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
or longing Resolution to go to Rome as soon as possible Rom. 1. 13. and Ch. 15. 22. and 23. But sure Peter if he had been Bishop there would much rather have been Intent on that Journey 3. Tho Peter had been Absent yet if he had been peculiar Bishop of that Church 't is not Credible that Paul would not at all have taken notice of him for that Episcopacy of Peter there would not have been a forreign nor any of the least Causes fit to be mentioned of his giving thanks on the Romans behalf as Ch. 1. 8. or in their Praises as Ch. 16. 19. Paul doubtless would have pray'd no less for Peters prosperous return then he does for his own happy Journey And advised them too as well for to pray for the Restitution of Peter as for his own presence amongst them Ch. y 15. 30. at least in that Admonition Ch. 16. 18. where he mentions the Doctrine they had Learnt how seasonably might he have made the same Commemoration as else where he uses of himself on a like occasion 2 Tim 3. 14. Continue in what you have Learnt knowing from whom you have learnt them to witt from Peter the only Rock under Christ of the Church 'T is plain it is usual with St. Paul to lay hold on all occasions of naming with honour the faithful Ministers of those Churches to whom he wrote whether they were present or absent As 1 Cor. 16. 15. Ephes 6. 21. Phil. 2. 19. Coloss 4. 9 12 and 13. for this tended much to the Edification of the Churches And why should he not much more have done the same here where he had so Eminent Occasion for it to have given Attestation to Peter's Supream and Pastoral Office and the wonderful Happiness and Priviledge of the Romans in being under his peculiar Conduct The Cardinal urges further That nothing can be concluded from Authority Negatively I Reply Our Arguments before recited are not only drawn from Authority Negatively but also from the less to the greater Paul in his Epistle to the Romans and in several others from thence at several times mentions others less to be remembred therefore he would not have been silent of Peter if he had been at Rome 'T is also from the Genus to the Species in the places cited from Colos and Tim. for if none but such and such were there it undeniably follows Peter was not there Bellarmin would perswade us that Paul Coloss 4. 11. speaks only of his own Domesticks or such as were his proper menial Servants and in the 2d of Tim. 4. of such as were to stand his freinds to Nero. It does not appear nor is it probable that Aristarchus whom he calls his fellow Prisoner and Marcus and Justus and Luke whom he stiles the Beloved Physician were Pauls Domesticks or Servants the good holy humble Apostle did not keep so great a Retinue as an Author that Theologiz'd in Purple and vy'd dignity with Kings might be apt to imagine nor does he speak only of them but of all his fellow helpers in the Gospel and therefore ought not to omit Peter And in Timothy he speaks of such as ought to have strengthned him 2 Tim. 4. 17. in which office of Love Peter would not have been wanting nor do we read nor is it likely that Paul ever desired any Intercessors with Nero. Lastly The Cardinal says that at that time when Paul came to Rome and when he wrote these Epistles Peter perhaps was not at Rome for tho he had there fixt his Seat he was yet very often absent If they could once solidly prove that ever he was Present we would grant that he might be often absent But if his work as an Apostle did call him so frequently into other parts why would he undertake to be the proper Bishop there If Peter were absent would not Paul in such distress have mentioned and bewail'd it Or at least how came it to pass that he never mentions Linus and Cletus the two pretended Suffragan-Bishops In fine Peter it seems was four or five and twenty years Bishop of Rome but never there when the Scripture has occasion to mention either him or the Believers in that City nor could Paul ever meet him there till just they came to be put to death and that too is uncertain Thus I have not only prov'd by a Deduction seriatim that it is not credible that ever Peter De facto was at Rome but also answer'd all the Objections that I have met with made thereunto I shall conclude this Chapter with this observation That we ought not for that Reverence we bear to St. Peters memory imagine that he was seven years Bishop of Antioch and four or five and Twenty years of Rome both Cities of the Gentiles Because it appears Gal. 2. 7. first that Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision that is that the Jews were more especially committed to him as his Charge and Cure Concredited or left to his Trust so the word in the Original imports as the Gentiles were to Paul and it must be our Blessed Saviour who Commissioned both and respectively appointed them those Provinces 2dly That both of them till that time had diligently and with great success labour'd in such their several Provinces Peter amongst the Jews and Paul amongst the Gentiles V. 8. 3dly That now by mutual consent a Covenant and Agreement was entred into between James Peter and John on the one part and Paul and Barnabas on the other That the latter should go unto that is Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles and the former as before so for the future to those of the Circumcision And this was either at the Assembly of the Apostles Acts 15. or at least if they were two distinct meetings 14 years after Pauls Conversion so that Peter according to their Reckoning must then be and for some years had been Bishop of Rome besides his seven years Bishoprick at Antioch and what reason then had there been to mention only his Pains with the Circumcision and to put the same in Ballance with Paul's towards the Vncircumcision If Peter had Preached so long at Antioch and Rome had he not many Seals of his Ministry amongst the Gentiles How many Thousands might we suppose Converted by his Victory there over Simon Magus which if ever Transacted was before this time And why then do we hear nothing thereof but rather Intimations to the contrary viz. That Peter besides his Preaching to Cornelius upon an Extraordinary Occasion and some few others had then made no great Progress amongst the Gentiles but chiefly had exerted his Talent amongst the Jews so that his success with the Latter is compared with Pauls amongst the Former Which to me is a Convincing Argument That St. Peter at that time had neither been Bishop of Antioch nor Rome nor ever at the latter City which must be reckon how you can at least several years after the
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