where he says Bishops by our Lord's Allowance give the first Baptism to Believers Let us turn over to Ep. 73. in which he insists directly to this purpose The Question was Whether Baptism performed by Hereticks or Schismaticks was Valid St. Cyprian affirmed it was not His Conclusion was such as required some other Argument to support it than his own Authority It was therefore needful that he should attempt to prove it and that from received and acknowledged Principles Now consider his Argument I shall give it in his own Words as near as I can Translate them 'T is manifest says he where and by whom the Remission of Sins can be given which is given in Baptism For our Lord gave first to Peter on whom he built his Church thereby instituting and demonstrating the Original of Unity that Power That whatsoever he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven And then after his Resurrection he gave it to all his Apostles when he said As my Father hath sent me c. Joh. 20. v. 21 22 23. Whence we learn that none can Baptize Authoritatively and give Remission of Sins but the BISHOPS and those who are FOUNDED in the Evangelical Law and our Lord's Institution And that nothing can be Bound or Loosed out of the Church seeing there 's none there who has the Power of Binding or Loosing Further Dearest Brother we want not Divine Warrant for it when we say That God hath disposed all Things by a certain Law and a proper Ordinance and that none can USURP any thing against the BISHOPS all being subject to them For Corah Dathan and Abiram attempted to assume to themselves a Priviledge of Sacrificing against Moses and Aaron the Priest and they were Punished for it because it was unlaâ—ful Thus St. Cyprian argued and the force of his Argument lies visibly in this That Baptism performed by Hereticks or Schismaticks cannot be Valid because not performed by the Bishop nor with his Allowance Now whatever comes of his Inference sure it had been Ridiculous in him to have so Reasoned if his Antecedent had not been a received Principle Neither was St. Cyprian singular in this for Firmilian Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia is as plain saying as I have cited him before That the Bishops who Govern the Church possess the Power of Baptism Confirmation and Ordination And Fortunatus Bishop of Thuraboris another of St. Cyprian's Contemporaries in his Suffrage at the Council of Carthage is as plain as either Cyprian or Firmilian Iesus Christ says he our Lord and God the Son of God the Father and Creator built his Church upon a Rock and not upon Heresie and gave the Power of Baptizing to Bishops and not to Hereticks c. Indeed before St. Cyprian's time we have Tertullian who spent most of his Days in the Second Century and who in his Book about Baptism against Quintilla to the Question Who may Baptize answers positively The High-Priest who is the Bishop hath the Power of Baptizing and after him or in Subordination to him Presbyters and Deacons but not without the BISHOP's AUTHORITY And before him we have the Apostolical Ignatius who spent almost all his Days in the First Century and who says in express Terms That it is not lawful to Baptize without the Bishop 2. A Bishop in St. Cyprian's time had as much Power about the Holy Eucharist No Presbyter within his District could Administer it without his Leave or against his Interdict St. Cyprian's Testimonies to this purpose are innumerable Let me give you only One or Two for Instance Thus in his 16th Epistle written to his Presbyters and Deacons he resents it highly that some of his Presbyters should have dared to admit the Lapsed to the Sacrament without his Allowance Such says he deny me the Honour of which by Divine Right I am possessed c. Indeed the 15th 16th and 17th Epistles are to this purpose And in his 59th Epistle having cited Mal. 2. v. 1 2. he Reasons thus against all such Presbyters as presumed to Celebrate the Eucharist without the Bishop's allowance Is Glory given to God when his Majesty and Discipline is so contemned that when He says He is Angry and full of Wrath against such as Sacrifice to Idols and when He threatens them with everlasting Pains and Punishments Sacrilegious Persons should presume to say Think not on the Wrath of God Fear not the Divine Iudgments Knock not at the Church of Christ That they should cut off Repentance and the Confession of Sins and PRESBYTERS CONTEMNING and TRAMPLING ON THEIR BISHOPS should preach Peace with Deceiving Words and give the Communion c. And 't is a Passage very remarkable to this purpose which we read in an Epistle of Dionysiâ—s of Alexandria to Fabius of Antioch both St. Cyprian's Contemporaries in which he tells how one Serapion an aged Man after a long Perâ—everance in the Christian Faith had first fallen from it in time of Persecution and then into a deadly Sickness How after he had been dumb and senseless for some Days recovering some use of his Tongue he called quickly for one of the Presbyters of Alexandria for he lived in that City that he might be Absolved and have the Sacrament being perswaded he should not die till he should be Reconciled to the Church And how the Presbyter being sick also sent the Sacrament to him But by what Right or Authority By Dionysius the Bishop For says he I had COMMAND that any Lapsed if in danger of Death especially if he was an humble Supplicant for it should be Absolved that he might go out of this World full of good Hopes c. He being Bishop of that City had given a COMMAND for it otherwise it could not have been done And all this was nothing more than Ignatius had told the World long before viz. That that is only to be deemed a firm and valid Eucharist which is Celebrated by the Bishop or by his Authority Let me only add one Testimony more from St. Cyprian concerning both Sacraments but such an one as ought not to be neglected It is in his 69th Epistle written to Magnus The great Purpose he pursues in it is to represent the Atrocious Guilt of Schism and the forlorn Condition of Schismaticks that they cannot have Valid Sacraments and that all their Acts are Nullities c. Amongst many Arguments to this effect he insists on that famous one Corah Dathan and Abiram were of that same Religion that Moses and Aaron were of and served the same God whom Moses and Aaron served But because they transgressed the Limits of their own Stations and Usurp'd a Power of Sacrificing to themselves in opposition to Aaron the Priest who was only legally Invested with the Priesthood by God's Vouchsafement and Appointment They were forthwith punished in a miraculous manner neither could their Sacrifices be Valid or Profitable being offered Unlawfully and Irreligiously and against
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
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