A General View of Papistry, Book 1 · Controversy 4 · Question 3
THE THIRD QVESTION, CONCERNING Peter his being at Rome.
THis question hath two parts: first, whether Peter were at all at Rome or not.
Secondly, whether he were Bishop of Rome.
THE FIRST PART, WHETHER PETER were at Rome.
error 38 OVR aduersaries would seeme to prooue it by these and such like arguments.
1 Out of that place of S. Peter 1.5.13. the Church that is at Babylon saluteth you: Babylon here (say they) is taken for Rome, from whence Peter wrote his Epistle, Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2. de pontif. Rhemens. argum. in 1. Epist. Petri.
We answere: First, it is a sillie argument for them hereby to proue Peters being at Rome: for thus much they hauehave gayned by it, that Rome is Babylon, and so the seate of Antichrist, Reuel. 18. Secondly, there were two Babylons, one in Syria, the other in Aegypt, from either of which S. Peter might dare his epistle and it is most like that he would keepe the common and knowne name of the place, that it might be out of doubt what Church he ment: as for the name of Babylon, to be ascribed to Rome, though it were so mysticallie, yet was it not so called: for why might not Paule as well hauehave written his Epistle to the Romanes vnderunder that name, the Church of Babylon, as Peter wrote from thence?
2 Agayne, they alleadge that storie, how Peter ouercame Simon Magus at Rome, when he would hauehave taken his flight into the ayre, hauing made himselfe wings, and by the prayer of Peter was brought downe agayne and brake his legges, and so dyed: whereupon Nero being offended with Peter, would hauehave apprehended him: who being counsailed by the Church, would hauehave fled from Rome: but meeting Christ at one of the gates, and saying vntounto him, whether goest thou Lord? And he answered, I come agayne to be crucified: Peter vponupon those words returned backe agayne, and was crucified for the testimonie of Iesus. Bellarm. cap. 2.3.
We answere: First, we denye not that Peter was at Rome, but shewe only the insufficiencie of their arguments: and agayne, we moue such doubts, as by them are yet vnanswered, as afterward shall be shewed. Secondly, concerning this storie of the victorie ouer Simon Magus, they that doubt of Peters being at Rome, may also doubt of this, neither of them being necessarie to be beleeued as articles of faith, but probable and coniecturall, as matters of storie. For some part of the storie is denyed by Augustine, as how Peter fasted vponupon the Saturday,Epistol. 86. the combat betweene him and Simon Magus, following vponupon the Lords day after, and thereupon rose the custome of the Saturday fast among the Romanes: Est quidem (saith he) haec opinio plurimorum, quamuis eam perhibeant esse falsam pleri que Romani. This is (saith he) a probable opinion of many, (concerning Peters fast) yet the Romanes themselues thinke it to be false.
3 That concerning Christs apparition to Peter, seemeth to bee most vnlike of all: and sauoureth somewhat of the Popish Legends. Like vntounto this are the tales of S. Christopher, how he caried Christ, and how S. Gregorie had him for one of his ghests at his table of hospitalitie: such visions and apparitions of Christ are contrarie to the scriptures, which say, that the heauens must conteyne him till his comming agayne. Bellarmine answereth: first, by this meanes, wee doe compedes Christo inijcere, wee fetter Christ in heauen. We answere, belike then heauen is a prison, with the Iesuite: God send all that are his such a prison at the length. Agayne, Christ is no otherwise concluded and shut vp in heauen, then as it pleaseth himselfe, and as he hath appoynted so to be.
2 He obiecteth: that Christ appeared neere vntounto the earth to Paule. We answere: First, there is no such thing proued out of the text, but rather the contrarie, that the voyce was heard from heauen; not neere the earth, but aboue, Act. 22.6. Secondly, Paule heard a voyce onelyonly, he sawe no man, neither he nor the companie with him, Act. 9.7, 8. But onelyonly a great light they sawe shining from heauen, Act. 22.6, 9. Therefore out of this place they cannot prooue any such real apparition of Christ.
3 Peter dyed at Rome, his sepulchre is to be seene there to this day: Ergo, he was at Rome. Bellarm. cap. 3.
We answere: First, it followeth not, if Peter were buried at Rome, that therefore he dyed there: for the translation of the bones and bodies of Martyrs is no vnusuall thing in your Church: As it followeth not, because Iohn Baptists head, as you say, is to be seene at S. Siluesters at Rome, that therefore he dyed there; so neither doth it followe of S. Peter.
2 Agayne, how shall wee beleeue you, that it is S. Peters Sepulchre, which is shewed at Rome; seeing you hauehave made so many mockeries alreadie, making the world beleeue, that Peters bodie is sometime in one place, sometime in an other? Half his bodie (you say) is at S. Peters in Rome, halfe at S. Paules, his head at S. Iohn Laterane, his neather iawe with the beard at Poicters in France, many of his bones at Trieirs, at Geneua part of his brayne. You see that we may as well doubt whether Peters bodie bee at Rome, as in any of these places. And such as you see, are our aduersaries arguments for Peters being at Rome.
The Protestants.
COncerning Peters being at Rome: First, wee doe not vtterly denye it, but onelyonly affirme that he could not come thither so soone as in the second yeare of Claudius, and sit there so long, namely, fiue and twentie yeares, as they hold. Secondly, it may bee graunted, that he was there, as a matter of storie, not an article of faith. Thirdly, wee hauehave certayne doubts and arguments, about some circumstances of his being there, which our aduersaries are not able to answere.
1 There is great disagreeing amongst the writers, concerning the time of Peters comming to Rome: Orosius sayth hee came thither in the beginning of Claudius raigne: Hierome saith, the 2. yeare of his raigne: other say, the fourth yeare: other, the thirteenth yeare: Damasus would hauehave him come thither in Nero his raigne. This dissention of writers sheweth that the matter may be iustly doubted of, Fulk. in Rom. 16. sect. 4.
Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere: No more doe all agree concerning the time when the world was created, nor for the storie of Christs life, in what time eueryevery thing was done when he suffered, and such like: yet it followeth not, that those things were not true, because there is some diuersitie about the time, Rhemist. 1. Pet. 5.13.
Wee replie: First, most of these things concerning the chronologie of scripture, though it be not necessarie to saluation, yet by diligent search may be found in scripture. Secondly, if they can shewe any scripture for Peters being at Rome, as we hauehave for the other stories, we will beleeue it, though the time perfectly be not knowne: but seeing the scripture maketh no mention at all of his being there, and the time is vncertayne, we may worthilie doubt of it, much lesse are bound necessarilie to beleeue it.
2 The storie of Peters comming to Rome in the second yeare of Claudius, his abiding at Rome fiue & twentie yeres, his death and martyrdome in the 14. yere of Nero, and the 37. yeare after Christs ascension: we proue out of the scriptures to bee false. For Peter was at Ierusalem and in those quarters round about till 18. yeares after Christ: for Paul sawe him there 3. yeares after his calling, and agayne 14. yeares after that, Galath. 2. there is 17. yeares, and one yeare was past before Pauls conuersion: in all 18. yeares: adde vntounto these the 25. yeares of Peters being at Rome, that maketh 43. yeares: and so Peter should suffer in Vespasianus raigne, and not in the time of Nero.
Bellarmine and the Iesuites answere: that Peter was at Rome seauen yeares before the Councel held at Ierusalem, Act. 15. which was in the 18. yeare after Christ: and that being expelled the citie by Claudius with the rest of the Iewes, he returned to Ierusalem, and there spake with Paul, and after that went to Rome agayne and there ended his life.
This answere we shewe to bee very insufficient. First, Act. 15.2. it appeareth that there was, as it were, a standing and set councel of the Apostles at Ierusalem, of the which Peter was one: for the Church thought good to send vp to the Apostles and Elders which were at Ierusalem. Secondly, till the 18. yeare when this Councel was held, it seemeth that Peter had laboured onelyonly or especially amongst the Iewes, of whom there were then but fewe at Rome: for, saith the Apostle, he that was mightie in Peter in the Apostleship ouer the circumcision, was also mightie in me, Gal. 2.8. Therfore Peter was not knowne to hauehave laboured vntill this time in the circumcision. Thirdly, afterward it is more like he went to Antiochia then to Rome: for after this, Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch, Gal. 2. Fourthly, these are but bare coniectures of our aduersaries, and craftie euasion without scripture: but seeing we appose them out of scripture, it is great reason, they should likewise answere vsus out of scripture.
3 We hauehave diuers other obections also out of the scriptures: as first, that if Peter were at Rome, it is not like that Paul would leaue him out in his salutation in the end of his Epistle, Rō. 16. sent to the brethren. Our aduersaries answere but very simplie, that at that time, when S. Paul wrote his Epistle, either Peter was not at Rome, or els Paul might write some especiall letters to him by himselfe, and this Epistle enclosed in them: such goodly coniectures they hauehave. But I pray you what needed S. Paul to hauehave written vntounto the Romanes, if S. Peter so faithfull and vigilant a Pastor, were continually amongst them?
Other places also of scripture we hauehave: as Philipp. 2.20. speaking of Timothy he saith, I hauehave none like minded to him that will faithfully care for your matters Coloss. 4.11. These onelyonly are my workfellowes, 2. Timoth. 4.11. onelyonly Luke is with me: Ergo, Peter all this while was not at Rome, for Paul would not hauehave left him out of the number of his fellowe-helpers: at the lest he would not hauehave commended Timothy, though he were a worthie yong man, before him. That which Bellarmine answereth, is iust nothing: that S. Paul speaketh in those places onelyonly of his domesticall helpers, which did minister vntounto him: When S. Paul speaketh plainly of his fellowe labourers: these onelyonly are my workfellowes to the kingdome of God, Coloss. 4.11.
An other argumēt doth arise out of S. Pauls words, 2. Timoth. 4.16. At my first answering no man assisted me: Ergo, it is like that Peter was not then at Rome, for he would not hauehave forsaken Paul. Bellarmine answereth: that he speaketh onelyonly of such fauourers as hee had in Caesars court, that they would not make sute for him to the Emperour. But this is a weake solution. First, it appeareth by that which followeth, that they left him without helpe in his open Apologie or defence: they did not assist me (sayth he) but the Lord assisted me: that is, gaue me strength to defend my cause: so that the word, assisting, must bee taken in the same sense before, that they fayled him in that, wherein God assisted him, that is, in speaking boldly in the defence of the truth. Secondly, it is proued by the diuers successe that he had at his first and second answering: at the first all left him, but at the next many were emboldened through his bonds: what to doe? more frankly to speake the word, Philipp. 1.14. Ergo, at the first they forsooke him, because they were afrayd to speake the word.
THE SECOND PART, WHETHER PETER were Bishop of Rome.
error 39 OVr aduersaries would gladly bring it about that Peter was Bishop of Rome, there enthronised, and sate in the Bishoplike chayre many yeares, and after left it to his successors.
1 The Romane faith was first planted by Peter, for he first preached to the Gentiles, Act. 15.7. Ergo, he was the first Bishop.
Answere: First, that Peter first preached to the Gentiles, it is contrarie to the storie of the Acts: for Paul was conuerted before Peter sawe the vision from heauen, Act. 10. before which time Peter made a great question, whether it were lawfull to preach to the Gentiles. But Paul immediatly after his conuersion preached to the Gentiles, Galath. 2. therefore before Peter. Neither is there any thing to the contrarie, Act. 15.7. the Gentiles beleeued by S. Peters mouth, as he sayth, but not first. Secondly, that Peter first preached not at Rome, it is thus gathered: because it is not like that the Christian faith being spread farre abroad, could be kept from Rome the space of 12. yeares, for so long it was by their account, before Peter came to Rome. Agayne, there were diuers that dwelled at Rome, which heard the Apostles speake diuers tongues, Act. 2. being straungers then and soiourners at Ierusalem: and Rom. 16.7. he maketh mention of Andronicus and Iunia, which were in Christ before him: By these it is most like that the Christian faith was first sowed at Rome. Thirdly, it is more like that Paul preached at Rome before Peter: for when he came to Rome, he called the Iewes together, who sayd vntounto him, that they had heard nothing concerning him by letters or from the brethren out of Iudea, Act. 28.22. But if Peter had beene there, Paul no doubt should hauehave been knowne at the least by name: The Iewes also say vntounto him, wee will heare of thee what thou thinkest: and some of them were perswaded by Paul, some beleeued not. It seemeth by this place that the Iewes in Rome had not heard of the Gospell before. But if Peter had been amongst them, who had an especiall charge of the circumcision, he would hauehave had the greatest care of the Iewes to winne them to Christ. Fourthly, though Peter had first preached to the Romanes, it would not followe, that therefore he was Bishop there: for Paul first founded the Church of Ephesus, yet they say Iohn was first Bishop there: wherefore they should gayne nothing by this argument, if it were true, but that Peter was the first preacher, and conuerter of the Romanes to the faith.
The Protestants.
IF wee take the name of Bishop generally for that office which hath the publique cure and charge of soules: in that sense we denye not but Peter and the rest of the Apostles may be called Episcopi, Bishops, as Christ is called the shepheard and Bishop of our soules, 1. Pet. 2.23. But taking it strictly for a Bishop of this or that place, which is called Episcopus intitulatus, a Bishop entituled, wee denie that either Peter or Paul were Bishops, Fox. pag. 15.
1 Paul was Apostolus Gentium, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the circumcision; therefore it is more like that Paul was chiefe Pastor of the Romanes, because they were of the Gentiles, and part of his charge: and vnlesse they can proue that Paul resigned ouer his lot vntounto Peter, that he also should be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles, as he was of the Iewes; Peter should hauehave intruded himselfe into Paules charge, not in preaching to the Gentiles, (for both Paul might preach to the Iewes, and Peter to the Gentiles) but in taking vponupon him to be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles, which was giuen before to S. Paul.
2 The Rhemists themselues graunt, that the Church of Rome was founded both by Peter and Paul, annot. in 2. Gal. sect. 6. B. Tunstal a strong champion of theirs, but varying from them in this opinion, shewed in a letter of his to Cardinall Poole, how in times past, both Peter and Paul ▪ were counted Patrones of the Church of Rome, and principes apostolorum, the chiefe of the Apostles. Eusebius sayth, that Clement was the third Bishop after Peter and Paul: Alexander succeeded in the fift place after Peter and Paul: If therefore the Bishops of Rome challenge any preeminence of authoritie from Peter, they may doe it as well from Paul: for they both founded that Church, preached there, and both there suffered, Fox, pag. 1066.
3 No Apostles were Bishops▪ for they were diuers offices, Eph. 4.11. he gaue some to be Apostles, some to be Pastors & Doctors: Ergo, they were diuers offices, and the same were not Apostles and Pastors or Bishops, for both are all one. The offices were much different: Apostles were immediatly called of God, Bishops and Pastors were ordayned by the Apostles, the Apostles calling was general ouer the whole world, the Pastors were obliged to their dioces & parishes & particular Churches: the office of the Apostles was extraordinarie, & but for a time; the calling of Pastors was to endure euer in the Church. Wherfore it can in no wise be that the Apostles were Bishops of any certaine places. Irenaeus saith, that Fundata ecclesia beati apostoli Lino officiū episcopatus iniungunt: the Church of Rome once founded, the holy Apostles layd the charge of the Bishopricke vponupon Linus. Whereby it appeareth, that they onelyonly reteyned their Apostleship inioyned them of Christ, Tunstal. ex Fox. pag. 1066. It had therefore been contrarie to the commaundement of Christ: who sayd, Ite in vniuersum mundum, goe into all the world: if they should hauehave left their calling, and bound themselues to any peculiar Church: Ergo, we conclude that neither Peter nor Paul were Bishops of Rome.