Showing posts with label Eusebius. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eusebius. Show all posts

Thursday, February 03, 2022

Eusebius on Psalm 69:7-9

The following is a machine translation of Eusebius' Commentary on the Psalms, at Septuagint Psalm 68 (Psalm 69), Section 5 (corresponding to Psalm 69:7-9).  As a huge word of caution.  This is a machine translation of an underlying text that is in process of scholarly review.  The Greek text may not be perfect, and the English translation thereof may leave a lot to be desired.  I present this here mainly for my own convenience, although also for the curiosity of folks who may have an interest in the subject

 That thou hast been a reproachful man,

...my face hath revealed shame.

I was born a stranger to my brethren,

and a stranger to my mother's sons.

that the jealousy of thy house hath devoured me.

and the dreams of the dreamers have fallen upon me.

Other men, say they, are subject to trials and reproaches for their sins: but I, who have not sinned against thee, have suffered reproaches: for thou, O benevolent God, hast made me sin for the race of men, as they that believe in us are born unto righteousness.

But even thine own self-suffering dreaming, for the sake of thy counsel thou hast emptily and unto death humbled him, while they that stood before me blasphemed, moving their heads, and saying, O thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou be the son of God, come down from the cross. And likewise the chief priests also, mocking after the priests and scribes and Pharisees, said, He hath saved others, he cannot save himself. If he be king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and let us believe on him.

That thou hast been in thy mind a reverie,

...that my face may be revealed in shame.

For not for our sins, nor for unlawful deeds, but for thy sake, and for thy foreknowledge, I have suffered reproach, and my face hath revealed shame; or, according to the Confederate,

I have uncovered his face in ugliness.

And all these things I have endured. I have endured them all. But also...

I was born an alien to my brethren,

and a stranger to my mother's sons.

And there were two orders in this place: the one of his brethren indeed, to whom he was born a stranger; and the other of his mother's sons, not of his brethren, to whom he was born a stranger. And have no sons of his mother's mother, being brethren, and serve them in like manner to the former. But he called not her mother's sons brethren, as being in the first order of his brethren that were called, that is to say, in the first order of his brethren that were called.

To his brethren also his disciples, of whom also he saith hereafter, I will call thy name unto my brethren, and in the midst of the church will I sing praises unto thee. and in the gospel of Mary, which appeared after the resurrection from the dead, he said, Go unto my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my father, and the father of you, and my god, and the god of you. But he was born an alienated man to his brethren in the time of the passion which was declared, when all his disciples, being his masters, fled from him, even he, and Peter the chief of the apostles, denied him the third time.

To these he was born a stranger and an alienated man; and to his mother's children, not being his brothers, he became a stranger. Now the gospel of his brethren and his mother is remembered, when he came to his own country, and taught in the synagogue, as if to astonish them, saying, Whence is this wisdom and these powers? is not this the son of the slayer? is not his mother, and his brethren, and his sisters, and his brethren all of them, coming to us? Whence is all this? If we take the sons that are called by the name of his mother in the hand, we must take the holy virgin mother and the rest of his brethren.

But it appears that James his brother, his brother of the oracle, was not alienated from his cause, nor alienated from his faith, nor from his very true disciples, as well as the first to receive the throne of the church in Jerusalem. And the rest of his brethren, though they believed not in him at the first, but afterward professed to believe in him. And they have told the gospel, as his mother and his brethren came out seeking to hear it. And in the Acts of the apostles it is said, as if the apostles were all together, worshipping prayer with Mary his mother and his brethren. So that it is not lawful to speak of them,

I was born an alien to my brethren,

and a stranger to my mother's children.

For he is not a stranger of these, but an honest man: for as a mother, so his chosen brethren, his sons, are of Mary: but if there be beside them the sons of his mother, called by the psalm, to whom he was born a stranger.

Now we know not the mother of the congregation of the Jews, and all the kindred in the flesh of the circumcision: but the sons of this mother, which denied him, and the peacemakers: and him we know not whence he is: for he said unto them, because they thought him a stranger, Why do ye not think of the woman of the Lamb? That ye cannot hear my word. and he that knew him spake again, saying, How shall we say that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? he said unto them, I have spoken in my father's name, and ye receive me not: if any man come in my own name, him ye shall receive.

So he became a stranger and an alien to the sons of his mother's womb: and all these things he suffered for the cause chosen, which he necessarily presented, saying.


Translation Credit:

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Based on the following Greek Text:

Ὅτι ἕνεκά σου ὑπήνεγκα ὀνειδισμόν,

ἐκάλυψεν ἐντροπὴ τὸ πρόσωπόν μου.

ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθην τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου,

καὶ ξένος τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς μητρός μου·

ὅτι ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγέν με

καὶ οἱ ὀνειδισμοὶ τῶν ὀνειδιζόντων σε ἐπέπεσαν ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ.

Οἱ μὲν λοιποὶ, φησὶν, ἄνθρωποι δι’ οἰκείας ἁμαρτίας ἐλέγχοις καὶ ὀνειδισμοῖς ὑποβάλλονται· ἐγὼ δὲ ὁ μὴ γνοὺς ἁμαρτίαν ἕνεκά σου ὑπήνεγκα ὀνειδισμόν· ἐπειδήπερ σὺ αὐτὸς ὁ φιλάνθρωπος θεὸς ὑπὲρ τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένους ἁμαρτίαν με ἐποίησας, ὅπως οἱ πιστεύοντες εἰς ἐμὲ γένωνται δικαιοσύνη.

Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕνεκά σου ὑπήνεγκα ὀνειδισμὸν, διὰ τὴν σὴν βουλὴν κενώσας ἐμαυτὸν καὶ μέχρις θανάτου ταπεινώσας, καθ’ ὃν καιρὸν οἱ παραπορευόμενοι ἐβλασφήμουν κινοῦντες τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν καὶ λέγοντες· οὐὰ ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναὸν, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις οἰκοδομῶν, σῶσον σεαυτόν. εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἐμπαίζοντες μετὰ τῶν ἱερέων καὶ Γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων ἔλεγον· ἄλλους ἔσωσεν, ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται σῶσαι. εἰ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ ἐστι, καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, καὶ πιστεύσομεν αὐτῷ. πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν· ῥυσάσθω αὐτὸν, εἰ θέλει αὐτόν. εἶπε γὰρ, ὅτι θεοῦ υἱός εἰμι. ταῦτα δὴ οὖν θεσπίζων ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος, φησίν·

Ὅτι ἕνεκά σου ὑπήνεγκα ὀνειδισμόν,

ἐκάλυψεν ἐντροπὴ τὸ πρόσωπόν μου.

Οὐ γὰρ δι’ ἁμαρτίας ἐμὰς, οὐδὲ διὰ παρανόμους πράξεις, ἀλλ’, ἕνεκά σου καὶ τὸν προλεχθέντα ὀνειδισμὸν ὑπέμεινα, καὶ τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐκάλυψεν ἐντροπή· ἢ, κατὰ τὸν Σύμμαχον,

Ἐκάλυψεν ἀσχημόνησις τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ.

Καὶ ταῦτα πάντα ὑπέμεινα. φησὶν, ἕνεκά σου, τουτέστιν ἕνεκα τοῦ σοῦ θελήματος. ἀλλὰ καί·

ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθην τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου,

καὶ ξένος τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς μητρός μου.

Δύο δὲ τάγματα ἐν τούτοις παρίστησιν· ἓν μὲν τὸ τῶν ἀληθῶς ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ, οἷς ἐγενήθη ἀπηλλοτριωμένος· ἕτερον δὲ τὸ τῶν υἱῶν τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, οὐ μὴν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ, οἷς ἐγενήθη ξένος. καὶ μὴν ἐχρῆν υἱοὺς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, ὄντας ἀδελφοὺς, καὶ αὐτοὺς ὁμοίως τοῖς προτέροις χρηματίζειν. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ὠνόμασε τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς μητρὸς ἀδελφοὺς, ὡς ἑτέρους ὄντας δηλαδὴ παρὰ τὸ πρῶτον τάγμα τῶν ὀνομασθέντων ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ.

Εἰς οὖν ἀδελφοὺς μὲν αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι τοὺς αὐτοῦ μαθητὰς, περὶ ὧν καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ φησίν· ἀπαγγελῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, καὶ ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε. καὶ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τῇ Μαρίᾳ φανεὶς μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν ἔλεγε· πορεύου πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφούς μου, καὶ εἶπον αὐτοῖς· ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν, καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν. τούτοις οὖν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθη κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ δηλουμένου πάθους, ὅτε πάντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον, αὐτός τε ὁ κορυφαῖος τῶν ἀποστόλων Πέτρος ἠρνήσατο αὐτὸν τρίτον.

Τούτοις ξένος καὶ ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθη· τοῖς δὲ υἱοῖς τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, οὐ μὴν καὶ ἀδελφοῖς οὖσιν αὐτοῦ, ξένος γέγονε. μέμνηται δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ μητρὸς, ὅτε, ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν πατρίδα αὐτοῦ, ἐδίδασκεν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ, ὡς ἐκπλήσσεσθαι αὐτοὺς καὶ λέγειν· πόθεν τούτῳ ἡ σοφία αὕτη καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις· οὐχ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός; οὐχ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσι; πόθεν τούτῳ ταῦτα πάντα; ἐὰν μὲν οὖν τοὺς ἐν τῷ μετὰ χεῖρας λεγομένους υἱοὺς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ τούτοις εἶναι ἐκλάβοιμεν, ἀνάγκη τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον μητέρα φάναι γεγονέναι τῶν λοιπῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ.

Ἀλλ’ ἐπιφαίνεται Ἰάκωβος ὁ χρηματίσας αὐτοῦ ἀδελφὸς οὐκ ἀπεξενωμένος αὐτοῦ γεγονὼς, οὐδὲ ἀλλότριος τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν πίστεως, εἷς δὲ τῶν σφόδρα γνησίων αὐτοῦ μαθητῶν· ὡς καὶ τὸν θρόνον ἀναδέξασθαι πρῶτον τῆς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐκκλησίας. καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοὶ, εἰ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα κατ’ ἀρχὰς οὐκ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ ταῦτα δῆλοί εἰσι πιστεύσαντες. ἱστορεῖ δ’ οὖν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὡς ἄρα ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήκεισαν ἔξω ζητοῦντες λαλῆσαι αὐτῷ. καὶ ἐν ταῖς Πράξεσι δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων λέλεκται, ὡς ἄρα ἦσαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι κοινῇ πάντες προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ προσευχῇ σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ. πῶς οὖν δύναται τούτοις ξένος εἶναι νομίζεσθαι; ὥστε μὴ χώραν ἔχειν περὶ τούτων λέγεσθαι τὸ,

Ἀπηλλοτριωμένος ἐγενήθην τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου,

καὶ ξένος τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς μητρός μου.

Οὐ γὰρ ἦν τούτων ξένος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄγαν τίμιος· ὡς μηκέτι τοὺς προλεχθέντας αὐτοῦ ἀδελφοὺς υἱοὺς εἶναι τῆς Μαρίας ἡγεῖσθαι, ἕτεροι δ’ ἂν εἶεν παρὰ τούτους οἱ διὰ τοῦ ψαλμοῦ λεγόμενοι υἱοὶ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, οἷς ξένος ἐγενήθη.

Νοήσεις δὲ μητέρα μὲν τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων συναγωγὴν καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν κατὰ σάρκα συγγένειαν τῶν ἐκ περιτομῆς· υἱοὺς δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης μητρὸς τοὺς ἀρνησαμένους αὐτὸν, καὶ εἰρηκότας· τοῦτον δὲ οὐκ οἴδαμεν πόθεν ἐστίν· διὸ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, ἐπειδὴ ξένον αὐτὸν ἐνόμιζον· διὰ τί τὴν λαλιὰν τὴν ἐμὴν οὐ γινώσκετε; ὅτι οὐ δύνασθε ἀκούειν τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμόν. ξένον δὲ αὐτὸν πάλιν ἡγοῦντο λέγοντες· οὐ καλῶς ἡμεῖς λέγομεν ὅτι Σαμαρείτης εἶ σὺ, καὶ δαιμόνιον ἔχεις; διὸ ἔλεγε πρὸς αὐτούς· ἐγὼ ἐλήλυθα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου, καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετέ με· ἐὰν ἄλλος ἔλθῃ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τῷ ἰδίῳ, ἐκεῖνον λήψεσθε.

Οὕτω τοίνυν ξένος καὶ ἀλλότριος γέγονε τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ. ταῦτα δὲ πάντα ὑπέμενεν διὰ τὴν ἐπιλεγομένην αἰτίαν, ἣν ἀναγκαίως παρίστησι λέγων·

Greek Text courtesy of:

Source

Cordula Bandt (Editor), Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften / Magali Coullet (Editor)

Status of edition

Preview/Preliminary edition (work in progress!)

(link)

Saturday, January 09, 2010

Pastor David King Responds to Taylor Marshall

The following is a response from David King to Taylor Marshall's comments on the earlier Erasmus thread (link to Mr. Marshall's comments). I've made only minor edits to what Pastor King and Mr. Marshall wrote. I've also added some editorial footnotes both to Mr. Marshall's comments and to Pastor King's comments.

Jesuits and Roman Unity

Mr. Marshall wrote: Mr. King, Contemporary Jesuits tend to be the most subversive religious order within the Catholic Church - known from their dissent. Many are rather "Protestant" [FN1] - so don't take this random Jesuit quote as indicative of Catholic tradition.

David King Responds: Then I guess that the Roman magisterium doesn’t really live up to all you folks make it out to be. Where is the ecclesiastical discipline for these, the “most subversive religious order” within the Roman communion? The fact that Schatz’s observation of early church history disagrees with yours doesn’t make him wrong. As a Jesuit he does hold orders in your communion, while you hold no official position among the clergy. What makes your censure of Mr. Schatz any more than that of a private judgment? It is interesting how members of the Roman communion cry out against the exercise of all private judgment if they think a Protestant has engaged in such, while they reserve it for themselves against their own clergy.

Clement of Rome and Early Christian Views of Rome

Mr. Marshall wrote: Then you provide a quote reads: "If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (Schatz quote)
This can't be right. Let's look at what actually Christians from this period said and wrote about the Church of Rome.

Pope [FN2] Clement of Rome (ca. 89-96) wrote: "The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome 1,59:1

David King Responds: Yes, let’s do look at it, in context. In the first place, this is a rather anachronistic designation which you have assigned to Clement. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support your designation of him as “pope.” This tradition is without support because the office of the monarchical bishop, as it later came to exist, is no where present in Rome at this time. Leadership in Rome as this time had, according to 1 Clement 44:1-6 had been entrusted not to one, but a plurality of bishops, also known as presbyters. The very assertion of this claim that Clement was a “pope” is clearly based upon nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Romanists.[FN3] This letter was composed by the Church of God at Rome to correct the behavior of the Corinthians, the majority of whom were responsible for removing their ecclesiastical leaders for no just cause.

This piecemeal quotation you’ve put together, which connects the beginning of the letter to the 59th chapter of this epistle is clearly not the result of your own study, but something you’ve lifted from a Roman apologetic web site. This is a prime example of the kind of misrepresentation of which you’ve accused me. The Church at Rome is simply pointing out to the Corinthians that they have trampled on the rights of their duly appointed elders. This is far from claiming some papal or Roman primacy over the Church at Corinth, whose members were in rebellion, not against Rome, but their own clergy.

As I indicated, you have cherry-picked this piece-meal quote which can be found in this form at a number of Roman apologetic web sites. The presupposition behind this proffered piece-meal citation is ludicrous, and fraught with anachronistic wishful thinking. In Chapter 57, 1 Clement instructs the Corinthians to “submit to [their] presbyters and accept discipline leading to repentance.” The admonition of 1 Clement refers this letter as “our advice [notice the plurality] and you will have nothing to regret.” (1 Clement 58)

This letter is giving biblical instruction to the congregants at Corinth to correct them. You haven’t demonstrated to me that you are even familiar with the intent of the letter. Clement appears to be acting as the secretary of the presbyters at Rome in the sending of this pastoral letter. This is nothing here that offers any proof for a papal or Roman primacy of jurisdiction. They urge the Corinthians saying:
But if certain people should disobey what has been said by him [i.e., Jesus Christ, whose commands they have been citing to the Corinthians] through us [notice again the plurality, not papacy], let them understand that they will, entangle themselves in no small sin and danger. We, however, will be innocent of this sin, and will ask, with earnest prayer and supplication, that the Creator of the universe may keep intact the specified number of his elect throughout the whole world, through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge of the glory of his name.
(1 Clement 59)

The misrepresentation here belongs to you, Mr. Marshall. You would be well served to invest some time in meaningful research, instead of offering some piecemeal quotation like this one from some Roman web site, or Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma.

We learn from the early church father Jerome who confesses the obvious from Scripture in his commentary on Titus, that in the beginning the churches were governed by a common council of presbyters, and that bishops were appointed to be above presbyters by custom rather than divine appointment!

Jerome (347-420):
A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’
Latin text:
Idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus, et antequam diaboli instinctu, studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis: Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi presbyterorum consilio, Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Putet aliquis non Scripturarum, sed nostram esse sententiam, episcopum et presbyterum unum esse, et aliud aetatis, aliud esse nomen officii: relegat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba dicentis: Paulus et Timothaeus servi Jesu Christi, omnibus sanctis in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Philippis, cum episcopis et diaconis, gratia vobis et pax, et reliqua.
Citation: Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:562-563. English translation from John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867), p.488. See also Karl Von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, trans. A. W. Streane, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. rev. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909), p. 164.

Jerome (347-420):
Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained.
Latin text:
Haec propterea, ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse presbyteros quos et episcopos: paulatim vero ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem sollicitudinem esse delatam. Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos: ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate, presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen, qui cum haberet in potestate solum praeesse populo Israel, septuaginta elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret. Videamus igitur qualis presbyter, sive episcopus ordinandus sit.
Citation: Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563. Translation from John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867), p.488. See also Karl Von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, trans. A. W. Streane, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. rev. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909), p. 164.

Thus, this whole business of the Roman primacy and/or the papacy is something unknown to Holy Scripture, but has been obtruded upon the Church of Jesus Christ by the communion of Rome.

Irenaeus

Mr. Marshall continues:

Irenaeus (ca 180) also wrote: "For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church (i.e. the Church of Rome), on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2

David King Responds: How are we to understand the words of Irenaeus here? I’m content to defer to the explanation offered by J. N. D. Kelly. He states, while commenting on this passage from Irenaeus that
This interpretation [i.e., the one implied by Mr. Marshall], or some variant of it, has been accepted by many, but it is awkward to refer in qua to hanc ... ecclesiam, and anachronistic to attribute such thinking to Irenaeus. Hence it seems more plausible to take in qua with omnem … ecclesiam, and to understand Irenaeus as suggesting that the Roman church supplies an ideal illustration because, ‘in view of its preeminent authority’ based on its foundation by both Peter and Paul, its antiquity and so on, every church—or perhaps the whole church—in which the apostolic tradition has been preserved must as a matter of course agree with it. There is therefore no allusion to the later Petrine claims of the Roman see.
See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 193.

But, even if we did permit the meaning you suggest implicitly, Irenaeus does not speak for the church universal with respect to the primacy of Rome or its pope. And to be sure, the eastern churches never recognized, let alone acknowledged, Roman and/or papal primacy.

Victor I

Mr. Marshall insists: Also, Pope Victor 1 (pope from AD 189–199) presumed to excommunicate all the churches of Asia Minor and most people of that day (including those in Asia Minor) were worried about it. This confirms that most Christians did believe that the bishop of Rome DID in fact have such juridical power.

David King Responds: Confirms it? It’s very difficult to believe that you would actually offer Pope Victor 1, the bishop of Rome, and this particular instance, as representative of the views of the church universal at this time. First of all, the vaunted prejudice of any bishop of Rome ought not to be accepted as an example for proof of the contemporary belief of the universal church. The fact that he decided to jump into a dogfight with the Christians of Asia Minor over the date of Easter proves nothing. And yes, the fact that he presumed to tell the churches in Asia Minor what to do didn’t mean squat to them. In fact, their refusal to acquiesce to his pompous demands is proof in the pudding that they didn’t recognize any such notion of Roman primacy. Eusebius informs us that
Victor, who presided over the church at Rome [notice the church at Rome, not the world], immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
See The Church History of Eusebius, 5.24.9-10.

You mean to tell me that Victor’s attempt to censure all of Christendom in Asia Minor under the threat of excommunication, when all of them opposed his jurisdiction, that this proves that the universal church of that day understood and embraced Roman and/or papal primacy? Please tell me that you’re really joking here, and that you really aren’t serious? Even Irenaeus, whom you referenced above, was busy in this particular controversy exhorting Victor to make peace with the churches of Asia Minor. Eusebius informs us that
Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom ... .
See The Church History of Eusebius, 5.24.11.

If Irenaeus really supported the Roman bishop’s juridical primacy and authority over the universal church, then pray tell me why he was instructing Victor to back off! The whole notion that Victor's attempt to pontificate to the churches of Asia Minor proves papal primacy, is about the most ludicrous example one could possibly imagine, and which blows up in one's face historically.

Mr. Marshall wrote: All written sources indicate that the Church of Rome was held as first and supreme.

David King Responds: No, not all. There’s a book in the Bible which we Protestants know as the Acts of the Apostles, and it informs us that the first church in which all the apostles gathered was in Jerusalem, that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch (Act 11:26), and that this church, under the leadership of James, the Apostles, and Presbyters, were the first to send out “decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Now, I understand that you dear Romanists don’t sweat that Bible stuff, but we Protestants do. :)



[FN1] One is reminded of the recent accusations against Fr. Raymond Brown, S.S. (link).

[FN2] Mr. Marshall designates him as "pope," although this is incorrect, as Pastor King notes later in the post.

[FN3] As Pastor King has explained elsewhere (link) his use of the term Romanist is not intended to be derogatory, but merely descriptive - although we are aware that some Roman Catholics object to this designation.