Quotation from Eutychius, misunderstood by Selden. 221 for the first two hundred and thirty-five years had no bishops, but such as were ordained by imposition of the hands of the presbyters only. There never was a falsity more effectually, or more often refuted, at home or abroad, than this. As first by Abr. Ecchellensis at Rome, in his learned work cited in the margin. Secondly, by Morinus in the seventh chapter of the third part of his learned book' De sacris Ecclesiæ ordinationibus. I have cited Ecchellensis before Morinus, because he wrote to him to know his opinion of Selden's Origines Ecclesia Alexandrine; in answer to which letters, as afterwards in his book, he shewed how falsely and fallaciously Selden had translated Eutychius by, in provinciis Egypti, for, in provincia Egypti, and by, et primus fuit hic patriarcha Alexandrinus, qui episcopos fecit, instead oft, et est primus A few pages of this work, relating to the Church of Alexandria, were published by Selden, with a Latin translation and notes, in 1642. The title was, Eutychii Ægyptii Patriarchæ Orthodoxorum Alexandrini Ecclesiæ suæ Origines, ex ejusdem Arabico, nunc primum typis edidit ac versione et commentario auxit Joannes Seldenus. 4to. It will be found in his works, fol. 1726, tom. ii. pars i. p. 410. At Selden's request and at his cost, Pocock undertook to translate and publish the whole work, which came out at Oxford after Selden's death, in 4to. 1656, with the title, "Contextio Gemmarum, (which was the name Eutychius had given it,) sive Eutychii Patriarchæ Alexandrini Annales." To this edition, p. 328, Tindal refers. The passage alleged by him and by Selden, against the power of ordination being confined to bishops, is, "Constituit autem evangelista Marcus, una cum Hanania patriarcha, duodecim presbyteros, qui nempe cum patriarcha manerent, adeo ut cum vacaret patriarchatus, unum e duodecim presbyteris eligerent, cujus capiti reliqui undecim manus imponentes ipsi benedicerent et patriarcham crearent neque desiit Alexandriæ institutum hoc de presbyteris, ut scilicet patriarchas crearent ex presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempora Alexandri patriarchæ Alexandrini, qui fuit ex illo numero trecentorum et octodecim (scil. in Concil. Nicæn.) Is autem vetuit ne deinceps patriarcham presbyteri creaEt decrevit ut mortuo patriarcha convenirent episcopi qui patriar rent. cham ordinarent." Tindal also referred to a passage in Eutychius vindicatus, sive respon- s [See Morinus, ibid., § xiii. p. 123, "i. e. Demetrius est primus pa UNFAIR CITATIONS. DISCOURSE, 222 Many well-known answers to Selden on Eutychius. PREFAT. patriarcha, qui in Alexandria fecit episcopos. And there are SECT. XVII. more such instances of Mr. Selden's ingenuity in Ecchellensis' answer to his book. Thirdly, this falsity hath been convicted by two learned men of our country, Dr. Hammond, and Bishop Pearson. By the former in the tenth chapter of his third dissertation against Blondel", to which Daillè never made any reply; and by the latter in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the former part of his Vindicia Epist. S. Ignatii, first printed at Cambridge 1672, and since by Le Clerc, at Antwerp, 1700. [See also what is written by Eusebius Renaudotius in his late work intitled “Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum," &c., lately printed at Paris, 1713; wherein, p. 7, 8, 11, 19, 54, Selden is justly and severely chastised for what he wrote upon a fragment out of Eutychius, and also clearly refuted.] I mention all these answers to Selden's Eutychius, and the several editions of Bishop Pearson's Vindiciae, to shew that our author could not be ignorant of some of them; and if he were not, what hath he to answer to God, and honest men, for citing a book so miserably baffled, especially by Bishop Pearson, whose vindication of Ignatius's epistles is, and ever will be a defence of the Church against all such books, which he, and his accomplices can write. In p. xxxvii. of his Preface, to prove that the bishops of the Reformation disowned all independent power', he cites the triarcha, qui in Ægypto proprie dicta, u [Dissertationes quatuor, quibus x [Et ad calcem Patr. Apost. edit. 2. Amst. 1724. tom. ii. pp. 334, 338 345. The passage in Eutychius was alleged as an argument against the genuineness of St. Ignatius's epistles; as though the principle of 'doing nothing without the bishop' was unknown in the primitive Church of Alexandria.] y [MS. addition in Hickes' copy.] [The words of the act are, "Where the king's humble and obedient subjects the clergy of this realm of England, have not only knowledged according to the truth, that the convocation of the same clergy are, always have been, and ought to be assembled by the king's writ, but also submitting themselves to the king's majesty, have promised in verbo sacerdotii, that they will never from henceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure; or enact, promulge, or execute any new canons, constitutions, ordinances provincial, or other, or by whatsoever other name they shall be called, in the Here Submission of the clergy was before the Reformation: 223 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, and saith, that it was "enacted at the request of the clergy, and penned in the very words of their petition;" and "there can be no greater argument (saith he) of their disowning all independent power." are several artifices in this citation; as first to cite, as popish writers are wont to do, the bishops who made their submission to Henry VIII. as bishops of the Reformation, though in their grant to the king of £100,000 for the release of the præmunire, they complimented his majesty greatly for writing against the enemies of the papal Church, particularly against Luther". Secondly, in saying it was enacted at convocation, unless the king's majesty : do give his most royal assent and authority in that behalf; and where divers constitutions, &c., which heretofore have been enacted be thought, &c. ... The said clergy hath most humbly besought the king's highness that the said constitutions and canons may be committed to the examination and judgment of his highness, and of two and thirty persons of the king's subjects; whereof sixteen to be of the upper and nether house of the parliament, and other sixteen to be of the clergy of this realm; and all the said two and thirty persons to be chosen and appointed by the king's majesty and that such of the said constitutions and canons as should be thought and determined by the said two and thirty persons, or the more part of them, worthy to be abrogated and annulled, shall be abolite and made of no value accordingly, &c. Be it now therefore enacted, by the authority of this present parliament, according to the said submission and petition of the said clergy, that they ne any of them from henceforth shall presume," &c. as above, "upon pain of every one of the said clergy doing con. trary to this act, and being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment, and make fine at the king's will. "And forasmuch as such canons, &c., as have heretofore been made. cannot now (at the session of this present parliament, by reason of shortness of time) be viewed, examined, &c. according to the petition of the said clergy, in form before rehearsed. it therefore enacted, by authority aforesaid, that the king's highness shall have power and authority to nominate and assign at his pleasure the said two and thirty persons," &c. Be It will be observed that the word "petition' refers only to the appointment of a commission to revise the canons; the other is distinguished from it as being a submission.] [It is with this circumstance that Atterbury begins his history of the submission of the clergy (p. 80.) 'Henry VIII. for the better accomplishing his design of lessening the papal authority, which could not well be accomplished without striking a terror into the clergy, involved them all in a præmunire," (rendering them liable to forfeiture of goods and imprisonment,) "for submitting to Wolsey's legatine character, unauthorized by the crown" (though they were in ignorance of that fact.)... "Thus, (p. 81.) all the clergy and a good part of the laity were unawares at the king's mercy, and the clergy not admitted to pardon gratis (as the laity afterwards were); but forced to ransom themselves by a good round sum for those times, (£100,000 for the province of Canterbury, and £18,840. Os. 10d. for that of York,) and by solemn recognition of the king's supreme headship, in the preamble of the instrument by which the grant was made."] See" The Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English convocation," by Dr. Atterbury, second edition, 1701; [and the document in his Appendix,] p. 514. [The submission was made May 16, 1532. The grant of £100,000, in which the king's supremacy was most unwillingly and with qualification acknowledged, had been made Jan. 24, 1530, Abp. Warham being still designated "Apostolicæ sedis legatus." The words of "compliment" and recognition of the supremacy are, speaking of the king, Sic impræsens hostes, maxime 66 UNFAIR CITATIONS. SECT. XVII. 224 not now binding as an act of the Church. PREFAT. their request; for it was not enacted "till near two years DISCOURSE, after they made their submission. Till that time," saith my author, "it bound them, as their own act and promise only; without any penalty annexed to the breach of it; and it might have been questioned, whether this promise was not personal, and did not die with the makers of it. But in March 1533, a statute passed which perpetuated the submission, and obliged all their successors under pain of præmunire [to stand to the terms of it]." To this I must add what the same author (who hath given an accurate account of the clergy's submission, and of the first step to it in their recognition of the king's supremacy) saith in another placed: "In no submission of theirs are there any words, which expressly and in terms, bind the future clergy; and, had this act of theirs extended to their successors, yet all they did in Henry the Eighth's reign, was undone again by them in the reign of Queen Mary; when the clergy [assembled] in convocation [complained] of the statute of submission, petitioned for a repeal of it, and obtained it. And though it was revived afterwards, 1 Eliz. [cap. 1.] yet was not that revival at the instance, or with the express consent of the clergy; and they stand bound, therefore, at present, by no act of their own, but by the temporal law only." This shews that that act was neither at first made, nor afterwards revived at the request of the clergy; and then it can be no 66 argument of their disowning an independent power;" but only of their choosing all along to Lutheranos in perniciem ecclesiæ et Atterbury, ibid., p. 95. [The sub- d Atterbury, ibid., p. 98. e [Dec. 7, 1554, Petition of the lower house of convocation to the bishops. "7. That the ancient liberty, authority, and jurisdiction be restored to the Church of England according to the article of the great charter called Magna Charta, at the least wise in such sort as it was in the first year of Henry VIII... 10. That the statute of the submission of the clergy made anno 25. Hen. VIII., and all other statutes made during the time of the late schism, in derogation of the liberties and jurisdiction of the Church, from the first year of King Henry VIII., may be repealed, and the Church restored in integrum."-Wilkins' Concilia, tom. iv. p. 95, and Burnet's Reformation; Records, vol. ii. p. 266. fol.] [By the act 1 Mar. c. 1.] Submitted to for peace; had been extorted by Hen. VIII. 225 submit to the act, rather than to "throw themselves into a UNFAIR persecution." Furthermore, the aforesaid act of 25 Hen. CITATIONS. VIII. c. 19, was so far from being made at their request, that their act of submission, whose words it recites, was obtained, or rather extorted, with great difficulty from them, as appears by the regular and exact account of it in the said book, more especially from their several replies to the "sup and ... Atterbury, ibid., pp. 86-99. [p. 86. "Two things stood in the way of the king's designs, the old papal constitutions and the clergy's power of making new ones. To remove these the commons were made use of, who in the latter end of the year 1531 put up a long supplication to the king against the ordinaries; and therein complained, first, of the body of ecclesiastical laws then in force, .. next, of the privilege which the clergy claimed, of enacting canons by their own sole authority, without consent of the crown; a privilege beyond what the parliament itself ever pretended to.. So much of it as relates to our present subject is almost in terms recited in the reply which the clergy gave to it when the convocation met, after a short recess, on April 12, 1532, which reply I shall give the reader at length.' (In his Appendix, No. VI. pp. 521, sqq. It is given in Wilkins, tom. iii. p. 750.) "In it they professed a readiness to comply with any reasonable offer that should be made for reforming the ecclesiastical laws, but however asserted the validity of the old canons, and their own power to make new ones independently of the civil authority. The king was displeased both with this answer and the drawer of it, (Bishop Gardiner,) and he remitted it therefore back again to the convocation to be better considered of by them." A second answer was drawn up by a committee of the lower house and agreed to by the upper, (Wednesday, May 8,) in it they promise "for the new, which they should hereafter make, to suspend them when made, from time to time, till the king should give his consent and authority to them; for the old,. if any of them should be found to be of such dangerous import as was pretended, they engage to revoke and annul them."-Appendix, p. 530, and Wilkins, tom. iii. p. 753. This was laid before the king; and on the following Friday, May 10, they were in HICKES. ner, formed by Edward Fox, the king's almo- ... "This wrought so effectually, that when the clergy met again on Monday, the bishops' house came quite up to the king's terms, upon the first article, which the lower house assented to, on condition that the promise might take place for the king's life only. But upon the second article, neither of them could be brought any farther than to refer all the old canons to the king's examination and authority alone, and to promise, by their own authority, to moderate or annul what he should disapprove; but with such a general saving in the close of this promise as left it still in their power which of them they would keep, and which they would part with."-p. 91. This is the particular passage referred to by Hickes. The document is given in Atterbury's Appendix, p. 534, with the variations of three copies, and one of them is in Wilkins, tom. iii. p. 752. It may be noticed that these papers are not arranged by Wilkins in the order of |