2

Tithes, the Bishop contends, are the creation of 'positive Law.' They are not to be claimed as offerings jure divino; that, he says, is another errour of the Papists,' and he twits the Puritans for agreeing with them.1 He upholds what is known as the doctrine of the general priesthood of believers; but he uses the doctrine to show that if poverty and priesthood should go together, then should all the elect be poor and apostolic, and not the Bishops only. Moreover, poverty of the ministry would be in those days 'a greater cause of euill and inconuenience' in the Church than 'their ample and large liuings' were. He had earlier said that eligible women, even as it was, were loath to match with ministers,' since as widows they would be left so poorly off. Now he argues that the poverty of ministers would carry away their mindes from the care of their office.' 3

Noteworthy again is the Bishop's disavowal of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. That our Bishops and Ministers doe not challenge to holde by succession, it is most euident: their whole doctrine and preaching is contrary they understand and teache that neither they, nor any other can haue Gods fauour so annexed and tyed to them, but that if they leaue their dueties by Gods worde prescribed, they must in his sight leese [lose] the preheminence of his Ministers, and bee subiect to his wrath and punishment.'*

With many arguments and illustrations he explains and shows the inevitableness of the poverty of Christ and His Apostles. Rich and poor have their peculiar dangers; but a special word of warning is given against 'the phanaticall spirites of the Anabaptists,'' allowing a Platonicall community of al things' and holding the doctrine of equality. To revert to the main subject, the Bishop shows that there were many rich saints in the Old Testament and the New, and he gives a brief list of them: Lazarus of Bethania and Mary Magdalene figure among the number. He observes

1 Cooper's Admonition, 169 (Arber, 126).

2 Ibid. 175, 176 (Arber, 130).

3 Ibid. 150, 183 (Arber, 114, 135).

4 Ibid. 186, 187 (Arber, 137).

that 'riche Abraham had preheminence in heauen, before poore Lazarus.' And when poor priests in this country reverted to the Mass, the holders of the greatest liuings not only were ready to go into exile, but to shed their blood for Christ. [It might well be pointed out that the Bishops who went to the stake had very different views as to the office and its emoluments from Cooper and his associates, and also that a very large number of poor men and women were burnt under Mary.]

Undeterred by the fact that the character of Christian. faith and worship had been changed four times in about twenty years, at the sound of the trumpet of the royal herald, Cooper holds that God does not put divine faith and worship and obedience to the moral law under subjection to princes.1 Ambassadors of Christ might be required to go forth without scrip or purse; that was to teach them to trust in God. Having food and raiment,' says Paul to Timothy, we should therewith be content.' And the Bishop's reply to the quotation is after this fashion: Look at these critics; at first they would not allow us the possession of temporal lands; now they will not allow us to have a penny in our purses: it is a doctrine that would well justify the couetous and uncharitable dealings of many Parishioners.' 2 With much more of the like sort; for no one knew better how to answer an argument by running away from it under a cloud of pious platitudes and sanctimonious reflections on the wickedness of the men who could use such dangerous arguments.

He will allow that for three hundred years the Church was supported by voluntary offerings; but that was during a time of persecution. It was all happily changed by 'Constantine, that good and first Christian Emperour,' a list of whose benefactions and favours he admiringly gives.3 The Church, indeed, grew wealthy after the age of Constantine. But its wealth was not the cause of its corrup

1 Cooper's Admonition, 218, 219 (Arber, 158, 159).
2 Ibid. 222-227 (Arber, 160-163).

3 Ibid. 237-241 (Arber, 170-172).

tion; the real causes were heresy and schism, decay of learning, usurpation of ecclesiastical discipline; and auxiliary to these were the evil influence and actions of corrupt emperors and governors, and the superstitious devotion of the people.1

(10) BANCROFT'S SERMON AT PAUL'S CROSS.-Elizabeth's seventh Parliament commenced sitting on February 4th, and on the following Sunday Dr. Richard Bancroft, sometime chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, and now chaplain to Lord Chancellor Hatton, preached at the Cross' a notable sermon. He indicates its quasi-official connection with the assembling of Parliament in the title-page of the printed copy.2 It is set

1 Cooper's Admonition, 241-244 (Arber, 172-174).

Besides the cancelled phrase already given, there is a second correction, though not one of great moment. Martin threatens a praemunire, and the reply in the earliest edition is, 'The Libeller doth but dreame, let him and his doe what they dare.' The word dare is covered by a slip containing the word can.

Both the modern editors, Mr. John Petheram and Prof. Edward Arber, are a little in error in regard to the editions of the Admonition.

(1) The original (containing the two cancel slips) is referred to as having 252 PP. This is the edition from which Martin makes his quotations in HAY ANY WORKE FOR COOPER. He says, 'The booke is of 252 pages' (Introd. EPIS. p. 4). The last page is numbered 252; but the pagination is exceedingly imperfect. Beginning with page 65, there are 14 folios only numbered on the recto, the verso being unpaged. The actual number of pages is therefore 266. There are other errors which do not affect the total: 69 occurs twice instead of 68 and 69; 71 also twice instead of 70 and 71.

(2 and 3) Of the two editions in the British Museum it is difficult to say definitely which is the earlier. They are both corrected editions, and both have the sentence, I will nowe come to answere briefly some particular slanders vttered against some Bishops and other by name,' which is not found in the first edition.

(a) B.M.—701, g. 31; pp. 245 + blank p. This is the edition reprinted by Prof. Arber.

(b) B.M.-C. 37, d. 38; pp. 244. differences throughout these two editions.

There are minute typographical

For the first 216 pages each page in both editions contains the same amount of matter. Onwards edition (a) spreads the type out more liberally than edition (b), which is the shorter of the two by one page. On the whole, (b) appears to me to be the more carefully printed of the two, and I should therefore regard it as the later edition. The original impression was manifestly issued in haste. The first corrected edition would also, in all probability, be hurried on to take the place of the unfortunate original edition. The third edition is more likely to have been got up at ease and with care.

2 A Sermon Preached at Paules Crosse the 9. of Februarie, being the first Sunday in the Parleament, Anno. 1588[9]. by Richard Bancroft D. of

forth as an authoritative utterance. In later years it has been the subject of special attention as marking the first distinct departure from the fundamentally evangelical position of the original episcopate of Elizabeth. Bancroft is alleged to be

the first in the English Church as established by law to claim a Divine right for the Episcopacy. Whitgift, who recognised that bishop and priest [i.e. elder] are interchangeable titles in the Scriptures, and against the Presbyterian Discipline, argued that the Scriptures countenanced no definite, unalterable system of Church government, could only say of Bancroft's high doctrine that he rather desired it were true than believed it so to be. But the point here alluded to forms no part of the main purpose of the sermon.

The persons specially addressed by Bancroft are indicated by his opening quotation of Augustine's definition of schismatics, which in his translation runs: Schismatikes are such as retaining with us the true faith: do separate themselves from us, for orders, or ceremonies. His formal subject is 'the trial of the spirits' (1 John iv. 1). He supplies a list of false prophets, ancient and contemporary, amongst the latter numbering the Arians and others. Soon, however, he reveals that his most serious antagonist is Martin Marprelate. He indulges himself in a little rhetorical description of schismatics, whom he likens to painted walls, mermaidens, Helena of Greece, 'to a fish called the Cuttle,' and to other things.1 Martin would ascribe schism to the intolerance of the Bishops; Bancroft, on the contrary, ascribes it to the contempt of Bishops and a desire for their places and preferments. Martin, like Aerius, preached the equality of Bishop and priest, alleging that only anti-Christian popes claimed 'superiority.' But, says Bancroft, the great apologists of the Church assumed the episcopal office.3 Another cause of schism Bancroft declares to be self-love; which, quoth Augustine, 'did build the city of the divel.'

Divinitie, and Chaplaine, etc. Wherein some things are now added which then were omitted, either through want of time or default of memory. 2 Tim. 2. Stay prophane and vaine babblings, for they will increase unto more ungodlines. 8vo. 166+ii. pp. (B. M. 693, d. 22.)

1 Sermon, pp. 5, 6.

2 Ibid. pp. 14-17.

3 Ibid. pp. 19, 20.

Henry Niklaes, the founder of the Family of Love, calls his own book, Evangelium Regni-the Gospel of the Kingdom.1 Such also were the yvwσTIKO, 'ignorant of nothing,' etc. Covetousness is the next reason given. Schismatics Bancroft divides into two classes: (1) the clergie faction,' who want the Bishops' livings and Church revenues, and oppose property once dedicated to religion, being ever after applied to secular uses; (2) the 'laie faction,' who advocate apostolic poverty, and include the communistic Anabaptists. 'Now deerly beloved unto you of al sorts, but especially you of the richest, I praie you tell me how you like this doctrine?' If the 'laie faction' intend to keep a tight hold of the old ecclesiastical spoils, they should never speak against the established government, unless they propose to disgorge such spoiles and praies as they have already.'3

The spirits must be tried. Two extremes there are: (1) Papists who forbid the vernacular Scriptures, and would bind us to the Fathers, who, like their Councils, are often repugnant one to another; (2) Giddy spirits,' ever seeking, yet never at rest. Bancroft objects to unauthorised lay exposition of the Scriptures; non-professional judgment is not regarded in other branches of learning. Our creed should be those things 'proved and decreed by so many worthy bishops,' All spirits are not to be believed. Elizabeth abolished Popery, and all the Reformed Churches rejoiced. Now these Protestants oppose the Communion Book, notwithstanding its many revisions; while their own book is so faulty that it never even mentions the civil magistrate.

5

Martin would prove syllogistically, that since our Prelates are petty popes,' they are not to be tolerated in a Christian commonwealth.' Bancroft applies the same reasoning to Elizabeth! Therefore her Majestie,' claiming

1 It is The Joyfull Message in the English translation. 2 Sermon, pp. 21, 22.

4 Ibid. pp. 33-42.

3 Ibid. pp. 25-29.
5 Ibid. pp. 50-66.

Martin had grounds for the complaint that the episcopal controver sialists took his figurative speech literally. He retaliates by taking Bancroft's logic, intended to be a reductio ad absurdam, as his serious view.