. , Chap. VU. The HIS T 0 R Y of the PuRIT ANS , 2 35 Mr. HEN D E R SON in his third paper of J uly 2 . con fide rs chiefly K. Charles I. the ruks his majefty had laid down for determini ng the controverfy of~~ church government, which are the practice of the primitive church, Mr. Hen– and the un iverfal confent of the fathers, and affirms, there is no fuch derfon'> primitive td l:imony, no fuch univerfal confent in favo ur of modern epif- third reply, copacy; the fathers very often contradiCling one another, or at leall: not concurring in their tefl:imony. But to £hew the uncertainty of h is majeily's ru le for determining controverfies of fait h, Mr. Henderfon obferves, 1. T hat fome critics join the word of Gcd and antiquify together ; o– thers m.tkc fi:ripture the only rule, and antiquity the authentic interpreter. Now he thi nks the latter a greater mifl:ake than the former, for the pa– pifl:s br ing trad ition no farther th an to an equality of regard wit h the inlpired writings, but the others make anti quity the very ground of their belief of the fe nfe of fcrip ture, and by that means exalt it above the fcripture; fo r the inte·pretation of the fathers is made the very formal reafon why I believe the fcripture interpretable in fuch a fenfe ;. and thus, contrary to the apoltle' doctrine, Our faith mufl ftand in the wifdom of man, and not in the power qf God. 2. He obferves that kripture can only be authenticly interpreted by fcripture itfelf. Thus the levites bad recourfe only to one part of fcrip– ture for the interpreting another, Neh. viii , 8. So likewife our Saviour interprets the old tefl:ament, by comparing fcripture with fcripture, and not having recourfe to the 1·abbies. This was likewife the apoftles me– thod. Befides when perfons infill: fo much upon the neceffity of the fathers, they are in danger of charging the fcriptures with obfcurity or imperfection. 3· The fa thers themfelves fdy, that fcripture is not to be interpreted but by fcripture. 4· Many errors have paired under the lbelter of antiquity aad tradition; rMr. Henderjo1z cites a great many examples under this head. And lajlly, He infifl:s, that the univerfal confent and praClice of the primitive chu rch is impofiible to be known; th at many of the fathers were no authors; that many of their traCts are loft; that many perform– .ances which go under their names are fpurious, efpecially upon the fubj ett of epifcopacy, and that therefore they are an uncertain rule. The KI NG -in his papers of July 3d and 16th fays, no man can re- King's la.fl verence fcripture more than himfelf; but when Mr. Hender f"on and he dif- Breply.R fi b h . . f h /)_ b r . Jd" • Jbl. eg. er a o~t t e m~erpretat10n o a text, t ere mun e 10meJU ge or umptre, p. 35 r, 353 • otherwife the dlfpute can never be ended; and when there are no parallel texts the fu refl: guide mu ft be the fathers. In anfwer to Mr. Henderfon's particulars his majeily anfwers, that if fome people over-rule trad ition, that can be ~o argume~t againfl: the ferviceablenefs of it ; but to charge - !J 1) z the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=