VII. His MAJESTIES Fourth Paper.
I Shall very willingly follow the method you have begun in your third Paper; but I do not con∣ceive that my last Paper multiplies more Controversies than my first gave occasion for; ha∣ving been so far from augmenting the Heads of our Disputation, that I have omitted the an∣swering many things in both your Papers, expresly to avoid raising of new and needless Questi∣ons; 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 shews you an excellent way; for there I offer you a Judge between us, or desire you to find out a better, which, to My judgment, 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 re∣verence, nor submit more humbly to it, than My self; yet we must find some Rule to judge be∣twixt us, when you and I differ upon the interpretation of the self-same Text, or it can never determine our Questions. As for example, I say you misapply that of 2 Cor. 1. 14. to Me (let others answer for themselves) for I know not how I make other men to have dominion over My Faith, when I make them only serve to approve my Reason. Nor do I conceive how 1 Cor. 2. 5. can be applied to this purpose: for there Saint Paul only shews the difference be∣tween Divine and Humane Eloquence, making no mention of any kind of interpretation throughout the whole Chapter, as indeed Saint Peter does, 2 Pet. 1. 20. which I conceive makes for Me: for, since that no Prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, First, I infer, that Scripture is to be interpreted, for else the Apostle would have omitted the word Private; Secondly, that at least the consent of many learned Divines is necessary, and so, à fortiori, that of the Catholick Church ought to be an authentick Judge, when men differ. And is it a good Argument, because (Matth. 4. 4, 7, 10.) Scripture is best interpre∣ted by it self, therefore that all other interpretations are unlawful? certainful you cannot think it. 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 be∣tween us, to determine our differences, or, at least, to make our Probations and Arguments Relevant: therefore evading for this time to Answer your Six Considerations (not, I assure you, for the difficulty of them, but the starting of new Questions) I desire you only to shew Me a better than what I have offered unto you.
Newcastle, July 3. 1646.
C. R.