Letter to Francis Knolles

DOCTOR REIGNOLDS his Letter to Sr. Francis Knolles concerning Dr. Bancrofts Sermon at Paul's cross, Feb. 9. 1588. in the Parliament time.

A Lbeit (Right honorable) I take greater comfort in laboring to discover and overthrow the errors of Jesuits & Papits, (enemies of religion) then of the ministers of Christ, yet seeing it hath pleased your Honor to require me to show mine opinion of some things that certain of these men maintain and stand in, I thought it my duty by the example of Levi, who said 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 therefore in Doctor Bancrafts sermon which your honor mentioneth, one is concerning that he semeeth to avouch the superiority which Bishops have among us over the Clergy to be God's own ordinanc though not by express words yet by necess • ry consequence; In that he affirmed that there opinion who oppugn that their s ••• riorety to be heresy, wherein I must confess he hath committed & oversight in my Iudgmēt, & himself I think advertised thereof will acknowledge it, for havinge said first that Arius affirmeth that there was no difference by the word of God betwixt a Prest & a Bishop & afterwards that Martin and his companions do maintain this point of Arius, he addeth that Arius persisting therein was condemned for an heretic by the general consent of the whole Church, and likewise that Martins, and all his companions opinio •• hath herein been condemned for heresy.

Touching Martin, if any man behave himself otherwise then in discretion and charity 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 resurrection should be reproved because it was maintained and held by the Pharisees. Wherefore removing the odious name of Martin, from that which in sincerety and love is to be dealt with, it appeareth, by the aforesard words of D. Bancroft, that he avoucheth the Superiorety which Bishops have over the Clergy to be of God's own ordinance; for he improveth the impugners of it, as holding with Arius, that there is no difference by the word of God betwixt a Prest, and a Bishop, which he could not do with reason, unless he himself proved the Bishops supreriorety, as established by God's word: and he addeth, that their opinion, who gain say it is Heresy, whereof it ensueth he think it contrary to God's word; since Heresy is an error repugnant to the truth of the word of God, as (according to the Scriptures) our own Church doth teach us.

Now the Arguments which he bringeth to prove it an heresy, are partly overweake and partly untrue: ouerweake that he beginneth with, out of Epiphanius; untrue, that he adjoineth of the general consent of the Church. For though Epiphanius do say, that Arius his assertion is full of folly, yet he disproveth not the reason which Arius stood on, out of the Scriptures; nay he dealeth so in seeking to disprove it, that Bellarmine the Jesuit, though 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 general consent of the whole Church which D. Bancroft saith, condemned that opiniō of Arius for an Heresy, & himself for an Heretic, because he persist • d in it, that is a la • ge speech: but what proof hath he that the wh • le Chur • h did so? It appeareth he saith in Epiphanius. It doth not, and the contrary appeareth by S. Jerome, and sundry others, who lived some in the same time, some after Epiphanivs, even Saint Austin himself, though D. Bancroft cite him, as beareing witness thereof▪ likewise I grant S. Austin in his book of heresies, ascribeth this to Arius, 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 Arius saying condemned the Churches order, yea made a schism therein, & to is censured by S. Agustine counting it an heresy as Epiphanius be took it recorded, himself, as he witnesseth, not knowing how far 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 & custom of the Church. which S. Agustine saith in effect himself, so far was he from witnssing this to be heresy by the general 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 proof hereof, or can for ought that I know) it may appear by this, that our learned country man of godly memory Bishop Jewel, when Harding to convince the same opinion of heresy alleged the same witnesses, cyting, to the contrary Chrysostom, Jerome, Agustine, 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 Michael Medina (s) a man of great account in the Council of Trent, more ingenious here in then many other Papists, affirmeth not only the former ancient writers alleged by Bishop Jewel, but also another Jerome, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Theophilact, were of the same mind touching this matter with Arius. With whom agree likewise Oecumenius, & Anselmus Arbp: B: of Canturbury, & an other Anselmus, and Gregory, and (z) Gratian, and after them how many? It being once enrolled in the Cannon law for found, and Catholic doctrine, and thereupon publicly taught by learned men; All which do bear witness against D. Bancroft, of the point in question, that it was not condemned for in Heresy by the general consent of the whole Church: For if he should reply, that these later witness did live a 1000 years after Christ, and therefore touch not him who said, it was condemned so in the time of S. Austin, and of Epiphanius, the most flourishing time of the Church that ever happened since the Apostles days, either in respect of learning or of zeal, first they, whom I named, though living in a latter time, yet are witnesses of the former.

Oecumenius the Greek Scholiast treading in the steppes of the old Greek Fathers, and the two Anselm's, with Gregory, and Cratian, expresing S. Jerome's sentence word by word. Besides that, perhaps it is not very likely that Anselm's of Canterbury should have been Canonized by the Pope of Rome, and worhiped for a Saint, that the other Anselm's, and Gregory, should have such place in the Popes library, and be esteemed of as they are: that Gratians works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for die golden foundation of the Canon law, if they had taught that for Catholic, and sound, which by the general consent of the whole Church, in the most flourishing time that ever happened since the Apostles days, was condemned for heresy: chiefly in a matter of such weight, and moment, to the Popes supremacy: which as they do claim 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 only decreed it now in the Council of Trent, but also in the new edition of their Canon law have set down this note, that one Hughs Gloss allowed by the Archdeacon (saying, that Bishops have differed from Priests always as they do 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. Jerome's meaning at least for the meaning of the Canon taken out of S. Jerome, though his words be flat and plain against this gloss, as Bellarmine himself confesseth. Wherto may beadded, that they also who have labored about the reforming of the Chvrch these 500 year, have taught that all Pasters be they entitled Bishops, or Priests, have equal authority & power by God's word, First the Waldenses, next (i) Marsitius Patavinus then (k) Wycliffe and his scholars; afterward Hus: and Hussites: last of all Luther, Calvin Brenz, Bullinger, Musculus & other, who might be reckoned particularly in great number, since as here with us both B • shops; and the Quienes (s) Professors of Divinity in our Universities, & other learned men do consent therein: so in foreign Nations all whom I have read treating of this matter, and many moe (no doubt) whom I have not read,

The sifting & examyning of the Trent Counsel hath been under taken by only two, which I have seen, the one a divine, the other a Lawyer, Kemnis ••… s, and Gentilletus; they both condemn the contrary doctrine thereunto, as a Trenterrour; the one by Scriptures; and Fathers, the other by the Canon Law. But what do I further speak of several persons? It is the common judgment of the Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Polon, the Lowcountries, and our own, witness the Harmonie of Confessions.

Wherefore since D. Bancroft (I assure myself) will not say that all these have approved that as sound and Christian doctrine, which by the general consent of the whole Church, in a most flowrishing time, was condemned for heresy: I hope he will acknowledge, that he was over seen, in that he avouched, the Superiority which Bishops have among us over the Clergy to be of God's own ordinance. And thus far of the former point of D. Bancroft Sermon.

The latter is, concerning that he affirmeth, that S. Ierem saith, and M. Calvin seemeth on his report, to confess that Bishops have had the said superiority ever since the time of S Mark the Evangelist. Of the which point I think as of the former; since neither Jerome saith it, neither doth Calvin seem to confess it on his report. For Bishops among us, besides ordaining, and laying on of hands, may do sundry other things, which inferior Ministers, or Priests (as D. Bancroft termeth them) may not; But Jerome, after mention of the superiority allotted to Bishops since S. Marks time, what doth a Bishop (saith he,) except ordination, which a Priest doth not? Meaning, and in forcing by this kind of speech, as a thing most evident, and such as no man could deny, that Bishops had, that only power above Priests then, which Chrysostom also witnesseth.

Though nether had they it alone in all places as it is apparent by a Coūsell of Carthage, showing their Churches order: that the Priests laid their hands together with the Bishop on those who were ordained. Yet Jerome having proved by testimony of Scripture, that in the Apostles times, Bishops, and Priests were all one, even in the right of this two, granteth that afterwards Bishops had that peculiar unto themselves some where, but nothing else save it. S. Jerome 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 seem to confess it upon his report. For Calvin in the (same place that D. Bancroft quoteth) showing how in old time the Ministers that had charge to teach chose of their company one in every city, to whom they did especially give the title of Bishop; lead equality should breed dissention, yet (saith he) the B • shop was not above them in honor and dignity, that he had rule over them, but look what is the consuls duty in the Senate. to propose matters, to ask their opinions, to direct others by giving thē advise, by admonishing, by exorting, to guide the whole action by his authority, & see that performed which was agreed upon by their common consent, that charge had the Bishop in the assembly of Ministers. And having declared, that S. Jerome showeth this to have been brought in by the consent of men upon the first of Titus, he addeth that the same S. Jerome 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 evident relation to that before described, and that in the describing of it, he had said, the Bishop was not so above the rest in honor to rule over thē: It followed, that M. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess of Jerome's report, that ever since S. Markes time Bishops have had a ruling superiority over the Clergy.

Wherefore to use no more profess in a thing manifest which else might easily be proved more at large out of S. Jerome and M. Calvin both: it is certain that neither of them doth affirm, that Bishops so long time have had such superiority as D. Bancroft seemeth to father upon them.

Thus have I signified mine opinion of the points that your Honor specified in D. Bancrofts Sermon. Which yet if he, or any do prove, that I have erred in, or take him otherwise then I ought, I shall be willing by God's grace to correct: remembering the Apostle lesson, that The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. 19 Sept: 1598.

A QUESTION RESOLVED BY A LEARNED DOCTOR, whether the Angels of the seven Churches, Revel. 2, & 3. make for Episcopal prae-eminence Jure Divino.

For the Negative.

First Did these seven Angels denote seven praesidents of the Praesbyteries of those seven Churches, yet this would not conclude for episcopal praeeminence over Presbyters. For D Reynolds was of opinion (in his conference with Hart ) that in each of these 7. Churches, there was praeses praesbiteri • , and th • t such a one is noted by the Angel; yet was he utterly against the Ius divinum of Episcopal praeeminence over praesbiters. as appeareth by his letter to Sir Francis Knolles.

2. But there is no sufficient evidence to prove that in those seven Churches there was any such praeses, praesiding over the rest of the praesbiters, for these Reasons.

1. When Paul sent to Ephesus for the praesbiters Act. 20 when he told them they should see his face no more, we find no color of any such praesidency among them. to them the Church is commended to be fed by them, without all respect to Tymothy who stood at his elbow, and had ben with him in Macedonia, and was now waiting upon him to Jerusalem.

2. M. Mede in his Cōmentary upon the Revel. pag 265. hath these words. Deni{que} (vt iam semel iterum{que} monvimus) quoniam Deus Angelos adhibit providentiae suae, in rerum humanarummotubus, & conversionibus ciendis, gubernandis{que} administros, id cirquo{que} multorum manibus perag ū ur, Angelo tamē tanquam rei gerend •• pre sidi & duci pro cōmuni, loquendi modo tribunntur. Lastly (as we have already once & again admonished) because God useth the Angels of his providence, as ministers in the moving and managing of the motions and conversions of human affairs; therefore those things which are performed by many, are nevertheless attributed (as we speak commonly, to the Angel as the presaes and author of the managing of the businsse. Now if it be so, that in other places, where one Angel is mentioned, many are meant, may it not be so in this?

3 If by the Name of the Angel in each place is comprehended the whole Church, how much more by that Angel may, yea must be comprehended the whole company of presbyters? But under the Name of that Angel is comprehended the whole Church, as Ambrosiv • An • bertus in his second book upon the Revelation, not only writeth but proveth in these words: Vna eadem{que} locvtione & Angelos & ecclesias Vnum esse designat: Nam cum in principio locutionum, quaead septem fiunt Angelos dicat, et Angelo illius ecclesiaescorbe, in fine tamen earundem no dicit: qui habet aurem, audiat quid spiritus dicat Angelo, sed quid Ecclesia dicat.

Thirdly, For further evidence unto this Truth it is observable from the very Text it self, that albeit the seven Candlesticks are said to be the seven Churches; yet the seven Stars are not said to be seven Angels of the seven Churches, but thus, The seven stars are the Angels of the seven Churches. Revel. 1.20.

Fourthly, This is further confirmed by Epiphanius, who writing of the Heresy of the Milesians, saith, that in ancient times, this was peculiar to Alexandria that it had but one Bishop, whereas other cities had two. And he being Bishop of Cyprus, might well be acquainted, with the condition of the Churches of Asia, which were so nigh unto him.

5 yet is there a more pregnant argument thē these, out of the very text, & it is takē out of the epistle to Thyatira, where a distinction is made between the menbers of that Church thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , vobis & reliquis: Now who are signified by vobis, but those to whom he spake under the name of the Angel? And by Reliquis, who are signified but the rest of the people? The people governed, and you governing, and that in the plural number, vobis: what can be more evident to prove, that by the Angel is meant all the presbiters which have a joint preeminence over the people, not one in preeminence over the presbiters? Yet what is this preeminence of presbiters over the people, not a preeminence of Dominion, but a preeminence of service, and therefore ought to be called not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Hierarchy, or sacred government, as commonly it is, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rather, a servile Government: as the Author of the History of the Council of Trent well observes, & all the authority of the Church in the exercise of ecclesiastical censures, even of the sorest Excōmunication it self, is but the fruit of love, and for their good on whom it is exercised, mourning for them, who through hardness of heart could not mourn for themselves, and therefore to excommunicate is in Scripture phrase to mourn 1 Cor. 5.2. and 2 Cor. 12 2.

Lastly, The censures of the Church were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the censures of many, and not the censures of one, 2. Cor. 2.6. And surely, when our Savior refers us to the Church, under these words, Dic Ecclesiae, Mat. 18. he refers us not to one, but to many.