Diocesan churches not yet discovered in the primitive times

This is enough to satisfy what our Author would draw out of Scripture concerning the Church of Jerusalem. After some trifling about Objections which he forms himself, and then makes sport with, he comes to prove that Jerusalem was a Diocesan Church in the Apostles time. But first he would have us believe that James was the proper Bishop of that Church, and would evince it by two Testimonies, that of Clemens and Hegesippus. But what says his Clemens? He saith not only that James was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem presently after our Saviours Ascension, but what I think our Author was loth to mention. If he had given us the entire sentence it might have been better understood. After the Ascension of our Saviour, Peter, James and John, the most honoured by our Lord, would not yet contend for the first degree of honour, [Greek or Hebrew], but chose James the just Bishop of Jerusalem, Apostolorum Episcopum. Ruffinus reads it, This seems to signify that his being made a Bishop there, was some degree of Honour above their being Apostles. A learned Romanist tells us^q, that the books where Eusebius had this did so abound with Errors, that they were not thought ⟨p. 71⟩worth preserving, and so are lost (as those of Papias and Hegisippus are for the same reason) this may prove one instance of those many Errors. That which seems to be the sense of his words is more fully expressed by one who goes under the name of Clemens too^r, James the Lord's Brother was Prince of Bishops, and by his Episcopal Authority commanded all the Apostles, and so the former Clemens in Ruffinus calls him the Bishop of the Apostles^s. If he means such a Bishop as ours (and otherwise his meaning will not serve our Authors purpose) then the Apostles were but the Vicars or Curates of James. This is bad enough if James was an Apostle, the absurdest Papist will scarce ascribe as much to Peter. But if he was not an Apostle, it is yet more intolerable. If our Author can believe his own Witness, some may admire, but I think few will follow him.

This is enough to satisfy what our Author would draw out of Scripture concerning the Church of Jerusalem. After some trifling about Objections which he forms himself, and then makes sport with, he comes to prove that Jerusalem was a Diocesan Church in the Apostles time. But first he would have us believe that James was the proper Bishop of that Church, and would evince it by two Testimonies, that of Clemens and Hegesippus. But what sayes his Clemens? He saith not only that James was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem presently after our Saviours Ascension, but what I think our Author was loth to mention. If he had given us the intire sentence it might have been better understood. After the Ascension of our Saviour, Peter, James and John, the most honoured by our Lord, would not yet contend for the first degree of honour, , but chose James the just Bishop of Jerusalem, Apostolorum Episcopum. Ruffinus reads it, This seems to signify that his being made a Bishop there, was some degree of Honour above their being Apostles. A learned Romanist tells us