news sent him That if he think meet to reply upon Dally he shall not long want a rejoinder 2. Those that have defended our English Hierarchy have not been more uncivilly dealt with by any than by learned French-men I will not now because indeed I am ashamed tell what language Danaeus gave Saravia because of his Book De diversis Ministrorum gradibus Salmasius imagining himself disparaged by a word never intended as a disparagement could not forbear calling Dr. Hammond Knave Maresius in the first question he handleth against Dr. Prideaux not so bluntly but more virulently tells us That Dr. Hammond had proceeded to such a degree of fury as that he did professedly propugne the cause of the Pope not content to spit in a single Doctors face he thus censures all our Bishops Melius suae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consuluissent Praesules Anglicani si moderatius in ea egissent illam cum reliquis Protestantibus maluissent agnoscere juris ecclesiastici quam mordicus asserere juris Divini Nam ut arcus nimia intensione frangitur sis illi nimium intendentes suam authoritatem dignitatem ea penitus exciderunt instar Cameli in fabula qui quod cornua affectasset etiam auribus multatus fuit page 68. And then page 70 speaking of some mischiefs that had befallen the Bishops he thus expresseth himself Ipsimet Praesules Angli fuissent ea declinaturi si fortunam suam magis reverenter habuissent neque ex parte collimassent ad Papismi restitutionem jure postliminii licet majorem aut saltem meliorem partem corum haec iniquitatis mysteria latuerint Quare nobis eminus hanc catastrophem spectantibus id solum dicendum restat domine justus es justa judicia tua And then page 111 speaking of our Bishops arrogating to themselves temporal jurisdiction he dreads not to let fall these Lines Haec defensio Jurisdictionis temporalis pro Ecclesiae Ministris portio aliqua est illius fermenti Papistici quo Hierarchiae Anglicanae massa paulatim se infici passa fuit dum magis ambit typhum saeculi ut loquar cum patribus Africanis quam humilitatem crucis meditatur potuissent forte Episcopi Anglicani suam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sua rura retinuisse nisi voâ—uissent penitus suum Episcopatum ad modulum Romanum componere 3. But above all let that be considered which is laid down by Peter Moulin in his Letter to the Bishop of Winchester Where to excuse himself for not making the difference betwixt Bishops and Presbyters to be of Divine appointment he pleads that if he had laid the difference on that foundation the French Churches would have silenced him Will the French Churches silence him that should assert the jus Divinum of Episcopacy and yet will Mr. Durell go about to perswade us that they do not condemn our English Hierarchy which asserts it self to be Divine and cares not for being at all if it be not such The Two Archbishops in Dr. Bastwicks Case did protest even in open Court That if they could not prove their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Function which they claimed and exercised over other Ministers and themselves as they were Bishops to be superior in power dignity and degree to other Ministers Jure Divino they would forthwith cast away their Rochets off their backs lay down their Bishopricks at his Majesties feet and not continue one hour longer Bishops If therefore Mr. D. can bring any eminent French Divines that found Episcopacy as distinct from and superior to Presbytery on any Divine Law he will do something to stop the mouths of Nonconformists but such he will never be able to bring unless he first cause the Golden Ball to run before them or fill them with that which blindeth the eyes of the wise Certain I am that Dr. Andrew Rivet in his summa Controver Second Tract 22. Quest thus states the question We dispute not whether Bishops be de facto above Presbyters but whether they be so de jure nor is the question of Humane but Divine Law We deny that Bishops by Divine Law have any pre-eminence above Presbyters This is the more considerable because it is dedicated to four great Protestant Divines Peter Moulin William Rivet John Maximilian Langle Samuel Bochart and because it is again repeated in Rivets Writings against Grotius When some Ministers were by the Assembly employed to get foreign Divines by some Letters to signifie their minds in the controversy of our Episcopacy among others the said Ministers went to this Dr. Rivet then at the Hague desiring him that he would be pleased to signifie his mind He excused himself from Writing because of his relation to but took down one of his Books in which he denied the Divine Right of Episcopacy delaring That was his judgment which he would never deny This I had from the mouth of a very Reverend person still alive who was one employed to discourse him But I have a later testimony when the Scots went to Breda to treat with their King Dr. Rivet put a Preface to Bodius his Comment on the Ephesians commending it to the World and I am sure in that the English Hierarchy is sufficiently beaten down I have said all that for the present I intend to say about the French Churches of other Reformed Churches I may speak more briefly because most of them met together in a Synod at Dort to put an end to the differences about the five points What was done in that Synod Why saith Mr. Mountague in his Appeal page 70 In it and in other Dutch Synods the Discipline of the Church of England is held unlawful At this Mr. Durell had need to bestir himself for either Mr. Mountague or he will be found to be a Liar I shall not determine who is to blame but by reading the Acts of that Synod I do find that Session 144 notice was given That it was the will of the States that the Confession of Faith of the Belgick Churches should be read and examined by the Synod the Exteri being also present The One and thirtieth Article of that Confession when it comes to speak particularly of the Ministers of the Word saith That in what place soever they be they have the same power and authority as being all the Ministers of Christ the only Vniversal Bishop and only Head of the Church These words would not down with our British Divines because directly opposite to government by Archbishops and Bishops in England Whereupon the Lord Bishop of Landaff in his own name and the name of his Brethren made open protestation That whereas in the Confession there was inserted a strange conceit of the Parity of Ministers to be instituted by Christ he declared his own and his brethrens utter dissent in that point Now hence I thus argue either the words in that Article do condemn our Government in England or they do not if they do not why did our
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-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
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
in the most dangerous occurrences boldly and openly to own the name of his Redeemer without ever being ashamed with bearing his reproach As the Barrels go rumbling up and down the Streets so my Lord Mayor owes me a Groat The King the founder of this noble Order gives the Knights created by him a Garter and a Blew Riband as Badges to be known by others but would not be pleased if they should among themselves invent other badges and cognizances of their Order Christ also hath instituted Baptism to distinguish Christians from those who are no Christians How do we know whether it will like him that we should appoint a Cross to distinguish us more especially seeing thereby we shall be distinguished from a great number of our fellow Christians Again the Garter and Blew Riband are things to be worn and that may be seen and occasion spectators to enquire what they mean but so is not the Cross that was made on our foreheads after Baptism the Pagans that any of us have been among could take no notice of it and if our Parents did at any time admonish us of our engagement to crucifie the old man they put us in mind not of being crossed but of being baptized with Water to signifie the not only death but burial of the old man nor have our Kings of England been so fond of all the Rites and Ceremonies used at making of Knights of the Garter but that they have allowed some of them to be omitted where they have conceived they might be less acceptable King James being much pleased with the valour and piety of Maurice Prince of Orange sent him a Garter appointing his Embassador Sir Ralph Winwood to confer the honour on him freely and without any Rites or Laws but what the Prince himself would spontaneously undergo And the Embassador in a French Speech declared that the Rites wonted to be used in creating Knights of the Garter did seem somewhat abhorrent from the Discipline of the Reformed Churches in Holland and not altogether congruous to the polity of the Republick and that therefore the King to avoid offence had appointed it to be conferred without pomp and external magnificence I suppose Mr. D. thinks there is no Rite used in the creation of the Knights of St. George that is contrary to the Discipline of the Dutch Churches but the King was of another mind and chose rather to confer the highest honour without the wonted Ceremonies than not to confer it upon one who was like not to disgrace it And shall Ministers of the Gospel so stifly stand upon Ceremonies as rather not to administer baptism than to administer it without the sign of the Cross I must follow Mr. D. who tells us That several reformed Churches have a Ceremony of which Presbyterians ought to have as bad an opinion as of the Cross in Baptism The Ceremony he meaneth is Trine aspersion page 42. Why ought they to have as bad an opinion of Trine Aspersion as of the Cross in Baptism is there any Law either of God or man that tieth them to have as bad an opinion of the Trine Aspersion as of the Cross or do their Principles lead them to have as bad an opinion of one Ceremony as of the other I verily believe they do not for they say that Christ hath commanded Baptism and hath not strictly determined whether it shall be administred by Aspersion or Immersion nor whether by trine or une aspersion or immersion therefore the Church hath power to chuse the Rite that to her having consulted the general rules of Scripture and practice of the Primitive Churches shall seem best But they also say that God hath no where commanded that a Child shall be crossed or any where appointed his Church to institute any symbolical teaching signs at all if Mr. D. can shew them any command that a Child should be crossed they will not stick to grant that it is in the Churches power to order where the Child shall be crossed and how often and what kind of cross it shall be But it is to be feared he can shew no such command at least none such is shewed by him and yet he saith he is confident that if the trine aspersion were used or if we had retained the trine immersion as at the beginning of King Edward the sixths reign it would be accounted a gross superstition How may a man do to free him from this uncharitable confidence so contrary to Christianity I dare undertake to give it him under the hand and seal of as many as I am acquainted with that if the Church shall think meet to use trine aspersion or trine immersion she shall not be accounted either grosly or at all superstitious provided she declare that she doth not use either rite as necessary If by trine either aspersion or immersion she should prejudice the Babes in their health that would be a sin but not the sin of superstition But how doth Mr. D. prove that the Church hath not retained trine immersion Immersion it is plain she hath enjoyned unless the Sureties certifie that the Child be weak yet never any Minister of the Church in my hearing demanded such Certificate never did any Parents bring their Child in a dress fit for dipping that ever I could observe and yet I believe that I have seen as strong Children Baptized as are in most places of England and she no where saith it shall be dipped but once as neither doth she say that it shall be sprinkled but once so that Bishop Mountague in his Visitation Articles positively asserts That the Child is to be thrice aspersed with water on the face it may be some other Prelate of that age did as positively assert that the Child was to be sprinkled but once for those who have been most zealous to press Conformity have been at Daggers drawing about the meaning of some passages in that Liturgy to which they required subscription In the Hampton Court Conference the Metropolitan told the King That the administration of Baptism by women and lay persons was not allowed in the practice of the Church but enquired of by Bishops in their visitations and censured neither do the words in the Liturgy infer any such meaning But the Bishop of London replied That those learned men who framed the Book of Common-Prayer intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any but did intend a permission of private persons to baptize in case of necessity and withal declared that the same was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church urging both a place in the Acts and the authority of Tertullian and St. Ambrose plain in that point What could a man have done that had lived in those days to know the meaning of the Church But however King James being clear in his own judgment that a Minister is of the essence of the right and lawful ministry of the Sacrament carried it so as the words thereafter did run thus
Archdeacons Which shews he understandeth not the frame and constitution of our Convocations though they be the Church-Representative that he pretends to write for The Convocation for the very Province of Canterbury besides which there is one for the Province of York consists of an Archbishop twenty-one Bishops for the Upper House the Lower House consist of Deans twenty-two Prebendaries twenty-four Arch deacons fifty-four Clerks representing the Clergy forty-four so that the very Lower House for this one Province consists of One hundred forty-four persons But how these are chosen out of many thousands they are men of rare faculties that can understand If we speak of the members of Convocation neither Bishops nor Deans nor Arch-deacons are chosen to it but come of course just as Peers do to the House of Lords As for the Prebends they are chosen only by the Chapters which I hope are not many thousands the Diocesan Clergy may be said to be chosen out of many thousands but they for the Province of Canterbury are but forty-four It may be Mr. D. meant that these Divines are chosen to their Dignities out of many thousands but that will be a grosser untruth than the other for Bishops are chosen by the Dean and Chapter of that Church to which they are sent but they have not many thousands to chuse out of there is but one nominated to be chosen and him I believe the Dean and Chapter must chuse and return his Election and the Election being returned and ratified by Royal assent the Metropolitan must either consecrate or confirm as occasion requireth That which the Puritans were wont to complain of was the inequality of the Representative they say for example If all who are chosen by the Diocesan Clergy for the whole Province of Canterbury should desire a Reformation yet they could not carry it because the Arch-deacons who are the Bishops creatures as being chosen solely by them are ten in number more than they and they also were wont to say That the Bishops would take on them to nominate the two Clerks for the Diocess and if it be so they said it was in effect all one as if the Convocation had consisted only of Bishops This notwithstanding Dr. Taylor in his Episcopacy asserted seems to envy the Presbyters so much as sitting in Councils 'T is evident saith he Episc assert p. 283. that the Laws of Provinces and of the Catholick Church were made by Conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision the instances of this are just as many as there are Councils The parishes of both Provinces in England are above nine thousand two hundred the pastors of these parishes send about Fifty-two to represent them and in the very House where they sit there are above twice as many in whose election they were no way concerned that have equal votes with them and besides there is an Upper House of Bishops Mr. Durell would exceed Plutarch himself if he could find in any Reformed Church a parallel Let him try how such a Synod as this will hit with that which the Theses of Saumur say concerning Councils But I have almost forgotten my self Let Mr. D. go on to wipe off false aspersions cast on our Bishops P. 86. Men beyond the seas are told that every one of our Bishops is a Pope nay more than a Pope in his Diocess prescribing and imposing of himself what he pleaseth to his Clergy whereas every Bishops authority is limited by his subscription to the 39 articles c. by the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical and by the Laws of the Land according to the prescript whereof he is to rule his diccess and no otherwise calling always to joyn with him in imposition of hands and other matters of weighty concernment some of the Prebends of his Cathedral or other grave Ministers of the Diocess Certainly this Preacher knows not what a Pope is if he think that what these calumniators report of the Bishops makes them worse than Popes But let them deserve to keep the Whetstone for their tale Mr. D. will have it from them again for nothing is more false than that by any Constitutions or Laws Bishops are bound to call unto them either Prebends or grave Ministers to joyn with them in imposition of hands and in all other weighty matters The Bishops lay on hands in confirmation of children who is to joyn with him in that Imposition They lay on hands when they ordain Deacons are they to call any to joyn with them in that imposition of hands Ay but they cannot ordain a Presbyter regularly unless some Presbyters joyn with them in laying on of hands Really they cannot but now the question is What the hands of the Presbyters signifie And truly if we ask those that stickle for Hierarchy they will say they signifie just nothing or next to nothing this conjunction of Presbyters is not ad essentiam operis but ad dignitatem sacerdotii The Presbyters hands confer nothing of the power of Order upon the party ordained but only testifie their consent unto the business and approbation of the man So Dr. Heylin History of Episcopacy p. 162. and to the same purpose Dr. Taylor in Episcopacy asserted Is not the Presbytery fairly advanced it may do what the Laity did or at least may do testifie consent and approbation of the man Again the suspension of a Minister is a weighty thing who is appointed to joyn with the Bishop in this Excommunication also is a weighty thing Who must joyn with the Bishop in that Finally Mr. D. would oblige me greatly if he would fully satisfie me what Canons and Constitutions the Bishops are to govern their Clergy by I hope no Canons are in force but those of 1603. which I am sure are more than be well observed but there were Legatine Canons in number Seventy-seven made by Otho and Othobone and Provincial Canons made under Stephen Langthon and Henry Chichly Archbishops of Canterbury digested into a body by William Lindwood as the former were by John Mon Canon of Lincoln and some say that so much of all these Canons as is not contrary to the Laws and Customs of the Land is still in force if so as so it may be for ought I know then I am sure a great many of the Clergy know not how they are to be governed but if any should know all Canons and Constitutions and understand that the Bishop prescribes things contrary to all Law and Canons what then Why then there lyes an Appeal or a Prohibition may be obtained to the cost of neither of which a poor Countrey-Vicar can easily raise his purse P. 87. Mr. D. is at his old trade of over-reaching for he describeth Monsieur Goyon to be a man as well versed in antiquity as is possible Yet neither he nor I can tell the bounds of possibility in the skill of antiquity and perhaps both of us can tell of some
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