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
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
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
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
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
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
all conscience it ought it being scarcely possible to prove any thing of this Nature more demonstratively then be pleased only to consider the necessary Connexion that is betwixt this Principle and that which I am next to prove and that is SECONDLY That by the Principles of those Times a Bishop Cononically Promoted was Supreme in his Church immediately subject to Iesus Christ independent on any unaccountable to any Earthly Ecclesiastical Superiour There was no Universal Bishop then under Iesus Christ who might be the Supreme visible Head of the Catholick visiâ—le Church There was indeed an Universal Bishoprick but it was not holden by any One single Person There was an Unus Episcopatus One Episcopacy One Episcopal Office One Bishoprick but it was divided into many Parts and every Bishop had his shâ—re of it assigned him to Rule and Govern with the Plenitude of the Episcopal Authority There was One Church all the World over divided into many Members and there was One Episcopacy dâ—ffused in proportion to that One Church by the Harmonious Numerâ—sity of many Bishops Or if you would have it in other words the One Catholick Church was divided into many Precincts Districts or Diocesses call them as you will Each of those Districtâ— had its singular Bishop and that Bishop within that District had the Supreme Power He was subordinate to none but the Great Bishop of Souls Iesus Christ the only Universal Bishop of the Universal Church He was independent on and stood collateral with all other Bishops There 's nothing more fully or more plainly or more frequently insisted on by St. Cyprian than this Great Principle I shall only give you a short view of it from him and his Contemporaries And I. He lays the Foundation of it in the Parity which our Lord instituted amongst his Apostles Christ says he gave Equal Power to all his Apostles when he said As my Father hath sent me even so I send you Receive ye the Holy-Ghost c. And again The rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was endued with an Equality of Power and Honour Now St. Cyprian on all occasions makes Bishops Successors to the Apostles as perchance I may prove fully hereafter Thus I say he founds the Equality of Bishops and by consequence every Bishop's Supremacy within his own Diocess And agreeably he Reasons most frequently I shall only give you a few Instances 2. Then in that excellent Epistle to Antonianus discoursing concerning the Case of the Lapsed and shewing how upon former Occasions different Bishops had taken different Measures about restoring Penitents to the Peace of the Church he concludes with this General Rule That every Bishop so long as he maintains the Bond of Concord and preserves Catholick Unity has Power to order the Affairs of his own Church as he shall be accountable to God Plainly importing that no Bishop can give Laws to another or call him to an Account for his Management To the same purpose is the conclusion of his Epistle to Iubaianus about the Baptism of Hereticks and Schismaticks These Things most dear Brother says he I have written to you as I was able neither prescribing to nor imposing on any Man seeing every Bishop hath full Power to do as he judges most fitting c. The same way he concludes his Epistle to Magnus concerning that same Case of Baptism performed by Hereticks To the same purpose is the whole Strain of his Epistle to Florentius Pupianus And what can be more clear or full than his excellent Discourse at the opening of the Council of Carthage Anno 256 More than Eighty Bishops met to determine concerning that same matter of Baptism administred by Hereticks or Schismaticks St. Cyprian was Praeses and having briefly represented to them the Occasion of their Meeting he spoke to them thus it remains now that each of us speak his sense freely judging no Man refusing our Communion to no Man thô he should dissent from us For none of us costitutes himself Bishop of Bishops nor forces his Collegues upon a necessity of Obeying by a Tyrannical Terror seeing every Bishop is intirely Master of his own Resolutions and can no more he judged by others than he can judge others But we all expect the Judgment of our Lord Iesus Christ who alone hath Power of making us Governours of his Church and calling us to an Account for our Administrations 3. Neither did the Principle hold only in respect of this or the other Bishop but all without Exception even the Bishop of Rome stood upon a Level And for this we have as pregnant Proof as possibly can be desired For when the Schismatical Party at Carthage set up Fortunatus as an Anti-Bishop and thereupon sent some of their Partisans to Rome toi inform Cornelius of their Proceedings and justifie them to him Cyprian wrote to him also and thus Reasoned the Case with him To what Purpose was it for them to go to Rome to tell you that they had set up a false Bishop against the Bishops Either they continue in their Wickedness and are pleased with what they have done or they are Penitent land willing to return to the Churches Unity If the latter they know whither they may return For seeing it is determined by us all and withal 't is just and reasonable in it self That every one's Cause should be examined where the Crime was committed and seeing there is a Portion of Flock the Catholick Church assigned to every Bishop to be Governed by him as he shall be accountable to God our Subjects ought not to run about from Bishop to Bishop nor break the Harmonious Concord which is amonst Bishops by their subtle and fallacious Temerity But every Man's Cause ought there to be discussed where he may have Accusers and Witnesses of his Crime c. In which Reasoning we have these Things plain 1. That by St. Cyprian's Principles evey Bishop was judge of his own Subjects of all the Christians who lived within his District 2. That no Bishop no not the Bishop of Rome was Superior to another Bishop nor could receive Appeals from his Sentences And 3. That this Independency of Bishops this Unaccountableness of one Bishop to another as to his Superiour was founded on every Bishop's having his Portion of the Flock assigned to him to be Ruled and Governed by him as he should answer to God i. e. upon his visible Supremacy in his own Church his being immediately Subordinate to God only To the same purpose he writes to Stephen Bishop of Rome also For having told him his Mind freely concerning those who should return from a State of Schism to the Unity of the Church how they ought to be Treated and how Recceived c. he concludes thus We know that some are tenacious and unwilling to alter what they have once determined and that they will needs retain some Methods peculiar to themselves but still with
have either been Ordained before in the Catholick Church and have afterwards turned Perfsidious and Rebellious against the Church or have been Promoted by a Profane Ordination in a State of Schism by FALSE BISHOPS and Anti-Christs against our Lord's Institution that such if they shall return shall only be admitted to Lay-Communion c. By which Testimony you may clearly see 1. That all Ordinations of Presbyters as well as Deacons were performed by Bishops by True Bishoâ—â— in the Catholick Church and by False Bishops in a State of Schism 2. That to Ordain Presbyters and Deacons was so much and so acknowledged by the Bishop's Work and peculiar to him that herein even Schismaticks themselves oberved the Common Rule They found their Ordinations were indispensibly to be performed by Bishops that they might not be Obnoxious to the Charge of Invalidity So clear and full is St. Cyprian on this Head And not only he but Firmilian as I have cited him already Nay further yet Our Martyr's Practice was always suitable and correspondent to these Principles He not only Ordained Aurelius a Lector as I have shewed without either the Consent or Concurrence of his Clergy but also Saturus a Lector and Optatus a Sub-Deacon Epst. 29. and Celerinus a Lector Ep. 39. In which we have also a most considerable Evidence of the Bishops Power in Ordinations in St. Cyprian's Discourse concerning Aurelius and Celerinus For there he tells his Presbyters Deacons and all his People and tell them in an Authoritative Stile in the Stile by which Superiours used to signifie their Will and Pleasure to their Subjects with a Be it known to you He tells them I say That tho he had only Ordained these two Lectors for the time because they were but young yet he had designed them for the Presbyterate and to sit with him as soon as their Years would allow of it And what can be more pat to this purpose than that uncontrolable Account we have of Novatianus his Promotion to the Presbyterate which we have in that so often mentioned Epistle written by Cornelius to Fabius of Aâ—tioch There he tells how Novatianus was Ordained a Presbyter meerly by the Favour of the then Bishop of Rome That all the Clergy and many of the People opposed it as being Unlawful considering that he had been Baptized while on the Bed of Sickness And that after much work the Bishop prevailed and Ordained him promising that he would not make a Precedent of it I refer you to the Testimony which I have transcribed faithfully on the Margin Consider it and tell me if any thing can be more clear than that the Bishop then had the sole Power of Ordination Neither do we read in all St. Cyprian's Works or in any Monuments of those Times of any Concurrence of Presbyters with Bishops in any Ordinations and far less that ever Presbyters Ordain'd without a Bishop 'T is true we read in St. Cyprian's 52d Epistle that Novatus made Felicissimus a Deacon And I read that several Learned Men understand it so as if he had Ordained him And Bloâ—del particularly because Novatus was nothing but a Presbyter conâ—ludes that this was a notable Instance of the Power of Presbyters in Ordinations But when one reads the whole Passage as St. Cyprian hath it and ponders all Things duly he cannot but think it strange that ever that Fancy should have been entertained For all that St. Cyprian says amounts to no more than this That Novatus turn'd a Schismatick in the time of Persecution and thereby became another Pâ—rsecution to the Church and that having thus given himself up to the Spirit of Schism he by his Faction and Ambition got Felicissimus made a Deacon without either St. Cyprian ' s knowledge or Allowance St Cyprian's Words I say do not import that Novatus Ordain'd Felicissimus They import no more than that Novatus his Ambition and Faction prevailed to get Felicissimus Ordain'd a Deacon thô himself did not Ordain him 'T is probable he was Ordained by some Neighbouring Bishop St. Cyprian being then in his Secession And 't is as evident as any thing can be made from what immediately follows that St. Cyprian designed them for no more For he goes on and tells in that same Breath That Novatus having done so and so at Carthage went next to Rome and attempted just the like things there only with this difference That as Rome by itâ—s Greatness had the Preâ—edency of Carthage so he attempted greater Wickedness at Rome than at Carthage For he says Cyprian who had made a Deacon at Carthage against the Church made a Bishop at Rome meaning Novatianus Now 't is certain that not Novatus but Three Bishops Ordained Novatianus and by consequence that St. Cyprian never meant that Novatus Ordain'd Felicissiâ—us This is irreâ—ragable But then suppose the worst Suppose Novatus had really Ordained Felicissimus what stress is to be laid on the Example of a Schismatick Especially when what he did was done Schismatically Antonianus asked of St. Cyprian what was Novatianus his Heresie And Cyprian answered It was no matter what he taught seeing he taught in Schism And may we not say with the same Reason That it matters not what Novatus did seeing what he did was done in Schism One Thing indeed we learn from this Matter and that is another Argument of the Bishop's peculiar Interest in the matter of Ordination For St. Cyprian most plainly imputes it to Schism that without his Allowance Novatus should have presumed to have got Felicissimus Ordained a Deacon One Word more The Bishops being thus possessed of the sole Power of Ordination in St. Cyprian's time and his Practising suitably was exactly agreeable to the Second of the Canons commonly called of the Apostles which is Let a Presbyter be Ordained by One Bishop as likewise a Deacon and the rest of the Clergy A Canon without doubt universally received then as Beveregius has fully proved and a Canon highly agreeable with the then current Principles which I have insisted on already viz. That a Bishop was the Principle of Unity and Supreme Ecclesiastical Magistrate within his District For what can be more suitable to or rather more necessary by all the Fundamental Rules of Society than that it should belong to the Supreme Power wherever it is lodged to promote and give Commissions to all Inferiour Officers 'T is one of the Rights of Majesty and one as intrinsick and unalâ—enable or incommunicable as any 'T is true a good many Years after St. Cyprian's time it was appointed by the 〈◊〉 That Presbyters should concurr with the Bishop in the Ordination of Presbyters But then I say it was many Years after St. Cyprian's time and it was for new emergent Reasons That Ordinations might be performed more deliberately or with the greater Solemnity or so but 't is evident that nothing of the substantial Validity of the Orders were to depend upon it And so much at
Presbyters acknowledging their Offences and humbly supplicating that they might be Pardoned and their Escapes forgotten How when all this was narrated to him He was pleased to Convocate the Presbytery How Maximus Urbanus Sidonius and Macarius being allowed to appear made their Acknowledgments and humble Addresses and then how after they were received in the Presbytery the whole matter was Communicated to the People and they again renewed their Acknowledgments before the People confessing as I shewed before viz. That they were convinced that Cornelius was chosen by the Omnipotent God and our Lord Iesus Christ to be Bishop of the most Holy Catholick Church and that they were not ignorant that as there was but One God One Christ our Saviour and One Holy-â—host so there ought to be only One Bishop in a Catholick Church Here I say was a Noble Instance of a Bishop's Power in Convocating his Presbyters at pleasure and managing the Affairs of the Church like a Chief Governour The whole Epistle is well worth perusing But I shall only desire you to take notice of one Thing by the way it is That Cornalius sought not the People's Consent for their Reception no he first received them again into the Communion of the Church and then acquainted the People with it I observe this because it is another Demonstration That what St. Cyprian determined from the beginning of his Episcopacy was meerly the effect of his own Choice and Arbitrary Condescension viz. To do nothing without his Peoples Consent This I say was not a Thing he was bound to do by the Rules of his Episcopacy for then Cornelius had been as much bound as he After these Persons were so solemnly Reconciled to the Church they themselves by a Letter gave an Account of it to St. Cyprian an Account I say which might bring more Light to the whole Matter if it needed any We are certain say they most dear Brother that you will rejoyce with us when you know that all Mistakes are forgotten and we are Reconciled to Cornelius OUR BISHOP and to all the Clergy to the Great Contentment and Good Liking of the whole Church But you may say Did not the Roman Presbytery Conveen during the Vacâ—â—cy after the Death of Fabianus And did not the Presbytery of Carthage meet frequently during the time of St. Cyprian's Secession How then can it be said That the Bishop had the sole Power of Convocating Presbyters I answer 'T is true it was so in both Cases But how To begin with the latter There was no Meeting of the Clergy at Carthage during St. Cyprian's Secession without his Authority And therefore we find when he retired he left a Delegated Power with his Presbyters and Deacons or an Allowance call it as you will to meet and manage the Affairs of the Church as occasion should require but still so as that they could do nothing of Moment without first Consulting him and nothing but what was of ordinary Incidence is Regulated by the Canons This we learn from many of his Epistles Thus in his Fifth Epistle directed to his Presbyters and Deacons Because he could not be present himself he required them Faithfully and Religiously to discharge both his Office and their own Which not only imports that they had distinct Offices from his but also in express Terms settles a Delegation on them He bespeaks them after the same manner in his 12th Epistle And more Authoritatively yet Ep. 14. where he not only Exhorts but Commands them to perform the Office of Vicars to him But then how warmly he reâ—ented it when some of them ventured beyond the Limits of the Allowance he had given them when they began to encroach on his Prerogatives when they presumed to meddle in Matters for which they had no Allowance and which were not in the common Road nor Regulated by the Canons you shall hear to purpose by and by And from what I have already said the other Case That of the Presbytery's Meeting in the time of a Vacancy may be easily cleared also for thô they might meet yet all they could do was to provide all they could for the Peace and Safety of the Church by determining in Ruled Cases just as may be done by inferiour Magistrates in all other Corporations or Societies in the time of an Inter-Reign but they could make no new Rules And there were several other Things they could not do as I shall also shew fully within a little In the mean time having mentioned how St. Cyprian in his Absence gave a Delegation to his Clergy and Constituted them his Vicars let me give you one Example of it which may well deserve to pass for another Instance of Acts that were peculiar to himself And that is Eighthly His Delegating not his Presbyters in common but two of them only viz. Rogatianus and Nâ—midicus with two Bishops Caldonius and Herculanus not only to consider the State of the Poor and of the Clergy at Carthage but to pronounce his Sentence of Excommunication against Felicissimus and Augendus and all that should joyn themselves to that Faction and Conspiracy Which Delegation was accordingly accepted of and the Sentence put in Execution as we learn by the Return which these four Delegates together with another Bishop called Victor made to our Holy Martyr I might have easily collected more Instances of Powers and Faculties which were peculiar to a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time and which could not be pretended to by Presbyters But these may be sufficient for a Sample especially considering that more perhaps may be discovered in the Prosecution of the next Thing I promised to make appear which was II. That in every thing relating to the Government and Discipline of the Church the Bishop had a Negative over all the other Church-Governours within his District He had the Supreme Power of the Keys No Man could be admitted into the Church no Man could be thrust out of the Church none Excommunicated could be admitted to Penance nor Absolved nor Restored to the Communion of the Church no Ecclesiastical Law could be made nor Rescinded nor Dispensed with without him In short all Ecclesiastical Discipline depends upon the Sacraments and neither Sacrament could be Administrated without his Allowance If this Point well proved does not evince That a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time was a real Prelate and stood in a real Superiority above all other Church Officers I must despair of ever proving any thing And I must despair of ever proving any thing if I prove not this Point 1. To begin with Baptism the Sacrament by which Persons are admitted into the Church That no Man could be Baptized without the Bishop's Consent has as much Evidence as can be well required for any Matter of Fact For First St. Cyprian could not have expressed any thing more fully or more plainly than he has done this To omit that Testimony which he gives in his Exhortation to Marâ—yrdom
of their own Rank and Quality By consequence an Epistle in which had they understood it had the Principles of those Times allowed it they might have spoken their Minds very freely concerning the Power of Presbyters Never had Presbyters I am sure more Freedom or better Opportunity to have asserted their own Power and Vindicated Parity and Condem'd Prelatical Usurpations in an Epistle than they had on that Occasion for Fabianus Bishop of Rome was dead and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage was retired and so it was written by Presbyters who had no Bishop to Presbyters in the absence of their Bishop And yet in that Epistle they were so far from having any such Notions that they said expresly That both Themselves who wanted One and those of Carthage who wanted the Presence of One were only seemingly the Governours of those respective Churches and only kept the Flocks in stead of the respective Pastors the Bishops And â—urther telling what Pains they had been at to keep People from Apostatizing in the Day of Trial they account how they Treated those who had fallen particularly that they did separate them from the Flock indeed but so as not to be wanting in their Duty and Assistance to them They did what was proper for their Station They exhorted them to continue patiently in their Penances as being the most plausible Method for obtaining Indulgences from him who could give them That is without Controversie from the Bishop when he should be settled For so I read in an Epistle written at that same time by Celerinâ—s a Roman to Lucianus a Carthaginian and the 2Ist in Number among St. Cyprian's that when the Cause of Numeria and Candida two Female Lapsers was brought before the Presbytery of Rome the Presbytery commanded them to continue as they were i. e. in the State of Penitents till a Bishop should be Inthroned And now let any Man judge whether according to the Principles and Sentiments of the Presbyters of Rome St. Cyprian or his presuming Presbyters had taken too much upon them at Carthage But neither is this all yet for â— These Carthaginian Presbyters were also Condemned by the Roman Martyrs and Confessors who thâ— they were in Prison had learned the State of the Controversie from the Accounts St. Cyprian had sent to Rome two of them Moyses and Maximus being also Presbyters These Martyrs and Confessors wrote also to St. Cyprian and to the same purpose the Roman Clergy had done Their Epistle is the 3Ist in number In which they not only beg with a peculiar Earnestness That he being so Glorious a Bishop would pray for them They not only lay a singular stress upon his Prayers beyond the Prayers of others by reason of the Opinion they had of his Holy Virtues which I am apt to think such Men as they would not probably have done had they believed him to have been a Proud aspiring Prâ—late that is indeed a Limb of Antichrist as this Author would â—ain give him out to have been But also they heartily Congratulate his discharging so Laudibly his Episcopal Office and that even in his Retirement he had made it so much his Care to acquit himself that he had halted in no part of his Duty and particularly That he had suitably Censured and Râ—buked not only the Lapsed who little regarding the Greatness of their Guilt had in his Absence extorted the Churches Peace from his Presbyters but even these Presbyters for their profane Facility in giving that which was Holy to Dogs and casting Pearls before Swine without any Regard to the Gospel In short They Approve his whole Proceeding as having done nothing Unsuitable to his Character nothing Unbecoming either an Holy or an Humble Bishop Further yet 6. These same Carthaginian Presbyters resuming their former Boldness and Topping it over again with their Bishop were Excommunicated by him and his Sentence was Approved and Ratified by all Catholick Bishâ—ps in all Catholick Churches all the World over as shall be shewn you fully by and by And then 7. And lasty That in all this Matter St. Cyprian did nothing either Proudly or Presumptuously is evident from this That in his Time and long before his Time even from the Apostles Times it was not Lawful for Presbyters to Attempt any thing relating to the Church without the Bishop 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons attempt nothing without the Bishop's Allowance for 't is he to whom the Lord's People are committed and 't is he that must Account for their Souls is the 39th of the Canons called Apostolical And no doubt it was in force in St. Cyprian's time And this was no greater Power than was assigned him by the Apostolical Ignatius I cannot tell how many times Take these Testimonies for a Sample Let no Man do any thing that belongs to the Church without the Bishop He that hâ—noureth the Bishop is honoured of God but he that doth any thing in opposition to the Bishop serveth the Devil If any Man pretend to be wiser than the Bishop i. e. will have Things done against the Bishop's Will he is Corrupted Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop as we would be subject to God The Spirit hath spoken Do ye nothing without the Bishop 'T is necessary that you continue to do nothing without the Bishop And now let any of Common Sense determine Whether there was Ground or shadow of Ground for insinuating that St. Cyprian shewed too much Zeal in this Cause or attempted to stretch his Power a little too far indeed it had not been a little but very much nay monstrously too far had those of Parity been then the current Principles or was a little too high in this Matter But if there was no Ground to say so if it was contrary to all the then current Principles and to the common Sentiments of all Catholick Christians nay even to the Convictions of all Honest Orderly Dutiful and Conscientious Presbyters who then lived to say so If thus it was I say and 't is hard to prove any Matter of Fact more evidently than I have proved that it was thus then I think it follows by good Consequence not only that this Author was a little in the wrong to St. Cyprian when he said so but also that in St. Cyprian's time a Bishop had fairly a Negative over his Presbyters which was the Thing to be demonstrated And so I proceed to the next Thing proposed namely III. That all the other Church-Governours within his District Presbyters as well as others were in St. Cyprian's time subject to the Bishop's Authority and obnoxious to his Discipline I do'nt think you very sharp sighted if you have not seen this already Yet that I may give you all reasonable Satisfaction I shall insist a little further on it And I. This might appear sufficiently from this one Consideration thâ— no more could be produced for it That still in the Stile and Language of
over Every Bishop of the Christian Church living at how great a distance soever was bound to Communicate his Dutiful Subjects duly attested by him and to Excommunicate his Excommunicates Thus for Instance Cornelius Bishop of Rome rejected Felicissimus and all his Retainers and Fortunatus and all his and would not grant them his Communion because Excommunicated by St. Cyprian And Cyprian rejected Novatianus and all his Party because not in Communion with Cornelius In short By the Laws of the College he that was Injurious Undutiful or Disobedient to his Bishop was such to all the Bishops on Earth He that set up an Altar against his Bishop's Altar set up his Altar against all the Altars of the whole College If a Bishop Deposed or Excommunicated any of his Presbyters or Deacons it was not lawful for any other Bishop to Receive him nor to Absolve him He was still to be reserved for that to his own Bishop so long as he lived He that was Reconciled to his Bishop whether he was of the Clergy or Laity and Restored by him to the Peace of the Church was thereby Restored to the Peace of all other Churches and by consequence of the Church Catholick And of this we have a remarkable Instance in St. Cyprian's time Therapius Bishop of Bulla in the Proconsular Province of Africa Absolved Victor who had been a Presbyter but had fallen in time of Persecution Prematurely and Uncanonically And yet by a Synod of Sixty six Bishops whereof Cyprian was One the Absolution was Ratified and Victor was allowed their Communion as we learn from their Synodical Epistle So Eminent and Considerable was a Bishop then as he stood related to the Catholick Church Let me only add one Thing more in pursuance of his Dignity as to this Relation and that is 7. That so long as Bishop continued a sound Member of the College all Informatory Consultatory Recommendatory Communicatory Congratulatory Apologetick Testimonial in a word all Letters concerning the Peace the Unity the Government the Discipline of the Church or the Concord the Correspondence the Harmony the Honour the Hazards or any other considerable Interest of the College were directed to him or received from him as having the Supreme Power of the Church which he Govâ—rn'd All the great Concerns of both the Catholick Church and the Episcopal College were in thâ—se Times transacted by Letters There was no possibility of General Councils then All that could be done was either to meet in Provincial Synods upon great Emergencies or if that could not be neither to transact Matters and bring them to a General Determination by particular Letters from Bishop to Bishop Provincial Synods were ordinarily kept twice a Year and by them in the ordinary Course all Matters of Moment were Determined and so by the Reciprocation of Synodical Letters Matters came sometimes to such a General Agreement and Determination as in the Result was fully Equivalent to the Definition of a General Council We have several Instances of such Transactions by Provincial Synods Thus in the Grand Case of the Lapsed in the time of the Decian Persecusion the Matter was so managed by Provincial Synods in Africa Rome Alexandria Antiâ—ch c. that at last as St. Cyprian tells us it was brought to this General Conclusion That the Lapsed should complete their Terms of Penance and should not be restored to the Peace of the Church before the Time appointed by the Canons unless it was in the case of Deadly Sickness Thus without doubt also that considerable Canon mentioned by St. Cyprian in the Synodical Epistle which is the 67th in Number amongst his Epistles viz. That the Lapsed however they might be restor'd to the Communion of the Church should never be received into Holy Orders And that other Canon mentioned by him also That no Clergy-man should be Tutor to Minors Thus also long before St. Cyprian the great Controversie concerning the Observation of Easter was managed in many Synods as Eusebius tells us And a few Years after his Martyrdom the Case of Paulus Samosatenus These Instances are only for a Sample When Provincial Synods could not be kept or emergent Matters of Consequence could not be conveniently determin'd in them then Recourse was had to the only remaining Method viz. particular Letters from Bishop to Bishop And to make this Method both sure and effectual all possible Pains was taken It was necessary that each Bishop should sign his Letter and send it not by every common Carrier but by a Clergy-man In short They had such Marks that it was not easie if possible to Counterfeit them And the Bishop who received it was bound by the Laws of the College to transmit it for his Share to the rest of the Members And so it went through and the whole College was acquainted with the Accident the Case the Controversie whatever it was that had Emerged we have many Instances and Evidences of this Method and Diligence in St. Cyprian's Writings Thus e. g. When Caldonius writes to Cyprian concerning some Lapsed within his District Cyprian returns him an Answer telling him He had written his Mind to that purpose already and so sends him Copies of five Epistles concerning the Case requiring him to transmit them to as many Bishops as he could adding this as the Reason That One Course One Resolution might be kept by all the College And so we find that the Letters written by him about that Controversie were trasmitted from hand to hand till they were dispersed all the World over Thus I say sometimes the greatest Affairs of the Church were managed And 't is plain this Method was every was Equivalent if not Preferable to a General Council So that the Christian Church might have still subsisted and its Unity been provided for and preserved in all Ages without such Councils as it was effectually during the First Three Centuries Now that which I am principally concern'd for in all this Matter is That all these Circular Letters of whatsoever Nature relating either to the great Interests of the Catholick Church or of the Episcopal College were regularly directed only to the Bishops as being the Heads and Principles of Unity to their respective Churches as well as written and sent by those of the same Order And we have a notable Account of this in St. Cyprian's 48th Epistle directed to Cornelius for there we learn That the Presbyters and Deacons of the Church of Adrumetum having received Cornelius's Communicatory Letters directed to Polycarpus their Bishop and seeing their Bishop was absent finding it necessary that they should return an Answer in his Name as having his presumed Allowance for it they wrote to Cornelius in the common Form acknowledging him as Bishop of Rome and subjoyning Polycarpus his Name to the Letter A clear Evidence That where there was a Bishop it behoved all the Letters that concerned the publick State of the Church to be subscribed
Letters concerning the Publick Affairs of the Catholick Church or the Sacred College that Ruled the Catholick Church should have been Râ—ceived As that to him and to him alone all such Letters have been directed As that by the Circulation and Reciprocation of Letters betwixt him and his Collegues and their General Agreement upon any Thing by that Circulation and Râ—ciprocation Laws should have been given to the whole Catholick Church Canons as Binding and Obligatory as the Supreme Ecclesiastical Power on Earth could make them How could one raised to such a Post I say have been no other than a Single Presbyter or a Presbyterian Moderator Doth not his very bearing such a Part his having such a Trust his being Cloath'd with such an Eminence argue him Demonstratively to have been something other something Greater something Higher and more Honourable than either Thus I have considered a Bishop in St. Cyprian's time as he stood related to his own Particular and to the Church Catholick and in both respects have discovered a vast Discrepance betwixt him as he was really and our Author's Notion or Definition of him Let me only add one Consideration more and that is What Character he bore what Figure he made in the Eye of those who were without of the Heathen World especially the Roman Emperours and Magistrates And here I need not be at much Pains the Thing is Obvious The Christian Bishops as being the Chief Rulers the Supreme Governours the Heads of their respective Churches were the Chief Butts of all the Heathen Rage and Malice Take these few of many Evidences After St. Cyprian had retired from Carthage in the time of the Decian Persecution he wrote to his Presbyters and Deacons and told them how earnest he was to return to the City but Prudence would not let him When he considered the Publick Peace of the Church and how much he as Bishop was concerned to Provide for it and for the Quiet and Safety of the Brethren he found it necessary for him thô with mighty Grief to forbear returning for a time lest HIS PRESENCE should provoke the Rage and Fury of the Gentiles So he wrote I say in his 7th Epistle And in the 12th directed also to his Presbyters and Deacons I wish says he that my Station and Character would allow me to be present with you In his 20th Epistle directed for the Roman Presbyters and Deacons he Apologizes for his Retirement after this manner In compliance with our Lord's Commands pointing no doubt at Matth. 10. 23. so soon as the Persecution began and the Rabble with mighty Clamour pursued me I retired for a time not so much to save my self as for the publick Quiet of the Church and that the Tumult which was already kindled might not be the more inflam'd by MY OBSTINATE PRESENCE And to the same purpose he Apologizes to his own People for his so long Absence Ep. 43. Thô he had been long away yet he durst not return because of the Threats and Snares of these perfidious Men Felicissimus and his Fellow-Schismaticks Lest says he upon MY COMING there should be a greater Uproar and while as a Bishop ought in all Things to provide for Peace and Tranquillity I should seem to have added Fewel to the Sedition and to have imbittered the Persecution Here I think is clear Demonstration of the Episcopal Eminence in the Eye of the Heathen Persecutors It was a Grief a Burden a Torment a very Crucifixion to St. Cyprian's Soul to be separated from his Flock as himself words it But he was bound by the Laws of his EPSICOPAL PROVIDENCE by all means to study the Peace the Quiet the Tranquillity of the Church and his LOCUS and GRADUS his Station and Dignity were so Conspicuous and Eminent that HIS PRESENCE would have provoked the Gentiles and increased the Persecution and therefore he durst not return And yet this is not all Consider if what follows is not yet clearer In his 14th Epistle written to his Presbyters and Deacons he tells them That tho he had strong and pressing Reasons to hasten his return yet he found it more expedient and useful for the publick Peace to continue longer in his Lurking Places and Tertullus one whom they knew and could not but value had seriously advised him to be Calm and Cautious and not to commit himself rashly to the publick View especially of that Place where he had been so often lain in wait and made search for and therefore he Exhorts and Commands them his Presbyters and Deacons That THEY whose PRESENCE was nâ—ither so INVIDIOUS nor by far so DANGEROUS might perform the part of Vicars to him Here I think we have a full Evidence of a fair Discrimination was made betwixt him and his Presbyters by the Heathen Persecutors And not only so but. He tells Cornelius Bishop of Rome Ep. 59. That he was Proscribed in the Days of the Decian Persecution and that by Name as Bishop of the Christians in Carthage and that he was destin'd for the Lions c And again Ep. 66. he tells Florentius Pupianus That his Proscription ran in this Form If any Man holds or possesses any of the Goods of CAECILIUS CYPRIANUS BISHOP OF THE CHRISTIANS c. And thereby makes an Argument that it was Unaccountable in Florentius not to own him as a Bishop And Pontiuâ— his Deacon tells us That when he at last commenced Martyr in tâ—e Valerian Persecution in the very Sentence that was given out against him he was called SECTAE SIGNIFER the Ring-leader the Head the Chiftain of the Sect of the Christians in Carthage Would you have yet more Then Take it not about St. Cyprian's Person for I think we have enough of him already but in St. Cyprian's Words You have them Ep. 55. there he tells Antonianus That the Emperous Decâ—us from a Sense no doubt that as Heads of their respective Churches they were under God the great Supporters and Promoters of our Most Holy Faith had such a Spite such a Pique at the Christian Bishops that for Example He could have heard with greater Patience and Composure 〈◊〉 another â—mulous Prince should have Rival'd it with him for the Roman Empire than that a Bishop should have been settled in the City of Rome And doth not Eusebius tell us That the Emperour Maximinus in that Persecution of which he was the Author some 22 or 23 Years before St. Cyprian's Martyrdom Ordered that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Governours of the Christian Churches should only be put to Death as being the Authors of the Propagation of the Gospel So Eminent in those Times was the Episcopal Character such a Sense had the very Heathens of their being Bishops indeed so much as Bishops were they Obnoxious to the Fury and Malice of Persecutors and so much Reason had St. Cyprian to say That it mattered not whence whether from Heathens without or Schismaticks