The defense of the aunsvvere to the Admonition against the replie of T.C. By Iohn VVhitgift Doctor of Diuinitie. In the beginning are added these. 4. tables. 1 Of dangerous doctrines in the replie. 2 Of falsifications and vntruthes. 3 Of matters handled at large. 4 A table generall.

Chap. 3. the. 47. Diuision.

T. C. Pag. 85. Sect. 2. 3. 4.

Of this order and pollicie of the Church, if we will see a liuely image, a〈1 line〉〈1 line〉d perfect patterne, let vs set before ou〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 eyes the most auncient and gospellike Church that euer was or shal be.

In the first of the Actes the Church being gathered togither, for the election of an Apostle in∣to the place of Iudas the traytor, when as the interest of election belonged vnto all, and to the Apo∣stles especially aboue the rest, out of the whole company Peter riseth vp. telleth the cause of their comming togyther, with what cautions and qualities they ought to choose another, conceyueth the prayer, whereby the help of God in that election, and his direction is begged, and no doubt ex〈1 line〉〈1 line〉cuted the resi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ue of the things which perteyned vnto the whole action.

In the. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉. of the Actes all the Apostles are accused of dronke〈1 line〉〈1 line〉nesse. Peter answer〈1 line〉〈1 line〉d for them all, wypeth away the infamie they were charged with. But you will saye, where are the voyces of the rest, which did choose Peter vnto this? (*) First you must kn〈1 line〉〈1 line〉w that the scripture setteth not downe euery circumstance, and then surely you do Peter great iniurie, that aske whether he were chosen vnto it: for is it to be thought, that Peter would thrust in himselfe to this office or dignitie, without the consent and allowance of his fellowes, and preuent his fellowes of this preheininence? vndoutedly if it had not bin done arrogantly, yet it must needes hau〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 a great shew of arrogancie, if he had done this without the consent of his fellowes. And here you shall heare what the scholiast saith which gathereth the iudgement of greeke diumes, (a) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (speaking of Peter) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Behold how he doth all with their common consent. And if any man hervpon will say, that Peter exercised domination ouer the rest, or gat any ar〈1 line〉〈1 line〉hapostle∣ship, beside that the whole storie of the Actes of the Apostles, and his whole course of life doth re∣fute that, the same scholiast which I made mention of in the same place, sayth he did nothing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, imp〈1 line〉〈1 line〉riously, nothing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with dominion or power: further I will admonish him to take heede, least if he s〈1 line〉〈1 line〉riue so farre for the Archbishop, he slide or euer he be aware into the 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉entes of the Papists, which vse these places to proue that Peter had authoritie, and rule ouer the rest of the Apostles.

Io. Whitgifte.

This is a rodd to beate your selfe with, for it is euident euen by these wordes of yours, that your deuise is most farthest from the Apostolicall forme: for Peter in all such assemblies is the chiefe, speaketh the first and moderateth the rest, in whiche re∣spect most of the olde ecclesiastical writers count him the chiefe of the Apos〈1 line〉〈1 line〉les, ney∣ther do the la〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e writers diss〈1 line〉〈1 line〉nt from them in that poynt, and yet is there no daun∣ger of sliding into the Papists tents, who by this woulde proue the Popes supremacie, whose arguments you haue vsed, and I haue confuted before.

To preuent subtily that question which neyther yo〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 do〈1 line〉〈1 line〉, nor can answer, that is, where it is in scripture mentioned that at euery action, or at any time Peter was chosen to speake before the rest, or to gouerne the action? 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ou say, that first I must know that the scripture setteth not downe, euery circumstance, and then that I do Peter great iniurie that aske whether he were chosen to it. &c. To the first I answer, that you ought to know, how wicked and vngodly a thing it is, to ground the alteration of any lawfull kinde of g〈1 line〉〈1 line〉∣uernment so long continued, and in the best times of the Church practised, vpon your owne fonde deuise and coniectures, without any ground of scripture, yea to make that your foundation which you cannot fynde in the whole scripture, but the cleane con∣trary. For shew me one péece of a text that doth but insinuate Peter, to haue bin at

any time in any action chosen to direct the action: I can shew you the contrary, espe∣cially in the second of the Actes, where Peter sodainly answered with a notable apo∣logie in the presence of the Apostles, the accusation of dronkennesse layde agaynst him, and them: neyther can it be that he should expect the voyces of the rest, to choose him to be the chéefe, for that time in that action.

Whosoeuer shall well consider the first of the Actes, and the. 15. and other places where mention is made of Peters speaking, as he shall perceiue that this was Pe∣ters peculiar office, and always apperteyning vnto him, from the ascensiō of Christ to his dying day, so shall he also easily vnderstand, that he was not at any time cho∣sen to that office by voyces, much lesse at euery particular méeting or singular action. And dare you presume vpon vaine coniectures, without warrant of scripture, to bild the foundation of your kinde of gouernment, whyche you before sayde is a mat∣ter of faythe and saluation? is not thys to open a way to vnwritten veri〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ies, and phantasticall interpretatious? if your wordes be of suche weighte wyth the Reader, that bycause you speake them, therefore hée will be〈1 line〉〈1 line〉aeue them, per me▪ licebit: but thys I will assure hym of, that he shall beléeue that, that is neyther grounded vppon Scripture, nor anye learned or aunciente au∣thoritie.

To the seconde, that is, that I doe Peter great iniurie. &c. I saye that I doe him no iniurie at all, when I affirme that of hym, that the scripture dothe, and presume not of mine owne brayne, for the mainteyning of an euill cause, to imagin that of him, whych I haue my selfe deuised besides the word of God, as you do most ma∣nifestly.

Peter did not thrust himselfe into any office or dignitie, whiche was not appoyuted vnto hym by God, neyther did he otherwise vse himselfe therein, than his office and duetie required: and it is impietie thus to dallie and trifle in Gods matters. We are w〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ll assured in scripture that Peter did this, and had this preheminence, and there∣fore you must knowe that he was lawfully called vnto it, and did lawfully exe∣cute it.

The Gréeke Scholiast saith, that Peter in such assemblies did conclude nothing without the consent of the rest, the which also the scripture it selfe dothe plainly de∣clare. But the Gréeke Scholiast no where sayth that Peter was at euery assemblie, or at any time chosen by the voyces of the rest, to speake first, and to moderate the ac∣tion: which is your assertion. For in the place by you cited, he speaketh not of the e∣lection of Peter to his prolocutorship, but of the choosing of Matthias to the Apostle∣ship. Wherein Peter tooke not that preheminence to himselfe to appoint him alone, but communicated the matter with the rest of the disciples. So that you haue eyther wittingly, or ignorantly applyed the Scholiast to a wrong matter.

It is true that Peter did nothing imperiously, nothing with dominion or power: no more doth any man that executeth lawfull iurisdiction, and gouerneth by law, 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉quitie, and order, no not the king himselfe: for in superioritie there is humilitie, and in rule and authoritie there is seruitude: as I haue before shewed in the exposition of the places in the. 20 of Matth. 22. Luke. &c. And yet doth the Gréeke Scholiast in the same place say, that Peter rose vp and not lames, as being more feruent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and as hauing receiued the presidentship of the Apostles. Your ad∣mo〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ishment of falling into the tents of the Papists, howe necessary it is for your selfe, whi〈1 line〉〈1 line〉h vse their manner of reasoning vpon this example of Peter, and vpon deuised interpretations of the scripture, I haue touched before. As for my selfe I refuse no warning▪ But I trust it is not so necessary, for I know what they haue said, & what they can say in that matter.

Notes

• (*)

  What is this but a meere con 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ather an imagine〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 an∣swer o〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 yo〈1 line〉〈1 line〉r ow〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e▪
• (a)

  This is not 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉poken o〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 cho∣〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ing 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉eter to be speaker, but of 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉lecting Mat∣thias, which pe〈1 line〉〈1 line〉eyned not to Peter alone.
• Peter chee〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e in Apostolicall assemblies.
• Peter not cho sen in euery action to be chee〈1 line〉〈1 line〉e.
• The scholiast playeth not y^e parte which is layde vpon him.
• Tract. 1.