And truly, if we examine narrowly into this matter, the former Tradition will appear no less groundless to us, than the latter did to that Pope: for, in the first place, neither St. Peter himself, nor any of the Sacred Writers, give us the least Hint or Intimation of his having ever been at Rome. We are told of his being at Antioch, at Jerusalem, at Corinth, at Babylon^[24]; but of the great Metropolis of the Empire, where he is supposed to have fixed his See, not the least Mention is made. And may we not from that Silence question, to say no more, his having ever been there? I know that by Babylon, from whence St. Peter wrote his first Epistle^[25], Eusebius,^[26] Jerom^[27], the Venerable Bede^[28], Oecumenius^[29], and Grotius^[30], understood Rome; but this is a bare Conjecture, and no better grounded than that of others, who thought that by Babylon was meant Jerusalem^[31]. The learned Doctor Pearson, Bishop of Chester, seeing no Occasion here to recur to a figurative Sense, is of Opinion, that the above-mentioned Epistle was written not from Babylon in Chaldæa, which then lay in Ruins, but from Babylon in Egypt; and no Man has taken more Pains to make the World believe, that St. Peter preached at Rome, and founded that See^[32]. But, in this Controversy, the Silence of St. Paul in particular, if duly attended to, must be thought, by every unbiassed Man, a far more convincing Proof of St. Peter’s not having been at Rome, than all the Authorities that have been yet alleged, are of his having been there. |St. Paul, in the
many Letters he
wrote from Rome,
never mentions
St. Peter.| For that Apostle, while at Rome, had frequent Opportunities of mentioning his fellow Apostle, and fellow Labourer; and yet, naming several others, he is quite silent as to him. From Rome he wrote to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Philemon, without ever mentioning Peter, or sending any Salutation from him; nay, it is certain, that St. Peter was not at Rome when the Apostle of the Gentiles wrote to the Colossians; for, mentioning Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus, he adds, These alone, my Fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God, who have been a Comfort unto me^[33]. Peter was not there, when St. Paul wrote his second Epistle to Timothy, where he says, At my first Answer no Man stood with me, but all Men forsook me^[34]: nor was he there immediately before St. Paul’s Death, when the Time of his Departure was at hand; for he tells Timothy, that all the Brethren did salute him; and, naming Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia^[35], he omits Peter, whom we may thence conclude not to have been there. And yet it is a received Tradition in the Church of Rome, that St. Peter was then not only in that Metropolis, but confined and bound in the same Prison with St. Paul. As that Apostle, in writing from Rome, sends no Salutations from Peter, so in writing to Rome he greets many others, but never mentions him^[36]. Now who would not sooner chuse to reject such Traditions, than to suppose St. Paul guilty of such an unfriendly and unaccountable Omission?

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]. |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. |The Duties of a
Bishop and an
Apostle incon-
sistent.| 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]. |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]. |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. |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.

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]. |Cletus and Ana-
cletus 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]. |How they were
first disting-
uished.| 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]. |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].

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. |Some confound
him with Flav-
ius 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]. |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; |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]. |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. |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. |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]. |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. |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.