Part 4
There is a great Disagreement among the Antients about the first Bishops of _Rome_: _Tertullian_ makes _Clement_, whom he supposes to have been ordained by St. _Peter_, the immediate _Successor of that Apostle_[67]. He was followed therein by _Ruffinus_[68], and _Ruffinus_ by the _Latins_ in general; among whom that Opinion universally prevailed towards the End of the Fourth Century. But _Jerom_, rejecting the Opinion of the _Latins_, places _Linus_ immediately after the Apostles, _Anacletus_ next to him, and _Clement_ in the third Place[69]. His Opinion is supported by the Authority of _Irenæus_[70], _Eusebius_[71], _Theodoret_[72], and likewise of _Epiphanius_[73], _Optatus Milevitanus_[74], and St. _Augustin_[75], with this Difference, that _Epiphanius_ gives the Name of _Cletus_ to the Successor of _Linus_, and both _Optatus_ and St. _Augustin_ place him after _Clement_; but in this they all agree, that _Linus_ was the first, after the Apostles, who governed the Church of _Rome_. To the Authority of these Writers I may add that of the Apostolic Constitutions, telling us, in express Terms, that _Linus_ was ordained Bishop of _Rome_ by St. _Paul_[76]. [Sidenote: _Whether_ Clement _appointed by St._ Peter _to succeed him_.] As to what we read in _Tertullian_ and _Ruffinus_, _viz._ that _Clement_ was ordained by St. _Peter_, and named to succeed him; Dr. _Hammond_ answers, That _Clement_ governed with Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction the converted _Jews_, while _Linus_ and _Anacletus_ governed, with the same Power, the converted Gentiles. He adds, That, upon the Death of _Anacletus_, both Churches were united under him[77]. Thus he strives to reconcile the Opinion of the _Latins_, placing _Clement_ immediately after the Apostles, with that of the _Greeks_, allowing him only the third Place: for, granting what he advances to be true, and Reasons are not wanting to support it, _Clement_ was, agreeably to the Opinion of the _Latins_, the immediate Successor of the Apostles, with respect to the _Jews_; but, with respect to the Gentiles, he succeeded _Anacletus_, agreeably to the Opinion of the _Greeks_[78]. This Answer _Cotelerius_ applauds as an ingenious, learned, and probable Solution; but, at the same time, rejects it as contradicting, in his Opinion, the Apostolic Constitutions, and not supported by the Authority of any antient Writer[79]. The learned Dr. _Pearson_ will admit no Opinion that supposes Two Bishops to have presided together in one City[80], that being an Irregularity, according to St. _Cyprian_[81], _contrary to the Ecclesiastic Disposition, contrary to the Evangelic Law, contrary to the Rules of the Catholic Institution_, and condemned as such by the Council of _Nice_[82]. It is very much to be doubted, as I have shewn above, whether St. _Peter_ ever was at _Rome_, and consequently whether _Clement_ was ordained, by him, Bishop of that City. His not succeeding him is a Proof, that he was not; for who can imagine, that the People and Clergy of those Days would have thought of chusing any other, or that any other, though chosen, would have accepted of a Dignity, to which _Clement_ had been named by St. _Peter_ himself, and which he was actually possessed of at the Apostle’s Death? Be that as it will, _Linus_ is now universally acknowleged both by the _Greeks_ and _Latins_ for the first Bishop of _Rome_.
As for the Life and Actions of _Linus_, all I can find in the Antients concerning him, is, that it was he whom St. _Paul_ mentioned in his Epistle to _Timothy_[83]; that, upon the Authority of the Apostolic Constitutions, he was supposed, by some, to have been the Son of _Claudia_, whom the Apostle mentions in the same Place[84]; and that his Life and Conversation were much approved of by the People[85]. [Sidenote: Linus _no Martyr, tho’ placed among the Martyrs_.] The Church of _Rome_ allows him, in the Canon of the Mass, a Place among the Martyrs; but no mention is made of his having suffered for the Faith, either in the antient Martyrologies, or in _Irenæus_, who, speaking of him, and his immediate Successors, distinguishes none but _Telesphorus_ with the Title of Martyr. _Baronius_, determined to maintain, right or wrong, the Credit of the sacred Canon, in Opposition to all the Antients, nay, and to his own System, cuts off one Year from the Pontificate of _Linus_, that he may place his Death under _Vespasian_, and not, as _Eusebius_ has done[86], under _Titus_, in whose Reign he owns none to have suffered for the Faith[87]. Had he remembered what he must have read in _Tertullian_ and _Eusebius_, he had saved himself that Trouble: for _Tertullian_ assures us, that _Vespasian_ made no Laws against the Christians[88]; and _Eusebius_, that he did not molest them, though he caused a diligent Search to be made after those who were of the Race of _David_, which occasioned a dreadful Persecution against the _Jews_[89]. _Linus_ governed the Church of _Rome_, according to _Eusebius_[90] and _Epiphanius_[91], Twelve Years; so that, if we place, with them, the Death of St. _Peter_ in 66. _Linus_ must have died in the Year 78. of the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: _Books ascribed to him._] We have, under the Name of _Linus_, Two Books of the Martyrdom of St. _Peter_ and St. _Paul_[92]; but they are generally looked upon as supposititious[93]. _Trithemius_ makes him the Author of the Life of St. _Peter_, in which a particular Account was given of the Dispute between that Apostle, and _Simon_ the Magician. This Piece has not reached our Times, and was perhaps of the same Stamp with the other, since it is never mentioned either by _Eusebius_, or St. _Jerom_. The Decrees, that are ascribed to him, are no-where to be found, but in _Anastasius Bibliothecarius_, and such-like Writers, whose Authority is of no Weight in Matters so distant, unless supported by the Testimony of the Antients.
Footnote 67:
Tert. de præsc. hæret. c. 32.
Footnote 68:
Recog. p. 398.
Footnote 69:
Hier. vir. illust. c. 15.
Footnote 70:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
Footnote 71:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 4. 21.
Footnote 72:
Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 21.
Footnote 73:
Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.
Footnote 74:
Optat. l. 2. p. 48.
Footnote 75:
Aug. ep. 165.
Footnote 76:
Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.
Footnote 77:
Hamm. l. 5. c. 1.
Footnote 78:
Idem ib. p. 247, 258.
Footnote 79:
Cotel. in not. Const. p. 298.
Footnote 80:
Pears. posthum. p. 159. 161.
Footnote 81:
Cypr. ep. 44. 46. 52. 55.
Footnote 82:
Syn. Nic. can. 8.
Footnote 83:
Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 2 Tim. iv. 21.
Footnote 84:
Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.
Footnote 85:
Tert. in Marc. c. 3.
Footnote 86:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 13.
Footnote 87:
Bar. annal. ad ann. 80.
Footnote 88:
Tert. apol. c. 5.
Footnote 89:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 12.
Footnote 90:
Idem ib. c. 13.
Footnote 91:
Epiph. l. 27. c. 6.
Footnote 92:
Bib. Patr. tom. 7.
Footnote 93:
Vide Baron. ad ann. 69. et Voss. Hist. Græc. l. 2. c. 9.
TITUS CLETUS, _or_ ANACLETUS, DOMITIAN. _Second_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 78. ]
_Linus_ was succeeded by _Cletus_, or _Anacletus_, whom the _Greeks_ constantly style _Anencletus_, that is, _Irreprehensible_. An Opinion has long obtained in the Church of _Rome_, distinguishing _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ as Two Popes, nay, as Two Saints; the Festival of the one being kept on the 26th of _April_, and that of the other on the 23d of _July_[94]. [Sidenote: Cletus _and_ Anacletus _not two, but one Pope_.] But this Distinction is now given up by the most learned Men of that Church, not only as groundless, but as plainly contradicting the most celebrated Writers of Antiquity, _Irenæus_, _Eusebius_, and St. _Jerom_, to whom we may add _Caius_, a Priest of _Rome_, who, writing in the Beginning of the Third Century, reckoned _Victor_ the Thirteenth Bishop of that City[95]. _Baronius_, however, spares no Pains to keep up that Distinction; but alleges nothing to countenance it, except the Poem against _Marcion_, ascribed to _Tertullian_, the Pontifical of _Anastasius_, and some Martyrologies[96]. Who was the Author of that Poem is not well known, but all agree, that it was not written by _Tertullian_[97]. Besides, the Author, whoever he was, places both _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ before _Clement_; which _Baronius_ condemns as a gross Mistake. As for the Pontifical, the Annalist often finds fault with it; and complains, in this very Place, that _Anastasius_’s whole Chronology is overcast with an impenetrable Mist[98]. The Martyrologies he quotes are of too modern a Date to deserve any Regard, since none of them were heard of before the Ninth Century[99]. [Sidenote: _How they were first distinguished._] But how, says _Baronius_, was this Distinction first introduced? We may, perhaps, account for it thus: _Irenæus_, with all the _Greeks_, and St. _Jerom_, among the _Latins_, place _Anacletus_, as we have observed above, before _Clement_; whereas St. _Austin_ and _Optatus Milevitanus_ place him after. This, and his being called _Cletus_ by _Epiphanius_, and in several Copies of _Ruffinus_, might induce some to imagine, that as the Names and Places were different, so were the Persons. Thus, as we conjecture, of one Pope Two Popes were made, Two Saints, and Two Martyrs; for, in the Canon of the Mass, he has a Place with _Linus_ among the Martyrs; though neither was acknowleged for such by _Irenæus_, or any of the Antients; nay, _Anacletus_ is said, in some Pontificals, to have _died in Peace_, that is, according to the Phrase of those Days, of a natural Death[100]. _Bollandus_, after having much laboured, but laboured in vain, to maintain the Distinction between _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_, yields at last, and gives up the Point. But yet, unwilling to make the least Alteration in the Catalogue of the Popes, which places, with the Approbation of the Holy See, _Clement_ between _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_, he strives to save it with a new and pretty extraordinary Invention; for he pretends _Anacletus_ or _Cletus_ to have resigned the Chair to _Clement_, and _Clement_, in his Turn, to have yielded it to him again. Thus, according to him, though _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ are one and the same Person, yet no Fault is to be found with the Catalogue; and _Clement_ is rightly placed both after and before him[101]. This is a Speculation of his own, altogether groundless, and therefore not worthy of a Place here, were it not to shew what low Shifts and Subterfuges even Men of Parts, in the Church of _Rome_, chuse to submit to, rather than to yield to Reason, in Points that seem to derogate from the Authority of that See. _Anacletus_ governed the Church Twelve Years, according to _Eusebius_[102]; to which some add Two Months, some Three, and some only one; so that he must have died in the Year 91. He is supposed to have been buried next to St. _Peter_, in the _Vatican_, where his supposed Body is shewn, and worshiped to this Day[103]. [Sidenote: _Decretals ascribed to him_.] We find, in the Collection of _Isidorus Mercator_, Three Decretals, under the Name of _Cletus_; but such Decretals as are anterior to the Pontificate of Pope _Syricius_, who was elected in the Year 384 are now universally looked upon as bare-faced Forgeries[104][N3].
Footnote N3:
All the decretal Epistles of the Popes, before _Syricius_, are so filled with Absurdities, Contradictions, Anachronisms, _&c._ that they are now given up, even by the most sanguine Advocates for the Papal Supremacy. And yet these very Decretals, absurd as they are, and inconsistent with themselves, as well as with all the genuine Writings of those Times, whether sacred or profane, were, for several Ages, the main Stays of the whole Fabric of the Papal Power. By them that Power was established; by them it was supported; for, in the Days of Ignorance, they were universally received as the genuine Writings of the antient Bishops of _Rome_, in whose Names they were published. And, truly, were we to rank them, as they were ranked in the monkish and ignorant Ages, with the Decisions of the Oecumenical Councils, and the Canonical Books of the Scripture, no room would be left to question any Branch of the unlimited Power claimed by the Popes. They were held in the greatest Esteem and Veneration from the Beginning of the 9th Century to the Time of the Reformation, when, upon the first Dawn of Learning, the Cheat was discovered, and the Stays removed, which till then had supported the unwieldy Edifice. But it was then in a Condition to stand by itself, at least till new Frauds were devised to prop it up; and this was accordingly done, without Loss of Time.
The Decretals of the first Popes are quoted by _Bellarmine_, to prove, that the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome was universally acknowleged in the earliest Times[N3.1]: but, at the same time, he owns, that _he dares not affirm them to be of undoubted Authority_. And what can be more absurd than to quote a Forgery, or what he himself owns may be a Forgery, in Vindication of so darling a Point as _the Supremacy_? But he did it for want of better Evidences, and must therefore be excused. _Baronius_, ashamed to lay any Stress on such gross and palpable Forgeries, contents himself with only saying, that the Popes had no hand in forging them; and that they never made use of their Authority to support their own. That they were concerned in, or privy to, the forging of those Letters, I dare not affirm: but that they countenanced them, as they did all other Forgeries tending to the Advancement of their See; that they received them as genuine, and endeavoured to impose them upon others; nay, that they made use of them soon after their first Appearance in the World, to establish and promote the Authority of their See; are undoubted Matters of Fact: witness the Letter, which _Nicolas_ I. wrote, in the Year 865. to _Hincmarus_ Archbishop of _Rheims_, and to the other Bishops of _France_, who, refusing to comply with some exorbitant Demands of the Pope, had rejected the Decretals, on which those Demands were founded, as Writings that had been lately counterfeited. _Nicolas_, in his Answer to them, maintains the Authenticity of those Letters, exhorts all, who profess the Catholic Faith, to receive them _with due Veneration_, and claims, in virtue of such sacred and authentic Writings, an uncontrouled Authority over all the Churches of the World, as lodged from the Beginning in his See[N3.2]. And was not this making use of the supposed Authority of those Decretals to promote his own? _Nicolas_ seems to have believed the Letters to be genuine: and, if he did, he was certainly mistaken, and erred in proposing, as he does, spurious Pieces for a _firm and strong Foundation_ of our Belief, as well as our Practice. If he did not believe them to be genuine, and yet endeavoured to persuade the Bishops of _France_ that they were so; nay, and claimed, upon the Authority of such Pieces, a Power over them, and their Churches; a worse Epithet would suit him better than that of _fallible_, which is common to all Men.
The first who published these Decretals was, according to _Hincmarus_, _Riculphus_ Bishop of _Mentz_, who was supposed to have brought them from _Spain_; because the Name of _Isidore_ was prefixed to the Collection, and a famous Writer of that Name, _viz._ _Isidore_ Bishop of _Seville_, had flourished in _Spain_ some Centuries before. But such a mean and scandalous Undertaking is altogether unworthy of so great a Prelate; and besides the Author of the supposed Decretals has copied, _verbatim_, some Passages from the Council of _Toledo_ in 675. and from the Sixth Council in 681. whereas _Isidore_ of _Seville_ died in 636. The learned _Ellies du Pin_ lays this Forgery at the Door of some _German_ or _Frenchman_, the Letters being all written in the Style of the _Germans_ and _French_, of the 9th Century, and many of them addressed to Persons of these two Nations. _Hincmarus_ was mistaken, in supposing the forged Decretals to have been first published by _Riculphus_ of _Mentz_; for in some of them are found Fragments of the Council held at _Paris_ in 829. and he died in 814. They were first ushered into the World, and forged too, in all likelihood, by one _Benedict_, Deacon of the Church of _Mentz_, though, in his Preface to that Collection, he would fain make us believe, that _Autcarius_, the Successor of _Riculphus_, found them in the Archives of that Church, and that they had been placed there by _Riculphus_, who had brought them from _Spain_. _Autcarius_, in whose Time _Benedict_ published his Collection, is thought to have been privy to the Imposture. The Name of _Isidore_, which was then very common in _Spain_, was prefixed to it, to persuade the World, that the Decretals were brought from that Country, and not forged at _Mentz_, where they first appeared. However, they were suspected by some, even in that dark Age, and absolutely rejected by _Hincmarus_ of _Rheims_, as Writings of no Authority. But the Popes, whose Pretensions they were calculated to favour, exerting all their Authority to bring them into Repute, they were in the End universally received, and inserted into all the Collections of Canons. At present they are so universally exploded, that there is not a single Writer, no, not even in the Church of _Rome_, who is not ashamed to patronize or defend them. But the Work is done, for which they were intended; and now that the Edifice can stand by itself, no matter what becomes of the Stays that supported it, when it could not. These Decretals may be justly looked upon as a standing Monument of the Ignorance, Superstition, and Credulity, that universally prevailed in the Church, from the Beginning of the Ninth Century to the Time of the Reformation. I shall conclude with observing, that, from these Decretals, _Anastasius_ the _Bibliothecarian_, and after him _Platina_, have chiefly copied what they relate of the first Popes, supposing them to have really done what, in those spurious Pieces, they are said to have done.
Footnote N3.1:
Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14.
Footnote N3.2:
Nic. I. ep. 42.
Footnote 94:
Martyrol. Roman.
Footnote 95:
Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Pearson posthum. p. 147, 148.
Footnote 96:
Bar. ad ann. 69.
Footnote 97:
Halloix in vit. Iren. p. 646.
Footnote 98:
Bar. ad ann. 69.
Footnote 99:
Bolland. Pont. p. 217.
Footnote 100:
Vide Pears. posthum. p. 19.
Footnote 101:
Bolland. Pont. p. 217.
Footnote 102:
Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.
Footnote 103:
Bolland. 26 Apr. 410, 411.
Footnote 104:
Vide Card. Bon. liturg. l. 1. c. 3. et Natal. Alexand. hist. Eccles. p. 743, &c.
DOMITIAN, CLEMENT, TRAJAN. NERVA, _Third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.
[Sidenote: Year of Christ 91. Clement _mentioned by St._ Paul.]