Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A33943
|
A modest enquiry, whether St. Peter were ever at Rome, and bishop of that church? wherein, I. the arguments of Cardinall Bellarmine and others, for the affirmative are considered, II. some considerations taken notice of that render the negative highly probable.
|
Care, Henry, 1646-1688.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing C529; ESTC R7012
|
75,600
|
120
|
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
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.