Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	church_n	parliament_n	3,629	5	6.4769	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42789	Tentamen novum continuatum. Or, An answer to Mr Owen's Plea and defense. Wherein Bishop Pearson's chronology about the time of St. Paul's constituting Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete, is confirm'd; the second epistle to Timothy demonstrated to have been written in the apostle's latter imprisonment at Rome; and all Mr. Owen's arguments drawn from antiquity for Presbyterian parity and ordination by presbyters, are overthrown. Herein is more particularly prov'd, that the Church of England, ever since the Reformation, believ'd the divine right of bishops. By Thomas Gipps, rector of Bury in Lancashire.	Gipps, Thomas, d. 1709.; Pearson, John, 1613-1686.	1699 (1699)	Wing G782; ESTC R213800	254,935	222

of these Foxes and to unkennel them for the security of the Flock as well as to curb the Dissenters themselves Ministers was thought a fit Word to be added unto the Act to the end none might escape subscribing Mr. O's 〈◊〉 here turns upon himself whilst he distinguishes where the Law does not contrary to that wise rule of Interpreting Laws Besides these Words in the Statute Who pretend to be Priests or Ministers by reason of any other form of Institution or Consecration or ordering than the English then in force do in my Opinion plainly and more openly strike at the Popish Ordinations the Great Design of that Reign especially in the beginning being to extirpate the Romish Priests It may be urg'd That the Dissenting Ministers by subscribing those Articles which only belong unto the Confession of the true Christian Faith were to be admited or continued in their Benefices and by consequence their Ordinations allowed though they did not declare their Assent unto the Ceremonies and Traditions nor to the 20th and 36th Article of Religion Ans. This cannot be For I shall shew anon that they were oblig'd to subscribe those two Articles which if they did ex animo they must of necessity forth with enter into Episcopal Orders and approve of and use Church Ceremonies which was what the Statute aim'd at Nor as Mr. O. argues does the subscription seem to intend those only who scrupled Traditions and Ceremonies and not the other Doctrines in the 39 Articles which was the case of the Dissenters alone For the Papists scruple many other of the 39 Articles which also were to be assented unto but were not scrupled by the Presbyterian Dissenters though other Dissenting Ministers haply did and though the Papists scruple not Ceremonies and Traditions in General yet they scruple ours in particular By consequence were intended in the Act as much and more then the Dissenters Mr. O. Because the Assent and Subscription was only to the Articles of Religion concerning the Confession of the true Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments therefore an Indulgence was intended the Dissenting Ministers who scrupled nothing else but Ceremonies and the Book of Consecration which belonging not to the Christian Faith are not required to be subscribed and assented to and by consequence Ordination by Presbyters was here allowed Ans. All I have to do is to prove that the 20th and 36th Articles among the 39 were by this Statute required to be subscribed and assented to And thus I prove it 'T is manifest that the 39 Articles are meant in this Statute viz. from these Words in the Act Articles agreed to by the Archbishops and 〈◊〉 of both Provinces and the Whole Clergy in Convocation Anno 1562. for avoiding diversities of Opinions in Religion Oh! but cries Mr. O. 't is meant of such Articles only as concerned the Confession of the true Christian Faith which the two aforesaid Articles did not all the rest being opposed it seems unto the 20th and 36th Articles Ans. It is very absur'd in my Judgment to Interpret Acts of Parliament in so loose a manner which are wont to speak more correctly and with greater exactness and if this had been intended the Statute would certainly have excepted the two Articles I rather believe the Articles of Religion here mentioned are opposed to other Articles of the Queen's setting forth in the 6th of her Raign Anno 1564. and to be seen in the Collection of Dr. Sparrow called Articles 〈◊〉 Doctrine and Preaching for Administration of Prayer and 〈◊〉 for certain Orders in Ecclesiastical Politie Apparel or Persons Ecclesiastical and Sundry other Protestations All which were injoined by the Queens Letters and Authority only unto which this Statute did not direct an Assent and Subscription but to the 39 only which for Distinctions sake are entituled Articles of Religion and in Allusion thereto are so called in the Statute To all these 39 Articles called 〈◊〉 of Religion all Priests and Ministers were to subscribe And this was enacted as well for the avoiding diversity of Opinions as establishing of Consent touching true Religion Moreover by Ceremonies we commonly understand things of meer Humane or Ecclesiastical Institution These indeed considered every one singly by it self belong not to the true Christian Faith Right But the 20th Article which in general defines and declares it to be in the Power of the Church to appoint some decent Ceremonies 〈◊〉 a Principle or Proposition which belongs unto the true Christian Faith as being founded on the Word of God and therefore with the rest was to be subscrib'd The Book of Consecration confirmed in the 36th Article contains the Scripture Rule of Ordination by Bishops and so concerns the true Christian Faith It was then to be assented unto Finally that I have not mistaken the Sense of the Statute or the Lawgivers Intendment I will support my Interpretation by the Judgment of the great Oracle of the Law and other Reverend Judges before him Subscription required of the Clergy is twofold One by force of an Act of Parliament confirming and Establishing the 39 Articles of Religion agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England and ratify'd by Queen Eliz. c. 12. referring to Canons made by the Clergy of England at a Convocation holden at London 1562. containing 39 Articles of Religion and ratify'd as aforesaid He adds that in Smith's Case who subscribed the 39 Articles of Religion with this Addition So far forth as the same were agreeable to the Word of God it was resolved by Wray Chief Justice and all the Judges of England that this subscription was not according to the Statute of the 13 Eliz. because the Statute required an absolute subscription that this Statute was made for avoiding Diversity of Opinions which was the scope of the Act but by this Addition the Party might by his own private Opinion take some of them to be against the Word of God Contrary to the design of the Statute and the 39 Articles themselves Belike Smith intended to decline subscribing unto the 20th and 36th Articles Hereby then 't is apparent that this Act intended no indulgence unto the Dissenters nor allowance of Presbyterian Orders In King James the first 's Reign was publish'd a Book entituled Tractatus de Politia Ecclesiae Anglicanae by Dr. Mocket the then Archbishop's Chaplain whereunto the Author annex'd Jewels Apology the greater and less Catechisms the Publick Liturgy the 39 Articles of Religion and the Homilies Now because Blondel builds upon these I ought at least to examine the Treatise and the Catechisms The latter I cannot get a sight of and shall at present only look into the former from whence it may be Collected That the Office of a Bishop is twofold The first has respect unto all the Faithful of the Whole Flock The second unto the Ministers of the Church As to the former it is acknowledged that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Degree of Office or

in their History written by Jo. Aventinus Edit Basil. 1580. that from the earliest times of their embracing Christianity they had Bishops aud long before they submitted their Necks to the Yoke of the Roman Pontifs I have made some Collections and Remarks out of the fore-mentioned Historian but will not trouble my self or Reader with them He that is curious and has a mind to search into the Principles and Practice of this People may take Aventinus into his Hands and satisfie himself whether ever there was a time when the Boiarians were without Bishops and governed by Presbyters only It is not indeed the design of this History to treat of this Argument directly but however as he goes along he still occasionally mentions the Boiarian Bishops even before they were brought into subjection to Rome CHAP. XIX Of the Doctrine of the Church of England at and since the Reformation THE Controversy at last is brought to our own Doors and continued down to our own Times This Doctrine says Mr. O. meaning the Identity of Priest and Bishop hath been maintained also by the Church of England both Popish and Protestant Hereunto belong the Testimonies which he has in dvers 〈◊〉 of his Plea drawn from the publick Acts of the Church and State and the 〈◊〉 Sentiments of private Doctors both of the Roman and Protestant Communion both of the Established and Dissenting Party among us All I am concerned for is to consider whether the Identity of Presbyter and Bishop has been declared in any publick Act of this Kingdom to be found or produced by Mr. O. out of the National Records at or since the Reformation For 't is nothing to me if the Popish Church of England was of the same Opinion with our Dissenters as perhaps many Papists were for advancing the Power and Supremacy of their Pontiff Nor is it my business to account for every casual Expression that has dropt from the Pen of any Episcopal Writer much less of the Dissenters whose Golden Sayings make up a great part of those numerous Quotations wherewith he hath 〈◊〉 his Plea My design is upon Mr. O. himself and the Authorities he has gathered out of the publick Transactions or such as were directed and confirmed by the Government Mr. O. has alledged three against us the little Treatise commonly called The Bishops Book another called The Institution of a Christian Man and a third is that Celebrated MS. 〈◊〉 Published by Mr. Stillingfleet the late Lord Bishop of Worcester in his Irenicum all which as I shall prove belong unto the Reign of Hen. VIII and whatever Opinions are there to be met with are not to be imputed to our first Reformers at least not as their fixed and settled Judgment for I reckon that in Hen. VIII's Days the Reformation was but an Embryo in the Womb newly conceived not brought forth that in Edward VI.'s time 't was an Infant new Born and in its Swadling Cloths and in Queen Elizabeth's Reign arrived to the best degree of Perfection and Maturity that it has yet been able to attain unto during which Queens Government something also is objected to us which shall be examined in its Order The Bishop's Book was an Explanation of the Ten Commandments the Creed and the Grounds of Religion fitted for the Common Peoples Instruction 'T was composed by sundry Bishops of whom Cranmer was chief by vertue of a Commission issued out by Henry VIII in the Year 1537. established by Parliament and Printed by Tho. Barthelet with this Title The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man Out of this Book Fox has furnished us with this following Passage That there is no mention made neither in the Scripture nor in the Writings of any Authentick Doctor or Author of the Church being within the Times of the Apostles that Christ did ever make or constitute any Distinction or Difference to be in the preeminence of Power Order or Jurisdiction between the Apostles themselves and the Bishops themselves but that they were all equal in power c. and that there is now and since the time of the Apostles any such diversity It was devised by the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church for the Conservation of good Order and Unity in the Catholick Church From hence Mr. O. has gathered for he refers to Fox's Martyrology that these Bishops the Authors of that Book affirm'd the difference of Bishops and Presbyters was a Device of the Ancient Fathers and not mentioned in Scripture Ans. This Deduction is downright false and directly against the obvious Meaning of the Words The design of that Prince at that time was to throw off the Pope and his Jurisdiction over the Church and Bishops of England to this end in the Bishops Book 't is affirmed that as the Apostles were equal among themselves so were the Bishops equal among themselves in the Apostollcal Times or according to Jerom that the Bishop of Rome was not by Divine Right Superior to the Bishop of Eugubium That therefore as I anon observe out of The King's Book Patriarchs Primates Metropolitans and Archbishops and particularly the Pope of Rome had originally no Preeminence and Authority over other Bishops particularly not over the English only that it was a voluntury Agreement among themselvs for Orders sake But from the beginning it was not so Here is not one word of Presbyters or exempting them from Subjection unto Bishops Now that I have not done the least wrong unto this Book I appeal to what I find elsewhere taken thence by Mr. Strype How that the Church of England is in no Subjection to the Pope but to the King's Laws That Priests and Bishops never had any Authority by the Gospel in matters Civil and Moral but by Grant and Gift of Princes that it was always and ever shall be Lawful unto Kings and Princes with the Consent of their Parliaments to revoke and call again into their Hands or otherwise to restrain all the Power and Jurisdiction given and permitted by their Authority and Assent and Sufferance without which if the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop whatsoever should take upon them any Authority or Jurisdiction in such matters as 〈◊〉 Civil that Bishop is not worthy the Name is an Usurper and Subverter of the Kingdom That the Church of England is a Catholick and Apostolick Church as well as that of Rome That there is no difference in Superiority Preeminence or Authority of one Bishop over another But they be all of equal Power and Dignity and that all Churches be free from the Subjection and 〈◊〉 of the Church of Rome The Equality here spoken of in the beginning and in the latter end of this Period is not between Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church but between Bishop and Bishop Church and Church and particularly that no Church that of England especially is subject to Rome And though in the beginning he names Priests and Bishops such Priests

Laws of the Church are made by them with their knowledge and consent in Convocation Mr. O. The Acts of Convocation are no Laws till they be confirmed in Parliameut Ans. They are though not Civil yet Ecclesiastical Laws and formerly at east obliged in Conscience as the late Bishop of Worcester informs me Ecclesiastical Cases p. 336. 372 373. 'T is nothing to me whether in Convocation they be made Laws of the Land I was speaking of the Laws of the Church Besides Mr. O's Charge against us was that all the Power in the Church is in the Bishop's Hands But this Argument of his Excludes not only the Presbyters but the Bishops also from having any Power in the Ecclesiastical Legislative For 't is likewise true that the Decrees of Convocation tho' they were made by the Bishops only as Mr. O. would insinuate yet would not be Laws of the Land till confirmed by Parliament Thus the Minister by denying or questioning too much has destroyed the Subject of the Question the Bishops also being hereby strip'd of their Power as well as the Presbyters 'T is then to no purpose for us to dispute whether the Bishops have all the Ecclesiastical Power in their hands or whether the Presbyters have some since according to Mr. O. neither of 'em have any Mr. O. Has every Parish Priest a Power of making Church Laws If not c. He thinks they have not and argues That if the Parish Priests make Laws by their Representatives and shall therefore be thought to have Power of Discipline it will follow that Free-holders have Power of Government their Representatives in Parliament being concerned in the making Laws Ans. The Rector asserts not that Every Parish Priest has a Power of making Church Laws It were an unreasonable thing But every Parish Priest has a share in the Power of making Ecclesiastical Laws which he executes by his Representative in Convocation and I add Every Free-holder has a share of Power in making the Political-Laws But all this is Trifling Nothing is more evident than this what is done by a Representative is the Act and Deed of the Persons represented And nothing is more Ordinary than to tell discontented People when the Laws are executed upon them that they are of their own making that is made by their Representatives Mr. O. The Convocation is not a just Representative of the Clergy Ans. There are two things only that I know of necessary to make a just Representative 1. That the Representers be sufficient as to Number 2. That they be freely chosen by the Represented On both accounts I will prove that the Convocation is a just Representative of the Clergy 1. One cannot from the reason of the thing gather with any certainty what number of Representers is necessary to make a just Representative and 't would be in vain to all edge the private Sentiments of Men among whom it will haply be found quot homines tot sententiae so many Men so many Minds The surest way then to determine this Point is I think to compare the Convocation with the House of Commons which is the Representative of People My Argument lies thus If the House of Commons be a just Representative of the People as to the number of the Representers which no Body I presume will dare to deny then the Convocation is a just Representative of the Clergy Let us then compare the number of the Representers and the Represented in the House of Commons with the number of the Representers and Represented in the House of Convocation The People of England represented in Parliament are according to Dr. Chamberlain's computation in 〈◊〉 Angliae between five and six Millions Their Representers in the House of Commons about five hundred The Clergy of England are I reckon about fifteen Thousand allowing ten Thousand for the Parsons Rectors and Vicars of so many Parishes and adding to these the Masters and Fellows of the Colledges in both Universities Chaplains Lecturers and Curates which will in all amount to five Thousand more as I will grant because I will not favour a side tho' it may be they 'll not reach above one Third part of that Number The Representers of these fifteen Thousand in Convocation are an hundred Sixty and Six which make up the two lower Houses of Convocation in both 〈◊〉 Any Man may hence discern at first sight the disproportion between five hundred Members of the House of Commons Representing above five Millions of People And one Hundred Sixty and Six Members of Convocation representing only fifteen Thousand Clergy Every Parliament Man let us now consider them 〈◊〉 represents about ten Thousand Persons But every Member of Convocation represents not much above Ninety The difference then is as Ninety to ten Thousand If then the Members of the House of Commons are in respect of number a just Representative of the People as we all believe much more are the Members of Convocation a just Representative of the Clergy Now because the Wisdom and Integrity of Representers is to be regarded also as well as their Number and because their Wisdom and Integrity cannot be better judged of than by considering the freedom of their choice we are in the next place to enquire whether the Members of Convocation are not as freely chosen by the Clergy as the Members of Parliament are by the People Let it then be remembred that a great part of the Nation have not any Voice at all in the Election of Members of Parliament For we know a vast number of Servants Labourers Mechanicks Shop-keepers Merchants Artists of all sorts Scholars Attorneys Lawyers Physicians Divines not having Freehold Estates Copy-holders Minors also and single Women have no Voice in the Election of any Parliament Man That is as I reckon four parts of five of the People are not at all admitted to chuse Parliament Men. But all the Parsons Rectors and Vicars have Suffrages in the Election of Members of Convocation and these Electors are two Thirds of the Clergy viz. Parsons Rectors and Vicars being ten Thousand by my former Calculation It appears hence that if the House of Commons is a just Representative of the People with respect to their Election much more is the Convocation a just Representative of the Clergy four fifths of the People as I reckon being intirely excluded from choosing Members of Parliament and but one Third part of the Clergy from choosing Members of Convocation But to evince this and make it yet more plain we must go another way to work because of the various methods whereby Persons by Ancient Custom or Constitution become Members of Parliament and of Convocation without any due Election Of the five hundred Members of the House of Commons one hundred are Knights chosen only by Free-holders who are not haply an eighth part of the People of England and the other four hundred are Citizens Burgesses and Barons of the Cinque Ports Elected by an handful of

haply were meant as took upon them to Act here in England in Subordination to and by the Popes Authority not a Syllable of the Equality of Bishops and Priests is here to be found only that both depend upon the Civil Magistrate and that in Civil and Moral Matters only The second Testimony alledged by Mr. O. is another if haply it be another Book entituled The Institution of a Christian Man drawn up by the whole Clergy in a Provincial Synod Anno 1537. set forth by the Authority of King Henry VIII and the Parliament and commanded to be Preached Out of this Book afterwards Translated into Latin as I guess Mr. O. cites as follows in Novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est aliorum graduum 〈◊〉 Distinctionum in Ordinibus sed Diaconorum vel Ministrorum Presbyterorum sive Episcoporum Which Words it must be confessed look pretty fair and favourable towards Mr. O. at first sight Ans. In the first place I will here present the Reader with what the Author of the Memorials has delivered concerning this and some other Books of the same nature and written with the same design The Bishops Book otherwise called The Godly and Pious Institution of a Christian Man of which before came forth again two Years after sc. in the Year 1540. but bearing another Name viz. A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for a Christian Man Printed also by Barthelet That this also was once more Published in Engglish and dated Anno 1543. as at the end of the said Book according to the Custom of those Times though at the bottom of the Title Page I find it dated also 1534. This was composed by Cranmer but called The King's Book because Hen VIII recommended it to the People by Proclamation added to it by way of Preface and assumed to himself the being the Author of it Mr. Strype farther acquaints me that in the Year 1536. had been published a Book Entituled The Bishops Book because framed by them I guess it the same with that I first spoke of and that it was written by the Bishops Anno 1636. but Printed 1637. and he yet tells us of another which came forth in the Year 1633. also commonly called The King's Book but Entituled The Difference between the Kingly and Ecclesiastical Power I have procured a sight also of a Latin Book going under this Title Christiani Hominis Institutio Edit 1544. in the Preface whereof 't is said to have been at first writ in English and then Translated into Latin by whom or by what Authority I find not and whether this be the same with Mr. O's I know not but this is sure Mr. O's was Printed 1537. as himfelf confesses mine 1544. and the passage cited by Mr. O. is no where to be read in mine And since nothing like it is to be met with in any of the other Books and all the Controversy in those times was between the Pope and the English Bishops not about the superiority or the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters in the same Church I am apt to fear some foul play But concerning the Testimony its self as allowed of I shall speak more by and by Mean while let us search for what may be had to the purpose in The King's Book Entituled A necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian Man If it shall be said that Mr. O's Deduction before spoken of was borrowed not out of the Kings's Book but the Bishops Book yet I hope the one will be allowed to explain the other Thus then I read in the King's Book That the Sacrament of Order is a Gift or Grace of Ministration in Christ's Church given of God to Christian Men by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishops Hands That this Sacrament was conferred and given at the beginning by the Apostles unto Priests and Bishops That St. Paul Ordered and Consecrated Timothy Priest That the Apostles appointed and willed the other Bishops after them to do the like as is manifest from Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 22. That there is no certain Rule prescribed or limited by the Word of God for the nomination election presentation or appointing of any such Ecclesiastical Ministers but the same is left unto the positive Laws and Ordinances of every Christian Region provided made or to be made c. He afterwards enumerates in particular the Common Offices and Ministries both of Priests and Bishops sc. Teaching Preaching Ministring the Sacraments Consecrating and Offering the Blessed Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar loosing and assoiling from Sin Excommunicating and finally Praying for the whole Church and their own Flock in special That they may not Exercise nor Execute those Offices but with such sort and such Limitations as the Laws permit and suffer That the Apostles Ordained Deacons also Acts. 6. That of these two Orders only that is Priests and Deacons Scripture maketh express mention and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of Hands That Patriarchs Primates Archbishops and Metropolitans have not now nor heretofore at any time had justly and lawfully Authority Power and Jurisdiction over other Bishops given them by God in Holy Scripture That all Powers and Authorities of any one Bishop over another were and be given unto them by the consent Ordinance and Positive Laws of Men only c. In the Christiani hominis Institutio which I have seen there is some disagreement to be found For whereas the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition c. seems to speak of two Orders only i. e. Priests and Deacons the Christiani hominis Institutio expresseth it thus de his tantum Ordinationibus Presbyterorum Diaconorum Scriptura expresse meminit c. meaning as I suppose not two Ranks and Degrees of Church Officers but two Ordinations or Consecrations of Persons appointed to the Ministry sc. of Presbyters and Deacons That is the Consecration of Presbyters and Deacons is only expresly mentioned in Scripture and that Bishops received not any New distinct Imposition of Hands And so Orders in the necessary Doctrine c. is to be understood as I conceive not of Persons but of the Ordination of them as 't is often used unto this Day It is not then affirm'd in either that there was in the Church but two Ranks or Degrees of Ecclesiastical Offices that is Priests and Deacons and not Bishops according to the Scripture But that two Consecrations only were expresly mentioned there nevertheless a superiour Rank might be found in the Scripture tho' not separated thereto by a new Imposition of Hands MrO's quotation seems indeed to sound quite to another Sense and to his purpose rather sc. that in the New Testament no mention is made of other degrees and distinctions in Ordinibus but of Deacons or Ministers and of Presbyters or Bishops How Ministers and Bishops crept in here I 'll not say But they are capable still of the same Sence sc. that

Archbishop of Canterbury so after he was King the Ambition still prevailed in him and was not we see easily removed 6. Early in the Reign of Edw. VI. and when the Reformation was going on prosperously Cranmer and the Protestant Bishops understanding matters better and having freedom to speak their Minds delivered themselves more clearly in the point as may be inferred from sundry Observations belonging to that Time and upon Record As 1. It is declared in the Preface before the Form of Ordination drawn up and agreed upon in Edw. VI's Reign That it is 〈◊〉 unto all Men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons by publick Prayer and with Imposition of Hands approved and admitted thereunto Cranmer it seems was now come over to Dr. Leighton's Opinion declared in the days of Hen. VIII 2. Cranmer set forth a Catechism in the first Year of Edw. VI. Anno 1548. wherein the three Orders are taught as of Divine Right from whence says the Historian It appears that he had changed the Opinion he formerly held against the Divine Institution of those Ecclesiastical Orders 3 In the Days of Edward VI. Cranmer suspended Heath Bishop of Worcester for refusing to subscribe the fore-mentioned Form of Ordination 4. In the same Reign John Alasco a Noble Polonian was by Cranmer's means made a Superintendant over all the Churches of the Foreigners yet newly planted in and about London the Germans Italians and the French And Superintendant is but another Word for Bishop Whoever therefore will impartially weigh the darkness of the times in Henry VIII's Reign where the above mentioned King's and Bishop's Books were written and the Answers made unto the King's Questions by Cranmer and some others the stifness of that Prince his fondness of being Head of the Church and the awe which the Archbishop and his Associates in the Reformation stood in towards him the earnest desire they had at any Rate and on any Terms to be rid of the Pope's Tyranny the falseness uncertainty and absurdity of many Opinions delivered by the Bishops and their repugnancy to each other he will be forc'd to confess that no stress can be laid upon any of their Conclusions much less that they were the first and steady Sentiments of the Protestant Church of England For even the Popish Clergy also generally subscribed them But the sudden alteration of the Bishops minds as to this present Point in debate in Edward VI's days puts it out of all question that the MS. of my late Lord of Worcester belongs to King Henry VIII's days and that our first Reformers their mature and setled Judgment was that there were from the beginning of the Christian Church three Orders of Ecclesiastical Ministers by Divine Right Bishops Priests and Deacons Let us hear the Reflections of the Learned Prelate the now Lord Bishop of Salisbury In Cranmer's Papers some singular Opinions of his about the nature of 〈◊〉 Offices will be found but as they are delivered by him with all possible Modesty so they were not established as the Doctrine of the Church but laid aside as particular Conceits of his own And it seems that afterwards he changed his Opinion for he subscribed the Book that was soon after set forth which is directly contrary to those Opinions set down in this Paper viz. Mr. Stillingfleet's MS. In the next Reign 't is no matter to us what became of the Divine Right of Episcopacy The Protestant Church of England suffered an Eclipse in Queen Mary's days but soon recovering it self under the Auspicious Government of Queen Elizabeth shin'd so much the brighter and in a short time came to that Settlement which it enjoys to this day without any considerable Alteration And to our present point 〈◊〉 1. That the Form of Ordination of Deacons Priests and Bishops with the Preface before spoken of were confirmed in the 4th of Eliz. 1562. and again in her 13th Year Anno 1571. and which to make short work of it continues in force unto this Day 2. In the general Apology of the Protestants the 5th Article of the English Confession is inserted and was drawn up in that Queen's time Anno 1562. and runs in the words following Farthermore we believe that there be divers Degrees of Ministers in the Church Deacons Priests and Bishops to whom is committed the Office to instruct the People and setting forth of Religion But Mr. O. Objects unto us the 13th of Eliz. c. 12. pretending to prove thereby that Ordination by Presbyters was then allowed here in England The Clause he refers to is more at length thus All Persons under Bishops who pretend to be Priests or Ministers of God's Holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other Form of Institution or Consecration or Ordering than the Form set forth by Parliament in Edw. VI. or now used shall in the presence of the Bishop declare their Assent and subscribe to all the 〈◊〉 of Religion which only concern the Confession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments comprized in a Book Entituled Articles agreed to by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in Convocation Anno 1562. for avoiding diversities of Opinions c and 〈◊〉 c. From hence Mr. O. infers That the Statute respects not Popish Ordinations only if at all but gave Indulgence to those that were not satisfied to subscribe all the Articles absolutely among which was the Book of Consecration and that the Statute requires Subscription only to the Doctrine of true Christian Faith and of the Sacraments which he would prove in that the Statute speaks of Ministers of God's Holy Word and Sacraments and the Title of Ministers is rarely used among the Papists and is common among the Reformed Churches the Ministry among the Papists being a real Priest-hood and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests Ans. The Statute doubtless speaks of all Priests and Ministers whether Papists or Dissenters All were to Assent and Subscribe in case they would continue in or be let into any Ecclesiastical Promotion But chiefly the Papists 〈◊〉 first I assert this upon Mr. O's own words The Ministry of the Papists says he was a real Priest hood and therefore they call their Presbyters Priests On the contrary I do not remember that Dissenting Ministers have ever been stiled Priests in any publick Instrument of Church or State Now as for the word Ministers even that also it may be points at the Popish Priests for it had lately been used among the Papists I meet with it in Smith's Recantation in the necessary Doctrine and other publick Records But chiefly I consider that at the time of this Act of Parliament the Popish Priests herded themselves among the 〈◊〉 and went by the name and under the disguise of Dissenting Ministers For the more effectual discovery