The second reply of Thomas CartwrightThe second replie of Thomas Cartwright

Where he saith / it is contrary to scripture because S. Peter 2. Act. so suddenly defended the Apostles against the accusation off drunkenness, as he could not tarry for their voices: it is ridiculous. For I would know first / what testimony of scripture he hath / to prove it done so suddenly. Then / who is so senseless as not to understand / that the eleven standing with him / could not in a trice ether by voice / or finger lifted up / caste that charge off speaking then / upon Peter? so that onles he did as it were take the Jews words out off their mouth: no time could want for that matter. He saith further / Act. the 1, and 15. considered, it shall appear always Peters office to speak first, and rule the action: and that he was at no time chosen thereto by voices, much less at every particular meeting: which first is a gross petition off that in question. Then if we were not able to show by the word / that our S. Christ did not appoint Peter chief off the rest: yet by what ether sentence / or word out off the scripture is he able to show / that he was appointed governor by him over all the rest / during his life? Thirdly / to leave Acts 15. disorderly alleged / which is to be handled in the very next division: let him show us how he can prove / that S. Peter was chief in that action of prayer / where it is said that all the Apostles lifted up their voice. likewise in the election of the deacons: where the calling together ¹off the disciples / the exhortation unto them / the prayer for the Deacons chosen / the laying on off hands is as indifferently ²given to all the rest / as to Peter. All know that one conceived the prayer in the name off the rest / that one was president in the election. But that that was Peter more then ether John / or James / or any the rest: can not be showed by one title off scripture: yet our D. doth assure us / and (as he saith) out off the scripture / that Peter was the lodesman.

Where he saith / yt is contrary to scripture because S. Peter 2. Act. so soudenly defended the Apostels againste the accusation off dronkennes, as he coulde not tary for their voices: it is ridiculous. For I would know first / what testimonie of scripture he hath / to proue yt doon so soudenly. Then / who is so sensles as not to vnderstand / that the eleuen standing with him / could not in a trice ether by voice / or finger lifted vp / caste that charge off speaking then / vpon Peter? so that onles he did as it were take the Iewes wordes owte off their mouth: no time could wante for that matter. He saith further / Act. the 1, and 15. considered, yt shal appeare allwaies Peters office to speake firste, and rule the action: and that he was at no time chosen therto by voices, much les at euery particular meeting: which first is a grosse petition off that in question. Then if wee were not hable to shewe by the worde / that our S. Christe did not apoincte Peter cheife off the reste: yet by what ether sentence / or worde owte off the scripture is he hable to shewe / that he was appoincted gouernour by him ouer all the reste / during his liffe? Thirdly / to leaue Actes 15. disorderly alledged / which is to be handled in the very nexte diuision: let him shew vs how he can proue / that S. Peter was cheif in that actiō of praier / where yt ys said that all the Apostles lifted vp their voice. likewise in the election of the deacons: where the calling together