SECT. I.

TO illustrate the truth of these foure Positions, and withall to prove that the Churches were at first governed by Bi­shops and Presbyters, he begins with the first Church, the Church of Jerusalem, Mother of all Churches, from whence the sound of the Gospel went out into all the world. This Church was un­der the charge of Iames, the sonne of Alpheus, one of the Apo­stles, and his Presbyters; No doubt by the consent and appoint­ment of the other Apostles, providing for the Church there be­fore their departure into other coa [...]s.This is comir­med too by Ig­natius & Clem. Alexandrinus. This appeares by many pregnant passages of the Scriptures, as, Galar 1.18. Gal. 2.9. Act. 15.1, 13, 19. Gal. 2.12. All these places prove that Saint [Page 4] Iames had the charge of that Church, as being the chiefe of that first Councel held there, of which we reade, Acts 15. andAnd when James. Peter and John, &c. no­minated by S. Paul (in that fore-named Epistle to the Gal. 2.9.) before the rest of the Apostles, some of whose names wee finde there recorded; To denote his preheminencie and precedencie in that place.

And that he had Presbyters for his Assistants, appeares by the second verse of the fore-cited Chapter of the Acts. & ch. 21. v. 19. where we find that S. Paul at his last comming to Jerusalem,Acts 15. went in to Iames, where all the Elders were present, to advise with him that had the care of that Church, about the great busi­nesse then in hand, how to behave himselfe towards those of the Circumcision who beleeved.

Of the Colledge of Presbyters at Jerusalem, and of their con­currence and assistance with S. Iames in the Government of that Church, we have two unreprovable Arguments in the Acts of the Apostles, Act. 11.30. Act. 15.4, 6, 22, 23.

SECT. II.

THis pattern thus setled in Jerusalem, the Apostles followed in other Churches, which they converted to the Faith by preaching to them the Word of Life. These Churches were first founded in Cities, as appears byTert. lib. de Praescrip. c. 20. Ac proinde Ec­clesias apud u­nainquam (que) ci­vitatem condi­derunt. Tertullian, which is most wor­thy our observation. For because they could not bestow their paines equally in all places, reason required they should labour most to plant the faith of Christ in the most populous: From whence it was propagated through the Townes and Countryes which were adjacent to those Cities, which therefore in time became and were called the Territories, Parishes, or Dioceses of such or such Churches. Now the form of Government estated by S. Paul over these Churches, is pointed out to us, Act. 14.23. where we reade that Paul and Barnabas ordained them Presby­ters in every Viz. in Lystra and Derbe, Ci­ties of Lyconia, and in Iconium. Church. i. e. Colledges, Bodies or Companies of Presbyters, to order with common advice and joynt consent the Churches planted by them in severall Cities. This appeares too by the 20. of Act. 17. where we find that there was a Bench [Page 5]of Elders at Ephesus, for which Paul sent to Miletus. Philip 1. Thus in the Church of Philippi, you shall find that the Apostle directed his Epistle to the Bishops and Deacons there, which must be to the Colledge of Presbyters next above the Order of Deacons. So when the Apostle writeth to the Thestalonians, 1 Thes. 12. And we beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord: The multitude whereof he spea­keth is to be understood like wise of the body or company of the Presbyters. And in all Church Writers you shall find continuall remembrance of these Presbyters, whensoever there is speech of Mother Churches in Mother Cities.

Now the Presbyters being styled in the holy Scriptures by the name of Bishops, Quest. a Question will arise from hence, Whether the Apostles from the beginning ordained Bishops over the Presby­ters.

Wee must needs answer Negatively:Resp. And the truth of this will appeare out of Act. 20.17. where the Apostle using these words to the Presbyters of Ephesus, Take heed to your selves, and to the whole flocke, over whom the holy Ghost hath made you EPISCOPOS, Bishops, or Overseers. Where, as he giveth the name of Bishops to the Bresbyters, so he addresseth his instructi­ons to none befides. From whence we may probably infer, That at that time there were no Bishops; If there had been any, S. Paul would have mentioned them with respect to the eminencie of their office.

So we finde none at Philippi, Phil. 1.6. as is evident by the Epigraph or Inscription of that Epistle to the Philippians: None in the Church of Corinth, as is collected by S. Ambrose, and others, from the many and great disorders which the Apostle sharply taxeth, 1 Cor. 11.21. All which happened,Vide Tert. de Praeserip. c 36. where he calls the fore-named Churches Apo­stoloram Cathe­dras. By which it appears that the Apostles sate there as chiefe. because there was no Bishop to compose the differences of that Church in the Apostles absence.

It seemes then, that the Apostle himselfe had taken the chiefe charge and oversight of those Churches wherein he had planted bodies of Presbyters. This appears by that place in the 2 Cor. 11.28. Besides those things which are without, that which com­meth upon me daily, the care of all the Churches. See Acts 15 36. 1 Cor. 5.4. where he proceedeth in the sentence of Excommu­nication [Page 6]against the incestuous person, and requireth of the church (i.e. the Presbyter) to see it satisfied. And the whole frame of his Epistles containes the Acts of his Spirituall Government, which he reserved to himself in chiefe over the Churches which he himselfe had planted. The like may be asserted of Saint Peter, in respect of those Churches committed to his charge. Vid. 1 Pet. 5.1. where he directeth his exhortation of feeding the flocke to none but Presbyters, which St. Hierome long since has maintained out of the 13. to the Hebrewes 17. where the Apo­stle writeth in the plurall number, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, &c.

SECT. III

THings being thus setled, when the Apostles by reason of that multitude of busines, had not leisure to attend in person upon the Churches which they had planted, they appointed certaine Heads or Superintendents over the company of Presbyters, which Heads ever since have retained the name of Bishop.

Thus were Timothy and Titus made Bishops over the Chur­ches of Crete and Asia, Whose Mother Church was Ephesus. when it was revealed to the Apostle S. Paul, that from thenceforth he was to make the Westerne parts of the world his Diocesse, vid. Act. 19.21. And it was at Ephe­sus where S. Paul thus bespake the Elders, Act. 20.25. And now behold, I know that all you among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God shall see my face no more. And knowing by re­velation, that hee was to serve God no more in those Easterne parts,Vid. Tit. 1.5. hee appointed those two Disciples Timothy and Titus to be in his stead over those Churches: And that their charge was as great as that of Bishops is not questioned by those who are versed in the most ancient Records of our Church. Quid est E­piscopus nisi primus Presbyterorum, sayes St. Augustine: There­fore if Timothy and Titus had a full power and authority to or­daine Presbyters and Deacons, and to fit them with instructions to manage their severall offices, we may not doubt out of a [...]ond nicety to stile them Bishops, or Overscers, for that they were the Heads of their severall Presbyters, and had a directive and coercive power over them in their particular charges, which [Page 7]might be proved by many places in the holy Scriptures. Wee may conclude then that S. Paul, in that hee placed two of his prime Disciples in two principall CitiesOf Crete and Ephesus. in which there were Presbyters, and gave them in charge to ordaine Presbyters in e­very City, as there should be need: Hence (I say) we may in­ferre, that our Apostle thus setling the Easterne Churches, and appointing them their Heads and Bodies of Ecclesiasticall Go­vernours,Rev. 2.3. chap. This is also manifest by Ignatius his Epistle, who was S. Johns Disciple, who likewise makes often mention of Bishops and Presbyters. intended to leave a patterne which afterwards should be followed in all Ages. And that this Government was setled in Asia under Timothies charge, it appeares by S. Iohns seven Epistles sent from our Lord to the 7. Churches, & directed to the Angels there, who no doubt were Bishops. And that act of his in directing his Epistles to one in the name and behalfe of the whole Church, argues the eminencie of the Head fit to answer for the body it representeth.

SECT. IV.

ANd that the same forme of Government which was setled in Hierusalem and the forenamed Churches, was likewise established in the Church of Antioch, may be proved by that Text in the 13. of Acts, where we read,Act. 12.2. that there were in the Church of Antiochia certaine Prophets and Teachers, and as they mini­stred unto the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the worke whereunto I have called them; and when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands upon them, they sent them away. It is safe to affirme, that these Pro­phets and Teachers were no other then that ranke and order of Presbyters, because we reade, that they ministred unto the Lord and gave imposition of hands, which was the worke of ordi­nary Ministers, though that particular imposition of hands upon Paul and Barnabas was not an ordination of Paul and Barnabas, but a separation of them, v. 2. and destinating them to distinct Countries. The Heads of the Church were S. Paul and Peter, as appeares by Ignatius in his Epistle ad Magn. where wee have these words For at Antiochia the Disciples were first called Chri­stians, Paul and Peter founding the Church. But to untwist a doubt which some may make, that is, How it came to passe, that [Page 8]there were two Heads of that Church?Gal. 2.9, 10. Wee may answer, that there were two severall congregations at one and the same time there; the one of the Gentiles, called by the Apostle Uncircum­cision; the other of the Jewes; the care of the one was com­mitted to Peter, the other to S. Paul. These two Apostles being called away by their imployments in other parts, tooke the same course with this Church which before was done by S. Paul with those which he commended to the care of Timothy and Titus: For, both congregations being by that time united together in a sweet harmony of Love and Peace, he commended them joyntly to the care of Euodius the Bishop, who was predecessour to Ig­natius. To maintaine yet further the truth of the position we are assured by the authority of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, that Di­onysius the Areopagite, S. Pauls Convert, was Bishop of Athens. In Alexandria, Act. 17.34. from Mark the Evangelist (who was first set over that Church) there was a continued succession of Bishops and Presbyters, even untill the times of Heraclas and Dio­nysius, as Saint Hierome witnesses in his Epistle to Eua­grius.

SECT. V.

HAving proved that the Apostles ordained Presbyters to go­verne the Churches planted by their care and paines, the Heads whereof after their departure were Bishops; from this proofe we may easily draw this influence, That the government of the Churches was for a long time upheld in common by Bi­shops and Presbyters, as from the beginning the Presbyters go­verned joyntly with the Apostles. This inference Mr. Th. con­firmes at large by many demonstrative and undenyable argu­ments, viz. p. 69, 70, 71. where out of Ignatius his Epistle ad Tra [...]ianos, and the Commentaries under S. Ambrose his name upon 1 Tim. 5.1. he proves what has been asserted.Nothing was done in the Churchly the Bishop without his Presbyters advice and consent. S. Ambrose his words are these, Apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est se­nectus, unde & Synagoga & postea Ecclesia seniores habuit sine quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesiâ.

This likewise is confirmed by S. Hierome upon Titus 1.5. and by the Authority of S. Cyprian, Ep. 6. And by reason of this [Page 9]concurrence of the Presbyters with the Bishops in the Govern­ment of the Church, it is, that the most ancient Church Writers comprized both Bishops and Prebyters under the same titles, entitling the Bishops Presbyters, not because there were then no Bishops (as some fondly deeme) but because both concur­red (as hath been said) in a joynt care of managing the affaires of the Church.

That their names were confounded Mr. Th. proves out of the Epistle of Clemens, vide p. 54. and out of Ignatius his Epistle to Hero his Deacon;Vi. Euseb. Ecc. Hist. p. 3. c. 23. where one and the same is cal­led [...] and [...]. and also out of Tertul. de praescrip. c. 3. The Apostle S. Peter stiles himself an Elder, 1 Pet. 1.5. of which no other reason can be given but this, that he so termes himself both in regard of his age, & in regard of his office, which was com­mon in the care of the Church with the Presbyters. To evince farther that there was ever a cōmunity of names, though a distin­ction in the order and office of Bishops and Presbyters, he cites a place out of Tertull: in his Apol. c. 39. Praesident probati quic (que) seniores, &c. where by the name of Elders or Presbyters, is to be understood the order of Bishops; With this of Tertullian ac­cords that of S. Ambrose, in his 1. Book de Offic. vid. c. 20. and of Irenaeus, l. 4. c. 43. both which authorities you may reade at large in Mr. Th. book, p. 77, 78, 79. And that both rankes or or­ders of Bishops and Presbyters were comprized under the name of Praepositi and Praesidentes, is cleare, as appeares by that place of Tertull. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. Eucharistiae Sacramentum nec de aliorum manu quam Praesidentium sumimus. The like we finde in S. Cyprian, Ep. 62. By all which it is manifest, that both or­ders had common Names in regard of the community of their office and charge.

As for the forme it selfe, of this Church-consistory, the mixt Government of Bishops and Presbyters, it relates to a patterne in the Synagogue of the Jewes, for it resembles their publike Court of Justice, which they called the Sanedrin, a great part whereof were Priests and Levites, and had the hearing of all sorts of causes. We have S. Ierome for our Advocate to confirme this resemblance between the Bishops and Presbyters, and that high Court of the Jewes.

He in his Comment upon Titus, speaking of Bishops con­joyned [Page 10]with Presbyters, sayes thus, Imitantur Moysen qui cum haberet in potestate sua praeesse populo Israeletico septunginta elegit cum quibus populum judicavit. Vid. R. Moses in Halacoth Sanedrin. c. 1. But when Moses was dead, a President was chosen over and above the seventy whom they called the Nasi, who from age to age supplyed Moses place, and such as the Nasi was over the Seventy, is a Bishop over the Pres­byters, i. e. chiefe both in Dignity and Office; of which there are two parts, [...] and [...], to rule the Church, (i. e. to keep those that be under him in obedience to good Lawes) and to performe divine service, to Pray and Preach, and to administer the Sacraments.

SECT. VI.

NOw because there be some who draw this comparison into consequence, labouring to prove that the Presbyteries ought to consist part of Elders of the people, and part of Church Mini­sters, as the Sanedrin was made up of Priests, Levites, and Laikes. They must know that the Sanedrin consisted of the chiefe of the People, as well as Priests and Levites, because the chiefe causes of the Commonwealth as well as of Religion, passed through their hands, and were referred to their judgements. The Church in all temporall matters is subject to the Lawes and authority of the Commonwealth: But in those things which concerne the Soule, can we imagine that our Lord did leave her to the charge of any but to those who are trusted with the Keyes of his House, who are spirituall men, set apart and appointed for the cure of soules? But to prove that the Presbyteries then in use consisted of none but Ministers of the Church, it will not be amisse, first to cleare that Text in Timothie, 1 Tim. 5.17. which they urge who labour to maintaine that Lay persons were in the Apostles times admitted into Presbyteries. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the Word and Do­ctrine. These words carry at the first sound an appearance of two sorts of Elders, the one of which they would have Preachers, the other onely Rulers. 1 Pet. 5.2. But we must answer this Objection, first by an undeniable assertion taken out of St. Peters exhorta­tion [Page 11]to his Presbyters, and out of St. Pauls charge to the Pres­byters of Ephesus, Act. 20.Act. 20.28. Both their exhortations imply thus much, That the Presbyters duty did consist in this, to feed the Flocke of Christ, and to oversee it. We assert therefore that their office was both to govern and to teach; both which are plain­ly intimated in those qualities which the Apostle, 1 Tim. 3.2, 5. ascribes as proper to Bishops, i. e. (as Mr. Th. acknowledges) to Presbyters. Both too are contained in that very passage which is alledged to evince the necessity of Lay-Elders; for those El­ders that rule well are such as labour in the Word and Doctrine. Secondly, to the objection we answer thus, That in that place the Apostle intended only to difference the Presbyters by the exe­cution of their functions, and not to make any difference in the functions themselves:Reade Mr. Mede his ex­position upon that Text of 1 Tim. 5.17. Vid. Medes Diatr. For the function and office was one and the same, belonging to one and the same Ecclesiastique person, his office was to rule and teach; this latter was rightly accoun­ted the most eminent point of that Function; he that took spe­ciall paines in this, (which the word [...] implyes) and withall did rule well, was worthy of double honour in the judge­ment of St. Paul, and this in the judgement of the most learned Interpreters is conceived to be the meaning of the Text.

Againe, what if we should not deny,Eph. 4.4. &c. Rom. 12.6. 1 Cor. 12.28. but confesse what is evi­dent and cleare by many Texts, that the Holy Ghost distributed in that infancy of the Church many personall gifts and speciall en­dowments on severall persons to be employed in the edification of particular Assemblies; amongst which gifts this of ruling might be one, which the Holy Ghost might bestow on some to assist the Presbyters in their government. Although this be gran­ted to have been in the time of the Apostles, yet if any man should now presume to draw their example into imitation, I would ask him this question; What commission he or any man has to turne temporary indowments into perpetuall places? I am sure he has none. What might be expedient in the Apostles dayes, may not be thought convenient in ours. And if we should en­deavour to doe now what then was done, I feare the world would be turned upside downe, and all things brought to confu­sion. But to conclude this grand Controversie betweene England and Geneva; Mr. Th. who comes not short of any in the skill of [Page 12]Antiquity, assures us that we shall never finde in any ancient Au­thor the least mention of Lay-Elders in the government of the Church in that manner as is practised by the Genevists. The con­trary he proves out of Tertullian, Pag. 106.108. and out of the Commentaries under St. Ambrose his name upon Titus: by which it is manifest that the Elders then in use were Doctores, such as were employ­ed in the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments.

SECT. VII.

THis great doubt being, I suppose, cleared, and it being suffici­ently proved, that Lay-Elders have no right to the ordering of Church affaires, or medling with spirituall things which con­cerne the good and welfare of mens soules: Mr. Th. proceeds to discover out of the most ancient Authors what were the bounds of the office of Bishop and Presbyter, and in what cases the Bishop had the preeminence.

He tells us that the office of Divine Service, i. e. of Teaching or Preaching and administring the Sacraments, were wont to be reserved to the Bishop in honour of his place and eminency of it.i. e. when he came into any Church the Presbyter ever gave way to him to preach. This is witnessed by Just. Martyr, who relates in plaine termes that the Sermon used to be made, and the Eucharist celebrated by the [...], or Bishop; so that the Presbyters did not preach but when the Bishop was absent, and administred not the Sacra­ments, i. e. did not consecrate in his presence. This is evident in the life of St. Austin, by the story of Valerius, a Greek Bishop, who comming into St. Austines Church at Hippo, desired Saint Austine (who was not then a Bishop) to officiate, in regard that he was not well skilled in the African, nor the people in the knowledge of the Greek tongue. Tertullian affirmes the same, l. de Bapt. c. 17. so does Ignatius in Epist. ad Smyrn. Where to shew the preeminence of the Bishop he proves, that as by the ancient constitutions of the Church the Presbyters ought not to doe any thing without the consent of the Bishop, nor the Bishop in great matters without the consent and advice of his Presby­ters, so neither ought the Laity to doe any thing in the Church without the Bishop and Presbyters approbation or liking. [Page 13]This may be farther proved out of Ignatius in his Epist. ad Trall. And so still in Ignatius the Presbyters are assistant to the Bishop in all things. Which is likewise confirmed by the sixth Canon of the Councell of Gangra. Vi. Mr. Th. p. 118, 119. Where hee also proves that the Deacons were not suijuris, i. e. had not the sole disposing of the maintenance of the Church and poore, but did onely execute the will and judgement of the Bishop and Presbyters, and distributed the Churches almes to those whom they appointed.

SECT. VIII.

HAving thus declared in part the preeminence of the Bishop over the Presbyters, i. e. the priviledge he has in some cases above these, and also that the Deacons as well as the Lay-persons are subject to the power of both the former, Mr. Th. proceeds to discourse of two particulars in the Office common to Bishops and Presbyters, wherein the people have a share, and may claim an interesse.

• The one is the discipline of Penance;
• The other the ordaining of Ministers.

And first of all by way of manuduction to his discourse, he ex­plaines that Text, Matth. 16.19. And I will give thee the keyes of heaven: And whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in hea­ven. Which power of binding and loosing he affirmes to be the same with that given to the Apostles, John 20.24. Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto him: and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained. The Bishop and Presbyters that exercised this power of binding and loosing, remitting and retaining sins, re­presented the office of Judges and Physitians: Lapsis fratri­bus per poeni­tentiam mede­la quaeratur. Firmil. in Ep. ad Cypr. Ep. 75. Judges they were in shutting Gods house upon offenders, and binding their sinnes upon their consciences; Physitians, in prescribing the medicine of repentance: And in that respect alone are said to remit sinnes; (as a Physitian who does no more but prescribe the medicine, or at the most see it prescribed, is said to cure a mans disease.) And having a spirituall eye to judge when repentance is sound and un­fained, upon due knowledge of this they may assure men that [Page 14]their sinnes are pardoned, and pronounce their absolution decla­ratively, whereby they unloose that knot wherewith their con­sciences were tyed.

The medicine of Repentance prescribed to a delinquent, was wont to be strengthened with the prayers and intercession of the Congregation, but in the chiefe place of the Bishop and Pres­byters, whose prayers were correspondent to that which is given to make physick work. Vi. Mat. 18.19. out of which text follow­ing that wherein Christ gives to the Apostles power of binding and loosing, may be proved that the Congregation interceding by their prayers with God for a sinner, in this respect bore a part, and had a share with the Church, (the Bishop and Presbyters) in the discipline of penance which these imposed upon delin­quents; buti. e. The con­gregation or people. they medled not with the keyes of Gods house, i. e. they did not (as the Jewes were wont to doe) usurpe the power of Excommunication upon causes of their particular in­teresse, but left that wholly to the Church, i. e. to the Eccelesia­sticall Governours, to whom only that power did belong. Dic Ecclesiae, Matth. 18.17. implyes as much. That censure of Ex­communication (as appeares by 1 Cor. 5.13.) did cut men off from the conversation of Christians, (for that such persons for­feited by their hainous sinnes the priviledge of Gods sonnes) and so delivered them over to the power of Satan, to be led captive by him at his will and pleasure: As those among the Israelites that lodged without the Camp were in danger to be lickt up and devoured by the Amalekites. That course of Excommunicati­on as it was a preservative in regard of those that were not tain­ted, yet might be, so was it medicinall in respect of the sicke which were usually restored to their former soundnesse by shame and griefe:Vi. 1 Cor. 5.6 1 Tim. 1.20. and this power of excommunicating was exercised in common by the Bishops and Presbyters: which practice was a good glosse upon the words of our Saviour to Peter, Behold, I give thee the keyes of heaven: for what was promised to Peter was given to his fellow Apostles, but was to rest in the Church throughout all ages. Witnesse that of Saint Austine, Ep. 79. Si hoc in Ecclesiâ fit, Petrus quando claves accepit Eccle­siam sanctam significavit. Vid. Mr. Th. p. 143. where you shall finde for the confirmation of this an authority out of Tertull. [Page 15]Apol. c. 39. and another out of St. Aust. Homil. ult. ex 50. Hom. c. 11.

How because the Church cannot proceed in their Censures effectually or to any good purpose, but by vertue of those lawes which are put in force and maintained by the Secular powers; and because it cannot be expected that the people should yeeld a voluntary submission to the Discipline of the Church, farther then it is enabled by the Lawes of the Realme to exercise it; Therefore it is much to be wished that those wholesome and usefull Lawes, by which the Ministers of the Church are enabled, directed, and constrained to exercise and discharge this necessary part of their office, may be revived and put into act; that so the power of the Keyes given to the Church by our Lord, being assi­sted and strengthned by the Secular arme, may be enabled to re­duce all notorious offenders to a good life and conversation by the Discipline of penance, and to cut them off from the Church that refuse it. Then this Discipline of penance there is not a more puissant way to beat down Vice, and to discountenance Malefactors in a Christian Commonwealth: In regard that when they have satisfied the Lawes of the Kingdome with the losse of goods and reputation, or have escaped death by the con­nivence and gentlenesse of their Judges. Neverthelesse if the di­scipline of the Church were exercised upon them, they should not communicate with the people of God, till the Church were satisfied of their correction and amendment. This also would give satisfaction to the tender consciences of those good Christi­ans, who like to those in St. Cpyrians time are scandalized when they see them admitted to the Communion who live (without any the least amendment) in a constant practice and profession of sinne. There being then so much good,Cypr. Ep. 551. and the prevention of so much ill contained in the Discipline of penance, let it be the hearty desire of all knowing and well-affected Christians to­wards the State and Church, that the Discipline commended to us by our Saviour, and practised by the Apostles, may be with all care and speed reformed and brought againe into use.

SECT. IX.

HAving thus unfolded the nature of that power wherewith Christ invested his Apostles, and from them derived it to his Church, and that is the power of the Keyes, whereof there be two appendixes, Excommunication and the Discipline of Pe­nance, Mr. Th. proceeds to the discovery of the other part of the Churches Office, and that is the constituting and ordaining of Ministers, of which there be some vestigia or footsteps left for our imitation in the holy Scriptures, as, when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away, Act. 13.3. Act. 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the gift that was given thee by Prophecie, with the imposition of the hands of the Presbyterie: which words are expounded, 2 Tim. 1.6. by imposi­tion of my hands; so likewise 1 Tim. 5.22. To which we may adde the choice of Matthias, Act. 1.23. and that passage in the choice of the seven Deacons, Act. 6.3. Looke ye out among you seven men of honest report: and verse 5. and 6. They chose Steven and the rest, and set them before the Apostles, and when they had prayed they laid their hands upon them. Which place is alledged by St. Cyprian to prove that the people have an interesse, and ought to have a share in the ordination of Ministers. And that this was the custome and practice of the Primitive Church to publish the names of those persons who were to be ordained, that so the people discussing their lives and manners, might by their approbation ratifie the ordination of such whom they knew to be men well gifted, and of an holy conversation. This ap­peares by a remarkable passage in the life of Alexander Severus, by an excellent saying of St. Cyprian to this purpose,Ordinationes Sacerdotum sub populi as­sistentis con­scientia fieci. Cypr. and by the 6. Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon. By all which it is evi­dent that the people did not nominate, but onely approve by their common suffrage and consent the persons who were to be ordai­ned. And that the Bishop did advise with his Presbyters about the nomination of those who were to be ordained Deacons or Ministers, this is cleare by those words of St. Cyprian, Ep. 54. where he excuseth himselfe to his Clergy, that he had ordained [Page 17] Saturus and Optatus alone, without their consent and approba­tion. By this we may collect what was practised in that age of the Church.

• First, there was a nomination or publication of the persons names to the people.
• Secondly, upon their knowledge and approbation of the per­sons to be ordained, there followed imposition of hands, wherein consisted the accomplishment of the whole work, which is therefore called [...] in Greek.

Concerning the Ordination of Bishops onely this may be a­verred out of Saint Hierome, who hath recorded that in the Church of Alexandria the Presbyters were wont to choose a Bishop out of their owne Classis or rank: yet we must not de­ny that the first constitution of a Bishop there, who was Hana­nia, was made by Marke the Euangelist, as we may see in Eu­tichius, lately set forth by Mr. Selden. And it is evident out of many other Authors, that they nominated the person to be ap­proved of by the people, and to be ordained by the neighbour Bishops. This too is maintained by Saint Ambrose in his Com­ment. upon Ephes. 4.2. Where wee must understand by those words, Multorum Sacerdotum judicium, Non ordo sed meritum crea­bat Episcopum multorum Sa­cerdotum judi­cio constitutum &c. Vi. Can. 19. Concil. Antioc. as well the judgement of the Presbyters by whom the Bishop was elected, as of the Bishops of other Churches by whom he was ordained, and with whom he was to preserve the unity of the Church. And unlesse three Bishops at the least were present, it was not usuall to or­daine one. Thus without consent of the Bishops all procee­dings of the Clergy and people were quite disabled, and to no purpose in the Primitive times.

And although the Bishops in some Churches usurped the po­wer of Ordination of Ministers without the consent of their Pres­byters,Vi. Chrys. Hom. 2. in 1 Tim. It. Hieron. in Ep. ad Euagr. however it is manifest by the joynt consent of the Fa­thers (who witnesse that the Presbytery was a Bench assistant to the Bishop, without advice whereof nothing of moment was done or acted) & by the practice of the Apostles, that the Presby­ters ought to have a share with the Bishop in the imposition of hands.1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tim. 16. Timothy received imposition of hands from Saint Paul and the Presbyters of Autiochia. This last Thesis may be confir­med by the authority of Saint Cyprian, who oft expresses him­selfe in this particular, That he would never ordaine any with­out the advice of his Presbyters, and consent of the people: [Page 18]which advice implyes that they concurred with him in the Or­dination of Ministers. And as for imposition of hands, that the Presbyters also conjoyned with the Bishops in this, it is evident by the 22.Episcopus sine Concilio Cleri­corum suorum Clericos non ordinet; ita ut civium assen­sum & testi­monium quae­rat. Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage, and by the aforesaid Epistle of Firmilianus Bishop of Cesarea Cappadocia: as also by Ignatius his Epistle to Hero.

By all these authorities it evidently appeares that the Presby­ters concurred with the Bishops in the act of Ordination, assi­sting them by their prayers, gracing them by their presence, and countenancing their act by a joint consent in their Suffrages.

The like is affirmed in the fourth Councell of Carthage, c. 3. where it is provided and appointed, that when the Bishop giveth imposition of hands, the Presbyters also shall impose theirs by his, which they did to argue their consent to what was done by the Bishop.In which act the people had no share. And this joynt act of the Bishop and Pres­byters in laying their hands upon the heads of the Ministers, signified the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, which they then prayed might light upon them who are to be ordained.

As for the constituting and ordaining of Bishops, the advice of Mr. Th. is most observable and waighty. He advises in the first place, that with all circumspection and providence great care be used in ordering the choice of them. His meaning is that if the people in the primitive Church had an interesse or share in giving consent to those who were to be ordained Presbyters, much more must we think it very just and fit, that the votes of the Presby­ters and consent of the people should now precede and concur in the designing of such persons, under whom and with whom they are to guide and be guided in spirituall affaires; such persons are Bishops who should be men most holy in their life, and most eminent for learning. Most happy would this Nation be if all our Prelates were such; and if that prescribed method were duly observed in the choice, such would there alwayes or for the most part be, who should fit at the Helme of this poore distra­cted Church, now like to that Ship in which Peter was tossed, and ready to sink for want of good Pilots.

SECT. X.

LAst of all, because this Apostolicall government by Bishops and Presbyters is chiefly exercised in Ordination & Penance, a question may arise, Whether it belongs to the Bishop alone, [Page 19]without his Presbyters, to censure the offences (whether in do­ctrine or manners) of those persons who have received holy or­ders. Mr. Th. clearing first that place in 1 Tim. 5.19, 20. an­swers the question,Against an El­der receive not an accusation but under 2. or 3. witnesses, &c. That without all doubt it was the practice of the primitive times for the Bishop with his Presbyters to take the examination of offending Ministers, whom, being con­victed of their offence by the mouth, (i. e. the asseveration) of 2. or 3. witnesses, he in the presence of his Presbyters did rebuke before all in the sight and hearing of the congregation, that others thereby might be strucken with feare to offend God and his peo­ple by their scandalous conversation. If this course had been ta­ken formerly with Ministers and Deacons, it might have so plea­sed God that the Church should not now have layen bleeding and gasping in this fatall ruine: Neither would there have beene gi­ven to our enemies so just an occasion of relating sad truths in Gath and Askelon.

Thus following the method of that most learned Gentleman, I have cast his larger Modell into a lesser frame, that the cmmon people may hereby be better instructed and advised not to thinke of destroying Bishops, but rather labour and wish for the resto­ring of their Presbyteries; which forme of government being set downe and delivered in the holy Scriptures, is commended and countenanced by the agreement of historicall Truth, and pri­mitive practice, as of the Apostles and other succeeding ages. And seeing that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in place and function, I cannot but wonder that those should endeavour to de­stroy them, those who are Sons of the Apostles Faith and Do­ctrine. S. Hierom of all Church Writers least favorable to the Or­der of Bishops, is neverthelesse most large in acknowledging that without it the peace of particular Churches could not be preser­ved. In witnesse whereof we may appeale to those many and happy dayes which our Church since the Reformation by means of it hath enjoyed, without such ruptures and factions which have happened in a neighbouring Church, whose people were alwayes observed to be of all others most daring, in matters of Religion, to innovate opinions, and break the bonds of peace, by which the good and welfare of Church and State is promoted. To re-establish which blessed peace (after which we groane in our prayers with panting desires) it could be wished that wee might see the Heads of our Church, the Bishops, stand (as Mr. [Page 20] Th. expresses it well) in their right places, being set over Bodies or Colledges of Presbyteries, which should consist of men con­forme to the Church both in Doctrine and Discipline. To the want of which government, although some have attributed those many inconvenciences wherewith the Church is cumbred, yet most of the Clergy-men that are versed in the affaires of the Church, wishing its prosperity and peace, doe acknowledge and confesse with a protestation against it, That there is one in con­veniency now setled in the Church, which has done much mis­chiefe, and cannot be redressed without a publique Act of Par­liament: It is the committing of Jurisdiction at large (even that which by the power of the Keyes received from Christ is proper and essentiall to the Church) to Lay persons, as Chancel­lors and Commissaries &c. who may still retaine that office and ranke they hold in regard of those other points of Jurisdi­ction in charitable causes annexed by the favour of Princes and Lawes of Commonwealths to the Church,As the probat of Wils, &c. which is fittest to judge and determine in such cases, yet may be nonplust some­times for want of knowledge in the Civill Law, and therefore may and must have need of such assistants; who, if they moved onely in the lower Sphere of the Law, and medled not with that Primum mobile, the great wheele of the Church, the discipline of penance, but did leave the execution of this to the Bishop and Presbyters. If this were once amended, and officers duly censured by the B^ps & their Presbyters openly in the Church, or in any pub­like place of Justice: And besides the exercise of this discipline, if they enjoined their joint pains & parts in the tryall & examina­tion of persons who come for Ordination, providing that none be ordained but those who are either Assistants of, and are presented to Cures (according to our Lawes) if this were faithfully done, and Ministers without connivence censured who should offend either in life or doctrine, then should we see Righteousnesse run downe like a streame in our streets, and Peace would flourish within our wals, and Plenty in our palaces.

This is my daily prayer, and it is the desire of all good Chri­stians: