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.
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 *
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
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
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
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
or longing Resolution to go to Rome as soon as possible Rom. 1. 13. and Ch. 15. 22. and 23. But sure Peter if he had been Bishop there would much rather have been Intent on that Journey 3. Tho Peter had been Absent yet if he had been peculiar Bishop of that Church 't is not Credible that Paul would not at all have taken notice of him for that Episcopacy of Peter there would not have been a forreign nor any of the least Causes fit to be mentioned of his giving thanks on the Romans behalf as Ch. 1. 8. or in their Praises as Ch. 16. 19. Paul doubtless would have pray'd no less for Peters prosperous return then he does for his own happy Journey And advised them too as well for to pray for the Restitution of Peter as for his own presence amongst them Ch. y 15. 30. at least in that Admonition Ch. 16. 18. where he mentions the Doctrine they had Learnt how seasonably might he have made the same Commemoration as else where he uses of himself on a like occasion 2 Tim 3. 14. Continue in what you have Learnt knowing from whom you have learnt them to witt from Peter the only Rock under Christ of the Church 'T is plain it is usual with St. Paul to lay hold on all occasions of naming with honour the faithful Ministers of those Churches to whom he wrote whether they were present or absent As 1 Cor. 16. 15. Ephes 6. 21. Phil. 2. 19. Coloss 4. 9 12 and 13. for this tended much to the Edification of the Churches And why should he not much more have done the same here where he had so Eminent Occasion for it to have given Attestation to Peter's Supream and Pastoral Office and the wonderful Happiness and Priviledge of the Romans in being under his peculiar Conduct The Cardinal urges further That nothing can be concluded from Authority Negatively I Reply Our Arguments before recited are not only drawn from Authority Negatively but also from the less to the greater Paul in his Epistle to the Romans and in several others from thence at several times mentions others less to be remembred therefore he would not have been silent of Peter if he had been at Rome 'T is also from the Genus to the Species in the places cited from Colos and Tim. for if none but such and such were there it undeniably follows Peter was not there Bellarmin would perswade us that Paul Coloss 4. 11. speaks only of his own Domesticks or such as were his proper menial Servants and in the 2d of Tim. 4. of such as were to stand his freinds to Nero. It does not appear nor is it probable that Aristarchus whom he calls his fellow Prisoner and Marcus and Justus and Luke whom he stiles the Beloved Physician were Pauls Domesticks or Servants the good holy humble Apostle did not keep so great a Retinue as an Author that Theologiz'd in Purple and vy'd dignity with Kings might be apt to imagine nor does he speak only of them but of all his fellow helpers in the Gospel and therefore ought not to omit Peter And in Timothy he speaks of such as ought to have strengthned him 2 Tim. 4. 17. in which office of Love Peter would not have been wanting nor do we read nor is it likely that Paul ever desired any Intercessors with Nero. Lastly The Cardinal says that at that time when Paul came to Rome and when he wrote these Epistles Peter perhaps was not at Rome for tho he had there fixt his Seat he was yet very often absent If they could once solidly prove that ever he was Present we would grant that he might be often absent But if his work as an Apostle did call him so frequently into other parts why would he undertake to be the proper Bishop there If Peter were absent would not Paul in such distress have mentioned and bewail'd it Or at least how came it to pass that he never mentions Linus and Cletus the two pretended Suffragan-Bishops In fine Peter it seems was four or five and twenty years Bishop of Rome but never there when the Scripture has occasion to mention either him or the Believers in that City nor could Paul ever meet him there till just they came to be put to death and that too is uncertain Thus I have not only prov'd by a Deduction seriatim that it is not credible that ever Peter De facto was at Rome but also answer'd all the Objections that I have met with made thereunto I shall conclude this Chapter with this observation That we ought not for that Reverence we bear to St. Peters memory imagine that he was seven years Bishop of Antioch and four or five and Twenty years of Rome both Cities of the Gentiles Because it appears Gal. 2. 7. first that Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision that is that the Jews were more especially committed to him as his Charge and Cure Concredited or left to his Trust so the word in the Original imports as the Gentiles were to Paul and it must be our Blessed Saviour who Commissioned both and respectively appointed them those Provinces 2dly That both of them till that time had diligently and with great success labour'd in such their several Provinces Peter amongst the Jews and Paul amongst the Gentiles V. 8. 3dly That now by mutual consent a Covenant and Agreement was entred into between James Peter and John on the one part and Paul and Barnabas on the other That the latter should go unto that is Preach the Gospel to the Gentiles and the former as before so for the future to those of the Circumcision And this was either at the Assembly of the Apostles Acts 15. or at least if they were two distinct meetings 14 years after Pauls Conversion so that Peter according to their Reckoning must then be and for some years had been Bishop of Rome besides his seven years Bishoprick at Antioch and what reason then had there been to mention only his Pains with the Circumcision and to put the same in Ballance with Paul's towards the Vncircumcision If Peter had Preached so long at Antioch and Rome had he not many Seals of his Ministry amongst the Gentiles How many Thousands might we suppose Converted by his Victory there over Simon Magus which if ever Transacted was before this time And why then do we hear nothing thereof but rather Intimations to the contrary viz. That Peter besides his Preaching to Cornelius upon an Extraordinary Occasion and some few others had then made no great Progress amongst the Gentiles but chiefly had exerted his Talent amongst the Jews so that his success with the Latter is compared with Pauls amongst the Former Which to me is a Convincing Argument That St. Peter at that time had neither been Bishop of Antioch nor Rome nor ever at the latter City which must be reckon how you can at least several years after the
Communion But about the year 1595. One Florimond de Raemond a French Councellour at Burdeaux undertook in an Elaborate Treatise to Refute the whole story But by what Arguments That no Authors living at the same time with this pretended Papess are found to attest it Nor any till Marianus Scotus 200 years after her That the rest of the Authors tho Numerous blindly followed him and suckt in his Errour That the several Relators agree not in their Tale That the latter Writers had Invented several Circumstances but he cannot charge them with Corrupting of Books nor Forging of Authors to render it more Plausible That the whole thing and its several parts are not Probable c. Now there is not one of these Topicks but will serve as well nay much better to Impugn the story of St. Peters being Bishop of Rome for as the latter tends exceedingly to the Advancement of that See and the former to its Dishonour so considering what an Ascendent its Bishops had got over the Christian World 't is much more probable that a fiction in their Favour should be promoted than that the other if indeed it were a fiction from which no Advantage could possibly be hop'd to be derived to the Relators should for a series of so many years pass Current and without Opposition For my own part I must Ingenuously avow without presuming to determine Dogmatically either way that having Read Erreur Populaire on the one side and our I earned Coke on the other nay I will add Blondellus his Posthume Book on that Subject which seems to favour their Opinion who deny there was any such Papess I cannot find any more Reason to believe there ever was a Pope Peter than I do that there might be a Pope Joan. 3. As to the Authority of the Fathers besides those Counterfeits already discovered which are Unworthy of that Venerable Nam there is not One so much as alleadged who Wrote within one hundred years and upwards after the supposed time of Peters death that mentions his being or dying at Rome Afterwards Justin Martyr who flourisht about the year of our Lord 170. and Tertullian 219. are Cited for it but as 't is well known and confessed by Learned Romanists that there are now abroad several Counterfeit Books in the Names of the Antieuts so wherever they do in their Genuine Works seem to Intimate St. Peters being at Rome 't is most Probable they might take the same on Trust from Papias or Common Fame and looking on it as an indifferent thing thought not themselves concern'd nor the matter worth while strictly to Enquire into the bottom of that Opinion and so might be therein mistaken as in other matters of Fact happening not very long before their own times For the same Tertullian who is therein followed by Clemens Alexandrinus and by Lactantius says That our Lord Christ suffered in the 15th year of Tiberius and the 30th of his own Age As on the contrary Irenaeus contends That Christ Preached almost to 50 Years of Age and suffered under Claudius For each of which Opinions Antient Tradition is by them Alledged yet are they both contrary to the Evangelists and all sound History which yet Reflects no further dishonour on those Holy Fathers than that they were Men Capable of being mistaken and were Unwarily deceived by Relying too much on pretended Traditions As far therefore as I can perceive the Opinion of â—t Peters having been at Rome began first to be Industriously and commonly Advanc'd about or soon after the Reign of Constantine For Eusebius who surviv'd to Write the Life of that great Emperour speaking of Nero tells us This Enemy of God set up himself to the Destruction of the Apostles for they Write That Paul was Beheaded and Peter Crucified by him at Rome And that which maketh for the Credit of the story is that it is COMMONLY REPORTED that there be Church-Yards unto this day bearing the Name of Peter and Paul In like manner Gaius a Roman and an Ecclesiaastical Person and after Zepherinus Bishop of Rome Writing unto Proclus Chief of the Cataphrygian Hereticks says thus I am able to shew the Banners of the Apostles for if thou wilt walk into the Vatican or the Ostiensian-way thou wilt find there Victorious Banners of such as have founded this Church And that they were both Crown'd with Martyrdome at the same time Dionisius Bishop of Corinth declares in his Epistle to the Romans in these Words And you Observing so goodly an Admonition have Coupled in one the Building of the Roman and Corinthian Churches perform'd by Peter and Paul for they both Instructed us when they Planted our Church of Corinth Thus Eusebius From whose Words it is Observable That he does not at all assert Peters being Bishop of Rome nor positively that he was ever there but only tells us that they Write that is 't is Written by some body or other but says not by whom That Peter and Paul were both put to Death by Nero at Rome which yet it seems he lookt up but as an Hear-say and Doubtful and therefore to Confirm it adds That it makes for the Credit thereof that it was commonly Reported that there were to his time Burial-places that wore the Names of Peter and Paul As if after so many Books forged in Peters Name a false Tomb might not two or three hundred years after his Death be assign'd to him As to what he Cites from Gaius who he says was a Roman and succeeded Zepherinus the Words Import nothing of Peters being Bishop of Rome but seem intended to prove that the Church of Rome was founded by some of the Apostles whose Monuments were to be seen in the Vatican and Ostiensian-Way But as in the Catalogue of Popes there is no such Person as Gaius found to succeed Zepherinus so we heard before from a Decretal Epistle that it was Pope Cornelius that removed the Bodies of Peter and Paul from the Catatombae to the Vatican and Ostiensian-way Now this Cornelius became Bishop of Rome as appears by their own Chronologists 51 years in time and the sixth Bishop in Order after Zepherinus How then could Zepherinus Successor the words plainly imply his next Successor talk of their Monuments being there in his time The other Witness Cited by Eusebius is Dionisius of Corinth who besides that he is the same Man who as Eusebius elsewhere tells us did in his own Life-time complain that his Writings were abused and added to his words as here Related seem to signify that as there was very early a kind of Vanity or Emulation in Churches and Persons which prompted them to boast of those that Converted them which is reproved by Paul in that Text I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas c. so this Bishop of Corinth would have his Church of Corinth to be Planted both by Peter and Paul and therefore to be the more nearly Related to the
Imprimatur April 6. 1687. GVIL. NEEDHAM A MODEST ENQUIRY WHETHER St. PETER WERE EVER AT ROME AND Bishop of that CHURCH WHEREIN I. The Arguments of Cardinal Bellarmine and others for the Affirmative are Considered II. Some Considerations taken notice of that render the Negative highly Probable LONDON Printed for Randall Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. A MODEST ENQUIRY WHETHER St PETER were Bishop of Rome Or ever there c. CHAP. I. The Occasion of this Disquisition is Administred by the Romanists It does not much concern Protestants But of the highest Importance to the Church of Rome as being made an Article of Faith and her loftiest Pretensions bottom'd thereon To overthrow which 't is enough if we shew That their Arguments are not Cogent THERE is no man I think can desire more heartily than thy self the accomplishment of that Prophecy When Swords shall be turn'd into Plow-shares and Spears into Pruning-hooks All the Weapons of Contention changed into Instruments for cultivating the Lords Vineyard That our Controversies ended no strife might remain amongst any that profess the Christian Name but an happy Emulation who should most glorifie God and adorn the Gospel by a meek Holy Conversation That all our Tongues and Pens freed from the unwelcome Toil of Polemics might be jointly employ'd in Eucharistics celebrating the Praises of the Divine Majesty and exciting each other to the practice of Virtue and Piety But since the All-wise Soveraign Disposer of things has not thought fit to allot that happiness to our Times but that Religion of it self the highest and most Sacred Bond of Love and Unity is by the Ignorance the Prejudices the Passions and secular Interests of men made one of the greatest occasions of Difference or a common Subject of Debate since there are a sort of People in the World who neglecting the humble Simplicity of the Gospel and dreaming of nothing less than Infallibility Vniversal Soveraignty and such like Grandezzu's not only assume to themselves the highest Priviledges on the weakest Pretensions but would impose their Dictates no less groundless than Imperious as necessary to Salvation and Damn all that cannot see with such Spectacles as they please to put upon their Noses I cannot but think every one seriously studious of his future State obliged to use all the just means he can for satisfaction in things that are said to concern his everlasting Peace and Happiness Amongst the several Questions agitated between us and the Church of Rome some are purely Theological the discussion of which most properly belongs to Divines others however advanced or made use of to boulster up lofty Pretensions are no more than Historical as relating to a meer and indifferent matter of Fact And the subject of these Papers being of the latter kind I thought a Lay-man without incurring the censure of Presumption might be allowed fairly to sum up the Evidence produc'd on either side leaving the Impartial and Judicious Reader to give the Verdict in the Cause as he shall think fit Especially since I undertook not this Enquiry out of any Pragmatic Humour of contending or vain-glorious Itch of arguing an unnecessary Problem But as invited or rather if I may be allowed to say so provoked thereunto by divers Books and Pamphlets very lately as well as heretofore publish'd amongst us by the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion wherein it has been asserted as a notorious Truth or rather taken for granted as a thing out of Dispute That St. Peter not only Preached the Gospel at Rome but by Gods command fixed his Chair there that is became the proper Bishop of that City and therefore the Popes are his Successors c. The Pope or Bishop of Rome says the Author of the late Book Intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented ch 18. is the Successor of St. Peter to whom Christ committed the care of his Flock and who hath been followed now by a visible Succession of above 250 Bishops The famous French Prelate now of Meaux formerly of Condom in his Exposition not long since publish'd in English Sect 21. has these words The Son of God being desirous his Church should be one and solidly built upon Vnity hath establish'd and instituted the Primacy of Peter to maintain and cement it upon which account we acknowledge this Primacy in the Successors of the Prince of the Apostles to whom for this CAUSE we owe Obedience and Submission And again The Primacy of St. Peter 's Chair is the common Centre of all Catholic Vnity The Author of two Questions Why are you a Catholick And why are you a Protestant p. 41. tells us of the Bishop of Rome's being Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Christ Nay so confident they seem of our Credulity That an Almanack called Calendarium Catholicum for the last Year 1686. commonly cry'd about the Streets and dispersed throughout the Nation sets it down as an unquestionable piece of Chronology thus Since the removal of St. Peter 's Chair from Antioch to Rome Anno 43. where he remained 24 Years and was afterwards Crucified with his Heels upwards under Nero then Emperour 1647. Years Now though this brisk assurance wherewith they deliver themselves suits well enough with those that shall abandon their own understandings to make room for an Implicite Faith in Humane Guides as being resolved to receive their Priests Dictates blindfold and may perhaps make Impressions on spirits that are ready to entertain every warm Asseveration as an Oracle rather than be at the trouble to examine its verity yet in me who have long since learnt of the great St. Augustine to defer that Honour to the Sacred Scriptures alone of commanding my Beleif it had a quite contrary effect and so much the more awakened my Curiosity to inquire what substantial Proofs they had for what they alledg'd so peremptorily 'T is true indeed That it does not much concern Protestants Whether ever St. Peter were or were not at Rome For even to grant That he was the first Bishop of the Church there will nothing prejudice our Cause with considering men who before they can admit the modern Roman Claims will besides That expect some solid proof 1. That Peter was constituted by Christ Prince of the Apostles or sole Supreme Governour on Earth of the Universal Church 2. That this Empire of his was not only Personal but Successive and to be continued to the end of the World in some other Persons in the quality and upon the account of being his Successors 3. Why this supposed right devolved to his Successors in the Bishoprick of Rome rather than to those of Antioch which they say was his first Episcopal See Or that St. Peter's removal from thence to Rome was by Gods special Command to make That the Seat of Ecclesiastical Empire and that accordingly he did actually bequeath his Authority to the latter rather than to the former for his being put to
Death at Rome suppose it true will not alone prove any such matter 4. That the modern Bishops of Rome after eight or nine and twenty acknowledged Schisms in that See God knows how many Usurpations and Simonaical or other undue Elections and notwithstanding manifest Depravations of and Apostacy from St. Peter's Doctrine and a Conversation for the most part Diametrically opposite to his humble Holy Life have yet every one of them been undoubtedly his true and Lawful Successors All these Particulars I say as well as St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome must be undeniably proved before their modern Pretensions can be adjudged good and valid Yet in the mean time their continual noise of St. Peter and of his being Bishop of Rome and they his Successors may be apt to inveigle some ignorant People if no opposition be made thereto nor Caveat given That what they thus avouch as a notorious Truth will upon a due scrutiny scarce appear so much as a probable Opinion Therefore I chose to spend a few vacant Hours in rummaging this subject not so much for the weight of the thing it self as to obviate so popular a suggestion and let all the World see That what the Church of Rome builds its loftiest superstructures upon is meerly Bogg and Quicksand a supposed matter of Fact which they assert Gratis as not being provable by any convincing Reason For on the other side This Notion of St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome is of the nearest concernment to that Church it is prora Puppis Papismi the main hinge of Popery Jus successionis Pontificum Romanorum c. The Right saith Bellarmin of the Popes Succession to Peter is founded on this That Peter the Lord so commanding placed his Seat at Rome and sat there until his Death Others of their most Learned Authors say That the Popes succeeding Peter is derived not from Christs Institution but from Peter's Fact which Fact was that he made his Seat at Rome and there dyed and so it comes about that the Roman Bishop succeeds him depending altogether on this Fact of Peter which contains his being at Rome his being Bishop of Rome his dying at Rome and his dying there by our Lords special appointment that the same might be the Mistress of all Churches Now what ever certainty or rather how much uncertainty soever there be of all or any of these particulars yet the whole in a lump is if I mistake not made an Article of Faith in the Church of Rome For Pope Pius the fourth in his Bull prescribing a Form of Confession of Faith in pursuance of the Decrees of their Council of Trent Dated 13 Nov. 1564. requires and commands all the Clergy and Regulars c. of his Church amongst other things to take this following Oath viz. I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church to be the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I do solemnly promise and swear true Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ They will perhaps say That the Article of Faith here intended is not That St. Peter was ever at Rome or Bishop there but only that the the Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and that Obedience is to be paid to its Bishop But who sees not That both the one and the other are expresly grounded on This That the Pope is Peter's Successor which cannot be meant of his Apostleship for that they do not pretend to but in his being Bishop of Rome and how should that be if St. Peter should happen never to have been at Rome nor Bishop there For 't is impossible to prove or believe the Bishop of Rome to be St. Peter's Successor in that Bishoprick unless it first appear That St. Peter was his Predecessor in that See so that 't is plain this Article imports no less than if it were said I believe that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that therefore That Church is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and on that account to her Bishops because they are St. Peter's Successors obedience is to be paid by all Christians Nor will it be to any purpose to say That this is not one of the Church of Rome's Articles of Faith because only the Ecclesiasticks are injoyn'd to take this Oath for what do they generally mean by their Church when they talk of it even in a large sense but their Clergy at least if the Guides are obliged so to believe and as 't is well known all Lay-Members are to follow them and believe as the Church that is as the Ecclesiasticks believe does it not follow That every one that is of the Roman Communion must so believe especially since 't is there required That they shall further swear in these Words Hanc veram Cathotholicam fidem extra quam NEMO SALVUS ESSE POTEST quam in presenti profiteor teneo eandem ad ultimum vitae spiritum constantissime retinere spondeo voveo Juro This is the true Catholick Faith out of which no man can be saved and which as at present I do profess and hold so I do promise vow and swear most constantly to retain the same to my last breath Nay more if you will believe them all Christianity stands on this foot The same Bellarmin who affirmed that the Primacy of the Popes was founded on St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome acquaints us further That on this Primacy of the Pope the Christian Religion depends for these are his Words Etenim de qua re agitur cum de Primatu Pontificis agitur brevissime dicam de summa rei Christianae What is it I pray we treat of when we handle the Popes Supremacy I will tell you in a word 't is touching the sum total or main Interest of Christianity Hence 't is evident that the Claims of the Church of Rome or her Bishops to an universal Headship over all the Churches of Christ to infallibility and all the rest of their far-spread Pretensions are bottom'd on St. Peter's being once their Bishop and fixing there his Episcopal Seat Ask them why the Bishop of Rome rather than any other Bishop e. g. of Toledo or Canterbury is Head and Governour of the Universal Church They will tell you 'T is because the former only is Peter's direct Successor to whom it was said I will give thee the Keys and Feed my Flock Ask them why the Church of Rome above all other Churches is exempt from falling into Errours in Matters of Faith They will say 't is because she was founded by and had for her first Bishop Peter to whom it was said I have pray'd for thee that thy Faith fail not and Thou art Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Which Priviledges were to descend to all that should succeed