ARCHIEPISCOPAL PRIORITY INSTITUTED BY CHRIST PROVED By plaine Testimonies of Scripture Asserted By the Ancient Fathers And whereunto all the moderne Divines of the Protestant side doe fully assent without contradiction of any one man By SAMUEL DANIEL Master of Arts I KING 7. 21. And he set up the Pillars in the Porch of the Temple And hee set up the right Pillar and called the name thereof Jachim And he set up the left Pillar and called the name thereof Boaz GAL. 2. 7 8. But contrariwise when they saw that the Gospell of the Vncircumcision was committed unto me as the Gospell of the Circumcision was unto Peter for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision the same was mighty in mee toward the Gentiles Printed Anno 1642. To the godly and indifferent Reader COurteous Reader I foresee that at the first view of the title of this Booke you will thinke strange to heare such an assertion affirmed never being purposely maintained in a particular theme and position by any Divine untill this time But I pray you first reade and then judge I hope you shall find that it is no new broached doctrine but asserted by many learned Divines of our owne religion and contradicted by none I know no Divine that denies that Peter had a prioritie of order in the Church of the Iewes I will say no more I onely desire you to reade the discourse and I hope you shall finde it a doctrine not only assented to by all our best Divines but maintained by all the ancient Fathers who have written on that Subject yea which is most of all delivered both to them and us by Christ and his Apostles so plainly in the Scriptures that in my judgement there can be nothing more plaine I grant all the Arguments that are brought by me from the Scriptures to prove Saint Peters prioritie in the Church of the Iewes and Saint Pauls in the Church of the Gentiles are not demonstrative and their conclusions necessarie the most part are and the Arguments so strong that I in my most serious meditations cannot imagine how they can bee answered and those Inferences that are but probable being joyned together are strong enough Nam quae non prosunt singula multa juvant As for the places of Scripture set downe in my first paralell I grant they doe not all beare witnesse for three degress of Church Governours the most part doe and all the rest are plaine enough for two even for the first two Bishops and Presbiters which is sufficient to shew the Imparitie of Church-men and the divine right of Episcopall Government If ye aske me why I have not set downe the paralell places for the contrarie opinion of my opponents I answer because I find not one place-in all the New Testament to prove a paritie of Church Governours nor yet denying an Imparitie If any Divine will produce one place from which so much as a probable conclusion may be inferred for the Paritie of Church-men I will say as the Proverb speakes Erit mihi magnus Apollo Well Reader I begge not thy favour I hope the truth shall procure thy affection if thou wilt be pleased but to reade diligently and consider seriously the doctrine delivered in this discourse and with indifferencie of judgement ponder the reasons on both sides and the perspicuitie of Scripture from the which these reasons are drawne and I hope in the mercie of God he will make the truth manifest to thy understanding which the Lord grant for Christs sake Farewell Archiepiscopall prioritie Instituted by CHRIST IOsephus de bello Iudaico affirmes that in the dayes of Ptolomeus Philopater Gabbaeus and Theodosius two Samaritans kept a disputation at Alexandria against Adronicus and other Iewes for defence of their Temple which stood upon Mount Gerizim and undertooke to bring proofes of their assertion out of the Law But they could not doe it and therefore the King adjudged them to die Now I professe before all the world if I doe not prove from the Scriptures of the New Testament the Order established by Christ for the Government of his Church under the Gospell to be Hierarchicall I shall be content to suffer for my presumption only let mee have one thing granted that if my Opponents doe not prove their Paritie of the Ministers of the Word and mixt Government by cleere evidence of Scripture and convincing Arguments that they be subject to the same punishment But oh if that Law of the Locrians were in force in this Kingdome that they who petition for the change and abolishing of old Lawes and establishing of new should come with ropes about their necks willingly offering themselves to suffer for their attempt if they did not prove the New better then the Old Alas I say what would become of many of my Opponents who are not once able to produce one cleare and plaine testimonie of Scripture for their Paritie no not any of the three Armies of my opponents neither those who are for the Presbiterial Government nor these who stand for Parochial nor that third sort who defends the necessitie of Familie exercises and separate Congregations Nay which is more they are not able to prove their Assertions by any necessarie and immediate consequence drawn from any place in Scripture Now this must be held for a ground That whatsoever is not set downe in Scripture in plaine and evident termes nor yet can be drawne from thence by a just and immediate consequence is only to be counted an humane ordination But to come to the point I will undertake by the assistance of Gods Spirit to prove in the following discourse that our wise and provident Master and Saviour Jesus Christ as he appointed degrees of Church officers under the Gospell so hath he also established an order and a prioritie among the chiefe Governours themselves For he who is wisdome it selfe appointing a certaine number of chiefe Governours of equall power and authoritie and knowing that equalitie breeds confusion most wisely did appoint who should be their speaker and prolocutor and order all things in their meetings and assemblies and so in this also left us a patterne to follow in after ages as his Father gave unto Moses a patterne both of his worship and the government of his Church under the Law Now because this doctrine may be subject to mistaking and the malevolous may calumniate I will follow the example of the Apostle Paul whose wisdome it was at all times to prevent calumnies and cavils as in the Epistle to the Phil. 4.10 to the conclusion of the Epistle being to commend them for their beneficence and liberalitie exercised towards him lest some malecontents should have suspected his sinceritie and thought that hee had beene a man that had respected more the fleece then the flocke and had set before his eyes in the course of his ministerie his owne ends and advantage hee prevents this mistake before he insists in
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
only to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel and therefore Peter having precedencie amongst them it behoved to be in the Church of the Iewes only But the Apostle Paul makes this manifest Gal. 2. where he tels us in plaine termes that the Gospell of the Circumcision was committed to Peter and the Gospell of the uncircumcision was committed unto him The Apostle Paul could not say this if there had not bin some difference betweene their ministerie and the ministerie of the rest of the Apostles for both the Gospell of the Circumcision and the Gospell of the uncircumcision was committed to the rest of the Apostles and to all others that were to be ordained by them and advanced to the Apostolicall and Episâ—opall charge by vertue of that commandement Goe teach all Nations c. but this is said because of that distinction that Christ made for order sake that the chiefe care of the one should be in the Church of the Iewes and the chiefe care of the other in the Churches of the Gentiles so that it was lawfull still for the rest of the Apostles to preach to either Iewes or Gentiles and also for Peter and Paul to preach to either and so we see they did when occasion served Now who was it that made this distinction Without all question it was Christ himselfe as the Apostle Paul makes manifest Gal. 2. 7. But when they saw saith the Apostle that the Gospel over the uncircumcision was committed to mee as the Gospell of the Circumcision was committed to Peter These words can have no sence unlesse there bee some difference betweene the charge of the rest of the Apostles and the emploiment of Peter and Paul made by Christ himselfe for he saith when the Apostles saw to wit the Apostles there mentioned Peter Iames and Iohn saw that the Gospell of the Uncircumcision c. the Apostle Paul takes it for granted that the Gospell of the circumcision was committed unto Peter as the relative word as doth demonstrate for these Apostles saw as the one was committed to Peter so the other was committed to Paul These Apostles made not this difference then they saw that it was made they did not commit this charge to Paul they saw that it was commited by another even by him by whom the Gospell of circumcision was committed to Peter their Master and Saviour Christ which the Apostle Paul makes plaine for himselfe Gal. 1.15 But when it pleased God saith hee that separated me from my mothers wombe and called me by his grace to reveale his Sonne in me that I might preach him among the heathen So that the Apostle acknowledges that both he received the degree of Apostleship from Christ and the dignity in the degree to be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles This may be also collected out of the words for in that he saith that the Gospell of uncircumcision was committed unto him as the Gospell of Circumcision was committed to Peter he sheweth cleerely that he hath a prioritie of order in the Churches of the Gentiles as Peter had in the Church of the Jewes That Peter had this prioritie beside the evident testimonies of Scripture proving it as wee shall see by and by by Gods grace his priority is insinuated in the same words for if there were not some singularitie in the Apostleship of Peter Paul would not have said when the Apostles saw that the Gospell of uncircumcision was committed to me as the Gospell of circumcision was committed unto Peter but he would have said when the Apostle saw that the Gospell of uncircircumcision was committed unto him and Barnabas as the Gospell of Circumcision was committed unto them if he had spoken so then we might have truly said that as there was no difference in degree among them all so there was no distinction in dignitie But I will prove first that Peter had this prioritie granted him by Christ in the Church of the Jewes and next that hee gave it also to Paul in the Churches of the Gentiles and first I will lay downe my grounds out of Scripture and then forme my Arguments out of these grounds There is one ground for both their precedencies and it is this that both their names were changed wee see cleerely that Christ gave Simon a new name and called him Peter but who changed the others name it is not revealed I am verily of that mind that Christ did it too for in the 13. of the Acts where it is recorded that Paul and Barnabas by Gods direction were separate for the Apostolicall charge it is said there by the Holy Ghost to the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch Separate 〈◊〉 Barnabas and Saul for the worke whereunto I have called them After this time he is never any more called Saul but once and then his new name is related then Saul otherwise called Paul saith Luke filled with the Holy Ghost and so as soone as he is said to be filled with the Holy Ghost as soone is he called Paul and never any more Saul Now this changing of the two Apostles names was a speciall signe of honour and preferment as the changing of the name of Abram to Abraham was not only a signification of the multitude of his posteritie but also a signe of his preferment and the Lords respects to him So the changing of Iacobs name into the name of Israel did not only testifie that he had prevailed with God but it was a signe of Gods great love to him and of his prevailing with men Even so the changing of these two Apostles names was an argument of Gods great respects to them and of their preferment and advancement in the Church of Christ and also it was a signe of the great worke that the Lord was to accomplish by their Ministerie both among Jewes and Gentiles For Peters precedencie among the Apostles we have many evidences for it in Scripture for first he was one of the three who was most respected by Christ and also had place of the other two for he is alwayes first named by all the foure Evangelists hee gets a new name by himselfe and the other two gets both of them but one name Boanarges Sons of Thunder Peter againe is more employed in Christs affaires and Christ is more familiar with him then any of the rest when there was toll required of Christ he directed Peter to cast an angle in the Sea and hee should get in the mouth of the first fish that came to his hand a piece of money Take it saith Christ and give it for me and thee Math. 17.27 but no word of the rest this notes some preheminence It was Peter that answered Christ when hee asked his Disciples Whom say yee that I am Thou art Christ saith Peter the Sonne of the living God Math. 16.16 It was Peter that drew Christ aside and would have advised him not to goe up to Iervsalem Math. 16.22 It was Peter that said to Christ when he
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
amplifying of their love and kindnesse towards him I speake not this saith he in respect of want for I have learned in whatsoever estate I am therewith to be content c. Even so before I enter upon this discourse I will premise the testimoniâ—s of some Protestant Divines and some of the precisest straine too who affirme all that in substance which I maintaine in this discourse and these testimonies I doe the rather set downe in the beginning because I have resolved not to confirme any thing that I am to deliver in all this Treatise by the testimonie of any Divine ancient or moderne but only by the Scriptures of the New Testament wherewith I am able to prove that the testimonies of all the ancients doe also accord and this course chiefly I follow because my opponents use to brag of the Scriptures as if all that they say were Scripture it selfe wheras it is nothing else but a meere abusing of the word of God and throwing of it like a nose of waxe which way they will and as Tertullian saith a very murthering of the Scriptures for their owne purpose I know it to bee true they make the Scripture speake many times that which neither the Penner nor the Dictator ever minded My chiefe purpose in this Discourse is to prove that as Christ did ordaine certaine men to be chiefe Governours of his Church so hath he oâ—dained among these Governours a Prioritie of order and a primacie of moderation but let no man mistake and thinke that this Assertion doth favour in any wayes the Popes pretended supremacie but let him consider that there is a great difference betweene a Primacie and a Supremacie a dignitie and a degree a prioritie and a superioritie a primacie of moderation and a supremacie of Jurisdiction a dignitie of estimation and a degree of exaltation a prioritie of order and a superioritie of power Primacie of moderation and prioritie of Order which cannot be without some dignitie and estimation may be yea must be in all companies and incorporations in all meetings and assemblies whatsoever And Christ with his owne mouth did appoint this prioritie of order among these chiefe Governours whom he authorized himselfe with equall power and authoritie Yea I know no Divine that denyes that Peter had a Prioritie of order amongst the rest of the Apostles and how can they for it is evident in the Scriptures that he had it both de jure de facto but before I bring Scripture for it I will produce the testimonies of some Protestant Divines to prevent cavils and I will begin with Calvin Calvin in the fourth booke of his Institutions cap. 6. Sect. 8. saith that the twelve Apostles had one among them to Governe the rest and 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 bee directed There is no Court without a Counsell no Senate without a Pretor no Colledge without a President no Society without a Master Yea he saith farther speaking of the Government of the ancient Church that every Province had a Archbishop among their Bishops and that the Councell of Nice did appoint Patriarchs which should be in order and dignitie above Archbishops It was done saith he for the preservation of Discipline although in this discourse wee may not forget that it was a thing very rare For this cause therefore were these degrees especially appointed that if any thing shall happen in any particular Church which could not there be decided the same might bee referred to a generall Synod and if the greatnesse or difficulty of the cause required yet greater consultation there were added Patriarchs together with the Synods from whom there could be no appeale but only to a generall Counsell This kind of Government saith he some call an Hierarchie a name unproper and not used in the Scriptures as I thinke for the holy Ghost would not have us to dreame of any dominion or rule when question is made of Church-Government but omitting the name if we consider the thing it selfe we shall find that those old Bishops would not frame any other kind of Government of the Church then that which God prescribed in his Word so that Calvin was of opinion that not only Archbishops are of Gods Institution but also Patriarchs Piscator in his Appendix Ad Analysin Matthaei pag. 22. grants that Peter was speaker and prolocutor for the rest of the Apostles wee grant saith he that Peter answered in name of the rest of the Apostles as their mouth but not as their Prince and Head this we deny Bucerus de vi usu ministerij pag. 565. speaking of Bishops and Metropolitans and of their authority over the Churches and Ministers within their Diocesses and Provinces he saith it was agreeable to the law of Christ Hemingius in Enchir pag. 367. saith that Paul by order and dignitie was superiour to Tim. and Tit. and Tim. in degree and order excelled all the other Presbiters of Ephesus and that Titus was chiefe Governour of the Cretians Here this learned Divine acknowledgeth that Paul was an Archbishop because in order and dignitie above Timothy and Titus and that Tim. and Titus were Bishops because both in order and degree above their inferiour Presbiters which I thinke no man will say was done but by the speciall ordinance of God Iewel in his defence against Harding 4. Art pag. 195. saith that the rest of the Apostles honoured Saint Peter as the speciall member of Christs body with all reverence and so by this speech acknowledgeth his primacie of moderation and priority of order Willet Synop. pagina 274. saith that there was a priority of order amongst the Apostles themselves although in respect of their Apostleship they were all of one authority much more saith he should there be order and degrees among the Ministers of the Church who are inferiour to the Apostles And againe he saith that Paul was ordained the chiefe Apostle of the uncircumcision and Peter of the Circumcision Gal. 2.2 and further he saith we also grant that Peter when hee confessed Christ for and in the name of the rest had a Primacie of order and a priority at that time who also for and in the name of the rest received the Keys of the Church and thus much saith he Cyprian acknowledgeth Hoc erant caeteri Apost. quod fuit Petrus the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was having the fellowship of power and honour but the beginning is from one that the Church may appeare to be one De simplicitati praelat In these words of Cyprians quoted by Willet to confirme his preceding doctrine acknowledgeth first a prioritie of order amongst the Apostles next that Peter had this prioritie thirdly that Peter was chiefe Apostle of the Circumcision and Paul of the uncircumcision Fourthly hee
acknowledgeth that when Peter confessed Christ in name of the rest and received the keys in name of the rest that then he received this Prioritie of order And lastly confirmes all this by the Testimonie of Cyprian Willet in plaine termes speakes for Peters prioritie pag. 155. Wee deny not saith he a primacie of order to have beene in Peter but that hee was the head and commander of the rest that we deny Chemnitius in his Harmony cap. 50. pag. 517. grants to Peter a primacie amongst the Apostles but denyes that he hath any supremacie above the rest as it is saith he most apparent that Peter was chiefe among the Apostles notwithstanding his dominion over the Clergie can no wayes be proved Lysetus pag. 1231. Harmon saith It is one thing to be first for orders sake among those who are of equall authority and another thing to have power and Authority over their brethren the first we grant Peter received of his Master but not the second Marlorat upon the 1 Cor. 9.5 saith We acknowledge Peter to have bin the first of the Apostles as it is ever necessary in all meetings that there be one to preside but this primacie of Peters was not a domination nor a cōmanding power yea he saith further that he had it with the cōsent of all the Apostles so that by this it appeares that Marlorat is of this mind that although the rest of the Apostles grudgedat Iames Iohns aspiring to this dignity yet they were all content that Peter should have it Dodelius on the Epistle to the Ephesians written by Ignatius fol. 240. confesseth that Peter was called the mouth of the Apostles because he was Ordine princeps that is first and chiefe in order and precedencie Fulk Rh. Test. Gal. 2. Anotat Therefore it was not lawfull to Peter to whom by God was committed the chiefe Apostleship of the Circumcision to forsake this charge and take upon him the chiefe Apostleship of the Gentiles and againe he saith though he came to Rome and preached at Rome and died at Rome yet he was the chiefe Apostle of the Circumcision still and Paul the chiefe Apostle of the uncircumcision and Gentiles therefore the Pope might more probably have conveyed his title of Supremacie from Saint Paul then from Saint Peter Perkins on the Galat. cap. 2. The Apostle S. Paul was ordained by God to be the chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles as St. Peter was of the Jewes and Iames and Cephas and Iohn that were the chiefe Apostles did acknowledge him for their Colleague and gave him the right hand of fellowship Perkins upon the 2. Galat. ver. 9. which Text makes saith he against the Primacie of Peter and so by consequence against the Supremacie of the Pope in regard Saint Paul was chiefe Apostle of the Gentiles who were farre more in number then the Jewes Cartwright on the Rhem. Test. as I remember on the same place of Scripture hath a very good note to the same purpose I could bring the testimonies of many other Divines to prove my assertion if it were needfull and that both ancient and moderne only I will use one of Saint Augustines He writing upon Iohn saith Petrus Apostolus Propter Apostolatus primatum c. Peter the Apostle because of his Apostolicall prioritie by the generalitie of a figure he sustained the person of the Church as concerning Peter himselfe by nature hee was but one man by grace one and the first Apostle but when it was said to him Tibi dabo claves universam significabat ecclesians c. Augustine here gives unto Peter a primacie and a prioritie and this hee saith he had by grace that is by the favour and benevolence of his Master and yet when he recived the keyes he received them in the name of the whole Church saith he that is for the benefit of the whole Church Now I hope the testimonie of these godly and learned Divines will defend me from the aspersion of Poperie I know all are called Papists by my opponents that in any wayes opposeth their tenets concerning the Government of the Church but the truth is the Papists and my opponents are both in extremities and none of them can endure Moderation and a middle course wherein I am sure the vertue consists Even as the liberall and charitable man by the covetous niggard who is the extreame in defectu is called prodigall And againe by the prodigall waster who is the extreame in excessu is called a niggard So the meeke charitable and moderate Divine by the Papist who is the extreame in excessu is called a Puritane and by the Puritane who is the extreame in defectu is called a Papist But for any thing that I shall deliver here by the grace of God I shall be as free of poperie as any of the foresaid Divines for they doe all maintaine all that I shall say which in any kind may bee thought to smell of poperie and not they only but all the Commentators that I have read upon those places out of which I bring my arguments Yea I know no Divine that denies Peter a primacie of moderation and a prioritie of order and yet as I said before I bring not in their testimonies of purpose to prove what I am to say but to prevent the cavils and calumnies of the malevolous Well if my opponents mouthes be not stopped by this meanes I hope the cleere evidence of Scripture shall doe it for great is truth and it prevaileth I may here truly affirme that the doctrine which I maintaine is the most powerfull means to throw downe the Tower of Babel yea and to allay the pride of all those who will not be content with that dignity which Christ gave unto Peter nor those degrees of Church Governours which Christ with his own mouth appointed for the government of his Church untill his second comming to Judgement but exalt themselves above all that is called God and curse with bell and candle all those that in the sinceritie of their hearts and meeknesse of spirit refuses to sweare and subscribe to thier tenets I find in the doctrine of the Evangelists that there was a strife and contestation among the twelve Apostles who should be chiefe among them and that which gave occasion of this strife was Christs familiaritie with Peter Iames and Iohn he preferred them much in his respects to all the rest he tooke them to an high mountaine and suffered them to see him in his glory at the transfiguration and in the Garden of Gethsemanie in his greatest agonie he suffered also those three to bee with him when he raised Iairus daughter to life but none of the reste This respecting of them thus made the rest to murmure and grudge a little at it but I am of opinion that the greatest contestation was among the three Disciples whom Christ respected most for wee see that Iames and Iohn and their Mother being jealous of Peters preferment
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
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
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
all people and languages but certaine particular persons whom Christ calleth his sheepe here and his lambes now all those whom the Apostles in generall are commanded to teach cannot be called Christs sheep or his lambs for they were cōmanded to teach all in generall without exception Goe preach the Gospel to every creature saith Christ Marke 16. by every creature here is meant all men as I thinke all men will confesse but all men are not Christs sheepe nor Christs lambes and therefore some particular persons must be understood here now who are these I answer Some thinke that by sheepe here is understood strong Christians and by lambes weake Christians but this cannot be because at this time I thinke there was not many strong Christians it was hard then to discerne betweene the strong and the weake even the Apostles themselves were but weake at this time as we may perceive by that question which they proponed to Christ to wit if he was to restore the Kingdome to Israel at that time They minded still a temporall kingdome and as long as they expected such a kingdome no man will say that they were strong Christians they were but all weak untill the Pentecost at which time the holy Ghost strengthened them abundantly Neither can be understood by sheep antient Christians and by lambs new converts for all that did stick to Christ at this time they were no doubt Christs antientest Disciples that had beene for a long time in his companie that had long heard his doctrine and seene his miracles neither can be understood Gods elect who are called his sheepe in the Scriptures and also his lambs for then there should be no difference between the two words Lambs and Sheep but they doe signifie divers things as all Interpreters accords and certainly the elect cannot be understood here because it will follow that Peter did know who was elect and who not and so this commission given to Peter had beene contrary to the generall commission given afore to all neither is understood inferiour Ministers and the people for all the rest of the Apostles had this oversight as well as Peter and layd upon them all by Christ in the generall commission but by all probabilitie is understood here by sheepe the rest of the Apostles and by Lambs the 70. Disciples and all those that were to be joyned to them in either of the functions this commandement is equivalent to that which he gave him before his death saying When thou art converted strengthen thy brethren Luk. 22.32 but howsoever understand whom ye will of all these forementioned divisions it is a particular commission given to the Apostle Peter after the Generall was given to all which is an argument of his particular over-sight over all both Pastors and people for I hope wee will not except any sorts of Pastors out of the number of Gods sheep I gant that threefold confession which Christ expostulates of Peter had a reference to Peters threefold denyall for as Peter denied his Master thrice so his Master to testifie his earnest repentance would have him to make a threefold confession for every time that he denyed him he would have him to make as many confessions and professions of his love to him but there is a great difference between Peters confession and his Masters commission the confession came from Peter and rested as it were in Christ the commission contrary wayes proceeded from Christ and was terminate in Peter that Christ then gave Peter this commission was because of the generall charge he had over all The eleventh Argument Whom Christ forewarned of the manner of his death and encouraged him patiently to endure unto the end and did not so to any of the rest was in dignitie and estimation above the rest by Christ his owne ordinance But Christ forewarned Peter of the manner of his death and incouraged him to endure patiently to the end and did not so to any of the rest And therfore Peter was in dignitie and estimation above the rest by Christs owne ordinance The truth of the Proposition stands in this that if Christ had not preferred Peter to some dignitie above the rest hee would not have used him so respectively and incouraged him so many and divers wayes and not the rest of the Apostles The assumption is manifest Iob. 21.18.19 Verely verely I say unto thee When thou wast young c. The twelfth Argument Hee that was appointed by Christ to be the chiefe Apostle of the Circumcision received from Christ a prioritie and precedencie of the rest of the Apostles But the Apostle Peter was appointed by Christ to be the chiefe Apostle of the Circumcision And therefore the Apostle Peter received from Christ a prioritie and a precedencie of the rest of the Apostles Either this primacie which our Saviour Christ gave unto Peter did consist in a prioritie and precedencie or in a superioritie of power and Authority but this cannot be granted because we see no warrant for it in Scripture at all and therefore of necessitie this prioritie and precedencie for orders fake must be granted him As to the assumption that Christ appointed S. Peter to be the chiefe Apostle of the Circumcision is manifest Gal. 2.7 where the Apostle Paul saith that the Gospell of the Circumcision was committed to Peter and that the rest of the Apostles saw that it was committed unto him Now I ask by whom saw they that it was committed unto him by Christ only sure for none other could commit it unto him but either Christ or his Apostles the Apostle did not commit it for they saw it was committed by another and consequently by Christ and this Willet in his Synop. pag. 156. affirmeth that Christ himselfe made this distinction But here it will be objected that the Gospell of the Circumcision was committed to all the rest as well as Peter I answer it was committed to all the Apostles alike to preach the Gospell to all Nations but the Church of the Jews was chiefly recommended to Peter for even by that particular commission which Christ gave to Peter to feed his sheep to feed his lambs Some understand this particular charge of Peters over the Jewish nation for our Saviour Christ before called them his sheepe when he first gave them all a commission to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel and indeed this charge before Christs death was layd upon all alike but after his Resurrection he inlarged their charge and commanded them to teach all Nations and withall gave the speciall oversight of the Jews to S. Peter as is most cleer evident by the testimony of the Apostle Paul Gal. 2.7 The necessity of this precedencie comes to be spoken of in the third place of the which I wil speak but a little that a speaker a precedent is necessary nature reason and experience teacheth us yea that it is necessary both necessitate medij necessitate praecepti
opponents will say that by this dâ—ctrine I give too much advantage to Papists in affirming Peter to have been primus Apostolus and chiefe Over-seer of the rest Truly these brethren exposes their weaknnesse to the World for they neither know what popery is nor what it is to oppose Popery to mayntain Bishops to have been instituted by Christ and that Christ did chuse one to be their chief President and Moderator is so far from being Popery that it is directly against it for papists will have Bishops to be the Popes creatures and not Christs they will have the calling of Bishops only to be de jure humano and not divino and that Bishops are no more but Priests and that Bishops and Presbyters are but one order and that all are equall secundam consecrationem Eucharistiae in regard of their equall power to consecrate the Eucharist and all this they say to maintain the Popes pretended supremacy for Bellarmine that great champion of Rome affirms that the calling of the 11 Apostles was extraordinary and that they were Christs extraordinary Embassadours and that Peter was only appointed by Christ to be the ordinary and chief pastor of the Church and that hee and his successours the Popes should govern the universall Church in all ages to come now I refer it to the judgment of all Christians to judge between mee and my opponents whether I accord with the papists in most things or they this shall be the parallel the papists say that the calling of the Apostle was but temporary and not perpetuall so doth my opponents the papists say that the 11 Apostles was but Christs extraordinary Embassadors so doth my opponents the papists say that the Episcopall function is not de jure divino but humano so doth my opponents the papists say that Bishops and presbyters are all one order so doth my opponents in all these I am opposite to the papists for I mayntaine that the calling of the Apostles was an ordinary calling and that the Apostles was ordained by Christ to be the chiefe Governours of the Church and to have successours in all ages and generations to come superiour both in dignity and degree to inferiour presbyters But my opponents will say although I doe not agree with the papists in the forementioned heads concerning the Episcopall Function yet I jump with them in making Peter to be the chief of the Apostles and here also I desire all good Christians to be judge in this case this is the parallel The papists say that Peter was in degree before the rest of the Apostles I only that he was before them in dignity The papists say that Peter had a supremacy of jurisdiction above the rest of the Apostles I that hee had only a primacy of moderation the papists say that Peter had granted him by his Master a superiority of power and authority in his Church I say that his Master gave him only a priority of order in it The papists say that Christ made Peter Universall Bishop over his whole Church throughout the World I say that Christ committed only to him the chiefe Apostleship of the Circumcision the papists say that Peter was both in dignity and degree above Paul Peter was chief they say and Paul only Legatus à latere I say that Paul was equall to Peter both in dignity and degree and had the larger Commission for he was the chief Apostle of the uncircumcision Peter only of the circumcision The papists say that Peter received both the swords from Christ civill and spirituall that is both civill and spirituall power I say he only received spirituall power and that equally with the rest of the Apostles The papists say that the pope of Rome is Peters successor in the Universality of jurisdiction I say that an Archbishop is his successor in his priority of order and primacie of moderation within his own province Consider now good Christian which of us two I or my opponent be most popish he is half I am sure I in no case hee in the point of Episcopall government saith wholly as they say I am against them in all the foresaid controversies I give no more to Peter then the chief adversaries of popery gives him Calvin Piscator Iewell Willet Marlorat as I made manifest before by their particular testimonies to whom accords Davenant in his determinations for hee saith that both out of Scriptures and Fathers many things may be brought which ascribes to Peter some prerogatives of honour but of such titles and prerogatives as are attribute to him we affirm that no other thing can be collected but that he obtain'd a certain primacy and presidency for orders sake among the Apostles Maier also in his Treasury upon Matth. 16. saith That Christ gave Peter some prerogative above the rest of the Disciples and yet making another viz. Paul equall to him in every respect And truly I remember no Protestant Divine that denyes that Peter had the first place amongst the rest of the Apostles and how can they since it is so plain and manifest in Scriptures and which is in effect the very bane and overthrow of the mayn grounds of popery For although the Papists abuse the foresaid places of Scripture to maintaine Peter his supremacy and his successors the Pope yet we must not refuse to give Peter that which his master bestowed upon him and so wrest the Scriptures as farre upon the other hand although the Papists abuse the words of our Saviour Christ hoc est corpus meum to maintaine their transubstantiation yet we must not deny a reall and spirituall presence of Christs body in the soules of the faithfull even so although the papists abuse the foresaid places of Scripture to maintaine Peters supremacy and the universality of the Popes power and authority yet we must not deny that Christ gave Peter a priority of order and a precedency of moderation among the Apostles for there is a great difference between supream power and authority which the papists ascribe to Peter and his successour the Pope and a priority of order for avoiding of confusion this Christ gave Peter without doubt but not the former It is true indeed Protestant Divines have beene very sparing in amplifying the prerogative and preheminence that Peter had amongst the rest of the Apostles only because the Papists advance him too much far beyond measure and moderation But although the Papists decline too much to one extremity God forbid that wee decline as farre to the other God forbid because papists defend a bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament that we turne Sacramentaries because the papists extoll good workes and make them meritorious that we turn Libertines because papists wil needs worship God supra statutum they will doe more then God hath commanded that we refuse to doe that which he hath appointed even so God forbid because Papists make Peter universall monarch of the whole world that we deny that he was chiefe
only but the speciality of his charge for sure there was some other Apostle that had the care of some Churches of the Gentiles as Tim. of Eph. Tit of Cret Epaphroditus of Phil. Archippus of Laodicea Epaphras of Col. and Hierapolis Apollos of Cor. and others And although these mens Apostleship may be questioned there can no be question of Barnabas Apostleship and thaâ— over the uncircumcision too and yet the Apostle Paul saith that he had a speciall care of all His care is also manifest in his diligent writing to the Churches of the Gentiles Cor. Gal. Eph. in the which he makes knowne the great care that he had of their salvation as may be instanced in his expostulations protestations and earnest exhortations yea he had a speciall care of those Churches that were not planted by himselfe but by others as of the Church of Col. Laodicea Rome where he planted the Gospell himselfe what a speciall care had he to visit them againe and keepe them safe as far as as he could from the entring in of wolves to devoure the sheep committed to his charge yea this is the greatest argument that he hath against the false Apostles that they intruded them upon his charge the Gentiles being chiefely committed to him which he proveth by the testimony of Peter Iames and Iohn who gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that they should goe unto the Iewes and they unto the heathen now from these grounds I will forme some arguments for Paul his priority of order among the Churches of the Gentiles The first Argument IF Paul was not inferiour to Peter neither in dignity not degree then if Peter had a priority and precedencie among the Apostles of the circumcision Paul had the same priority among the ministers of the uncircumcision But Paul was not inferiour to Peter neither in dignity nor degree And therefore if Peter had a priority and a precedency among the ministers of the circumcision Paul had the same priority among the ministers of the uncircumcision That Paul was not inferiour neither in dignity nor degree to the Apostle Peter I hope will not be denyed for he defendeth it in many passages of his Epistles and that Peter had a priority and a precedencie among the Apostles of the circumcision I have made manifest by cleare evidence of Scripture and therefore the conclusion will stand good that Saint Paul had a priority and a precedencie among the Ministery of the uncircumcision The second Argument HEe to whom the Gospell of the uncircumcision was chiefely committed had a priority and a precedencie of all the Ministers of the uncircumcision of whatsoever order or degree But the Gospel of the uncircumcision was chiefely committed to the Apostle Paul And therefore Saint Paul had a priority and a precedency in the Ministery of the uncircumcision of all degrees The proposition will be granted I prove the assumption by the Apostle Paul his owne testimony Gal. 2. where he saith As the Gospell of the circumcision was committed to Peter so the Gospell of the uncircumcision was committed to him thus the Apostle Paul speakes not because the Gospell of uncircumcision was not committed to any other for in that same Chapter hee saith that it was also committed to Barnabas and in the generall Commission given by Christ to all the Apostles it was included for they were commanded to teach all nations omni creaturae both Iewes and Gentiles but only because it was principally committed to him and this exposition Doctor Willet confirmes in his Synopsis Where he plainly testisieth that Paul had the chiefe Apostleship over the Gentiles yea he saith that Peter was chiefe of the circumcision and Paul of the uncicumcision that although Peter had the first Lot in order yet Paul had the more large and glorious Lot and further he saith that it cannot be denyed but that Paul was chiefe towards the Gentiles and therefore the Church of Rome might with better right derive their authority from the Apostle Paul then the Apostle Peter now if Paul had an over-sight of the whole Churches of the Gentiles then it will follow that he had an over-sight both of the Pastors and the people if the pastors and Ministers of the Gentiles be of the Church of the Gentiles which I think no man will deny The third argument HEe that had the care of all the Churches of the Gentiles had a precedencie of all the Apostles and inferior Ministers of these Churches But the Apostle Paul had the chiefe care of all the Churches of the Gentiles 2. Cor. 11. 26. And therefore the Apostle Paul had the over-sight of all the Apostles and inferiour ministers of these Churches The proposition must be true for to have a care of a Church wherein there are other inferior Ministers either in dignity or degree it will follow necessarily that his care extends both to pastors and people The fourth Argument HEe that had the care not only of those Churches which hee planted by his owne ministery but of those Churches also that were planted by the ministery of other men hee had an over-sight of all the Pastors of those Churches But the Apostle Paul had not only the care of those Churches which he planted by his owne ministery but also of those Churches which were planted by the ministery of other men And therefore the Apostle Paul had an over-sight of all the pastors of those Churches The proposition must be granted or else Paul might have beene challenged for putting his sicle in another mans field and intruding himselfe upon the labours of other men and so to have stretched himselfe beyond his measure which hee labours by all meanes to avoid 2. Cor. 10. 13. 14. 15. I prove the assumption that the Apostle Paul had the care of those Churches which were planted by the ministery of others he had a care of Rome Col. Laodicea which were planted by the ministery of others as is evident Rom. 10. 11. for I long to see you that I may Impart some spirituall gift unto you to the end you may be established and so forth to the 14. verse and Col. 2.1 for I would yee knew saith Paul what great conflict I have for you and for them at Laodicea and for as many as have not seene my face in the flesh and verse 5. for although I be absent in the flesh yet I am with you in spirit Ioying and beholding your order and the steadfastnesse of your faith in Christ even as he saith Rom. 18. I thanke my God through Iesus Christ for you all that your faith is spoken of throughout the world so it is more then manifest that the Apostle Paul had a speciall care of those Churches which were planted by others and therefore it will follow necessarily that hee had some over-sight of the pastors as well as the people The fifth argument HEe that did Admonish direct and command as well the pastors as the people hee
had some over-sight both of the pastors and people But the Apostle Paul did admonish direct and command as well the pastors as the people And therefore the Apostle Paul had some over-sight both of the pastors and the people The proposition will bee granted I prove the assumption by his Admonition he sent to Archippus Col. 4. 17. and yet Archippus was planted in my Iudgement by Epaphras in Laodicea and perhaps in Col. also not by the Apostle Paul We see the truth of this by his directions to Tim. and Tit. registreat in his Epistle written to them yea Phil. 2. 25. and 26. he saith that he had sent Epaphroditus back againe to them which words argue some kind of over-sight at least for he that sends is greater then he that is sent The sixth Argument I If the changing of Peters name was a token of his preferment and advancement then the changing of Pauls name was a token of his preferment and advancement But the first is true and therefore the second I know it will be replyed that Christ changed Peter his name but not Pauls Answer I am confident he also changed Pauls for the reasons before alledged although it be not in plaine termes revealed in Scripture all things that Christ did and said are not revealed in the Word as we may read in the last chapter of the Gospell according to S. Iohn I am of opinion that when Paul was ravished to the third Heaven and heard words which might not be spoken that he changed his name then and that he did conceale the changing of his name as he did the rest of the words that he heard because it was his own name therefore he makes no relation of it even as Peter out of modesty doth not report the many favours and respects which his Master did shew to him no not the changing of his name so the Apostle Paul conceales the changing of his name left his telling of it had been thought arrogancy in him and the rather because the name that he had before had an evill signification and he had small credit to have had Saul for his Godfather although he was King of Israel and indeed their names were very agreeable to their manners for Saul in Greek signifies turbulency and truly both Saul the King and Saul the Pharisee were rightly so called for both were proud both were turbulent Saul the King persecuted Christ in David who was a type and figure of Christ he did what he could to frustrate Gods purpose that Christ should not come of the seed of David and also to deprive him of his Kingdome Saul the Pharisee persecuted Christ in his children and did what he could to hinder the propagation of Christs Kingdome and so to frustrate the salvation of the Elect. Paul was therefore loath to make mention of his name and the rather because the changing of one letter of his first name S. into P. made it have a good signification for Paul in Greek signifieth Quiet and peaceable so that the changing of the name Saul into the name Paul did signifie his conversion and change who of a turbulent persecutor of Christians became a quiet and peaceable Christian himselfe and so S. Ambrose saith before that this Apostle was washed with spirituall precepts he was a blasphemer a persecuter and a Saul but when as the raine of the heavenly washing had flowed downe upon him the blasphemer the persecuter and the Saul is killed and the Apostle the righteous and the Paul is vivified The word Saul as interpreters relates is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a name taken from turbulency and Paulus commeth of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} rest and quiet some will have it deriven from the Hebrew word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to segregate because he was chosen and segregated as a marvellous man according to Ierome in Epist. ad Philem. But I am rather of Augustine his opinion who follows rather the Latin Etimology saying after that he was brought unto the Master that said Learne of me for I am meeke and gentle he was named Paul And againe he saith Saul laying aside the old coat of sinne being bloody with slaughter tooke the coat of humility that he might be made of Saul a Paul There are many opinions concerning the changing of the Apostles name from Saul to Paul but I am confident that his Master Christ did it although the Apostle told it not and he might have told it too although it be not recorded in Scripture sure he told that he was so called although he was not immediately called Paul after his conversion he said to Paul it may be as he said to Peter thou shalt be called Paul viz. when he was advanced to the Apostolicall charge and so we read Act. 13. soon after he was separate for that worke the Evangelist Luke calleth him Paul and no more Saul And therefore I may very justly conclude that since Christ changed the Apostles name that it was a signe of his preferment and advancement by Christ The seventh Argument HEe who tooke precedency upon him de facto he had it de jure But Paul tooke precedency upon him de facto and therefore he had it de jure The proposition must be true or else we must say that Paul presumed and tooke more upon him then did of right belong unto him which I hope no Divine will say and therefore my conclusion must be good As to the assumption that Paul tooke precedency upon him we see it in the Acts of the Apostles for although Barnabas was an Apostle as well as Paul yet he gave place unto Paul and suffered him to speake and therefore at Lystra Paul is called Mercurius because he spake all and Barnabas is called Iupiter Now I hope I have plainly proved that these two Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul had a priority and a precedency of all the Church-officers both of Jewes and Gentiles Peter of the Jewes and Paul of the Gentiles There is one argument yet for the dignity and preheminency of both viz. that the History of the Acts concernes them onely except very little in the beginning of the History which in my judgement is an evident argument not only of their diligence in the ministery but of their honour and preferment by Christ that these two Apostles paines in the ministery should be in some part registrate and the acts of none of the rest no not of Iohn who was a most painfull preacher of the Gospell even untill the day of his death yea some of them are not once named except in the generall under the name of Apostles who will be pleased to read over that part of Scripture will find it so Now to end this discourse as I brought in the beginning the testimonies of some moderne Writers to testifie for me that what I was to say had been said of them before my time hereby to free my self
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
and tells them that it was necessarie that Iudas should play the Apostate that the Scripture might be fulfilled and that it was also necessarie to fill his roome that the number of those might bee made up againe whom Christ had appointed to be witnesses of all that he did and said His next Sermon was ad populum after that the Holy Ghost was descended the people that heard the Apostles speak with divers tongues wondred and marvelled at the matter some said that they were drunken but the Apostle Peter in his Sermon made it knowne to them all how the matter was Act. 2.14 and at the hearing of this Sermon there was three thousand converted to the Christian faith Another Sermon also hee made to the people upon the occasion of healing of a lame Man at the hearing of which there were five thousand converted to the faith of Jesus Christ and in effect the most part of the historie of the Acts to the 13. chapter concernes the Apostle Peter and his service in the Ministerie and so by all these evidences it appeares that Saint Peter was precedent of the Apostles It appeares also in this that Peter was chiefe Apostle of the Circumcision because his chiefe stay for many yeares was at Ierusalem Although the Apostle Iames was the peculiar Bishop of that Citie yet in regard of the generall charge that hee had over the whole Nation his most frequent abode was there for both the times that Paul went to Ierusalem both the third yeare after his conversion and fourteene yeeres there after he found Peter there yea that his chiefe residence was there at that time it is manifest by the Apostle Paul his resolution for he saith Galat. 1.18 that three yeares after his Conversion he went to Ierusalem to see Peter and abode with him fifteene dayes The Apostle Peter also maketh manifest that the Gospell over the Circumcision was chiefly committed to him by directing his Epistles onely to the Jewes for his first Epistle is only written to the Jewes whom hee calleth strangers scattered throughout Asia Galaâ—ia Pontus Cappadocia Now it is most certaine that in all these Nations at that time when he writ his Epistle there were many Gentiles converted to the Christian faith and yet hee writes to none of them but to the Jewish Nation only so that we may very easily perceive that his chiefe care was oâ— the Jewish Church and that the second Epistle was written tâ— them only it is manifest to any that will reade but the third chapter of the said Epistle Now the question may be asked who gave Peter this precedencie and Prioritie of order among the Apostles I answer This question is without all question for no doubt Christ his Master gave it him Againe it will be asked when it was that Christ gave it him Answer some thinkes that he gave him this dignitie when he changed his name and called him Peter some againe that he was thus advanced when hee promised to give him the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven And indeed both these are certaine signes of preferment The deliverie of the Keyes to any was ever a signe of preferment yea also of Power and Authoritie for he that hath the keys he goeth thorow all as when the Husband giveth the keyes to his new-married wife hee declares that he gives her power over all even so when the Master of the family gives the keys to his steward he gives him power over all his affaires for this same cause it is that the keys are delivered to a Prince when he first enters in any City of his dominions it is a speciall signe of his power and authority within that City even so when our Saviour gave the keys of the kingdome of heaven to his Apostles he gave them power to rule and govern his house according to his will revealed in his Word he gave them power to open the gates of heaven to the penitent and to shut them upon the impenitent so the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God The proofe of this we have Esay 22.20,21,22 where the Prophet Esay at the command of God threatens Shebna Chamberlain to King Ezekiah and tels him that hee shall be driven from his Station and Civill place Eliakim in his roome and in signe of his preferment and authority hee saith and the Key of the House of David will I lay upon his shoulders so hee shall open and none shall shut and hee shall shut and none shall open that is hee will give unto Eliakim chiefe power in Ezekias house and in the City of Ierusalem whose advancement was a figure of the Kingdome of Christ And by the spirit of God applyed to Christ Revelat. 3.7 Which power he conferred upon his Apostles when hee said All power is given unto mee both in heaven and in earth Whose sins yee remit shall be remitted and whose sins you retain shall be retained whose sins yee bind in earth shall be bound in heaven whose sins yee loose in earth shall be loosed in heaven and this the Spirit of God confirmeth Revel. 2.26 where hee promiseth to that Minister of the Church of Thyatira that overcommeth and keepeth his works unto the end power over the Nations which is not to be understood of civill power and authority Christ meddles not with that but of spirituall power and jurisdiction even as I received of my Father saith he V. 27 so then when Christ promised to Peter that hee would give him the keys of the Kingdome of heaven out of all question it was a signe of his preferment to some dignity but not of his power and authority above his brethren for that which hee promised to give to him hee made a covenant to give it to all the rest as well as him indeed had he not breathed upon all the rest as well as Peter and said to all receive the holy Ghost Whose sins yee remit c. I would have perswaded my selfe that Christ had given Peter power and authority over the rest and not only a priority of order and a precedencie of Moderation Some thinks that our Saviour Christ give not Peter this precedency till after the resurrection yea after hee had given the generall commission to all the Apostles in common when hee said to him Feed my Sheep feed my Lambs but for my part I will not dispute when hee gave in him sure all these are evidences that Christ and none other did advance him in that kind and many more then these as may be collected by the former doctrine and which I shall make more plain hereafter Againe it will be asked how long this precedencie of Peters was to continue for a yeare or halfe a yeare or how long truly for any thing can be said in the contrary he had it for his life time What Christ hath joyned together what man dare put