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.
Hart. A primacy in calling? Nay yet you had done better to have cleaved still to the primacy of order. For Peter, in order was the first in deed: and so I deny not but he might have been, though he had been equal in power to his brethren. But he was not the first in calling. For S. rAmbrose saith: Andrew first followed our Saviour before Peter, and yet Andrew received not the primacy, but Peter. And S. sAustins words, [the primacy of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter,] do plainly import, that he meant a primacy not in calling, but preeminence.
Hart. A primacie in calling? Nay yet you had done better to haue cleaued still to the primacie of order. For Peter, in order was the first in déed: and so I deny not but he might haue béene, though he had bene equall in power to his brethren. But he was not the first in calling. For S. rAmbrose saith: Andrew first folowed our Sauiour before Peter, and yet Andrew receiued not the primacie, but Peter. And S. sAustins words, [the primacie of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in Peter,] doo plainely import, that he meant a primacie not in calling, but preeminence.
Rainoldes. You say that Peter had not a primacy in calling: for S. Ambrose saith so. What, if I should answer, He had a primacy in calling: for S. Cyprian saith so. Or, to help S. Cyprian (if he have smaller credit with you,) for S.
Peter was called to the Apostleship first. But there is no dissension between them and Ambrose, if all their words be weighed. For Ambrose saith, that Andrew did first follow Christ: and they say, that Peter was called first of Christ. The truth of both which is plain by the scriptures. For
Thou shalt be called Cephas, (wherein he meant him the Apostleship,) before he spake a word of the Apostleship to Andrew. And so doth Ambrose seem him self to expound his meaning otherwhere: affirming of Peter, that
he was the first among the Apostles to whom our Saviour had committed the charge of the churches.
⟨p. 222⟩
Whereby he giveth Peter the primacy in being called to the Apostleship: though he gave a primacy in discipleship (as it were) I mean, in following Christ, to Andrew. As for S. Austins words, which (you say) import that he meant a primacy, not in calling, but preeminence: you should have rather said that he meant a primacy, in calling, & preeminence both. For out of all doubt he meant a primacy in calling. But your friends, who dismember the sayings of the Fathers, do stand in your light, that you can not see it. For as
the former words of Ambrose, that Peter might be thought the only man who had the charge of the churches, not the first of them who had it: so hath Torrensis cut of the later words of Austin, that the primacy of Peter might be thought a primacy in power, not in calling; or, if in calling, in power too. The primacy of the Apostles is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent grace in the Apostle Peter: thus saith Torrensis out of Austin. And these are
that of the other side he meant by [the primacy,] that Peter was an Apostle, in time, before Paul.
Rainoldes. You say that Peter had not a primacie in calling: for S. Ambrose saith so. What, if I should answere, Hee had a primacie in calling: for S. Cyprian saith so. Or, to helpe S. Cyprian (if he haue smaller credit with you,) for S. tGregory saith so: 3Peter was called to the Apostleship first. But there is no dissension betwéene them and Ambrose, if all their wordes be weighed. For Ambrose saith, that Andrew did first folowe Christ: and they say, that Peter was called first of Christ. The truth of both which is plaine by the scriptures. For uAndrewe folowed Christ, before Peter knewe him: and he brought Peter vnto Christ. But xChrist said to Peter, yThou shalt be called Cephas, (wherein he meant him the Apostleship,) before hee spake a word of the Apostleship to Andrewe. And so doth Ambrose séeme him selfe to expound his meaning otherwhere: affirming of Peter, that 4he was the first among the Apostles to whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of the churches. ⟨p. 222⟩Whereby he giueth Peter ye primacie in being called to the Apostleship: thogh he gaue a primacie in discipleship (as it were) I meane, in folowing Christ, to Andrew. As for S. Austins words, which (you say) import that he meant a primacie, notin calling, but preeminēce: you should haue rather said yt he meant a primacie, in calling, & preeminence both. For out of al doubt he meant a primacie in calling. But your fréends, who dismember the sayings of the Fathers, doo stand in your light, that you can not sée it. For as zStapleton did cut out *the former wordes of Ambrose, that Peter might be thought the onely man who had the charge of the churches, not the first of them who had it: so hath Torrensis cut of the later words of Austin, that the primacie of Peter might be thoght a primacie in power, not in calling; or, if in calling, in power too. The primacie of the Apostles is conspicuous and praeeminent with excellent grace in the Apostle Peter: thus saith Torrensis out of Austin. And these are bAustins wordes: but his words say farther, that Peter the Apostle, in whom that grace and primacie are so preeminent, 5was corrected by Paule a later Apostle. Wherein, naming Paule, [a later Apostle,] as made Apostle, after Peter, in time: he sheweth,a that of the other side he meant by [the primacie,] yt Peter was an Apostle, in time, before Paule.
4Primus erat inter Apostolos, cui Saluator delegaverat curam ecclesiarum.Primus erat inter Apostolos, cui Saluator delegauerat curam ecclesiarum.
zPrincip. doctr. lib. 6. cap. 13.
*Quia primus erat inter Apostolos. And so he leaneth Ambrose to say, that it was meet Paul should desire to see Peter, to whom our Saviour had committed the charge of the churches. As if to him alone: not to the rest of the Apostles.Quia primus erat inter Apostolos. And so he leaneth Ambrose to say, that it was meet Paule should desire to see Peter, to whom our Sauiour had committed the charge of the churches. As if to him alone: not to the rest of the Apostles.
As Ambrose saith of the chiefest of the Apostles, that they were before Paul, 6not in dignity, but in time. And dCyprian (whom Austin allegeth, and followeth) doth use the word [7 primacy] in the same sense of being first in time also. Wherefore, the Fathers prove not your supremacy by giving the prerogative of primacy to Peter.c
As Ambrose saith of the chiefest of the Apostles, that they were before Paule, 6not in dignitie, but in time. And dCyprian (whom Austin alleageth, and foloweth) doth vse the worde [7 primacie] in the same sense of being first in time also. Wherefore, the Fathers proue not your supremacie by giuing the prerogatiue of primacie to Peter.c
6Non dignitate, sed tempore.
dEpist. 71. ad Quintum.
7Ut diceretse primatum tenete: et obtemperari a novellis & posteris sibi potius oportere.Vt diceretse primatum tenete: et obtēperari a nouellis & posteris sibi potius oportere.
Hart. The bare name of primacy is not enough to prove it. But some by that name have meant a supremacy. And surely, the preeminence with excellent grace, which Austin giveth Peter, doth note a higher primacy, then either of order, or calling, or time: though it with all too.
Hart. The bare name of primacie is not enough to prooue it. But some by that name haue meant a supremacie. And surely, the preeminence with excellent grace, which Austin giueth Peter, doth note a higher primacie, then either of order, or calling, or time: though it with all too.
Rainoldes. It doth so, I grant. And I noted that, in the third prerogative which the Fathers give him: namely, principality. For cAustin, having joined his primacy and preeminence with excellent grace together, doth term them both, in one, 8the principality of the Apostleship. Which if some have meant by the name of primacy, as perhaps they have: they ⟨p. 223⟩might, because the word is borrowed often times from the proper signification of the first in order, to signify the chief in quality. And so, when fAustin saith, that Peter was 9a man by nature; a Christian by grace; by more abundant grace, an Apostle of Christ, yea, the first Apostle: by, the first Apostle, he meant the chief Apostle; the principality, by the primacy. But this principality of the Apostleship, this preeminence of the primacy with grace so excellent and abundant, cometh no nearer unto your supremacy then did the primacy of order. For, to be chief in grace, is one thing: and, to be chief in power, an other.
Rainoldes. It doth so, I graunt. And I noted that, in the third prerogatiue which the Fathers giue him: namely, principalitie. For cAustin, hauing ioined his primacie and preeminence with excellent grace togither, doth terme them both, in one, 8the principalitie of the Apostleship. Which if some haue meant by the name of primacie, as perhaps they haue: they ⟨p. 223⟩might, because the word is borowed often times from the proper signification of the first in order, to signifie the chiefe in quality. And so, when fAustin saith, that Peter was 9a man by nature; a Christian by grace; by more aboundant grace, an Apostle of Christ, yea, the first Apostle: by, the first Apostle, he meant the chiefe Apostle; the principalitie, by the primacie. But this principalitie of the Apostleship, this preeminence of the primacie with grace so excellent and aboundant, cometh no néerer vnto your supremacie then did the primacie of order. For, to be chiefe in grace, is one thing: and, to be chiefe in power, an other.
cDe bapt. contr. Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 1.
8Principatum apostolatus.
fIn Johannem Tractat. 124.In Iohannem Tractat. 124.
9Natura unus homo, gratia unus Christianus abundantiori gratia v•us idemque primus: Apostolus.Natura vnus homo, gratia vnus Christianus abundantiori gratia v•us idemque primus: Apostolus.
Rainoldes. As you say: the greatest grace, that your Popes of long time have fought for. Yet there is a difference between grace and power. Which the Popes gLawyers have observed well: as it behoved them to do. For many Doctors have been endued with greater 1grace of the holy Ghost, then sundry Popes, saith Gratian: yet in the deciding of controversies and causes the writings of the Doctors are of less authority then the Popes decrees. Why? because the Popes are in 2power above them. But what speak I of Doctors? when the meanest Christians may pass the Pope in grace, as it is confessed by Cardinal hTurrecremata. Who, handling the question between the Pope and the Church, whether of them is greater, when he had set down the reason of his adversaries, that the Church is greater, because it is the body, the Pope a member of it, and the whole must needs be greater then the part: he answereth thereto, that, the question is not whether the Church be greater then the Pope, simply, to wit, 1in perfection of grace, and ampleness of virtues; *for even an old woman may in this sort be perfecter and greater then the Pope him self; but 2in power of jurisdiction (he saith) the Pope is greater. Wherefore if the Popes supremacy do stand in power of jurisdiction, and a woman may be above him in grace: then Peter might excel with the preeminence of grace, as Austin saith he did: and yet not excel in supremacy of power, which you conclude of it. Else, you must take the supremacy from Peter, and give it to the blessed virgin. Unless you you will deny that she excelled ⟨p. 224⟩him in grace.
Rainoldes. As you say: the greatest grace, that your Popes of long time haue fought for. Yet there is a difference betwéene grace and power. Which the Popes gLawiers haue obserued well: as it behoued them to doo. For many Doctors haue beene endued with greater 1grace of the holy Ghost, then sundry Popes, saith Gratian: yet in the deciding of controuersies and causes the writings of the Doctors are of lesse authoritie then the Popes decrees. Why? because the Popes are in 2power aboue them. But what speake I of Doctors? when the meanest Christians may passe the Pope in grace, as it is confessed by Cardinall hTurrecremata. Who, handling the question betwéen the Pope and the Church, whether of them is greater, when he had set downe the reason of his aduersaries, that the Church is greater, because it is the bodie, the Pope a member of it, and the whole must needes be greater then the part: he answereth thereto, that, the question is not whether the Church be greater then the Pope, simply, to weete, 1in perfection of grace, and amplenes of vertues; *for euen an old woman may in this sort be perfiter and greater then the Pope him selfe; but 2in power of iurisdiction (he saith) the Pope is greater. Wherfore if the Popes supremacie do stand in power of iurisdiction, and a woman may be aboue him in grace: then Peter might excel with the preeminence of grace, as Austin saith he did: and yet not excel in supremacie of power, which you conclude of it. Else, you must take the supremacie from Peter, and giue it to the blessed virgin. Unlesse you you will deny that she excelled ⟨p. 224⟩him in grace.
gDistinct. 20. c. Decretals.Distinct. 20. c. Decretales.
1Gratia sancti spiritus.
2Potestate.
hIn summa de Eccles. lib. 2. cap. •2.
1Perfectione gratiae, & a• plitudine virtutum.
*Quoniam etiam una vetula potest esse hoc modo perfection ac major ipso Papa.Quoniam etiam vna vetula potest esse hoc modo perfection ac major ipso Papa.
Hart. I will not deny it. Neither did I mean to prove the supremacy by the preeminence of grace, alone, in Peter: but by the preeminence of so excellent grace, concurring with the primacy. Whereto, because you think these privileges (touched by Austin) do not prove it: the title of the Prince of the Apostles, which 1all antiquity giveth him, may add weight and strength.
Hart. I will not deny it. Neither did I meane to prooue the supremacy by the preeminence of grace, alone, in Peter: but by the preeminence of so excellent grace, concurring with the primacy. Whereto, because you think these priuileges (touched by Austin) doo not prooue it: the title of the Prince of the Apostles, which 1all antiquitie geueth him, may adde weight and strength.
1As the Rhemists say, In the argum. of the epist. of S. Peter: concluding thereof, that Christ made him his vicar.As the Rhemistes say, In the argum. of the epist. of S. Peter: concluding thereof, that Christ made him his vicar.
Rainoldes. Which all antiquity giveth him? That speech is too lavishing. Beside that, 1some of them who give it to him, give it to Paul also. But suppose that all: and to him only. What is there implied more in this title, then I have granted you already? For must he not be needs the Prince of the Apostles, to whom the principality of the Apostleship is allowed? And if the principality of the Apostleship infer not your supremacy: can you infer a supreme head by the Prince of the Apostles? But the name of Prince perhaps doth deceive you, or you deceive others by it. For our English tongue doth use it to note a sovereign power in government: as ithe Princes of Judah, kthe Princes of Israel, lthe Princes of the Gentiles are named in the scriptures. Whereas the Fathers used it (after the Latin phrase) for chief, and most excellent: as Plato is named the prince of the Philosophers. As Plato, saith mJerome, was prince of the philosophers, so was Peter of the Apostles. Wherefore, this is all you may conclude of it, that Peter did excel amongst the Apostles, for grace and gifts of grace: as Plato did excel among the Philosophers for wit, and gifts of wit. In the which conclusion (that you may perceive what I give to Peter, and refuse it, if you mislike it:) by the gifts of grace I mean all the blessings, wherewith the Lord did honour him; by excelling in them, I mean that he did pass, not all the Apostles in them all, but every one in some or other. For John, the disciple, whom the Lord loved, who wrote the Gospel so divinely, In the beginning was the word, who saw by revelation the things that were to come, and wrote them by the spirit of prophecy: John excelled Peter in many gifts of grace, as nJerome declareth. And Paul excelled him farther even in the chiefest gifts: in so much that oAustin who giveth 1excellent grace to Peter, pdoth give 2most excellent grace to Paul; and saith that he received more grace, and laboured ⟨p. 225⟩more, then all the rest of the Apostles, and is therefore called qthe Apostle, by an excellency. But Peter of the other side excelled Paul in primacy, that he was chosen first: and John in age, that he was elder: in respect whereof he was preferred before him (r by Jeromes opinion) to be the chief of the Apostles. And this is it, which Jerome, and other Fathers meant by Peters principality:
Rainoldes. Which all antiquitie geueth him? That spéech is too lauishing. Beside that, 1some of them who geue it to him, geue it to Paul also. But suppose that all: and to him onely. What is there implyed more in this title, then I haue graunted you already? For must he not be needes the Prince of the Apostles, to whom the principalitie of the Apostleship is allowed? And if the principalitie of the Apostleship inferre not your supremacie: can you inferre a supreme head by the Prince of the Apostles? But the name of Prince perhaps doth deceiue you, or you deceiue others by it. For our English tongue dooth vse it to note a soueraine power in gouernment: as ithe Princes of Iuda, kthe Princes of Israel, lthe Princes of the Gentiles are named in the scriptures. Whereas the Fathers vsed it (after the Latin phrase) for chiefe, and most excellent: as Plato is named the prince of the Philosophers. As Plato, saith mIerom, was prince of the philosophers, so was Peter of the Apostles. Wherefore, this is all you may conclude of it, that Peter did excell amongst the Apostles, for grace and giftes of grace: as Plato did excell among the Philosophers for witte, and giftes of witte. In the which conclusion (that you may perceiue what I geue to Peter, and refuse it, if you mislike it:) by the giftes of grace I meane all the blessings, wherewith the Lord did honour him; by excelling in them, I meane that he did passe, not all the Apostles in them all, but euery one in some or other. For Iohn, the disciple, whom the Lord loued, who wrote the Gospell so diuinely, In the beginning was the worde, who sawe by reuelation the things that were to come, and wrote them by the spirite of prophecie: Iohn excelled Peter in many giftes of grace, as nIerom declareth. And Paule excelled him farther euen in the chiefest giftes: in so much that oAustin who geueth 1excellent grace to Peter, pdooth geue 2
1Prudentius [Greek or Hebrew]. hymn .2. Duo Apostolorum principes. As the Rhemists also note, in the tab. after the acts of the Apostles: not considering, that so Christ must have two vicars by their conclusion.Prudentius 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. hymn .2. Duo Apostolorum principes. As the Rhemists also note, in the tab. after ye actes of the Apostles: not considering, that so Christ must haue two vicars by their conclusion.
mAduersus Pelagianos, lib. 1. Ut Plato princeps philosophorum: ita Pe••us Apostolorum fuit.Aduersus Pelagianos, lib. 1. Vt Plato princeps philosophorum: ita Pe••us Apostolorum fuit.
if you will give them leave to be their own interpreters. They did not mean to call him Prince of the Apostles, as the Pope desireth to be Prince of Bishops.
if you will geue them leaue to be their owne interpreters. They did not meane to call him Prince of the Apostles, as the Pope desireth to bee Prince of Bishops.
Hart They did mean to call him the mouth, and the top, the highest, the President, and the head of the Apostles. For these, (as I have showed) are their own words, by which, a preeminence in government is proved, and not in grace only.
Hart They did meane to call him the mouth, and the top, the highest, the President, and the head of the Apostles. For these, (as I haue shewed) are their own wordes, by which, a preeminence in gouernment is prooued, and not in grace onely.
Rainoldes. These in deed come nearer to the point in question, because they touch government: at the least some of them. For some, as sthe highest (and so the top it may be too,) seem to have been meant rather of preeminence in grace, then in government. But if you will refer them unto both: it skilleth not. For they can betoken no more then the rest. And the rest do signify, although a preeminence in government, such as it is: yet nothing in comparison of your supremacy.* This is plain by that, which was agreed betwixt us, twhen we spake of the practise of Peters authority in the Acts of the Apostles. For when I granted him to be as the Speaker of the Parliament in England, or the President of a court of Parliament in France, and showed the great difference (out of ua lawyer of your own) between this preeminence, and that supremacy which you claim: you rejected the lawyer, as either ignorant, or unfaithful, and refused this preeminence as not importing that supremacy; because it hath not sovereign power, nay, in power is under the body of the assembly, above which it is in a prerogative of honour. Yet, this preeminence, is all, that is given to Peter by the titles of the mouth, the head, the President of the Apostles. Wherefore, it is evident that by those titles your Papal supremacy is not given to him.
Rainoldes. These in déede come néerer to the point in question, because they touch gouernment: at the least some of thē. For some, as sthe highest (and so the toppe it may be too,) séeme to haue béene meant rather of preeminence in grace, then in gouernment. But if you will referre them vnto both: it skilleth not. For they can betoken no more then the rest. And the rest doo signifie, although a preeminence in gouernment, such as it is: yet nothing in comparison of your supremacie.* This is plaine by that, which was agreed betwixt vs, twhen wee spake of the practise of Peters autoritie in the Actes of the Apostles. For when I graunted him to be as the Speaker of ye Parlament in England, or the President of a court of Parlament in Fraunce, and shewed the great difference (out of ua lawier of your owne) betweene this preeminence, and that supremacie which you claime: you reiected the lawier, as either ignorant, or vnfaithful, and refused this préeminence as not importing that supremacie; because it hath not soueraine power, nay, in power is vnder the body of the assembly, aboue which it is in a prerogatiue of honor. Yet, this preeminence, is all, that is geuen to Peter by the titles of the mouth, the head, the President of the Apostles. Wherefore, it is euident that by those titles your Papall supremacie is not geuen to him.
s[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
*[Greek or Hebrew] as Peter is called by Eusebius hist. eccle. lib. 2. cap. 14.〈non-Latin alphabet〉 as Peter is called by Eusebius hist. eccle. lib. 2. cap. 14.
tChapter. 4. Division 1.Chapter. 4. Diuision 1.
uFranc. Duar. de sacris eccle. min. acbene. l. 3. c. 2.
Hart. It may by your similitudes be probably thought, that some of the rest might note such a preeminence in government (as you ⟨p. 226⟩speak of) without a sovereignty of power. But, the title of head hath greater strength in it. For, the Speaker is not called with us, in England, the head of the Parliament. That title is reserved to the Prince alone.
Hart. It may by your similitudes be probably thoght, yt some of ye rest might note such a preeminēce in gouernment (as you ⟨p. 226⟩speake of) without a souerainty of power. But, ye title of head hath greater strength in it. For, the Speaker is not called with vs, in England, the head of the Parlament. That title is reserued to the Princ e alone.
Rainoldes. But xthe President of a Court of Parliament in France, is called head of the Court: and Austin (or rather he, whom you alleged in the name of Austin) expoundeth 1head, by 2President: and the name of head (as zI have proved out of the Scriptures) is used to note a preeminence of other things, & not of power (much less of Princely power) only. Then what reason is there,y but Jerome, in saying that Peter was appointed head, might signify the preeminence not of a Prince but of a Speaker? We give not in England, the name of head unto the Speaker. True. Neither give we the name of Speaker to the Prince. But Peter hath them both. For he is called the mouth, and head of the Apostles. If the one debase him not to the meanness of a Speakers function: why should the other advance him to the highness of a Princes sovereignty?
Rainoldes. But xthe President of a Court of Parlament in Fraunce, is called head of the Court: and Austin (or rather he, whom you alleadged in the name of Austin) expoundeth 1head, by 2President: and the name of head (as zI haue prooued out of the Scriptures) is vsed to note a preeminence of other things, & not of power (much lesse of Princely power) only. Then what reason is there,y but Ierom, in saying that Peter was appointed head, might signifie the preeminence not of a Prince but of a Speaker? We geue not in England, the name of head vnto the Speaker. True. Neither geue we the name of Speaker to the Prince. But Peter hath them both. For hee is called the mouth, and head of the Apostles. If the one debase him not to the meanenesse of a Speakers function: why should the other aduaunce him to the highnesse of a Princes soueraintie?
x•s it is showed before out of Duaren, who saith of that court, Cuius curiae caput es•• Praeses dicitur.•s it is shewed before out of Duaren, who saith of that court, Cuius curiae caput es•• Praeses dicitur.
Hart. S. Jeromes *reason showeth, that he rather meant a sovereignty as of a Prince. For he •aith, that Peter was chosen, one, amongst the twelve, to the intent, that (a head being appointed) occasion of schism might be taken away. And how can occasion of schism be taken away, unless that one have sovereign power to govern all?
Hart. S. Ieroms *reason sheweth, that hée rather meant a soueraintie as of a Prince. For he •aith, that Peter was chosen, one, amongst the twelue, to the intent, that (a head beeing appointed) occasion of schisme might be taken away. And how can occasion of schisme be taken away, vnlesse that one haue souerain power to gouerne all?
*This is the reason, & place of S. Jerome, whereon Sixtus Senensis doth gather Peters kingly powers: mentioned before, Chap. 2. Divis. 3.This is the reason, & place of S. Ierom, whereon Sixtus Senensis doth gather Peters kingly powers: mentioned before, Chap. 2. Diuis. 3.
Rainoldes. Why? Do you not think that France appointed Presidents in the Courts of Parliament for the better ordering of them in their doings, that occasion of strife might be taken away? What? In free States, which are ruled in common, not 1by one Prince but 2by the best men, or 3by the whole people: do not their stories show, that one had a preeminence, (as 4the Consul at Rome, bthe Provost at Athens,) though the sovereignty were in many, who had like authority and power amongst themselves? And did they not appoint this one, to be the chief, and head of their company, that occasion of strife might be taken away? So fared it with Peter amongst the Apostles in governing the church, whose state if we compare with the states of common wealths, we shall find that it was an aristocracy, not a monarchy, as the Philosophers term it; not having Peter as a Prince, but the Apostles as the best men, ⟨p. 227⟩to govern it in common. Yet, as in all assemblies wherein many meet about affairs of government, there must needs be one for orders sake and peace, to begin, to end, to moderate the actions: so was that preeminence given to Peter amongst the Apostles, that all things might be done peaceably and orderly. And this to be the headship which S. Jerome meant, himself cin that very place, in which he toucheth it, doth show manifestly. For, having set down his adversaries objection: But, thou sayest, the church is built upon Peter: he answereth thereto, Although the same be done in another place 1on all the Apostles, and 2they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, & the strength of the church is grounded on them 3equally: yet therefore is one chosen amongst the twelve, that (a head being appointed) occasion of schism may be taken away. Of the which sentence the former branch showeth that by the name of head, used in the later, he could not mean that Peter had a sovereign power over the Apostles. For all Peters power is comprised in the keys that Christ did promise him, and in the building of the church upon him. But all the Apostles receive the keys, by Jeromes judgement: and the church is built upon them all equally. Wherefore by Jeromes judgement, Peter was not over the Apostles in power. If not in power; & yet in part of government: in what, but in that preeminence, which I spake of? S.
Rainoldes. Why? Doo you not thinke that Fraunce appointed Presidents in the Courts of Parlament for the better ordering of them in their dooings, that occasion of strife might be taken away? What? In frée States, which are ruled in commō, not 1by one Prince but 2by the best men, or 3by the whole people: doo not their stories shew, that one had a preeminence, (as 4the Consul at Rome, bthe Prouost at Athens,) though the soueraintie were in many, who had like authoritie and power amongst themselues? And did they not appoint this one, to be the chiefe, and head of their company, that occasion of strife might be taken away? So fared it with Peter amongst the Apostles in gouerning the church, whose state if wée compare with the states of common wealths, we shall finde that it was an aristocratie, not a monarchie, as the Philosophers terme it; not hauing Peter as a Prince, but the Apostles as the best men, ⟨p. 227⟩to gouerne it in common. Yet, as in all assemblies wherein many méete about affaires of gouernment, there must néedes be one for orders sake and peace, to beginne, to end, to moderate the actions: so was that preeminence geuen to Peter amongst the Apostles, that all things might be done peaceably and orderly. And this to be the headship which S. Ierom meant, himself cin that very place, in which he toucheth it, dooth shew manifestly. For, hauing set downe his aduersaries obiection: But, thou saiest, the church is built vpon Peter: he answereth thereto, Although the same be done in another place 1on all the Apostles, and 2they all receiue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, & the strength of the church is grounded on them 3equally: yet therefore is one chosen amongst the twelue, that (a head being appointed) occasion of schisme may be taken away. Of the which sentence the former branch sheweth yt by the name of head, vsed in the later, he could not meane that Peter had a soueraine power ouer the Apostles. For all Peters power is comprised in the keies that Christ did promise him, and in the building of the church vpon him. But all the Apostles receiue the keyes, by Ieroms iudgement: and the church is builte vpon them all equally. Wherfore by Ieroms iudgement, Peter was not ouer the Apostles in power. If not in power; & yet in part of gouernment: in what, but in that preeminence, which I spake of? S.
1[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
2[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
3[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
4Each of the Consuls for his month. Sueton. in Julio, cap. 20.Ech of the Consuls for his month. Sueton. in Iulio, cap. 20.
bEach of the [Greek or Hebrew], for their wecke: each [Greek or Hebrew]. for his day. Liban. argument. orat. Demost. in Androtion.Ech of the 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, for theyr wecke: ech 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. for his day. Liban. argument. orat. Demost. in Androtion.
cHieron. aduer. sus Jovin. lib. 2.Hieron. aduer. sus Iouin. lib. 2.
1Super omnes Apostolos.
2Cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant.Cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant.
the Apostle, by an excellencie. But Peter of the other side excelled Paule in primacie, that hée was chosen first: and Iohn in age, that he was elder: in respect whereof hée was preferred before him (
by Ieroms opiniō) to be the chief of the Apostles. And this is it, which Ierom, and other Fathers meant by Peters principalitie:
Apostolus. A•g. contra duas epist. Pelagianorum lib. 3. cap. 3.
rHierom. aduers. Jovinian. lib. 1. Aetati delatum est, quia Petrus era• senior.Hierom. aduers. Iouinian. lib. 1. Aetati delatum est, quia Petrus era• senior.
