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
Church of Rome whom he supposed and perhaps the Romans might give it out so to have the same Founders every Countrey almost in process of time such is the Natural Itch of Ambition and Vainglory in Man pretending to have been Converted by some Apostle or Illustrious Name though often times the Preaching of the Gospel amongst them was like it self by very mean and as to Outward Glory or Fame Contemptible Instruments But from this Testimony of Eusebius we may Rationally Collect That in his time Peters being at Rome was but a dark kind of business provable only by Reports and such odd Testimonies of a few Obscure Authors that have as little Weight as Clearness But how then came the same afterwards to be so generally Entertained and Believed and several of the Fathers to call Rome St. Peters Chair To this may be Answered That the Bishops of Rome after Constantine had raised them to a high degree of Wealth and Reputation puft up with Ambition from their presiding over the Imperial City began to aspire above their Brethren and first Claim'd a Primacy and Right of Receiving Appeals from all parts not Jure Divino or as Successors to St. Peter but as Granted to them by Councils and to that purpose forged two Canons on the Famous Nicene Council as is mentioned before but finding themselves Cut short and Baulkt therein by the sagacity of the Council of Carthage they cast about to derive a Supremacy over all other Churches from an higher Title and Observing Peter to have been one of the most Eminent Apostles and some Words to have been spoken to him by our Saviour that might Colourably be wrested to Intimate as if he had some kind of Superiority over or greater Priviledge than the rest they would have it believed That he was the Founder of their Church and though sometimes they joyn'd Paul with him because the Scriptures gave such Illustrious Testimonies of his pains there yet for the most part Peter without the least Countenance from but rather against the Tenour of Scripture had the greater Vogue and Preference and knowing the Mobile are easie to be deceived with Names and Titles and apt to frame Idaeas of things past from what appeared at present they gave out That he was Bishop of Rome To this purpose they press'd all the Fragments of Antiquity into the Service Papias's Conjecture was made an Authentick proof and this saying of Eusebius and his hear-says must pass for Vndoubted Evidence Yet not therewith Content abundance of other Writings were Counterfeited under Antient Venerable Names as I made appear before and thus in short time the story might gain Credit And Whenever any of the Fathers though Unwarily deceived by a Spurious Tradition or the Common Vogue not thinking it perhaps a matter much worth Enquiring into as not dreaming what strange Inferences would thence be made in after times spoke thereof in a stile Accommodated to Vulgar Opinion and call'd Rome St. Peters Chair or her Bishop Peters Successor this was filed as a fresh Testimony of the Truth and Certainty of the matter of Fact Having once gain'd this point that it was believed That Peter Preach'd at Rome which they call'd his being Bishop there They proceeded further to pretend That not only Peter had a Soveraign Power confer'd upon him but that the same was derived to them as his Successors And so Thou art Peter I will give thee the Keys I have Pray'd for thee Here are two Swords c. became sufficient Arguments both that Peter was Prince of the Apostles Vicar of Christ and Chief Governour of the Universal Church And that he being so Dignified and Bishop of Rome all the succeeding Bishops of that See being his Successors must be Invested with the same Authority And consequently That the Church of Rome was the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches and is Infallible and the only Catholick Church That the Pope has a direct Soveraignty over all the World in Spirituals and indirect in Ordine ad Spiritualia c. All which being Closely and Vigorously though Gradually pursued in Ignorant tures and especially after the Roman Bishops by the favour of Pâ—â—cas the Traytor had gain'd the Title of Vniversal and an Ascendent over a great part of the Christian World when every thing tending to the Honour and Advantage of that See met with Encouragement and the Roman Bishops only were Capable of bestowing Preferments and all were Snibb'd and Crusht that durst offer any thing that displeased them 't is no wonder if for many Ages scarce any at least whose Writings yet remain for we know who had then the keeping of all Libraries durst openly controvert or deny St. Peters being at Rome and Bishop there Since this was a Blow at the Root and struck effectually at the Popes Supremacy Infallibility and other Pompous Claims which are all founded on that Pretence Touching which what need I say more But briefly sum up the state of the whole matter If St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome or so much as ever there be not provable by Scripture nor any other Convincing Arguments but whatever can be said for it is easily Answered and rendered not so much as Probable If the Witnesses of the story are at Open Wars and Contradictions in the Circumstances yet all pretending to a most punctual Exactness and the Learned'st and most Subtle Advocates of the Party Sweat in vain to Invent even so much as Colours to Reconcile them If from Scripture and History and a due Comparison of all Circumstances it is improbable to the highest Degree That ever Peter was at Rome much more that he was Bishop thereof If the story depend on Counterfeit Authors or such as justly are of little Credit and abundance of shameful Forgeries have been invented and made use of to support it If it be Derogatory to the Honour of St. Peters Memory to assert it In fine If it be no difficult task to apprehend and shew by what Methods and Degrees it might be advanc'd to popular Credit and for what Ends If I say all this be made appear and how far this brief Disquisition may be satisfactory that way is left to the Judicious Unbigotted Peruser and Posterity to Determine I conceive the old Out-cry of Great is Diana of the Ephesians The Noâ—â—e of St. Peters Chair and Peters Successors will henceforth abate so newhat of it's Influences or indeed signify very little unless it be to Expose their Confidence that Use it However If any shall still be Amus'd and Prevail'd upon by those Empty Sounds and Vnravell'd Charms I may perhaps admire their Faith or rather pitty their Weak Credulity but must crave leave to say That till my Reason is better satisfied which with the Uttermost Diligence and Impartiality I have endeavoured It shall have no Room in my Creed And so Reader Farewell FINIS An end of Controversy desirable By what obstructed The occasion of this Discourse *
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