Chapter M: DCC. L (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-----

Footnote N2:

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

-----

Footnote 10:

Arnob. l. 2. in Gent.

Footnote 11:

Cyril. catech. 6.

Footnote 12:

Euseb. l. 2. c. 14.

Footnote 13:

Iren. l. 2. c. 20.

Footnote 14:

Tert. de anim. c. 24.

Footnote 15:

Hier. de vir. illustr. c. 2.

Footnote 16:

Justin. apol. 2.

Footnote 17:

Cyr. cat. 17.

Footnote 18:

Hier. in Isai. xi. 14.

Footnote 19:

Athan. ad Drac.

Footnote 20:

Chrys. ad Hebr. præf.

Footnote 21:

Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 17.

Footnote 22:

Greg. in Joh. xxiii. 22.

Footnote 23:

Concil. tom. 2. p. 1245.

Footnote 24:

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

Footnote 25:

1 Pet. v. 13.

Footnote 26:

Euseb. l. 2. c. 15.

Footnote 27:

Hier. vir. illust. c. 8.

Footnote 28:

Bed. tom. 5. p. 713.

Footnote 29:

Oecu. p. 526.

Footnote 30:

Grot. synops. in Pet.

Footnote 31:

Vide Grot. ib. p. 1541.

Footnote 32:

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

Footnote 33:

Coloss. iv. 11.

Footnote 34:

2 Tim. iv. 6.

Footnote 35:

Ibid. iv. 21.

Footnote 36:

Ad Rom. xvi. 3-15.

Footnote 37:

Ruffin. in præf. ad Clem. recogn.

Footnote 38:

Iren. apud Euseb. c. 5, 6.

Footnote 39:

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

Footnote 40:

Epiph. hær. 7.

Footnote 41:

Euseb. l. iv. c. 2.

Footnote 42:

Chrys. tom. 8. p. 115.

Footnote 43:

Idem Eph. iv. 11.

Footnote 44:

Euseb. l. i. c. 12.

Footnote 45:

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

Footnote 46:

Epiph. hær. 78.

Footnote 47:

Hier. de vir. ill.

Footnote 48:

Greg. p. 279.

Footnote 49:

Chrys. in Mat. hom. 33.

Footnote 50:

Grot. in Jac. i. 1.

Footnote 51:

Hamm. dissert. Ignat. 4. 3.

Footnote 52:

Val. in Euseb. 1. 12.

Footnote 53:

Blond. in epist. Clem. ad Jacob.

Footnote 54:

Wal. Mess. p. 20.

Footnote 55:

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

Footnote 56:

Act. xxi. 20.

Footnote 57:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 58:

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

Footnote 59:

Tertull. ib. c. 36.

Footnote 60:

Bartol. Antichitá sacre di Roma, p. 32.

Footnote 61:

Luchesini catedra restituita a S. Pietro.

Footnote 62:

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

Footnote 63:

Idem ib. l. 2. c. 12.

Footnote 64:

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

Footnote 65:

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

Footnote 66:

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

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

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

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

There is a great Disagreement among the Antients about the first Bishops of _Rome_: _Tertullian_ makes _Clement_, whom he supposes to have been ordained by St. _Peter_, the immediate _Successor of that Apostle_[67]. He was followed therein by _Ruffinus_[68], and _Ruffinus_ by the _Latins_ in general; among whom that Opinion universally prevailed towards the End of the Fourth Century. But _Jerom_, rejecting the Opinion of the _Latins_, places _Linus_ immediately after the Apostles, _Anacletus_ next to him, and _Clement_ in the third Place[69]. His Opinion is supported by the Authority of _Irenæus_[70], _Eusebius_[71], _Theodoret_[72], and likewise of _Epiphanius_[73], _Optatus Milevitanus_[74], and St. _Augustin_[75], with this Difference, that _Epiphanius_ gives the Name of _Cletus_ to the Successor of _Linus_, and both _Optatus_ and St. _Augustin_ place him after _Clement_; but in this they all agree, that _Linus_ was the first, after the Apostles, who governed the Church of _Rome_. To the Authority of these Writers I may add that of the Apostolic Constitutions, telling us, in express Terms, that _Linus_ was ordained Bishop of _Rome_ by St. _Paul_[76]. [Sidenote: _Whether_ Clement _appointed by St._ Peter _to succeed him_.] As to what we read in _Tertullian_ and _Ruffinus_, _viz._ that _Clement_ was ordained by St. _Peter_, and named to succeed him; Dr. _Hammond_ answers, That _Clement_ governed with Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction the converted _Jews_, while _Linus_ and _Anacletus_ governed, with the same Power, the converted Gentiles. He adds, That, upon the Death of _Anacletus_, both Churches were united under him[77]. Thus he strives to reconcile the Opinion of the _Latins_, placing _Clement_ immediately after the Apostles, with that of the _Greeks_, allowing him only the third Place: for, granting what he advances to be true, and Reasons are not wanting to support it, _Clement_ was, agreeably to the Opinion of the _Latins_, the immediate Successor of the Apostles, with respect to the _Jews_; but, with respect to the Gentiles, he succeeded _Anacletus_, agreeably to the Opinion of the _Greeks_[78]. This Answer _Cotelerius_ applauds as an ingenious, learned, and probable Solution; but, at the same time, rejects it as contradicting, in his Opinion, the Apostolic Constitutions, and not supported by the Authority of any antient Writer[79]. The learned Dr. _Pearson_ will admit no Opinion that supposes Two Bishops to have presided together in one City[80], that being an Irregularity, according to St. _Cyprian_[81], _contrary to the Ecclesiastic Disposition, contrary to the Evangelic Law, contrary to the Rules of the Catholic Institution_, and condemned as such by the Council of _Nice_[82]. It is very much to be doubted, as I have shewn above, whether St. _Peter_ ever was at _Rome_, and consequently whether _Clement_ was ordained, by him, Bishop of that City. His not succeeding him is a Proof, that he was not; for who can imagine, that the People and Clergy of those Days would have thought of chusing any other, or that any other, though chosen, would have accepted of a Dignity, to which _Clement_ had been named by St. _Peter_ himself, and which he was actually possessed of at the Apostle’s Death? Be that as it will, _Linus_ is now universally acknowleged both by the _Greeks_ and _Latins_ for the first Bishop of _Rome_.

As for the Life and Actions of _Linus_, all I can find in the Antients concerning him, is, that it was he whom St. _Paul_ mentioned in his Epistle to _Timothy_[83]; that, upon the Authority of the Apostolic Constitutions, he was supposed, by some, to have been the Son of _Claudia_, whom the Apostle mentions in the same Place[84]; and that his Life and Conversation were much approved of by the People[85]. [Sidenote: Linus _no Martyr, tho’ placed among the Martyrs_.] The Church of _Rome_ allows him, in the Canon of the Mass, a Place among the Martyrs; but no mention is made of his having suffered for the Faith, either in the antient Martyrologies, or in _Irenæus_, who, speaking of him, and his immediate Successors, distinguishes none but _Telesphorus_ with the Title of Martyr. _Baronius_, determined to maintain, right or wrong, the Credit of the sacred Canon, in Opposition to all the Antients, nay, and to his own System, cuts off one Year from the Pontificate of _Linus_, that he may place his Death under _Vespasian_, and not, as _Eusebius_ has done[86], under _Titus_, in whose Reign he owns none to have suffered for the Faith[87]. Had he remembered what he must have read in _Tertullian_ and _Eusebius_, he had saved himself that Trouble: for _Tertullian_ assures us, that _Vespasian_ made no Laws against the Christians[88]; and _Eusebius_, that he did not molest them, though he caused a diligent Search to be made after those who were of the Race of _David_, which occasioned a dreadful Persecution against the _Jews_[89]. _Linus_ governed the Church of _Rome_, according to _Eusebius_[90] and _Epiphanius_[91], Twelve Years; so that, if we place, with them, the Death of St. _Peter_ in 66. _Linus_ must have died in the Year 78. of the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: _Books ascribed to him._] We have, under the Name of _Linus_, Two Books of the Martyrdom of St. _Peter_ and St. _Paul_[92]; but they are generally looked upon as supposititious[93]. _Trithemius_ makes him the Author of the Life of St. _Peter_, in which a particular Account was given of the Dispute between that Apostle, and _Simon_ the Magician. This Piece has not reached our Times, and was perhaps of the same Stamp with the other, since it is never mentioned either by _Eusebius_, or St. _Jerom_. The Decrees, that are ascribed to him, are no-where to be found, but in _Anastasius Bibliothecarius_, and such-like Writers, whose Authority is of no Weight in Matters so distant, unless supported by the Testimony of the Antients.

-----

Footnote 67:

Tert. de præsc. hæret. c. 32.

Footnote 68:

Recog. p. 398.

Footnote 69:

Hier. vir. illust. c. 15.

Footnote 70:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 71:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 4. 21.

Footnote 72:

Theod. in 2 Tim. iv. 21.

Footnote 73:

Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 74:

Optat. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 75:

Aug. ep. 165.

Footnote 76:

Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.

Footnote 77:

Hamm. l. 5. c. 1.

Footnote 78:

Idem ib. p. 247, 258.

Footnote 79:

Cotel. in not. Const. p. 298.

Footnote 80:

Pears. posthum. p. 159. 161.

Footnote 81:

Cypr. ep. 44. 46. 52. 55.

Footnote 82:

Syn. Nic. can. 8.

Footnote 83:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 2. 2 Tim. iv. 21.

Footnote 84:

Const. Apost. l. 7. c. 46.

Footnote 85:

Tert. in Marc. c. 3.

Footnote 86:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 13.

Footnote 87:

Bar. annal. ad ann. 80.

Footnote 88:

Tert. apol. c. 5.

Footnote 89:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 12.

Footnote 90:

Idem ib. c. 13.

Footnote 91:

Epiph. l. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 92:

Bib. Patr. tom. 7.

Footnote 93:

Vide Baron. ad ann. 69. et Voss. Hist. Græc. l. 2. c. 9.

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

TITUS CLETUS, _or_ ANACLETUS, DOMITIAN.
_Second_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 78. ]

_Linus_ was succeeded by _Cletus_, or _Anacletus_, whom the _Greeks_ constantly style _Anencletus_, that is, _Irreprehensible_. An Opinion has long obtained in the Church of _Rome_, distinguishing _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ as Two Popes, nay, as Two Saints; the Festival of the one being kept on the 26th of _April_, and that of the other on the 23d of _July_[94]. [Sidenote: Cletus _and_ Anacletus _not two, but one Pope_.] But this Distinction is now given up by the most learned Men of that Church, not only as groundless, but as plainly contradicting the most celebrated Writers of Antiquity, _Irenæus_, _Eusebius_, and St. _Jerom_, to whom we may add _Caius_, a Priest of _Rome_, who, writing in the Beginning of the Third Century, reckoned _Victor_ the Thirteenth Bishop of that City[95]. _Baronius_, however, spares no Pains to keep up that Distinction; but alleges nothing to countenance it, except the Poem against _Marcion_, ascribed to _Tertullian_, the Pontifical of _Anastasius_, and some Martyrologies[96]. Who was the Author of that Poem is not well known, but all agree, that it was not written by _Tertullian_[97]. Besides, the Author, whoever he was, places both _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ before _Clement_; which _Baronius_ condemns as a gross Mistake. As for the Pontifical, the Annalist often finds fault with it; and complains, in this very Place, that _Anastasius_’s whole Chronology is overcast with an impenetrable Mist[98]. The Martyrologies he quotes are of too modern a Date to deserve any Regard, since none of them were heard of before the Ninth Century[99]. [Sidenote: _How they were first distinguished._] But how, says _Baronius_, was this Distinction first introduced? We may, perhaps, account for it thus: _Irenæus_, with all the _Greeks_, and St. _Jerom_, among the _Latins_, place _Anacletus_, as we have observed above, before _Clement_; whereas St. _Austin_ and _Optatus Milevitanus_ place him after. This, and his being called _Cletus_ by _Epiphanius_, and in several Copies of _Ruffinus_, might induce some to imagine, that as the Names and Places were different, so were the Persons. Thus, as we conjecture, of one Pope Two Popes were made, Two Saints, and Two Martyrs; for, in the Canon of the Mass, he has a Place with _Linus_ among the Martyrs; though neither was acknowleged for such by _Irenæus_, or any of the Antients; nay, _Anacletus_ is said, in some Pontificals, to have _died in Peace_, that is, according to the Phrase of those Days, of a natural Death[100]. _Bollandus_, after having much laboured, but laboured in vain, to maintain the Distinction between _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_, yields at last, and gives up the Point. But yet, unwilling to make the least Alteration in the Catalogue of the Popes, which places, with the Approbation of the Holy See, _Clement_ between _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_, he strives to save it with a new and pretty extraordinary Invention; for he pretends _Anacletus_ or _Cletus_ to have resigned the Chair to _Clement_, and _Clement_, in his Turn, to have yielded it to him again. Thus, according to him, though _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ are one and the same Person, yet no Fault is to be found with the Catalogue; and _Clement_ is rightly placed both after and before him[101]. This is a Speculation of his own, altogether groundless, and therefore not worthy of a Place here, were it not to shew what low Shifts and Subterfuges even Men of Parts, in the Church of _Rome_, chuse to submit to, rather than to yield to Reason, in Points that seem to derogate from the Authority of that See. _Anacletus_ governed the Church Twelve Years, according to _Eusebius_[102]; to which some add Two Months, some Three, and some only one; so that he must have died in the Year 91. He is supposed to have been buried next to St. _Peter_, in the _Vatican_, where his supposed Body is shewn, and worshiped to this Day[103]. [Sidenote: _Decretals ascribed to him_.] We find, in the Collection of _Isidorus Mercator_, Three Decretals, under the Name of _Cletus_; but such Decretals as are anterior to the Pontificate of Pope _Syricius_, who was elected in the Year 384 are now universally looked upon as bare-faced Forgeries[104][N3].

-----

Footnote N3:

All the decretal Epistles of the Popes, before _Syricius_, are so
filled with Absurdities, Contradictions, Anachronisms, _&c._ that they
are now given up, even by the most sanguine Advocates for the Papal
Supremacy. And yet these very Decretals, absurd as they are, and
inconsistent with themselves, as well as with all the genuine Writings
of those Times, whether sacred or profane, were, for several Ages, the
main Stays of the whole Fabric of the Papal Power. By them that Power
was established; by them it was supported; for, in the Days of
Ignorance, they were universally received as the genuine Writings of
the antient Bishops of _Rome_, in whose Names they were published.
And, truly, were we to rank them, as they were ranked in the monkish
and ignorant Ages, with the Decisions of the Oecumenical Councils, and
the Canonical Books of the Scripture, no room would be left to
question any Branch of the unlimited Power claimed by the Popes. They
were held in the greatest Esteem and Veneration from the Beginning of
the 9th Century to the Time of the Reformation, when, upon the first
Dawn of Learning, the Cheat was discovered, and the Stays removed,
which till then had supported the unwieldy Edifice. But it was then in
a Condition to stand by itself, at least till new Frauds were devised
to prop it up; and this was accordingly done, without Loss of Time.

The Decretals of the first Popes are quoted by _Bellarmine_, to prove,
that the Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome was universally acknowleged
in the earliest Times[N3.1]: but, at the same time, he owns, that _he
dares not affirm them to be of undoubted Authority_. And what can be
more absurd than to quote a Forgery, or what he himself owns may be a
Forgery, in Vindication of so darling a Point as _the Supremacy_? But
he did it for want of better Evidences, and must therefore be excused.
_Baronius_, ashamed to lay any Stress on such gross and palpable
Forgeries, contents himself with only saying, that the Popes had no
hand in forging them; and that they never made use of their Authority
to support their own. That they were concerned in, or privy to, the
forging of those Letters, I dare not affirm: but that they
countenanced them, as they did all other Forgeries tending to the
Advancement of their See; that they received them as genuine, and
endeavoured to impose them upon others; nay, that they made use of
them soon after their first Appearance in the World, to establish and
promote the Authority of their See; are undoubted Matters of Fact:
witness the Letter, which _Nicolas_ I. wrote, in the Year 865. to
_Hincmarus_ Archbishop of _Rheims_, and to the other Bishops of
_France_, who, refusing to comply with some exorbitant Demands of the
Pope, had rejected the Decretals, on which those Demands were founded,
as Writings that had been lately counterfeited. _Nicolas_, in his
Answer to them, maintains the Authenticity of those Letters, exhorts
all, who profess the Catholic Faith, to receive them _with due
Veneration_, and claims, in virtue of such sacred and authentic
Writings, an uncontrouled Authority over all the Churches of the
World, as lodged from the Beginning in his See[N3.2]. And was not this
making use of the supposed Authority of those Decretals to promote his
own? _Nicolas_ seems to have believed the Letters to be genuine: and,
if he did, he was certainly mistaken, and erred in proposing, as he
does, spurious Pieces for a _firm and strong Foundation_ of our
Belief, as well as our Practice. If he did not believe them to be
genuine, and yet endeavoured to persuade the Bishops of _France_ that
they were so; nay, and claimed, upon the Authority of such Pieces, a
Power over them, and their Churches; a worse Epithet would suit him
better than that of _fallible_, which is common to all Men.

The first who published these Decretals was, according to _Hincmarus_,
_Riculphus_ Bishop of _Mentz_, who was supposed to have brought them
from _Spain_; because the Name of _Isidore_ was prefixed to the
Collection, and a famous Writer of that Name, _viz._ _Isidore_ Bishop
of _Seville_, had flourished in _Spain_ some Centuries before. But
such a mean and scandalous Undertaking is altogether unworthy of so
great a Prelate; and besides the Author of the supposed Decretals has
copied, _verbatim_, some Passages from the Council of _Toledo_ in 675.
and from the Sixth Council in 681. whereas _Isidore_ of _Seville_ died
in 636. The learned _Ellies du Pin_ lays this Forgery at the Door of
some _German_ or _Frenchman_, the Letters being all written in the
Style of the _Germans_ and _French_, of the 9th Century, and many of
them addressed to Persons of these two Nations. _Hincmarus_ was
mistaken, in supposing the forged Decretals to have been first
published by _Riculphus_ of _Mentz_; for in some of them are found
Fragments of the Council held at _Paris_ in 829. and he died in 814.
They were first ushered into the World, and forged too, in all
likelihood, by one _Benedict_, Deacon of the Church of _Mentz_,
though, in his Preface to that Collection, he would fain make us
believe, that _Autcarius_, the Successor of _Riculphus_, found them in
the Archives of that Church, and that they had been placed there by
_Riculphus_, who had brought them from _Spain_. _Autcarius_, in whose
Time _Benedict_ published his Collection, is thought to have been
privy to the Imposture. The Name of _Isidore_, which was then very
common in _Spain_, was prefixed to it, to persuade the World, that the
Decretals were brought from that Country, and not forged at _Mentz_,
where they first appeared. However, they were suspected by some, even
in that dark Age, and absolutely rejected by _Hincmarus_ of _Rheims_,
as Writings of no Authority. But the Popes, whose Pretensions they
were calculated to favour, exerting all their Authority to bring them
into Repute, they were in the End universally received, and inserted
into all the Collections of Canons. At present they are so universally
exploded, that there is not a single Writer, no, not even in the
Church of _Rome_, who is not ashamed to patronize or defend them. But
the Work is done, for which they were intended; and now that the
Edifice can stand by itself, no matter what becomes of the Stays that
supported it, when it could not. These Decretals may be justly looked
upon as a standing Monument of the Ignorance, Superstition, and
Credulity, that universally prevailed in the Church, from the
Beginning of the Ninth Century to the Time of the Reformation. I shall
conclude with observing, that, from these Decretals, _Anastasius_ the
_Bibliothecarian_, and after him _Platina_, have chiefly copied what
they relate of the first Popes, supposing them to have really done
what, in those spurious Pieces, they are said to have done.

Footnote N3.1:

Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 14.

Footnote N3.2:

Nic. I. ep. 42.

-----

-----

Footnote 94:

Martyrol. Roman.

Footnote 95:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 28. Pearson posthum. p. 147, 148.

Footnote 96:

Bar. ad ann. 69.

Footnote 97:

Halloix in vit. Iren. p. 646.

Footnote 98:

Bar. ad ann. 69.

Footnote 99:

Bolland. Pont. p. 217.

Footnote 100:

Vide Pears. posthum. p. 19.

Footnote 101:

Bolland. Pont. p. 217.

Footnote 102:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.

Footnote 103:

Bolland. 26 Apr. 410, 411.

Footnote 104:

Vide Card. Bon. liturg. l. 1. c. 3. et Natal. Alexand. hist. Eccles.
p. 743, &c.

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

DOMITIAN, CLEMENT, TRAJAN. NERVA, _Third_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 91. Clement _mentioned by St._ Paul.]

_Clement_, the Successor of _Anacletus_, is, according to _Origen_[105], _Eusebius_[106], and all the Antients, the Person whom St. _Paul_, in his Epistle to the _Philippians_[107], names among those who had _laboured with him in the Gospel, and whose Names were in the_ _Book of Life_. Hence _Chrysostom_ concludes, that, together with St. _Luke_ and _Timothy_, he attended the Apostle of the Gentiles in all his journeys[108]. _Irenæus_ assures us, that he had not only seen the Apostles, and conversed with them; but that, when he was appointed Bishop of _Rome_, he still heard their Voices sounding in his Ears, still had before his Eyes the Rules and good Example they had given him[109]. _Origen_ styles him _the Disciple of the Apostles_[110]; _Ruffinus, almost an Apostle_[111]; and _Clement_ of _Alexandria, an Apostle_[112]. That he was well versed in every Branch of Learning, especially in polite Literature, descended of a Senatorian Family, and nearly related to the _Cæsars_, is what we read in _Eucherius_[113] and _Nilus_[114], who seem to have followed therein the _Recognitions_, a Book of no Authority. [Sidenote: _Some confound him with_ Flavius Clemens.] _Eucherius_ perhaps confounded, as others have done, Pope _Clement_ with _Flavius Clemens_, who was Son to _Flavius Sabinus_, the only Brother of _Vespasian_, and suffered Death for the Christian Religion in the Persecution of _Domitian_[115]; for Pope _Clement_ was, as himself seems to insinuate, rather of the Race of _Jacob_ than of the _Cæsars_[116]. [Sidenote: _Chosen Bishop of_ Rome.] Upon the Death of _Anacletus_ he was unanimously chosen by the People and Clergy of _Rome_ to succeed him. He had been named, say some, to that Dignity by St. _Peter_ himself, preferably to Linus and _Anacletus_[117]; but had declined it, finding that the Faithful were not all equally disposed to submit to the Judgment and Authority of St. _Peter_. He therefore withdrew; and, as he was of a mild and pacific Disposition, led a retired Life to the Death of _Anacletus_, when he was forced to accept of the Dignity, which he had before declined. Thus _Ruffinus_, upon the Authority of the _Recognitions_; which appears to me, I must own, a very improbable Tale. During his Pontificate happened an impious and detestable Division, to use his own Terms, among the Christians of _Corinth_, which obliged them to have recourse to other Churches, especially to that of _Rome_; [Sidenote: _His famous Epistle to the_ Corinthians.] and on this occasion was written that famous Epistle to the _Corinthians_, so much magnified by the Antients and publicly read, not only in the Church of _Corinth_, as _Dionysius_ assures us, who was Bishop of that City in 180, but in many other Churches, to the Time of _Eusebius_, and St. _Jerom_[118], and perhaps long after. It was by some ranked among the Canonical Books of the Scripture, and by all reverenced next to them[119]. It was written in the Name of the whole Church of _Rome_, and to the whole Church it is, in express Terms, ascribed by _Irenæus_[120], and _Clement_ of _Alexandria_, who calls it the Epistle of the _Romans_ to the _Corinthians_[121]. However, it was composed by _Clement_, in the Name of the Church; for, in the primitive Times, Bishops did nothing by themselves, but every thing jointly with their Churches: _We advise_, _We exhort_, _We recommend_, &c. was their usual Style; which the Popes still observe, though they mean only themselves; for they scorn to join either with the People or Clergy. The Style of this excellent Letter is plain, clear, full of Energy, without any useless Ornaments; and the Whole written with the Simplicity, as _Photius_ observes[122], that the Church requires in Ecclesiastical Writers. There is so great an Affinity, both as to the Sense and the Words, between this Epistle, and the Epistle to the _Hebrews_, that some have concluded _Clement_ to have been the Translator, nay, and the Author of that Epistle[123]. [Sidenote: _Unjustly criticized by_ Photius.] In _Clement_’s Epistle _Photius_ discovers, as he thinks, Three Faults; _viz._ that he supposes other Worlds beyond the Ocean; that he speaks of the Phœnix as a real Bird; and that he uses Words expressing the Humanity of our Saviour, and not his Divinity. But, as to the first of these Objections, there can be no Difficulty now, that we know for certain what was but doubtfully advanced by the Antients: in speaking of the Phœnix he complies with the Opinion universally received in those Days by the Learned, both among the Christians and Pagans. As to the Third Objection, _Photius_ must not have observed, that he styles our Saviour’s Sufferings, the _Sufferings of God_, which was acknowleging his Divinity. [Sidenote: _Thought lost, but appears again._] This Epistle, the most precious and valuable Treasure the Church can boast, after the holy Scriptures, was for many Ages bewailed as lost; but, in 1633. it was again restored to the Christian World, by _Patricius Junius_, a _North Briton_, who published it from a Manuscript, written by an _Egyptian_ Lady, named _Thecla_, about the Time of the great Council of _Nice_, and afterwards brought over into _England_[124]. That this Piece is genuine, appears from a great many Passages quoted out of it by the Antients.

The most remarkable Event that happened in the Pontificate of _Clement_, was the Persecution of _Domitian_; but what Part he bore in it we can learn from no credible Author. [Sidenote: Clement _dies._] He died, according to _Eusebius_[125], in the Third Year of _Trajan_’s Reign, that is, in the 100th of the Christian Æra. In the Canon of the Mass he has a Place, with his Two Predecessors, among the Martyrs; but _Telesphorus_, the Seventh Bishop of _Rome_, is the first, as I have observed above, who was acknowleged as such by _Irenæus_, whose Authority is of far greater Weight than that of _Ruffinus_, or Pope _Zosimus_, who suppose him to have died for the Confession of the Faith[126]. [Sidenote: _His fabulous Acts._] In the Acts of _Clement_, to which _Gregory_ of _Tours_ gave an intire Credit[127], and after him many others, especially the Two credulous Annalists, _Baronius_[128], and _Alford_[129] in his Annals of the _British_ Church, we read, that _Clement_ was banished, by _Trajan_, into the _Chersonesus_, beyond the _Euxine_ Sea; that there he caused a Fountain to spring up miraculously, for the Relief of the Christians confined to the same unhospitable Region; that he converted the whole Country to the Faith, which provoked the Emperor to such a degree, that he ordered him to be thrown into the Sea, with an Anchor fastened to his Neck. It is added, that, on the Anniversary of his Death, the Sea retired to the Place where he had been drowned, though Three long Miles from the Shore; that upon its retiring, there appeared a most magnificent Temple, all of the finest Marble; and in the Temple a stately Monument, in which was found the Body of the Saint; that the Sea continued thus retiring every Year on the same Day, not daring, for the Space of Seven Days, to return to its usual Bounds, that the Christians might, at their Leisure, and without Apprehension of Danger, perform their Devotions in Honour of the Saint. [Sidenote: _The Miracles he wrought, unknown to_ Irenæus.] To crown the Whole, they add, that, one Year, a Mother having heedlessly left her young Child in the Temple, upon her Return, next Year, she found it not only alive, but in perfect Health[130]. No Mention is made of such stupendous Miracles by _Irenæus_, who was brought up under _Polycarp_, Bishop of _Smyrna_, in _Asia_, at the very Time _Clement_ is supposed to have suffered, and who speaks of him at Length. His Silence is a plain Demonstration, that they were unknown to him; and they must have been known, had they been true.

[Sidenote: _Other Writings ascribed to_ Clement. _A second Letter to the_ Corinthians. _Five other Letters._]

Besides the Letter to the _Corinthians_, of which I have spoken above, several other Pieces are ascribed to _Clement_; _viz_. a second Letter to the _Corinthians_; which is, without all Doubt, very antient; but _Eusebius_ doubts whether it was written by _Clement_[131]; and both St. _Jerom_[132], and _Photius_[133], absolutely reject it. Five other Letters, placed among the Decretals, whereof the first, more antient than the rest, was translated by _Ruffinus_, and is quoted by the Council of _Vaison_, held in 442[134]. However, it is generally looked upon as a spurious Piece; for the Author of it, whoever he was, acquaints St. _James_, Bishop of _Jerusalem_, who died long before St. _Peter_, with St. _Peter_’s Death[135]. [Sidenote: _His_ Itinerary.] _Clement_’s Itinerary, which, in _Photius_’s Time, was prefixed, by way of Preface, to the _Recognitions_[136]. The _Recognitions_, relating, under the Name of _Clement_, the Actions of St. _Peter_, his Interview with _Simon_ the Magician, how _Clement_ himself knew again his Father and his Brothers, whom he had forgot; [Sidenote: _The_ Recognitions.] whence the whole Work took the Name of _Recognitions_, that is, _of knowing again_: it is likewise called the _Itinerary of St._ Peter, the _Acts of St._ Peter, the _Acts of St._ Clement[137]. The _Recognitions_ are quoted by _Origen_[138], _Epiphanius_[139], and _Ruffinus_[140], as the Work of _Clement_, but these Writers, at the same time, own them to have been altered in several Places, and falsified by the Heretics; nay, _Epiphanius_ tells us, that the _Ebionites_ scarce left any thing found in them[141]. The Author was well versed in Philosophy, Mathematics, Astrology, and most other Sciences, but not so well acquainted with the Doctrine of the Church; whence his Work is absolutely rejected by _Athanasius_[142]; and now generally looked upon as a Piece falsely ascribed to _Clement_. [Sidenote: _St._ Peter_’s Dialogues with_ Apion.] St. _Peter_’s _Dialogues_ with _Apion_ were probably written in the Third Century, and to gain Credit fathered upon _Clement_; for _Eusebius_ writes, that there had lately appeared a long Work, under the Name of _Clement_, containing Dialogues between St. _Peter_ and _Apion_[143]. [Sidenote: _The Apostolic Constitutions._] As to the _Apostolic Constitutions_, if that Work is different from _the Doctrine of the Apostles_ mentioned by _Athanasius_ and _Eusebius_; _Epiphanius_ is the first who speaks of it: it appears at least, from _Dionysius_ of _Alexandria_, that, in the Year 250. the Constitutions either had not yet appeared, or were of no Repute in the Church[144]. _Epiphanius_ tells us, that many suspected them; but, as for himself, he received them, since he found nothing in them repugnant to the Faith, or the Discipline of the Church[145]. But as be quotes several Passages out of them, which are not to be found now, we may well conclude, that, since his Time, they have been either altered or curtailed. The _Greeks_ indeed, in the Second Canon of the Council, that, in 692. was held at _Constantinople_, in a Tower of the Imperial Palace, called _Trullus_, that is, the _Cupola_, declare, that they had been falsified, in several Places, by the Heretics. _Photius_ thinks that, with respect to the Style, they fall short of the _Recognitions_, but far excel them in the Purity of the Doctrine, adding, at the same time, that it is no easy Task to clear them from the Imputation of _Arianism_[146]. Dr. _Pearson_ takes them to be a Collection of several Pieces, published in the earliest Times, under the Name of the Apostles, and containing, as was pretended, the Instructions they had given[147]. _Albaspinæus_, Bishop of _Orange_, thinks the Matter they contain excellent, and the Whole agreeable to the Discipline observed by the _Greek_ Church, during the Four first Centuries; bur nevertheless he looks upon them only as a Collection of the different Customs, that were established, by degrees, in the Church, and some of which were disputed even in the Fourth Century[148]; so that they can by no means be ascribed either to the Apostles, or to _Clement_. [Sidenote: _The Canons of the Apostles._] The _Constitutions_ end with 85 Canons, long known by the Title of _The Canons of the Apostles_; but, as they contain several things that were not received in the Apostles Time, nor in _Clement_’s, the ablest Critics are of Opinion, that they likewise are but a Collection of several Decrees made in the first Ages of the Church, and that they were not collected into one Body till the Third Century[149]. I don’t find them quoted before the Council of _Constantinople_ in 394. The _Greeks_, in the Council of the Year 692. mentioned above, bound themselves to the Observance of them; but they are all rejected by Pope _Gelasius_: however, _Dionysius Exiguus_ having, not long after, placed the first Fifty at the Head of his Collection, they were received by degrees; but the other Thirty-five have not been admitted to this Day.

Upon the Whole, of the many Writings ascribed to _Clement_, the first Letter to the _Corinthians_ is the only one undoubtedly his: and what a wide Difference appears, as to the Spirit and Style, between that excellent Piece, and the Briefs, Bulls, Mandates, _&c._ of his Successors: He does not command, but exhorts; he does not threaten, but intreats; he does not thunder Anathema’s and Excommunications, but employs the most mild and gentle Persuasives, even with the Authors of the Schism. [Sidenote: Clement_’s Infallibility unknown to him, and to the_ Corinthians.] Had he known himself to be the infallible and unerring Judge of Controversies, from whose Tribunal lay no Appeal; had the _Corinthians_ believed themselves bound, on Pain of Damnation, to submit to his Decisions; there had been no Room for Reasons, Arguments, and Persuasives; he ought to have exerted the Power, with which he was vested, and put an End to all Disputes, in the peremptory Style of his Successors, _We declare, and command all Men to comply with this our Declaration, on pain of incurring the Indignation of the Almighty; and_, as if that were not enough, _of his blessed Apostles_ Peter _and_ Paul. But it was not till some Ages after, that the Popes found out their Infallibility, or rather their flattering Divines found it out for them; so that this invaluable Privilege lying dormant, Men were obliged, for a long time, to make use of their Reason, in deciding religious Controversies.

-----

Footnote 105:

Origen. in Jo. p. 143.

Footnote 106:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 15.

Footnote 107:

Philip. iv. 3.

Footnote 108:

Chrys. in Phil. hom. 13.

Footnote 109:

Iren. l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 110:

Orig. Pr. in l. 3. c. 3.

Footnote 111:

Ruf. ad Orig. 195.

Footnote 112:

Clem. strom. 4.

Footnote 113:

Euch. ad Val. p. 19.

Footnote 114:

Nil. l. 2. ep. 49.

Footnote 115:

Dio, l. 65. Suet. in Dom. c. 15. Orig. in Cels. l. 1. p. 5.

Footnote 116:

Clem. ep. 1. c. 4.

Footnote 117:

Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 118:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.

Footnote 119:

Vide Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. et 38. et l. 4. c. 23.

Footnote 120:

Iren. ib.

Footnote 121:

Clem. strom. 5.

Footnote 122:

Phot. c. 126.

Footnote 123:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 38. et l. 6. c. 25. Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.

Footnote 124:

Not. Jun. p. 3. Not. Cotel. p. 8.

Footnote 125:

Eus. l. 3. c. 34.

Footnote 126:

Ruf. Orig. t. 1. p. 778. Concil. per Lab. t. 2. p. 1558.

Footnote 127:

Greg. Tur. de glor. martyr. c. 35.

Footnote 128:

Bar. ad ann. 102.

Footnote 129:

Alf. ad ann. eund.

Footnote 130:

Greg. Tur. ib.

Footnote 131:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.

Footnote 132:

Hier. vir. ill. c. 15.

Footnote 133:

Phot. c. 113.

Footnote 134:

Concil. per Labb. t. 3. p. 1458.

Footnote 135:

Vide Blond. Decret. p. 25. 28.

Footnote 136:

Phot. c. 113.

Footnote 137:

Coteler. not. in script. Apost. p. 353.

Footnote 138:

Orig. Philocal. c. 23. p. 81, 82.

Footnote 139:

Epiph. hær. 30. c. 15.

Footnote 140:

Ruf. ad Orig. p. 195.

Footnote 141:

Epiph. hær. 30. p. 65.

Footnote 142:

Athan. sym. p. 154.

Footnote 143:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 38.

Footnote 144:

Ign. prol. c. 8. p. 54.

Footnote 145:

Epiph. hær. 76. p. 822.

Footnote 146:

Phot. c. 113.

Footnote 147:

Pears. in Ign. t. 1. p. 60, 61.

Footnote 148:

Alb. obser. l. 1. c. 3. p. 37, 38.

Footnote 149:

Idem ib. et Ign. prol. c. 15. p. 103.

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

TRAJAN EVARISTUS,
_Fourth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 100. ]

Clement was succeeded by _Evaristus_, _Evaristes_, or _Aristus_, as he is called in the most antient Catalogue of the Popes[150], in the Third Year of _Trajan_’s Reign, that is, in the Close of the First Century of the Christian Æra. [Sidenote: Evaristus _governs Nine Years_.] He governed about Nine Years, that is, to the Twelfth Year of _Trajan_, and the 109th of Christ[151]. _Eusebius_, in his Chronicle, supposes him to have died in the Year 107[152]; and, in his History, says, that his Death happened about the Year 109[153]: but, in the Series and Succession of the Popes, that Writer is every-where consistent with himself in his History, and quite otherwise in his Chronicle. [Sidenote: _Several things ascribed to him, without sufficient Foundation._] Besides, the History ought to correct the Chronicle, as being posterior to it. To _Evaristus_ are ascribed Two Decretals, the Distribution of the Titles or Parishes of _Rome_, on which _Baronius_ makes a long Descant[154], and an Order, that Bishops, when they preached, should be always attended by Seven Deacons[155]. But these, and many other things of the same Nature, we read only in _Baronius_, _Platina_, _Anastasius_, _Ciaconius_, &c. and my Design is, as I have declared in the Preface, to follow the Antients alone, in the History of the antient Popes; and therefore I shall take no notice of what the Moderns advance, unless I find it supported by the Authority of the original Writers.

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

TRAJAN ALEXANDER, ADRIAN.
_Fifth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 109. ]

_Sixtus_ is placed, by _Optatus Milevitanus_[156], immediately after _Evaristus_; but that is certainly a Mistake, owing, in all likelihood, to those who transcribed him, since _Irenæus_[157], _Eusebius_[158], _Epiphanius_[159], and even St. _Augustin_[160], who follows _Optatus_ in every thing else relating to the Popes, place _Alexander_ between _Evaristus_ and _Sixtus_. _Irenæus_ reckons _Alexander_ the Fifth Bishop of _Rome_; so that we agree with the most authentic and unexceptionable Writer of Antiquity in excluding St. _Peter_, and supposing _Cletus_ and _Anacletus_ to be one and the same Person[161]. _Alexander_ governed Ten Years, and some Months; and died in the Third Year of _Adrian_, and 119 of Christ[162]. [Sidenote: Alexander _not a Martyr_.] We can learn nothing of the Antients concerning him: he is worshiped indeed by the Church of _Rome_ as a Martyr; but that Title is not given him by _Irenæus_: and as for the Venerable _Bede_, who ranks him among the Martyrs, he was led into that Mistake by _The Acts of St. Alexander_, which, in the Opinion of Dr. _Pearson_, were composed in the Seventh Century, but are now universally rejected as fabulous. [Sidenote: _The Institution of Holy Water falsly ascribed to him._] _Platina_ ascribes to Pope _Alexander_ the Institution of _Holy Water_[163], which _Baronius_ takes very much amiss of him, since he thereby robs the Apostles of an Honour due to them; for by the Apostles, in his Opinion, was first introduced the Use of _Holy Water_[164]. But if we trace up this _Holy Water_ to the Fountain-head, we shall find that it arises from an unhallowed Spring, from the _Lustral Water_ of the Pagans; for peace being restored to the Church by _Constantine_, the Christians began, as a modern Writer well observes[165], to adopt the Ceremonies of the _Gentiles_. Several Cities in _Italy_, _France_, _Germany_, _Spain_, &c. pretend to have Reliques of this Pope, insomuch that, were they all put together, they would form at least twenty intire Bodies[166].

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

ADRIAN. SIXTUS,,
_Sixth_ BISHOP _of_ Rome.

[Sidenote: Year of Christ 119. ]

The Successor of _Alexander_ is named _Sixtus_ by _Optatus_[167], and St. _Augustin_[168]; but by _Irenæus_[169], _Eusebius_[170], _Epiphanius_[171], and _Jerom_[172], _Xystus_: which Word has some Signification annexed to it in _Greek_; whereas _Sixtus_ has none either in _Greek_ or _Latin_. He presided Ten Years according to _Eusebius_[173], but not complete; for he was raised to the See in the Third Year of _Adrian_, of Christ 119. and died in the Twelfth Year of the same Prince, about the latter End of the Year of Christ 128[174]. He is ranked among the Martyrs in the Canon of the Mass, and in all the Martyrologies: but his immediate Successor is the first to whom that Title is given by _Irenæus_. [Sidenote: _Decretals falsly ascribed to_ Sixtus.] To _Sixtus_ are ascribed two Decretals, but both forged in latter Ages, as plainly appears from _De Marca_, from _Baluzius_, and, above all, from the haughty Title of _Universal Bishop_, which _Sixtus_ is made to assume in one of them: a Title, as F. _Pagi_ is forced to confess, unknown to the Bishops of the primitive and best Times[175]. _His Reliques._ The Title of _Universal_ would be better adapted to the Reliques of this Pope, than to his Episcopacy; for they are dispersed all over the Roman Catholic World: but _Baillet_ himself looks upon them as false, and unworthy of the Worship that is paid to them, not excepting even those that were given by _Clement_ X. to Cardinal _De Retz_, who caused them to be placed with great Solemnity in the Abbey of _St. Michael_ in _Lorrain_[176].

-----

Footnote 150:

Buch. p. 270.

Footnote 151:

Euseb. l. 3. c. 34.

Footnote 152:

Euseb. chron. l. 4. c. 1.

Footnote 153:

Idem, l. 3. c. 34.

Footnote 154:

Bar. ann. 112.

Footnote 155:

Idem, ann. 121.

Footnote 156:

Opt. l. 2. p. 48.

Footnote 157:

Iren. l. 3. c. 6.

Footnote 158:

Euseb. l. 4. c. 1.

Footnote 159:

Epiph. hær. 27. c. 6.

Footnote 160:

Aug. ep. 165.

Footnote 161:

Euseb. l. 5. c. 6.

Footnote 162:

Idem, l. 4. c. 5.

Footnote 163:

Platin. in ej. vit.

Footnote 164:

Bar. ad ann. 132. N. 3.

Footnote 165: