Concerning Episcopacy

DOCTOR REIGNOLDS HIS Letter to Sir FRANCIS KNOWLS, concerning Doctor Bancrofts Sermon at Paul's-Cross. 9. Febru: 1588. In the PARLIAMENT time.

A Lbeit (Right Honorable) I take greater comfort in laboring to discover and over-throw the Errors of Jesuits and Papists, (enemies of Religion) than of the Ministers of Christ; yet seeing it hath pleased your Honor to require me, to show mine opinion of some things, which certain of these men maintain and stand in, I thought it my duty, by the example of Levie, 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 Bancrofts Sermon, which your Honor, mentioneth, one is, concerning that he seemeth to avouch, The superiority which Bishops have among us over the Clergy, to be God's own Ordinance; though not by express words, yet by necessary consequence; In that he affirmeth their opinion, who oppugn that superiority, to be Heresy. Wherein, I must confess, he hath committed an oversight, in my judgment, and himself, (I think) if he be advertised thereof, will acknowledge it. For having first said that Arius affirmeth, that there was no difference by the word of God betwixt a Priest and a Bishop, and afterward, that Martin and his companions, do maintain this opinion 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 opinion hath herein been condemned for heresy.

Touching Martin, if any man behave himself other ways than 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 than 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 sincerity and love is to be dealt with, it appeareth, by the aforesaid words of D • . Bancroft, that he avoucheth the Superioritie 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 Pri • st and a Bish • p which he could not do with reason, unless he himself approved the Bishops superiority, as established by God's word: and he addeth, that their opi • ion who gainsay it, is Heresy▪ whereof it ensueth, he thinks 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, partly untrue: overweake, 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▪ A • rius 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 forced to confess, that Epiphanius his answer is not all of the wisest, not any way can fit the Te • t.

As for the general • consent of the whole Church, which D • . Bancroft saith, condemned that opinion of Arius for an heresy, and himself for an h • retik • , because he persist • d in it, that is a large speech: but what proof hath h • that th • whole Church did so. It appeareth he saith in Epiphanius. It doth not, and the contrary appeareth by •• 〈◊〉 , & sundry others▪ who lived, some in the same time, some after Epiphanius▪ even S • Austin himself, though Dr Bancroft cite him, as bearing witness thereof likewise; I grant S • Austin in his book of heresies, ascribeth this to Arius, for one, that he said, Presbyterum ab episcopo nulla 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, and so is censured by S ^t Austin, counting it an heresy, as in Epiphanius he 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 and custom of the Church, which S ^t Austin saith in effect himself, so far was he from witnessing this to be heresy by the general consent of the whole Church. Which untruth, how wrongfully it is fathered on him, and on Epiphanius (who yet are all the witnesses that Dr 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, he citing to the contrary Chrysostom, Jerome, Austin, and Ambrose, knit up his answer with these words: All these, and other moe holy Fathers, together with the Apostle S ^t Paul, for thus saying, by Hardings advice, must be held for heretics. And Michell Medina, a man of great account in the Council of Trent, more ingenious herein than 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, and Anselus Archb: of Canterbury, and another Anselmus and Gregory and Gra ••• and after them how many? It being once enrolled in the Canon law for sound, and catholic doctrine, and thereupon publicly taught by learned men; All which do bear witness against D ^r Bancroft, of the point in question, that it was not condemned for an heresy by the general consent of the whole Church▪ For if he should reply▪ that these later witnesses did live a thousand years after Christ, and therefore touch not him who said, it was condemned so in the time of S ^t 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 steps of the old greek Fathers, and the two Anselm's, with Gregory and Gratian, expressing S ^t ▪ Jerome's sentence word by word. Besides that, perhaps it is not very likely that Anselmus of Canterbury should have been canonized by the Pope of Rome, and worshipped for a Saint; that the other Anselmus 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 the 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 Priests by the same ordinance as they saw at length: and there▪ ore 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 on Hughes Gloss allowed by the Archdeacon (saying, that Bishops have differed from Priests always as they do now in Government, and Prelatship and Offices, and Sacraments but n • t in the name and title of Bishop, which was common to them both) must be held hereafter for S ^t Jerome’s meaning: at least for the meaning of the Canon taken out of S ^t Jerome though his words be flat and plain against this gloss, as Bellarmine himself confesseth. Whereto may be added, that they also who have labored about the reforming of the Church these 500 years, have taught that all Pastors, be they entitled Bishops, or Priests, have equal authority and power by God's word. First the Waldenses, next Marsilius Patavinus▪ then Wycliffe▪ and his scholars; afterward Hus, and the Hussites▪ last of all Luther, C • lvin, Brenz, Bullinger, Musculus, and other, who might be reckoned particularly in great number, since as here with us both Bishps, and the Queens Professors of Divinity in our Universities, and other learned men do consent •• erein: so in foreign Nations all▪ whom I have read treating of 〈◊〉 matter, and many moe, (no d •• bt) whom I have not read.

The sifting and examining of the Trent Council hath been undertaken by only two, which I have seen, the one a divine, the other a Lawyer, Kemnisius, and Gentilletus; they both condemn the contrary doctrine thereunto, as a Trent error; 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, Polony, the Low Countries, and our own, witness the Harmony of Confessions.

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

The latter is, concerning that he affirmeth, that S ^t Jerome saith, and M ^r Calvin seemeth on his report, to confess that Bishops have had the said superiority ever since the time of S ^t 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 ^r Bancroft▪ termeth them) may not; But Jerome, after mention of the superiority allotted to Bishops since S ^t Marks time, What doth a Bishop (saith he) except ordination, which a Priest doth not? Meaning and enforcing 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 neither had they it alone in all places, as it is apparent by a Council 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 & Priests were all one, even in the right of this too, granteth that afterwards Bishops had that peculiar unto themselves some where, but nothing else save it. S ^t Jerome therefore saith not of that superiority whereof the question is, that Bishops have had it • ver since S ^t Marks time.

No more doth M ^r Calvin see • to confess it upon his report. For Calvin (in the same place that D ^r 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; least equality should breed dissention, yet saith he) the Bishop 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 them advise, by admonishing, by exhorting, to guide the whole action by his authority, and 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 ^t Jerome showeth this to have been brought in by the consent of men upon the first of Titus, he addeth that the same S ^t Jerome other where showeth, how ancient an order of the Church it was, even from S ^t Marks time to Hereclas, and Dionysius 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, that he had rule over them: It followeth that M ^r Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess of Jerome's report, that ever since S ^t Marks time Bishops have had a ruling superiority over the Clergy. Wherefore to use no more proofs in a thing manifest, which else might easily be proved more at large out of S ^t Jerome and M ^r Calvin both: It is certain, that neither of them doth affirm, that Bishops so long time have had such superiority as D ^r Bancroft seemeth to father upon them.

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