A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 1 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. … Ambros… in 1. Tim. 5.…. doth not giuegive testimonie to the Lay-… that their exposition of Ambrose is vntrue.
The testimonie of Ambrose discussedS…rm. Sect. 6. pag. 13. I come now to Ambrose writing on the first verse of the same chapter, 1. Tim. 5. where the Apostle exhorting Timothie not to rebuke an Elder or aged man, Ambrose giueth this reason. For among all nations old age is honourable, and then addeth: vnde & synagoga & postea ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine cōsilio nihil agebatur in ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia obsoleuerit nescio, nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia, dum soli volunt aliquid videri. Whence it is that both the Synagogue and afterwards the Church had Seniors, Without whose counsell nothing was done in the Church. Which by what negligence it is growne out of vse, I knowe not, vnlesse perhaps by the slouthfulnes of the learned or Teachers, or rather pride, whiles they alone will seeme to be something. Which words whosoeuer vnderstand, as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders, they wrong Ambrose, &c. 10. lines further.
IN this allegation the disciplinarians hauehave great confidēce: For this testimonie of Ambrose saith T.C. is so cleare and open, Li. 2. part. … Pag. 44.that he which doth not giuegive place vntounto it, must needs be thought as a Bat, or an Owle, or some other night-bird to delight in darkenesse. And it is a world to see how the refuter thinking that his cause wilbe aduantaged by this testimonie of Ambrose, taketh on like a beggar on horsebacke, or a coward when he hath gotten his aduersarie at a supposed aduantage. See you not how he braggeth and vanteth, how he crakes and crowes, and all for want as of a good spirit, so of a sound iudgement, presuming of aduantage, where he hath none, as the euent will proue.
Concerning this testimonie of Ambrose, he findeth fault as well with my maner of alleaging, as of discussing it. At the allegation he hath three cauills. First he repeateth his friuolous cauillation concerning the consequence of an argument which he bestoweth vponupon me: that, if in this place of Ambrose there be no mention of Lay-Elders, then there is none to be found in the fathers writings.Chap. 3. § 9 & 10. Which cauill I hauehave so clearely refuted before, that I thinke I shall neuer heare of it more.
The second,Ad pag. 33▪ that I alleage this place not out of Ambrose himselfe (which is a base slander, for I had Ambrose lying before me) but out of D. Bils. because forsooth I cited the first words (which are not so pertinent, shewing the slender occasion whereupon Ambrose vttered this sentence) in english, as D. B. doth: And yet his blind malice would not let him see that I cited the latter sentence in latine, out of the Authour, which D. B. alleageth in English. Quod qua negligentia obsolouerit, &c. Which words if I had cited as a chiefe man of your side doth, you would hauehave charged me, either to hauehave alleaged a place which I had neuer seene, or else notoriously depriued it.T▪ …. 1. pag. 183. Ambrose speaking of this office of the …lders (although, saith he, not vponupon so good occasion,) thus … saith, whereupon the Synagogue, and after the Church had Elders without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church. Which Elders I know not by what negligence they are worne out, &c: and againe,Ioh. 2. …. 2. pag. 44. his saying is that the Elders fell away by the ambition of the doctors. Which allegation the rest, which were but gleaners after him, taking vponupon his word, hauehave vrged, as if the Seniors themselues, of whom Ambrose speaketh, were ceassed before his time, inferring thereupon that he meaneth Lay-Elders, because the learned Presbyters still remained in the Church. When Ambrose doth not say, that the Seniors themselues were growne out of vse, (for he doth not say, qui qua negligentia ob…oleuerint) but that (themselues remayning) their counsell was neglected. If it be demanded; why then doth he say habuit ecclesia, the Church had; I answere because the verbe was to hauehave reference both to the Church which had beene before his time, and also to the Synagouge, not because the Church had not Seniors still. For Ierome, Augustine, and Gregorie are alleaged by the disciplinarians themselues, that there were Seniors in the Church long after Ambrose his time.
§ Sect. 2. Concerning the ma…ation of the … Do…rum.Thirdly, he cauilleth at the translation of the word docterum, which I rendred learned or Teachers. For which reading, if he had a sound iudgement, he would rather hauehave giuen me thankes. In that translation, as also in the exposition, I intended to giuegive them satisfaction, who (as I thought) were not satisfied with the iudgement of our learned men, who by the word doctorum vnderstand Bishops onelyonly. For indeed if it be read Doctors or teachers (a title in these times appropriated to Bishops) the allegation out of Ambrose is as easily answered, as alledged, Ambrose his meaning being plainely this; that whereas the Bishops in former times were wont to doe nothing of importance without the counsell and aduise of certaine ancient Ministers, who were his assistants; this was now growne out of vse, either through the negligence, or pride of the Bishops. But because I thought it might be obiected, that the word may signifie the learned as well as Teachers; and so an opposition might be conceiued as well of the learned to the vnlearned Seniors, as of the Doctors that is Bishops to the Presbyters (who though they were learned were not called Doctors, neither did vsually preach) I therefore endeuoured so to expound it, as that they, who should so vnderstand this place, might be satisfied, shewing that although the word doctorum should signifie learned, and although they would gather from thence, that the Seniors which were excluded from consultation were vnlearned. And consequently lay men: yet notwithstanding that the speech of Ambrose needeth not to be vnderstood of Lay-Elders. But seeing my aduersarie, in the profundnesse of his iudgement, reiecteth that reading as vnlearned and without example, (of which notwithstanding doctorum esto iudicium let the learned iudge) I wil cleaue to that interpretation, which by Doctorum vnderstandeth Doctors or Teachers, as the best, and keepe the other in store as a secondary exposition to satisfie them, who by doctorum shall vnderstand the Learned, and thereof inferre seeing the learned are blamed for excluding the Seniors, that therefore the Seniors who were excluded, were vnlearned. And although my antagonist fighting Andabatarum more and as cowards vse to doe, winking, smote he saw not what, nor cared what, so as he might deale his blowes apace, condemning me in that for which he had cause to thanke me: notwithstanding I will acknowledge my thankefulnes to him, for handling this matter so well, that in this point he hath left our cause better then he found it. For whereas there being two expositions of this place according to the two significations of the word doctorum, the sentence hath almost no shew of probabilitie for Lay-Elders, if doctorum be translated Doctors, but seemeth very fauourable to them if doctorum signifie the Learned: my aduersarie, I thanke him, hath freed me from the difficultie of the latter, (if his exceptions against it be good) and hath permitted me to rest securely in the former. The reader therefore is not to expect from me an ample defence of that latter sense against his exceptions, which make for vsus. For if his exceptions be good, and that sense vntrue (as he saith, it is certaine and plaine that it is ) then will there be no difficultie at all in answering this testimonie of Ambrose, that translation which seemed most to fauour Lay-Elders, being reiected.
§ Sect. 3. … discussing … testimonie …. Amb…se 17. pages ….In discussing this testimonie of Ambrose, because it seemeth to make for him, he is content to spend 17. pages: who if it were against him would scarce vouchsafe one line by way of answere.
I hauehave knowne, when aboue a dozen testimonies of ancient writers directly testifying that Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus (in which number Ambrose was one) the chiefe patrone of the pretended discipline among vsus, hath refused so much as to examine the allegations,T. C. h. 2. part. 1. pag. … 14. …. 528. Luk. 1. pag. 41. as a thing vnworthy the turning of a leafe, and in another place he shaketh off Ambrose thus: As for Ambrose, a child may see how violently he forceth the text, &c. And againe, the errours and corrupt expounding of scriptures, which are found in his workes, declare, that it had beene more safe for the Church, if by studie of the scriptures, he had first beene a scholler of diuinitie, or euer he had beene made Doctor. And of this authoritie is Ambrose when he is alleaged against the pretended discipline. But if hee let fall a speech, which seemeth, and but seemeth to fauour their cause, though so impertinent as if it had beene foisted in by others, though in a booke, wherein besides some suspected, there is apparant corruption,… 1. Tim. 3.16. though the testimonie it selfe is mistaken by them, and though their exposition thereof, hath neither scripture to warrant, nor consent of other writers to second, nor good reason to proue it, notwithstanding because they want better euidence, they make so much of it, that eight whole leaues are not sufficient to bestow vponupon it. Which I mention not that I would hauehave any thing detracted from the authoritie of this testimonie, as though it made, against vsus; but to shew, partly the partiall dealing of the disciplinarians, and partly the pouertie of their cause.
In my handling this testimonie,§ Sect. Three … noted in handling this tes… nie of Ambrose. the refuter obserueth three things. i)My re… their caption, as …ging Ambrose, …red as …dest.First, my deniall of their exposition with the reasons of my denyall. Secondly, a refutation of their proofes. Thirdly, an allegation of reasons (omitted by Ambrose) why the counsell and assistance of the Seniors in Ambrose his time was growne out of vse. In the denyall it selfe, he layeth vponupon me such an imputation of immodestie, as he did before of vnkindnesse. For although he cannot be against it, but that I may (salua modestia) confute the new writers for their false or wrong expounding Ambrose of Lay-Elders (whom he neuer so much as dreamed of) yet he cannot abide I should say they wrong Ambrose, though I proue that they wrong him by misconstruing his words, and giuing them a wrong sense.Ad pag. 3 & 35. And in this nice and idle cauill, for want of better matter, he spendeth almost a leafe, aggrauating the accusation by numbring 12. Diuines of our time, who vnderstand Ambrose as speaking of Lay-Elders, and alleaging that it is more likely that I should mistake him,In prefat. then they. Indeed if I were alone in this cause, and did oppose my credit alone to their authoritie, or expected as my aduersarie falsely accuseth me, like another Pythagoras to be belieued vponupon my bare word: such arrogancie (I confesse) would not become me. But he seeth, and (I hope) feeleth, that I say not any thing in this controuersie, which I doe not proue by such reasons, as he doth not know, without sophisticall shifts and meere cauills how to answere. If these new writers proue their exposition of Ambrose by any sound reason, why be not their arguments produced? if they speake without reason, why is their bare authoritie obiected against, both so many reasons as hauehave beene vsed to shew there neuer were such Elders, and also against the generall consent of antiquitie, which neuer acknowledged any Presbyters or Ecclesiasticall Elders, but Ministers only.
Of my denyall he acknowledgeth two reasons:§ Sect▪ 5. The reason why their exposition was to be reiected. which though they were lighter then they be, are of more weight then bare testimonies, especially of parties, who are not to depose in their owne cause. Howbeit I acknowledge but one reason, though my speech may be resolued into two Syllogismes, whereof the one is a prosyllogisme to the other: and because he saith, in steed of prouing, I doe nothing but begge the question, I will resolue the reason of my answere into this Syllogisme.
They which make Ambrose against his meaning to testify that which hath no warrant, either in the scriptures, or elder writings of antiquitie, doe wrongfully expound him: But those which expound Ambrose, as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders, doe make him against his meaning, to testifie that which hath no warrant either in Scriptures, or elder writings of antiquitie:
Therefore those who expound Ambrose as giuing testimonie to Lay-Elders, doe wrongfully expound him.
The proposition is manifest. The assumption hath 2. parts, the one that Lay-Elders hauehave no warrāt either in scriptures, or in the elder writings of antiquitie. The other, that the sense which they giuegive to his words, is against his meaning. The former was prooued in my former challenge, that not any one testimony can be produced out of the writings of the Apostles and Fathers, mentioning or meaning any Lay-Elders. The which is a sufficient allegation in a respondent holding the negatiue, vntill the opponent by sufficient instance can proue the affirmatiue. And therefore his cauill in saying, either that I do but begge the question, which himselfe should proue, is false and foolish: or that if it were granted: it would not proue their exposition to be against his meaning, (for he might testifie that which hath no warrant either in scriptures, or elder monumēts of antiquitie) is both an ignorāt mistaking (for those words as you see, were not inserted to that end,) and a needlesse extenuating of Ambrose his testimonie, as being such a one, of whom it may be said, that he testifieth that which hath no warrant either in scriptures or other monuments of antiquitie.Ad Pag. 36. The rest of his words are meere babbling. The latter I prooue, by this Reason:
To whom Ambrose giueth testimonie, hee complaineth that their councel and assistance in causes Ecclesiasticall was grown out of vse, & seemeth to charge the bishops with slothfulnes, or pride therefore.
But it was not Ambrose his meaning to complaine that the councell or assistance of Lay-Elders was growne out of vse, nor to charge the BB: with slothfulnes or pride for it:
Therefore it was not his meaning to giuegive testimonie to Lay-Elders.
The truth of the proposition is euident, by the words of of Ambrose himelfe.
The assumption is thus proued: A Diocesan Bishop, who not onelyonly approoued, but laboured to magnifie his owne calling, and was as farre as any from subiecting either Bishops or Ministers, to the Presbyteries of Lay-men (as the Presbyterians doe) would not complaine that the councell or assistance of Lay-Elders, (such as the Disciplinarians meane) was not vsed, or charge the Bishops with slothfulnes or pride for it:
But such a one was Ambrose:
Therefore hee would not complaine for want of Lay-Elders, &c.
The proposition if it bee explaned, will need no further proofe. The Elderships of Lay-men, such as the Disciplinarians stand for, 1. were neuer in vse together with Bishops, but either were deuised to supplie the gouernement of Bishops, when they were depressed, as in Geneua, Scotland, and the Low-Countreys, or where orthodoxall Bishops were wanting, as in France, or are vrged to extrude Bishops, as among vsus: 2. in their Presbyteries consisting for the greatest part of Lay-Elders, all hauing equall right of Suffrage, and all things beeing carried by pluralitie of voyces, it is euident that the Ministers, which in parish presbyteries are but one or two at the most, and in others the farre lesse number, are subiected to the Lay-Elders, as being the greater number.
It is manifest therefore, that a Diocesan Bishop, who not onelyonly approued but sought to magnifie his calling, and was as farre as anie from subiecting Bishops or Ministers to the Presbyteries of Lay-men, would not complaine of the want of such Elderships.
Now that Ambrose was such a one as I affirme in the assumption, I will manifestly proue in answering the refuters cauills. For hee (as being ledde with a spirit of contradiction) after his vsuall manner, graunteth neither proposition nor assumption, nor any one braunch of them to bee true. Which course (mee thinks) should discredit him with all indifferent Readers, who may discerne him to write, not out of conscience, but out of a resolution to cauill and contradict: especallie, if they consider that hitherto (though he would scarcely graunt any thing to be true that I had saide: yea, in his preface auowed, that I hauehave scarce vttered one true word) yet he hath not bene able to proue any one thing which I deliuered to be false. And such will his successe be in the rest.
§ Sect. 9. His answere to the Reason.That hee might fit this Argument to his owne strength, he hath cast it (as his manner is) into a connexiue syllogisme: For it is an easy thing to frame a connexion, & when he hath done to denie the consequence. But yet belike this consequence was too strong for him to deale with, whiles the Medium consisting of 3. branches, was bound together: therfore he dissolueth it, taking eueryevery branch by it selfe, indeuouring like a grosse headed Sophister, to perswade the Reader, that because hee can bow eueryevery twigge seuerally: therefore the whole bundle or fagot is weake. For the 3. branches being ioyned together, as they are in the proposition, the conscience of the Reader will I (doubt not) giuegive testimony to the manifest truth of the proposition, vnderstood as I explaned it. But though it be to no purpose, if he can bend & breake the branches seuerally, yet we will trie his dealing that way: and what he weakneth by dissoluing, I will strēgthen by vniting. And first,The … Con…ce. he saith, this consequence is naught: If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop (vnderstand who magnified his own calling, and could not abide that Bishops or Ministers should be subiected to the censures of Lay-men) then would he not giuegive testimony to Lay-Elders , (he should hauehave said, then would he not hauehave complained of the want of Lay-Elders, who were neuer thought to be wanting, where Bishops were thought to be lawfull.
And why? because D. Whitgift was a Bishop, yea an Archbishop; and D. K. would be a Bishop, and yet both giuegive testimonie to Lay-Elders. Because D. Whitgifts graunt is oft laid in our dish,Pag: 62… the Reader is to know, First, that he denieth Lay-Elders could be proued out of the scriptures. Secondly, he graunteth they had bene in vse as Caluin & others had testified, taking it vponupon their credit, being loth either to contradict those famous learned men, or to impeach the credit of those Churches where the Presbyteries were erected. Which course of not contradicting them had still bin held, if the Elders had not bene obtruded as Christs ordinance, to extrude those, who (in respect of their first institution), were ordained of God. Thirdly, B. Whitgift was so farre from complaining of the want of Lay…Elders, that he was a chiefe instrument of God vnderunder the Prince to keepe them out.
The testimony, which D. K. giueth to your Lay-Elders, appeareth by his Sermon: where, for confuting your Presbyteries, you say hee spitteth out much poyson against these Elders, and spendeth much gall vponupon them. God grant the poyson of Aspes be not vnderunder your lippes, and that your selfe be not in the gall of bitternes, who so virulently & bitterly vse to raile on men of so good note in Gods Church. But his testimonie concerning your Elders, is so farre from complaining of the want of them, as that he doth not onelyonly say, but also proue at large, that there neuer were, nor yet do need to be such. Only you catch hold of his exposition of Ambrose his speech, which as he saith, may well be vnderstood of Elders in yeares, experience, and grauitie, hauing some temporary cōmission to assist in ordering the Church, but not such as your Lay-Elders. It is very true, that although Seniores or Presbyteri, bee a name of order, signifying Ministers and Priestes; yet according to the originall signification therof, it is vsed by Tertullian, and heere by Ambrose, (as appeareth by the occasion of his words) as opposed to the Iuniores of the Clergy.Apolog: c. 3▪ And so not only Luther vnderstandeth the word as you heard before,De offic. li. c. 20. but Ambrose so speaketh else-where: shewing that it was not needfull that the Iuniores, the younger men of the Clergie should goe to the houses of Widowes, and Virgins but onelyonly to visit them, & hoc cum senioribus and that with the Seniors or elder sort of the Clergie, that is with the Bishop or with the Presbyters,§ Sect. 7. if there be great cause.
The second consequence.Secondly, he reiecteth this consequence: if Ambrose did labour to magnifie the calling of Bishops, then was it not his meaning, &c: for saith he Su…tonius or Tacitus might magnifie the excellencie of the Monarchy, and yet confesse that the state of Rome had beene democraticall, or might they not complaine that the aduise of the Senators was not now regarded, without whose counsell Tiberius in his fiue first yeares would doe little or nothing?Ad pag. 37. Yea did not Samuel magnifie the monarchicall gouernement vnderunder Saul, and …et testifie that they had beene otherwise gouerned, yea and complaine that the forme was altered▪ These examples, vnlesse they had beene better fitted, are to little purpose. If he could hauehave said, A Monarch labouring not onelyonly to iustifie but to magnifie the royall calling, and not enduring that Monarches and Princes should be subiected, either to the Senate or people, would notwithstanding complaine that the state is not either Aristocraticall or popular, he had fitted the example, though he had spoken vntruely; For if Suetonius and Tacitus had beene Emperours and such as did magnifie the Monarchicall gouernement and could not abide either that the cōmon-wealth should be ruled by the multitude, or themselues ouer-ruled of the greater part of the senate, then would they not complaine that the gouernement was not Democratical, or Aristocratical. But thus he might hauehave said both fitly and truely. As a good king mislyking that some of his predecessors had managed all things without the aduise of their senatours, might cōplaine, that through their pride or temeritie the aduise of the senators was neglected: so Ambrose a good Bishop, seeing the Bishops not to regard the aduise of their ancient Presbyters, that is Ministers, as it were their senatours, without whose aduise nothing of importance was wont to be done in the Church, might also complaine that their counsell and assistance was growne out of vse through the slouthfulnes or pride of the Bishops. As for Samuel, if either the state before was Monarchicall, or if he had magnified the Monarchicall gouernement of the Iewes when Saul was set ouer them, he had had little reason to complaine for the altering of that gouernement into a Monarchy. But the state before had beene Monarchicall, neither did Samuel magnifie the Monarchicall gouernement when Saul was set ouer them. For vntill Saul, God himselfe was the Monarch of the Iewes,1. Sam. 12.12. retaining iura Maiestatis the right of soueraignty in his owne hands, chiefly in prescribing them lawes, and in appointing their chiefe magistrates and gouernours,Deut. 33.5 Iud. 17.6. & 19.1. & 21.21. 1. Sam. 8.7. especially the iudges whom he set ouer them to be as kings for a time. But when the people would needs hauehave a king, after the manner of other nations; the Lord saith to Samuel, they hauehave not reiected thee, but me hauehave they reiected, that I should not reign… ouer them. And so farre is Samuel from commending the gouernement of the ear…hly King, in comparison of the Celestiall; that describing vntounto them the fashion of their future king,1. Sam. 8 11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18. The .3. consequence. he telleth them, that whereas before, God did rule them by his will and by his owne lawes onelyonly, they should now be ruled after the kings will and pleasure, which would not proue very pleasant to them, as he sheweth by many particulars.
§ Sect. 8. As touching the third branch, he saith the consequence thereof is of the same feather with the former . If Ambrose could not endure that Bishops or Ministers should be subiected to Lay-persons, then would he not complaine that Lay-Presbyters were out of vse. It followeth not saith he, there may be Presbyters wherein are Lay-Elders and yet the Bishops and Ministers not be subiected to them. But say I, where the farre greater part of the Presbyteries consisteth of Lay-men, as alwaies it hath done according to the practise of Geneua, and alwaies would doe according to the new Parish-discipline, it cannot be auoided, but that the fewer number of Ministers would be subiected to the farre greater number of Lay-Elders; especially, if they (according to the wise conceit of our new disciplinarians) may be perpetuall. But whether these three branches seuerally doe inferre a necessary consequence or no, it is not materiall, seeing they were ioyntly propounded, and seeing from them vnited a necessary consequence dependeth. Wherfore the seuering of them to weaken the consequence, and to breede matter of cauil, was a sophisticall, if not a leaud trick. The leaudnes whereof will the better appeare, if we consider his dealing with the assumption: for he, that hauing seuered the branches of the proposition, exacted from eueryevery one seuerally a necessary consequence: in the assumption, he will hauehave them all taken together. For before he taketh the assumption in pieces, meaning to cauill with eueryevery part seuerally, he vseth this Caution: Prouided alwaies, and be it remembred of the Reader, that if any one of the three parts thereof proue false, though the other two be neuer so true, the whole assumption is in law of true reason, vtterly void and of none effect: But if in the proposition I be vrged to make good the consequence from each part seuerally, the assuming of any one part will conclude the question. As thus: If I must be forced to maintaine this consequence, If Ambrose were a Diocesan Bishop, then would hee no… complaine of the want of Lay-Elders: it wil be sufficient to assume thus, but he was a Diocesan Bishop, to cō clude, that therefore he would not complaine of the want of Lay-Elders. It is true, that it is required in my assumption, as I propound it, that eueryevery branch must be true: but the reasō hereof is, because they were ioyned in the proposition to make good the consequence. For if they be seuerally propounded in the proposition, they may also seuerally be assumed in the assumption. Whiles therefore he chargeth me with a bad consequence, himselfe is to be charged with a badde conscience.
§ Sect. 9. The … branch of the assumption … Ambrose … a Diocesan B.But come we to the assumption, with the first branch whereof the refuter playeth thus. Ambrose saith M. D. was a Dioces…n Bishop. Was he so indeed? Had he not onelyonly supreme, but … authoritie (as our BB: hauehave) ouer (I know not how) many hundreds of Ministers, in causes Ecclesiasticall? Was he an absolute Pop lin… indeed? What a shame is this? that he who euē now charged so m…ny learned men to hauehave done Ambrose wrong, should now be found the man …uilty of that trespas? Ambrose was no more like a Diocesan Bishop, then he that is tyed by vertue of his calling, to preach the word, & administer the sacramēts in his owne Church, &c.
Can a man of a sincere conscience professing (as themselues terme it) the cause of sinceritie, be so malepartly confident in denying that whereof he is vtterly ignorant? or rather can a man that taketh vponupon him the defence of this controuersie, as a chiefe champion of the pretended discipline, and one (I doubt not) of the chiefe challengers of the Bishops, to dispute with them in these causes, be ignorant, that Ambrose was a Diocesan Bishop? doth he know that he was a Diocesan at the least, and can he thus denie it, and keepe his conscience sincere? well, though the taske be all one, as if I should be required to proue that the Bishop of London, or rather the Archbishop of Yorke, is a Diocesan Bishop: yet seeing my learned aduersarie denieth it, and pretendeth some reason of his denyall: I will first proue, that Ambrose was at the least a Diocesan B: and for the greatnes of his authoritie, and largenes of his iurisdiction, comparable with ours; and in the second place, I will answere his reasons.
First therfore you are to be aduertised, that Mediolanum Millaine, whereof Ambrose was Bishop, not onelyonly is a Metropolis, or seate of a Metropolitan, but was both in and before Ambrose his time. Strabo (a)Geograph. lib. 5. Insubres hac aetate sunt qui Mediolanum Metropolin habuere.saith it was a Metropolis, wherein the gouernour of the prouince of Liguria and Aemilia kept his residence. Athanasius speaking of Dionysius the Bishop of Millaine saith (b)Epist. ad solita.foreign it also is a mother citie of Italy. It is also euident and a thing confessed by Beza (c)De grad. Min. c. 24.that the distribution of the Church into Dioceses & prouinces, was framed according to the diuision of the Dioceses and Prouinces vnderunder the Romane Empire.
Ambrose himself (d)Centur. 4 c. 10.11…7. Ruffin. hist. li. 2 c. 11. Paulin. in vit. Ambr.was a man of consular dignitie in Rome, and being appointed gouernour of Liguria and Aemilia came to Millaine. Where keeping his residence, it fell out (e)Theod. lib. 4. c. 5.that Auxentius the Bishop being dead, and the Emperour Valentinian hauing assembled (as the manner) (f)Balsam. in Conc. cost. in. c. 2. olim omnes pro. …ī ciarum metropolitani, a proprijs synodis eligebantur. Conc C. haelc. act. 11. ostē dat Bassianus si per synodum ReMetropoliswas for the choise of a Metropolitan) the Bishops of that uerendorum Episcoporum & consueta lege Episcopus Ephesiorum est constitutus.
The honour and sublimitie Episcopall cannot be matched with any comparison: if you compare it with the excellencie of Princes and ciuill Magistrates, you shall compare gold with lead. As for the people, the Episcopall function hath not onelyonly obtained to be preferred before them, but also is enioyned by Euangelicall precepts with fatherly authoritie to gouerne them: for they, as the sheepe of Christ, are committed to BB. as to rulers, who together with Peter receiued that authoritie to gouerne them, &c. Againe, (n)Cap. 3.these things I hauehave spoken saith he, to shew that nothing in this world is more excellent then Bishops.
For his deeds, consider his repelling of Theodosius (o)Theodor. li 5. c. 18.the Emperour from entring into the Church, vntill he had testified his repentance: his not permitting him to remaine within the Chācell, alledging (p)Ibid.that it was a place peculiar to the Clergie, (which fauour when Nectarius the Bishop of Cōstantinople would hauehave grāted to him, Theodosius professed that he had with much a doe learned the differēce between an Emperour and a Bishop, adding, that he had scarce found a Teacher of the truth. Ambrose is the onelyonly man whom I know worthy the name of a Bishop) his refusing to be tried in a cause of faith, in the Emperours Consistorie, when Valentinian the younger had sent for him, contrarie to a law made by his Father Valentinian, protesting that he would rather loose his life, then by his yeelding, the honour of Bishops should be diminished. Non (q)Epist. 32. ad valentin. imp.tanti est Ambrosius vt propter se deijciat sacerdotium, non tanti est vnius vita, quanti est dignit as omnium sacerdotum: his refusall (r)Orat. in Auxent. l. 5. Epist. inter Epist. 32. & 33. Epist. 33.to deliuer vp the Churches to be possessed of Arians at the Emperour Valētinians commandement, professing that the palaces pertained to the Emperour, but the Churches to the Bishop. His other doubt is, whether I compare Ambrose with them of his owne time, or with them that liued before or after, &c: here was a knot sought in a bullrush: seeing my meaning is euident, that Ambrose laboured as much as any of the ancient approued Fathers. And that he did so, it is alreadie sufficiently manifested. If that be so saith he, then either all men thought it needfull for the Bishop to be aduised and directed as D. Bilson saith by the counsell and consent of Elders:Cap. 11.157. or else that Ambrose who thoght it needful, as appeareth by this testimonie, labored not to magnifie such a calling of Bishops, as M.D. maintaineth. Ambrose & others thought it needful, that a presbyterie of graue & ancient ministers, should with their coūsell & aduise assist the Bishops in cases of doubt (as D. Bilson saith) of daunger and importance, when as yet nether Synodes could assemble, nor Christian Magistrates could be found to help and assist the Church. But this, as it doth nothing further the cause of Lay-Elders: so doth it no more detract from the dignitie of Bishops, to vse the counsell of wise and learned men; then it doth derogate from the Maiestie of Kings, to vse the aduise of their wise & faithfull Counsellors.
There remaineth the third branch.§ Sect. 13. The 3. branche of the assumption. Wherevnto, besides his rayling against our Bishops for subiecting Ministers to their Chancellours, Commissaries, and Officialls, which are but lay-men, hee answereth onelyonly That if adioyning Presbyters to the Byshop bee a subiecting him to them, I doubt not but this testimony will prooue, that Ambrose was not willing, that Ministers should bee subiected to the Consistories of Lay-men.
There are two differences between that which Ambrose holdeth and our new Disciplinarians. Ambrose speaketh of an assistance of ancient ministers; they, of Lay-Elders.
Ambrose, of an assistance to aduise and direct, such as is the aduise of Counsellers to a Prince; they of an assistance to ouerrule, as in the Romane Senate, by plurality of voices, giuing their Bishop not so much as one negatiue voice, Ambrose therfore requireth an assistance of ministers subjected to the Bishop: they an assistance of Lay-Elders, subjecting the Bishops to them. Neither should they of all men raile against the BB. for submitting ministers to Chancellors, &c. seeing it is not so vntollerable, that ministers should be subjected to the censure of men wise and learned in the lawes, and that so farre onelyonly as the B. shall thinke fit, as that they should not onelyonly be ouerruled by such as the Lay-Elders must needs be in most countrey-parishes, but also stand to the curtesie of them and their neighbours, to be deposed and depriued at their pleasure.
Now, how farre Ambrose was from subiecting BB: or Ministers in causes Ecclesiasticall, to the Consistories of Laymen, may appeare, first, by his sentence giuen against Palladius, the Arfian. Bishop, in the Councell of Aquileia For when Palladius refused to answere,Cons. Aquil. but before some honourable persons of the Laytie, who were at hand. Ambrose answered, Priests or BB. ought to iudge of Lay-men, and not Lay-men of Priests.
And againe, though hee bee found guiltie of manie impieties, notwithstanding we are abashed, that hee which challengeth Priesthood to himselfe, should seeme to be condemned of Lay-men. And therefore forasmuch as heerein hee is to be condemned, who expecteth the sentence of Lay-men (seeing rather priests ought to iudge of Laymen) according to those things which to day wee hauehave heard Palladius professing, and according to those things which he refused to condemne. I pronounce him (saith Ambrose) vnworthie of Priest-hood. Epist. 32.But chiefly by his Epistle to Valentinian the young Emperour, wherein hee refuseth to be tryed, as his aduersary Auxentius desired, in the Emperors Consistorie: alleadging, that his Father Valentinian had by Law prouided, that in the cause of faith, or of any Ecclesiasticall order, hee ought to iudge qui nec munere impar sit, nec iure dissimilis: who is neiher in function vnequall, nor in right vnlike; that is, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit iudicare: Hee would hauehave BB: (for them ordinarily hee meaneth by Sacerdotes) to iudge of BB: or Priests. Yea, moreouer (saith hee) if a Bishop were otherwise called into question, and the cause of manners were to be examined, euen this also would hee (that is, Valentinian the Father) hauehave to belong to Episcopall iudgement. When did you euer heare most gracious Emperor, that Lay-men in a cause of faith iudged of BB: Are wee therefore so bowed with flatterie, that wee forget the right of BB? And that I should thinke what God hath giuen mee, is to bee committed to others? If a Bishop must be taught of a Lay-man what to follow, let the Lay-man dispute, and let the Bishop heare, let the B: learne of the Lay-man. But surely if wee call to minde either the tenor of holie Scriptures, or ancient times, who can denie, but that in a cause of Faith, In causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis, non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare: You shall one day (if it please God) come to ripe yeares, and then you will be able to iudge. Qualis ille Episcopus sit, qui Laicis Sacerdotale substernut! What a Bishop he is, that subiecteth the right of Bishops to Lay-men. Your Father beeing through Gods goodnes of ripe yeares, said, Meum non est: I am not able: (For so Ambrose expoundeth him in the next Sentence, Inhabilem se ponderi tanti putabat esse Iudicij) to iudge among BB. & doth your Grace now say, I ought to iudge; would Ambrose condemne such a Bishop as should subiect the right of BB. to Lay-men, and would hee allow of such prerbyteries of Lay-men as intrude vponupon the right of BB: yea which are vrged to extrude BB? could hee not indure that a B. or minister should be iudged in causes Ecclesiasticall by the consistory of the Emperour, because it consisted of Lay-men; and would hee allow a B. or minister should be iudged, yea deposed and depriued by a parishionall consistory or whole parish consisting of Lay-men? doth he commend the good Emperour that said he was vnable to iudge among Bishops; and would hee allow of priuate men, vnlearned, and vnacquainted with gouernement, as competent Iudges in causes Ecclesiasticall?
And thus much of my denyall of their exposition of Ambrose, made good by sufficient proofe.