ity of the apostolic body, and, by succession, of the episcopal body; all the bishops had the same honour and the same authority, in all that relates to their order, as the Apostles had the same honor and authority as Peter.
Since St. Cyprian admits this principle, how has it been possible to misconstrue some of his expressions as has been done? Even were it necessary to understand the see of Peter to mean the see of Rome, there would follow nothing favorable to the pretensions of the bishop of that see, since as bishop he would possess no more honor, no more authority than the others; and, as St. Cyprian further proves, the episcopate is one, and the bishops possess it jointly and severally.
But the Bishop of Carthage calls the Church of Rome root and womb of the Catholic Church.[1] What follows if such expressions were generally employed in his time to designate all the apostolic churches? No one denies the Church of Rome was founded by the Apostles — it was thus a root of the Catholic Church, a mother church — but not exclusively the root — the mother of the Church. In fact, Tertullian calls all the apostolic churches wombs and originators — which means, "mothers having given origin to others;"[2] the same divine calls Jerusalem — mother of religion, matricem religionis.[3] The first Council of Constantinople[4] gave to the Church of Jerusalem, the title of mother of all the churches. In Africa the title of matrix or mother was given to all the great metropolitan churches.[5] A Gallican bishop of the fifth century, Avitus of Vienne, wrote to the Patriarch of Jerusalem: "Your apostolate exercises a primacy granted to it by God: and it is careful to show that it occupies a principal place, (principem locum) in the Church not only by its privileges, but by
