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 example Deut. 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 having pag. 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 that pag. 19. Aerius persisting therein, was condemned for an heretike by the generall consent of the whole Church, and likewise pag. 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 [Page 4] 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, [Page 5] 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 S ^t 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 S ^t 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 S ^t 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 likewise In 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 D ^r 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, [Page 6] and therefore touch not him who pag. 19. said, it was condem­ned so in the time of S ^t 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 S ^t ▪ 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 S ^t Jeroms mean­ing: at least for the meaning of the Canon taken out of S ^t 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 [Page 7] 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 D ^r Bancroft (I assure my selfe) will not say that all these have approved that as sound & christian doctrine, w ^ch 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 w ^ch Bishops have among us over the Clergy to be of Gods own or­dināce. And thus far of the former point of D ^r Bancrofts Sermō.

The latter is, concerning that he affirmeth, that S ^t Ierom pa. 14. & 69. saith, and M ^r Calvin seemeth on his report, to confesse that Bishops have had the said superiority ever since the time of S ^t 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 D ^r Bancroft▪ termeth them) may not; But Epist. ad E­vagrium. Ierom, after mention of the superioritie allotted to Bishops since S ^t 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 [Page 8] 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. S ^t Ierom therefore saith not of that su­perioritie whereof the question is, that Bishops have had it [...] ver since S ^t Marks time.

No more doth M ^r Calvin see [...] to confesse it upon his report. For Calvin (in the same [...] Instit. li. 4. cap. 4. sect. 2. place that D ^r 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 S ^t Ierom sheweth this to have been brought in by the consent of men upon the first of Titus, he addeth that the same S ^t Ierom other where sheweth, 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 seeme to confesse of Ieroms report, that ever since S ^t 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 S ^t Ierom and M ^r Calvin both: It is certaine, that nei­ther of them doth affirme, 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 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.

19. Septemb. 1598.