satisfie your Majesty may have more or the same further cleared 5. Secondly I doe 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 years 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 endevoured 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 only manifest by Scripture but a great many of the strongest Champions for Episcopacy doe confesse that Presbyters may ordaine other Presbyters and that Baptisme 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 discourse 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 Crowne 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 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 knows 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 self may be best satisfied for certainly My Taste cannot be guided by another Mans Palate and indeed I will say that when it comes as it must to Probations I must have either Persons or Books 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 than 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 sin 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
That all these 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 and 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 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 years when one of the Presbytery was made Episcopus Praeses even then Communi Presbyterorum Confilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur saith Jerome 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 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 Anti-christ 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 discovered many secrets concerning the Anti-christ 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 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect nor 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 inferiour 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 than 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 perform the external Action and 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 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
adverse Party than to be overcome of Truth although this be the most glorious 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 and 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 the 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 meanes 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 my 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 Jewel 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 not 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 my 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 Arch-bishops 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 Leven which is one of the reasons that have given ground to the comparing of this Church to the 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 Civil policy That it hath added many Church Offices higher lower unto those instituted by the Son 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 difference in Scripture between a Bishop and a Presbyter the one name signifying Industriam Curiae Pastoralis the other Sapientiae Maturitatem saith Beda And whereas Your Majesty averres that Presbyterian Government was never practised before Calvin's time your Majesty knows 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 Jerusalem was governed by a Presbytery while they shew 1. That that the Church of Jerusalem consisted of more Congregations than 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.
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 hits 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 such 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 sense 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 shal believe when I see it for your former Paper affirmes that those times were very dark for matter of fact and will be so still for me if there be no clearer Arguments to prove it than those you mention for because there were diverse Congregations in Jerusalem ergo what are there not divers Parishes in one Diocesse your two first I answer but as one Argument and because the Apostles met with those of the inferiour Orders for Acts of Government what then even so in these times doe the Deanes and Chapters and many times those of the inferiour 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. than you have for Jerusalem it will gaine no ground on me As for Saint Jerome 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 clear 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 think 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 methinks 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 Judges I appeale unto the mischief of the interpretation by private Spirits can be prevented Indeed if I cannot prove by antiquity that Ordination and Jurisdiction 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 Authours it is no great wonder for them to seek shifts whereby to maintaine 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 Judge 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 without 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 downe by three of the Evangelists whereof S. Marke calls it an Ordination Mark 3. 15. S. Luke sayes And of them he chose Twelve c. Luke 6. 13. onely S. Matthew doth but barely enumerate them by their name of distinction Mat. 10. 1. I suppose out of modesty himselfe being one and the other two being none are more particular For the administration of Baptisme giving but not granting what you say it makes more for Me than you but I will not engage upon new Questions not necessary for my purpose 7. For my Oath you doe well not to enter upon those Questions you mention and you had done as well to have omitted your instance but out of discretion I desire you to collect your Answer out of the last Section and for your Argument though the intention of my Oath be for the good of the Church collective therefore can I be dispensed withall by others than the representative Body certainly no more than the People can dispense with me for any Oaths I took in their favours without the two Houses of Parliament as for future reformations I will only tell you that incommodum non solvit Argumentum 8. For the King my Fathers opinion if it were not to spend time as I believe needlesly I could prove by living and written testimonies all and more then I have said of Him for His perswasion in these points which I now maintain and for your defensive War as I do acknowledge it a great sin for any King to oppresse the Church so I hold it absolutely unlawfull for Subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to make War though defensive against their lawfull Soveraigne against which no less proofs will make me yeild but Gods word and let Me tell you that upon such points as these instances as well as comparisons are odious 9. Lastly you mistake the Quaere in my first Paper to which this pretends to answer for my Question was not concerning force of Arguments for I never doubted the lawfulnesse of it but force of Armes to which I conceive it sayes little or nothing unlesse after My example you refer Me to the former Section that which it doth is meerly the asking of the Question after a fine discourse of the several wayes of perswading rather than forcing of conscience I close up this Paper desiring you to take notice that there is none of these Sections but I could have enlarged to many more lines some to whole pages yet I chose to be thus brief knowing you will understand more by a word than others by a long discourse trusting likewise to your ingenuity that reason epitomized will weigh as much with you as if it were at large June 22. 1646. C. R. For His Majestie Concerning the Authority of the Fathers and practice of the Church July 2. 1646. Mr. Alex Henderson's third Paper HAving in my former Papers pressed the steps of your Majesties Propositions and finding by your Majesties last Paper Controversies to be multiplyed I believe beyond your Majesties intentions in the beginning As concerning the Reforming Power The Reformation of the Church of England The difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter The warrants of Presbyterian Government The Authority of Interpreting Scripture The taking and keeping of Publique Oathes The forcing of Conscience and many other inferior and subordinate Questions which are Branches of those maine Controversies All which in a satisfactory manner to determine in few words I leave to more presuming Spirits who either see no knots of Difficulties or can find a way rather to cut them assunder than to unloose them yet will I not use any Tergiversation nor doe I decline to offer my humble Opinion with the Reasons thereof in the owne time concerning each of them which in obedience to your Majesties command I have begun to doe alalready Onely Sir by your Majesties favourable permission for the greater expedition and that the present velitations may be brought to some issue I am bold to entreat that the Method may be a little altered and I may have leave now to begin at a Principle and that which should have been inter Precognita I meane the Rule by which we are to proceed and to determine the present Controversie of Church policy without which we will be led into a labyrinth and want a thred to wind us out againe In your Majesties first Paper the universall custome of the Primitive Church is conceived to be the Rule In the second Paper Section the 5. The practise of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers is made a convincing Argument when the Interpretation of Scripture is doubtfull In your third Paper Sect. 5. the practice of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers is made Judge and I know that nothing is more ordinary in this Question then to alleage Antiquity perpetuall Succession universall Consent of the Fathers and the universall practise of the Primitive Church according to the Rule of Augustine Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec à Consilio institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolicâ traditum rectissime creditur There is in this Argument at the first view so much appearance of Reason that it may much worke upon a modest mind yet being well examined and rightly weighed it will be found to be of no great weight for beside that the minor will never be made good in the behalfe of a Diocaesan Bishop having sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction there being a multitude of Fathers who maintaine that Bishop and Presbyter are of one and the same Order I shall humbly offer some few Considerations about the major because it hath been an inlet to many dangerous Errors and hath proved a mighty hinderance and obstruction to Reformation of Religion 1. First I desire it may be considered that whiles some make two Rules for defining Controversies the word of God and antiquity which they will have to be received with equall veneration or as the Papists call them Canonicall Authority and Catholicall Tradition and others make Scripture to be the onely Rule and Antiquity the authentick Interpreter the latter of the two seemes to me to be the greater errour because the first setteth up a parallel in the same degree with Scripture but this would create a Superior in a higher degree above Scripture For the interpretation of the Fathers shall be the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and accounted the very Cause and Reason for which we conceive and believe such a place of Scripture to have such a sence and thus Men shall have Dominion over our Faith against 2