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 public.  S. Clemens in Epist. ad Corinth. 1. 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  
Our Apostles understood by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention about the name of Episcopacy.  
Printed in the year. 1647.   

To the most Reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, Peter Moulin wisheth all health and happiness.  
THat honourable man, your Predecessor, was taken hence, not without great damage both to the Church and commonwealth. The King lost a most wise counsellor, and the Church a faithful Pastor; but I a Patron and a friend; who, though he was most careful and desirous of my good yet, obliged me more by his Virtues, than 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 whereof doth exceedingly afflict me. But yet my grief was not a little eased, when I heard that you succeeded in his room, whose learning I long since admired, and of whose good affection I had great experience, when I was with you. Indeed, his most judicious majesty did not stick long upon his choice. You were even then designed his Successor, in the judgement of all who knew the wisdom of the King. May it, I beseech God, prove happy and fortunate to yourself, to the Church, and Kingdom. May He grant you, with increase of honour, increase of Virtue, and a fresh and lively old age: That his most Gracious majesty may long enjoy you for his counsellor, and the Church daily reap more and more fruits of your industry and vigilance.  
I wrote a Book touching the Calling of Pastors, wherein some passages grieved 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 undertaken the cause of Bishops; and condemned Aerius, who, in a matter anciently, and universally received, durst oppose himself against the practice of the Catholic Church. And they take it in ill part, that I said, that it was generally received 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 called 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 else, 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 affirmed, 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 used 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 unity may well be kept whole and entire 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, briefly 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 lessened thereby, since I spoke 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 honour, if it were believed 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 meanness 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 upright honest man, you, according to your wonted goodness, will easily judge, that a French man, living under the Polity of the French Church, could not speak otherwise, but he must incur the censure of our Synods, and under 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, questionless, to brand them with the note of Heresy, and to shake the conscience of many weak ones.  
Truly, I came very unwillingly 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 us out of all temper, and speak of us as of so many doltish mushrooms, 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 than was meet, to either side. Nor did I ever mention the Bishops of England with out due honour.  
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 understood not French. Now I send it, because; since you enjoy a more frequent and nearer presence of His majesty, I doubt not but He may have some speech with you about it, and use you as an umpire in the cause. And I shall most willingly stand to your judgement; well knowing that the most learned are ever the most can did; and hoping that you will 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 shall be ever in great esteem; and who shall think myself sufficiently armed against all opposite judgements, if you shall not utterly disapprove what I have writ. God preserve you, Great Prelate. Farewell.  
Paris. Nones of Sept. 1618.  
Your honour's most devoted Peter Moulin.  

The Bishop's Answer.  
I Had wrote these in the beginning of March, and was about to send them presently; when, lo, the indisposition of the King, in point of health, made me lay them by, and hindered my sending of them. This sickness, contracted first by grief, for the death of his most dear Consort, our most Gracious Queen, and the neglect of all care of his body upon that grief, ended at last in a disease; a disease, indeed, so intricat and doubtful, that the physicians themselves were at a stand what the event would be. Whereby I forgot that I wrote, and so omitted to send to you. For all I had to do was to fall to my prayers, with many more, who were sore perplexed, as then in jeopardy, for a most Gracious King. But God looked upon us, and restored Him to us, & in Him us to ourselves. And now, being returned to myself, I return to you, what I confess, I have been too long indebted to you in; so that, as a bad debtor, I was fain to be called upon, by Monsieur Beaulieu, in your name. You will accept of this my too just excuse, kindly, as you are wont; and promise yourself, from me, what good offices one friend can do another.  
Now concerning your Book. You write that some passages therein greiud the Kings Soul. And no wonder. For his soul is tender, and very sensible of any thing in that kind that bites or stings. For, out of His Piety to God, He makes it not the least of His cares to tender the Peace and Order of His Church here. And therefore, in His great wisdom, He presently discerned, whether these Three points tended.  

I. The name of Bishop is not distinct from that of Presbyter.  
II. The Order is not distinct, that is, not the Thing itself.  
III. And so the whole [matter] is not any thing of Divine Right.   
What could they, who lately made all the stirs among us, mutter more, possibly? Then, that 1. the Name is taken confusedly. that 2. the Thing is not distinct. 3. Finally, that it is a Human invention: being settled by man may be unsettled, and so stands or falls at the pleasure of the Commonwealth. These dictates are too well known to the King: He hath been long used to them: They have long since on all hands been rounded in His ears. He knows that there are still among us such, as will from your writings presently take a new occasion, perhaps, not to pluck up this Order of ours, that for so many ages hath taken root but, surely, to defame and calumniat it.  
And this so much the rather, because, at one and the same time, not by agreement, I believe, but yet as though upon a compact, lo, one Bucer, a fellow not hurt, nor meddled with by any, in a very unseasonable time, set forth a Book in Latin, as it were, of the same argument. What King, that studies the Peace, not only of His own Church, but, which He desireth, and would purchase at a dear rate, even of the whole Christian world, would not these things trouble? Wherefore, if the King set a dash of dislike upon those passages, take it not ill: I dare say, He had rather set many asterisks of commendation, than one dash of dislike, specially upon what is your.  
This, surely, is the King's mind; and is (as it ought to be) the mind and sense of us all. wherein I appeal to your own equity. You were for manteining of Your church's Government, and the repressing of your adversary's insolency: should you not do it, you should incur the censure of your Synod, and be forced either to recant, or fear to be degraded. In this We pardon you, and demand the like pardon from you; that it may be lawful for us also to defend our Government, as becometh upright honest men. For we likewise have froward adversaries; and there are consciences, too, among us, which we may not suffer to be shaken or undermined, as though they lived under another form of Church Government, then was from the beginning, even from the very times of the Apostles. And we are ready, if need be, and occasion shall serve, to make this good to the whole Church.  
How I wish therefore, that you had not so much as touched upon our Church Government. For who put you upon it? You might have turned your weapons against those enemies (you speak of) and never have jerkt at us. There's no such complication of ours with yours, but that you might easily have passed by ours with silence, And 
A faithful silence hath its sure reward.   
Or, if you were so set upon it, that you must needs be intermeddling with Ours, how I wish you had first imparted your mind to the King: and, whilst the coast was clear, had seasonably taken His advice in that you had to say of His affairs: (for Ours He accounts His.) You yourself know (and, indeed, who knows not since He hath wrote so much, so admirably?) that, as He is most able in respect of his other endowments of Wit and Learning, so also, in respect of his acuteness and solidity of judgement, he is equal to the best, or rather goes before them. No man living hath in our church's affairs a clearer insight, a readier dispatch, than he. He himself, in any point, but specially in what concerns his own Church could have answered you best: and have set you the bounds, so far to go, but not beyond. Wherefore, if hereafter you shall go about any thing in the like kind, pray remember this my advice, which proceeds from a very good will to you; I knowing that the King is well affected to you; that he hath deserved well of you, (nor will you deny it,) and, I hope, will for the future deserve better.  
Concerning those Three points, if you demand (as you do) what I think, I shall give you here this ingenuous answer; That the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are taken promiscuously in Holy Scriptures: that at first, there was not so great force in the Words, I shall easily grant you. Nor did his majesty regard so much, what you said, as to what purpose; as what others would catch from thence; who, both in other parts, & here among us, too, are not rightly affected to this our order: that these things were spoke to this purpose, as if the Names being promiscuous, the Things themselves were so also. For to what end is it, of what concernment, to speak of Words taken confusedly, when the Things are distinct. No man, lightly, carps at the Name, but he that wisheth not very well to the Thing also.  
1. And yet nothing here hath befallen Bishops, which hath not befallen those other Orders also. For, in those very places, in those very Authors whom you name, it is said in like manner also of Deacons. 
a S Chrysost in ed Philip c. 1.  Even a Bishop is called a Deacon: whereupon S. Paul, writing to Timothy, said to him, though a Bishop, fulfil 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 therefore did you not add that too, that it might appear that the other suffered as much as Bishops: and that, in the beginning, not only the names of Bishops, but of other Orders also were taken, in like manner, promiscuously; whereas the Things, the Offices themselves were distinct.  
2. Whereas, then, in those very places, where the Fathers speak so, [That than 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 nobody would now call a King, a Tyrant; or a soldier, [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 wherein 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 cities. So that they do clearly show, the Offices were then distinct, when they make the inference touching the name. I collect then; how e'er 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 itself, and had afterward inferred 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 loosely concerning the promiscuous use of the names, his majesty would not, I believe, 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, wherein 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 ancient Church were of this opinion, let Isidore be the witness, who 
b Etym. 7. 12.  in plain words calls it the Order of bishopric.  
To the school, indeed, if you refer 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 whereof 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 compatible to Bishops only. For what a thing were this, if that, from whence Ordination, and so all other Orders proceed, should itself 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 itself did anciently speak otherwise. For instance; The Church of Rome, (saith Tertullian 
c De Praescrip 32. ) gives out that Clement was ordained by S. Peter. Otherwise also the Fathers, (even they, whom you allege,) even S. Hierom, 
d De Script. 2.  who affirms, that S. James, the brother of our Lord, was presently after the Passion of our Saviour ordained Bishop. And of Timothy; 
e In 1. ad Tim 4.  Timothy had the gift of Prophecy, together with his Ordination to Episcopacy. S. Ambrose; 
f In 1. ad Tim. 3.  For unlawful it was, and might not be, that the Inferior should ordain the superior; (to wit, a Presbyter a Bishop.) S. Chrysostom; 
g In Philip 1.  For Presbyters could not have ordained the Bishop. For the Latin word, Ordination, is agreeable to the Greek, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and is often rendered 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 Oecum in Praef. Ep. ad Tit.  Titus was ordained by S. Paul Bishop of Crect.  
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 than those of Bishop and Presbyter: where the Deaconry is called, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a Degree; 
i 1. Tim. 3. 13.  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 than 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, merely to design a Degree. For as touching Archbishops 'tis quite another reason: They are not endued 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 everywhere 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 Epist. 65 ad Rogat.  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 Epist. ad Ma●●el. ae Err. Mont. Epist. ad Evig. 1. c.  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 bishopric 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 deceived 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 expressly mentioned (as Timothy, Titus, Clemens,) were Bishops, while the Apostles were alive; and were constituted and ordained by the Apostles themselves. 
(a) S. Hierom. de S●rip. 17.  Polycarp by S. John. 
(b) Tertul. de Prasc. 32  Clemens by S. Peter. 
(c) Oecum in Prafat. Titi.  Titus and 
(d) S. Hier. de Scri.  Timothy by S. Paul.  
I give you these witnesses. Concerning Polycarp: 
(e) 3.3  Irenaeus; 
(f) de Praese 32.  Tertullian; 
(g) 3.35.  Eusebius; 
(h) de scrip 17.  Hierom. Concerning Ignatius: 
(i) 3.3.  Eusebius and 
(k) de scrip. 16.  Hierom. Concerning Timothy: 
(l) 3.4  Eusebius, 
(m) de scrip 9  Hierom, 
(n) Praesat in 1. Tim  Ambrose, 
(o) Phil. 1  Chrysostom, 
(p) Haeres. 75.  Epiphanius. Concerning Titus; 
(q) 3 4  Eusebius, 
(r) Praef in Tit.  Ambrose, 
(s) apud Oecum Praef in Ti.  Theodoret. Concerning Clement: 
(t) de scrip 32.  Tertullian, 
(u) 3. 14.  Eusebius, 
(x) de scrip 15  Hierom. Not to speak of 
(y) Euseb. 3. 4 ex Dionys Corinth. & 4. 23. & Hier. de scrip. 19  Linus, (z) Dionysius, 
(a) Euseb. 3. 35 ex Ignatio  Onesimus, 
(b) Theodoret in Philip. 1. 2. & 1 Tim 3.  Epaphroditus, 
(c) Origen in 16 ad Roman  Caius, 
(d) Calv. Institut.  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 died in the 
(e) Euseb. 2 24.  Eighth year of Nero, full Five years before S. Peter and S. Paul were crowned with martyrdom. And not He alone, S. James also the Apostle. Witness for S. Mark, 
(f) de scrip & Praef in S. Matth & S. Mar.  Hierom: for S. James, 
(g) 2. 1.  Eusebius (out of Clement and Hegesippus) 
(h) de Script c. 2.  Jerome. 
(i) in. 15  Chrysostom. 
(k) in gall 1. 2.  Ambrose 
(l) Haeres 66.  Epiphanius. 
(m) con●a Crescentium. 2.37  Augustine.  
Could any than 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) l. 2 c. 1. l. 3. c 5.  Presently upon the Passion of our Lord; so S. Hierom. 
(o) de script. 2.  Done, by whom? They were placed in the Office of Episcopacy by the Apostles; 
(p) de Praes. 32.  Tertullian. By the Apostles; so Epiphanius. By the Ministers of our Lord; so 
(q) l. 3. c. 35  Eusebius, ordained by the Apostles; so 
(r) de script. 2.  S. Hierom. Constituted by the Apostles; 
(s) in 2. ad Gal.  so S. Ambrose. Will any man then deny, that S. James, 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 yourself will grant to be by Divine Right: Deacons the Holy Scripture doth nowhere 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 denied, 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) 1. Corin. 14  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, 'tis but improper to refer them.  
'tis very strange therefore which you say, That your Countrymen openly complain of you, both that you undertaken the cause of Bishops; belike, your countrymen 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 anciently 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 heretics; nor undeservedly, seeing, He durst oppose himself (as you yourself confess) to the Consent and Practice of the Catholic 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 ripped up to the quick, I know nobody 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 ancients ever spoke so? among whom you shall scarce find the word Pastor used, but when they speak of Bishops: 
1. S. Pet. 2 2●.  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 employment. Who, indeed, at the beginning, were of the Bishop's 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, than ever the ancient Church acknowledged. Ay, 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 us, 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 ancient 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 nearer the sense of scripture, or the manner and usage of the ancient Church, than this which flourisheth among us.  
These I intrust to you, that, if you please, they may be with you. But know withal, that I have ever been, both by Nature and Choice, addicted to Peace. And my Age now requires it of me, who e'er long must be packing: but chiefly 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 qualify, as much as I may, your writings, with a fair interpretation. For neither can we brag of our happiness, more than anciently 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, wherein I endeavoured to satisfy you touching some points, wherein I seemed 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 honourably of your Order. I am not so proudly arrogant as to oppose myself 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 entire between Churches, living howe'er 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, than yourself withal. 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-jesuit forced from me. I desire that you would be a means to pacify the King's anger against me: That He would consider with Himself, and weigh it in an equal balance, 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 else 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 yourself would account me a senseless 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 honour's most devoted Peter Moulin.  

The Bishops Answer to the Second Epistle.  
THe Post was not yet gone, he stayed here a day or two, but he had these letters, here enclosed, 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, enclosed 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 therefore 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 else brought to him; and in that consideration he came the later to me: but he bade me look for it, for that I should not look in vain.  
As for pacifying the King's anger against you, believe me, you need not much trouble yourself. There is nothing in Him, which needs pacifying: there are ways whereby 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 acknowledge that you are more moderate toward us, than most of your men commonly are: and, the more you converse 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 she hath transfered 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 judgement; for jiudg of your affection by your pen; which was so well inclined 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 believe, 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 else all Antiquity deceives us, and there's not a Church-History left worth credit. That all Antiquity is for us, you yourself deny not; and whether We must yield more to any present Church, then to all Antiquity, judge 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 sinful, 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 near to the form and manner of the ancient Church, or (as you grant) that, next to the Apostles, or (as you had once wrote, and we contend for't) of the Apostolic Church. And, that you are of the same judgement with us, I doubt not. If then, by your Churches leave, you would once speak out, you should do us a courtesy; if you may not, no discourtesy, 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 denies 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 prefer 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 entire, 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 favourable 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 lessened toward me, and that you will readily accept of this my satisfaction. It is to my great profit and honour to be taught by you; nor am I so senseless 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 therefore 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 shall keep by me, while I live, as a most precious {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and treasure.  
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 whereof a good part toucheth not me. Briefly 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 thereby, 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, wherein 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 easy for me to prove to you that I had no purpose to abuse the passivity of the Names, thereby to confound the Functions. For there I presently apply the same remedy, which, you truly say, was applied by the Fathers. For I subjoin: 
Libri de Munere Pastorali. p 20 & ●.  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 called the Bishop, who for avoiding of confusion, which groweth oft-times by equality, should have Preeminence among his colleagues. And this form of Government was everywhere received by all Churches. These very words were added by me there, which do abundantly wipe off that suspicion. Could I possibly wish ill to 〈◊〉 Order, whereof I never spoke without honour? 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 senselessly wicked, or (as envying God's glory, or foolishly besotted) not see at high noon. I desire therefore this suspicion 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 entreated them as the faithful 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 ancient Church, Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom, Basil, the Two Gregory's Nissen and Nazianzen, all of them Bishops; as upon men wrongfully made, or usurpers of an unlawful office. The reverend Antiquity of those First Ages shall ever be in greater esteem with me, than 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 contrariwise 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 ancient 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 therefore 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 yourself, 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, than such as are received by them? Could I deal with them about the Order of Bishops, which they acknowledge not? Should I have inveighed 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, called a Degree. 
1. Tim. 3.13.  Nor can a Bishop be deprived of his Orders, but he must be degraded, and fall from his Degree. I pray, weigh my words well: 
Lib. de Munere Pastorum pag. 144.  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 believed, but what is the sense of the Church of Rome.  
But here somewhat falls in, which may beget a doubt. It is confessed 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 therefore 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 lawful 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 conferred, 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 ancient 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. James, Bishop of Jerusalem; 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 histories.) 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 yourself master of the whole strength of the cause. But that Axiom of yours [All things that are of Apostolical Right are likewise of Divine] seems 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 prophesy, i. e. as S. Ambrose understands it, Interpret the Word of God; and that the others should judge of what was spoken: which custom is long since ceased. The Apostles command, touching abstinence from things strangled and blood, was for many Ages observed by the ancient Church: witness the apologetic 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 Orleans. 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 possesed with that scruple were laughed 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 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 judgement, than any man's. 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 therefore 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 ancients put in the black Book of heretics. Herein, Great Sir, I appeal to your equity. Think with yourself, what straits you drive me to. For, if I should have spoke, as you conceive it, I could not but necessarily accuse our Church of heresy; 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 myself as I could. Nor could I say that the Primacy of Bishops is by Divine Right but I should brand our Churches, (which have spilled so much blood for Christ) with heresy. For, questionless, to be obstinately set against such things, as are of Divine Right, and peremptorily to gainsay what God commands, is downright heresy, whether it concern Faith or Discipline. Besides that I should have overthrown that Principle, wherewith chiefly our Religion defends herself against Popery, viz. That what things are by Divine Right are sufficiently and evidently contained 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 thereby 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 set my mind to write; nor did I write, but upon command. Arnoldus the Jesuite, the King's Confessor, publicly and in the pulpit, before His majesty, inveighed against the Confession of our Church, and further in a pestilent book reviled it, wherein he mightily insults over us, in this question, and odiously seeks to overthrow our church's Government: This book coming to be sold all over France, through the high ways and streets, at the voice of a crier, did greatly scandalize many. Nay, before this, the Pulpits, the Markets, the Court, the Streets, and the very barber's shops, rang with this question. This is the field wherein wanton wits sport themselves daily. How earnestly my Book was looked for, which should stop that insolency, it doth thence appear, that, in Four months' space, it was nine times printed. I could not therefore 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 honourably of the Bishops of England. 
***  I derived the dignity of Bishops, from the very infancy of the Church. I condemned Aerius. I said that S. James himself was Bishop of Jerusalem: 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 yourself 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 judgement touching the Title of my book, [which I wrote for France,] Of the Calling of Pastors. These words, you say, are novel, and never used by any of the ancients in this sense. I acknowledge, indeed, that the word Calling is unusual among the ancients, 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 than Ordination; for it is taken for the Office itself. 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 ancients spoke so.) If this be true, Worthy Sir, the Churches in France, Germany, lowcountries 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 oversight thereof, 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 myself. But, if the Word of God be Pabulum, the food of Souls, I see not why he should not be called 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 under 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 their Auditors with Reading. The term Pastor is usual among the Prophets: Prophet Isaiah. 56. 11. Prophet Jeremiah. 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 balance of judgement, he shall find, that under the name of Pastors were reckoned not only the chief 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 satisfy you, hath carried me beyond my bounds. I have too too much abused your leisure. 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 honour, which, I shall ever profess before the world, I owe unto you. God preserve You, and grant You a fresh and lively old age, with the increase of all honour and happiness. Farewell.  
Dated Paris.  
Your honour's 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 replies. No, not, when my years were fitter for it. But now old age, which of itself is a disease, and yet never cometh without diseases attending it, plucks me by the ear, and bids me get me out of this cockpit, and rank myself with them, whose whole business is Prayer. Nevertheless, because in this skirmishing, it hath happened to us both alike, viz, that we have not reached one another's 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 withal is but a slight matter; for I do not understand at all, how I was any whit more moved then ordinary. Neither do I remember aught of yours, that moved me more than ordinary; nay that moved me at all; but only that you said, that some passages of yours had grieved the King's soul. That word [grieved] grieved me somewhat, I confess, and moved me more than ordinary: Besides, nothing that I remember.  
His majesty 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 thereby did tacitly insinuate, I know not what. But that came not into my thoughts. I did not say, what you did thereby 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. Ay, 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 lawful, but what is expedient. See you, whether this controversy 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 stirs unhappily break out again, which seemed wholly 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. Chrysostom's: were there many Bishops in one City? by no means. It is S. Hierome's: For in one City there could not be many Bishops. It is Theodoret's: 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 applied by the Fathers. You say that the same was applied by you. Applied, 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 spoke. Your [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}] yours is but a plaster laid on, after the wound is made.  
2. What you say by way of disjunction, viz. either immediately 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, nowhere 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 unity. 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 grows 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 everywhere by all Churches; that, which was everywhere received by all, why doth not your Church receive? why doth She only run counter to all the Churches, which then were everywhere? For that is a most true word, you said, and deserved an asterisk of commendation, That all Churches everywhere received this Form of Government. Nor were there ever, before this Age, any Churches, which were governed by any other, then by Bishops.  
Wherefore there was no cause at all, that you should go about to wipe off that suspicion, (for I had none of you,) that you were not well affected to our Order. I shall never be induced to believe it; for I cannot but give credit to you, affirming it in your Letters, that your Countrymen complain of you, for favouring and wishing so well unto it. Indeed, that you wish well, I doubt not at all; but thereto I am more persuaded by your word, then by your arguments.  
For here you slip from the Order to the Persons of Bishops: of whose Learning, industry, 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 therefore; it matters not for them; speak of the Order itself. 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 itself, if it be such as you would have it seem, the Bishops of England cannot make it better, nor of Spain worse. I advised you not to transferr the faults of Persons upon Things; and to unlearn your Church that custom.  
As for those ancients, 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 unlawful Office: These are but terms of diminution, Not give sentence against; Not wrongfully made; not usurpers of an unlawful Office; speak out, speak as the truth is, That they were lawfully made; (lawfully, if ever any) and did exercise a most lawful 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 controversy 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 majesty, and very justly, was at that place, where you contend that the Order of Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same. I have showed 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. Hierome's judgement.  
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 showed that the ancient Bishops, even of Rome itself, spoke otherwise; otherwise the later Popes. Among the ancient, that the word Ordination was most usual, and most approved.  
You appeal to the school. I acquainted you, in what sense the school 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 yourself 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 imagined, but the definition of Orders, all the school over. Nor yet that difference, which afterward you put upon me: both of them are from the school; both definition and difference. These things, if you would speak Scholastically, were not to be denied by you, who appealed to the school.  
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 therefore 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 believed, but what the Church of Rome thinketh: which thinketh the very same that your Church doth; and your Church, I believe, you would have to be believed. You do not therefore contest with the Pontificians; for, I trow you have no mind to contest with your own. 'Twere 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 somewhat 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 itself 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 confessed by all. But a Presbyter, you say, is not a Deacon. Among you, haply, he is not, according to your novel 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 called a Deacon; whereupon S. Paul, writing to Timothy, said, fulfil 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 under it. I may truly therefore infer the contrary; Seing a Bishop differs not from a Presbyter, by any other way of difference, than a Presbyter doth from a Deacon; But a Presbyter differs from a Deacon in his Order; therefore it is agreeable, that a Bishop differ from a Presbyter in his Order. This ever seemed agreeable to the consent of Antiquity. I wonder that these things scaped 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 mere 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 school saith so; it is the definition of Order received in the schools: 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 diocese, 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 assemblies. You, in your wisdom, see, that nothing appears here, why either by a Degree any Power may be conferred, or by an Order may not be conferred.  
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, clearly, extraordinary; and the extraordinary gifts ceasing, that ceased too.  
Not, 3. to abstain 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 oft-times 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 judgement, 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 judgement had the dictate thereof, from the Spirit of God. As for that place, which you quote, if it were not written by Divine inspiration, but by human 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 precious from the vile. What were dictated by human 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 manner of the Apostles, yet, you may remember, that I derived this distinction of Orders higher, viz. from Christ our Saviour in the Apostles, and Seventy-Two Disciples. That it is everywhere 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 therefore hath the strength and sinews thereof, 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 itself? 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 challenge to themselves in the Church. S. Ambrose doth, in both those places, 1. Corinth. 12. and Ephes. 4. speaking of the Jews. Whose tradition, saith he, hath passed over to us. I omit 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 
† Num 4 16 Neh 11 9 P. Isai. 60 17.  elsewhere, {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. prelates 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 welfare Amsterdam, where so many human 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 man's novel device, have spread these doubtful speeches among the Vulgar. For none of the ancients ever spoke 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 dreamed, before our Age. This Vulgar answer is a Vulgar forgery.  
Therefore, 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}, entrusted 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 as soon 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 therefore 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 church's 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 supplied. But, in the mean while, the Name of Bishop, which we find so frequent in the Scriptures, ought not to have been abolished by you. Though to what purpose is it to abolish the Name, and to retain the Thing? (For even you retain 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) seeing, 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 heretics (and worthily) whosoever shall believe Epiphanius, Philastrius, or S. Augustine, must needs confess. And you that condemn Aerius, upon what consideration do you condemn him? What, because he opposed himself to the consent of the Catholic Church? He that is of the same opinion doth not he also oppose himself? and is to be condemned 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 therefore 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. there'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 perverseness 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 straits. For neither would I have you hold your peace, being so provoked by the Jesuit. Nay, but write, by all means write: but yet, when you write, so mantein your own, that you pinch not upon, I say not, other men's matters which belong not to you; yes, which somewhat concern you: (for our affairs are not mere strangers to you.) And, see, here's a large field for you, wherein you may show 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 lose the thanks of either side.  
But, although these things be evidently enough contained 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 contained.] But these are not adequate 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 abstained from words equivocal, confused, and promiscuously taken; nor did any necessity enforce you to begin there.  
You might also have balked all occasion of diverting to us. Your design was touching Bishops: you were to treat of them, and of the Office itself. Of the Bishops of England to what purpose? Doth England make that lawful, which out of England is unlawful? The abuses of men, wherever they are, must be taxed: the office itself, in what country soever, is the same; of itself, in itself, by itself lawful: 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 acknowledge S. James to be Bishop of Jerusalem; and a long succession of Bishops, there, derived 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 judgement of the ancients, even of Irenaeus, who leads the train of the ancients. The true profession is the doctrine of the Apostles; and the ancient state of the Church, through the while world, is according to the succession of Bishops, to whom They delivered that Church, which is in every place; which hath reached even unto us.  
Somewhat 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 unusual: 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 ancients, or the later Writers, before our Age, that was so called, 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 reached 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 style 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 ancients spoke thus; that that other name is not from Antiquity. I recall you therefore to this; That, among the ancient Christians in former ages, you show me out of their writings, where the word Pastor was ever used, and they spoke not of the Bishop: or, that it was used (as with you it is) of a Parish Priest. Prevail thus far with yourself, as to show 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 therefore 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 have the Cure of) not properly; behold, the Syriack Interpreter himself reteins the Greek word 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} ; when the Syriack wants not a word of her own, by which to express, [Such as have the Cure of.]  
And so also S. Peter's Pastor. 1. Epist. 5. chap. 2. v. For I wholly 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 applied to them. Wherefore S. Peter's Pastor must needs be a Bishop. And who indeed can doubt of this, seeing the conjunction of those two words took the first rise from S. Peter.  
For, whereas you infer that the Word of God is [Pabulum] food: that therefore 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, than 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 inclined, 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 refer them.  
Thus, say I, either uncertain 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. Chrysostom's account: and, I believe, in your account, they were more than Presbyters, labouring in the Word.  
Yet remains what you glanced 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 oftener, a great deal, to be called by the name of Pastors, than 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 called a Pastor who is the chief Magistrate. The Pastors therefore in the Prophets reach not home to this. Tell me, who of the ancients ever spoke so; otherwise we are beside the cushion.  
Lastly, that seemed to me a wondrous strange opposition. Indeed it is not by the ancients; but we Frenchmen speak so. For, must the ancients speak as the French; or the French as the ancient 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 lawful for Frenchmen, to put upon a Presbyter that name, which never any among the ancients 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 leisure. But although I read none of yours unwillingly, yet I read no passage more willingly, than that last, wherein 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 beg 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 pedigree 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 Jerusalem, 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 Catholic Church; which all Churches everywhere received.  
I come at last to give you thanks. For, the Book, you promised me, shortly after I had sent you my former Letters, was delivered to me. I do here both acknowledge and thank you, that you were pleased to inlarg and enrich my Library with your Two Books. And I entreat you, beg 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 manner, 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, than the upstart novel device of any whosoever,) do freely promise you my help and assistance in any thing, that may, here, concern your interest. You will pardon me, if I have spoke somewhat more freely; assuring yourself, that, though I am of a quite different judgement in some points, yet my charity, and brotherly affection toward you, is not changed 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.