Chapter M: DCC. L (1)

TO THE

KING

SIR,

It is not only as having the Happiness to be Your subject, that I beg Your permission to lay this Book at Your feet. In whatever part of the world I had been born, or had resided, I should have desired to present it to Your Majesty, as the Great Protector of the Reformed Religion, and worthily filling that Throne, which, above any in _Europe_, is the chief Bulwark against the Papal Power, and all its pernicious attendants. The wonderful rise, and monstrous growth of that Power, almost to the ruin of all true Religion, and all the Civil rights of mankind, will be delineated in the course of this Work, which I flatter myself may be of some Use to the Protestant Cause. For, next to the light of the Gospel, there is nothing that Popery has more to fear, than that of historical Truth: It is a test which the pretensions and doctrines of _Rome_ can never abide; and therefore she has used her utmost endeavours, not only to lock up the Gospel from the eyes of the Laity, and prefer her own Comments, Decrees, and Traditions, to the authority of the Scriptures, but to corrupt, disguise, and falsify History, in which necessary business her ablest pens have been employed. To take off those disguises, and discover those falsehoods, is consequently a task becoming the zeal of a good Protestant; and my intention at least, though not my performance encourages me to hope for Your Majesty’s Gracious Protection.

In the latter part of this History I shall have often the pleasure to shew, how great an Instrument under _GOD_ the Power and Strength of this kingdom has been, to maintain and support the Reformation all over _Europe_. But I must also shew with concern, that from the death of our wise Queen _Elizabeth_, the Princes of the House of _Stuart_, instead of pursuing that glorious Plan, which she had traced out, were either remiss in the cause, or wholly forsook it; so that had not the Revolution providentially happened, and in consequence of it, the House of _Brunswick_ been called to the Throne of these kingdoms, the Reformed Religion would, in all probability, have not only been lost in _Great Britain_, or at least under a fate of severe persecution, but would have been in great danger every-where else, from such a change in the Balance of Power as that event must have produced. The support of Your Royal Family is therefore most necessary, even upon motives of self-preservation, to every Protestant both here and abroad. May a due sense of that important connection between Your safety and Theirs, be always kept alive in their minds. May our Holy Religion continue to flourish under Your Majesty’s Care, and that of Your Royal Posterity, to the latest times. May neither the open attacks, nor secret machinations of _Rome_ prevail against it. And may it produce all the Fruits that ought to spring from it, the truly-christian spirit of Toleration, universal charity, good morals, good learning, freedom of thought, and candour of mind. I need add no other wishes or prayers to these: They comprehend all happiness to Your Majesty, to Your Royal Family, and to my Country; and they come from the heart of,

_Sir_,
_Your Majesty’s_
_Most Loyal_,
_Most Faithful_,
_And most devoted Subject_,

ARCHIBALD BOWER.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE
PREFACE

The Work, which I now offer to the Public, I undertook some years since at _Rome_, and brought it down to the Pontificate of _Victor_, that is, to the close of the Second Century. As I was then a most zealous champion for the Pope’s Supremacy, which was held as an article of Faith by the body I belonged to, my chief design, when I engaged in such a work, was, to ascertain that Supremacy, by shewing, century by century, that, from the Apostles times to the present, it had ever been acknowleged by the Catholic Church. But alas! I soon perceived, that I had undertaken more than it was in my power to perform. Nay, while, in order to support and maintain this cause, I examined, with particular attention, the writings of the Apostles, and of the many pious and learned men who had flourished in the three first centuries of the church, I was so far from finding any thing that seemed the least to countenance such a doctrine, that, on the contrary, it appeared evident, beyond all dispute, that, during the above-mentioned period of time, it had been utterly unknown to the Christian world. In spite then of my endeavours to the contrary, Reason getting the better of the strongest prejudices, I began to look upon the Pope’s Supremacy, not only as a prerogative quite chimerical, but as the most impudent attempt that had ever been made: I say, in spite of my endeavours to the contrary; for I was very unwilling to give up a point, upon which I had been taught by _Bellarmine_, that _the whole of Christianity depended_[1]; especially in a country, where a man cannot help being afraid even of his own thoughts, since, upon the least suspicion of his only calling in question any of the received opinions, he may depend upon his being soon convinced by more cogent arguments, than any in _Mood_ and _Figure_. But great is the power of truth; and at last it prevailed: I became a proselyte to the opinion which I had proposed to confute; and sincerely abjured, in my mind, that which I had ignorantly undertaken to defend.

Being thus fully convinced, that the Pope’s so much boasted Supremacy was a bold and ungodly usurpation, I could not help censuring with myself the men of learning, who had countenanced such a pretension, especially the two great champions of the Papal power _Bellarmine_ and _Baronius_. Did they not see what every man, who but dips into the primitive writers, must see; what is obvious to common sense? The poor shifts they are often put to, their ridiculous evasions and cavils, their unmeaning distinctions, their wresting several passages, contrary to the plain and natural meaning of the authors they quote, and, above all, their unsatisfactory answers to the objections of the adverse party, shew but too plainly, that they wrote not from conviction, nor aimed at truth, but, perhaps, at the _red Hat_, which was afterwards bestowed upon them, as a reward for betraying the truth. Few have written in defence of the Pope’s Supremacy, that have not been preferred; and none perhaps who had not preferment in view. _Æneas Sylvius_, afterwards _Pius_ II. being asked, before he was raised to the Papal Chair, How it happened, that, in all disputes between the Popes and the Councils, many Divines sided with the former, and very few with the latter? _Because the Popes_, answered he, _have benefices to give, and the Councils have none_. Had he been asked the same question after he was Pope, he would not perhaps have returned the same answer; but said, upon his being put in mind of it, as _Gregory_ XIII. did afterwards on a like occasion, that, _being raised higher, he saw better and farther_. Those therefore who have stood up in defence of the liberty of the Church against Papal Usurpation, cannot be supposed to have had any other inducement to espouse the cause of truth, but truth itself. And this some have had the Christian courage to do even in _Italy_, and almost in the Pope’s hearing, at the peril of their liberty, of their lives, of all that was dear to them; as I shall have occasion to shew hereafter. But to return, in the mean time, to the present History: I no sooner found myself in a Country where truth might be uttered without danger, than I resolved to resume and pursue, in my native tongue, as soon as I recovered the use of it, the work I had begun in a foreign language. On the one side I saw the only obstruction to an undertaking, which had already cost me no small pains and labour, happily removed; while I flattered myself on the other, that as a complete _History of the Popes_ was still wanting, such a performance might meet with a favourable reception from the public. I am well apprised, that others have, at different times, and in different languages, treated the same subject: but whether any of their several works may deserve the name of a _complete_, or even of a _tolerable History_, I leave those to judge who have perused them; and shall only say in respect to myself; that, instead of diverting me from undertaking the same province, they have more than any thing else encouraged me to it. _Anastasius_ and _Platina_, the two _Classics_, as they are deemed, in this branch of History, have indeed given us the _Lives of the Popes_, from the foundation of the See of _Rome_ to their times, but in so broken, imperfect, and unsatisfactory a manner, that from them we learn but very little, even concerning those of whom they have said most. It was not their design to write a History, but only to draw, as it were in miniature, the portraits of the _Roman_ Bishops, by relating, in a summary way, such of their actions, as appeared to them most worthy of being recorded; and, to say the truth, they have both betrayed no less want of discernment in chusing what they should relate, than of exactness in relating what they had chosen.

_Anastasius_ the Monk, surnamed _Bibliothecarius_, that is, Library-keeper, Secretary, and Chancellor of the Church of _Rome_ (for all these employments antiently centred in one person, and were comprised under the common name of _Bibliothecarius_) flourished in the ninth century, under _Nicolas_ I. _Adrian_ II. and _John_ VIII. He wrote a succinct account of the Bishops, who governed the Church of _Rome_, from St. _Peter_ to _Nicolas_ I. who died in 867. But the memoirs he made use of were none of the best. In his time the world was over-run with forged or corrupted Pontificals, Martyrologies, Legends, _&c._ which were then no less universally received, than they have been since rejected by the learned of all persuasions. However, that from these the _Bibliothecarian_ borrowed the greater part of his materials, at least for the six first centuries, is but too apparent from his overlooking, nay, and often contradicting, the unexceptionable testimonies of contemporary writers; as will be seen in the sequel of the present History. As therefore the records, which he copied, are so justly suspected, and his own authority can be of no weight with respect to those distant times, the reader must not be surprised to find, that, in this History, I have paid no manner of regard to an author, who has been hitherto blindly followed by those, who have written on the same subject. There may indeed be some truth in what he relates; but his frequent mistakes render that truth too precarious to be relied on, unless confirmed by the concurring testimonies of other more credible and less credulous authors. However, in the times less remote from his own, I shall readily allow his authority its due weight; the rather, as he seems not to have written with a design of imposing upon others, but to have been imposed upon himself by frauds and forgeries; for he wrote in an age, when the world lay involved in the thickest mist of ignorance, when superstition and credulity triumphed without controul, and spurious pieces, filled with idle and improbable stories, had thrust every grave writer, nay, and the Gospels themselves, out of doors.

_Platina_, so called from the _Latin_ name of _Piadena_, a village in the _Cremonese_, the place of his nativity (for his true name was _Battista_, or _Bartolomeo Sacchi_) flourished six hundred years after _Anastasius_, that is, in the fifteenth century, under _Calixtus_ III. _Pius_ II. _Paul_ II. and _Sixtus_ IV. Under _Pius_ II. he was Secretary of the _Datary_, the office where vacant benefices are disposed of; but, being dismissed by _Paul_ II. tho’ he had purchased the place, in the height of his resentment, he appealed to the _future Council_. What he suffered under that Pope, first in prison, and afterwards on the rack, we shall hear from himself, in a more proper place. _Sixtus_ IV. the successor of _Paul_, well apprised of his innocence, took him into favour, and, having enlarged, endowed, and enriched the _Vatican_ library with a great number of valuable books, in different languages, he committed the care of them to him. It was probably at this time that he wrote, or rather transcribed, the Lives of the Popes from St. _Peter_, whom he supposes the founder of that See, to _Paul_ II. who died in 1471. I say _transcribed_; for, if we except the few Popes who lived in or near his own times, _viz._ _Eugene_ IV. _Nicolas_ V. _Calixtus_ III. _Pius_ II. and _Paul_ II. he copied, almost verbatim, all he has said of the rest, only interweaving now and then the profane history with the ecclesiastic[2]. The Lives of the fourteen succeeding Popes, from _Paul_ II. to _Pius_ V. elected in 1566. were compiled by _Onuphrius Panvinius_, of the _Augustin_ order, a man more commendable for his learning, than for his candor and veracity. These are, as we may style them, the original compilers of the Lives of the Popes: _Platina_ adopted _Anastasius_’s concise method of writing, and _Panvinius_, _Platina_’s, contenting themselves with bare hints; and thereby putting their readers to the trouble of consulting other writers, in order to gratify the curiosity they had raised. _Much has been said of the Popes by other Historians, but very little by their own_, as the learned _Pagi_ observed, after comparing the authors I have mentioned, with the contemporary Historians of other nations. I might well add, that the _very little_ they have said has been thought too much; whence some of them, and _Platina_ in particular, have been made, in all their Editions since the middle of the sixteenth century, to speak with more reserve, and to suppress or disguise some truths they had formerly told.

As for those who in later times have engaged in the same province, we need only dip into their works to be satisfied, that to search out truth was not their business. Some are all praise and panegyric, others all satire and gall: some have made it their study to excuse the worst of Popes, others to arraign the best. That many of the Popes have been wicked men, abandonedly wicked, is undeniable, notwithstanding the pains that have been taken to extenuate their crimes; but neither are there wanting some good men among them, of innocent lives, and unblemished characters, whose only crime is their having been Popes; and to misrepresent or misconstrue the virtuous actions of these, as some have done, is no less blameable in an Historian, than to dissemble or gloss over the criminal actions of the others. This partiality may be easily accounted for with respect to one great period of the present History. During the quarrels and wars between the Popes and Emperors, which lasted many years, and occasioned, in seventy-eight battles, the destruction of an infinite number of innocent people, two powerful factions reigned, as is well known, both in _Germany_ and _Italy_, distinguished by the names of _Guelphs_ and _Ghibbelines_; the former being zealously attached to the Papal and the latter to the Imperial interest. In the midst of these distractions few writers stood neuter, but, siding, according to their different interests or inclinations, with one party or the other, drew their pens, each against the head of the party he opposed, with more rage than the soldiers did their swords. And hence it is, that we find the same facts related by contemporary authors with such different circumstances; the same persons, the Emperors especially and the Popes, painted in such different colours. Of this very few Writers in the later times have been aware; and therefore have, as their bias led them to favour one cause more than the other, adopted as undoubted truths the many groundless aspersions and undeserved reproaches which party zeal had suggested to the _Ghibbelines_ against the Popes, or to the _Guelphs_ against the Emperors. I wish I could intirely clear an eminent _Italian_ historian of our own times from this imputation.

But, after all, as it was not merely with a view to supply the want of a complete History of the Popes, that I formerly undertook so laborious a task; neither is it now with that view alone I resume it. What I proposed to myself, when I first undertook it, I have said already; but, being convinced that I laboured in vain, and convinced by such evidence as the strongest prejudice could not withstand, I thought it a duty owing to truth, to set it forth to others in the same irresistible light; and to defend, at least with as much zeal, the best of causes, as I had done the worst. A disloyal subject, who had taken up arms against his lawful Sovereign, would not be thought intirely to comply with his duty, by only laying them down: he ought, if actuated by a true spirit of loyalty, and truly convinced of the badness of his cause, to range himself under the banners of his injured Lord, and devote to his service and defence the sword he had drawn against him. By a like obligation, a writer, who has, even ignorantly, combated truth, is bound, not only to lay down his pen, as soon as he finds himself engaged in a bad cause, but, when occasion offers, to turn against error in favour of truth the very weapon he had employed against truth in favour of error.

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._

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.>]