Sermon 8 February 1588, Part 8
D. BANCROFT page 17.18.19. & 20. But the ſtory of Aerius is moſt pertinent, to ſhew that ambition driueth men to be falſe Prophets. Epiphanius doth report it thus in effect. Euſtathius and Aerius ſtroue one againſt another for a Biſhopricke.Lib. 3. Tom. 1. haereſ. 75. Euſtathius obtained it, whereat, Aerius began to repine, and grewe to bee a ſciſmatike, defending that by the word of God, there was no difference betweene a Prieſt and a Biſhop. Hee vſed the ſame arguments that now are vſed of theſe that maintaine his opinions. As that the Apoſtle writing ſometimes to prieſts and deacon, ſometimes to Biſhops and deacons ſhoulde thereby ſignifie, that a Biſhop and a prieſt is al one. In concluſion, Aerius after due tryal, and examination, had by the learned fathers, who then liued of his arguments and ſleight, was by the generall conſent, of the Church overthrowne, and condemned for an heretick. And to this day there was neuer any but heretikes, and ſuch lewde perſons that condemned the callings of Lord Biſhops for Antichriſtian.
ANSVVERE.
There is nothing brought in here out of Epiphanius, but it hath beene anſwered long ſince by M. Cartwright,M. Cart. 2. reply 1. part. page 68. and ſhewed to be the reaſon of Pighius an Archpapiſt, againſt M. Wicklieffe and the waldenſes, it beſemeth M. Bancroft very wel to borow the weapons of ſuch a champion, to fight againſt the truth. But firſt M. Bancroft, I woulde knowe what you can ſay againſt the perſon of Aerius, touching the truth which he defendeth, we wil deale afterward: you anſwere that Epiphanis reckoneth him vp amongſt hereticks, and ſo you account of him. Wherevnto I reply, that Ierome dealeth with vigilantius after the ſame meaſure, becauſe vigilantius held it vnlaweful to pray for the dead,Ierom ad Riparium & contra vigi. antium. to worſhip the dead bones, and reliques of Saints, and defended marriage, to bee preferred before virginnitie. Wherein Ierome (though otherwiſe a godly man) doth rather bewray his immodeſt raſhnes, then any wiſe diſcredit Vigilantius with thoſe that know the truth. The ſame is to be ſayd of Epiphanius and Aerius. And indeede, for any thing that Epiphanius and Pighius hath brought, or you can bring againſt him, he was an honeſter man, than either Euſtathius his competitor, or Pighius and D. Bancroft his confutors. Hee is ſaid indeed to be an Arrian, but that could neuer be prooued as yet, and it was rather an action of ſlander, rather commenſed againſt him by his proud enemies the Biſhops, then any true accuſation, whereof he can be prooued gilty. You cannot finde,Looke Danaeus in Auguſt. de haereſ. cap. 53. in the whole Eccleſiaſticall ſtory, written by theſe that liued after him, that euer there was any crime of hereſie layde to his charge, whereas Euſtathius his ſchoolefellowe and aduerſary, is recorded by them, as alſo by Epiphanius, for a knowen and famous hereticke.
Touching Epiphanius, though I will not call his name in queſtion, yet thus much I may truly ſpeake of him, that he was (as the lerned know wel enogh) ſo beſotted with the corruptions of the times wherin he liued, that his credite alone, is not of ſufficient authority to paſſe ſentence againſt Aerius. For the proofe hereof, the reader is to vnderſtand, that hee condemneth Aerius for a black heretike, as well becauſe hee helde it vnlawfull to pray or to offer anie thing for the dead, as in that hee defended a Biſhop and a Prieſt as M. Bancroft ſpeaketh, to be of equall authoritie. As for Auguſtine, whom you bring with Epiphanius againſt this poore heretike, hee rather followeth the receiued opinion, thē his own iudgement of him, according vntounto truth.
This much touching the perſon of the man, as for his hereſie, if he had noe other then thoſe which Epiphanius layeth to his charge, and eſpecially this of the aequallitie betweene a miniſter and a Biſhop, the ſpirit of god giueth him a plaine diſcharge from all ſuſpicion, either of hereſie or yet of error. For the word of God teacheth vsus, that to bee a teaching Elder (which you retaining your popiſh cuſtome, call a Prieſt) is nothing els, but Epiſcopein,1. Pet 5.1.3. that is to be a Biſhoppe or an ouerſeer. And Chriſt Ieſus forbiddeth his Miniſters to hauehave any ſuperiority one ouer another. Now, when Pighius, D. Bancroft,Luk. 22.25. or any other Romane Papiſt or Proteſtant, ſhall be able to aunſwere theſe and the like reaſons, they may then hauehave good leaue with open mouth, to cry out vponupon Aerius for his hereſie. Otherwiſe, in condemning that ſentence, whoſe premiſes they are not able to infringe, they doe nothing els but deny the concluſion, which in this, and many other pointes, is Maſter Bancrofts faſhion of diſpute. For what els doth he in alleadging, that men hauehave condemned Aerius for an heretike, whereas neither he nor they, can anſwer the reaſons whereupon Aerius his concluſion is grounded. And if Aerius his opinion, was no other then that the worde of god made no difference betweene a Biſhop and a miniſter; as maſter Doctor here ſetteth downe, I cannot thinke but vppon better aduiſement, he wilbe concent to reuoke the raſh ſentence, which he hath pronounced againſt him, leſt thereby he doe not only ſtrike at Ierome; but euen at the Archbiſhop,M. Bancroft is ſo haſty to wound his aduerſaries, as he alſo ſtriketh himſelfe and his friends. and al others, that are of his ſide in England at this day. For Maſter Bancroft I thinke wil not ſay, that a Biſhop is ſuperiour vntounto aminiſter by the worde of god, then howe wil he anſwere Ierome in the places quoted by him ſelfe page the 14. who ſayth that in the Apoſtles time,Ierom. ad Euagri. there was noe ſuch difference betweene them, and that this prerogatiue that one miniſter ſhould be aboue a nother, is grounded vponupon humane cuſtome, & not vppon the ordinance of God. And after this ſorte doe our Biſhops account of the preſent Church gouernement, which they holde vnchangeable, onelyonly as long as it ſhall pleaſe her maieſtie and the ſtate. If M. Bancroft be of an other judgement, we ſay that he condemneth not Aerius aloane, but euen Ierome and our Biſhops for obſtinate hereticks, & we craue his anſwere vntounto the place of Ierome. Nowe if hee be of Ieromes minde, I would gladly learne of him and Epiphanius, where they learned to condemne men of hereſie, for gainſaying ſuch things in religion, as hauehave no other original and ground then the conſtitutions of men. For if it was not an hereſie in the Apoſtles time (as Ierome telleth vsus it was none) to holde a miniſter and a Biſhop to be of aequal authority, it can be non at this hower, neither coulde it beat any time ſince the age, wherein they liued. For noe man can be nowe accounted an hereticke, for defending that which had been ſound, and Catholique doctrine in the Apoſtles time.
Now that either we or Aerius ſhould conclude, the aequallitie of miniſters becauſe the Apoſtle writeth ſometimes vntounto Prieſts and Deacons, & ſometimes vntounto Biſhops and Deacons, For mine owne part, I neuer heard of the reaſon before. The reader is to make no other account of it, but as a teſtimony of Maiſter Chaplaines acquaintaunce with our arguments. And I beleeue it I ſhould aske either him or Aerius, where they finde that the Apoſtle hath written vntounto Prieſtes any otherwiſe, then they are contained vnderunder the name Biſhops) and Deacons, I ſhould put them both to their ſhifts.
Where he ſaith, that Aerius was condemned for an heretike, by the conſent of the whole Church, after due triall and examination of his arguments, by the learned fathers then liuing, it is as impudent an aſſertion, as euer he vttered. And I maruell, that hee bluſheth not to publiſh ſuch windy ſtuffe vntounto the view of the world in this learned age. Indeede, if Aerius had no other reaſons, then that which wee hauehave already heard, the learned fathers of his time were verie ſimple, that would ſtand in the triall and examination of ſo groundleſſe a ſuppoſition. I am ſorie to heare you ſo farre gone in the heat of your impatiency, as you ſhould denie the ſuperioritie of Miniſters to hauehave beene againe-ſayde, and their Gouernement accounted Antichriſtian, by anye ſince the time of Aerius, ſaue onelyonly by heretikes and ſuch lend perſons.
Do you account the Waldenſes to be heretikes▪ Do you account M. Wickliffe,And I pray you what account you of the reformed churches. M. Iohn Huſſe, and M. Tindale to be heretikes or lend perſons? The godly hauehave them in other maner of eſtimation. And yet M. Carthwright and others hauehave long ſince proued theſe men to be vnreconcilable aduerſaries vntounto the hierarchie, and ſhewed that they beganne no ſooner to ſtand againſt the Pope, but they alſo encountred with the Biſhops, whoſe callings, that they doe belong vntounto the Antichriſtian kingdome, is manifeſted by this reaſon: whereunto if you will maintaine the credit of your maſters, I would wiſh you to anſwere.
Thoſe offices and callings are Antichriſtian, with out which, all forme of Gouernements are perfect, ſaue onelyonly the gouernment of the kingdome of Antichriſt which in no wiſe can want them.
But ſuch are the callings of Lord Archb. and Bb. as all forme of gouernements may be perfect without them, ſaue onelyonly the Antichriſtian kingdome, where in no caſe they can bee miſſed. For the Gouernment both of the Church and common welth, can well ſpare them, and bee neuer a whit the more vnperfect. Therefore, the callinges of Archb. and Biſhops, do only belong vntounto the kingdom of Antichriſt. If you do reply M. Bancroft, that the moſt learned; and the moſt zealous of the fathers, eſpecially in theſe latter times, hauehave taken vponupon them the callings of Biſhops and Archbiſhops, you do therby nothing els, but offer to produce your witneſſes to ſweare that the concluſion is not true: And therfore as I hauehave ſaid, ſo I admoniſh you again, not to trouble yourſelfe in ſo gaineleſſe a labour. But if you will ſtand our Biſhops in any ſtead, deale againſt either the propoſition or aſſumption, otherwiſe the burthen of the concluſion will lie vponupon them, whether they will or no.
Your diſtinction of the cleargy and layity factions,To the 24.25.26.27. pages. we acknowledge not: For wee maintaine neyther factions nor ſciſmes. If there bee any Courtiers or great men, that deſire to be inriched with the patrimonie of the Church, wee wiſhe them better mindes, and pray that they may bee diſapointed of their expectation. Yet we ſee no more reaſon, why our Biſhops and Chaplaines ſhould liue vponupon the ſpoile and robbery of ſoules, then Noble men and Gentlemen ſhould bee maintained by ſacriledge. For we holde, that both ſorts, in ſo doing, do bring the price of bloud into their houſes. But it is moſt intollerable, that they who would bee taken for Leuites and gouernours of the holy Temple, ſhould hauehave a hād in this treſpaſſe. You hauehave ſtreined your conſcience to far I feare me, in going about to make vp the credite of Biſhop Coopers admonition to the people of England.Page 24. A large conſcience I perceiue hath along hand, to reach a diſtinctiō a far of. Let the reader conſider the place.
If you ſet downe any thing that is Annabaptiſticall or Popiſh, it were meete you ſhould confute it,Page. 25. leaſt the ſimple auditors ſhould take it for your own doctrine, rather then other mens errours. Nowe I come to that part of your Sermon, where you deale concerning the triall of ſpirits.