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
adulterated and Unity divided then Men leap out into Heresies and Schisms When When the Priests are controlled when the Bishops are envied when one grudges that himself was not rather preferred or disdains to bear with a Superiour Indeed 4. By the Principles of those Times the Bishop was so much the Principle of Unity to the Church which he Governed the whole Society had such a Dependance on him was so Vircuaily in him and represented by him that what he did as Bishop was reputed the Deed of the whole Church which he Ruled If he was Oxthodox and Catholick so was the Body united to him reckoned to be If Heretical or Schismatical it went under the same Denomination If he denied the Faith whoso adhered to him after that were reputed to have denied it If he confessed the Faith the whole Church was reckoned to have confessed it in him Thus We find when Martialis and Basilides two Spanish Bishops committed Idolatry and so forfeited their Bishopricks and yet some of their People inclined to continue in their Communion St. Cyprian with other 36 Bishops tells those People That it behoved them not to flatter themselves by thinking that they could continue to Communicate with Polluted Bishops and withal themselves continue Pure and Unpolluted For all that communicated with them would be Partakers of their Guilt And therefore as they go on a People obeying and fearing God ought to separate from Criminal Bishops and be careful not to mix with them in their Sacrilegious Sacrifices And again in that same Synodical Epistle they say that it was a neglecting of Divine Discipline and an Unaccountable Rashness to Communicate with Martialis and Basilides For whosoever joyne◠with them in their Unlawful Communions were Polluted by the Contagion of their Guilt And whosoever were Partakers with them in the Crime would not be separated from them in the Punishment Indeed this is the great Purpose of that 67th Epistle as also of the 68th concerning Marcianus who by Communicating with Novatianus had rendred his own Communion Infectious and Abominable On the other hand when Cornelius Bishop of Rome confessed the Faith before the Heathen Persecutors St. Cyprian says the whole Roman Church confessed And when Cyprian himself having confessed received the Sentence of Death being then at Utica he wrote to his Presbyters Deacons and People at Carthage telling them how earnest he was to Suffer at Carthage Because as he Reasons it was most Congruous and Becoming That a Bishop should confess Christ in that City in which he Ruled Christ's Church That by confessing in their Presence they might be all Ennobled For whatever says he in the moment of Confession the Confessing Bishop speaks GOD assisting him he speaks with the MOUTH OF ALL. And he goes on telling them How the Honour of their Glorious Church of Carthage should be mutilated as he words it if he should Suffer at Utica especially considering how earnest and frequent he had been in his Prayers and Wishes that he might both for HIMSELF and THEM Confess in their Presence at Carthage And upon the same Principle it was that he so frequently call'd his People His Bowels His Body The Members of his Body And that he affirm'd that their Griefs were his Griefs Their Wounds his Wounds Their Distresses his Distresses c. Upon the same Principle it was also that Pontius his Deacon having accounted how our Holy Martyr was executed in presence of the People falls out into this Rapture O blessed People of the Church of Carthage that Suffered together with such a Bishop with their Eyes and Senses and which is more with open Voice and was Crowned with him For thô all could not Suffer in real Effect according to their common Wishes nor really be Partakers of that Glory yet whosoever were sincerely willing to Suffer in the sight of Christ who was looking on and in the Hearing of their Bishop did in a manner send an Embassy to Heaven by One who was a competent Witness of their Wishes 5. Neither was this of the Bishop's being the Principle of Unity to the Church which he govern'd a Novel Notion newly Minted in the Cyprianic Age For besides that Episcopacy was generally believed then to be of Divine Institution besides that St. Cyprian still Argues upon the Supposition of a Divine Institution as particularly in the same very Case of the Bishops being the Principle of Unity as may be seen in his Reasoning against the Lapsed which I have already cited from Ep. 33. and might be more fully made appear if it were needful Besides these Things I say we have the same thing frequently insisted on by the Holy Ignatius who was Contemporary with the Apostles in his Genuine Epistles Thus for Instance in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna he tells them That that is only a firm and solid Communion which is under the Bishop or allowed by him and That the Multitude ought still to be with the Bishop Plainly importing this much at least That there can be no True Christian Communion unless it be in the Unity of the Church and there can be no Communion in the Unity of the Church in opposition to the Bishop And in his Epistle to the Philadelphians These who belong to God and Iesus Christ are with the Bishops and these are God's that they may live by Iesus Christ who forsaking their Sins come into the Unity of the Church And again in that same Epistle God doth not dwell where there is Division and Wrath God only Pardons those who Repenting joyn in the Unity of God and in Society with the Bishops And he has also that same very Notion of the Bishops being so much the Principle of Unity that as it were the whole Church is represented in him Thus he tells the Ephesians that he received their whole Body in their Bishop Onesimus And in his Epistle to the Trallians he tells them that in Polybius their Bishop who came to him at Smyrna he beheld their whole Society 6. Indeed this Principle of the Bishop's being the Center of Unity to his Church was most reasonable and accountable in it self Every particular Church is an Organiz'd Political Body and there can be no Unity in an Organical Body whether Natural or Political without a Principle of Unity on which all the Members must hang and from which being separated they must cease to be Members And who so fit for being this Principle fo Unity to a Church as he who was Pastor Ruler Governour Captain Head Iudge Christ's Vicar c. in relation to that Church This was the True Foundation of that other Maxim which I insisted on before viz. That there could be but One Bishop at once in a Church Why so Why Because it was Monstrous for One Body to have Two Head for One Society to have Two Principles of Unity If what I have said does not satisfie you thô in
Teaching Presbyter who has such a Parish assigned to him for his Charge Or not from the Moderator of the Presbytery who is not but from the Presbytery which is the Principle of Unity with their Moderator This I say I take to be the Purpose of our Author's Answer to the Apologist's Argument on the Force whereof he ventures his Parties being or not being Schismatickâ— If I have mistaken his Meaning I protest I have not done it wilfully I am pretty sure I have not in the Definition of a Moderator for I have Transcribed it Word for Word from one whom I take to be a dear Friend of his intirely of the same Principles and Sentiments with him and whose Definitions I am apt to think he will not readily Reject I mean the Author of The Vindication of the Church of Scotland in Answer to the Ten Questions And doth not our Author himself in this same 39th Section part whereof I am now considering affirm That Fifty Years before the first Council of Nice i. e. some 17 or 18 Years after St. Cyprian's Martyrdom the Hierarchy was not in the Church And that however some of the Names might have been yet the Church-Power and Dominion signified by them was not then in Being Plainly importing that the Church then was Governed by Pastors acting in Parity after the Presbyterian Model In short what our Author hath said when duly considered will be found to be no Answer at all to the Apologist's Argument if it is not to be understood in the Sense I have represented Taking it for granted therefore that I have hit his Meaning I hope you will not deny that If I shall prove that a Bishop in Cyprian's time was more than a Pastor of a Flock or the Moderator of a Presbytery in the Presbyterian Sense of the Terms If I shall prove that a Bishop then had really that which cannot be denied to have been true Genuine Episcopal or Prelaiick Power If I can prove that he acted in a Real Superiority over not in Parity with other Church-Governours even Pastors If I shall prove these Things I say I hope you 'l grant our Author is fairly bound by his Word to acknowledge that he and his Brethren Presbyterians are Schismaticks Let us try it then And now Sir Before I come to my main Proofs consider if it may not be deemed a shrewd Presumption against our Author in this matter That generally the great Champions for Presbytery such as Chamâ—er Blondel Salmasius the Provincial Assembly of London c. do ingenuously acknowledge That long before St. Cyprian's time Episcopacy was in the Church even Spanhemius himself grants That in the Third Century Bishops had a manifest Preheminence above Presbyters and Deacoâ—s and a Right of Presiding Convocatiâ—g Ordaining c. By the way I have cited this Writer particularly because our Author not only builds much on his Authority but honours him with the great Character of being That diligent Searcher into Antiquiâ—y How deservedly let others judge for my part I cannot think he has been so very diligent a Searcher For in that same very Section in which he acknowledges the Episcopal Preheminence in the Third Century he says expresly That in that Age there were no Door-Keepers Acolyâ—ths nor Exorcâ—ss And yet I not only find express mention of Exorcism in the Venerable Council of Cartbage in which St. Cyprian was Praeses But both Cyprian and Firmilian expresly mention Exarcists And as for Acolyths how often do we find them mentioned in Cyprian's Epistles E. g. We have Narious an Acâ—lyth Ep. 7. Eavorinus Ep. 34. Nicephorus Ep. 45. Saturnus and Felicianus Ep. 59. Lucanus Maximus and Amantius Ep. 77. And doth not Corneius Bishop of Rome in his famous Epistle to Fabius Bishop of Antioch Recorded by Eusebius positively affirm That there were then in the Church of Rome 42 Acolyths and 52 Exorcists Lectors and Door-keepers But this as I said only by the way That which I am concerned about at present is That when these great Patrons of Presbytery these truly Learned Men whom I named have all so frankly yielded that there was real Prelacy in the Church in and before St. Cyprian's time yet our Author should affirm so boldly that there was no such Thing That there was no Hierarchy in the Church then nor for many Years after Has our Author been a more diligent Searcher into Antiquity than those great Antiquaries were that he was thus able to contradict their Discoveries I am not apt to believe it However as I said let this pass only for a Presumption against him I proceed to other Arguments And 1. I observe that in St. Cyprian's time every Church all the World over at least every Church Constituted and Organized according to the Principles which then prevailed had a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons by whom she was Ruled Thus for Example we find express Mention of the Bishop Presbyters and Deacons of the Church of Adrymetum for Cyprian tells Corneius That when He and Liberalis came to that City Polycarpus the Bishop was absent and the Presbyters and Deacons were ignorant of what had been Resolved on by the Body of the African Bishops about writing to the Church of Rome till the Controversie between Cornelius and Novatianus should be more fully understood Thus Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage and at the same time there were in that City 8 Presbyters at sewest For we read of three Rogatianus Britius and Numidicus who adhered to him And five who took part with Felicissimus against him when that Deacon made his Schism I hope I need not be at pains to prove that there were Deacons then in that famous Church Thus Cornelius in the afore-mentioned Epistle to Fabius tells him That while himself was Bishop of Rome there were in that City no fewer than 46 Preâ—byters and 7 Deacons c. A most flourishing Clergy as St. Cyprian calls it Whoso pleases may see the like Account of the Church of Alexandria in the same Times in Eusebius Indeed If we may believe St. Cyprian there was no Church then without a Bishop For from this Supposition as an uncontroverted Matter of Fact he Reasons against Novatianus His Argument is That there is but One Church and One Episcopacy all the World over and that Catholick and Orthodox Bishops were regularly planted in every Province and City and therefore Novatianus could not but be a Schismatick who contrary to Divine Institution and the Fundamental Laws of Unity laboured to super-induce false Bishops into these Cities where True and Orthodox Bishops were already planted And he Reasons again upon the same Supposition in the beginning of his 63d Epistle directed to Caecilius concerning the Cup in the Eucharist From this Supposition I say as from an uncontested Matter of Fact he Reasons in both Cases which is a Demonstration not only of the Credibility of his Testimony but that
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 〈◊〉
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