For, _first_, whence do we most evidently and chiefly draw the greater dignity which Peter clearly possessed above the others? We draw it from the endowments separately bestowed upon him, whereby he became the Foundation of the Church, the Supreme Bearer of the keys, the Confirmer of his brethren, and the universal Pastor. But are these names, images, signs, expressing a naked superiority of honour and order, or rather designating an authority of jurisdiction and power? I cannot hesitate to assert either that these forms are most fitted of all to express a singular authority, or that none such exist in language. For, _secondly_, their force is to ascribe to Peter the main sway, and to mark him as set for the head and leader of all. Who that hears them can, without perverting the natural force of words, or disregarding the laws of interpretation, imagine anything merely honorary, or figure to himself Peter with a mere grant of precedency? Especially as, _thirdly_, he is named in Scripture not only _the First_, but, comparatively, the _Greater_, and absolutely, the _Superior_.[2] Now these terms do, of themselves, and far more if you consider the context of the discourse in which they occur, express a singular authority, and one without rival. An authority, _fourthly_, kindred to that with which Christ, while yet in His mortal life, presided over the Apostolic college, and administered as supreme Head, the company which He had formed. For we can never sufficiently urge a point which, being in itself most true, is of itself abundantly sufficient completely to set at rest the present controversy. It is this, that Peter's Primacy proceeds from a singular association with those distinctions, in virtue of which Christ is considered the Head and Chief, and Supreme Ruler of the Church. So that the more his Primacy is depressed, the more Christ's prerogatives and dignity are lowered; nor can he be confined to a precedency of honour and order, without Christ's superiority being shut within well nigh the same limits.