writings we keep by us whose acts and zeal we remember as no way inferior to the zeal of the most eminent Servants of God whom either France or Germany brought forth Whosoever shall deny this must needs be either senslesly wicked or as envying Gods glory or foolishly besotted not see at high noon I desire therfore this suspition may be wipid off from me specially when I take notice that even Calvin and Beza whom they usually pretend to as abettors of their peevishness wrote many Letters to the Prelates of England and intreated them as the faithfull servants of God as men that deserved well of the Church Nor am I such a boldface as to pass sentence upon those Lights of the Antient Church Ignatius Polycarp Cyprian Augustine Chrysostom Basil the Two Gregories Nissen and Nazianzen all of them Bishops as upon men wrongfully made or usurpers of an unlawfull office The reverend Antiquity of those First Ages shall ever be in greater esteem with me then the novel device of any whosoever I come to the Second part of your censure I said that there is but One Order of Bishop and Presbyter You contrary-wise are of opinion that the Order of Bishops is another and diverse from that of Presbyters and to that purpose bring many testimonies from the Fathers who speak of the Ordination of Bishops neither do I oppose for the Antient's speak so indeed And although the Roman Pontifical absteins from that word yet the Antient Bishops of Rome did use it Leo then in his 87. Epistle which is to the Bishops of the Province of Vienna commandeth I that a Bishop who is not rightly ordained he displaced and in the same Epistle he often useth the same word Now between an Order and a Degree you make this difference that a Degree denotes only a Superiority but an Order is a power to a special Act That therfore every Order is a Degree but not every Degree an Order Very well For though many do not observe this difference of words yet it is best to use proper terms that things which differ in substance be distinguished in names too But these do not prejudice me at all For you should have considered with your self whom I have to deal with I dispute against the Pontificians who make Seven Orders Door keepers Readers Exorcists Acolyths Subdeacons Deacons Presbyters but the Order or character of Bishops they will by no means have to be diverse from that of Presbyters Could I disputing with them use other words then such as are receiv'd by them Could I deal with them about the Order of Bishops which they acknowledg not Should I have inveigh'd against them for not making the Order of Bishops distinct from that of Presbyters when our own Churches make it not He that should do this should not so much contest with the Church of Rome as with our own Then to what purpose is it to insist so much upon the distinction of Words since every Order is by S. Paul call'd a Degree Nor can a Bishop be depriv'd of his Orders but he must be degraded and fall from his Degree I pray weigh my words well Every Bishop is a Presbyter and a Priest of the Body of Christ and of these the Church of Rome makes but one Order It plainly appears that I do not in these words affirm what ought to be beleeved but what is the sense of the Church of Rome But heer somewhat falls in which may beget a doubt It is confess'd by all that every Bishop is a Presbyter but a Presbyter is not a Deacon Hence it comes to pass that there is another manner of difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter then betwixt a Presbyter and a Deacon Since therfore a Presbyter differs in Order from a Deacon it seems to follow that a Bishop differs not in Order from a Presbyter Nor is it without some doubt that you say that Order is a power to a special Act. For a power to a special Act is given to many without Order as to them who are extraordinarily delegated to the performance of some special actions Then you deny that Archbishops are another Order from Bishops And yet an Archbishop hath a power to some special actions as namely to call a Synod and to do other offices which are not lawfull for Bishops and which are not permitted to Archbishops themselves under the Papacy but when they have received the Archiopiscopal Pall from the Pope You out of your great wisdom will consider whether it be apparent by these that the power to a special Action may be conferr'd even by a Degree without a Diversity of Order The Third point is still behind to wit that I said that Episcopacy is by the most Antient Ecclesiastical but yet not by Divine Right You on the other side resolve and mantein that it is by Divine Right and to that purpose produce many examples of Bishops S. Mark Timothy Titus Clemens Polycarp S. Iames Bishop of Hierusalem all who received the Order of Episcopacy from the Apostles themselves And you quote a great number of Fathers who affirm as much Learnedly all and according to the truth of the Primitive Historys But what then Why say you if Bishops were constituted by the Apostles plain it is that the Order of Episcopacy is by Apostolical and so consequently by Divine Right This indeed is to make your self master of the whole strength of the cause But that Axiom of yours All things that are of Apostolical Right are likewise of Divine seemes to me by your good leave to be liable to some exceptions Many things were ordered about Ecclesiastical Policy which even the Church of England acknowledgeth not to be of Divine Right by not observing the same S. Paul in 1. Timoth. v. would have Deaconesses appointed in the Church But this fashion was long ago out of date The same S. Paul 1. Corinth XIV would that at the same Hour in the same Assembly Three or Four should prophecy i. e. as S. Ambrose understands it Interpret the Word of God and that the others should judg of what was spoken which custome is long since ceased The Apostles command touching abstinence from things strangled and blood was for many Ages observed by the Antient Church witness the Apologetie of Tertullian chap. IX the Council of Gangra Canon II. and the Trullan Canon LXVII and there is frequent mention of the same point in the Councils of Worms and Orleance yet S. Augustine in his XXXII Book against Faustus chap. XIII saith that Observing hereof was generally neglected by the Christians and that they who were posses'd with that scruple were laugh'd at by others You have not the Apostles alone but even that precept of Christ himself Touching shaking off the dust of the feet against the refusers of the Gospel If any should now go about to lay the foundation of Christian Religion among the Tartars or Sinenses were he bound to observe that Rite against
Of Episcopacy THREE EPISTLES OF PETER MOULIN Doctor and Professor of Divinity Answered By the Right Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrews Late Lord Bishop of Winchester Translated for the benefit of the Publike S. Clemens in Epist. ad Corinth 1. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Our Apostles understood by our Lord Iesus Christ that there would be contention about the name of Episcopacy Printed in the Yeer 1647. To the most Reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Winchester Peter Moulin wisheth all health and happiness THat Honorable man your Predecessor was taken hence not without great damage both to the Church and Common-wealth The King lost a most wise Counseller and the Church a faithfull Pastor but I a Patron and a friend who though he was most carefull and desirous of my good yet oblig'd me more by his Virtues then his benefits I have his Letters by me which he wrote to me when he was sick and his recovery was almost desperate the very sight wherof doth exceedingly afflict me But yet my grief was not a little eas'd when I heard that you succeeded in his room whose learning I long since admir'd and of whose good affection I had great experience when I was with you Indeed his most judicious Majestie did not stick long upon his choice You were even then design'd his Successor in the judgment of all who knew the wisdome of the King May it I beseech God prove happy and fortunate to your self to the Church and Kingdom May He grant you with increase of Honor increase of Virtue and a fresh and lively old age That his most Gracious Majestie may long enjoy you for his Counseller and the Church daily reap more and more fruits of your industry and vigilance I wrote a Book touching the Calling of Pastors wherin some passages greiv'd the soul of your most wise King as if they were averse to the Office of Episcopacy But indeed on the other side our Countrymen complain not a little that I vndertook the cause of Bishops and condemnd Aerius who in a matter anciently and universally receivd durst oppose himself against the Practise of the Catholik Church And they take it in ill part that I said that it was generally receivd in the Church even from the first successors of the Apostles that among the Presbyters of a City some one should have the preeminence and be call'd the Bishop But though there be many things in my Book which the King set a dash of his dislike upon which as all things els he observed wisely and with an incredible sharpness of wit yet Three things there are which specially offend Him The First is that I said that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are promiscuously taken in the New Testament for one and the same The Second that I affirm'd that there is but one and the same Order of Presbyter and Bishop The Third and that the greatest is that I think the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Priority or Superiority of Bishops not to be of Divine Right nor a point of Faith but to be a thing wherein the Primitive Church vsed her liberty and prudence when she judged the Preeminence of One to be fitter for the mantaining of Order and conserving of Peace and that Vnity may well be kept whole and intire between Churches though they differ upon that point I confess these things were wrote by me which lest they be drawn to a wrong sense or be taken in the worser part take I pray breifly my meaning in them I said indeed that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter were taken for all one in the New Testament But I thought not that the Dignity of the Bishop was less'ned thereby since I spake only of the Name not of the Office only and I have beside clear places of Scripture the consent not only of Hierom the Presbyter but also of the most famous Bishops of the Ancient Church Chrysostom Ambrose Theodoret who took it not as a wrong to them or that any thing was abated of their honor if it were beleeved that the Names of Bishop and Presbyter were at first used in the same sense That the Order indeed of Bishop and Presbyter was one and the same that I said For so did the Ancient Church ever think and the Church of Rome thinks so to this day although there be in that Church an incredible difference betwixt the pomp of the Bishops and the meaness of the Priests Thence it is that in the Roman Pontifical there is set down the Consecration of Bishops but not the Ordination of them Indeed Order is one thing a Degree another for men of one and the same Order may differ in Degree and Dignity even as among Bishops the Degree of Archbishops is the more eminent Howbeit that this Episcopal Degree and Prerogative is by Ecclesiastical not by Divine Right I confess it was said by me For beside that to speak otherwise then I thought had not been the part of an vpright honest man you according to your wonted goodness will easily judg that a French man living vnder the Polity of the French Church could not speak otherwise but he must incur the censure of our Synods and vnder the danger {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of degrading be forced to a recantation For to think that our Churches do err in points of Faith and in that which is of Divine Right were questionles to brand them with the note of Heresy and to shake the conscience of many weak ones Truly I came very vnwillingly to the writing of this Book but our Church requiring it and lately enforcing me for to stop the insolency of our Adversaries who in this point insult over vs out of all temper and speak of vs as of so many doltish mushrums newly sprung out of the earth and as of a company of base fellows who by force and tumult had got the Pulpit But howsoever I think I have kept such a temper that in defending our own I have not struck at your government nor by immoderate affection to a part have inclined more then was meet to either side Nor did I ever mention the Bishops of England with out due honor These things I thought fit to write to you Great Sir by whom I chiefly desire my papers may be approved I had sent my Book to you before now but that I was told by divers you vnderstood not French Now I send it because since you enjoy a more frequent and neerer presence of His Majestie I doubt not but He may have some speech with you about it and use you as an umpire in the cause And I shal most willingly stand to your iudgment well knowing that the most learned are ever the most can did and hoping that you wil not lauce too deep whatever may be salved with a fair interpretation So think of me as of a man with whom the Authority of Antiquity shal be
Two Orders and those distinct And this likewise we know that every where among the Fathers Bishops and Presbyters are taken to be after their example That Bishops succeeded the Apostles and Presbyters the Seventy two That these Two Orders were by our Lord appointed in those two Cyprian k Deacons must remember that our Lord chose the Apostles that is Bishops and Prelates But the Apostles after the Ascension of our Lord appointed Deacons for themselves as Ministers of their Episcopacy and of the Church Nay S. Hierom l With us Bishops hold the place of the Apostles All Bishops are successors of the Apostles And that is a famous place in him in him and S. Augustine too upon the 44. Psalm In stead of thy Fathers thou shalt have children i.e. in stead of Apostles Bishops S. Ambros in 1. Corinth 12. 28. God hath set in the Church Caput Apostolos first Apostles Now the Apostles are Bishops the Apostle S. Peter giving us assurance of it And his Bishoprick let another take And a little after Are all Apostles He saith right for in one Church but one Bishop And in Ephes. 4. The Apostles are the Bishops From hence we have a fair passage to the last point Whether this Order be by Divine Right Very glad I was to hear it from you That the Authority of Antiquity should be ever in great esteem with you I love you for that word Nor will it be the least of your praises if your deeds make your words good For my part it hath been my opinion ever I was ever of that mind But or I am deceiv'd in the whole story of Antiquity or the Apostolical men i. e. the Disciples of the Apostles or as Eusebius calls them {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} they that conversed with them both they who are not mentioned in Holy Scripture as Polycarpus and Ignatius and they who are expresly mentioned as Timothy Titus Clemens were Bishops while the Apostles were alive and were constituted and ordained by the Apostles themselves (a) Polycarp by S. John (b) Clemens by S. Peter (c) Titus and (d) Timothy by S. Paul I give you these witnesses Concerning Polycarp (e) Irenaeus (f) Tertullian (g) Eusebius (h) Hierom. Concerning Ignatius (i) Eusebius and (k) Hierom. Concerning Timothy (l) Eusebius (m) Hierom (n) Ambrose (o) Chrysostom (p) Epiphanius Concerning Titus (q) Eusebius (r) Ambrose (s) Theodoret Concerning Clement (t) Tertullian (u) Eusebius (x) Hierom. Not to speak of (y) Linus z Dionysius (a) Onesimus (b) Epaphroditus (c) Caius (d) Archippus concerning whom we have the like testimonies of the Fathers And not of these alone even S. Mark the Evangelist and that while the Apostles lived who saw it for S. Mark dyed in the (e) Eighth year of Nero full Five years before S. Peter and S. Paul were crown'd with martyrdom And not He alone S. Iames also the Apostle Witness for S. Mark (f) Hierom for S. Iames (g) Eusebius out of Clement and Hegesippus (h) Hierome (i) Chrysostom (k) Ambrose (l) Epiphanius (m) Augustine Could any then take it ill that you said That Episcopacy was received in the Church from the very next times to the Apostles you said too little you might have said more and if you had Antiquity would have born you out that it was received from the Apostles themselves and that they the Apostles themselves were constituted in the Episcopal Order There was nothing in that passage of yours that any could be offended with unless haply that in stead of was called the Bishop you should have said was the Bishop For we do not contend about the Name all the controversy is about the Thing This was done or we must give one general dash through all the Ecclesiastical Historians And when was it done After the Ascension of our Lord saith Eusebius (n) Presently upon the Passion of our Lord so S. Hierom. (o) Done by whom They were placed in the Office of Episcopacy by the Apostles (p) Tertullian By the Apostles so Epiphanius By the Ministers of our Lord so (q) Eusebius Ordeined by the Apostles so (r) S. Hierom. Constituted by the Apostles (s) so S. Ambrose Will any man then deny that S. Iames S. Mark Titus Clemens were Bishops by Apostolical Right Was any thing done by the Apostles which was not by Apostolical Right By Apostolical i. e. as I interpret it by Divine For nothing was done by the Apostles that the Holy Ghost the Divine Spirit did not dictate to them Sure if by the Apostles by the same Right which those Seven were by Acts. 6. whom I am sure you your self will grant to be by Divine Right Deacons the Holy Scripture doth no where call them that is only a word of the Church I hope what the Apostles did they did by Divine Right and that it cannot be denyed but their Deeds of which we are certain not only their Words or Writings are of Divine Right And not only those things of which S. Paul wrote to the Corinthians (t) but those other also which He set in order at His being at Corinth if they were known to us what they were were by the same right to wit by Divine all of them both these and they from the Holy Spirit all And yet though they be by Divine Right we do not say these things belong to Faith They belong to the Agenda or Practice of the Church to the Credenda or points of Faith t is but improper to refer them T is very strange therfore which you say That your Countrymen openly complain of you both that you vndertook the cause of Bishops bylike your Country-men are enemies to Bishops would not have their cause pleaded but are desirous it should be lost as also that you condemned Aerius who was antiently condemned in Asia by Epiphanius in Europe by Philastrius in Africa by S. Augustine whose name all the world over is in the Black-Book of Hereticks nor undeservedly seeing He durst oppose himself as you your self confess to the Consent and Practice of the Catholik Church You should rather complain of them who for this complain of you As for that where you would not have your papers to be ript up to the quick I know no body here that doth it Should any he would have somewhat to stick upon in the very Title take which word you will that of Pastor or that of Calling They are both novelties the word Pastor I 'm sure in this sense and Calling too and not of any Age but this last nor of all that For I pray who of the Antients ever spake so among whom you shall scarce find the word Pastor used but when they speak of Bishops which form of speech S. Peter taught them when he joined Pastor and Bishop in our Saviour
ever in great esteem and who shall think my self sufficiently arm'd against al opposite judgments if you shal not vtterly disapprove what I have writ God preserve you Great Prelate Farewell Paris Nones of Sept. 1618. Your Honors most devoted Peter Moulin The Bishops Answer I Had wrote these in the begining of March and was about to send them presently when lo the indisposition of the King in point of health made me lay them by and hindred my sending of them This sickness contracted first by grief for the death of his most dear Consort our most Gracious Queen and the neglect of all care of his body upon that greif ended at last in a diseas a diseas indeed so intricat and doubtfull that the Physitians themselves were at a stand what the event would be Wherby I forgat that I wrote and so omitted to send to you For all I had to do was to fall to my prayers with many moe who were sore perplexed as then in jeopardy for a most Gracious King But God lookd upon us and restord Him to us in Him us to our selves And now being returnd to my self I return to you what I confess I have bin too long indebted to you in so that as a bad debtor I was fain to be calld vpon by Monsieur Beaulieu in your name You will accept of this my too just excuse kindly as you are wont and promise your self from me what good offices one friend can do another Now concerning your Book You write that some passages therin greivd the Kings Soul And no wonder For his soul is tender and very sensible of any thing in that kind that bites or stings For out of His Piety to God He makes it not the least of His cares to tender the Peace and Order of His Church here And therfore in His great wisdom He presently discernd whether these Three points tended I. The name of Bishop is not distinct from that of Presbyter II. The Order is not distinct that is not the Thing it self III. And so the whole matter is not any thing of Divine Right What could they who lately made all the stirrs among us mutter more possibly Then that 1. the Name is taken confusedly that 2. the Thing is not distinct 3. Finally that it is a Human invention being setled by man may be unsetled and so stands or falls at the pleasure of the Commonwealth These Dictats are too well known to the King He hath been long usd to them They have long since on all hands been rounded in His ears He knows that there are still among us such as will from your writings presently take a new occasion perhaps not to pluck up this Order of ours that for so many ages hath taken root but surely to defame and calumniat it And this so much the rather because at one and the same time not by agreement I beleeve but yet as though vpon a compact lo one Bucer a fellow not hurt nor medled with by any in a very unseasonable time set forth a Book in Latin as it were of the same argument What King that studies the Peace not only of His own Church but which He desireth and would purchase at a dear rate even of the whole Christian world would not these things trouble Wherfore if the King set a dash of dislike upon those passages take it not ill I dare say He had rather set many asterisks of commendation then one dash of dislike specially upon what is your This surely is the Kings mind and is as it ought to be the mind and sense of vs all Wherin I appeal to your own equity You were for manteining of Your Churches Government and the repressing of your adversaries insolency should you not do it you should incurr the censure of your Synod and be forced either to recant or fear to be degraded In this We pardon you and demand the like pardon from you that it may be lawfull for us also to defend our Government as becometh upright honest men For we likewise have froward adversaries and there are consciences too among us which we may not suffer to be shaken or undermind as though they liv'd under another form of Church Government then was from the begining even from the very times of the Apostles And we are ready if need be and occasion shall serve to make this good to the whole Church How I wish therfore that you had not so much as touchd upon our Church Government For who put you upon it You might have turnd your weapons against those enemys you speak of and never have jerkt at vs There 's no such complication of ours with yours but that you might easily have pass'd by ours with silence And A faithfull silence hath its sure reward Or if you were so set upon it that you must needs be intermedling with Ours how I wish you had first imparted your mind to the King and whilst the coast was cleer had seasonably taken His advice in that you had to say of His affairs for Ours He accounts His You your self know and indeed who knows not since He hath wrote so much so admirably that as He is most able in respect of his other endowments of Wit and Learning so also in respect of his acuteness and solidity of judgment he is equal to the best or rather goes before them No man living hath in our Churches affairs a clearer insight a readier dispatch then he He himself in any point but specially in what concerns his own Church could have answerd you best and have set you the bounds so far to go but not beyond Wherfore if hereafter you shall go about any thing in the like kind pray remember this my advice which proceeds from a very good will to you I knowing that the King is well affected to you that he hath deserved well of you nor will you deny it and I hope will for the future deserve better Concerning those Three points if you demand as you do what I think I shall give you here this ingenuous answer That the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are taken promiscuously in Holy Scriptures that at first there was not so great force in the Words I shal easily grant you Nor did his Majestie regard so much what you said as to what purpose as what others would catch from thence who both in other parts here among us too are not rightly affected to this our order that these things were spoke to this purpose as if the Names being promiscuous the Things themselves were so also For to what end is it of what concernment to speak of Words taken confusedly when the Things are distinct No man lightly carps at the Name but he that wisheth not very well to the Thing also 1. And yet nothing here hath befallen Bishops which hath not befallen those other Orders also For in those very places in those very Authors whom you name it is said in like manner
also of Deacons a Even a Bishop is called a Deacon wherupon S. Paul writing to Timothy said to him though a Bishop Fullfill thy Deaconry From thence you may gather that the Names of Bishop and Deacon are taken for the same Nay the very Apostles themselves call themselves sometimes Presbyters sometimes Deacons and so their whole Office a Deaconry and yet is not Deacon or Presbyter the same that Apostle Why therfore did you not add that too that it might appear that the other suffered as much as Bishops and that in the begining not only the names of Bishops but of other Orders also were taken in like manner promiscuously wheras the Things the Offices themselves were distinct 2. Wheras then in those very places where the Fathers speak so That then they communicated in Names they presently apply a remedy and give this item that the Things themselves are otherwise And instantly add Afterward the proper name was given to each of Bishop to a Bishop of Presbyter to a Presbyter By the rule of speech then who would urge the common name when the proper had taken place For no body would now call a King a Tyrant or a Souldier Latronem as of old they were wont a Robber neither sure would they call a Presbyter a Bishop as when S. Hierom wrote had he called himself Bishop and S. Augustine Presbyter you know he would have been laughed at for his pains 3. Add further that in those very places wherin the Fathers speak so before they speak they are forced {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to object by way of exception concerning the use of names and to premise some what that should put the thing out of question S. Chrysostom What meaneth this were there then more Bishops of one the same city by no means No not then when S. Paul wrote Theodoret It could not be that many Bishops should be Pastors of one City S. Hierom There could not be many Bishops in one City S. Ambrose God appointed several Bishops over several Citys So that they do cleerly shew the Offices were then distinct when they make the inference touching the name I collect then how ere it was for the names at first Be it they then neglected the Propriety of speech yet that even then there was but one Bishop but one Pastor in one City And this holdeth among us even at this day but doth it so among you Thus if you had prefacd touching the Thing it self and had afterward inferr'd touching the names though to what end is it to make any stir about the name when we are agreed on the thing that they were a little while taken one for another and had not spoken so loosly concerning the promiscuous use of the names his Majestie would not I beleeve have set his dash of dislike upon that passage The next is touching the Order Where I pray consider whether they be to be called One and the same Order whose Offices are not one and the same But that they are not the same Offices even they who less favour the Episcopal Order do confess in that they ever except Ordination Again whether they be to be called One and the same Order wherin there is not One and the same but a new and distinct Imposition of hands For that in all Antiquity there was Imposition of hands upon Bishops no man I think will deny And whether the Antient Church were of this opinion let Isidore be the witness who b in plain words calls it the Order of Bishoprick To the Schole indeed if you referr it they do not agree among themselves Your Altisiodorensis our Major and others are for the distinction of the Order But they who are most against it though they will not grant it a Sacrament of Orders the whole force wherof they bound within the Eucharist yet an Order they grant since an Order is nothing else but a Power to a special Act as namely to Ordain which is competible to Bishops only For what a thing were this if that from whence Ordination and so all other Orders proceed should it self not be an Order For we pass not for the Church of Rome or the Pontifical If they please themselves with the name of Consecration let them enjoy it Even the Church of Rome it self did anciently speak otherwise For instance The Church of Rome saith Tertullian c gives out that Clement was ordained by S. Peter Otherwise also the Fathers even they whom you allege even S. Hierom d who affirms that S. Iames the brother of our Lord was presently after the Passion of our Saviour ordained Bishop And of Timothy e Timothy had the gift of Prophecy together with his Ordination to Episcopacy S. Ambrose f For unlawfull it was and might not be that the Inferior should ordain the superior to wit a Presbyter a Bishop S. Chrysostom g For Presbyters could not have ordained the Bishop For the Latin word Ordination is agreable to the Greek {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and is often rendred by it nor is any word more frequent where mention is of making Bishops then that of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Theodoret h Titus was ordained by S. Paul Bishop of Creet But you say an Order is one thing a Degree another Yet you know that in Holy Scriptures these words are taken one for another no less then those of Bishop and Presbyter where the Deaconry is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a Degree i which notwithstanding you will not I know deny to be an Order You know also that it is so among the Fathers among whom you may often read that a Deacon or Presbyter may {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} fall from his Degree and be degraded no less then a Bishop Indeed every Order is a Degree but not every Degree an Order But both are in Episcopacy though in one respect an Order in another a Degree A Degree as it hath a superiority even without any power an Order as it hath a power to a special act For were it a Degree only it had been enough to have used the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the superlative which denotes a Degree superior to that of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Presbyter the Comparative neither would there have been need to fetch in a new word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a Bishop meerly to design a Degree For as touching Archbishops t is quite another reason They are not indued with a power to any special act For even they if they were not Bishops before receive their Ordination from Bishops And as they are Archbishops they are not necessary to the Ordination of Bishops for by the Fourth Canon of the Council of Nice Three Bishops together have power to ordain a Bishop But we very well know that the Apostles and the Seventy two Disciples were