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
B01998	Certaine papers, which passed betwixt his Majestie of Great Britaine, in the time of his being with the Scottish army in New-Castle. And Mr. Alexander Henderson concerning the change of church government. Anno Dom. 1646.	Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646.	1649 (1649)	Wing C2154; Wing C2154; ESTC R171161	26,474	64

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 Persbyter 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 ●arrallel 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Cor. 1.24 Our faith shall stand in the wisedome of man and not in the power of God 1 Cor. 2.5 and Scripture shall be of private interpretation For the Prophesie came not of old by the will of man 2 Pet. 1.20 22. Nisi homini Deus placuerit Deus non erit Homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit saith Tertullian 2. That Scripture cannot be Authentically interpreted but by Scripture is manifest from Scripture The Levites gave the sense of the Law by no other means but by Scripture it self Neh. 8.8 Our Saviour for example to us gave the true sense of Scripture against the depravations of Satan by comparing Scripture with Scripture and not by alleaging and Testimonies out of the Rabbins Mat. 4. And the Apostles in their Epistles used no other help but the diligent comparing of Propheticall writings like as the Apostle Peter will have us to compare the clearer light of the Apostles with the more obscure light of the Prophets 2 Pet. 1.19 And when we betake our selves to the Fathers we have need to take heed that with the Papists we accuse not the Scriptures of obscurity or imperfection 3. The Fathers themselves as they are cited by Protestant Writers hold this Conclusion that Scripture is not to be interpreted but by Scripture it selfe To this purpose amongst many other Testimonies they bring the saying of Tertullian Surge veritas ipsa Scripturas tuas interpretare quam Consuetudo non novit nam si noscet non esset if it knew Scripture it would be ashamed of it selfe and cease to be any more 4. The some Errors have been received and continued for a long time in the Church The Error of Free will beginning at Justin Martyr continued till the time of Reformation although it was rejected by Augustine as the Divine Right of Episcopacy was opposed by others The Error about the Vision of God That the Souls of the Saints departed see not the face of God till the Judgement of the Great Day was held by universall Consent the same may be said of the error of the Millenaryes and which more nearly toucheth upon the present Question the Ancients erred grosly about the Antichrist and Mystery of Iniquity which did begin to worke in the dayes of the Apostles Many other Instances might be brought to prove the universall practise of the Church as were not warranted by the Apostles as in the Rites of Baptisme and Prayer and the forming up and drawing together of the Articles of that Creed that is called Symbolum Apostolicum the observation of many Feasts and Fasts both Aniversary and Weekly 5. That it is not a matter so incredible or impossible as some would have it appeare to be for the Primitive Church to have made a sudden defection from the Apostolicall purity The people of Israel in the short time of Moses his absence on the Mount turned aside quickly and fell into horrible Idolatry Exod. 32. Soone after the death of Iosuah and the Elders that had seen the great works which the Lord had done for Israel there arose another Generation after them which did evill in the sight of the Lord Iudg. 2. 7. Soone after the bulding of the Temple and setling of Religion by David and Salomon the worship of God was defiled with Idolatry when Rehoboam had established the Kingdome he forsook the Law of the Lord and all Israel with him 2 Chron. 12.1 And the Apostle sayes too the Galatians Gal. 1.6 I marvell that you are so soone removed unto another Gospel why then shall we thinke it strange that in the matter of Discipline there should be a sudden defection especially it being begun in the time of the Apostles I know it is a common Opinion but I believe there be no strong reasons for it that the Church which was nearest the times of the Apostles was the most pure and perfect Church 6. That it is impossible to come to the knowledge of the universall Consent and Practice of the Primitive Church for many of the Fathers wrote nothing at all many of their writings are perished it may be that both of these have dissented from the rest many of the Writings which we have under their names are supposititius counterfeit especially about Episcopacy which was the foundation of Papall Primacy The Rule of Augustine afore mentioned doth too much favour Traditions and is not to be admitted without cautions and exceptions Many the like Considerations may be added but these may be sufficient to prove that the unanimous Consent of the Fathers and the universall practice of the Primitive Church is no sure ground of Authenticall interpretation of Scripture I remember of a grave Divine in Scotland much honoured by K. Iames of happy memory who did often professe that he did learne more of one Page of Iohn Calvin then of a whole Treatise of Augustine not can there be any good reason many there be against it why the Ancients should be so farre preferred to the Moderne Doctors of the Reformed Churches and the one in a manner Deified and the other vilified It is but a poor Reason that some give Fama miratrix sen●oris aevi and is abundantly answered by the Apologist for Divine Providence If your Majesty be still unsatisfied concerning the Rule I know not to what purpose I should proceed or trouble your Majesty any more Newcastle Iuly 2. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson Iuly 3. 1646. His MAIESTIES fourth Paper TO shew a better way for clearing of the Scripture I Shall very willingly follow the method you have begun in your third Paper but I doe not conceive that My last Paper multiplies more Controversies than My first gave occasion for having been so far from

augmenting the Heads of our Disputation that I have omitted the answering many things in both your Papers expresly to avoid raising of new and needlesse Questions desiring to have only so many debated as are simply necessary to shew whether or not I may with a safe conscience give way to the alteration of Church-Government in England and indeed I like very well to begin with the setling of the Rule by which We are to proceed and determine the present Controversie to which purpose as I conceive My third Paper shewes you an excellent way for there I offer you a Iudge between us or desire you to find out a better which to My judgement you have not yet done though you have sought to invalidate Mine For if you understand to have offered the Scripture though no Man shall pay more reverence nor submit more humbly to it than My self yet We must find some rule to judge betwixt us when you and I differ upon the interpretation of the selfe-same Text or it can never determine our Questions as for example I say you misapply that of 2 Cor. 1.24 to Me let others answer for themselves for I know not how I make other Men to have dominion over My Faith when I make them onely serve to approve 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 Peeter 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 Iudge 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 certainly 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 Iudge 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 C. R. Newcastle Iuly 3. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson A particular Answer to Mr. Alex Hendersons Paper Iuly 2. 1646. His MAIESTIES fifth Paper VNtill you shall find out a fitter way to decide our Difference in Opinion concerning Interpretation of Scripture than the Consent of the Fathers an 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 think 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 hyperbolick 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 bee 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 Catholique 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 thinke 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 thinke you for the present the best Preacher in New-Castle yet I believe you may erre and possibly a better Preacher may come but till then must retaine My Opinion C. R. Newcastle Iuly 16. 1646. THE END ERRATA PAge 16. Line 4. anothers read another Page 19. Line 2. nothing read nothing is Page 36. Line 16. I it read it Page 37. Line 18. with read from Page 38. Line 5. Preamble read probable Page 38. Line 18. your read you