the Matter of Fact was then so Notorious as to be undeniable He Reason'd from it as from an acknowledged Postulate 2. I observe that the Presbyters who in these Times were contra-distinguished from the Bishop and Deacons were Priests in the Language which was then current Pastors in the present Presbyterian Dialect i. e. not Ruling Elders but such as laboured in the Word and Sacraments They were such as were honoured with the Divine Priesthâ—od such as were Constituted in the Clerical Ministery such as whose Work it was to attend the Altar and the Sacrifices and offer up the Publick Prayâ—rs c. as we find in the Instance of Geminius Faustinus Such as God in his merciful Providence was pleased to raise to the Glorious Station of the Priesthood as in the Case of Numidicus Such as in the time of Persecution went to the Prisons and gave the Holy Eucharist to the Confessors Such as at Carthage as St. Cyprian complains to Cornelius presumed to curtail the Pennances of the Lapsers and gave them the Holy Sacrament while their Idolatry was so very recent that as it were their Hands and Mouths were still a smoaking with the warm Nidors of the Sacrifices that had been offered upon the Devils Altars Such as contrary to all Rule and Order absolved the Lapsers and gave them the Communion without the Bishops Licence Such as were joyned with the Bishop in the Sacerdotal Honour In a word They were such Presbyters as St. Cyprian describes to Stephen Bishop of Rome such as sometimes raised Altar against Altar and out of the Communion with the Church offered False and Sacrilegious Sacrifices Such as were to be Deposed when they did so such as thô they should return to the Communion of the Church were only to be admited to LAY-COMMUNION and not to be allowed thereafter to act as Men in Holy Orders seeing it became the PRIESTS and Ministers of God those who attend the Altar and Sacrifices to be Men of Integrity and Blameless Such Presbyters they were I say who were then contra-distinguished from the Bishop For as for your Lay-Elders your Ruling contra-distinct from Teaching Presbyters now so much in vogue there is as profound a Silence of them in St. Cyprian's Works and Time as there is of the Solemn League and Covenant or The Sanquhar Declaration And yet considering how much he has left upon Record about the Governours the Government and the Discipline of the Church if there had been such Presbyters then it is next to a Miracle that he should not so much as once have mentioned them 3. I observe that the Bishops Power his Authority his Pastoral Relation call it as you will extended to all the Christians within his District E. g. Cornelius was immediately and directly Superiour to all the Christians in Rome and they were his Subjects So it was also with Fabius and the Christians of Antioch Dionysius and the Christians of Alexandria Cyprian and the Christians of Carthage c. The Bishops prelation whatever it was related not solely to the Clergy or solely to the Laity but to both equally and formally How fully might this Point be proved if it were needful Indeed St. Cyprian defines a Church to be A People united to their Priest and A Flock adhering to their Pastor And that by the Terms Priest and Pastoâ— he meant the Bishop is plain from what immediately follows for he tells Florentius Pupianus there That from that common and received Notion of a Church he ought to have learned That the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop and that whoso is not with the Bishop is not in the Church And in that same Epistle chastising the same Florentius for calling his Title to his Bishoprick in question and speaking bitter Things against him he Reasons thus What Swelling of Pride What Arrogance of Spirit What Haughtiness is this That thou shouldest arraign Bishops before thy Tribunal And unless we be Purged by thee and Absolved by thy Sentence Lo these Six Years The BROTHERHOOD has had no BISHOP The PEOPLE no RULER The FLOCK no PASTOR The CHURCH no GOVERNOUR CHRIST no PRELATE And GOD no PRIEST In short He that bore the high Character of Bishop in St. Cyprian's time was called the Ruler of the Church by way of Eminence The Church was compared to a Ship and the Bishop was the Master He was the Father and all the Christians within his District were his Children He was the Governour the Rector the Captain the Head the Iudge of all within his Diocess He was the chief Pastor and thô Presbyters were also sometimes called Pastors yet it was but seldom and at best they were but such in Subordination Indeed the Presbyters of the Church of Rome during the Vacancy between Fabianus his Death and Cornelius his Promotion look'd only on themselves as Vice-Pastors saying That in such a juncture they kept the Flock in STEAD of the Pastor the Bishop I could give you even a Surfeit of Evidence I say for the Truth of this Proposition if it were needful Whoso reads St. Cyprian's Epistles may find it in almost every Page And I shall have occasion hereafter to insist on many Arguments in the Probation of other Things which may further clear this also Indeed there is no more in all this than Ignatius said frequently near 150 Years before St. Cyprian And now Sir thô the Monuments of the Cyprianic Age could afford us no more than these three Things which I have proved from them they would be of sufficient force to overthrow our Author's Definition of a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time as to both Parts of it and demonstrate to every thinking Man's conviction That he was neither The Pastor of the Flâ—ck nor The Moderator of a Presbytery in our Author's sense of the Terms 1. Not the Pastor of a Flock i. e. a single Presbyter having the Charge of a single Parish after the Presbyterian Model For a Bishop in those Times had many such Presbyters under him Cyprian himself whatever he had more had no sewer than Eight under him in the City of Carthage besides the adjacent Villages Cornelius was over Forty six in the City of Rome I know not how many Dionysius was over at Alexandria or Polycarpus at 〈◊〉 but it is certain they were in the Plâ—ral Number So it was all the Christian World over as I have proved A Bishop then in St. Cyprian's time was a Pastor indeed but it was of a Diocess i. e all the Christians within such a District were his Flock and he had a direct formal and immediate Pastoral Relation to them all thô at the same time within the same District there were many inferior Pastors who were subordinate and subject to him 2. He was as little a meer Moderator of a Presbytery in our Author's sense of the Terms A Presbyterian Moderator 〈◊〉
such is no Church Governour at all A Bishop in St. Cyprian's time as such was Chief Pastor Iudge Head Master Rector Governour of all the Christians within his District A Presbyterian Modâ—rator as such has no direct immediate formal Relation to the People but only to the Presbytery He is the Mouth and keeps Order in the manner and managing of the Affairs of the Presbytery not of the Church or rather Churches within the Bounds of that Presbytery But a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time was quite another thing His Prelacy whatever it was related to the Laity as well as to the Clergy St. Cyprian's e. g. to as many Christians as required the subordinate Labours of at least Eight Presbyters Cornelius's to as many as required the subordinate Labours of Forty Six To a Body of Christians in which besides Forty six Presbyters Seven Deacons Seven Sub-Deacons Forty two Acolyths Fifty two Exorcists Lectors and Door-keepers there were more than Fifteen hundred Widows and poor People who subsisted by Charity And besides all these a mighty and innumerable Laity as himself words it These Things I say might be sufficient in all Reason to confute our Author's Notion But then this is not all for let us consider II. How a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time was Promoted to his Chair to that sublime Top of the Priesthood as he calls it And we shall easily collect another Demonstration against our Author's Notion For by the Principles of those Times it was plains I. That there could be no Lawful nor Allowable Promotion of One to a Bishoprick which had been Possessed before unless there was a Clear Canonical and Unquestionable Vacancy It was a received Maxim then That there could be but one Bishop at once in a Church When a See was once Canonically filled whosoever else pretended to be Bishop of that See was not a second Bishop but none at all in St. Cyprian's Judgment Nay he was so far from reckoning of him as another Bishop that he deemed him not a Christian Innumerable are his Testimonies to this purpose But I shall Transcribe only One from Ep. 69. because he fully reasons the Case in it There was a Controversie between Cornelius and Novatianus whether was Bishop of Rome Now consider how St. Cyprian decides it The Church is one says he and this one Chuch cannot be both within and without If therefore the True Church is with Novatianus She was not with Cornelius But if She was with Cornelius who succeeded to Bishop Fabianus by lawful Ordination and whom God honoured with Martyrdom as well as with the Episcopal Dignity Novatianus is not in the Church nor can he be acknowledged as a Bishop who contemning the Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition and succeeding to none hath sprung from himself He can by no means either have or hold a Church who is not Ordained in the Church for the Church cannot be without Herself nor divided against Herself c. And a little after Our Lord recommending to us the Unity which is of Divine Institution saith I and my Father are One and again Obliging the Church to keep this Unity he saith There shall be One Flock and One Pastor But if the Flock is One How can he be reputed to be of the Flock who is not numbred with the Flock Or how can be he deem'd a Pastor who while the True Pastor lives and rules the Flock by a succedaneous Ordination succeeds to none but begins from himself Such an one is an Alien is Profane is an Enemy to Christian Peace and Unity He dwells not in the House of God i. e. in the Church of God None can dwell there but the Sons of Concord and Unanimity Neither was this Principle peculiar to St. Cyprian Cornelius in his so often mentioned Epistle to Fabius insists on it also and in a manner Ridicules Novatianus if not for his Ignorance of it at least for entertaining the vain Conceit that it was in his Power to counter-act it And when Maximus Urbanus Sidonius Macarius c. deserted Novatianus and returned to Cornelius his Communion they made a Solemn Confession That upon the score of that same common Maxim they ought to have look'd upon Novatianus as a False and Schismatical Bishop We know say they that Cornelius was chosen Bishop of the most Holy Catholick Church by the Omnipotent God and our Lord Iesus Christ. We coâ—fess our Error we were imposed upon we were circumvented by Perfidy and Ensnaring Sophistry For we are not ignorant That there is One God One Christ our Lord whom we have confessed One Holy-Ghost And that there ought to be but One Bishop in a Catholick Church Indeed two Bishops at once of one Church or City were then thought as great an Absurdity as two Fathers of one Child or two Husbands of one Wife or two Heads of one Body or whatever else you can call Monstrous in either Nature or Morality 2. There was no Canonical Vacancy no Place for a new Bishop but where the One Bishop whose the Chair had been was Dead or had Ceded or was Canonically Deposed by the rest of the Members of the Episcopal College Vacancy by Death hath no Difficulties I don't remember to have observed any Instances of Cession in St. Cyprian's time thô there were some before and many after Unless it was in the Case of Basilides who after he had forfeited his Title to that Sacred Dignity by being guilty of the dreadful Crimes of Idolatry and Blasphemy is said to have Laid it down and to have confessed That he should be favourably dealt by if thereafter he should be admitted to the Communion of Laicks We have Instances of Deposition in the same Basilides and Martialis in Marcianus Privatus Lambesitanus Evaristus Fortunatianus and perhaps some more However these Three I say were the only Causes in which there could be a Lawful Vacancy 3. When a See was thus Canonically vacant it was filled after this manner The Bishops of the Province in which the Vacancy was met choosed and ordained One in the presence of the People whom he was to Govern This St. Cyprian with other 36 Bishops tells us was of Divine Institution and Apostolical Observation And that it was the common Form not only in Africa but almost in every Province all the World over I know 't is controverted whether a Bishop in those Times was Chosen by the People or only in the presence of the People But my present purpose doth not engage me in that Controversie 4. But Election was not enough Thô the Person elected was already a Presbyter and in Priestly Order yet when he was to be Promoted to a Bishoprick he was to receive a new Imposition of Hands a new Ordination His former Orders were not sufficient for that Supreme Office Thus e. g. St. Cyprian was first a Presbyter and then Ordained Bishop of Carthage if we may believe
present for the Bishop's Power of Ordination But this is not all For Thirdly He had full Power without asking the Consent or Concurrence of either Clergy or People to settle Presbyters within his District Of this we have a most remarkable Instance of St. Cyprian's planting Namidicus a Presbyter of the City of Carthage Our Martyr wrote to his Presbyters Deacons and People to receive him as such probably he had been Ordained before and there was no more of it It was instantly done As we learn from the very next Epistle where we find the same Namidicus as a Presbyter of Carthage receiving a Commission for a Deputation to oversee such and such Things in St. Cyprian's absence So negligent shall I say Or so ignorant was St. Cyprian of Christ's Testament at least of his Leaving in it to his People by way of Legacy a Right a Grant a Priviledge of Choâ—sing their own Ministers What a Stranger has he been to all the Analogies and Principles of Presbyterian Government But I proceed Fourthly In St. Cyprian's time the Bishop had the disposal of all the Revenues of the Church All the Churches Incomes then were Oblations and Charitable Contributions The Civil Magistrate was Heathen and treated her commonly with Persecutions never with Encouragements Now the Bishop I say had the full Power of disposing of these Contributions and Oblations In the first place he had his own Quantitas Propria His proper Portion and t was no doubt a considerable One 'T is commonly reckoned to have been the Third The other Two belonged to the Clergy and the Poor but so as to be dispensed by the Bishop That he had his own Portion and that a Liberal One is evident from his 7th Epistle For there he tells how before he retired he gave the Trust of it to Rogatianus one of his Presbyters ordering that if there were any necessitous Strangers at Carthage they should have Maintenance out of it And it is observable that when St. Cyprian gives an account of Fortunatianus who had been Bishop of Assurae but had forfeited by Sacrificing in time of Persecuâ—ion and yet was earnest for all that to retain his Bishoprick he says expresly that it was upon the account of the Perquisites and not from any Love to Religion And it is not to be doubted that the same Reason moved Basilides to be so much concerned for the recovery of his Bishoprick after he had forfeited it also Indeed the Bishop's proper Portion was setled on him by the 40th of the Apostolic Canons And that he had the disposal of the rest particularly that which belonged to the Clergy is as plain For in his 41st Epistle he makes it an aggravation of Felicissimus's Guilt that contrary to the Duty which he owed to his Bishop he should have made such a Clutter about the Division of the Contributions And on the other hand he praises the Dutifulness of others who would not follow Fâ—licissimus his bad Example but continued in the Unity of the Church and were satisfied to take their Shares as the Bishop should please to dispense them And it is a most remarkable Instance of this his Power which we have in the aforementioned Case of Aurelius and Celerinus for thô he promoted them only to the Degree of Lectors yet he Entituled them to the Maintenance of Presbyters And as for that part that belonged to the Poor his Power in the Distribution of it is so evident from his Fifth and Forty first Epistles that I need not insist upon it Indeed this Power was expresly asserted to them by the Thirty eighth and Forty fiâ—st of the Apostolick Canons And we find Bishops in Possession of it long before St. Cyprian's time as is evident from Iustin Martyr's second Apology not far from the end Not now to mention that it seems fairly to be founded on express Scripture Indeed Fifthly He seems to have had a Power of imposing Charitable Contributions on all the Christians within his District for the Relief of Distressed Strangers whether Captives Prisoners or condemn'd to the Mines or Galleys c. Of this Power we have famous Instances in his 62d and 78th Epistles You may Consult them at your Leasure And long before St. Cyprian's time Soter Bishop of Rome as the Venerable Dionysius Bishop of Corinth cited for it by Eusebius tells us Managed this Power to excellent purpose as his Predecessors from the Apostles times had done before him Take his own Words for he was a very ancient Father having flourished about an Hundred Years before St. Cyprian They are in an Epistle of his to the Church of Rome in which he thus bespeaks them This has been your Custom from the beginning i. e. ever since the Church of Rome was planted to do manifold good Offices to the Brethren and send Supplies to most Churches in most Cities for sweetning their Poverty and refreshing those that are Condemned to the Mines You Romans observe the Custom of the Romans handed down to you by your Fathers which Custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only observed but improved c. What can be more clear than it is from these Words That Soter as Bishop of Rome had the chief Management of the Charitable Contributions imposing them and disposing of them for the Relief of the Afflicted Christians of whatsoever Church And now that I have gone higher than St. Cyprian's time thô it was not necessary for my main Argument and to make use of it might swell this Letter to too great a Bulk Let me mention another Power which Tertuâ—lian who lived before St. Cyprian also in plain Terms appropriates to the Bishâ—p A considerable Power a Power that is a considerable Argument of the Episcopal Sovereignty And it is Sixthly The Power of Indicting Solemn Fasts as occasion required to all the Christians within his District You have his Words plain and home upon the Margin Sevâ—nthly A Bishop in St. Cyprian's time for now I return to it as such had the sole Power of Convocating his Presbyters and Deacons all those of his Clergy and People who either sat with him or standing gave their Suffrages as they were ask'd about any thing relating to the Church All Learned Men even Spanhemius himself our Author 's diligent Searcher into Antiquity confesses this Indeed this was a Point on which the Unity of the Church did so much depend that it could not but be a necessary Branch of his Prerogative who was the Principle of Unity to and was intrusted with the Supreme Government of the Church And agreeably we find Cornelius accounting about it in an Epistle to Cyprian For there he tells how the Presbyter and Confessors who had sided with Novatianus turning sensible of their Error came not streight to himself for it seems they had not the confidence to do that or rather they would not have been allowed that freedom so suddenly but to his
it when he cannot escape but by seeking for Refuge in a Reconciliation between Pride and Patience Superciliousness and Self-denial Huffyness and Humility Carnal Height and Christian Holiness But to let this pass Had that Author any solid Ground for saying so Or rather had it been possible for him to have said so had he had but an ordinary Acquaintance with St. Cyprian or his Epistles Charge Pride on the Humble Cyprian Cyprian who was so very Humble that from the Conscience of his own Nothingness he has still been looked upon as a Patern of Humility Cyprian whose Humility would not allow him almost to speak in the Stile of Authority even to Female Laicks Cyprian who was perswaded that God would hear none but the Humble and Quiet Cyprian who believed that none could be a Christian and withal be Proud and Haughty Who insisted on his own Humility in that very Epistle for which that Author charges him with Pride Who if in any thing Gloried most in his Humble and Bashful Modesty Who when accused of Pride could Appeal not only to all Christians but even to the Heathen Infidels as Witnesses of his Innocence Cyprian who had this Great Testimony from some of his Contemporaries That he was the Greatest Preacher the Most Eloquent Orator the Wisest in Counsel the Simplest in Patience the Most Charitable in Alms the Holiest in Abstinence the Humblest in Obligingness and the Most Innocent in every Good Action And from others That he had a Candid and a Blessed Breast c. In a word Cyprian whose Humility was such that if we may believe his Deacon Pontius He fled and lurk'd when they were going to make him a Bishop Such that when St. Augustine many years after was pressed with his Authority he came off with this The Authority of Cyprian doth not fright me because the Humility of Cyprian encourages me Such a Person was Cyprian And yet to Proud was he forsooth for doing his Duty for asserting his Episcopal Authority when most undutifully trampled on by his presuming Presbyters What I have said methinks might be enough in all conscience for defeating for ever that Uncharitable shall I say or Ignorant Suggestion That it was Pride perhaps that prompted Cyprian to write so Magisterially to the Carthaginian Presbyters yet because a farther Discussion of it may contribute not a little for clearing up the Bishop's Negative in St. Cyprian's time I shall not grudge to give it you St. Cyprian had three sorts of People to deal with in that Controversie which bred him so much Trouble He had the Lapsed themselves the Martyrs and Confessors and these Presbyters and Deacons who had encroached so much on his Episcopal Authority I am apt to think the Author himself with whom I have now to do will not be shy to grant That St. Cyprian without incurring the Reputation of either Proud or Presumptuous might have chided the Lapsed as we find he did They had Cowardly renounced their Christianity to save their Lives and Fortunes and the Canons subjected them to a strict and a long Penance for it And I think without the imputation of either Height or Humour one in St. Cyprian's Station might have put them in mind of the Respect they owed to the Canons of the Church and the Governours of it Indeed all the Lapsed were not engaged in the disorderly Course There were some of them who were sensible of their Duty and subjected themselves to their Bishop resolving to wait his time and intirely to depend upon him for their Absolution as we learn from his 33d Epistle His Difficulty was greater with the Martyrs and Confessors who appeared as Patrons to the Prejudicating Lapsed but neither need I insist on that nor how he conquered them in point of Right and Argument For this Author told Dr. Stilling fleet He was wholly out of the way in medling with that Matter seeing none ever imagined that every Martyr had Church Power Thô I must tell you Sir That whoso reads St. Cyprian's Works and particularly observes the State and Management of this whole Controversie about the Lapsed cannot but be convinced that the Reputation and Authority of Martyrs and Confessors made a far greater Figure in it than the Reputation or Authority of Presbyters To come therefore to that which is the main Point with this Author Let us try if St. Cyprian stretch'd his Power too far in his Treatment of the Presbyters who appeared against him in this Controversie Consider the following Steps and then judge I. Consider that St. Cyprian doth not fall a buffing or hectoring or running them down by Noise or Clamour No He Reasons the Case with them and Reasons all along from known and received Principles He tells them plainly indeed That in Presuming as they had done they had forgotten both the Gospel and their own Station That he was their Superiour That they did not pay him the Honour that was due to his Chair and Character That the like had never been attempted before by Presbyters under any of his Predecessor-Bishops That it was a Factious Selfish Temper and too great Love of Popularity that prompted them to Measures so in no wise Presidented That he knew the Secret of the Matter and that it was the old Grudge against his being preferred to the Bishoprick that byass'd them to their Insolencies That is belonged to him as having the Chief Power of the Keys as being Bishop i. e. as having the visible Sovereignty in Church Matters to straiten or slacken the Sinews of Discipline to prolong or shorten the Courses of Penance to grant Absolutions and reconcile Penitents c. That such Presumptions were Encroachments upon the very Foundations of the Church to the Subversion whereof their pretending to any Power in opposition to the Bishops tended In short That such Practices were against Christ's Institution and the Analogies of Government and all the Laws of Order Peace and Unity And they deserved the sharpest Censures for them These I say are a Sample of the Arguments St. Cyprian insisted on against those Presbyters and most of them were founded on Matter of Fact And now suppose St. Cyprian had had considerable Doses of Pride yet if you will but allow him withall to have had some Grains of Common Sense or Honesty can you so much as imagine he could have used such Arguments if they had wanted Foundation Would he not have been ashamed to have used them if he and not his Presbyters had been guilty of the Usurpations he was Condemning But what needs more Have I not fully proved already That a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time was the Principle of Unity to all the Christians Presbyters as well as others within his District And that he was a Sovereign and Peerless Governour of the Church which he Ruled And were not all his Reasâ—nings founded on these Principles But this is not all for 2. Consider that they were not all the Presbyters of
of the One Church and they being her Supreme Governours they could not but be chiefly bound by the most Fundamental Laws of their Office to be Conscientious Conservators of these Great and Fundamental Interests And indeed so they believed themselves to be as will evidently appear from the following Considerations And I. They look'd upon themselves as bound indispensibly to maintain the Peace the Unity the Concord the Unanimity the Honour they are all St. Cyprian's Words of the College it self Every Error every Defect every Thing Disjoyâ—ted or out of Tune in it tended naturally to endanger the great Interests for the Conservation and Procuration of which it was instituted For this End 2. Because every Man by being Promoted to the Episcopal Dignity was Eo ipso a Principle of Unity to a particular Church and so a Member of the Episcopal College all possible Care was taken that a fit Person should be promoted and that the Promotion should be Unquestionable Therefore he was not to be Promoted as I have proved but where there was an Unquestionable Vacancy Therefore he was not to be Promoted if there was any thing Uncanonical or Challengeable in his Baptism or his Confirmation or his Prâ—motion to any former Order as I have â—hewn also in the Case of Novationus Therefore he was Solemnly Elected in the Presence of the People That either his Crimes might be detected or his Merits published because the People was best acquainted with every Man's Life and Conversation Therefore he was to be Solemnly Ordained in the Presence of the People also And that by two or three Bishops at fewest thô an Ordination perform'd by One Bishop was truly Valid Commonly there were more all the Bishops of the Province 3. Being thus Canonically Promoted his first Work was to send his Communicatory Letters to all other Bishops to give them thereby an Account of his Canonical Promotion his Orthodoxy in the Faith his Fraternal Disposition c. Thus Cornelius was no sooner Ordained Bishop of Rome than he instantly dispatched his Communicatory Letters to St. Cyprian And no doubt as the Custom was to all other Bishops at least to all Metropolitans by them to be Communicated to the Bishops within their Provinces I say to Metropolitans for nothing can be clearer than that there were Metropolitans in St. Cyprian's time He was undoubtedly One himself and Agrippiâ—â—s his Predecessor Bishop of Carthage was One long before him Spanhemius himself our Author's Diligem Searcher into Antiquity acknowledges it But to return from this Digression Novatianus also thô Illegally and Schismatically Ordained found it necessary to send his Communicatory Letters to St. Cyptian as if he had been Ordain'd Canonically and in the Unity of the Church So also Fortunatus when made a Schismatical Bishop at Carthage sent his Communicatory Letters to Cornelius Bishop of Rome Indeed this was never omitted 4. If there was no Competition no Controversie in the Caâ—e the Matter was at an end The Promoted Bishop's Communicatory Letters were sufficient and he was forthwith faithfully joyned with all his Collegues as St. Cyprian words it But if there was any Competitor any Debate then the rest of the College before they received him as a Collegue made further Enquiries Sometimes they sent some from the Neighbourhood to examine the Matter Sometimes the Ordainers were obliged to Account for the Person Ordained and the whole Procedure of the Ordination Sometimes both Methods were practised We have a famous Instance of both Methods in one Case the Case of Cornelius and Novationus Cornelius as I have said upon his Promotion wrote to St. Cyprian So did Novatianus Here was a Competition Cyprian therefore with his African Collegues sent Caldonius and Fortunatus two Bishops to Rome that upon the Place it self where they might have the surest Information they might enquâ—re into the Merits of the Cause and try the Competition And on the other hand the Sixteen Bishops who Ordain'd Cornelius wrote to St. Cyprian and the rest of the Bishops of Africa and satisfied them upon the whole Qvestion demonstrating Cornelius's Title and Condemning Novatianus Such Care was taken that none should be admitted Unworthily or Uncanonically into the Episcopal College But then 5. There was equal Care taken to purge him out of the College again if he turned either Heretical or Schismatical If he kept not close to the Laws of One Faith and One Communion If he swerv'd from these he was forthwith refused the Communion of the whole College Therefore says St. Cyprian to Stephen Bishop of Rome in the Case of Marcianus Bishop of Arles who had joyned with Novatianus The Corporation of Priests the Episcopal College is Copious being cemented by the Glue of Mutual Concord and the Bond of Unity that if any of the College shall turn Heretick or attempt to divide or waste the Flock of Christ the rest may interpose and as profitable and merciful Shepherds collect our Lord's Sheep and restore them to the Flock And this they were bound to do by the Fundamental Laws of One Church and one Communion for as our Martyr subjoyns Thô they were many Pastors yet they all fed but one Flock And therefore all the Bishops in the World were bound to give the desolate Christians of Churches whereof the Bishops had turned Heretical or Schismatical the Comfort of their Aid and Assistance 'T is true no Bishop was Superiour to another Bishop in point of Power or Iurisdiction but all stood Collateral as I have proved and so no Bishop as Superiour to another in a streight Linâ— could pass Sentence on him as they might have done to Presbyters Yet all being United into One College which College was the Principle of Unity to the Church Catholick it was necessary as well as natural that that College should be impower'd to take care of its own Preservation and by consequence they could do the Equivalent of a formal and authoritative Deposition they could refuse the Heretical or Schismatical Bishop their Communion and thereby exclude him from the Episcopal College And they could oblige all the Christians within his District to abandon his Communion and choose another Bishop as they valued the invaluable Priviledges of the One Church and the One Communion But then 6. So long as a Bishop worthily and legally Promoted kept the Faith and the Unity of the Church he was Treated he was Encouraged he was Consulted he was Corresponded with in a word Every way used as became the Head of a particular Church and a Fellow-Member of the College All the rest of the Members were bound by the Fundamental Laws of the College to Ratifie all his Canonical nay Equitable Acts of Priesthood Government and Discipline Whosoever was Baptized by himself or by his Clergy with his Allowance was to be owned as a Baptized Christian a True Denison of the Church and to have the Priviledges of such all the World
Might they not have chosen one at every Meeting according to the Principles of Parity Farther What need of so much Parade about the Election of a Moderator of a Presbytery as was then about the Election of a Bishop Why the People chose him according to the Principles of those who think that St. Cyprian was for Popular Elections What was the People's Interest How was it their Concern who was Moderator of the Presbytery What was his Influence De jure at least in the Government of the Church more than the Influence of any other Member of the Presbytery Nay is it not confessed that as Moderator he was no Church-Governour at all That he had no Iurisdiction over his Brethren That his Power was only Ordinative not Decisive To be the Mouth of the Meeting not to be their Will or Commanding Faculty To keep Order in the Manner and Managing of what came before them not to determine what was Debated amongst them Why then were the People so much concern'd about him What Benefits or what Harm could redound to them by ones being Moderator of the Presbytery whatever he was Besides as I have shewed before as Moderator of the Presbytery he had relation only to the Presbytery At least he had none directly immediately and formally to the People What pretence then could the People have to Interest themselves in his Election Nay say as I am apt to think it ought to be said I am sure the contrary cannot be made appear from St. Cyprian that he was not chosen by the People but only in their Presence and the same Argument will take place as is obvious to any body Farther yet What need of Convocating so many from the Neighbourhood for managing the Election of a Moderator E. g. for the Presbytery of Rome If a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time was nothing but a Presbyterian Moderator then the Bishops convocated for managing the Election of a Moderator were Moderators too And so by consequence Sixteen Moderators of other Presbyteries met at Rome to constitute a Moderator for the Roman Presbytery And might not the Presbytery of Rome have chosen their own Moderator without the Trouble or the Inspection of so many Moderators of other Presbyteries Once more What Necessity nay what Congruity of a new Imposition of Hands of a new Ordination a new Mission for constituting One a Moderator of a Presbytery And this too to be performed by none but Moderators of other Presbyteries Thus e. g. it behoved Six Moderators to meet at Capsis to Ordain a Moderator for the Presbytery of Capsis and Sixteen at Rome to Ordain a Moderator for the Presbytery of Rome And after he was Ordained it behoved Novatianus to be at so much pains to get together Three Moderators to Ordain himself an Anti-Moderator Who can think on these Things without smiling But perhaps you may think I have insisted on this Argument more than enough and therefore I shall leave it and proceed to other Considerations To go on then A Bishop in St. Cyprian's time thus Elected Ordained and Possessed of his Chair did bear a double Relation One to the particular Church over which he was set and another to the Church Catholick an integrant part whereof the particular Church was of which he was Bishop The consideration of each of these Relations will furnish us with fresh Arguments against our Author's Hypothesis I shall begin with the Relation he bore to his own particular Church And FIRST The first Thing I observe about him in that regard shall be That he was the Principle of Unity to Her Whosoever adhered to him and lived in his Communion was in the Church a Catholick Christian. Whosoever separated from him was out of the Church and a Schismatick He was the Head of all the Christians living within his District and they were One Body One Society One Church by depending upon him by being subject to him by keeping to his Communion He was the Sun and they were the Beams he was the Root and they were the Branches he was the Fountain and they were the Streams As St. Cyprian explains the Matter This is a Point of great Consequence especially considering that it is the Foundation of the Apologist's Argument our Author's Answer to which I am examining and therefore give me leave to handle it somewhat fully And I proceed by these Steps I. There was nothing St. Cyprian and the Catholick Bishops his Contemporaries valued more reckoned of higher Importance or laid greater Stress upon than the Unity of the Church And there was no Sin they represented at more Heinous or more Criminal than the Sin of Schism In their reckoning Unity was the great Badge of Christianity God heard the Prayers that were put up in Unity but not those that were performed in Schism Christian Peace Brotherly Concord and the Unity of People in the true Faith and Worship of God was accounted of greater value by them than all other imaginable Sacrifices Nothing afforded greater Pleasure to the Angels in Heaven than Harmony amongst Christians on Earth It were easie to collect a thousand such Testimonies concerning the Excellency of Unity But as for Schism and Schismaticks how may it make Men's Hearts to tremble when they hear what hard Names and what horrid Notions these Primitive Worthies gave them and had of them Schism to them was the Devil's Device for subverting the Faith corrupting the Truth and cutting Unity Christ instituted the Church and the Devil Heresie or Schism for both then went commonly under one Name Schism was reckoned a greater Crime than Idolatry it self And St. Cyprian proves it by several Arguments Firmilian affirms it also So doth Dionysius of Alexandria in his notable Epistle to Novatianus He tells him He ought to have suffered the greatest Miseries rather than divide the Church of God That Martyrdom for the Preservation of Unity was as Glorious as Martyrdom for not Sacrificing to Idols Nay more Because he who Suffers rather than he will Sacrifice Suffers only for saving his own Soul But he that Suffers for Unity Suffers for the whole Church Schismaticks had not the Spirit Were forsaken of the Spirit Held not the Faith Had neither Father Son nor Holy-Ghost They were Renegadoes Apostates Malignants Parricides Anti-Christs False Christs Christ's Enemies Blasphemers The Devil's Priests Retainers to Corah Retainers to Iudas Villainous and Perfidious Aliens Profane Enemies Were without Hope Had no Right to the Promises Could not be saved Were Infidels Worse than Heathens Self-Condemned were no more Christians than the Devil Could but belong to Christ Could not go to Heaven The hottest part of Hell their Portion Their Society the Synagogue of Satan Their Conventicles Dens of Thieves They were Destroyers of Souls Their Preaching was poysonous Their
Baptism pestiferous and profane Their Sacrifices abominable They could not be Martyrs Their Company was to be avoided Whoso befriended them were Persecutors of the Truth Were Betrayers of Christ's Spouse to Adulterers Were Betrayers of Unity Were involved in the some Guilt with them In short Schismaticks by being such were Ipso facto Persecutors of the Church Enemies of Mercy Infatuated Salt and Cursed of God Such I say were the Notions the Holy Fathers in those early Times of the Church had of Schismaticks and such were the Names they gave them And certainly whoso seriously considers how much Schism is condemned in Holy Writ what an Enemy it is to the Peace the Power and the Propagation of Christianity and how much it stands in opposition to the Holy Humble Peaceable Patient Meek and Charitable Spirit of the Gospel Whoso considers that our Blessed Savious's great Errand into the World was to Unite all his Disciples here into one Body and one Communion that they might Eternally be Blessed in the full Enjoyment of one Communion with the Father Son and Holy-Ghost in Heaven hereafter Whoso I say considers these Things cannot but confess that Schism and Schismaticks deserve all these hard Names and answer all these terrible Notions Now 2. That for the Preservation of Unity and the Preventing of Schism in every particular Church all were bound by the Principles of St. Cyprian's Age to live in the Bishops Communion and to own and look upon him as the Principle of Unity to that Church of which he was Head and Ruler might be made appear from a vast Train of Testimonies But I shall content myself with a few Thus for Example when some of the Lapsed presumed to write to St. Cyprian and design themselves without a Bishop by the Name of a Church How did the Holy Man resent it Consider how he begins his Answer to them Our Lord says he whose Precepts we ought to Honour and Obey Instituting the Honour of a Bishop and the Contexture of a Church saith thus to Peter in the Gospel I say unto thee thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. From thence by the Vicissitudes of Times and Successions the Ordination of Bishops and the Frame of the Church are transmitted so as that the Church is built upon the Bishops and all her Affairs are ordered by them as the chief Rulers And therefore seeing this is God's appointment I cannot but admire the bold Temerity of some who writing to me call themselves a Church when a Church is only to be found in the Bishop the Clergy and the faithful Christians God forbid that a number of Lapsed should be called a Church c. Consider how he Reasons By Divine Institution there cannot be a Church without a Bishop The Church is founded on the Bishop The Bishop as Chief Ruler orders all the Affairs of the Church Therefore those Lapsed ought not to have called themselves a Church seeing they had no Bishop no Principle of Unity We have another notable Reasoning as well as Testimony of his in his 43d Epistle written to his People of Carthage upon the breaking out of Felicissimus his Schism God is One says he and Christ is One and the Church is One and the Chair is One be our Lord 's own Voice founded on St. Peter Another Altar cannot be reared another Priesthood cannot be erected besides the One Altar and the One Priesthood Whoso gathereth elsewhere scattereth Whatever Human Fury institutes against God's Appointment is Adulterous is Impious is Sacrilegious And a little after O Brethren Let no Man make you wander from the Ways of the Lord O Christians Let no Man rend you from the Gospel of Christ Let no Man tear the Sons of the Church from the Church Let them perish alone who will needs perish Let them abide alone out of the Church who have departed from the Church Let them alone not be with the Bishops who have Rebelled against the Bishops c. And as I observed before in his Epistle to Florentinus Pupianus he defines a Church to be a People united to their Priest and a Flock adhering to their Pastor c. and from thence tells Pupianus That he ought to consider that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop So that if any are not with the Bishop they are not in the Church And how concernedly doth he Reason the Case in his Book of the Unity of the Church Can he seem to himself says he to be with Christ who is against Christ's Priests Who separates himself from the Society of Christ's Clergy and People That Man bears Arms against the Church He fights against God's Ordinance He is an Enemy of the Altar A Rebel against Christ's Sacrifice He is Perfidious and not Faithful Sacrilegious and not Religious He is an Undutiful Servant and Impious Son an Hostile Brother who can contemn God's Bishops and forsake his Priests and dares to set up another Altar and offer up unlawful Prayers c. Indeed in that same Book he calls the Bishop The Glue that cements Christians into the solid Unity of the Church And hence it is 3. That St. Cyprian every where makes the Contempt of the one Bishop or Undutifulness to him the Origine of Schisms and Heresies Thus Epist. 3. he makes this Observation upon the Undutifulness of a certain Deacon to Rogatianus his Bishop That such are the first Efforts of Hereticks and the Out-breaking and Presumptions of illâ—advised Schismaticks They follow their own Fancies and in the Pride of their Hearts contemn their Superiours So Men separate from the Church So they Erect profane Altars without the Church So they Rebel against Christian Peace and Divine Order and Unity And Ep. 59. he tells Cornelius That Heresies and Schisms spring from this only Fountain That God's Priest the Bishop is not obeyed And Men don't consider that at the same time there ought to be only One Bishop only One Iudge as Christ's Vicar in a Church And Ep. 66. to Florentius Pupianus That from hence Heresies and Schisms have hitherto sprung and do daily spring That the Bishop who is One and is set over the Church is contemned by the proud Presumption of some And he that is honoured of God is dishonoured by Men And a little after he tells him alluding clearly to the Monarchical Power of Bishops That Bees have a King and Beasts have a Captain and Robbers with all humility obey their Commander And from thence he concludes how unreasonable it must be for Christians not to pay suitable Regards to their Bishops And in another place Then is the Bond of our Lord's Peace broken then is Brotherly Charity violated then is the Truth
the Safety of Peace and Concord with their Collegues In which case we offer Violence we proscribe Laws to no Man seeing every Bishop has full liberty in the Administration of the Affairs of his Church as he will answwer to God And how do both St. Cyprian and Firmilian resent Stephen's Extravagance in threatning to refuse his Communion to those who had not the same Sentiments with himself about the Baptism of Hereticks Let any Man read St. Cyprian's Epistle to Pompeius and Firmilian's to St. Cyprian and he may have enough to this purpsoe Would you have yet more Then take a most memorable Acknowledgment from the Presbyters and Deacons of Rome St. Cyprian had written to them while the Bishop's Chair was vacant and given them an account of his Resolutions about the Lapsed those who had Sacrificed to the Heathen Idols in time of Persecution Now consider how they begin their answer to him Altho say they a Mind that 's without Checks of Conscience that 's supported by the Vigour of Evangelical Discipline and bears witness to it self that it has squared its Actions by the Divine Commandments useth to content it self with God as its only Iudge and neither seeks other Men's Approbations nor fears their Accusations yet they are worthy of doubled Praises who while they know their Conscience is subject to God only as its Iudge do yet desire that their Administrations should have their Brethrens Comprobations So clearly acknowledging St. Cyprian's and by consequence every Bishop's Supremacy within his own District and his Independency or Non-Subordination to any other Bishop that even Rigaltius himself in his Annotations on St. Cyprian thô a Papist confesses it And no wonder For 4. By the Principles of those Times every Bishop was Christ's Vicar within his own District Had a Primacy in his own Church Managed the Ballance of her Government Was by his being Bishop elevated to the sublime Top of the Priesthood Had the Episcopal Authority in its Vigour the Prelatick Power in its Plenitude A Sublime and Divine Power of Governing the Church And none could be called Bishop of Bishops Every Bishop was Head of his own Church and she was built upon him in her Politick Capacity He and he only was her visible Iudge and he did not stand Subordinate to any visible Superiour In short The Constitution of every particular Church in those Times was a Well-tempered Monarchy The Bishop was the Monarch and the Presbytery was in Senate all the Christians within his District depended on him for Government and Discipline and he depended on no Man So that I may fairly conclude this Point with that famous Testimony of St. Ierom's in his Epistle to Evagrius Wherever a Bishop is whether at Rome or Eugubium Constantinople or Rhegium Alexandria or Tani he is of the same Merit and the same Priesthood Neither the Power of Riches nor the Humility of Poverty maketh a Bishop higher or lower but they are all Successors of the Apostles 'T is true indeed St. Ierom lived after the Cyprianic Age But I suppose our Author will pretend to own his Authority as soon as any Father 's in the point of Church-Government Let me represent to you only one Principle more which prevailed in the Days of St. Cyprian And that is THIRDLY That whatever the High-Priest among the Jews was to the other Priests and Levites c. The Christian Bishop was the same to the Presbyters and Deacons c. and the same Honour and Obedience was due to him This was a Principle which St. Cyprian frequently insisted on and Reasoned from Thus in his Third Epistle directed to Rogatianu he tells him That he had Divine Law and Warrant for Punishing his Rebellious and Undutiful Deacon And then cites that Text Deut. 17. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest or unto the Iudge even that man shall die And all the people shall bear and fear and do no more presumptuously And confirms it farther by shewing how God punished Gorah Datham and Abiram for Rebelling against Aaroâ— Numb 16. 1. And when the Israelites weary of Samuel's Government asked a King to judge them The Lord said to Samuel Hearken unto the voice of the People in all that they say unto thee for they have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them 1. Sam. 8. 7. Therefore he gave them Saul for a Punishment c. And when St. Paul was challenged for reviling God's High Priest he excused himself saying He wist not that he was the High Priest Had he known him to have been so he would not have Treated him so for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of they People Act. 23. 4 5. And. as he goes further on Our Lord Iesus Christ Our God King and Iudge to the very hour of his Passion paid suitable Honour to the Priests thô they neither feared God nor acknowledged Christ For when he had cleansed the Lâ—per he bade him go shew himself to the Priest and offer his Gift Matth. 8. 4. And at the very instant of his Passion when he was beaten as if he had answered irreverently to the High Priest he uttered no Reproachful Thing against the Person of the Priest but rather defended his own Innocence saying If I have spoken Evil bear witness of the Evil but if well why smitest thou me John 18. 22 23. All which Things were done humbly and patiently lby him that we might have a Patern of Patience and Humility proposed to us for he taught us to give all dutiful Honour to true Priests by behaving so towards false Priests Thus St. Cyprian Reason'd and these were his Arguments for obliging all Men Clergy as well as Laity to Honour and Obey their Bishops To the same purpose he wrote in his Fourth Epistle to Pomponius concerning some Virgins and Deacons that lived Scandalously Let them not think they can be saved says he if they will not obey the Bishops seeing God says in Deuteronomy and then he cites Deut. 17. 12 He insists on the same Arguments in his 59th Epistle directed to Cornelius when he is giving him an account of the Rebellion and Schismatical Practices of Fortunatus and Felicissimus the one a Presbyter and the other a Deacon He insists on them over again in his 66th Epistle to Florentius Papianus He insists largely on the Argument drawn from the Punishment inflicted on Corah and his Complices for Rebelling against Aaron and makes it the same very Sin in Schismaticks who separate from their lawful Bishop in his 69th Epistle directed to Magnus and in his 73d Epistle directed to Iubaianus And Firmilian also St. Cyprian's Contemporary insists on the same Argument Indeed the Names Priest Priesthood Altar Sacrifice c. so much used those Times are a pregnant Argument
of the Notions Christians had then of the Christian Hierarchy's being Copied from the Iewish Neither was it a Notion newly started up in St. Cyprian's time for we find it in express Terms in that notable Epistle written to the Corinthians by St. Clement Bishop of Rome who was not only contemporary with the Apostles but is by Name mentioned by St. Paul as one of his Fellow-Labourers whose Names are in the Book of LIfe Philip. 4. 3. For he perswading those Corinthians to lay aside all Animosities and Schismatical Dispositions and to pursue and maintain Unity and Peace above all things proposes to them as a proper Expedient for this that every Man should keep his Order and Station and then enumerates the several Subordinations under the Old Testament which sufficiently proves That the Hierarchy was still preserved in the New His Method of Reasoning and the Design he had in hand to compose the Schisms that arose amongst the Corinthians make this evident beyond all Contradiction That a Bishop in the Christian Church was no less than the High Priest among the Iews else he had not argued from the Precedents of the Temple to perswade them to Unity in the Church The High Priest saith he has his proper Office and the Priests have their proper Place or Station and the Levites are tied to their proper Ministeries and the Layman is bound to his Laick Performances Having thus demonstrated that these were three current and received Principles in St. Cyprian's time viz. That a Bishop was the Principle of Unity to his Church to all the Christians within his District That he was Supreme in his Church and had no Earthly Ecclesiastical Superiour and That he was the same amongst Christians which the High Priest was amongst the Iews Let me try a little if our Author's Definition of a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time can consist with them I am afraid it can consist with none of them singly much less with all these together I. Not with the first for if a Bishop then was the Principle of Unity to a Church in which there were many Presbyters as Cyprian e. g. was to the Church of Carthage and Cornelius to the Church of Rome and Fabius to the Church of Antioch and Dionysius to the Church of Alexandria c. If thus it was I say then to be sure a Bishop was another thing than a meer single Presbyter of a single Parish in the Presbyterian sense For if a single Presbyter could have been the Principle of Unity to a Church in which there were e. g. 46 single Presbyters he must have been it as a single Presbyter or as something else Not as a single Presbyter for then there should have been as many Principles of Unity in a Church as there were single Presbyters for Instance There should have been 46 Principles of Unity in the Church of Rome Which besides that 't is plainly Contradictory to the Notion of One Bishop at once in a Church what is it else than to make a Church such a Monster as may have 46 Heads Than by so multiplying the Principles of Unity to leave no Unity at all Than in stead of One Principle of Unity to an Organized Body to set up 46 Principles of Division Indeed what is it else than the very Extract of Nonsense and Cream of Contradiction A single Presbyter then if he could have been the Principle of Unity to such a Church mut have been it as something else than a meer single Presbyter But what could that Something else have been A Presbyterian Moderator Not so neither for by what Propriety of Speech can a Moderator of a Presbytery as such be called the Principle of Unity to a Church How can he be called the Principle of Unity to a Church who as such is neither Pastor Head nor Governour of a Church Who as such has no direct immediate or formal Relation to a Church Who as such is only the Chair-man the Master-Speaker not of the Church but of the Presbytery Nay who may be such and yet no Christian For however inexpedient or indecent it may be that an Heathen should on occasion be the Moderator i. e. the Master-Speaker of a Presbytery yet it implies no Repugnancy to any Principle of Christianity But however this is 't is certain that according to the Presbyterian Principles not the Moderator but the Presbytery is the Principle of Unity to the Church or rather Churches within the Bounds of that Presbytery And to do our Author Justice he seems to have been sensible of this as a I observed already And therefore he said not If he the Apologist can prove that we separate from our Pastors or from the Moderator of the Presbytery but from our Pastors or from the Presbytery with their Moderator Neither 2. Can our Author's Definition consist with the second Principle viz. That every Bishop was Supreme in his Church Independent and not Subordinate to any Ecclesiastical Superiour on Earth To have such a Supremacy such an Independency such an Unaccountableness is notoriously inconsistent with the Idea of either a single Presbyter or a Presbyterian Moderator How can it be consistent with the Idea of a single Presbyter acting in Parity with his Brethren Presbyters that of 46 for Example One should have a Primacy a Supremacy a Plenitude of Power the Sublime and Divine Power of Governing the Church an Unaccountable and Eminent Power as St. Ierom himself calls it And all the rest should be Accountable and Subordinate to him What is this but reconciling Contradictions Besides the Independency of single Presbyters is notoriously inconsistent with the Presbyterian Scheme 'T is Independency not Presbytery And as for the Presbyterian Moderator In what sense can he be called Supreme or Independent or Unaccountable In what sense can he be said to be raised to the Sublime Top of the Priesthood Or to have an Exors Potestas an Unaccountable Power Or to be Accountable to God only Or to have the Sublime and Divine Power of Governing the Church Is he as such raised to the Sublime Top of the Preisthood who as such may be no Priest at all For why may not a Ruling Elder be a Moderator How can he be said to have 〈◊〉 Unaccountable Power who can be Voted out of his Chair with the same Breath with which he was Voted into it How can he be said to be Accountable to God only who is Accountable to the Presbytery How can he be said to have the Sublime and Divine Power of Governing the Church who as such is no Church Governour Has he a Supreme Power in a Society who as such has no imaginable Iurisdiction over any one Member of that Society 3. But what shall I say to the Consistency of our Author's Definition with the third Principle I named Even no more than that I have proved it to have been one of St. Cyprian's and one that was generally received in his time and that I
can refer it to our Author himself to Determine Whether the High Priest of the Iews bore no higher Character than that of a single Presbyter or a Presbyterian Moderator And so I proceed to another Head of Arguments which shall be FOURTHLY To give you in a more particular Detail some of the Branches of the Episcopal Prerogative in St. Cyprian's time And I think I shall do enough for my purpose if I shall prove these three Things I. That there were several considerable Acts of Power relating to the Government and Discipline of the Church which belonged solely to the Bishop's several Powers lodged in his Person which he could manage by himself and without the Concurrence of any other Church-Governour II. That in every Thing relating to the Government and Discipline of the Church he had a Negative over all the other Church-Governours within his District And III. That all the other Clergy-men within his District Presbyters as well as others were subject to his Authority and obnoxious to his Discipline and Jurisdiction I. I say there were several considerable Acts of Power relating to the Government and Discipline of the Church which belonged solely to the Bishop several Powers lodged in his Person which he could manage by himself and without the Concurrence of any other Church-Governour Take these for a Sample And First He had the sole Power of Confirmation of imposing Hands on Christians for the Reception of the Holy-Ghost after Baptism For this we have St. Cyprian's most express Testimony in his Epistle to Iubaianus where he tells It was the Custom to offer such as were Baptized to the Bishops that by their Prayers and the laying on of their Hands they might receive the Holy-Ghost and be Consummated by the Sign of our Lord i. e. by the Sign of the Cross as I take it And he expresly founds this Practice on the Paterm of St. Pater and St. Iohn mentiond Acts 8. 14. c. Firmilian is as express in his Epistle to Cyprian saying in plain Lanugage That the Bishops who Govern the Church possess the Power of Baptism Confirmation and Ordination 'T is true he calls them Majores Natu Elder But that he meant Bishops as distinguished from Presbyters cannot be called into Question by any Man who reads the whole Epistle and considers his Stile all along and withal considers what a peculiar Interest by the Principles of these Times the Bishop had in these three Acts he names But whatever groundless Altercations there may be about his Testimony as there can be none about St. Cprian's so neither can there by any shadow of Pretext for any about Cornelius's who in his Epistle to Fabius so often mentioned before makes it an Argument of Novatianus his Incapacity of being a Bishop that thô he was Baptized yet he was not Confirmed by the Bishop Secondly He had the sole Power of Ordination and that of whatsoever Clergy-men within his District Ordinations could not be performed without him but he could perform them Regularly without the Concurrence of any other Church-Officer This has been so frequently and so fully proved by Learned Men that I need not insist much on it Forbearing therefore to adduce the Testimonies of such as lived after St. Cyprian's time such as Ambrose Ierom Chrysostom c. I shall confine my self to St. Cyprian and his Contemporaries Toi begin with St. Cyprian 'T is true so humble and condescending he was That when he was made Bishop he resolved with himself to do nothing by himself concerning the Publick Affairs of the Church without consulting not only his Clergy but his People I call this his own free and voluntary Condescention It wa a thing he was not bound to do by any Divine Prescript or any Apostolical Tradition or any Ecclesiastical Constitution His very Words import so much which you may see on the Margin And yet for all that we find him not only in extraordinary Junctures Ordaining without asking the Consent of his Clergy or People but still insisting on it as the Right of all Bishops and particularly his own to Promote and Ordain Clergy-men of whatsoever Rank by himself and without any Concurrence Thus In his 38th Epistle having Ordained Aurelius a Lector he acquaints his Presbyters and Deacons with it from the Place of his Retirement Now consider how he begins his Letter In all Clerical Ordinations most dear Brethren says he I used to Consult you beforehand and to examine the Manners and Merits of every one with common Advice And then he proceeds to tell them How that notwithstanding that was his ordinary Method a Rule he had observed for the most part yet for good Reasons he had not observed it in that Instance In which Testimony we have these Things evident 1. That his Power was the same as to all Ordinations whether of Presbyters or others For he speaks of them all indefinitely In Clericis Ordinationibus 2. That he used only to ask the Counsel and Advice of his Clergy about the Manners and Merits of the Person he was to Ordain but not their Concurrence in the Act of Ordination not one word of that On the contrary That they used not to Concurr fairly imported in the very Instance of Aurelius 3. That it was intirely of his own Easiness and Condescension that he Consulted them in the Matter He USED to do it but needed not have done it He did it not in that very same Case Which is a demonstration of the Truth of what I said before viz. That his Resolutioâ— which he had made when he entred to his Bishoprick was from his own Choice and absolutely Free and Voluntary We have another remarkable Testimony to the same purpose in his 41st Epistle where he tells that Because of his Absence from Carthage he had given a Deputation to â—aldnius and Herculanus two Bishops and to Râ—gatianâ—s and Numidicus two of his Presbyters to examine the Ages Qualifications and Mâ—its of some in Carthage that he whose Province it was to promote Men to Ecclesiastical Offices might be well informed about them and Promote none but such as were Meek Humble and Worthy This I say is a most remarkable Testimony for our present Purpose for he not only speaks indefinitely of all Ranks or Orders without making Exceptions but he speaks of himself in the Singular Number as having the Power of Promoting them and he founds that Power and appropriates it to himself upon his having the Care of the Church and her Government committed to him We have a third Testimony as pregnant as any of the former in his 72d Epistle written to Stephen Bishop of Rome For representing to him what the Resolution of the African Bishops were concerning such Presbyters and Deacons as should return from a State of Schism to the Communion of the Church he discourses thus By common Consent and Aâ—thority Dear Brother we tell you further That if any Presbyters or Deacons who
all conscience it ought it being scarcely possible to prove any thing of this Nature more demonstratively then be pleased only to consider the necessary Connexion that is betwixt this Principle and that which I am next to prove and that is SECONDLY That by the Principles of those Times a Bishop Cononically Promoted was Supreme in his Church immediately subject to Iesus Christ independent on any unaccountable to any Earthly Ecclesiastical Superiour There was no Universal Bishop then under Iesus Christ who might be the Supreme visible Head of the Catholick visiâ—le Church There was indeed an Universal Bishoprick but it was not holden by any One single Person There was an Unus Episcopatus One Episcopacy One Episcopal Office One Bishoprick but it was divided into many Parts and every Bishop had his shâ—re of it assigned him to Rule and Govern with the Plenitude of the Episcopal Authority There was One Church all the World over divided into many Members and there was One Episcopacy dâ—ffused in proportion to that One Church by the Harmonious Numerâ—sity of many Bishops Or if you would have it in other words the One Catholick Church was divided into many Precincts Districts or Diocesses call them as you will Each of those Districtâ— had its singular Bishop and that Bishop within that District had the Supreme Power He was subordinate to none but the Great Bishop of Souls Iesus Christ the only Universal Bishop of the Universal Church He was independent on and stood collateral with all other Bishops There 's nothing more fully or more plainly or more frequently insisted on by St. Cyprian than this Great Principle I shall only give you a short view of it from him and his Contemporaries And I. He lays the Foundation of it in the Parity which our Lord instituted amongst his Apostles Christ says he gave Equal Power to all his Apostles when he said As my Father hath sent me even so I send you Receive ye the Holy-Ghost c. And again The rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was endued with an Equality of Power and Honour Now St. Cyprian on all occasions makes Bishops Successors to the Apostles as perchance I may prove fully hereafter Thus I say he founds the Equality of Bishops and by consequence every Bishop's Supremacy within his own Diocess And agreeably he Reasons most frequently I shall only give you a few Instances 2. Then in that excellent Epistle to Antonianus discoursing concerning the Case of the Lapsed and shewing how upon former Occasions different Bishops had taken different Measures about restoring Penitents to the Peace of the Church he concludes with this General Rule That every Bishop so long as he maintains the Bond of Concord and preserves Catholick Unity has Power to order the Affairs of his own Church as he shall be accountable to God Plainly importing that no Bishop can give Laws to another or call him to an Account for his Management To the same purpose is the conclusion of his Epistle to Iubaianus about the Baptism of Hereticks and Schismaticks These Things most dear Brother says he I have written to you as I was able neither prescribing to nor imposing on any Man seeing every Bishop hath full Power to do as he judges most fitting c. The same way he concludes his Epistle to Magnus concerning that same Case of Baptism performed by Hereticks To the same purpose is the whole Strain of his Epistle to Florentius Pupianus And what can be more clear or full than his excellent Discourse at the opening of the Council of Carthage Anno 256 More than Eighty Bishops met to determine concerning that same matter of Baptism administred by Hereticks or Schismaticks St. Cyprian was Praeses and having briefly represented to them the Occasion of their Meeting he spoke to them thus it remains now that each of us speak his sense freely judging no Man refusing our Communion to no Man thô he should dissent from us For none of us costitutes himself Bishop of Bishops nor forces his Collegues upon a necessity of Obeying by a Tyrannical Terror seeing every Bishop is intirely Master of his own Resolutions and can no more he judged by others than he can judge others But we all expect the Judgment of our Lord Iesus Christ who alone hath Power of making us Governours of his Church and calling us to an Account for our Administrations 3. Neither did the Principle hold only in respect of this or the other Bishop but all without Exception even the Bishop of Rome stood upon a Level And for this we have as pregnant Proof as possibly can be desired For when the Schismatical Party at Carthage set up Fortunatus as an Anti-Bishop and thereupon sent some of their Partisans to Rome toi inform Cornelius of their Proceedings and justifie them to him Cyprian wrote to him also and thus Reasoned the Case with him To what Purpose was it for them to go to Rome to tell you that they had set up a false Bishop against the Bishops Either they continue in their Wickedness and are pleased with what they have done or they are Penitent land willing to return to the Churches Unity If the latter they know whither they may return For seeing it is determined by us all and withal 't is just and reasonable in it self That every one's Cause should be examined where the Crime was committed and seeing there is a Portion of Flock the Catholick Church assigned to every Bishop to be Governed by him as he shall be accountable to God our Subjects ought not to run about from Bishop to Bishop nor break the Harmonious Concord which is amonst Bishops by their subtle and fallacious Temerity But every Man's Cause ought there to be discussed where he may have Accusers and Witnesses of his Crime c. In which Reasoning we have these Things plain 1. That by St. Cyprian's Principles evey Bishop was judge of his own Subjects of all the Christians who lived within his District 2. That no Bishop no not the Bishop of Rome was Superior to another Bishop nor could receive Appeals from his Sentences And 3. That this Independency of Bishops this Unaccountableness of one Bishop to another as to his Superiour was founded on every Bishop's having his Portion of the Flock assigned to him to be Ruled and Governed by him as he should answer to God i. e. upon his visible Supremacy in his own Church his being immediately Subordinate to God only To the same purpose he writes to Stephen Bishop of Rome also For having told him his Mind freely concerning those who should return from a State of Schism to the Unity of the Church how they ought to be Treated and how Recceived c. he concludes thus We know that some are tenacious and unwilling to alter what they have once determined and that they will needs retain some Methods peculiar to themselves but still with
dearer to God and in a closer Communion with him and nearer Approximation to him than Christians of the common size And their Intercessions had been in use of being much regarded in former Persecutions These therefore as the only Persons whose Credit could be feasibly put in the Ballance with the Bishops Authority the Holy Man's Supplanters instigated to espouse the Quarrel of the Lapsed to become their Patrons for having themselves Absolved against the Bishop's Resolutions And truly some of them were so far wrought upon as to turn Zealous for it And armed with their Authority these discontented Presbyters adventured to Absolve and Lapsed and receive them to the Sacrament without the Bishop's Allowance Now consider what followed and speak your Conscience and tell me if St. Cyprian was not more than either Single Presbyter or Presbyterian Moderator Thô he was one of the mildest and most humble Men that ever lived yet so soon as this was told him where he was in his Retirement he was not a little alarm'd The Practice was surprizing and the Presumption new as well as bold The like had never been done before in any Christian Church And such preposterous Methods clearly tended to shake all the Foundations of Order and good Discipline And therefore he thought it high time for him if he could to give the Check to such irregular and unexampled Methods In short he drew his Pen and wrote Three notable Epistles one to the Martyrs and Confessors Another to his Clergy and a third to his Peoplâ— Insisting in each of them upon the Novelty and Unwarrantableness of the Course was taken the Dishonours and Indignities were done himself by it and the great Mischiefs and fatal Consequences might nay would unavoidably follow upon it if it were not forborn More particularly In that to the Martyrs and Confessors he told them That his Episcopal Care and the Fear of God compelled him to Admonish them That as they had devoutly and couragiously kept the Faith so they ought suitably to be observant of Christ's Holy Laws and Discipline That as it became all Christ's Soldiers to obey their General 's Commands so it was their Duty in a special manner to be Examples to others That he had thought the Presbyters and Deacons who were with them might have taught them so much But that now to his extream Grief he understood they had been so far from doing that that on the contrary some of them especially some Presbyters neither minding the Fear of God nor the Honour of their Bishop had industriously misled them He complain'd mightily of the Presumption of such Presbyters that against all Law and Reason they should have dared to Reconcile the Lapsed without his Consent That herein they were more Criminal than the Lapsers themselves That it was somewhat Excusable in the Lapsed to be earnest for an Absolution considering the uncomfortable State they were in so long as they were denied the Communion of the Church But it was the Duty of Office-bearers in the Church to do nothing rashly lest in stead of Pastors they should prove Worriers of the Flock c. And then he told these Martyrs and Confessors how far their Priviledges reached All they could do was by way of humble Supplication to Petition the Bishop for a Relaxation of the Rules of Discipline But they had neither Power to Command him nor Grant Indulgences without him Indeed this he told them frequently and that they went beyond their Line if they ventured any further In that to his Presbyters and Deacons he wrote in a yet more resenting Strain He told them He had long kept his Patience and held his Peace but their immoderate Presumption and Temerity would suffer him no longer to be silent For what a dreadful Prospect says he must we have of the Divine Vengâ—â—nce when some Presbyters neither mindful of the Gospel nor their own Stations nor regarding the future Iudgments of God nor the Bishop who for the time is set over them dare attempt what was never attempted before under any of my Predecessors namely so to Affront and Contemâ—â— their Bishop as to assume all to themselves And then he proceeds to tell them how he could overlook and bear with the Indignity done to his Episcopal Authority if there were no more in it But the course they followed was so wicked they were so injurious to the Lapsed whom they presumed to Reconcile so Uncaononically their Pride and Popularity were so apparent in their Method it was such a Crime so to Expose the Martyrs to Envy and set them at Variance with their Bishop c. that he could â—tifle it no longer In short all over the Epistle he wrote like a Bishop and concluded it with a Peremptory Threatning of a present Suspension from the Exercise of their Office and then an Infliction of further Censures when he should return from his Retirement if they should Persevere in such a Lawless Course In that to his People he proceeded on the â—ame Principles condemned these Presbyters who had acted so disorderly not reserving to the Bishop the Honour of his Chair and Priesthood Told them That those Presbyters ought to have taught the People otherwise Laid to their Charge the Affectation of Popularity and required such of the People as had not fallen to take Pains upon the Lapsed to try to bring them to a better Temper to perswade them to hearken to his Counsel and wait his Return c. Here were three Epistles written I think in plain Prelatick Stile sure neither in the Stile of Single Presbyter nor Presbyterian Moderator Especially if we consider the very next written to his Presbyters and Deacons upon the same Principles still He had written to them several times before from the Place of his Retirement but had received no Answer from them Now consider how he Resents this and Resenting it asserts his own Episcopal Authority his own Sovereign Power in Ecclesiastick Matters For thus he begins I wonder dear Brethren that you have returned no Answers to the many Letters I have sent you especially considering that now in my Retirement you ought to inform me of every thing that happens that so I may advisedly and deliberately give Orders concerning the Affairs of the Church Let any Man lay these four Letters together and weigh them impartially and then let him judge if St. Cyprian wrote in the Stile of Parity if he claim'd not a Sovereign Power a Negative to himself over all the Christians Presbyters as well as others living within his District But did not Cyprian shew too much Zeal in this Cause Possibly he attempted to stretch his Power a little too far as afterwards many did He was a Holy and Meek Man but such may be a little too High So I read indeed in a late Book But it seems the Author has found himself very sore put to it when he said so For how can one not be fore put to
of their own Rank and Quality By consequence an Epistle in which had they understood it had the Principles of those Times allowed it they might have spoken their Minds very freely concerning the Power of Presbyters Never had Presbyters I am sure more Freedom or better Opportunity to have asserted their own Power and Vindicated Parity and Condem'd Prelatical Usurpations in an Epistle than they had on that Occasion for Fabianus Bishop of Rome was dead and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage was retired and so it was written by Presbyters who had no Bishop to Presbyters in the absence of their Bishop And yet in that Epistle they were so far from having any such Notions that they said expresly That both Themselves who wanted One and those of Carthage who wanted the Presence of One were only seemingly the Governours of those respective Churches and only kept the Flocks in stead of the respective Pastors the Bishops And â—urther telling what Pains they had been at to keep People from Apostatizing in the Day of Trial they account how they Treated those who had fallen particularly that they did separate them from the Flock indeed but so as not to be wanting in their Duty and Assistance to them They did what was proper for their Station They exhorted them to continue patiently in their Penances as being the most plausible Method for obtaining Indulgences from him who could give them That is without Controversie from the Bishop when he should be settled For so I read in an Epistle written at that same time by Celerinâ—s a Roman to Lucianus a Carthaginian and the 2Ist in Number among St. Cyprian's that when the Cause of Numeria and Candida two Female Lapsers was brought before the Presbytery of Rome the Presbytery commanded them to continue as they were i. e. in the State of Penitents till a Bishop should be Inthroned And now let any Man judge whether according to the Principles and Sentiments of the Presbyters of Rome St. Cyprian or his presuming Presbyters had taken too much upon them at Carthage But neither is this all yet for â— These Carthaginian Presbyters were also Condemned by the Roman Martyrs and Confessors who thâ— they were in Prison had learned the State of the Controversie from the Accounts St. Cyprian had sent to Rome two of them Moyses and Maximus being also Presbyters These Martyrs and Confessors wrote also to St. Cyprian and to the same purpose the Roman Clergy had done Their Epistle is the 3Ist in number In which they not only beg with a peculiar Earnestness That he being so Glorious a Bishop would pray for them They not only lay a singular stress upon his Prayers beyond the Prayers of others by reason of the Opinion they had of his Holy Virtues which I am apt to think such Men as they would not probably have done had they believed him to have been a Proud aspiring Prâ—late that is indeed a Limb of Antichrist as this Author would â—ain give him out to have been But also they heartily Congratulate his discharging so Laudibly his Episcopal Office and that even in his Retirement he had made it so much his Care to acquit himself that he had halted in no part of his Duty and particularly That he had suitably Censured and Râ—buked not only the Lapsed who little regarding the Greatness of their Guilt had in his Absence extorted the Churches Peace from his Presbyters but even these Presbyters for their profane Facility in giving that which was Holy to Dogs and casting Pearls before Swine without any Regard to the Gospel In short They Approve his whole Proceeding as having done nothing Unsuitable to his Character nothing Unbecoming either an Holy or an Humble Bishop Further yet 6. These same Carthaginian Presbyters resuming their former Boldness and Topping it over again with their Bishop were Excommunicated by him and his Sentence was Approved and Ratified by all Catholick Bishâ—ps in all Catholick Churches all the World over as shall be shewn you fully by and by And then 7. And lasty That in all this Matter St. Cyprian did nothing either Proudly or Presumptuously is evident from this That in his Time and long before his Time even from the Apostles Times it was not Lawful for Presbyters to Attempt any thing relating to the Church without the Bishop 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons attempt nothing without the Bishop's Allowance for 't is he to whom the Lord's People are committed and 't is he that must Account for their Souls is the 39th of the Canons called Apostolical And no doubt it was in force in St. Cyprian's time And this was no greater Power than was assigned him by the Apostolical Ignatius I cannot tell how many times Take these Testimonies for a Sample Let no Man do any thing that belongs to the Church without the Bishop He that hâ—noureth the Bishop is honoured of God but he that doth any thing in opposition to the Bishop serveth the Devil If any Man pretend to be wiser than the Bishop i. e. will have Things done against the Bishop's Will he is Corrupted Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop as we would be subject to God The Spirit hath spoken Do ye nothing without the Bishop 'T is necessary that you continue to do nothing without the Bishop And now let any of Common Sense determine Whether there was Ground or shadow of Ground for insinuating that St. Cyprian shewed too much Zeal in this Cause or attempted to stretch his Power a little too far indeed it had not been a little but very much nay monstrously too far had those of Parity been then the current Principles or was a little too high in this Matter But if there was no Ground to say so if it was contrary to all the then current Principles and to the common Sentiments of all Catholick Christians nay even to the Convictions of all Honest Orderly Dutiful and Conscientious Presbyters who then lived to say so If thus it was I say and 't is hard to prove any Matter of Fact more evidently than I have proved that it was thus then I think it follows by good Consequence not only that this Author was a little in the wrong to St. Cyprian when he said so but also that in St. Cyprian's time a Bishop had fairly a Negative over his Presbyters which was the Thing to be demonstrated And so I proceed to the next Thing proposed namely III. That all the other Church-Governours within his District Presbyters as well as others were in St. Cyprian's time subject to the Bishop's Authority and obnoxious to his Discipline I do'nt think you very sharp sighted if you have not seen this already Yet that I may give you all reasonable Satisfaction I shall insist a little further on it And I. This might appear sufficiently from this one Consideration thâ— no more could be produced for it That still in the Stile and Language of
those Times the Bishop was called the Praepositus the Ruler the Governour the Superiour of all the Christians within his District Clergy as well as Laity And they without Distinction or Exception were called His People his Flock his Subjects c. This may be seen almost in every one of his Epistles Thus Ep. 3. he says That Deacons ought to remember that our Lord chose his Apostles that is Bishops and Governours But the Apostles chose Deacons to be the Bishop's and the Churches Ministers And therefore a Deacon ought with all Humility to give Satisfaction to the Bishop his Superiour And Ep. 9. He praises the Roman Clergy for having the Memory of Fabianus who had been their Superiour in so great Honour And Ep. 13. writing to Rogatianus his Presbyter and the rest of the Confessors and praising God for their Faith and Patience he says That as all Christians were bound to Rejoyce when Christ's Flock was illuminated by the Examples of Confessors so he himsâ—lf in a special manner as being the Bishop seeing the Churches Glory was the Ruler's Glory And in that famous Passage which I have cited already from Ep. 16. he complains of it as an unexampled Petulancy that Presbyters should so contemn the Bishop their Sâ—periour And in another place We Bishops who have the Chief Power in the Church And Ep. 62. I who by the Divine Mercy Govern the Church have sent to you Januarius Maximus Proculus c. 100000 Sestercâ—s as the Charitable Contribution of my Clergy and People And Ep. 66. Hence spring Heresies and Schisms c. That the Bishop who is one and is set over the Church is Contemned c. Such was the Dialect of those Times I say and thus Bishops were called Rulers Governours Superiours c. and that in regard of all within their Districts making no Discrimination betwixt Clergy-men and Laicks and not only so but more particularly 2. It was as comon in that Dialect to call the Clergy The BISHOP'S CLERGY Thus for Example Ep. 14. It was my Wish that I might have saluted all my Clâ—â—gy safe and sound c. My Presbyters and Deacons ought to have taught you c. Because I cannot send Letters but by Clergy-men and I know that many of mine are absent Numidicus was preserved alive by God that he might joyn him my Clergy Urbanus and Sidonius came to my Presbyters If any of my Presbyters or Deacons shall turn precipitant I have sent you Copies of the Letters which I wrote to my Clergy and People concerning Felicissimus and his Presbytery And as I observed before when Maximâ—s a Presbyter and Urbanus c. returned from the Novatian Schism to Cornelius's Communion We are Reconciled say they to Cyprian to Cornelius OUR BISHOP and to all the Clergy Such was the Language of those Times Now I say by what Propriety of Speech could a Bishop have been called Praepositus Superiour to his Clergy Could they have been called HIS Clergy Could he have been said to have been Their Bishop Their Ruler Their Governour By what Rule of either Grammar or Rhetorick Logick or Politick could he have been said to have been set over them or they to have been his Subjects or Inferiours if he had no Power nor Iurisdiction over them If they were not Subjected to his Authority nor Obnoxious to his Discipline But let all this pass for meer Prolusion if you will I am not pinch'd for want of Arguments For 3. The three great Principles which I proved so fully before viz. That a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time was the Principle of Unity to the Church which he Govern'd that he had a Supreme Power in it and that by the Principles which then prevailed he was the same in the Christian Church which the High Priest was in the Iewish and the last Thing I proved also viz. That he had a Negative over his Presbyters Each of these is demonstration for the present Conclusion and you need not Artificial Natural Logick is enough to let you see the Consequences Indeed 4. We find Cyprian all along both Reasoning and Practising to this purpose Thus he told Bishop Rogatianus Ep. 3. That the Case was plain between him and his Deacon Hâ— might punish him forthwith by his Episcopal Power and his Câ—thedral Authority He might make him sensible of his Episcopâ— Honour He might Exert the Power of his Honour against him either by Deposing or by Excommunicating him Nay He mighâ— Excommunicate all such as should Rebel against him For all these Censures his Sovereign Authority was competent Thus he praises Pomponius another Bishop for Excommunicating another Scandalous Deacon Ep. 4. p. 9. And did not he himself Suspend Philumenus and Fortunatus two Subdeacons and Favorinus an Acolyth from their Livings As we learn from his 34th Epistle But you may say These Instances extend no further than to Deacons or more inferiour Clergy-men but What is this to Presbyters Why Sir indeed the Instances are pat and home and you must acknowledge so much if you consider that by the Principles of those Times there was no Disparity between Prebyters and Inferiour Orders in this respect But the Bishop's Power extended equally to all just as a King can censure his Chancellor as well as a Sub-Collector of his Customs a Justice-General as well as a Justice of Peace Nothing clearer from the above-mentioned Principles But that I may leave you no imaginable Scruple I shall even account to you about Prebyters also 5. Then I have told you already how some of the Carthaginian Presbyters conspired against St. Cyprian and used their utmost Arts to hinder his Preâ—erment to the Bishoprick Now if we may believe either himself or Pontius in his Life whatever it was they did on that Occasion he might have punish'd them for it punish'd them not only with Deposition but with Excommunication had he pleased Take first his own Account in Ep. 43. there he tells his People That through the Malignity and Perfidiousness of some of his Presbyters he durst not adventure to return to Carthage so soon as he would And he describes those Presbyters thus That being mindful of their Conspiracy and retaining their old Grudges against his Promotion they reinforced their ancient Machinations and renewed their Attempts for Undermining him by siding with Felicissâ—mus in his Schism And then he proceeds thus I neither willed nor wished their Punishment for their Opposition to my Promotion yea I Pardon'd them and kept my Peace And yet now they have suffered Condign Punishment Thô I did not Excommunicate them then their own Guilty Consciences have done it now They have Excommunicated themselves c. Take it next from Pontius his Deacon Thô I am unwilling says he yet I must speak it out Some resisted his Promotion but how Gently how Patiently how Generously how Mercifully did he forgive them Did
Letters concerning the Publick Affairs of the Catholick Church or the Sacred College that Ruled the Catholick Church should have been Râ—ceived As that to him and to him alone all such Letters have been directed As that by the Circulation and Reciprocation of Letters betwixt him and his Collegues and their General Agreement upon any Thing by that Circulation and Râ—ciprocation Laws should have been given to the whole Catholick Church Canons as Binding and Obligatory as the Supreme Ecclesiastical Power on Earth could make them How could one raised to such a Post I say have been no other than a Single Presbyter or a Presbyterian Moderator Doth not his very bearing such a Part his having such a Trust his being Cloath'd with such an Eminence argue him Demonstratively to have been something other something Greater something Higher and more Honourable than either Thus I have considered a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time as he stood related to his own Particular and to the Church Catholick and in both respects have discovered a vast Discrepance betwixt him as he was really and our Author's Notion or Definition of him Let me only add one Consideration more and that is What Character he bore what Figure he made in the Eye of those who were without of the Heathen World especially the Roman Emperours and Magistrates And here I need not be at much Pains the Thing is Obvious The Christian Bishops as being the Chief Rulers the Supreme Governours the Heads of their respective Churches were the Chief Butts of all the Heathen Rage and Malice Take these few of many Evidences After St. Cyprian had retired from Carthage in the time of the Decian Persecution he wrote to his Presbyters and Deacons and told them how earnest he was to return to the City but Prudence would not let him When he considered the Publick Peace of the Church and how much he as Bishop was concerned to Provide for it and for the Quiet and Safety of the Brethren he found it necessary for him thô with mighty Grief to forbear returning for a time lest HIS PRESENCE should provoke the Rage and Fury of the Gentiles So he wrote I say in his 7th Epistle And in the 12th directed also to his Presbyters and Deacons I wish says he that my Station and Character would allow me to be present with you In his 20th Epistle directed for the Roman Presbyters and Deacons he Apologizes for his Retirement after this manner In compliance with our Lord's Commands pointing no doubt at Matth. 10. 23. so soon as the Persecution began and the Rabble with mighty Clamour pursued me I retired for a time not so much to save my self as for the publick Quiet of the Church and that the Tumult which was already kindled might not be the more inflam'd by MY OBSTINATE PRESENCE And to the same purpose he Apologizes to his own People for his so long Absence Ep. 43. Thô he had been long away yet he durst not return because of the Threats and Snares of these perfidious Men Felicissimus and his Fellow-Schismaticks Lest says he upon MY COMING there should be a greater Uproar and while as a Bishop ought in all Things to provide for Peace and Tranquillity I should seem to have added Fewel to the Sedition and to have imbittered the Persecution Here I think is clear Demonstration of the Episcopal Eminence in the Eye of the Heathen Persecutors It was a Grief a Burden a Torment a very Crucifixion to St. Cyprian's Soul to be separated from his Flock as himself words it But he was bound by the Laws of his EPSICOPAL PROVIDENCE by all means to study the Peace the Quiet the Tranquillity of the Church and his LOCUS and GRADUS his Station and Dignity were so Conspicuous and Eminent that HIS PRESENCE would have provoked the Gentiles and increased the Persecution and therefore he durst not return And yet this is not all Consider if what follows is not yet clearer In his 14th Epistle written to his Presbyters and Deacons he tells them That tho he had strong and pressing Reasons to hasten his return yet he found it more expedient and useful for the publick Peace to continue longer in his Lurking Places and Tertullus one whom they knew and could not but value had seriously advised him to be Calm and Cautious and not to commit himself rashly to the publick View especially of that Place where he had been so often lain in wait and made search for and therefore he Exhorts and Commands them his Presbyters and Deacons That THEY whose PRESENCE was nâ—ither so INVIDIOUS nor by far so DANGEROUS might perform the part of Vicars to him Here I think we have a full Evidence of a fair Discrimination was made betwixt him and his Presbyters by the Heathen Persecutors And not only so but. He tells Cornelius Bishop of Rome Ep. 59. That he was Proscribed in the Days of the Decian Persecution and that by Name as Bishop of the Christians in Carthage and that he was destin'd for the Lions c And again Ep. 66. he tells Florentius Pupianus That his Proscription ran in this Form If any Man holds or possesses any of the Goods of CAECILIUS CYPRIANUS BISHOP OF THE CHRISTIANS c. And thereby makes an Argument that it was Unaccountable in Florentius not to own him as a Bishop And Pontiuâ— his Deacon tells us That when he at last commenced Martyr in tâ—e Valerian Persecution in the very Sentence that was given out against him he was called SECTAE SIGNIFER the Ring-leader the Head the Chiftain of the Sect of the Christians in Carthage Would you have yet more Then Take it not about St. Cyprian's Person for I think we have enough of him already but in St. Cyprian's Words You have them Ep. 55. there he tells Antonianus That the Emperous Decâ—us from a Sense no doubt that as Heads of their respective Churches they were under God the great Supporters and Promoters of our Most Holy Faith had such a Spite such a Pique at the Christian Bishops that for Example He could have heard with greater Patience and Composure 〈◊〉 another â—mulous Prince should have Rival'd it with him for the Roman Empire than that a Bishop should have been settled in the City of Rome And doth not Eusebius tell us That the Emperour Maximinus in that Persecution of which he was the Author some 22 or 23 Years before St. Cyprian's Martyrdom Ordered that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Governours of the Christian Churches should only be put to Death as being the Authors of the Propagation of the Gospel So Eminent in those Times was the Episcopal Character such a Sense had the very Heathens of their being Bishops indeed so much as Bishops were they Obnoxious to the Fury and Malice of Persecutors and so much Reason had St. Cyprian to say That it mattered not whence whether from Heathens without or Schismaticks