The sum of the conference between John Rainoldes and John Hart touching the head…The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head…
The sum of the conference between John Rainoldes and John Hart touching the head and the faith of the Church. Wherein by the way are handled sundry points, of the sufficiency and right expounding of the Scriptures, the ministry of the Church, the function of priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, with other controversies of religion: but chiefly and purposely the point of Church-government ... Penned by John Rainoldes, according to the notes set down in writing by them both: perused by John Hart, and (after things supplied, & altered, as he thought good) allowed for the faithful report of that which past in conference between them. Whereunto is annexed a treatise entitled, Six conclusions touching the Holy Scripture and the Church, written by John Rainoldes. With a defence of such things as Thomas Stapleton and Gregory Martin have carped at therein.The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head and the faith of the Church. Wherein by the way are handled sundrie points, of the sufficiencie and right expounding of the Scriptures, the ministerie of the Church, the function of priesthood, the sacrifice of the masse, with other controuerises of religion: but chiefly and purposely the point of Church-gouernment ... Penned by Iohn Rainoldes, according to the notes set downe in writing by them both: perused by Iohn Hart, and (after things supplied, & altered, as he thought good) allowed for the faithfull report of that which past in conference betwene them. Whereunto is annexed a treatise intitled, Six conclusions touching the Holie Scripture and the Church, writen by Iohn Rainoldes. With a defence of such thinges as Thomas Stapleton and Gregorie Martin haue carped at therein.
John Rainolds 1549–1607Londini: printed by John Wolfe, 1584Londini: printed by Iohn Wolfe, 1584
475, [1], 479-674, 659-750 p. · 304k words · STC 20626 · ESTC S115546
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Hart. And what if a matter of religion be harder then Bishops each in several be able to decide it? What if they disagree, and will not yield one to another? Doth not wisdom show, that there must be a chief judge to end the controversy? to keep the truth of faith, and peace of the Church, that it be not pestered with heresies and schisms?
Hart. And what if a matter of religion be harder then Bishops each in seuerall be able to decide it? What if they disagree, and will not yéeld one to another? Doth not wisedome shew, that there must be a chiefe iudge to ende the controuersie? to keepe the truth of faith, and peace of the Church, that it be not pestered with heresies and schismes?
Rainoldes. The wisdom of God hath committed that chieftie of judgement (so to call it) not to the sovereign power of one, but to the common care of many. For when there was a controversy in the Church of Antioch about the observation ⟨p. 255⟩of the law of Moses, some Jews teaching contrary to that which Paul and Barnabas taught: athey ordained that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question. And so by their common agreement and decree, the controversy was ended, the truth of faith kept, and peace maintained in the Church. After which example, bthe Bishops (that succeeded them) made the like assemblies, on the like occasions: and by common conference took order for such matters, both of doctrine, and discipline, as concerned in common the state of their Churches. So did the Apostles and Apostolic men provide against schisms & heresies. Their wisdom reached not unto your policy of one chief judge.
Rainoldes. The wisedome of God hath committed that chieftie of iudgement (so to call it) not to the soueraine power of one, but to the common care of many. For when there was a controuersie in the Church of Antioche about the obseruation
they ordeined that Paule and Barnabas, and certaine other of them, should go vp to Ierusalem to the Apostles and Elders about that question. And so by their common agreement and decrée, the controuersie was ended, the truth of faith kept, and peace maintained in the Church. After which example,
the Bishops (that succéeded them) made the like assemblies, on the like occasions: and by common conference tooke order for such matters, both of doctrine, and discipline, as concerned in common the state of their Churches. So did the Apostles and Apostolike men prouide against schismes & heresies. Their wisedome reached not vnto your policie of one chiefe iudge.
Hart. The profit of Councils and Synods of Bishops is very great, we grant. For many eyes see more then one. But it will be greater, if they be all counsellors unto one governor, then if they govern each his own, and all in common. For reason doth teach us, that the regiment of one, which we call a monarchy, is better and worthier then the regiment of many: as the Philosophers show, who write of Common-weals.
Hart. The profit of Councels and Synods of Bishops is very great, we graunt. For many eyes see more then one. But it wil be greater, if they be all counsellors vnto one gouernor, then if they gouerne eche his owne, and all in common. For reason doth teach vs, that the regiment of one, which wee call a monarchie, is better and worthier then the regiment of many: as the Philosophers shew, who write of Common-weales.
Rainoldes. Reason, is a notable help of mans weakness, if it be obedient to faith, as a handmaid; not rule it, as a mistress. And humane arts, wherein the Philosophers have seen many sparkles of the truth of God by the light of reason, are profitable instruments to set forth the truth, so far as they have peace, not war, with Gods word. But if the Philosophers have erred, as cnatural men, who neither do conceive the things of the spirit of God, nor can know them; if reason have her eyes (as it were) dazzled, because dthe light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it: then is it to be feared eleast, as the Serpent seduced Eve through his subtlety, so he beguile you by reason; and you forget that lesson of the holy Ghost, 4beware least there be any man that spoil you through philosophy. Which I say not so much in respect of this point of the Church government, as of your whole doctrine: a mighty ground whereof in your Schoolmen, is philosophy; and gyour Jesuits challenge doth offer to prove it by natural and moral reason. For ⟨p. 256⟩here if I would justify the cause by Philosophers, it is easily showed, that the Churches state is a most perfect monarchy: wherein Christ is king; his laws, are the scriptures; his officers, are the Bishops; not ordained to be assistants unto one deputy, but to be deputies all them selves, even hPastors of his flock, & iguides & krulers of his Church. Howbeit, if it differ from the kingly states of worldly common-weals, which philosophy writeth off, as it doth in part: Philosophers must not marvel, sith lChrist hath declared his kingdom is not of this world. Indeed, the Apostles thought of such a kingdom: mbut Christ said, it should not be so amongst them, as with the Princes of the Gentiles. Which sentence of Christ your Popes not understanding, and weening the Apostles to be forbidden nothing but an heathnish tyranny, and liking well a monarchy because Philosophers praise it: they have raised a nvisible monarchy of their own, in stead of Christs monarchy; and have changed his kingdom, which is not of this world, into a worldly kingdom, the kingdom of the Romans, as oa Jesuit calleth it. Neither contenting them selves with such a kingdom, as Princes of the Gentiles had: they make them selves Princes *over all the kingdoms and nations of the earth.
Rainoldes. Reason, is a notable helpe of mans weakenes, if it be obedient to faith, as a handmaide; not rule it, as a maistresse. And humane artes, wherein the Philosophers haue séene many sparkles of the truth of God by the light of reason, are profitable instruments to set forth the truth, so farre as they haue peace, not warre, with Gods worde. But if the Philosophers haue erred, as cnaturall men, who neither doo conceiue the things of the spirit of God, nor can know them; if reason haue her eyes (as it were) dazeled, because dthe light shineth in darkenesse, and the darkenesse did not comprehend it: then is it to be feared eleast, as the Serpent seduced Eue through his suttletie, so he beguile you by reason; and you forget that lesson of the holy Ghost, 4beware least there be any man that spoyle you through philosophie. Which I say not so much in respect of this point of the Church gouernment, as of your whole doctrine: a mightie ground whereof in your Schoolemen, is philosophie; and gyour Iesuites challenge doth offer to proue it by naturall and morall reason. For ⟨p. 256⟩here if I would iustifie the cause by Philosophers, it is •asily shewed, that the Churches state is a most perfite monarchie: wherein Christ is king; his lawes, are the scriptures; his officers, are the Bishops; not ordained to bée assistantes vnto one deputie, but to be deputies all them selues, euen hPastors of his flock, & iguides & krulers of his Church. Howbeit, if it differ from the kingly states of worldly cōmon-weales, which philosophie writeth off, as it doth in part: Philosophers must not maruel, sith lChrist hath declared his kingdōe is not of this world. Indéede, the Apostles thought of such a kingdome:
oFrancis. Turrian. de eccle. & ordin. minist. eccl. l. 1. c. 2.
*Super gentes & regna, saith Pope John the two & twentieth in extravagant. commun.Super gentes & regna, saith Pope Iohn the two & twētieth in extrauagant. commun.
Which is a greater monarchy then Philosophers like off: as I could prove out of them, if the Popes cause were to be handled in their schools. But because I list not to trifle out the time with idle discourses about points of State; as your pRabbins do, to prove that a monarchy is the best regiment: therefore against such reasons I lay that exception which qTertullian did of old against heretics: What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem? the school of philosophy with the Church of Christ? The duty of Christians is to search and weigh in matters of faith, not what reason, but what religion; not what the Philosophers, but what the Prophets, & Apostles; not what mans fancy, but what the Spirit of God doth say. And so the former parts of your main argument for the Popes supremacy, are too weak to prove it. The last is weaker then they both. For, that there should be one chief and highest Pastor of the Church in earth: it hath some reason by philosophy. That Peter was appointed by Christ to be that one: it hath some show of scripture. But that the Pope succeedeth Peter therein, it ⟨p. 257⟩hath no show of scripture; and (I trow) you will not prove it by philosophy.
Which is a greater monarchie then Philosophers like off: as I coulde proue out of them, if the Popes cause were to be handled in their schooles. But because I list not to trifle out the time with idle discourses about pointes of State; as your pRabbines doo, to proue yt a monarchie is the best regiment: therefore against such reasons I laye that exception which qTertullian did of olde against heretikes: What hath Athens to do with Ierusalem? the schoole of philosophy with the Church of Christ? The duetie of Christians is to search and weigh in matters of faith, not what reason, but what religion; not what the Philosophers, but what the Prophets, & Apostles; not what mans fansie, but what the Spirit of God doth say. And so the former parts of your maine argument for the Popes supremacie, are too weake to proue it. The last is weaker then they both. For, that there should be one chiefe and highest Pastor of the Church in earth: it hath some reason by philosophie. That Peter was appointed by Christ to be that one: it hath some shew of scripture. But that the Pope succéedeth Peter therein, it ⟨p. 257⟩hath no shew of scripture; and (I trow) you will not proue it by philosophie.
pSand. visib. monar. l. 3. c. 3 Bellar. controvers. 4. quaest. 1.Sand. visib. monar. l. 3. c. 3 Bellar. controuers. 4. quaest. 1.
Hart. That the Pope succeedeth Peter therein:1 it is a clear case. For sEusebius writeth, that Peter, having laid the foundation of the Church of Antioch, (where he sate seven years) went to Rome: & (preaching the gospel there five and twenty years) continued Bishop of that city. Now, the Pope is Bishop of Rome: that you grant. Then I conclude thereof, that he succeedeth Peter. For Peter continued Bishop of that city, as it is witnessed by Eusebius.
Hart. That the Pope succéedeth Peter therein:1 it is a cléere case. For sEusebius writeth, that Peter, hauing laide the foundation of the Church of Antioche, (where he sate seauen yeares) went to Rome: & (preaching the gospell there fiue and twentie yeares) continued Bishop of that citie. Now, the Pope is Bishop of Rome: that you graunt. Then I conclude thereof, that he succedeth Peter. For Peter continued Bishop of that citie, as it is witnessed by Eusebius.
Rainoldes. I desired that I might hear, Thus saith the Lord: and you told me that I should hear it. In the first part of your argument, you fell from it, to, Thus saith the Pope. In the next you mended it, with, Thus say Philosophers. Now you prove the last, by, Thus saith Eusebius. And this is more sightly somewhat, then the former: but no stay of faith, without the word of God.
Rainoldes. I desired that I might heare, Thus saith the Lord: and you told me that I should heare it. In the first parte of your argument, you fell from it, to, Thus saith the Pope. In the next you mended it, with, Thus say Philosophers. Now you proue the last, by, Thus saith Eusebius. And this is more sightly somewhat, then the former: but no stay of faith, without the word of God.
Hart. You ought not to cast off Eusebius so lightly, as though he were of no credit. For he is the best and ancientest historian of all that have travelled in setting forth the stories of the Church of Christ. And the pains, the diligence, the reading and judgement, which in his Chronicle he showed, was great and wonderful. In so much that gCanus is persuaded of him, that no ecclesiastical Greek or Latin author could have left more excellent monuments of times.
Hart. You ought not to cast off Eusebius so lightly, as though he were of no credit. For he is the best and auncientest historian of all that haue traueled in setting forth the stories of the Church of Christ. And the paines, the diligence, the reading and iudgement, which in his Chronicle he shewed, was great and wonderfull. In so much that gCanus is perswaded of him, that no ecclesiastical Gréeke or Latin autor could haue left more excellent monuments of times.
Rainoldes. I like of Eusebius, as of a good historian: and I allow the praise given him by Canus. But hCanus hath a good conclusion withal, touching both him, and all historians, to wit, that *beside the writers of the scripture, no historian can be sure; that is to say, able to make sure and certain proof in Divinity. A thing so apparent and evident of it self, that he saith, it is not to be confirmed with his proofs. Only, he rehearseth to the same effect a true & pleasant speech of iFlavius Vopiscus: who, beginning to write stories, said that he enterprised it the more boldly, because he should have companions in lying; sith he knew no historian, that had not lied in somewhat. Now, if this be incident unto all historians, except them of scripture: who wrote by the Spirit of God, and not of man: then Eusebius also, though a good historian, might be subject ⟨p. 274⟩to it. Which you must the rather be persuaded of him, because kPope Gelasius (in a Council of seventy Bishops) reproved his story, as faulty. Which reproof your lCanus alloweth as just, & giveth reasons of it: namely, for mhis reporting of Christs epistle to Agbarus, and nhis avouching many things by Clemens Alexandrinus; whereas the fable of the one, and the works of the other are reproved by othe Council,
Rainoldes. I like of Eusebius, as of a good historian: and I allow the prayse giuen him by Canus. But hCanus hath a good conclusion withall, touching both him, and al historians, to wéet, that *beside the writers of the scripture, no historian can be sure; that is to say, able to make sure and certaine proofe in Diuinitie. A thing so apparant and euident of it selfe, that hée saith, it is not to be confirmed with his proofes. Onely, he reherseth to the same effect a true & pleasant spéeche of iFlauius Vopiscus: who, beginning to write stories, said that he enterprised it the more boldly, because he should haue companions in lying; sith he knew no historian, that had not lyed in somewhat. Now, if this be incident vnto all historians, except them of scripture: who wrote by the Spirit of God, and not of man: then Eusebius also, though a good historian, might be subiect ⟨p. 274⟩to it. Which you must the rather be perswaded of him, because kPope Gelasius (in a Councell of seuentie Bishops) reproued his storie, as faultie. Which reproofe your lCanus alloweth as iust, & giueth reasons of it: namely, for mhis reporting of Christes epistle to Agbarus, and nhis auouching many things by Clemens Alexandrinus; wheras the fable of the one, and the works of the other are reproued by othe Councell,
hcap. 4.
*Praeter autotores sacros nullus histori•us certus esse potest, id est, idoneus ad faci endam certam in Theologia fidem.
iIn vit. […].In vit. 〈…〉.
kDist. 15. c. Sanc•• Romana.
l[…]. 11. cap 6.〈…〉. 11. cap 6.
mEuseb. histo. eccles. l. 1. c. 14.
nl. 1. c. 1. and so forth commonly.l. 1. c. 1. and so forth cō monly.
Hart. These faults, and the rest, that Canus doth touch, are in the history of Eusebius: which yet not only Canus but the Council also commend, as not to be refused altogether. But that which I alleged is in the Chronicle of Eusebius: a book, neither noted so by the Council, and greatly praised by Canus.
Hart. These faultes, and the rest, that Canus doth touch, are in the historie of Eusebius: which yet not onely Canus but the Councell also commende, as not to be refused altogither. But that which I alleaged is in the Chronicle of Eusebius: a booke, neither noted so by the Councell, and greatly praysed by Canus.
Rainoldes. The man is one, who wrote them both: and might be overseen, as in the one, so in the other. Yea pCanus himself, who praiseth his Chronicle, yet praiseth it with this exception, that neither all things which Eusebius there reporteth, are true. But men may find some things which may be worthily and truly blamed. As, for example, that he writeth, that Sennacherib who besieged Jerusalem, and Salmanassar who took Samaria, were one, and the same man. Which thing to be contrary to the holy scripture qS. Jerome hath showed. Now this, which I stick at in the Chronicle of Eusebius, is such an other oversight: and may be as worthily reproved, as that of Canus; because it is no less against the scripture then that. For whereas he saith, that Peter, having laid the foundation of the Church of Antioch, (where he sate *seven years) went to Rome, & preaching the Gospel there five and twenty years continued Bishop of that city: Peter (by this account) should have gone to Antioch about the fourth year after Christs death, and there abode seven years, even till the second year of Claudius the Emperor, in which he went to Rome. But the scripture showeth, that Paul (who was rnot presently converted after Christs death) yet safter three years found Peter at Jerusalem : & Peter, after that, abode within tthe coasts of Jewry, first uat Lydda, then xat Joppe, then at yCaesarea, then zat Jerusalem, where aHerod cast him into prison, in the second or third year of Claudius, as it is likely, (for bhe died cin the fourth:) when, dthe Church of Antioch was in the mean season both planted and ⟨p. 275⟩watered by others, not by Peter. Wherefore, the former branch of that which Eusebius reporteth touching Peter, that he had sate seven years at Antioch, in the second year of Claudius, is flatly contrary to the scripture. The later is as contrary, that from that year forward he did sit at Rome five and twenty years, that is, all his life time, till he was put to death by Nero. For, (to grant the uttermost, which may have any show of reason,) admit, that he was cast by Herod into prison, in the first year of Claudius; before which he could not; for *Claudius gave the kingdom of Jewry to Herod. When the Angel had delivered him out of prison, ehe went into an other place: whether to Rome or to Antioch, or perhaps to neither, the scripture leaveth it uncertain;
Rainoldes. The man is one, who wrote them both: and might be ouerséene, as in the one, so in the other. Yea pCanus himselfe, who praiseth his Chronicle, yet praiseth it with this exception, that neither all thinges which Eusebius there reporteth, are true. But men may find some thinges which may bee worthily and truely blamed. As, for example, that he writeth, that Sennacherib who besieged Ierusalem, and Salmanassar who tooke Samaria, were one, and the same man. Which thing to be contrarie to the holy scripture qS. Ierom hath shewed. Now this, which I sticke at in the Chronicle of Eusebius, is such an other ouersight: and may be as worthily reproued, as that of Canus; because it is no lesse against the scripture then that. For whereas he saith, that Peter, hauing laid the foundation of the Church of Antioche, (where he sate *seuē yeares) went to Rome, & preaching the Gospell there fiue and twentie yeares cōtinued Bishop of that city: Peter (by this account) should haue gone to Antioche about the fourth yeare after Christs death, and there abode seuen yeares, euē till the second yeare of Claudius ye Emperour, in which he went to Rome. But ye scripture sheweth, yt Paule (who was rnot presently conuerted after Christes death) yet safter three yeares found Peter at Ierusalē : & Peter, after that, abode within tthe coastes of Iewrie, first uat Lydda, then xat Ioppe, then at yCaesarea, then zat Ierusalem, where aHerode cast him into prison, in ye second or third yeare of Claudius, as it is likely, (for bhe died
*In the Chronicle of Eusebiu• it is [•ive and twenty:] through the fault of the printers or written copies which they followed. For (by the count of years, and consent of writers who seem to follow him) it should be seven only.In the Chronicle of Eusebiu• it is [•iue and twentie:] through the fault of the printers or writen copies which they folowed. For (by the count of yeares, and consent of writers who seem to folow him) it should be seuen onely.
but, by the Chronicle of Eusebius, either to Antioch or to Rome. If he went to Antioch, and there abode some years, before he came to Rome: then is the second year of Claudius past, and his abode at Rome could not be five and twenty years. Now, it is certain that he went to Antioch at that time or some other. For fthe scripture witnesseth that Paul did there reprove him. But if that were some other time, and from his prison in Jerusalem he went straight to Rome: yet neither could he so be five and twenty years there. For after he came thither, a time must be found wherein he was at Antioch; and an other time wherein he was at gBabylon; & an other time, wherein he was at hJerusalem, at the Council of the Apostles; and some years after that, iwhen Paul wrote to the Romans, kamongst the chief, whom he saluted, he named not Peter; and some years after that, when Paul lcame prisoner to Rome, when he mabode there certain years, when he nwrote many epistles thence, Peter is not mentioned, nay those things are mentioned which would be stains of his Apostleship, if he had been at Rome. For, oPaul saith of others, these only are my work-fellows unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort to me:, & pat my first answering, no man assisted me, but all forsook me: I pray God it be not laid unto their charge. Of the which reasons, though some are but probable, yet some are sure proofs, that Peters continuance at Rome was not such, as is reported by Eusebius. And this is so manifest, that, to say nothing of qancienter writers, who (to make the scriptures agree somewhat better with his five and twenty years abode ⟨p. 260⟩at Rome,) brought him thither later, and gave him longer time of life: Onuphrius Panuinius, a Friar of your own, most devout to the Pope, most skilful in antiquities and stories of the Church, acknowledgeth and confirmeth it. For, in the discourses of his Annotations on rPlatina, printed at Venice, & afterward at Cologne: 1it is most clear (saith he) and surely known by the Acts of the Apostles, and Pauls epistle to the Galatians, that, for nine years after Christs death, until the second year of the reign of Claudius, Peter never went out of Jewry. Wherefore if he came to Rome, at that time, as it is agreed amongst all authors that he did:
but, by the Chronicle of Eusebius, either to Antioche or to Rome. If he went to Antioche, and there abode some yeares, before he came to Rome: then is the second yeare of Claudius past, and his abode at Rome could not bee fiue and twentie yeares. Now, it is certaine that he went to Antioche at that time or some other. For fthe scripture witnesseth that Paule did there reproue him. But if that were some other time, and from his prison in Ierusalem he went straight to Rome: yet neither could he so be fiue and twentie yeares there. For after hée came thither, a time must be found wherein he was at Antioch; and an other time wherin he was at gBabylon; & an other time, wherin he was at hIerusalem, at the Councell of the Apostles; and some yeares after that, iwhen Paule wrote to the Romans, kamongst the chiefe, whom he saluted, he named not Peter; and some yeares after that, when Paule lcame prisoner to Rome, when he mabode there certaine yeares, when he nwrote many epistles thence, Peter is not mentioned, nay those thinges are mentioned which would be staines of his Apostleship, if he had béene at Rome. For, oPaule saith of others, these onely are my worke-fellowes vnto the kingdome of God, which haue bene a comfort to me:, & pat my first answering, no man assisted me, but all forsooke me: I pray God it bee not laid vnto their charge. Of the which reasons, though some are but probable, yet some are sure proofes, that Peters continuance at Rome was not such, as is reported by Eusebius. And this is so manifest, that, to say nothing of qauncienter writers, who (to make the scriptures agrée somewhat better with his fiue and twentie yeares abode ⟨p. 260⟩
it followeth of necessity, 2that he did not sit seven years at Antioch before he came thither, but that his sitting at Antioch was some other time. Which thing I have resolved on, thus, by the testimony of most ancient writers. He did come to Rome the second year of Claudius. From which time there are to the time of his death about five and twenty years. Wherein, although the ancient writers do say that he sate at Rome: yet doth it not follow thereof that he abode still in the city. For in the fourth year after his coming thither, he returned to Jerusalem: and there was present at the Council of the Apostles. 3Thence he went to Antioch, and there continued seven years; until that Nero was Emperor. In the beginning of whose reign, he came again to Rome: where he repaired the Roman church, which was decaying. And after that 4when he had travailed almost throughout all Europe, he returned to Rome in the last year of the reign of Nero, and there was put to death. This is the confession of your own Onuphrius, made perhaps against the hear (as I may term it:) but the light of truth and scripture forced him to it. Whereby you may perceive that when Eusebius wrote, that Peter sate, first, seven years at Antioch, and five and twenty at Rome, after: that befell to him, which 4Thucydides saith of the old stories of the Grecians; men receive reports of things done before them from hand to hand, one from another, 5without examining & trying them. Some, through a desire (as it is likely) of honouring the Sees of Antioch & Rome, hearing that S. Peter had preached in them both, devised that he sate seven years in the one, and five and twenty in the other. Eusebius fell upon it, ⟨p. 261⟩and wrote it in his Chronicle without farther trial. But if he had tried it by the touchstone of scripture: he would have cast it off, as counterfeit. Which I think the rather, because in his story the mentioneth the coming of Peter to Rome as out of Jury, not from Antioch, for his first coming thither in the time of Claudius: and for his coming thither again in Neros time, uhe showeth out of xOrigen that it was toward his end, when he had preached the gospel to the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Wherefore sith Eusebius doth in his story dissent from his Chronicle, and in his Chronicle dissent from the scripture:
it followeth of necessitie, 2that hee did not sit seuen yeares at Antioche before he came thither, but that his sitting at Antioche was some other time. Which thing I haue resolued on, thus, by the testimonie of most auncient writers. He did come to Rome the second yere of Claudius. From which time there are to the time of his death about fiue and twentie yeares. Wherin, although the auncient writers do say that he sate at Rome: yet doth it not folow thereof that he abode still in the citie. For in the fourth yeare after his comming thither, he returned to Ierusalem: and there was present at the Councell ofthe Apostles. 3Thence he went to Antioche, and there continued seuen yeares; vntil that Nero was Emperour. In the beginning of whose raigne, he came againe to Rome: where hee repaired the Romane church, which was decaying. And after that 4when hee had traueiled almost throughout al Europe, he returned to Rome in the last yeare of the raigne of Nero, and there was put to death. This is the confessiō of your owne Onuphrius, made perhaps against the heare (as I may terme it:) but the light of truth and scripture forced him to it. Wherby you may perceiue that when Eusebius wrote, that Peter sate, first, seuen yeares at Antioch, and fiue and twentie at Rome, after: that befell to him, which 4Thucydides saith of the old stories of the Grecians; men receyue reportes of thinges done before them from hand to hand, one from another, 5without examining & trying them. Some, through a desire (as it is likely) of honouring the Sees of Antioche & Rome, hearing that S. Peter had preached in them both, deuised that he sate seuen yeares in the one, and fiue and twentie in the other. Eusebius fell vpon it, ⟨p. 261⟩and wrote it in his Chronicle without farther tryall. But if he had tryed it by the touchstone of scripture: hée would haue cast it off, as counterfeite. Which I thinke the rather, because in his storie the mentioneth ye coming of Peter to Rome as out of Iurie, not from Antioche, for his first coming thether in the time of Claudius: and for his coming thither againe in Neros time, u
2Antiochiae septem annis non sedisse ante aduentum ad urbem.Antiochiae septem annis non sedisse ante aduentum ad vrbem.
3Inde Antio••iam prosec•us septem ibidem annis permansit.
4Peregrination per universam Europam fere suscepta.Peregrinatio•e per uniuersam Europam fere suscepta.
Hart. To talk about the years of Peters coming to Rome, or his continuance there, I am not disposed. I leave it to them, who list to search antiquities. But that he was in Rome, it is a thing undoubted: the scripture doth witness it. For in the first epistle of his, the fifth chapter, ythe Church (saith he) saluteth you, that is in Babylon, coelect, and Mark my son. Where your Protestants show them selves (as in all places, that do make against them) to be most unhonest and partial handlers of Gods word. The ancient Fathers, namely zS. Jerome, aEusebius, bOecumenius, and many moe agree, that Rome is meant by the word Babylon here also, as cin the Apocalypse: saying plainly that S. Peter wrote this epistle at Rome, which is called Babylon for the resemblance it had to Babylon that great city in Chaldea (where the Jews were captives) for magnificence, monarchy, resort and confusion of all peoples and tongues, and for that it was, before Christ and long after, the seat of all Ethnic superstition and idolatry, & the slaughter-house of the Apostles & other Christian men, the heath• Emperors then keeping their chief residence there. This being most plain & consonant to that which followeth of S. Mark, whom all the ecclesiastical histories agree to have been Peters scholar at Rome, & that he there wrote his gospel: yet you, *fearing hereby the sequel of Peters or the Popes supremacy at Rome, deny that ever he was there, or that this epistle was written there, or that Babylon doth here signify Rome. But you say that Peter wrote this epistle at Babylon in Chaldea, though you ⟨p. 262⟩never read either in scriptures, or other holy or profane history, that he was ever in that city. But see your shameless partiality. Here, Babylon (say you) is not taken for Rome: because it would follow that Peter was at Rome, and so forth. But in the Apocalypse, where all evil is spoken of Babylon, there you will have it signify nothing else but Rome, and the Roman church also, not (as the Fathers interpret it) the temporal state of the heathen Empire there. So do you follow in every word no other thing, but the advantage of your own heresy. Which is most notorious by this, that you hold that Peter was neve• at Rome. Wherein you pass your selves in impudency. For it is against all the ecclesiastical histories, all the Fathers Greek and Latin, cTheodoret, dProsper, eS.
Hart. To talke about the yeares of Peters coming to Rome, or his continuance there, I am not disposed. I leaue it to them, who list to search antiquities. But that he was in Rome, it is a thing vndoubted: the scripture doth witnesse it. For in ye first epistle of his, the fifth chapter, ythe Church (saith he) saluteth you, that is in Babylon, coelect, and Marke my sonne. Where your Protestants shew them selues (as in all places, that doo make against them) to be most vnhonest and partiall handlers of Gods worde. The auncient Fathers, namely zS. Ierom, aEusebius, bOecumenius, and many moe agrée, that Rome is meant by the worde Babylon here also, as cin the Apocalypse: saying plainely that S. Peter wrote this epistle at Rome, which is called Babylon for the resemblance it had to Babylon that great citie in Chaldaea (where the Iewes were captiues) for magnificence, monarchie, resort and confusion of all peoples and tongues, and for that it was, before Christ and long after, the seate of all Ethnike superstition and idolatry, & the sl•ughter-house of the Apostles & other Christian men, the heath• Emperours then kéeping their chief residence there. This being most plaine & consonant to yt which foloweth of S. Marke, whom all the ecclesiasticall histories agree to haue béene Peters scholer at Rome, & that he there wrote his gospell: yet you, *fearing hereby the sequele of Peters or the Popes supremacie at Rome, deny that euer he was there, or that this epistle was writen there, or that Babylon doth here signifie Rome. But you say that Peter wrote this epistle at Babylon in Chaldaea, though you ⟨p. 262⟩neuer read either in scriptures, or other holy or prophane history, that hee was euer in that citie. But sée your shamelesse partialitie. Here, Babylon (say you) is not taken for Rome: because it would folow that Peter was at Rome, and so forth. But in the Apocalypse, where all euill is spoken of Babylon, there you will haue it signifie nothing else but Rome, and the Romane church also, not (as the Fathers interprete it) the temporall state of the heathen Empire there. So do you folow in euery word no other thing, but ye aduantage of your own heresie. Which is most notorious by this, that you hold that Peter was neue at Rome. Wherein you passe your selues in impudencie. For it is against all the ecclesiasticall histories, all the Fathers Gréeke and Latin,
*As the Rhemists say: who charge the Protestants with all this, in their Annotat. on • Pet. 5.13. and Rom. 16.16.As the Rhemists say: who charge the Protestants with al this, in their Annotat. on • Pet. 5.13. and Rom. 16.16.
Leo, fS. Austin, gOrosius, hS. Chrysostom, iS. Epiphanius, kPrudentius, lOptatus, mS. Ambrose, nS. Jerome, oLactantius, pEusebius, qS. Athanasius, rS. Cyprian, sTertullian, tOrigen, uIrenaeus, xHegesippus, yCaius and Papias, the Apostles own scholars, and Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth, zIgnatius, athe holy council of Chalcedon, and many others. Yea Peter him self (according to the judgement of the Fathers, as I have showed) confesseth that he was at Rome, calling it Babylon.
Leo, fS. Austin, gOrosius, hS. Chrysostome, iS. Epiphanius, kPrudentius, lOptatus, mS. Ambrose, nS. Ierom, oLactantius, pEusebius, qS. Athanasius, rS. Cyprian, sTertullian, tOrigen, uIrenaeus, xHegesippus, yCaius and Papias, the Apostles owne scholers, and Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth, zIgnatius, athe holy councell of Chalcedon, and many others. Yea Peter him selfe (according to the iudgement of the Fathers, as I haue shewed) confesseth that he was at Rome, calling it Babylon.
but Christ saide, it should not be so amongst them, as with the Princes of the Gentiles. Which sentence of Christ your Popes not vnderstanding, and wéening the Apostles to be forbidden nothing but an heathnish tyrannie, and liking well a monarchie because Philosophers prayse it: they haue raised a
visible monarchie of their owne, in steede of Christes monarchie; and haue chaunged his kingdome, which is not of this world, into a worldly kingdome, the kingdome of the Romanes, as
the Church of Antioche was in the meane season both planted and
⟨p. 275⟩
watered by others, not by Peter. Wherefore, the former braunch of that which Eusebius reporteth touching Peter, that he had sate seuen yeares at Antioche, in the second yeare of Claudius, is flatly contrarie to the scripture. The later is as contrary, that from that yeare forward he did sit at Rome fiue and twentie yeares, that is, all his life time, till he was put to death by Nero. For, (to graunt the vttermost, which may haue any shew of reason,) admitt, that he was cast by Herode into prison, in the first yeare of Claudius; before which he could not; for
at Rome,) brought him thither later, and gaue him longer time of life: Onuphrius Panuinius, a Frier of your owne, most deuout to the Pope, most skilfull in antiquities and stories of the Church, acknowledgeth and confirmeth it. For, in the discourses of his Annotations on
it is most cleere (saith he) and surely known by the Actes of the Apostles, and Pauls epistle to the Galatians, that, for nine yeares after Christes death, vntill the second yeare of the raigne of Claudius, Peter neuer went out of Iewry. Wherfore if he came to Rome, at that time, as it is agreed amongst all autours that he did:
Origen that it was towarde his end, whē he had preached the gospell to the Iewes in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Wherefore sith Eusebius doth in his storie dissent from his Chronicle, and in his Chronicle dissent from the scripture:
