lian speaks, nisi homini Deus placuerit, Deus non erit : God CHARLES must stand to man's courtesy for his deity. "Secondly, That Scripture cannot be authentically interpreted but by Scripture, is plain from Scripture itself. Thus the Levites (as this gentleman argues) made the law its own interpreter, and had recourse only to one part of Scripture for expounding another. I. Neh. viii. 8. "Thus our Saviour, for a precedent against error, detected the devil's abuse of the inspired writings, and gave the true sense of Scripture, by explaining one text by another: he compared Scripture with Scripture, without alleging the authority of the Rabbins. This was likewise the Apostles' Matt. iv. 4. method: and thus St. Peter exhorts us to compare the clear light of the apostolical writings with the more obscure discoveries of the prophets: and when we apply for direction to the 2 Pet. i. 19. fathers, we had need be very cautious not to charge the Scriptures with obscurity or imperfection. "Thirdly, The fathers themselves maintain that Scripture is not to be interpreted but by Scripture. But for this point he only cites a single testimony from Tertullian: Surge, Veritas, ipsas Scripturas tuas interpretare quam consuetudo non novit; nam si nosset, non esset.' "Fourthly, He pretends some errors have passed under the shelter of antiquity and tradition; and here he offers several instances: for example, the error of free-will began with Justin Martyr, and continued till the Reformation; though he grants it was rejected by St. Austin and so, as he goes on, was the divine right of episcopacy contradicted by others. Farther, it was universally held by the ancients that the saints departed were not admitted to the beatific vision till the resurrection the same may be said of the Millennaries' doctrine. And, which, he thinks, comes closer to the question in hand, the ancients were lamentably mistaken touching Antichrist : and that the mystery of iniquity, though the fathers seem not sensible of it, began to work in the Apostles' days. Many other instances, he thinks, may be brought to prove the universal practice of the Church no safe ground to rely on and particularly that the ancient ceremonies in baptism and the liturgies; the forming of the symbolum apostolicum, the observing anniversary and weekly festivals and fasts, are all un VOL. VIII. Y 7. 2 Chron. xii. 1. warranted by the Apostles. To take off the surprise of so sudden a defection in the primitive Church; to give a more intelligible account of their going off thus early from apostolical purity, he endeavours, "In the fifth place, to give parallel instances in the Old Testament. He observes the Israelites, in the short interval of Moses' absence, debauched their religion, and fell into horExod. xxxii. rible idolatry. Thus, soon after the death of Joshua and his contemporary elders, the next generation revolted from their Judges ii. 7. law, and did evil in the sight of the Lord.' Soon after the building of the temple, and settling the priests' courses by David and Solomon, the worship of God was polluted with idolatry. When Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and strengthened himself, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.' And thus in the New Testament the Apostle expostulates with the Galatians, and wonders they are so soon removed unto another Gospel.' From all these instances, he infers we have no reason to be surprised there should be a sudden defection in matters of discipline; especially since this mischief began to operate in the Apostles' time. He grants it is commonly believed the Church was most remarkable for purity and perfection in those centuries which came nearest the apostolical age: but thinks this opinion not well supported. Gal. i. 6. The King's Fourth Paper, July 3, 1646. "Sixthly, He insists that the universal consent and practice of the primitive Church is impossible to be known that many of the fathers were no authors; that many of their tracts are lost, which might possibly have disagreed with those extant; that many performances which go under their names are counterfeit, especially upon the subject of episcopacy: and that the rule of St. Austin, above-mentioned, favours tradition too much, and is not to be admitted without caution and restraint. His majesty, in his answer to this last paper of Henderson, closes with his method, and "agrees with him in beginning with the settling of the rule. He puts him in mind of his offering a judge to determine the controversy; but that Henderson had neither agreed to the reference, nor directed to a better umpire. As for Scripture, though no man can reverence it more, or resign farther to it than his majesty; yet I. 848. when Henderson and himself differ about the interpretation of CHARLES a text, it is necessary for them to apply to some rule to settle the sense. And that without compromising the matter thus far, it is impossible the dispute should be determined. For instance, the king charges Henderson with misapplying 2 Cor. i. 24. His majesty cannot imagine how his principles give other men dominion over his faith, when he makes them only serviceable to support his reason. And which way 1 Cor. ii. 5, can be turned to this purpose, is farther than he understands. For here St. Paul's design is only to mark the difference between human rhetoric and the demonstration of the Spirit as for interpreting Scripture, this Apostle gives no directions for that through the whole chapter. It is true St. Peter does. But here the king conceives the advantage lies 2 Pet. i. 20. on his side. For since no prophecy or Scripture is of private interpretation, his majesty infers, "1. That Scripture is to be interpreted, otherwise the word private would have been omitted by the Apostle. "2. That the Catholic Church being the surest guide, and the most public authority, ought to be appealed to when the meaning of the Holy Ghost is contested. "And though Scripture is best interpreted by itself, when parallel places occur, and the case will bear it, does it follow from hence that all other methods are unlawful? And thus, since the king and Henderson differ about the meaning of the Scripture, his majesty concludes there must be a rule, or a judge between them, to give force to their proofs, to make their arguments bear, and put an end to the controversy." Thus far his majesty's fourth paper. In his fifth he engages Henderson's "Six Considerations," and disproves his reasoning. Paper, 1646. "To the first his majesty answers, that overflourishing the His Maauthority of tradition is no argument against the serviceable- jesty's Fifth ness of it for, though some ignorant fellows should assert the power of presbyters too far, and overstrain their character, would this be a good reason for lessening the regard due to them? By parity of inference," continues the king, "why may not I safely maintain the interpretation of the Fathers a most excellent support of my opinion? Why may not I depend thus far upon the ancients, though some extravagant people exceed in their reliance, and resolve their faith into this principle? "Henderson's second and third considerations, that Scripture ought to be interpreted by Scripture, hath been answered already. "To the fourth his majesty replies, that to charge the practice of the universal Church with error, is a very bold undertaking and, unless the article can be made good by clear places of Scripture, Henderson is much to be blamed for this freedom that this divine mistakes matter of fact, and that the controversy touching free-will was never yet decided by any general council; that, to call the customs and discipline of the Catholic Church errors, is an unpardonable presumption, unless the charge can be proved from Holy Scripture; and that it is not sufficient to say such rites in baptism, forms of prayer, observation of festivals, &c., are not expressly warranted by the apostles. This is no good exception. Those who object to these ancient rites and customs must prove such usages are plainly unlawful by the apostles' doctrine: otherwise, if the objections come short of this evidence, the practice of the Church is enough in all reason to warrant the custom. And, upon this ground of the Church's tradition, his majesty will believe the Apostles' Creed was formed by those inspired writers, till other unquestionable authors can be assigned. "To Henderson's sixth consideration his majesty opposes the axiom of A posse ad esse, non valet consequentia,' or that there is no good reasoning from possibility to matter of fact; that the instances of defection, brought both from the Old and New Testament, were marked at their rise, and complained of when they appeared. "Farther: his majesty denies it is impossible to discover the universal consent and understand the practice of the primitive Church; and that all the reasons advanced to the contrary prove no farther than caution, and are only motives against over-forward belief. His majesty concludes with repeating this remarkable sentence, that, notwithstanding he never esteemed any authority equal to the Scriptures, yet he believes the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and the universal practice of the primitive Church, the best and most authentic interpreters of God's Word; and, by consequence, CHARLES the best qualified judges between himself and Henderson." I. Reliquiæ p. 309, et Thus I have reported the substance of the debate; and, on rolinæ, which side the victory lies, shall be left to the reader. By his deinc. majesty's manner, one would almost have thought he had lain under no mortification; that the rebellion had been crushed; and that his affairs had been in the easiest posture imaginable. He discovers no marks of dejection or disturbance. He lays down solid principles, looks through Henderson's discourse with great penetration, attacks him in his main strength, and argues with force and perspicuity; and all this without being furnished with common convenience, without books or divines to assist him. Besides, his majesty engaged no ordinary champion: for, to give Henderson his due, he was a person of learning, elocution, and judgment; he made the best of his way, and seems to have been the top of his party. It was credibly reported, as the learned Heylin relates, that Hender- Henderson son's being worsted in the controversy, threw him into a deep Edinburgh, melancholy, which ended in a mortal distemper. Some say he and dies. died a convert to his majesty, and that he did him the justice p. 477. of an extraordinary character in managing a debate of this nature. The English commissioners being informed how well his majesty had performed against Henderson, declined engaging in any dispute, and only desired his answer to their propositions; but these were so unreasonable, the king could give them no satisfaction. retires into Hist. Presb. nance for Collect. &c. In October following, the two houses at Westminster made An ordian ordinance for abolishing the name, dignity, and function of abolishing all archbishops and bishops, alienating their lands, and settling archbishops, bishops, and them in trustees; and, not long after, ordered them to be selling their lands. sold for the payment of debts, and discharging the public faith. And thus the Presbyterian preachers, who had mis- Scobell's reported the king in their pulpits, given thanks for sham fol. 99, 100, victories, and encouraged the people in their rebellion, gained little at the foot of the account. They expected, it is likely, to have raised their fortunes upon the ruins of episcopacy, and have had their livings augmented with deans and chapters lands; but now they found themselves disappointed, the alienations transferred to secular uses, and the plunder lodged in 101. |