1. IT is your Majesties royall godnesse, 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 and in­ducements which drew my minde to the dislike of Episcopall Government, 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 length of time wherein your Majesty hath been setled in [Page 6]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 Joannes Picus Mirandula proveth by irrefra­gable Reasons (which not 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 prossible 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 better: Symmachus in one of his Epistles (I thinke to the Emperour [Page 7] Theodosius and Valentinian) alledgeth all 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 Jewes 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 reverences 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, not left to the multitude, whom God stirreth up when Princes are negli­gent: Thus did Jacob reforme his owne Fami­ly, Moses destroyed the golden Calfe, the good [Page 8]Kings of Judah 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 Jeho­saphat removed the high Places, yet was not his Reformation perfect, for it was Hezekiah that brake the brasen Serpent, and Josiah 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 Government 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 Grofted 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; and of unspeakable grief & sorrow to other Churches, which God did blesse with greater purity of reformation. The glory of this [Page 9]great worke we hope is reserved for your Ma­jesty, that to your comfort and everlasting fame the praise of godly Josiah 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 to 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 to 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 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, that is not there ben; but (not to insist now in [Page 10]a Litourgy, 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 of 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 and 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, and divine order and subordination; one kind of Ministers both ordinary and extraor­dinary being placed in degree and dignity one be­fore another, as the Apostles first, the Evange­lists, Pastors, Doctors, &c. in their owne ranks: 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 [Page 11]other Deacons; why then a Pastor above other Pastors? In all other sorts of Ministers ordinary and extraordinary a parity in their owne kind, only 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 be 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 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 [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 [Page 14]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.

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 his Figures & Circlings in the sand, Marcellus interupted his demonstration.
• [Page 23]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 if 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 conceived, when a Generall Defection, like a de­luge, hath covered the whole face of the Church, [Page 24]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, and Magi­strates: if the Prince or supreme Magistrate be unwilling, then may be inferior Magistrate, and the People, being before rightly informed in the grounds of Religion, lawfully Reforme, with­in their owne Sphere; and if the light shine upon all, or the major part, they may, after all other means assayed, make a Publique Reformation. This, before this time, I never wrote or spoke; yet the Maintainers of this 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, may humble Opinion would be, that they should draw the minds, tongues, and pens of the learned, to dispute about other matter, then the power or Prero­gative of Kings and Princes; and in this kind, your Majesty hath suffered and lost more, then will easily be restored to your selfe or your Posterity, for a long time. It is not denied but the prime Reforming power, is in Kings and Princes, Qui­bus—deficientibus, it comes to the inferior Ma­gistrate, Quibus Deficientibus, it descendeth to the Body of the People; supposing that there is a necessity of Reformation, and that by no meanes it [Page 25]can be obtained of their Superiors. It is true that such a Reformation, is more imperfect, in respect of the Instruments, and manner of Procedure; yet for the most part, more pure and perfect in rela­tion to the effect and 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 Jo­siah. 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 unpartiall Witnesses, Jewell and Bilson, both famous English Bishops, to prove that the tumults and troubles raised in Scotland, at the time of Reformation, were to be imputed to the Papists opposing of the Reformation, both of Doctrine and Discipline, as an Hereticall Inno­vation; and note to be ascribed to the Nobility, or People, who under God, were the Instruments of it; intending and 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 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 [Page 26]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 may 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 and 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 Jure Divino: That, the English Reformation hath not perfectly purged out the Roman Leaven; which is one of the Reasons, that have given ground, to the com­paring of this Church, to be Church of Lao­dicaea, as being neither hot nor cold, neither Po­pish 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 is hath added many Church Offices, higher and lower, unto those in­stituted [Page 27]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, nisi jam 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 differences 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 as your Church, your Refor­mation, your Doctrine, before Luther's time? One part of the common Answer is, that is was from the beginning, and is to be found in Scri­pture: The same I affirme of Presbyterian-Go­vernment: And for proving of this, the Assem­bly of Divines at Westminster, have made ma­nifest, that the Primitive Christian Church at Jerusalem was governed by a Presbytery: while they shew,

• 1. That the Church of Jerusa­lem consisted of more Congregations then one, [Page 28]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 these Congregations, were under one Presbyteriall Government, because they were, for Government, one Church, Act. II. 22, 26.

And because that Church was governed by Elders, Acts 11.30. which were Elders of that Church, and did 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 to 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 Jerome; & Episcopos magis consuctudine, quam Dis­positionis Divinae veritate, Presbyteris esse majores, & in commune debere ecclesiam re­gere.

5. Farre be it form me to think such a thought, as that your Majesty did intend any Fallacy, in [Page 29]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 or 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. Rationen 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 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 even mans conscience is bound to yeild unto, is of an higher nature. And, although the Generall Councell should resolve it, [Page 30]and 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 Booke, De Judice 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, and 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 d [...]scovered 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 and literall sense 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, and 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 [Page 31]in many places of Scripture: I wind 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 Majesty 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 Baptisme, 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 be­fore, that in Scripture, it is manifest, I Tim. 4.14.

Neglect not the Gift that is in Thee, which was given Thee by the 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 [Page 32]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, Jerome 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 Person may performe the ex­ternall Action and Rites both of it and of the En­charist; yet is neither of the two a Sacrament, or hath any efficacy, unlesse it be done by him that is lawfully called thereunto, or by a Person made publique and clothed with Authority by Ordina­tion. This Errour in the matter of Baptisme, is 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, and to either of them, in their owne place. Such an [Page 33]Headship as the Kings of England hath claimed, and such a supremacy as the Houses of Parlia­ment crave, with Appeales from the supreme Ecclesiasticall Judicature 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 kind can be done without the consent of the Cler­gy, what Reformation can be expected in France, or Spaine, or Rome it selfe? It is no 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, [Page 34]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 and 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 my 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, Ne si persuaseris, persuadebis; which is no lesse then a resisting of the Holy Ghost, and 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, and the fire to burne inwardly, then 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: [Page 35]unto which is opposed, the truly Tender Consci­ence; such as Josiah 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 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.

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 Publique 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 [Page 47]to unloose them: yet will I not use any Tergiver­sation; nor doe I decline to offer my humble Opi­nion with the Reasons theoreof, in the owne time concerning each of them; which in obedience to your Majesties command, I have begun to doe al­already. 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, and 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 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 know, that nothing is more ordinary in this Question, then to alleage Antiquity, perpetuall Succession, universall Consent of the Fathers, and the universall practice of the Primitive Church, according to the Rule of Augustine, [Page 48]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 beside 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 Presbyter 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 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 parallel, 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 [Page 49]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 wisdome 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 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 [Page 50]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.

[Page 51] 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 [Page 52]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.