A Retentive to Stay Good Christians, Chapter 11
The 11. chapter.
HOw farre S. Peter did ether excell or was equall with the Sander.Apostles in their Apostolike office. VVhere in diuerse obiections are aunswered, which seeme to make against S. Peters supremacie.
BVt that necessity enforceth him, M. Sander thinketh Fulke.it sinne of curiositie to inquire of that equality or inequalitie of the Apostles, where as it should suffice vsus to follow the present state of the vniuersall Church practised in our time. As though the vniuersall Church of any time, did euer acknowledge the Pope to be supreame heade, although a great part of the world hath of long time so taken him. He thinketh it out of contronersie, that S. Peter was the first of the Apostles as S. Mathew sayth, primus, the first, Simon which is called Peter. And he is not cō tent that he was first in the order of numbring, but he will hauehave him first in dignitie, because he is alwayes named first. But that is nether true, nor a good reason if it were true, because he is named first, therefore he is of greatest dignitie. But Gal. 2. 9 Iames and Cephas & Iohn are sayde to hauehave bene pillers of the Churche, and yet Paule equall with them. Although if we graunted greatest dignity to Peter, yet thereupon did not follow greatest authority. For these three Apostles last named, were of greatest dignity among the Apostles, yet not of greater authoritie then the rest. And although the auncient fathers of the worde primus, hauehave deriued the name of primatus, or primacy, yet hauehave they also expressed, wherin this primacie doth consist, namely not in authoritie but in order, nether doth those names Prince, chiefe, heade, toppe, guide, mouth, greatest of the Apostles, vsed by some of them, signifie his authoritie ouer them, but his dignitie amongest them.
But if you aske him wherin Peter was chiefe? He answereth … question is curious. For in ye nature & order of the apostleship, eueryevery Apostle was equall with all his fellowes, & so is eueryevery Bishop Priest, King, Duke, Knight with eueryevery one of his degree. If this be as he sayth, then was Peter chiefe, nether as Apostle nor Bishoppe. But there may be another thinge (sayth he) coincident to some degree of men, not necessary for the being, but for their well being. One therefore was set ouer the Apostles, for vnities sake, and to auoyd schismes as Cyprian & Hierom write in places before cited. This must nedes be a primacy of order and not of authoritie, for amonge men of equall authoritie, as he confesseth the Apostles were, one may be chosen as the President or Primate, to auoyd confusion, the austeritie remayning equall to eueryevery one, but one can not be preferred in authoritie to remayne still equall with his fellowes in auctoritie.
But wheras Optatus lib. 2. de schism. Don. & Leo ad A…astas. Ep. 82. are cited to proue that the same primacie which Peter some time (but yet not alwaies) had among the Apostles, should be reteyned in succession of his chayre to mayntayne vnitie amonge all men, it hath no ground in the holy Scriptures, and yet those good men were farre from imagining suche an absolute power of Peters successor, as M. Sander defendeth in the Pope, although some times he doe handle it so nicely, as it might seeme to be a thing of nothing, wherein the Pope is aboue his fellow Bishops, where I sayd, that Peter had not alwayes the primacie of order among the Apostles, it is proued, both by the 15. of the Actes, where Iames was President of the councell, & Gal. 2. not onelyonly where Iames is named before Peter, but also where Peter abstayned and separated him selfe, after certayne came from Iames, fearing them of the circumcifion, left he should hauehave bene euill thought of, as he was before for keeping company with Cornelius. and in diuerse other places of the Actes of the Apostles.
But M. Sander will adde another truth, to the former doctrine of Peters primacie, namely that seeing the Apostles needed no heade, because they were not in daū ger of error, the head was appoynted ouer them for an example of the Church afterward, when that personall priuiledge of the Apostles ceased to be in their successors. But how wil he proue that the priuiledge of not erring, hath continued in Peters successors, more then in the successors of all the Apostles. Forsooth because Christ prayed that Peters faith might not fayle, that he might confirme his brethren. I hauehave often shewed that he prayed for the perseuerance of all his Apostles, and the cause of his speciall prayer for Peter, was proper to Peters person, therefore can not be drawne to his successors. And what madnes is it, to defend that the Pope can not erre? when Pope Honorius was condemned for an heretike both by the 6. Councell of Constantinople, and by the decree of Leo 2. Bishop of Rome confirming the same councell. Act. 18. Ep. Leon. 2. ad Constant.
But M. Sander concludeth, to aunswer the argument of the equalitie of the Apostles, that Paule was equall with Peter in Apostleship: but by the appoyntment and will of Christ, Peter was heade, to shew that his Church hauing one Pastor in it aboue the rest, is one, as a kingdom one, by hauing one king in it. Howbeit we sinde the will of God for the supremacie and headship of Christ, ouer all his Church, to make it one, in the holy Scriptures, when of Peters headship or supremacie there is neuer a word And Paule sayth, that he was nothing inferiour to the highest Apostles, 2. Cor. 2. if nothing absolutely, then was not Peter his superiour in any respect.
That Paule reprehended Peter, M. Sander sayth, he might doe it by equalitie of his Apostleship. If that be so, why may not eueryevery Bishop reprehende the Pope by equality of Bishoprike. If you graunt they may, then hauehave you so many Canones against you, as you can neuer saue their authoritie and abide by your confession. But this fault you say, with Tertullian, was of conuersation, not of preaching, that Peter might not seeme to hauehave erred in doctrine. Neuertheles it can not be excused, but Peter also erred in doctrine. Not in the generall doctrine of the abolishing of the lawe, or of Christian libertie, but of bearing too much with the Iewes, in preiudice of the Gentils, whom he compelled to Iudaisme, & in derogation of the truth of Paules doctrine, which dissimulation he entred not into, for any worldely respect, but because he was d…ceyued in opinion, thinking that in that case he ought so to hauehave done, before he being reprehended by Paule, sawe the inconuenience, and then myldely yelded to the correction. But in this humble submission sayth Maister Sanders, Peter proued him selfe to be the head of all the Apostles, seeing Christ had sayde, he that is greater among you let him be as the lesser. In deed… he shewed herein such greatnes, as Christ commendeth, but no headeship or authoritie ouer his brethren. Cyprian ad Quintum, sayth he, did not iudge this reprouing of Peter, to be an argument against his supremacie, but a witnes of his humilitie, but he giueth vsus this much to vnderstande, that if he had chalenged primacie, he had taken vponupon him arrogantly, his wordes are these.
Nannec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit, &c. For nether did Peter, whome our Lorde chose the first, and vponupon whome he builded his Church, when Paule did striue with him about circumcision afterward, chalenge any thinge insolently, or take vponupon him arrogantly, to say that he had the primacie, and that he ought rather to hauehave bene obeyed of Nouices and aftercommers: nether did he despise Paule, for that he was before a persecutor of the Churche, but he did admitte the counsell of truth. The like sayth Augustine for his humilitie, but as a later writer more pregnant for his primacye. De bap. cont. Don. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Scripturis &c. VVe hauehave learned in the holy Scriptures, that Peter the Apostle, in whome the primacie of the Apostles in so excellent grace hath the preheminence, when he vsed to d…e otherwise then the truth required about circum…sion, was corrected of Paule who was admitted after him to be an Apostle. In this saying the primacye is of tyme and order, not of dignitie and authoritie. But Gregory much later then Augustiue, graunteth to Peter, not onelyonly a primacie, b…t also a maioritie, in Ezech. H…m. 18. Quatenus, &c. That he who was chiefe in the toppe of the Apostleship, should be chiefe also in humilitie. And agayne, E…ce à minore, &c. Beholde Peter is reproued of his lesser, and he disdayneth not to be reproued. Nether doth he call to minde, that he first was called to the Apostleship. These wordes make Peter greater none otherwise, then that he was first called to the Apostleship, which argueth small authoritie ouer his iuniours.
Hereupon he taketh occasion to inueye against the pride of Luther, Zwinglius, Caluine &c. and their bitter dissentions, shewing how farre they are vnlike to the Apostles. It is not to be doubted, that they were many degrees inferior to the vertue and holmes of the Apostles, but yet as well in humilitie as all other vertues, if they come not nearer to them, then the Pope, and his pompous Clergye, let God and all indifferent men bee Iudges.
Moreouer where as it is obiected against the supremacie of Peter, that the Apostles sent him to lay hands vponupon those whom Philip the Deacon had baptized: he aunswereth, that proueth no more their equalitie, then when the Canones of a Cathedrall Church doe chose their Deane or Bishop, to go about busines of the chapter, it proueth the Deane and Bishop to be inferior to the Canōs. But by his fauor, where the Deane or Bishop are sent about busines, it argueth the Bishop and Deane in respect of those busines, to be inferior to the whole chapiter, as Peter & Iohn were to the whole Colledge of the Apostles, though the Bishop or Deane in other respects, be superior to the Canons, and Peter and Iohn were equall to eueryevery one of the Apostles.
Wherefore M. Sanders conclusion is vponupon a false supposition, that Peter had authoritie to depose the Apostles, if they had fallen as Iudas did, therefore the Pope hath the like ouer Bishops. For nether had Peter any singular auctoritie to depose any of his fellow Apostles, no more then he had to chose one in place of Mathias, nor the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops euer had of right, but by concession, election, or vsurpation.