'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
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
2. Whether he dyed there 3. Whether he was Bishop of Rome 4. Whether after he had once assum'd that Bishoprick he ever chang'd it for another All which he handles after his manner severally and at large But indeed the second comprehends the first for if Peter were Martyr'd at Rome he must needs be there And the fourth though he puts most stress upon it may fitly be included under the third for if they can prove That St. Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome we shall not much trouble our selves whether he afterwards remov'd from thence both because I think the practice of a Bishops Translation from one See to another was not altogether so early in the Church their talk of the same Apostle's removal from Antioch to Rome shall be further considered anon as also because I remember not any but their own Onuphrius that hath insisted upon or objected any such matter so that the main Question is only this Whether St. Peter were ever in a proper sense Bishop of Rome And because that will be improbable in the highest degree if besides other Reasons it cannot plainly be made appear that he was at some time or other there It will therefore be sufficient to discuss these two Questions 1. Whether St. Peter were ever at Rome 2. Whether supposing he were there he was Bishop in the strict and now usual signification of the Word of that Church To prove Peter to have been at Rome Cardinal Bellarmin produces five Arguments which we shall severally consider The first from that Text 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church that is at Babylon saluteth you By Babylon here saith he is meant Rome therefore Peter when he wrote that Epistle was there Now that Peter did mean Rome by the word Babylon in that place he would prove 1. Because Eusebius Records that one Papias did say That this Epistle of Peter was written from the City of Rome which the Apostle did there Tropically call Babylon To which purpose the Cardinal also cites St. Hierom and others as being of the same Opinion or rather following Papias therein 2. Because Rome in the Revelations is frequently call'd Babylon To which I answer 1. This is proving Ignotum per Ignotius a doubtful thing by a thing utterly Improbable a controverted matter of Fact by an uncertain groundless Opinion Does not all the World know that there were at that time two great Cities whose proper name was Babylon One in Assyria famous in all ancient Histories as being the seat of the first Monarchy The other in Egypt mention'd in Strabo l. 17. and by Ptolomy called Babulis the same if I mistake not which at this day is called CAIRO or near it and why might not Peter date his Epistle from one of these For as he for the most part preached to the dispersed Jews of whom no doubt many were scattered through Chaldaea and Assyria so he might probably exert his Ministry at the first mentioned Babylon being so eminent a place on the same Continent and at no great distance from Jerusalem especicially since Nicephorus tells us he Preached all through Palestina and Syria Nor is this only my private Sentiment the great Scaliger speaks boldly Petrus Romae nunquam fuit sed praedicabat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cujus Metropolis erat Babylon ex qua scribit Epistolam suam Peter was never at Rome but preached to the dispersed Jews in Asia the Metropolis whereof was Babylon from whence he wrote his Epistle Whom the very Learned de Marca Archbishop of Paris Seconds in these Words Although the Ancients imagined That Peter by the word Babylon signified the City of Rome yet Scaliger's conjecture is probable who thinks that Peter wrote from Babylon it self this Epistle to the dispersed Jews Or on the other side if it be true which the foresaid Nicephrous writes That from Pontus Galatia c. Peter went down into Egypt Where he created St. Mark Bishop of Alexandria then why might he not send this Epistle from the Egyption Babylon so that either way by Babylon is far more likely to be understood one of those places rather than Rome For 2. What an extravagance is it to imagine that S. Peter should disguise and conceal from whence he wrote or qualifie the place which he had chosen to be his Episcopal See and perpetual Seat of Church-Soveraignty as they would have it with so uncouth a Title when there was not the least colour of reason as far as we can now learn or occasion why he should so do nor any example of the like kind to be found For though S. Luke in the Acts and S. Paul in his Epistles frequently speak of Rome yet they never call it Babylon Now when the Apostle says the Chruch at Babylon salutes you certainly he intended as all men do in their Epistles that they should know where he was and who they were that saluted them but this was I think impossible for them to do if by Babylon he meant Rome no Author either Civil or Sacred having then ever call'd it so 3. That St. John in the Revelations above fifty Years after for Baronius who says this Epistle was wrote An. Chr. 45. tells us also that the Revelation was wrote An. 97. did call Rome Babylon is nothing to the purpose for though a Tropical Denomination suit well with a Prophetick Style yet it will not follow that in a plain Epistolary Salutation a proper Name must be wrested from its genuine signification to such an abstruse and remote sense St. John writing mysterious Prophecies used Types and Figures to express future things but that Peter in a familiar Recommendation should do so has neither Truth nor Probability The Reason why St. John denominates Rome Babylon though represented in a Vision was not yet actually in Being for it was by way of allusion That as Babylon of old held the Jews the then People of God in Temporal Captivity so she should in time to come bring Christians into a Spiritual Vassalage and thence she is call'd Mystery Babylon It seems the Learned Cardinal thought some Text of Scripture would be expected to prove Peter's being at Rome and finding nothing looking that way was forc'd to hedge in this though it cost him dear for thereby he confesses and proclaims Rome to be the Apocalyptical Babylon But though an hard pinch reduced him to this necessity yet he hopes to secure his retreat by affirming That Rome is termed Babylon not in respect of the future Roman Church but as it was the Seat of the Roman Empire that then domineer'd over the Earth as Babylon did of old But this evasion is as gross as the occasion of it since 't is plain the Revelations from the 4th Chapter especially is a Prophetick Book not Historical for so are the express words there v. 1. Come up hither and I will shew things that shall be hereafter And also it relates all along to the future state
of the Church not to the present condition of Worldly Empire and almost all Interpreters agree That this Babylon which Rev. 17. is called The Scarlet Whore c. described by this Title Mystery Babylon the Great the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth can be no orher than that Antichrist which was to sit in the Temple of God that is in the Church 2 Thess 2. 4. As for what is alledged that Papias St. Jerome or others thought this Epistle of Peter might be written from Rome Tropically call'd Babylon it is at most but their Opinion touching a matter of Fact long before their time and as we have shewn that there is no need or Reason for admitting any such Trope so the Ancients may be excused if they understood not the true occasion why or in what respect Rome was call'd Babylon since that which qualified it such and was intended to be signified by the Divine Vision appeared not in the World till some Ages afterwards Whence that Mighty Monarch of Letters as well as of Great Britain King JAMES the First Grandfather to our present Gracious Soveraign in his Proemonition to all Christian Princes judiciously observed in a like Case That the Fathers of the first Ages speak of this matter but only by conjectures whereas we speak of it by experience For Scripture Predictions after the Events become Histories and the Promises Performances and so are much more intelligible 5. As for the credit of Papias the first Suggester of this Interpretation and consequently the first Author in the World for ought I can hear that gave occasion to the Conceit of Peter's ever being at Rome we shall give a further account anon In the mean time cannot but remark That this Interpretation is yet the more absurd because the same Bellarmin who to maintain Rome's Supremacy because of Peter's being there doth here without any probable grounds expound Babylon to be Rome does elsewhere ascribe that Prophecy of Isaiah cited 1. Pet. 2. Behold I put in Sion a corner-stone elect and precious c. to be meant of the Pope at least secondarily contrary not only to St. Peter and St. Paul's express Interpretation who attribute the same as indeed it wholly and solely belongs to Christ 1 Pet. 2. 6. and Rom. 9. 32. but also to that of our Lord who refers those words to himself Matt. 21. 42. so that the Cardinal makes Rome to be both Sion and Babylon he will have it Babylon to prove Peter there and Sion to exclude in effect Christ from being Head of the Church and advance the Pope in his stead The second thing for I know not how to call it an Argument brought to prove St. Peter's being at Rome is this There were many Christians at Rome nay a large and flourishing Church gathered there before Paul came thither as appears by his Epistle which 't is evident he wrote before ever he had been at Rome But who gathered that Church if Peter were not at Rome There is no doubt but the Learned Author saw through the weakness of this Discourse and therefore put it by way of Query to amuse weak heads rather than as an Argument to convince the Learned for how odly would such a Syllogism look from the Pen of a Cardinal There were Christians at Rome before Paul come thither ergo St. Peter was there before him as if there were no other Preachers of the Gospel of the blessed Jesus but those two For 1. Not to urge That though we read of Saints at Rome yet we no where find the Church of Rome or a Church at Rome mentioned in terminis the Holy Spirit possibly forbearing to qualifie it with that Title in Holy Writ as a check to their foreseen Usurpations And although it expresly tell us of several other Churches first planted by this or that Apostle yet it says not that any Apostle was the first Seeds-man of the Gospel at Rome Not to insist I say upon this 2. Let us consider how and by whom Churches were gathered in Samaria and at Antioch which they make Peter's other and first Bishoprick if we may be allowed to read and credit the Bible there we find that by a great Persecution at Jerusalem the Disciples except the Apostles were scattered abroad every where and so who knows but some of them to Rome preaching the Word Acts 8. 4. particularly Philip a Deacon in Samaria made great numbers of Converts v. 6. which when the Apostles heard of they sent thither Peter and John an odd procedure for Subjects to send their Soveraign on an errand if they had thought Peter such who having further spread the Gospel in Samaria return'd again to Jerusalem v. 25. others of the said scattered Disciples Preached the Lord Jesus to the Grecians at Antioch and many believed and were turned unto the Lord Acts 11. 19 20. whereupon Barnabas was sent to them who brought Paul into Antioch and a whole Year they viz. Paul and Barnabas assembled themselves with the Church so that there was a Church there before and taught much People and the Disciples were first called Christians there v. 26. If therefore Christianity both Name and Thing were first planted at Antioch which they say was Peter's first Diocese neither by Peter nor by any Apostle but by certain scattered Disciples why might not the like happen at Rome 3. 'T is evident that the Gospel had been Preached to many Romans at Jerusalem immediately after Christ's Ascention for when the Apostles received the Gift of the Holy Ghost and Preached in other Tongues 't is expresly said That amongst the multitude that came to hear them There were strangers of Rome Acts 2. 10. St. Paul also witnesses That Andronicus and Junia who dwelt at Rome when he wrote his Epistle that is before he came at Rome were in Christ that is professed the Christian Faith before himself which must be at least 5 or 6 years before Peter is pretended to come at Rome And that they were of Note amongst the Apostles Rom. 16. 7. Why then might not They by their pains and zeal at least in some measure gather a Church there Besides the Scriptures mention not which of the Apostles or who else in particular collected divers other Churches must they therefore all be ascribed to the particular pains of St. Peter 4. What the Cardinal affirms That none of the Ancients name any other but Peter that should first Preach the Gospel at Rome is not strictly true For he himself a little after confesses That Clemens whom they will have to be Peter's Successor in the first Book of his Recongnitions and Dorothoeus Tyrensis Record That Barnabas Preached at Rome in the Reign of Tiberius that is within 3 or 4 years after our Lords Crucifixion Whereas their most common story is That St. Peter came not there till the second of Claudius which must be about five years at least after the Reign of Tiberius
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
forth to meet us c. But we hear not a word of Peter's either coming or sending to Paul which undoubtedly if he had been Bishop there he would have done nor would St. Luke have neglected to record it But the third day after Paul sending for the chief of the Jews and reasoning with them about the Faith they answer'd him thus We will hear what thou dost think for touching this Sect the Christians it is every where spoken against and when at a day appointed Paul had preached unto them the Jews fell at variance about it for some Believed and some Believed not All which shews that the Jews at Rome had heard very little of Christ before Pauls arrival which could not have been if Peter the peculiar Apostle of the Circumcision had then or for a matter of fourteen years ever since the second of Claudius or indeed for any time before been at Rome and Bishop there In the Third and Fourth years of Nero two whole years says the Text Acts 28. 30. Paul continued a Prisoner at large at Rome after his coming thither Now that Peter was not in any of that space there we rationally conclude not only because Nicephorus L 2. Ca. 3. saith That during all that time St. Paul lived by the labour of his Hands whereas if Peter had been there in his Pontifical Dignity he would certainly have caused him to be better provided for but especially for that in the several Epistles written by Paul from thence in that time partly and partly perhaps some time after for how much longer he continued at Rome than after the said two years elaps'd we have no certain account he no where makes mention of Peter which if Peter had been look'd upon as Soveraign of the Church and his being Bishop of such a Place a matter of so great Importance could never have been especially since Paul had often very just occasion to have taken notice thereof As in that to the Galatians where Paul being inforc'd to assert the Authority of his Doctrine and Apostleship which some sought to impair speaks much of the former acquaintance between him and Peter but not a word of seeing him at this time when Peter's Testimony by subscription or otherwise would readily have satisfied those Opposers or Paul instead of all the Arguments he makes use of might have said no more then this Here is Peter the Prince of the Apostles Bishop of this City which he has chosen to be the fountain of Eclesiastical Jurisdiction and infallible Judge of Controversies to the Worlds end who does at this instant own and allow my Apostleship and give me the right hand of Fellowship Nay Paul in these Epistles does not only omit to mention Peter but uses Words that in effect deny his being then at Rome As in that to the Colossians which must be Written about this time because therein mention is made of Demas as being then with Paul who afterwards forsook him as appears in the second of Timothy having told them that Aristarchus his Fellow Prisoner and Marcus Sisters Son to Barnabas and Jesus called Justus who are of the Circumcision saluted them Colos 4. 10. 11. He adds These only are my fellow-Helpers which I understand of those of the Circumcision to whom he had just before restrain'd his speech for presently he mentions Epaphras Luke and Demas who possibly might be Greeks unto the Kingdom of God who have been a Comfort unto me To Philemon he sends Salutations from the same Persons and calls them again his fellow-Labourers Now was Peter supposing too that he long before and at that time was Bishop of Rome Inferior to these Was he not worthy to be Named Were the Salutations the Benedictions of the Apostles not to be expected At my first Defence I take it to be before Nero at this time we are Treating of saith the same Apostle No man stood with me but all men forsook me 2 Tim. 4. 16. Can we imagine with any kind of sobriety that Peter was then at Rome Whether St. Paul departed from Rome immediately after the said two years of his being a Prisoner at large is not specified in Scripture but 't is reasonable to believe that in that space having so well Planted the Gospel there he might as soon as opportunity would admit Travel into other Parts to disseminate the same glad Tidings and especially in Spain which Countrey it appears Rom. 15. 24. he had long before designed to Visit some Authors say that not only he but St. Peter too was in our Britain which I take to be as true as that Peter was Bishop of Rome But very plain it is that Paul did again return to Rome and was there not long before his Death for in his second Epistle to Timothy he Writes I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand c. Ch. 4. 6. Now as it appears both by the Subscription and Circumstances that this Epistle was Dated from Rome when Paul was brought that is in danger or ready shortly after to be brought before Nero the second time so 't is agreed that Paul suffer'd near the End of Nero's Reign but at that time Peter was not at Rome for Paul very Mournfully complains V. 10. Demas hath forsaken me having loved this present World and is departed into Thessalonica Crescens to Galatia Titus into Dalmatia only Luke is with me Therefore do thy diligence to corie shortly unto me and bring Mark with thee for he is profitable unto me for the Ministry If only Luke were with him at Rome then Peter was not there nor do we hear a syllable of his two pretended Suffragans Linus and Cletus If Peter had been there at that time what need of such earnest sending so far as Ephesus for Timothy Nor had Peter been at Rome in any of the Intermediate Years after Pauls first Arrival as may be Collected from that Passage in Tacitus where Relating how Nero endeavoured to cast the Odium of Burning of Rome which happen'd near the end of his Reign upon the Christians he takes notice that then or about that time that Sect had began to Revive again or encrease more than for some years before which may well be understood in this sense That the Christians who during Pauls absence had somewhat declined did now at his return begin to Re-flourish and Multiply But if Peter in that Ten years space or thereabouts of Pauls Absence had been at Rome exercising his Episcopacy there could have been no place-for that Observation of the Christian Religions REVIVING which supposes a Decay for some years before at that Particular Juncture CHAP VII Objections answer'd and one Argument added That we cannot without great Dishonour to St. Peter imagine him to have been Bishop of Rome as is pretended TO avoid this plain deduction from Holy Scripture Cardinal Bellarmin is forc'd to use a great deal of Pains and Art and thus at
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
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