Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 2 · Chapter 16 · Section 5
5. Places of controversie.
Controv. 1. Against cloistered Nunnes.
1. I commend Phebe, &c. a seruant of the Church of Cenchrea: This president of Phebe is a verie simple warrant, and a slender ground for that superstitious order of cloistred and inclosed Nunnes. 1. This Phebe ministred vntounto the whole Church of her substance, and so was a seruant vntounto it: but these serue nor the Church, beeing sequestred from the publike companie and societie of men. 2. this Phebe was a disciple of S. Pauls, & no doubt one that receiued and allowed his doctrine concerning iustification by faith, but the other hope, vt suis obseruantiunculis mercantur remissionem, &c. that by their obseruations they may merit remission of sinnes, Osiand. 3. S. Paul would hauehave no widowes chosen vnderunder 60. yeere old, they contrarie to S. Pauls rule, shut vp young maids in cloisters, which waxe wanton against Christ, as the Apostle saith. 4. and so farre were these cloisters from beeing places of devotion, vt publica lupanaria videbantur, that many of them seemed rather to be common brothelhouses, Gualter.
Controv. 2. The Church not alwaies visible and consisting of multitudes.
v. 5. The Apostle saluteth the Church, which was in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, so also he maketh mention of the Church in Philemons house, Phil. 2. whereby it is euident that the name of a Church agreeth euen vntounto a fewe gathered together in Christs name, as our Blessed Sauiour promiseth, that where two or three are gathered together in Christs name, he will be in the middes of them, Matth. 28. We must not then looke alwaies to finde out a Church, by the outward pompe and glorie of it, or by the multitude and great troupes and number of people: as the Romanists make these the notes and markes of the Church: see further, Synops. Cent. 1. err. 18.19.
Controv. 3. All doctrine is to examined by the Scriptures.
Whereas the Apostle, v. 17. willeth the Romanes to take heede of those which cause divisions contrarie to the doctrine which they had receiued: the Rhemists giuegive this corrupt glosse in their annotations: tht he biddeth them not to examine the case by Scriptures, but by their first forme of faith and religion deliuered to them, before they had, or did reade any booke of the newe Testament.
Contra. 1. The doctrine which had beene preached among the Romanes, was agreeable to the old Scriptures, though there had beene yet no bookes of the newe Testament extant, as S. Paul professeth that he said none other things, then Moses and the Prophets did say should come, Act. 26.22. and therefore the brethen of Berca, are commended, Act. 17.11. for searching the Scriptures, and examining the Apostles doctrine thereby. 2. yet it is verie probable, that some of the Gospels were written at this time, as Ieraeneus l. 3. c. 1. thinketh, that S. Matthewes was, and Hierome in catalog. S. Markes. 3. but it followeth not, before the Scriptures were written, they receiued their doctrine and faith by tradition, when they had immediate direction from the Apostles, therefore now when the Sriptures of the old and newe Testament are extant, and no Apostles to direct the Church, who were priuiledged not to erre, we should leaue the written word of God, and flee vntounto vnwritten traditions: Origen hath here an excellent saying, vide quam prope periculis fiunt hi, qui exerceri in divinis Scripturis negligunt, ex quibus solis huinsmodi examinationis agnoscenda discretio est, see how neere they are vntounto danger, which neglect to be exercised in the diuine Scriptures, out of the which onelyonly, this examination is to be discerned and acknowledged.
Controv. 4. That Papists not Protestants serue their owne bellie.
Whereas the Apostle giueth this as a note of false teachers and seducers, that they seeke rather to serue their bellie, then Iesus Christ, v. 18. our vnkind countreymen the Rhemists, doe glaunce here at Protestants, whom they falsely and blasphemously call heretikes, That they seeke onelyonly their owne profit and pleasure, what soeuer they pretend: But it is as cleare as the Sunne, that they here take themselues by the nose, and that they are the heretikes, if euer any, that serue their bellie, and are cunning kators for their kitchin: They may remember what Erasmus answear was to the Duke of Saxonie, when he was asked his opinion of Luther, that he medled with two dangerous things, the Popes crowne, and the Monkes belly: witnesse also that pitifull complaint and sup…icatiō of certaine Monkes to Henry the second, that whereas they had before 13. dishes of meate allowed them to a messe, their Bishop cut off three of them. And are the friers of these dayes thinke you, more sparing and pinching of their bellie? let that factious crue of those makebates the trayterous Iudasites rather then Iesuites speake, who in few yeares at la-flesh in Fraunce, beside the sumptuous building of their Colledge, which cost an 100. thousand crownes, bestowed as much in their revennue: a reasonable proportion to keepe a fat table, and to fill their bellies.
Controv. 5. That Protestants are no schismatikes.
Whereas the Apostle giueth a double caueat, v. 17. concerning seducers and false teachers that first they must be examined and obserued, how they do bring in strange and nouell doctrine contrarie to the receiued truth, and then they must be avoided and declined: this doth iustifie the departure of the Protestants from the Church of Rome, because it is a false and Antichristian Church, and hath fallen away, and played the Apostata from the faith of Christ: and therefore we are to leaue them: according to S. Pauls rule, Tit. 3.11. A man that is an heretike, after the first and second admonition, avoid.
Controv. 6. Why the Gospel was kept secret so many yeares vnderunder the kingdome of Antichrist, against the obiection of the Papists.
v. 25. By the revelation of the mysterie, which was kept secret from the beginning of the world: whereas the Papists obiect against the Protestants, where was your Gospel 60. or 70. yeares agoe, how commeth it to passe, that it was so long kept secret, and hid in the world, is it like, that God would hauehave his truth so long cōcealed? Herevnto we answear, that as the Gospel of Christ was a long time folded vp in a mysterie till Christ came, but then reuealed at Gods own appointment: So it pleased God, that the Gospel once preached to the world, being by mens vnthankfulnes obscured, shold liehid as a punishmēt of their ingratitude, that loued lies rather then the truth, yet should againe for the gathering together of the elect, be revealed vntounto the world, at such time, as seemed good vntounto our gracious God.
Contr. 7. Against the Popish doxologie ascribing glorie with Christ vntounto the virgin Marie.
v. 27. To God onelyonly wise be glorie thorough Iesus Christ, &c. This was the holy vse of the Apostles, to conclude with giuing praise to God only through Iesus Christ: we may then iustly wonder at the superstitious impietie & audacious presumption of the Romanists, which vse a contrary stile ioyning Christ and the Virgin Marie together in their doxologies: as Tolet thus concludeth his commentarie vponupon this epistle, sit gloria omnipotenti Deo, & glorios…ssima m…tri eius, glorie be to the omnipotent God, and to his most glorious mother: so Pererius concludeth, laus Deo & Dei genetrici semper virgini Mariae, praise be to God, and to the mother (or bringer forth) of God the euer virgin Marie: And before him Bellarmine thus shutteth vp his controversiall disputes, Praise be to God, and to the Virgin his mother Marie.
But this superstitious doxologie of Papists may thus be refelled. 1. the Creator and the creature are not to be coupled or sorted together, in any religious act: as it is in the Psalme 115. 1. not vntounto vsus Lord, &c. but vntounto thy name giuegive the praise: and S. Paul thus writing, Rom. 1.25. who serued the creature rather then the Creator, who is blessed for euer: denieth all such praise and blessing to be done vntounto creatures, but to belong onelyonly to the Creator. 2. S. Peter saith, if any speake, let them speake as the words of God, 1. Pet. 4.11. but the word of God thus speaketh not: neuer did the Apostles vse, in their thanksgiuings, to ioyne Christ and his mother together, nor yet any of the found auncient writers: therefore it is a superstitious phrase taken vp by the Romanists, without any warrant of Scripture or antiquitie. 3. as prayer and invocation is due onelyonly to God, because in him onelyonly we are to beleeue, Ioh. 14.1. Rom. 10.14. so thanksgiuing beeing a kind of prayer, and a part of religious worship, is only to be giuen vntounto God. 4. we acknowledge the Virgin Marie to hauehave beene a chosen vessell of the Lord, and graced with the greatest blessing, that could be in this world, to be the mother of our Lord, and therefore of all generations to be held and called blessed, as she her selfe prophesieth in her song, and not to be held inferiour to any of Gods Saints: but yet no religious worship is to be giuen to her, neither therein is she to be partener with her Sonne: Our blessed Sauiour foreseeing the superstition, which in time to come might grow in too high conceit of this externall priviledge giuen to his mother, as it were to preuent this inconveniencie, doth of purpose extenuate this carnall respect, and detracteth from it: as when one cryed out, happy is the wombe that bare thee, &c. he answered, nay blessed are they which heare the word of God, and keepe it, Luk. 11. and an other time, when his mother forgetting her selfe, would hauehave prescribed vntounto Christ what to doe, to turne water into wine: he sharpely rebuked her, saying, woman what hauehave I to doe with thee, Ioh. 2. and after this, when it was told him, that his mother and brethren were without, desirous to speake with him, he not willing to be interrupted in his heauenly busines, by any such temporall respect, answeared, he that doth the will of my Father which is in heauen, he is my sister, and brother, and mother, Matth. 12.50.
Contr. 8. Whether S. Peter were euer at Rome, and continued there Bishop 25. yeares.
Now in the last place, because that in this last chapter, wherein S. Paul sendeth salutations by name vntounto many brethren at Rome, and maketh no mention of S. Peter, the Protestants do inferre, that Peter was not then at Rome, & so either was not there at all, or could not there so long continue, as the Papists generally hold, it shall not be amisse briefly to examine the truth herein: and first we will answear the Papists obiections, and then propound our owne reasons. It is the generall receiued opinion of the Romish Catholikes, that Peter should come thither in the 2. or 3. yeare of Claudius, in the 45. yeare of Christ, and continue there Bishop 25. yeares, (sauing that sometime he was absent thence by occasion of the affaires of the Church,) vntounto the 14. yeare of Nero, when he was beheaded in the 70. yeare of Christ: so Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. Rhemists in their table of S. Peter set after the Acts of the Apostles: they reason and obiect thus.
1. Ob. S. Peter writ his first epistle from Rome as it appeareth, 1. ep. 5.13. the Church which is at Babylon saluteth you, and Marcus my sonne: but this Babylon is Rome as it is called Rev. 17. and so Papias in Euseb. l. 2. c. 15. and Hierome de viris illustribus, do vndestand it, Rhemist annot. 1. Pet. 5. v. 13.
Ans. 1. This Babylon some take to be that great citie in Assyria, Beza: or rather it was the Egyptian Babylon, that great citie now called Cayre, or Alcayre, which is 13. or 14. german miles about, and this is most like, because Marke was with Peter at this time, who is held to hauehave beene constituted the first Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, where also he was put to death, and buried, as Nichep. l. 2. c. 35. & Doroth. in the life of Marke. 2. the Apostle would not date his epistle from a place so called in an allegoricall sense: epistles are dated from places and cities as they are vsually called. 3. in the Revelation Rome is called mysticall Babylon, not the first Rome, but as it should be vnderunder Antichrist: but S. Peter handleth no such thing in this place, of the seate and place of Antichrist. 4. Eusebius reiecteth diuerse of Papi…s fables, lib. 3. c. 36. neither is eueryevery thing that Hierome writeth, Gospel.
2. Ob. The sight of the monuments of S. Peters chaire, sepulchre, death at Rome, doe euidently convince them which denie, his beeing there, Rhemist.
Ans. This is to prooue one vncertaine thing by an other: for how doe they prooue that S. Peter sate in such a chaire, or that his bodie lieth there buried: when as they themselues hauehave deceiued the world with diuerse fables concerning this matter: halfe of his bodie they say is at S. Peters in Rome, and halfe at S. Pauls, his head at S. Iohn Lateran; his neather iaw with the beard vponupon it at Poyters in Fraunce: at Triers many of his bones, at Geneva part of his braine, which was found to be a pumice stone: Therefore this argument taken from the sepulchre of Peter, prooueth nothing: their own fables take away the credit of their report.
3. Ob. But diuerse auncient writers to testifie, that S. Peter was at Rome, and among the rest Egesip. l. 3. c. 2. de excid. Hierosol. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 2. c. 13.15. Hier. in Cat. with diuerse other fathers, Chrysost. Amb. August. Cypr. cited by the Rhemists, an. 4. in 16. c. Rom.
Answ. 1. In generall we say, that the fathers might followe the receiued opinion of those dayes, not obseruing how the mysterie of iniquitie then wrought, and a way euen thē was a preparing for Antichrist: and that their testimonie without warrant of Scripture, is too weake a ground to build an article of faith vponupon, such as the Papists make this to be of Peters beeing at Rome, and sitting Bishop there. 2. either the fathers writings comming afterward to be handled with soule fingers, may be thought herein to be corrupted, or of small credit, considering the great varietie of their reports, which shall be examined among our arguments following. 2. In particular, iust exception may be taken to the fowre authors first alleadged: Egesippus is held to be but a fabler, and not that auncient Egesippus mē tioned by Eusebius, but an other of later time, or a counterfeit author. 1. that auncient Egesippus wrote the Acts of the Apostles, & their doctrine out of the Gospel secundum Hebraeos & Syros, according to the Hebrewes and Syrians, but this fabulous Egesippus wrot in Greek. 2. This last Egesippus maketh mention of Constantinople, to which Rome should be equall in dignitie, which was concluded after Constantines time, after an. 340. but the elder Egesippus liued an. 146. or thereabout, neere 200. yeare before. 3. the fables themselues are vnsauourie avouched by this Egesippus, as how Peter and Simon Magus did striue, which of them should raise Neros cousin, that was dead, and he that could not doe it should die, and how Peter fleeing out of Rome, met Christ at the gates, and asked him, Domine quo vadis, Master whether goest thou, and he answeared, I come againe to be crucified, whereupon Peter returned and was crucified: for this is contrarie to S. Peters owne doctrine, that the heauens should containe Christ vntill his second comming, Act. 3.21.
To Ireneus testimonie we answear. 1. whereas he saith that Matthew wrote his Gospell at what time Peter and Paul preached at Rome: this cannot agree with the historie of times: for Matthew is held to hauehave written his Gospel in the 3. yeere of Caligula, from which yeare vntounto the 2. of Nero, when S. Paul is held to hauehave first come vntounto Rome, are verie neere 20. yeares. 2. and as Ireneus is vncertaine in this, so an other opinion he hath of the like credit, that Christ should be 40. or 50. yeare old when he preached, and this he saith he receiued of all the Elders of Asia, who testified, id ipsum tradidisse eis Iohannem, that Iohn deliuered the same vntounto them: and yet the other opinion of Epiphanius that Christ died in the 33. yeare of his age, and beganne to preach at 30. is held of all to come neerer vntounto the truth.
Hierome is as vncertaine. 1. he saith that Paul came to Rome in the 2. yeare of Claudius, and yet he granteth that before he had been at Antioch, and from thence went and preached to the dispersed brethren in Pontus, Galatia, Bithinia, Cappadocia, Asia, which might hold him not much lesse then 14. yeares, as shall be shewed afterward, so that he could not in this account come to Rome til the 2. of Nero. 2. Hierome is as vncertaine in other things: in his epistle to Marcella, he thinketh Adam was buried in mount Calvarie: in his epitath of Eustach. he will hauehave him buried in Chebron: in his epistle to Evagr. he thinketh Iob came of Esau, and in his cōmentarie vponupon Genesis, that he discended of Nahor Abrahams brother.
To Eusebius these exceptions may be taken. 1. that he was an Arrian, and beeing an Arrian wrote his historie, which maketh it of the lesse credit. 2. he is contrarie to himselfe, for l. 3. c. 2. he affirmeth that Peter came not to Rome, till the last yeare of Claudius: See Christ. Carlil in his booke of the life and peregrination of Peter, 1. dis. This shall suffice concerning the contrarie arguments and obiections made by the Papists: now ours follow for the demonstration of the contrarie part, of Peters not beeing at Rome: where first I will set downe the opinion of the Protestants, and then produce their reasons.
Though the Protestants in generall and by the most full and sufficient warrant of Scripture do hold that Peter was not at Rome, as Bishop there, or founder of that Church, and so in effect doe agree in the substance, yet I finde some difference among them in certaine points coincident to this question. 1. Some directly affirme and prooue it by euident places of Scripture, that Peter was not at Rome at all, as Vl. Vellanus, whose obiections Bellarmine rather maketh an offer to confute, then indeed confuteth them, l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 5.6.
2. Some goe yet further, and affirme, that Peter neither liued at Rome nor yet died there, nor S. Paul neither: but assigneth Ierusalem to be the place where S. Peter was crucified, by warrant of that place, Matth. 23.34. where our Sauiour saith, that Ierusalem shall kill and crucifie some of the wise men and Prophets whom he should send thither: Christopher Carlil, who alleadgeth Lyranus and the interlinear. gloss. vponupon that place, that Peter was crucified at Hierusalem: for none els of the Apostles were crucified there: Linus also affirmeth that Peter was slaine at Ierusalem, by Agrippa the last king of the Iews, when also Iames the lesse was killed, with Ioses, Simon, and Iude.
3. Some of our writers denie not Peter to hauehave beene at Rome, but they affirme he could not come thither so soone, nor continue there so long, 25. yeares from the 2. of Claudius: as Beza, saith, non invitus concedam, &c. I will not vnwillingly graunt that Peter was at Rome, and there put to death, but not the other: annot. in 1. Pet. 5.14. so also Gualter, id ego non facile negaverim, &c. I will not easily denie, that Peter in the last yeare of Nero receiued the crowne of Martyrdome, because of the consent of auncient writers, &c. to the same purpose also D. Fulke annot. 4. in 16. c. ad Roman.
4. To this we adde further, that howsoeuer we absolutely denie not, but that Peter might be at Rome, yet it is more probable he was not: certainely out of the Scripture it can not be prooued that he was there at all, and it is not de fide, a thing concerning faith, neither to be held as an article of faith, as the Church of Rome doth defend it, because the Scripture only must be a rule of our faith: and further it is euident out of the Scripture, that Peter was not at Rome, till Pauls first beeing there in bonds, where the historie of the acts of the Apostle endeth, whatsoeuer he was afterward: which Pareus thinketh to hauehave beene the 11. yeare of Nero, but it was rather the second yeare, when S. Paul came thither first, and his second arrivall was in the 11. yeare, for this Epistle was not written in the 8. yeare of Nero, as Pareus thinketh, but rather in the ende of Claudius raigne, while Narcissus was yet in authoritie: see before in the ende of the 5. and 10. quest. Our reasons against Peters beeing at Rome, in manner and forme aforesaid, are these.
Our first argument shall be out of the Scripture. 1. it is evident, that Peter was at Ierusalem, the third yeare after Pauls conversion, for there he staied with him 15. dayes, which was the 37. yeare of Christ: he was not then yet at Rome.
2. 8. yeare after this he was imprisoned by Herod, which was the 43. yeare of Christ, and the 3. yeare of Claudius, Euseb. l. 2. c. 11. Ioseph. l. 19. c. 7. Peter thē was not yet at Rome.
3. Sixe yeare after this, was Peter at Ierusalem, for there S. Paul found him, 14. yeare after his first comming thither, Galat. 2.1. then was celebrated the Apostolicall counsel, mentioned Act, 15. when each gaue to other the right hand of fellowship, this was the 9. yeare of Claudius, as witnesseth Hierome: hitherto Peter had not visited Rome: neither will it suffice to say, that he came from Rome thither to the councell: for then what time will they leaue vntounto Peter to visit Antioch, and the Churches of Asia, Bythinia, Cappadocia, Galatia, and Egypt, where Nicephorus saith he preached, lib. 2. c. 35. in all these places he preached, as it appeareth by his 1. epistle written vntounto the dispersed brethren in all these countreys: and againe if Peter had come from Rome, when Claudius expelled the Iewes, it is like mention should hauehave been made as well of Peters comming from thence, as of Aquila and Priscilla, Act. 18.2.
4. Then after this councell, it is not like that Peter went to Rome, for these two reasons; because the Iewes had been lately expelled from thence: and S. Paul was by consent appointed to be the Apostle of the vncircumcision, Peter of the circumcision: he then went not to preach to the Romanes, which belonged vntounto Pauls lot.
5. When S. Paul, writ the epistle to the Romanes, which might be in the last yeare of Claudius, Peter was not at Rome, for thē Paul would not hauehave left him out vnsaluted, c. 16.
6. And after this when Paul was brought prisoner to Rome, which might be in the 2. of Nero, and there continued in bonds, to the 4. of Nero, all this while Peter was not there: for then S. Paul in his epistles written from Rome, where he sendeth commendations from diuerse of the brethren, as from Epaphras, Luke, and Demas, Coloss. 4.12.14. and to Philemon, v. 23. from Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, his cohelpers, would not hauehave forgotten also to send greeting from S. Peter, if he had beene at Rome: againe he saith, 2. Tim. 4.11. onelyonly Luke is with me, then was not Peter with him; and he further saith, v. 16. at my first answearing no man assisted me, but all forsooke me: but if S. Peter had beene there he would not in all likelihoode hauehave forsaken him. Thus then it is euident, that to the ende of S. Pauls first captiuitie at Rome, which was in the 4. of Nero, Pareus placeth it in the 11. and 12. of Nero, it is prooued by the continuance of the sacred historie that Peter was not at Rome; then could he not come thither in the 2. of Claudius, which was 16. yeares before, and sit Bishop there 25. yeeres. After this time it cannot be certainely prooued, whether he came to Rome, & therefore it cannot be receiued, and beleeued as an article of faith.
Our second generall argument is taken from the great vncertaintie, and manifold contradictions of the auncient writers, concerning the time of S. Peters comming and continuing at Rome.
1. They dissent about the time of Peters cōming to Rome: Eutropius saith, that Peter was at Rome the 1. yeare of Caius Caligula, who was Emperour 5. yeares next before Claudius, and that Philo an embassadour from the Iewes there spake with him: Orosius saith, he came thither in the beginning of Claudius raigne: Hierome, in the second yeare; fasciculus temporum in the 4. Nauclerus saith he came to Rome in the beginning of Claudius raigne, but was not installed Bishop till the 4. yeare: the Passionall saith, he came not thither till the 13. yeare of Claudius: Eusebius l. 2. c. 13. saith, he came to Rome in the raigne of Claudius, but he assigneth not the yeare: Damasus saith he came in the raigne of Nero.
2. There is also great difference about the time and place of S. Peters death: Lyranus in his annotations, Matth. 23. thinketh he was crucified at Ierusalem, so also Linus: others say at Rome: Epiphanius in Nason, assigne the 12. yeare of Nero: the most the 14. yeere: Ambrose serm. 67. saith that S. Paul and S. Peter vna die, vno loco, &c. in one day, and the same place endured the sentence of the same Tyrant: Hierome thinketh they suffered the same day, but Paul a yeare after Peter; Abdias saith, that Peter suffred at Rome in the time of S. Pauls free imprisonment, which was in the 3. or 4. yeare of Nero, so that Saint Paul should surviue him 10. yeares; Ireneus saith, that Marke surviued Peter, and writ his Gospel after his death, lib. 3. c. 1. and Eusebius writeth that Marke was put to death, in the 8. of Nero, l. 2. c. 24. then, if these authors say true, must Peter be put to death before the 8. yeere of Nero.
3. A third difference is in the time of Peters beeing Bishop at Rome: Eusebius giueth him 25. yeares, Hierome 27. Beda 29. Damasus holding that he came to Rome in the raigne of Nero, cannot giuegive him aboue halfe so many, if he were put to death by Nero; otherwise the 25. yeares which he giueth him will reach to Domitians raigne: See Christoph. Carlil. p. 7.14. of his first discourse.
Let now the indifferent Reader iudge, whether in such vncertaintie it be not more probable, that Peter was neuer at Rome, or if he were, not as Bishop there beeing an Apostle and that of the circumcision: at the least his beeing there cannot be prooued by Scripture, and so cannot be affirmed, as an article of faith: See further Synops. Pap. Centur. 1. err. 38.