Page 90
VIII. His MAJESTY's Fifth Paper.
UNtil you shall find out a fitter way to decide our Difference in Opinion concerning In∣terpretation of Scripture, than the Consent of the Fathers and the Universal Practice of the Primitive Church, I cannot but pass my Judgment anent those Six Consi∣derations which you offered to invalidate those Authorities that I so much reverence.
1. In the first you mention two Rules for defining of Controversies, and seek a most odd way to confute them, as I think; for you alledge, that there is more attributed to them than I believe you can prove by the Consent of most learned Men (there being no question, but there are always some flattering fools that can commend nothing but with hyperbolick ex∣pressions) and you know that supposito quolibet, sequitur quidlibet: besides, do you think, that albeit some ignorant Fellows should attribute more power to Presbyters than is really due unto them, that thereby their Just reverence and Authority is diminished? So I see no reason why I may not safely maintain that the Interpretation of Fathers is a most excellent strength∣ning 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 far the best Interpreter of it self, so I see nothing in this, negatively proved, to exclude any other, notwithstanding your positive affirmation.
3. Nor in the next; for I hope you will not be the first to condemn your self, Me, and innumerable others, who yet unblameably have not tied themselves to this Rule.
4. If this you only intend to prove, that Errours were always breeding in the Church, I shall not deny it; yet that makes little (as I conceive) to your purpose. But if your mean∣ing be, to accuse the Universal practice of the Church with Errour, I must say, it is a very bold undertaking, and (if you cannot justifie your self by clear places in Scripture) much to be blamed: wherein you must not alledge that to be universally received which was not; as I dare say that the Controversie about Free-will was never yet decided by Oecumenical or General Council: nor must you presume to call that an Errour, which really the Catholick Church maintained (as in Rites of Baptism, Forms of Prayer, Observation of Feasts, Fasts, &c.) except you can prove it so by the Word of God; and it is not enough to say that such a thing was not warranted by the Apostles, but you must prove by their Doctrine that such a thing was unlawful, or else the Practice of the Church is warrant enough for Me to follow and obey that Custom, whatsoever it be, and think it good; and I shall believe that the Apostles Creed was made by them, (such Reverence I bear to the Churches Tradition) un∣till 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 in∣credible that any custom of the Catholick Church was erroneous, which was not contradict∣ed by Orthodox learned Men in the times of their first Practice, as is easily perceived that all those Defections were (some of them may be justly called Rebellions) which you mention.
6. I deny it is impossible (though I confess it difficult) to come to the knowledge of the Universal Consent and Practice of the Primitive Church; therefore I confess a man ought to be careful how to believe things of this nature; wherefore I conceive this to be only an Ar∣gument for Caution.
My conclusion is, that albeit I never esteemed any Authority equal to the Scriptures; yet I do think the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers, and the Universal Practice of the Pri∣mitive Church, to be the best and most Authentical Interpreters of God's Word, and consequently the fittest Judges between Me and you, when we differ, until you shall find Me better. For example, I think you for the present the best Preacher in Newcastle; yet I be∣lieve you may err, and possibly a better Preacher may come: but till then I must retain my Opi∣nion.
Newcastle, July 16. 1646.
C. R.