Basiliká the works of King Charles the martyr : with a collection of declarations, treaties, and other papers concerning the differences betwixt His said Majesty and his two houses of Parliament : with the history of his life : as also of his tryal and martyrdome.

V. His MAJESTY's Third Paper.

For M^r Alexander Henderson: In Reply to his second Paper. June 22. 1646.

1. IT were arrogance, besides loss of time, in Me to vie Preambles with you; for it is Truth I seek, and neither Praise nor Victory: wherefore I shall only insist upon those things which are merely necessary to my own satisfaction; in order to which I desired the assistance of some Divines; whereupon I will insist no further, save only to wish that you may not (as I have known many men do) lose time by being mistaken in the way to save it, wherein I have only sought to disburthen My self, but to lay no blame upon you, and so I leave it.

2. Nor will I say more of the second than this, that I am glad you have so well approved of what I have said concerning my Education and Reason; but then remember, that another Man's will is at least as weak a ground to build My Faith upon as my former Education.

3. In this there are two points; first, concerning the Reforming power, then anent the English Reformation. For the first, I confess you now speak clearly, which before you did but darkly mention, wherein I shall mainly differ with you, until you shall shew Me better Rea∣son. Yet thus far I will go along with you, that when a General Council cannot be had, se∣veral Kingdoms may Reform themselves, (which is learnedly and fully proved by the late Archbishop of Canterbury in his disputation against Fisher:) but that the inferior Magi∣strates or People (take it which way you will) have this power, I utterly deny; for which, by your favour, you have yet made no sufficient proof to my judgment. Indeed, if you could have brought, or can bring authority of Scripture for this Opinion, I would, and will yet, with all reverence submit: but as for your Examples out of the Old Testament, in My mind they rather make for than against Me, all those Reformations being made by Kings: and it is a good probable (though I will not say convincing) Argument, that if God would have appro∣ved of a Popular reforming way, there were Kings of Judah and Israel sufficiently negli∣gent and ill to have made such examples by; but on the contrary, the 16. Chap. of Numbers shews clearly how God disapproves of such courses. But I forget this Assertion is to be pro∣ved by you; yet I may put you in the way: wherefore let Me tell you that this pretended power in the People must (as all others) either be directly or else declaratorily by approbation given by God; which how soon you can do, I submit; otherwise you prove nothing. For the citing of private mens Opinions (more than as they concur with the general consent of the Church in their time) weighs little with Me, it being too well known, that Rebels never wanted Writers to maintain their unjust actions: and though I much reverence Bishop Juel's 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 whe∣ther he did or not, I cannot say. To conclude this point, untill you shall prove this position by the Word of God, (as I will Regal Authority) I shall think all popular Reformation little better than Rebellion; for I hold that no Authority is lawful but that which is ei∣ther directly given, or, at least, approved by god. Secondly, Concerning the English Reformation, the first reason you bring why Q. Elizabeth did not finish it is, because she took 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 Affir∣mative; which I shall either do, or yield the Argument, as soon as I shall be assisted with Books, or such Men of My Opinion, who like you, have a Library in their brain. And so I must leave this particular, until I be furnished with means to put it to an issue; which had been sooner done, if I could have had my will. Indeed your second well proved is most sufficient, which is, That the English Church Government is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles: but I conceive your probation of this doubly defective. For first, albeit our Archbishops and Bishops should have professed Church-Government to be muta∣ble and ambulatory, I conceive it not sufficient to prove your Assertion: and secondly, I am confident you cannot prove that most of them maintained this walking position, (for some par∣ticulars must not conclude the general) for which you must find much better Arguments than their being content with the Constitution of the Church, and the Authority and munifi∣cence of Princes, or you will fall extremely short. As for the retaining of the Roman le••en, you must prove it as well as say it, else you say little. But that the conforming of the

Church Discipline to the Civil Policy should be a depraving of it, I absolutely deny; for I aver, that without it the Church can neither flourish nor be happy. And for your last instance, you shall do well to shew the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more Officers in the Church than he named: and yet in one sense I do not conceive that the Church of England hath added any; for an Archbishop is only a distinction for Order of Government, not a new Officer, and so of the rest; and of this kind I believe there are divers now in Scotland which you will not condemn, as the Moderators of Assemblies, and others.

4. Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same (which I deny to be 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 was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour, (albeit in their time they caused divers to be cal∣led so, as Barnabas and others) so that I believe this Argument makes little for you. As for your proof of the antiquity of Presbyterian Government, it is well that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster can do more than Eusebius could, and I shall believe when I see it: for your former Paper affirms, that those times were very dark for matter of fact, and will be so still for Me if there be no clearer Arguments to prove it than those you mention: for be∣cause there were divers Congregations in Jerusalem; Ergo, what? are there not divers Parishes in one Diocess? (your two first I answer but as one Argument) and be∣cause the Apostles met with those of the inferiour Orders for Acts of Government; what then? even so in these times do the Deans and Chapters, and many times those of the inferiour 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 judg∣ment) quite invalidate these Arguments. And if you can say no more for the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, &c. than you have for Jerusalem, it will gain no ground on Me. As for Saint Jerome, it is well known that he was no great Friend to Bishops, as be∣ing none himself; yet take him altogether, and you will find that he makes a clear 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 equal to Presbyters.

5. I am well satisfied with the explanation of your meaning concerning the word Fallacy, though I think to have had reason for saying what I did: but by your favour, I do not con∣ceive that you have answered the strength of my Argument; for when you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture, and I appeal to the practice of the Primitive Church, and the universal consent of the Fathers, to be Judge between us, Methinks you should either find a fitter, or submit to what I offer; neither of which (to My understanding) you have yet done; nor have you shewn how, waving those Judges I appeal unto, the mischief of the inter∣pretation by private Spirits can be prevented. Indeed, if I cannot prove by Antiquity that Ordination and Jurisdiction belong to Bishops, (thereby clearly distinguishing them from other Presbyters) I shall then begin to misdoubt many of my former Foundations; (as for Bishop Davenant, he is none of those to whom I have appealed, or will submit unto.) But for the exception you take to Fathers, I take it to be a begging of the Question; as likewise those great discoveries of secrets, not known to former Ages, I shall call new-invented fan∣cies, until particularly you shall prove the contrary: and for your Roman Authors, it is no great wonder for them to seek shifts whereby to maintain Novelties as well as the Puritans. As for Church-ambition, it doth not at all terminate in seeking to be Pope; for I take it to be no point of humility to indeavour to be independent of Kings, it being possible that Papacy in a multitude may be as dangerous as in one.

6. As I am no Judge over the Reformed Churches, so neither do I censure them; for many things may be avowable upon necessity, which otherwayes are unlawful: but know once for all, that I esteem nothing the better because it is done by such a particular Church (though it were by the Church of England, which I avow most to reverence;) but I esteem that Church most which comes nearest to the purity of the Primitive Doctrine and Discipline, as I believe this doth. Now concerning Ordination, I bad you prove that Presbyters without a Bishop might lawfully ordain; which yet I conceive you have not done: for, 2 Tim. 1. 6. it is evident that Saint Paul was at Timothie's ordination; and albeit that all the Seven∣ty had their power immediately from Christ, yet it is as evident that our Saviour made a clear distinction between the twelve Apostles and the rest of the Disciples, which is set down by three of the Evangelists, whereof Saint Mark calls it an Ordination, Mark 3. 15. and Saint Luke sayes, And of them he chose Twelve, &c. Luk. 6. 13. only Saint Matthew doth but barely enumerate them by their name of distinction, Mat. 10. 1. I suppose out of mo∣desty, himself being one, and the other two being none, are more particular. For the Admi∣nistration of Baptism, giving, but not granting, what you say, it makes more for Me than you: but I will not engage upon new Questions not necessary for My purpose.

7. For my Oath, you do well not to enter upon those Questions you mention; and you had done as well to have omitted your instance; but out of discretion, I desire you to collect your Answer out of the last Section; and for your Argument, though the intention of my Oath be for the good of the Church collective, therefore can I be dispensed withal by others than the representative Body? certainly no more than the People can dispense with Me for any Oaths I took in their favours, without the two Houses of Parliament. As for future Refor∣mations, I will only tell you, that incommodum non solvit Argumentum.

8. For the King my Father's opinion, if it were not to spend time (as I believe) needlesly, I could prove by living and written testimonies all and more than I have said of Him, for His perswasion in these points which I now maintain: and for your defensive War, as I do acknowledge it a great sin for any King to oppress the Church, so I hold it ab∣solutely unlawful for Subjects (upon any pretence whatsoever) to make War (though de∣fensive) against their lawful Sovereign; against which no less proofs will make Me yield but God's Word: and let Me tell you, that upon such points as these, instances as well as comparisons are odious.

9. Lastly, You mistake the Quaere in My first Paper to which this pretends to answer; for my Question was not concerning force of Arguments (for I never doubted the lawful∣ness of it) but force ••f Arms, to which, I conceive, it says little or nothing, (unless af∣ter My example) you ••••••er Me to the former Section; that which it doth, is merely the asking of the question, after a fine discourse of the several ways of perswading rather than for∣cing of Conscience. I close up this Paper, desiring you to take notice, that there is none of these Sections but I could have inlarged to many more lines, some to whole pages; yet I chose to be thus brief, knowing you will understand more by a word than others by a long dis∣course; trusting likewise to your ingenuity, that Reason epitomized will weigh as much with you as if it were at large.

June 22. 1646.

C. R.