firfi Volume of the Hillary of the Puritans. . 863 for the notion of ditEindt offices of bifhop and prefbyter (fags hisVindic. Cb. " lordfhip), I confefs'tis.not fo clear to me, and therefore, fnce I look of S',"14"64 'o upon the facramental adtions as the higheft of facred performances, It'. 336 " cannot but acknowledge, thofe who are empowered for them muff " be of the HIGHEST OFFICE in the church." Where now are our author's trophies ! Have thefe great divines and antiquaries miftaken the fenfe and pratlice of the whole chriftian church for fifteenhundred years? or is not this gentleman too hafty and affum- big ? who not content with one bold ftroke of his pen to have claimed all antiquity to his fide, falls unmercifully on Mr. N. and reprefents him as in a de/ign toferve his caule by perverting the publickoffices ofthe church. p. 65. " This being the cafe (lays he) other methods were to be tried, and the " very formof confecrating a b/hop, whohad befòre been ordained a prieft, " be employed toprove there was, in the opinion of the compilers ofthatform, " no fuch order as bishops in the church." Such an attack upon the moral charaóler of an adverfary is not very generous ; however, after what has been Paid with relation to kingEDWARD'S ordinal, I (hall leave it to his own and the reader's reflection. But Rill it feems, a peculiar infelicity attends the hiftory of the puri- P. 68. tans on this point, for which he turns his reader to the very end of the book [p. 594.] " They [the puritans] acknowledged (lays Mr. N.) but " two orders of clergy of divine inftitution (viz.) bishops, or priefts, and deacons, and yet nothing is more plain, than that they did not " think a deacon to be a clergyman, nor would allow him to act as a " minifter." " By this oddaccount of Mr. N. (lays our author) it plain- " ly appears, the puritans believed two orders ofclergymen, one of which, in " their opinion, was no order at all." Did then Mr. Cartwright, B. D. believe himfelf to be no minifter or clergyman (to ufe the language of this writer) when he preached at St.Mary's in Cambridge for feveral years; only upon the foot of deacon's orders? Did Mr. Travers of the Temple, and Mr. Fenner, &c. who never advanced higher than deacons in the church of England, think themfelves no minifters [or clergymen] be- fore they were ordained abroad? I confefs, the word xxIie ç or clergy, is no where in fcripture, as I remember, appropriated to church cers, nor was it the language of the puritans, it (hall therefore be ftruck out ; but the truth is, moll of the puritanical letturers of thole times accepted of deacons orders tóqualify them to preach and baptize, though they re- fitted, for tome reafons, to be ordained priefts. They believed the or- der or office of a deacon to be equally of divine inftitution with that ofa prieff or bifhap, and that his diftinguifhing province was to /èrve tables, or to manage the fecular affairs of the congregation, according to the inftitution, Vets vi. 2, 3. and the practice of the foreign reformed * 5 S 2 churches;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=