Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	church_n	prove_v	tradition_n	2,764	5	9.1942	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78957	The papers which passed at Nevv-Castle betwixt His Sacred Majestie and Mr Al: Henderson: concerning the change of church-government. Anno Dom. 1646.	Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646.; Marshall, William, fl. 1617-1650, engraver.	1649 (1649)	Wing C2535; Thomason E1243_3; ESTC R209178	25,946	63

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

began and Q. Elizabeth that perfected it nor did I ever averre that the beginning of any Humane Action was perfect no more then you can prove that God hath ever given approbation to Multitudes to Reforme the Negligence of Princes For you know there is much Difference between Permission and Approbation But all this time I find no Reasons according to your Promise for a Reformation or Change I mean since Q. Elizabeths time As for your Romanorum Malleus his saying it is well you come of it with yet this I may say for it seems to imply as if you neither ought nor would justifie that bloudy ungodly saying and for your comparing our Reformation here to the Laodicean lukewarmenesse proved by Complaints Grievings c. all that doth and but unhandsomely Petere principium nor can Generalls satisfie Me for you must first prove that those Men had reason to complaine those Churches to be Grieved and how we were truely the Causers of this schisme and separation as for those words which you will not use I will not answer 4. Here indeed you truly repeat the first of My two maine Arguments but by your favour you take as I conceive a wrong way to convince Me It is I must make good the Affirmative for I believe a Negative cannot be proved Instead of which if you had made appeare the Practice of the Presbyterian Government in the Primitive times you had done much for I doe avetre that this Government was never Practised before Calvin's time the Affirmative of which I leave you to prove My taske being to shew the lawfulnesse and succession of Episcopacy and as I believe the necessity of it For doing whereof I must have such Books as I shall call for which possibly upon perusall may one way or other give Me satisfaction but I cannot absolutely promise it without the Assistance of some learned Man whom I can trust to find out all such Citations as I have use of wherefore blame Me not if time be unnecessarily lost 5. Now for the fallaciousnesse of My Argument to My knowledge it was never My practice nor doe I confesse to have begun now For if the Practice of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers be not a convincing Argument when the Interpretation of Scripture is doubtfull I know nothing For if this be not then of necessity the Interpretation of private Spirits must be admitted the which contradicts Saint Peter 2 Pet. 1.20 is the Mother of all Sects and will if not prevented bring these Kingdomes into confusion And to say that an Argument is ill because the Papists use it or that such a thing is good because it is the Custome of some of the Reformed Churches cannot weigh with Me untill you prove these to be infallible or that to maintaine no Truth And how Diotrephes ambition who directly opposed the Apostle S. John can be an Argument against Episcopacy I doe not understand 6. When I am made a Judge over the Reformed Churches then and not before will I censure their Actions as you must prove before I confesse it that Presbyters without a Bishop may lawfully ordain other Presbyters And as for the Administration of Baptisme as I thinke none will say that a Woman can lawfully or Duly administer it though when done it be valid so none ought to doe it but a lawfull Presbyter whom you cannot deny but to be absolutely necessary for the Sacrament of the Eucharist 7. You make a learned succinct discourse of Oathes in generall and their severall Obligations to which I fully agree intending in the particular now in question to be guided by your owne Rule which is 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 Now it must be knowne to whom this Oath hath reference and to whose Benefit the Answer is clear onely to the Church of England as by the Record will e plainly made appeare and you much mistake in alleaging that the two Houses of Parliament especially as they are now constituted can have this Disobligatory Power for besides that they are not named in it I am confident to make it clearly appear to you that this Church never did submit nor was subordinate to them and that it was onely the King and Clergy who made the Reformation the Parliament meerly serving to help to give the Civill Saction all this being proved of which I make no question it must necessarily follow that it is onely the Church of England in whose favour I took this Oath that can release me from it wherefore when the Church of England being lawfully Assembled shall declare that I am free then and not before I shall esteeme My selfe so 8. To your last concerning the King my Father of happy and famous Memory both for his Piety and Learning I must tell you that I had the happinesse to know him much better then you wherefore I desire you not to be too confident in the knowledge of his Opinions For I dare say should his Ghost now speake he would tell you that a Bloudy Reformation was never lawfull as not warranted by Gods word and that Preces lachrymae sunt Arma Ecclesiae 9. To conclude having replied to all your Paper I cannot but observe to you that you have given Me no Answer to My last Quaere it may be you are as Chaucer sayes like the People of England what they not like they never understand but in earnest that Question is so pertinent to the Purpose in hand that it will much serve for My satisfaction and besides it may be usefull for other things C. R. Newcastle June 6. 1646. For His Majestie Mr. Alex Henderson's second Paper SIR THe smaller the encouragements be in relation to the successe which how small they are your Majesty well knowes the more apparent and I hope the more acceptable will my obedience be in that which in all humility I now go about at your Majesties command yet while I consider that the way of man is not in himselfe nor is it in man that walketh to direct his owne steps and when I remember how many supplications with strong crying and teares have been openly and in secret offered up in your Majesties behalfe unto God that heareth prayer I have no reason to despaire of a blessed successe 1. I have been averse from a disputation of Divines 1. For saving of time which the present exigence extremity of affairs make more then ordinarily pretious While Archimedes at Syracuse was drawing his Figures Circlings in the sand Marcellus interupted his demonstration 2. Because the common result of Disputes of this kinde answerable to the prejudicate opinions of the Parties is rather Victory then Verity while tanquam tentativi Dialectici they study more to overcome their adverse Party then to be overcome if Truth although this be the most glorious

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 3.15 and S. Luke sayes And of them he chose Twelve c. Luke 6.13 onely S. Matthew doth but barely enumerate them by their 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 Baptism giving but not granting what you say it makes more for Me then you but I will not engage upon new Question 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 Argumeent 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 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 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 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 along discourse trusting likewise to your ingenuity that reason epitomized will weigh as much with you as if it were at large C. R. June 22. 1646. For His Majestie Concerning the Authority of the Fathers and practise 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 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 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 theoreof in the owne time concerning each of them which in obedience to your Majesties command I have begun to doe al-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 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 practice 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 wisdome of man and not in the power of God 1 Cor. 2.5 and Scripture shall be of private interpretation For the Prophesie came