ordination'of' a bisht?p mad a deacon, opeaketh nothing of priests,' be- esuse he comprehendeth them under the neme of bishops. $ectmdu? ete?im gra?u? pe? ?o?junctu? e?t ?: For ? ?nd deuce ?t ? ?e wi? the fi?t. The, by the ju?ent of these learn? fa?e?, ?ere w? 8m?l di?erence between ?e n?es, ? between o?ces of p?esM and bishop8 in the a?stles' ti?e. And th? much c?cem?g ?e Msfim?y of Script?e. "Ar?. 2. ?chb?hops and p?ma?8 have &e ?e ?ght of ?ction over o?er bisho? w?ch bisho? have over s?ple p?esm; but their authori? ?d j?sdiction are ?&er ?unded u?n the artciera c?tom of the church, ? any a?hc? injuncfon or ?stitufion Sceptic. Ergo. "The second pan of the rea?n is proved by ?e arehefty of S?t Hiemine, or who else was ?e author of the ?k De 8?t? O?i?. Pr?t? ? ?t ? ?e?l? e?c?, &c. For ? cause ?so, t? is, the pr?ing of unity, the elecfon of t? bishop is refe?ed ? ?e me?li?, &c., ?d now the c?ef p?esm be?n m endue another palest above them, ? ?jure, sed ?es?e, ?ther of necessity equity. AI? ?e decree of Nichols, the ?, c?. 3, de P?ar?., P?s ?l ?? n?il ?e ?le?i, &c.: We do dete?ne that p?matea and pa?iarehs have no privile? before other bishop, n? ?? but as ?ar ? the sacred canons do ?ant, and ancient cuswm of old time ha? ?ven un? ?em. T?s ?so is asked by ?at reverend and learned p?la?, B. Jewel, out of Hiewme, (Defens. A?log., page 123,) that bishops are subject ? p?mates by continuance of custom, more t?n by precept of Scripture."* Our author pmcee? m show Ihat the d?t?cfion between bish? and other ministe? h? no e?stence, or w? very amPI, in the days of the a?sfles. Indeed, if such a d? tinction ? e?s? between bishops and p?eam in ?e Ch?ch of Rome were by comm?dment and institution of C?st ?d his a?stles, it would have ?en clearly enjoined on all churches; but ?s h not the e?e. Here then is the differace between ?e Church of Rome and us: they say it ? necessaw ? s?fion ? ? subject to the ?, and ?o bishops ?d archbishops ?der him; w?ch is a notable ?ffer- enco between ?e bishops of ?e? ch?ch and ?ose of chnrches. The follo?ng is ?e conclung obse?ati? of ?. Wilier on topic e?ceming which we have just ?oted h? a?ve. "Whererorer says he, page 276, "? we condemn not those reformed ch?ches which have re?ned snorer fo? of ecclesiastical gove?ment, so sei- Zer are ?ey ? censure our church for holding s?l the ?cient re?- meat of bishops, purged fwm the ambitious ?d supe?fifio? inventio? of the ?pi?h prelacy. Let eve? church ?e ?at fo? w?ch ?t fit- teth their s?te: in ex?m? mattera eve? ?hurch is free, not one ?und to the prese?pfion of snorer, ? they measure themselves by the of the wo?; for if ?y ch?eh sh? seem to prescribe ?to another thee ?gs where? ?ey ? left free, ?at sang of the a?sfle may be fitly applied against them, (1 C?. ?v, 36,) ? t? ?d a? fr? ?, ? ? ? ?to ? ?l?? G? may ?ve church wi?m om ? ?e wo? ? ?ow what is b?t for ?eir
�
