m 
 
 ■■■If 
 
 ft 
 
 ran 
 
 
 WKS 
 
 v M : : ■:•' 
 
 &£H ■' mm ■■'■'' 
 
 ; ■•■.'.•.•■•■•■• : 
 • Mm ■,.,".-■■• ' 
 
PRIITCE 
 
 THBOLOGI 
 
 nm 
 
 COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND 
 ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 
 
 I 
 
 LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 
 
 
Of Epifcopacy. 
 THREE EPISTLES 
 
 O F 
 
 Peter Moulin Dodfcor and 
 Profeffor of Divinity. 
 
 Anfwered 
 
 By the Right Reverend Father in God 
 
 Lancelot \Andreyps^ 
 
 LateLord Bifliop of Winchester* 
 
 Trazjlatedfir the benejit of the Yublikg. 
 
 S. Clemens ia Epifl. ad Corinth, i. 
 
 Our <Apollies under j. ood by our lord Jtfus Cbriff, that there "would he contention 
 ^ about the name ofEpif.opg.cj. 
 
 1 
 
 Printed in the Yeer. 164^ 
 
 /LfiJt- 
 
To the moft Reverend Tre/ate> 
 
 the Lord Bijbop oiWincheJhr, 
 
 Peter Moulin wiflheth all 
 health and hap- 
 pinefs. 
 
 Hat Honorable man , your Fre- 
 decejjbr, was taken hence > not 
 without great damage both 
 to the Church and Common- 
 wealth. The King loft a moft 
 wife Comfeller, and the Church 
 afaithfull Faftor- y but I a Patron and zfriend\ 
 who, though he was moft carefull and deft- 
 rous of my good yet, oblig'd me more by his 
 Virtues^ then his benefits. I have his Letters 
 by me , which he wrote to me when he was 
 fick 3 and his recovery was almoft defperatej 
 the very fight wherof doth exceedingly af- 
 fli& me. But yet my grief was not a little 
 easd ? when I heard that ym fucceeded in his 
 room, whofe learning I longfince admird, 
 and of whofe goodaffedtion I had great expe- 
 
 A- 3 rience, 
 
^ D. Moulin s OfSpiJcopacy. I.Epift. 
 
 brcifly ray meaning in them. 
 
 — I I faid , indeed , that the Name* of Bijhop 
 
 and Presbyter were taken for all one in the 
 New Teftament : But I thought not that the 
 Dignity of the Bijhop was lefs'ned thereby, 
 fince I fpake only of the Name , not of the 
 Office only : and I have (befide clear places of 
 Scripture) the confent not only of Hierom 
 the p resbyter , but alio of the moft famous 
 Bijhops of the Ancient Church, Chryfoftom , 
 Ambrofe y Theodoret, who took it not as a 
 wrong to them, or that any thing was aba- 
 ted of their honor, if it were beleeved that 
 the Names of Bifeop and Vresbyter were at 
 firft ufed in the fame fenfe. + 
 
 — II That the Ott/er,indeed,of Bijhop and Pres- 
 
 byter was one and the fame,that I faid : For 
 fo did the Ancient Church ty^x think^ and the 
 Church of Rome thinks fo, to this day: al- 
 though there bein that Church an incredible 
 difference betwixt the pomp of the BiJhops y 
 and the meanefs of the Priefis. Thence it is 
 that in the RomanV otrtifical there is fet down 
 the Confecrat ion of Bijhops , but not the Ordi- 
 nation of them. Indeed, Order is one thing,a 
 Degree anothertfor men of one and the fame 
 Oraermay differ in Qegree and Dignity j even 
 
 as 
 
D.MouIin's Ofcpifcopacj. I.Epift. 5 
 
 as among Bijhps the Degree of Archbifbops is 
 the more eminent. 
 
 Howbeit, that this Epifcopal Degree and ttt 
 Prerogative is by Eccleftaftical, not by Divine 
 Right, I confefs it was faid by me. For befide 
 that to fpeak otherwife then I thought, had 
 not been the part of an vpright honeft man, 
 you, according to your wonted goodnefs,will 
 eafily judg, that a French man, living vnder 
 the Polity of the French Church, could not 
 fpeak otherwife, but he muft incur the cen- 
 fure of our Synods , and vnder the danger 
 ( uAmfUwt ) of degrading,be forced to a recan- 
 tation. For to think that our Churches do err 
 i# points of Faithyznd in that which is of Di- 
 vine Right were, queftionles, to brand them 
 with the note of Here/y,andto fliake the con- 
 fcience of many weak ones. 
 
 Trul^,I came very vnwillingly to the wri- 
 ting of this Book, but our Church requiring 
 it, and lately enforcing me , for to ftop the 
 infolency of our Adverfaries , who in this 
 point infult over vs out of all temper , and 
 fpeak of vs as of fo many doltifh mu&rums, 
 newly fprung out of the earth , and as of a 
 company of bafe fellows who by force and 
 tumult had got the Pu'ljrtt. But, howfoever, 
 
 I think. 
 
D. Moulin s Ofbpi/ccpjtcj. I.Epift. 
 
 I think, I have kept fuch a temper, that, in 
 defending our own , I have not ftruck at 
 your government 5 nor by immoderate affe- 
 £Hon to a part have inclined, more then was 
 meet, to either fide. Nor did I ever mention 
 the Bijbops of England without due honor. 
 
 Thcfe things I thought fit to write to you yt 
 Great Sir ,by whom I chiefly defire my papers 
 may be approved. I had lent my Bool^ to yon 
 before now,but that I was told by divers you 
 vnderftopd not French. Now I lend it, be- 
 caufe, fmce you enjoy a more frequent and 
 neerer prefence of HisMajeftie, I doubt not ' 
 but He may have fome fpeech with you about 
 it, and ukyon as an umpire in the caufe. An^ 
 I flial moft willingly ftand to your iudgment; 
 well knowing that the moft learned are ever 
 the moil candidjand hoping that you wil not 
 lauce too deep whatever may be falyed 
 with a fair interpretation. So think oFme,as 
 of a man with whom the Authority of Antiquity 
 flpalbe ever in great efteenr, and who (hall think 
 Uiy felf fufficiently arm'dagainft al oppofite 
 judgments, xiyou ftial not vttcrly difapprove 
 what I liaye writ. G^preferve you y Great 
 
 Vrelate. Farewell. 
 
 Paris. Nones o(sept. m Your Honors moft devoted 
 16 1 8. Veter Moulin. 
 
 The 
 
B.Andrews's OfEpiftopMy. I.Epift. 7 
 
 ffffffffffflftffffff 
 
 The Bifhops Anfwer. 
 
 Had wrote thefe in the beginingof March^ 
 and was about to fend them prefently, when, 
 lo, the indifpofition of the King , in point of 
 health, made me lay them by , and hindred 
 my fending of them. This ficknefs", contracted firft 
 by grief, for the death of his moft dear Confort , our 
 moft Graciow <>)ueen, and the negleft of all care of his 
 body upon that greif , ended at laft in a difeas 5 a dif- 
 eas , indeed, fo intricat and doubtfull , that the Phyfi- 
 tians themfelves were at a ftand what the event would 
 be. Wherby I forgat that I wrote 3 and fo omitted to 
 fend to you.. For all I had to do was to fall to my pray- 
 ers, with many moe,who were fore perplexed, as then 
 in jeopardy,for a moft Cjrticioiu King.But God lookd up- 
 on us, and reftord Him to us,& in Him us to our felves. 
 And now,being returnd to my felfj return to you, what 
 I confefsj have bin too long indebted to you in$ fo that, 
 as a bad debtor, I was fain to be calld vpon, by Mon- 
 fieur Be&ulhu, myourmme. You will accept of this my 
 too juft excufe, kindly, as you are wont } and promife 
 your felf^ from me, what good offices one friend can do 
 another. 
 
 Now concerning your Book, rewrite that fomepaf- 
 fages therin greivd the Kings Soul. And no wonder. 
 Fell his foul is tender, and very fenfible of any thing in 
 that kind that bites or ftings. For , out of His Piety to 
 God, He makes it not the leaft of His cares to tender the 
 Peace and Order of His Church here. And therfore , in 
 
 B His 
 
8 B. Andrews's OfSpifcopaty T.Epift 
 
 His great wifdom. He p^efently difcern^ whether thefe 
 Three points tended. 
 I I. The nameofB'Jhop is not dlfiinct from that of Presbyter. 
 
 J I II. The Order is not diftinctjfa&X. \sjtot the Thing it f elf 
 
 111 III. And fo the whole £ mutter "] is not any thing of Di- 
 vine Right. 
 
 What could they, who lately made all the ftirrs 
 among U3,m utter more,poffibly? Then, that i. the 
 ?$jme is taken cwfufedly. that 2. the Thing is not diflin 7 ?. 
 3. Finally 5 that it is a Humm invention i being fetled by 
 man may be unfetled,and fo ftands or falls at the plea- 
 fere of the Commonwealth. Thefe Diclats are too well 
 known to the King: He hath been long usd to them : 
 They have long fince on all hands been rounded in His 
 ears. He knows that there are ftill among us fuch i a* 
 will from your writings prefently take a new occafion., 
 perhaps, not to pluck up this Order of ours, that for fo 
 many ages hath taken root but, forely, to defame and 
 calumniat it. 
 
 And this fo much the rather, becaufe, at one and thfr 
 fame time, uot by agreement, I beleeve, but yet as 
 though vpon a compact, lo, one Hucer, a fellow not 
 hurt, nor medled with by any, in a very unfeafonable 
 time, kt (oithaBwk in. Latin as it were, of the fame 
 argument. What King, that ftudies the Peace, not only 
 of His own Church, but, which He defireth , and woulct 
 purchafe at a dear rate, even of the whole chriflian 
 world, would not thefe things trouble? Wherfore, if the 
 King fet a dafh of diflike upon thofe paflages, take it not 
 ill : I dare (ay, He had rather fet many afierisks of com- 
 mendation,then one dafh of diilikc,fpecially upon wffat 
 isyour. 
 
 This, furely,is theKingsmmd^ andis (as it ought to 
 be)tbemindandfenfeof vs alt. WherinI appeal to 
 
 yoM 
 
B.Andrews's {jfBpfcopacy. I.EpiYK 
 
 your own equity. Ton were for manteining of Tour chur- 
 ches Government^ and the reprefsing of your adversaries 
 infolency : fhould you not do it, you Should incurr the 
 cenfure 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 70* , that it may be lawfull for us 
 alfo to defend our Government 5 as becometh upright 
 honeft men. For we likewife have froward adverfa- 
 ries 5 and there are conferences, too, among us which 
 we may not fuller to be Shaken or undermind,asthough 
 they liv d under another form of Church Government, then 
 was from the begining,even from the very times of the 
 Apoftles. And we are ready 5 if need be, and occafion 
 Shall ferve, to make this good to the whole church. 
 
 How I wiSh therfore , that you had not fo much as 
 tonchdupon our Church Government. For who put you 
 upon it \ Tou might have turnd your weapons againft 
 thofe enemy s ( you fpeak of) and never have jerkt at vs. 
 Theres no fuch complication of ours with yours^but that 
 you might eafily have pafs'd by curs with filence. And 
 A faithfull filence hath its fure reward. 
 
 Or, if you were fo Set upon it , that you muft needs 
 be intermedling with Ours how I wifh you had firft im- 
 parted your mind to the King : and, whilft the coaft 
 was cleer , had feafonably taken His advice in that you 
 had to fey of //^affairs : ( for Ours He accounts His. ) 
 You your felf know (and, indeed, who knows not 
 fince He hath wrote fo much, fo admirably ? ) that , as 
 He is moft able in reSped of his other endowments of 
 Wit and Learnings fo alfo, in refpeft of his acute nej^zxA 
 foltdity of udgment , he as equal to the beft , or rather 
 goes before them. No man living hath in our Churches 
 affairs a dearer in fight \ a readier di$atch y then he. He him- 
 fetf >in any point, but Specially in what concerns his own 
 
 B 2 Church 
 
io B. -Andrews* OfEpifcopacy. T.Epifl:. 
 
 Church could have anfwerd you befhand have Cctyou 
 the bounds, fo far to go, but not beyond. Wherfore, if 
 hereafter/^ (hall go about any thing in the like kind, 
 pray remember this my advice , which proceeds from 
 a very good will to you i> I knowing that the King is well 
 affe&ed to you $ that he hath deferved well of you , (nor 
 will you deny it.,) and, 1 hope , will for the future de- 
 ferve better. 
 
 j Concerning thofe Three point s^ if you demand (as you 
 
 do) what I think , 1 (hall give you here this ingenuous 
 aniwer 5 That the Tfjmes of Bifbop and Presbyter are ta- 
 ken promifcuoufly in Holy Scriptures : that at firft,there 
 was not fo great force in the Words , I fhal eafily grant 
 you.Nordid/^Majeftie regard (bmuch 5 wW you faid, 
 as to what purpofc 5 as what others would catch from 
 thence^ who, both in other parts,& here among us, too, 
 are not rightly affefted to this our order :that thefe things 
 were fpoke to this purpofe^ as if the Thames being pro- 
 mifcuous „ the Things themfelves were/*alfo. For to 
 what end is it , of what concernment, to fpeak of 
 Words taken confufedly^ when the Things are diftwcl. No 
 man, lightly, carps at the 2{ame 5 but he that wiflieth 
 not very well to the ThingdSo. 
 
 1 . And yet nothing here hath befallen Bifhops, which 
 hath not befallen thofe other Orders al fo. For, in thofe 
 very places, in thofe very Authors whom you name, it 
 * s Cbryfo? h isiaid in like manner alfo of Deacons, a Even a ^ijhop 
 ad T,Utp c.i. & called a Deacon :voherupon S. Paul writing to Ttmothy^ fiiid 
 ts him^ though a B/fhop^ Fullfillthy Deaconry. From thence 
 you may gather,that the Thames of Bijhop and Deacon are 
 taken for the fame. Nay, the very Apofiles themfelves 
 call themfelves fometimes Presbyters , fometimes Dca- 
 contend fo their whole Offtee a Deaconry^ and yet is not 
 Deacon or Presbyter the fame that Apofilc. Why therfore 
 
 did 
 
B.Andrews-s OfEpifcopacy. I.bpift. "" 
 
 did you not add that too, that it might appear that the 
 other differed as much as l&i/hfs.-and that, in the begin- 
 ing D not only the names of B//%>/,but o£ other Orders alfb 
 were taken, inlikemaner, promifcuou(ly\ wheras the 
 Things ^ the Offices them fe Ives werediftinft. 
 
 7. Wheras, then j in thofe very places , where the 
 Fathers fpeak fo , f" That then they communicated in 
 Thames "] they prefently apply a remedy , and give this 
 item D that the Things themfelves are otherwile. And 
 inftantly add \_Af toward the Proper name wo* given to 
 each - y 0fBiJhop to a Bifhop, of Presbyter to a Presbyter. ~] By 
 the rule of fpeech then, who would urg:, the common 
 name, when the proper had taken place ? For no body 
 would now call a IOng i a. Tyrant 3 or a Soulier, £ Latro- 
 nem~] as of old they were wont, a Robber : neither, fure, 
 would they call a Presbyter, a Bifhop ; as when S. Hhrom 
 wrote, had he called himfelf Bifhop, ands. Augufline 
 Presbyter , you know, he would have been laughed at 
 for his pains. 
 
 3. Add further,that in thofe very places wherin the 
 Fathers fpeak fo, before they fpeak, they are forced 
 £i^Wfai>^}to objeft by way of exception concerning 
 the ufe o£names,and to premife fome what that fhould 
 put the thing out of queftion. S. Chryfoftom jj what mean- 
 eth this? were there then more Btthops of one fa the fame city? 
 by no means. No 3 not then when S. Paul wrote. Theodo- 
 ret 5 It could not be, that many Bifhop s fhould be Pa ft or s of one 
 City. SMierow^ There could not be many Bifhops in one City* 
 S. Ambrofe :, God appointed fever al Bifhops over fever al 
 Citys.So that they do cleerly fhew,the Offices were then 
 difttnff , when they make the inference touching the 
 name. I colled then 5 how ere it was for the names, at 
 firft} Bcittheythennegle&edthe Pr^r/^offpeech^ 
 yet that even then, there was butene Bt/hofo but one Pa- 
 
 B 3 pr 
 
iz B. Andrews s Uf tpijcopacy. i.bpiit. 
 
 flor in one City. Arid this holdeth among us, even at this 
 day : but doth it fo among you ? Thus if you had pre- 
 facd touching the Thing it felf , and had afterward in- 
 fer rd touching the #<*«><?/, (though to what end is it 
 to make any ftir about the name , when we are agreed 
 on the thing}) that they were (a little while) taken 
 one for another 5 and had not fpoken fo loofly concern- 
 ing the promifcuous ufe of the names , his Mqcjlie 
 <wouldnot,Ibeleeve, have fct^dafhofdillike upon 
 that paflage. 
 
 ~ jf i The next is touching the Order. Where,! pray,con- 
 
 fider, whether they be to be called One and the fame Or- 
 dcrjnhofe Offices are not one and the fame. But that they 
 are not the fame Offices D even they who left favour the 
 Epifapal Order do confefs, in that they ever except Ordi- 
 nation. Again., Whether they be to be called One and the 
 fame order, wherin there is not One and the fame, but a 
 #w-and diflincl Impofttion of hands. For, that in all Anti- 
 quity there was Impfition of hands upon Y>i(hops % no man, 
 I think, will deny. And, whether the Anticnt Church 
 were ofthis opinion 5 let ifilore be the witnefs, who 
 
 b EtyM.7.11. b in plain words calls it the Order of B'fhaprick. 
 
 To the Schole, indeed,if you referr it , they do not 
 agree among themfelvcs. Your AUifwdorenfis> our Ma- 
 jor, and others are for the diflmBionofthe Order. But 
 they who are moil: igainjl it , though they will riot grant 
 it a Sacrament of Orders ( the whole force wherof they 
 bound within the Eucharifl) yet an O^r they grant, 
 fince an Order is nothing elfe, but a Porver to a /pedal 
 Act, ( as, namely , to Ordain, ) which is competible 
 to Bifbops only. For what a thing were this , if that, 
 from whence Ordination, and fo all other Orders pro- 
 ceed, Ihould it fclf not be an Order > 
 
 For wc pafs not for the Church of Rome , or the Pon- 
 tifical. 
 
B Andrews's OfBpifcopacy. I.Epift. 15 
 
 tificalM they pleafe themfclves with the name of Cenfe- 
 cration^ let them enjoy it. Even the Church of 'Rome it 
 felf did anciently fpeak otherwife. Forinftance, The 
 Church of "Romc^ {{dixhTertullran c*) gives out that Cle- 1% ~ " P 
 went wo* ordained^ S. Peter. Otherwife alfo the Fa- 
 thers, ( even they, whom you allege, ) even S. Hierom, 
 d who affirms, that S. zfames, the brother of our Lord, was d Vt Sir ¥- >" 
 prefently After the P upon of our Saviour ordained Bifhop. 
 And of Timothy^ e Timothy had the gift of Prophecy toqe- * /* *•**[ 
 thtr with his Ordination to EpifcoPacy. S. Ambrofe^ fForJ'™ n £ ad 
 . unlaw full it -was y and might not be , that the Inferior fhoidd Tim.}. 
 ordain thefuperior ^ to wit, a Presbyter a ?>i/hop.)S.Chry- 
 fo(lorn \ g For Presbyters could not have ordained the Bi- 2 InThlii P lt 
 (hop . For the Latin word. Ordination , is agreable to the 
 Greek 2 w&™t*> and is often rendred by it: nor is any 
 word more frequent, where mention is of making B/- 
 [loeps, then that of *'e> TO «'«. Theodoret^ h Tttmwas or-^^f * 
 dained by S. Paul Bifhop ofCreet. ad jy . 2% 
 
 But, you fay,an Order is one thing, a Degree another. 
 Yet you know that, in Holy Scriptures y thefe words are 
 taken one for another, no lefs then thofe.of Bifhop and 
 Presbyter \ where the Deaconry is called^ M«*' , a Degree} 
 / which, notwithftanding, you will not, I know, deny' *•$>*.$. *3- 
 to be an Order. You know alfo that k is fo among the 
 Father s^ among whom you may often read that a Dea- 
 con^ or Presbyter may, #*&<« **$**», fall from his Degret, 
 and be degraded, no lefs then a Bifoop. Indeed,every O- 
 d:r is a D*g7w 5 but not every Degree an Oafcr. But both 
 are in Epifcopacy 5 though in one refpeft an Order , in an- 
 other a "Degree. A "Degree, asit hath a fuperiority even 
 without any power 5 an Order, as it hath a ^w*r to a (fecial 
 act. For, were it a Drgwi only 3 it had been enough to 
 have ufed the word [ p^w« ] the fuperlative^ which 
 denotes a Degree fuperw to that of [ ly^w&r 3 Presbyter >, 
 
 the 
 
14. B.Andrews's OfSpifcopacy. I.Epift. 
 
 the Comparative , neither would there have been need 
 to fetch in a new word £ e^v^^ "] a Rifbop, meerly to 
 defign a Degree. For as touching Arcbb/fbops tis quite 
 another reafon: They are not indued with apovoerto any 
 Jpecialaci : For even they, if they were not Bt/bops before, 
 receive their or dm at ion from R/fbops: And, as they are 
 Arcbb/fbops, they are not neceflary to the OrMnatton of 
 Btfhops : for, by the Fourth Canon of the Councilor 7^/ce, 
 Three Rifbops together have power to ordain a Rifbop. 
 
 But we very well know, that the Apoflles, and the Se- 
 venty two Difctples were Two Orders, and thofe di(lin5t. 
 And this, likewife, we know, that every where among 
 the Fathers 9 B/fbops and Presbyters are taken to be after 
 their example : That Bt/bops fucceeded the Apoflles-^ and 
 Presbyters the Seventy mo. ThatthefeTav Orders were 
 4 Epijt.6i\ by our £^ appointed in J%5 txo» Cyprian 5 £ Deacons 
 * d Ko ^ aU mujl remember that our Lordcbofe the Apoflles, that is , Bi- 
 /5^j and Prelates : But the Apoftles y after the Afcenfwn of 
 our Lord appointed Deacons for themfelves , as\JMiniflers of 
 lEpift.adMAY' their Epifcopacy y and of the Church. Nay, S.H*eron*i I With 
 Mot** 1 "' ™ B'fi a P s lwl 4 the place of the Apoflles. All [ Bilhops ] are 
 Epitt.'ad fucceffors of the Apoflles. And that is a famous place in 
 Ev *g- hi7n%, in him^ and S. Augufline, too, upon the 44. Pfalm. 
 
 In ftead of thy Fathers thou (halt have children : ue. in 
 fiead of Apoflles, Bifbops. S. Ambrof^ in i.Corinth. 12.28. 
 God hath fet in the church [_ Caput Apoftolos "] fi r ft Apo- 
 ftles. Now the Apoflles are Btfhops : the Apoflle S. Peter gi- 
 ving m affurance of it-, And his Bffhoprick let another take. 
 And a little after. Are allApoIiles I We faith right : for in 
 one church but oneB/fbop. And mSphef. 4. The zsfpoflles 
 aretheR/fbops. 
 — Ill From hence we have a fair paflage to the laft point : 
 Whether this Order hehy Divine Right. Very glad I was 
 to hear it from you P That the Authority of Antiquity 
 
 fhonld 
 
B. Andrews* OfEpifcopacy. I.Epift. i£ 
 
 fhould be ever in great efleem with you. I love you for that 1 
 word : Nor will it be the leaft of your praifes j if your 
 deeds make your words good. For my part it hath 
 been my opinion ever, I was ever of that mind. 
 
 But>or I am deceiv'd in the whole ftory of Antiquity^ 
 or the Apo/iolical men^i. e. the Dtfciples of the Apoji lessor 
 (as Sufebius calls them) c>x»<raiy /&?y that converged 
 with tbem^ both they who are not mentioned in Holy 
 Scripture ( as Poly carpus and Ignatius^ ) and they who are 
 exprefly mentioned ( as Timothy {Titus, C^ emens ^ ) were 
 Bt flops, while the Apoftles were alive :> and wete coilfti- 
 tuted and or darned by the Apofiles them felves. 
 (*)Polycarp by S. John. ( b ) Clemens by S.Peter. '(*>?' nUrom. deMf. 
 ( c) TWand (d) fM S. Paul. & U%%2££ 
 
 I give you thefe witnenes. Concerning Poly- jni fdys. mcr. descrh 
 ca T re) 1te**ik C f ) Tertullian; (g)Eufebm h ^JgJJ^ £ 
 ( h ) Hierom. Concerning Ignatius : ( i ) Eufe- f j ) j.y^; ^yjrijr. i£. 
 £/7^ and ( k ) Hierom. Concerning Timothy: CO s-«f (™)defmp 9 
 (1) eufebtus, (m) R^j.ra^fc^ft^^ 
 (o) Cbryfoftom^ (p) Epiphamus. Concerning* (q)'*-4 (?)Pr*fmTit. 
 Tttus:(<\)Eufebif4S y (r) Ambrofe, (Q T^- % a ^ cum Jlf hTl ' 
 doret. Concerning Clement : Qt^Tertullian, (x) de fi fmpii ' \ 
 (u) Eufebius, (*) Hierom. Not to fpeak of iy)^fib $. 4 c*x>i- 
 
 papbroditus, (c) C^//^, (d) ^rf#//^conceming f a ; */$*. $. $ j tf * /$- 
 
 whom we have the like teftimonies of the Fa- ™jf \ h J™' odmt in 
 
 thers. And not of thefe alone; even S. Mark (cyoligen in\6*dRo- 
 
 the Svangelift, and that while the Apojiles lived, *«■ (<0 c*lv.jnflim. 
 
 who faw it} for S. i*/*r£ dyed in the (e)Eigt\th ( c ; Eufib. 1. 24. 
 year of itor^full Five years before S. Teter and 
 S.Paul were crown'dwith martyrdom. And 
 not He alone, S. lames alfo the Apoftle. W\Xr 
 
 aefsforS.^r£, (f) Hierom : for. S. lames, Oy^f^P^^fh 
 
 ( S -)Eufebius (ont oiClement and Hegejipptts ) ? g ffT. # 
 
 C (\x)Hier$m. 
 
\6 B. Andrews s Ufzpijcopuy. I.fcpift. 
 
 (i)atSiript a 0)>» (h) H/«ww. ( i ) C^ffofiem. (k) Amir oft 
 
 Z4 Cnfitnttum »,$7 
 
 Could any then take it ill, that you laid, That Epifc** 
 ficy wu received^ in the Churchy from th: very next times 
 to the Apoftles ? you feid too little : yfru might have faid 
 more, and, if you had. Antiquity would have born you 
 out 5 th.it it was received from the Apo files the f fives : 
 and that they, the Apoftles them/elves 5 were constituted ift 
 the EptJ f copal order. There was nothing in that pallage 
 of yours that any could be offended with, unlefs, hap* 
 ly, that in fteadof Q was called the Bifhp ] you fhould 
 havefaid, wisthehifhop. Forwedo not contend, about 
 the Tfjme^ all the controver fy is about the 2 ; : 7 . 
 
 This was done, or we muftgive one general dzfh 
 
 through all the Eccl:fiaft;ca! Riftortans. And when was 
 
 it done? After the Afcenfton of our Lord: faith 8n r ebtus. 
 
 (»;/.* ct. {x^vrefcntlyuyonthe Pa fan of our Lord 5 fo S.Wierom. 
 
 (o)defiript.i. ( o) Done, by whom ? They were placed in the office of 
 
 (?)tuvr*fi *. Ep/fcopacy by the Apoftles 5 ( p ) TertuUhn. By the Affiles 5 
 
 U)U%Cii {oEptphanius. fythe MimliersofourLord^ fo (q) £$fe~ 
 
 (^defiript. tiu$ ordered by the Apo files 3 fo (r) SMterow. Con- 
 
 (C)in u ftituted by the Apostles-^ (s) fo S.Ambroft-. Will any 
 
 %d G*l. mm then deny, that S. lames, S. -JMarkj Titus \ Clemens > 
 
 wereB4%tfby Apoflolical Right ? Was any thing done 
 
 by the Apcflles^ which was not by Apofhlical Right ? Ey 
 
 Apojlolical, i. e. as I interpret it, by Divine. For nothing 
 
 Wai done by the Apoftles, that the HolyGhoft, the Divine 
 
 Spirtt did not di&ate to them.Sure ( if by the apoftles) 
 
 by the famt Righ*, which thofe S rye* were by, A&sj5 9 
 
 whom, Iamfure, you your felf will grant to be by 
 
 TZivine Right : D. 'aeons the Holy S rip! are doth no where 
 
 call them 5 that is only a word of the church. IhojK^ 
 
 What the Apoftles did, they did by XMvinc Right: and 
 
 that 
 
B. Andrews's Of Spifcopac}. LEpift. 17 
 
 that it cannot be denyed, but their Deeds (of which we 
 are certain) not only their Words, or Writings, are of 
 Divine Xight. And not only thofe things of which S. 
 Paul wrote to the Corinthians, (t) but thofe other alfo (C)\xm%.\^ 
 which fie fit in order at His being at Corinth^ (if they were 
 known to us what they were,) were by the fame right 
 to wit, by Divine, all of them 5 both thefe and they 
 from the Holy Spirit, all. And yet, though they be by * 
 Divine Right ,we do not fay thefe things belong toFaith. 
 They belong to the Agenda or Practice of the Church $ to 
 the Credenda, or points of Faith, 'tis but improper to re- 
 fer them. 
 
 Tis very ftrange therfore which you lay. That jour 
 Countrymen openly complain of you, both that you vndertook 
 the eaufe ofBtfhops ; bylike, your Country-men are ene- 
 mies to Bi[hops\ would not have their caufe pleaded,but 
 are defirous // fhould be loft : as alfb, that you condemned 
 Aerius, who was antiently condemned in Afia by Spi- 
 phanm -,in Europe by Pbilajlrw 5 in Africa, by S. Augu- 
 Jline^ whofe name, all the world over, is in the Black- 
 Book of Hereticks $ nor undefervedly, feeing,f/<? durftop- 
 pofehimfelf fas you your felf confefs) to the Confent 
 and Practice of the Catholik church. Youfhould rather 
 complain of them, who for this complain of you. 
 
 As for that where you would not have your papers to be 
 ript up to the quick, I know no body here that doth it. 
 Should any, he would have fomewhat to ftick upon in 
 ihe very Titles take which word you will,* £*/ of Pa/lor ^ 
 or that of Calling. They are both novelties$thc word P*- 
 &or, ^rmfure,inthisfenfe,)andC4/Z//^,toc5and not 
 of any ^,but this lafi, nor of all that. For, Ipray,who 
 of die Antients ever fpake fo ? among whom you (hall 
 fcarce find the word PaBor ufed, but when they fpcak 
 of Bifbopsx which form of fpeech S. P ^naught them, « •? *« h *fc 
 
 C 2 when 
 
lS B. Andrews O/Epifcopacy. I.EpiftJ 
 
 when he joined Paftor and Ri/hop in our Saviour. 
 
 Nor fliall you ever read, that they, by that word, 
 pointed out fuch as, either in City ox Country , had the 
 care of fome fewperfons diftinguifhed by Purifies :For 
 that the Presbyters ( Vrbtn, or Rural') were by the Ytifhvp 
 defigned to that imploymcnt. Who, indeed, at the be- 
 gining 3 wereofthcB//i5^/^w/7/ :) and did live, as you 
 very well know, of the Sport ula [i.e. of the oblations of 
 the Church ] before the distinction of Parifhcs came up. 
 
 And the word Calling ( in the fenfe you take it ) is al- 
 together as unknown. In ftead whereof they u(ed the 
 words Ordination or Constitution. 
 
 And the very name ofMini/leris of the fame ftamp : 
 which they would never have underftood to be fpoken 
 of any but a "Deacon : as it is derived, indeed , from , no 
 other fountain but, the Greek, a****^ But we rnuft par- 
 don you: youmuft fpeak the language of pur church, 
 which hath no Y>i(hops 5 another kind of Presbyters , [Elders 
 they call them, "] another kind q{ Deacons 5 and,I addyf/w- 
 ther kind of Calling, then ever the Antient Qhurch ac- 
 knowledged. I, for my parkin my bed wilhes for^r 
 Cburch y md fo for all the %$formed do wifh this, (that 
 you may keep conftant in the other points of F .ith, but 
 for Government and Order that God would vouchfafe to 
 you no other but that which He hath vouchlafgd Vs 9 
 i. e. by Bi/hops, Presbyters and Deacons. Such as thole we 
 readofintheHiftoriesoftheC^//^, and in the Coun- 
 tils, and the Antient Fathers : unto whom (or felf-con- 
 ceit (hrewdly deceives me, or) moll: like are Our : molt 
 like, I fay, in their Order, not in their Worthy but would 
 to Godin their Worth alfo. And that no Policy , no for m 
 of Government many Church rvhatfoever cometh neerer 
 the fet\{hoffcripture y or the manner and ufage ofthe^/*. 
 timt Church ',then this which flourilheth among hs. 
 
 Thefe 
 
B. Andrews s OfEptfcopacy. I.Epiit. i£ 
 
 Thefe I intruft to you, that, if you pleafe, they may 
 be with you. But know withall, that I have ever been, 
 both by Ttjture and Choice , addifted to Peace. And my 
 Age now requires it of me , who ere long rauft be 
 packing :but cheifly living under a Km^yvhofe word is 
 that of our Saviour 5 'Rleffeaare the Peacemakers. And , 1 
 aflure you, I (hall never incline to any immoderate or 
 harfh counfels : but (ball qualifie , as much as I may, 
 your writings, with a fair interpretation. For neither 
 canwebragg of our happinefs, more then aptiently 
 S. Auguftme did , whofe faying it was 5 what we teach U 
 one things xvhat roe are fain to tolerate ^another* 
 
 v\- 
 
 
 t-<- c 
 
 T l\l. 5 
 
 C 3 To 
 
fltn D.MouIins OfEpifcopacy. II.Epiit. 
 To the moft Reverend Father,, 
 
 the Lord Bifiop of Winchejler. 
 
 ■OftReverendPrelate.Ifent unto 
 you my Book concerning the 
 Calling of Fafiors: and with it 
 fomc Letters, wherin I ende- 
 vour'dtofatisfieyou touching 
 fomc points,wherin Ifcem'd to yourntofiGra- 
 cioHsKing too ill affe&ed to theCWer oiEpif- 
 copacy. Which Letters if you have received,I 
 doubt not but you will judgeofme,asofa 
 man who both thinketh and ipeaketh hono- 
 rably of your Order. I am not fo proudly arro- 
 gant as to oppofe my felf to all Antiquity >2nd 
 to re;e& that as a thing faulty and v>ich$d y 
 which hath been received in the Church 
 from the very next Age to thcApoJiles.l was e- 
 vcr of this mind,that concord might be kept 
 whole and intire between Churches , living 
 \ hpwere under a different form of Eccleftajiical 
 Government : fo that Chriji be preached,as he 
 is fct forth in tke GoJpel y lk the Chrijiian Faith 
 remain fafeand found.But,among the reft of 
 your Order ) I ever highlyeft efteemed^tw, for 
 
 many 
 
 
D.Moulin s OfSpifcopacy. ILEpift. U 
 
 many caufes, which I had rather acquaint o~ 
 thers^ then yourfelfwithzll. Asawitnefs of 
 which my affe&ion I fend you this nervBooh^ 
 which the command of the Church , whom I 
 ferve,and the impudent infulting of a Court- 
 lefuite forced from me. I defire that you 
 would be a means to pacifie the Kings anger 
 againft me : That He would confider with 
 Himfelf^ and weigh it in an equal ballance, 
 that there can be no place , in the French 
 Church Jot a Vaftor that fhould teach thePri- 
 macy oiBijhops to be of Divine Right $ without 
 which there could be no falvation j without 
 which the Church could not Hand. To affirm 
 this, were, nothing els but, to damn all our 
 Churches to the pit of Hell, & to pronounce 
 the fentence of condemnation upon my own 
 Flock, Which fliould I do,you your felf would 
 account me a (enfleis ungracious fellow, and 
 worthy to be fpit upon by ail-But enough of 
 this : For an overlabored Defence, fpecially 
 to an underftanding man, and in a clear and 
 manifeft point, is altogether necdlefs. Cod 
 prefervejww , and profper your endeavours^ 
 that they may redound to the edification of 
 
 thcCkurch. Farewell. 
 
 Psris. XVI. Calends Your Honors mofl: devoted 
 
 of Decern^. 1 6 J 8. Peter Moulin* 
 
 The 
 
2Z B.Andrews's OfBpifcopacf. II.Epifl. 
 
 The Bifhops Anfwer to the Second Epiftle. 
 
 HePoftwasnotyet gone, he ftaied 
 here a day or two , but he had thefe 
 letters^hereinclofedjfealedupasthey 
 are $ when, lo, I received your Se- 
 cond, by the hands of S. miliar* Bee- 
 cher, Agent for the King, lately come 
 from you. I prefently recalled my 
 former, yet opened them not, but , as they were, inclo- 
 fed them in thefe. For I would not fo trefpafs as to com- 
 mit the fame fault again 5 but rather make amends for 
 •my former tar dine fs with the qukknef oftbis Anfwer. 
 You (hall therfore with my F/r/2 receive thefe Second $ 
 together with my thanks for bothrbut {/^Tie,^*'™/] the 
 Fir ft Second, as it were j to wit, m thefe Sra?W Letters 
 my Fir ft thanks now, and in the Fir (I my Second, ( as it 
 falls out.) Thanks, I lay, both for that your Book , for- 
 merly fent ; and this Later, fhortly, as I hope, to be fent. 
 For S. Willhrn heecher will deny either that it was 
 bound (when he came thence} or els brought to him 3 
 and in that confederation he came the later to me : 
 but he bad me look for it , for that I (hould not look in 
 vain* 
 
 As for pacifying the Kings anger againJtyou,beleeveme, 
 you need not much trouble your felt There is nothing 
 in Him, which needs pacifying : there are ways wherby 
 you may more and more gain him, and make him 
 yours : and it would be worth your labour , if you do 
 it. Anddoityoumay, ifyou take that courfe, which 
 
 you 
 
B. Andrews* OfEpJcopacy. ILbpiit. 23 
 
 you cannot learn better of any man living, then othini* 
 (elf. As for me, I gladly jacknowledg that you are more 
 moderate toward #*,then moft of your men common*- 
 ly are : and, the more you convers with Antiquzty wi\\ 
 be daily more and more may, I add, and much more 
 would be, if your Church would give, you leave 5 and I 
 would to g$X lt would. It fllould feem that (bee hath 
 transfcr'd the faults of Perfons upon Things 3 and, for 
 fome dufe Jnzth taken away the lawful ufe:z fault which 
 you fhould by little and little unlearn Her. You, while 
 you follow and fway with it, follow not the bent of 
 your own mind a»d iudgment 5 for I iiidg of your affe- » 
 clion by your fen \ which was fo well inclin'd toward \ 
 *^, that it had wrote (and, I think, not againft your I 
 mind) that Our Order ofBi/hpfs was. d thing received in l 
 the Church even from the time of the Apofiles. And indeed 
 your pen had wrote very right : Mary, you blotted 
 out [ of the Afoflles ~] and, in leiu of it , put in [next to 
 the Afoftles. ] But this, I beleeve , you did in favour of 
 your Church. And, indeed, that was^ very true, which » 
 you put in £ next to the Afoftles 3 but that not a whit 
 lefstrue, which you blotted out. Vox that Order was 
 not only from the esfgenext to the Afoflles , but even 
 from the very Age of the ApoJlles\ or els all Antiquity 'de- 
 ceives us , and thers not a church*Hi(l&ry teft worth 
 credit. That all Antiquity is for tu , you your felf deny 
 not 3 and whether We muft yeeld more to any prefent 
 Church, then XozttAmiq^ty^ judg you. If I 'know you 
 well, the more free and ingenuous! am in writing thus 
 to you, you will love me the better: and fo fliall I y ot?, 
 if you deal as freely with me in it. 
 
 Hear me then, Ipray. This is not enough for 8& if a 
 mandonotrejeft Our Church Government ^^ns a thing 
 faulty or finfull : for this is it We ftand upon \ that it 
 
 D may 
 
44- & Andrews s O/gpijcopacj I L lipid, 
 
 may bt dear,and confefled by all, that the Cjoverwnent 
 of our Church k inch, as cometh mod neer to the form 
 And manner of the Antient Churchy or (as you grant) 
 that > next to the ApoUles 3 or ( as you had once wrote, 
 and we contend for't,) of the Apoflolick Church. And,that 
 you are of the fame judgment with us 3 I doubt not. If 
 then , by your churches leave, you would once fpeak 
 out,you(houlddo us a curtefie 5 if you may not, no 
 difcurtefic, if for the future you would tetOur affairs 
 alone. For, that way you are in, it willfcarce bepof- 
 fible for you, both to fleafeyour own^ and not to dfpleafe 
 us. And yet. though Our Government be by Divine 
 Rights it follows not, either that there is nofalvation^ or 
 that a church cannot [tand^ without it. He muft needs be 
 ftone-bltndythatfees not Churches [landing without tt: He 
 muft needs be made of iron, and hardhearted ^ that denys 
 themfalvation. We are not made of that metal, we are 
 none of thofe Ironfides 5 We put a wide difference be- 
 twixt them. Somewhat may be wanting, that is of D/- 
 vine Right , ( at leaft in the external Government ) and yet 
 Salvation may be had. So that you (hall not need to 
 damn them to the pit of Hell 3 or pronounce the fentence of 
 condemnation upon your flock. This is not to damn 
 any thing , to prtferr a better thing before it : 
 This is not to damn your Church , to recall it to an- 
 other form , that *U Antiquity was better pleafed 
 with, i. e. to Our: but this, when God (hall grant 
 the opportunity, and your eftate may bear it. If 
 we do but agree upon tjps p@int , in all the reft we 
 (hall not fall; out. But yet we wi(h not a con- 
 cord , that lis but pieced and patched up, but an 
 intire , abfolute agreement, without any piecing 
 and patching : which, we doubt not but, you like- 
 wife with with us. 
 
 If 
 
B.Andrews's OfSpfcofacy. II.Epift. 
 
 If any thing remain, I remit you to my former: 
 (for we are here, now, full ofbufinefs. ) Thele I re- 
 commend to your favorable acceptance : and fo I 
 commend /w in mtne^m& defire you to recommend 
 me in your prayers to God. Farewell. 
 
 25 
 
 London, btcmh 
 12, 161S. 
 
 i 
 
 .- 1 ■ 
 - 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 .bjis 
 
 
 
 
 
 D a 
 
 To 
 
2 6 D.Moulin s OJbpjG0pacy,\i\ tttpift 
 
 To the mod Reverend and moft 
 
 worthy Pre/tfft?,theLord Bijhop 
 of Winchester. 
 
 Reat Sir. I received your Letters, 
 full both of choice ftuff,and of the 
 teftimony of your good afFe&ion 
 to me. For although you feem to 
 be a little more moved then ordinary , yet 
 that great fweetnefs, which you temper your 
 reproofs with, puts me in hope that your 
 goodwill isnot leffned toward me 3 and that 
 , you.will readily accept of this my fatisfa- 
 &ion. It is to my great profit and honor to 
 be taught by you; nor amlfo fenflefs as to 
 contend with a man of fo great learning and 
 worth. Neither indeed did I write to that 
 end, that you fliould write to me again : for 
 it is abundantly fufficientfor me^if you take 
 my Letters in good part. Nor are my wri- 
 tings of any fuch value , that they fhould be- 
 get you any trouble, or take you off from 
 i your 
 
,D-MGulin>s OfEptfcopacy. ill.bpilt. %y 
 
 your more weighty affairs. If therfore any 
 -thing was written by me amifs , I am much 
 •indebted to that my error , which iratli 
 : drawn from you Co learned and accurate 
 Letters, that no gold can value,and weigh a- 
 gainft them ; which I flial keep by me, while 
 I live,as a moft pretious *&*»$ and threafure. 
 
 Neverthelefs, becaufe you feem to me not 
 to have reached my meaning in fome paf- 
 fages of my former Letters, you will pardon 
 me , if I endeavour in thefe to explain my 
 mind a little more fully. 
 
 I fa id that the Names of Presbyter and Bi- * ~ 
 fkop are taken in the New Tejiament for one 
 and the fame. 
 
 That the Order of Bifiop and Presbyter t$ 
 the fame T _, 
 
 That the difference between Bijhop and "* — 
 Pre sbytzr \sbut of Eccleftajiical,not oCDivine 
 Right. 
 
 Thefe things you vrifli had not been fold 
 by me. And you bring many Arguments to 
 the contrary, indeed, learnedly and accu- 
 rately, but wherof a good part toucheth not 
 me. Breifly of each. 
 
 You deny not but the Names oCPresbyter I £3 
 andB^jpare^rowi/cw»/l?ytakeninthe Nero 
 
 D 3 Tefta- 
 
 II ~ 
 
z8 D.Moulins OfEpi/iopacjr. IILEpift, 
 
 Tefiament. But , you fay , to what purpofe 
 this ? Forfooth, you think that I tacitly in- 
 finuate therby, that the Things likewife arc 
 promifcuMS* For no man, likely,carps at the 
 Name, but he that is ill affe&ed to the Thing. 
 And you add, that the F athers JnthoCc very 
 places, wherin they teach that the Barnes are 
 taken in the fame fenfe, do prefently apply a 
 remedy,andadd, that this afterward was o~ 
 therwife, and that the Names y as well as the 
 Ojfices^werc and are dijlinct. 
 
 Here it is eafie for me to prove toyou tfoat 
 I had no purpofe to abufe the paffivity of 
 the Navies^ therby to c^ndfousnd the Fht^ 
 Ciions. For there I prefently ap^jLy the fame 
 remedy, whifch^yp^triilyf^y, was applyed by 
 Libndeju- the Fathers. For I fubjoin : Frefently after 
 
 r^MCi'' flif.^^M^^ji^M^r^^^ in their */«**/, 
 as /&^£cjei^ witnefs, it 
 
 was decreed^ that in one City, One of the other 
 
 ec^ualit>: yptftldhave Preeminence zwmg hh 
 j^olj^giies. And this form of 'Gov.ernoreivt was 
 .every where received by a& jQb'tuclifs. JThefe 
 very words wereaddeil by foe there':*, * which 
 do abundantly ^ipe o^ that iuTpition* 
 k Could 
 
D.Moulin s Oftyifcopacy. IILEpift. zp 
 Could I poffibly wifli ill to your Order, wher- 
 of I never fpake without honor ? as very 
 well knowing that the Reformation of the 
 Church of England, and the ejeStion of Popery, 
 next to God and your Princes, is chiefly to be 
 afcribed to the learning and induftry of your 
 Bifhops : fome of whom,being crowned with 
 Martyrdom , fealed the Gojpel with their 
 blood, Whofe writings we keep by us,whofe 
 aSts and %eal we remember , as no way infe- 
 rior to the zeal of the moft eminent Ser- 
 vants of God, whom either France or Germany 
 brought forth. Whofoever (hall deny this, 
 muft needs be either fenflefly wicked, or ("as 
 envying Gods glory , or fooliftily befottcd) 
 not fee at high noon. I defire therfore this 
 fufpition may be wip'd off from me: fpecial- 
 ly, when I take notice that even Calvin and 
 Be%a, whom they ufually pretend to, as a- 
 bettors of their peeviflinefs, wrote many 
 Letters to the Prelates of England, and in- 
 treated them as the faithful! fervants oiGody 
 as men that deferved well of the Church.Nor 
 am I fuch a boldface, as to pafs fentence up- 
 on thofe Lights of the Antient Church , Igna- 
 tius, Poly carp , Cypriat^ Augufiine, Chryfojiom, 
 Bafil, the Two Gregories Nijfen and Na^ian- 
 
30 D.Moultn's. OfEpifcopacy. ULEpift.' 
 
 -%<r/i ? all 6£ them Bifhbps^s upon men wrong- 
 • fully made ) or uiurpets of ah unlawfull of- 
 fice. The reverend Antiquity ofthofe FirH Ages 
 jhall ever be in greater esteem with me , then the 
 novel device of any whofoever. 
 11 I come to the Secondpart of your cenfure. 
 Ifaid that there is but One Order of Bijhop 
 ^ndVresbyter. You contrary-wife are of opi- 
 nion that the Order of Bijhops is another and 
 diverfe from that of Presbyters : and to that 
 purpofe bring many teftimonies from the 
 Fathers , ' who fpeak of the Ordination of B/i 
 jhofs\ ^neither do I oppofe ; for the Antients 
 fpeak /b, indeed. And although the Roman 
 Pontifical abfteins fromthat word, yet the An- 
 tientBifhops of Rome did ufc it. Leo, the i .in 
 his Sj.Epiffley which is to the Bijhops ex the 
 Province of Fzetf/z^commandeth, that a Bi- 
 jhop, who is not rightly ordained, be difpla- 
 ced : and^ in the fame EpiHle, he often ufeth 
 the fame word. Now between an Order and 
 a Degree you make this difference ; that a 
 Degree denotes only a Superiority y but an 
 Order is a power to 2ifpecial A3 : That ther- 
 forc cytry Order is a Degree ; but not every 
 Degree an Order. Vesy well. For though 
 many do not obferve this difference of 
 
 words^ 
 
RMouHn's QfBpifcop&cy. IILEpift. 51 
 
 *|orda$y& it is bcft to ufe proper terms; that 
 things which differ in fubftance, be diftingui- 
 fhed in names y too. But thefe do fiot pre- 
 judice me at all. For you fhould hav^cdnfi- 
 dered with your felf \ whom I hiVe todfeal 
 with. I difputeagainfttheFcfc^ii/^who 
 make Seven Orders \ Door ' keepers^Readers^Ex- 
 erciftsydcolytkfy Subdeactms^ Deacons ^ Vresby* 
 Jsrhbutithe Order or-chara£ler of Bijhdps they 
 will by no means have to be diverfefrom 
 that of Fresbyters. Could I, disputing with 
 them{\ife other words ? then fach' as are re- 
 ceived by them ? Could I deal with iherri*- 
 bout the Order of Bijhops , which they ac- 
 knowledg not ? Should I have inveigh'd a- 
 gainft them for not making the Order 6f Bu 
 yfc^ualifliiift from that 6iWesbyttrs , when 
 our own Churches make it not? He that fhould 
 do this^fhould not fa much cbnteft with the 
 Church oiKomeVj a8 with imVor&h. Then to 
 whatpurpofe is it toinfiff foitiuch upon the 
 dijiinSiionoi Words ? fince every Order is , by 
 S. PW v caird a Degree. Nor can a Bifhop be l *fai\m 
 cLepriv'd of his Orders, but he fnuft be degra- 
 ded* *n& fall from his Degree. I prav % weigh ., , 
 my word* well : bvery Bijhop vsa rresbyter> *m 7^* 
 *n4 aVrieft of the Body? cfChrifi iwl andofihefe 7?™ 
 \k E the 
 
3* D<MouIins VfSpijcopacy* llUbpift. 
 
 t^^h^bpfBMmcptah^bnt one Orders olf 
 plainly appears that I donotinthefc words 
 affirm, what ought to be beleeved, but what 
 is the fenfe of the Church of Rome. 
 
 But heer fomewhat falls inywhidi may be- 
 get a doubt. It is confefs'd by all, that every 
 Bijhop is a Fresbyter : but a Presbyter is not a 
 Deacon. Hence itcomestopafs^thattheflc is 
 another manner of difference betwixt a JSi- 
 jhop atid a Pw^ter^then betwixt a Fresbyter 
 aiui a Deacon. Since therfore a Fresbyter 
 differs in Order from a Deacon , it feems to 
 follow that a **/&#> differs not in Order from 
 a Fresbyter. 
 
 Nor is it without fome doubt , that you 
 
 fay } that Qrfter \s a power tazfyecid AB. For 
 
 a power to a ftecial AB is given to many 
 
 without Orafer i as to them who are extraordi* 
 
 ntrily delegated to th^e performance of fome 
 
 jhecid ] a&ions* Then you deny that Arcbbi- 
 
 pops arc another Order from Bifbops: And yet 
 
 zaArchbifhop hath a power to fome Jpecial a- 
 
 Bions y as namejy^td call a Synod \ and to dd» 
 
 other offices, >vhich are not lawful! for 23*- 
 
 yJajpi' i^ad jwhach are noil permitted to Arch- 
 
 bifoops themfelves under the Papacy ^ but 
 
 when thy hav? received the Arthiepificpd 
 
 rail 
 
D.Moulin's Of£pifcopay. III.Epift. 3$ 
 
 Pall from the Pope. You ,' out of your great 
 wifdom, will confider , whether it be appa- 
 rent by thefc, that the power to z (fecial A- 
 Vtim may be conferr*d,even by a Degre?> with- 
 out a Diverfity of Order. 
 
 The Third point is ftill behind : -to wit, J J J — 
 that I faid , that Epifcopacy is by the .H^oft 
 Antient Ecclefiafiical , but yet not by Dtvtnt 
 Right. Ton on the other fide refol ve and marir 
 tein that it is by Divine Right : and to that 
 purpofe produce many examples ofBifhops, 
 S. Mari{ j Timothy - y Titus j Clemens j Pelycarp- 
 S.James , Bijhop of Hierufalpn -all who re- 
 ceived the Order o£ Epifcopacy from. the Apo* 
 files themfelves. And you quote a great num- 
 ber of Fathers^ who affirm as much. (Learn- 
 edly all, and according to the truth of the 
 Primitive Hiftorys.*) But what then ? Why, 
 fay you , if Bi/hops were conftituted by the 
 Apoftles^ plain it is that the Order a$ Epifcopa- 
 cy is by Apofiolical y znd fo consequently by Di- 
 vine Right. This indeed is to make your felf 
 mafter of the whole ftrength of the caufe. 
 But that Axiom of yours [ All things Hoot are 
 of Apojiolical Right are lih^wife of Divine ] 
 feemes to me ( by your good leave ) to be 
 liable to fome except ions-Many tKingswere 
 
 E 2 or- 
 
24 D.Moulins OfEpifcopacy. HF.Epift. 
 
 ordered zboutEcclefiaftical?olky,wh\ch even 
 the Church of England acknowledged not to 
 be of Divine Right , by not observing the 
 fame. S. Paul in i .Timoth.v. would have Dea- 
 conefles appointed in the Church \ : But this 
 fafliion was long ago out of date. The fkme 
 S. Vanl i. Corinth, xiv. would that, at the 
 fame hour, in the fame Aftenibly, Three or 
 Four fhould prophecy 5 i. e. as S. Atnbrofeun- 
 derftands it, Interpret the Word of God \ and 
 that the others fhould jiidg of what was 
 fpoken : which euftome is long fince ceafed. 
 The Apojiles command, touching abfti- 
 nence from things ftrangled and blood , was 
 for many Ages obferved by the Ant tent 
 Church : witnefs the Apologetic of TertuUian y 
 chap. ix. the Council of Gangrd , Cakon, II. 
 and the TrnUan^ Canon lxvi i. and there is 
 frequent mention of the fame point in the 
 Councils of Worms and Or leance. yet S. An- 
 gufiine , in his xxx 1 1 . Book againft Fanfius y 
 chap; : x hi. faith that Observing hereof was 
 generdUy negkSted by the ChriUians^ and that 
 they who Were pofTes'd with that fcruple 
 wet e latigh'd at by others. You have,not the 
 'Av~' :1 es alone, but even, that precept of 
 ra&IF I Touching flafyng ojfthe du& of 
 
 the 
 
.D.Moulins OfEpifcopacy.ULEpi^. %1 
 
 4hefm^ againH the refnfers oftheGdJptl. If any 
 fhould now go about to lay the foundation 
 of Chrifiian Religion , among the Tartars or 
 Sinenfes^ were he bound to obferve thatRite 
 .againfl the refra&ory? Such things asapper- 
 tainto Salvation znd to Faith were ordered 
 hytheJpo&les, by a Divine Infpir ation -but 
 in the reft they did often u(c their own pru- 
 dence^ as S. ?aul intimates, i. Corinth. 7.15. 
 
 Nor are you ignorant , fo oft a$ examples 
 are brought of Bifeops placed, by the Apo- 
 JtleSj in a higher degree above Vresbyters y what 
 is commonly anfwered : vi^. that they had 
 not that preeminence, as BiJhops y but as E- 
 vaugelift s:of whole fuperiority above Vaftors 
 fomewhat you may have in S.Chryfoftom^ on 
 the iv. to the Ephefians. Which reply of 
 what ftrength it is, I had rather ftand to 
 your iudgment , then any mans. Indeed 
 S. Ambrofe^ on that fame place, makes E<Van 
 gelifts inferior to Bifhops^ and without Seas. 
 Yet, however you fhall call Titus y Timothy^ 
 and S. Mar\ y whether Bijhops or Evangelifts^ 
 it is clear t hey had fyjhops their fucceffofs and 
 heirs of their preeminence. 
 
 You determine therfore that our Churches 
 
 do offend againfl the Divine Right ; yet fo, 
 
 < E 5 . as 
 
ifi D .Moulins Uf- tpijcopicy. Hl.bpilt. 
 a? you exclude them not from hope of fa!- 
 V^jtion : but do think, thftt, in onr Church Go- 
 vemment, meji mayattain to Salvation : for 
 this you brought in, in your Second Letter, 
 that you might deal the kindlier with us,Btrt 
 in your larger,you liken us, in this point, to 
 Aeriws ; who, you fey, was defervedly, upon 
 this ground, by the Antients^xM in (he hlacJ^ 
 Booh^ of Hereticks. Herein, Great Sir , I ap- 
 pealto your equity* Think with your felf, 
 what ftreits you drive mp to. For, if I fhould 
 have fpqke , as you co^eiye it, I could not 
 but neceilarily accufe our C\m-rch of 'Herefiii 
 and fo dping, be forced yyffffa -> to be pack- 
 ing,to le^ve my ftation here, and to provide 
 for my felf as I could. Nor could I fay that 
 the Primacy of Bifhops is by Divine Right hiMt . 
 Iflioiald brand OHrChnrches ^(yvhich have fpik 
 fo much blood for ChrifV)withHerefie,For, 
 queftiojQ'lefs , to be obftinately fet againft 
 fuch things, as are of Divine RightyZnd pe- 
 remptorily to gainfay whatGtfi/ comman<ls, 
 isdownright Here fie ^whether it concern Faith 
 or Discipline. Befides that I fhould have 
 overthrown that "Principle, wherwith eheifly 
 our Religion defends her felf againft Ptf/?^, 
 *>/*. . That what things are by Divine Right are 
 
 Sufficiently 
 
D-Mdulin's OfSpifcopacj. IlI.Epifl; 
 fifficiently and evidently conteirictm the Holy 
 Scriptnres. 
 
 I hear what you will reply. That it had 
 been fafer and better for me, to have been fi- 
 lent in thefe points, then itch to be writing 
 fo unfeafonably. Becaufe therby it comes to 
 pafs that I muft-#eeeflarily offend our own 
 Churchy or your ; nay, haply, both. And to 
 tell you truth, I had rather have been filent: 
 for very unwillingly I fett my mind to write • 
 nor did I write,but upon commzn&.Arndldus 
 theit/ffitt, the K ingsConfeffor, publikely artd 
 in the pulpit ,before His Majejhe , invei^d 
 againft the Confeffion of our Church , 
 and further in a pcftilent book revil'd it, 
 wheniithe mightily infults over Nj& titt this 
 qucftibn, and oxiioufly fecks to dvtff throw 
 our Churches Government : This book coming 
 to be fold all over France , through the high 
 ways and ftreets, at the voice of a CfyeT, did 
 greatly fcandalize many. Nay , before this, 
 the Pulpits, theMaxhits^theeoubt, the 
 Streets^ and th* vciyiBarbsb flt<&ps, ^ttg 
 with tkiyqheliidn; This) «r th® fileldHfkeSMM 
 Warif&n wit^ fport tfefemfehfb dally. Mow 
 earheftly my Book was look'd for, which 
 (hoiildijfcdp that aafolencyy k doth thefl^e 
 
 appear 
 
 37 
 
58 D.MouIiivs. OfEfifcopacy. ULEpift. 
 
 appear, that: , in Four months fpace, it was 
 nine times printed. I could not therfore fhun 
 this task. Nor was it poflible to write exd&- 
 ly of that Argument, but I muft begin with 
 the fignification of the words, Bijhop and 
 Presbyteritind treat of the Original of the Ofl 
 jice. But here I took occafion tofpeakho- 
 
 * norably of the Bijhop s of England. -■ I derived 
 the dignity of BiJhops 1 from the very infancy 
 
 * of the Church. Icondemn'd Azrim. I faid 
 
 * that S. James himfelf was hi/hop of Hierufa- 
 km: from whom in a long courfe., the fuc^ 
 qcflion of Bijhop s of that City is deduced* 
 Only thispae thing was wanting, w*. that I 
 did not fay that our Church .was heretical, 
 and did ^rafitple the Divine Right under hW 
 feet -which, indeed, I neither; coiddaor 
 ought to do } yea, had I done it, you your 
 felf would have noted that want of pru- 
 deface inme. 
 
 This may ferveforthe Three chief points: 
 To which you fiirtbejhadd this, *$**? or co- 
 rollary ; natnely ^ your iudgriieht touching 
 the Title of my bdokpt which) r^pwrbtei for 
 France^ Of t}\6 Calling o£ $ ajitrsi nThefe 
 words, you fay, are noveUjMid never hTed by 
 any of the dntkrps in thisifenfe. lackaow- 
 
 ledg 
 
DMonYuVsOfEpifcopdcy. III.Epift. jp 
 
 ledg, indeed^ that the word Calling** unufual 
 among the Antients, nor taken in that fenfe. 
 But we Frenchmen fpeak otherwife : for as 
 many as have wrote o^ that Argument, 
 either Our, or Papifts ufe this word : which, 
 with us, fignifiesiomew r hatmore then Ordi- 
 nation j for it Is taken for the Office in felf. If 
 I had wrote in hating fhould have given this 
 Title, of the Office and Ordination ofPaftors. 
 
 Neither would you have all Presbyters and 
 Minifiers of the Word of God, to he called by the 
 name of Payors. For this word, you fay, be- 
 longs only to Bijhops, (and that the Antients 
 fpakefo.J) Ifthisbetrue, WorthySir, the 
 Churcbesin France, Germany JLorvcountrys and 
 Helvetia, are flocks without a Pajior. But 
 S. Paul,ASts the xx commandeth the Presby- 
 ters of Ephefus , pafcere, i. e. to be Pajiors of 
 the Church, v. 17. & 28. And S. Peter,inhk 
 1 . EpiH. 5 . ch. 1 . 1 . v. The Presbyters , who 
 
 are among yon , I exhort, Pafcite , feed the 
 
 floc\ofGod, which is among you, taking the over- 
 fight therofnot by conliraint but yvillinglyyiotfor 
 filthy lucre : which exhortation to diligence, 
 andflninning filthy lucre, no doubt, belongs 
 alfo to the inferior Presbyters. Now to think 
 that they ought not be calledP^Sfor^ wliom 
 
 F Cod 
 
40 D.Moulin's OfSpifcopJicy ULEpift. 
 
 God commands Pafcere , to feed the flock > 
 I cannot perfuade my felf. Eut, if the 
 Word of Cod be Vabidnm , the food of 
 Souls, I fee not why he fhould not be 
 calld a Pajtor, wno doth adminifter this 
 food. S. Paul in the fourth to the Epheftans, 
 verfe, n. makes an enumeration of £r- 
 elefiaftical Offices : God gave fome Apoftles, 
 fome Prophets , fome Evangeltfis , fome Pa- 
 ftors and Teachers. If Presbyters who la- 
 bour in the Word , whom we Frenchmen 
 call MinifterS) be not understood under the 
 name of Paftors, I fee not what place they 
 can have in this enumeration of the Apoftle. 
 S.AugHftine, in his 59. Epiftl: , faith, that 
 Paftors and DoSlors> here, are the fame. 
 The fame thinketh S. Hierom , upon this 
 place of S. Paul. Vincentins Lirinenfts , ex- 
 pounding this place , maketh no mention 
 of Paftors, but comprehends them vnder 
 DoBors, whom he calls Treat* fers , who 
 certainly were a different thing from Bi- 
 /hops. But that Bijhops only are DoSiors , I 
 never yet read any where. S. Ambrofe is Co 
 far from thinking the name of Paftors to 
 belong only to Bijhops, that he even calls 
 Readers y Paftors. Readers, faith he, are y 
 
 and 
 
D.Moulin s GfSpifcopacy. IILEpitf. 41 
 
 and may be Paftors , who fatten the fonts of 
 their Auditors with Reading. The term p a- 
 ftor is ufual among the Vrophets : Prophet 
 Ifaiah. 56. 11. Prophet leremiah. 10.21. 
 and 22. 22. and 13. i.2v Prophet Exe* 
 chiel. 34. 2. and Prophet Xachariah. 10. 3. 
 Which places who foe ver {hall weigh in the 
 even ballance of judgment, he (hall find, 
 that under the name of Paftors were rec- 
 koned not only the cheif Priefts , 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 
 earneft defire to fatisfie you, hath carried 
 me beyond my bounds. I have too too 
 much abus'd your leafure. Yet (hall not 
 this my pains be ill beftowed , if you 
 fhall take notice hereby , how much I e- 
 fteem you , how defirous I am of peace , 
 how glad I would be that all the Refor- 
 med Churches, who are united by one Faith, 
 were alfo united by one and the fame bond 
 of Eccleftaftical Government. I befeech you, 
 Sir , accept in good part this my ingenu- 
 ous liberty, which truly (hall never de- 
 tra& from that obfervance and honor , 
 
 F 2 which, 
 
4-z D.Moulins O/Epifcopacy. III.Epiil. 
 
 whiekv I fliall ever prafefs before the 
 world, J ow unto you. God preferve You, 
 attd grant You a frefli and lively old age,' 
 with the increafe of all honor and hap- 
 pinefs. Farewell. 
 
 Dated Tarts. 
 
 \ 
 
 Your Honors mod devoted 
 . in all obfervance. 
 
 Tettr s5Afoulin. 
 
 : 
 
B. Andrews^ Of Eplfcovaty. Ill.Fpift. & 
 & vt ,f 9 4 $ # # * «*<* 4 * * # « # 4 * $ 
 
 '* & ^ 4* dfc 1 & & 4? •# '4 1 ^ •& # $* $* «f '<' f ^' '4? •& 
 
 The BifhopS Anfwcr to the Third Epiftle. 
 
 Never could learn this trick of faw- 
 i ng , or ( which is all one ) of tolling 
 replys. No, not, when my years 
 were fitter for it. Em now old age, 
 which of it felf is a difeas, and yet 
 never cometh without difeafes at- 
 tending it, plucks naeby the ear, and 
 bids me get me out of this cockpit, and rank my felf 
 with them, who*e whole bufinefs is Prayer.- Neverthe- 
 lefs, becaufe in this skirmifhing, it hath happen d to us 
 both alike, f is, that we have not reach'd one another s 
 meaning,! (hall, not unwillingly, more fully and plain- 
 ly expound my mind to you, as ycu did your to me. 
 
 That which I firft meet withall is but. a flight mat- 
 ter ••> for I do not underftand at all, how I was any whit 
 moremovd then ordinary. Neither do I remember 
 ought of yours, that movd me more then ordinary} 
 nay that mov'd me at all 5 but only that you faid, that 
 fome pafsages of yours had grievd the Kings foul. 
 That word £ greiv*d "] greivd me fomwhat, I con- 
 fefs, and mov'd me more then ordinary ; Befides , no* 
 thing that I remember. 
 
 His MAJefife had made three dafbes upon yourB^. 
 Touching them you would know of me,what my mind 
 was, what I thought. Ianfwered,aswastruthj where 
 the King had madef/w*, they ought to be made. 
 
 The firft place, noted by the King, was that, concern- 
 ing the pdfitvty of the wtrds, ( as you fpeak. ) I faid it I T 
 
 F 3 was 
 
44- B.Andrewss Of Epijcopacy. ill. rpilt. 
 
 was juftly noted. Here you did not reach my mean- 
 ing jj for you take it for all one, as if I had faid that you 
 therby did tacitly in finuate ^ I know not what. Eut that 
 came not into my thoughts. I did not fay,what you did 
 therby infinuate , hut what ethers would (natch at from 
 thence. For,queftionlefs, fnatch at they will, as if you 
 c't* insinuate ^ though you did not, as men are, and ftand 
 affefted. T, for my part, do not deny, that thofe words 
 are taken for one and the fame \ and fo far you are rjght. 
 This I deny, that thofe things which are right may all 
 of them , fafely, by any man,at any time,be committed 
 to writing. For you muft confider , not fo much what 
 you might mean there, as what others would fnatch from 
 thence. Our writings muft be regulated by that of the 
 Apoflle , 2{ot what u law full \ I ut what u expedient. Sec 
 vou, whether this controverfie be feafonableat this 
 time 5 and whether it were advifedly done by you} and 
 whether it be not expedient, "***•*■«> **< **w, to cut off 
 occafions from them, who earneftly fnatch at all occa- 
 fionsoffetting novelties afoot. Perhaps, T fear what is 
 fafc enough, but I fear though, left, an occafion being 
 taken from hence, thofe ftirrs unhappily break out a- 
 gain, which feemed wholy to be made up among us. 
 
 Nor was I ever of that opinion, I never wrote it, that 
 
 afterward it was otherwif done. That was not done o- 
 
 therwife afterward^ which was dene by the Apoftles 
 
 thewfelves.h is S,Cbryfo/loms:were there mani&ifhops in one 
 
 City ? by no means .It is S. Hieroms:For in one City there could 
 
 not be manyBtfhopsJi is Theodoretsilt could not bejhat there 
 
 fhouldbemany PafiorsinomCtty. Ofwhat time are thefe 
 
 to be under ftood ? When were there not? When could 
 
 there not be thofe many Paftors in one City ? What,when 
 
 S.Chryfoftom, S.Hierom , Thcodoret lived ? doubtlefs, 
 
 when die Apolile wrote that to the PhilippUns, I could 
 
 not 
 
B. Andrew/* OfSpifcopacy. III.Epift. 45 
 
 not poffibly fay then, that that was done afterward* 
 which they faid was done, even when the Apoftle lived 
 and wrote. 
 
 I faid,thai the remedy was there applyed by the Fathers. 
 You fay that the fame was applyed by you. Applyed ^ I 
 grant $ but truly,neither the fame, nor in the fame place. 
 
 For 3 t. their . £ *^»^ ^ ^ f ' r preventive caution 
 waspremisdbefore/A^/J^. Ttar £ sy«*ic»T«w ^ yours 
 is but a play fter layd on, after the wound is made. 
 
 2. What you fay by way of disjunction, viz. either 
 immedht'y afttr the time of the Apo files , or even in their 
 time , that would not they have (aid fb} but, as truth 
 was, without any disjunction, without the former part. 
 That it was done,/* the very time of the ApoHles % and by 
 themfclves. 
 
 3. Then, no where do they fay, that any confl'aution 
 was made about it. Nor do I think you will ever read 
 of any fuch Q *«*> or 3 confiitution , in any Hiftory. 
 We read, indeed, in the Acls, that the Order of Deacons 
 was confitutedby them : of Presbyters , of Hi/hops , there 
 was nee n(litit>on; for B^4*f were formerly inftitutcd 
 byC&/7/?inthe Apofles^ and Presbyters in the Seventy 
 Two. 
 
 4* Nor only, that any was wtfiri B/%>, butthathe 
 n^ a Bifhop. For there were no Titular Bi/hops then:they 
 had their Tiame from their Office : they were called 
 what they were , they **>?, what they were called. 
 
 5. Nor, that fhould be only with preeminence, but 
 thatfhould be inverted with power : power , I fay, of 
 Jtopofition of hands , o( commanding, of receiving informa- 
 tions \ of reproving. 
 
 6. Nor w/j, to /*£* <w*j Confufton , whichis con- 
 trary to Orderjjut alio to takeaway SchifrnfritivSi is con- 
 trary xoVmty. Nor for theft two only, but alfo for *// 
 
q.6 B^ndrtws^OfEfnfcopacy. IH.Epift. 
 
 ether ends y for which., we faid, that power was given. 
 
 You fee that the Father sh^A another gates remedy for 
 this difeafe : and that thofe fpeeches of yours : It wa* 
 conjlituted^That fhould be cdled 5 fhoald have the preemi- 
 nence-, are too narrow 5 and I add \ by your leave, too 
 weak and dilute \ nor the fame with thofe , which arc 
 the ingredients of that medicine , which the Fathers 
 made. 
 
 But yet I have a mind here to put the queftion $ If 
 Confufwvi comma-ily g; owes from Equality ^ how comes it 
 to pals , that there is no need of this remedy among 
 you ? 
 
 Again 5 if it be true, that this Form of Government was 
 received every where by all churches^ that, which was 
 every where receiv'd by rf/7, why doth not your Ghurch re « 
 ceive? why doth She only run counter to all the churches ^ 
 which then were everywhere? For that is a moll true 
 . word; you faid, and deferv'd an afterisk of commenda - 
 tion , 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 
 Bifvops, 
 
 Wherfore there was no caufe at all, that yoxjhoiildgo 
 about to wipe off that f*fpition r ffor I had none of you,) 
 that you were not well/ffecledtovur Order, I {hall never be 
 induced to beleeve it $ for. I cannot but give credit to 
 y oo, affirming. it in your Letter s> that your Countrymen 
 complain of you^ for favoring and wifhing fo well vnto it. 
 Indeed, that you wilh well,! doubt not at all \ but ther- 
 eto I am more perfwaded by your aw^then by your ar« 
 guments. 
 
 For here you flip from the Order to the Ferfom of B/- 
 fhop}\ of whole Learning , Indujlrie , Martyrdom you 
 Ipeak mucharid excellently/ But there were 5 as you 
 
 know 
 
B.Andrewss Gf'Spifcopac}. lILEpifr. 47 
 
 know, of old, men that hated the Tyrant , but not his 
 Tyranny : and why not now, men that love Bifloops y but \ 
 not the Government by Biftiops. Pafs by the men ther- 
 fore 5 it matters not for them$ fpeak of the Order it felf. 
 For Calvin him felf, and Beza, if they wrote to our Pre- 
 lates, know, that they wrote likewife to them, whom you 
 call peevifb : and that their Letters., which thefe pretend 
 for their pceviflmef \ are produced by them $ and thus 
 they oft reply , To what purpofc do I \iVsczCdvins Words ^ 
 when I fee bx Deeds ? For the Order it felf, if it be fuch 
 as you would have it feem,the YS?/hops of England cannot 
 make // better, nor of 'Spain w?,rfe. I advisd you not to 
 transferr the faults of Perfons upon Things 5 and to un- 
 learn your Church that cuftom. 
 
 As for thofe Antients, whom you worthily call the 
 Lights of ths Church, and who themfelves were Bifbcps, 
 though you lay much , yet you fay not enough. For 
 this is not cxxow^^Thatyou would not give fentence agawft 
 them 5 That they were not wrongfully made 5 That they did 
 not ufurp an unlawful! Office : Thefe are but terms of di- 
 minution^ 2{ot give fentence again ft 5 Not wrongfully made $ 
 not u fur per s of an unlaw full 'Office - y fpeak out, fpeak as the 
 truth is. That they were lawfully made 5 ( lawfully, if ever 
 any ) and did exercife a most law full Office : That our 5 at 
 this day, are to be made after their example : That th.£ 
 fame Office is to be exercifed by all Ours: Thefe fpeak 
 home to the Order, are nothing to the Men. 
 
 But, whatever become of thofe paflages,! cannot but 
 commend your conclusion there 5 nor (hall I ftick to fet 
 an afterisk of approbation upon it: I would to God that 
 might put an end to the whole controverfie betwixt 
 us. It is this : The venerable Antiquity of thefe fir (I Ages 
 fhallbe ever in greater efleem with me then the new upftart 
 device of any whofoever. O would to God > that Antiquity 
 
 G might 
 
4.8 E Andrews's OfEpifcopacy. III.Epift. 
 
 might be more and mare in efteem with you with i&\ 
 for if Antiquity might prevail , if thefc new up/fart 
 devices were iifcarded , tlrn , fure, the Cxitfe of this 
 Order could not be in danger. 
 — II The Second dafh of diflike fet by His Maieflu , and 
 
 very juftly, was at that place, where you contend that 
 the Order of B//W and Presbyter is one and the fame A have 
 fhe-Vv'd that it is not the fame. 
 
 Both, t. Becaufe the Offices are not ihe/ame.Fov a Pres* 
 byter doth not Ord tin \ no, not inS. Hie/cms iudgmcnt. 
 Asalfo, 2. Becaufe there is not the fume lmpofition of 
 hmds^ but a neve one in a Br flop. 
 
 Again, 3. Becaufe, among the Fathers, Ifidore clearly 
 calls it the Order of Bifhps. 
 
 And laftly, 4. Becaufe thofe Two Orders were diftin- 
 guilhed by Chrift in the Apoflles^ and the Seventy Two. 
 
 Here you produce to us the Title of the Pontifical-^ 
 which is concerning Confecratio ?,not Ordination X fhew'd 
 that the Antient Btfhops 3 even of %ome it felf , fpake o- 
 therwiie :, otherwise the later Popes. Among the Anti- 
 ent ■, that the word Ordination was moft: ufual, and moft 
 approved. 
 
 You appeal to the Schole. I acquainted you, in what 
 fenfe the Schole calls them thefame^ov not the fame. The 
 fame .in reference to the Body ofchrift ^ upon which they 
 texminzttheir Seven Orders : About the Bo iy of Ch y ifi a 
 Presbyter doth as much as a Bijhop. You your felf (ay as 
 much : Of thefe in refpecl of the Body of Chrifl, the church 
 of Rpme makes but one Order. Hot thefame^ if you tefpeft 
 the power to fecial A&^ viz,, coordination D which is 
 peculiar to a Bijhop. This is not mine, as youimagin d,but 
 the definition of Orders , all the Schole over. Nor yet 
 that difference^ which afterward you put upon me : both 
 of them are from the Schole $ both definition and differ- 
 
 ence. 
 
B.Andrewvs Of Fpifccpjtcy. IILEpift $9 
 
 me. Thefe things , if you would fpeak SchotaftcaUy, 
 were riot to be deny a by you , who appeald to the 
 Scheie. 
 
 But to what purpofe do you hyjhatyou deal with or 9 
 that you diftute againft the Pontificiansjwho will not have the 
 Order ofBf/hops diftinclfrom that of Presbyters > And yet 
 prefently you fubjoin : Ought 1 to inveigh againft them, 
 (^viz. the Pontificians ) becaufe they do not make the Or- 
 der ofBt/hops dtftincl from thit of Presbyters , -when Our 
 Churches do not make it neither? He that fhould do this, 
 fhould not fo much conteft with the Church of Rome , as with 
 pit own. You difpute therfore againft them, but yet you 
 will not inveigh zgamfi them : you difpute againft the 
 Ponti fie tans and yet you allege their Pontifical. You di^ 
 fpute againft them 3 yet your own Churches do the felf 
 feme thing, Ncr yet will you affirm, what ought to be 
 bfleevd y but what the Church of Rome thinketh : which 
 thinketh the very fame that your church doth 5 and your 
 Churchy I beleeve, you woul d have to be beleev'd. You 
 do not therfore conteft with the Pontificians ^for, I trow 
 you have no mind to conteft with your own. 'Twere a- 
 gainft your Religion fo to do. Neverthelefs your 
 Church, as you confefs, doth the fame thing in this 
 pointthat the Roman doth. 
 
 You fay it is heft to ufe proper terms , that the thtngs 
 which differ in fubftance be diftinguifhed tn Name rand 
 yetinthe fame page, afterward , as if you were fom- 
 what angry, you ask, To what end is it, to flick fo much up- 
 on the diftinflion of Words ? To what end then is it , to 
 make proper words, which are miAzf roper for no other 
 end, but for diftinclion > If this be to no end, it is better, 
 truft me, neither to ufe proper words , nor to make any 
 words ztdl proper $ for wemuftufethe tetter 9 both you, 
 andwr. 
 
 G 2 Not- 
 
53 B.Artdrewss OfSpifcopacy ULEpift. 
 
 Notwithftandingthis, why do you rejcft the di/lin* 
 
 tf'ton of words, here? Becaufe, every Order ( you fay ) is * 
 
 Decree. What then ? Since every Degree is not an Order, 
 
 ifwewillufe proper words. Deaconry . in S. Paul, is a 
 
 Degree 5 and the /£/»* is an CW*r with all men. But Anb- 
 
 deaconJb;p is a new D<grr*, and yet no Order. 2{pr can a 
 
 hi/hop be pitted of bis Order, but be muff be degraded ( fay 
 
 you ) or fall f rem his Order. Yea, but he may be degra- 
 
 ded, though he be not anted of bis Order 5 for of his Order 
 
 he can no way he outed. For after (that, which they call ) 
 
 D^"^//^,thcrereir)ainetha^«»^ to the Acts of his 
 
 Order : the ufe of which power may be inhibited \ the 
 
 power it felf cannot be taken away. 
 
 But here feme fcruplesarife in your mind. The Fir ft 
 is : that every fyfbjj> is a Presbyter : very true that , and 
 confeft by all. But a Presbyter^you fay, is not a Dea on. 
 Among you, haply, he is not 5 according to your novell 
 device : But with that R 'v trend Antiquity ( which you 
 fpeak of) he is : Nay, then, a B [bop himfelf is a Deacon: 
 Read S. Chryfofiom , Even a B'fhop xvm cau'd a Deacon ; 
 wherupon S. Paul, writing to Timothy ,f aid y Fulfill thy 
 Deaconry 3 to him , being a ¥>JJ)op. Whence alfo it is , that 
 many¥> '[hops now adays write , to my Felloxx -Presbyter, to 
 my Felloe-Deacon. Read S. Ambrcfe , on the 4. to the 
 Spheftans. For all Orders are in a Bifiop 5 becaufe he is the 
 firftPrieJl, i. e. the Prince of Priefls. And, on the I. to the 
 Corinth : 1 2. Though Apofiles he Prophets too \ for the first 
 Degree bath all other vnder it. I may truly therefore in- 
 ferr the contrary % Seing a Bi/bop differs not from a Pres- 
 byter, by any other way of difference t then a Presbyter doth 
 from a Deacon \ hut a Presbyter differs from a Deacon in his 
 Order ^therf ore it is agreable , that a hiiloop differ from a 
 Presbyter in his order. This ever feem'd agreable to the 
 content of Antiquity. I wonder that thefe things fcapd 
 
 you : 
 
B. Andrews's OfSpifcopacy. III.Epift. 51 
 
 you : for I dare not fufpeft , that what are fo obvious 
 to ^are unknown to you. But the Deaconry, inufc a- 
 mong you^ deceived you } a meer ftranger //, I (peak it 
 boldly,, to all : Antiquity (with whom Deacons were ever 
 one part of the Clergy,) 
 
 The Second fcruple. That Order is a power to fecial 
 Ac?, I fay not of myfelf 5 the whole Scheie faith fo 5 it is 
 the definition of Order received in the Scholes: fpeak you, 
 if you have another ^for I remember not that I have any 
 where read of any other. Your fcruple here arifeth from 
 them y who ( fay you ) are extraordinarily delegated to 
 the performance of certain Acts. I rejoin : What have they 
 who are delegated without Order \ to do with OrdertThe 
 very word Order requireth that this be underftood of 
 crdinary power. 
 
 The Third Scruple, An Archbifh:p hath a power to a 
 (pedal *sl3. What Aft? To call a Synod. I eas you of 
 this fcruple alfo. This A 61 is not (pecial to an Archbifbop: 
 for a ¥>>[hip exercifeth the fame *Aci : He doth as much 
 call a Synod in hisDiocefs , as the other doth in his Pro- 
 vince. Though , if we will fpeak truly, the caWng of 
 Synods is ajpe. til A6lto neither of them^ but is by Delegation 
 from the Pristce ; by whofe Laws there is fpecial provi- . 
 fion againfr unlawful Aflemblys. You,in your wifdom, 
 fee, that nothing appears here, why either by a. Degree 
 any Power may be conferd, or by an Order may not be 
 conferd. 
 
 The Third da/h ofdtjlike was upon your denying Epifco- HI *— 
 pacy to be of Divine Right, you grant it to be of Apoftoli- 
 r<*/.But that ferves not you to make it be of Divine Right. 
 2^0) not among */, who do not obferve certain things which 
 -were appointed by the Jpoftles. 
 
 For, i . not Widows. I read of no command there for 
 the appointing of Widows :bx\% for Sphefm ^ and thofc 
 
 G 3 Churches^ 
 
5J B.Andrews's Of Epifcopacy. III.EpilT. 
 
 Churches , which had Widows , there is a command 
 touching their Age. The inftitution of widows , was 
 left free to every church. For none were to mantem 
 Widows, unleft they would $ and, indeed , they could 
 not be manteined among the poorer. 
 
 Not, 2. thxtCuflim for three or four to prophecy At one 
 hour. But that Cuftom was, cleerly, extrAordinary 3 and 
 the extraordinary gifts ceafing, that ceafed too. 
 
 2\^>f,5. toAhftein f rom things fir Angle d,& blood. Yea, 
 but that was temporAry , not appointed by the Apoflles % 
 with any other intention, then, to be in force , during 
 the non-burid of the SynAgoge 5 the Symgoge once bu- 
 ried, to be free, to obferve or not. 
 
 So your firft inftance was, not ncceffkry $ your fecond, 
 not ordimry $ your third, temporAry, not perpetuAl. Thefe 
 do not make a Divine Right. 
 
 But, that the Precepts of the ^fpofllcs may not be of 
 Divine Right, you will not have that ofchnfl, touching 
 Jhaking off the dtsfl of their feet y to be fo, neither. But , in 
 txwth,this\$r\o Precept ;but ; ifa Precept, ofDivin? Right. 
 For, I hope , you will not fay that Chrifl commanded 
 this >ufing his Prudence, without Divine infpirAtion. No 
 man ever underftood that , *«t* p&, according to the 
 Letter 5 and that upon this ground } becaufe it was 
 fometime ohfervei,fometime Alter ed,(ometime quite omitted: 
 not according to the Letter, I fay , but , <**** «a *>**& , 
 according to the mind of the Ipeaker. Whofe mind 
 was, that fuch were to be given for defperate, whether 
 with or without ufing the Ceremony. 
 
 But, be more fparing, I pray, of that point, of the 
 ApoflH of time? ufing their prudence. For it cannot be faid 
 or writ without great danger , th.it the Apoflles in fome 
 thing* badD: vine Infftiration , m the reft did often ufe their 
 *m* prudence - y and that in their writings which are ex- 
 tant* 
 
B.Andrews's OfEftfcopacy. III.Epift- 53 
 
 tant. For even that very place., where w?u >,.>&« \ s ^ at- 
 cording to my judgment , you know 3 is concluded with 
 
 4«* .Ai > L «yi jri^vjt e s ; ;#/, j ##/ I think dfo that lhAvethe 
 Spirit <f God. fo that his very >»•> , his judgment had 
 the di&ate therofc from the S/>/V# of God. As for that 
 place, which you quote, if it were not written by Di~ 
 vine infpiration, but by humane prudence^ we are to fcorc 
 it for Apocryphal. How then ? are we for making an in- 
 dex , and for Expurging the T^ew refitment ? For fepa- 
 rate we muft the pretious from the vile. What were di- 
 &atedby/^w*^/>m/<?/?fl*will never ftand in conjun- 
 ction with thofe which were by Divine infpiration. 
 
 But, although there be weight enough to confirm 
 this caufe, from the Right and maner of the Apoftles.yet, 
 you may remember , that I dcriv d this diftinftion of 
 Orders higher, viz. from Chrift our Saviour in the Apo- 
 files ', and Severity Two Dfiples. That it is every where 
 among the Fathers^ and clearly confefsed by them 3 that 
 B'tfhops fuccceded the Apoftles, and Presbyters the feventy 
 Two. I cited Cyprian ; But Deacons muft remember , how 
 our Lord chofc Apoftks, /. e. Bifhops and Prelates 5 but 
 the Apoftles, after the Afcenfion of our Lord, Appointed 
 tothemfelves Deacons, as mini for s of their Epifcopacy, 
 and of the Church. That thofe Seven were inftituted, 
 Atts vi. by the Apoftles 3 butno?w^r/ D but after the 
 example of the Seventy Two^ nor Bifhops, but after their 
 own pattern. T^Or^rrtherfore hath the ftrength and 
 finews *herof,not only from the Apoftles, but even from 
 our Saviour himfelf. 
 
 Would you have me fetch it yet higher ? even out of 
 the Old TeJlament^nA there from theDivine Law it «fclf ? 
 S. Hierom doth : And that we may know that the Apofloli- 
 cal traditions were taken out of the Old Teftament^to 
 Aaron,W his Sons andtheLcvitcs were in the Temple, 
 
 that 
 
54- B;Andrews's OfEpifcopacy. ULEpift. 
 
 that do Bifhops , Presbyters , and Deacons chatleng to 
 themfelves i* the Church. S.Ambrofe doth, in both 
 thofe places, I. Corinth. \ i . and Sphefa. fpeaking of the 
 Zfe\vs,Whofe tradition , faith he, bath pa]] ed over to us. 
 iomitt Aaron-*, left you fhould rejcft him j as a Type of 
 Christ. Overh/s Sons, the Pries! s, was there not in their 
 feveral families fcMatfU i.e. a Prelate 5 or, as is faid 
 
 fMw»4 ** telfwhere, *v^&. i.e. ^hi/hop. Over the Gerfonites. 
 
 v cb ifli6 9 o 1 ^? w - J' 2 4- Over the Kohathites. verf. 30. Over the 
 7 * Merarites. verfe 5 5. Was not Eleazar there 5 even while 
 his Father was alive, CD^M?1 KMPl , as if you would 
 fay, Prelate of Prelates, verfe 32. Who is elfewhere 
 called yi^ yzi as if you would fay, Archbifhop. 
 There are therefore in the Law , C3^V^1> ? — -^h^, 
 CZmV 3 i-e. Prelats or Bifhops, P r Jeff f, and Levites:ln 
 the Gty^/, The Apoffles, the Seventy Tiro, and thofe S*- 
 w#, -^5j vi. In the Aro files praflife , which was taken 
 from thofe Tw Qthe £dn? and Go/pel*] bifhops, Presbyters, 
 Deacons. Rut do not, do not think , thatthis was by A- 
 pofiolical%ight alone $ if there be in the Gofptl, if in the 
 Law, any Divine Right, this Government \$ not without 
 example in both, it is founded on both. Either then 
 there is no Divine Right in the form of Church govern- 
 ment , and then wellfare Amfferdam^ where fo many hu- 
 mane prudences as there are , fo many forms of Govern- 
 ment (kill be fet up. Or, if there be any Divine Right : it 
 is in Thofe Three, it is for us. 
 
 And now to your skirmifhes of lighter confederation. 
 That I know, what ufethto be anfwered, by the Vul- 
 gar, concerning Timothy and Titus. Add this too, that 
 I know, that many things are ill anfwered by the Vul- 
 gar. But what is anfwered by the Vulgar? that they 
 were Eyangeli/ts. Who affirms this ? either the Vulgar, 
 or they that, out of fome mans novel device, have 
 
 fpread 
 
B. A n d rews s Of cpifcopacj. 1 1 L Epjft. 55 
 
 fpread thefe doubtfqll fpeeches among the Vulgar •For 
 none of the Antients ever fpake fo\no Hiflory can wit- 
 nefs it. Bvit Hiflory doth witnefs, that Timothy and 7/ta* 
 were Btfops. Epiphanius^ Chyfoftom , Amhrofe 3 Hierom, 
 Theodoretfay it. That they were Evangelijls no in an 
 everfaid, wrote, or dream'd, before our Age. This 
 Vulgar anfwer is a Vulgar forgery. 
 
 Therfore, whether Evangclifts were fuperior or in- 
 ferior to B//hops,\t's nothing to u* 5 fince thefe^by no 
 means, were Evangelifis. Who faith fb > S. Chry follow. 
 But I am to mind yon, that he corrects what he had 
 fpoken, with fome diffidence, there, concerning Evan- 
 gelttts. For that nothing can be colle&ed out of that 
 place, Sphef. 4. concerning the Priority of any. But we 
 may fetch it from another Eftjlle, 1. Corinth. 12. 28. 
 where we have, ^™, sw^**, vfy y?/*/? , fecond^ third : 
 But Evwzelifts appear not there. Befidcs that they, 
 whom you, with tne Vulgar, would have to be count- 
 ed Evangelifis ( Timothy , and Titw ) are from thence 
 placed among the Paffors , i\U\*>» rpoMvsWw i&»®- , /#- 
 rr«7/ 'dwith the care of their fever d Provinces , *#</ />/ £<?- , 
 nerd of all ', but not among Evangel? fls\ Aqmlazwd Pr'u 
 f:itlx are to him Evangel fts: that I cannot but wonder, 
 what you meant to mention that place. For, from that 
 place of S. .Paul. 2, Timotb. 4. v. if you will hear 
 S. Chryfoftovt, you fliall aflbon make Timotbv but a ZV4- 
 jw*, from the fulfilling Q J 1 ?****** ^) o£ the Deacon/hip , as 
 an Evangelifl ^ from the work of an Evang'li&.^'Do 
 not you therfore make fuch a disjun&ion , either B/- 
 ^&<p, or Evangelt ft. Evangel/ frs they were never reputed 
 by any, but fome, I know not who, two or three days 
 ago., whom any upftart device pleafeth better, then 
 reverend Antiquity. Do we give credit to' Antiquity f 
 They were Bijhops, they had Jlijkff their fucceflbrs, 
 
 H their 
 
f6 B. Andrews's Of Epifcopacy. HI.Epifh 
 
 their heirs both m Superiority and Power. 
 
 You demand then , Whether your Chmches fin a- 
 gainft the Divine Right} I did not fay it 3 this only! 
 iaid, that your Churches wanted fomewhat that is 
 of Diviroe Right : wanted , but not by your fault, 
 but by the iniquity of the times. For 1&S2X your Trunce 
 had not your Kings fo propitious at the reforming of 
 jour Church , as our SngUni had : in the interim,whcn 
 god (hall vouchfafe you better times, even this, 
 which now you want , will , by his grace, be fup- 
 plyed. But, in the mean while , the %jme of hifeop, 
 which we find (b frequent in the Scriptures, ought not 
 to have been abolifti'dbyyou. Though to what pur- 
 pofe is it to abolifh the ^j*w*, and to retcin the Thing} 
 (For even yowretein theTA/^, without the Title $ 
 and they Two , whom you named , while they lived, 
 what were they , but Bi[hops in Deed , though not 
 in Name*) feing,as he in the Poet faith excellently ,there 
 is farce any man that would wifh 
 
 To be a Tyrant, and not to tyrannise. 
 
 That Aerim roso put it* the bluk book of Hereticks ( and 
 worthily ) whofoever (hall belecve Epiphtnim 9 phi- 
 kftnm , or S. Auguftine , muft needs confeft. And 
 you that condemn Aerius ,upon what confideration do 
 you condemn him> What, becsufe ho oppo/d hsmfelf 
 to the oonfent oftbcCstbolike Church? He that is of the 
 fame opinion doth not he alfooppofc himfelf? and is 
 to be condemn'd upon the fame confideration? But, 
 if there be any error 9 (b k be not with obftinacy of 
 mind, though he think as ^r/«* did, his caufe will 
 be far from what the caufe of Aerius was. Do not you 
 therforc bcukc yourfclfro thofc tragical expreffi- 
 
 OUS 
 
». Andre ws's u/Ept/copacy. wjutspiit. 57 
 
 ons of damning to-the pit of Hell 9 of giving (interne of 
 damnation against y»*r Churchy againft her that treads un- 
 derfoot the Divine Right. Ther's no neceffity of that. 
 Weigh only calmly what is fpoken* To vote that 2 
 thing were fo, is not to devote > if it be not. Awifi 
 \s no fentence of damnation. To want fomewhat that 
 is of Divine Right > is not to tread under foot the D/- 
 vjne Right. Letbutobftinacyandperverfnefebewan- - 
 ting, it will benoherefy. Arid, if itbehcrefy, (being 
 about a point of Dfctpline ) it will not be among 
 thofe, which S. Ptttr calls «M**«^«>>d*mnablt he- 
 rejtet. 
 
 - But for be it from me that I fhould drive you to any 
 ftreits. Fox neither would I have you hold your peace, 
 bemgfo^^^^/^^/^&//.Nay 1) butwrite3byalmeans 
 write : but yet D when you write,fo mantein your own, 
 that you pinch not upon, I fay not,other mens matters 
 which belong not to you 5 yes, which fomewhat con- 
 cern you: (for our affairs are not meer ftrangers ta 
 you.) And, fee, heer's alargfieldfor you, wheria 
 you may fhew the fharpnefs of your wit, (which 
 indeed is excellent.) But donor, do not hope that: 
 you can itomryta , play on both fides* Tom ovtnyotti- 
 eotnpiawof ' you\ Ours need no fuch defence } So you: 
 will loofe the thanks of either fide. 
 
 But , although thefe things be evidently enough con* 
 teinedin Holy Script ures y to my whofe eye is fingle, yet 
 is not that Prin iple fo, as you have laid ifc. For, not 
 what belong to Divine Right , but what belong to Fdith\ 
 and Good manners [ are evidently enough contemed,] 
 But thefe are not adequate to DivineRighh 
 
 Howbeit^ you might well, you mightha**.wro*$ 
 (as you fpeak ) «xa$ly, had youbegun, nol wheretbe 
 words -were \promifcmm^ bi&, whe^jtbe Things being 
 
 H 2 always 
 
58 B. Andrews s Uf-bptjccpacji. lILbpiit. 
 
 always di(lintt\ the fignifcation of th words began like- 
 wife to be difltncl. It was poflible for you to have ab- 
 fteined from words .tq-uvocal^ nnfufed^ and fr*nnfcu* 
 oujly taken!) nor <did aqty neceffity enforce you to be- 
 gin there, i- 
 
 You might alfo have balk'd all occafion of diverting 
 to us. Tour defign w.u touching Bifhops ) you were to treat 
 of them, and of the Office it felf Of the Bifhops of Eng- 
 land to what purptife? Doth England make that lawfull, 
 whichoutof^/^Wisunlawfull? The tfWttofmen, 
 wherever they are # muft be taxed: the office it felf 5 in 
 what country foever 3 is the fame^of it felf 3 in it felfjby it 
 (elf lawfull : Nor, if the Mfhops be not good 5 is the Of- 
 fi e of B'fhops not good : Yea but let the Office of B/- 
 fhops be 3 let Them be no .Btfbjps 3 unlefs they make 
 good their Name. 
 
 But here, 1 know, the King would fet an afterisk of 
 
 * approbation. When you derive Eplfcopacy from the very 
 m infancy of the Church. W hen you acknowledg I S. fames to bo 
 
 Bifbop.ofHierufalem^ andalongfucceponofBi^opSy there^ 
 
 * deritfd from him. when now again yu condemn Aerius. 
 See 3 you have Three aflerisks for the Three da(hes. 
 For thefe things aremoft true 5 and according to the 
 judgment of the ssfntients , even of Irenes , who 
 leads the train of the Anti?nts. The true profepon is 
 the doctrine of the Apoflles^ and the antient ft ate of the 
 Churchy through the -whole world, is according to the 
 fuccepon of 'Bi/hops Jo whom They delivered that Churchy 
 which is in every place $ which h*th reached even unto m. 
 
 Somwhat I added, afterward, concerning the novel, 
 upftart name of Calling : and fo otPafiors $ ( as they are 
 now in ufe with you.) Touching that of Callings yoa 
 do not deny but that it is vhufual :you ufedj fuppofe a 
 f^^the figure of cxtentmon$for it is fo unufual,that it 
 
 is 
 
B.Andrews* GfBpt/cop^yili.Epilh $$> 
 
 is not at alLC^/^indeed^s fometime ufed for the Of- 
 
 fi-e^ for Ordination ^ never. But neither do-'you deny 
 
 'what I obfervcd touching that word, Paflors y Nor do 
 
 y<>n produce nny, : either timong thofe 'Ant'unts \ or the 
 
 Inter Writ erf, before our Age, tfftt was fo call'd, viz. a* 
 
 Patter^ who was not, indeed, a Biffop. Only 3 1 know 
 
 not how, you heap up many things together, but all 
 
 betide the matter; that you leenrndt in therta neither 
 
 to have reachd my meaning. For, what if I grant all 
 
 that you allege ? That par flocks are not without aPjflor ; 
 
 (ask feemeth gocdtoyou to ftile him : ) That all you 
 
 fay out of S. Paul, S. Peter , the Prophets is true : 
 
 \Vhat are thefe to me ? who only fay that the Antienh 
 
 fpake fA/w ; that that other mme\% not from Antiquity. 
 
 i recall you therfore to this 5 That, among the Antient 
 
 fhri/Iians informer ages, you (hew me out of their 
 
 writings, where the' word Pa/lor was ever ufed, and 
 
 they fpakenotoftheB*/fo/>: or, that it was ufed (as 
 
 with you it is ) cfizParifhPrie/l. Prevail thus far with 
 
 your felf, as to (hew this 5 for,unlefs you do/A«,you do 
 
 nothing to the purpofe. 
 
 But yet fee, of what force thofe things are , thatyou 
 brought therei For S. Paul doth not fey there , that 
 Fresbytm.^&A, pafere'] were Pa/tors : this He faiths 
 wherein the Holy Ghoft hath made you Btfhops R fafcere ] 
 to feed [to be Paftorsover~] the Church of God. Saint 
 haul's P aft or therfore is a Bijhop. And\ left you (hould 
 think that the name Bi/^istobetaken, there, apfht- 
 latively { as if you would (ay, Stlchashaue theCur'e of*) 
 not properly 5 behold , the Syr tack Interpreter himfclf 
 reteins the Greek word f} when the Syntack- vwnts not -S£tf \ 
 a word of her own, by which to e&prefs, \_ Sucha* tiaue 2^S"V?* 
 the Cure of. ]ii 
 
 And io alfo S.Peters Pa/tor. 1. Spift. 5. chap, i* v. 
 
 H 3 For 
 
4<> 3. Andrews s QfEjriftopacf. IILEpift, 
 
 For I whcly doubt, whether that pla<se, of S. Peter, 
 belong to inferior Presbyters. For He addeth there 
 (as you know) tyntf%r«a being Si/hops over them : fo 
 that He alfo conjoins Q 4 fop** "] being B//3^ , witk 
 # £ if,m^ ^ being Paftors. That word indeed I ftand 
 not upon. That which follows there \_not Lordingt$ 
 over the Clergy "] doth plainly evince , that they, to 
 whouii & teter wrote this , had a* «> fmer and 
 authority ovtr the Clt%gy : otherwife , that "j f WMir 
 that Y>omimtring and Lording over them could not 
 poffibly be apply'd to them. Whctfcn: S. Peters Pa/ior 
 muft needs be a Bifiop. And who indeed can doubt of 
 tWs,feingtheconjunftionof thofe two words took the 
 .fcftrife from S. P-eter. 
 
 , For, wljeras you inferr that the Word q& God ii£. fi& 
 }m{wn\ food : that* therfore they i who adnainiftcr 
 tins food, dp, C /w/fe/r *] feed : I (ball eafily grant 
 you, that feed they do , that is, Vmm\ but not 
 therefore uMikm . s whence cometh ne^w 5 as you 
 know , 1. e. ?*/?*? 5 who y over and above the 
 food of the Word , adminifter fomewhat clle be- 
 fide. 
 
 But wh*% ymbxing from, that place to tie £- 
 
 phefiam* chap. 4. are either uncertain % For 1. One 
 
 will have Papers and Doflors to be <*# one. 2. Ano- 
 
 tjaer maketh m mention of Paftors. 3. AThirdthink- 
 
 ;©th,«fcfct; Readers are i^r/. I ihall fpeak of them 
 
 1 . To S. AugnfUne , P/yfor and D*£br. are no other- 
 wife, the feme , then Order and "Degree were, to us, a 
 little .before. Every Order a Degree, butmot.every 
 C7 <-£>-; Degree && Order : fi> every Poftor is, a :DbQxirj//but 
 not every Dotfor a P*/?*r. Who faithi'this ? Saint 
 Hkrm.> ... 
 
 2, Of 
 
B.Andrews's Ofbptfcopacj. !ltt.Epij& & 
 
 i. Of him, who makes no mention j thereof 
 JU/?#r* 5 nor w2Hmake mention. The Monies are bet- 
 ter inclind, commonly, to Treatifers , then to B/^//. 
 3, For S. Ambrofe , who underftood B//&jpj in ^ 
 ^yf/«S Presbyters in Prophets ^ Deacons in EvAngelifts \ 
 1*0 wonder , if at laft he fell upon Readers y when he 
 had none befide them, to whom , after thtfe Three Jbc 
 might referr them. 
 
 Thus, fey I, either vncerutn they are: or, when 
 they are Certain they make againft you. By nai&e x 
 S. chry(o(iom \ Who defineth Paftors to be they^ to 
 whom v»as committed ( ™ms^) the generality of 
 the people. Arc your fo ? And he adds who were 
 fuch^ a$ Timothy , faith he , and Tittts 5 who were both 
 Eifiops in S. Cbryfofioms account : and , I belecve, in 
 your account, they were mOrethen Presbyters, labour- 
 ing in the Word. 
 
 Y& remains what you elancdat , out of the Pro- 
 phets, which fUces if any do Accurately confider , he Jhslt 
 find ^ that not only the high Prie(ls y but alfothe Prophets and 
 LeviteS) upon whom the Office of teaching Uy , were 
 colled by thensme ofPaftors* Doubtleft, he (hall. Add 
 iftoreoYcr } he (hall find Princes in the State, and M*> 
 giftrates often , nay oftner a great deal , to be call- 
 ed by the name of Paftors, then all them put toge- 
 ther, whom you fct down. And yet we do not call 
 Primes by the name ofPajlors. Nor do I think that at 
 Gtnev* Keis call'd a P*ftor who is the chief Magiftr&te* 
 The PafUrs ther fore in the Prophets reach not home, • 
 to this . Tell me, who of the Antients ever fpakc fo 5 
 otherwife we are befide the cufliion. 
 
 Laftly, that fecm'dto me a wondrous {trange op- 
 pofition. Indeed it k not by the Antients^ but -me 
 Ftencbmen $e*k fi. For, muft the Antients (peak as 
 
 the 
 
6i % Andre wss OfGpifcopacy, IIKEpifh 
 
 TS F yr ft h 0r the Frenrh as thc ^tkntChr^iAfis^ 
 And you .run upon the fame rock again, afterward.; 
 ' 1$fi£$?.eslytcrs nbo labour m the lVorA whom *ye French-- 
 &en t call Minifcers. For it's ftrange , how it became 
 lawful! for Frenchmen , to put upon a Presbyter that 
 nx\nt^ which never any among the Ant tents ufed ., but 
 fbr'a'D^tf. I fpeak not this otherwife, but that 
 even among its too, that bad fafhion is taken up, of 
 calling them Mtnifters , and Paftors too. But /A^ 
 ?>w^j w^r brought in by them , who beft relifh any 
 upfhtrt fafhion \ but againft their mind who reve- 
 rence Antiquity^ and, as they may, difclaim thefe 
 ufages. For we fuffer , as I faid, many things, 
 which wc teach not 5 and bear with that which 
 we cannot take away. But he, that but bears with 
 i ' thing £ loves it not , though he, loves to bear- 
 with it. 
 
 And now you have an Anfwer to your Letters, fo 
 far as my occafions give me leave. For I have not- 
 tlie happinefs of much leafure.. But although I read 
 tfone of yours unwillingly , yet I- read no pafsage 
 more willingly, then that la ft , wherin you pro* 
 fefs , He iv 'dejiroM yvi are of fence , ..hovp glad y 01^ 
 fipvld be th.it all the Reformed Churches, who are 
 united by one Faith, were united by one and the fime, 
 fond of Ecclefiaftical Government. Which is like- 
 wife my'earneft and hearty prayer : and I daily 
 begg it humbly of God h that they may be" united 
 in xh$fame Form of Church Pokey ^ by the bond ef Ec- 
 ' eleftaftied Government \ hut t^xt fame which derives its 
 fe degree from the very infancy of the Church ^ from 
 which , the. Reverend Antiquity of the Firft Agesy vchuh 
 vchofoever otpofeth\ oftofeth himfelf to all Antiquity \ 
 rtbtch'Samt James the Apoftie began m the Church. 
 
 fc*«M 2.17 JJi*t <* < ^ 
 
B.Andrews's O/Epifcopacy. III.EpifL 6\ 
 
 of Hierufalem , from whom the fuccefion of Bi (hops in a 
 long courfe defended 3 which condemned Aerius , for 
 daring to oppofe bimfelf againH the Confent and Praciife 
 of the Catholik Church 3 which all Churches every % 
 where received. 
 
 I come at laft to give you thanks. For, theBoqJc, 
 you promis'd me , fhortly after I had fent you my 
 former Letters , was deliver d tome. I do heerboth 
 acknowledg and thank you, that you were pleafed 
 to inlarg and inrich my Ljbrary with your Two 
 Books. And Iintreat you, begg of God for me 5 
 that tjhe remainder of my life , which is to come , 
 ~*my be, rather good, then long. For as a Play fo 
 qur Life , it skills not how long, but how g*od 
 how well sifted. In like maner , I, wifhing all hap * 
 pinefs to you, (and in that I put this, That the 
 Reverend ^Antiquity of the Firft Ages may be in higher 
 ell e em with you ^ then the upftart novetl device of any 
 whofoever , ) do freely promife you my help and 
 afsiftance in any thing , that may , heer , concern 
 your intereft. You will pardon me , .if I have 
 fpoke fomwhat more freely 5 afluring yourfelf, 
 that , though I am of a quite different judgment in 
 fome points, yet my charity ^ and brotherly Affettio* 
 toward you,isnotchangd awhit} nor (by thagrace 
 of God) (hall ever be. 
 
 FIN! S. 
 
• 
 
 S. Ignatius inEpiftolaad Magnefianoi. 
 
 (aUo. To jS> to/»td Ttf^jcvc^oor, ^ ©gs'e^^'r 
 
 As ou$ ZW doth nothing without his Father $ 
 fo neither fto ye without the Bijbop ; neither Pr^ 
 byter^ Tie aeon ^ nor Layman. Let nothing feem rea- 
 fonable to you 3 againftte liking : For whatfocver 
 is fo 5 is againft the Law ^ and ofienfive to God. 
 
 
 jfl ■ * 
 
n 
 
 ■..■'■,■■;■:• MIS