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. 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,
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, cTheodoret, dProsper, eS.
*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.
Rainoldes. I perceive the Pope must fetch his supremacy from earth and not from heaven. You are fallen again, from scripture, to Eusebius. Against whose authority I might take exception, because he saith that Peter continued bishop of Rome, preaching the gospel there, five and twenty years: which I have proved to be untrue. Though, (if I may speak mine own conjecture of it,) the difference of the Chronicle and history of Eusebius concerning that point, doth move me to think, that it was not written by Eusebius, but by Jerome. For che, in translating the Chronicle of Eusebius, did interlace some things which seemed to be omitted: *chiefly, in the Roman story. Now Jerome might receive it from dDamasus bishop of Rome: on whom ehe attended as a secretary. And Damasus was not so void of all affection, but fhe could be content to advance the credit of his own See by helping it to be reputed the bishoply See of Peter. But whether Eusebius, or Jerome, or Damasus, or whosoever have said that Peter was a Bishop: either they used the name of [Bishop] generally, and so it proveth not your purpose; or if they meant it, as commonly we do, they missed the truth. For generally, 1a Bishop, is an overseer. In which signification it reacheth to all, who are put in trust with oversight & charge of any thing: as gEleazar is called Bishop of the tabernacle; & Christ, hthe Bishop of our souls. But, in our common use of speech it noteth him, to whom the oversight & charge of a particular Church is committed: such as were the Bishops of iEphesus, of kPhilippi; and they whom Christ calleth lthe Angels of the Churches. Now Peter was not Bishop after this ⟨p. 268⟩later sort: for he was an Apostle, and 2the Apostles were sent to preach to all the world. Wherefore when the Fathers said, he was a Bishop: either they meant it in the former sense, or ought to have meant it. This is somewhat harder to be perceived by Jerome: but others open it more plainly. For mhe reckoneth Peter the first Bishop of Rome; Linus, the second; Cletus, the third; Clemens, the fourth, and so the rest successively: as likewise, nin Antioch, Ignatius, the third; whereby Evodius is the second; oand Peter, the first. But pEusebius nameth Evodius, the first Bishop of Antioch; Ignatius, the second: and qIrenaeus nameth Linus, the first Bishop of Rome; *Cletus the second; and so forth.
Rainoldes. I perceyue the Pope must fetch his supremacie from earth and not from heauen. You are fallen againe, from scripture, to Eusebius. Against whose autoritie I might take exception, because he saith that Peter continued bishop of Rome, preaching the gospel there, fiue and twentie yeares: which I haue proued to be vntrue. Though, (if I may speake mine owne coniecture of it,) the difference of the Chronicle and historie of Eusebius concerning that point, doth moue mee to thinke, that it was not writen by Eusebius, but by Ierom. For che, in translating the Chronicle of Eusebius, did enterlace some thinges which séemed to be omitted: *chiefely, in the Roman storie. Now Ierom might receiue it from dDamasus bishop of Rome: on whom ehe attended as a secretarie. And Damasus was not so voide of all affection, but fhe could be content to aduance the credit of his owne Sée by helping it to be reputed the bishoply See of Peter. But whether Eusebius, or Ierom, or Damasus, or whosoeuer haue saide that Peter was a Bishop: either they vsed the name of [Bishop] generally, and so it proueth not your purpose; or if they meant it, as commōly we do, they missed the truth. For generally, 1a Bishop, is an ouerseer. In which signification it reacheth to all, who are put in trust with ouersight & charge of any thing: as gEleazar is called Bishop of the tabernacle; & Christ, hthe Bishop of our soules. But, in our cōmon vse of spéech it noteth him, to whō ye ouersight & charge of a particular Church is committed: such as were the Bishops of iEphesus, of kPhilippi; and they whom Christ calleth lthe Angels of the Churches. Now Peter was not Bishop after this ⟨p. 268⟩
cHieron. praefat. in Eusebij Chron.
*In Romana maximé historia.
dIn pontificali.
eHieron. epist. 11. ad Ager. & l. 2. contra Rufinum.
fTheodoret. histor. ecclesiast. l. 5. c. 9. Sozom. l, 6. c. 23. Ammia•. Mar•ellin. l. 27.
1[Greek or Hebrew] whence the Latin (Episcopus) & our English word (Bishop) are derived.〈non-Latin alphabet〉 whence the Latin (Episcopus) & our English word (Bishop) are deriued.
gIn the Greek translation o• the Seventy interpreter•, Numb 4.16.In the Greek translation o• the Seuentie interpreter•, Numb 4.16.
Whereby they declare, that (in their judgement) although Peter preached at Antioch and Rome both, yet he was neither Bishop of Antioch, nor Rome, as usually that name is taken. Yea they distinguish the Bishops, and the Apostles therein purposely. For rIrenaeus saith, that the two 1Apostles, namely Peter and Paul, when they had founded and taught the Roman Church, committed 2the Bishoply charge thereof to Linus. And he repeateth often in reckoning up the Bishops, (as doth sEusebius also) that they were such, and such, in order, and number, from the Apostles. And tRufinus writeth, that Linus and Cletus were Bishops while Peter lived: that they might have 1the care of the Bishoply charge, and he might do 2the duty of the Apostleship. Which is confirmed farther by uEpiphanius. Who, though he say that Peter and Paul were both Apostles & Bishops in Rome: yet he saith withal that there were other Bishops of Rome, while they lived; because that 1the Apostles, went often into other countries to preach Christ; & the city of Rome might not be without 2a Bishop. As if he should have said, that a Bishops duty doth bind him to attend the Church, whereof the holy Ghost hath made him overseer. Now, though the Apostles Peter and Paul did perform that duty to the Church of Rome, while they abode there: yet because it was the charge of their Apostleship to preach to others also, therefore they went thence to other coasts and nations, and left the Roman charge to the Bishop of Rome. And so you may learn by the Fathers them selves, that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that city, as namely, S. Peter of Antioch, or Rome: they meant it in ⟨p. 269⟩a general sort, and signification, because he did attend that Church for a time, and supplied that room in preaching of the Gospel, which Bishops did after. But as the name of [Bishop] is commonly taken for the overseer of a particular church, and pastor of a several flock: so Peter was not Bishop of any one city, and therefore not of Rome.
Whereby they declare, that (in their iudgement) although Peter preached at Antioche and Rome both, yet he was neither Bishop of Antioche, nor Rome, as vsually that name is taken. Yea they distinguish the Bishops, and the Apostles therein purposely. For rIrenaeus saith, that the two 1Apostles, namely Peter and Paule, when they had founded and taught the Romane Church, committed 2the Bishoply charge therof to Linus. And he repeateth often in reckening vp the Bishops, (as doth sEusebius also) that they were such, and such, in order, and number, from the Apostles. And tRufinus writeth, that Linus and Cletus were Bishops while Peter liued: that they might haue 1the care of the Bishoply charge, and hee might do 2the duetie of the Apostleship. Which is confirmed farther by uEpiphanius. Who, though hée say that Peter and Paule were both Apostles & Bishops in Rome: yet hee saith withall that there were other Bishops of Rome, while they liued; because that 1the Apostles, went often into other countryes to preach Christ; & the city of Rome might not be without 2a Bishop. As if he should haue said, that a Bishops duetie doth bind him to attend the Church, whereof the holy Ghost hath made him ouerseer. Now, though the Apostles Peter and Paule did performe that duetie to the Church of Rome, while they abode there: yet because it was the charge of their Apostleship to preach to others also, therefore they went thence to oth•r coastes and nations, and left the Romane charge to the Bishop of Rome. And so you may learne by the Fathers thē selues, that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of this or that citie, as namely, S. Peter of Antioche, or Rome: they meant it in ⟨p. 269⟩
rAduers. h•r. lib. 3. cap. 3.
1Apostoli.
2Episcopatum.
sHistor. eccles, l. 3. c. 2. & 19. l. 4. c. 1. & 5. l. 5. c. 1. &c.
Hart. Yet the Bishops of Rome did succeed Peter: even by the testimony of the same authors namely of Irenaeus, Eusebius, 1and Epiphanius, in the places by you alleged.
Hart. Yet the Bishops of Rome did succéede Peter: euen by the testimonie of the same autors namely of Irenaeus, Eusebius, 1and Epiphanius, in the places by you alleaged.
Rainoldes. They did succeed Peter, as Bishops an Apostle: and they did succeed him in Rome, as other Bishops did in other cities. Wherefore if the Bishop of Rome by this succession have right to the supremacy: what hath the Bishop of Antioch? For he succeeded Peter too.
Rainoldes. They did succeede Peter, as Bishops an Apostle: and they did succéede him in Rome, as other Bishops did in other cities. Wherefore if the Bishop of Rome by this succession haue right to the supremacie: what hath the Bishop of Antioche? For he succeeded Peter too.
Hart. The Bishop of Antioch did succeed Peter, while Peter lived yet, and had not left his right. But the Bishop of Rome succeeded him, when he died: and thereby was advanced unto that supremacy, which Peter kept while he lived.
Hart. The Bishop of Antioche did succéede Peter, while Peter liued yet, and had not left his right. But the Bishop of Rome succéeded him, when he died: and thereby was aduanced vnto that supremacie, which Peter kept while hee liued.
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,
the Apostles were sent to preach to all the world. Wherefore when the Fathers said, he was a Bishop: either they meant it in the former sense, or ought to haue meant it. This is somewhat harder to be perceiued by Ierom: but others open it more plainely. For
[Greek or Hebrew], so called, as chosen to be sent ••road to preach to e•ery creature. Mark. 3.14. & 16.15.〈non-Latin alphabet〉, so called, as chosen to be sent ••road to preach to e•ery creature. Mark. 3.14. & 16.15.
mHieronym. de scriptor. e• cle. verbo, Clemens.
nverbo, Ignatius.
overbo, Simon Pet.
pIn chronic. & histor. l. 3. c. 19
qAduers. haere. l. 3. cap. 3.
*Who is called Anacletus, by Irenaeus and Eusebius.
a generall sort, and signification, because he did attend that Church for a time, and supplyed that roome in preaching of the Gospel, which Bishops did after. But as the name of [Bishop] is commonly taken for the ouerseer of a particular church, and pastor of a seuerall flocke: so Peter was not Bishop of any one citie, and therefore not of Rome.
