Davenant he is none of those to whom I have appealed or will submit unto but for the exception you take to Fathers I take it to be a begging of the Question as likewise those great discoveries of secrets not knowne to former Ages I shall call new invented fancies untill particularly you shall prove the contrary and for your Roman Authors it is no great wonder for them to seek shifts whereby to maintain Novelties as well as the Puritans As for Church-ambition it doth not at all terminate in seeking to be Pope for I take it to be no point of humility to endeavour to be independent of Kings it being possible that Papacy in a multitude may be as dangerous as in one 6. As I am no Iudge over the Reformed Churches so neither doe I censure them for many things may be avowable upon necessity which otherwaies are unlawfull but know once for all that I esteeme nothing the better because it is done by such a particular Church though it were by the Church of England which I avow most to reverence but I esteem that Church most which comes nearest to the purity of the primitive Doctrine and Discipline as I believe this doth Now concerning Ordination I bad you prove that Presbyters with out a Bishop might lawfully ordaine which yet I conceive you have 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 down by three of the Evangelists whereof Saint Marke calls it an ordination Mark ◠15 and S. Luke sayes And of them he chose Twelve c. Luke 6.13 onely S. Matthew doth but barely enumerate them by their names 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 Baptism giving but not granting what you say it makes more for me then 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 yur 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 dispence with Me for any Oaths I took in their favours without the two Houses of Parliament as for future reformations I will onely 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 maintaine and for your defensive Warre as I doe acknowledge it a great sinne for any King to oppresse the Church so I hold it absolutely unlawful for Subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to make Warre though defensive against their lawfull Soveraigne against which no lesse proofs will make Me yeild but Gods words 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 saies 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 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 along discourse trusting likewise to your ingenuity that reason epitomized will weigh as much with you as if it were at large C. R. Iune 22. 1646. For His Majestie Concerning the Authority of the Fathers and practise of the Church Iuly 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 multiplied 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 Puplique 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 wil I not use any Tergiversation nor doe I decline to offer my humble Opinion with the Reasons thereof in there owne time concerning each of them which in obedience to your Majesties command I have begun to doe already 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 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 known 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 besides that the
that they have distinctly and particularly exprest the office gifts and duties of the meanest Officers such as Deacons 3. That in the Ministery of the New Testament there is a comely beautifull divine order and subordination one kind of Ministers both ordinary extraordinary being placed in degree and dignity one before another as the Apostles first the Evangelists Pastors Doctors c. in their owne ranks but we cannot find in Offices of the same kind that one hath majority of power or priority of degree before another no Apostle above other Apostles unlesse in morall respects no Evangelist above other Evangelists of Deacon above other Deacons why then a Pastor above other Pastors In all other sorts of Ministers ordinary and extraodinary a parity in their owne kind onely in the office of Pastor an inequality 4. That the whole power and all the parts of the Ministry which are commonly called the power of order and jurisdiction are by the Apostles declared to be common to the Presbyter and Bishop And that Mat. 15.16 17. the gradation in matter of Discipline or Church-censures is from one to two or more and if he shall neglect them tell it to the Church he saith not tell it to the Bishop there is no place left to a retrogradation from more to one were he never so eminent If these considerations doe not satisfie your Majesty may have more or the same further cleared 5. Secondly I do humbly desire Your Majesty to take notice of the fallacy of that Argumēt from the practice of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers It is the Argument of the Papists for such traditions as no Orthodox Divine will admit The Law and Testimony must be the Rule We can have no certaine knowledge of the universall practice of the Church for many yeares Eusebius the prime Historian confesseth so much The learned Iosephus Scaliger testifieth that from the end of the Acts of the Apostles untill a good time after no certainty can be had from Ecclesiasticall Authors about Church matters It is true Diotrephes sought the preheminence in the Apostles times and the mystery of iniquity did then begin to work and no doubt in after-times some puffed up with Ambition and others overtaken with weaknesse endeavoured alteration of Church Government but that all the learned and godly of those times consented to such a change as is talked of afterwards will never be proved 6. Thirdly I will never think that Your Majesty will deny the lawfulnesse of a Ministery the due administration of the Sacraments in the Reformed Churches which have no Diocesian Bishops sith it is not onely manifest by Scripture but a great many of the strongest Champions for Episcopacy doe confesse that Presbyters may ordaine other Presbyters that Baptisme administred by a private person wanting a publick Calling or by a Midwife or by a Presbyter although not ordained by a Bishop are one and the same thing 7. Concerning the other Argument taken from Your Majesties Coronation Oath I confesse that both in the taking and keeping of an Oath so sacred a thing is it and so high a point of Religion much tendernesse is required and farre be it from us who desire to observe our owne Solemne Oath to presse Your Majesty with the violation of Yours Yet Sir I will crave your leave in all humblenesse and sincerity to lay before Your Majesties eyes this one thing which perhaps might require a larger dicourse that although no humane authority can dispense with an Oath Quia Religio juramenti pertinet ad forum Divinum yet in some cases it cannot be denied but the obligation of an Oath ceaseth As when we swear homage and obedience to our Lord and Superiour who afterwards ceaseth to be our Lord and Superiour for then the formall cause of the Oath is taken away and therefore the obligation Sublata causa tollitur effectus sublato relato tollitur Correlatum Or when any Oath hath a speciall reference to the benefit of those to whom I make the promise if we have their desire or consent the obligation ceaseth because all such Oaths from the nature of the thing doe include a condition When the Parliaments of both Kingdomes have covenanted for the abolishing or altering of a Law Your Majesties Oath doth not binde You or Your Conscience to the observing of it otherwise no Lawes could be altered by the Legislative Power This I conceive hath been the ground of removing Episcopall Governement in Scotland and of removing the Bishops out of the Parliament of England And I assure my selfe that Your Majesty did not intend at the taking of Your Oath that although both Houses of Parliament should find an alteration necessary although which God Almighty avert You should loose Your Selfe your Posterity and Crown that You would never consent to the abolishing of such a Law If Your Majesty still object that the matter of the Oath is necessary and immutable that doth not belong to this but to the former Argument 8. I have but one word more concerning Your Piety to Your Royall Father and teacher of happy Memory with which Your Majesty does conclude Your Majesty knowes that King Iames never admitted Episcopacy upon Divine Right That His Majesty did sweare and subscribe to the Doctrine Worship and Discipline of the Church of Scotland that in the Preface of the latter Edition of Basilicon Doron His Majesty gives an honourable testimony to those that loved better the simplicity of the Gospel than the pomp and Ceremonies of the Church of England and that he conceived the Prelats to savour of the Popish Hierarchy and that could his Ghost now speake to your Majesty He would not advise your Majesty to run such hazards for those men who will chuse rather to pull downe your Throne with their own ruine than that they perish alone The Lord give your Majesty a wise and discerning Spirit to chuse that in time which is right Iuny 3. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson A Reply to his Answer to My first Paper Iune 6. 1646. His MAJESTIES second Paper Mr. Henderson IF it had been the Honour of the Cause which I looked after I would not have undertaken to put Pen to Paper or singly to have maintained this Argument against you whose Answer to my former Paper is sufficient without other proofs to justifie My opinion of your abilities but it being meerly as you know for my particular satisfaction I assure you that a Disputation of well chosen Divines would be most effectuall and I believe you cannot but grant that I must best know how My selfe may be best satisfied for certainly My Taste cannot be guided by anothers Mans Palate and indeed I will say that when it comes as it must to Probations I must have either Persons or Bookes to cleare the Allegations or it will be impossible to give Me satisfaction The fore-seeing of which made Me at first for the saving of Time
other the like which have moved some to apply this saying to the Church of England Multi ad perfectionem pervenirent nisijam se pervenisse crederent 4. In my Answer to the first of your Majesties many Arguments I brought a Breviate of some Reasons to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same in Scripture from which by necessary consequence I did inferre the negative Therefore no difference in Scripture between a Bishop and a Presbyter the one name signifying Industriam Curae Pastoralis the other Sapientiae Maturitatem saith Beda And whereas your Majesty averres that Presbyterian Government was never practised before Calvin's time your Majesty knowes the common objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches where was your Church your Reformation your Doctrine before Luther's time One part of the common Answer is that it was from the beginning and is to be found in Scripture The same I affirme of Presbyterian-Government And for proving of this the Assembly of Divines at Westminster have made manifest that the Primitive Christian Church at Ierusalem was governed by a Presbytery while they shew 1. That the Church of Ierusalem consisted of more Congregations then one from the multitude of Believers from the many Apostles and other Preachers in that Church and from the diversity of Languages among the Believers 2. That all those Congregations were under one Presbyteriall Government because they were for Government one Church Acts 11.22 26. And because that Church was governed by Elders Acts 11.30 which were Elders of that Church did meet together for Acts of Government And the Apostles themselves in that meeting Acts 15. acted not as Apostles but as Elders stating the Question debating it in the ordinary way of disputation and having by search of Scripture found the will of God they conclude It seemed good too the Holy Ghost and us which in the judgement of the learned may be spoken by any Assembly upon like evidence of Scripture The like Presbyterian Government had place in the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. in the times of the Apostles and after them for many yeares when one of the Presbytery was made Episcopus Praeses even then Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur saith Ierome Episcopos magis consuetudine quam Dispositionis Divinae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in Commune debere Ecclesiam regere 5. Farre be it from me to think such a thought as that your Majesty did intend any Fallacy in your other maine Argument from Antiquity As we are to distinguish between Intentio Operantis Conditio Operis so may we in this case consider the difference between Intentio Argumentantis Conditio Argumenti And where your Majesty argues that if your Opinion be not admitted we will be forced to give place to the Interpretation of private Spirits which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle Peter and will prove to be of dangerous consequence I humbly offer to be considered by Your Majesty what some of chief note among the Papists themselves have taught us That the Interpretation of Scriptures and the Spirits whence they proceed may be called private in a threefold sense 1. Ratione Personae if the Interpreter be of a private condition 2. Ratione Modi Medii when Persons although not private use not the publique meanes which are necessary for finding out the Truth but follow their owne fancies 3. Ratione finis when the Interpretation is not proposed as Authenticall to bind others but is intended onely for our owne private satisfaction The first is not to be despised the second is to be exploded and is condemned by the Apostle Peter the third ought not to be censured But that Interpretation which is Authenticall and of supreme Authority which every mans conscience is bound to yeild unto is of an higher nature And although the Generall Councell should resolve it the Consent of the Fathers should be had unto it yet there must alwaies be place left to the judgment of Discretion as Davenant late Bishop of Salisbury beside divers others hath learnedly made appeare in his Book De Iudice Controversiarum where also the Power of Kings in matter of Religion is solidly and unpartially determined Two words onely I adde one is that notwithstanding all that is pretended from Antiquity a Bishop having sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction will never be found in Prime Antiquity The other is that many of the Fathers did unwittingly bring forth that Antichrist which was conceived in the times of the Apostles therefore are incompetent Judges in the Question of Hierarchy And upon the other part the Lights of the Christian Church at and since the beginning of the Reformation have discovered many secrets concerning the Antichrist and his Hierarchy which were not knowne to former Ages And diverse of the learned in the Roman Church have not feared to pronounce That whosoever denies the true literall sense of many Texts of Scripture to have been found out in this last Age is unthankfull to God who hath so plentifully powred forth his Spirit upon the Children of this Generation ungratefull towards those men who with so great paines so happy successe so much benefit to Gods Church have travailed therein This might be instanced in many places of Scripture I joyne together Diotrephes and the Mystery of Iniquity the one as an old example of Church-ambition which was also too palpable in the Apostles themselves And the other as a cover of Ambition afterwards discovered which two brought forth the great Mystery of the Papacy at last 6. Although your Maj sty be not made a Judge of the Reformed Churches yet you so farre censure them and their actions as without Bishops in your judgment they cannot have a lawfull Ministery nor a due Administration of the Sacraments Against which dangerous destructive Opinion I did alledge what I supposed your Majesty would not have denied 1. That Presbyters without a Bishop may Ordaine other Presbyters 2. That Bapatisme administred by such a Presbyter is another thing than Baptisme administred by a private Person or by a Midwife Of the first your Majesty calls for proofe I told you before that in Scripture it is manifest 1. Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the Gift that is in Thee which was given Thee by the Prophesie with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery so it is in the English Translation And the word Presbytery so often as it is used in the New Testament alwaies signifies the Persons and not the Office And although the Offices of Bishop and Presbyter were distinct yet doth not the Presbyter derive his power of Order from the Bishop The Evangelists were inferior to the Apostles yet had they their power not from the Apostles but from Christ The same I affirme of the 70. Disciples who had their power immediately from Christ no lesse then the Apostles had theirs It may upon
better reason be averred that the Bishops have their power from the Pope than that Presbyters have their power from the Prelats It is true Ierome saith Quid facit exceptâ ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter but in the same place he proves from Scripture that Episcopus Presbyter are one and the same and therefore when he appropriates Ordination to the Bishop he speaketh of the degenerated custome of his time 2. Concerning Baptisme a private Persō may performe the externall Action Rites both of it and of the Eucharist yet is neither of the two a Sacrament or hath any efficacy unlesse it be done by him that is lawfully called there unto or by a Person made publique clothed with Authority by Ordination This Errour in the matter of Baptisme is begot by another Errour of the Absolute Necessity of Baptisme 7. To that which hath been said concerning your Majesties Oath I shall adde nothing not being willing to enter upon the Question of the subordination of the Church to the Civill power whether to King or Parliament or both or to either of them in their owne place Such an Headship as the Kings of England have claimed and such a supremacy as the Houses of Parliament crave with Appeales from the supreme Ecclesiasticall Iudicature to them as set over the Church in the same line of Subordination I doe utterly disclaime upon such Reasons as give my selfe satisfaction although no man shall be more willing to submit to Civill Powers each one in their owne place and more unwilling to make any trouble then my selfe Onely concerning the application of the Generalls of an Oath to the particular case now in hand under favour I conceive not how the Clergy of the Church of England is or ought to be principally intended in your Oath For although they were esteemed to be the Representative Church yet even that is for the benefit of the Church Collective Salus Populi being Suprema Lex and to be principally intended Your Majesty knowes it was so in the Church of Scotland where the like alteration was made And if nothing of this kind can be done with the consent of the Clergy what Reformation can be expected in France or Spaine or Rome it selfe It is not to be expected that the Pope or Prelate will consent to their owne ruine 8. I will not presume upon any secret knowledge of the Opinions held by the King your Majesties Father of famous Memory they being much better knowne to your Majesty I did onely produce what was profest by him before the world And although Prayers and Teares be the Armes of the Church yet it is neither acceptable to God nor conducible for Kings Princes to force the Church to put on these Armes Nor could I ever heare a reason why a necessary Defensive Warre against unjust Violence is unlawfull although it be joyned with offence and invasion which is intended for Defence but so that Armes are layed downe when the Offensive War ceaseth by which it doth appeare that the War on the other side was in the nature thereof Defensive 9. Concerning the forcing of Conscience which I pretermitted in my other Paper I am forced now but without forcing of Conscience to speake of Our Conscience may be said to be forced either by our selves or by others By our selves 1. when we stop the eare of our Conscience and will not hearken or give place to information resolving obstinately Nesi persuaseris persuadebis which is no lesse then a resisting of the Holy Ghost the hardning of our hearts 2. Or when we stop the mouth and suppresse the clamours of our Conscience resolving rather to suffer the worme to gnaw the fire to burne inwardly them to make profession of that we are convinced to be Truth 3. Or when we seare our Conscience as with an hot Iron that it becometh senslesse which is the punishment of the former unto which is opposed the truly Tender Conscience such as Iosiah had 2 Kings 22.19 Againe 1. Our Conscience is said to be forced by others when they obtrude upon us what is in it selfe evill and unlawfull which if we admit against our owne Conscience we sinne two waies one is by doing that which is in it selfe evill and unlawfull the other is by doing it against a dictate of Conscience which is a contempt of God whose Vicegerent it is 2 Or when others urge us to doe that which is in it selfe good or may lawfully be done but through errour of Conscience we judge it to be evill and unlawfull in this case if we doe not that which is prest upon us we sinne because the thing is good and lawfull And if we doe it we sinne because we doe against our Conscience Which in this case bindeth but obligeth not And yet there is a way to escape out of this labyrinth it being repugnant to the equity of the will of God to lay a Necessity of sinning upon any man The onely way is to lay aside such a Conscience it being a part of the Old man Which we are commanded to put off otherwise we being sufficiently informed and yet cleaving to our old errour we rather doe violence to our Conscience our selves then suffer violence from others The Application for Answering the Quaere I leave to your Majesty Newcastle June 17. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson In Reply to his second Paper Iune 22. 1646. His MAIESTIES third Paper 1. I It were arrogance besides losse of time in Me to vie preambles with you For it is the truth I seek and neither praise nor victory wherefore I shall only insist upon those things which are meerly necessary to my owne satisfaction in order to which I desired the assistance of some Divines whereupon I will insist no further save onely to wish that you may not as I have knowne many Men doe loose time by being mistaken in the way to save it wherein I have onely sought to disburden My selfe but to lay no blame upon you and so I leave it 2. Nor will I say more of the second then this that I am glad you have so well approved of what I have said concerning My Education and Reason but then remember that another Mans will is at least as weake a ground to build My Faith upon as My former Education 3. In this there are two points First concerning the Reforming power then anent the English Reformation For the first I confesse you now speake clearly which before you did but darkly mention wherein I shall mainly differ with you untill you shall shew Me better reasons yet thus farre I will goe along with you that when a Generall Councell cannot be had severall Kingdomes may reforme themselves which is learnedly and fully proved by the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in his disputation against Fisher but that the inferior Magistrates or People take it which way you will have this power I utterly deny For which by your
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