FIDEI DEFENSOR  
Non enim to spreverunt Solum ●ed me spreverunt, ne Regnem super ips●●  
Per Ecclesiam p●tor.  
Giul: Martial sculp;    

THE PAPERS Which passed at new-castle BETWIXT His Sacred majesty AND Mr ALEX: HENDERSON: Concerning the Change of CHURCH-GOVERNMENT. Anno Dom. 1646.  
LONDON. Printed for R. Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane M. DC.XL.IX.   

For Mr. Alex: Henderson.  

His majesty's first Paper.  
Mr. Henderson,  
I Know very well what a great disadvantage it is for Me, to maintain an Argument of Divinity with so able and learned a Man as yourself, it being your, not My profession; which really was the cause that made Me desire to hear some learned man argue My Opinion with you, of whose abilities I might be confident, that I should not be led into an error, for want of having all which could be said, laid open unto Me: For indeed, My humour is such, that I am still partial for that side, which I imagine suffers for the weakness of those that maintain it; always thinking that equal Champions would cast the balance on the other part; Yet since that you (thinking that it will save time) desire to go another way, I shall not contest with you in it, but treating you as My physician, give you leave to take your own way of cure; only I thought fit to warn you, lest if you, (not I) should be mistaken in this, you would be fain (in a manner) to begin anew.  
Then know that from my Infancy I was blessed with the King my father's love, which, I thank God, was an unvaluable happiness to me, all his days, and among all his cares for my education, his chief was, to settle me right in Religion; in the true Knowledge of which, he made himself so eminent to all the World, that, I am sure, none can call in question the brightness of his Fame in that particular, without showing their own ignorant base malice: He it was, who laid in Me the Grounds of Christianity, which to this day I have been constant in; so that whether the worthiness of My Instructor be considered, or the not few years that I have been settled in My Principles; it ought to be no strange thing, if it be found no easy work, to make me alter them: and the rather, that hitherto, I have (according to Saint Paul's rule, Rom. 14. 22.) been happy in Not condemning myself, in that thing which I allow: Thus having showed you how, it remains, to tell you what, I believe, in relation to these present miserable distractions.  
No one thing made Me more reverence the Reformation of My Mother, the Church of England, than that it was done (according to the Apostles defence, Act. 24. 18.) neither with multitude, nor with tumult, but legally and orderly; and by those, whom I conceive to have only the reforming power; which with many other inducements, made Me always confident that the work was very perfect, as to Essentials; of which number Church-Government being undoubtedly one, I put no question, but that would have been likewise altered, if there had been cause; which opinion of mine, was soon turned into more than a confidence, when I perceived that in this particular (as I must say of all the rest) we retained nothing but according as it was deduced from the Apostles to be the constant universal custom of the Primitive Church; and that it was of such consequence, as by the alteration of it, we should deprive ourselves of a lawful Priesthood, and then, how the Sacraments can be duly administered, is easy to judge: These are the principal Reasons, which make me believe that Bishops are necessary for a Church, and, I think, sufficient for Me (if I had no more) not to give My consent for their expulsion out of England; but I have another obligation, that to my particular, is a no less tie of Conscience, which is, My Coronation Oath: Now if (as S. Paul saith, Rom. 14. 23.) He that doubteth is damned if he eat, what can I expect, if I should, not only give way knowingly to My people's sinning, but likewise be perjured myself?  
Now consider, ought I not to keep myself from presumptuous sins? and you know who says, What doth it profit a man, though he should gain the whole World, and lose his own soul? Wherefore my constant maintenance of Episcopacy in England, (where there was never any other Government since Christianity was in this kingdom) Methinks, should be rather commended than wondered at; My Conscience directing Me to maintain the laws of the Land; which being only my endeavours at this time, I desire to know of you, what warrant there is in the Word of God, for Subjects to endeavour to force their King's Conscience? or to make him alter laws against his will? If this be not my present case, I shall be glad to be mistaken; or, if my judgement in Religion hath been misled all this time, I shall be willing to be better directed: till when, you must excuse Me, to be constant to the Grounds which the King my Father taught me.  
Newcastle, May 29. 1646. C. R.   

For His majesty, Mr. Alexander Henderson's first Paper.  
SIR,  
1. IT is Your majesty's royal goodness, and not my merit, that hath made your Majesty to conceive any opinion of my abilities; which (were they worthy of the smallest testimony from your Majesty) ought in all duty to be improved for your majesty's satisfaction. And this I intended in my coming here at this time, by a free, yet modest expression of the true motives and inducements which drew my mind to the dislike of episcopal Government, wherein I was bred in my younger years at the University. Like as I did apprehend that it was not your majesty's purpose to have the Question disputed by Divines on both sides; which I would never (to the wronging of the cause) have undertaken alone; and which seldom or never hath proved an effectual way, for finding of truth, or moving the minds of Men to relinquish their former tenants, Dum res transit à judicio in affectum; witness the polemics between the Papists and us, and among ourselves, about the matter now in hand, these many years past.  
2. Sir, when I consider your majesty's education under the hands of such a Father, the length of time wherein Your Majesty hath been settled in your principles of Church-Government; the Arguments which have continually in private and public, especially of late at Oxford, filled your majesty's ears for the Divine Right thereof; your Coronation Oath; and divers State-reasons which your Majesty doth not mention: I do not wonder, nor think it any strange thing, that your Majesty hath not at first given place to a contrary impression. I remember that the famous Joannes Picus Mirandula proveth by irrefragable Reasons (which no rational man will contradict) That no man hath so much power over his own understanding, as to make himself believe what he will, or to think that to be true which his reason telleth him is false; much less is it possible for any man to have his reason commanded by the will, or at the pleasure of another.  
2. It is a true saying of the schoolmen, Voluntas imperat intellectui quoad exercitium, non quoad specificationem, Mine own will, or the will of another may command me to think upon a matter; but no will or command can constrain me to determine otherwise then my reason teacheth me. Yet Sir, I hope your Majesty will acknowledge, (for your Paper professeth no less) that according to the saying of Ambrose, Non est pudor ad meliora transire, It is neither sin nor shame to change to the better: Symmachus in one of his Epistles (I think to the Emperor Theodosius and Valentinian) allegeth all those motives, from education, from prescription of time, from worldly prosperity, and the flourishing condition of the Roman Empire, and from the laws of the Land, to persuade them to constancy in the ancient Pagan profession of the Romans, against the embracing of the Christian Faith. The like reasons were used by the Jews for Moses against Christ; and may be used both for Popery and for the Papacy itself, against the reformation of Religion & Church-Government; and therefore can have no more strength against the Change now, than they had in former times.  
3. But your Majesty may perhaps say, That this is petitio principii, and nothing else but the begging of the Question; and I confess it were so, if there can be no Reasons brought for a Reformation or Change; Your Majesty reverences the Reformation of the Church of England, as being done legally and orderly, and by those who had the Reforming Power: and I do not deny, but it were to be wished, that Religion where there is need, were always Reformed in that manner, and by such power, and that it were not committed to the prelates, who have greatest need to be reformed themselves, not left to the multitude, whom God stirreth up when Princes are negligent: Thus did Jacob reform his own Family, Moses destroyed the golden calf, the good Kings of Judah reformed the Church in their time: but that such Reformation hath been perfect, I cannot admit. Asa took away Idolatry, but his Reformation was not perfect; for Jehosaphat removed the high Places, yet was not his Reformation perfect, for it was Hezekiah that broke the brazen Serpent, and Josiah destroyed the Idol-Temples, who therefore beareth this elegy, That like unto him there was no King before him. It is too well known that the Reformation of K. Henry 8. was most imperfect in the Essentials of Doctrine, Worship, and Government; And although it proceeded by some degrees afterward, yet the Government was never reformed, the head was changed, Dominus non Dominium; and the whole limbs of the Antichristian Hierarchy retained, upon what snares and temptations of Avarice and Ambition, the great Enchanters of the Clergy, I need not express. It was a hard saying of Romanorum Malleus Grosted of Lincoln, That Reformation was not to be expected, nisi in ore gladii cruentandi: yet this I may say, that the Laodicean lukewarmness of Reformation here, hath been matter of continued complaints to many of the Godly in this Kingdom; occasion of more schism and separation then ever was heard of in any other Church; and of unspeakable grief and sorrow to other Churches, which God did bless with greater purity of Reformation. The glory of this great work we hope is reserved for your Majesty, that to your comfort and everlasting fame the praise of godly Josiah may be made yours; which yet will be no dispraise to your royal Father, or Edward 6. or any other religious Princes before you; none of them having so fair an opportunity as is now by the supreme providence put into your royal hands. My soul trembleth to think and to foresee, what may be the event, if this opportunity be neglected. I will neither use the words of Mordecay, Esth. 4. 14. nor what Savanarola told another Charles, because I hope better things from your Majesty.  
4. To the Argument brought by your Majesty (which I believe none of your Doctors, had they been all about you, could more briefly and yet so fully and strongly have expressed) [That nothing was retained in this Church but according as it was deduced from the Apostles to the constant universal practice of the Primitive Church; and that it was of such consequence, as by the alteration of it, We should deprive ourselves of the lawfulness of Priesthood (I think your Majesty means a lawful Ministry) and then how the Sacraments can be administered, is easy to judge.] I humbly offer these considerations: First, what was not in the times of the Apostles, cannot be deduced from them: We say in Scotland, It cannot be brought But, that is not the Ben; but (not to insist now in a Litourgy, and things of that kind) there was no such Hierarchy, no such difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter, in the times of the Apostles, and therefore it cannot thence be deduced; for I conceive it to be as clear as if it were written with a sunbeam, that Presbyter and Bishop are to the Apostles one and the same thing, no majority, no inequality or difference of office, power, or degree betwixt the one and the other, but a mere identity in all. 2. That the Apostles intending to set down the Offices and Officers of the Church, and speaking so often of them, and of their gifts and duties, and that, not upon occasion, but of set purpose; do neither express nor imply any such Pastor or Bishop as hath power over other Pastors, although it be true, that they have distinctly and particularly expressed the office, gifts, and duties of the meanest Officers, such as Deacons. 3. That in the ministry of the New Testament there is a comely, beautiful, and divine order and subordination; one kind of Ministers both ordinary and extraordinary being placed in degree and dignity one before another, as the Apostles first, the Evangelists, Pastors, Doctors, &c. in their own ranks: but we cannot find in Offices of the same kind, that one hath majority of power, or priority of degree before another; no Apostle above other Apostles (Unless in moral respects) no Evangelist above other Evangelists; of Deacon above other Deacons; why then a Pastor above other Pastors? In all other sorts of Ministers ordinary and extraordinary a parity in their own kind, only in the office of Pastor an inequality. 4. That the whole power and all the parts of the Ministry, which are commonly called, The power of Order and Jurisdiction, are by the Apostles declared to be common to the Presbyter and Bishop: And that, Mat. 15. 16, 17. the gradation in matter of Discipline or Church censures, is from one, to two, or more; and if he shall neglect them, tell it to the Church; he saith not, tell it to the Bishop: there is no place left to a retrogradation from more to one, were he never so eminent. If these considerations do not satisfy, your Majesty may have more, or the same further cleared.  
5. Secondly, I do humbly desire Your Majesty to take notice of the fallacy of that Argument, from the practice of the Primitive Church, and the universal 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 certain knowledge of the practice universal 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 until a good time after, no certainty can be had from ecclesiastical Authors about Church matters. It is true, Diotrephes sought the pre-eminence in the Apostles times, and the mystery of iniquity did then begin to work; and no doubt in aftertimes some puffed up with Ambition, and others overtaken with weakness, endeavoured alteration of Church Government, but that all the learned and godly of those times consented to such a change as is talked of afterwards, will never be proved.  
6. Thirdly, I will never think that Your Majesty will deny the lawfulness of a ministry, 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, do confess, that Presbyters may ordain other Presbyters; and that baptism administered by a private Person, wanting a public 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 majesty's Coronation Oath; I confess, that both in the taking and keeping of an Oath (so sacred a thing is it, and so high a point of Religion) much tenderness is required: and far be it from us, who desire to observe our own solemn Oath, to press Your Majesty with the violation of Yours. Yet Sir, I will crave your leave, in all humbleness and sincerity to lay before Your majesty's eyes this one thing, (which perhaps might require a larger discourse) that although no human 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 superior, who afterwards ceaseth to be our Lord and superior; for then the formal 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 special 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, do include a condition. When the Parliaments of both kingdoms, have covenanted for the abolishing or altering of a Law, Your majesty's Oath doth not bind You, or Your Conscience to the observing of it; otherwise no laws could be altered by the Legislative Power. This I conceive hath been the ground of removing episcopal Government in Scotland, and of removing the Bishops out of the Parliament of England. And I assure myself, 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 yourself, and your Posterity, and crown, that you would never consent to the abolishing of such a Law. If Your Majesty still object, that the matter of the Oath is necessary & immutable; that doth not belong to this, but to the former Argument.  
8. I have but one word more concerning Your Piety to Your royal 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 swear 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 prelates to savour of the Popish Hierarchy, and that (could his Ghost now speak to your Majesty) He would not advise your Majesty to run such hazards for those Men who will choose rather to pull down your Throne with their own ruin, than that they perish alone. The Lord give your Majesty a wise and discerning Spirit to choose 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 majesty's 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 justify My opinion of your abilities) but, it being merely (as you know) for my particular satisfaction, I assure you that a Disputation of well chosen Divines, would be most effectual; and, I believe you cannot but grant, that I must best know, how myself may be best satisfied, for certainly My Taste cannot be guided by another man's Palate, and indeed I will say, that when it comes (as it must) to Probations, I must have either Persons or Books to clear the Allegations, or it will be impossible to give Me satisfaction: The foreseeing 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 less ingenuous than you show yourself 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 yourself hath learnedly enforced) that no man's Reason can be commanded by another man's Will.  
3. Your third begins, but I cannot say that it goes on, with that Ingenuity, which the other did; for I do 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 lawful, those having been all by the regal 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 mood and figure must be found out to form a syllogism, whereby to prove that: but however, you are mistaken; for, no man who truly understands the English Reformation, will derive it from Henry the Eight, for he only gave the occasion; it was his son who began, and Q. Elizabeth that perfected it; nor did I ever aver, that the beginning of any human Action was perfect, no more than you can prove that God hath ever given approbation to Multitudes to reform 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. Elizabeth's 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 justify that bloody ungodly saying: and for your comparing our Reformation here to the Laodicean lukewarmness, proved by Complaints, Grievings, &c. all that doth, and but unhandsomely, Petere principium; nor can generals satisfy Me; for, you must first prove, that those Men had reason to complain, those Churches to be Grieved, and how we were truly the Causers of this schism 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 main 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 appear the practice of the Presbyterian Government in the Primitive times, you had done much; for I do aver, that this Government was never Practised before Calvin's time; the affirmative of which, I leave you to prove; My task, being to show the lawfulness, 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 perusal, 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 fallaciousness of My Argument (to my knowledge) it was never My practice, nor do I confess to have begun now; For, if the Practice of the Primitive Church, and the universal consent of the Fathers, be not a convincing Argument, when the interpretation of Scripture is doubtful, 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 kingdoms 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 custom of some of the Reformed Churches; cannot weigh with Me, until you prove, these to be infallible, or that to maintain no Truth: And how Diotrephes ambition (who directly opposed the Apostle S. John) can be an Argument against Episcopacy, I do 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 confess it, that Presbyters without a Bishop, may lawfully ordain other Presbyters: And as for the Administration of baptism, as I think none will say, that a Woman can lawfully, or duly administer it, though when done, it be valid; so none ought to do it, but a lawful Presbyter, whom you cannot deny, but to be absolutely necessary for the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
7. You make a learned succinct discourse of oaths in general, and their several Obligations, to which I fully agree; intending, in the particular now in question, to be guided by your own Rule, which is [when any Oath hath a special 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 known, to whom this Oath hath reference, and to whose Benefit? the Answer is clear, only to the Church of England; as by the Record will be plainly made appear; and you much mistake in alleging, 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 only the King and Clergy, who made the Reformation, the Parliament merely serving to help to give the civil Sanction: all this being proved (of which I make no question) it must necessarily follow, that it is only 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 esteem myself 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 happiness, to know him much better than you; wherefore I desire you, not to be too confident, in the knowledge of his Opinions; for, I dare say, should his Ghost now speak, he would tell you, that a bloody Reformation was never lawful, as not warranted by God's word, and that Preces & lacrymae 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 says) 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 useful for other things.  
Newcastle, June 6. 1646. C. R.   

For His majesty.  
Mr. Alexander Henderson's second Paper.  
SIR,  
THe smaller the encouragements be, in relation to the success, (which how small they are, your Majesty well knows:) 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 majesty's command: yet while I consider, that the way of man is not in himself, nor is it in man that walketh, to direct his own steps; and when I remember how many supplications, with strong crying and tears, have been openly and in secret offered up in your majesty's behalf, unto God that heareth prayer, I have no reason to despair of a blessed success.  
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 precious; 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 kind, answerable to the prejudicate opinions of the Parties, is rather Victory than Verity; while tanquam tentativi Dialectici, they study more to overcome their 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 myself, as to venture it upon such weakness. Much more might be spoken to this purpose; but I forbear.  
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 human Credulity.  
3. Concerning Reformation of Religion in the third Section; I had need of a Preface to so thorny a theme, as your Majesty hath brought me upon; 1. For the Reforming power; it is conceived, when a general Defection, like a deluge, hath covered the whole face of the Church, so that scarcely the tops of the Mountains do appear, a general council is necessary; but, because that can hardly be obtained, several kingdoms (which we see was done, at the time of the Reformation) are to reform 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 reform, within their own sphere; and if the light shine upon all, or the major part, they may, after all other means assayed, make a public 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, than 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 yourself 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 means 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 regal 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 confessed 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 unpartial 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 heretical 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 error, and settling 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 humours of the diseased Church; but neither the son nor the Daughter (although we have great reason to bless 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 episcopal 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 profess Church-Government to be mutable and ambulatory; and such were the greater part of Archbishops and Bishops in England, contenting themselves with the constitutions of the Church, and the authority and munificence of Princes, till of late, that some few have pleaded it to be Jure Divino: That, the English Reformation hath not perfectly purged out the Roman 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 lukewarm 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 unlawful 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 infer 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 avers, 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 affirm 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 show, 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. That all these Congregations, were under one presbyterial 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. Far be it from me to think such a thought, as that your Majesty did intend any Fallacy, in your other main 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 public means which are necessary for finding out the Truth, but follow their own fancies. 3. Ratione finis, when the Interpretation is not proposed as authentical to bind others, but is intended only for our own 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 authentical, and of supreme Authority, which even man's conscience is bound to yield unto, is of an higher nature. And, although the general council should resolve it, and the Consent of the Fathers should be had unto it, yet there must always be place left to the judgement of Discretion, as Davenant, late Bishop of Salisbury, beside divers others, hath learnedly made appear in his book, De Judice Controversiarum; where also the Power of Kings in matter of Religion, is solidly and unpartially determined. Two words only I add; 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 known to former Ages: And diverse of the learned, in the Roman Church, have not feared to pronounce, That, whosoever denies the true and literal sense of many Texts of Scripture, to have been found out in this last Age, is unthankful to God, who hath so plentifully poured forth his Spirit upon the Children of this Generation, and ungrateful towards those men, who with so great pains, so happy success, & so much benefit to God's 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 far censure them, and their actions, as, without Bishops, in your judgement, they cannot have a lawful ministry, nor a due Administration of the Sacraments: Against which dangerous & destructive Opinion, I did allege what I supposed, your Majesty would not have denied, 1. That Presbyters without a Bishop, may ordain other Presbyters. 2. That baptism, administered by such a Presbyter, is another thing than baptism administered by a private Person, or by a Midwife. Of the first your Majesty calls for proof: 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 prophecy, 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, always 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 affirm of the 70 Disciples, who had their power immediately from Christ, no less 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 prelates. 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 custom of his time. 2. Concerning baptism, 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, unless it be done by him that is lawfully called thereunto, or by a Person made public and clothed with Authority by Ordination. This error in the matter of baptism, is begot by another error, of the Absolute Necessity of baptism.  
7. To that which hath been said, concerning Your majesty's Oath, I shall add nothing; not being willing to enter upon the Question, of the subordination of the Church to the civil power, whether to King, or Parliament, or both, and to either of them, in their own place. Such an Headship as the Kings of England hath claimed, and such a supremacy as the Houses of Parliament crave, with appeals from the supreme ecclesiastical Judicature to them as set over the Church, in the same line of Subordination, I do utterly disclaim upon such Reasons as give myself satisfaction, although no man shall be more willing to submit to civil Powers, each one in their own place; and more unwilling to make any trouble than myself: only concerning the application of the generals of an Oath, to the particular case now in hand; under favour, I conceive not how the Clergy of the Church of England, is, or aught to be principally intended, in your Oath: For, although they were esteemed to be the Representative Church, yet even that is for the benefit of the Church Collective, Salus Populi, being Suprema Lex, and to be principally intended. Your Majesty knows it was so in the Church of Scotland, where the like alteration was made. And, if nothing of this kind can be done without the consent of the Clergy, what Reformation can be expected in France, or Spain, or Rome itself? It is not to be expected, that the Pope, or Prelate will consent to their own ruin.  
8. I will not presume upon any secret knowledge of the Opinions held by the King, Your majesty's Father, of famous Memory; they being much better known to Your Majesty, I did only produce, what was professed by him, before the world: And although Prayers and Tears be the Arms of the Church; yet, it is neither acceptable to God, nor conducible for Kings and Princes, to force the Church to put on these arms: Nor could I ever hear a reason, why a necessary Defensive war against unjust Violence is unlawful, although it be joined with offence and invasion which is intended for Defence, but so that arms are laid down when the offensive war ceaseth: by which it doth appear, that the war on the other side, was, in the nature thereof, Defensive.  
9 Concerning the forcing of Conscience, which I pretermitted in my other Paper, I am forced now, but without forcing of my Conscience, to speak of. Our Conscience may be said to be forced; either by ourselves, or by others. By ourselves, 1. when we stop the ear of our Conscience and will not harken, or give place to information, resolving obstinately, Ne si persuaseris, persuadebis; which is no less than a resisting of the Holy Ghost, and the hardening of our hearts. 2. Or when we stop the mouth, and suppress the clamours of our Conscience; resolving rather to suffer the worm to gnaw, and the fire to burn inwardly, then to make profession of that we are convinced to be Truth. 3. Or when we sear our Conscience, as with an hot Iron, that it becometh senseless; which is the punishment of the former: unto which is opposed, the truly tender Conscience; such as Josiah had, 2 King. 22. 19 Again, 1. our Conscience is said to be forced by others, when they obtrude upon us what is in itself evil and unlawful; which if we admit, against our own Conscience, we sin, two ways; one is, by doing that which is in itself evil and unlawful; the other is, by doing it against a dictate of Conscience, which is a contempt of God, whose Vicegerent it is. 2. Or when others urge us to do that which is in itself good, or may lawfully be done, but through error of Conscience, we judge it to be evil and unlawful: in this case, if we do not that which is pressed upon us, we sin, because the thing is good and lawful: And if we do it, we sin, because we do against our Conscience. Which in this case bindeth, but obligeth not: And yet there is a way to escape out of this labyrinth, it being repugnant to the equity of the will of God to lay a necessity of sinning upon any man: The only way is, to lay aside such a Conscience, it being a part of the Old man, which we are commanded to put off; otherwise, we being sufficiently informed, and yet cleaving to our old error, we rather do violence to our Conscience ourselves than suffer violence from others. The Application, for Answering the Quaere, I leave to your Majesty.  
Newcastle, June 17. 1646.    


For Mr. Alex: Henderson. In Reply to his second Paper, June 22. 1646.  
His majesty's third Paper.  
1. IT were arrogance, besides loss of time, in Me to vie preambles with you; For, it is truth I seek, and neither praise, nor victory; wherefore I shall only insist upon those things which are merely necessary to my own satisfaction; in order to which, I desired the assistance of some Divines; whereupon I will insist no further, save only to wish, that you may not (as I have known many Men do) lose time by being mistaken in the way to save it, wherein I have only sought to disburden myself, but to lay no blame upon you, and so I leave it.  
2. Nor will I say more of the second than this, that I am glad you have so well approved of what I have said concerning My education and reason; but then remember, that another man's will, is at least, as weak a ground, to build my Faith upon, as my former education.  
3. In this there are two points; First, concerning the Reforming power, then anent the English Reformation; For the first, I confess you now speak clearly, which before you did but darkly mention, wherein I shall mainly differ with you, until you shall show me better reason: yet thus far I will go along with you, that when a general council cannot be had, several kingdoms may reform themselves, (which is learnedly and fully proved by the late Archbishop of Canterbury in his disputation against Fisher) but, that the inferior Magistrates or People (take it which way you will) have this power, I utterly deny; For which, by your favour, you have yet made no sufficient proof, 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 probable (though I will not say convincing) Argument, that if God would have approved of a Popular reforming way, there were Kings of Judah & Israel sufficiently negligent and ill to have made such examples by; but by the contrary, the 16. Chap. of Numbers shows 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, how soon you can do, I submit; otherwise you prove nothing: For the citing of private men's opinions (more than as they concur with the general 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 Jewels 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 showed 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, until you shall prove this position by the word of God, (as I will regal Authority) I shall think all popular Reformation, little better than Rebellions; for, I hold that no Authority is lawful 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 took 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 do, or yield the Argument, as soon as I shall be assisted with books, or such Men of My opinion, who, like you, have a Library in their brain: And so I must leave this particular, until 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 general) 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 extremely 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 civil policy, should be a depraving of it, I absolutely deny; for I aver, that without it, the Church can neither flourish, nor be happy: And for your last instance, you shall do well to show the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more Officers in the Church than he named; and yet in one sense I do not conceive that the Church of England hath added any; for, an Archbishop is only 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 condemn, 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 always 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 proof of the antiquity of Presbyterian Government, it is well that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster can do more than Eusebius could, and I shall believe, when I see it; for, your former Paper affirms, 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 diocese? (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 do the Deans 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 judgement) 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 gain no ground on me: As for Saint Jerome, it is well known that he was no great Friend to Bishops, as being none himself, yet take him altogether, and you will find that he makes a clear distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter, as yourself confesses; but the truth is, he was angry with those who maintained Deacons to be equal 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 do not conceive that you have answered the strength of my Argument, for when you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture, and I appeal to the practice of the Primitive Church, and the universal 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 shown how, waving those Judges I appeal 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 clearly 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 known to former Ages, I shall call new-invented fancies, until 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 Judge over the Reformed Churches, so neither do I censure them, for many things may be avowable upon necessity, which otherways are unlawful; but know, once for all, that I esteem 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 bade you prove that Presbyters without a Bishop might lawfully ordain, which yet I conceive you have not done; for, 2 Tim. 1. 6. it is evident, that Saint Paul was at Timothy's 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 S. Mark calls it an Ordination, Mark 3. 15. & S. Luke says, And of them he chose Twelve, &c. Luke 6. 13. only S. Matthew doth but barely enumerate them by their name of distinction, Mat. 10. 1. I suppose out of modesty, himself 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, than you: but I will not engage upon new Questions, not necessary for my purpose.  
7. For my Oath, you do 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 withal 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 father's opinion, if it were not to spend time (as I believe) needlessly, I could prove by living and written testimonies, all, and more, than I have said of Him, for His persuasion in these points which I now maintain; and for your defensive War, as I do acknowledge it a great sin for any King to oppress the Church, so I hold it absolutely unlawful for Subjects (upon any pretence whatsoever) to make War (though defensive) against their lawful sovereign; against which no less proofs will make me yield but God's 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 lawfulness of it) but force of arms, to which, I conceive, it says little or nothing, unless (after My example) you refer Me to the former Section; that which it doth, is merely the asking of the Question, after a fine discourse of the several ways of persuading 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 epitomised, will weigh as much with you as if it were at large.  
June 22. 1646. C. R.   

For His majesty, 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 majesty's Propositions, and finding by your majesty's last Paper, Controversies to be multiplied, (I believe) beyond your majesty's 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 public oaths; The forcing of Conscience; and many other inferior and subordinate Questions, which are Branches of those main 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 asunder, than to unloose them: yet will I not use any Tergiversation; nor do I decline to offer my humble Opinion with the Reasons thereof, in the own time concerning each of them; which in obedience to your majesty's command, I have begun to do alalready. Only Sir, by your majesty's 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 mean the Rule, by which we are to proceed, and to determine the present controversy of Church policy; without which we will be led into a labyrinth, and want a thread to wind us out again. In your majesty's first Paper, the universal custom of the Primitive Church, is conceived to be the Rule. In the second Paper, Section the 5. The practice of the Primitive Church, and the universal consent of the Fathers, is made a convincing Argument, when the Interpretation of Scripture is doubtful; In your third Paper, Sect. 5. the practice of the Primitive Church, and the universal consent of the Fathers, is made Judge; and I know, that nothing is more ordinary in this Question, then to allege Antiquity, perpetual Succession, universal Consent of the Fathers, and the universal 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 work 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 behalf of a Diocaesan Bishop, having sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, there being a multitude of Fathers, who maintain 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 hindrance 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 equal veneration) or, as the Papists call them, canonical Authority, and Catholical Tradition; and others, make Scripture to be the only Rule, and Antiquity the authentic Interpreter; the latter of the two seems to me to be the greater error: 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 sense; and thus, Men shall have Dominion over our Faith, against 2 Cor. 1. 24. Our faith shall stand in the wisdom of man, and not in the power of God, 1 Cor. 2. 5. and Scripture shall be of private interpretation; For the prophecy 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 itself, 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 alleging any Testimonies out of the Rabbins, Mat. 4. And the Apostles, in their Epistles; used no other help, but the diligent comparing of prophetical 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 ourselves 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 itself: 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 itself, and cease to be any more.  
4. That some Errors have been received, and continued for a long time, in the Church: The Error of Free will beginning at Justin Martyr, continued till the time of Reformation, although it was rejected by Augustine, as the Divine Right of Episcopacy was opposed by others. The Error about the Vision of God, That the Souls of the Saints departed, see not the face of God, till the judgement of the Great Day, was held by universal Consent: the same may be said of the error of the millenaries; and, which more nearly toucheth upon the present Question, the ancients erred grossly about the Antichrist and Mystery of Iniquity, which did begin to work in the days of the Apostles. Many other Instances might be brought to prove the universal practice of the Church, as were not warranted by the Apostles; as in the Rites of baptism 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 appear to be, for the Primitive Church to have made a sudden defection from the apostolical 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. soon after the death of Josuah, and the Elders that had seen the great works, which the Lord had done for Israel, there arose another Generation after them, which did evil in the sight of the Lord, Judg. 2. & 7. soon after the building of the Temple, and settling of Religion by David and Solomon, the worship of God was defiled with Idolatry: when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, he forsook the Law of the Lord, and all Israel with him, 2 Chron. 12. 1. And the Apostle says to the Galatians, Gal. 1. 6. I marvel that you are so soon removed unto another Gospel: why then shall we think 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 universal 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 papal Primacy: The Rule of Augustine aforementioned 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 universal practice of the Primitive Church, is no sure ground of authentical interpretation of Scripture. I remember of a grave Divine in Scotland, much honoured by K. James of happy memory, who did often profess that he did learn more of one Page of John Calvin, then of a whole Treatise of Augustine: nor can there be any good reason, (many there be against it) why the Ancients should be so far preferred to the modern Doctors of the Reformed Churches, and the one in a manner Deified, and the other vilified: It is but a poor Reason that some give, Fama miratrix senioris aevi, and is abundantly answered by the Apologist for Divine Providence. If your Majesty be still unsatisfied concerning the Rule, I know not to what purpose I should proceed or trouble your Majesty any more.  
Newcastle, July 2. 1646.    

For Mr. Alex: Henderson, July 3. 1646.  
His majesty's fourth Paper.  
I Shall very willingly follow the method you have begun in your third Paper; but I do not conceive, that My last Paper multiplies more Controversies than My first gave occasion for; having been so far from augmenting the Heads of our Disputation, that I have omitted the answering many things, in both your Papers, expressly to avoid raising of new and needless Questions; desiring to have only so many debated, as are simply necessary to show, 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 settling of the Rule, by which We are to proceed, and determine the present controversy; to which purpose (as I conceive) My third Paper shows you an excellent way; for there, I offer you a Judge between us, or desire you to find out a better, which, to My judgement, you have not yet done, (though you have sought to invalidate Mine) For, if you understand to have offered the Scripture, though no Man shall pay more reverence, nor submit more humbly to it, than myself; yet We must find some rule to judge betwixt us, when you and I differ upon the interpretation of the selfsame Text, or it can never determine our Questions; as for example, I say you misapply that of 2 Cor. 1. 14. 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 only serve to approve My reason; nor do I conceive how, 1 Cor. 2. 5. can be applied to this purpose; For there Saint Paul only shows the difference between Divine and human Eloquence, making no mention of any kind of interpretation throughout the whole Chapter, as indeed Saint Peter does, 2 Pet. 1. 20. which I conceive makes for Me; for, since that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation; First, I infer, 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 Catholic Church, aught to be an authentic Judge, when Men differ: And is it a good Argument? because (Mat. 4. 4. 7. 10.) Scripture is best interpreted by itself, therefore that all other interpretations are unlawful? certainfull you cannot think: Thus having showed 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 only to show Me a better, than what I have offered unto you.  
Newcastle, July 3. 1646. C. R.   

For Mr. Alex: Henderson, A particular Answer to Mr. Alex: Hendersons, July 3. 16. 1646.  
His majesty's fifth Paper.  
Until 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 universal Practice of the Primitive Church, I cannot but pass you My judgement 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 seek a most old way to confute them, as I think; For you allege, that there is more attributed to them, than I believe you can prove, by the Consent of most learned Men (there being no Question, but there are always some flattering fools that can commend nothing but with hyperpolick expressions) and you know that supposito quolibet, sequitur quidlibet; besides do you think, that albeit some ignorant fellows, 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 maintain that the Interpretation of Fathers, is a most excellent strengthening 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 far best Interpreter of itself, 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 condemn yourself, Me, and innumerable Others, who yet unblamably have not tied themselves to this Rule.  
4. If in this you only intend to prove, that Errors were always 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 universal Practice of the Church with Error, I must say it is a very bold undertaking; and, (if you cannot justify yourself by clear places in Scripture) much to be blamed, wherein you must not allege, that to be universally received, which was not, as I dare say, that the controversy about Free will, was never yet decided, by ecumenical, or general council; nor must you presume to call that an Error, which really the Catholic Church maintained (as in Rites of baptism, forms 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 unlawful, or else the Practice of the Church is warrant enough for Me to follow and obey that custom whatsoever it be, and think it good, and shall believe that the Apostles Creed was made by them, (such Reverence I bear to the church's Tradition) until 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 custom of the Catholic 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 confess it difficult) to come to the knowledge of the universal Consent, and Practice of the Primitive Church, therefore I confess a Man ought to be careful how to believe things of this nature; wherefore I conceive this to be only an Argument for Caution.  
My Conclusion is, that albeit I never esteemed any Authority equal to the Scriptures; yet I do think the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers, and the universal Practice of the Primitive Church, to be the best and most authentical Interpreters of God's word, and consequently the fittest Judges between Me and you, when we differ, until you shall find Me better: For example, I think you for the present, the best Preacher in Newcastle, yet I believe you may err, and possibly a better Preacher may come, but till then, must retain My Opinion.  
Newcastle, July 16. 1646. C. R.  
THE END.