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
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
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
a preheminence and a precedencie before the rest But Christ prayed for Peter in particular that his faith should not faile and did not so for any of the rest And therefore Christ gave Peter some preheminence and precedencie before the rest As to the Proposition truly I see no reason why our Saviour should have prayed so earnestly for Peter his perseverance and hee had not layd a greater charge upon him then upon any of the rest of the Apostles he gave unto all Apostolicall power and authoritie and as ample a charge to teach all Nations as he gave unto Peter but forasmuch as he gave unto him a certaine oversight of the Apostles as well as the inferiour Ministers and People therefore did his Master pray so earnestly for him that God would strengthen him by his Spirit to resist the great tentations wherewith hee was to be besieged and to inable him with such a measure of grace as the greatnesse of his charge required The assumption is manifest that Christ offered up a particular prayer for Peter which he did not for the rest of the Apostles Luke 22.32 Christ saith to him that he had prayed for him that his faith should not faile and he tells the reason too because he foresaw that he should be highly tempted by Sathan at this same time hee offered up unto his Father most sweet pithie and powerfull prayers as yee may read Iohn 17. the reading of which prayers will move any Christian heart that has the least measure of grace in it O then how powerfull were these to pierce the stoniest heart that ever was when they distilled from the sacred lips of our blessed Jesu well he prayed for all in generall then but in that he offered up a particular prayer in behalfe of Peter it is an Argument that his Master made a particular difference betweene him in the rest The eighth Argument Hee whom Christ commanded to strengthen his brethren when hee was converted he gave him some preheminence and charge over the rest of his brethren But Christ commanded Peter to strengthen his brethren when he was converted And therefore Christ gave Peter some preheminence and charge over the rest of his brethren The strength of the Proposition stands in this that he that is commanded to strengthen another is commanded either to teach him and instruct him or to direct him and admonish him or to comfort him and incourage him which soever of these duties he was commanded to performe on behalfe of his brethren it argues at the least this prioritie and precedencie lesse preheminence it cannot portend I am fully perswaded that Christ would never have commanded Peter to discharge any of those duties towards his brethren more then he would have directed them to doe the like duties to him and he had not had some charge and oversight of them that none of them had of him As to the assumption that Christ commanded Peter to strengthen his brethren when he was converted is evident Luk. 22.32 But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not saith Christ and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren The ninth Argument Hee to whom Christ appeared in particular before he appeared to any other of the Apostles he gave him some charge that he gave not to the rest of the Apostles But Christ appeared in particular to Saint Peter before he appeared to any other of the Apostles And therefore Christ gave to Peter some charge and employment that he gave not to the rest of the Apostles The Proposition cannot be but true for his appearing to him first before he appeared to any other is an evident argument in my mind of his prioritie and precedencie yea of some particular charge that he received from his Master that was not layd upon any of the rest joyne the consideration of Christ his appearance here to Peter and the Angell his direction to Mary to tell Peter in particular of Christs Resurrection and other evidences already specified this argument will bee strong enough to confirme all that I have said As to the assumption that Christ appeared first to Peter the Apostle Paul shewes us 1 Cor. 15.5 for he saith that he was seen of Cephas then of the 12. that is first of Peter then of the rest And Luke 24.34 it is said that he appeared to Simon alone The tenth Argument Hee to whom our Saviour Christ gave a particular commission after he had delivered a generall commission to all the rest of the Apostles in common to him he gave some priviledge before the rest of the Apostles But Christ gave a particular Commission to Peter after he had delivered a generall commission to all the rest of the Apostles in common And therefore Christ gave Peter some priviledge above the rest of the Apostles The Proposition I hold it most strong for when after a generall commission is delivered to an whole collective body how they shall carry themselves in the duties of their calling a particular charge againe is given to some one of the number it argues a certaine kind of singularitie as for example when the Kings Majestie being Generall of his Army himselfe gives directions to the under officers of the Armie and then in particular tells his owne Lievtenant what should bee his care and solicitude he plainly declares his eminence above the rest or when the Bishop comes to visit any particular parish of his Diocesse and gives Injunctions in generall to all the whole Parish and then in particular tells the Minister his dutie doth not the Bishop hereby declare his Eminencie above the rest when our Saviour Christ called Peter and Andrew Philip and Nathaniel Iohn and Iames he called them all at the same time to be Preachers of the Gospell and yet hee said to Peter only Henceforth thou shalt catch men So to bring a particular after a generall it still argues a singularitie and so this commission which he gives to Peter by himselfe is a mightie argument that Peter had some speciall oversight in the Church of God which none of the rest had and this was no other thing but a prioritie of order and precedencie of moderation in the meetings of the Apostles it is not an argument that he had any power over the rest but only a precedencie to moderate all things discreetly to gather the voyces faithfully and to take a speciall care that all things be done orderly and all Schisme and confusion shunned As to the assumption that Christ gave particular commission to Peter after he had given a generall commission to all in common Wee reade Iohn 21. where Christ commands Peter to feed his sheep to feed his Lambes this commission is not only a severall commission from that which Christ gave to all the Apostles in common neither is it a particular commission in respect of Peter to whom it is only given but also particular in respect of the persons whom it concerns it concerns not all Nations
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
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
from scandalous imputations wherewith I might have been wrongfully charged so here in the end I will produce the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers and godly martyrs that lived in the first centuries of Christianity to make good what we both have said but truly not to prove any thing that I have delivered in my former Discourse for to what use shall a man light a thousand Candles and set them up in his house when the Sunne shineth bright in at the windows and so there is no need of either the testimonies of ancient or moderne Writers when the matter is delivered in the Scripture in plaine and evident termes I will produce them then not to prove any thing that I have said but to be as it were Proctors for me and to defend me from the calumnies and the aspersions of the malevolous and to testifie that I have said nothing but that which is according to the cleere evidence Scripture and whereunto some of them did beare witnesse before and sealed the truth thereof with their blood I will begin with Cyprian S. Cyprian de simpli prolat speaketh thus The rest of the Apostles was the same that Peter was ordained with that same honour and authority but the beginning was from one to demonstrate the Church to be one S. Ambrose writing upon Galat. 2. he saith that Paul nameth only Peter and compareth him with himselfe because he had received the Primacy to found the Church of the Jewes and himselfe was also elected to have the Primacy in founding the Churches of the Gentiles yet so that both Peter might preach to the Gentiles Paul to the Jewes if there were cause for both of them are found to have done both and yet it is knowne that full authority was given to Peter in preaching to the Jewes and full authority to Paul in preaching to the Gentiles And in the glosse S. Ambrose is thus alleaged Which of them doth resist Peter to whom the Lord gave the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven nisi alius talis but such another that knew himselfe by the confidence of his election not to be unequall So saith Ierome Paul doth reprehend Peter because he knew himselfe not to be unequall c. So Ierome on Math. 16. saith that all received the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven yet one is chosen among the twelve that an head being appointed all occasions of schisme might be taken away Chrysostome Hom. 87. saith what meaneth Christ to single out Peter alone and to say thus unto him Peter lovest thou me lovest thou me lovest thou me thrice Feed my sheepe feed my Lambs He was the mouth of the rest saith he and Prince of the Apostles wherefore Paul went up to see him above others for as though he viz. Christ his master had forgotten his denials he committeth unto him the care of his brethren as if he had said as thou lovest me so take a care of thy brethren and the love which thou hast alwaies shewed to me shew now and the life which thou saidest thou wouldest lay downe for me lay downe now for them S. Augustine saith that Peter and Paul were chosen for the salvation of two peoples Peter of the Jewes Paul of the Gentiles Peter to repaire the old and desert fields of Iudea and to make them fruitfull through the wholsomnesse of faith and grace being kept unfruitfull by the shadow of the Law and hidden from the heat of the Sunne but Paul is sent to the Gentiles a new ground that yeelded no fruit before that he might cut it with the plough of the Lords Crosse c Therefore these two are more eminent then the rest of the Apostles and by a certaine peculiar prerogative did excell them all August in fest. Petri Pauli An ancient Writer compares Peter and Paul to the two great Pillars which Solomon set up in the porch of the Temple one upon the right side and an other upon the left side in the enterance into the Temple that upon the right side he called Iachim which signifies established and the other upon the left side he called Boos which signifies strong or strength which two Pillars he compares to Peter and Paul Peter signifiing a rocke most firmely established and the word Paul signifying rest or quietnesse which is opposite to motion and so of such strength as cannot be moved or turned backe So that as Salomon who was a type and figure of Christ being about to build a house unto the Lord did set up two Pillars in the Porch of the Temple one upon the right side and another upon the left Even so Christ the true Salomon being to erect a Church to God here upon earth he set up two Pillars as it were in the entry of this Church so that whosoever desires to enter in the Church of Christ they must enter by the doore which these two Apostles by their doctrine and ministery hath opened both to Jewes and Gentiles and therefore this ancient Authour compares the Jewes to the right side called Iachim to whom Peter was chiefly sent and the Gentiles to the left side called Boos over whom Paul had the chiefe oversight Surely it is mentioned by all the ancient Fathers and moderne Writers without contradiction of any one that these two Apostles had a propriety of order before all the rest of the Apostles and Presbyters the one in the Church of the Jewes the other in the Church of the Gentiles What can be said against the perpetuity and continuance of this priority in the Church of Christ in all ages following I cannot imagine that it was a personall prerogative that these two Apostles had granted them by Christ their Master in the beginning of the Gospell can no waies be said and that for these reasons following First because it is a thing that is morally necessary without the which a Church cannot be governed at all as Calvin saith in plaine tearms Inst it 4. cap. 6. sect. 8. That the 12 Apostles had one among them to governe the rest it was no marvell saith he for nature requireth it and the disposition of men will so have it that in every company although they be all equall in power there be one as Governour by whom the rest shall be directed There is no Court saith he without a Consull no Senate without a Pretor no Colledge without a President no Society without a Master so that whatsoever is morally necessary in all ages Nations Kingdomes Provinces Incorporations Societies can no waies be thought to be a peculiar Prerogative to one or two particular men living in one age or in one Nation and Kingdome Secondly this priority is much more necessary now in a setled Church then it was in a Church while the foundation was but in laying the Apostles calling was universall and they were ordained to preach the Gospell to all Nations and had equall power conferred upon them to preach the Gospell and to