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
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
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
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
their Auditors with Reading The term Pastor is usual among the Prophets Prophet Isaiah 56. 11. Prophet Ieremiah 10. 21. and 22. 22. and 23. 1. 2. Prophet Ezechiel 34. 2. and Prophet Zachariah 10. 3. Which places whosoever shall weigh in the even ballance of judgment he shall find that under the name of Pastors were reckon'd not only the cheif Priests or the heads of the Levites but all the Prophets and Levites upon whom the Office of teaching lay But the following matter and my earnest desire to satisfie you hath carried me beyond my bounds I have too too much abus'd your leasure Yet shall not this my pains be ill bestowed if you shall take notice hereby how much I esteem you how desirous I am of peace how glad I would be that all the Reformed Churches who are united by one Faith were also united by one and the same bond of Ecclesiastical Government I beseech you Sir accept in good part this my ingenuous liberty which truly shall never detract from that observance and honor which I shall ever profess before the world I ow unto you God preserve You and grant You a fresh and lively old age with the increase of all honor and happiness Farewell Dated Paris Your Honors most devoted in all observance Peter Moulin The Bishops Answer to the Third Epistle I Never could learn this trick of sawing or which is all one of tossing replys No not when my years were fitter for it But now old age which of it self is a diseas and yet never cometh without diseases attending it plucks me by the ear and bids me get me out of this cockpit and rank my self with them whose whole business is Prayer Nevertheless because in this skirmishing it hath happen'd to us both alike viz that we have not reach'd one anothers meaning I shall not unwillingly more fully and plainly expound my mind to you as you did your to me That which I first meet withall is but a slight matter for I do not understand at all how I was any whit more mov'd then ordinary Neither do I remember ought of yours that mov'd me more then ordinary nay that mov'd me at all but only that you said that some passages of yours had griev'd the Kings soul That word greiv'd greiv'd me somwhat I confess and mov'd me more then ordinary Besides nothing that I remember His Majestie had made three dashes upon your Book Touching them you would know of me what my mind was what I thought I answered as was truth where the King had made them they ought to be made The first place noted by the King was that concerning the passivity of the words as you speak I said it was justly noted Here you did not reach my meaning for you take it for all one as if I had said that you therby did tacitly insinuate I know not what But that came not into my thoughts I did not say what you did therby insinuate but what others would snatch at from thence For questionless snatch at they will as if you did insinuate though you did not as men are and stand affected I for my part do not deny that those words are taken for one and the same and so far you are right This I deny that those things which are right may all of them safely by any man at any time be committed to writing For you must consider not so much what you might mean there as what others would snatch from thence Our writings must be regulated by that of the Apostle Not what is lawfull but what is expedient See you whether this controversie be seasonable at this time and whether it were advisedly done by you and whether it be not expedient {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to cut off occasions from them who earnestly snatch at all occasions of setting novelties afoot Perhaps I fear what is safe enough but I fear though lest an occasion being taken from hence those stirrs unhappily break out again which seemed wholy to be made up among us Nor was I ever of that opinion I never wrote it that afterward it was otherwise done That was not done otherwise afterward which was done by the Apostles themselves It is S. Chrysostoms were there many Bishops in one City by no means It is S. Hieroms For in one City there could not be many Bishops It is Theodorets It could not be that there should be many Pastors in one City Of what time are these to be understood When were there not When could there not be those many Pastors in one City What when S. Chrysostom S. Hierom Theodoret lived doubtless when the Apostle wrote that to the Philippians I could not possibly say then that that was done afterward which they said was done even when the Apostle lived and wrote I said that the remedy was there applyed by the Fathers You say that the same was applyed by you Applyed I grant but truly neither the same nor in the same place For 1. their {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} their preventive caution was premised before they spake Your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} yours is but a playster layd on after the wound is made 2. What you say by way of disjunction viz. either immediatly after the time of the Apostles or even in their time that would not they have said so but as truth was without any disjunction without the former part That it was done in the very time of the Apostles and by themselves 3. Then no where do they say that any constitution was made about it Nor do I think you will ever read of any such {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or constitution in any History We read indeed in the Acts that the Order of Deacons was constituted by them of Presbyters of Bishops there was no constitution for Bishops were formerly instituted by Christ in the Apostles and Presbyters in the Seventy Two 4. Nor only that any was called Bishop but that he was a Bishop For there were no Titular Bishops then they had their Name from their Office they were called what they were they were what they were called 5. Nor that should be only with preeminence but that should be invested with power power I say of Imposition of hands of commanding of receiving informations of reproving 6. Nor only to take away Confusion which is contrary to Order but also to take away Schism which is contrary to Vnity Nor for these two only but also for all other ends for which we said that power was given You see that the Fathers had another gates remedy for this disease and that those speeches of yours It was constituted That should be called should have the preeminence are too narrow and I add by your leave too weak and dilute nor the same with those which are the ingredients of that medicine which the Fathers made But yet I have a mind here to put the question If Confusion
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
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