c. 6. In the 2d Year of his Reign saith St. Hierom in the 3d saith Onuphrius no crys Fasciculus Temporum it was in the 4th Year of his Reign and so says Nauclerus Nay upon my word says Paschasius de vit sanct it was in the 14th year of Claudius's Reign But as the aged Lady could see the Needle but not the Barn so tho they are no surer of the Year they are exact as to the Day it was precisely the 18th Day of January this you may be sure of for the Church of Rome that is Pope Paul the 4th as long ago forsooth as the year of our Lord 1557. thought fit to appoint that Day to be kept Festival on that occasion and accordingly you may see it set down in the Calendarium Catholicum 2. Question How long did Peter continue Bishop of Rome Answ 27 Years saith St. Hierom 29 saith Venerable Bede 25 Years 7 Months and 8 Days says Fasciculus Temporum just 25 Years 2 Months and 3 Days says the Pontifical pretended to be written by Infallible Pope Damasus But heark ye Friend if he came to Rome the 18th of January and continued Bishop thereof 25 Years 2 Months and 3 Days then he must be put to Death on the 22th of March and if so why does the Church Celebrate his Martyrdom on the 29th of June Ay but Damasus is mistaken saith Binius with the consent of Barnious Peter did not hold the Chair twenty five Years two Months and three Days it was exactly twenty four Years five Months and twelve Days and so he might be Martyred on the 29th of June Very good this indeed avoids one Inconveniency but it dashes upon another For if he were put to Death on the 29th of June then he could not dye in the fourteenth Year of Nero but almost all Writers of the story attest that he dyed in the 14th Year of Nero Now the 14th Year of Nero began the 13th of October and on the 10th of June following Nero being declared a publick Enemy kill'd himself so that if Peter were put to Death according to the former Opinion on the 22th of March it might be in Nero's 14th Year But if it were on the 29th of June it must be either in his 13th or some other foregoing Year which is contrary to the whole stream of your Evidence or else after Nero's Death which likewise will utterly marr the credit of the whole story for no man ever talk'd of Peter's being at Rome but he also affirm'd that he suffer'd there under Nero. 3. Question In what Year after our Lords Passion was Peter Martyr'd Ans It was in the 38th Year after the Passion of our Lord says the Pontifical the 37th says Nicephorus no crys Binnius it was in the 35th Year after the Passion An. Chr. 69. And yet Onuphrius is confident it was exactly 34 Years 3 Months and 4 Days after our Lords Passion the 29th of June An. Dom. 68. 4. Question Were Peter and Paul put to Death at the same time Answ Yes on the same Day says the Pontifical not the same Year tho say Prudentius and St. Augustine I will tell you how it was says Binnius it was the same Day of the Month indeed though not the same Year Well but if one out-liv'd the other at least a year since Paul seems likest to be the survivor because as St. Peter was much the elder man for he was Marryed when first call'd to the Apostleship whereas Paul at the stoning of Stephen is expresly said to be a young man so also if he were Prince of the Apostles Soveraign Head of the Christians and Bishop of Rome he was on that account likest to incur the fury of Nero. If I say Paul did as he might for what appears to the contrary outlive Peter why might not he have been as fit to succeed as another Would it it not be very hard that Paul who avow'd himself not inferior to the chiefest of the Apostles should in his old Age be made Subject to a Linus a Cletus or a Clement Or suppose he was put to Death before or with Peter yet if Peter did as they say constitute a Supream Pastor over the Universal Church to succeed him why should he not have committed that Charge to some other of the Apostles especially since all Ecclesiastical Historians seem agreed That St. John who is honoured with the Title of the Beloved Disciple did survive for many years after and consequently must become inferiour to some one that was no Apostle But not only Prudentius tells us That Paul suffered a Day after Peter but Abdias one of our Adversaries Worthy Authors avers it was two years after nay if that be true which the same Abdias relates That after the Crucifying of Peter Paul remained in his free Custody at Rome mentioned in the 28th of the Acts which was as St. Hierom witnesseth in the third or fourth year of Nero then it must be ten years betwixt the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul forasmuch as it is by all Writers acknowledged That Paul suffered in the last that is the 14th year of Nero. Vspergensis saith these Apostles were both Executed in one Year but he noteth not that they dyed in one Day Sabellicus saith both in one Year and one Day some say as St. Ambrose they dyed together both in one Place but Dionysius seems to say otherwise telling us that the one bad the other farewel when they were parted asunder going to Death most Writers charge Nero as the Author of both their Deaths but Linus saith That Agrippa commanded Peter to be put to Death which must be at Jerusalem because by his perswasion four of the said Agrippa 's Concubines refused to live any longer in such unchast life with the King 5. Question But who indeed was Peter's next and immediate Successar Answ Linus a Tuscan saith Platina for eleven Years three Months and twelve Days who was succeeded by Cletus a Roman for twelve Years one Month and eleven Days after which the See was vacant twenty Days and then came Clement a Roman who held it nine Years two Months and ten Days And Binius saith that Linus was Pope but eleven Years two Months and twenty three Days and quarrels with Damasus for assigning to Cletus twelve Years one Month and eleven Days But the difference is not only in point of time of their several Pontificates though yet a Days difference where so great an exactness is pretended is enough to discredit all the Relation but there is as much Cloud and Debate in the very order of Succession For Tertullian Lib. de Praescript and St. Hierom on the 25th of Isaiah place Clement next and immediately after St. Peter And Clement himself if you hearken to the before-recited Epistle in his Name to St. James avers that Peter most solemnly conferred that Dignity upon him nor does Platina or Onuphrius forbear to tell us the Circumstances thereof so that
last he performs it at Five or Six Motions as follows 1. He says That Peter after our Lords Passion remain'd almost but not full five years in Judea in which time Paul paid him his first visit Gal. 1. 2. That then he removed to Antioch and was Bishop there for near seven years but during that time travelled into and Preached through the Neighbouring Provinces 3. That in the seventh year of his Episcopacy at Antioch he return'd to Jerusalem and was there Imprisoned 4. That being there miraculously released he the same year which was the second of Claudius came to Rome and there fixt his Seat which he held 25 years viz. till his Martyrdom 5. Yet for all that within seven years return'd back to Jerusalem upon a Decree that Claudius set forth commanding all Jews to depart from Rome mentioned Acts 18. 2. and so came to be present at Jerusalem when Paul from Antioch went up thither and the Council of the Apostles Acts 15. was held there 6. But after the death of Claudius repaired again to Rome where in the second year of Nero Paul arriv'd and in the 14th year of Nero they were both put to Death To all which I Answer 1. As the old Astronomers were forc'd to invent various Epicycles and feigned motions of the Planets to solve the Phoenomina without regard whether they were true or false that is had any real existence in Nature or not provided they would but serve a turn to support their Hypothesis so I must crave leave to say The Learned Cardinal carries the blessed Apostle St. Peter 15 or 1600 miles back and forwards to and fro at his own pleasure meerly to render their notion of his being at Rome possible But by what Authority on what proof does he do this There is not the least intimation in Scripture but that Peter remain'd in or near Jerusalem as much to the time of the Council as for the first five years there is not a syllable of his going unto coming back from Rome or return thither again and if it were true what reason can be immagined why St. Luke should omit it in the Acts of the Apostles falling within the compass of his Story nay 't is plain that he was at Jerusalem a considerable time before that Council was held for Acts 15. 1. 't is said Those that troubled the Church of Antioch went down from Judaea and V. 24. 't is said by the Apostles whereof Peter was one in their Joint Letter Certain men that went out from Vs 2. Touching Peters being Bishop of Antioch we have spoken before Chap. 3. and shall here only add That Bellarmin himself in this same Chapter says Peter should have left a most Pernitious Example of a Christian Pastor if he had at once Retain'd two particular and proper Bishopricks which yet it seems Onuphrius thought no disparagement but would it not be an Example equally pernitious if Retaining but one he should very seldome or never Reside there For I conceive Non-Residency as bad as Pluralities and indeed the chief reason against Pluralities is because they are thought to Imply Non-Residency But I think it will Unavoidably follow that Peter must be generally Non-Resident if being stated Bishop either of Antioch or Rome he Travelled so many other Provinces during the same time and yet every other while was found at Jerusalem 3. That Peter upon the Decree of Claudius That the Jews should depart from Rome did fly thence and so came to Jerusalem as it were Accidentally to that Council Acts 15. is like the rest asserted Gratis And as the same did neither suit with the Zeal and Christian Fortitude of Peter so to Abandon his flock so I conceive it may manifestly be proved to be false from the Acts of the Apostles where we Read That Paul and Barnabas immediately after that Council return'd to Antioch staid there some time That afterwards Paul took a Journey into Syria and Cilicia and thence to Derbe and Lystra and having Travelled through Phrygia Galatia Mysia and Troas came into Macedonia where Phillip was cast into Prison thence he passed to Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessailonica Beraea and as far as Athens Acts 15 16 17. And after all these tedious Perigrinations which must require and take up a very considerable time when he came to Corinth he found there Aquila and Priscilla who LATELY or as the Syriac Version has it eo ipso tempore just then were come out of Italy upon that Edict of Claudius so that the said Edict must be after the Council and consequently could be no ground for Peters being then at Jerusalem 4. If Peter were supream Governour of the Church and had before that Council at Jerusalem been seven years Bishop of Antioch and for as many years and at that present time been Bishop of Rome both Cities of the Gentiles and yet not without considerable numbers of Jews therein 't is strange he had not before determined that Question touching the Circumcision of the Gentiles or it might have been a sufficient Argument for Paul and Barnabas to have said Peter the Quondam Bishop of this City and now of Rome Christs Vicar and Prince of the Apostles Taught and Practised otherwise 5. 'T is most improbable which Bellarmine here asserts viz. That in one and the same year Peter should be Bishop of Antioch Imprisoned at Jerusalem and yet also in that very Year come to Rome and make himself Bishop there Let any Judicious Person but consider the great distance of those several places and the inconveniencies of Travelling in those days and that there appears not the least ground for such his Posting to and fro and he will be apt to suspect it altogether Romantic or a story fitter for the Legend than an Article of Faith To that of Pauls not saluting Peter in his Epistle to the Romans the Cardinal says two things First That the same St. Paul Writing to the Ephesians mentions not St. John nor James in the Epistle to the Hebrews yet they were Bishops of those Churches Secondly That when Paul Wrote that Epistle Peter was not yet return'd to Rome from the Apostolical Synod To which I Answer 1. That the Cardinal has not proved that either John or James were ever Bishops of those respective places in a strict and proper sense St. John was never that I know of reckon'd Bishop of Ephesus nor could be so without displacing of Timothy who according to the Current Testimony of Antiquity was by Paul constituted Bishop there Nor does it appear that the Epistle to the Hebrews was wrote to those at Jerusalem Nor lastly was St. James then alive so that there is no Parity 2. As for Peter's not being Return'd as yet to Rome Aquila and Priscilla were got back for he sends greeting to them Together with whom Bellarmine affirms Peter was expell'd and why not Peter the Bishop of the place as soon as they We find Paul had a firm
'T is true the Cardinal endeavours to weaken the credit of those Authors by saying That the first is thought to be Apochryphal and the latter contains many things fabulous and false yet still as they are of their own producing and he will not deny but they are Ancient so whenever they serve his Turn he is ready enough to make use of them as Authentick Witnesses And indeed if all Authors must be discarded that contain many things fabulous and false His numerous Citations from pretended Antiquity would grow very thin and inconsiderable Besides That Testimony which he himself mentions from Orosius and Platina That the Senate of Rome in the Reign of Tiberius when upon a Letter from Pilate concerning the Miracles of Christ that Emperor mov'd them to Canonize or receive him amongst the number of their Gods not only refused so to do because Pilate wrote to him and not to them about it but also made a Decree Exterminandos or Pellendos as Platina's word is ex Vrbe esse Christianos That Christians should be banisht or driven out of the City Proposing also says Platina Rewards to the Informers against them seems to me a plain Evidence That there were Christians there in the Reign of Tiberius And I dare appeal to the common sense of any indifferent man whether the Cardinal's Gloss That the meaning thereof was only this That if any Christians should come there they should be Banisht be not forced and almost Ridiculous Especially since with Orasius he confesses Tiberium poenam statuisse Accusatoribus Christianorum That Tiberius made a Law to punish the Accusers of the Christians and Platina says the punishment threatned was Capital For tho it be not hard to Believe That Tiberius acting as an absolute Emperor and having received an affront in this very matter from the Senate might set forth an Edict contrary to the Senates Vote yet it is altogether absurd to imagine That he should threaten to punish the accusers of Christians if indeed there were there no Christians to be accused Now if there were Christians at Rome in the days of Tiberius since Peter is not pretended to have come to Rome till the time of Claudius before whom after Tiberius Caligula reigned very near four years it follows undeniably That the Church of Rome was not first planted by St. Peter Bellarmin's third Argument is That Grave Authors write That Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome according to what he had heard Peter Preach Therefore Peter was at Rome And here cites in the first place his Friend Papias again and after him others 1. What value we are to have for Papias's Testimony will appear hereafter and 't is most likely that the other Authors followed him so that the whole depends upon his Authority but the notion it self is indeed Impious and Derogating from that reverence we ought to pay to the Books of the Gospel For there is no well-instructed Christian but believes that St. Mark and every other Evangelist wrote by the special assistance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost and not only by Hear-say either from Peter or any others 2. The meaning of those Authors may be That Mark wrote his Gospel by the excitement or privity of St. Peter but that therefore Peter preached at Rome follows not and most of the Ancients reckon St. Mark the Evangelist to be Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt therefore it is not probable that he ever was or continued long at Rome 3. That which might deceive Papias and the rest might be that whereas they had heard some-body say St. Mark the Evangelist was a Companion of St. Peter and wrote his Gospel partly at his motion and also found one Mark mentioned in several places of the New Testament to have been at Rome as Coloss 4. 10. Philem. v. 24. They thence concluded That St. Peter must be at Rome and Mark write his Gospel there But in truth that Mark whom in Scripture we find to have been at Rome seems not to be the Writer of the Gospel but the same that is mentioned Acts 12. 12. Who is there said to be otherwise named John and Mark only his sirname The same whom Paul and Barnabas whose Sisters Son he was Col. 4. 10. took along with them from Jerusalem to Antioch v. 25. But after some time he left them and return'd from Pamphilia to Jerusalem Chap. 13. 13. About whom on that occasion a controversy arose between Paul and Barnabas with which last he went into Cyprus Ch. 15. 32. But was afterwards at Rome with Paul as appears by the Texts before cited and sometimes imployed by him to visit the Churches abroad as is probable from Col. 2. 4 10. Now that this Mark could not according to their own account be the Evangelist appears I. Because St. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy Ch. 3. 11. sends for him again to Rome which Epistle Bellarmine says was written in the Fourteenth year of Nero and indeed it seems to be but very little before St. Paul's Death from his words Chap. 4. 6. I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand whereas Mark the Evangelist dyed in the 8th year of Nero as Hierom De Viris Illustribus witnesses and is elsewhere own'd by Bellarmin himself And would Paul send for a man that was dead five or six years before II. Because themselves make the Evangelist not only to write his Gospel at Peter's motion but to have been his common Attendant or Assistant in his Travels and Preaching the Gospel and by him to have been made Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt where he suffered Martyrdom Whereas the other Mark that was at Rome did as we find in Scripture generally accompany Paul and Barnabas or one of them So that when any of the Ancients talk of Mark 's writing his Gospel at Rome after Peter's Dictates they seem unwarily to confound the story of the two Marks and jumble them into one and so contradict themselves And therefore Whether St. Peter's being at Rome can thence be sufficiently proved especially when 't is most probable the whole was borrowed and derived at first from the Hear-say of Papias or some such Apocryphal Traditionist is left to the judgment of the discreet Reader Bellarmin's fourth Argument is drawn from the story of Peter's Victory over Simon Magus at Rome And indeed the same if we may credit their Authors is not only a proof of St. Peter's being at Rome but one of the Two Causes which moved him to remove from Antioch thither For thus Platina Petrus Romam Caput Orbis venit quod hanc sedem Pontificali Dignitati Convenientem Cernebat huc profectum intellexerat Simonem Magum Peter came to Rome the Head of the World both because he saw this was a seat convenient or suitable for the Pontifical Dignity and also for that he understood Simon Magus was gone thither So that it seems his going to Rome was not
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
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
Fifteenth year Now deduct Fourteen years compleat out of the Fifty-six years of Augustus there remains Forty-two Whence it follows That we must take our Lord to have been Born in the Forty-second year current of Augustus as aforesaid In the 19th year of this Tiberius and in the 34th current of our Lords Age He was crucified in the month of March. I am not ignorant that some place our Saviours Crucifixion in the 33th year of his Age And Alstedius is very positive that it was in the 35th But I follow the middle and more common Opinion and which if I mistake not the mention of the several Passovers after his Baptism will justify The 20th year of Tiberius began in August The 35th of Christs Birth in December following And in March after that is Anno. Dom. 35. and of Tiberius the 20th was compleated the first year after the Passion and the second began In August Anno Chr. 35. began the 21th of Tiberius and in December following but still in the second year after the Passion began the 36th year of Christ The exact time when Paul was Converted the Scripture does not mention but it is generally taken to be in the 2d year after the Passion on the 25th of January And indeed it can scarce be imagined to be in the first year since 't is nothing likely all those Transactions mentioned in the first Eight Chapters of the Acts as between Christs Ascension and his Conversion should be accomplished in seven or eight months space But if we take it to be the second year then since the particular day is supposed to be the 25th of January that is to say five months after the beginning of the 21th year of Claudius one month after the Commencement of the 36th year of our Lords Nativity and tho' in the second yet within two months of the beginning of the third year from the Passion We may for avoiding Confusion taking the Denomination from the greater part make the first year Current of Paul's Conversion to Answer to the 36th year Current of Christ's Birth the 21th of the Reign of Tiberius and the 3d after the Passion always remembring their differing Commencements And so the Account will stand as in the Table following Year of Christ Year of Tiberius Year of the Passion Year of Paul's Conversion 34 19 1 0. 35 20 2 0. In this year Peter met with Simon Magus at Samaria according to Baronius 36 21 3 1. 37 22 4 2. The 22th year of Tiberius ended in Aug. 37. but he lived till the 16th of March following which was in the 38th year of our Lord the 4th year of his Passion being very near compleat and almost two months after the beginning of the third year of Paul's Conversion Caligula began to Reign the 17th of March Anno Chr. 38. and the same month began the fifth year from the Passion He Reigned three years ten months and eight days Of Christ Of Caligula Of the Passion Of Paul's Conv. 38 1 5 3 39 2 6 4 Baronius says Peter now founded the Church of Antioch 40 3 7 5 41 4 8 6 The third year of Caligula and 7th after the Passion ended March Ao. 41. but he Reigned afterwards ten months and eight days so he died the 24th of January in the 42th year of Christ the eighth year current of the Passion Claudius Reigned 13 years eight months and 18 days beginning the 24th of Jan A. C. 42. The very next day began the seventh year of Pauls Conversion and in March following began the ninth after the Passion Anno Christe Of Claudius Of the Passion Of Pauls Conv. 42 1 9 7. 43 2 10 8. In this year Peter is supposed to become Bp. of Rome 44 3 11 9. 45 4 12 10. Herod Agrippa dies 46 5 13 11. 47 6 14 12. 48 7 15 13. 49 8 16 14. 50 9 17 15. In this 50th year of Christ and ninth of Claudius the Jews were banish'd Rome as Orosius testifies and Baronius grants 51 10 18 16. 52 11 19 17. 53 12 20 18. 54 13 21 19. 55 14 22 20. The 13th year of Claudius ended Jan. 24. A. C. 55. but he lived afterwards eight months and 18 days so that he died Octob. 13. 55. in the 22th year after Christs Passion and 20th of Paul's Conversion Then began Nero to Reign for thirteen years seven months and 28 days his first ending the 14th of October Anno Chr. 56. in the 23th year after the Passion and 21th of Paul's Conversion Anno Chr. Of Nero Of the Passion Of Pauls Conv. 56 1 23 21. 57 2 24 22. 58 3 25 23. 59 4 26 24. 60 5 27 25. 61 6 28 26. 62 7 29 27. 63 8 30 28. 64 9 31 29. 65 10 32 30. 66 11 33 31. 67 12 34 32. 68 13 35 33. Simon Magus died this year according to Baronius 69 14 part 36 34. Thus Nero's 13th year ended Octob. 14. 68. but he reigned longer seven months and 28 days So that he ridded the World of himself the 10th of June Ann. Chr. 69. in the 36th year after our Lords Passion and 34th current of Paul's Conversion Now the most common Story of our Modern Romanists is That St. Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius and 10th after the Passion and continuing Bishop of that See 25 years suffer'd Martyrdom in the 14th year of Nero. It remains therefore that we weigh such their Pretensions And as we have found them too light and void of Proof on their side so by comparing them with the Account given of St. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians and other passages of infallible Writ it will perhaps satisfactorily appear not only that Peter was not at Rome in the said second Year of Claudius Nor Bishop there 25 Years But that indeed he was not nor could be there at all either before or after I think it is not pretended nor if it were would it serve their turn that Peter was ever at Rome before Christs Crucifixion but spent his time in or about Judea either in his Vocation of a Fisherman or with the rest of the Disciples attending the Lord Nor are we to look for him at Rome after the death of Nero for they all affirm he was put to death under that Tyrant so that we have only Thirty Six Years to account for viz. from the Passion to the End of Nero that is to say from the year of Our Lord 34. to the Year 70. For the First and Second Year after the Lords Death and Resurrection 't is undeniable that Peter was in or about Judea first with the rest of the Apostles on Mount Olivet beholding our Saviours Ascension and then return'd to Jerusalem expecting the Promised Comforter and when the Holy Ghost descended upon them made that excellent Sermon whereby Three Thousand Souls were Converted Acts 2. Healed the Lame man Acts 3. Whereupon he was Imprisoned Act 4. He
dreadfully Punishes the Hypocrisie and Lies of Ananias and Saphira and wrought many other Miracles till he was again Imprisoned and delivered by an Angel c. Acts 5. He was also at Jerusalem at the choice of Deacons Acts 6. And if his journey when sent with John by the rest of the Apostles to Samaria Acts 8. be to be attributed to these Two Years it is expresly said V 25. that he return'd to Jerusalem In the Year of our Lord 37. which was the fourth of the Passion Pilate as Eusebius L. 2. C. 2. and Vspergensis testify Wrote his Letter to Tiberius concerning Christ his Doctrine Divine Miracles Death and Resurrection whereupon that Emperour was willing to have Christ admitted amongst the Gods of Rome but was opposed by the Senate Now if Peter had been Preaching at Rome or Bishop there either the year before or that time this could not have been any News to the Emperour nor would Pilates Letter have prevail'd so much with him touching Christ as the Doctrine or especially the Miracles which Peter would for Confirming of the Faith have done there in his Name On the contrary 't is plain from the Subsequent History of the Acts That Peter was all this time in or near Jury Paul being Converted in the Second Year after Christ's Ascension as 't is commonly agreed and near the end of it as we have shew'd in his Journey to Damascus Acts. 9. did there immediately Preach the Gospel and from thence in the bordering Country of Arabia for three Years time Gal 1. 16. And upon his return to Damascus V 17 and danger of being taken escapes by a Basket out of a Window Acts 9. 24. and 2. Cor. 11. 32. And then goes up to Jerusalem to see Peter the Phrase intimates as if that were his known usual place of Residence and found him there accordingly And having staid with him 15 days Gal. 1. 18. went away for Tarsus Acts 9. 31. this must be at least in the Fourth Year of Pauls Conversion for it is expresly said after three Years and consequently in the Sixth of the Passion After this visit of Pauls and his being sent to Tarsus we are assured Acts 9. 31 32. that the Churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria and that Peter passed throughout all those quarters How many Years he spent in Preaching to those Countries is not mentioned But that amongst the rest he came to Lydda where healing Eneas that had been Bedrid Eight Years the same of that Miracle drew thither the inhabitants of Lydda and Saron who by Peters Preaching were all Converted to the Lord which argues he bestowed some considerable time there Thence he was sent for to Joppa raised dead Dorcas to life and tarried there many days Some days he staid with Cornelius And after all returning to Jerusalem the Circumcised seem'd scandaliz'd at his Preaching to the Gentiles whom he satisfies in that point Acts 11. 2. and continues there until he was imprisoned by Herod the King and miraculously delivered Acts 12. Which Chapter no man can read comparing it with the last Verse of the Chapter foregoing but he must believe that it was the intent of St. Luke the Inspired Penman to signifie that this Imprisonment of Peter and death of Herod were both in one year and the latter very suddenly after the former For Chap. 11. 30. he tells us of Barnabas and Saul's being sent up with Contributions from Antioch to Jerusalem then immediately proceeds Chap. 12. to relate the killing of James and this Imprisonment and deliverance of Peter to which he forth with subjoyns That Herod having in vain sought for him went down to Caesarea where assuming Divine Honours he was eaten of Worms and died and then adds But the Word of God grew and multiplied And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their Ministry c. Peter therefore was at Jerusalem in the year and about the time that King Herod died But Herod died in the fourth year of the Reign of Claudius and 12th after the Passion which I thus prove First Josephus testifies that this Herod whom he calls Agrippa obtain'd not leave to go to his Kingdom of Jewry till the second year of Caligula And the same Author saith that the said Herod died in the seventh year of his Reign Therefore since Caligula Reigned in all not full four years it follows that Herod could not dye before the fourth year of Claudius who was Caligula's Successor Secondly This is further confirm'd by that Passage That the Tyrians and Sidonians against whom this Herod had conceiv'd a displeasure and to chastize whom he went down to Caesaria presently after Peter's deliverance made Friends to obtain Peace of him because says the Text Vers 20. their Countrey was nourish'd by the Kings signifying that during the Famine then raging they had Provisions from thence Which Dearth or Famine was that which Agabus the Prophet had some time before prophesied of at Antioch of which 't is generally said Acts 11. 28. That it came to pass in the days of Claudius but as other Authors particularly Vspergensis have noted it was in the fourth year of Claudius Thus I conceive it very plain and certain that Peter was constantly in and about Judea till the fourth year of Claudius that is the 12th of the Passion and 45th of our Lords Nativity which not only leaves no room for his seven years Episcopacy at Antioch which is supposed to have been before this time but also utterly overthrows the Conceit of his Arriving at Rome in the second year of Claudius and so perfectly annuls the credit of their principal Evidence and razes the story at the very Foundation so that we might well enough spare our pains in searching any further But we will not stand with them for a few years mistake but examine quite thorough and give them full measure heaped up pressed down and running over That Peter was at Jerusalem at the death of the Virgin Mary the Fifth year of Claudius that is the 13th after his Passion is attested by Nicephorus L. 2. Ca. 21. but be that as it will 't is certain he was there in the 16th year of the Passion at the Assembly of the Apostles and Brethren mentioned Acts 15. and made a Speech there as appears V. 7. of that Chapter Now to prove that this Synod was held at this time viz. the 16th year of the Passion Read Galatians 2. 1. Then Fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and took with me Titus also c. By which and the subsequent Context it seems evident to me that Paul thereby meaneth his coming to this Councel and not any other time of his repairing to Jerusalem and so doth St. Hierom understand it which being 14 years after St. Pauls Conversion falleth out to be in the year of our Lord 49. and the Eighth of Claudius I forget not
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