Critical Apparatus for this Page
Commentary on the Text
Names and Places on this Page
Unavailable for this Edition
1063 [1062]

K. Henry. 8. The letter of Tonstall and Stokesley, to Cardinall Poole.

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 

Commentary  *  Close

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]
, called Historia ecclesiastica, doth testifie, allegyng for hym the great & auncient clerke Clemēs Alexandrinus, saying thus: Petrus, Iacobus, ac Iohannes, post assumptionē Saluatoris, quāuis ab ipso fuerant omnibus penè prælati, tamē non fibi vendicarūt gloriam, sed Iacobū qui dicebatur Iustus, apostolorum Episcopum statuunt: Peter, Iames, & Iohn, after Christes ascēsion into heauē, although they were by hym preferred almost before al other, yet they chalenged not that glory to thē selues, MarginaliaIames the Iuste made the Byshop of the Apostles. but decreed that Iames, who was called Iustus, should be chiefe bishop of the Apostles. By these wordes it is cleare, that Iames was þe bishop of the apostles, not because as some men do glose, he was elected by the apostles, but because he had thereby the primacie and honour of a bishop in Ierusalem, aboue the rest of the apostles.

[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 

Commentary  *  Close

More evidence from the treatise of Eusebius.

apostleshyp enioyned vnto them by Chirst. And therfore if the Bishops of Rome chalenge any preeminence of authoritie by Peter, they shoulde as wel or rather chalenge them by Paul, because they both founded it, and both there preached, and both there suffered: resigning first that Bishoprike to Linus, and al at once.

[Back to Top]

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 

Commentary  *  Close

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]
also, when he had ordeined and appointed certeyne decres and statutes vnto the bishop of Rome, he did not submit them to his reformation or iudgemēt, but only signified his owne sentence to like him also: and yet adding therunto, þt if any bishops (meaning aswell of Rome as of others) which were of the cōtrary opinions to hym, would otherwise thynke or do, he would not then that hys sentence should be to them preiudiciall, neither woulde he therby cōpell them to any thing: but would that they should follow their owne mindes and customes: partly for that euery one of the byshops hath libertie of hys owne will, and partly for that euery gouernour shall make an accompt to God of his owne dede, as it appeareth plainely in his epistle to Stephanus and Iulianus 
Commentary  *  Close

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]
. And in the 3. Epistle 
Commentary  *  Close

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.

to Cornelius, towards þe end, MarginaliaCipr. Lib 3. epist. ad Cornelium. speaking of the appeale that one Pelicissimus a Nouatian, after his condemnation in Affrica, made to Rome, he impugneth such appeales, saying: Quia singulis pastoribus portio gregis est asscripta, quam regat vnusquisque & gubernet, rationē sui actus Domino reddicurus. &c. Forasmuch as euery pastour hath his owne flock cōmitted to him, which euery one ought to rule & gouerne, and must geue accompt to the Lord of hys administration, it is decreed of vs all, and we thinke it both meet and iust, that euery mās cause and plee shoulde there be heard, where the crime is committed. MarginaliaAppeale to Rome forbidden This holy and excellent Clerke & Martyr S. Cyprian would neuer haue eyther impugned their appeale to Rome frō their owne primacies, or so earnestly haue mayntayned his determinations in the Councels of Affrike cōtrary to þe opiniō of the byshops of Rome, and to their customes, without any submission by word or writyng, if the primacie ouer all, which the Byshops of Rome do chalenge & vsurpe, had bene grounded vpon the plaine scriptures, as you with some others doe thinke: and it is to be supposed also, that he woulde in all his Epistles haue called them Patres or Dominos, fathers or Lords, as Superiours, and not alwayes Fratres & collegas, brothers and fellowes in office, as but onely his equalles.

[Back to Top]

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 

Commentary  *  Close

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.

of Iulius Byshop of Rome, out of his owne Library. MarginaliaVide duas epistolas ad Bonifacium. pp. 1. ot. conciliorum. fol. 307. 308. And you may be well assured, that if the scriptures had made for it, neither the byshop of Rome would haue left that certaine proufe by scriptures, and trusted onely to the testimonie of an Article of that Coūcell, being in doubt and vnlykely to be found, nor yet S. Augustine with hys holy & learned cōpany, woulde haue resisted this demaunde, if it had bene eyther grounded vpon scriptures, or determined in that or other Coūcels, or yet had stand with equitie, good order or reason. MarginaliaDist. 16. Ciginti. Howbeit þe largenes & magnificence of buildings of that Citie, and the auncient excellencie & superioritie of the same in temporall dominiōs, was the onely cause that in the councels (where the Patriarchall seas were set in order) þe byshop of Rome was lotted to the first place, and not by any such constitutiō made by Christ, as appeareth wel by that, that Constantinople being at the same time of this ordering of the Patriarchall seas, most amply enlarged by the Emperors, being before a smal towne & of no renowne, and by thē most magnificently builded & aduaunced worldly with all titles, prerogatiues & priuileges temporall lyke vnto Rome, & therfore called Noua Roma, new Rome, was therfore aduaunced also to the second sea and place Antiochia in the East, (where S. Peter first tooke the chayre before he came to Rome, & where Christē mē had first their name geuē thē) yea & Ierusalem (which was the first mother Citie of our faith, and where Christ himselfe first founded the faith) & also Alexandria being reiected to the 3. 4. and 5. places, because at that time they were not in so high estimation in þe world, though in the faith of Christ all they were auncientes, and some of them mothers to Rome.

[Back to Top]

Truth it is, that the Byshops of the Orient, for debates

Go To Modern Page No:  
Click on this link to switch between the Modern pagination for this edition and Foxe's original pagination when searching for a page number. Note that the pagination displayed in the transcription is the modern pagination with Foxe's original pagination in square brackets.
Type a keyword and then restrict it to a particular edition using the dropdown menu. You can search for single words or phrases. When searching for single words, the search engine automatically imposes a wildcard at the end of the keyword in order to retrieve both whole and part words. For example, a search for "queen" will retrieve "queen", "queene" and "queenes" etc.
Humanities Research Institute  *  HRI Online  *  Feedback
Version 2.0 © 2011 The University of Sheffield