The same authority in Church discipline was given to the other Apostles;^[1]  St. Peter did not have a monopoly of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’.  He was ‘sent’ by the other Apostles to Samaria,^[2] required to explain his action concerning Cornelius,^[3] and was rebuked by St. Paul.^[4]  It was St. James, not St. Peter, who was leader of the Church in Jerusalem,^[5] and was apparently acknowledged as such by St. Peter.^[6]  At the Council of Jerusalem St. James presided, and at the conclusion gave his personal judgement.^[7]  St. Paul also names him before Cephas, (Peter) and John in referring to the ‘pillars’ of the Church.^[8]  Such evidence against the primacy of St. Peter cannot be dismissed by regarding it merely as evidence of his personal humility; if he in fact occupied an official position of primacy (as Roman theologians claim) he would have insisted on his rights, and the other Apostles would have acknowledged his supremacy.  True, miraculous powers were associated with St. Peter,^[9] but also with St. Paul.^[10]  Though St. Peter was often spokesman for the Apostles and sometimes took the initiative, it was because of his personal qualities.  Important decisions were made by the Apostles corporately.^[11]  St. Peter is not even mentioned in the most important matter of the appointment of the seven Deacons.^[12]  There is no evidence in the New Testament that he was ever Bishop of Rome, or that any authority belonging exclusively to him passed to any successor of his in a particular office.  Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, writing c. 180 A.D., says the Church in Rome was ‘founded by two most glorious Apostles, Paul and Peter’ and that ‘The blessed Apostles after founding and building up the Church entrusted the office of Bishop to Linus.  Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.’^[13]  St. Paul, writing (c. 57 A.D.) to the Christians in Rome, was concerned that they should be ‘established’ by a visit from him,^[14] and also declared that his aim was to preach in unevangelized areas ‘lest I should build upon another man’s foundation’.^[15]  How could he write in such terms if, as alleged, St. Peter had been Bishop there since 42 A.D.?^[16]  Whatever prominence is accorded to St. Peter in the Gospels can be satisfactorily explained on his seniority among the Apostles.  St. Paul says that he is ‘not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles’;^[17] his converts are his very own children in Christ;^[18] the welfare of all the churches is his practical concern and constant source of anxiety.^[19]  As Bishop Lightfoot said, if there is any apostolic primacy in these first days, it belongs to St. Paul.

Spheres of special work,^[20] but authoritative interest in the churches everywhere, such is the pattern of apostolic jurisdiction in the New Testament, and it was continued in the early Church.  All Bishops had equal status and authority as Bishops of the one Catholic Church: ‘There is one episcopate in the Church’ wrote St. Cyprian (250 A.D.), ‘and every Bishop has an undivided portion in it’.  Gregory of Nazianzus (370 A.D.) styles Cyprian and Athanasius Bishops of the whole world.

But even if our Lord thought of Peter as ‘Primate’ of the Apostolic Church, there is no evidence that he was given authority to transmit his office to others.