THEPREFACE

The Work, which I now offer to the Public, I undertook some years since atRome, and brought it down to the Pontificate ofVictor, 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 byBellarmine, thatthe whole of Christianitydepended[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 inMoodandFigure. 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 powerBellarmineandBaronius. 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 thered 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, afterwardsPiusII. 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, asGregoryXIII. 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 inItaly, 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 completeHistory of the Popeswas 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 acomplete, or even of atolerable 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.AnastasiusandPlatina, the twoClassics, as they are deemed, in this branch of History, have indeed given us theLives of the Popes, from the foundation of the See ofRometo 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 theRomanBishops, 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.

Anastasiusthe Monk, surnamedBibliothecarius, that is, Library-keeper, Secretary, and Chancellor of the Church ofRome(for all these employments antiently centred in one person, and werecomprised under the common name ofBibliothecarius) flourished in the ninth century, underNicolasI.AdrianII. andJohnVIII. He wrote a succinct account of the Bishops, who governed the Church ofRome, from St.PetertoNicolasI. 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 theBibliothecarianborrowed 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 theLatinname ofPiadena, a village in theCremonese, the place of his nativity (for his true name wasBattista, orBartolomeo Sacchi) flourished six hundred years afterAnastasius, that is, in the fifteenth century, underCalixtusIII.PiusII.PaulII. andSixtusIV. UnderPiusII. he was Secretaryof theDatary, the office where vacant benefices are disposed of; but, being dismissed byPaulII. tho’ he had purchased the place, in the height of his resentment, he appealed to thefuture 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.SixtusIV. the successor ofPaul, well apprised of his innocence, took him into favour, and, having enlarged, endowed, and enriched theVaticanlibrary 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, toPaulII. who died in 1471. I saytranscribed; for, if we except the few Popes who lived in or near his own times,viz.EugeneIV.NicolasV.CalixtusIII.PiusII. andPaulII. 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, fromPaulII. toPiusV. elected in 1566. were compiled byOnuphrius Panvinius, of theAugustinorder, 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:PlatinaadoptedAnastasius’s concise method of writing, andPanvinius,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 learnedPagiobserved, after comparing the authors I have mentioned, with the contemporary Historians of other nations. I might well add, that thevery littlethey have said has been thought too much; whence some of them, andPlatinain 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 inGermanyandItaly, distinguished by the names ofGuelphsandGhibbelines; 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 undoubtedtruths the many groundless aspersions and undeserved reproaches which party zeal had suggested to theGhibbelinesagainst the Popes, or to theGuelphsagainst the Emperors. I wish I could intirely clear an eminentItalianhistorian 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 everyPopishtenet; when, by whom, on what occasion, and to serve what purpose, each of them was broached; those more especially which relate to the Pope asChrist’s Vicar upon earth, asthe Supreme Head of the Church, asan Infallible Guide to salvation; for these are the prerogatives he claims, as entailed upon, and inseparable from theRomanSee. But that no such doctrines were known in the first and purest ages of Christianity; that the Bishop ofRomewas then, nay, and thought himself, upon the level with other Bishops; that the Catholic Church acknowleged no power, authority, or jurisdiction in the Bishop ofRome, 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 thePapal Power, andPopish 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 aLiberiusadmitting and signing theAriancreed, or confession of faith, declared heretical by all his Successors; of anHonoriuscondemned by the Fathers of the sixth Oecumenical Council, as anorgan of the devil, for holding the heresy of theMonothelites; ofJohnXXII. preaching up and propagating, both by his Missionaries and his Legatesa 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 theUltima Ratioof the later Popes, theFagot, in order toroot out of the Church(these are his very words)so pestilential,erroneouserroneous, 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 andConstitutions 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 wordInfallibilityhas ever been since heard of. TheFranciscanFriers, who had occasioned the dispute,paid dearpaid dearfor it: As they continued to plead the Infallibility of seven Popes against that of one, and obstinately adhered to their doctrine, PopeJohn, 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 byNicolaus Eymericus, who was Inquisitor of the province ofTarragon, and has inserted them in hisDirectorium 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 theRoman Catholicreligion, 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 ofRomehave 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 theChristianworld, 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 ofChrist, 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 accomplishedbut 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 inthe night, while men slept, while the earth was overspread with the darken night of ignorance, thatthe 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. PopeBonifaceIII. a man of great address, having craftily insinuated himself into the favour ofPhocas, obtained of that Traitor and Murderer[7], the famous Rescript settling the Supremacy on the See ofRome, in opposition to the claim of the Patriarch ofConstantinople. AsPhocasbore an irreconcileable hatred toCyriacus, 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 timebetween the two Sees, in favour of the See ofRome. If this hatred in the Usurper was owing to the zeal ofCyriacusin 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 mentionRepentancein their hearing. Be that as it will, it is certain, that to this monster of wickedness the Church ofRomeowes her Supremacy. And it was this Grant fromPhocas, that more than any thing else inspired the Bishops ofRomewith 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 byPhocaswas but a Supremacy of Order and Dignity; it gave nonewpower to the Bishop ofRome, but only raised him above his Collegues, especially his Rival, the Patriarch ofConstantinople; 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 ofPhocas, and give the Precedence in rank toConstantinopleinstead ofRome, 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 ofRomecould not challenge, by a Rescript of theRomanEmperor, any Superiority over the Churches, that had no Dependence on theRomanEmpire. 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 ofEuropewere quarrelling among themselves about the Western parts of theRomanEmpire, and all glad to purchase, at any rate, the friendship of the Bishop ofRome, who, after the famous Donation ofPepinin 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 kindof 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 ofServants 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 ofRomein the beginning of the Seventh Century. How different from those in the latter end of the Eleventh! They were then vested with thePlenitude 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 becomeLords 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 acknowlegedsuperior to all Men, and thought himselfin duty bound to obey. ThisPlenitude 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 betweenBonifaceIII. who laid the foundation of the Papal grandeur, andGregoryVII. 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 madethemselves 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 thatLiberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free. If I shall be so happy as thereby to keep awake and alive, in the breast of every trueEnglishman, 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 thosemanyProtestants) 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: andthese 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 ofRomeduring 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 thePope, and thePopish 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 ofEurope, 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 fromProtestantsof 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 theRoman Catholicshere, 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 theRoman CatholicsinEnglandwell 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.

THEHISTORYOF THEPOPES,ORBISHOPS ofROME

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

POPES,

BISHOPS ofROME

St.PETER

It is out of some Regard to an antient Tradition, that I have placed St.Peterat the Head of the Bishops ofRome, though I am well apprised, that this, like most other Traditions, will hardly stand the Test of a strict and impartial Examination.|That St. Peter wasever atRome,known only byTradition.|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.Peterwas atRome, that he was Bishop ofRome, 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.|Tradition not to bedepended upon.|Thus we are told, that St.Peterwent toRomechiefly toopposeSimon, the celebrated Magician; that, at their first Interview, at whichNerohimself 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 ofJesus, 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 atRome, 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].

N1. This Account seems to have been borrowed fromSuetonius, who speaks of a Person that, in the public Sports, undertook to fly in the Presence of the EmperorNero; 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[1].1. Suet. l. 6. c. 12.

1. Suet. l. 6. c. 12.

Fabulous Accountsof St.Peter.

TheRomans, 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 toRometo be crucified anew: which, as St.Peterunderstood it, was upbraiding him with his Flight; whereupon he turned back, and was soon after seized by the provokedRomans, 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.Peterto have been atRome; 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 ofRome, to witness St.Peter’s having preached the Gospel in that City.|The greatest Menimposed upon byfalse Traditions.|These areArnobius[10],CyrilofJerusalem[11],Eusebius[12],Irenæus[13],Tertullian[14],Jerom[15], andJustinthe Martyr[16]. These have all supposed St.Peterto have been atRome, 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 readilypinned 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 atRome, 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.

How little regardpaid to them bysome 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 toRome, so did St.Paul, according to Tradition, travel intoSpain: the former Tradition was received by the Writers I have quoted above, and the latter by some of the same Writers,viz.byCyrilofJerusalem[17], andJerom[18], and byAthanasius[19],Chrysostom[20],Theodoret[21],Gregory the Great[22], and many others; yet such a Tradition was rejected, perhaps justly, by PopeInnocentI. who would not allow St.Paulto have ever been inSpain[23]. Have we not an equal Right to question, or even to deny, St.Peter’s having ever been atRome? 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?

Back to Index Next