if they will stand to what is more maturely and pertinently by them alledged and proved agreeably also to their own practice for Diocesan Episcopacy as established in the Church of England If those Dissenters who were so importunate and industrious to advance their Discipline on the ruines of the established Church had proceeded on the Principles laid down by the Divines above-mentioned whereof this is one that they lay hold on viz. That the forms of Government not being plainly exprest in Scripture are alterable and may by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate be determined to this or that species which yet they will not grant of their own Discipline they ought then to acquiesce in that Government which was established and to which all those Divines most willingly submitted as the best in all the Christian World and though by reason of their dissent from it they had drawn on themselves the execution of some moderate Penalties yet if they had been fully perswaded that they did suffer for a good Conscience and for Righteousness sake they ought like good Christians to have taken it patiently and not by Railing by Sedition by forming Schisms and meditating Rebellions seek to avenge themselves and return evil for evil but contrarily blessing being thereto called by the Example and Precepts of their great Master but when they returned evil for good and hatred for good-will and thought themselves persecuted because they could not grasp a Power to persecute their Superiours this was not agreeable to that wisdom that comes from above which is first pure then peaceable gentle and easie to be intreated And if our present Dissenters be satisfied of the purity of our Doctrine they may by the Principles which are laid down submit to that Discipline and Government that Authority doth establish there being nothing in it contrary to the Word of God but wholly agreeable to the constant practice of the Universal Church I think it sufficient to solve all that hath been alledged out of our Divines to clear these two things 1. What kind of Government was setled by the Apostles 2. What Answer may be given to the Objections so often mentioned from St. Hierom. As to the first it is evident that there was a Superiority in the Apostles to those to whom they committed the care of the several Churches whether they were Bishops or Presbyters and as the Apostles dyed their Successors in Ecclesiastical Power who in all Ages were the Bishops were the Subjects of that Superiority such as Timothy Titus Clemen Linus c. and their Successors as they stand recorded in Ecclesiastical History for what the Apostles did for the perpetual Order and Government of the Church was agreeable to our Saviour's Institution and all Antiquity bears proof to this Truth that from the Apostles days there were setled in the most eminent Churches of Hierusalem Rome Antioch and Alexandria several Bishops that had a Superiority over the Presbyters in their respective Churches and that the three Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons were established in those Churches in those purest and most Primitive times insomuch that they who will not admit those Testimonies will be to seek for one of the best Proofs for the Canon of the Scripture As therefore we believe the Succession of Roman Emperours from the Writings of such Historians as lived near their times so may we believe the truth of such Orders of Men and of their Successions as it is delivered by Men of good Credit and Honesty that lived near those times and have handed down in undoubted written Records from Age to Age St. Polycarp Ignatius Clemens who conversed with the Apostles Ireneus Justin Martyr and others that lived with them then Origen Clem. Alexandrinus Tertullian who succeeded them and many others who lived within two hundred years after the Apostles from whom Eusebius had the Materials of his History and refers to them for the truth of his Relations He had the Acts of the Martyrs and the Books of Hegesippus concerning the Acts of the Church from which and other helps from the very Persecutors of the Christians he compiled his History and particularly the Succession of Bishops Clemens Rom. in his Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the Officers of the Church in his time alluding to those under the Law The High-Priest hath his Office the Priest his Station and the Levite his Ministry the Lay-man his Office let every one worship God in his Order Ignatius mentions these Three Orders in his Epistles so plainly that the Enemies of those Orders have martyred him again in his Reputation denying his Epistles to be genuine which the Learned Bishop Pearson hath irrefragably asserted and so hath Dr. Beveridge the Authority of Apostolical Canons which have been owned by the Councils and expresly assert the Three Orders so that tho' while the Apostles lived the Names might be confounded yet immediately on their deaths all Ancient Writers have distinguished them because such as succeeded to their Power were Bishops and yet all the Minister's or Elders were not so for a Parity is usually the Parent of Confusion and if such a Parity had been setled by Christ or his Apostles how could it be that as St. Hierom says The whole World should agree for prevention of Schism to alter what Christ had established Was the whole World i. e. every particular Church which are it seems agreed on setting up a Bishop above Presbyters wiser than our Saviour or had they Authority so to do And if they did so by sufficient Authority why will the Presbyters as generally agree to pull them down now as their Ancients did to set them up So that I see no shadow of Reason why we may not subscribe to that which is said before the Book of Consecration That it is evident to all Men diligently reading the Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been ever these Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons 2. As to St. Hierom's Testimony the import of it is this That tho' the Apostles had a Superiority over Presbyters yet when they died they did not bequeath that Power to others but left it in common to the Presbyters whose management of it was such as it begat Schisms and Animosities for suppression of which it was thought fit through the whole World to chuse out of the body of the Presbyters one that should have a Presidency over the rest so that this Presidency was not an Apostolical Institution but Ecclesiastical and Prudential Constitution wherein St. Hierom doth not only contradict the Joynt Suffrage of all the Ancients but his own Testimony Against this Opinion of St. Hierom some affirm that what he said was in a Discourse against some proud Deacons that would equal themselves with the Presbyters which was as great a presumption as to invade the Office of the Bishops seeing in most things as St. Hierom says the Bishops and Presbyters were of
it self otherwise and a task set them to do some good and memorable thing in the Church they might have been reformed or made harmless by diversion I desire Mr. J. H. to consider what it is and of whom Sir Robert there speaketh and to give a Reason why this was interpoled And to this Quotation I shall subjoyn another of Mr. R. B's in an Epistle to his separated Brethren That thousands are gone to Hell and ten thousands going after them who would never have gone thither if they had kept in the Communion of their Parish-Churches But in the conclusion of the Introduction he seems no way satisfied with the Propension of our Governours to lay aside the strict use of Ceremonies and other more offensive Impositions unless this one thing may be granted and I think such a grant will be still accounted a grievance viz. a declaring the Government of the Church to be no other than what it was held and intended by the first Reformers in the mean time he avers That that Government which is really established by Law is not only inconsistent with and destructive of that which was setled in the Church by the first Reformers but of the Church-state of all other Protestants This Durus Sermo This is his endeavour as to the Reign of Henry the Eighth in his first Chapter Here I think fit to advertise the Reader that the Materials for the new Model of Henry the Eighth's Bishops was fitted though Mr. J. H. complains for want of time above seven years since and the Scheme drawn-up by Mr. H. in 's half Sheet and offered to a Parliament and because he took no notice of what was then said in Answer to his Model in a Tract called No Protestant but the Dissenters Plot Printed 1682. He deserves to do Pennance in a whole Sheet now and because that Answer may be after so many years become forgotten or rarely found I beg the Reader 's leave to repeat so much of it as concerns the State of our Church and the Opinion of the Divines that then lived as to Episcopacy because our Author says the whole stress of his cause upon it saying That this one thing is the most effectual expedient in the whole World to promote his healing attempt wherein I shall joyn issue with him It might be expected that he should have laid a sure and solid Corner-stone for his new Model because an error in the foundation doth usually run through the whole Fabrick but this will appear to be nothing else but Slime and Sand that is in plain English a confident Imposture and Fiction of his own Brain for p. 9. the account which this Author gives of that excellent Book The Erudition of a Christian Man is this That of these two Orders only viz. Priests and Deacons Scripture makes express mention and how they were conferred by the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of hands Thus saith Mr. H. There are but two Orders only i. e. Priests and Deacons no third Order Bishops therefore must be of the same Order with Priests And again That all such lawful Power and Autherity of any one Bishop Mr. H. adds in a Parenthesis or Priest for they are in the sense of these great Divines the same over another were and be given them by the Consent Ordinance and positive Laws of Men and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture So far the necessary Erudition Now that there may be a fair trial of this case I shall set down from Dr. Stillingfleet's printed Paper the Opinions of those Divines which consulted about our Reformation in Henry the Eighth's days concerning which I shall only mind the Dissenters of an Observation of their own viz. That though some of these Reformers were of different Opinions as to some Points mentioned in this Manuscript yet they must be considered to have receded from them when they subscribed the Necessary Erudition being then all of that Judgment which is there described The intent of Printing Dr. Stillingfleet's Manuscript containing the Resolutions of the Archbishop and several Bishops and Divines of some Questions concerning the Sacraments was as Dr. Burnet says that it might appear with what maturity and care they proceeded in the Reformation And the Subscriptions which were at the end of every mans Paper he tells us p. 242. were in this form T. Cant. This is my Opinion and Sentence which I do not temerariously define but do remit the Judgment thereof wholly to your Majesty and as is also sometimes expressed p. 201. without prejudice to the Truth and saving always more better Judgment Cum facultate etiam melius deliberandi in hac parte Now this Consultation was some years before the Book was published and if any of the Bishops had been then of a contrary Opinion as the Dissenters observe that Archbishop Cranmer was in the case of Excommunication inclining to Erastianism from these they must be considered say the Dissenters to have receded because they subscribed the Necessary Erudition p. 8. This Manuscript speaks home to our purpose in Quest 9. Whether the Apostles lacking a higher power as in not having a a Christian King among them made Bishops by that necessity or by authority given by God The Answer of the Archbishop to this Question as indeed to many others is singular and differs from the rest of the Reformers being as the Prefacers themselves do observe meer Erastianism p. 7. but from these also as they say of his Opinion concerning Excommunication p. 8. he must be considered to have receded because he subscribed the Necessary Erudition which being done on more mature deliberation we ought to impute nothing to the Archbishop as his judgment in those controverted Points but what is there by him asserted I shall therefore mention the Resolutions of the rest only as we find them in the Re-collection only of this first I shall speak at large York We find in SS that the Apostles used the power to make Bishops Priests and Deacons which power may be grounded upon these words Sicut misit me vivens Pater sic ego mitto vos And we verily think that they durst not have used so high a power unless they had had authority from Christ But that their power to ordain Bishops Priests or Deacons by Imposition of hands requireth any other authority than authority of God we neither read in SS nor out of SS London I think the Apostles made Bishops by the Law of God because Acts 22. it is said In quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit Nevertheless I think if Christian Princes had been then they should have named by Right and appointed the said Bishops to their places Rochester I think that the Apostles made Bishops by authority given them from God. Carlisle That Christ made his Apostles Priests and Bishops and that he gave them power to make others it seemeth to be the very Trade of SS Dr. Robertson I think the Apostles made Bishops and
order Priests and Bishops so they appointed and willed other Bishops after them to do the like for which they quote Titus 1. and 1 Tim. 5. which is another Proof out of the New Testament In another place they say that the Priests and Bishops in the execution of their Office and Ministration do use and exercise the power and authority of God committed unto them And to name but one place more for I shall quote those onely which in the sense of those Reformers and our Dissenters too prove the Order of Bishops to be distinct from that of Priests and of Divine Institution speaking of the power of the Prince over Bishops and Priests they say that the Prince is to oversee and cause the said Bishops and Priests to execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and specially in those points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed to them So that it is undeniable that Bishops are mentioned as Church-Officers in the New Testament by this excellent Book and consequently are necessary to such a Church-Government as is Jure Divino according to the first and second Assertion of the Dissenters Let us inquire therefore how they derive their third Assertion from this Book which is That in the New Testament there is mention made of no other Church-Officers but Priests and Deacons To which words they immediately add That no other Government is of Divine Right but what is under the conduct of Bishops or Priests and that the New Testament mentioneth no other Which grants that Bishops are mentioned in the New Testament as well as Priests But the Dissenters will not grant them to be mentioned in the sense of the Reformers that is as a distinct Office and having a Superiority over Priests and Deacons for in the Fourth Assertion they say That Bishops or Priests the sole Governours of the Church are of one and the same Order For proof whereof they quote these words out of the Necessary Erudition viz. That Bishops or Priests and Deacons are the onely Orders mentioned in the New Testament And that of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention To which I answer That it is no-where said in the Necessary Erudition That Bishops or Priests the sole Governours of the Church are of one and the same Order And that this Assertion is contradicted by the following Quotation upon which they ground it viz. That Bishops or Priests and Deacons are the onely Orders mentioned in the New Testament For throughout that whole Chapter the Reformers make as plain a distinction betwen Bishops and Priests as between Priests and Deacons I do therefore reject the first Assertion as a Fiction of their own not to be found in the Necessary Erudition nor in the practice of the Authors of it which could best expound their meaning viz. That Bishops or Priests are of one and the same Order As to the second viz. That of these two Orders onely i. e. of Priests and Deacons the Scripture maketh mention I hope to give such a plain and genuine sense of the Authors as our Dissenters notwithstanding all their Prejudices and Evasions shall not be able to deny And because Qui benè distinguit benè docet I desire them to observe this distinction of the word Order which signifieth either the Power and Faculty conferred by the Apostles hands or the Modus the Rite and Ceremony of Imposition of Hands and Prayer by which it was conferred The first is properly Order and the second as they term it Ordering or Ordination Now I will not dispute in which sense our Reformers use the word Order in this place the Context will shew that But let the Dissenters take it in which sense they will it will be so far from establishing that it will overthrow their Propositions That Bishops and Priests are one and the same Order and that of these two onely Scripture maketh express mention I grant therefore that this second sentence is found intire in that Book viz. Of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention But had these men been so ingenuous as to quote the whole Paragraph or to judge of the sense of this Expression which is somewhat dark by those which were more plain whereof some go before and others follow that sentence and all declare Bishops to be a distinct Order and to be mentioned in the New Testament they would never have had the confidence so to expose these learned Reformers as if they had contradicted themselves in the same breath and professed their Judgment to be contrary to their Practice in a Book of that importance written with great Advice and Deliberation and published to give the World an account of the Reformation Could their Popish Adversaries of that Age have fixed such an Opinion and Contradiction on them they should have heard of it as loudly as we have of the Nags head Fable but they had not the confidence to feign them guilty of that Opinion which these Dissenters would force on them whether they will or no. For the Papists of that Age knew that Lex currit cum praxi and that the Reformers exercising Episcopal Authority over the Presbyters within their several Diocesses was a clear proof that they judged their Order to be superiour to that of Priests and that by Divine Institution as in the four places above-mentioned doth appear But to clear this Objection I shall first examine the place quoted as it is entire Secondly I shall shew the sense of it from the Latine Translation which is the best Commentary And thirdly from the received Opinion of other Divines of that Age. And fourthly I shall give you Dr. Burnet's Opinion of the whole matter First The place quoted says thus Of these two Orders onely i. e. Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of their Hands and to these two the Primitive Church did add and conjoyn certain other inferiour and lower degrees as Subdeacons Acolytes Exorcists with divers other of the which mention is made both of the most Ancient Writers that we have in the Church of Christ after the Aposties as also in divers old Councils and namely in the fourth Council of Africk in which St. Augustine was present where all the kinds of Orders which were then in the Church be rehearsed Now though what hath been observed from the Context might be enough to satisfie all Persons that were not maliciously disposed to quarrel with those Reformers as if they contradicted themselves and overthrew that Episcopal Order in Thesi which they maintained in Praxi yet this Paragraph is so clear by its own light that they must needs wink with both eyes that could not see the sense of the Reformers in it First then the scope of the Paragraph ought to have been considered which is to speak of such Orders as were inferiour
the Lord of which hereafter To the same effect he quotes Pilkington Bishop of Durham arguing against a Popish Author and therefore probably against Popish Bishops and he says That God's Commission is alike to all Priest Bishop Archbishop and Prelate for which he quotes St. Hierome ad Evagrium That a Bishop where-ever he be is of the same Power and Priesthood which he urged against those that still claimed their Bishop of Rome usurped Power above Princes and other Bishops who as this Bishop says had no Authority to Suspend Deprive and Interdict any Priest that paid not his Subsidies but from the Parliament I cannot see what inference the Author can make from this to favour his Opinion The sum of what Bishop Jewel says is that of St. Hierome That all Priests are of the same Power that the Names of Metropolitans Archbishops Archdeacons c. are not found in the SS That St. Hierome says Sciant Episcopi that they are in Authority over Priests more by Custome than by Order of God's Truth And against Harding he says What meant Mr. Harding to come in with the difference between Priests and Bishops thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by Tradition or is it so humble a Heresie to say that by the SS of God a Bishop and a Priest are all one He grants also That it is by the favour of Princes that a Priest being found negligent c. he may be punished by the discretion of the Bishop That the Matters of Government must be taken out of the Word of God viz That the Word be truly taught the Sacraments rightly administred Vertue furthered Vice repressed and the Church kept in Quietness and Order That the Officers whereby this Government is wrought be not namely and particularly expressed in SS but left to the discretion of the Church according to the state of Times Places and Persons and therefore no certain and perfect kind of Government being prescribed in SS as necessary to the Salvation of the Church the same may be altered For which he quotes Gualter Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the people and most fit for the time and place and let no Man rashly prescribe to others and bind all Churches to one Form It is well known that the Manner and Form of Government in the Apostles times and expressed in the SS neither is now nor can nor ought to be observed This he wrote against Cartwright pleading for his Government as if prescribed in SS and thus he applies it to the then Dissenters If you will have the Queen Rule as Monarch in her own Dominions you must give her leave to use one kind and form of Government in all and every part and so to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs as in Civil I wish they would follow his Example and Advice that so seem to recommend his Judgment Ch. 4. begins with Dr. Willet's Opinion who says That of the difference between Bishops and Priests there are Three Opinions the first of Arrius who held that all Ministers should be equal and that a Bishop was not nor ought to be superiour to a Priest nor was there any difference at all between them Which Opinion was counted an Heresie N. B. The Second in the other extream is of the Papists That would have not only a difference but a Princely Preheminence of their Bishops over the Clergy and that by the Word of God. The Third Opinion between both is That although this distinction of Bishops and Priests as now received cannot be directly proved out of SS yet it is very good for the Polity of the Church to avoid Schism and to preserve it in Unity And he concludes So then here is a difference between our Adversaries the Papists and us they say It is of necessity to Salvation to be subject to the Pope and to Bishops and Archbishops under him as necessarily prescribed in the Word But so do not our Bishops and Archbishops which is a notable difference between the Bishops of the Popish Church and the Reformed Churches Let every Church use the Form which best fitteth their State in External Matters N. B. Every Church is free not one bound to the Prescription of another So they measure themselves by the Rule of the Word This then he says may without any contradiction be affirmed that in this distinction of the Ministers of the Church there is somewhat Apostolical somewhat also Political First in the calling of Bishops as now ordained in some Reformed Church it cannot be denied but that we have Order in the Church and to have diversity of Degrees and Ministrations to avoid Confusion proceeds from an Institution of Christ that there should not be a popular Equality but a convenient Superiority and Priority in the Ministers of the Gospel as St. Paul also sheweth First Apostles second Prophets c. Secondly There is somewhat Politick and that of two sorts as touching the Polity Ecclesiastical and Civil To the Ecclesiastical in advancing the Dignity of Bishops these things appertain 1. St. Hierome says of Confirmation That it is committed only to Bishops that it is rather for the honour of the Priesthood then by necessity of any Law. 2. The Council of Aquisgrane ch 8 saith That the Ordination and Consecration of Ministers is now reserved to the chief Minister only for Authority's-sake lest that the Discipline of the Church being changed by many should break the Peace of the Church 3. The Author of the Book under Hierome's Name De Septem Ordinibus saith That the Consecration of Virgins which is not now in use in the Reformed Churches was reserved to the Bishop for Concord's sake 4. The Jurisdiction of the Church which in times past Hierome says was committed to the Colledge of Presbyters was afterwards to avoid Schism devolved to the Bishop Among other Inferences from Dr. Willet he concludes That Willet indeed saith that for the sake of Order the Presidence of one above the rest is Divine and Apostolical And at the latter end of Queen Eligabeth the Episcopal Government is affirm'd to be Apostolical and a Divine Institution And as to Saravia our Author gives his Judgment in these two particulars differing from Whitgift 1. That not only the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments but the Form of Government instituted by the Lord himself delivered by the Apostles confirmed by the Fathers ought to be continued forever 2. The Superiority in degree of a Bishop above a Presbyter is a Divine Institution and that St. Hierome was in the same Error with Arrius Dico privatam fuisse Hieronimi Opinionem consentaneam cum Arrio Dei verbo contrariam The last that he mentioneth in this Ch. is Bishop Bancroft who says We have a Church-Government which in my Conscience is truly Apostolical and far to be preferred before any other received this day in any Reformed Church in Christendome And after the Death of the
the Ordinary of the place where he had such knowledge or to any of her Majesty's Privy Council the same person shall not for his former concealment be hereafter molested or troubled Given at her Majesty's Palace at Westminster the thirteenth of February 1588. In the One and thirtieth Year of her Highness Reign GOD SAVE THE QUEEN Arch-bishop Grindall exprest in a Letter of his his great fear of two things viz. Atheism and Popery and both arising out of our needless Divisions by these means the Enemies of our Religion gain this that nothing can be established by Law in the Protestant Religion whose every part is not opposed by one or other of her own Professors so that things continuing loose and confused the Papists have their Opportunity to urge their way which is attended with Order and Government And our Religion continuing thus distracted and divided some vile wretches lay hold on the Argument on one side to confute the other and so at last to destroy all And it is observed in the Life of Mr. Hooker p. 9. they perswaded men to believe that the Bishops were Antichrist and Antichrist was to be destroyed by the Sword and beginning with Petitions they proceeded to Admonitions then to Remostrances then to numbring their Party then to that boldness that one told the Queen in a Sermon She was like an untamed Heifer that would not be ruled by God's people but obstructed his Discipline And we have heard and seen worse things in our days Arch-bishop Whitgift in his Defence of the Answer to T. C. p. 605. tells the Puritans That the Papists could not have met with better Proctors than they And 55. That they did the Pope very good Service and that he would not miss them for any thing for what is his desire but to have this Church of England which he hath accursed utterly defaced and discredited to have it by any means overthrown if not by Foreign means yet by Domestical Dissention And what fitter Instruments could he have had for that purpose who under pretence of Zeal overthrow that which other men have builded under colour of Purity seek to bring in Deformity and under the Cloak of Equality and Humility would usurp as great Tyranny and lofty Lordliness over their Parishes as ever the Pope did over the whole Church and that they were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave whereby they intend to overthrow this Church even by these mens Folly which they could not compass by all their Policy The Epistle of the Arch-bishop to the Reader before his Defence of the Answer to T. C's Admonition is worth pernsal As for Bishop Bancroft the whole design of his Book is to manifest what disturbance the endeavours of the Presbyterians to establish their Eldership did create in the Nation by such dangerous Positions and Practices as were in his time with equal violence and malice carried on for the destruction of the Church as it was then established There are some other of the mentioned Divines whose Writings I have not nor is there need to enquire farther into them seeing there is nothing alledged from them by Mr. J. H. but what being compared with their other sayings and practices doth fully frustrate his designs And when the Bishops of our Church do so ingenuously mention all that may be said for their Adversaries with so much Veracity Candor and Moderation what a Reproach is it to their Opponents to deal with them with so much Scorn and Contempt such Bitterness and Passion such Slanders and Falshoods as too many do and as T. C. did with the Archbishop Whitgift whom Queen Elizabeth called her black Husband and upheld him against the Contrivances and contrary Designs of Lechester and those Conformists whom he favoured to promote his own Sacrilegious ends As for Mr. Hooker whom Bishop King calls Malleum Hereticorum who was as meek and modest a man as well as judicious as any in his Generation he did profess to the Arch-bishop See p. 17. of his Life That he believed his Adversary Mr. Travers to be a good man and that occasioned him to examine his own Conscience concerning his Opinions and to satisfie that he consulted the Holy Scripture and other Laws Humane and Divine whether the Conscience of him and others of his judgment ought so far to be complyed with as to alter the frame of Church-Government and manner of Worship and Ceremonies as oft as their tender Consciences shall require it in which examination he had not only satisfied himself but begun his Ecclesiastical Polity for the satisfaction of others which he justly calls a Demonstration of the Reasonableness of our Ecclesiastical Laws and a hopeful Foundation for the Churches Peace and not to provoke either Mr. T. C. the Arch-bishop's Adversary nor Mr. Travers whom saith Mr. Hooker I take to be mine not mine Enemy God knows this to be my meaning Yet his Adversaries that could not answer his Arguments contrived to blot his Reputation and accused him of Incontinency which by a Trepan as the Author of his Life relates p. 22. they endeavoured to fasten on him he kept this Grief to himself many Months with great anxiety until he revealed it to Mr. Edwin Sands and George Cranmer who had been his Pupils who enquiring into the Imposture so followed it that they brought his Accusers to open Confession and Punishment which Punishment he endeavoured to prevent but was denied at which he replyed That however he would Fast and Pray that God would give them Repentance and Patience to undergo their Punishment and the first part was granted if we may believe saith my Author the penitent Behaviour and open Confession of his Accuser How his Adversaries dealt with his Books after his Death is thus related That one Mr. Clark and another Minister desired of his Widow a Month after his Death to search his Study for some Papers wherof they burnt some and tore others but Dr. Jackson having transcribed some draught of his three last Books they were compleated by Dr. Spencer who was acquainted with the Design of those Books The Doctor left them with Dr. King Bishop of Londo and he to his Son Bishop of Chichester he to Dr. Abbot Arch-bishop of Canterbury in whose Library they continued till the Death of Arch-bishop Laud and then the Library was given to Hugh Peters for his good Services and then many alterations and additions were made in them to make them speak for the power of the People above the King for which when the Lord Say quoted Hooker's Authority to King Charles the First he replyed That the Books were not Hooker's but however he would consent to what was proposed out of those doubted Books if that Lord would consent to Mr. Hooker 's Judgment in those Books which were undoubted The same may I say concerning the Judgment of such Divines as Mr. J. H. hath quoted we will stand to what is but weakly and impertinently quoted from those Divines