ALbeit (Right Honorable) I take greater comfort in labouring to diſcover and over-throw the Errors of Ieſuites and Papiſts, (enemies of Religion) than of the Miniſters of Chriſt; yet ſeeing it hath pleaſed your Honour to require me, to ſhew mine opinion of ſom things, which certain of theſe men maintain and ſtand in, I thought it my duty, by the exampleDeut. 33. 9. 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 ſuperioritie which Biſhops have among us over the Clergie, to be Gods owne Ordinance; though not by expreſſe words, yet by neceſſary conſequence; In that he affirmeth their opinion, who oppugne that ſuperioritie, to be Hereſie. Wherein, I muſt confeſſe, he hath committed an overſight, in my judgement, and himſelfe, (I thinke) if he be advertiſed thereof, will acknowledge it. For havingpag. 18. firſt ſaid that Aerius affirmeth, that there was no difference by the word of God betwixt a Prieſt and a Biſhop, and afterward, that Martin and his companions, doe maintaine this opinion of Aerius; he addeth thatpag. 19. Aerius perſiſting therein, was condemned for an heretike by the generall conſent of the whole Church, and likewiſepag. 69. that Martins, and all his companions opinion hath herein been condemned for hereſie.

Touching Martin, if any man behave himſelfe otherwayes than 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 than the doctrine of the reſurrection ſhould be reproved, becauſe Act. 23. 8 it was maintained and held by the Phariſes. Wherefore removing the odious name of Martin, from that which in ſinceritie 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 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 Pri • ſt and a Biſh • p which he could not doe with reaſon, unleſſe he himſelfe approved the Biſhops ſuperioritie, as eſtabliſhed by Gods word: and he addeth, that their opi • ion who gainſay it, is Hereſie▪ whereof it inſueth, he thinks it contrary to Gods word; ſith Hereſie is an error repugnant to the truth of the word of God, as (according to 1 Tim 6. 3. Titus 3. 10. 2 Pet. 1. 19. & 21. the Scriptures) our owne Church The defence of the Apology▪ part 1▪ & 7. diviſion 2. Anſwer to the Rhem. T • tus 3. 10. doth teach us.

Now the Arguments which he bringeth to prove it an hereſie, are partly overweake, partly untrue: overweake, that p • g. 18. he beginneth with, out of Epiphanius; untrue, that he p. 19. & 69. adjoyneth of the generall conſent of the Church. For though Epiphanius doe ſay, that Aerius 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 Jeſuite, Tom▪ • . cont. • lib. 1▪ c. 15. though deſirous to make the beſt of Epiphanius, whoſe opinion herein he maintaineth againſt the Proteſtants, yet is forced to confeſſe, 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 Aerius for an hereſie, and himſelfe for an h • retik • , becauſe he perſiſt • d in it, that is a large ſpeech: but what proofe hath h • that th • whole Church did ſo. It appeareth he ſaith in Hereſie 15▪ Epiphanius. It doth not, and the contrary appeareth by I • 〈◊〉 • d 〈◊〉 • & • p • ſt. 8 • 〈◊◊〉 . •• 〈◊〉 , & ſundry others▪ who lived, ſome in the ſame time, ſome after Epiphanius▪ even S • Auſtin himſelfe, though Dr Bancroft cite him, as bearing witneſſe thereof likewiſe; I grant S • Austin Cap. 53. in his book of hereſies, aſcribeth this to Aerius, 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 Aerius ſaying condemned the Churches order, yea made a ſchiſme therein, and ſo is cenſured by St Auſtin, counting it an hereſie, as In Argu. prefix. l. 3. Tom. 2. in Epiphanius he took it recorded, himſelfe, as D • haereſ. ad quod vult Deum in prefatione. he witneſſeth not knowing how farre the name of Hereſie ſhould be ſtretched) another thing to ſay, that by the word of God there is no difference betwixt them, but by the order and cuſtome of the Church, which St Austin Epiſt. 19. ſayth in effect himſelfe, ſo far was he from witneſſing this to be hereſie by the generall 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 proofe hereof, or can for ought that I know) it may appeare by this, that our learned Country man (of godly memory) Biſhop Def. of the Apol. part. 2. ca. 9▪ diviſ. 1. page 198. Iewell, when Harding to convince the ſame opinion of hereſie, alleaged the ſame witneſſes, he citing to the contrary Chryſoſtome, Ierom, Auſtin, and Ambroſe, knit up his anſwer with theſe words: All theſe, and other moe holy Fathers, together with the Apoſtle St Paul, for thus ſaying, by Hardings advice, muſt be held for heretikes. And Michell Medina, De ſacrif. hom orig & confir▪ lib. 1. cap. 5. a man of great account in the Councell of Trent, more ingenious herein than many other Papiſts, affirmeth, not onely the former ancient writers, alledged by Biſhop Iewel but alſo an other Jerom, Theodoret, Primaſius, Sedulius, and Theophilact were of the ſame mind touching this matter with Aerius. With whom agree likewiſeIn 1 Tim. 3. Oecumenius, and In Epiſt. ad Titum. Anſelus Archb: of Canterbury, and Collect. Ca • . li. 7. cap. 87. & 1 27. another Anſelmus and Policar. lib. 2. Tit. 19. & 39. Gregory and Cap. •• gimus, diſt▪ • 9. ca▪ • l • mp. diſt 95. Gra ••• and after them how many? It being once inrolled in the Canon law for ſound, and catholique doctrine, and thereupon publikely taught by Author g • oſ • . in ca. diſt. citat. • odo • ous caol Ave, l • t in • on • il, 〈◊〉 Duaren de ſa • ra eccle▪ miniſt. lib. • ▪ ••• . 7. learned men; All which doe beare witneſſe againſt Dr Bancroft, of the poynt in queſtion, that it was not condemned for an hereſie by the generall conſent of the whole Church▪ For if he ſhould reply▪ that theſe later witneſſes did live a thouſand yeares after Chriſt, and therefore touch not him who pag. 19. ſaid, it was condemned ſo in the time of St Auſtin, and of pag 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 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 Anſelmes, with Gregory and Gratian, expreſſing St ▪ Ieromes 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 catholike, 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 hereſie: chiefly in a matter of ſuch weight 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 Prieſts by the ſame ordinance as they ſaw at length: and there▪ ore have not onely decreed it now in the Seſſ. 23. c. 4. Can. 6. & 7. Councell of Trent, but alſo in Annot marg. ad cap▪ legimus diſt▪ 43. the new edition of their Canon law have ſet down this note, that on Hughes Gloſſe allowed by the Archdeacon (ſaying, that Biſhops have differed from Prieſts alwayes as they doe 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 St Jeroms meaning: at leaſt for the meaning of the Canon taken out of St Jerom though his words be flat and plaine againſt this gloſſe, as Bellarmine Tom. 1. contro. 5. lib. 2. cap. himſelfe confeſſeth. Whereto may be added, that they alſo who have laboured about the reforming of the Church theſe 500 years, have taught that all Paſtors, be they intituled Biſhops, or Prieſts, have equall authoritie and power by Gods word. Firſt the Aeneas Silvius biſto. Bo • em. cap. 35 & P • gh▪ Hierarch Eccleſ. l. • . c. 10 Waldenſes, next Defenſ. pacis part 2. cap. 15. Marſilius Patavinus▪ then Tho. Walden Doc. fidei Tom 1. lib. 2. cap. 60. & Tom▪ • . c. 17. Wickliffe▪ and his ſchollers; afterward Aeneas Silvius loco citato. Huſſe, and the Huſſites▪ laſt of all Adverſus falſo nominat ordin▪ 〈◊〉 & adver. Papa. Rom. Luther, • n Epiſt ad Philip. 1. & Titus 1. C • lvin, Apol. Confeſ. Wittenb c. 21. Brentius, Decad. 5. ſer. 3 Bullinger, Loc. Com. Tit. de miniſt. verbi. Muſculus, and other, who might be reckoned particularly in great number, ſith as here with us both Iewel loco citat et Pilkington in the treatiſe of burning Pauls Church. Biſhps, and the Queenes D. Humphrey in Camp. & in Duraeum Ieſuitas part 2. rat. 3 & D. White▪ ad rat. Campiani, 6 & Confuta, Duraei Ieſuitae lib. 6. Profeſſors of Divinitie in our Ʋniverſities, and M. Bradford, Lambert, and others. M. Fox, Acts, &c. D. Fulke againſt Briſtow, motive 40 and anſwer to the Remiſts, Tit 1. 5. other learned men doe conſent •• erein: ſo in forreine 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 Councell hath been undertaken by onely two, which I have ſeene, the one a divine, the other a Lawyer, part 2. lib. 4. Kemniſius, and Gentilletus; they both condemne the contrary doctrine thereunto, as a Trent error; the one by ſcriptures, and Fathers; the other by the Canon law. But what doe I further ſpeak of ſeverall perſons? It is the common judgement of the Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Polony, the Low Countries, and our owne, witneſſe the Harmony ſec. 11. in Helvet, poſt Gallia Belgia, Anglia, &c Harmony of Confeſſions.

Wherefore ſith Dr Bancroft (I aſſure my ſelfe) will not ſay that all theſe have approved that as ſound & chriſtian doctrine, wch by the generall conſent of the whol Church, in a moſt flouriſhing time, was cōdemned for hereſie: I hope he will acknowledg, that he was overſeene, in that he avouched the Superiority wch Biſhops have among us over the Clergy to be of Gods own ordināce. And thus far of the former point of Dr Bancrofts Sermō.

The latter is, concerning that he affirmeth, that St Ierom pa. 14. & 69. ſaith, and Mr Calvin ſeemeth on his report, to confeſſe that Biſhops have had the ſaid ſuperiority ever ſince the time of St Mark the Evangeliſt. Of the which poynt I think as of the former; ſith neither Ierom ſaith it, neither doth Calvin ſeeme to confeſſe it on his report. For Biſhops among us, beſides ordeining, and laying on of hands, may doe ſundry other things, which inferior Miniſters, or Prieſts (as Dr Bancroft▪ termeth them) may not; But Epiſt. ad Evagrium. Ierom, after mention of the ſuperioritie allotted to Biſhops ſince St Marks time, What doth a Biſhop (ſaith he) except ordination, which a Prieſt doth not? Meaning and inforcing 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 Hom. 11. in 1 Tim. Chryſoſtome alſo witneſſeth.

Though neither had they it alone in all places, as it is apparant by a Concil▪ 4. Can. 3. Councell of Carthage, ſhewing their Churches order; that the Prieſts layd their hands together with the Biſhop on thoſe who were ordeined. Yet Ierom having proved by teſtimony of Scripture, that in the Apoſtles times, Biſhops & Prieſts were all one, even in the right In 1 Tim. 4. 4. 〈◊〉 of this too, granteth that afterwards Biſhops had that peculiar unto themſelves ſome where, but nothing elſe ſave it. St Ierom therefore ſaith not of that ſuperioritie whereof the queſtion is, that Biſhops have had it • ver ſince St Marks time.

No more doth Mr Calvin ſee • to confeſſe it upon his report. For Calvin (in the ſame • Inſtit. li. 4. cap. 4. ſect. 2. place that Dr 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 give the title of Biſhop; leaſt equalitie ſhould breed diſſention, yet ſaith he) the Biſhop was not above them in honor and dignity▪ that he had rule over them, but looke what is the Conſuls dutie 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 St Ierom ſheweth this to have been brought in by the conſent of men upon the firſt of Titus, he addeth that the ſame St Ierom other where ſheweth, how ancient an order of the Church it was, even from St 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 Mr Calvin doth not ſo much as ſeeme to confeſſe of Ieroms report, that ever ſince St Marks time Biſhops have had a ruling ſuperioritie over the Clergie. Wherefore to uſe no more proofes in a thing manifeſt, which elſe might eaſily be proved more at large out of St Ierom and Mr Calvin both: It is certaine, that neither of them doth affirme, that Biſhops ſo long time have had ſuch ſuperiority as Dr Bancroft ſeemeth to father upon them.

Thus have I ſignified mine opinion of the points that your Honor ſpecified in Dr Bancrofts Sermon. Which yet if he or any doe prove, that I have erred in, or take him otherwiſe than I ought, I ſhall be very willing by Gods grace to correct: remembring the Apoſtles leſſon, that▪ The ſpirits of the Prophets are ſubject 1 Cor. 14. 3 • . to the Prophets.