of the Church not to the present condition of Worldly Empire and almost all Interpreters agree That this Babylon which Rev. 17. is called The Scarlet Whore c. described by this Title Mystery Babylon the Great the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth can be no orher than that Antichrist which was to sit in the Temple of God that is in the Church 2 Thess 2. 4. As for what is alledged that Papias St. Jerome or others thought this Epistle of Peter might be written from Rome Tropically call'd Babylon it is at most but their Opinion touching a matter of Fact long before their time and as we have shewn that there is no need or Reason for admitting any such Trope so the Ancients may be excused if they understood not the true occasion why or in what respect Rome was call'd Babylon since that which qualified it such and was intended to be signified by the Divine Vision appeared not in the World till some Ages afterwards Whence that Mighty Monarch of Letters as well as of Great Britain King JAMES the First Grandfather to our present Gracious Soveraign in his Proemonition to all Christian Princes judiciously observed in a like Case That the Fathers of the first Ages speak of this matter but only by conjectures whereas we speak of it by experience For Scripture Predictions after the Events become Histories and the Promises Performances and so are much more intelligible 5. As for the credit of Papias the first Suggester of this Interpretation and consequently the first Author in the World for ought I can hear that gave occasion to the Conceit of Peter's ever being at Rome we shall give a further account anon In the mean time cannot but remark That this Interpretation is yet the more absurd because the same Bellarmin who to maintain Rome's Supremacy because of Peter's being there doth here without any probable grounds expound Babylon to be Rome does elsewhere ascribe that Prophecy of Isaiah cited 1. Pet. 2. Behold I put in Sion a corner-stone elect and precious c. to be meant of the Pope at least secondarily contrary not only to St. Peter and St. Paul's express Interpretation who attribute the same as indeed it wholly and solely belongs to Christ 1 Pet. 2. 6. and Rom. 9. 32. but also to that of our Lord who refers those words to himself Matt. 21. 42. so that the Cardinal makes Rome to be both Sion and Babylon he will have it Babylon to prove Peter there and Sion to exclude in effect Christ from being Head of the Church and advance the Pope in his stead The second thing for I know not how to call it an Argument brought to prove St. Peter's being at Rome is this There were many Christians at Rome nay a large and flourishing Church gathered there before Paul came thither as appears by his Epistle which 't is evident he wrote before ever he had been at Rome But who gathered that Church if Peter were not at Rome There is no doubt but the Learned Author saw through the weakness of this Discourse and therefore put it by way of Query to amuse weak heads rather than as an Argument to convince the Learned for how odly would such a Syllogism look from the Pen of a Cardinal There were Christians at Rome before Paul come thither ergo St. Peter was there before him as if there were no other Preachers of the Gospel of the blessed Jesus but those two For 1. Not to urge That though we read of Saints at Rome yet we no where find the Church of Rome or a Church at Rome mentioned in terminis the Holy Spirit possibly forbearing to qualifie it with that Title in Holy Writ as a check to their foreseen Usurpations And although it expresly tell us of several other Churches first planted by this or that Apostle yet it says not that any Apostle was the first Seeds-man of the Gospel at Rome Not to insist I say upon this 2. Let us consider how and by whom Churches were gathered in Samaria and at Antioch which they make Peter's other and first Bishoprick if we may be allowed to read and credit the Bible there we find that by a great Persecution at Jerusalem the Disciples except the Apostles were scattered abroad every where and so who knows but some of them to Rome preaching the Word Acts 8. 4. particularly Philip a Deacon in Samaria made great numbers of Converts v. 6. which when the Apostles heard of they sent thither Peter and John an odd procedure for Subjects to send their Soveraign on an errand if they had thought Peter such who having further spread the Gospel in Samaria return'd again to Jerusalem v. 25. others of the said scattered Disciples Preached the Lord Jesus to the Grecians at Antioch and many believed and were turned unto the Lord Acts 11. 19 20. whereupon Barnabas was sent to them who brought Paul into Antioch and a whole Year they viz. Paul and Barnabas assembled themselves with the Church so that there was a Church there before and taught much People and the Disciples were first called Christians there v. 26. If therefore Christianity both Name and Thing were first planted at Antioch which they say was Peter's first Diocese neither by Peter nor by any Apostle but by certain scattered Disciples why might not the like happen at Rome 3. 'T is evident that the Gospel had been Preached to many Romans at Jerusalem immediately after Christ's Ascention for when the Apostles received the Gift of the Holy Ghost and Preached in other Tongues 't is expresly said That amongst the multitude that came to hear them There were strangers of Rome Acts 2. 10. St. Paul also witnesses That Andronicus and Junia who dwelt at Rome when he wrote his Epistle that is before he came at Rome were in Christ that is professed the Christian Faith before himself which must be at least 5 or 6 years before Peter is pretended to come at Rome And that they were of Note amongst the Apostles Rom. 16. 7. Why then might not They by their pains and zeal at least in some measure gather a Church there Besides the Scriptures mention not which of the Apostles or who else in particular collected divers other Churches must they therefore all be ascribed to the particular pains of St. Peter 4. What the Cardinal affirms That none of the Ancients name any other but Peter that should first Preach the Gospel at Rome is not strictly true For he himself a little after confesses That Clemens whom they will have to be Peter's Successor in the first Book of his Recongnitions and Dorothoeus Tyrensis Record That Barnabas Preached at Rome in the Reign of Tiberius that is within 3 or 4 years after our Lords Crucifixion Whereas their most common story is That St. Peter came not there till the second of Claudius which must be about five years at least after the Reign of Tiberius
Lords Body till he come to the last Judgment Acts 3. 21. CHAP. III. Whether St. Peter were Bishop of Antioch or Rome IF it cannot be sufficiently made appear That St. Peter was ever at Rome one would think we might supersede our pains of enquiring Whether he were Bishop of Rome No saith Bellarmin many have been Bishops of Rome that never were at Rome as Clement the 5th John the 22th Benedict the 12th Clement the 6th and Innocent the 6th who being Ordained in France did always remain there How properly those Gentlemen could be called Bishops of Rome that were neither chosen there nor ever saw that City in their lives I shall not inquire not repine at his Holiness if he please to make Titular Bishops of remote places in Asia or Africk where perhaps there may not be one Christian soul living or if he will gratifie his Favourites with Episcopal Sees in Vtopia or Fairy-land such as Panormitan complains of and calls Episcopi Nullatenenses Bishops of Nullatia Diocesans of No-land But this I am pretty confident of That St. Peter who so earnestly exhorts Bishops or Elders to feed their Flocks would scarce set the first Pattern of Non-residency that ever was in the world Nor do I see any necessity for calling Clemens the 5th and the other French Popes Bishops of Rome rather than Bishops of Avignion For I am taught by a very Learned Roman Catholick That the Papacy and Bishoprick of Rome are two distinct things and not so necessarily conjoin'd but they may be separated As for example If a Pope and a Council think it convenient he may leave the Church of Rome and unite himself to another Church in which case the Church of Rome should no longer be Head nor have any Soveraignty over Christians But letting that pass we come now to consider the Arguments brought to prove Peter's being Bishop of the particular Church of Rome and because they who affirm he was so do with equal confidence maintain That he was also Bishop of Antioch for about seven years we will here take that part of the Story into our thoughts 1. That Peter was an Apostle no man that believes the New Testament can doubt but that there is some difference between an Apostle and a Bishop properly so called will I think not be denied For the Apostles were immediately called by Christ and all the World was their Diocess for so runs their Commission Mark 16. 15. Go you into all the World preach the Gospel to every Creature so that it was an Extraordinary Office consisting of Personal Priviledges as Immediate Vocation power to work Miracles Vniversality of Jurisdiction and Infallibility in all things they preached or writ relating to the Gospel being dictated unto and specially guided by the Divine Spirit But Bishops are chosen by men and have a certain Seat and Church and their Office is ordinary 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Therefore Peter being an Apostle could not I conceive be Bishop either of Antioch or Rome in the proper strict sense of the word for this had been a kind of Degrading him from a superior and more ample Office to one Inferior and Restrained I am not ignorant That as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies at large an Inspecter or Overseer every Apostle where ever he happen'd to come might be said to be Bishop of that place but not exclusively to others And thus you may if you please call Paul a General Bishop because he testifies That he had the care of all the Churches And in this respect we read of the Episcopate of Judas Act. 1. 20. His Bishoprick let another take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in such a sense St. Peter calls himself Presbyter or Elder 1 Pet. 5. 1. I also agree that Peter or any other Apostle might wherever he came act and discharge all parts of a Bishops Function whether Ministerial or Governing But all this will not Constitute him proper Bishop of this or that particular Church or of one more than another for tho a Prince in his Progress may do some acts that belong to the Office of a Mayor or other particular Governor of that Town where he happens to lodg yet it cannot be said that he is the Mayor or particular Governor of such a Corporation for that would be a Diminution of his Royal Dignity no more did the Apostles become Local Bishops because of their exercising Episcopal Power in any particular Church by virtue of their Power Apostolical wherein the other was included Nor can the first Planter or Establisher of a Church as such be stiled the Bishop of such a Church for then both Paul and Peter and all the rest of the Apostles must be Bishops of many several Diocesses 2. If Peter were Bishop either of Antioch or Rome then either he must be Ordain'd such by Christ or by men after Christ's Ascension or else he constituted himself Bishop there But nether of these three can be said Not the first for as there appears no footsteps of such an Ordination in Scripture so if by Christ he were Constituted President over any one particular Church how could he share in that Command Go forth and preach to every Nation Nor were there before our Lords Ascension any such Churches in being Not the second for then he must relinquish the Apostolical Office which he received of Christ and suffer himself to be so far Degraded by men as to undertake a meaner and more limited Office As if the Bishop of London should be made Parson of Pancras Hence too it would follow That St. Peter thenceforth instead of being Prince of the Apostles should as Bishop of Antioch or Rome be inferior to the other Apostles who were not Ordained of men nor by men Gal. 1. Not the third for no man assumeth this honour to himself Heb. 5. 4. Peter or any other Apostle might Ordain others to be Bishops in such places as needed them But that they should or would Create themselves Bishops of this or that Peculiar Church we have no Ground to believe By what Words what Rites what Ceremonies did they do it Or how when where did Peter declare himself to be the proper Bishop either of Antioch or Rome Is it not utterly incredible That Peter the Supream Head and Monarch of the Church on Earth as they pretend should for thirty two years be Bishop and have the particular Charge and Cure of Two of the greatest Cities in the Roman Empire and that too whilst most of the other Apostles were living and yet none of them nor he himself in any of their Writings should say one syllable of it nor mention so much as one single Episcopal Act done by him in either of those Cities in all that time No nor St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles nor St. Paul who lived long in Antioch and longer at Rome and had opportunity nay had
they talk so much of consist Why in his Power Authority Jurisdiction and Supremacy over the whole Church In the Ecclesiastical Monarchy with the secular Advantages of Riches Honour and Pomp that attend it An excellent contrivance In the things that Peter really enjoy'd and which were of singular advantage to the Church of God the Popes disclaim or dare not pretend any Succession unto him but fix it on things wherein he was no way concern'd but which vastly make for their own worldly Interest On this supposititious Anvil do they forge out to themselves a Monarchy direct and absolute in Ecclesiastical things over the whole Church Indirect at least and in Ordine ad Spiritualia over the whole World And this is the great Diana in making of Shrines for which the main business and livelihood of many Thousands of their inferiour Craftsmen does consist But still to prove Peter 's being Bishop of Rome the Cardinal argues from the Dignity of the Roman Church which saith he was ever accounted the chiefest of all others But there can be no other Reason why it should be so but because St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles was the proper Pastor and Bishop of that Church Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 4. For Answer to which be pleased to observe 1. What a pretty Circle is here The Church of Rome is the chief of all Churches because St. Peter was its Bishop But how does it appear that St. Peter was its Bishop Because Rome is the chief of all Churches Risum teneatis 2. As the calling Peter Prince of the Apostles is but a Complement For tho some of the fourth Century call him so yet they explain themselves to mean thereby 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or chief in Order as a Chairman or Speaker but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prince or Ruler And when the Ambiguity of the Word began to be abused unto pretensions of Preeminence the Council of Carthage expresly condemn'd it allowing none to be called Princeps sacerdotum the Prince of Priests so neither is it true That Rome was always accounted the chief of all Churches for Jerusalem was the Mother Church planted by our Saviour in person and his Twelve Apostles with whom were the Seventy Disciples such Teachers as no other Church ever had at once and from thence the Gospel was propagated to the rest of the World and to Rome it self The Church of Corinth is celebrated in Scripture for being enriched with all Vtterance and all knowledg and for coming behind in no Gift 1 Cor. 1. 5 and 7. The Church of the Ephesians for I think that place may much more justly be restrained to that particular Church than it can be applied to the Roman which we often see done is called The Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. The Church of the Thessalonians is commended for following the Churches of Judea not that of Rome tho the Epistle was wrote from thence 1 Thess 2. 14. 'T is true the Primitive Church of Rome wants not its praises too For St. Paul faith That their Faith was spoken of throughout the whole World Rom. 1. 8. That is was taken notice of in places far distant but this was because Rome was the chief City of the Empire to which strangers from all parts did dayly upon secular occasions resort Their Faith was the same that was in all Nations amongst not above whom are ye also Rom. 1. 5 and 6. But what is this commendation of their Faith then to the Church of Rome in after times when they might be declined therein for that 't was not impossible for the Church of Rome totally to fall away by unbelief we learn from the same Apostle Ch. 11. 20. And therefore he admonishes them not to be high-minded but fear 3. In the next Ages there was no such extraordinary account of the Roman Church its Bishop by the most Ancient Fathers is stiled no more than Brother Collegue or Fellow-Bishop as is evident in the Epistles of St. Cyprian Appeals to Rome were forbid by several Councils Irenaeus Bishop of Lions one of the earliest of the Fathers for he flourisht before the year 200 sharply reproved Victor Bishop of Rome because he went about to excommunicate the Eastern Chruches for not keeping of Easter after the same manner he did St. Hierom allows him no such superiority Quicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae sive alibi ejusdem est Meriti Sacerdotii whosoever saith he shall be a Bishop whether of Rome or elsewhere is of the same worth the same Priesthood Nay we have the Testimony of one that was afterwards a Pope himself I mean Aeneas Sylvius who confesses That before the Council of Nice Every Church kept to it self and there was but little respect paid to the Church of Rome And as its esteem at first began not on the account of Peter but because it was the Imperial City for so says the Council of Chalcedon held Ann. 451. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Because old Rome was the Imperial City Therefore the Fathers have rightly given Priviledges to that See So the Reverence and Vogue of Jursdiction it afterwards obtain'd was by the favoar of the Emperors and especially from the Artifices of its Bishops improving all advantages and making use of many very Carnal means very well known and therefore not necessary here to be recounted CHAP. IV. Antient Authors alledged for Peter's being Bishop of Rome considered as Papias Linus Egesippus the Decretal Epistles c. Forgeries in the name of Antiquity detected particalarly a feigned Decretal Epistle from Clemens to St. James and another from Pope Cornelius about removing Peter's Body A remarkable Testimony from Baronius ALthough I have gone through Cardinal Bellarmin's special Arguments and all that I know of producible by any of the Romanists for proving Peter to have been Bishop of Rome or at any time there and have briefly shewn as I think that none of them are free from just Exceptions nor all conjoyn'd of sufficient weight to oblige a rational mans assent much less such a firm and steady Belief as is requisite in a matter so highly concerning Religion as this is supposed to be yet since both he and other cite many pretended Antient Authors as giving Suffrages in favour of their assertion I hold it not unfit to inform the unlearned Reader whom such a specious Parade may possibly amuse somewhat more particularly concerning the same 1. This Testimony were it never so numerous is still but Humane and so cannot I conceive be a sufficient ground for any Article of Faith 2. That although we do seriously pay a just Reverence to Antiqnity yet still we hold our selves obliged in Discretion to put a difference between pure and counterfeit Records not to suffer our selves to be betrayed into an unwary prejudicial Confederacy with a parcel of neighbouring
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.
it been true we may say a kind of necessity to have mentioned it I confess were it pretended that Peter had been Bishop of Jerusalem it might seem somewhat probable for as he is stiled the Apostle of the Circumcision so 't is apparent from Scripture that he took much pains and spent seveal years in Preaching there and in the neighbouring Territories and if he were the chief or most notable of the Apostles and they were all to have several and respective Bishopricks since that of Jerusalem was the first and Mother Church from whence the Gospel was spread abroad into all the Earth other Churches being but as so many Colonies derived from thence 't was reasonable he should have the conduct thereof and be Bishop of the first that was planted in the World but there appears nothing so much colour of Reason to call him Bishop either of Antioch or Rome For as the Gospel was first Preached at Antioch by some of the scattered Believers from Jerusalem and further advanc'd by Barnabas and afterwards more fully Establisht there by Paul who both labour'd there for one whole year and with Eminent success insomuch that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch Acts 11. It might thence seem reasonable to Intitle one of them to that Bishoprick but to assign Peter thereto is to make him build on other mens foundations and to reap where he had not sown especially since we find no Intimation of his ever being there save once mentioned by the by and then so far from acting as Bishop there that he seems not throughly to have understood the state and usages of that Church but was withstood and rebuked by St. Paul Gal. 2. 11. When Barnabas and Paul had planted so flourishing a Church at Antioch would Peter meerly to shew his power thrust himself in to be Bishop there Or if he did why would he leave it and go to Rome Was it because the latter was the Richer the larger and the more Honourable So indeed Platina as you heard seems to intimate saying that it was because that Imperial City was more suitable to his pontificial Dignity But certainly Peter who heard Christ telling him amongst the other Disciples when they began to vye for superiority that it should not be so amongst them and who himself charges the Ministers of the Gospel not to carry it as Lords over the Flock committed to their charge could not so quickly forget both and abandon that Humility so much recommended by his Master and himself to seek out a splendid place to be Bishop of that thereby he and his Successors might seem great in the World Suppose Peter once Bishop of Antioch how could he Translate his See from thence to Rome unless he were removed by some Order or Mission of the rest of the Apostles or else that he himself had some special Vision or Revelation so to do But neither of these are as yet proved nor so much as attempted Osius Bishop of Corduba one of no small account amongst the 318 Fathers of the first Council of Nice in the Council at Sardis held about the year 340 did Declare That it was not Lawful for a Bishop to leave his City and undertake another for thereby it would appear that he was inflam'd with Covetousness or a slave to Ambition that he might domineer which was Synodically by the word Placet agreed unto by all the Fathers This was likewise the sense of several other Councils and that all the Acts of such a Bishop at the second place should be accounted Null and Void and he Remanded back to his former Church These being the sentiments of those Ancient Fathers certainly if Peter had removed his See from Antioch to Rome they would out of Reverence to the Prince of the Apostles have suspended their Opinions in the Case If Councils are Infallible in their Decrees then it appears Peter being once Bishop of Antioch did an ill act in Translating himself to Rome if Peter did well in Translating his See from Antioch to Rome as being the much greater and Imperial City then these Councils were Rash and did Err in such their General Condemnations of the like Removes so that either way the Authority of Peter or that of Councils must be Impaired Bellarmin indeed tells us That Peters Remove from Antioch to Rome was Jubente Domino by the Lords Command but offers no kind of proof of that Command when yet all the strength of his Argument to Confirm the Supremacy of the Roman Chair must depend thereon Let them but shew that Divine Command for Peters fixing his Episcopal Chair at Rome and it will put an end not only to this but divers other Controversies we will then readily obey our blessed Lords Command and the Popes too but they cannot produce any such Command nay confess that there is none Nullum Christi ea de re Decretum Extat no Decree of Christ is extant about that matter says Cornelius a Lapide in Apoc. 17. v. 17. If it be alledged That the Fact of the Apostle does argue Gods command as its precedent Cause and they shall urge That Peter did remove to Rome But Peter was Inspired by the Holy Ghost Therefore we ought to believe that this Translation of his seat was by the special Dictates or Guidance of the spirit I answer 1. This Argument has no place nor force until such time as they have substantially proved the fact it self that is That Peter did remove from Antioch to Rome and with an intent to establish at the latter place the seat of Ecclesiastick Empire but this cannot at all be proved or at least as yet is not 2. Cardinal Bellarmin of all men ought not however be allow'd to plead this for in his Treatise De Verbo Dei L. 4. C. 4. he sticks not to deny That Peter Paul or other of the sacred Penmen wrote the Holy Scriptures by Gods special command And will the same man without any proof obtrude on us a Command of God for placing Peter's Chair at Rome Justly may we retort his own words Mutatis mutandis in the place last cited If it had been the purposse of Christ and Peter to place the seat of Christian Empire or visible Headship of the whole Church at Rome undoubtedly it being a thing of such moment Christ would have commanded it and Peter would somewhere have witnessed That he by the Lords command fixed his seat there But this we no where read no not so much as one word that he ever was at Rome or had any thing to do there Therefore we are not bound to believe it Eusebius's Chronicon is commonly cited to prove Peter was Bishop of Antioch seven years and of Rome Twenty five years Now Eusebius does there indeed say That Peter founded the Church of Antioch which yet is plainly contrary to Scripture but so far is he from saying That he was Seven years Bishop there That he
and Idolatry came to be buried in the Temple of Apollo or how Peter could be laid in so many places at once viz. amongst the Bishops of Rome in the Temple of Apollo in the Golden Mountain and in the Vatican of Nero's Palace But further ro convince you of the Fraud Binius tho he set down this Epistle very formally as a good Record as his Predecessors in that kind had done before him yet tells us That this story of the Translation of the Apostles Bones which it attributes to Cornelius seems to be an Error crept in from amongst the rest of the Mistakes of the Pontifical attributed to Pope Damasus who lived above 100 years after this Cornelius For more truely saith he this Translation happen'd in the first Age a little after their Passion for which he cites St. Gregory the Pope who lived long after both the other Two So that it seems amongst them 't is no strange matter for a Prior Author to suck in Errors from a latter and yet for a modern Authors Testimony to overthrow that of others more Ancient and therefore more Authentick one would think in a matter of Fact relating to their own times or much nearer them than himself But this mention of the Pontifical brings into my mind 2 or 3 other pretended Ancient Authors whom I had almost forgot that are sometimes alledged to prove St. Peter's being at and suffering in Rome viz. Clement's Constitutions and Recognitions St. Abdias and the said Pontifical But all these may in a few words be dispatch'd for as for those two Books of Clements they are acknowledged by the most Learned Romanists to be Counterfeit or dubious and his Recognitions is said to be the same that is otherwise call'd his Itinerary Condemn'd by Gelasius St. Abdias of the Lives of the Apostles was first found out and set forth by one Wolphgangus Zazius not very many years ago and the Work shews it self to be vain and fictitious Insomuch that Bellarmin saith of that and the Epistles of Martial called the Apostle of France Citantur a nobis quamvis non Ignoremus eos Libros non esse tantoe Auctoritatis ut in iis Dogmata fundari possint They are Cited by us tho we are not Ignorant that those Books are not of such Authority that any certain opinions can thereon be grounded But if they know them to be of no Authority Why do they Cite them Causa patet Touching the Pontifical Liber Pontificalis in Latine or the Book of the Popes it is pretended to be written by Damasus who was Bishop of Rome Ann. 369. describing the Acts of the Bishops of Rome from Pope Peter downwards Binius affords us this Note That Damasus did not write it but rather it is patched up Consarcinatus est by divers Authors as may be proved by this That almost in every Popes Life it contains things contradictory and clashing one with another see also Baronius Anno 69. N. 37. Anno 348. N. 16. And Possevin Apparat. sacr verb. Damascus I have the longer insisted on these counterfeit Ancients because the Romanists frequently do flourish with their Names to amuse the ignorant not only in this matter but several other important Controversies but I hope by these few Remarks our People will learn what value is due to such Authors for though by dint of Reason and Authority our Opponents are now and then forced to brand these witnesses yet they shall for all that continue to vouch them of which you had but now Bellarmin's Confession and the same might be made out by a multitude of Instances which as it is the highest disingenuity so it argues some great but very bad Design And as it is an undoubted mark of an ill Cause wherein there is found Subornation Perjury or Forgery so to me it is a shrewd sign that the whole Story of Peter's being at Rome is false since there have been such ill means contriv'd or at least made use of to support and recommend it to the Worlds Credulity I shall conclude this Chapter with a very remarkable Acknowledgment from Cardinal Baronius one as well skill'd I think I may say in Antiquity as ever any that appeared for the Church of Rome who speaking of the History of the Apostles does thus Ingenuously express himself quod vers pertines c. But as to what relates to the things done by them the Apostles after they were once separated one from another 't is very obscure for since there are both Actions and Writings in the name of the Apostles found to be supposititious and if any thing were told of them by true and sincere Writers the same does not all remain intire and uncorrupted it will plainly make one despair of ever obtaining any truth and certainty therein If this most Learned Antiquary of their party found it so difficult and hopeless a Task to retreive any certainty of the Apostles Acts or Writings further than expressed in Scripture for so I conceive he would be understood from the Monuments of the Ancients because they were so confused supposititious and corrupted we ought sure at least to suspend our opinions touching Peter's being at Rome and Bishop there so many Years which with all the minute Circumstances is so confidently affirmed by less Learned Writers on such supposed Testimonies of the Ancients CHAP. V. The improbability of Peter's being Bishop of Rome argned from the Incoherences of their Testimonies who write thereof WE have gone through the proofs offered for the affirmative viz. That Peter was at Rome and Bishop there we now proceed to some Considerations which if they do not evince the contrary to every impartial mans full satisfaction must yet at least be acknowledged of such weight as may justly render the Negative probable to the highest Degree All which I shall reduce to two Heads 1. The Incoherences of the Story 2. It s unlikelihood from the account given of Peter in Sacred Scripture 1. Then the Reader must be reminded that the business of Peter's being at Rome or Bishop there depends wholly on Humane Testimony for there is but one only Text viz. That of the Church of Babylon saluteth you produced in favour of the Story and how impertinently and not without gross wresting we have shewn Now there is nothing that more invalidates Humane Evidence than Disagreement for as Truth is always uniform so falshood being various is frequentyl attended with Repugnancies and Contradictions In the story of Susanna which the Roman Church regards as Canonical the two Elders were by one variant Circumstance convict of Perjury and the falshood of those that appeared against our Blessed Lord is remark'd by the Holy Ghost from this That their Witnesses agreed not together Mark 14. 56. Now therefore let us examine separately the Witnesses in the Case before us 1. Question When did Peter come to Rome Answ At the beginning of the Reign of Claudius saith Orosins l. 7.
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
The Gentlemans skill in Arithmetick seems as extraordinary as in History when he takes 43 out of 1686 there remains precisely 1647. †Lib. 2. De Nat. Grat. cap. 61. Protestants not much concerned in the Question Things to be proved by Romanists besides Peter's being Bishop of Rome * Onuphirus in Chron. Pont. confesses 30. * De sum Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. †Cajet de Div. Instie Pontif. c. 13. Canus Loc. l. 6. c. 8. Peter's being Bishop of Rome an Article of their Faith * The very same Oath amongst other things is at this day exacted of all Protestants that are pretended to be converted to the Roman Church in France as I am very credibly assured The sum of Christianity * De sum Pontif in Praefat. The reasonableness or necessity of examining this point The Negative not undertook to be proved The two chief Questions * Annot. in Jo. 18. 31. †De concord Sacerd. Imper lib. 6. cap. 1. Sect. 4. * Lib. 14. cap. 39. * Preface to his Treatise De Pontif. Bellarmins second Proof Ans Barnabas said to Preach at Rome before Peter The Third Argument Answ The fourth Argument The Answer * Lib. 2. Ca. 15. * Bar. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68. No. 16 17. Bellarmins 5th argument for Peters being at Rome Answ Touching the place of St. Peters Death Se also afterwards ch 5. quest 4. A sixth Argument Answ * De Summ. Pontif. l 2. * De Offic Ordin C. Quoniam ‖ 2 Pet. 5. 2. †Camer acensis Qu. Vesper Act. 3. A Difference between being an Apostle and Bishop of such a particular place 2 Cor. 11. 28. Peter was not Ordained Bishop of any particular Church Peter more likely to be Bishop of Jerusalem than of Antioch or Rome * Con. Nic. Can. 15. 16. l Conc. Antioch can 21. 22. Conc. Chalcedon Can. 10. Object Answ Eusebius abused to colour Peter's being Bishop of Rome * In Not. ad Euseb l. 3. c. 21. * Praefat. Recogn Clement ad Gaudent To what purpose should Peter be a Bishop Whence the Dignity of the Church of Rome * Conc. Nic. c. 5. Conc. Melevit c. 22. †Vid. Euseb l. 5. c. 24. * Hier. ad Evagrium Epistol l. 1. Many Counterfeits under pretence of Antiquity * In Catalog * Lib. 4. Ca. 22. Of Linus * Baron ad Annum 44. N. 45. Annum 60. N. 6. Possev in Appar V. Linus Of Papias * Euseb l. 3. c. 39. †Baron Mart. ad diem Jan 26. Of Egesippus Of the Decretal Epistles What they are The Collection ascribed to Isidore a counterfeit * Pseudo Isidor cap. 2. †Histor l. 2. c. 18. * See Onuphr Chronicon Pontif. * Vide Baron in Notis Martyrolog ad 4. Apr. Baron Anno Christ 865. N. 5. †De Roman Pontif. L. 2. cap. 14. ‖ Baron ad Ann. 865. N. 5 6 7 8. * Baron Ibid. N. 7. Reasons to shew the Decretal Epistles to be Forgeries * Extrav de Rescriptis Ad Audientiam A Letter from Clement to St. James A Forgery Vide Platin. A Decretal Epistle about Removing St. Peter's Boues * The Catacumbae or Catatumboe as here written were vast publick Vaults or under-ground Repositories for dead Bodies see a handsome discourse of them at Rome and those other more spacious ones at Naples in Dr. Burnet's Letters who proves that they could not be the workmanship of the Primitive Christians for the bestowing of the bodies of their Martyrs as is commonly suggested and intimated here by this feigned Epistle but rather were cut out from the first beginning of the City for the common Burial places of the Ancient Heathens especially the Vulgar sort Slaves c. †June the 29th Proved to be a Forgery Of Clemens Of Abdias * In Recogn Of the Pontifical Baronius dispairs of any certainty of the Apostles Actions not mentioned in Scripture Of the time of Peters coming to Rome How long he staid there What Year Peter suffered Did Paul suffer at the same time * Acts 7 58. Of Peters Successor The Answer to both Whether Peter sat Seven years at Antioch before he went to Rome The History of Peter according to Onuphrius Object 1. Answer Object 2. Answer * Baron Annal Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. S. 9. †Idem ad An. 39. () Defens Pac. part 2. C. 16. () Occh. Dial. par 1. L. 2. Ca 3. Peter not at Rome the first Two Years after the Passion Nor in the Third nor Fourth Nor in the Fifth or Sixth Peter not at Rome between the sixth and twelfth year after the Passion () Joseph Antiq L. 18. Ca. 8. * Lib. 19. Ca. 7. Peter not at Rome between the 12th and 16th years of the Passion () Oros. L. 7. C. 6. () In Claud. 7. Ca. 24. Peter not at Rome before the 12th of Claudius () Lib. â—0 C. 5. Peter had not been at Rome the 24th Year after the Passion Peter not at Rome in the third or fourth year of Nero. Peter not at Rome during the rest of Nero's Reign Bellarmines Scheme of St. Peter's Travels Answ Object 2. Answer Object 3. Answ Obj. 4. Answ Object 5. Answ 'T is a Reproach to St. Peter to fancy him Bishop of Rome The story of Pope Joan and Pope Peter Compared () Anno. Chr. 855. () Tert. L. Contr. Judaeos () Clem. L. 1. Stromat () Lact. Instit L. 4. C. 4. () Iren. L. 2. Ca. 39. () Euseb L. 2. Ca. 25. Object Answer