would almost perswade one to suspect a mistake and that they unhappily attribute to the Apostle the Residence of the Conjurer In a word That Simon Magus might be at Rome I will not much dispute since so many Tracks of his footsteps seem to have been visible there these thousand years or upwards but that Simon Peter was there I must crave leave to say does not to me sufficiently appear by this Argument The fifth Reason Why we are to believe that Peter must needs be at Rome is Because he was put to Death there Which they say is evident enough from his Sepulchre which was shewn there and the Pilgrimages undertook by multitudes to visit it and by the Testimony of many Writers who take the same for granted 1. This seems but a Negromantic Logic the carcass only of an Argument in a matter of Faith that is fetcht from Tombs and rais'd I know not how from Caemiteries a very rambling Reason that depends meerly on Pilgrimages 't is nothing probable if Peter were Crucified by that cruel Tyrant Nero that the Christians were allowed at all much less publickly to Interr his Corps or build him a sumptuous Monument For we find in Eusebius l. 4 That the Christians had very much ado to obtain the body of their Bishop Polycarpus which was refused them by the Heathens thinking they would make a God thereof and adore it but the Christians protested they did Worship only and alone the true God The custom of Worshipping departed Saints and Pilgrimageing to dead mens shrines came up long after And who knows but a forged Story might boulster up an Idolatrous or at least Unlawful Superstition But as to this you shall hear more in a subsequent Chapter 2. However could they evidently and beyond all contradiction demonstrate that they have indeed St. Peters bones at Rome yet this would be no proof that he was ever there in his Life-time much less that he was the particular Bishop of that Church for nothing is more frequent amongst them than the Translation of the bodies of Saints from one place to another many hundred years after their Decease But as they have no Authentick evidence that they have one true Grain of that blessed Apostle's dust so we are too well acquainted with their Art in Counterfeiting Relicks and building glorious Shrines for drawing together vain superstitious People and bubbling them of their money to credit them on their bare words about the Body of Peter any more than concerning the Head of St. John Baptist the Milk the Comb the Scizzars and the Travelling Chamber of the Blessed Virgin Cartloads of Chips of the Cross whereon our Saviour suffered the Head of St. Denis the Bones of St. Vrsula and her Eleven thousand Virgins The Heads of the three Wise-men of the East whom they call the three Kings of Cologn and a Thousand more impostures daily boasted of visited and worshipped through several parts of the Roman Catholick World But they will perhaps urge If Peter did not suffer Martyrdom at Rome where died he To which I Reply 1. What imports it if it be not known Can they tell us where and when St. Matthew St. Jude and others of the Apostles died Nay rather as God concealed Moses's Grave to prevent Idolatry it may be the same Gracious Providence foreseeing what a noise some people would make about St. Peter left the latter stages of his Life and place time and circumstances of his Death purposely in the dark to check such presumption 2. St. Chrysostom St. Jerome Nicholaus Lyranus and the Interlineary gloss on that Text Matth. 23. 24. Behold I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes whereby those Authors understood Apostles and Evangelists and some of them ye that is the People of Jerusalem shall kill and crucify and some ye shall scourge c. do say That St. Peter was Crucified at Jerusalem which may reasonably be supposed after his return out of Syria or Egypt if we credit Nicephorus for otherwise there being none of the Apostles that suffered by way of Crucifixion there that Prophecy should not be fulfilled the words of Lyra are these Ex ijs Occidetis sicut Jacobum fratrem Johannis Acts 12. Stephanum Acts 7. Multos alios Crucifigetis ut Petrum Andraeam To which Testimony of that most Learned Man who lived near 400 years ago the Cardinal has nothing to say but that he speaks unwarily but whether himself does not speak full as unwarily and groundlesly is still a just question The rather if we consider that Josephus who lived and wrote at Rome and not only mentions the Death of St. John Baptist and Christ in Judea but of many Christians put to Death at Rome by Nero yet takes no notice of Peters Crucifixion which he was not likely to omit if Peter had been then accounted the head of the Christian Church and did suffer at Rome So that Peter's being at Rome and Crucified there still remains doubtful and those Authors that talk of it seem all to follow the before mentioned Papias There is yet another Argument urg'd by some Romanists grounded on a Story related by Platina and others viz. That St. Peter endeavouring by night to make his escape and fly out of Rome for fear of Persecution Christ personally met him a mile out of Town in the Appian way to whom Peter saying Lord whither goest thou And Christ answering I come to Rome again to be Crucified Peter taking these words to be meant of his own Martyrdom as the Lord might seem to suffer in his person went back and having settled Clement to be his Successor was soon after apprehended and Crucified in which place of their meeting where these words pass'd Platina tells us there was in his time a Chappel Extant And there is a Tradition too that the very print of their feet as they two talkt together was long after and for ought I know some may say to this day plainly to be seen As it suited not with the honour and zeal of Blessed St. Peter supposing him the proper Bishop of Rome to offer thus timorously to desert and abandon his flock in time of Persecution so neither can the Romanists vouch any better Original Testimonies for the same than either a Book in the Name of Egesippus which is acknowledged and we doubt not but to prove it to be a Counterfeit Or another ascribed to Linus the Author whereof whoever he was Baronius himself terms a foolish counterfeit Writer and consequently all that follow or relate the Story after them how numerous soever are not to be regarded And should any Christian give up himself to believe this Fable that Christ was so corporally there as to leave the Impression of his sacred Feet it were to make shipwrack of Faith for by the Holy Ghost and speaking by the mouth of St. Peter too it is expresly declared that the Heavens shall contain our
Imprimatur April 6. 1687. GVIL. NEEDHAM A MODEST ENQUIRY WHETHER St. PETER WERE EVER AT ROME AND Bishop of that CHURCH WHEREIN I. The Arguments of Cardinal Bellarmine and others for the Affirmative are Considered II. Some Considerations taken notice of that render the Negative highly Probable LONDON Printed for Randall Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. A MODEST ENQUIRY WHETHER St PETER were Bishop of Rome Or ever there c. CHAP. I. The Occasion of this Disquisition is Administred by the Romanists It does not much concern Protestants But of the highest Importance to the Church of Rome as being made an Article of Faith and her loftiest Pretensions bottom'd thereon To overthrow which 't is enough if we shew That their Arguments are not Cogent THERE is no man I think can desire more heartily than thy self the accomplishment of that Prophecy When Swords shall be turn'd into Plow-shares and Spears into Pruning-hooks All the Weapons of Contention changed into Instruments for cultivating the Lords Vineyard That our Controversies ended no strife might remain amongst any that profess the Christian Name but an happy Emulation who should most glorifie God and adorn the Gospel by a meek Holy Conversation That all our Tongues and Pens freed from the unwelcome Toil of Polemics might be jointly employ'd in Eucharistics celebrating the Praises of the Divine Majesty and exciting each other to the practice of Virtue and Piety But since the All-wise Soveraign Disposer of things has not thought fit to allot that happiness to our Times but that Religion of it self the highest and most Sacred Bond of Love and Unity is by the Ignorance the Prejudices the Passions and secular Interests of men made one of the greatest occasions of Difference or a common Subject of Debate since there are a sort of People in the World who neglecting the humble Simplicity of the Gospel and dreaming of nothing less than Infallibility Vniversal Soveraignty and such like Grandezzu's not only assume to themselves the highest Priviledges on the weakest Pretensions but would impose their Dictates no less groundless than Imperious as necessary to Salvation and Damn all that cannot see with such Spectacles as they please to put upon their Noses I cannot but think every one seriously studious of his future State obliged to use all the just means he can for satisfaction in things that are said to concern his everlasting Peace and Happiness Amongst the several Questions agitated between us and the Church of Rome some are purely Theological the discussion of which most properly belongs to Divines others however advanced or made use of to boulster up lofty Pretensions are no more than Historical as relating to a meer and indifferent matter of Fact And the subject of these Papers being of the latter kind I thought a Lay-man without incurring the censure of Presumption might be allowed fairly to sum up the Evidence produc'd on either side leaving the Impartial and Judicious Reader to give the Verdict in the Cause as he shall think fit Especially since I undertook not this Enquiry out of any Pragmatic Humour of contending or vain-glorious Itch of arguing an unnecessary Problem But as invited or rather if I may be allowed to say so provoked thereunto by divers Books and Pamphlets very lately as well as heretofore publish'd amongst us by the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion wherein it has been asserted as a notorious Truth or rather taken for granted as a thing out of Dispute That St. Peter not only Preached the Gospel at Rome but by Gods command fixed his Chair there that is became the proper Bishop of that City and therefore the Popes are his Successors c. The Pope or Bishop of Rome says the Author of the late Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented ch 18. is the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock and who hath been followed now by a visible Succession of above 250 Bishops The famous French Prelate now of Meaux formerly of Condom in his Exposition not long since publish'd in English Sect 21. has these words The Son of God being desirous his Church should be one and solidly built upon Vnity hath establish'd and instituted the Primacy of Peter to maintain and cement it upon which account we acknowledge this Primacy in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for this CAUSE we owe Obedience and Submission And again The Primacy of St. Peter 's Chair is the common Centre of all Catholic Vnity The Author of two Questions Why are you a Catholick And why are you a Protestant p. 41. tells us of the Bishop of Rome's being Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ Nay so confident they seem of our Credulity That an Almanack called Calendarium Catholicum for the last Year 1686. commonly cry'd about the Streets and dispersed throughout the Nation sets it down as an unquestionable piece of Chronology thus Since the removal of St. Peter 's Chair from Antioch to Rome Anno 43. where he remained 24 Years and was afterwards Crucified with his Heels upwards under Nero then Emperour 1647. Years Now though this brisk assurance wherewith they deliver themselves suits well enough with those that shall abandon their own understandings to make room for an Implicite Faith in Humane Guides as being resolved to receive their Priests Dictates blindfold and may perhaps make Impressions on spirits that are ready to entertain every warm Asseveration as an Oracle rather than be at the trouble to examine its verity yet in me who have long since learnt of the great St. Augustine to defer that Honour to the Sacred Scriptures alone of commanding my Beleif it had a quite contrary effect and so much the more awakened my Curiosity to inquire what substantial Proofs they had for what they alledg'd so peremptorily 'T is true indeed That it does not much concern Protestants Whether ever St. Peter were or were not at Rome For even to grant That he was the first Bishop of the Church there will nothing prejudice our Cause with considering men who before they can admit the modern Roman Claims will besides That expect some solid proof 1. That Peter was constituted by Christ Prince of the Apostles or sole Supreme Governour on Earth of the Universal Church 2. That this Empire of his was not only Personal but Successive and to be continued to the end of the World in some other Persons in the quality and upon the account of being his Successors 3. Why this supposed right devolved to his Successors in the Bishoprick of Rome rather than to those of Antioch which they say was his first Episcopal See Or that St. Peter's removal from thence to Rome was by Gods special Command to make That the Seat of Ecclesiastical Empire and that accordingly he did actually bequeath his Authority to the latter rather than to the former for his being put to
him in that Chair which he should think fit to chuse and happen to dye at And the like Answers they must according to their Principles and Pretensions give in other particulars Now who hears of such a stupendious Superstructure but will expect that the foundation should be firm beyond exception If they will perpetually be amusing us with the Din of Peter's Chair and Peter's Successor and the wonderful things they are thereby estated in I cannot imagine why we may not be allowed to inspect their Title To consider whether the ground-work of all these Magnificent Pretences have any thing of certainty If the Popes Primacy be the Centre of Catholick Vnity The sum of Christianity a matter so Essential that none without believing it can obtain Salvation And if this Primacy be founded on Peter's being at Rome and fixing his Episcopal Chair there why should any body be angry with me for endeavouring to satisfie my self or others therein Does it not at this rate become the concern of all the Christian World to inquire into matter of Fact whether St. Peter were indeed once at least in his Life at Rome and Bishop there Can we expect less than a Divine Oracle some plain text of Scripture to warrant so Important a Matter At least will any thing shor of a Demonstration proof beyond Doubt or probable Contradiction be allowed for good Evidence in a Case of such weight and moment I know well 't is not only difficult but many times impossible to prove a Negative I shall not therefore undertake nor am I obliged to prove that St. Peter was never at Rome or Bishop thereof But they that affirm he was and draw thence such advantagious Inferences to themselves are bound by all Rules of Law and Reason to make that Affirmative appear by sufficient Evidence We are only on the defensive part if they will require us on the pain of Damnation to submit to their Bishop of Rome because he is St. Peter's Successor they ought surely in the first place to demonstrate that he does succeed him 't is therefore enough for my purpose and will invalidate all their claims derived from St. Peter if I can shew That all they have to alledge for his being at Rome and Bishop there is not necessarily conclusive but that notwithstanding any thing they can offer the contrary opinion is still at least probable viz. That St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome nor ever there Which I understand was long since asserted by VELENVS a Learned Lutheran in a just Treatise on this Subject but not having been able to get a sight of his Book nor knowing of any other Protestant that has ex professo treated thereof though many have occasionally spoken sufficient to satisfie any impartial mind I shall only offer such plain Natural Remarks as hastily occurr'd to my own thoughts and slender reading leaving the further improving or disproving the matter to persons of a greater stock of Books and Judgment But this I can without injuring truth avow That I have handled it with all sincerity not wittingly baulking any material Argument Testimony or Objection nor abusing or misciting any Author to serve a turn for my sole aim is a free impartial sifting out of Truth not the advancement of any self-interesting Opinion and if any where I have stumbled into Error 't is the unhappiness of my Vnderstanding not the pravity of my Will being always ready with thanks to acknowledge mistakes when convinc'd thereof as I have heartily and not altogether indiligently endeavoured to avoid them Therefore I hope the Gentlemen of the Roman Perswasion will not be offended at any honest innocent endeavours to plain the way to truth and remove Rubbish out of their passage for though they are zealous for that mode of Religion they have been educated in or upon plausible Motives entertain'd yet I cannot perswade my self that their Noble Ingenuity will ill-resent the detection of any groundless Tales hatcht to support it There is no Gentleman but esteems the Lye even in common Discourse as the greatest dishonour and affront imaginable much more incensed must he be at those that would impose upon him to believe and maintain a falshood as a point of Faith and suspend his Salvation upon dark stories and uncertainties and consequently will acknowledge his obligations to their pains even though represented as Enemies that would refcue him from the hazard of so scandalous a Precipice Truth is both the Basis and Bulwark of Christian Religion which needs no pious Frauds nor fond Tales nor forged Evidence to maintain it but is always ready to endure the strictest Scrutiny he must either be a self-designing Hypocrite or which generally is all one a leud Atheist not a true Catbolick that will persist in owning or avouching That for certainty which his Reason and Conscience cannot but tell him is either false or doubtful Thus much I thought fit to say in Apology for my self and the Undettaking or if you please let it pass as a Preface to the Reader CHAP. II. The Roman Account of St. Peter's Life Bellarmin's five Arguments for his being at Rome with an Additional one of other Romanists Answered 'T is but reasonable That the Church of Rome which pretends to hold so vast a Lordship by Succession from St. Peter should in the first place as clearly as she can make out her Relation to him Now the story she tells is in short to this effect viz. That some time after our Lords Passion St. Peter went into Syria and became Bishop of Antioch and continued there or as they love to speak held that See seven Years and then he remov'd his Seat from thence to Rome and thenceforth was Bishop of the Church of Rome and held the same four or five and twenty Years viz. until he was Martyr'd there under Nero. I am forced to use General Terms because most of those that undertake to relate the matter do wondrously vary in the Particulars and cannot agree either in the Year wherein his Bishoprick at Antioch should begin or in the time of its continuance nay there is a dispute amongst them whether his being Bishop of Antioch were before he went to Rome or after he had been there The time too when he came to Rome and the length of his Episcopate there and other material Circumstances are very differently delivered Touching which confusion and intersetings of the evidence I shall have occasion to speak more in another Chapter as also concerning the whole business of Antioch That which at present lyes before us is to consider what special Relation St. Peter had to Rome above other Churches Concerning which the Learned and Laborious Cardinal Bellarmin whose Works with those of his no less diligent Brother Baronius are the grand Magazine of that Party and both whose Industry might justly claim the highest Commendation if bestowed in a Cause that deserv'd it states four Questions 1. Whether Peter were ever at Rome
Jubente Domino by any special command from Christ as Bellarmin would have it but because Rome being at that time Metropolis of the World he thought no other place so worthy to be the seat of his Ecclesiastical Principality and was afraid forsooth lest Simon the Sorcerer should usurp and get possession of it before him and therefore he hastened thither to expel him Sed hoc obiter To shew the weakness of this pretence I shall first consider what we find in Scripture touching this Simon Magus 2dly Relate the Story they tell about him at Rome And 3dly Shew the Vanity thereof and that the same was first hatch'd by Fabulous Authors I. We read Acts 8. That Simon Magus lived at Samaria and having long Bewitcht or seduced the people there with Sorceries or Jugling Impostures was highly esteemed But upon Philip's Preaching seemed to Believe the Gospel and was Baptized and wondred at the Signs and Miracles which were done but when Peter and John were sent down thither from the rest of the Apostles at Jerusalem and on their Prayers and laying on of Hands the Believing Samaritans had received the Holy Ghost that is as I conceive in this place were endued with the Power of speaking Strange Tongues and working of Miracles This Simon offered him Money saying Give me also this power that on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy Ghost But Peter said unto him Thy money perish with thee because thou hast thought that the Gift of God may be purchased with money Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter for thy heart is not right in the sight of God Repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee for I perceive thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of Iniquity Then answered Simon and said Pray ye to the Lord for me that none of these things that ye have spoken come upon me This was indeed a sigâ—al Victory obtain'd by Peter over this wretched Magician but atchieved at Samaria not at Rome And from such his wicked overture all Giving and Receiving of Money or other secular profit for any Office or Preferment in the Church is ever since from his name called Simony But the Combat and Victory meant by Bellarmin is supposed to have been at Rome and thus related by Platina That the said Simon Magus had the confidence to vye Miracles with Peter about raising a dead Boy to Life whose Corps his Charms at first did seem to move but when afterwards notwithstanding all the Conjurer could do the Lad lay breathless as before yet at the Command of Peter in the Name of Jesus he revived and stood on his feet Which Simon the Magician took so much in dudgeon that he told the people they should behold him fly from the Capitol to Mount Aventine if Peter would but follow him whereby they should perceive which of the Two was the greatest Saint and most beloved of God But when he was got upon the wing at the Prayer of Peter stretching out his hand towards Heaven and beseeching God That he would not suffer so many People to be deluded with Magick Arts down came Simon and broke his Thigh whereof shortly after he dyed And this being so Peter must needs be at Rome 1. Now let any sober Reader judge Whether this whole story in all its Circumstances do not smell rank of Romance and Fable That Simon the Conjurer of Samaria should ramble to Rome and the blessed Apostle Peter travel thither after him so many hundred Miles on purpose to vye Miracles with him there when there were not wanting many Saints in that City in that Age when God was pleased to give frequent Testimonies to his Church by Miracles who might as well have confounded the Sorcerer That he who was so far convinced of the mighty Power of God in Peter at Samaria as to beg his Prayers should offer to challenge him to work Miracles at Rome That being so shamefully baffled in the business of raising the Dead Boy whom Peter presently raised to Life he should yet have the confidence to propose a new Tryal of Skill by Flying Credat Judoeus Apella But waving the Improbabilities being a matter of Fact the Credit thereof must wholly depend on the first Relaters and pray observe from what Authors they have this story Eusebius says it was reported by Clemens and by Papias and Bellarmin adds Egesippus de Excido Hierosolym l. 3. c. 2. As for Papias we have nothing of his extant nor if we had is his Credit much as will by and by appear and the other two supposed Books of Clemens and Egesippus are both Forgeries contrived in after times under those ancient Names and not written by them as amongst other feigned Antiquities I doubt not but to satisfie the Reader in a particular Chapter on that Subject And what man of sense will give so much as a common Historical Credit much less admit that as an Article of Faith which has no better Foundation than what is bottom'd on counterfeit Authors Especially since it is not pretended to be attested by any that were Eye-Witnesses or that liv'd for a considerable time after nor is it credible that so wonderful and publick a Miracle if truly transacted at Rome should have escaped the notice and mention of some of those Roman Historians who have so exactly given us the Memoirs of that curious and very Learned Age. 2. This Tale does not quadrate or hang well together for Platina as 't is plain by his Words makes this Exploit done at Peter's first coming to Rome for as he assigns one main part of his Errand in going thither to be for obviating the mischiefs of that Impostor so by his Relation the matter seems to have been quickly determined after Peter's arrival and he expresly says Simon Magus dyed of that fall non ita multo post not long after Now they say Peter went to Rome in the second Year of Claudius Anno Chr. 43. and so in that or the next Year Magus must be defeated But Cardinal Baronius assures us Simon Magus did not dye till the Year of our Lord 68. that is in the 13th Year of Nero the very next Year before they say Peter suffer'd there and no less than about 25 Years after they pretend Peter went first to that City Did St. Peter go to Rome almost on purpose to suppress the Magician and yet could not meet with him in all that time Or did the Sorcerer lye sick of the bruises of his fall four or five and twenty years Then how did he die quickly after If Simon were playing his tricks at Rome and making the People believe he was a Great God in the beginning of Claudius's Reign and died not till almost the end of Nero's that is 25 years after just the term they assign to St. Peter's coming and continuing Bishop there It
upstart Gibeonites meerly for their shewing us mouldy Bread and clouted Shooes of their own contrivance He must be too much a stranger to Ecclesiastical History to be discoursed withal about these matters who knows not that soon after the Decease of the Apostles there were counterfeit Gospels Acts Epistles Revelations c. put forth in the names of the Apostles or as received from them by Tradition which are pointed at by Irenaeus and said to be condemn'd in a Roman Council by Gelasius An. Chr. 494. The Itinerary of Clement and the Book called Pastor a Book called the Gospel of St. Peter and another Intituled his Acts being some of them More particularly St. Jerom mentions five Books that in his time were abroad under the name of St. Peter viz. one Intituled the Acts of St. Peter another St. Peter's Gospel the third concerning Preaching the fourth St. Peter's Revelations and the fifth a Book of Judgment All which he owns to be Apocryphal And Eusebius tells of a long tedious Disputation between Peter and Apion far different from Apostolical Purity and simplicity which saith he came forth but yesterday under St. Clement's Name never once heard of in former Ages Nor is there scarce any thing more frequent in the Fathers than complaints of suppositious Books Interpolations and Forgeries made in their Works or those of their Ancestors by Hereticks of one sort or other Thus Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius bewails That the Apostles Messengers or Agents of Satan had sown Tares in his Epistles omitting some things and adding others And hence it is that many Books wearing the Names of Orthodox Fathers and inserted in their Works are even by the most Learned of the Romanists themselves confess'd not to have been Penn'd by those to whom they are attributed but foisted in under their Names Since therefore such ill practices were rise so early We must not take all for Gold that Glisters with the Gloss of Antiquity but make use of the Touchstone of Judgment to distinguish between Adulterate and Genuine Records If there were then people of so much Confidence and so little Conscience as to forge so many false Books in St. Peter's Name and Father their own Dreams on that Blessed Apostle much more credible it is That false Reports and Rumours which in time gain'd the venerable Name of Traditions especially amongst those whose interest it was to promote them might be spread touching the parts wherein he Preached and Resided the place time and other circumstances of his Death c. Nor is this a bare supposition or probability only but de facto true For all the Authors vouch'd in this Dispute by the Romanists may be reduced to three Ranks 1. Some that are of very doubtful credit 2. Others that are known forgeries and stigmatiz'd counterfeits 3. Certain expressions of some of the Fathers who living at a considerable distance of time might by Hear-say take it upon Trust without ever examining the matter That St. Peter suffer'd at Rome and consequently accomodating their Language to the popular vogue call Rome St. Peter's Chair Touching the last We shall have occasion to speak somewhat further towards the close of this whole Discourse Of the other two we shall treat jointly in this Chapter Wherein it will concern us chiefly to enquire into the first and Original Authors of this Opinion and if we can evince That they are not Testes probi Idonei of good and sufficient Credit It will not be difficult to determine what sentiments we ought to have for the Testimonies of such as innocently but unwarily might follow them The most Ancient Authors or such pretended which I find produced are 1. A Book in the Name of Linus 2. The Report of Opinion of Papias 3. Egesippus 4. The Decretal Epistles As for the first which I place so because I suppose they would have it believ'd to be wrote by Linus whom some of them pretend to be Peter's next and immediate Successor it is intituled de passione Petri Pauli and was first publish'd if I mistake not in the Bibliotheca Patrum But whoever peruses it cannot but judg it a vain Romance full of Fictions and as it was unknown to the Ancients so 't is censur'd by the ablest Romanists themselves to be a Counterfeit And therefore I think I need say no more of it Papias is Davus in Fabula A Voucher brought in at every turn in this Case by Bellarmin as you have heard and as those that make use of Knights of the Post always take care to put good Cloaths on their backs the Romanists will tell us He was a most Pious Learned Man a Disciple of St. John the Evangelist and some of their Chronologers place him in the first Century Nor will this Comparison I hope be though too severe and unbecoming when the judicious Reader shall have considered the following just Animadversions wherein we shall make it appear both that there has been gross Forgery committed to inhance the credit of this Papias and that he was indeed a person whose Judgment or Testimony ought to be but of very little value First then be it observ'd That in the latter Editions and Translations of Eusebius there is an high Character given of Papias At the same time says Eusebius as Valesius renders him Papias was famous a Man very Eloquent and Learned well skill'd in the Scriptures Christopherson in his Translation adds further beyond the Text That he was a person most excellently skill'd in the knowledge of all other Arts But the Truth is all this commendation of Papias is a Forgery Eusebius is corrupted and these Encomiums by I know not whom but we may guess for what end shuffled into the Text long after Eusebius was dead which I prove by the following Reasons 1. Ruffinus who translated Eusebius above 1200 years ago in that place has only this About these times flourished Polycarp Biship of Smyrna and Papias of Hieropolis giving us not one world of that praise of him which is now extant in Eusebius whence we justly conclude that anciently it was not there since no Reason can be Assigned why Russinus should omit it 2. Valesius a very Learned Roman Catholick who last publish'd Eusebius confesses that of 3 or 4 Greek Manuscripts of Eusebius which he made use of in his Edition not any of them had that commendation of Papias And therefore he doubts not but those words were added by some Ignorant Scholiast contrary to the Judgment and sense of Eusebius Non dubito quin haec verba ab Imperito Scholiaste adjecta sunt praeter Eusebii mentem sententiam Vales in Not. ad L. 3. Euseb ca. 36. For. 3. The Addition of these Words as the same Learned man observes makes Eusebius write Nonsence and contradict himself by calling Papias a most Learned man and most skill'd in the Scriptures of whom in the same Book he says That he was a Rude and
under the Title of A Collection of Councils and Decretal Epistles pretended to be made by Isidore Bishop of Hispalis that is Sevil in Spain with a Preface in his Name wherein he declares that he collected the same by the Advice of fourscore Bishops But the truth is to make the piece uniform not only the materials are Forgeries but the Collection it self and its Author are Counterfeits for although there were such a man and of eminent note in the Church as Isidore Bishop of Sevil yet he could not be the Author of this Collection and Preface as is proved at large by Blondel in his Book Intituled Pseudo-Isidorns or Turrianus Vapulans where he observes that those that write of Isidore's Death at highest fix it on the Year 647. as Vasaeus in his Chronicle others on the Year 643. as Rodericus Toletanus or on the Year 635. as the proper office of the Saints of Spain or lastly on the Year 636. as Redemptus Diaconus who saith he was himself an Eye-witness of Isidore's Death and with whom agree Baronius and many others of the best Learned Romanists so that the same is the common Opinion Now this counterfeit Isidore that is the Prefacer in Isidore's Name before this Collection makes mention of Pope Agatho who came not into the Chair until the year 679. which must be about 40. years after Isidore's Death follow which of the before-cited Authors you please And talks of the 6th Oecumenical Council which was the 3d of Constantinople held An. Dom. 681. Nay writes of Boniface of Mentz slain as Baronius observes in the year 755 long after himself was in his Grave Hence the Romanists themselves cannot agree about this Authors Sirname some call him Isidore Pacensis others Isidore Mercator the Merchant and others Isidore Peccator the Sinner which Addition they say he assum'd out of Humility Besides soon after the said Collection peep'd abroad not only Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes one of the Learnedest men of that time wrote against it but the Generality of the French Bishops about the year 865 opposed it alledging that Isidore's Wares then newly beginning to be sold could not have the force of Canons because they were not contain'd in the Authentick Code or Book of Canons formerly known Bellarmin confesses That Errors are crept into these Epistles and that he dare not say they are Indubitable yet hopes to excuse all by saying That he doubts not at all but they are very ancient But what imports it how old they are if they are not so old as they pretend to be nor wrote by those whose names they bear As if an old Deed being called into question and the matter of Fact made undeniable that it was a Forgery he that holds his Possession by it should say It has been Interlined indeed and corrupted in many places nor was it signed or sealed by the person that is named a party thereunto nor in the presence of the same Witnesses but yet I hope you will credit it in favour of my Title for I am confident 't is very old who would not smile at such an Advocate Baronius who saw more clearly through the Imposture and how much dishonour such an heap of Forgeries detected in this Learned Age would reflect on the Contrivers and Abetters acknowledges That this Compilement was falsly father'd upon Isidore of Hispalis and that all those Epistles of the Roman Bishops from St. Peter down to Siricius that is till the year 387. are justly suspected Nay he calls them Infirm Adventitious and lately Invented And to remove the scandal of forging them from the Church of Rome tell us They were first brought out of Spain into France by one Riculphus in the time of Charlemaigne That none saith he may slanderously say the Church of Rome feigned them But notwithstanding they were first started in Spain the Church of Rome may still not unjusty labounr under a suspition of having an hand in the intrigue if we consider first That the main drift of these Epistles is to advance her Honour Now if as most plain it is they are Forged Cui Bono Who should do it but they whose interest alone is thereby promoted 2dly That when Hincmarus opposed them he was by the Bishop of Rome so rigorously dealt with that 't is said he was forced to retract 3dly That when Benedictus Levita had out of them extracted Canons being conscious how weak their credit was he sued and easily obtain'd to have the same Confirm'd by the Popes Authority So that if they were not Originally underhand His Holinesses Natural Children they thenceforth at least became His by Adoption Thus much touching the Author of this Collection and indeed to shew the Epistles themselves to be Forgeries or of no Credit we need go no further having proved that they were handed into the World by a Counterfeit For what need false Lights where the Wares are not Braided Why a Vizard in an affair otherwise so safe and honourable if no ill intrigue on foot However I will add some further Reasons taken from the subject Matter Phrase Absurdities and late appearing of these Epistles which to me are Invincible Arguments That they are altogether spurious 1. As to their Matter or Contents they purport to be written in the most Primitive Ages some of them whilst some of the Apostles at least St. John were yet alive by Holy men zealous of Gods Glory and the good of Souls living under afflictions and dreadful Persecutions scarce one of them but was a Martyr for the Gospel Now if such men had indeed left behind them any Letters or written Memoirs surviving the fury of their Pagan Enemies to our times there is no doubt but we should there find the sweet Breathings of the Spirit of Meekness the Mysteries of the Gospel Gods infinite Love to miserable mankind manifested in the Incarnation and Suffering of the Blessed Jesus for their Redemption and the Terms of the Salvation thereby purchased freely offered to Sinners We should observe the most pressing exhortations to Repentance Holiness and newness of Life The grand concernments of Religion Faith in Christ Mortification Self-denyal Contempt of the World and all outward Grandeurs and such like truely Christian Duties every where seriously inculcated But of all this in these Epistles there is Altum Silentium their drift looks not that way they forget the state of the Church in that time handle nothing of Doctrine nothing of the necessary Office of the Ministers nor main Duties of Christian People nor indeed any thing else suitable unto that Age or much worth consideration For their main business every where appears to be by wresting of Scriptures falsifying stories and other indirect means to advance and lend Colours to the supporting or spreading the Honour the Pomp and Empire of the See of Rome Thus Anacletus in his first Epistle is brought in Glossing those Words of Christ Vpon this Rock
that St. Hierom and divers others that follow him date these 14 years not from Pauls Conversion but from his first Journey to Jerusalem three years after and so place this Synod Anno Dom. 51. or rather as they should say 52. in the 10th or 11th of Claudius which thought it seems to favour our Cause as proving Peter to continue so much the longer at Jerusalem or the neighbouring parts of Asia yet since my Aim in these Researches is solely the discovery of Truth I cannot admit thereof Because in the Ninth year of Claudius it was as Orosius witnesseth That the Jews were all banisht Rome And at that time Paul was at Athens as Vspergensis writeth and it appeareth likewise by the History of the Acts for Paul departing from the Councel after a tedious Journey to Antioch Syria through Cilicia and many other Regions came to Athens and thence to Corinth where he met with Aquila and Priscilla who sayth the Text were lately just then some Versions render it Come from Italy because Claudius had commanded that all Jews should depart from Rome Which shews that this Council must be held some considerable time before this Decree of Claudius that is before the 9th of his Reign If it be inquired where Peter was from the time of his delivery out of Prison in the fourth year of Claudius until this Synod in the Eighth year of his Reign I answer That as the Gests or Actions of St. Paul after Herods death amongst the Gentiles are described in the 13th and 14th Chapters of the Acts so during that time it seems clearly intimated that Peter was Labouring amongst the Jews either at Jerusalem or those dispersed in the neighbouring Territories of Asia to whom he afterwards directed his Epistle for so saith St. Paul speaking of his entertainment amongst the Apostles at this Council or coming up to Jerusalem 14 years after his Conversion Gal 2. 7. When they saw That the Gospel over the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospel over the Circumcision was to Peter for he that was mighty by Peter in the Apostleship of the Circumcision c. And in this interval I humbly conceive it was tho not specified in the Acts that Peter was at Antioch when Paul reproved him to the Face mentioned Gal. 2 since it could not well be at any time before as appears by the precedent discourse but that it was before the said Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem seems very probable because if it had been afterwards viz. when the matter had been so solemnly determined that Circumcision was not necessary Peter could not have had any scruple of eating with the Gentile Believers nor fear of offending them in that point that came from James Thus until the 16th year of the Passion Eighth of Claudius Peter came not within One Thousand Miles of Rome In the Ninth of Claudius all Jews were Banisht Rome as is proved before therefore then Peter could not be there Nor was nor had he been there in the 12th of Claudius for then Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans and undoubtedly if Peter had been the Founder or Bishop of that Church then or at any time before Paul would in so large a letter have taken some occasion to recommend his Pains and to exhort them to continue in the Doctrine of the Prince of the Apostles but on the contrary tho he concludes with particular Salutes to 24 Persons by name besides several Housholds and divers of them Women yet he does not so much as mention Peter Now if Peter had been Bishop there and soveraign Head of the Apostles that omission of paying his respects to him whilst he did it to so many others of inferiour condition would have been not only a Soloecism in Civility but a failure in Duty But how does it appear that this Epistle was wrote at this time Thus Ch. 15. 28. Paul uses this discourse Having now no more place in these parts that is about Antioch whence this Epistle is dated and having a great desire these many years to come unto you whensoever I take my Journey into Spain I will come to you but now I go into Jerusalem c. so that 't is evident this was wrote upon his Journey sometime going to Jerusalem we must therefore consider at what time especially this was for we read of Paul's going thither five several times the first in the Ninth the second in the Twelfth the third in the 15th the fourth in the 18th and the fifth in the 21th Chapter of the Acts But it could be in none of the first three Journeys for he had not then met with Timothy whom he found not till a good while after his return from the Synod at Jerusalem Acts 16. 1. but at the writing of this Epistle Timothy was with him for he sends Salutations from him Ch. 16. 21. Nor seems it to be the fourth time mentioned Acts 18th for V. 1. ere Paul return'd to Jerusalem it is said that he departed from Corinth and Priscilla and Aquila were then at Rome for thither he sends salutations to them It remains therefore that this Epistle was written just before Pauls last comming up to Jerusalem which agrees with what is said Acts 19. 20. compared with the before-cited Text Rom. 15. 23. And such his last Journey thither was in the 12th of Claudius For being there taken Faelix was then Governour Acts 23. 24. who as Josephus witnesseth was not made President of Judea till the 11th of Claudius And by Tertullus's Oration to him accusing Paul we may gather that he had then for some time a year at least been in that command so that it must be about the 12th of Claudius Which further appears for that it is said Paul had been two years a Prisoner when Portius Festus came to be Governour instead of Faelix who was sent thither by Nero as soon as he came to the Empire wherefore since Claudius died in his 14th year and Festus came presently after and Paul had been then two years a Prisoner it follows that such his last coming to Jerusalem and the writing of this Epistle must be in or about the 12th year of Claudius the 20th of the Passion and of our Lords Birth 53. And consequently at that time for the Reasons aforesaid we may justly believe Peter was not at nor Bishop of Rome Nay St. Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Romans saith that he had read in certain Antient Books that at the sending of this Epistle Narcissus to whose family salutation is sent was the senior Bishop or Elder of the Congregation at Rome Again Peter neither was nor had been Bishop of Rome in the second year of Nero the 24th of the Passion and 57th of the Incarnation for then Paul came thither as is testified by Eusebius Vrspergensis and others at whose arrival St. Luke who was then with him saith Acts 28. 15. The Brethren hearing of us came