Ames his reply to Dr. Morton but he was the Dr. Burges that oversaw that Book in the Press and adorned its Margin to make the reading more pleasant and delightful and he was that Dr. Burges who did write for Baptismal Regeneration a Doctrine distastful to the Presbyterians He took the Covenant indeed but not as I have heard till he was like to be turned out of the Assembly for not taking it It is true that once he made a Speech against the continuance of Deans and Chapters but in that Speech he declared the utter unlawfulness of converting their Lands to any private mans use it seems that he himself afterwards purchased something belonging to the Dean of VVells intending to settle it on his Children how he could satisfie his Conscience so to do I know not perhaps when he saw that that part of the House of Commons which favoured Presbytery was secluded and that Deans and Chapters Lands designed to mend poor Livings must be sold for other uses he resolved to do as Luther saith a Dog which he knew at Erford did when he could defend his Masters dish of meat from other Dogs no longer viz. got as good a share of the prey as he could He hath given his accounts to his Master I am not to judge anothers Servant and therefore I should tremble to write that which Mr. D. hath written viz. That a loathsom sore which brought him to his Grave was sent to punish him for his Sacriledg neither dare I say for all the world that the Disease that befell Bishop Gauden and of which he died besel him for his fierceness against the Bresbyterians and yet it was the very disease unto which he had compared the Presbyterians Sermons and it befell him not long after he had made that odious comparison England hath suffered much by mens undertaking to fetch their Divinity out of the Providences of God which are always righteous but sometimes hidden A greater noise is made in some Books on the account of the Assemblies Annotations in the which or in the first Edition of which it is said Nothing is to be found against Sacriledg and it is easily acknowledged that in the Assemblies Annotations nothing is to be found against Sacriledg for the Assemblies Annotations are not to be found But as for the English Notes made by sundry Divines who were all of them before the Wars Conformists and commonly miscalled the Assemblies Annotations and for the Assembly it self hear an ingenuous but cordial and through-paced Son of the Church in a Discourse entituled church-Church-Lands not to be sold printed Anno 1648. he quotes with approbation the Note on Rom. 2.22 p. 14. having spoken p. 27. of honest Mr. Geree who avers That to abolish Prelacy and to seize the Lands of the Prelates to any private or civil interest undoubtedly could not want stain nor guilt he adds I am confident by the discourse I have had with the most able of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster that at the least three parts if not all of them are of the same judgment and that they would openly profess as much if they were put to answer the question The same Author quotes with approbation the Note on Gen. 47. and on Mal. 3.8 9. I will not go off from this subject of Sacriledg till I have also observed That some considerable for Learning and of no small authority have not feared to say That Impropriations are sacrilegious I have not much studied the point and therefore interpose not my own judgment but it looks very ugly to take away so much of the tythes and profits of any parish as not to leave a competence for him who hath the cure of souls in that parish yet it hath been observed that no Parishes have so sorry and pitiful an allowance for the Preaching minister as those of which Clergy men are the Impropriators if the Kings Letter since his return hath so kindly operated upon our Cathedralists as to make them more bountiful to the Incumbents it is well but if it have not Mr. D. may do well to consider whether he and his brethren be without fault before he throw stones at the head of others else he may chance to have such an answer as the Bishop of Scotland who having objected Sacriledg to the Presbytery of that Nation is told by Mr. Baily in his Historical Vindication p. 26 27. That the Bishops when they professed their greatest zeal to recover all the Church out of the hand of the Laity were found to be but too ready to dilapidate unto Noblemen and others too much of the Churches Patrimony you your self may remember what bargain you made as I think with the Earl of Seaforth which you know was the first occasion of diminishing your reputation with your great Patron Land of Canterbury I am sure your Colleague Spotswood did sell the whole Abbacy of Kilwinning to the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Guningham to the great prejudice and grief of the University of Glasgow and the Ministers of the bounds who had great interest therein At the Parliament of Lithgow 1606 our good Bishops for their own base ends did consent in the name of the Church though they never consulted her in that business to the greatest dilapidation that ever was heard of in Scotland the Impropriation to Noblemen and Gentlemen of no fewer than sixteen Abbacies every one whereof had incorporate the Rents of a number of Parish-Churches A second impertinence relates to Confirmation which Mr. D. p. 43. saith he finds used in almost all Reformed Churches in some with greater in some with lesser solemnity To what purpose doth he tell us this Would he have the world believe that the Presbyterians are against Confirmation or that they do not earnestly desire it Have not Mr. Hanmer and Mr. Baxter written books to shew the usefulness and necessity of it Do not some of them ground it on Heb. 6.2 and draw thence an argument for Infant-baptism Mr. Tombs knows they do and so do many others of the Antipaedobaptists For my part I bless God that hath put it into the hearts of the Convocation to insert into this last Edition of the Liturgy a question to be propounded to those who are confirmed let conscience be made never to confirm any but those who are well instructed in the Church Catechism and are well reported of for their conversation and I shall think then that nothing is to be blamed in our order for admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper But if men will pretend a great reverence to Confirmation and yet suffer the far greatest part of the Nation to communicate unconfirmed and if Bishops will confirm persons grosly ignorant and scandalous in the highest degree and never require Certificates from the Ministers of those Parishes to which they belong God forbid that I should justifie them The only question considerable about Confirmation betwixt those called Presbyterians and their adversaries is
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
next to white their locks were powdered with white powder their white Half-shirts were very visible to the great offence of some serious persons both in Countrey and University But let not Mr. D. rejoice because some Nonconformists did thus habit themselves for these Nonconformists were not Presbyterians but either inclined to ways of separation or else such as had newâ—y laid by their Canonical dress and were resolved no longer to be called black-coats Here therefore let me beseech all who would not be deceived in reading our Histories concerning the disorderly carriages of Ministers in the late times well to consider who they were that were so disorderly and if they find that any of them were of the old Nonconforming Presbyterians I am much mistaken if they find none were such how unreasonable is it to charge on Presbyterians the faults of such as returned to Conformity so soon as His Majesty required them and left not off to conform till they could not keep their Conformity and Livings too Too too long I have been in detecting falshoods had it not been necessary to try whether I could put Mr. D. to some shame I am now to shew you as briefly as I can in how many things he hath wronged his Munificent and Bountiful Mother of England P. 10. He takes pains to tell us of an Oath of Canonical obedience sworn by Ministers in Hungary to the Bishop and to the Seniors in the Oath he that swears acknowledgeth himself to receive his Ministry from both Bishop and Seniors These Seniors are but a more eminent sort of Presbyters as his quotation p. 11. intimates What is this but to bring in Hungary's witness against the sole power of Order and Jurisdiction of the English Bishops P. 12 13. He relates a tedious story of the fratres Bohemi and the care that they took to preserve a succession of Ministers They sent Michael Zambergius and two more to the poor Waldenses who never had a Bishop among them but in title only and two titular Bishops with some that had not so much as the title of Bishops made Zambergius and his two Collegues Bishops giving them power of Ordination This is manifestly to put a weapon into the Presbyterians hands they were wont only to quote the story of Pelagius the Pope being ordained by a Presbyter with two Bishops now Mr. D. hath afforded them another Story to prove that a Presbyter may lay hands on and ordain Bishops Is this his kindness to the Prelates Another prejudice and mischief he designes to the Church is as he tells us Page 14. To set forth a Collection of the several Liturgies of all the Protestant Churches This may please him because it is the brat of his own brain but will not sure please the Reverend Fathers of the Church Doth he not know that Archbishop Laud did put a stop to the Letters Patents for a Collection for the Palatinate because it was said in them that the Palatinate Religion and ours was the same and that Popery was an Antichristian yoke Doth he not also know that when a Book was Published here in England intituled a Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Palsgraves Churches Archbishop Laud took a course to call it in I advise him if he love his preferments no more to meddle in this kind Had Dr. Peter du Moulin any thing bestowed on him since he answered Philanax Anglicus P. 45. He quotes Calvin saying that the custom of distributing the Sacrament but thrice a year is vitious and yet that is the custom of our Church and that not observed in all places neither for the generality communicate but once a year and so follow if Mr. D. be in the right the Devils invention P. 53. He saith by just and evident consequence that there is not a wise understanding Christian in our Church for these are his words That every national Church ought to have Vniformity within it self hath always been the judgment of all sober Christians I assume That every national Church should have Vniformity within it self hath not been the judgment of the Church of England I tremble for Mr. D's sake to infer the conclusion The Minor I prove from the Canons of 1640. where a difformity is allowed and the Apostolical rule commended to dissenters not to judge not to despise Follow him but to P. 93 and there you shall have him charging Rebellion and Schisme on the major part of his Conforming brethren For there he tells us of a great persecution against all Ministers who adhered to the King and Church of England during the late troubles this persecution was so gentle to some as only to plunder and turn them out of their livings but cast others out of the Land or forced them to a voluntary exile Thus therefore I argue All Ministers that adhered to the King and Church were either turned out of their livings or banished or left the Land The major part of the Conforming Ministers did neither lose their livings nor were banished nor went into voluntary exile Theâ—â—â—â—re the major part of the Conforming Ministers neither adhered to King nor Church and by just consequence were Traitors and Schismaticks The Minor is as clear as the Sun to all that observed the management of things in England he that Licensed Mr. D's Book had the same Fellowship in All Soules at his Majesties return that he had at the decollation of his Father P. 95. He tells us that he and some others were admitted to livings in France the Synod desiring them only to conform to their Rites Ceremonies and Orders for the time they should live amongst them for a Nonconformist Minister is a thing unknown and never suffered in those Churches This is nonsense to an English ear for the Church may be full of Nonconformists if men are admitted into livings being desired only and not enjoyned to conform to Rites and Ceremonies and Orders But he told us P. 54. All admitted to livings must subscribe to the confession of faith wherefore we may think he subscribed to the parity of Ministers and by an order passed at Charenton all are to swear they will propugne the Canons of the Synod of Dort if that order be not rescinded then 't is like he is under Oath to defend a Doctrine which most of the Fathers of this Church think if not against our own Doctrine yet subversive of the Doctrine according to Godliness P. 96. He saith that it is a principle common to all reformed Churches in the World That every national Church hath power to make Laws for her self in all such outward things as are not either expresly commanded or forbidden in the word of God God forbid that any such principle should be maintained by all or by any Reformed Church in the whole world There are many outward as well as inward things not commanded nor forbidden expresly but only by just and necessary consequence about which the Church hath no power to make
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
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