Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 1 · Chapter 15
CHAP. XV.
Mr Durhams citations of the Fathers for evincing the identity of Angel, Bishop, and Presbyter, vindicat from the exceptions of this Informer.
Mr Durhame in his excellent commentary upon the revelation (pag. 223.) having gone throw the Epistles, and embraced the sylleptick sense and acceptation of the word, Angel, presents in a digression several weighty and unanswerable arguments, both from these Epistles, and parallel texts, to prove the identity of angel, Bishop, and Presbyter. Which this Informer passes over sicco pede, finding them no doubt pills of too hard a digestion for his stomack. But Mr. Durham adding to his scriptureproofes of this important truth, Several clear testimonys of most eminent Ancient fathers, asserting the very same thing, then Seria res agitur with our Informer, and he bestirrs himself amain to take these weapons out of Mr Durhams hand, offering several exceptions against his testimonys, which (in vindication of the memory of so great a Seer from this pampleters imputations, and for the more full confirmation of this truth) we shal now examine and repell.
Mr Durhame sayes That not only Ierome, but likewise others of the Ancients, such as Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, were of Aerius minde hereanent. To this he answers [That Mr Durhame brings this as Medina's assertion, as he is cited by Bellarmin. But knowes he not that Medina is cited for this by many others, as Dr Reynolds particularly. And likewise why would he not examine these Ancients cited by Medina, and examine what truth is in his citations, if he intended to repell this Testimony. Well, but what sayes our Informer to these Testimonies offered by Mr Durhame. He answers.
1. That though these fathers be of Ieroms minde, i…is n… great prejudice that will hence ensue to Bishops, as he hat… already cleared. Ans. We have made it appear tha… Ierome makes the first Bishops, meere fixed Moderators, and likewise ane humane invention or custom, discrepant from ihe first divine Bishops, who are proved by him to be in Scripture the same with Presbyters. And i… this be no prejudice to his Diocesian Prelat with sole power of ordination and Iurisdiction, let any judge.
2. The Informer wonders how Mr Durhame coul… cite Augusti… as of Aerius minde, since Augustine hold him to be erroneous upon this ground. (Haeres. 53. A…s. Why doth he not answer to that passage of Augusti… cited by Mr. Durhame, as he pretends to answer to som… of the rest of these fathers. What sayes he to Augustin… words? are they not his? Or doe they not clearly assert the identity of Bishop & Presbyter? To say that Augustin accounted Aerius a heretick for this, while he offers not to remove Augustins cleare assertion of the same thing, is but to sett him by the ears with himself, not to answer his Testimony. Next, as for Augustin's accounting Aerius a heretick for this, he should know that the learned doe Consent that Augustin in this followes Epiphanius, who first imputed heresie to Aerius, and made but very simple-insipid answers to Aerius arguments for his opinion. And moreover that Augustin relates his opinion anent the parity of Bishop and Presbyter, or rather his denying that their ought to be ane Ecclesiastick constitution anent their difference, as that which Epiphanius put among the roll of heresies, himself not positively determining, that this was a heresie. For (as is consented unto by the learned, and particularly by Dr. Reinolds in his letter to Sir Francis Knolls, touching Dr. Bancrofts Sermon about the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter) Augustin aknowledges himself ignorant how farr the definition of heresie doth extend. He enumerats the heresies which he found noted by other writers, but applyes not the definition of heresie to every one of them. Far lesse could he doe so in this point, which was his own judgement, as the passage cited by Mr. Durham doth evince. That Ierom and Augustin were of Aerius minde as to Bishops, is the judgment of very many: sane cum Aerio sensit Hieronimus (saith Whittak. Contr. 4. Q. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 30.) Ierom truely was of Aerius minde, on which ground we need care the less that Aerius is so oft objected to us by blockish men. See how rude Whittaker is again to our Informer. Saravia himself (de Grad. cap. 23.) acknowledges that Ierom dissented from Epiphanius in this. Dr. Reynolds in that Epistle to Knolls about Bancrofts Sermon, asserting with the Informer [That Aerius was for his opinion condemned of heresie by the whole Church] proves from Ierom and other writters who were contemporarie with Epiphanius or flourished after him. That Augustin Presents that assertion anent the identite of Bishop and Presbyter, a… hereticall, only as he found it related by Epiphanius, wheras himself knew not how farr the name of heresie was to be extended, as he testefys in his preface concerning heresies. But that Augustin himself was of the judgement that by divine right, there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter, he proves from his words Epist. 19. he cites also—Iewell against Harding the jesuit (asserting likwise with the Informer that Aerius was condemned for his opinion as a heretick) who proves that Jerome, Augustin, Ambrose, were of the same minde. Thus wee see Augustin made in this point consistent with Ierome, & also with himself, whom this man makes to speake contradictions, so as he may come faire off.
3. He answers That Ambrose and Chrysostoms Testimony will not come Mr. Durhams length, Becaus, Though Ambrose [or one Hilary] sayes that Episcopi & Presbyteri una est ordinatio, that they are both priests, yet the Bishop is the first, So that every Priest is not a Bishop, for the Bishop is the first priest. Ans. The Informer hath left out wittily (whither honestly or not, let others judge) in his translation of this sentence, the inference which Ambrose Drawes from this identity of the office, viz, that they have both one ordination. He maks the office one, and the ordination one consequently, and gives this reason why they have one ordination, viz, because, every one of them is a priest or Minister, uterque enim Sacerdos, sath he: Their ordination, is terminat upon, and relative unto, one and the same office. Now what greater length would he have Ambrose assertion come then this? That there is no diff…rent ordination of the Bishop and Presbyter, and consequently no officiall differences doth he not plead for ane officiall specifick difference? betwixt Bishop and Presbyter? Makes he not the Bishops succeed the Apostles and Evangelists in their officiall power, and the Presbyters to come after the Seventy Disciples or meer ordinary Pastoures? Are their not many essential differences, which this mans principles, & the present practise, fixes betwixt the Bishop & Presbyter, wherof we have spoken above? How can Ambrose then assert, that they have the same office and ordination? Where is the Consecration? Where is the Bishops sole power in ordination and jurisdiction? Where is his negative voice among the Presbyters, making them in all their officiall power certain deputs under him, if their office be one, and their ordination the same with his?
2. As for the difference here assigned, viz, That the Bishop is the first priest, and that every Presbyter is not a Bishop in Ambrose sense, this will nothing help our Informer; Becaus 1. This is fitly applicable to the Proestos then in use, yea to the Moderator of a Synod, who (as such) hath a sort of Prostasie while the Synod sits, and every Minister is not Moderator, though the Moderator be no more then a Minister in his officiall power; nay, this is applicable to the least accidentall difference Imaginable. Every man is not white or black, yet every such is a man. Every Parliament man is not speaker, though the speaker is a Parliament man only as to his authority. Blondel his first ordained Minister, who, with him, is the first Bishop or Proestos, hath this properlie applicable unto him. 2. He must be minded, that Ambrose sayes, when speaking of the Scriptur - parity of Bishops and Presbyters, non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolorum ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia. That the writings of the Apostles did not in every point agree to the order which was then in the Church. Now this preter - scripturall or new order of government, what is it but that anent the primus or first among the Presbyters? so that this very primus or prostasie (tho farr from the present Hierarchie of our Prelats as is said) yet comes after the scripture appointment—with Ambrose, and is unlike to that paritie betwixt Bishop & Presbyter, which is therein held forth.
The Informer Next offers something in answer to Chrisostoms Testimony, who asserts That almost there is no difference betwix a Bishop and Presbyter. And his great Answer is That notwithstanding these Fathers acknowledge a difference, and themselves were Bishops] Ans. If the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter come to a ferme nihil, or almost none, Surely it decays and is ready to vanish away. And what this difference is, and wherein placed, we have already heard; and surely that prostasie in Chrysostoms time; behoved to be very in considerable, since it came to make upno greater difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter then a ferme nihil, upon the borders of a non ens. As for what he sayes of their being Bishops themselves. I answer, they are the more impartiall witnesses in this mater; They tell us oft that Ierome was a Presbyter, and therefore no friend to Bishops. Now here is a Testimonie of eminent Bishops for this very truth which Ierom asserts, and which this man would make us believe, was condemned as a Heresie. And surelie we are more tender of their reputation, who interpret any Prostasie or Episcopacie which they held, to be according to this their judgement anent Episcopacie, and assert that what overplus of power they had or might possibly exercise, beyond that of a Presbyter, was by them lookt upon as founded on Ecclesiastick Custome or Ecclesiae usus, As Augustin speaks, but not to flow from a divine right, Then this Informer and his fellowes, who make them maintaine one thing and practise another; yea and contradict themselves so grossly in maintaining as high a jus divinum, as Apostolick doctrine, and practise, in relation to the Hierarchicall Bishop, and yet assert a ferme nihil as to the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter.
But the Informer adds, That they might think Bispop and Presbyter to differ Gradu, not ordine, in degree not in order, which is still a debate in the Schools. Ans. This assertion is so improbable, that he dare but lisp it out, and faintly asserts it with a might be; But sure he must needs acknowledge this distinction of the Schooles to be much later then these Fathers, and any graduall difference which they place betwixt Bishop and Presbyter, it is clear, that they found it upon Ecclesiastick Custome, as we heard both Ierome, Augustin and Ambrose assert.
But how long will this man involve himself in contradictions, and these Fathers also? Told he us not (page 15.) That Augustin upon Psal 45: 16. affirms, That the Bishops are properly the Successors of the Apostles unto their office. And saith he not immediatly thereafter, That Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 12: 28. affirms of the Apostles first named in that Classe of Church officers, that ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro, episcopatum, ejus accipiat alter. That the Apostles are the Bishops by Peters assertion, let another take his Bisheprick. Tells he us not likewise here that Augustin makes James the first Bishop of Ierusalem, and Peter, the first Bishop of Rome? Tells he us not, that they transmitted ane Episcopall power in that traine of Successors, proved by Catalogues of Bishops? Did we not hear him plead, that the seventy Disciples, placed in ane inferiour orb to the Twelve Apostles, are properlie succceded by Presbyters; that Matthias behoved to be ordained ane Apostle, tho one of the Seventy disciples, is his great argument to prove this. Now I beseech him per omnes musas, will he say that Apostles and Presbyters differ only ordine and not gradu, in order, not in degree? or that these fathers doe hold this opinion? how come their successors then to coalesce into one, after such a manner as to differ only in a ferme nihil, or almost nothing? Saith not Ambrose, Episcopi & Presbyteri una est ordinatio, the Bishop and Presbyter have the same ordination. But the Informer will not adventure to say that the Apostle and Presbyter have one ordination. For Matthias one of the Seventy must be solemnlie by God ordained ane Apostle: And the Prelats must be solemnlie consecrat by their fellowes—foreign to their new episcopall order. In a word, we heard from Cassander, that the Canonists and Theologues who dispute this Question, doe both accord, that as to a jus divinum or divine right, there is no difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter either in order or degree. And so though it were granted (which yet the Informer himself dare not positively assert) that the Fathers tossed this question, it will nothing help him, nor prejudge Mr Durhams quotation, which speaks of a jus divinum.
As for what he adds, That the Fathers cited by Medina might hold the same notion, Let him hear how Bellarmin (no friend to Presbyterian Government) represents his assertion (de Cler. Cap 15.) Michael Medina lib. 1. De sacrorum hominum origine & eminentia (Cap. 5.) Affirmat sanctum Hieronimum idem omnino cum Aerianis sensisse, neque solum Hieronimum in ea haeresi fuisse, sed etiam Ambrosium, Sedulium, Primasium, Chrysostomum, Theodoretum, Oecumenium, & Theophylactum, atque ita, inquit Medina, isti viri alioqui Sanctissimi, & Sacrarum Scripturarum consultissimi, quorum tamen sententiam prius in Aerio, deinde in Waldensibus, postremo in Joanne Wickleffo, damnavit ecclesia. That is, Michael Medina in the first book concerning the originall and eminencie of sacred men 5. Chap. Affirms that St Jerome was every way of the same judgment with the Aerians, And that not only Jerome was in that Heresie. But also Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecomenius, and Theophylact; And thus (saith Medina) these men otherwayes most godly, and most expert in the holie Scrptures, whose judgment notwithstanding the Church condemned, first in Aerius, Next in the Waldeneses, And lastly in Iohn Wickleff.] Let our Informer note here. 1. That it is beyond debate with Bellarmin that with Medina at least, all these Fathers were Aerians. 2. That his holy Catholick Church of Rome is the grand condemner of this Heresie. 3. That this is one of the Heresies of the old Waldenses, these famous witnesses against Antichrist: And of John Wickleff, and such like eminent reformers. Afterward he adds [That in Jerome and these Greek Fathers, that opinion was of old dissembled out of reverence to them, But contrarily in the Hereticks alwayes condemned.] So we see the Presbyterian Principles, are with him, one of the Heresies of Protestants. Peter Swav. (in the History of the Council of Trent, pag. 664. edit. Francfort.) relates. [That when the Authoritie of Ierom and Augustin was brought to prove episcopacie to be but ane Ecclesiastick constitution, Michael Medina answered—That it was no wonder that Jerom, Augustin, and others of the Fathers, fell into that heresie, not having throughly searched the matter, & that he maintained pro virili this to be their opinion.
Finallie, to make these Fathers one with themselves (whom this man enforceth in his next passages, cited page 71, 72. Anent the derivation of Episcopacie from the Apostles and higher, to speak palpable contradictions) we must say, with Whittaker, that they call the Apostles so, because they did that upon the matter which Bishops then did. And because their power quadam similitudine, or by a certain similitude or likenesse (as Junius expresseth it) was like to that of these extraordinarie Church officers, whom notwithstanding they could not succeed in the same office, nor could these Fathers think so upon the grounds formerly mentioned. Tilen. in his Specul. Antichr. ortum aperiens (Aphoris. 88.) Tells us that [episcopos & Presbyteros re & nomine eosdem fuisse, non Hieronimus solum in 1. Tim. 3. Sed etiam scriptura perspicue docet Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. Proinde humani instituti, sive positivi, ut vocant juris, est illa sub diversis nominibus munerum distinctio. That Bishops and Presbyters were the same in name and thing or office, Not only Jerome on 1. Tim. 3. But the Scripture also doth evidently teach, Tit. 1. Act. 20. Phil. 1. And therefore that distinction of the offices under diverse names is of human institution, as they call it, or of positive right] A fitt looking-glasse, this had no doubt been to the same Tilen when he wrote, his paraenesis, and changed his note. And likwise it is a fitt looking glasse for this Informer: