which we now have. But more of this in

c.s. in calce due place hereafter.

infra.

XI. The Original Series of the first Bifhops of Rome, till A. D. 230. was thus.

'Tis very well known what miferable Uncertainty the Learned have of late been, and are still in, concerning this firft Succeffion of the Roman Bishops. Whereas there is great evidence in Antiquity, that this, and no other is the true Chronology of them. The Reasons follow.

(1) The

C.22. p.142

(1) The Numbers themselves in the first part of this Table, with which we are principally concern'd, and which are of the greatest confequence, are thofe given us by the great Eufebius himself, found both in his Chronicon and Ecclefiaftical History: And they feem plainly to have been taken from a most faithful and authentick Witness, Hegefippus, who himself fays in his Fragments preferv'd by the fame Eufebius, Hift. Eccl. γενόμμα ἐν ρώμη διαδοχήν ἐποιηστίμων μέχρι ἀνικήτε· ο δείνον @ ἦν ἐλεύθερος άν κήτες διαδέχεται σωτήρα μύθο ἓν ἐλεύθερος. Ι made a Series,or Table, of the Roman Bishops Tears fucceffively, fo far as Anicetus; and this when I was at Rome. Which was indeed scarce one whole Century from Linus their first Bishop. Now this being fuppos'd, that Eufebius's Numbers are taken from Hegefippus, there can be no room to doubt of their Verity; efpecially fince all the Antients, particularly Epiphanius,ftill agree with them. Epiphan. Tis true, that all thefe Numbers are by 607 Eufebius and others from him apply'd to wrong Years of the Roman Emperors, and fo of the Christian Era; as Chronologers are generally compell'd to acknowledge. But that is of fmall confequence as to the particular Numbers themselves; fince it no way appears that Hegefippus connected any of the Years in his Table with the Years of the Roman Emperors, or any other known Era

H

Hæres 27.

Era of Chronology; which therefore is moft probably owing to Eufebius's own Conjecture. And this partly appears in Fact to be the cafe, because his Chronicon and Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, which always exactly agree in the feparate Numbers, do not always fo exactly agree in this Application; De Succe as the very Learned Mr. Dodwell obferves. Pontif 6.3. Thefe particular Numbers therefore being fuppos'd, we must feek for other Evidence to guide us in this Connection and Application. Nor is there wanting fuch evidence in the cafe, and that Satisfactory and Authentick also, and, fo far as I can judge, fufficient to put an end to this Difpute for the future. For

§. 6. p. 22.

(2) The Commencement of this Series with Linus A. D. 55. which fixes the whole Succeffion, not only agrees with the first Origin of Epifcopacy, as fooneft fettled in the great or Patriarchal Churches, of which Rome was the chief; nor only with that account we have of one or two Succeffions, before that undoubted one of Clement, the Companion of Peter and Paul, who originally planted this Church; nor only with the Words of Irenæus, who fpeaking of the Churches founded by the Apostles, calls this Se chap.4. Antiquiffima, one of the most Antient Churn°.15.infrà ches of them all, nor only with Paul's writing to them as a flourishing Church about Rom. 1. 8. A. D. 58. and one whofe Faith was already Spoken

cent. 2.

Pontif.

Differt. 2.

Spoken of throughout the whole World, and therefore fure not left till that tiine unsetled, or without a Bishop; but is directly confir med by the best Authorities we have; and is no other than the most learned and judicious Bishop Pearfon's own Account and Determination. His Words, including the original Proofs, are thefe, Cum Petrus & Pau- De Ann. lus fundarent Ecclefiam, hoc eft Apoftolis illis adbuc fuperftitibus, Linus Roma Epifcopus c. 5. p.168 conftitutus eft, ut docet Irenæus. Sedit autem ufque ad Annum Domini 67. jam vergentem, Imperii Neroniani 14. ineuntem : Confulibus Capitone & Rufo; ut tradit Catalogus Bucherianus, cui confonant Catalogus fecundus, Liber Pontificialis, Anaftafius,& Breviaria vetera, in quibus hæc verba de Lino confervata erant ; Fuit temporibus Neronis, & Confulatu Saturnini & Scipionis, ufque Capitone & Rufo. Which are fuch punctual Authorities, and fo agreeable to all the other valuable Characters of Chronology, which we shall meet with presently, as ought not to be fet afide for any particular Fancies or Hypothefes whatsoever.

(3) This Series is mightily confirm'd by a notable Paffage in Tertullian, when corrected and rightly apply'd. His Words are thefe: Anno 15°. Tiberii Cafaris Jefus de Coelo manare dignatus eft, Spiritus falutaris. Marcionis falutem, qui ita voluit, quoto qui- Adv. Mardem anno Antonini Majoris de Ponto fuo con. L. I. exhala.§.19•7•443

H 2

exhalaverit aura canicularis non curavi in

vefligare. De quo tamen conftat, Antonianus hæreticus eft, fub Pio Impius. A Tiberio autem ufque ad Antoninum anni fere 115.& dimidium anni, cum dimidio menfis. Tantundem temporis ponunt inter Chriftum & Marcionem. Here we fee that fome nice Chronologers had examin'd the time of the Rife of Marcion, and compar'd it with that of Pius. Not the Emperor Pius, as Tertullian miftakes: For that Period is different from this Number many Years in truth, and Vid. Tertul, more in Tertullian's own Opinion elfewhere; adv. Jua. but of Pius Bishop of Rome. For with the 6.8. p.215 Years of thofe Bishops, not of thefe Empe

rors, we ufually find the Rife or coming to Rome of thefe Hereticks to be connected by the Fathers, on all Occafions. And this is the more probable here, because we know from the Testimony of Epiphanius,that Marcion came to Rome juft before the Beginning Heref. 43.of Pope Pius. Mapniwv, fays he, aréar es ἀνείσιν §1. 1308, ρώμίω αυτὴν με τα τελευτητα υγῖνον ἢ ὅπ

303

σκοπον ῥώμης. κ.τ.λ. And indeed this Chronological Account appears to have been made by fome accurate Perfon, fince it defcends to the uncommon nicety not only of Months, but of half a Month. So that by this notable Remains of an original Teftimony, we find that there were 115 Years, and half a Month between the Days of Tiberius and Pope Pius: And that the Epocha belongs to the begin