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
'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
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.
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
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
that St. Hierom and divers others that follow him date these 14 years not from Pauls Conversion but from his first Journey to Jerusalem three years after and so place this Synod Anno Dom. 51. or rather as they should say 52. in the 10th or 11th of Claudius which thought it seems to favour our Cause as proving Peter to continue so much the longer at Jerusalem or the neighbouring parts of Asia yet since my Aim in these Researches is solely the discovery of Truth I cannot admit thereof Because in the Ninth year of Claudius it was as Orosius witnesseth That the Jews were all banisht Rome And at that time Paul was at Athens as Vspergensis writeth and it appeareth likewise by the History of the Acts for Paul departing from the Councel after a tedious Journey to Antioch Syria through Cilicia and many other Regions came to Athens and thence to Corinth where he met with Aquila and Priscilla who sayth the Text were lately just then some Versions render it Come from Italy because Claudius had commanded that all Jews should depart from Rome Which shews that this Council must be held some considerable time before this Decree of Claudius that is before the 9th of his Reign If it be inquired where Peter was from the time of his delivery out of Prison in the fourth year of Claudius until this Synod in the Eighth year of his Reign I answer That as the Gests or Actions of St. Paul after Herods death amongst the Gentiles are described in the 13th and 14th Chapters of the Acts so during that time it seems clearly intimated that Peter was Labouring amongst the Jews either at Jerusalem or those dispersed in the neighbouring Territories of Asia to whom he afterwards directed his Epistle for so saith St. Paul speaking of his entertainment amongst the Apostles at this Council or coming up to Jerusalem 14 years after his Conversion Gal 2. 7. When they saw That the Gospel over the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospel over the Circumcision was to Peter for he that was mighty by Peter in the Apostleship of the Circumcision c. And in this interval I humbly conceive it was tho not specified in the Acts that Peter was at Antioch when Paul reproved him to the Face mentioned Gal. 2 since it could not well be at any time before as appears by the precedent discourse but that it was before the said Council of the Apostles at Jerusalem seems very probable because if it had been afterwards viz. when the matter had been so solemnly determined that Circumcision was not necessary Peter could not have had any scruple of eating with the Gentile Believers nor fear of offending them in that point that came from James Thus until the 16th year of the Passion Eighth of Claudius Peter came not within One Thousand Miles of Rome In the Ninth of Claudius all Jews were Banisht Rome as is proved before therefore then Peter could not be there Nor was nor had he been there in the 12th of Claudius for then Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans and undoubtedly if Peter had been the Founder or Bishop of that Church then or at any time before Paul would in so large a letter have taken some occasion to recommend his Pains and to exhort them to continue in the Doctrine of the Prince of the Apostles but on the contrary tho he concludes with particular Salutes to 24 Persons by name besides several Housholds and divers of them Women yet he does not so much as mention Peter Now if Peter had been Bishop there and soveraign Head of the Apostles that omission of paying his respects to him whilst he did it to so many others of inferiour condition would have been not only a Soloecism in Civility but a failure in Duty But how does it appear that this Epistle was wrote at this time Thus Ch. 15. 28. Paul uses this discourse Having now no more place in these parts that is about Antioch whence this Epistle is dated and having a great desire these many years to come unto you whensoever I take my Journey into Spain I will come to you but now I go into Jerusalem c. so that 't is evident this was wrote upon his Journey sometime going to Jerusalem we must therefore consider at what time especially this was for we read of Paul's going thither five several times the first in the Ninth the second in the Twelfth the third in the 15th the fourth in the 18th and the fifth in the 21th Chapter of the Acts But it could be in none of the first three Journeys for he had not then met with Timothy whom he found not till a good while after his return from the Synod at Jerusalem Acts 16. 1. but at the writing of this Epistle Timothy was with him for he sends Salutations from him Ch. 16. 21. Nor seems it to be the fourth time mentioned Acts 18th for V. 1. ere Paul return'd to Jerusalem it is said that he departed from Corinth and Priscilla and Aquila were then at Rome for thither he sends salutations to them It remains therefore that this Epistle was written just before Pauls last comming up to Jerusalem which agrees with what is said Acts 19. 20. compared with the before-cited Text Rom. 15. 23. And such his last Journey thither was in the 12th of Claudius For being there taken Faelix was then Governour Acts 23. 24. who as Josephus witnesseth was not made President of Judea till the 11th of Claudius And by Tertullus's Oration to him accusing Paul we may gather that he had then for some time a year at least been in that command so that it must be about the 12th of Claudius Which further appears for that it is said Paul had been two years a Prisoner when Portius Festus came to be Governour instead of Faelix who was sent thither by Nero as soon as he came to the Empire wherefore since Claudius died in his 14th year and Festus came presently after and Paul had been then two years a Prisoner it follows that such his last coming to Jerusalem and the writing of this Epistle must be in or about the 12th year of Claudius the 20th of the Passion and of our Lords Birth 53. And consequently at that time for the Reasons aforesaid we may justly believe Peter was not at nor Bishop of Rome Nay St. Ambrose upon the Epistle to the Romans saith that he had read in certain Antient Books that at the sending of this Epistle Narcissus to whose family salutation is sent was the senior Bishop or Elder of the Congregation at Rome Again Peter neither was nor had been Bishop of Rome in the second year of Nero the 24th of the Passion and 57th of the Incarnation for then Paul came thither as is testified by Eusebius Vrspergensis and others at whose arrival St. Luke who was then with him saith Acts 28. 15. The Brethren hearing of us came
forth to meet us c. But we hear not a word of Peter's either coming or sending to Paul which undoubtedly if he had been Bishop there he would have done nor would St. Luke have neglected to record it But the third day after Paul sending for the chief of the Jews and reasoning with them about the Faith they answer'd him thus We will hear what thou dost think for touching this Sect the Christians it is every where spoken against and when at a day appointed Paul had preached unto them the Jews fell at variance about it for some Believed and some Believed not All which shews that the Jews at Rome had heard very little of Christ before Pauls arrival which could not have been if Peter the peculiar Apostle of the Circumcision had then or for a matter of fourteen years ever since the second of Claudius or indeed for any time before been at Rome and Bishop there In the Third and Fourth years of Nero two whole years says the Text Acts 28. 30. Paul continued a Prisoner at large at Rome after his coming thither Now that Peter was not in any of that space there we rationally conclude not only because Nicephorus L 2. Ca. 3. saith That during all that time St. Paul lived by the labour of his Hands whereas if Peter had been there in his Pontifical Dignity he would certainly have caused him to be better provided for but especially for that in the several Epistles written by Paul from thence in that time partly and partly perhaps some time after for how much longer he continued at Rome than after the said two years elaps'd we have no certain account he no where makes mention of Peter which if Peter had been look'd upon as Soveraign of the Church and his being Bishop of such a Place a matter of so great Importance could never have been especially since Paul had often very just occasion to have taken notice thereof As in that to the Galatians where Paul being inforc'd to assert the Authority of his Doctrine and Apostleship which some sought to impair speaks much of the former acquaintance between him and Peter but not a word of seeing him at this time when Peter's Testimony by subscription or otherwise would readily have satisfied those Opposers or Paul instead of all the Arguments he makes use of might have said no more then this Here is Peter the Prince of the Apostles Bishop of this City which he has chosen to be the fountain of Eclesiastical Jurisdiction and infallible Judge of Controversies to the Worlds end who does at this instant own and allow my Apostleship and give me the right hand of Fellowship Nay Paul in these Epistles does not only omit to mention Peter but uses Words that in effect deny his being then at Rome As in that to the Colossians which must be Written about this time because therein mention is made of Demas as being then with Paul who afterwards forsook him as appears in the second of Timothy having told them that Aristarchus his Fellow Prisoner and Marcus Sisters Son to Barnabas and Jesus called Justus who are of the Circumcision saluted them Colos 4. 10. 11. He adds These only are my fellow-Helpers which I understand of those of the Circumcision to whom he had just before restrain'd his speech for presently he mentions Epaphras Luke and Demas who possibly might be Greeks unto the Kingdom of God who have been a Comfort unto me To Philemon he sends Salutations from the same Persons and calls them again his fellow-Labourers Now was Peter supposing too that he long before and at that time was Bishop of Rome Inferior to these Was he not worthy to be Named Were the Salutations the Benedictions of the Apostles not to be expected At my first Defence I take it to be before Nero at this time we are Treating of saith the same Apostle No man stood with me but all men forsook me 2 Tim. 4. 16. Can we imagine with any kind of sobriety that Peter was then at Rome Whether St. Paul departed from Rome immediately after the said two years of his being a Prisoner at large is not specified in Scripture but 't is reasonable to believe that in that space having so well Planted the Gospel there he might as soon as opportunity would admit Travel into other Parts to disseminate the same glad Tidings and especially in Spain which Countrey it appears Rom. 15. 24. he had long before designed to Visit some Authors say that not only he but St. Peter too was in our Britain which I take to be as true as that Peter was Bishop of Rome But very plain it is that Paul did again return to Rome and was there not long before his Death for in his second Epistle to Timothy he Writes I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand c. Ch. 4. 6. Now as it appears both by the Subscription and Circumstances that this Epistle was Dated from Rome when Paul was brought that is in danger or ready shortly after to be brought before Nero the second time so 't is agreed that Paul suffer'd near the End of Nero's Reign but at that time Peter was not at Rome for Paul very Mournfully complains V. 10. Demas hath forsaken me having loved this present World and is departed into Thessalonica Crescens to Galatia Titus into Dalmatia only Luke is with me Therefore do thy diligence to corie shortly unto me and bring Mark with thee for he is profitable unto me for the Ministry If only Luke were with him at Rome then Peter was not there nor do we hear a syllable of his two pretended Suffragans Linus and Cletus If Peter had been there at that time what need of such earnest sending so far as Ephesus for Timothy Nor had Peter been at Rome in any of the Intermediate Years after Pauls first Arrival as may be Collected from that Passage in Tacitus where Relating how Nero endeavoured to cast the Odium of Burning of Rome which happen'd near the end of his Reign upon the Christians he takes notice that then or about that time that Sect had began to Revive again or encrease more than for some years before which may well be understood in this sense That the Christians who during Pauls absence had somewhat declined did now at his return begin to Re-flourish and Multiply But if Peter in that Ten years space or thereabouts of Pauls Absence had been at Rome exercising his Episcopacy there could have been no place-for that Observation of the Christian Religions REVIVING which supposes a Decay for some years before at that Particular Juncture CHAP VII Objections answer'd and one Argument added That we cannot without great Dishonour to St. Peter imagine him to have been Bishop of Rome as is pretended TO avoid this plain deduction from Holy Scripture Cardinal Bellarmin is forc'd to use a great deal of Pains and Art and thus at
Communion But about the year 1595. One Florimond de Raemond a French Councellour at Burdeaux undertook in an Elaborate Treatise to Refute the whole story But by what Arguments That no Authors living at the same time with this pretended Papess are found to attest it Nor any till Marianus Scotus 200 years after her That the rest of the Authors tho Numerous blindly followed him and suckt in his Errour That the several Relators agree not in their Tale That the latter Writers had Invented several Circumstances but he cannot charge them with Corrupting of Books nor Forging of Authors to render it more Plausible That the whole thing and its several parts are not Probable c. Now there is not one of these Topicks but will serve as well nay much better to Impugn the story of St. Peters being Bishop of Rome for as the latter tends exceedingly to the Advancement of that See and the former to its Dishonour so considering what an Ascendent its Bishops had got over the Christian World 't is much more probable that a fiction in their Favour should be promoted than that the other if indeed it were a fiction from which no Advantage could possibly be hop'd to be derived to the Relators should for a series of so many years pass Current and without Opposition For my own part I must Ingenuously avow without presuming to determine Dogmatically either way that having Read Erreur Populaire on the one side and our I earned Coke on the other nay I will add Blondellus his Posthume Book on that Subject which seems to favour their Opinion who deny there was any such Papess I cannot find any more Reason to believe there ever was a Pope Peter than I do that there might be a Pope Joan. 3. As to the Authority of the Fathers besides those Counterfeits already discovered which are Unworthy of that Venerable Nam there is not One so much as alleadged who Wrote within one hundred years and upwards after the supposed time of Peters death that mentions his being or dying at Rome Afterwards Justin Martyr who flourisht about the year of our Lord 170. and Tertullian 219. are Cited for it but as 't is well known and confessed by Learned Romanists that there are now abroad several Counterfeit Books in the Names of the Antieuts so wherever they do in their Genuine Works seem to Intimate St. Peters being at Rome 't is most Probable they might take the same on Trust from Papias or Common Fame and looking on it as an indifferent thing thought not themselves concern'd nor the matter worth while strictly to Enquire into the bottom of that Opinion and so might be therein mistaken as in other matters of Fact happening not very long before their own times For the same Tertullian who is therein followed by Clemens Alexandrinus and by Lactantius says That our Lord Christ suffered in the 15th year of Tiberius and the 30th of his own Age As on the contrary Irenaeus contends That Christ Preached almost to 50 Years of Age and suffered under Claudius For each of which Opinions Antient Tradition is by them Alledged yet are they both contrary to the Evangelists and all sound History which yet Reflects no further dishonour on those Holy Fathers than that they were Men Capable of being mistaken and were Unwarily deceived by Relying too much on pretended Traditions As far therefore as I can perceive the Opinion of â—t Peters having been at Rome began first to be Industriously and commonly Advanc'd about or soon after the Reign of Constantine For Eusebius who surviv'd to Write the Life of that great Emperour speaking of Nero tells us This Enemy of God set up himself to the Destruction of the Apostles for they Write That Paul was Beheaded and Peter Crucified by him at Rome And that which maketh for the Credit of the story is that it is COMMONLY REPORTED that there be Church-Yards unto this day bearing the Name of Peter and Paul In like manner Gaius a Roman and an Ecclesiaastical Person and after Zepherinus Bishop of Rome Writing unto Proclus Chief of the Cataphrygian Hereticks says thus I am able to shew the Banners of the Apostles for if thou wilt walk into the Vatican or the Ostiensian-way thou wilt find there Victorious Banners of such as have founded this Church And that they were both Crown'd with Martyrdome at the same time Dionisius Bishop of Corinth declares in his Epistle to the Romans in these Words And you Observing so goodly an Admonition have Coupled in one the Building of the Roman and Corinthian Churches perform'd by Peter and Paul for they both Instructed us when they Planted our Church of Corinth Thus Eusebius From whose Words it is Observable That he does not at all assert Peters being Bishop of Rome nor positively that he was ever there but only tells us that they Write that is 't is Written by some body or other but says not by whom That Peter and Paul were both put to Death by Nero at Rome which yet it seems he lookt up but as an Hear-say and Doubtful and therefore to Confirm it adds That it makes for the Credit thereof that it was commonly Reported that there were to his time Burial-places that wore the Names of Peter and Paul As if after so many Books forged in Peters Name a false Tomb might not two or three hundred years after his Death be assign'd to him As to what he Cites from Gaius who he says was a Roman and succeeded Zepherinus the Words Import nothing of Peters being Bishop of Rome but seem intended to prove that the Church of Rome was founded by some of the Apostles whose Monuments were to be seen in the Vatican and Ostiensian-Way But as in the Catalogue of Popes there is no such Person as Gaius found to succeed Zepherinus so we heard before from a Decretal Epistle that it was Pope Cornelius that removed the Bodies of Peter and Paul from the Catatombae to the Vatican and Ostiensian-way Now this Cornelius became Bishop of Rome as appears by their own Chronologists 51 years in time and the sixth Bishop in Order after Zepherinus How then could Zepherinus Successor the words plainly imply his next Successor talk of their Monuments being there in his time The other Witness Cited by Eusebius is Dionisius of Corinth who besides that he is the same Man who as Eusebius elsewhere tells us did in his own Life-time complain that his Writings were abused and added to his words as here Related seem to signify that as there was very early a kind of Vanity or Emulation in Churches and Persons which prompted them to boast of those that Converted them which is reproved by Paul in that Text I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas c. so this Bishop of Corinth would have his Church of Corinth to be Planted both by Peter and Paul and therefore to be the more nearly Related to the