simple person of very little wit and judgment c. of which he gives several Instances So much for the Forgery 2. Our second Observation touching Papias shall be That he is said to have been a friend to or familiar with Polycarpus But Polycarpus according to Baronius suffer'd Martyrdom in the year of our Lord 167. And the same Baronius places Peter's Martyrdom Anno Chr. 69. So that Papias must flourish near 100 Peter's Death a distance long enough in those times when so many false things were bruited abroad touching the Apostles Acts and Sufferings for one that dwelt at a great distance of place and took his Information but upon Hear-say to be deceived 3. Since none of Papias's Books are Extant whereby we might be enabled to judg of the man by his own Works it will be requisite to remark what Character Eusebius who brings him on the Stage gives of him which in brief is this That he was one that neither heard nor saw any of the Apostles but received what he heard from their followers as Aristo and John not the Apostle but a certain Elder That he thought he could not benefit so much by reading the Scriptures as by Conference with men that had been acquainted with the Authors of them That he was so little acquainted with the Scriptures that he mistook that Philip whose Daughters were Prophetesses to be Philip the Apostle when the Text had he read or remembred it expresly says It was Philip the Deacon That he had by such Traditions strange Parables and Preachings of our Blessed Saviour and other things very Fabulous amongst the rest advanc'd the Heresy of the Millenaries and that he fell into those Errors through Ignorance and not understanding aright those Narrations that were told him as from the Apostles That he Expounded a certain History of a Woman accused before Christ of many crimes written in the Gospel according to the Hebrews which was a counterfeit In fine That he was a man of little wit or small judgment as appear'd by his Books yet gave unto divers Ecclesiastical Writers occasion of Error who respected his Antiquity see Euseb l. 3. c. 22. 35 39. and Nicephorus l. 3. c. 20. Here you have both the Genius or Humor of the Man easy to be imposed upon taking up things by Hear-say one that was not asham'd to own That he thought hearing Oral Tradition more profitable than Reading the Scriptures that is That to hearken to the Stories and Tales of private fallible persons in matters of Religion was more beneficial than to study the Sacred Oracles of God penn'd by Divinely inspired infallible persons and able to make the man of God perfect in all good works one of small judgment and who embrac'd Fables Heresies and Counterfeit Gospels As also you are told the bad effects of all this viz. That he misled many subsequent Ecclesiastical Authors into Error paying too great a reverence to his Antiquity without due enquiry into the Truth of his Assertions or Examination of the Grounds whereon he delivered them Now since such a person was the first that Peter's being at Rome for I do not find that he plainly affirm'd it much less that Peter was Bishop there only inferr'd it by interpreting Babylon in St. Peter's Epistle to signify Rome if I say such an one were the first as for ought appears he was that ever intimated any such thing how far either his Talk or that of those that relate it after him is to be valued I leave the intelligent Reader to judg since nothing is more common in Historics than for the mistake of one to draw others into error and that this Papias actually did mislead many we have the home Testimony of Eusebius before recited and why not in this business of Peter's being at Rome as well as in that of the Millenary Reign c. Nay rather in the former than the latter since good innocent men were more like to swallow this report of an indifferent matter of fact as they could not but apprehend this of Peter's Writing from Rome to be not imagining what fine consequence after-times would thence derive than to entertain a Doctrinal point without Examination and to be more easily inveigled into a mistake in History than into Heresy for under no better figure was that opinion of the Chiliasts look'd upon in succeeding Ages tho for some time on the credit of the said Papias receiv'd or at least unopposed by not a few Fathers of the Church So much concerning Papias who for ought I know might in the main be a very honest well-meaning man though misled by unwarrantable reports and a Zeal not according to knowledge Nor should I thus have repeated his Failures which I charitably hope God has forgiven did not the importunity of some People vapouring with his Name and Authority render these Reflections necessary As for Egesippus when he lived is doubtful some say about the Year 101. others 145. others 170. but this is certain That what we have now abroad in his Name could not be wrote by the same Person whom Eusebius mentions l. 4. c. 8. For whereas he is said to have gathered his Books out of the Gospel secundum Hebraeos the best of their Vouchers you see followed counterfeit Gospels and wrote Commentaries of the Doctrine and Acts of the Apostles and that too in a plain homely stile as St. Hierom notes this counterfeit Egesippus affects a very losty Phrase and affords us only five Books of the destruction of Jerusalem out of Josephus and particularly makes mention of the City of Constantinople a name not known in the World till the great Constantine who beginning to Reign alone but in the Year 327. caused Byzantium to be called so therefore the Writer thereof whoever he was must of necessity live near 200 Years if not much more after that good man in whose name they would obtrude it We come now to the decretal Epistles and indeed were these Genuine they would not only dispatch the Business of St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome but of the Popes Supremacy too and many other of their modern Articles of Faith But touching such Epistles we shall briefly observe 1. What they are and when and by whom first Midwiv'd into the World 2. Offer Reasons demonstrating as I apprehend that they are generally spurious 3. Recite the substance of two of them more peculiarly relating to our present Argument with a few Animadversions thereon These Decretal Epistles are Letters supposed to be Authoritatively written upon emergent Occasions by the Primitive Bishops of Rome beginning with Clement one of Peter's pretended immediate Successors in whose name there are five four in the name of Anacletus two of Alexander's three of Sixtus's and so downwards sometimes one sometimetimes two sometimes three from every succeeding Bishop of Rome for the first 300 Years and further All which Epistles came first abroad about the Year of our Lord 790.
second of Claudius and consequently does utterly overthrow the Roman Account Now the Question will be Whether Peter after this Compact either Continued or Undertook to be Bishop of the Gentiles at Rome or not If he did He not only contradicted his particular Commission which our Lord had given him to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and neglected the Jews who were so Concredited to his proper Charge but also Violated his late solemn Agreement On the other side If at the time of this Agreement he either were not Bishop of Rome or then left it It follows that he continued not Bishop of Rome four or five and twenty years as with great Confidence and small Reason is pretended Again 'T is nothing likely if Peter had been then Bishop of Rome or designed ever to go and fix his Seat there at any time afterwards that he would have entered into such an Agreement Ay but says Bellarmin those words that they should go to the Circumcision are to be qualified and understood not Absolutely but Comparatively as much as to say They should Chiefly or Principally Preach to the Jews and in like manner Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles Be it so We ask no more for even then this shews either that he was not then Bishop of Rome or must be taken as a Relinquishment of his Roman Diocess and transferring the Title and Cure thereof to Paul for if he were the stated Bishop of Rome the chief City of the Gentiles how could he promise to bestow his Chief Pains on the Jews Or having so promised principally to Attend the Jews how could he continue the proper Bishop of Rome and presently after Resort back thither and spend almost all the rest of his days amongst the Gentiles Was not this immediately to Violate that solemn Compact Moreover If Peter were seven years Bishop of Antioch and afterwards 25 years of Rome He must in all be 32 years in Syria and Italy undertaking the Charge and Cure of the Gentiles in those Provinces And if his Martyrdom was as Baronius Computes Anno Chr. 69. The said two and thirty years being deducted brings us back to the year of Christ 37. but two or three after Christs Crucifixion so that in all he could spend but three years at most amongst the Jews And why then is he so Emphatically stiled The Apostle of the Circumcision Wherefore since this Roman Pretence does by its Unavoidable Consequences cast a Reproach on St. Peter as if he had deserted that Charge which God had committed unto him as if he had Notoriously Violated that Solemn Agreement which himself had voluntarily and on just considerations entred into since it represents him not only as deserting the station of an Apostle by becoming a Bishop in a strict sence but also as giving a most dangerous President of removing from a lesser to a greater Bishoprick and at the same time sets him forth to be for the most part Non-Resident in both his Diocesses All which are things unworthy to be Believed Imagined or Suggested of that Blessed Apostle I cannot without being Injurious to his happy Memory admitt but rather look upon my self bound in Conscience and Honour to Oppose this Groundless Story as it appears to me of his being Bishop of Rome c. CHAP. VIII The Commonness of an Opinion no certain Argument of its Truth Parallel Instances given of things very generally and long Believed and Delivered by Historians yet afterwards found to be False The means and steps whereby this Notion of Peter's being Bishop of Rome seems to have been promoted The Conclusion I know nothing else considerable that remains to be taken notice of in this Enquiry save only one Grand Prejudice or Objection which the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion do much Triumph in viz. That 't is enough to satisfie any modest Man in Peter's being at Rome and Bishop of that City That the same has generally been received taken for granted for severals Ages and by abundance of Worthy Credible Writers whom Bellarmine Ennumerates and Affirms It was Wickliff's Master this must be about the year 1350. tho I cannot find Wickliff ever had any such Master did first of all raise some scruples about it And how was it possible that such a General Conceit should so long have possess'd Mens minds if the matter of Fact at bottom had not been real and undoubted To which is Answer'd 1. That common Fame has long since been branded for none of the best Evidences We have seen what Important Pretensions are bottom'd on this supposed Action of St. Peter and therefore ought to expect more Convincing Proofs of that Fact than Vulgar Rumours or Publique Credulity more easily Inveigled to swallow Fables then Verities 2. Men of the best Letters cannot always give a certain Account of the Rise and Progress of all false Opinions Errour is the Child of Night Nurs'd in the Dark by Ignorance Superstition or Self-Interest And when well-grown and gaily Dress'd it comes abroad into the World 't is too often Courted and Embrac'd as the Legitimate Off-spring of Truth Meer Fables raised by some one Inconsiderable Author do not seldom obtain wonderfully in the World and for a long time deceive not only the Mobile but even the Learned loth to Incur a Popular Odium or the Brand of Singularity and sometimes afraid of displeasing those that promote or get by the Imposture are content to let it pass We have every where Instances of this kind As at home Geoffery of Monmouth from the Name Britannia to add as he thought a Reputation of Antiquity to his Countreymen divulges a story of Brute the Trojan and presently our common Chronicles became swell'd with a long Catalogue of his Successors and how many years each of them Reigned which was generally received till some of our more Judicious Historians examined it to the bottom and think they have sufficiently prov'd it altogether Fabulous So the stories of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table so in France those of the Palladine Roland and his wonderful Chivalry found room not only amongst the Poets and Romancers but with several Historians which now are but the Proverb and Diversion of every Peasant Or to take a more Remarkable Example The Gentlemen of the Roman Church take it ill to be Urged with the story of Pope Joan and Droll it as the Absurdest of Fables how justly I am not now to dispute but 't is certain the same is Recorded by a multitude of Historians and for about 700 years for so long it was from the time of her supposed Papacy to Luther or at least for about 500 years for Marianus Scotus the first that Wrote Publickly of her whose Writings are extant flourish'd in the 11th Century and none that I ever heard of pretended to Contradict it till after Luthers time It pass'd Uncontroul'd throughout Christendome and was Related to my knowledge by above 30 Credible Authors of their own
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
'T is true the Cardinal endeavours to weaken the credit of those Authors by saying That the first is thought to be Apochryphal and the latter contains many things fabulous and false yet still as they are of their own producing and he will not deny but they are Ancient so whenever they serve his Turn he is ready enough to make use of them as Authentick Witnesses And indeed if all Authors must be discarded that contain many things fabulous and false His numerous Citations from pretended Antiquity would grow very thin and inconsiderable Besides That Testimony which he himself mentions from Orosius and Platina That the Senate of Rome in the Reign of Tiberius when upon a Letter from Pilate concerning the Miracles of Christ that Emperor mov'd them to Canonize or receive him amongst the number of their Gods not only refused so to do because Pilate wrote to him and not to them about it but also made a Decree Exterminandos or Pellendos as Platina's word is ex Vrbe esse Christianos That Christians should be banisht or driven out of the City Proposing also says Platina Rewards to the Informers against them seems to me a plain Evidence That there were Christians there in the Reign of Tiberius And I dare appeal to the common sense of any indifferent man whether the Cardinal's Gloss That the meaning thereof was only this That if any Christians should come there they should be Banisht be not forced and almost Ridiculous Especially since with Orasius he confesses Tiberium poenam statuisse Accusatoribus Christianorum That Tiberius made a Law to punish the Accusers of the Christians and Platina says the punishment threatned was Capital For tho it be not hard to Believe That Tiberius acting as an absolute Emperor and having received an affront in this very matter from the Senate might set forth an Edict contrary to the Senates Vote yet it is altogether absurd to imagine That he should threaten to punish the accusers of Christians if indeed there were there no Christians to be accused Now if there were Christians at Rome in the days of Tiberius since Peter is not pretended to have come to Rome till the time of Claudius before whom after Tiberius Caligula reigned very near four years it follows undeniably That the Church of Rome was not first planted by St. Peter Bellarmin's third Argument is That Grave Authors write That Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome according to what he had heard Peter Preach Therefore Peter was at Rome And here cites in the first place his Friend Papias again and after him others 1. What value we are to have for Papias's Testimony will appear hereafter and 't is most likely that the other Authors followed him so that the whole depends upon his Authority but the notion it self is indeed Impious and Derogating from that reverence we ought to pay to the Books of the Gospel For there is no well-instructed Christian but believes that St. Mark and every other Evangelist wrote by the special assistance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost and not only by Hear-say either from Peter or any others 2. The meaning of those Authors may be That Mark wrote his Gospel by the excitement or privity of St. Peter but that therefore Peter preached at Rome follows not and most of the Ancients reckon St. Mark the Evangelist to be Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt therefore it is not probable that he ever was or continued long at Rome 3. That which might deceive Papias and the rest might be that whereas they had heard some-body say St. Mark the Evangelist was a Companion of St. Peter and wrote his Gospel partly at his motion and also found one Mark mentioned in several places of the New Testament to have been at Rome as Coloss 4. 10. Philem. v. 24. They thence concluded That St. Peter must be at Rome and Mark write his Gospel there But in truth that Mark whom in Scripture we find to have been at Rome seems not to be the Writer of the Gospel but the same that is mentioned Acts 12. 12. Who is there said to be otherwise named John and Mark only his sirname The same whom Paul and Barnabas whose Sisters Son he was Col. 4. 10. took along with them from Jerusalem to Antioch v. 25. But after some time he left them and return'd from Pamphilia to Jerusalem Chap. 13. 13. About whom on that occasion a controversy arose between Paul and Barnabas with which last he went into Cyprus Ch. 15. 32. But was afterwards at Rome with Paul as appears by the Texts before cited and sometimes imployed by him to visit the Churches abroad as is probable from Col. 2. 4 10. Now that this Mark could not according to their own account be the Evangelist appears I. Because St. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy Ch. 3. 11. sends for him again to Rome which Epistle Bellarmine says was written in the Fourteenth year of Nero and indeed it seems to be but very little before St. Paul's Death from his words Chap. 4. 6. I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand whereas Mark the Evangelist dyed in the 8th year of Nero as Hierom De Viris Illustribus witnesses and is elsewhere own'd by Bellarmin himself And would Paul send for a man that was dead five or six years before II. Because themselves make the Evangelist not only to write his Gospel at Peter's motion but to have been his common Attendant or Assistant in his Travels and Preaching the Gospel and by him to have been made Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt where he suffered Martyrdom Whereas the other Mark that was at Rome did as we find in Scripture generally accompany Paul and Barnabas or one of them So that when any of the Ancients talk of Mark 's writing his Gospel at Rome after Peter's Dictates they seem unwarily to confound the story of the two Marks and jumble them into one and so contradict themselves And therefore Whether St. Peter's being at Rome can thence be sufficiently proved especially when 't is most probable the whole was borrowed and derived at first from the Hear-say of Papias or some such Apocryphal Traditionist is left to the judgment of the discreet Reader Bellarmin's fourth Argument is drawn from the story of Peter's Victory over Simon Magus at Rome And indeed the same if we may credit their Authors is not only a proof of St. Peter's being at Rome but one of the Two Causes which moved him to remove from Antioch thither For thus Platina Petrus Romam Caput Orbis venit quod hanc sedem Pontificali Dignitati Convenientem Cernebat huc profectum intellexerat Simonem Magum Peter came to Rome the Head of the World both because he saw this was a seat convenient or suitable for the Pontifical Dignity and also for that he understood Simon Magus was gone thither So that it seems his going to Rome was not
Jubente Domino by any special command from Christ as Bellarmin would have it but because Rome being at that time Metropolis of the World he thought no other place so worthy to be the seat of his Ecclesiastical Principality and was afraid forsooth lest Simon the Sorcerer should usurp and get possession of it before him and therefore he hastened thither to expel him Sed hoc obiter To shew the weakness of this pretence I shall first consider what we find in Scripture touching this Simon Magus 2dly Relate the Story they tell about him at Rome And 3dly Shew the Vanity thereof and that the same was first hatch'd by Fabulous Authors I. We read Acts 8. That Simon Magus lived at Samaria and having long Bewitcht or seduced the people there with Sorceries or Jugling Impostures was highly esteemed But upon Philip's Preaching seemed to Believe the Gospel and was Baptized and wondred at the Signs and Miracles which were done but when Peter and John were sent down thither from the rest of the Apostles at Jerusalem and on their Prayers and laying on of Hands the Believing Samaritans had received the Holy Ghost that is as I conceive in this place were endued with the Power of speaking Strange Tongues and working of Miracles This Simon offered him Money saying Give me also this power that on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy Ghost But Peter said unto him Thy money perish with thee because thou hast thought that the Gift of God may be purchased with money Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter for thy heart is not right in the sight of God Repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee for I perceive thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of Iniquity Then answered Simon and said Pray ye to the Lord for me that none of these things that ye have spoken come upon me This was indeed a sigâ—al Victory obtain'd by Peter over this wretched Magician but atchieved at Samaria not at Rome And from such his wicked overture all Giving and Receiving of Money or other secular profit for any Office or Preferment in the Church is ever since from his name called Simony But the Combat and Victory meant by Bellarmin is supposed to have been at Rome and thus related by Platina That the said Simon Magus had the confidence to vye Miracles with Peter about raising a dead Boy to Life whose Corps his Charms at first did seem to move but when afterwards notwithstanding all the Conjurer could do the Lad lay breathless as before yet at the Command of Peter in the Name of Jesus he revived and stood on his feet Which Simon the Magician took so much in dudgeon that he told the people they should behold him fly from the Capitol to Mount Aventine if Peter would but follow him whereby they should perceive which of the Two was the greatest Saint and most beloved of God But when he was got upon the wing at the Prayer of Peter stretching out his hand towards Heaven and beseeching God That he would not suffer so many People to be deluded with Magick Arts down came Simon and broke his Thigh whereof shortly after he dyed And this being so Peter must needs be at Rome 1. Now let any sober Reader judge Whether this whole story in all its Circumstances do not smell rank of Romance and Fable That Simon the Conjurer of Samaria should ramble to Rome and the blessed Apostle Peter travel thither after him so many hundred Miles on purpose to vye Miracles with him there when there were not wanting many Saints in that City in that Age when God was pleased to give frequent Testimonies to his Church by Miracles who might as well have confounded the Sorcerer That he who was so far convinced of the mighty Power of God in Peter at Samaria as to beg his Prayers should offer to challenge him to work Miracles at Rome That being so shamefully baffled in the business of raising the Dead Boy whom Peter presently raised to Life he should yet have the confidence to propose a new Tryal of Skill by Flying Credat Judoeus Apella But waving the Improbabilities being a matter of Fact the Credit thereof must wholly depend on the first Relaters and pray observe from what Authors they have this story Eusebius says it was reported by Clemens and by Papias and Bellarmin adds Egesippus de Excido Hierosolym l. 3. c. 2. As for Papias we have nothing of his extant nor if we had is his Credit much as will by and by appear and the other two supposed Books of Clemens and Egesippus are both Forgeries contrived in after times under those ancient Names and not written by them as amongst other feigned Antiquities I doubt not but to satisfie the Reader in a particular Chapter on that Subject And what man of sense will give so much as a common Historical Credit much less admit that as an Article of Faith which has no better Foundation than what is bottom'd on counterfeit Authors Especially since it is not pretended to be attested by any that were Eye-Witnesses or that liv'd for a considerable time after nor is it credible that so wonderful and publick a Miracle if truly transacted at Rome should have escaped the notice and mention of some of those Roman Historians who have so exactly given us the Memoirs of that curious and very Learned Age. 2. This Tale does not quadrate or hang well together for Platina as 't is plain by his Words makes this Exploit done at Peter's first coming to Rome for as he assigns one main part of his Errand in going thither to be for obviating the mischiefs of that Impostor so by his Relation the matter seems to have been quickly determined after Peter's arrival and he expresly says Simon Magus dyed of that fall non ita multo post not long after Now they say Peter went to Rome in the second Year of Claudius Anno Chr. 43. and so in that or the next Year Magus must be defeated But Cardinal Baronius assures us Simon Magus did not dye till the Year of our Lord 68. that is in the 13th Year of Nero the very next Year before they say Peter suffer'd there and no less than about 25 Years after they pretend Peter went first to that City Did St. Peter go to Rome almost on purpose to suppress the Magician and yet could not meet with him in all that time Or did the Sorcerer lye sick of the bruises of his fall four or five and twenty years Then how did he die quickly after If Simon were playing his tricks at Rome and making the People believe he was a Great God in the beginning of Claudius's Reign and died not till almost the end of Nero's that is 25 years after just the term they assign to St. Peter's coming and continuing Bishop there It
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
undoubtedly according to these Authorities he was the next Successor But yet Optatus lib. 2. contr Parm. and St. Augustine Epist 165. rank Linus next after Peter and next not only Cletus but Anacletus and after all these Clement as the fourth or if you will include St. Peter the fifth Iraeneus lib. 3. cap. 3. tells us that Peter and Paul Constituted Linus the first then Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome That Anacletus succeeded him and that Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome Onuphrius marshals them thus Linus eleven Years three Months and twelve Days Clement nine Years four Months and twenty six Days Cletus six Years five Months and three Days And after seven Days Vacancy Anacletns twelve Years two Months and ten Days and to solve the matter as well as he can makes the said Linus only as a suffragan Bishop under Peter and reckons the said eleven Years three Months and three Days attributed to Linus to be in Peter's Life time who he says was for the most part absent from Rome save only twenty six Days which he survived after Peter and then was Martyr'd during which 26 Days he was not chief Bishop neither but only a Coadjutor to Clement as he had been to Peter For saith he Clement was the immediate Successor in chief to Peter and held the Chair for nine Years four Months and twenty six Days and then and not before came Cletus and he sate six Years five Months and three Days as Soveraign Bishop though for twenty Years and upwards he had been Chorepiscopus Suffragan Bishop or Coadjutor under Peter and Clement whose Successor was Anacletus c. You see what pains this Learned Man is at to render the story Uniform But as this is a new Invention for neither Platina nor the Ancients mention a word of suffraganship in the Case but make Linus as substantial a Pope as any of the rest so it agrees not with that account that Bellarmin gives of that matter for he saith That Peter indeed left the Episcopal See to Clement but when he was dead Clement out of Humility refused to sit therein as long as Linus and Cletus lived who had been Peter's Coadjutors in the Episcopal Office and so actually Linus succeeded Peter Cletus to Linus and Clement to Cletus tho some Authors because Clement was appointed Successour name him first To which I Answer That as the other was but the surmise of Onuphrius so this is but the Nude Averment of the Cardinal and both the one and the other in it self improbable for if Peter had just cause to Elect Clement then Clement could have no just Cause to reject the Office imposed If Peter were appointed by our Lord to Govern all the Churches in the World no doubt he was fit and enabled to discharge that Office And what need he then have two Coadjutors to Rule the particular Church of Rome Or why would he take upon himself the Bishoprick of Rome from whence he was so often to be absent and thereby give a dangerous Precedent of NON-RESIDENCY and trusting to the Care of Delegates in the Government of the Church Or if he must have help would not Paul at least after he came to Rome have been as good a Coadjutor as either Linus or Cletus Again If Peter thought Clement most worthy to succeed him why was he not Constituted at least an equal Suffragan Bishop with the other two before If Linus and Cletus had been worthy of that Honour they would no doubt have shewn their humility no less in Reverencing St. Peter's last Will and Ordinance than Clement did his in urging Peter's Antecedent Fact of admitting those two his Assistants Or why did not Clement declare such his Humility whilst Peter was alive that he might have Constituted and Consecrated another Successor Or why in his Letter to St. James does he not take notice how and on what score he had declined that Office which Peter so formally conferr'd upon him Or in a word If Peter did so solemnly invest Clement with the Government of the Church and Institute him his Successor by imposition of Hands and making him sit down in spight of his Modesty in his own Episcopal Chair and yet after Peter's Death Linus and Cletus did hold and actually Exercise the same successively for above twenty Years does it not follow That the two first Bishops of Rome next after St. Peter were unlawful as having no due Call or Title but guilty of Vsurpation from which no pretence of Clement's Humility can excuse them For who Ordain'd them Or how could they duely become capable of that Dignity The Sixth Question Was Peter Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome Answ Yes Seven years says the Pontifical and so says Platina and 't is the common Vogue of those that mention his being at Rome But No says Onuphrius and is very warm in the point Ad Initium secundi Anni Imperii Claudii Petrum Judaea nunquam Excessisse ex Actis Apostolorum Paeuli Epistola ad Galatas Apertissime constat idem in Chronico refert Eusebius ego alibi multis Rationibus probavi c. That Peter never stirr'd out of Judea till the beginning of the second year of the Reign of Claudius is most certain and evident from the Acts of the Apostles and Pauls Epistle to the Galatians Eusebius in his Chronicon asserts the same and I says he have proved it elsewhere by many Reasons Now in this second year of Claudius all the Authors that mention Peters being at Rome affirm he arrived there How then could he before that have sat seven years as Bishop of Antioch But from the Testimony of most Antient Authors I says the said Onuphrius have settled the Business thus That in the Tenth year after Christs Passion which was still the Second of Claudius tho' towards the end of it St. Peter after his deliverance out of Prison having spent a year in Preaching along the several Countreys in his Journey towards Rome did Arrive at that City on the Eighteenth of January From whence to the time of his death was about Twenty-five years But four years after viz. the Seventh of Claudius the Jews being banish'd by an Edict he was forced to leave Rome and Returned to Jerusalem Agrippa for fear of whom he fled out of Judea being now dead There he was present at the Apostolical Council and death of the Blessed Virgin from whence leaving the Apostle James at Jerusalem he went to Antioch and there remained seven years until the death of Claudius and beginning of the Empire of Nero when with Mark the Evangelist he Return'd to Rome and Re-Establish'd the decaying Roman Church appointed Linus and Cletus his Suffragan-Bishops or Delegates and Admonish'd Mark to write his Gospel After which he Travell'd almost throughout all Europe and Returning to Rome with the Apostle Paul when Nero was worrying the Christians as Authors of the great Conflagration that happened
last he performs it at Five or Six Motions as follows 1. He says That Peter after our Lords Passion remain'd almost but not full five years in Judea in which time Paul paid him his first visit Gal. 1. 2. That then he removed to Antioch and was Bishop there for near seven years but during that time travelled into and Preached through the Neighbouring Provinces 3. That in the seventh year of his Episcopacy at Antioch he return'd to Jerusalem and was there Imprisoned 4. That being there miraculously released he the same year which was the second of Claudius came to Rome and there fixt his Seat which he held 25 years viz. till his Martyrdom 5. Yet for all that within seven years return'd back to Jerusalem upon a Decree that Claudius set forth commanding all Jews to depart from Rome mentioned Acts 18. 2. and so came to be present at Jerusalem when Paul from Antioch went up thither and the Council of the Apostles Acts 15. was held there 6. But after the death of Claudius repaired again to Rome where in the second year of Nero Paul arriv'd and in the 14th year of Nero they were both put to Death To all which I Answer 1. As the old Astronomers were forc'd to invent various Epicycles and feigned motions of the Planets to solve the Phoenomina without regard whether they were true or false that is had any real existence in Nature or not provided they would but serve a turn to support their Hypothesis so I must crave leave to say The Learned Cardinal carries the blessed Apostle St. Peter 15 or 1600 miles back and forwards to and fro at his own pleasure meerly to render their notion of his being at Rome possible But by what Authority on what proof does he do this There is not the least intimation in Scripture but that Peter remain'd in or near Jerusalem as much to the time of the Council as for the first five years there is not a syllable of his going unto coming back from Rome or return thither again and if it were true what reason can be immagined why St. Luke should omit it in the Acts of the Apostles falling within the compass of his Story nay 't is plain that he was at Jerusalem a considerable time before that Council was held for Acts 15. 1. 't is said Those that troubled the Church of Antioch went down from Judaea and V. 24. 't is said by the Apostles whereof Peter was one in their Joint Letter Certain men that went out from Vs 2. Touching Peters being Bishop of Antioch we have spoken before Chap. 3. and shall here only add That Bellarmin himself in this same Chapter says Peter should have left a most Pernitious Example of a Christian Pastor if he had at once Retain'd two particular and proper Bishopricks which yet it seems Onuphrius thought no disparagement but would it not be an Example equally pernitious if Retaining but one he should very seldome or never Reside there For I conceive Non-Residency as bad as Pluralities and indeed the chief reason against Pluralities is because they are thought to Imply Non-Residency But I think it will Unavoidably follow that Peter must be generally Non-Resident if being stated Bishop either of Antioch or Rome he Travelled so many other Provinces during the same time and yet every other while was found at Jerusalem 3. That Peter upon the Decree of Claudius That the Jews should depart from Rome did fly thence and so came to Jerusalem as it were Accidentally to that Council Acts 15. is like the rest asserted Gratis And as the same did neither suit with the Zeal and Christian Fortitude of Peter so to Abandon his flock so I conceive it may manifestly be proved to be false from the Acts of the Apostles where we Read That Paul and Barnabas immediately after that Council return'd to Antioch staid there some time That afterwards Paul took a Journey into Syria and Cilicia and thence to Derbe and Lystra and having Travelled through Phrygia Galatia Mysia and Troas came into Macedonia where Phillip was cast into Prison thence he passed to Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessailonica Beraea and as far as Athens Acts 15 16 17. And after all these tedious Perigrinations which must require and take up a very considerable time when he came to Corinth he found there Aquila and Priscilla who LATELY or as the Syriac Version has it eo ipso tempore just then were come out of Italy upon that Edict of Claudius so that the said Edict must be after the Council and consequently could be no ground for Peters being then at Jerusalem 4. If Peter were supream Governour of the Church and had before that Council at Jerusalem been seven years Bishop of Antioch and for as many years and at that present time been Bishop of Rome both Cities of the Gentiles and yet not without considerable numbers of Jews therein 't is strange he had not before determined that Question touching the Circumcision of the Gentiles or it might have been a sufficient Argument for Paul and Barnabas to have said Peter the Quondam Bishop of this City and now of Rome Christs Vicar and Prince of the Apostles Taught and Practised otherwise 5. 'T is most improbable which Bellarmine here asserts viz. That in one and the same year Peter should be Bishop of Antioch Imprisoned at Jerusalem and yet also in that very Year come to Rome and make himself Bishop there Let any Judicious Person but consider the great distance of those several places and the inconveniencies of Travelling in those days and that there appears not the least ground for such his Posting to and fro and he will be apt to suspect it altogether Romantic or a story fitter for the Legend than an Article of Faith To that of Pauls not saluting Peter in his Epistle to the Romans the Cardinal says two things First That the same St. Paul Writing to the Ephesians mentions not St. John nor James in the Epistle to the Hebrews yet they were Bishops of those Churches Secondly That when Paul Wrote that Epistle Peter was not yet return'd to Rome from the Apostolical Synod To which I Answer 1. That the Cardinal has not proved that either John or James were ever Bishops of those respective places in a strict and proper sense St. John was never that I know of reckon'd Bishop of Ephesus nor could be so without displacing of Timothy who according to the Current Testimony of Antiquity was by Paul constituted Bishop there Nor does it appear that the Epistle to the Hebrews was wrote to those at Jerusalem Nor lastly was St. James then alive so that there is no Parity 2. As for Peter's not being Return'd as yet to Rome Aquila and Priscilla were got back for he sends greeting to them Together with whom Bellarmine affirms Peter was expell'd and why not Peter the Bishop of the place as soon as they We find Paul had a firm
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