Part 13

How could it be then, that Peter sat as bishop of the church in the city of Rome? and, what is still more--for a considerable number of years! unless it be said that Peter abandoned his charge, and accepted another office and ministry than the one to which he was called; which it would be difficult to prove, since nothing is mentioned of it in Holy Writ.

_Further Remarks on the foregoing circumstances_--If one should confine himself solely to the testimony of the holy Scriptures, not accepting anything else as worthy of belief, it could in no wise be shown that Peter was ever at Rome; but, since the holy Scriptures do not relate all that has happened, the testimony of some accepted authors of that time may be recognized as credible, as far as their testimony is not contrary to what is expressed in holy Scripture.

We have shown from the apostolic writings, that during the time Paul wrote his epistles in the prison at Rome, and also during the whole period that he (Peter) was preaching in foreign countries, Peter was not in Rome, but in Jerusalem, Antioch, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and in other places where the Jews were scattered. This we have plainly shown, first by six arguments, and then by eight circumstances, derived from the holy Scriptures. But as to where Peter was, or how he died, after Paul wrote his last epistle from Rome, the Scriptures are silent.

Hence the testimony of those writers whom we have just mentioned cannot well be contradicted; who maintain, that Peter shortly before his death came to Rome, and there laid down his life for the doctrine of the Evangelical truth; without mentioning anything there about his bishopric, much less, popedom.

DISCORDANCE OF PAPISTIC WRITERS. 1. WHETHER PETER WAS AT ROME. 2. HOW LONG HE WAS BISHOP THERE. 3. WHO FOLLOWED HIM.

The common tenet of the papists is, that Peter sat as the chief bishop upon the Roman throne; yet the authors whom they adduce for this purpose greatly differ. For, as respects his arrival in that city, some fix it in the year 41 after Christ; others in the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Claudius; others in the second year of this same Claudius; others in the fourth year; others in the beginning of the reign of Nero; others in the fourteenth year after Paul’s conversion, etc., as is noted in Ireneus, Orosius, Damasus, Hornantius, Th. Aquinus, The Lives of the Saints, etc.

Concerning the length of time he was bishop, there is not less disagreement; as also in regard to how long he was absent from his bishopric sojourning in other places. Cortesius writes of eighteen years, Onuphrius of seven years; but the general opinion among them is, that he sat twenty-five years upon the chair governing their church; although some flatly oppose it. See the last mentioned three authors.

Touching the person who succeeded him in his bishopric, there is much confusion and uncertainty in what is said concerning this subject. Some write, that Clemens succeeded Peter; as Septimus Florens Tert.; others, that Linus followed him; as Ireneus, Eusebius, Epiphan., etc., _De Praes 32. 1. Contr. Jov._; others, that Linus discharged Peter’s office two years before the death of the latter; as Damasus, etc.; others, that Peter ordered that Clemens should succeed after the death of Linus; _In Pontific_. _Petr. etc., Clem. in Epist. ad Jacobum, etc._; others, that the chair of Peter was vacant while Linus and Cletus lived, Clemens, who was ordained by Peter as his successor, not being willing, as they say, to occupy the chair in their lifetime; which is testified to by Bellarminus; others that Linus occupied the chair eleven years after Peter’s death; see Eusebius; others, that Linus died before Peter, and, consequently was not his successor in the bishopric; see Turrianus, Sophronius, etc.; others, that Anacletus succeeded Peter, and Clemens, Anacletus. See _Homil. de Agon. Pet. and Paul. In Chron. in Anno Clem._; others, finally, that Peter and Linus were bishops simultaneously in the city of Rome; yet so, that Peter was the superior, and Linus, the inferior bishop. See Ruffinus, Sabellicus, Turrianus, _In vita Petri_.

OF THE RISE OF THE POPES AFTER THE YEAR 606, AS ALSO OF THE INTERRUPTION OF THE SUCCESSION OF THE SAME.

Besides, that in the first three centuries after the death of the apostles, nothing was known in the Roman church, as regards rulers of the same, but common bishops or overseers, until the time of Constantine the Great, and from that time on to the year 600, only archbishops and patriarchs, but no popes, till after the year 606, when, by the power of the Emperor Phocas, the Roman Bishop Boniface III. was declared and established the general head and supreme ruler of the whole church;--the succession also of the following popes was interrupted by many important occurrences, with respect to the manner of the papal election as well as to the doctrine and the life of the popes themselves, as also with regard to various circumstances pertaining to these matters. Of this an account shall presently be given.

NOTE.--Besides what we have mentioned in our account of holy baptism, for the year 606, of the rise and establishment of the Roman pope, there is also found, concerning the cause of the same (in the _Chronijk van den Ondergang der Tyrannen_, edition of 1617, book VII., page 211, col. 2), this annotation: When the patriarch at Constantinople reproved the Emperor Phocas for the shameful murder he had committed, or would not consent to, or remit it, while the bishop of Rome winked at, or excused this wicked deed, the Emperor Phocas, in his displeasure, deprived the church of Constantinople of the title, _Head of Christendom_, and, at the request of Boniface III., conferred it upon the Roman church; which was done amidst great contentions, for the eastern churches could not well consent to it, that the see of Rome should be considered by everybody, and everywhere, as the head and the supreme (of the) church. Compare this with _Platinae Reg. Pap. fol. 123; Fasc. Temp. fol. 122; Pol. Virgil, lib. 4. cap. 10; Hist. Georg. lib. 4; Conrad. Oclutar. fol. 15; Tract, called, Ouden en Nieuwen Godt. lib. 1; M. Zanchij Tract. Pap. fol. 41; Zeg. Chron. Rom. Pap. fol 132_.

OF THE ELECTION OF THE POPE; AND OF SUCH AS HAVE USURPED THE CHAIR.

In the introduction to the _Martyrs Mirror_ (edition of 1631, fol. 25, 26, 27) mention is made from Cardinal Baronius (we have looked into his history, and found it to be so at the place referred to), of various popes who ran of themselves, without lawful election or mission; and also of some who usurped the chair, without the consent of the church, merely by the power of princes and potentates.

Among the popes who, without lawful election or mission, ran of themselves, are numbered Stephen VII., Christopher, and Sergius III., with whom it was as follows:

Stephen VII. expelled Boniface VI. by force from the Roman see, after the death of Formosus; and afterwards committed an abominable deed on the dead body of said Formosus, who was counted a lawful and good pope; which deed the Cardinal C. Baronius describes from Luytprandus and others as follows:

“In this same year was perpetrated the great wickedness which Luytprandus and others relate, but incorrectly by Sergius; since the acts of the aforementioned Synod under Pope John IX., to which doubtless more credence is to be given, impute it to the then existing pope, Stephen IX.

He caused the dead body of Formosus to be exhumed, and placed it on the pope’s throne, dressed in all his papal robes; whereupon he upbraided Formosus, as though he were alive, that he, through great ambition, had come from the chair of Porto into that of Rome; anathematized him on this account, had the dead body stripped of all the robes, as also the three fingers with which Formosus according to custom used to ordain, cut off from the same, and thus thrown into the Tiber. Besides this he deposed all those who had been ordained by Formosus, and re-ordained them; all of which he did from pure madness.” See _C. Baron. histor. Eccl. Anno 897. num. 1. 2_.

After this the same Baronius relates of Christophorus, who also thrust himself into the papal chair, the following:

“Further, in the following year of Christ ... in the tenth indiction,[55] Pope Benedict died, and was buried in St. Peter’s church. In his place succeeded Leo, the fifth of this name, a native of Ardea, who held the chair only forty days, being expelled and imprisoned after that by Christophorus, who himself occupied the chair after him.” _Baron. Ann. 906. 907. num. 2._

[55] A cycle of fifteen years, instituted by Constantine the Great, in connection with the payment of tribute, and afterwards made a substitute for Olympiads in reckoning time. It was much used in the ecclesiastical chronology of the middle ages, and is reckoned from the year 313 as its origin.--_Webster’s Dictionary._

The aforementioned Christophorus, who had expelled his predecessor, Leo V., from the chair, and taken possession of it himself, was, in his turn, robbed of the occupancy of the chair by another, called Sergius III., who was ambitious of the same dominion; which Sergius, although he attained to the papal dignity, without being elected or called, yea, more than that, was, according to the testimony of the papists themselves, fearfully tyrannical and unchaste, is nevertheless recorded with the aforementioned upon the Register of the legitimate popes of Rome. See _Baron. Ann. 907. num. 2., Ann. 908. num. 3._

In the midst of this account this papistic writer declares, _that these were the dreadful times when every self-constituted pope immediately nullified that which his predecessor had made. Ann. 908. num. 2._

Confirmatory of this matter is also that which is adduced in the “_Chronijk van den Ondergang_,” edition 1617, for the year 891, page 315. col. 1. 2. from the tract of “_Den Onpartijdigen Rechter_.”

If one will but consider, says this writer, the spiritual or ecclesiastical perfidiousness and rebelliousness of the popes, he will find in ancient history, that the Roman popes have at all times quarreled and contended with one another for the papal chair.

Thus John XXIV., having come to Bononia with many soldiers, threatened all the cardinals severely, if they would elect a pope who would not please him. When many had been nominated to him, and he would assent to none of them, he was finally requested to state whom he would elect thereto. He replied: “Give me Peter’s robe, and I shall deliver it to the future pope.” But, when that was done, he put the robe upon his own shoulders, saying: “I am the pope.” And though this greatly displeased the other cardinals, they were nevertheless compelled to acquiesce in it.

In the same manner John XXII. elected himself pope when the election was committed to him. See 9th book of the above mentioned chronicle, for the year 891, at the place there referred to.

NOTE.--In addition to what has been stated in the body [of this work] concerning the popes who exalted themselves to the papal reign, it is also proper to give what may be read in the “_Chronijk van den Ondergang der Tyrannen_,” for the year 537, where the popedom of Vigilius is thus spoken of: “This Pope Vigilius was certainly impelled by the spirit of ambition; he greatly aspired to the popedom, and wrongfully ascended the papal chair, for he counseled the empress, how to expel Pope Silverius. He engaged false witnesses, who said that Silverius intended to betray the city of Rome secretly, and surrender it to the Goths (of which we shall afterwards speak more fully); therefore he was deposed from the popedom by force, and relegated into misery; and thus Vigilius six days afterwards became pope. The Empress Theodora desired him to reinstate Anthenius at Constantinople, as he had promised to do; but Vigilius refused, saying that one was not bound to keep a bad promise against one’s conscience.” Compared with the account of Platina, in his _“Panselijk Register,” fol. 110_. Also, _Chron. Fasci. Temp. fol. 117_.

OF SOME WHO ATTAINED POSSESSION OF THE ROMAN CHAIR THROUGH SECULAR POWER AND OTHER UNGODLY MEANS.

There is, moreover, mention made of another kind of popes, who attained possession of the Roman chair, not properly through themselves, inasmuch as they were too weak, but through the power of princes and potentates, yea, even through the Arians. Among these are particularly numbered the two popes named Felix, both of whom were exalted to papal dignity, and put in their office by Arian Kings, who ruled Italy, and, consequently, also the city of Rome; the one by Constantius,[56] the other by Theodoric, both of whom belonged to the Arian sect. _Caes. Bar. Ann. 526. num. 2._

[56] This Constantius was a Roman emperor, while Theodoric was King of the Goths.

But quite the contrary happened when pope Silverius was reputed to favor the Goths, who sided with the Arians. Prince Belizarius deposed him, and sent him away into Greece, putting Vigilius in his stead as pope. According to the testimony of Procopius. _Ann. 538. num. 2._

After Vigilius, Pelagius was declared pope by two bishops only, and one from Ostien,[57] through the favor and assistance of the emperor Justinian; notwithstanding, as Anastasius says, the bad suspicion of having caused the death of the previous Pope Vigilius, rested on him; for which reason none of the other ecclesiastics, nay, not even the laity, would have communion or anything to do with him. _Ann. 555. num. 2._

[57] Probably Ostia, a town at the mouth of the Tiber. (Pub.)

OF THE DREADFUL TIME, CALLED BY THE PAPISTS THE IRON AND LEADEN CENTURY, WHICH WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE ELECTION OF THE POPES.

The oftmentioned cardinal Cæsar Baronius, proceeding in his account of the Register of the Popes, arrives at the year 901, the beginning of the tenth century, where he bursts out, as if with sorrow, calling this time hard, unfruitful, and productive of much evil; and comparing it to an iron and leaden century, full of wickedness and darkness, particularly in respect to the great irregularity practiced in the installing and deposing of the Roman popes; which was done partly by the Roman princes, partly by the princes of Tuscany, who, now this one, then that one, usurped the authority to elect the popes, and to dethrone them; which happened in such a manner that all the preceding abuses committed with reference to the Roman chair were mere child’s play in comparison with it.

For now, as Baronius writes, many monsters were thrust into this chair as popes; which continued throughout this whole century, yea, for a hundred and fifty years, namely from the year 900 to about the year 1049, when the German Ottoes, who occupied the imperial throne, interposed between both, although they, not less than their predecessors, retained as their prerogative the right of electing and rejecting the popes. _Baron. Ann. 901. num. 1._

The same cardinal relates, that in these awful and terrible times some popes attained to the popedom not only by the power of princes and potentates, but through the foolish love of certain dishonorable and loose women, by whom Rome was ruled; which we could in no wise believe, had not so eminent a man and rigid papist, as Baronius was, described it so plainly and circumstantially. See in _Baronius’ Church History_, printed at Antwerp 1623, _for the year 912. num. 1_; also _928. num. 1_; also _931. num. 1_.

Our soul is amazed, and we are ashamed to relate all that is adduced there from various papistic writers, concerning the election of some of the popes.

O God! open the eyes of these blind lovers of papacy, that they may see, what succession it is, of which they have so long boasted in vain; so that they may truly turn to thee and thy church, and be saved!

NOTE.--With respect to this matter, the writer of the Introduction to the _Martyrs Mirror_, of the year 1831, says: “After that arose a time far more horrible, etc., for the margraves of Tuscany, and after them the emperors, exercised so much violence with reference to the papal chair, that they thrust into it many monsters; among whom was John X., who was thrust into the chair by Theodora, mistress of Rome, while Lando was deposed.” Introduction, _fol. 26. col. 2._ from _Baron. Church History, Anno 912. num. 1._

After that he relates, that John X. was deposed by Theodora’s daughter, who also reigned over Rome, and that John XI., a bastard child of Pope Sergius III., was put into it. “And thus,” he writes, “have whores and rogues, according to the testimony of cardinal Baronius, ruled the papal chair, deposing and instituting whomsoever they would.” _Fol. 27. col. 1._ from _Baronius, Anno 931. num. 1._ Continuing, the aforementioned author remarks: “In this iron century it also happened, that Stephen IX., having illegitimately attained to the chair, was marked in the face by some rogues, for which reason he staid in his house.” Same place, from _Baronius Anno 940. num. 1._

But, in order to give an account of those particular ones only, who attained unlawfully to the papal chair, since we are treating of the succession and mission of the popes, we must also mention Pope John XII., who, being only eighteen years old, was forcibly put into the chair, and made pope by his father, the margrave of Tuscany. Afterwards he was deposed by a council at Rome, on account of his wicked life; but he remained pope nevertheless, since nobody would excommunicate the pope, however wicked his life might be, as Baronius relates. Compare _Baron. Anno 955. num. 1._ with _Anno 963. num. 1. 2._

After that, Albericus, the count of Tusculum, made his son, who was but ten years old, pope, and by his authority put him into the chair under the name of Benedict IX. After he had reigned about nine years, a certain faction of the Romans elected another pope. When Gratianus, a priest at Rome, saw this, he bought out both of them with money, and called himself Gregory VI.

But the Emperor, not willing to tolerate this, deposed all three of them, and put Clemens II. in their stead; and then Damascus II.; after him Leo IX.; and, finally, Victor II.

Thus the imperial line of the popes continued, until the clergy itself became powerful enough to elect the popes without waiting for the imperial mission, which formerly had been deemed necessary; this afterwards gave rise to great schisms and divisions in the Roman Church. Compare concerning all this _Baron. Hist. Eccl. Anno 1033. num. 2._ with _Anno 1044. num. 2. 3_; also, _Anno 1046. num. 1_; _Anno 1048. num. 1_; _Anno 1049. num. 2_; _Anno 1055._

With regard to the aforesaid matters, the writer of the Introduction mentioned says (_Fol. 27. col. 2_): “This being taken into consideration, we say, that it is not true that they, namely the Romanists, have an uninterrupted succession from the days of the apostles to the present time, as they would make the people believe, with their long register of popes, whom they have connected as the links of a chain, as though they, through lawful mission, had always maintained a continuous succession; but we have proved here that this chain of succession is, in many ways, broken.

“In the first place, by Stephen VII. and his successors, who have forcibly thrust themselves into the chair. These certainly had no mission; and where the mission ceases, the succession ceases also.

“In the second place, by those who were thrust into the chair, without the order or sanction of the church, only by kings and princes, yea, even by whores, through lewd love; or who bought the same with money, as we have shown. These also were certainly not sent; or, if they were sent, it must be proved, by whom: for two contrary things cannot consist together. If they were sent, they did not thrust themselves into the chair, as Baronius says notwithstanding; but if they thrust themselves into it, or were thrust into it by others through unlawful means, then they were not sent, and consequently, had no succession from the apostles.” Introduction, _fol. 28. col. 1._

TWO, THREE, AND FOUR POPES REIGNING AT THE SAME TIME; THE CHAIR OF ROME OCCASIONALLY WITHOUT A POPE FOR A LONG TIME.

Formerly, when the papal dominion was coveted, the aim was directed solely to the Roman chair, but now it was quite different; for, instead of according to Rome, the honor of electing the pope, as had always been the case heretofore, they of Avignon, in France began, without regarding the Romans or Italians, to constitute themselves the electors of the pope; insomuch that they for this end elected a certain person, whom they called Benedict XIII., notwithstanding the Roman chair was occupied by a pope called Gregory XII.; thus setting not only pope against pope, but France against Italy, and Avignon against Rome.[58]

[58] After pope Anastasius, Symmachus was elected pope in a tumult; and immediately also Laurentius was elected, with whom he had two contests, yet came off victor, as the papists say, for the clergy and king Diederik were on his side. But after four years, some of the clergy, who lusted after uproar and contention, and some Roman senators, recalled Laurentius; but they were sent into banishment. This caused a fearful riot at Rome. _P.J. Twisk, 5th Book, Anno 499. page 171. col. 2. ex Platinal Chron. fol. 101. Fasc. Temp. fol. 114._

Of this, P. J. Twisk gives the following account: “At this time there reigned two popes, who were for a long time at great variance with each other; the one at Rome in Italy, the other at Avignon.

“When Pope Innocentius at Rome was dead, Benedict XIII. still occupied the papal chair in France. Then Gregory XII. was elected pope.” _Chron. P. J. Twisk, 15th Book, for the year 1406. page 758. col. 1. ex Chron. Platinæ, fol. 396. Fasc. Temp. fol. 187._

The same writer, after narrating successively several other things which happened in the five subsequent years, again makes mention, for the year 1411, of this Pope Benedict, who was elected at Avignon; as well as of two others, who arose during his reign, namely, Gregory and John; and also of their mutual contentions. These are his words:

“At that time there were three popes at once, who incessantly excommunicated one another, and of whom the one gained this potentate for his adherent, the other another. Their names were: Benedict, Gregory, and John.

“These strove and contended with each other, not for the honor of the Son of God, nor in behalf of the reformation and correction of the adulterated doctrines or the manifold abuses of the (Roman) church, but solely for the supremacy; to obtain which, no one hesitated to perpetrate the most shameful deeds.

“In brief, the emperor exerted himself with great diligence, and traveled three years through Europe, to exterminate this shameful and pernicious strife and discord which prevailed in Christendom. Having, therefore, rejected these three schismatic popes, he brought it about, that Otto Columnius was made Pope by common consent; for, within the last twenty-nine years there had always been at least two popes; one at Rome, and the other at Avignon. When one blessed, the other cursed.[59] See aforementioned _Chronicle, 15th Book, for the year 1411. page 765. col. 1, 2._

[59] So writes Jan Crispijn.

Concerning the overthrow of these three popes the same author gives this statement: “In this year, Pope John XXIV., having been convicted in fifty-four articles, of heresies, crimes, and base villainies, was deposed from papal dignity, by the council of Constance, and given in custody to the palsgrave. When these articles were successively read to him, he sighed deeply and replied, that he had done something still worse, namely, that he had come down from the mountains of Italy, and committed himself under the jurisdiction of a council, in a country where he possessed neither authority nor power.