Letter to Francis Knolles, Letter
DR. REIGNOLDS HIS LETTER TO that Worthy Councellor, SIR FRANCIS KNOLLES, Concerning ſome paſſages in Dr. Bancroft Sermon at PAVLES Croſſe, Feb. 9. 1588. in the Parliament time.
As alſo A QVESTION RESOLVED BY A LEARNED DOCTOR, whether the Angels of the ſeaven Churches, Revel. 2, & 3. make for Epiſcopall prae-eminence Jure Divino.
LONDON Printed by W. I. dweling in Red-croſſe Street. 1641.
DOCTOR REIGNOLDS his Letter to Sr. Francis Knolles concerning Dr. Bancrofts Sermon at Pauls croſſe, Feb. 9. 1588. in the Parliament time.
ALbeit (Right honourable) I take greater comfort in labouring to diſcover and overthrow the errours of Ieſuits & Papits, (enemies of religion) then of the miniſters of Chriſt, yet ſeeing it hath pleaſed your Honour to require me to ſhew mine opinion of ſome things that certaine of theſe men maintaine and ſtand in, I thought it my duty by the exampleaDeut, 33, 9. of Levi, who ſaide of his father and mother I regard them not, nor acknowledged he his brethren to declare the truth without reſpect of perſons.
Of the two points therfore in Doctor Bancrafts ſermon which your honour mentioneth, one is concerning that he ſemeeth to avouch the ſuperiority which Biſhops have among us over the Clergie to be Gods owne ordinanc though not by expreſſe words yet by neceſſ…ry conſequence; In that he affirmed that there opinion who oppugne that their ſ…riorety to be hereſie, wherin I muſt confeſſe he hath cōmitted & overſight in my Iudgmēt, & himſelfe I thinke advertiſed therof will acknowledge it, for havingebpag 18. ſaid firſt that Aerius affirmeth that ther was no difference by the word of God betwixt a Preſt & a Biſhop & afterwards that Martin and his companions do maintaine this point of Aerius, he addeth that Aerius perſiſting therin was cōdēned for an hereticke by the generall conſent of the whole Church, cpag 19.and likewiſedpag 69 that Martins, and all his companions opinio… hath herein been condemned for hereſie.
Touching Martine, if any man behave himſelfe otherwiſe then in diſcretion and charitie he ought, let the blame be laid where the fault is, I defend him not; but if by the way, he utter a truth, mingled with whatſoever elſe, it is not reaſon that that, which is of God, ſhould be condemned for that which is of man; no more then the doctrine of the reſurection ſhould be reproved becauſeeAct, 2 3.8. it was maintained and held by the Phariſes. Wherefore removing the odious name of Martin, from that which in ſincerety and louelove is to be dealt with, it appeareth, by the aforeſard words of D. Bancroft, that he avoucheth the Superiorety which Biſhops hauehave over the Clergie to be of Gods owne ordinance; for he improveth the impugners of it, as holding with Aerius, that there is no difference by the word of God betwixt a Preſt, and a Biſhop, which he could not doe with reaſon, unleſſe he himſelfe proved the Biſhops ſupreriorety, as eſtabliſhed by Gods word: and he addeth, that their opinion, who gaine ſay it is Hereſie, whereof it inſueth he thinke it contrary to Gods word; ſith Hereſy is an errour repugnant to the truth of the word of God, as (according tof1 Tim, 6, 3. Titus 3, 10. 2 Pet 1 19 21. the Scriptures) our owne ChurchgThe defence of the Apolog. part 1 et 7 de viſion 2 anſw. to the Rhem. Titus 3 10, doth teach us.
Now the Arguments which he bringeth to prove it an hereſy, are partely overweake and partly untrue: ouerweake thathpa 18 he beginneth with, out of Epiphanius; untrue, that he adjoyneth of the general conſent of the Church. For though Epiphanius do ſay, that Aerius his aſſertion is full of folly, ipa 19, et 69yet he diſproveth not the reaſon which Aerius ſtood on, out of the Scriptures; nay he dealeth ſo in ſeeking to diſprove it, that Bellarmine the Ieſuite, kTom. 1 cont 5 lib, 1 ca…pt 5though deſirous to make the beſt of Epiphanius, whoſe opinion herein he maintaineth againſt the Proteſtants, yet is f…rced to confſſe, that Epiphanus his anſwer is not all of the the wiſeſt, nor any way can fit the text.
As for the generall conſent of the whole Church which D. Bancroft ſaith, condemned that opiniō of Aerius for an Hereſy, & himſelfe for an Hereticke, becauſe he perſiſt…d in it, that is a la…ge ſpeach: but what proofe hath he that the wh…le Chur…h did ſo? It appeareth he ſaith inlHereſy 15, Epiphanius. It doth not, and the contrary appeareth bymin epiſt ad Titum 1 et Epiſt 85 ad Evagrium S. Ierome, and ſundry others, who liued ſome in the ſame time, ſom after Epiphanivs, even Saint Auſtin himſelfe, though D. Bancroft cite him, as beareing witnes thereof▪ likewiſe I grant S. Auſtin ncap 53.in his booke of hereſies, aſcribeth this to Aerius, for one, that he ſaid, Preſbiterum ab epiſcopo nalla differentia deberi diſcerni: but it is one thing to ſay, there ought to be no difference betwixt them, (which Aerius ſaying condemned the Churches order, yea made a ſchiſme therin, & to is cenſured by S. Auſten counting it an hereſie asoIn Ar…ument prefix lib, 3 Epiphanius be tooke it recorded, himſelfe, aspde hereſ, ad quod vnit De umin prefatio ne he witneſſeth, not knowing how farre the name of Hereſy ſhould be ſtretched) another thing to ſay, that by the word of God there is no difference betwixt them, but by the order & cuſtome of the Church. which S. Auſten qEpiſt, 19ſayth in effect himſelfe, ſo farre was he from witnſſing this to be hereſy by the generall conſent ôf the whole Church Which untruth how wrongfully it is fathered one him and on Epiphanius (who yet are all the wi… neſſes, that D. Bancroft hath produced for the proofe hereof, or can for ought that I know) it may appeare by this, that our learned country man of godly memory Biſhoprdefence of the Apolog part 2 cap. 9 diviſ 1, pag 198. Iewell, when Harding to convince the ſame opinion of hereſie alleaged the ſame witneſſes, cyting, to the contrary Chriſoſtome, Ierom, Auſten, and Ambroſe, knit up his Anſwer with theſe words: All theſe, and other moe holy Fathers, together with the Apoſtle S. Paul, for thus ſaying by Hardings advice, muſt be held for heritickes. And Michaell Medina (s) a man of great account in the Councell of Trent, more ingenious here in then many other Papiſts, affirmeth not onelyonly the former ancient writers alleadged by Biſhop Iewel, but alſo an other Ierom, Theodoret, Primaſius, Sedulius, and Theophilact, were of the ſame minde touching this matter with Aerius. With whom agree likewiſetin 1 Tim, 3. Oecumenius, ſDe ſacriſ, hom, orig, et confir. lib, 1. cap 5.&vin Epiſt, ad Titum. Anſelmus Arbp: B: of Canturbury, & anxCollect, can. lib, 7 cap, 87, and 127. other Anſelmus, andyPolicar lib 2 Titus 19, et 39. Gregorie, and (z) Gratian, and after them how many? It being once inrolled in the Cannon law for found, and Catholike doctrine, and thereupon publikly taught by learnedaAuthor gloſſ. in ca diſt, citat. hodericus ca…. Ave lat, inconcil, Baſil, Du… ren, de ſacra eccle miniſt. lib 1 cap. 7. men; All which do beare witneſſe againſt D. Bancroft, of the point in queſtion, that it was not condemned for in Hereſie by the generall conſent of the whole Church: For if he ſhould reply,Ccap, legimus, diſt, 39, cap, Olimp, diſt, 95. that theſe later witneſſe did live a 1000 yeares after Chriſt, and therefore touch not him whobpag 19. ſaid, it was condemned ſo in the time of S. Auſtin, and ofcpag 69. Epiphanius, the moſt flouriſhing time of the Church that ever happened ſince the Apoſtles dayes, either in reſpect of learning or of zeale, firſt they, whom I named, though liveing in a latter time, yet are witneſſes of the former.
Oecumenius the Greeke Scholiaſt treading in the ſteppes of the old greeke Fathers, and the two Anſelmes, with Gregorie, and Cratian, expreſing S. Ieromes ſentence word by word. Beſides that, perhaps it is not very likely that Anſelmes of Caunterbury ſhould have beene Canonized by the Pope of Rome, and worhiped for a Saint, that the other Anſelmes, and Gregory, ſhould have ſuch place in the Popes library, and be eſteemed of as they are: that Gratians workes ſhould be allowed ſo long time by ſo many Popes for die golden foundation of the Canon law, if they had taught that for Catholicke, and ſound, which by the generall conſent of the whole Church, in the moſt flouriſhing time that ever happened ſince the Apoſtles dayes, was condemned for hereſy: cheifely in a matter of ſuch waight, and moment, to the Popes ſupremacy: which as they doe claime over all Biſhops by the ordinance of God, ſo muſt they allow to Biſhops over Priſtes by the ſame ordinance, as they ſay at length: and therefore have not onelyonly decreed it now in theeSeſſ 28 cap 4. canon 6 et 7. Councill of Trent, but alſo infAnnot. marg, ad cap legimus diſt. 1…. the new edition of their Canon law have ſet downe this note, that one Hughs Gloſſe allowed by the Archdeacon (ſaying, that Biſhops have differed from Preiſts always as they doe now in Government, and Prelatship, and and efices, and Sacraments, but not in the name and Title of Biſhop, which was Common to them both) muſt be hell hereafter for S. Ieromes meaning at leaſt for the meaning of the Canon taken out of S. Ierom, though his wordes be flat and plaine againſt this gloſſe, as Bellarmine gTom 1 contro 3 lib. 1 cap.himſelfe confeſſeth. Wherto may beadded, that they alſo who have laboured about the reforming of the Chvrch theſe 500 yeare, hauehave taught that all Paſters be they intituled Biſhops, or Preiſts, hauehave equall authority & power by Gods word, Firſt thehAeneus Silvius hiſto. …o…em, cap 35 et Pigh Hierarch Eccleſ. lib 1 …ap 10. Defenſ, p…cit … 2. cap. 15 Waldenſes, next (i) Marſitius Patavinus then (k) Wickliffe and his ſchollers; afterwardlAeneas Silvius loco citato. Huſſe: and Huſsites: laſt of allmAdverſus fal ſo nominat or din, epiſt et ad ver Pap… Rom. Luther, (n)in epiſt, ad philip, 1 et Titus 1Calvine oApoſ. Confeſ Wit…ē …. c 2 21.Brentius, pDecad 5 ſet, 3Bullinger, qLoc Com. Tit de miniſt verbi,Muſculus & other,kTho, Waldē doct fidei Tom 1: lib 2 cap 60. et Tom 2 c 17 who might be reckoned perticularly in great number, ſith as here with us both B…shops; and the Quienes (s) Profeſſors of DivinityrIewell loca citat, et Pilkington in the Treatiſe of burning Paules C…urc…s D Humphrey in cap et in D…re… Ieſuitas part 2 …at, 3 et D Whit ad tat. Camp…a… et confuta, Durel Ieſuitae lib 6, in our Vniuerſities, &tM. Bradford, Lambert et others. M. For Acts et. D Fulke againſt Briſtow Motives 40. and Anſwer to the Rhemiſts Titus 1, 5. other learned men do conſent therein: ſo in forreine Nations all whom I hauehave read treating of this matter, and many moe (no doubt) whom I have not read,
The ſifting & examyning of the Trent Counſell hath been under taken by only two, which I have ſeene, the one a divine, the other a Lawyer,vpart 2. Kemniſ…s, xlib, 4.and Gentilletus; they both condemne the contrary doctrine thereunto, as a Trenterrour; the one by Scriptures; and Fathers, the other by the Canon Law. But what doe I further ſpeake of ſeverall perſons? It is the common judgement of the Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germanie, Hungarie, Polon, the Lowcountries, and our owne, witnes theyHa…mony ſect 11. in Helvet, poſt G…lia, Belgia, Anglia. etc. Harmonie of Confesſions.
Wherefore ſith D. Bancroft (I aſſure my ſelfe) will not ſay that all theſe have approved that as ſound and chriſtian doctrine, which by the generall conſent of the whole Church, in a moſt flowriſhing time, was condemned for hereſie: I hope he will acknowledge, that he was over ſeene, in that he avouched, the Superiority which Biſhops have among vsus over the Cleargie to bee of Gods owne ordinance. And thus farre of the former poynt of D. Bancroft Sermon.
The latter is, concerning that he affirmeth, that S. Ierem zpag 14, et 69.ſaith, and M. Calvin ſeemeth on his report, to confeſſe that Biſhops have had the ſaid ſuperiority ever ſince the time of S Marke the Evangeliſt. Of the which point I thinke as of the former; ſith neither Ierom ſaith it, neither doth Calvin ſeeme to confeſſe it on his report. For Biſhops among us, beſides ordeyning, and laying on of handes, may doe ſundry other things, which inferior Miniſters, or Preiſts (as D. Bancroft termeth them) may not; ButaEpiſt, ad Evagrum. Ierom, after mention of the ſuperiority allotted to Biſhops ſince S. Marks time, what doth a Biſhop (ſaith he,) except ordination, which a Preiſt doth not? Meaning, and in forcing by this kind of ſpeach, as a thing moſt evident, and ſuch as no man could deny, that Biſhops had, that onelyonly power above Preiſts then, whichbHom, 11. in 1, Tim. Chryſoſtome alſo witnesſeth.
Though nether had they it alone in all places as it is apparant by acConcil. 4. …an. 3. Coūſell of Carthage, ſhewing their Churches order: that the Preiſts layd their hands together with the Biſhop on thoſe who were ordeyned. Yet Ierom having proved by teſtimony of Scripture, that in the Apoſtles times, Biſhops, and Prieſts were all one, even in the rightdIn 1 Tim, 4 14. of this two, granteth that afterwardes Biſhops had that peculiar unto themſelues ſome where, but nothing elſe ſaue it. S. Ierom therefore ſaith not of that ſuperiority whereof the queſtion is, that Biſhops have had it ever ſince S. Marks time.
No more doth M. Calvin ſeeme to confeſſe it upon his report. For Calvin in the (ſameeInſtit, lib. 4, cap, 4, ſect, 2 place that D. Bancroft quoteth) ſhewing how in old time the Miniſters that had charge to teach choſe of their company one in every citie, to whom they did eſpecially giuegive the title of Biſhop; lead equality ſhould breed diſſention, yet (ſaith he) the B…ſhop was not above them in honour and dignity, that he had rule over them, but looke what is the conſuls duty in the Senate. to propoſe matters, to aske their opinions, to direct others by giuing thē adviſe, by admoniſhing, by exorting, to guide the whole action by his authority, & ſee that performed which was agreed vponupon by their cō mon conſent, that charge had the Biſhop in the aſſembly of Miniſters. And having declared, that S. Ierom ſheweth this to have been brought in by the conſent of men upon the firſt of Titus, he addeth that the ſame S. Ierom otherwhere ſhweth, how ancient an order of the Church it was, even from S. Marks time to Hereclas and, Dioniſius at Alexandria. In which words of Calvin, ſeeing that the Order of the Church he mentioneth, hath euident relation to that before deſcribed, and that in the deſcribing of it, he had ſaid, the Bishop was not ſo aboue the reſt in honor to rule over thē: It followed, that M. Calvin doth not ſo much as ſeeme to confeſſe of Ieroms report, that ever ſince S. Markes time Biſhops have had a ruling ſuperiority over the Cleargie.
Wherefore to uſe no more profes in a thing manifeſt which elſe might eaſily be proued more at large out of S. Ierom and M. Calvin both: it is certaine that neither of them doth affirme, that Biſhops ſo long time have had ſuch ſuperioritie as D. Bancroft ſeemeth to father upon them.
Thus hauehave I ſignified mine opinion of the points that your Honour ſpecified in D. Bancrofts Sermon. Which yet if he, or any doe prove, that I have erred in, or take him otherwiſe then I ought, I ſhall be willing by Gods grace to correct:1 Cor. 14.31. remembring the Apoſtle leſſon, that The ſpirits of the Prophets are ſubject to the Prophets. 19 Sept: 1598.
FINIS.