The History of Scotland informs us, that their Churches were long govern'd by meer Presbyters without Bishops, and therefore could have no Ordination but by Presbyters. Hed. Boeth. Hift.Scot. 1.7. Joban. Major. de Geft. Scot. 1. 2. c. 2. Fordon, &c.

The fame is recorded of the Gothick Churches, who were for Seventy Years after their Converfion without a Bishop, i. e. diftinct from the Ordinary Presbyter, Ulphilas being the first of that fort. Philoftorg. Eclog. 1. 2. c. 5.

The Presbyters of Scotland came over at King Ofwald's requeft, and ordained Bifhops for him here in England, as Beda Reports. The First Proteftant Reformers here in England, call'd Lollards, or Wickliffifts, practiced Ordination by meer Presbyters, Walfingh. Hift. Angl. An. 13. Hence it appears, as Spanheim obferves out of Eufebius and Ferom, that Epifcopal Primacy was anciently Ordinis tantum & Præfidentia, only a Matter of Order and Prefence. Non Imperii, non Poteftatis, not of Government or Power. Confuetudine introductum, non Dominica difpofitione paulatim primo in Majoribus Ecclefiis, deinceps Orbe toto. Introduced by Cuftom, not by Christ's appointment, and growing by little and little, firft in the greater Churches, and afterward all the World over. Spanh. Hift. Secul. 2. p. 631.

Yea in the Third Century, when Epifcopacy began to lift up its head in the Church, Non penes Epifcopum folum Ecclefia funt, fed conjunctim cum Presbyteris & Diaconis. The Government of the Church was not in the Power of the Bifhop alone, but in conjunction with the Presbyters and Deacons. And to thefe are given all the Titles of Government with." the Bishops, and therefore call'd their cuvaporTES, and σύνθρονος, and συνεδρίαι, and συλλειτεργός, and oonagasára and the like, Their Collegues, their Fellow- Bishops, their Com-presbyters and Affociates in Government. Spanh. p. 639. And tho' this Diftin

tion of Order and Degree between Bishop and Presbyter were at firft intended, or at least pretended, as a Remedy against Schifm, it hath fince appear'd by the Churches fad Experience, thro' the abuse of it, that greater Occafion of Schifm, Ambition, and Church Tyranny could not have been devised. Hinc nata mox in Ecclefia Schifmata Turbe, ut Teftis eft paffim in Hiftoria fua Eufebius ex Amulatione & Ambitione Epifcopatus, fays Spanheim, libd. p. 631.. Much more might be added on this Head, but I forbear it as needlefs: And conclude, That for you to say that

Ours is a New Way, never approv'd in Ancient Times, and unknown to all the Churches upon Earth and that yours is that way of Government which bath been tranfmitted down to us from the Apostles to all fucceeding Generations, is notorionfly Untrue, to fay no worse of it.

3. I prove it from the Disparity that is between the Primitive Bishops, and thofe of the English Con- ftitution. The Bishops of thofe Primitive Churches were but the Paftors of thofe Churches to which they were related, as undeniably appears by this, That they had but One Altar, or Place of Communion, and were requir'd perfonally to know and infpect all th Members of their Church, even to the meanest Servant, which is the proper Pastoral Work and Duty. And the Presbyters, which were not difpos'd of, and fettl'd in their Paftoral Charges, with their own Distinct Altars,&c. were but as their Chaplains, their Pupils, or Menial Servants, over whom they exercis'd a Defpotical Authority, and thought they had reafon fo to do, and therefore could not regularly, nor lawfully act in any Churchmatters, but in Subferviency to their Chief Paftor, who was their Ordinary: But yet even then, thofe that were difpos'd of to their respective Charges, as in the Country Villages fome were, thefe had the Title

H 2

Title and Honour of Chorepifcopi, and were allow'd the Power of Ordination, and of all other Acts of Discipline, within their own Bounds. But now the Bishops of the English Conftitution are quite of another Species, who have not only their own proper Paftoral Charges, and their One Altar, but claim a power of Jurifdiction over all the Paftors and Altars within fuch a Province as they call a Diocefs, that is, over fuch as were in the Primitive Churches Bishops, or Chorepifcopi, which was never pretended to in the Primitive Churches, till the Roman Bishop began to ufurp it, and was then by all others condemn'd as Antichriftian. So then, if the Bifhops of the Primitive Churches, with the Affiftance of their own Presbyters, or of their Neighbour Bishops, had power of Ordination, fo have fuch as are PaftorPresbyters now, with the affiftance of their Neighbour-Presbyters.

4. I prove it from the Conceffions of many of the moft Learned and Famous of the Church of England, Dr. Burges, in his Book written in Defence of the Ceremonies, fays, "For Bishop and Presbyter to differ

СС

Specie, and Orders to be void without a Bishop,is New in the Church of England. In the Book fubfcrib'd by both Arch-Bishops 1537, we find this, "The Truth is, that in the New Teftament there is no "mention made of any Degrees, or Distinction in Orders, but only of Deacons, and Priests, or Bishops; "And of thefe Two Orders, that is, of Priests and "Deacons, the Scripture maketh exprefs mention. Dr. Stillingfeet, from Cranmer's own hand fays, "That Bifhops and Priests were not Two things, but both one Office in the beginning of Chrift's Religion. Dr.

t

Whitaker Regius Profeffor in Cambridge, to Page 141. Campian's Tenth Reason, fays, "If to "condemn Prayers for the Dead, and to "make Bishop and Presbyter equal, be heretical, Nihil "Catholicum effe poteft, nothing can be Catholick or "Orthodox.

Hales of

Schifm, p. 6..

"Orthodox. Mr. Hales of Eaton, in his Treatife of Schifm, fays, "They do but They do but abuse themselves and others, that would 66 perfwade us that Bishops, by Christ's In"flitution, have any Superiority over other Men, further "than of Reverence; or that any Bishop is Superiour to "another, further than pofitive Order, agreed upon amongst Chriftians, bath prefcrib'd, Nature and σε Religion agree in this, that neither of them bath an "band in this Heraldry of Secundum fub & Supra. "All this comes from the Compofition and Agreement "of Men amongst themselves. Wherefore this abufe of Chriftianity, to make it Lacquey to Ambition, is a "Vice for which I have no extraordinary name of ignominy, and an ordinary I will not give it,left you should take fo tranfcendent a Vice to be but

ແ

trivial. Reynolds in a large Letter to Iren. Eluth. Sir Fr. Knolls about Bishop Bancroft's P. 18. Affertion, that Bishops were a Superi

Fudgment of the 4. 5. of Ar

magh p.134,135

our Order to Presbyters jure Divino, prove the contrary, and brings in Jewel, Pilkinton, Humphrys, Whitaker, Bradford, Lambert, and Fulk against him; and yet Bancroft himself would not annull the Ordination of meer Presbyters, as Dr. Bernard and Fuller in his Church-Hiftory will tell you; That in 1609, When the Scotch Bishops were to be Ordain'd by London, Eli, and Bath, a Question was mov'd by Andrews, Bishop of Eli, whether they must not be first Ordain'd Presbyters, as having receiv'd no Ordination from a Bishop. Arch-Bishop Bancroft maintain'd that it was not neceffary, feeing Ordination by Presbyters must be esteem'd valid, where Bishops could not be had. Bishop Uber, in his Life written by Dr. Parre, who gives it under the Bishops hand in these words, The Power of Ordination proceedeth not from Jurifdiction, but from Order, but a Presbyter bath the fame Order in Specie with a Bishop, therefore a H.3

Presbyter

And the Author of the Cafe of the Regale, and Pontificate, a great Champion of the Church, is driving at the Same defign at this Day: But it's hoped that all wakeful Englishmen will fee the Snake in the Gras.

Presbyter is equal to a Bishop in that Power, This Doctrine of Reordination was not found in the Church of England till Bp. Laud's time, in whofe Life Dr. Heylin * tells us, that there was defign'd an Accomodation between Us, and the Church of Rome, and thinks it might have been effected, had it not been for the Jefuites abroad, and the Puritans at home, And whether there be any fuch Defign on foot ftill, you have more reafon to know than I. How much more might I eafily collect from your own beft Authors, which before you had fallen fo foully on us, you ought to have better confider'd.

But by the way you are very angry with me for mentioning the Time, when your Bishops were banish'd from the Clergy of England: And had I not reafon then, according to your Principles, to enquire as I did, What then was become of the Church of God in England? And whether the way of Salvation was, for want of a Diocefan, blockt up during the Interregnum? For you plainly make your Bishops as Effential to a Chriftian Church, as Chrift himself is, who is the Head of it. But why should the remembrance of these days fo affect your ulcerated Spleen, and feem to inflame you with a Spirit of Revenge, against thofe that are as innocent of what was then irregularly done, as your felf? Might you not have made fome better ufe of it, in confidering what the true Occafion and Ground of these Tragedies were, both Civil and Ecclefiaftical; How far the Laudenfian Church Party were concern'd as the Causes of it, on that fide, and in whofe Interest they were then engag'd and acted; and on the other fide, what the Reasons of State were, for which the Sword was drawn between the King and his Parliament