ARCHIEPISCOPAL PRIORITY INSTITUTED BY CHRIST, PROVED By plain Testimonies of Scripture.  
Asserted By the Ancient Fathers.  
And whereunto all the modern Divines of the Protestant side do 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 he 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 gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter: for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision: the same was mighty in me 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 book, you will think strange to hear such an assertion affirmed, never being purposely maintained in a particular theme and position by any Divine until this time. But I pray you first read, and then judge: I hope you shall find that it is no new broached doctrine, but asserted by many learned Divines of our own religion, and contradicted by none; I know no Divine, that denies that Peter had a priority of order in the Church of the Jews; I will say no more, I only desire you to read the discourse, and I hope you shall find 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 plain. I grant all the Arguments, that are brought by me from the Scriptures, to prove Saint Peter's priority in the Church of the Jews, and Saint Paul's in the Church of the Gentiles, are not demonstrative, and their conclusions necessary: the most part are, and the Arguments so strong, that I, in my most serious meditations cannot imagine, how they can be answered; and those Inferences that are but probable, being joined together are strong enough.  
Name, quae non prosunt, singula, multa juvant.  
As for the places of Scripture set down in my first parallel, I grant they do not all bear witness for three degress of Church governors, the most part do, and all the rest are plain enough for two, even for the first two Bishops and presbyters, which is sufficient to show the imparity of churchmen, and the divine right of episcopal Government; If ye ask me why I have not set down the parallel places for the contrary opinion of my opponents? I answer, because I find not one place-in all the New Testament to prove a parity of Church governors, nor yet denying an imparity; If any Divine will produce one place, from which, so much as a probable conclusion may be inferred, for the parity of churchmen, I will say (as the Proverb speaks) Erit mihi magnus Apollo. Well Reader, I beg not thy favour, I hope the truth shall procure thy affection, if thou wilt be pleased but to read diligently, and consider seriously the doctrine delivered in this discourse, and with indifferency of judgement ponder the reasons on both sides, and the perspicuity of Scripture, from the which these reasons are drawn; and I hope in the mercy of God, he will make the truth manifest to thy understanding, which the Lord grant for Christ's sake:  
Farewell.   

Archiepiscopal priority Instituted by CHRIST.  
IOsephus (de bello judaico) affirms, that in the days of Ptolomeus, Philopater, Gabbaeus and Theodosius, two Samaritans, kept a disputation at Alexandria, against Adronicus and other Jews, for defence of their Temple which stood upon Mount Gerizim, and undertook to bring proofs of their assertion out of the Law: But they could not do it, and therefore the King adjudged them to die; Now I profess before all the world, if I do not prove from the Scriptures of the New Testament, the Order established by Christ, for the Government of his Church under the gospel to be hierarchical, I shall be content to suffer for my presumption: only, let me have one thing granted, that if my Opponents do not prove their parity of the Ministers of the Word, and mixed Government, by clear 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 kingdom, that they who petition for the change and abolishing of old laws, 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 than the Old; Alas! I say, what would become of many of my Opponents, who are not once able to produce one clear and plain testimony of Scripture for their parity, 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 necessity of family exercises, and separate Congregations; Nay, which is more, they are not able to prove their Assertions, by any necessary and immediate consequence drawn from any place in Scripture. Now, this must be held for a ground: That whatsoever is not set down in Scripture, in plain and evident terms, nor yet can be drawn from thence by a just and immediate consequence, is only to be counted an human ordination.  
But to come to the point, I will undertake by the assistance of God's 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 gospel, so hath he also established an order and a priority among the chief governors themselves. For he who is wisdom itself, appointing a certain number of chief governors, of equal power and authority, and knowing that equality 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 pattern to follow, in after ages, as his Father gave unto Moses a pattern, 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 wisdom 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 liberality exercised towards him, lest some malcontents should have suspected his sincerity and thought, that he had been a man that had respected more the fleece, than the flock, and had set before his eyes in the course of his ministry, his own ends and advantage, he prevents this mistake before he insists in amplifying of their love and kindness towards him: I speak 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 testimoni●s of some Protestant Divines, and some of the precisest strain too, who affirm all that in substance, which I maintain in this discourse, and these testimonies I do the rather set down in the beginning, because I have resolved, not to confirm any thing that I am to deliver in all this Treatise by the testimony of any Divine, ancient or modern, but only by the Scriptures of the New Testament, wherewith I am able to prove, that the testimonies of all the ancients do 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 itself, whereas it is nothing else but a mere abusing of the word of God, and throwing of it like a nose of wax, which way they will; and as Tertullian saith, a very murdering of the Scriptures for their own purpose. I know it to be true, they make the Scripture speak many times, that which neither the Penner nor the Dictator ever minded.  
My chief purpose in this Discourse is to prove, that as Christ did ordain certain men, to be chief governors of his Church: so hath he o●dained among these governors a priority of order, and a primacy of moderation: but let no man mistake, and think that this Assertion doth favour in any ways, the Pope's pretended supremacy but let him consider, that there is a great difference between a primacy and a supremacy; a dignity and a degree; a priority and a superiority; a primacy of moderation, and a supremacy of Jurisdiction; a dignity of estimation, and a degree of exaltation; a priority of order, and a superiority of power. Primacy of moderation and priority of Order, (which cannot be without some dignity and estimation) may be, yea must be in all companies and incorporations, in all meetings and assemblies whatsoever. And Christ with his own mouth did appoint this priority of order, among these chief governors, whom he authorised himself with equal power and authority. Yea, I know no Divine that denies that Peter had a priority 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 book of his Institutions, cap. 6. Sect. 8. saith, that the twelve Apostles had one among them to govern the rest, and it was no marvel, saith he, for nature requireth it, and the disposition of men will so have it, that in every company, although they be all equal in power, there be one as governor, by whom the rest shall be directed. There is no Court without a counsel, no Senate without a praetor, no college without a precedent, 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 council of Nice did appoint Patriarchs, which should be in order and dignity above Archbishops. It was done, saith he, for the preservation of Discipline, although in this discourse we 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 be referred to a general Synod, and if the greatness or difficulty of the cause required yet greater consultation, there were added Patriarchs together with the Synods, from whom there could be no appeal, but only to a general counsel. This kind of Government, saith he, some call an hierarchy a name unproper, and not used in the Scriptures, as I think: for the holy Ghost would not have us to dream of any dominion or rule; when question is made of Church-Government; but omitting the name, if we consider the thing itself, 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 God's 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: we 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 dioceses, and Provinces, he saith, it was agreeable to the law of Christ.  
Hemingius in Enchir, pag. 367. saith, that Paul by order and dignity was superior to Tim. and Tit. and Tim. in degree and order excelled all the other presbyters of Ephesus, and that Titus was chief governor of the Cretians. Here this learned Divine acknowledgeth that Paul was an Archbishop, because in order and dignity above Timothy and Titus, and that Tim. and Titus were Bishops, because both in order and degree above their inferior presbyters, which I think no man will say was done, but by the special ordinance of God.  
jewel in his defence against Harding, 4. Art, pag. 195. saith, that the rest of the Apostles honoured Saint Peter, as the special member of Christ's body, with all reverence, and so by this speech acknowledgeth his primacy 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 inferior to the Apostles. And again he saith, that Paul was ordained the chief Apostle of the uncircumcision, and Peter of the Circumcision, Gal. 2.2. and further he saith, we also grant, that Peter when he confessed Christ for and in the name of the rest, had a primacy 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 appear to be one, De simplicitati praelat. In these words of Cyprians quoted by Willet, to confirm his preceding doctrine, acknowledgeth first a priority of order amongst the Apostles, next that Peter had this priority; thirdly, that Peter was chief Apostle of the Circumcision, and Paul of the uncircumcision. Fourthly, he 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 priority of order. And lastly, confirms all this by the testimony of Cyprian.  
Willet in plain terms speaks for Peter's priority, pag. 155. We deny not, saith he, a primacy of order to have been in Peter, but that he was the head and commander of the rest, that we deny.  
Chemnitius in his Harmony, cap. 50. pag. 517. grants to Peter a primacy amongst the Apostles, but denies that he hath any supremacy above the rest: as it is, saith he, most apparent, that Peter was chief among the Apostles, notwithstanding his dominion over the clergy, can no ways be proved.  
Lysetus pag. 1231. Harmon saith, It is one thing to be first for orders sake among those, who are of equal 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 been the first of the Apostles, as it is ever necessary in all meetings, that there be one to preside, but this primacy of peter's was not a domination, nor a commanding power; yea, he saith further, that he had it with the consent of all the Apostles, so that by this it appears, that Marlorat is of this mind, that although the rest of the Apostles grudgedat James & John's 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 chief in order and precedency.  
Fulk Rh. Test. Gal. 2. Anotat. Therefore it was not lawful to Peter, to whom by God was committed the chief Apostleship of the Circumcision, to forsake this charge and take upon him, the chief Apostleship of the Gentiles; and again he saith, though he came to Rome, and preached at Rome, and died at Rome, yet he was the chief Apostle of the Circumcision still, and Paul the chief Apostle of the uncircumcision and Gentiles; therefore the Pope might more probably have conveyed his title of supremacy from Saint Paul then from Saint Peter.  
Perkins on the Galat. cap. 2. The Apostle S. Paul was ordained by God to be the chief Apostle of the Gentiles, as St. Peter was of the Jews; and James and Cephas, and John, that were the chief 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 primacy of Peter, and so by consequence against the supremacy of the Pope, in regard Saint Paul was chief Apostle of the Gentiles, who were far more in number then the Jews.  
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 needful, and that both ancient and modern, only I will use one of Saint Augustine's; He writing upon John saith, Petrus Apostolus Propter Apostolatus primatum, &c. Peter the Apostle, because of his apostolical priority, by the generality of a figure, he sustained the person of the Church, as concerning Peter himself by nature he 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 primacy and a priority, and this, he saith, he had by grace, that is by the favour and benevolence of his Master, and yet when he received the keys 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 testimony of these godly and learned Divines, will defend me, from the aspersion of popery: I know all are called Papists by my opponents, that in any ways 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 virtue consists. Even as the liberal and charitable man, by the covetous niggard, who is the extreme in defectu, is called prodigal; And again by the prodigal waster, who is the extreme in excessu is called a niggard; So the meek, charitable, and moderate Divine by the Papist who is the extreme in excessu, is called a Puritan, and by the Puritan who is the extreme 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 popery as any of the foresaid Divines, for they do all maintain all, that I shall say, which in any kind may be thought to smell of popery, 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 primacy of moderation, and a priority 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 mouths be not stopped by this means, I hope the clear evidence of Scripture shall do it, for great is truth and it prevaileth. I may here truly affirm, that the doctrine which I maintain, is the most powerful means to throw down 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 governors, which Christ with his own mouth appointed for the government of his Church until his second coming to Judgement, but exalt themselves above all that is called God, and curse with bell and candle all those that in the sincerity of their hearts, and meekness of spirit refuses to swear and subscribe to their tenets.  
I find in the doctrine of the Evangelists, that there was a strife and contestation among the twelve Apostles who should be chief among them, and that which gave occasion of this strife, was Christ's familiarity with Peter, James and John, he preferred them much in his respects to all the rest, he took them to an high mountain, and suffered them to see him in his glory, at the transfiguration, and in the Garden of Gethsemanie in his greatest agony, he suffered also those three to be with him when he raised Jairus daughter to life, but none of the rest This respecting of them thus made the rest to murmur 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 we see that James and John, and their Mother, being jealous of Peter's preferment, hearing Christ, bid Peter pay toll for himself and for him, and hearing him promise to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and to none of the rest, they took occasion and their Mother to go 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 kingdom (for they dreamed even as all the rest did, of a temporal kingdom) 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 drink of the Cup, whereof he was to drink, and be baptised with the baptism, wherewith he was to be baptised, and when it was answered yes; Then he tells them that it was his father's 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 James and John, and their Mother, we may easily collect by the way, that Christ did not condemn the dignity as unlawful in itself, but a proud affectation of the dignity: this he condemns in his speech to the rest that took offence at James and John 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 chief among themselves, they would not commit it to their Master's arbitrement, and therefore Christ telleth them who must be this chief; not he that affected it most, not he that aspired to it out of a conceit of his own worth, but he that was humble and meek and lowly, and therefore Christ said to them, that he that was lest among them all (to wit in conceit) he should be greatest; yea, further saith our Saviour, he must be like a little child in his own eyes; A child, although he be the son of a Prince, he will make himself companion to the son of a peasant: even so they that have chief place among God's 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 chief place under Christ in his Church be, as servants to the rest of their inferior Ministers: and this made Origen to say, That he that was called to a bishopric, was called unto the service of the Church, Homil. 6. in Esaiam, and the counsel 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 certain conjecture of my own, which I hope shall give offence to none which conjecture, James and John, and their mother's petition to Christ, and Christ's answer to them again, has given me occasion to apprehend. The affectionate Mother being desirous of her son's preferment, she comes in all humility, and falls down before him, and earnestly entreats him on the behalf of her sons, that one of them might sit on his right hand, and another on his left hand in his kingdom, she expected that at this time Christ was to restore the kingdom to Israel, and she would fain have had her two sons, in the most honourable rooms of Christ's Court, little knew they that Christ's kingdom was not of this world, and therefore he tells her and her sons both, that they knew not what they asked, and yet he answered her according to her own mind, as he did the Disciples after his Resurrection, when they asked him, if he was to restore the kingdom 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 own hand: Even so our Saviour Christ answered the sons 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 be given of my Father to them, for whom they are prepared.  
I am confident that Christ by this answer of his, doth not mean 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 we must not think but Christ would answer her according to her own meaning; next we do not read 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, we read of his father's right hand, where Christ sits for the present, and shall sit until his second coming to Judgement, we read also of degrees of glory in heaven, but not in these terms; 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 think that our Saviour means of two, to whom his Father was to give, the two greatest dignities in his Church, the event shows more that Christ doth mean of these.  
For he had advanced the 12. Apostles to 12. Thrones, and had given them power to tread on Serpents and Scorpions, he had promised to give them the keys of the kingdom 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 dignity that the sons of Zebedee craved, and that upon earth too, they desired not power and authority over their brethren. And this dignity was no more but a primacy of moderation, and a priority of order amongst the governors 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 employment, and places of honour and dignities in the commonwealth, he left that to be done by worldly Monarchs.  
Now I find in the Scriptures that our Saviour Christ gave this priority of order, and primacy 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 priority of order in the Church of the Jews, the other in the Churches of the Gentiles, that Christ gave the chief precedency amongst the 12. Apostles to the Apostle Peter, it is more than evident in the Scriptures, for is it also for Paul's moderation in the Churches of the Gentiles.  
The 12. Apostles were first appointed by their Master to be chief governors of the Church of the Jews, and therefore when Christ sent them out two and two to preach the gospel, he directed them only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and therefore Peter having precedency amongst them, it behooved to be in the Church of the Jews only. But the Apostle Paul makes this manifest, Gal. 2. where he tells us in plain terms, that the gospel of the Circumcision was committed to Peter; and the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him.  
The Apostle Paul could not say this if there had not been some difference between their ministry, and the ministry of the rest of the Apostles; for both the gospel of the Circumcision, and the gospel 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 apostolical and Epis●opall charge, by virtue of that commandment, go teach all Nations, &c. but this is said because of that distinction that Christ made for order sake, that the chief care of the one should be in the Church of the Jews, and the chief care of the other in the Churches of the Gentiles, so that it was lawful still for the rest of the Apostles to preach to either Jews 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 himself 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 me, as the gospel of the Circumcision was committed to Peter: These words can have no sense, unless there be some difference between the charge of the rest of the Apostles, and the employment of Peter and Paul, made by Christ himself: for he saith, when the Apostles saw, to wit, the Apostles there mentioned, Peter, James and John saw that the gospel of the Uncircumcision, &c. the Apostle Paul takes it for granted, that the gospel 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 committed by another, even by him, by whom the gospel of circumcision was committed to Peter, their Master and Saviour Christ, which the Apostle Paul makes plain for himself, Gal. 1.15. But when it pleased God, saith he, that separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his son 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 chief Apostle of the Gentiles: This may be also collected out of the words, for in that he saith, that the gospel of uncircumcision was committed unto him, as the gospel of Circumcision was committed to Peter, he showeth clearly that he hath a priority of order in the Churches of the Gentiles, as Peter had in the Church of the Jews.  
That Peter had this priority, beside the evident testimonies of Scripture proving it, as we shall see by and by, by God's grace, his priority is insinuated in the same words, for if there were not some singularity in the Apostleship of Peter, Paul would not have said, when the Apostles saw, that the gospel of uncircumcision was committed to me, as the gospel of circumcision was committed unto Peter, but he would have said, when the Apostle saw that the gospel of uncircircumcision was committed unto him and Barnabas, as the gospel 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 dignity. But I will prove first that Peter had this priority granted him by Christ in the Church of the Jews, and next that he gave it also to Paul, in the Churches of the Gentiles, and first I will lay down my grounds out of Scripture, and then form my Arguments out of these grounds. There is one ground for both their precedencies, and it is this, that both their names were changed, we see clearly 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 God's direction, were separate for the apostolical charge, it is said there by the Holy Ghost, to the Prophets and Teachers at Antioch, Separate 〈◊〉 Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. After this time he is never any more called Saul, but once, and then his new name is related, than Saul, otherwise called Paul (saith Luke) filled with the Holy Ghost, and so as soon as he is said to be filled with the Holy Ghost, as soon is he called Paul, and never any more Saul.  
Now, this changing of the two Apostles names was a special sign of honour and preferment, as the changing of the name of Abram to Abraham, was not only a signification of the multitude of his posterity, but also a sign of his preferment, and the Lords respects to him. So the changing of Jacobs' name, into the name of Israel, did not only testify that he had prevailed with God, but it was a sign of God's great love to him, and of his prevailing with men. Even so the changing of these two Apostles names, was an argument of God's great respects to them, and of their preferment and advancement in the Church of Christ: and also it was a sign of the great work, that the Lord was to accomplish by their ministry, both among Jews and Gentiles.  
For Peter's precedency 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 always first named by all the four Evangelists, he gets a new name by himself, and the other two gets both of them but one name, Boanarges, Sons of Thunder. Peter again is more employed in Christ's affairs, and Christ is more familiar with him, than any of the rest: when there was toll required of Christ, he directed Peter to cast an angle in the Sea, and he 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 pre-eminence.  
It was Peter that answered Christ, when he asked his Disciples, Whom say ye that I am? Thou art Christ, saith Peter, the son of the living God, Math. 16.16. It was Peter that drew Christ aside, and would have advised him not to go up to Jerusalem, Math. 16.22. It was Peter that said to Christ, when he 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, we have forsaken all and followed thee, Math. 19.27.  
But these differences are nothing in respect of those that were made by Christ himself, and first as I said before his name was changed by Christ; yea, when Christ called him first from taking of fish, to be a fisher of men, he promised that he should be called Peter, Ioh. 1. but as yet his name was not changed, this was a great argument of his preferment; again, Christ calls him Peter, in allusion to the rock of Faith, whereupon he was to build his Church, for he is called Petrus a petra, he was called a rock, because his confession, (Thou art Christ the son of the living God) was to be so solid and firm a rock, that whosoever was built upon it, the gates of Hell was not able to prevail against him. Further Christ promised to give Peter the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, which promise he made not to the rest: he prayed for him in particular that his faith should not fail, but for none of the rest, and commanded Peter when he was converted to strengthen his brethren, he 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 privy 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 he had delvered a general commission to all, he gave him a particular Commission to feed his sheep, to feed his lambs; he required a greater measure of love of Peter than he did of the rest, John 21.15. which was an argument, not only that Christ had forgiven him much, but also that he had given unto him more than the rest of the Apostles: Christ forewarned Peter of his manner of death, and encouraged him to suffer to the end, Follow thou me, saith he, John 21. this he, did not to any of the rest. By all these particulars we see our Saviour Christ differenced Peter from the rest of the Apostles, which evidently shows that Christ gave him some dignity and pre-eminence, that he gave not unto the rest.  
The angel also that appeared to Mary Magdalene put a difference between Peter and the rest, when he directed her to go 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 down his name always 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 Matthew 10. he saith not Primum adverbialiter, but Primus nominaliter, the first, and this is an evident argument of his priority)  
The Apostle Paul also beareth witness to this truth in that by way of Emphasis he calleth him the Apostle of the Circumcision, and that Christ wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the Circumcision, this was not because he was the only Apostle of the Circumcision, for in that same chapter, to wit Galat. 2. where he calleth the Apostle Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision; he saith also, that James and John were also Apostles of the Circumcision, for thus he speaks: Peter, James, and John gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that they should go unto the Jews, and we unto the Gentiles; Peter then is called the Apostle of the Circumcision by way of Emphasis, because he had a precedency of the rest of the Apostles of the Circumcision. Yea, we see that the Apostle Paul prefers Peter in his account, to the rest of the Apostles, for Gal. 1. he saith, that after three years he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, he mentions none of the rest, not James who was Bishop of Jerusalem; and 1 Cor. 9.5. he gives some pre-eminence to Peter, Have not we (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 accompany me in my travels, as well as the rest of the Apostles? yea, as well as the brethren of the Lord, yea even as Cephas, who is in dignity before all the rest; yea, would he say, we have power as well as any of them, even as well as Peter himself.  
All these Evidences were nothing, if he did not make proof of his priority de facto, if he had not exercised it, and confirmed it by his practice, but this he did, both in his Masters own time, as I showed you before; and also much more after his ascension: This, a very novice may perceive, that will but read the Acts of the Apostles; For immediately after Christ's ascension he takes the place upon him, without any election, or the voices of the rest.  
Me thinks if Christ had not given him this pre-eminence, 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 careful of the government of his Church then so: he saw them before his death contesting for precedency, & the first place, and foresaw also, that after his departure there would be emulation and strife amongst them, who should be chief, and therefore most wisely he thought good to prevent this schism and division: For he knew if they had fallen out amongst themselves for this priority of order, who were to be the first and chief publishers of the gospel, and Witnesses of all that Christ did, and said, It might have been imputed to him by those, who hereafter took occasion to stop the course of the gospel. They might have said even as the thief upon the cross, and the other railers that passed by said to him, (and thou be the son of God, come down from the cross) So I say, they might have said, and this man had been such a man as they call him, he would have prevented this misorder and contention, he would have appointed one of the number, to be first in order among them, to moderate their assemblies, for avoiding of confusion and dissension, but blessed be the God of order, that would not leave his Church without order.  
The Apostle Saint Peter then without any more ceremony obeys his Master's commandments, he commanded him when he was converted to strengthen his brethren, he gave him direction both to feed his sheep and his lambs, and he like an obedient servant will not fail to do, what he commanded with all expedition.  
And first he begins with a Sermon (ad clerum) to the rest of the Apostles, and the other Disciples, and tells them, that it was necessary, that Judas should play the Apostate, that the Scripture might be fulfilled; and that it was also necessary to fill his room, that the number of those might be made up again, 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, wondered and marvelled at the matter; some said that they were drunken, but the Apostle Peter in his Sermon made it known 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 he 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 history of the Acts to the 13. chapter concerns the Apostle Peter, and his service in the ministry: and so by all these evidences it appears, that Saint Peter was precedent of the Apostles.  
It appears also in this, that Peter was chief Apostle of the Circumcision, because his chief stay for many years was at Jerusalem. Although the Apostle James was the peculiar Bishop of that city yet in regard of the general charge that he had over the whole Nation, his most frequent abode was there: for both the times that Paul went to Jerusalem, both the third year after his conversion, and fourteen years there after he found Peter there; yea, that his chief residence was there at that time; it is manifest by the Apostle Paul his resolution, for he saith Galat. 1.18. that three years after his Conversion he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.  
The Apostle Peter also maketh manifest, that the gospel over the Circumcision, was chiefly committed to him, by directing his Epistles only to the Jews: for his first Epistle is only written to the Jews, whom he calleth strangers scattered throughout Asia, Gala●ia, Pontus, Cappadocia: Now it is most certain, that in all these Nations at that time, when he writ his Epistle, there were many Gentiles converted to the Christian faith, and yet he writes to none of them, but to the Jewish Nation only, so that we may very easily perceive, that his chief care was o● the Jewish Church: and that the second Epistle was written t● them only, it is manifest to any, that will read but the third chapter of the said Epistle.  
Now the question may be asked, who gave Peter this precedency, and priority of order among the Apostles? I answer, This question is without all question, for no doubt Christ his Master gave it him; again, it will be asked when it was, that Christ gave it him? Answer, some thinks that he gave him this dignity, when he changed his name, and called him Peter; some again that he was thus advanced, when he promised to give him the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And indeed, both these are certain signs of preferment: The delivery of the keys to any, was ever a sign of preferment; yea, also of Power and authority, for he that hath the keys he goeth thorough all: as when the Husband giveth the keys to his new-married wife, he 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 affairs: 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 special sign of his power and authority within that City: even so when our Saviour gave the keys of the kingdom 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 proof 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 tells him that he shall be driven from his Station, and civil place, Eliakim in his room, and in sign of his preferment and authority, he saith, and the Key of the House of David, will I lay upon his shoulders, so he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open, that is, he will give unto Eliakim chief power in Ezekias house, and in the City of Jerusalem: whose advancement was a figure of the kingdom of Christ. And by the spirit of God applied to Christ, Revelat. 3.7. Which power he conferred upon his Apostles, when he said, All power is given unto me both in heaven and in earth: Whose sins ye remit shall be remitted, and whose sins you retain shall be retained, whose sins ye bind in earth, shall be bound in heaven, whose sins ye lose in earth, shall be loosed in heaven: and this the Spirit of God confirmeth. Revel. 2.26. where he promiseth to that Minister of the Church of Thyatira, that overcometh and keepeth his works unto the end, power over the Nations, which is not to be understood of civil power and authority (Christ meddles not with that) but of spiritual power and jurisdiction, even as I received of my Father (saith he V. 27.) so than when Christ promised to Peter, that he would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, out of all question, it was a sign of his preferment to some dignity, but not of his power and authority above his brethren; for that which he promised to give to him, he 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 ye remit, &c. I would have persuaded myself, that Christ had given Peter power and authority over the rest, and not only a priority of order, and a precedency of Moderation.  
Some thinks that our Saviour Christ, give not Peter this precedency till after the resurrection, yea, after he had given the general commission to all the Apostles in common, when he said to him, Feed my Sheep, feed my Lambs: but for my part, I will not dispute, when he gave in him, sure all these are evidences that Christ, and none other did advance him in that kind, and many more than these, as may be collected by the former doctrine, and which I shall make more plain hereafter.  
Again it will be asked, how long this precedency of peter's was to continue, for a year or half a year, or how long? truly for any thing can be said in the contrary, he had it for his life time; What Christ hath joined together, what man dare put asunder? Christ gave him precedency, 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 Jews were divided from the Gentiles that were Christians, by the Ceremonies of the Law of Moses, which they would needs keep. The Apostle Peter took a special care of the Jewish Nation, so he took a special care of Jews in Antiochia, who were Christians, but zealous of the Law, Gal. 1. yea, it was condescended between him and the Apostle Paul, that it should be so: but I believe that the main work which was enjoined him by his Master, in common with the rest of the Apostles, to teach all Nations, did in the end draw him of that particular charge of the Jewish Nation; yet I think he ever kept that priority of order amongst the Apostles, which his Master conferred upon him, upon all occasions.  
A third question will 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 universal, and not confined to any particular Place, Congregation, Province, or Kingdom; Yet his precedency in general among the chief governors of the Church in all several Kingdoms and Nations was to have a succession, order was requisite among the successors of the Apostles, as well as among them, and this order was to be defined according to the division of kingdoms and Provinces: Saint Peter was chief precedent in the Churches of Jews, in which respect he might have successors, yea, and had them too, and so a chief precedent was requisite among the governors of the Churches of other Kingdoms.  
Again this question will be asked, since a priority of order, is necessary in all Churches, must it remain constantly in one person, or may it be changed from one to another, that every one may bear his part, and all bear equal burden? Answer. I see no reason why it should be changed, except this vicissitude can be proved by Scripture, Christ hath left us a pattern, and this pattern we ought to follow.  
Further, it may be asked how this precedent should be elected? I answer by him who is God's 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 God's 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 replied, that we have no pattern for this in the Scripture. I answer none, except that we find the election of Mathias referred to God: and the King is in God's place, and a God upon earth, I have said ye are gods, Psal. 82. and John 10. Reply: but this choice was referred immediately to God, the lots is cast into the lap.  
I answer, in the election of Mathias, I find that the Apostles had a hand in it, the seventy Disciples and other inferior Ministers, for they made choice of Mathias 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 joined together. Upon other occasions the Apostle only made choice of inferior Ministers, Timothy by prophecy, and so there is no certain pattern left us in the Scriptures for the right of nomination. But if it were so agreed upon, it were easy to devise a way how both the people, inferior Ministers, the governors of the Church, and the supreme Magistrate might have their several voices in the nomination of Churchmen of the first rank and order, and yet in end the Lord to make the choice, but it were boldness 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 do 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 precedency of the rest of the Apostles, in the Church of the Jews; next that this precedency was given him by Christ his Master; Thirdly, that this precedency is not only profitable and expedient, but necessary for the Government of all Churches; and this I will do by formal 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.  
he 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 only once by the Apostle Paul, Gal. 2. who without all doubt, did it by the motion of God's 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 primacy but not a supremacy, a priority, 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, he 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 he who was an Apostle himself, 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 precedency of the rest of the Apostles.  
The proposition I think 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 senate, 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 precedency of Moderation amongst the Apostles.   

The fourth Argument.  
He whom the angel in particular commanded Mary to tell the Christ was risen from the dead, and none of the rest, had some sort of pre-eminence 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 pre-eminence before the rest.  
Truly, in my judgement, 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 angel of God would never have mentioned Peter by himself, and all the rest of the Disciples in gross.   

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 precedency, of the rest of the Apost.  
Now why the Apostle Paul should respect and honour Saint Peter, more than the rest of the Apostles, I know no reason, except he had had some place and pre-eminence of the rest. That he respected him more than the rest, we find, Gal. 1.18. for he saith there, that he went up to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, of purpose to see Peter, and remained with him 15 days: I will only ask my opponents, for what cause he went up to see Peter, more than James, who was Bishop of Jerusalem.   

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, than 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 boldness upon me to say that it were little less than 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 choose Saint Peter to be their speaker, being a man of most singular parts, why may we not, yea, why should we 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 show 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 Christ's donation of it, I refer to the judicious Reader.   

The seventh Argument.  
He that took a special 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 special care not only of the Christian Jews that lived in the land of Judea, but also of those who dwells in other nations.  
And therefore Peter had the chief charge of the Circumcision, and consequently both of the pastors and the people.  
The truth of the proposition, appears by his writing to the one, and remaining with the other. Both his Epistles are written to the dispersed Tribes, and that he remained in Judea, for many years after the ascension of Christ is evident, Gal. 1. for Paul not only, three years after his conversion went up of purpose to Jerusalem, to see Peter, but 14 years thereafter, when he went up he found Peter there: and that Peter had an oversight both of pastors and people, we 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 special their chief governors, and forbids them to exercise their power tyrannically over their inferiors, 1 Pet. 5.1,2,3. and in his second Epistle 1.12. he saith, that he will not be negligent to put them always 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 endeavour, that you may be able, after my decease, to have these things always in remembrance, so that hereby it appears infallibly, that Peter had the chief oversight 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 special 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 than 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 special affairs most, yea, and him he purposed to make the chief instrument of the advancement of his Kingdom.  
And therefore he 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 than another, & choose him to be their nearest minion, at lest they will 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 pre-eminence, which indeed will make all others to respect him, and reverence him, because they see the King's affection set upon him: when King Assuerus, resolved to honour Mordecai, he commanded Haman to put his Robe royal upon him, and to set him on his best horse, and to lead him through the City of Susan, and proclaim before him, Thus shall it be done to him whom the King will honour: how much more, whomsoever the King of King's desires to honour moethen others, in this life will he advance to some dignity at least, in the face of the whole world, and proclaim as it were before them, thus shall it be done to him whom the King of King's desires to honour, and therefore since Christ had a respect to Peter more than the rest of the Apostles; it cannot be questioned but he made him president of the rest, for since a precedent was necessary for avoiding of strife and contention, it is very likely, that Christ would give it to Peter, rather than any other. The truth of the assumption we may see in the grounds before laid down.   

The second Argument.  
If the changing of names be a sign of honour and preferment, than Peter was honoured and preferred by Christ before the rest of the Apostles.  
But the changing of names, is a sign 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 himself changed Peter's name, from Simon to Peter, and so if the changing of names be a sign of honour and preferment, than Peter was without doubt honoured and preferred by Christ.  
As to the assumption, that the changing of names is a sign of honour and preferment, I prove it by the changing of Abraham's name, in Abraham, and Jaacobs' name in Israel, when it pleased God to advance them, Gen. 32.28. and 41, 45. even so when Pharaoh preferred Joseph, 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 Hester's name, when he took her to be his Queen, and called her Hadasha, Ester 2.  
But some may reply that Christ gave James and John a new name, and called them Bonarges, that is, sons of thunder; I answer, that is rather a title than 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 himself, and a name signifying his priority and precedency, and was for the most part called by that name, at all occasions. And further some are of opinion, that James and John 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 special evidences, that Christ did not establish a parity among Church officers.   

The third Argument.  
he that took this precedency upon him, after his name was changed, he received this precedency when his name was changed;  
But Peter took this precedency upon him, after his name was changed.  
And therefore Peter received this precedency, when his name was changed.  
The proposition cannot be but true for if Peter took this precedency 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 sign of honour and preferment. As to the assumption, that Peter took this precedency upon him, after he received his new name; read the gospel of Saint Matthew, and ye will find, that the Apostle Peter is the man, that for the most part at least, takes upon him to speak for all the rest, after this time.   

The fourth argument.  
If it was about the time that Christ changed Peter's name, that the Disciples strove who should be first, then by all appearance Christ at this time, gave unto Peter this precedency.  
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 necessary, for avoiding of schism 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 chief. Compare Mat. 16.17. & 18. and Mark 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 Peter's name, that the Apostles strove who should be chief.   

The fifth Argument.  
he for whom Christ paid toll, and for none of the rest, he gave him a priority and precedency of the rest.  
But Christ paid toll for Peter, but for none of the rest.  
And therefore Christ gave to Peter, a priority and precedency before the rest.  
The Proposition is very probable, for why should Christ have bidden Peter pay toll for him and himself only, and he had not had some pre-eminence and precedency of the rest, surely I cannot imagine what other cause there can be alleged.  
As to the assumption 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 kingdom of heaven, he gave him a priority and precedency of the rest of the Apostles.  
But Christ promised only to Peter, to give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  
And therefore Christ gave Peter a priority and precedency 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 he made account to give to all the rest of the Apostles, as well as to him an evident argument in my mind, of his priority, for it was a special 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 believe the rest of the Apostles knew not so much themselves, neither I think 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, James, and John, to be witnesses of his transfiguration and raising of Jairus Daughter, all these respects Christ showed to Peter about the same time, as may easily be perceived in the harmony of the Evangelists, which occasioned the murmuring of the rest, for the which Christ reproved them, Math. 18. and Mark 9 and Luke 9  
But I see neither danger nor absurdity to say, that the promise was only made to Peter, Christ did not give him the keys, 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 sins ye 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 fail, and did not so for any of the rest, he gave him a pre-eminence, and a precedency before the rest.  
But Christ prayed for Peter in particular, that his faith should not fail, and did not so for any of the rest.  
And therefore Christ gave Peter some pre-eminence, and precedency 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 he had not laid a greater charge upon him, then upon any of the rest of the Apostles, he gave unto all apostolical power and authority, and as ample a charge to teach all Nations, as he gave unto Peter, but forasmuch as he gave unto him a certain oversight of the Apostles, as well as the inferior 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 he was to be besieged, and to enable him with such a measure of grace, as the greatness 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 fail, and he tells the reason too, because he foresaw that he should be highly tempted by Satan; at this same time he offered up unto his Father most sweet, pithy and powerful prayers, as ye may read, John 17. the reading of which prayers will move any Christian heart, that has the least measure of grace in it; O then! how powerful 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 general then, but in that he offered up a particular prayer in behalf of Peter, it is an Argument that his Master made a particular difference between him in the rest.   

The eighth Argument.  
he whom Christ commanded to strengthen his brethren when he was converted, he gave him some pre-eminence, 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 pre-eminence, 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 encourage him: which soever of these duties he was commanded to perform on behalf of his brethren, it argues at the least this priority and precedency, less pre-eminence it cannot portend, I am fully persuaded, that Christ would never have commanded Peter to discharge any of those duties towards his brethren, more than he would have directed them to do 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.  
he 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 priority and precedency, yea, of some particular charge that he received from his Master, that was not laid upon any of the rest, join the consideration of Christ his appearance here to Peter, and the angel his direction to Mary, to tell Peter in particular of Christ's Resurrection, and other evidences already specified, this argument will be strong enough to confirm all that I have said.  
As to the assumption, that Christ appeared first to Peter, the Apostle Paul shows 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.  
he to whom our Saviour Christ gave a particular commission, after he had delivered a general commission to all the rest of the Apostles in common, to him he gave some privilege before the rest of the Apostles.  
But Christ gave a particular Commission to Peter, after he had delivered a general commission to all the rest of the Apostles in common.  
And therefore Christ gave Peter some privilege above the rest of the Apostles.  
The Proposition I hold it most strong, for when, after a general commission is delivered to an whole collective body, how they shall carry themselves in the duties of their calling, a particular charge again is given to some one of the number, it argues a certain kind of singularity, as for example, when the King's majesty being general of his Army himself, gives directions to the under officers of the army, and then in particular, tells his own lieutenant what should be his care and solicitude, he plainly declares his eminence above the rest: or when the Bishop comes to visit any particular parish of his diocese, and gives Injunctions in general to all the whole Parish, and then in particular tells the Minister his duty, doth not the Bishop hereby declare his eminency above the rest? when our Saviour Christ called Peter and Andrew, Philip and Nathaniel, John and James, he called them all at the same time to be Preachers of the gospel, and yet he said to Peter only, Henceforth thou shalt catch men. So to bring a particular after a general, it still argues a singularity, and so this commission which he gives to Peter by himself is a mighty argument that Peter had some special oversight in the Church of God, which none of the rest had, and this was no other thing but a priority of order, and precedency of moderation, in the meetings of the Apostles; it is not an argument that he had any power over the rest, but only a precedency, to moderate all things discreetly, to gather the voices faithfully, and to take a special care that all things be done orderly, and all schism and confusion shunned.  
As to the assumption, that Christ gave particular commission to Peter, after he had given a general commission to all in common; we read John 21. where Christ commands Peter to feed his sheep, to feed his lambs: this commission is not only a several 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 certain particular persons whom Christ calleth his sheep here and his lambs; now all those whom the Apostles in general are commanded to teach, cannot be called Christ's sheep or his lambs, for they were commanded to teach all in general without exception, go preach the Gospel to every creature, saith Christ, Mark 16. by every creature here is meant all men, as I think all men will confess: but all men are not Christ's sheep, nor Christ's lambs, and therefore some particular persons must be understood here: now who are these?  
I answer, Some think that by sheep here is understood strong Christians, and by lambs weak Christians, but this cannot be: because at this time I think there was not many strong Christians, it was hard then to discern between the strong and the weak, even the Apostles themselves were but weak at this time, as we may perceive by that question which they proponed to Christ, to wit, if he was to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time. They minded still a temporal kingdom, and as long as they expected such a kingdom, no man will say that they were strong Christians, they were but all weak until the Pentecost, at which time the holy Ghost strengthened them abundantly. Neither can be understood by sheep, ancient Christians, and by lambs new converts, for all that did stick to Christ at this time, they were no doubt Christ's ancientest Disciples, that had been for a long time in his company, that had long heard his doctrine, and seen his miracles: neither can be understood Gods elect who are called his sheep in the Scriptures, and also his lambs, for then there should be no difference between the two words Lambs and Sheep, but they do signify 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 been contrary to the general commission given afore to all; neither is understood inferior Ministers and the people, for all the rest of the Apostles had this oversight as well as Peter, and laid upon them all by Christ in the general commission: but by all probability, is understood here by sheep, the rest of the Apostles, and by Lambs the 70. Disciples, and all those that were to be joined to them in either of the functions, & this commandment 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 general was given to all, which is an argument of his particular oversight over all, both Pastors and people, for I hope we will not except any sorts of Pastors out of the number of God's sheep.  
I grant that threefold confession which Christ expostulates of Peter, had a reference to Peter's threefold denial, for as Peter denied his Master thrice, so his Master to testify his earnest repentance would have him to make a threefold confession, for every time that he denied him, he would have him to make as many confessions, and professions of his love to him, but there is a great difference between Peter's confession and his Master's commission, the confession came from Peter, and rested as it were in Christ, the commission contrary ways proceeded from Christ, and was terminate in Peter, that Christ then gave Peter, this commission, was because of the general 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 dignity and estimation above the rest by Christ his own ordinance.  
But Christ forewarned Peter of the manner of his death, and encouraged him to endure patiently to the end, and did not so to any of the rest:  
And therefore Peter was in dignity and estimation above the rest, by Christ's own ordinance.  
The truth of the Proposition stands in this, that if Christ had not preferred Peter to some dignity above the rest, he would not have used him so respectively, and encouraged him so many and divers ways, and not the rest of the Apostles.  
The assumption is manifest, Iob. 21.18.19. verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, &c.   

The twelfth Argument.  
he that was appointed by Christ, to be the chief Apostle of the Circumcision, received from Christ a priority and precedency of the rest of the Apostles.  
But the Apostle Peter was appointed by Christ, to be the chief Apostle of the Circumcision:  
And therefore the Apostle Peter received from Christ, a priority, and a precedency of the rest of the Apostles.  
Either this primacy which our Saviour Christ gave unto Peter, did consist in a priority and precedency, or in a superiority of power and Authority, but this cannot be granted, because we see no warrant for it in Scripture at all, and therefore of necessity this priority and precedency for orders fake must be granted him.  
As to the assumption, that Christ appointed S. Peter to be the chief Apostle of the Circumcision, is manifest, Gal. 2.7. where the Apostle Paul saith, that the gospel 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 himself made this distinction; But here it will be objected, that the gospel 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 gospel 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 Peter's, over the Jewish nation, for our Saviour Christ before called them his sheep, when he first gave them all a commission to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and indeed this charge before Christ's death was laid upon all alike, but after his Resurrection he enlarged their charge, and commanded them to teach all Nations, and withal gave the special oversight of the Jews to S. Peter, as is most clear & evident by the testimony of the Apostle Paul, Gal. 2.7.  
The necessity of this precedency comes to be spoken of in the third place, of the which I will 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 (as we speak) it is most certain. Necessitate medij, because otherwise there could neither be government nor order in God's house, but mere confusion and misorder, such as is not to be found among many sorts of brutish creatures: necessitate praecepti, for the Apostle Paul commands that all things be done decently and in order; which order I think was necessary in the days of Christ and his Apostles though not so necessary as now; yea, Christ himself hath tacitly enjoined it, Mar. 9.35,36. & Luk. 9.47,48. where he commands, that he that desired the first place among them to be servant to all, and most meek and humble in his own conceit, he will have him both last of all, and least of all, and then saith our Saviour, the same shall be great, as if he would say, only they are worthy of preferment, that are humble and meek, and lowly, and of small account in their own conceit.  
I will make this doctrine manifest by a formal argument.  
If Christ hath declared how those should be qualified, that have chief place among the governors of the Church, than it is Christ's will and pleasure, that there be one to moderate in their meetings and assemblies.  
But Christ hath declared how those should be qualified, that have chief place among the governors of the Church.  
And therefore it is Christ's will and pleasure, that there be one to moderate in their meetings and assemblies.  
The Proposition will be granted; I prove the assumption.  
If Christ hath commanded that those, that have any priority in dignity or degree in the Government of the Church to be simple as Doves, and meek and humble as children, yea, account themselves as servants to the rest, than Christ hath declared how those should be qualified that have chief place among the governors of the Church.  
But the first is true, and therefore the second.  
The proposition cannot be denied, the assumption is manifest, Mat. 9 35,36. and Luke 9.47,48. Yea our Saviour sets his own example before them to follow, behold, would our Saviour say, although I be chief among you, yet am I as he that serveth, the son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, Matth. 20.28. yea, which is worth our consideration after that he hath declared, that he that desires to be chief among them, must humble himself like a little child, he inferreth, Whosoever receiveth one of such little children, receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me, and whosoever shall offend one of those little ones that believeth in me, it is better that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the Sea: Augustine saith, by little ones we must understand humble ones, such as he would have his Disciples to be, and to receive such little ones, is to obey the governors, of the Church, that humble themselves to attend upon us, as the Mother to attend her children, and to have a care of them, and they that receive such with all submission and obedience, Christ saith, they receive him, and not him only, but also him that sent him, and to offend those humble ones, (saith Augustine) is to disobey them or contradict them: that this is the true meaning of our Saviour; it is evident by the like speech of our Saviour to his Disciples, Matth. 10.40. he that receiveth you, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. And Luke the 10.16. he expounds himself these words as I have done. He that heareth you, heareth me (saith our Saviour) and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me, to hear in this place is to obey, and to despise is to desobey.  
So than we see that Christ hath evidently declared, that all those that have the chief government of the Church, must be humble, meek, and lowly, and consequently that chief governors there must be, and a chief precedent among these governors.  
But it will be replied, that this necessity is not absolute but conditional, when the governors of the Church, has occasion to meet and assemble together. I answer, if it be of absolute necessity that there be chief governors in the Church, according to Christ's appointment, than is it absolutely necessary, that there be a constant precedent to moderate their meetings & assemblies. There is no Incorporation without a chief: a Major, an Alderman, a bailie, no Company without their Master, to moderate all their meetings: even so the governors of the Church, must have a constant Moderator to sit amongst them, upon all occasions to convene them together when need is, propone matters to be handled in their assemblies, stay contentions and misorder, impose silence to the mutinous, and many other things.  
Here again my opponents will reply, that the forementioned governors are elected every year: I answer, than he that has the first place among them may be elected after that same manner; but in a Society, where the governors has place for their life time, or ad culpam, than the chief precedent must be continued for his life, or ad culpam. I grant, to choose a Speaker at every assembly is conform to the platform of presbyterial Government, for this precedent is no longer needful in a Church so governed, because the Church during the not sitting of the assembly, is governed by Presbyteries in such a bound, and by Sessions consisting of the Ministers and lay Elders in every Parish, and so they need not a constant Moderator; but in a Church that is governed according to the pattern that Christ hath left behind him, that is, if the government be established in the persons of certain chief governors, with the concurrence of those whom they shall choose to assist them, of necessity this precedent must be constant and perpetual, either ad vitam, or ad culpam.  
But what do I dispute a point, so clearly revealed in the Scriptures? did not Christ appoint the 12 Apostles, and their successors to be chief Governors of the Church? who can, yea, who dare deny it? and is it not as manifest that Christ appointed a precedent to moderate all their meetings? and was he not appointed to moderate for his life? if he was not, show me how long he was to continue in his office? when he was to lay it down? Well I am sure, Christ was as wise as all the thousands of my opponents, and he knew the necessity of order and government in his Church, and therefore laid down a platform of Government to teach us what form of Government to follow, and what form he thought most necessary and expedient himself, and if he have laid down any other platform than I have declared, I shall be very willing to know, and as willing to learn. O bessed Jesus, thou that art the way, the truth and the life, Direct me in thy truth, lead me one in that way, that I may be partaker of that life, which shall never have an end. Amen.  
I know some of the weakest of my opponents will say, that by this d●ctrine, I give too much advantage to Papists, in affirming Peter to have been primus Apostolus, and chief overseer of the rest. Truly these brethren, exposes their weakness to the World, for they neither know what popery is, nor what it is to oppose Popery: to maintain Bishops to have been instituted by Christ, and that Christ did choose 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 Pope's creatures, and not Christ's, 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 equal secundam consecrationem Eucharistiae, in regard of their equal power to consecrate the Eucharist, and all this they say to maintain the Pope's pretended supremacy for Bellarmine, that great champion of Rome, affirms that the calling of the 11 Apostles was extraordinary, and that they were Christ's extraordinary ambassadors, and that Peter was only appointed by Christ to be the ordinary and chief pastor of the Church, and that he and his successors the Popes should govern the universal Church in all ages to come: now I refer it to the judgement of all Christians, to judge between me 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 perpetual, so doth my opponents; the papists say that the 11 Apostles was but Christ's extraordinary ambassadors, so doth my opponents; the papists say that the episcopal 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 maintain that the calling of the Apostles was an ordinary calling, and that the Apostles was ordained by Christ to be the chief governors of the Church, and to have successors in all ages and generations to come, superior both in dignity and degree, to inferior presbyters.  
But my opponents will say, although I do not agree with the papists in the forementioned heads, concerning the episcopal 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 he 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 universal Bishop over his whole Church throughout the World; I say that Christ committed only to him the chief 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 equal 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, civil and spiritual: that is both civil and spiritual power, I say he only received spiritual power, and that equally with the rest of the Apostles. The papists say that the pope of Rome is Peter's successor in the Universality of jurisdiction: I say that an Archbishop is his successor, in his priority of order and primacy 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, he in the point of episcopal government, saith wholly as they say, I am against them in all the foresaid controversies, I give no more to Peter, than the chief adversaries of popery gives him, Calvin, Piscator jewel, Willet, Marlorat, as I made manifest before by their particular testimonies, to whom accords Davenant in his determinations, for he 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 obtained 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 equal to him in every respect. And truly I remember no Protestant Divine that denies 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 main grounds of popery.  
For although the Papists abuse the foresaid places of Scripture, to maintain 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 far upon the other hand: although the Papists abuse the words of our Saviour Christ (hoc est corpus meum) to maintain their transubstantiation, yet we must not deny a real and spiritual presence of Christ's body in the souls of the faithful: even so although the papists abuse the foresaid places of Scripture to maintain Peter's supremacy, and the universality of the Pope's 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 supreme power and authority, which the papists ascribe to Peter and his successor 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 been very sparing in amplifying the prerogative, and pre-eminence, 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 we decline as far to the other, God forbid, because papists defend a bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament, that we turn Sacramentaries, because the papists extol good works and make them meritorious, that we turn Libertines, because papists will needs worship God supra statutum, they will do more than God hath commanded, that we refuse to do that which he hath appointed: even so God forbid, because Papists make Peter universal monarch of the whole world, that we deny, that he was chief Apostle of the circumcision, and had a priority of order among the governors of the Church of the Jews, which the Scripture gives him in plain language, let us remember, that they that add to, and they that take from the word of God, are both subject to the same curse, and that they that call evil good, and good evil, are in the same case.  
For my own part, I dare not but speak the truth as I find it delivered in the Scriptures, it is the duty of all God's messengers, to reveal the whole counsel of God, and to keep back nothing, the knowledge whereof is necessary for the promoving of God's glory, and the advancement of the kingdom of his dear son: and this point which I maintain, concerning the superiority of Church Governors, concerns the external government of his kingdom, I am sure, and it is so clear 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 mark of the Church, and a part of the gospel; it stands us then greatly in hand, to make trial, which is that government, that Christ hath established in his Church, and truly the government which I defend is the only government which we find established by Christ and his Apostles, and which hath been 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 years, and truly it makes my hair to stand upon my head to hear so glorious Epithiets given to the Inventions of men, as to call their discipline, the temple of God, Mount Zion, the Tabernacle of the Lord, the eternal council of God, the sceptre of Juda, a mark of the Church, a part of the gospel: these Epithiets, & styles are proper to the apostolical 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 jesu! happy should I think myself, if I should see thy Church in all Christian kingdoms governed, as thou hast prescribed in thy word; and thus much I have said for Peter's archiepiscopal priority, now I will say somewhat for Paul's, 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 truly 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 be as high as Peter's, he was not inferior he saith to the chief Apostle; and if we look to the manner of their calling, Paul's calling was much more glorious than Peter's, even when he was first called to be a preacher of the gospel. Peter was called when he was going about the works of his calling, Paul when he was raging with all cruelty against the Saints of God, Christ arrests him and makes him stand and yield, Saul, Saul, why persecutes thou me, it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks: it was at this time that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which is not lawful 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 greatness of the work, whereunto he was called, which our Saviour makes known to Ananias Act. 9 for he saith to him, he is a chosen vessel unto me to bear my name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and the children of Israel, for I will show him saith the Lord, what great things he shall suffer for my name's sake, this was the first time that he was called, and that only to be a preacher of the gospel, he was not as yet called to be an Apostle; nor he was not advanced some years after this to the apostolical function, not before the Lord appeared to the Prophets and teachers at Antioch, and required them to separate to him Barnabas & Saul, to the work whereunto he had called them Act. 13. it was at this time that he 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 he is called by a new name Paul.  
That Paul was the chief Apostle of the Churches of the Gentiles, he shows in divers places of his Epistles, Eph. 3. he saith, for this cause I Paul the prisoner of Jesus 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 less than 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 chiefly given him. But he most plainly declares his priority in the Churches of the Gentiles, Gal. 2. for there he equals himself with Peter, who as I have made manifest, had a priority of order among the 12. Apostles, and in the whole Jewish Church, and doth not in any case acknowledge himself inferior to him, neither in order nor degree, yea he tells us plainly that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to him, as the gospel of circumcision was committed to Peter, which testimony of the Apostle Paul's, evidently declares, that there was a special oversight committed unto Peter, in the Church of the Jews, and unto Paul, in the Church of the Gentiles, for if it had not been 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 Jews was committed to Peter, James, and John, 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 ministry 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 special oversight of the uncircumcision to himself in these words, He that was effectual 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 shows not the greatness 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, Apollo's of Cor. and others; And although these men's Apostleship may be questioned, there can no be question of Barnabas Apostleship, and tha● over the uncircumcision too, and yet the Apostle Paul saith that he had a special 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 known the great care that he had of their salvation, as may be instanced in his expostulations, protestations and earnest exhortations, yea he had a special care of those Churches that were not planted by himself, but by others, as of the Church of Col. Laodicea, Rome: & where he planted the gospel himself, what a special care had he to visit them again, and keep them safe as far as as he could, from the entering in of wolves to devour 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 chiefly committed to him, which he proveth by the testimony of Peter, James and John, who gave him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that they should go unto the Jews, and they unto the heathen; now from these grounds, I will form some arguments for Paul his priority of order among the Churches of the Gentiles.   

The first Argument.  
IF Paul was not inferior to Peter, neither in dignity not degree, then if Peter had a priority and precedency among the Apostles of the circumcision, Paul had the same priority among the ministers of the uncircumcision.  
But Paul was not inferior 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 inferior, neither in dignity nor degree, to the Apostle Peter, I hope will not be denied, for he defendeth it in many passages of his Epistles; and that Peter had a priority, and a precedency among the Apostles of the circumcision, I have made manifest by clear evidence of Scripture, and therefore the conclusion will stand good, that Saint Paul had a priority, and a precedency, among the ministry of the uncircumcision.   

The second Argument.  
He to whom the gospel of the uncircumcision was chiefly committed, had a priority, and a precedency of all the Ministers of the uncircumcision, of whatsoever order or degree.  
But the Gospel of the uncircumcision, was chiefly committed to the Apostle Paul.  
And therefore Saint Paul had a priority, and a precedency, in the ministry of the uncircumcision, of all degrees.  
The proposition will be granted; I prove the assumption by the Apostle Paul his own testimony, Gal. 2. where he saith, As the gospel of the circumcision, was committed to Peter, so the gospel of the uncircumcision, was committed to him; thus the Apostle Paul speaks, not because the gospel of uncircumcision, was not committed to any other, for in that same Chapter, he saith that it was also committed to Barnabas, and in the general Commission given by Christ to all the Apostles, it was included; for they were commanded to teach all nations (omni creaturae) both Jews and Gentiles, but only because, it was principally committed to him; and this exposition Doctor Willet confirms in his Synopsis, Where he plainly testisieth that Paul had the chief Apostleship over the Gentiles, yea he saith, that Peter was chief 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 denied, but that Paul was chief towards the Gentiles, and therefore the Church of Rome might with better right, derive their authority from the Apostle Paul, than the Apostle Peter: now if Paul had an oversight of the whole Churches of the Gentiles, than it will follow that he had an oversight 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.  
He that had the care of all the Churches of the Gentiles, had a precedency of all the Apostles, and inferior Ministers, of these Churches.  
But the Apostle Paul had the chief care of all the Churches of the Gentiles, 2. Cor. 11. 26.  
And therefore the Apostle Paul, had the oversight of all the Apostles, and inferior 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.  
He that had the care not only of those Churches which he planted by his own ministry, but of those Churches also that were planted by the ministry of other men, he had an oversight of all the Pastors of those Churches.  
But the Apostle Paul had not only the care of those Churches, which he planted by his own ministry, but also of those Churches, which were planted by the ministry of other men.  
And therefore the Apostle Paul had an oversight of all the pastors of those Churches.  
The proposition must be granted, or else Paul might have been challenged for putting his sickle in another man's field, and intruding himself upon the labours of other men, and so to have stretched himself beyond his measure, which he labours by all means 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 ministry of others, he had a care of Rome, Col. Laodicea, which were planted by the ministry of others, as is evident Rom. 10. 11. for I long to see you, that I may Impart some spiritual gift unto you, to the end you may be established, and so forth to the 14. verse, and Col. 2.1. for I would ye knew, saith Paul, what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh, and verse 5. for although I be absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ, even as he saith Rom. 18. I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the world: so it is more than manifest that the Apostle Paul had a special care of those Churches, which were planted by others, and therefore it will follow necessarily that he had some oversight of the pastors as well as the people.   

The fifth argument.  
He that did Admonish, direct and command, as well the pastors as the people, he had some oversight 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 oversight, both of the pastors and the people.  
The proposition will be granted: I prove the assumption, by his Admonition he sent to Archippus, Col. 4. 17. and yet Archippus was planted in my judgement 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 again to them, which words argue some kind of oversight at least for he that sends is greater than he that is sent.   

The sixth Argument.  
I If the changing of Peter's name was a token of his preferment and advancement, than the changing of Paul's name was a token of his preferment and advancement.  
But the first is true, and therefore the second.  
I know it will be replied, that Christ changed Peter his name, but not Paul's. Answer. I am confident he also changed Paul's, for the reasons before alleged, although it be not in plain terms 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 gospel according to S. John. 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 conceal 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 show to him, no not the changing of his name; so the Apostle Paul conceals 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 evil 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 God's purpose, that Christ should not come of the seed of David, and also to deprive him of his kingdom. Saul the Pharisee persecuted Christ in his children, and did what he could to hinder the propagation of Christ's kingdom, 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 signify his conversion and change, who of a turbulent persecutor of Christians, became a quiet and peaceable Christian himself; and so S. Ambrose saith, before that this Apostle was washed with spiritual precepts, he was a blasphemer, a persecuter and a Saul: but when as the rain of the heavenly washing had flowed down 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 cometh 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 Jerome in Epist. ad Philem. But I am rather of Augustine his opinion, who follows rather the Latin etymology saying, after that he was brought unto the Master, that said, learn of me, for I am meek and gentle, he was named Paul. And again he saith, Saul laying aside the old coat of sin, being bloody with slaughter, took 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 apostolical charge, and so we read Act. 13. soon after he was separate, for that work, 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 sign of his preferment and advancement by Christ.   

The seventh Argument.  
He who took precedency upon him de facto, he had it de jure. But Paul took 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 took more upon him, than 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 took 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 speak, and therefore at Lystra Paul is called Mercurius because he spoke all, and Barnabas is called Jupiter.  
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 Jews and Gentiles, Peter of the Jews, and Paul of the Gentiles.  
There is one argument yet for the dignity and preeminency of both, viz. that the History of the Acts concerns them only, except very little in the beginning of the History, which in my judgement is an evident argument not only of their diligence in the ministry, but of their honour and preferment by Christ; that these two Apostles pains in the ministry should be in some part registrate, and the acts of none of the rest, no not of John who was a most painful preacher of the gospel even until the day of his death, yea some of them are not once named except in the general, 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 modern Writers to testify for me, that what I was to say, had been said of them before my time, hereby to free myself 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 sun shineth bright in at the windows? and so there is no need of either the testimonies of ancient or modern Writers, when the matter is delivered in the Scripture in plain and evident terms. 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 testify that I have said nothing, but that which is according to the clear evidence Scripture, and whereunto some of them did bear witness 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 himself, because he had received the Primacy to found the Church (of the Jews) and himself 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 Jews, if there were cause, for both of them are found to have done both, and yet it is known that full authority was given to Peter, in preaching to the Jews, and full authority to Paul in preaching to the Gentiles. And in the gloss S. Ambrose is thus alleged, Which of them doth resist Peter, to whom the Lord gave the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, nisi alias talis, but such another that knew himself, by the confidence of his election, not to be unequal. So saith Jerome, Paul doth reprehend Peter because he knew himself not to be unequal &c.  
So Jerome on Math. 16. saith, that all received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, yet one is chosen among the twelve, that an head being appointed all occasions of schism might be taken away.  
Chrysostom 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 sheep, 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 always showed to me, show now, and the life which thou saidst, thou wouldest lay down for me, lay down now for them.  
S. Augustine saith that Peter and Paul were chosen for the salvation of two peoples, Peter of the Jews, Paul of the Gentiles; Peter to repair the old and desert fields of Judea and to make them fruitful through the wholesomeness of faith and grace, being kept unfruitful by the shadow of the Law, and hidden from the heat of the sun; but Paul is sent to the Gentiles a new ground, that yielded no fruit before, that he might cut it with the plough of the Lord's cross, etc Therefore these two are more eminent than the rest of the Apostles, and by a certain peculiar prerogative did excel 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 entrance into the Temple, & that upon the right side he called Jachim, 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 signifying a rock most firmly established; and the word Paul signifying rest or quietness, which is opposite to motion, and so of such strength as cannot be moved or turned back. So that as Solomon 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 Solomon, 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 door which these two Apostles by their doctrine and ministry hath opened both to Jews and Gentiles; and therefore this ancient author compares the Jews to the right side called Jachim to whom Peter was chiefly sent; and the Gentiles to the left side called Boos, over whom Paul had the chief oversight.  
Surely it is mentioned by all the ancient Fathers, and modern 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 Jews, 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 personal prerogative that these two Apostles had granted them by Christ their Master, in the beginning of the gospel, can no ways 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 plain terms, Inst it 4. cap. 6. sect. 8. That the 12 Apostles had one among them to govern the rest, it was no marvel saith he, for nature requireth it, and the disposition of men will so have it, that in every company, although they be all equal in power, there be one as governor, by whom the rest shall be directed; There is no Court, saith he, without a consul, no Senate without a praetor, no college without a precedent, no Society without a Master; so that whatsoever is morally necessary in all ages, Nations, kingdoms, Provinces, Incorporations, Societies, can no ways be thought to be a peculiar Prerogative to one or two particular men, living in one age, or in one Nation and kingdom.  
Secondly, this priority is much more necessary now in a settled Church, than it was in a Church while the foundation was but in laying, the Apostles calling was universal, and they were ordained to preach the gospel to all Nations, and had equal power conferred upon them to preach the gospel, and to gather a Church unto Christ, and thereafter to erect a ministry and plant overseers among them, there was not great need of a Precedent, and in special in the Churches of the Gentiles, until there was a company to go before; but now in a settled 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 settled it in the persons of Peter and Paul to be a pattern to afterages, showing 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 than it was then, the Church not being settled, and the Apostles and Presbyters charge being ambulatory, and their ministry spread over all, and the rather since the Apostle James was settled in Jerusalem as Bishop there, who was sufficient to govern the whole Church of the Jews, with the assistance of his Presbyters, so that Peter's Precedency in the Church of the Jews seemed not to be so necessary, except only that Christ thought good to do so, for an example to afterages, yea that superiority and inferiority, which he established in the persons of the several ranks of church-governors was not so needful then as now, considering that then Apost. and the 70. Disciples, and their successors in both degrees, had the gift of miracles, and other extraordinary gifts, by which powerful means, they were able to keep all their inferiors in order and awe: for if by such means they were able to work faith and repentance in their souls, they were as sufficient to work amendment of life in their conversation; and therefore at this time all churchmen might have been of equal authority, both for dignity and degree, and yet Christ himself, with his own mouth did constant both divers dignities and divers degrees, and that chiefly 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 days without meat, his walking upon the sea, and such other miraculous, and extraordinary works: 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 Mosaical Ordinances, Christ kept them all, he came to fulfil all righteousness, he saith he came not to break the Law but fulfil it, yea that one jot or title of the Word of God should not pass away he saith, until 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 barefooted, he traveled on foot, we never read that he did ride on horseback, but once that he did ride upon an ass to Jerusalem; well, we may choose whether we will follow him in these things or not. Lastly, in some things we are bound to follow Christ's 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, merciful as he was merciful, loving as he was loving, meek as he was meek, &c. In all these and such like moral virtues, we are bound to follow his example. And lastly, what Christ did in the settling 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 evil, but good or evil, 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 own Church in an imparity of church-governors, 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 practice 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 per●●●●●●ogative but a moral example, instituted by Christ.  
FINIS.