Chap. VII. 7heHISTORYof the PURITANS. 331 Crols, yan. I 2th, 158S. maintained, that the bifhops of England were a EZte -tí.e diftint order from prießs, andhadfuperiority over sthem JURE, DIV INO, 1588. and direcily fromGod He affirmed this to be God's own appointment,' 1 though not by exprefs words yet by neceffary confequence; and that theBancroft's denial of it was herefy. The doctor confeffed, that 4erius had main Sermon. tamped, there was no difference between a grief! and a bifhop; but that Epiphanius had pronounced his affertion full of folly ; and that it had been condemned as herefy by the general council of the church ; that Martin and his companionshad maintained the fame opinion ; but that St. Hierom and Calvin had confeffed, that bifhops have had fuperiority over prefbyters, . ever lince the times of St. Mark the evangelift. This was new and ftrange doÈtrine to the churchmen of thefe times. It had been alwaysL. y' Laid, that the fuperiority of the order of bi/hops above prlbyters, hadg'ft, P. 292-- been a politick human appointment, for the more orderly government of the church, begun about the 3d or 4th century ; but Bancroft was one of the -firft, who by the archbifhop's directions, advanced it into a Di- VINE RIGHT. His fermon gave offence to many of the clergy and todi/Pleafes all the friends of the puritans about the court, who would have broughtibe Puritan". the preacher into,a premunire, for Paying, that any fubjeiit of this realm bath fuperiority over the perlons of the clergy, otherwife than from and by her majefty's authority. But the doftor retorted this argument upon the difciplinarians,, and added, that it was no better than a fophifm, besaufe the prince's authority may, and very often does confirm and corroborate that which is primarily from the laws of God. Sir. Fran_. cis Knollys, who had this affair at heart, told the archbifhop that Ban- croft's affection was contrary to the command of Chrill, who condemned: all fuperiority among the apoftles. " I do not deny (lays he) that bi " (hops may have lordly authority and dignity, provided, they claim " it not from higher authority than her.majefty's grant. If the bifhops " ° are not under - governors to her majefty of the, clergy, but fuperior- " governors over their brethren by God's ordinance, [L e. Jaffe divins]' " it will then follow that her majefty is not fapreme governor over her "- clergy." The fame gentleman not relying upon his own judgment, wrote to the learned Dr. R ynolds of Oxford, for his opinion. of Bancroft's dourine, which: he gave him in a letter now before me, to this effect._ " Though Epiphanius Pays, that Aerius's affertion is full of folly, Dr. Räy- " he does not difprove his reafons from fcripture ;.. nay his arguments are notd's re-- " fo weak, that even Bellármine confeffes,,they are not agreeable to the narks'. text. As for the general confent of the.church, ,which the doctor fays,.. " condemned _derius's opinion for herefy, what proof does, he bring for " it ? It appears (he lays) in Epiphanius; but I fay it does not ;. and the contrary appears by. St. yProm, and fundry others who lived about the. U u. 2 fame._
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=