The fourth Chapter. The practise of the Supremacy (which Peter is entitled to) imag•••• to be proved, 1 by the election of Matthias to the Apostleship: 2 […] by the presidentship of the Councell held at Jerusalem: 3 and by Pauls journey taken to see Peter, and his abode with him. Wherein, as in other of the acts of the Apostles, the equality of them all not the supremacy of one, is showed.The fourth Chapter. The practise of the Supremacie (which Peter is intitled to) imag•••• to be proued, 1 by the election of Matthias to the Apostleship: 2 〈…〉 by the presidentship of the Councell held at Ierusalem: 3 and by Paules iourney taken to see Peter, and his abode with him. Wherein, as in other of the actes of the Apostles, the equalitie of them all not the supremacie of one, is shewed.

pp. 151–184109 passagespart 1 of 3

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.

:401p. 151

The fourth Chapter. The practise of the Supremacy (which Peter is entitled to) imag•••• to be proved, 1 by the election of Matthias to the Apostleship: 2 […] by the presidentship of the Council held at Jerusalem: 3 and by Pauls journey taken to see Peter, and his abode with him. Wherein, as in other of the acts of the Apostles, the equality of them all not the supremacy of one, is showed.

:407p. 152

Rainoldes. Yea, I say to you, and more then the Prince. For as things in Parliament cannot be enacted without the Princes consent: so neither can the Prince make acts without consent of the Lords and Commons. And when they are made by consent of them all▪ they cannot be repealed by the Prince alone, without the like consent by which they were made. But with the Pope it is not so. For such is the power of his Princely prerogative, that not only Councils may not make decrees for the Church-government without his consent: but he may also make decrees without them, as good as they with him. Yea, that he may add too, and take from, and alter what he shall think good in the decrees of Councils▪ and set them out for theirs, ^eas Pope Clemens played with the Council of Vienna. Yea, that being made with their consent and his both: ^*he may break them when he will, and repeal them, if he list, for no law doth hold him. Now, sith that the power which you give the Pope by the name of supreme head, you give it Peter too, from whom you fetch the Popes conveyance; and Peter in the assemblies of the Apostles, was but as the Speaker, and therefore not as the Prince, and therefore not as more then the Prince in our Parliament: hereof I conclude, that Peter was not the supreme head of the Apostles. And so have you the third point, ^fwhich I promised to prove, that if somewhat more were given to Peter than to the rest of the Apostles, yet was it not so much as should make him their supreme head. You may discharge now the Acts of the Apostles, out of your Camp. For, draw what reasons thence you list, you shall find them (as I told you) no stronger than the former.

Rainoldes. Yea, I say to you, and more then the Prince. For as thinges in Parlament cannot bee enacted without the Princes consent: so neither can the Prince make actes without consent of the Lordes and Commons. And when they are made by consent of them all▪ they cannot be repealed by the Prince alone, without the like consent by which they were made. But with the Pope it is not so. For such is the power of his Princely prerogatiue, that not onely Councels may not make decrées for the Church-gouernment without his consent: but hee may also make decrées without them, as good as they with him. Yea, that he may adde too, and take from, and alter what hee shall thinke good in the decrées of Councels▪ and set them out for theirs, ^eas Pope Clemens played with the Councell of Vienna. Yea, that being made with their consent and his both: ^*hee maye breake them when he will, and repeale them, if he list, for no lawe doth hold him. Now, sith that the power which you giue the Pope by the name of supreme head, you giue it Peter too, from whom you fetch the Popes conueiance; and Peter in the assemblies of the Apostles, was but as the Speaker, and therefore not as the Prince, and therefore not as more then the Prince in our Parlament: hereof I conclude, that Peter was not the supreme head of the Apostles. And so haue you the third point, ^fwhich I promised to proue, that if somewhat more were giuē to Peter thē to the rest of the Apostles, yet was it not so much as should make him their supreme head. You may discharge now the Actes of the Apostles, out of your Campe. For, drawe what reasons thence you list, you shal find thē (as I told you) no stronger thē ye former.

eJohannes Andreas in principio Clementina •um, de constitut. concil. Vi•••ens.Iohannes Andreas in principio Clementina •um, de constitut. concil. Vi•••ens.
*As it is showed by the whole course ofthe Canon law: specially the Decretals, as they are called.As it is shewed by the whole course ofthe Canon law: specially the Decretals, as they are called.
fChap. 3. Divis. 1.Chap. 3. Diuis. 1.

:411p. 153–138

Rainoldes. What need I? When your self gave no more unto him, then as the Speakers office, in the former assembly: wherein yet he did most. For you said, ^gthat he proposed an election to be made of a new Apostle into the room of Judas. And this was all that you might say, and say truly, by the story of the Acts. Which showeth, that not he, but ^hthey mad• the election: so far as it was lawful for them to deal with that which God was to order extraordinarily. As for the other assembly, when the Council was held at Jerusalem: you cannot prove that he had so much as the office of a Speaker therein. Your ⁱDoctor infeoffeth him (I grant) with more: namely, that ^*he speaketh first of all, concludeth, yea, and is President too. But what will not he dare to affirm? who, in so great light of the Scriptures, affirmeth in writing that which is flat against them. For he saith that Peter not only speaketh first, but concludeth also. And they show that both ^kthere had been much debating and reasoning of the matter, before Peter spake: and after he had spoken, ^lBarnabas, and Paul and ^mJames spake, and so ⁿthe Council did conclude the matter. Yea they did conclude it according to the very words that James spake, and ^oa special point of his, which Peter touched not. So that, if we would strive but lawfully against it, for which you strive unlawfully:^p the likely-hood is rather that James sat as President in the Coū cell, then Peter, sith both he spake last and the whole Council did conclude with him. But, to yield unto you (for your most advantage) as much or more then any likely-hood may afford you, that Peter was not only the Speaker but the President in both the assemblies: yet are you no nearer unto that supremacy which you shoot at. For, such a Presidentship as Peter had amongst the Apostles, is so far from the Prelatship which the Pope seeketh to have amongst Bishops: that, if we should offer him all that Peter had (at your request) upon condition that he would accept it and ask no more then it: he would think we mocked him, and give you little thanks who take upon you to be his advocate, & make so poor a plea for him. This you may perceive by an other advocate, who made the same plea for him out of this story, a learned ⟨p. 138⟩Lawyer, Francis Duaren.

Rainoldes. What néede I? When your selfe gaue no more vnto him, then as the Speakers office, in the former assembly: wherein yet he did most. For you said, ^gthat he proposed an election to be made of a new Apostle into the roome of Iudas. And this was all that you might say, and say truely, by the story of the Actes. Which sheweth, that not he, but ^hthey mad• the election: so farre as it was lawfull for them to deale with that which God was to order extraordinarilie. As for the other assembly, when the Councel was held at Ierusalem: you cannot proue that he had so much as the office of a Speaker therein. Your ⁱDoctor infeoffeth him (I graunt) with more: namely, that ^*hee speaketh first of all, concludeth, yea, and is President too. But what will not he dare to affirme? who, in so great light of the Scriptures, affirmeth in writing that which is flat against them. For he saith that Peter not only speaketh first, but concludeth also. And they shewe that both ^kthere had beene much debating and reasoning of the matter, before Peter spake: and after he had spoken, ^lBarnabas, and Paule and ^mIames spake, and so ⁿthe Councell did conclude the matter. Yea they did conclude it according to the very wordes that Iames spake, and ^oa speciall point of his, which Peter touched not. So that, if we would striue but lawfully against yt, for which you striue vnlawfully:^p the likely-hood is rather that Iames sat as President in the Coū cell, then Peter, sith both he spake last and the whole Councell did conclude with him. But, to yéeld vnto you (for your most aduantage) as much or more then any likely-hood may afford you, yt Peter was not only the Speaker but ye President in both ye assemblies: yet are you no néerer vnto yt supremacy which you shoote at. For, such a Presidentship as Peter had amongst ye Apostles, is so farre from the Prelatship which the Pope seeketh to haue amongst Bishops: that, if we should offer him all that Peter had (at your request) vpon condition that he would accept it and aske no more then it: he would thinke we mocked him, and giue you litle thankes who take vpon you to be his aduocate, & make so poore a plea for him. This you may perceiue by an other aduocate, who made ye same plea for him out of this storie, a learned

gPetrus proponit faciendam furrogationem novi Apostoli. Staplet. lib. 6. cap. 13.Petrus proponit faciendam furrogationem noui Apostoli. Staplet. lib. 6. cap. 13.
hAct. 1.23.
iStaplet. lib. 6. cap. 13.
*Primus ex omnibus loquitur, concludit, & praesidet.
kAct. 15. ver. 7. [Greek or Hebrew].Act. 15. ver. 7. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
lver. 12.
mver. 13.
nver. •2.
over. 29.
pver. 20.

:412p. 138

He (in ^qhis Abridgement of the Canon law) falling into the question of the Pope and the Council, whither of them is sovereign, and hath the chiefest power, whereto the other should be subject in matters of the Church: doth thus set down his judgement of it. It seemeth most agreeable to the law of God, that the Church (which the Council doth represent) should have the chiefest power, and the Pope should acknowledge himself subject to it. For the power of binding and loosing was given by Christ not to Peter alone (whose successor the Pope is said to be) but ^ato the whole Church. Howbeit, I deny not, but Peter was set over the rest of the Apostles. Hereof it cometh that in the time of the Apostles ^bas often as any was to be ordained either Bishop or Deacon, or any thing to be decreed which appertained to the Church: Peter never took that upon himself, but permitted it to the whole Church. This was in him above the rest, that he was wont, ¹as chief of the Apostles, to call them together, and propose to them the things, which were to be done. Even as now ^*with us, he that is the President of a court of Parliament, doth call together the Senate: in the Senate he speaketh first, when it is needful; and doth many other things, which argue a certain prerogative and preeminence of the person that he beareth. Yet is he not therefore greater or higher then is the whole court: neither hath he power over all the Senators; neither may he decree any thing against their judgements: nay the judgement of all controversies belongeth to the court ( ²whose head the President is said to be,) and not to the President. Yea, if need be, the court doth minister justice and execute judgement as well against him, as against any other, and punisheth him also. And this was the state of these things ³in old time. But in process of time, (I know not how) it came to pass, that the highest power over all Christians was given unto one man: and he was ⁴set at liberty from being bound to any laws (after the manner of ^*Emperors) or to the Canons & decrees of any Councils. For ^cPope Paschalis provided and ordered by a decretal Epistle; ⁵that no Councils may prescribe a law to be kept of the church of Rome: & the authority of the Bishop of Rome is excepted expressly ^din the decrees of certain Councils.

He (in ^qhis Abridgement of the Canon lawe) falling into the question of the Pope and the Councell, whither of them is soueraine, and hath the chiefest power, whereto the other should be subiect in matters of the Church: doth thus set downe his iudgement of it. It seemeth most agreeable to the law of God, that the Church (which the Councell doth represent) should haue the chiefest power, and the Pope should acknowledge himselfe subiect to it. For the power of binding and loosing was giuen by Christ not to Peter alone (whose successour the Pope is said to be) but ^ato the whole Church. Howbeit, I deny not, but Peter was set ouer the rest of the Apostles. Hereof it commeth that in the time of the Apostles ^bas often as any was to be ordeined either Bishop or Deacon, or any thing to bee decreed which appertained to the Church: Peter neuer tooke that vpon himselfe, but permited it to the whole Church. This was in him aboue the rest, that he was wont, ¹as chiefe of the Apostles, to call them togither, and propose to them the thinges, which were to bee doone. Euen as now ^*with vs, hee that is the President of a court of Parlament, doth call togither the Senate: in the Senate he speaketh first, when it is needfull; and doth many other things, which argue a certaine prerogatiue and preeminence of the person that he beareth. Yet is he not therefore greater or higher then is the whole court: neither hath hee power ouer all the Senatours; neyther may hee decree any thing against their iudgements: nay the iudgement of all controuersies belongeth to the court ( ²whose head the President is said to bee,) and not to the President. Yea, if neede bee, the court dooth minister iustice and execute iudgement as well against him, as against anye other, and punisheth him also. And this was the state of these thinges ³in olde time. But in processe of time, (I know not how) it came to passe, that the highest power ouer all Christians was giuen vnto one man: and he was ⁴set at libertie from being bound to any lawes (after the maner of

qDe sacr. eccle minister. ac benefic. lib. 3. cap. 2.
aMatt. 18. c. Quodcunque. 24. q. 1.
bAct. 1. & 6. & 15.
1Tanquam princeps Apostolorum.
*He meaneth, in France. Where the courts of Parliament are assemblies of judges: of whom the Lord-chief-justice (as it were) is called President.He meaneth, in Fraunce. Where the courts of Parlament are assemblies of iudges: of whome the Lord-chiefe-iustice (as it were) is called President.
2Cuius caput esse praeses dicitur.
3Olim, olim.
4Legibus omnibus canonibusque synodalibus (imperatorum exemplo) solutus.
*Princeps legibus solu•us est. l. Princeps. D. de legib. senatusqué consult.
ccap. Significasti. de election.
5Nulla concilia Romanae ecclesiae legem praefigere posse.
dc ideo. 25. q. 1.

:415p. 139–156

Rainoldes. I did not take Duaren for the strength of mine answer, but the holy scriptures, the same that you alleged. By the text and circumstances whereof, I made it plain, that Peter had no higher power in the assemblies of the Apostles: than hath either the Speaker of our English Parliament, or, (to make the most of it) the President of a court of Parliament in France, which is Duarenes similitude. Howbeit, if I should have used his authority to confirm it, as well as I alleged his words to open it: you might not reject such a man so lightly. For ^sa gardiner (as the proverb is) hath spoken oft to very good purpose: & ^tJethro saw more in somewhat then Moses. And Duaren, though a Lawyer, yet was not only skilful of the civil law (which is a great help notwithstanding of wisdom in matters touching government:) but also of the Canon, whereof you may vouchsafe to count as of Divinity; doubtless your Divinity will be cold without it. Beside, he wrote that treatise to instruct students in the Canon law, which is the fortress of the Papacy: and he so delivereth the chiefest points of it, that Lawyers amongst the Protestants were offended & ^uwrote against him for it. But now (thus you reward men) it is called in question, whether ⟨p. 156⟩that he were a Catholic or no. I assure you, if you beware not, you will make honest and well affected hearts afraid to be Catholics; such, as you mean by that word. For if a man keep within any bounds of modesty and truth, & will not run headlong with you through thick & thin: you will account of him, either as an Heretic, or as one that savoureth of heresy at least. But who are the Fathers, whom you pretend against Duaren, to prove your supremacy out of those places of the Acts?

Rainoldes. I did not take Duaren for the strength of mine answere, but the holy scriptures, the same that you alleaged. By the text and circumstances whereof, I made it plaine, that Peter had no higher power in the assemblies of the Apostles: thē hath either the Speaker of our English Parlament, or, (to make the most of it) the President of a court of Parlament in France, which is Duarenes similitude. Howbeit, if I should haue vsed his authoritie to confirme it, as well as I alleaged his wordes to open it: you might not reiect such a man so lightly. For ^sa gardiner (as the prouerbe is) hath spoken oft to very good purpose: & ^tIethro saw more in somewhat then Moses. And Duaren, though a Lawier, yet was not onely skilfull of the ciuil law (which is a great helpe notwithstanding of wisedome in matters touching gouernment:) but also of the Canon, whereof you may vouchsafe to count as of Diuinitie; doubtlesse your Diuinitie will be cold without it. Beside, he wrote that treatise to instruct students in the Canon law, which is the fortresse of the Papacy: and he so deliuereth the chiefest pointes of it, that Lawiers amongst ye Protestants were offended & ^uwrote against him for it. But now (thus you rewarde men) it is called in questiō, whether ⟨p. 156⟩that he were a Catholike or no. I assure you, if you beware not, you will make honest and well affected hartes afraid to bee Catholikes; such, as you meane by that word. For if a man kéepe within any bounds of modestie and truth, & will not runne headlong with you through thicke & thin: you will account of him, either as an Hereticke, or as one that sauoureth of heresie at least. But who are the Fathers, whom you pretend against Duaren, to proue your supremacy out of those places of the Actes?

s[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
tExod. 18.17.
uResponsio Christianorum jurisconsultorū ad Duareni commentarios de ministerijs ecclesiae atque beneficijs: Argentoruti.Responsio Christianorum iurisconsultorū ad Duareni commentarios de ministerijs ecclesiae atque beneficijs: Argentoruti.

:418p. 156

Hart. S. ^xChrysostom, entreating of the fact of Peter how he proposed the election of a new Apostle into the room of Judas: Behold, saith he, the zeal of Peter. How he doth acknowledge the flock committed to him by Christ? How he is the chief in this assembly: and every where beginneth to speak first of all? Afterward he praiseth Peter for doing all things by the common advise and judgement of the Disciples, nothing by his own authority. Yet that Peter might have chosen an Apostle, yea, alone, without them, he affirmeth plainly. What, saith he, was it not lawful for Peter himself to choose him? yes, it was lawful, no doubt. But he doth it not, least that he should seem to gratify any man. Then he praiseth the modesty of the rest of the Disciples: Consider, saith he, how they grant the seat to him (that is, the primacy, as ^yotherwhere he calleth it,) neither doubt they any longer, debating amongest themselves, (to wit as they did once, when Christ conversed with them) which of them should be the greatest. This is S. Chrysostoms judgement of that place, which I alleged out of the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles for the supremacy of Peter.

Hart. S. ^xChrysostome, entreating of the fact of Peter how he proposed the election of a new Apostle into the roome of Iudas: Beholde, saith he, the zeale of Peter. How hee doth acknowledge the flocke committed to him by Christ? How he is the chiefe in this assembly: and euery where beginneth to speake first of all? Afterward he prayseth Peter for dooing all thinges by the common aduise and iudgement of the Disciples, nothing by his owne authoritie. Yet that Peter might haue chosen an Apostle, yea, alone, without them, he affirmeth plainely. What, saith he, was it not lawfull for Peter himselfe to choose him? yes, it was lawfull, no doubt. But he dooth it not, least that he should seeme to gratifie any man. Then he praiseth the modestie of the rest of the Disciples: Consider, saith hee, how they graunt the seate to him (that is, the primacy, as ^yotherwhere he calleth it,) neither doubt they any longer, debating amongest themselues, (to wit as they did once, when Christ conuersed with them) which of them should bee the greatest. This is S. Chrysostomes iudgement of that place, which I alleaged out of the first chapter of the Actes of the Apostles for the supremacy of Peter.

xIn act. Apostolor. hom. 3.
yIn Matthaeum homil. 51.

:419p. 156–157

Rainoldes. This testimony of Chrysostom doth stand on two branches: the one, what Peter doth, as the Scripture showeth; the other, what he might have done, as Chrysostom supposeth. That which Peter doth, is granted. But it proveth not the supremacy. He remembereth his duty; he speaketh first of all; he doth all things by the common advise and judgement of the Disciples, and nothing by his own authority. Thus much I said of Peter, and did explain it out of Duaren. ⟨p. 157⟩In Duaren you thought that it made against you, and therefore refused him. Doth it make for you, when it is in Chrysostom, that you bring him against Duaren? Or, is this the reason, why you accept the one and refuse the other, because the words of Chrysostom yielding a certain primacy to Peter, may deceive the simple, as though he meant that primacy which you call the supremacy: but the words of Duaren put so plain a difference between the two primacies, that, which Peter had; and the other which the Pope hath, or would have; that a blind man may see that Peters primacy was not a Popes supremacy. Which shall appear ^zfarther (if God will) by those things, that the Fathers speak touching Peters primacy. And thus your proof faileth in that which the scripture showeth that Peter doth. Now that, which Peter might have done, as Chrysostom supposeth, would infer a greater primacy then Peter had, if it were true. But the scripture saith it not. Wherefore as the ^aFathers report one of an other, (by ^byour own confession) that they write some things [Greek or Hebrew], to confute the adversaries with whom they had to deal, & in these they err sometimes and gather amiss: likewise may I say that they write some things, [Greek or Hebrew], to praise the Saints of God, and stir up others to their virtue, ^*wherein if their words should be rigorously sifted, the truth is sometimes overlashed. So ^cChrysostom (in the other place which you allege out of the Acts) to commend the mildness and wisdom of James, who left the sharper speeches to be used of Peter, and used himself the gentler, doth speak of him as being above Peter in power: and here to commend the modesty of Peter, because that he did all things by the common advise and judgement of his brethren, he saith (by the way of amplification) that Peter might himself have chosen an Apostle, which yet he did not.

Rainoldes. This testimonie of Chrysostome dooth stand on two branches: the one, what Peter doth, as the Scripture sheweth; the other, what he might haue done, as Chrysostome supposeth. That which Peter dooth, is granted. But it proueth not the supremacy. He remembreth his duetie; hee speaketh first of all; he doth all things by the common aduise and iudgement of the Disciples, and nothing by his owne authoritie. Thus much I saide of Peter, and did explane it out of Duaren. ⟨p. 157⟩In Duaren you thought that it made against you, and therefore refused him. Dooth it make for you, when it is in Chrysostome, that you bring him against Duaren? Or, is this the reason, why you accept the one and refuse the other, because the wordes of Chrysostome yelding a certaine primacy to Peter, may deceiue the simple, as though he meant that primacy which you call the supremacy: but the wordes of Duaren put so plaine a difference betwéene the two primacies, that, which Peter had; and the other which the Pope hath, or would haue; that a blinde man may sée that Peters primacy was not a Popes supremacy. Which shall appeare ^zfarther (if God will) by those thinges, that the Fathers speake touching Peters primacy. And thus your proofe faileth in that which the scripture sheweth that Peter doth. Now that, which Peter might haue done, as Chrysostome supposeth, woulde inferre a greater primacy then Peter had, if it were true. But the scripture saith it not. Wherfore as the ^aFathers report one of an other, (by ^byour owne confession) that they write some things 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, to confute the aduersaries with whom they had to deale, & in these they erre sometimes and gather amisse: likewise may I say that they write some thinges, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, to praise the Saintes of God, and stirre vp others to their vertue, ^*wherein if their wordes should be rigorously sifted, the truth is sometimes ouerlashed. So ^cChrysostome (in the other place which you alleage out of the Actes) to commend the mildnesse and wisedome of Iames, who left the sharper speeches to be vsed of Peter, and vsed himselfe the gentler, doth speake of him as being aboue Peter in power: and here to commend the modestie of Peter, because that hee did all things by the common aduise and iudgement of his brethren, hée saith (by the way of amplification) that Peter might himselfe haue chosen an Apostle, which yet he did not.

zChapt. 5. Division 3.Chapt. 5. Diuision 3.
aBasil. de Gregor. Neocaes. ep. 64. Athanas. de Origene, libell. de decret. Nicaen. Synod.
bStaplet. princ. doctr. li. 7. cap. 6.
*Hallacinantur interdum & ma•le colligunt.
cIn Act. cap. 15. homil. 33.

:423p. 159–158

Rainoldes. I remember it well: and herein I have kept it. For it is a truth and a known truth, that the Fathers write, in favour of the Saints, some things which overlash the truth, if a man examine and try them by the touch-stone. Peter himself shall be the Saint, in whose example I will show it. ^fHilary, upon the words of Christ unto Peter, ^*Get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offence to me; saith, it is not meet we should think, that Christ did call Peter Satan; but Christ said to him, get thee behind me, and no more; the rest to the Devil, not to him, Satan thou art an offence to me. The same ^gHilary, ¹almost but ^hAmbrose quite & clean excuseth Peter from all fault in that he denied Christ, nay Ambrose commendeth him. Peter answered, saith he, ^*I know not the man, ²He well denied him a man, whom he knew to be God. ⁱClemens and ^kEusebius, whom ^lOecumenius followeth, do write that that Peter whom Paul did withstand and reprove at Antioch, was not Peter the Apostle, but an other, I know not who, of the same name, one of the seventy disciples. Wherefore sith it is known by the word of truth, that Christ called Peter Satan, that Peter denied Christ, that Paul withstood and reproved Peter; and it may be known by the writings of the Fathers, how they vary from this truth in favour of S. Peter, that, by washing out the spots which seem to stain him, his praise may be the more glorious: I hope, I might take it for a known truth, that the Fathers write some things [Greek or Hebrew], to praise the Saints of God: wherein, if their words be sifted precisely, they overlash the truth sometimes. In saying whereof if you think I cast colours, and use words too smooth: I can amend that fault with speaking more roughly, as ^mJerome doth, who saith that the sense which Hilary and Ambrose give of Peters words, I know not the man; as though denying Christ he had denied him man, because he knew him God: they gave it of a reverent affection to Peter; but ¹wise readers see how frivolous ⟨p. 158⟩it is, if they so defend Peter that they make God a liar. For, if Peter denied not, then did the Lord lye, who said, ^*Verily, I say to thee, this night before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Behold what he saith, thou shalt deny me, not, the man. Or if S. Jeromes words be too smooth also, I can speak more roughly yet with ⁿTheophylact:

Rainoldes. I remember it well: and herein I haue kept it. For it is a truth and a knowne truth, that the Fathers write, in fauour of the Saintes, some thinges which ouerlash the truth, if a man examine and trie them by the touch-stone. Peter himselfe shall be the Saint, in whose example I will shew it. ^fHilarie, vpon the wordes of Christ vnto Peter, ^*Get thee behinde me Satan, thou art an offense to me; saith, it is not meete we should thinke, that Christ did call Peter Satan; but Christ said to him, get thee behind me, and no more; the rest to the Deuill, not to him, Satan thou art an offense to me. The same ^gHilarie, ¹almost but ^hAmbrose quite & cleane excuseth Peter from all fault in that he denied Christ, nay Ambrose commendeth him. Peter answered, saith he, ^*I know not the man, ²He well denied him a man, whom he knewe to be God. ⁱClemens and ^kEusebius, whom ^lOecumenius foloweth, do write that that Peter whome Paule did withstand and reproue at Antioch, was not Peter the Apostle, but an other, I know not who, of the same name, one of the seuentie disciples. Wherefore sith it is known by the word of truth, that Christ called Peter Satan, that Peter denyed Christ, that Paule withstood and reproued Peter; and it may be knowne by the writtnges of the Fathers, how they vary from this truth in fauour of S. Peter, that, by washing out the spottes which seeme to staine him, his praise may be the more glorious: I hope, I might take it for a knowne truth, that the Fathers write some thinges 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, to praise the Saintes of God: wherein, if their wordes be sifted precisely, they ouerlash the truth sometimes. In saying whereof if you thinke I cast colours, and vse wordes too smooth: I can amend that faulte with speaking more roughly, as ^mIerom doth, who saith yt the sense which Hilarie and Ambrose giue of Peters words, I know not the man; as though denying Christ he had denied him man, because he knewe him God: they gaue it of a reuerent affection to Peter; but ¹wise readers see howe friuolous ⟨p. 158⟩it is, if they so defend Peter that they make God a lyer. For, if Peter denied not, then did the Lord lye, who said, ^*Verely, I say to thee, this night before the cocke crow, thou shalt denye me thrise. Behold what he saith, thou shalt denye me, not, the man. Or if S. Ieroms words be too smooth also, I can speake more roughly yet with ⁿTheophylact:

fIn Matthaeum canon. 16.
*Mat. 16.23
gIn Matthaeum canon. 32.
1paené, sine pia ••lo.
hCommentar. in Luc. lib. 10.
*Mat. 26.72.
2Denegavit hominem, quem sciebat Deum.Denegauit hominem, quem sciebat Deum.
iClem. Alexan•r. hypotypos. lib. 5.
kEuseb. histor. eccles. lib. 1. cap. 13.Euseb. histor. ecc•es. lib. 1. cap. 13.
lIn epist. ad Galat. cap. 2.
mIn Matthaeum cap. 26.
1Hoc quam frivolum sit, prudens lector intellig•t.Hoc quam friuolum sit, prudens lector intellig•t.
*Mat. 26.34.
nIn Luc. cap. 22▪

:430p. 158–160

Rainoldes. If I should ask what Fathers say it of actual sin: hard for you to name them. As for original: your own ^rCanus showeth ^*they all say the contrary. But if many said it: yet you may see by this, which I have showed of Chrysostom, what broken reeds you lean on, when you lean on such reasons: Chrysostom doth say so; therefore it is so. And, if [other fathers] be of as good credit to win you from others, unto a point of truth, as to a point of error: then will you be as ready to leave his opinion in this point of Peter, as you have been to leave it in it of the virgin. For a number of Fathers, even a whole ⁵Council of Bishops of Africa (together with S Cyprian) do write that Peter did ¹according to the les•ons and precepts of God, in that he proposed unto the disciples the ordaining of an Apostle in the room of Judas, to the end they might deal ²by common advise and ⟨p. 160⟩voice therein. Wherefore, if you have Fathers in such regard, as you pretend, and do rather follow the consent of many, then the mind of one (which is ^*your own rule) in exposition of scriptures: you must yield that Peter might not have done that which Chrysostom saith, he might; unless, you will say, that he might do that, whereof he was commanded and taught the contrary by God. But, if this opinion be so rooted in you, that reason cannot weed it out: wonder not at me who, beside the scripture, have Fathers more then you have, and therefore (by your judgement) the exposition of the Fathers. Wonder at your self: who having neither of them stand against them both. Wonder at your Doctor: who having undertaken to prove the Supremacy by that, which Peter did in the Acts of the Apostles, telleth what he might have done by Chrysostoms supposal. Wonder at your Pope: who building on the word, not of God, but of man, and finding mans foundation over-weak too, doth not practise that which Chrysostom commendeth in the fact of Peter, but doth challenge that which Chrysostom imagineth of the right of Peter.

Rainoldes. If I shold aske what Fathers say it of actuall sin: hard for you to name them. As for originall: your own ^rCanus sheweth ^*they all say the contrary. But if many said it: yet you may sée by this, which I haue shewed of Chrysostom, what brokē réeds you leane on, whē you leane on such reasons: Chrysostome doth say so; therfore it is so. And, if [other fathers] be of as good credit to win you from others, vnto a point of truth, as to a point of error: then wil you be as readie to leaue his opinion in this point of Peter, as you haue bene to leaue it in yt of the virgin. For a number of Fathers, euē a whole ⁵Councell of Bishops of Africa (togither with S Cyprian) doo write that Peter did ¹according to the les•ons and preceptes of God, in that he proposed vnto the disciples the ordeining of an Apostle in the roome of Iudas, to the end they might deale ²by common aduise and ⟨p. 160⟩voice therin. Wherefore, if you haue Fathers in such regard, as you pretend, and do rather follow the consent of many, then the mind of one (which is ^*your owne rule) in exposition of scriptures: you must yéeld that Peter might not haue done that which Chrysostom saith, he might; vnlesse, you will say, that he might do that, whereof he was commanded and taught the contrary by God. But, if this opinion be so rooted in you, that reason cannot wéede it out: wonder not at me who, beside the scripture, haue Fathers more then you haue, and therefore (by your iudgement) the exposition of the Fathers. Wonder at your selfe: who hauing neither of them stand against them both. Wonder at your Doctor: who hauing vndertaken to proue the Supremacie by that, which Peter did in the Actes of the Apostles, telleth what he might haue done by Chrysostomes supposall. Wonder at your Pope: who building on the word, not of God, but of man, and finding mans foundation ouer-weake too, doth not practise that which Chrysostome commendeth in the fact of Peter, but doth chalenge that which Chrysostome imagineth of the right of Peter.

rLocor. Theolog. lib. 7. cap. 1. & 3.
*Ambros. August. Chrysost. Eus. Emis. Remig. Maxim. Bed. Anselm. Bernard. Erard. Anton. Pad. Bernardin. Bonavent. Thom. Vin̄ cent. Antonin. Damas. Hug. de S. Vict.Ambros. August. Chrysost. Eus. Emis. Remig. Maxim. Bed. Anselm. Bernard. Erard. Anton. Pad. Bernardin. Bonauent. Thom. Vin̄ cent. Antonin. Damas. Hug. de S. Vict.
5Epist. Synod. African. ad ecclesias Legion. Astur. Emerit. apud Cyp•ian. ep. 68.
1Secundum magisteria divina.Secundum magisteria diuina.
2Omnium ••• fragio & […].Omnium ••• fragio & 〈…〉.
*Chap. 2. Divis. 2.Chap. 2. Diuis. 2.

:436p. 161

Rainoldes. In deed I saw not whence you could frame a proof. Bear with mine oversight. The silence of the multitude was fitter stuff for it. For all sorts of men do know by experience, Princes and Counsellors in matters of State, Nobles and Commons in the houses of Parliament, Citizens and Townsmen in their common assemblies, our Students of universities, both publicly in convocations, and privately in their colleges: that he is not always above the rest in power, whose sentence all the rest agree unto in consultation. But if your friends M. Hart, have done you such injury, that (by means they sent you untimely beyond sea) you are become a stranger in things of common sense, & humanity, at home: yet you have read (I trust) the story of the Acts, out of the which you reason; and God hath furnished you with gifts of wit and memory to understand it, and remember it. Tell me, do you think, that ^uGamaliel the Pharisee, the Doctor of the law, whom all the people honoured, was superior in power to the hie Priest, and Council of the Jews.

Rainoldes. In déede I saw not whence you could frame a proofe. Beare with mine ouersight. The silence of the multitude was fitter stuffe for it. For all sortes of men do know by experience, Princes and Counsailours in matters of State, Nobles and Commons in the houses of Parlament, Citizens and Townsmen in their common assemblies, our Students of vniuersities, both publikely in conuocations, and priuately in their colleges: that he is not alwaies aboue the rest in power, whose sentence al the rest agrée vnto in consultation. But if your frends M. Hart, haue done you such iniury, that (by meanes they sent you vntimely beyond sea) you are become a straunger in things of common sense, & humanity, at home: yet you haue read (I trust) the story of the Actes, out of the which you reason; and God hath furnished you with giftes of witte and memory to vnderstand it, and remember it. Tell me, do you thinke, that ^uGamaliel the Pharise, the Doctor of the law, whom all the people honored, was superiour in power to the hie Priest, and Councell of the Iewes.

uAct. 3. ver. 34.

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36