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
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
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
gather a Church unto Christ and thereafter to erect a ministery and plant overseers among them there was not great need of a Precedent and in speciall in the Churches of the Gentiles untill there was a company to goe before but now in a setled Church governed according to the pattern that Christ hath left behind him this precedent is so necessary that he is most necessary Thirdly I conceive this Precedent to be so necessary that Christ setled it in the persons of Peter and Paul to be a pattern to afterages shewing them that it is his will that his Church be so governed in all ages and generations to come for since it is more necessary now then it was then the Church not being setled and the Apostles and Presbyters charge being ambulatory and their ministery spread over all and the rather since the Apostle Iames was setled in Ierusalem as Bishop there who was sufficient to govern the whole Church of the Jewes with the assistance of his Presbyters so that Peters Precedency in the Church of the Jewes seemed not to be so necessary except onely that Christ thought good to doe so for an example to afterages yea that superiority and inferiority which he established in the persons of the severall rankes of Church-governours was not so needfull then as now considering that then Apost. and the 70. Disciples and their successours in both degrees had the gift of miracles and other extraordinary gifts by which powerfull meanes they were able to keepe all their inferiours in order and awe for if by such meanes they were able to worke faith and repentance in their soules they were as sufficient to worke amendment of life in their conversation and therefore at this time all Church-men might have been of equall authority both for dignity and degree and yet Christ himselfe with his owne mouth did constante both divers dignities and divers degrees and that chiefely to teach us how he would have his Church governed in all ages and generations to come Fourthly there are some things that Christ did in the which we are not able to follow his example as his fasting forty daies without meat his walking upon the sea and such other miraculous and extraordinary workes next Christ did some things wherein we must not follow him as in being circumcised celebrating the Passoever and in a precise keeping of the Mosaicall Ordinances Christ kept them all he came to fulfill all righteousnesse he saith he came not to breake the Law but fulfill it yea that one jot or title of the Word of God should not passe away he saith untill all things were fulfilled the whole ceremonies of Moses Law were referred to Christ and had their end in him and therefore we might not follow Christ in obeying them Thirdly Christ did some things wherein we need not follow him Christ went bare-footed he travelled on foot we never read that he did ride on horse-backe but once that he did ride upon an Asse to Ierusalem well we may choose whether we will follow him in these things or not Lastly in some things we are bound to follow Christs example that is in all things that he did morally we are bound to follow the example of his life and conversation to be patient as he was patient temperate as he was temperate modest as he was modest mercifull as he was mercifull loving as he was loving meeke as he was meeke c. In all these and such like morall vertues we are bound to follow his example And lastly what Christ did in the setling of the manner of his worship we are bound to follow him in these things we are bound to preach in season and out of season as he did we are bound to celebrate the Sacrament of the Supper according to his example except in in the circumstances of time place person site which are neither morally good nor morally evill but good or evill according as they are used or abused and thirdly we are bound to follow him in what he did concerning the government of his own Church he did found his owne Church in an imparity of Church-governours he distinguished them in degrees and dignities in doing whereof the Church in all ages is bound to follow his example we hold the practice of the Apost. to have the force of a precept much more should we hold the practise of Christ to be mandative and obligatory And so I hope I have proved by good and forcible reason that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dency of these two Apostles Peter and Paul was not a perâ—â—â—â—â—â—ogative but a morall example instituted by Christ FINIS