simple person of very little wit and judgment c. of which he gives several Instances So much for the Forgery 2. Our second Observation touching Papias shall be That he is said to have been a friend to or familiar with Polycarpus But Polycarpus according to Baronius suffer'd Martyrdom in the year of our Lord 167. And the same Baronius places Peter's Martyrdom Anno Chr. 69. So that Papias must flourish near 100 Peter's Death a distance long enough in those times when so many false things were bruited abroad touching the Apostles Acts and Sufferings for one that dwelt at a great distance of place and took his Information but upon Hear-say to be deceived 3. Since none of Papias's Books are Extant whereby we might be enabled to judg of the man by his own Works it will be requisite to remark what Character Eusebius who brings him on the Stage gives of him which in brief is this That he was one that neither heard nor saw any of the Apostles but received what he heard from their followers as Aristo and John not the Apostle but a certain Elder That he thought he could not benefit so much by reading the Scriptures as by Conference with men that had been acquainted with the Authors of them That he was so little acquainted with the Scriptures that he mistook that Philip whose Daughters were Prophetesses to be Philip the Apostle when the Text had he read or remembred it expresly says It was Philip the Deacon That he had by such Traditions strange Parables and Preachings of our Blessed Saviour and other things very Fabulous amongst the rest advanc'd the Heresy of the Millenaries and that he fell into those Errors through Ignorance and not understanding aright those Narrations that were told him as from the Apostles That he Expounded a certain History of a Woman accused before Christ of many crimes written in the Gospel according to the Hebrews which was a counterfeit In fine That he was a man of little wit or small judgment as appear'd by his Books yet gave unto divers Ecclesiastical Writers occasion of Error who respected his Antiquity see Euseb l. 3. c. 22. 35 39. and Nicephorus l. 3. c. 20. Here you have both the Genius or Humor of the Man easy to be imposed upon taking up things by Hear-say one that was not asham'd to own That he thought hearing Oral Tradition more profitable than Reading the Scriptures that is That to hearken to the Stories and Tales of private fallible persons in matters of Religion was more beneficial than to study the Sacred Oracles of God penn'd by Divinely inspired infallible persons and able to make the man of God perfect in all good works one of small judgment and who embrac'd Fables Heresies and Counterfeit Gospels As also you are told the bad effects of all this viz. That he misled many subsequent Ecclesiastical Authors into Error paying too great a reverence to his Antiquity without due enquiry into the Truth of his Assertions or Examination of the Grounds whereon he delivered them Now since such a person was the first that Peter's being at Rome for I do not find that he plainly affirm'd it much less that Peter was Bishop there only inferr'd it by interpreting Babylon in St. Peter's Epistle to signify Rome if I say such an one were the first as for ought appears he was that ever intimated any such thing how far either his Talk or that of those that relate it after him is to be valued I leave the intelligent Reader to judg since nothing is more common in Historics than for the mistake of one to draw others into error and that this Papias actually did mislead many we have the home Testimony of Eusebius before recited and why not in this business of Peter's being at Rome as well as in that of the Millenary Reign c. Nay rather in the former than the latter since good innocent men were more like to swallow this report of an indifferent matter of fact as they could not but apprehend this of Peter's Writing from Rome to be not imagining what fine consequence after-times would thence derive than to entertain a Doctrinal point without Examination and to be more easily inveigled into a mistake in History than into Heresy for under no better figure was that opinion of the Chiliasts look'd upon in succeeding Ages tho for some time on the credit of the said Papias receiv'd or at least unopposed by not a few Fathers of the Church So much concerning Papias who for ought I know might in the main be a very honest well-meaning man though misled by unwarrantable reports and a Zeal not according to knowledge Nor should I thus have repeated his Failures which I charitably hope God has forgiven did not the importunity of some People vapouring with his Name and Authority render these Reflections necessary As for Egesippus when he lived is doubtful some say about the Year 101. others 145. others 170. but this is certain That what we have now abroad in his Name could not be wrote by the same Person whom Eusebius mentions l. 4. c. 8. For whereas he is said to have gathered his Books out of the Gospel secundum Hebraeos the best of their Vouchers you see followed counterfeit Gospels and wrote Commentaries of the Doctrine and Acts of the Apostles and that too in a plain homely stile as St. Hierom notes this counterfeit Egesippus affects a very losty Phrase and affords us only five Books of the destruction of Jerusalem out of Josephus and particularly makes mention of the City of Constantinople a name not known in the World till the great Constantine who beginning to Reign alone but in the Year 327. caused Byzantium to be called so therefore the Writer thereof whoever he was must of necessity live near 200 Years if not much more after that good man in whose name they would obtrude it We come now to the decretal Epistles and indeed were these Genuine they would not only dispatch the Business of St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome but of the Popes Supremacy too and many other of their modern Articles of Faith But touching such Epistles we shall briefly observe 1. What they are and when and by whom first Midwiv'd into the World 2. Offer Reasons demonstrating as I apprehend that they are generally spurious 3. Recite the substance of two of them more peculiarly relating to our present Argument with a few Animadversions thereon These Decretal Epistles are Letters supposed to be Authoritatively written upon emergent Occasions by the Primitive Bishops of Rome beginning with Clement one of Peter's pretended immediate Successors in whose name there are five four in the name of Anacletus two of Alexander's three of Sixtus's and so downwards sometimes one sometimetimes two sometimes three from every succeeding Bishop of Rome for the first 300 Years and further All which Epistles came first abroad about the Year of our Lord 790.
of the Church not to the present condition of Worldly Empire and almost all Interpreters agree That this Babylon which Rev. 17. is called The Scarlet Whore c. described by this Title Mystery Babylon the Great the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth can be no orher than that Antichrist which was to sit in the Temple of God that is in the Church 2 Thess 2. 4. As for what is alledged that Papias St. Jerome or others thought this Epistle of Peter might be written from Rome Tropically call'd Babylon it is at most but their Opinion touching a matter of Fact long before their time and as we have shewn that there is no need or Reason for admitting any such Trope so the Ancients may be excused if they understood not the true occasion why or in what respect Rome was call'd Babylon since that which qualified it such and was intended to be signified by the Divine Vision appeared not in the World till some Ages afterwards Whence that Mighty Monarch of Letters as well as of Great Britain King JAMES the First Grandfather to our present Gracious Soveraign in his Proemonition to all Christian Princes judiciously observed in a like Case That the Fathers of the first Ages speak of this matter but only by conjectures whereas we speak of it by experience For Scripture Predictions after the Events become Histories and the Promises Performances and so are much more intelligible 5. As for the credit of Papias the first Suggester of this Interpretation and consequently the first Author in the World for ought I can hear that gave occasion to the Conceit of Peter's ever being at Rome we shall give a further account anon In the mean time cannot but remark That this Interpretation is yet the more absurd because the same Bellarmin who to maintain Rome's Supremacy because of Peter's being there doth here without any probable grounds expound Babylon to be Rome does elsewhere ascribe that Prophecy of Isaiah cited 1. Pet. 2. Behold I put in Sion a corner-stone elect and precious c. to be meant of the Pope at least secondarily contrary not only to St. Peter and St. Paul's express Interpretation who attribute the same as indeed it wholly and solely belongs to Christ 1 Pet. 2. 6. and Rom. 9. 32. but also to that of our Lord who refers those words to himself Matt. 21. 42. so that the Cardinal makes Rome to be both Sion and Babylon he will have it Babylon to prove Peter there and Sion to exclude in effect Christ from being Head of the Church and advance the Pope in his stead The second thing for I know not how to call it an Argument brought to prove St. Peter's being at Rome is this There were many Christians at Rome nay a large and flourishing Church gathered there before Paul came thither as appears by his Epistle which 't is evident he wrote before ever he had been at Rome But who gathered that Church if Peter were not at Rome There is no doubt but the Learned Author saw through the weakness of this Discourse and therefore put it by way of Query to amuse weak heads rather than as an Argument to convince the Learned for how odly would such a Syllogism look from the Pen of a Cardinal There were Christians at Rome before Paul come thither ergo St. Peter was there before him as if there were no other Preachers of the Gospel of the blessed Jesus but those two For 1. Not to urge That though we read of Saints at Rome yet we no where find the Church of Rome or a Church at Rome mentioned in terminis the Holy Spirit possibly forbearing to qualifie it with that Title in Holy Writ as a check to their foreseen Usurpations And although it expresly tell us of several other Churches first planted by this or that Apostle yet it says not that any Apostle was the first Seeds-man of the Gospel at Rome Not to insist I say upon this 2. Let us consider how and by whom Churches were gathered in Samaria and at Antioch which they make Peter's other and first Bishoprick if we may be allowed to read and credit the Bible there we find that by a great Persecution at Jerusalem the Disciples except the Apostles were scattered abroad every where and so who knows but some of them to Rome preaching the Word Acts 8. 4. particularly Philip a Deacon in Samaria made great numbers of Converts v. 6. which when the Apostles heard of they sent thither Peter and John an odd procedure for Subjects to send their Soveraign on an errand if they had thought Peter such who having further spread the Gospel in Samaria return'd again to Jerusalem v. 25. others of the said scattered Disciples Preached the Lord Jesus to the Grecians at Antioch and many believed and were turned unto the Lord Acts 11. 19 20. whereupon Barnabas was sent to them who brought Paul into Antioch and a whole Year they viz. Paul and Barnabas assembled themselves with the Church so that there was a Church there before and taught much People and the Disciples were first called Christians there v. 26. If therefore Christianity both Name and Thing were first planted at Antioch which they say was Peter's first Diocese neither by Peter nor by any Apostle but by certain scattered Disciples why might not the like happen at Rome 3. 'T is evident that the Gospel had been Preached to many Romans at Jerusalem immediately after Christ's Ascention for when the Apostles received the Gift of the Holy Ghost and Preached in other Tongues 't is expresly said That amongst the multitude that came to hear them There were strangers of Rome Acts 2. 10. St. Paul also witnesses That Andronicus and Junia who dwelt at Rome when he wrote his Epistle that is before he came at Rome were in Christ that is professed the Christian Faith before himself which must be at least 5 or 6 years before Peter is pretended to come at Rome And that they were of Note amongst the Apostles Rom. 16. 7. Why then might not They by their pains and zeal at least in some measure gather a Church there Besides the Scriptures mention not which of the Apostles or who else in particular collected divers other Churches must they therefore all be ascribed to the particular pains of St. Peter 4. What the Cardinal affirms That none of the Ancients name any other but Peter that should first Preach the Gospel at Rome is not strictly true For he himself a little after confesses That Clemens whom they will have to be Peter's Successor in the first Book of his Recongnitions and Dorothoeus Tyrensis Record That Barnabas Preached at Rome in the Reign of Tiberius that is within 3 or 4 years after our Lords Crucifixion Whereas their most common story is That St. Peter came not there till the second of Claudius which must be about five years at least after the Reign of Tiberius
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
Communion But about the year 1595. One Florimond de Raemond a French Councellour at Burdeaux undertook in an Elaborate Treatise to Refute the whole story But by what Arguments That no Authors living at the same time with this pretended Papess are found to attest it Nor any till Marianus Scotus 200 years after her That the rest of the Authors tho Numerous blindly followed him and suckt in his Errour That the several Relators agree not in their Tale That the latter Writers had Invented several Circumstances but he cannot charge them with Corrupting of Books nor Forging of Authors to render it more Plausible That the whole thing and its several parts are not Probable c. Now there is not one of these Topicks but will serve as well nay much better to Impugn the story of St. Peters being Bishop of Rome for as the latter tends exceedingly to the Advancement of that See and the former to its Dishonour so considering what an Ascendent its Bishops had got over the Christian World 't is much more probable that a fiction in their Favour should be promoted than that the other if indeed it were a fiction from which no Advantage could possibly be hop'd to be derived to the Relators should for a series of so many years pass Current and without Opposition For my own part I must Ingenuously avow without presuming to determine Dogmatically either way that having Read Erreur Populaire on the one side and our I earned Coke on the other nay I will add Blondellus his Posthume Book on that Subject which seems to favour their Opinion who deny there was any such Papess I cannot find any more Reason to believe there ever was a Pope Peter than I do that there might be a Pope Joan. 3. As to the Authority of the Fathers besides those Counterfeits already discovered which are Unworthy of that Venerable Nam there is not One so much as alleadged who Wrote within one hundred years and upwards after the supposed time of Peters death that mentions his being or dying at Rome Afterwards Justin Martyr who flourisht about the year of our Lord 170. and Tertullian 219. are Cited for it but as 't is well known and confessed by Learned Romanists that there are now abroad several Counterfeit Books in the Names of the Antieuts so wherever they do in their Genuine Works seem to Intimate St. Peters being at Rome 't is most Probable they might take the same on Trust from Papias or Common Fame and looking on it as an indifferent thing thought not themselves concern'd nor the matter worth while strictly to Enquire into the bottom of that Opinion and so might be therein mistaken as in other matters of Fact happening not very long before their own times For the same Tertullian who is therein followed by Clemens Alexandrinus and by Lactantius says That our Lord Christ suffered in the 15th year of Tiberius and the 30th of his own Age As on the contrary Irenaeus contends That Christ Preached almost to 50 Years of Age and suffered under Claudius For each of which Opinions Antient Tradition is by them Alledged yet are they both contrary to the Evangelists and all sound History which yet Reflects no further dishonour on those Holy Fathers than that they were Men Capable of being mistaken and were Unwarily deceived by Relying too much on pretended Traditions As far therefore as I can perceive the Opinion of â—t Peters having been at Rome began first to be Industriously and commonly Advanc'd about or soon after the Reign of Constantine For Eusebius who surviv'd to Write the Life of that great Emperour speaking of Nero tells us This Enemy of God set up himself to the Destruction of the Apostles for they Write That Paul was Beheaded and Peter Crucified by him at Rome And that which maketh for the Credit of the story is that it is COMMONLY REPORTED that there be Church-Yards unto this day bearing the Name of Peter and Paul In like manner Gaius a Roman and an Ecclesiaastical Person and after Zepherinus Bishop of Rome Writing unto Proclus Chief of the Cataphrygian Hereticks says thus I am able to shew the Banners of the Apostles for if thou wilt walk into the Vatican or the Ostiensian-way thou wilt find there Victorious Banners of such as have founded this Church And that they were both Crown'd with Martyrdome at the same time Dionisius Bishop of Corinth declares in his Epistle to the Romans in these Words And you Observing so goodly an Admonition have Coupled in one the Building of the Roman and Corinthian Churches perform'd by Peter and Paul for they both Instructed us when they Planted our Church of Corinth Thus Eusebius From whose Words it is Observable That he does not at all assert Peters being Bishop of Rome nor positively that he was ever there but only tells us that they Write that is 't is Written by some body or other but says not by whom That Peter and Paul were both put to Death by Nero at Rome which yet it seems he lookt up but as an Hear-say and Doubtful and therefore to Confirm it adds That it makes for the Credit thereof that it was commonly Reported that there were to his time Burial-places that wore the Names of Peter and Paul As if after so many Books forged in Peters Name a false Tomb might not two or three hundred years after his Death be assign'd to him As to what he Cites from Gaius who he says was a Roman and succeeded Zepherinus the Words Import nothing of Peters being Bishop of Rome but seem intended to prove that the Church of Rome was founded by some of the Apostles whose Monuments were to be seen in the Vatican and Ostiensian-Way But as in the Catalogue of Popes there is no such Person as Gaius found to succeed Zepherinus so we heard before from a Decretal Epistle that it was Pope Cornelius that removed the Bodies of Peter and Paul from the Catatombae to the Vatican and Ostiensian-way Now this Cornelius became Bishop of Rome as appears by their own Chronologists 51 years in time and the sixth Bishop in Order after Zepherinus How then could Zepherinus Successor the words plainly imply his next Successor talk of their Monuments being there in his time The other Witness Cited by Eusebius is Dionisius of Corinth who besides that he is the same Man who as Eusebius elsewhere tells us did in his own Life-time complain that his Writings were abused and added to his words as here Related seem to signify that as there was very early a kind of Vanity or Emulation in Churches and Persons which prompted them to boast of those that Converted them which is reproved by Paul in that Text I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas c. so this Bishop of Corinth would have his Church of Corinth to be Planted both by Peter and Paul and therefore to be the more nearly Related to the