assist and help the Apostles in the Work of founding and settling the Churches for this cause left I there in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting or left undone to wit by Paul and ordain Elders in every City T it 1. 5. In the Acts of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are said to ordain Elders in every Church and here Titus is said to be left in Crete to do it Indeed both Timothy and Titus in what they did the one at Ephesus the other at Crete were only Deputies that acted as by Delegation of S. Paul according to the Instructions which he gave them for this Apostle saith to Titus I left thee in Crete to ordain Elders AS I HAD APPOINTED and sets out the Qualifications that Titus must observe in the Elders he ordained Tit. 1. verse 6 7 8 c. In like manner he instructs Timothy how he was to behave himself in the House of God in settling Elders and Deacons 1 Tim. from 1 to 15. so that if Bishops be not Evangelists as well as Apostles I do not see of what Advantage Timothy and Titus their Business at Ephesus and at Crete can be to your Cause 〈…〉 of our Lord was Bishop of Ierusalem 〈…〉 and that he is stiled Bishop by S. Luke who yet had a fair Occasion 〈◊〉 it in his Acts of the Apostles had Iames been indeed such a Bishop nor is he so styled by any other of the Sacred Writers and if we except the Râ—â— Clement in an Epistle said to be his the first that stiled him so was Hegesippus who lived at least a whole Century after Another Clement he of Alexandria is also cited by Theodorus Mitochita and by others to prove it but really the Story as Clement tells it if they represent him right carries its own Confutation for they make him say That Iames by Divine Appointment was ordained to be the first Bishop of Ierusalem to prevent any Emulation and Dispute that Peter Iohn and the other Iames might otherwise have had for that honour But however that was I do acknowledge for my own part that Iames was Bishop of Ierusalem but I acknowledge it only in the sense in which he was Bishop of all the other Churches and he was no more in the Opinion of the first Clement if we credit Bishop Iewell for this Bishop in the Defence of his Apology Part 2. Page 98. brings in Clement speaking thus I send greeting unto Iames the Brother of our Lord and the Bishop of Bishops Governour of the Holy Church of the Jews at Ierusalem and also of all the Churches that by Gods Providence are every where founded here faith Bishop Iewell Iames is the Head of all Churches whatsoever By this Testimony it plainly appears that Iames the reputed Bishop of Ierusalem as he was Iames the Apostle so he was no otherwise Bishop of that City than as Peter was of Rome and how that was Dr. Reinolds has told us in his Conference with Hart where he saith But whether Eusebius or Hierom or Damasus or whosoever have said that Peter was a Bishop either they use the name of Bishop generally and so it proves not your purpose or if they meant it as commonly we do they missed the Truth for generally a Bishop is an Overseer in which Signification it reaches to all who are put in Trust with Oversight and Charge of any thing as Eliazer is called Bishop of the Tabernacle and Christ the Bishop of our Souls But in our common use of speech it notes him to whom the oversight and charge of a particular Church is committed such as were the Bishops of Ephesus Philippi and they whom Christ calls the Angels of the Churches Now Peter was not Bishop after this latter sort for he was an Apostle and the Apostles were sent to Preach to all the World wherefore when the Fathers said he was a Bishop either they meant it in the former sense or ought to have meant it In fine it may not be amiss on this occasion to take notice of an Observation made by a learned Man and he too a Bishop in reference to the Testimony of Fathers to wit That they wrote things they saw not and so framâ— matters according to their own Conceits and many of them were taintâ— with Partial Humours which another more softly expresseth thus Tâ—â— they namely the Fathers finding the name of Bishop continued in the 〈◊〉 cession of one Paster after another judged 〈…〉 according to them that lived in their times An Observa◠〈…〉 use with respect to the Fathers that lived at a greater distance than 〈◊〉 be of Clement did from the Apostolical time Thus I have briefly touched the Arguments offered by you in affirmance of Diocesan Episcopacy only to that which is taken from the Angels of the Churches in the Revelation I have said nothing because I do not think it worthy of a particular Consideration for since these Angels for ought we know might be only so many several Presidents of the Presbyteries in Congregational Churches the instancing of them makes but little for your purpose who do affirm Diocesan Prelacy But as you have argued for Diocesan Authority which you would have of Apostolical Institution so others do for the Synodical which as they apprehend is grounded upon the Synod so they call the Assembly at Ierusalem that was convened upon the appeal made by the Believers at Antioch For say they this Controversie was absolutely and finally decided by that0 Synod and a Decree or Canon made and this sent not only to the Church at Anticch but to all the Churches besides of Syria and Cilicia I deny not that the former Practice was the Occasion of Synods or Assemblies of Bishops but I affirm that that Assembly though it had something in it of more resemblance to a Synod properly so called than is in meer Convocations of the Clergy the Brethren as well as the Apostles and Elders being in that Assembly who generally are Excluded from Convocations yet it was not properly a Synod A Synod properly whether Diocesan Provincial or National being but an Ecclesiastical Parliament of the one sort or of the other in which all that are obliged by the Determinations and Resolutions of it must be understood to be in Person or by Representation as either being there themselves or else electing those that do Compose it to represent and stand for them The Controversie at Antioch was about a Doctrinal Subject of great Concernment whether Circumcision and Obedience to all the Mosaical Laws was necessary to Salvation for This some of Iudea taught the Brethren and were opposed for it by S. Paul and Barnabas but the Contention running high and neither side yielding all agreed to send to Ierusâ—lem to the Apostles and Elders â— to the Original Deliverers of the Christian Doctrin which being a Doctrin â—f Faith and not of Discourse and Ratiocination they rightly judged that it â—ust be
Corinthian on which you insist so much does serve your purpose For S. Paul his Interposition in that business was purely Apostolical and Extraordinary from beginning to end the Cognisance he took was Extraordinary by his Apostolical Spirit or Revelation as Hierome interprets it absent in Body but present in Spirit The Censure Extraordinary which was to give the Incestuous up unto Satan as to a Tormentor So Hierome carries this also and the manner of the Execution extraordinary too to wit by delegation of his Apostolical Spirit to the Church of Corinth when you come together and my Spirit So that the whole Proceeding was extraordinary and though you are pleased to call it an Act of Episcopal or Prelatical Authority and to make an Argument of it for Diocesan Jurisdiction yet unless you can find Diocesans now that have the Spirit that can have a Cognisance of things at Distance by Revelation that can give up Persons to Satan as to a Tormentor and that can delegate their Spirit to a Congregation the Exception lying against it will still continue in Force Wherefore as yet I see no other Prelacy instituted by the Apostles but that of the Presbyters over the People nor are there any Officers now of any Denomination which ought to have though you seem to intimate that some ought a Mission like to that of the Apostles for as they were Ambassadours that were sent immediately by Christ as he was by God and brought their Credentials with them sealed by the Holy Ghost so I will not scruple to call them Extraordinary upon this Account too any more than to call the Presbyters and Deacons ordinary even though the Papists and the Socinians do so The first Missions were extraordinary whiles the Church was to be constituted but in a constituted setled Church in which the Officers are ordinary their Calling is so likewise But to let you know what Standard there is of Extraordinaries for this you demand I believe I have no more to do but to remind you of what you already know that the use of speaking or common Language is that Standard for certain you that have read so often in Cicero not to mention Livy Suetonius and others of Honores Extraordinarii Praesidium Extraordinarium Potestas Extraordinaria cannot be ignorant that that is Extraordinary which being not the setled standing perpetual order and use is only for some certain time and on some particular special Occasion or Accident And it is in this sense of the word that the Roman Magistrates in respect of time are distributed by Lipsius into Extraordinary and Ordinary when he says Aut enim Magistratus à tempoâ—ibus dividuntur ut Ordina ii Extraordinaâ—ii Illi dicti qui statis Temporibus semper in Republicâ essent uâ— Consulâ—s Praetores Ediles Tribuni Quaestores isti qui nec eodem tempore nec semper ut Dictatores Censores Inter-Reges c. It is true you tell me that the Commission Matth. 28. is not peculiar to the Apostles and that therefore it does not Evidence they were Extraordinary Officers for say you There is indeed a Charge given them to Baptize and Teach but it seems a wonderful way of proving them to be Extraordinary Officers from the Authority they had to do that which any Ordinary Minister may do and that by vertue of this Commission By vertue of this Commission Excuse me as to that every Body will not yield it some think that this Commission was personal given only unto the Apostles Go ye and inforced with a promise that related only to them directly Lo I am with you to the end of the world That is to the Consummation of the Mosaical Seculum for so they understand that Phrase and apprehend they have sufficient Reason to do so upon comparing it with Matth. 24. 3 14. But let that be as it will Indeed Is the Commission given to the Apostles Matth. 28. not peculiar to them Are they Empowered by it to do no more than every ordinary Minister may I had thought that ordinary Ministers had been limited and local not unlimited and oecumenical Officers and that by their Institution they were confin'd to Teach and Rule the particular Churches over which they were appointed and not to Teach and Rule the whole World or as the Apostles had to have care of all the Churches I pray tell me is a Parish-Priest of as great Authority as a Diocesan and yet a Diocesan compared with an Apostle is less than a Parish-Priest The whole World was the Diocess of the Apostles Go ye teach all Nations I profess I am much surprized to find you deny without Distinction that the Apostles were Extraordinary Officers especially after Dr. Cave in his History of the Lives of the Apostles which I believe you have read distinguishes their work and shews what was Extraordinary in it and what was Ordinary But possibly you foresaw that should you have spoken plainly and have said as he does that their ordinary work the standing and perpetual part of it was to Teach and Instruct the People in the Duties and Principles of Religion to Administer the Sacraments to Institute Guides and Officers and to Exercise the Discipline and Government of the Church I would easily reply That the Apostles had provided themselves of Successors as to all this work but that these Successors were the Presbyters which they Instituted in every Church to feed and govern it and that having ordained no others it looks as if they saw no need of others But having this Occasion I beg your pardon if I use it to set out more fully the Institution which the Apostles made for the Government and Edification of the Churches and how that Institution came to be altered and by what steps First then the Apostles instituted a Senate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a College of Presbyters in every Church to Feed and Govern it and this is evident from Acts 14. 23 25. where Paul and Barnabas are said not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church to have ordained Elders a College of Elders not a single Elder or Bishop And as they are not said to have ordained a single Bishop or Elder in any Church so much less are they said to have ordained any Prelate or Intendant over many Churches every Church as a Body Politick Compleat had sufficient power within it self for all its Ends They ordained Elders in every Church And to me it is plain that Clement had regard to this practice of the Apostles when in the place I cited before upon another occasion he says of them That going through Countries and Cities preaching the Gospel they appointed the first Fruits of them to be Bishops and Deacons having approved or Confirmed them by the Spirit That the Apostles instituted many Presbyters and not a single Presbyter in every Church is further confirmed not only from the frequent mention of a Presbytery found in
l. 4. ep 6. Literae tuae per Quintum Compresbyterum missae Ay! the 25th Epistle of the 3d Book is directed to his Compresbyters And in the 24th Epistle of the same Book he calleth Rogatianus his Compresbyter but he no where calls the Deacous â—â—s Condeacors clearly implying by that Denomination that when he was made Bishop he ceased not to be a Presbyter as not become of another Order only he was now a President in it and possessed of the first Chair I do not find you deny the Institution of the Presbytery the which I have abundantly evinced or so much that in the first Times the Bishop was only the President of it or the first Presbyter which yet is the main of the Cause And you can as little deny if you will be just the Power and Interest of the People who are called in Scripture sometimes the Church and sometimes the Brethren and in Tertullian and Cyprian the Phbs. Thus you find in the Acts of the Apostles the People concerned in the Election of Matihias Peter spake to the whole Assembly Men and Brethren c. So in that of the Deacons Wherefore Brethren look you cut among you seven men of honest report c. And in the Ordination of the Presbyters for Paul and Barnâ—bas ordained with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the People Acts 14. 23. Again they are concerned in the Censure of the Incestuous Corinthian not only by way of Approbation as where it is said When you are gathered together c. 1 Cor. 5. 4. but by way of Judgment and Exâ—cution verfe 12 13. In fine even in the Debate and Decision of Controversies for the brethren were together with the apostles and elders and there was much disputing which I should think was rather among the People than among the Apostles and Elders And the Decretal Epistle goes as well in the name of the brethren as in that of the apostles and elders Acts 15. 1 7 22 23. Nor were the People entirely deprived and outed of their Original Power or Interest in Elections and Censures even in the Time of S. Cyprian for he plainly asserts to them the chief Share both in the Election of the Praeposii or Bishops that are worthy and in the rejection of the unworthy and this he doth both by the Congruity of the Old Testamet and the Practice recorded in the New not only allowing to them as some would have it a presence in all Transactions but affirming their Power Cypri n's Word is potestas and their Suffrage Propter quod plebs obsequens Praecepiis dominicis Deum metnens à pectore praeposio SEPARARE se debet cum ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vâ—l eligendi dignos Sacirdotes vel indignos recusardi For which reason a people that observes the Lord's Commands and fears God ought to separate themselves from a Bishop that is wicked in as much as they principally have the power both of electing worthy Priests and of rejecting the unworthy This is further evident in the Resolve that Cyprian as himself professes assumed at his coming first to the Bishoprick which was That he would do nothing of business by himself and singly without the Counsel of the Elders and Deacons nor without the Consent of the People Solus rescribere nil potui cum à primordio Episcopatus mei statu rim nil sine concilio vestro writing unto the Elders and Deacons sine Consensu plebis meâ privatim sententiâ gerere In fine in Clemins Romanus who preceded Cyprian as living in the Age of the very Apostles themselves we have a plain Intimation of the Interest and Right of the People in the Election of Presbyters and in their Rejection from which also we may conclude the share they had in other matters for in his Epistle to the Corinthians he says Those who were appointed by the Apostles or by other Excellent Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Consent and Approbation of the whole Church and who lived worthily ought not to be injuriously deprived of their Ministration And by the way this Teâ—imony of Clement shews in what senfe it is said that Paul and Barnabas did Chirotonize Elders it being evident that it relates to that which stands upon Record in the Acts of the Apostles of what was done by those Two in that kind of business After the former evidences I do not see how it can be questioned that the Government of particular Churches was at first what I have affirmed it Popular and Democratical as consisting of the Authority of a Senate and of the power of a People or in S. Cyprian's Language of the Majesty of the People and the Authority of Priesthood Thus resembling the Greek Republicks and their Ecclesiae or popular Assemblies which at Athens were composed of Proedri who directed and ordered matters and of the People who voted And even Origen against Celsus L. 7. as Mr. Thorndike tells me for I have not Origen at present by me compares the Government of the Churches of Christ as I have to the Republicks of the Cities of Greece But possibly you will grant me that Congregational Government was of Apostolical Institution but it will be a matter of too hard a Digestion to yield there was no other Government that was likewise so And yet if you cannot give me an Apostolical Draught of any other Church-Government nor one Instance as I believe you cannot of any Church in the First Century or till toward the end of the Second if then but what was Congregational nor of any Officers besides the Apostles Evangelists and Prophets which were not local and limited to particular Congregations It must then be acknowledged that no other Government intended for after times but the Congregational was absolutely primitive and of Apostolical Original say not it might be though not recorded for Eadem est ratio non apparenâ—â—um non existentium to us it was not if it appears not perhaps but one Church in one City or Town at first but no Instance can be given of one Pastor over divers Cities and Towns The former â—truth is so great a one that even in the time of S. Cyprian when yet too many Novelties not to say Corruptions had invaded the Church the Usurpation that was then begun upon the Rights of the People had not prevailed so far but that as the Bishop of that time was Congregational only and local to speak generally so he was not ordained at large but to a certain People and Cure Thus saith S. Cyprian was Sabinus ordained The Passage is very remarkable and since it not only evidences the Point I have asserted but does also vindicate the Presbyterian way of Ordination used now as a way that was used at that time to wit by the Concurrence of preaching Ministers Prepositi or Bishops of several Congregations and the laying on of their or one of their hands for this reason I will cite it
will not be received meeâ—ly upon your Authority or upon the Authority of any Men that lived in Times remote from the first for it requires a Proof either from some Text of the Holy Scriptures or from some other Record of that same Time It is clear to me That the Exaresis the separation or taking away from among them is the only Excommunication that is mentioned by the Apostles in 1 Cor. 5. and yet I fancy since it answered to the Jewish Nidui which excluded not from the Temple it is not that which you intend However it is plain that this Exeresis was not a Delivery unto Satan for the Apostle speaks of the Separation or taking away of the Man from among them as of a thing they ought to have done of themselves without any Interposition of his Verse 2. And you are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed night be taken away from among you to wit according to the purport of a former Epistle v. 9. whereas the delivery unto Satan was the Apostle's own proper Act effected by his Apostolical Spirit and by the mighty Power of the Lord Jesus Christ verse 3 4 5. Again it is plain that this Exaresis was nothing but their Noncommunicating and Nonconversing with the Incestuous the Corinthians being obliged in point of Duty to have excluded him from their Society so as ordinarily not to keep him Company for such a Direction had bin given to them by the Apostle in a former Epistle v. 9. as a Rule of their Deportment towards the Ungodly which Rule he yet found himself obliged to Explain and Qualifie in thi as which was only to be understood of their Demeauour towards Professouâ—s and indeed unless they would go out of the World practicable only towards these and so not to be understood absolutely and unlimitedly of all verse 11. And having touched their Remisness verse 2. and reinscrced his Direction with its due Limitation and Qualification verse 10 11. â—e presses them to follow it in their Carriage towards this incestuous Person verse 13. THEREFORE put away from among your selves that wicked person THEREFORE to wit because I did write unto you in a former Epistle not to accompany with Fornicators which now I tell you must be understood of Professors that are such therefore put away from among your selves that wicked Fornicator and so purge out the old Leaven by avoiding Conversation and Society with him as much as is posfible The connexion sheweth That not accompanying with this Wicked one is the same with purging out the Old Leaven and not accompanying with him was their putting him away from among themselves Not accompanying with him was their Judgment upon him but the Delivery of him unto Satan was the Apostle's no Instance can be given of any Persons that gave up any unto Satan but the Apostles Thus if you please to take the Trouble of reviewing the Text a second time with its intire Coherence you cannot but observe That it shews that something must be done by the Apostle's own Power and something by the People's in what relates unto the Apostle's there is first the Motive or Inducement he had to consider the Matter and this was the general Scandal of it verse 1. Secondly The Evidence whereupon he did proceed to pass this Sentence which was his own Spiritual View though he was absent in body yet he was present in spirit the Antithesis must be marked and therefore he judgeth verse 2. Thirdly The Sentence which he passed and that was That the Criminal should be delivered to Satan verse 5. Fourthly The manner how this Sentence was to be executed and that was in a full congregation in the name of Christ with the apostolical Spirit and by the mighty Power of the Lord Iesus Christ verseâ— And shew me the Diocesan that can do all this What follows in the Chapter relates to the Judgment of the People and their putting of the Incestuous away which as I have shewed and that by the Reference and Coherence is quite another thing than the delivery of him to Satan By this Time I believe it is very manifest That Diocesan Jurisdiction cannot be founded with any clearness of Title upon the Instance alledged this being plainly Apostolical and grounded on that Authority which S. Paul had in a particular manner over the Church of Corinth both as he was an Apostle and as their Apostle and Founder and no Example must be pressed further than the Ground and Reason thereof will carry it As for Timothy and Titus who are honoured by you as well as by other with the Title of Bishops there is foâ— much said toward the unbishoping of them by Mr. Prinne and by Smectymnuus c. that I need say nothing wherefore I will only offer that neither of them is stiled a Bishop in the Holy Scripture for the Epistolary Postscripts are none when-ever it mentions the being of them at their reputed Bishopricks the one at Ephisus the other at Crete Again Timothy in effect is stiled an Evangelist by S. Paul for when this Apostle exhorts Timothy to make a faithful Discharge of the Office committed to him his Expression is do the work of an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4. 5. And indeed as an Evangelist was a Secondary Apostle that is not a settled standing Officer fixed in any one planted constituted Church but an Assistant to the Apostles in planting and settling Churches so we find Timothy as an Itinerant Officer often going from Place to Place upon occasion as he was Invited or Imployed by Paul The Stay he makes even at Ephesus was only upon the Desire of that Apostle and not from any Obligation arising from the Duty of his Place as had he been a Bishop it would certainly have been for 1 Tim. 1. 3. Paul is said to request Timothy to stay at Ephesus but is not said to have ordained him Bishop there In short the Tenor of the Epistle that mentions the being of Timothy at Ephesus as it directs him in the Choice of Officers and gives him Disciplinary Rules so it sheweth plainly that his Business there was to perfect the Work of the Settlement of the Church begun by Paul and this is the more probable because his Stay and Business is limited to that Apostle's Return 1 Tim. 1. 3. compared with Chap. 3. 14 15. Chap. 4. 13. And for Titus it is as evident that all his Business at Crete was that of an Evangelist as that Timothy's was so at Ephesus for he was left at Crete that is the Expression he is not said to be ordained Bishop or Metropolitan there no more than Timothy is said to be ordained the Bishop of Ephesus but as the latter is affirmed to be requested to stay and not to have been settled as Bishop there fo the former is only said to be left at Crete And what for but to do the Work of an Evangelist for so it was to
Beza and Piscator renders the Text Quâ—mque ipsis per suffragia creassent c. I know that some have told us That Iosephus uses the Word with reference unto God he saying that God did chrirotonize Aaron thrice and therefore to chirotonize is not always to be taken for the Popular Suffrage Nor is chirotonizing always taken so But supposing that the Word Chirotonize was used by Iosephus as afterwards it came to be by others in a second Sense for any Creation of Officers in general yet in the primary and proper use it signifies the Popular Suffrage for Chirotonia in Suidas is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Election Ratification made by All. And this also was the common Use of the Word at that time when and in the Places most of them Republicks where the Apostles are said to chirotonize And certainly no Man can imagine with Reason That the making of Elders in its first Institution should be called Chirotonia and bear the Name of the Suffrage of the People especially in that time and in such places had these Elders been made in any other manner than by the popular Suffrage for then the name of the Action would have been distinctive or proper as all Original Names of things are used to be Besides what if it should be said as indeed it is by Mr. Harrington that when the Congregation or People of Israel upon the several miraculous Appearances in favour of Aaron did recognize him again and again for High Priest this Chirotonia of the People was the Chirotonia of God Why might not God as President of the Congregation in that Theocracy as well be said as he is by Iosephus to chirotonize when the People did as the Proedri who presided in the Assembly of the People at Athens be said by Demosthenes to make the Diachirotonia the Thesmothetae by Pollux to Chirotonize the Strategi and the Consul who presided at the Election of Officers at Rome be said by the Roman Historians to create these Officers As for the Diachirotonia tho' you think it the Act only of the Magistrates not of the People because Hesychius says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you will give me leave to acquaint you that the Diachirotonia was as much the Act of the People or of those suffrageâ— as the Chirotonia it self was For those that suffraged or made the Chirotonia are said in cases of competition to Diachirotanize because then by their Suffrages they did distinguish one of the Competitors from the other and he of the Competitors that was distinguished to his Advantage as carrying the Office by most Voices was said to be Diachirotonized and a Declaration was made That he was elected which Declaration was called Crisis All this is evident from Plato who treating l. 6. de leg concerning the Election of the Strategi in case of Competition says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whoever appears to be Diachirotonized or to have most Voices be it declared let the Crisis be that he is elected Here he distinguishes very plainly between the Diachirotonia which he attributes to those that suffraged and the Crisis or declarative Judgment which was the Act of those that presided But he does it afterward more plainly wheâ— ordaining that the same Rule that was observed in the making of the Strategi should be also observed in that of the Taxiarchi he says Let the same be observed both as to the Epichirotonia and the Crisis that is as to the Suffrage and to the Resolve So that Hesychius his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be interpreted a Discrimination or preference made by Suffrage As for the Jurisdiction of the Apostles I make no doubt but that the Apostles who were Elders as well as Apostles 2 Pet. 5. 1. acted in setled Congregations where any of them happen'd to be or to reside with the Elders of such Congregations in that Capacity of Elders but as this Authority was not properly or purely Apostolical so that which was both that I call the Essential that was incident to the Apostles as they founded the Church and the Accidental that was incident to them as they founded particular Churches was Extraordinany and peculiar as being only for that emergent Occasion and not for Continuance To speak generally governing the Churches was as much an ordinary Work as â—reaching and was common to all the Elders whether Apostles or not but to do it in such a particular manner with such a Rod and with so large a Superintendence as in some cases the Apostles did was extraordinary and peculiar to them No Officers that are now can pretend to a Rod like that of the Apostles Acts 5. 3 4 5 c. 1 Cor. 4. 21 and therefore none that are now can exercise such a Discipline as they did Those that will truly evidence that the Prelatical Hierarchy is Apostolical ought to demonstrate that besides the Officers setled in all particular Churches to feed and govern them the Apostles and Evangelists setled others as a kind of Visitors General over all or over many Churches together with the same Authority that themselves had exercised and this for continuance without this nothing is done to any purpose As for the Transaction 1 Cor. 5. I am still of the mind it was wholly extraordinary and that it cannot be drawn into Example The Apostle says When you are gathered together and my Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not with the Authority but with the mighty power of the Lord Christ to the end to deliver such an one unto Satan Whence it follows very clearly That without the Apostles Spirit and the mighty Power of Christ the Corinthians were unable to deliver that Incestuous to Satan for else I see no Reason why they should have the Conjunction and Assistance of these the Apostles Spirit and Christ's Power for that end since then there would be no need of it And if they could not deliver the Incestuous to Satan without the Assistance of the Apostolical Spirit and the mighty Power of Christ it also follows that to deliver to Satan was not meerly to excommunicate eject or suspend him since this was so much in their own Power that they might have done it of themselves without such Extraordinary and Miraculous Aids To be sure this Effect whatever it was if it bore as every Effect must do proportion unto its cause it must be something that was Extraordinary for it came not only from the Spirit of the Apostle but also from the Miraculous Power of Christ for such a Power that is which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies as is evident Acts 1. 8. 'T is true you infer from 1 Cor. 5. 2. That the Corinthians could not put away the Incestuous without a new Commission from the Apostle who was their Bishop and consequently you understand the Power was given to them only of a Commission or Authority But on the contrary the Word used for Power is as I have said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉