Part 1
Transcriber’s Note:
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects. Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. The text also affected the now obsolete ‘long s’ (ſ). All of been replaced with the modern ‘s’.
Each article is marked with a sidenote indicating the year a Pope assumed the office. These notes are underscored with a large horizontal brace, which is not reproduced here.
Marginal ‘sidenotes’ are marked as ‘[Sidenote: text]’ They appear either preceding a paragraph, or, when they annotate text within a paragraph, approximately where they occur in the original, usually on a sentence break.
Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.
The original text does not include a Table of Contents. The following has been constructed for ease of navigation
St. PETER LINUS, First Bishop of Rome, CE 66. CLETUS or ANACLETUS Second Bishop of Rome, CE 78. CLEMENT, Third Bishop of Rome, CE 91. EVARISTUS Fourth Bishop of Rome, CE 100. ALEXANDER, Fifth Bishop of Rome, CE 109. SIXTUS, Fourth Bishop of Rome, CE 119. TELESPHORUS, Seventh Bishop of Rome, CE 128. HYGINUS, Eighth Bishop of Rome, CE 139. PIUS, Ninth Bishop of Rome, CE 142. ANICETUS, Tenth Bishop of Rome, CE 157. SOTER, Eleventh Bishop of Rome, CE 168. ELEUTHERIUS, Twelfth Bishop of Rome, CE 176. VICTOR, Thirteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 192. ZEPHYRINUS, Fourteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 201. CALLISTUS, Fifteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 219. URBANUS, Sixteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 223. PONTIANUS, Seventeenth Bishop of Rome, CE 230. ANTERUS, Eighteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 235. FABIANUS, Nineteenth Bishop of Rome, CE 236. CORNELIUS, Twentieth Bishop of Rome, CE 251. LUCIUS, Twenty-first Bishop of Rome, CE 252. STEPHEN, Twenty-second Bishop of Rome, CE 253. SIXTUS II. Twenty-third Bishop of Rome, CE 257. DIONYSIUS, Twenty-fourth Bishop of Rome, CE 258. FELIX, Twenty-fifth Bishop of Rome, CE 269. EUTYCHIANUS, Twenty-sixth Bishop of Rome, CE 275. CAIUS, Twenty-seventh Bishop of Rome, CE 283. MARCELLINUS, Twenty-eighth Bishop of Rome, CE 296. MARCELLUS, Twenty-ninth Bishop of Rome, CE 308. EUSEBIUS, Thirtieth Bishop of Rome, CE 310. MELCHIADES, Thirty-first Bishop of Rome, CE 311. SYLVESTER, Thirty-second Bishop of Rome, CE 314. MARK, Thirty-third Bishop of Rome, CE 336. JULIUS, Thirty-fourth Bishop of Rome, CE 337. LIBERIUS, Thirty-fifth Bishop of Rome, CE 352. DAMASUS, Thirty-sixth Bishop of Rome, CE 366. SYRICIUS, Thirty-seventh BISHOP of Rome, CE 384. ANASTASIUS, Thirty-eighth Bishop of Rome, CE 398. INNOCENT, Thirty-ninth Bishop of Rome, CE 402. ZOSIMUS, Fortieth Bishop of Rome, CE 417. BONIFACE, Forty-first Bishop of Rome, CE 419. CELESTINE, Forty-second Bishop of Rome, CE 422.
THE HISTORY OF THE POPES,
FROM THE Foundation of the SEE of _ROME_,
TO THE
PRESENT TIME.
VOL. I.
_By_ _ARCHIBALD BOWER_, _Esq_;
_Heretofore Public Professor of_ Rhetoric, History, _and_ Philosophy, _in the Universities of_ Rome, Fermo, _and_ Macerata,
_And, in the latter Place, Counsellor of the Inquisition_.
The _THIRD EDITION_.
_LONDON_: Printed for the _AUTHOR_.
---
M. DCC. L.
TO THE
KING
SIR,
It is not only as having the Happiness to be Your subject, that I beg Your permission to lay this Book at Your feet. In whatever part of the world I had been born, or had resided, I should have desired to present it to Your Majesty, as the Great Protector of the Reformed Religion, and worthily filling that Throne, which, above any in _Europe_, is the chief Bulwark against the Papal Power, and all its pernicious attendants. The wonderful rise, and monstrous growth of that Power, almost to the ruin of all true Religion, and all the Civil rights of mankind, will be delineated in the course of this Work, which I flatter myself may be of some Use to the Protestant Cause. For, next to the light of the Gospel, there is nothing that Popery has more to fear, than that of historical Truth: It is a test which the pretensions and doctrines of _Rome_ can never abide; and therefore she has used her utmost endeavours, not only to lock up the Gospel from the eyes of the Laity, and prefer her own Comments, Decrees, and Traditions, to the authority of the Scriptures, but to corrupt, disguise, and falsify History, in which necessary business her ablest pens have been employed. To take off those disguises, and discover those falsehoods, is consequently a task becoming the zeal of a good Protestant; and my intention at least, though not my performance encourages me to hope for Your Majesty’s Gracious Protection.
In the latter part of this History I shall have often the pleasure to shew, how great an Instrument under _GOD_ the Power and Strength of this kingdom has been, to maintain and support the Reformation all over _Europe_. But I must also shew with concern, that from the death of our wise Queen _Elizabeth_, the Princes of the House of _Stuart_, instead of pursuing that glorious Plan, which she had traced out, were either remiss in the cause, or wholly forsook it; so that had not the Revolution providentially happened, and in consequence of it, the House of _Brunswick_ been called to the Throne of these kingdoms, the Reformed Religion would, in all probability, have not only been lost in _Great Britain_, or at least under a fate of severe persecution, but would have been in great danger every-where else, from such a change in the Balance of Power as that event must have produced. The support of Your Royal Family is therefore most necessary, even upon motives of self-preservation, to every Protestant both here and abroad. May a due sense of that important connection between Your safety and Theirs, be always kept alive in their minds. May our Holy Religion continue to flourish under Your Majesty’s Care, and that of Your Royal Posterity, to the latest times. May neither the open attacks, nor secret machinations of _Rome_ prevail against it. And may it produce all the Fruits that ought to spring from it, the truly-christian spirit of Toleration, universal charity, good morals, good learning, freedom of thought, and candour of mind. I need add no other wishes or prayers to these: They comprehend all happiness to Your Majesty, to Your Royal Family, and to my Country; and they come from the heart of,
_Sir_, _Your Majesty’s_ _Most Loyal_, _Most Faithful_, _And most devoted Subject_,
ARCHIBALD BOWER.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PREFACE
The Work, which I now offer to the Public, I undertook some years since at _Rome_, and brought it down to the Pontificate of _Victor_, that is, to the close of the Second Century. As I was then a most zealous champion for the Pope’s Supremacy, which was held as an article of Faith by the body I belonged to, my chief design, when I engaged in such a work, was, to ascertain that Supremacy, by shewing, century by century, that, from the Apostles times to the present, it had ever been acknowleged by the Catholic Church. But alas! I soon perceived, that I had undertaken more than it was in my power to perform. Nay, while, in order to support and maintain this cause, I examined, with particular attention, the writings of the Apostles, and of the many pious and learned men who had flourished in the three first centuries of the church, I was so far from finding any thing that seemed the least to countenance such a doctrine, that, on the contrary, it appeared evident, beyond all dispute, that, during the above-mentioned period of time, it had been utterly unknown to the Christian world. In spite then of my endeavours to the contrary, Reason getting the better of the strongest prejudices, I began to look upon the Pope’s Supremacy, not only as a prerogative quite chimerical, but as the most impudent attempt that had ever been made: I say, in spite of my endeavours to the contrary; for I was very unwilling to give up a point, upon which I had been taught by _Bellarmine_, that _the whole of Christianity depended_[1]; especially in a country, where a man cannot help being afraid even of his own thoughts, since, upon the least suspicion of his only calling in question any of the received opinions, he may depend upon his being soon convinced by more cogent arguments, than any in _Mood_ and _Figure_. But great is the power of truth; and at last it prevailed: I became a proselyte to the opinion which I had proposed to confute; and sincerely abjured, in my mind, that which I had ignorantly undertaken to defend.
Being thus fully convinced, that the Pope’s so much boasted Supremacy was a bold and ungodly usurpation, I could not help censuring with myself the men of learning, who had countenanced such a pretension, especially the two great champions of the Papal power _Bellarmine_ and _Baronius_. Did they not see what every man, who but dips into the primitive writers, must see; what is obvious to common sense? The poor shifts they are often put to, their ridiculous evasions and cavils, their unmeaning distinctions, their wresting several passages, contrary to the plain and natural meaning of the authors they quote, and, above all, their unsatisfactory answers to the objections of the adverse party, shew but too plainly, that they wrote not from conviction, nor aimed at truth, but, perhaps, at the _red Hat_, which was afterwards bestowed upon them, as a reward for betraying the truth. Few have written in defence of the Pope’s Supremacy, that have not been preferred; and none perhaps who had not preferment in view. _Æneas Sylvius_, afterwards _Pius_ II. being asked, before he was raised to the Papal Chair, How it happened, that, in all disputes between the Popes and the Councils, many Divines sided with the former, and very few with the latter? _Because the Popes_, answered he, _have benefices to give, and the Councils have none_. Had he been asked the same question after he was Pope, he would not perhaps have returned the same answer; but said, upon his being put in mind of it, as _Gregory_ XIII. did afterwards on a like occasion, that, _being raised higher, he saw better and farther_. Those therefore who have stood up in defence of the liberty of the Church against Papal Usurpation, cannot be supposed to have had any other inducement to espouse the cause of truth, but truth itself. And this some have had the Christian courage to do even in _Italy_, and almost in the Pope’s hearing, at the peril of their liberty, of their lives, of all that was dear to them; as I shall have occasion to shew hereafter. But to return, in the mean time, to the present History: I no sooner found myself in a Country where truth might be uttered without danger, than I resolved to resume and pursue, in my native tongue, as soon as I recovered the use of it, the work I had begun in a foreign language. On the one side I saw the only obstruction to an undertaking, which had already cost me no small pains and labour, happily removed; while I flattered myself on the other, that as a complete _History of the Popes_ was still wanting, such a performance might meet with a favourable reception from the public. I am well apprised, that others have, at different times, and in different languages, treated the same subject: but whether any of their several works may deserve the name of a _complete_, or even of a _tolerable History_, I leave those to judge who have perused them; and shall only say in respect to myself; that, instead of diverting me from undertaking the same province, they have more than any thing else encouraged me to it. _Anastasius_ and _Platina_, the two _Classics_, as they are deemed, in this branch of History, have indeed given us the _Lives of the Popes_, from the foundation of the See of _Rome_ to their times, but in so broken, imperfect, and unsatisfactory a manner, that from them we learn but very little, even concerning those of whom they have said most. It was not their design to write a History, but only to draw, as it were in miniature, the portraits of the _Roman_ Bishops, by relating, in a summary way, such of their actions, as appeared to them most worthy of being recorded; and, to say the truth, they have both betrayed no less want of discernment in chusing what they should relate, than of exactness in relating what they had chosen.
_Anastasius_ the Monk, surnamed _Bibliothecarius_, that is, Library-keeper, Secretary, and Chancellor of the Church of _Rome_ (for all these employments antiently centred in one person, and were comprised under the common name of _Bibliothecarius_) flourished in the ninth century, under _Nicolas_ I. _Adrian_ II. and _John_ VIII. He wrote a succinct account of the Bishops, who governed the Church of _Rome_, from St. _Peter_ to _Nicolas_ I. who died in 867. But the memoirs he made use of were none of the best. In his time the world was over-run with forged or corrupted Pontificals, Martyrologies, Legends, _&c._ which were then no less universally received, than they have been since rejected by the learned of all persuasions. However, that from these the _Bibliothecarian_ borrowed the greater part of his materials, at least for the six first centuries, is but too apparent from his overlooking, nay, and often contradicting, the unexceptionable testimonies of contemporary writers; as will be seen in the sequel of the present History. As therefore the records, which he copied, are so justly suspected, and his own authority can be of no weight with respect to those distant times, the reader must not be surprised to find, that, in this History, I have paid no manner of regard to an author, who has been hitherto blindly followed by those, who have written on the same subject. There may indeed be some truth in what he relates; but his frequent mistakes render that truth too precarious to be relied on, unless confirmed by the concurring testimonies of other more credible and less credulous authors. However, in the times less remote from his own, I shall readily allow his authority its due weight; the rather, as he seems not to have written with a design of imposing upon others, but to have been imposed upon himself by frauds and forgeries; for he wrote in an age, when the world lay involved in the thickest mist of ignorance, when superstition and credulity triumphed without controul, and spurious pieces, filled with idle and improbable stories, had thrust every grave writer, nay, and the Gospels themselves, out of doors.
_Platina_, so called from the _Latin_ name of _Piadena_, a village in the _Cremonese_, the place of his nativity (for his true name was _Battista_, or _Bartolomeo Sacchi_) flourished six hundred years after _Anastasius_, that is, in the fifteenth century, under _Calixtus_ III. _Pius_ II. _Paul_ II. and _Sixtus_ IV. Under _Pius_ II. he was Secretary of the _Datary_, the office where vacant benefices are disposed of; but, being dismissed by _Paul_ II. tho’ he had purchased the place, in the height of his resentment, he appealed to the _future Council_. What he suffered under that Pope, first in prison, and afterwards on the rack, we shall hear from himself, in a more proper place. _Sixtus_ IV. the successor of _Paul_, well apprised of his innocence, took him into favour, and, having enlarged, endowed, and enriched the _Vatican_ library with a great number of valuable books, in different languages, he committed the care of them to him. It was probably at this time that he wrote, or rather transcribed, the Lives of the Popes from St. _Peter_, whom he supposes the founder of that See, to _Paul_ II. who died in 1471. I say _transcribed_; for, if we except the few Popes who lived in or near his own times, _viz._ _Eugene_ IV. _Nicolas_ V. _Calixtus_ III. _Pius_ II. and _Paul_ II. he copied, almost verbatim, all he has said of the rest, only interweaving now and then the profane history with the ecclesiastic[2]. The Lives of the fourteen succeeding Popes, from _Paul_ II. to _Pius_ V. elected in 1566. were compiled by _Onuphrius Panvinius_, of the _Augustin_ order, a man more commendable for his learning, than for his candor and veracity. These are, as we may style them, the original compilers of the Lives of the Popes: _Platina_ adopted _Anastasius_’s concise method of writing, and _Panvinius_, _Platina_’s, contenting themselves with bare hints; and thereby putting their readers to the trouble of consulting other writers, in order to gratify the curiosity they had raised. _Much has been said of the Popes by other Historians, but very little by their own_, as the learned _Pagi_ observed, after comparing the authors I have mentioned, with the contemporary Historians of other nations. I might well add, that the _very little_ they have said has been thought too much; whence some of them, and _Platina_ in particular, have been made, in all their Editions since the middle of the sixteenth century, to speak with more reserve, and to suppress or disguise some truths they had formerly told.
As for those who in later times have engaged in the same province, we need only dip into their works to be satisfied, that to search out truth was not their business. Some are all praise and panegyric, others all satire and gall: some have made it their study to excuse the worst of Popes, others to arraign the best. That many of the Popes have been wicked men, abandonedly wicked, is undeniable, notwithstanding the pains that have been taken to extenuate their crimes; but neither are there wanting some good men among them, of innocent lives, and unblemished characters, whose only crime is their having been Popes; and to misrepresent or misconstrue the virtuous actions of these, as some have done, is no less blameable in an Historian, than to dissemble or gloss over the criminal actions of the others. This partiality may be easily accounted for with respect to one great period of the present History. During the quarrels and wars between the Popes and Emperors, which lasted many years, and occasioned, in seventy-eight battles, the destruction of an infinite number of innocent people, two powerful factions reigned, as is well known, both in _Germany_ and _Italy_, distinguished by the names of _Guelphs_ and _Ghibbelines_; the former being zealously attached to the Papal and the latter to the Imperial interest. In the midst of these distractions few writers stood neuter, but, siding, according to their different interests or inclinations, with one party or the other, drew their pens, each against the head of the party he opposed, with more rage than the soldiers did their swords. And hence it is, that we find the same facts related by contemporary authors with such different circumstances; the same persons, the Emperors especially and the Popes, painted in such different colours. Of this very few Writers in the later times have been aware; and therefore have, as their bias led them to favour one cause more than the other, adopted as undoubted truths the many groundless aspersions and undeserved reproaches which party zeal had suggested to the _Ghibbelines_ against the Popes, or to the _Guelphs_ against the Emperors. I wish I could intirely clear an eminent _Italian_ historian of our own times from this imputation.
But, after all, as it was not merely with a view to supply the want of a complete History of the Popes, that I formerly undertook so laborious a task; neither is it now with that view alone I resume it. What I proposed to myself, when I first undertook it, I have said already; but, being convinced that I laboured in vain, and convinced by such evidence as the strongest prejudice could not withstand, I thought it a duty owing to truth, to set it forth to others in the same irresistible light; and to defend, at least with as much zeal, the best of causes, as I had done the worst. A disloyal subject, who had taken up arms against his lawful Sovereign, would not be thought intirely to comply with his duty, by only laying them down: he ought, if actuated by a true spirit of loyalty, and truly convinced of the badness of his cause, to range himself under the banners of his injured Lord, and devote to his service and defence the sword he had drawn against him. By a like obligation, a writer, who has, even ignorantly, combated truth, is bound, not only to lay down his pen, as soon as he finds himself engaged in a bad cause, but, when occasion offers, to turn against error in favour of truth the very weapon he had employed against truth in favour of error.