The Remains of John Corbet, Section 6
§ 6. The Testimony of Antiquity for the identity of Biſhops and Presbyters.
HERE I firſt obſerve by way of preface, That Michael Medina de Sacr. Orig. accuſing Jerome of holding the ſameneſs of biſhops and presbyters, ſaith, that Ambroſe, Auſtin, Sedulius, Primaſius, Chryſoſtome, Theodoret, Oecumenius; Theophylact, were in the ſame Hereſie, as Bellarmine reports him, lib. 4. de Eccleſ. Milit. c. 9. The ſame Medina gives this reaſon why Jerome, Auſtin, and others of the Fathers fell into this Hereſie (as he calls it, becauſe this point was not then clearly determined of, Hiſt. of the Council of Trent. lib. 7. p. 570. And Bellarmin. de clero, l. 1 c. 15. ſaith, that this Medina aſſures us, That St. Jerome was of Aerius his opinion in this point. Touching Aerius, Whitaker Controv. 2. q. 5. ſaith, that he was not accounted an Heretick by all, but by Euſtathius who oppoſed him. Dr. Reynolds in his Epiſt. to Sir Francis Knolls, ſhews out of biſhop Jewel, that Chryſoſtome, Jerome, Ambroſe, Auſtin, Theodoret, Primaſius, Sedulius, Theophylact, and moſt of the ancient Fathers, held that biſhops and presbyters are one in Scripture, with whom Oecumenius and Anſelm of Canterbury, and another Anſelm, and Gregory, and Gratian, agree.
The Teſtimony of Clemens Romanus.
Clemens in his Epiſtle to the Corinthians, mentions but two Orders, Biſhops and Deacons. Pag. 96. The Apoſtles preaching through Regions and Cities, did conſtitute their firſt fruits, proving them by the Spirit to be biſhops and deacons to thoſe which ſhould afterward believe. With him biſhops and presbyters are every where the ſame. Ib. p. 4. Ye walked in the Laws of God, ſubject to them that have the rule over you, foreign, and giving due honour to the Presbyters among you, ye warned the young men that they ſhould follow things moderate and grave. Ib. p. 100. Our Apoſtles foreknowing there would be contentiona bout the name of Epiſcopacy, for this cauſe having received certain foreknowledg, appointed the aforeſaid Epiſcopacy, and gave Ordination foreign, that if they dyed, other approved men might ſucceſſively receive their Miniſtry, foreign—It will not be a light ſin to us, if we eject out of thier Epiſcopacy thoſe that have unblameably and holily offered that gift; bleſſed are thoſe presbyters who are gone before, who have received a fruitful and perfect diſſolution; for they fear not leſt any one ſhould caſt them out of the Charge wherein they are ſet. Ib p. 108. Baſe things, very baſe and unworthy of Chriſtian converſation, are reported, That the moſt firm and ancient Church of Carinth for one or two perſons doth move ſedition againſt the presbyters. Ib. p. 120. Who then is generous among you, and let him ſay, if the ſedition, and contention, and ſchiſms, be riſen becauſe of me, I will depart whitherſoever ye will, and do the things commanded by the multitude; only let the flock of Chriſt be in peace, with the presbyters ſet over it. Ib. p. 128. You therefore that have laid the foundation of ſchiſm, be ſubject to the presbyters, be inſtructed unto Repentance, &c.
Theſe are the paſſages in that Epiſtle relating to the point here in queſtion. And who cannot ſee, that here are only two Orders of Miniſters, biſhops and deacons; and not three, biſhops, prieſts, and deacons? Alſo Presbyters, and thoſe in the Epiſcopacy, and the foreign, are evidently the ſame. And here is no mention of any office above the presbyters, and to them the church were required to be ſubject.
As concerning that paſſage, p. 7. To the High Prieſt, proper miniſtrations were appointed; to the prieſts their own place was aſſigned; and upon the Levites their proper miniſtry lay, and the Laick man bound to Laick precepts. I conceive that it alone affords no argument for three Orders of miniſtry, or eſſentially different offices in the Goſpel-church. For it reſpects the preſent matter but only in way of ſimilitude, and no more is ſignified thereby, than as under the Moſaical Oeconomy there were ſeveral orders, and ſeveral miniſtrations pertaining to them, ſo it is alſo in the Goſpel-church; but it may not be uſed in argumentation beyond what is plainly deſigned in it; much leſs may it be urged to prove any thing contrary to the tenor of the whole Epiſtle; beſides the High-prieſts office was not of another kind from the prieſts, but a higher degree in the ſame office for ſome particular miniſtrations, which alſo in time of his incapacity might be ordinarily performed by another prieſt. And let the compariſon be forced to the utmoſt, it will ſhew no greater difference between a biſhop and a presbyter, than between an Archbiſhop and an ordinary biſhop.
It is Grotius his argument, That this Epiſtle of Clemens is genuine, becauſe it no where makes mention of that exceſſive authority which began to be afterwards introduced, or was at firſt introduced at Alexandria, by the cuſtom of that church after the death of Mark, and in other places by that example. And it plainly ſhews, as the Apoſtle Paul doth, That the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters, who were alſo Biſhops.
The Teſtimony of Irenaeus.
It is clear that this Father makes the presbyters to be the ſame with biſhops, and the ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles; and with him the ſucceſſion of biſhops is all one with the ſucceſſion of presbyters.
Lib. 4. c. 43. We muſt obey thoſe presbyters which are in the Church, who together with the ſucceſſion of Epiſcopacy have received the gift of truth. Id. l. 3. c. 2. Unto that tradition which is in the church by the ſucceſſion of presbyters, we challenge them that ſay they are wiſer not only than the presbyters, but the Apoſtles. Id. l. 3. c. 3. declaring the tradition of the greateſt and ancienteſt church, and known to all, even the church of Rome, founded by Peter and Paul at Rome, that which it hath from the Apoſtles, and the Faith declared to men, and coming to us by the ſucceſſion of biſhops, &c. Id. lib. 4. c. 4. We muſt forſake unjuſt Presbyters, ſerving their own luſts, and adhere to thoſe who with the order of presbytery keep the doctrine of the Apoſtles found, and their converſation without offence, unto the information and correction of the reſt. The church nouriſheth ſuch presbyters whereof the Prophet ſpeaks, I will give thee princes in peace, and thy biſhops in righteouſneſs. Id. lib. 4. c. 63. The true knowledg of the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and the ancient ſtate in the whole world, according to the ſucceſſion of biſhops, to which they gave the church which is in every place, which is come even to us.
From theſe citations it is evident, that this Father doth expreſs one and the ſame order of Epiſcopacy in all presbyters. If any do uſe this evaſion, that he calls all thoſe that were true biſhops by the name of presbyters; let them ſhew where he mentions presbyters of another order, or makes two different orders of Epiſcopacy and Presbyterate.
Here I will take notice of the words of Irenaus concerning thoſe Elders of the church mentioned Acts 20. lib. 3. c. 14. viz. In Miletum the biſhops and presbyters which were from Epheſus and other the next Cities, being convocated. Tho it ſeems moſt reaſonable, by the Elders of the church there ſent for by Paul, to underſtand the elders of that particular church of Epheſus, to which the Apoſtle then ſent (and indeed if they had been from other Cities alſo, it would have ſaid, according to the Scripture way of expreſſion, the elders of the churches): yet admitting what this Father ſaith hereof, obſerve we that he ſpeaks of biſhops and presbyters as congregated in the meeting, and he might mention two names of the ſame office. And the Apoſtle ſpeaks to all thoſe presbyters that there convened, as thoſe whom the Holy Ghoſt had made biſhops of the flock. And ſuppoſe they were the biſhops of Aſia (as ſome would have it) yet it cannot be proved that they were any other than biſhops of ſingle Congregations, or that they were ſuch biſhops as had ſubject presbyters of a lower order under them
The Teſtimony of Clemens Alexandrinus.
He thus writes, Stromat. lib. 6. p. 667. He is really a presbyter of the church, and a true Deacon of the will of God, if he teach the things of the Lord, not as ordained by men, nor eſteemed juſt becauſe he is a presbyter, but taken into the presbytery becauſe he is juſt—Here in the Church are progreſſions of biſhops, presbyters, deacons, imitations (as I think) of the Angelical glory, and of the heavenly diſpenſation, which the Scripture ſpeaks they expect, who treading in the footſteps of the Apoſtles, have lived in the perfection of righteouſneſs, according to the Goſpel. Theſe, the Apoſtle writes, being taken up into the clouds, ſhall firſt be made deacons, and then ſhall be taken into the presbytery, according to the progreſs of glory.
Here this Father firſt mentions only two orders, presbyters and deacons; afterwards a progreſſion of biſhops, presbyters, and deacons, as imitations of the heavenly diſpenſation; but in the cloſe applying the ſimilitude to bleſſed men taken into heaven, he makes the progreſs to be only in being firſt as deacons, then as presbyters, mentioning no higher order. Hence I conceive may be inferred, that he ſpeaks of presbyters and deacons, as of two different orders, and of biſhops but as a higher degree in the order of presbyters.
This alſo may be further confirmed, Stromat. lib. 7. p. 700. where diſtinguiſhing of a twofold foreign or employment in ſecular affairs, viz. foreign and foreign, he ſaith that preſbyters hold that foreign which makes men better, and the deacons that which conſiſts in ſervice. His meaning is, that as in the Civil State there are two orders, the one governing, and the other miniſtring; ſo there are likewiſe in the Church, the Preſbyters holding the one, and the deacons the other. Theſe paſſages of this Author I thought fit to mention, and have not found in him any more relating to the diſtinct miniſters of the church.
The Teſtimony of Jerome.
This Father alſo ſpeaks of presbyters as the ſame with biſhops and ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles. On the Epiſtle to Titus, c. 1. he ſaith, As presbyters know that they are by the cuſtom of the church ſubject to him that is ſet over them; ſo let the biſhops know that they are greater than presbyters rather by cuſtom, than by the verity of the Lords appointment. He alſo teſtifies, that they did and ought to rule the church in common, and that imparity came in by little and little.
In his Epiſtle to Evagrius, he ſhews that the presbyters of Alexandria from Mark till Heraclas and Dionyſius, had always one choſen out of them, and placed in a higher degree, and named biſhop; as if an Army made an Emperor; and Deacons choſe one whom they knew induſtrious, and called him Arch-deacon. Here he mentions no other making of biſhops, than by presbyters. And that the presbyters made the biſhop, is an argument brought by him to prove the identity at firſt, and afterwards the nearneſs of their power. And he aſcribes to presbyters the making of their biſhop, and placing him in a higher degree, and naming him biſhop. And he diſtinguiſheth the ancient way of making biſhops by presbyters, from that way of making them which followed the times of Heraclas and Dionyſius, which was by Epiſcopal ordination.
This evidence is confirmed by the teſtimony of Eutichius, Patriarch of Alexandria, who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church, in his Arabick Originals, ſaith, according to Seldens Tranſlation, in his Commentary, p. 29, 30. That the presbyters laid hands on him whom they elected, till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria; for he forbad the presbyters any longer to create the Patriarch; and decreed that the Patriarch being deceaſed, biſhops ſhould convene and ordain one to the Patriarchate, and that they might chuſe the Patriarch out of any Region.
Jerome, as an Hiſtorian only, mentions from the teſtimony of Euſebius, ſome biſhops made by the Apoſtles. But who can prove that thoſe biſhops were of a higher order than Presbyters?
The Teſtimonies of other Ancients in the ſame point.
Cyprian lib. 3. Epiſt. 9. Eraſmus his Edit. to Rogatianus. The Deacons muſt remember, that the Lord choſe Apoſtles, that is biſhops and Praepoſiti; but after the aſcenſion of the Lord; the Apoſtles made Deacons to themſelves, as miniſters of their Epiſcopacy, and the church. Here are but two Orders mentioned, 1. biſhops and Praepoſiti, who were as the Apoſtles. 2. Deacons, who are miniſters to them and the church.
Id. lib. 1. Epiſt. 11. to Pomponius: When all ought to maintain diſcipline, much more the Praepoſiti and the Deacons. From this and the other place before cited, it may plainly appear, that there was no middle office between that of the Praepoſiti and the Deacons. And all the Presbyters being Praepoſiti, muſt needs be of the ſame Order with biſhops, that title importing the very nature of the biſhops office.
Chryſoſtome on the firſt to Timothy, conſeſſeth that there is little or no difference between a biſhop and a presbyter.
That a biſhop had not a different ordination from a presbyter, Ambroſe ſhews on 1 Tim. c. 3. in theſe words: Why after the biſhop doth he come to the ordination of a deacon? Why, but becauſe there is one ordination of a biſhop and presbyter; for either of them is a prieſt, but the biſhop is the firſt: every biſhop is a presbyter, but every presbyter is not a biſhop; for he is a biſhop who is firſt among the presbyters. Here note, that the difference lies in this, that the biſhop is the firſt among the Preſbyters.
Vid. Sedulius on Tit. 1. Anſelm of Canterbury on Phil. 1. Beda on Acts 20. Alcuinus de divinis officiis c. 35, 36. all agreeing in this point.