the refractory Such things as appertain to Salvation and to Faith were ordered by the Apostles by a Divine Inspiration but in the rest they did often use their own prudence as S. Paul intimates 1. Corinth 7.25 Nor are you ignorant so oft as examples are brought of Bishops placed by the Apostles in a higher degree above Presbyters what is commonly answered viz. that they had not that preeminence as Bishops but as Evangelists of whose superiority above Pastors somewhat you may have in S. Chrysostom on the IV. to the Ephesians Which reply of what strength it is I had rather stand to your iudgment then any mans Indeed S. Ambrose on that same place makes Evangelists inferior to Bishops and without Seas Yet however you shall call Titus Timothy and S. Mark whether Bishops or Evangelists it is clear they had Bishops their successors and heirs of their preeminence You determine therfore that our Churches do offend against the Divine Right yet so as you exclude them not from hope of salvation but do think that in our Church Government men may attain to Salvation for this you brought in in your Second Letter that you might deal the kindlier with us But in your larger you liken us in this point to Aerius who you say was deservedly upon this ground by the Antients put in the black Book of Hereticks Herein Great Sir I appeal to your equity Think with your self what streits you drive me to For if I should have spoke as you conceive it I could not but necessarily accuse our Church of Heresie and so doing be forced {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be packing to leave my station here and to provide for my self as I could Nor could I say that the Primacy of Bishops is by Divine Right but I should brand our Churches which have spilt so much blood for Christ with Heresie For questionless to be obstinately set against such things as are of Divine Right and peremptorily to gainsay what God commands is downright Heresie whether it concern Faith or Discipline Besides that I should have overthrown that Principle wherwith cheifly our Religion defends her self against Popery viz. That what things are by Divine Right are sufficiently and evidently contein'd in the Holy Scriptures I hear what you will reply That it had been safer and better for me to have been silent in these points then itch to be writing so unseasonably Because therby it comes to pass that I must necessarily offend our own Church or your nay haply both And to tell you truth I had rather have been silent for very unwillingly I sett my mind to write nor did I write but upon command Arnoldus the Iesuite the Kings Confessor publikely and in the pulpit before His Majestie inveigh'd against the Confession of our Church and further in a pestilent book revil'd it wherin he mightily insults over us in this question and odiously seeks to overthrow our Churches Government This book coming to be sold all over France through the high ways and streets at the voice of a Cryer did greatly scandalize many Nay before this the Pulpits the Markets the Court the Streets and the very Barbers shops rang with this question This is the field wherin wanton witts sport themselves daily How earnestly my Book was look'd for which should stop that insolency it doth thence appear that in Four months space it was nine times printed I could not therfore shun this task Nor was it possible to write exactly of that Argument but I must begin with the signification of the words Bishop and Presbyter and treat of the Original of the Office But here I took occasion to speak honorably of the Bishops of England I deriv'd the dignity of Bishops from the very infancy of the Church I condemn'd Aerius I said that S. Iames himself was Bishop of Hierusalem from whom in a long course the succession of Bishops of that City is deduced Only this one thing was wanting viz. that I did not say that our Church was heretical and did trample the Divine Right under her feet which indeed I neither could nor ought to do yea had I done it you your self would have noted that want of prudence in me This may serve for the Three chief points To which you further add this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or corollary namely your iudgment touching the Title of my book which I wrote for France Of the Calling of Pastors These words you say are novell and never used by any of the Antients in this sense I acknowledg indeed that the word Calling is unusual among the Antients nor taken in that sense But we Frenchmen speak otherwise for as many as have wrote of that Argument either Our or Papists use this word which with us signifies somewhat more then Ordination for it is taken for the Office it self If I had wrote in Latin I should have given this Title of the Office and Ordination of Pastors Neither would you have all Presbyters and Ministers of the Word of God to be called by the name of Pastors For this word you say belongs only to Bishops and that the Antients spake so If this be true Worthy Sir the Churches in France Germany Lowcountrys and Helvetia are flocks without a Pastor But S. Paul Acts the xx commandeth the Presbyters of Ephesus pascere i. e. to be Pastors of the Church v. 17. 28. And S. Peter in his 1. Epist. 5. ch. 1. 2. v. The Presbyters who are among you I exhort Pascite feed the flock of God which is among you taking the over-sight therof not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre which exhortation to diligence and shunning filthy lucre no doubt belongs also to the inferior Presbyters Now to think that they ought not be called Pastors whom God commands Pascere to feed the flock I cannot persuade my self But if the Word of God be Pabulum the food of Souls I see not why he should not be call'd a Pastor who doth administer this food S. Paul in the fourth to the Ephesians verse 11. makes an enumeration of Ecclesiastical Offices God gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers If Presbyters who labour in the Word whom we Frenchmen call Ministers be not understood under the name of Pastors I see not what place they can have in this enumeration of the Apostle S. Augustine in his 59. Epistle saith that Pastors and Doctors here are the same The same thinketh S. Hierom upon this place of S. Paul Vincentius Lirinensis expounding this place maketh no mention of Pastors but comprehends them vnder Doctors whom he calls Treatisers who certainly were a different thing from Bishops But that Bishops only are Doctors I never yet read anywhere S. Ambrose is so far from thinking the name of Pastors to belong only to Bishops that he even calls Readers Pastors Readers saith he are and may be Pastors who fatten the souls of
Of Episcopacy THREE EPISTLES OF PETER MOULIN Doctor and Professor of Divinity Answered By the Right Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrews Late Lord Bishop of Winchester Translated for the benefit of the Publike S. Clemens in Epist. ad Corinth 1. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Our Apostles understood by our Lord Iesus Christ that there would be contention about the name of Episcopacy Printed in the Yeer 1647. To the most Reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Winchester Peter Moulin wisheth all health and happiness THat Honorable man your Predecessor was taken hence not without great damage both to the Church and Common-wealth The King lost a most wise Counseller and the Church a faithfull Pastor but I a Patron and a friend who though he was most carefull and desirous of my good yet oblig'd me more by his Virtues then his benefits I have his Letters by me which he wrote to me when he was sick and his recovery was almost desperate the very sight wherof doth exceedingly afflict me But yet my grief was not a little eas'd when I heard that you succeeded in his room whose learning I long since admir'd and of whose good affection I had great experience when I was with you Indeed his most judicious Majestie did not stick long upon his choice You were even then design'd his Successor in the judgment of all who knew the wisdome of the King May it I beseech God prove happy and fortunate to your self to the Church and Kingdom May He grant you with increase of Honor increase of Virtue and a fresh and lively old age That his most Gracious Majestie may long enjoy you for his Counseller and the Church daily reap more and more fruits of your industry and vigilance I wrote a Book touching the Calling of Pastors wherin some passages greiv'd the soul of your most wise King as if they were averse to the Office of Episcopacy But indeed on the other side our Countrymen complain not a little that I vndertook the cause of Bishops and condemnd Aerius who in a matter anciently and universally receivd durst oppose himself against the Practise of the Catholik Church And they take it in ill part that I said that it was generally receivd in the Church even from the first successors of the Apostles that among the Presbyters of a City some one should have the preeminence and be call'd the Bishop But though there be many things in my Book which the King set a dash of his dislike upon which as all things els he observed wisely and with an incredible sharpness of wit yet Three things there are which specially offend Him The First is that I said that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are promiscuously taken in the New Testament for one and the same The Second that I affirm'd that there is but one and the same Order of Presbyter and Bishop The Third and that the greatest is that I think the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Priority or Superiority of Bishops not to be of Divine Right nor a point of Faith but to be a thing wherein the Primitive Church vsed her liberty and prudence when she judged the Preeminence of One to be fitter for the mantaining of Order and conserving of Peace and that Vnity may well be kept whole and intire between Churches though they differ upon that point I confess these things were wrote by me which lest they be drawn to a wrong sense or be taken in the worser part take I pray breifly my meaning in them I said indeed that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter were taken for all one in the New Testament But I thought not that the Dignity of the Bishop was less'ned thereby since I spake only of the Name not of the Office only and I have beside clear places of Scripture the consent not only of Hierom the Presbyter but also of the most famous Bishops of the Ancient Church Chrysostom Ambrose Theodoret who took it not as a wrong to them or that any thing was abated of their honor if it were beleeved that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter were at first used in the same sense That the Order indeed of Bishop and Presbyter was one and the same that I said For so did the Ancient Church ever think and the Church of Rome thinks so to this day although there be in that Church an incredible difference betwixt the pomp of the Bishops and the meaness of the Priests Thence it is that in the Roman Pontifical there is set down the Consecration of Bishops but not the Ordination of them Indeed Order is one thing a Degree another for men of one and the same Order may differ in Degree and Dignity even as among Bishops the Degree of Archbishops is the more eminent Howbeit that this Episcopal Degree and Prerogative is by Ecclesiastical not by Divine Right I confess it was said by me For beside that to speak otherwise then I thought had not been the part of an vpright honest man you according to your wonted goodness will easily judg that a French man living vnder the Polity of the French Church could not speak otherwise but he must incur the censure of our Synods and vnder the danger {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of degrading be forced to a recantation For to think that our Churches do err in points of Faith and in that which is of Divine Right were questionles to brand them with the note of Heresy and to shake the conscience of many weak ones Truly I came very vnwillingly to the writing of this Book but our Church requiring it and lately enforcing me for to stop the insolency of our Adversaries who in this point insult over vs out of all temper and speak of vs as of so many doltish mushrums newly sprung out of the earth and as of a company of base fellows who by force and tumult had got the Pulpit But howsoever I think I have kept such a temper that in defending our own I have not struck at your government nor by immoderate affection to a part have inclined more then was meet to either side Nor did I ever mention the Bishops of England with out due honor These things I thought fit to write to you Great Sir by whom I chiefly desire my papers may be approved I had sent my Book to you before now but that I was told by divers you vnderstood not French Now I send it because since you enjoy a more frequent and neerer presence of His Majestie I doubt not but He may have some speech with you about it and use you as an umpire in the cause And I shal most willingly stand to your iudgment well knowing that the most learned are ever the most can did and hoping that you wil not lauce too deep whatever may be salved with a fair interpretation So think of me as of a man with whom the Authority of Antiquity shal be
also of Deacons a Even a Bishop is called a Deacon wherupon S. Paul writing to Timothy said to him though a Bishop Fullfill thy Deaconry From thence you may gather that the Names of Bishop and Deacon are taken for the same Nay the very Apostles themselves call themselves sometimes Presbyters sometimes Deacons and so their whole Office a Deaconry and yet is not Deacon or Presbyter the same that Apostle Why therfore did you not add that too that it might appear that the other suffered as much as Bishops and that in the begining not only the names of Bishops but of other Orders also were taken in like manner promiscuously wheras the Things the Offices themselves were distinct 2. Wheras then in those very places where the Fathers speak so That then they communicated in Names they presently apply a remedy and give this item that the Things themselves are otherwise And instantly add Afterward the proper name was given to each of Bishop to a Bishop of Presbyter to a Presbyter By the rule of speech then who would urge the common name when the proper had taken place For no body would now call a King a Tyrant or a Souldier Latronem as of old they were wont a Robber neither sure would they call a Presbyter a Bishop as when S. Hierom wrote had he called himself Bishop and S. Augustine Presbyter you know he would have been laughed at for his pains 3. Add further that in those very places wherin the Fathers speak so before they speak they are forced {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to object by way of exception concerning the use of names and to premise some what that should put the thing out of question S. Chrysostom What meaneth this were there then more Bishops of one the same city by no means No not then when S. Paul wrote Theodoret It could not be that many Bishops should be Pastors of one City S. Hierom There could not be many Bishops in one City S. Ambrose God appointed several Bishops over several Citys So that they do cleerly shew the Offices were then distinct when they make the inference touching the name I collect then how ere it was for the names at first Be it they then neglected the Propriety of speech yet that even then there was but one Bishop but one Pastor in one City And this holdeth among us even at this day but doth it so among you Thus if you had prefacd touching the Thing it self and had afterward inferr'd touching the names though to what end is it to make any stir about the name when we are agreed on the thing that they were a little while taken one for another and had not spoken so loosly concerning the promiscuous use of the names his Majestie would not I beleeve have set his dash of dislike upon that passage The next is touching the Order Where I pray consider whether they be to be called One and the same Order whose Offices are not one and the same But that they are not the same Offices even they who less favour the Episcopal Order do confess in that they ever except Ordination Again whether they be to be called One and the same Order wherin there is not One and the same but a new and distinct Imposition of hands For that in all Antiquity there was Imposition of hands upon Bishops no man I think will deny And whether the Antient Church were of this opinion let Isidore be the witness who b in plain words calls it the Order of Bishoprick To the Schole indeed if you referr it they do not agree among themselves Your Altisiodorensis our Major and others are for the distinction of the Order But they who are most against it though they will not grant it a Sacrament of Orders the whole force wherof they bound within the Eucharist yet an Order they grant since an Order is nothing else but a Power to a special Act as namely to Ordain which is competible to Bishops only For what a thing were this if that from whence Ordination and so all other Orders proceed should it self not be an Order For we pass not for the Church of Rome or the Pontifical If they please themselves with the name of Consecration let them enjoy it Even the Church of Rome it self did anciently speak otherwise For instance The Church of Rome saith Tertullian c gives out that Clement was ordained by S. Peter Otherwise also the Fathers even they whom you allege even S. Hierom d who affirms that S. Iames the brother of our Lord was presently after the Passion of our Saviour ordained Bishop And of Timothy e Timothy had the gift of Prophecy together with his Ordination to Episcopacy S. Ambrose f For unlawfull it was and might not be that the Inferior should ordain the superior to wit a Presbyter a Bishop S. Chrysostom g For Presbyters could not have ordained the Bishop For the Latin word Ordination is agreable to the Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and is often rendred by it nor is any word more frequent where mention is of making Bishops then that of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Theodoret h Titus was ordained by S. Paul Bishop of Creet But you say an Order is one thing a Degree another Yet you know that in Holy Scriptures these words are taken one for another no less then those of Bishop and Presbyter where the Deaconry is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a Degree i which notwithstanding you will not I know deny to be an Order You know also that it is so among the Fathers among whom you may often read that a Deacon or Presbyter may {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} fall from his Degree and be degraded no less then a Bishop Indeed every Order is a Degree but not every Degree an Order But both are in Episcopacy though in one respect an Order in another a Degree A Degree as it hath a superiority even without any power an Order as it hath a power to a special act For were it a Degree only it had been enough to have used the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the superlative which denotes a Degree superior to that of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Presbyter the Comparative neither would there have been need to fetch in a new word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a Bishop meerly to design a Degree For as touching Archbishops t is quite another reason They are not indued with a power to any special act For even they if they were not Bishops before receive their Ordination from Bishops And as they are Archbishops they are not necessary to the Ordination of Bishops for by the Fourth Canon of the Council of Nice Three Bishops together have power to ordain a Bishop But we very well know that the Apostles and the Seventy two Disciples were
Two Orders and those distinct And this likewise we know that every where among the Fathers Bishops and Presbyters are taken to be after their example That Bishops succeeded the Apostles and Presbyters the Seventy two That these Two Orders were by our Lord appointed in those two Cyprian k Deacons must remember that our Lord chose the Apostles that is Bishops and Prelates But the Apostles after the Ascension of our Lord appointed Deacons for themselves as Ministers of their Episcopacy and of the Church Nay S. Hierom l With us Bishops hold the place of the Apostles All Bishops are successors of the Apostles And that is a famous place in him in him and S. Augustine too upon the 44. Psalm In stead of thy Fathers thou shalt have children i.e. in stead of Apostles Bishops S. Ambros in 1. Corinth 12. 28. God hath set in the Church Caput Apostolos first Apostles Now the Apostles are Bishops the Apostle S. Peter giving us assurance of it And his Bishoprick let another take And a little after Are all Apostles He saith right for in one Church but one Bishop And in Ephes. 4. The Apostles are the Bishops From hence we have a fair passage to the last point Whether this Order be by Divine Right Very glad I was to hear it from you That the Authority of Antiquity should be ever in great esteem with you I love you for that word Nor will it be the least of your praises if your deeds make your words good For my part it hath been my opinion ever I was ever of that mind But or I am deceiv'd in the whole story of Antiquity or the Apostolical men i. e. the Disciples of the Apostles or as Eusebius calls them {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} they that conversed with them both they who are not mentioned in Holy Scripture as Polycarpus and Ignatius and they who are expresly mentioned as Timothy Titus Clemens were Bishops while the Apostles were alive and were constituted and ordained by the Apostles themselves (a) Polycarp by S. John (b) Clemens by S. Peter (c) Titus and (d) Timothy by S. Paul I give you these witnesses Concerning Polycarp (e) Irenaeus (f) Tertullian (g) Eusebius (h) Hierom. Concerning Ignatius (i) Eusebius and (k) Hierom. Concerning Timothy (l) Eusebius (m) Hierom (n) Ambrose (o) Chrysostom (p) Epiphanius Concerning Titus (q) Eusebius (r) Ambrose (s) Theodoret Concerning Clement (t) Tertullian (u) Eusebius (x) Hierom. Not to speak of (y) Linus z Dionysius (a) Onesimus (b) Epaphroditus (c) Caius (d) Archippus concerning whom we have the like testimonies of the Fathers And not of these alone even S. Mark the Evangelist and that while the Apostles lived who saw it for S. Mark dyed in the (e) Eighth year of Nero full Five years before S. Peter and S. Paul were crown'd with martyrdom And not He alone S. Iames also the Apostle Witness for S. Mark (f) Hierom for S. Iames (g) Eusebius out of Clement and Hegesippus (h) Hierome (i) Chrysostom (k) Ambrose (l) Epiphanius (m) Augustine Could any then take it ill that you said That Episcopacy was received in the Church from the very next times to the Apostles you said too little you might have said more and if you had Antiquity would have born you out that it was received from the Apostles themselves and that they the Apostles themselves were constituted in the Episcopal Order There was nothing in that passage of yours that any could be offended with unless haply that in stead of was called the Bishop you should have said was the Bishop For we do not contend about the Name all the controversy is about the Thing This was done or we must give one general dash through all the Ecclesiastical Historians And when was it done After the Ascension of our Lord saith Eusebius (n) Presently upon the Passion of our Lord so S. Hierom. (o) Done by whom They were placed in the Office of Episcopacy by the Apostles (p) Tertullian By the Apostles so Epiphanius By the Ministers of our Lord so (q) Eusebius Ordeined by the Apostles so (r) S. Hierom. Constituted by the Apostles (s) so S. Ambrose Will any man then deny that S. Iames S. Mark Titus Clemens were Bishops by Apostolical Right Was any thing done by the Apostles which was not by Apostolical Right By Apostolical i. e. as I interpret it by Divine For nothing was done by the Apostles that the Holy Ghost the Divine Spirit did not dictate to them Sure if by the Apostles by the same Right which those Seven were by Acts. 6. whom I am sure you your self will grant to be by Divine Right Deacons the Holy Scripture doth no where call them that is only a word of the Church I hope what the Apostles did they did by Divine Right and that it cannot be denyed but their Deeds of which we are certain not only their Words or Writings are of Divine Right And not only those things of which S. Paul wrote to the Corinthians (t) but those other also which He set in order at His being at Corinth if they were known to us what they were were by the same right to wit by Divine all of them both these and they from the Holy Spirit all And yet though they be by Divine Right we do not say these things belong to Faith They belong to the Agenda or Practice of the Church to the Credenda or points of Faith t is but improper to refer them T is very strange therfore which you say That your Countrymen openly complain of you both that you vndertook the cause of Bishops bylike your Country-men are enemies to Bishops would not have their cause pleaded but are desirous it should be lost as also that you condemned Aerius who was antiently condemned in Asia by Epiphanius in Europe by Philastrius in Africa by S. Augustine whose name all the world over is in the Black-Book of Hereticks nor undeservedly seeing He durst oppose himself as you your self confess to the Consent and Practice of the Catholik Church You should rather complain of them who for this complain of you As for that where you would not have your papers to be ript up to the quick I know no body here that doth it Should any he would have somewhat to stick upon in the very Title take which word you will that of Pastor or that of Calling They are both novelties the word Pastor I 'm sure in this sense and Calling too and not of any Age but this last nor of all that For I pray who of the Antients ever spake so among whom you shall scarce find the word Pastor used but when they speak of Bishops which form of speech S. Peter taught them when he joined Pastor and Bishop in our Saviour
Nor shall you ever read that they by that word pointed out such as either in City or Country had the care of some few persons distinguished by Parishes For that the Presbyters Vrban or Rural were by the Bishop designed to that imployment Who indeed at the begining were of the Bishops family and did live as you very well know of the Sportula i. e. of the Oblations of the Church before the distinction of Parishes came up And the word Calling in the sense you take it is altogether as unknown In stead whereof they used the words Ordination or Constitution And the very name of Minister is of the same stamp which they would never have understood to be spoken of any but a Deacon as it is derived indeed from no other fountain but the Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} But we must pardon you you must speak the language of your Church which hath no Bishops another kind of Presbyters Elders they call them another kind of Deacons and I add another kind of Calling then ever the Antient Church acknowledged I for my part in my best wishes for your Church and so for all the Reformed do wish this that you may keep constant in the other points of Faith but for Government and Order that God would vouchsafe to you no other but that which He hath vouchsafed Vs i. e. by Bishops Presbyters and Deacons Such as those we read of in the Histories of the Church and in the Councils and the Antient Fathers unto whom or self-conceit shrewdly deceives me or most like are Our most like I say in their Order not in their Worth but would to God in their Worth also And that no Policy no form of Government in any Church whatsoever cometh neerer the sense of scripture or the manner and usage of the Antient Church then this which flourisheth among us These I intrust to you that if you please they may be with you But know withall that I have ever been both by Nature and Choice addicted to Peace And my Age now requires it of me who ere long must be packing but cheifly living under a King whose Word is that of our Saviour Blessed are the Peacemakers And I assure you I shall never incline to any immoderate or harsh counsels but shall qualifie as much as I may your writings with a fair interpretation For neither can we bragg of our happiness more then antiently S. Augustine did whose saying it was What we teach is one thing what we are fain to tolerate another To the most Reverend Father the Lord Bishop of Winchester MOst Reverend Prelate I sent unto you my Book concerning the Calling of Pastors and with it some Letters wherin I endevour'd to satisfie you touching some points wherin I seem'd to your most Gracious King too ill affected to the Order of Episcopacy Which Letters if you have received I doubt not but you will judge of me as of a man who both thinketh and speaketh honorably of your Order I am not so proudly arrogant as to oppose my self to all Antiquity and to reject that as a thing faulty and wicked which hath been received in the Church from the very next Age to the Apostles I was ever of this mind that concord might be kept whole and intire between Churches living howere under a different form of Ecclesiastical Government so that Christ be preached as he is set forth in the Gospel the Christian Faith remain safe and sound But among the rest of your Order I ever highlyest esteemed you for many causes which I had rather acquaint others then yourself withall As a witness of which my affection I send you this new Book which the command of the Church whom I serve and the impudent insulting of a Court-Iesuite forced from me I desire that you would be a means to pacifie the Kings anger against me That He would consider with Himself and weigh it in an equal ballance that there can be no place in the French Church for a Pastor that should teach the Primacy of Bishops to be of Divine Right without which there could be no salvation without which the Church could not stand To affirm this were nothing els but to damn all our Churches to the pit of Hell to pronounce the sentence of condemnation upon my own Flock Which should I do you your self would account me a sensless ungracious fellow and worthy to be spit upon by all But enough of this For an overlabored Defence specially to an understanding man and in a clear and manifest point is altogether needless God preserve you and prosper your endeavours that they may redound to the edification of the Church Farewell Paris XVI Calends of Decemb. 1618. Your Honors most devoted Peter Moulin The Bishops Answer to the Second Epistle THe Post was not yet gone he staied here a day or two but he had these letters here inclosed sealed up as they are when lo I received your Second by the hands of S. William Beecher Agent for the King lately come from you I presently recalled my former yet opened them not but as they were inclosed them in these For I would not so trespass as to commit the same fault again but rather make amends for my former tardiness with the quickness of this Answer You shall therfore with my First receive these Second together with my thanks for both but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the First Second as it were to wit in these Second Letters my First thanks now and in the First my Second as it falls out Thanks I say both for that your Book formerly sent and this Later shortly as I hope to be sent For S. William Beecher will deny either that it was bound when he came thence or els brought to him and in that consideration he came the later to me but he bad me look for it for that I should not look in vain As for pacifying the Kings anger against you beleeve me you need not much trouble your self There is nothing in Him which needs pacifying there are ways wherby you may more and more gain him and make him yours and it would be worth your labour if you do it And do it you may if you take that course which you cannot learn better of any man living then of himself As for me I gladly acknowledg that you are more moderate toward us then most of your men commonly are and the more you convers with Antiquity will be daily more and more nay I add and much more would be if your Church would give you leave and I would to God it would It should seem that shee hath transfer'd the faults of Persons upon Things and for some abuse hath taken away the lawful use a fault which you should by little and little unlearn Her You while you follow and sway with it follow not the bent of your own mind and iudgment for Iiudg of your affection by your pen
which was so well inclin'd toward us that it had wrote and I think not against your mind that Our Order of Bishops was a thing received in the Church even from the time of the Apostles And indeed your pen had wrote very right Mary you blotted out of the Apostles and in leiu of it put in next to the Apostles But this I beleeve you did in favour of your Church And indeed that was very true which you put in next to the Apostles but that not a whit less true which you blotted out For that Order was not only from the Age next to the Apostles but even from the very Age of the Apostles or els all Antiquity deceives us and ther 's not a Church-History left worth credit That all Antiquity is for us you your self deny not and whether We must yeeld more to any present Church then to all Antiquity judg you If I know you well the more free and ingenuous I am in writing thus to you you will love me the better and so shall I you if you deal as freely with me in it Hear me then I pray This is not enough for us if a man do not reject Our Church Government as a thing faulty or sinfull for this is it We stand upon that it may be clear and confessed by all that the Government of our Church is such as cometh most neer to the form and manner of the Antient Church or as you grant that next to the Apostles or as you had once wrote and we contend for 't of the Apostolick Church And that you are of the same judgment with us I doubt not If then by your Churches leave you would once speak out you should do us a curtesie if you may not no discurtesie if for the future you would let Our affairs alone For that way you are in it will scarce be possible for you both to please your own and not to displease us And yet though Our Government be by Divine Right it follows not either that there is no salvation or that a Church cannot stand without it He must needs be stone-blind that sees not Churches standing without it He must needs be made of iron and hard hearted that denys them salvation We are not made of that metal we are none of those Ironsides We put a wide difference betwixt them Somewhat may be wanting that is of Divine Right at least in the external Government and yet Salvation may be had So that you shall not need to damn them to the pit of Hell or pronounce the sentence of condemnation upon your flock This is not to damn any thing to preferr a better thing before it This is not to damn your Church to recall it to another form that all Antiquity was better pleased with i. e. to Our but this when God shall grant the opportunity and your estate may bear it If we do but agree upon this point in all the rest we shall not fall out But yet we wish not a concord that is but pieced and patched up but an intire absolute agreement without any piecing and patching which we doubt not but you likewise wish with us If any thing remain I remit you to my former for we are here now full of business These I recommend to your favorable acceptance and so I commend you in mine and desire you to recommend me in your prayers to God Farewell London Decemb. 12. 1618. To the most Reverend and most worthy Prelate the Lord Bishop of Winchester GReat Sir I received your Letters full both of choice stuff and of the testimony of your good affection to me For although you seem to be a little more moved then ordinary yet that great sweetness which you temper your reproofs with puts me in hope that your goodwill is not lessned toward me and that you will readily accept of this my satisfaction It is to my great profit and honor to be taught by you nor am I so sensless as to contend with a man of so great learning and worth Neither indeed did I write to that end that you should write to me again for it is abundantly sufficient for me if you take my Letters in good part Nor are my writings of any such value that they should beget you any trouble or take you off from your more weighty affairs If therfore any thing was written by me amiss I am much indebted to that my error which hath drawn from you so learned and accurate Letters that no gold can value and weigh against them which I shal keep by me while I live as a most pretious {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and threasure Nevertheless because you seem to me not to have reached my meaning in some passages of my former Letters you will pardon me if I endeavour in these to explain my mind a little more fully I said that the Names of Presbyter and Bishop are taken in the New Testament for one and the same That the Order of Bishop and Presbyter is the same That the difference between Bishop and Presbyter is but of Ecclesiastical not of Divine Right These things you wish had not been said by me And you bring many Arguments to the contrary indeed learnedly and accurately but wherof a good part toucheth not me Breifly of each You deny not but the Names of Presbyter and Bishop are promiscuously taken in the New Testament But you say to what purpose this Forsooth you think that I tacitly insinuate therby that the Things likewise are promiscuous For no man likely carps at the Name but he that is ill affected to the Thing And you add that the Fathers in those very places wherin they teach that the Names are taken in the same sense do presently apply a remedy and add that this afterward was otherwise and that the Names as well as the Offices were and are distinct Here it is easie for me to prove to you that I had no purpose to abuse the passivity of the Names therby to confound the Functions For there I presently apply the same remedy which you truly say was applyed by the Fathers For I subjoin Presently after the times of the Apostles or even in their times as the Ecclesiastical History beareth witness it was decreed that in one City One of the other Presbyters should be call'd the Bishop who for avoyding of confusion which groweth oftimes by equality should have Preeminence among his Collegues And this form of Government was every where received by all Churches These very words were added by me there which do abundantly wipe off that suspition Could I possibly wish ill to 〈◊〉 Order wherof I never spake without honor as very well knowing that the Reformation of the Church of England and the ejection of Popery next to God and your Princes is chiefly to be ascribed to the learning and industry of your Bishops some of whom being crowned with Martyrdom sealed the Gospel with their blood Whose
writings we keep by us whose acts and zeal we remember as no way inferior to the zeal of the most eminent Servants of God whom either France or Germany brought forth Whosoever shall deny this must needs be either senslesly wicked or as envying Gods glory or foolishly besotted not see at high noon I desire therfore this suspition may be wipid off from me specially when I take notice that even Calvin and Beza whom they usually pretend to as abettors of their peevishness wrote many Letters to the Prelates of England and intreated them as the faithfull servants of God as men that deserved well of the Church Nor am I such a boldface as to pass sentence upon those Lights of the Antient Church Ignatius Polycarp Cyprian Augustine Chrysostom Basil the Two Gregories Nissen and Nazianzen all of them Bishops as upon men wrongfully made or usurpers of an unlawfull office The reverend Antiquity of those First Ages shall ever be in greater esteem with me then the novel device of any whosoever I come to the Second part of your censure I said that there is but One Order of Bishop and Presbyter You contrary-wise are of opinion that the Order of Bishops is another and diverse from that of Presbyters and to that purpose bring many testimonies from the Fathers who speak of the Ordination of Bishops neither do I oppose for the Antient's speak so indeed And although the Roman Pontifical absteins from that word yet the Antient Bishops of Rome did use it Leo then in his 87. Epistle which is to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna commandeth I that a Bishop who is not rightly ordained he displaced and in the same Epistle he often useth the same word Now between an Order and a Degree you make this difference that a Degree denotes only a Superiority but an Order is a power to a special Act That therfore every Order is a Degree but not every Degree an Order Very well For though many do not observe this difference of words yet it is best to use proper terms that things which differ in substance be distinguished in names too But these do not prejudice me at all For you should have considered with your self whom I have to deal with I dispute against the Pontificians who make Seven Orders Door keepers Readers Exorcists Acolyths Subdeacons Deacons Presbyters but the Order or character of Bishops they will by no means have to be diverse from that of Presbyters Could I disputing with them use other words then such as are receiv'd by them Could I deal with them about the Order of Bishops which they acknowledg not Should I have inveigh'd against them for not making the Order of Bishops distinct from that of Presbyters when our own Churches make it not He that should do this should not so much contest with the Church of Rome as with our own Then to what purpose is it to insist so much upon the distinction of Words since every Order is by S. Paul call'd a Degree Nor can a Bishop be depriv'd of his Orders but he must be degraded and fall from his Degree I pray weigh my words well Every Bishop is a Presbyter and a Priest of the Body of Christ and of these the Church of Rome makes but one Order It plainly appears that I do not in these words affirm what ought to be beleeved but what is the sense of the Church of Rome But heer somewhat falls in which may beget a doubt It is confess'd by all that every Bishop is a Presbyter but a Presbyter is not a Deacon Hence it comes to pass that there is another manner of difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter then betwixt a Presbyter and a Deacon Since therfore a Presbyter differs in Order from a Deacon it seems to follow that a Bishop differs not in Order from a Presbyter Nor is it without some doubt that you say that Order is a power to a special Act. For a power to a special Act is given to many without Order as to them who are extraordinarily delegated to the performance of some special actions Then you deny that Archbishops are another Order from Bishops And yet an Archbishop hath a power to some special actions as namely to call a Synod and to do other offices which are not lawfull for Bishops and which are not permitted to Archbishops themselves under the Papacy but when they have received the Archiopiscopal Pall from the Pope You out of your great wisdom will consider whether it be apparent by these that the power to a special Action may be conferr'd even by a Degree without a Diversity of Order The Third point is still behind to wit that I said that Episcopacy is by the most Antient Ecclesiastical but yet not by Divine Right You on the other side resolve and mantein that it is by Divine Right and to that purpose produce many examples of Bishops S. Mark Timothy Titus Clemens Polycarp S. Iames Bishop of Hierusalem all who received the Order of Episcopacy from the Apostles themselves And you quote a great number of Fathers who affirm as much Learnedly all and according to the truth of the Primitive Historys But what then Why say you if Bishops were constituted by the Apostles plain it is that the Order of Episcopacy is by Apostolical and so consequently by Divine Right This indeed is to make your self master of the whole strength of the cause But that Axiom of yours All things that are of Apostolical Right are likewise of Divine seemes to me by your good leave to be liable to some exceptions Many things were ordered about Ecclesiastical Policy which even the Church of England acknowledgeth not to be of Divine Right by not observing the same S. Paul in 1. Timoth. v. would have Deaconesses appointed in the Church But this fashion was long ago out of date The same S. Paul 1. Corinth XIV would that at the same Hour in the same Assembly Three or Four should prophecy i. e. as S. Ambrose understands it Interpret the Word of God and that the others should judg of what was spoken which custome is long since ceased The Apostles command touching abstinence from things strangled and blood was for many Ages observed by the Antient Church witness the Apologetie of Tertullian chap. IX the Council of Gangra Canon II. and the Trullan Canon LXVII and there is frequent mention of the same point in the Councils of Worms and Orleance yet S. Augustine in his XXXII Book against Faustus chap. XIII saith that Observing hereof was generally neglected by the Christians and that they who were posses'd with that scruple were laugh'd at by others You have not the Apostles alone but even that precept of Christ himself Touching shaking off the dust of the feet against the refusers of the Gospel If any should now go about to lay the foundation of Christian Religion among the Tartars or Sinenses were he bound to observe that Rite against
commonly growes from Equality how comes it to pass that there is no need of this remedy among you Again if it be true that this Form of Government was received every where by all Churches that which was every where receiv'd by all why doth not your Church receive why doth She only run counter to all the Churches which then were every where For that is a most true word you said and deserv'd an asterisk of commendation That all Churches everywhere receiv'd this Form of Government Nor were there ever before this Age any Churches which were governed by any other then by Bishops Wherfore there was no cause at all that you should go about to wipe off that suspition for I had none of you that you were not well affected to our Order I shall never be induced to beleeve it for I cannot but give credit to you affirming it in your Letters that your Countrymen complain of you for favoring and wishing so well vnto it Indeed that you wish well I doubt not at all but therto I am more perswaded by your word then by your arguments For here you slip from the Order to the Persons of Bishops of whose Learning Industrie Martyrdom you speak much and excellently But there were as you know of old men that hated the Tyrant but not his Tyranny and why not now men that love Bishops but not the Government by Bishops Pass by the men therfore it matters not for them speak of the Order it self For Calvin himself and Beza if they wrote to our Prelates know that they wrote likewise to them whom you call peevish and that their Letters which these pretend for their peevishness are produced by them and thus they oft reply To what purpose do I hear Calvins Words when I see his Deeds For the Order it self if it be such as you would have it seem the Bishops of England cannot make it better nor of Spain worse I advis'd you not to transferr the faults of Persons upon Things and to unlearn your Church that custom As for those Antients whom you worthily call the Light of the Church and who themselves were Bishops though you say much yet you say not enough For this is not enough That you would not give sentence against them That they were not wrongfully made That they did not usurp an unlawfull Office These are but terms of diminution Not give sentence against Not wrongfully made not usurpers of an unlawfull Office speak out speak as the truth is That they were lawfully made lawfully if ever any and did exercise a most lawfull Office That our at this day are to be made after their example That the same Office is to be exercised by all Ours These speak home to the Order are nothing to the Men But whatever become of those passages I cannot but commend your conclusion there nor shall I stick to set an asterisk of approbation upon it I would to God that might put an end to the whole controversie betwixt us It is this The venerable Antiquity of those first Ages shall be ever in greater esteem with me then the new upstart device of any whosoever O would to God that Antiquity might be more and more in esteem with you with all for if Antiquity might prevail if these new upstart devices were discarded then sure the Cause of this Order could not be in danger The Second dash of dislike set by His Majestie and very justly was at that place where you contend that the Order of Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same I have shew'd that it is not the same Both 1. Because the Offices are not the same For a Presbyter doth not Ordain no not in S. Hieroms iudgment As also 2. Because there is not the same Imposition of hands but a new one in a Bishop Again 3. Because among the Fathers Isidore clearly calls it the Order of Bishops And lastly 4. Because those Two Orders were distinguished by Christ in the Apostles and the Seventy Two Here you produce to us the Title of the Pontifical which is concerning Consecration not Ordination I shew'd that the Antient Bishops even of Rome it self spake otherwise otherwise the later Popes Among the Antient that the word Ordination was most usual and most approved You appeal to the Schole I acquainted you in what sense the Schole calls them the same or not the same The same in reference to the Body of Christ upon which they terminat their Seven Orders About the Body of Christ a Presbyter doth as much as a Bishop You your self say as much Of these in respect of the Body of Christ the Church of Rome makes but one Order Not the same if you respect the power to a special Act viz. of Ordination which is peculiar to a Bishop This is not mine as you imagin'd but the definition of Orders all the Schole over Nor yet that difference which afterward you put upon me both of them are from the Schole both definition and difference These things if you would speak Scholastically were not to be deny'd by you who appeal'd to the Schole But to what purpose do you say that you deal with or that you dispute against the Pontificians who will not have the Order of Bishops distinct from that of Presbyters And yet presently you subjoin Ought I to inveigh against them viz. the Pontificians because they do not make the Order of Bishops distinct from that of Presbyters when Our Churches do not make it neither He that should do this should not so much contest with the Church of Rome as with our own You dispute therfore against them but yet you will not inveigh against them you dispute against the Pontificians and yet you allege their Pontifical You dispute against them yet your own Churches do the self same thing Nor yet will you affirm what ought to be beleev'd but what the Church of Rome thinketh which thinketh the very same that your Church doth and your Church I beleeve you would have to be beleev'd You do not therfore contest with the Pontificians for I trow you have no mind to contest with your own 'T were against your Religion so to do Nevertheless your Church as you confess doth the same thing in this point that the Roman doth You say it is best to use proper terms that the things which differ in substance be distinguished in Name and yet in the same page afterward as if you were somwhat angry you ask To what end is it to stick so much upon the distinction of Words To what end then is it to make proper words which are made proper for no other end but for distinction If this be to no end it is better trust me neither to use proper words nor to make any words at all proper for we must use the better both you and we Notwithstanding this why do you reject the distinction of words here Because every Order you say is a Degree What then Since every Degree is
not an Order if we will use proper words Deaconry in S. Paul is a Degree and the same is an Order with all men But Archdeaconship is a new Degree and yet no Order Nor can a Bishop be outed of his Order but he must be degraded say you or fall from his Order Yea but he may be degraded though he be not outed of his Order for of his Order he can no way be outed For after that which they call Degradation there remaineth a power to the Acts of his Order the use of which power may be inhibited the power it self cannot be taken away But here some scruples arise in your mind The First is that every Bishop is a Presbyter very true that and confest by all But a Presbyter you say is not a Deacon Among you haply he is not according to your novell device But with that Reverend Antiquity which you speak of he is Nay then a Bishop himself is a Deacon Read S. Chrysostom Even a Bishop was call'd a Deacon wherupon S. Paul writing to Timothy said Fulfill thy Deaconry to him being a Bishop Whence also it is that many Bishops now adays write to my Fellow-Presbyter to my Fellow-Deacon Read S. Ambrose on the 4. to the Ephesians For all Orders are in a Bishop because he is the first Priest i. e. the Prince of Priests And on the 1. to the Corinth 12. Though Apostles be Prophets too for the first Degree hath all other vnder it I may truly therefore inferr the contrary Seing a Bishop differs not from a Presbyter by any other way of difference then a Presbyter doth from a Deacon But a Presbyter differs from a Deacon in his Order therfore it is agreable that a Bishop differ from a Presbyter in his Order This ever seem'd agreable to the consent of Antiquity I wonder that these things scap'd you for I dare not suspect that what are so obvious to all are unknown to you But the Deaconry in use among you deceived you a meer stranger it I speak it boldly to all Antiquity with whom Deacons were ever one part of the Clergy The Second scruple That Order is a power to a special Act I say not of myself the whole Schole saith so it is the definition of Order received in the Scholes speak you if you have another for I remember not that I have anywhere read of any other Your scruple here ariseth from them who say you are extraordinarily delegated to the performance of certain Acts I rejoin What have they who are delegated without Order to do with Order The very word Order requireth that this be understood of ordinary power The Third Scruple An Archbishop hath a power to a special Act. What Act To call a Synod I eas you of this scruple also This Act is not special to an Archbishop for a Bishop exerciseth the same Act He doth as much call a Synod in his Diocess as the other doth in his Province Though if we will speak truly the calling of Synods is a special Act to neither of them but is by Delegation from the Prince by whose Laws there is special provision against unlawful Assemblys You in your wisdom see that nothing appears here why either by a Degree any Power may be conferd or by an Order may not be conferd The Third dash of dislike was upon your denying Episcopacy to be of Divine Right you grant it to be of Apostolical But that serves not you to make it be of Divine Right No not among us who do not observe certain things which were appointed by the Apostles For 1. not Widows I read of no command there for the appointing of Widows but for Ephesus and those Churches which had Widows there is a command touching their Age The institution of Widows was left free to every Church For none were to mantein Widows unless they would and indeed they could not be manteined among the poorer Not 2. that Custom for three or four to prophecy at one hour But that Custom was cleerly extraordinary and the extraordinary gifts ceasing that ceased too Not 3. to abstein from things strangled blood Yea but that was temporary not appointed by the Apostles with any other intention then to be in force during the non-burial of the Synagoge the Synagoge once buried to be free to observe or not So your first instance was not necessary your second not ordinary your third temporary not perpetual These do not make a Divine Right But that the Precepts of the Apostles may not be of Divine Right you will not have that of Christ touching shaking off the dust of their feet to be so neither But in truth this is no Precept but if a Precept of Divine Right For I hope you will not say that Christ commanded this using his Prudence without Divine inspiration No man ever understood that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} according to the Letter and that upon this ground because it was sometime observed sometime altered sometime quite omitted not according to the Letter I say but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} according to the mind of the speaker Whose mind was that such were to be given for desperate whether with or without using the Ceremony But be more sparing I pray of that point of the Apostles oftimes using their prudence For it cannot be said or writ without great danger that the Apostles in some things had Divine Inspiration in the rest did often use their own prudence and that in their writings which are extant For even that very place where {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is according to my judgment you know is concluded with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} But I think also that I have the Spirit of God so that his very {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} his judgment had the dictate therof from the Spirit of God As for that place which you quote if it were not written by Divine inspiration but by humane prudence we are to score it for Apocryphal How then are we for making an Index and for Expurging the New Testament For separate we must the pretious from the vile What were dictated by humane prudence will never stand in conjunction with those which were by Divine inspiration But although there be weight enough to confirm this cause from the Right and maner of the Apostles yet you may remember that I deriv'd this distinction of Orders higher viz. from Christ our Saviour in the Apostles and Seventy-Two Disciples That it is every where among the Fathers and clearly confessed by them that Bishops succeeded the Apostles and Presbyters the seventy Two I cited Cyprian But Deacons must remember how our Lord chose Apostles i. e. Bishops and Prelates but the Apostles after the Ascension of our Lord appointed to themselves Deacons as ministers of their Episcopacy and of the Church That those Seven were instituted Acts VI by the Apostles but no Presbyters but
after the example of the Seventy Two nor Bishops but after their own pattern This Order therfore hath the strength and sinews therof not only from the Apostles but even from our Saviour himself Would you have me fetch it yet higher even out of the Old Testament and there from the Divine Law it self S. Hierom doth And that we may know that the Apostolical traditions were taken out of the Old Testament what Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple that do Bishops Presbyters and Deacons challeng to themselves in the Church S. Ambrose doth in both those places 1. Corinth 12. and Ephes. 4. speaking of the Iews Whose tradition saith he hath passed over to us I omitt Aaron lest you should reject him as a Type of Christ Over his Sons the Priests was there not in their several families {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. a Prelate or as is said †elswhere {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. a Bishop Over the Gersonites Num. 3. 24. Over the Kohathites vers. 30. Over the Merarites verse 35. Was not Eleazar there even while his Father was alive {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as if you would say Prelate of Prelates verse 32. Who is elsewhere called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as if you would say Archbishop There are therefore in the Law {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. Prelats or Bishops Priests and Levites In the Gospel The Apostles the Seventy Two and those Seven Acts VI In the Apostles practise which was taken from those Two the Law and Gospel Bishops Presbyters Deacons But do not do not think that this was by Apostolical Right alone if there be in the Gospel if in the Law any Divine Right this Government is not without example in both it is founded on both Either then there is no Divine Right in the form of Church Government and then wellfare Amsterdam where so many humane prudences as there are so many forms of Government shall be set up Or if there be any Divine Right it is in Those Three it is for us And now to your skirmishes of lighter consideration That I know what useth to be answered by the Vulgar concerning Timothy and Titus Add this too that I know that many things are ill answered by the Vulgar But what is answered by the Vulgar that they were Evangelists Who affirms this either the Vulgar or they that out of some mans novel device have spread these doubtfull speeches among the Vulgar For none of the Antients ever spake so no History can witness it But History doth witness that Timothy and Titus were Bishops Epiphanius Chrysostom Ambrose Hierom Theodoret say it That they were Evangelists no man ever said wrote or dream'd before our Age This Vulgar answer is a Vulgar forgery Therfore whether Evangelists were superior or inferior to Bishops it 's nothing to us since these by no means were Evangelists Who saith so S. Chrysostom But I am to mind you that he corrects what he had spoken with some diffidence there concerning Evangelists For that nothing can be collected out of that place Ephes. 4. concerning the Priority of any But we may fetch it from another Epistle 1. Corinth 12. 28. where we have {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} first second third But Evangelists appear not there Besides that they whom you with the Vulgar would have to be counted Evangelists Timothy and Titus are from thence placed among the Pastors {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} intrusted with the care of their several Provinces and in general of all but not among Evangelists Aquila and Priscilla are to him Evangelists that I cannot but wonder what you meant to mention that place For from that place of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 4. 5. if you will hear S. Chrysostom you shall assoon make Timothy but a Deacon from the fulfilling {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of the Deaconship as an Evangelist from the work of an Evangelist Do not you therfore make such a disjunction either Bishop or Evangelist Evangelists they were never reputed by any but some I know not who two or three days ago whom any upstart device pleaseth better then reverend Antiquity Do we give credit to Antiquity They were Bishops they had Bishops their successors their heirs both in Superiority and Power You demand then Whether your Churches sin against the Divine Right I did not say it this only I said that your Churches wanted somewhat that is of Divine Right wanted but not by your fault but by the iniquity of the times For that your France had not your Kings so propitious at the reforming of your Church as our England had in the interim when God shall vouchsafe you better times even this which now you want will by his grace be supplyed But in the mean while the Name of Bishop which we find so frequent in the Scriptures ought not to have been abolish'd by you Though to what purpose is it to abolish the Name and to retein the Thing For even you retein the Thing without the Title and they Two whom you named while they lived what were they but Bishops in Deed though not in Name seing as he in the Poet saith excellently there is scarce any man that would wish {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} To be a Tyrant and not to tyrannize That Aerius was put in the black book of Hereticks and worthily whosoever shall beleeve Epiphanius Philastrius or S. Augustine must needs confess And you that condemn Aerius upon what consideration do you condemn him What because he oppos'd himself to the consent of the Catholike Church He that is of the same opinion doth not he also oppose himself and is to be condemn'd upon the same consideration But if there be any error so it be not with obstinacy of mind though he think as Aerius did his cause will be far from what the cause of Aerius was Do not you therfore betake yourself to those tragical expressions of damning to the pit of Hell of giving sentence of damnation against your Church as against her that treads under foot the Divine Right Ther 's no necessity of that Weigh only calmly what is spoken To vote that a thing were so is not to devote if it be not A wish is no sentence of damnation To want somewhat that is of Divine Right is not to tread under foot the Divine Right Let but obstinacy and perversness be wanting it will be no heresy And if it be heresy being about a point of Discipline it will not be among those which S. Peter calls {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} damnable heresies But far be it from me that I should drive you to any streits For neither would I have you hold your peace being so provoked by the Iesuit Nay but write by al means write but yet when you write so mantein your own
that you pinch not upon I say not other mens matters which belong not to you yes which somewhat concern you for our affairs are not meer strangers to you And see heer 's a larg field for you wherin you may shew the sharpness of your wit which indeed is excellent But do not do not hope that you can {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} play on both sides Your own will complain of you Ours need no such defence So you will loose the thanks of either side But although these things be evidently enough conteined in Holy Scriptures to any whose eye is single yet is not that Principle so as you have laid it For not what belong to Divine Right but what belong to Faith and Good manners are evidently enough conteined But these are not adaequate to Divine Right Howbeit you might well you might have wrote as you speak exactly had you begun not where the words were promiscuous but where the Things being always distinct the signification of the words began likewise to be distinct It was possible for you to have absteined from words aequivocal confused and promiscuously taken nor did any necessity enforce you to begin there You might also have balk'd all occasion of diverting to us Your design was touching Bishops you were to treat of them and of the Office it self Of the Bishops of England to what purpose Doth England make that lawfull which out of England is unlawfull The abuses of men wherever they are must be taxed the office it self in what country soever is the same of it self in it self by it self lawfull Nor if the Bishops be not good is the Office of Bishops not good Yea but let the Office of Bishops be let Them be no Bishops unless they make good their Name But here I know the King would set an asterisk of approbation When you derive Episcopacy from the very infancy of the Church When you acknowledg S. Iames to be Bishop of Hierusalem and a long succession of Bishops there deriu'd from him When now again you condemn Aerius See you have Three asterisks for the Three dashes For these things are most true and according to the judgment of the Antients even of Irenaeus who leads the train of the Antients The true profession is the doctrine of the Apostles and the antient state of the Church through the while world is according to the succession of Bishops to whom They deliver'd that Church which is in every place which hath reached even unto us Somwhat I added afterward concerning the novel upstart name of Calling and so of Pastors as they are now in use with you Touching that of Calling you do not deny but that it is vnusual you used I suppose a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the figure of extenution for it is so unusual that it is not at all Calling indeed is sometime used for the Office for Ordination never But neither do you deny what I observed touching that word Pastors Nor do you produce any either among those Antients or the later Writers before our Age that was so call'd viz. a Pastor who was not indeed a Bishop Only I know not how you heap up many things together but all beside the matter that you seem not in them neither to have reach'd my meaning For what if I grant all that you allege That your flocks are not without a Pastor as it seemeth good to you to stile him That all you say out of S. Paul S. Peter the Prophets is true What are these to me who only say that the Antients spake thus that that other name is not from Antiquity I recall you therfore to this That among the Antient Christians in former ages you shew me out of their writings where the word Pastor was ever used and they spake not of the Bishop or that it was used as with you it is of a Parish Priest Prevail thus far with your self as to shew this for unless you do this you do nothing to the purpose But yet see of what force those things are that you brought there For S. Paul doth not say there that Presbyters did pas ere were Pastors this He saith Wherein the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops pascere to feed to be Pastors over the Church of God Saint Paul's Pastor therfore is a Bishop And lest you should think that the name Bishop is to be taken there appellatively as if you would say Such as haue the Cure of not properly behold the Syriack Interpreter himself reteins the Greek word when the Syriack wants not a word of her own by which to express Such as haue the Cure of And so also S. Peters Pastor 1. Epist. 5. chap. 2. v. For I wholy doubt whether that place of S. Peter belong to inferior Presbyters For He addeth there as you know {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} being Bishops over them so that He also conjoins {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} being Bishops with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} being Pastors That word indeed I stand not upon That which follows there not Lording it over the Clergy doth plainly evince that they to whom S. Peter wrote this had {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} power and authority over the Clergy otherwise that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that Domineering and Lording over them could not possibly be apply'd to them Wherfor S. Peters Pastor must needs be a Bishop And who indeed can doubt of this seing the conjunction of those two words took the first rise from S. Peter For wheras you inferr that the Word of God is Pabulum food that therfore they who administer this food do pascere feed I shall easily grant you that feed they do that is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but not therefore {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} whence cometh {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as you know 1. e. Pastor who over and above the food of the Word administer somewhat else beside But what you bring from that place to the Ephesians chap. 4. are either uncertain For 1. One will have Pastors and Doctors to be all one 2. Another maketh no mention of Pastors 3. A Third thinketh that Readers are Pastors I shall speak of them all 1. To S. Augustine Pastor and Doctor are no otherwise the same then Order and Degree were to us a little before Every Order a Degree but not every Degree an Order so every Pastor is a Doctor but not every Doctor a Pastor Who saith this Saint Hierom. 2. Of him who makes no mention there of Pastors nor will I make mention The Monks are better inclin'd commonly to Treatisers then to Bishops 3. For S. Ambrose who understood Bishops in Apostles Presbyters in Prophets Deacons in Evangelists no wonder if at last he fell upon Readers when he had none beside them to whom after those Three he might referr them Thus say
I either vncertain they are or when they are Certain they make against you By name S. Chrysostom Who defineth Pastors to be they to whom was committed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the generality of the people Are your so And he adds who were such as Timothy saith he and Titus who were both Bishops in S. Chrysostoms account and I beleeve in your account they were more then Presbyters labouring in the Word Yet remains what you glanc'd at out of the Prophets Which places if any do accurately consider he shall find that not only the high Priests but also the Prophets and Levites upon whom the Office of teaching lay were called by the name of Pastors Doubtless he shall Add moreover he shall find Princes in the State and Magistrates often nay oftner a great deal to be called by the name of Pastors then all them put together whom you set down And yet we do not call Princes by the name of Pastors Nor do I think that at Geneva he is call'd a Pastor who is the chief Magistrate The Pastors therfore in the Prophets reach not home to this Tell me who of the Antients ever spake so otherwise we are beside the cushion Lastly that seem'd to me a wondrous strange opposition Indeed it is not by the Antients but we Frenchmen speak so For must the Antients speak as the French or the French as the Antient Christians And you run upon the same rock again afterward The Presbyters who labour in the Word whom we Frenchmen call Ministers For it 's strange how it became lawfull for Frenchmen to put upon a Presbyter that name which never any among the Antients used but for a Deacon I speak not this otherwise but that even among us too that bad fashion is taken up of calling them Ministers and Pastors too But these words were brought in by them who best relish any upstart fashion but against their mind who reverence Antiquity and as they may disclaim these usages For we suffer as I said many things which we teach not and bear with that which we cannot take away But he that but bears with a thing loves it not though he loves to bear with it And now you have an Answer to your Letters so far as my occasions give me leave For I have not the happiness of much leasure But although I read none of yours unwillingly yet I read no passage more willingly then that last wherin you profess How desirous you are of peace how glad you should be that all the Reformed Churches who are united by one Faith were united by one and the same bond of Ecclesiastical Government Which is likewise my earnest and hearty prayer and I daily begg it humbly of God that they may be united in the same Form of Church Policy by the bond of Ecclesiastical Government but that same which derives its pedegree from the very infancy of the Church from which the Reverend Antiquity of the First Ages which whosoever opposeth opposeth himself to all Antiquity which Saint James the Apostle began in the Church of Hierusalem from whom the succession of Bishops in a long course descended which condemned Aerius for daring to oppose himself against the Consent and Practise of the Catholik Church which all Churches every where received I come at last to give you thanks For the Book you promis'd me shortly after I had sent you my former Letters was deliver'd to me I do heer both acknowledg and thank you that you were pleased to inlarg and inrich my Library with your Two Books And I intreat you begg of God for me that the remainder of my life which is to come may be rather good then long For as a Play so our Life it skills not how long but how good how well acted In like maner I wishing all happiness to you and in that I put this That the Reverend Antiquity of the First Ages may be in higher esteem with you then the upstart novell device of any whosoever do freely promise you my help and assistance in any thing that may heer concern your interest You will pardon me if I have spoke somwhat more freely assuring yourself that though I am of a quite different judgment in some points yet my charity and brotherly affection toward you is not chang'd awhit nor by the grace of God shall ever be FINIS S. Ignatius in Epistola ad Magnesianos {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} As our Lord doth nothing without his Father so neither do ye without the Bishop neither Presbyter Deacon nor Layman Let nothing seem reasonable to you against his liking For whatsoever is so is against the Law and offensive to God a S Chrysost in ed Philip c. 1. b Etym. 7. 12. c De Praescrip 32. d De Script 2. e In 1. ad Tim 4. f In 1. ad Tim. 3. g In Philip 1. h Oecum in Praef. Ep. ad Tit. i 1. Tim. 3. 13. k Epist. 65 ad Rogat l Epist. ad Maâ—â—el ae Err. Mont. Epist. ad Evig 1. c. (a) S. Hierom. de Sâ—rip 17. (b) Tertul. de Prasc 32 (c) Oecum in Prafat. Titi (d) S. Hier. de Scri. (e) 3.3 (f) de Praese 32. (g) 3.35 (h) de scrip 17. (i) 3.3 (k) de scrip 16. (l) 3.4 (m) de scrip 9. (n) Praesat in 1. Tim (o) Phil. 1 (p) Haeres 75. (q) 3 4 (r) Praef in Tit. (s) apud Oecum Praef in Ti. (t) de scrip 32. (u) 3. 14. (x) de scrip 15 (y) Euseb. 3. 4 ex Dionys Corinth 4. 23. Hier. de scrip 19. (a) Euseb. 3. 35 ex Ignatio (b) Theodoret in Philip 1. 2. 1 Tim 3. (c) Origen in 16 ad Roman (d) Calv. Institut (e) Euseb. 2 24. (f) de scrip Praef in S. Matth S. Mar. (g) 2. 1. (h) de Script c. 2. (i) in 15 (k) in Gal 1. 2. (l) Haeres 66. (m) conâ—a Crescentium 2.37 (n) l. 2 c. 1. l. 3. c 5. (o) de script 2. (p) de Praes. 32. (q) l. 3. c. 35 (r) de script 2. (s) in 2. ad Gal. (t) 1. Corin. 14 1. S. Pet. 2 2â— Libri de Munere Pastorali p 20 â— 1. Tim. 3.13 Lib. de Munere Pastorum pag. 144. †Num 4 16 Neh 11 9 P. Isai. 60 17. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}