Eusebius Andrews' " triumph" over him, when his answer, which is now in course of publication in numbers, has been fully completed. We are glad to find that Mr. Butler allows that a few Catholics were led astray by the illaudable bulls of Pope Pius V. (p. 264.); and what is this but giving up the point at issue? In letter 16, the truth of the Gunpowder Plot is admitted, though it is hinted, that his researches respecting it, by an examination of the documents in the Paper Office, have been favourable to the Roman Catholic cause. But so long as "The State Trials" are in existence, we think the point admits of but one opinion. Whoever wishes to investigate the subject, should consult Archdeacon Churton's Discourses, or Dr. Falconer's Appendix to his Bampton Lectures. In letters 17 and 18, the reigns of Charles the 1st and 2nd are briefly considered with regard to the Papists. In the former, we believe that every alleviation was shown them, which the unfortunate Monarch could shew; indeed, we all know that it was one of the chief accusations against him. As to the forgeries of Oates, they are universally admitted; but it is impossible to deny, that, from the private opinions of Charles II. there was no little danger of seeing the restoration of popery in this kingdom. Having thus laid before our readers as full a summary of Mr. Butler's publication as the limits of our Review will admit, we shall close this article with a general observation on the present state of religious parties in Great Britain and Ireland; from which it will appear, we think, that the real power and the influence of popery is greater amongst us, at this moment, than it has been at any period since the Reformation. Supposing, then, the whole population of Great Britain and Ireland to be divided into three parts, we should say, (on a rough estimate) that one belonged to members of the Established Church, another to Protestant Dissenters, and another to the Roman Catholics. To all purposes of our argument, we conceive that this calculation will be found sufficiently accurate, because it is our object to shew, that the actual number of Roman Catholics in Great Britain and Ireland (taken together) is nearly the same as that of the members of the Established Church, when distinguished from Protestant Dissenters. But in any dispute which relates to removing civil or ecclesiastical disabilities from the Papists, it is plain, that we cannot reckon with much confidence on the cordial assistance of Dissenters from our Establishment, because they may be supposed to have the same interests at stake-and this it is which constitutes the real power and influence of the Catholic question. When the case is viewed in this manner, we are confident that O VOL. VII. NO. II. no man can look forward, without some feelings of apprehension, to the future safety of our Church, so far, at least, as to render him very cautious and attentive to all proceedings on this subject. And what still further adds to our difficulties is this-that the situation of religious parties in Great Britain and Ireland is so extremely different. Here the difficulties arise almost entirely from Dissenters, but there from Roman Catholics. Hence results the arduous task of trimming the vessel equally between Scylla and Charybdis—a task, which demands all the care and vigilance of our Governors in Church and State, and which no real friend to the Church will affect to despise or underrate. : Under these circumstances, we earnestly recommend to all our readers to combine the spirit of Protestantism with their professions as Churchmen-ever to maintain the love of liberty, apart from licentiousness-to grasp the Bible with one hand, and their Prayer-Book with the other-and thus to present an unconquerable defence to the superstitions of Romanists, and to the disorders of schismatics. Só will our Church thus turn to her favour and advantage the testimonies of her conflicting adversaries. So will the wisdom and moderation of our Reformers be attested at once by ancient tyranny, and by modern licentiousness. The dangers are great and numerous, but they, in some measure, help to neutralize each other-there is a Providential balance in our favour-and we think that we can discern, even now, a "light springing up in our darkness"-and that ere long our superiority shall become clearly apparent, "even as the noon-day." MISCELLANEOUS. * CORRESPONDENCE OF BISHOP ANDREWES AND DU MOULIN † ON EPISCOPACY. To the Right Reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, Peter Du Moulin sends greeting. The death of your illustrious predecessor has been a severe affliction This curious and interesting correspondence is translated from the original letters in Latin, published in a work entitled, "Reverendi in Christo Patris, Lanceloti, Episcopi Wintoniensis, Opuscula quædam Posthuma."-London, 1629. p. 159-200. A translation of it appeared about the commencement of the troubles in the reign of Charles I. To the best of our recollection it was anonymous, for we happen not to have it at hand to refer to it. + Du Moulin was born at the Castle of Buy, in Vexin, in 1568, being descended from the ancient and noble family of Brie, said to be related on the female side to Queen Elizabeth. He is characterized by Bayle, "as the most famous Minister that the Protestants of France ever had." He finished his education at Christ's College, Cambridge; afterwards became Professor at Leyden, where Grotius was his pupil. He was invited to England in 1615, by King James, who gave him, at his return to France, a Prebend of Canterbury. James Montague was Bishop Andrewes's immediate Predecessor in the See of Win to your Church and country. Your gracious Sovereign has lost in him a prudent counsellor, and the Church a faithful pastor. I also have to lament a patron and friend, who, though always attentive to what interested me, had won my regard, not so much by immediate proofs of kindness, as by his own high character. I have a letter from him, written when his bodily strength was giving way, and his constitution was impaired beyond recovery: it is a memorial of him which awakens the deepest regret. It has been, however, a source of much consolation to me to hear that you were appointed to succeed him; for I had long admired your learning, and had personally experienced your friendly disposition. Your Sovereign shewed his accustomed discernment in not hesitating to make his choice. You were immediately looked to as the successor by all who knew the soundness of his judgment. And may this event be a blessing to yourself, to the Church, and to your country. God give you virtue increasing with your honours, and freshen and invigorate your old age; so that your gracious King may long enjoy your counsel, and the Church may derive every day greater benefit from your industry and vigilance. In the work which I have written on the Vocation of Pastors *, certain passages, have given offence to your King, who is so eminent for his wisdom, on account of their apparent hostility to the Episcopal Office. On the other side, however, my own countrymen complain without reserve, that I have been pleading the cause of Episcopacy, and that I have condemned Aërius † for daring to oppose the universal Church on a point received from ancient times, and in all places. And they are displeased with me for asserting, that it has been customary throughout the Church, from the time of those who succeeded the Apostles, for one of the Presbyters in each city to have the preeminence, and be called Bishop. There are many passages to which the King affixed his mark of disapprobation with his usual wisdom and discernment: but three points principally offended him. The first-that I have represented the names, Bishop and Presbyter, as used in the New Testament indiscriminately. The second-that I have asserted the order of Presbyter to be one and the same with that of Bishop. The third and most important point-my opinion, that the Episcopal pre-eminence (poorasiav) is not derived from divine right, is not an article of faith, but only a matter in which the ancient Church freely used its discretion; determining the pre-eminence of one to be the best provision for maintaining chester, but held it only a year and three quarters. Du Moulin must allude to Bilson, who was Bishop of Winchester when he was in England. Andrewes's translation to that see was in 1618. "Incontinent apres les Apostres ou mesme de leur temps (comme l'histoire Ecclesiastique temoigne) la coutume a esté introduite, qu'en une ville un des pasteurs se nommeroit Evesque et auroit pre-eminence sur ses compagnons: afin d'eviter les confusions qui naissent souvent de l'egalité: lequel ordre a esté generalement suivy: les Eglises ayant creu qu'en la disposition de la police Ecclesiastique elles avoyent de la liberté."-Vocation des Pasteurs, 1. 4. +"Dicebat (Aerius) Presbyterum ab Episcopo nullâ differentiâ debere discerni."Augustin de Hær. ad Quodv. Hær. 53. Bishop Hall, Episcopacy by Div. Right, part 2. § 9.-Epiph. Hær. 75. order and peace; breach of unity.. matter in which churches may differ without any All this I acknowledge that I have written: but that my words may not be perverted, or unfavourably construed, I will briefly explain to you my meaning. I said, indeed, that the words, Bishop and Presbyter, are used in the New Testament for the same thing; but did not suppose that this assertion detracted from the episcopal dignity, since I spoke of the name alone, not of the office, and am supported in the assertion, not only by many plain passages of Scripture, not only by the Presbyter Jerome, but also by the most celebrated Bishops of the ancient Church-Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret—who did not think themselves wronged, or their dignity at all impaired, if it were believed that the words Bishop and Presbyter were primitively used in the same sense. I said, also, that the order of Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same; for this was always the opinion of the ancient Church, and is still held by the Church of Rome, although the difference is prodigious between the pomp of her Bishops and the meanness of her Priests. It is from this opinion that we find the Roman Pontifical providing for the consecration and not for the ordination of a Bishop. For order and degree are two different things; men, forsooth, of the same order may differ in degree and dignity, as among Bishops the Archbishop holds an higher degree. I confess, again, that I asserted the episcopal degree and prerogative to be of ecclesiastical, but not of divine right. But, beside that to speak otherwise than I thought would not have been the part of a wise or honest man, a person of your considerate judgment will easily perceive, that a Frenchman, living under our Church Polity, could not have spoken differently without incurring the censure of our Synods, and without being compelled to recant, under pain of expulsion from the ministry. For to deliver as my opinion that our Churches are in error, both in articles of faith and in a matter of divine right, would be to brand them with the mark of heresy, and would unsettle the conscience of many weak brethren. For my part, I undertook the work in question unwillingly, induced to do so by the earnest and continued entreaties of our Church, in order to repress the insolence of our adversaries, who, in this matter, insult us extravagantly, and speak of us as mushrooms but just born from the earth, or as obscure ruffians who have invaded the pulpit by violence and tumult. I think, however, that I have so tempered my expressions as to defend our interests without overthrowing your's; and without betraying an excess of party zeal by a spirit of contradiction. Nor have I any where made other than honourable mention of the English Bishops. I have thought it necessary to say, thus much to you, most excellent Dignitary, whose approbation I especially desire for my writings. I should also have sent you my book long since, if I had not heard from several persons that you do not concern yourself with French literature. I now send it, because I doubt not that, as you will henceforth enjoy more frequent intercourse with your Sovereign, he will take occasion to converse with you on this subject, and require your opinion. For my part, I shall willingly submit to your judgment, knowing that the most learned are wont to be the most candid, and hoping that you will not cut away to the quick, any thing which may be softened down by a favourable interpretation. And I pray you to consider me as one with whom the authority of antiquity will always have great influence, and who will feel himself sufficiently protected against censure if he meets with but a small share of your approbation. May God preserve you, most honourable Prelate. Farewell. Paris, 5th September, 1618. Your Lordship's devoted servant, THE BISHOP'S ANSWER. I had completed this letter in the beginning of March, and was on the point of sending it, when unhappily the ill health of the King obliged me to lay it aside, and wholly disarranged my correspondence. This illness originated in his grief at the death of our gracious Queen, his beloved consort: and, from his neglect of himself through the anguish of his mind, it ended in a disorder so aggravated as to leave the Physicians themselves in great doubt concerning its event. Hence all writing was forgotten, and the sending of my letter was omitted. I had to resort to prayer, with the rest of my countrymen, in utter consternation, as men in danger of being deprived of their excellent monarch. But God regarded us, and restored him to us, and in him restored us to ourselves. Being then once more myself, I render to you what I confess has been too long owing: so long that Beaulieu might justly have demanded payment of this debt from me in your name, as from a person of doubtful credit. You will, however, I trust, receive this excuse of mine, which is painfully just, in your accustomed friendly manner, and will continue to expect from me all the attentions of a friend. To come to the subject of your book. You say that some passages in it were offensive to the King. This is not to be wondered at. He has a sensitive mind; which is alive to any such matter of offence. For such is his piety towards God, that the peace and order of the Church, of which he is guardian, are not treated as matters unworthy of his attention: and such his discernment, that he instantly perceived the tendency of your three positions. 1. The name of Bishop is not distinct from that of Presbyter:-2. the order of Bishop is not distinct (nor the thing itself therefore):-3. the whole question is not one of divine right. For, what are these three positions, but the objections thrown out by men who have lately agitated ourselves? What had they to say, but that the terms are used indiscriminately,—that even the thing is not distinguished,—and lastly, that the invention is human? that is, being instituted by men, it may be abolished also by men, and thus Episcopacy stands or falls at the option of the Civil Power. The King is but too well |