minicæ veritate, presbyteris esse maiores: MarginaliaDifference betwixt Byshops and priestes how it is come. Let the Bishops vnderstand, that they be greater then other priestes, rather of custome, thē by þe vertue & veritie of þe Lordes ordinance. And in his said epistle to Eungrius he hath þe like sentēce, & addeth thereto: Vbicūq; fuerit Episcopus, siue Romæ, siue Eugubij, siue Cōstātinopoli. &c. Whersoeuer a bishop be, either at Rome, or at Eugubiū, or at Constātinople, he is of al one worthynes, & of all one priesthood, & that one was elected which should be preferred before other, it was deuised for þe redresse of schismes, lest any one chalēging to much to hym self, should rente þe church of Christ. These wordes onely of S. Hierome, be sufficient to proue that Christ by none of these three textes (which be al that you & others do allege for your opinion) gaue to Peter any such superiority, as the bish. of Rome by thē vsurpeth: and that Peter nor no other of the chiefe Apostles dyd vendicate such primacie or superioritie, but vtterly refused it, and therefore gaue preeminence aboue them selues, to one that though he be sometymes called an apostle, yet he was none of the. xij. as Eusebius in the begynnyng of his second booke
The bishops here refer to Eusebius, Church History (which can be found in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, second series, 14 vols., ed. by Henry R Percival (New York, 1890-1900), i, pp.73-405 (lib.ii). James the Just is considered either the half-brother or step-brother of Jesus and was the first bishop of Jerusalem.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaSeing Paule was chiefe primate of the Gentiles it is agaynst reason that the Romans should chalenge the primacie by Peter. And one thyng is especially to be noted, and also marueiled at, that the bishops of Rome do challēg this primacie alonely by Peter, and yet S. Paul, which was his equall, or rather superior by scripture, in his apostleship amongst the Gentiles, wherof Rome was the principal, suffered at Rome where Peter did, & is commonly in al the Romane Church, ioyned with Peter in al appellations and titles of preeminence, and both be called Principes Apostolorum: The chiefe of the Apostles. Vpon both is equally founded the Churche of Rome. The accountyng of Bishoppes of Rome, many yeres agreeth therunto. For Eusebius saith, MarginaliaLib. 3. cap. 21. that Clemens tertius post Paulū & Petrū, pontificatū tenebat: Clement was the third bishop after S. Paul and Peter: recknyng them both as Bishops of Rome, & yet therein preferring S. Paul: with like words saying of Alexander bishop of Rome: þt Quinta successione post Petrū atque Paulū plebis gubernacula fortitus est: Alexāder obtained þe gouernaunce of the people by succession, þe fift Bishop after Peter and Paul. Irenæus also sayth, as Eusebius reciteth: MarginaliaLib. 5. cap. 6. that Fundata & ædificata Ecclesia, beati apostoli Lino officium Episcopatus iniungunt: After the church was once founded and builded, the holy apostles charged Linus with the Bishoprike. Whereby appeareth, that they both ioyntly constituted hym bishop of Rome, and receyued only their
More evidence from the treatise of Eusebius.
And if you wil peraduenture, leaue to the former preaching there by Peter, which by Scripture can not be proued, yet then at the least Saint Paule and hys successors in Ephesus should haue like primacie, because he founded first that church, though S. Iohn after that did builde it, as witnesseth Eusebius, saying: MarginaliaLib. 3. Cap. 23. Ecclesia quæ est apudEphesum, à Paulo quidem fundata est, à Iohanne verò ædificata: The Church which is at Ephesus, was founded of Paule, but it was builded of Saint Iohn. And so Peter should haue no other primacie in Rome, but as Paul had in Ephesus, þt is to say: MarginaliaThe fyrst foundation of a church maketh no primacye. to be counted as þe first Preacher and cōuerter of the people there to the faith of Christ. And as well might all the byshops of Ephesus, chalenge the primacie of all nations, both Gentiles & Iewes by S. Paule the Apostle of the Gentiles their founder, as the Byshop of Rome by S. Peter the Apostle onely of the circumcision, in case he were the first founder, chalenging primacie ouer all. But vndoubtedly this primacie ouer all, that the Bishops of Rome of late do chalenge, was not allowed nor yet knowen nor heard of amongst the auncient fathers, though they had their church of Rome in high estimation, aswell for the notable vertuous deedes that the clergie dyd there shew and exercise aboundantly to their neighbours (as witnesseth the said Eusebius, alleaging there the E MarginaliaLib. 4. cap. 23. pistle that Dionisius Alexandrinus wrote to Soter Byshop of Rome, testifying the same) as for that the Citie of Rome was the most ample and chiefe Citie of all the worlde, witnessing S. Cyprian, saying: Marginalia[illegible text] Planè, quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat Charthaginem Roma præcedere, illic maiora & grauiora cōmisit: Certeinly, because that Rome ought for the greatnes therof to excel Carthage, there Nouatus committed the greater and more greuous offences. Which S. Cyprian
The bishops here refer to the fact that, while bishop of Carthage Cyprian had submitted a number of his decrees and statutes to bishops of Rome - although this should not be read as submission to a higher authority but merely as evidence of his desire to keep other authorities abreast of his opinions, maintaining that all bishops have liberty within their sees.
[Back to Top]This may refer to Cyprian's epistle 71 (to Stephen with regard to decisions of a recent council on the issue of baptism) and epistle 72 (to Jubaianus on the same subject). Stephen I was pope between 12 May 254 and 2 August 257. There is no epistle to a Julianus. [See, 'The Epistles of Cyprian', in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, second series, 14 vols., ed. by Henry R Percival (New York, 1890-1900), v; or The Writings of Cyprian, 2 vols., ed. by A Roberts and J Donaldson (Edinburgh, 1882)].
[Back to Top]Cyprian's third epistle (Epistle 42) written to Pope Cornelius (pope between 251-3) was written in 251 and addresses the issue of Cyprian's excommunication of Felicissimus and the rejection of any appeals to Rome over his jurisdiction in the matter.
MarginaliaConcil. Aphrican. Which thing yet more plainely doth appeare by þe actes of the Councels of Aphricke in S. Augustines tyme, by the which it is euident, that though the faith of Christ was by þe Romaines first brought into Affrike (as S. Augustine doth confesse) MarginaliaAug. epist. 16. yet it was not read nor knowen, that the byshops of Rome vsed or chalenged any soueraigntie in Affrike, vnto this tyme. And yet then he did not chalenge it by the right of Gods worde, but by the pretence of a certayne Canon supposed to be in the Coūcell of Nice. Which article could neuer be foūd, though it were thē very diligētly sought for through all the principal Churches of þe East and South? but only was alleaged
The bishops are referring here to Pope Julius I (pope from 6 February 337 to 12 April 352) who, during the Arian crisis, made the earliest reference to Roman primacy.
Truth it is, that the Byshops of the Orient, for debates