Lords Body till he come to the last Judgment Acts 3. 21. CHAP. III. Whether St. Peter were Bishop of Antioch or Rome IF it cannot be sufficiently made appear That St. Peter was ever at Rome one would think we might supersede our pains of enquiring Whether he were Bishop of Rome No saith Bellarmin many have been Bishops of Rome that never were at Rome as Clement the 5th John the 22th Benedict the 12th Clement the 6th and Innocent the 6th who being Ordained in France did always remain there How properly those Gentlemen could be called Bishops of Rome that were neither chosen there nor ever saw that City in their lives I shall not inquire not repine at his Holiness if he please to make Titular Bishops of remote places in Asia or Africk where perhaps there may not be one Christian soul living or if he will gratifie his Favourites with Episcopal Sees in Vtopia or Fairy-land such as Panormitan complains of and calls Episcopi Nullatenenses Bishops of Nullatia Diocesans of No-land But this I am pretty confident of That St. Peter who so earnestly exhorts Bishops or Elders to feed their Flocks would scarce set the first Pattern of Non-residency that ever was in the world Nor do I see any necessity for calling Clemens the 5th and the other French Popes Bishops of Rome rather than Bishops of Avignion For I am taught by a very Learned Roman Catholick That the Papacy and Bishoprick of Rome are two distinct things and not so necessarily conjoin'd but they may be separated As for example If a Pope and a Council think it convenient he may leave the Church of Rome and unite himself to another Church in which case the Church of Rome should no longer be Head nor have any Soveraignty over Christians But letting that pass we come now to consider the Arguments brought to prove Peter's being Bishop of the particular Church of Rome and because they who affirm he was so do with equal confidence maintain That he was also Bishop of Antioch for about seven years we will here take that part of the Story into our thoughts 1. That Peter was an Apostle no man that believes the New Testament can doubt but that there is some difference between an Apostle and a Bishop properly so called will I think not be denied For the Apostles were immediately called by Christ and all the World was their Diocess for so runs their Commission Mark 16. 15. Go you into all the World preach the Gospel to every Creature so that it was an Extraordinary Office consisting of Personal Priviledges as Immediate Vocation power to work Miracles Vniversality of Jurisdiction and Infallibility in all things they preached or writ relating to the Gospel being dictated unto and specially guided by the Divine Spirit But Bishops are chosen by men and have a certain Seat and Church and their Office is ordinary 1 Tim. 3. 1. Tit. 1. 5. 1. Pet. 5. 2. Therefore Peter being an Apostle could not I conceive be Bishop either of Antioch or Rome in the proper strict sense of the word for this had been a kind of Degrading him from a superior and more ample Office to one Inferior and Restrained I am not ignorant That as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies at large an Inspecter or Overseer every Apostle where ever he happen'd to come might be said to be Bishop of that place but not exclusively to others And thus you may if you please call Paul a General Bishop because he testifies That he had the care of all the Churches And in this respect we read of the Episcopate of Judas Act. 1. 20. His Bishoprick let another take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in such a sense St. Peter calls himself Presbyter or Elder 1 Pet. 5. 1. I also agree that Peter or any other Apostle might wherever he came act and discharge all parts of a Bishops Function whether Ministerial or Governing But all this will not Constitute him proper Bishop of this or that particular Church or of one more than another for tho a Prince in his Progress may do some acts that belong to the Office of a Mayor or other particular Governor of that Town where he happens to lodg yet it cannot be said that he is the Mayor or particular Governor of such a Corporation for that would be a Diminution of his Royal Dignity no more did the Apostles become Local Bishops because of their exercising Episcopal Power in any particular Church by virtue of their Power Apostolical wherein the other was included Nor can the first Planter or Establisher of a Church as such be stiled the Bishop of such a Church for then both Paul and Peter and all the rest of the Apostles must be Bishops of many several Diocesses 2. If Peter were Bishop either of Antioch or Rome then either he must be Ordain'd such by Christ or by men after Christ's Ascension or else he constituted himself Bishop there But nether of these three can be said Not the first for as there appears no footsteps of such an Ordination in Scripture so if by Christ he were Constituted President over any one particular Church how could he share in that Command Go forth and preach to every Nation Nor were there before our Lords Ascension any such Churches in being Not the second for then he must relinquish the Apostolical Office which he received of Christ and suffer himself to be so far Degraded by men as to undertake a meaner and more limited Office As if the Bishop of London should be made Parson of Pancras Hence too it would follow That St. Peter thenceforth instead of being Prince of the Apostles should as Bishop of Antioch or Rome be inferior to the other Apostles who were not Ordained of men nor by men Gal. 1. Not the third for no man assumeth this honour to himself Heb. 5. 4. Peter or any other Apostle might Ordain others to be Bishops in such places as needed them But that they should or would Create themselves Bishops of this or that Peculiar Church we have no Ground to believe By what Words what Rites what Ceremonies did they do it Or how when where did Peter declare himself to be the proper Bishop either of Antioch or Rome Is it not utterly incredible That Peter the Supream Head and Monarch of the Church on Earth as they pretend should for thirty two years be Bishop and have the particular Charge and Cure of Two of the greatest Cities in the Roman Empire and that too whilst most of the other Apostles were living and yet none of them nor he himself in any of their Writings should say one syllable of it nor mention so much as one single Episcopal Act done by him in either of those Cities in all that time No nor St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles nor St. Paul who lived long in Antioch and longer at Rome and had opportunity nay had
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
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
2. Whether he dyed there 3. Whether he was Bishop of Rome 4. Whether after he had once assum'd that Bishoprick he ever chang'd it for another All which he handles after his manner severally and at large But indeed the second comprehends the first for if Peter were Martyr'd at Rome he must needs be there And the fourth though he puts most stress upon it may fitly be included under the third for if they can prove That St. Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome we shall not much trouble our selves whether he afterwards remov'd from thence both because I think the practice of a Bishops Translation from one See to another was not altogether so early in the Church their talk of the same Apostle's removal from Antioch to Rome shall be further considered anon as also because I remember not any but their own Onuphrius that hath insisted upon or objected any such matter so that the main Question is only this Whether St. Peter were ever in a proper sense Bishop of Rome And because that will be improbable in the highest degree if besides other Reasons it cannot plainly be made appear that he was at some time or other there It will therefore be sufficient to discuss these two Questions 1. Whether St. Peter were ever at Rome 2. Whether supposing he were there he was Bishop in the strict and now usual signification of the Word of that Church To prove Peter to have been at Rome Cardinal Bellarmin produces five Arguments which we shall severally consider The first from that Text 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church that is at Babylon saluteth you By Babylon here saith he is meant Rome therefore Peter when he wrote that Epistle was there Now that Peter did mean Rome by the word Babylon in that place he would prove 1. Because Eusebius Records that one Papias did say That this Epistle of Peter was written from the City of Rome which the Apostle did there Tropically call Babylon To which purpose the Cardinal also cites St. Hierom and others as being of the same Opinion or rather following Papias therein 2. Because Rome in the Revelations is frequently call'd Babylon To which I answer 1. This is proving Ignotum per Ignotius a doubtful thing by a thing utterly Improbable a controverted matter of Fact by an uncertain groundless Opinion Does not all the World know that there were at that time two great Cities whose proper name was Babylon One in Assyria famous in all ancient Histories as being the seat of the first Monarchy The other in Egypt mention'd in Strabo l. 17. and by Ptolomy called Babulis the same if I mistake not which at this day is called CAIRO or near it and why might not Peter date his Epistle from one of these For as he for the most part preached to the dispersed Jews of whom no doubt many were scattered through Chaldaea and Assyria so he might probably exert his Ministry at the first mentioned Babylon being so eminent a place on the same Continent and at no great distance from Jerusalem especicially since Nicephorus tells us he Preached all through Palestina and Syria Nor is this only my private Sentiment the great Scaliger speaks boldly Petrus Romae nunquam fuit sed praedicabat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cujus Metropolis erat Babylon ex qua scribit Epistolam suam Peter was never at Rome but preached to the dispersed Jews in Asia the Metropolis whereof was Babylon from whence he wrote his Epistle Whom the very Learned de Marca Archbishop of Paris Seconds in these Words Although the Ancients imagined That Peter by the word Babylon signified the City of Rome yet Scaliger's conjecture is probable who thinks that Peter wrote from Babylon it self this Epistle to the dispersed Jews Or on the other side if it be true which the foresaid Nicephrous writes That from Pontus Galatia c. Peter went down into Egypt Where he created St. Mark Bishop of Alexandria then why might he not send this Epistle from the Egyption Babylon so that either way by Babylon is far more likely to be understood one of those places rather than Rome For 2. What an extravagance is it to imagine that S. Peter should disguise and conceal from whence he wrote or qualifie the place which he had chosen to be his Episcopal See and perpetual Seat of Church-Soveraignty as they would have it with so uncouth a Title when there was not the least colour of reason as far as we can now learn or occasion why he should so do nor any example of the like kind to be found For though S. Luke in the Acts and S. Paul in his Epistles frequently speak of Rome yet they never call it Babylon Now when the Apostle says the Chruch at Babylon salutes you certainly he intended as all men do in their Epistles that they should know where he was and who they were that saluted them but this was I think impossible for them to do if by Babylon he meant Rome no Author either Civil or Sacred having then ever call'd it so 3. That St. John in the Revelations above fifty Years after for Baronius who says this Epistle was wrote An. Chr. 45. tells us also that the Revelation was wrote An. 97. did call Rome Babylon is nothing to the purpose for though a Tropical Denomination suit well with a Prophetick Style yet it will not follow that in a plain Epistolary Salutation a proper Name must be wrested from its genuine signification to such an abstruse and remote sense St. John writing mysterious Prophecies used Types and Figures to express future things but that Peter in a familiar Recommendation should do so has neither Truth nor Probability The Reason why St. John denominates Rome Babylon though represented in a Vision was not yet actually in Being for it was by way of allusion That as Babylon of old held the Jews the then People of God in Temporal Captivity so she should in time to come bring Christians into a Spiritual Vassalage and thence she is call'd Mystery Babylon It seems the Learned Cardinal thought some Text of Scripture would be expected to prove Peter's being at Rome and finding nothing looking that way was forc'd to hedge in this though it cost him dear for thereby he confesses and proclaims Rome to be the Apocalyptical Babylon But though an hard pinch reduced him to this necessity yet he hopes to secure his retreat by affirming That Rome is termed Babylon not in respect of the future Roman Church but as it was the Seat of the Roman Empire that then domineer'd over the Earth as Babylon did of old But this evasion is as gross as the occasion of it since 't is plain the Revelations from the 4th Chapter especially is a Prophetick Book not Historical for so are the express words there v. 1. Come up hither and I will shew things that shall be hereafter And also it relates all along to the future state
simple person of very little wit and judgment c. of which he gives several Instances So much for the Forgery 2. Our second Observation touching Papias shall be That he is said to have been a friend to or familiar with Polycarpus But Polycarpus according to Baronius suffer'd Martyrdom in the year of our Lord 167. And the same Baronius places Peter's Martyrdom Anno Chr. 69. So that Papias must flourish near 100 Peter's Death a distance long enough in those times when so many false things were bruited abroad touching the Apostles Acts and Sufferings for one that dwelt at a great distance of place and took his Information but upon Hear-say to be deceived 3. Since none of Papias's Books are Extant whereby we might be enabled to judg of the man by his own Works it will be requisite to remark what Character Eusebius who brings him on the Stage gives of him which in brief is this That he was one that neither heard nor saw any of the Apostles but received what he heard from their followers as Aristo and John not the Apostle but a certain Elder That he thought he could not benefit so much by reading the Scriptures as by Conference with men that had been acquainted with the Authors of them That he was so little acquainted with the Scriptures that he mistook that Philip whose Daughters were Prophetesses to be Philip the Apostle when the Text had he read or remembred it expresly says It was Philip the Deacon That he had by such Traditions strange Parables and Preachings of our Blessed Saviour and other things very Fabulous amongst the rest advanc'd the Heresy of the Millenaries and that he fell into those Errors through Ignorance and not understanding aright those Narrations that were told him as from the Apostles That he Expounded a certain History of a Woman accused before Christ of many crimes written in the Gospel according to the Hebrews which was a counterfeit In fine That he was a man of little wit or small judgment as appear'd by his Books yet gave unto divers Ecclesiastical Writers occasion of Error who respected his Antiquity see Euseb l. 3. c. 22. 35 39. and Nicephorus l. 3. c. 20. Here you have both the Genius or Humor of the Man easy to be imposed upon taking up things by Hear-say one that was not asham'd to own That he thought hearing Oral Tradition more profitable than Reading the Scriptures that is That to hearken to the Stories and Tales of private fallible persons in matters of Religion was more beneficial than to study the Sacred Oracles of God penn'd by Divinely inspired infallible persons and able to make the man of God perfect in all good works one of small judgment and who embrac'd Fables Heresies and Counterfeit Gospels As also you are told the bad effects of all this viz. That he misled many subsequent Ecclesiastical Authors into Error paying too great a reverence to his Antiquity without due enquiry into the Truth of his Assertions or Examination of the Grounds whereon he delivered them Now since such a person was the first that Peter's being at Rome for I do not find that he plainly affirm'd it much less that Peter was Bishop there only inferr'd it by interpreting Babylon in St. Peter's Epistle to signify Rome if I say such an one were the first as for ought appears he was that ever intimated any such thing how far either his Talk or that of those that relate it after him is to be valued I leave the intelligent Reader to judg since nothing is more common in Historics than for the mistake of one to draw others into error and that this Papias actually did mislead many we have the home Testimony of Eusebius before recited and why not in this business of Peter's being at Rome as well as in that of the Millenary Reign c. Nay rather in the former than the latter since good innocent men were more like to swallow this report of an indifferent matter of fact as they could not but apprehend this of Peter's Writing from Rome to be not imagining what fine consequence after-times would thence derive than to entertain a Doctrinal point without Examination and to be more easily inveigled into a mistake in History than into Heresy for under no better figure was that opinion of the Chiliasts look'd upon in succeeding Ages tho for some time on the credit of the said Papias receiv'd or at least unopposed by not a few Fathers of the Church So much concerning Papias who for ought I know might in the main be a very honest well-meaning man though misled by unwarrantable reports and a Zeal not according to knowledge Nor should I thus have repeated his Failures which I charitably hope God has forgiven did not the importunity of some People vapouring with his Name and Authority render these Reflections necessary As for Egesippus when he lived is doubtful some say about the Year 101. others 145. others 170. but this is certain That what we have now abroad in his Name could not be wrote by the same Person whom Eusebius mentions l. 4. c. 8. For whereas he is said to have gathered his Books out of the Gospel secundum Hebraeos the best of their Vouchers you see followed counterfeit Gospels and wrote Commentaries of the Doctrine and Acts of the Apostles and that too in a plain homely stile as St. Hierom notes this counterfeit Egesippus affects a very losty Phrase and affords us only five Books of the destruction of Jerusalem out of Josephus and particularly makes mention of the City of Constantinople a name not known in the World till the great Constantine who beginning to Reign alone but in the Year 327. caused Byzantium to be called so therefore the Writer thereof whoever he was must of necessity live near 200 Years if not much more after that good man in whose name they would obtrude it We come now to the decretal Epistles and indeed were these Genuine they would not only dispatch the Business of St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome but of the Popes Supremacy too and many other of their modern Articles of Faith But touching such Epistles we shall briefly observe 1. What they are and when and by whom first Midwiv'd into the World 2. Offer Reasons demonstrating as I apprehend that they are generally spurious 3. Recite the substance of two of them more peculiarly relating to our present Argument with a few Animadversions thereon These Decretal Epistles are Letters supposed to be Authoritatively written upon emergent Occasions by the Primitive Bishops of Rome beginning with Clement one of Peter's pretended immediate Successors in whose name there are five four in the name of Anacletus two of Alexander's three of Sixtus's and so downwards sometimes one sometimetimes two sometimes three from every succeeding Bishop of Rome for the first 300 Years and further All which Epistles came first abroad about the Year of our Lord 790.
that is upon the Church of Rome I will build my Church And in the 3d Epistle The Church of Rome is the Hinge and Head of all Churches for as the door is turned about on the Hinge so all Churches are ruled by the Authority of this Holy See and not to be tedious in numerous Instances the effect of all is That all those good humble men whose Names are abused to these Letters are made to say of themselves this much We are the Vniversal Bishops We are the Heads of the whole Church Appeals from all Places ought of right to lye before us We cannot Err We may not be controul'd for it is written The Disciple is not above his Master c. Can any man perswade himself that those godly Fathers that were daily in jeopardy of their Lives and put to Death for Preaching and professing the Christian Religion which condemns nothing more than Pomp vain-Glory and Ambition had either Leisure or Inclination to write Letters up and down the World fill'd with such Imposthumated Extravagancies 2. The stile of these Letters is remarkable as well as their matter they are pretended to be originally written in Latine and why not if from Bishops of Rome whose mother Tongue was at that time Latine and that too not yet degenerated but famous for its Elegancy and understood through a very great part of the then known World But in these Decretals instead of the purity of the Roman Phrase you shall familiarly encounter such expressions as these Persecutiones patienter portare Peto ut pro me Orare debeas Episcopi Obediendi sunt non Insidiandi Ab illis omnes Christiani se Cavere debent c. Wherein there is nothing of the Congruity or Natural Idiom of the Latine Tongue And shall we think that for 300 years and more there was not one Bishop of Rome that could write true Latin at a time when the common people there Men Women and Children did speak the same as their common Language It is a Text of the Popes own Law Falsa Latinitas vitiat Rescriptum Papae False Latin spoils the Popes own Bull or Writ if so the Credit of these is gone Indeed their Voice hewrays them and shews they were Coyn'd in a far latter Age when after the Gothic Incursions into Italy Barbarisms had overran the Roman Tongue as well as error and ambition the Roman Church 3. The absurdities and false Chronology of these Epistles loudly proclaims them to be Antedated and spurious as St. Clemens informs St. James of the manner of St. Peter's Death yet it is as certain as any thing we have of those times and St. Clemens undoubtedly knew it That James was put to death 7 years before St. Peter Anacletus whom some make next Successor to Peter willeth and straitly chargeth That all Bishops once every year do visit the Threshold of St. Peter 's Church at Rome Limina Petri touching which besides the absurdity of such an injunction whereby most part of the Bishops throughout the World must have spent all their time in trudging to and fro to Rome 't is observable that there was not then nor for a long time after any Church built there in the Name of St. Peter Zepherinus Epist 1. saith That Christ commanded his Apostles to appoint the 72 Disciples but St. Luke Ch. 10. testifies That Christ himself appointed them Antherus Ep. 1. makes mention of Eusebius Bishop of Alexandria and of Faelix Bishop of Ephesus yet was neither Eusebius nor Foelix either Bishop or Born all the time that Antherus lived Fabianus writes of the coming of Novatus into Italy yet 't is clear by St. Cyprian and Eusebius That Novatus came first into Italy in the time of Cornelius who succeededed this Fabianus Marcellinus Epist 2. ad Oriental saith That the Emperor might not presume to attempt any thing against the Gospel yet was there then no Emperor that own'd or understood the Gospel Marcellus writes to an Heathen Tyrant and charges him very gravely with the authority of St. Clement And whereas St. Luke Ch. 3. sets forth how John advised the Soldiers to be content with their Pay Meltiades quite alters the story and names Christ instead of John divers the like Incongruities may frequently be met with in these Epistles 4. If these Letters had been real Where did they lye hid 4 or 500 years or upwards Who after so long a burial was able to demonstrate their sincerity How came the Decretals of the Bishops of Rome first of all to be heard of and found by no body can certainly tell who in a corner of Spain T is evident neither St. Jerome or Gennadius nor Damasus nor any Ancient Father ever alledged any of them and consequently we may conclude knew nothing of them Nay the former Bishops of Rome never insisted upon them when they might have been very serviceable as for example at the Council of Carthage held An. 418. by 217 Bishops amongst whom the great Augustine was one where two pretended Canons of the Council of Nice sent thither by Zozimus then Pope to give colour of Right to his receiving of Appeals from Foreign Provinces were detected to be forged and so the claim of the Bishop of Rome rejected and his Ambition and ill practice smartly reproved by Letters as by the Acts of the said Council yet extant appears Now had Zozimus known or dreamt of such a number of Decretals sent abroad by his Predecessors wherein their Right of Vniversal Headship Appeals c. was so plainly derived and asserted all along down from St. Peter himself and that not by the Canon of any Council but by Absolute Divine Right undoubtedly he would have produced or referr'd unto them rather than stoop to so poor and shameful a shift as that of two counterfeit Canons But that you may the better judge of the Genius of these Decretal Epistles I shall here present you with the effect of two of them which particularly relate to our present subject The first a Letter pretended to be wrote by St. Clemens to St. James wherein an account is undertaken to be given of Peter's last words and how he solemnly appointed the said Clement his Successor in which after a tedious Harangue as from St. Peter's mouth concerning the Dignity and Excellency of the Roman Chair he proceeds thus When he St. Peter had said these things in the midst before them all he put his hands on me and compelled me wearied with shamefacedness to sit in his Chair and when I was sat I beseech thee said he O Clement That after as the Debt of Nature is I have ended this present Life thou wouldest briefly write to James the Brother of our Lord after what sort thou hast been a Companion unto me from the beginning even to the end of my Journey and my Acts and what being a sollicitous Hearer thou hast taken from me disputing throughout all the Cities and what in all my Preaching
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
The Gentlemans skill in Arithmetick seems as extraordinary as in History when he takes 43 out of 1686 there remains precisely 1647. †Lib. 2. De Nat. Grat. cap. 61. Protestants not much concerned in the Question Things to be proved by Romanists besides Peter's being Bishop of Rome * Onuphirus in Chron. Pont. confesses 30. * De sum Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. †Cajet de Div. Instie Pontif. c. 13. Canus Loc. l. 6. c. 8. Peter's being Bishop of Rome an Article of their Faith * The very same Oath amongst other things is at this day exacted of all Protestants that are pretended to be converted to the Roman Church in France as I am very credibly assured The sum of Christianity * De sum Pontif in Praefat. The reasonableness or necessity of examining this point The Negative not undertook to be proved The two chief Questions * Annot. in Jo. 18. 31. †De concord Sacerd. Imper lib. 6. cap. 1. Sect. 4. * Lib. 14. cap. 39. * Preface to his Treatise De Pontif. Bellarmins second Proof Ans Barnabas said to Preach at Rome before Peter The Third Argument Answ The fourth Argument The Answer * Lib. 2. Ca. 15. * Bar. Tom. 1. ad Ann. 68. No. 16 17. Bellarmins 5th argument for Peters being at Rome Answ Touching the place of St. Peters Death Se also afterwards ch 5. quest 4. A sixth Argument Answ * De Summ. Pontif. l 2. * De Offic Ordin C. Quoniam ‖ 2 Pet. 5. 2. †Camer acensis Qu. Vesper Act. 3. A Difference between being an Apostle and Bishop of such a particular place 2 Cor. 11. 28. Peter was not Ordained Bishop of any particular Church Peter more likely to be Bishop of Jerusalem than of Antioch or Rome * Con. Nic. Can. 15. 16. l Conc. Antioch can 21. 22. Conc. Chalcedon Can. 10. Object Answ Eusebius abused to colour Peter's being Bishop of Rome * In Not. ad Euseb l. 3. c. 21. * Praefat. Recogn Clement ad Gaudent To what purpose should Peter be a Bishop Whence the Dignity of the Church of Rome * Conc. Nic. c. 5. Conc. Melevit c. 22. †Vid. Euseb l. 5. c. 24. * Hier. ad Evagrium Epistol l. 1. Many Counterfeits under pretence of Antiquity * In Catalog * Lib. 4. Ca. 22. Of Linus * Baron ad Annum 44. N. 45. Annum 60. N. 6. Possev in Appar V. Linus Of Papias * Euseb l. 3. c. 39. †Baron Mart. ad diem Jan 26. Of Egesippus Of the Decretal Epistles What they are The Collection ascribed to Isidore a counterfeit * Pseudo Isidor cap. 2. †Histor l. 2. c. 18. * See Onuphr Chronicon Pontif. * Vide Baron in Notis Martyrolog ad 4. Apr. Baron Anno Christ 865. N. 5. †De Roman Pontif. L. 2. cap. 14. ‖ Baron ad Ann. 865. N. 5 6 7 8. * Baron Ibid. N. 7. Reasons to shew the Decretal Epistles to be Forgeries * Extrav de Rescriptis Ad Audientiam A Letter from Clement to St. James A Forgery Vide Platin. A Decretal Epistle about Removing St. Peter's Boues * The Catacumbae or Catatumboe as here written were vast publick Vaults or under-ground Repositories for dead Bodies see a handsome discourse of them at Rome and those other more spacious ones at Naples in Dr. Burnet's Letters who proves that they could not be the workmanship of the Primitive Christians for the bestowing of the bodies of their Martyrs as is commonly suggested and intimated here by this feigned Epistle but rather were cut out from the first beginning of the City for the common Burial places of the Ancient Heathens especially the Vulgar sort Slaves c. †June the 29th Proved to be a Forgery Of Clemens Of Abdias * In Recogn Of the Pontifical Baronius dispairs of any certainty of the Apostles Actions not mentioned in Scripture Of the time of Peters coming to Rome How long he staid there What Year Peter suffered Did Paul suffer at the same time * Acts 7 58. Of Peters Successor The Answer to both Whether Peter sat Seven years at Antioch before he went to Rome The History of Peter according to Onuphrius Object 1. Answer Object 2. Answer * Baron Annal Tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. S. 9. †Idem ad An. 39. () Defens Pac. part 2. C. 16. () Occh. Dial. par 1. L. 2. Ca 3. Peter not at Rome the first Two Years after the Passion Nor in the Third nor Fourth Nor in the Fifth or Sixth Peter not at Rome between the sixth and twelfth year after the Passion () Joseph Antiq L. 18. Ca. 8. * Lib. 19. Ca. 7. Peter not at Rome between the 12th and 16th years of the Passion () Oros. L. 7. C. 6. () In Claud. 7. Ca. 24. Peter not at Rome before the 12th of Claudius () Lib. â—0 C. 5. Peter had not been at Rome the 24th Year after the Passion Peter not at Rome in the third or fourth year of Nero. Peter not at Rome during the rest of Nero's Reign Bellarmines Scheme of St. Peter's Travels Answ Object 2. Answer Object 3. Answ Obj. 4. Answ Object 5. Answ 'T is a Reproach to St. Peter to fancy him Bishop of Rome The story of Pope Joan and Pope Peter Compared () Anno. Chr. 855. () Tert. L. Contr. Judaeos () Clem. L. 1. Stromat () Lact. Instit L. 4. C. 4. () Iren. L. 2. Ca. 39. () Euseb L. 2. Ca. 25. Object Answer