Part 1 — Chapter 8: The Testimony of Ambrose for Ruling Elders Vindicated

If we look back beyond the times of declining to the first and purest times of the Church, we shall find ruling Elders to be no new fangled device at Geneva; but that the primitive government and policy of the Church has been in them restored. There is one place of Ambrose which clears it sufficiently. He writing on 1 Timothy 5:1, Rebuke not an Elder, says, Vnde & Synagoga, &c. Therefore both the Jewish Synagogue, and after the Church had Senior or Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church: which by what negligence it grew out of use, I know not, except perhaps by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the teachers, whiles they alone will seem to be something. This sentence is also cited in Glossa ordinar. And it shows plainly that as the Jewish, so the Christian Church had some Elders, who though they were not teachers of the Word, yet had a part of the government of the Church upon their shoulders. But that this came into desuetude, partly through the sloth of the teachers and ministers of the Word, whiles they were not careful to preserve the ordinances of God, and the right way of governing the Church; and partly through their pride while they would do all by themselves, and have no consorts, Vtinam modo nostra redirent In mores tempora priscos.

But let us hear a triple divination which the non-friends of ruling Elders give forth upon this testimony. First, Bishop Hall tells us that it is not Ambrose, but a counterfeit who wrote that Commentary upon the Epistles, and for this he alleges our own Parker against us. The truth is, Bellarmine and Scultingius taught him this answer: the place of Parker he cites not in the margin; but I believe the place he means of is de polit. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 13. where he holds indeed, that the author of these Commentaries was not Ambrose, Bishop of Milan; but shows withal, that he nothing doubts of the Catholic authority of the Commentaries themselves; Hoc vero, &c. This says he, may befall the best author whoever he be, that some may ascribe his works to another. But that he lived before the Council of Nice, this adds weight to his testimony of the Seniors. These Commentaries are commonly cited by our divines, as Ambrose's. I find them in Erasmus his edition, both at Collen, 1532. and at Paris, 1551. acknowledged to be the genuine works of Ambrose, only the Prefaces before the Epistles are called in question. They are also acknowledged in the edition of Costerius at Basile, 1555. Sixtus Senensis ascribes them to Ambrose in like manner. The edition of Collen, 1616. has an observation prefixed, which repudiates many of his works, and these Commentaries among the rest. Yet the last edition at Paris, 1632. has expunged that observation, which they had not done if they had approved the same: however that same observation makes those Commentaries to be as old as 372. or 373. Perkins in his preparative before his demonstration of the problem, calls in question the Commentary upon the Hebrews, but no more. Rivet shows that these who reject them, do neither give good reasons for their opinion; neither yet do agree among themselves. Bellarmine ascribing them to Hilarius Diaconus, Maldonat to Remigius Lugdunensis, the Censors of Lovaine to the author of the questions of the old and new Testament. I believe that Cooke in his Censura Scriptorum veterum, has touched the true cause why these Commentaries are so much called in question, which is the perfidiousness of Papists, who when they find any thing therein which they imagine to be for their advantage, then they cry, Saint Ambrose says thus, but when they find any thing therein which makes against them, then they say as Hall does, It is not Ambrose, but a counterfeit. I must confess that Hall is wiser in disclaiming the same, than his fellows in acknowledging them: yet because he found that the testimony may be of force, though not Ambrose's, and beside had no proof for this allegiance, he durst not trust to it, but thought upon another answer.

To proceed then to their next conjecture. Bilson, Sutcliffe, and Doctor Field, tell us that Ambrose meant of Bishops, who excluded other clergy men from their consultations, and that by the name of teachers he might fitly understand the Bishops, seeing none but they have power to preach in their own right, and others but only by permission from them. This is a most desperate shift for a bad cause. For first, there is no warrant neither from Scripture nor Antiquity to distinguish Bishops from other ministers of the Word by the name of teachers. Secondly, as for that reason alleged that none but Bishops have power to preach in their own right, it is contrary to that which Field himself says in the very next Chapter, where he holds that Presbyters are equal with Bishops in the power of order, and that they may preach and minister the Sacraments by virtue of their order, as well as Bishops. Thirdly, neither did the advising of Bishops with Presbyters cease in Ambrose his time. For as Field himself notes out of the fourth Council of Carthage (which was holden shortly after Ambrose his writing hereof) all sentences of Bishops were declared to be void, which were not confirmed by the presence of their Clergy. Let us also hear Hierome and Chrysostome, (who lived both in the same age with Ambrose) what does a Bishop, says Hierome, ordination excepted, which a Presbyter may not do? By ordination alone, says Chrysostome, are the Bishops higher, and this only they seem to have more than Presbyters. Which were not true if Bishops had then governed the Churches by themselves, excluding the counsel and advice of Presbyters: yes, though ordination was the only one thing which made the difference, Ambrose himself shows that Presbyters in Egypt did also ordain when the Bishop was not present.

We have heard Sutcliffe and Doctor Field, but Saravia, and after him Tilen, and after them both Hall, has forged another gloss upon the place of Ambrose. They boldly aver that the Elders without whose counsel Ambrose says nothing was done in the Church, were Elders by age and not by office. We reply. First, falsehood cannot keep its feet. Before we heard Saravia maintain that the Seniors among the Jews, who sat in ecclesiastical assemblies with the Priests, and had equal suffrages therein with the Priests, were their rulers and their magistrates, now he tells us they were old men, Elders by age only, not by office. Secondly, in his defence of that same twelfth Chapter against Beza, he acknowledges that the Christian Church had other Elders by office, besides the ministers of the Word. The Church says he, has had Elders some by divine institution, as the Pastors of Churches, and ministers of the Word of God. Others by condition of age or office, or estimation, or learning and experience. How could he then astrict the words of Ambrose to Elders by age only? 3. Where was it ever read or heard, that old men, who had no ecclesiastical office, were taken into the assemblies of the Church, so that nothing was done without their counsel? 4. The Elders of whom Ambrose speaks, are opposed to the teachers, therefore they are not Elders by age: for such are some of the teachers themselves. 5. Ambrose indeed in his preceding words had expounded the place of the Apostle (1 Timothy 5:1) of Elders by age: but thereupon he took occasion to speak of Elders by office also. 6. That the Elders which we read to have been in the Jewish Church, were not Elders by age, Basil shows plainly, whose testimony we shall hear by and by.