[ 59 " Years, ¡nce a Diftindion of the two " Orders has been fo generally admit- ' ted ; but that was not the received " Doctrine of thefe Times. " Thus again. " We may obferve (fays he) ibis. p. sz " from the Hiftory of this Reign [King " Edward's] that the firft Reformers " believed but two Orders of Church- men in Holy Scripture, viz. Bthhops " and .`Deacons ; and confequently the `` Bithops and Priefts were but different `` Ranks or Degrees of the fame OrIbid. p. 494: " der. " In like Manner elfewhere. " Our firft Reformers admitted but " two Orders of Church Officers to be " of divine Appointment, viz. Bithops " and Deacons ; a Presbyter and " Bilhop, according to them, being but two Names for the fame OFFICE." By this Account 'tis plain Mr. N. would have it believed, that Bifhop and Prieft were, in the Opinion of the firft Re- formers, fynonimous Terms, fignifying not only the fameOrder, but the fame Office too ; being, as he fays, but two Names of the fame Office. His mate- rial Proof is the publick Ordinal ; and to be Pure, if anywhere, theReformers fpeak diftinly, when they are defign- edly treating upon this Subfeó, and ap- pointing the very Forms of Ordination and Çonfecration. Here then we join Ilfue
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=