Hexapla in Danielem: that is, A six-fold commentarie vpon the most diuine prophesie of Daniel wherein according to the method propounded in Hexapla vpon Genesis and Exodus, sixe things are obserued in euery chapter. 1. The argument and method. 2. The diuers readings. 3. The questions discussed. 4. Doctrines noted. 5. Controversies handled. 6. Morall observations applyed. Wherein many obscure visions, and diuine prophesies are opened, and difficult questions handled with great breuitie, perspicuitie, and varietie ... and the best interpreters both old and new are therein abridged. Diuided into two bookes ... By Andrevv Willet Professour of Diuinitie. The first booke.
Willet, Andrew, 1562-1621.

1. Controv. Whether the changing of the Popes name be grounded vpon the example of Peter.

Vers. 7. Vnto whom the chiefe of the Eunuches gaue other names: hereupon Pintus ta∣keth occasion to speake of that custome of the Romane Bishops, who at their inauguration doe take vnto them newe names: Celius Rhodiginus out of Platina alleadgeth this to be the reason thereof, because Sergiu the second had but an homely name before, he was called os porci, swines face, and thereupon would be called by a newe name, as beeing ashamed of his olde: But Pintus thinketh rather, that it tooke beginning from Peter, whose name the Lord changed, calling him in the Syrian tongue Cephas, which in the Greeke signifieth (pe∣tros) a stone: and out of this he falleth into an other matter, that this was not that Cephas mentioned, Galath. 2. who was not Peter, but one of the 72. disciples: for it is not like that S. Paul would reprooue Peter Pontificem maximum, the chiefe priest to his face; neither is that Iohn the Apostle, who is there also spoken off, but one of the disciples, for Paul him∣selfe saith, c. 1. 19. that he had seene none of the Apostles, but Iames the Lords brother: and againe it appeareth, c. 2. 70. that Iames, Cephas, and Iohn speake of Peter as of an o∣ther man beside themselues, when they saw that the gospel of the vncircumcision was commit∣ted to me, as of the circumcision to Peter, &c. to this purpose Pintus.

Page  39Contra. 1. Platina one of their owne historiographers may be credited for a matter of fact and storie, who was best acquainted with the doings of that Sea: Pintus conceit com∣meth too late to checke their owne register: and if the changing of Popes names be groun∣ded vpon the change of Peters name by Christ, why did not the Popes before Sergius alter their names: or why doe they not expect the authoritie of Christ to innouate their names, but take them vp themselues?

2. As for that Cephas or Peter whom S. Paul reprooued, he was no other but Peter the Apostle. 1. for be it admitted, that one of the disciples was called Cephas, yet he was not named Peter too: but this was reprooued vnder the name of Peter: 2. that Peter which was a pillar of the Church, and to whom the Apostleship of the circumcision was commit∣ted, was reprooued by S. Paul: but none of the disciples were Apostles, or any Apostleship committed vnto them. 3. this Peter was one of the chiefe, Galath. 2. 6. but the disciples were not counted among the chiefe.

Neither doe the contrarie arguments conclude any thing. 1. for whence can they prooue, that Peter was the chiefe of the Apostles: the contrarie is inforced here, that Peter with the rest gaue vnto Paul the right hand of fellowship, therefore there was an equalitie a∣mong them: and in that Paul so boldly reprooueth Peter, it sheweth that there was no su∣perioritie. 2. S. Paul speaketh of his twice comming to Ierusalem, first after three yeares, and then he saw none of the Apostles but Iames: then after fourteene yeares, Galat. 2. v. 1. when he found at Ierusalem, Iames, Peter, and Iohn. This then is a simple collecti∣on, that at his first comming he saw none but Iames, therefore he saw no more of the Apo∣stles at his second comming. 3. Neither doth the construction of the words helpe him a∣ny thing at all: for, v. 7. it is onely said, when they saw, &c. Iames, Cephas, Iohn, are not there named: and if they were, if we vnderstand it thus, when Iames, Cephas and Iohn saw that the Gospel of the vncircumcision was committed vnto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was to Peter, or Cephas, it doth not follow, that Peter should be none of those three: for it is an v∣suall Hebraisme, to repeat the antecedent in stead of the pronoun, as Exod. 10. 13. He (that is Pharaoh) thrust them out from the presence of Pharaoh: who is so simple to gather here∣upon, that there were two Pharaohs. 4. Whereas Pintus nameth Clemens, Oecumenius, Theophylact, as fauourers of this opinion, that this Cephas was an other beside Peter, many Fathers of greater authoritie may be produced, which hold that Peter the Apostle was re∣prooued by S. Paul, as Cyprian, Hierome, Augustine, Ambrose, with others: as is elswhere shewed at large, Synops. p. 139.