1 & cit. a Carer. lib. 2. de potest. Rom pontiff. cap. 9 sect. Sequitur  in Christ's stead is chief in the whole world, both in spiritual & temporal affairs. To the pope, saith Rad. Cupers 
k Rad. Cupers Com. ad Cap. Oportebat. dist. 79. pa. 253. nu. 23.  God hath committed the rights both of the terrene and heavenly Kingdom: again, 
l Ibid. pa. 257 nu. 64.  The direct dominion of the Empire belongs unto God, and by consequent to the Pope his vicar. The Pope, saith Antoninus, 
m Anton. in Summa, par. 3. 〈◊〉. 22. ca 5. sect 15.  for universal jurisdiction both in temporal and spiritual matters is greater than any other King or Emperor. The Pope, saith Lel Zeccus, 
n Lel. Zecch. in Tract. Theolog. pa. 81.  by the Law of God hath power and temporal dominion over the whole world. The supreme temporal jurisdiction throughout the whole world, saith Franciscus Bosius, 
o ●●. Bos. lib. 1 de temp. Eccl Mona●c. cap. 3. pag 52.  belongs to Peter's successor, so that he is both Hierarch and Monarch in all things, Again 
p Idem lib. 5. ca 18. pa. 807.  The supreme Monarchy in all temporal affairs, belongs to Peter's successor, and that iure divino, by the divine Law expressed in the Scriptures. The scope of his whole book is, as himself declares, to show, that Peter 
q Th' Boz. praef. ad Clement. 8.  and the Pope succeed to Christ, as well in his Kingdom as in his priesthood, and that Peter and the Pope is both King and priest according to the order of Melchisedeck. It is certain, saith Baronius 
r Baron. an. 57 ●u. 28.  that judicial power (in secular causes) is given to Bishops (to wit, to Christ's vicar's) not only by Apostolical institution, but even by Christ, whose priesthood is according to the order of Melchisedeck, both a King and a priest. The secular power, saith Aquinas 
s Aquin. in 2. Senten. dist. 4 4 q. 9 Art. 2. & citatur a Tho. Boz. l. 1. de jure status c. 13 sect. Primam.  is joined in the Pope, with the spiritual, the Pope hath utriusque potestatis apicem, the top of both powers spiritual and temporal, by the disposing of him, who is both a King & a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech. That the Pope iure divino hath power over the whole world, as well in temporal as Ecclesiastical matters, is taught, saith Bellarmine 
t Bel. l. 5. de Pont. Rom. c. 1. sect. Restat.  by August. Triumphus by Aluarus Pelagius, Hostiensis, Panormitan, Silvester, and diverse others: yea Hostiensis teacheth, that Christ by his coming, translated all the dominion, even that of Infidel Princes, unto the Church; and that this Dominion so resides now in Christ's Vicar, that he may give by his own right the kingdoms of Infidels to whomsoever he william. The Pope, saith Marta 
u Habere summam lai●am potestatem etc. Mart p. 1. c. 18 num. 1.  hath supreme laical power in temporal matters, and that not only in order to spiritual causes, but naturally and temporally. And again 
x Ibid. nu. 5.  As in the Church Triumphant, so also in the Church Militant, there is but one supreme Governor, to whom all other as well Clerks, as laics, both Kings and other, are to obey, and that both in temporal and in spiritual matters; and this supreme Governor 
y Ibid. ca 18. per totum  is the Pope. Again, 
z Idem c. 22. ●. 1.  The Pope hath the same power that Christ had, and Peter exercised: but Christ as man, had the fullness even of temporal power, and Peter exercised temporally, that temporal power. Therefore the Pope hath and may exercise the same temporal jurisdiction temporally, and in his own nature. Both by the Law Divine and natural, saith Henr. Gandavensis 
a Henr. Gand. quodl. 6. q. 23. , doth the priesthood excel the Empire, & penes ipsum residet de iure divino utraque iurisdictio, and both iuridictions as well in temporal as spiritual matters, as also the immediate execution of that jurisdiction doth reside in the Priest, by the Law both divine and natural. It is the common opinion of School Divines, saith Carerius 
b Alex. Carer. l●b. 2. c. 9 num. 1. & lib. eod. c. 13. num. 7. , that the Pope hath iure divino plenissimam potestatem in universum orbem terrarum, the most full power over the whole world, both in Ecclesiastical and temporal matters. Again 
c Ibid, c. 16. n. 11. , As the Pope cannot say that he holds not Christ's place here in earth, so neither can he deny, that he hath the temporal dominion of things; for as the earth is the Lords, and all that is therein, even so are all subjected unto Christ, and by him unto the Pope; to whom, being his vicar, Christ hath committed the right both of the heavenly and earthly Empire. Christ, saith Scioppius 
d Gasp. Sciop. in Ecclesiast. c 36 p. 122. , is the Lord of the whole world by a double title, of Creation, and Redemption; and he 
e Ipse utrumque (postquam in coelum ascendit) per Episcopos ex●rcet, imprimis autem per S Petrum cui soli dixit, pasce oves meas idem lib. eod. c. 38 p. 126.  ascending into heaven, made the Pope his Vicegerent in them all, to whom he gave not only directive, but coactive power, that he might rule them with a rod of iron, that is, by his secular power 
f Esse autem virgam nihil aliud quam saecularem sive coactivam potestatem, ex Is. 14. discimus. ibib. . Again, the Church, saith he 
g Ecclesia similis Vitulo, sive ●oui trituranti ibid. c. 38. p. ● 29. in marg. , is like unto a Calf, whose horn, that is, his secular power 
h Aduertendum quod Ecclesiae saecularis potestas tribuatur, per cornu significata, sed in capite residet postquaem scilicet iam adolevit, ibid. p. 129.  is set in the head, (that is, in the Pope) which power though in the younger age of the Church, it was not grown, yet afterward (when 
i Cornua cum ●tatis maturit●te habiturus sit. Vt ea postquam Ecclesia adolevisset uteretur. Ibid.  the Calf was stronger) he did with his horn, push at Kings and Kingdoms, and bring them in subjection unto him. And a 1000 such like sayings, he, and others have to this purpose.  
Nor do they hold this assertion of the Pope's supreme temporal dominion, as a doubtful opinion, but as a doctrine of faith. It is tenendum recta fide, saith Rod. Sancius 
a Rod. Sant. l. de Orig. ac differ. princip. & cit. a Carer, l. 2. c. 9 n. 13. , to be by the right faith, that the Pope, iure divino, hath the true and only immediate principality over the whole world, as well in temporal as in spiritual matters. The Pope, saith Rad. Cupers 
b jure divino Papam utram que potestatem habere demonstratur. Rad. Cup. Comment. ad Cap. oporte bat. distinct. 79 p 48. num. 1. , hath and that iure divino, both powers, temporal and spiritual committed to him, and they 
* Ibid. p. 46. in Sumar. nu. 9  who deny the Pope to have both these powers, Euangelium negant, do deny the Gospel. Tho. Bosius 
c Thom Boz. l. 5. de jure status c. 10. §. johannes.  approves that saying of Hostiensis, That as it is Heretical to make two beginnings, so it is heretical to make two Vicars of Christ here upon earth. As it is heretical, saith Marta 
d Mart. par. 1. c. 18. nu. 25. , to hold duo principia, two Authors of the world, so to hold that there are two Vicars of God (the one in temporal and the other in spiritual matters) est haereticum, it is heretical; and therefore the Pope himself saith, It is of necessity of salvation, that every creature should be subject to the Pope, tam in temporalibus, both in temporll and spiritual matters: & Dantes 
e Idem c. 19 〈◊〉 5. & nu. 14.  the Florentine who held the contrary, was after his death condemned for an heretic. Boniface the 8. saith Carerius 
f Alex. Carer. l. 2. c. 3. nu. 16.  and Martinus Polonus 
g Mar. Pol. Chron. An. 1301.  writ letters to Philip the French King, wherein he told him, that the Pope is Lord through the whole world, both in temporal and spiritual matters, & contrarium sentire haereticum iud●cabat, and he judged it to be heretical for any to hold the contrary. The same Carerius writing in defence of the Pope's direct, temporal, dominion over the whole world, entitles his book 
a Aduersus impios politicos, et huius temporis haereticos. tit. l.  Against impious politicians, and heretics of this time; accounting all for heretics, who deny that temporal, direct dominion; one of which is Cardinal Bellarmine, against whom Carerius 
b Confutatur opinio Bellarm. Car. lib 3. c. 5, 6 7. & 8.  professedly writes.  
Nor is this the Censure of Carerius alone, touching Bellarmine; Sixtus quintus 
c Bellarminus satisfacere non potuit ambitioni Sixti 5. Itaque parum ab fui● quin omnia illius Doctoris opera ab●leret. Guil. Barc. l. de potest. Papae c. 13. & delere atque extinguere in animo habuit. ibid. ca 40.  so condemned that doctrine of Bellarmine, (although he indirectly 
d Bel l. 5. de Pont. Ro. c. 6. et seq.  yields as much as can be desired to the Pope) that because he did not hold this direct temporal dominion of the Pope, he purposed to have abolished and burnt as heretical all the books of Bellarmine.  
Bartolus, as both Carerius 
e Carer. lib. 2. c. 10. nu. 1.  & Covarruvias 
f Covaer. part. 2. Relect sect. 9 nu. 6 p. 505.  observe, confidently affirmed that opinion which denies the Pope's temporal Monarchy, to be heretical. And Card. Baronius 
g Bar an. 1053 num. 14.  doubted not to say, That the Catholic Doctrine, Haeresis errore notavit omnes, hath branded with the error of heresy all those who take from the Church and chair of Peter, either of the two swords, and who grant unto it only the spiritual sword.  
From this supreme temporal Dominion which they thus give to the Pope, they draw many pretty conclusions. First, that neither the Emperor nor any King hath any temporal authority, power, or jurisdiction, but only such as they derive from the Pope. The reason hereof is evident; for seeing all power, both spiritual and temporal, is given first and immediately to him, none can have any part of either, but from him. As all stars, saith Carerius 
x Carer. l. 2. c. 12. nu. 3 4▪ 5. , have their light from the Sun which is the fountain of light, so all power and authority, quoad temporalium administrationem, even in the government of temporal matters, depends on that supreme power which is given to the Pope. Again 
y Car. l. ●od. c. 14. nu. 14. , The Pope hath primò & per se, primarily and of himself, the Dominion over all temporal things; Emperors 
z Ibid. nu. 20.  Kings, and secular princes, receive their power from God, but mediante Papa, by the mediation of the Pope, that is, Recipit 
a Cap. e●d. n. 16  a Papa loco Dei, the Emperor receives it from the Pope in God's stead. Again, the Pope 
b Ex quibus concluditur pontificem esse orbis virum Idem c. 15. n. 10.  is the husband of the world (a very fit wife sure for the Pope,) and all others depend upon him as on the Architect. The Empire, saith Marta 
c Mart 〈◊〉 c. 19 nu. 9  depends not on God, but on the Church and the Pope. The power of jurisdiction, saith Aug. Triumph. 
d Aug. Trium. de potest. eccl. q. 1. art. 1.  in temporal & in spiritual matters, est immediata in Papa solo, is immediate in the Pope alone. Again 
e Ibid. , The power of Emperors & secular princes is such, that it is given to them by another (that is, the Pope) & every one of them, ab eo recognoscit esse omne quod habet, must acknowledge whatsoever they have to be from the Pope. It must be granted, saith Alu. Pelagius 
f Alu. Pelag. l. 1. de Placed. eccl. c. 13.  That no Emperors did rightly exercise the sword who received it not from the Pope. All secular power, saith Th. Bozius 
g Th. Boz. l. 2. de iure stat c. 19 § Ex 〈◊〉 , in all things depends and is from the power Ecclesiastical, and that iure ipso divinissimo, by the most divine Law.  
A second conclusion is this, that the Pope is an higher temporal Lord, and Emperor, than any, yea then all the secular Kings & Emperors in the world. The reason of this is clear: For seeing he is the fountain from which they derive all their temporal authority, the same Kingly and Imperial authority, must needs be more eminently in him, then in them all, even as light is more eminently▪ in the Sun then in the Moon and Stars which borrow their light from it. It is known, saith Pope 
e Cap. Solitae, Extrav. de Maior & Obed.  Innocent 3. that there is as great difference betwixt the Pope and the Emperor, as there is betwixt the Sun and Moon. Now the Sun being six thousand five hundred thirty nine times greater than the Moon, as Astronomers 
f joh. Clau. come. in joh. de Sa●robos. pa. 189.  teach, (for the Canonists 
g Glossan. Cap. Solitae, de Maior & Obed.  ignorantly talk of 47 times) the Pope is by Innocentius Decree, 6539. times greater than the Emperor. There is, saith Carerius 
h Car. lib. 2. c. 12. nu. 5.  that proportion betwixt the Pope and the Emperor, as is betwixt the Sun and the Moon; as the Sun than is fare more excellent and eminent than the Moon, seeing she borrows her splendour and light of the Sun, so is the Pope than the Emperor, seeing his authority depends on the Pope, and is derived from him. Bishops, and the Priesthood, saith Waldensis 
i Th. Wald. Doct fid to. 1. l. 2. ar. 3. c. 74. , is as much preferred to the Kingly state, as gold is to lead, or the soul to the body, or heaven to earth. So much, saith Orichovius 
k Stanist. Orich. in Chimaera. p. 97. , doth the Priest excel the King, as a man doth excel a beast, yea, as much 
l Quantum Deus praestat sacerdoti, tantum sacerdos praesat regi. ibid.  as God doth excel a Priest, and that is by infinite degrees. Upon consideration of these so great odds, Steuchus 
m Aug. Steuch. l. de donat. Constant p. 187.  saith, That Constant. yielded the City of Rome to a greater Emperor than himself, and that was, to the Pope. The Canons, saith Marta 
n Mart. par. 1. c. 19 nu. 7. , put the Pope super verticem Imperatoris, above the very top and crown of the Emperor; and the Pope, saith Rad. Cupers, 
o Rad. Cupers come. ad cap. Oportebat. p. 43. nu. 39  is deservedly accounted Rex regum & dominus dominantium, The King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Aug. Triumphus yet more triumphingly saith, 
p Aug. Trump. in princ. summae de potest. Eccles.  The Son of God hath declared the altitude of Ecclesiastical power, to be above all principalities and powers, that unto it should bow every knee, both in heaven, in earth, and under the earth: and yet Stephanus Patracensis goes one step further, which will reach even to God himself. In the Pope, saith he 
q Orat. Steph. Patrac. in Conc. Later. sub Leone 10. Sess. 10. p. 624. , who is the supreme Hierarch in the Church, there is omnis potestas supra omnes potestates tam caeli, quàm terrae, all power above all powers, both in heaven and in earth: whom Rad. Cupers, following, saith 
r Rad. Cup l. citat. p. 3. nu. 7.  The Lord hath so magnified the Church, (that is, by his own exposition 
s Papa totaem ecclesiam significat. id. p. 125. num. 43. in Summ●r.  the Pope) that he hath preferred it not only to Kings and Kaiser's, sed omnibus sub caelo, & supra caelum existentibus, but to all that are either under, or above the heavens; and there is none, I think above the heavens, but God only.  
A third conclusion is this, That none can give any lands, goods, or possessions to the Pope, but only restore those things unto him; The reason whereof is evident, for all these are the Popes own before, & that iure divino, seeing as Marta saith 
t Mart. part. 1. ca 15. nu. 14.  Vniversus orbis est papae territorium, the whole world is the Pope's territory. If it be found sometimes, saith Thom. Bozius 
u though Boz. l. 3. de iure Stat. c. 5. sect. Quin audet.  that certain Emperors gave some temporalties to the Pope, as Constantine to Silvester, that is not to be understood, that they gave any thing which was their own, they restored that which was unjustly and tyrannically taken from the said Bishops. Constantine, saith Carerius 
x Car. si. 2▪ ca 21. nu. 5. & ca 16 nu. 31. , did restore that which before he had unjustly detained, he restored to the Church and to the Pope those things, which he had detained from him, and had long withheld and abused by his tyrannical power in serving the Infernal prince and Idols; therefore that Donation of Constantine was in truth only a restitution: for seeing the earth and all that is therein, is the Lords, and by consequent the Popes, Constantine gave nothing at all of his own, but he restored them, in recognition of the Lords, and the Pope's Dominion. Again 
y Ibid. ca 21. ●u. 7.  they are utterly deceived, who think that Charles, Pipine, or others, gave Rome and other Cities in Italy to the Pope. The Pope hath immediately from God his temporal dominion, the same he hath from Counsels declaratiuè, from Constantine promulgatiuè, that is, Counsels only declared, and Constantine proclaimed the Pope's right and temporal dominion in them. We deny, saith Marta 
z Mart lib. in. ca 25. n. 20.  that the Pope found'st his jurisdiction upon the Donation of Constantine; for we have already proved that the Pope had, and still hath the whole power which Christ had, as well in temporal as in spiritual matters, neither did he prejudice his own right in accepting those Donations, of Constantine and other Emperors; they in those gifts did but recognise 
a Idem cap. 29 nu. 13. 14.  therein, his supreme jurisdiction and so interrupted that praescription of an absolute dominion which they did pretend, acknowledging 
b Ibid▪ nu. 15.  their Kingdoms, Dominions, and States, to be held of the Pope, as of the Fountain of jurisdiction, and Dominion. I have often, saith Scioppius 
* Gas. Sciop in Eccles ca 51. pa. 168. 169. , laughed at those who altercate about the Donation of Constantine, neither do we care whether there be any public record either of any such Donation, or session and yielding up of Rome; for constat, it is manifest that Rome could not be given to the Church: and the reason is, not that which the Lawyers suppose, for that Constantine could not alienate that, which belonged to the Commonwealth, sed quia tantùm, iure divino tenet, but because the Pope holds Rome neither by any Donation, nor by inheritance, nor by right of war, neque ullo alio humano iure aut titulo, neither by any other humane law or title whatsoever, but only by right from God. It is God that gave Rome to the Church, as meat to feed, as clothes to apparel the Church. Constantine 
c Idem ca 52. pa. 17●.  and other Emperors did but perform the office of an hand to reach the meat to the mouth, and put the apparel upon the head.  
This right of the Pope, when divers Kingdoms (as they teach) acknowledged, they yielded the possession of those Kingdoms to the Pope, and so they became his. Of the Kingdoms of Spain, Pope Gregory the seventh thus writes, to the Kings and Princes thereof, (those were at that time & long after seven, 
d Munst. Cosm. li. 2. pa. 57  Arragon, Castille, Portugal, Granado, Lions, Navarre, and Gallicia,) Notum 
e Greg. 7. lib. 4. Epist. 28. Regibus caeterisqu●● principibus Hispaniae.  vobis fieri volumus, we will have it known unto you that which we may not conceal, and is needful for you to know; that the Kingdom of Spain in ius & proprietatem traditum, was for right and propriety yielded to the Roman Church. And again 
f Greg. 7. li. 1. Epist. 8. , writing to all Princes that go into Spain, We believe (saith he) that you are not ignorant, that the Kingdom of Spain from ancient time, proprii iuris sancti Petri fuisse, & adhuc nulli mortalium, sed soli Apostolicae sedi ex aequo pertinere, to have been the proper right of Saint Peter, and now also to belong in right to no mortal man but only to the apostolic See; for that which once comes to the Church, can never be taken from the same. Particularly of the Kingdom of Arragon, Steuchus 
g Steuch. li. de don. Const. pag. 193.  out of Innocentius the third saith, esse Apostolicae sedis, that it is the Popes. Of the Kingdom of Portugal, Steuchus also saith, 
h Steuch. ibid.  Ecclesie Romanae est, that belongs to the Church of Rome, and because Hildefunsus knew it to belong to the Roman See from ancient time, he offered it to the Pope, and subjected it to him. Of the Kingdom of France, Boniface the eight said 
i Bonif. 8. lit●rae apud Carer. li. 2 ca 3. nu. 16. , It is subject to the Pope both in temporal and in spiritual matters. Of the Kingdom of England, Alexander the second 
k Alexand. 2. epist. pars quae id asseritur extat apud Baron. an. 1068. nu. 1.  affirmeth, that ever since it received Christianity, it hath been in the hands and power of Saint Peter. Of the Kingdom of Scotland, Pope Boniface saith, 
l Bonif. verba citantur a Pol. Virg. hist. li. 17. et a Marta lib. cit. ca 26. nu. 60.  that it is in the Pope's power, and that he may give and take away the same. Of Italy, Steuchus saith, 
m Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 200.  Tota Italia est Ecclesiae, all Italy belongs to the Roman Church. Of the Kingdom of Sicily, Marta saith, 
n Mart. lib. cit. ca 26. nu. 6.  The laws do expressly teach that it is a part of the patrimony of the Church; and Baronius hath writ an whole book 
o Bar. tract de Regno Siciliae to n. 11. Annal. an. 1097. nu. 18 & deinceps.  to confirm the same. Of the Kingdom of Hungary, Gregory the seventh saith, 
p Greg. 7 li. 2 epist. 13. ad Salomonem regem Hungariae.  Proprium ecclesiae est, It properly belongs to the Church of Rome. So do also the Kingdoms of Croatia, and Dalmatia, as out of the same Pope 
q Verba citantur a Steuch. li. de do●. Const. pa. 191.  Hildebrands registry, Steuchus avoucheth. Of the Kingdom of Russia, Steuchus out of the same Hildebrand saith, 
r Steuch. li. cit. ●ag. 190. & Greg. 7. idem declarat, lib. 2. Epist. 74.  Est iuris ac ditionis Romanae ecclesiae, the right and dominion of it belongs to the Church of Rome. Of the Kingdom of Denmark, Steuchus out of Alexander the second saith, 
s Steuc●. li. cit. pa. 189.  It is peculium & vectigal, the proper substance and tribute of the Roman Church. And what should I add more, saith Steuchus 
t Steuch. ibid. pa. 195. , The power of the Roman Church is most ancient, super omnibus regnis & regibus, over all Kings and Kingdoms; all monuments of the Popes are full, in showing this power, whereby Popes have ruled by their Empire, the whole World, habenas omnium terrarum tenentes, holding the reinss and regiment over all Kingdoms in the Earth. Thus Steuchus.  
A fourth conclusion is this, That as Emperors and secular princes derive all their authority, so do they hold all their Kingdoms, Crowns, Territories and possessions from the Pope, as tenants, as homagers and vassals unto him, or else they are mere usurpers of the same. The reason of this also is manifest; for seeing the whole world is the Pope's Territory 
d Vt Marta s●●▪ , and he the Lord, yea the husband 
e Vt Carer. 〈◊〉▪  of the world, none may, nor yet in right can, enjoy any part of his Territories, or company with his dear Wife, but by his allowance and dispensation. Whence hath he (Frederick the King) the Empire but from us? saith Pope Hadr. 
f Hadr. 4. epist. cita●ur apud Auent. l. 6. p. 506.  the 4. by election of the Princes, he hath the name of King, by our consecration he hath the name of Emperor; Imperator quod habet totum habet a nobis, whatsoever the Emperor hath, he hath it of us. It is in our power, ut demus illud (Imperium) cui volumus, to give the Empire to whomsoever we william. We are placed of God above Nations and Kingdoms, to destroy and root out, to build and to plant. The Emperor, saith Lel. Zecchus 
g Lael. Zech. tract. de Rom. Pontif p. 82.  takes the Empire de manu Pontificis, at the Pope's hand, and to the Pope doth belong the direct dominion of the Empire. Again 
h Ibid. p. 83. , The Pope is absolutely the Lord of the whole Christian world; Kings and Princes Imperia & regna ab illo recognoscere habent, must acknowledge their Empires and Kingdoms to be held of him. The Emperor, saith Marta 
i Mart. lib. cit. c. 18. nu. 11. & 12.  is Feudatarius ecclesiae, & ab ea omnia recipit. He is feudatary to the Pope, and holds in fee all that he hath from him. Again 
k Idem c. 20. n. 4▪ , We have declared the Emperor, universa humana habere a Papa, to hold all his worldly possessions and goods of the Pope. And for this cause he swears 
* Idem▪ c. 25. nu. 16. Papa Imperatorent confirmat iurantem sibi fidelitatem et homagium.  feolty and homage to the Pope: the form of which oath, being expressed, both in their book of the Decrees 
l Distinct. 63. c. Tibi domino.  and of sacred ceremonies 
m Lib. 1. Sacr. Cerem. sect. 5. fol 48. , Clem. 5. hath decreed 
n Cap. Romani in Clement. tit. de Iureiura●●do. Declaramus illa iur amenta fidelitatis existere, & censeri debere.  it to be an oath of feoltie; and when Lotharius the Emperor had taken that oath 
o Forma iuramenti Lotharii extat apud Bar. an. 1133. nu. 2. , he was thereby made 
p Post homo ●it Papae, etc. Versus extant apud Radevic. lib. 1. de gest. Frideri ●●i 1. c. 10. & Sigon. lib. 11. de Regno Ita●. an. 1133.  Homo Papae, the Pope's man; that is to say, the Pope's servant or vassal; (for the word vassus 
a Episcopis, Abba●ibus, & vassis nostris dicimus, Capit. Carol. magni li. 2. cap 9 & de vassis dominicis qui intra casan seruiunt, ibid. li. 3. ca 73 & Anima vestra de corpore nuda ac desolata sine solatio, et comitatu vassorum exibit. in capit. missis ab Episc. Rhem. ad Ludoui●●̄. V●ss● a Saxonibus La●●● dicti. ait Glossari●m in capitu. Aliter, a vas vasis, vassal. 〈◊〉 deducit Mart. par. 4. ca 188▪ nu. ●. , whence cometh vassallus, signifieth a servant) and then as Marta 
b Mart. li. cit. part. 1. cap. 18. nu. 2●.  observeth, Pope Innocent the second permitted him, but in truth, as Sigonius 
c Sig. lib. 〈◊〉. an. 1133.  testifieth, mandavit, the Pope commanded Lotharius to be painted on a wall in the Pope's palace, quasi vassallum ad pedes prostratum, as a vassal prostrate at the Pope's feet. The King of Arragon, saith Steuchus 
d Steu●. li. cit. pag. 193. , accepit in feudum, praedictum regnum, took that Kingdom in fee of Pope Innocentius the third: & recognoscitur a papa, saith Marta 
e Mart. li. cit. ca 26. nu. 43. 44. , and it holds of the Pope, by the annual payment of 250 duccates 
f Maximas 〈◊〉 ait Marta, 〈◊〉 Bar. an. 10●7. nu. 106. 〈…〉 . The Kingdoms of Navarre, and Granado, saith Marta 
g Mart. ca 26. nu. 53. , were given by julius the second to Ferdinand King of Spain, and his successors, cum pacto ut recognoscerent Romanam ecclesiam in fidem & homagium, upon this covenant, that they should hold those Kingdoms by feoltie and homage from the Church of Rome. The Canary Lands 
h Ibid nu. 54.  and Nigraria, fuerunt datae in feudum, were given in fee to the Emperor by the Pope, and Lewes King of Spain, did feoltie and homage to the Pope for them, Anno 1343, binding himself to pay yearly for the same 400 florins of gold. When Alexander the sixth gave the Indies to the Kings of Castille and Portugal, saith Marta, 
i Ibid. nu. 55.  reseruavit sibi recognitionem feudalem ab ambobus, he reserved a pension to be paid to the Pope by them both, as an acknowledgement, that they held both the Indies in fee from him. julius' 
k Ibid. nu. 25. 26. 27.  the second gave to Ferd●nand King of Spain, the Kingdom of Naples, in feudum perpetuum▪ in a perpetual fee, but so that Ferdinand should swear feoltie and perform homagium & vassallagium, homage and vassalage to him: And that also for the Kingdoms 
l Ibid. nu. 29.  of Sicily and jerusalem he should pay yearly to the Pope 8000 ducats of gold, and a white palfrey, in recognitionem veri dominij regni Siciliae et jerusalem, in acknowledgement that the Pope hath truly the dominion of Sicily and jerusalem. And both Philip the second, and after him his son Philip the third, Anno 1599 did take, as Marta 
m Ibid. nu. 31 & 34.  tells us, this oath of feoltie and homage. The Pope, saith Marta 
n Ibid. nu. 35.  gave in feudum, in fee the Kingdoms of Sardinia and Corsica, which in propriety belongeth to him, but so that the feudatory do swear feoltie, and perform homage, et plenum vassallagium and full vassalage for the same, besides the pension of 200 marks of silver, and finding of 100 furnished horse with men for war; And james King of Arragon took this oath of homage, and after him Ferdinand, and others. Of the Kingdom of France, that it is held of the Pope, Boniface the eight boasteth, who writ 
o Verba Bonif. citantur a Steu. li. cit. pa. 198.  to Philip the French King, Necesse esse pontificem vtì dominum regni sui venerari ac colere, that he must of necessity acknowledge and worship the Pope as his Lord. And Marta saith, 
p Mart. lib. cit. ca 28. nu. 1.  Recognoscitur a Romana Ecclesia, the Kingdom of France is held of the Church of Rome. And at the time of the anointing their Kings, the Archbishop of Rheims saith, that he gives the Kingdom, by the authority which Pope Hormisda gave to Remigius: And then he 
q Ibid. nu▪ 11 & 23▪  adds divers reasons, That the Pope hath supremam potentiam, et iurisdictionem in regno Franciae, the supreme power and jurisdiction in the Kingdom of France. And Steuchus speaking both of France and Spain, saith, 
r Steuch. li. ci●. pa. 189.  They honour, yea adore the Roman Church as a Queen, pensionibus persolutis, paying their pensions and tribute unto her: and the pension in France was the annual payment of a penny for every house therein, as Pope 
s Dicendum est ●●mibus Gaellis & per veram obedientiam praecipiendum, ut unaquaeque demus, annu a●tim unum saltim denarium seluat B. Petr● Greg. 7. lib. 8▪ Epist. 23:  Gregory the seventh declares, who expressly demanded the same. Of the Kingdom of England, they are vainly confident, that it was semper 
t Stanis. Christian. in Exam. Cathol. fol. 33  beneficiarium & tributarium Romano pontifici, ever held in fee of the Pope, and paid tribute unto him. King Ina 
u Christ. ibid.  paid yearly for it a penny for every house King Offa confirmed the same Anno 740. The like did Adelphus Anno 847. And the Pope had always in England his gatherers of this tribute, of whom the last was Polydore Virgil. Of Henry the second, they brag 
x Bellar. Apol. pro Tort. cap. 3. sect Extat. Becan. Cont. Angl. q. 9 nu. 1. 2. et seq. Bar. a. 1173 nu. 9 10.  that he acknowledged the Pope to be his temporal Lord, himself to be the Pope's feudatory, and his Kingdom the Pope's patrimony. And of King john they never cease to boast, that he resigned 
y Christian. f 3● & seq. & Bell. Apol. pro Tort ● c 4. sect. Extat. Mart. lib. cit. c. 26. nu. 39  the Kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope, and took 
z Receptio ●orundem regnorum in fevaun▪ ita ut rex tanquam secun●a●us dominus, ● Rom eccl▪ illa se habere agnoscat. et in signum subiectionis fidelitatem et homag●● praestare debent. nec no● in annos singulo● 1000 marcas eidem numerare. Bell▪ et Becan. loc. cit.  them in fee of him again for the annual pension of 1000 marks, as appears by his Charter sealed with Gould. Thus said Pope 
a Regnum suum Angl. et Hibern. Rom. 〈◊〉. concessit, recipiens illud a nobis in feudun sub am●●o censu 1000 marcarum. Innoc. 3. in epist. 〈◊〉 omnes fideles; quae extat apud Math. Paris. pa. 356. regnum Angl. est suum proprium etc. 〈◊〉 Innoc ibid. pa. 381.  Innocent the third, and the bull or authentical Charter hereof, is yet, as they boast 
b Cuius bulla authentica est in Vaticano. Mart ca 26. nu. 4 , extant in the Vatican. That by this means, the Pope hath direct 
c Directum domi●●um habet Eccl. in regnum Angl. et Hiberniae. Bell. loc. cit.  dominion in those Kingdoms, and that both King john and his successors are made 
d Se summo pontifici vasallos constitue●ūt et tributarios Mart. loc. cit.  feudataries and vassals to the Pope, as the Pope himself in a boasting manner, said 
e Innoc. 3 ve●ba apud Math. Paris. in joh. p. 379 & 381. , vassallus noster est rex Angliae, the King of England is our vassal. Of the Kingdom of Denmark, as being tributary to the Roman Church, Pope Alexander 
f Alexandri verba citantur ● Bar▪ an 1062 nu 109  the second, warned Suews their King to pay the accustomed rents or tribute for the Kingdom. The Kingdoms of Croatia and Dalmatia, saith Steuchus 
g Steuch. li. cit. pa. 191.  are the Popes, and the King is to pay yearly 200 Byzantines as a tribute for the same, and to swear feoltie to the Pope. That the Kingdom of Bohemia, is tributary to the Pope, Gregory the seventh boasteth, who saith, 
h Sub nomine census misistis etc. Greg. 7. li. 2. Epist. 7.  It paid unto him a tribute of a 100 marks of silver. The Kingdoms of Suetia and Norwey, saith Steuchus 
i Steuch. li. cit. pa. 194. , pay tribute to the Church of Rome, and every house in Suetia pays yearly a penny to the Pope. The King of Hungaria, saith Marta 
k Mart ca 26. 〈◊〉. 49. 50. , declares that he takes and holds his Crown of the Pope, and Anno 1280. he entered an obligation, to pay yearly 100 marks of silver, as a tribute for the same. Now all these, besides some other Kingdoms, to the number of twenty and seven, Marta 
l Mart. ca 26. nu. 3. ubi 27. regna esse descripta in registro curiae Romanae ait.  particularly recites, and tells us, that they are recorded in the registry of the Roman Court or Exchequer, as Kingdom's feudatory and tributary to the Pope. Thus are all Emperors, Kings, and Princes, made to hold their Crowns, Kingdoms, and possessions, of the Pope, as from the supreme, direct, temporal Monarch of them all. To him they must be subjects, feudataries, homagers, and very vassals. The Popes, saith Steuchus, 
m ●is uti subiectis imperabant. Steuch. li. cit. pa. 183.  tanquam eorum domini, as their Lords, do command kings throughout the world as their subjects. The Emperor, saith Carerius, 
n Carer. li. 2. c. 18. nu. ●.  is the Pope's Minister, or Servant: and Marta 
o Mart. li. cit. ca 18. nu. 19  adds, That it is the form of the Emperor's Coronation, that he doth swear se seruiturum papae, that he will serve the Pope; yea both their doing of homage unto him, and receiving unction from him, doth witness this; seeing as Marta 
p Idem c. 27. n. 1  saith, Homage is maximum subiectionis signum, the greatest token of subjection and service; And again, 
q Idem ca 18. nu. 11. in Summar.  Reges qui unguntur ab Ecclesia, sunt vassalli ipsius, those kings which are anointed by the Church are made her vassals; that is in effect, the Pope anoints no kings, but he thereby sets a mark upon them that they are his vassals.  
Now seeing they are become the Pope's servants, and tenants, it is worthy remembering, first, in what tenure they hold their Kingdoms, and possessions from him. Secondly, what service they are to perform to this their Lord. And lastly, what accounted this landlord makes of his tenants, and servants. Their tenure is of all most base; for howsoever in words, the Pope gives them fee-simple, or fee-tail, or any kind of freehold, they are in very truth no other, but mere Tenants at will, to the Pope, so that he at his pleasure may take their Crowns, Kingdoms, and possessions from them, and give the same to whomsoever he william. The Church, saith Steuchus, 
r Steuch. lib. cit. pa. 189.  suffers Kings to reign, modò dominam reginamque agnoscant, so that they acknowledge the Pope to be their landlord. If they once refuse this, they forfeit all their estates, As by the examples 
s De quibu●● agi● Carer. lib. 2. ca 19 per totum.  of Henry the fourth, Otho the fourth, Friderike the second, and divers others is evident. The Pope, saith Marta 
t Mart. par. 1. ca 29. nu. 12. et ●. 25. n● 6. et 22 , is Lord of the Empire (and so of other kingdoms) quia transfert illud ad libitum, because he transfers it at his own pleasure and gives it unto whom he will, as we have proved. Pope's have given, saith Carerius 
u Car. li. 2. c. 19 nu. 26. , and Thomas Bozius 
x T. Bozius lib. 3. de iure stat. c. 4. sect. Sed &. , great Empires and Kingdoms, to those who had formerly no right at all unto them, taking them away from those to whom by right they did belong, though they demerited nothing, but were wise, industrius, pious, and Catholic kings, such as had done nothing, or given no cause at all, why they should have been deprived; whereof there are divers illustrious examples. Placuit Gregorio, 
* Carer. et Tho. Boz. locis citatis  It pleased Gregory the tenth to take the Eastern Empire from Baldwine the second, who was the rightful Lord thereof, and give it to Michael Paleologus, who had no right at all to the same. When Richard 
y Carer. et Tho. Boz. loc. cit.  Duke of Cornwall, and Alphonsus King of Castille, were chosen to the Empire though the Empire in right belonged to the one of those two, yet placuit Gregorio, it was the Pope's pleasure to admit neither of them both; and so Rodulph of the House of Austria was then created Emperor, Alphonsus in vain gainsaying the same. And by what 
z Idem Car. c. 21. nu. 14. et T. Boz. loc cit. sect. Neque id▪  other authority or power did Alexander the sixth give to Ferdinand king of Arragon, and to his heirs and successors, the Lands of the new found world? (that is, the West Indies.) Truly by none at all, but for this, that Christ gave unto the Pope his Vicar iura utriusque Imperii, the rights both of the celestial and terrestrial Empire, and so he might at his own will dispose them to whom he pleased. To these Scioppius adds one more, Spain, saith he 
* Gas. Sciop. in Eccles ca 141. p. 512. , doth hold the kingdom of Navarre at this day, nullo alio titulo, nisi quia pontifici sic visum fuerat, by no other title but because, it is the Pope's pleasure that he shall have it.  
As their tenure, so their service which they must perform to this their Landlord, is most base, most unsuitable to Imperial Majesty; Nor do I mean that service which Marta saith, 
a Mart. lib. cit. cap. 8. nu. 19▪  That the Emperor swears se seruiturum Papae pro subdiacono, that the will serve the Pope, for a subdeacon, that is, serve him when he saith Mass with the Chalice, and other things; in regard of which service Durandus saith 
b Durand Rational. lib. 2. c. 8. nu. 6.  That the Emperor being made a Canon of the Roman Church, debet ordinem subdiaconatus habere, must enter into the order of Subdeacon; though this be by others 
c Gloss. in Cap. Valentinianus Dist. 63 & Boe●. Epo. tract. de Regn. vel jure princ. nu. 48. &. 51.  denied. But the service which I mean, is, that the Emperor like a groom of the stable must hold 
d Stapham equi papalis tenere debet Imperator et deinde ducere equum perfranum. Mart. lib. cit. ca 18. nu. 19 et sacr. Cerem. lib. 1. sect. 5. p. 61.  the Pope's stirrup, and lead his horse; So Pipine 
e Pipinus vice stratoris iuxta pa●ae sellam properavit. Fredericus Hadriano 3. officium stratoris exhibui● Steuch. lib. cit. pa 135.  did to Pope Stephen, Frederick to Pope Hadrian 3. If more 
f Lib. 1. Sa●. Cer. sect. 2. p. 3●  Kings be present; then the more worthy King must lead the Pope's horse on the right side, and the other on the left. If his Holiness be not pleased to ride, than four 
g Ibid.  of the greatest kings (even the Emperor for one, if he be there) must bear the Pope's chair, and the Pope sitting therein, on their shoulders. At his feast, the Emperor 
a Ibid. p. 43.  or greatest king must bring water to wash the Pope's hands, they must carry 
b Ibid. p. 45.  the first dish of meat and set it on his table. At his coronation 
c Ibid tit. 2. pa. 28. & 29.  two Cardinal Deacons, must hold the two sides of his Plwiale (or lose upper-garment) and the Emperor, or in his absence, two of the chiefest kings, must hold up the tail thereof. If they happen to offend the Pope, they must dance attendance barefooted at the Pope's gates, as did Henry 
d Henricus, soris deposito cultu regio, nudis pedibus, leiunus a m●●e usque ad vesperum persta. ●attriduo. Lamb Scaef●●ab. pa. 249.  the 4. the Emperor, and that for diverse days, and in a cold season; or they must be whipped on their naked body with rods 
e Caernem suam ●udam disciplinae virga●um supponens a singulis viris religiosis quorum multitudo magna convenerat ictus ternos vel qu●ternos excepit. Matth. Paris. in Hen. 2. pa. 174.  as was Henry 2. of Engl: or suffer the Pope to trample on their necks as Alexander 3. did 
f Papa Imperatoris ●ollum pede comprimens ait, Scriptum est, super aspidem & basiliscum ambulabis. Nauc. ad an. 1177.  on the neck of Frederick Barbarossa; not without blasphemy also abusing that Scripture for justifying his proud insulting over the Emperor, Thou shalt tread upon the Adder and the Basilisk.  
And yet that which in the third place I proposed, to wit, the account which they make of kings, and all secular persons, fare surmounteth all these indignities, and to men of heroical spirits, cannot choose but be more grievous and insupportable than all the rest. Omitting all their other opprobrious & reviling speeches (which are innumerable) hear but the words of two of their late revilers rather than writers. The former is Becanus, who calling 
g Becanus ●ontrou. Aug. q. 3 nu. 14. 15. & 16.  the Pope a Shepherd, and Kings and Emperors dogs 
h Per Canes intelliguntur 〈◊〉 reges & Imperatores. Ibid. nu. 15.  or Curs of this Shepherd, and sporting himself with these titles, saith, Igitur high Canes, therefore if these Dogs be watchful and trusty they must be ready at the Shepherd's hand; but if they be lazy, mad or troublesome, the Shepherd must presently remove them, and put them from their office. This doth reason teach, this doth the Council of Lateran decree. Again, Christian kings are sheep, are rams, are wolves, and are dogs. Whence it is that the Pope carrieth himself in a diverse manner towards them. As they are sheep, if they be scabby, he may put them out of the fold: as they are rams, if they be troublesome, and push with their horns, he may may shut them up: As they are Wolves, he may drive them away; Quatenus Canes, as they are dogs, he may put them from their office, if they be defective therein: and some of these, he doth by excommunication, some by deposition. So Becanus.  
The other is Gasp. Scioppius, whose words are so contumelious, even in the highest degree, that one may justly wonder that any of their Catholics, but especially their Catholic Kings, can patiently digest them. The Church saith he 
a Ecclesia est Mandra, sive Grex▪ aut multitudo iumentorum▪ sive Asinorum, clitellariorum, aut Sagmario. rum Gasp. Sciop. in praef. ad Imper. in summae Cap. 147. , is mandra iumentorum, sive a sinorum, a great fold of beasts or Asses; some are pack Asses 
b Cum nos Christiani simus dei ●●menta sive pecora subiugalia, equi, muli. sive Asini Cl●tellari●, dossuarij, sarcinarij, Idem in Eccles. c. 147. p. 534. , some doss Asses, and others burden Asses. And then telling, cuiusmodi 
c Ibid. in Marg.  Asini sumus nos Catholici, what manner of Asses, himself, and other Catholics are; We, saith he 
d Ibid. , must be beasts which have understanding and reason to obey Bishops with all humility and patience; for they 
e Illi enim sunt Homines, sive Agasones, Muliones, Iuga●ij: Illinos ●ranat, illi loao aelligant, nos agunt, nos s●imulant, n●bis iugum imponum ibid. pag. 534.  are the Men, they the Muleteers, and Asse-drivers, they must yoke, bridle, and saddle us, put halters about our necks, load and drive us; for others 
f Ibid p. 535. , they are like to beasts, but tame and obedient beasts, such as must do what they are commanded: for a good 
a Bonus & intelligens Asinus audit consilia et praecepta sui Mulionis. ibid. p. 536.  and understanding Ass, is he, that heareth and followeth the direction and command of the Muliter. Further yet he adds concerning Kings, that Reges 
b Ibid. in Marg.  Catholici sunt Asini cum tintinnabulis; Catholic Kings are Asses with bells about their necks, as being the fore-asses, which lead 
c Tum caeteros Asinos, qui sonitum tintinnabuli de collo vestro pendontis audiunt, viam ingredi faciatis. Ibid.  the way to other inferior Asses. And particularly for Charles the great, whom he much commends, he saith 
d Ibid. p. 536. 537. , that Charles was a fare greater and wiser Ass, than those Kings who cast off the Pope's yoke; for Charles being tantus Asinus, so great an Ass, cried (or rather brayed) out with a loud voice, universae Asinorum mandrae, to the whole fold of Asses, that is, to the whole Church, in this manner; For the memory of Saint Peter, let us honour the Roman Church, and though the yoke which the Pope imposeth be such as we can scarcely bear, yet let us with devotion endure the same. Ex quibus verbis, saith Scioppius, verum Issachar agnoscas, de quo Genes. chap. 49. Issachar asinus fortis. By these words of Charles, you may see that he was a very right Issachar, of whom it is said, Issachar is a strong ass. Is not this now think you, a fine piece of Catholic Divinity, to accounted and call the whole Catholic Church a fold of asses, all Catholic Kings asses with bells, all other lay persons, asses without bells; none but Bishops to be Men and Muleteers, and the Pope the chief Muliter and driver of all the Asses. So shall the man be honoured, whom the Pope will honour. The more zealous and devout one is in obeying him, and embracing his doctrine, the greater Ass they accounted and call him. Thus have they not only stripped Emperors and Kings of their Royalties and Imperial rights, but of their goods, lands, and possessions, yea of their honours also; and in the end, for suffering all these indignities at the Pope's hand, they accounted them to be very Asses.  
Now though by this, they do evidently demonstrate the Donation of Constantine, of which we have hitherto entreated, to be of no force at all, seeing neither he, nor Pippin, nor Charles, nor any other could give aught to the Pope; and therefore all the claim which they pretend, to any kingdoms, territories, or possessions, by such Donations are but a mere mockage of the World; yet because they do hereby challenge an higher, a better, and far more ample title, to all that is subposed by those Emperors to have been given, even such, that in stead of praising their munificence, for that which they gave, imputes open injustice, tyranny, and sacrilege to them, for that they gave not all; let me entreat a little of this point also, and clear the honour not only of Constantine, but of all other Kings and Princes, (for this concerns them all) whom by this doctrine they make mere intruders and usurpers of whatsoever they do not as tenants at will, hold of the Pope. A large argument I confess, and which would require whole volumes, but purposing summa sequi fastigia rerum, I will only speak at this time of these three points. First, whether Christ as Mediator and Redeemer of mankind, had such a sovereign and direct temporal Monarchy, as for his vicars they now claim from him; which is indeed the first and the main foundation of their papal Monarchy. Secondly, Whether Christ left and committed any such temporal Monarchy to Peter, which is their second foundation. Thirdly, Whether this Monarchical Empire now claimed for the Pope, be not condemned by the judgement of holy and learned men in all ages and successions of the Church.   

CHAP. II.  
That Christ had no such Temporal Monarchy, as is now claimed for the Pope.  
FOr the first, whether Christ was such a Temporal King or not, we must consider, that there is a threefold Kingdom of Christ mentioned & taught in the holy Scripture. The first is his kingdom of Power or Excellency, whereby he being God, is the supreme Lord of all things; for The earth 
a Psal. 24: 1.  is the Lords and all that is therein. Concerning which Kingdom, four things are clear and certain. First, this Kingdom belongs to Christ neither by virtue of his death, nor of his resurrection, but by reason of the inseparable union of the manhood to the Godhead in Christ, by which he being that one person, which is both God and man, from the very first instant of his conception that man being very God, hath the same power and Kingdom with God. And as himself saith 
b john 10. 30  I and my Father are one, so is this Kingdom of God and Christ's, both one. Of this Kingdom of Christ, are those words to be understood, All 
c Math. 28. 28  power is given to me, both in heaven, and in earth: And that, He 
d Heb. 1. 2.  hath made him heir of all things; And that, T●e Father 
e joh. 13. 3.  hath given all things into his hands; And again, Omnia 
f joh. 17. 10.  tua mea sunt, all that is thine, belongs also to me, and is mine.  
Secondly, this Kingdom of Christ, is Incommunicable unto any mere creature whatsoever, for it is grounded on the infinity of God's power, who as by his infinite power, he made all things of nothing, so by the same infinite power, he ruleth, ordereth, and disposeth of all things. And because no creature is capable of that infinity of power, neither is any, capable of that universal Kingdom of Excellency, which ariseth from the infinity of divine power. And as infinity of nature cannot be transferred unto any creature, so neither can infinity of power be given or transferred unto it, but this is, and resides only in that Infinite Essence of God, nor can it agreed to any, but to that person, which is truly God.  
Thirdly, this supereminent and universal Kingdom of Christ, doth neither abolish, nor hinder, but establish and ratify all other particular and secular kingdoms. For as it was said, 
g Daniel 2. 37  before Christ's incarnation, to Nebuchadnezer; The God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, so Christ also after his incarnation, both approves and confirms the kingdom of Cesar, saying, 
h Mat▪ 22. 21.  Give unto Cesar, the things that are Caesar's.  
Fourthly, this kingdom of Christ is not temporal or secular, but fare more eminent than any, yea then all secular kingdoms in the whole world. Temporal kingdoms are temporal, and mutable; this eternal, and immutable: they administered by temporal persons, by temporal means, by temporal counsels: by temporal laws, by temporal weapons, by temporal punishments: This kingdom is administered by the only eternal God, by his eternal, omnipotent, and immutable will, wisdom, counsel, and providence; either with means, or without means, or contrary to means, as it seemeth best to him; administered also, so unresistably, that nothing can resist the power of this kingdom, for nothing can come to pass without the providence and will of God, either 
i Non fit aliquid, nisi Omnipotens fieri velit, vel sinendo ut fiat, vel ipse faciendo. Aug. Enchyr. ca 95. Nec utique nolens sinit, sed volens. Ibid. ca 100  powerfully doing it himself, or willingly permitting it to be done.  
The second kingdom of Christ is of Grace; and the third is of Glory: Or if any like to call them both but one kingdom, it is not amiss; that kingdom of Glory being inchoate by Grace in this life, which shall be perfected both in grace and glory in the life to come. Of the former, Whereby Christ rules by faith and grace in the hearts of all his elect, ever since the world began, is that meant, Psal. 2. 
k Psal. 2. 6.  I am appointed a king upon his holy mountain Zion; And that of Zachary, 
l Zach. 9 9  Behold the king cometh, and that in jeremy, 
m jer. 23. 5.  I will raise up to David, a righteous Branch, and he shall be a king; And that in Ezechiel 
n Ezec. 37. 22  I will make them one people, and one king shall rule over them; And that of our Saviour, 
o Matt. 6. 33.  Seek ye first the kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof; The 
p Luk. 11. 20.  kingdom of God is come unto you, and is in 
q Luc. 17. 21.  you: which is compared to seed 
r Mat. 13. 24.  sown in good ground, to a grain 
s Ibid. v. 31.  of mustard seed, to leaven 
t Ibid. v. 33. , and a number such like in the Gospel.  
Of the other which is his kingdom of Glory, are clearly to be understood those texts of Scripture, Lord 
u Luk. 23. 42.  remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom. It is 
x Luk 12. 32.  your Father's will, to give you the Kingdom. They 
y Luc. 13. 29.  shall sit with Abraham, Isaac and jacob in the Kingdom of God. The unrighteous 
z 1 Cor. 6. 9  shall not inherit the kingdom of God. By 
a 2 Pet. 1. 11.  this means an entrance shall be ministered unto you, into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour jesus Christ. In all which, and many the like, is meant that glorious kingdom of Christ, whereby himself now, and ever since his ascension, is in perfect and endless felicity, both of body and soul, subject to no infirmity of body, or grief of mind, as before he was; of which most blessed kingdom, all the children of God are even now fellow-heires 
b Rom. 8. 17.  with Christ, and shall▪ in their due time, be made 
c 2 Tim. 4. 8.  actual partakers and possessors of that heavenly inheritance.  
Of both these Kingdoms there may two things be observed. The former, that they are in a special manner called the kingdoms of Christ. For though they be the kingdoms also of the Father, and the blessed Spirit, because Faith 
* Gal. 5. 22. & 1 Cor. 12. 11.  and Grace are wrought in the hearts of God's children by his Spirit: and, God giveth both grace 
d Psal. 84. 11.  and glory; yet because the holy Spirit worketh that grace, and the Father giveth this Kingdom, for the mediation and merit 
e 1 Pet. 1. 18. 19  of Christ, therefore are they by a certain prerogative, said to be Christ's, for that he purchased and merited by the infinite and inestimable price of his blood, and bloody death, (which was sufficient to have ransomed and freed all,) that both Grace and Glory should be given to whomsoever himself would; and that is to All and Only to the believers in him, to All and Only the elect 
f Eph. 1. 4.  in Christ.  
The other is, that neither of these kingdoms is, or can, with any colour of reason, be accounted a temporal or terrene kingdom. Both of them in their nature spiritual: The former is wrought by God's Divine Spirit, and in the Spirits of the Elect, and that by a spiritual manner of working; The later is for place, not terrene but celestial; for time, not temporal, but eternal; and for condition, not subject to any disturbance or change, as temporal kingdoms are; but settled in an unchangeable state of most happy tranquillity.  
Now seeing in the holy Scripture there is neither set down nor mentioned any other kingdom of Christ, but one of these three, which we have now described; and seeing it is clear and certain, that none of these three is a temporal Kingdom, but the first, only divine, the second only spiritual, the third only celestial; it remains clear and evident, that Christ jesus neither ever was a temporal King, such as are the secular Princes and Monarches here upon earth; neither ever, either had such a Kingdom, or executed and performed the Offices of such a King. And it were easy to demonstrate (if it were worth the labour) that those Romanists who pretend Christ to have had a temporal Kingdom, do either ignorantly, (as Franc. Bozius) or Atheistically (as that Scurra Scioppus,) or impiously, (as the rest) pervert the holy Scriptures to their own vain and fantastical conceits.  
Let us hear our Saviour himself witnessing this truth. When Pilate demanded of him, if he were a King, he answered 
f joh. 18. 36. , My Kingdom is not of this world. He professeth himself to be indeed a King, and to have a kingdom; a Kingdom of Excellency and power, as he is God; a Kingdom both of Grace and Glory, as he is the mediator between God and Man: but for any temporal and terrene Kingdom, such as Pilate meant, he utterly denies that he was such a king, or had such a kingdom. And he gives a plain reason thereof, for otherwise, my servants would surely fight: As if he had said; Had God sent me to be a temporal King, I would have come with temporal pomp, with a temporal guard, and temporal weapons to defend my right, & revenge my wrongs; & then neither myself nor my servants would put up all these indignities: but because my kingdom is not terrene, because I come to serve others & not to be served with such Princely service, by this my carriage O Pilate, thou mayst know, that my Kingdom is not of this world, not a temporal or terrene kingdom.  
His facts declare the same, when the jews 
g joh. 6. 15.  had taken him to make him a temporal king, he fled away, refusing such a Kingdom, even when it was offered unto him. When they came, desiring 
h Luc. 12. 13.  him to divide the inheritance between two brethren, he refused to do it, saying, Man who made me a judge between you? As if he had said, the ordering of such temporal affairs, belongs to temporal Kings and their subordinate judges or Officers, God hath given that authority to them; Seeing I neither by God's appointment, nor by delegation from Cesar, have that temporal authority, it belongs not to me to intermeddle with those temporal judgements. When the Publicans came and demanded, 
i Math. 17. 24.  An non soluit, Doth not your Master pay (that is, use to pay) tribute to Cesar? Peter answered, yes, he useth so to do: by that his using to pay tribute acknowledging himself, a subject to Cesar: even as at the time of his birth, his name was, as one of the subjects of Cesar, and Citizens of Rome, recorded 
k Sub Caesare nobiscum describi voluit. Cyril. lib. 6. cont. julian. p. 55. Romano censu statim ascriptus, ut natus est. Or●sius. lib. 6. ca: 22. dicendus utique civis Romanus, census professione Romani. ibid.  in their censual books. And though Christ, as himself teacheth 
l Math. 17. 26 , being the Son of God, to whom all Kingdoms do belong, might by being the natural Son of God, have pleaded a freedom and immunity from paying tribute in any kingdom, yet seeing withal he was the Son of David, he willingly paid tribute to Cesar, as being in respect of his manhood and humane birth, a subject of the Empire and of Cesar: Yea, Card. Caietane 
m Caiet. Com. in 17. Math. , and after him Luc. Burgensis 
n Luc. Burg. in eund. loc.  do teach that Christ paid tribute not only de facto, but de debito. For seeing, say they, Christ said not, ne scandalizentur, but, ne scandalizemus, jest we give an offence unto them; if Christ (who had taken upon him that state of humility, & who was not yet known to the world to be God) had denied tribute unto Cesar, Activi scandali rationem habuisset, he had given offence unto them, causing them to think that he had contemned the Law of God. To which purpose Jerome saith 
o Hier. come. in 17. Math. , Christ as being the King's son, was not bound to pay tribute, but in that he took upon him the humility of our nature, debuit adimplere omnem iustitiam, he was bound to fulfil all justice; one part of which, was subjection and paying tribute to Cesar. So Christ both by his words, and actions, witnessed his kingdom not to have been temporal, while he was here upon earth, neither did he challenge, or ever use the authority of a temporal king, or hinder, much less abolish and take away, as Scioppius 
p Regnum Christi tollit omnia alia Regna. Gas. Sciop. Eccles. c. 46. p. 151.  saith he did, those kingdoms; but establishing that authority which God had given to them, for all such temporal matters, he carried himself as a subject to temporal Kings, submitting himself to death, even to a most shameful death, upon the judgement of Pilate, the Emperor's deputy in jury, whom he acknowledgeth 
q Romani praesidis po●estatem Christus super se fatetur fuisse caelitus ordinatam, Bern. epist. 42 in fine.  to have had power over him from God, to judge him.  
To these may be adjoined, the consenting testimonies of St. Austen 
r Audite regnae omnia, non impedio dominationem v stran. Aug. tract. 115 in joh.  S. Cyrill 
s Principatus Christi mundanus non est. Cyril. lib. 12. in joh. ca 10. , St. Ambrose 
t Quod regnavit Christus non est contra Prophetiam (jer. 22. 30.) non enim saculari honoreregnavit. Amb. l. 3. in Luc. p. 44. , St. Jerome 
u Regnum Christi non erit terrenum et breve, sed coeleste & perpetuum Hier. in c. 22. jer. v. 30 , St. chrysostom 
x Regnum suum neque humanum neque caducum esse demonstrat. &, non humanum, sed longe maius at praestantius imperium Chrys. hem. 82. in joh. , St. Hilary 
t Christus positus est rex non super illum terrenae civitatis montem, sed eius quae est in coelis, Hilar. in Psal 2. ya. 353 , St. Epiphanius 
u Carnaliter non est impletum in saluatore, etc. Epiph. haer. 29. , of Egesippus 
x Egesip. apud. Euseb. l. 3. c. 17 , Eusebius 
y Sedes Dauid per divinum saluatoris nostri regnum, erectum est. Euseb. lib. 7. de Demonst. Euang. , Bede 
z Regnabit in aeternum, non dixit in acquisitione gloriae, Gazarumque terrenarum, etc. Bed●n c. 1. Luc. , Bernard 
a Dabit ei deus sedem David, non temporalem sed aeternam, non terrenam sed coelestem. Bern. homil 4. super, Missus est. Lu. 1. , and many others, who not only deny Christ's kingdom to have been terrene and temporal, but explaining how that prophecy in jeremy, That none of jeconias' posterity, (of which they thought Christ to be) should sit upon the throne, or be a King, how this I say is not repugnant to that saying of the Angel, Gabriel, Luke 1. 32. God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; they answer that these two are not contrary, seeing jeremy speaks of a temporal kingdom, and such Christ had not: and Gabriel of a spiritual and eternal kingdom, and such Christ indeed had. But omitting all the rest, I will add three or four testimonies of their own learned writers testifying this.  
The first is Card. Bellarm. who thus writes 
b B●l. l. 5. de Pont. Rom. c. i 4. sect. Superest. , Christ as he was man, while he lived upon earth, neither had, nor would accept any temporal dominion, neither 
c Ibid. §▪ Quod de nique.  did he ever exercise any such temporal power; and therefore it had been in vain for him to have had it, seeing that power is in vain which is never brought into act. And whereas some pretend, that when Christ whipped the buyers and sellers out of the temple, he did therein use his kingly, temporal, and secular power; the Card. rightly shows 
d Ibid. §. Respondent.  that Christ did that, not by any secular or kingly power, but as a Prophet, and by prophetical authority, such as Phinies used when he killed Zimbri, & Cosbi: and Elias when he killed the Priests of Baal. The same Card. adds, That 
e Ibid. sect. C●●firmatur.  such a temporal kingdom & secular power, was neither necessary nor expedient for Christ, but altogether superfluous & unprofitable for him. Again, That Christ, saith he 
f Recognit. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 4. p. 33. , had an universal kingdom of power, as he was God, a spiritual kingdom of grace, and a third which is an eternal kingdom of glory, I do read; but that he had a fourth kingdom which is properly temporal, such as other Kings here upon earth have, I found not either in the Scriptures, or in the Fathers: Nay, I esteem such a kingdom to be contrary to the poverty of Christ, mentioned in the Scriptures, and to savour of the error of the jews, & Heretics. Again 
g Lib. eod. Recog. pa. 35  I have read the books of the Fathers, with what diligence I could, and I have often read them to deny Christ to have had a temporal or terrene kingdom, but I have no where read them to affirm that he had such a kingdom, Thus Bellarmine.  
The next is Cornelius jansenius, one of their learnedest and best expositors of the Gospel. The kingdom of Christ (saith he) 
h Cor. jans. Concord. Euan. c. 3. sect. Dabit.  is called the throne or kingdom of David, not for that it is temporal, sensible, or terrene, but because it was figured by the kingdom of David.  
The third is Adam Sasbout, who upon those words which they 
* Sededit super solum David & super regnum eius, ut rex saecularis, ait Sciop. in suo eccles. ca 36. p. 124.  so often wrist, God shall give unto him the seat and kingdom of David, thus and very rightly writeth 
i Ad. Sasb. comment. in ca 9 Isai. , The jews understand this text of a temporal kingdom of the Messiah, such as other kings have here upon earth, whereas the Scriptures are most evident, which witness that Christ's kingdom shall not be such: but Christ is said to sit upon David's throne, because he ruleth for ever in the Church, and in the faithful people, of which Church the kingdom of David was a type.  
The fourth is Thomas Waldensis, who in a whole Chapter 
k Tho. Wald. Post. fidei, to. 1. l. 2. Art. 3. c. 77  at large and effectually by many Fathers, and reasons, proves that Christ's kingdom is not temporal. Christ (saith he) took away all suspicion from Pilate, when he answered negatively touching a temporal kingdom, saying, My kingdom is not of this world, that is, it is not humane, not temporal, but it is fare greater, and more excellent. Again, All with one accord writ that secular princes need not fear the kingdom of Christ, seeing it is not of this world. And then he adds, finaliter definimus, we determine and conclude finally, that Christ had no right to the kingdom of Israel, who as God had an universal right to all kingdoms in the world.  
To all which may be adjoined that which being taken out of Sedulius 
l Ex Hymno Sedulij, quem cot● ecclesiae publice canit Bell. lib. 5. de Rom pont. cap. 3 , the whole Roman Church approves and singes as an holy Anthem in their public liturgy: Non eripit mortalia, qui regna dat caelestia, Christ gives an heavenly, he doth not take away earthly kingdoms, that is, as Bellarmine 
m Loco cit.  rightly teacheth, No secular king by becoming a Christian looseth his right to his earthly, but he gets a new right to an heavenly kingdom.  
Now to this uniform consent of the ancient Fathers, and the best of their latter Divines, if we should oppose that violent and indeed atheistical wresting of the sacred Scriptures, for intitling Christ to a secular and temporal kingdom, used by the Pope's Proctors and Parasites, it would much confirm any man in this truth. For who can with patience hear them teach, Christi 
n Gas. Sciop. in Eccl. c. 46. p. 151 in marg.  regnum tollit omnia alia regua, Christ's kingdom (and that is the Popes 
o Christus legatos constituit qui suo loco orbis haereditatem ●deant. Idem c. 36. p. 125. &, Papa Romanus est velut Prorex. li. eod. c. 55 p. 179. &, Christus ipse possessionem non capit, sed paulatim per suos vicari et ibid. cap. 36. pa. 125.  in Christ's right) takes away all other kingdoms in the world: For he is properly no king that hath any man superior unto him. Or that, Christ hath 
p Titulo Redemptionis Christus omnia regna & imperia evacuat, & cessare facit. idem li eodem. ca 36. pa. 123.  evacuated and made voided all principality & power, to wit, all besides the Popes. Or that, I will 
q Lib. eod. c. 46 pa. 151.  overthrew, saith the Prophet, the strength of nations, that is to say, Delebo imperium Romanum, I will abolish the Roman Empire. Consider but the ground of this temporal kingdom which they give unto Christ. That is, because Christ 
r Christus ut homo titulo emptionis totius mundi dominus esse coepit. Sciop● lib. cit. ca 41. pa. 139. Christus morte sua emit omnia, etiam infidelium regna, et, ●mnia suo sanguine emit Christus. Sciop. lib. eod c. 36 pa 123. &, Christus dominus omnium ratione Emptionis, ib. pa. 122. &, morte sua emit omnia totius orbis regna ca 141 pa. 509  by his death hath redeemed and bought to himself (and by consequent to the Pope 
s Christus per suos vicarios possessionem capit terrae, sive terrenorum & externorum bonorum lib. eod ca 36. pa. 125.  who is to take possession of all as Christ's Deputy) all temporal kingdoms in the world. To which purpose, having wrested th●se words of the Apostle, 
t Coloss. 2. 14.  he hath taken the hand-writing that was against us and fastened it to the Cross, he adds, Hic 
u Sciop. li. cit. ca 36. p. 122. 123.  perspicuum est, It is clear by this, that Christ by the title of Redemption hath obtained not only spiritual, but secular power, according as it is said, Thou hast put all things under his feet, not only the souls, but the goods and estates of all men; all are subjected and brought unto the dominion of Christ, & by him given to his viceroy 
x Papa Prorex. ibid. c. 55. p. 179.  the Pope, who in his right must have the possession 
y Loc. cit. ca 36. p. 125.  of them all. And again, Christ 
z Sui sanguinis effusione, totius mundi imperium a diabolo, cui Adam illud per peccatum vendiderat, redemit. Idem. lib. eodem c. 41 p. 137.  by shedding his blood, redeemed or bought all the kingdoms of the world of the devil, to whom Adam by his sin had sold them, And a thousand such like.  
Truly, such divinity doth beseem none but such as Scioppius, who Atheistically perverts every text of Scripture that he lights upon. That Adam, and in him all mankind, by their voluntary transgression, forfeited unto God their right both to the celestial kingdom, and to all the blessings of this life, which God had promised unto them; and so made themselves by the just judgement of God, servants both to sin and satan: That Christ to redeem mankind out of this miserable servitude, paid unto God that inestimable price of his own bloody death and passion; that by his most precious death on the Cross, he purchased and merited at God's hands, first, remission of sins, and then both grace in this life, and an eternal Kingdom in the life to come for all his elect; These, the Scriptures evidently teach, the Fathers profess, and the whole Church of God ever believed. But that Adam sold either the kingdoms of earth or of heaven to the devil, or that Christ paid any price to the devil, to redeem either the one kingdom or the other at his hands (who was in truth nothing else, but the jailor or executioner of God's wrath,) or that Christ bought at all any temporal kingdom, either of God or the devil, to bestow it on the Pope, is such divinity as is fit to be preached only to a fold of Asses, and preached only by him, who professeth himself (and we envy not that so just a title should be given unto him) to be an Ass, and one of no small understanding in that fold of Asses. Now seeing this, which is the best and fairest ground or title that he could found either for Christ's, or the Pope's temporal kingdom, is profane, blasphemous, and Atheistical, you may well think, that the rest of their building which relies on this, must needs be suitable unto it; that is, not only impious and blasphemous, but such as sets open a wide gap to Atheism, and most contemptuous profaning of the holy Scriptures, and the most Sacred mysteries thereof.   

CHAP. III.  
That Christ gave no Temporal Monarchy to Peter, nor any of his Apostles, nor any of their Successors.  
THe second point which I proposed, is, Whether any such direct, temporal Monarchy of the world, was granted by Christ to S. Peter, and in him to the Pope, as his Successor. Now this is easily resolved by the former. For it is certain, that not Peter, and then not the Pope (admitting him, which is certainly untrue, to be Peter's heir ex ass) could have this by any right from Christ, unless 
a Papa non h●bet iurisdictionem coactivam maiorem quam habuerit Christus cuius est vicarius. Occam. li. 6. part. 1. cap. 3.  this had belonged first to Christ himself, as he was man and mediator betwixt God and man; For Peter and his Successors, represent 
b Bell. lib. 5. de Rom Pont. c. 4. sect. superest.  Christ unto us no otherwise then as he was, dum hic inter homines viveret, whilst he lived here upon earth. Christ himself saying, 
c joh. 20. 21.  As my Father sent me, so sand I you. Seeing then we have proved both by Scriptures, Fathers, and by the clear confession of their best learned writers, that Christ had no temporal kingdom, nor was ever a temporal, but always an eternal King of power, of grace, and glory; it most certainly followeth, that he neither gave, nor left, or committed to Peter, or any of Peter's Successors, any temporal Kingdom, or coactive power, but gave unto them only a power of direction, whereby they might guide others to faith and sanctity in this life, and to everlasting glory in the life to come.  
Our Saviour teacheth this fully, Math 20. and Luke 22. When james and john dreaming of a temporal kingdom which Christ should have, desired 
d Ipsi dicuntur hoc petijsse Mar. 10. 35. sed illam petitionem ipsorum matter Christo proposuit, ideo ipsa dicitur pro eis hoc petijsse Math. 20. 20.  and made the motion by means of their mother, to sit the one at the right, the other at the left hand in his Kingdom, That is, to have temporal authority, power, and dignity, next unto Christ himself; he correcting this their erroneous, ambitious, and unfitting desire, said to them, and to all his Apostles, and in them to all their Successors, The Kings of the Gentiles, dominantur cis have secular and coactive dominion over them, (that is, over the Gentiles and people subject unto their authority) and they that are great among them, exercise authority over them (compelling them to do what they command:) vos autem non sic, But it shall not be so with you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister and servant; even as the Son of man, came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. In which words, as S. Bernard 
e Bern. li. 2. de Cons. ad. Eug.  rightly observes, is set down, forma Apostolica, the very form of the Apostolical authority given unto them and their successors by Christ, and what from Christ they aught to challenge. And first, our Saviour declares what he would not give unto them; to wit, not any temporal, civil, or coactive authority, such as the Kings of the Gentiles exercised, and as they desired him to give unto them; and then, what he would give unto them, to wit, authority of Ecclesiastical ministration, and service, which himself exercised.  
That they desired secular, and coactive authority, such as is used in temporal kingdoms, and desired Christ to give this unto them, is evident by their own words, Grant that we may sit (as secular judges and Magistrates) the one at thy right, the other at thy left hand (that is, in high dignity and place, even next to thyself) in thy Kingdom, which they thought 
f Regnum Christi huius vitae ac saeculare fore opinabantur, Chrys. in cap. 20 Math. Hom. 66  should be a temporal Kingdom. Christ not only checketh their ambition, and denies to grant this unto them, but gives a manifest reason of his denial thereof: The Kings of the Gentiles (those he names, because at that time there were no other Kings in the world) have this temporal and coactive dominion which you desire of me, and they, partly by themselves, partly by their deputies and subordinate officers, exercise the same. To give this, belongs to them, and not to me. I have it not myself, and therefore I cannot give it to you, nor depute you unto such rule. I came not to rule temporally, but to serve; and that which I, as your Messiah, and ruler of my Church, do give unto you, is, to serve as myself serve, not to rule in temporal sort, as I do not so rule. If you would have this, you must seek it of the Kings of the Gentiles; they only at this time, have this power under God, originally in themselves, they only are to depute others to have it under them, and from them. But if Kings should think it convenient to confer this subordinate secular and coactive authority upon them, whether then they should accept it or not, of that our Saviour speaks not one word. He only denies that himself will grant that secular power, which they desired him to give unto them. But seeing our Saviour doth not prohibit it, and the Church ever since Kings embraced Christianity, hath allowed it, most religious 
g Constantinus magnus sanxit ut cuivis liberum esset in civili causa a praetore aut quovis alio saeculari iudice ad Episcopum appellare. Additque; Omnes itaque caus● quae vel praetorio iure vel civilitractantur, Episcoporum sententijs terminatae perpetuo stabilitatis iure firmantur nec licebit ulterius retractare negotium quod episcoporum sententia deciderit. Hoc perpetua lege firmamus. Lex illa tota extat leg. 1. De Episcopali iudicio Cod. Theod.  Kings granting it, most religious Bishops 
h Inter hos Augustinus, qui sic de se ait. Homines quidem causas suas saeculares apud nos ●nire cupientes, sanctos nos appellant. Agamus aliquando negotium salutis nostrae & ipsorum non de auro, non de argento, non de fundis & pecoribus, pro quibus rebus quotidie submisso capite salutamur, Aug. Epist. 147. & Non permittor ad quod volo, vacare ante meridiem, post meridiem occupationibus hominum ten●or. Epist. 110. &, Testor deum, multo mallem per singulos dies aliquid manibus operari, quam tumultuosissimas perplexitates causarum alienarum pati de negotiis saecularibus, vel iudicando dirimendis, vel interueniendo praecidendis Aug. lib. de oper. monach. ca 29. Idemque ab aliis Episcopis factitatum, non est dubium, cum lex illa Constantini omnibus episcopis idem ius iudicandi causas saeculares contulisset.  accepting and using it, and the whole Catholic Church in all ages ever since, approveing both the giving thereof by the one, and accepting of it by the other; yea approveing it, by the very warrant of God himself, in the old testament, where secular power was in diverse 
i Vt in Mose, Eli, Samuele, alijsque.  joined unto spiritual: it is not to be doubted, but that it is consonant both to the will of Christ, and the word of God; of both which there can neither be, nor be wished for, a better or more certain declaration in this cause, not determined by Christ, then is the uniform judgement of the whole Catholic Church and that in all ages.  
It is true I confess that learned men, both on our side, and theirs 
k Bel. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca 10. sect. Dico secundo. Cor. jansen. in Concord. Euang. ca 104. alijque. , expound the words of Christ in such such, as if Christ had denied not simply dominion, but only tyrannical and cruel dominion: which they collect from the compound verbs used by Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which import (as they suppose) unjust, cruel, and tyrannical governing. That Christ condemns such cruelty and tyranny in all, and especially in his Apostles, there is no doubt; but that he meant to forbidden it in these words, there is no likelihood at all, nor no circumstance to enforce, that reason, drawn from the compound verbs, savouring of gramaticall subtlety, but neither of logical, nor theological solidity. First, though these compound verbs do signify sometimes tyrannical dominion, yet neither do they so always, (for josh. 15. v. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifieth simply prevailing by force without either injustice or tyranny:) And that in this place, they aught not to be taken in that signification, is evident, by all as I suppose that have translated the Text in the Bible. In the Syriack, in Arius Montanus, in Isiod. Clarius, in Castalio, in the French, in the Italian, in the Spanish, in the English, in S. Jerome, the former word is constantly translated, by Dominari, which is to have dominion and rule, and the latter, by exercising authority; not one translating them, tyrannicè dominari, or saevam ac crudelem authoritatem exercere: and which against those, with whom we deal, is of most force, their vulgar Latin edition which they hold 
l Conc. Trident. sess. 4 sect. Insuper.  to be authentical, and from which they may nullo praetextu, by no colour departed; This, I say, hath simply dominantur eorum & potestatem exercent, rightly delivering the sense of the words, though with some incongruity 
m Name, eorum, legitur pro, earum.  of Latin, and against Grammar.  
Again our Saviour in S. Luke 
* Luk. 22. 25. , useth the simple verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which out of question, signifieth, dominantur. Whereby it is certain, that the compound verb in S. Matthew, doth signify the same also: or if it do not, yet his words in Saint Luke simply deny dominion to be given unto them. The Kings of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have dominion, to wit, civil, coactive, and temporal, and use it; but with you it shall not be so: not by any grant from me.  
Lastly, had our Saviour denied only tyrannical and cruel dominion unto them, he had not fitly reproved them at this time, nor answered their request, made unto him. For they would easily have replied, why, we seek not any cruel nor tyrannical kind of dominion; all that we desire, is to be eminent in secular & coactive authority and power, in thy temporal and earthly kingdom. Seeing then it is certain, that Christ denied to grant that which they desired, and their desire was not of tyranny, but of temporal dominion, it is not to be doubted, but our Saviour denied that he would grant or give unto them any secular, civil or coactive authority at all, either mild or tyrannical.  
Now seeing Christ denied to give any secular power at all to any of his Apostles, or to their successors, à fortiori he must needs deny to give that which they now claim to the Pope, Regal, Monarchical, and supreme dominion, and that over all kings in the world, either to Peter or james, or any of all their successors. Our Saviour's words, are fare more emphatical and forceable against this. The Kings of the Gentiles have this dominion; If I should give this unto you, I should contrary to mine own precept, take from Cesar what belongs to Cesar. The Kings of the Gentiles have this dominion; should I give this unto you, I should make all of you Kings, and not servants; now I appoint you to be (as I myself am) servants unto your brethren, not kings over all your brethren, and lest of all over all the world. S. Bernard very rightly applying this text to the Pope, who then carried himself like an Emperor, tells him, that Apostolical ministration which is enjoined to Peter and all his successiors, is incompatible which Monarchical dominion, which the Pope then usurped, and which is now challenged. If, saith he 
n Bern. lib. 2. de consid. ad Eugen. , you succeed in the Apostolical vocation, you may not usurp (Monarchical) dominion, Planè ab alterutro prohiberis, you are certainly forbidden the one of these two. If you will have them both, you shall loose them both. And to show plainly that such independent temporal dominion used by the Pope, cannot possibly be claimed from Christ, nor be iure divino, he adds, Vt alia quacunque ratione, haec tibi vendices, certè non Apostolico iure, by what means soever you claim such dominion, it is certain, you cannot have it by Apostolical right. And if it be not Apostolical, then is it certainly either humane (which they scorn,) or (which is the truth indeed) diabolical. To the same purpose doth their learned Lawyer Ant. Rosselus 
o Ant. Rossel. Monarch. part. 1. c. 70. p. 298.  say Est impossibile quod in eodem subiecto sit totale sacerdotium, & Imperium saeculare. It is impossible, that the same man should be both a full Bishop and withal a civil Emperor or supreme Monarch. And in another place, he undertakes in an whole Chapter 
p Lib. ●od. c. 38.  to prove, Imperium temporalium, non esse in Sacerdotio, nec esse posse, that a supreme temporal Empire, or dominion neither is, nor can be in a Bishop. The reason whereof is, that opposition which Christ hath made between them; the one, to be the Lord and ruler of all his brethren, and therefore subject or servant to none, but only to God; the other to be a servant in performing Ecclesiastical ministration to all his brethren, but specially to the Emperor; and therefore to be subject to him, who is by God appointed to be the Lord of all his brethren.  
Our Saviour again teacheth this, by that commandment which he gives both to his Apostles and all others, and which himself observed, Give 
q Math. 22. 21  unto Cesar that which is Caesar's. Now among other things due to Cesar, S. Paul by the direction of Christ's own Spirit, reckons obedience, saying, Let 
r Rom, 13. 1. 5  every soul to be subject to the higher powers, and that not for terror, or fear of punishment, but even for conscience sake.  
That, by the higher powers, the Apostle meant no other, but Cesar and secular Kings, is evident by that very Text, seeing of them the Apostle saith, That they 
s Ver. 4.  bear the sword, which certainly none then did, but secular Princes; and that tribute 
t Ver. 6.  is paid unto them, which was then paid unto none, but only to Cesar, & secular kings: to whom even Christ 
u Math. 17. 24.  himself not only used to pay it, but Peter in whose house Christ was at that time, paid the same, it being exacted domatim, of every householder. S. Austen 
x Aug. epist. 54.  writes to Macedonius a temporal Governor, that the Apostle doth terrify wicked men not only by the future punishments, but even praesentibus vestris saecularibus iudiciis, by your present secular judgements, when he saith, Let every soul he subject to the higher powers. S. Basil more plainly to our purpose, The Apostle, saith he 
y Basil. Constit. exercit. ca 22.  commands all to be subject to the higher powers, potestatibus mundi, non spiritualibus, he commands this subjection to temporal and secular powers, he speaks not here of spiritual powers; And this, saith Basil, the Apostle plainly declares, by that which followeth, of paying tribute unto them. S. chrysostom 
z Chrys. inca. 13. ad Rom. hom▪ 23. , is more than abundant in declaring this to be spoken of secular kings, whom he often there calls Princes that do imperare, rule over their subjects, Magistrates who are here by the Apostle described veluti milites armati, as armed to take vengeance of evil doers, to whom honour, even Imperial honour (as he calls 
a Reddite timorem, jemperialem honorem dicit. ibid.  it) is due, and due by all other. For all, saith he, whether thou be a Priest, or a Prophet, or an Apostle; sive quicunque alius sis, or whosoever else thou be, every one is commanded to obey these higher powers. The like might be showed by Tertullian 
b Quod attine● ad honores Regum vel Imperatorum satis praescriptum habemus in omni obsequio esse nos oportere, secundum Apostoli praec●ptum. Tert. lib. de Idolat. ca 15. , Ambrose 
c Principes hos Reges dicit. Ambr. come. in cap. 13. ad Rom. , and many others: but the confession of Pererius their jesuite, may ease us of this labour; who saith 
d Ben. Peter▪ come in ca 13. ad Rom. disput. 1.  All the ancient Writers almost (he might have left out almost) have understood Paul de potestate tantum saeculari, to speak only of secular power, & the Text of the Apostle doth of itself declare the same. So Pererius. Seeing then it is clear that all the Apostles, and more specially Peter, (for this Epistle of Paul was written to the whole Church of Rome, at that very time 
e Baron. an. 58. ●u 46. Quem ●it fuisse Petri exquo Episcopus Romanus esse coepit, amune 14. & eodem tempore ait Paulum forte privatas literas ad Petrum (Romae agentem) mifisse. ibid. nu. 52▪ , when Peter, as they teach, was Bishop thereof) and then much more all Peter's successors, are commanded by the Spirit of God, to be obedient to secular Kings and Princes; it is undeniably consequent, that Christ did not give a supreme temporal dominion either to Peter, or to any other Apostle, or to any of all their successors: for had he given that, than should not they have been commanded to obey other Kings, but all other both Kings and people should have been taught and commanded to obey even in all civil and temporal matters, Peter and Peter's successors.  
If notwithstanding all this evidence, any will yet exempt either Peter or the Pope, or any other from this commandment of the Apostle, that may be justly replied unto him, which S. Bernard saith, 
f Ber. Epist. 42.  Si omnis anima, & vestra, If every soul must be subject, to secular powers, then must you also be, who hath exempted you from this universality? Si quis tentat excipere, conatur decipere, if any attempt to except you, he endeavours to deceive you.  
But besides this of Bernard, I will oppose two other evident reasons: The former drawn from the scope and purpose of the Apostle in giving this precept. Bellarmine, as also Pererius, do rightly observe, that whereas Christians 
g Eo tempore accusabantur Christiani seditionis & rebellionis. Bel. lib. 2 de Pont. Rom. ca 29. sect. Quod. Quin etiam authore Chrysostomo, sparso rumore percrebuerat, Apostolic & praedica●●res Euang●●u rerum esse Novatores, atque ad evertendas leges civiles omnia dicere & facere. P●rer. in cap. 13. ad Rom. disp. 1.  in the Apostles time were slandered to have been Novatores, Innovaters of the state, subverters of civil government, seditious and rebellious persons; the Apostles to clear the Christian doctrine of these 
h Calummatores vocat Bell. eos qui haec obijciebant. & Per. ait, Apostolos laborasse ut hoc scandalum auserrent. loc. 〈◊〉  calumnies, both in their Sermons and writings, did earnestly persuade obedience unto Emperors, Kings and secular Magistrates. Now had Peter challenged, & the other Apostles and Christians abetted him in that claim, the supreme temporal Monarchy of the world, then could Christianity never have been cleared of that calumny: nay it had been no calumny at all, but a certain truth; for seeing by the doctrine of Christians, Peter and his successors were for ever to have the supreme temporal dominion over the whole world, all other kingdoms and Monarchies had been quite subverted, all Emperors and Kings should by this have become subjects, servants, homagers and vassals to Peter and the Pope. He should have been their temporal Lord, whom they aught to obey, their Landlord from whom they should have taken and held all their possessions, and their supreme Monarch from whom they must derive all their temporal authority. Thus had the Christian faith and doctrine, subverted all other temporal Kingdoms, to establish a new temporal Monarchy in the Pope alone. Seeing then the Apostles taught that accusation to be a most odious calumny, because they, as chrysostom saith 
i Chrys. in cap. 13. ad Rom. in ●●tio. , taught that Christ by his Law non evertit politiam, sed melius instituit, did not subvert any other civil state, common wealth or Empire, but bring them all to better order, by embracing faith, & with it piety, and all godliness; it is hence most clear, that Christ neither before, nor after his resurrection, erected that newfound temporal, Pontifical Monarchy, which as Scioppius 
k Gas. Sciop. ca 46. Regnum Christi ●ollit omnia alia regna. Quod de Papali regno acceptum, verissime dicitur.  truly saith, overthrows all other kingdoms and Empires in the whole world.  
The other reason is this, that if Christ had meant to give such a temporal Monarchy to Peter, he would no doubt have furnished him with secular means, secular strength and power, first, to obtain, and then to uphold and maintain that Monarchy. Now the weapons of their warfare were not carnal, as the Apostle saith 
l 2 Cor. 10. 4. , but spiritual, mighty to cast down all the strong holds of Satan. Certainly they might if they had had Christ's allowance, have used their power to subvert Kingdoms, and bring all to a temporal subjection under Peter. They could most easily have subdued all the instruments of Satan, and all mortal men who had opposed themselves to this Pontifical dominion. For who could have resisted them, who with a word only could smite their oppugners with blindness, as Paul did 
m Act. 13. 11  Elimas', yea with present death, as Peter did 
n Act. 5. 5. 10  Ananias & Saphira? But because this power was given them, only to confirm the Faith, and enlarge Christ's Spiritual, but not their own temporal kingdom; they only used it for the furtherance of Christ's glory, and never either did, or might use it to set up their own secular dominion, and lift themselves above all Kings, and Princes. Nay, seeing the Apostles were faithful in the house of God, and preached every part of that doctrine which Christ taught unto them; St. Paul testifying of himself, which is also true in the rest, I have 
o Act. 20. 27  kept nothing back, but have declared unto you the whole Counsel of God: and none of them all, ever so much as once declared that Peter and Peter's Successors, were to have a temporal Monarchy over the whole world, and that all Kings must hold both their Crowns and Kingdoms from them; all to be tenants, homagers, and vassals unto them: it may hence certainly be concluded, that this temporal Monarchy which they claim to Peter and the Pope, is no part of God's counsel; and then without all doubt, it is no other but the very counsel of the devil.   

CHAP. four  
That the Pope's Temporal Monarchy is condemned by the judgement of the Primitive Church, and of general Counsels; as also by the Fathers, and learned writers, who lived till the 500 years after Christ.  
THe third point which herein I proposed, was, to show that this direct temporal Monarchy which they claim to the Pope, with those consequents & conclusions which depend on it, hath been condemned by the uniform consent of holy Fathers, and learned writers in all ages of the Church. A work in truth nothing so difficult to prove, as laborious to collect; and if I feared not to be too prolix, I would make it clear by the testimonies almost of all writers of account, in all the ages of the Church. But studying brevity, I will select some only out of that heap which I had not without great labour collected, by which may be conceived what the judgement hath been of the rest in this point.  
First, there are two general considerations which may be here observed. The one is the consenting judgement of Popes, Bishops, Martyrs, and all▪ Christians of the Primitive Church, so long as Emperors persecuted the Faith; that is, until the Empire of Constantine. Had Christians believed or known in those days, that the Pope was an higher temporal King then secular Emperors, and that none of those Emperors had any lawful authority to punish or put them to death, seeing they had no authority at all from their supreme temporal Monarch, the Pope, so to do; why did not those Popes command Christians, (as they might lawfully have done) to make resistance by temporal force? why did they not (as being superior Lords they lawfully might) wholly deprive those Emperors of all their authority which they so tyrannously abused against Christ? Specially considering that, as Bellarmine 
a Bell. lib. 5. d● Rom. Pont. ca 7 sect. Probatur▪  tells us, When Princes go about to turn their people from the faith, omnium consensu possunt, & debent privari suo dominio, by consent of all Romanists, they may and aught to be deprived of their Dominion; yea 
b Ibid. sect. Tertia.  non licet Christianis tolerare, Christians may not then so must as tolerate them. At lest, why did neither the Popes, nor any of all those Martyrs, use that just Apology for themselves, that none of those Emperors had any lawful authority over them, seeing they had none derived from the Pope? How were they not perfidious in God's cause, by concealing that truth, which if they had taught, would have quenched all persecutions? How were they not injurious to God's Church in suffering those tyrants, who had no lawful authority from their highest temporal Monarch, to murder and massacre the Saints of God? Nay, how can they be excused from being accessory to their own deaths, when they used neither that temporal authority of the Pope, whereby they might justly have resisted; nor that just defence of speech, whereby they might have repressed all those tyrannies? For if any think, they had not at that time temporal power, and strength sufficient to have made resistance, Tertullian plainly witnesseth the contrary. If (saith he) 
c Tertull. Apologet cap. 37.  we Christians would be open enemies, should we want either number or power? Are not we moe than the Mauri, Marcomans, or Parthians? more than any nation? we have filled all places that you have, your Cities, your Lands, your Castles, your municipal Towns, your Tents, your Tribes, your Palaces, your Senate, your Markets, only we leave to you the Idol Temples. Cui bello non idonei fuissemus? What war were we not able to undertake? But because both the Popes and all other Christians then knew, that they had no such lawful authority to make resistance to their Governors, they laid down their necks, and endured all tortures, even death itself, using no other weapons, but tears and prayers: Against Emperor's being their Lords, they had scutum, but not gladium. The Pope's temporal sword and secular Monarchy which might easily have resisted, and quenched all those persecutions, was not known or once dreamt of among any Christians in those first three ages of the Primitive Church.  
The other general consideration, is the consenting judgement of holy general Counsels. I have in an other Treatise 
d A treatise of Counsels which be general and lawful  proved at large, that besides the Sardican, and that under Mennas, there were held no more but eight, which are rightly to be counted and called Ecumenical and lawful Counsels. All that followed that eight, which was held at Constantinople about the cause of Photius, either in the year 869, in the time of Hadrian the second; or in the year 879, in the time of john the eight, and both of them in the time of Basilius, were in truth either not Ecumenical, or if such, yet not lawful general Counsels. Now by all those eight, which were only Ecumenical Counsels, the Pope's temporal Mornarchy is clearly and certainly condemned. For all those were both assembled, governed, and dissolved by the authority of secular Emperors; all the Bishops in all those Counsels, by their coming at the Emperors call and command; by their willing submission to Imperial government, when they were assembled; by their not departing, but with the Emperor's leave, and licence, did acknowledge and proclaim Emperors to be the only supreme Lords, Governors, and temporal Monarches in the Church. All which points, because I have fully in my other Treatise out of the Synodall Acts of every one of those Counsels made clear, I will not here repeat the same. Let me only now mention one testimony out of that which they call the eight general Council. In it 
e Council C●●stant. 4. sub Hadr. 2. an. 869. Act. 1.  Basilius the Emperor writ thus to the whole Council, and all the Bishops of the Council approved 
f Recte imperatores nostri monuere, dicunt legati Act. e●de●▪  his writing, and saying: The government of the Ecclesiastical Ship (that is, of the Church) is by the divine providence, nobis commissa giuen or committed unto us. An evidence that the whole Church believed, and professed the Emperor, and not the Pope to be the supreme Monarch, Pilot, and Governor of the Church: an evidence also so certain, that whereas Binius following Raderus the jesuite, had in his former edition 
g Edit. Biniana Colon. Agrip. ●n. 1606.  of the Counsels, maliciously corrupted these words, and turned Nobis into Vobis; quite contrary both to the Greek Text, to the ancient reading, and the true sense of Basilius; Binius hath now in his last editions of the Counsels, corrected that his error, and rightly reads the words, as they are also in their Roman edition of the Counsels, Nobis and not Vobis. So by the consenting judgement of all the Ecumenical Counsels, which as yet have been held, that is, of the whole Catholic Church, whensoever it spoke in one voice, this temporal Monarchy of the Pope is most clearly condemned, and the sovereign authority of secular Emperors above the Pope, is most clearly demonstrated.  
Hear now the softer voice of the Church, speaking in those Fathers and learned Writers, who lived in the several ages and successions thereof. For though this question of the Pope's temporal Monarchy was not moved in the Church till more than a 1000 years after Christ, yet such is the force of Truth, that even before this controversy arose, that Antichristian pride was by the ancient Fathers both condemned and refelled, though not in express manner (which, the question being not then moved, they could not do) yet by many both certain, clear, and undeniable consequents.  
In the first age, 
Ab anno 1. ad 100  after our Saviour, 
i Christus Math. 22. 21  the head of the whole Church, had once given that precept of obedience, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; S. Peter 
k Petrus Epist. 1. c. 2. 17.  seconds him therein, commanding to honour the King and submit themselves to him, tanquam praecellenti, as being superior to the rest. And S. Paul 
l Paulus Rom. 13. 1.  explains both who they are that must obey, and those are Every soul; (I think the Pope is one:) and to whom they must yield obedience, and those are, the Higher (secular) powers, who bear the sword, and receive tribute. Ignatius 
m Ignatius Epist ad Smirk.  the next Bishop of Antioch after S. Peter, in one of those which their 
n Baron. An. 57 nu. 55. & Bell. lined eccl. scrip. in Ignatio.  own writers commend for his true and genuine Epistles, saith, It behoves all to honour the King, Nec enim Rege quisquam praestantior, for there is none (than certainly not the Pope) more eminent than the King, nor is any equal to him, in all things created. Which words being so pregnant against the Pope's Sovereignty, are foully corrupted and falsified (by whose hands you may easily conjecture) both in the Latin Edition of Ignatius at Paris Anno 1562 and in the Greek also, of the same Edition. In both which, in steed of Rege, is read, Deo. But in the Bibl. patrum the words are, and that rightly, set forth as we have cited them, none above the king. josephus' 
josep. Antiq. 〈◊〉 17. ca 3.  shows, that in his age there was an impious sect of the pharisees, who were oppugners of regal authority, and who alone refused to swear fidelity unto the Emperor, cum tota gens Iudaeorum fidem suam iureiurando obligassent Regi & Caesari, whereas the whole nation of the jews did bind their fidelity to Cesar by an oath. It is not to be doubted, but in the whole nation of the jews, there were many thousand Christians 
p Christiani primis●culi. ; who neither justly could, nor would have taken that oath to the Emperor, as their supreme Lord, had they known that Peter and his Successors had been the supreme Monarches of the world.  
In the second age, 
Ab an. 100 ad 200.  justine Martyr 
q Iust. Mart. orat ad An●o●●num p. 128.  in the name of all the Christians of that age (one of which was the Pope) professeth to the Heathen Emperors, We adore only God, & vobis in rebus aliis laeti inseruimus, and we willingly serve & obey you in other matters. Irenaeus 
r Ireneus. eius ve ba citantur a joh. L●●go in ●uis rotis ad Just Mart orat ad Anton p. 117. , Know ye O Emperors what is committed unto you; totus orbis sub manum vestram subditus est, the whole world (than sure the Pope) is subject to your power and diadem. Egesippus 
s Egesippus apud Euseb. li. 3. Hist. ca 17.  declares that not Christ's kingdom (and then certainly neither Peter's nor the Popes) is a terrene or secular kingdom: For when Domitian the Emperor, fearing to loose his kingdom, would have killed all that were found of the house of David, and inquired what manner of kingdom Christ's was, they answered ●hat it was no kingdom of this world. Tertullian is most full in this point, Emperors know 
t Tertullian in Apologet. ●ap. 30,  who gave to them the Empire, they know that they are only subject to the power of God, to whom they are the second, and after whom the first, before all, and above all other man, ●hen sure above the Pope. And again, in the name of all Christians of that age, We honour, saith he 
x Idem lib. ad Scap ca 2. , the Emperor, ut hominem a Deo secundum, & solo deo minorem, as one who is next unto God, and less only than God, and who hath all his power from God. And jest any should think that this honour was given by Christians de facto, but not de iure, Tertullian expressly adds, We give this honour to the Emperor, quomodo & nobis licet, & ipsi expedit, as being lawful for us to give, and expedient for him to receive.  
In the third age, 
Ab An. 200 ad 300.  Clemens Alexandrinus 
y Clemens Alex lib. 3. Paedag pa. 30● : Christ's precept of giving to Cesar the things that are Caesar's, (in which is commanded subjection of every soul, even the Pope, unto secular Kings) is a law for administration of the Commonwealth. Origen 
a Origen. come. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. 9 in haec verba, Vis non timere potestatem. , Whatsoever crimes God will have to be temporally punished, non per Antistites & Principes Ecclesiarun, sed per mundi iudices voluit vindicari, he will have them to be punished by secular Princes, not by Bishops or Ecclesiastical Prelates. Then certainly not by Peter or any of Peter's successors. Cyprian 
b Cyprian. de simpli●. prael. sive de unitate eccles. ●a. 297. , Christ gave parem potestatem, equal power, to all the Apostles; the rest were the same that Peter was, endowed all of them pari consortio & honoris & potestatis; With an equal fellowship both of honour and power. Then either none, or (which is impossible) they all were supreme temporal Monarches of the whole world. Victorinus 
c Victorinus Com. in Apocal.  calls the Caesarean Empire, Regnum Regnorum in regard of the supreme dominion it had over all. Who as upon the greatness and power of that Empire he supposed, that one of those Emperors to wit, Nero 
d Existimat Victor. Neronem nondum mortuum, ac futurum verum Antichristum Not. ad. Vict in 3 edit▪ B. B. Pat. in margin.  did yet live and should personally come again and be that mighty Antichrist; so had he lived to see the Pope to have Regnum Regnorum, and to be a King above all Kings, even such, that if Nero were now alive, he must be his subject and vassal, he would not have doubted upon that same greatness and absoluteness of his Tyrannical power to have called the Pope, much rather than Nero, Antichrist.  
In the fourth age, 
Ab An. 300 ad 400.  Eusebius saith 
f Eusebius lib. 2. de vit. Const ca 19  of Constantine, that he ruled the whole world, (than I hope, the Pope) gubernaculis singularis potestatis, by his own Imperial power. Athanasius 
g Athanasius Apol. ad Cons●●ntium p. 156.  writes thus to Constantius the Emperor, If I were accused to others, I would appeal to your Majesty, as Paul said, I appeal to Cesar. But seeing they accuse me unto you, ad quem a te, quaeso appellare potero, nisi ad Deum? unto whom can I appeal from you, but only to his Father, who saith, I am the Truth? Then certainly he knew not the Pope to be a superior Lord, for else unto him, he might, and would have appealed. Hillary 
h Hilarius. Can. 23 in Math. O plenam miraculi responsionem.  with admiration commends that answer of Christ: Give to Cesar that which is Caesar's, and shows that Christ, would not have the right of Cesar to be violated or hurt. Now the right of Cesar (as we have proved) is sovereignty over all, and obedience from all unto him. Again, he plainly showeth that the Apostles (none of which had other power then S. Paul) had not civil and temporal power. Nunquid 
i Idem in Psal. 2.  Paulo ius Praetorium, Had Paul civil and praetorian authority, that he threatens to come with a rod? was he to use lictoris officio, the office of a Sergeant? Non ita opinandum est, we may not think so. Gregory Nazianzene 
k Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 25. p. 81. , speaking of Kings saith, Mundus universus vobis subditus, the whole world (than sure the Pope) is subject to you, and to your Diadem. Those things which are above are only Gods, those which are below, are both Gods and yours. Gregory Nissene 
l Greg. Nissen. lib. de Beatitud. inillud, Beati qui persequ●tionem patiu●tur.  Regia dignitas supra se nullam habet tyrannidem, the kingly dignity hath no humane power (than not the Popes) above it: It is obnoxious to no other man's will nor dominion. cyril 
n Cyril Hi●ros. Catech. ●5.  Bishop of jerusalem saith, that Antichrist shall usurp potestatem Romani imperii, the power of the Roman Empire, which, as he saith, is greater than was any of the former great Monarchies. A clear token that Cyrill judged the Roman Emperor not to have been subject to any higher or greater temporal Monarch. Epiphanius 
o Epiphanius h●●r. 29.  demanding how that Prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, He shall sit upon the throne of David, saith, carnaliter non est impletum; This was not carnally nor after a temporal manner fulfilled. And then he shows, that by this throne of David, is meant Sacerdotium in sancta Ecclesia, Christ's Priesthood in the Church, whereby he gives to the Church, power and jurisdiction of binding and losing. Which though Epiphanius there calls a Kingly dignity, yet it is certain, that he means not any secular or civil kingdom, for that he plainly denies unto Christ; but he calls it kingly, because Christ from whom it is derived, is both of the seed of King David, and also an eternal King according to his deity. Ambrose 
p Ambrose. Orat. de obitu Theod.  saith of Theodosius the Emperor, that he had potestatem super omnes, power over all; (than certainly over the Pope:) and again, 
q Idem. Apol. David, lib. 1. ca 10. & ca 4.  Kings are free from humane punishments for their offences, tuti Imperii potestate, being safe from all humane judgement by the power of their Empire, subject only to the power of God. Ruffinus saith 
r Ruffinus in expos. Symb. pa. 176. & 206  of secular Kings, that their bounty and actions, discussioni non est obnoxia, is not obnoxious to the discussion (much less to the punishment) of any man. Jerome 
* Hieronimus in Epita. Nepot. ad Heliod. tom. 1. pa. 26.  clearly denveth civil and coactive authority to Bishops. The King rules over men, though they will not; Bishops but over such as will: kings make others subject to them by terror, Bishops are appointed to serve, not to terrify. King's keep and rule the bodies until death, the other keeps and rules the souls unto eternal life. Prudentius 
s Prudentius peristeph. hym●o 2.  saith of the Roman Empire: Thou, O Christ, hast placed Rome in vertice rerum, as the highest top of all things, Thou hast ordained that the world should be subject to the successors of Romulus, & omne sub regn●m Remi mortale concessit genus, and all mortal men, (than sure the Pope) are subject to the Kingdom of Remus, that is, to the Roman Emperors.  
In the fift age, 
Ab An. 400. ad 500  Chrysostom 
t Chrysostom Homil. 2. add pop. Ant.  saith of the Emperor, parem non habet ullum super terram, there is none upon earth (than not the Pope) equal to him; He is summit as & caput omnium super terram hominum, The head and top of every one upon earth. Optatus 
u Optatus lib. 3. Cont. Parmen pa. 85.  Super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem, Above the Emperor there is none but God who made the Emperor; then out of question the Pope is not above him. Augustine 
b Augustine lib. 5. de civet▪ Dei ca 21. , Let us not give or ascribe the power of giving kingdoms and Empires to any nisi Deo vero, but only to the true God (than not to the Pope:) He gives the Kingdom of heaven only to the godly, but earthly kingdoms he gives both to the good and bad, as it is pleasing to him, to whom nothing but what is just is pleasing. Prosper 
c Prospero lib▪ Epigr●●u. 34.  teacheth all Christians (is not the Pope one?) to be obedient to secular Princes, Aequum seruire est regibus & dominis, and he plainly distinguisheth 
d Idem lib. 2▪ de vocat. gentium. ca 16.  the sceptre of the Cross, from the weapons of the Empire, and arcem religionis, from solium potestatis, the tower of religion from the throne of power. Orosius 
e Orosius lib. 2. ca 1. , That all power is of God both those who have not read have felt, and those who have read do know; and if all powers be of God, how much more are kingdoms, from which other powers are derived: & if kingdoms, how much more is the greatest kingdom, cui reliquorum regnorum potest as universa subiicitur, to which the whole power of other lesser kingdoms is subject? of which sort was the Babylonian, than the Graecian, than the African, at last the Roman, quod usque adhuc manet, which as yet remaineth. Then had not the Pope any greater Monarchy at that time. Sulpitius Severus 
f Sulpitius' lib▪ 2. sacrae histor.  saith of the Council at Sardica, Imperator iubet ex toto orbe terrarum, the Emperor commanded the Bishops throughout the whole world (than he commanded the Pope) to come to Sardica, to examine the cause of Anathasius. Cyrill 
g Cyrillus 〈◊〉 lex. lib. 〈◊〉 fide ad Theod. in princip●●.  the most famous Bishop of Alexandria writes thus unto the Emperors; There may be seen in you the image of God's Majesty, Vos enim omni terreno fastigio superiores, for you are superior to all terrene highness, you are the fountain of humane felicity, Quicquid usquam est gentium hoc totum regni vestri solio substratum est, Whatsoever is here upon earth, (than belike the Pope) is subject to the throne of your Majesty. Theodoret 
k Theodoret come. in Daniel. ca 2. Orat. 2.)  Bishop of Cyrus, The Roman Empire orbis terrarum clavos tenuit, ruled the whole world, and it did not perish, but flourish at Christ's coming, and had the world subject unto it, and the same kingdom of the Romans, usque adhuc permansit, hath continued unto this time. Then all (even the Pope) were at that time subject unto it. And that Popes aught de iure, so to be, he shows 
l ●lem in cap. 1●. ad Rom.  by the words of S. Paul, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, whether he be any Priest or any Bishop, (than I hope the Pope) or any Monk, he must yield subjection to those to whom Magistracy is given. Theodulus 
m Theodulus come. in ca 13. ad Rom.  Bishop of Coelesyria, expounds those words, Omnis anima potestatibus subdatur, to be spoken not of every superior, sed de ipso magistratu, but of the civil Magistrate, and the Apostle shows, saith he, that it is necessary that every one (than the Pope) should obey the Magistrate, for the Gospel is not given to be a subversion of public government and order. Vincentius Lyrinensis 
n Vincentius Lyrin. in Common. ca 42. 43.  highly extols both cyril and the holy Ephesine Council, which was held but three years before he writ. Now it is true that he there mentioneth caput orbis, but he means not the Pope thereby, as Bellarmine 
o Bel. lib. 2. de Rom, Pont ca 16 § Octaws.  most fraudulently and falsely would persuade. The true and only Caput orbis, which he meaneth, was he, of whom both cyril 
h Cyril. l●c. cit.  saith, that all the whole world was subject to the Emperor's throne, & whom the whole Ephesine Council called 
i Conc. Ephes. in Epist Synodali, to. 4 Act, Ephes. conc. ca 22.  Christianisimum fastigium, the most Christian top and highness. Other Caput orbis, Vincentius knew none. Socrates 
k Socrates lib. 7, ca 11. , there was envy at that time among them, seeing the Bishop of Rome, no otherwise then the Bishop of Alexandria, going beyond the bounds of a Bishop, ad secularem principatum erat iam ante delapsus, was now declined too much to secular government: what would he have said, if they had then attempted a secular Monarchy over the whole world? Leo 
l Leo 〈◊〉.  the great (a Pope that would not loose one jot of his pontifical right) so fare disclaimeth this temporal Monarchy, that he with great submission makes earnest suit and supplication to the Emperors, I requested 
m Idem Epist. 43. 49  ut iuberetis, that you would command the Synod to be deferred to a more fit time. I 
n Idem Epist. 9  request that your Piety supplicationi nostrae dignetur annuere, would vouchsafe to yield to our supplication, that you would command that the Council may be held in Italy; All 
o Idem Epist. 24.  the Bishops (himself among the rest) cum gemitibus & lacrimis supplicant, do with sighs and tears make supplication to your Mansuetude. And when the Emperor would not yield unto his supplication, neither for the place, nor the time, than he professeth, 
p Idem Epist. 17. &. 25.  I have endeavoured as far as I can, ut Clementiae vestrae statutis pareatur, that I may obey the statutes of your Clemency. Pope Gelasius 
q Gelasius 1. Epist. 8. , There are two things by which the world is principally ruled, the sacred authority of Bishops, and the Regal power: of which regal power he adds, that the Emperor praesidet humano generi, & imperat saeculo, is above all men in dignity, and to rule in secular matters. And most clearly in his tome of Anathematisms; Before 
r Idem, in tom. Anathem. apud. Bin. to. 2. pa. 254.  Christ's time some were both Priests and Kings, as was Melchisedech; but after Christ was once come, who is both King and Priest, ultra sibi nec Imperator Pontificis nomen imposuit, nec Pontifex regale fastigium vendicavit; Neither doth the Emperor take unto him the name of Priest or Bishop, neither doth the Bishop challenge unto him the Imperial highness. So Pope Gelasius, at once defines, that Popes neither then had, nor ever aught to have, Imperial authority: much less a temporal Monarchy above all Emperors.   

CHAP. V.  
That the Pope's Temporal Monarchy is condemned by the Fathers, and learned writers, who lived from the 500 to the 1000 year after Christ.  
IN the sixth age, 
Ab an. 500 ad 600.  the Council at Turone 
a Concil. Turonense 2. celeb. sub joh. 3 can. 25.  professeth, that besides the power of excommunicating and anathematising, arma nobis non sunt alia, we have no other weapons. Then had not the Church, or Pope in that age, power to inflict temporal, civil, and coactive punishments. another Council 
b Synodus Africana habita an. 23. justiniani apud Vict. Tununers. an. 10. post. Cons. Basilij.  of African Bishops, Vigilium Romanum Episcopum synodaliter a catholica communione recludunt, did exclude Pope Vigilius from the Catholic Communion. Now those Bishops, being as Baronius 
c Bar. an. 547 nu. 30.  professeth, Catholics, it is a very ill sign, the Pope was not then known, so much as for a spiritual, much less for a temporal Monarch in the Church. Pope Symachus being accused of a most scandalous offence (to wit, of Adultery 
d Bar. an. 50▪ nu. 32.  Theodorick the King at that time, commanded the Bishops of Italy, to come to a Synod 
e Synodus Romana 3. tempore Symachi. Cum regia pracepisses authoritas. ibid. ●. 2. conc. p. 284. 〈◊〉  for the hearing and examining of this matter. He commanded 
f jussus est praeceptionibus regis Papa Symmachus. ibid.  also the Pope, not to take again the Patrimony of the Church, till he had purged himself of the crimes objected. The Bishops came at the King's command 
g Synodus ex praecepto regis congregated. ibid. , the Pope 
h Ibid. p. 285. a  also, ut causam diceret occurrebat, came to pled for himself; and before the whole Council, he thanked 
i Ibid. p. 284. b  the King for calling the Synod. The King gave 
k Commisimus vobis causam, ●os qualiter ●ultis sive dis●ussa, sive indiscussa, causa proferte sententiam ibid. pag. 287. b  such power to the Synod, that they might either examine particularly the whole cause, or leave the particulars undiscussed, but yet give sentence therein. The Bishops 
l Ibid. p. 285. b. , perpensis omnibus, having pondered the whole cause, judged that Symachus should be received as Pope, and that his fact should be left to the judgement of God. And all this they did, secundum 
m Ibid. p. 285. b  principalia praecepta quae nostrae hoc tribuunt potestati, by command and authority of the King, who had committed this to their power. And though the Deacon Ennodius 
n Concilio, authoritatem con●●a se indulsit. Ennod. Apol pro Symmacho pa. 293. 〈◊〉  and some others of the Pope's Parasites pretend, that Symachus in humility, and of his own accord submitted himself to their judgement, yet Gerson 
o Gers. lib. de Auferibil. papa● Consid. 12. , a man of more sound and profound learning, saith, both of Symachus, and some other Popes, they did undergo the judgement of Counsels, nequaquam ex humili condescentione, not by any submission of humility, as some do fain, sed ex debito & obligatione, but in duty, as being bound to stand to those judgements. The same Pope Symachus 
p Symachus Apol. a●duers. Anast. extat to. 3. BB. patr. , in his Apology to Anastasius, puts this, and rightly, as a difference betwixt the Imperial and Pontifical Offices, Thou O Emperor governs humane and secular affairs, Bishops do dispense the Divine Mysteries; and he expressly calls the Emperor, Principem rerum humanarum, the Prince or chief in humane matters. Pope Hormisda 
q Hormisda Epist. 5.  to the Emperor Anastasius, saith, Your Mansuetude hath admonished us, God commanding you so to do, to be present in the future Synod: Your Piety observing these things, may long possess Apicts & sceptra sua, your top of honour, and your Sceptre. I return 
r Idem Epist. 6.  unto you not only words of supplication, sed vestigijs vestris advoluor, but I prostrate myself at your footsteps. Pope Agapetus 
s Agapetus papae. Anast. in vitae Ag ap.  was sent in a legacy from Theodotus King of Italy, to the Emperor justinian, and he entreated 
t Liber. in Breviar. cap. 21.  him to recall his army out of Italy, but the Emperor supplicationes Papae noluit audire, would not harken to the Pope's supplication. Pope Vigilius 
v Vigilius. evocatus ab Imperatore egreditur. Marcell. in Chron. an. 546.  was sent for by justinian, to come to Constantinople, and he at the Emperor's command came, and stayed there about six years, till he had leave to return. Pope Pelagius 
x Pelagius ● Epist. 16.  the first, writing to Childebert the King, saith, We must endeavour to declare the obedience of our profession unto Kings, quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae scripturae praecipiunt, to whom the holy Scriptures command, even us (that are Popes) to be subject.  
Fulgentius 
y Fulgentius lib 1. add Thrasimundun prop● initium. , The King hath received apicem terreni principatus, the top or height of temporal or terrene power. And again 
z Verba 〈◊〉 Fulg. cit antur in Conc. Paris▪ habito an. 829 cap. 3.  In saeculo, Christiano Imperatore nemo celsior invenitur, none is found in this world (than sure not the Pope) to be higher than the Emperor. Agapetus 
a Agapetus, paranesis ad justin. Imper. nu. 61.  a famous learned man, and Deacon of the Church of Constantinople, saith, to the Emperor justinian, Seeing you have received the Sceptre from God, and seeing, omnibus hominibus ab ●o sis praelatus, you are preferred above all men (than sure above the Pope) by God, seek therefore to please him in all things. And again 
b Ibid. nu. 21 , The Emperor non-habet in terris se quenquam al●●orem, hath none upon earth (than not the Pope) above him. Which words being recited by Antonius' Abbess in his Melissa, sound so strongly against the Pope's Sovereignty, that the Roman Censurers, in their Index Expurgatorius, for desire of the spiritual, are content to forgo and yield to Emperors the temporal supremacy, and qualify the words in this manner, 
c Index, Rom. excus. an 1607 pa. 200.  writ in the margin, Intellige inter saeculares et temporales dignitates; Agapetus means, the Emperor is above all in secular and temporal dignities. In like sort the Spanish Index 
* Index li. prohib. et expurgat. de consil. Stae. Inquis. Hispan. excus. Madriti. an. 1612. in Agapet. pag. 797. , whereas it is said in Agapetus, The Emperor hath none in earth above him, write, say they, in the Margin, Intellige de potestate politica, & saeculari, There is none above him in political and secular matters; and often the like. Enough for us against the Pope's secular Monarchy. Primasius 
d Primasius, Com. in Apoc. c. 17. sect. Habentem.  saith of the Roman Empire, Orb● monarchiae praefuit dominatu, it was the Lord and Monarch of the world, And in the name of Rome, is figured totius terreni regni potentiae the whole power of any terrene Kingdom. Liberatus 
e Liberatus in Breu. cap. 13.  saith of Martianus, that he obtained culmen Imperij, the top of the Empire, and that at the request of the Pope, he assembled a general council, he thought not then the Pope to be above him, or his commander. Euagrius 
f Euagrius, li. 2. c. 18. sect. Est.  both reports and allows the saying of Eusebius Bishop of Dorileum, s●t down in the Council at Chalcedon, That unto the Emperor, was given by the Divine power of God, imperium mortalium & dominatus, the Empire and rule of mortal men; one of which I suppose was the Pope. Cassiodore 
i Cassiodor. variar li. 10. pa. 626  sets down the Epistle of Theodohadus to justinian the Emperor, wherein it is said, That in toto orbe simile nihil haberet, in the whole world, none (for power and dignity) is equal to the Emperor. And in an other place 
k Idem in Psal. 50  If any of the people offend, he sins both against God and the King, but when the King offends, soli Deo reus est, he is guilty only to God, quia hominem non habet qui facta eius dijudicet, because he hath no man (than not the Pope) that may examine his actions, God alone may discuss and judge his offences Venantius Fortunatus saith 
l Venantius Fort. li. 3. de vit S. Mart. pa. 313 , Valentinian was Emperor mundo famulante, the whole world (than belike the Pope) serving or being subject to him. And in his poem 
m Idem in supplew. p. 348  of justinus the Emperor, he often calls him the head of the world, repeating this verse unto God, Qui das justinus, iustus, in orbe caput, adding, that he did Rite super reges dominari; Romanoque imperat orbi; An evidence that he knew not an higher temporal Monarch in the Roman or western Empire. Gregorius Bishop of Turone 
n Gregorius Turon, lib. 5 Hist. ca 18  speaking to Childerike the King of France, who had objected injustice unto him, thus answered, If any of us O King, do transgress the bounds of justice, he may be corrected by you; but if you transgress them, who shall punish you● we speak unto you; If you be willing, you obey, but if you be not willing, who can condemn you, but he only who hath pronounced, that he is justice? The Bishop sure knew not all Kings to be punishable by the Pope as a superior Lord.  
In the seventh age, 
Ab an. 600. ad 700.  Pope Agatho 
o Conc. Romanum sub Aga●hone, ●uius Epist. extat. in Conc. gen. 6. Act 4. p. 12. et p. 21. , with an whole Council of Italian, and other western Bishops, often professeth the Emperor 
p Piissimis dominis. Omnes ●os vest●i impe●● famuli. ibid. pa 21.  to be their Lord, the City of Rome 
q De hac seruili principatus vestri urbe. ibid. pa. 12. & 22. , to be his servile City, Italy, his servile 
r Seruilis pro●inciae. pa. 12  Province. Of himself he saith, I was 
s Ibid.  animated promptam obsequentiam exhibere effectually to perform ready obedience in those things which in the Sacred Writ of your Highness, are commanded. I endeavoured, ut studiosa obedientia famulatus nostri impleret, that the willing obedience of my service might fulfil this; We have sent these our Legates, pro obedientia quam debuimus for that obedience which we own unto you. This your 
t Ibid. p. 13.  Imperial Clemency did command, and our humility quod iussum est obsequentur implevit, hath obediently fulfilled what you did command. Do these seem to be the speeches of a Supreme Monarch? and that to his own vassal? Pope Gregory 
Gregorius Magnus lib. 4. Epist Indic. 13. ep. 34.  the great saith of the Emperor, Deus universo mundo praeesse constituit, God hath ordained that he should rule the whole world. And again, 
x Idem lib. 2. Indi●. 11 ep. 62  Potest as dominorum meorum caelitus data est super omnes homines, The power over all men (than sure over the Pope) is given from heaven to my Lord the Emperor. 
y Serenissimus dominus praecepit. id 'em lib. 4. Epist. 34▪ cit. & Ego dominorum iussionibus obedientiam praebens. lib. eod. 4. ●p. ●2 et, Ego missioni subiectus. l. 2 ep. 62.  My most excellent Lord hath commanded me by his precept, ego praeceptioni Pietatis eorum obediens, I am obedient to the Emperor's command. And he speaks not this of humility, as some do vainly pretend, but as acknowledging this to be his duty, Ego 
z Idem lib. 2. Epist. 62.  quae de bui exolui, qui imperatori obedientiam praebui, I have done what was my duty to do, both in obeying the Emperor, and signifying also to you what I think in this cause. Isiodorus Hispalensis 
a Isiodor Hisp. lib. Senteni. ca 52. , Let secular Princes know, that they must give an account to God for the Church, the tuition of which they have received of Christ. He will call for an account of them, qui eorum potestati suam credidit ecclesiam, who committed his Church to their power. Leontius 
b Leontius li. de sect. Art. 4.  saith of Theodosius, Coire iubet, he commanded the Bishops (even the Pope among others) to come to the second Ephesian Council: Pope Leo (upon that command) sent his Legate thither. justus Orgelitanus, 
c justus Org. Com. in Cant. in illa verba, Quia ● caput meum plenum est  Those who are eminent by Princely honour in the Church, are noted quasi caput in Christi corpore, as the head in the body of Christ (that is, the Church;) those who administer Sacraments are as the locks of the head. Then are Kings the head, and the Pope but as a fair lock in the head of the Church.  
In the eight age, 
Ab An. 700 ad 800.  the Roman Council 
d Conc. Rom. sub Hadriano 1. extat decretum eius Dist. 63. ●. Haedrianus.  held An. 774. consisting of 153. Bishops and Abbots, in acknowledgement of the Sovereignty of Charles then King of Italy, decreed the right of investitures of Bishops (which is an Imperial prerogative or right of Sovereignty) and particularly, the appointing of the Pope himself, and ordering the Roman See, to belong unto Charles the great and his successors. Baronius not being able dissuere nodum, to answer this evidence of truth, takes upon him like an other Alexander, dissecare, to cut it quite asunder. He 
e Bar. an. 774 nu. 10. & seq.  obstinately denies (as doth also his Apologist, 
f Gre●s. Apol. pro Baron. c. 1. & li. 2. cont. Replic. ca 1.  that either any such Synod was ever held, or any such Decree made. And hereupon, both of them, with most reviling terms declaim 
g Sigebertus' ipse finxit. ador navit imposturam. O scelus, O Impostura▪ Bar. loc. cit. Sigebertus' huius figmenti figulus. great. Apol. ca 1. sect. dices. huius commenti author. ibid. sect. In priore. Hoc ius architectatus ect Sigebertus. Apol. cap. 1. sest. postea.  against Sigebert as the forger or first inventor of this Synod and Decree, or as they speak, of this figment. But they do herein bewray their most malicious obstinacy in downfacing the truth and true records. For how could Sigebert who writ his Chronicles, as Baronius and Gretser 
h Sigebertus' an. 1112. sua scripsit. Bar. an. 774. nu. 10. Grets'. Apol. c. 1. sect. Tertio.  assure us, an. 1112. be the deviser of this Decree, whereas Henry the fift before 
i Dodoch. append. ad Mar. Scot an. 1110. & Mat. Paris. ad 〈◊〉. 1112.  that, challenged the right of investitures, as a Royal prerogative belonging to the Empire, and continued in the Emperor's hands, not only from the time of Charles, & Pope Hadrian, that is, for more than 300 years, & during the time of 63 Popes, but even eorumdem authoritate et privilegiorum firmitate, by the very authority of those Popes, and by those privileges granted by them? Was there any privilege for investitures, granted by any Pope to the Emperor, from the time of Charles, but this of Hadrian and the Roman Synod? Undoubtedly had this Synod & Synodall decree been forged by any, the Emperor Henry 5. would not; and had Sigebert devised it, an. 1112. (at which time he writ) the Emperor could not have urged it as a known right, yea for such, as 300 years together had been continued unto Emperors. How again could Sigebert be the first architect and deviser of this Synod & decree, seeing Pope Gregory 6 (who was not pope within 64 years 
k Gregorio 6 in pon●ificatu successit Clemens 〈◊〉 46 Bar. ●o 〈◊〉. 1.  before Sigebert writ & perhaps not when Sigebert was born) doth not only mention, but commend this decree of Hadrian● Hadrian 
l Verba Gregorij et integra eius oratio extat apud Guil. Malsb. lib. 2 Hist. Angl sect. Si vobis.  the first, our predecessor of worthy memory, is commended, for that he granted Inuestitures of Churches, unto Charles; His very words are set down in Malmesburiensis. An evidence so clear to demonstrate Baronius, and Gretzer to be Calumniators of Sigebert, and downe-facers of the truth, that Gretzer 
m Grets'. lib. 2 contra Replic. ca 1. § Alter. Oratio illa a Malsburiensi appicta & aff●cta.  is forced to slander Malsburiensis also as an impostor and deviser of this speech of Gregory, as Sigebert was of the decree of Hadrian. Further yet, how could Sigebert first devise this Decree, seeing the Roman Council, held An. 964. wherein john the 12. was deposed, makes express mention 
n Ad exempl●● B. Hadriani qui domino Carolo ordinationem Apostolica sedis & inuestitura● episcoporum concessit. Conc. Rom sub Leon● 8. cuius decretum extat Distinc. 96. c. In Synod●  thereof, more than 140. years before Segebert writ? It is true, that here again both the Cardinal 
o Bar. an. 964 nu. 22 et seq. , and his shameless Apologist 
p Grets'. Apol. pro Bar. cap 18 , are driven to their former shift; This also must be an Imposture and figment. But it falls out unhappily, that Baronius forgetting the old rule, Mendacem oportet esse memorem, doth upon another occasion, where the Pope's dignity is not impeached, not only allow Leo 8. for the true Pope, (which elsewhere he stoutly denies) but acknowledgeth this Roman Synod to have been truly held by Pope Leo 8. and calls this very constitution of Leo made in that Synod, Decretum 
q Bar. an 99● nu. 41  Leo●● is Papae octavi, the Decree of Pope Leo the eight. So not only that Synod under Leo 8. but Baronius his own self, is a witness, that he and Gretzer slander Sigebert, and fight with all their power to oppress the truth. Do you as yet require a more ancient witness? How could Sigebert be the deviser of this Synod and Synodall Decree, seeing Anastasius the Keeper of their Vatican library, one who lived either in or very near the time 
r Carolus obijt an. 814. Bar. eo an. nu. 57 Anastasius floruit an. 858. B●llar. lib descrip. eccle. in Anast.  of Charles, and who in all likelihood saw in their Vatican, some authentical copy of that Synod; seeing he, I say, made mention both of this Synod and Synodall Decree, and that, some 200. years before Sigebert was borne. It is true I confess, that this testimony is not now to be found in the Pope's lives written by Anastasius. But that there it was once extant, and is now to their eternal infamy, and wrong of Anastasius, yea of the whole Church, expunged, there are two evident witnesses. The one is Onuphrius 
s Onuphr in vita Gregor. 7.  who telling how the custom of Inuestitures, of which Gregory 7. primus omnium, first of all did attempt to deprive Emperors, had continued from the time of Charles the Great, and was brought in by the authority of Pope Hadrian, he thus concludes: Cuius rei meminit Anastasius Bibliothecarius in historia Ecclesiastica; Quem locum Gratianus Canonum collector notavit. Anastasius the library keeper, mentions this in his Ecclesiastical history, and Gratian in his collection of the Canons, points at, or cities that place of Anastasius. Gretzer could not deny Onuphrius to testify this, but because it is against his and his Master's fancy, he saith 
t Gretz. lib. 2. cont. Replic. ca 1. §. Dixi. , It is an error of Onuphrius; Onuphrius forgot himself herein. Peruicacy will ever found one shift or other, but by this clear and true testimony of Onuphrius, (besides that main truth, of this Synod and Synodall Decree) two things are clear; the one that Anastasius had set down this whole matter in his book of the Pope's lives; the other, that Gratian took it, not out of Sigebert, as Baronius 
u Gratianus Sigeberti imposturam toridem verbis exscripsit, & veluti pontificum dec●etum vel Synodi canonem suo libro inseruit. Bar. an. 774. nu. 13  very childishly fancieth; but out of Anastasius: and that the very book, out of which Gratian citeth it, called by him historia Ecclesiastica, is the very book of Anastasius, and by that same name, called by Onuphrius. The other witness is Platina who saith 
x Plat. in vit. Pascalis 1. , Lewes granted to the Pope free power to choose Bishops, quam potestatem ab Hadriano Pontifice Carolo concessam idem Bibliothecarius refert, which power to have been granted by Pope Hadrian to Charles, the same Bibliothecarius, (to wit, Anastasius 
y Nam Anastasius vitas Pontificum (seu ut Possev vocat Historiam Pontificum) continuavit ad Hadrianum 2. ut put at Onuph. Annot. ad Plat. post vit. Nichol. 1. & Bel. lib. de script. Eccle. in Anast. Sed Baronius usque ad Step. 6 Bar. an. 885. nu. 7.  doth relate. Now besides Hen●y 5. Pope Gregory 6. the Roman Council under Leo, and Anastasius, the truth of the same Synod and Synodall Decree is witnessed by Eutropius Longobardus 
a Eurr. Long. lib. de. jur. Imp. , who lived before the Empire 
b Vt ex fin● libriliquet.  of Otho 1. that is, 100 years before Sigebert: by Iuo Carnotensis 
c Iuo in suo decret. tit. de elect. pontifi●is , who writ also before 
d Sigebertus' scripsit post juovem. Boet. Epo. tract de Regal●veliure princ. in Ben●ficijs eccl● nu. 144.  Sigebert: by Waltram Naumbergensis 
e Waltr. Naumb lib. de Inuestit.  another writer before 
f Waltramus fit Episcopus Citzeus (is idem est qui Naumburge●sis Munst. Cosmogr. lib. 3. in Magdeburgo) an. 10●9 & an. 21. post obijt. Chron. Citizen Paul. Laugij an. 1089 si● obijt biennio antequam scripsit Sigebertus.  Sigebert: by Gratian 
g Great Dist. 6●. ca Adrianus.  who lived in the same age with Sigebert, by the Glossators 
h Gloss. ●n dist. 63. ca In Synodo voce Affici.  upon Gratian, by Lupoldus 
i Lupol lid. de Z●l-German. princ. ca 8. , Theodor. de Niem 
k Theod. de Niem. lib de priv. & jurib. imperij § Post. , Radulph. de Columna, 
l Rad. de Colum. lib de Transt Imper. sect. Hoc itaque. , Marsilius Patavinus 
m Mars. Pat. lib. de transl. Imp. ca 10. , Occam 
n Occam. part. 3. tract 2. lib. 3. ca 3. , Anton. de Rosellis 
o Ant. Rossel. part. 2. Monarch. a. 8. , johan. Semeca 
p 10. Semec. distinct. 63. , Card. Zabarell 
q Fran. Zobar. lib. de Schism. sect. Quis. , Card. Turrecremata 
r Turrecrem. in dist. 63. , Card. Cusanus 
s Cusan. lib. 3. Concor. Catho. ca 3. , Card. Cameracensis 
* Card. Camer. lib. de eccles. author. par. 1. c. 1. sect. Ex eadem. , Platina 
t Plat. loc. cit▪ , Nauclerus 
u Naucl. ad an. 772. , Mart. Polonus 
x Mar. Pol. add an. 780. , Wernerus 
y Wern. ad. an. 784. , the Chronicon Richer spergense 
z Chr. Reich. ad an 774. , Rob. Gagninus 
a Gagni. lib. 4. in Car. mag. , Matth. Parisiensis 
b Mat. Pa●s. ad an. 1112. , Matth. Westmonasteriensis 
c Math. West. in Floril. an. 773. , Onuphrius 
d Onuph. loc. cit. , Boetius Epo 
Boet. Epo. de Regal. nu. 162 & seq. , who earnestly strives for the truth of this Decree: and by many more. So that unless Baronius and his applauders had shut their eyes, and hardened their hearts against the truth, they would make no doubt, either that this Synod was truly held, or that the Emperor was then acknowledged, even by the Popes themselves, to be their Sovereign.  
The Council at Frankford 
e Conc. Francoford. in libel. Sacrasyllabo. in initio. , professeth that Charles was Dominus terrae, the Lord of the world; that the Bishops 
f Ibid.  assembled sacris obtemperando praeceptis, obeying the sacred command of Charles, as Charles himself also witnesseth 
g Ibid. in Epist. Caroli ad Elipandum. , jussimus Synodale Concilium congregari, we have commanded this Synod to be assembled out of all the Churches ditionis nostrae, which are in our dominion. Then certainly both he commanded the Roman Bishops, (for Rome was then in his dominion) and the Pope obeyed his command, and sent 
h Ado Vien. an. 792.  Theophilactus & Stephanus for his legates to the Synod.  
Pope Stephen 3. 
i Stephanus 3. Epistol. 3.  writes to Pippin and Charles, in a most earnest and suppliant manner, entreating their aid against the Lombard's. Nay he not only entreats this himself, but he frames an Epistle in the name of S. Peter 
k Petrus Apostolus Pipino. Carolo etc. Ego Petrus Apostolus etc. Inter Epist. Steph 3. Epist. 4.  unto them, wherein he makes, both S. Peter, the Blessed Virgin, all the Thrones, Dominations, Martyrs, Confessors and Saints in heaven, to sue for this at the hands of Pippin and Charles, and even to conjure 
l Protestor, ad m●neo, et coniuro vos Christi anissimos reges etc. ibid.  them to help the Roman Church in this their great distress. What needed such supplication, such poetical fictions, and conjurations, had Pope Stephen known himself to be the Sovereign Lord, who might command Pippin, Charles, and all the Kings in the world; and to whose command they aught all to be obedient, unless they would be rebels against their supreme Monarch? Pope Adrian 
* Hadrian 1 Epi. 1. Domini● pijssimis.  the first, acknowledged the Emperors for his Lords: We are 
m Ibid. ut citatur in▪ Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 1.  even drenched with joy for your command, in that ye command this cause of Images to be handled. Again, 
n Ibid. in fine.  I offer this my judgement with all humility to your Screnitie, that it may be discussed: I entreat and beseech your Mansuetude with all fervour of mind: yea, I beseech you, as if I were present genibus advo lutus & coram vestigia pedum volutando, upon my bended knees prostrate at the sole of your feet. Pope Gregory 
o Gregorius 2. Epist● 3 sect. Attu.  the second, As the Bishop hath no power or authority to look into the Palace, (that is, to intermeddle in secular affairs) ac dignitates regales deferendi, nor to give regal dignities, so neither hath the Emperor power to look into Churches, and intermeddle in those duties; Let every one abide in that vocation, whereunto he is called of God. Germanus 
p Germanus perstrinxit Italos tanquam Imperatori su● non ob●ēperantes Bar. an. 730. nu. 6.  Patriarch of Constantinople hath a constitution (extant yet in the Vatican) wherein he reproves the Italians who disobeyed the Emperor. Now the chief leader of those Italians, who made that defection, and denied tribute to him, was Pope Gregory the 2, as before we shown. Venerable Bede 
q Beda in Psal. 50 , If the King offend, he offends only to God, quia nullus alius eum pro suis peccatis puniet, because no mortal man (than not the Pope) may punish him for his faults. johannes Damascenus, 
r Damascenus Orat. 2. de Imag. pa 736  Regum est civilis administratio, civil administration and government belongs to Kings, We obey thee O King in those things which belong to civil and secular matters, in them, quantum ad nos spectat, in respect of us that are of the Clergy, the government is committed to you. But in ecclesiastical affairs, Pastors, and Bishops, have delivered to us laws and constitutions, we may not remove those eternal bounds which are set unto us. Bonifacius 
s Bonifacius Mogunt apud Othlon, li. 2. de vit. Bonif.  that famous Englishman, and first Archbishop of Ments, when he was sent Legate into Germany, from Pope Gregory the second, with many ample privileges, suppliciter obsecravit, humbly entreated King Pipine, for the Monastery of Fulda, and lands belonging to it; What needed that, had he known the Pope who sent him, to be the supreme Lord of the world? Paulus Diaconus 
t Paulus diac. Hist▪ miscel l. 11  saith of Constantine, that he was Monocrator totius Romani Imperij, the sole Monarch of the whole Roman Empire. Then sure he knew not the Pope to be an other, much less an higher Monarch. Alcuinus 
v Alcuinus epist. 4. ad Davidem regem.  that learned Englishman, Scholar of Bede, and Schoolmaster of Charles the great, saith of Charles (whom he usually calls 
x Vt liquet ex Epist. 1 ubi se pr●●●ptorē huiu● Davidis fuisse not at et hoc idem obseruat Hen. 〈◊〉 to. 6 〈◊〉 lect. p. 520  king David) that there are three most eminent dignities upon earth; one is Papal, the second is Imperial, (such as the Greek Emperors had) the third is Regal, in which saith he, Christ hath made you the ruler of his Christian people, more excellent in power, more high in dignity, then either of the former. Again, 
y idem Alcuin. i● li Carminum to. 6 Ant. lect. Henr. Canis.  Rex Carolus caputorbis; Europae venerandus apex, king Charles is the head of the world, and the top of Europe. Then sure above the Pope.  
In the ninth age, The Council at Paris 
n Cone. Paris. sub Greg. 4. in praefat.  held, 
Ab an. 800 ad 900.  Anno 829. saith, That Christ hath committed his Church to be governed by his servants Lewes, and Lotharius, than Emperors: and they set down 
o Eodem conc, cap. 3.  this out of Fulgentius, for one of their decrees, There is none in the Church (that is, in Church affairs) better than the Bishop, and none in secular affairs above the Emperor. The Council at Triburia 
p Conc. Triburiense in praefat.  saith of Arnulphus the Emperor, 
q Celebratum est concilium sub Arnulpho Imperatore a. 895 Been exvetustiss, codice hoc cita● ante d●cr●ta illius Conc.  The King of Kings, Arnulphum omnibus ecclesiasticae sublimitatis ordinibus praeferre dignatus est, hath vouchsafed to prefer Arnulphus our pacifical king, above all orders, both of ecclesiastical sublimity, and of secular power. Pope Stephen 
r Stephanus 7 in Ep. ad Basil▪ quae extat inter ep Synodales Con● 8. apud Bin. to. 3. p. 899  the seventh, writes thus to Basilius the Emperor, Your Majesty knoweth, that the Priestly dignity, doth not proceed from your Kingly power, quamuis enim supremam Christi in terris personam formamque her as, for although you be the highest person representing Christ here upon earth, yet your care is only in political and civil matters, which we wish to remain long unto you. And again, In things belonging to this life, vobis Imperium a Deo est traditum, the Empire and rule is given by God unto you. Pope Nicholas, 
s Nicholaus papa▪ ●ius verba citantur Caus. 33. q. 2. ●. Inter 〈◊〉.  Ecclesia gladium non habet nisi spiritualem, the Church hath no other but only the spiritual sword; then hath it no temporal Monarchy. Photius 
t Photius episcopos evocat Synodum instituit, exauctorationem atque Anathema in Nicholaum papam pronunciat. Nicet. David in vita Ignat. paetriar. Constant.  Patriarch of Constantinople, was so far from thinking the Pope to be a supreme Monarch, That he in a Synod, judicially, both deposed, and accursed the Pope. Hincmarus' 
v Hincmarus Epist. 4. cap. 1.  Archbishop of Rheims, There are two things, whereby the world is governed; Pontifical authority, and Regal power: And then he shows, That neither may thrust himself into the office of the other; to which purpose he in an other place 
x Idem epist. 5. ca 38.  citeth those words of Ambrose, Ad Imperatorem palatia pertinent, ad sacerdotem ecclesia, Emperors are to deal in secular, Bishops in ecclesiastical matters; yea, he sets 
y Inter Epist. Hincmari ep. 9 ca 6.  down also that Epistle of Charles the second, wherein is taught, that to these two (to Bishops in Ecclesiastical, to Kings in Secular causes) one may appeal, but from these none may appeal. Then is none in secular matters above the King. Amalarius 
z Amalarius praefat. ad li. de office eccles.  Fortunatus writs thus to Lewes the Emperor, I have presumed to offer this unto your Excellency, praesertim cum sciamus vos Rectorem esse totius Christianae religionis quantum ad homines pertinet, that you are the Governor of the whole christian religion, as much as pertains to man. Haimo 
a Haimo come. in ca 11. Hose. in ea verba, comedit capitae.  saith, Princes are called in Scripture, Heads; for, that they iure capitis caeteros regunt, govern others (and among them the Pope) in the right of an head. Theodulphus 
b Theodulp. in lib. carm. ●pud Ken. Canis. to. 6. p. 504  Bishop of Orleans, saith of Lewes the Emperor, Orbis te totus veneratur, the whole world doth worship you, and Primus in orbe micas, Te scio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praeit, you are the first or chief in the world: I know, there is none, (than not the Pope) before or above you.  
In the tenth age, 
Ab an. 900. ad 1000  the Roman Council 
c Conc, Rom. sub Othon. 1. Eius acta extant apud Litpr li. 6 ca 6. 7 et seq.  held An. 963, for many and enormous vices, deposed john the twelfth, and placed Leo the eighth in his See; Which act approved by Otho the Emperor, with the whole Synod, is a very ill sign they held not the Pope for their supreme Lord, when they judged themselves to have, and that de jure, authority above him.  
another Roman Synod 
d Synod ●om. sub Leone 8. cuius decretum extat Dist. 63. c. In Synodo▪ et recit atur verbatim ut Decretum Synodi a Bar. an. 996. nu. 41.  was held shortly after, by Pope Leo the eighth, wherein he with the whole Clergy, and all the Popes and States of Rome, decreed and confirmed to Otho the great, and his successors, for ever, power both to nominate his own successors in the Empire, and also to order the pontifical See (that is, to elect the Pope) and give other Bishoprics by investiture. The truth both of this Synod and Synodall decree, is testified in their Canon Law 
e Loco cit. , in Theodorick de Niem 
f The▪ de Niem li. de priuil. et jur. Imp. sect. Conuenit. , Waltram Naumbergensis 
g Wal. Naumb. li. de Invest. sect. Papa Leo. , Martinus Polonus 
h Mart. Pol. an. 964. , Lupoldus 
i Lupold lib. de Zelo Germ. princ. ca 8. , Marsilius Patavinus 
k Mars. Pat. li. de transl. Imp. ca 10 , Radulp. de Columna 
l Rad. de Colum. li. de trans. Imper. §. quantum. , Platina 
m Plat. in ●●on. 8 , Nauclerus 
n Nau●. an. 963 , Card. Cusanus 
o Cusan. Conc. Cathol. l. 3. c. 3. , Card. Cameracensis 
p Pet. de Alliac. Card. Camer. l. de eccl. authorit. Part. 1. c. 1. § Ex eadem. , and many more. But against Baronius and Gretzer, who are as eager against this Synod, as they were against the other, held under Hadrian, accounting 
* Bar. an. 964. nu. 21. et seq. ubi imposturam et adscititiam Synodum vocat. Gretz. Apol pro Bar. c. 18. Bulla, seu decretum est commentitium.  and calling this also an imposture and figment, and that among other reasons, because this Leo the eighth, was not at all Pope, but a pseudo. Pope 
q Bar et Gretz. l●c. cit. . I will only here oppose the clear confession of Baronius himself, who, when his fit of fury was overpast, writeth in this manner, and directly confutes a great part of his own Annals; Whereas 
r Bar. an. ●96 nu 41  Emperors had not this right to choose their successors, this is found to be first granted to Otho the great by the Pope. Extat de his Leonis Papae octavi decretum, there is extant concerning this the Decree of Pope Leo the eighth, which even the Novelists and Centuriators also do recite: wherein among other things the Pope grants power to Otho to choose his successor. And having after this repeated the very words of the Synodall Decree, as they are set down in their Canon Law, and in Theodorick de Niem, he adds, That Oth● authoritate huius diplomatis, by authority of this Decree, and Papal Charter, chose his son for his successor: and so we see this power to choose their successors, to come ex praescripto Romanorum pontificum by the authority and charter of the Pope. Thus, Baronius; acknowledging both Leo the eighth to have been the true Pope (which he most perversely 
s Bar. an. 963 nu. 34. ubi vocat hunc Leonem, Monstrun. eius surerogationem iure nullam, et pseudo-Leonem hunc e numero pontificum explodendum ait. ibid. 〈◊〉. 38  elsewhere denies:) and further this Synod under Leo the eight, to have been a true and real Synod, which he and Gretzer strives, but all in vain, to prove a forgery; & lastly, that this Synod, and the true Pope with it, acknowledged the right of choosing the Pope, and investing Bishops (which is an Act of Imperial Sovereignty) to be in the Emperor, & therefore not the Pope, but the Emperor to have been held for the supreme Monarch in those days.  
Another Decree, either in this, or in an other Roman Synod, 
t Decretum Synon Rom. sub Leon 8  was made by the same Leo, about that time also, whereby the Pope (in acknowledgement of that Imperial Sovereignty above himself, and of that supreme right which the Emperor had to all the territories in Italy, (even to those which the Pope held) resigned them all unto Otho. The words of the Decree are recorded by Albertus Krantzius 
v Alb. Crantz. li. ●. Saxoniae. cap 10.  and Theodorick de Niem, 
x Theo de Niem l. de priu et jur. Imp. sect. Conuenit.  in this manner, We give unto Otho and his Successors for ever, whatsoever either Charles, or Pippin, or justinian, or Aripert, had given of the Regalities of the Kingdom to S. Peter, or the Roman Church. And that you may have and possess them for ever, by authority of this our Charter, we confirm them to you for all generations; and if any shall infringe this our authority or grant, or shall be found a violator thereof, let him know, that he shall fall into the indignation of S. Peter, of Us, and of our praedecessors; yea if he do not repent, let his goods be confiscate, and he punished as one reus Maiestatis, guilty of high treason. So let it be. This Decree was made as Theodorick saith, 
y The. de Niem loco cit. in titulo cap.  in generali concilio, he means in a very great Roman Council, at which were present 
z Kr●nt. et Niem. loc. cit  and subscribed to it fifteen Archbishops and Bishops, seven Cardinals, & fifteen chief Citizens of Rome. Did either the Pope himself, or others at this time, esteem the Pope a supreme temporal Monarch of Rome, or Italy, when he resigned these unto the Emperor, as to his Superior, yea Sovereign Lord of them? Baronius and Gretzer, are exceedingly nettled with this decree, and exclaim 
a Constitutio nomine Leonis con●icta. Bar. an. 964. nu. 24. a non legitimo papa promulgata ibid. n. 22 Impostor fuit. ineptus, stolidus, insulsus ibid. n. 24. ficti tiam Bullam. commentitium diploma, vocat Gretz. Apol. pro Bar. c. 19 et l. 2 cont. Repl. c. 14  both against it, and Leo, as being no true Pope. But the Cardinal himself hath refuted all that he, or any else can say against Leo, when he acknowledged 
b Bar. an. 996 nu. 41  him to be the true Pope, and his Decree to be Diploma, a Pontifical Charter of sufficient authority to give the right of choosing one's successor in the Empire. And for the truth of this Decree, besides Theodorick, and Krantzius, who are indeed witnesses beyond just exception in this cause, the same is testified by Barnard, who saith, 
c Barnardiverba citantur in Chron. magno Belgic. an. 962 pa. 84  That Leo the eight, with the consent of the Cardinals and Bishops, yea of the whole Clergy and people of Rome, restored to Otho and his Successors, the Donations made by justinian, Aripert, Pipin, and Charles. It is further testified by their own Cardinal Cusanus, an eye witness of this Charter, who thus writes, 
d Cusan. li. 3. conc cath. ca 2.  Vidi Decretum Leonis Papae, I have seen the Decree made by Pope Leo the eight, in the Roman Synod subscribed by the Bishops, Clergy, and people of Rome, whereby he restores to Otho the first, all the places which Charles, Pipin, or Aripert (he is corruptly written Robert) gave to S. Seter, and the places are particularly named in the Decree. And again, I much 
e Ibid. ca 3.  marvel that Gratian speaking of the investiture of Bishops granted by Leo, which text proves Otho to be Emperor (to wit, superior to the Pope) did not also mention that restitution of those Cities which were given to the Roman Church. So Cusanus. The same Synodall Decree is yet further testified by those four famous Schools of Learning, which were then honoured with the name of Universities or Academies; to wit, the university of Paris, of Oxford, of prague, and of Rome, who in a treatise 
* Epistola uni versitatum Paris. Oxon. Prag. et Rom. de authoritate Imperatoris.  written by them all unto Pope Vrbane, and Wencelaus the Emperor, said thus: Pope Leo the eight, by reason of the malice and turbulency of the Romans, decreed that none should be made Pope, but with the consent of the Emperor; and further with the consent of the Cardinals, Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, yea of the whole Clergy, and people of Rome, he remised, granted and gave to Otho and his successors, those donations in Italy which were made to the Roman Church, by justinian, Pipin, Charles, and others. Thus witness those four famous Universities, in whom is included the judgement of many other most learned Divines.  
Eutropius Longobardus 
f Eutropius Longob. li. de jurib. & priu. Imp.  professedly, & at large shows, that not only before and in the time of Charles the Great, but long after, the Sovereign power and government of Rome was still in the Emperor; and that Charles ordained that all the chief men of Rome, as well Bishops as others, essent Imperiales homines, should be the Emperor's men or vassals, and that they, as all the rest, should make fidelity to the Emperor; and that the Emperor's deputy should at all times stay in Rome, to determine litigious controversies; and this custom continued to the time of Lewis the second, the son of Lotharius (that is, till the year 880.) after which time the Emperor's authority in Rome, by the fraud of the Romans, began to decline. Luitprandus 
g Luitprandus lib. 6. cap. 6. 7.  not only relates, but approoues the judgement of that Roman Synod which deposed john 12. And he not only calls 
h Ibid. cap. 11.  Otho, pium ac sanctum Imperatorem, a pious and holy Emperor; and Leo then chosen, summum & universalem papam a Deo electum, the highest and universal Bishop, chosen by God; but he further sets it down as an act of impiety and rebellion in john 12. and others of his faction, who resisted this Synodall and Imperial judgement; john (saith he 
i Ibid. ) being deposed, sent messengers to Rome, promising to give them the money of Saint Peter, and of all Churches (an holy offer for a Pope to make) if they would rush upon the Emperor, and the new Pope Leo, eosque impiissimè trucidarent, and if they would kill them both, (which Litprandus saith, was a most impious enterprise:) and he adds, that the Emperor thereupon returned, and slew a number of them, so that none had escaped, unless the Emperor being inclined to mercy, (quae nulla debebatur, which in no sort was due unto them,) had at the entreaty and supplication of Pope Leo spared them. Rhegino 
k Rhegino in Chron. ad. an. 963. & 964.  both records and approoues the same fact of the Synod, and Emperor, in deposing john; adding, that the Romans sub iureiur ando fidelitatem promiserunt, promised by an oath taken upon the body of Saint Peter, that they would be faithful to the Emperor (as their Sovereign Lord,) and the new chosen Pope Leo. Abbo Floriacensis 
l Abbo Floriac. li. 1. de obsid. Lutetiae, in initio.  saith of Charles the Great, This city was committed to Charles our King, Imperio cuius regitur totus prope cosmus post dominum, by whose Empire, next and immediately under God, is governed almost the whole world. Whitichindus 
m Whitichind. lib. 2. Gest. Saxonic.  not only calls the Emperor Henry, regum optimum, maximum, the greatest and best of Kings, but sets down the form of crowning the Roman King at Aquisgrane, one part of which is this; Take this sword, omni potestate imperii Francorum tibi authoritate divina tradita, all the power of the Empire of the French (they had then and long before been the Roman Emperors) being given unto you by divine authority. Frodoardus 
n Frodoardus in Chron. an. 948.  speaking of the Pope's letters, sent to the Synod at Virdunum, in the behalf of Hugo, who had been put from the bishopric of Rheims; Pope Agapetus the second, commanding therein, the Bishops to restore Hugh to that Archbishopric, yet saith Frodoardus, nihil authoritatis canonicae continebant, the Pope's letters contained no canonical authority: and the whole Synod notwithstanding the Pope's command, did (and that he saith, justly and by the ancient canons) adjudge the See to Artaldus, and that Hugh should be excommunicated, till he purged himself at the general Synod; and the general Synod being shortly after assembled, they did, notwithstanding the Pope's command to the contrary, with one consent confirm Artaldus, and reject Hugh. Did they esteem, think you, the Pope to be their supreme Lord either in temporal or in Ecclesiastical matters?   

CHAP. VI  
That the Pope's Temporal Monarchy is condemned by the Bishops, and learned writers, who lived from the 1000 to the 1100. year.  
IN the eleventh age, 
Ab an. 1000▪ ad 1100.  this controversy, which till then none durst ever set on foot, began to be rife in the Church; Leo the ninth, at the instigation of Hildebrand, first claiming, and Pope Hildebrand shortly after, usurping the same in his deposing of Henry the fourth, and giving his Empire to Rodulph, and after his death to others. How this Hildebrandicall doctrine was embraced, and what applause it then had, is worthy observing.  
The Council at Worms 
a Concil. Worm. apud Abb. Vrsperg. an. 1076. & Lamb. Scaff. an. eodem.  was held ann. 1076. wherein were present almost 
b Ab. V●sp. loc. cit. & Albert. Stad. an. 1076  all the german Bishops: In it Hildebrandum papam abdicarunt, they did reject and forsake Pope Hildebrand, pronouncing 
c Lamber. Scaff. loc. cit. sententiam promulgarunt.  this judicial sentence, quod papa esse non possit, that he could not be, nor indeed 
d Decretum est ut bannum Hildebrandi nullus curaret, nec papa esset. Marian. Scot an. 1077.  was Pope, and that he had no power either to bind or lose by the privilege of the Roman See, and that none should care for his curse; they writ 
e Abb. V●sp. an. 1076. & Lamb. Scaff. an. eodem.  unto him, that whatsoever he did from thence command or decree, irritum haberi, they would esteem it voided; and that as he did not accounted them for Bishops, ita tu quoque nulli nostrum amodo eris Apostolicus, so neither shall you from hence forward be accounted Pope by any of us.  
In the Council of Papia, held the same year, 1076. Anathema 
f Conc. P●p. to. 3. Conc. pag. 1283.  in se prolatum in Pontificem retorserunt, The Bishops returned the like curse and Anathema to Pope Hildebrand as he had denounced against them. The decree of the Council was this, 
g Fit patrum consultum huiusmodi. Auent. lib. 5. Annal. pa. 452.  Hildebrand who calls himself Gregory the seventh, hath invaded the See. He usurps both the Imperial and Pontifical office, as the old Heathen Emperors were wont to do: he hath committed treason, in seeking to take away from the Emperor both his crown and his life, neither of which he can give: for these causes, the most holy Emperor, the Bishops, the Senate and Christian people, do decree him to be deposed. To this decree subscribed at Ticinum 
h Auent. loc. ci● , (or Papia 
i Binio hoc id● est cum Papiensi Concilio. ) not only the Bishops 
k Auent. loc. 〈◊〉.  of Germany and France, but of Italy also, and they swore that they would never receive him for Pope again.  
In the Council at Gerstungan, 
l Conuentus in Gerstunga● apud Waltram lib. 2. Apol. pr● Henr. 4. cap. ●9 , it was proved by the sacred Canons, yea, out of the great Nicene Council, that Henry the Emperor (whom Hildebrand had deposed) neither was, nor aught to be excommunicated: And the Bishops who disputed for Pope Hildebrand to justify his act, ita confusi sunt & devicti, were so confounded and vanquished, that they had not any thing to answer, because the mouths of them that spoke wicked things were stopped.  
In the Council at Mentz held Anno 1079. it was decreed 
m Conc. Mogunt. apud Sigeb. an. 1079.  that Hildebrand should the deposed.  
In the Council held at Brixia 
n Conc. Brix ●ense apud Albert. Stad. an. 1030. et Mar. Scot eod. an.  ann. 1080 wherein were 30. Bishops with the Nobles both of Italy and Germany, diiudicabant Gregorium depellendum, they adjudged that Gregory the seventh, was to be deposed and put out of the Roman See, and they elected Guibert in his room. The decree of the Council 
o Abb. V●sp. an 1080.  was this: Because it is manifest that Hildebrand was not chosen of God, but by fraud and simony put himself into the See; and seeing he both subverts Ecclesiastical order, troubles the Kingdom and Empire, defends a perjured King (Rodulph), sows discord and strife among those that are pacifical; therefore we being now gathered together, God being the author, do judge, that he being a manifest Necromancer, led with an evil spirit, and exorbitant from the true faith, is canonically to be deposed, expelled, and if he will not departed upon the hearing hereof, in perpetuum condemnandum, is for ever to be condemned.  
In a Council at Mentz 
p Conc. Mogunt. apud Alb. Stad. an. 1085  held ann. 1085. at which Guibert called Pope Clement the third, was present, all the Bishops who rebelled against the Emperor, deponendi iudicantur, were judged to be deposed; and all other who took part with Gregory the seventh, whom the Council calls a traitor to the Kingdom and Ecclesiastical peace, are accursed and anathematised.  
In an other Council at Mentz 
q Conc. Mogunt. apud joh. Auentin. lib. 5. p. 464. & seq.  (for it seems by many circumstances not to be the same with the former) where were present the Emperor, Peter Bishop of Portua, the Legates of Clement the third, Guibert (at the other himself was present:) many other Bishops both of Italy, France, and Germany, communi omnium consensu Hildebrandi secta pietati Christianae repugnans, explosa & exsibilata est, the Hildebrandical sect, was exploded and hissed out, as being contrary to Christian religion. Besides, Hermannus a king of Hildebrands making was proscribed, and 14. Bishops of the Hildebrandicall sect were deposed and condemned for perjury, homicide, yea for treason in resisting their Emperor Henry, though deposed by Hildebrand.  
In the Roman Council 
r Conc. Rom. cuius Acta habentur inter Imper. Constit. to. 3. pa. 3●5. et in Fasc. rer. expet. pa. 43.  held anno 1098. at S. Mary's, in the Church called Rotunda, wherein were present three Cardinals, and diverse Italian Bishops, they thus writ; We will not have you ignorant that we are assembled to destroy the heresies, noviter ab Hildebrando inventas, lately devised by Hildebrand, and to defend the Catholic Faith; and a little after, We call heaven and earth to witness, that we give no consent to their perverseness; and for testimony hereof, in the midst of the Church, in the sight of men and Angels, incendio tradimus eorum decreta haeretica, we burn in the fire the heretical decrees of Hildebrand and his adherents.  
To these Synodall judgements, let us add the consenting voice of others in that age, equal to a Synodall sentence. Plerique 
s judicium bonorum. apud joh. Auent. lib. 5. pa. 470.  omnes boni, Almost all good, ingenuous, and plain dealing men did writ that the Empire of Antichrist did then begin. Most 
t Lib. cod. p. 455  men, both publicly, and privately, cried out against the wickedness of Gregory, they cursed him, and prayed for all ill to happen to him; they cried out, that he was carried headlong with the desire of domineering, they called him Antichrist; they said he sat in Babylon as in the Church of God, exalting himself above all that was called God, boasting that he like God could not err. Further, that Hildebrand under the title of Christ, did orbis Imperium ambire, seek to have the Monarchy of the world: that he esteems others who would not consent to his sycophansies and frauds, beasts, fools, blocks and asses: that he bent all his strength to oppress the leader of the flock, that so the sheep being destitute of the Emperor's help, he might at liberty use his tyranny. That if all power be of God, most of all the Emperors, to whom the government of the whole world is committed: that this nefarious and inexpiable crime of Hildebrand is to be driven fare from the german nation, and Hildebrand is to be conquered not with words or disputations, but with fetters and imprisonment.  
The Church of Leodium, writ 
u Ecclesia Leod. in Epistola advers. Pascalem 2. circ. an. 1107  a large treatise against the Pope, in which they call the Roman Church as then it was, Babylon; they prove, that they own obedience to the Emperor, notwithstanding he were excommunicated by the Pope; they say of the Hildebrandists, that they did rend the church novello schismate et novellis traditionibus, by a new schism, and new traditions, such as allow both disobedience and perjury: And concluding that point; By this, say they, all may perceive, that he is reus capitis, guilty of treason, and of death, who doth not obey Caesar (even that Caesar whom Pope Hildebrand had excommunicated and deposed.) They further add, that Pope Hildebrand was author huius novelli schismatis, the author of this new schism, and the first that lifted up his Pontifical lance, against the Crown of the King, and who indiscreetly excommunicated those that favoured Henry, for which cause he afterwards reproved his own rashness: and further, that all Popes from Gregory the first unto Hildebrand, utebantur solo gladio spirituali, used only the spiritual sword, he was the first who ever girded himself with the sword of battle against the Emperor.  
The Dean and Church of Laurisham, 
x Decanus & Eccl. Lauris. in suo libel. supplici.  writ thus to the Emperor, Summo post Dominum Regi, to the highest King next after God; They also complain of the Novelties 
z Multae sunt aliae novitates, dogmata▪ sectae. Praefatas hereses sectasque. Conciaat haec heresis▪ ibid.  and Heresies which Hildebrand and Pascalis did maintain, and entreat him to suppress those heresies.  
Rodolph 
a Rodulphus.  the first to whom ever any Pope gave the Kingdom of a deposed Emperor, at his death condemned both the Pope's doctrine in this point, and with it his own fact also. For holding up the stump of his right hand (which he had lost in battle) lo, saith he 
b Hell mould Chron. Slau. ca 29. & Alb. Stad. an. 1080.  with this did I swear to my Lord (Henry,) not to hurt either him or his honour, but iussio Apostolica, the command of Pope Hildebrand hath brought me to this, that I have broken my oath, and usurped unlawful honour; you see my end, and how in that hand wherewith I swore, I have received a deadly wound. Let those who instigated me to this, consider how they have guided me, ●nd let them look that we both (they and I) be not carried headlong to eternal condemnation.  
Pope Hildebrand 
* Hildebrandus poenitens.  himself was at last displeased with this his own doctrine, and with his doings also in this matter: for at the time of his death (and note that he died in banishment at Salernum) he called, saith Matheus Parisi. 
d Math. Par. an. 1086▪ in Guiliel. conq.  some of the Cardinals unto him and confessed unto them, That he had greatly offended in his pastoral charge, & suadente diabolo, and that at the suggestion of the devil he had stirred up the anger and wrath of God against mankind. Sigibert who lived in that age, relates 
e Sigeb. a. 1085  the same, as also Florentius Wigorniensis, 
f Flor. Wigor. in Chron. a. 1106  who cities for a witness hereof the Archbishop of Mentz. Cuspinian also saith 
g Cusp. in Henr. 4. prope finem. , It is testified in vetustissimis annalibus by the most ancient annals. Sigibert 
h Sig. & Floren. loc. cit. , and Florentius also add, that Hildebrand sent his Confessor to the Emperor to ask forgiveness of him, and of the whole Church; releasing 
* Florent. loc. cit.  all, both Emperor and others, from those bannes and curses which he had denounced against them. And if one may believe visions of those times, one of the Priests of Saxony 
b joh. Auen. li. 5. pa. 470. , lying like a dead man in a trance for three days, when he came to himself, said, he then had a revelation, that Hildebrand, Rodulph, and Hermannus were tormented in everlasting punishment.  
Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury, calls 
c Lanf. epist. ad Hug. quae est apud Bar. an. 1080. nu. 27  Henry the fourth, though deposed by Pope Hildebrand, gloriosum Imperatorem, a glorious Emperor, and withal adds, that he could not obtain so great a victory (against Rodulph) to whom the Pope had given the Empire) sine magno dei auxilio, without the great assistance of God; whom yet the Bishop did not think to give assistance to unjust causes.  
Gerochus, one who in those days had writ most earnestly in defence of Hildebrand, at last seeing his pertinacy, writ in this manner 
d Geroch. eiu● verba habentur apud Auen. li. 5: pa. 446. : The Romans (to wit, Hildebrand with his faction) usurp Divine honour, they will not give a reason of their actions, nor do they patiently endure that one should say to them, Cur ita facis: They ingeminate that of the Satirical Poet, Sic volo, sic i●beo. This is my will; my will doth stand for a reason.  
Venerius' Bishop of Vercels, writ an whole book against Hildebrand: In it he thus saith 
e Venerius li. de unitate ecel. citatur in Catal. test. verit. lib. 13. . Christ taught his Apostles, not to dispose of Kingdoms, nor to order them, nay himself did not affect such a Kingdom, but fled from it. We read Hildebrand to teach, quod potestatem habuerit super reges, that he had power over Kings and over Kingdoms, & that he might do that which the Psalmist saith belongs only to God, He puts down one, and sets up another. Hildebrand hath made a rent in the Church, whence are grown civil wars, slaughters, perjuries, perfidious dealings, injustice; these do now flow and supper abound, propter doctrinam Hildebrandi Papae, by reason of the doctrine of Pope Hildebrand. Is it Apostolical, is it Catholic, is it spiritual to take part with Hildebrand, to nourish and defend such crimes?  
Conrade Bishop of Traiectum in an open assembly said, 
f Conradi Oratio extat apud Avent. li. 5. pa. 463.  Hildebrand is carried headlong with ambition, seeing he usurps the power of the immortal God.  
Osbertus Bishop of Leodium speaking of Hildebrand saith, 
g Osbert Leod. li. de vitae Hen. 4. sect. Igitur saxons▪  Quae dementia, what madness hath armed you against the King and governor of the world? your malignant conjuration will not profit you. Whom God hath settled in the Kingdom, your hand can not cast him out.  
The Bishop of Triers, 
h Epis. Trevir. cuius Epist. extat in li. Imper. Const. to. 1. p. 46  This Hildebrand, who invadeth the Apostolic See, who is puffed up with such pride as hath not been heard off, who studies profanes novelties, and is delighted with an ample name, I know not how to call him a Christian, seeing he hath not that Character, namely peace and charity which Christ hath imprinted in his Disciples. there's nothing so impious and nefarious, nothing so detestable and execrable which he regards, so that he may arm others against the King. I will not obey him hereafter, neither shall he by my judgement sit in the seat of Peter, whom he doth not follow.  
The Bishop of Virdunum 
i Epis. Virdunensis epist. extat ibidem. , Hildebrand who is called the head, iam est cauda ecclesiae, is now the tail of the Church; he who is called the foundation, is now the desolation of the Church; he who is said to gather, doth now scatter; he who is said to love, doth now hate the Church; he who is said to strengthen, doth now weaken the holy Church. O the Arrogancy of him, who glorieth that he is above the Church, doing wickedly above all malice, renting the Church, and which is unheard of, presuming to destroy the Catholic King (Henry the fourth, then deposed) condemning most wickedly those who are godly, perverting the decrees of the fathers, advancing an adulterous King (Rodulph) endeavouring to extinguish the true and lawful King with all memory of the kingly name. He calls perjury fidelity, faith he calls sacrilege, his father (the devil) was a liar from the beginning, and himself lieth in all things and contradicts the truth. Shall we call him our head, who is a wicked, an execrated man, who subverts the members of the Church?  
Waltram Bishop of Medeburge, Let all 
k Walt. Episc. Medeb. ep. extat apud Dodech. in Append ad Mar. Scot an. 1090.  be confounded who resist the Lord; Rodulph, Hildebrand, Egbert and diverse others, Dei ordinationi in Henrico restiterunt, resisted God's ordinance in resisting the Emperor Henry, and behold they are perished, as if they had not been; and truly their beginning must needs be evil, whom so bad an end did follow.  
Waltram Bishop of Naumberg hath writ two books against the impieties of Hildebrand. Certum est 
l Walt. Naumber. lib. 1. de unit. ecc. & Imper. cap. 18.  it's certain saith he, that Pope Hildebrand hath attempted to violate the Sacred Scripture and the commandments of God: he hath 
m Walt. lib. 2. quae vocatur Apologia cap. 2  mingled himself with the deaths of many Christians, kindling the fire of war almost through the whole Empire, The Bishops 
n Lib. eodem ca eodem.  of Hildebrand, corporum simul & animarum sunt homicidae, are murderers both of bodies and souls, they are such as may deservedly be called the Synagogue of Satan. The Church 
o Ibid. cap. 11.  hath no sword given unto it, nisi gladium spiritus, but only the sword of the Spirit: Hildebrand 
p Ibid. ca 4.  hath usurped regal authority, against the ordination of God, and against the use & discipline of the Church. He hath usurped the offices of both powers, temporal and Ecclesiastical, he hath marvellously resisted the ordinance of God: yea he plainly calls 
q 〈…〉  this doctrine of Hildebrand an Heresy, Magna est haeresis Dei ordinationi resistere. It's a great heresy to resist God's ordinance, which it is manifest that these Bishops of Hildebrand have done, when they went about to destroy Henry the King placed by God.  
Pope Leo the ninth, Rome hath brought up and nourished Constantine, 
* Leo 9 Ep. 7  & super omnes mortales constituit, and set him above all mortal men; then sure above the Pope.  
Petrus Damianus 
r Damianus lib. 4. ep. 9 add Older. Firmanus ; The offices belonging to Bishops and Kings are proper to each of them, the King is to use secular weapons, Bishops the sword of the Spirit. Ozias was smitten with leprosy for usurping the Priest's office, what then doth the Priest deserve if he take secular weapons which are proper to lay men? Which words are so pregnant against the Papal Monarchy, 
* Bar. an. 1053 nu. 14.  that Baronius taxeth Damianus as Heretical, for this saying.  
Oecumenius 
s Oecumenius in cap. 13. ad Rom. , The Apostle instructeth every soul, though he be a Bishop or an Apostle (than much more the Pope) to be subject to secular Princes.  
Theophilact 
t Theophil. in 〈◊〉. 13. ad Rom. : Vniversos erudit, the Apostle teacheth all, yea though he be an Apostle (than sure the Apostles successors) that they be subject to secular Princes.  
Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury 
u Anselmue 〈◊〉 26. ca Math. . There are two swords in the Church, the one material, the other spiritual; and there are secular Ministers, to whom belongs the handling of temporal matters: and spiritual to whom spiritual matters do belong: the temporal sword is given to carnal (that is, secular) men, the spiritual to spiritual persons: as the King may not intermeddle with the priestly stole, so neither may a Bishop exercise that which belongs to the King.  
Iuo Bishop of Carnotum 
x Ive ep. 171 . The disposing of secular matters is given to the King, and they are fundamentum & Caput populi, the foundation and head of the people, and where they will not obey the admonitions of Bishops, divino iudicio sunt reseruandi, they are to be left to God's judgement. Then is not the Pope as a superior Lord to judge, punish, or depose them.  
Glaber Rodulphus 
z Glab. Rod. lib. 4. cap. 5. . At this time the Roman See was miserably infected with a pestiferous disease, for the space of 25. years; they ordained a Pope about 12. years old, whom only silver and gold did commend more than either age or sanctity: but as he had an unhappy beginning, so he had an unhappy end, for he was deposed by the Emperor with the consent of the whole Roman Clergy, and a most holy man put in his room. Glaber approving this act of the Emperor, shows plainly he thought the Pope tobe subject to Imperial authority, and judgement.  
Sigibert 
a Sig. 〈◊〉. 1088 : This Novelty, that I say not Heresy, was not before this time sprung up in the world, that Priests should teach the people that they owght no obedience to wicked Kings, and that though they swear fidelity unto them, yet they own not fidelity, and are not perjured, if they disobey their King. Hildebrand even in this doctrine is by him accounted an author of Novelty and Heresy.  
Thus was this Hildebrandicall doctrine no otherwise entertained at the very first arising thereof, and ever since, then as a novelty, a schismatical, a seditious, a pernicious and pestilent heresy. It is true, I confess, that the Imperialists also who in this and the succeeding ages defended the right of Emperors against the then challenged and usurped Papal Monarchy, were, and that even eo nomine 
* Vt liquet ex ijs quae hoc saeculo diximu●: et ex Decreto Lud. Baua●ri cum concilio procerum in quo ita dicunt Illos, quod a nobis & Imperio deficere nollent, quod crimen laesae maiestatis, & scelus perfidiae admittere recusarent, Haeresis nota in ●ssit papa. apud Auent. lib. 7. pag. 613.  because they were faithful loyal and obedient to Emperors, both accounted and called Heretics by the Hildebrandists, or adherents to to the Pope. But the name of Heretics being by either part given unto the other both then and ever since, yet there is a main difference in the verity of this Appellation. The sentence and censure of the Pope in this and following ages, was for this point but the partial and unjust sentence of some factious, seditious and schismatical Hildebrandists, condemned by the Uniform and consenting judgement of the whole Catholic Church in all the several ages thereof, till the days of Hildebrand. The sentence and censure of the Imperialists was for this point the Orthodoxal and consenting judgement of holy Counsels and of the Catholic fathers for more than a thousand years together after Christ. If they object, that some of the witnesses whom in this or succeeding ages we produce, were accounted Heretics, we justly reply, that those also whom they produce against us, in this cause, were accounted Heretics. Either by the judgement of the other, was counted and called Heretical, and so neither of both since this rent in the Church made by Hildebrand, is an equal or fit judge of the other. The unpartial judgement in this cause must proceed from the former, ancient, and consenting voice of the Church before it was rend or divided in this question. And seeing with the Imperialists in this point wholly concurres, and from the Hildebrandists wholly dissents the consenting voice and judgement of the Catholic Church in all the former ages thereof, that is, for more than 1000 years together, it is an evident demonstration, that the Imperialists, and those who are witnesses on our part, in this doctrine, both in truth are, and are by all others to be accounted and called Orthodoxal; and that the Hildebrandists and those who are witnesses on their part, in this doctrine, both in truth are, and are by all others to be accounted and called Heretical.   

CHAP. VII.  
That the Pope's Temporal Monarchy was condemned by Bishops, and learned writers, who lived from the year 1100. to the year 1200.  
IN the twelfth age, 
Ab an. 1100 ad 1200.  there was held about anno 1107. Concilium Tircense (perhaps it should be Trecense.) In it 
a Conc. Tirc. apud Been in vita Pascal. 2. pag. 1304.  the Emperor Henry the fift, complained that the Imperial rights were impaired by the Pope. The matter-beeing deferred till the Emperor came to his Coronation in Italy (which was about a year after) then, as Petr. Diaconus, who then lived, declares, one of the Emperor's part, seeing how Pope Pascalis protracted the Coronation, and required a stricter oath, than seemed fit, said 
b Petr. Diac. in Chron. Cassine●. lib. 4. cap. 40.  Quid multis opus est, what needs all this doing? know that our Lord the Emperor will so take the Crown as Charles, Lewis and Pipine took it; And that was 
c Naucl. gener. 38. in initio. et Sigeb. an. 1111  to have the investiture of Bishops, and all other Royalties and Imperial rights which Charles and other Emperors had for 300. years and more; yea the Emperor, saith Alb. Stadensis 
d Alb. Stadens. an. 1111.  would not swear, but said (and said most rightly) Imperatorem nemini debere iurare, that the Emperor was not bound to swear unto any man, seeing to him as supreme, all others are to exhibit the sacrament of their oaths. When the Pope would not accept of that oath, they 
e Petr. Diac. Chron. Cass. lib. 4. 〈◊〉. 41.  thrust him from his throne, took him prisoner with diverse Cardinals, and others that took part with the Pope, and carried them to Sorecte: where the Pope was kept in prison for the space of 61. days. In the end the Pope yielded, and (swore, 
f Lib. ●od. c. 42 , that he would never either disturb the Emperor or his Empire, as violating the Churches right, neither anathematise him for thus using the Pope: and further that he would privilegio sub anathemate confirmare, confirm by a privilege and that under a curse (and so he did 
g Papa tradidit ●i in oculis omnium principum privilegium de inu●stitura etc. Sigeb. an. 1111  in the sight of all) that the Emperor should enjoy the investitures of Bishops and Abbots, and that whosoever were chosen for a Bishop, should be consecrated of none unless he were invested by the Emperor. The Emperor on the other side (sworn 
h Petr. Diac. l. 4 ca 42.  (in such form as he before had offered and the Pope had refused) that he would obey the Pope, saluo honore Imperii & regni, always saving the honour of the Empire and Kingdom, as other 
i Sicuti Catholici Imperatores solent. ibid.  Emperors were used to swear. So both the Emperor knew and the Pope acknowledged, and that upon his oath, the Sovereignty and Royalties to belong unto the Emperor. You will say, the Pope did this in fear and by constraint. It is true he was by just punishment induced unto it. And none must ever think that Popes without such strong inducements, will ever do any right to Kings or Emperors. But had the Pope thought those Royalties not to be in right belonging to the Emperor, why did he at all consent unto it? why did he not endure, I say not imprisonment, but death for a righteous cause? Si homines timerentur, Martyrs non essent. All Princes may see by this, how to have right at the Pope's hand. If Popes once overmaster them, they will be sure to do as this same Pascalis did: as soon as the Emperor was gone, and the danger overpast, the Pope in a Synod in the Lateran, recalled 
k Abb. Vsperg. an. 1112. Alb. Stad. an. eodem Naucl. an. eod. & Conc. Later. sub Pascal. 2. pa. 1309.  that his own former grant, made with an imprecation, uttered before the holy Altar, in the sight of all the Princes, and said, it was Pravilegium not Privilegium: and contrary to his oath of not disturbing the Emperor nor his Empire, (for assurance whereof he 
l Sigeb. a. 1111  had given and received the holy Eucharist) the Council then decreed, 
m Imperatorem a liminibus ecclesiae sequestrandum censuerunt. Alb. Stad. an. 1112  that the Emperor was to be excommunicated and shut out of the Church, and the Pope 
n Papae legati Imperatoris excommunicationem publicant. Naucl. a. 1112 pa 739.  published and thundered out an excommunication against the Emperor, set all the Empire in an uproar and combustion; nor was Pascalis and his successors ever at quiet, till they had forced 
o Naucl. a. 1112  Henry (as in the time of Calyxtus they did) to resign and deliver up the Privilege granted by Pascalis, and compelled him to yield the Inuestitures of Bishops into the Pope's hands. But such coacted resignation, could not take away either from that Henry, or from any of his successors, those Imperial rights, which belong to their Crown and which they aught, even by the words of their usual oath, Saluo honore Imperii, still to maintain.  
There was held anno 1160. a Council at Papia, (it may, in regard of the Bishops of so many provinces assembled therein, be called a general Council) to determine whether Octavian called Victor, or Rowland called Alexander the third, was the right Pope. The Emperor Fridericke the first called it, and writ thus, 
b Epist. Frid. 1. extat apud Radeu. lib. 2. de gest. Frid. 1. cap. 56.  Whereas Christ at his passion was contented with two swords, this is fulfilled in the Roman Church (for the one) and in the Roman Empire (for the other.) And, we by the counsel of all our Bishops and Princes have appointed a Council at Papia, unto which vocabimus, we will call both those that term themselves Popes, and all other Bishops in our Empire, as also of other Kingdoms, France, England, Spain and Hungary. And to Rowland who was called Alexander, he writ, Mandamus 
c Rad. ibid. ●. 55  we command and charge you in the name of God to come to this Council. When the Council was assembled the Emperor thus began: Although 
d Orat. Frid. apud Rad. li. 2. cap. 64.  I know that by the office and dignity of my Empire I have power to call Counsels, as Constantine, Theodosius, justinian, Charles the Great, and O though have done before; yet the authority to define this great and weighty business, committo potestati vestrae, I commit to your wisdom and power. The whole Council adjudged 
e Rad. ibid. c. 6●  the See to Octavianus, the Emperor ratified their judgement, placed him in the Pontifical throne. And yet (so exorbitant are their Popes) notwithstanding this so ample, so diligent, and exact examination and Synodall judgement, Rowland (whom they truly called 
f Idolum sibi Roulādū●uexerunt. epist. Imp. ibid. cap. 71.  an Idol) without any right at all, invaded and held the See, and ever after bore so implacable hatred to Friderick, for doing nothing but justice, and that in most equal manner, that he could never be at quiet, till at Venice, he had trampled 
* Naucl. a. 1177  him under his feet, telling him that he was subject, Et mihi & Petro.  
When Pope Hadrian the fourth, in his quarrel against Fridericke the first, had writ 
g Epi. Hadrian. extat apud Radevic. lib. 1. de gest. Frid. ca 15  to the Bishops of Germany, to move the Emperor to yield to him, and had inserted in his letters, those words at which the Emperor took great indignation, Coronae beneficium tibi contulimus, we have given unto you the Imperial Crown; as if the Empire and the Imperial Crown, were at the Pope's disposing, to give to whom he would; the Bishops writ 
h Episcopi German. quorum epist. extas lib. eod. cap. 16  back to the Pope in this manner: A verbis vestris commota est universa resp. Imperii nostri, all our common weal and Empire, were so moved by those your words, that neither the ears of his imperial Majesty could patiently hear them, nor the ears of the Princes endure them, therefore all stopped their ears at those words, so that we consensu aliquo approbare nec audemus, nec possumus, neither dare, nor can by any consent approve them, because they are such as were never used nor heard of till these times; & we beseech your Holiness, that like a good Pastor, you would sand other letters, priora scripta suavitate mellita dulcorantibus, which may soften and sweeten your former writings.  
There was about the same time, a very famous assembly at Roncalia, 
i Conuentus Roncal. apud Radeu. lib. 2. de gest. Frid. 1. cap. 1. & seq.  wherein were many Archbishops and Bishops and other Ecclesiastical persons, besides Dukes, Marquess', Earls, and judges of the Empire. una 
k Ibid. cap. 4.  omnium sententia haec erat, this was the sentence and judgement of them all. Thou O most excellent Prince art Orbis & urbis Imperator, Emperor of the City of Rome, and of the World. It pleased you to consult with us the loyal people of your power, concerning the laws, justice and honour of the Empire; therefore know, that the whole right of the people for making of laws is granted unto you. Tua voluntas ius est, your will is law, according as it is said, Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem, that which pleaseth the Emperor hath force of a law. Can they give unto him an higher Sovereignty?  
Pope Pascalis the second, anno 1110. thus decreed, 
c Pascalis Decretum extat in lib. Constit. Imper. tom. 1. pag. 54.  We command that those Royalties which belong to the Emperor, be resigned unto King Henry (the fifth) which belonged unto the Empire in the time of Charles, Lewis, Otho, and other their predecessors; and we forbidden under the pain of an Anathema, that any Bishop, or Abbot either now or hereafter, do invade those Royalties, that is, those Cities, Dukedoms, Marquisates, Counties, moneys, tolles, or tribute, Aduowsans, Towers, and Castles which belong to the Empire; neither shall it be lawful for our successors in this See, to disquiet either thee or thy Kingdom in this matter. Now the supreme Dominion and royalties in Rome, and throughout all Italy, did certainly belong to Charles (as we have formerly proved): then by the Pope's decree, the Emperors are for ever to be held for the Supreme Lords of the same.  
Pope Innocentius the third, in one of his decretals defineth, 
d Innocent. 3 Cap. Per v●nerabil●m. lib. ●. Decretal. Greg. tit. Qui 〈◊〉 sunt 〈◊〉.  That though in his own Patrimony he be a direct Lord, yet in other countries he doth exercise that jurisdiction but casually, not prejudicating the right of others; which words are so clear that though they wrist them never so much, yet still they will demonstrate the Pope, even by the Pope's decree, not to be a direct temporal Monarch of the world.  
Pope Celestine the third, 
e Celestine 3. Extra. de judic. cae. cum non ab homine.  If a Clerk be incorrigible he must be excommunicated, and then smitten with the sword of Anathema; if he contemn that, cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat, seeing the Church can go no further (but to the censure of Anathema,) he must be punished by secular power.  
The Senate and people of Rome writ unto Conrade the Emperor, anno 1140. in this manner, 
* Senatus & populus Rom. Eorum Epist. extat to. 1. Constit. Imp. pa. 56  Vrbis & orbis Domino, to thee, Lord both of Rome and of the world: and they tell him, that they desire to restore the Roman Empire which is given to him by God, unto that state wherein it was in the time of Constantine and justinian, qui totum orbem tenuere manibus, who had the whole world subject unto them; wishing that the Rebels and those who have taken away the honour of the Empire, being trodden under feet, he may obtain all things which are due to Caesar, and the Empire: praying him to remember, quot & quanta mala Papalis Curia, how great and how many wrongs the Pope's Court, and those which sometimes were your citizens, have formerly done to the Emperors, and do now attempt to do worse; but we, say they, have justly resisted them according to our fidelity, and have expelled many of them out of the City as the worst enemies to the Empire.  
The Bishops of Germany writ 
f Episc. Alemaniae. apud Rad. lib. 1. de ge●●. Frid. ca 16  thus unto the Pope claiming the Empire to be his gift, and at his disposing: We willingly yield fatherly reverence unto you our father. The free crown of our Empire divino tantùm beneficio ascribimus, we ascribe only to the gift of God. The Bishop of Mentz hath the first voice in the election, and so the rest in order; the Bishop of Colen confers regal, the Pope imperial unction, whatsoever is more than this, ex abundanti est, a malo est, it is superabundant, it is from evil. And that which they accounted to be more, is the Pope's pretence of giving the Empire with the crown and unction.  
That the Greek Church 
* Eccl. Graeca  in this age, held not the Pope for a supreme Monarch, may be perceived by that which Humbertus 
g Humber. lib. contra Graecorum calumnias, prope initium.  witnesseth of them, that they not only detested the pope & accounted the Roman Church to be heretical, but further urged them both, to receive their opinions under the pain of an Anathema. Yea, long after this they would not suffer 
* Paul. ●emil. in Phil. 4. & Aeneas Silu. lib. 9 E●ist. in Blon●.  their Emperor Michael Paleologus to have Christian burial, because in a Council at Lions, he had professed the Greek Church to be subject to the Roman See.  
Theodorus Balsamon Patriarch of Antioch, having alleged many Canons why Clergy men should not undertake civil Magistracy and secular affairs, at length expounds 
h Theod. Bals. Comm. in Can. 16. Conc. Carthag.  them all to be so understood, that they may not do this sine iussu Imperatoris without a command and commission from the Emperor, for if they do it by the Emperor's allowance, the Canons do not forbidden them: seeing the Emperor is neither subject to laws nor Canons. Again, 
i Idem. Comm. in Can. 7. Conc. 6. in Trullo. pa 369.  Note this seventh Canon, wherein it is said that spiritual dignities are more excellent than secular. Sed ne hoc eò traxeris, but do not strain this, saith he, so fare as some do, that Ecclesiastical dignities are above Imperial, eye enim subiiciuntur, for Ecclesiastical dignities are subject to Imperial.  
Athanasius Patriarch of Constantinople, speaking to the Emperor saith, 
k Ath●n. Constant. li. de necess. episc. res. cap. 6.  Curam omnium suscepisti a Deo, you have the charge of all (and then of the Pope) committed unto you by God.  
Euthymius, 
l Euthym. in Psal. 50.  Seeing I am a King, I have offended only to thee O God, tibi soli iudici subiicior, I am subjected to thee only as a judge of me.  
Saint Bernard is so clear in this point, that he 
m Bernard. li. 2 de Consid. ad Eug.  expressly denies that the Pope or any who is a successor to the Apostles, can have that supreme and independent temporal dominion. Planum est, Apostolis interdicitur dominatus, It is plain, Dominion (independent) is forbidden to the Apostles. If you succeed the Apostles, you usurp that dominion: you are clearly forbidden to have them both, if you will have them both you shall lose them both.  
Hugo de Sancto victore 
p Huge de S. Victore, lib. 2 de Sacram. par. 2. cap. 4. . The terrene power hath the King for head, the spiritual power hath the Pope. Terrene or temporal matters belong to the power of the King, those which are spiritual belong to the power of the Pope: and, 
q Lupold. lib. de jure regum. & ●mp. cap. 9  Hugo tenet, Hugo holds this conclusion, that the Emperor for temporal matters hath his power only from God, neither in those is subject to the Pope. Again, Hugo saith 
* Aug. Trump. de poorest. eccl. q. 36. ar. 3.  that the Pope is greater than the Emperor in spiritual, but the Emperor greater than the Pope in temporal matters: and he further saith, that the Emperor doth not take the power of the sword and temporal dignity from the Pope.  
Petrus Cluniacensis, 
r Pet. Cli●man li. 6. epist. 46  You will say, The Church hath not a sword, seeing Christ commanded Peter to put up his sword; It is true, It is true I say, Ecclesia non habet gladium regis, sed habet virgam pastoris, the Church hath not the sword of a King (not the civil and temporal sword) but it hath the rod or staff of a shepherd.  
Petrus Gratianus 
* Gratianus. Caus. 2 q. 7. ca Nos si incompetenter.  the Master of their decrees; Note that there are two persons whereby the world is governed, the Regal, and Sacerdotal. As Kings are the chief in secular causes, so are Bishops in the causes of God. It is the office of Kings to inflict corporal, the office of Bishops to use spiritual punishment.  
Peter Lombard 
s Pet. Lomb. lib. 2. sentent. dist. 44. ca 3. 〈◊〉 comment. suo in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 13.  Bishop of Paris, and their Master of sentences, We must know that those words of the Apostle, He that resisteth the power resists the ordination of God, are meant of secular powers, to wit, of Kings and Princes, whom we may not resist while those things which they command are such as God doth not forbidden. Now seeing that precept concerns every soul, as the text expresseth, (even the Apostles themselves and their successors, as we have before proved,) the Pope by this Bishop's judgement, may not resist, but aught in all lawful commands, obey secular Princes; for the conclusion of the Master, saith Henry Goricon 
* Henr. Gor. come. in. cap. cit. lib. 2. sent. Pet. tomb.  upon that text is this, Quod semper obediendum est potestati, that men must always obey secular power unless they command against God.  
Petrus Blesensis, 
t Pet. Blesensis Epist. 73.  Let the Church first exercise her jurisdiction, and if that will not suffice, then let the secular sword supply that which wanteth. (u) To Princes is the sword given, Animabus praelatus es non corporibus, you are set over men's souls, not their bodies. A prelate and pilot have nothing common. Again 
x Epist. 42. , to another Bishop, You being chosen for a Bishop, sanguinolenta potestate exerces gladii potestatem, do with a bloody conscience use the power of the secular sword; let him exercise the material sword who hath received the power of that sword. Secular powers are ordained of God that they should have that sword. If you take Christ's ministry, abide in that vocation to which you are called: dimittas laicis populi principatum, leave the rule or civil government of the people to Laymen.  
johannes Sarisburiensis 
y joh. Sarisb. Epist. 218.  Bishop of Carnotum, though he be violent in the Pope's cause, yet saith, Deus solus arbitrio suo regna & Imperia transfert, God alone (than not the Pope) doth at his pleasure translate kingdoms, he sets up, he pulls down what powers he william.  
Geruasius 
Geruas'. cuius epist extat inter Epist Al●xand. ●. 〈◊〉 Ni●ol. ●. 〈◊〉 est nume●o 21.  Archbishop of Rheims writes thus to Pope Alexander the second, It is reason that we of France should honour the successor of Peter, seeing out of our kingdom Rome did choose (Charles the Great) quem sibi & mundo caput ordinaret, whom it ordained the head both of Rome and the world (than head also of the Pope, unless he were none of the world.)  
joachim Abbas 
f joak. Abbas come. in jerem. ca 22. pa. 310.  of whom Possevine saith, 
g Posseu. Appar. in Ioa●●●m  that many believed him to have had the spirit and gift of prophecy, saith, Though secular Princes have taken somewhat by force from the Church, yet the Popes on the other side have taken much from secular princes, which they neither should have sought nor have received; and to this purpose Christ saith, Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, but because their covetous prelate's will not harken to this word, they shall be burst like old bottles; and handling those words, As an Ass so shall he be buried, those (Roman) Prelates, saith he 
* Ibid. pa. 313. , are truly Asses and fools, and therefore they shall lie open to their enemies: And as from an ass is first pulled his skin, and then he is cast to the dunghill to be meat for beasts and birds, so shall first be pulled from those prelate's the skins of their temporal possessions, and then shall they be cast as a mocking stock, on the dunghill, and be as meat for the beasts of the Roman Empire and birds, that is Evangelicall men who shall reprove them. Again, 
m Ibid. in ca 24 pa. 330  The Popes and prelate's knew that those temporalities which they desired, iuris esse Romani, did in right belong to the Roman Empire.  
Eberhardus 
o Eberhardus epist. extat apud Radeu. li. 2. de gest. Frid. ca 71.  Bishop of Babenberge, The part which followeth Alexander the third, doth go to the enemies of the Empire, which seems to be against wholesome doctrine, and they both lose men from their oath of fidelity, and forbidden them to obey the Emperor, and so make way for schism which is the worst of all.  
Otho 
p Otho Fris. i● epi. ad Frid. Imper. praefixa suo Chro●.  Frisingensis, a man noble both for birth, piety, & learning. Whereas there is no other person in the world which is not subject to temporal laws, and by being subject to them may be punished, soli reges, only Kings as being above laws are reserved to the judgement of God, and are not restrained by secular laws, Then are they not subject either to the Pope's judgement or punishment.  
Helmoldus, 
q Helmoldus in Chron. Slau. cap. 33.  David siuning & repenting, remained still a King and a Prophet; Henry the fourth, lying prostrate at the Pope's feet entreating and repenting, was gratis pessundatus, without cause depressed and crushed. Henry found not that in the time of grace which David found in the hard time of the law, But let others who dare, dispute hereof, this one thing may be known, that the Roman See, luit factum illud, doth to this day smart for that fact.  
Gotofridus Viterbiensis, 
y Gotof. Vit. in Henr. 4 part. 16. pa. 499.  Before this of Gregory, we do not read that any Emperor was excommunicated by the Pope or deprived of his kingdom, such a novelty he noteth that fact of Hildebrands to have been. He also notes that the cause of all those broils betwixt Henry the fourth and Hildebrand, was 
z Ibid. pa. 499  for that Hildebrand took the Popedom sine concessione Imperatoris without the grant of the Emperor. Thereby giving to understand, that as Hildebrand unjustly entered into the See, so he thought he could not hold it but by depressing and oppressing him, by whose grant he should have held it, and without whose grant he did not rightly hold: it and that the whole quarrel arose neither for any fault of Henry, nor zeal of Hildebrand, either to God or to the Church, but it began upon Hildebrands own undutifulness and unlawful intrusion, and was continued for maintaining his unjust and usurped possession. So holy a quarrel beseemed so holy a Saint.   

CHAP. VIII.  
That the Pope's Temporal Monarchy is condemned by Bishops, and learned writers, who lived from the year 1200. to the year 1300. after Christ.  
IN the thirteenth age, 
Ab an. 1200 ad 1300.  when first Gregory the ninth 
a Bin. in vita. Greg. 9 et. Alb. Stad. an. 1240.  and after him Innocentius the fourth, in the Council of Lions, had excommunicated 
b Conc. Lugdu. apud Mat Par. pa. 896. et. seq. an. 1245.  Frederick the second, and deposed him propria 
c Alb. Stad. an. 1245.  authoritate, by their own Papal authority, and not by the judgement and authority of the Council, diverse Princes 
d Principes. Alb. Stad. lo●. citatis.  whom those Popes solicited, yea, under pain of excommunication commanded, not to accept or account Frederick for Emperor, answered first Gregory and then Innocentius in this manner; Ad papam non pertinere Imperatorem vel instituere vel destituere, sed tantum electum a principibus coronare, that it belonged not to the Pope either to make or unmake an Emperor, but only to crown him whom the Electors had chosen.  
When Pope Innocentius the third, had sent an excommunication 
d Lit. Innocent▪ recitantur a Math. Paeris. a. 1216. p. 370.  and interdict against the Prelates and Barons in England, who resisted King john, or sought to put him (being then as Innocent calls 
e Innoc ibid.  him the Pope's vassal) from his kingdom; the Barons 
f Barones & Praelati Angliae. eorum verba habentur apud Mat. Par. an. eodem 1216 pa. 372.  and Prelates being assembled together, dicebant generaliter omnes, did all with one general consent say, that those letters were of no force at all, partly for that they were (as they pretended) gotten by surreption, & ex hoc maximè, and specially for this reason, because the ordering of Laical or Temporal matters, belonged not to the Pope, seeing unto Peter, and his successors non nisi Ecclesiasticarum rerum dispositio, the disposing only of Ecclesiastical affairs was given by Christ; what have Popes say they, to do with our wars? Behold they will be the successors of Constantine, and not of Peter. They imitate not Peter in works, they are not to be likened to him in power. Phy on it, that marcidi ribaldi, base ribalds, and ignoble Simoniackes (so they term Popes) who know nothing of war, and weapons, iam toti mundo propter excommunicationes suas volunt dominari, will needs domineer over the whole world, by sending out their Excommunications and Interdicts. How unlike are they to Peter who usurp the place of Peter!  
Pope Innocentius the fourth 
g Innocent. 4 in cap. Noverit. de Sententia excommunic. nu. 2. , In temporal things solus Imperator qui universis & Clericis & laicis in temporalibus praeesse debet, privilegium concedere potest, the Emperor only who in temporal matters aught to be above all both Laical and Ecclesiastical persons, (than sure above the Pope himself) can grant a privilege in temporal matters. Eberherdus Abusinus, 
h Eberherdus apud Auent. lib. 7. pag. 546. 547.  If we be not blind, we may perceive that under the title of the high priest and under a sheep's skin, the pope plays the wolf. The Roman Bishops take weapons against Christians, banish Unity and Concord, raise up wars and sedition from hell, they do not provide for the good of the flock, sed potius immanitate tyranni debacchantur, but rather they are enraged with tyrannous cruelty. They violate holy things, abuse the covenant of God to deceive men, they command men to deceive, to war, to be treacherous, to resist the sacred Majesty ordained by God. Hildebrand about 170. years since, under the colour of religion, primus Antichristi imperii fundamenta iecit, first of all founded the Empire of Antichrist. Alexander Halensis, That which Saint Peter saith, 
* Alexa. Hal. part. 3. q. 40. memb. 5.  The King excels, is true in suo ordine, scilicet ad corporalem vindictam, true in his order, that is, for inflicting secular punishment: in doing whereof if he offend, non habet qui eum puniat nisideum, he hath none at all but God (than not the Pope) to punish him. And again, 
k Ibidem.  The terrene power hath the King for head, the spiritual hath the Pope. Nichol. Lyranus 
l Nich. Lyran. in Psal. 50.  In that he was a King, non habuit superiorem, qui possit eum punire nisi Deum, he had none, but only God to punish him for his faults. Aquinas, 
m Th. Aquin. 1. 2. q. 96. art. 5. ad 3.  A Prince is said to be solutus legibus, free from the laws, quia nullus in ipsum potest condemnationis sententiam far, because none, (than not the Pope) may pronounce a sentence of condemnation against him.  
Conrade Abbot of Vrsperge 
p Conrade Ab. Vrsp. in An●ceph. post 〈◊〉. 1124  speaking of the Pope's deposing of Emperors, saith; Though pope's do glory that they have done this, yet I observe that these things were rather done to Emperors by the judgement of God for the sins of those Emperors, the Princes and people joining their minds to make resistance unto them. And how ineffectual he esteems the Pope's act of deposing, Emperors appears by that which he adds, 
q Ibidem.  that Fridericke was excommunicated by Pope Hadrian and Alexander, yet he never lost his Empire; so Philip the son of Fridericke, though pope Celestine excommunicated him, nunquam perdidit imperium, yet for all that he lost not his Empire. Again, entreating of Pope Hadrians excommunicating Fridericke, he calls it 
r Conspiratio facta est. et, huic conspirationi. ●dem an. 1152. pa. 288.  a conspiracy of the Pope and Cardinals; adding 
s Idem pa. 289. 290.  that God was not pleased with that fact but brought that curse upon them, which is foretold by David: They curse, but thou O Lord wilt bless; let them that rise against me be confounded, but thy servant shall rejoice. This, saith he, was most evidently fulfilled in this business; for to the end that this prophetical speech might be fulfilled, the foresaid Pope Hadrian a few days after he had denounced excommunication against the Emperor, walked abroad at Anagnia to refresh himself, and coming to a fountain, he drank a little of the water; and presently a fly entered into his mouth, and stuck so in his throat, that by no skill of Physicians, it could be taken away, and so he died. The Cardinals also who were of that conspiracy, at their election of the next Pope, made such a grievous schism in the Church, that Roma cum suis conspiratoribus mansit in confusione, Rome with her conspirators (against the Emperor) remained in confusion, and so in them we see it to be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, Let those that rise against me be confounded: but in the Emperor was fulfilled the other saying, Thy servant shall rejoice. Guntherus 
t Guntherus Ligur. lib. 6. pag. 369.  speaking of the Imperial power saith: Nullum caput ista super 〈◊〉 Aspicit excepto Coelorum rege potestas, Imperial dignity hath none above it, but only the King of heaven: then certainly not the Pope. Upon which words Spigelius the Scholiast observes, That if one should say so at this day, as Gunther then did, haeretici nomen non effugeret, he would be counted an heretic by the Pope's flatterers: and whereas Guntherus adds, let 
u Ecclesiam ille diu inaque iurae temperet: Imperium nobis, fascesque relinquat. ibid.  the Pope govern the Church, and order divine not secular matters, the same Scholiast observes, that this is indeed consonant to Saint Paul's precept, No man going a warfare for God, entangles himself in secular affairs; but withal he adds, that the Pope's favourers have two answers to these words of Saint Paul; the one is, that the Pope is not tied by the words or precept of the Apostle, Quoniam inferior non habet imperium in superiorem, because the Apostle being inferior hath no power to command the Pope who is his superior. The other, that secular affairs do most properly belong to the Pope, because both swords are committed, and all power is given unto him. Durandus 
* Durandus lib. de modo celebrandi council. part. 1. tit. 2.  approoues the saying of Pope Gelasius: There are two things by which the world is governed, papal authority, and regal power. Now Gelasius, as we have before showed, so distinguisheth these two, that as the Emperor may not take upon him the name or office of a Bishop, so neither may the Pope Regale fastigium vendicare, take upon him Regal or temporal sovereignty. Petrus de Vineis, 
y Pet. de Vin. lib. 1. Epist. 3.  It is no where read to be granted either by Divine or humane law to the pope, to translate kingdoms at his pleasure, aut de puniendis temporaliter regibus iudicare, or to judge of Kings, by inflicting temporal punishments upon them in depriving them of their kingdoms. Petrus Cassiodorus 
z Pet. Cassio. lib. de Tyrann. papae. §. Nun.  Is it not a marvel, that whereas Christ paid tribute for himself and Peter, and refused kingdoms, and secular judgements: that he who calls himself Christ's Vicar should strive to make subject to his Dominion, Kings and kingdoms, and that contra voluntatem illius, against the will of Christ? Alexander named in scorn by the Pope's favourers Cementarius 
a Al. Cement. ●ius verba habentur apud Math. Paris. in joh. §. Ingessit. , when Innocentius the third, had excommunicated King john, boldly and truly taught at that time, (but he smarted for it after, as all martyrs have done,) That it did not pertain to the Pope de Regum vel quorumlibet potentum laica possessione, not to intermeddle with the temporal possessions of Kings, and other Potentates, nor with the government of their subjects, seeing Christ gave to Peter nothing but only the power of the Church, and Ecclesiastical matters. Rainerius Pisanus, 
b Rain. Pisan. Pantheol. part. ●. tit. de domin. ●ap. 2.  The secular power, non habet aliquod dominium supra se, quod cum puniat poena vel vindicta corporali, hath no dominion above it which may punish it with civil, or corporal punishment. Vincentius Beluacensis 
c Vinc. Be●ua●. Spec. Hist. li. 26 ca 84.  speaking of Hildebrands facts and doctrine, calls it a Novelty, and almost an Heresy, which till then never sprang up in the world, that men should be taught not to obey wicked Kings, and that they own no fidelity unto them, though they have taken the oath of fidelity. This was the very doctrine and heresy of Hildebrand.  
johan. Semeca, 
* joh. Semeca. apud Kran●●. l. 8. Saxon. c. ●f.  that excellent lawyer (who first made a gloss upon the Decrees,) not only opposed himself to Pope Clement the fourth, in that exaction of tenths for redemption of the Holy land, but when the Pope had for that cause excommunicated him, appellationem opposuit, he appealed from the Pope, and had many great men in Germany to take his part. The Lawyer belike knew some higher judge than the Pope.  
Accursius 
f Accursius in Authent. tit. Quomodo op●rtet Episc. 〈◊〉 Conferens.  the famous Lawyer; It is plain that nec papa in temporalibus, neither may the Pope intermeddle in temporal affairs, nor the Emperor with spiritual. johannes de Parisiis 
g joh. de Parli lib. depotest. regia. & papali in 〈◊〉.  hath writ a large and learned book of the Regal and Papal power. There are, saith he, two contrary errors touching the pontifical power. The Waldenses condemn all wealth and all secular dominion (though delegated) unto Bishops. The other error is Herod's, who thought Christ's kingdom to be terrene and secular; which opinion some in these day's embrace, who so much decline the error of the Waldenses, that they fall to the quite contrary error. Their error is, that the Pope in Christ's steed hath dominion and jurisdiction in temporal matters, yea, dominion above secular Kings and Princes, because the Pope hath his power immediately from God, and Princes have theirs from the Pope: whereupon they say, that solus papa est verus dominus temporalium, the Pope is the only true Lord of all temporal goods, Princes and others they are but dispensatores, stewards of them under the Pope. This opinion, saith he, sprung from the error of Herod, and savours of the error of Vigilantius: it partakes also with that pernicious doctrine of the pharisees, who to the end the people might give greater oblations to them, taught, non teneri populum ad censum reddendum Caesari, that the people were not bound to pay tribute and duties to Caesar. But what is your own judgement in this matter? He following a saying, which he cities out of Austen, Fides medium tenet inter duos errores contrarios, saith, Veritas medium ponit, Truth is in the middle between those two errors; for Ecclesiastical persons may have temporal dominion, against the Waldenses: and they have it not as being Vicars to Christ, but ex concessione & permissione principum, by the grant, permission and delegation of Princes. And entreating 
h Ibid. cap. 5.  whether secular or Ecclesiastical power is more worthy, his resolution is, That in spiritual matters the Ecclesiastical power is more excellent, but in temporal matters the secular power maior est potestate spirituali, is greater than spiritual; neither is it quoad ista in aliquo subiecta, in respect of secular matters in any sort subject to the spiritual: and he gives this which is a true reason hereof, Because the temporal power is not derived from the spiritual but they both immediatè oriuntur a potestate divina, do spring from the supreme power of God and that immediately. And having 
i Ibid. ca 8. et 9▪  proved that Christ as man had not this secular dominion, he adds, 
k Ibid. cap. 10.  Dato quod Christus, Let us suppose that Christ had such secular power and dominion, yet he gave it not to Peter, & ideo Papae ratione qua est Petri successor non debetur, and therefore it is not due to the Pope as he is the successor of Peter. And this at large he proves.   

CHAP. IX.  
That the Pope's Temporal Monarchy is condemned by Bishops, and learned writers, who lived from the year 1300. to the year 1400. after Christ.  
IN the foureteenth age, 
a Ab an. 1300 ad 1400.  Philip the Fair, called a Council 
b Conc. Gall. apud Naval an. 1300. & Gagnin. lib. 7. in Phil. pulchro.  of the Bishops and Peers of France, after Boniface the 8. had deprived him of his Kingdom, and forbidden any of his Subjects to yield obedience unto him: The whole Council, notwithstanding the Pope's excommunication and deposition, resolved, That the King, sine controversia iure illa omnia tenere, did rightly and without doubt possess his Kingdom and Dominions.  
Pope john 22. anno 1323. had excommunicated and deposed (as much as in him lay) the Emperor Lewis of Bavare, denouncing him, and his adherents to be heretics; the Emperor thereupon called a Council: 
c Conc. sub Ludovico Ba●aro. Lud. rex consilio habito. Naucl. an. 1323.  the Pope's proceed were examined by men learned both in the Civil & Canon law, iudicabant eos penitus non valere, their judgement was, that the Pope's doings were of no force at all, yea many and great Divines approved both for their life and doctrine, dogmatizabant johannem Papam esse haereticum, did dogmatically define Pope john to be an heretic. Thus writeth Hermanus 
d Vt secibit Hermanus. Naucl. ibid.  who then lived.  
another Assembly 
e Convent. Trident. apud Zovium an. 1327 nu. 1. ubi Co●itūs vocat.  was held at Trent by the same Emperor Lewis, anno 1327. unto which were assembled both many 
* Aderant plurimi Episc. praelati, & regulares, Zovius 〈◊〉. eod. nu. ●.  Bishops and prelate's, and many great personages of Milan, of Mantua, Verone, and other Italian States. These princes Sacramenta fidelitatis praestiterunt, took the oath of fidelity to obey Lewis. The Bishops 
g Ibidem.  they taught these doctrines, that the pope and other Ecclesiastical persons are subject to secular Emperors; that the pope and Bishops have no jurisdiction (they meant civil, temporal or coactive) from Christ, but from the Emperor; That the pope hath no power over the Emperor; That Imperial dignity is immediatè ab ipso solo deo immediately from God alone, and that the pope hath no power over it. That the excommunications and other censures of pope john 22. against Lewis, were nullius momenti, of no force at all, nor to be regarded; That Lewis of Bavare, was the true and lawful Emperor, quamuis a sede Apostolica abdicatus fuisset, though he were excommunicated and deposed, by the Pope; That Pope john was a notorious Heretic.  
An other very great assembly was held at Frankford 
h Conc. Francoford. apud Krantz. lib. 9 Saxon. cap. 15. , or as some say 
i Auent. lib. 7. pag. 6 10. , at Rheginoburgum, Anno 1342. at which were present the King of England, the King of Bohemia, caeterique regni tam spirituales, quam saeculares, principes, and the rest of the Empire, as well spiritual, as temporal Princes; They decreed 
k Krantz. loe●●▪ cit.  many things behooveful for the Empire, and among the rest, that he who is chosen of the prince's Electors, should have Imperial administration, though he want the pope's consent. For what was brought in more than election, proceeded from flattery of some, and from the pope's own suggestion, nec divino iure, nec ulla patrum ordinatione, and neither from Divine law, nor from the ordinance of their ancestors. Further, it was decreed, that the Emperor being chosen, shall make unto the Pope and the Church an oath of defence, devotion, and humility, non fidelitatis, homagii, aut subiectionis iuramentum, but not an oath of feoltie, homage, or subjection either to the Pope or Roman Church, quia temporalis dominii Papa Imperatori nihil tribuit, imò Ecclesia sumpsit omnia illa ab Imperio, for the Emperor receives no temporal dominion from the Pope, but the Pope and Church, received all their temporalities from Emperors. The decree made at Novioburgum is verbatim set down in Auentinus 
l Auent. loc. 〈◊〉.  wherein the Emperor and States, say, that john 22. commands men to break their faith, to violate their promises and covenants, to deceive, to rebel, and conspire against the Empire. He calls men Heretics, non aliam ullam ab causam, for no other cause, but for that they are loyal to the Empire. And showing how wickedly the Pope sought to usurp Imperial power, These two, say they, are fare different, a Crosiar, and a Crown, a Sceptre and a sheephook, an Emperor and a Pastor, Corporall and Spiritual power, weapons and prayers, Caesar and Servant, Prince and Prelate, Lord and Minister; adding this, that the same man should be an Emperor and a Bishop, is monstrum biceps, a two headed monster, a very Hellhound. Nay, they call the Pope thus usurping imperial dignity, not only a Cerberus, but Antichrist, and the very Devil himself.  
Lupoldus 
u Lupoldus Babenb. lib. de jur. regni & Imp. cap. 9 : The Oath which the Roman King makes to the Pope, and Roman Church, (the form whereof, is set down in their Canon 
* Dist. 63. cap. Tibi domino.  Law) is not an Oath of fidelity, that is, homagij quod praestat vassallus suo domino ratione feudi, not of homage, as a vassal makes to his Lord, by reason of some lands holden of him in fee; but it is an Oath of fidelity, that is, fidelis defensionis papae et ecclesiae impendendae of faithful defence which he aught to perform to the Pope and Church. And for proof of the former part he allegeth the saying of Hugo, that Imperator habet potestatem a solo Deo quoad temporalia, the Emperor hath his temporal power from God only, and in them is not subject to the Pope; and again, Imperator temporalia immediatè tenet a Deo, the Emperor holds his temporalities immediately from God. Whereupon he concludes, That for his Kingdom and Empire, and for the Provinces and Lands belonging thereunto, non tenet a Papa & ab Ecclesia in feudum, he doth not hold them in fee of the Pope and Church; and therefore the oath which he takes is not iuramentum homagii, an oath of homage, or vassalage. For the other part, that it is an oath of defence, he allegeth 
y Cap. eodem.  that the Emperor is Aduocatus Ecclesiae, as in their Canon law 
z Cap. venerabilem. extra de elect. & ●líct. potest. & Cap. Romani. in Clement. de jureiurando.  he is expressly called: as Charles 
a Glossa. in cap. Adrianus, distinc. 63. verb. patriciatus.  when he was made Patricius had thereby Aduocatiam Ecclesiae, the right of Aduowson, or choosing Bishops in the Church. Now Aduocatio 
b Lupold. ca cit.  Ecclesiae nihil aliud est nisi ius defendendi Ecclesiam, to be the Advocate or have the Advocation of the Church, is nothing else but to have a right to Patronise and defend the Church. Whence the Patrons of Churches are called 
c Cap. Quia clerici Extra de iure Patronatus. ubi qui ius acquirit Patronatus dicitur Aduocatiam ecclesiae acquirere.  Advocates of the same; and to this purpose he 
d Lupol. lo●. ci●.  well applies that saying in the Canon law, Regimen Ecclesiae Romanae est commissum Teutonicis, the Government of the Roman Church is committed to the german Emperor. Seeing then the Emperor is the defender, the Patron, or Advocate of the Roman Church, by right whereof he had (by the Synodall Decree of Hadrian, and Leo the eight,) and indeed still hath, power and right of Advocation, and nomination of him, which is to be Bishop of Rome; from this Lupoldus concludes, That the oath which Emperors take, and make to the Pope, is only an oath that he will defend the Pope and Church, but not to be an homager and vassal either to the Pope or Church.  
And if it be said, that some Emperors have taken the Empire in fee from the Church, to this Lupoldus answers, 
f Lib. eod. ca 14  that the facts of some Emperors, can not prejudicate the rights of the Empire, and he gives this, which is a true reason: because such Recognitions and submissions (if any were made) were not made with the consent of the Electors, of other princes, and of the people of the Empire; and therefore they may rightly contradict the same; because equity and natural reason doth teach, that quando per aliquod factum praeiudicatur pluribus, id per omnes illos comprobari debet, When any fact must be of force to prejudicate the right of others, that fact must be approved 
g Quod omnes tangit abomnibus approbari debet. Regul. jur. 29.  by them all; and this, saith he, seems to be that which both the law of nations, as also the Civil and Canon law doth teach.  
Guiliel. Occam 
h Guil. Occam. part. 1. lib. ●. cap. 9  the scholar of joh. Scotus, and Theologus 
i Auent. lib. 7. pag. 609  praestantissimus, a most excellent Divine, thus writes, The pope as he is Christ's vicar hath power to excommunicate, sed poenam maiorem nullatenus inferendi, but he hath no power to inflict any greater punishment. Again, 
k Occam. ca cit.  papa ratione papatus non est solutus legibus imperialibus, the Pope by reason of his Pontifical authority is not free from Imperial laws, but subject unto them: and again, In temporalibus licet appellare a papa, ad Imperatorem, a man may in temporal matters, appeal from the Pope, to the Emperor; yea he proves by many reasons, that in temporal matters, and for coactive punishment, the Pope is and aught to be subject to the Emperor. One, because 
l Occam. lib. eod. cap. 4.  Christ himself as he was man, was subject to the jurisdiction of the Emperor▪ seeing he professeth that Pilate had power to judge him given from God. An other, because 
m Lib. eod. ca 3  neither Peter nor any other of the Apostles had coactive or temporal power given them from Christ, as out of pope Gregory and Bernard he shows, therefore neither hath the pope who is their successor, any coactive jurisdiction ex ordinatione Christ; from Christ, or from his ordinance and appointment. His books are full of the like.  
Philotheus Achillinus 
n Phil. Achilles. in Somino V●idarij ca●. 146. & 147.  hath writ a very learned Dialogue worthy every man's reading, to this purpose. The Clerk, or Proctor for the Pope, to prove the Pope's temporal Monarchy, urgeth a text of Innocentius the third, who out of those words of Christ; Whatsoever thou shalt bind, or lose upon earth, shall be bound or loosed likewise in heaven, concludes that Peter (and so the pope) hath plenitudinem potestatis, the fullness of power, and therefore hath both Ecclesiastical and Civil. To this the author, in the name of the Soldier answereth, That if the words of Innocentius be taken in the largest sense, (as the Clerk took them) than they are flatly repugnant to an other text of Innocentius, where he saith 
o Cap. Causam. Extra. Qui fill'st sint legit. sed caput illud a nonnullis tribuitur Alexand. 3  We do observe that it pertains to the King and not to the Church, to judge of such possessions. Seeing then the pope who is the Church, or head of the Church, may not judge of temporal possessions, then hath he not the fullness of power in respect of temporal matters. Wherefore, saith he, the words of Christ, whatsoever ye bind, etc. are thus to be expounded, that Christ excepted nothing, de his quae sunt necessaria regimini fidelium, et non praeiudicant iuribus et libertatibus aliorum, Nothing which was needful for their spiritual government of the faithful, and which did not prejudicate the rights and lawful liberties of other men. But if they used their power of binding or losing in any thing which was not necessary for the spiritual government, or which took away the rights of others (of which kind he reckons the deposing of Kings, the losing subjects from their oaths of fidelity, of taking a temporal Monarchy over all, to be:) in such needless and injurious binding and losing, wherein they abuse their power, Christus non promisit potestatem Petro, Christ did not in such matters promise' to bind or lose, what the Pope did either bind or lose. Again, 
p Lib. eodem cap. 163.  The Emperor and King hath not his power from man, said a Deo solo, but from God only; as he at large and truly proves; and which is above all the rest to be remembered for our purpose, The oath, saith he, 
q Ibidem.  which Emperors make to the Pope is not an oath of homage, as if they held their Empire in fee of the Pope, but of defending the Church: even as other Kings in their Kingdoms swear, that they will faithfully defend the Church, and yet they do not for this cause hold their kingdoms in fee of the Church. Nam Imperator non tenetur iurare summo pontifici tanquam vassallus, sed è contra Papa, si vult retinere temporalia, quae sibi Imperatores dederunt, tenetur iurare tanquam vassallus Imperatori: for the Emperor is not bound to swear to the Pope as a vassal of the Pope, but quite contrary, the Pope if he will hold those temporalities which Emperors have given unto him, is bound to swear to the Emperor as one of the Emperor's vassals. His whole book abounds with the like Emblems to prove the Papal Monarchy.  
Marsilius Patavinus, 
r Mars. Patau. Defence. pacis. part. 2. cap. 4. sect. verum.  It is certain that Christ being God, could have given to the Apostles secular and coactive authority over all Princes in the world; but he neither gave it, nor did decree to give it: Christ 
s Ibid. sect. Prosequentes.  both by his words, and by his example taught all both Bishops, and others, that they aught to be subject to the coactive judgement of secular Princes. This 
t Ibid. Nec ace.  coactive power he denied to his Apostles, as well towards others, as among themselves: Unto no Bishops 
u Lib. eod. ca 5 sect. Amplius.  coactive secular power is granted lege Divina, by divine law, neither can any Bishop, not not the Pope, have coactive secular power or jurisdiction over any Priests or other, unless the same be granted unto him, per humanum legislatorem, by the secular Prince or maker of temporal laws. In whose power it is always, to recall the same jurisdiction, upon reasonable cause, cuius plena determinatio, and the full determining whether the cause be reasonable or not, is known to belong to the same secular Lawgiver or Prince.  
Michael Cesenas 
x Mic. Cesen.  besides other things which he delivered against the pride and tyranny of the Pope, as that the Pope 
y Sic eum docuisse testatur Illir. in Catal. test. lib. 18.  was Antichrist, and the Roman Church the whore of Babylon, taught, 
z Hac ex Antonino. ● 4. part. Summ. citantur. ibidem.  that the Pope non habet corrigere & punire, instituere vel destituere Imperatorem, hath no power to correct and punish, to make, or unmake the Emperor; and that neither the Pope nor other Ecclesiastical persons could punish any, punitione coactiva, by civil, temporal, or coactive punishment, unless they had power to do so from the Emperor.  
johan. de Ganduno. 
a joh. de Ganduno. in Informat. de nullitate process. joh. 22. contr. Ludovic. Bau. Imp.  The Pope though never so Catholic and lawful, non habet potestatem, nec authoritatem, aut iurisdictionem in temporalibus, hath no power nor authority, nor jurisdiction in temporal matters, specially not above the Empire, quod est immediatè a Deo, which is immediately from God.  
A great number of learned men 
b Pauperes de Lugdun. apud Christ. Massaun. li. 18. in princ.  in France (whom they contemptuously called Pauperes de Lugduno) taught, that the Emperor is not subject to the Pope, but only in spiritual matters, & neminem posse saluari qui aliter credit, and that none who believes otherwise can be saved. Can any marvel if the Pope 
c joh. 22. bulla qua damnavit Mars. & joh. de Gand. extat apud Zovium an. 1327. nu. 7. Bulla alia qua idem joh. 22. condemnavit Occam. et Mich. Cesen. extat apud eundem an. 1328. nu. 7.  condemned Occam, Marsilius, Cesenas, the Lugdunenses, and such like for Heretics? but that which was in them counted Heresy, in Austen, Jerome, Gregory, and Agatho, was the true Catholic faith.  
john Wickleif, 
d joh. Wickl. apud Th. Waldens. doct. fidei tom. 1. lib. 4. art. 3. cap. 36.  that worthy servant of God, the Hammer of the Pope and his pride, besides many other things which he reproved and condemned in the Roman Antichrist, this was one, that whereas Christ took not upon him secular Dominion, his vicar's non debent supra Christum extolli in Dominio saeculari, aught not to exalt themselves in secular Dominion above Christ: Which seeing they did, Wickleif thence among other reasons concluded, that the Roman 
e Vt liquet ex Artic. Wicklief condemn. in C●n●●l. Const. Sess. d. art. Wic. 37.  Church was Synagoga Satanae, the very Synagogue of Satan.  
Nilus Thessalonicensis 
f Nilus' Thess. lib. 2. sect. Affirmant.  having recited the twentieth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, By this, saith he, we learn that to the Pope is given Primacy before other Churches, non ab Apostolis sed a patribus, not by the Apostles, but by the Fathers, and for that the City of Rome was the Imperial City. From S. Peter he receiveth no more than other Bishops do. And whereas 
g Lib. eod. sect. Quod vero.  it is said, the Pope judgeth all, but is judged of none, this is false, saith he, and contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles; contrary also to the determination of Counsels, for Pope Honorius was judged and anathematised by the sixth Council. The Pope is subject to all laws, which other Bishops are bound to obey. How can the Pope be exempt from judgement instar tyranni, as if he were a King? Seeing Nilus both exempts Kings, and subjects the Pope to humane judgement, professing the Pope's power which he hath from Peter, to be no greater than other Bishops have, he clearly rejects and condemns the Spiritual, and a fortiori, the Pope's temporal Monarchy, as repugnant both to Divine and Humane laws.  
Barlaam 
h Barlaam. de papa princ. ca ●  follows Nilus in every step, teaching, all the other Apostles to have had parem eundemque honorem, equal and the very same power which Peter had: and that the Pope 
i Ibid. cap. 4.  or Roman See had primacy among other Bishops, neither from Christ, nor from Saint Peter, sed multis postea faeculis, but many ages after the Apostles, by the gift and benefit of the holy Fathers, and Emperors, as out of the 28. Canon of the Council at Chalcedon he declares. Again, If, saith he, 
k Ibid. cap. 3.  the Pope be the chief among Bishops, because Peter to whom he succeeds, died at Rome, and so left that See to the pope, then much more aught the Bishops of jerusalem to be accounted the chief among all Bishops, because Christ died at Jerusalem, and to Christ the Great Bishop over all, succeeds the Bishop of Jerusalem, even as the pope doth to Peter. Seeing Barlaam rejects the Spiritual, much more he doth condemn the temporal Supremacy and Monarchy in the Pope.  
Nicephorus Callistus 
l Niceph. Callistus. lib. 16. cap. 43  professedly, and with much indignation refutes that slander of Zosimus, that the Roman Empire was decayed and perished since Christianity was embraced. O, saith he, if thou wert not blinded with superstition, thou might'st see that the Christian faith hath brought much and great increase to the Empire. Sure Zosimus calumny must needs be justified, and the Roman Empire not only impaired, but quite extinct, if the Pope be admitted as a superior temporal Monarch above the Emperor.  
Matheus Westmonasteriensis, 
m Math. Wemonast. lib. 2. in Guil. Conq.  speaking of Pope Hildebrand saith, justè omnes Hildebrandum fuisse depositum conclamant tanquam laesae Maiestatis reum, all did proclaim Hildebrand to be justly deposed, as being guilty of high treason, seeing he set up another against the Emperor Henry.  
Franc. Petrarcha 
n Petrarcha, Epigram. in Romam. Delli Sonett. part. 1. Son. 108.  calls Rome Babylon a shameless strumpet, and saith also further, 
o Idem li. epist. sine titulo ep. 7.  Quicquid de Assiria, whatsoever we read of the tyranny of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egypt, what of Avernus, of the Tartarian, and sulphurean fens, is but a fable and toy, if it be compared to this Tartarus of Rome. Here is that terrible Nimrod, here is Semiramis, here is the inexorable Minos and Radamanthus, here is Cerberus universa consumens, the three headed hellhound devouring all: I have escaped out of that wicked Babylon, where all shamefastness is banished, where nothing that is good is to be found, which is the Inn of miseries and mother of errors, and he esteemed the Papal throne to be so abominable, hat he was used to say, 
p Idem. ut citatur in Catalogue. testium verit. lib. 18.  Nullum maius malum cuiquam optari posse, quam ut fiat Papa, that one could not wish a greater mischief to any, then that he might be made a Pope.  
Dantes Aligerius 
q Dant. Alig. lib. 3. de Monarch. §. Conclusit.  a learned Philosopher, and Divine, hath writ an whole book to prove, that the temporal kingdom immediatè a Deo dependet, & non ab aliquo Dei vicario: Depends immediately of God, and not on the Pope or any vicar of Christ as being derived from him; and of the Canonists who hold the contrary, he saith, that they Theologiae ac Philosophiae inscii & expertes, being ignorant of divinity and all philosophy, do detract from the imperial right. He fully refutes their objections or cavils, who teach the contrary, and for a certainty resolves thus, and most rightly, The temporal kingdom non recipit esse, nec virtutem (quae est eius authoritas) nec operationem a spiritu●li, neither receives his being, nor his virtue (that is, his authority) nor his operation from the spiritual power; but this it receives from it, ut virtuosius operetur per lumen gratiae, that it work more Christianly, being illuminated with grace, and directed by spiritual guides.  
Bartholus, 
r Bartholus ff. leg. Hostes. 'tis. de Captivis.  If any should say the Emperor is not the Lord and Monarch of the world, esset Haereticus, he should be an Heretic, because he affirms that which is against the determination of the Church, and the text of the holy Gospel. But he was unconstant in this truth, for elsewhere, (belike when he was in the Pope's territories) he taught the contrary, and is for that cause reproved by Covarrwias' 
s Covar. par. ●. Relect. sect. 9 nu. 6. pag. 505. .  
Baldus 
t Baldus in Proem. sup. ff. ●etus. n●. 8. 9 , It is a Maxim among Lawyers, quòd Imperator Romanorum in temporalibus superiorem non habet, that in Temporal matters, the Emperor hath none above him.  
Cynus 
u Cynus in L. Bene a Zenone. Cod. de Quadrien. praescrip. , As the Pope, so the Emperor hath none above him, nam a Deo solo suum recognoscit imperium, for he holds his Empire from none but from God.  
Albericus de Rosate 
x Alberic. de Rosat. in L. Bene ● Zenone. Cod. de Quad. praesc. nu. 4. fol. 109. et 110. . Hence it appears that the Papal and Imperial powers are altogether distinct, & neutram ab alia pendere, and that neither of them depends on the other, but there is one immediate spring of them both, and that is God. Again, 
Y Idem Cod in legen Gloriosissimo de summa T●init. nu. 6.  Whatsoever they say, I believe these powers are distinct, so that the one is chief in Temporal, to wit, the Emperor, the other, to wit, the Pope is chief in spiritual matters.  
johan. de Rupescissa 
Z Ioh●nn. de Rup. citatur in Catal. test. ●er. bib. 18.  was famous for Prophecies and predictions in this age. He taught, the Roman Church to be the whore of Babylon, and the Pope the Minister of Antichrist, and the Cardinals to be his false Prophets. He prophesied 
a Chron. maegnun Belgic. an. 1356  many things of Antichrist and the future Popes; and multa de suis prophetiis visa sunt evenisse, many of his prophecies seemed to be accomplished. Pope Innocent the sixth, was so ill pleased with his prophecies, that he imprisoned 
b Frossard. lib. 2 Chron. prope finem▪ cuius verba citantur in Catal. test. loc. cit.  him at Auinion: and no marvel; for one of them which is mentioned in Frossard, 
c Ibidem  who saw him in prison, toucheth the Pope and his pomp very near. It was set forth by a parable of the Bird, which being borne without feathers, all the other birds decked her with their plumes, till the bird being grown gay and gallant, not only contemned all the other birds in respect of herself, but would needs be master, and tyrannize over them all. The Birds not well brooking that pride, each of them plucked away their own feathers, and left her naked. Even so, said johannes, shall it fall out with the Roman Church, Pope, and Cardinals; The Roman and german Emperors, and other Christian Kings and Princes decked the Church with many gifts, ornaments, lands, and possessions. Silvester is not read to have gone in state, guarded with 200. or 300. Knights, but he lived soberly as other Bishops did. Constantine, and other Princes, decked the Church so long, that the Pope grew insolent, & tyrannical, & would be Lord of all: wherefore God is angry, and will yet be more incensed against those who follow; so that Kings and Nobles, who have liberally given lands, revenues and goods to the Church will not only wax cold in giving, sed etiam prius donata auferant, but will unplume the Romish jay, and by taking away their own feathers leave the whore naked and desolate, as S. john in his Divine Revelation doth for a certainty foretell. Was it not time for the pope to imprison such a Prophet, propter haeresin 
d Zovius' cont. An. Bar. an. 1357. nu. 4. , for speaking such heresies against the Roman See? And yet why should they be so stomachful against this johamnes? Did not Hildegardis some 200. years before prophesy the like? whose Epistle or prophecy is set down by Albertus Stadensis 
e Hildegardis prophetia extat integra apud Alb. Stad. post. an. 1149. p. 169 ad 178.  one living near that age; The Roman Empire 
f Hild. ibid. pa. 174.  this of the West) shall decay, and those Princes who adhered unto it, shall separate themselves from it, and be no longer subject to it; The imperial Sceptre decaying thus without hope of repairing, infula Apostolici honoris, the mitre of the Apostolic honour shall also perish: for because neither Princes, nor other men, shall find ullam religionem, any religion in the Apostolic order (that is, in Popes) dignitatem nominis illius imminuent, they shall take away the honour of the Pope, that is, as john said, unplume him: and the pope at that time by the diminishing of his honour and pristine dignity, vix sub sua infula obtinebit Romam, shall scarce have Rome and a few adjacent places under his mitre. Thus Hildegardis, and Albert. Stadensis not only much commend her, and her prophecies, saying, 
g Alb. Stad. pa. 169.  that she writ them Deo iubente, imò cogente, God commanding, yea enforcing her so to do; but that Pope Eugenius the third, also scripta eius canonizavit, hath canonised her writings, and that in the Council at Treires. Why should Hildegardis, prophesying that the Pope's pomp and pompous Monarchical State shall be ruinated, and that justly, because there is no true religion at all found in them, be canonised for a Saint, if for the very like prophecy, joh. de Rupescissa be condemned for an heretic?  
Saint Brigit 
h Brigit. lib. 1 Revelat. ca 41.  who lived and prophesied in the same 15. age, and within few years of john de Rupescissa, in her book of Revelations sets down an heavier prophecy against the Pope than he did. She makes the Creator of all things to speak thus to the Pope and his adherents: Nunc conqueror superte, Now I complain against thee, which art the head of my Church. Thou which should lose souls from sin art a killer of them. I appointed Peter to be a feeder of my sheep, but thou art a scatterer and destroyer of them: because thou art like to Lucifer, more unjust than Pilate, more cruel than judas, more abominable than the jews, therefore I do justly complain of thee. Having declared their sins, than she foretells the judgement. The Lord thus answered: I swear by God the Father, whose voice john Baptist heard in jordane; I swear by that body, which john baptised in jordan; I swear by that Spirit, which appeared in the shape of a Dove at jordane; that I will execute justice upon these. Of the Head (that is the Pope) God said, Sedes tua demergetur, thy seat shall be drowned as a heavy stone which can not stay till it come at the lowest bottom; For thy fingers, that is, thy assessors, they shall burn with sulphureous fire, which can not be quenched. Thy arms, that is, thy Vicars, shall be adjudged to that punishment which David speaks of, Psal. 109. Let his children be Orphans, etc. My simple people which are under them, shall be separated from them, and they shall inherit everlasting confusion. Et sicut per honorem & superbiam super alios ascenderunt, and as they have in dignity and pride ascended above others, so shall they descend and be drowned in the lowest pit of hell. Thy members (that is, all thy followers and favourers) shall be cut off, neither shall there any mercy come upon them, but they with their heads, being severed from all good, shall be tormented. Thus Brigit, one of their Prophets, and canonised Saints, who hath writ seven great books of such like Revelations; for the credit and authority whereof, this is prefixed in the beginning, after the proheme: Blessed be God, a quo hic liber inspiratus est immediatè, & divinitus revelatus, by whom this book is immediately inspired and revealed from heaven. Hath not the Pope now good cause to triumph in his Sovereignty and Monarchical Highness?   

CHAP. X.  
That the Pope's Temporal Monarchy is condemned by Bishops and Writers, who lived from the year 1400. unto the year 1500.  
IN the fifteenth age the Council of Pisa 
a Council Pisanun apud Bin. tom. 3. pa. 1553. , held Anno 1409. 
Ab An. 1400: ad 1500.  deposed not only Benedict the 12. who was a pseudopope, and intruder, but Gregory the 12. also, who was the true 
b Qui verus & legitimus pontifex erat. Bin. Not. in Concil. Constant. §. Concilium.  and lawful Pope, for an heretic and schismatic. They knew not belike the Pope to be the supreme judge and Monarch, who neither is nor aught to be subject to any humane judgement. And that the whole Church held their judgement herein to be lawful, doth clearly appear, for otherwise 
c Bell. lib. 1. de. Conc. ca 8.  Alexander the fift could not have been esteemed, as he was of all, the true and lawful Pope, nor could the next Alexander have called himself the sixth, but the fift▪ unless Alexander the fift, who succeeded Gregory the 12. then deposed, had been held for a lawful Pope, and no intruder.  
The Council at Constance 
d Concil. Constant. apud Bin. tom. 3. pa. 1556. , held An. 1414. did the like, it deposed not only two pseudo-popes', but john 23. also, the true 
e Communis ferme opinio fuit Alexandrun & johannem fuisse veros pontifices. Bel. loc. cit.  Pope, who for his most enormous vices (he being usually called 
f Conc. Constant. sess. 11, art. 5.  a Devil incarnate) merited that most just sentence. The same Council further decreed 
g Conc. Constant. sess. 4. , that the Pope might and aught to be censured, punished and deposed, either in case of heresy or of scandalous life, in both which cases, obedire tenetur, he is bound, and aught to obey the sentence of the Council. Further yet, this Council having excommunicated john Hus, saith 
h Ibid. Sess. 15 pa. 1600. , They must leave him to the secular power, seeing Ecclesia Dei non habet quod ultra gerere valeat, the Church hath no more nor higher punishment than excommunication, that it can inflict. Certainly that Council, and the Church in that age, thought not the Pope a temporal Monarch, nor a supreme judge, not not in Ecclesiastical, much less in secular causes, when they decreed, that he is and aught to be subject, both to the sentence, censure, and punishment of an higher judge. And it is idly said 
i Bell. lib 1. de Conc. ca 7. §. Quintum. , That this Council in this decree is not approved▪ for if the Council did not rightly in deposing those Popes, than was not Martin the fift true or lawful Pope at all: and so the Decrees made therein against Wickliff, Hus, and the Bohemians, are of no force at all, as wanting the consent of a true Pope to confirm them. If Martin was true Pope, (as with one consent they profess,) then may the true Pope be either for heresy in doctrine, or criminal offences in life, censured, punished and deposed by a Superior judge. Much more idle is that which is further said 
k Bell. loc. cit. , that the former sessions of this Council wherein this is decreed, are reprobated, because the Council of Florence hath decreed contrary to this at Constance, that a Council is not above the Pope; for by the very like reason, it may as justly be said, that the Council at Florence, & the Decree made therein, is reprobated by the other at Constance, which decreed contrary to that at Florence, That a Council is above the Pope. The erroneous decree at Florence, neither hath nor can have so much force nor authority, to reprobate or adnull the decree of Constance, as the true decree at Constance hath, and aught to have, to reprobate and adnull the decree at Florence: the consenting judgement of the Church in all former ages, gives strength and authority to the decree at Constance, none but the late upstart Hildebrandicall faction, doth countenance or maintain the Decree at Florence.  
The Council at Basil 
l Concil. Ba●●●ense sess. 33. pa. 79. & sess. 38. pa. 83.  begun An. 1431. decreeth the very same with the former at Constance, yea they decree that to be a doctrine of the Catholic Faith, such, as whosoever doth pertinaciously gainsay, is an heretic. So by the judgement of this whole Council, all the Bishops in their Florentine Synod, who denied, and that pertinaciously, the Pope to be subject to a general Council, were all heretics; and their Decree both in itself heretical, and made also by heretics. They further add 
m Epist. Synod. Conc. Basil. sess. 45. in Decreto quinque conclusionum. pa. 96.  one point of special consideration, that Nullus unquam peritorum dubitavit, None of skill and learning ever doubted, but resolutely held the Pope to be subject to the judgement of general Counsels in those things which belong unto faith. So the Council declares, the Pope never to have had Spiritual, much less Temporal Supremacy, as a Monarch over all, and this to be so evident, known, and certain a truth, that none of learning and judgement ever thought otherwise. Then by the Counsels judgement, all maintainers of the Pope's supremacy, either spiritual or temporal, that is, all the Hildebrandian faction, are unskilful persons, such as contradict the consenting voice of all learned men. That this Council of Basil, as also the decree thereof for the Counsels superiority above the Pope, was ratified, approved, and confirmed, both by Pope Eugenius, and Pope Nicholas the fift, I have at large in another Treatise touching the Council of Basil declared. For this time I will only in a word observe, that whereas they pretend 
n Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. ca 7 §. Sextum. & lib. ●. ca 17. §. Denique. , That this Council at Basil, and this Decree thereof was repealed by their Lateran Council under Leo 10: It is true that Leo did what in him and that Synod lay to repeal it; But neither 
o Decreta de fide●mmutabil●● sunt, nec pos●unt v●lo modo abrogari. Bell lib. 2. cit. ca 17. §. Denique.  are Decrees of faith, (such is 
p Est veritas fidei Catholicae. Conc. Bas. ●ss. 33.  this) repealeable, they are all immutable and irrevocable: neither was the authority of Leo, of more force to repeal the decree confirmed by Eugenius, them the decree of Eugenius, was to repeal and adnull the decree of Leo. Nay that decree of Basil, fortified by the uniform consent of the Catholic Church, and of all learned men, is able to annihilate the partial, novitious, Lateran decree of Leo, supported by none, but such as are illiterate or unskilful men, by the judgement of the Council at Basil. Lastly, it is not unknown, what the University of Paris writ of that Lateran Synod of Leo; they accounted it no other but an heretical conventicle. Leo the tenth say they 
q Appellatio Vnivers. Paris. §. Sed Romani , in quodam caetu nescimus qualiter, non tamen in spiritu Domini congregato, in a certain assembly (they thought it unworthy the name of a Synod or Council) gathered we know not how, but sure not in the name of Christ, censu●t contra fidem Catholicam, decreed that which is contrary to the Catholic faith. Can an heretical Conventicle repeal or adnull the Decree of Basil, to which the whole Catholic Church consenteth?  
The Council at Bytures 
r Concil. Bituricense, apud Gaguin. lib. 10 in Carolo. 7. pa. 226. , held An. 1438. by Charles the seaventh, the French King, made a Pragmatical sanction, and therein confirmed the Decrees of the Council at Basil in this manner. Perpetua esto, let the authority of the Council at Basill, and the stability of the Decrees made there, be perpetual, and let no man, not not the Pope himself presume at any time to take away or infringe the same.  
Aeneas Siluius 
s Aeneas Silvius lib de ortu & Author. Imperi● ca 23 , who was after Pope, saith, Imperatorem super omnes mundi homines in temporalibus Deus constituit, God hath set the Emperor above all men in the world (than sure above the Pope) for temporal matters: And again 
t Lib. eodem. ca 16. , There is none who may judge the faults of a King if he do amiss. Tolerandumest patienter, It must with patience be endured, till either his heavenly judge, or his earthly successor do amend the same.  
Petrus de Alliaco Card. of Cameracum 
n Card Cameracens. de resumpt. Concl. 1. , Although both Christ and his Vicar, as he is the head of the Church, hath a Spiritual Monarchy, non tamen Regiam temporalem, yet he hath not a temporal and Kingly Monarchy. Again 
x Idem Pet. de Aliac. lib. de Eccles. authoritate in Prooemio.  the error of the Waldenses was, that temporal dominion, is repugnant to the Pope and Eclesiastical function. The error of the Herodians was that Christ was a terrene King, whence the error of those in our times is derived, who presume to teach that the Pope, as he is Christ's Vicar, hath immediately authority, dominion, & iurisaiction in Temporal matters, and over secular Princes. The Catholic Church holds the mean betwixt these two contrary errors, and teacheth, that to the Pope as Christ's Vicar, temporal dominion is not due; against the second error: and that the Pope may have temporal dominion by the concession of secular Princes, or derivation from them; against the first error.  
Cardinal Cusanus 
y Card Cusa. nus lib. 3. de Conc. Cathol. ca 3. , speaking of Charles the great declares, what dignity by being Patricius belonged unto him; The Patricius saith he, being pater patriae, habebat curam iudicij temporalis, & praefuit in temporalibus, had the care of temporal judgement, and was the chief in temporal matters, the Pope not intermeddling in them; yea Patricius by the ancient gloss in Ca Hadrianus dist. 63. (that gloss is now, for some good reason you may be sure, wiped away and expunged) was Pater Papae in temporalibus, the father to the Pope in temporal, as the Pope is his father in spiritual matters. Again 
z Idem lib. eod. ca 41.  the Pope hath the highest ministerial care, sed non dominationis Imperium, but he hath not Imperial domination; the Pontifical and Imperial powers are both of them from God, either distinct from the other, neither depending on the other, and this was antiquorum omnium vera opinio, the true opinion of all the ancient Fathers and writers, although now it be grown doubtful by reason of the sinister desire which many have to speak pleasing things. Card. Turrecremata 
a Card. Turrecr. in Psal. 50.  saith of King David, Against thee only O God have I sinned, as against a judge, and one who haste power to punish me. Quia tu solus es superior me, because thou only art above me. Again 
b Idem in dist. 96. art. 1. , if the Pope were the Lord of all things, nihil sibi posset dari, there could nothing at all be given unto him, and so the Donations made by Emperors should be false. Now of Constantine's Donation he there adds, Donationem hanc vere potuit facere, Constantine might truly make this Donation. Card. Albanus 
c Card. Albanus lib. de donat. Constantini nu. 5. , The Popes have long time possessed those lands which Constantine gave, and they have produced, nullum alium suae possession is titulum, no other title at all, but only his Donation for their right. Then did they not, nor could they found any title to an universal temporal Monarchy from Christ: for certainly in so many hundreth years, they would have produced it. Card. Zabarell 
d Card. Zabarella lib de Schis. §. quis. , The Emperor is the Advocate, and defender of the Church, and it so much belongs to him to defend it, that if the Pope 
e Ibid. §. quarto.  be suspected of heresy, potest ab eo exigere, he may exact of the Pope a declaration of his faith. The same Card. not only holds and proves 
f Lib. eod. §. quintus. , a Council to be above the Pope: but that the Pope may be an heretic, and may for Heresy be deposed, yea and for any other notorious fault, whereby he scandalizeth the Church, if he be incorrigible, for such an one is esteemed an heretic.  
Laurentius Valla 
h Laur. Valla. lib. de Donat. Constantini. in princ. , who was both the Prince of Grammarians in his age, (that was 1420.) and Theologus praestantissimus as Tritemius 
i Tritem. lib. de script Eccles. in Laur. Valla.  calls him, a most excellent Divine, not only refutes, but derides that temporal Monarchy which Popes then claimed in the West. Rome, say they, is theirs, Sicily and Naples theirs, all Italy theirs, Spain Germany, Britain, all the West theirs; What, saith he to the Pope, will you rob all western Kings and Princes of their Crowns and kingdoms, and 'cause them to pay tribute unto you? I rather think on the contrary, iustius licere principil us spoliare te imperio omni quod obtines, that it is more just, that they should deprive you of all the Dominions you have. Again 
k Ibid. non long a fine.  let every Roman Emperor know, that (as I judge) he is truly neither Cesar nor Emperor, unless he retain the Roman Empire; and that he is perjured, unless he endeavour to recover Rome from the Pope, for Emperors in former times were not forced to take such an oath, as now they do, but they did swear that so fare as in them lay, they would not impair the Empire, but would labour to uphold, yea increase the same: This, and much more, elegantly to this purpose, doth Valla set down.  
john Hus 
l johan. Hus. in Determinat. in Acad. Prag. an. 1410. de ablat Tempor. a c●er. nu. 27. , Reges & Principes sunt capitales domini bonorum temporalium, Kings and Princes, are highest and chief Lords of temporal goods, yea, he was so resolute against the Ecclesiastical (much more against the temporal) Monarchy of the Pope, that he said 
m Art. 27. joh. Hus recitatus in Conc-Const Sess. 15. , Non est scnitilla apparentiae, there is not one spark of liklihood, that there aught to be one head in Spiritual matters to govern the Church: further he calls 
n Art. 28 joh. Hus.  such universal and supreme Bishops, capita monstrosa, monstrous heads in the Church; adding 
o Art. q. eiusdem. , that the Pope's dignity and preeminence above other Bishops a Cesar is potentia emanavit, proceeded from Emperors and from their appointment.  
Gerson 
p joh. Gerson. lib. de. Potest. Eccles. Consid. 12.  that famous Chancellor of Paris, The Papal power hath not the dominion and rights both of the heavenly, and earthly Empire, so that he may at his pleasure dispose of the goods of the Clergy, and much less of lay men: but he hath a dominion in those goods, which is directive, regulative, and ordinative, not coactive. And declaring this, he sets down two contrary errors; the one of Detraction, Which would deprive the Pope and Clergy of all dominion, and of all temporal jurisdiction, though it be conferred by Princes. The other of flattery, which saith to the Popes (as he protests some to have written, and some Popes have believed) O how great is the sublimity of your power! how incomparable to it, is secular authority! As to Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so did Christ leave eam omnem all that power to Peter and his successors; and as there is no power but of God, so is there neither any Temporal, nor Ecclesiastical power, but from the Pope, in whose thigh Christ hath written, King of kings, and Lord of Lords, and of whose power it is sacrilege to dispute. These doth Gerson condemn, as stult as, falls as, & insanas adulationes, as being foolish, false and frantic flatteries; And this is the very sum of their doctrine, of the Pope's temporal Monarchy. And then rejecting both these errors, he saith, Discretion doth hold the mean between them both, so that Clergy men are such, as may both have possessions of temporal goods against detractours, and yet have only a directive and regulative power in them, against flatterers.  
johan. Maior 
q johan. Mayor in distinc. ●4. q. 3. Concl. ●.  sets this down for a conclusion, The Pope hath not temporal dominion above Kings, and he proves it by sundry reasons; first, if he had, then should Kings be the Pope's vassals, and he might at his pleasure thrust them from their kingdoms; but this may not be granted. Secondly, the Popes themselves profess non spectare ad se iurisdictonem temporalem, that temporal jurisdiction doth not belong unto them. Again, Kings receive not their power immediately from the Pope, nec influentiam ab co ullam in temporalibus suscipiunt, neither do they receive any influence at all from him in temporal matters. For the temporal power doth not depend on the Spiritual, but they are both distinct powers, neither of them subordinate to the other, nor depending of the other, for the King is not the Pope's vassal. Again, the Pope hath two swords indeed, but the one, to wit the Spiritual he hath in act, when he excommunicates, or interdicts; the other, to wit the Secular, he hath in habit, id est potest rogare Princepes terrenos quatenus sint sibi subsidio, he may desire secular Princes to help him with that sword. Again, Though Petrus Paludamus, and Turrecremata hold the contrary, yet that which they hold, facultas nostra censuit in fide haeresin, our faculty hath censured it to be an heresy against the faith.  
jacobus Almane 
r jacob. Almain. lib. de potest. Eccles. & Laica.  hath writ a whole Book touching the Ecclesiastical and Laical power. He having declared the 
s Ibid quaest. 1 ca 6. §. Quae. ritur.  the difference betwixt having Dominion or propriety in goods, and having jurisdiction in those temporal goods, adds two conclusions fit for our purpose. The former 
t Ibid. §. Istis. , that the Pope hath not by Christ's institution, supremam potestatem Dominij in singulis hominibus, & bonis ipsorum, not supreme dominion, either over all persons, or over their goods, and to say the contrary, is as he out of Occam teacheth, multum Haereticale & perniciosum, very heretical and pernicious. His other conclusion is this 
u Ibid. §. Secunda. , The Pope hath not by Christ's institution, supremam potestatem jurisdictionis in rebus temporalibus, not the supreme power of jurisdiction in temporal matters, and that he proves out of St. Augustine. 
x Idem. lib. eod. quaest. 3. ca 8.  And after, enquiring whence the secular power of Princes doth depend, The resolution saith he ʸ, of this question is thus. Potestas iurisdictionis principium saecularum non dependet a Papa, The power of jurisdiction which secular Princes have, neither depends on the Pope, nor on the Roman Church: Nay the Pope hath no laical jurisdiction, nisi ex collatione Imperatorum & principum, but by deputation or grant from Emperors and Princes, or by prescription, (in which is a tacit grant, or consent of Princes.) His book is full of the like assertions.  
Nichol. de Clemangis 
z Nich. de Clemang lib. de corrup. stat. eccle. ca 5.  complains, That the Popes libidine dominandi, in their lust and desire of domineering, exalted themselves above Emperors, Kings, and Princes, of all Nations: that the Pope's Dominion 
a Lib. eod. ca 13. , nay their tyranny is omnibus nec iniuria supra modum invisa, detested of all, and that deservedly; To say nothing of that his Treatise 
b Nic. de Clem. de egressu ex Babylone. , wherein he proves, that we must departed out of Babylon (that they know 
c Ribera. comm. in ca 14. Apocal. nu. 44.  and profess to be Rome) not only in affection and heart, but corporally also.  
Theodorick de Niem. 
d Theod. de Nicon. lib. 3. de Schis. ca 7.  Episc. Verdensis, The Imperial power, as also the Ecclesiastical depend immediately of God; and therefore fatue & adulatory loquuntur, qui dicunt quod Papa habet duos gladios, they speak foolishly, and flatteringly, who say that the Pope and Church hath two swords, spiritual and temporal. These parasites and flatterers have bronght a very great error into the Church, which raiseth perpetual discord betwixt the Pope and the Emperor.  
Thomas Waldensis 
e Thom. Waldenf. Doctr. ●d. to. 1. lib. 2. Art. 3. ca 78.  in a whole Chapter both by reasons and by authority of father's proues, that Regal power is immedtatly from God. In praesumptione delinquunt, they offend presumptuously, saith he, who affirm that the root of secular power depends on the Pope, and that the execution of it is derived from the Pope's grant unto Princes. The temporal power of Kings is reduced to none above the King, but only to Christ; the priest and the King have under Christ impermixt as potestates, powers which are not conjoined in any one. By this it is evident quod à sacerdote non habet Rex originem, that kingly authority is not derived from the Pope. Regal power is given to the King by Christ. There are duae primae potestates, two powers (pontificial and regal) both which, are first in their own order, & neutra ab altera secundum originem, and neither of both takes his beginning from the other, but either of them in the exercise of his own power is greater than the other: And very often the like.  
William. Wideford 
f Will Wideford lib. aduer. Wiclef. art. 16.  writing against Wickliff, brings in john and Paul, speaking thus to julian the Emperor, We do you no wrong, nor do set any man above you in Dominion, but we set God above you who created heaven and earth.  
Dionysius Carthusianus 
g Dionis. Carth. in 4. Psal. penitent.  speaking of David, saith, seeing he was a King, non habuit iudicem superiorem in terra, he had no superior judge upon earth that could punish him.  
Platina 
h Platina. in Bonif. 8.  liked not well of that Papal Monarnarchy, when reproving Boniface the eight, usurping that authority, he saith, he did rather terrify Emperors, Kings, Princes, and Nations, than put religion into them, quique dare Regna & auferre. who sought at his pleasure to give and take away Kingdoms; And inveighing against the vices of his time, specially in the Popes, he saith 
i Idem. in vita Marcellini. , What shall become of our age wherein vices are grown to that height, ut vix apud deum misericordiae locum nobis reliquerint, that they have scarce left any place for God to be merciful: and among other sins he reckons the Covetousness, ambition, pomp, and pride of their Clergy, especially corum qui rerum potiuntur, that is of the Popes: adding, that there was little regard of Religion, that it was rather feigned then true, and their manners so corrupt and detestable, as if inde laudem quaererent, they sought for praise by the vileness of their sins.  
Wernerus 
l Wernerus in fascic. temp. an. 1294.  saith of Boniface the eight, He did ultra modum beyond measure, advance himself to that arrogancy, ut Dominum totius mundi se diceret tam in temporalibus quam inspiritualibus, that he called himself the Lord of the world, as well in temporal as in spiritual matters; This is he of whom it is said, He entered like a Fox, reigned like a Lion, and died like a Dog.  
johannes Auentinus 
m john. Auen. lib. 5. Annal. pa. 470.  speaking of Pope Hildebrand, saith, falsi tum Prophetae, false Prophets, false Apostles, false Priests did then arise, who deceived the people with a sergeant Religion, and who began to exalt themselves in the Temple of God, above all that is honoured, and whiles they endeavour to establish their own power and Dominion, they quench Christian charity and simplicity. Sigebert, a Writer of those times, omnis divini humanique iuris consultissimus: a man most skilful both in divine and humane Laws, writeth thus, (and Auentinus approves his writing therein.) A most pernicious sedition, and let me say it with the leave of the godly, a most pestilent heresy, than assailed the Christian people; They are bold to teach not only that men aught not to obey such Governors as are placed by God over them, verum etiam fraud, vi, quovis modo tollendos, but that such are to be murdered or taken away either by fraud or violence, or by any means: Perjuries, murders, civil wars, perfidiousness, these they call piety. They absolve from obedience, those who are tied to the Emperor by the sacred band and oath of religion, those who are faith-breakers, truce-breakers, violators of oaths, they persuade such not to be perjured. Again 
n Idem. lib. eod. pa. 447. , The holy Fathers did what Christ taught, what the Apostles both taught and performed, they honoured Emperors, ut in terris à Deo secundos, & ante omnes mortales primos, as the next unto God here upon earth, and as the chiefest among all mortal men, calling them their Lords; they denied not tribute unto them. But Hildebrand boasteth, that both the Pontifical and Imperial authority is given unto him by GOD, he takes both powers upon him, he despiseth Emperors and Kings, ut precario regnantes, as ruling only at his pleasure and william. Thus and much more Auentinus.  
Gagninus 
o Rob. Gagnin. lib. ●. invita Philip. Pulch●i. , of Boniface 8. writeth; Thus died Boniface, the despiser of all men, Qui Christi praeceptorum minime recordatus, who not remembering the precepts of Christ, sought at his pleasure to give and take away Kingdoms, whereas he was not ignorant, that he was his Vicar, cuius regnum non esset de hoc mundo, whose kingdom was not terrene, nor of this world.  
Petrus Ferrariensis 
r Pet Ferrariens. in forma libel. in Action Confess. pro●seru. tit, 30. gloss. ●. §. Plenam. , you see that the Pope (who should follow the footsteps of Christ) doth endeavour to possess and hold by armed hand jurisdiction in lands, Cities, villages, and places which naturally, and from the beginning of the world, and by the ordinance of Christ, belong to the Empire, according to that, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's: Nay the Pope endeavours to have superiority above the Emperor, Quod ridiculum est dicere, & abominabile audire, which to say is ridiculous, and to hear is abominable. For naturally, and from the beginning of the world, not only Laikes, but Clerks, Erant sub potestate & iurisdictione Imperij, were under the power and jurisdiction of the Empire: Bene ergo et sancte faceret ipse Papa, wherefore the Pope should do well and religiously, if he did remit the whole Temporal jurisdiction into the hands of the Emperor: neither without so doing will the Commonweal, and specially Italy ever be at quiet, and by this means both Pope, Cardinals, and the whole state of the Clergy, should live more devoutly, and be more grateful and acceptable both to God and men. Thus Petrus.  
George Hiemburge 
s Georg. de Hiemburg. in admonit. de injust. usurpat, paparum.  at large refutes this usurped Papal Monarchy, (so he calls it) answering their vain pretences for the same, and having to this purpose alleged the testimony of Christ, of S. Paul, of Hierom, Origen, chrysostom, Basil, and Bernard, by this, saith he 
t Ibid. §. Ex quibus. , it appears, fabulam & figmentum esse, that it is a mere fable and figment which is written in the Pope's Decretals, that the Pope hath the fullness of power given him by Christ, and such a Dominion that he is above Kings and Princes in temporal matters. Again 
u Ibid. §. Quibus. , by these now it doth appear more clear than light, that Christ gave no temporal power at all unto Priests, much less did he give the fullness mundanae & temporalis potestatis, of terrene and secular power: nay it doth clearly appear that this (supreme and independent) power is both by Christ's words and example, forbidden to the Apostles and their successors.  
Antonius Rosellus 
x Ant. rossel. lib. de Monarch. part. 1. ca 38.  proves, that the Pope is utterly uncapable of Monarchical and Temporal Sovereignty, whereof having given diverse reasons, from hence, saith he, I do conclude, haereticum & insanum esse, dicere quod universalis administratio temporalium sit vel esse possit apud pontificem, that to say the Pope either hath or can have the universal jurisdiction and administration of temporal affairs, is Heretical, and a madness.   

CHAP. XI.  
That the Pope's temporal Monarchy is condemned by Bishops and learned writers living from the year 1500. unto 1620.  
IN the sixteeneth age, 
Ab An. 1500. ad 1620.  when julius the second, non tam 
a Chron. Citiz. Paul. Lang. an. 1513.  claviger quam armiger, one that used Paul's sword more than Peter's keys, sought partly by force, partly by fraud to take Ferraria from the French, Lewis the eleventh then King of France, calling certain Cardinals unto him, summoned a Council 
b Conc. Pisan. de quo. Nich. Basel in contin. Naucl. an. 1511 Generale Concilium Pisis indixerunt. Rex generalem conventum indicendum curavit. Onuph. in vit. jul. 2.  to Pisa Anno 1511, cited Pope julius ad causam 
c Onuph. loc. cit.  dicendum, to answer and pled for himself in the Council. A demonstration they held not him for their supreme Monarch. The Pope 
d Nic. Basel. loc. cit.  exhorted the French King not to take part with the Cardinals, but he, nihil horum advertens not regarding a whit the Pope's admonitions, continued his resolution against the Pope; julius excommunicated him, which caused him to make war against the Pope, wherein the Pope was forced to flee to Ostia, and was fain both to sue 
e Papa omnem operam dedit ut pacem cum Francorum rege feceret. Onuph loc. cit.  for a reconcilement at the French Kings hand and to appoint a Council at Rome in the Lateran of purpose 
f Quo Pisanum Conciliabulum tolleret, Romae Concilium in dixit. Onuph. Ibid.  to divert and avoid the danger of the Council at Pisa.  
Anno 1561. was held an assembly at Paris 
g Parisiens Conuentus. Thuan. hist tom. 2. lib. 28. pa. 41 & Bochel. lib. 5. tit. 3. ca 6.  against john Tanquerell, who held that the Pope was both a spiritual and temporal Monarch, and that Princes who rebel against the Pope's precepts, are to be deprived of their Kingdoms and Dignities. It was there decreed by the whole assembly, that Tanquerell should be punished, and because he was absent, that the Beadle in his name should openly declare that Tanquerell was sorry for moving that question, which he acknowledged to have been handled both rashly and inconsiderately; and that for this cause he did most humbly beseech the King to pardon his offence. And further it was decreed, that no Divines should handle (much less defend) such questions, and positions as was this of Tanquerell; of which the King himself said, It tended to sedition, and to weaken that loyalty of lawful obedience which is due to the King. This Decree ten days after was put in execution, where before some fifty Divines, Petrus Gustus in the name of Tanquerell retracted, errorem à Bonifacio 8. invectum et post eius mortem passim damnatum, that error brought in by Boniface the eight, and every where after his death condemned.  
Another assembly 
h Paris. Convent. apud Bochel lib. 5. tit. 4 ca 8 pa. 134 & 755.  of the French State, was held at Paris, anno 1595. against one Florentinus jacobus, and Thomas Blancius, their positions were, that seeing Pope Clement the eight was Christ's vicegerent in earth, there was no doubt, but both Temporal and Spiritual power was from the Pope. And again, that the Pope had the power of both swords, Spiritual and Temporal: It was declared by the assembly, That these positions were false, Schismatical, contrary to the word of GOD, to the holy Decrees, Constitutions, Canons and Laws of the Realm, such as tended to rebellion, and troubling of the peace of the Kingdom.  
In another assembly at Paris 
i Paris. Convent. apud Bochel. lib. 5. tit. 20. ca 45. , anno 1595. Cardinal de Pelleve, and other Prelates rejected certain Decrees of the Trent Council; for whereas the Pope and his Trent faction had said 
k Conc. Trid. sess. 25. de Reform. cap. 19 , that if any Emperor, King, Duke, marquis, or other temporal Lord, should grant any place within his territories, for Duel, by so doing they are to be ipso facto excommunicated, and deprived of their jurisdiction and dominion over that City, town, castle, or place, wherein they permitted Duel, the assembly of those Prelates thus censure that Trent Decree. This Trent Article is contrary to the authority of the King, who cannot be deprived of his temporal dominion, respectu cuius nullum omnino superiorem recognoscit, in respect of which he acknowledgeth none at all (among mortal men) to be his superior.  
When Leo the tenth his Lateran assembly, had as much as in them lay, adnulled the Pragmatical Sanction made in the Council at Bytures, wherein the Decrees made in the Council at Basill were confirmed, the University of Paris, 
l Vniuers Parisien in Appellat à Conc. later. sub Leone. 10. , an. 1517. not only appealed from the Pope; thereby professing him not to be the supreme judge, not not in spiritual, (much less in temporal) causes, but expressly said of that Lateran Synod, that it was an heretical assembly, and had decreed that which was contrary to the Catholic faith, as before we declared.  
The French Church 
m Gallicana Eules. , (I mean those in that Kingdom who embrace their present Romish faith) were so far from acknowledging the Pope's Sovereignty in temporal, that they would not admit it so much as in spiritual matters. This opinion, saith that worthy relatour 
n Relation of State and Religion in the West parts. pa. 129. ; (that a general Council is above the Pope) is very currant and strong even among such Catholics in France, as favour the Papacy. Others hold their Roman Church to be a true Church, but for the Pope, they hold resolutely that he is Antichrist. This sort spreadeth fare, and as themselves will say, is of the learned sort. How did they accounted him their Sovereign, who not long since in the days of Henry the fourth. When 
o Ibid. pa. 1ST  the Pope made scruple to bless the King, they were ready to withdraw themselues utterly from the obedience of that See, and to erect a new Patriarch of their own; The Archbishop of Burges was ready to accept that dignity, and it had been effected, but that the Pope, in fear thereof, did hasten his Benediction. How again, did that Church acknowledge the Pope for a Monarch, when they would not accept nor allow of his Laws made in the Conncell at Trent. The King 
p Innoc. Gentilet. in exam. Conc. Trid. Sess. 12. pa. 96, 97. & joh. Sleid. Com. lib. 22. pa. 33●.  not only in contempt, calling it Conuentum, and not Concilium, at which the Trent Assembly stormed not a little, but professing also, se suosque subditos, that he and his subjects would by no means be bound to obey the same: others of the same French Church were so averse from those Trent decrees, even until these days, that but of late 
q jac. Gaulter in sua Chron. Soec. 17. sub tit Concil. in fine. , anno 1614 some of the Prelates and Peers, entreated this present King Lewis the 13. that he would command, that Ecumenical Council per totum regnum recipi, ac promulgari, to be received in his whole Kingdom: But the love which that French Church 
r Basiliensis concilij authoritas, & constantia decretorum eius perpetua esto, etc. Sanct. pragm. in Conc. Bitur. de quo supra.  beareth to the Council at Basil, and their own pragmatical sanction made at Bytures, may persuade that this jesuitical motion, will hardly ever there take effect, although Gualther 
s Loc. cit.  boasts of the great success it found in that year.  
Further yet how was the Pope's Monarchy there acknowledged, when 
t Decret. Parliament. recitatur apud Gold in Replic. pro Imp. ca 9 pa. 81. 82  anno 1610. the doctrine and Book of Card. Bellarmine, written against Barclay, (in which Bellarmine defends that the Pope may excommunicate and depose Princes) was so detested by that State, that in their public assembly they did prohibit and forbidden any, and that under the pain of high treason, either to keep or receive, or print or cell that book continentem falsum ac detestabile dogma, containing that false and detestable doctrine, tending to the subversion of the highest Magistrates, to rebellion against Princes, to the withdrawing of due obedience in subjects: They command further, and under the punishment also of high treason, Ne quis Doctor, Professor, that no Doctor, Professor, or any other, should writ or teach directly, or indirectly the same doctrine of the Pope's temporal power; to wit, that he hath power to excommunicate and depose Kings, to give or take away their Kingdoms. And though it were true (which is all that Gretzer 
u Gretz. lib. 1. cont. Replic. ca 11. §. Etiam.  could hereunto oppose) that the present King Lewis, at the solicitation of the Pope's Nuncio, stayed the publishing of that Edict for a time, yet the very Decree of their whole State and Senate, demonstrates that which we intent and prove, that this pestilent doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, was abhorred and detested by that whole State.  
Besides these, how many Synods 
x Synodi Eccles fiarum reformas tarum.  held by those of the reformed Churches in this age, might be produced? diverse at Worms 
y Vide joh. Funct. & Christ Heluic. in suis Chron. & joh. Sleid. comm de statu Relig. , at Augusta, at Spire, at Norimburg, at Ratisbone, at Frankford, at many other places in all which the Pope's supremacy not only Temporal, but Ecclesiastical also, was condemned. Of them all I will mention but one Decree, of that late Nationall Synod at Gape 
z Decretum à Nationali Synodo Eccle. Gallic. celebrata Gapinci, an. 1603.  in France, which is this, Whereas the Bishop of Rome, having erected a Monarchy in the Christian Church, doth challenge and arrogate unto himself principality over all Churches, and treadeth vnder●foote the lawful authority of Magistrates, giving, taking away, and translating Kingdoms, we do steadfastly believe, and constantly affirm him (the Bishop of Rome) esse verumillum et Germanum Antichristum, to be that true and great Antichrist, and son of perdition.  
To these may be added the confessions of many reformed Churches 
a Confessiones Reform. Eccles. vid. Harmon. Confessionum ; of Auspurge presented to Charles the fift, an. 1530. of Basil, an. 1532. of Helvetia, an. 1536. of Saxony, an. 1551. written to be presented to the Council at Trent, of Wittenberg, an. 1552. presented to their Council at Trent, of France, a 1559. presented to Charles the ninth; of England, an. 1562. of Belgia, anno 1566. of Bohemia, an. 1573. of Scotland, an 1581. and others; in all which with one harmony is condemned their Papal Monarchy, and that even in Ecclesiastical, much more in Temporal causes.  
What an infinite number of Witnesses in this last age might be produced out of the reformed Churches 
y Pretestantium scripta. , Luther, Melancthon, Brentius, Bucer, Caluine, Musculus, B. jewel, B. Horn, B. Bilson, and those three Reverend and most learned Bishops now living, B. Andrew's, B. Buckridge, B. Morton: Dr. Rainolds, Dr. Whitakers, & a million of other learned and godly Bishops, Pastors, and Writers of the Church, who not only reject, but have by unanswerable reasons refuted that Papal Monarchy, which they now claim. And though to these most worthy servants of Christ, the writers of their present Roman Church in this age, are neither for learning, nor piety, in any sort to be compared, yet omitting all these, I will allege chiefly the testimonies of some of their own and best learned writers in this age, most of them such as are extremely partial on the Pope's side, and earnest in his cause, that themselves giving testimony to that truth which we maintain, and like Midianites, sheathing their swords in the bowels one of another, this Temporal Monarchy of the Pope like the head of Goliath, may be cut off, though by the hands of David, yet with the Philistines own swords.  
It was no good token, that either Pope Hadrian the sixth, or Marcellus 2. 
z Marcellus 2. , liked well of their Monarchical Sovereignty, when the former 
a Plat. in vit. Hadriani 6.  caused this to be written on his tomb; That he esteemed nothing to have been more unhappy unto him, then that he did Imperare; and the other 
b Plat. in vit Marcelli. 2.  sitting at dinner on a time, and there remembering that speech of Hadrian, smiting his hand on the table, broke out into this saying: Non video quomodo qui locum hunc altissimum tenent, saluari possunt, I see not how any Pope can be saved. The well meaning Pope, it seems, was conscious of some exceeding usurpation, transgression, or injustice, general to all later Popes; (and what else should that be, but their usurped Sovereignty) when he grew to such a general despair of the salvation of them all.  
Card. Caietane 
c Card. Caietan. In Opusc. to. 1. Tract. 3. ca 7. , under the power of Peter it is comprehended, that he rules over Kings and Princes in order to the kingdom of heaven, nee enim huiusmodi Imperium aliud est, quam aperire & claudere regnum coelorum, for this power which the Pope hath, is nothing else, but to open or shut the kingdom of heaven; then hath he no Temporal Monarchy; and this to be the judgement of Caietane, Bellarmine 
d Bell. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca ●. ubi. citat Caietan. in Apol. ca 13.  and Franc. de Victorra 
e Franc. à Victor. Relect. 1. de potest ceel. sec. 6. nu. 8. ubi cit at Caiet. in Apol. ca 6.  assure us. Caietane teacheth, that in the Pope there is no mere temporal power.  
Ambrose Catharinus 
f Amb. Cathac. in cap. 13. ad Rom. , There are some, who either in flattery, or in too great simplicity, affirm the Pope to have Dominationem e●iam temporalem totius orbis terrae, the Temporal Dominion of the whole world. Verum ridicula haec profecto, But truly thus to say is ridiculous. And he sets down diverse reasons to disprove that ridiculous assertion. One, because if it were so, then there should none be truly Kings in the world but only the Pope. Another, because Christ himself refused to be a Temporal King, when the jews would have made him one: and he answered, to one of the brothers who requested him to divide the inheritance, who made me a judge, or a divider between you? Of which words Catharinus thus saith; Hic locus videtur cogere ut fateamur, This place seems even to enforce us to confess, that secular jurisdiction was not given unto him. Again, we do not deny that the Pope hath dominion of tempor all things, but this we say, that such dominion is not given to him as Pope, nor immediately by Christ, sed illud habet quasi unus quilibet hominum, but he hath it as any other man, unto whom by humane right such power befalls. Again, In this, that the Pope is Christ Vicar, there is no force to prove, that power is given to him, ad regendum omnia regna mundi in temporalibus, to rule all kingdoms in temporal affairs. Nay this doth rather persuade, that such power is not given unto the Pope, seeing Christ whose Vicar he is, refused that honour, and took it not upon him, as he was man, but was himself subject to secular powers.  
Domin. Soto 
g Dom. Soto. 〈◊〉 4. Sentu. dist. 25. q. 2. art. 1. concl. 3. , The excellency of the Ecclesiastical powers above the Civil, is not of this sort, that the Pope should be Lord over the whole world in temporal matters, And he gives diverse reasons hereof; one, Christ left to his Vicar no other power, but what himself as man had, nullum autem Regnum temporale accepit, but Christ received no Temporal Kingdom. Another, Pope Innocentius, in the Chap. per venerabilem, qui fill. sint legit. confesseth ingenuously that he hath not power in temporal matters in the kingdom of France, and, quicquid alij somniant, whatsoever others dream, he understands this, de omnibus regnis, of all Kingdoms.  
joh. Driedo 
h joh. Driede, de libert. Christ. lib. 1. pa. 145. 146. , This is to be known, that Christ when he set Peter over the whole Church, giving him jurisdiction over all the members thereof, non simul dedit ei imperium temporale super universam Ecclesiam, did not with all give him any Temporal Dominion or Monarchy over the whole Church: For he did not take from Kings and Emperors their Empires, neither was it his will or intent, that all Regal power should be derived from the power of Peter, or from the Pope. Neither do Christian Princes and Kings hold their Kingdoms and Empires in fee from the Pope. Whence he concludes this to be manifest, That the Imperial power of one man over the whole Church, non est divini iuris, aut naturalis, is neither from the law of God, nor nature, seeing neither natural reason, doth dictate, that one should be a Temporal Lord over all, neither doth the Law of God command it.  
Andradius 
i Andradius defence. Trid. fid. lib 2. pa. ●04.  commends very highly that saying of Aquinas, Prudentissime docuit, Thomas taught most wisely, That secular Princes are not bound by laws in respect of coaction, but of direction That is, paenis cogi non posse, they cannot be compelled by punishments due to transgressors. And the same Andradius adds 
k Ibid. pa. ●●3 , That all learned men, yea even the Popes themselves, Innocentius and Hadrian approve this saying of Thomas: Then by the judgement of Andradius, all learned men, and Popes themselves teach, the Pope not not be a superior Lord, or Temporal Monarch to Kings and Princes; for if they were, they might inflict temporal punishments, and use coactive authority over them.  
Claud. Espenseus 
l Clau. Espenseus. Com. in cap. 3. epist. ad Titum. Digress. 10. , the Apostle following both the example and doctrine of Christ, commanded believers to be subject to temporal powers; But some turbulent persons making a controversy betwixt the Priesthood and kingdom, have raised great troubles; Chrysostom long after the Apostles, and many hundreth of years, antehan● camerinam, before this sink was set open, never suspecting that any such thing would happen, taught, that every soul must be subject, whether he be an Apostle, an Evangelist, a Prophet, or a Bishop; Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, and all the Greeks follow chrysostom. Gregory the Great ingenuously acknowledged, that the Emperor aught, Dominari, to rule over Priests. Bernard teacheth the same: yea Popes themselves in their Decrees, fatentur se imperatoribus subiectos esse, confess that they are subject to Emperors. Gregory 
m Idem comm in epist. ad Ti●met●. D●gress lib. 2. cap. 6.  the seventh called Hildebrand by a new schism first of all, lifted up his Pontifical lance against the Imperial diadem.  
Krantzius 
n Aib. Krantz. Saxo●. lib. 8. ca 36.  speaking of Hildebrand, triumphing gloriously in his two swords, at the time of the great jubilee, which he first instituted, with indignation thereat, saith, Behold O Peter, thy successor, and thou O Christ, behold thy Vicar, Vide quo ascendit superbia serui seruorum tuorum, See whither the pride of the servant of thy servants is ascended.  
job. Nauclerus 
o joh. Naucl. ad an. 1085.  handling, but very timerously, this question about the Pope's Temporal Monarchy, in the end resolves as Gerson did, That both Detraction is to be shunned, whereby all temporal power and possessions are denied to the Pope: and also Adulation; whereby one ascribes so much to the Pope, as if all kingdoms did depend on him, which he with Gerson calls, slultas & falls as adulationis insantas; moderate discretion keeps the mean betwixt these two: Again, Videntur per emnia culpandi, those Bishops seem altogether to be worthy of blame, who would smite the Kings with that temporal sword, quem ipsi ex regum habent gratia, which they have from the permission of Kings.  
Georgius Cassander 
p Georgy. 〈◊〉. Consultat. Art. 7. Cap. Cap. 〈◊〉. Pontif. Rom. pa. 58. , this Controversy about the Pope's supremacy in spiritual matters, had never, as I think, risen among us, but that Pope's hac authoritate ad dominationis quandam speciem abusi, abusing this authority to a kind of domination, had exceeded the bounds prescribed by Christ. This abuse of their Pontificial power, which flatterers have beyond all measure increased, gave occasion of revolting from the Church, and of disliking that power, which they obtained by the universal consent of the Church. Again 
q Ibid. Artic. 16. de Magistratu. , this aught to be held without all doubt, that the power and authority of Christian Kings and Emperors, is no way less nor inferior to the authority which the Kings of Israel had in their Commonwealth. Now Carerius, 
r Alex. Car. lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. ca 18. nu. 14. , and others, who are most violent for the Pope's Temporal Monarchy, profess, That in the time of the Law, the Kings of Israel were superior to Priests, and had power and jurisdiction above them: might punish and deprive them of their spiritual offices and dignities; yea, even kill them as any other lay persons, if they were transgressors. The King 
s Lib. eod. ca 1. nu. 6.  was then the substantive, and the Priesthood the adjective. Then by Cassander's judgement, it is also now and aught for ever so to be.  
Sixtus Senensis 
t Sixt. Senensis Bibl. sanct. lib. 6. Annot. 72. , disputing this point, resolves it out of Turrecremata. lib. 2. Cap. 113. in this manner. An universal temporal power is two-fould: the one is Monarchical, the other Pastoral: The Monarchical power is that whereby one is made a Monarch and supreme Lord of all persons & lands in the world, so that he may advance whom he will to Kingdoms, Empires, and Dukedoms, and depose whom & when he will: This Monarchical power the Pope hath not, saith Turrecremata; and to him Sixtus subscribes, and he gives this reason, because Christ hath forbidden this to his Apostles; for when they did strive, saith he, de Monarchia temporalis regni, which of them should be a Temporal Monarch, Christ answered, the Kings of the Gentiles reign, but with you it shall not be so. Pastoral power in temporal matters in such, as the Occumenicall Pastor may use for the better administration of the spiritual blessings in the Church, This the Pope may have, saith Sixtus, but he may not take upon him Monarchical domination; that is forbidden by Christ.  
Hosius 
y Stan. Hosius contra Brent. proleg lib. 5. §. Quartum.  calls Kings the heads of their kingdoms, adding, that Christ being the principal head, governeth by those who are ministerial heads under him, by Princes and Emperors he governs kingdoms; by the Pope, the Church, and unto Christ as the head of the Church, so the head of the kingdom is subject.  
Francis. à Victoria 
z Franc. a Victor. Relect. 1. de potest. eccle. sect. 2. nu. 7. , The Apostles had power and authority in the Church, ea autem non fuit civilis, but it was not any civil power, seeing neither their kingdom, nor power was of this world. Again 
a Ibid. sect. 6. nu. 5. , Temporal power doth not depend on the Pope, the Pope gives no power to Kings and Princes, for no man gives that which he hath not: Again 
b Ibid. nu. 4. , the Civil power is not subject to the Pope's temporal power, or to the Pope, tanquam Domino temporali, as to a Temporal Lord. Whence it followeth 
c Ibid. nu. 5.  manifestly, that the Pope hath no ordinary power to judge of the causes of Princes, of rights of dominion, or title of kingdoms, neither may one appeal to him in temporal causes. Further yet, In 
d Ibid nu 8. & Relect. 5. sect. 2. nu. 3.  Papa nulla est potestas mere temporalis, there is no mere temporal power at all in the Pope; neither 
e Idem Rel. 1. sect. 2. nu. 9  doth the temporal power depend on the spiritual, as an inferior art depends on his superior, as the art of making bridles depends on horsemanship, and the art of making weapons, on the Military skill. All these and much more doth Victoria prove.  
Albert●s Pighius 
f 〈◊〉. Pighi. Controu 16. § Quod Christum pa. 254. , That they say, Christum spiritualem tantum potestatem Apostolis dedisse, etiam nobis placet, that Christ gave only Ecclesiastical power to his Apostles, I like it well, and say the same. Pighius reacheth, saith Bellarmine 
g Bell. lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. c●▪ 1. §. Tertia. , that the Pope directly hath no Temporal Dominion.  
Duarenus 
h Duarenus. lib. 1. de sacr. eccle. minist. ca 4. , Bishops have not ius gladij & imperium, the right of the sword, nor an Empire: This belongs to civil Magistrates, as Christ clearly witnesseth when he said, My kingdom is not of this world: and entreating of the Decree of Clement 5. that all Kings depend on the Roman church, This constitution, saith he 
i Ibid. , did so far displease Cynus Pistoriensis, that he feared not to say, this text proceeded ex Pontificiorum errore, out of the error of those who took part with the Pope: adding, that most Lawyers are of the same opinion; and that Bartholus in saying otherwise, speaks rather dicis causa, then ex animo.  
Michael Coccinius 
i Mich. Coccin, lib. de transl. Imperij. , Imperator Imperium tenet à Deo, the Emperor holds his Empire from God, and not from the Pope, and speaking of the translating of the Empire; The Pope, saith he, doth in no other sort transfer it from one to another, quam Imperium transferentibus consentiendo, but by consenting to others who transfer it, or by declaring that it aught to be transferred; but the translation hath his force and efficacy, not from him, but from the consent of the people.  
Hier. Balbus 
k Hier. Balbus. lib. de Coro. nat. pa. 18. & seq. , Episcopus Gurcensis, sets down many and unanswerable reasons, ex quibus, saith he, planè convincitur, by which it is clearly convinced, that neither the Pope nor the Emperor do one depend on the other, sed utrumque à solo Deo manare, but that both of them spring from one and the same fountain, and that is God; even as 
l Ibid. pa. 21.  Moses and Aaron did either of them receive their power from God: and for this opinion, pugnant 
m Ibid pa. 18▪  omnes fere Caesarei iur is interprete, almost all the civil Lawyers do fight, Bartholus, Albericus, and others; yea, diverse also of the Canonists, especially Pope Innocentius in Cap. licet ex suscept. de foro compet, and Pope john. Ca Si Imperatori. dist. 96, and Archidiac. dist. 96. ca Duo sunt. The same also is taught, saith he 
n Ibid▪ pa. 2● & 18. , by Petrus de Ancona and Thomas Aquinas lib. de reg. princip. who saith, that there are two mystical bodies of Christ, the one spiritual, in which the Pope is chief; the other temporal, in which the Emperor is chief: and Christ being the head, influit primario, doth immediately give the influence of power and dignity to either: and then for the full resolution of the matter, and lest 
o Ibid. pa. 64. & seq.  any should hereafter err in this, wherein the dignity and majesty of the Empire consists, he sets down verbatim the Constitution of Lewis of Bavare, which was made, as he saith, omni ambiguitate mature discussa, every ambiguity being maturely and exactly discussed by Bishops: one part of which Decree is this that the Imperial dignity and power, à solo Deo dependet, depends only of God, and that it is a pestiferous doctrine by which the Devil hath raised strife and sedition, to say that the Imperial dignity or power is of the Pope.  
Onuphrius 
b Onuphrius in vita Greg. 7.  speaking of the ancient Popes, saith, They were honoured as heads of the Christian Religion, and as Christ's Vicars, but their authority extended no further, then to doctrines of faith, and they were subject to Emperors, and did all things at their command: they were created by them, to judge of Emperors they durst not. Gregory the seventh first of all, and besides the custom of his Ancestors, contemning the Imperial authority and power, was bold to deprive the Emperor of his kingdom. A thing not heard of before that age; for those things which are reported of Arcadius, Anastasius, and Leo Iconomachus are but fables.  
Papirius Massonus 
c Papir. Masson. in vita Bonif. 8 , utterly dislikes the fact of Boniface the eight, in claiming the supremacy as well in temporal as in spiritual matters, he cities and commends the words of Petrarch, wherein he saith, that Boniface like jupiter Olympus, fulminabat de terris, thundered in the earth with threats and menacing Edicts: he calls Boniface Tyrannum Sacerdotum, a tyrant of Bishops; and in the end admonisheth Popes, not to make Kings their enemies, for let not Popes think that God hath made them froenos regibus, to be as bridles to Kings, to kerb them as they list like unruly Horses, let them admonish, let them pray, to threaten to terrify, to make wars, Episcopos non decent, do not beseem Bishops.  
Sir Thomas Moor 
d Sir Thomas Moor in exposit. passionis. de amputata Malchi aurie. , That which Christ commanded Peter, Put thy sword into thy scabbard, is as if he had said, neither will I be defended with this sword, and I have chosen thee into that place, ut non tali gladio te pugnare velim, sed gladio verbi Dei, that I will not have thee to fight with such a a sword, but with the sword of God's word, Let the material sword be put up into his place, put it into the hands of secular Princes, you that are my Apostles, have another sword to use.  
Steph. Gardiner 
e Steph Gard. lib de vera obedien.  writ a book, de vera obedientia, wherein he fully and substantially refutes the Pope's supremacy, and that even in Ecclesiastical causes, proving that the sword of the Church extends no further, but to teaching and excommunication, and that the Sovereignty of government, as well in Ecclesiastical as in Temporal causes, belongs to Princes. This also he confirmed by his sacred oath 
f juramenti forma extat in Acts and Monuments in Hen. 8. pa. 964 . I Steph. Gardiner do promise and swear to you Henry my Lord, King of England and France, atque in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae immediate sub Christo supremo Capiti, and the supreme head of the Church of England, next and immediately under Christ, that I shall not give, or cause to be given to any foreign Potentate, Prince, or Prelate, not not to the Bishop of Rome any oath or feolti●, directly or indirectly▪ but shall perform faith, truth, and obedience to your royal Majesty, as to my supreme Lord, neither shall I consent that the Bishop of Rome shall have or exercise here any authority or jurisdiction. Further, I do profess that the Papacy of Rome is not ordained of God, and that the Pope is not to be called supreme, nor universal Bishop, and much more to the like purpose. To all this he swore, subscribed, and set his hand and Seal, an. 1534.  
To this book De vera obedienda, Edmund Bonner 
g Ed●. Bonner praefat. ad lib. Gardineri.  B. of London prefixed a Preface, wherein among other words tending to the approbation of that Book, he saith of the Pope, That he is a ravening Wolf dressed in sheep's clothing; he calls him jupiter of Olympus, which falsely hath arrogated to himself an absolute power without controlment; that he stirred up other Kings and Princes traitorously against the King; that it is no new thing to be against the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome; that the Pope's supremacy is falsely pretended; that the book of Gard. will well content those who favour the truth and hate the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and his Satanical fraudulent falsehood. Besides the same Bonner did take the very like oath as Gardiner had done, subscribing to it, and confirming it, both by his hand and Seal.  
The like oath for acknowledgement of the King's Sovereignty not only in Temporal but in Ecclesiastical Causes, and condemning the Pope's usurpation in them both, was taken by joh. Stokesley 
h joh Stockesley & alij, eorum jurament. ex●at in Act & Monum. loc. ●it. pa. 965. , Bishop of London, Edward Le, Archbishop of York, Cuthbard Tunstall, B. of Durham, and many more.  
The University of Cambridge 
i Academic. Cantabridg. eius literae extant. ibid. pa. 965. , though then addicted to Popish Religion, having debated and discussed this point, resolved in this manner, We affirm it as a conclusion undoubted, that the Bishop of Rome hath no more authority and jurisdiction given him by God in the Scriptures, over this Realm of England, than any other extern Bishop hath: and that is none at all.  
Card. Poole 
k Card Poole lib. de summo Pontif. ca 23. , By these words it is showed, that Christ's Kingdom was spiritual and celestial; his Church is not Regnum huius mundi, no kingdom of this world, but of heaven: This Kingdom Christ hath left to St. Peter, and his Successors; And though he call 
l Ibid. cap. 29.  it Imperium totius orbis, an Empire of the whole world, yet he plainly shows 
m Ibid ca 24. in fine.  that he means not that it is any Temporal Empire, Such as takes away others Empires and Kingdoms, but a Spiritual, such as by spiritual direction corroborates, and confirms them all, by drawing them unto faith and piety.  
Card. Alane 
n Card. Alanus in Resp ad perseq Angl. ca 3. pa. 319. , one of their learnedest, and most eager maintainers of the Pope's supremacy in spiritual matters, sets this down as a rule; Quilibet princeps, summus est suorum, etiam Episcoporum gubernator, Every Prince is the Supreme Governor, even of his Bishops, but not in all causes: he means in Temporal, but not in Spiritual. Again 
o Ibid ca 5. in Princ. , Princes quoad regnum suum & civilem gubernationem nullos superiores agnoscunt, do hold none to be their Superiors, in respect of their Kingdoms and civil government: and he every where insists on this.  
The Divines of Rheims 
p Rhemists Testam. in Math. 22. annot. 3.  allege and approve that saying of Hosius, and call them godly words, Neither is it lawful for us (Bishops) to hold an Empire in earth, neither h●st thou O Emperor, power over incense and sacred things.  
Stapleton 
q though Stapleton in hjs Counterblast. lib. 1. diuis. 5. pa. 29. , It is true that the Prince is supreme Governor of all persons, as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal: And again 
r Idem, Doctrine. Princ. lib. 5. ca 18. , alleging and allowing that saying of Constantine, You are Bishops within and I without the Church; he thus expounds them, you do praesse, are chief in Ecclesiastical causes (to wit, for deciding of doubts of faith in them) I in secular affairs, and for ordering them.  
Nich. Sanders 
s Nich. Sanders de Vis. Monar. lib. 2. cap. 4. § Quapropter. , There are two powers in the Church, una tantum spiritualis cuiusmodi est illa ministrorum, the former is only spiritual, and such is the power of Bishops: the other is mixed, being originally secular, but in respect of the end spiritual, such is the power of Kings. Again 
t Ibid. §. Non tantum. , we do not say that all Kingdoms and Dominions are in all things subject to the Church by divine law: then certainly is not the Pope the Temporal Monarch over them all.  
Vega 
u Didac. Vega super 4. penitent. conc. 2. , We must here say as generally do the Fathers of the Church, Hierom, Austen, Ambrose, chrysostom, and Cassidore, that David said this, because being a King, nemini nisi Deo subdebatur, he was subject to none but to God, He was bound by no humane laws: for a King, though he be subject to humane laws, in respect of direction, yet not in respect of coaction.  
Pererius 
y Pererius come. in cap. 13. ad Rom. disp. 1.  the jesuite, saith of that precept of St. Paul, Let every soul be subject to the higher power; That it is meant only of secular power: and every soul, that is every man (is not the Pope one?) aught to be subject to those secular powers, in those things which they may lawfully command.  
Bishop Canus 
z Mele. Canus, loc. Theol. lib. 6. cap 6. §. Aliud.  approves the profession of faith made by Pope Agatho, subscribed unto and allowed by the sixth Council. Now in that profession the Pope with all the Western Bishops, most clearly acknowledge 
a Act 4 Concil. gen. 6.  the Emperor to be their Lord, and themselves his servants, their City and Province, his servile City, and servile Province. An evidence that neither Agatho, nor the sixth Council, nor Canus, (nor any who approve that Council) thought the Pope a Temporal Monarch above the Emperor.  
Corn. jansenius 
b Cor jansenius Conc. Euang▪ ca 66. in illa verba, & tibi dabo claves, etc. , Although Peter's power be in earth, yet Christ said not that he would give him the keys of the kingdom of earth, but of the kingdom of heaven▪ that Peter might know, suam potestatem extendi tantum ad spiritualia, that his power did extend only to spiritual matters, which belong to the kingdom of heaven, and not to temporal things, but only as they are referred to spiritual.  
Franc. Costerus 
c Fran. Costern. Euchir ca 3. propos. 3.  the jesuite, Christ by his coming did not change the Political administration or government, but left it unto Princes, and commanded to give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.  
jacobus de Valentia 
d jac. de Valent. in Psal. 50.  entreating of David, saith, that he offended only to God, Quia nullum alium superiorem habebat, because he had none but God above him, And being a King, he could be punished by none other.  
Lorinus 
b Lorinus in Psal. 50.  the jesuite, God only is able to punish the sin of him that was a King, nee superiorem haberet, and who had none but God Superior unto him. Again, whereas Cassiodore saith, that the King is punishable only by God, Turrecremata observes, that this is not because the seculare Magistrate, is with us more worthy than the Ecclesiastical, but because Rex in suo ordine non habet superiorem, the King in his own Order (of secular Governors) hath none above him.  
Hector Pintus 
c Hector Pintus in Ezech. ca 45. , In spiritual matters Bishops are above Kings, but in secular matters, Reges non subijciuntur sacerdotibus, Kings are not subject to Bishops; Again, Habent Reges in temporalibus superiorem neminem, Kings have none above them in secular matters.  
Thom. Harding 
d Tho. Harding. confut. of the Apology. part. 6. cap. 12. §. It was. , The King's place is chief among the lay, even when they are in the Church at the service of God; and without the Church in all temporal things and causes, he is over the Priests themselves.  
james Bosgrave 
e jac. Bosgrave eius scriptum manu ipsius confignatum apud nos extat. Torture. Tort●. pa. 24. , a jesuite, and with them an holy Confeffour and Martyr 
f Nomina myrtyrum, Campianus, Bosgravius. Concertat. Eccle. cathol. part. 2. pa. 60. ; I profess before God, that I do think, and am in conscience persuaded, that the Pope nec de facto, nec de iure, neither hath, nor aught to have power to lose the subjects of any Prince from their fidelity.  
john Rishton 
g joh. Rishton. 〈◊〉. in Tort. Torti. pa. 24. , another of their Confessors also, made the like profession; adding further, as Bosgrave and john Hart also did, That 
g Ibib. p. 227▪  they would not revolt from the Queen, nor forsake their obedience to her, though the Pope himself should come with forces against her. The like profession was made by Henry Horton 
h Henry Horton ibid.  another of their holy Martyrs 
i Concert. eccle. cathol. loc. citat. .  
john Hart 
k john Hart. Epist. sua ante colloq. cum Ranoldo.  another of their Confessors, I think that although the spiritual power be more excellent than the temporal, yet they are both of God, neither doth the one depend on the other. Whereupon I gather this certain conclusion, that the opinion of them who hold the Pope to be a temporal Lord over Kings and Princes, is unreasonable, and unprofitable altogether.  
Dureus 
l Dureus confut. respons. Whitak. fol. 321.  the jesuite, approves that saying of Bernard, Both Swords are the Churches, but the material is to be used for the Church, the spiritual by the Church. Now it is as clear as the Sun, that Saint Bernard denied temporal Monarchical authority to all Bishops, and particularly to the Pope.  
Adam Blackuodeus 
m Adam Blackued. lib de coniunct. Relig & Imperij. , If Kings offend, God only, and no man is to be their judge. Again 
n Ibid. , they are set in the place of God, to rule and restrain others, not that they should be restrained a quoquam, by any; then sure not by the Pope, for Kings rule their subjects, but over Kings themselves, Solius est Imperium jovis, God only is a ruler of them.  
Guil. Barclay, 
o Guilford Barclaius lib. 4. contra Monarchom. cap 4 in●t.  If Kings offend they are to be judged by God only, for they are subject only to God; which I mean of temporal judgement & subjection. Again 
p Idem lib. de potest. Papae cap. 1. §. Est. , speaking of Thomas Bozius, who stiffly holds the Pope to be a Temporal Monarch of the World, he calls him, Parasitum Papalem, the Pope's Parasite, his opinion he calls it delirium 
q Deliriorum Bozij. ibid. §. Huius. , a very dotage: and whereas Card. Hostiensis is of the same opinion, he saith 
r Ibid. ; That opinion of Hostiensis, à Theologis, firmissima ratione est damnata, is condemned by Divines, & that by a strong reason. He adds 
s Ibidem.  of the same opinion of Bozius, and Hostiensis, that it is Putida opinio quae sol●s ineptijs, & captiunculis suffulta est, a putrid opinion, which is supported only by foolery and sophistry. Yea, he proceeds further, and condemns 
t Ibid. §. Mihi  both the direct and indirect power, claimed to the Pope in Temporal matters; proving 
u Per totum librum.  that the Pope neither directly nor indirectly & in order to the spiritual good, hath any power to excommunicate or depose Kings, or to absolve subjects from their oaths.  
Ninianus Wincetus 
x Nin. Winked. lib cont. But canan. pa. 180.  This is the true divinity of the Prophet, that a King, though he be never so wicked, Dei iudicio relinquendus est, it is to be left to God's judgement. Skulkenius 
y Skulken. Apol. pro Bell. contra Widd●ing. cap. 3. pa. 78.  confesseth, that thus much is meant by Wincetus, That the King hath no political or temporal power above him, to judge or punish him.  
Pet. Pitheus 
z Pet Pitheus lib de libert. Eccle. Gallic. , in his book published by the authority of the French Court, saith, the liberty of France relies on two Maxims, quas Francia semper ut certas approbavit, which France hath ever approved as certain. The one is this, that the Pope cannot command or decree aught either in general or in particular, quod attinet ad res temporales, concerning any temporal matters within the kingdom of France.  
jacob. Leschesserius 
a jac. Leschesser apud Bochel. lib. 4. tit. 21. ca 1.  sets down this as the foundation whereon the liberties of the French Church are built, that neither Pope, nor the whole Clergy ius habet de ulla re temporali statuendi, hath any right to decree aught in temporal matters, multo minus de ullo regno, much less of any Empire or supreme kingdom.  
Of late years there was a memorable controversy betwixt the Pope and the Venetians 
b Respub. Veta , the Pope pretended their Laws 
c Verba Legati Pontif. in Consid. P. M. Pauli. §. Quae aperta. pa. 95.  to be contrary to the liberty of the Church; and therefore to be nullas & invalidas, to be no laws, nor of any force: And he commanded the State, under the censure of excommunication, to revoke and adnull the same laws. Did they regard these thundering threats, excommunications, or Interdicts? Did they harken to his command, or yield obedience to this their Monarch? Not, they constantly persisted in defence of their laws, and plainly told 
d Respons. Senatus Venet. lib. eod. pa. 95.  him, That the revoking of those laws, which for so long time had been continued, was the eversion of the foundation of their State; that they were made summi Principis authoritate, by the authority of the supreme Prince; (by this they meant their own State) and they conclude, that they were subject to no censure; yea they proclaimed 
e Tract. d● Interdicto. propos. 16.  the Pope's excommunications and Interdicts against them to be an abuse of his power, to be such as that the person or State who hath not Principem superiorem, a Superior Prince unto it (such they esteem themselves) may and aught to resist, by all means granted by God. So in defence of their own Sovereignty, they demonstrated to the eyes of the whole world, the Pope not to be a Monarch, not not in Italy, nor in his next neighbour Cities, much less over all Kingdoms and Empires upon earth.  
Anto. Quirinus 
f Ant▪ Qu●rinus dissertat. de ●ure Reip. Venet. pa. 61.  in defence of the Venetian State, writes thus; Christ did not diminish the rights of Empires, Cities and Princes, but he confirmed the same, yea, he would not in any sort meddle in that, quod res mundanas & temporales spectat, not with temporal causes. Again 
g Ibid. , It is most evident, that the Venetian Commonwealth is as a free Prince, qui à nemine pendet ex natura sui principatus, which by the very nature of Principality, depends on none: Again 
h Ibid. pa. 62. , This Venetian Commonwealth doth profess Dominium suum à solo Deo habere quod ipsis est ius fundamentale, that it hath their dominion from God only, and this is the very fundamental law of their State; and to this subscribed Antonius Rebetti, Michael Angelu, and many others both Divines and Lawyers.  
Friar Paul 
i Fr. Paulns. Consid. sup. Censur. Pauli ●.  in the same quarrel writes in this manner, The Venetian State potestatem sibi à Deo datam, exerciseth that power which is given unto them by God, even from the beginning of their State unto this time: And what power that is, he declares, calling it antiquam & absolutam veri sui Imperij libertatem, the ancient and absolute, (and therefore not depending on the Pope) liberty of their true Empire.  
Card. Bellarmine 
k Card. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. ca 2. & seq.  at large handleth this Argument, concerning which he sets down 
l ja. Gretz in sua defence. lib. 5. Bellar de Rom. Pontif.  three assertions, and proves them all. First, that the Pope is not Lord of the whole world: secondly, that he is not Lord of the Christian world: thirdly, that the Pope iure divino, by any right from Christ, is not Lord of any Province or Town, Nullamque habet iurisdictionem mere temporalem, and hath no jurisdiction merely temporal. Yea Bellarmine answers and refutes, and that very sound all those reasons which are brought to prove that Christ had any such temporal dominion.  
Gretzer 
l ja. Gretz in sua defence. lib. 5. Bellar de Rom. Pontif.  not only defends Bellarmine herein, but refutes 
m Gretz. ibid. defence. ca 4. & 5.  the whole dispute of Alex. Carerius, for the Pope's temporal Monarchy against Bellarmine, and shows how weak, feeble, and unjust that Anathema 
n Ibid. §. Sed en.  is which Carerius denounced against Bellarmine, for denying that temporal Monarchy to the Pope.  
Skulkenius 
o Adulph. Skulchen. Apol. pro Bellar. contra Widdring. pa. 70.  saith of Anto. Rossellus, Omnino nobiscum sentit, he is altogether in this matter of our mind; For he teacheth, that the Pope as Pope hath not the direct dominion of temporal things, & non esse universalem totius orbis Monarcham, and that he is not the universal Monarch of the world. Again, speaking of those words of Otho Frising. Reges nullum praeter deum supra le habent, Kings have none above them but God, Otho, saith he 
p Ibid. pa. 78. , meant this de superiori politico sive temporali, of a Political or Temporal Monarch, such an one Kings have not above them. Again 
q Ibid. pa. 108 , The height of Emperors and Kings hath not any temporal power superior to them. In this sense, Independens est à potestate superiore temporali, it doth not depend on a superior power, but hath his immediate dependence on God.  
Breirley 
r Breireley Apolog. protest. in Praef. sect. 20. , in his Apology for the Roman faith, taken out of diverse wrested and miserably perverted testimonies of Protestants; and by him called the Protestant Apology, saith, They exceed measure who load the supreme Pastor of the Church, with incompetent attributes of Temporal authority, and of the principality of the whole world.  
Rob. Parsons 
s Rob. Persons Treatis of Mitigat. ca 2. nu. 29. , that jesuitical Polypragmon in all States, Whereas they say, that we Catholics, ascribe Monarchical, civil power and Sovereignty over Kings unto the Pope: this of civil Sovereignty, is a mere fiction and calumniation, for we ascribe no such power unto the Pope over Princes, or their subjects, but that Sovereignty only which belongs to the spiritual head, which is only spiritual, and for spiritual ends. Again 
t Idem, in his answer to Sir Edw. Coke. ca 2. nu. 31. , Though Kings and Emperors he Supreme in Temporal authority, yet in Spiritual, Bishops are more eminent than they.  
George Blackwell 
u Georg Blackwell epist. ad Bellar. Fateor me illud iuramentum sustepisse.  their Archpriest, having by solemn oath professed, That the Pope neither of himself, nor by any authory of the Church or See of Rome, hath any power or authority to depose Kings, afterwards not only maintained the same assertion, but in more express manner explained the same: of the opinion of the Canonists, that the Pope is directly the Lord of the whole world in temporalibus, he saith 
x Large Examine of Geor Blackwell. pa. 35. ; That as he swore, so he doth constantly affirm, that he holdeth the opinion concerning the Pope's direct Dominion in Temporalibus, to be untrue: that 
y Ibid pa. 55. 56. & seq.  the Pope is not Lord of the whole world; nor yet of the Christian world; that he hath no Temporal dominion of any one place iure divino. After this he professeth 
z Ibid. pa. 70. 71.  further, That as the Pope hath no direct Dominion in Temporalibus, so neither hath he indirectly, and in reference to spiritual ends, authority to depose Princes, to absolve subjects, or the like: and that Card. Bellarmine's reasons, to prove this indirect power in Temporalibus, are weak 
a Ibid. pa. 65. 66. , and insufficient. In sum, that his 
b Ibid. pa. 79.  judgement is, that the Pope's spiritual authority extends no further, then to the censures of the Church properly so called, and that the Pope hath no authority in Temporalibus, either directly or indirectly to depose Kings.  
Temporal things, saith Suares 
c Suares disput. 16. de Excomm. maior. sect. 1. , do fall but indirectly under the power of the Spiritual, that is, in order to a spiritual end.  
Navarre 
d Navarre Relect cap. Novit. de judic. not. 3. pa. 196. , Ecclesiastical power shall extend itself so fare, as the order of things supernatural doth require, and no further.  
The Catholic Author 
e Le Franc. discourse pa 14.  of the Frank discourse, entreating of this, which he calls a jesuitical position, That the Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings, to free subjects from their oaths of Allegiance, to deprive them of their Sceptres and Crowns, calls it in express terms a pestilent and pernicious doctrine, flatly 
f Ibid. pa 16.  repugnant to the World and will of God, adding, This 
g Pa. 18.  hath ever been the judgement of the Church of France, to excommunicate all those that avouch these and such assertions, as Authors of a barbarous and most accursed doctrine, which begets a world of murders, and a sea of ahhomination.  
Another of their Catholics 
h Jesuits Catechism lib. 3. c●. 17. §. For.  in his Jesuits Catechism, We hold it for an Article firm and indubitate, that our King is not subject to the Pope's excommunication; And he not only often inveigheth against that jesuitical doctrine of excommunicating and deposing Kings, but saith 
i Lib eod. ca 9 in Titulo. , That it is an heresy, to approve the kill of Princes, though they be Heretics.  
Permulti alij Angli Catholici 
k English Catholics ut testatur Widdring. in Apol. Princ. contr. Bell. nu. 3. , very many English Catholics, do profess that it is not sufficiently proved, either by testimony of Scripture, or Apostolical tradition, or by authority of the holy Fathers, or by Theological reason, summum Pontificem ullum prorsus habere ex Christi institutione rerum temporalium dominum, that the Pope hath any dominion at all in Temporal matters granted him from Christ, so that he may either directly or indirectly, that is in respect of the spirival good, depose Princes.  
Mart. Becanus a jesuite, published anno 1612. a book entitled Controversia Anglicana, wherein he hath these assertions, Catholics 
l Becan. controu. Anglic. cap. 3. q. 2. nu. 1  do affirm, and that rightly, that the Pope who may excommunicate Kings, may also depose them: having cited many examples of Kings deposed by Popes, he saith 
m Cap. eod. q. 3. nu 14. , What those Popes did, they did by right, and they had power and authority to depose Kings. The 
n Ibid. nu. 17.  usual way of deposing Kings, is to absolve subjects à debito vinculo subiectionis, from their due bond of subjection, and this the Pope may lawfully do: and many the like. Of these and like assertions of Becanus, the Faculty of Paris 
o Censura Facult. Paris. de lib. Becani. pa. 15.  gives this censure, that he falsely ascribeth to Catholics, the defending of new errors and crimes, that he brings in dangerous schisms, depraves the Scriptures, spoils Temporal Lords of their rights, makes the kill of Princes which is execrable, to be thought lawful. They 
p Ibid.  call this book of Becanus, Pestilentissimum librum, a most pestilent book: the doctrine contained therein, pestilentem doctrinam 
q Ibid. pa. 17▪ , pestilent doctrine, which robs Princes of their supreme power, and stirs up subjects to rebellion and parricide. johan. Filesacke a Doctor of that Faculty professeth 
r Ibid. pa. 15.  after he had read that book, alium à se pestilentiorem nunquam visum, that he never saw a more pestilent book. Georg. Erogerius 
s Censura Frogerii. de lib. Becani. ibid. pa. 23. 24.  one of the Sorbonist Doctors, saith, He could not choose, but be exceedingly incensed against Becanus, dirum et pessime feriatum hominum, that wicked and execrable man, he could not but reject, yea proculcare trample under his feet, his maniacall, and demoniacal book, and oppose the sacred scripture, adversus istam pestilentissimam, furiosissimamque Becani buccam, against that most pestilent and furious doctrine of Becanus. Claudius' Aquaviua 
t Censura Claud. Aqua●●iu. de lib. Becan. ibid. pa. 22. , provost General of the Jesuits, censures the selfsame book, as written rashly, as being disallowed by the society of the Jesuits. Besides these, Card. Bellarmine 
u Censur. Card. Bell●rmini de libro Becani. ibid. pa. 10. , (whose very doctrine, and no other, Becanus defends) yea Pope Paulus the fift 
x Censura Pauli 5. de lib. Becan. ibid.  himself, whose authority is therein maintained, they both censure that book as containing many false, timerarious, scandalous, and seditious matters, and they utterly prohibited it to be read, or so much as kept by any, until it be corrected.  
And to allege no more, (for it were even an endless and irksome work to cite all, they being in number so infinite) I will conclude with that testimony of Bellarmine 
y Bellar. l. b. 5. de Rom. Pont. ca 1.  This, that the Pope as Pope hath not directly and immediately any Temporal power, but only spiritual, est Catholicorum Theologorum 
z Catholioi Theologi.  communis sententia, it is the common judgement of Catholic Divines.  
Thus we see, that this Temporal Monarchical Sovereignty now claimed for the Pope, hath been by Apostles, Counsels, Popes, Fathers, Bishops, and learned Writers; yea even by the most earnest Romanists, and chief pillars of their present Church, with an uniform consent oppugned and condemned in all successive ages of the Church, even from the days of Christ unto this very present time.   

CHAP. XII.  
That the Pope's Temporal Monarchy is condemned by Emperors, Kings, and Imperial States in the several ages of the Church.  
AFter Counsels, Fathers, Bishops, and learned Writers in all ages of the Church, by which as you have seen the Pope's temporal Monarchy hath been condemned, there remains in the last place one consideration touching Kings and Emperors, of whom they pretend 
a Vt supra ostensum est. ca 1. , that they not only have acknowledged this Monarchical Sovereignty, but in token thereof, have subjected themselves, and yielded up their Kingdoms to the Pope. How to this purpose Steuchus and Gretzer have published many Writings, Grants, and Donations of several Kings and Kingdoms, I have before entreated. To both these I must here adjoin a Vatican Manuscript of one Nicholas Card. of Arragonia, from whom both Steuchus and Gretzer borrowed, and with much ease exscribed those very Gifts and Grants which they so venditate to the world. This Nicholas, being as earnest for the Pope's Temporal Monarchy, as either Bozius, or Scioppius, tells us, that Popes 
b Nichol. Card de Art. M. s. fol. 61.  as Christ's Vicars having the fullness of power, utrumque gladium possunt ad libitum exercere, may at their pleasure exercise either sword, Excommunicate, and depose Kings and Emperors. And that both de iure and de facto diverss worthy Popes have exercised this power, he shows 
c Ibid. fol. 61. & seq.  by an whole Catalogue of Emperors and Kings, no fewer than 28. deposed by them. For the further advancing of this Papal Temporal Monarchy, the same Nicholas, hath, and that as he tells 
d Ibid. in Tit. lib.  us, with great labour and industry, compiled out of divers Registries and Chronicles, those same (and many other) writings and grants made to the Popes, of Rome, Italy, Spain, France, England, Denmark, Hungary, Russia, Croatia, Bohemia, and diverse others, which for the most part in the books of Steuchus & Gretzer are to be seen. Nor can either the name of Nicholas, or the Manuscript left by him, add credit or countenance to those Grants and writings. What worth and credit he and his Records are of, it may be perceived by his commending of the Charter 
e Ibid. fol. 46. & seq.  of Constautines Donation, and diverse such like; but I will only here mention two of his passages, by which you may conjecture his verity in the rest. The former is, That 
f Idem fol. 88  when Constantine builded the Church of our Saviour in the Lateran (that was as he elsewhere 
g Ibid. fol. 46.  saith, The fourth day after he was baptised by Silvester) he placed in that Church, the Ark of the Testament, which Titus carried away from jerusalem, the golden Emerods', the golden Mice, the tables of the Testament, the rod of Aaron, the golden pot, with Manna, the seemlesse coat of Christ, the vestment of john Baptist, the shears wherewith john the Evangelist was polled. Rare monuments, able to 'cause long pilgrimages and devout adoration, if the Roman Bishops have kept till these days those Deposita. The other is the prophecy of Romulus touching Christ. Nicholas entreating of the Palaces in Rome, (he reckons 16.) In the Palace of Romulus, who builded Rome, Romulus, saith he 
g Ibid. fol. 74. , set up his own statue made of gold, saying, Non cadet donec Virgo pariet, This my statue shall not fall till a Virgin bring forth a child. And as soon as ever the Virgin Mary had brought forth Christ, statue illa corruit, saith Nicholas, that statue fell down to the ground. Such rare and admirable Records and Monuments hath Nicholas compiled, and out of him Steuchus and Gretzer published; which though in themselves they might justly be contemned, yet because the Popes and their flatterers applaud and please themselves with such toys and fancies, let us see how weak they are to support that Monarchical Sovereignty, which they build on such sandy foundations; and I nothing doubt to make it evident, that by none of all their pretences, none of those most renowned and glorious Empires ever were, or ever will be brought under the yoke of subjection to the Pope's Temporal Monarchy.  
Here first in general for all kingdoms it may be rightly said, that the admitting of this one Universal Temporal Monarchy of the Pope, is the utter ruinating, adnulling and annihilating of all other kingdoms in the world. Scioppius truly saith 
b Sciop. in 540 Ecclesiast. ca 46. pa. 15●. , This one kingdom, tollit omnia alia regna mundi, doth abolish all other temporal kingdoms. And to the like purpose Amb. Catharinus 
c Amb. Catarrh. in cap. 13. ad Rom. §. Verum. , If the Pope be the temporal Monarch of the whole world, nulli ergo vere terrarum Domini essent in temporalibus, sed solus Pontifex, then should none else be truly Temporal Kings here upon earth, but only the Pope. For seeing Sovereignty (which as I have formerly proved, is the very essence of Regal authority) should then be in the Pope alone, he alone and none else should truly be King: All others should be but Viceroys, Deputies, or Lieutenants under him, subject to him, as their supreme Lord both for their persons & possessions. So this very position of the Pope's Universal temporal Dominion above all Kings, implies an evident and unavoidable contradiction to itself. For if the Pope be such a Monarch, there can be no other Kings to acknowledge this Papal Monarchy. And if there be any other Kings to acknowledge this, even eo nomine, for that they are Kings, they do directly deny and overthrew his Monarchical Sovereignty.  
But if you please to descend to particulars, it will clearly appear, that the acknowledgement of this Papal Monarchy is neither so general, nor so true as they pretend and boast. Let us begin with the most Christian King, and his Kingdom of France; for which there are so many evidences easy to be produced, that by it alone the pretended Temporal Monarchy of the Pope is undeniably refuted. Of it joh. Maior 
d joh. Mayor in 4. Sentent. dist. 24. q. 3. Concl. 3.  saith, The Pope hath nullum titulum, no title at all in temporal matters in the Kingdom of France. The French King, saith joh. Igneus 
c joh. Igneus Repet. in le. Donationes. nu. 28. , Non recognoscit superiorem in temporalibus, doth not acknowledge any to be his superior in Temporal matters. Guil. Benedictus speaking of the French State, saith 
d Guilford Bened. in repet. cap. Rai●u●ij Decil. 2. 〈◊〉. 27. 28. , If one do appeal, it must be to the King, not to the Pope, for seeing he is an Emperor in his kingdom, and the Empire is notory quoad temporalia à superioritate Papae exemptum, notoriously known for Temporal matters to be exempted from the superiority of the Pope, there is no appeal from the King, seeing the kingdom of France is none of those which are held in fee from the Pope. Aegidius Romanus writes very 
e Aegid. Rom quaest. de utraque Potestat. artic. 5.  fully to this purpose, The French King à solo Deo immediate tenet & possidet Regnum suum, non ab homine quoquam, holds immediately his kingdom from God only, & not from any man. He holds it not of the Pope, neither as he is a man, neither as he is the Vicar of Christ. And if you reply, that though he do not de facto acknowledge any Superior, yet de jure, he aught so to do. Respondemus quod non, we answer (saith he,) that the jure he aught not. The French 
f Lib. eod. art. 4.  King is not subject to the Pope, nec ei tenetur● respondere, neither aught to answer him for the Fee of his kingdom. The French King, saith Cassaneus 
g Cassan. Catal. glor mundi part. 5. consid. 24 nu. 179. , acknowledgeth no Superior; He 
h Idem. part. 5. cons. 31. §. 1  in his kingdom, like the Emperor solus in temporalibus praeesse debet, alone aught to be Supreme in Temporal matters. Again 
i Ibid. §. 2. , Although Boniface the eight by his Constitution sent to Philip the fair, declared the kingdom of France to be subject to the Pope in temporal matters, yet Clement the fift his successor, eam constitutionem revocavit, revoked that Constitution made by Boniface, as it is evident in the Extrau● cap. Meruit. I omit many other like evident testimonies, the rather because I have often before touched this point; and that one express Confession, yea Decree of Pope Innocentius is so clear, that there needeth no further proof in this matter. The French King, saith he 
k Cap. Per Venerabilem, extr. qui fill. sint Legi●. , superiorem in Temporalibus minime recognoscit, doth acknowledge none to be his superior in Temporal affairs. Of which words Cassaneus thus 
l Cassan lib. cit. Cons. 28. §. Ex quo etiam.  writeth, I find it determined by the Popes, that the French King acknowledgeth none to be his superior in temporail matters, ca Per Venerabilem: which text loquitur de jure, et non de facto, speaks not of the fact, but of the right, because the Pope (in his Decrees) namquam loquitur in facto sed in iure tantum, never declares what is done, but what in right aught to be done. And though it were easy by very many examples of the dealings of the French Kings with the Pope to confirm this truth, some of which I have before expressed, yet I will mention at this time no more, but that one of Philip the fair. He to the letters of Boniface the eight, signifying to him, that he was subject to the Pope, both in temporal and spiritual matters, returned an answer to Boniface in this manner 
m Li●erae Philippi apud Nichol. Gillium in Phil. pulch. : Sciat tua maxima fatuitas, Let your great foolishness understand and know, that in temporal matters we are subject to none, and those who think otherwise (one of the chief of which was the Pope) dementes et fatuos reputamus, we accounted mad men and fools.  
For the Catholic King, and his kingdoms of Spain, how directly repugnant to this Papal Monarchy are those clear and evident Testimonies of their best learned writers of that Nation? That of Cardinal Turrecremata 
n Turrecrem. in Sum. de Eccles li. 2. c. 113. , The Pope by reason of the Papacy hath no direct power in temporal matters, extra principatum suum ecclesiasticum, out of his own Ecclesiastical principality: no part of which is the kingdom of Spain. That of Franc. à Victoria 
o Fr. à Victor Relect 1. de potest. Eccles sec. 6. nu. 8. , There is no direct temporal power at all in the Pope: then certainly no Monarchical sovereignty in Spain. Whereof he gives a true reason, because there is no power in the Pope, which is directed to a temporal end: and such is that power which is merely temporal. That of Dom. Soto 
p D●m. Soto. in 4. sent. dist. 25. q 2. art. 1. concl. 5. , Every King (than doubtless the King of Spain) is in his own kingdom the supreme judge for temporal matters. That of Did. Covarrwias' ʳ a Lawyer and Bishop also, 
q Did. Covar. Pract. quaest. ca 4. nu. 2.  Semper mansit apud Regem ipsum suprema iurisdictio, Supreme jurisdiction remained ever in the King of Spain himself. And this he proves besides other reasons, by a pragmatical sanction of Ferdinand and Elizabeth, a. 1502. That of john de la Puente, their late and famous Chronicler, whose scope is to show the conveniency of a double Catholic Monarchy. 
s juan de la Pu●nt. de la conueniencia de las does Mo●arquias Catholicas'. Cit lib●i▪  The one of which only, (to wit the Spiritual) to belong to the Pope, whom he compares to the Greater light, ut praesit urbi & orbi: The other (to wit the Temporal) to belong to him, whom he compares to the lesser light, ut subdatur urbi & dominetur orbi, the very frontispiece of his book doth make most evident. To these Spanish writers of best note, may be added that of john Maior 
s joh Maior. in dist. 24 q. 3. §. Tertia conclusio. , The Pope nullum habet titulum super regem Hispaniarum in temporalibus, hath no title or authority over the king of Spain in temporal matters: And that of Cassancus 
t Cass●n. in Cacal glot. mundi part. 5. Consid. 28. §. ●mo. etiam. , Those Princes which do acknowledge any superior unto them, are called superillustnes. Among which he expressly reckons the Kings of Spain.  
How distasteful was this Papal Monarchy to that kingdom, when not many years since the whole 
u Gold. in su● Repl c. 9 p 83.  eleventh tome of Card. Baronius his ecclesiastical annal were by the king's Edict prohibited, & that under the pain of high treason either to be printed or sold in Spain, because there was inserted into that Tome, the book of Baron, touching the Monarchy of Sicily, wherein he labours to prove▪ not the king of Spain, but the Pope to be the Monarch thereof? When Card. Columna further writ a very sharp censure 
x Censura Tract, Baronij de Monar. Sicil. per Card. Colum.  both of Baron himself, and of his book, taking it indignly (as justly he might) that the king of Spain 
y Lib. cit. pa. 159.  qui ea Monarchia potitur et fruitur, who doth now (saith he) possess & enjoy, & that also, haereditario iure 
z Ibid. pa. 161. , by a rightful inheritance, that Monarchy, should be called by Card. Baronius a monster 
a D●ram nimis ut is Ecclesiae monstrum dicatur & oftentum ibid., p. ●5●. , a tyrant 
b ●yrannus & Ecclesiae hostibus de terror. ibid. , one worse than the enemies of the Church. Will they patiently endure the Pope to be called the Supreme Direct Monarch and Temporal Lord of all Spain, yea of all the world, who so hardly can digest his Temporal Monarchy in that one little Island?  
Have they not also given diverse eminent and evident tokens of their dislike to that Monarchy? When Clement the seventh fearing the greatness of Charles the fifth, than king of Spain, sought 
c Occulta eum venetis consilia inijt, ut Caesa●em Mediola●o exueret. Onuph. in vit. ●lem, 7. pa. 400  by cunning dealing to deprive him of Milan, and for that purpose made an holy league, as they called it, Charles being for this & some other like causes incensed, sent an 
m Imperator nihil prius habuit quam exercitum in Italiam mittere. Parahp. Abb. Vrsperg. ann. 1527.  army into Italic under the leading of Carolus Burbonius. When the Caesarean army approached to Rome, the Roman jupiter thunders out his Excommunications 
n Ibid.  against the Lutherans, (so he called the French;) and against the Marranes, (so in contumely he called the Spaniards:) Did either the Spanish or French fear or regard those censures? Nothing less. They besieged 
o Append. ad Chron. Nauclan. 1527. & Guiccard. lib. 18. hist. pa. 774.  Rome, took it, and made such havoc therein, ut ab Hunnorum et Gothorum diebus, that the like miserable spoil had never been seen, since the days that the Goths and Vandals surprised Rome: or as Onuphrius 
p Onuph. loc. cit. pa. 402.  saith: Never in the memory of man, maiori truculentia saevitum, was there greater cruelty used either against Turks or most deadly enemies. The Pope and thirteen Cardinals who being taken prisoners, and kept in the Castle of Saint Angelo, were glad to 
q Onuph. loc. cit. & Guiccard lib. 18. pa. 782.  make covenants upon very hard conditions. First, that the Pope cuncta quae Caesar imperasset se facturum polliceretur, should promise' to do whatsoever Charles the fift should command. Next, that himself with his 13 Cardinals should stay in prison till their ransoms (which surmounted many hundred thousand pounds) were paid: then to be kept at Naples or Caieta, and there expect what Charles the Emperor would decree of them.  
It is a wonder to see how shameless Surius, Card. Alane, and others are, in striving to excuse Charles 5. in this action. All this was done (say they 
r Surius comm. rer. in orb gest. an. 1527▪ Card. Alan. in lib. ad Persecutores Anglos. contra justic. Britan. ) insciente et invito Caesare, Charles neither knowing, nor approving thereof: and in token of his dislike hereof, as soon as the report came into Spain, presently the King commanded those sports and joyful celebrities (which then were used for joy of his son Philip's birth) to be left off, yea he diligently excused himself both to the Pope and other Princes. Thus they; whose whole narrations is quite contrary to the truth. For first Charles 
s Paralip. ad Abb. Vrsper. an. cit. pa. 472.  purposely sent his army into Italy, qui cunctis minaretur, threatening revenge to all who were confederates in that holy league: and the Pope was author conspirationis, the very author and ringleader of that conspiracy: Then, Guiccardine (who is of all the most faithful relator of these matters, happening in his own time) expressly notes 
t Guic. lib. 18 pa. 790. , that Charles though in words he said he was sorry for the Pope's being taken, tamen ei gratissimam fuisse animadvertebatur, yet it was observed to have been gladsome news unto him. Neither did he, saith Guiccardine, conceal this, seeing inceptos ob filij natalem ludos, non intermisit, he did not so much as break off or interrupt those plays, sports, and celebrities which was then begun for joy of his son's birth; yea, he was so fare also from excusing this fact either to the Pope or other Princes, that he purposed to have brought the Pope prisoner into Spain: but partly the infamy of doing so with the vicar of Christ restrained him; and partly the earnest solicitation of Henry the eight, King of England, of Francis the French King, and others moved him to sand to Lanoy, the General of his army, to set the Pope at liberty.  
The same Charles upon another displeasure against the Pope, set forth an Edict 
u Guiccard. lib. 17 pa. 6. 8.  in Spain, whereby he prohibited his subjects to have their causes debated in the Roman Court. Whence upon a solemn day of pleading, a Spaniard in the King's name openly in the Roman Court, commanded diverse, ut a litibus in eo foro prosequendis desisterent, that they should desist from prosecuting their causes in the Pope's Court.  
The like may be seen in Philip the second, son of this Charles. He to revenge the manifold injuries 
x Quae contra regem suum à pontificatus initio molitus fuerat sigillatim aperiens. Onuph. in vit. Paul. 4. pa 451  offered unto him by Paul the fourth, sent 
y Guil. Paradon. lib. de motibus Galliae. apud Scard. to. 4.  Duke D'alua with a mighty army into Italy against the Pope; Qui Pontificiae ditionis fines perpopulatus, who having exceedingly wasted the Pope's Territories, besieged the City, spoilt the Citizens, burned many fair houses, slew many of the people, Pontificem sacra ditione exturbaturus, and would have thrust the Pope from his patrimony and holy seat, if the French King aiding the Pope, had not removed the danger at that time. Do these seem either in Charles or Philip or others acknowledgements of the Pope's supreme and Universal Temporal Monarchy?  
Now whereas Carerius 
z Carer & Tho Boz. cit. ca 1. pa. 22.  and Thomas Bozius boast, that the Pope gave the Indies unto the King of Spain, by virtue of which Donation he still holds them; they are many ways, and childishly mistaken in this matter. The Kings of Spain have to those parts of the Indies which they justly possess, a fare stronger title than any Charter from Pope Alexander, as Franc. à Victoria at large declares 
a Fran à Vict. Relect. de Indis. . Nay that Charter of Alexander to give them no title at all thereunto, Card. Bellarmine doth witness, who thus writeth; The 
b Bell lib. 5. de Rom. Pontis. ca ●. §. At Alexander.  Pope divided the Indies betwixt the Kings of Spain and Portugal, not to this end that they should subdue those Infidels, et eorum regna occupare, and take their kingdoms unto themselves, sed solum ut eo adducerent praedicatores, but only that they should bring thither Preachers of the Christian faith, and defend them, and such Christians as they converted. There may also another answer be given to Carerius, touching that Papal Donation; even the same which Attabaliba an Indian King, of the Province of Peruana, gave in this very matter: but the answer is such, as argues more acuteness, magnanimity, & wisdom, them one would easily expect of a barbarous Indian. Vincentius the Dominican, made a pithy 
c Benzo. Histor. novi orbis. lib. 3. ca 3.  Oration to persuade him to the Christian faith, he declared unto him both the Pope's power, who had given those unknown Countries to the King of Spain; and the puissance of the King of Spain, totius orbis Monarchae, as he there calls him: advising Attabaliba to embrace his friendship, and become tributary unto him; which if he would not willingly do, he should vi ●t armis be enforced thereunto. To this Attabaliba answered, That he did willingly accept the friendship of the highest Monarch of the world, but it was not equal that a free King should become tributary to him whom he never saw. And for the Pope he added, Pontificem insigniter fatuum et impudentem esse, eo facile prodi, quod alienatam liberaliter largiatur, the Pope to be exceeding foolish and shameless is hereby evident, in that he is so liberal in giving that which is none of his own, but belongs to others. For the other example of the Kingdom of Navarre, of which Scioppius saith, that it is held nullo alio tuulo, but by the Pope's Donation: were it free to discourse of such points, it were easy to show, how their own Genebrard 
c Gil. Geneb. in sua Chron.  fets down another, and fare stronger Title to that Kingdom, yea such also, as wholly excludes the Pope's donation: easy again to show, how by that, which some other 
d Frank. discourse.  of their own Catholics relate touching that very kingdom of Navarre, that there is no comfort for any Prince to hold any kingdom by that title. But as it was unfit for Scioppius to be so peremptory, so neither is it fit for me, nor will I presume to enter into the discussion of such arguments. This which I have already said being sufficient to be spoken of the kingdom of Spain.  
For the kingdom of England, their insolency in pretending the Pope's Temporal Sovereignty over it, enforceth me more at large to manifest the vanity of such their boasting. And I nothing doubt, but to make clear unto them that which Bracton saith, and that 
e Bract. de legib. & consuet. Anglo. lib. 1. c. 8. nu. 2. 5.  most truly, Every subject is under the King, ipse sub nullo, nisi tantum sub Deo but the King himself is subject to none but only to God. Let us begin at the Conquest, which fell out in that very age wherein both the mists of superstition had much darkened the faith, and the pride of the Roman See, by the means of Hildebrand, was now advanced to the zenith of their highest exaltation.  
How fare that renowned Conqueror was from acknowledging their Papal Monarchy, or superiority in this kingdom, his own Epistle written to Pope Hildebrand, recorded in an ancient Manuscript 
b Cod. ille M. S extat in nobili Biblioth. Dom. Rob. Cottoni. & citat à joh. Pichardo add Epist. 83. lib. 3. Epist. Anselmi. & à joh. Speed in Chron. in vita Guil. Rufi.  among the Epistles of Lanfranc, doth demonstrate. Hubert your Legate came unto me, warning me from your Holiness, that I should do feolty unto you, and to your successors, and warning me also to consider better of that money which my ancestors used to sand to the Roman Church. I have yielded to the one, I have not yielded to the other. Fidelitatem facere nolui, nec volo, I neither would do feolty to you, neither will I. Because I neither promised it myself, nor do I find, that my predecessors have done that to your predecessors. Can he more fully or expressly deny that Papal Sovereignty, and testify his Ancestors, the Kings of England never to have acknowledged the same?  
In the next King's days there fell out great contention betwixt William Rufus, the son of the Conqueror, and Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury. When 
c Math. Paris. in Guil. 2. an. 1094 §. Hoc.  Anselme shown his purpose to go to Rome to Pope Vrbane, the King waxed exceeding angry thereat, and told him, quod nullus Archiepiscopus vel Episcopus Regni sui, curiae Romanae vel Papae subesset, That no Archbishop or Bishop of this Kingdom was subject to the Roman Court, or to the Pope. Specially, seeing the King of England eandem potestatem haberet, had the same power in his kingdom, (and that even from 
d Ex Eadmero citant tum Hollinsh chro. in Wil Rufus. an. 1099. pa. 24. tum Speed. Chron. in Wil Ruf.  the Conversion of this Realm unto the Christian faith) which the Emperor challenged in the Empire, And what 
e holinsh. loc. cit.  said he, hath the Pope to do in the Empire, or in my kingdom touching temporal liberties? It is his duty to be careful for the soul of man, and to see that heresies do not spring up. Yea Anselme 
f Mat. Paris. loc. cit. , ob hanc rem ut laesae maiestatis reus postulatur, was accused as guilty of high treason for this very cause, of seeking to appeal to the Pope: and to this accusation plurimi Episcopi suum calculum adijciebant, most of the Bishops consented that it was just and right. Neither would the King make any agreement with Anselme, nisi protestaretur cum iuramento, unless he made protestation, and that with an oath, that he would not obey the command of Pope Vrbane; but if he would swear not to go to the Pope, nec 
g Proposuit mihi Rex ne aliquando Apostolicum appellarem. Ansel. Epist. 40. lib. 3.  pro quovis negotio Romanae sedis audientiam appellaturum, neither to appeal to the Roman See for any business whatsoever, than he should enjoy all favour and tranquillity. If otherwise he would adventure to pass over sea, that is to say, to go to the Pope, nullam revertendi spem in posterum ei futuram, he told him he should never return into his Realm again.  
In the time of Henry the first, when Anselme was recalled to his See, the contention about Inuestitures, which was begun with William Rufus, continuing, Anselme 
h Epist. Anfel ni ad Pascalem. Quae re●itatur in Act. & Monument. in Hen. 1. pa. 178.  writ thus to Pope Pascalis, I shown them the apostolic Decree, that none should take Inuestiture of Lay men, or become the King's man for it: and that no man should presume to consecrated him that did offend herein. When the King, his Nobles, and the Bishops themselves and others of lower degree, heard these things, they took them so grievously, that they said they would in no case agreed to this thing; (tam iniquo Papae decreto, as others 
i Vt ex jornal. hist. & Walt. Covent. dicitur in Antiq. Brit. in Anselm.  say;) and that they would rather drive me out of the kingdom, and forsake the Romish Church, then keep those things: or as others 
k Ibid.  set it down, rather than approve this Decree or sentence of the Pope, à iure Regis Regnique consuetudine prorsus alienam, being utterly repugnant to the right of the King, and custom of the kingdom. Thurstane being elect Archbishop of york, obtained 
l Math. Paris. an. 1119. in initio.  leave of the same King Henry the first, to go to the Council at Rheims, but with condition, that he should not receive consecration from the Pope. When contrary to his promise, he received the Papal consecration, the King understanding thereof, Omnem dominationis suaelo cum ei inter dixit, he forbade him to come within his kingdoms or dominions. Evident tokens that the King and State of England, held not the Pope for their Temporal Lord, seeing even in Spiritual causes they yielded so slender subjection, that they were ready to renounce and forsake the Roman Church, rather than consent to the Pope in those things.  
In the reign of Henry the second, the King 
m Math. Paris. in Hen. 2. ann. 1164. in initio  called a very great assembly to Clarendon, at which were present the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and Nobles of the Kingdom. In it was made a Recognition and confirmation of the customs and liberties of the kingdom, anciently usea in the times of former Kings, and which debebant in Regno, & ab omnibus teneri, aught to be observed in this kingdom, and maintained by all. One of those ancient customs was this, That no Archbishop, Bishop, or other person of this kingdom, might go out of the Realm (to wit, to the Pope) abque licentia Domini Regis, without the King's leave: and if the King granted them leave, yet they should put in security, that neither in going, returning, nor staying, they should do aught to the hurt or damage of the King or kingdom. Another custom was, That if any appealed, it should be from the archdeacon to the Bishop, from him to the Archbishop, and from him to the King, ita quod non debeat ultra procedi absque assensu Domini Regis, from the King they might appeal to none, nor proceed further in the cause without the King's licence. When the King and whole State confirmed these decrees, they did even demonstrate, that they held not the Pope to be a superior Lord or higher judge, than the King, not not in Ecclesiastical, much less in civil causes. To these Decrees at Clarendon, Thomas Becket 
n Hanc recognitionem Archiepiscopi, etc. cum proceribus cunctis iuraverunt, & firmiter pro miserunt obseruandas, etc. Math. Paris. ibid. pa. 135. & Iho. Cantuar. cum eas leges obseruare iuramento firmasset. ibid. §. His itaque.  (whom they call a Martyr, but who was in truth, one of the most insolent and perjured Traitors, that ever England bore or bred) consented and swore to observe the same, and that bona fide & absque malo ingenio in perpetuum, faithfully and without fraud for ever, as did also the other Bishops, Abbots, and Clergy, with the Earls, Barons, and all the Nobles. Beckot not long after (such is the bonafides of a true Romanist) repent 
o Ibid. & §. Alexander.  of this ●ath, procured absolution from it at the hands of Alexander, the supposed Pope: (for in truth he was but an intruder and Pseudopope, as by that which I have formerly 
p Sup. ca 7.  said, is evident) and attempted 
q Math. Paris. lo. cit. §. Videns.  to go to Rome without the King's leave, but was driven back by the wind: for which and other offences he was called, and came to another great assembly 
r De quo Rog. Houed. part. 2. post an. 1165. pa. 283. & Paris. loc. cit. pa. 137.  of the State, both Bishops and Barons held at Northampton. Where fearing what sentence would pass against him, he (being again perjured) appealed to the Pope. The judgement 
s Rog. Houed. loc. cit.  of the Barons was, that he was worthy to be apprehended and imprisoned: But before he heard their judgement he went away, omnibus clamantibus & dicentibus, Quo progrederis proditor, all crying after him, and calling him Traitor. Did they accounted the Pope the supreme Lord or judge, when both by oath they bind all, not to appeal unto him, and judged the very appealing to him, to be an act of Treason?  
If we look into the Acts of Parliaments, wherein is expressed the consenting voice and judgement of the whole kingdom, it is easy to observe, and evident to be seen, that in them the Kings of this Realm are usually called, The Sovereign Lords; as in the Statute of Merton, an. 20. Hen. 3. an. 3. Edw. 1. an. 1. Edw. 2. and in like sort in the reign of every King following. Can there be a more clear and certain demonstration, that the Pope's Sovereignty and Monarchy was not here admitted, when by the whole State the King is with one voice proclaimed to be the Supreme Lord? Or can any be Superior to him that is Supreme?  
In the reign of Edw. the first, in the Statute at Carlisle 
t Stat. an. 25. Ed. 1. quod repetitur. 25. Ed. 3. , complaint being made, that the bishop of Rome usurping the segniories in Ecclesiastical dignities and Benefices, bestowing and granting the same to aliens, and to whom he pleased, as if he were the Patron of them, it was decreed by the whole Parliament, that such oppressions, greevances, and damages, should not be from thenceforth suffered, yea, they plainly affirm, such usurpation (so they call it) of the Pope, to be the disinherison of the King, Earles, Barons, and others, and to be the destruction of the laws of this Realm. In the same King's reign there arose a very great contention about the Dominion of Scotland, which King Edward claimed 
u Vt vider● est, in literis Edw. 1. ad Bonisac. 8. apud Math. Westan. an. 1301.  to belong to the Kings of England, as the direct and supreme Lords thereof; Boniface the eight (who challenged 
x Vt liquet ex literis Bonifacij 8. ad Edw. 1 apud Westmo. anno eodem▪  most earnestly the same kingdom to belong to the Pope, saying; Nulli in dubium veniat, that none should so much as doubt thereof:) writ to the King, willing him to 
y Volumus quod tuos procuratores & nuncios mittas etc. ibid.  sand his Procurators and Legates to Rome, with a Declaration of his Title, that there he might receive judgement in that cause in the Remane Court. The King resolutely, and constantly refused either to writ or sand, in forma iudicij, as if he would receive any judgement of the Pope therein. And calling a very great assembly of his Barons to Lincoln, they with one consent returned this answer to the Pope. That 
f Literae Comitum & Baronum Angliae, Bonif. 8. ibid. est apud Math. Westmonast.  the Kings of England, by the pre-eminence of their royal dignity, and by the custom cunctis temporibus irrefragabiliter obseruatae, which had been observed in all times without any contradiction, neither have answered, nor aught to answer for the right in that kingdom, aut alijs suis temporalibus, or for any other of their temporalties, to any either Ecclesiastical or secular judge. And this is our unanimous consent, that our King for any of his temporalties, nullatenus respondeat iudicialiter coram vobis, nec iudicium subeat quoquo modo, shall in no sort answer judicially unto you, nor by any means undergo any judgement: neither sand Proctor or messenger about such matters. And hereof they give this remarkable reason, because the doing of it did manifestly tend to the disinherison of the State of the kingdom, and to the prejudice of those liberties, customs, and laws, to the observing and defending of which they were bound by oath; Neither do we, nor will we in any sort permit, sicut nec possumus nec debemus, as indeed we may not that our King shall do so unaccustomed, undue, and prejudicial Acts. Can they more plainly, or more constantly deny the Papal, and aver the Regal Sovereignty in temporal matters?  
In the reign of Edward the third, and express Statute was made, That if 
g Stat. of purveyors an. 25. Edw. 3. ca 22.  any purchase or procure any Provisions from Rome of any Abbeys or Priories, he and his executors shall be out of the King's protection, and that any man may do with them as with the enemies of the King; and he that offendeth against such Provisors in body or in goods, shall be excused against all people, nor shall ever be impeached or grieved for the same. In another Statute 
b Stat. of Provisors, an. 25. Edw. 3.  made the same year, both the Statute of Edward the first against Provisors, was repeated and ratified, and it was further ordained, that the King and other Lords should rightly present to Benefices, notwithstanding the Pope's provisions. And in case the presentees of the King, or other Patrons be disturbed by such Provisors, so that either they may not have the possession of such benefices, or being in possession, be impeached by such Provisors, than the said Provisors, their Procurators, Executors, and Maintainers, to abide in prison till they have made fine and ransom to the King at his will, and agreed with the party that shall be grieved. And further, that they shall not be delivered out of prison till they make full renunciation, and find sufficient surety not to attempt such things in time to come, nor to sue Process either by themselves or others, against any man in the Court of Rome. It was not long after by another Statute 
c Stat. an 27. Edw. 3. ca 1.  enacted, That if any of the King's people, of what condition soever they be, do draw any out of the Realm for any Plea, the cognisance whereof pertaineth to the King's Court, or which do sue in another Court, to defeat or impeach the judgements given in the king's Court, such should personally answer for such their offence within two months, and if they came not within that time, they, their Attorneys, Procurators, Eexcutors, and Maintainers should be put out of the King's protection, and their Lands, Goods, and Chattels, forfeit to the King. And of such offenders, it is there expressly said, that they did those things in prejudice and disinherison of the King, and of his Crown, and (which I do specially observe) to the destruction of the Common Law of the said Realm, at all times used. So that never from the first erection of the Kingdom, was the Pope's Sovereignty, acknowledged therein, but at all times repugnant to the Laws thereof, by the consenting voice, decree, and judgement of the whole State, the King, the Nobles, and Commons. The very like was again enacted 
d Stat. an. 38. Edw. 3. ca 1.  in the same King's reign, against such as procured Citations from Rome, upon causes, whose Cognisance and Final discussion (observe Final) pertaineth to the King and his Royal Court▪ or who got Impetrations and provisions of Benefices or offices in the Church, Deaneries, Archdeaconries, or the like, They all, their maintainers, Counsellors, and Abetters, if they be convicted of any of these things, shall have the punishment comprised in the Statute of 25. Edw. 3 before mentioned.  
In the reign of Richard the second, it was ordained 
e Stat. an. 13. Ric. 2. ca 2. , that for all Archbishoprickes, Bishoprics, and other dignities and Benefices elective, the Statute made by Edward the third, should firmly hold. And if any make acceptation of any Benefice contrary to this Statute, and if it be duly proved, if he be beyond the sea, he shall abide in exile, and be banished for ever, and his lands, goods, and tenements, forfeit to the King. If he be within the Realm, he shall be exiled and banished, and incur the same forfeiture. In the same reign 
f stat. an. 16. Ric. 2. ca 4. & 5.  complaint being made of diverse Processes, Excommunications, and Translations made by the Pope to the prejudice of the Crown, it was ordained, That if any purchased or pursued, or caused to purchase or pursue any such Translations, Processes, Excommunications, Bulls, or Instruments, or if any receive them, or make notification of them, both they and their maintainers and abetters, should all be put out of the King's protection, and their lands, goods, and chattels forfeit to the King. And if this be not sufficient, these express words are set down in that Statute, worthy to be written in golden letters; The Crown of England hath been so free at all times (note All times) that it hath been in subjection to no Realm, but immediately subject to GOD, and to none other.  
In the reign of Henry the fourth, it was ordained 
g stat. ann. 2. Hen. 4 ca 3. , That if any provision be made by the Bishop of Rome, to any person of religion, to be exempt of obedience regular, or of obedience ordinary, or to have any office perpetual within houses of religion, if such Provisors do accept, or enjoy any such provision, they shall incur the punishment comprised in the Statute of Provisors, made an. 13. Richard the second; and that was perpetual banishment, and loss of all their lands and goods. The like punishment was set down 
h Ibid. ca 4▪  for those who procured Bulls from Rome, to be quit or discharged to pay the dimes of their lands.  
In the reign of Henry the sixth, the Pope 
l 1. Hen. 7. 10.  writ letters in derogation of the King and his Regality: and whereas the Churchmen durst not speak against it, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester cast them into the fire. So little did that noble and loyal heart esteem the Pope's authority, when it was derogatory to the royal dignity. In his reign also, when 
m holinsh. in Hen. 6. ann. 1460.  Richard Duke of York had overcome Henry, he claimed the Crown as in right belonging to himself, and expressing the royal dignity thereof, said, That he was subject to no man, but only to God.  
In Edward the fourth's time, the Pope 
n 2. Hen. 7. 10  sent a Legate to Calais to come into England, who sent to the King to have safe coming; the King by advice of his Council would not suffer him to come within England, until he had taken an oath that he should attempt nothing against the King and his Crown, which oath the Legate took, and then came.  
That in the reign of Henry the eight, this Papal usurping of jurisdiction, was utterly exstirpated, and the Regal Dignity or Sovereignty of the Crown declared, none is ignorant. The whole State of the kingdom, both Ecclesiastical and Laical, even then when for other matters, (as the Mass, Adoration of Images, Purgatory, and the like, they were as zealous for the Romish doctrine, as at any time before) with one voice 
o Stat. an. 24. Hen 8. ca 12: & an. 25. Hen. 8. ca 21.  declared, That this Realm of England is an Empire, as by ancient and authentic Histories and Chronicles is manifest: that this Empire is governed by one Supreme head and King, having the dignity and royal estate of the Imperial Crown of this Realm: That this Realm recogniseth no superior under God but the King: That the whole body politic, both the Spiritualty and Temporalty is bound, and aught to bear a natural and humble obedience to the King thereof Next unto God: That the King hath plenary and entire power, authority, prerogative, and jurisdiction, to tender justice, and final determination to all his subjects, in all causes and contentions, without either restraint from, or provocation to any foreign Prince or Potentate in the world: That the Pope by his Exactions, Procurations, Provisions, Bulls, and Appeals, hath usurped therein, to the derogation of the Imperial Crown, and authority royal, contrary both to right and conscience. And that it might be known to all, that these Statutes whereby they abandon the Papal, and manifest the King's royal Sovereignty in all causes, as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal, that these, I say are no Introductory Statutes, such as give a new, but only declaratory, such as explain the ancient authority & rights of the King, they add, that in decreeing these, they did no other thing then former Kings had done for the conservation of the prerogatives, liberties, and pre-eminence of this Imperial Crown, and by name, as Edw. 1. Edw. 2. Rich. 2. and Hen. 4. had done.  
The same Sovereignty was acknowledged to be in Queen Marie, the whole State declaring 
p Stat 1. 〈◊〉 part. 2. 〈◊〉.  that all Regal power, dignity, authority, and jurisdiction did, and of right aught to appertain unto her, in as full and and ample manner, as it did to any of her Noble Progenitors. By virtue of which Supreme power, when 
q ●ust. Britan. pa. 49. & Parson▪ answer to Sir Edw. Coke, ca 14. §. 15.  Pope Paul the fourth being displeased with Card. Poole, meant to take from him his Legantine authority, and give it to Friar Peto; for which purpose the Pope chose him Cardinal, and sent him the Cardinal's hat, and other ensigns of his new authority, as fare as Calais; Queen Marie (for all her devotion to the Roman faith) by the advice of her Nobles and judges, in favour of Card. Poole, sent to Calais, straight forbidding the Pope's Nuncio so much as to set foot within England, though he was sent thither by the Roman Monarch. And though the Pope threatened and stormed thereat, yet Card. Poole quietly enjoyed his dignity, but Friar Peto the Pope's Minion, was fain to go up and down the streets of London like a begging Friar, without his Cardinal's hat.  
Thus from the Conquest to the beginning of Q. Elizabeth (since which time the clear light of the Gospel hath most happily shined throughout this Realm) the Pope's Sovereignty hath been ever rejected by this most renowned kingdom. And that long before the Conquest the like was done, yea even since the very first planting of the Gospel in this Island, there are pregnant evidences. I do purposely pass by that of S. Edward the Confessor, in whose laws 
r Leg. Sancti Edw. ca 19  the King of England is called the Vicar of the highest King, to rule the holy Church, and defend the same. I omit also that of King Edgar, who in a Council at Winchester speaking of himself, saith 
s Edgari verba extant in cod. M. S. liter●s aur●is exarato in Bibl D Rob. Cotton. , Vicarius Christie eliminavi, I being the Vicar of Christ, have cast out troops of ungodly Friars, which were in the Monasteries of my kingdom. Who also used that memorable saying to his Clergy, Ego Constantini, vos Petri gladium habetis, I have Constantine's, and you have S. Peter's sword: Let us join hands together, and swords together, to cast out leprous persons out of the Temple. Nor will I insist on the saying of Pope Eleutherius, who in his Epistle to Lucius King of Britain, saith thus unto him; that you may reign with God, ●uius vicarius estis in praedicto regno, whose Vicar you are in your kingdom; and again, Rex quia vicarius summi regis est, the King, because he is the Vicar of the highest King, is appointed to this end, that he should honour the holy Church, and rule it. And yet I could wish to stay here a little, to castigate the vanity, and shameless dealing of F. Parsons, who to decline this testimony, would gladly persuade 
t Pars. triple Conuers. part. 1. ca, 4. nu. 22. & 29.  you, that this is but a feigned Epistle, yea even feigned 
u If it be true and not feigned by Mr. Fox ib. nu. 20.  by Master Fox. Whereas beside other Records thereof, the samewhole Epistle is Verbatim set down in a very ancient Manuscript, written diverse hundreth of years before Master Fox was borne, which among others myself have, and others may see in the most worthy Library of Sir Robert Cotton, that honourable favourer of learning, and learned Antiquities.  
The special reasons which I will use to prove the truth thereof, are two. The former is taken from the Common Law of this Realm. A law so ancient 
z Vid. 6. part. Reports of Sir Edw. Coke in Praefat. & the● Reports of Sir john Davis' in Praefat. , that no certain beginning is known thereof, (as neither of the Law of Nations:) but it was received and grew into use by the continued, constant, and unchanged practice of wise and judicious men in this Realm, ever since a Commonweal hath been settled therein: and because it was both by Common experience of all approved, as a most fit rule of justice, and also generally or commonly practised 
a In omnibus nationum ●uarum (Britonum, Romanorun, Saxonum, Danorum, & Normanorum) & regum earum temporibus, regnum hoc (Angliae) ●sdem quibus ●am regitur consuetudinibus continue regulatum est. Fo●tesc. de Polit. Angl. ca 17. , first in the reign of the Brittanes, then of the Romans, then in the several kingdoms of the Heptarchy of the Saxons, then of the Danes, and lastly of the Normans; it seems to have obtained the name of the Common, that is the generally approved Law of this Realm. That by it the Pope's Sovereignty and Supreme jurisdiction, was never approved in this Realm, in the books of Law are set down many authorities. In Henry the sevenths' time 
b 1. Hen. 7. 10 , The Pope excommunicated all such persons as bought Allume of the Florentines. It was adjudged that the Pope's excommunication aught not to be allowed. In Richard the thirds time, it was holden 
c 2. Ric. 3. fol. 22. , that a judgement in the Court of Rome, should not prejudice any man at the Common Law. The like was held in Edward the fourth's time, that the Pope's 
d 12. Edw. 4. fol. 16.  excommunication was not to be allowed in the kings Court. In Henry the fourth's time, it was ruled for 
e 14. Hen. 4. fol. 14.  Law, that it is no plea for the defendant to say, that the plaintiff is excommunicated by the Pope, although he show forth the Pope's Bull to witness it; For the judges aught not to allow such an excommunication: and that the Certificate of no excommunication is available in Law, but such as is made by some Bishop in England. In Edw. 1. time 
f 30. Edw. 3. lib. 3. Assis. pl. 19 , one brought an excommunication against another from the Pope: The king's pleasure was, that according to the law he should be hanged and drawn, as a Traitor, but the Chancellor and Treasurer kneeled for him before the king; so he had judgement only to abjure the realm. Many the like authorities are set down in the book 
g 5. Part of his Reports.  of the right Honourable Sr. Edward Coke, whose exact knowledge in that profession is not unknown to any. But these few, (which by the help of those who are very learned in that profession, I was desirous to examine for my own satisfaction) are sufficient to testify the Pope's authority, even his Censures of excommunication, not to have been of force in this Realm by the Common Law thereof.  
And I was much more earnest and glad to be satisfied herein, because with such as are not either themselves expert, or seek not, as I profess I have done, to be informed by them who are learned in the Law; the collusions of F. Parsons, who would seem to make some answer 
h Pars. answer to the 5. part of Reports set forth by Sir Edw. Coke.  to that Treatise, may perhaps cast a mist before their eyes, whereas if the truth be duly and fully scanned, the jesuite by that his answer, hath marvellously both disgraced himself, and bewrayed the weakness of that cause of the Pope's Supremacy, which he undertaken to defend; but he could no otherwise support it, but by flying to Impertinent, Sophistical, and Reviling evasions, on which his whole dispute doth consist.  
Of the Impertinency of his dispute, take this demonstration. We in all our writings do profess and make evident, that by the Sovereign authority which we give unto kings in causes Ecclesiastical, we intent not any either Supreme or subordinate power to preach, to administer Sacraments, to ordain, to suspend, excommunicate, and absolve, or judicially to decide and define doubts of faith: This power is given to no Laical, but only to Ecclesiastical persons; and given or derived to them only from Christ, by the mediation of his Apostles and Bishops. And because in all these there is a direction in the ways of God, but no corporal force or punishment, coacting men to walk in those ways, therefore is this rightly called a Directive power, or a power of executing those Spiritual duties. But the power which we acknowledge to belong to Kings in causes Ecclesiastical, is an Imperial, not Spiritual; a Supreme coactive, not a directive power; a power mandatory, commanding those Ecclesiastical duties to be done, not Executory, as doing those themselves: Such a power, as by which all Kings and Princes are authorised by God, as being his immediate Vicegerents upon earth, not only to permit with liberty and freedom, but to see all those spiritual duties performed in their kingdoms by Ecclesiastical persons, yea, to coact and compel both them to perform, and others to embrace the same duties of piety and religion. This being the doctrine which we every where proclaim, F. Parsons not being able with any colour to oppugn this truth, that he might seem to say somewhat in the Pope's behalf, and against us, slily declines the main point touching the Supreme Coactive power, and as if we gave unto Princes the Directive power in causes Ecclesiastical (which we never so much as once dream of) he labours to prove against us, that Princes have not that Ecclesiastical power 
i Spiritual power is a commission of binding and losing. Pars. lib. cit. ca 2. nu. 7. The spiritual Ecclesiastical power consisteth in binding & losing sins, by means of sacraments, in judging causes of the Church, it is a power to teach and direct, to punish by spiritual censures of suspension, excommunication, etc. ibid. ca 2. nu. 16. 17. , not such power 
k They give unto her (Q. Eliz.) all & all manner of jurisdiction, &c:  as Popes, Archbishops and Bishops have: That it is absurd 
l Ibid ca 3. nu. 23. The absurdity of the statute, etc.  (which he saith we teach) that all Spiritual power is originally in a King; yea in a child, yea in a woman, and from them must be derived to others: That it is likewise 
m Ibid.  absurd (which he persuades you, that we teach) that a King, a child, yea a woman hath power not only to give this Ecclesiastical jurisdiction unto others, but much more to use and exercise the same in their own persons; as namely, to give holy orders, to created and consecrated Bishops, absolve sins, administer Sacraments, teach, preach, judge, and determine in points of faith. Thus disputes the great jesuite against us. In all which every one may see that this grand Master in their Romish school, doth not so much as once touch the point which he undertook, but fighteth only with his own shadow; and when he hath refuted this idle and sottish conceit of his own devising, than he insults, and triumphs as if he had killed the wise and worthy Ulysses, whereas in very deed the blind Polyphemus hath done nothing else but hacked and hewed in pieces one of his own hogs.  
As his dispute is Impertinent, so is it in every part Sophistical. I will instance only in this whereof we now entreat touching the rejecting of the Pope's Excommunications. He seeing that they were often and expressly by the Law rejected, deviseth this shift, (and it is very frequent 
n Pars. lib. cit. ca 11. nu. 24. & ca 12. nu. 15 & saepe alibi.  and usual in him) that the rejecting of them proceeded not from any want of respect to the Pope, nor from the denial of his authority in this kingdom, but from want of a Certificate from the Archbishop or Bishop, that those writings were indeed the Pope's Bulls, and not sergeant. Wherein besides his supine ignorance, he betrays a resolute intent rather to cavil and wrangle, then to dispute and argue. It is true, that in the books of the Law there is often mention of having a Certificate from the Bishop. But that Certificate was not to testify that this was truly and certainly the Pope's Bull or Excommunication, (for how could any Bishop here, be able to certify that?) but to certify that the party (whom that excommunication did concern) was by the Archbishop or Bishop himself excommunicated. Which to be the true meaning of those words, there are many clear proofs. By the Statute an. 27. of Edw. 3. cap. 1. it is expressly declared, that the very suing to the Court of Rome, and seeking by such courses to hinder or impeach judgement in the King's Court, was the very destruction of the Common Law, used at all times in this Realm. So by the consenting voice of the whole State, explaining and confirming the Common Law, the very Act of procuring the Pope's Excommunication, (and not the want of a Certificate of the truth thereof) is declared to be an Act contrary to the Common Law, and therefore to be condemned and rejected by that Law; and that also at all times. Had the want of a Certificate from the Bishop, been once known to avoid the force of the Pope's Bull of Excommunication, would any, think you, after that, have been so simple or careless in their own causes, as not to have brought always with the Pope's Bull, a Certificate thereof from a Bishop? Would Edward the first have been so rigorous, nay tyrannical, as to condemn one for Treason, and will that he should be hanged and drawn, or but to be abjured the land, for omitting a part of the form in legal proceeding? for want of a Bishop's Certificate of the Pope's Bull? Did ever the Statute or Common Law judge such an omission to be so heinous, and even a Capital offence against the Crown? Long before this, the ancient Laws of the Land were recognised and confirmed by all the States of the kingdom, and that also by oath in the reign of Henry the second, as both Math. Paris. whom before I cited, and an Act of Parliament 
o An. 10. Hen. 2. verba Parliam. citantur à D. Edw. Coke in 6. part. Relat. in Praef.  under the same Henry the second, witnesseth. It was then declared to be an Act unlawful and prejudicial to the King, for any to Appeal to the Pope in any cause, without the King's consent. Whence it is clear, that the very suing for the Pope's Excommunication, and not want of a Certificate was the offence in Law taken at those writs. Nay the Certificate, that such a writ was truly procured from the Pope, had been an assurance of the offence, not an help to the offender. Besides, in the 14. of Henry the fourth, fol. 14. it is said, that the Certificate of no excommunication is available in Law, but only of such excommunications as are made by the Archbishop or Bishop. And therefore though the Pope's Excommunication had been by all the Bishops in the Realm certified, yet in law it was not available, because it was the Pope's Excommunication, and not the Bishops. Nay it is further there said (which is a clear demonstration of this truth) that though an Excommunication was certified by the Archbishop of Canterbury, under his seal, yet for that the same Excommunication was but in execution of a Sentence in the Court of Rome, and was not upon any cause originally depending before the Archbishop, it was ruled, that the said Excommunication should not be allowed. How much more than was the Pope's own Excommunication (though certified by a Bishop) by the Law rejected, when even those Excommunications made and certified by Bishops, which of themselves were of force, lost their allowance in law, when they had reference and dependence to the Pope, and at his soliciting of the Bishops, were made against any for execution of a sentence in his Court? Lastly, the reasons why those Excommunications of the Pope are in law rejected, do undeniably convince this. One reason hereof was, because 
o 12. Edw. 4. fol. 16.  it was against the King's regality and Crown. To want a Certificate that the Bull was truly the Pope's Bull, none can imagine to be prejudicial to the King, or to his royalty: at the most that is but an error and oversight in the party that pleadeth, it is no derogation to the kings right. But to bring an excommunication from the Pope, as from a superior judge then the King; to bring the Pope's authority and writ, to hinder the proceeding of justice in the King's Court, & to overmaster the King's authority, this indeed directly, and in Capite toucheth the Crown and the King's royalty; for in effect it is a very denial of the King's Sovereignty, a denial that he is in truth a King. Another reason which is often set down in the books of Law 
p 12. Edw 4. fol. 16. & alibi. , is this, because the Pope is not a Minister or Officer to the Kings Court. Whereby is meant, that such Excommunications as are of force in Law, must be made by those who are ministers, and subject to the King. And the reason hereof is evident: because if the Excommunication be unjust, the Court in the King's name may command, and the King may compel them to redress the same. Now to the Pope, neither could the judges (as they say) writ, (to wit, authoritative to command him) nor could the King compel him to revoke or redress his Excommunication, though it were never so unjust. By all which it is evident, that the Pope's excommunications were by the Common Law, and that at all times rejected, eo nomine, because they were the Popes, and so were derogatory to the royal dignity; not as the jesuite cavilleth, because they wanted the Bishop's Certificate to testify the truth of them: for which his fancy as those who are very learned in that profession, assure me, he hath no ground at all in the books of the Law. But F. Parson's thought by his equivocating, and cavilling about the Bishop's Certificate (whereof he knew there was mention in the books of Law) to delude the simple and unskilful Reader, who either cannot, or will not regard to inform themselves in such matters. But howsoever among his own ignorant proselytes he may gain an applause, yet by his so vile and malicious sophisticating with the Law, among all men of sound learning and upright judgement, he hath made himself a very Ludibrium unto them.  
Parson's fearing his Sophistry would fail him, as it hath in this, turns him to his other shift, which is indeed his last refuge, and that is open Railing and Reviling: an Art wherein of all that ever I have read, he is most skilful and expert, able to put Shemie, Rabshe●ah, and Thersites himself to the school. I will not Camerinam movere, not offend your ears with stirring that sink: Do but hear how contumeliously, how spitefully he derideth and declameth against the very Laws of that land, which bred and brought up such an unnatural Viper. What is that Common Law? saith he 
p Pars. lib. cit. ca 11. ●u. 22. , that ancient Common Law? How was it made? By whom? Where? at what time? upon what occasion? To avouch a Common Law, an ancient Common Law, without beginning, author, cause, occasion, or record of Introduction, is a strange Metaphysical contemplation. This Common 
q Lib. eod. ca 13. nu. 16.  Law, it is E●s transcendens, or rather Ens Rationis, nay it is a very Chimaera, (an 
r Ibid. nu 17  old Chimaera, an Imaginary Law) such as hath no essence or being at all a part Rei, but only in imagination. And in this common place, as in a large field he exspatiates almost throughout his whole book, and in deriding the Law, makes himself most ridiculous. I cannot more fitly answer him, then with the words of S. Hierom, Imperitia confidentiam, scientia timorem create. Modesty and humility attend upon knowledge, pride and confidence are the companions of Ignorance: or with that of the Poet, Omnia quae nescit dicit spernenda colonus. The dignity and honour of this Law (under which this renowned kingdom doth now most happily, and hath for more than 16. hundreth years, continued in a flourishing estate:) is by so many most worthy men, and learned in that profession, so amply set forth, that as it needs no Apology at all, specially not of me, so mean and unworthy an Encomiast; so can it no whit at all be blemished by the contu●elies of him who doth but reprehend, what he doth not comprehend. Thus much only let me say, that all his scoffing and opprobrious demands do equally, and with as much force fight against the Law of Nations: yea, for the most part against the Law of Nature also. What is this Law of Nations? How was it made? By whom? Where? at what time? Upon what occasion? Seeing notwithstanding all these frivolous demands, the Law of Nations is acknowledged by all learned men, yea even by Parsons 
s Pa●s. answ to Sir Edw. Coke. ca 2. nu. 7.  himself, (who is to be ranked in another predicament) to have a true reality, let him either profess the like Reality and essence in the Common Law, or with it let him condemn the other, as a Chymericall imagination; and so at once bid battle, not only to this one kingdom, but even to all mankind, and all Nations. Now his book consisting of these and such like Impertinent, Sophistical, and Reviling discourses, what other answer could he expect, or should he receive from him whom according to the Proverb, Dares Entellum, he made his (though a most unequal) Antagonist in this cause, but that which he hath returned 
t Sir Edw. Coke 6. part of his Reports in Prae●at.  against him, a Writ of Nihil dicit, for in very deed, he speaks Nihil ad Rhombum. But to pass from him, seeing it is now clear, that by the Common Law, the Pope's supreme authority even in Ecclesiastical, and then much more in Temporal causes, of which we entreat, is rejected; and seeing that Law is the selfsame now that it was always, it being a certain, immutable and inflexible rule; it remains as clear and certain, that not only since the Conquest, but ever since there was a Common Law in this Realm (that was ever since there was a Commonweal therein;) which knew the Pope, the Pope's Sovereignty hath been by the Church of this Realm, and that even by the law of the land rejected.  
The other reason to prove this, is drawn from the Brittanes & their Church. That their Church was not subject to the Pope's jurisdiction, not not in Ecclesiastical (much less in Temporal) causes, the 
a Bed lib. 2. hist. Angl ca ●  manner of their baptising, and others Ceremonies far different from the Roman, & that even when Austen the Monk came hither, being sent from Pope Gregory the Great; and especially their different observing of Easter, is a certain and undoubted evidence. For seeing the Popes, specially Victor, as Eusebius 
b Euseb. lib. 5 hist. ca 24.  shows, were so earnest to draw the Asiaticall Churches to the Roman custom in the observation of that day, none may think but that they would provide to have conformity in such Churches as were subject to their own jurisdiction. Besides this difference of Rites, the Britain Bishops manifestly declared that they held not their Church nor themselves to be subject to the Pope, nor to his authority. Pope Gregory appointed Austen to be their Archbishop. We 
c Gregorij verba apud Bedam lib. 1. ca 27 in Respons. 9  commit unto you omnes Britaniarum Episcopos, all the Bishops of Britain, that the weak may be confirmed, and the obstinate corrected. The Britain Bishops knew that Pope Gregory had given to Austen this authority over them, as by Bede 
d Bed. lib. 2. ca 2.  and others is evident, seeing Austen laboured 
e Amad. Xieriens▪ apud An●iq Britan. in August.  to bring them to his obedience Apostolica authoritate, by the Pope's authority. Had those Catholic Bishops known and believed either the Pope to be a Supreme judge and Commander in the whole Church in causes Ecclesiastical, or themselves to be subject to his command and authority in such causes, they would no doubt have yielded obedience to Austen, and in him to the Pope. See now how fare they were from doing or acknowledging this. Austen used both prayers & threats 
e Minitans p●aedixit. Bed. lib 2. ca ●.  to move them to consent, and to conform themselves to the Roman Church, though not in other things, yet at lest for 
f Ibid.  their manner of baptising and celebrating Easter. Neque precibus, neque increpationibus Augustini assensun● praebere voluerunt, they would neither yield to his entreating, nor increpation, but told him plainly, they would observe their own Traditions. When he the second time required of them mihi obtemperare 
g Ibid. , to be obedient to him in those motions, their answer was, nihil se horum facturos, that they would yield to none of them all: and they further added, Illum pro Archiepiscopo se non habituros, that they would not accept of him for an Archbishop over them: Yea 
h Galf. Monumet. lib. 11 ca 7.  Dinoth the Abbot of Bangor, a man of great learning, made it appear by diverse arguments, when Austen required the Bishops to be subject unto him, that they aught him no subjection. They further added, as some 
i Antiq. Britan. in August. pa. 46.  set down, That they had an Archbishop of their own, residing at Caerlegion, or Legancestria (that is Chester whither it seems the Metropolitan See, which while the Britain Monarchy continued, was at York, was now removed:) Him they aught and would obey, externo vero Episcopo minime subiectos sore, but they would not be subject to any foreign Bishop, and then not to the Pope, much less to Austen.  
This example of the Brittanes is so ancient, and withal so pregnant against the Pope's supremacy, and that even in Ecclesiastical causes, that Baronius 
k Baron. ann. 604. nu. 65.  being no other ways able to avoid the force thereof, slanders those Bishops with the imputation of schism, because they would not yield obedience to the Pope. Wherein Baronius shamefully begs the main question in that his dispute. Neither could he, nor will others ever prove, either that all Churches, or that this of Britain in particular, did own subjection to the Roman B. The Church of Britain 
l Bert. in sua Diatrib.  in ancient time, like other Provinces, had a Patriarch, or patriarchal Primate of her own: to him the other Bishops in this Church were subject, as they in Egypt to the Patriarch of Alexandria, diverse in the Eastern parts of Asia, to the Patriarch of Antioch; they in Italy to the Patriarch of Rome, and so in other Provinces. Among these Patriarches, and patriarchal Primates, by reason of the Imperial seat, and other seats of justice in several Provinces, there was a Primacy, or Precedency of one before another, but no authority of one above another, no subordination or subjection of one unto another. Admit those Bishops had then separated themselves from the Pope, (which yet doth not appear:) it is not the separation from the Pope, or from any Bishop, not nor from any Church, but only the cause of separation that makes a schismatic: And seeing the Pope then sought to oppress the ancient liberties of the Britain Church, and to bring them under his yoke to whom they were not subject; the Cause of their separation from the Pope being just, could not make them Schismatical; but if the Pope and his adherents did for this cause forsake or refuse communion with them, or separate themselves from them, he and his adherents must rightly and truly be herein accounted Schismatics. Of which point, because in another Treatise: I have at large even against Boronius entreated: I will add no more in this place.  
F. Parsons is more choleric against the Britain's then Baronius, and therefore imputes an higher fault, even the crime of Heresy unto them; and because they would not obey Austin's persuasions to observe Easter, as the Roman Church did, he makes them guilty of the Heresy of the Quartadecimanes. To which purpose he faith: 
l Pars. triple. Conu. part. 1. ca 8. nu. 27.  The Britons observed a jewish Ceremony against the order and faith of the Church of Rome. And he accounteth this a substantial point of faith, saying, 
m Ibid nu. 28  for other substantial points of faith (this then is one) they agreed with Augustine. And again, 
n Lib. eod. ca 9 nu. 4.  Austen at his coming, found no other substantial difference of belief, in the British faith from that which he brought from Rome. And yet more plainly. 
o Lib. eod. ca 3 nu. 14.  The Eastern custom of celebrating Easter, used by the Britain's, hath been condemned, not only for an error, but also for an Heresy. Wherein the jesuit betrays a great deal both of ignorance and malice. For the Heresy of the Quartadecimanes, did not consist in the bore observing of Easter, on the 14. day of the Moon of March, seeing not only the Churches of Britain but diverse also in Asia, as Eusebius testifieth, 
p Euseb lib. 5. hist cap. 2●. 23  observed that same day, who were not held Heretical in this point, not not by the Roman Bishops, who 
q Praedecessores tui Enc haristiam miserunt Eccles●is, quae aliam consuetudinem secutae sunt. ait. Iren. Victori. ibid.  retained commuinion with them. But the Essence and formality of that Heresy, was their teaching that Easter aught of Necessity to be kept on that day and none other: which Necessity they grounded upon the mosaical Law, wherein that day is precisely commanded, from which law they thought and taught others, that none might departed, and so by their doctrine they covertly and closely laboured to reduce judaisme, and all the judaical rites, one of which was this of Easter; and for which, having most colourable pretences, they used it but as a pulley to draw on the rest. Tertullian showeth this fully, who speaking of Blastus the Author of that Heresy, saith: 
r Tert. lib. de praescrip. cap. 53. iuxt. Pam.  Latenter judaismum introducere voluit dicens, Pasca non aliter ●nstodiendum esse nisi secundum legem Mosis 14. luna mensis. He endeavoured cunningly to bring judaisme into the Church, teaching that Easter was on no other day to be kept, but on the 14. as Moses commanded. With this Heresy (which quite abolisheth Christ, & evacuateth the whole Gospel) those famous Churches in Asia, and this of Britain had no affinity. For although they celebrated the same day that the jews did, and the Quartadecimanes urged, yet they kept it neither after the manner, nor upon that ground that the jews and Heretics did. The jews and Heretics observed that day eo nomine, because Moses in his Ceremonial Law, prescribed it. The Churches in Asia and Britain observed it as a tradition from Saint john the Evangelist, and by the example of St. john, & all the Church's subject to him, as Polycrates in Eusebius 
s Nec Policarpo per●●adere potuit An●cetus ne id re●●neret quod cum Iohanne obseruasset. Iren apud Euseb. loc. cit. johannes Apostolus, Policarpus. 14. Luna Pasca obseruabant Euseb. lib. cit. cap. 23. , and long after him B. Coleman expressly declared in that disputation which Bede 
t Ipsum est quod B. johannes cum omnibus quibus praecrat Ecclesiis celebrasse legitur. &, johannis Apostoli exemplum sectamur. Beda lib. 3. cap. 25.  sets down: and St john to have observed that day, B. Wilfrid 
u johannes 14 die mensis primi incipiebat celebrationem sesti pascatis, nihil curans, an haec Sabbato an alia qu●libet feria proneniter. Wilf verba ibid.  who was earnest for the custom of the Roman Church expressly confesseth. The jews and Quartadecimans taught that it aught necessarily to be observed on that 14. day, and on no other; the Britain & Asiaticall Churches, used it as a rite Indifferent, which might either on that 14. or another day, according to different custom of Churches be celebrated: For which cause they did not renounce Communion, nor break the unity of the Church, with such as observed another day, as by that famous example of Policarp 
x Apud Euseb. lib. 5. Hist. ca 24.  and Anicetus is most evident. And though the Nicene council decreed 
y Decret Nicsynod. recitatur apud Euseb. lib. ●. de vit, Constant. cap. 17. & 18.  that Easter should not be kept on the foureteenth day after the manner of the jews, but one another, to which order of the holy general Counsel every particular Church was in duty to have conformed itself, yet because that Decree of the Council, was not a Decree of faith (no further than it condemned the Necessity of observing the foureteenth day, and so condemned the Quartade●●manes) but a Decree of Order, of Discipline and Uniformity in the Church, when it was once known and evident that any particular Church condemned the Necessity of that 14. day, the Church by a Connivance permitted, and did not censure the bore observing of that day, so long as it was observed, but as an indifferent and mutable rite, nor as a mosaical, but as an Apostolical tradition or custom: even as in that other Nicene Canon 
x Conc. Nic. Can. 20. , that on every Lord's day from Easter to Whitsuntide, none should pray kneeling, but standing, the Church both now and ever, used the like Connivance, or Indulgence. So long as there is a consent, unity, and agreement in the Doctrines of Faith, the Church never useth to be rigorous with particular Churches, which are her own Children for the variety and difference in ourward Rites, though commanded by herself. Every particular Church like the King's daughter, must have the same glory of faith within, though they have diversity of rites, like variety of colours in their garments without. And this to have been the very judgement of the church touching the Britain Church and Bishops, herself declared: seeing not long after that Nicene decree, both at the General and holy holy Council of Sardica, and after that, in another at Ariminum, (which Baronius and Binius 
y Bin. Not. in Concilium Ariminense.  profess to have been also a general and holy Council) and at which were present about four hundred Catholic Bishops, they as willingly and gladly received the Bishops of Britain 
z Episcopos Britanniae interfuisse Concilio Sardicensi, testatur, Epist Synodalis illius Conc. apud Athan. Apol 2. Tres ●tiam Britanniae, Epis. inter●ui●●e Concilio Arimine●si rest●tur▪ Sulp. Sever. lib 2. hist. 〈◊〉.  (though observers of the foureteenth day) as any of other Provinces, who observed another. Doubtless had the Church esteemed either the bore observing of that foureteenth day, to make an-hereticke, or the Church and Bishops of Britain, for observing that day to be heretical, Hosius, Athanasius, and other, most holy and orthodoxal Bishops would never have admitted them unto, or permitted them to sit and give sentence with them in those holy assemblies. It was some Ignorance, but much more Malice in Parsons, to accounted those Brittanes who would not yield obedience to Austen, Heretics, and tax them as observing that rite against the Faith, yea against a Substantial point of Faith, whereas it is clear that they were at that time as Amandus Xierixensis 
a Amand. Xierix. apud Antiquit. Brit. in August. Britoneses fuerunt Catholici.  expressly and truly calls them, Catholics; every way, if not more, as Catholic as Austen himself.  
It doth now appear, that the Pope's supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical, was not believed nor received, but directly oppugned and rejected in this Realm, at that time when Austen came, seeing the Catholic Brittanes, British Bishops, and Church refused Austen for their Archbishop, and in that rejected the Pope's authority, by which they knew he was appointed to be their Archbishop. But there are besides this, some other important consequents. First Father Parsons tells us 
b Pa●s. trip. Conu. part. 1. ca 8. nu. 28. & ca 9 nu. 3. , that in all substantial points of faith, excepting that Ceremony (so himself expressly 
c A jewish ceremony observed against faith. ibid. ca 8. nu. 27.  calls it) of observing Easter, the Religion of the Brittanes did wholly agreed with that of the Romans at that time, which was the time of Gregory the Great. Now seeing it is clear that the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, was no point of the Brittanes faith, but a doctrine which both by their profession and practice they did utterly condemn and reject: it hence followeth, that the same doctrine was condemned by Pope Gregory, and all Catholics at that time. Again, Parsons tells us 
c Ibid. ca 9 nu. 1. 2. 3. 6. , That the faith which the Britons formerly had in the time of Eleutherius, and before that also in the Apostles time, was the selfsame in all material and substantial points (excepting that Ceremony of Easter) which they had when Austen came▪ in all that time neither did the Church of Rome change her faith, nor the Britain's theirs. And Galfr. Monumetensis leaving out that ridiculous exception of Parsons, testifieth 
d Galf. Monumet. lib. 11. ca 7. , (as Parsons also confesseth 
e Verba Galf. citat. Pars. lib. eod. ca 2. nu. 13.  of him) that the same doctrine of Christianity which was received in the time of Eleutherius, failed not among the Britons, but remained in force when Austen came. Whence it again and certainly followeth, that seeing the doctrine of the Pope's supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical, was no part of the faith of the Britons when Austen came; therefore neither was it any part of their faith in Eleutherius days, not nor in the Apostles neither: nay seeing the faith of the Britons (as Parsons truly affirmeth 
f Pars. ca 9 cit. nu 2. ) was then the same which the Roman Church, and all Catholics embraced, it further followeth, that the Pope's Supremacy, was no part of the faith of the Church of Rome, or of any Catholics either in Eleutherius, or in the Apostles time. So is it clearly proved, and that with a large overplus, that as the Supreme authority of the Pope in causes Ecclesiastical, (and a fortiori in Temporal) was rejected by this Realm ever since the Conquest, so was it also during the whole time of the Saxons and Britons, ever since there was a Church planted therein, and that is ever since the days of the Apostles, in whose time, by the confession of all learned men, there was a Church in Britain.  
To this Demonstration, and evident Deduction of the truth, let me add somewhat touching those three pretences which they allege, & whereby they strive to prove the Pope's▪ Sovereignty and Monarchical authority in this kingdom. The first, as you have seen 
g Sup. ca 1. , is the payment of Peter-pences, begun by King Ina, about the year 716. and confirmed by Offa, Adelphus, William the Conqueror, and others, till the time of Henry the eight: which payment, because Polydore 
h Pol. Virg. hist. Angl. lib. 4. §. Post hunc  calls a Tribute, they thence infer, that the Kingdom of England was Tributary to the Pope, and he the direct or Supreme Lord thereof. But what a slender witness is Polydore for so weighty a matter? An Italian, one of the Pope's Pensioners, Collectors, and flatterers also: such an one as Card. Bellarmine himself misdoubts in this very matter, saying 
i Bell. Apol. pro Tort ca 4. §. Quanquam. ; England is tributary to the Pope, si Polidoro Virgilio credimus. If we will believe Polydore. And sure the Cardinal had reason to doubt that Polydore meant not any such thing as they collect: for he expressly saith 
k Pol. Vir. loc. cit. , that those Peter-pences were paid to the Pope, pietatis et religionis causa, for piety and devotion. So by Polydores testimony, that was a tribute of Devotion, not of Duty, a tribute given for Piety, or given in Pios usus, not a payment of subjection, or service. But what speak I of Polydore? That those Peter pence were indeed nothing else but a voluntary Alms given to the Church of Rome, partly for the use of some English Church there erected, partly for the relief of English Pilgrims and Travellers who came thither, either upon devotion or otherwise, there are such authentic Records witnessing the same, that the poor and petite testimony of Polydore, (on which, but with extreme diffidence, they build that their idle fancy) is not to be named, much less compared with them. In that old Manuscript collection of Nicholas Card. of Arragonia, of which before I spoke: among other Records there is set down a Writ or Instrument 
k Instrumentum quod Mr. Sintius Camerae dom. Papae clericus, Nuncius Apostolicae sedisin Anglia ad Curiam apportavit. Cod. M. S. ante citat. fol. 41.  which Mr. Sintius Clerk of the Pope's Exchequer, and the Pope's Nuncio in England brought to the Roman Court, concerning these Peter pence. In it is expressed, both how those pence aught to be collected, at what time, and where to be paid, what forfeiture for not payment thereof, and which I principally observe the very reason why the King paid them to Rome, which is this, Quoniam denarius hic Elemosyna Regis est, because those Peterpences are the Alms of the King. Among the Laws of S. Edward the Confessor, which are extant in another ancient Manuscript 
l Cod. M. S. legum antiq. Inter leges. St. Edw. fol. 35: extat in Bibl. D. Rob. Cot. , the very same touching all those particulars, are expressly and verbatim set down, as in the Instrument of Sintius, the same reason of payment is there also expressed, Quoniam Denarius hic Elemosyna Regis est. William Conqueror, to the end 
m Rog. Houed. Annal. part. 2. in Hen. 2. pa. 343.  he might be undoubtedly certified of the true Laws, which were formerly used by the Saxons in this Realm, caused a collection of them to be made by the consent of sworn men, 12 to be chosen out of every Shire of England. They all (witnesses for number, antiquity, and credit above all exception) among other ancient Laws and Customs, mention this concerning Romescot or Peter-pences, in the very same manner and words as the former did; and this very reason, for the payment thereof by them is expressed, Quoniam Denarius hic Elemosyna Regis est. By all which it is evident, that by those Peter pence, the Pope and Church of Rome is certainly proved, to be Elemosynarius a Beeds-man to the Kings & kingdom of England, as receiving that Annual Alms from them, to the payment whereof they voluntary bound themselves. And from this voluntary gift of an Alms, to conclude that the Pope is the highest Lord of England, is even such a reason, as if a beggar from the gift of a penny, or an Hospital from the gift of twenty shillings, which you promise' or bind yourself yearly to pay, should conclude that they are certainly your Landlord, and that you hold all your lands and possessions of them, and in token of recognition thereof, do pay yearly to the one a penny, or to the other a pound.  
Their next pretence, and that wherein they do most confidently & continually triumph, is that famous, nay infamous, and as Math. Paris 
a Charta saeculis omnibus detestanda. Math. Paris. M. S. hist. minor in joh. §. Dum ita. Detestabilis illa charta. Idem. hist. maior. an, 1245, §. Di●bus vero, , and Math. West. 
b Math. West. ad an. 1213. , rightly call it that lamentable execrable, and detestable Charter, made by King john, by which he resigned for the Pope's use, into the hands of his Legate, the Realms of England and Ireland, and as feudatary, took them of the Pope again, for the annual rent of 1000 Marks. For answer whereunto, I wish them first to consider what they will say to Sir Thomas Moor, an holy Martyr 
c Sand de Schis. p. 29.  among them, who denyeth 
d Sir Thomas Moor in the supplication of souls.  the Fact and that any such Deed was at all made by King john. For my own part, I do not consent to their Martyr in this point. For besides that the Copy of the Charter made to Pandulph the Pope's Legate, is set down in Math. Parisiensis 
c Paris. an. 1213 §. Rebus , and Math. Westmonasteriensis 
f Westmon. an. 1213. , who lived near those times, there is extant a Bull of Innocentius. 3. which (reciting Verbatim, every word in john's Charter to Pandulf,) the Pope sent unto K. john: declaring how willingly and joyfully he accepted the Kingdoms so resigned, and let them unto King john again. The very autographum of that papal Bull, dated on the 4. of November, Anno 1213. signed with the Popes own hand and mark, witnessed by the subscriptions and marks of 12. Cardinals and 3. Bishops, sealed also with the Pope's seal of lead, imprinted on the one side with the name of Innocentius 3. and on the other, with the Images of Peter and Paul, after I had seen 
g In Bibl. D. Rob. Cotton.  and perused, it left no scruple at all touching the fact in my mind. Besides this Charter made to Pandulph at Dover, on the 15. day of May, an 14. johannis; the Pope afterwards solicited and induced King john, by Nicholas▪ Bishop of Tusculum, the Pope's Legate, to renew 
g Exacta est a Rege & innovata, illa non formosa sed samo●a subiectio. Math. Paris An. 1213. §. Veniente.  the same grant of resignation; and so john did. This second Charter was made for the Pope's use to Nicholas the Legate, at London, in the Church of St. Paul, dated on the 3. of October, an. 15. of King john, and Anno Domini 1213. sealed 
h Charta prior caera signata fuerat, nunc auro bullata est Paris. ibid. Verba Chartae sunt ista, per hanc chartam aurea bulla munitam.  with gold, whereas the former was but with wax. The Copy of which Grant being wholly set down in that Manuscript Collection of Nicholas Card. of Arragonia, of which before I spoke, after I had also seen 
i In Bib. praedicta. , perused, and compared with the former, it did fully satisfy me for the Fact again. And though it be not easy to conjecture what the Pope's policy might be in procuring this second resignation, seeing for every Material and substantial point, it doth Verbatim agreed with the former; yet thus much I think may be easily observed, that both these may well be inualide, but that they both should be of force it is impossible: the validity of either one, makes the other utterly invalid. For if the former was of force, than john having passed away all his right to the Kingdom by it, he could have nothing to pass by the later to the Pope; and then the later is utterly voided and of no force at all: Again, if the later be of force, so that by it john granted or resigned the Kingdom to the Pope, than was nothing at all past away, granted, or resigned by the former, and then the former is utterly inualide. And of the two, though they esteem more of the gold, yet if I might advice them, they should hold them to the wax: specially for that the golden Charter (as Parisiensis 
k Math. Par: an. 1245. §. Diebus.  tells them was said by many to have been melted in that fire at Lions, which Innocentius the 3. himself, was thought to have kindled in his own Palace, that under pretence of that loss, he might more colourably exact a Collection of the Clergy: the fire prevailing further then the Pope intended, devoured that golden jewel, and some other of lesser value.  
But on whether soever they set their rest, it is certainly no better than a staff of Reed, to support the pretended Dominion of the Pope. For though we suppose it to have been sometimes of force, yet the saying of Polidore their own witness, and the Pope's Favourer is very true in this case. Omnia 
l Polid. Virg. lib 15. §. His. dictis.  illa onera Iohanni tantummodo imposita sunt, non item successoribus; Those bands tied, and those burdens were laid upon King john alone, they bond not any of his successors; and this, saith he, Satis constat, is very clear and certain. For as Accursius, Albericus, and other Lawyers teach 
m De quibus vid. sup. part. 1. cu 8. pa. 170.  of the Donation of Constantine, that it could not prejudice his successors, the very same may be said of the Donation of King john: as the Charters, so the validity of them is not unlike. Yea, by the judgement of Lucias de Penna, the grant or Alienation of a Kingdom though confirmed by oath also, as was 
n juravit rex se iudicio Ecclesiae pariturum, Math. Paris. an. 1213. §. Rex denique.  this, could not be of force, not not against King john himself. For though an Emperor, saith he 
o Sup. par. 1. ca 8. pa. 169. , swear that he will not revoke such royalties as are given away to the prejudice of his Crown, yet he may revoke them notwithstanding that his oath. And the reason is, because the Emperor at the time of his Coronation, having sworn to keep safe the honour & rights belonging to his Empire, his second & contrary Oath (whereby he swears to alienate the rights of his Empire, or suffer them to be alienated or withheld) being unlawful, neither doth it, nor can it bind him to violate his former, just and lawful Oath; for juramentum is not Vinculum Iniquitatis. And this directly concerns the very case of King john. Nay, what if the Pope himself adnulled this grant of King john. Both the Charters were made in that one year. 1213. as by their date appears. Of the next year thus writeth the Author of the Eulogium; 
p Euglogium. Cod. M. S. in Bibl. D. Rob. Cotton.  Anno 1214. convocatum est, This year there was a Parliament called at London, the Archbishop and all the Clergy, cum tota laicali secta with all the Laikes, being present therein. Per domini papae praeceptum illa obligatio praefata, quam Rex domino papaefecerat cum fidelitate & ●omagio relaxatur omnino 1 die julii. In this Parliament, that obligation spoken of before, which the King had made to the Pope, with feolty and homage done unto him, was wholly released by the Commandment of the Lord Pope on the first day of july. Thus the Eulogium, evidently witnessing what force or validity soever, was in either of the Charters granted by King john, the same by the Pope's own Act of Relaxation, was the next year wholly anulled.  
And all this I have spoken, upon supposal that those Charters, or either of them, made by john, had sometimes been of force. But the truth is, that neither of them was ever of any force to transfer or give away the Kingdom; but ab initio, even from the very first making of them, there was an invalidity and a mere Nullity in those grants, both in respect of the Giver, of the Gift, of the Cause, and manner of giving thereof. The Giver was john, who as he was never rightly 
p johannes nunquam fuit verus Rex. verba Philippi Regis Franc●ae. apud. Mat. West. an. 1216  King, so neither had he, nor could have any power at all to give away the Kingdom, which was not his, nor of right belonged unto him. For of the six 
q Hanc esse veram genealogiam filiorum Henr. 2. videre licet praeter alios in Chron. joh. Speed in ●n Hen. 2. nu. 102. & seq. & in Chron. holinsh. in Hen. 2 pag. 115  Sons of Henry the second, john was the youngest; William and Henry died before their Father, and without Issue; Richard the third son, reigned after his Father, and died without Issue. The fourth son was Geffray, who died a little before his Father; but left issue, Arthur Duke of Britain; and Elinor, called the Damsel of Britain. Philip the fift son died young, and without Issue. After the death of Richard, the Kingdom in right belonged to Arthur; but john (the youngest son of Henry the second) by force invaded, and by force withheld the Crown from him. After the death of Arthur (which was in the fourth year, 
r Speed Chr. in joh. nu. 19 & 20.  after john had taken the Kingdom) the whole right to the Crown descended, and in right belonged to Elinor, the Sister of Arthur, who lived full 23. years after the death of john: for john died 
s Math Paris: Math. Westm. Hollins. Speed in joh , anno 1217. and Elinor died 
t Math Paris. an. 1241 §. Et circa. pa. 770. & Speed in johane. ● n 20.  anno 1241. which was the 24. year of Henry the 3. son of john. After which time all the brothers of john and their issue also being extinct, the right of the Crown remained in the issue of john. By this now it is evident that john at no time (and lest of all, when he was deposed and deprived of his Kingdom by the Pope's judicial sentence as then he was when this Charter was made) had any right to the Kingdom; and seeing he had no right to take it to himself, much less had he right to give it to another. He could give no more than he had: Right to the Kingdom he had none in himself, right to the Kingdom he could give none to the Pope. Of his gift that may be said which is usually spoken in another matter, Nihil habuit dare, Nihil dedit. And although such Acts of john as concerned the making of Laws, or administration of justice either betwixt subject & subject, or himself and the subjects are to be held of force, as were also the like Acts of some other, and namely of Richard the third, one known and confessed by all to be an Usurper: though those Acts, I say, of john be rightly judged to be of force, because the State of the Kingdom consented to his government, and yielded obedience unto him, thinking it better to accept and obey such a King as had but a pretended title, rather than to have no King or ruler at all; yet for his other Acts betwixt him and strangers, such as concerned the rights of the whole Kingdom and Regality of the Crown, and which tended to the bringing of the whole Kingdom into bondage and vassalage unto others; for these, neither the Act of john, nor of any other were, or were ever judged to be of force; there was an Invalidity in john to do such Acts, and when he did any such, there was a mere Nullity in the same.  
As the Giver had no power to give, so neither was the kingdom such a Gift as could be passed away by john. For no Emperor can without the consent of his State, give his Empire to a stranger; seeing in so doing, he should prejudice the rights of others, and make them subjects and vassals to another, without their own consent: whereas both equity and natural reason teacheth, as out of Lupoldus 
u Lupol. de jur. regni & Imp. ca 14.  was before declared, that the Act which preiudiceth the right of others must be approved by them all. Now although in the Charters, King john is made to say, that he did this communi consilio Baronum, by the common consent of his Barons; yet was that clause, as many other, most falsely and fraudulently put into the Charters by the Pope's Legates. The Barons and State were so fare from consenting to this Grant, that when the first Charter was sealed at Dover, Henry Archbishop of Dublin the principal man in that assembly, (in the name as it seems of the rest) did Reclamare 
x Math. Paris. an. 1213. §. Charta itaqae & Speed in Chron. in joh. nu. 48. , openly disclaim the same, and grieve thereat. And when the second was sealed in Paul's, Stephen Lancton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, (a Cardinal, and the Popes own creature, but in this a true lover of his Country) Appellationes 
y Math. Paris 〈◊〉. 1231. §. Defunctae.  solenniter fecit ante altar, made solemn Appeals before the altar against that writing, which was 
z Ibid.  toti mundo execrabile, detestable to the whole world. By virtue of these appeals 
a Innixus iuri & Appellationibus Stephani. ibib. , as also of the right in the cause itself. Ralph Nevil Chancellor of England doubted not openly to say, and his speech was related to the Pope himself by Simon Langeton, That the yoke 
b Excuteret Angliam de sub iugo domini Papae, etc. ibid.  of the Pope to which john had subjected England, might justly be shaken off, and that for so doing, himself would strive even to the loss of his head. How much the Barons disliked this Grant of King john, his own words to Pope Innocentius, as also the Pope's answer, do witness: Our Earls and Barons, saith he 
c Verba Epist. johannis ad Innoc citantur in resp. ad Apol. Bellar. ca 3. §. Frater. , and the Pope writes 
* In illum insurgunt postquam ecclesiae satisfecit, qui assistebant eidem quando ecclesiam offendebat. in Epist. Innoc. 3. apud. Math. Paris. an 1214 §. Innocentius pa. 356.  the like, were devout and loving unto us, till we had subjected ourselves to your dominion, but since that time, & specialiter ob hoc, and specially even for so doing, they all rise up against us. The manifold opprobrious speeches used by the Barons against King john, for this subiecting himself and his kingdom to the Pope, do declare the same▪ john, said they 
d Derisionibus multiplicatis subsannando dixerunt Math. Paris. an. 1215. §. His peractis. , is no King, but the shame of Kings; Better to be no King than such a King: Behold a King without a kingdom: a Lord without Dominion; Alas thou wretch, and servant of lowest condition, to what misery of thraldom hast thou brought thyself? Fuisti Rex, nunc fex, Thou wast a King, now thou art a Cowherd, Thou wast the highest, now the lowest. Fie 
e Idem. ann. 1216. §. Circa▪ h●●s.  on thee, john, the last of Kings, the abomination of English Princes, the confusion of English Nobility; Alas England, that thou art made tributary, and subject to the rule of base servants! of strangers! and which is most miserable, subject to the servant of servants! Thou john, whose memory will be woeful in future time, thou of a most free King, hast made thyself tributary, a farmer, a vassal, and that to servitude itself: this thou hast done, that all might be drowned in barathro Romanae avaritiae, in the Hell of the Romish avarice. Yea, so detestable was both this fact of john, and dealing of the Pope, that Philip the French King, though the mortal enemy of King john, hearing thereof, even upon this very point, that the Barons and State did not consent to that Act, did proclaim both the absolute freedom of the kingdom of England, notwithstanding this Grant of john, and declaim also against the Pope, for seeking to enthrall kingdoms unto him. For when Gualo 
f Math. West. an. 1216. & Math. Paris. hist. minor. M. S. in johan.  the Pope's Legate, told him that the kingdom of England was now become the Pope's patrimony, by the gift of King john, Philip presently replied, & his words are very remarkable, Regnum Angliae patrimonium B. Petri nunquam fuit, nec est, nec erit; The kingdom of England never was, nor is, nor shall be the Patrimony of Peter. And the King gave two reasons of his so worthy and resolute assertion; the one 
g Math. West. loc. cit. , because john was never King, and therefore could not give away the kingdom; The other, because 
h Math. West. & Paris. M. S. locis citat.  Nullus Rex, No King nor Prince can give away the kingdom (which is the Commonwealths) without the assent of his Barons, who are bound to defend the kingdom; and if the Pope being alured by the lust of Dominion, determine to maintain this error, he gives a pernicious example unto all kingdoms. At which saying 
i Math. West. loc. cit. , all the Noble men of France that were present, began uno ore clamare, to cry with one voice, That they would stand to this truth usque ad mortem, even to death, That the Pope cannot at his pleasure give kingdoms, or make Kings tributary, whereby their Nobles shall be made slaves to whom he will: Nay, they did not only say it, but swear 
k Math Paris. M. S. loc. cit.  also, that they would spend their lives in this quarrel. Besides all which, there is yet a fare more authentic proof of the invalidity of King john's grant, and that is the judgement of the whole kingdom assembled in Parliament in the time of Edward the third. This matter touching the Grant which King john made to the Pope, being proposed and discussed in that Parliament; Upon 
l Ex Rotulo Parliam. an. 40. Ed. 3. nu. 8.  full deliberation, the Prelates, Dukes, Earls, Barons and Commons answered and said with one accord, that neither the said King john, nor any other, can put him, nor his Realm, nor his people in such subjection without their assent: and as by many evidences appeareth, if it was done, it was done without their assent, and contrary to his own oath at his Coronation. And besides this, the Dukes, Earls, Barons, Gentlemen, and Commons, do accord and agreed, that in case the Pope shall enforce, or attempt by process, or by any other manner of doing, to constrain the King or his subjects to perform this, (as it is said he will) these parties will resist and withstand it with all their puissance. Thus are the words of the Act: A demonstration above all exception, that to the Grant or Charter made by K. john to the Pope, there was no assent of the Realm; and therefore that K. john neither did, nor could by that his Grant, or by either of those Charters, resign or transfer his kingdom to the Pope, but that in his very Act of doing it, there is not only an Invalidity, but a mere Nullity.  
The third Nullity ariseth from the Cause, which moved john to make this Grant to the Pope. And though in both the Charters john is made to say that he did it, for piety and devotion, to make satisfaction to God and the Church for his sins; that he did it also bona nostra spontaneaque voluntate, of his own free accord, and with a willing mind; yet are these in truth, nothing else but pretences: An easy matter it was for the Pope and his Legates, to make john writ what colourable pretence they listed, when they made him give away his kingdom to whom, and as they listed. The true and only Cause inducing, nay enforcing john to make this Grant, was that imminent danger and fear, to lose both his Crown and his life also, into which extremity, both of danger and fear, the Pope himself had now first brought john, that so he might be pliable to his own persuasions, & then held him so fast enwrapped and ensnared, that without the Pope's help he was now inextricable. His land was now under a general Interdict 
n Math. Paris. an. 1208. § Lo●doniensis. , and had so remained for five whole years, like an Heathenish Nation, without celebration of divine Service and Sacraments. john himself was by name Excommunicated 
o Idem. ann. 1209. §. Sub his. , and had so remained for diverse years: All 
p Idem ann. 1212. §. Circa hos.  his subjects were released and freed à Regis fidelitate et subiectione, from owing either fidelity or subjection to him; yea they were forbidden, and that under the pain of excommunication, so much as to company or converse with him, either at Table, or in counsel, or in speech and conference. Further yet, john was deposed from his kingdom, and that judicially, à 
q Math. Paris hist min. M. S. in joh. §. Dum ita.  iure regni abdicatus et sententialiter condemnatus in Curia Romana, being in the Roman Court deprived of all right to his kingdom, and judicially condemned; and that Sentence 
r Westmon: an. 1213. & Math. Par an. eod. §. Anno 1213:  of his Deposition and Deprivation, was solenniter promulgata, solemnly denounced and promulgated, before the French King, Clergy, and people of France. Neither only was john thus deposed, but his kingdom also given away by the Pope, and that even to his most mortal enemy. For the Pope 
s Paris. loc. cit. pa. 310.  to bring his sentence to execution, writ unto Philip the French King, persuading, yea enjoining 
t Westm. loc. cit. ex parte do. Papae regi Francorum alijsque iniunxerunt & idem ait Paris. pa. 311.  him to undertake that labour of dethroning john (actually, as judicially he was before) and expelling him from the kingdom, promising unto him, not only remission of all his sins, but that ipse et successores sui regnum Angliae iure perpetuo possiderent, he and his heirs should for ever have the kingdom of England: withal the Pope 
u Paris. loc. cit.  writ letters to all Nobles, Soldiers, and Warriors in diverse Countries, to sign themselves with the Cross, and assist Philip for the dejection of john. Philip was not a little glad of such an offer, gathered forces 
x Paris. & West. loc. cit. , and all things fit for such an expedition, expending in that preparation no less than 
y Paris. ann. 1213. §. His ita  60 thousand pounds. All 
z Idem an. eod. §. Rex Angl.  these things being notified to King john, did not a little daunt him; And though he was too sensible of the impendent calamities, yet to strike a greater terror into his amazed heart, and make a more dreadful impression in his mind, of the dangers which now were ready to fall on his head, Pandulph was sent from the Pope unto him, to negotiate about the resigning of his kingdom, to which if he would consent, he should find favour, protection, and deliverance at the Pope's hands. Pandulph by a crafty kind of Romish Oratory, at his coming to the King, expressed, yea painted out in most lively colours all the difficulties and dangers 
a Paris a. cit. §. Dum autem.  to which the King was subject, The loss of his Crown, the loss of his honour, the loss of his life. That there was 
b Math. West. loc. cit.  no other way in the world to escape them, nisi sub alis domini Papae potenter protegatur, but by protection under the Pope's wings. john 
c Paris loc. cit. §. Rex denique  seeing dangers undique imminere, to hung over him on every side, by the French abroad, by the Barons at home, and being dejected, and ment 
d Ibid.  nimis perturbatus, utterly dismayed and confounded with the ponderation of them, resolved for saving his life, to lose his liberty and honour: and to save his kingdom from his open adversary, to lose it and give it quite away to his secret, but worst enemy that he had: doing herein as if one for fear of being slain in the open field, should kill himself in his own chamber. It was not piety but extreme peril; nor devotion, but fear only, and despair that caused, and even enforced john against his will, to make this Grant to the Pope. Parisiensis rightly observed this when he said 
e Math. Paris. hist. min. M. S. §. Dum ita. , Demersus Rex in desperationem, King john being then drowned in Despair, made that shameful agreement, volens nolens, with an unwilling will to the Pope. And truly the very same cause induced john to make the second Charter. For besides that the Interdict 
f Licet terra Interd●cta fuisset, (cum advenit Nicolaus) etc. Math. Par hist. mayor an. 1213. §. Eodem anno ci●ca. pa. 329.  was not then released, K. john knew by experience, that if he had incensed the Pope, by not yielding to his motion, the Pope would, and could as easily now as before, use his power of Excommunication, Deposition, and giving away his kingdom. As Fear and Force imminent, caused him to make the first, so Fear and Force foreseen, caused and compelled him to make the second Charter. And what validity can there possibly be in those Acts which are done per vim & Metum? It is a rule in the Law 
g Cod. de Transaction. l. Interpositas. , confirmed by a perpetual Edict, Interpositas metu transactiones ratas non haberi, that such agreements as are made for fear, are of no validity. We command, say the Emperors 
h Honor. & Theod. Cod. de ijs quae vi & m●tu gesta ●●nt l. Venditiones. , that those Venditions, Donations, and Transactions be voided, quae per potentiam extortae sunt, which by force & power are extorted. Innocentius himself declares the same, even in another Act of this King john. The Barons 
i Math Paris. 〈◊〉 1214. §. 〈…〉  not prevailing by persuasions with him, took the City of London from him, and being in arms, forced him to confirm some liberties and laws unto them. john having made complaint thereof to Pope Innocentius, he thus writ 
k Idem eod. an §. Innocentius pa. 357.  of that matter, john being destitute of help and advice also, durst not deny what they required, unde compulsus est per vim & metum, whereupon he was compelled by Force and Fear (which may fall into a man though he be most constant) to make both a shameful and wicked composition with them; That composition reprobamus penitus ac damnamus, we utterly reject and condemn; and all the Covenants and Obligations contained therein, we make altogether frustrate and void. Boniface 8. entreating of some things done by the Kings of Scotland, which seemed prejudicial to their right, saith 
l Bonif. in suis literis ad regem Angl. apud Math. Westm. an. 1301. , Ea utpote per vim & metum elicita nequaquam debent de iure subsistere, those things being done by reason of Force and Fear, (which may happen to a constant man) aught not in Law to be of validity, nor to redound to the prejudice of the kingdom. Whose saying doth equally in every respect, show the invalidity in this Act of King john. Pope Pascalis with an whole Council decreed the like. He being imprisoned 
m Ab. Vsperg. an. 1112. Alb. Stad. et Naucl. eod. ann. & Conc. Later. sub. Pasc. 2.  by Henry 5. by a fair Charter resigned unto the Emperor, the Inuesti●ures of Bishops, and ordering of the See apostolic. The Pope was no sooner at liberty, and the fear past, but calling a Lateran Council, they revoke and adjudge that Grant, even because it was per violentiam extortum, made by constraint, to be of no force, to be Pravilegium, not Privilegium. Were they not quite blinded with partiality, they could not choose but confess, that much more this Charter and Grant of King john must be invalid; the Grant to Henry was just and lawful, being that which in right belonged unto him: this Grant of john was sundry ways injurious; injurious to john himself, it being contrary to his just oath formerly taken: injurious to the whole State and kingdom, whose liberties it enthralled: injurious to the Crown, as taking away the Regality thereof. Seeing they upon that rule of Gesta per vim et metum non valent, adnull the just Charter and Grant of Pope Pascalis to the Emperor, they do warrant us by the same rule to pronounce a Nullity of the injurious Charters and Grant of King john unto the Pope.  
The last Inualidity, ariseth out of the very Manner of the Grant, and of the making thereof. For after all that K. john either resigneth, giveth or granteth any way to the Pope, this Proviso and Exception, or Reservation is expressly set down, Saluis nobis et haeredibus nostris, justitijs, Libertatibus, et Regalibus nostris. Saving to us and to our heirs, our Rights, Liberties, and Regalities. Which words being expressed in the former Charter, the Copy whereof is vulgarly extant & obvious unto all, I supposed that the principal, if not the only reason, why the Pope procured his second writing had been, to have this clause (which adnulleth all the former Grant) expunged and left out in the second and golden Charter. But when I found the selfsame Proviso, and that totidem verbis, expressed in both the Charters, I did even wonder to see their vanity, and with what insolency they boast that Sovereignty of Dominion is here given to the Pope, and the King made an homager and vassal unto him by this Grant: all which this one Proviso doth manifest to be untrue. For the Right of a King is Sovereignty of Dominion: The Liberty of a King, is Freely and Absolutely to rule, without being subject or servant to any other mortal man. And the very essence of Regality, as I have before showed, is Supremacy of authority, Independent of any, save only of God. Seeing all these are expressly and directly excepted in both the Charters, they utterly made voided whatsoever is before mentioned, either as granting Sovereignty to the Pope, or as acknowledging subjection in the King. In both these respects, by reason of this one Proviso & Exception, there is a certain Nullity of the Grant made in both the Charters. Much more might be added; But for further satisfaction in this whole point concerning these Grants, I gladly refer the Reader to the History of King john's life, so faithfully, exactly, and judiciously set forth 
n Ea est quae extat in Chro. johan: Spe●d. , by my learned friend Mr Dr Barkam, that were the rest of our Country Story suitable thereunto, few humane Histories of kingdoms could be preferred before it.  
Their third and last proof, concerns Henry the second, father of this King john. Card. Allen 
o Card. Allan. admonit. to the Nobil. an. 1588. pa. 8. & cit. in Blackw▪ large. examine. pa. 18.  pretends that Henry the second, when he was absolved for the death of Thomas Becket, made an agreement with Pope Alexander the third, that none might lawfully take the kingdom of England till he were confirmed by the Pope. And both Baronius 
p Bar. an. 1173 nu. 9  and Bellarmine 
q Bell. Apol. pro Tort. cap. 3 §. Extat. , and after them Becanus 
r Bec. Contr. Angli. q. 9 nu. 1. 2. & seq.  and Gretser 
s Grets' in con. Exeget. sive Basil. dor. ca 5 §. si temporalia.  allege to this purpose, an Epistle of Henry the second, set down among the Epistles of Pet. Blesensis 
t Epist 136 inter Epist Pet. Bla●s. , wherein King Henry acknowledgeth the Pope to be his temporal Lord, and himself the Pope's Feudatary. Vestrae jurisdictionis est Regnum Angliae: The Kingdom of England belongs to your jurisdiction, and by Feudatary obligation I am bound and obnoxious to none but to you. Let England know what the Pope can do; and because the Church useth not material weapons, let it defend the Patrimony of Saint Peter by the spiritual Sword. Whereunto I answer, that both this pretence of a Covenant, and Feudatary subjection, is untrue; and that Epistle going under the name of Henry the second, wherein this is acknowledged, is either wholly forged, or in that part or passage corrupted. Whereof there are so many evident profess, or rather Demonstrations, that none of sound judgement duly pondering the same, can justly make any doubt thereof. Had the Pope known this Kingdom to have been the Pope's Patrimony, and the Kings thereof Feudatary unto them in the time of Henry the father of K. john, or could they have showed that King Henry had acknowledged this under his hand and seal, would they have been so simple as to have laboured so earnestly and craftily to draw King john to make those Charters of Resignation, and that grant of the Sovereignty thereof unto them? What could either K. john resign, grant, or give unto them, or the Popes receive more than was their own before, and that by the authentical acknowledgement of King Henry? Seeing this acknowledgement of King Henry, utterly adnuls the Grant, and both the Charters of K. john, wherein they so much triumph, & for which (as also for the Pope's earnest labour to obtain the same) there are so cretaine and undoubtful Records, even themselves must either confess this Epistle and acknowledgement of King Henry, to be a Forgery, or else for ever disclaim the Charters of King john, and whatsoever is granted therein unto them. Had the Pope known this Kingdom to be his Patrimony, and himself to be the Lord thereof, by any acknowledgement of King Henry, why did he not protect K. john, and his Kingdom against the Barons, against Philip the French K. and against Lewis his son, as well before john had made those Charters, as he did after? specially seeing he gives this very reason why he protected john, because 
u Admonet papa Philippum ne permitter et Ludovicum Angliam hostiliter adire vel Regem Anglorum inquietare in aliquo; sed ipsum ut Rom. Ecclesiae vassallum protegeret & defenderet. Math Paris. an. 1216 §. Sub. his. pa. 375. Ecce qualiter patrimonium B. Petri Angliam ponti●ic●s defendunt, dicunt Barones, quorum inso: lentiam minis▪ & censuris compescit Innoc●ntius 3. in suis literis apud Math Paris. an. 1215. pa. 362.  he was his Vassal, and a Feudatarte unto him, one whom in duty he was to protect and defend. For thus said 
x Paris. an. 1216 §. Tunc: dixit. pa. 381.  the Pope to the Legates of Lewes. He aught not to make war (no not just war) against King john, but he must make complaint to john's higher Lord, to wit the Pope, Cui subest Rex Angliae tanuqam vassallus eius, whose Vassal King john is. Nay why did the Pope incite K. Philip, to invade England, to dethrone King john, and promise' his Kingdom unto him, if it was the Patrimony of St. Peter, by any Grant or acknowledgement from K. Henry? Or how could Innocentius the third, in his Bull 
y Bulla Innoc. de qua supra.  of Acceptation of john's Charter, have said in such a glorying manner, That now upon K. john's Grant, was fulfilled, that which Saint Peter saith: Regnum Sacerdotale, et Sacerdotum regale. The Pope being now made (in respect of England) like Melchisedek, both a King and a Priest! That this and other Provinces, quae olim, which formerly held the Roman Church, for her Mistress in spiritual matters, Nunc etiam in Temporalibus Dominam habeant specialem, hath the same Church now (upon King john's Grant) for her Lady in Temporal affairs also? Innocentius doth hereby clearly witness that this Realm of England, never till K. john's time acknowledged the Roman Church for her Lord in temporal matters. And therefore by the Pope's own judgement, neither Henry the second, nor any former King did ever acknowledge, as in that forged Epistle Henry is made to do, this Realm to have been the Patrimony of Peter, or the Kings thereof Feudataries to the Pope.  
Besides this there are diverse reasons that may persuade that K. Henry never writ that Epistle, at lest not that passage therein, nor ever made any such acknowledgement. There is extant a Letter 
z Epist. Hen. 〈◊〉 in M. S. cod. in Bib D. Rob. Cot.  of this King Henry, to Pascalis the third, who succeeded to Octavianus, called Victor the 3. and was chosen Pope in the time when Rowland called Alexander the 3. held the See. Pascalis is accounted by them 
a Galt. Chron. in saecul. 12.  for an Antipope, but as before I shown, Alexander was indeed a Pseudopope, which much impaireth the credit of Henry's E-Epistle and acknowledgement made unto him. Henry after congratulation for his election, and signification how he sent that pension of Peter-pences unto him, which he expressly calls Beneficium, as noting it to be given in courtesy, and as an Alms, not as a duty, he thus saith, What honour and obedience your See had in the time of my father, and Predecessors, the same I will that you have in my time: In this tenor that I also do entirely enjoy those dignities and customs in my Kingdom, which my Ancestors had in the same: And I certify you that as long as I live, the dignities and customs of my Kingdom shall not (God willing) be impaired. And though I (which God forbidden) should so much deject myself, yet my Nohles, imo totus Angliae populus id nullo modo pateretur; yea the whole Kingdom of England will not suffer the impairing thereof. So clearly and constantly doth King Henry protest that neither himself would, neither would his people permit the impairing of the dignities and custom of the Kingdom: and therefore that neither himself nor they would ever acknowledge such Feudatary subjection to the Pope, as in that forged Epistle is both against the mind, the hand and seal of the King, and against the consent of the Kingdom acknowledged. Those other acts of King Henry, recorded in Historians, do show the same. He forbade 
b Rog. Ho●ed. Annal. part. 2. fol. 289 §. Amantissimo.  any to appeal to the Pope, and that also, qualicunque de causa, for any cause whatsoever, without the King's leave. He accounted and often called, 
c Ille Thomas proditor. literae Henry 2. add Episcop. Londin. apud Math. Paris. an. 1149. §. Per Idem: & ad Ludou. Regem Franc. scripsit ne inimicum suam ac proditorem Thomam ●oue●et. lit. Henr. apud Westm. 1168. & saepe alibi.  Thomas Becket a Traitor for applealing to the Pope, and seeking help of him against the King: He entreated 
d Literae. Hen. 2. ad Frid. Imper. apud Westmonast. loco citato.  aid of Frederick the Emperor, to depose Alexander the Pope, eo quod proditoris Thomae causam fovit, because he took part with the Traitor Thomas against him: He decreed, that if any 
e Rog. Ho●ed lib. cit. fol. 284.  brought into England either any letters or mandate from the Pope, containing an interdict of the land, he should be apprehended, and justice without delay done unto him, Sicut de traditore Regis ac Regni, as on a Traitor to the King and Kingdom. He decreed that 
f Ibid. fol. 290.  neither Archbishop nor other, should without his leave go out of the Kingdom, not not ad vocationem domini Papae, though the Pope called him: He professed 
g Ibid. fol. 287.  obedience to the Pope's sacred commands, but with this Proviso. Salua sibi sua, regnique sui dignitate: always saving his own dignity and the Kingdoms (by which one Proviso his regal Sovereignty is kept safe.) His oath taken at that very time when he was absolved, after the death of Becket, is worthy observing. One part whereof was this, that he 
h Ibid. fol. 303  would not revolt from Pope Alexander and his successors, quamdiu ipsum sicut Regem catholicum ●abuerint, so long as they entreated him as a Catholic King (and that is, so long as they touch not his regal Sovereignty, or attempted aught against it.) Another part was, that he 
i Ibid.  would not hinder appeals to the Pope in causes Ecclesiastical (in civil he would) but yet with this Proviso (which kept his sovereignty safe) that if any were suspected, they should put in security, that they would not hurt either him or his Kingdom: Upon such security, he permitted only, but allowed not, and that only in Ecclesiastical causes, appeals to the Pope. These and a number the like, as they are clear evidences, that he still as well after as before the death of Becket, kept the Sovereignty of the Kingdom in himself, so they demonstrate that acknowledgement of the Pope's superior authority unto him, and that himself was a feudatory to the Pope, mentioned in that Epistle to be a mere fiction and forgery, devised by some unskilful favourer of the Pope.  
To all which may be added the judgement of their learned Archpriest, who entreating of that accord betwixt King Henry the second, and Pope Alexander the third, which Cardinal Allane mentioneth, not only taxeth 
k Georg. Blackw. in his large Examinat. pa. 18. 19 & 20. He must needs acknowledge his oversight in that point.  the Cardinal for oversight in that point, but further also of his assertion resolutely saith: It is untrue, adding that King Henry the second never made any such accord, for aught that he could ever read in any Chronicle of credit. Now it is not to be doubted, but that so learned a man, exercised in the diligent search of such matters, had both read and knew right well of this Epistle, going under the name of King Henry the second, so familiar and obvious in their writings; but because he judged that Epistle to be of no credit, he therefore denied any such grant to have been ever made. But enough touching England, to manifest the vanity of their boasting, that the Kingdom thereof, even ex quo Christi nomen ibi clarificatum est, ever since Christianity was embraced therein, hath been in the hand and power of S. Peter, as Pope 
l Epist. Alex. 2 ext. apud. Bar. an. 1068. nu. 1.  Alexander the 2. saith, or as Stan. Christanovic 
m Christanou. Examen. Cathol. sol. 33.  explains it, hath at all times been tributary to the Pope: whereas we have now by many and by authentic evidences demonstrated, that ever since the first planting of the faith in this Land, it hath still been an Imperial Kingdom, subject to none but only and immediately unto God.  
For the Kingdom of Scotland, I will only here mention two Testimonies. The former of Cassaneus 
n Cassaneus citat. apud Episc. Roffe. contra Bell. lib 1. ca 8. . The King of Scots, non habet superiorem nisi ipsum Creatore, hath no superior unto him but only God. The other of the whole State of England. When Boniface the 8. challenged 
o Literae Bonif. 8. extant apud Math. Westmon. an. 1301.  the Kingdom of Scotland to belong pleno iure, in full right to the Church of Rome, as to the direct and supreme Lord thereof, the Earls, Barons and Nobles of England after diligent examination of the whole matter, with one consent returned this answer 
p Literae Gomitum & Baronum Angl. extat apud. ●und. Westm. an. citato.  to Boniface. The Kingdom of Scotland, nullis temporibus, in temporalibus pertinuit, vel pertinet quovis iure, ad Ecclesiam vestram, doth not now, nor at any time did belong by any right unto your Roman Church. Which one authentic testimony is enough to silence for ever their vain pretences for that Kingdom.  
For the Kingdom of Ireland, how fare it was from acknowledgement of the Pope's temporal Monarchy, may certainly be discerned by their condemning his Ecclesiastical sovereignty, and that by consenting voice in their Parliaments. In the time of King 
q Statute of Ireland. an. 10. Hen. 7. ca 5.  Henry the 7. all the statutes made in England against Provisors, were authorised, confirmed and decreed to be of force for Ireland. The like Statute against Provisors was made in the time of Henry the sixth 
r An. 32. Hen. 6 ca 1. , yea a more severe law was made in the time of Edw. the fourth, That 
s Stat. of Irel an. 16. Edw. 4. ca 4. not printed, said citator in the first pa● of the report of Sir john Davis', in the case of Praemunire fol. 87.  such as purchase any Bulls of Provision in the Court of Rome, as soon as they have published or executed the same to the hurt of any Incumbent, should be adjudged Traitors.  
The like might be declared of the Kingdoms of Denmark, Suetia, Hungaria, Russia, and the rest, which are mentioned in Nicholas Cardinal of Arragonia, and after him in Steuchus and Gretzer: for them all in general, that one testimony of their own, Dom. Soto, being so full and clear to our purpose, may suffice at this time. Pope Innocentius, saith he 
t Dom. Sot. in 4. Sent. distinc. 25. q. 2. art. 1. concls. 3. §. Quod si. , ingeniously confesseth, that he hath no power in temporal matters, over the French King: Et quiquid alij somniant, id de omnibus regnis intelligit, and whatsoever others dream, the Pope understands this of all other Kingdoms. But omitting other particulars touching them, I will only now in the last place entreat of the Roman Empire, which both by Act and Word, to have rejected their papal Monarchy, might by innumerable testimonies and examples, be made evident. Of them all, I will briefly mention but a few, having in many passages before set down much to this purpose.  
Constantine the great, the first Christian Emperor, was so far from acknowledging that Papal monarchy, that himself exercised supreme authority, & that not only in Civil, but even in Ecclesiastical causes. The Donatists brought unto him a very troublesome cause, and many accusations against Cecilianus. He being at the first unacquainted 
t Imperatorem ●●arum rerum adhuc ignarum. Opt. lib. 1. cont. Parm. pa. 28.  with the Canons, durst 
u Non Ausus est ipse iudicare. August. Epist. 162. & 166  not (personally, or by himself) give sentence therein, but he did that which demonstrated his Sovereignty both of authority & judgement; for causam 
x Aug. Epist. 166.  iudicandam atque finendam Episcopis delegavit, he delegated and deputed Bishops to judge in his room, and to end that business: first Maternus, 
y Optat. loc. cit. & Epist. Constant. Miltiad. apud Euseb. lib. 10. ca 5.  Rhetilius, and Marinus, to whom he joined Pope Meltiades, & iunxit 
z Aug. in Brevic. collat▪ die. 3. §. Quinto ergo.  causam audiendam, and he enjoined or gave a precept to the Pope and them to hear the cause, and to end it. When the Donatists appealed from the Synodall judgement of the Pope▪ the Emperor 
a Aug. Epist. 166.  dedit alios iudices, apppointed other judges at Arles, to judge even of the Pope's judgement. When the Donatists yet again appealed from them also, Constantine though he might iusty have rejected their appeal after so many judgements given by those Bishops, yet he took the judgement 
b Aug. Epist. 162.  thereof into his own hands, à sanctis Antistitibus postea veniam petiturus, saith Saint Austen, purposing to crave pardon of the Bishops, for undertaking to judge in that same cause which he had apppointed to be ended by them. Himself 
c Idem Epist. 68  personally then heard the whole cause, and Episcopalem causam cognitam terminavit, saith S. Austen, he made a final conclusion and determination of all that ecclesiastical matter; & withal made a most severe law against the Donatists. Can there be desired moe, or more clear evidences, that this most religious Emperor esteemed not the papal, but his own Imperial authority to be supreme in these causes? His delegating & appointing of judges, even the Pope for one, his receiving appeals, and giving other judges after the Pope's judicial sentence past, his own personal hearing the cause, and final ending of it by his own judgement, are evident proofs of his superiority above the Pope. And this Imperial judgement was so approved by the Church, that S. Austen little less then triumpheth therein against the Donatists. Constantine, saith he 
d Aug. Epist 166. , is dead, Sed iudicium Constantini contra vos vivit, but the judgement of Constantine against you doth still live. The Emperors (Constantine, Gratian, Theodosius and Valentinean) do command the same that Christ's commands, because when they command what is good, per illos non iubet nisi Christus, none but Christ doth command by them: yea S. Austen, in this very cause, besides this of Imperial superiority above the Pope, expressly declares that there is another judge in Ecclesiastical causes above him: for speaking of the Synodall judgement of Pope Meltiades, of which the Donatists complained as unjust, Let us, saith he 
e Aug. Epist. 162. , suppose those Bishops who judged this cause at Rome, to have been ill judges, restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae concilium, there remained yet a general Council of the Church, where the cause might be debated, cum ipsis iudicibus, even with judges themselues, one of which was the Pope. No marvel if Stapleton 
f Staplet. Counterblast. ca ●9 pa. 17.  was so displeased at this example, so ancient, and withal so pregnant against their doctrine, that he, reviling Constantine, for that very judgement, for which S. Austen and the whole Church honoured him, shamed not to say of him, that he waded fare beyond the borders of his own vocation. But wisdom is justified of her own children.  
justinian in his Imperial laws fully declares this Sovereignty of Emperors above the Pope, There is saith he 
g justin. Novel. 133. in praefat. , nothing exempt 
h Sic legitur in antiquis Cod. & sic legendum agnoscit. Stap. in suo Counterbl. ca 19 p. 184. in nonnullis edit. aliter habetur.  from the Prince's inquisition, who hath received from God communem in omnes homines moderationem, & principatum, a common Regiment and Sovereignty over all men. His own acts also, as by name the Banishing of Pope Siluerius, the commanding Pope Vigilius to come to Constantinople, and staying him there till the Emperor gave him leave to departed, and diverse the like, do manifest that he judged the Imperial authority to be a superior even a commanding power above the Papal.  
The like Sovereignty doth Basilius the Emperor testify to belong to himself and all the Emperors, when in the presence, and with the approbation of that, which they call the eight general Council, he expressly thus said 
i Conc. Gen. 8. Act. 1 , The government of the Ecclesiastical ship (that is of the whole Church) is by divine providence nobis commissa, committed to us who are Emperors.  
I would gladly stay a little in speaking of Charles the Great, specially because Sciopius hath so insolently and so vildly misused him, metamorphising 
k Is porro (Carolus) tantus Asinus, Sciop. c. ●47.  him into an Ass, into a right Issachar, that is into a strong Ass, yea into an Ass with Bells about his neck, that it will not seem amiss, for vindicating his honour against such railing Shemeys to make manifest how this renowned Emperor was in very deed the high commander both of the Pope and all others in his Empire. See first how by his commanding authority he calls the Pope and other Bishops out of their Provinces to the Council at Frankford. jussimus 
l Rescriptum Caroli ad Elipandum. tom. 3. Conc. p. 425.  Synodale Concilium, we have commanded a Council to be held at Frankford of all the Bishops within our dominions. Among those Bishops the Pope was one, who at the Emperor's command was present in that Council by his two Legates 
m Athel. in Ann. Franc. an 794. Reghin. in eund. an. & Ado Vien. atque alij▪  Theophilactus and Stephanus, whom he sent to supply his room therein. Let Scioppius now say who was then the Ass, the Pope, who obeyed the Emperor's command, or Charles who like the chief muliter driven the Pope to what fold he listed.  
See next how this great Emperor not only resisted the Pope's doctrine and direction, and that also in a matter of faith, but like the holy Angel of God, reproved the Romish Balaam, and his baalitical Idolatry, in their adoration of Images. There are extant four large books called Libri Carolini, wherein not only the doctrine and decree of their second Nicene Council about Images is fully, and by many divine authorities and reasons refuted, but that second Nicene Synod is as Hincmarus 
n Hincm. lib. cont. Hincma. rum laudum. c. 20.  saith, penitus abdicata, utterly rejected therein, yea Athelmus 
o Athel. loc. ci●▪  adds, that the second Nicene Synod was so wholly rejected, ut nec septima nec universsalis haberetur, dicereturue, that it should neither be esteemed nor called the seventh, or any general Council. That Charles the great was the Author and writer of this book, Aug. Steuchus witnesseth, saying 
p Steuc. lib. de Donat. Const. p. 111. , Charles the great writing of Images in the first book and sixth chapter, thus saith: and then he repeateth that whole Chapter of the Li●ri Carolini. The like is witnessed by Eckius 
q Eck. in Euchir c. de Imaginibus. , Charles the great quaituor libros scripsit writ four books against such as take away Images. Bellarmine 
r Bell. lib. 2 de Concil. c. 8 §. Primo qu●a.  is of opinion that they were not 
s Ibid. §. Quod autem.  writ by Charles, but by the Counsel at Frankford, seeing there is set down the very acts of that Council, and this both out of Hincmarus, and the books themselves he declares. Both their opinions are in part true, for it is certain, that some parts of those books were written by Charles: Of the Preface, in which 
t Nam eodem ord●ne cum Ariminensi censetur Praef. lib 1 Carol. p. 97.  their 2. Nicene Synod is rejected, it is evident to be the preface of Charles, This 
u Ibid.  work we have undertaken with the consent of those Bishops which are set over Catholic flocks, in regno à Deo nobis concesso, in the kingdom given unto us by God; which words can agreed to none but to Charles. Again of the last Chapter, wherein Charles professeth 
x Secundum quod continet Epist. ●. Gregorij ad Serenum. lib. 4. c. vlt.  to follow the judgement of Gregory the great, who writ thus to Serenus, We 
y Greg. Epist. 9 lib. 9▪ Indi. 4  praise you that you forbade them to adore Images, but we reprove you that ye broke them down. This chapter to be the true writing of Charles the great, Pope Hadrian 
z Had. 1 Epist 3. quae est ad Carolum. c. ult  expressly testifieth. So both the beginning and ending of those books are the writing of Charles. The rest of the books wherein all of any moment which is set down in the second Nicene Synod is repeated and refuted, seems indeed to be written▪ as Bellarmine saith, by the Council at Frankford, but yet so, that it was approved by Charles. And because according to the law 
a Cod. lib. 1. de veteri iure Eccl. , Omnia nostra facimus quibus nostram impartimur authoritatem, they were usually and rightly said to be the books of Charles. This, Hincmarus witnesseth, saying 
b Hinc. loc. cit▪ , By the authority of the Council of Frankford, the worshipping of Images was somewhat repressed, yet Hadrian and other Popes after the death of Charles, suarum pupparum cultum vehementius promoverunt, did more earnestly labour for the worshipping of their puppets, so that Lewes the son of Charles, libro longe acriori insectatus sit imaginum cultum quam Carolus▪ did in a more sharp book writ against the worshipping of Images than Charles had done, where he plainly testifieth those books writ against the adoration of Images to be the books of Charles. The Council at Paris held in the time of Lewes, witnesseth also those books to have been written with the allowance and approbation, yea in part by the direction of Charles. When your father Charles, say they 
c Synod Paris. sub Ludovico & Lothario in principio. , had caused the second Nicene Synod to be read before himself and his Bishops (in the Council at Frankford) et multis in locis ut dignum erat reprehendisset, and when he had in many places reproved it, as it well deserved, and when further he had noted and observed certain chapters of the Nicene Synod which were to be reproved, he sent the same chapters by Euguilbert an Abbot to Pope Hadrian, ut illius indicio et authoritate corrigeretur, that they should be amended by Pope Hadrianus authority and judgement. Now seeing those books which Charles sent to Hadrian, and which Hadrian answered, were no other but these very four Libri Carolini, as Bellarmine 
d Bell. lib de Concil. c. 8 §. Primo quia.  rightly professeth, and as any who compareth the one with the other, cannot choose but acknowledge; it evidently hence followeth, that what Chapters of the second Nicene Council are in those books reproved, the reproof was either praenotata observed, or at lest allowed by Charles. Seeing so great an Emperor as Charles not only rejected and condemned their second Nicene Synod which Pope Hadrian had confirmed, but writ or published large books, and that under his own name against that Synod, yea when he admonished the Pope to correct and amend his Nicene Synod, and the Decrees thereof: let Scioppius here again say, who seems to him in this cause to be the Muliter, and who the Ass; and whether Charles be such a wise that is obedient Ass as he foolishly boasteth he was.  
See lastly how in this very point touching the Pope's temporal Monarchy, (in respect whereof Scioppius accounts and calls him one of their greatest Asses) he was in very truth one of their Pope's greatest Muleteers and Commanders. Charles the great, saith jac. Almane 
e jac. Alm. lib. de Potest. Eccl & lai●. 1. q. 1. c. ●4. §. De Inst. niano.  did not acknowledge any superiorem in temporalibus, to be above him in temporal matters. Nay he took, and that rightly a Sovereignty above all, even in the Pope himself. He had 
f Dist. 63. c. Had●ianus.  the election of the Pope, he had the ordering of the Apostolical See; he had the Sovereign disposing 
g Sigon. lib. 4. de reg. Italan principio.  of Rome and Italy, having conquered and obtained it iure belli, he gave (as to Tenants under himself) Dukedom's and Cities, to whom he would, Permisit pontifici, he permitted the Pope to have the Exarchate of of Ravenna, the Dukedom of Rome, and other Cities, and he permitted the Pope with this Proviso to have them, jure principatus & ditione sibi retenta: he let the Pope have only usum fructum, the use, profit and commodity of those territories, but the Sovereignty and supreme dominion he reserved still to himself, as Sigonius and 300. years before him, Eutropius witnesseth: who saith 
h Eutrop. ●ongobar. tract. de juris & priu. Imper.  that Charles ordained that all the people of Rome, tam Episcopi, quam la●ci, as well Bishops as Laymen, should be Homines Imperatoris, the Emperor's men. Now because Scioppius saith 
i Deus Romam Ecclesiae donavit, & hunc corpori suo velut cibum hanc gregi suo cau●● am daturum se promisit Sciop. Eccles. ca 51. , that Rome is the meat, and the fouled of the Church, whether the Pope and his Cardinals, who eat such Fodder, and are couped in that Fould, be to be called Asses, or Charles who allowed them this Fodder and this Fould, I leave it to the judgement of any save only Scioppius, who accounts himself▪ and not without cause, one of that fouled 
k Cuiusmodi Asini simus nos Catholici. Sciop. lib. cit. ca 14●. pa. 534 in marg.  of Asses.  
O but, Charles cried out, saith Scioppius 
l Ca ●od. pa. 537.  to all the fouled of Asses, let's honour the Roman Church (that is the Pope) and bear with humility, whatsoever yoke he imposeth though it be almost insupportable: which is the saying of a right Issachar. But why doth not Scioppius tell you, where Charles the great said this? Or how knows he, that Charles ever used such a true Issachars saying? If he rely, as Baronius 
m Bar. an. ●01 nu. 10.  doth herein, on Gratians authority, where 
n Dist. 19 ca In memoriam.  this is cited under the name of Charles, their own Possevine 
o Post. in Gratiane.  will tell him, and that most truly, that Gratian very often errs in citing sayings under the names of such Authors, as never writ them. And this to be certainly one of those errors of Gratian, that which I have already said of Charles, doth make evident. For Charles would neither himself endure, nor suffer others to bear that yoke of adoration of Images, though imposed by the Pope: neither would he bear or endure to hear of that other insupportable yoke of the Pope's Temporal Monarchy, but himself imposed his own yoke of Sovereignty upon the Pope, permitting him no otherwise to have Rome, and other Cities in Italy, but so that the Sovereignty and highest dominion should still remain in himself. So both the Doctrine and Actions of Charles demonstrate that Issachars saying to be none of his. Scioppius may learn of Burchardus 
p Burchardus citat. ex council. Triburiensi. Nota Gregor. ad ca citat.  the whole Chapter; In memoriam, which Gratian falsely ascribed to Charles, was indeed a Decree of the counsel 
q Conc. Tribur. ca 30. totidem omnino verbis decretum illum habet, ut apud Gratianum citatur.  at Triburia, held in the time of Pope Formosus, 80. years 
r Conc. Trib. habitum est an. 895. Carolus obij● an. 814.  after the death of Charles the great. But whether soever of them was Author of that Decree, certain it is, that neither the one nor the other, can thence be proved to be such a very Ass or right Issachar as Scioppius fancieth. For in that Decree, there is neither mention nor intention of bearing the yoke of the Pope's temporal Monarchy, wherein consisteth the very essence of A●inity. This yoke Charles as hath been undeniably demonstrated, could not endure, but he as I have showed imposed upon the Pope, the yoke of his own Sovereignty. The counsel of Triburia also, was so fare from once dreaming of that Papal yoke, that they directly subject the Pope to the yoke of the Emperor's authority & Sovereignty, saying 
s Conc. Trib. in prooemio.  of Arnulphus the Emperor, that God had preferred him, omnibus ecclesiasticae sublimitatis ordinibus, above all orders of Ecclesiastical sublimity, then certainly above the Popes. The Decree (which was indeed made by the Counsel 
t Ab Episcopis decretum illum factum iudicant, illa verba quae nobis est matter Ecclesiasticae dignitatis. , and not by Charles) speaks only of Ecclesiastical Orders, Rites or Ceremonies as their own words declare, Let us say they, honour the Roman See, that she who is the mother of priestly dignity unto us, esse debeat Ecclesiasticae magistra rationis, may also be the Mistress of Ecclesiastical reason; that is order & discipline. So the true meaning of the Decree is, that such Ecclesiastical Orders, Rites or Ceremonies, as that our mother Church imposeth on us, let us with patience and humility observe, though otherwise the yoke of them be scarce tolerable. From whence to conclude any acknowledgement, that all, even Kings and Emperors must bear the yoke of the Pope's temporal Monarchy, it beseemed none but only such as Scioppius is, one who is eminent in that his fold of Asses.  
Otho the great, besides many other ways demonstrated his Imperial Sovereignty above the Pope, and that also with the approbation of the whole Church, when he deposed 
l Litpr. lib 6. ca 6. 7. & seq.  john the twelfth (though for age but a boy Pope, yet for wickedness a Monster) and placed Leo the 8. in his See, as before we have declared.  
Pope Hadrian the fourth, had writ a letter 
m Epist. Hadr. extat. apud Radeu lib 1. cap. 9 & apud Nauc. an. 1155.  to the Emperor Frederick the first, wherein he reproves the Emperor of insolency and arrogancy, for setting in his letters, his own name before the Popes, telling him, that he conferred the imperial dignities unto him: Coronae 
n Radeu. loc. cit. & ca 15.  beneficium tibi contulimus, we have given unto. you the benefit of the Imperial Crown. here was a fit occasion for the Emperor to have acknowledged the Pope's right, if he had known it. But see how the Emperor answered 
o Epist. Frider. extat apud Radeu lib. 1. ca 10. & Naucl. an. citato.  the Pope: Ad illam vocem nefandam, at the hearing of that speech, detestable and voided of all truth, (that the Empire is conferred by the Pope) not only our Imperial Majesty conceived just indignation, but all the Princes who were present, were so filled with wrath & anger, that they had condemned to death those 2. wicked Priests who brought that message, unless we had stayed them. Again, seeing by the election of the Princes, à solo deo regnum & Imperium nostrum sit, our Kingdom and Empire is from God only, Whosoever shall say, that we receive the Imperial Crown, pro beneficio à domino Papa, as a gift from the Pope is guilty of a lie and of gain saying, the divine Institution and Doctrine of S. Peter. Again 
p Apud. Naucl. ●oc. cit. , Seeing Christ both for himself and Peter, paid tribute to Caesar, he giveth you an example that you also should do so. Had Silvester any regality in the time of Constantine? By Constantine's concession, liberty was given to the Church, & quicquid regalis, Papatus vester habere dignoscitur, largitione principum obtinet, & whatsoever regality the Papacy hath, it obtained it by the bounty of Princes. This was the Emperors, and most true judgement of the Pope's Sovereignty.  
Frederick the second though he was often excommunicated and deposed by the Pope, not only 
q Trit. in Chr▪ Hirsang. an. 1244.  contemned all the Pope's censures, and sentence, quam iniustam & frivolam esse dicebat, which he called unjust & frivolous, but held his Empire with great honour, the Princes, Nobles, and Imperial cities adhering to him, usque ad mortem, even to his dying day, so that neither the Pope nor any other could prevail against him: yea he so vexed and punished the Pope ut vitae taederet, that he was weary of his life, and wished he had never deposed him. The same Emperor said 
r Epist. 〈◊〉 ●apud 〈…〉 vinc●. Epist. 3. lib. 1● , that it was a ridiculous thing to subject the Emperor, of whom to take punishment belongs to God, and not to man, cum temporalem hominem superiorem non habeat, seeing the Emperor hath no mortal man above him.  
When there was great contention about the right and dignities of the Empire, in the time of Lewes of Bavare, omni ambiguitate mature solerterque discussa, all doubts being maturely and exactly discussed by the holy Bishops, the Emperor made and promulged this law, which being set down by Alberic. de Rosate 
s Alber. ●. Bene à Zeo●e tit▪ de Quadrien. prae●c.  and Hier. Balbus 
t Hier. Balb. l●b de Coronat. pa 65.  is most worthy to be writ in golden letters, as expressing the true dignity and authority of imperial majesty: some parcels of which I will here recite. He decrees, that the Emperor is truly made by the election only of those who have right to elect without either confirmation or approbation of any other, quoniam in terris quoad temporalia non habet superiorem, because the Emperor hath none upon earth his superior. Again, Their doctrines are pestiferous and seditious, and their assertions detestable who say, that Imperial dignity and power is from the Pope, and that the party elected is not truly Emperor nor king unless he be confirmed, approved and crowned by the Pope. We by the consent of the Electors, and other Princes of the Empire do declare, quod imperialis dignitas & potestas est immediate à solo Deo, that Imperial dignity and power is immediately from God alone, and that upon the consent in election, he is forthwith truly Emperor, and hath plenary imperial power; nor doth he need either approbation, confirmation, or consent of the Pope or any other, and this we decree by a law for ever to be observed: and whosoever shall presume either to speak or to consent to those who speak against those things thus declared, decreed, and defined by us, we decree them to be ipso iure et facto both by law and actually deprived of all lands, jurisdictions, privileges and immunities which they hold of the Empire; and further to have incurred, and to be subject to all the punishments which are due unto Traitors.  
Hereunto may be joined that of Guntharus the next elected 
u Cuspin. in Carolo. 4.  Emperor to this Lewes, who renewed and ratified this Edict of Lewes, decreeing 
x Gunthari decretum extat inter Imperiales. Constit tom. 3. p. 414.  by the like consent of the Imperial states, that the Pope, secundum omnia iura divina ac humana subesse debet imperio, aught to be subject to the Emperor's according to the laws both of God and man, and that the Emperor nec illi nec ulli personae in temporalibus subiectus est, is subject neither to the Pope nor to any other person in temporal matters. He decreed also, that whosover would presume either to speak or do aught▪ or to consent to any who did speak or do against this their decree, such should be accounted rebels to the Emperor and Empire, and be deprived ipso iure et facto of all benefit and dignity which they hold of the Empire, and should also be subject to all the punishments due unto Traitors.  
Many like examples and decrees of other most worthy and renowned Emperors might be added, but these few which I have mentioned are so pregnant that I will now end this whole treatise with these so ample and evident demonstrations both of the Pope's subjection to Emperors, and of the Emperor's Sovereignty above the Pope, by either of which their Babylonish Monarchy doth of itself fall to the ground.  
FINIS.    

Errata in 2. part. de Tempor. Monar.  

In Textu.  
Page 7. line 4. to be read, to be held. page 18. line 17. 200. read 2000 p. 23. l. 14. service which. r. service of which. p. ead. l. 15. that the, r. that he. p. 45. l. 11. such such. r. such sort. p. 137. l. 4. twentith r. twenty eight. p. 171. l. 5. powers. r. power. p. 184. l. vlt. john. r. Edward. p. 203. l. 18. who being. deal who. p. 219. l. 27. Edw. 2. r. Edw. 3.   

Part. 2. in margin.  
Page 6. line 20. cap. 38. read cap▪ 37. p. 13. l. vlt. epist. 8. r. epist. 7 p. 19 l. 29 c. 4. sect. r. c. 3. sect. p. 24. l. 40. q. 3 r. c. 3. q. 3. p. 77. l. 26. Dist. 96. r. Dist. 63. p. 79. l. 39 c. 10. r. c. 8. p. 101. l. vlt. c. 4. r. c. 14. p. 108. l. vlt. an. 1112. r. an. 1122. p. 109. l. vlt. c. 71. r. c 69. p. 136. l. 23. an. 132●. r. an. 1329. p. 138. l. 4. c. 43. r. c. 42. p. 140. l. 9 nu. 8. 9 r. nu. 17. p. 153. l. 7. Act. q. r. Art. 9 p. 163. l. 6. 'tis 3. r. Tit. 4. p. ead. l. penul. 134. r. 734. p. 169. l. 2. & 4. Platin. r. Onuph. p. 175. l. 4. Quartum. r. Quantum. p. eadem. l. 10. nu. 5. r. nu. 3. p. 187. l. 11. & 14. p. 95. r. 91. p. 191. l. 19 p 106. r p. 96. p. 192. l. 14. q. 12. r. q. 2. p. 205. l. 15. ●om. 4. r. tom. 3. p. 219. l. vlt. part. r. parlium. p. 223. l. 2. lib. 3. Ass. r. lib. Assis. p. 225. l. 30. etc. r. etc. ibid. c. 3. nu. 19 p. 226. l. 3. nu. 15. r▪ nu. 28. p. 242. l. 6. c. 4. r. c. 3. p. 245 l. ●6. p. 29. r. p. 129. p. 256. l. 5. §▪ Circa hos. read §. per idem.