862 A Review of the principal fags objeged to the exxercifing the difiinguifhing offices ofa 6 oop __. Mr. N. does not pre- tend to fo intimate an acquaintance with the fathers as this gentleman ; but if he can condefcend to read a modern author, would recommend L. H. Chan. to his perufal the lord chancellor sesNG'S confitution of the primitive me+nts,3and .church, whofe definition of a prefbyter is, that " he is a perfen in holy others, cc orders, having thereby an INHERENT RIGHT TO PERFORM THE ifh Part I. " WHOLE OFFICE OF A B ISHOP,but having no par,not agually drfiharg- Chap. IV . , ing it without his leave." His lordfhip undertakes to prove in the fame chapter, " that prefbÿters were called by the fame title-, and " that they are exprefly laid to be of the very fame fpecifick order with " ° bithops, though they differed in preeminence or degree ; that they RULED in thofe churches to which they belonged. That they pre- " fided in church confiftories with the bifhop That they had the " power of excommunication, and of reftoring penitents to the churches peace That they confirmed and that there are clearer proofs of " presbyters ordaining, than of their adminiftring the Lord's fupper." " The fame learned author maintains, that there were but two orders, " r [viz.] of a ISHOP s and DEACONS inftituted by the apoftles ; and if they " ordained but two (rays he) I think no one had ever a commiffion to " add a third, or to fplit one into two, as muff be done, if we feparate " the order ofprefbyters from the order of the bithops." How contra- diëtory are thefe potations to our author's, who affures us upon his own great reading and reputation (for he quotes no authority) that no in/lance can be given of a presbyter's exercifing the dißingu ing office of a bop ; whereas his lordfhip has produced fundry autho- a P. 88, sities and examples from the molt- antient chriftian writers to the ád fq' 192' contrary ' which are referred to in the margin ; and in the dìftinguifhing 169r. point of ordination his lordfhip avers, there are clearer proofs ofpresby- ters doing it, than of their adminiflring the Lord's flipper. However, left his lordlhip's acquaintaince with ecclefiaftical antiquity thould not be thought by this gentleman equal to his own, I would beg leave to fup- TdeH. Pur. port it with the teftimony of two as eminent bithops as the lift age pro. vo1.Ih duced ; one is bifhop Moreton, who declares in his apologia catbolica, that P. 4.07. TO ORDAIN was the antient right ofpresbyters. The other is archbithop UJher, who being aaked by king Charles I. in the jieofWight, whether he found in antiquity, that presbyters alone ordained any ? He anfwered YES ; and that he could fhow his majefty more, even where prefbyters alone fii,:caSively ordained bithops, and ¡nftanced in the prefbyters of A1ex- P' 65' andria, choofing and making their own bithops, from the days ofMark,, lifilleraclas and .Diony/ius. And becaufe this writer is pleafed to intro- troduce bifhop Burnet as a patron of the imparity of bithops and pref. byters,, Mr. 1'f. will confront him with his lordihip's own words; as 6 foa
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=