------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
But to give the reader some account of the History itself, and the
method I have pursued in delivering it: I have intituled it, _The
History of the Popes_; but might as well have styled it, _The History of
Popery_; since it not only contains an account of the Lives and Actions
of the Popes, but of every _Popish_ tenet; when, by whom, on what
occasion, and to serve what purpose, each of them was broached; those
more especially which relate to the Pope as _Christ’s Vicar upon earth_,
as _the Supreme Head of the Church_, as _an Infallible Guide to
salvation_; for these are the prerogatives he claims, as entailed upon,
and inseparable from the _Roman_ See. But that no such doctrines were
known in the first and purest ages of Christianity; that the Bishop of
_Rome_ was then, nay, and thought himself, upon the level with other
Bishops; that the Catholic Church acknowleged no power, authority, or
jurisdiction in the Bishop of _Rome_, but what was common to him with
all other Bishops, will appear so plain from the following History, that
I can hardly conceive it possible for any man, however prejudiced in
favour of the _Papal Power_, and _Popish Religion_, to peruse it without
abjuring the one and the other: I am but too well apprised of the
strength of prejudice; but, strong as it is, it can never be proof
against plain matter of fact. For who can believe, for instance, in the
Pope’s Infallibility, who can help looking upon such an article of
belief as the grossest affront that ever was offered to human
understanding, when he reads of a _Liberius_ admitting and signing the
_Arian_ creed, or confession of faith, declared heretical by all his
Successors; of an _Honorius_ condemned by the Fathers of the sixth
Oecumenical Council, as an _organ of the devil_, for holding the heresy
of the _Monothelites_; of _John_ XXII. preaching up and propagating,
both by his Missionaries and his Legates _a latere_, a doctrine, which
he himself retracted on his death-bed; of seven Popes[3] cursing and
damning, in emulation of one anther, all who denied a certain tenet[4],
and another Pope[5] as heartily cursing and damning all who maintained
it, nay and recurring to the _Ultima Ratio_ of the later Popes, the
_Fagot_, in order to _root out of the Church_ (these are his very words)
_so pestilential, erroneous, heretical, and blasphemous a doctrine_?
This occasioned great scandal in the Church, insomuch that some even
took the liberty to represent to his Holiness, that the Decrees and
Constitutions of one Pope could not be reversed by another. The Pope
replied (and what other reply could he make?) _That they were mistaken,
since it might be proved by innumerable instances, that what had been
decreed wrong or amiss by one Pope or Council, could be rectified and
amended by another_. This answer silenced them at once, says our
Historian: And well it might; I am only surprised, that the word
_Infallibility_ has ever been since heard of. The _Franciscan_ Friers,
who had occasioned the dispute, paid dear for it: As they continued to
plead the Infallibility of seven Popes against that of one, and
obstinately adhered to their doctrine, Pope _John_, losing all patience,
ordered all to be burnt alive, who did not receive his Constitution;
which was done accordingly, and many of those unhappy wretches chose
rather to expire in the flames than to yield. These remarkable
transactions are related by several contemporary writers of
unquestionable authority, and among the rest by _Nicolaus Eymericus_,
who was Inquisitor of the province of _Tarragon_, and has inserted them
in his _Directorium Inquisitorum_[6]. Other facts without number, of the
same nature, and alike irreconcileable with the other prerogatives
claimed by the Popes, as well as with the chief articles of the _Roman
Catholic_ religion, will occur in this History, and all so well
attested, that nothing, I think, can withstand the force of Truth thus
displayed. Logical arguments and controversial reasoning cannot be well
adapted to every understanding, and therefore are not always attended
with the desired effect, however skilfully managed; but historical facts
lie level to the meanest capacities, and the consequences thence
deducible are to the meanest capacities plain and obvious. It is true,
the Sticklers for the See of _Rome_ have endeavoured to darken the
clearest facts, since they could not deny them, as being vouched by
their own approved authors; but they have done it in so aukward a
manner, with such absurd, ridiculous, and unintelligible
interpretations, comments, distinctions, _&c._ that, were it not well
known it was their interest to defend that cause, one would be apt to
think they intended rather to ridicule than defend it.
But if the Popes were originally mere Bishops, upon the level with other
Bishops; if they had no power but what was common to them with all other
Bishops; by what means could they thus exalt themselves above their
Collegues, nay, _above all that is called God_? What could induce their
Collegues, and with them the greater part of the _Christian_ world, to
acknowlege such an unheard-of power, and submit to a yoke of all others
the most heavy and tyrannical? For an answer to these questions I refer
the reader to the following History, where he will find every branch of
power, authority, or jurisdiction claimed by the Popes, traced from its
first origin, and the various steps pointed out, by which they raised
themselves from the lowest beginnings to the highest pitch of greatness;
which is opening a school of the most refined policy, that ever was
known or practised upon earth. In this respect we must own the Popes to
have been, generally speaking, men of extraordinary talents, the ablest
Politicians we read of in History, Statesmen fit to govern the world,
and equal to the vast dominion they grasped at; a Dominion over the
Minds as well as the Bodies and Estates of mankind; a Dominion, of all
that ever were formed, the most wide and extensive, as knowing no other
Bounds but those of the Earth; nay, and not even those, since these
mighty Princes claim to themselves all power in Heaven as well as in
Earth, all power over the Dead as well as the Living. To establish the
spiritual part of this wondrous Authority upon the Gospel of _Christ_,
which contradicts it in every line, was an undertaking of no little
difficulty, and that required no common skill: to establish the temporal
dominion without a fleet, without an army; to subject to it not only the
ignorant and superstitious multitude, but Kings themselves, nay and to
prevail upon them to employ both their arms and their interest in
promoting a power evidently derogatory to and inconsistent with their
own; was a work not to be accomplished but by men of superior talents,
thoroughly acquainted with all the arts of insinuation and address, and
steady in pursuing, by the best concerted measures, the great point that
they constantly had in their view.
Two things, however, concurred to facilitate, in some degree, the
establishing the one and the other; _viz._ the profound ignorance of the
times, and the matchless cunning of the persons employed by the Popes as
their Emissaries and Agents; without which helps no imposture was ever
carried on with success.
It was in _the night, while men slept_, while the earth was overspread
with the darken night of ignorance, that _the enemy came, and sowed his
tares_. From the Beginning of the Seventh Century to the time of the
Reformation, Letters were utterly neglected; and in proportion to that
neglect, Credulity and Superstition, the inseparable companions of
Ignorance, prevailed among the Laity even of the highest ranks: the
little knowlege that still remained (and very little did remain) was
wholly confined to the Clergy, chiefly to the Monks, men most zealously
attached to the interest of the Pope, as well knowing, that by promoting
his interest, they promoted at the same time their own. It was in this
period of time, in this long darkness of ignorance, credulity, and
superstition, that the Pope and his Agents introduced maxims and notions
concerning the Papal Prerogatives, very different from those which the
world had entertained to that time. In the beginning of the Seventh
Century, that is, in the year 606. Pope _Boniface_ III. a man of great
address, having craftily insinuated himself into the favour of _Phocas_,
obtained of that Traitor and Murderer[7], the famous Rescript settling
the Supremacy on the See of _Rome_, in opposition to the claim of the
Patriarch of _Constantinople_. As _Phocas_ bore an irreconcileable
hatred to _Cyriacus_, who was then vested with the Patriarchal dignity,
he was the more easily prevailed upon to decide the Controversy, which
had already lasted a long time between the two Sees, in favour of the
See of _Rome_. If this hatred in the Usurper was owing to the zeal of
_Cyriacus_ in laying before him the enormity of his crime, and exhorting
him to repentance, _Boniface_, nay and his predecessor St. _Gregory the
Great_[8], knew better how to make their court to men in power, than to
take the least notice of their sins, however public, or mention
_Repentance_ in their hearing. Be that as it will, it is certain, that
to this monster of wickedness the Church of _Rome_ owes her Supremacy.
And it was this Grant from _Phocas_, that more than any thing else
inspired the Bishops of _Rome_ with pride and presumption; which
increasing as their power increased, they were carried by degrees to all
the excesses an unbounded ambition can suggest, when free from all Curb
of Conscience, Morality, and Religion.
Yet, after all, the Supremacy granted by _Phocas_ was but a Supremacy of
Order and Dignity; it gave no _new_ power to the Bishop of _Rome_, but
only raised him above his Collegues, especially his Rival, the Patriarch
of _Constantinople_; and made him, as some express it, _the First
amongst his Equals_. But his Successors, thirsting after power, and
scorning to hold their dignity by so precarious a tenure as the
Emperor’s pleasure, which might hereafter revoke the decision of
_Phocas_, and give the Precedence in rank to _Constantinople_ instead of
_Rome_, began to disown the favour they had received, to set up for
themselves, and to claim the Supremacy, as inherent by Divine Right in
their See, and derived from St. _Peter_, as Chief of the Apostles, and
Head of the Church. Thus was the foundation of the Supremacy changed;
and wisely changed, according to the rules of human policy. The old
foundation was no-ways proportioned to the immense superstructure, which
they now began to design; since they could claim but very little power,
if any at all, in virtue of the Emperor’s Grant. But the new foundation
was capable of bearing whatever the most unbounded and aspiring ambition
could build on it. Besides, the Bishop of _Rome_ could not challenge, by
a Rescript of the _Roman_ Emperor, any Superiority over the Churches,
that had no Dependence on the _Roman_ Empire. But a Supremacy, inherent
by Divine Right in the Papal Dignity, raised him at once above all the
Bishops of the Catholic Church. What therefore now remained was, to
improve this extensive Supremacy into a no less extensive Power and
Jurisdiction. And here no time was lost, many circumstances concurring
to promote and forward the execution of their attempt. Besides the
ignorance of the times, and the influence of the Monks, which operated
strongly in their behalf, the Princes of _Europe_ were quarrelling among
themselves about the Western parts of the _Roman_ Empire, and all glad
to purchase, at any rate, the friendship of the Bishop of _Rome_, who,
after the famous Donation of _Pepin_ in 754. had taken great state upon
him, and bore a considerable sway in all public affairs. As for the
Bishops, and the rest of the Secular Clergy, they looked upon the Pope,
especially after he had added the Sword to the Keys, as their protector
and defender; and were on that consideration disposed to concur in
strengthening his power, and rendering it formidable, tho’ at the
expence of their own; chusing rather to subject themselves to an
Ecclesiastical master, than to submit to the Civil authority. I might
add, that some now began to mind the Fleece more than the Flock; and
with That it was some time before the Popes thought it proper to meddle;
but, when they did, they soon retrieved, by the haste that they made,
the time they had lost.
Yet I do not believe, that they designed at first to run those lengths,
or carry the Papal Prerogative to that extravagant height they
afterwards did. The success, that attended them in the pursuit of one
claim, encouraged them to set up and pursue another. Of this no one can
doubt, who peruses with the least attention the Records of those Ages,
and compares the Popes in the beginning of the Seventh Century with the
Popes in the latter end of the Eleventh. We shall find them, in the
first-mentioned period of time, submitting with all humility to Princes;
claiming no kind of authority or jurisdiction whatsoever but in virtue
of the Canons of Councils, or the Rescripts of Emperors; glorying, or
pretending to glory, in the humble title of _Servants of Servants_;
acknowlegeing themselves Subjects and Vassals of the Emperors, and
patiently waiting the will and pleasure of their liege Lords to take
upon them the Episcopal dignity, or exercise the functions of that
office. Such were the Bishops of _Rome_ in the beginning of the Seventh
Century. How different from those in the latter end of the Eleventh!
They were then vested with the _Plenitude of all power_, both Spiritual
and Temporal; above Councils, and uncontrouled by their Canons; the
fountain of all pastoral jurisdiction and authority; and, by Divine
Sanction, impowered to enact, establish, abrogate, suspend, all
Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions: they were then become _Lords and
Masters_, the most haughty and imperious Lords, the most severe Masters,
mankind had ever groaned under: they no more begged, but dispensed
titles, boasting a power of setting up Kings, and pulling them down at
pleasure; of calling them to an account, absolving their subjects from
their allegiance, divesting them of their dominions, and treating in
every respect as their slaves and vassals, those, whom one of their best
and greatest Predecessors[9] had acknowleged _superior to all Men_, and
thought himself _in duty bound to obey_. This _Plenitude of power_, as
they style it, was not acquired at once, but by degrees, as I have
observed above; some of the Popes being more, and some less active,
crafty, and aspiring. But what is very remarkable, of the one hundred
and fourteen between _Boniface_ III. who laid the foundation of the
Papal grandeur, and _Gregory_ VII. who raised it to the highest pitch,
not one ever lost an inch of ground his Predecessors had gained. And
thus, by constantly acquiring, and never parting with what they had
acquired, nay, and tying the hands of their Successors by the
irreversible entail of a Divine Right, they became the sole Spiritual
Lords, and had almost made themselves the greatest Temporal Lords of the
whole Christian world.
But by what particular means they rose to such an height of grandeur and
majesty, by what artifices and subtle contrivances they maintained what
they had usurped, and strove to retrieve what they had lost, when it
pleased Divine Providence to check and restrain within more narrow
bounds their overgrown power, the reader will learn from the following
History. Some of the arts they have made use of, are of the most
refined, and some of the blackest nature; and both I have endeavoured,
in this work, to set forth in their truest light, without disguise or
exaggeration; those more especially which the Popes and their Agents
have formerly employed, and still employ, to bring anew under their
yoke, such nations as have had the Christian courage to shake it off,
and assert that _Liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free_. If I
shall be so happy as thereby to keep awake and alive, in the breast of
every true _Englishman_, that noble ardour, which has, on a late
occasion, exerted itself in so distinguished a manner; if it shall
please Heaven to second my Undertaking so far, as to alarm by it those
Protestants (I wish I might not say those _many_ Protestants) who are
not aware of, nor sufficiently guarded against, the crafty insinuations,
the secret views and attempts of the Papal Emissaries; I shall think the
time and pains it has cost me abundantly paid.
I am well apprised of the reception a work of this nature must meet
with, and of the treatment its author must expect, both at home and
abroad, from the Popish Zealots. But let them vent their zeal in what
manner they please, I shall neither answer nor relent their reproaches
and censures, however malignant and groundless: nay, I shall hear them
with as much pleasure and satisfaction as I should the praises and
commendations of others; it being no less meritorious in a writer to
have displeased the enemies of Truth, than to have pleased the friends.
And these, I flatter myself, will find no great room for censure: it
would grieve me if they should, since I have done all that lay in my
power to leave none. I have advanced nothing for which I have not
sufficient vouchers: and these I have taken care to quote in the margin,
that the reader, by recurring to the places pointed out in each author,
may be convinced of my sincerity and candor. I have always preferred the
contemporary writers, when equally credible, to those who wrote after,
tho’ not without taking notice of their disagreement; and such as
flourished nearest the times when the transactions happened, which they
relate, to those who lived at a greater distance. Pursuant to this Rule,
in delivering the Lives of the Bishops who governed the Church of _Rome_
during the First Ages of Christianity, I have confined myself wholly to
the Primitive writers, trusting no Modern any farther, than as he wrote
from the Antients. From these there is no Appeal; it is by them, and
them alone, that the Papal Supremacy must stand or fall. If they have
all conspired to misrepresent the sense of the ages in which they lived
(and it is only by this hypothesis that the Supremacy can be supported),
in what other monuments shall we search for it?
The Partiality, which I have so much complained of above in the works of
others, I have taken all possible care to avoid in my own; checking the
very first emotions of that zeal, which, on my reflecting how long, and
how grosly I had been imposed upon, would, if not carefully watched,
have proved as strong a biass in me against the _Pope_, and the _Popish
Religion_, as the opposite zeal has proved for them in others. The vices
and vicious actions of the bad Popes I have not dissembled; but neither
have I magnified them: the virtues and commendable actions of the good
Popes I have neither lessened nor misconstrued; nay, I have more than
once justified the conduct and character of some pious men among them,
greatly injured by their own Historians, because they lived, and
suffered mankind to live, in peace; applying themselves solely, as it
became good Bishops, to the discharge of their Pastoral duty. These
their Historians have strangely misrepresented, measuring the merit of
each Pope by the great Things they atchieved, no matter by what means,
for the exaltation of their See; which, in other terms, is measuring
their Merit by their Pride and Ambition.
The Length of this History requires, I presume, no Apology. Every one
knows, that the Popes acted, for several ages, as the Umpires of
_Europe_, or rather as the Sovereigns; several Princes being actually
their vassals, and the rest affecting to pay them the same respect as if
they were. This emboldened them to intermeddle in the public affairs of
each State and Kingdom; insomuch that no remarkable event happened, no
revolution, no change of government or constitution, which they did not
either promote or oppose, as it suited their interest, with too many of
them the only standard of right and wrong; and their authority, through
the ignorance, credulity, and superstition of those unhappy times, was,
generally speaking, of such weight, as to turn the scale into which it
was thrown. Besides, they had, in every Kingdom and Nation, their
Legates or Vicars, who, together with the Clergy, formed, as it were, a
separate State, and one Kingdom or Empire within another. These, at the
instigation of the Popes, their Lords and Masters, were constantly
encroaching on the Civil Authority and Jurisdiction, on the Rights of
the People, and Prerogatives of Princes. Hence arose innumerable
Disputes, which, if Princes did not comply with their demands, ended in
Anathemas, Interdicts, Civil Wars, Rebellions, private Assassinations,
and public Massacres. Those who are versed in the Histories of other
Nations, as well as in that of our own, and know what a considerable
part the detail of these fatal disputes takes up in the particular
Histories of each State and Kingdom, will not find fault with the Length
of this, which, if complete, and as such I offer it to the public, must
comprise them all. Besides, I have given a summary account of the many
Heresies that have sprung up in the Church; of the Councils that have
been held; of the religious and military Orders; of their Founders,
institutions, fundamental laws, _&c._; subjects all, in some degree,
connected with the History of the Popes.
I do not doubt, but this Work will meet with a favourable Reception from
_Protestants_ of all denominations; such a Reception, I mean, as is due
to Truth. It will, I flatter myself, retard, at least, the daily
increase of the Papal interest in these happy Kingdoms. As for the
_Roman Catholics_ here, would they but lay aside their prejudices, so
far as to peruse it with the least degree of candor and attention, I am
confident Truth would exert its power no less efficaciously upon some of
them, than it has done upon me. They cannot surely be more biassed in
favour of the errors they had been brought up in, than I was. In them
Truth has but one enemy to contend with, Education; in me it had two,
Education and Interest; and the latter is but too often the more
powerful of the two. What I forfeited by adhering to Truth, most of the
_Roman Catholics_ in _England_ well know; and I am very confident none
of them can say, that I have ever yet reaped, or sought to reap, the
least temporal benefit from it. If therefore the Power of Truth, when
duly displayed, is so great, as to triumph thus over the combined force
of Education and Interest, we may well hope, that it will, at least in
some, triumph over Education alone: I most heartily wish it may in all.
-----
Footnote 1:
Bellar. Præf. de Sum. Pont.
Footnote 2:
The authors he thus copied were _Anastasius Bibliothecarius_, from St.
_Peter_, or rather _Linus_, to _Nicolas_ I. _Gulielmus_, likewise
_Bibliothecarius_, from _Nicolas_ I. to _Alexander_ II. _Pandulphus
Pisanus_, from _Alexander_ II. to _Honorius_ II. _Martinus Polonus_,
from _Honorius_ II. to _Honorius_ IV. _Theodorus_ of _Niem_, from
_Honorius_ IV. to _Urban_ VI. and from _Urban_ VI. to _Martin_ V. who
died in 1431, other writers, whose works are extant, but their names
unknown. He likewise borrowed a great deal of _Ptolemæus Lucensis_, a
_Dominican_ Frier, who flourished, and compiled the Lives of the
Popes, in the time of _Boniface_ VIII. chosen in the year 1294.
Footnote 3:
_Gregory_ IX. _Innocent_ IV. _Alexander_ IV. _Nicolas_ III. _Martin_
IV. _Nicolas_ IV. _Clement_ V.
Footnote 4:
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._
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]
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: