Act. II. 22 26. And because that Church was governed by Elders Acts 11.30 which were Elders of that Church and did 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 to 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 Jerome Episcopos magis consuctudine quam Dispositionis Divinae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in commune debere ecclesiam regere 5. Farre be it form 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 or 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. Rationen 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 even mans conscience is bound to yeild unto is of an higher nature And although the Generall Councell should resolve it and 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 Booke De Judice 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 and 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 dâ—scovered 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 and 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 and 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 wind 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 Majesty 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 Baptisme 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 before that in Scripture it is manifest I 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 Jerome 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 Person may performe the externall Action and Rites both of it and of the Encharist yet is neither of the two a Sacrament or hath any efficacy unlesse it be done by him that is lawfully called thereunto or by a Person made publique and 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 and to either of them in their owne place Such an Headship as the Kings of England hath claimed and such a supremacy as the Houses of Parliament crave with Appeales from the supreme Ecclesiasticall Judicature 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
I do humbly desire Your Majesty to take notice of the fallacy of that Argument 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 practice universall of the Church for many yeares Eusebius the prime Historian confesseth so much The learned Josephus 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 and the due administration of the Sacraments in the Reformed Churches which have no Diocesan 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 and that Babtisme administred by a private person wanting a publick Calling or by a Midwife and by a Presbyter although not ordained by a Bishop are not 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 Government 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 lose Your Selfe and 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 James 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 June 3. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson A Reply to his Answer to My first Paper June 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 desire that some of those Divines which I gave you in a List might be sent for 2. Concerning your second Section I were much too blame if I should not submit to that saying of S. Ambrose which you mention for I would be unwilling to be found lesse ingenuous then you shew your selfe to be in the former part of it wherefore my Reply is that as I shall not be ashamed to change for the better so I must see that it is better before I change otherwise inconstancy in this were both sinne and shame and remember what your selfe hath learnedly enforced that no mans Reason can be commanded by another mans Will 3. Your third begins but I cannot say that it goes on with that Ingenuity which the other did for I doe not understand how those Examples cited out of the Old Testament do any way prove that the way of Reformation which I commend hath not been the most perfect or that any other is lawfull those having been all by the Regall Authority and because Henry the Eights Reformation was not perfect will it prove that of K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth to be unperfect I believe a new moode and figure must be found out to forme a Syllogisme whereby to prove that but however you are mistaken for no man who truely understands the English Reformation will derive it from Henry the Eight for he onely gave the occasion it was his Sonne who
Victory 3. When I was commanded to come hither no such thing was proposed to me nor expected by me I never judged so meanly of the Cause nor so highly of my selfe as to venture it upon such weaknesse Much more might be spoken to this purpose but I forbeare 2. I will not further trouble your Majesty with that which is contained in the second Section hoping that your Majesty will no more insist upon Education prescription of Time c. which are sufficient to prevent Admiration but which your Majesty acknowledges must give place to Reason and are no sure ground of resolution of our Faith in any point to be believed although it be true that the most part of men make these the like to be the ground and rule of their Faith an Evidence that their Faith is not a Divine faith but an humane Credulity 3. Concerning Reformation of Religion in the third Section I had need of a Preface to so thorny a Theame as your Majesty hath brought me upon 1. For the Reforming power it is conceived when a Generall Defection like a deluge hath covered the whole face of the Church so that scarcely the tops of the Mountains doe appeare a Generall Councell is necessary but because that can hardly be obtained severall Kingdomes which we see was done at the time of the Reformation are to reforme themselves and that by the Authority of their Prince and Magistrates if the Prince or supreme Magistrate be unwilling then may be inferior Magistrate and the People being before rightly informed in the grounds of Religion lawfully Reforme within their owne Sphere and if the light shine upon all or the major part they may after all other means assayed make a Publique Reformation This before this time I never wrote or spoke yet the Maintainers of this Doctrine conceive that they are able to make it good But Sir were I worthy to give advice to Your Majesty or to the Kings and supreme Powers on Earth may humble Opinion would be that they should draw the minds tongues and pens of the learned to dispute about other matter then the power or Prerogative of Kings and Princes and in this kind your Majesty hath suffered and lost more then will easily be restored to your selfe or your Posterity for a long time It is not denied but the prime Reforming power is in Kings and Princes Quibus deficientibus it comes to the inferior Magistrate Quibus Deficientibus it descendeth to the Body of the People supposing that there is a necessity of Reformation and that by no meanes it can be obtained of their Superiors It is true that such a Reformation is more imperfect in respect of the Instruments and manner of Procedure yet for the most part more pure and perfect in relation to the effect and product And for this end did I cite the Examples of old of Reformation by Regall Authority of which none was perfect in the second way of perfection except that of Josiah Concerning the saying of Grostead whom the Cardinals at Rome confest to be a more Godly man than any of themselves it was his Complaint and Prediction of what was likely to ensue not his desire or Election if Reformation could have been obtained in the ordinary way I might bring two unpartiall Witnesses Jewell and Bilson both famous English Bishops to prove that the tumults and troubles raised in Scotland at the time of Reformation were to be imputed to the Papists opposing of the Reformation both of Doctrine and Discipline as an Hereticall Innovation and note to be ascribed to the Nobility or People who under God were the Instruments of it intending and seeking nothing but the purging out of Errour and setling of the Truth 2. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England I conceive whether it was begun or not in K. Henry the 8. time it was not finished by Q. Elizabeth the Father stirred the humors of the diseased Church but neither the Sonne nor the Daughter although we have great reason to blesse God for both did purge them out perfectly This Perfection is yet reserved for your Majesty Where it is said that all this time I bring no Reasons for a further Change the fourth Section of may last Paper hath many hints of Reasons against Episcopall Government with an offer of more or clearing of those which your Majesty hath not thought fit to take notice of And learned men have observed many Defects in that Reformation As that the Government of the Church of England for about this is the Question now is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles which they at least cannot deny who professe Church-Government to be Mutable and Ambulatory and such were the greater part of Archbishops and Bishops in England contenting themselves with the Constitutions of the Church and the Authority and Munificence of Princes till of late that some few have pleaded it to be Jure Divino That the English Reformation hath not perfectly purged out the Roman Leaven which is one of the Reasons that have given ground to the comparing of this Church to be Church of Laodicaea as being neither hot nor cold neither Popish nor Reformed but of a lukewarme temper betwixt the two That it hath depraved the Discipline of the Church by conforming of it to the Civill Policy That is hath added many Church Offices higher and lower unto those instituted by the Sonne of God which is as unlawfull as to take away Offices warranted by the Divine Institution And other the like which have moved some to apply this saying to the Church of England Multi ad perfectionem pervenirent nisi jam 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 differences 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 as your Church your Reformation your Doctrine before Luther's time One part of the common Answer is that is 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 Jerusalem was governed by a Presbytery while they shew 1. That the Church of Jerusalem 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 these Congregations were under one Presbyteriall Government because they were for Government one Church
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 any 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 in 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. That 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 Judgment 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 Auncients 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 Josuah 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 Judg. 2. 7. soone after the building 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 to 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 two 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. James of happy memory who did often professe that he did learne more of one Page of John Calvin then of a whole Treatise of Augustine nor 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 senioris aevi and is abundantly answered by the Apologist for Divine Providence If your Majesty the still unsatisfied concerning the Rule I know not to what purpose I should proceed or trouble your Majesty any more Newcastle July 2. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson July 3. 1646. His MAJESTIES fourth Paper I Shall very willing 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 Judge 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 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 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 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 C. R. Newcastle July 3. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson A particular Answer to Mr. Alex Hendersons July 3. 16. 1646. His MAJESTIES fifth Paper UNtill you shall find 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 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 be to accuse the Universall Practice of the Church with Error I must say it is a very bold undertaking and if your 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 Occumenicall 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 July 16. 1646. THE END ERRATA PAg. 9. l. 29. 30. read It cannot be brought But that is not the Ben p. 11. l. 4. r. onely in the p. 29. l. 28. r. very