marked out, _before_ the Church, that is, the whole body and commonwealth, had grown into coherence. And so ecclesiastical jurisdiction did not first dwell in the community itself, and was then translated by a sort of popular suffrage and consent to its magistrates; but from the very first origin Peter was destined to be single chief of the future body, and next to him the other Apostles."[30] 5. Fifthly, it must be observed that there is a _definiteness_ about these texts which belongs in a far less degree to those forms in which the co-ordinate and co-equal authority of the Apostles, as such, is expressed. This last is left to be harmonised and brought into operation by the superior power of the chief. They are indeed sent into all the world, they are immediately instituted by our Lord, they have the promise that His power shall be with them, and that their sentence shall stand good in heaven and on earth; but this promise, which is the most distinct made to them, has been already gathered up into the hands of one, and in its practical issue is limited by the necessity of cooperating with that one; that is, the authority of Peter includes and embraces theirs, but theirs is ranged under his. Theirs is modified not only by being shared, but by having his set over them. Now observe how distinct and clear, how definite in their meaning, while universal in their range, are the things said of him alone; 1. That he should be the rock on which Christ would build His Church; 2. That permanence and victory should belong to that Church for ever through Him: 3. That he should bear the keys in the kingdom of heaven: 4. That whatever _singly_ he should bind and loose, should be bound and loosed in heaven as well as on earth: 5. That he should confirm his brethren, the Apostles themselves being the very first so called: 6. That he should be the Shepherd of the fold. What can constitute inequality between two parties, if such a series of promises given to one, and not to the other, does not?