saw his glory in the Mount It is good Master being here let us make three Tabernacles c. Math. 17.4 It was Peter that answered Christ in the name of the rest O Lord wee have forsaken all and followed thee Math. 19.27 But these differences are nothing in respect of those that were made by Christ himselfe and first as I said before his name was changed by Christ yea when Christ called him first from taking of fish to bee a fisher of men he promised that hee should be called Peter Ioh. 1. but as yet his name was not changed this was a great argument of his preferment Againe Christ calls him Peter in allusion to the rocke of Faith whereupon he was to build his Church for he is called Petrus a petra he was called a Rocke because his confession Thou art Christ the Sonne of the living God was to be so solid and firme a Rocke that whosoever was built upon it the gates of Hell was not able to prevaile against him Further Christ promised to give Peter the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven which promise he made not to the rest hee prayed for him in particular that his faith should not faile but for none of the rest and commanded Peter when hee was converted to strengthen his brethren hee gave not this direction to the rest Math. 22.32 After his Resurrection he appeared first to Peter alone with whom no doubt he had privie conference and committed to him somethings which he did not to the rest or otherwise to what end should he have appeared unto him before any of the rest and after hee had dellvered a generall commission to all hee gave him a particular Commission to feed his sheepe to feed his Lambes hee required a greater measure of love of Peter then hee did of the rest Iohn 21.15 which was an argument not only that Christ had forgiven him much but also that hee had given unto him more then the rest of the Apostles Christ forewarned Peter of his manner of death and encouraged him to suffer to the end Follow thou mee saith hee Iohn 21. this hee did not to any of the rest By all these particulars wee see our Saviour Christ differenced Peter from the rest of the Apostles which evidently shewes that Christ gave him some dignitie and preheminence that hee gave not unto the rest The Angell also that appeared to Mary Magdalene put a difference betweene Peter and the rest when he directed her to goe tell Peter by name that Christ was risen but none of the rest The Evangelists also differences Peter from the rest of the Apostles in setting downe his name alwayes in the first place Yea Saint Math. who was also an Apostle doth not only mention him first but also calleth him Primus the first Apostle Mathew 10. he saith not Primum adverbialiter but Primus nominaliter the first and this is an evident argument of his prioritie The Apostle Paul also beareth witnesse to this truth in that by way of Emphasis hee calleth him the Apostle of the Circumcision and that Christ wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision this was not because hee was the only Apostle of the Circumcision for in that same chapter to wit Galat. 2. where hee calleth the Apostle Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision hee saith also that Iames and Iohn were also Apostles of the Circumcision for thus hee speakes Peter Iames and Iohn gave mee and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that they should goe unto the Jewes and we unto the Gentiles Peter then is called the Apostle of the Circumcision by way of Emphasis because hee had a precedencie of the rest of the Apostles of the Circumcision Yea wee see that the Apostle Paul preferres Peter in his account to the rest of the Apostles for Gal. 1. he saith that after three yeares he went up to Ierusalem to see Peter he mentions none of the rest not Iames who was Bishop of Ierusalem and 1 Cor. 9.5 he gives some preheminence to Peter Have not wee saith he power to lead about a sister a wife as well as the other Apostles and the brethren of the Lord and of Cephas In this comparison the Apostle ascends by way of Gradation as if he had said may not I have a wife to accompanie mee in my travells as well as the rest of the Apostles yea as well as the brethren of the Lord yea even as Cephas who is in dignitie before all the rest yea would he say we have power as well as any of them even as well as Peter himselfe All these Evidences were nothing if he did not make proofe of his prioritie de facto if he had not exercised it and confirmed it by his practise but this he did both in his Masters owne time as I shewed you before and also much more after his ascention This a very novice may perceive that will but reade the Acts of the Apostles For immediatly after Christs ascention hee takes the place upon him without any election or the voyces of the rest Me thinkes if Christ had not given him this preheminence and moderatorship the first thing that they would have done they would have chosen a speaker and a precedent for order sake but this they did not because they knew Christ their Master had done it before Christ was more carefull of the government of his Church then so hee saw them before his death contesting for precedencie the first place and foresaw also that after his departure there would bee emulation and strife amongst them who should be chiefe and therefore most wisely he thought good to prevent this schisme and division For hee knew if they had fallen out amongst themselves for this prioritie of order who were to bee the first and chiefe publishers of the Gospell and Witnesses of all that Christ did and said It might have beene imputed to him by those who hereafter tooke occasion to stop the course of the Gospell They might have said even as the theese upon the Crosse and the other railers that passed by said to him and thou bee the Sonne of God come downe from the Crosse So I say they might have said and this man had beene such a man as they call him hee would have prevented this misorder and contention hee would have appointed one of the number to be first in order among them to moderate their assemblies for avoiding of confusion and dissention but blessed be the God of order that would not leave his Church without order The Apostle Saint Peter then without any more Ceremonie obeys his Masters Commandements hee commanded him when hee was converted to strengthen his brethren hee gave him direction both to feed his sheepe and his lambes and he like an obedient servant will not faile to doe what he commanded with all expedition And first hee begins with a Sermon ad clerum to the rest of the Apostles and the other Disciples
asunder Christ gave him precedencie who could then defraud him of it none of the rest might yea not all the rest had power to displace him certainly as long as the Christian Iews were divided from the Gentiles that were Christians by the Ceremonies of the Law of Moses which they would needs keepe The Apostle Peter tooke a speciall care of the Iewish Nation so he took a speciall care of Iews in Antiochia who were Christians but zealous of the Law Gal. 1. yea it was condiscended betweene him and the Apostle Paul that it should be so but I believe that the mayn worke which was enjoin'd him by his Master in cōmon with the rest of the Apostles to teach all Nations did in the end draw him of that particular charge of the Iewish Nation yet I thinke hee ever kept that priority of order amongst the Apostles which his Master conferred upon him upon all occasions A third question wil be asked was Peter to have successors in this precedency I answer although perhaps he could have no Successors in respect of his precedency over the eleven whose calling was universall and not confined to any particular Place Congregation Province or Kingdom Yet his precedency in generall among the chief Governours of the Church in all severall Kingdoms and Nations was to have a succession order was requisite among the successours of the Apostles as well as among them and this order was to be defined according to the division of Kingdomes and Provinces Saint Peter was chiefe precedent in the Churches of Iews in which respect he might have Successours yea and had them too and so a chiefe precedent was requisite among the Governours of the Churches of other Kingdoms Again this question will be asked since a priority of order is necessary in all Churches must it remayne constantly in one person or may it be changed from one to another that every one may beare his part and all beare equall burden Answer I see no reason why it should be changed except this vicissitude can be proved by Scripture Christ hath left us a paterne and this paterne we ought to follow Further it may be asked how this precedent should be elected I answer by him who is Gods Vicegerent here upon earth for God hath appointed Kings to be pursing Fathers in his Church and they ought to have a care that all things be done decently and orderly and that Gods will be done in earth as it is in heaven If the King present the man the Church ought to receive him except they can give a reason in the contrary but it may be replyed that wee have no paterne for this in the Scripture I answer none except that wee finde the election of Matthias referred to God and the King is in Gods place and a God upon earth I have said yee are gods Psal. 82. and Iohn 10. Reply but this choice was referred immediatly to God the lots is cast into the lap I answer in the election of Matthias I finde that the Apostles had a hand in it the seventy Disciples and other inferiour Ministers for they made choice of Matthias and Barsabas and prayed unto the Lord to give forth his determination by lot but in the election of the seven Deacons the people also the Apostles and all other Churchmen all three joyned together Upon other occasions the Apostle only made choice of inferiour Ministers Timothy by prophesie and so there is no certain patern left us in the Scriptures for the right of nomination But if it were so agreed upon it were easie to devise a way how both the people inferiour Ministers the Governours of the Church and the supreame Magistrate might have their severall voices in the nomination of Churchmen of the first ranke and order and yet in end the Lord to make the choice but it were boldnesse in me to prescribe The Lord of his mercy so direct those a right who have power and authority in their hand that they may doe all things according to his will plainly revealed in his Word Now I will prove from the former grounds first that Saint Peter had a precedencie of the rest of the Apostles in the Church of the Iews next that this precedency was given him by Christ his Master Thirdly that this precedencie is not only profitable and expedient but necessary for the Government of all Churches and this I will do by formall arguments whereunto I desire my opponents to answer Categorice without subterfugies prevarications or circumlocutions for by so doing the truth shall be the more easily found out The first Argument Hee whose name is always recorded in the first place had place of all the rest of the Apostles But Peter his name is always recorded in the first place And therefore Peter had place of all the rest of the Apostles There can be no reason given why Saint Peter his name should be always first set down but only because he was first not only in gifts and graces but also in dignity place and estimation That his name is recorded at all times sirst is evident except onely once by the Apostle Paul Gal. 2. who without all doubt did it by the motion of Gods Spirit that he might insinuate although the Apostle Peter was the chiefest Apostle of the Circumcision as he had declared before Verse 7. yet it was in order and estimation and not in degree and exaltation it was a primacie but not a supremacie a prioritie but not a superiority that he had of the rest of the Apostles But I will prove that the Apostle Peter was not only named first but that he was called the first and so was first indeed The second Argument He who is called by the Apostle Saint Matthew the first of the Apostles hee was in deed and in truth the first But the Apostle Peter is called by the Apostle Saint Matthew the first of the Apostles Chap. 10.2 And therefore the Apostle Peter was indeed and in truth the first of the Apostles The strength of the proposition stands in this that hee who was an Apostle himselfe would never have called Peter the first of the Apostles and he had not been first indeed The third Argument He that was prolocutor and speaker for all the rest of the Apostles had a priority and precedency of the rest of the Apostles But Peter was speaker and prolocutor for all the rest of the Apostles And therefore Peter had a priority and precedencie of the rest of the Apostles The proposition I thinke will not be denied for the Consul in the Senate the Speaker in Parliament the Moderator in the Assembly hath a priority and precedency of all the rest of the Senat Parliament and Assembly That Peter was speaker and prolocutor for all the rest I prove thus He that answered Christ in name of the rest and received the promise in name of the rest was speaker and prolocutor for all the rest But Peter answered Christ in
whole world and proclaime as it were before them thus shall it be done to him whom the King of Kings desires to honour and therefore since Christ had a respect to Peter more then the rest of the Apostles it cannot be questioned but hee made him president of the rest for since a president was necessary for avoiding of strife and contention it is very likely that Christ would give it to Peter rather then any other The truth of the assumption wee may see in the grounds before laid down The second Argument If the changing of names be a signe of honour and preferment then Peter was honoured and preferred by Christ before the rest of the Apostles But the changing of names is a signe of honour and preferment And therefore Peter was honoured and preferred by Christ before the rest of the Apostles The truth of the proposition is manifest because our Saviour himselfe changed Peters name from Simon to Peter and so if the changing of names be a signe of honour and preferment then Peter was without doubt honoured and preferred by Christ As to the assumption that the changing of names is a signe of honour and preferment I prove it by the changing of Abrams name in Abraham and Iaacobs name in Israel when it pleased God to advance them Gen. 32.28 and 41 45. even so when Pharaoh preferred Ioseph he changed his name and called him Zaphna Paanea So when Daniel was advanced by Nabuchadnezzar he was called Beltashazer and upon the same occasion the three children Hanama Misael and Azaria were called Zadrach Mesech and Abednego Daniel 1.7 and Assuerus changed Hesters name when he took her to be his Queene and called her Hadasha Ester 2. But some may reply that Christ gave Iames and Iohn a new name and called them Bonarges that is Sonnes of thunder I answer that is rather a title then a name and if it were a name it is but an appellative name and not a proper name But Peter got a name by himselfe and a name signifying his prioritie and precedencie and was for the most part called by that name at all occasions And further some are of opinion that Iames and Iohn received also some prerogative from Christ their Master above the rest of the Apostles for the which also there are some probabilities in Scripture all which and such like are speciall evidences that Christ did not establish a paritie among Church officers The third Argument Hee that tooke this precedencie upon him after his name was changed hee received this precedencie when his name was changed But Peter tooke this precedencie upon him after his name was changed And therefore Peter received this precedencie when his name was changed The proposition cannot be but true for if Peter tooke this precedencie upon him after the changing of his name who can say otherwise but he got it when his name was changed since as I said before the changing of names is a signe of honour and preferment As to the assumption that Peter tooke this precedencie upon him after hee received his new name read the Gospell of Saint Mathew and ye will find that the Apostle Peter is the man that for the most part at least takes upon him to speake for all the rest after this time The fourth argument If it was about the time that Christ changed Peters name that the Disciples stroue who should be first then by all appearance Christ at this time gave unto Peter this precedencie But the first is true and therefore the second The strength of the Proposition stands in this that Christ being most wise would needs take away all occasion of falling out and knowing that a precedent was necessarie for avoyding of Schisme and confusion he would sure prevent this danger As to the assumption that it was about this time that the Disciples strove who should be chiefe Compare Mat. 16.17 18. and Marke 9. and Luke 9. read these chapters and consider the doctrine contained in them and ye will find that it was about the time that Christ changed Peters name that the Apostles strove who should be chiefe The fifth Argument Hee for whom Christ payed toll and for none of the rest he gave him a prioritie and precedencie of the rest But Christ payd toll for Peter but for none of the rest And therefore Christ gave to Peter a prioritie and precedencie before the rest The Proposition is very probable for why should Christ have bidden Peter pay toll for him and himselfe only and he had not had some preheminence and precedencie of the rest surely I cannot imagine what other cause there can be alleadged As to the assumtion it is evident Math. 17.27 Take it said Christ and pay it for me and for thee The sixth Argument To whom Christ promised only to give the keys of the kingdome of heaven hee gave him a prioritie and precedencie of the rest of the Apostles But Christ promised only to Peter to give him the keyes of the kingdome of heaven And therefore Christ gave Peter a prioritie and precedencie of the rest of the Apostles The reason of the Proposition is this That Christ should promise only to Peter to give him that which hee made acount to give to all the rest of the Apostles as well as to him an evident argument in my mind of his Prioritie for it was a speciall encouragement to Peter and he was much comforted with hope and assured confidence and expectation of great matters which the rest of the Apostles had not But I know it will be said that the promise was made to Peter in name of the rest I answer it is granted But I beleeve the rest of the Apostles knew not so much themselves neither I thinke could they challenge Christ of any thing was promised to them yea the Apostle thought verily that the promise was only made to him for the promise of Keys the changing of his Name the paying of toll for him the singling out of Peter Iames and Iohn to be witnesses of his transfiguration and raising of Iairus Daughter all these respects Christ shewed to Peter about the same time as may easily be perceived in the Harmonie of the Evangelists which occasioned the murmuring of the rest for the which Christ reproved them Math. 18. and Marke 9. and Luke 9. But I see neither danger nor absurditie to say that the promise was only made to Peter Christ did not give him the Keyes before he gave them to the rest for after his Resurrection only he gave the Keys to them all with one breath as it were he breathed upon them all at once and said to them Receive the holy Ghost whose sinnes yee remit shall be remitted The only difference is this Christ gave Peter some hope and assurance which he gave not the rest The seventh Argument For whom Christ prayed in particular that his faith should not faile and did not so for any of the rest he gave him
Apostle of the circumcision and had a priority of order among the governors of the Church of the Iewes which the Scripture gives him in plaine language let us remember that they that adde to and they that take from the word of God are both subject to the same curse and that they that call evill good and good evill are in the same case For my owne part I dare not but speake the truth as I find it delivered in the Scriptures it is the dutie of all Gods messengers to reveale the whole counsell of God and to keepe back nothing the knowledge whereof is necessary for the promoving of Gods glory and the advancement of the Kingdome of his deare sonne and this point which I maintaine concerning the superiority of Church Governors concerns the externall government of his kingdome I am sure and it is so cleere and evident in Scripture that none that has understanding and can read the Scriptures but may conceive it and my opponents some of them make a Church government a marke of the Church and a part of the Gospell it stands us then greatly in hand to make triall which is that government that Christ hath established in his Church and truely the government which I defend is the onely government which we finde established by Christ and his Apostles and which hath beene in use in the Christian Church in all ages and generations since And that which some of my opponents defend we neither read of it in Scripture not so much as a syllable nor that as it was the government established of any particular Church in the whole Christian world till within these few yeares and truely it makes my haire to stand upon my head to heare so glorious Epithiets given to the Inventions of men as to call their discipline the temple of God Mount Sion the Tabernacle of the Lord the eternall councell of God the Scepter of Iuda a marke of the Church a part of the Gospell these Epithiets stiles are proper to the Apostolicall government to the purity whereof as it is recorded in Scriptures if the government of the Church of England were conformed it might be justly called the holy discipline and enjoy all these forementioned Epithiets O blessed Iesu happy should I thinke my selfe if I should see thy Church in all Christian Kingdomes governed as thou hast prescribed in thy word and thus much I have said for Peters Archiepiscopall priority now I will say somewhat for Paules in the Churches of the Gentiles Saint Augustine saith that Peter was not the head of the Church but an eye in the head and truely if Peter was the one eye I may say that Paul was the other for although that Peter was called among the first of the Apostles by Christ his master and Paul after all yet the Apostle Paul mentions his dignity and degree to bee as high as Peters he was not inferiour he saith to the chiefe Apostle and if we looke to the manner of their calling Pauls calling was much more glorious then Peters even when hee was first called to be a preacher of the Gospell Peter was called when he was going about the workes of his calling Paul when he was raging with all cruelty against the Saints of God Christ arrests him and makes him stand and yeeld Saul Saul why persecutes thou me it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks it was at this time that hee was caught up into paradice and heard unspeakable words which is not lawfull for man to utter 2. Cor. 12. It is no wonder that the Apostle Paul glories in the manner of his calling for none of them were called after so excellent a manner which was a presage of the greatnesse of the worke whereunto he was called which our Saviour makes known to Ananias Act. 9. for he saith to him he is a chosen vessell unto me to beare my name before the Gentiles and Kings and the children of Israel for I will shew him saith the Lord what great things he shall suffer for my names sake this was the first time that hee was called and that onely to be a preacher of the Gospell he was not as yet called to be an Apostle nor he was not advanced some yeares after this to the Apostolicall function not before the Lord appeared to the Prophets and teachers at Antioch and required them to separate to him Barnabas Saul to the worke whereunto he had called them Act. 13. it was at this time that hee was made an Apostle before this time he was no more but one of the Prophets of the Church of Antioch and so called Act. 13.1 after this time he is said to be filled with the Holy Ghost and to be mighty by wonders and miracles after this hee is called by a new name Paul That Paul was the chiefe Apostle of the Churches of the Gentiles he shewes in divers places of his Epistles Eph. 3. he saith for this cause I Paul the prisoner of Iesus Christ for you Gentiles and verse 2. if ye have heard of the dispensation of the mystery of God which was given to you-ward and verse 8. unto me who am lesse then the least of all Saints is this grace given that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ The Apostle saith this grace was given him not because it was only given him but because it was chiefely given him But he most plainely declares his priority in the Churches of the Gentiles Gal. 2. for there hee equalls himselfe with Peter who as I have made manifest had a priority of order among the 12. Apostles and in the whole Iewish Church and doth not in any case acknowledge himselfe inferiour to him neither in order nor degree yea he tells us plainly that the Gospell of the uncircumcision was committed to him as the Gospell of circumcision was committed to Peter which testimony of the Apostle Pauls evidently declares that there was a speciall over-sight committed unto Peter in the Church of the Jewes and unto Paul in the Church of the Gentiles for if it had not beene so why would he compare with Peter and not with the rest not he would have said without all doubt as the Church of the Iewes was committed to Peter Iames and Iohn so the Church of the Gentiles was committed to him and Barnabas Moreover it is evident that Paul his charge had some excellency in it above the ministery of the other Governors of the Church of the Gentiles for although there were others that were Apostles of the Gentiles and namely Barnabas for one yet he appropriates a speciall oversight of the uncircumcision to himselfe in these words He that was effectuall in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision the same was mighty in me towards the gentiles Further Paul telleth us 2. Cor. 11.26 that he had the care of all the Churches viz. of many Churches of the Gentiles this evidently shewes not the greatnesse
from scandalous imputations wherewith I might have been wrongfully charged so here in the end I will produce the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers and godly martyrs that lived in the first centuries of Christianity to make good what we both have said but truly not to prove any thing that I have delivered in my former Discourse for to what use shall a man light a thousand Candles and set them up in his house when the Sunne shineth bright in at the windows and so there is no need of either the testimonies of ancient or moderne Writers when the matter is delivered in the Scripture in plaine and evident termes I will produce them then not to prove any thing that I have said but to be as it were Proctors for me and to defend me from the calumnies and the aspersions of the malevolous and to testifie that I have said nothing but that which is according to the cleere evidence Scripture and whereunto some of them did beare witnesse before and sealed the truth thereof with their blood I will begin with Cyprian S. Cyprian de simpli prolat speaketh thus The rest of the Apostles was the same that Peter was ordained with that same honour and authority but the beginning was from one to demonstrate the Church to be one S. Ambrose writing upon Galat. 2. he saith that Paul nameth only Peter and compareth him with himselfe because he had received the Primacy to found the Church of the Jewes and himselfe was also elected to have the Primacy in founding the Churches of the Gentiles yet so that both Peter might preach to the Gentiles Paul to the Jewes if there were cause for both of them are found to have done both and yet it is knowne that full authority was given to Peter in preaching to the Jewes and full authority to Paul in preaching to the Gentiles And in the glosse S. Ambrose is thus alleaged Which of them doth resist Peter to whom the Lord gave the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven nisi alius talis but such another that knew himselfe by the confidence of his election not to be unequall So saith Ierome Paul doth reprehend Peter because he knew himselfe not to be unequall c. So Ierome on Math. 16. saith that all received the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven yet one is chosen among the twelve that an head being appointed all occasions of schisme might be taken away Chrysostome Hom. 87. saith what meaneth Christ to single out Peter alone and to say thus unto him Peter lovest thou me lovest thou me lovest thou me thrice Feed my sheepe feed my Lambs He was the mouth of the rest saith he and Prince of the Apostles wherefore Paul went up to see him above others for as though he viz. Christ his master had forgotten his denials he committeth unto him the care of his brethren as if he had said as thou lovest me so take a care of thy brethren and the love which thou hast alwaies shewed to me shew now and the life which thou saidest thou wouldest lay downe for me lay downe now for them S. Augustine saith that Peter and Paul were chosen for the salvation of two peoples Peter of the Jewes Paul of the Gentiles Peter to repaire the old and desert fields of Iudea and to make them fruitfull through the wholsomnesse of faith and grace being kept unfruitfull by the shadow of the Law and hidden from the heat of the Sunne but Paul is sent to the Gentiles a new ground that yeelded no fruit before that he might cut it with the plough of the Lords Crosse c Therefore these two are more eminent then the rest of the Apostles and by a certaine peculiar prerogative did excell them all August in fest. Petri Pauli An ancient Writer compares Peter and Paul to the two great Pillars which Solomon set up in the porch of the Temple one upon the right side and an other upon the left side in the enterance into the Temple that upon the right side he called Iachim which signifies established and the other upon the left side he called Boos which signifies strong or strength which two Pillars he compares to Peter and Paul Peter signifiing a rocke most firmely established and the word Paul signifying rest or quietnesse which is opposite to motion and so of such strength as cannot be moved or turned backe So that as Salomon who was a type and figure of Christ being about to build a house unto the Lord did set up two Pillars in the Porch of the Temple one upon the right side and another upon the left Even so Christ the true Salomon being to erect a Church to God here upon earth he set up two Pillars as it were in the entry of this Church so that whosoever desires to enter in the Church of Christ they must enter by the doore which these two Apostles by their doctrine and ministery hath opened both to Jewes and Gentiles and therefore this ancient Authour compares the Jewes to the right side called Iachim to whom Peter was chiefly sent and the Gentiles to the left side called Boos over whom Paul had the chiefe oversight Surely it is mentioned by all the ancient Fathers and moderne Writers without contradiction of any one that these two Apostles had a propriety of order before all the rest of the Apostles and Presbyters the one in the Church of the Jewes the other in the Church of the Gentiles What can be said against the perpetuity and continuance of this priority in the Church of Christ in all ages following I cannot imagine that it was a personall prerogative that these two Apostles had granted them by Christ their Master in the beginning of the Gospell can no waies be said and that for these reasons following First because it is a thing that is morally necessary without the which a Church cannot be governed at all as Calvin saith in plaine tearms Inst it 4. cap. 6. sect. 8. That the 12 Apostles had one among them to governe the rest it was no marvell saith he for nature requireth it and the disposition of men will so have it that in every company although they be all equall in power there be one as Governour by whom the rest shall be directed There is no Court saith he without a Consull no Senate without a Pretor no Colledge without a President no Society without a Master so that whatsoever is morally necessary in all ages Nations Kingdomes Provinces Incorporations Societies can no waies be thought to be a peculiar Prerogative to one or two particular men living in one age or in one Nation and Kingdome Secondly this priority is much more necessary now in a setled Church then it was in a Church while the foundation was but in laying the Apostles calling was universall and they were ordained to preach the Gospell to all Nations and had equall power conferred upon them to preach the Gospell and to
hearing Christ bid Peter pay toll for himselfe and for him and hearing him promise to him the keys of the kingdome of heaven and to none of the rest they tooke occasion and their Mother to goe to Christ and to desire of him that one of them might sit upon his right hand and the other upon his left hand in his kingdome for they dreamed even as all the rest did of a temporall kingdome Math. 20.20 and Mark 10.35 which suit of theirs Christ did not altogether refuse at first but told them that they knew not what they asksd and also asked them if they were able to drinke of the Cup whereof hee was to drinke and be baptized with the Baptisme wherewith he was to be baptized and when it was answered yes Then he tels them that it was his Fathers right to give that which they desired and that it was prepared for others and was to begin in them of his Father in his own time so that by Christ his Answer to Iames and Iohn and their Mother we may easily collect by the way that Christ did not condemne the dignity as unlawfull in it selfe but a proud affectation of the dignitie this he condemnes in his speech to the rest that tooke offence at Iames and Iohn their presumption Christ had promised before that they should sit upon 12. thrones and judge the 12. Tribes of Israel which very well might have sufficed them but they would needs contest who should be chiefe among themselves they would not commit it to their Masters arbitrement and therefore Christ telleth them who must be this chiefe not he that affected it most not he that aspired to it out of a conceit of his owne worth but hee that was humble and meeke and lowly and therefore Christ said to them that he that was lest among them all to wit in conceit he should bee greatest yea further saith our Saviour hee must bee like a little child in his owne eyes A child although he be the sonne of a Prince he will make himselfe companion to the sonne of a peasant even so they that have chiefe place among Gods Ministers must account all the rest as brethren yea as Christ saith they must be servants to the rest even as Christ was As he that serveth so must they that have chiefe place under Christ in his Church be as servants to the rest of their inferiour Ministers and this made Origen to say That he that was called to a Bishoprick was called unto the service of the Church Homil. 6. in Esaiam and the Counsell of Carthage decreed 4. Can. 34. wheresoever a Bishop sitteth he must not suffer a simple Priest to stand before him and that the Bishop in the Assembly of Priests ought to sit in the highest place but within the house let him know that he is their fellow Now I will beg leave of the learned to vent a certaine conjecture of my owne which I hope shall give offence to none which conjecture Iames and Iohn and their Mothers petition to Christ and Christs answer to them againe has given mee occasion to apprehend The affectionate Mother being desirous of her sonnes preferment shee comes in all humility and falls downe before him and earnestly intreates him on the behalfe of her sonnes that one of them might sit on his right hand and another on his left hand in his kingdome she expected that at this time Christ was to restore the kingdome to Israel and she would faine have had her two sonnes in the most honourable roomes of Christs Court little knew they that Christs kingdome was not of this world and therefore hee tells her and her sonnes both that they knew not what they asked and yet he answered her according to her owne mind as he did the Disciples after his Resurrection when they asked him if he was to restore the kingdome to Israel at that time he answered that it was not for them to know the times and seasons which the Lord had in his owne hand Even so our Saviour Christ answered the sonnes of Zebedee and their Mother These dignities saith he the bestowing of them is not in my hand but in my Fathers and they shall bee given of my Father to them for whom they are prepared I am confident that Christ by this answer of his doth not meane of any two that were to be advanced to the highest degrees of glory in heaven for first because this were not to answer ad rem for her meaning was of some dignities here upon earth and therefore wee must not thinke but Christ would answer her according to her owne meaning next we doe not reade of any right hand or left hand that Christ shall have in heaven or of any that shall sit upon either of his hands there wee reade of his Fathers right hand where Christ sits for the present and shall sit untill his second comming to Judgement wee reade also of degrees of glory in heaven but not in these termes but the good woman had no such meaning her meaning was of the greatest dignities upon earth as Christ had to bestow and therefore I thinke that our Saviour meanes of two to whom his Father was to give the two greatest dignities in his Church the event shewes moe that Christ doth meane of these For he had advanced the 12. Apostles to 12. Thrones and had given them power to tread on Serpents and Scorpions hee had promised to give them the keyes of the kingdome of heaven that they might shut it upon the impenitent and open it to the penitent greater power they could not get greater dignity they might it was but honour and dignitie that the sonnes of Zebedee craved and that upon earth too they desired not power and authoritie over their brethren And this dignitie was no more but a primacie of moderation and a prioritie of order amongst the Governours of the Church that Christ had to bestow upon those for whom his Father had prepared it Christ was not to distribute to any of his Apostles state imployment and places of honour and dignities in the Common-wealth he left that to bee done by worldly Monarchs Now I find in the Scriptures that our Saviour Christ gave this prioritie of order and primacie of moderation to two of his Apostles and honoured them as it were the one upon his right hand and the other upon his left hand these two Apostles were Peter and Paul the one to have prioritie of order in the Church of the Jewes the other in the Churches of the Gentiles that Christ gave the chiefe precedencie amongst the 12. Apostles to the Apostle Peter it is more then evident in the Scriptures for is it also for Pauls moderation in the Churches of the Gentiles The 12. Apostles were first appointed by their Master to be chiefe Governours of the Church of the Jewes and therefore when Christ sent them out two and two to preach the Gospell hee directed them
name of the rest and received the promise in name of the rest And therefore Saint Peter was speaker prolocutor for all the rest I hope my Opponents will deny nothing that is here affirmed and therefore by their own confession I conclude that Peter had a priority of order and a precedencie of Moderation amongst the Apostles The fourth Argument He whom the Angell in particular commanded Mary to tell the Christ was risen from the dead and none of the rest had some sort of preheminence before the rest But the Angel commanded Mary to tell Peter by name and none of the rest that Christ was risen again from the dead Mark 16.7 And therefore Peter had some preheminence before the rest Truly in my judgment this is a strong argument to prove that Peter was in place and dignity before the rest of the Apostles or otherways I think the Angell of God would never have mentioned Peter by himselfe and all the rest of the Disciples in grosse The fift Argument He whom Paul preferred in his respects to all the rest of the Apostles had some precedency of the rest of the Apostles But the Apostle Paul preferred Peter in his respects to all the rest of the Apostles And therefore Peter had some precedencie of the rest of the Apost. Now why the Apostle Paul should respect and honour Saint Peter more then the rest of the Apostles I know no reason except hee had had some place and preheminence of the rest That hee respected him more then the rest we find Gal. 1.18 for he saith there that hee went up to Ierusalem three yeers after his conversion of purpose to see Peter and remayned with him 15 days I will only aske my opponents for what cause he went up to see Peter more then Iames who was Bishop of Ierusalem The sixt Argument He who took precedency upon him de facto be had it de jure But Saint Peter took precedency upon him de facto And therefore he had it de jure Either the proposition must be true or else we must say that Saint Peter took more upon him then he had good right to challenge and so in this particular erred de facto which no Divine ever said or dare say and if any man durst be bold to say it I durst take the boldnesse upon me to say that it were little lesse then blasphemy But some may say that the Apostle Peter had this right of moderation de jure Apostolico I answer if it were so all were one thing in effect for that which the apostles did they did it by the motion of the spirit and if the apostles did chuse Saint Peter to be their speaker being a man of most singular parts why may wee not yea why should wee not follow their example in giving to the most worthy for gifts and graces the precedency of Government I think the practice of the apostles should be a law to us But the truth is there is not so much as any shew or appearance in the Scriptures that the rest of the apostles conferred this moderation upon the apostle Peter but what probability there is yea what convincing arguments for his Master Christs donation of it I refer to the judicious Reader The seventh Argument He that took a speciall care not only of Jewish Churches throughout the land of Judea but of those Jews also that sojourned in other Nations had the chief care of the circumcision and consequently both of pastors and people But the Apostle Peter took a speciall care not only of the Christian Iews that lived in the land of Iudea but also of those who dwels in other nations And therfore Peter had the chief charge of the Circumcision and consequently both of the pastors and the people The truth of the proposition appeares by his writing to the one and remayning with the other Both his Epistles are written to the dispersed Tribes and that he remayned in Iudea for many yeers after the ascention of Christ is evident Gal. 1. for Paul not only three yeers after his conversion went up of purpose to Ierusalem to see Peter but 14 yeers thereafter when he went up hee found Peter there and that Peter had an oversight both of pastors and people wee find in his first Epistle where he writes to both and exhorts the Elders that is their Ministers both of the first and second order but in speciall their chief Governours and forbids them to exercise their power tyrannically over their inferiours 1 Pet. 5.1,2,3 and in his second Epistle 1.12 hee saith that hee will not be negligent to put them alwayes in remembrance of these things though they know them and be established in the truth yea I think it meet saith he Verse 15 as long as I am in this Tabernacle to stir you up by putting you in remembrance and Verse 15. he saith I will endevour that you may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance so that hereby it appeares infallibly that Peter had the chief over-sight of the Church of the Jews both at home and abroad and consequently both of pastors and people By these arguments it is manifest that the apostle Peter had a priority and a precedency in the Church of the Jews follows to prove that his Master and Saviour Christ gave it him The first Argument He to whom Christ communicated himself most with whom he was most familiar and to whom he did commit his speciall affairs most yea whom he purposed to make one of the chief instruments of the advancement of his Kingdom to him he gave some preferment and advancement more then he did to the rest of the Apostles But to Peter Christ communicated himself most with Peter he was most familiar and to him he did commit his speciall affairs most yea and him he purposed to make the chief instrument of the advancement of his Kingdom And therefore hee gave Peter some preferment and advancement that he gave not to the rest of the Apostles The truth of the proposition appears by this similitude of Kings and princes if they set their affection upon on man more then another chuse him to be their neerest minion at lest they wil give him some title of honour above the rest of their Court that all others may honour him the more and will advance him to some places of dignity and preheminence which indeed will make all others to respect him and reverence him because they see the Kings affection set upon him when King Assuerus resolved to honour Mordecai hee commanded Haman to put his Robe Royall upon him and to set him on his best horse and to lead him through the City of Susan and proclaime before him Thus shall it be done to him whom the King will honour how much more whomsoever the King of Kings desires to honour moethen others in this life will he advance to some dignity at least in the face of the