I Know very well what a great dis­advantage it is for Me, to maintain an Argument in Divinity with so able and learned a man as your self, it being your, not My pro­fession; which really was the cause that made Me desire to hear some learned men argue My Opinion with you, of whose abilities I might be confident, that I should not be led into an Errour, for want of having all, which could be said, layed open unto Me: For indeed, My humour is such, that I am still partiall for that side, which I imagine suffers for the weaknesse of those that maintaine it; alwayes thinking that equall Champions would cast the bal­lance on the other part; Yet since that you (thinking that it will save time) desire to goe another way, I shall not contest with you in it, but treating you as My Physitian, give you [Page 2]leave to take your own way of cure; onely I thought fit to warne you, lest if you, (not I) should be mistaken in this, you would be faine (in a manner) to begin anew.

Then know that from My Infancy I was blest with the King My Fathers love, which, I thank God, was an unvaluable happinesse to Me, all his dayes, 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 brightnesse of his Fame in that parti­cular, without shewing 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 worthinesse of My Instructor be considered, or the, not few, years that I have been setled in My Prin­ciples; it ought to be no strange things, if it be found no easie work, to make me alter them: and the rather, that hitherto, I have (according to S. Pauls rule, Rom. 14.22.) been happy in not condemning my self, in that thing which I allow: Thus having shewed you how, it remaines, 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 [Page 3] England, than that it was done (according to the Apostles defence, Acts 24.18.) neither with multitude, nor with tumult, but legally and or­derly; and by those, whom I conceive to have onely the reforming power; which with many other inducements, made Me alwayes 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 soone 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 universall custome of the Primitive Church; and that it was of such consequence, as by the alteration of it, we should deprive our selves of a lawfull Priesthood, and then, how the Sa­craments can be duly Administred, is easie to judge: These are the principall 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 lesse tie of Conscience; which is My Coronation Oath: Now if (as S. Paul saith, Rom. 14.23.) he that doubteth is damned if he eate, what can I [Page 4]expect, if I should, not onely give way know­ingly to My Peoples sinning, but likewise be perjured My self?

Now consider, ought I not to keep My selfe from presumptuous sinnes? and you know who sayes, What doth it profit a man, though he should gaine the whole world, and loose his owne Soul? Wherefore My constant maintenance of Epis­copacy in England, (where there was never any other Government since Christianity was in this Kingdome) Me thinkes, should be ra­ther commended than wondered at; My Con­science directing me to maintaine the Lawes of the Land; Which being onely 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 Kings Conscience or to make him alter Lawes 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.

1. IT is your Majesties royall goodnesse, 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 Majesties satisfaction. And this I intended in my coming here at this time, by a free, yet modest expression of the true motives & inducements which drew my minde to the dislike of Episcopal Governmēt, where­in I was bred in my younger yeares at the u­niversity. Like as I did apprehend that it was not your Majesties 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 seldome or never hath proved an effectuall way, for fin­ding of truth, or moving the minds of Men to relinquish their former Tenents, Dum res transit à judicio in affectum; witnesse the Pole­micks between the Papists and us, and among our selves, about the matter now in hand, these many yeares past.

2. Sir, When I consider your Majesties edu­cation under the hands of such a Father, the [Page 6]length of time wherein your Majesty hath been setled in your principles of Church-Go­vernment; the Arguments which have continu­ally in private and publique, especially of late at Oxford, filled your Majesties eares for the Divine right thereof; your Coronation Oath; and divers State-reasons which your Majesty doth not mention: I doe not wonder, nor thinke it any strange thing that your Majesty hath not at first given place to a contrary impression. I remember that the famous Ioannes Picus Mi­randula proveth by irrefragable Reason (which no rationall man will contradict) That no man hath so much power over his owne understan­ding, as to make himselfe believe what he will, or to thinke that to be true, which his reason telleth him is false; much lesse 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 Schoolemen, Vo­luntas imperat intellectui quoad exercitium, non quoad specificationem, Mine owne will, or the will of another may command me to thinke upon a matter; but no will or command can constraine me to determine otherwise then my reason teacheth me. Yet Sir, I hope your Maje­sty will acknowledge, (for your Paper profes­seth no lesse) that according to the saying of Ambrose, Non est pudor ad meliora transire, It is neither sinne nor shame to change to the [Page 7]better: Symmachus in one of his Epistles (I think to the Emperour Theodosius & Valentini­an) alledgeth al those motives from education, from prescription of time, from worldly pros­perity, and the flourishing condition of the Roman Empire, and from the Lawes of the Land, to perswade them to constancy in the ancient Pagan profession of the Romans, a­gainst the imbracing of the Christian Faith. The like reasons were used by the Iewes for Moses against Christ; and may be used both for Popery and for the Papacy it selfe, against the reformation of Religion, and Church-Go­vernment; and therefore can have no more strength against a 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 confesse it were so, if there can be no Reasons brought for a Reformation or Change; your Majesty reve­rencis the Reformation of the Church of Eng­land, as being done legally, and orderly, and by those who had the Reforming Power: and I doe not deny but it were to be wisht, that Reli­gion, where there is need, were alwaies Refor­med in that manner, and by such power, and that it were not committed to the Prelats, who have greatest need to be reformed themselves, nor left to the multitude, whom God stirreth up [Page 8]when Princes are negligent: Thus did Iacob re­forme his owne Family, Moses destroyed the golden Calfe, the good Kings of Iudah reformed the Church in their time: but that such Refor­mation hath been perfect, I cannot admit. Asa tooke away Idolatry, but his Reformation was not perfect; for Iehosaphat removed the high Places, yet was not his Reformation perfect, for it was Hezekiah that brake the brasen Serpent, & Iosiah destroyed the Idol-Temples, who there­fore beareth this Elogie, That like unto him there was no King before him. It is too well knowne that the Reformation of K. Hen: 8. was most im­perfect in the Essentials of Doctrine, Worship, and Government; And although it proceeded by some degrees afterward, yet the Governmēt 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 expresse. It was a hard saying of Romano­rum Malleus Grosted of Lincolne, That Reforma­tion was not to be expected, nisi in ore gladii cruentandi: yet this I may say, that the Lao­dicean lukewarmnesse of reformation here, hath been matter of continued complaints to many of the Godly in this Kingdom; occasion of more schisme, and separation then ever was heard of in any other Church; [Page 9]and of unspeakable grief, & sorrow to other Churches, which God did blesse with greater purity of reformation. The glory of this great worke we hope is reserved for your Majesty, that to your comfort, and everlasting fame the praise of godly Iosiah may be made yours; which yet will be no dispraise to your royall Father, or Edward 6. or any other religious Princes before you; none of them having so faire an opportunity as is now by the supreme providence put into your Royall hands. My soule trembleth to thinke and 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 in the constant universall practise of the Pri­mitive Church; and that it was of such con­sequence, as by the alteration of it, We should deprive our selves of the lawfulnesse of Priest­hood (I thinke your Majesty meanes a lawfull Ministry) and then how the Sacraments can be administred, is easie to judge.] I humbly offer [Page 10]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 there Ben; but (not to insist now on a Liturgie, 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 cleare as if it were written with a sun-beame, 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 meere identity in all.

2. That the Apostles intending to set downe 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; doe neither expresse, nor imply any such Pastor, or Bishop as hath power over other Pastors, although it be true, that they have distinctly and particularly exprest the of­fice, gifts, and duties of the meanest Officers, such as Deacons.

3. That in the Ministery of the New Testament there is a comely, beauti­full, & divine order, and subordination; one kind of Ministers both ordinary, & extraordinary be­ing placed in degree, and dignity one before another, as the Apostles first, the Evangelists, Pastors, Doctors, &c. in their owne ranks: [Page 11]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 (unlesse in morall 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 extraodinary a parity in their owne kind, onely 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 doe not satisfie, 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 Argu­mēt from the practice of the Primitive Church, and the universall consent of the Fathers. It is the Argument of the Papists for such tra­ditions as no Orthodox Divine will admit. The Law, and Testimony must be the Rule. We can have no certaine knowledge of the [Page 12]universall practice of the Church for many yeares. Eusebius the prime Historian con­fesseth so much, The learned Iosephus Sca­liger testifieth, that from the end of the Acts of the Apostles untill a good time after, no certainty can be had from Ecclesiasticall Au­thors about Church matters. It is true, Diotrephes sought the preheminence in the Apostles times, and the mystery of iniquity did then begin to work; and no doubt in after-times some puffed up with Ambition, and others overtaken with weaknesse, 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 lawfulnesse of a Ministery, & the due administration of the Sacraments in the Reformed Churches, which have no Diocesian Bishops, sith it is not onely manifest by Scrip­ture, but a great many of the strongest Champi­ons for Episcopacy, doe confesse, that Presbyters may ordaine other Presbyters; & that Baptisme administred by a private person, wanting a pu­blick Calling, or by a Midwife, or by a Presby­ter, although not ordained by a Bishop, are one, and the same thing.

7. Concerning the other Argument taken from Your Majesties Coronation Oath; I con­fesse, that both in the taking, and keeping of [Page 13]an Oath (so sacred a thing is it, and so high a point of Religion,) much tendernesse is requi­red: and farre be it from us, who desire to ob­serve our owne Solemne Oath, to presse Your Majesty with the violation of Yours. Yet Sir, I will crave your leave, in all humblenesse and sincerity to lay before Your Majesties eyes this one thing, (which perhaps might require a lar­ger dicourse) that although no humane au­thority can dispense with an Oath, Quia Reli­gio juramenti pertinet ad forum Divinum; yet in some cases it cannot be denied but the obliga­tion of an Oath ceaseth: As when we swear homage and obedience to our Lord and Su­periour, who afterwards ceaseth to be our Lord and Superiour; for then the formall cause of the Oath is taken away, and therefore the obliga­tion, Sublata causa tollitur effectus; sublato relato, tollitur Correlatum. Or when any Oath hath a speciall reference to the benefit of those to whom I make the promise, if we have their de­sire or consent, the obligation ceaseth; because all such Oaths from the nature of the thing, doe include a condition. When the Parliaments of both Kingdomes, have covenanted for the abo­lishing or altering of a Law, Your Majesties Oath doth not binde You, or Your Conscience to the observing of it; otherwise no Lawes could be altered by the Legislative Power. This I conceive hath been the ground of removing [Page 14]Episcopall Governement in Scotland, and of removing the Bishops out of the Parlia­ment of England. And I assure my selfe, that Your Majesty did not intend at the taking of Your Oath, that although both Houses of Parliament should find an alteration necessary, although, (which God Almighty avert) You should loose Your Selfe, & 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 and immutable; that doth not belong to this, but to the former Argument.

8. I have but one word more concerning Your Piety to Your Royall Father, and tea­cher of happy Memory, with which Your Ma­jesty does conclude. Your Majesty knowes that King Iames never admitted Episcopacy upon Divine Right; That His Majesty did sweare and subscribe to the Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline of the Church of Scotland; that in the Preface of the latter Edition of Basilicon Doron, His Majesty gives an honourable testimony to those that loved, better the simplicity of the Gospel, than the pomp and Ceremonies of the Church of England, and that he conceived the Prelats to savour of the Popish Hierarchy, and that (could his Ghost now speake to your Ma­jesty) He would not advise your Majesty to run such hazards for those men who will chuse [Page 15]rather to pull downe your Throne with their own ruine, than that they perish alone. The Lord give your Majesty a wise and discerning Spirit to chuse that in time which is right.

Iuny 3. 1646.

IF it had been the Honour of the Cause which I looked after, I would not have undertaken to put Pen to Paper, or singly to have maintained this Argument against you (whose Answer to my former Paper is suffi­cient, without other proofs, to justifie My opi­nion of your abilities) but, it being meerly (as you know) for my particular satisfaction, I assure you that a Disputation of well chosen Divines, would be most effectuall; and, I be­lieve [Page 16]you cannot but grant, that I must best know, how My selfe may be best satisfied, for certainly My Taste cannot be guided by ano­thers Mans Palate, and indeed I will say, that when it comes (as it must) to Probations, I must have either Persons or Bookes to cleare the Allegations, or it will be impossible to give Me satisfaction: The fore-seeing of which, made Me at first (for the saving of Time) desire that some of those Divines, which I gave you in a 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 [Page 17]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 [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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, [Page 20]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, [Page 21]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, they never understand: but in earnest, that Question is so pertinent to the Purpose in hand, that it will, much serve for My satisfaction; and besides it may be usefull for other things.

THe smaller the encouragements be, in re­lation to the successe, (which how small they are, your Majesty well knowes:) the more apparent, and, I hope, the more accepta­ble will my obedience be, in that which in all humility I now go about, at your Majesties Command: yet while I consider, that the way of man is not in himselfe; nor is it in man that walketh, to direct his owne steps; and when I remember how many supplications, with strong crying and teares, have been openly and in se­cret offered up in your Majesties behalfe, unto God that heareth prayer, I have no reason to despaire of a blessed successe.

1. I have been averse, from a disputation of Divines,

• 1. For saving of time; which the present exigence & extremity of affairs, make more then ordinarily pretious; While Ar­chimedes at Syracuse was drawing this Figures [Page 23]& Circlings in the sand, Marcellus interupted his demonstration.
• 2. Because the common result of Disputes of this kinde, answerable to the prejudicate opinions of the Parties, is ra­ther Victory then Verity; while tanquam ten­tativi Dialectici, they study more to overcome their adverse Party, then to be overcome of Truth, although this be the most glorious Vic­tory.
• 3. When I was commanded to come hither; no such thing was proposed to me, nor expected by me. I never judged so meanly of the Cause, nor so highly of my selfe, as to ven­ture it upon such weaknesse. Much more might be spoken to this purpose; but I forbeare.

2. I will not further trouble your Majesty with that which is contained in the second Section, hoping that your Majesty will no more insist upon Education, prescription of Time, &c. which are sufficient to prevent Admiration, but (which your Majesty acknowledges) must give place to Reason, and are no sure ground of resolution of our Faith, in any point to be believed: although it be true that the most part of men make these & the like, to be the ground and rule of their Faith: an Evidence, that their Faith is not a Di­vine faith, but an humane Credulity.

3. Concerning Reformation of Religion in the third Section; I had need of a Preface to so thorny a Theame, as your Majesty hath brought me upon; 1. For the Reforming power, it is [Page 24]conceived, when a Generall Defection, like a deluge, hath covered the whole face of the Church, so that scarcely the tops of the Moun­tains doe appeare, a Generall Councell is neces­sary; but, because that can hardly be obtained, severall Kingdomes (which we see was done, at the time of the Reformation) are to reforme themselves, and that by the Authority of their Prince, & Magistrates: if the Prince or supreme Magistrate be unwilling, then may the inferior Magistrate, and the People, being before rightly informed in the grounds of Religion, lawfully Reforme, with in their owne Sphere; and if the light shine upon all, or the major part, they may, after all other meanes assayed, make a Publique Reformation. This, before this time, I never wrote or spoke; yet the Maintainers of the 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 Opi­niō would be, that they should draw the minds, tongues, and pens of the learned, to dispute a­bout other matters, then the power or Preroga­tives of Kings & Princes; and in this kind, your Majesty hath suffered and lost more, then will easily be restored to your selfe or your Posteri­ty, for along time. It is not denied but the prime Reforming power, is in Kings and Princes, Qui­bus—deficientibus, it comes to the inferior Ma­gistrate, [Page 25] Quibus Deficientibus, it descendeth to the Body of the People, supposing that there is a necessity of Reformation, and that by no meanes it can be obtained of their Superiors. It is true that such a Reformation, is more imper­fect, in respect of the Instruments, & manner of Procedure; yet for the most part, more pure and perfect in relation to the effect & product. And for this end did I cite the Examples of old of Reformation by Regall Authority, of which none was perfect, in the second way of perfec­tion, except that of Iosiah. Concerning the say­ing of Grostead, whom the Cardinals at Rome confest to be a more Godly man, than any of themselves; it was his Complaint, and Predic­tion of what was likely to ensue, not his desire, or Election, if Reformation could have been obtained, in the ordinary way. I might bring two unpartial Witnesses, Iewell and Bilson, both famous English Bishops, to prove, that the tu­mults & troubles raised in Scotland, at the time of Reformation, were to be imputed to the Pa­pists opposing of the Reformatiō, both of Doc­trine & Discipline, as an Heretical Innovation; and not to be ascribed to the Nobility, or Peo­ple, who under God, were the Instruments of it; intending & seeking nothing, but the purging out of Errour, and setling of the Truth. 2. Con­cerning the Reformation of the Church of England, I conceive, whether it was begun or [Page 26]not, in K. Henry the 8. time, it was not finished by Q. Elizabeth: the Father stirred the humors of the diseased Church; but neither the Sonne nor the Daughter (although we have great rea­son to blesse God for both) did purge them out perfectly: This Perfection is yet reserved for your Majesty: Where it is said, that all this time I bring no Reasons, for a further Change; the fourth Section, of my last Paper, hath many hints of Reasons against Episcopall Go­vernment, with an offer of more, or clearing of those, which your Majesty hath not thought fit to take notice of. And learned men, have observed many Defects in that Reformation: As that the Government of the Church of England, (for about this is the Question now) is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles; which they at least cannot deny, who professe Church-Government to be Mutable and Ambulatory, and such were the greater part of Archbishops & 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 Iure Divino: That the English Reformation hath not perfectly pur­ged out the Roman Leaven; which is one of the Reasons, that have given ground, to them com­paring of this Church, to be Church of Lao­dicaea, as being neither hot nor cold, neither Po­pish [Page 27]nor Reformed, but of a lukewarme tem­per, betwixt the two: That it hath depraved the Discipline of the Church, by conforming of it to the Civill Policy: That it hath added many Church Offices, higher & lower, unto those in­stituted by the Sonne of God; which is as unlaw­full as to take away offices warranted by the Divine Institution: And other the like, which have moved some, to apply this saying, to the Church of England; Multi ad perfectionem perve­nirent, nisijam se pervenisse crederent.

4. In my Answer to the first of your Majesties many Arguments, I brought a Breviate of some Reasons to prove, that a Bishop and Presbyter, are one and the same in Scripture: from which, by necessary consequence, I did inferre the negative; Therefore, no difference in Scripture between a Bishop and a Presbyter; the one name signifying, Industriam Curae Pastoralis; the other, Sapientiae Maturitatem, saith Beda. And whereas your Majesty averres, that Presbyterian Government was never prac­tised, before Calvin's time: your Majesty knowes, the common objection of the Papists, a­gainst the Reformed Churches; where was your Church, your Reformation, your Doctri­ne, before Luther's time? One part of the com­mon Answer is, that it was from the beginning, and is to be found in Scripture: The same I affirme of Presbyterian-Government: And for proving [Page 28]of this, the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, have made manifest, that the Primitive Christian Church at Ierusalem was governed by a Presbytery: while they shew,

• 1. That the Church of Ieru­salem consisted of more Congregations then one, from the multitude of Believers, from the many Apostles, and other Preachers in that Church, and from the diversity of Languages among the Believers.
• 2. That all those Con­gregations, were under one Presbyteriall Go­vernment, because they were, for Government, one Church, Acts 11.22, 26.

And because that Church was governed by Elders, Acts 11.30. which were Elders of that Church, & did meet together for Acts of Government: And the A­postles themselves, in that meeting, Acts 15. acted not as Apostles, but as Elders, stating the Question, debating it, in the ordinary way of disputation; and having, by search of Scripture, found the will of God, they conclude, It seemed good too the Holy Ghost and us: which in the jud­gement of the learned, may be spoken by any Assembly, upon like evidence of Scripture. The like Presbyterian Government had place in the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Thessaloni­ca, &c. in the times of the Apostles; and after them, for many yeares, when one of the Pres­bytery was made Episcopus Praeses, even then, Communi Presbyterorum Consilio, Ecclesiae guberna­bantur, saith Ierome; & Episcopos magis consuetu­dine, [Page 29]quam Dispositionis Divinae veritate, Pres­byteris esse majores, & in Commune debere Ecclesi­am regere.

5. Farre be it from me to think such a thought, as that your Majesty did intend any Fallacy, in your other maine Argument, from Antiquity. As we are to distinguish between In­tentio Operantis, & Conditio Operis, so may we in this case consider the difference between Inten­tio Argumentantis, & Conditio Argumenti. And where your Majesty argues, that, if your O­pinion be not admitted, we will be forced to give place to the Interpretation of private Spi­rits, which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle Peter, and will prove to be of dan­gerous consequence, I humbly offer to be con­sidered by Your Majesty, what some of chief note among the Papists themselves have taught us, That the Interpretation of Scriptures, and the Spirits whence they proceed, may be cal­led private, in a threefold sense,

• 1. Ratione Personae, if the Interpreter be of a private con­dition.
• 2. Ratione Modi & Medii, when Per­sons, although not private, use not the publique meanes which are necessary for finding out the Truth, but follow their owne fancies.
• 3. Ratione finis, when the Interpretation is not pro­posed as Authenticall to bind others, but is in­tended onely for our owne private satisfaction.

The first is not to be despised, the second is to be [Page 30]exploded, and is condemned by the Apostle Pe­ter; the third ought not to be censured: But that Interpretation which is Authenticall, and of supreme Authority, which every mans con­science is bound to yeild unto, is of an higher nature. And, although the Generall Councell should resolve it, & the Consent of the Fathers should be had unto it, yet there must alwaies be place left to the judgment of Discretion, as Da­venant, late Bishop of Salisbury, beside divers o­thers, hath learnedly made appeare in his Book, De Iudice Controversiarum; where also the Power of Kings in matter of Religion; is solidly and unpartially determined. Two words one­ly I adde; one is, that notwithstanding all that is pretended from Antiquity, a Bishop hav­ing sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, will never be found in Prime Antiquity. The other is, that many of the Fathers did, unwit­tingly, bring forth that Antichrist, which was conceived in the times of the Apostles, & there­fore are incompetent Judges in the Question of Hierarchy. And upon the other part, the Lights of the Christian Church, at, and since the beginning of the Reformation, have discovered many secrets, concerning the Antichrist and his Hierarchy, which were not knowne to for­mer Ages: And diverse of the learned, in the Roman Church, have not feared to pronounce, That, whosoever denies the true & literall sense, [Page 31]of many Texts of Scripture, to have been found out in this last Age, is unthankfull to God, who hath so plentifully powred forth his Spirit upon the Children of this Generation, & ungratefull towards those men, who with so great paines, so happy successe, & so much benefit to Gods Church, have travailed therein: This might be instanced in many places of Scripture: I joyne together Diotrephes and the Mystery of Iniquity, the one, as an old example of Church-ambition, which was also too palpable in the Apostles themselves; And the other as a cover of Ambiti­on, afterwards discovered; which two, brought forth the great Mystery of the Papacy at last.

6. Although your Maj ^sty. be not made a Judge of the Reformed Churches, yet you so farre censure them, and their actions, as without Bis­hops, in your judgment, they cannot have a law­full Ministery, nor a due Administration of the Sacraments: Against which dangerous & de­structive Opinion, I did alledge what I supposed, your Majesty would not have denied,

• 1. That Presbyters without a Bishop, may Ordaine other Presbyters.
• 2. That Bapatisme, administred by such a Presbyter, is another thing than Baptisme administred by a private Person, or by a Midwife.

Of the first your Majesty calls for proofe: I told you before, that in Scripture, it is manifest, 1. Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the Gift that is in Thee, which was given Thee by the [Page 32]Prophesie, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; so it is in the English Translation: And the word Presbytery, so often as it is used in the New Testament, alwaies signifies the Persons, and not the Office. And although the Offices of Bishop, and Presbyter were distinct; yet doth not the Presbyter derive his power of Order, from the Bishop. The Evangelists were inferior to the Apostles; yet had they their power, not from the Apostles, but from Christ: The same I affirme of the 70. Disci­ples, who had their power immediately from Christ, no lesse then the Apostles had theirs. It may upon better reason be averred, that the Bishops have their power from the Pope, than that Presbyters have their power from the Pre­lats. It is true, Ierome saith, Quid facit, ex­ceptâ ordinatione Episcopus, quod non facit Pres­byter; but in the same place he proves from Scripture, that Episcopus & Presbyter are one and the same; and therefore when he appropriates Ordination to the Bishop, he speaketh of the de­generated custome of his time. 2. Concerning Baptisme, a private Persō may performe the ex­ternall Action & Rites both of it and of the Eu­charist; yet is neither of the two a Sacrament, or hath any efficacy, unlesse it be done by him that is lawfully called there unto, or by a Person made publique & clothed with Authority by Ordina­tion. This Errour in the matter of Baptisme, is [Page 33]begot by another Errour, of the Absolute Ne­cessity of Baptisme.

7. To that which hath been said, concerning your Majesties Oath, I shall adde nothing; not being willing to enter upon the Question, of the subordination of the Church to the Civill power, whether to King, or Parliament, or both, or to either of them, in their owne place. Such an Headship as the Kings of England have claimed, and such a supremacy as the Houses of Parliament crave, with Appeales from the supreme Ecclesiasticall Iudicature to them as set over the Church, in the same line of Sub­ordination, I doe utterly disclaime upon such Reasons as give my selfe satisfaction, al­though no man shall be more willing to submit to Civill Powers, each one in their owne place; and more unwilling to make any trouble then my selfe; Onely concerning the application of the Generalls 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 ought 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 knowes it was so in the Church of Scotland, where the like alteration was made. And, if nothing of this [Page 34]kind can be done with the consent of the Clergy, what Reformation can be expected in France, or Spaine, or Rome it selfe? It is not to be expected, that the Pope, or Prelate will con­sent to their owne ruine.

8. I will not presume upon any secret know­ledge of the Opinions held by the King, your Majesties Father, of famous Memory; they be­ing much better knowne to your Majesty. I did onely produce, what was profest by him, before the world: And although Prayers, and Teares be the Armes of the Church; yet, it is neither acceptable to God, nor conducible for Kings & Princes, to force the Church to put on these Armes: Nor could I ever heare a reason, why a necessary Defensive Warre against unjust Vio­lence is unlawfull, although it be joyned with offence and invasion which is intended for De­fence, but so that Armes are layed downe when the Offensive War ceaseth: by which it doth ap­peare, 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 Conscien­ce, to speake of. Our Conscience may be said to be forced; either by our selves, or by others. By our selves,

• 1. when we stop the eare of our Conscience and will not hearken, or give place to information, resolving obstinately, Nesi [Page 35]persuaseris, persuadebis; which is no lesse then a resisting of the Holy Ghost, & the hardning of our hearts.
• 2. Or when we stop the mouth and suppresse the clamours of our Conscience; resol­ving rather to suffer the worme to gnaw, & the fire to burne inwardly, them to make profession of that we are convinced to be Truth.
• 3. Or when we seare our Conscience, as with an hot Iron, that it becometh senslesse; which is the pu­nishment of the former: unto which is opposed, the truly Tender Conscience; such as Iosiah had, 2 Kings 22.19.

Againe, 1. Our Conscience is said to be forced by others; when they obtrude upon us what is in it selfe evill and unlawfull; which if we admit, against our owne Conscience, we sinne two waies; one is, by doing that which is in it selfe evill and unlawfull; 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 doe that which is in it selfe good, or may lawfully be done, but through errour of Conscience, we judge it to be evill, and unlawfull: in this case, if we doe not that which is prest upon us, we sinne, because the thing is good and lawfull: And if we doe it, we sinne; because we doe 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 [Page 36]of sinning upon any man: The onely 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 errour, we rather doe violence to our Conscience our selves then suffer violence from others. The Application, for Answering the Quaere, I leave to your Majesty.

Newcastle, June 17. 1646.

1. I It were arrogance, besides losse of time, in Me to vie preambles with you; For, it is the truth I seek, and neither praise, nor victo­ry; wherefore I shall only insist upon those things which are meerly necessary to my owne satisfaction; in order to which, I desired the assistance of some Divines; whereupon I will insist no further, save onely to wish, that you [Page 37]may not (as I have knowne many Men doe) loose time by being mistaken in the way to save it, wherein I have onely sought to disburden My selfe, but to lay no blame upon you, and so I leave it.

2. Nor will I say more of the second then 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 Mans will, is at least, as weake 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 confesse you now speake clearly, which before you did but darkly mention, wherein I shall mainly differ with you, untill you shall shew Me better reasons: yet thus farre I will goe along with you, that when a Generall Councell cannot be had, severall Kingdomes may reforme them­selves, (which is learnedly and fully proved by the late Arch-Bishop 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 proofe, to My judgement; Indeed, if you could have brought, or can bring autho­rity of Scripture, for this opinion, I would and [Page 38]will, yet, with all reverence submit; but as for your Examples, out of the Old Testament, in My mind, they rather make for, than against Me, all those reformations being made by Kings; and it is a good preanable (though I will not say convîncing) Argument, that if God would have approved of a popular reforming way, there were Kings of Iudah and Israel sufficiently neg­ligent and ill to have made such examples by; but by the contrary, the 16. Chap. of Numbers shewes clearly, how God disapproves of such courses: but I forget this Assertion is to be proved by you; yet I may put you in the way, wherefore let me tell you, that this pretended power in the People, must (as all others) either be directly, or else declaratorily by approba­tion, given by God; which, as soon as you can doe, I submit; Otherwise your prove nothing: For the citing of private Mens opinions (more then as they concurre with the generall consent of the Church in their time) weighs little with Me, it being too well known, that Rebels never wanted Writers to maintain their unjust actions; and though I much reverence Bishop Iewels memory, I never thought him infallible; for Bilson I remember well what opinion the King My Father had of him for those Opinions, and how He shewed him some favour in hope of his recantation, (as His good nature made him do many things of that kind) but whether he did, [Page 39]or not, I cannot say: To conclude this point, untill you shall prove this position by the word of God, (as I will Regall Authority) I shall think all popular Reformation, little better than Re­bellions; for, I hold that no Authority is law­full but that which is either directly given, or at least, approved by God. 2 ^ly. Concerning the English Reformation, the first reason you bring why Q. Elizabeth did not finish it, is, because she tooke not away Episcopacy, the hints of reason against which Government, you say I take no notice of; now I thought it was sufficient no­tice, yea and answer too, when I told you, a negative (as I conceived) could not be proved, and that it was for Me to prove the affirma­tive; which I shall either doe, or yeild the Ar­gument, as soone as I shall be assisted with Bookes, or sch Men of My opinion, who, like you, have a Library in their braine: And so I must leave this particular, untill I be furni­shed with means to put it to an issue; which had been sooner done, if I could have had My will: indeed your second well proved, is most suf­ficient, which is, that the English Church-Go­vernment is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles; but I conceive your probation of this, doubly defective; for first, albeit our Archbishops and Bishops should have professed Church-government to be mutable & ambulatory, I conceive it not sufficient to prove [Page 40]your Assertion: and secondly, I am confident you cannot prove, that most of them maintai­ned this walking position, (for some particulars must not conclude the generall) for which you must find much better Arguments than their being content with the Constitution of the Church, and the authority and munificence of Princes, or you will fall extreamly short: As for the retaining of the Roman leven, you must prove it, as well as say it, else you say little: But that the conforming of the Church disci­pline to the civill policy, should be a depraving of it, I absolutely deny; for I averre, that without it, the Church can neither flourish, nor be happy: And for your last instance, you shall doe well to shew the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more Officers in the Church than he named; and yet in one sence I doe not conceive that the Church of England hath added any; for, an Archbishop is onely a distinction for order of Government, not a new Officer, and so of the rest; and of this kind, I believe there are diverse now in Scotland which you will not condemne, as the Modera­tors of Assemblies, and others.

4. Where you find a Bishop, and Presbyter, in Scripture, to be one and the same (which I deny to be alwaies so) it is in the Apostles time; now I think to prove the Order of Bishops suc­ceeded that of the Apostles, and that the name [Page 41]was chiefly altered, in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour, (al­beit, in their time, they caused diverse to be called so, as Barnabas and others) so that, I believe, this Argument makes little for you: As for your proofe of the antiquity of Pres­byterian Government, it is well that the Assem­bly of Divines at Westminster can doe more then Eusebius could, and I shall believe, when I see it; for, your former Paper affirmes, that those times were very darke for matter of fact, and will be so still for Me if there be no clearer Arguments to prove it, then those you men­tion: for, because there were diverse Congre­gations in Ierusalem; ergo, what? are there not divers Parishes in one Diocess? (your two first I answer but as one Argument) and because the Apostles met with those of the inferior Or­ders, for Acts of Government; what then? even so in these times doe the Deanes and Chapters, and many times those of the inferior Clergy as­sist the Bishops; but I hope you will not pre­tend to say, that there was an equality between the Apostles and other Presbyters, which not being, doth (in My judgment) quite invalidate these Arguments: And if you can say no more for the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, &c. then you have for Ierusalem, it will gaine no ground on Me; As for S. Ie­rome, it is well knowne that he was no great [Page 42]Friend to Bishops, as being none himselfe, yet take him altogether, and you will find that he makes a cleer distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter, as your self confesses; but the truth is, he was angry with those who maintained Deacons to be equall to Presbyters.

5. I am well satisfied with the explanation of your meaning concerning the word Fallacy, though I thinke to have had reason for saying what I did: But by your favour, I doe not conceive that you have answered the strength of my Argument, for when you, and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture, and I ap­peale to the Practise of the Primitive Church, and the universall consent of the Fathers, to be judge between us, me thinks you should either find a fitter, or submit to what I offer; neither of which (to My understanding) you have yet done; nor have you shewne how, waving those Iudges I appeale unto, the mischiefe, of the in­terpretation by private Spirits, can be preven­ted. Indeed, if I cannot prove by antiquity, that Ordination and Iurisdiction belongs to Bishops, (thereby cleerly distinguishing them from other Presbyters) I shall then begin to misdoubt many of My former foundations; (as for Bishop Davenant, he is none of those, to whom I have appealed, or will submit unto) but for the exception you take to Fathers, I take it to be a begging of the Question; as like­wise [Page 43]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 [Page 44]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, [Page 45]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, [Page 46]will weigh as much with you as if it were at large.

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 [Page 47]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 [Page 48]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 [Page 49]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 [Page 50]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 [Page 51]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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]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.

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 augmenting the Heads of our Disputation, that I have o­mitted the answering many things, in both [Page 54]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 [Page 55]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.

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 [Page 57]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, [Page 58]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 [Page 59]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.