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
expresly tells us Euodius was its first Bishop And so far likewise from affirming that St. Peter was Twenty five years Bishop of Rome that he does not say he was Bishop of Rome at all but only that Peter having first founded the Church of Antioch went to Rome Peter's being Bishop of Rome Twenty five years is none of Eusebius's Testimony there being not a Syllable to that purpose in the Original Greek in which Language he wrote but those words were foisted into the Latin Copies which are very much Interpolated and corrupted as may be seen by Scaliger's Animadversions Hence that Learned Roman Catholick Valesius publickly acknowledges Sciendum est Eusebium Apostolos in Ordine Episcoporum minime Numerare That Eusebius did not rank the Apostles in the Order of Bishops Nay 't is plain that those Ancients who speak of Peter's being Bishop of Rome do use the word Bishop in a large sense to imply that during his abode there which upon Papias's conjecture and vulgar same they supposed he Preach'd unto and took care of that Church For the same persons do no less affirm That Paul also was Bishop of the same Church at the same time which cannot be understood but in such a large sense as aforesaid Hence Ruffinus says Linus Cletus fuerunt ante Clementem Episcopi in Vrbe Roma sed superstite Petro videlicet ut illi Episcopatus Curam Gererent iste vero Apostolatus Impleret Officium Linus and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before Clement but whilst Peter was yet alive They performing the duty of Bishops and He attending to the Office Apostolical In which words tho he who flourisht towards the end of the 4th Century takes for granted Peter's being at Rome yet he plainly distinguishes the Apostolical and Episcopal Offices and refers them not to one but several persons and so denies that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome naming two others who govern'd that Church in that capacity during his life time Let us consider Cui Bono to what purpose serves this Assignment of a fictitious Episcopacy to Peter Whatever Priviledges could attend his person were bestowed upon him either as a Believing Disciple of Christ or as an Apostle As such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given unto him As such he was commanded to feed the flock of Christ as such Christ promised to build the Church on the Faith he professed as an Apostle he with the rest had the care of all Churches that is as far as every one was able committed unto him As an Apostle he was Divinely inspired and enabled infallibly to reveal the mind of Christ Now all these things belonging to him as a Believer and Apostle I desire to know what further Priviledg could accrue to him besides as Bishop of any particular place were it either Antioch or Rome If the Romanists will shew us any body succeeding Peter in the enjoyment of those extraordinary Priviledges before mentioned they must bespeak such person to succeed him in his Apostleship and not in his pretended Bishoprick For whatever Authority Power or Jurisdiction Peter had over all Churches in the World or whatever unerring Judgment in matters of Faith the same belonged unto him as he was an Apostle long before he is fancied to have been the Bishop of any particular place so that if it were necessary that some one should succeed Peter in his Episcopacy Why not much more necessary in his Apostleship And then why was it not needful that Paul should have a Successor as well as Peter and John the survivor of all the rest of the Apostles as well as any of them Again If we must believe the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor it will I hope not be unlawful to enquire wherein And therefore I demand 1. Doth the Pope succeed St. Peter in all that he had in Commission and was empowered to do in reference unto the Church of God Doth he succeed him in the manner of his Call to his Office Peter was called immediately by Christ in his own person The Pope is Elected by the Conclave of Cardinals concerning whom their Office Priviledges Power and Right to choose the Successor of St. Peter there is not one syllable either in Seripture or any Monuments of pure Antiquity for divers hundred years and how many times the Cardinals have been Influenc'd by powerful Strumpets Baronius himself has inform'd us and how much in latter Ages to this day the Factions of several Princes prevail cannot be unknown to any that is not a stranger to History and the Modern Transactions of the World 2. Doth the Pope Succeed Peter in the way and manner of his personal Discharge of his Office and imployment Not in the least For Peter in the pursuit of his Commission and Obedience unto the Command of his Lord travel'd to and fro Preaching the Gospel and planting and watering the Churches of Christ in Patience Self-denial Humility Zeal Temperance and Meekness whereas the Pope Reigns at Rome in ease exalting himself above Kings and without taking the least pains in his own person for the Conversion of Sinners or edification of the Disciples of Christ 3. Doth every Pope or Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in his personal qualifications which were of such extraordinary advantage to the Church of God in his days viz. His Faith Love Holiness Light and Knowledg This cannot with any modesty be alledged since the best Historians of the Roman Cast confess many Popes to have been grosly Ignorant and flagitiously Wicked 4. Doth the Pope succeed Peter in the way and manner of Exercising his Care and Authority towards the Churches of Christ As little as in any of the rest For Peter did it by his Prayers for the Churches by his personal Visitation and Instruction of them by his Writings Divinely inspired for their direction and guidance according to the Will of God But the Pope proceeds by Bulls and Consistorial Determinations executed by Intricate Processes and Officers unknown not only to Peter but all Antiquity and whose Ways Orders Terms and Practices St. Peter himself were he here again upon Earth would as little understand as approve 5. Doth the Pope succeed Peter in his personal Infallibility Let the Romanists agree if they can amongst themselves upon an Answer to this Question Or doth he succeed him in his power of working Mirales I do not hear that his present Holiness pretends to that Talent tho Pope Gregory 7. seems to have had some inclinations that way when he was wont to scare the people by shaking fire out of his sleeve as Cardinal Benno relates the Story Lastly Doth the Pope succeed Peter in the Doctrine that he taught It hath been prov'd a Thousand times and we are ready when ever call'd upon to demonstrate it again That he doth not but hath added to detracted from and many ways perverted it Wherein then doth this Succession of the Pope to Peter which
second of Claudius and consequently does utterly overthrow the Roman Account Now the Question will be Whether Peter after this Compact either Continued or Undertook to be Bishop of the Gentiles at Rome or not If he did He not only contradicted his particular Commission which our Lord had given him to be the Apostle of the Circumcision and neglected the Jews who were so Concredited to his proper Charge but also Violated his late solemn Agreement On the other side If at the time of this Agreement he either were not Bishop of Rome or then left it It follows that he continued not Bishop of Rome four or five and twenty years as with great Confidence and small Reason is pretended Again 'T is nothing likely if Peter had been then Bishop of Rome or designed ever to go and fix his Seat there at any time afterwards that he would have entered into such an Agreement Ay but says Bellarmin those words that they should go to the Circumcision are to be qualified and understood not Absolutely but Comparatively as much as to say They should Chiefly or Principally Preach to the Jews and in like manner Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles Be it so We ask no more for even then this shews either that he was not then Bishop of Rome or must be taken as a Relinquishment of his Roman Diocess and transferring the Title and Cure thereof to Paul for if he were the stated Bishop of Rome the chief City of the Gentiles how could he promise to bestow his Chief Pains on the Jews Or having so promised principally to Attend the Jews how could he continue the proper Bishop of Rome and presently after Resort back thither and spend almost all the rest of his days amongst the Gentiles Was not this immediately to Violate that solemn Compact Moreover If Peter were seven years Bishop of Antioch and afterwards 25 years of Rome He must in all be 32 years in Syria and Italy undertaking the Charge and Cure of the Gentiles in those Provinces And if his Martyrdom was as Baronius Computes Anno Chr. 69. The said two and thirty years being deducted brings us back to the year of Christ 37. but two or three after Christs Crucifixion so that in all he could spend but three years at most amongst the Jews And why then is he so Emphatically stiled The Apostle of the Circumcision Wherefore since this Roman Pretence does by its Unavoidable Consequences cast a Reproach on St. Peter as if he had deserted that Charge which God had committed unto him as if he had Notoriously Violated that Solemn Agreement which himself had voluntarily and on just considerations entred into since it represents him not only as deserting the station of an Apostle by becoming a Bishop in a strict sence but also as giving a most dangerous President of removing from a lesser to a greater Bishoprick and at the same time sets him forth to be for the most part Non-Resident in both his Diocesses All which are things unworthy to be Believed Imagined or Suggested of that Blessed Apostle I cannot without being Injurious to his happy Memory admitt but rather look upon my self bound in Conscience and Honour to Oppose this Groundless Story as it appears to me of his being Bishop of Rome c. CHAP. VIII The Commonness of an Opinion no certain Argument of its Truth Parallel Instances given of things very generally and long Believed and Delivered by Historians yet afterwards found to be False The means and steps whereby this Notion of Peter's being Bishop of Rome seems to have been promoted The Conclusion I know nothing else considerable that remains to be taken notice of in this Enquiry save only one Grand Prejudice or Objection which the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion do much Triumph in viz. That 't is enough to satisfie any modest Man in Peter's being at Rome and Bishop of that City That the same has generally been received taken for granted for severals Ages and by abundance of Worthy Credible Writers whom Bellarmine Ennumerates and Affirms It was Wickliff's Master this must be about the year 1350. tho I cannot find Wickliff ever had any such Master did first of all raise some scruples about it And how was it possible that such a General Conceit should so long have possess'd Mens minds if the matter of Fact at bottom had not been real and undoubted To which is Answer'd 1. That common Fame has long since been branded for none of the best Evidences We have seen what Important Pretensions are bottom'd on this supposed Action of St. Peter and therefore ought to expect more Convincing Proofs of that Fact than Vulgar Rumours or Publique Credulity more easily Inveigled to swallow Fables then Verities 2. Men of the best Letters cannot always give a certain Account of the Rise and Progress of all false Opinions Errour is the Child of Night Nurs'd in the Dark by Ignorance Superstition or Self-Interest And when well-grown and gaily Dress'd it comes abroad into the World 't is too often Courted and Embrac'd as the Legitimate Off-spring of Truth Meer Fables raised by some one Inconsiderable Author do not seldom obtain wonderfully in the World and for a long time deceive not only the Mobile but even the Learned loth to Incur a Popular Odium or the Brand of Singularity and sometimes afraid of displeasing those that promote or get by the Imposture are content to let it pass We have every where Instances of this kind As at home Geoffery of Monmouth from the Name Britannia to add as he thought a Reputation of Antiquity to his Countreymen divulges a story of Brute the Trojan and presently our common Chronicles became swell'd with a long Catalogue of his Successors and how many years each of them Reigned which was generally received till some of our more Judicious Historians examined it to the bottom and think they have sufficiently prov'd it altogether Fabulous So the stories of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table so in France those of the Palladine Roland and his wonderful Chivalry found room not only amongst the Poets and Romancers but with several Historians which now are but the Proverb and Diversion of every Peasant Or to take a more Remarkable Example The Gentlemen of the Roman Church take it ill to be Urged with the story of Pope Joan and Droll it as the Absurdest of Fables how justly I am not now to dispute but 't is certain the same is Recorded by a multitude of Historians and for about 700 years for so long it was from the time of her supposed Papacy to Luther or at least for about 500 years for Marianus Scotus the first that Wrote Publickly of her whose Writings are extant flourish'd in the 11th Century and none that I ever heard of pretended to Contradict it till after Luthers time It pass'd Uncontroul'd throughout Christendome and was Related to my knowledge by above 30 Credible Authors of their own
2. Whether he dyed there 3. Whether he was Bishop of Rome 4. Whether after he had once assum'd that Bishoprick he ever chang'd it for another All which he handles after his manner severally and at large But indeed the second comprehends the first for if Peter were Martyr'd at Rome he must needs be there And the fourth though he puts most stress upon it may fitly be included under the third for if they can prove That St. Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome we shall not much trouble our selves whether he afterwards remov'd from thence both because I think the practice of a Bishops Translation from one See to another was not altogether so early in the Church their talk of the same Apostle's removal from Antioch to Rome shall be further considered anon as also because I remember not any but their own Onuphrius that hath insisted upon or objected any such matter so that the main Question is only this Whether St. Peter were ever in a proper sense Bishop of Rome And because that will be improbable in the highest degree if besides other Reasons it cannot plainly be made appear that he was at some time or other there It will therefore be sufficient to discuss these two Questions 1. Whether St. Peter were ever at Rome 2. Whether supposing he were there he was Bishop in the strict and now usual signification of the Word of that Church To prove Peter to have been at Rome Cardinal Bellarmin produces five Arguments which we shall severally consider The first from that Text 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church that is at Babylon saluteth you By Babylon here saith he is meant Rome therefore Peter when he wrote that Epistle was there Now that Peter did mean Rome by the word Babylon in that place he would prove 1. Because Eusebius Records that one Papias did say That this Epistle of Peter was written from the City of Rome which the Apostle did there Tropically call Babylon To which purpose the Cardinal also cites St. Hierom and others as being of the same Opinion or rather following Papias therein 2. Because Rome in the Revelations is frequently call'd Babylon To which I answer 1. This is proving Ignotum per Ignotius a doubtful thing by a thing utterly Improbable a controverted matter of Fact by an uncertain groundless Opinion Does not all the World know that there were at that time two great Cities whose proper name was Babylon One in Assyria famous in all ancient Histories as being the seat of the first Monarchy The other in Egypt mention'd in Strabo l. 17. and by Ptolomy called Babulis the same if I mistake not which at this day is called CAIRO or near it and why might not Peter date his Epistle from one of these For as he for the most part preached to the dispersed Jews of whom no doubt many were scattered through Chaldaea and Assyria so he might probably exert his Ministry at the first mentioned Babylon being so eminent a place on the same Continent and at no great distance from Jerusalem especicially since Nicephorus tells us he Preached all through Palestina and Syria Nor is this only my private Sentiment the great Scaliger speaks boldly Petrus Romae nunquam fuit sed praedicabat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cujus Metropolis erat Babylon ex qua scribit Epistolam suam Peter was never at Rome but preached to the dispersed Jews in Asia the Metropolis whereof was Babylon from whence he wrote his Epistle Whom the very Learned de Marca Archbishop of Paris Seconds in these Words Although the Ancients imagined That Peter by the word Babylon signified the City of Rome yet Scaliger's conjecture is probable who thinks that Peter wrote from Babylon it self this Epistle to the dispersed Jews Or on the other side if it be true which the foresaid Nicephrous writes That from Pontus Galatia c. Peter went down into Egypt Where he created St. Mark Bishop of Alexandria then why might he not send this Epistle from the Egyption Babylon so that either way by Babylon is far more likely to be understood one of those places rather than Rome For 2. What an extravagance is it to imagine that S. Peter should disguise and conceal from whence he wrote or qualifie the place which he had chosen to be his Episcopal See and perpetual Seat of Church-Soveraignty as they would have it with so uncouth a Title when there was not the least colour of reason as far as we can now learn or occasion why he should so do nor any example of the like kind to be found For though S. Luke in the Acts and S. Paul in his Epistles frequently speak of Rome yet they never call it Babylon Now when the Apostle says the Chruch at Babylon salutes you certainly he intended as all men do in their Epistles that they should know where he was and who they were that saluted them but this was I think impossible for them to do if by Babylon he meant Rome no Author either Civil or Sacred having then ever call'd it so 3. That St. John in the Revelations above fifty Years after for Baronius who says this Epistle was wrote An. Chr. 45. tells us also that the Revelation was wrote An. 97. did call Rome Babylon is nothing to the purpose for though a Tropical Denomination suit well with a Prophetick Style yet it will not follow that in a plain Epistolary Salutation a proper Name must be wrested from its genuine signification to such an abstruse and remote sense St. John writing mysterious Prophecies used Types and Figures to express future things but that Peter in a familiar Recommendation should do so has neither Truth nor Probability The Reason why St. John denominates Rome Babylon though represented in a Vision was not yet actually in Being for it was by way of allusion That as Babylon of old held the Jews the then People of God in Temporal Captivity so she should in time to come bring Christians into a Spiritual Vassalage and thence she is call'd Mystery Babylon It seems the Learned Cardinal thought some Text of Scripture would be expected to prove Peter's being at Rome and finding nothing looking that way was forc'd to hedge in this though it cost him dear for thereby he confesses and proclaims Rome to be the Apocalyptical Babylon But though an hard pinch reduced him to this necessity yet he hopes to secure his retreat by affirming That Rome is termed Babylon not in respect of the future Roman Church but as it was the Seat of the Roman Empire that then domineer'd over the Earth as Babylon did of old But this evasion is as gross as the occasion of it since 't is plain the Revelations from the 4th Chapter especially is a Prophetick Book not Historical for so are the express words there v. 1. Come up hither and I will shew things that shall be hereafter And also it relates all along to the future state