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. 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
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.
Rainoldes. Here is a grievous crime, wherewith you charge our Protestants, of shameless partiality. But whether show them selves more partial and unhonest handlers of Gods word, our Protestants, or your Papists: you are too partial (M. Hart) to judge. There is a just judge who will reveal it in that day, before the eyes of all men: and in the mean season he doth reveal it daily, to them whom he maketh wise to try spirits, & to discern the truth from error. As for this particular, wherein we seem to you most unhonest and partial, that in Peters epistle we take the word [Babylon] properly, for the city of that name in Chaldea; and in the Revelation we say that it signifieth Rome, figuratively: we do not this for any advantage of heresy, as you falsely charge us, but in sincerity before God. For in the Revelation, in which there are as many bmysteries as words, and words applied commonly to allegories and figures: Rome might be fitly meant by the name of Babylon. And that it was so, it appeareth by the circumstances: if not, of cthe seven hills, whereon ⟨p. 263⟩Rome was built, (and dJerome gathereth it thereof;) yet of ethe great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth, which in S. Johns time was Rome; fthe Fathers so interpret it; you say it, and subscribe unto it. But, in all the rest of the new Testament, where things are plainly spoken off, it si• teth most with reason that the word Babylon be taken in his proper meaning: the text doth force it in gother places; and, in that epistle of Peter it is the likelier, because hthe like speeches in superscriptions, in salutations, in dates of epistles, are elsewhere meant simply. In the Revelation, ithe great city is called spiritually Sodom. In kPeters epistle, we take the name of Sodom properly. Is it partiality in us, to take it so? Or were it not a folly in you to reprove it? But this is the matter belike, which pincheth you, that in the Revelation, where all evil is spoken of Babylon, we will have it signify nothing else but Rome, and the Roman Church also, not the temporal state of the heathen Empire there, as the Fathers interpret it. The Fathers then interpret it of Rome, you confess. If you condemn us for interpreting it so: you must condemn them with us. If you say that we do not therein, as they, because we expound it of nothing else but Rome, and they not so: you slander us.
Rainoldes. Here is a gréeuous crime, wherewith you charge our Protestants, of shamelesse partialitie. But whether shew them selues more partiall and vnhonest handlers of Gods word, our Protestants, or your Papistes: you are too partiall (M. Hart) to iudge. There is a iust iudge who will reueale it in that day, before the eies of all men: and in the meane season he doth reueale it dayly, to them whom he maketh wise to trie spirites, & to discerne the truth from errour. As for this particular, wherein we séeme to you most vnhonest and partiall, that in Peters epistle we take the word [Babylon] properly, for the citie of that name in Chaldaea; and in the Reuelation wee say that it signifieth Rome, figuratiuely: we do not this for any aduantage of heresie, as you falsely charge vs, but in sinceritie before God. For in the Reuelatiō, in which there are as many bmysteries as wordes, and wordes applyed commonly to allegories and figures: Rome might be fitly meant by the name of Babylon. And that it was so, it apperéeth by the circumstances: if not, of cthe seuen hils, wheron ⟨p. 263⟩Rome was built, (and dIerom gathereth it thereof;) yet of ethe great citie, which raigneth ouer the kinges of the earth, which in S. Iohns time was Rome; fthe Fathers so interprete it; you say it, and subscribe vnto it. But, in all the rest of the new Testament, where things are plainely spoken off, it si• teth most with reason that the word Babylon be taken in his proper meaning: the text doth force it in gother places; and, in that epistle of Peter it is the likelier, because hthe like spéeches in superscriptions, in salutations, in dates of epistles, are elsewhere meant simply. In the Reuelation, ithe great citie is called spiritually Sodom. In k
For lsome of us expound it of the city of the Devil, that is, the society and company of all the wicked, as some of them do. And what doth it advantage you, or your quarrel, if, as by mJerusalem is meant the city of God, that is, the society and company of all the faithful: so Rome, an other Babylon, do note the Devils city, as a figure and sampler of it? For, in this sort also will Babylon be Rome still. Wherein, that you may learn the less to carp at us, hearken to nyour Jesuit: who having showed, that the whore which sitteth on the seven hills, is (in *some mens judgment) the city of the Devil, which often times is called Babylon, and set against Jerusalem, the city of God, that is, the Church: but in my judgement (saith he) it is better to understand the city of Rome by the whore, as oTertullian and pJerome do. To whom he might have added qsundry of the Grecians: and rS. Austin also. But they interpret it (you say) of the temporal state, not ecclesiastical; of the Roman Empire, not of the Roman Church, as we do. No marvel. For in their •aies the Church did differ from the Empire: the Empire, wicked; ⟨p. 264⟩Church, godly. In ours it is not so. The state ecclesiastical is changed into the temporal: the Church hath swallowed up the Empire; and what the Roman Empire was, that now the Roman Popedo e is. Wherefore when we apply the mystery of Babylon to the Church of Rome: we apply it still (as the Fathers did) to the temporal state, if not of an heathen Empire there, yet of a Christian waxing heathnish. There we see sa purple whore, sitting upon many waters, drunken with the blood of Saints, and with the blood of Christs martyrs, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her whoredom. tSanders, the greatest patron of the Popes monarchy, doth prove out of Tertullian, that where there is the greatness of the kingly city, where the pride of the Empire, where the persecution of Christians doth rage: there is Babylon, no doubt, there is the great city, there is that woman which sitteth upon peoples, nations, and languages, with whom the kings of the earth do commit whoredom, and the inhabitants of the earth are drunken with the wine of her whoredom. Now Rome in these respects was Babylon (as he construeth it) while the heathen Emperors obtained the temporal state there, not since the Popes have had it.
For lsome of vs expound it of the citie of the Deuill, that is, the societie and companie of all the wicked, as some of them do. And what doth it aduantage you, or your quarell, if, as by mIerusalem is meant the citie of God, that is, the societie and companie of all the faithfull: so Rome, an other Babylon, doo note the Deuils citie, as a figure and sampler of it? For, in this sort also will Babylon be Rome stil. Wherein, that you may learne the lesse to carpe at vs, hearken to nyour Iesuit: who hauing shewed, that the whoore which sitteth on the seuen hils, is (in *some mens iudgment) the citie of the Deuil, which often times is called Babylon, and set against Ierusalem, the citie of God, that is, the Church: but in my iudgement (saith he) it is beter to vnderstand the citie of Rome by the whoore, as oTertullian and pIerom doo. To whom he might haue added qsundry of the Grecians: and rS. Austin also. But they interpret it (you say) of the temporall state, not ecclesiasticall; of the Romane Empire, not of the Romane Church, as we doo. No maruaile. For in their •aies the Church did differ from the Empire: the Empire, wicked; ⟨p. 264⟩Church, godly. In ours it is not so. The state ecclesiasticall is chaunged into the temporall: the Church hath swallowed vp the Empire; and what the Romane Empire was, that now the Roman Popedo e is. Wherefore when we apply the mysterie of Babylon to the Church of Rome: we apply it still (as the Fathers did) to the temporall state, if not of an heathen Empire there, yet of a Christian waxing heathnish. There we sée sa purple whoore, sitting vpon many waters, droonken with the blood of Saintes, and with the blood of Christs martyrs, hauing a golden cuppe in her hand, full of abominations and filthines of her whooredome.
lBabylonis nomine, Satanae congregation• significat: sed eam potissimu• quae ab ecclesia Romana pend•• In exposit ecclesiast. Nou. Test. excerpt […] probat. Theologis ab A•gustino Marlora••.Babylonis nomine, Satanae congregation• significat: sed eam potissimu• quae ab ecclesia Romana pend•• In exposit ecclesiast. Nou. Test. excerpt 〈…〉 probat. Theologis ab A•gustino Marlora••.
But let the states of the Popedom and of the Empire be compared; and the stories of uthe Emperors, who reigned there before the Popes, and of xthe Popes (who have succeeded them) be examined: and if it be not found that the Papal state hath matched the Imperial in greatness of power, in pride of dominion, in persecuting of Christians; then let us be judged to vary from the Fathers in giving Rome the name of Babylon. Else are we cleared by verdict of Sanders from that wherewith you charge us, of expounding it to the advantage of our heresy: and you must pronounce that we deal uprightly with the name of Babylon, in the Revelation. As for our usage of it in the epistle of Peter: the reasons which you bring to prove a fault therein, may serve for our acquittal. You say, that we never read either in scriptures, or other holy, or profane history, that Peter was ever in the city of Chaldea, which is named Babylon. A simple proof, if we had not. For, the Apostles, being sent to yall nations, were in many cities, wherein we never read they were. And yet we ⟨p. 265⟩have read in Methodius (an ancient bishop, and historian) alleged by zMarianus Scotus, that Peter did preach the gospel in 1Babylon: that is, either the city, or at least the country; and where they preached in the country, they did it in the chief and mother-city commonly. But the ancient Fathers, namely S. Jerome, Eusebius, Oecumenius, & many moe agree, that Peter meant Rome by the word Babylon. They deliver it, I grant: but they received it from Papias, a man, though you commend him for the Apostles own scholar, yet aof very small judgement: who, mistaking the meaning of the Apostles speeches in 2a matter of greater weight, deceived many Fathers that followed him for his antiquity, as both bEusebius and cJerome do report of him. The less strange it is, if they believed him, and others them, in this point, of no such importance. But, it is consonant to that which followeth of Mark: whom all the ecclesiastical histories agree to have been Peters scholar at Rome, and that he there wrote his gospel. And dthis doth come from Papias also, by one as good as himself, even by Clemens Alexandrinus. Wherefore, I know, what credit it hath; what truth, I know not. For if eCassiodorus, fRhegino, gAdo, and hall the ecclesiastical histories have erred, in saying that Peter did abide at Rome five and twenty years;
But let the states of the Popedome and of the Empire be compared; and the stories of uthe Emperours, who raigned there before the Popes, and of xthe Popes (who haue succéeded them) be examined: and if it be not found that the Papall state hath matched the Imperiall in greatnes of power, in pride of dominion, in persecuting of Christians; then let vs be iudged to varie from the Fathers in giuing Rome the name of Babylon. Els are we cleered by verdit of Sanders from that wherewith you charge vs, of expounding it to the aduantage of our heresie: and you must pronounce that we deale vprightly with the name of Babylon, in the Reuelation. As for our vsage of it in the epistle of Peter: the reasons which you bring to prooue a fault therein, may serue for our acquitall. You say, that we neuer read either in scriptures, or other holy, or prophane history, that Peter was euer in the citie of Chaldaea, which is named Babylon. A simple proofe, if we had not. For, the Apostles, being sent to yal nations, were in many cities, wherein we neuer read they were. And yet we ⟨p. 265⟩haue read in Methodius (an ancient bishop, and historian) alleaged by zMarianus Scotus, that Peter did preach the gospell in 1Babylon: yt is, either the citie, or at least the countrie; and where they preached in the countrie, they did it in the chiefe and mother-citie commonly. But the ancient Fathers, namely S. Ierom, Eusebius, Oecumenius, & many moe agree, that Peter meant Rome by the word Babylon. They deliuer it, I graunt: but they receyued it from Papias, a man, though you commend him for the Apostles owne scholer, yet aof verie small iudgement: who, mistaking the meaning of the Apostles spèeches in 2a matter of greater weight, deceyued many Fathers that followed him for his antiquitie, as both bEusebius and c
1Babylon•a▪ taken •y others, for the country: by sundry w•iters ec•lesias•• call, •or the c• tie of Babylon. Hist. eccle. •useb. Rufin. interpret. l. •. cap. 1•. August. in Psal. 26. & 61. de •ivitat. De• l. 18. cap. 2. Joseph. antiquit. Judaic. l. 20. c. 18 Prosper in dimid. Temp. cap. 7. & lib. senten. ex August. se•t. 221. Oath. Frising. chron lib. 7. cap. 3.Babylon•a▪ taken •y others, for the countrie: by sundrie w•iters ec•lesias•• call, •or the c• tie of Babylon. Hist. eccle. useb. Rufin. interpret. l. . cap. 1. August. in
which error they were carried into by iEusebius, or whosoever first reported it: why might they not also be deceived in this point by the report of Papias, or some who had it from Papias? Though, if it be true, that S. Mark was Peters scholar at Rome: yet this proveth not, that he meant Rome by the name of Babylon. For Peter saith only, the Church which is in Babylon, & Mark my son salute you. Now Mark (as kyour Papias also doth report) did follow and accompany Peter in his travel. So that he might be with him as well at Babylon in Chaldea, as in Italy at Rome. Wherefore whether Peter were at Rome or no: the proof thereof resteth upon humane histories. For this of Gods word, whereby you would prove it fain, saith nothing for it. Which la learned man of our side having weighed, and seeing mthe dissension of writers touching the time that he came to Rome; ⟨image 135⟩and knowing by nthe scripture that their speech of his abode in Rome, is false; and marking the shameful practise of the Romanists in oforging tales for their advancement, as Constantine's donation; and spying some such forgery amongst their monuments of Peter, pas Linus fable of his death; and finding qhis martyrdom mentioned by rJerome and Lyra, in such sort, as though he had been crucified by the Scribes and Pharisees: he was brought (by these & the like persuasions) into this opinion, that Peter never came to Rome. If you ask my judgement: I think he was deceived therein. And so do many mo. None of all the Protestants, swho have dealt in writing of histories & Chronicles, to my knowledge, (t one excepted) denieth, that he was at Rome. They who are straitest in it, do say uit may be doubted, it is no article of our faith: and xeither he was not there, or at another time then most authors think, and less then five and twenty years. Wherein, what do they say, but that which is most true and manifest? The greater wrong you do us, to charge us in general, that we hold that Peter was never at Rome. And, to aggravate the matter you muster up the names of the ancient Fathers, as though we did band our selves against them all. Whereas in very deed, ythey, whom you count our captains, do therefore grant Peter to have been at Rome, because the ancient Fathers affirm it so with one consent. Yea zsome of them (expounding those same words of Peter) apply the name of Babylon to Rome, as you do:
which errour they were caried into by iEusebius, or whosoeuer first reported it: why might they not also be deceyued in this point by the report of Papias, or some who had it from Papias? Though, if it be true, that S. Marke was Peters scholer at Rome: yet this proueth not, that he meant Rome by the name of Babylon. For Peter saith onely, the Church which is in Babylon, & Marke my sonne salute you. Now Marke (as kyour Papias also doth report) did follow and accompanie Peter in his trauel. So that he might be with him as well at Babylon in Chaldaea, as in Italie at Rome. Wherefore whether Peter were at Rome or no: the proofe therof resteth vpon humane histories. For this of Gods word, whereby you would proue it faine, saith nothing for it. Which la learned man of our side hauing weighed, and séeing mthe dissension of writers touching the time that hee came to Rome; ⟨image 135⟩and knowing by nthe scripture that their spéeche of his abode in Rome, is false; and marking the shamefull practise of the Romanists in oforging tales for their aduancement, as Constantines donation; and spying some such forgerie amongst their monuments of Peter, pas Linus fable of his death; and finding qhis martyrdome mentioned by rIerom and Lyra, in such sort, as though he had béene crucified by the Scribes and Pharises: he was brought (by these & the like perswasions) into this opinion, that Peter neuer came to Rome. If you aske my iudgement: I thinke he was deceiued therein. And so doo many mo. None of all the Protestants, swho haue dealt in writing of histories & Chronicles, to my knowledge, (t
iIn Chron.
kEuseb. hist. ecclesiast. l. 3. c. 36.
lVi•• cus Velenus, in opusculo inscripto, Petrum non venisse Romam, ne •ue illi• passum.
mpersuas ▪•.
npe•s. 3.4.10.12. & 13.
opers. 18.
ppe•s. 16.
qpe•s. 17.
rComme•tar. •n Matthae. c. 23
sCarrion & Melanchthon in Chron. lib. 3. Pantaleon in Chronographia. Vadian. epitome trium terrae partium, in Italia. M. Fox in his ecclesiastical history.Carion & Melanch•hon in Chron. lib. 3. Pantaleon in Chronographia. Vadian. •pitome trium terrae partium, in Italia. M. Fox in his ecclesiasticall historie.
tBalaeus in Act. Rom. pont. lib. 1. in praefat.
uFunccius con meant▪ in Chronolog. lib. 5.Funccius cō ment▪ in Chronolog. lib. 5.
some, who allow not of that exposition, yet grant he was at Rome. And so the reproach of shameless partiality which you cast on us, redoundeth on your selves. For if you had any modesty and equity, you would never say, that we deny Rome to be meant by Babylon, because it would follow that Peter was at Rome, and so forth. Specially, sith neither all of us deny it: and many who deny it, yet deny not but Peter was at Rome. But whereas you add, that we deny it, fearing hereby the sequel of Peters or the Popes supremacy at Rome:a therein you pass your selves in impudency. For we do confess, (and you too) I trust, that bPeter was at Joppe. And do we (or rather you) fear hereby the sequel of Peters or the Popes supremacy at Joppe.
some, who allow not of that exposition, yet graunt hée was at Rome. And so the reproch of shamelesse partialitie which you cast on vs, redoundeth on your selues. For if you had any modestie and equitie, you would neuer say, that we denye Rome to be meant by Babylon, because it would follow that Peter was at Rome, and so forth. Specially, sith neyther all of vs deny it: and many who denye it, yet deny not but Peter was at Rome. But whereas you adde, that we deny it, fearing hereby the sequele of Peters or the Popes supremacie at Rome:a therein you passe your selues in impudencie. For we doo confesse, (and you too) I trust, that bPeter was at Ioppe. And doo we (or rather you) feare hereby the sequele of Peters or the Popes supremacie at Ioppe.
Rainoldes. But you can not prove it by those words of Peter, which you would ground it on: although it were granted that he meant Rome by Babylon. For the most that might be proved so thereby, is, that he was at Rome. Which furthereth no more the Pope of Rome then of Joppe. And thus you may see, what tragedies you make for how small trifles: when you lay so heinous a crime to our charge for denying that, which although we grant, we neither win, nor lose by it.
Rainoldes. But you can not proue it by those words of Peter, which you would ground it on: although it were graunted that he meant Rome by Babylon. For ye most that might be proued so therby, is, yt he was at Rome. Which furthereth no more the Pope of Rome then of Ioppe. And thus you may sée, what tragedies you make for how small trifles: when you lay so heinous a crime to our charge for denying that, which although we graunt, we neyther winne, nor lose by it.
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:
Peters epistle, we take the name of Sodom properly. Is it partialitie in vs, to take it so? Or were it not a folly in you to reproue it? But this is the matter belike, which pincheth you, yt in the Reuelatiō, where all euill is spoken of Babylon, we will haue it signifie nothing else but Rome, and the Romane Church also, not the temporall state of the heathen Empire there, as the Fathers interprete it. The Fathers then interprete it of Rome, you confesse. If you condemne vs for interpreting it so: you must condemne them with vs. If you say that we do not therein, as they, because we expound it of nothing els but Rome, and they not so: you slaunder vs.
Sanders, the greatest patron of the Popes monarchie, doth proue out of Tertullian, that where there is the greatnesse of the kingly citie, where the pride of the Empire, where the persecution of Christians doth rage: there is Babylon, no doubt, there is the great citie, there is that woman which sitteth vpon peoples, nations, and languages, with whom the kinges of the earth doo commit whooredom, and the inhabitants of the earth are droonken with the wine of her whooredome. Now Rome in these respects was Babylon (as he construeth it) while the heathen Emperours obtained the temporall state there, not since the Popes haue had it.
•evel. 17.4.•euel. 17.4.
tDe visib. Mo•a•. lib. 8. cap. 8.
Ierom doo report of him. The lesse strange it is, if they beléeued him, and others them, in this point, of no such importance. But, it is consonant to that which followeth of Marke: whom all the ecclesiastical histories agree to haue beene Peters scholer at Rome, and that he there wrote his gospel. And
this doth come from Papias also, by one as good as himselfe, euen by Clemens Alexandrinus. Wherefore, I know, what credit it hath; what truth, I know not. For if
. & 61. de •iuitat. De• l. 18. cap. 2. Ioseph. antiquit. Iudaic. l. 20. c. 18 Prosper in dimid. Temp. cap. 7. & lib. senten. ex August. se•t. 221. Oth. Frising. chr•n lib. 7. cap. 3.
a[Greek or Hebrew]. Euseb. l. 3. c. 36.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Euseb. l. 3. c. 36.
2The fancy of the Millenaries, or Chiliasts as they were called.The fansie of the Millenaries, or Chiliasts as they were called.
bHistor. ecclesiast. l. 3. cap. 36.
cDe scriptor. ecclesiast. in verbo Papias.
dEuseb. histor. ecclesiast. lib. 2. cap. 15. Hieron. de scriptor. eccle•. verbo Marcus.
eIn Chronic.
fChronic. l. 2.
gAdo Vienn. breu. Chr. aet. 6.
hBede in Martyrolog. Maria•• Scot. Chron. lib. 2. Martin. Polon. s•ppu•• P•nt. Roman. Platina de vit. Pont. and the rest.Beda in Martyrolog. Maria•• Scot. Chron. lib. 2. Martin. Polon. s•ppu•• P•nt. Roman. Platina de vit. Pont. and the rest.
one excepted) denyeth, that he was at Rome. They who are straitest in it, doo say
either he was not there, or at another time then most autors thinke, and lesse then fiue and twentie yeares. Wherein, what doo they say, but that which is most true and manifest? The greater wrong you doo vs, to charge vs in general, that we holde that Peter was neuer at Rome. And, to aggrauate the matter you muster vp the names of the ancient Fathers, as though we did bande our selues against them all. Whereas in verie déede,
