D R. REIGNOLDS HIS LETTER TO that Worthy Councillor, SIR FRANCIS KNOLLES, Concerning some passages in Dr. Bancroft Sermon at PAUL'S Cross, Feb. 9 1588. in the Parliament time.  
As also A QUESTION RESOLVED BY A LEARNED DOCTOR, whether the Angels of the seven Churches, Revel. 2, & 3. make for Episcopal preeminence Jure Divino.  
LONDON Printed by W. I. dweling in Red-crosse Street. 1641.   

DOCTOR REIGNOLDS his Letter to Sr. Francis Knolles concerning Dr. bancroft's Sermon at Paul's cross, Feb. 9 1588. in the Parliament time.  
ALbeit (Right honourable) I take greater comfort in labouring to discover and overthrow the errors of jesuits & Papits, (enemies of religion) then of the ministers of Christ, yet seeing it hath pleased your Honour 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 
a Deut, 33, 9  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 honour mentioneth, one is concerning that he semeeth to avouch the superiority which Bishops have among us over the Clergy to be Gods own ordinanc though not by express words yet by necessary 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 judgement, & himself I think advertised thereof will acknowledge it, for having 
b pag 18.  said first that Aerius 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 Aerius, he addeth that Aerius persisting therein was condemned for an heretic by the general consent of the whole Church, 
c pag 19  and likewise 
d pag 69  that martin's, 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 than the doctrine of the resurrection should be reproved because 
e Act, 2 3.8.  it was maintained and held by the Pharises. Wherefore removing the odious name of Martin, from that which in sincerity 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 Gods own ordinance; for he improveth the impugners of it, as holding with Aerius, 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 Bishop's 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; sigh Heresy is an error repugnant to the truth of the word of God, as (according to 
f 1 Tim, 6, 3. Titus 3, 10. 2 Pet 1 19 21.  the Scriptures) our own Church 
g The defence of the Apolog. part 1 et 7 de vision 2 answ. to the Rhem. Titus 3 10,  doth teach us.  
Now the Arguments which he bringeth to prove it an heresy, are partly overweake and partly untrue: overweake that 
h pa 18  he beginneth with, out of Epiphanius; untrue, that he adjoineth of the general consent of the Church. For though Epiphanius do say, that Aerius his assertion is full of folly, 
i pa 19, et 69  yet he disproveth not the reason which Aerius stood on, out of the Scriptures; nay he dealeth so in seeking to disprove it, that Bellarmine the jesuite, 
k Tom. 1 count 5 lib, 1 carped 5  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 opinion of Aerius for an Heresy, & himself for an Heretic, because he persisted in it, that is a la●ge speech: but what proof hath he that the wh●le Church did so? It appeareth he saith in 
l Heresy 15,  Epiphanius. It doth not, and the contrary appeareth by 
m in epist ad Titum 1 et Epist 85 ad Evagrium  S. Jerome, and sundry others, who lived some in the same time, some after Epiphanius, even Saint Austin himself, though D. Bancroft cite him, as beareing witness thereof▪ likewise I grant S. Austin 
n cap 53.  in his book of heresies, ascribeth this to Aerius, 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 Aerius saying condemned the Church's order, yea made a schism therein, & to is censured by S. Austen counting it an heresy as 
o In Argument prefix lib, 3  Epiphanius be taken it recorded, himself, as 
p de heres, ad quod unit De umin prefatio ne  he witnesseth, not knowing how fare 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. Austen 
q Epist, 19  saith in effect himself, so fare 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 witness, that D. Bancroft hath produced for the proof hereof, or can for aught that I know) it may appear by this, that our learned country man of godly memory Bishop 
r defence of the Apolog part 2 cap. 9 divis 1, pag 198.  jewel, when Harding to convince the same opinion of heresy alleged the same witnesses, citing, to the contrary Chrisostome, jerom, Austen, 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 heretics. 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 an other jerom, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Theophilact, were of the same mind touching this matter with Aerius. With whom agree likewise 
t in 1 Tim, 3.  Oecumenius, 
s De sacris, hom, orig, et confir. lib, 1. cap 5.  & 
v in Epist, ad Titum.  Anselmus Arbp: B: of Canturbury, & an 
x Collect, can. lib, 7 cap, 87, and 127.  other Anselmus, and 
y Policar lib 2 Titus 19, et 39  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 
a Author gloss. in ca didst, citat. hodericus ca●●. Ave lat, inconcil, Basil, Du●ren, de sacra eccle minist. lib 1 cap. 7.  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, 
Ccap, legimus, didst, 39, cap, Olimp, didst, 95.  that these later witness did live a 1000 years after Christ, and therefore touch not him who 
b pag 19  said, it was condemned so in the time of S. Austin, and of 
c pag 69.  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 Anselmes, with Gregory, and Cratian, expresing S. Ieromes sentence word by word. Besides that, perhaps it is not very likely that Anselmes of Caunterbury should have been Canonised by the Pope of Rome, and worhiped for a Saint, that the other Anselmes, and Gregory, should have such place in the Pope's 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 Pope's 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 say at length: and therefore have not only decreed it now in the 
e Sess 28 cap 4. canon 6 et 7.  Council of Trent, but also in 
f Annot. marg, ad cap legimus dist. 1●.  the new edition of their Canon law have set down this note, that one Hugh's 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. Ieromes meaning at least for the meaning of the Canon taken out of S. jerom, though his words be flat and plain against this gloss, as Bellarmine 
g Tom 1 contro 3 lib. 1 cap.  himself confesseth. Whereto may beadded, that they also who have laboured about the reforming of the Church these 500 year, have taught that all Pasters be they entitled Bishops, or Priests, have equal authority & power by God's word, First the 
h Aeneus Silvius histo. ●o●em, cap 35 et Pigh Hierarch Eccles. lib 1 ●ap 10. Defence, p●cit 〈◊〉 2. cap. 15  Waldenses, next (i) Marsitius Patavinus then (k) Wickliff and his scholars; afterward 
l Aeneas Silvius loco citato.  hus: and Hussites: last of all 
m Adversus fall so nominat or din, epist et ad ver Pap● Rom.  Luther, 
(n) in epist, ad philip, 1 et Titus 1  Calvine 
o Apos. Confess Wit●ē●. c 2 21.  Brentius, 
p Decad 5 set, 3  Bullinger, 
q Loc Com. 'tis de minist verbi,  Musculus & other, 
k Tho, Walden doct fidei Tom 1: lib 2 cap 60. et Tom 2 c 17  who might be reckoned particularly in great number, sigh as here with us both Bishops; and the Quienes (s) Professors of Divinity 
r jewel loca citat, et Pilkington in the Treatise of burning Paul's Churcs D Humphrey in cap et in D●re●●… jesuitas part 2 ●at, 3 et D Whit ad tat. Camp●a●● et confuta, Durel jesuitae lib 6,  in our Universities, & 
t M. Bradford, Lambert et others. M. For Acts et. D Fulke against Bristol Motives 40. and Answer to the Rhemists Titus 1, 5.  other learned men do consent therein: so in foreign Nations all whom I have read treating of this matter, and many more (not doubt) whom I have not read,  
The sifting & examining of the Trent Counsel hath been under taken by only two, which I have seen, the one a divine, the other a Lawyer, 
v part 2.  Kemnis●●…s, 
x lib, 4.  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 judgement of the Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Polon, the Lowcountries, and our own, witness the 
y Ha●mony sect 11. in Helvet, post G●lia, Belgia, Anglia. etc.  Harmony of Confessions.  
Wherefore sigh 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 flourishing 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 Gods own ordinance. And thus fare of the former point of D. Bancroft Sermon.  
The latter is, concerning that he affirmeth, that S. jerem 
z pag 14, et 69.  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; sigh neither Ierom 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 
a Epist, ad Evagrum.  jerom, 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 
b Hom, 11. in 1, Tim.  chrysostom also witnesseth.  
Though nether had they it alone in all places as it is apparent by a 
c Concil. 4. ●an. 3.  Counsel of Carthage, showing their Church's order: that the Priests laid their hands together with the Bishop on those who were ordained. Yet jerom having proved by testimony of Scripture, that in the Apostles times, Bishops, and Priests were all one, even in the right 
d In 1 Tim, 4 14.  of this two, granteth that afterwards Bishops had that peculiar unto themselves some where, but nothing else save it. S. jerom 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 
e Instit, lib. 4, cap, 4, sect, 2  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 dissension, yet (saith he) the B●shop was not above them in honour and dignity, that he had rule over them, but look what is the consul's duty in the Senate. to propose matters, to ask their opinions, to direct others by giving them 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. jerom showeth this to have been brought in by the consent of men upon the first of Titus, he addeth that the same S. jerom otherwhere shweth, how ancient an order of the Church it was, even from S. 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 honour to rule over them: It followed, that M. Calvin doth not so much as seem to confess of Ieroms report, that ever since S. Marks 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. jerom 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 Honour specified in D. bancroft's 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: 
1 Cor. 14.31.  remembering the Apostle lesson, that The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. 19 Sept: 1598.  
FINIS.   

A QUESTION RESOLVED BY A LEARNED DOCTOR, whether the Angels of the seven Churches, Revel. 2, & 3. make for Episcopal preeminence Jure Divino.  
For the Negative. First Did these seven Angels denote seven precedents of the Praesbyteries of those seven Churches, yet this would not conclude for episcopal praeeminence over Presbyters. 
Cicero pro Mu●aenaicum multi pares dignitate sunt, unus tamen primum locum s●lus potest obtinere.  For D Reignolds 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 colour 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 been with him in Macedonia, and was now waiting upon him to jerusalem.  
2. M. Mede in his Commentary upon the Revel. pag 265. hath these words. Denique (ut iam semel iterumque monvimus) quoniam Deus Angelos adhibit providentiae suae, in rerum humanarummotubus, & conversionibus ciendis, gubernandisque administros, id cirquoque multorum manibus perag un ur, Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerend●● pre sidi & duci pro communi, 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 humane 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 business. 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: una eademque locutione & Angelos & ecclesias Vnum esse designat: Nam cum in principio locutionum, quaead septem fiunt Angelos dicat, et Angelo illius ecclesiaescorbe, in fine tamen earundem noe 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 itself, that albeit the seven Candlesticks are said to be the seven Churches; 
In heaven that goes for a star which some times is found to be a compound of many stars.  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 acquanted, with the condition of the Churches of Asia, which were so nigh unto him.  
5 yet is there a more pregnant argument then these, out of the very text, & it is taken out of the epistle to Thyatira, where a distinction is made between the members of that Church thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vobis & reliquis: Now who are signified by vobis, but those to whom he spoke 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 presbyters which have a joint preeminence over the people, not one in preeminence over the presbyters? Yet what is this preeminence of presbyters over the people, not a preeminence of Dominion, but a preeminence of service, and therefore aught to be called not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Hierarchy, or sacred government, as commonly it is, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Excommunication itself, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the censures of many, and not the censures of one, 2. Cor. 2.6. And surely, when our Saviour refers us to the Church, under these words, Dic Ecclesiae, Mat. 18. he refers us not to one, but to many.  
FINIS.