The second reply of Thomas CartwrightThe second replie of Thomas Cartwright

In all thes sentences / set down out of Euseb. there is not a word for the D. nor against us. The D. confesseth that Origen taught being a lay man in the church publicly: he can not deny if he would / but that he taught by the appointment off bishops. Thes two being put / what followeth but that in those days / he was counted a lay man / which toke upon him the ministry upon the bishops appointing only? And that he abuse not his reader with such roving treatises / my reason I will set down in a few words. That appointment unto the ministry / which was thought not to enable to be minister / was thought insufficient: but the appointment off the bishops only / was thought not to enable to be minister (for Origene that had that appointment / and authority / was still counted a lay man): therefore that authority only / was then thought insufficient. Eusebius therefore giving me this hold / which the D. is driven whether he will or no to confess▪ there is wherewith to uphold that I have said. For if the bishops appointment off Origen to preach / did not give him any degree in the ¹ministry for what cause did it not / except it be it at I have assigned? his translation of Euse. words / when he was yet not ordained minister (wherein another point off this matter standeth) is not warranted. For by this means / he must take one of his words / which properly signifieth the choice by lifting up / and used sometimes of ecclesiastical writers / for laying on of hands / for a degree: which hath no example. Likewise he must take the other / which I have showed to signify the company of all the governors off the church / for the office off one only elder: which wanteth proof. Beside that Muscul. which translateth it / seemeth to have followed the sense I have: where if he had followed the D. he would have done otherwise. For in steed of he had not appointment of the eldership, he would have said the degree of an elder. Where ⟨p. CCLXXXIII⟩²he allegeth / that Demetrius suffered him to teach at Alexandria, when he was a lay man, belike thereby to prove / that the reprehension of Demetrius / was not to be regarded / which did himself that he found fault with in other: it maketh nothing to this question.

In all thes sentences / set downe owte of Euseb. there is not a worde for the D. nor againste vs. The D. cōsesseth that Origine tawght beinge a laie man in the church publikely: he can not denie if he woulde / but that he tawght by the appointment off bishoppes. Thes two beinge put / what followeth but that in those daies / he was counted a laie man / which toke vppon him the ministerie vppon the bishoppes appoinctinge onelye? And that he abuse not his reader with such rouinge treatises / my reson I will set downe in a fewe wordes. That appointement vnto the ministrie / which was thowght not to inhable to be minister / was thowght insufficient: but the appointement off the bishops onely / was thowght not to inhable to be minister (for Origene that had that appoinctement / and authoritie / vvas still coumpted a laie man): therfore that authoritie onely / was then thowght insufficient. Eusebius therfore giuinge me this houlde / which the D. is driuen vvhether he will or no to confesse there is wherwith to vpholde that I haue saide. For if the bishops appointment off Origine to preach / did not gyue him any degree in the