Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	church_n	scripture_n	universal_a	5,142	5	8.7208	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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 any Testimonies out of the Rabbins Mat. 4. And the Apostles in their Epistles used no other help but the diligent comparing of Propheticall writings like as the Apostle Peter will have us to compare the clearer light of the Apostles with the more obscure light of the Prophets 2 Pet. 1.19 And when we betake our selves to the Fathers we have need to take heed that with the Papists we accuse not the Scriptures of obscurity or imperfection 3. The Fathers themselves as they are cited by Protestant Writers hold this Conclusion that Scripture is not to be interpreted but by Scripture in 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. 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 Judgment of the Great Day was held by Universall Consent the same may be said of the error of the Millenaryes and which more nearly toucheth upon the present Question the Auncients 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 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 evill in the sight of the Lord Judg. 2. 7. soone after the building 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 to the Galatians Gal. 1.6 I marvell that you are so soone removed unto another Gospel why then shall we thinke it strange that in the matter of Discipline there should be a sudden defection especially it being begun in the time of the Apostles I know it is a common Opinion but I believe there be no strong reasons for it that the Church which was nearest the times of the Apostles was the most pure and perfect Church 6. That it is impossible to come to the knowledge of the Universall Consent and Practice of the Primitive Church for many of the Fathers wrote nothing at all many of their writings are perished it may be that both of these have dissented from the rest many of the Writings which we have under their names are supposititius counterfeit especially about Episcopacy which was the foundation of Papall Primacy The Rule of Augustine afore-mentioned doth two 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. James of happy memory who did often professe that he did learne 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 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 senioris aevi and is abundantly answered by the Apologist for Divine Providence If your Majesty the 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 MAJESTIES fourth Paper I Shall very willing 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 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 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 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

I do humbly desire Your Majesty to take notice of the fallacy of that Argument from the practice of the Primitive Church and the universall consent of the Fathers It is the Argument of the Papists for such traditions as no Orthodox Divine will admit The Law and Testimony must be the Rule We can have no certaine knowledge of the practice universall of the Church for many yeares Eusebius the prime Historian confesseth so much The learned Josephus Scaliger testifieth that from the end of the Acts of the Apostles untill a good time after no certainty can be had from Ecclesiasticall Authors about Church matters It is true Diotrephes sought the preheminence in the Apostles times and the mystery of iniquity did then begin to work and no doubt in after-times some puffed up with Ambition and others overtaken with weaknesse 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 and the due administration of the Sacraments in the Reformed Churches which have no Diocesan 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 and that Babtisme administred by a private person wanting a publick Calling or by a Midwife and by a Presbyter although not ordained by a Bishop are not one and the same thing 7. Concerning the other Argument taken from Your Majesties Coronation Oath I confesse that both in the taking and keeping of an Oath so sacred a thing is it and so high a point of Religion much tendernesse is required and farre be it from us who desire to observe our owne Solemne Oath to presse Your Majesty with the violation of Yours Yet Sir I will crave your leave in all humblenesse and sincerity to lay before Your Majesties eyes this one thing which perhaps might require a larger 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 Episcopall Government in Scotland and of removing the Bishops out of the Parliament of England And I assure my selfe that Your Majesty did not intend at the taking of Your Oath that although both Houses of Parliament should find an alteration necessary although which God Almighty avert You should lose Your Selfe and your Posterity and 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 James never admitted Episcopacy upon Divine Right That His Majesty did sweare and subscribe to the Doctrine Worship and Discipline of the Church of Scotland that in the Preface of the latter Edition of Basilicon Doron His Majesty gives an honourable testimony to those that loved better the simplicity of the Gospel than the pomp and Ceremonies of the Church of England and that he conceived the Prelats to savour of the Popish Hierarchy and that could his Ghost now speake to your Majesty He would not advise your Majesty to run such hazards for those Men who will chuse rather to pull downe your Throne with their own ruine than that they perish alone The Lord give your Majesty a wise and discerning Spirit to chuse that in time which is right June 3. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson A Reply to his Answer to My first Paper June 6. 1646. His MAJESTIES second Paper Mr. Henderson IF it had been the Honour of the Cause which I looked after I would not have undertaken to put Pen to Paper or singly to have maintained this Argument against you whose Answer to my former Paper is sufficient without other proofs to justifie My opinion of your abilities but it being meerly as you know for my particular satisfaction I assure you that a Disputation of well chosen Divines would be most effectuall and I believe you cannot but grant that I must best know how My 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 List might be sent for 2. Concerning your second Section I were much too blame if I should not submit to that saying of S. Ambrose which you mention for I would be unwilling to be found lesse ingenuous then you shew your selfe to be in the former part of it wherefore my Reply is that as I shall not be ashamed to change for the better so I must see that it is better before I change otherwise inconstancy in this were both sinne and shame and remember what your selfe hath learnedly enforced that no mans Reason can be commanded by another mans Will 3. Your third begins but I cannot say that it goes on with that Ingenuity which the other did for I doe not understand how those Examples cited out of the Old Testament do any way prove that the way of Reformation which I commend hath not been the most perfect or that any other is lawfull those having been all by the Regall Authority and because Henry the Eights Reformation was not perfect will it prove that of K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth to be unperfect I believe a new moode and figure must be found out to forme a Syllogisme whereby to prove that but however you are mistaken for no man who truely understands the English Reformation will derive it from Henry the Eight for he onely gave the occasion it was his Sonne who

interpretation throughout the whole Chapter as indeed Saint Peter does 2 Pet. 1.20 which I conceive makes for Me for since that no Prophesie of Scripture is of any private interpretation First I inferre that Scripture is to be Interpreted for else the Apostle would have omitted the word Private Secondly that at least the consent of many learned Divines is necessary and so à fortiore that of the Catholique Church ought to be an authentique Judge when Men differ And is it a good Argument because Mat. 4.4.7.10 Scripture is best interpreted by it selfe therefore that all other interpretations are unlawfull certainly you cannot thinke Thus having shewed you that We differ about the meaning of the Scripture and are like to do so certainly there ought to be for this as well as other things a Rule or a Judge between us to determine our differences or at least to make our Probations and Arguments Relevant therefore evading for this time to Answer your 6 Considerations not I assure you for the difficulty of them but the starting of new Questions I desire you onely to shew Me a better than what I have offered unto you C. R. Newcastle July 3. 1646. For Mr. Alex Henderson A particular Answer to Mr. Alex Hendersons July 3. 16. 1646. His MAJESTIES fifth Paper UNtill you shall find out a fitter way to decide our Difference in Opinion concerning Interpretation of Scripture than the Consent of the Fathers and the Universall Practice of the Primitive Church I cannot but passe you My Judgment anent those 6 Considerations which you offered to invalidate those Authorities that I so much reverence 1. In the first you mention two Rules for defining of Controversies and seeke a most old way to confute them as I thinke For you alleage that there is more attributed to them then I believe you can prove by the Consent of most learned Men there being no Question but there are alwaies some flattering Fooles that can commend nothing but with hyperbolick expressions and you know that supposito quolibet sequitur quidlibet besides doe you thinke that albeit some ignorant Fellowes should attribute more power to Presbyters than is really due unto them that thereby their just reverence and authority is diminished So I see no reason why I may not safely maintaine that the Interpretation of Fathers is a most excellent strengthning to My Opinion though Others should attribute the Cause and Reason of their Faith unto it 2. As there is no Question but that Scripture is the farre best Interpreter of it selfe so I see nothing in this negatively proved to exclude any other notwithstanding your positive affirmation 3. Nor in the next for I hope you will not be the first to condemne your selfe Me and innumerable Others who yet unblamably have not tyed themselves to this Rule 4. If in this you onely intend to prove that Errors were alwaies breeding in the Church I shall not deny it yet that makes little as I conceive to your purpose but if your meaning be to accuse the Universall Practice of the Church with Error I must say it is a very bold undertaking and if your cannot justifie your selfe by cleare places in Scripture much to be blamed wherein you must not alleage that to be universally received which was not as I dare say that the Controversie about Free will was never yet decided by Occumenicall or Generall Councell nor must you presume to call that an Error which really the Catholique Church maintained as in Rites of Baptisme Formes of Prayer Observation of Feasts Fasts c. except you can prove it so by the Word of God and it is not enough to say that such a thing was not warranted by the Apostles but you must prove by their Doctrine that such a thing was unlawfull or else the Practice of the Church is warrant enough for Me to follow and obey that Custome whatsoever it be and thinke it good and shall believe that the Apostles Creed was made by them such Reverence I beare to the Churches Tradition untill other Authors be certainly found out 5. I was taught that de posse ad esse was no good Argument and indeed to Me it is incredible that any custome of the Catholique Church was erroneous which was not contradicted by Orthodox learned Men in the times of their first Practice as is easily perceived that all those Defections were some of them may be justly called Rebellions which you mention 6. I deny it is impossible though I confesse it difficult to come to the knowledge of the Universall Consent and Practice of the Primitive Church therefore I confesse a Man ought to be carefull how to believe things of this nature wherefore I conceive this to be onely an Argument for Caution My Conclusion is that albeit I never esteemed any Authority equall to the Scriptures yet I doe thinke the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers and the Universall Practice of the Primitive Church to be the best and most Authenticall Interpreters of Gods word and consequently the fittest Judges between Me and you when we differ untill you shall find Me better For example I thinke you for the present the best Preacher in New-Castle yet I believe you may erre and possibly a better Preacher may come but till then must retaine My Opinion C. R. Newcastle July 16. 1646. THE END ERRATA PAg. 9. l. 29. 30. read It cannot be brought But that is not the Ben p. 11. l. 4. r. onely in the p. 29. l. 28. r. very