Part 3

That the _Franciscan_ Friers had no property, in common or in private; a question, if any ever was, _de lana caprina_. What was it to mankind? what to the Christian Religion, whether a few Friers had, or had not any property? No man was the better for believing they had, no man the worse for believing they had not. And yet to read the bulls of the Popes one would think, that the whole of Christianity had been at stake.

Footnote 5:

_John_ XXII.

Footnote 6:

Direct. Inquis. part. ii. quæst. 51. See also _Antoninus_ in his _Summa theologiæ_, part. iv. tit. ii. c. 7. num. 5. _Petrus Alliacus Cameracensis_; _Continuator Nangii ad ann._ 1333; _Joannes Gerso in Ser. de Fest. Paschat. Longus in Monas. Cicestr. Chronic._ and _Gobelinus Cosmodromii ætat._ vi. c. 71.

Footnote 7:

_Phocas_ settled himself on the Imperial throne by the murder of _Mauritius_, his lawful sovereign, and the massacre of his six children, and of all his friends and relations. Five of his children he caused to be inhumanly butchered in the presence of their father.

Footnote 8:

_Gregory_ styles him a most pious and religious Prince; caused his image, and that of his wife _Leontia_, who was no better than he, to be lodged in an oratory at _Rome_; and, congratulating him on his advancement to the throne, ascribes it to a particular Providence.

Footnote 9:

_Gregory the Great._

THE HISTORY OF THE POPES, OR BISHOPS of _ROME_

_St._ PETER

It is out of some Regard to an antient Tradition, that I have placed St. _Peter_ at the Head of the Bishops of _Rome_, though I am well apprised, that this, like most other Traditions, will hardly stand the Test of a strict and impartial Examination. [Sidenote: _That St. Peter was ever at_ Rome, _known only by Tradition._] To avoid being imposed upon, we ought to treat Tradition as we do a notorious and known Lyer, to whom we give no Credit, unless what he says is confirmed to us by some Person of undoubted Veracity. If it is affirmed by him alone, we can at most but suspend our Belief, not rejecting it as false, because a Lyer may sometimes speak Truth; but we cannot, upon his bare Authority, admit it as true. Now that St. _Peter_ was at _Rome_, that he was Bishop of _Rome_, we are told by Tradition alone, which, at the same time, tells us of so many strange Circumstances attending his coming to that Metropolis, his staying in it, his withdrawing from it, _&c._ that, in the Opinion of every unprejudiced Man, the Whole must favour strongly of Romance. [Sidenote: _Tradition not to be depended upon._] Thus we are told, that St. _Peter_ went to _Rome_ chiefly to oppose _Simon_, the celebrated Magician; that, at their first Interview, at which _Nero_ himself was present, he flew up into the Air, in the Sight of the Emperor, and the whole City; but that the Devil, who had thus raised him, struck with Dread and Terror at the Name of _Jesus_, whom the Apostle invoked, let him fall to the Ground, by which Fall he broke his Legs. Should you question the Truth of this Tradition at _Rome_, they would shew you the Prints of St. _Peter_’s Knees in the Stone, on which he kneeled on this Occasion, and another Stone still dyed with the Blood of the Magician[N1].

Footnote N1:

This Account seems to have been borrowed from _Suetonius_, who speaks of a Person that, in the public Sports, undertook to fly in the Presence of the Emperor _Nero_; but, on his first Attempt, fell to the Ground; by which Fall his Blood sprung out with such Violence, that it reached the Emperor’s Canopy [N1.1].

Footnote N1.1:

Suet. l. 6. c. 12.

[Sidenote: _Fabulous Accounts of St._ Peter.]

The _Romans_, as we are told, highly incensed against him for thus maiming, and bringing to Disgrace, one to whom they paid divine Honours, vowed his Destruction; whereupon the Apostle thought it adviseable to retire for a while from the City, and had already reached the Gate, when, to his great Surprize, he met our Saviour coming in, as he went out, who, upon St. _Peter_’s asking him where he was going, returned this Answer, _I am going to_ Rome _to be crucified anew_: which, as St. _Peter_ understood it, was upbraiding him with his Flight; whereupon he turned back, and was soon after seized by the provoked _Romans_, and, by an Order from the Emperor, crucified. These, and a thousand like Stories, however fabulous and romantic they may seem, we cannot, without great Incoherency, reject, if we admit St. _Peter_ to have been at _Rome_; since the Whole is equally vouched by the same Authority, and has been upon the same Authority equally believed by those, who are called in by the Advocates for the See of _Rome_, to witness St. _Peter_’s having preached the Gospel in that City. [Sidenote: _The greatest Men imposed upon by false Traditions._] These are _Arnobius_[10], _Cyril_ of _Jerusalem_[11], _Eusebius_[12], _Irenæus_[13], _Tertullian_[14], _Jerom_[15], and _Justin_ the Martyr[16]. These have all supposed St. _Peter_ to have been at _Rome_, and, together with St. _Paul_, to have planted Christianity in that great Metropolis of the World; but this they took upon Tradition, and consequently their Authority is of no greater Weight than Tradition itself, which had they duly examined, they would not perhaps have so readily pinned their Faith upon it. False and lying Traditions are of an early Date, and the greatest Men have, out of a pious Credulity, suffered themselves to be imposed upon by them. How many Traditions, after having reigned for Ages without Controul, were upon the Reformation, when Men took the Liberty to examine what they believed, rejected by the Church, ashamed to own them, and degraded into popular Errors! But that of St. _Peter_’s having been at _Rome_, and the first Bishop of that City, was a Tradition of too great Consequence not to be maintained at all Events, since upon that chiefly was founded the Claim of his pretended Successors to an uncontrouled Authority, and universal Jurisdiction; a Foundation infinitely too weak for such an immense Superstructure.

[Sidenote: _How little regard paid to them by some Popes._]

And here I cannot help observing the little Regard that the Popes themselves have shewn to Tradition, though received by the greatest Lights of the Church, when it did not promote the Honour or Interest of their See. Of this we have a glaring Instance in a parallel Case; for as St. _Peter_, according to Tradition, travelled to _Rome_, so did St. _Paul_, according to Tradition, travel into _Spain_: the former Tradition was received by the Writers I have quoted above, and the latter by some of the same Writers, _viz._ by _Cyril_ of _Jerusalem_[17], and _Jerom_[18], and by _Athanasius_[19], _Chrysostom_[20], _Theodoret_[21], _Gregory the Great_[22], and many others; yet such a Tradition was rejected, perhaps justly, by Pope _Innocent_ I. who would not allow St. _Paul_ to have ever been in _Spain_[23]. Have we not an equal Right to question, or even to deny, St. _Peter_’s having ever been at _Rome_? Are not the Authorities at least equal on both Sides? Why then must the Travels of one Apostle be looked upon as an Article of Faith, and those of the other be deemed fabulous?

[Sidenote: _No Mention in the Scripture of St._ Peter_’s having ever been at_ Rome.]

And truly, if we examine narrowly into this matter, the former Tradition will appear no less groundless to us, than the latter did to that Pope: for, in the first place, neither St. _Peter_ himself, nor any of the Sacred Writers, give us the least Hint or Intimation of his having ever been at _Rome_. We are told of his being at _Antioch_, at _Jerusalem_, at _Corinth_, at _Babylon_[24]; but of the great Metropolis of the Empire, where he is supposed to have fixed his See, not the least Mention is made. And may we not from that Silence question, to say no more, his having ever been there? I know that by _Babylon_, from whence St. _Peter_ wrote his first Epistle[25], _Eusebius_,[26] _Jerom_[27], the Venerable _Bede_[28], _Oecumenius_[29], and _Grotius_[30], understood _Rome_; but this is a bare Conjecture, and no better grounded than that of others, who thought that by _Babylon_ was meant _Jerusalem_[31]. The learned Doctor _Pearson_, Bishop of _Chester_, seeing no Occasion here to recur to a figurative Sense, is of Opinion, that the above-mentioned Epistle was written not from _Babylon_ in _Chaldæa_, which then lay in Ruins, but from _Babylon_ in _Egypt_; and no Man has taken more Pains to make the World believe, that St. _Peter_ preached at _Rome_, and founded that See[32]. But, in this Controversy, the Silence of St. _Paul_ in particular, if duly attended to, must be thought, by every unbiassed Man, a far more convincing Proof of St. _Peter_’s not having been at _Rome_, than all the Authorities that have been yet alleged, are of his having been there. [Sidenote: _St._ Paul, _in the many Letters he wrote from_ Rome, _never mentions St._ Peter.] For that Apostle, while at _Rome_, had frequent Opportunities of mentioning his fellow Apostle, and fellow Labourer; and yet, naming several others, he is quite silent as to him. From _Rome_ he wrote to the _Galatians_, to the _Ephesians_, to the _Philippians_, to the _Colossians_, to _Timothy_, and to _Philemon_, without ever mentioning _Peter_, or sending any Salutation from him; nay, it is certain, that St. _Peter_ was not at _Rome_ when the Apostle of the Gentiles wrote to the _Colossians_; for, mentioning _Tychicus_, _Onesimus_, _Aristarchus_, _Marcus_, and _Justus_, he adds, _These alone, my Fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God, who have been a Comfort unto me_[33]. _Peter_ was not there, when St. _Paul_ wrote his second Epistle to _Timothy_, where he says, _At my first Answer no Man stood with me, but all Men forsook me_[34]: nor was he there immediately before St. _Paul_’s Death, when _the Time of his Departure was at hand_; for he tells _Timothy_, that _all the Brethren did salute him_; and, naming _Eubulus_, _Pudens_, _Linus_, and _Claudia_[35], he omits _Peter_, whom we may thence conclude not to have been there. And yet it is a received Tradition in the Church of _Rome_, that St. _Peter_ was then not only in that Metropolis, but confined and bound in the same Prison with St. _Paul_. As that Apostle, in writing from _Rome_, sends no Salutations from _Peter_, so in writing to _Rome_ he greets many others, but never mentions him[36]. Now who would not sooner chuse to reject such Traditions, than to suppose St. _Paul_ guilty of such an unfriendly and unaccountable Omission?

[Sidenote: _St_. Peter, _though at_ Rome, _not Bishop of_ Rome.>]

From what has been hitherto said, every impartial Judge must conclude, that it is, at least, very much to be doubted whether St. _Peter_ was ever at _Rome_; but, allowing him to have been there, it still remains to be proved, that he was Bishop of that See. This the Sticklers for the Papal Authority spare no Pains to make out, being well apprised, that the Whole of their Cause lies here at stake; and yet I find nothing alleged by them in so material a Point, but a few misinterpreted Passages out of the Ecclesiastical Writers: for the right understanding of which it is to be observed, that such of the Antients as called _Peter_ Bishop of _Rome_, and _Rome_ the _Place_, the _Chair_, the _See_ of _Peter_, meant no more than that he was Superintendent of that Church, that he founded it by converting Men to the Faith, and erected the Episcopal Chair, by appointing the first Bishops. That this was their true Meaning, is apparent from what we read in _Ruffinus_; who, having mentioned _Linus_, _Cletus_, and _Clemens_, as succeeding each other in the See of _Rome_, while _Peter_ was still alive, thus accounts for their Episcopacy: They were, says he, appointed Bishops by _Peter_, to the end that, they taking upon them the Episcopal Charge, he might be at Leisure to discharge the Duties of his Apostolical Office. And this, he tells us, was not a Notion of his own, but the common Opinion[37]. _Irenæus_ speaks to the same Purpose: _The Apostles_, says he, _founding that Church, delivered the Episcopal Office into the Hands of_ Linus[38]. Hence the most antient Writers, who lived nearest the Fountain of Tradition, never stile St. _Peter_ Bishop of _Rome_, but only say, that, by ordaining Bishops, he founded that Church[39]. [Sidenote: _In what sense St._ Peter _and St_. Paul _stiled Bishops of_ Rome.] St. _Peter_ therefore was not Bishop of _Rome_ in the strict Sense, to which that Word is now confined, but in the more large Sense, of which I have taken notice above: and in that St. _Paul_ has as good a Claim to the high-sounding Titles of _Pope_, _Bishop of_ Rome, _&c._ as St. _Peter_, since, together with him, he is said to have founded that Church. The Popes indeed will not allow him that Honour, nor condescend to reckon him among their Predecessors; but _Epiphanius_ and _Eusebius_ have been more complaisant; of whom the former says, Peter _and_ Paul _were the first at_ Rome, _both Bishops and Apostles_[40]; and the latter speaking of the Succession of the Bishops of _Rome_, Alexander _derived his Succession in the fifth Place from_ Peter _and_ Paul[41]. Both therefore were Bishops of _Rome_, or neither; both in the Sense of the antient Writers, but neither in that, which is now annexed to the Word _Bishop_. [Sidenote: _The Duties of a Bishop and an Apostle inconsistent._] And truly the Office of an Apostle, and that of a Bishop, as the Word is now understood, are incompatible. An Apostle, says _Chrysostom_[42], is charged with the Instruction not of any particular Nation or City, but of the whole World; but a Bishop must reside, says the same Writer[43], and be employed in one Place: and therefore St. _Peter_, who knew these two Duties to be inconsistent, if he was ever at _Rome_, committed there, as he did in other Places, the Episcopal Charge to others, and pursued his Apostolical Office, which required a more extensive Care.

[Sidenote: _Whether_ James _the Apostle was Bishop of_ Jerusalem.]

But St. _James_, say the Popish Writers, though an Apostle, was appointed Bishop of _Jerusalem_; and why might not St. _Peter_, though an Apostle, undertake the Episcopacy of _Rome_? It is surprising they should lay so much Stress as they do on this Objection, since they must know it to be grounded on an Uncertainty; as _Eusebius_ the greatest Antiquary of former Times[44], _Hegesippus_ the most antient Historian[45], _Epiphanius_[46], _Jerom_[47] _Gregory of Nysse_[48], _Chrysostom_[49], and many others, reckon _James_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, not among the _Apostles_, but the Seventy Disciples. Of the same Opinion among the Moderns, are _Grotius_[50], Dr. _Hammond_[51], _Valesius_[52], _Blondel_[53], and _Salmasius_[54]. The last of these saying, after his positive and confident manner, _It is certain that he was not one of the Twelve_, I may at least say, it is not certain that he was; and consequently the Objection can be of no considerable Weight. But allowing him to have been one of the Twelve, as some of the Antients seem to think[55], there was a special Reason, why one of the Apostles should be appointed to reside at _Jerusalem_, that City being the Metropolis, the Fountain, the Centre of the Christian Religion; our Faith had there had its Birth; the Church was there very numerous, consisting of many Thousands of believing _Jews_[56]; and thither resorted great Numbers of those of that Nation, who were converted to Christ in other Countries. On these Considerations it might seem expedient, that a Person of the greatest Authority should preside there. But there was no special Reason why an Apostle should constantly reside at any other Place, nor does it appear that any did: St. _Peter_ especially could not reside at any one Place, since to him, as _the Apostle of the Circumcision_, was committed the Charge of converting the dispersed _Jews_ in all Parts of the World.

[Sidenote: _What meant by the_ Apostolic See, Chair, Throne, _&c._]

As for the Appellations of the _Apostolic See_, _Chair_, _Throne_, &c. given by the Antients to the See of _Rome_, they import no more than that it was erected by an Apostle; for they are bestowed indiscriminately on all the Sees, in which Bishops had been placed by the Apostles; _viz._ of _Ephesus_[57], of _Smyrna_[58], of _Alexandria_[59], of _Corinth_, _Thessalonica_, _Philippi_[59], &c. The Title of _Apostolic See_, common to many, was, in Process of Time, by the Ambition of the Bishops of _Rome_, appropriated to their own. They had, as they thought, till the Year 1662. a pregnant Proof not only of St. _Peter_’s erecting their Chair, but of his sitting in it himself; for till that Year, the very Chair, on which they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was shewn and exposed to public Adoration on the 18th of _January_, the Festival of the said Chair. But while it was cleaning, in order to be set up in some conspicuous Place of the _Vatican_, the Twelve Labours of _Hercules_ unluckily appeared engraved on it. Our Worship however, says _Giacomo Bartolini_, who was present at this Discovery, and relates it, was not misplaced, since it was not to the Wood we paid it; but to the Prince of the Apostles St. _Peter_[60]. An Author of no mean Character, unwilling to give up the holy Chair, even after this Discovery, as having a Place and a peculiar Solemnity among the other Saints, has attempted to explain the Labours of _Hercules_ in a mystical Sense, as Emblems representing the future Exploits of the _Popes_[61]. But the ridiculous and distorted Conceits of that Writer are not worthy our Notice, tho’ by _Clement_ X. they were judged not unworthy of a Reward.

[Sidenote: _St._ Peter _how, or by whom, placed in the See of_ Rome.]

But to return to our Subject; it may be inquired, If St. _Peter_ was Bishop of _Rome_, who placed him in that See? Did our Lord appoint him? Did the Apostles name him? Did the People chuse him? Did he assume it himself? To these Queries no Answers have been yet given, but such as are so ridiculously weak, that it is not worth my while to relate them, nor the Reader’s to hear them. _Bellarmine_, in one Place, positively affirms, that _God commanded St_. Peter _to fix his See at_ Rome[62]; but elsewhere contents himself with saying, _It is not improbable that God commanded St._ Peter _to fix his See at_ Rome[63]. Is it is no more than not improbable, it is uncertain; it may be a mere Conjecture, a Dream.

[Sidenote: _Other Bishops of_ Rome _appointed by St._ Peter.]

St. _Peter_, either alone, or jointly with St. _Paul_, as we read in _Irenæus_, and in the Apostolical Constitutions[64], appointed other Bishops of _Rome_. Now, when he appointed others, did he resign his Episcopacy, or retain it? If he resigned it, he did not die Bishop of _Rome_; which shakes the very Foundation of the Pope’s Claim to Supremacy: if he retained it, there were Two Bishops on the same See at one time; which Pope _Innocent_ I. in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of _Constantinople_, condemned as an Irregularity never known till his Time[65]: he did not, it seems, recollect that it had been practised by his Predecessor Pope _Peter_. _Theodoret_ tells us, in his Ecclesiastical History, that when the Emperor _Constantius_ would have had _Felix_ to sit in the See of _Rome_, together with _Liberius_, upon the Return of the latter from Banishment, the People of _Rome_ would not content to it, crying out, _One God, one Christ, one Bishop_. _Felix_ died soon after, and upon his Death _Theodoret_ makes the following Remark: _It was_, says he, _a special Providence, that_ Peter_’s Throne might not suffer Infamy, being held by Two Prelates_[66]. He did not consider, or rather did not believe, that it had been held by St. _Peter_ and St. _Paul_, by St. _Pater_ and by _Linus_.

[Sidenote: _St._ Peter _Bishop at_ Rome, _not of_ Rome.]

To conclude, St. _Peter_ was perhaps Bishop at _Rome_, not of _Rome_[N2]. He was Bishop at _Rome_, if he ever was there, being, in virtue of his Apostleship, impowered to discharge, at _Rome_, and every-where else, all Episcopal Functions; but was not specially Bishop of _Rome_, or any other Place; that is, he did not take upon him the Charge of any particular Bishop, the Administration of any particular Bishoprick, that being inconsistent both with the Dignity and Office of an Apostle, or universal Bishop.

Footnote N2:

'Tis a Distinction made by a Pope, _King in_ Etruria, _not of_ Etruria.

Footnote 10:

Arnob. l. 2. in Gent.

Footnote 11:

Cyril. catech. 6.

Footnote 12:

Euseb. l. 2. c. 14.

Footnote 13:

Iren. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 14:

Tert. de anim. c. 24.

Footnote 15:

Hier. de vir. illustr. c. 2.

Footnote 16:

Justin. apol. 2.

Footnote 17:

Cyr. cat. 17.

Footnote 18:

Hier. in Isai. xi. 14.

Footnote 19:

Athan. ad Drac.

Footnote 20:

Chrys. ad Hebr. præf.

Footnote 21:

Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 17.

Footnote 22:

Greg. in Joh. xxiii. 22.

Footnote 23:

Concil. tom. 2. p. 1245.

Footnote 24:

Act. xi. 2. xv. 7. Gal. i. 18. ii. 9. Gal. ii. 11. 1 Pet. v. 13. 1 Cor. i. 12.

Footnote 25:

1 Pet. v. 13.

Footnote 26:

Euseb. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 27:

Hier. vir. illust. c. 8.

Footnote 28:

Bed. tom. 5. p. 713.

Footnote 29:

Oecu. p. 526.

Footnote 30:

Grot. synops. in Pet.

Footnote 31:

Vide Grot. ib. p. 1541.

Footnote 32:

Pears. oper. posth. p. 56, & seq.

Footnote 33:

Coloss. iv. 11.

Footnote 34:

2 Tim. iv. 6.

Footnote 35:

Ibid. iv. 21.

Footnote 36:

Ad Rom. xvi. 3-15.

Footnote 37:

Ruffin. in præf. ad Clem. recogn.

Footnote 38:

Iren. apud Euseb. c. 5, 6.

Footnote 39:

Constit. Apost. 7. 46. Iren. 3. 3.

Footnote 40:

Epiph. hær. 7.

Footnote 41:

Euseb. l. iv. c. 2.

Footnote 42:

Chrys. tom. 8. p. 115.

Footnote 43:

Idem Eph. iv. 11.

Footnote 44:

Euseb. l. i. c. 12.

Footnote 45:

Heges. apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 2.

Footnote 46:

Epiph. hær. 78.

Footnote 47:

Hier. de vir. ill.

Footnote 48:

Greg. p. 279.

Footnote 49:

Chrys. in Mat. hom. 33.

Footnote 50:

Grot. in Jac. i. 1.

Footnote 51:

Hamm. dissert. Ignat. 4. 3.

Footnote 52:

Val. in Euseb. 1. 12.

Footnote 53:

Blond. in epist. Clem. ad Jacob.

Footnote 54:

Wal. Mess. p. 20.

Footnote 55:

Aug. cont. Cres. l. 2. c. 37. Vide Pears. Ann. Paulin. p. 58.

Footnote 56:

Act. xxi. 20.

Footnote 57:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 58:

Idem ib. & Tertull. de præs. hæret. c. 32. Euseb. l. 3. c. 36.

Footnote 59:

Tertull. ib. c. 36.

Footnote 60:

Bartol. Antichitá sacre di Roma, p. 32.

Footnote 61:

Luchesini catedra restituita a S. Pietro.

Footnote 62:

Bell. de sum. Pont. l. 4. c. 4.

Footnote 63:

Idem ib. l. 2. c. 12.

Footnote 64:

Iren. apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 6. et Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.

Footnote 65:

Inn. I. apud Soz. l. 8. c. 26.

Footnote 66:

Theod. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 17.

NERO, LINUS, VITELLIUS, GALBA, _First_ BISHOP _of_ Rome. VESPASIAN, OTHO, TITUS.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 66. Linus, _and not_ Clemens, _the Bishop of_ Rome.]