86o A Review of the principal fafs objeVed to the I might add the teftimonies of Alley bifhop of Exeter, in the begin- ning of the reign of queen Elizabeth ; Pilkington of Durham, yewel of Salfury, Whitgift of Canterbury, who all declare with St. yerom and Aufün, the office of a bifhop to be above the office of a prieft, not by authority of fcripture, but by the cuflom of the church. Let the reader judge now, whether it was an excefi of zeal in Mr. N. to preis the reformers into this opinion. Of king But he has appealed to king EDWARD'S ORDINAL, and has faid, Edw.'s ardi- ,e that it is álmo/i the fame with that now in ufe. ---" :. Again (lays p. 58, 59 Mr. N.) " the form of ordaining a PRIEST OR A BIHOP is the SAME " [i. e. with that now in ufe] there being no exprefi mention, in the words " ofordination, whether it befor the one or the other office ; but this has " been altered oflate years This is his material proof." If this was an excels of zeal, it is not Mr. N's but bifhop Burnet's, from whom he Hilt. Ref, tranfcribed it : His words are thefe, " they (viz. the reformers) agreed Vol. IL p." on a form of ordaining deacons, priefts and bifhops, which is the 144. " fame weyet ufe, except fome few words that have been added fldce, in " the ordination of a PRIEST OR BISHOP ; for there was then no ex- " prefs mention made in the words of ordaining them, that it was for " the one or the other office : In both it was faid, receive thou the holy ghoß, &c. But this having being been fince made ufe of, to prove " both funaions the fame, it was of late years altered as it is now." Eccl. Hit. This remark (lays Mr. Collyer) put me upon comparing the firft ordinal Vol. II. with that publifhed in the third edition of Sparkow's collection, " and I 290. " here I found them exactly the fame ; but afterwards . perufing this " office, as it ftands reviewed at the Savoy, I find the author's obferva- " tian is right." And if bifhop Burnet's obfervation was right, this gentleman muft Purely be in the wrong, when he calls it a mifrepre- lentation, and Pays the weight of it muft fall wholly upon Mr. N. The only material difference in the forms of ordination mentioned by our author, is, that in the confecration ofa bifhop, he is exhorted to MINISTER DISCIPLINE, which is not mentioned in the ordination of a prieft; and yet in archbifhop Parker's confecration, which was agree- able to king EDWARD'S ordinal, there is no mention of MINISTERING P"'rs L. DISCIPLINE ; the words are thefe, " then they delivered the holy bi- s8, 6o. P. " ble into his hands, ufing thefe words to him, give heed to thy reading, " exhortation anddac7rine ; think upon thef things contained in this book ; " be diligent in them, that the increafi coming thereby may be manifll to " all men. Take heed to thy fey, and unto thy teaching. ; be diligent in " doing them, for in doing this thou(haltfave thyfilfand them that hear thee, through Jefus Chrß our Lord." Here is not a word ofdifeipline, though .rr
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=