answer him If the second there are many of his Conforming brethren will soon be upon his bones but for ought I see or can find Mr. D. never goes about either to prove the one or the other proposition and therefore I might be excused if I did wholly dismiss him and leave him to some of his friends to reconcile him to his own shadow yet because he swaggers and accounts that he hath by one thrust left the Assembly of Divines and the two Houses of Parliament weltring in their blood I will try quid tanto dignum feret hic promissor hiatu The things laid to the charge of the two Houses and the Assembly chosen by them are manifest untruths and those uttered in an Ordinance and in a preface to a Directory for the publick Worship of God throughout the three kingdoms vid. p. 3. If any manifest untruths are delivered by them let them for me lye down in their own sorrow and shame till they have made reparation to the parties injured But first we must see whether this heavy charge can be made good against them else the penance must be laid on him that brought in the charge The first untruth is That the book of Common prayer had proved an offence to the Reformed Churches abroad Is this an untruth and a manifest untruth too Why are not the Walachian Churches in Zealand Resormed Churches and was not the Liturgy used in the Church of England an offence to them Let Mr. D. read what Apollonius in the name of the whole Classis hath written against it and then tell us his mind let him also read the several Letters written by Calvin and Beza touching our Liturgy and it will be very evident that some things in our English Liturgy were offensive at Geneva and a man would think something in it was offensive to the Protestant Churches in France or else certainly they would have used their interest with the French Churches here in England to receive it from Bishop Laud who laboured with all his might for many years to impose it on them but could not prevail at last Lastly for ought I know the Scotish Churches may properly enough be called Churches abroad and Mr D. will not sure deny but that our Liturgy was offensive to them The second manifest untruth is that the two houses did take away the book of Common-prayer to answer the expectation of other Reformed Churches If there were other Reformed Churches besides those for which the Directory was appointed that expected the two Houses should take away the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book used in England then was there no manifest untruth in the before-mentioned expression Let us see whether there were not The abolishing of the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book was forth Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales Can Mr. D. imagine that no other Churches reformed expected the taking away of the English Liturgy What thinks he of the Reformed Churches of Scotland The Churches of New England those English and Scotish Churches that were planted up and down the Low-Countreys and other places of Traffick Will he nullifie all these Churches or had they not desires as well as expectations that the Liturgy should be removed Did he never read with how great regret that Liturgy was obtruded upon those English that trafficked in foreign Nations If he have not let him vouchsafe to read over the History of Archbishop Laud written by Dr. Heylin and then tell us whether he was not too rash to give so many Nobles Gentlemen and Divines the lye If that History bring him under no sense of his temerity then I entreat him to enquire of the Assembly-men still alive whether they cannot help him to a sight of the Answers of Foreign Churches returned to the Latin Letter of the Assembly of Divines and by most of them he will find that the designed Reformation was not disgusted by them Till he have such an opportunity it will be wort his while to bestow a little time in reading Apo lonius his printed Epistle Mr. D. again falls upon the two Houses p. 14. thither I will follow him where conceiving wrath and fiery indignation against an expression in the Ordinance of the two Houses he makes a Manifesto That there was never nor is yet any one Reformed Church that hath only a Directory and not a book of Common-prayer for the publick worship of God To which Manifesto I say That the Church of Scotland had when the two Houses made that Ordinance no Book of Common-prayer for the publick worship of God but what was in the nature of a Directory and that the Church of Scotland was principally in their eye in the management of their Reformation and I also say that the Dutch Liturgy is but in the nature of a Directory for so I understand those words cap. 11. art 11. in the Harmony of the Belgick Synods Minister preces vel dictante spiritu vel certa sibi proposita formula concipiet It may be Mr. D. will put another construction on them for he seems to have used other Dictionaries than those we have opportunity to consult in England In one of the French Rubricks it is said that upon Sundays in the morning the following form is commonly used he tells us p 17. the meaning is That that form is to be used always and no other Could any Presbyterian have thought of such a meaning or how can any one of them be convinced that commonly and always are all one why he may be convinced by constant and uniform practice so he tells us ibid. But I say constant and uniform practice will never make commonly to be always I have been a member of the Church of England for these Thirty years and my occasions have called me to be in most Counties of the Nation and in all these years I never heard any Minister whether Prelatical or Presbyterian read King James his Statute against Swearing and yet the words of the Law are plain That it shall be read twice every year were I not a wise man if I should say the meaning of the Law is that the Statute shall never be read as constant and uniform practice doth shew Thus have I examined what Mr. D. had to say against the Two Houses and the Assembly and must now try not the words but the power of Ludovicus Capellus a man of great Learning but which in his later days especially he made use of to the disturbance of the Church better had it been for the Christian world that Saumur had never had a professor of Hebrew than a Professor that took so much pains to make the Hebrew Points or Vowels and Accents a late invention of the Tiberian Massarites long after sundry Translations were extant in the World All his Theses will not do so much good as his Arcanum punctationis revelatum and Critica Sacra have done hurt Let us notwithstanding hear what he hath concerning Liturgies Mr. D. himself being Translator A Hundred and fourty
most of the Fathers put together they are not much to be blamed But I must needs say that Presbyterians is now become a term that I understand not every Nonconformist who is not Congregational is in some mens mouths a Presbyterian though he never declared any dislike of Episcopacy yea though he vehemently protest that his judgment is for Episcopacy even for all and every part of Primitive Episcopacy In Dr. Heylins late History of Presbyterians a Presbyterian is sometimes one that would have the Lords day observed as a Sabbath one that thinks election and non election to be absolute and if a Presbyterian be such a one sure it would be no difficult task to prove that there were such men in the world long before Culvins name was ever heard of With other mâ—n a Presbyterian is the same with the old Non conformist and against such a Presbyterian it is that Mr. Scrivener seems to have laid his action but besides that he hath laid his Action coram non Judice I think that when the merits of the cause come to be examined he will quickly be non-suited For it will be impossible for him to prove either that such a Presbyterian is a Schismatick or that if he be a Schismatick his Schism is novel The old Non-conformist was one that could not think a Bishop to be by Divine institution an Officer of a superior Order to a Presbyter sole power of Jurisdiction and Ordination was the block he could never get over In matter of worship he could not satisfie himself to practise the Ceremonies retained and prescribed in the Church of England That the Ministers ordained in England were not true Ministers or that they might not be submitted to as such he never thought He could and did give and receive the Sacrament only sometimes he both Preached and Administred the Sacrament in private to such as were of his own opinion and perswasion If every such man must be accounted an Arian and a Schismatick he may comfort himself in this that he hath many among the Ancients who if they had lived in these days must needs have been called by the same name If such a one decline tryal by the Fathers it is only because he hath not had the good hap to read the Fathers or because he foresees the tryal will be too tedious and chargeable and might sooner be ended if only Scripture were made the Rule Mr. Scrivener is not sure such a stranger in our Israel as not to know how hard the Diocesans are put to it when the Fathers are brought against them He can tell no doubt who they be that are wont to call St. Hierom a discontented Presbyter and St. Cyprian a Popular Bishop He knows who they be that have undertaken to ruine Diocesan Episcopacy by Clement and Ignatius And it is possible he hath heard of those who did undertake to overthrow our English Hierarchy by Dr. Hammonds dissertations for Episcopacy He knows that when two were appointed to dispute against Dr. Preston in the five points the Dr. presently divided and set them at variance betwixt themselves and cannot chuse but think it very easie for the present Non-conformists if they were brought to a conference with the Prelatical to make them do execution one upon another To deal a little more closely with Mr. Scrivener he hath in the name of the Church of England and his own laid an action against a Novel Schism If the Non-conformists upon summons made shall think meet to appear to this Action doubtless they will plead not guilty they will not confess themselves guilty of causing any new schism but will averr that they proceed upon the same Principles that were laid down by the great instruments of our reformation here in England It will be replied that they oppugne Bishops they will rejoyn in the words of Dr. Stilling fleet Iren. p. 385. That they doubt not to make it evident that the main ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation was not accounted any pretence of Divine right but the convenience of that form of Church government to the state and condition of this Church at the time of its Reformation and that they for their parts were never asked whether Episcopal government was suitable to the condition of this Church when it was at first reformed but whether it be founded on Divine Right Now to answer them here the words of the declaration they are to make must be scanned and the particulars of those Books they are to assent and consent to must be searched if from them it do appear that he who doth without quillets declare assent and consent must receive Bishops as an higher order of Officers than Presbyters and that by Christs institution how will they be found guilty of Novellism or Schism unless Wickliff and Cranmer c. be found guilty also But perhaps it will go harder with them in the matter of Ceremonies Really it will and if for these they separate from the Church I am content they be cast for certainly it is against the whole rule of charity and humility to break off communion in all Ordinances because some one Ordinance is administred with some such ceremony as I account inexpedient or unlawful If any Church make the approving of the expedience or lawfulness of that Ceremony a necessary condition of my holding communion with her then she and not I causeth the Schism But to speak to the matter in issue The present Non-conformists are not the first that scrupled the use of the English Ceremonies Sundry of those who were martyred in Queen Maries days would never be brought to use them most of those who then fled into forreign parts both in their exile and at their return either durst not or did not care to use them Some of them for Non-conformity refused preferment some were turned out of that they had some took up with very small preferment where no eye could envy them I have sometimes thought upon it who they were that in Queen Eliz. Reign did the Church most service in disputing and writing against the Papists and I find them to have been such as either did not conform or conformed heavily and by halves I have heard it censured as an error in policy for a Court not to regard those in a time of peace whom they were forced to make use of in a time of war Let Mr. Scrivener consider whether the Conformists have strength and number sufficient to look the Papists and other adversaries in the face unless they take in the Non-conformists if they have not is it prudence to be at odds with those that must joyn with them in the day of Battel If he say they have number and strength enough let him then consider whether it may not be that some of them will prove false and treacherous or at least make a dishonourable peace I could here shew that sundry of them who most rigorously pressed conformity in Q.
Colledg-man than Statesman and by this means no course was taken to prevent such Commentaries both in Philosophy and Divinity as came into England from beyond the Seas to the corrupting and poisoning of young students in the University The motion about Pastors resident and learned pag. 51 52 53 is handsomly avoided by the King with an answer that he had consulted with his Bishops about that whom he found ready and willing to second him in it c. yet all that Kings days and ever since the Nation hath groaned under the burden of an unlearned and non-resident Ministry if the Law of the Land admit of very mean and tolerable sufficiency in any Clerks why have not the Bishops petitioned that the Law be altered so as to require greater sufficiency And if the Lay-Patrons are to blame who present very mean men to their Cures are Ecclesiastical-Patrons to be excused who present Clerks every way as mean Now come the Bishop of Londons motions to be considered in number Three 1. That there might be amongst us a praying Ministry he meant a Ministry that might read the Common-Prayer-Book to which very little learning indeed would suffice but I suppose there was then no want of such a Ministry nor is there now so that the motion might have been spared The Second motion was that till a sufficient and learned Minister might be placed in every Congregation godly Homilies might be read and the number of them encreased This motion sure was not liked for unto this day neither is a learned Minister setled in every Congregation nor the number of Homilies encreased His last motion was that Pulpits might not be made Pasquils wherein every humorous fellow or discontented might traduce his superiors This the King graciously accepted and so did the complaining Ministers as I suppose for that the Pulpit should be made a Stage is certainly a very lewd custom but obtains too too much among I know whom Proceed we with Dr. Reynolds to Subscription as to which we find him only desiring that Ministers might be put upon it to subscribe according to the Statutes of the Realm viz. to the Articles of Religion and the Kings supremacy to subscribe otherwise they could not because among other things the Common prayer-Prayer-Book enjoined the Reading of some Chapters in which were manifest errors directly repugnant to Scriptures instancing particularly in Ecclesiasticus 48.10 where the words inferr That Elias in person was to come before Christ and if so Christ is not yet come Now let us take notice of what is answered 1. Bishop Bancroft answers That the most of the objections against the Books of Apocrypha were the old cavils of the Jews renewed by St. Jerome in his time who was the first that gave them the name of Apocrypha which opinion upon Ruffinus his challenge he after a sort disclaimed the rather because a general offence was taken at his speeches in that kind This I must needs say was a politick answer for first we are told that not all the objections but some of the objections against these books are the old cavils of the Jews renewed by St. Jerome 2. We are told that St. Jerome was the first that called these Books Apocryphal which opinion after a sort he reclaimed upon Ruffinus his challenge What can any man reply to such an answer should one bring an objection against these books that the Jews never would have brought he would have been told That not all objections against them but only some are Jewish cavils Should one say that Jerome disclaimed not his opinion concerning books Apocryphal he would be told That he did not indeed disclaim his opinion absolutely but yet after a sort he did and how far 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or after a sort may reach no one can tell Nor have we the least reference to any place of Jerome's Works in which this disclaiming of his opinion is recorded whether St. Jerome disclaimed his opinion he who hath not St. Jerome's Works by him may find discussed in Dr. Cosens his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture I say it cannot be imagined why the Jews should less esteem the Apocryphal books than they deserved they retain the Canonical books of the Old Testament which make more against them than the Apocrypha Nor is St. Jerome the first who called the Apocryphal books by the name of Apocrypha others before him had given them that name or one equivalent as I can make appear Indeed the Ancients of the Church have so blasted some especially of the Apocryphal Writings that I cannot but wonder how they came to be read in our Churches The History of Susanna was accounted a Fable even by Julius Africanus contemporary to Origen and yet our newest Calendar appointeth it to be read as also the story of Bell and Dragon There is a common saying in mens mouths that these books are Canonical not for the confirming of our faith but the regulating of our manners but he who shall make all Apocryphal books a rule for his manners may chance to set more on his Doomsday-book than he will quickly get off again As for him who shall make them a rule of Faith he will undoubtedly become a Heretick Dr. Reynolds his instance the Bishops would not meddle with but the King who was not in conference to be contradicted p. 62. is made 1. To argue and demonstrate That whatsoever Ben Sirach had said Ecclus. 48.10 of Elias Elias had in his own person while he lived performed and accomplished 2. To check Dr. Reynolds for imposing on a man that was dead a sense never meant by him 3. To use a pleasant apostrophe to the Lords VVhat trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus By my soul I think he was a Bishop or else they would never use him so 4. Yet after all to will Dr. Reynolds to note those chapters in the Apocrypha-books that were offensive and bring them to the Lord Archbishop on VVednesday following Had the Relator consulted the Kings honour he had not inserted one of his Jeers managed with an Oath into a Conference concerning Religion nor would he had he regarded his own reputation have called a sarcasm in which was an oath an unnecessary oath a pleasant apostrophe To the place it self I say the Greek copies Ecclus. 48.10 much differ among themselves and as much from the Latin Translation our English Translations also greatly vary but I could never yet meet with any Copy or Translation from which at least an unwary Reader or hearer would not â—ollect that Elias was to come before the day of 〈◊〉 Lord either first or second Junius saith the place argueth the ignorance of the author blind in the promises concerning the Kingdom of Christ Grotius acknowledgeth little less The Syriack and Arabick Translatour carry it clearly for Elias his being to come before the day of the Lord to turn the hearts of the children to the Parents as may be
seen in the Polyglotts So that if the Doctor was mistaken about the meaning of Ecclesiasticus his mistake was common to him with many more of great esteem and deserved not to be put off either with a check or a flout Whether D. R. ever brought in a list of the offensive chapters in the Apocryphal books I cannot tell but I can find that since King James his time the people have had in Parochial Churches less Apocrypha and more Canonical Scripture perhaps at last the divinely inspired Writings that have in and on them so many express signatures of Holiness and Majesty shall prevail to have the sole honour of being read in the Churches for Christians instruction As to the next scruple about subscription grounded on Jesus said to his disciples when he spake to the Pharisees it seems the King took order to have the Translation reformed Now must Dr. Reynolds for a season give way to Mr. Knewstubbe a Cantabrigian and a very eminent Divine though not much known by any writings he left behind him He is said by Dr. Barlow to have objected against the Interrogatories in Baptism propounded to Infants but what it was he said against propounding those Interrogatories to the Infants we are not told but rather made believe his discourse was so perplext that the King professed he understood it not The Bishop of VVinton aiming at his meaning shewed the use of such Interrogatories out of St. Austin adding his reason Qui peccavit in altero credat in altero Glad am I to find that one English Bishop without contradiction from any other joined with him did allow St. Austin's saying that an Infant may peccare in altero I hope if any now laugh at the notion of our sinning in Adam they will acknowledg themselves to have embraced an opinion quite different from the opinion of those to whom they succeed In the mean time I shall be glad to hear it proved that a child can credere in altero for I rather opine that a Parents Faith is so far accepted by God as to entitle his child to Baptism than that the child of a believer doth believe in his believing father for if he believe in him he must be saved in him if he dye in his Infant-state and I would give all I am worth to hear it proved that all the Infants of godly Parents dying in their Infancy are saved But of this no more Our new Liturgy hath almost taken away the ground of the dispute concerning these Interrogatories for it ordereth that the first Interrogatory should be thus propounded Dost thou in the name of this child c. which words I have not observed in the old Liturgy But yet I would fain know why we may not as well ask the Father Wilt thou that this child be baptized in this faith Pass we from the Interrogatories to the cross in Baptism which Mr. Knewstubbe took exceptions to in number two First the offence of weak brethren grounded on the words of St. Paul Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. viz. the consciences of the weak are not to be offended These places being the chief seat of the doctrine of scandal deserve a most serious consideration for certainly we should take heed not to destroy those for whom Christ died And this care is principally to be taken by the Church in making Canons if she only command things which Christ hath commanded who is he that can blame her or think she exceeds the bounds and limits of the power given her but if she command that which she confesseth she need not command and which she cannot but know many account unlawful and if she command such a thing under the highest penalty then hath she reason to consider whether such precepts will be pleasing to her Lord It will signifie little to ask how long people will be weak for no doubt they will be weak while the world stands As little will it signifie to say Subscriptions are not required of Laicks and Ideots but Preachers and Ministers for it is notorious that Subscriptions are required of Fresh-men at their matriculation in the University when to be sure they are Laicks and not acquainted with Controversies in Religion As for Ministers they should not be weak in faith but they must consider that they have under them such as are weak and not suddenly engage never to administer necessary Ordinances unto them unless they will receive them with disputable Ceremonies If a single Minister were left to his own choice either to cross the child he baptizeth or not to cross it ought he not to say If by crossing I shall scandalize my brother I will not cross a child while the world stands It will be said that a single Minister is not left at his liberty True but the Church was at liberty to make or not to make a Law about crossing Had she made no Law to cross children that are baptized then I suppose no Minister would have crossed any child and what damage the child would have sustained by not being crossed it is past my skill to imagine by making a Law that all children that shall be baptized publickly shall be also crossed many learned Ministers are put out of Livings many are made to lay aside the thoughts of being Ministers and divert to Law or Physick a bone of contention is cast among the common people c. What ought the Church to do in this case Mr. Knewstubbe's second Argument is said to have consisted of three interrogatories I would ask one question that was not then by him asked viz. Whether it will be as profitable for the Child to be signed with any other sign as with the sign of that Cross upon which our Saviour did suffer death If it will not as no doubt most will say it will not then we must be first informed what figure our Saviours Cross was of lest in going about to make the sign of it we should make the sign of somewhat else And how shall we know what figure our Saviours Cross was of The New-Testament will afford us little light in this matter for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though affirmed by a great Critick first to signifie the same with Furca then with Crux yet is known by those who have observed its use in Hemer and other Authors to have no other original signification than of a Stake If we betake our selves to the Fathers they speak strangely and variously concerning the figure of the Cross Origen and Jerome say that the Samaritan letter Tau represents the figure of a Cross than which saith Scaliger nothing is more false nothing more true saith Dr. Walton in his Prolegomena yet the character of the Samaritan Tau now in use hath no resemblance with a Cross what character it may have in old medals and moneys sober men will not much regard Justin Martyr dealing with Trypho the Jew will find figures and types of the Cross in the Old
Baptism the last if his Translators have not abused him was scarce sound in any thing But the Cross was used in Constantine's times and why may it not now be used shall we accuse Constantine of Popery and Superstition Thus is the King said to have argued in the Conference and by his argument he gave us to understand that he liked not that any one should charge Constantine with Popery or Superstition I therefore will lay neither to his charge but yet his purpose not to be baptized till he might be baptized in the same River where Christ was baptized viz. Jordan if it did not proceed from superstition proceeded from a very odd humour God crossed him in that his design and put him under a necessity either to receive Baptism in another place than Jordan or not to receive it at all In this I follow Ensebius for whom should I rather follow than him who so well knew Constantine and hath transmitted his History to posterity If any man incline to those who would have Constantine baptized many years before at Rome I leave him to Scultetus in his Medulla who defends Eusebius against Baronius Mr. Knewstubb's second question was supposing the Church had power to add significant ceremonies whether she might there add them where Christ had already ordained one Which he supposed was no less derogatory to Christs Institution than if any Potentate of the Land should presume to add his Seal to the Great Seal of England To this Dr. Barlow saith p. 70. the King answered That the case was not alike for that no sign or thing was added to the Sacrament which was fully and perfectly finished before any mention of the Cross is made I dare not think this was King James his answer for it is only fitted and suted to our own Church as then it was ordered and still continues In the first Book of King Edward crossing was appointed before Baptism could be pretended to be perfected or indeed begun which was also the usage of the ancient Churches 2. I conceive the presumption of any subject would be great if he should add his own seal to confirm or signifie any thing that the King 's Great Seal was appointed to confirm and signifie though the Great Seal had been set before he set his Seal 3. Methinks the argument stands still in its full force If applying of water to a believer in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost do signifie all that the Cross signifies to what end is the Cross used The child that is baptized with us is obliged by Baptism obediently to keep Gods holy will and commandments and walk in the same all the days of his life what can the Cross oblige him to more Is not confessing the saith of Christ crucified one of Gods commandments I know a learned man hath replied that constancy is not distinctly signified in being baptized as it is in being crossed But I ask Is it any benefit to a man to have some ceremony used that doth more distinctly mind him of his constancy than Baptism did If it be none then such a ceremony is needless if it be some benefit how came it to pass that no Apostle ever used any such ceremony and why do we not excogitate other ceremonies to admonish us as distinctly of other duties Mr. Knewstubbes third question was In case the Church had power to institute such a sign how far such an Ordinance was to bind them without impeaching their Christian liberty The King charged him never more to speak to that point And therefore I will not speak to it at all but must needs say it was an odd question if it were so propounded as the Relator hath worded it Dr. Reynolds is again brought on the stage p. 71. objecting the example of the Brazen Serpent stampt to powder because the people abused it to Idolatry wishing the Cross because superstitiously abused might be abandoned also To this the King is made to say 1. If it were abused to Superstition in the time of Popery that plainly implies that it was well used before Popery As if nothing had been abused by the Papists in Divine Worship but what had been once well used 2. That there is no resemblance between the Brazen Serpent a material visible thing and the sign of the Cross made in the air As if a thing made in the air might not be abused to superstition as well as a material visible thing 3. That the Papists themselves did never ascribe any power or spiritual grace to the sign of the Cross in Baptism Whether they did or no their Writings will best testifie 4. The material Crosses which in time of Popery were made for men to fall down before them to worship are removed as they desired Whereas most present at the Conference knew that in many places they were not removed The next thing objected was the wearing of a Surplice a kind of Garment which the Priests of Isis used to wear To which His Majesty answered inter alia That if Heathens were commorant among us so as they might take occasion to be strengthned or confirmed in Paganism then there were just cause to suppress the wearing of it A notable answer and which the Nonconformists may do well to treasure up as like to stand them in good stead in these controversies With my body I thee worship is an old and odd phrase and if it may not be altered it must be explained and then Mumpsimus may do as well as Sumpsimus The Ring in Marriage Dr. Reynolds approved and the corner'd cap. Committing of Ecclesiastical censures unto Lay-chancellors the King promised to take order to reform p. 78. And Archbishop Grindal's prophesyings it is like enough His Majesty would not have disliked if he had not misunderstood the design of them And now I would fain know whether what the Bishops got by this Conference may not be put in a mans eye and he never see the worse Dr. Reynolds got a great deal by it viz. a new Translation of the Bible such an explication of the use of the Cross as if the story be true he did acquiesce in a large addition concerning the Sacraments in the Church-catechism c. so that Dr. Heylin in his History of Presbyterians quarrels with King James for giving any way to the Conference There is but one thing more I will concern my self to take notice of in Mr. Scrivener's Action against the New Schism he desires to have one place in which Presbyter signifies a Lay-man Though I think I could satisfie his desire in this yet I find not my self on any account obliged so to do for the English Nonconformists are not over-fond of Ruling-Elders those Churches that retain such Officers will not acknowledg them to be lay-men nor indeed have they any reason to acknowledg them to be such For why should Church-officers chosen by the Church and commended to the grace of God by prayer be called laicks because they labour at some employment to keep themselves from being chargeable to the congregation why then the Apostle Paul was for some part of his time a Laick for he laboured And in later times I could instance in men that for their Learning and Piety deserved to be Metropolitans who yet were fain to preach and work It were to be wished that many in England to whom the care of souls is committed were permitted and enjoyned to follow some calling in the week-days for by that means they would be less scandalous than now they are Why should men that know not what it is to study be forbidden to dig Are they Laicks because they do not preach Many we have in England who would think scorn to be termed Laicks that never did preach never had licence to preach Are they Laicks because they are not ordained by laying on of hands It will be hard to prove that that ceremony is essential to make a man a Church-officer But yet Mr. Scrivener hath good leave to fall upon these Ruling-Elders to bring them into any Court by a Quo VVarranto and if he do chance to cast them there be but few Nonconformists that will be at cost to bring the business to a new Trial. These Elders in some places are made the more pert because of the multiplicity and variety of answers that the Prelatical give to those places of Scripture on which their divine institution is pretended to be built It would tire an ordinary patience to reckon up the various expositions that are given of 1 Tim. 5.17 Scultetus censures the answers given by Bilson another condemns the answer given by Scultetus others confute all the answers given by Mr. Mede Among all that have written against Elders whether unlearned or learned I have not met with any that have satisfied me yet I can satisfie my self about this place For those Churches that argue heartily for these Elders do argue from the general word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the two participles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the two articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the two species or kinds of Elders from the two participles two articles two special Elders divided and separated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the discretive particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let Mr. Scrivener face this argument with some of the old answers and see what will come on it And let him take heed how he strikes at these Lay-Elders as he will call them lest he wounds those among us known by the name of Lay-chancellors In the mean time I beseech him to commune with his own heart and to consider with what spirit he writ his books against Daillee and the English Nonconformists by so doing he will be brought I doubt not to take shame unto himself and so prevent the far greater shame of having his railings and calumnies laid open by others Quod erat exorandum FINIS
was too too Antipuritanical perfectly in Religion of the same mind with Cassander and Baldwin whose Character need not be given Doubtless had there been either clear proof or vehement suspition that Mr. Carthwright was accessary to the compiling of the gaping Gulph he had not escaped some signal token of the Queens displeasure for her Majesty was so highly incensed against the Author Printer and Publisher of it that nothing less would satisfie her than arraignment of them upon the Statute of Philip and Mary against the Authors and Dispersers of seditious writings and because some of her chief Lawyers were of opinion That that law was but temporary and of no force in her reign she imprisoneth one of them and turns another out of his place and prevailed so far that both Stubbes and Page who dispersed the Copies had sentence passed upon them to lose their right hands which accordingly were cut off in the market-place of Westminster with a Butchers knife and a Mallet but it is observed by more than one of our Historians that when Stubbes his right hand was cut off he did pull off his Hat with his left hand and cry out God save the Queen and the people by a general silence gave their Testimony that the punishment was too severe Nor did the Queen her self take much pleasure in reflecting on this penalty but rather when the heat of passion was over received Stubbes into some degree of favour as is probable from the imployment that he had under Peregrine Lord Willoughby sent by the Queen with four thousand Soldiers to assist the King of Navar in which imployment he ended his days but by a natural death Secondly if our Writers for Conformity know not the State of the controversies and the times in which they were managed they will go near to contradict one another and will it not make the Nonconformists good sport to see their adversaries at dissension among themselves Could Mr. Durells English Book have been more effectually confuted by any writing than by Dr. Heylins History of Presbyterians Dr. Stradling licenseth a Book tending to prove that the Presbyterians in England are a singular sort of men as contrary to the Presbyterians beyond the Seas as to their own Bishops at home the Vicechancellor of Oxford licenseth a Book designed to prove that all Presbyterians all the reformed Churches over are all acted by one spirit equally prone to sedition and schisme alike bent to destroy all Kingdoms and Churches into which they are received Will not the Presbyterians say Aha! so would we have it will they not even bless themselves in these contradictions of their adversaries Dr. Heylin saith Lib. 7. Pag. 275. Whitgift dissected Carthwrights admonition in a Book entituled An answer to the Admonition Carthwright sets out a reply in the year following and Whitgift presently rejoyns in defence of his Answer against which Carthwright never stirred but left him Master of the field possest of all the signs of an absolute Victory But Sir George Paul saith Mr. Carthwright glorying be-like to have the last word published a second reply fraught with no other stuff than had been before refuted from answering of which Whitgift was disswaded Will not such sweet concord as this make delicate Musick in the ears of the Nonconformists Especially considering that the Letter of Whitaker mentioned by the Doctor is pretended by the Knight to be one of the main inducements moving Whitgift not to rejoyn to the second reply And let me admonish the Conformists not much to glory in Whitakers letter reflecting so much disgrace on Carthwrights Book seeing Whitaker was then 1. Under thirty years of age 2. Never dreamed that his Letter should be made publick 3. Afterwards married the Widow of Dudly Fennor 4. In those writings which were the product and issue of his more mature judgment and study layeth down such principles as the Nonconformists think their conclusions do naturally and lineally descend from 5. Died in over-straining his diligence to suppress the Pelagian notions of Peter Baro so much now-adays applauded and admired Certainly if they are to be accounted Victors who keep the field last the Nonconformists have at least as many Victors as the Conformists though we should grant that Whitgift had the last word of Carthwright which yet is not to be granted But doth not Mr. Fuller say in his Ecclesiastical History he had Answer He doth but I have been assured that being before Olivers triers for a living he ingenuously acknowledged his error and promised to certifie it if ever his Book came to a second Edition which I therefore give notice of that it may proceed no further and that Mr. Isaac Walton who is still alive and hath fallen into the same mistake in his life of Mr. Hooker Pag. 85. may disabuse his Reader The which if he will vouchsafe to do we shall have encouragement to try whether we cannot acquaint him with some more of his mistakes and misadventures In the mean time I should be glad to understand what assurance can be given us that Bishop Jewel ever used such words concerning Carthwright as those mentioned by Dr. Heylin Lib. 7. Pag. 274. and elsewhere viz. Stultitia nata est in corde pueri sed virga disciplinae fugabit eam for it seems improbable that so grave a Prelate should give so unhandsome a character of a very learned man concerning whom he could make no estimation but by a few scattered papers designed for a Book that saw not the light till Jewel was entred into the chambers of Darkness All that I can see any ground to acknowledg at present is but this that Jewel both in a Sermon at Paul's and in a conference with some Brethren had declared himself to be an approver of the English ceremonies and that being ready to leave the world he declared that what he uttered in his Sermon and conference was designed neither to please any mortal nor to embitter or trouble any party that thought otherwise than himself but that neither party might prejudg the other and that the love of God by the Holy spirit which is given to us might be poured forth in the hearts of brethren See his life written by the Nonconforming Dr. Humpred Pag. 255. edit Lond. an 1573. And if Dr. Heylins friends will please to consult Pag. 275. They shall find Jewel died September 23. about three in the afternoon not as the Doctor affirms Lib 6. Pag. 270. September the 22. And then they may also consider whether he hath not erred in dating Zanchies Letter to Queen Elizabeth September the second for in my edition of Zanchies Letters put forth by his Heirs at Hannouae 1609. it bears date the tenth of September 1571. These are small matters it will be said I confess they be but if men will write Histories they ought to be very exact and publish nothing that need fear the severest examination Let me be excused if I here adventure to give
yet many of them never declared dislike of Episcopacy nor opened their mouths against Ceremonies never took the Covenant nor Engagement were presented to vacant Livings by the true and undoubted Patrons By Gods blessing they added to the Church such as should be saved His Majesties return they defired so as none more yet they must not be suffered to continue in an Ecclesiastical Benefice unless they will submit to a thing scarce ever heard of Reordination It may be their mistake that they do not judge Ordination by Presbyters to be a nullity but what is this to Schism Obj. I may expect you will thus accost me If Mr. D. be so easily mastered why do you not pay a debt of love you owe why do you not write in Latin as once Mr. Nichols did in English A Plea for the Innocent Resp Verily for this reason because I love not to have to do with those who when they are put to silence know not how to be ashamed such a one this Monsieur is for not long ago he met with a Noble Gentleman of this Nation who hearing him say That all the Divines beyond seas condemned the English Nonconformists told him plainly That he knew it was not so and that some in France looked on him as an apostate for complying so far as he had done and when he replied These are only some unwise hot-headed men the honourable person rejoined Nay they are worthy and well tempered Ministers Yet did not Mr. D. change the copy of his countenance Is it possible then that I should bring him to repentance In a word if you account Mr. D. an Author any way considerable you have near you our old friend S. E. let him cull out of the Vindiciae what he esteemeth most strong that do you send to me if I do not by the first return of the Carrier send you a satisfactory answer provided it be directed not against persons but the Cause then account me a very vain-glorious animal In the mean time listen not to those who are given to vain jangling and false-witness bearing but put on charity the bond of perfection so shall an abundant entrance be administred unto you into that Kingdom where there are no perverse disputers to that Kingdom that we may be both brought is the sincere prayer of SIR Your humble servant W. B. LOng time after I had written the Appendix against Dr. Heylin I was informed that something else was come abroad in Latin in the which the Nonconformists were concerned I could not think any thing was said in it that had not been said before and therefore I had once some thoughts never so much as to look into it but being told that the Author of it was Mr. Matthew Scrivener reputed at Cambridge while he there resided a close Student and great Scholar I resolved to cast my eye upon some Pages of it that so if it seemed written with any candor and judgement I might either give an answer to it or tell such Nonconforming friends as I was acquainted with that I found it unanswerable But looking into it at the Stationers shop I soon found it to be made up of little besides scurrility and calumny Monsieur Daillees Book of the Right use of the Fathers which I thought no Protestant had looked on without admiration nor Papist without terror this English Presbyter undertakes to answer endeavours first of all to make it appear that the Book deserved not the Elogiums that some of great name and esteem among us had bestowed upon it and that Mr. Daillee was but a Cham taking delight to lay open the nakedness of the Fathers Then proceeds to give him a general and particular answer I confess I was moved not a little to see a writer that had deserved so well of the Reformed Religion so unworthily dealt with by one pretending to be a Protestant For what one thing hath Mr. J. D. said more or less about the Fathers than what had been said many years before by some of our most eminent Divines in England It must be acknowledged that he hath handled the point more copioufly than any who went before him and the heads of his discourse are exemplified with a most admirable collection of particulars but that he hath brought the Fathers any one peg lower than they had been brought by Juel Humfred Whitaker Rainolds Dr. George Abbot Down c. will never be proved Bishop Cosins hath put together all the reasons that were scattered and dispersed in other mens writings to prove the Non-canonicalness of the Apocryphal Books now it would be no wonder if a Protestant in some writing should obiter take notice that the Bishop in some particular had mistook himself but he that should professedly undertake to answer him would scarce be accounted other than a Papist e. c. The Bishop saith p. 18. All the Canonical Books of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew except c. but these other books he means those canonized at Trent were all confessedly first written in the Greek tongue c. I may doubt whether all the controverted books were first written in the Greek tongue I may confidently affirm this is not confessed concerning all the controverted books for who knows not that Ecclesiasticus is generally affirmed to be written first in Hebrew to say nothing of other books and yet not be thought spightful nor Popish but if I should publish a whole book against the Bishop labouring to lessen his reputation and esteem to weaken the authorities by him produced would not any man say that either I was a Papist or that I cared not how much I gratified the Papist so I could but show my teeth against Bishop Cosins yet just such a game it is that Mr. Scrivener plays Obj. But if what he hath said against Daillee be truth if his answers to him be rational is it not meet he should be honoured Will it not be for our credit and reputation to let the Papists know that we will not spare our own how renowned soever where they exceed the bounds of modesty and sobriety Ans If any one through a zeal without knowledg against Popery shall say those things against the Fathers that may discourage those who have leasure and money from buying and reading of them or so weaken their authority as to prejudice the interest of Christianity he doth deserve praise and commendation who shall endeavour to bring the Fathers to their due esteem But neither hath Mr. Daillee wronged the Fathers nor Mr. Scrivener righted them but because Mr. Scrivener heard a Presbyterian in a Sermon put off an objection taken from the authority of the Fathers by referring his hearers to Mr. Daillee therefore he resolves to encounter Mr. Daillee And as spleen seems to be the chief thing that put him on this undertaking so in the managing of it he hath discovered more of petulant spleen than of judgment This censure I had some purpose
to make good but that 1. I am assured that Daillee is like in a short time to be vindicated by some of his own 2. I am now also fallen into a place where I can have no books but what my own Library affords and though I have most of the ancient Fathers of some Edition yet in a matter of this nature I shall neither be able to satisfie my self nor others unless I had opportunity to consult all the Editions of them or at least the most renowned For it often happeneth that when a man thinketh he hath the Fathers on his side and hath brought their testimonies too plain to be eluded for his opinion he reapeth no benefit thereby because those who differ from him deny the copies according to which he proceedeth to be such as are to be relied on It was my hap not long since to read Dr. Waltons Prolegomena that I might see what he could say for the comparative novelty of the Hebrew Letters that we at present use among other arguments I found him to make use of the authority of Eusebius his Chronicle ad annum mundi 4740. the words quoted out of him are these Fuit Esdras eruditissimus legis divinae clarus omnium Judaeorum magister qui de captivitate regressi suerunt in Judaeam affirmaturque divinas Scripturas memoriter condidisse ut Samari tanis non miscerentur literas Judaicas commutasse What is his collection hence why this Hic videmus Eusebium non tantum hanc literarum mutationem diserte asserere sed etiam ejus causam adferre ut sc Judaeicum Samaritanis non miscerentur I could see no such disert or manifest assertion of the change of the Letters in this testimony of Eusebius He that only saith affirmatur cannot be concluded so much as to deliver his own opinion Many Historians and Chronographers use affirmatur or some word of like import in such matters as they themselves do not believe and I hope for the credit of Eusebius that he did not think Esdram divinas scripturas memoriter condidisse and if so it is not like that he believed the other part of the affirmation neither But Mr. Baily a learned and industrious Scotch-man in his lately published Historical and Chronological Work lib. 1. p. 197. tells me That he had read over and over Eusebius his Chronicle as well the Greek as the Latin Copy set forth by Scaliger with great care out of the best Manuscripts and could not find one word in them concerning this change of Letters by Esdras and yet if Scaliger had in any Copy of good repute found any thing that might have confirmed this change of Letters he would no doubt have inserted it because he doth with so much passion take upon him to defend that change Now if this be true as I doubt it is that Dr. Walton in his prologue to so renowned a Work as the Polyglotts followed a Translation of Eusebius that was corrupted I may well be affrighted from examining testimonies of Fathers till I be where I may be assured that the testimonies I am to examine are not counterfeited In the mean time I shall lay down some few things concerning the Fathers 1. Many times the usefulness and almost absolute necessity of being acquainted with the Oriental Languages and the Writings of the Fathers is most cried up by those who themselves are but strangers to them It is not many years since a son of the Church at a Lecture in the Countrey Preached up the necessity of the knowledge of the Original Hebrew affirming that they were not worthy the name of Divines who did not well understand it but this pert young man being at Dinner taken to task about his own skill in Hebrew it was found that he could not so much as read Hebrew yet he was out-done by the bold Jesuit who as Melchior Adam relates the story in his life pag. 845. in a Dispute with Graserus about the Hebrew Text of the Bibles made boast of his skill in Hebrew but this Father of the society having an Hebrew Bible without points put into his hands knew not which was the top which was the bottom of the Pages which occasioned Graserus his Scholar to laugh at his daring ignorance so that the Nobleman who brought this Father withdrew and wish'd him so ignorant to be gone They who have read the reasons of Edmund Campian cannot but know how much he boasted of the Fathers as if they had been all his own from first to last even as much as Gregory the 13th on this account he earnestly desired to be admitted to dispute with our Divines Quo quo se moverit adversarius feret incommodum Patres admiserit captus est Excluserit nullus est But when this vain-glorious creature came to be disputed with it was found that he could not understand a Greek Father and that it might well be questioned whether he could so much as read Greek Dr. Fulk plainly tells him in the third days conference that it was not above a dozen years since he heard him at Oxford ask a Stationer for Irenaeus's Epistles In the fourth days conference when Mr. Clark brought Tertullians Book against Hermogenes to prove the Scriptures sufficiency he knew of no such book and yet when he was convinced that there was such a book then he could answer and pretended to know upon what account Tertullian argued against Hermogenes And he pretended in the same days conference that he knew the meaning of St. Basil and yet would not or could not read the place in Greek though it were easie and the sentence short and though he knew not where to find it in the Latin book So it seemed not improbable to some that Campian made not that confident Pamphlet but only turned it into good Latin Thompson also in his Treatise de Amissione Intercisione justificationis gratiae musters up the testimonies of many Fathers but when his book was only manuscript one who knew him asked him this question Vnde tot Patrum testimonia usurparet qui patres vix quidem attigisset I could shew the like ignorance and confidence in another Arminian who troubled Mr. Robert Baily of Scotland with testimonies of Fathers against Predestination but such as were all taken out of Vossius and concluded them with an Item that Beza and Calvin acknowledged the Fathers to be against themselves quoting as Vossius through an oversight had done Beza on Rom. 9.39 when as that Chapter hath but 33 Verses in it And Calvins third book of Institutions 33 Chapter when there be but 25 Chapters in that whole book I could also discover a great many now living who carry it in their Sermons and Discourses as if they followed the ancient Fathers when indeed they follow none but Hugh Groot But would I by all this insinuate that Mr. Scrivener is not well versed in the Fathers for whom he Apologizeth I answer I would insinuate no
the Roman Catholicks do not use the Fathers just so then let me be accounted to bear false witness against them In the general that caution of the Belgick Censors is well known and extant in the Chapter concerning Bertram In veteribus aliis plurimos ferimus errores extenuamus excusamus excogitato commento persaepe negamus commodum eis sensum affingimus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut in conflictionibus cum adversariis This affixing of a commodious sense to the Fathers is a shield that will quench all darts by help of this Bellarmine thought himself able to avoid the general Propositions of the Fathers concerning the extent of Original sin so as to leave room and place for the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary De Amis Grat. Lib. 4. cap. 15. I wonder having found out such a shield he would ever part with it What need he say de Sanct. Beat. 1. Cap. 6. concerning Justin Irenaeus Epiphanius Oecumenius I see not how I can defend them or concerning Lactantius that he fell into many errors especially about the age to come being more skilful in the books of Tully than in the holy Scriptures or concerning Victorinus that he wanted learning but not a will to learning Lib. eodem cap. 5. Why are Procopius Eucherius Isidorus branded to be uncertain Authors or obscure Lib. de Purg. 2. cap. 6. Why is it said of Origen that his words on the 14th Homily on Luke do not bear a commodious exposition de Pur. lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 630. Origen was one of the first that brought in Purgatory fire and could Bellarmine find out no commodious sense of his words concerning those that are to be purged by it Could he not say that he related only the opinion of others as he doth concerning Hierom Lib. de gratia primi hominis cap. 11. or that he spake hyperbolically as he brings off Chrysostom lib. 2. de Miss cap. 10. or that he did write after the manner of Poets which he saith about Prudentius lib. 2. de Purg. cap. 18. Why could he not say that writing against one extreme he fell into the other extreme a salvo often brought when some of the Fathers sayings are brought that seem to favour Manichaeism or Pelagianism Arrianism or Sabellianism If no such thing would serve the turn why then it might have been said that he spoke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a distinction used by St. Basil to fetch off Gregory Epis 64. but made use of by more than one Papist or rather than fail it might have been said that Origen was abused and corrupted Q. What then is no authority to be ascribed to the Fathers A. There may be authority enough ascribed to them notwithstanding any thing I have said for I have only related how men deal with the Fathers not how they ought to deal with them Yet I confess I am somewhat to seek how to draw such an argument from the authority of the Fathers as none but desperate persons will think invalid Should I meeting with an Adversary that differs from me argue thus Austin says it is so therefore so it is or Austin saith it is not so therefore it is not so My antecedents I may chance to prove if I have such an Edition of Austin by me as is liable to no exception but my arguments to be sure would be denied and how shall I prove them by asking him whether he account himself wiser than Austin he will if he be wise ask me whether I will subscribe to every thing that he can bring a place of Austin for and I if I be not a fool shall not promise so to do so is our argument at an end But perhaps if I had argued from consent of Fathers then he must when I had proved such consent have yielded to me or else he might justly be reputed contentious and self-conceited I must needs acknowledg that the testimony of many Fathers to a point is more considerable than the testimony of any one Father to the same point And yet sometimes one may so practise upon many that those many who join with him may justly be reputed to signifie no more than himself alone or rather not so much as himself alone for he that goes about to trapan others into a consent with him may well be thought not to be himself there may be a good appeal from a man engaged to make a party and carry on a design to the same man under no such engagement Sometimes also it is too too apparent that after one Father had written his opinion upon a matter others have chosen rather to follow him than to be at the pains to enquire whether he was to be followed But be this as it will when is it we may reckon our selves to have the consent of Fathers I suppose when we hold that which all or the most of the Fathers did hold manifestly frequently constantly no others contradicting them If such a consent as this be not almost impossible to be had in the questions now disputed among Christians then must I needs confess my self much mistaken in the collections I have made out of the Writings of the Fathers But it will be good for the further clearing of this business to instance in particulars that we may know how much we are bound to follow Fathers 1. There be some matters purely philosophical how much is to be attributed to the consent of the Fathers in these Must we concern our selves before we come to be of any opinion about them to enquire what their sentiments concerning them were Had the Fathers such clear conceptions in Physicks Metaphysicks Mathematicks that he who departs from them must needs be thought to be in an error If so I know no Sect of Philosophers that must not be judged to abound with errors Cornelius à Lapide tells us that Basil Theodoret Nazianzen did all hold that Light was created by God out of any subject and thence notes against Hereticks That accidents can in the Eucharist exist without a subject As for Basil I think notwithstanding all the pains Bellarmine takes De Euch. lib. 3. cap. 24. to make him of that opinion he is well enough brought off by Scultetus Theodoret I have not by me and will not guess what his mind was Nazianzen in his 43. Orat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. hath these words concerning that Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some of which words sound suspiciously yet perhaps do not necessarily infer that he conceived Light to be a quality existing without a subject if they do he saith plainly it was but his own private opinion But now suppose all these three and three and twenty more Fathers had been of this mind must I be thought proud if I did not forthwith allow the possibility of an accident 's subsisting without a subject If I must jacta est alea I am resolved in all such cases not to purchase a reputation of humility by
First the whole perhaps would be granted by Durand who saith that the title of Word properly imports something essential and not personal I think the Scriptures which in speaking of this Mystery I would follow alway appropriate the title of Word to the second person but that he is called the Word properly and not metaphorically only I cannot as yet find in Scripture I believe according to Scripture that the Father begat the Son but that he begat him as affected with an act of understanding not as understanding is common to all the three persons but as he hath it from himself is not I hope a necessary Article of Faith if it be I have not all the faith that is necessary to salvation Nor can I obtain of my self to think that the Son of God is any otherways called the Word than because he resembleth that either Oral or Mental Word that is formed by us men And were it not that the general stream of Interpreters carrieth the resemblance to a Mental Word I should be easily inclined to believe that as a vocal word serves to disclose the mind of a man so Christ is called the Word because he discovereth the Mysterious Will and Counsel of God If Origen did not lay the foundation of Arianism much less can the Photinians whom the Socinians now follow pretend to be his off-spring for they denied Christ to have any being before he was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary differing from the Ebionites only in this that they did not hold him to be begotten by Joseph as well as born of Mary Socinus against Vniebus is so ingenuous as to confess that he and his continually dispute against the Fathers that flourished after the Nicene Council and declares plainly that he did not think any of his party had in their writings asserted that any of the Writers before the Nicene Council now extant were of their mind Yet certainly he knew that the Writings of Origen were extant and therefore was conscious that it was in vain to father his heresies upon him The truth is we need not be afraid lest our young Divines should grow Socinians by reading the Fathers or those who profess themselves to be Socinians the great danger is from Erasmus and Grotius who never professed Socinianism but yet in their Commentaries especially on the Epistles do most unhappily by the various readings which they have as they pretend met with or some plausible expositions of their own endeavour to enervate the places that are brought to prove the Deity of Christ Jesus One I will here take notice of 1 Tim. 3.16 God manifest in the flesh is a place brought to prove the Divinity of Christ and is the more considerable ad hominem because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth occupy the place of the Subject in the proposition Smalcius de Incarnatione Christi Cap. 18. acknowledgeth omnia exemplaria graeca hactenus constanter vocem Dei habent And indeed to this day there is not a Greek Copy to be found of any good esteem that doth not read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What now do these two learned Dutchmen say Erasmus prefers the vulgar Latin which reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and suspects 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was added against the Arians But Grotius takes more pains to avoid that reading which is so commonly received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspectam nobis faciunt hanc lectionem interpretes veteres Latinus Syrius Arabs Ambrosius qui omnes legerunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addit Hincmarus opusculo 55. illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic positum à Nestorianis And after strains his wit to find out a good sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 throughout the whole Verse If this be allowable to forsake the Greek where the vulgar Latin Syriack and Arabick differ from it how shall we know where to fix our feet And let the Learned judg whether the Syriack and Arabick Translations that we have in the Polyglott did read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they did those who translated them are much to be blamed It is also untruly suggested that Hincmarus saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was put in by the Nestorians But if Hincmarus had so said Grotius might if he had so pleased have acquainted his Reader that Chrysostom read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was older than Nestorius himself And he could also have told us that Cyril and Theodoret made use of this reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Nestorius and therefore sure neither he nor his followers did first frame this reading which is so perfectly destructive to their heresie Another place we bring to prove Christs Deity is Rom. 9.5 Mirum est saith Bellarmine Praef. ad libros de Christo quid non agat Erasmus quò se non vertat quid non moliatur ut hoc telum de manibus nobis extorqueat Erasmus doth indeed take two much pains to make this place useless against the Arians yet which should have asswaged Bellarmines wrath he adds like a good Son of the Church that if she say we must not interpret these words but of the Divinity of Christ she is to be obeyed As for Grotius he first tells us that it is manifest from the Syriack that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was wanting in the ancient Greek Copies There is not a Greek Copy of any note now extant in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurs not and yet if the Syriack express it not then it must be thought it was absent from the ancient Greek Copies what will such an opinion as this lead us to Secondly he refers us to Erasmus who hath noted that the words are read without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the ancient Books of Cyprian as also in Hilary and that St. Chrysostom seems to have read so too But Erasmus speaks not of the ancient Books of Cyprian in which or sundry of which the word Deus is to be found and Grotius could not but know that those Copies of Cyprian must needs be corrupted in which Deus is wanting for no Scripture but that in which Christ is called God could serve Cyprians turn in that place as any Reader may discern Hilary left not out the word Deus but his Scribe as Erasmus almost acknowledgeth and Hilary to be sure in his Books de Trinitate citeth this place with the word Deus Chrysostom indeed doth not expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor yet doth he expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but he reads just as we read By this we may see how little zeal Grotius had for the Divinity of Christ and what danger they are in who will take his quotations in his Annotations upon trust 2. In this number I must needs place the Papists properly and strictly so called A Papist strictly and properly so called is with me not one who holds the most of those doctrines which the
Elizabeths days did in Q. Maries days either recant or play the Nicodemites But this is a performance that I have no mind to be put upon how soon some other may put himself upon it I cannot tell Here I might with credit enough take my leave of Mr. Scrivener yet because there be two particulars in his Book that have not in these Papers been accounted for I will before I conclude essay whether the Non-conformists cannot be acquitted therefrom The first is the Hampton-Court Conference The second is the matter of Ruling Elders About both Mr. Scrivener is full of confidence and triumph If a good account can be given of these I may think the reproach to be rolled away from the Nonconformists for as for railing invectives against particular persons I need only say Lord lay them not to his charge Concerning the Hampton-Court Conference 1. I say we have little reason to believe that it is impartially related for 1. We have some ground to think that Dr. Barlow who drew up the Relation did before his death profess himself troubled that he had abused Dr. Reynolds and those who were joined with him This sorrow of the Doctor is I know denied by many by none more than by Dr. Heylin against Mr. Hickman but I have enough to clear Mr. Hickman from being the inventor or feigner of that story for he had it from Mr. Noel Sparkes a learned and pious Divine and of the Episcopal perswasion who died but few years before his Majesties return by him he was allowed to put it in print as told him by one who would not on slight grounds either raise or receive a report against a Bishop viz. Mr. Henry Jackson sometime fellow of Corpus Christi Colledg in Oxford That all this is true Mr. John Martin now a Conforming Minister in the Diocess of Hereford can and if asked will I suppose witness 2. Dr. Sparks though he spake not a word in the Conference and after it if I mistake not printed a Book for Uniformity yet told his son sometimes a Minister in Buckinghamshire and Divinity-Reader in Magdalen-Colledg That Dr. Barlow in summing up that Conference had very much injured Dr. Reynolds and those other that then appeared in the behalf of the Millenary Petitioners This I had from his kinsman before mentioned 3. I am also pretty well assured that upon the first coming out of the Sum of that Conference Dr. Reynolds himself lighting upon one of the Books at a Stationers near St. Maries Oxford was found reading of it and being asked by a friend what Book it was he read answered It was a Book in which he was concerned and wronged If any doubt of this he may I suppose receive satisfaction about it from Dr. Henry Wilkinson resident at or about Clapham near London Yea I perswade my self that no man who reads that Conference can be seriously of opinion that Dr. Reynolds argued with no more strength than is by Dr. Barlow represented in his Relation 2. If the Conference should he truly reported little or no damage could thence accrue to the Nonconformists for as is said in the Christian and Modest offer of a most indifferent Conference or Disputation printed Anno 1606. pag. 29 30. Most of the persons appointed to speak for the Ministers were not of their chusing nor nomination nor of their judgment in the matters then and now in question but of a clean contrary For being intreated at that time by the Ministers to dispute against these things as simply evil and such as cannot be yielded unto without sin they professed unto them that they were not so perswaded and therefore could not so do Being then requested to let his Majesty understand that some of their brethren were further perswaded touching the unlawfulness of these things than they themselves were they refused that also Lastly being intreated either to give them in writing their reasons to prove these things indifferent or to give them an answer in writing to such reasons as they would give them in writing to prove them simply evil they would do neither the one nor the other Obj. Will Nonconformists then lose so considerable a person as Dr. Reynolds and are they content the world should look upon him as no Nonconformist Ans No doubt he was one that was loth to be made unuseful in the Church and loth that others should make themselves unuseful and therefore when any Minister professing himself dissatisfied with Subscription came to ask his advice he would as I have been credibily informed desire him to give him the grounds of his dissatisfaction and if he found them weighty then he would leave him setled in his Nonconformity but if he found them not weighty then he would let him know that those reasons notwithstanding he might conform As for himself he was satisfied to do all that was incumbent on him as President of the Colledg but thought our Church needed a further Reformation and that the Ceremonies were unprofitable and prayed that in a due and orderly manner they might be taken away yet would not peremptorily say that a man should lose his Ministry rather than not use them And of this mind were most of those who had in those times the honour to be called and accounted Puritans And let me here propound it seriously to the consideration of present Nonconformists whether it be not possible for them to be over zealous in pressing others not to conform Sure I am that the learned and godly Mr. Anthony Wotton did flatly deny to tell Mr. VVill. Brice still alive the grounds and reasons of his Non conformity telling him That he would not in such matters put scruples into those in whom he found none And really may not a Conformist save his own soul and the souls of those that hear him may he not keep his eyes open and yet not have light enough to see the unlawfulness of our Ceremonies If so as doubtless so it is why should Non-conformists think so ill as some do of their conforming brethren why should they be so restless till they have made them their proselytes why may they not acknowledg and rejoyce in their gifts and graces and yet peaceably persevere in their own Non-conformity only wiping off the aspersions that are thrown on themselves and candidly representing their principles and practices that so the present and succeeding ages may see they do not suffer out of humour and fancy and that they err not if they be in an error without authority and reason 3. If we should grant that the published Conference were in all things true and impartial yet have the friends of Episcopacy and sticklers for conformity but little reason to boast or triumph This must be made out by some brief reflections upon the conference The first day none of those who desired Reformation were permitted to be present at the Conference nor indeed all that were summoned to appear as defenders of the then established doctrine
and discipline but only the Bishops and five Deans why neither the Dean of Christ-Church nor the Dean of VVorcester nor the Dean of Windsor were admitted nor yet Dr. Field nor Dr. King I find no reason assigned nor will I guess at so great a distance what might be the reason but why none of the Plaintiffs as they are called were admitted His Majesty gave this reason That the Bishops might not be confronted by the contrary opponents and that if any thing should be found meet to be redressed it might be done without any visible alteration I suppose King James thought the things he mentioned in that days Conference were too too liable to exception and was resolved to take course with his Bishops and their adherents to have some little amendment that if they should happen to be mentioned in the next days designed Conference they might answer they had already considered them and would have no more done or said about them The particulars of that Cabal-Conference are said to be touching the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book Excommunication providing of fit and able Ministers for Ireland How the providing of fit and able Ministers for Ireland could be proper for this days Conference I understand not Dr. Barlow saith p. 9. it was referred to a consultation if so and that consultation produced any good effect all good Christians are to rejoyce for doubtless that Nation then wanted Ministers But the Millenary Petition pretended to be the occasion of this Conference toucheth not upon Ireland if any thing was meet to be done about that Church in this Conference reason rather required that the Council for Ireland and the Irish Bishops should have been summoned to debate and conclude concerning that affair Perhaps the Doctor mistook Ireland for England or was willing to have us believe that there was no want of a Learned Ministry here in England but we shall hear more of this in the second days Conference As to the Common-prayer Book the King desired satisfaction about Confirmation Absolution Private Baptism Confirmation we shall find mentioned in the second days conference and thither I refer my considerations concerning it Absolution His Majesty said he had heard likened to the Popes Pardons If any one had informed His Majesty that Absolution as used or at least as prescribed in the Church of England had any thing in it resembling the abominable pardons of the Pope I know not how he can be excused from bearing false witness against the Liturgy The Millenarian Petitioners only pray that the term Absolution might be corrected which His Majesty was willing to gratifie them in appointing Absolution to be explained by remission of sins There is that I know no real difference betwixt those that are called Presbyterians and Episcopal Divines about Absolution Both allow a general Absolution and a particular Absolution Dr. Heylin chargeth Bp. Vsher with utterly subverting as well the Doctrine of the English Church as her purpose in absolution but from that charge the Primate is acquitted by his Chaplain Dr. Bernard Baptism King James thought was not to be administred by private persons in any case whatsoever and therefore propounded it to the Bishops that the words in the Book purporting a permission and suffering of women and private persons to baptize might be altered And here it is pretty or rather sad to observe how the Prelates contradicted one another Whitgift said The administration of Baptism by women or private persons was not allowed in the practice of our Church but enquired of by Bishops in their Visitation and censured and that the words in the Book did not infer any such meaning as that they were permitted to Baptise But the words of the Book being pressed by His Majesty Bp. Babington confessed that the words were doubtful and might be pressed to such a meaning but yet it seemed by the contrary practice of the Church censuring women in this case that the Compilers of the Book did not so intend them and yet propounded them ambiguously because otherwise perhaps the Book would not then have passed in Parliament But on the contrary Bp. Bancroft for his part declared That the Compilers of the Book of Common Prayer intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any but did indeed by those words intend a permission of private persons to Baptize in case of necessity as appeared by their letters some parts whereof he read declaring that the same was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church urging to that purpose Acts 2. where Three thousand were baptized in one day a thing which could not possibly at least probably be done by the Apostles alone and besides the Apostles there were then no Bishops nor Priests He also alledged Tertullian and Ambrose plain in that point The Bishop of Winchester also spake learnedly and earnestly to the same purpose affirming that the denying of private persons to baptize in case of necessity were to cross all antiquity and that it was a rule agreed upon among Divines That the Minister is not of the essence of the sacrament But King James persisting in his opinion to have the alteration made saith the Relator pag. 19. it was not so much stuck at by the Bishops it seems that to please His Majesty they did not much stick to have all antiquity crossed and a Rule among Divines over-ruled Had the Presbyterians in a point of so great moment shewed themselves so facile what a noise would have been made But seeing the alteration is made and Baptism restrained to Ministers we may now without offence I hope enquire what is to be said in this controversie and whether other Churches do well to allow that which we see not meet to allow And first I would know whether Christ the confessed institutor of Baptism hath any where commanded lay-persons in the absence of those to whom the word of reconciliation is committed to administer Baptism if he have not then their not administring it can be no sin because no transgression of a Law And how can we think that the party who dies unbaptized shall fare the worse for not having received that which no one was bound to give him If it be said he hath laid commandment on lay-persons where a Minister cannot be had to Baptize I desire to see where that command is recorded 2. I demand whether a lay-person male or female do sin in Baptizing If so no power on earth can authorize him or her to Baptize If it be said there is no sin in the case then again I demand where is the permission of Christ granted to him or her for certainly that must needs be sin which is not allowed by Christ the author of the Sacrament 3. How can we in faith expect that any lay-person should convey rem Sacramenti that is be the Minister of Sacramental grace Is it any where revealed in Scripture that he doth any more than the outward act which of it self availeth nothing if it be not why might we
inserting the words in the Congregation King Edwards Article was thus worded It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching or ministring the Sacraments in the Congregation before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called by men who have publick authority given them in the Congregation to call and send Ministers into the Lords Vineyard And the present Article doth not differ unless it be altered since Mr. Rogers his time Out of the last clause of the Article I argue thus Those ought to be judged lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called to the work of the Ministry by men who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation to call and send Ministers into the Lords Vineyard Some not ordained by Bishops have c. ergo This syllogism might if urged make some work and stir and therefore I do not so much as form it in words at length Still I am unsatisfied why the words in the Congregation are added either in the first or second clause of the Article but at adventure I am glad they are added until it be in some publick Record of our Churches doctrine defined what preaching is for if Reading be Preaching then I should not be over-forward to subscribe that it is not lawful for Laicks to preach privately About Confirmation the Doctor observed as the Relator tells us p. 25 a contradiction betwixt the 25th Article and the words used concerning it in the Collect for Confirmation in the Communion-book and therefore desired that both the contradiction might be considered and the ground of Confirmation examined In this we are told p. 31. was observed a curiosity or malice for the Article insinuates That the making of Confirmation to be a Sacrament is a corrupt imitation of the Apostles but the Communion book aiming at the right use and proper source thereof makes it to be according to the Apostles example and his Majesty comparing both places concluded the objection to be a meer cavil Seeing the Article is by all Ministers to be subscribed I shall be glad if it can be made appear that the meaning is only that the making of Confirmation to be a Sacrament is a corrupt following of the Apostles but that it seems to insinuate something more can hardly be denied by any one that reads the whole syntax But the Bishop in the Collect for Confirmation saith inter alia VVe make our humble supplications unto thee for these thy servants upon whom after the example of thy holy Apostles we lay our hands In which words I would fain know who are included in the we for I take it that the Bishop alone lays on hands and let no Minister desire to join with him in imposition of hands for confirmation if he must be supposed to say that he doth it after the example of the holy Apostles for that ever the Apostles laid hands on any that had been duly baptized in their inâ—ancy to confirm them may be sooner said than firmly proved yet if it can be proved that they did I shall heartily rejoyce for the more apostolical Confirmation proves to be the more easily and chearfully I hope it will be submitted to This I find that in the old Liturgy no one question was to be propounded to the Confirmand in the new there is one to be propounded and it is such a one as may make all ungodly wretches afraid to have it propounded to them sure I am without horrible hypocrisie they cannot answer to it affirmatively But then the new Liturgy hath chopped off two of the Considerations for which in the old Confirmatition was said to be appointed the reason whereof as I cannot certainly tell so I will not uncertainly conjecture though I have heard stories about this affair that startled me Bishop Bancroft saith Confer p. 32. That Confirmation was not so much founded upon the places in the Acts of the Apostles which some of the Fathers had often shewed but upon Heb. 6.2 where it is made a part of the Apostles Catechism In the first days Conference he had said It was set down and named in express words Heb. 6 2. and affirmed it to be an Institution Apostolical p. 11. Here I may I hope enquire what the Bishop meant by saying Confirmation was not so much founded on the places in the Acts which some of the Fathers had often shewed What doth which relate to Have some of the Fathers often shewed that Confirmation is not so much founded upon the places in the Acts of the Apostles If they have down falls presently much of many of our Episcopal brethrens building concerning Episcopacy if they have shewn no such thing I cannot make sense of the Bishop's saying concerning the places in the Acts. As for Heb. 6.2 I am willing to think that by laying on of hands there may be signified Confirmation but I cannot much blame those who differ from me in expounding that place for I find Bishop Vsher referring the laying on of hands to the ordaining of Ministers others refer it to that and sundry other things performed by imposition of hands these would count themselves wronged if one should say That they deny that which is set down and named in express words The Bishop of Durham I must not forget that is related p. 11. to have noted something out of the Gospel of St. Matthew for the imposition of hands upon children He might out of that Gospel have observed many things concerning Christs laying of hands on the children brought to him But the difficulty will be how to make those things pertinent to the laying on of hands upon those who are too big many times to be called little children and are already baptized and desire to be orderly admitted to the Lords Supper and when these are made appear pertinent then it will be worth consideration whether the Bishops should not rather say VVe lay on hands in imitation of Christ than in imitation of the holy Apostles Obj. But all this while the main Controversie about Confirmation is not touched which relates to the Minister of Confirmation which Dr. Reynolds and his party would have had in their own hands whereas none of all the Fathers ever admitted any to confirm but Bishops alone as said the Bishops of London and Winchester p. 34 35. Answ To me this is not the main question let our Bishops censure those who admit to the Sacrament such as can neither say Lords-Prayer Belief Ten Commandments nor answer the questions in the Common prayer-Prayer-Book Catechism nor are either confirmed or desirous to be confirmed let also the Bishops themselves ride through their Dioceses and confirm all that are unconfirmed and suspend such from the Sacrament as either are unwilling or unmeet to be confirmed and I perswade my self the Presbyters will not be vexed that so much work is taken off
their hands As for what His Majesty is made to say pag. 36. That it suits neither with the Authority nor decency of Confirmation that every ordinary Pastor should do it and that there was as great reason that none should confirm without licence from the Bishop as none Preach without his licence I doubt the Relator hath both wronged the King and the Bishops cause The King for we can scarce conceive he should have such high thoughts of the Authority or decency of confirmation as to imagine that either was lessened by being administred by those by whom Baptism is administred And the Bishops cause also for it will not serve their turn that Presbyters should not confirm without their Licence as they do not Preach without their Licence unless it be also made appear that none can be licensed to confirm but themselves Before I pass from this I must also advert That the Relator makes the King to tax St. Jerome for asserting that a Bishop is not Divinae ordinationis and the Bishop of London to insert That if he could not prove his ordination lawful out of the Scriptures he would not be a Bishop four hours Wherein I observe the policy of the Bishop who reserved power to himself to continue a Bishop if he could prove his ordination lawful by the Scriptures he knew well enough that his Ordination might be lawful and vet a Bishop not be Divinae Ordinationis That is lawful by Scripture which no Scripture Law condemns or forbids but he that should say that every thing not prohibited is Divinae ordinationis would have much a-do to prove that he himself had any meetness to be consecrated a Bishop I suppose I can prove that it is lawful for me to wear a Beaver but when I had so proved should I not be ridiculous if I should say that a Beaver was Divinae ordinationis Besides if Dr. Reynolds had chanced to gravel the Bishop with an argument about the lawfulness of his Ordination he to keep his Bishoprick would presently have replied that he was ordained to be a Presbyter but he was only consecrated to be a Bishop and by that means he might have kept his lands and his credit too Let us now proceed with Dr. Reynolds who is made to say that the words in the 37th Article The Bishop of Rome hath no authority in this land be not sufficient unless it were added nor ought to have It is like the Doctor had observed that the Oath of Supremacy runs to that or the like effect And he had never heard it is as like that the King and his Council heartily laughed at the framers of that Oath and therefore scarce expected to be told that a Puritan was a Protestant frighted out of his wits for propounding that the Article might be as fully worded as the Oath yet it seems he had the hap to be laughed at for his honest well-meant motion so the Relator acquaints us p. 37. P. 38. The Dr. moved that this proposition The intention of the Minister is not of the essence of the Sacrament might be added unto the Book of Articles the rather because some in England had preached it to be essential Had it been told him that if he would name those men who so Preached they should be suspended till they had recalled so false and uncomfortable an opinion or that there was enough in the Articles to infer that the intention of the Minister is not essential to the Sacrament it had been sufficient but to say that His Majesty utterly disliked this motion for two reasons and to name but one of the two and to stuff up that with a story concerning Mr. Craig was to put the world under a temptation to think too meanly of their King It is unfit to thrust every position negative into the Book of Articles for that would swell the Book into a volume as big as the Bible and also confound the Reader therefore I may not insert this short position the Ministers intention is not of the essence of the Sacrament into the English Articles This is made to be the Kings argument to which whether Dr. Reynolds could reply nothing others may judge Here we might also speak of the Nine Articles of Lambeth put into the Irish Confession not long after this Conference but never put into ours though it seems the Doctor moved twice they might be put in For my part I am not sorry they are left out for some honest men may question the truth of them and not be able in faith to subscribe them and so the Church lose the benefit of their parts As for Latitudinarians they would have subscribed them in a sense of their own devising though they had thought them false in the sense of the framers and imposers of them or they would have said that by subscribing they did not declare the assent of their minds to the truth of the Articles but only their purpose not to publish their dissent to them so as to make a disturbance in the Church about them A Jesuit Papist and a Latitudinarian Protestant will stick at no subscription whatsoever As for the Dean of Paul his discourse to vindicate himself I am not concerned to contradict him in it but I think he contradicts himself if Dr. Barlow doth him no wrong p. 41 42. The motion made by the Dr. and related p. 43. concerning a Catechism produced a very considerable addition to the old Catechism which was all he aimed at in it also he succeeded in his motion that a straiter course might be taken for reformation of the general abuse and prophanation of the Sabbath day for that the Relator saith found a general and unanimous assent So that the Bishops then did not think it Judaism to call the Lords day Sabbath nor to provide for its sanctification Nor did he miscarry in his motion for a new Translation of the Bible for not long after the Conference a new one was published which hath been generally used ever since to Gods glory and the Churches edification As for his Majesties profession that he could never yet see a Bible well translated into English and that the Geneva Translation was the worst of all I believe his Majesty repented of it or else he had not given leave to Dr. Morton to defend the two places in the Geneva Notes that he took particular exception to Dr. Reynolds for conclusion of what concerned doctrine moved That unlawful and seditious books might be suppressed at least restrained and imparted to a few This a man might think would have been entertained with a general assent and consent but contrariwise the Bishop of London supposing himself to be principally aimed at answereth to what he was never accused of and saith but without any proof That the Book De Jure Magistratus in subditos was published by a great disciplinarian but named him not and the King is said to tell the Doctor that he was a better