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
B01998	Certaine papers, which passed betwixt his Majestie of Great Britaine, in the time of his being with the Scottish army in New-Castle. And Mr. Alexander Henderson concerning the change of church government. Anno Dom. 1646.	Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646.	1649 (1649)	Wing C2154; Wing C2154; ESTC R171161	26,474	64

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

desire that some of those Divines which I gave you in a Lift 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 ingenious then you shew your se lfe 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 Wil. 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 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 with it 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 averre 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 the Scripture is doubtfull I know nothing For if this be not then of necessity the Interpretation of private Spirits must bee admitted the which contradicts Saint Peter 2 Pet. 1.20 and 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 until you prove these to be infallible or that to maintaine no Truth And how Diotrephes ambition who directly opposed the Apostle S. Iohn can be an Argument against Episcopacy I doe not understand 6. When I am made a Iudge 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 cleare onely to the Church of England as by the Record will be 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 made 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 Sanction 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 la chrymoe sunt Arma Ecclesioe 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

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

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 ●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 sen●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