Original Douay–Rheims AnnotationsRomans 16

Salute one another.

Never Sect-masters made more foul or hard shifts to prove or defend falsehood, than the Protestants: but in two points, about S. Peter specially, they pass even themselves in impudency. The first is, that they hold he was not preferred before the other Apostles, which is against all Scriptures most evidently. The second is, that he was never at Rome, which is against all the Ecclesiastical histories, all the Fathers Greek and Latin, against the very sense and sight of the monuments of his Seat, Sepulchre, doctrine, life, and death there. ^[1] Greater evidence certes there is thereof and more weighty testimony, than of Romulus', Numas', Cæsar's, or Cicero's being there: yet were he a very brutish man that would deny this to the discredit of so many writers and the whole world. Much more monstrous it is, to hear any deny the other. Theodorete saith he was there, writing upon this chapter. Prosper also carmine de ingratis in principio. S. Leo de natali Petri. S. Augustine to. 6. c. 4. cont. ep. fund. Orosius li. 7. c. 6. S. Chrysostome in Ps. 48. S. Epiphanius hær. 27. Prudentius in hymno 2. S. Laurentij, & hymno 12. Optatus li. 2. contra Donatistas. S. Ambrose li. 5. ep. de Basilicis tradendis. S. Hierome in Catalogo. Lactantius li. 4. c. 21, de vera sapientia. Eusebius hist. Eccl. li. 2. c. 13, 15. S. Athanasius de fuga sua. S. Cyprian. ep. 55. nu. 6. Tertullian de præscriptionibus nu. 14. and li. 4, contra Marcionem nu. 4. Origen in Genes. apud Euseb. li. 3, c. 1. Irenæus li. 3, c. 3. Hegesippus li. 3, c. 2 de excid. Hierosolym. Caius and Papias the Apostle's own scholars, and Dionysius the B. of Corinth, alleged by Eusebius li. 2, c. 14 & 24. Ignatius ep. ad Romanos. The holy Councel of Chalcedon ^[2], and many other affirm it. Yea Peter himself (according to the judgement of the ancient Fathers) confesseth he was at Rome, calling it Babylon 1. ep. c. 5. Euseb. li. 2. c. 14. hist. Ec. ^[3] Some of these tell the time and cause of his first going thither: some, how long he lived there: some, the manner of his death there: some, the place of his burial: and all, that he was the first Bishop there. How could so many of such wisdom and spirit, so near the Apostles' time deceive or be deceived? How could Calvin and his, after fifteen hundred years know that which none of them could see?

• 1 That S. Peter was at Rome.
• 2 Chalced. conc. act. 3.
• 3 See the Annotations 1. Pet. c. 5, 13.

^[1]

Some great argument must they needs have to control the credit of the whole world. This of truth is here their argument, neither have they a better in any place, to wit, If S. Peter had been at Rome, S. Paul would have saluted him, as he did others here in the end of his letter to the Romans. Is not this a high point to disprove all antiquity by? Any man of discretion may straight see, that S. Peter might be known unto S. Paul to be out of the City, either for persecution or business, when this epistle was written, (for he went often out as S. Epiphanius declareth ^[2] ) & so the omitting to salute him, can prove no more, but that then he was not in Rome. But it proveth not so much neither, because the Apostle might for respect of his dignity and other the Church's affairs, write unto him special letters, and so had no cause to salute him in his common Epistle. Or how know they that this Epistle was not sent inclosed to S. Peter to be delivered by his means to the whole Church of the Romans in some of their assemblies? It is very like it was recommended to some one principal man or other that is not here named: and twenty causes there may be unknown to us, why he saluted him not: but no cause why our Adversaries upon such frivolous reasons should reprove an approved truth. For even as Well might they say that S. John was never at Ephesus, because S. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians doth not salute him. And plain it is, that it is the Roman seat and faith of Peter, which they (as all Heretics before them) do fear and hate ^[3], and which will be their bane: and they know that there is no argument which convinceth in their conscience, that Peter was never at Rome. Therefore to conclude, we say to them in S. Augustine's words, ^[4] Why call you the Apostolic chair, the chair of pestilence? What hath the Church of Rome done against you, in which S. Peter did sit, and from which by nefarious fury you have separated yourselves?

• 1 The Protestants' great argument, that Peter was never at Rome.
• 2 Epiph. hær. 27.
• 3 The Heretics' hatred of the Roman See.
• 4 li. 2. cont. lit. Petil. c. 51.

Holy kiss.

^{[1] [2]} Hereof, and by the common usage of the first Christians, who had special regard of unity and peace among themselves, and for sign and protestation thereof, kissed one another, came our holy ceremony of giving the Pax, or kissing one another in the Sacrifice of the blessed Mass.

• 1 Kissing the Pax.
• 2 Orig. in 16. ad Ro.

To mark them.

^◦ He carefully warneth them to take heed of seditious sowers of Sects and dissension in religion, and this ever to be their mark, if they should teach or move them to any thing which was not agreeable to that which they had learned at their conversion: not bidding them to examine the case by the Scriptures, but by their first form of faith and religion delivered to them before they had or did read any book of the new Testament.

• ◦ Against Sect-masters how to examine our faith.

But their own belly.

^◦ Howsoever Heretics pretend in words and external shew of their sheep's cote, indeed they seek but after their own profit and pleasure, & by the Apostle's own testimony we be warranted so to judge of them as of men that indeed have no religion nor conscience.

• ◦ Heretics given to voluptuousness.

Your obedience.

Against Heretics and their illusions, there is no better way than in simplicity to cleave unto that which hath been taught before: for the which the Roman obedience is much commended. See Annot. upon the first chap. vers. 8.