netherte as being vndir hem. Also Dynys, which, as he witnessith him silf [See the remarks of Corderius in the note below.] , siȝe the conuersacioun and gouernaunce of Poul and of Iohun Euangelist and of othere Apostlis, seith in his epistle to the monk Demophil [Domophil, MS. (twice).] thus: Dekenys ben ouerers to the monk Demophil, [Domophil, MS. (twice).] and preestis ben ouerers to dekenys, and bischopis ben ouerers to preestis, and the apostilis and her successouris ben ouerers to bischopis; ["…." Pseudo|Dionys. Areop. Epist. viii. (ad Demoph. Mon. Op. tom. ii. p. 113. Ed. Cord.)] and, as he wole in the other place alleggid, Petir and his successour be [ben, MS. (first hand).] ouerers to archibischopis, ["…." Id. De Divin. Nomin. c. 2. (Op. tom. i. pp. 538, 539.) There is no doubt that this is the place intended by Pecock; how far it answers his purpose the reader must judge. Corderius quite similarly argues: "Nota hinc firmissimum a S. Dio|nysii auctoritate argumentum pro primatu Petri, et consequenter pon|tificum Romanorum ejusdem succes|sorum. Describit autem hic, quo|modo apostoli cum aliis discipulis, inter quos ipse erat cum Hierotheo, interfuerint exequiis B. Virginis Mariæ." Id. p. 542.] and that forto punysche bi peyne and correcte hem to whom thei ben ouerers, as is open bi the processe of the now alleggid epistle of Dynys. Wherfore or Dynys muste be a wrong vndirstondir of Poulis conuersacioun and of Petris conuersacioun and a wrong vndirstonder of her writingis, but if thei meeneden hem in that that thei weren preestis forto be ouerers to hem to whom thei weren preestis. And so herbi open it is, that the now bifore ȝouun answere to the textis of the ije. obieccioun is not trewe.
It is therfore to be seid to tho textis in these maners. To the firste text of hem iij., [ij., MS.] which is of
