N20568:7446
The new and complete book of martyrs; or, An universal history of martyrdom: being…
The new and complete book of martyrs; or, An universal history of martyrdom: being Fox's Book of martyrs, revised and corrected, with additions and great improvements. : Containing an authentic account of the lives, persecutions and sufferings of the holy martyrs; and the many dreadful persecutions against the Church of Christ in all parts of the world, by pagans, Jews, Turks, papists, and others, from earliest ages of the church to the present period. ... The whole forming at once a general Christian martyrology, and a complete history of persecutions. / By the Rev. Mr. John Fox, M.A. late of Magdalen College, Oxford. ; Now revised, corrected and improved, with many additional articles, relating to the acts and monuments of the church. By Paul Wright, D.D. ; Embellished with forty elegant copper plate engravings. ; In two volumes. Vol. I[-II].The new and complete book of martyrs; or, An universal history of martyrdom: being Fox's Book of marytrs, revised and corrected, with additions and great improvements. : Containing an authentic account of the lives, persecutions and sufferings of the holy martyrs; and the many dreadful persecutions against the Church of Christ in all parts of the world, by pagans, Jews, Turks, papists, and others, from earliest ages of the church to the present period. ... The whole forming at once a general Christian martyrology, and a complete history of persecutions. / By the Rev. Mr. John Fox, M.A. late of Magdalen College, Oxford. ; Now revised, corrected and improved, with many additional articles, relating to the acts and monuments of the church. By Paul Wright, D.D. ; Embellished with forty elegant copper plate engravings. ; In two volumes. Vol. I[-II].
New-York: printed by William Durell, 1794
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
This is even like to this, that because Moses the greatest prophet, and Aaron the first priest, exercised their offices unto their death in the desert, therefore the principal place of the Jewish church should be in the wilderness. But grant them their reason that it is good; what should Antioch claim? For Peter's chair was there also, wherein Paul gave him a check, which was unsee••• ▪ and unmannerly done of Paul, that would not give place to his president and better. NO, say the papists, Rome must have the authority because he died there. But what if a man should by probable conjectures show, that it is but a fable which is feigned of Peter's bishopric at Rome? Read how […] doth salute very many private persons, when he writeth to the Romans. Three years after he was brought prisoner to Rome. Luke telleth, that he was received of the brethren, and yet in all these is no mention at all of […], who then, by their stories, was at Rome. Belike he was proud, as the pope and his prelates be, or else he would have visited Paul. Paul while prisoner at Rome […] divers epistles, in which he expresseth the names of […] who were but mean persons in comparison of Peter, but •f Peter he speaketh never a word. Surely if Peter had been there, this silence of him had been suspicious. In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul complaineth that no man was with him in his defence, but all had left him. If Peter had been then at Rome, as they write, then either Paul had belied him, or Peter played his Peter's part, Luke xx••. In another place, how doth he blame all that were wi•h him, Timothy excepted? Therefore we may well doubt whether Peter was bishop at Rome as they prate: for all this time, and long before, they say that Peter was bishop there. But I will not stir up coals in this matter. If Rome be the chief seat because Peter died there, why should not Antioch be the second? Why should not James and John who were taken with Peter be as pillars? Why, I say, should not their seats have honour next to Peter's seat? Is it not preposterous, that Alexandria, where Mark (who was but one of the disciples) was bishop, should be preferred before Ephesus, where John the Evangelist taught and was bishop;
This is even like to this, that because Moses the greatest prophet, and Aaron the first priest, exercised their offices unto their death in the desart, therefore the principal place of the Jewish church should be in the wilderness. But grant them their reason that it is good; what should Antioch claim? For Peter's chair was there also, wherein Paul gave him a check, which was unsee and unmannerly done of Paul, that would not give place to his president and better. NO, say the papists, Rome must have the authority because he died there. But what if a man should by probable conjectures shew, that it is but a fable which is feigned of Peter's bishopric at Rome? Read how doth salute very many private persons, when he writeth to the Romans. Three years after he was brought prisoner to Rome. Luke telleth, that he was received of the brethren, and yet in all these is no mention at all of , who then, by their stories, was at Rome. Belike he was proud, as the pope and his prelates be, or else he would have visited Paul. Paul while prisoner at Rome divers epistles, in which he expresseth the names of who were but mean persons in comparison of Peter, but f Peter he speaketh never a word. Surely if Peter had been there, this silence of him had been suspicious. In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul complaineth that no man was with him in his defence, but all had left him. If Peter had been then at Rome, as they write, then either Paul had belied him, or Peter played his Peter's part, Luke xx. In another place, how doth he blame all that were wih him, Timothy excepted? Therefore we may well doubt whether Peter was bishop at Rome as they prate: for all this time, and long before, they say that Peter was bishop there. But I will not stir up coals in this matter. If Rome be the chief seat because Peter died there, why should not Antioch be the second? Why should not James and John who were taken with Peter be as pillars? Why, I say, should not their seats have honour next to Peter's seat? Is it not preposterous, that Alexandria, where Mark (who was but one of the disciples) was bishop, should be preferred before Ephesus, where John the Evangelist taught and was bishop;