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
Death at Rome suppose it true will not alone prove any such matter 4. That the modern Bishops of Rome after eight or nine and twenty acknowledged Schisms in that See God knows how many Usurpations and Simonaical or other undue Elections and notwithstanding manifest Depravations of and Apostacy from St. Peter's Doctrine and a Conversation for the most part Diametrically opposite to his humble Holy Life have yet every one of them been undoubtedly his true and Lawful Successors All these Particulars I say as well as St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome must be undeniably proved before their modern Pretensions can be adjudged good and valid Yet in the mean time their continual noise of St. Peter and of his being Bishop of Rome and they his Successors may be apt to inveigle some ignorant People if no opposition be made thereto nor Caveat given That what they thus avouch as a notorious Truth will upon a due scrutiny scarce appear so much as a probable Opinion Therefore I chose to spend a few vacant Hours in rummaging this subject not so much for the weight of the thing it self as to obviate so popular a suggestion and let all the World see That what the Church of Rome builds its loftiest superstructures upon is meerly Bogg and Quicksand a supposed matter of Fact which they assert Gratis as not being provable by any convincing Reason For on the other side This Notion of St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome is of the nearest concernment to that Church it is prora Puppis Papismi the main hinge of Popery Jus successionis Pontificum Romanorum c. The Right saith Bellarmin of the Popes Succession to Peter is founded on this That Peter the Lord so commanding placed his Seat at Rome and sat there until his Death Others of their most Learned Authors say That the Popes succeeding Peter is derived not from Christs Institution but from Peter's Fact which Fact was that he made his Seat at Rome and there dyed and so it comes about that the Roman Bishop succeeds him depending altogether on this Fact of Peter which contains his being at Rome his being Bishop of Rome his dying at Rome and his dying there by our Lords special appointment that the same might be the Mistress of all Churches Now what ever certainty or rather how much uncertainty soever there be of all or any of these particulars yet the whole in a lump is if I mistake not made an Article of Faith in the Church of Rome For Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull prescribing a Form of Confession of Faith in pursuance of the Decrees of their Council of Trent Dated 13 Nov. 1564. requires and commands all the Clergy and Regulars c. of his Church amongst other things to take this following Oath viz. I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I do solemnly promise and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ They will perhaps say That the Article of Faith here intended is not That St. Peter was ever at Rome or Bishop there but only that the the Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and that Obedience is to be paid to its Bishop But who sees not That both the one and the other are expresly grounded on This That the Pope is Peter's Successor which cannot be meant of his Apostleship for that they do not pretend to but in his being Bishop of Rome and how should that be if St. Peter should happen never to have been at Rome nor Bishop there For 't is impossible to prove or believe the Bishop of Rome to be St. Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick unless it first appear That St. Peter was his Predecessor in that See so that 't is plain this Article imports no less than if it were said I believe that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that therefore That Church is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and on that account to her Bishops because they are St. Peter's Successors obedience is to be paid by all Christians Nor will it be to any purpose to say That this is not one of the Church of Rome's Articles of Faith because only the Ecclesiasticks are injoyn'd to take this Oath for what do they generally mean by their Church when they talk of it even in a large sense but their Clergy at least if the Guides are obliged so to believe and as 't is well known all Lay-Members are to follow them and believe as the Church that is as the Ecclesiasticks believe does it not follow That every one that is of the Roman Communion must so believe especially since 't is there required That they shall further swear in these Words Hanc veram Cathotholicam fidem extra quam NEMO SALVUS ESSE POTEST quam in presenti profiteor teneo eandem ad ultimum vitae spiritum constantissime retinere spondeo voveo Juro This is the true Catholick Faith out of which no man can be saved and which as at present I do profess and hold so I do promise vow and swear most constantly to retain the same to my last breath Nay more if you will believe them all Christianity stands on this foot The same Bellarmin who affirmed that the Primacy of the Popes was founded on St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome acquaints us further That on this Primacy of the Pope the Christian Religion depends for these are his Words Etenim de qua re agitur cum de Primatu Pontificis agitur brevissime dicam de summa rei Christianae What is it I pray we treat of when we handle the Popes Supremacy I will tell you in a word 't is touching the sum total or main Interest of Christianity Hence 't is evident that the Claims of the Church of Rome or her Bishops to an universal Headship over all the Churches of Christ to infallibility and all the rest of their far-spread Pretensions are bottom'd on St. Peter's being once their Bishop and fixing there his Episcopal Seat Ask them why the Bishop of Rome rather than any other Bishop e. g. of Toledo or Canterbury is Head and Governour of the Universal Church They will tell you 'T is because the former only is Peter's direct Successor to whom it was said I will give thee the Keys and Feed my Flock Ask them why the Church of Rome above all other Churches is exempt from falling into Errours in Matters of Faith They will say 't is because she was founded by and had for her first Bishop Peter to whom it was said I have pray'd for thee that thy Faith fail not and Thou art Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Which Priviledges were to descend to all that should succeed
Lords Body till he come to the last Judgment Acts 3. 21. CHAP. III. Whether St. Peter were Bishop of Antioch or Rome IF it cannot be sufficiently made appear That St. Peter was ever at Rome one would think we might supersede our pains of enquiring Whether he were Bishop of Rome No saith Bellarmin many have been Bishops of Rome that never were at Rome as Clement the 5th John the 22th Benedict the 12th Clement the 6th and Innocent the 6th who being Ordained in France did always remain there How properly those Gentlemen could be called Bishops of Rome that were neither chosen there nor ever saw that City in their lives I shall not inquire not repine at his Holiness if he please to make Titular Bishops of remote places in Asia or Africk where perhaps there may not be one Christian soul living or if he will gratifie his Favourites with Episcopal Sees in Vtopia or Fairy-land such as Panormitan complains of and calls Episcopi Nullatenenses Bishops of Nullatia Diocesans of No-land But this I am pretty confident of That St. Peter who so earnestly exhorts Bishops or Elders to feed their Flocks would scarce set the first Pattern of Non-residency that ever was in the world Nor do I see any necessity for calling Clemens the 5th and the other French Popes Bishops of Rome rather than Bishops of Avignion For I am taught by a very Learned Roman Catholick That the Papacy and Bishoprick of Rome are two distinct things and not so necessarily conjoin'd but they may be separated As for example If a Pope and a Council think it convenient he may leave the Church of Rome and unite himself to another Church in which case the Church of Rome should no longer be Head nor have any Soveraignty over Christians But letting that pass we come now to consider the Arguments brought to prove Peter's being Bishop of the particular Church of Rome and because they who affirm he was so do with equal confidence maintain That he was also Bishop of Antioch for about seven years we will here take that part of the Story into our thoughts 1. That Peter was an Apostle no man that believes the New Testament can doubt but that there is some difference between an Apostle and a Bishop properly so called will I think not be denied For the Apostles were immediately called by Christ and all the World was their Diocess for so runs their Commission Mark 16. 15. Go you into all the World preach the Gospel to every Creature so that it was an Extraordinary Office consisting of Personal Priviledges as Immediate Vocation power to work Miracles Vniversality of Jurisdiction and Infallibility in all things they preached or writ relating to the Gospel being dictated unto and specially guided by the Divine Spirit But Bishops are chosen by men and have a certain Seat and Church and their Office is ordinary 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Therefore Peter being an Apostle could not I conceive be Bishop either of Antioch or Rome in the proper strict sense of the word for this had been a kind of Degrading him from a superior and more ample Office to one Inferior and Restrained I am not ignorant That as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies at large an Inspecter or Overseer every Apostle where ever he happen'd to come might be said to be Bishop of that place but not exclusively to others And thus you may if you please call Paul a General Bishop because he testifies That he had the care of all the Churches And in this respect we read of the Episcopate of Judas Act. 1. 20. His Bishoprick let another take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in such a sense St. Peter calls himself Presbyter or Elder 1 Pet. 5. 1. I also agree that Peter or any other Apostle might wherever he came act and discharge all parts of a Bishops Function whether Ministerial or Governing But all this will not Constitute him proper Bishop of this or that particular Church or of one more than another for tho a Prince in his Progress may do some acts that belong to the Office of a Mayor or other particular Governor of that Town where he happens to lodg yet it cannot be said that he is the Mayor or particular Governor of such a Corporation for that would be a Diminution of his Royal Dignity no more did the Apostles become Local Bishops because of their exercising Episcopal Power in any particular Church by virtue of their Power Apostolical wherein the other was included Nor can the first Planter or Establisher of a Church as such be stiled the Bishop of such a Church for then both Paul and Peter and all the rest of the Apostles must be Bishops of many several Diocesses 2. If Peter were Bishop either of Antioch or Rome then either he must be Ordain'd such by Christ or by men after Christ's Ascension or else he constituted himself Bishop there But nether of these three can be said Not the first for as there appears no footsteps of such an Ordination in Scripture so if by Christ he were Constituted President over any one particular Church how could he share in that Command Go forth and preach to every Nation Nor were there before our Lords Ascension any such Churches in being Not the second for then he must relinquish the Apostolical Office which he received of Christ and suffer himself to be so far Degraded by men as to undertake a meaner and more limited Office As if the Bishop of London should be made Parson of Pancras Hence too it would follow That St. Peter thenceforth instead of being Prince of the Apostles should as Bishop of Antioch or Rome be inferior to the other Apostles who were not Ordained of men nor by men Gal. 1. Not the third for no man assumeth this honour to himself Heb. 5. 4. Peter or any other Apostle might Ordain others to be Bishops in such places as needed them But that they should or would Create themselves Bishops of this or that Peculiar Church we have no Ground to believe By what Words what Rites what Ceremonies did they do it Or how when where did Peter declare himself to be the proper Bishop either of Antioch or Rome Is it not utterly incredible That Peter the Supream Head and Monarch of the Church on Earth as they pretend should for thirty two years be Bishop and have the particular Charge and Cure of Two of the greatest Cities in the Roman Empire and that too whilst most of the other Apostles were living and yet none of them nor he himself in any of their Writings should say one syllable of it nor mention so much as one single Episcopal Act done by him in either of those Cities in all that time No nor St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles nor St. Paul who lived long in Antioch and longer at Rome and had opportunity nay had
expresly tells us Euodius was its first Bishop And so far likewise from affirming that St. Peter was Twenty five years Bishop of Rome that he does not say he was Bishop of Rome at all but only that Peter having first founded the Church of Antioch went to Rome Peter's being Bishop of Rome Twenty five years is none of Eusebius's Testimony there being not a Syllable to that purpose in the Original Greek in which Language he wrote but those words were foisted into the Latin Copies which are very much Interpolated and corrupted as may be seen by Scaliger's Animadversions Hence that Learned Roman Catholick Valesius publickly acknowledges Sciendum est Eusebium Apostolos in Ordine Episcoporum minime Numerare That Eusebius did not rank the Apostles in the Order of Bishops Nay 't is plain that those Ancients who speak of Peter's being Bishop of Rome do use the word Bishop in a large sense to imply that during his abode there which upon Papias's conjecture and vulgar same they supposed he Preach'd unto and took care of that Church For the same persons do no less affirm That Paul also was Bishop of the same Church at the same time which cannot be understood but in such a large sense as aforesaid Hence Ruffinus says Linus Cletus fuerunt ante Clementem Episcopi in Vrbe Roma sed superstite Petro videlicet ut illi Episcopatus Curam Gererent iste vero Apostolatus Impleret Officium Linus and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before Clement but whilst Peter was yet alive They performing the duty of Bishops and He attending to the Office Apostolical In which words tho he who flourisht towards the end of the 4th Century takes for granted Peter's being at Rome yet he plainly distinguishes the Apostolical and Episcopal Offices and refers them not to one but several persons and so denies that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome naming two others who govern'd that Church in that capacity during his life time Let us consider Cui Bono to what purpose serves this Assignment of a fictitious Episcopacy to Peter Whatever Priviledges could attend his person were bestowed upon him either as a Believing Disciple of Christ or as an Apostle As such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given unto him As such he was commanded to feed the flock of Christ as such Christ promised to build the Church on the Faith he professed as an Apostle he with the rest had the care of all Churches that is as far as every one was able committed unto him As an Apostle he was Divinely inspired and enabled infallibly to reveal the mind of Christ Now all these things belonging to him as a Believer and Apostle I desire to know what further Priviledg could accrue to him besides as Bishop of any particular place were it either Antioch or Rome If the Romanists will shew us any body succeeding Peter in the enjoyment of those extraordinary Priviledges before mentioned they must bespeak such person to succeed him in his Apostleship and not in his pretended Bishoprick For whatever Authority Power or Jurisdiction Peter had over all Churches in the World or whatever unerring Judgment in matters of Faith the same belonged unto him as he was an Apostle long before he is fancied to have been the Bishop of any particular place so that if it were necessary that some one should succeed Peter in his Episcopacy Why not much more necessary in his Apostleship And then why was it not needful that Paul should have a Successor as well as Peter and John the survivor of all the rest of the Apostles as well as any of them Again If we must believe the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor it will I hope not be unlawful to enquire wherein And therefore I demand 1. Doth the Pope succeed St. Peter in all that he had in Commission and was empowered to do in reference unto the Church of God Doth he succeed him in the manner of his Call to his Office Peter was called immediately by Christ in his own person The Pope is Elected by the Conclave of Cardinals concerning whom their Office Priviledges Power and Right to choose the Successor of St. Peter there is not one syllable either in Seripture or any Monuments of pure Antiquity for divers hundred years and how many times the Cardinals have been Influenc'd by powerful Strumpets Baronius himself has inform'd us and how much in latter Ages to this day the Factions of several Princes prevail cannot be unknown to any that is not a stranger to History and the Modern Transactions of the World 2. Doth the Pope Succeed Peter in the way and manner of his personal Discharge of his Office and imployment Not in the least For Peter in the pursuit of his Commission and Obedience unto the Command of his Lord travel'd to and fro Preaching the Gospel and planting and watering the Churches of Christ in Patience Self-denial Humility Zeal Temperance and Meekness whereas the Pope Reigns at Rome in ease exalting himself above Kings and without taking the least pains in his own person for the Conversion of Sinners or edification of the Disciples of Christ 3. Doth every Pope or Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in his personal qualifications which were of such extraordinary advantage to the Church of God in his days viz. His Faith Love Holiness Light and Knowledg This cannot with any modesty be alledged since the best Historians of the Roman Cast confess many Popes to have been grosly Ignorant and flagitiously Wicked 4. Doth the Pope succeed Peter in the way and manner of Exercising his Care and Authority towards the Churches of Christ As little as in any of the rest For Peter did it by his Prayers for the Churches by his personal Visitation and Instruction of them by his Writings Divinely inspired for their direction and guidance according to the Will of God But the Pope proceeds by Bulls and Consistorial Determinations executed by Intricate Processes and Officers unknown not only to Peter but all Antiquity and whose Ways Orders Terms and Practices St. Peter himself were he here again upon Earth would as little understand as approve 5. Doth the Pope succeed Peter in his personal Infallibility Let the Romanists agree if they can amongst themselves upon an Answer to this Question Or doth he succeed him in his power of working Mirales I do not hear that his present Holiness pretends to that Talent tho Pope Gregory 7. seems to have had some inclinations that way when he was wont to scare the people by shaking fire out of his sleeve as Cardinal Benno relates the Story Lastly Doth the Pope succeed Peter in the Doctrine that he taught It hath been prov'd a Thousand times and we are ready when ever call'd upon to demonstrate it again That he doth not but hath added to detracted from and many ways perverted it Wherein then doth this Succession of the Pope to Peter which
they talk so much of consist Why in his Power Authority Jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church In the Ecclesiastical Monarchy with the secular Advantages of Riches Honour and Pomp that attend it An excellent contrivance In the things that Peter really enjoy'd and which were of singular advantage to the Church of God the Popes disclaim or dare not pretend any Succession unto him but fix it on things wherein he was no way concern'd but which vastly make for their own worldly Interest On this supposititious Anvil do they forge out to themselves a Monarchy direct and absolute in Ecclesiastical things over the whole Church Indirect at least and in Ordine ad Spiritualia over the whole World And this is the great Diana in making of Shrines for which the main business and livelihood of many Thousands of their inferiour Craftsmen does consist But still to prove Peter 's being Bishop of Rome the Cardinal argues from the Dignity of the Roman Church which saith he was ever accounted the chiefest of all others But there can be no other Reason why it should be so but because St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles was the proper Pastor and Bishop of that Church Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 4. For Answer to which be pleased to observe 1. What a pretty Circle is here The Church of Rome is the chief of all Churches because St. Peter was its Bishop But how does it appear that St. Peter was its Bishop Because Rome is the chief of all Churches Risum teneatis 2. As the calling Peter Prince of the Apostles is but a Complement For tho some of the fourth Century call him so yet they explain themselves to mean thereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or chief in Order as a Chairman or Speaker but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince or Ruler And when the Ambiguity of the Word began to be abused unto pretensions of Preeminence the Council of Carthage expresly condemn'd it allowing none to be called Princeps sacerdotum the Prince of Priests so neither is it true That Rome was always accounted the chief of all Churches for Jerusalem was the Mother Church planted by our Saviour in person and his Twelve Apostles with whom were the Seventy Disciples such Teachers as no other Church ever had at once and from thence the Gospel was propagated to the rest of the World and to Rome it self The Church of Corinth is celebrated in Scripture for being enriched with all Vtterance and all knowledg and for coming behind in no Gift 1 Cor. 1. 5 and 7. The Church of the Ephesians for I think that place may much more justly be restrained to that particular Church than it can be applied to the Roman which we often see done is called The Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. The Church of the Thessalonians is commended for following the Churches of Judea not that of Rome tho the Epistle was wrote from thence 1 Thess 2. 14. 'T is true the Primitive Church of Rome wants not its praises too For St. Paul faith That their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole World Rom. 1. 8. That is was taken notice of in places far distant but this was because Rome was the chief City of the Empire to which strangers from all parts did dayly upon secular occasions resort Their Faith was the same that was in all Nations amongst not above whom are ye also Rom. 1. 5 and 6. But what is this commendation of their Faith then to the Church of Rome in after times when they might be declined therein for that 't was not impossible for the Church of Rome totally to fall away by unbelief we learn from the same Apostle Ch. 11. 20. And therefore he admonishes them not to be high-minded but fear 3. In the next Ages there was no such extraordinary account of the Roman Church its Bishop by the most Ancient Fathers is stiled no more than Brother Collegue or Fellow-Bishop as is evident in the Epistles of St. Cyprian Appeals to Rome were forbid by several Councils Irenaeus Bishop of Lions one of the earliest of the Fathers for he flourisht before the year 200 sharply reproved Victor Bishop of Rome because he went about to excommunicate the Eastern Chruches for not keeping of Easter after the same manner he did St. Hierom allows him no such superiority Quicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive alibi ejusdem est Meriti Sacerdotii whosoever saith he shall be a Bishop whether of Rome or elsewhere is of the same worth the same Priesthood Nay we have the Testimony of one that was afterwards a Pope himself I mean Aeneas Sylvius who confesses That before the Council of Nice Every Church kept to it self and there was but little respect paid to the Church of Rome And as its esteem at first began not on the account of Peter but because it was the Imperial City for so says the Council of Chalcedon held Ann. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Because old Rome was the Imperial City Therefore the Fathers have rightly given Priviledges to that See So the Reverence and Vogue of Jursdiction it afterwards obtain'd was by the favoar of the Emperors and especially from the Artifices of its Bishops improving all advantages and making use of many very Carnal means very well known and therefore not necessary here to be recounted CHAP. IV. Antient Authors alledged for Peter's being Bishop of Rome considered as Papias Linus Egesippus the Decretal Epistles c. Forgeries in the name of Antiquity detected particalarly a feigned Decretal Epistle from Clemens to St. James and another from Pope Cornelius about removing Peter's Body A remarkable Testimony from Baronius ALthough I have gone through Cardinal Bellarmin's special Arguments and all that I know of producible by any of the Romanists for proving Peter to have been Bishop of Rome or at any time there and have briefly shewn as I think that none of them are free from just Exceptions nor all conjoyn'd of sufficient weight to oblige a rational mans assent much less such a firm and steady Belief as is requisite in a matter so highly concerning Religion as this is supposed to be yet since both he and other cite many pretended Antient Authors as giving Suffrages in favour of their assertion I hold it not unfit to inform the unlearned Reader whom such a specious Parade may possibly amuse somewhat more particularly concerning the same 1. This Testimony were it never so numerous is still but Humane and so cannot I conceive be a sufficient ground for any Article of Faith 2. That although we do seriously pay a just Reverence to Antiqnity yet still we hold our selves obliged in Discretion to put a difference between pure and counterfeit Records not to suffer our selves to be betrayed into an unwary prejudicial Confederacy with a parcel of neighbouring
was the Order both of my Words and Actions as also what End shall find me in this City All these things write unto him Nor fear that he will be too much grieved at my End since he will not doubt but I endure it for the sake of Piety but it will be a great solace to him to learn that no unskilful man or unlearned and ignorant of the Discipline of Ecclesiastical Order hath undertaken my Chair Wherefore my Lord James when I had received these Precepts from him I held it necessary to fulfil what he commanded c. And so goes on to tell St. James he had there sent him the whole story of Peter's Preaching under the Title of the Itinerary or Journies of Clement For so he says St. Peter order'd him to call it Now not to insist on the matter of this Epistle there are two Considerations besides which I conceive very clearly demonstrate it to be a Forgery 1. That this very Book call'd the Itinerary amongst other Writings ascribed to Clement was by Pope Gelasius Anno 494. Condemn'd as aforesaid Therefore he did not believe this Epistle to be written by Clement for if he had he would undoubtedly have received the Itinerary with Reverence since he could not imagine so Holy a Man would have given so large a testimony thereto nor taken such pains to have sent it to St. James if it had not been true and authentick when therefore Pope Gelafius expresly condemn'd the Book he vertually condemn'd the Epistle that pretends to recommend it for if the former be Apocryphal the latter must needs be Counterfeit 2. By the Testimony of St. Hierom and current stream of Antiquity St. James to whom St. Peter takes such care to have his Memoirs communicated was Martyr'd in the 7th year of Nero whereas they say Peter suffer'd not till the 14. year of of that Tyrant so that Clement must write to a Person that was dead 7 years before Nay more this being reckon'd a Decretal Epistle and the greater part of their Authors not placing Clement actually in the Chair till after Linus and Cletus of whom they say one sat above 11 years and the other above 12 this must be wrote above 30 years after St. James's death for tho Clement might at any time write an Epistle yet he could not write a Decretal Epistle till he was Pope Another of these Epistles notably relating to our present business is in the name of Cornelius Bishop of Rome in the year 254. which is publisht amongst the rest of the Decretal Epistles in these words Cornelius Bishop of Rome to his dear and most beloved Brethren the Sons of the Holy Church of God and to all them that serve our Lord in the right Faith Considering the Benevolence of your Charity because ye are Lovers of the Apostles and hold their Faith and Doctrine I determined to write unto you THE LORD BEING THE AVTHOR some of those things which are at this time NECESSARY TO BE KNOWN and which the Lord assisting by the MERITS of the Apostles were lately done amongst us in the Church of Rome or are now in doing because Charity patronizing I believe with Fatherly Grace ye willingly receive the WRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLICAL SEE and perform THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE SAME and REJOICE IN THE ENCREASES thereof Because whosoever engrafts himself in the Root of Charity neither fails of Greatness nor becomes void of Fruit neither does he by Love lose the efficacious work of fruitfulness for Charity it self does exercise the hearts of the Faithful corroborates their sences that nothing seemeth grievous nothing difficult but all is easy which is done while its property is to nourish Concord to keep the Commandments to join things dissevered to correct evil things and to consolidate all other virtues by the Bulwark of its perfection Wherefore I beseech you to Rejoyce with us because by the entreaty of a certain devout Woman and most Noble Matron Lucina the Bodies of Peter and Paul were lifted out of the Catatumbae And first of all the Body of the blessed Paul was carried with silence and put in the Grounds of the foresaid Matron in the Ostiensian way or Street near to that side where he was beheaded But afterwards we received the Body of the blessed Peter The Prince of the Apostles and decently placed it near the place where he was Crucified amongst the Bodies of the Holy Bishops in the Temple of Apollo in the Golden Mountain in the Vatican of Nero's Palace the third day of the Calends of July Praying God and our Lord Jesus Christ that these his Holy Apostles Interceeding he would purge away the spots of our sins and keep you in his will all the days of your lives and make you to persevere in the fruit of good works but see that you Rejoyce together for these things because the Holy Apostles themselves do also Rejoice together for your joy Praise ye God always and he shall be glorified in you For it is written What shall I return unto the Lord for all that he hath returned to me I will take up the Cup of Salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. This Epistle is a Quiver whence the Modern Church of Rome can draw several Arrows to serve her turn Here is Worshipping of Relicks intimated Merit and Intercession of Saints owned the willingness of all Christians so long ago to obey the Commands of the Bishops of Rome supposed as also Peter's being Prince of the Apostles and how much it concern'd all Sons of the Church to rejoyce for the removal of his Corps from one Grave to another But that the same is wholly a Forgery besides what we have objected against all these Epistles in general and waving too the odd matter and conceited Phrase of this in particular we need but Animadvert That 't is supposed to be written by Cornelius who they say was Bishop of Rome Anno Chr. 254. Which happens to be a time when that cruel Tyrant Decius was Emperor and in the very midst of the 7th Persecution one of the fiercest that ever Harrass'd the Church from Heathen hands Now during that Horrible storm when no Christian could appear at Rome without certain danger of his Life Who can imagine this Bishop so much at leisure as to write Letters to all the World requiring them to rejoyce for the removal of a parcel of Bones as one of the most important Adventures or singular Blessings of that Age What probability is there why Madam Lucina in that dismal time should attempt to disquiet the Apostles dust and bring both her self and all other Christians then at Rome into jeopardy on so frivolous an occasion Or how was it possible that the Bodies of the Apostles supposing they could be found after nigh 200 years private Burial should however be then removed and interr'd so gloriously How the Christian Bishops of Rome even in the height of Paganism
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
Church of Rome whom he supposed and perhaps the Romans might give it out so to have the same Founders every Countrey almost in process of time such is the Natural Itch of Ambition and Vainglory in Man pretending to have been Converted by some Apostle or Illustrious Name though often times the Preaching of the Gospel amongst them was like it self by very mean and as to Outward Glory or Fame Contemptible Instruments But from this Testimony of Eusebius we may Rationally Collect That in his time Peters being at Rome was but a dark kind of business provable only by Reports and such odd Testimonies of a few Obscure Authors that have as little Weight as Clearness But how then came the same afterwards to be so generally Entertained and Believed and several of the Fathers to call Rome St. Peters Chair To this may be Answered That the Bishops of Rome after Constantine had raised them to a high degree of Wealth and Reputation puft up with Ambition from their presiding over the Imperial City began to aspire above their Brethren and first Claim'd a Primacy and Right of Receiving Appeals from all parts not Jure Divino or as Successors to St. Peter but as Granted to them by Councils and to that purpose forged two Canons on the Famous Nicene Council as is mentioned before but finding themselves Cut short and Baulkt therein by the sagacity of the Council of Carthage they cast about to derive a Supremacy over all other Churches from an higher Title and Observing Peter to have been one of the most Eminent Apostles and some Words to have been spoken to him by our Saviour that might Colourably be wrested to Intimate as if he had some kind of Superiority over or greater Priviledge than the rest they would have it believed That he was the Founder of their Church and though sometimes they joyn'd Paul with him because the Scriptures gave such Illustrious Testimonies of his pains there yet for the most part Peter without the least Countenance from but rather against the Tenour of Scripture had the greater Vogue and Preference and knowing the Mobile are easie to be deceived with Names and Titles and apt to frame Idaeas of things past from what appeared at present they gave out That he was Bishop of Rome To this purpose they press'd all the Fragments of Antiquity into the Service Papias's Conjecture was made an Authentick proof and this saying of Eusebius and his hear-says must pass for Vndoubted Evidence Yet not therewith Content abundance of other Writings were Counterfeited under Antient Venerable Names as I made appear before and thus in short time the story might gain Credit And Whenever any of the Fathers though Unwarily deceived by a Spurious Tradition or the Common Vogue not thinking it perhaps a matter much worth Enquiring into as not dreaming what strange Inferences would thence be made in after times spoke thereof in a stile Accommodated to Vulgar Opinion and call'd Rome St. Peters Chair or her Bishop Peters Successor this was filed as a fresh Testimony of the Truth and Certainty of the matter of Fact Having once gain'd this point that it was believed That Peter Preach'd at Rome which they call'd his being Bishop there They proceeded further to pretend That not only Peter had a Soveraign Power confer'd upon him but that the same was derived to them as his Successors And so Thou art Peter I will give thee the Keys I have Pray'd for thee Here are two Swords c. became sufficient Arguments both that Peter was Prince of the Apostles Vicar of Christ and Chief Governour of the Universal Church And that he being so Dignified and Bishop of Rome all the succeeding Bishops of that See being his Successors must be Invested with the same Authority And consequently That the Church of Rome was the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches and is Infallible and the only Catholick Church That the Pope has a direct Soveraignty over all the World in Spirituals and indirect in Ordine ad Spiritualia c. All which being Closely and Vigorously though Gradually pursued in Ignorant tures and especially after the Roman Bishops by the favour of Pâ—â—cas the Traytor had gain'd the Title of Vniversal and an Ascendent over a great part of the Christian World when every thing tending to the Honour and Advantage of that See met with Encouragement and the Roman Bishops only were Capable of bestowing Preferments and all were Snibb'd and Crusht that durst offer any thing that displeased them 't is no wonder if for many Ages scarce any at least whose Writings yet remain for we know who had then the keeping of all Libraries durst openly controvert or deny St. Peters being at Rome and Bishop there Since this was a Blow at the Root and struck effectually at the Popes Supremacy Infallibility and other Pompous Claims which are all founded on that Pretence Touching which what need I say more But briefly sum up the state of the whole matter If St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome or so much as ever there be not provable by Scripture nor any other Convincing Arguments but whatever can be said for it is easily Answered and rendered not so much as Probable If the Witnesses of the story are at Open Wars and Contradictions in the Circumstances yet all pretending to a most punctual Exactness and the Learned'st and most Subtle Advocates of the Party Sweat in vain to Invent even so much as Colours to Reconcile them If from Scripture and History and a due Comparison of all Circumstances it is improbable to the highest Degree That ever Peter was at Rome much more that he was Bishop thereof If the story depend on Counterfeit Authors or such as justly are of little Credit and abundance of shameful Forgeries have been invented and made use of to support it If it be Derogatory to the Honour of St. Peters Memory to assert it In fine If it be no difficult task to apprehend and shew by what Methods and Degrees it might be advanc'd to popular Credit and for what Ends If I say all this be made appear and how far this brief Disquisition may be satisfactory that way is left to the Judicious Unbigotted Peruser and Posterity to Determine I conceive the old Out-cry of Great is Diana of the Ephesians The Noâ—â—e of St. Peters Chair and Peters Successors will henceforth abate so newhat of it's Influences or indeed signify very little unless it be to Expose their Confidence that Use it However If any shall still be Amus'd and Prevail'd upon by those Empty Sounds and Vnravell'd Charms I may perhaps admire their Faith or rather pitty their Weak Credulity but must crave leave to say That till my Reason is better satisfied which with the Uttermost Diligence and Impartiality I have endeavoured It shall have no Room in my Creed And so Reader Farewell FINIS An end of Controversy desirable By what obstructed The occasion of this Discourse *
The Gentlemans skill in Arithmetick seems as extraordinary as in History when he takes 43 out of 1686 there remains precisely 1647. †Lib. 2. De Nat. Grat. cap. 61. Protestants not much concerned in the Question Things to be proved by Romanists besides Peter's being Bishop of Rome * Onuphirus in Chron. Pont. confesses 30. * De sum Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. †Cajet de Div. Instie Pontif. c. 13. Canus Loc. l. 6. c. 8. Peter's being Bishop of Rome an Article of their Faith * The very same Oath amongst other things is at this day exacted of all Protestants that are pretended to be converted to the Roman Church in France as I am very credibly assured The sum of Christianity * De sum Pontif in Praefat. The reasonableness or necessity of examining this point The Negative not undertook to be proved The two chief Questions * Annot. in Jo. 18. 31. †De concord Sacerd. Imper lib. 6. cap. 1. Sect. 4. * Lib. 14. cap. 39. * Preface to his Treatise De Pontif. Bellarmins second Proof Ans Barnabas said to Preach at Rome before Peter The Third Argument Answ The fourth Argument The Answer * Lib. 2. Ca. 15. * Bar. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68. No. 16 17. Bellarmins 5th argument for Peters being at Rome Answ Touching the place of St. Peters Death Se also afterwards ch 5. quest 4. A sixth Argument Answ * De Summ. Pontif. l 2. * De Offic Ordin C. Quoniam ‖ 2 Pet. 5. 2. †Camer acensis Qu. Vesper Act. 3. A Difference between being an Apostle and Bishop of such a particular place 2 Cor. 11. 28. Peter was not Ordained Bishop of any particular Church Peter more likely to be Bishop of Jerusalem than of Antioch or Rome * Con. Nic. Can. 15. 16. l Conc. Antioch can 21. 22. Conc. Chalcedon Can. 10. Object Answ Eusebius abused to colour Peter's being Bishop of Rome * In Not. ad Euseb l. 3. c. 21. * Praefat. Recogn Clement ad Gaudent To what purpose should Peter be a Bishop Whence the Dignity of the Church of Rome * Conc. Nic. c. 5. Conc. Melevit c. 22. †Vid. Euseb l. 5. c. 24. * Hier. ad Evagrium Epistol l. 1. Many Counterfeits under pretence of Antiquity * In Catalog * Lib. 4. Ca. 22. Of Linus * Baron ad Annum 44. N. 45. Annum 60. N. 6. Possev in Appar V. Linus Of Papias * Euseb l. 3. c. 39. †Baron Mart. ad diem Jan 26. Of Egesippus Of the Decretal Epistles What they are The Collection ascribed to Isidore a counterfeit * Pseudo Isidor cap. 2. †Histor l. 2. c. 18. * See Onuphr Chronicon Pontif. * Vide Baron in Notis Martyrolog ad 4. Apr. Baron Anno Christ 865. N. 5. †De Roman Pontif. L. 2. cap. 14. ‖ Baron ad Ann. 865. N. 5 6 7 8. * Baron Ibid. N. 7. Reasons to shew the Decretal Epistles to be Forgeries * Extrav de Rescriptis Ad Audientiam A Letter from Clement to St. James A Forgery Vide Platin. A Decretal Epistle about Removing St. Peter's Boues * The Catacumbae or Catatumboe as here written were vast publick Vaults or under-ground Repositories for dead Bodies see a handsome discourse of them at Rome and those other more spacious ones at Naples in Dr. Burnet's Letters who proves that they could not be the workmanship of the Primitive Christians for the bestowing of the bodies of their Martyrs as is commonly suggested and intimated here by this feigned Epistle but rather were cut out from the first beginning of the City for the common Burial places of the Ancient Heathens especially the Vulgar sort Slaves c. †June the 29th Proved to be a Forgery Of Clemens Of Abdias * In Recogn Of the Pontifical Baronius dispairs of any certainty of the Apostles Actions not mentioned in Scripture Of the time of Peters coming to Rome How long he staid there What Year Peter suffered Did Paul suffer at the same time * Acts 7 58. Of Peters Successor The Answer to both Whether Peter sat Seven years at Antioch before he went to Rome The History of Peter according to Onuphrius Object 1. Answer Object 2. Answer * Baron Annal Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. S. 9. †Idem ad An. 39. () Defens Pac. part 2. C. 16. () Occh. Dial. par 1. L. 2. Ca 3. Peter not at Rome the first Two Years after the Passion Nor in the Third nor Fourth Nor in the Fifth or Sixth Peter not at Rome between the sixth and twelfth year after the Passion () Joseph Antiq L. 18. Ca. 8. * Lib. 19. Ca. 7. Peter not at Rome between the 12th and 16th years of the Passion () Oros. L. 7. C. 6. () In Claud. 7. Ca. 24. Peter not at Rome before the 12th of Claudius () Lib. â—0 C. 5. Peter had not been at Rome the 24th Year after the Passion Peter not at Rome in the third or fourth year of Nero. Peter not at Rome during the rest of Nero's Reign Bellarmines Scheme of St. Peter's Travels Answ Object 2. Answer Object 3. Answ Obj. 4. Answ Object 5. Answ 'T is a Reproach to St. Peter to fancy him Bishop of Rome The story of Pope Joan and Pope Peter Compared () Anno. Chr. 855. () Tert. L. Contr. Judaeos () Clem. L. 1. Stromat () Lact. Instit L. 4. C. 4. () Iren. L. 2. Ca. 39. () Euseb L. 2. Ca. 25. Object Answer
2. Whether he dyed there 3. Whether he was Bishop of Rome 4. Whether after he had once assum'd that Bishoprick he ever chang'd it for another All which he handles after his manner severally and at large But indeed the second comprehends the first for if Peter were Martyr'd at Rome he must needs be there And the fourth though he puts most stress upon it may fitly be included under the third for if they can prove That St. Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome we shall not much trouble our selves whether he afterwards remov'd from thence both because I think the practice of a Bishops Translation from one See to another was not altogether so early in the Church their talk of the same Apostle's removal from Antioch to Rome shall be further considered anon as also because I remember not any but their own Onuphrius that hath insisted upon or objected any such matter so that the main Question is only this Whether St. Peter were ever in a proper sense Bishop of Rome And because that will be improbable in the highest degree if besides other Reasons it cannot plainly be made appear that he was at some time or other there It will therefore be sufficient to discuss these two Questions 1. Whether St. Peter were ever at Rome 2. Whether supposing he were there he was Bishop in the strict and now usual signification of the Word of that Church To prove Peter to have been at Rome Cardinal Bellarmin produces five Arguments which we shall severally consider The first from that Text 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church that is at Babylon saluteth you By Babylon here saith he is meant Rome therefore Peter when he wrote that Epistle was there Now that Peter did mean Rome by the word Babylon in that place he would prove 1. Because Eusebius Records that one Papias did say That this Epistle of Peter was written from the City of Rome which the Apostle did there Tropically call Babylon To which purpose the Cardinal also cites St. Hierom and others as being of the same Opinion or rather following Papias therein 2. Because Rome in the Revelations is frequently call'd Babylon To which I answer 1. This is proving Ignotum per Ignotius a doubtful thing by a thing utterly Improbable a controverted matter of Fact by an uncertain groundless Opinion Does not all the World know that there were at that time two great Cities whose proper name was Babylon One in Assyria famous in all ancient Histories as being the seat of the first Monarchy The other in Egypt mention'd in Strabo l. 17. and by Ptolomy called Babulis the same if I mistake not which at this day is called CAIRO or near it and why might not Peter date his Epistle from one of these For as he for the most part preached to the dispersed Jews of whom no doubt many were scattered through Chaldaea and Assyria so he might probably exert his Ministry at the first mentioned Babylon being so eminent a place on the same Continent and at no great distance from Jerusalem especicially since Nicephorus tells us he Preached all through Palestina and Syria Nor is this only my private Sentiment the great Scaliger speaks boldly Petrus Romae nunquam fuit sed praedicabat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cujus Metropolis erat Babylon ex qua scribit Epistolam suam Peter was never at Rome but preached to the dispersed Jews in Asia the Metropolis whereof was Babylon from whence he wrote his Epistle Whom the very Learned de Marca Archbishop of Paris Seconds in these Words Although the Ancients imagined That Peter by the word Babylon signified the City of Rome yet Scaliger's conjecture is probable who thinks that Peter wrote from Babylon it self this Epistle to the dispersed Jews Or on the other side if it be true which the foresaid Nicephrous writes That from Pontus Galatia c. Peter went down into Egypt Where he created St. Mark Bishop of Alexandria then why might he not send this Epistle from the Egyption Babylon so that either way by Babylon is far more likely to be understood one of those places rather than Rome For 2. What an extravagance is it to imagine that S. Peter should disguise and conceal from whence he wrote or qualifie the place which he had chosen to be his Episcopal See and perpetual Seat of Church-Soveraignty as they would have it with so uncouth a Title when there was not the least colour of reason as far as we can now learn or occasion why he should so do nor any example of the like kind to be found For though S. Luke in the Acts and S. Paul in his Epistles frequently speak of Rome yet they never call it Babylon Now when the Apostle says the Chruch at Babylon salutes you certainly he intended as all men do in their Epistles that they should know where he was and who they were that saluted them but this was I think impossible for them to do if by Babylon he meant Rome no Author either Civil or Sacred having then ever call'd it so 3. That St. John in the Revelations above fifty Years after for Baronius who says this Epistle was wrote An. Chr. 45. tells us also that the Revelation was wrote An. 97. did call Rome Babylon is nothing to the purpose for though a Tropical Denomination suit well with a Prophetick Style yet it will not follow that in a plain Epistolary Salutation a proper Name must be wrested from its genuine signification to such an abstruse and remote sense St. John writing mysterious Prophecies used Types and Figures to express future things but that Peter in a familiar Recommendation should do so has neither Truth nor Probability The Reason why St. John denominates Rome Babylon though represented in a Vision was not yet actually in Being for it was by way of allusion That as Babylon of old held the Jews the then People of God in Temporal Captivity so she should in time to come bring Christians into a Spiritual Vassalage and thence she is call'd Mystery Babylon It seems the Learned Cardinal thought some Text of Scripture would be expected to prove Peter's being at Rome and finding nothing looking that way was forc'd to hedge in this though it cost him dear for thereby he confesses and proclaims Rome to be the Apocalyptical Babylon But though an hard pinch reduced him to this necessity yet he hopes to secure his retreat by affirming That Rome is termed Babylon not in respect of the future Roman Church but as it was the Seat of the Roman Empire that then domineer'd over the Earth as Babylon did of old But this evasion is as gross as the occasion of it since 't is plain the Revelations from the 4th Chapter especially is a Prophetick Book not Historical for so are the express words there v. 1. Come up hither and I will shew things that shall be hereafter And also it relates all along to the future state
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
'T is true the Cardinal endeavours to weaken the credit of those Authors by saying That the first is thought to be Apochryphal and the latter contains many things fabulous and false yet still as they are of their own producing and he will not deny but they are Ancient so whenever they serve his Turn he is ready enough to make use of them as Authentick Witnesses And indeed if all Authors must be discarded that contain many things fabulous and false His numerous Citations from pretended Antiquity would grow very thin and inconsiderable Besides That Testimony which he himself mentions from Orosius and Platina That the Senate of Rome in the Reign of Tiberius when upon a Letter from Pilate concerning the Miracles of Christ that Emperor mov'd them to Canonize or receive him amongst the number of their Gods not only refused so to do because Pilate wrote to him and not to them about it but also made a Decree Exterminandos or Pellendos as Platina's word is ex Vrbe esse Christianos That Christians should be banisht or driven out of the City Proposing also says Platina Rewards to the Informers against them seems to me a plain Evidence That there were Christians there in the Reign of Tiberius And I dare appeal to the common sense of any indifferent man whether the Cardinal's Gloss That the meaning thereof was only this That if any Christians should come there they should be Banisht be not forced and almost Ridiculous Especially since with Orasius he confesses Tiberium poenam statuisse Accusatoribus Christianorum That Tiberius made a Law to punish the Accusers of the Christians and Platina says the punishment threatned was Capital For tho it be not hard to Believe That Tiberius acting as an absolute Emperor and having received an affront in this very matter from the Senate might set forth an Edict contrary to the Senates Vote yet it is altogether absurd to imagine That he should threaten to punish the accusers of Christians if indeed there were there no Christians to be accused Now if there were Christians at Rome in the days of Tiberius since Peter is not pretended to have come to Rome till the time of Claudius before whom after Tiberius Caligula reigned very near four years it follows undeniably That the Church of Rome was not first planted by St. Peter Bellarmin's third Argument is That Grave Authors write That Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome according to what he had heard Peter Preach Therefore Peter was at Rome And here cites in the first place his Friend Papias again and after him others 1. What value we are to have for Papias's Testimony will appear hereafter and 't is most likely that the other Authors followed him so that the whole depends upon his Authority but the notion it self is indeed Impious and Derogating from that reverence we ought to pay to the Books of the Gospel For there is no well-instructed Christian but believes that St. Mark and every other Evangelist wrote by the special assistance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost and not only by Hear-say either from Peter or any others 2. The meaning of those Authors may be That Mark wrote his Gospel by the excitement or privity of St. Peter but that therefore Peter preached at Rome follows not and most of the Ancients reckon St. Mark the Evangelist to be Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt therefore it is not probable that he ever was or continued long at Rome 3. That which might deceive Papias and the rest might be that whereas they had heard some-body say St. Mark the Evangelist was a Companion of St. Peter and wrote his Gospel partly at his motion and also found one Mark mentioned in several places of the New Testament to have been at Rome as Coloss 4. 10. Philem. v. 24. They thence concluded That St. Peter must be at Rome and Mark write his Gospel there But in truth that Mark whom in Scripture we find to have been at Rome seems not to be the Writer of the Gospel but the same that is mentioned Acts 12. 12. Who is there said to be otherwise named John and Mark only his sirname The same whom Paul and Barnabas whose Sisters Son he was Col. 4. 10. took along with them from Jerusalem to Antioch v. 25. But after some time he left them and return'd from Pamphilia to Jerusalem Chap. 13. 13. About whom on that occasion a controversy arose between Paul and Barnabas with which last he went into Cyprus Ch. 15. 32. But was afterwards at Rome with Paul as appears by the Texts before cited and sometimes imployed by him to visit the Churches abroad as is probable from Col. 2. 4 10. Now that this Mark could not according to their own account be the Evangelist appears I. Because St. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy Ch. 3. 11. sends for him again to Rome which Epistle Bellarmine says was written in the Fourteenth year of Nero and indeed it seems to be but very little before St. Paul's Death from his words Chap. 4. 6. I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand whereas Mark the Evangelist dyed in the 8th year of Nero as Hierom De Viris Illustribus witnesses and is elsewhere own'd by Bellarmin himself And would Paul send for a man that was dead five or six years before II. Because themselves make the Evangelist not only to write his Gospel at Peter's motion but to have been his common Attendant or Assistant in his Travels and Preaching the Gospel and by him to have been made Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt where he suffered Martyrdom Whereas the other Mark that was at Rome did as we find in Scripture generally accompany Paul and Barnabas or one of them So that when any of the Ancients talk of Mark 's writing his Gospel at Rome after Peter's Dictates they seem unwarily to confound the story of the two Marks and jumble them into one and so contradict themselves And therefore Whether St. Peter's being at Rome can thence be sufficiently proved especially when 't is most probable the whole was borrowed and derived at first from the Hear-say of Papias or some such Apocryphal Traditionist is left to the judgment of the discreet Reader Bellarmin's fourth Argument is drawn from the story of Peter's Victory over Simon Magus at Rome And indeed the same if we may credit their Authors is not only a proof of St. Peter's being at Rome but one of the Two Causes which moved him to remove from Antioch thither For thus Platina Petrus Romam Caput Orbis venit quod hanc sedem Pontificali Dignitati Convenientem Cernebat huc profectum intellexerat Simonem Magum Peter came to Rome the Head of the World both because he saw this was a seat convenient or suitable for the Pontifical Dignity and also for that he understood Simon Magus was gone thither So that it seems his going to Rome was not
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
it been true we may say a kind of necessity to have mentioned it I confess were it pretended that Peter had been Bishop of Jerusalem it might seem somewhat probable for as he is stiled the Apostle of the Circumcision so 't is apparent from Scripture that he took much pains and spent seveal years in Preaching there and in the neighbouring Territories and if he were the chief or most notable of the Apostles and they were all to have several and respective Bishopricks since that of Jerusalem was the first and Mother Church from whence the Gospel was spread abroad into all the Earth other Churches being but as so many Colonies derived from thence 't was reasonable he should have the conduct thereof and be Bishop of the first that was planted in the World but there appears nothing so much colour of Reason to call him Bishop either of Antioch or Rome For as the Gospel was first Preached at Antioch by some of the scattered Believers from Jerusalem and further advanc'd by Barnabas and afterwards more fully Establisht there by Paul who both labour'd there for one whole year and with Eminent success insomuch that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch Acts 11. It might thence seem reasonable to Intitle one of them to that Bishoprick but to assign Peter thereto is to make him build on other mens foundations and to reap where he had not sown especially since we find no Intimation of his ever being there save once mentioned by the by and then so far from acting as Bishop there that he seems not throughly to have understood the state and usages of that Church but was withstood and rebuked by St. Paul Gal. 2. 11. When Barnabas and Paul had planted so flourishing a Church at Antioch would Peter meerly to shew his power thrust himself in to be Bishop there Or if he did why would he leave it and go to Rome Was it because the latter was the Richer the larger and the more Honourable So indeed Platina as you heard seems to intimate saying that it was because that Imperial City was more suitable to his pontificial Dignity But certainly Peter who heard Christ telling him amongst the other Disciples when they began to vye for superiority that it should not be so amongst them and who himself charges the Ministers of the Gospel not to carry it as Lords over the Flock committed to their charge could not so quickly forget both and abandon that Humility so much recommended by his Master and himself to seek out a splendid place to be Bishop of that thereby he and his Successors might seem great in the World Suppose Peter once Bishop of Antioch how could he Translate his See from thence to Rome unless he were removed by some Order or Mission of the rest of the Apostles or else that he himself had some special Vision or Revelation so to do But neither of these are as yet proved nor so much as attempted Osius Bishop of Corduba one of no small account amongst the 318 Fathers of the first Council of Nice in the Council at Sardis held about the year 340 did Declare That it was not Lawful for a Bishop to leave his City and undertake another for thereby it would appear that he was inflam'd with Covetousness or a slave to Ambition that he might domineer which was Synodically by the word Placet agreed unto by all the Fathers This was likewise the sense of several other Councils and that all the Acts of such a Bishop at the second place should be accounted Null and Void and he Remanded back to his former Church These being the sentiments of those Ancient Fathers certainly if Peter had removed his See from Antioch to Rome they would out of Reverence to the Prince of the Apostles have suspended their Opinions in the Case If Councils are Infallible in their Decrees then it appears Peter being once Bishop of Antioch did an ill act in Translating himself to Rome if Peter did well in Translating his See from Antioch to Rome as being the much greater and Imperial City then these Councils were Rash and did Err in such their General Condemnations of the like Removes so that either way the Authority of Peter or that of Councils must be Impaired Bellarmin indeed tells us That Peters Remove from Antioch to Rome was Jubente Domino by the Lords Command but offers no kind of proof of that Command when yet all the strength of his Argument to Confirm the Supremacy of the Roman Chair must depend thereon Let them but shew that Divine Command for Peters fixing his Episcopal Chair at Rome and it will put an end not only to this but divers other Controversies we will then readily obey our blessed Lords Command and the Popes too but they cannot produce any such Command nay confess that there is none Nullum Christi ea de re Decretum Extat no Decree of Christ is extant about that matter says Cornelius a Lapide in Apoc. 17. v. 17. If it be alledged That the Fact of the Apostle does argue Gods command as its precedent Cause and they shall urge That Peter did remove to Rome But Peter was Inspired by the Holy Ghost Therefore we ought to believe that this Translation of his seat was by the special Dictates or Guidance of the spirit I answer 1. This Argument has no place nor force until such time as they have substantially proved the fact it self that is That Peter did remove from Antioch to Rome and with an intent to establish at the latter place the seat of Ecclesiastick Empire but this cannot at all be proved or at least as yet is not 2. Cardinal Bellarmin of all men ought not however be allow'd to plead this for in his Treatise De Verbo Dei L. 4. C. 4. he sticks not to deny That Peter Paul or other of the sacred Penmen wrote the Holy Scriptures by Gods special command And will the same man without any proof obtrude on us a Command of God for placing Peter's Chair at Rome Justly may we retort his own words Mutatis mutandis in the place last cited If it had been the purposse of Christ and Peter to place the seat of Christian Empire or visible Headship of the whole Church at Rome undoubtedly it being a thing of such moment Christ would have commanded it and Peter would somewhere have witnessed That he by the Lords command fixed his seat there But this we no where read no not so much as one word that he ever was at Rome or had any thing to do there Therefore we are not bound to believe it Eusebius's Chronicon is commonly cited to prove Peter was Bishop of Antioch seven years and of Rome Twenty five years Now Eusebius does there indeed say That Peter founded the Church of Antioch which yet is plainly contrary to Scripture but so far is he from saying That he was Seven years Bishop there That he
c. 6. In the 2d Year of his Reign saith St. Hierom in the 3d saith Onuphrius no crys Fasciculus Temporum it was in the 4th Year of his Reign and so says Nauclerus Nay upon my word says Paschasius de vit sanct it was in the 14th year of Claudius's Reign But as the aged Lady could see the Needle but not the Barn so tho they are no surer of the Year they are exact as to the Day it was precisely the 18th Day of January this you may be sure of for the Church of Rome that is Pope Paul the 4th as long ago forsooth as the year of our Lord 1557. thought fit to appoint that Day to be kept Festival on that occasion and accordingly you may see it set down in the Calendarium Catholicum 2. Question How long did Peter continue Bishop of Rome Answ 27 Years saith St. Hierom 29 saith Venerable Bede 25 Years 7 Months and 8 Days says Fasciculus Temporum just 25 Years 2 Months and 3 Days says the Pontifical pretended to be written by Infallible Pope Damasus But heark ye Friend if he came to Rome the 18th of January and continued Bishop thereof 25 Years 2 Months and 3 Days then he must be put to Death on the 22th of March and if so why does the Church Celebrate his Martyrdom on the 29th of June Ay but Damasus is mistaken saith Binius with the consent of Barnious Peter did not hold the Chair twenty five Years two Months and three Days it was exactly twenty four Years five Months and twelve Days and so he might be Martyred on the 29th of June Very good this indeed avoids one Inconveniency but it dashes upon another For if he were put to Death on the 29th of June then he could not dye in the fourteenth Year of Nero but almost all Writers of the story attest that he dyed in the 14th Year of Nero Now the 14th Year of Nero began the 13th of October and on the 10th of June following Nero being declared a publick Enemy kill'd himself so that if Peter were put to Death according to the former Opinion on the 22th of March it might be in Nero's 14th Year But if it were on the 29th of June it must be either in his 13th or some other foregoing Year which is contrary to the whole stream of your Evidence or else after Nero's Death which likewise will utterly marr the credit of the whole story for no man ever talk'd of Peter's being at Rome but he also affirm'd that he suffer'd there under Nero. 3. Question In what Year after our Lords Passion was Peter Martyr'd Ans It was in the 38th Year after the Passion of our Lord says the Pontifical the 37th says Nicephorus no crys Binnius it was in the 35th Year after the Passion An. Chr. 69. And yet Onuphrius is confident it was exactly 34 Years 3 Months and 4 Days after our Lords Passion the 29th of June An. Dom. 68. 4. Question Were Peter and Paul put to Death at the same time Answ Yes on the same Day says the Pontifical not the same Year tho say Prudentius and St. Augustine I will tell you how it was says Binnius it was the same Day of the Month indeed though not the same Year Well but if one out-liv'd the other at least a year since Paul seems likest to be the survivor because as St. Peter was much the elder man for he was Marryed when first call'd to the Apostleship whereas Paul at the stoning of Stephen is expresly said to be a young man so also if he were Prince of the Apostles Soveraign Head of the Christians and Bishop of Rome he was on that account likest to incur the fury of Nero. If I say Paul did as he might for what appears to the contrary outlive Peter why might not he have been as fit to succeed as another Would it it not be very hard that Paul who avow'd himself not inferior to the chiefest of the Apostles should in his old Age be made Subject to a Linus a Cletus or a Clement Or suppose he was put to Death before or with Peter yet if Peter did as they say constitute a Supream Pastor over the Universal Church to succeed him why should he not have committed that Charge to some other of the Apostles especially since all Ecclesiastical Historians seem agreed That St. John who is honoured with the Title of the Beloved Disciple did survive for many years after and consequently must become inferiour to some one that was no Apostle But not only Prudentius tells us That Paul suffered a Day after Peter but Abdias one of our Adversaries Worthy Authors avers it was two years after nay if that be true which the same Abdias relates That after the Crucifying of Peter Paul remained in his free Custody at Rome mentioned in the 28th of the Acts which was as St. Hierom witnesseth in the third or fourth year of Nero then it must be ten years betwixt the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul forasmuch as it is by all Writers acknowledged That Paul suffered in the last that is the 14th year of Nero. Vspergensis saith these Apostles were both Executed in one Year but he noteth not that they dyed in one Day Sabellicus saith both in one Year and one Day some say as St. Ambrose they dyed together both in one Place but Dionysius seems to say otherwise telling us that the one bad the other farewel when they were parted asunder going to Death most Writers charge Nero as the Author of both their Deaths but Linus saith That Agrippa commanded Peter to be put to Death which must be at Jerusalem because by his perswasion four of the said Agrippa 's Concubines refused to live any longer in such unchast life with the King 5. Question But who indeed was Peter's next and immediate Successar Answ Linus a Tuscan saith Platina for eleven Years three Months and twelve Days who was succeeded by Cletus a Roman for twelve Years one Month and eleven Days after which the See was vacant twenty Days and then came Clement a Roman who held it nine Years two Months and ten Days And Binius saith that Linus was Pope but eleven Years two Months and twenty three Days and quarrels with Damasus for assigning to Cletus twelve Years one Month and eleven Days But the difference is not only in point of time of their several Pontificates though yet a Days difference where so great an exactness is pretended is enough to discredit all the Relation but there is as much Cloud and Debate in the very order of Succession For Tertullian Lib. de Praescript and St. Hierom on the 25th of Isaiah place Clement next and immediately after St. Peter And Clement himself if you hearken to the before-recited Epistle in his Name to St. James avers that Peter most solemnly conferred that Dignity upon him nor does Platina or Onuphrius forbear to tell us the Circumstances thereof so that
undoubtedly according to these Authorities he was the next Successor But yet Optatus lib. 2. contr Parm. and St. Augustine Epist 165. rank Linus next after Peter and next not only Cletus but Anacletus and after all these Clement as the fourth or if you will include St. Peter the fifth Iraeneus lib. 3. cap. 3. tells us that Peter and Paul Constituted Linus the first then Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome That Anacletus succeeded him and that Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome Onuphrius marshals them thus Linus eleven Years three Months and twelve Days Clement nine Years four Months and twenty six Days Cletus six Years five Months and three Days And after seven Days Vacancy Anacletns twelve Years two Months and ten Days and to solve the matter as well as he can makes the said Linus only as a suffragan Bishop under Peter and reckons the said eleven Years three Months and three Days attributed to Linus to be in Peter's Life time who he says was for the most part absent from Rome save only twenty six Days which he survived after Peter and then was Martyr'd during which 26 Days he was not chief Bishop neither but only a Coadjutor to Clement as he had been to Peter For saith he Clement was the immediate Successor in chief to Peter and held the Chair for nine Years four Months and twenty six Days and then and not before came Cletus and he sate six Years five Months and three Days as Soveraign Bishop though for twenty Years and upwards he had been Chorepiscopus Suffragan Bishop or Coadjutor under Peter and Clement whose Successor was Anacletus c. You see what pains this Learned Man is at to render the story Uniform But as this is a new Invention for neither Platina nor the Ancients mention a word of suffraganship in the Case but make Linus as substantial a Pope as any of the rest so it agrees not with that account that Bellarmin gives of that matter for he saith That Peter indeed left the Episcopal See to Clement but when he was dead Clement out of Humility refused to sit therein as long as Linus and Cletus lived who had been Peter's Coadjutors in the Episcopal Office and so actually Linus succeeded Peter Cletus to Linus and Clement to Cletus tho some Authors because Clement was appointed Successour name him first To which I Answer That as the other was but the surmise of Onuphrius so this is but the Nude Averment of the Cardinal and both the one and the other in it self improbable for if Peter had just cause to Elect Clement then Clement could have no just Cause to reject the Office imposed If Peter were appointed by our Lord to Govern all the Churches in the World no doubt he was fit and enabled to discharge that Office And what need he then have two Coadjutors to Rule the particular Church of Rome Or why would he take upon himself the Bishoprick of Rome from whence he was so often to be absent and thereby give a dangerous Precedent of NON-RESIDENCY and trusting to the Care of Delegates in the Government of the Church Or if he must have help would not Paul at least after he came to Rome have been as good a Coadjutor as either Linus or Cletus Again If Peter thought Clement most worthy to succeed him why was he not Constituted at least an equal Suffragan Bishop with the other two before If Linus and Cletus had been worthy of that Honour they would no doubt have shewn their humility no less in Reverencing St. Peter's last Will and Ordinance than Clement did his in urging Peter's Antecedent Fact of admitting those two his Assistants Or why did not Clement declare such his Humility whilst Peter was alive that he might have Constituted and Consecrated another Successor Or why in his Letter to St. James does he not take notice how and on what score he had declined that Office which Peter so formally conferr'd upon him Or in a word If Peter did so solemnly invest Clement with the Government of the Church and Institute him his Successor by imposition of Hands and making him sit down in spight of his Modesty in his own Episcopal Chair and yet after Peter's Death Linus and Cletus did hold and actually Exercise the same successively for above twenty Years does it not follow That the two first Bishops of Rome next after St. Peter were unlawful as having no due Call or Title but guilty of Vsurpation from which no pretence of Clement's Humility can excuse them For who Ordain'd them Or how could they duely become capable of that Dignity The Sixth Question Was Peter Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome Answ Yes Seven years says the Pontifical and so says Platina and 't is the common Vogue of those that mention his being at Rome But No says Onuphrius and is very warm in the point Ad Initium secundi Anni Imperii Claudii Petrum Judaea nunquam Excessisse ex Actis Apostolorum Paeuli Epistola ad Galatas Apertissime constat idem in Chronico refert Eusebius ego alibi multis Rationibus probavi c. That Peter never stirr'd out of Judea till the beginning of the second year of the Reign of Claudius is most certain and evident from the Acts of the Apostles and Pauls Epistle to the Galatians Eusebius in his Chronicon asserts the same and I says he have proved it elsewhere by many Reasons Now in this second year of Claudius all the Authors that mention Peters being at Rome affirm he arrived there How then could he before that have sat seven years as Bishop of Antioch But from the Testimony of most Antient Authors I says the said Onuphrius have settled the Business thus That in the Tenth year after Christs Passion which was still the Second of Claudius tho' towards the end of it St. Peter after his deliverance out of Prison having spent a year in Preaching along the several Countreys in his Journey towards Rome did Arrive at that City on the Eighteenth of January From whence to the time of his death was about Twenty-five years But four years after viz. the Seventh of Claudius the Jews being banish'd by an Edict he was forced to leave Rome and Returned to Jerusalem Agrippa for fear of whom he fled out of Judea being now dead There he was present at the Apostolical Council and death of the Blessed Virgin from whence leaving the Apostle James at Jerusalem he went to Antioch and there remained seven years until the death of Claudius and beginning of the Empire of Nero when with Mark the Evangelist he Return'd to Rome and Re-Establish'd the decaying Roman Church appointed Linus and Cletus his Suffragan-Bishops or Delegates and Admonish'd Mark to write his Gospel After which he Travell'd almost throughout all Europe and Returning to Rome with the Apostle Paul when Nero was worrying the Christians as Authors of the great Conflagration that happened
last he performs it at Five or Six Motions as follows 1. He says That Peter after our Lords Passion remain'd almost but not full five years in Judea in which time Paul paid him his first visit Gal. 1. 2. That then he removed to Antioch and was Bishop there for near seven years but during that time travelled into and Preached through the Neighbouring Provinces 3. That in the seventh year of his Episcopacy at Antioch he return'd to Jerusalem and was there Imprisoned 4. That being there miraculously released he the same year which was the second of Claudius came to Rome and there fixt his Seat which he held 25 years viz. till his Martyrdom 5. Yet for all that within seven years return'd back to Jerusalem upon a Decree that Claudius set forth commanding all Jews to depart from Rome mentioned Acts 18. 2. and so came to be present at Jerusalem when Paul from Antioch went up thither and the Council of the Apostles Acts 15. was held there 6. But after the death of Claudius repaired again to Rome where in the second year of Nero Paul arriv'd and in the 14th year of Nero they were both put to Death To all which I Answer 1. As the old Astronomers were forc'd to invent various Epicycles and feigned motions of the Planets to solve the Phoenomina without regard whether they were true or false that is had any real existence in Nature or not provided they would but serve a turn to support their Hypothesis so I must crave leave to say The Learned Cardinal carries the blessed Apostle St. Peter 15 or 1600 miles back and forwards to and fro at his own pleasure meerly to render their notion of his being at Rome possible But by what Authority on what proof does he do this There is not the least intimation in Scripture but that Peter remain'd in or near Jerusalem as much to the time of the Council as for the first five years there is not a syllable of his going unto coming back from Rome or return thither again and if it were true what reason can be immagined why St. Luke should omit it in the Acts of the Apostles falling within the compass of his Story nay 't is plain that he was at Jerusalem a considerable time before that Council was held for Acts 15. 1. 't is said Those that troubled the Church of Antioch went down from Judaea and V. 24. 't is said by the Apostles whereof Peter was one in their Joint Letter Certain men that went out from Vs 2. Touching Peters being Bishop of Antioch we have spoken before Chap. 3. and shall here only add That Bellarmin himself in this same Chapter says Peter should have left a most Pernitious Example of a Christian Pastor if he had at once Retain'd two particular and proper Bishopricks which yet it seems Onuphrius thought no disparagement but would it not be an Example equally pernitious if Retaining but one he should very seldome or never Reside there For I conceive Non-Residency as bad as Pluralities and indeed the chief reason against Pluralities is because they are thought to Imply Non-Residency But I think it will Unavoidably follow that Peter must be generally Non-Resident if being stated Bishop either of Antioch or Rome he Travelled so many other Provinces during the same time and yet every other while was found at Jerusalem 3. That Peter upon the Decree of Claudius That the Jews should depart from Rome did fly thence and so came to Jerusalem as it were Accidentally to that Council Acts 15. is like the rest asserted Gratis And as the same did neither suit with the Zeal and Christian Fortitude of Peter so to Abandon his flock so I conceive it may manifestly be proved to be false from the Acts of the Apostles where we Read That Paul and Barnabas immediately after that Council return'd to Antioch staid there some time That afterwards Paul took a Journey into Syria and Cilicia and thence to Derbe and Lystra and having Travelled through Phrygia Galatia Mysia and Troas came into Macedonia where Phillip was cast into Prison thence he passed to Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessailonica Beraea and as far as Athens Acts 15 16 17. And after all these tedious Perigrinations which must require and take up a very considerable time when he came to Corinth he found there Aquila and Priscilla who LATELY or as the Syriac Version has it eo ipso tempore just then were come out of Italy upon that Edict of Claudius so that the said Edict must be after the Council and consequently could be no ground for Peters being then at Jerusalem 4. If Peter were supream Governour of the Church and had before that Council at Jerusalem been seven years Bishop of Antioch and for as many years and at that present time been Bishop of Rome both Cities of the Gentiles and yet not without considerable numbers of Jews therein 't is strange he had not before determined that Question touching the Circumcision of the Gentiles or it might have been a sufficient Argument for Paul and Barnabas to have said Peter the Quondam Bishop of this City and now of Rome Christs Vicar and Prince of the Apostles Taught and Practised otherwise 5. 'T is most improbable which Bellarmine here asserts viz. That in one and the same year Peter should be Bishop of Antioch Imprisoned at Jerusalem and yet also in that very Year come to Rome and make himself Bishop there Let any Judicious Person but consider the great distance of those several places and the inconveniencies of Travelling in those days and that there appears not the least ground for such his Posting to and fro and he will be apt to suspect it altogether Romantic or a story fitter for the Legend than an Article of Faith To that of Pauls not saluting Peter in his Epistle to the Romans the Cardinal says two things First That the same St. Paul Writing to the Ephesians mentions not St. John nor James in the Epistle to the Hebrews yet they were Bishops of those Churches Secondly That when Paul Wrote that Epistle Peter was not yet return'd to Rome from the Apostolical Synod To which I Answer 1. That the Cardinal has not proved that either John or James were ever Bishops of those respective places in a strict and proper sense St. John was never that I know of reckon'd Bishop of Ephesus nor could be so without displacing of Timothy who according to the Current Testimony of Antiquity was by Paul constituted Bishop there Nor does it appear that the Epistle to the Hebrews was wrote to those at Jerusalem Nor lastly was St. James then alive so that there is no Parity 2. As for Peter's not being Return'd as yet to Rome Aquila and Priscilla were got back for he sends greeting to them Together with whom Bellarmine affirms Peter was expell'd and why not Peter the Bishop of the place as soon as they We find Paul had a firm