Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	father_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	2,047	5	9.1715	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78958	The papers which passed at Nevv-Castle betwixt His sacred Majestie and Mr Alex: Henderson concerning the change of church-government. Anno Dom. 1646.	Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646. aut; Marshall, William, fl. 1617-1650, engraver.	1649 (1649)	Wing C2535A; ESTC R213547	25,945	67

not done for 2 Tim. 1. 6. it is evident that Saint Paul was at Timothies ordination and albeit that all the Seventy had their power immediately from Christ yet it is as evident that our Saviour made a clear distinction between the twelve Apostles and the rest of the Disciples which is set downe by three of the Evangelists whereof S. Marke calls it an Ordination Mark 3. 15. S. Luke sayes And of them he chose Twelve c. Luke 6. 13. onely S. Matthew doth but barely enumerate them by their name of distinction Mat. 10. 1. I suppose out of modesty himselfe being one and the other two being none are more particular For the administration of Baptisme giving but not granting what you say it makes more for Me than you but I will not engage upon new Questions not necessary for my purpose 7. For my Oath you doe well not to enter upon those Questions you mention and you had done as well to have omitted your instance but out of discretion I desire you to collect your Answer out of the last Section and for your Argument though the intention of my Oath be for the good of the Church collective therefore can I be dispensed withall by others than the representative Body certainly no more than the People can dispense with me for any Oaths I took in their favours without the two Houses of Parliament as for future reformations I will only tell you that incommodum non solvit Argumentum 8. For the King my Fathers opinion if it were not to spend time as I believe needlesly I could prove by living and written testimonies all and more then I have said of Him for His perswasion in these points which I now maintain and for your defensive War as I do acknowledge it a great sin for any King to oppresse the Church so I hold it absolutely unlawfull for Subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to make War though defensive against their lawfull Soveraigne against which no less proofs will make me yeild but Gods word and let Me tell you that upon such points as these instances as well as comparisons are odious 9. Lastly you mistake the Quaere in my first Paper to which this pretends to answer for my Question was not concerning force of Arguments for I never doubted the lawfulnesse of it but force of Armes to which I conceive it sayes little or nothing unlesse after My example you refer Me to the former Section that which it doth is meerly the asking of the Question after a fine discourse of the several wayes of perswading rather than forcing of conscience I close up this Paper desiring you to take notice that there is none of these Sections but I could have enlarged to many more lines some to whole pages yet I chose to be thus brief knowing you will understand more by a word than others by a long discourse trusting likewise to your ingenuity that reason epitomized will weigh as much with you as if it were at large June 22. 1646. C. R. For His Majestie Concerning the Authority of the Fathers and practice of the Church July 2. 1646. Mr. Alex Henderson's third Paper HAving in my former Papers pressed the steps of your Majesties Propositions and finding by your Majesties last Paper Controversies to be multiplyed I believe beyond your Majesties intentions in the beginning As concerning the Reforming Power The Reformation of the Church of England The difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter The warrants of Presbyterian Government The Authority of Interpreting Scripture The taking and keeping of Publique Oathes The forcing of Conscience and many other inferior and subordinate Questions which are Branches of those maine Controversies All which in a satisfactory manner to determine in few words I leave to more presuming Spirits who either see no knots of Difficulties or can find a way rather to cut them assunder than to unloose them yet will I not use any Tergiversation nor doe I decline to offer my humble Opinion with the Reasons thereof in the owne time concerning each of them which in obedience to your Majesties command I have begun to doe alalready Onely Sir by your Majesties favourable permission for the greater expedition and that the present velitations may be brought to some issue I am bold to entreat that the Method may be a little altered and I may have leave now to begin at a Principle and that which should have been inter Precognita I meane the Rule by which we are to proceed and to determine the present Controversie of Church policy without which we will be led into a labyrinth and want a thred to wind us out againe In your Majesties first Paper the universall custome of the Primitive Church is conceived to be the Rule In the second Paper Section the 5. The practise of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers is made a convincing Argument when the Interpretation of Scripture is doubtfull In your third Paper Sect. 5. the practice of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers is made Judge and I know that nothing is more ordinary in this Question then to alleage Antiquity perpetuall Succession universall Consent of the Fathers and the universall practise of the Primitive Church according to the Rule of Augustine Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec à Consilio institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolicâ traditum rectissime creditur There is in this Argument at the first view so much appearance of Reason that it may much worke upon a modest mind yet being well examined and rightly weighed it will be found to be of no great weight for beside that the minor will never be made good in the behalfe of a Diocaesan Bishop having sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction there being a multitude of Fathers who maintaine that Bishop and Presbyter are of one and the same Order I shall humbly offer some few Considerations about the major because it hath been an inlet to many dangerous Errors and hath proved a mighty hinderance and obstruction to Reformation of Religion 1. First I desire it may be considered that whiles some make two Rules for defining Controversies the word of God and antiquity which they will have to be received with equall veneration or as the Papists call them Canonicall Authority and Catholicall Tradition and others make Scripture to be the onely Rule and Antiquity the authentick Interpreter the latter of the two seemes to me to be the greater errour because the first setteth up a parallel in the same degree with Scripture but this would create a Superior in a higher degree above Scripture For the interpretation of the Fathers shall be the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and accounted the very Cause and Reason for which we conceive and believe such a place of Scripture to have such a sence and thus Men shall have Dominion over our Faith against 2

My reason nor doe I conceive how 1 Cor. 2. 5. can be applied to this purpose For there Saint Paul onely shewes the difference between Divine and Humane Eloquence making no mention of any kind of interpretation throughout the whole Chapter as indeed Saint Peter does 2 Pet. 1. 20. which I conceive makes for Me for since that no Prophesie of Scripture is of any private interpretation First I inferre that Scripture is to be Interpreted for else the Apostle would have omitted the word Private Secondly that at least the consent of many learned Divines is necessary and so à fortiore that of the Catholique Church ought to be an authentique Judge when Men differ And is it a good Argument because Mat. 4. 4. 7. 10. Scripture is best interpreted by it selfe therefore that all other interpretations are unlawfull certainfull you cannot thinke Thus having shewed you that We differ about the meaning of the Scripture and are like to do so certainly there ought to be for this as well as other things a Rule or a Judge between us to determine our differences or at least to make our Probations and Arguments Relevant therefore evading for this time to Answer your 6 Considerations not I assure you for the difficulty of them but the starting of new Questions I desire you onely to shew Me a better than what I have offered unto you Newcastle July 3. 1646. C. R. For Mr. Alex Henderson A particular Answer to Mr. Alex Hendersons July 3. 16. 1646. His MAJESTIES fifth Paper UNtill you shall finde out a fitter way to decide our Difference in Opinion concerning Interpretation of Scripture than the Consent of the Fathers and the Universall Practice of the Primitive Church I cannot but passe you My Judgment anent those 6 Considerations which you offered to invalidate those Authorities that I so much reverence 1. In the first you mention two Rules for defining of Controversies and seeke a most old way to confute them as I thinke For you alleage that there is more attributed to them then I believe you can prove by the Consent of most learned Men there being no Question but there are alwaies some flattering Fooles that can commend nothing but with hyperpolick expressions and you know that supposito quolibet sequitur quidlibet besides doe you thinke that albeit some ignorant Fellowes should attribute more power to Presbyters than is really due unto them that thereby their just reverence and authority is diminished So I see no reason why I may not safely maintaine that the Interpretation of Fathers is a most excellent strengthning to My Opinion though Others should attribute the Cause and Reason of their Faith unto it 2. As there is no Question but that Scripture is the farre best Interpreter of it selfe so I see nothing in this negatively proved to exclude any other notwithstanding your positive affirmation 3. Nor in the next for I hope you will not be the first to condemne your selfe Me and innumerable Others who yet unblamably have not tyed themselves to this Rule 4. If in this you onely intend to prove that Errors were alwaies breeding in the Church I shall not deny it yet that makes little as I conceive to your purpose but if your meaning be to accuse the Universall Practice of the Church with Error I must say it is a very bold undertaking and if you cannot justifie your selfe by cleare places in Scripture much to be blamed wherein you must not alleage that to be universally received which was not as I dare say that the Controversie about Free will was never yet decided by Oecumenicall or Generall Councell nor must you presume to call that an Error which really the Catholique Church maintained as in Rites of Baptisme Formes of Prayer Observation of Feasts Fasts c. except you can prove it so by the Word of God and it is not enough to say that such a thing was not warranted by the Apostles but you must prove by their Doctrine that such a thing was unlawfull or else the Practice of the Church is warrant enough for Me to follow and obey that Custome whatsoever it be and thinke it good and shall believe that the Apostles Creed was made by them such Reverence I beare to the Churches Tradition untill other Authors be certainly found out 5. I was taught that de posse ad esse was no good Argument and indeed to Me it is incredible that any custome of the Catholike Church was erroneous which was not contradicted by Orthodox learned Men in the times of their first Practice as is easily perceived that all those Defections were some of them may be justly called Rebellions which you mention 6. I deny it is impossible though I confesse it difficult to come to the knowledge of the Universall Consent and Practice of the Primitive Church therefore I confesse a Man ought to be carefull how to believe things of this nature wherefore I conceive this to be onely an Argument for Caution My Conclusion is that albeit I never esteemed any Authority equall to the Scriptures yet I doe think the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers and the Universall Practice of the Primitive Church to be the best and most Authenticall Interpreters of Gods word and consequently the fittest Judges between Me and you when we differ untill you shall find Me better For example I think you for the present the best Preacher in Newcastle yet I believe you may erre and possibly a better Preacher may come but till then must retaine My Opinion Newcastle July 16. 1646. C. R. THE END