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.
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,
either 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,
some 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 one excepted) denyeth, that he was at Rome. They who are straitest in it, doo say uit may be doubted, it is no article of our faith: and xeither 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, ythey, whom you count our captaines, doo therefore graunt Peter to haue béene at Rome, because the ancient Fathers affirme it so with one consent. Yea zsome of them (expounding those same wordes of Peter) apply the name of Babylon to Rome, as you doo:
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.
Rainoldes. Your men were wont to answer, xthat Antioch had first right to the supremacy by the chair of Peter: but Peter did remove his chair thence to Rome. This was somewhat stale. Which your Father yRobert smelled belike, & so he thought it better to say that Peter kept his right, while he lived: but, when he died, the Bishop of Rome was his successor, and had it (as I trow) by legacy. A pretty shift if it would stand: but it lacketh life. For Linus Bishop of Rome, who succeeded Peter, succeeded Peter living: in the same manner as did the Bishop of Antioch.
Rainoldes. Your men were wont to answere, xthat Antioche had first right to the supremacie by the chaire of Peter: but Peter did remoue his chaire thence to Rome. This was somewhat stale. Which your Father yRobert smelled belike, & so he thought it better to say that Peter kept his right, while hee liued: but, when he died, the Bishop of Rome was his successour, and had it (as I trow) by legacie. A pretie shift if it woulde stand: but it lacketh life. For Linus Bishop of Rome, who succéeded Peter, succéeded Peter liuing: in the same maner as did the Bishop of Antioche.
xAs Pope Marcellus saith c. Rogamus. 24. q. 1. Turre oremata Summ. de eccles. l. 2. c. 36. Canus Locor. Theologi•or. l. 6. c. 8.
Hart. Not so. But Clemens rather did succeed Peter: and that, after his death. For, when he perceived his end to draw near, he took Clemens by the hand: and said, in the hearing of the whole Church, (which was then assembled,) Hearken unto me, my brethren and fellow-servants. Because (as my Lord & master Jesus Christ, who sent me, hath told me,) the day of my death approacheth: I ordain this Clemens to be your Bishop, unto whom alone I commit the chair of my preaching and doctrine; and I give to him that power of binding and loosing which Christ gave to me, that whatsoever he decreeth of any thing in earth, the same shall be decreed in ⟨p. 270⟩heaven.
Hart. Not so. But Clemens rather did succéede Peter: and that, after his death. For, when he perceiued his end to draw néere, he tooke Clemens by the hand: and said, in the hearing of the whole Church, (which was then assembled,) Hearken vnto me, my brethren and fellow-seruants. Because (as my Lord & maister Iesus Christ, who sent me, hath told me,) the day of my death approcheth: I ordeine this Clemens to bee your Bishop, vnto whom alone I commit the chaire of my preaching and doctrine; and I giue to him that power of binding and loosing which Christ gaue to me, that whatsoeuer he decreeth of any thing in earth, the same shall bee decreed in ⟨p. 270⟩heauen.
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.
