favour you have yet made no sufficient proofe to My judgement Indeed if you could have brought or can bring authority of Scripture for this opinion I would and will yet with all reverence submit but as for your Examples out of the Old Testament in My mind they rather make for than against Me all those reformations being made by Kings and it is a good preanable though I will not say convîncing Argument that if God would have approved of a popular reforming way there were Kings of Iudah and Israel sufficiently negligent and ill to have made such examples by but by the contrary the 16. Chap. of Numbers shewes clearly how God disapproves of such courses but I forget this Assertion is to be proved by you yet I may put you in the way wherefore let me tell you that this pretended power in the People must as all others either be directly or else declaratorily by approbation given by God which as soon as you can doe I submit Otherwise your prove nothing For the citing of private Mens opinions more then as they concurre with the generall consent of the Church in their time weighs little with Me it being too well known that Rebels never wanted Writers to maintain their unjust actions and though I much reverence Bishop Iewels memory I never thought him infallible for Bilson I remember well what opinion the King My Father had of him for those Opinions and how He shewed him some favour in hope of his recantation as His good nature made him do many things of that kind but whether he did or not I cannot say To conclude this point untill you shall prove this position by the word of God as I will Regall Authority I shall think all popular Reformation little better than Rebellions for I hold that no Authority is lawfull but that which is either directly given or at least approved by God 2ly Concerning the English Reformation the first reason you bring why Q. Elizabeth did not finish it is because she tooke not away Episcopacy the hints of reason against which Government you say I take no notice of now I thought it was sufficient notice yea and answer too when I told you a negative as I conceived could not be proved and that it was for Me to prove the affirmative which I shall either doe or yeild the Argument as soone as I shall be assisted with Bookes or sch Men of My opinion who like you have a Library in their braine And so I must leave this particular untill I be furnished with means to put it to an issue which had been sooner done if I could have had My will indeed your second well proved is most sufficient which is that the English Church-Government is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles but I conceive your probation of this doubly defective for first albeit our Archbishops and Bishops should have professed Church-government to be mutable ambulatory I conceive it not sufficient to prove your Assertion and secondly I am confident you cannot prove that most of them maintained this walking position for some particulars must not conclude the generall for which you must find much better Arguments than their being content with the Constitution of the Church and the authority and munificence of Princes or you will fall extreamly short As for the retaining of the Roman leven you must prove it as well as say it else you say little But that the conforming of the Church discipline to the civill policy should be a depraving of it I absolutely deny for I averre that without it the Church can neither flourish nor be happy And for your last instance you shall doe well to shew the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more Officers in the Church than he named and yet in one sence I doe not conceive that the Church of England hath added any for an Archbishop is onely a distinction for order of Government not a new Officer and so of the rest and of this kind I believe there are diverse now in Scotland which you will not condemne as the Moderators of Assemblies and others 4. Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same which I deny to be alwaies so it is in the Apostles time now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour albeit in their time they caused diverse to be called so as Barnabas and others so that I believe this Argument makes little for you As for your proofe of the antiquity of Presbyterian Government it is well that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster can doe more then Eusebius could and I shall believe when I see it for your former Paper affirmes that those times were very darke for matter of fact and will be so still for Me if there be no clearer Arguments to prove it then those you mention for because there were diverse Congregations in Ierusalem ergo what are there not divers Parishes in one Diocess your two first I answer but as one Argument and because the Apostles met with those of the inferior Orders for Acts of Government what then even so in these times doe the Deanes and Chapters and many times those of the inferior Clergy assist the Bishops but I hope you will not pretend to say that there was an equality between the Apostles and other Presbyters which not being doth in My judgment quite invalidate these Arguments And if you can say no more for the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. then you have for Ierusalem it will gaine no ground on Me As for S. Ierome it is well knowne that he was no great Friend to Bishops as being none himselfe yet take him altogether and you will find that he makes a cleer distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter as your self confesses but the truth is he was angry with those who maintained Deacons to be equall to Presbyters 5. I am well satisfied with the explanation of your meaning concerning the word Fallacy though I thinke to have had reason for saying what I did But by your favour I doe not conceive that you have answered the strength of my Argument for when you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture and I appeale to the Practise of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers to be judge between us me thinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer neither of which to My understanding you have yet done nor have you shewne how waving those Iudges I appeale unto the mischiefe of the interpretation by private Spirits can be prevented Indeed if I cannot prove by antiquity that Ordination and Iurisdiction belongs to Bishops thereby cleerly distinguishing them from other Presbyters I shall then begin to misdoubt many of My former foundations as for Bishop
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
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
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
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 â—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 senâ—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