and that it was doubtless of Apostolical institution, being a thing of Catholic tradition, and that's the best standard to interpret Scripture by. What then are we arrived at, that have forsaken the whole Church herein? Though I am little versed in the Ancients, yet I tell them we acknowledge that soon after the Apostles times the name Bishop came up as distinct from the Presbyters; but then I call for their proof that the Primitive Bishops had the power of jurisdiction over Presbyters, or that to him only ordination was appropriated. I tell them also that we have certain evidence that in some Churches these Bishops were made by ⟨image 107⟩Presbyters, so was the custom in Alexandria ▪ and when did ever the Church judge them to be no Bishops or Ministers? And also of Tertullians Praesident probati quique Seniors, and of Cyprian's Salvo inter Collegas pacis & concordiae vinculo: and that doubtless if Cyprian be to be believed, the Church was then ruled by the joint consent of its Pastors, of whom one was indeed the President or Moderator, who yet called himself compresbyter, and the Presbyters s•atres (not filios as it was of l•te.) This answer I have had from some of them, that the Church in those times was much under the clo•d, being persecuted, and had not that liberty to settle Diocesan Episcopacy in that Glory, which the Apostolical institution aimed at, and that the Church was then what it could be, and not what it would be. Do you judge of its weight. For my part, I am most stumbled at the reading of Ignatius (whom Dr. H. so strenuously defends) and cannot tell how to evade that Testimony in the behalf of Episcopacy, if it be indeed the testimony of the true Ignatius. But methinks his phrase is much unlike either that of Clemens, or of Cyprian in this case. Its great pity that Dr. Blondel wants his eyes, and so we are hindered of enjoying of more of his labours in this point. His Notion of the [Greek or Hebrew] is a very pretty on, and it were well if we had fuller evidence added to that which he hath endeavoured after in his Preface, to his Apology for Hierom.
Or if your judgement about the power of every single Pastor were fully improved, it would conduce much to the clearing of these controversies. I could methinks be glad of the practice of those proposals which Bishop Usher hath made in a late printed sheet:
and that it was doubtless of Apostolical institution, being a thing of Catholick tradition, and that's the best standard to intepret Scripture by. What then are we arrived at, that have forsaken the whole Church herein? Though I am little versed in the Ancients, yet I tell them we acknowledge that soon after the Apostles times the name Bishop came up as distinct f•om the Presbyters; but then I call for their proof that the Primitive Bishops had the power of jurisdiction over Presbyters, or that to him only ordination was appropriated. I tell them also that we have certain evidence that in some Churches these Bishops were made by ⟨image 107⟩Presbyters, so was the custom in Alexandria ▪ and when did ever the Church judge them to be no Bishops or Ministers? And also of Tertullians Praesident probati quique Seniores, and of Cyprians Salvo inter Collegas pacis & concordiae vinculo: and that doubtless if Cyprian be to be believed, the Church was then ruled by the joint consent of its Pastors, of whom one was indeed the President or Moderator, who yet called himself compresbyter, and the Presbyters s•atres (not filios as it was of l•te.) This answer I have had from some of them, that the Church in those times was much under the clo•d, being persecuted, and had not that liberty to settle Diocesan Episcopacy in that Glory, which the Apostolical institution aimed at, and that the Church was then what it could be, and not what it would be. Do you judge of its weight. For my part, I am most stumbled at the reading of Ignatius (whom Dr. H. so strenuously d•fends) and cannot tell how to evade that Testimony in the behalf of Episcopacy, if it be indeed the testimony of the true Ignatius. But methinks his phrase is much unlike either that of Clemens, or of Cyprian in this case. Its great pity that Dr. Bloudel wants his eyes, and so we are hindred of enjoying of more of his labours in this point. His Notion of the 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 is a very pretty on, and it were well if we had fuller evidence added to that which he hath endeavoured after in his Preface, to his Apology for Hierom.
Or if your judgement about the power of every single Pastor were fully improved, it would conduce much to the clearing of these controversies. I could methinks be glad of the practice of those proposals which Bishop Usher hath made in a late printed sheet:
