Notes and Queries | Page 8

Robinson.
The argument was concerning the validity of the ordination of our
priests, &c., in the Church of England. The issue was, our Doctor had
the better so far, that he could never get from the Prior any reply to his
last answer. This conference was undertaken to fix a person of honour
then wavering about that point; the sum of which conference (as I am
informed), was written by Dr. Cosin to Dr. Morley, the now Right
Reverend Lord Bishop of Winchester, in two letters bearing date June
11, July 11, 1645."
The substance of this conference has been preserved among the Smith
Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library; but it is not in the form of letters

to Dr. Morley. Vol. xl. of this valuable collection of manuscripts
contains (as described in Smith's table of contents):--
1. "Papers of Bp. Cosins in defence of the Ordination of the Church of
England against father Prior.
"The first of these is Bp. Cosin's Review of the Father's Letter, &c. [the
title-page is placed at p. 77.]
"Then follows a letter (which is indeed the Bishop's first paper, and
should be put first) from Bishop Cosin to the Father.
"After that the Father's Answer to Bishop Cosin's Review at p. 81.
"Then come two other papers about the validity of our Ordination, with
a preface concerning the occasion, p. 89."
2. "Then, p. 101., A Letter from a _Rom. Cath._ to a Lady about
communicating in one kind,--with Bishop Cosin's Answer."
3. "Lastly, in p. 123., is A Letter of Bp. Cosin's to Dr. Collins
concerning the Sabbath."
The order in which the papers under the first head, about our English
ordination, should fall, appears to be as follows:--
1. There is a note attached to p. 65., evidently written by Dr. Tho.
Smith himself in the following words:
"Transcript of several papers of Bishop Cosin's sent to me by Dr. J.
Smith, Prebendary of Durham.--T.S."
2. At p. 77. the title-page is given thus:
"A Review of a Letter sent from F.P.R. to a Lady (whom he would
have persuaded to the Rom. party) in Opposition to a former paper
given him for the defence of the Church of England in the Ordination
of Priests."

To this are appended the respective forms of ordering priests used in
the Church of England and in the Roman Church.
3. Then, at p. 89., we have the "occasion of this ... Discourse
concerning the Ordination of Priests," &c. This is a kind of preface,
which contains the first paper that was given to the Prior, dated June 14,
1645; also another paper, bearing date July 11, 1645, but ending
abruptly in the middle of a sentence, and having written below it
(probably in Dr. J. Smith's hand) the following note:
"The rest of this is not yet found, and that which is written thus far is
not in the Bishop's own hand, but the copy is very fair."
However, this second paper (ending thus abruptly) appears to be no
more than the first draft of a long letter from Cosin to the Prior, which
commences at p. 65. of this MS., and which is dated "from the Court of
S. Germains, July 11, 1645;" for not only does this letter bear the same
date as the before-mentioned fragment, but it begins by complaining of
the tone of expression in a letter evidently received from the Prior after
the draft had been prepared, but before it was sent off; and it concludes
with the following note appended as a postscript:
"Sir,
"The enclosed (most of it) was prepared for you a fortnight since; but
now (upon the occasion given by your letter) you have it with some
advantage from
"Your servt., J.C.
"I desire the fav"
"S. Germ. July 12."
4. The most important part of this MS., however, is contained in the
long letter or treatise {296} placed first in the volume, and bearing for
its title, "A View of F.P.'s Answer to the First Paper."

This is dated from S. Germains, July 25, 1645 and would appear to be
Cosin's last letter. But, if it be really so, Basire must, I think, be in error,
when he says, "Our Doctor ... could never get from the Prior any reply
to his last answer." For at p. 81. of the MS. there is a reply to the above
"Review of a Letter sent by F.R. to a Lady," &c. which, though copied
without either date or signature, was evidently written by the Prior,
whilst it professes to be a reply to a treatise closely answering to
Cosin's letter of July 25, but which letter the writer did not receive (as
he states) before the 26th of September.
I wish yet further to take notice, that Dr. Tho.