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
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
his Deacon Pontius Euâ—ebius and St. Ierome Thus our Holy Martyr tells us That Cornelius had made his Advances gradually through all the inferior Stations and so no doubt had been a Presbyter before he was a Bishop And yet we find when he was Promoted to the See of Rome he was Ordained by 16 Bisâ—â—ps Thus we find also in the Promotion of Sabinus to the Bishoprick from which Basilides had fallen that he was Ordained by the Imposition of the Hands of the Bishops who were then present at his Election Thus Fortunatus Achimnius Optatus Privationus Donatulus and Fâ—ix 6 Bishops Ordained a Bishop at Capsis Thus Heraclus was first a Presbyter under Demetrius in the Church of Alexandria and then succeeded to him in the Episcopal Chair Dionysius was first a Presbyter under Heraclas and then succeeded to him And Maximus who had been a Presbyter under him succeeded to Dionysius And before all these some 70 Years before St. Cyprian's time Irenaeus was first a Presbyter under Photinus and afterwards his Successor in the Bishoprick of Lions Nor is it to be doubted that each of these was Raised to the Episcopal Dignity by a new Ordinatioâ— The first of the Canons commonly called Apostolical which requires That a Bishop be Ordained by two or three Bishops was doubtless all along observed Nay this Necessity of a new Ordination for Raising One to the Episcopal Power was so Notorious and Received then that the Schismaticks themselves believed it indispensible And therefore Novatianus thô formerly a Presbyter as Cornelius tells expresly in that so often cited Epistle to Fabius when he Rival'd it with Cornelius for the Chair of Rome that he might have the shew at least of a Canonical Ordination he got three simple inconsiderate Bishops to come to the City upon pretence of Consulting with other Bishops about setling the Commotions of the Church And having them once in his Clutches he shut them up under Lock and Key till they were put in a scandalous Disorder and then forced them to give him the Episcopal Mission by an imaginary and vain Imposition of Hands as Cornelius words it Thus also when Fortunatus One of the Five Presbyters who joyned with the Schismatical Felicissumus against St. Cyprian tâ—â—ned bold to set up as an Anti-Bishop at Carthage He was Ordained by Five false Bishops And now Sir by this Accounâ— I think we have our Author's Definition of a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time fairly routed a second time For How could the Maxim of but One Bishop at once in a Church hold if that Bishop was nothing but a single Presbyter The Church of Rome was but One Church so was the Church of Carthage And yet in each of these Churches there were many single Presbyters Again If a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time was no more than a single Presbyter in the Presbyterian Sense what needed so much work about him Why e. g. convene all the Presbyters of a Province such as Africa or Numidia was for the Election and Ordination of a single Presbyter in Carthage where there were Presbyters more than enough to have performed all the Business What needed the Church of Rome to make such work about supplying such a Vacancy as was there before Cornelius was Promoted Why a Convention of Sixteen Neighbouring Bishops to give him Holy Orders Might not the Forty Six who lived in Rome have served the turn Might not these Forty Six I say have filled Fabianus his Room with far greater Ease and Expedition If they made such work and had such Difficulties as we find they had about a Bishop in setling One single Brother Presbyter when according to our Author's Principles they had the full Power of doing it what had become of them if Thirty nay Twenty nay Ten of the Forty six had all died in one Year Sure they had never got so many Vacancies filled And then Were not Cornelius and Novatianus Presbyters of Rome before the former was the Trâ—e and the latter the False Bishop of that City If so what need of a new Election and a new Ordination for making them Presbyters of a Church of which they were Presbyters already Had it not been pretty pleasant in such a grave serious persecuted State of the Church to have seen two eminent Men already Presbyters of Rome making so much work about being made Presbyters of Rome And all the Clergy and Christians of Rome nay sooner or later of all the Christian World engaged in the Quarrel What had this been other than the very Mystery of Ridiculousness But this is not all The Premisses will as little allow him to have been a Presbyterian Moderator For to what purpose so much ado about the Establishment of a meer Moderator of a Presbytery Why so much stress laid upon only one Moderator in a City Why no Canonical Vacancy of his Moderatorial Chair unless in the case of Death Cession or Forfeiture Sure if they had then understood all the Exigencies and Analogies of Parity they would not have been so much in love with a constant Moderator no they would have judged him highly inconvenient and by all means to be shunned If he had been imposed on the Meeting it had been an Encroachment on their Intrinsick Power and so absolutely unlawful and Prelacy And thò Chosen by themselves fatal as having a violent Tendency to Lordly Prelacy And therefore they could never have yielded to have One with a Good Conscience Again How often did the Presbytery of Rome meet in the Interval between Fabianus his Death and Cornelius his Promotion How many excellent Epistles did they write to the Neighbouring Bishops and Churches and these about the most weighty and important Matters during that Vacancy They wrote that which is the Eighth in Number amongst St. Cyprian's Epistles to the Carthaginian Clergy and at the same time One to St. Cyprian then in his Retirement which is lost They wrote that notable Epistle which is the Thirtieth in Number in which they not only mention other of their Epistles which they had wrote to St. Cyprian and which are not now extant but also Epistles one or more which they had sent to Sicily They wrote also that considerable Epistle which is in Number the Thirty sixth It is not to be doubted that they wrote many more How many Meetings and Consultations had they during these Sixteen Months about the Affairs of the Church and particularly the Case of the Lapsi which was then so much agitated Is it probable that they wanted a Moderator a Mouth of their Meeting One to keep Order in the manner and managing of the Affairs were brought before them all that time and in all those Meetings How could they without one handle Matters with Order and Decency And what was there to hinder them from having one if they had a mind for him Might they not have chosen one as safely as they met
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
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
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
he not thereafter admit them to his most intimate Friendship and Familiarity to the Astonishment of many Indeed he therein shewed a Miracle of Clemency Lay these two Accounts together and then tell me if these Presbyters were not Obnoxious to his Discipline If his Power over them might not have extended to their very Excommunication for their old Tricks against him had he been willing to have put it in Execution But this is not all For Have I not accounted already How when they first Engaged in the Controversie concerning the Lapsed he threaten'd them that if they should continue to Absolve and Reconcile any more of them without his Allowance he would Suspend them from their Office and inflict severer Censures on them when he should return to Carthage And have I not justified him in this and made it manifest to a Demonstration that herein he did not stretch his Power too far That he took not too much on him Further yet When they resumed their Impudence and after a little Interruption would needs be Absolving the Lapsed thô he was then in his Retirement and by consequence had few or none of his Clergy to Consult with yet he gave out this plain and peremptory Order That if any of his Presbyters or Deacons â—â—ould prove â—o Lawless or Precipitant as to Communicate with the Lapsed before his Determination in the Matter and by consequence without his Leave that they should be forthwith Suspended from the Communion and should be more fully â—ried and Censured when he should return And then Lastly When they proceeded so far as to Commence the Schism with Felicissimus mark it well He not only gave a Delegation to Caldonius and Herculanus two Bishops and Rogatianus and Numidicus two of his own Presbyters to Judge and Excommunicate Feâ—icissimâ—s and his Partisans as I have shewed already but he likewise Excommunicated the five Presbyters who joyned with him and all who should adhere to them And he gave an Account of his Proceedings to all Catholick Bishops particularly to Cornelius Bishop of Rome and his Sentence was not only ratified by Cornelius and Felicissimus and all his Party refused his Communion but they met with the same Treatment St. Cyprian's Sentence was Approved and Confirmed by all Catholick Churches all the World over I might easily have proved this more fully but I think I have said enough And now Sir lay these three Things together viz. That there were several considerable Acts of Church Power peculiar to a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time and which those in the Order of Single Presbyters could not meddle with That a Bishop as such had a Negative over all the Presbyters within his District And That they were all Subordinate to him and Obnoxious to his Disâ—ipline And then I can refer it to your self to determine Whether a Bishop then was not quite another thing than either Single Presbyter or Presbyterian Moderator Thus I think I have sufficiently defeated our Author's Definition of a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time by giving a fair and just Account of him as he stood related to his own particular Church which he Govern'd I come now to consider him as he stood related to the Church Catholick And here also I am very much mistaken if I shall not find Matter enough for another Demonstration against him I shall endeavour to dispatch this Point with all possible Brevity I. Then by the Principles of the Cyprianic Age all Bishops were Collegues and made up One College St. Cyprian calls them so and speaks of the Episcopal or Sacerdotal College so frequently no fewer than 6 or 7 times in one Epistle and 4 or 5 times in another that I need not adduce Testimonies Indeed being all Men of the same Character the same Order the same Dignity being all of them equally Supreme and First in their own Churches and all standing Collateral to one another they were most properly called Collegues and their Society a College if we may rely on A. Gellius his Skill in the Latin Tongue or rather Messala's cited by him And it is observable to this purpose That St. Cyprian no where calls Presbyters his Collegues He calls none so but Bishops And the Notion of the Episcopal College had such an Impression on him it was so Common and Received in those Times that speaking even of Schismatical Bishops who run one course he calls them a College aâ—so 〈◊〉 quite different from the True College of Catholick and Orthodox Bishops Now 2. As the One Bishop was the Principle of Unity to a particular Church so this College of Bishops was the Principle of Unity to the Catholick Church And Iesus Christ was the Principle of Unity to the College of Bishops I hope not being a Romanist you will not require that I should prove the Highest Step of this Gradation All that remains then is to Explain how the College of Bishops by the Principles of those Times was the Principle of Unity to the Church Catholick or the One great Aggregated Body consisting of all the particular Churches all the World over whereof their particular Bishops were the particular Principles of Unity Neither needs this be a Laborious Task For all that 's necessary for it is To shew how they were so United into One College as to make them capable of being justly denominated One Principle of Unity Now they were thus United by the Great and Fundamental Laws of One Faith and One Communion That the One Holy Catholick Faith is Essential in the Constitution of the One Holy Catholick Church is even to this day a received Principle I think amongst all sober Christians But then I say That the Christians in St. Cyprian's time reckoned of the Laws of One Communion as every whit as forcible and indispensible to the Being of One Church as the Laws of One Faith It was a prime a fundamental Article of their Faith That there was but One Church and they could not understand how there could be but One Church if there was more than One Communion By their Principles and Reasonings a Multiplication of Communions made unavoidably a Multiplication of Churches And by consequence seeing there could be but One True Catholick Church there could be likewise but One True Catholick Communion All other Churches or Communions were False i. e. not at all Christian Churches or Communions These Principles and suitable Reasonings from them are so frequently and so fully insisted on in St. Cyprian's Writings that to Transcribe his Testimonies to this purpose were almost to Transcribe his Works Now from these Principles it follows clearly 3. That the Grand Concern of the Episcopal College was to Preserve and Maintain this One Communion To Guard against all such Doctrines as destroyed or tended to destroy the the One Holy Catholick Faith and all Schisms and Schismatiâ—al Methods which destroyed or tended to destroy the Unity of the One Church These being the Great and Fundamental Interests
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
by him no other Name but his could give them Force and make them Current Well! but there was one Thing amiss St. Cyprian and the rest of the African Bishops having Intelligence of the Competition that was at Rome between Cornelius and Novatianus and being unwilling to do any thing rashly had determined to continue to write only to the Roman Presbyters and Deacons as before during the Vacancy till Cornelius his Title should be fully cleared to them This the Clergy of Adrumâ—tum were ignorant of when they wrote the above-mentioned Letter And being afterwards told it by Cyprian and Liberalis they directed their next Letter not for Cornelius but for the Roman Presbyters and Deacons Hereat Cornelius was not a little stumbled and according to the then current Principles interpreting it to be a disowning of him as Bishop of Rome he wrote a Letter of Complaint to Cyprian about it who was then Metropolitan of that Province In Answer to which our Holy Martyr wrote a full Apology to him shewing him what was true Matter of Fact Upon what Reasons the Bishops of Africa had taken the aforesaid Resolution How it was in consequence of that Resolution that the Clergy of Adrumetum had changed their Direction And how by the whole Method noâ—â—â—ng was less intended than to disown him as Bishop of Rome or Invalidate his Title And was there not here as clear an Evidence that Regularly and in the current Form all Letters were directed to the Bishop Shall I give you another History to clear this Matter further When Maximus and Nicostratus retaining to Novatianus and so separating from Cornelius did thereby cut themselves off from the Communion of the Church Cyprian wrote to them as well he might considering that his Design was to Reconcile them to their True Bishop Cornelius But how did he write Why so as that his Letter should not be delivered till Cornelius should see it and judge whether it was proper to deliver it Such a special regard was then paid to the Bishop of a Church as being Supreme in it and the Principle of Unity to it If all this doth not satisfie you then listen a little further and resist this Evidence if ye can Because by the Fundamental Principles of One Faith and One Communion every Heretical and Schismatical Bishop was ipso facto out of the Church and all who retain'd or adhered to him whether Bishops Clergy or Laicks did run the same Risque with him Therefore so soon as any Bishop turned Heretick or Schismatick the Catholick Bishops of the Province especially the Metropolitans formed Lists of all the True Orthodox and Catholick Bishops within their respective Provinces and sent them to other Metropolitans And so they were transmitted all the World over That their Communicatory Letters and theirs only might be received and their Communion and theirs only might be allowed and that all Heretical or Schismatical or Retainers to Heretical or Schismatical Bishops might be rejected and their Communion refused And for this we have two notable Testimonies from St. Cyprian the one is in his 59th Epistle directed to Cornelius where he tells him That upon Fortunatus his starting out of the Church and pretending to be Bishop of Carthage He had sent him the Names of all the Bishops in Africa who Govern'd their Churches in Soundness and Integrity and that it was done by common Advice But to what purpose That you and all my Collegues may readily know to whom you may send and from whom you may receive Communicatory Lettâ—s The other Testimony is in Ep. 68. where Cyprian having given his Sentiâ—ents fully concerning Marcianus that he had forfeited his Dignity and that it was necessary that another should be substituted in his room c. requires Stephen Bishop of Rome to give himself and the rest of the Bishops of Africa a distinct Account of the Person that should be Surrogated in Marcianus his Place That we may know says he to whom we may direct our Brethren and write our Letters I have only given you a Taste of the Methods and Expedients which were put in Practice in those Times for preserving the Unity the One Communion of the One Catholick Church and how nicely and accurately it was provided for by the Incorporation of all Bishops into Ouâ— College of all particular Principles of Unity of particular Churches into one Aggregated Principle of Unity proportioned to the Extent of all those Churches in their Aggregation And by the mutual Support of all Bishops one towards another It had been easie to have collected more Particulars as well as to have insisted more largely on these I have collected But from the small Collection I have made I think I have laid Foundation enough for another Demonstration against our Author's Notion of a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time For How could either Single Presbyter or Presbyterian Moderator taking the Terms in the Presbyterian Sense have born such a Part in relation to the Unity of the Catholick Church and the Preservation of One Communion Besides that the College of Bishops in those Times is still considered and insisted on as consisting of Church Governours notoriously distinguished from Presbyters Besides that in all St. Cyprian's Writings or in any Monument of those Times you shall never so much as once find a Bishop calling a Presbyter his Collegue Besides that we have not the least Vestige of any such stated ordinary current Office in any Record of those Times as that of a meer Presbyterian Moderator Besides these Things I say How had it been consistent with the Principles or Analogies the Scheme or Plot of Presbyterian Parity to have committed to any Single Presbyter Moderator or other the bearing of such a Part as that He and He alone of God knows how many should have been Constituted a Member of a College which College and which alone had the Supreme Power of Preserving the Faith and the Unity and managing all the Affairs of the Church Catholick As that all his Admissions into the Church his Exclusions from the Church his Extrusions out of the Church his Suspensions his Abstentions his Excommunications his Injunctions of Penances his Absolutions his Ordinations his Degradations his Depositioâ—â— in a word all his Acts of Government and Discipline within his own District and his alone should have had Authority and been deemed Valid and merited a Ratification all the World over As that whosoever Presbyter or other within such a District in which there might have been many Decads of Presbyters was Disobedient to him or Top't it with him or Rebelled against him should have been reputed Disobedient to and Rebellious against the whole College of the Supreme Governours of the Church Catholick As that raising an Altar against his Altar and his only should have been deem'd Raising an Altar against all Catholick Christian Altars As that from him and from him only in the regular Course all Communicatory Informatory Conâ—olatory in short all