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
'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
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
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
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
that St. Hierom and divers others that follow him date these 14 years not from Pauls Conversion but from his first Journey to Jerusalem three years after and so place this Synod Anno Dom. 51. or rather as they should say 52. in the 10th or 11th of Claudius which thought it seems to favour our Cause as proving Peter to continue so much the longer at Jerusalem or the neighbouring parts of Asia yet since my Aim in these Researches is solely the discovery of Truth I cannot admit thereof Because in the Ninth year of Claudius it was as Orosius witnesseth That the Jews were all banisht Rome And at that time Paul was at Athens as Vspergensis writeth and it appeareth likewise by the History of the Acts for Paul departing from the Councel after a tedious Journey to Antioch Syria through Cilicia and many other Regions came to Athens and thence to Corinth where he met with Aquila and Priscilla who sayth the Text were lately just then some Versions render it Come from Italy because Claudius had commanded that all Jews should depart from Rome Which shews that this Council must be held some considerable time before this Decree of Claudius that is before the 9th of his Reign If it be inquired where Peter was from the time of his delivery out of Prison in the fourth year of Claudius until this Synod in the Eighth year of his Reign I answer That as the Gests or Actions of St. Paul after Herods death amongst the Gentiles are described in the 13th and 14th Chapters of the Acts so during that time it seems clearly intimated that Peter was Labouring amongst the Jews either at Jerusalem or those dispersed in the neighbouring Territories of Asia to whom he afterwards directed his Epistle for so saith St. Paul speaking of his entertainment amongst the Apostles at this Council or coming up to Jerusalem 14 years after his Conversion Gal 2. 7. When they saw That the Gospel over the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospel over the Circumcision was to Peter for he that was mighty by Peter in the Apostleship of the Circumcision c. And in this interval I humbly conceive it was tho not specified in the Acts that Peter was at Antioch when Paul reproved him to the Face mentioned Gal. 2 since it could not well be at any time before as appears by the precedent discourse but that it was before the said Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem seems very probable because if it had been afterwards viz. when the matter had been so solemnly determined that Circumcision was not necessary Peter could not have had any scruple of eating with the Gentile Believers nor fear of offending them in that point that came from James Thus until the 16th year of the Passion Eighth of Claudius Peter came not within One Thousand Miles of Rome In the Ninth of Claudius all Jews were Banisht Rome as is proved before therefore then Peter could not be there Nor was nor had he been there in the 12th of Claudius for then Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans and undoubtedly if Peter had been the Founder or Bishop of that Church then or at any time before Paul would in so large a letter have taken some occasion to recommend his Pains and to exhort them to continue in the Doctrine of the Prince of the Apostles but on the contrary tho he concludes with particular Salutes to 24 Persons by name besides several Housholds and divers of them Women yet he does not so much as mention Peter Now if Peter had been Bishop there and soveraign Head of the Apostles that omission of paying his respects to him whilst he did it to so many others of inferiour condition would have been not only a Soloecism in Civility but a failure in Duty But how does it appear that this Epistle was wrote at this time Thus Ch. 15. 28. Paul uses this discourse Having now no more place in these parts that is about Antioch whence this Epistle is dated and having a great desire these many years to come unto you whensoever I take my Journey into Spain I will come to you but now I go into Jerusalem c. so that 't is evident this was wrote upon his Journey sometime going to Jerusalem we must therefore consider at what time especially this was for we read of Paul's going thither five several times the first in the Ninth the second in the Twelfth the third in the 15th the fourth in the 18th and the fifth in the 21th Chapter of the Acts But it could be in none of the first three Journeys for he had not then met with Timothy whom he found not till a good while after his return from the Synod at Jerusalem Acts 16. 1. but at the writing of this Epistle Timothy was with him for he sends Salutations from him Ch. 16. 21. Nor seems it to be the fourth time mentioned Acts 18th for V. 1. ere Paul return'd to Jerusalem it is said that he departed from Corinth and Priscilla and Aquila were then at Rome for thither he sends salutations to them It remains therefore that this Epistle was written just before Pauls last comming up to Jerusalem which agrees with what is said Acts 19. 20. compared with the before-cited Text Rom. 15. 23. And such his last Journey thither was in the 12th of Claudius For being there taken Faelix was then Governour Acts 23. 24. who as Josephus witnesseth was not made President of Judea till the 11th of Claudius And by Tertullus's Oration to him accusing Paul we may gather that he had then for some time a year at least been in that command so that it must be about the 12th of Claudius Which further appears for that it is said Paul had been two years a Prisoner when Portius Festus came to be Governour instead of Faelix who was sent thither by Nero as soon as he came to the Empire wherefore since Claudius died in his 14th year and Festus came presently after and Paul had been then two years a Prisoner it follows that such his last coming to Jerusalem and the writing of this Epistle must be in or about the 12th year of Claudius the 20th of the Passion and of our Lords Birth 53. And consequently at that time for the Reasons aforesaid we may justly believe Peter was not at nor Bishop of Rome Nay St. Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Romans saith that he had read in certain Antient Books that at the sending of this Epistle Narcissus to whose family salutation is sent was the senior Bishop or Elder of the Congregation at Rome Again Peter neither was nor had been Bishop of Rome in the second year of Nero the 24th of the Passion and 57th of the Incarnation for then Paul came thither as is testified by Eusebius Vrspergensis and others at whose arrival St. Luke who was then with him saith Acts 28. 15. The Brethren hearing of us came
or longing Resolution to go to Rome as soon as possible Rom. 1. 13. and Ch. 15. 22. and 23. But sure Peter if he had been Bishop there would much rather have been Intent on that Journey 3. Tho Peter had been Absent yet if he had been peculiar Bishop of that Church 't is not Credible that Paul would not at all have taken notice of him for that Episcopacy of Peter there would not have been a forreign nor any of the least Causes fit to be mentioned of his giving thanks on the Romans behalf as Ch. 1. 8. or in their Praises as Ch. 16. 19. Paul doubtless would have pray'd no less for Peters prosperous return then he does for his own happy Journey And advised them too as well for to pray for the Restitution of Peter as for his own presence amongst them Ch. y 15. 30. at least in that Admonition Ch. 16. 18. where he mentions the Doctrine they had Learnt how seasonably might he have made the same Commemoration as else where he uses of himself on a like occasion 2 Tim 3. 14. Continue in what you have Learnt knowing from whom you have learnt them to witt from Peter the only Rock under Christ of the Church 'T is plain it is usual with St. Paul to lay hold on all occasions of naming with honour the faithful Ministers of those Churches to whom he wrote whether they were present or absent As 1 Cor. 16. 15. Ephes 6. 21. Phil. 2. 19. Coloss 4. 9 12 and 13. for this tended much to the Edification of the Churches And why should he not much more have done the same here where he had so Eminent Occasion for it to have given Attestation to Peter's Supream and Pastoral Office and the wonderful Happiness and Priviledge of the Romans in being under his peculiar Conduct The Cardinal urges further That nothing can be concluded from Authority Negatively I Reply Our Arguments before recited are not only drawn from Authority Negatively but also from the less to the greater Paul in his Epistle to the Romans and in several others from thence at several times mentions others less to be remembred therefore he would not have been silent of Peter if he had been at Rome 'T is also from the Genus to the Species in the places cited from Colos and Tim. for if none but such and such were there it undeniably follows Peter was not there Bellarmin would perswade us that Paul Coloss 4. 11. speaks only of his own Domesticks or such as were his proper menial Servants and in the 2d of Tim. 4. of such as were to stand his freinds to Nero. It does not appear nor is it probable that Aristarchus whom he calls his fellow Prisoner and Marcus and Justus and Luke whom he stiles the Beloved Physician were Pauls Domesticks or Servants the good holy humble Apostle did not keep so great a Retinue as an Author that Theologiz'd in Purple and vy'd dignity with Kings might be apt to imagine nor does he speak only of them but of all his fellow helpers in the Gospel and therefore ought not to omit Peter And in Timothy he speaks of such as ought to have strengthned him 2 Tim. 4. 17. in which office of Love Peter would not have been wanting nor do we read nor is it likely that Paul ever desired any Intercessors with Nero. Lastly The Cardinal says that at that time when Paul came to Rome and when he wrote these Epistles Peter perhaps was not at Rome for tho he had there fixt his Seat he was yet very often absent If they could once solidly prove that ever he was Present we would grant that he might be often absent But if his work as an Apostle did call him so frequently into other parts why would he undertake to be the proper Bishop there If Peter were absent would not Paul in such distress have mentioned and bewail'd it Or at least how came it to pass that he never mentions Linus and Cletus the two pretended Suffragan-Bishops In fine Peter it seems was four or five and twenty years Bishop of Rome but never there when the Scripture has occasion to mention either him or the Believers in that City nor could Paul ever meet him there till just they came to be put to death and that too is uncertain Thus I have not only prov'd by a Deduction seriatim that it is not credible that ever Peter De facto was at Rome but also answer'd all the Objections that I have met with made thereunto I shall conclude this Chapter with this observation That we ought not for that Reverence we bear to St. Peters memory imagine that he was seven years Bishop of Antioch and four or five and Twenty years of Rome both Cities of the Gentiles Because it appears Gal. 2. 7. first that Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision that is that the Jews were more especially committed to him as his Charge and Cure Concredited or left to his Trust so the word in the Original imports as the Gentiles were to Paul and it must be our Blessed Saviour who Commissioned both and respectively appointed them those Provinces 2dly That both of them till that time had diligently and with great success labour'd in such their several Provinces Peter amongst the Jews and Paul amongst the Gentiles V. 8. 3dly That now by mutual consent a Covenant and Agreement was entred into between James Peter and John on the one part and Paul and Barnabas on the other That the latter should go unto that is Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles and the former as before so for the future to those of the Circumcision And this was either at the Assembly of the Apostles Acts 15. or at least if they were two distinct meetings 14 years after Pauls Conversion so that Peter according to their Reckoning must then be and for some years had been Bishop of Rome besides his seven years Bishoprick at Antioch and what reason then had there been to mention only his Pains with the Circumcision and to put the same in Ballance with Paul's towards the Vncircumcision If Peter had Preached so long at Antioch and Rome had he not many Seals of his Ministry amongst the Gentiles How many Thousands might we suppose Converted by his Victory there over Simon Magus which if ever Transacted was before this time And why then do we hear nothing thereof but rather Intimations to the contrary viz. That Peter besides his Preaching to Cornelius upon an Extraordinary Occasion and some few others had then made no great Progress amongst the Gentiles but chiefly had exerted his Talent amongst the Jews so that his success with the Latter is compared with Pauls amongst the Former Which to me is a Convincing Argument That St. Peter at that time had neither been Bishop of Antioch nor Rome nor ever at the latter City which must be reckon how you can at least several years after the
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
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
him in that Chair which he should think fit to chuse and happen to dye at And the like Answers they must according to their Principles and Pretensions give in other particulars Now who hears of such a stupendious Superstructure but will expect that the foundation should be firm beyond exception If they will perpetually be amusing us with the Din of Peter's Chair and Peter's Successor and the wonderful things they are thereby estated in I cannot imagine why we may not be allowed to inspect their Title To consider whether the ground-work of all these Magnificent Pretences have any thing of certainty If the Popes Primacy be the Centre of Catholick Vnity The sum of Christianity a matter so Essential that none without believing it can obtain Salvation And if this Primacy be founded on Peter's being at Rome and fixing his Episcopal Chair there why should any body be angry with me for endeavouring to satisfie my self or others therein Does it not at this rate become the concern of all the Christian World to inquire into matter of Fact whether St. Peter were indeed once at least in his Life at Rome and Bishop there Can we expect less than a Divine Oracle some plain text of Scripture to warrant so Important a Matter At least will any thing shor of a Demonstration proof beyond Doubt or probable Contradiction be allowed for good Evidence in a Case of such weight and moment I know well 't is not only difficult but many times impossible to prove a Negative I shall not therefore undertake nor am I obliged to prove that St. Peter was never at Rome or Bishop thereof But they that affirm he was and draw thence such advantagious Inferences to themselves are bound by all Rules of Law and Reason to make that Affirmative appear by sufficient Evidence We are only on the defensive part if they will require us on the pain of Damnation to submit to their Bishop of Rome because he is St. Peter's Successor they ought surely in the first place to demonstrate that he does succeed him 't is therefore enough for my purpose and will invalidate all their claims derived from St. Peter if I can shew That all they have to alledge for his being at Rome and Bishop there is not necessarily conclusive but that notwithstanding any thing they can offer the contrary opinion is still at least probable viz. That St. Peter was not Bishop of Rome nor ever there Which I understand was long since asserted by VELENVS a Learned Lutheran in a just Treatise on this Subject but not having been able to get a sight of his Book nor knowing of any other Protestant that has ex professo treated thereof though many have occasionally spoken sufficient to satisfie any impartial mind I shall only offer such plain Natural Remarks as hastily occurr'd to my own thoughts and slender reading leaving the further improving or disproving the matter to persons of a greater stock of Books and Judgment But this I can without injuring truth avow That I have handled it with all sincerity not wittingly baulking any material Argument Testimony or Objection nor abusing or misciting any Author to serve a turn for my sole aim is a free impartial sifting out of Truth not the advancement of any self-interesting Opinion and if any where I have stumbled into Error 't is the unhappiness of my Vnderstanding not the pravity of my Will being always ready with thanks to acknowledge mistakes when convinc'd thereof as I have heartily and not altogether indiligently endeavoured to avoid them Therefore I hope the Gentlemen of the Roman Perswasion will not be offended at any honest innocent endeavours to plain the way to truth and remove Rubbish out of their passage for though they are zealous for that mode of Religion they have been educated in or upon plausible Motives entertain'd yet I cannot perswade my self that their Noble Ingenuity will ill-resent the detection of any groundless Tales hatcht to support it There is no Gentleman but esteems the Lye even in common Discourse as the greatest dishonour and affront imaginable much more incensed must he be at those that would impose upon him to believe and maintain a falshood as a point of Faith and suspend his Salvation upon dark stories and uncertainties and consequently will acknowledge his obligations to their pains even though represented as Enemies that would refcue him from the hazard of so scandalous a Precipice Truth is both the Basis and Bulwark of Christian Religion which needs no pious Frauds nor fond Tales nor forged Evidence to maintain it but is always ready to endure the strictest Scrutiny he must either be a self-designing Hypocrite or which generally is all one a leud Atheist not a true Catbolick that will persist in owning or avouching That for certainty which his Reason and Conscience cannot but tell him is either false or doubtful Thus much I thought fit to say in Apology for my self and the Undettaking or if you please let it pass as a Preface to the Reader CHAP. II. The Roman Account of St. Peter's Life Bellarmin's five Arguments for his being at Rome with an Additional one of other Romanists Answered 'T is but reasonable That the Church of Rome which pretends to hold so vast a Lordship by Succession from St. Peter should in the first place as clearly as she can make out her Relation to him Now the story she tells is in short to this effect viz. That some time after our Lords Passion St. Peter went into Syria and became Bishop of Antioch and continued there or as they love to speak held that See seven Years and then he remov'd his Seat from thence to Rome and thenceforth was Bishop of the Church of Rome and held the same four or five and twenty Years viz. until he was Martyr'd there under Nero. I am forced to use General Terms because most of those that undertake to relate the matter do wondrously vary in the Particulars and cannot agree either in the Year wherein his Bishoprick at Antioch should begin or in the time of its continuance nay there is a dispute amongst them whether his being Bishop of Antioch were before he went to Rome or after he had been there The time too when he came to Rome and the length of his Episcopate there and other material Circumstances are very differently delivered Touching which confusion and intersetings of the evidence I shall have occasion to speak more in another Chapter as also concerning the whole business of Antioch That which at present lyes before us is to consider what special Relation St. Peter had to Rome above other Churches Concerning which the Learned and Laborious Cardinal Bellarmin whose Works with those of his no less diligent Brother Baronius are the grand Magazine of that Party and both whose Industry might justly claim the highest Commendation if bestowed in a Cause that deserv'd it states four Questions 1. Whether Peter were ever at Rome
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
would almost perswade one to suspect a mistake and that they unhappily attribute to the Apostle the Residence of the Conjurer In a word That Simon Magus might be at Rome I will not much dispute since so many Tracks of his footsteps seem to have been visible there these thousand years or upwards but that Simon Peter was there I must crave leave to say does not to me sufficiently appear by this Argument The fifth Reason Why we are to believe that Peter must needs be at Rome is Because he was put to Death there Which they say is evident enough from his Sepulchre which was shewn there and the Pilgrimages undertook by multitudes to visit it and by the Testimony of many Writers who take the same for granted 1. This seems but a Negromantic Logic the carcass only of an Argument in a matter of Faith that is fetcht from Tombs and rais'd I know not how from Caemiteries a very rambling Reason that depends meerly on Pilgrimages 't is nothing probable if Peter were Crucified by that cruel Tyrant Nero that the Christians were allowed at all much less publickly to Interr his Corps or build him a sumptuous Monument For we find in Eusebius l. 4 That the Christians had very much ado to obtain the body of their Bishop Polycarpus which was refused them by the Heathens thinking they would make a God thereof and adore it but the Christians protested they did Worship only and alone the true God The custom of Worshipping departed Saints and Pilgrimageing to dead mens shrines came up long after And who knows but a forged Story might boulster up an Idolatrous or at least Unlawful Superstition But as to this you shall hear more in a subsequent Chapter 2. However could they evidently and beyond all contradiction demonstrate that they have indeed St. Peters bones at Rome yet this would be no proof that he was ever there in his Life-time much less that he was the particular Bishop of that Church for nothing is more frequent amongst them than the Translation of the bodies of Saints from one place to another many hundred years after their Decease But as they have no Authentick evidence that they have one true Grain of that blessed Apostle's dust so we are too well acquainted with their Art in Counterfeiting Relicks and building glorious Shrines for drawing together vain superstitious People and bubbling them of their money to credit them on their bare words about the Body of Peter any more than concerning the Head of St. John Baptist the Milk the Comb the Scizzars and the Travelling Chamber of the Blessed Virgin Cartloads of Chips of the Cross whereon our Saviour suffered the Head of St. Denis the Bones of St. Vrsula and her Eleven thousand Virgins The Heads of the three Wise-men of the East whom they call the three Kings of Cologn and a Thousand more impostures daily boasted of visited and worshipped through several parts of the Roman Catholick World But they will perhaps urge If Peter did not suffer Martyrdom at Rome where died he To which I Reply 1. What imports it if it be not known Can they tell us where and when St. Matthew St. Jude and others of the Apostles died Nay rather as God concealed Moses's Grave to prevent Idolatry it may be the same Gracious Providence foreseeing what a noise some people would make about St. Peter left the latter stages of his Life and place time and circumstances of his Death purposely in the dark to check such presumption 2. St. Chrysostom St. Jerome Nicholaus Lyranus and the Interlineary gloss on that Text Matth. 23. 24. Behold I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes whereby those Authors understood Apostles and Evangelists and some of them ye that is the People of Jerusalem shall kill and crucify and some ye shall scourge c. do say That St. Peter was Crucified at Jerusalem which may reasonably be supposed after his return out of Syria or Egypt if we credit Nicephorus for otherwise there being none of the Apostles that suffered by way of Crucifixion there that Prophecy should not be fulfilled the words of Lyra are these Ex ijs Occidetis sicut Jacobum fratrem Johannis Acts 12. Stephanum Acts 7. Multos alios Crucifigetis ut Petrum Andraeam To which Testimony of that most Learned Man who lived near 400 years ago the Cardinal has nothing to say but that he speaks unwarily but whether himself does not speak full as unwarily and groundlesly is still a just question The rather if we consider that Josephus who lived and wrote at Rome and not only mentions the Death of St. John Baptist and Christ in Judea but of many Christians put to Death at Rome by Nero yet takes no notice of Peters Crucifixion which he was not likely to omit if Peter had been then accounted the head of the Christian Church and did suffer at Rome So that Peter's being at Rome and Crucified there still remains doubtful and those Authors that talk of it seem all to follow the before mentioned Papias There is yet another Argument urg'd by some Romanists grounded on a Story related by Platina and others viz. That St. Peter endeavouring by night to make his escape and fly out of Rome for fear of Persecution Christ personally met him a mile out of Town in the Appian way to whom Peter saying Lord whither goest thou And Christ answering I come to Rome again to be Crucified Peter taking these words to be meant of his own Martyrdom as the Lord might seem to suffer in his person went back and having settled Clement to be his Successor was soon after apprehended and Crucified in which place of their meeting where these words pass'd Platina tells us there was in his time a Chappel Extant And there is a Tradition too that the very print of their feet as they two talkt together was long after and for ought I know some may say to this day plainly to be seen As it suited not with the honour and zeal of Blessed St. Peter supposing him the proper Bishop of Rome to offer thus timorously to desert and abandon his flock in time of Persecution so neither can the Romanists vouch any better Original Testimonies for the same than either a Book in the Name of Egesippus which is acknowledged and we doubt not but to prove it to be a Counterfeit Or another ascribed to Linus the Author whereof whoever he was Baronius himself terms a foolish counterfeit Writer and consequently all that follow or relate the Story after them how numerous soever are not to be regarded And should any Christian give up himself to believe this Fable that Christ was so corporally there as to leave the Impression of his sacred Feet it were to make shipwrack of Faith for by the Holy Ghost and speaking by the mouth of St. Peter too it is expresly declared that the Heavens shall contain our
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
under the Title of A Collection of Councils and Decretal Epistles pretended to be made by Isidore Bishop of Hispalis that is Sevil in Spain with a Preface in his Name wherein he declares that he collected the same by the Advice of fourscore Bishops But the truth is to make the piece uniform not only the materials are Forgeries but the Collection it self and its Author are Counterfeits for although there were such a man and of eminent note in the Church as Isidore Bishop of Sevil yet he could not be the Author of this Collection and Preface as is proved at large by Blondel in his Book Intituled Pseudo-Isidorns or Turrianus Vapulans where he observes that those that write of Isidore's Death at highest fix it on the Year 647. as Vasaeus in his Chronicle others on the Year 643. as Rodericus Toletanus or on the Year 635. as the proper office of the Saints of Spain or lastly on the Year 636. as Redemptus Diaconus who saith he was himself an Eye-witness of Isidore's Death and with whom agree Baronius and many others of the best Learned Romanists so that the same is the common Opinion Now this counterfeit Isidore that is the Prefacer in Isidore's Name before this Collection makes mention of Pope Agatho who came not into the Chair until the year 679. which must be about 40. years after Isidore's Death follow which of the before-cited Authors you please And talks of the 6th Oecumenical Council which was the 3d of Constantinople held An. Dom. 681. Nay writes of Boniface of Mentz slain as Baronius observes in the year 755 long after himself was in his Grave Hence the Romanists themselves cannot agree about this Authors Sirname some call him Isidore Pacensis others Isidore Mercator the Merchant and others Isidore Peccator the Sinner which Addition they say he assum'd out of Humility Besides soon after the said Collection peep'd abroad not only Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes one of the Learnedest men of that time wrote against it but the Generality of the French Bishops about the year 865 opposed it alledging that Isidore's Wares then newly beginning to be sold could not have the force of Canons because they were not contain'd in the Authentick Code or Book of Canons formerly known Bellarmin confesses That Errors are crept into these Epistles and that he dare not say they are Indubitable yet hopes to excuse all by saying That he doubts not at all but they are very ancient But what imports it how old they are if they are not so old as they pretend to be nor wrote by those whose names they bear As if an old Deed being called into question and the matter of Fact made undeniable that it was a Forgery he that holds his Possession by it should say It has been Interlined indeed and corrupted in many places nor was it signed or sealed by the person that is named a party thereunto nor in the presence of the same Witnesses but yet I hope you will credit it in favour of my Title for I am confident 't is very old who would not smile at such an Advocate Baronius who saw more clearly through the Imposture and how much dishonour such an heap of Forgeries detected in this Learned Age would reflect on the Contrivers and Abetters acknowledges That this Compilement was falsly father'd upon Isidore of Hispalis and that all those Epistles of the Roman Bishops from St. Peter down to Siricius that is till the year 387. are justly suspected Nay he calls them Infirm Adventitious and lately Invented And to remove the scandal of forging them from the Church of Rome tell us They were first brought out of Spain into France by one Riculphus in the time of Charlemaigne That none saith he may slanderously say the Church of Rome feigned them But notwithstanding they were first started in Spain the Church of Rome may still not unjusty labounr under a suspition of having an hand in the intrigue if we consider first That the main drift of these Epistles is to advance her Honour Now if as most plain it is they are Forged Cui Bono Who should do it but they whose interest alone is thereby promoted 2dly That when Hincmarus opposed them he was by the Bishop of Rome so rigorously dealt with that 't is said he was forced to retract 3dly That when Benedictus Levita had out of them extracted Canons being conscious how weak their credit was he sued and easily obtain'd to have the same Confirm'd by the Popes Authority So that if they were not Originally underhand His Holinesses Natural Children they thenceforth at least became His by Adoption Thus much touching the Author of this Collection and indeed to shew the Epistles themselves to be Forgeries or of no Credit we need go no further having proved that they were handed into the World by a Counterfeit For what need false Lights where the Wares are not Braided Why a Vizard in an affair otherwise so safe and honourable if no ill intrigue on foot However I will add some further Reasons taken from the subject Matter Phrase Absurdities and late appearing of these Epistles which to me are Invincible Arguments That they are altogether spurious 1. As to their Matter or Contents they purport to be written in the most Primitive Ages some of them whilst some of the Apostles at least St. John were yet alive by Holy men zealous of Gods Glory and the good of Souls living under afflictions and dreadful Persecutions scarce one of them but was a Martyr for the Gospel Now if such men had indeed left behind them any Letters or written Memoirs surviving the fury of their Pagan Enemies to our times there is no doubt but we should there find the sweet Breathings of the Spirit of Meekness the Mysteries of the Gospel Gods infinite Love to miserable mankind manifested in the Incarnation and Suffering of the Blessed Jesus for their Redemption and the Terms of the Salvation thereby purchased freely offered to Sinners We should observe the most pressing exhortations to Repentance Holiness and newness of Life The grand concernments of Religion Faith in Christ Mortification Self-denyal Contempt of the World and all outward Grandeurs and such like truely Christian Duties every where seriously inculcated But of all this in these Epistles there is Altum Silentium their drift looks not that way they forget the state of the Church in that time handle nothing of Doctrine nothing of the necessary Office of the Ministers nor main Duties of Christian People nor indeed any thing else suitable unto that Age or much worth consideration For their main business every where appears to be by wresting of Scriptures falsifying stories and other indirect means to advance and lend Colours to the supporting or spreading the Honour the Pomp and Empire of the See of Rome Thus Anacletus in his first Epistle is brought in Glossing those Words of Christ Vpon this Rock
that is upon the Church of Rome I will build my Church And in the 3d Epistle The Church of Rome is the Hinge and Head of all Churches for as the door is turned about on the Hinge so all Churches are ruled by the Authority of this Holy See and not to be tedious in numerous Instances the effect of all is That all those good humble men whose Names are abused to these Letters are made to say of themselves this much We are the Vniversal Bishops We are the Heads of the whole Church Appeals from all Places ought of right to lye before us We cannot Err We may not be controul'd for it is written The Disciple is not above his Master c. Can any man perswade himself that those godly Fathers that were daily in jeopardy of their Lives and put to Death for Preaching and professing the Christian Religion which condemns nothing more than Pomp vain-Glory and Ambition had either Leisure or Inclination to write Letters up and down the World fill'd with such Imposthumated Extravagancies 2. The stile of these Letters is remarkable as well as their matter they are pretended to be originally written in Latine and why not if from Bishops of Rome whose mother Tongue was at that time Latine and that too not yet degenerated but famous for its Elegancy and understood through a very great part of the then known World But in these Decretals instead of the purity of the Roman Phrase you shall familiarly encounter such expressions as these Persecutiones patienter portare Peto ut pro me Orare debeas Episcopi Obediendi sunt non Insidiandi Ab illis omnes Christiani se Cavere debent c. Wherein there is nothing of the Congruity or Natural Idiom of the Latine Tongue And shall we think that for 300 years and more there was not one Bishop of Rome that could write true Latin at a time when the common people there Men Women and Children did speak the same as their common Language It is a Text of the Popes own Law Falsa Latinitas vitiat Rescriptum Papae False Latin spoils the Popes own Bull or Writ if so the Credit of these is gone Indeed their Voice hewrays them and shews they were Coyn'd in a far latter Age when after the Gothic Incursions into Italy Barbarisms had overran the Roman Tongue as well as error and ambition the Roman Church 3. The absurdities and false Chronology of these Epistles loudly proclaims them to be Antedated and spurious as St. Clemens informs St. James of the manner of St. Peter's Death yet it is as certain as any thing we have of those times and St. Clemens undoubtedly knew it That James was put to death 7 years before St. Peter Anacletus whom some make next Successor to Peter willeth and straitly chargeth That all Bishops once every year do visit the Threshold of St. Peter 's Church at Rome Limina Petri touching which besides the absurdity of such an injunction whereby most part of the Bishops throughout the World must have spent all their time in trudging to and fro to Rome 't is observable that there was not then nor for a long time after any Church built there in the Name of St. Peter Zepherinus Epist 1. saith That Christ commanded his Apostles to appoint the 72 Disciples but St. Luke Ch. 10. testifies That Christ himself appointed them Antherus Ep. 1. makes mention of Eusebius Bishop of Alexandria and of Faelix Bishop of Ephesus yet was neither Eusebius nor Foelix either Bishop or Born all the time that Antherus lived Fabianus writes of the coming of Novatus into Italy yet 't is clear by St. Cyprian and Eusebius That Novatus came first into Italy in the time of Cornelius who succeededed this Fabianus Marcellinus Epist 2. ad Oriental saith That the Emperor might not presume to attempt any thing against the Gospel yet was there then no Emperor that own'd or understood the Gospel Marcellus writes to an Heathen Tyrant and charges him very gravely with the authority of St. Clement And whereas St. Luke Ch. 3. sets forth how John advised the Soldiers to be content with their Pay Meltiades quite alters the story and names Christ instead of John divers the like Incongruities may frequently be met with in these Epistles 4. If these Letters had been real Where did they lye hid 4 or 500 years or upwards Who after so long a burial was able to demonstrate their sincerity How came the Decretals of the Bishops of Rome first of all to be heard of and found by no body can certainly tell who in a corner of Spain T is evident neither St. Jerome or Gennadius nor Damasus nor any Ancient Father ever alledged any of them and consequently we may conclude knew nothing of them Nay the former Bishops of Rome never insisted upon them when they might have been very serviceable as for example at the Council of Carthage held An. 418. by 217 Bishops amongst whom the great Augustine was one where two pretended Canons of the Council of Nice sent thither by Zozimus then Pope to give colour of Right to his receiving of Appeals from Foreign Provinces were detected to be forged and so the claim of the Bishop of Rome rejected and his Ambition and ill practice smartly reproved by Letters as by the Acts of the said Council yet extant appears Now had Zozimus known or dreamt of such a number of Decretals sent abroad by his Predecessors wherein their Right of Vniversal Headship Appeals c. was so plainly derived and asserted all along down from St. Peter himself and that not by the Canon of any Council but by Absolute Divine Right undoubtedly he would have produced or referr'd unto them rather than stoop to so poor and shameful a shift as that of two counterfeit Canons But that you may the better judge of the Genius of these Decretal Epistles I shall here present you with the effect of two of them which particularly relate to our present subject The first a Letter pretended to be wrote by St. Clemens to St. James wherein an account is undertaken to be given of Peter's last words and how he solemnly appointed the said Clement his Successor in which after a tedious Harangue as from St. Peter's mouth concerning the Dignity and Excellency of the Roman Chair he proceeds thus When he St. Peter had said these things in the midst before them all he put his hands on me and compelled me wearied with shamefacedness to sit in his Chair and when I was sat I beseech thee said he O Clement That after as the Debt of Nature is I have ended this present Life thou wouldest briefly write to James the Brother of our Lord after what sort thou hast been a Companion unto me from the beginning even to the end of my Journey and my Acts and what being a sollicitous Hearer thou hast taken from me disputing throughout all the Cities and what in all my Preaching
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
and Idolatry came to be buried in the Temple of Apollo or how Peter could be laid in so many places at once viz. amongst the Bishops of Rome in the Temple of Apollo in the Golden Mountain and in the Vatican of Nero's Palace But further ro convince you of the Fraud Binius tho he set down this Epistle very formally as a good Record as his Predecessors in that kind had done before him yet tells us That this story of the Translation of the Apostles Bones which it attributes to Cornelius seems to be an Error crept in from amongst the rest of the Mistakes of the Pontifical attributed to Pope Damasus who lived above 100 years after this Cornelius For more truely saith he this Translation happen'd in the first Age a little after their Passion for which he cites St. Gregory the Pope who lived long after both the other Two So that it seems amongst them 't is no strange matter for a Prior Author to suck in Errors from a latter and yet for a modern Authors Testimony to overthrow that of others more Ancient and therefore more Authentick one would think in a matter of Fact relating to their own times or much nearer them than himself But this mention of the Pontifical brings into my mind 2 or 3 other pretended Ancient Authors whom I had almost forgot that are sometimes alledged to prove St. Peter's being at and suffering in Rome viz. Clement's Constitutions and Recognitions St. Abdias and the said Pontifical But all these may in a few words be dispatch'd for as for those two Books of Clements they are acknowledged by the most Learned Romanists to be Counterfeit or dubious and his Recognitions is said to be the same that is otherwise call'd his Itinerary Condemn'd by Gelasius St. Abdias of the Lives of the Apostles was first found out and set forth by one Wolphgangus Zazius not very many years ago and the Work shews it self to be vain and fictitious Insomuch that Bellarmin saith of that and the Epistles of Martial called the Apostle of France Citantur a nobis quamvis non Ignoremus eos Libros non esse tantoe Auctoritatis ut in iis Dogmata fundari possint They are Cited by us tho we are not Ignorant that those Books are not of such Authority that any certain opinions can thereon be grounded But if they know them to be of no Authority Why do they Cite them Causa patet Touching the Pontifical Liber Pontificalis in Latine or the Book of the Popes it is pretended to be written by Damasus who was Bishop of Rome Ann. 369. describing the Acts of the Bishops of Rome from Pope Peter downwards Binius affords us this Note That Damasus did not write it but rather it is patched up Consarcinatus est by divers Authors as may be proved by this That almost in every Popes Life it contains things contradictory and clashing one with another see also Baronius Anno 69. N. 37. Anno 348. N. 16. And Possevin Apparat. sacr verb. Damascus I have the longer insisted on these counterfeit Ancients because the Romanists frequently do flourish with their Names to amuse the ignorant not only in this matter but several other important Controversies but I hope by these few Remarks our People will learn what value is due to such Authors for though by dint of Reason and Authority our Opponents are now and then forced to brand these witnesses yet they shall for all that continue to vouch them of which you had but now Bellarmin's Confession and the same might be made out by a multitude of Instances which as it is the highest disingenuity so it argues some great but very bad Design And as it is an undoubted mark of an ill Cause wherein there is found Subornation Perjury or Forgery so to me it is a shrewd sign that the whole Story of Peter's being at Rome is false since there have been such ill means contriv'd or at least made use of to support and recommend it to the Worlds Credulity I shall conclude this Chapter with a very remarkable Acknowledgment from Cardinal Baronius one as well skill'd I think I may say in Antiquity as ever any that appeared for the Church of Rome who speaking of the History of the Apostles does thus Ingenuously express himself quod vers pertines c. But as to what relates to the things done by them the Apostles after they were once separated one from another 't is very obscure for since there are both Actions and Writings in the name of the Apostles found to be supposititious and if any thing were told of them by true and sincere Writers the same does not all remain intire and uncorrupted it will plainly make one despair of ever obtaining any truth and certainty therein If this most Learned Antiquary of their party found it so difficult and hopeless a Task to retreive any certainty of the Apostles Acts or Writings further than expressed in Scripture for so I conceive he would be understood from the Monuments of the Ancients because they were so confused supposititious and corrupted we ought sure at least to suspend our opinions touching Peter's being at Rome and Bishop there so many Years which with all the minute Circumstances is so confidently affirmed by less Learned Writers on such supposed Testimonies of the Ancients CHAP. V. The improbability of Peter's being Bishop of Rome argned from the Incoherences of their Testimonies who write thereof WE have gone through the proofs offered for the affirmative viz. That Peter was at Rome and Bishop there we now proceed to some Considerations which if they do not evince the contrary to every impartial mans full satisfaction must yet at least be acknowledged of such weight as may justly render the Negative probable to the highest Degree All which I shall reduce to two Heads 1. The Incoherences of the Story 2. It s unlikelihood from the account given of Peter in Sacred Scripture 1. Then the Reader must be reminded that the business of Peter's being at Rome or Bishop there depends wholly on Humane Testimony for there is but one only Text viz. That of the Church of Babylon saluteth you produced in favour of the Story and how impertinently and not without gross wresting we have shewn Now there is nothing that more invalidates Humane Evidence than Disagreement for as Truth is always uniform so falshood being various is frequentyl attended with Repugnancies and Contradictions In the story of Susanna which the Roman Church regards as Canonical the two Elders were by one variant Circumstance convict of Perjury and the falshood of those that appeared against our Blessed Lord is remark'd by the Holy Ghost from this That their Witnesses agreed not together Mark 14. 56. Now therefore let us examine separately the Witnesses in the Case before us 1. Question When did Peter come to Rome Answ At the beginning of the Reign of Claudius saith Orosins l. 7.
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
there in the last year of his Reign after he had Chosen Clement to be Bishop of Rome was Crucify'd the 29th of June Twenty-four years five months and twelve days after he first came to that City under Claudius This Account Onuphrius says he has gathered out of abundance of most Ancient Authors whom he cites not that any one Mortal Ancient or Modern before himself ever wrote any such thing but this he supposeth may be said as the only Expedient to Reconcile their Contradictions Yet for all that Bellarmine is so far from Allowing the same that with great pains he undertakes to Refute it and maintains That Peter did not remain full five years after our Lords Ascension in Judaea before he went to Antioch where he was Bishop near Seven Years and then and not before went to Rome I shall not undertake here to Umpire the Case between these two Eminent Authors But in another Chapter may possibly make it appear That not only one but both of them may be mistaken In the mean time by this brief state of the Case you cannot but see that there is no one particular of the story clear or certain but that the Witnesses every where thwart and trip up each others Heels and how hard their most Learned Advocates are forc'd to labour colourably to Reconcile them yet can by no means agree in their Inventions for that purpose From whence it will not be difficult to collect what Judgment we are to make of the whole Story For 't is no Excuse to say that their Disagreements are but small and only in Circumstances for where there is every where such a punctual Exactness pretended as not only to years but months and days and yet all different from and inconsistent with each other 't is methinks a great Argument that the Original Testimonies were all forged or at least that the several Authors took up their Stories on Trust and themselves knew nothing of the matter But to all this Bellarmine says 1. That difference touching the Time of any thing done does not weaken the Truth of the thing it self There are various Opinions how long it is since the Creation of the World and touching the time of Christs Crucifixion Shall we therefore conclude that the World was not created or our Saviour not Crucified I Reply That where a thing it self is certain it is not by a difference of that kind rendred uncertain but where a thing it self is doubtful depending only on suspected Evidence the same by Contradictory Circumstances is render'd much more uncertain and improbable That the World was Created That our Saviour Suffer'd we have Infallible Witnesses who in nothing material disagree but confirm each others Testimony Whereas here is no sound Evidence of Peter's being at Rome or Bishop there And they that undertake to tell the Fact do with equal Assurance and pretended Punctualness relate Circumstances and if they are Deceivers or deceived in one they may as well in the other 2. Peter's Successor the Learned Cardinal says That tho' we should be ignorant who it was that succeeded him yet we ought not for that cause to doubt but some body did succeed But this Answer comes not home to the purpose For the Question is not so much who did Succeed as whether Peter did at all Precede in the particular Bishoprick of Rome Now because the same Witnesses that tell us of Peter's Preceding do also testifie of his Successors if one part of their Testimony be infirm the whole is weakened Lastly As the Antients thwart and interfere with each other in this Story of Peter's being at Rome so Baronius one of the most industrious Modern Advocates for it contradicts himself for he says Peter died A. C. 69. and yet affirms that he came to Antioch A. C. 39. and was Bishop there 7 years and after that 25 years Bishop of Rome which must be till the year 71. So that Peter was Bishop of Rome two years after he was dead CHAP. VI. The Account given of Peter in Scripture compared with the Roman History Whereby the Common Relation of Peter's being at Rome or Bishop first of Antioch and afterwards of Rome appears to be highly Improbable or rather altogether False THat St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome cannot be proved by Scripture we have shewn before To which we may add that the same is further confess'd by Learned Romanists By the Scripture it cannot be evinc'd either that he was Bishop of Rome or ever was at Rome at all saith Marsilius Patavinus And then considering the Eclesiastical Histories that affirm it he does it after such a fashion as plainly shew he believ'd them not Occham that Eminent Schoolman who flourisht about the Year 1328. affirms These are in the number of things that neither are contained in Scripture nor can be manifestly proved by it alone viz. That Peter was Bishop of Rome That he remov'd his See from Antioch to Rome That the Bishops of Rome succeed Peter That the Church of Rome hath the Primacy whereof there is no mention in the Scripture As likewise there is not that he Peter govern'd the Church of Rome nor any thing touching the Papacy thereof This Consideration alone methinks should be enough to perswade any man from Entertaining the same or any of the Inferences that meerly depend thereon as matters of Faith Especially if we further remarque that the Scripture is not only silent as to Peter's being at Rome and Bishop there but yeilds not a sew shrew'd and pressing Indications to the contrary Which it shall be the subject of this Chapter briefly to summ up But because the same will not so clearly appear as to the matter in question without being compared with the Roman History I shall for the assistance of the Vulgar Reader first set down a short Chronology out of Sâ—â—tonius Dio and the best Historians of those times of the Reigns of those Emperours whom we shall have occasion to mention And also of the Years after our Lords Passion and St. Paul's Conversion answering thereunto which will render the whole dispute very conspicuous and easie to be understood Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was born of the Blessed Virgin in the Forty Second Year of Augustus Caesar who reigned in all Fifty Six Years and Dyed the Nineteenth of August Tiberius Succeeding Raign'd Twenty Two Years Six Months and Twenty Six Days Dying the Sixteenth of March. It is expresly said by the Evangelist that in the Fifteenth Year of this Tiberius Christ began to be about Thirty Years of his Age. Luke â— 1. Compared with Verse 3. That is as we may probably understand was then in his Thirtieth Year Current for whereas Tiberius's Fifteenth Year began the Nineteenth of Christ's Thirtieth Year began according to our common Reckoning the Twenty-fifth of December following And so at the beginning of Tiberius's Reign he had near compleated but not fully his
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