What Campion posted, which I quoted and you apparently ignored, was a quote by Irenaeus of Lyons saying (bold-faced mine)"...the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul"
I pointed out that, according to Scripture, God's church was already going strong in Jerusalem before it was in Rome, and before Paul's conversion. Thus, logic dictates, Captain, that Campion's quote, though from Irenaeus, was incorrect information. This undermines Campion's point that the Roman see was always the top-dog see in God's church. Evidently the church didn't start out like that. The Roman authority over the church happened later.
Now you and I could quote ad nauseum different people from the 1st century to the 4th century debating back and forth over the political power struggle within the church about how much Rome's influence should have over the rest of the church. But none of those people have the authority of Scripture. It wasn't until the 4th century that enough people were convinced in some imagined Roman authority in the church that most of the others gave up arguing over it. Call it the "settled science" of their day, settled by the people with the most political and economic power (Rome) as though that should have any bearing on spiritual authority. It was at that point in the late 4th century that we start seeing papal authority like we know it today.
Again, to my earlier point. If you want to find post-Biblical church history where both Protestants and Catholics have common beliefs (when we quote the early church fathers) you almost always have to go back to the early 4th century or before.
Reread the FIRST PART of the quote cited:
(CAPS emphasis mine)
But since it would be TOO LONG long to enumerate in such a volume as THIS the succession of all the churches, we shall CONFOUND ALL those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or VAINGLORY, or through BLINDNESS and wicked OPINION, assemble other than where it is PROPER,
BY POINTING OUT HERE THE SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS OF THE GREATEST and most ancient church KNOWN TO ALL, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul,
So what is the guy saying here?
He is not saying the Apostles didn't start in Jersusalem.
He is documenting the existence, authority and reason for the Church founded and organized in Rome- Much earlier then the 4th Century.
Sounds like a pretty out-of-control situation... Rome had to deal with.
Now you either believe this guy of the second century or not.
Nobody denies the where the Apostles started from:
Jerusalem was destroyed.
Heresey and its heretic promoters were all over -
and Iraneus is simply pointing out the Authority of Rome was in existence at this time
(Read First Clement and Rome's understood authority over Corinth- 90AD)
So yes you can say Jerusalem Church was first -
Can you say what books were - or were not in their Bible?